X-/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-79-027
January 1979
Research and Development
Evaluation of an
Extended Aeration
Process for
Skokomish
Salmon Processing
Wastewater
Treatment
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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-600/2-79-027
January 1979
EVALUATION OF AN EXTENDED AERATION
PROCESS FOR SKOKOMISH SALMON PROCESSING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
by
S. S. Lin and Paul B. Liao
Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, Inc.
Seattle, Washington 98101
for
Skokomish Indian Tribe
Grant No. S-803911
Project Officer
Kenneth A. Dostal
Food and Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 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-
Ci, 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 the mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted, and used
the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our health often require
that new and increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used. The Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing
and demonstrating new and improved methodologies that will meet these needs both
efficiently and economically.
This report characterizes wastewater generated from a salmon processing plant and
demonstrates the reliability of biological systems for salmon processing waste control.
The results will also provide the engineering criteria for future design application
for fish processing waste control.
For further information regarding this report contact the Food and Wood Products
Branch, Industrial Pollution Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory—Ci, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
David G. Stephen
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory—Ci
Cincinnati, Ohio
iit
-------
ABSTRACT
The Skokomish salmon processing plant consists of a fish preparation area,
smokehouses, refrigeration/freezing capacity, and a retail outlet. An ex-
tended aeration system was constructed in April 1975, to treat wastewater
from the processing plant, and a monitoring program was initiated in Sept-
ember 1975, to evaluate the performance of the wastewater treatment facility.
During the first year's data collection, the fish volume was drastically re-
duced due to smaller returns and changes in regulations. Although BOD re-
moval efficiencies were high during this period, suspended solids (SS) re-
moval efficiencies and other parameters were low. The original design cri-
teria for hydraulic detention time in the aeration chamber and the overflow
rate in the clarifier were one day and 0.096 liter/sec/m , respectively.
However, during the testing program, hydraulic detention time in the aeration
chamber was much longer than desired, ranging from 3 to 49 days with an aver-
age of 17 days. Also the overflow rate in the clarifier was too low, ranging
from 1.809 x 10'3 to 2.98 x 10'* liter/sec/m2 with an average of 0.01 liter/
sec/nr. The food-to-microorganisms ratios (F/M) ranged from 0.01 to 0.14
with an average of 0.06. To test the effect of a shorter detention time and
a higher overflow rate on treatment efficiencies, a pilot plant with smaller
capacity aeration tank and clarifier system was installed alongside the ex-
isting system.
During the pilot plant operation, hydraulic detention time was reduced to a
range of 0.3 to 9.2 days with an average of 4.4 days. Similarly, the over-
flow rate was operating at a.range of 0.054 to 0.41 liter/sec/m2 with an
average of 0.165 liter/sec/m^. The F/M ratio increased to a range of 0.037 to
0.86, averaging 0.27.
The BOD removal efficiencies were high prior to the pilot plant installation
and remain unaffected with the reduced detention times. The pilot plant sus-
pended solids removal efficiencies, as expected, ran from approximately 50%
to more than 90% than those previously observed in the full scale system.
The removal efficiencies of other constituents also followed this pattern.
The economics of the operation of the extended aeration treatment system
were evaluated. The economic evaluation indicated that total treatment cost
(based on ENR 3161 for July 1978) per kkg of large and small salmon processed
were $5.76 and $9.55, respectively. These costs were based on the design
criteria developed in this study.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant S-803911 by Skokomish Indi-
an Tribe under the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers a period from August 1975 to August 1978; data
collection was completed as of January 1978.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vii
Abbreviations yiii
Acknowledgments ix
Section
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 4
3. Characteristics and Treatability of Salmon Processing Wastes . 6
4. Skokomish Wastewater Treatment System 9
5. Water Quality Monitoring Program 15
6. Results and Discussion 18
7. Development of Design Criteria 27
8. Cost Evaluation 46
References 48
Appendices 49
-------
FIGURES
Number paqg
1 Location and Vicinity Maps Skokomish Processing Plant,
Shelton, Washington 2
2 Process Layout of Skokomish Salmon Processing Plant,
Shelton, Washington 3
3 Flow Scheme of the Waste Treatment System - Skokomish
Processing Plant 12
4 Skokomish Pilot Treatment Plant 14
5 Test Scheme 16
6 Chronological Plot for Fish Processing Activities and the
Operation of the Extended Aeration Treatment System. ... 19
7 Probability Plot: Wastewater Volume Emission Rate for
Large Salmon Processing 28
8 Probability Plot: Wastewater Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Mass Emission Rate for Large Salmon Processing 29
9 Probability Plot: Wastewater Suspended Solids Mass Emission
Rate for Large Salmon Processing 30
10 Probability Plot: Wastewater Oil and Grease Mass Emission
Rate for Large Salmon Processing 31
11 Probability Plot: Wastewater Volume Emission Rate for
Small Salmon Processing 32
12 Probability Plot: Wastewater Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Mass Emission Rate for Small Salmon Processing 33
13 Probability Plot: Wastewater Suspended Solids Mass Emission
Rate for Small Salmon Processing 34
14 Probability Plot: Wastewater Oil and Grease Mass Emission
Rate for Small Salmon Processing 35
15 Probability Plot: Pilot Plant Effluent Biochemical Oxygen
Demand Mass Emission Rate for Large Salmon Processing . . 40
16 Probability Plot: Pilot Plant Effluent Suspended Solids Mass
Emission Rate for Large Salmon Processing 41
17 Probability Plot: Pilot Plant Effluent Oil and Grease Mass
Emission Rate for Large Salmon Processing 42
18 Effect of F/M Ratio on Oxygen Uptake Rate 44
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Hand-Butchered Salmon Process Summary ........... 7
2 Activated Sludge Plant Results - Fish Processing Wastes ..... 8
3 EPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Salmon Processing Plants . 8
4 Salmon Production Schedules from September 1975 through
February 1977 ...................... 10
5 Design Criteria for Skokomish Full Scale Wastewater
Treatment Plant .....................
6 Design Criteria for Skokomish Pilot Treatment Plant ...... 13
7 Schedule for Each Sampling Day .......... ..... 17
8 Wastewater Characteristics for the Skokomish Salmon
Processing Plant ..................... 20
9 Operating Conditions for the Extended Aeration Facilities .... 22
10 Extended Aeration Treatment Efficiencies for Salmon
Processing Wastewater .................. 23
11 Effluent Characteristics of the Extended Aeration Facilities ... 26
12 Major Wastewater Characteristics ............... 36
13 Summary of Design Criteria for an Extended Aeration Process
Treating Salmon Processing Waste .............. 45
Vii
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
BOD,; BOD
COD
SS
VSS
TKN
Ortho-p
Total-p
DO
F/M
DT
TS
JTU
Alk
OR
EPA
KCM
Max.
Min.
SD
O&M
M3/Hr
Liter/Sec ,
Liter/Sec/M"1
kg/M3/Day
Liter/Day
5-day 20 C Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ortho-phosphate
Total-phosphate
Dissolved Oxygen
Food to Microorganism Ratio
Detention Time
Total Solids
Jackson Turbidity Unit
Alkalinity
Overflow Rate
Environmental Protection Agency
Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc.
Maximum
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Operation and Maintenance
Cubic Meter Per Hour
Liter Per Second
Liter Per Second Per Square Meter of Area
Kilogram Per Cubic Meter Per Day
Liter Per Day
VI11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, under Grant No.
803911, and the Skokomish Indian Tribal Council, Shelton, Washington.
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the following individuals whose con-
tributions made this project possible.
Kenneth A. Dostal EPA Project Officer
Victor Martino Skokomish Tribal Council
Pam Bissonnette Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc.
Frank Klobertanz Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc.
Especially appreciated are Mr. Frank Klobertanz's contributions, including the set-up,
field monitoring and sampling, laboratory analysis, data reduction, and operation
and maintenance of the treatment facilities throughout the entire study.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Skokomish River supports a large Indian commercial fishery which enables
tribal fishermen to supplement their income and food supply during the fishing
season. Historically, tribal fishermen had no means of preserving their catch
other than smoking and marketed most of their catch in the round to traveling
fish buyers. This situation often resulted in a weak market position for the fisher-
men and a quality loss in the fish due to the often lengthy time lag between catching
the fish and refrigerating and processing the fish. In 1973, the Skokomish Indian
Tribe constructed a salmon processing plant to purchase, process and market
Indian-caught salmon.
The processing plant is operated as a tribal enterprise and its objectives are to
provide increased income and employment opportunities to the Skokomish com-
munity and to raise the value of the fish harvest through prompt refrigeration
and processing. The plant, designed by Bosworth and Carroll, consists of a fish-
preparation area, smokehouses, refrigeration and freezing capacity, and a retail
outlet. The plant markets fresh, fresh-frozen, and smoked-fish products. Freezing
capacity allows the plant to smoke fish continuously throughout the year. The
location and layout of the salmon processing plant are depicted in Figures 1 and
2, respectively. The plant is capable of processing 268 kg/hr of yearling salmon
and 909 kg/hr of large salmon.
Presently, fish are hand-butchered at the plant. This increases blood and solids
in the waste flow and imposes a higher loading on the wastewater treatment
facility.
To comply with regulatory requirements, the wastewater treatment facility was
constructed in conjunction with the processing plant in April 1975, and a water
quality monitoring program was initiated in September 1975, to evaluate its per-
formance. The treatment facility consists of an extended aeration system and
two identical aerobic polishing ponds. The rationale used for the design of the
treatment facility was based on literature review and characteristics of the waste
as determined by daily grab samples.
The literature review was limited since very little has been published on the charac-
teristics of salmon processing wastes. The objectives of this study were to deter-
mine the technical and economic feasibilities of treating salmon processing waste-
water using the extended aeration treatment process and to develop more reliable
design criteria.
-------
SKOKO
INDIAN
RESERVATIO
VICINITY MAP
Figure 1. Location and vicinity maps
Skokomish Processing Plant
Shelton, Washington.
-------
II FRESH SALMON
21 FROZEN SALMON
31 SMOKED SALMON
Figure 2. Process layout of Skokoimsh
Salmon Processing Plant
Shelton, Washington
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Wastewater characteristics for hand butchered salmon processing showed that
small salmon processing generated more wastewater flow and higher pollutant
contents per kkg of fish processed than did large salmon processing. It should
be noted that raw wastewater was screened before being sampled for analyses.
Wastewater flows and pollutant concentrations were highly variable in both cases.
Pollutant, in terms of kg/kkg of fish processed, from the Skokomish plant was
similar for large fish processing, but generally higher for small fish processing
than for others surveyed in the Northwest and Alaska. '*)
During 1975 and early 1976, unexpected low flow resulted in long detention times
and overaeration in the full-scale plant. To test the effect of shorter detention
times on treatment efficiencies, a pilot plant was installed alongside the full-scale
plant.
During full-scale plant operation, removal efficiencies of BOD, COD, SS, grease
and oil, and ammonia for small fish processing were similar to those for large
salmon processing. Higher removal efficiencies for nitrogen and lower removal
efficiencies for phosphorus during large fish processing were the result of longer
detention times and overaeration, which may have caused some denitrification
and phosphorus release in the aeration chamber.
Pilot plant removal efficiencies were similar to those of the full-scale plant for
BOD, COD, TKN and ammonia, but higher for solids, grease and oil and phosphorus.
Higher pilot plant removal efficiencies for SS, oil and grease and phosphate were
the results of shorter detention time and proper overflow rate.
Both 1) artificial feeding with fish food and 2) no feeding (wherein the organisms
in the aeration tank were endogenously respirating) were studied during long periods
of processing plant shutdown. The responsiveness of the system to take onset
of normal loading caused by the resumption of processing activites was adequate
in both cases.
-------
Typical wastewater characteristics were determined and are summarized below:
Large Salmon Small Salmon
Criteria Processing Processing
Wastewater flow
(liter/kkg) 8,708 14,630
BOD loading
(kg/kkg) 5.5 11.5
SS loading
(kg/kkg) 2.5 5.5
Grease & Oil loading
(kg/kkg) 5.2 8.2
Also developed were design criteria for the extended aeration system. Only the
results from pilot plant study were used for the development of design criteria.
The food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio of about 0.25 at an average MLSS of 2,500
mg/1 and a detention time of about 1.5 days were found to yield excellent treat-
ment efficiencies. The dissolved oxygen content in the aeration chamber should
be equal to or greater than 2.0 ppm* The. minimum overflow rate in the clarifier
was found to be about 0.062 liter/aec./m .
The effluent characteristics during the pilot plant study are summarized as follows:
Parameters Average 95% Probability —
BOD (kg/kkg) 0.65 0.86
SS (kg/kkg) 0.32 0.60
Grease and oil (kg/kkg) 0.25 0.58
Based on comparison of suspended solids concentration increases, the f ilterability
of sludge of the extended aeration system was found to be 20% less than that
obtained from conventional activated sludge process while treating domestic waste-
water.
An evaluation of the economics of the operation of the extended aeration treat-
ment system indicated that total treatment cost (based on ENR 3161 for July
1978)per kkg of large and small salmon processed were $5.76 and $9.55, respectively.
These costs were based on the design criteria developed in this study.
