EPA-R2-73-248
IAV «oio Environmental Protection Technology Series
MAY
Anaerobic-Aerobic Treatment
of Textile Wastes
with Activated Carbon
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
-------
ANAEROBIC-AEROBIC TREATMENT OF
TEXTILE WASTES WITH ACTIVATED CARBON
By
Calvin P. C. Poon
Philip P. Virgadamo
Project 12090 EQO
Project Officer
Donald R. Smith
New England Basins Office, EPA
240 Highland Avenue
Needham Heights, Massachusetts 02194
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
EPA-R2-73-248
May 1973
For sale by tlio Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Offlco, Washington, D.C. 20403
Price $2.88 domestic postpaid or $2.50 OPO Bookstore
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The operation of an anaerobic-aerobic bio-oxidation treat-
ment system utilizing activated carbon was studied for
24 months at Palisades Industries, Peace Dale, Rhode
Island. Biological oxidation and conversion of soluble
organic waste constituents took place in the aerated
basin operated as a mixed dispersed growth reactor
without return sludge. Washed out solids from the
aeration basin were filtered by a parallel set of activated
carbon columns- The entrapped solids were then hydrol-
ized when these columns were regenerated in place
anaerobically. A second parallel set of carbon columns
provided for additional removal of solids and soluble
organics. However, the biological regeneration in
these columns was carried out aerobically.
Both the Laboratory and the large scale Pilot Plant exper-
iments revealed 1) good color removal; 2) oxidation of
organic chemicals fed to the system; 3) major reduction
in BOD and COD in the waste effluent stream ; and 4)
continued biological regeneration of the activated carbon;
and 5) high degree of removal of suspended solids without
conventional mechanical equipment.
This study has clearly demonstrated that waste streams
from a typical cloth dyeing and finishing operation can be
effectively treated using activated carbon coupled with
biological regeneration. The prime advantages to this
system are a result of the catalytic effect rendered by
the activated carbon on difficult to degrade organic mole-
cules and the small space requirements in respect to
conventional treatment systems for an equivalent degree
of treatment.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of a Research
and Development Grant Number 12090 EQO between the
Office of Research and Monitoring of the Environmental
Protection Agency and Palisades Industries, Inc.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 9
IV DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
OF FACILITIES 19
V PRELIMINARY STUDY 41
VI OPERATION OF PROJECT 53
VII EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS 61
VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 103
IX REFERENCES 105
X APPENDICES 107
APPENDIX A 109
APPENDIX B 247
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Treatment Plant Process 13
2 Molecular Weight vs. Adsorption 14
3 Hydrolysis by Activated Carbon 16
4 Wastewater Treatment System 17
5 Plan - Unit I 21
6 Layout - Units II & III 24
7 Photograph - Units II & III 26
8 Unit II 28
9 Unit III 32
10 Photograph - Unit III 34
11 Control- Wiring Schematic 36
12 Photograph - Control Panel 38
13 Effluent Profile 44
14 Composite Effluent Profile 45
15 Equilibrium Isotherm 47
16 Equilibrium Isotherm 48
17 Equilibrium Isotherm 49
18 Equilibrium Isotherm 50
VI
-------
FIGURES (cont.)
No. Page
19 Fluid Phase Transfer 51
20 Project Schedule 54
21 Removal of TOG 69
22 COD and MLVSS vs. Time 71
23 Specific Growth Rate 72
24 Treatment Efficiency - Unit II 73
25 Organic and Inorganic Carbon vs. Time 75
26 Effect of Anaerobic Regeneration 76
27 Aerobic Regeneration Operation 78
28 Organic Removal Efficiency 80
29 Performance - Unit II 86
VII
-------
TABLES
No- Page
1 Performance 5
2 Projected Performance 6
3 Design Capacities 39
4 Sample Analysis 43
5 Performance - Unit I 64
6 Performance - Unit I - COD 66
7 Performance - Unit I - Soluble COD 67
8 Performance - Unit I - BOD 68
9 Performance - Unit II 82
10 Performance During Startup 89
11 Performance Data - Leg A 91
12 Performance Data - Leg B 94
13 Performance Analysis - Unit II 99
Vlll
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Operation of an anaerobic-aerobic bio-oxidation treatment system
designed to provide secondary and tertiary treatment of highly
concentrated textile wastes was studied at Palisades Industries.
The following conclusions have been reached, based on the results
of the study presented in this report:
1) Removal of organic matter by activated carbon adsorption fol-
lowed by anaerobic regeneration in place is feasible. Under the
testing conditions in full scale, anaerobic regeneration is capable
of restoring carbon adsorption capacity to 1.0 - 1.6 pounds total
COD/day/100 pounds carbon. This capacity is equivalent or
nearly equivalent to the equilibrium adsorption of the carbon.
2) BOD removal was accomplished by conversion of soluble
organic material into insoluble biomass in the aeration stage
(Unit I). These biosolids are then entrapped in the anaerobic
carbon bed of Unit II and hydrolyzed by anaerobic decomposition
during the regeneration cycle. Those soluble organic compounds
passing through Unit II were adsorbed in the second stage carbon
bed of Unit III and decomposed by aerobic means during regeneration,
3) The waste stream had to be supplemented with 0. 5 pounds of
NH^Cl per 100 gals, to maintain a sufficient biomass in Unit I.
4) Analyses of heavy metal contents in the, Palisades wastewater
were below 1. 0 mg/1. Due to the washout rate in Unit I and the
inherent buffering capacity of the activated carbon in Units II and
III, the biosystem was not inhibited at this concentration.
5) There was little or no volatile acid accumulation in the system,
indicating a sufficient buffering capacity of the system.
6) Volatile suspended solids removal by the adsorption-anaerobic
regeneration unit averaged, during each treatment cycle, 47. 5%
of MLVSS or 23.6 pounds of MLVSS/6 hour treatment cycle.
-------
7) Under normal flow (75, 000 gpd), the equalization basin was
able to remove approximately 50% of BOD of the Palisades
wastewater. If a biological solids return system is provided,
it is anticipated that 85% BOD can be removed by this visit.
8) A long regeneration period assured good recovery of the
carbon adsorption capacity. The length of regeneration period
should be 2. 6 times that of a treatment period in order to bring
21% to 31% total COD removal.
9) Good removal of the solid or dissolved organics in the equali-
zation basin reduces the possibility of the activated carbon columns
becoming overloaded and therefore assures a better performance
of the overall system.
10) Average BOD removal for the activated carbon columns with
anaerobic regeneration was 24%, and for the activated carbon
columns with aerobic regeneration was 18%. The total average
BOD removal for the entire system was greater than 65. 5%
as shown in Table 1, Section I.
11) Color removal appeared to be good; however, this was based
on visual observations only.
12) A combined treatment system for highly concentrated textile
dyewastes can be constructed and operated at substantial savings
compared to an unmodified carbon or biological treatment system.
13) The anaerobic-aerobic bio-oxidation system with activated
carbon utilizes less space (2, 700 square feet) than an equivalent
conventional biological treatment system.
14) Post chlorination is a good practice for odor control, disin-
fection and further color removal. A residual free available
chlorine of 0. 5 ppm after a contact time of 20 minutes should be
maintained in the effluent.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Analysis of the data obtained indicates several areas where design mod-
ifications or further operation studies would be desirable.
UNIT I (EQUALIZATION BASIN)
Given a long period of retention time in the aeration tank, a large portion
of the organics can be oxidized. It is recommended that a 50% expan-
sion of the existing aeration tank be provided for this purpose. A
larger aeration tank can also equalize the organic load better so that
a more steady performance can be expected. Because of the resistant
nature of the dye wastes, a well-acclimated biological culture is essen-
tial for the successful oxidation. Operating the aeration tank as a dis-
persed-growth biological reactor in this project proved to be only par-
tially successful. Washout of biological solids from the aeration tank
occurred repeatedly because only an extremely low biological solids
concentration could be maintained which was easily upset by fluctua-
tions of hydraulic and organic loadings. It is of the utmost importance
to provide sludge return facilities in the system. The facilities should
include an adequate settling chamber (surface settling rate of approxi-
mately 500 gpm/sf) and sludge return pumps which can handle a re-
turned flow as much as 50% of the influent flow. With these modifica-
tions of the aeration tank, it is anticipated that an 85% BOD or 75%
TOC removal can be achieved. Consequently, the capacity of Unit II
or Unit III need not be vastly expanded for residual organic removal.
UNIT II (ACTIVATED CARBON WITH ANAEROBIC REGENERATION)
Two changes should be made on Unit II. First, the feed pump presently
used feeds Unit II at a rate of 150 gpm which is proven too high. It is
recommended that a 50 gpm pumping rate (approximately equivalent
to the average daily flow rate of Palisades waste of 75, 000 gpd) be
used with continuous operation. When the influent flow increases, a
higher pumping rate can be used. Secondly, a third carbon vessel
of the same capacity of the existing ones should be added. This will
allow one vessel of Unit II to be on stream while the other two vessels
are in regeneration. This in effect provides two-day regeneration for
one day treatment, a ratio which was found essential for successful an-
aerobic regeneration of the carbon adsorption capacity.
-------
It should be noter chat in Table 2 a higher percentage of organic
removal is expected of Unit II. In reality, the weight of organic
matter removed is approximately equivalent to that of the actual
amount of removal by the existing system based on test data.
For example, the expected TOC removal in Unit II (Table 2) is
50% of the remaining TOC from Unit I. Since Unit I is expected to
remove 75% TOC, Unit II therefore is expected to remove 12.5%
of the total amount of TOC in the influent. Tested data showed
(Table 1} that Unit II removed 15.5% to 26. 0% of the remaining TOC
from Unit I or a net removal of 10.8 - 15.0% of the influent TOC.
The expected removal is therefore nearly equal. The same argu-
ment applies to BOD removal. The expected BOD removal of 50%
constitutes a net 7. 5% influent BOD removal while project data
showed a net 12% removal was obtained for Unit II. With a more
steady and lower feed rate, it is expected that Unit II can achieve
the expected goal of organic removal without difficulty.
UNIT III (ACTIVATED CARBON COLUMNS WITH AEROBIC
REGENERATION)
Similar to the change in Unit II, it is recommended that Unit III
capacity should be expanded by 50% by adding two new columns.
As a result, the Unit can be operated on a two-day regeneration to
one-day treatment basis. Again, the expected performance of Unit
III is reasonable when it is compared to the actual performance on
the basis of percentage of net removal of influent organic.
Based on the expected performance from Table 2, effluent BOD at
75, 000 gpd average flow is 28. 0 mg/1. At a maximum flow of
125, 000 gpd, the effluent BOD will be 70 mg/1 which is less than
desirable. At the present time, the Palisades Industries' schedule
seldom generates a wastewater flow equivalent to the maximum
125, 000 gpd flow rate.
FUTURE STUDIES
The data collected in an anaerobic filter study (Section VI) had to be
discontinued because of difficulties of pressure buildup. There seems
to be little advantage in using activated carbon as the filter medium in
the anaerobic filter because the mechanism of organic removal does not
rely on adsorption followed by regeneration. Coarse medium such as
gravel or synthetic medium such as Dowpac could be used. The larger
void space will allow more biological growth without creating a plugg-
-------
TABLE 1
PERFORMANCE OF PALISADES TREATMENT SYSTEM
Detention % Soluble % Soluble % BOD Regeneration per
Time TOC Reduction COD Reduction Reduction Treatment cycle
Unit I 75, 000 gpd
or lower 27.3-42.0 26.6-40.0 44.6-56.4
100,000 gpd
or above 10.6 13.2 18.9
Unit II* 216, 000 gpd
(150 gpm) 10 min. 15.5-26.0 15.0-30.7 24.0 1.2-2.6
intermittenly
Unit III* 216, 000 gpd
(150 gpm) 7.0 min. 23.7 28.4 18.0 2.4
intermittenly
Total 75, 000 gpd
or lower 53.2-67.3 54.6-70.2 65.5-72.8
(of Unit I flow)
100, 000 gpd
or above 42.4-49.5 47.1-56.9 49-4
(of Unit I flow)
* Data of Unit II and Unit II on poorly performing days due to solid washout,
poor aeration, short regeneration cycle, etc. were not included.
-------
TAr-L.E 2
PROJECTED PERFORMANCE OF PALISADES TREATMENT
SYSTEM WITH RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION
Unit
Unit I
Unit II
Flow
75, 000 gpd
125, 000 gpd
75, 000 gpd
125. 000 gpd
Unit III
75. 000 gpd
125, 000 gpd
Recommended changes
Size of aeration tank in-
creased 50%, settling cham-
ber (wet well).
Size increased 400% with
provision of sludge return.
Add one new column and in-
crease the amount of activated
carbon to 9000 pounds in each
column.
Feed pump at continuous rate
of 75000 gpd to 125000 gpd.
Regeneration to treatment
period ratio =2/1.
Add two new columns and in-
crease the amount of activated
carbon to 4000 pounds in each
column.
Feed pump rate identical to
Unit U. Regeneration treat-
ment period ratio - 2/1.
Total
75, 000 gpd (average flow)
125, 000 gpd (max. flow)
Expected
Effluent 75, 000 gpd
Concentration 125, 000 gpd
(Based on influent cone. TOC = 600 mg/1
Total COD= 1800 mg/1
BOD = 500 mg/1)
Percent Reduction
TOC Total COD BOD
75
70
50
45
25
20
90.6
86. 8
60
55
60
50
50
45
92
78.5
85
75
50
35
25
20
94.4
86.0
TOC Total COD BOD
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
54.0 144.0 28.0
79.0 207.0 70.0
-------
ing problem which forced the termination of the testing in this
present work. The unit has a high potential in dye waste treatment
and is worth further study.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
POLLUTION FEATURES OF TEXTILE PROCESSING WASTES
Textile processing wastes provide a multidimensional problem that may
affect the receiving stream. Not only does the amount of pollutants
vary, but the typesof pollutant also vary.
Organic substances in textile waste such as dyes, starches, and deter-
gents undergo chemical and biological changes which consume dis-
solved oxygen from the receiving water. Such organic substances
should be removed to prevent septic or low dissolved oxygen condi-
tions and obnoxious odors, and to avoid rendering the receiving water
unsuitable for municipal, industrial, agricultural, residential and
recreational use.
The presence of inorganic salts in high concentration may make the
receiving water unsuitable for most industrial and municipal uses,
and may cause corrosion on boats and other marine structures.
Foaming from detergents and colors from dyes, although non toxic
in low concentrations, are esthetically objectionable, particularly in
drinking and recreational waters. Certain carrier chemicals used in
dyeing, such as phenols, add to tastes and odors. Metal toxicity from
chromium and zinc can be harmful to aquatic life if it does occur.
Nitrogen and phosphates from dyes may cause eutrophication problems
in receiving waters. In many instances, even the pH of the textile dye-
ing and finishing wastes could cause problems in the receiving stream
by upsetting the ecosystem.
Thermal wastes, such as cooling waters, may reduce the amount of
oxygen by increasing the consumption of oxygen in the receiving water.
The problem of oxygen deficient water can thus be intensified. Also,
thermal waste is detrimental to cool water loving species of aquatic
life. Perhaps more important to aquatic life is an increase of toxicity
due to the fluctuation of temperature caused by the periodic discharge
of cooling water into the receiving stream. As a result sensitive
organisms would be eliminated causing an inbalance in the biological
community.
-------
TREATMENT OF TEXTILE PROCESSING WASTES
Due to the great variation of waste characteristics from the textile
dyeing and finishing industry, which depends on the material processed,
equipment used, type of operation and housekeeping practices, numer-
ous treatment methods have been used for pollution control. Treatment
methods such as equalization, neutralization, coagulation, chlorinalion,
bio-oxidation and carbon adsorption are employed in various combina-
tions by textile industries. Each industry must study its own waste
problems to obtain the best treatment at the lowest cost. To achieve
this, utilization of an on-site pilot or an extensive laboratory study
should be used.
Of all the pollutants in textile waste, those most abundant and objec-
tionable are organic substances and color. The removal of these
pollutants usually determines the major treatment process. The
method used in a biological treatment system consists of units to pro-
vide long retention periods of aeration allowing the heavy concentrations
of micro-organism to consume the material in the waste. One state
regulatory agency reports that eighty percent of all plants currently
being constructed are based on aeration methods (biological treatment
systems).
Although a biological treatment process provides an economical approach
for treatment of textile wastes, a considerable amount of biological
resistant material usually exists in textile waste effluent which renders
the process ineffective. A carbon adsorption process can remove bio-
logically resistant material and color residue from the effluent because
of its affinity to adsorb soluble organic molecules. The major con-
sideration for a carbon adsorption system is that the carbon must be
regenerated to prolong its life and thereby reduce treatment costs.
Thus at a high level of concentration, the process becomes uneconomical
because of the frequency of regeneration. Usually carbon adsorption
does not apply to treatment of organic concentration much higher than
ZOOppm.
The feasibility of regenerating carbon in place by biological means
constitutes the major part of this demonstration project. A biological
treatment system followed by carbon adsorption using biological re-
generation appears to be useful for treating high concentration organic
wastes at significantly lower costs and reduced land area requirements.
10
-------
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Conventional waste treatment approaches require utilization of land
which is not readily available to textile plants and often the costs im-
part too large an economic burden. The principal objective of this
project was to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment system in-
volving bio-oxidation and carbon adsorption for highly concentrated
textile dyeing and finishing wastes as both economical and compact.
The non-conventional treatment process proposed was a compact sys-
tem occupying no more than 2, 700 square feet. It would comprise of
1) an aerated equalization basin capable of holding 50, 000 gallons;
2) a novel anaerobic-aerobic oxidation unit incorporating activated car-
bon which would rapidly convert organic suspended solids into soluble
components and 3) an activated carbon unit which would polish the
effluent to a low BOD level, reduce color and suspended solids to a
negligible level and impart a 2 to 4 mg/1 dissolved oxygen level to the
final effluent river discharge.
