EPA-600/2-76-147
September 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
CATALYTIC WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR
GREAT LAKE ORE CARRIERS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-147
September 1976
CATALYTIC WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR
GREAT LAKE ORE CARRIERS
by
Sheldon E. Moore
Robert W. Coleman
Peter E. Lakomski
Thiokol Corporation
Wastach Division
Brigham City, Utah 84302
Project No. S802730
Project Officer
Leo T. McCarthy, Jr.
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Research Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIR01WENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recoranenda-
tion for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the pollutional impact on our environment and
even on our health often requires that new and increasingly more
efficient pollution control methods be used. The Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati (IERL-CI) assists
in developing and demonstrating new and improved methodologies that
will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
This research was undertaken as part of the objectives of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) to eliminate
the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. To accomplish
the above "it is the national policy that a major research and
demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters,
waters of the contiguous zone and the ocean." The research pre-
sented in the report addresses the objective within the stated
national policy.
Based on the evidence developed in this study, the U. S. Coast
Guard certified that the "aft waste treatment system" meet the
standards of the U. S. Coast Guard Marine Sanitation Device Regulations.
This device was one of the first to be certified.
In addition to the treatment of sanitary waste on watercraft,
the physical/chemical systems developed by this project has applica-
bility to treat sanitary wastes in remote recreational areas.
The technology demonstrated will be most useful to state admin-
istrators and legislators concerned with control and elimination of
shipboard pollutants on inland waterways.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
-------
ABSTRACT
A research and development program to develop a waste treatment
system for a 30- to 50-man commercial vessel was conducted. The
program included evaluation of the system for two operating seasons
(1972 and 1973) aboard the Cleveland-Cliffs ore carrier, "Cliffs
Victory."
The results of the Thiokol checkout and shipboard testing are presented
in depth with supporting data, data and systems analyses, and pertinent
conclusions.
A summary of problems and recommended corrective action are also
presented.
The Effluent from the Thiokol "aft waste treatment system" aboard the
S.S. Cliffs Victory meets the standards of section 159.53(b) of the U.S.
Coast Guard Marine Sanitation Device Regulations (33CFR. Part 159).
The system was certified on May 12, 1975, by the U.S. Coast Guard as
a discharge type marine sanitation device under 33 CFR 159.12.
The report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. 15020HLY under
the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Section
ABSTRACT iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgements viii
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 2
III INTRODUCTION 3
Statement of Problem 3
Objectives 3
Design Requirements 3
Program Description 5
IV SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS 9
Aft Waste Treatment System 9
Shower and Washwater Waste Treatment
System 16
V SHORE TEST PROGRAM 22
Objectives 22
Calibration Tests 22
System Operational Tests 25
VI SHIPBOARD TEST PROGRAM 33
1972 Program 33
Aft Waste Treatment System 33
Shower Water Treatment Systems 37
Component Performance 38
1973 Program 40
System Description 40
Test Results 47
Component Performance 47
APPENDIX A - Sampling and Test Procedures ... 52
U.S. Coast Guard Certification ... 54
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Cleveland-Cliffs Ore Carrier, SS "Cliffs Victory" 4
2 Aft System Schematic 10
3 Aft System Block Diagram 11
4 Aft System Shore Test Equipment 12
5 Incinerator Schematic Showing Placement of Control
Thermocouples 15
6 Shower Water Treatment System Block Diagram 17
7 Chlorine Chemistry of Thiokol Waste Treatment
System 18
8 Standard PEPCON Cell 19
9 Hypochlorite vs Flow Curves, Forward and
Aft Showers and Wash Water Tests 20
10 CCI Waste System: Subscale 23
11 Effect of HTH Dosage on BOD and COD Reduction 26
12 Prototype Schematic Flow Diagram 27
13 System Performance, BOD vs HTH Dosage 32
14 Shipboard Catalyst Activity Summary 46
VI
-------
TABLES
No. Page
I Summary of Requirements 6
II Shipboard Aft Waste Treatment System Summary 7
III Evaluation of CCI Waste Stream: Subscale 24
IV Shore Test Data Summary 28
V Testing Summary (With Shipboard Refurbishments) 31
VI Shipboard Test Data (Without Revised Analytical
Methods) 34
VU Shipboard Test Data (With Revised Analytical
Methods) 36
VIII Maintenance Summary, Shipboard Aft Waste
Treatment System, 1973 Operating Season 41
DC Maintenance Summary, Shipboard Forward
Shower Treatment System, 1973 Operating Season 43
X Maintenance Summary, Shipboard Aft Shower
Treatment System, 1973 Operating Season 44
XI WNC-1 Catalyst Activity Summary, Shipboard
Aft Waste Treatment System 45
XII Performance Summary, Shipboard Aft Shower
Treatment System, Residual Chlorine in Effluent 48
XIII Shipboard Performance Summary, Aft Waste
Treatment System 49
XIV Process Improvements, Aft Waste Treatment
System, 1973 Operating Season 50
VI1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This program which extended over a period of two years was accom-
plished with the cooperation o£ many individuals in the Government
and the contractor organizations.
The support and guidance of the EPA, Edison, New Jersey, Water
Quality Laboratory, specifically Mr. Leo T. McCarthy and Mr. William
Librizzi, are acknowledged with sincere thanks.
The development and demonstration testing was carried out by a
combined team from The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and Thiokol
Corporation, Wasatch Division. Key members of the Cleveland-Cliffs
team were Mr. John Horton, Assistant Manager, Marine Department,
and Mr. John C. Culbertson, Fleet Engineer. Key members of the
Thiokol team were Mr. Peter E. Lakomski, who served as Project
Engineer for the program, and Mr. Sheldon E. Moore and Mr. Robert
W. Coleman, who were responsible for shipboard installation and test-
ing. The cooperation and technical assistance of the Cliffs Victory
crew, specifically Captain John Packer, Dan Ditschmann, Chief Engi-
neer, and Don Draves and Frank Babilya from the ship's engineering
department, are also acknowledged.
Vlll
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. As a result of this program, a waste treatment system (meeting
proposed standards for discharge of sanitary waste)has been
demonstrated.
2. Test results indicated the need for pre-treating or eliminating
galley waste from the sanitary waste treatment system.
3. Incineration was demonstrated as a feasible approach for
destruction of sludge aboard ship.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Upgrade the waste treatment systems aboard the Cliffs Victory
to reflect results of the demonstration testing and conduct an
extended demonstration program.
2. Modify the ship's plumbing to incorporate grease traps in the
galley and re-evaluate system's ability to treat combined
galley/sanitary waste.
3. Apply the system to the treatment of waste in recreation areas,
campgrounds, etc.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The need for protection of the environment in this country has received
significant recognition in recent years. The Water Quality Act of 1970
addressed itself to this problem and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500, enacted October 18, 1973, was
probably the most comprehensive water legislation ever to come out of
the Congress. The objective of the Act is "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." As
stated in the Act, "it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants
into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985" and "that wherever obtainable,
an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shell fish, and wild life and provides for recreation
in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983." Further, to accomplish
the above "it is the national policy that a major research and demonstra-
tion effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the
discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous
zone, and the oceans.
OBJECTIVES
One of the major inland waterways of the United States subject to heavy
commercial and recreational boating traffic and associated pollution is
the Great Lakes. The objectives of the program described in this final
report were to develop and demonstrate physical-chemical waste treatment
systems to treat the various waste streams (sanitary, galley, shower, and
washwater) aboard an operating ore carrier on the Great Lakes. The pro-
gram resulted in the demonstration of two such systems installed aboard
the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company ore carrier, SS Cliffs Victory, as
shown on Figure 1.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Since no firm requirements were available for vessels operating in
waters such as the Great Lakes, the design objectives utilized for the
ship systems were based on data obtained from the Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Coast Guard. Requirements
were established for a separate waste treatment system to treat sanitary
and galley wastes and a separate system to treat shower water waste.
-------
Figure 1. Ciex^eland-Ciiffs Ore Carrier, SS "Cliffs Victory"
-------
Table I summarizes the requirements used. The basic waste treatment
system was designed to treat waste from ZO men (700 gal/day). This re-
sulted in an average flow rate of 0. 5 gpm with surge capacity for 1.0 gpm.
Data obtained by Thiokol from the Coast Guard and Navy indicated that
instantaneous hydraulic loadings considerably in excess of 200 percent
surge could be experienced; therefore, a requirement for the system to
handle an instantaneous peak hydraulic load of 20 gpm for a period not
to exceed 1 minute also was established.
No specific set of design objectives was established for the shower water
systems. It was agreed that these systems would consist of two 250 amp
electrolytic cells each capable of generating up to 8 Ib of equivalent chlorine
per day, a 250 gal surge tank, and a 250 gal holding tank to provide resi-
dence time to insure complete sterilization of effluent. Identical systems
were to be installed in the forward and aft ends of the Cliffs Victory.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The basic program conducted involved a shore test demonstration phase
followed by a shipboard installation and demonstration phase with the
shipboard demonstration comprising tests over two operating seasons.
The program was initiated in June 1971 and completed in December 1973.