-------
SECTION 3
CHARACTERISTICS AND TREATABILITY OF SALMON PROCESSING WASTES
Only the wastewater generated at a fresh-frozen salmon processing plant is dis-
cussed here because the Skokomish salmon processing plant does not include the
canning process. The fresh-frozen salmon process is essentially the same through-
out the industry. The only major factors affecting the waste characteristics are
the geographic location and the size of the plant. Generally, the processing of
Pacific salmon as a fresh or frozen commodity is considered to have smaller waste
loads and waste flows than the canning segment of the salmon industry.^'
Very little has been published about the characteristics of waste generated by
salmon processing. Possibly the most reliable data for salmon-processing waste
was provided by a seafood-waste survey^2' of six plants in three areas of Alaska
and one area of the Northwest. Table 1 lists summary statistics of the waste
loads from all hand-butchered salmon processes studied during this EPA sponsored
survey. These results could be used to determine the typical raw-waste loadings
resulting from fresh-frozen or hand-butchered salmon canning processes in both
Alaska and the West Coast when characteristics of the particular wastewater
of interest are not known.
At the time of the EPA study, biological treatment of seafood processing wastes
had not been practiced fully in U.S. seafood plants except at pilot scale in a blue
crab processing plant in Maryland and at full-scale in two shrimp processing plants
in Florida/2' The success of these systems plus the results of effluent character-
ization studies indicate that sufficient nutrients are available in most seafood
wastewaters for aerobic biological treatment.
As early as 1968, a Federal Water Quality Control Administration report suggested
that seafood wastewater can be treated by domestic.sewage-treatment methods,
with some allowance for increased waste strength/9-' In the EPA survey report
of 1970/-10' the need for testing and identifying optimum operational conditions
was stressed.
In a report issued in 1972, Riddle, et al, studied the efficiency of biological
treatment of smelt and perch wastewater. He found a 90% removal of total BODc
after 10 days of aeration, and 90% removal of soluble BODc after 2 days aeration
in a batch reactor. Tests in a continuous reactor showed that maximum BODc
removal (80% soluble and 45% total) could be achieved with a 7.5-hour detention
time, sludge recycling and a 3-day sludge age, or a 5-day detention time with
no sludge recycling.
-------
TABLE 1
HAND-BUTCHERED SALMON PROCESS SUMMARY*
Parameter
Production, kkg/hr
Process Time, hr/day
Flow, I/sec
(gal/min)
Flow Ratio, 1/kkg
(gal/ton)
Sett. Solids, ml/1
Ratio, 1/kkg
Scr. Solids, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
5 -Day BOD, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
COD, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
Grease/Oil, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
Organic-N, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Ratio, kg/kkg
pH
Temp., degrees C
Mean
1.94
6.34
2.15
34.1
5,040
1,210
1.02
5.15
193
0.971
236
1.19
493
2.48
1,070
5.36
341
1.72
80.9
0.407
2.12
0.011
6.73
13.2
Std. Dev.
0.99
1.80
1.09
17.2
3,100
743
1.19
5.99
155
0.782
185
0.933
179
0.900
601
3.03
628
3.16
40.0
0.202
0.794
0.004
0.318
2.51
5% Min.
0.67
3.67
0.754
11.9
1,410
338
0.109
0.547
37.5
0.189
47.6
p. 240
233
1.17
332
1.67
15.0
0.076
29.0
0.146
0.979
0.005
6.25
9.19
95% Max.
3.98
8.98
4.39
77.5
13,000
3,120
4.18
20.5
600
3.12
722
3.54
923
4.35
2,600
13.1
1,770
8.39
181
0.314
4.14
0.120
7.13
15.7
*Summary from plants CSN5, CS6M, FS1, FS2, FS3, FS4, as presented in Develop-
ment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood Processing Industry.
EPA. September 1975.
-------
In a later study, Robbins ' reported that an activated-sludge plant in Japan
has been designed especially for fish-waste treatment. The wastewater flow is
approximately 11.88 liter/sec, and the 5-day BOD concentration ranged from
1,000 to 1,900 mg/1. The results of pilot-plant studies using a 10-hour aeration
time, and the organic and hydraulic loadings, are lifted in Table 2. Bulking occurred
when the organic loading rate exceeded 4.96 kg/m /day.
The EPA effluent limitations guidelines for West Coast hand-butchered salmon
processing plants are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 2
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT RESULTS
FISH PROCESSING WASTES (10)
Parameter
BOD- (mg/1)
3
% Removal
Raw
Waste
1,000
-
1.2
5
99.5
BOD Loading kg/m /day)
2.24 3.36 4.16
10 13 27
99.0 98.7 97.3
TABLE 3
EPA EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOR
SALMON PROCESSING PLANTS»(2)
Parameter
5-Day BOD (kg/kkg)
Total Suspended Solids (kg/kkg)
Grease and Oil (kg/kkg)
Daily Max.
(kq/kkg)
—
1.7
0.2
Maximum-30 Day
Average
(kg/kkg)
--
1.4
0.17
*Only for West Coast hand-butchered salmon, based on July 1, 1977 Effluent
Limitations.
8
-------
SECTION 4
SKOKOMISH WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
The Skokomish processing plant's extended aeration treatment system, hereafter
called the full-scale plant, was designed by Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. The design
was based on expected loadings from projected production of 909 kg/hr for large
salmon and 268 kg/hr for yearling salmon. It was also projected by the Skokomish
tribe that the processing plant would eventually double in capacity. Table 4 sum-
marizes the actual production schedule since the project's initiation. The peak
production period was July through October rather than September through Jan-
uary, as projected. In fact, in 1976 and 1977, no fish were available for processing
in January. The bulk of the fish processed during February through July were
yearling salmon from a private fish supplier. The large salmon processed were
generally those caught by members of the tribe.
Design of the treatment facility was based on the projected production, litera-
ture review (Table 1) and daily grab samples for the determination of wastewater
characteristics. The literature review was limited since very little has been pub-
lished about the characteristics of salmon processing waste. Thus, the reliability
of biological system for treating salmon processing waste was subject to verifica-
tion and substantiation. Table 5 summarizes the design criteria, and Figure 3
presents a flow diagram of the treatment facility.
The projected volumes of incoming fish to process was not realized.
This decrease in operations resulted in lower flows and longer retention times
in the treatment facility than expected. A smaller scale extended aeration system
was constructed in September 1976, (hereafter called the pilot plant) to test lower
retention times and higher loadings. Table 6 summarizes the design criteria for
the pilot plant, and Figure 4 shows a diagram of the facility.
-------
TABLE 4
SALMON PRODUCTION SCHEDULES
FROM SEPTEMBER 1975 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1977
Month
1975
1976
1977
Monthly Total (kg)
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
35,628***
34,178
13,575
3,918
-0-
22,636
29,350
-0-
17,432
15,486
27,223
68,340
20,245***
42,807
10,249
12,750
-0-
-0-
Daily Average* (kg) Size**
1,619
1,554
617
178
-0-
1,029
1,334
-0-
792
704
1,237
3,106
1,841
1,946
466
580
-0-
-0-
Large
Large
Large
Large
___
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small/Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
_-_
*Based on 22 working days per month and one shift per day.
**Large fish averages approximately 4.5 kg; small fish averaged approximately
0.3 kg.
***Value for last half of September.
10
-------
TABLE 5
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SKOKOMISH FULL-SCALE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
Waste Characteristics
Source = Process water, no sanitary waste
Minimum Flow = 0 liter/sec.
Maximum Flow = 0.87 liter/sec.
Peak Flow = 1.13 liter/sec.
Daily Flow Variation = Continuous over approximately 18 hour
Average BOD Concentration = 500 mg/1
Average Suspended Solids Concentration = 100 mg/1
Maximum BOD Loading = 36 kg/day
Extended Aeration System
Aeration Tank: Volume = 76,000 liters
Detention Time at Maximum Flow = 24 hours
Maximum Oxygenation Available = 11)9 kg O?/day
Maximum Loading = 0.48 kg BOD/m /day
Clarifier: Volume = 11,400 liters
Detention Time at Maximum Flow = 2.7 hours
Surface Area = 9.1 m ~
Overflow Rate at Maximum Flow = 0.096 liter/sec./m
Polishing Ponds
Surface Area = 0.15 ha
Loading at Maximum Flow = 24.1 kg BOD/ha/day
Volume = 1,383 m
Detention Time at Maximum Flow = 18 days
11
-------
SALMON
PROCESSING
PLANT
W/SCREEN
ro
(102 CM)
4' PIPE
POND
B" PIPE
(I5.2CM)
EXTENDED
AERATION
PACKAGE PLANT
WASTAGE
4" PIPE
(I0.2CM)
POND
NO.Z
i 4'PIPE (10.2CM)
(I5.2CM)
6* PLASTIC I PERFORATED I
DRAIN PIPE
' 4* PIPE
(I0.2CM)
Figure 3. Flow scheme of the waste
treatment system
Skokomish Processing Plant
Shelton, Washington
-------
TABLE 6
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SKOKOMISH PILOT TREATMENT PLANT
Aeration Chamber
1) Dimensions:
Diameter: 4.6m
Depth : 1.2m ,
Total volume = 17.1m (3 l.lm water depth
(Two chambers @ 8.55nrP each)
2) Air supply
No. 22 Blower i 23.8 cfm
(a) 210 gram/cm
3) Chamber divider, plastic
sheeting siliconed in
place with baffles to
equalize head.
Clarifier
Number: 2
Volume: 513 liters each
2
Surface area: 0.58 m each
Compressor for sludge return ,
air lift pump: . 4.3 m /hr. (§ 1750 gram/cm'
Operation conditions
Aeration Chamber -
Detention time 18 hr. - 120 hr. (if flow>0.098 liter/sec, dual
system was in operation)
Clarifier -
Detention time: 1.1 hr. - 7.9 hr. 2
Overflow rate: 0.0031 - 0.23 liter/sec./m
13
-------
AEROBIC
POND
COMPRESSOR
(10.2 CM)
INCOI
SEWAGE
AERATION CHAMBER
(10.2 CM)
VT«UIEMT LIM^
COMPRESSOR
RETURN SLUDGE
• LEVELING
^BAFFLE
AERATION CHAMBER
0.31 M
CLARIFIER
Figure 4. Skokomish Pilot Treatment Plant
-------
SECTION 5
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
TEST SCHEMES
The test scheme for both full scale and pilot plant is shown in Figure 5. Because
of low flow through the full-scale treatment system and the high permeability
of the soils in the aerobic pond, the full-scale monitoring program was focused
on the extended aeration treatment system.
For the extended aeration system, two major parameters, dissolved oxygen (DO)
content and food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio, were controlled during the study
period. The DO content was varied by adjusting either impeller immersion and/or
aeration time. The F/M ratio (BOD/MLVSS) was varied by adjusting MLVSS (Mixed
Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids) concentration, which was controlled by regu-
lating the sludge recycling rate and the quantity of sludge wasted.
SAMPLING
Four sampling stations for the test scheme are shown in Figure 5. The location
of each sampling station is described as follows:
Sampling Stations Location
a Incoming raw wastewater
b Aeration tank
c Return sludge and excess sludge pipe
d Effluent from the extended aeration
process
It should be noted that raw wastewater generated in the processing plant passed
through a screen and discharged into the pump station. Then, the screened raw
wastewater was pumped to the extended aeration treatment system.
Both grab and composite samples collected in the field were preserved in accor-
dance with Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Table 7 sum-
marizes the schedule for each sampling day and analysis. Throughout most of
the study, sampling took place 3 days every two weeks.
15
-------
EXTENDED AERATION
/ FULL SCALE PLANT \
V PILOT PLANT )
AEROBIC
POND NO. I
AEROBIC
POND NO. 2
Figure 5. Test Scheme
16
-------
TABLE 7
SCHEDULE FOR EACH SAMPLING DAY
Sampling
Station
Sampling Frequency
Tests
a
c
d
Grab Samples/2 hour Flow, Temp, pH, DO
Eight-hour Composite BOD, COD, SS, VSS, TS, Grease/Oil*, TKN,
Sample Ammonia, Ortho-P, Total-P, Alkalinity,
Turbidity
One Grab Sample Daily MLSS, MLVSS, DO, Alk., pH, Temp., Oxygen
Uptake Test
One Grab Sample Daily SS, VSS, Sludge Filterability Test
Same as (a)
Same as (a) (Except flow measurement is not
necessary)
*One grab sample per sampling day.
TESTING
All chemical and biological tests were conducted in accordance with Standard
Methods. Field tests included flow measurement, pH, DO, temperature, and
oxygen uptake. Laboratory tests conducted in the KCM Laboratory were BOD,
COD, SS, VSS, TS, grease and oil, TKN, ammonia, alkalinity, turbidity, ortho-P,
total-P, MLSS, MLVSS, SVI, and sludge filterability.
The flow entering the treatment system was computed based on pumping duration
and rate. The measurement of.SVI (Sludge Volume Index) was conducted in accor-
dance with Standard Methods. The oxygen uptake test was conducted in the
field by using YSI DO probe. The DO of MLSS was measured at 0 and 60 minutes.
The oxygen uptake rate was computed by dividing the decrease in oxygen by the
elapsed time. The sludge filterability test was conducted in the laboratory. The
sludge was filtered under a pressure of 1470 gram/cm and suspended solid concen-
trations were measured at different time intervals.