Palisades Industries of Peacedale, Rhode Island is a commission dyer
and finisher of synthetic and synthetic-cotton blend fabric. Because of
their use of modern enclosed dye jigs and finishing machines, their dye-
ing and finishing liquor is highly concentrated. The resultant effluent
discharge results in an overload of organic pollutants. It would be im-
practical to utilize biological treatment only, for many of the pollutants
are biologically resistant to further degradation. Likewise, an unmodi-
fied carbon adsorption treatment system would not be effective because
the high concentration of organic substances would tend to plug the car-
bon filter prematurely by using up the adsorption capacity jof the activa-
ted carbon which requires biological regeneration on an uneconomically
high frequency.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The Fram Corporation of East Providence, Rhode Island designed a new
system of aerobic-anaerobic bio-oxidation utilizing activated carbon
that effectively dealt with the problems inherent in the present types of
treatment processes. The biological oxidation process took place in an
aerated equalization basin operated as a completely mixed, dispersed
growth reactor. Activated carbon columns filter the biological solids
and remove some soluble organics. The columns are regenerated in
place anaerobically. A second set of carbon columns are provided for
additional removal of solids and soluble organics. The biological re-
generation in these columns, however, is carried out aerobically.
11
-------
Fram applied this concept with carbon columns using aerobic regenera-
tion in the treatment of textile dyeing and finishing wastes in Rhode Island
and Massachusetts. Figure 1 shows the flow chart of the described
process. The dyehouse effluent enters the dispersed phase reactor
which serves as an equalization tank as well as an aeration tank in which
a major reduction of BOD and partial color removal are obtained by
biological oxidation. The effluent from the dispersed phase reactor
then passes in series through either one of the two carbon systems each
containing two columns charged with granulated activated carbon. These
columns adsorb the remaining BOD and color in soluble form as well as
filter out suspended matter by means of a rapid rate depth bed filtration
mechanism. One system is put on stream for treatment while the
second one undergoes biological regeneration. Biological regeneration
is accomplished by contacting the columns with the effluent of a second
reactor wherein a viable micro-organism seed culture is maintained.
Biological degradation takes place to remove the organic matter which
was adsorbed by the carbon. When sufficiently regenerated, the carbon
system so regenerated is switched back on stream, and the other carbon
system subsequently goes onto biological regeneration. This system is
designed to handle lower organic concentration and low suspended solids
wastes.
To widen the application of this process to strong industrial wastes,
the anaerobic-aerobic bio-oxidation process utilizing activated carbon
was developed by Fram to handle large slugs of suspended and soluble
organic solids. Numerous reactions including physical, chemical and
biological take place in the carbon columns during the treatment and
regeneration cycles in an aerobic or anaerobic condition. The com-
plexity of reactions and interactions is beyond comprehension at this
time. Only a simplified version of what takes place is discussed in the
following.
THEORY
The steps in carbon adsorption process are: 1) transport of the solute
from the solution to the exterior surface of the carbon; 2) transport of
the solute through the pores of the carbon; and, 3) the adsorption of the
solute onto the solid. In general, the adsorption rate is controlled by
the rate of diffusion of solute within the adsorbent particles. In addition
to adsorption rate, the adsorption capacity is also of great importance.
A general effect of molecular weight of solute on the rate and capacity
of adsorption is presented in Figure 2.
12
-------
BIOLOGICAL
REACTOR
AIR
SUPPLY
AEROBIC
BIOLOGICAL
PUMP
DYE-
HOUSE
EFFLUENT
»^
PUMP
SWITCH
FIGURE I
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS
AEROBIC REGENERATION FLOW CHART
TO CARBON
ADSORPTION
COLUMNS DURING
BIOLOGICAL
REGENERATION
!
| CARBON ADSORPTION I
SYSTEM #1 |
I n__ri i
CARBON ADSORPTION J
' SYSTEM #2 I
| I
TO
STREAM
-------
H
t-H
u
t
<
u
o
I— I
H
PH
&
O
to
Q
1
W
H
o
1—4
H
OH
PCJ
O
w
Q
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
FIGURE 2
EFFECT OF MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF SOLUTE
ON THE RATE AND CAPACITY OF ADSORPTION
14
-------
While this relationship does not necessarily hold true for all solutes,
it is true for organic substance removal from raw wastewater and
biological treatment effluent. Zuckerman and Molof found that both
the activated sludge process and the carbon adsorption process re-
moved organic molecules primarily having a molecular weight below
450. The increased degree of activated sludge treatment, causing a
shift to soluble material larger than 1200 molecular weight, therefore
reduced the adsorption removal by carbon. By using a chemical
hydrolysis process such as lime treatment, most of the large molecu-
lar weight organics could be hydrolyzed into small molecular weight
material below 450. Activated carbon adsorption could complete the
removal of these remaining substances. The hydrolysis therefore
prepared the activated sludge effluent for a more efficient adsorption
by activated carbon. As a result, the effluent quality was better than
that of a conventional tertiary treatment process without hydrolysis.
This hydrolysis effect is presented in Figure 3 showing the treatment
of a wastewater having 1 - 1200 molecular weight distribution of the
organic substances.
The Palisades Industries treatment system designed by Fram Corpora-
tion has the following unique features: 1) instead of using a prolonged
aeration or extended aeration biological treatment, carbon adsorption
is used while the state of the effluent is changed to anaerobic and then
back to aerobic for easier bio-oxidation at successive regeneration
stages; 2) high degree removal of non fiber suspended solids can be
accomplished without the mechanical equipment that is required for
solids separation and sludge disposal associated with conventional
treatment plants; and, 3) the whole system is compact in that it re-
quires less than 2700 square feet of floor space. A conventional acti-
vated sludge system to treat the Palisades wastewater, including
sludge disposal would require roughly five to seven times as much
floor space and more mechanical equipment for the operation.
Laboratory and pilot plant column experiments with synthetic waste-
water with various dyestuffs and chemicals typical of the dyeing and
finishing materials used by textile industries have shown 1) good
color removal, 2) oxidation of organic chemicals fed to the system,
3) major reductions in BOD and COD in the waste effluent stream, and
4) continued biological regeneration of the activated carbon in situ.
In order to facilitate description of the process, a schematic diagram
is shown identifying all units in the treatment system in Figure 4.
A detailed discussion will be presented in Section I .
15
-------
CONVENTIONAL
TERTIARY TREATMENT
TERTIARY TREATMENT
WITH HYDROLYSIS
oc
s
Q
O
u
Raw Wastewater
Raw Wastewater
A
to
s
Q
O
U
Q
O
U
Activated Sludge Effluent
No Treatment
Activated Sludge Effluent
Chemical Effluent
(Hydrolysis)
tio
s
Q
O
U
_ Activated Carbon Effluent
A
Activated Carbon Effluent
Molecular Weight Distribution Molecular Weight Distribution
FIGURE 3
EFFECT OF HYDROLYSIS ON TERTIARY TREATMENT
BY ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
16
-------
Carbon Columns
Upflow
Reactor
A
Up flow
Reactor
B
Carbon Columns
Unit 1
BasernentFloor ~~
Unit II
Ground Floor
Unit III
Ground Floor
FIGURE 4
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
SECTION IV
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF FACILITIES
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
The objective of this project was to demonstrate on a full scale system
the applicability of anaerobic decomposition as a method for regenera-
tion of activated carbon. This was done with the provision that waste
effluent will be discharged to a municipal sewer when the treatment
system is installed by the Town of South Kingston. For this reason no
effluent standards were set.
DESIGN CRITERIA AND EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
The system was divided into three basic units identified as Units I, II,
and III. The function of each unit is as follows:
Unit I - Removal of primary solids (cloth fibers) and
initial roughing of the high BOD loads to the
system
Unit II - Removal of biological and organic solids by ad-
sorption and anaerobic decomposition
Unit III - Polishing treatment for removal of soluble or-
ganics and color.
With the exception of Unit I, the remainder of the system was divided
into two identical sets of units designed to operate alternately in con-
tamination and regeneration. These are designated as Leg A and Leg B.
UNIT I
Unit I is an aerated equalization basin which is operated as a dispersed
growth reactor in which the waste flow is continuously fed and with-
drawn without return of the biological solids, The effluent of Unit I
is pumped from the clearwell to Unit II on the ground floor.
Unit I is entirely constructed of reinforced concrete, It is a basin
6'-8|r in depth with overall dimensions of 26' x 44' as shown in
19
-------
Figure 5. The large basin is sectioned by interior walls into six
compartments, Pits 1 through 5 and an entrance to the outfall sewer.
Functions of these compartments are as follows:
Pit 1 This compartment serves as a wet well for pumping raw
waste from the influent sewer to the remainder of Unit I.
Two self-priming pumps of 150 gpm capacity each are
installed directly above the opening at Pit 1. They dis-
charge to a 48" diameter SWECO vibrating screen.
Pumping is controlled by a float switch and alternator
located in Pit 1.
Pit 2 This pit wasi originally designed as a settling basin for
removal of fibrous material from the raw waste stream.
During July, 1971 a SWECO vibrating screen was installed
to dewater the fibrous solids on a continuous basis. After
the installation of the vibrating screen, Pit 2 served no
useful function other than equalization of the waste.
Pit 3 This compartment was intsnded as an equalization basin to
reduce surges in waste concentration and flow. Due to the
high BOD concentration of the waste, it was decided to
provide aeration to this chamber and operate it as a dis-
persed phase biological reactor without solids return.
This type of a biological process is intended to serve only
as a roughing mechanism to reduce BOD before treatment
by the activated carbon in Units II and III.
The waste enters the aeration basin over a weir at the east
partition and exits over a weir at the west partition dis-
charging into Pit 4. The entire pit is constructed of con-
crete coated with polyurethane for protection from the
corrosive character of the waste. The basin has a capacity
of approximately 21, 000 gallons with a side water depth of
41/2 feet. At flows measured during the month of Septem-
ber, 1971 averaging 85, 000 gpd, the weir overflow rate for
Pit 3 was approximately 5000 gpd/linear foot. Aeration is
provided at the location of the four hatches over Pit 3. Each
aerator is comprised of two "Fitros" A 125 medium poros-
ity diffusers mounted on galvanized iron pipe. Rate of air
provided to Pit 3 is approximately 300 cfm total from two
10 horsepower, 200 cfm "Roots Connersville" air blowers.
20
-------
FIGURE 5
UNIT I
M
ffoor
MC.
-------
Pit 4 Pit 4 is a wet well serving two 150 gpm vertical wet pit
pumps. These pumps are cycled alternately to feed waste
treated in Unit I to the head of Unit II. An overflow weir
discharging into the outfall sewer is provided as protection
against flooding in the event of pump failure or blockage in
Units II or III.
Pit 5 The purpose of this chamber is to serve as a clear water
well for the effluent waste. Following treatment by Unit III,
the waste is discharged into the Pit 5. An overflow weir is
provided to discharge into the outfall sewer. The primary
purpose of the clear well is to serve as a source point for
additional treatment equipment.
As an inground basin, Unit I was constructed below ground level in an
existing building at Palisades Industries. Reinforced floor beam and
slabs cover the basin and provide a platform for Units II and III along
with related equipment. A layout of Units II andlllis shown as a
piping schematic in Figure 6.
UNIT II
Unit II is comprised of two activated carbon reactors, receiving the
mixed liquor effluent from Unit I. An upflow mode operation is used to
minimize the clogging problem. Each of the two carbon reactors
serves two functions: 1) adsorption of soluble organics and color
material and 2) filtration of suspended solids. Each reactor is on
stream for a predetermined length of time before it is switched to a
regeneration cycle, putting the other reactor on stream in the meantime.
Figure 8 shows the basic configuration of Unit II, which is constructed
of two spiral wound fiberglass reinforced polyester vessels. The waste
enters the first vessel (eight feet in diameter) through a distributor
system at the bottom. Above the distributor system is a layer of
crushed stone used to further disperse the flow. Above the stone layer
the vessel is filled with approximately 8000 pounds of Nuchar WV-G
granular activated carbon. The solids in the waste along with organic
material are entrapped as waste passes up through the carbon bed.
The normal contamination cycle is one day. Unit II is constructed in
duplicate to allow for cycling between contamination and regeneration
modes.
22
-------
UnitM
24
-------
T
/
\
*
i
\
i
i-
-i
*7 .
*— —
CD
fa***/
^D
2_
FLOOR F1.AM
KALI VM'.r-OT
FIGURE 6
LAYOUT OF UNIT II & UNIT III
FRAM CORPORATION
PALISAOK IHOUSTHKt INC.
PIACE PAH. HI
SCPT.W
25
-------
FIGURE 7
:T ii &- in
-------
Jr-
•***'•
r~"~* .-5
Carton fm
v rn tt.ft.
—1
<-
«-
Aerated Met
Uttt
SECTION A-A
ICALC I'- I'-O"
28
-------
10 »oh
Carbon *
. ____ • _
3an4 *>
4 'ft Hf CruttHt Sfam V
t'f*rt' CriaArg1 Sraar V
1
floor-
(•— rant
S.U. LiqiM* It**/
Confrtttor-
DETAIL
STONE UNPERPRAIN
Hortt:
ltt art ro 6m fatfit&ttd from f,6erqlat* r*tnfar "** • e*tamincnttd Pn&ict jroaatr*
* , ft- >rt& , d»t»* J°" '*' "«*•
&or>d*J /fc fftt
tiff-
jt/S
-, -.' be JSO
All tooffs provided <*itf 6* o/ sfafvfrfiita sfmmt.
Aft tk/w* f*ot at 'Ute^raf part of tin tanks *•// to
FIGURE 8
UNIT II
FRAM CORPORATION
UMT H
AS
5 MOWN
MLIMMS INDUSTRIES
PEACC MLC. R.I.
IMC.
29
-------
During the regeneration period, aerobic environment in the reactor is
to be avoided because the organic material retained by the carbon sys-
tem already had received some stabilization by aerobic organisms and
further oxidation in an aerobic environment is more difficult. A case
in point was demonstrated by 1 homas and Bendixen in their study of
organics degradation in soil in which a secondary effluent from a
trickling filter was found less amenable than septic tank effluent.
Therefore, a liquid seal of two feet of water is maintained over the
carbon bed to reduce the transfer of oxygen from the atmosphere to the
carbon bed. As a result organic matter trapped in the'carbon bed will
be decomposed by anaerobic micro-organisms. In an anaerobic en-
vironment the following reactions are expected to take place: 1) hydrol-
ytic action that changes the biological solids into soluble products;
2) hydrolysis of large molecular weight material into smaller weight
material; and, 3) decomposition and conversion of organic substances
into inorganic products. Given enough time for these reactions to take
place, the reactor could restore its adsorption capacity and be ready
'for the treatment cycle.
A second vessel attached to the carbon vessel of Unit II serves as an
aerated wet well for the Unit III feed pumps. It not only functions as a
flow control device, but also introduces dissolved oxygen to the effluent
of the anaerobic carbon bed.
UNIT III
Unit III is comprised of four adsorption columns each four feet in
diameter. The four columns were operated as two parallel systems
(Leg A and Leg B) with two in series. Each column is constructed of
spiral wound fiberglass reinforced polyester with domed ends and a
manway at the top. Internal construction consists of a F.R.P. grate
at the base of the column. A crushed stone underdrain on top of the
grating is used to retain a bed of 3000 pounds of Nuchar WV-G activated
carbon as shown in Figure 9- To increase flexibility of operation,
each pair of columns is piped to operate in either series upflow or
series downflow at a flux rate of 12 gallons per minute per square foot.
The activated carbon columns are designed to be regenerated biologi-
cally. This is accomplished by using an external source of biologically
activated regeneration liquor. The regenerant is stored in a 1500
gallon aerated tank. During the regeneration cycle, the waste flow is
transferred to the alternate pair of columns or leg and the regenerant
liquor is passed upflow at the rate of 16 gallons per minute per square
foot and returned to the regeneration tank.
30
-------
fte 'am Sfatfyc from x-4 p ^eea S/vc/y* fa
AffemQtt System —^ f I — AJterrtaft J/^/**J
V
• i
!•
I!
Co/urn.
Tap a
L.
PLAN
32
-------
-.r"-Jn/«/
t vat o
I-A
f.ttrqfru
- a" f»r
!?*£_
actor
^
i.
%i
&
/.« *»/r
3-nante
3
]
** Mltot
mf
•*•
^*,
'
«-•
.5
j- fvf<-
I
U
Column Peactor
2-A
5c
*
rant
*« ^x
o/ ^}
3t*f*
•nt—fftHi MM fumwg
V *»•»*.*' CmM Mtft
*«'tt >t' £•/»»*«* tfam
3'-1Vay Mwt'
"Of. *'~ ?
o
-A"A^"*^«,
t'fJtnft
fSttu
*u,m,\
iff*
DETAIL A
»e*u: r.r-o-
DCTAtL •
SECTION C-C
FIGURE 9
UNIT III
FRAM CORPORATION
PALISADES INDUSTNltl INC
PCACC PALI. ».l.
I003T
33
-------
FIGURE 10
UNIT III
34
-------
The organic material having undergone anaerobic stabilization and
hydrolytic action with mostly low molecular weight substances is
readily adsorbed by Unit III and readily oxidizable in the aerobic en-
vironment. After biological regeneration is accomplished by con-
tacting the columns with the effluent of a second reactor wherein an
active micro-organism culture is maintained, the effluent from
Unit III is finally discharged into the Saugatucket River.
CONTROL SYSTEM
All valves are air operated and controlled by 110 volt solenoid'valves.
The control center is a mechanical relay type design to alternate the
regeneration and contamination cycles manually or automatically based
on volume throughput or time. Figure H shows the wiring diagram
for the control.