Installation of the systems aboard the Cliffs Victory was accomplished
during May and June 1972. Two types of waste treatment systems were
demonstrated aboard the ore carrier. The first system treated sanitary
and galley waste and was comprised of a screening device and centrifuge
for solids removal, a separate incinerator for solids destruction, and a
catalytic oxidation system for dissolved solids removal and destruction.
The second system utilized electrolytic chlorination to sterilize shower,
washbasin, and laundry wastewater. Both systems were shore tested
prior to shipboard installation. The objective was to produce effluents
with less than 50 mg/1 of suspended solids, less than 50 mg/1 of BOD,
and less than 240 mpn (most probable number) of coliform organisms per
100 ml from each system.
Laboratory tests on the aft waste treatment system and the forward and
aft shower water sterilization systems were conducted at the Thiokol
Corporation, Wasatch Division, plant site near Brigham City, Utah,
during late 1971 and early 1972 and the systems were first installed
and operated aboard the Cliffs Victory ore carrier during 1972. These
systems were subsequently refurbished and operated for a second
operating season during 1973. Table II summarizes the general results
obtained during these two operating seasons. The basic systems employed
during both operating seasons were identical. The aft waste treatment
-------
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS
Performance
Influent physical and chemical characteristics
Suspended solids
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
pH
System capability (How characteristics)
Total capacity
Average flow
Surge capacity
Effluent requirements
Suspended solids
BOO
Coliform (most probable number)
Physical
Weight, loaded
Height
Length, width
Durability
Integrity
Damage protection
Installation
Environmental
Operating environment
Type waste
Temperature
Maximum
Minimum
Service
Permanent trim
Permanent list
Pitch
Roll
Discharge
Electrical Power
Type
500 mg/1
500 mg/1
6.0 to 9.0
700 gal/day
35 gal/day/man
200 percent of average
50 mg/1
50 mg/1
240 mpn/100 ml
Minimum
compatible with
space available
Capable of intermittent operation for short times
and capable of being secured for long periods
Watertight and subjected to a static pressure test
Protection against entry or damage from small
metal and other durable objects
All components shall pass through a 26 by 66 in.
door and 24 by 24 in. square hatch
Operate in fresh water
Sanitary
140° F
40* F
Ambient
95* F
28* F
Influent
3 deg from normal horizontal plane
15 deg either side of vertical
10 deg up or down from horizontal plane
40 deg either side of vertical (LO sec period)
Eject against a 50 ft head
Adaptable for following circuits c
440 vac, 3 phase
120/240 vac
120/208 vac, 3 phase
120 vdc
Sanitary
System to remain safe and sanitary and
not create offensive or dangerous odors
Materials
Suitable for shipboard operation
-------
TABLE II
SHIPBOARD AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM SUMMARY
1972
Total days operated 200 171
Total gallons processed 120,000 100,000
Effluent analysis
BOD (mg/1) ll-115b 15-70°
S/S (mg/1) 4-140 6-20
Coliform (mpn/100 ml) Nil Nil
Appearance: effluent is clear, has slight hypochlorite bleach odor.
Influent analysis
BOD (mg/1) 200-5,680 85-460
S/S (mg/1) 120-8,540 53-350
Coliform (mpn/100 ml) 9 x 106 15,000-600,000
aThru 30 November 1973
Galley and sanitary waste combined
Sanitary waste only
-------
system treated both galley and sanitary waste during 1972 and sanitary
waste only during 1973. Grease from the galley (the ship was not equipped
with grease traps) caused blinding of the influent screening device during
the 1972 operating season causing both operational and treatment problems.
As evidenced by the improved quality of the effluent (Table II) improved
treatment was obtained during 1973 of the sanitary waste stream when the
galley waste was eliminated.
The program demonstrated that shipboard waste streams could be treated
to levels which would produce dischargeable effluents in compliance with the
goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
8
-------
SECTION IV
SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
The aft waste treatment system is depicted schematically on Figure 2
and in block diagram form on Figure 3. Major components of the system
were as follows:
1. A prescreening device, manufactured by C. E. Bauer,
Springfield, Ohio, to separate the coarse solids from
the influent water.
2. A centrifuge for removing the remaining suspended
solids.
3. A Thiokol developed catalyst which accelerated the
reaction between the oxidizing agent (calcium hypo-
chlorite) and the organic compounds in the waste
stream.
4. A Thiokol developed sludge incinerator and sludge
feed system to destroy the solid material removed
by the screen and the centrifuge.
Figure 4 provides a photograph of this system undergoing shore test at
the Thiokol Wasatch Division.
The sequence of system operation is best understood by referring to the
system block diagram (Figure 3). Influent to the system entered through
existing ship's piping where it was directed to the influent screen (Hydra-
sieve) which immediately separated coarse solids and collected them in
the sludge tank. The liquid underflow through the screen (with fine solids
in suspension) was collected and stored for further processing in the
primary tank which contained high and low level sensors. As the liquid
entered the primary tank a chemical feeder was energized and deposited
the calcium hypochlorite (HTH) oxidizing agent in the tank. When suffi-
cient waste was collected as determined by the high level sensor, the
centrifuge feed pump was automatically started and the stored liquid fed
to the centrifuge for further removal of suspended solids. This process
continued until the liquid level in the primary tank reached the low level
sensor which then shutdown the centrifuge feed pump. The collected
solids in the centrifuge basket were removed by a combination of skimming
-------
EXHAUST STACK
INFLUENT
ADD.
PRIMARY
TANK
(166 GAL)
SLUDGE
TANK
(20 GAL
3GPH
PUMP
2GPMMACERATOR
AND PUMP
INCINERATOR
OIL BURNER
15 IN.
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRATE
HOLDING TANK
(83 GAL)
OVERBOARD
2 GPM PUMP [
30 LB
CATALYST
COLUMNS
Figure 2. Aft System Schematic
-------
WASTE
INFLOW
1
SOLIDS LIQUIDS
' LEVEL SENSING LEVEL SENSIN
B " "
i i
SLUDGE
TANK
PRIMARY
TANK
CHEMICAL cj_FEEDER CONTROL
FEEDER
t/A CENTRIFUGE
SKIM LINE | c'(& FEED PUMP
_,_ . I
PUMP CONTROL 1
[~ LEVEL SENSING ~l
INCINERATOR
FEED
TANK BURNER AND PUMP
I
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
*>• — •*» CONTROL 0--j
UNIT
1
PUMP CONTROL j
1 V THERMOCOUPLE J_ ^ !
1 1 RETURN .
_^~ O/ARTF .-• 1
SLUDGE /<>„_ t— ~ ji . . " ' -—"•:-.„""
PUMP VST , PUMP CONTROL LEVEL SENSING
1 i r "i.
i
INCINERATOR A A A A j— »
PLUMBING "• LEVEL
CENTRA TE
TANK
^LmSAOT) _. CONTROL LEVEL CONTROL | SI(
LBUIDS * "N"
HEt
ELECTRICAL pu]v
CONTROL AND
POWER
CONTROL 240 VDC
UNIT* c3 AND 115 VAC
1 * INPUT POWER
1
1
1
1
3NALS IN _| .INCLUDES THE
1 I INCINERATOR
yCLE(
-------
Figure 4. Aft System Shore Test Equipment
-------
and washing controlled by cams on the centrifuge skim arm. These cams
were set mechanically for proper switch operation in relation to skim tube
penetration. Skimmed solids were also deposited in the sludge tank.
The clarified liquid from the centrifuge dropped into the centrate tank
where it was heated to about 125°F by an immersion heater and then
recirculated through catalyst columns. The recirculation and overboard
dump of waste effluent was controlled by level sensing in the centrate
tank. The centrate pump operated continuously during all phases of the
waste treatment operation. During the period when the centrate tank was
filling, the centrate liquid was in a recirculation mode: through the pump,
catalyst columns, and back to the tank. When the centrate level peached
the upper level sensing probe, an overboard dump solenoid was energized
to cycle treated material overboard. When the level in the centrate tank
dropped to the low level,the overboard dump solenoid de-energized and the
system returned to the recirculation mode.
The primary tank chemical feeder operation was controlled by level
sensing in the primary tank and by a percentage timing control on the
side of the feeder. When the level in the primary tank was at the low
level, the chemical feeder was energized. The feeder operated con-
tinuously for the time period set on the timer. At the end of continuous
feeding the operation remotely switched to the feeder percentage control.
This control allowed the feeder to operate at a predetermined percentage
of each minute. As the level increased in the primary tank, the chemical
feeder continued to dump HTH at the set percentage until such time as the
level in the tank reached the high level probe. At this point, the feeder
ceased all operation as previously described, and the primary pump and
centrifuge started operating. The feeder resumed operation after the
primary tank was pumped down.
As previously described,sludge from the influent screen and the centri-
fuge was stored in the sludge tank for disposal in the incineration system.
As with the liquid treatment system, the sludge disposal system was level
sensor controlled. System operation was initiated by the high level sensor
which, in turn, initiated the following events.
. Ignition of incinerator burner
. Startup of macerator pump
The macerator pump transferred the entire contents of the sludge tank
to the incinerator feed tank. Since the volumes of both tanks were equal,
overflow of the feed tank was automatically prevented. Interlocks pre-
vented the transfer of a new batch of sludge until the feed tank was empty
as determined by the tank's low level sensor.