Due to difficulties in obtaining fish to process during parts of the study (see Table 4),
the monitoring program was extended and completed in January 1978.
17
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
GENERAL
At the project initiation the aeration chamber of the full-scale plant was
seeded with 3,800 liters of 4,500 mg/1 S.S. return activated sludge from Ren-
ton Treatment plant, Renton, Washington. Water meters were installed in the
processing plant for continuous recording of water consumption during fish
processing. The records of water consumption were to be used to establish a
relationship between the water consumption and wastewater generated during
fish processing. Wastewater from fish processing was pumped to the treatment
facility after screening. It should be noted that the extended aeration sys-
tem is intended to treat only wastes from fish processing. Sanitary wastes
were conveyed to a septic tank for treatment. Based on pumping duration and
rate, the flow entering the extended aeration system was computed. A weir
box was installed at the aerobic pond to record the flow rate of effluent
from the extended aeration treatment system.
Most of the wastes entering the treatment system were generaged from pro-
cessing of small yearling salmon and large salmon. "Small salmon" herein
refers to an average weight of 0.3 kg per fish while "large salmon" refers
to an average weight of 4.5 kg per fish. When no processing wastewater was
generated, the treatment systems were maintained by 1) feeding approximately
4.3 kg of Purina Trout Chow mixed in 2130 liters of water into the pump sta-
tion during full scale plant operation, and 2) by endogenous respiration
(without the addition of fish food) during pilot plant operation. On the av-
erage, duration of pumping fish food solution was about 4 hours. The rela-
tionship between fish processing activities and the operation of the extended
aeration treatment system during the entire study is chronologically plotted
in Figure 6. Monitoring results indicated that characteristics of the fish
food mixture were comparable to those of salmon processing wastewaters.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewater characteristics for large/small salmon processing and fish food
addition are summarized in Table 8. Approximately 20 percent of the total
weight of fish processed was wasted. The wastage was hauled away to a san-
itary landfill for disposal. The water consumption for fish processing is
approximately equal to the wastewater generated from fish processing. Thus,
only wastewater flow is shown in Table 8. Comparison of the wastewater char-
acteristics showed that wastewater flow and the weight of pollutants gener-
ated per kkg of fish processed for small salmon were greater than those for
large salmon. As indicated by the standard deviations, the Incoming waste-
water in both cases was highly variable.
18
-------
Salmon
Processing
Full Scale
WTP Operation
Pilot Scale
WTP Operation
Supplemental
Feed
Endogenous
Respiration
(without fish
food)
ONOJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON D J
1975
1976
1978
FK5URE 6 Chronological Plot for Fish Processing Activities and the Operation of the
Extended Aeration Treatment System
-------
TABLE 8
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE SKOKOHISH SALMON PROCESSING PLANT
INS
O
1975 & 1976
Full-Scale Plant
Large- Salmon
Parameter
Flow, gpd
Process Time, hr/day
Fish Processed, Ib/day
Processing Wastage, Ib/day
Gallon of Waste water per
Ton of Fish Processed
Turbidity, JTU
PH
DO, mg/1
Temp. , degrees F.
Alk., mg/1 as CaCO,
BOD (total), mg/1 3
BOD (total), Ib/ton
COD (total), mg/1
COD (total), Ib/ton
BOD/COD (total)
SS,mg/l
SS, Ib/ton
VSS, mg/1
VSS, Ib/ton
VSS/SS
TS, mg/1
TS, Ib/ton
Grease and Oil, mg/1
Grease and Oil, Ib/ton
TKN, Mg/1
TKN, Ib/ton
H -N, mg/1
HT-N, Ib/ton
To*tal-P, mg/1
Total-P, Ib/ton
Ortho-P, mg/1
Ortho-P, Ib/ton
Average
691
6.5
3,153
747
723
100
7.2
7.9
51.5
128
687
3.26
2,057
10.5
0.33
502
2.5
265
1.3
0.541
1,638
7.5
283
1.5
207
0.86
6.04
0.04
0.26
0.00020
0.11
0.0007
Standard
Deviation
237
1.0
2,658
614
599
49
0.1
1.0
3.6
88
445
2.50
1,120
8.6
0.10
224
1.4
147
0.9
0.175
861
2.8
142
0.9
197
0.49
7.25
0.04
0.16
0.00027
0.05
0.0007
Fish Food
Addition
Average
1,022
.
_
-
.
91.5
6.9
.
45
59
400
-
688
,
0.59
354
_
200
.
0.65
525
_
199
„
99
.
2.5
1.5
0.33
-
Standard
Deviation
1,017
_
_
_
324
0.2
_
1.6
13.8
56.8
.
131
_
0.06
134
_
61
.
0.36
219
_
203
_
10.6
0.8
0.4
0.12
-
Small Salmon
Standard
Average Deviation
3,143 1
5.4
2,751
570
2,366
60.8
7.1
7.3
52.5
49
665
10.36
902
13.9
0.70
320
4.4
225
2.6
0.703
1,029
15.8
859
4.3
73
1.08
4.67
0.30
0.56
0.0085
0.49
0.0052
,001
1.3
812
170
764
44.2
0.2
1.7
2.3
7
273
5.29
398
6.4
0.12
479
3.3
405
2.0
0.192
650
8.2
372
2.2
50
0.78
3.20
0.32
0.35
0.0065
0.23
0.0036
1976 & 1977
Pilot Plant
Large Salmon
Average
1,262
8.6
3,099
756
501
116
7.3
5.4
54.4
92.2
1,053
5.34
1,386
7.6
.67
509
3.2
377
2.3
0.73
1,197
8.3
382
3.4
37.6
0.6
13.4
0.17
1.46
0.04
0.99
0.02
Standard
Deviation
1,446
6.55
2,831
600
504
61.4
0.25
2.3
6.1
13
830
4.51
941
6.3
.17
382
3.4
300
2.6
0.13
624
7.4
289
4.3
28
1.27
11.5
.21
1.19
0.05
0.98
0.01
2) 1 Ih/lnn = Flow (1
hnrO y mn/l x 8.
34 x ID'6 x
2000
3) 1 gal/ton = 4.18 liter/kkg.
(Fish processed) Ib/day
-------
The wastewater characteristics for large salmon processing as influent to the
pilot plant are also shown in Table 8. During the pilot plant study, no small salmon
were processed. Wastewater entering the pilot plant was more concentrated than
that resulting from previous large salmon processing. This can be explained by
the following: the processing plant received returning adult Chinook, Chum and
Coho salmon. Generally Chinook are the largest and Coho the smallest in size.
The adult returns received in 1976 and 1977 contained a larger portion of the
smaller fish than those received in 1975.
Comparison of Table 8 to Table 1 indicates that pollutant concentrations from
the Skokomish processing plant were generally greater than for those surveyed.
Weights of pollutant generated per kkg of fish processed were similar for large
salmon processing, but higher for small salmon processing than those surveyed.
OPERATING CONDITIONS
Operating conditions for both full scale and pilot plants are summerized in Table 9.
Because the projected numbers of fish were not realized, both hydraulic detention
times and DO concentrations in the aeration chambers were higher than expected.
However, the food to microorganism (F/M) ratios were within the range of 0.05
to 0.2 recommended for the extended aeration process. The higher flows resulting
from small salmon processing reduced the detention time to seven days in the
full-scale plant. The change-over to the pilot plant occurred coincident with
a switch to processing large salmon, and the consequent reduction in flows re-
sulted in a retention time of somewhat more than four days in the pilot plant
aeration tank. In other words, the expected wastewater flow from small salmon
processing was not realized during the pilot plant operation. In order to test reten-
tion times about one day, a solution of fish food was used to simulate the salmon
processing wastewater. The fish food addition was proved to be comparable to
salmon processing wastewater during full-scale plant operation, as shown in Table
10.
During the peak flow entering the pilot plant, it was noticed that more of MLSS
was carried over the clarifier resulting in an effluent with poor quality. This
gave an indication that the overflow rate in the clarifier during peak flow was
higher than expected. No samples were taken when peak flow was evident.
The ratios of MLVSS to MLSS during the study were similar to that obtained from
domestic wastewater treatment. It should be noted that the ratio of MLVSS to
MLSS of full scale operation while receiving large salmon processing wastewater
was only 58%. This lower ratio was due to low flow which subsequently resulted
in longer detention time and higher DO content in the aeration chamber. In other
words, a portion of MLVSS was digested in the aeration chamber.
The Sludge Volume Index (SVI) decreased when detention time decreased. This
indicated that overaeration resulting from long detention time had adverse impact
on the settleability of MLSS in the clarifiers.
21
-------
IN}
ro
TABLE 9
OPERATING CONDITIOnS FOR THE EXTEMDED AERATION FACILITIES
1975 & 1976
Full-Scale Plant
Fish Food
Large-Salmon Addition Small Salmon
Standard Standard Standard
Parameter Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation
Retention Time (days)
Processing Time (hrs/day)
PH
DO (mg/1)
SVI
F/M (I/day)
MLVSS (mg/I)
MLSS (mg/I)
MLVSS/MLSS Ratio
Overflow Rate (gal/process-
ing period/square foot)
gpd/ft »»
31 8 30
6.5 1.0
7.3 1.0 7.4
B.3 1.4 9.7
151 24 97
0.06 0.06 0.04
516 174 540
978 218 1,306
58%
38 22 11
13 7 2
5.4 1.3
0.3 7.1 0.4
1.4 5.7 1.5
47 129 28
0.04 0.05 0.04
114 1,015 433
93 2,240 666
69%
11 173 105
1976 & 1977
Pilot Plant
Large Salmon
Standard
Average Deviation
4.4 5.1
7.8* 5.64*
7.03 0.3
2.4 1.5
126 36
0.27 0.22
1,964 383
2,485 613
80%
349 203*
•included hours during which flow was controlled to decrease retention time.
*»1 qpd/fl = 4.73 -x
liler/sec/m.
-------
TABLE 10
EXTENDED AERATION TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES FOR SALMON PROCESSING MASTEHATER
rull-Scate Plant
Parameter
BOO, %
COO, %
SS, %
VSS, %
ro
<*» — ~
TS, %
Grease and Oil, %
TKN, %
NH.-N, %
4
Total-P, %
Ortho-P, %
Large-Salmon
Standard
Avftraoe Deviation
91
62
66
AS
69
83
72
28
37
5
18
20
19
19
16
24
3
25
fish Food
Addition
Standard
Average Deviation
88
85
78
75
54
61
92
21
N/A*
N/A«
7
6
12
6
10
16
0.5
17
N/A«
N/A»»
Small
Average
91
82
52
47
46
55
46
37
58
N/A»»
tn infhmnt
Salmon
Standard
Deviation
5
14
32
36
36
20
31
29
43
N/A»«
1976 & 1977
Pilot Plant
Larqe Salmon
Average
77.8
77.1
74.6
73.8
51.7
72
73.9
61.3
40.9
49. 1»
Standard
Deviation
20.4
17.7
22.9
26.5
19.7
20.9
21.6
18.6
22.7
2/t. 2*
— - |>|f n II H«tO».OV« «.« ^W«. « • • m*-v "• — —-• -
•Does not include negative data.
-------
During the full-scale plant operation, the volumetric loading was 32 kg BODc/1,000
m and 112 kg BOD5/1,000 m on the average for large and small salrmm processing
wastewater respectively. This was increased to 480 kg BODc/l»000 m for the
pilot plant.
The effects of various operating conditions, such as F/M, DO, detention time
etc., on treatment efficiencies are further discussed in detail in Section VIII -Devel-
opment of Design Criteria. Also included in Section VIII are the oxygen uptake
characteristics for MLSS, and sludge dewaterability characteristics.
TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
The extended aeration treatment efficiencies for salmon processing wastewater
and fish food addition are summarized in Table 10. During the full-scale plant
operation, comparison indicated that treatment efficiencies for fish food addition
were comparable to those for salmon processing wastewater. During the pilot
plant study, the extended aeration treatment facility received neither salmon
processing wastewater nor fish food feeding for about 8 months (see Figure 6).
The results shown in Table 10 indicated that the resumption of the operation was
not significantly affected by this long period of shutdown. This demonstrated
that when no salmon processing was available the responsiveness of the treatment
system could be maintained without supplemental feeding.
Comparing large and small salmon processing wastewater at the full-scale plant,
removal efficiencies for most parameters were not appreciably different except
for nutrients. Ammonia and TKN removal efficiencies were twice as high for
the large fish processing wastewater. This is probably due to the higher incoming
concentrations (see Table 8) and longer detention times causing some denitri-
fication. Conversely, the removal efficiencies of total phosphate are about 50
percent lower for large fish. This fact may have been due to over aeration which
resulted from longer detention time, causing the release of phosphate in the aera-
tion chamber.(7)
Comparing large fish processed at the full-scale and pilot plants, removal efficien-
cies for BOD, COD, TKN, and ammonia were similar. However, the removal effi-
ciencies for solids, grease/oil and phosphate during the pilot plant operation in-
creased dramatically. Reasons for the increase in phosphate removal are discussed
above. Improvements in removal efficiencies for solids and grease/oil are probably
due to higher incoming concentrations and shorter detention times. During full-
scale plant operations effluent turbidity was approximately 30 percent higher
even though the clarifier overflow rate was lower. A microscopic examination
of MLSS indicated the presence of filamentous growth. It can be explained that
the longer detention times at high DO concentrations favored filamentous growths
in the full-scale plant. Apparently, filamentous microorganisms which have poor
settling characteristics are able to slowly utilize the inert polysaccharide material
produced by the bacteria, givina the filamentous forms a source of food that is
unavailable to other bacteria.^
24
-------
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Effluent characteristics for both full-scale and pilot plants are summerized in
Table 11. The effluent charcteristics during fish food addition are not shown
since fish food addition was only one of the alternatives used to maintain the
performance of the treatment system when no salmon processing wastewater
is available. As indicated by the standard deviation, the effluent of extended
aeration facilities was as variable as incoming wastewater. However, the removal
efficiencies for each parameter were quite consistent, as shown in Table 10.