35
-------
SCHEMATIC 2
CONTROL SY:
36
-------
Listing
^ hz*^**-*'*—f/„-.-,£"
i -»*- *+•< S^sr T^H h ,/
34
STEM
FIGURE 11
CONTROLS
1. £f Tff
1 &f rcf-'3i°<*
3. &e rcf r3iorf
* or rff.itto/s
5 6€ rif - I) tO If
U 6mr> //pX Av/m
? 4f rtf lit
a &f rtf at »
1 t>( rte
10 t*
II. S/fta itfftf. Drolca »-/JfO-Ot/t- Set
-Sol
IS. 6re*n llf/lt; DM/CO &-tS>» -Otlt-HI
l± 6f Cl
it Amn tiflit: t>/t/co
>». if ct latffot/tM /nc.4.11*
It. IK-TV i/l/it, fttfUto S>-'3l» - »ta-3»l
^o. (,* ctiotc'of/e* iact.is*
II. S/ue (tf*f. £>•*• -Si-'Sio -ot* -Jtt
a. tf ct tat c ivfct *ac
-------
FIGURE 12
CONTROL PANEL
38
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Design Capacities
Unit I
Sweco Vibrating Screen - 12.5 square feet
Pit 1 1, 200 gallons
Pit 2 6, 400 gallons
Pit 3 - 21, 000 gallons
Pit 4 - 5, 200 gallons
Pit 5 - 1, 400 gallons
Raw Waste feed pumps - 2 each - 150 gpm
Unit II
Feed Pumps - 2 each - 150 gpm
Upflow Reactors - 2 each - 3, 800 gallons
Activated Carbon Change = 8, 000 Ibs. each
Wet Well - 2 each - 950 gallons
Unit III
Feed Pumps - 2 each - 150 gpm
Column adsorbers - 4 each - 950 gallons
Activated Carbon Change = 3, 000 Ibs. each
39
-------
SECTION V
PRELIMINARY STUDY
As a preliminary study to the development phase of the project, the
dyeing and finishing operations at Palisades Industries were analyzed
and the characteristics of the Palisades wastewater effluent were
evaluated. The information obtained, assessed the conditions pre-
vailing prior to the operation of the new treatment system and was
used as a comparative base in the final report.
PALISADES INDUSTRIES DYEING AND FINISHING OPERATION
The Palisades Industries, Inc. has eight modern automatic dyeing jigs
and uses 75, 000 to 125, 000 gallons of water per day for the operation.
The modern dye jigs serve the following functions in the Palisades'
operation:
Boil-off and Scour: This removes all sizes and impurities in the
greige cloth by the use of wetting agents, enzymes and detergents
with appropriate rinses.
Bleaching: The cloth is further cleaned and prepared for dyeing with
the use of hydrogen peroxide and silicates when necessary for light or
bright shades, with appropriate rinses.
Dyeing: The prepared fabric is run from beam to beam through a con-
centrated mixture of dyestuffs and dispersing agents, until the desired
shade is achieved, with appropriate rinses.
After Treating or Fixing Dyestuff: Some dyes require fixing with
resinous chemicals so that they do not run when washed. This is
dependent on their end use. The treatment is followed by a rinsing
and removal of the wet dyed fabric from the'dyeing machine.
Drying (First Phase in Finishing): The excess water and surface
dyestuff are extracted with the use of vacuum extractors; then, the
cloth is passed over a series of steam heated drying cans or through
a gas fired loop dryer.
/ "\
Finishing: The cloth is impregnated with resins, water repellents,
soil retardants, wash and wear stabilizers, fire retardants, etc.,
chosen to impart certain desirable properties to the fabrics for their
ultimate uses.
'41
-------
Make Up or Tubing Dept. : The cloth is inspected and tubed into
original mill lengths for shipment.
Palisades receives woven greige mill products. II is necessary to
remove all sizes, such as corn starch, polyvinyl alcohols, etc.,
that were first applied to the yarns to make it practical for greige
mills to weave such yarns into a broad woven fabric. Their
removal from the fabric imparts a heavy BOD load to the waste-
water. In commission dyeing and finishing, the different fibers
that are dyed and finished in variations of colors and finishes make
it economically infeasible to collect and reuse any dyestuff or
finishing chemicals. In order to further reduce labor costs, excess
dyestuff is used to shorten the dyeing time or dyeing cycle, resul-
ting in wastewater of dyestuff that is not completely exhausted,
therefore more concentrated.
PALISADES WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS:
During January and February, 1970, 4-hour composite samples
from Palisades Industries waste effluent were taken twice a week
for analysis. The result is presented in Table 4.
Figures 13 and 14 illustrate these typical profile analyses, showing
the wide fluctuations on hourly as well as on a daily basis.
Assuming that 75% of the COD was biodegradable and 50% of the
organic nitrogen was available for metabolism, the nitrogen to
BOD ratio for ail samples analyzed was less than 5%. A nitrogen
deficient environment would therefore prevail in the biological
treatment of Palisades waste effluent. This result, supported by
similar findings in April when Unit I of the system was in operation,
eventually led to a decision of supplying nitrogen to the aeration tank
for maintaining an active culture.
The amounts of nitrite and nitrate in the Palisades samples were
generally insignificant. Since the samples were not analyzed
immediately after collection, plus the fact that both nitrite and
nitrate were not stable in the reducing environment of the indus-
trial waste, the results were not reliable as those of other deter-
minations- The amount of phosphates in all samples analyzed
seemed more than sufficient.
42
-------
TABLE 4
Analysis of Palisades Sample *
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Sample
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Received
1-20-70
2-3-70
2-5-70
2-12-70
2-17-70
2-19-70
2-24-70
COD
10500
7758
2370
2968
2068
1828
1740
NH -N
3
28.
297
3.
7.
5.
3.
2.
2
6
4
4
0
7
Org-N Ortho-PO.
683.
26.
5.
10.
10.
5.
10.
1
1
9
0
9
0
8
*
234
470
53
53
88
57
65
Poly-PO
286
100
12
12
14
21
4
4 N°2
2.25
0.75
0. 30
0.25
0.90
0.45
0.12
NO
5.2
5.7
2.7
4.6
* All analysis performed according to "Standard Methods".
The nitrogen to COD ratio as well as phosphate to COD ratio for all
Palisades' samples analyzed were calculated and listed in the following:
Sample
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
No. 7
N/COD
6.8%
4.2%
0.4%
0. 8%
1.1%
0.6%
1.0%
P/COD
4. 9%
7.4%
2.8%
2. 2%
5.0%
4.3%
4.0%
43
-------
2700
24000.
21000-
18000-
15000-
(3
O
rt 1200CM
c
-------
loooa
900Q
I- 800
-700
-600
-500
• 400
1000-
-300
•200
-100
:
1-20 2-3 2-5 2-12 2-17 2-19 2-24
Date (1970)
FIGURE 14
PALISADES INDUSTRIES
FOUR HOUR COMPOSITE EFFLUENT
PROFILE, COD, NITROGEN AND
PHOSPHATE vs. TIME
E
Hi
U
C
0
u
O,
en
O
C
ni
C
0>
M)
O
45
-------
ACTIVATED CARBON EVALUATION
Another part of the preliminary study was the evaluation of four types
of activated carbon: 12 x 20 mesh; Nuchar WV-G; Nuchar WV-L and
Witco 718, 12 x 30 mesh.
In the carbon evaluation, equilibrium capacities and mass transfer
coefficients were used as the major criteria for characterizing each
type of carbon. The mechanical properties of hardness and durability
were also taken into consideration in making a chqice. Figures 15, 16
and 17 show the equilibrium isotherms when untreated Palisades
effluent was used as the contaminating source. Nuchar WV-G exhibited
the greatest adsorptive capacity of all other carbons tested on this type
of contaminant.
Figure 18 shows that Darco 12 x 40 mesh carbon showed a slightly
greater capacity than the Nuchar WV-G for the previously treated
Palisades material; however, its mechanical properties still made it
a poor choice for Palisades use.
The data in Figure 19 was used to calculate the mass transfer co-
efficients. The slope at zero time is proportional to the mass transfer
rate. At a cross sectional flow rate of 0.25 GPM/ft , the following
mass transfer coefficients were obtained:
Darco 12 x 20 mesh = 0.70
Nuchar WV-G 0. 68
Nuchar WV-L a 0.67
Witco 718, 12 x 30 mesh = 0.62
These results showed that all the above carbons exhibited the same fluid
phase resistance to Palisades effluent material.
Based on this type of experimental information and other attrition rate
tests, Nuchar WV-G proved the logical choice for Palisades. Other
pertinent information regarding^the Nuchar WV-G carbon supplied by
the manufacturer is in the following:
1 Particle size - Effective size 0.55-0.75 mm.
Uniformity coefficient = 1. 80
Density - Wetted in water 1.4 gram/cc
Apparent density = 27. 5 Ib/cu. ft.
Bed density = 25. 0 Ib/cu. ft.
Void ratio - 40%
Surface Area - N-BET method 1100 sq. meter/gram
46
-------
140
120
C!
o
5 100
UM
0
801
TO
s
M)
TJ
(U
.0
o 60
CO
U
O 40
QO
a
•
20 -
FIGURE 15
EQUILIBRIUM ISOTHERM FOR VARIOUS CARBONS
CONTAMINANT = PALISADES' EFFLUENT
Nuchar WV-G
Darco 12 x 20
12 x 40
Witco 360 12 x 30
200
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Supernatant Concentration (mg/1 TOC)
-------
FIGURE 16
oo
cuo
70 -i
60 -
50
o
J2
IH
(4
U
m
O
W>
t)
0)
•e
o
ID
13
P 30
O
H
20
10 -
EQUILIBRIUM ISOTHERM FOR VARIOUS CARBONS
CONTAMINANT = PALISADES' EFFLUENT
Nuchar WV-G
Witco 718 12 x 30
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Supernatant Concentration (mg/1 TOD)
1800 2000
-------
o
JO
700 ,
600-
FIGURE 17
EQUILIBRIUM ISOTHERM FOR VARIOUS CARBONS
CONTAMINANT = PALISADES' EFFLUENT
(A
Wj
-o
o
in
Q
O
U
W)
500 -
400-
300
200 .
100-
Nuchar WV-L
Darco 12 x 20
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Supernatant Concentration (mg/l COD)
5000
-------
C
o
FIGURE 18
M
n)
u
tM
O
CO
s
n)
(U
Ou
T3
O
CO
Q
O
U
300 -
250 -
200
150
100 .
50 -
EQUILIBRIUM ISOTHERM FOR VARIOUS CARBONS
CONTAMINANT = PALISADES' REACTOR EFFLUENT
Nuchar WV-G
Nuchar WV-H
Witco 718 12 x 30
1 ~» n—: 1 ' 1—
400 800 ;1200 1600 2000
T
T
2400 2800
I I
3200 3600
Supernatant Concentration - rng/1 COD
-------
FIGURE 19
o
§ 3.5-
c
5 3.01
I*
a
8
oo
2.0-
T3
0)
e
0)
K
U
Q
H
1.5-
1 0.
1. U-
rt
+J
H 0.&-
FLUID PHASE MASS TRANSFER OF VARIOUS CARBONS
CONTAMINANT = PALISADES' EFFLUENT
FLOW RATE = 200 MLS/MIN.
Darco 12 x 20
Nuchar WV-L
Witco 718 12 x 20
456
Time (Minutes)
8
-------
SECTION VI
OPERATION OF PROJECT
The objective of this phase of the project was to operate the system
as planned and to collect pertinent information during the period.
Figure 20 shows a summary of the project schedule. In order to
collect the performance data for the treatment units individually and
collectively, the operation was divided in several phases. The section
describes the operation of each phase of the project, data collected and
the respective schedule for each operation period. Discussion and in-
terpretation of the data, as well as the evaluation of the system perform-
ance will be presented in a later section.
START-UP OF UNIT I: (March 23 - May 15, 1970
To start up the biological reactor, it was seeded with 2, 000 gallons of
primary effluent and 2, 000 gallons of return activated sludge from a
municpal sewage treatment plant. Small volumes of the Palidades
wastewater were introduced daily into Unit I. A slow start-up was
necessary for the biological treatment of industrial waste to avoid
shock loading.
Samples were taken periodically for analysis of total organic carbon
(TOC), total COD, soluble COD, total BOD, suspended solids, temper-
ature, pH, D. O., and occasionally for soluble total oxygen demand
(soluble TPD), NH3-N, organic-N, ortho-PO4 and poly-PO4- In addi-
tion, flow measurement into Unit I was also made. Sludge volume in-
dex was also determined for many samples, to assist in the evaluation
of Unit I performance.
Due to washout of solids and unstable performance in Unit I, the unit
was reseeded on April 20, 1970. Unit I was partially drained before
2, 000 gallons of returned sludge and 2, 000 gallons of primary effluent
were introduced. Immediately afterward, the Palisades wastewater
was introduced into Unit I at a rate of about 3, 000 gpd until it over-
flowed. This same low flow rate was maintained for three weeks as
an acclimation period. The flow rate was increased to 5, 000 gpd in
later weeks and the full hydraulic load was reached later.
In conjunction with the reseeding procedure, nitrogen supplement in
the form of NH4C1 was added to the Palisades wastewater in Unit I.
Approximately 0.5 Ib. NH4C1/1000 gallons of Palisades wastewater was
added in order to supply the need of 5 Ib. nitrogen/100 Ib. of BOD re-
moved.
53
-------
n
.'
Period
Design & Construction
Preliminary Study
Start-up of Unit 1
Operation of Unit 1
Bio-Oxidation Kinetic Study
Start-up and Operation of
Pilot Unit 2
Start-up and Operation of
Pilot Unit 3
Operation of Pilot
Anaerobic Filter
Operation of Unit 1, Pilot Unit 2
and Pilot Unit 3
Operation of Unit 2
Operation of Unit 1, Unit 2,
and Unit 3
Sample and Data Analysis
5-70 to
8-70
9-70 to
12-70
1-71 to
4-71
5-71 to
8-71
8-71 to
12-71
FIGURE 20
PROJECT SCHEDULE
-------
Sampling and analysis programs were conducted similar to tests taken
during the first start-up period.
The data collected in this phase of the project operation are presented
in Appendix A.
OPERATION OF UNIT I; (May 16, 1970 - September 30, 1971)
With the success of the re seeding, Unit I was in use continuously
throughout the entire project period except for routine interruptions.
During normal operation, periodic samples were taken from Unit I
for analysis. The frequency of sampling varied from daily to every
half hour dependent upon the need of the respective period. For in-
stance, occasional samplings of Unit I were sufficient to evaluate its
performance when the primary objective of the project period was to
test Unit II or III. On the other hand, when a material balance for or-
ganic carbon was deemed desirable for better evaluation of all units in
the system, sampling as frequent as every half hour was necessary.
Analysis of samples was generally limited to total and soluble COD,
soluble TOG, MLSS and MLVSS, pH, temperature, D. O., and
occasionally BOD, nitrogen and phosphates, as well as heavy metal
concent rations.
In the period between June 26 and July 13, 1970, Palisades Industries,
Inc. was shut down for vacation and annual maintenance. During this
two week period it was decided to feed synthetic waste into Unit I to
maintain the biological system. Sucrose was used as the carbon source
supplemented by nitrogen (ammonium chloride) and phosphorus (sodium
phosphate). Based on 5000 gpd flow and approximately 250 mg/1 BOD
removed, 11 pounds of BOD had to be fed to the tank daily. Sixteen
pounds of sucrose (0.69 Ib. BOD/lb. sucrose) were therefore used
daily. The synthetic waste was prepared and stored in the small settl-
ing pit ahead of the aeration chamber. When the Palisades wastewater
feed was resumed, Unit I had only a short adjusting period with a
slightly inferior performance and it recovered quickly.
Data collected for the operation of Unit I are presented in Appendix A.
KINETIC STUDY OF BIO-OXIDATION OF PALISADES' WASTEWATER:
(June - July, 1970)
Two bench-top, batch-feed aerators were set up for a study of the bio-
oxidation process taking place in Unit I. Biological solids were har-
55
-------
vested from the Unit I aeration chamber and were distributed in
various amounts into the bench-top aerators. The wastewater of
Palisades Industries, Inc. was then added. The mixed liquors from
both aerators were sampled periodically for COD and MLVSS analysis
until the stationary phase of solid growth and COD removal was reached.
The result of this study did not evaluate the performance of the project
system. The information obtained from this study, however, was use-
ful for predicting the performance of Unit I in the scale-up process.
Data collected is included in Appendix C.
START-UP AND OPERATION OF PILOT UNIT II: (July 6 -
August 6, 1970)
Before the full-scale Unit II was tested, it was decided to install a
laboratory carbon column unit, on-site for testing. Various flow rates
and duration of various cycles were evaluated to ascertain the maxi-
mum efficiency level that could be obtained. The performance data
that resulted from the operation of this pilot unit were used in estab-
lishing an operational schedule for the full size Unit II testing.
The unit consisted of a 55-gallon drum holding 100 pounds of Nuchar
WV-G activated carbon supported by gravel at the bottom. The drum
was covered with an airtight lid and was provided with a sampling
port in tfcie mid-depth of the carbon layer. The effluent mixed liquor
from Unit I was introduced into the pilot unit at a rate of 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. An upflbw mode was used in the treatment cycle. During an 18-
day period, a total of 6 treatment cycles and 6 regeneration cycles
were conducted with variable durations in the treatment and regenera-
tion cycles. The operation was terminated to allow the replacement of
the spent carbon with virgin carbon and the testing was resumed on
July 29. ''
During the test periods, samples were collected every two hours in the
day for total COD, MLSS, MLVSS, BOD, volatile acid, soluble organic
carbon and inorganic carbon analysis. The data obtained from this
project are included in Appendix A.
START-UP AND OPERATION OF PILOT UNIT III (August 13 -
September 11, 1970)
The 55 gklion drum carbon reactor used in pilot Unit II was modified to
simulate adsorption-aerobic regene"ration of Unit III for on-site testing.
56
-------
During the regeneration cycles, the waste liquid in the system was re-
circulated in a closed loop by continuously pumping the waste liquid
into a 55-gallon aeration tank and returning it to the carbon bed. In
doing this, the problem of directly introducing air to the carbon bed
was eliminated. Two series of testing were conducted, one from
August 12 to August 24 and the other from September 3 to 11, 1970.
Sampling and analysis were identical to the pilot Unit II, with the
exception that no volatile acid determinations were made. The data
for this part of the project are also presented in Appendix A.