13
-------
During sludge transfer the incinerator burner was in operation heating
the incinerator to the proper operating temperature. Incinerator opera-
tion was temperature controlled using thermocouples located as shown
on Figure 5. The incinerator was equipped with the following temperature
controls.
. A low temperature cutoff set for 900°F. If for any
reason the temperature fell below 900 °F after once
having passed through this set point, the incinerator
burner automatically shut down and an alarm system
was triggered.
. A low side operating temperature control set for
1150°F. Sludge feed could not be initiated until this
temperature was reached. Sludge feed was auto-
matically stopped if the temperature fell below this
level.
. A high side temperature control set for 1350°F. If
for any reason the temperature rose above this level
during normal operation, a burner fuel oil solenoid
was energized reducing oil flow to the burner thereby
reducing temperature.
. A redundant high temperature safety cutoff set for
1500°F. If temperature reached this level,the burner
was shut down and an alarm system triggered.
Under normal operation once the incinerator burner was turned on,
temperatures rose to 1150°F and sludge feed was initiated and continued
until the feed tank was empty of sludge. Stable operation was achieved
after the incinerator was in operation for about 30 minutes.
The end of the normal incinerator burning cycle occurred when the
level of sludge in the feed tank uncovered the lower of two probes called
low differential probes. These two probes did not regulate levels in the
feed tank but served as level indicators far initiating the incinerator time-
out sequence. The sequence for shutdown began when the sludge level
fell below the low differential probe at which time sludge feed was ter-
minated and after a time-out period (set for 10 minutes) the burner and
exhaust fan shut down.
One additional safety feature was provided in the incineration system.
A flame detection device was provided to sense burner ignition. If the
burner failed to ignite,the detection system caused a disruption of
14
-------
TC-3:
TC-3A:
TC-4:
TC-5:
TC-6:
THERMOCOUPLE FOR LOW-SIDE TEMPERATURE
CONTROL DURING CONTINUOUS OPERATION (1,150*).
THERMOCOUPLE FOR HIGH-SIDE TEMPERATURE
CONTROL DURING CONTINUOUS OPERATION (1,350°F).
THERMOCOUPLE FOR LOW-TEMPERATURE CUTOFF (900°F).
THERMOCOUPLES (REDUNDANT) FOR HIGH-TEMPERATURE
CUTOFF (1,500°F).
TC-3
TC-5
(NOT TO SCALE)
0
TC-6
Figure 5. Incinerator Schematic Showing Placement
of Control Thermocouples'
15
-------
electrical power to the burner motor after a short delay. At the same
time, a signal was sent to the warning light on the incinerator control
unit and the alarm bell and lamp. In order to restart the burner after
the failure condition had been corrected (no fuel oil, plugged line, etc.),
it was necessary to push the reset button on the burner controls. This
safety feature complied with Coast Guard requirements for such systems.
SHOWER AND WASHWATER WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
The requirement for the disinfection and sterilization of shower and
washwater was to maintain a residual chlorine concentration of 0.1 ppm
or higher following a contact period of 30 minutes. The chlorine dosage
required to achieve proper sterilization depends upon the organic content
and chlorine demand of the water and, therefore, is subject to some vari-
ation.
The sterilization system design for the Cliffs Victory consisted of a
surge tank for flow equalization and salt dissolution, a salt feeder, a
chlorine generator, and a final 30 minute chlorine contact tank. Fig-
ure 6 provides a simplified block diagram of the system.
The method of water sterilization selected for the Cliffs Victory was
unique, in that the chlorine was generated on-site by electrolytic cells.
These cells convert salt, present and/or added to the wastewater stream,
to hypochlorous acid as shown on Figure 7.
The electrolytic cells were purchased from Pacific Engineering and
Production Company of Nevada (PEPCON). These cells consisted of
a cylindrical copper cathode and a patented lead oxide coated, graphite
anode as illustrated in Figure 8.
Calibration curves obtained for the PEPCON cells are shown in Figure 9
relating equivalent sodium hypochlorite output versus flow rate at salt
concentrations of 0.2 and 0.4 percent. Since the chlorine demand of the
wastewater on-board ship was unknown, definitions of required salt con-
centration, flow rates and amperage were not initially optimized.
The shower and washwater system control logic was built around liquid
level sensing as the primary control element.
System operation was initiated when the level in the primary tank reached
the high level probe (see Figure 6). During the period the tank was filling,
salt was added to the tank by a dry chemical feeder which was automatically
sequenced on by the tank low level sensor. The shower and washwater
with dissolved salt was pumped through two parallel PEPCON cells where
16
-------
SHOWER
WATER
INFLUENT
PLUMBING •
LEVEL
CONTROL
SIGNALS
HYPOCHLORITE
GENERATOR
CONTROL UNIT
240 VDC
AND 115 VAC
"INPUT
POWER
ELECTRICAL
CONTROL AND - •
POWER
TREATED
EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
Figure 6. Shower Water Treatment System Block Diagram
-------
Electrolytic Cell
Rectifier (Battery)
+
Solution of Salt and
Water (NaCl and H
Electrochemical Reactions
Anode
Cathode
2NaCl-
-C10 + 2Na
A
2e
2e
E lee trie
1 Circuit 1
2H2O-
2OH
Overall Reaction
2NaCl + 2H20
Chemical Reactions
Anode Region
Cl. + H0
A A
In Solution
HC1
2NaOH
Cathode Region
HC1 + Na OH —H0O + NaCl
HOC1 + NaOH'
NaOCl
+ OCl"
H. and HOC1 are the major end products of the cell. H (hydrogen gas) is discharged
into the vent system. HOC1 (or OCl") is the chief oxidizing agent in the system and is
the species which destroys the dissolved waste organic materials and assures dis-
infection of the recycle liquid (bacteria kill and virus inactivation).
Figure 7. Chlorine Chemistry of Thiokol Waste Treatment System
18
-------
SPACERS
PVC CONNECTOR-INSULATOR
OUTLET
H2+NaOCI
COPPER OR STAINLESS STEEL
MOUNTING BRACKET
(CATHODE CONNECTION)
ANODE
LEAD DIOXIDE
GRAPHITE
VIEW A-A
INLET
H20 +NaCI
AIR PURGE
FigureS. Standard PE PC ON Cell
-------
O 0.2% NaCl AT 100 AMPS
A 0.4% NaCl AT 100 AMPS
BOTH FLOW AND CURRENT
IN PARALLEL
TEST POINT
PUMP
PEPCON
to
o
80
70
60
O
40
30
20
10
FLOW (GPM)
Figure 9. Hypochlorite vs Flow Curves,
Forward and Aft Shower and Wash Water Tests
-------
the hypochlorite was generated. The treated shower and washwater was
then piped to the secondary or dark reactor tank. The dark reactor tank
operation was also under level sensor control. As the tank received the
hypochlorite-treated wastewateri the level increased to the high level
probe. At this point a timer was energized to allow sufficient time for
reaction of the hypochlorite with dissolved organics in the waste stream.
When the timing cycle was complete, the overboard pump was started,
continuing until the level in the tank was lowered to the low level probe.
At this point the pump was shut down.
21
-------
SECTION V
SHORE TEST PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES
Installation and operation of the waste treatment systems aboard the
Cliffs Victory ore carrier were preceded by a series of shore tests at
Thiokol's Wasatch Division waste treatment test facility. These tests
were conducted to calibrate the systems and to check operation and
maintenance requirements prior to shipboard installation. Major
emphasis was placed on the aft waste treatment system since calibra-
tion data already existed on the hypochlorite generation rate of the
PEPCON electrolytic cells used in the shower water systems. The aft
waste treatment system was installed in a configuration which simulated
the proposed shipboard installation and was operated for a period of
five months. Operational tests were preceded by calibration tests and
subsequent sections of this report describe the details of these tests.
CALIBRATION TESTS
Sub scale pilot tests were conducted to calibrate the aft waste treatment
system. A flow schematic of the subscale system is shown on Figure 10«
Varying amounts of commercial hypochlorite (HTH) were added to an
agitated influent tank. The contents of this tank were metered to a 20 in.
dia basket centrifuge for suspended solids removal. The centrate was
heated to 130-140°F using an indirect emersion-type steam heat exchanger
and passed through an upflow column containing 50 Ibs of Thiokol WNC-1
catalyst. The flow rate through the pilot system was 0. 5 gpm. The
results of these tests are presented in Table III.
A relatively high reduction in BOD, COD, and suspended solids was
observed in the solids removal (centrifuge) phase of the process. The
solids removed by the centrifuge contain a large portion of the materials
responsible for the BOD and COD of the wastewater. A beneficial effect
was also realized because of the combined action of the oxidizing agent,
calcium hypochlorite, and the flocculating agent, calcium hydroxide,
present in the HTH additive. A further BOD and COD reduction was
observed in the catalytic phase of the process due to the catalyzed
reaction of hypochlorite with the dissolved organic material in the
waste stream.