25
-------
TABLE 11
Parameter
Turbidity, JTU
PH
DO, mg/l
Temp., degrees F.
Alk., mg/l as CaCO,
BOD (total), mg/l 3
BOD (total), Ib/ton
COD (total), mg/l
COD (total), Ib/ton
BOD/COD (total)
SS, mg/l
SS, Ib/ton
VSS, mg/l
VSS, Ib/ton
VSS/SS
TS, mg/l
TS, Ib/ton
Grease and Oil, mg/l
Grease and Oil, Ib/ton
TKN, mg/l
TKN, Ib/ton
NH.+N, mg/l
NH7+N, Ib/ton
Total-P, mg/l
Total-P, Ib/ton
Ortho-P, mg/l
Ortho-P, Ib/ton
Note: 1) 1 Ib/ton = Flow (gi
»\»«* vri ii ik i_/\ i UIIISL.U r\i_r\r» i iuil rnui
1975 & 1976
Full-Scale Plant
Large-Salmon
Standard
Averaqe Deviation
28
7.4
6.7
56
45.1
50.4
0.25
206
1.11
0.23
163
0.77
85
0.43
0.52
1,030
3.12
72
0.41
23.4
0.17
1.05
0.01
0.43
0.1
>d) x mo/1 x 8.34
22
1.0
2.0
5.6
23.5
43
0.18
88
0.84
0.49
118
0.46
56
0.32
0.47
499
4.31
44
0.43
22.7
0.23
0.59
0.01
0.76
0.04
x 10'6 x ..
Small
Average
13.4
7.06
4.3
53.5
67.7
43.4
0.88
94.7
2.18
0.46
85
2.02
60.4
1.72
0.71
532
13.4
79.2
1.64
12.3
0.22
2.17
0.05
0.49
0.02
0.42
0.01
2000
Salmon
Standard
Deviation
6.1
0.23
1.6
7.5
31.4
26.6
0.57
35.4
2.23
0.75
48.6
2.6
37.4
2.1
0.77
230
13.04
31.4
1.1
16.7
0.27
2.15
0.04
0.36
0.02
0.67
0.005
Li 1 ICO
1976 & 1977
Pilot Plant
Large
Averaqe
29
7.0
3.6
56
92
126
1.3
208
1.3
0.62
86
0.64
66
0.49
0.77
511
3.9
71.7
0.5
7.3
0.08
7.8
0.11
0.7
0.01
0.3
0.01
Salmon
Standard
Deviation
23
0.3
1.6
8
17.6
93
3.1
180
1.32
0.22
91.6
1.05
69
0.81
0.75
143
3.93
48.2
0.49
9.7
0.1
9.9
0.19
0.5
4.2 x 10
0.23
2) 1 Ib/ton = 0.5 kg/kkg.
fish processed Ib/day
-------
SECTION 7
DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA
An important objective of the study was to utilize the results to develop engineering
criteria for future design. The following discussion of the development of design
criteria includes (1) the estimate of wastewater characteristics; (2) the effects
of DO content, F/M ratio, detention time and overflow rate on the treatment
efficiencies; (3) Estimate of treatment plant effluent characteristics; (4) relation-
ship of oxygen uptake rates to F/M ratio, and (5) sludge f ilterability characteristics.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewater characteristics for both large salmon and small salmon processing
were discussed in Section VI and are summarized in Table 8. The wastewater
was highly variable. To facilitate the development of design criteria, the waste-
water characteristics in terms of flow, BOD, SS and Grease and Oil are plotted
on probability paper. The probability herein refers to the percentage measurement
equal to or less than the stated class mean of the measured parameter.
Figure 7 illustrates the probability of wastewater generated per kkg of large salmon
processed. It can be seen in Figure 7 that 95% of the time the wastewater generated
was 8,780 liter/kkg or less during large salmon processing.
Figure 8 indicates that 95% of the time the BOD loading was about 5.5 kg/kkg
or less during large salmon processing. Figure 9 shows that 95% of the time the
SS loading was about 2.5 kg/kkg or less for large salmon processing wastewater.
Figure 10 reveals that 95% of the time the grease and oil loading was 5.2 kg/kkg
or less for large salmon processing wastewater.
Similarly, the probability of flow, BOD, SS and grease and oil for small salmon
processing wastewater are illustrated in Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14, respectively.
The design criteria for wastewater characteristics in terms of flow, BOD, SS and
grease and oil using 95% probability are summarized in Table 12.
27
-------
1
99.99
99.9
99
95
12 90
-I
g 80
2 70
* «
3 50
UJ 40
£ 30
o.i
I I I
I
420 840 1260 1680 2520 33604200 6300 8400 12600 16800
WASTEWATER FLOW liter/kkg
Figure 7. Probability plot: Wastewater volume emission
rate for large salmon processing.
28
-------
99.99
99.9 —
99
£ 95
-------
99,99
99.9
99
3 90
g so
o
70
in 4Q
£ 30
5 20
10
5
1
0.1
S.S. kg/kkg
I i 111!
5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 9. Probability plot: Wastewater suspended solids
mass emission rate for large salmon processing.
30
-------
99.99
99.9
99
uj 90
g 80
g 70
_l 60
D 50
U 40
V-* 30
5 20
§ 10
I 5
0.1
I I I I
8 9 10
OIL AND GREASE kg/kkg
Figure 10. Probability plot; Wastewater oil and grease
mass emission rate for Targe salmon processing,
31
-------
99.99i-
99.9
99
95
in
LJ
5 80
O 70
j 60
3:
# 30
> 20
K
3 10
8 5
0.1
I
I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I I I
420 840 1260 1680 2520 3360 4200 6300 8400 12,600 16,800
WASTEWATER FLOW liter/kkg
Figure 11. Probability plot: Wastewater volume emission
rate for small salmon processing.
32
-------
99.99 —
99.9 —
99 —
95 —
90
80 —
70
60
U 4Q
£ 30
£ 20
I
1 —
0.1 —
Figure 12. Probability plot: Wastewater biochemical oxygen
demand mass emission rate for small salmon processing.
33
-------
99.99
99.9
99
i.
8 gn
U 90
_i
g 80
2 70
-i 60
Ul 40
£ 30
•3 20
10
8
0.1
l_
5
S.S.
II I I I I
56 7 8 9 10
Figure 13: Probability plot: Wastewater suspended solids
mass emission rate for small salmon processing.
34
-------
99.99
99.9
99
95
8 90
g 80
S 70
-J 60
§ *
Ld fiQ
* 30
t 20
=1
$ 10
8 .
0.1
ill
OIL & GREASE tcq/kkg
1 I I I I I
8 10 12 14 16 18
Figure 14. Probability plot: Wastewater oil and grease
mass emission rate for small salmon processing.
35
-------
TABLE 12
MAJOR WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Large Salmon Processing
Parameters
Flow (liter/kkg)
BOD (kg/kkg)
SS (kg/kkg)
Grease and Oil (kg/kkg)
Average*
3,122
1.13
1.3
0.8
95% Probability
8,708
5.5
2.5
5.2
Small Salmon Processing
Average*
9,890
5.2
2.2
2.2
95% Probability
14,630
11.5
5.5
8.2
*Obtained from Table 8.
EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
The summary of operating conditions and the treatment efficiencies during the
full-scale and pilot plant study were presented in Table 9 and Table 10. To develop
the design criteria, an attempt was made to correlate the various operating con-
ditions, such as F/M ratio, DO, etc., to the treatment efficiencies of various para-
meters. Only the results obtained from the pilot plant were used for the develop-
ment of design criteria since the desirable operating condition were not achieved
during full-scale operation. The effects of operating conditions on the treatment
efficiencies during full-scale plant operation are shown in Appendix B.
The following will discuss in detail the effect of F/M ratio on treatment efficiencies.
The statistical analysis herein is to utilize the equation derived from polynomial
regression to demonstrate the relationship between two variables. For the discussion
here, a polynomial regression of degree of 3 was chosen.
The relationship between BOD removal efficiency and F/M ratio during pilot plant
study is detailed in Figure C-l of Appendix C and is presented in Equation 1:
BOD5 rem. = 44.98 + 399 (F/M) - 1099 (F/M)2 + 813 (F/M)3 Equation 1
By solving the equation, an F/M ratio of 0.25 is indicated to produce a BOD,- removal
efficiency of about 89% during pilot plant operation. This ratio of 0.25 would yield
almost maximum SS removal efficiency of 77% as presented in Equation 2 (Figure C-
2 of Appendix C)
SS rem. = 46 + 314 (F/M) - 940 (F/M)2 + 735 (F/M)3 Equation 2
36
-------
During the pilot plant study, the effects of F/M ratio on the removal efficiencies
of SS, COD, grease and oil, TKN, ammonia, ortho-phosphate and total-phosphate
are presented in Appendix C. Applying the derived equations shown in respective
figures, an F/M ratio of 0.25 would produce the following removal efficiencies
in the pilot plant:
Parameter Removal Efficiency (%)
BODS 89
SS 77
COD 83
Grease and Oil 75
TKN 77
Ammonia 60
Ortho-phosphate 51
Total-phosphate 41
It should be noted that during the pilot plant study the F/M ratio of 0.25 would
yield excellent removal efficiencies for BOD,-, SS, COD, grease and oil, TKN,
ammonia, ortho-phosphate and total-phosphate. Therefore, it is recommended
that an F/M ratio of 0.25 be considered for design of treatment systems for salmon
processing wastewaters.
EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
Hydraulic detention time is an important factor to be considered for design of
a wastewater treatment system. The statistical analysis used for the discussion
is similar to that used for the F/M ratio.
The relationship between detention time and BOD removal efficiency during the
pilot plant study is detailed in Figure C-9 of Appendix C and is presented in the
following equation:
BOD5 rem. = 26.4 + 61.9 (DT) - 15.4 (DT)2 + 1.0 (DT)3 Equation 3
To develop the design criteria for detention time, a BOD removal efficiency of
89% was selected which was found to be the efficiency achieved when the F/M
ratio is 0.25 (see Equation 1). The above equation indicates that a detention time
of 1.5 days (36 hours) is needed for 89% BOD removal efficiency. By using the
derived equations presented in Figures C-10 through C-16 of Appendix C, a de-
tention time of 1.5 days would generate the following removal efficiencies for
the pilot plant operation:
37
-------
Parameter Removal Efficiency (%)
BODc 89
SS 5 74
COD 86
Grease and Oil 69
TKN 75
Ammonia 60
Ortho-phosphate 44
Total-phosphate 43
It is interesting to note that the removal efficiencies obtained from an F/M ratio
of 0.25 are quite similar to those generated from a detention time of 1.5 days.
Based on the above discussion, it is recommended that a detention time of 1.5
days be considered for design of biological treatment systems for salmon processing
waste waters.
EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
Similar to the F/M ratio and detention time exercises, the polynomial regression
method was used here to present the relationship between dissolved oxygen (DO)
content and treatment efficiencies during both full-scale and pilot plant study.
The relationships are detailed in Appendix B and Appendix C. The exercise was
inconclusive.
During the pilot plant study, the average DO content was 2.4 mg/1 with a standard
deviation of 1.5 mg/1. Considering practical operating limitations, it is felt that
a DO content of 2 ppm would assure both adequate dissolved oxygen and sufficient
mixing in the aeration chamber. Therefore, it is recommended that a DO content
of 2 ppm be used for design of treatment systems for salmon processing waste-
waters.
EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
In addition to the above discussions related to aeration chamber, it is essential
to consider overflow rate in the clarifier. Treatment efficiencies are controlled
by the operating conditions in both the aeration chamber and the clarifier.
For the development of overflow rate criteria, the pilot plant study results were
used. The effect of overflow rate on the removal efficiencies of BOD, SS, COD,
grease and oil, TKN, ammonia, ortho-phosphate and total-phosphate during the
pilot plant study are shown in Figures C-25, C-26, C-27, C-28, C-29, C-30, C-
31, C-32 of Appendix C, respectively. The relationship between overflow rate
and BOD removal efficiency is described in Equation 4:
BOD5 rem. = 111.5 - 0.2 (OR) + 2 x 10'4 (OR) 2 -1.6 x 10"7 (OR)3
Equation 4
38
-------
To be consistent with the findings of the previous analyses, a 1.5 day detention
time (corresponding to 89% BOD removal) was selected for the development of
overflow rate in the clarifier. According to the above equation, an overflow rate
of 0.062 liter/sec/m^ is needed for 89% BOD removal. Similarly, the removal
efficiencies of other parameter can be computed and are summarized as follows:
Parameter
BOD
SS
COD
Grease and Oil
TKN
Ammonia
Ortho-phosphate
Total-phosphate
Removal Efficiency %
89
82
92
81
80
68
60
33
The removal efficiencies shown above are similar to those obtained from the con-
sideration of F/M ratio, detention time and DO in the aeration chamber. Minor
differences are believed to be insignificant in the engineering^application. Thus,
it is recommended that an overflow rate of 0.062 liter/sec/m* be considered for
clarifier design.