OPERATION OF PILOT ANAEROBIC FILTER; (September 16-18,
September 24 - October 2, 1970)
Although an anaerobic filter operation was not part of the plan of this
project, the potential of such a treatment process was recognized after
it was noticed that the anaerobic carbon column had performed far
better than the aerobic column. The outcome of this operation was
not included in the evaluation of the entire treatment system. How-
ever, an anaerobic filter operation appears as a recommendation in
the conclusions of this project report.
The unit consisted of a 55-gallon drum with 100 pounds of carbon
supported by gravel. The lower half of the carbon bed was seeded
with 1/2 liter of well digested sludge. Unit I effluent was introduced
into a holding tank with a 55-gallon capacity at a rate of 1. 5 GPM ahead
of the filter. Flow was introduced into the filter from the bottom to
provide an upflow mode of operation. The filter was covered with an
air-tight lid to maintain an aerobic condition. The flow at 1. 5 GPM
was equivalent to a flow rate of 0. 57 GPM/sq. ft. of bed surface area.
The unit was operated continuously without a resting period. Sampling
and analysis were similar to that in the operation of Pilot Unit II.
Data collected are included in Appendix B.
START-UP AND OPERATION OF UNIT I - PILOT UNIT II - PILOT
UNIT III IN SERIES (November 4 - December 11, 1970)
During this phase, a new pilot Unit III was built, but on a smaller
scale than the final production unit. The two plexiglass columns of
Unit III, five inches in diameter with a three foot bed depth, held
approximately eleven pounds of carbon. A 55 gallon pre-aeration
tank between Pilot Unit II and Pilot Unit III served as the biological
57
-------
reactor for Pilot Unit III aerobic regeneration. Unit I and Unit II
were not changed for this phase of the project. The start-up rate
was 0.75 GPM/ft2 of Pilot Unit II surface area and was later increased
to 1. 0 GPM/ft2. Pilot Unit II was seeded with one liter of digested
sludge. Because of holidays and weekends, the pilot plant was not
operated with alternate 24 hour treatment and regeneration cycles.
Sampling and analysis in this phase of operation were identical to
those in previous operations. Data collected is presented in Appendix
A.
OPERATION OF UNIT II (February 3 - April 27, 1971) '
The full scale unit replaced the pilot Unit II during this phase of the
project. Only one column of Unit was filled with approximately
8000 pounds of Nuchar WV-G carbon for preliminary testing. This
carbon in the test column was washed to remove carbon fines.
Because the overflow device was not ready for operation in the start-
up period, Unit I was pumped through Unit II for seven hours during
the day while the treatment plant was in operation. Flow was stopped
for the remainder of the day plus another full day before another
treatment cycle was resumed. Consequently the operation was seven
hours treatment followed by 41 hours of regeneration except on week-
ends where such regeneration period was extended for one more day.
After the overflow device was installed and working properly, the
treatment cycles were extended to 24 hours or longer. During the
period from March 17 to April 29, combinations of two days treatment
with 1 1/2 days regeneration and one treatment with 11/2 days regen-
eration were tested. With the exception of a few working days interrup-
tion in the middle of March to install the automatic overflow device,
Unit II was operated continuously for almost three months.
Influent and effluent samples of Unit II were taken every 30 minutes,
Samples were composited every one and one-half hours. Soluble TOC,
total COD, soluble COD (soluble COD analysis was abandoned in the
later part of the study) and solid concentrations of samples were de-
termined. These data are included in Appendix A of this report.
OPERATION OF UNIT I - UNIT II - UNIT III IN SERIES (July 12 -
September 30, 1971)
There was a long shutdown period of the Palisades treatment system
58
-------
starting in May. The operation of all units was interrupted except for
Unit I. An earlier decision was made that the column of Unit II should
be shut down due to excessive accumulation of fibrous material in the
carbon bed. During the shutdown period, the spent carbon was re-
placed by virgin carbon washed of carbon fines, while the spent carbon
was washed and placed in the other column. The column containing
approximately 8, 000 pounds of virgin carbon was designated as Leg A
and the other column with spent carbon as Leg B. The full scale Unit
III replaced the pilot unit. 3, 000 pounds of virgin carbon were used to
fill each of the four columns of Unit III. A SWECO vibrating screen was
installed ahead of Units I and II to remove fibrous and inert solids. The
electrical control system and the piping of the system were revised
also in this period.
On July 12 the start-up period began when approximately 2, 000 gallons
of the mixed liquor from Unit I drained and replaced by 2, 000 gallons
of returned sludge from a municipal sewage treatment plant. Aeration
was maintained overnight without flow. During the period of July 13
through July 16, a 60 GPM flow of Palisades' wastewater was intro-
duced through Units II and III for a few hours a day. The flow was
stopped for the remainder of the day. This time period together with
the next full day served as the regeneration period. Legs A and B of
the system were operated alternately. This first week operation was
primarily for acclimation and start-up in order to detect any possible
difficulty in the operation of the entire system.
After the initial start-up, a regular testing program was initiated be-
ginning on July 19- Sampling and analysis schedules were identical to
the previous testing period. In addition, BOD was determined for
samples collected in the last two weeks. Apendix A, Table 7
shows the data collected for this period.
The operation in this period was interrupted from August 5 to 23 for
aerator repairment. All together, two months of operation of the en-
tire system were conducted. The evaluation of this part of the opera-
tion was most vital to the entire program.
SAMPLE ANALYSES
Because of the extensive sampling adopted for this project, the analyti-
cal work was done in three different places. A laboratory was set up
on site on afloor directly above the treatment plant. Analyses such as
TOD, pH, temperature, aludge, settlable volume were conducted in
this field laboratory. Samples collected were then taken to the Sanitary
59
-------
Engineering Laboratory at the University of Rhode Island for determina-
tions of total and soluble COD, MLSS and MLVSS, BOD, nitrogen and
phosphates, heavy metal and volatile acid concentrations. Samples
were also taken to Fram Corporation for occasional analysis of BOD
and TOD. All analyses were performed according to "Standard
Methods".
60
-------
SECTION VII
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS
The operation of this project was divided in several phases. Therefore,
evaluation and discussions of the treatment system are presented for
each phase accordingly The evaluation of the entire treatment system
and the projection of treatment requirements for the Palisades Indus-
tries, Inc. wastewater are presented in the conclusion.
UNIT I EQUALIZATION - AERATION TANK
The performance of Unit I as an equalization tank and as a dispersed
growth biological reactor was evaluated. When Unit I was first
started, a low flow, lower than a 9000 gpd flow rate, was maintained.
The COD influent data showed that the equalization of the sewage
strength in Unit I was quite successful- Soluble COD in the aeration
tank usually stayed in a range of 550 to 700 mg/1. Preliminary
studies had shown a COD profile of 1740 to 10, 500 mg/1 before equal-
ization. Unit I was therefore considered successful as an equaliza-
tion tank. With a flow rate above 9000 gpd, however, the unit was less
effective. Although an hourly variation of organic concentration in
terms of total organic carbon, TOC, was not considered significant,
the daily variation was great enough to cause concern in the operation
of the subsequent units.
Equalization of pH of the Palisades' wastewater was adequate. Unit I
mixed liquor never had a pH outside of the range of 5. 9 to 9. 8 through-
out the entire project period. Most of the time a neutral pH was ob-
tained. A high dissolved oxygen concentration was maintained at all
times in Unit I indicating that the aeration supply was adequate, re-
gardless of the hydraulic loadings and organic concentrations.
The growth of the biological solids in Unit I was quite slow because
of the resistant nature of the dye wastes to biological oxidation while
the washout rate of the solids occurred rapidly at high hydraulic
loadings. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus analyses of the Pali-
sades' wastewater (Table II in preliminary study and Table IB of
Appendix B) indicated a lack of nitrogen for biological growth. As a
result, nitrogen supplement in the form of ammonium chloride
(NH^Cl) was added to the mixed liquor in Unit I. Based on the
61
-------
existing amount and a need of 5 pounds of available nitrogen per 100
pounds of BOD removed, approximately 0.5 pound NH^Cl/lOOO gallons
of wastewater was required.
Prior to the nitrogen supplement program, observations showed that
the biological floes were mostly inactive. The small concentration of
active biological floes could not support any significant population
or protozoa. Higher forms of animals such as rotifiers and worms
were not present. The washout and nitrogen deficit were responsible
for the^abserice of these floes. After the initiation of the nitrogen
suppleme'ni program and a careful control of the hydraulic flow to
avoid"shock loading,- typical activated sludge floes were maintained
throughout the study period. A mixed population with balanced
numbers of prey and predator always existed. Free swimming ciliates
were abundant, particularly in the days of higher organic loading,
wherein stalked ciliates, rotifers and worms were found often during
the days of lower organic loading.
Solid analyses showed that the biological solids concentration in the
aeration chamber was rather low in Unit I most of the time (average
200 mg/1). ^This was particularly true when the flow rate was in-
creased; In spite of this, a steady solid concentration was maintained
and a'consistent percentage of COD removal was obtained. Evidently,
a steady state condition was established in Unit-1. Because of the low
solids concentration, very little sludge could be returned from the
clear well (settling chamber). The aeration chamber was therefore
operated as a dispersed growth biological reactor. The sludge volume
index Was'high throughout the study which was typical for a dispersed
growth reactor with high organic loadings.
As will be seen later in the evaluation and discussion of the growth-
kinetic 'slrudyi the performance of Unit I in organic removal can be
improved by increasing the biological solids concentration in the
aeration chamber. Unfortunately, no provision was made in the Unit
for the practice of return sludge. This practice, however, should be
considered in future modifications of the treatment system at Pali-
sades Industries; Inc.
Analyses' of heavy metal-contents in the Palisades' wastewater showed
insignificant levels. Zinc, iron, copper, silver and nickel were all
below 1. 0 mg/1. It was felt that metal concentrations in the Palisades'
wastewater would not vary significantly and their presence should not
have any interference in the biological process. Studies reported in the
literature show allowable heavy metal concentrations in biological
treatment processes-higher! than those found in the Palisades 'wastewater.
62.
-------
Organic removal in Unit I was measured in reductions of TOC, total
COD, soluble COD or BOD. Being a dispersed growth reactor with no
return biological solids, the organic removal of Unit I varied with the
flow. The following Tables V, VI, VII & VIII summarize the perform-
ance up to August 7, 1970. The data of TOC removal are plotted in
Figure 21 .
Figure 21 indicates that within the range of flow rates investigated,
TOC removal was from 45% to 75%. It also indicates that the efficiency
of removal decreased gradually as the flow rate increased. The pro-
jected TOC removal at full hydraulic load of 125, 000 gpd was about
25%, At a hydraulic load of 75, 000 gpd, the TOC removal was pro-
jected to be 35%. This projection agrees with actual experimental
data in later studies.
The respective total COD removal was much lower. This was expected
because biological solids synthesized at the expense of the organics con-
tributed to the COD. In fact, soluble COD removal was much higher at
all flows. This was an indication of the resistant nature of the Pali-
sades' wastewater towards biological treatment. However, for the
removable fraction of the organic material, a higher percentage of re-
moval was achieved by Unit I . The projected BOD removal at 75, 000
gpd and 125, 000 gpd flows would be 42% and 35% respectively.
It was observed that as flow rate increased, the rate of solid washout
increased correspondingly. It was difficult to grow enough biological
solids in Unit I to keep up with the loss through washout. Besides the
fact that increased flow rate reduced aeration time, lower biological
solids content in the aerator was also responsible for the lower or-
ganic removal in Unit I. According to Monod reaction kinetics (3):
1 d Xm
[i specific growth rate =
= (a. max.
Kc + Xc
where Xm and Xc are respectively solid and substrate concentra-
tions
(j. max is the maximum specific growth rate
Kc is the substrate concentration at which the growth
rate is one -half of the maximum specific growth rate.
63
-------
TABLE 5
Performance of Unit I: TOC and Temperature
Date
4/29
5/4
5/5
5/6
5/7
5/8
Influent
(n?g/l)
366
493
500
491
435
450
Effluent
(mg/1)
135
143
122
136
137
145
% T
Reduction
63.2
71.0
75.6
72.3
68.6
67.7
'empera
(degr<
18
19
19.5
19
18
19.5
Flow Rate = 3, 000 gpd
Average % Reduction = 69- 7%
Average Temperature = 18.8° C.
5/19 291 108 63.0 19-5
5/20 363 167 54.0 21.5
5/21 386 167 56.7
5/22/ 336 142 57.8
5/26 406 171 57.9 21
Flow Rate = 5, 000 gpd
Average % Reduction = 55.4%
Average Temperature = 20. 7 C.
64
-------
TABLE 5 Performance of Unit I: TOC and Temperature
(Continued)
Date
6/11
6/17
6/16
6/19
7/14
7/15
7/16
7/17
7/13
Influent
(mg/1)
462
370
332
392
502
340
375
285
408
Effluent
(mg/1)
214
210
191
189
260
180
190
160
188
fl
p
Reduction
53.
43.
42.
51.
48.
47.
49.
43.
54.
6
3
5
7
3
1
3
9
0
Tempers
(degrees
26
24
24.5
25.5
25
26
26. 5
27
24
Flow Rate = 9, 000 gpd
Average
Average
8/3
8/4
8/5
8/6
8/7
% Reduction =
Temperature
360
637
553
420
450
47.5
= 25.6 C.
207
355
307
250
280
42.
44.
44.
40.
37.
5
3
5
5
8
31
32.5
33.5
32.5
32.5
Flow Rate = 30, 000 gpd
Average % Reduction = 41.7
Average Temperature = 32.4 C.
65
-------
TABLE 6
Performance of Unit I: Total COD
Date
5/5
5/6
5/13
5/19
5/20
5/27
7/14
7/15
Flow Rate
(gpd)
3000
3000
5000
5000
5000
9000
9000
9000
Influent
(mg/1)
1477
1448
967
847
967
1204
1515
1241
Effluent
(mg/1)
580
596
359
417
444
733
858
798
%
Reductic
60. 7
58.9
52.6
50.7
54.0
39.2
43.4
35.6
7/18
20000
1229
767
37.5
66
-------
TABLE 7
Performance of Unit I: Soluble COD
Date
5/5
5/6
5/19
5/20
5/27
7/14
7/15
Flow Rate
(gpd)
3000
3000
5000
5000
9000
9000
9000
Influent
(mg/1)
1284
1313
734
812
1082
1437
1094
Effluent
(mg/1)
344
359
^64
287
532
691
586
%
Reduction
73. 1
72.6
64. 1
64.6
50.8
52.0
46.3
67
-------
TABLE 8
Performance of Unit I: Total BOD
Effluent %
(mg/1) Reduction
62 89-0
67 89-5
61 81.5
52 71.6
67 75.0
112 64.7
120 56.2
102 57.9
7/28 20000 287 160 44.3
Date
5/5
5/6
5/19
5/20
5/26
5/27
7/14
7/15
Flow Rate
(gpd)
3000
3000
5000
5000
5000
9000
9000
9000
Influent
(mg/1)
570
540
328
183
266
317
274
242
68
-------
350 -
300
250 _
u
o
H
w
200 -
150 -
100
30000 gpd
9000 gpd
5000 gpd
3000 gpd
300 400 5CTO
Influent TOG (mg/l)
FIGURE 21
REMOVAL OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON BY
UNIT I AT DIFFERENT FLOW RATES
6C(0
-------
Appendix C shows the results of a kinetic study using bench-top
aerators fed with Palisades' wastewater. These results are plotted
in Figure 22. The specific growth rates calculated from the slopes
of these curves were then plotted versus the respective organic con-
centrations as in Figure 23. The estimated maximum growth rates
for the two reactors were 5. 8 x 10~2 and 7. 0 x 10~2 hr. . The
7 — 1
average 6.4 x 10 hr. " was low compared to a conventional acti-
vated sludge treatment process having a specific growth rate of
approximately 9-0 x 10 hr. ~ . Also, the solid yield factors for
the two reactors were respectively 0. 29 and 0. 28 which were low com-
pared to 0.5 for an activated sludge treatment process. This informa-
tion substantiates the fact that Palisades wastewater contains a large
amount of non-biodegradable or resistant organics.
Using the data from Reactor B, the rate of solid growth and the rate
of organic removal (in terms of COD) can be expressed as:
d Xm = 7.0xlO~2 (Xm . Xc)
dt 77 + Xc
-dXc - 7.0xlO-2
dt 21.6 + 0.28 Xc
Both solid growth rate and organic removal rate could be enhanced by
increasing the solid concentration in Unit I. It is therefore important
to consider a modification of the Palisades treatment system by adding
a sludge return facility in Unit I for permanent operation
PILOT UNIT 11 - CARBON ADSORPTION AND ANAEROBIC REGENERA-
TiON:
The data collected in this phase of the study are presented in Tables 3A
and 3B in Appendix A, and are summarized in Figure 24. Series A
used spent carbon with a total of 6 treatment and regeneration cycles
during an 18-day period. During this phase of the study, the treatment
efficiency in TOC removal fell offquickly and approached equilibrium
after approximately four complete cycles. The declining efficiency was
70
-------
900-,
800-
700-
600-
60
E 500-
w
FIGURE 22
CHANGE OF COD AND MLVSS RESPECT
TO TIME
COD
Q
O
U
400-
300_
B
MLVSS
200-
100-
l
8
i
12
16
Time (Hr. )
20
24
71
-------
FIGURE 23
SPECIFIC GROWTH RATE VERSUS
ORGANIC CONCENTRATION
10-
8-
(M
I
X
2 _
am = 7. 0 x 10 hr
500
L_KC= J
1^77 ms/li
700
X (Mg/1)
c
800
72
-------
601
Series B
COD Reduction
4 5
Treatment Cycles
FIGURE 24
TREATMENT EFFICIENCY OF PILOT UNIT II
WITH ANAEROBIC REGENERATION
73
-------
due to hysteresis; the regeneration did not completely recover the
adsorption capacity even when extended regeneration periods were
used. By the end of 16 days (6 treatment cycles totaling 102 hours
and 5 regeneration cycles totaling 312 hours), the average soluble
TOC removal dropped from 50% to 25%. It appeared that the effi-
ciency finally reached equilibrium. The Series B study exhibited
similar results. Lower efficiency of TOC reduction was shown mainly
because of shorter regeneration time (4 regeneration cycles of totally
120 hours). COD reduction is also shown for Series B study for com-
parison.