As noted in the table, HTH dosages were varied from 250 to 1400 grams
per 45 gal of influent. The results of variations in this dosage are
22
-------
I STEAM
to
CO
INFLUENT
TANK
1/2 GPM
CATALYST
COLUMN
Figure 10. CCI Waste System: Sub scale
-------
TABLE in
EVALUATION OF CGI WASTE STREAM: SUBSCALE
Sewage
Batch
M85-085
M85-085
M85-086
M85-086
M85-087
M85-094
M85-094
Test Sample
A Influent
Centrate
Effluent
B Influent
Centrate
Effluent
A Influent
Centrate
Effluent
B Influent
Centrate
Effluent
A Influent
Centrate
Effluent
A Influent
Centrate
Effluent
B Influent
Centrate
Effluent
HTH
(grams /45 gal)
1,400
1,400
1,000
500
250
1,000
500
PH
8.4
8.2
6.1
8.1
8.3
6.8
_
8.0
6.1
7.6
7.8
6.5
7.8
7.4
6.5
7.5
7.9
6.3
7.7
7.7
6.3
Temp
(°F)
79
104
122
80
83
125
_
132
127
75
132
126
76
134
126
75
81
130
76
82
127
SS
(mg/1)
422
23
Nil
422
70
10
268
Nil
Nil
268
Nil
Nil
353
38
13
355
Nil
Nil
355
Nil
Nil
COD
(mg/1)
1.191
333
132
1.191
332
98
438
124
44
438
160
64
717
424
324
1,262
401
201
1,262
442
311
BOD
(mg/1)
N/R
N/R
150
_
43
150
93
49
148
115
58
364
122
65
364
129
80
-------
illustrated in Figure 11. The BOD and COD reductions are observed to
be nonlinear functions of HTH dosage. Large initial reductions are
observed with comparatively small HTH dosages. Increased dosages,
however, are shown to result in less significant reductions. The final
BOD approached the 50 mg/1 goal established for the system. The
optimum HTH dosage, based on these tests, was shown to be approxi-
mately 500 gm/45 gal or approximately 2-1/2 lb/100 gal and these fig-
ures were used to establish initial operating conditions for the system
operational tests.
SYSTEM OPERATIONAL TESTS
The full scale prototype of the aft waste treatment system, less inciner-
ator, was assembled in the Thiokol plant for testing and evaluation. The
system consisted of the influent screening device, surge tank, dry chem-
ical feeder, centrifuge, centrate tank, catalyst columns and control
console. The system received electrical power from an ac/dc motor
generator unit to simulate the ship's electrical power. Sewage was
collected daily by a tank truck and delivered to the plant for processing.
Figure 12a describes the system as it was tested without a recycle loop
and Figure 12b shows the system in its final test configuration with a
recycle loop prior to its assembly on board the ship. In all tests the
equipment was arranged to simulate shipboard configuration.
A summary of system testing and test results is presented in Table IV.
Excessively high levels of effluent BOD were observed during the first
series of tests. The cause was finally determined to be a result of
problems in analysis and not in waste treatment system performance.
With these problems corrected, the system performance, as described
by the runs made 13 March through 29 March, appeared satisfactory.
With influent BOD values ranging from a low of 285 mg/1 to a high of
650 mg/1 and averaging 539 mg/1, the system consistently produced an
effluent having a BOD of less than 90 mg/1 with the exception of one
test run. The average effluent BOD during these tests was 64 mg/1.
Based on these values, the system effected an average BOD reduction
of approximately 88 percent.
The test runs from 10 April through 19 April were made to check out
the system after the refurbishment that was required for shipboard
installation had been completed. The main features of this refurbish-
ment included replacing the four steel catalyst tanks with three PVC
tanks, adding an air purge to the catalyst columns for periodic purging
and cleaning, and replacing the in-line heat exchanger with an indirect
25
-------
!
°S'
uuu
400
L
300
200
e
100
0
\
\
) \
" ^o_ ~^_-^J^i
500 1,000 1,500
HTH DOSAGE (GRAMS/45 GAL)
1,500
1,000
i
8
O
500
V
\
\
\
\
O M85-085
D M85-086
O M85-087
A M85-094
^A.
-J—-$
500 1,000 1,500
HTH DOSAGE (GRAMS/45 GAL)
Figure 11. Effect of HTH Dosage on BOD, COD Reduction
26
-------
INFLUENT
0.010 IN. /
SCREEN
INFLUENT
SCREEN /
HTH
FEEDER
PRIMARY
TANK
PRIMARY
TANK
HTH
FEEDER
CENTRI-
FUGE fn1
CENTRATE
TANK
Figure 12a
HEAT
EXCHANGER-
STEAM
CONDENSATE
1 CENTRI-
r" ~ FUGE
n
I
STEAM
EFFLUENT
CATALYST
COLUMNS
EFFLUENT
JL JL1
CENTRATE
TANK
CATALYST
COLUMNS
CONDENSATE
Figure 12b
Figure 12. Prototype Schematic Flow Diagram
-------
TABLE IV
SHORE TEST DATA SUMMARY
Sewage
Configuration Batch No.
Original M-85-196-1
M-85-197-1
M-85-197-2
M-85-197-3
M-85-198-1
M-8 5-198-2
M-85-198-3
M-85-202-1
M-85-202-2
M-85-203-1
M-85-204-1
M-85-204-2
** M-85-204-3
DO
M-85-204-4
M-85-204-5
M-85-204-6
In Line Heat M-85-205-1
Exchanger Installed
M-85-205-2
M-85-206-1
M-85-206-2
M-85-206-3
M-85-206-4
M-85-206-S
M-85-206-6
M-8 5-208-7
M -85-207-1
M-8 5-207-2
M-85-207-3
M-85-207-4
M-85-207-5
M-85-207-6
Date
2/29/72
3/1/72
3/1/72
3/1/72
3/2/72
3/2/72
3/2/72
3/8/72
3/8/72
3/9/72
3/9/72
3/9/72
3/9/72
3/9/72
3/10/72
3/10/72
3/10/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/13/72
3/14/72
3/14/72
3/14/72
3/14/72
3/14/72
3/14/72
3/15/72
Flow
Rate
(gpm)
0.5
1.0
1.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.0
1.0
HTH
Dosage
(lb)
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
4.50
3.375
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
4.50
3.75
2.25
3.75
3.75
2.25
BOD (mg/11 S/S Img/ll BOD (mg/1) S/S (mg/1) BOD (mg/1) S/S (mg/1)
N/R N/R 302 14 212 14
322 22 272 28
352 40 302 25
Old sewage - no samples
Old sewage - no samples
Old sewage - no samples
656 468 388 54 268 24
656 468 368 30 268 27
656 468 358 20 258 24
336 667 173 19 101 26
r 1
•1154 24 134 26 f
I J
No samples
810 920 180 42 72 2
No samples
No samples
No samples
No samples
No samples
578 560 N/R N/R 193 28
No samples (old sewage)
530 389 120 38 55 11
530 389 137 84 81 66
530 389 110 73 88 56
No samples
No samples
No samples
No samples
No samples
285 376 127 93 70 55
285 376 98 67 57 41
285 376 91 79 53 43
No samples
No samples
1 day old - no samples
Problems Encountered
Excessive differential
temperature across
catalytic columns
Chalky appearing effluent
Lime not removed
during skim
Primary pump impeller
failed
HTH feeder discharge
caked with HTH
Centrifuge would not start
Impellers failed
Corrective Action
Replumb to go to
concurrent flow of
steam and effluent
Vary HTH dosage
Replace impeller
Relocate vent line to
eliminate
Switched to man. then auto.
Install new impellers
(Thiokol lab data effluent only BOD = 81, S/S = 32)
New impeller in
centrate pump
Remarks
1 day old sewage
BOD-S/S test at
Thiokol
Thiokol lab data
Thiokol lab data
Thiokol lab data
Thiokol lab data
Thiokol lab data
Ford laboratory
Thiokol lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
•Recycle 4 gpm; discharge 1
-------
TABLE IV (Cont)
SHORE TEST DATA SUMMARY
CO
Configuration
Worthington
Pumps
Sewage
Batch No. Date
M-85-208-1 3/15/72
M-85-209-1 3/21/72
M-85-210-1 3/21/72
M-85-210-2 3/21/72
M-85-210-3 3/21/72
M-85-210-4 3/21/72
M-85-210-5 3/21/72
M-85-211-1 3/22/72
M-85-211-2 3/22/72
M-85-212-1 3/23/72
M-85-212-2 3/23/72
M-85-a2-3 3/23/72
M-85-212-4 3/23/72
M-85-212-5 3/23/72
M-85-212-6 3/23/72
M-85-213-1 3/24/72
Flow HTH
Rate Dosage Influent Centrate Effluent
torn) Qb) BOD (mg/1) S/S (mg/1) BOD (mg/1) S/S (mg/U BOD (mg/1) S/S (mg/1)
0. 75 2. 25 No samples - system shut down to install Worthington pumps
1.0 2. 25 No samples - pump checkout only
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
610 558 N/R N/R 118 27
1.0 1.125J
1.0 1.70J *>° **«>#'*
1.0 1.125 616 614 215 92 85 51
1.0 1.70
1.0 1.70
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.70
No samples
616 614 241 55 74 40
1
I 505 990 N/R N/R 56 61
1
Problems Encountered Corrective Act
Composite sample
bTiXi^r8 -hwithHc,
r
Composite sample
I
Centrate sampled as follows with corresponding S/S (Influent + HTH - 322 Mg/1 S/S)
Flow S/S Flow S/S Flow S/S Flow S/S
0.5 gpm 65 mg/1 1.0 gpm 61 mg/1 1.0 gpm 77. 5 mg/1 1.75 gpm 83 mg/1
6 Gal
Clorox/120
of HTH
M-85-213-2 3/24/72
M-85-213-3 3/24/72
M-85-213-4 3/24/72
M-85-213-5 3/24/72
M-85-213-6 3/27/72
M-85-214-1 3/27/72
M-85-215-2 3/28/72
M-85-215-3 3/28/72
M-85-215-4 3/28/72
M-85-215-5 3/28/72
M-85-215-6 3/28/72
M-85-215-7 3/29/72
0.5 1.70
1.0 1.70
630 395 162 39 52 26
170 43 49 23
1.0 1.125 177 45 44 20
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
1.0 2.25
168 35 53 22
190 49 50 23
Old sewage - no samples
650 334 207 40 48 15
477 344 180 30 -52 20
Old sewage - no samples
Cleaned heat exchanger with HC1, added recycle to
centrate tank at 4. 0 gpm; 1. 0 gpm discharge.