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Effluent characteristics for both the full-scale plant and pilot plant were discussed
in Section VI and are summarized in Table 11. To further demonstrate the effluent
characteristics, BOD, SS, and grease and oil are plotted on probability paper.
The probability herein refers to the percentage measurement equal to or less
than the stated class mean of the measured parameter. As mentioned before,
only the pilot plant effluent will be discussed here.
Figure 15 indicates that 95% of the time the effluent BOD was about 0.86 kg/kkg
or less during pilot plant study. Figure 16 shows that 95% of the time the effluent
SS was about 0.6 kg/kkg or less during pilot plant study. Figure 17 reveals that
95% of the time the effluent grease and oil was 0.58 kg/kkg or less during pilot
plant study. The effluent characteristics in terms of BOD, SS, and grease and
oil during pilot plant study are summarized as follows:
Parameters
BOD (kg/kkg)
SS (kg/kkg)
Grease and Oil (kg/kkg)
•Obtained from Table 11
Average*
0.65
0.32
0.25
95%
Probability
0.86
0.60
0.58
39
-------
99.99
99.9
99
^-*
I-
in
{2 90
_J
g 80
° 70
_i 60
3 5°
u 40
* 30
CD
<
§
£
ZO
10
5
0.1
, . , i i i i i I ! L_
.5 I 23
BOD kg/kkg
Figure 15. Probability plot: Pilot plant effluent biochemical
oxygen demand mass emission rate for large salmon
processing.
40
-------
99.99
99.9
Figure 16. Probability plot: Pilot plant effluent suspended
solids mass emission rate for large salmon processing
41
-------
I
99.99
99.9
99
95
Ul
a 90
80
70
60
u 40
* 30
£ 20
=!
§ 10
CD
§ 5
a
0.1
i !
I I
I i I
.5 1
OIL & GREASE kg/kkg
Figure 17. Probability plot: Pilot plant effluent oil and grease
mass emission rate for large salmon processing.
42
-------
OXYGEN UPTAKE RATE
The oxygen uptake rate is an indicator for biological activity of mixed liquor sus-
pended solids in the aeration chamber. The oxygen uptake tests were conducted
in the field using YSI DO probe. During sampling days, about 1 liter of MLSS
was collected for DO measurement in the field. The sample DO were measured
at 0, 60 minutes. The oxygen uptake rate was computed by dividing the decrease
in oxygen by the elapsed time. The rate is expressed in terms of mg/l/hr.
An attempt was made to correlate oxygen uptake rate with F/M ratio. Figure 18
illustrates the general effect of F/M ratio on oxygen uptake rate. From the data
points shown in Figure 18, a strong correlation between two variables is not readily
apparent. It can be generally concluded that the oxygen uptake rate somewhat
increases with the increase in F/M ratio.
SLUDGE FILTERABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
Sludge disposal is an important factor in the operation of waste water treatment
systems. During the entire study, all sludge in the clarifier was recycled to the
aeration tank. To facilitate analytical work, a sludge filterability test was con-
ducted to indicate sludge dewatering characteristics. The apparatus for filterability
test includes vacuum pump, millipore membrane filter funnel and vacuum flash.
One hundred milliliters (100 ml) of sludge was filtered under a pressure of 1470
g/crr>2 for 80 minutes, and suspended solid concentrations were measured at 0,
20, 40, 60 and 80 minutes. To demonstrate the sludge filterability, an attempt
was made to compare the percent of suspended solids concentration increase to
that obtained from conventional activated sludge process while treating domestic
wastewater (1). The computations for the percent of suspended solids increase
are detailed in Appendix A. The following comparison demonstrated that sludge
filterability for the Skokomish Study was about 20% less than that for conventional
activated sludge.^
Filtering Average
Pressure Time Percentage of
(g/cm ) (Min) SS Increase
Skokomish Sludge 1470 20 391
Activated Sludge 350 20 115
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA
Based on the above discussion, the design criteria for an extended aeration system
treating salmon processing waste can be summarized in Table 13.
43
-------
iH
CT
LJ
<
Of
UJ
C3
X
o
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
F/M RATIO
Figure 18. Effect of F/M ratio on oxygen uptake rate.
44
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENDED
AERATION PROCESS TREATING SALMON PROCESSING WASTE
Parameters Design Criteria
Flow, liter/kkg:
Large Salmon processing 8,708
Small Salmon processing 14,630
BOD, kg/kkg:
Large Salmon processing 5.5
Small Salmon processing 11.5
SS, kg/kkg:
Large Salmon processing 2.5
Small Salmon processing 5.5
Grease and Oil, kg/kkg:
Large Salmon processing 5.2
Small Salmon processing 8.2
F/M ratio, day"1: 0-25
Detention Time, day: !«5
DO, ppm: 2.0
Clarifier overflow rate
liter/sec/m : 0.062
45
-------
SECTION 8
COST EVALUATION
Cost is an important factor for the evaluation of a treatment system. The costs
herein refer to construction cost and operation and maintenance cost.
CONSTRUCTION COST
The treatment system as shown in Figure 3 was constructed in 1974 to 1975.
The construction was divided into Schedule A and Schedule B. The bid prices
in August 1974, for both schedules are summarized as follows:
Items Bidding Price
Schedule A Pump Station, piping, $33,215
outfall and two aerobic
ponds and Diversion Box
Schedule B Extended Aeration $38,945
package plant
Total 1727160
The extended aeration system alone (without two aerobic ponds) was found
capable of meeting the recommended guidelines. The construction cost for the ex-
tended aeration treatment system (including package plant, pump station, piping and
outfall) was $62,510, based on ENR 1894. The construction cost is escalated to be
$104,326 based on ENR 3161 for July 1978.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
A comprehensive maintenance program is essential to consistently maintain an ade-
quate degree of treatment. Basically the maintenance required falls into one of two
categories: (1) preventive maintenance; and (2) corrective maintenance. Preventive
maintenance should be performed on a regular basis to maintain the equipment and
ensure satisfactory operation. Corrective maintenance will be required when equip-
ment has failed and is in need of repair.
46
-------
The manpower required to maintain and operate the extended aeration treatment
system was found to be approximately 1 man-hour for each working day. In other
words, 260 man-hours were needed per year. Power requirements for the system
were found to be an average of 25 KWH/day with a range of 8 to 122 KWH/day.
The computation of O&M costs are summarized below.
Labor: 260/365 x 1 x $8/m-hour = $5.70/day
Power Cost: 25 KWH/day x $0.03/KWH = $0.75/day
Total O&M cost = $6.45/day
TOTAL COST
To facilitate the cost evaluation, it is essential to amortize the construction cost
along with the O&M cost to develop the total cost per kkg of salmon processed.
For this study, the amortization period was selected at 20 years with a 7% interest
rate. The total cost (ENR 3161) for the extended aeration treatment system was
computed as follows:
Total cost = (104,326 x 0.09439 x 1/365) + $6.45/day = $33.43 /day
The computation of total cost per kkg of salmon processed was based on using
the design criteria developed from this study. According to recommended design
criteria of 1.5 days detention time, the full-scale extended aeration system is
capable of treating 50,540 liter/day of wastewater. The computations of total
cost per kkg of salmon processed are summarized as follows:
Large Small
Salmon Salmon
Liter/day of wastewater which
can be treated 50,540 50,540
kkg of salmon processed /,>,
per day 5.8u; 3.5
Total cost per day $33.43 $33.43
Total cost per kkg
of salmon processed $ 5.76 $ 9.55
Note: (1) Using recommended Design Criteria for large salmon
8,708 liter/kkg
(2) Using recommended Design Criteria for small salmon
14,630 liter/kkg
47
-------
REFERENCES
1. LIN, S. S. and LIAO, P. B. Evaluation of an extended aeration process
for salmon processing wastewater treatment. Presented at the PNPCA
Industrial Waste Conference, Seattle, Washington, October 28, 1976.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C. EFFLUENT
GUIDELINES DIV. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Fish Meal, Salmon,
Bottom Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring, and Abalone Segment
of the Canned and Preserved Fish and Seafood Processing Industry Point
Source Category. Final report. September, 1975.
3. RIDDLE, M. J. et al. An effluent study of a fresh water fish processing
plant. Water Pollution Control Directorate Reprint EPT G-WP-721, Canada,
1972.
4. STANDARD METHODS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF WATER AND WASTE-
WATER. American Public Health Association, 13th ED., 1971.
5. MANUAL OF METHODS FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER AND
WASTES U.S. EPA, Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C.,
1974.
6. METCALF & EDDY. Wastewater Engineering; Collection, Treatment
Disposal. McGraw-Hill Series in Water and Environmental Engineering,
1972.
7. SEKIKAWA, Y., et al. Release of soluble ortho-phosphate in the activated
sludge process. Kurita Central Laboratories, Yokohama, Japan.
8. McKINNEY, ROSS E. Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, 1962.
9. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMIN-
ISTRATION, ROBERT S. KERR WATER RESEARCH CENTER. Seafood
Wastewater, Westwego, Louisiana, April 1968.
10. SODERQUIST, M. R., et al. Current practice in seafood processing waste
treatment. Project 12Q6Q ECF of Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Quality Office, 1970.
48
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF SLUDGE FILTERABILITY TESTS
One hundred mllliliters (100ml) of the sludge was filtered under a pressure
of 21 psi (1470 g/cnr) for 80 minutes, and suspended solids concentrations
were measured at 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 minutes. The numbers in brackets are
the percentage increase in suspended solids from previous measurements of
solid content. The results are summarized on Table A-l.
An attempt was made to compare percents of SS increase for this study to
those Obtained from 0.063 liter/sec pilot plant with activated sludge pro-
cess. Table A-2 shows the percent of SS increase for the activated sludge
plant.
For a reasonable comparison, the percent of SS increase from 60 minutes to
80 minutes for extended aeration treatment system should be used. Solids
concentrations for the two sampling times for both studies were very similar.
49
-------
TABLE A-l
EXTENDED AERATION TREATMENT SYSTEM
RESULTS OF SLUDGE FILTERABILITY
SS mg/1
Date
11/18/75
11/21/75
11/26/75
12/02/75
12/05/75
12/12/75
1/16/76
1/23/76
1/30/76
2/05/76
3/5/76
3/15/76
4/28/76
5/4/76
5/6/76
5/13/76
5/18/76
5/20/76
6/15/76
10/5/76
10/11/76
10/15/76
10/22/76
10/25/76
11/2/76
11/5/76
9/29/77
10/16/77
11/2/77
0 min
950
1,050
1,100
850
1,950
2,050
1,200
1,300
1,400
850
2,300
2,300
2,400
2,900
3,000
3,255
3,500
3,275
5,220
2,233
2,350
2,467
2,100
1,750
2,367
2,250
2,100
2,250
2,150
1,
1,
1,
1,
2,
2,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4^
5,
7^
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
20 min
188(125)
364(130)
467(133)
581(186)
321(119)
628(128)
622(135)
625(125)
772(127)
062(125)
839(123)
949(128)
963(123)
754(163)
167(139)
173(128)
303(152)
366(133)
791(149)
207(188)
273(182)
950(200)
281(156)
537(149)
629(161)
917(139)
960(131)
905(135)
1,
1,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
1,
3,
3,
3,
6,
5,
7,
7,
8,
11,
15,
13,
2,
5,
3,
3,
40 min
727(145)
909(140)
075(141)
229(141)
959(127)
596(137)
500(154)
407(148)
592(146)
545(145)
538(125)
593(122)
809(128)
042(127)
454(131)
233(173)
447(140)
397(192)
863(152)
928(379)
823(323)
573( )
267(148)
688(129)
629(123)
359(115)
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
6,
4,
3,
5,
3,
4,
4,
5,
10,
7,
7,
14,
20,
74,
49,
70,
87,
13,
6,
6,
5,
5,
60 min
568(149)
387(177)
438(166)
432(154)
980(135)
212(173)
800(192)
714(154)
000(192)
400(220)
340(123)
600(128)
853(154)
357(171)
895(145)
750(107)
000(188)
468(244)
571(628)
400( )
000( )
500(3387)
882(264)
818(145)
363( )
113(141)
119(152)
80 min
5,
7,
6,
7,
5,
12,
30,
13,
96,
28,
6,
6,
8,
24,
17,
11,
29,
36,
277(205)
000(207)
875(200)
069
909(148)
058(194)
000(625)
000(350)
666(1933)
333(833)
252(144)
571(143)
511(146)
166(233)
647(223)
625(150)
166(208)
389(178)
100 min
31,
35,
36,
60,
10,
102,
9,
19,
15,
36,
37,
2,
43,
667(600)
000(500)
667(533)
920(850)
263(174)
500(850)
_
-
-
-
583(153)
166(292)
000(175)
250(150)
500(212)
959(255)
750(150)
Avg. (391)
50
-------
Date
6/17/71
6/18/71
6/19/71
6/21/71
6/22/71
6/23/71
6/24/71
6/25/71
6/26/71
6/27/71
6/29/71
TABLE A-2
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
RESULTS OF SLUDGE FILTERABILITY
Initial
4,460
4,360
3,690
6,380
9,720
3,540
8,100
6,000
5,200
9,680
4,020
SS mg/1
Final
4,560
5,300
4,100
7,240
10,760
3,780
9,220
7,020
7,540
11,220
4,780
Percent of Increase
in S.S.