In addition to soluble TOC and COD, changes of solids content and
volatile acids were also monitored during the regeneration cycles.
Hydrolysis of solids in the carbon column in both studies took place
since the mixed liquor volatile suspended solid concentration gradually
decreased in each regeneration cycle. There was little or no volatile
acid accumulation in the system, indicating a sufficient buffering
capacity of the system. Figure 25 demonstrates the change of total
organic carbon and inorganic carbon in a typical regeneration cycle.
It is interesting to note that the decrease of organic carbon always
corresponds with the increase of inorganic carbon in the system. This
is an indication of a complete anaerobic process where volatile acids
as intermediate products were further broken down. The organic car-
bon was therefore converted to inorganic carbon in the form of carbon-
ate or bicarbonate. The fact that there was no accumulation of volatile
acids in the system further substantiates this point.
Figure 26 shows the effects of the anaerobic regeneration cycles.
After, reaching equilibrium, the anaerobic regeneration constantly
brough back 40% of the original adsorption capacity.
Based on an inventory of the total COD material and total organic car-
bon in the influent and effluent, Pilot Unit II removed in the first treat-
ment cycle approximately 10 pounds of total COD and 1.2 pounds of
soluble TOC. The much larger amount of total COD removal compared
to TOC removal was due to the fact that biological solids were filtered
out partially and remained in the carbon bed. It was estimated from
data that 1.27 pounds of biological solids were retained in the carbon
bed after 24 hours of treatment. Part of the volatile solids was hydro-
lyzed in the regeneration cycle, but left more than 50% by weight of
the solids in the carbon bed. Each of the subsequent treatment cycles
had total COD and soluble TOC removals on the average of 5. 5 and 1.2
pounds, respectively. This indicated a decrease in the efficiency of
solids removal. It was observed that the influent soluble TOC concen-
74
-------
150 -I
Inorganic Carbon
100 -
Mi
c
o
rt)
u
50 -
Total Organic Carbon
I
5
I
10
I
15
I
20
I
25
Time (hours)
FIGURE 25
CHANGE OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC
CARBON RESPECT TO TIME IN A
REGENERATION CYCLE
75
-------
120-t
U
o
H
c
o
4)
w
U
(ti
a
n)
U
Tl
0)
ai
0)
100-
80-
60-
40-
Q series A
series B
20-
1 2 34
Regeneration Cycle
FIGURE 26
EFFECT OF ANAEROBIC REGENERATION
I
5
76
-------
tration was increasing steadily in the course of the study. The net
amount of soluble TOC removal, however, did not change much for all
the treatment cycles although percentage removal was decreasing as
.shown in Figure 24.
Based on reports from literature, activated carbon can adsorb as much
as 10% of its own weight of sewage organics. In the case of industrial
waste and effluent from bio-oxidation processes, the adsorption capac-
ity would be much less. The equilibrium isotherm study shown in
Figure 16 indicated that using Nuchar WV-G carbon and Palisades
waste at an effluent concentration between 200 to 600 mg/1 soluble TOC,
the adsorption achieved was approximately 12 to 15 mg/g of carbon.
The result agrees with the present study which showed, in 24 hours of
reaction time, a removal of approximately 1.2 pounds of soluble TOC
per 1000 pounds of carbon in the system. Since the performance was
repeated for many cycles, the regeneration process can be considered
successful in restoring the carbon adsorption capacity. Fouling of the
carbon bed by the accumulation of non-degradable solids could account
partially for the gradual loss of adsorption capacity. ,
The following table shows the amount of TOC and total COD removal in
each cycle of the second series of operation:
Cycle 1234
TOC Removal 12.4 11.3 12.3 10.0
(mg/g carbon)
Total COD Removal
. (mg/g carbon) 103 81 54 75
With an influent soluble TOC concentration between 200 to 600 mg/1,
Pilot Unit II yielded an effluent TOC on the average of 240 mg/1. The
equivalent effluent BOD and soluble COD concentrations would be approx-
imately 140 mg/1 and 470 mg/1. If Nuchar WV-G carbon is to be used
in the full scale plant, an increase of carbon bed volume is necessary
to assure a better treatment efficiency.
PILOT UNITIII- CARBON ADSORPTION AND AEROBIC REGENERATION
The removal of TOC in Pilot UnitlH is presented in Figure 27. The
average reduction in TOC decreased rapidly in the first few hours in
each treatment cycle. This indicates the failure of the aerobic regen-
77
-------
50 -
40 -
U
o
H
c 30
• r-t
C
O
•r-i
t-«
U
a
TJ
V
rt
10
O
1st series
Znd series
Treatment Cycle
FIGURE 27
AEROBIC REGENERATION OPERATION
78
-------
eration in restoring the adsorption capacity of the activated carbon bed,
although there was a reduction in TOC of about 50% in each of the re-
generation cycles. Naturally, when the carbon bed was saturated with
material resistant to biological degradation, it was not expected that
the same biological culture could regenerate the carbon by removing
this biologically resistant material. Discussion of the operation of a
modified pilot Unit III is presented in the section immediately following.
UNIT I, PILOT UNIT II AND PILOT UNIT III IN SERIES
Figure 28 presents the results of the month long test. It is obvious
that Pilot Unit III could remove only a small fraction of the organic
material from the Pilot Unit II effluent. Generally, a one-day regen-
eration time was too short for both pilot units and affected the follow-
ing treatment cycles greatly. When a one-day treatment was followed
by a two-day regeneration period, a steady state operation was
achieved at 1. 0 GPM per square foot of Pilot Unit II surface area.
From Figure 28 , the average total COD and soluble TOC reductions
at steady state operation for Pilot Unit III were both 5%. In terms of the
organic mass removal, Pilot Unit III removed in its treatment cycle
2. 7 pounds of total COD or 0. 8 pounds soluble TOC a day. Since the
two columns in the unit contained a total of 22 pounds of carbon, the
adsorption was equivalent to 0. 036 pound TOC per pound of carbon.
The amount of adsorption, being larger than that predicted by the
equilibrium isotherm (Figure 16 )» was made possible with the addi-
tional treatment in the receiving tank in which aeration was provided.
This removal was for a one-day treatment followed by a two-day regen-
eration cycle. If equal time periods were used for treatment and re-
generation, Figure 28 indicates that only half of the amount of removal
was noted.
The performance of Pilot Unit II in the same series of study can be ex-
amined. Figure 28 indicates 7. 5 per cent reduction of total COD as
well as soluble TOC in Pilot Unit II operated in series with Pilot Unit III.
This was equivalent to 4.47 pounds total COD removal and 1. 28 pounds
soluble TOC removal per 100 pounds of carbon. This removal effi-
ciency was identical to that found in the testing of Pilot Unit II described
previously.
UNIT II CARBON ADSORPTION - ANAEROBIC REGENERATION
To assess the performance of Unit II in organic and solids removal,
data presented in Table 6 of Appendix A were analyzed. With the cal-
79
-------
00
o
o
a
o
U
i— •
rt
•t!
O
H
Soluble TOC Reduction
Combined
Pilot Unit #2
.Pilot Unit #3
1. 0 gpm/ft'
10 15 20
November
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
Total COD Reduction
Combined
-Pilot Unit #2
Pilot Unit #3
10
0. 75 gpm/ft
-<-
1. 0 gpm/ft
i
15
i r
20
November
25
Yo
December
10
FIGURE 28
EFFICIENCY OF ORGANIC MATERIAL REMOVAL
PILOT UNITS II & III
-------
culations of TOC, total COD, dissolved COD and MLVSS removals in
pounds, percentages of TOC and MLVSS removal as well as pounds of
TOC removal per day per 100 pounds of carbon, the condensed results
are presented in Table 9. The percentages removal of MLVSS, TOC
as well as the TOC removal per day per 100 pounds of carbon are
plotted for each complete treatment - regeneration cycle as shown in
Figure 29 These tables and figures greatly facilitate the discussion
to be presented in the following:
When Unit II in full scale was first started, removal of TOC was very
high because of the high adsorption capacity of the virgin carbon. It
was found, however, that the removal efficiency rapidly decreased.
This was demonstrated in Figure 29 which showed the poor perform-
ance of the Unit from the 3rd through the 7th treatment - regeneration
cycles. During this period, an active, anaerobic culture was unable
to establish itself which led to the resulting poor performance. The
organic removal efficiency thereafter increased and reached a steady-
state.
A periodic washout of the biological solids from Unit II was observed.
When this happened, more solids left Unit II than were fed in from
Unit I, particularly in the first part of a treatment cycle. This was
usually the result of excessive accumulation of biological solids in
Unit II in previous treatment cycles as could be seen from Figure 25.
The Unit recovered rapidly, however, in subsequent treatment-
regeneration cycles.
The accumulation of an excessive amount of volatile solids in Unit II
would release later, upon hydrolysis in the regeneration cycle, a sig-
nificant amount of dissolved organics such as organic acids, alcohols
and aldehydes, etc. The organic removal by the Unit was therefore
affected unless a longer regeneration was provided for more complete
stabilization of the organic ^natter. The periodic occurrence of low
efficiency TOC removal (usually came after a period of excessive
solid accumulation) reflected this phenomenon. Neglecting both the
starting period in which an active culture has not yet been established
and the adjusting period in which washout of excessive accumulated
solids occurs, the average removal efficiency was determined from
Figure 29 for MLVSS, TOC, and TOC per day per unit weight of car-
bon. Also, the performance of the Unit in the last few treatment-
regeneration cycles was not considered in determining the average
values because a great deal of inert, fibrous material was found in
the Palisades wastewater which reduced the treatment efficiency of
both Unit 1 nnd Unit II. Figure 29 shows that Unit II removed, under
81
-------
00
TABLE 9
PERFORMANCE OF UNIT II - FULL SCALE
Date
2-3-71
2-5-71
2-8-71
2-10-71
2-12-71
2-15-71
2-17-71
2-19-71
2-22-71
2-24-71
Gal/
Hour
3637
2373
3908
4971
4620
4173
4964
4123
3923
4466
gpm/
ft2
1.21
0.79
1. 30
1.66
1.54
1.38
1.65
1.37
1.31
1.49
TOC #
Rem.
81. 7*
15. 1*
16. 18
47.6
23.3
9-7
12.3
46.0
33.4
_
% TOC
Rem.
48.9
43.6
14.2
18.3
12.2
10.25
13. 1
30.0
28.3
—
Total # Dissolved
TOC # Rem. / COD COD # MLVSS# MLVSS%
100# C/day Rem. Rem. Rem. Rem.
4. 1
2.3
0.81
2.4
1.2
0.48
0.62
2.3
1.7
— m
-
-
- - -
- - -
_
_
66.7* 42.8* 45.7* 51.5
245.2 135.9 15.2 42.5
105.0 109.3 37.7 41.3
45.7** 22.0 35.4
* Per 6 hours operation
** Per 4. 5 hours operation
-------
00
TABLE 9
PERFORMANCE OF UNIT II - FULL SCALE (cont. )
Date
2-26-7
3-1-71
3-3-71
3-5-71
3-9-71
3-11-7
3-15-7
3-18-7
24-hr.
3-22-7
Gal/
Hour
1 3143
4643
4896
4736
3280
1 4390
1 4290
1 3650
trmt.
1 4187
4446
s-r
1. 05
1.55
1.63
1.58
1. 09
1.46
1.43
1.215
1.395
1.485
TOC
Rem.
19.*
31. 0
51.3
35.6
5.82
34.4
27.6
27. 1*
29.3
# % TOC
Rem.
29.2
24.9
31.8
23. 0
8. 0
25.6
27.2
, j, .v. 10 O
1 O . £
26
TOC # Rem,
100# C/day
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
.1
1
. 3
.55
.6
.8
.3
.7
.4
.36
.47
Total #
. / COD
Rem.
88.9*
108. 1
137
-
21.3
107. 1
117.2
30. 6*
93. 3
Dissolved
COD #
Rem.
64. 7*
105.3
149-7
-
3.3
90.9
38. 5
15. 0*
o£ /I...
o o . 4 -'• -•- -'-
89
MLVSS#
Rem.
27.
12.
12.
10.
2.
8.
17.
4.
12.
0
8
6
8
5
95
5
8
3v', -.'.- vV
MLVSS%
Rem.
48. 0
34.2
61. 1
21.2
11. 8
39- 3
54. 1
31. 8
39-5
0
* Per 4. 5 hours operation
*•'.' Per 3 hours operation
### Per 6 hours operation
-------
co
TABLE 9
PERFORMANCE OF UNIT II - FULL SCALE (cont. )
Date
3-24-71
Gal/
Hour
5413
gpm/ TOC #
ft Rem.
1.805 6.7=:=
% TOC
Rem.
9.7
TOC # Rem,
100# C/day
0.67
Total # Dissolved
COD COD #
Rem. Rem.
46.* 43.3*
MLVSS#
Rem.
*.
MLVSS%
Rem.
.
51 hr. trmt.
Wgt. Avg.
3-26-71
3-29-71
3-31-71
4536
2187
3904
3260
3582
51 hr. trmt. 4440
4-2-71
4-6-71
4-7-71
4-9-71
4-12-71
2946
3570
4280
3215
3965
1.513" 25.2**
0.729 6.5**
1.300 5.85
1.086 8.95
1.193 7.40
1.480
0.980 22.1
1.19 33.8
1.429
1.071
1.322
19.6
14.6
8. 1
16.7
12.4
27.7
28
-
-
_
1.27
0.33
0.29
0.45
0.37
1. 11
1.69
-
-
•V
100.5** 87.5**
79.1 24.9
44.4 11.2
91 . 85.5
67.7 48.4
116.3 70.0
137**
37*
19.3**
33. 7
-
36.6
25
41. 5
33.3
20. 0
8.26**
21. 3*
20. 9**
23. 05
-
57.4
40.8
46. 5
43.7
46.5
24.8
46. 35
47. 55
56.2
* Per 3 hours operation
*# Per 6 hours operation
-------
00
Ul
TABLE 9
PERFORMANCE OF UNIT II - FULL SCALE (cont. )
Gal/ gpm/ TOC #
Total #
% TOC TOC # Rem. / COD
Dissolved
COD # MLVSS# MLVSS%
Date
4
4
-13
-15
4-16
Wgt.
4
4
4
4
4
4
-7
-7
-7
1
1
1
Avg.
-19-7
-20
-22
-23
-26
-27
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hour
4920
3925
4550
4130
3820
4270
3855
4690
ft Rem. Rem. 100# C/day
1.639 - -
1.309 12.42** 10.7 0.621
1.515 1.42* 2.91 0.071
1.38 9.23** 8.06 0.438
1.273 13. 85** 16.80 0.693
1.423 - 20.4
1.283 4.67 6,8 0.235
1.563 -
Rem. Rem. R
9.85* 6.
43.75** 30.
6.26* 4.
33.34** 23.
50.4** 16.
46.4* 9.
25.05** 22.
11.73* 18.
em.
95*
65**
1*
17**
8**
29*
35**
8*
Rem.
29.
59.
14.
44.
51.
28.
33.
33.
61.
20.
3
7
2
53
8
6
8
5
4
4
* Per 3 hours operation
** Per 6 hours operation
-------
70
oo
a-
MLVSS
Removal
of
/o
^Soluble TOC
Removed/ 100#
Carbon-Day
Soluble TOC
Removal %
60-
50-
40 •
30 -
20-
10 '
3 -
2 -
1 -
0
50 -
40 -
30 -
20-
10-
.
^x Average R'emoval
• "" *
* • •
. *
•
* • •
^**- . . ^(-"-"7 Average Remoyal
» * * *
t
•
• *
• • • * •
.
^x^^
^v>>~-»^^ . • _^- — Average Removal
•
• *
* " .
1 | 1 1 | | 1 L 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 1 I 1 * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 10 15 20 25 3C
Treatment - Regeneration Cycle
FIGURE 29
PERFORMANCE OF UNIT II TESTING IN FULL SCALE
-------
normal operational condition, 25% soluble TOC in the treatment cycles.
The average flow in this testing period was 1.3 gpm/ft2, or 94, 000
gpd. With an average flow of 75, 000 gpd and a full 6 feet bed depth in
Unit II, the projected removal could be 35%.
Figure 29 also shows that the adsorption capacity of Unit II was aver-
aging 1.5 pounds TOC/100 pounds of carbon. The capacity was higher
than that of the isotherm study. This was made possible because the
anaerobic condition in Unit II has transformed the organic matter and
made the adsorption capacity higher. The change of high molecular
weight organics into small molecular weight compounds was most
likely responsible. In addition, sulfur dyes could be removed by car-
bon more efficiently under anaerobic conditions •
In considering volatile suspended solids removal, Unit II removed, on
the average in each treatment-regeneration cycle, 47. 0% of MLVSS or
23.6 pounds of MLVSS/6 hour treatment cycle. A great saving in
sludge treatment therefore can be realized.
In general, the removal of dissolved COD was parallel to the removal
of soluble TOC in Unit II. Total COD removal was different because
total COD included oxidizable solid fractions. The difference of total
COD and dissolved COD should have a close relationship with the amount
of MLVSS removal. In a period in which total COD was analyzed, the
difference between total COD removal and dissolved COD removal was
approximately 29- 3 pounds per treatment cycle. The MLVSS removal
on the average was 21.2 pounds in the same period. Using CcH^NO.- as
the average composition of MLVSS which is oxidizable, the amount of
oxygen demand can be estimated as follows:
CCH^NO + 5 O0 = 5 CO9 + 2 H7 O + NH,
b / 2 ^
113 160
21. 2 x 16° = 30. 0 Ibs. as compared to 29. 3 Ibs.
113
It was demonstrated that total COD, dissolved COD and MLVSS can be
closely related and that the data of one can be used to check against the
others. Also, the oxygen demand of MLVSS can be easily estimated.
87
-------
Since the function of Unit II was to remove dissolved organics as
well as to filter some biological solids, the total performance of
organic removal should be expressed in terms of total COD removal.