Design of immersion heat exchanger started.
Composite sample
Remarks
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Remainder of batch
ran at 0. 5 gpm
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
Ford lab data
•Recycle 4 gpm; discharge 1
-------
steam heat exchanger probe in the centrate tank (see Figures 12a and
12b). The system was operated in this new configuration for a 7-day
period. The data that were taken during this checkout period are in-
cluded in Table V. The higher effluent BOD values were attributed to
the reduction in total mass of the catalyst in this configuration. The
four steel tanks contained a total of 200 Ibs of WNC-1 catalyst whereas
the three PVC columns contained 120 Ibs. Rather than conducting any
further shore tests it was decided to install the system aboard ship and
add additional catalyst on board the ship as dictated by shipboard test
data.
The effluent BOD data for all system operational tests are shown plotted
versus HTH dosage in Figure 13. The general trend of the data as
shown by the sketched curve shows a requirement of two or more pounds
of HTH per 100 gal of wastewater for satisfactory treatment. The data
scatter at 2.25 Ibs shows the effect of reducing the volume (mass) of
catalyst in the system. Catalyst weight is indicated on the figure.
In summary, the laboratory test data showed that, with proper operation,
the system would effectively treat raw sewage and produce an acceptable
effluent with low BOD and suspended solids levels and a nil coliform
count.
-------
TABLE V
TESTING SUMMARY (WITH SHIPBOARD REFURBISHMENTS)
Sewage
Batch
M85-222
M85-223
M85-224
M85-225
M85-226
M85-227
M85-228
Batch
Numbers
2-11
3-9
1-9
1-2
3-9
2-9
2-3
5-6
8-9
2-10*
2-10*
1-9
1-9
1-4
1-4
Date
4/10
4/11
4/12
4/13
4/14
4/18
4/19
Sample
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Primary Tank
HTH Dosage
(lb/100 gal)
2-1/4
2-1/4
2-1/4
1-1/2
3/4
1-1/2
2-1/4
1-1/2
2-1/4
2-1/4
Flow
(gpm)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Centrate Tank
Recycle
(gpm)
8
9
9
9
8
8
8
10
9
8
Avg
Temp
CF)
65
130
65
132
65
135
133
65
135
133
133
65
132
65
133
65
135
Avg
Chlorine
(ppm)
108
178
50
50
Nil
95
50
227
198
128
BOD
(mg/1)
350
110
490
127
560
148
123
420
186
76
74
518
175
416
72
419
68
a/s
(mg/1) Lab
360 Ford
26
484
31
462
21
20
526
41
30
28
382
40
309
44
301
40
*Continuou» run (1,000 gallons)
-------
900
800
O 200 LB OF CATALYST
A 120 LB OF CATALYST
2345
HTH DOSAGE (LB/100 GAL)
Figure 13. System Performance, BOD vs HTH Dosage
32
-------
SECTION VI
SHIPBOARD TEST PROGRAM
1972 PROGRAM
Aft Waste Treatment System
Installation of the aft waste treatment system less the incinerator was
accomplished in the Spring of 1972. The incinerator became available
and was installed in October of 1972. Actual system operation was
initiated on 22 June 1972 and the system remained in operation through
December 1972. The shipboard test program involved the collection
and analysis of influent, centrate, and effluent samples as well as
monitoring of equipment performance and reliability. Since laboratory
facilities did not exist aboard ship it was necessary to collect samples
for analysis by shoreside laboratories. As a result, much of the
initial sampling was involved in the development of uniform analytical
procedures and methods for obtaining and blending of samples to
be analyzed by the various laboratories. Three laboratories were
utilized to analyze samples, WAL, Inc., of Independence, Ohio; Ford
Laboratories of Salt Lake City, Utah; and the Thiokol Corporation
laboratory at Brigham City, Utah. The basic procedures finally utilized
after initial sampling are summarized in Appendix A. This procedure
dated 1 December 1972 was placed in effect on 9 December 1972.
Data from the 1972 shipboard tests are summarized in Tables VI and
VII. Table VI presents the data prior to implementation of the uniform
test procedure outlined in Appendix A and Table VII presents the data
after this procedure was in effect. It will be noted that the later
Table VII data show excellent correlation between the Ford and
Thiokol laboratories compared to the earlier data. Only a limited
number of samples were analyzed by the WAL Labs and were in-
sufficient to make any correlations.
Several preliminary observations and/or conclusions were made re-
garding the 1972 shipboard test data as follows:
. Significantly higher influent BOD's and suspended
solids were observed in the shipboard waste
compared to the shoreside waste. Shoreside
waste influent approximated the design influent
criteria of 500 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids
(see Table IV). Shipboard influents showed a
33
-------
TABLE VI
SHIPBOARD TEST DATA (WITHOUT REVISED ANALYTICAL METHODS)
CO
Sample Date
29 Jun72
11 Jul 72
12 Jul 72 (1030)
17 Jul 72 (0830)
17 Jul 72 (1130)
22 Jul 72
24 Jul 72
8 Aug 72
8 Aug 72
30 Aug 72
30 Aug 72
13 Oct 72
13 Oct 72
27 Oct 72
29 Oct 72
30 Oct 72
31 Oct 72
31 Oct 72
3 Nov 72
3 Nov 72
4 Nov 72
5 Nov 72
6 Nov 72
7 Nov 72
8 Nov 72
8 Nov 72
9 Nov 72
10 Nov 72
10 Nov 72
11 Nov 72
Laboratory*
WAL
WAL
TUokol
TUokol
TUokol
TUokol
WAL
TUokol
WAL
WAL
WAL
Ford
TUokol
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
TUokol
Ford
TUokol
• Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
TUokol
Ford
Ford
TUokol
Ford
BOD (mg/1)
48
817
270
231
890
207
985
327
1,120
1,080
425
2,050
1,390
923
1,419
1,380
1,350
998
780
1,210
1,642
790
1,050
8/S (mg/ll
124
136
142
188
850
141
810
284
1,650
620
112
1,012
748
660
770
985
920
774
218
834
5,060
375
630
BOD (mg/1)
188
190
210
65
192
231
229
250
145
108
108
138
625
203
165
480
318
558
284
%Red.
79
79
80
83
79
47
88
88
88
93
90
54
78
79
60
80
29
73
S/S (mg/1)
76
34
88
46
216
44
24
230
242
58
65
160
112
75
68
46
55
79
47
%Red.
91
91
84
87
93
73
78
71
76
92
84
88
90
69
94
99
80
92
BOD (mg/1)
11
27
63
71
76
45
146
76
35
241
254
196
172
60
52
86
135
208
216
164
68
79
115
105
87
205
90
216
500
78
%Red.
77
95
78
94
84
92
88
49
90
78
93
95
92
92
91
74
93
88
37
93
S/S (mg/1) %Red. Remarks
30 75
4 97
12
26
20
20
35
18
Duplicate samples
36
Analysis questioned
26 ~~
52 94
Data inconsistent
28
65 92 Total galley waste diverted to
aft sewage treatment system
38 87
78 96
38 94
Sample Lost
222 78
161 78
35 95 HTH dosage increased to 3, 750
from 2, 500 ppm
53 93
149 85
98 89
48 94
45 78
50 94
36 99
55 87
39 94
•WAL, toe Pollution Control Consultant, Independenoe. Ohio
Ford Chemical laboratory. Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah
Thlokol/Wasatcb Division Laboratory, Brlgham City, Utah
-------
TABLE VI (Coot)
SHIPBOARD TEST DATA (WITHOUT REVISED ANALYTICAL METHODS)
Sample Date
12 Nov 72
12 Nov 72
13 Nov 72
14 Nov 72
15 Nov 72
16 Nov 72
16 Nov 72
17 Nov 72
18 Nov 72
19 Nov 72
20 Nov 72
21 Nov 72
21 Nov 72
22 Nov 72
23 Nov 72
24 Nov 72
24 Nov 72
25 Nov 72
26 Nov 72
27 Nov 72
28 Nov 72
29 Nov 72
29 Nov 72
30 Nov 72
1 Dec 72
2 Dec 72
3 Dec 72
3 Dec 72
4 Dec 72
5 Dec 72
Influent
Laboratory'
Ford
Thiokol
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Thiokol
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
TUokol
Ford
Ford
Ford
Thiokol
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Thiokol
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Thiokol
Ford
Ford
BOD (mg/1)
870
2,350
1,962
652
915
3,290
505
513
926
885
1,043
800
275
820
750
826
204
912
698
650
660
970
2,188
715
883
634
414
337
750
870
S/S (mg/1)
664
432
868
483
325
2.030
10.560
140
558
434
988
595
224
610
452
260
160
280
274
156
270
864
575
260
254
460
216
200
236
285
BOD (mg/1)
228
330
252
602
140
276
610
113
336
113
212
210
180
135
230
89
700
130
330
130
135
200
1,628
183
270
148
199
111
210
123
Effluent (25 mini
%Bed.