102
122
111
113
111
107
114
117
145
112
119
Avg. 115
Notes: 1) Settled activated sludge from a 1 gpm pilot plant was used.
2) Two liters of sludge was filtered under a pressure of about 350 g/cnV
for 20 minutes.
51
-------
APPENDIX B
EFFECTS OF OPERATING CONDITIONS ON
TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES DURING FULL-SCALE PLANT OPERATION
The statistical analysis herein is to utilize the equation derived from poly-
nomial regression to demonstrate the relationship between two variables.
Polynomial regression is a statistical technique for finding the coefficients
bQ, b-|» D2 bm in the functional relationship of the form
Y - b0 + ^X + b2X2 + + bmXm
between a dependent variable Y and a single independent variable X. Powers
of an independent variable are generated to calculate polynomials of succes-
sively increasing degrees. For the discussion here, a polynomial regression
of degree of 3 is chosen.
The results during full-scale plant operations^are presented in Figures B-l
through Figure B-32. The conversion of gpd/ft is as follows:
1 gpd/ft2 = 4.73 x 10"4 liter/sec/m2
52
-------
100 t
t
LJ
q
q
CD
92
84
76
68
59
A
A A:
A A
A AA
A
A
A
A
0.0
0.05
0.12 0.18
F/M RATIO
0.25
0.31
F/M
B.O.O.
MEAN
0.044
89.657
STD.
DEV.
0.061
9.881
STD.
ERROR
0.013
2.060
MAX.
0.304
98.570
MIN.
0.002
62.025
RANGE
0.302
36.545
B.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. a 80.72 + 426.5(F/M) - 3503(F/M)2 * 7217.6(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN a 40 gpd/ftJ
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-l EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON B.O.D. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
53
-------
U
98
83
67
. 51
in
36
20
0.0
0.05
0.12 0.18
F/M RATIO
0.25
0.31
MEAN
0.044
70.470
STD.
DEV.
0.061
23.874
STD.
ERROR
0.013
4.978
MAX.
0.304
94.444
MIN.
0.002
24.000
RANGE
0.302
70.444
F/M
S. S.
S. S. REMOVAL EFF. = 85 - 509(F/M) + 1768(F/M)2 - 1832(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-2 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
54
-------
IUU •
93
fc 86 .
UJ
1
o- 79 •
q
72 .
65
A
A
A
A A
A A
JT
A A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
0.01
0.06
MEAN
F/M 0.044
COD 87.123
STD.
DEV.
0.061
8.27
0.12 0.19
F/M RATIO
STD.
ERROR MAX.
0.013
0.304
96.321
MUM.
0.002
66.792
0.25
RANGE
0.302
29.519
0.31
C.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. a 85.2 + 3.9 (F/M) + 1661 (F/Mr - 5259 (F/M)'
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 39 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-3 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON C.O.D. REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
55
-------
u.
u.
u
<
u
6
•a
_i
5
81
66
51
36
21
&A
.
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.00
0.06
0.12 0.18
F/M RATIO
0.25
0.31
STD.
DEV.
18.539
0.063
STD.
ERROR
4.046
0.014
MAX.
91.787
0.304
MINI.
25.000
0.002
RANGE
66.787
0.302
MEAN
O & G 74.372
F/M 0.047
OIL & GREASE REMOVAL EFF. = 88 - 704(F/M) + 7702(F/M)2 - 18,596(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ftr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-4 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON OIL & GREASE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
56
-------
100
93
A
A
A
A
AA
A A
75
A
A
66 .
A
A
57
0.004
TKN
F/M
0.6
MEAN
86.221
0.051
0.12
0.18
F/M RATIO
0.25
0.31
STD.
11.899
0.067
STD.
ERROR
2.805
0.016
MAX.
99.620
0.304
TKN REMOVAL EFT. = 80.5 + 558(F/M) - 9,728(F/M
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-5 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
57
-------
100
81
AA
A
A
A
_
LJ
61
A
A
2 42
i
+_i*
23 .
3.5
0.00
0.02
MEAN
NH* - N 69.477
F/M
0.030
0.04 0.06
F/M RATIO
0.07
0.09
STD.
PEV.
25.382
0.023
STD.
ERROR
6.554
0.006
MAX.
95.062
0.090
MIN.
8.333
0.002
RANGE
86.728
0.088
NH+ - N REMOVAL EFF. » 27.4 + 5,548(F/M) - 161,580(F/M)2 + 1,193,450(F/M)
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-6 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
58
-------
79
A
t
A A A.
6
31
16
A
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.12 0.18
F/M RATIO
0.25
0.31
STD.
DEV.
21.392
0.090
STD.
ERROR
6.765
0.029
MAX.
75.000
0.304
M1N.
3.750
0.002
RANGE
71.250
0.302
MEAN
ORTHO-P 51.916
F/M 0.057
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. » 53.5 + 215(F/M) - 6,249(F/M)2 * 18,123(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN » 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-7 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
59
-------
69 t
60 '
fa
50
<
32 •'
23
0.0
0.06
0.12 0.19
F/M RATIO
0.25
0.31
i
STD.
DEV.
15.872
0.112
STD.
ERROR
6.480
0.046
MAX.
66.667
0.304
MIN.
25.000
0.009
RANGE
41.667
0.295
MEAN
TOTAL-P 36.657
F/M 0.078
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 63 - 819(F/M) + 2286(F/M)2
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-8 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON TOTAL - PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
60
-------
100 +
<
92
84
Q 76
O
m
68 •
60
13.3
33.4
53.6 73.8
D.T. IN DAYS
94.0
114.2
MEAN
D.T. 39.462
8.O.D. 89.657
STD.
DEV.
21.195
9.881
STD.
ERROR
4.420
2.060
MAX. MDM.
111.111 16.461
98.570 62.025
2
B.O.O. REMOVAL EFF. = 102.7 - 0.582CDT) + O.OOS(DT)
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/ft'
STANDARD DEVIATION « 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-9 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON B.O.D. REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
61
-------
83
67
u.
UJ
^
£
in
to
y
t— •
A
36
20
A
13.3
A
A
33.5
i >
53.7 74.8
D.T. IN DAYS
94.0
>
114.2
D.T.
S.S.
MEAN
39.462
70.470
STD.
21.195
23.874
STD.
ERROR
4.420
4.978
MAX.
111.111
94.444
MIN.
16.461
24.000
RANGE
94.650
70.444
S.S. REMOVAL EFF. = 39.54 + 1.02(DT) - 0.0047CDT)
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ftZ
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-10 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
62
-------
100
93
t
UJ
*
A
A
Q
O*
d
A
72
A
65
13.3
A
33.5
MEAN
DT 39.462
COD 87.123
STD.
DEV.
21.195
.8.269
53.7 73.9
D.T. DM DAYS
STD.
ERROR
4.420
1.724
MAX.
111.111
98.390
MIN.
16.461
66.792
94.1
RANGE
94.650
31.598
114.3
C.O.D. REMOVAL EFF.
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN « 40 gpd/ft
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
96.26 - 0.448 (DT) * 0.0043
_
FIGURE B-ll EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON C.O.D. REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
63
-------
95
81
Cb
U
I
* 66
ta
V)
a.
M
o
51
36
21
A A A *
A A
A A
A A A
A A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
13 33 5^ 741 9*4 1141
D.T. IN DAYS
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MPM. RANGE
O & G 74.372 18.539 4.046 91.787 25.000 66.787
D.T. 37.179 19.562 4.269 111.111 16.461 94.650
OIL & GREASE REMOVAL EFF. = 139.4 - 5.KD.T.) * O.KD.T.)2 - 0006(D.T.)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN » 40 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-12 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON OIL & GREASE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
64
-------
100
it
u
93
A
A
it!
1
75
A
66
57
13
33
54 74
D.T. IN DAYS
114
TKN
DT
MEAN
86.221
37.300
STD.
DEV..
11.899
STD.
ERROR
2.805
5.000
MAX.
99.620
111.111
MIN.
59.524
16.461
RANGE
40.096
94.650
TKN REMOVAL EFF, » 115.6 - 1.6(DT)+0.02(DT)2 - O.OOC09(DT)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN - 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37
FIGURE B-13 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
65
-------
100
81
z
•f -408 * 29.6(D.T.) - 0.55CD.T.)2 + 0.003(D.T. )3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE 8-14 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
66
-------
79
H
3
63
47 •
31 . ,
16 , ,
22
40
59
MEAN
ORTMO-P 51.916
D.T. 45.524
STD.
DEV.
21.3*2
24.443
O.T.
STD.
6.765
7.7»
77
J DAYS
MAX.
75.000
111.111
96
M1N.
3.750
25.000
2
114
RANGE
71.250
86.111
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. « -142 * 1445(D.T.) - 0.3(D.T.)* + 0.002(D.T.)
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION » 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-15 EFFECT OF DETENTION TME ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
67
-------
69 t
60
. 50
u.
u.
UJ
41
<
O
32
23
30
36 42
D.T. IN DAYS
48
54
MEAN
TOTAL-P 36.657
D.T. 36.779
STD.
DEV.
15.872
9.565
STD.
ERROR
6.480
3.905
MAX.
66.667
52.632
M1N.
25.000
25.000
RANGE
41.667
27.632
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 1035 - 88.5(D.T.) + 2.5(D.T.)2 - 0.022(0.T.)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN * 40 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-16 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON TOTAL-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
68
-------
100 4
u.
u.
ui
q
q
03
92 .
76
68 .
60
A
A
1.1
3.0
MEAN
DO 6.909
BOO 89.657
STD.
DEV.
2.801
9.881
4.9
STD.
ERROR
0.584
2.060
6.7
O.O. ppm
MAX.
10.200
98.570
8.6
10.5
MIN. RANGE
1.400 8.800
62.025 36.545
B.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. * 95.46 - 0.965 (DO) + 0.0156 (DO)2
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/ft'
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-17 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON B.O.D. REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
69
-------
•7cf
33
U.' 67
b
4
1
£
oi
01
36 .
20
]
& A
A
A
A A AA
A
A A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
.1 3.0 4.9 6.7 8.6 10.5
D.O. ppito
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. M1N. RANGE
DO 6.090 2.801 0.584 10.200 1.400 8.800
SS 70.470 23.874 4.978 94.444 24.000 70.444
S.S. REMOVAL EFF. - 144.6 - 27.7 (DO) + 2.1
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-18 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
70
-------
u.
u.
LJ
q
q
u
IQO
93
86
79 ,.
72 .,
1.1
A
A A
A A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
3.0
MEAN
DO 6.909
COD 87.123
STD.
DEV.
2.801
8.269
4.9
STD.
ERROR
0.584
1.724
6.7
D.O. ppm
MAX.
10.200
98.390
MIN.
1.400
66.792
8.6
RANGE
8.800
31.598
C.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. = 100.5 - 4.58 (DO) + 0.33
,
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN
40 gpd/fr
10.5
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft
FIGURE B-19 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON C.O.D. REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
71
-------
95
A
A
A
81
LL.
Ld
U
a:
66 •
UJ
a
•8
a
51 ..
A
36 -
21
1.1
3.0
4.9 6.7
D.O. ppm
8.6
10.5
O & G
D.O.
MEAN
74.372
7.148
STD.
DEV.
18.539
2.792
STD.
ERROR
4.046
0.609
MAX.
91.787
10.200
MIN.
25.000
1.400
RANGE
67.787
8. BOO
OIL i GREASE REMOVAL EFT. = 54 + 28.9CDO) - 6.3CDO)2 + 0.4(DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ftZ
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE 6-20 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON OIL AND GREASE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
72
-------
100 +
93,
75
66
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
57
1.5 3.3
MEAN
TOTAL-P B6.221
D.O. 7.178
5.1 6.9
D.O. IN ppm
STD.
DEV.
11.899
2.536
STO.
ERROR
2.805
0.598
MAX.
99.620
10.200
8.7
MINI.
59.524
1.800
10.5
RANGE
40.096
8.400
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 45.3 + 30(D.O.) - 4.9(D.O.)2 + 0.23CD.O.)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ft
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-21 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
73
-------
100
81
61
L.
UJ
U
cc
42
23
A
i.l
3.0
4.9 6.7
D.O. ppm
8.6
10.5
MEAN
NH* - N 69.477
DO
7.160
STD.
DEV.
25.382
3.290
STD.
ERROR
6.554
0.850
MAX.
95.062
10.200
M1N.