While dissolved COD and MLVSS data were required in evaluating
the treatment performance for Unit II separately, total COD removal
could be estimated by converting MLVSS to oxygen demand and
adding it to the dissolved COD removal.
FULL-SCALE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION
The data in the start-up week from July 13-16, 1971 indicated a
very high removal for all units and for both Leg A and Leg B.
Table 10 summarized the treatment performance in dissolved COD
removal in the start-up week. The high performance in Units II
and III were therefore excluded in the analysis thereafter.
To facilitate the analysis, the treatment performance in terms of
total COD and soluble TOC removal are summarized in Tables 11
and 12 for Leg A and Leg B respectively. The amounts of COD and
TOC removal in pounds in each of the treatment cycles are calculated
and included in Tables 6 and 7 of Appendix A. The organic concen-
trations of the raw wastewater as well as that of the effluents from
each treatment unit are also presented. This is helpful in showing
the effect of raw waste concentration in the effluent quality as well
as the net amount of organic removals. The total flow in each
treatment cycle is presented for the same reason.
To analyze the performance of the treatment system, each unit will
be discussed separately. Unit I, its performance independent of the
rest of the system, will be discussed first.
It is important to note that the flow recorded in Tables 11 and 12
was that which went through Units II and III only. The total flow
for Unit I daily was much higher. In addition, the flow varied from
day to day which should have considerable effect on the treatment
efficiency. For many days the flow was between 126, 000 gallons to,
153, 000 gallons per day. The retention time in the aeration tank
was merely 4 to 5 hours which was very low for low biological solid
aeration in the treatment of biologically resistant wastewater. For
this reason, Unit I performance was not consistent. An attempt
is made in the following to divide Unit I performance into three
groups of good, medium and poor removals of oxygen demand.
88
-------
TABLE 10
PERFORMANCE DATA DURING THE STARTUP WEEK
LEG A - VIRGIN CARBON
oo
DATE TOTAL FLOW
7/13/71 18020 Gal.
7/14/71
7/15/71 30660 Gal.
LEG B - SPENT CARBON
7/14/71 12680 Gal.
7/1R/71
DISSOLVED COD MG/L
Raw Inf.
Unit I Eff.
Unit II Eff.
Unit III Eff.
1150
286
41
41
AVERAGE COD ACCUMULATED COD
REMOVAL % REMOVAL %
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
72. 7
84.2
10.8
72.7
95.7
96.2
____ ______R FHFIMFR AT TON------
Raw Inf. 1185
Unit I Eff.
Unit II Eff.
Unit III Eff.
Raw Inf.
Unit I Eff.
Unit II Eff .
Unit III Eff.
RFHFT
844
441
211
1172
495
344
0
STERATTON-
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
28.7
44.9
50. 0
57.2
28.6
100.0
27.8
60.2
80. 1
57.2
69.4
100.0
-------
TABLE 10
PERFORMANCE DATA DURING THE STARTUP WEEK (cont. )
LEG B- SPENT CARBON (cont. )
AVERAGE COD ACCUMULATED COD
DATE TOTAL FLOW DISSOLVED COD MG/L REMOVAL % REMOVAL %
7/16/71 24930 Gal. Raw Inf.
Unit I Eff.
Unit II Eff.
Unit III Eff.
2490
1373
1200
779
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
40.3
12.4
35.5
40. 3
47.7
66.3
-------
Date
Sample
TABLE. 1 1
PERFORMANCE DATA
LEG A
(VIRGIN CARBON)
TOTAL C. O. D.
SOLUBLE T. O. C.
Raw Inf.
7-19-71 Unit I
MON. Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-21-71 Unit I
WED. Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-23-71 Unit I
FRI. Unit II
37, 340 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-27-71 Unit I
TUE. Unit II
57, 310 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-29-71 Unit I
THUR. Unit II
32,370 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
8-2-71 Unit I
MON. Unit II
43, 080 gal Unit III
Avg.
Removal
47.9
40. 1
2.1.5
25.8
19.0
27.4
23.7
28.9
28.7
0
27.9
21.8
30.8
25,3
11.5
45.3
53.6
54.8
Accum.
Removal
47.9
68.7
75.4
25.8
39.9
56.4
23.7
45.8
61.4
0
27.9
47.2
30.8
48.4
54.4
45.3
74.7
88.6
Amt.
Removed
Ihs.
--
--
137
105.5
155
107.5
77.4
26.7
198.5
94.4
Cone.
mg/1
3100
1712
1019
794
2500
1908
1587
1268
1816
1561
1120
778
1129
1168
843
617
1640
1134,
846
747
1892
1035
480
217
Avg.
Removal
20
25.
18.
0
32.
16.
14.
18.
22.
40.
28.
6
4
9
8
0
6
7
3
7
Accum.
Removal
20
40.
51.
0
32.
44.
14.
30.
22.
53.
62.
5
4
9
1
0
0
7
8
0
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
37.6
20.3
59-1
20.
19.3
22.0
54.9
21.5
Cone.
mg/1
532
471
350
285
373
376
252
210
515
443
361
490
379
226
161
-------
TABLE 1 1 (cont. ).
PERFORMANCE DATA
LEG A
(VIRGIN CARBON)
Date
Sample
8-24-71
TUE.
127500 gal
Raw Inf.
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
8-26-71
THUR.
52500 gal
Raw Inf.
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
8-30-71
MOM.
111750 gal
REGENER
Raw Inf.
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
A TtriM
Raw Inf.
9-1-71
WED.
99000 gal
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-7-71
TUE.
6900 gal
REGENEE
x\ £jkj £rfi^i £*r
9-9-71
THUR.
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
A TTOM
^f^. 1 A Vrf'lN
Raw Inf.
Unit I
Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Avg.
Removal
18.9
34.2
8.5
13.8
19.0
10.7
19-5
19-5
29.3
28.6
8.0
10,6
19.8
11.7
8.6
20.6
27. 2
6.7 .
TOTAL
Accum.
Removal
18.9
53.0
61.6
13.8
32.8
43.5
19.5
37.0
68.2
28.6
36.5
47.2
19.8
31.5
40.0
20.6
42. 2
46.2
C. 0. D.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
520
129
116
65.6
265
399
142.5
190. 0
156
114.5
„_
Cone.
mg/1
1430
1159
670
549
1397
1204
939
789
1465
1180
895
466
2173
1551
1378
1148
2315
1857
1586
1387
2499
1983
1441
1343
S
Avg,
Removal
48.2
20.7
9.6
10.7
14.6
28. 1
29.8
19-3
14.7
29.7
5.9
7.7
32.6
10. 1
6.7
0 L U B L E
Accum.
Removal
48.2
68.8
78.5
10.7
25.3
53.4
29-8
49-0
63.8
29.7
35.6
43.4
32.6
42.6
49-5
T. O. C.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
134
62.6
23.2
44.5
67
51. 1
27.2
35.5
38
25.3
Cone.
mg/1
613
317
191
132
363
324
271
169
373
262
190
135
558
392
359
316
653
440
374
330
-------
TABLE 1 1 (cont.)
PERFORMANCE DATA
LEG A
(VIRGIN CARBON)
vD
oo
Date
Sample
Raw Inf.
9-14-71 Unit I
TUE. Unit II
34500 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-16-71 Unit I
THUR. Unit II
69250 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-20-71 Unit I
MON. Unit II
64500 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-22-71 Unit I
WED. Unit II
76500 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-24-71 Unit I
FRI. Unit II
28500 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-28-71 Unit I
TUE. Unit II
75750 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-30-71 Unit I
THUR. Unit II
22590 gal Unit III
Avg.
Removal
%
24.0
24.2
22. 1
10.3
11.2
19.3
0
18.8
30.6
17.3
14.4
37.6
16.5
7.0
10.9
23.9
20.7
36.0
28.5
2. 1
TOTAL
Accum.
Removal
%
24.0
42.2
55.6
10.3
21.3
40.7
0
18.8
30.6
46.7
61.4
37.6
54.0
61.0
10.9
32. 1
46. 1
36. 0
54.4
55.4
C. O. D.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
116
85.2
108.4
197
(1
115.0
264
236
131
55.2
426
282
104.5
5.6
Cone.
mg/1
2213
1681
1278
982
1776
1583
1395
1053
851
904
691
2512
1786
1341
971
3330
2080
1530
1298
3120
2770
2110
1673
3045
1946
1390
1360
s o
Avg.
Removal
%
21.6
26. 1
20.5
2.9
17.0
19-1
50.5
15.7
4.0
41.7
25.0
11.5
43.7
20.9
27.7
L U B L E
Accum.
Removal
%
21.6
42.0
53.9
2-9
19-1
34.7
50.5
58.2
59-9
41.7
56.2
61.4
43.7
55.5
67.8
T. O. C.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
34.
19.9
47.8
45.5
24.8
5.4
78
Z7.4
21.4
22.6
Cone.
mg/1
578
453
335
266
507
493
410
331
590
292
246
236
838
488
366
323
768
432
342
247
24.9
18.5
16.8
24.9
38.8
49.0
17.3
12.8
663
498
406
338
-------
TABLE 12
PERFORMANCE DATA
LEG B
(SPENT CARBON)
- Date
Sample
Raw Inf.
7-20-71 Unit I
TUES. Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-22-71 Unit I
THUR. Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-26-71 Unit I
MON. Unit II
Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-28-71 Unit I
WED. Unit II
52, 530 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
7-30-71 Unit I
FRI. Unit 11
1 a 490 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
8-3-71 Unit I
THURS. Unit II
7 8, 830 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
8-5-71 Unit I
THURS Unit II
31,860 gal Unit III
TOTAL C. O. D.
Avg.
Removal
%
0
24.4
32.8
39.6
25.9
17.2
38.4
21.0
32.0
27.4
11.8
23.1
0
12.6
14.5
14.8
0
38.5
Accum Aint.
Removal Removed
% Ifos.
0
24.4
49.2
39.6
55.2
62.9
38.4
51.5
67.0
27.4
36.0 64.4
50.7 112.6
0
12.6 20.3
23.8 20.2
14.8
14.8 0
47.0 376
Cone.
mg/1
1513
1589
1189
785
2513
1662
1304
1010
2182
1342
1058
721
1740
1261
1114
857
1289
1361
1198
1036
1734
1477
1490
917
S
Avg.
Removal
%
O L U B L
Accum.
Removal
%
E T. O. C.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
Cone.
mg/1
20.1
15.8
25.6
0
8.0
20.0
20.9
3.4
51.5
28.0
17.0
32.7
20.1
32.7
50.0
0
8.0
26.4
20.9
23.6
62.9
28.0
40.3
59-9
26.3
36.3
3.7
8.3
9-2
134.0
12.0
19.1
477
381
321
238
356
368
338
271
518
410
396
192
.. 36T
264
219
147
-------
TABLE 12
-------
TABLE 12 (cont.)
PERFORMANCE DATA
LEG B
(SPENT CARBON)
Date
Sample
Raw Inf.
9-15-71 Unit I
WED. Unit II
76500 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-17-71 Unit I
FRI. Unit II
20250 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-21-71 Unit I
TUE. Unit II
74250 gal Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-23-71 Unit I
THUR. Unit II
72000 gal U Unit III
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-27-71 Unit I
MON. Unit II
72000 gal Unit HI
REGENERATION
Raw Inf.
9-29-71 Unit I
WED. Unit II
70500 gal Unit III
Avg.
Removal
%
5.2
24.8
22.5
2.7
12.9
21.8
3.6
21.1
23.8
19.2
5.8
30.5
12.4
19.9
14.2
31.8
2.6
15.0
TOTAL
Accum.
Removal
%
5.2
28.7
44.7
2.7
15.3
37.3
3.6
24.6
48.5
19.2
25.0
55.4
12.4
29.7
39.7
31.8
33.7
43.7
C. O. D.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
34.3
234
46.2
73.3
220
247.5
82
430
336
194
29.2
157.6
Cone.
xng/1
2290
2170
1631
1264
2120
2063
1790
1326
1685
1624
1269
869
2350
1900
1763
1048
3230
2830
2270
1946
2700
1840
1790
1520
S
Avg.
Removal
%
0
31.3
18.3
8.7
9.7
11.8
1.2
13.0
15.5
O L U B L
Accum.
Removal
%
0
31.3
43.8
8.7
17.3
27.1
1.2
14.0
27.3
E T. O. C.
Amt.
Removed
Ibs.
117
47.2
8.3
9.3
39.7
42. 1
Cone.
mg/1
505
588
404
330
562
514
465
410
505
498
434
366
16.6
6.8
13.8
16.6
22.3
33.0
23.4
43.8
695
580
540
465
-------
Average Flow Total COD Soluble TOC BOD Removal %
Performance per day Removal % Removal % if Data Available
Good Low 42.0 40.0 44.6
{ 60,000 g.) (37-47.9)
Medium Average 27.3 26.6 56.4
( 75, 000 g. ) (23.7-30. 8)
Poor High 10.6 13.2 18-9
(100, 000 g. ) (0-20.6)
In general, higher flow through Unit 1 resulted in poorer performance
with the exceptions in many cases where medium to good performance
was found, although the flow was high. With very few exceptions, BOD
removal was much higher than total COD and TOC removal. The fact
that Unit I was a biological treatment process explains this phenomenon,
easily. Because only a low biological solid concentration was maintained
in Unit I , between 100-200 mg/1 (high in the 400 mg/1 and low 100 mg/l)t
a high BOD removal was not expected. High flows caused a washout of
biological solids faster than they could be synthesized and therefore was
more likely causing an inefficient bio-oxidation.
There were numerous reasons other than high flows that could lead to
the poor performance of Unit I . Although change of environmental
factors such as pH, temperature and D. O. was not likely in this study,
use of unusual chemicals in finishing processes or dyeing could upset
the biological treatment. The problems could be of toxicity or lack of
a sufficient acclimation period. Both are critical for a dispersed
growth biological reactor without biological solid return. Reviewing
the operation schedules of Palisades Industries in July, August and
September revealed that the poor performance of Unit I occurred con-
currently with the process of large amounts of white goods. Heavy
bleaching using peroxide resulted in discharging peroxide in the waste-
water. The toxic effects of the peroxide were experienced immediately
in Unit I . In many occasions, prolonged effects were observed particu-
larly in a high flow period. When both a toxic condition and washout
of biological solids occurred simultaneously, it was most detrimental
to the biological reactor and a prolonged period was required for the
recovery of a normal performance.
The performance data have demonstrated clearly the Unit I capability
and its limits as a dispersed growth biological reactor. Under a normal
(75, 000 gpd) to low flow condition, Unit I was able to remove approxi-
97
-------
mately 50% of BOD of the Palisades wastewater. The efficiency of
removal was limited by the biological solid concentration of the mixed
liquor. In addition, a low biological solid system was more sensitive
to toxic loadings and change of hydraulic flow. A loss of solids from
the system imposed a great hardship on Unit I which required a pro-
longed period to build up the acclimated, active biological solids be-
fore a normal operation could be restored. A major improvement can
be visualized by returning solids to Unit I. This could be accomplished
by renovating the clearwell and adding sludge pumps and pipelines. A
solid concentration between 1500 to 2000 mg/1 should be the target. A
very high sludge return flow is not realistic because it increases the
hydraulic flow above which Unit I cannot effectively handle. High
sludge return to Unit I would also allow more endogenous solid reduc-
tion and reduce the solid loading to Unit II. Consequently, the sludge
return practice should improve the performance of both Unit I and
Unit II.
The Unit II performance in this testing period was divided into three
groups similar to Unit I performance analysis as shown in Table 13.
Several factors accounted for the performance of Unit II. First of all,
the hydraulic flow was much too high for the carbon columns. It was
described previously that both Units II and III were fed by 150 gpm
pumps. There were approximately 300 cubic feet of carbon in each
leg of Unit II. Using a 50% expansion and a 45% void ratio of packed
carbon, the retention time of the wastewater in Unit II at a flow rate of
150 gpm was
t - 300 cu. ft. x 1. 5 x 0.45 x 7. 5 gal/cu. ft. = 10 min.
150 gpm
This retention time was too short for effective adsorption. In addition,
solid removal in Unit II was reduced at high flow which in effect re-
duced the total COD removal.
More significantly, a surge (high flow) would slough off the established
anaerobic culture on the carbon particles which were mainly respons-
ible for carrying out the hydrolysis process and a successful regenera-
tion of Unit II- Furthermore, a high flow introduced more residual
dissolved oxygen into the Unit. As a result, a true anaerobic condition
was not maintained as was observed in many instances.
The 150 gpm flow was three times the average wastewater flow of
75, 000 gpd from the Palisades Industries. It would seem desirable to
use pumps of various capacities so that when the flow was low (as in
98
-------
TABLE 13
UNIT II PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Performance
Good
Medium
Poor
Low Low 30.7 22.7 26.0 21.2
Fair Fair
Med. Med.
Med. Med. 16. 3
15.0
17.8 15.5
Fair Fair
Poor Poor
High High below below below .below Poor Poor
10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Length of
Average
Flow
Leg
A
Leg
B
Total COD
Removal %
Leg
A
Leg
B
Soluble TOC
Removal %
Leg
A
Leg
B
Solids
Removal
Leg
A
Leg
B
Regeneration/
Treatment
Leg
A
Leg
B
2.6
1.7
1. 0
2. 6
1.2
1. 0
-------
most of the time during the day) a much longer retention time would be
provided in Unit II.
The length of a regeneration peiod was critical to the Unit II perform-
ance. A long regeneration period assured a good recovery of the car-
bon adsorption capacity. The previous table demonstrates clearly
that the length of a regeneration period should be on the average 2. 6
times that of a treatment period in order to bring about a 21% to 31%
total COD removal under the described testing condition. When only
a short regeneration time could be provided as was tested purposely
in many instances, little hydrolysis of the retained solids took place.
Consequently, when a treatment cycle was resumed, solids accumula-
ted in Unit II and were washed out due to the rising pressure. A poor
performance, particularly in terms of total COD or solid removal, was
therefore inevitable.