74
85
88
—
74
92
-
78
63
85
80
75
-
84
69
89
~
84
54
80
79
79
-
74
58
76
51
67
72
86
S/S (mg/1)
78
107
115
774
110
74
77
93
194
101
67
80
75
113
70
55
48
216(7)
250(?)
96
61
84
50
75
88
99
58
42
112
63
%Red.
88
68
87
?
66
96
—
33
65
78
93
86
-
82
84
78
-
18
9
38
78
90
-
73
64
78
73
80
54
79
BOD (mg/1)
63
300
112
400
70
96
640
58
94
59
88
60
241
81
114
64
790
61
117
114
83
59
1,668
110
117
93
80
164
113
78
Effluent (45 nun)
%Red.
93
85
94
—
92
97
—
89
90
63
92
92
—
90
85
92
—
93
83
83
88
94
-
85
82
86
80
51
85
90
S/S (mg/1)
60
92
108
382
54
69
63
43
85
65
64
48
54
102
57
46
43
78
95
73
45
69
50
60
73
87
44
70
107
42
%Red.
90
68
57
—
84
97
-
71
85
85
93
92
—
82
89
78
-
71
65
51
83
93
--
77
70
79
82
65
54
86
Data not consistent
Data not consistent
Data not consistent
Only one dilution yielded data
on each BOD
*WAL, Inc Pollution Control Consultant, Independence, Ohio
Ford Chemical Laboratory, Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thiokol/Wasatch Division Laboratory, Brigham City, Utah
-------
TABLE VII
SHIPBOARD TEST DATA (WITH REVISED ANALYTICAL METHODS)
Sample Date
9 Dec 72 (0800)
9 Dec 72 (0800)
9 Dec 72 (1300)
9 Dec 72 (1300)
10 Dec 72
10 Dec 72
11 Dec 72 (0830)
11 Dec 72 (0830)
11 Dec 72 (1200)
11 Dec 72 (1200)
11 Dec 72 (1800)
11 Dec 72 (1800)
12 Dec 72 (1400)
12 Dec 72 (1400)
12 Dec 72 (1800)
12 Dec 72 (1800)
14 Dec 72 (0800)
14 Dec 72 (0800)
14 Dec 72 (1500)
14 Dec 72 (1500)
Ford
TMokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
TWokol
Ford
Thlokol
Ford
TUokol
Influent
BOD (mg/1)
535
634
750
778
1,380
1,400
5,830
5,900
420
514
1.736
3,730
5,680
S/S (mg/1)
804
758
510
620
638
492
6,570
5,800
193
140
2,920
144
8,536
3, 450 (sample lost)
1,790
1,625
895
982
790
826
685
870
694
360
486
195
BOD (mg/1)
243
248
285
294
350
360
279
334
530
768
703
1,556
590
630
744
630
360
353
380
330
Centrate
%Red.
60
52
40
48
72
71
95
95
—
-
59
60
89
82
58
61
59
64
52
60
S/S (•"*/'>
105
138
150
188
74
78
71
60
180
280
285
154
294
131
278
160
157
66
204
508(?)
%Red.
88
83
70
50
89
86
99
99
—
~
88
--
96
-
58
80
77
83
57
—
BOD (mg/1)
150
162
144
140
218
213
95
140
110
100
155
424
246
252
250
260
240
227
216
234
Effluent
$Red.
80
75
80
82
84
86
98
96
75
80
90
89
95
93
86
84
71
77
72
72
(4 mln)
S/S (mg/1)
95
102
66
36
80
40
30
32
35
13
56
38
69
48
75
144
155
42
177
49
Effluent (40 mln)
IRed.
88
87
90
95
87
92
99
99
73
93
98
70
99
-
89
84
76
89
62
75
BOD (mg/1)
70
77
75
82
182
164
60
55
100
92
126
952(7)
160
120
160
160
286
253
290
314
%Red.
88
88
83
89
88
88
98
99
75
80
92
75
97
97
91
90
68
74
63
60
S/S (mg/1) %Red.
60 92
88 85
40 97
42 94
60 91
49 90
27 99
32 99
83 57
54 64
88 98
287(7)
78 99
52
78 89
175 80
145 76
44 89
134 73
32 75
-------
wide variation and generally exceeded the 500 mg/1
design condition by significant amounts (influents in
the It 000 mg/1 range were not unusual).
. The higher influent BOD and suspended solids re-
sulted in correspondingly higher effluent values for
these parameters exceeding the design goals of 50
mg/1. This was to be expected since the same
level of treatment was used for the shoreside and
shipboard waste. Effluent samples were taken
after 25 and 45 minutes of treatment on the early
tests (Table VI) and after 4 and 40 minutes on the
later tests (Table VII). This change in sampling
time was made to provide data at the beginning
of the overboard discharge time as well as at the end.
Although higher than design effluent values were
experienced, percentage removals were generally
good. Average BOD removal (see Table VII) was
83 percent after 4 minutes and 88 percent after
40 minutes.
. The high influent BOD and suspended solids levels
were attributed to the fact that the shipboard system
treated both the sanitary and galley •wastes. Only
limited quantities of galley wastes were included in
the shore test influent. The wide variation in in-
fluent was attributed to the fact that galley waste
entered the system on a sporadic basis and was not
present in all samples and to problems in obtaining
a representative influent sample. These tentative
conclusions were later verified in 1973 when the
galley waste was diverted from the system.
Shower Water Treatment Systems
The aft shower water treatment system was installed and activated in
July 1972. As previously mentioned,this system was designed to provide
sufficient hypochlorite to sterilize the discharge stream. Only limited
BOD and suspended solids data were obtained from this system. These
data obtained during the week of 9 to 12 December are summarized
in the following listing:
37
-------
Effluent
The limited data were not sufficient to draw any final conclusions regard-
ing system performance.
Component Performance
During 1972 several changes and modifications were made to the ship-
board installation to improve system performance and reliability and
to correct design deficiencies. These changes were as follows:
1. Size of discharge pipe on the dry chemical feeders
(salt and hypochlorite) was increased from 1 in to
1-1/2 in. to prevent caking of these chemicals at
the pipe discharge where the feed was subject to
contact with moisture.
2. The high moisture content in the ship's com-
pressed air supply necessitated the installation
of traps in the air supply lines to the pneumatic
actuators on the centrifuge skimmer to prevent
corrosion of this actuator.
3. An effluent catalyst column was added to the
system to reduce the concentration of hypo-
chlorite in the effluent stream.
4. The initial flexible impeller centrifugal process
pumps proved unsatisfactory due to a high
impeller failure rate. These pumps were re-
placed with stainless steel fixed impeller
centrifugal pumps.
5. Problems were experienced with the conductivity
probe level sensors due to condensate, splash-
ing* etc. i causing short-circuiting. A plastic
sheath was added to correct this condition.
38
-------
6. A temperature controller was added to control steam
in the centrate tank heating coil and hence tempera-
ture in the recycle liquid stream.
The shore test installation did not include the treatment of galley wastes
in the solids waste treatment system. The galley drains on the ship
were changed to divert this waste into the treatment system. This change
created several unexpected problems. One of the first problems experi-
enced was the accumulation of grease in the primary and sludge tanks.
The floating grease layer in the primary tank interfered with the mixing
of the calcium hypochlorite powder with the wastewater. The hypochlorite
would pile up and float on top of the grease layer until a large accumula-
tion would break through. The grease buildup in the tank also caused
the conductivity level probes to short out, indicating false levels.
The variable liquid flow rate from the galley was also a problem. At
times during a sudden large discharge of water, the Hydrasieve screen
would overrun. This would result in an increased quantity of liquid in
the sludge tank, placing an extra burden on the incinerator to dispose of
this excess liquid.
Galley waste contained considerable abrasive material such as egg shells,
bones, broken glass, kitchen utensils, etc. This abrasive material caused
excessive and rapid wear on the rubber pump stators. This abrasive
material also caused some scratching and gouging on the stainless steel
pump rotors.
At the end of the 1972 operating season a detailed inspection of the waste
treatment systems was conducted and the following observed.
1. A shipboard modification to relocate the temperature
control in the centrate tank destroyed the protective
plastic coating resulting in severe local corrosion
of this tank in the modification area.
2. The metal (304 stainless) steam heating coils in the
centrate tank failed. The chemical reaction between
the hot stainless steel and the calcium hypochlorite
sewage centrate caused the two coils to corrode and
fail. Raw steam was being injected directly into
the centrate tank solution, through the deteriorated
coil, at the close of the operating season.