8.333
1.400
RANGE
86.728
8.800
NH* - N REMOVAL EFF. = 61 + 10.4 (DO) - 1.4 (DO)2 + 0.03 (DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/ftz
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-22 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
74
-------
79
LJ
£
a
?
8
63
47
31
16
A
A
1.1 3.0 4.9 6.7 B.6
D.O. ppm
MEAN
ORTHO-P 51.916
DO 6.210
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. = -16 +53(DO) - 10(DO)2 + 0.6(DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 40 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
10.5
STD.
DEV.
21.392
3.649
STD.
ERROR
6.765
1.154
MAX.
75.000
10.200
MIN.
3.750
1.400
RANGE
71.250
8.800
FIGURE B-23 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE REMOVAI
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
75
-------
69 *
60
u.
u.
50
UJ
Qi
j 41
32
1.2 2.8 4.4 6.0 7.6 9.2
D.O. IN ppm
STD. STC
MEAN
TOTAL-P 36.657
D.O. 4.983
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = -66 +88.5(DO) -17CDO)2 + 0.92(DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 40 gpd/ft
STANDARD DEVIATION = 37 gpd/ft2
FIGURE B-24 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON TOTAL-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
76
-------
100
LL.
fc
q
q
CD
92 ,,
76
68
60
11.2
A
A
A
19.1
27.0
35.0
42.9
50.8
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/fr
STD.
DEV.
9.803
10.159
STD.
ERROR
2.139
2.217
MAX.
98.570
49.592
MINI.
62.025
12.398
RANGE
36.545
37.194
MEAN
BOD 90.199
OF RATE 27.537
B.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. = 104 - 1.9(OF RATE) + 0.07(OF RATE)2 - 0.0007 (OF RATE)'
FIGURE B-25 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
77
-------
98
A
A
83
A
67
L.
L_
£ 51
in
c/j
36
20
11.2
A A
A
A
A
19.1
27.0
35.0
42.9
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
MEAN
S.S. 68.667
OF RATE 27.537
STD.
STD.
ERROR
24.239
10.159
MAX.
94.444
49.592
MIN.
24.000
12.398
50.8
RANGE
70.444
37.194
S. S. REMOVAL EFF. s 225 - 18.8(OF RATE) + 0.67(OF RATE)2 - 0.007COF RATE)3
FIGURE B-26 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
78
-------
100 ^
"- DI
U. °7 ,
U
. 81
q
q
u
74
68
11.2
A
A
19.1
MEAN
COO 87.840
OF RATE 27.537
STD.
DEV.
7.253
10.159
A
27.0 35.0 42.9
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
STD.
ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
1.583 98.390 69.244 29.146
2.217 49.592 12.398 37.194
50.8
C.O.O. REMOVAL EFF. = 85 - 0.15 (OF RATE) + 0.01 (OF RATE)2 -0.0001 (OF RATE)3
FIGURE B-27 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
79
-------
95 +
81 .,
66
O
UJ
bJ r,
in 51
LJ
O
36 .
21
A
11.2
A A
A A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
19.1
27.0 35.0
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
STD.
ERROR MAX.
O & G 74.372 18.539 4.046
OF RATE 27.537 10.159 2.217
MIN.
91.787 25.000
49.5923 12.398
42.9
RANGE
66.787
37.194
50.8
OIL & GREASE REMOVAL EFF. = 192 - 13.6(OF RATE) + 0.5(OF RATE)2 - 01005(OF RATE)3
FIGURE B-28 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON OIL & GREASE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
80
-------
100 +
u.
u.
LJ
93 .,
75 ,A
66 •
57
11.2
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
19.1
27.0 35.0 42.9
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
MEAN
TKN 86.221
OF RATE 28.030
STD. STD.
DEV. ERROR MAX. MJN. RANGE
11.899 2.805 99.620 59.524 40.096
10,910 2.571 49.592 12.398 37.194
50.8
TKN REMOVAL EFF. = H7 - 6.4(OF RATE) + 0.3KOF RATE)2 - 0.004(OF RATE)3
FIGURE B-29 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
81
-------
100
81
_
L.
Ul
61
23
3.5
11.2
A
A
A A
A A
A
A
A
19.1
27.0
35.0
42.9
50.8
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/fr
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
STD.
ERROR MAX.
NH+-N 69.477 25.382 6.554
OF RATE 26.059
9.651 2.492
95.062
49.592
MIN.
8.333
12.398
NH* - N REMOVAL EFF. = 218 - 20.2COF RATE) + 0.8(OF RATE)2 - 0.01(OF RATE)3
FIGURE B'30 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
82
-------
79
63
A
A
47
A A
CL
s
g
31
16
0.0
15.6
21.5
27.4
33.2
39.1
45.0
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft*
STD.
DEV.
21.392
7.782
STD.
ERROR
6.765
2.461
MAX.,
75.000
44.082
MIN.
3.750
16.531
RANGE
71.250
27.551
MEAN
ORTHO-P 51.916
OF RATE 25.124
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. = 516 - 59.2(OF RATE) + 2.3COF RATE)2 - 0.03(OF RATE)3
FIGURE B-31 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
83
-------
69 +
50
Id
a:
a.
_i
41
32 ..
A
23
19.6
21.8
24.0
26.2
28.4
30.6
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/fr
MEAN
36.657
24.354
STD.
DEV.
15.872
3.745
STD.
ERROR
6.480
1.529
MAX.
66.667
30.306
MINI.
25.000
19.969
RANGE
41.667
10.338
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = -3277 «• 424.7COF RATE) - 18(OF RATE)2 + 0.25(OF RATE)3
FIGURE B-32 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON TOTAL PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR FULL SCALE PLANT
84
-------
APPENDIX C
EFFECTS OF OPERATING CONDITIONS ON
TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES DURING PILOT PLANT OPERATION
The statistical analysis herein is to utilize the equation derived from poly-
nomial regression to demonstrate the relationship between two variables.
Polynomial regression is a statistical technique for finding the coefficients
bQ, b-|, b2 bm in the functional relationship of the form
Y = b0 + b-,X + b2X2 + + bmXm
between a dependent variable Y and a single independent variable X. Powers
of an independent variable are generated to calculate polynomials of succes-
sively increasing degrees. For the discussion here, a polynomial regression
of degree of 3 is chosen.
The results during pilot plant operation are presented in Figures C-l through
Figure C-32. The conversion of gpd/ft2 is as follows:
1 gpd/ft2 = 4.73 x 10"4 liter/sec/m2
85
-------
96.4
95.9
95.4
q
q
CD
94.8
A
94.
93.7
0.01
0.02
MEAN
F/M 0.032
B.O.D. 94.639
0.03 0.04
F/M RATIO
0.05
0.06
STD.
DEV.
0.015
0.771
STD.
ERROR
0.005
0.273
MAX.
0.061
96.311
MIN.
0.016
93.845
RANGE
0.045
2.466
B.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. = 44.98 + 399(F/M) - 1099(F/M)2 + 813(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-l EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON B.O.D. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FOR PILOT PLANT
86
-------
u
99
98
96
95
94
93
0.0
0.02
0.03 0.04
F/M RATIO
0.05
0.06
F/M
S. S.
MEAN
0.287
68.296
STD.
DEV.
0.236
28.261
STD.
ERROR
0.046
5.543
MAX.
0.863
98.690
MIN.
0.037
7.895
RANGE
0.827
90.795
S. S. REMOVAL EFF. = 46 + 314(F/M) - 940(F/M)2 + 735(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE -
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-2 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
87
-------
98
93
u.
u.
UJ
<
UJ
or
q
q
u
89
84
80
75
0.01
F/M
C.O.D.
0.02
MEAN'
0.032
89.775
0.03 0.04
F/M RATIO
0.05
0.06
STD.
DEV.
0.015
7.583
STD.
ERROR
0.005
2.681
MAX.
0.061
96.804
C.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. = 49.6 + 28KF/M) -
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
M1N. RANGE
0.016 0.045
76.512 20.292
2'+ 522 (F/M)3
FIGURE C-3 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON C.O.D. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FOR PILOT PLANT
-------
100 t
A
A
82 "
LJ
LJ
o
•8
63
24
A
A
o.oi
0.18
0.36 0.54
F/M RATIO
0.71
0.89
O 4 G
F/M
MEAN
68.805
0.298
STD,
DEV.
21.264
0.239
STD.
ERROR
4.092
0.046
MAX.
96.248
0.863
MIN.
10.000
0.037
RANGE
86.248
0.827
O & G REMOVAL EFF. = 65 + 140(F/M) - 488(F/Mr * 374(F/MK
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-4 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON OIL AND GREASE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
89
-------
1UO •
85 .
68
CL,
DL.
Cd
a:
g 52
36 ,
20
(
A
A A A ^ A
A A
A A
A
AA A
A A
A
a, A
A
A
A
A
A
A
).01 0.18 0-36 0.54 0.71 0.89
F/M RATIO
STO. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
TKN 69.531 23.489 4.520 97.083 23.810 73.274
F/M 0.298 0.239 0.046 0.863 0.037 0.827
TKN REMOVAL EFF. « 49 + 233(F/M) - 595(F/M)^ + 422(F/M)"
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft*
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-5 EFFECT OF F/M ON TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
90
-------
78
t
ui
A
A
A
A A
A
A
y
48 •
33
A
18
o.o
0.18
0.36 0.54
F/M RATIO
0.71
0.89
MEAN
58.342
0.288
STD.
DEV.
19.404
0.248
STD.
ERROR
4.137
0.053
MAX.
89.091
0.863
MIN.
21.622
0.037
RANGE
67.469
0.827
NH; -N
F/M
NH* - N REMOVAL EFF. = 52.9 + 84.9(F/M) - 285(F/M)2 * 242(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft;
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft*
FIGURE C-6 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
91
-------
89
A
Ld
Q.
2
72
56
39
A
A A
22 •
A
A
A
0.2
0.13
0.24 0.36
F/M RATIO
0.47
0.58
MEAN
ORTHO-P 49.261
F/M 0.248
STD.
DEV.
22.487
0.167
STD.
ERROR
5.454
0.041
MAX.
84.687
0.565
MIN.
10.000
0.037
RANGE
74.687
0.528
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. = 36.3 + 520(F/M) - 2,635(F/M)2 + 3,147(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-7 EFFECT ON F/M RATIO ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
92
-------
79 t
64
AA
[b
U]
48
18 .
A
A
A
18
36
54
F/M RATIO
71
89
MEAN
40.199
0.247
STD.
DEV.
23.536
0'.232
STD.
ERROR
5.263
0.052
MAX.
75.000
0.863
MIN.
6.250
0.037
RANGE
68.750
0.827
F/M
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 39 + 28.2(F/M) - 109(F/M)2 + 96.3(F/M)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ftz
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-8 EFFECT OF F/M RATIO ON TOTAL-PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
93
-------
100
<
Q
O
CD
85
70
55
24
A
A
A
A
A
o.o
A
1.9
A
A AA
A
A
MEAN
DT 2.094
BOD 75.899
STD.
DEV.
2.073
21.416
3.8 5.7 7.6
D.T. IN DAYS
STD.
ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
0.407 9.188 0.305 8.883
4.200 96.311 27.941 68.370
9.5
BOD REMOVAL EFF. = 26.4 + 61.9 (DT) - 15.4 (DTr + 1.0 (DT)'
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft^
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft
FIGURE C-9 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON BOD REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
94
-------
100 t
b °
LJ
ct
in
i/i
23
A
o.o
1.9
3.8
5.7
7.6
9.5
MEAN
DT 2.121
SS 68.296
STD.
DEV.
2.055
28.261
D.T. IN DAYS
STD.
ERROR MAX.
0.403
5.543
9.188
98.690
M1N.
0.305
7.895
RANGE
8.883
90.795
S.S. REMOVAL EFF. = 16.2 + 54.4 (DT) - 11.5 (DT)2 * 0.7 (DT)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-10 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
95
-------
100
86
LL!
fa
> 72
2
£
Q
0
U 58
44
30
A A
A A
A A
A* ^
/W A
A
A
A
A
^
A
A
k
' 1 — 1 » ..
0.0
1.9
MEAN
DT 2.061
COD 74.564
STD.
DEV.
3.8 5.7
D.T. IN DAYS
STD.
ERROR MAX.
7.6
9.5
MIN. RANGE
2.040 0.393 9.188 0.305 8.883
18.099 3.483 96.804 33.562 63.242
COD REMOVAL EFF. a 31.3 + 55.8 (DT) - 14.4 (DT)2 + 1 (DT)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-ll EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON C.O.D. REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
96
-------
100
u.
L.
UJ
UJ
a:
bi
<
LI
82 •
63
43
24 ,,
o.o
1.9
3.8 5.7
D.T. IN DAYS
7.5
9.5
O & G
D.T.
Oil JL I"5C
MEAN
68.805
2.061
3C&CC DC-Put
STD.
DEV.
21.264
2.040
n\iAi cce
STD.
ERROR
4.092
0.393
_ CT ^ 1 O
MAX.
96.248
9.188
T/P>T\ i
MIN.