The performance of Unit II depended somewhat on the performance of
Unit I when the influent organic was strong. A good removal of solid
or dissolved form of organic would relieve Unit II from overloading,
and therefore assured a better Unit II performance. When the influent
organic concentration was low, however, the performances of the two
Units were not related.
Leg A of Unit II outperformed Leg B consistently in the test period.
The outcome was expected because Leg A contained virgin carbon to
start while Leg B contained spent, although washed, carbon. Adding
up all the total COD removed by Leg A Unit II throughout the test
period (from Table 7) yields a total of 2937. 3 pounds of total COD.
This is equivalent to 2. 3 # total COD removal/cycle/100# carbon.
Taking an average of 1. 8 regeneration days for each treatment day in
this period, the -capacity of Unit II was approximately _~_ x 2. 3 = 1. 6 #
total COD removal/day/100# carbon. This was a very high removal
although it appeared that the percentage of removal was low for Unit II.
The high organic concentration in the Unit I effluent was primarily re-
sponsible for this. Apparently Unit II was able to remove organic mat-
ter up to the adsorption capacity of the carbon and regenerated it
successfully. Unfortunately, a large amount of organic matter was
still left in Unit II effluent which required further treatment.
Unit II performance based on Leg B was less effective. A total of
1879- 1 # total COD were removed in the test period. This was equiva-
lent to 1. 0 # removal/day/100# carbon. Since the carbon in Leg B had
been, used for several months prior to this testing period, the removal
was still impressive.
100
-------
The performance of Unit III was analyzed much the same way as for
Unit II. The average total COD removal under low to medium flow rate
and longer regeneration period conditions was 28.4%, and the respec-
tive TOG removal was 23.7%. The average length of regeneration
period was 2.4 days to one day of treatment. A good performance by
Unit II was also helpful in bringing a better organic removal in Unit III.
When the flow was higher and the regeneration was shorter (1.6 days to
one day of treatment), the total COD and TOC removals were, respec-
tively, 15. 0% and 18. 3%.
The retention time of wastewater flow in Unit 3 in a treatment cycle with
a 150 gpm flow was approximately 7. 0 minutes. Again, it would seem
necessary to provide various pumping rates so that a low flow will
give longer detention time.
The total COD removal in the entire testing period was 4858 pounds.
With 12000 pounds of carbon in the four columns and an average of 2. 0
days regeneration for a one-day treatment, the equivalent removal was
0.9# total COD/day/100# carbon. Unit III was inadequately aerated in
the regeneration period; consequently, it was felt that its full capacity
had not been used.
Limited data on BOD removal for both Units II and III show the average
BOD removal for Unit II was 24% while that for Unit III was 18%. The
variation of BOD removal was much wider than TOC or total COD re-
moval. It was observed that whenever Unit I was performing poorly
in BOD removal, Unit II was highly efficient. However, when Unit I
was efficient, Unit II could not remove much of the remaining BOD.
This was particularly true when hydrolysis converted some large mol-
ecular organic matter normally non-biodegradable to small molecular
ones which are mostly biodegradable. The released BOD through
this mechanism sometimes could be more than the original BOD coming
into Unit II. The same phenomenon was observed in BOD removal by
Unit III which depended somewhat on Unit II BOD removal.
The BOD removal for the entire system was on the average 63.2%.
This was higher than the TOC removal and comparable to total COD
removal. The BOD removal efficiency was not a good measure for this
system, however, because of the internal changes or release of BOD
from organic matter which was not available in the form of BOD coming
into the treatment system. Therefore, for a better evaluation of the
total treatment including solid and dissolved organics removal, total
COD removal was more appropriate.
101
-------
Despite the difference of Unit II and Unit III in their mechanism
of treatment and regeneration processes, both Units suffered from
many identical difficulties; namely, short retention time in treat-
ment cycles, insufficient length of regeneration period and
inadequate maintenance of an anaerobic or aerobic condition.
While some of these problems can be corrected without much
difficulty such as change of feed pumps and improvement of the
aeration system in Unit III, the main problem lies in the fact that
both Units II and III were significantly underdesigned. From the
material balance analysis of the data collected, both Units were
capable of removing the organics up to the limits of the carbon
adsorption capacity and then regenerated repeatedly for continuous
operation. The combined removal of total COD in Units II and III -
in this full-scale testing period was 9, 674 pounds, with an average
of 312 pounds per treatment-regeneration cycle. Still, significant
amounts of organic matter left the treatment system because of the
high influent organic concentration. It is unrealistic to expand
the sizes of Units II and III manyfold to improve the effluent quality
to an acceptable level. The bulk of the organics should be removed
by Unit I. Tables 1 and 2 (Section II) summarize the performance
of the existing treatment system and a system which would meet
the projected treatment efficiency.
SUMMARY
The Palisades wastewater is a strong organic waste containing
organic dyes, most of which are resistant to biological treatment.
Removal of the organics from the wastewater by carbon adsorption
is limited by the adsorption capacity as well as the rate of regen-
eration. This project demonstrates the feasibility of a treatment
system using biological oxidation plus adsorption-anaerobic
regeneration and adsorption-aerobic regeneration. The capacity
of the system, however, must be expanded in order to handle the
treatment effectively. However, the unit has a high potential in
dye waste treatment and is worth further study.
102
-------
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The concept for the design and construction of the Palisades
pilot plant was developed by Edward L. Shunney, Clarke A.
Rodman, and Philip P. Virgadamo of Fram Corporation. The
biological regeneration process is the development of Dr.
Stephen S. Blecharczyk and is the subject of a pending patent
assigned to Fram Corporation.
Supervision and management of the pilot plant operation was
conducted by Dr. Calvin P. C. Poon of University of Rhode Island.
His guidance and advice leading to the successful completion of
this project is gratefully appreciated.
The cooperation of Mr. Anthony Guarriello, President,
Palisades Industries, Inc. and his staff is gratefully acknowledged.
Construction and installation was accomplished by Walter Bigos
and Robert Moseley of Fram Corporation with the help of the
maintenance staff of Palisades Industries.
Sampling and analysis conducted throughout the test period
were performed by Richard Harris and Frederick Keenan of
Fram Corporation along with the aid of the Environmental
Engineering Department at the University of Rhode Island.
The type of activated carbon used in the pilot plant was selected
on the basis of carbon evaluation studies conducted by Anthony E.
Perrotti of Fram Corporation.
The organization, preparation and writing of this report was
the work of Dr. Calvin P. C. Poon of the University of Rhode
Island, Mr. Philip P. Virgadamo and Miss Susan M. Anderson,
both of Fram Corporation. The efforts of Miss Doris Peck for
typing of the manuscript are also gratefully acknowledged.
103
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. Fram Corporation. "Bio-regenerated Activated Carbon
Treatment of Textile Dye Wastewater", Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Grant Project
No. 12090 DWM. , January 1971.
2. Molvar, A. E., Rodman, C- A., and Shunney, E. L.. ;
"Treating Textile Wastes with Activated Carbon",
Textile Chemists and Colorists, August 12, 1970, Vol. 2,
No. 16, p. 36.
3. "Removal of Color from Textile Dye Wastes", Textile
Chemists and Colorists, November 1971, Vol. 3, No. 11,
pp. 239/45 to 247/53.
4. Eckenfelder, W. W. , Jr. :Water Quality Engineering for
Practicising Engineers", Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York,
New York, 1970.
5. Shunney, E. L. , Perrotti, A. E. , Rodman, C. A.,
"Decolorization of Carpet Yarn Wastewater", American
Dyestuff Reporter, Vol. 60, 1971, No. 6, p. 32.
6. Heukelian, H. , "Aeration of Soluble Organic Wastes with
Non Flocculent Growths", Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, Vol. 41, 1949, p. 1413.
7. Hopkins, C. B. , Weber, W. J., Jr., and Bloom, R. Jr.,
"A Comparison of Expanded Bed and Packed Bed Adsorption
Systems", Report No. TWRC-2, Robert A. Taft Water
Research Center, FWPCA, USDl, Cincinnati, Ohio,
December 1968.
8. Cookson, J. T., Jr. "Chemical Characteristics of
Activated Carbon in Water", Proceedings of the Annual
North Eastern Regional Anti-Pollution Conference, 1969,
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R. I.
105
-------
9- Cookson, John T • , and Ishizaki C-, "Adsorption
of Sulfur Containing Taste and Odor Compounds on
Activated Carbon" paper presented in 44th Annual
Conference, Water Pollution Control Federation,
October 1971, San Francisco, California.
10. Herbert, D. , Elsworth, R. and Telling, R. C., "The
Continuous Culture of Bacteria: A Theoretical and
Experimental Study", Journal Gen. Mirobiol. 14,
601-622, 1956.
11. Knowles, C. L. , Jr., Chemical Engineering, 77, No. 9,
pp. 103-109 (1970).
12. Kugelman, I.S., Paper Presentation "Treatment of
Wastewater by Moving Bed Filtration", 23rd Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana (May 1968).
13. Hassler, J. W., Activated Carbon, Chemical Publishing
Company, New York, 1963.
14. Johnson, R. L. et al, "Evaluation of the Use of Activated
Carbons and Chemical Regenerants in Treatment of
Wastewater", AWTR-H
U. S. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-WP-13,
May 1964.
15. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, J. H. Perry, Editor,
Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
(Section 16).
106
-------
SECTION X
APPENDIX
107
-------
APPENDIX A
109
-------
Table 1-A (cont.)
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15. 1970)
Changes in Organic Concentration!
D»te 5/11 5/12 5/13 5/14 5/15 5/16 5/17
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
ToUl COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
To Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
Gallons Treated 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
5/11
140
42
70.0
5/12
344
82
76.2
965
285
20.5
871
176
79.8
90.3
61.7
226
40
82.3
804
166
79.5
5/13 5/14 5/15
296 335 325
9Z 98 . 116
69.0 70.8 64.3
967
358
52.6
808
213
73.6
83. S
51.5
255
56
78.0
763
200
73,7
-------
Table 1-A
Date
Soluble TOC - in
-------
Table 1-A (cont.)
Start-Up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15, 1970)
In Organic Concentration!
N>
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC- out I mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/t)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - In (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/l) 275
% Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
% Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/l)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
4/6 4/7 4/8
145 281 205
118 108 117
18.6 61.5 43.0
456
438
3.9
395
275
30.6
86.5
62.5
4/9 4/10
226 194
126 134
44.3 31.0
635
453
28.7
566
330
41.7
89.3
73.0
161
48
70.2
4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
414 563
145 248
64.9 55.9
1450
894
38.4
1335
683
48.8
92.0
76.0
483
208
57.0
4/15 4/r6 4/17
478 575
210 208 230
56.5 60.0
1304
820 755
42.0
1185
550 545
54.0
91.0
67.0 72.2
360
70
80.5
Gallons Treated
8635
8660
9317
9200
12450
16800
7750
4500
3000
-------
Table 1-A (cont.)
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15, 1970)
Changes In Organic Concentration*
Date 4/18
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1),
Total COD - out (mg/l)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
"t> Reduction JoluUc *_OD
«,'o Soluble COD - In
% Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
4/19
/zo
o
2
Q
U
K
U)
1
U
4/21
405
200
50.6
1256
1231
2.0
1070
489
54.3
85.2
39.8
3*0
260
33.3
4/22 4/23 4/24
375 344 330
185 178 184
50.7 48.3 44.3
1081
1126
940
485
37.8
87.0
51.6
338
168
50.3
4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28 4/29 4/30
253 293 366 395
133 133 135 145
47.5 54.6 63.2 63.3
965 1132
589 627
38.9 44.6
849 1001
354 412 .
58.3 58.9
87.8 88.5
60.2 65.7
180 265
57 66
68.3 75.3
963 960
478 427
50.3 55.5
Gallons Treated
2000
2000
3000
4125
3600
3075
2000
2000
4725
3000
3000 4500
-------
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
7» Reduction Total COD
% Soluble COD - in
% Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - In (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
Table LA (cont.)
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15, 1970)
Change* In Organic Concentration!
5/1 5/2
273
134
51.0
5/3 5/4 5/5
493 500
143 122
71.0 75.6
1477
580
60.7
1284
344
73.1
87. 1
59.2
570
62
89.0
1233
375
69.4
5/6 5/7 5/8
491 435 450
136 137 145
72.3 68.6 67.7
1448
596
58.9
1313
359
72.6
90.8
60.2
540
67
89.5
1187
350
70.5
5/9
5/10
Gallons Treated
2250
2000
2000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
-------
Table 1-B
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15. 1970)
Chemical and Physical Data
Date 3/23 thru 3/31 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - in (° C. ) 13-16 13-16
Temperature - reactor ( C-) 14-15
NH - nitrogen (mg/1) 00 00
Q
Org. Nitrogen (mg/1) < y 13.4 18.5 2.2 2.5
H H
1—1 Ortho-Phosphate (mg/1) *• U 23 19 11.3 9.5
LH "
Poly-Phosphate (mg/1) 070 4. 8 2. 3
2 O
MUSS (mg/1) (J 336 238 191 126
MLVSS (mg/1) - 190 177 102
Sludge Volume Index 300 357 Very Very
High High
-------
Table 1-B (cent.)
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15, 1970)
Chemical and Phyiical Data
Date 4/12
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - in ( C.)
Temperature -reactor ( C.)
NH - nitrogen (mg/1)
Org. Nitrogen (mg/1)
Ortho-Phosphate (mg/1)
Poly-Phosphate (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Sludge Volume Index
4/13 4/14
6.7-9.2
6.5-7.3
0
1.2
16.9
3.9
209
152
480
4/15 4/16
5.9-6.3 6.0-6.5
6.6-7.5 7.8-8.0
19-23
17-19
0
2.0
16.5
4.4
191
130
630
4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 4/22 4/23
7.0-8.0 7.0-9.3 7.9-8.3
7.4-7.6 7.4-7.7 7.1-7.8
20-24 22-25 19-24
18-20 19-20 17-19
2.24 3.64
1.68 3.08
-« 20 20
Q
tj 3.8 0
' 651 502
K
544 409
92 98
-------
1 aoie i-o (coin. ;
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15, 1970)
Chemical and Physical Data
Date 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
pH.in 7.9.8.3 6.2-7.4 7.0-9.1 6.3-6.8 5.6-8.0 5.6-7.9 7.9-9.7 5.7-7.1
pH- reactor 7.4-7.7 7.7-8.1 7.8-8.0 7,7-8.2 7.5-8.1 7.3-8.2
Temperature- in (°C.) 17-20 16-28 19-26 19-27 18-25 19-21
Temperature- reactor (° C. ) 19-20 18-19 18-20 17-19 17-19 18-19
NH - nitrogen (mg/1) 18'8 15'8
Org. Nitrogen (mg/1) 7l ° 8'4
Ortho-Phosphate (mg/1) 20 18>5
Poly-Phosphate (mg/1)
187
MLVSS 135
Sludge Volume Index 428 3
-------
Table 1-B (cont.)
Start-up of Unit 1 (March 23 - May 15. 1970)
Chemical and Physical Data
D.t. 5/6 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 5/11 5/1Z 5/13 5/14 5/15 5/16 5/17
pH - in 5.7-9.8 6.2-8.7 6.0-7.4 7.3-9.6 6.8-9.J 6.1-8.6 5.7-7.0 5.Z-7.6
PH- reactor 7.6-7.9 7.6-8.1 7.4-7.9 7.5-7.7 7.4-7.8 7.2-7.8 7.1-7.8 7.0-7.6
Temperature- In (°C.) 20-25 19-27 20-24 18-29 22-29 22-28 24-27 22-31
Temperature- re»rtor(°C.) 18-20 17-20 19-20 19-21 21-24 18-21 21-22 21-22
NH - nitrogen (mg/1) 7.3 3.8 3.4
Organic Nitrogen (rng/1) 6.4 2.3 2.2
Ortho-Phosphate (mg/l> 26.3 19.0 18.2
£ Poly-Phosphate (mg/1) 7.0 1-6 '-8
00
MLSS (mg/1) 215 200 225 111 101
MLVSS (mg/1) 176 88
Sludge Volume Index 42. H'8h Hi«h
-------
Table 2-A
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
* Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the
operation of other unite are included in other applicable tables.
_ _ 5/29 5/30
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (me/1) 417 444 "-" '" 6/
f. Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
% Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in
-------
Tibia 2-A (cent.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970)
ts>
O
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
1, Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
It Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
ft Reduction Soluble TOD
5/31
DOWN
H
D
B
V)
O
Z
u
u
u
•s
LONG
6/1 6/2
1366 1066
761 734
44.3 31.1
1209 908
571 502
52.9 44.8
88.5 85.2
75.0 68.5
375
110
70.7
1023
620
39.4
6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6
970
717
26,1.