39
-------
3. The incinerator liner fabricated from Inconel 625
was severely eroded and warped. The fused silica
insulation was in excellent condition.
4. Eggshells, scouring pads, broken glass, etc.,
caused excessive wear of stators and rotors in the
sludge macerator pump and sludge feed pump in
the incineration system.
5. The PEPCON cell anodes in the aft shower water
system were eroded due to bridging of the annular
gap between the anode and cathode as a result of
buildup of cigarette butts, hair, string, etc.
6. Centrifuge bearings required replacement.
After review of the above system,modifications and/or repairs were
recommended and implemented prior to placing the system back in
operation for the 1973 season. This system refurbishment is summa-
rized on Tables VIE, IX, and X.
Refurbishment also included reactivation of the system catalyst by an
acid wash. Data relating to the catalyst activity before and after acid
treatment are summarized in Table XI indicating the effectiveness of
the reactivation procedure. These data are presented graphically on
Figure 14 relating hypochlorite concentration as a function of catalyst
volume and flow rate.
1973 PROGRAM
System Description
In 1973 the aft waste treatment system was modified as previously dis-
cussed, with emphasis on improving the effluent quality and system
performance by eliminating the introduction of galley waste. The basic
aft system was the same as the 1972 system being comprised of an
influent screen, influent holding tank, hypochlorite feeder, centrifuge,
centrate tank, catalyst system, and incinerator system.
The shower water systems were identical to the 1972 systems except
for the incorporation of a screen to trap and prevent foreign objects
from entering the system.
40
-------
TABLE VIII
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY,
SHIPBOARD AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM,
1973 OPERATING SEASON
1. Hydrasieve
2. Chemical Feeder
3. Primary Surge Tank
4. Process Pump
a. Clean
a. Replace feeder
b. Enlarge feed
spout
d.
Repair tank
bottom and coat
with plasite
Repair air
manifold
Clean conductivity
level sensor probes
Wash out and clean
tank
a. Replace packing
5. -Centrifuge
6. Centrate Tank
7. Recycle Pump
Recycle Catalyst
Columns
a. Replace
bearings*
Repair corroded
area and repair
Plasite coating
Replace steam coil
with titanium probe
Replace steam
control valve and
added Thermo we 11*
Clean conductivity
sensor probes
a. Replace packing
b. Replace belt
a. Acid wash and
reactivation
Notes
*Incorporated during operating season
-------
TABLE VIII (Cent)
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY,
SHIPBOARD AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM,
1973 OPERATING SEASON
9. Effluent Catalyst
10. Sludge Tank
11. Macerator Pump
12.
Incinerator Feed
Tank
a. Add air purge*
Wash out and
clean tank
Clean conductiv-
ity level sensing
probes
a. Rebuild pump
a. Wash out and
clean tank
b. Clean conduc-
tivity level
sensing probes
Incinerator Feed
System
14. Incinerator
15. Miscellaneous
Replace incin-
erator feed
pump
Replace three-
way valve (less
operator)
Replace three-
way valve
operator*
Replace com-
bustion chamber
Replace feed
nozzle
Replace thermo-
couples
Replace solenoid
valve in effluent
line
Replace float and
orifice in flow
meter
Substitute gate
valves for ball
valves
Notes
*Incorporated during operating season
-------
TABLE DC
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY,
SHIPBOARD FORWARD SHOWER TREATMENT SYSTEM,
1973 OPERATING SEASON
1. Primary Surge Tank
2. Primary Pump
3. PEPCON Cells
. Effluent Holding
4. _ ,
Tank
a. Clean conductiv-
ity level sensor
probes
a. Replace impeller
b. Replace motor
a. Add silicone oil
b. Drain and flush
a. Clean conductiv-
ity level sensor
probes
5. Overboard Pump
6. dc Power Supply
7. Salt Feeder
8. Miscellaneous
a. None
Transferred to
aft system as
replacement*
a. Enlarge feed
spout
a. Added inline
screen*
Notes
*Added during operating season
-------
TABLE X
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY,
SHIPBOARD AFT SHOWER TREATMENT SYSTEM,
1973 OPERATING SEASON
1. Primary Surge Tank
2. Primary Pump
3. PEP CON Cells
4.
Effluent Holding
Tank
a. Clean conductiv-
ity level sensor
probes
a. Replace impeller
a. Replace anodes
b. Drain and flush
c. Add silicone oil
a. Clean conductiv-
ity level sensor
probes
5. Overboard Pump
6. dc Power Supply
7. Salt Feeder
8. Miscellaneous
a. Replace impeller
a. Removed for
repair*
a. Enlarge feed
spout
a. Added inline
screen*
Notes
*Added during operating season
-------
TABLE XI
WNC-1 CATALYST ACTIVITY SUMMARY,
SHIPBOARD AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
(CATALYST COLUMN = 0.9 FT3)
Effluent Cl2 Cone (ppm)
Column Temp
Date Number (°F)
Before Acid Rinse
14 Feb 1973
After Acid Rinse
9 Jun 1973
1 120
2 120
3 120
1 120
2 120
3 120
Infl C12
Cone (ppm)
950
975
1,100
1,075
1,013
1,000
970
1,200
912
2 gpm
800
850
950
975
900
900
600
600
537
1 gpm
800
800
900
913
845
845
500
475
500
0.5 gpm
688
675
813
800
800
775
362
325
337
0.25 gpm
.
-
-
-
525
575
175
162
137
0. 125 gpm
.
-
-
-
350
338
-
-
_
-------
PH
1,200
1,000
800
W
O
O
H
EH
I
s
600
400
200
o-
TEMP = 120° F
CODE
O BEFORE TREATMENT
D AFTER TREATMENT
CATALYST VOLUME (FT3)
FLOW RATE (GPM)
O
Figure 14.. Shipboard Catalyst Activity Summary
-------
Test Results
The aft waste treatment system was placed on stream on 21 June 1973.
The forward and aft shower treatment systems were operational on
23 and 20 June 1973, respectively. The performance objective for the
shower treatment systems was to maintain a measurable concentration
of residual chlorine in the effluent following a 30 minute detention period.
This is achieved by the addition of salt to the shower wastewater, and
metering the resulting solution through two small electrolytic cells for
the conversion of the chloride ion to chlorine. Following startup of the
aft shower treatment system, residual chlorine concentrations were
monitored. These data are presented in Table XII. The initial con-
centrations of 30 to 40 ppm chlorine were considered excessive. The
salinity of the water was, therefore, reduced as noted by the decreased
salt feeder settings to produce chlorine concentrations of approximately
15-20 ppm.
The aft waste treatment system was intended to produce an effluent con-
taining less than 50 mg/1 of BOD and suspended solids and less than
240 mpn coliform. Influent and effluent samples were taken periodically
throughout the operating season for analysis. The samples were sub-
mitted to one of four laboratories, depending upon the ship's location,
for analysis. The results of these tests are presented in Table XIII.
Average suspended solids concentrations of 14.3 mg/1 for the 25 minute
effluent sample and 10.6 mg/1 for the 40 minute effluent sample were
observed. A range of suspended solids concentrations from <^1 to 54 mg/1
was observed. BOD concentrations averaged 32.6 mg/1 and 30.2 mg/1
for the 25 and 40 minute effluent samples, respectively. A range of BOD
concentrations from <1 to 78 mg/1 was observed. All coliform tests
were negative.
A comparison of the data from the 1972 operating season and the 1973
season for the aft system reveals a significant drop in BOD and sus-
pended solids for both the influent and effluent streams. The improved
performance is attributed to the elimination of galley wastes into the
aft waste treatment system. The resulting average BOD of 30.2 and
average suspended solids for 10.6 mg/1 met the effluent quality design
goal objectives for the season. The 1973 data demonstrated the ability
of the system to produce effluents meeting proposed standards.
Component Performance
During the 1973 operating season several changes were made to the waste
treatment system (Table XIV).