10.000
0.305
A^r>T\* i n
RANGE
86.248
8.883
n£fnT\J
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-12 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON OIL & GREASE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
97
-------
100 a,
A f
A
85
*» 40
A
A
68
20
AA
A
52
T A
36
A
A
°-° !•» 3-8 5.7 7.6 9.5
D.T. IN DAYS
TKN
D.T.
TVNI Rf
MEAN
69.531
2.061
•MnVAl FPf
STD.
DEV.
23.489
2.040
'. - •*! 7 j.
STD.
ERROR
4.520
0.393
Aicr> T >
MAX.
97.083
9.188
_ o ztri T
MIN.
23.810
0.305
^ . n Ktr\
RANGE
73.274
8.883
T ^3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ftz
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGMJRE C-13 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
98
-------
93
78
63
33
18
A
\
A
A
A
A
0.2 2.0
A
3.9 5.8
D.T. IN DAYS
7.6
9.5
STD.
DEV.
19.404
2.131
STO.
ERROR
4.137
0.454
MAX.
89.091
,9.188
MIN.
21.622
0.452
RANGE
67.469
8.736
MEAN
NH*-N 58.342
D.T. 2.385
NH*-N REMOVAL EFF. » 35 + 22.9(D.T.) - 4.9(D.T.)2 * 0.3(D.T.)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-14 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
99
-------
Id
o:
89 +
A
72 "
b 56
39 ..
22
A
A
AA
A
A
A
0.1
1.2
2.2 3.2
D.T. IN DAYS
4.2
5.3
MEAN
ORTHO-P 49.261
D.T. 2.131
STD.
DEV.
STD.
ERROR
22.487 5.454
1.560 0.378
ORTHO-PHOSPHATE REMOVAL EFF. = 53.5 - 8.5(DT) + 0.75CDT)2 t 0.33(DT)3
MAX.
84.687
5.119
MDM.
10.000
0.305
RANGE
74.687
4.814
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ff
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-15 EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
100
-------
64
u.
LL.
LJ
REMOVAL
§
a
i
5 »
18
2
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
A A
A &
A
A A
0.01 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 9.5
D.T. IN DAYS
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
TOTAL-P 40.199 23.536 5.263 75.000 6.250 68.750
D.T. 1.817 2.222 0.497 9.188 0.305 8.883
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 38.0 + 3.8(D.T.) - 0.065(0.T.)2 - 0.078(D.T.)3
OVERFLOW RATE -
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-16EFFECT OF DETENTION TIME ON TOTAL-PHOSPHATE
FOR PILOT PLANT
101
-------
100
85
u.
u.
u 70
_j
>
U
°! 55
q
m
39 .
24
(
A
&A A A!k A A
A
A
A A
A A A
A A
A A
AA
A
A
A
A
A
J-6 1.8 2.9 4.0 5.1 6.3
D.O. ppm
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
DO 2.881 1.550 0.304 6.100 0.800 5.300
BOD 75.899 21.416 4.200 96.311 27.941 68.370
BOD REMOVAL EFF. « 117 - 33.8 (DO) + 9.2 (DO)2 - 0.9 (DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-17 EFFECT OF D.O. ON B.O.D. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR
PILOT PLANT
102
-------
iUU
86
6 ».
i
u
ce
in
54 .
38
>
21
A
A
A A & A
& A $/*> vL
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A A
A
A A
A
D.6 1.8 2.9 4.0 5.1 6.3
D.O. ppm
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
DO 2.862 1.595 0.326 6.100 0.800 5.300
SS 73.027 23.736 4.845 98.690 25.373 73.317
S.S. REMOVAL EFF. = 116 - 30.8(D.O.) + 6.2CD.O.) - 0.4(D.O.)
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-18 EFFECT OF D.O. ON S.S. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FOR PILOT PLANT
103
-------
100
* — —
86
u!
UJ 72
_l
>
UJ
a:
Q 58
q
u
44
30
A A
A A
\A
A
Z& A A
A A ^
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
0.6
1.8
2.8 4.0
D.O. ppm
5.1
6.3
DO
COD
STD.
MEAN
2.833
74.564
STD.
DEV.
1.540
18.099
STD.
ERROR
0.296
3.483
MAX.
6.100
96.804
MIN.
0.800
33.562
RANGE
5.300
63.242
C.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. = 70.6 + 19.1 (DO) - 8.2 (DO)2 -f 0.8 (DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ft2
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-19 EFFECT OF D.O. ON C.O.D. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
FOR PILOT PLANT
104
-------
100
81
62
os
u
o!
O
24
A
A
A
A
A
A
A AA
A A
A
A
A
A
A
0.6
1.7
2.9 4.0
D.O. ppm
5.1
A
6.3
O & G
D.O.
MEAN
68.805
2.833
STD.
DEV.
21.264
1.540
STD.
ERROR
4.092
0.296
MAX.
96.248
6.100
MIN.
10.000
0.800
RANGE
86.248
5.300
OIL & GREASE REMOVAL EFF. = 95.7 - 21(D.O.) + 3.96(D.O.r - 0.19(D.C
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-20 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON OIL & GREASE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
105
-------
100 t/>
A
85
A
A
A
bl 68
Cb
W
52
A
A
A
36 •
A
20
0.6
1.8
2.9 4.0
O.O. ppm
5.1
6.3
TKN
D.O.
MEAN
69.531
2.833
STD.
PEV.
23.489
1.540
STD.
ERROR
4.520
0.296
MAX.
97.083
6.100
MIN.
23.810
0.800
RANGE
73.274
5.300
TKN REMOVAL EFF. = 103 - 27(D.O.) + 6.2CD.O.)2 - 0.5(D.O.)3
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-21EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
106
-------
u.
LJ
93 +
78 •
63
' 48
33
18
0.6
1.8
2.9 4.0
D.O. ppm
5.1
6.3
MEAN
58.342
2.627
STD.
DEV.
19.404
1.432
STD.
ERROR
4.137
0.305
MAX.
89.091
6.100
MIN.
21.622
0.800
RANGE
67.469
5.300
D.O.
NH* - N REMOVAL EFF. * 142 - 87.6(DO) + 27(DO)2 - 2.6(DO)3
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION * 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-22 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON AMMONIA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
107
-------
89
72
Id
56
Q.
SJ2 39
a:
o
22
A
A
A
A
0.6 1.7
A
A
2.7 3.7
D.O. ppm
4.7
A
5.8
MEAN
ORTHO-P 49.261
D.O. 2.553
STD.
DEV.
22.487
1.466
STD.
ERROR
5.454
0.356
MAX.
84.687
5.600
MIN.
10.000
0.800
RANGE
74.687
4.800
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. = 99.6 - 46.6CDO) + 10.3(DOr - 0.6(DO)'
OVERFLOW RATE ,
MEAN = 349 gpd/fr
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-23 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
108
-------
79
64
48
£
I
B*
P-
33
I
18
0.6
1.8
2.9
4.0
D.O. ppm
5.1
6.3
MEAN
TOTAL-P 40.199
D.O. 3.010
STD.
DEV.
23.536
1.697
STD.
ERROR
5.263
0.379
MAX.
75.000
6.100
MIN.
6.250
0.800
23
RANGE
68.750
5.300
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 57 - 14.3(D.O.) + 4.8(D.O.)- 0.6(D.O.)
OVERFLOW RATE
MEAN = 349 gpd/ftz
STANDARD DEVIATION = 203 gpd/ft2
FIGURE C-24 EFFECT OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON TOTAL-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
109
-------
100
1
85
70
55
50
25
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
90 249
MEAN
B.O.D. 77.198
OF RATE 372.783
407
565
OF RATE gpd/fr
STD.
DEV.
21.159
209.435
STD.
ERROR
3.999
39.579
MAX.
96.311
856.799
723
MIN.
27.941
115.200
886
RANGE
68.370
741.599
B.O.D. REMOVAL EFF. = 111.5 - 0.2(OF RATE) + 0.0002(OF RATE)2
- 1.6 X 10-7(OF RATE)3
FIGURE C-25 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
110
-------
100 <
83 H
£
« 63
5
03
W
43 ,
23 .
3
A
A
A A A
A A A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
90 249 407 565 723 882
OF RATE gpd/ft2
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
S.S. 69.777 27.740 5.242 98.690 7.895 90.795
OF RATE 375.654 209.600 39.611 856.799 115.200 741.599
S.S. REMOVAL EFF. « 82.2 - 0.002(OF RATE) - 6.6 x 10"5(OF RATE)2
FIGURE C-26 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON SUSPENDED SOLIDS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
in
-------
100
86
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A A
A
A
72
a
o
58
A
A
A
A
30
90 249
MEAN
COD 75.741
OF RATE 374.618
407 565
OF RATE gpd/ft2
STD.
DEV.
17.987
205.898
STD.
ERROR
3.340
38.234
MAX.
96.804
856.799
723
M[N.
33.562
115.200
882
RANGE
63.242
741.599
COD REMOVAL EFF. = 102 - O.KOF RATE) + 0.0002(OF RATE)2 - 1.2 x 10"7(OF RATE)3
FIGURE C-27 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
112
-------
100
u.
LU
kl
(n
<
2
a
•8
82
63 ..
24
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
249
MEAN
407 565
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
723
STD.
DEV.
STD.
ERROR
MAX.
MIN.
O & G 68.805 21.264 4.092 96.248 10.000
OF RATE 378.806 211.893 40.779 856.799 115.200
A
A
882
RANGE
86.248
741.599
OIL & GREASE REMOVAL EFF. = 96.2 - 0.14(OF RATE) + 1.5 x 10"4(OF RATE)2
- 2 x 10'8(OF RATE)3
FIGURE C-28 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON OIL AND GREASE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
113
-------
u
u
a:
100
85
6B
52
20
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A.
A
90 249
MEAN
TKN 69.531
OF RATE 378.806
407 565 723
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
STD.
DEV.
23.489
211.893
STD.
ERROR
4.520
40.779
MAX.
97.083
856.799
MPM.
23.810
115.200
A
A
882
RANGE
TKN REMOVAL EFF. = 163 - 0.64(OF RATE) + .3 x 10~*(OF RATE)2
- 8.2 x 10"7(OF RATE)3
FIGURE C-29 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
114
-------
93 +
78 ,.
u! 63
its
T
33
18
A
A
A A
A
A
94
231
369
506
644
782
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft
NH^-N
OF RATE
NH*-N RE
MEAN
58.342
321.226
^MOVAL a
STD. STD.
OEV. ERROR MAX.
19.404 4.137 89.091
158.765 33.849 760.319
FF_ = «£.? - D.l^fQF BATF^ * n
MINI. RANGE
21.622 67.469
115.200 645.119
.nrUWflTF f*ATF"»2
- 1.2 x 10'7(OF RATE)3
FIGURE C-30 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON AMMOMA REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PH.OT PLANT
115
-------
89
72
A
u_
fc 56
UJ
OL
A
A
A
A
A
O
h-
CC
O
A
A
22
90
A
249
MEAN
ORTHO-P 49.261
OF RATE 337.371
A
407
565
723
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/fr
STD.
DEV.
22.487
217.594
STD.
ERROR
5.454
52.774
MAX.
84.687
856.799
MUM.
10.000
115.200
882
RANGE
74.687
741.599
ORTHO-P REMOVAL EFF. = 95.3 - 0.4(OF RATE) + 9.5 x 10'4(OF RATE)2
- 6.3 x 10"7(OF RATE)3
FIGURE C-31 EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON ORTHO-PHOSPHATE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
116
-------
/ 7
64
ul
u 48
1
JJ 33
0
18 ,
2
A
A A
A A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
?0 249 407 565 723 882
OVERFLOW RATE gpd/ft2
STD. STD.
MEAN DEV. ERROR MAX. MIN. RANGE
TOTAL-P 40.199 23.536 5.263 75.000 6.250 68.750
OF RATE 414.186 235.131 52.577 856.799 115.200 741.599
TOTAL-P REMOVAL EFF. = 24.6 + 0.064(OF RATE) - 1.1 x 10"5(OF RATE)2
FIGURE C-32EFFECT OF OVERFLOW RATE ON TOTAL PHOSPHATE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY FOR PILOT PLANT
117
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-027
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of an Extended Aeration Process for
Skokomish Salmon Processing Wastewater Treatment
5. REPORT DATE
January 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
S.S. Lin and P.B. Liao
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, Inc.
Seattle, Washington 98101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-803911
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab« - cinn, OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING A(
NG AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The project evaluated (full-scale) an extended aeration biological treatment system
on salmon processing wastewater. During the first years evaluation the detention time
in the aeration basin averaged 17 days (range 3 to 49 days). This was due to the
plant processing significantly less salmon than anticipated. The BOD removal averaged
over 90 percent (effluent about 50 mg/1).
A smaller aeration tank and settling tank were designed and installed to evaluate
shorter and more reasonable detention times. The detention time in this system ranged
from 0.3 to 9.2 days and averaged 4.4 days. BOD removal averaged about 80 percent.
The effluent BOD and SS concentrations averaged 128 and 86 mg/1, respectively.
The economic evaluation indicated the total treatment costs per kkg of large and
small salmon processed were $5.76 and $9.55, respectively.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Activated sludge process, Salmon, Process-
ing, Wastewater, Economic Analysis
Waste characterization
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
128
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
118
GOmC£;l»79-657-060/1583
------- |