47
-------
TABLE XII
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY,
SHIPBOARD AFT SHOWER TREATMENT SYSTEM,
RESIDUAL CHLORINE IN EFFLUENT
Residual Chlorine Salt Feeder
Date Concentration (ppm) Setting
27 Jun 1973 30 5 min 7 %
*> 28 Jun 1973 35 57
00 40 5 7
29 Jun 1973 30 55
20 55
15 45
30 Jun 1973 20 45
15 35
2 Aug 1973 15 37
-------
TABLE Xm
SHIPBOARD PERFORMANCE SUMMARY; AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
Suspended Solids (mc/l)
Date
20 Jul 73
21 Jul 73
22 Jul 73
23 Jul 73
25 Jul 73
28 Jul 73
31 Jul 73
3 Aug73
SAuf 73
23AUJ73
27 Aug73
80ct73
18Oct7J
260ct73
13Nov73
15 Nov 73
22 Nov 73
2SNovT3
28 Nov 73
1 Dec 73
6 Dec 73
7 Dec 73
12 Dec 73
17 Dec 73
Avg*«*
Influent
28.4
53.6
-
393
390
47.6
109
—
61
47
8
31
411
270
100
24.5
54
167
302
140
1.128
196
193
116
3«2
268
213
40
118
356
201.3
Effluent-25 mia
9.2*
3.2*
9.4*
380**
369**
-
3.6*
5.2
41
15
29.5
17.5
10.4
54
5.5
6.0
9.2
7
1
<1
21
7
27
3
46
10
12.5
5
12
15
14.3
Egtueot-4Q min
5.6*
-
399**
392**
5.2*
4.8
5.8
18.5
18.5
22
17.5
~
—
6.4
10.8
5.6
9
2
<1
26
8
25
10
10
11
12
4
5
10
10.6
Influent
270
460
—
74
27
85
250
—
290
175
70
260
490
160
290
120
185
375
550
525
1,030
470
201
180
256
300
61
300
185
530
292
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (me/1) Coliform/100 ml
EffluMit-25 min
<5*
20*
15*
3
0
-
7.5*
<5
62.5
40
52.5
42.5
74
27.5
30
<1
78
41
30
3
28
59.4
42
78
39
23.7
14
42
39
43
32.6
0*
5* 0«
0*
0
0
30*
5 0*
5 0
70 0
60 0
52.5 0
55 0
0
0
1
1
78
23
38
2
32
29.4 0
52
60 0
1
29.4 0
15
S3 0
45 0
22 0
30.2 0
Effluent— 40 nln Laboratory
Ruble
0* Ruble
Ruble
WAL
WAL
0* Ruble
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
Ruble
Ruble
Ruble
Ruble
Ruble
ECO-Laos
ECO-Labs
ECO-Labs
Buffalo
0 Ruble
Buffalo
0 Ruble
Ruble
0 Ruble
Buffalo
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
0 Ruble
0
•Samples taken at times other than 25 and 40 minutes.
••Suspect data, not Included in averages.
"•Maximum values of data reported as '<
-------
TABLE XIV
PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS,
AFT WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM,
1973 OPERATING SEASON
1. Process Pump
a. Substituted positive displacement pump to prevent flow variations.
2. Centrifuge
a. Allow centrifuge to run continuously with skim cycle based on cumulative
process time in order to reduce frequency of skim cycles and volume of
(j> sludge to be incinerated.
3. Conductivity Level Sensing Probe
a. Substituted titanium probes for Monelto preclude corrosion.
4. Flush Valves
a* Substituted Dolphin marine valves to preclude sticking and non-
functioning due to contaminants in flush water.
-------
A positive displacement pump was installed in the centrifuge feed line,
replacing the centrifugal pump. This was done to assure a uniform
flow rate independent of suction head condition. It also eliminated the
need for a flow meter or flow control valve.
A major change was also made in the operation of the centrifuge cycle.
Operating personnel had reported that excessive quantities of liquid
were being generated for incineration. This was the result of having
the centrifuge programmed to skim after each 50 gal batch is processed.
It appeared that a more practical approach was to let the centrifuge
operate continuously and base the skim cycle on the hours of primary
pump operation. Accordingly, a change in the control logic was made
which resulted in a reduced, equal and controlled delivery of sludge to
the incinerator. Measurements made during a typical skim cycle showed
that 4. 75 gal of sludge to the incinerator were generated per cycle, as
follows:
First part of skim 3.5 qts to sludge tank
Second part of skim 11.0 qts to centrate tank
Third part of skim 4. 5 qts to sludge tank
Washout cycle 11.0 qts to sludge tank
Inspection of the incinerator several times during the year revealed
evidence of erosion and hairline cracks developing in the area of welds
on the dispersion disk. In general, however* appearance of the liner,
plenum, and feed nozzle was good.
51
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING AND TEST PROCEDURES
1.0 Sample Handling
1.1 WAL, Inc., of Independence, Ohio, will be responsible
for the splitting and distribution of all samples, especially the influent
sample used for seed preparation, which are dropped in the Cleveland
area. Personnel aboard the ore carrier will obtain one large volume
of each sample, and WAL, Inc., will obtain these samples, blend them
if necessary, and forward aliquots to Ford Laboratories of Salt Lake
City, Utah, and the Thiokol laboratory at Brigham City, Utah. All
samples will be properly refrigerated and will be sent by air to the
Utah laboratories. All samples sent to each laboratory will be approxi-
mately one pint in volume except the seed preparation sample which will
be approximately one quart in volume.
Because of the logistics problem involved with the handling of samples
dropped by the ship up-lake from Cleveland, these samples will be
sent directly to the Ford Laboratories in Utah, who will then forward
an aliquot of each sample to Thiokol. The WAL Laboratories will not
be involved with the testing of these up-lake samples.
1.2 Upon arrival at the laboratory, all samples will be
immediately refrigerated at approximately 13°C (41 °F) until used.
1.3 All samples will be thoroughly blended (macerated) be-
fore analysis. If excessive foaming is encountered during the blending
operation, the sample will be thoroughly blended, allowed to settle, and
then manually shaken to achieve proper mixing before any aliquot is taken
for analysis.
1.4 Just prior to analysis, the pH of the sample will be care-
fully adjusted to 7 - 7.5 using reagent grade sulfuric acid and sodium
hydroxide.
1.5 All chlorine in the sample and all sulfite will be quantita-
tively neutralized in accordance with the procedure found on page 491
of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, "
13th Edition.
52
-------
2.0 Seed Preparation
2.1 Draw a one-quart sample of raw domestic sewage and
incubate it for 24 hours at 20°C.
2.2 Pour off about 500 ml of the sample after the 24 hour
incubation period.
2. 3 Replace this 500 ml by adding to the sample bottle 300 ml
of fresh domestic sewage and 200 ml of influent sample from the ore
carrier. Incubate this total sample for 24 hours at 20°C. This is now
ready to be used as seed.
2.4 Use the supernatant (or filtrate) liquid from Step 3 above
as seed for the BOD analysis.
2.5 Pour off sufficient liquid from that remaining after Step 4
to bring the seed bottle to the "minus 500 ml level" of Step 2 and repeat
Steps 3, 4, and 5.
2. 6 Prepare a new bottle of seed (and discard the old) each
week from a new influent sample.
3.0 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Analysis
3.1 The standard method as described on page 489 of "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, " 13th Edition,
will be followed. All dilution water will be either double distilled, or
deionized, with special attention paid to the removal of toxic substances
such as copper. All BOD analyses will be run precisely five (5) days.
4.0 Dissolved Oxygen Analysis
4.1 The azide modification for dissolved oxygen determination
will be used. This procedure is found on page 477 of "Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, " 13th Edition. DO probes
will not be used in this testing program, except possibly to compare the
DO value with the titration value.
5.0 Suspended Solids Analysis
5.1 The standard method for determining the total suspended
matter in aqueous systems, as described on page 537 of "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, " 13th Edition,
will be followed.
53
-------
MAILING ADDRESS
U.S. COAST GUARD
400 SEVENTH STREET'SW.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20S9O
PHONE:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
"(202)
•59U6/159.12/18
12 MAY 197.;
Mr. P. E. Lakomski
Vasatch Division
Thiokol Corporation
P. 0. Box 521*
Brigham City, Utah 81*302
Dear Mr. Lakomski:
Review of your submission of 10 April 1975 and the additional data
supplied by Mr. Billovits on 5 May 1975 has been completed. The infor-
mation supplied is accepted as evidence that the effluent from the
Thiokol "aft waste treatment system" aboard the S.S. Cliffs Victory
meets the standards of section I59«53(b) of the U. S. Coast Guard
Marine Sanitation Device Regulations (33 CFR, Part 159)» Accordingly,
the Thiokol "aft waste treatment system" installed aboard the S.S.
Cliffs Victory is hereby certified as a discharge type marine sanitation
device under 33 CER 159.12.
Sincerely,
(G-MMT-3/83)
By direct:on o; U;e C
54
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pltase rscd Ins&uctiots on the reverse before completing)
2.
. RECIPIENT'S ACC=SSIOf*,NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Catalytic Waste Treatment Systems for Great Lake Ore
Carriers
5. REPORT OATS
September 1976 (Issuing Date)
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOS
AUTHOR(S)
Sheldon E. Moore, Robert W. Coleman, Peter E. Lakomski
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING OrtG MMIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Thiokol Corporation
Wasatch Division
Brigham City, Utah 84302
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1B2038 ROAP 21 APK; TASK 22
11. eSfTTRWChVGRANT NO.
S802730
-> SPONSORING AG5NCY NAMS AND A JORS3S
" Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE Or REPORT ANO .-» =
Final - 1971-1973
COVS35O
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOS
EPA-ORD
9. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
. ABSTRACT
A research and development program to develop a waste treatment system for a
30-50 man commercial vessel was conducted. The program included evaluation of the
system for two operating seasons (1972 and 1973) aboard the Cleveland - Cliffs ore
carrier "Cliffs Victory".
The results of the Thiokol checkout and shipboard testing are presented in
depth with supporting data, data and systems analyses and pertinent conclusions.
A summary of problems and recommended corrective action are also presented.
7.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lD6NTH«l6RS/OPeN ENOSD TERMS C. COSATl Field/Group
*Sewage treatment
*Sludge disposal
*Ships
*Incineration
*Chlori nation
Great Lakes
Marine sanitation device
Waste characterization
Physical/chemical treatment
Waste water recycle
13B
T*. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
63
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA form 2220-1 (9-73)
55
OUSGPO: 1976 - 657-695/6128 Region 9-11
------- |