843
495
41.3
87.0
69.0
202
66
67.4
912 9-»0
555 642
39.2 31.7
6/7 6/8 6/9
1018
726
28.7
757
523
30.9
74.5
72.0
246
43
82.5
710 908
540 621
24.0 31.6
6/10 6/11 6/12
462 458
214 206
53.6 55.0
1350
1056
21.8
847
522
38.4
62.7
49.5
350
93
73.4
1122
568
49.3
Gallon* Treated
1500
9000
6750
9000
9000
1500 1500 1500 5000
9000
9000
9000
6000
-------
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/l>
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble COD
To Soluble COD - in
% Soluble COD - out
Total EOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
To Reduction Soluble TOD
Table 2-A (cont. )
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970)
6/13 6/14 6/15 6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21
370 332 392
210 191 189
43.3 42.5 51.7
865
692
20.0
737
491
33.4
85.2
70.9
188
44
76.7
670
495
26.2
6/22
416
227
45.4
6/23
350
203
48.2
1012
810
20.0
866
469
45.9
85.5
58.0
355
US
66.7
765
388
49.3
6/Z4 6/25
513 335
255 178
50.3 46.9
992
692
30.3
832
412
50.5
84.0
59.6
309
94
69.5
795
410
48.5
Gallons Treated
1500
1500
1500
1500
9000
9000 9000
1500 1500
9000
9000
9000
9000
-------
Table 2-A (cent, )
Operation o£ Unit I
-------
tN>
LO
Table 2-A (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970)
Date 7/23
Soluble TOC -• in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
It Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
7, Reduction Soluble COD
"it Soluble COD - in
% Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total DOD - out (mg/1)
7. Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
Gallons Treated 1500
7/24. 7/25 7/26
to
2;
0
*•*
t^
s *
$ *
o
7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5
490 372 377 383 290 360 637 553
202 170 187 187 166 207 355 307
58.8 54.7 50.5 51.2 42.8 42.5 44.3 44.5
1229
767
37.5
1094
490
55. S
89.0
63.9
287
160
44.3
1500
1500
150,0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20.000 20,000 1500 1500 30.000 30,000 30,000
-------
Table 2-A (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970)
D*te 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1) 420 450 460 41Z 510 350
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1) 250 280 280 374 477 310
% Reduction Soluble TOC 40.5 37.8 39.1 9.2 6. 5 11.4
Total COD - In (mg/1) 895
Total COD - out (mg/1)
ft Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1) $73
Soluble COD - out (mg/1) ^
<
% Reduction Soluble COD O
. 3
% Soluble COD - in o
a
7o Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
Gallon* Treated 30,000 30,000 1500 1500 39,000 54,200 57,000 55,000 1500 1500 54,000 57,000 47,250
-------
Table 2-A (cent.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May IB - September 30, 1970)
Ul
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
To Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
7» Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
% Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - In (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
To Reduction Soluble TOD
8/20
360
230
36.1
8/21
330
300
9.1
8/22 8/23
/24
NO DYEING
8/25
OPERATIONS
8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
425 415 515 605 460 765
370 340 345 435 380 360
12.9 18.1 33.0 28.1 17.4 53.0
1245
1049
15.7
1170
859
26.6
94.0
81.8
225
155
31.1
Gallons Treated 24,000* 16,500 1500 1500 1500 1500 21,150 30,000 18.000
* Flow reduced to
obtain higher solids.
1500
1500 30,000 30,000 30,000
-------
Table Z-A (cont. )
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970)
ro
Date
Soluble TOC - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
To Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total BOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
9/3 9/4 9/5
705 375
420 295
40.4 21.3
9/6 9/7 9/8 9/9 9/10 9/11 9/12
730 737 597
•103 483 477
44.8 34.5 20,0
1993
1766
11.4
1829
1407
23. 1
91.7
79.2
390
290
25.6
9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16 9/17 9/18
742 1110 837
444 660 540
40.0 40.5 35.5
2279
05 1375
W
J 39.5
01 «
w k Z112
f~ 0
J Z 903
5 j 57-2
0 H 92.5
2 w
« 66.5
985
415
47.8
Gallons Treated
30,000 30,000 1500 1500 30,00030,000 30,00030,000 1500 1500 1500 1500 30,000 30,000 30,000
-------
ro
-j
Date
Soluble TOG - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOC - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOC
Total COD - in (mg/1)
Total COD - out (mg/1)
7o Reduction Total COD
Soluble COD - in (mg/1)
Soluble COD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble COD
% Soluble COD - in
7o Soluble COD - out
Total BOD - in (mg/1)
Total DOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Total BOD
Soluble TOD - in (mg/1)
Soluble TOD - out (mg/1)
% Reduction Soluble TOD
Table 2-A (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970)
9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23 9/24 9/25 9/26
. 1150 673 610 780 660
655 557 500 507 463
43.0 17.3 18.0 35.0 29.8
9/27
9/28 9/29
657 605
497 425
24.4
9/30
900
550
29.8 38.9
2781
2440
12.3
2405
1565
34.8
86.5
64. 1
Uallon« Treated
1500 1500 30,000 18,000 20,000 21,000 30,000 1500
1500
30, 000
18,000 30.000
-------
T*ble Z-B
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
* Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other uniti
are included in other applicable tables.
Date 5/18 5/19 5/20 5/21 5/22 5/23 5/24 5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29
pH - in 5.8-8.6 6.8-8.9 6.7-7.6 5.0-5.8 6.0-7.5 7.0-9.7 6.8-9.3 6.3-8.2
pH - reactor 7.3-7.9 7.5-8.0 7,.3-7.7 7.3-7.8 7.4-7.8 7.1-7.3 7.2-7.3 6.3-7.7
Temperature - in (° C.) 19-31 20-26 19-25 19-29 22-35 22-32
Temperature - reactor (° C.) 20-25 19-20 19-22 20-21 20-22 21-23
NHj - Nitrogen (mg/1) 10.8 9.3 22.4 19.6
Organic - Nitrogen (mg/l)i 4.3 3.4 3.1 4.5
tv Jr'...o.r-'i3»phate (mg/1) 25.4 28.0 24.8 25.5 Q
« * 2
Poly-Pho»phate (mg/1) 4.4 o 6.2 3.3 £ *
w °
MLSS (mg/1) 104 118 117 160 W Q
? H
MLVSS (mg/1) 0 •=
5 »
Sludge Volume Index (mg/1) 240 170 Very Very °
High High J
-------
Table 2-B (cent.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
* Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other unit*
are included in other applicable tables.
Date 5/30 5/31 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6 6/7 6/8 6/9 6/10 6/11 6/12
pH-in 6.4-9.4 6.2-9.2 5.9-9.16.3-7.5 6.6-7.86.7-9.0 6.0-7.3 4.9-7.7 5.8-9.4
pH-'reactor 7.6-8.0 7.3-7.9 7.2-7.77.3-8.0 7.4-7.5 7.5-7.8 6.9-7.3 6.8-7.6 7.1-7.6
Temperature - In (°,C.) 20-39 25-29 24-30 26-29 21-23 21-30 24-32 26-33 27-34
Temperature - reactor (° C.) 22-23 23-24 23-25 24-25 21-22 22-23 24-25 25-27 26-27
NH - Nitrogen (mg/1) 19.2 17.5 19.0 11.2
Organic - Nitrogen (mg/1) 5.2 4.5 6.4 5.4
Ortho-Phosphate (mg/1) 30.3 31.4 47.8 48.0
Poly-Phosphate (mg/1) 3.2 2.1 8.2 5.3
MLSS (mg/1) 252 156 165 238
MLVSS (mg/1) 177 . 118 189
Sludge Volume Index (mg/1) 32 26 'High High
-------
U)
o
Date
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - In (° C.)
Temperature - reactor (° C.)
NH - Nitrogen (mg/1)
Organic - Nitrogen (mg/1)
Ortho-Phosphate (mg/1)
Poly-Phosphate (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Sludge Volume Index (mg/1)
Table 2-B (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May IB - September 30, 1970) *
Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other units
are included In other applicable tablet.
6/13 6/14 6/15
6/16
21.3
7.3
37.5
1.5
166
128
High
6/17 6/18
6.7-9.4 6.9-9.3
7.5-7.7 7.7-8.0
24-33 26-36
25-25 24-25
20.4
4.8
31.3
1.5
138
104
High
6/19
5.2-7.3
7.2-7.7
27-32
25-26
6/20 6/21 6/22
6.0-9.5
7.4-7.8
24-35
23-25
6/23
.5-8.4
.1-7.6
24-32
25-26
5.9
5.0
34.3
1.4
228
200
57
6/24
5.2-9-3
7.0-7.9
27-33
25-28
7.8
4.2
33.2
0,7
206
189
High
-------
Table 2-D (eont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other units
are included in other applicable tables.
1st week after vacation shutdown -
Date '6/25 6/26 6/27 6/28 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20
pH . in 6.4-9.7 6.3-9.9 6.2-7.06.7-7.4 5.4-6.2 6.8-9.5 5.2-8.8 6.4-3.1
pH - reactor 7.2-7.7 7.5-7.8 7.5-7.67.4-7.8 7.0-7.6 6.8-7.5 6.8-7.1 7.2-7.4
Temperature - in (° C.) 27-36 27-36 Z3-30 27-31 27-30 28-38 28-29 25-27
Temperatvre - reactor (° C.) 25-28 26-29 23-25 24-26 25-27 26-27 26-28 26-27
NH - Nitrogen (mg/1) 23-7 15.9
>—' Organic - Nitrogen (mg/1) 5.4 1.4
1-1 Ortho-Phosphate (rng/1) 4t 40
Poly-Phosphate (mg/1) 1.3 1.5
MLSS (mg/1) 16* 210
MLVSS (mg/1) 147 20Z
Sludge Volume Index 18 24
-------
Data
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - In (°,C.)
Temperature - reactor {° C.}
NH - Nitrogen (mg/1)
Organic - Nitrogen (mg/1)
Ortho-Photphate (mg/1)
Poly-Photphate (mg/1)
ML3S (mg/1)
ML.VSS (mg/1)
Sludge Volume Index
Table 2-D (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
* Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other unite
are included in other applicable tablet
7/21 7/22
6.8-9.6 6.8-7.5
7.5-8.1 7.4-7.7
25-43 28-30
26-29 28-29
9.5
4.2
27.8
8.2
100
92
30
7/23
U
Z
W
|x
P
O
z
7/24 7/25 7/26 7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1
8.3-9.1 6.6-9.7 8.2-10.1 5.3-9.5 6.4-7.3
30-43 33-40 32-38 31-35 31-33
28-29 29-32 31-32 32-33 31-32
w
Z
0
•H
H
K
U
0,
O
-------
00
Table 2-B (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
* Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other unite
are included in other applicable tables.
Date
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - in (° C.)
Temperature - reactor (° C.)
Date
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - in(° C. )
Temperature - reactor (° C. )
Date
pK - in
pri — reactor
o
Temperature - in ( C. )
Temperature - reactor ( C. )
8/2
t.
6.
8/14
6.3-9.2
6.7-7. 1
29-33
3C-32
8/26
8.1-9.0
8. 1-8. 3
35-37
31-33
8/3 8/4 8/5
3-8.8 4.8-9.0 4.5-9.1
9-7.0 6.2-6.9 6.7-7.1
29-41 33-34 29--12
30-32 31-34 29-36
8/15 8/16 8/17
5. 1-9.2
6.3-6.8
28-40
30-33
8/27 8/28 8/29
33-35 36-37
32-33 34.35
8/6
4.8-7.1
6.6-7.5
31-36
32-33
8/18
6.4-9.5
6.1-6.6
29-35
29-33
8/30
8/7
5.0-9. 1
6.4-6.9
31-41
31-34
8/19
6.8-7.5
7.0-7.2
29-32
30-31
8/31
5.9-8.4
29-37
30-32
8/8 8/9 8/10
D
J
O
I
8/20 8/21
7.7-8.2 6.6-8.8
7.2-7.4 6.8-7.5
30-38 30-35
31-33 30-34
9/1 9/2
6.1-8.6 5.6-6.6
6.1-6.8 6.3-6.4
30-32 30-34
30-31 30-31
8/11
6.3-9.4
6.9-7.2
27-55
28-32
8/22
9/3
4.9-5.0
5.3 -6.2
31-33
31-32
8/12
5.8-9.6
6.9-7.3
30-32
32-35
8/23
9/4
6.5-6.7
6. 5-6. 8
29-30
29-30
8/13
6.7-8.9
6.8-6.9
28-30
30-31
8/24 8/25
CO
O Z
z °
s \
Q ~
O 0.
2 O
9/5 9/6
-------
Table 2-B (cont.)
Operation of Unit 1 (May 18 - September 30, 1970) *
* Part of the data from the operation of Unit 1 and the operation of other unit*
are included In other applicable tablet.
Date
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - in (° C. )
Temperature - reactor (° C. )
Date
pH - in
pH - reactor
Temperature - in (° C. )
Temperature - reactor {° C. )
9/7 9/8 <
5.
2 6<
£ 32-37
S 29-30
9/20 9/21
5.9-11.1
7.5-9.3
28-38
28-33
>/9
2-7.1 6
3-71 6
31-33
29-31
9/22
7.9-9.2
7.1-7.6
33-34
32-33
9/10 9/11 9/12 9/13 9/14
.0-6.8 2
W
97 r\ *
31-36 Z
31-33 0
Z
9/23 9/24 9/25 9/26
6.7-9.0 7.1-10.1 9.3-9.6
7.1-7.9 7.2-8.1 6.4-7.9
32-34 33-37 32-34
30-32 33-35 32-34
9/15 9/16
Ul
M 7.2-10.6 <
^ 7.5-8.2 (
* 29-31
° 28-31
9/27 9/28
6.5-9.6
7.5-7.7
29-32
28-30
9/17 9/18
(.4-10,8 7.6-10.1
29-34
30-31
9/29
9.3-10.0
7.5-8. 1
29-30
29-30
31-34
29-32
9/30
7.3-10.2
7.3-7.5
31-32
31-32
9/19
-------
Table 3-A
Date
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total.COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adsorption Anaerobic Regeneration
Series D (July 29 - Augu«t 7. 1970)
July 29- 30
Treatment Cycle
July 29
9:00 A
Influent
6.9
Z70
70
200
932
870
807
. M.
Effluent
6.6
220
70
150
1670
216
216
11:00
Influent
7.2
280
60
220
796
176
176
130
A.M.
Effluent
8.3
170
95
75
360
106
98
82
1:00 P.
Influent
7.3
270
65
205
9M
207
180
M.
Effluent
7.7
170
70
100
467
110
105
3:00
Influent
7,4
300
70
230
957
180
157
231
P.M.
Effluent
7.6
170
75
95
420
112
98
109
July 30
9:00 A.
Influent
6.6
320
70
250
1411
572
433
256
M.
Effluent
7.2
265
60
205
824
100
80
145
-------
Table 3.A (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
Series B (July 29 - Augui t 7. 1970)
July 30-31
Date
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MISS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
DOD (mg/1)
Volatile Acid (mg/1)
July 30
9:00 A.M.
6.6
ZZO
80
140
S62
165
113
125
0
R e ge ne
11:00 A.M.
6.4
210
90
120
4S2
80
56
0
ration Cy c le
1:00 P. M.
6. 5
210
90
120
430
161
87
108
3:00 P.M.
6.5
195
95
100
404
158
80
223
204
July 31
9:00 A.M.
6.2
200
120
80
424
257
86
195
0
-------
Table 3-A (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon AcUorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
Serie* B (July 29 - August 7, 1970)
July 31 - Auguit 1
10
Date
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Treatment Cycle
July 31
9:00 A
Influent
6.6
350
70
280
2700
1800
325
. M.
Effluent
6.6
340
40
2SO
1460
407
1340
11:00
Influent
7.1
260
70
190
775
139
132
74
A. M.
Effluent
6.5
190
70
120
458
61
45
56
1:00 P.
Influent
7.2
260
60
200
820
189
136
M.
Effluent
6.8
210
60
150
646
163
131
3:00
Influent
7.0
290
60
230
830
115
90
78
P.M.
Effluent
6.9
210
60
150
523
110
90
41
Auguat 1
9:00 A.
Influent
6.0
320
60
260
28, 200
9300
5800
1050
M.
Effluent
6.8
210
50
160
712
252
248
72
-------
Table 3-A (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
Seriei B (July 29 - August 7. 1970)
A ugmt 1 - 3
oo
D*te
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Volatile Acid (mg/1)
August 1
9:00 A.M.
6.3
200
70
130
538
9Z
48
77
84
Regeneration Cycle
11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M.
5.8
195
90
105
444
53
51
58
204
3:00 P.M.
August 3
9:00 A.M.
6.5
400
230
170
714
21
17
210
744
-------
Table 3-A
Date
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1;
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
Series B (July 29 • August 7, 1970)
August 3 - 4
Treatment Cyc
August
9:00 A
Influent
6.3
550
90
460
11200
8000
5950
3
. M.
Effluent
6.4
380
140
240
6224
3550
2800
11:00 A.
Influent
6.7
260
60
200
857
147
147
174
M.
Effluent
6.6
230
70
160
1385
531
450
192
1:00 P.
Influent
7.0
280
60
220
828
100
96
le
M.
Effluent
6.7
265
60
205
666
106
106
3:00 P.
Influent
6.8
290
50
240
1001
203
180
162
M.
Effluent
6.7
230
50
180
980
157
145
167
August
9:00 A.
Influent
5.9
480
45
435
1654
165
165
344
4
M.
Effluent
6.3
405
40
365
1307
153
145
252
-------
Table 3-A (cent.)
Date
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Volatile Acid (mg/l>
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adiorption > Anaerobic Regeneration
Seriei B (July 29 - August 7, 1970)
Augmt 4 - 5
August 4
9:00 A.M.
6.2
370
70
300
912
120
101
140
1ZO
Regenerati on
11:00 A.M.
6.2
340
65
275
1980
2000
1700
432
Cycle
1:00 P.M.
6.1
410
55
355
1684
1290
960
288
3:00 P.M.
6.1
380
70
310
1307
200
180
396
384
August S
9:00 A.M.
6. 1
510
120
390
1504
156
124
450
768
-------
Table 3-A (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
Series B (July 29 - August 7. 1970)
August 5 - 6
Date
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
August 5
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
5.9
510
40
470
5240
2443
2060
6.0
500
55
445
4790
2060
1800
Tr
eatment Cycle
11:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.8
330
50
280
1030
250
209
122
6.5
310
50
260
1190
380
340
167
1:00 P.
Influent
6.7
350
50
300
1640
705
568
. M.
Effluent
6.6
295
40
255
1417
527
460
3;00 P
Influent
6.5
440
50
390
1620
495
415
190
. M.
Effluent
6.6
360
50
310
1120
217
200
170
August 6
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
5.9
445
40
405
10,240
5650
4700
6.7
395
40
355
1970
560
500
-------
M
Date
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1).
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Volatile Acid (mg/1)
Table 3-A (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adtorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
Series B (July 29 - Auguit 7, 1970)
August 5 - 6
Auguit 6
9:00 A.M.
6.0
335
SS
280
1394
254
202
Treatment Cycle
11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M.
6.Z 6.1
320 310
65 60
255 Z50
1140
146
123
3:00 P.M.
6.1
330
75
255
1124
139
115
Auguit
9:00 A.
6.
390
110
280
1065
121
102
7
M,
3
480
480
504
528
-------
Table 3-A (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 2
Carbon Adaorption Anaerobic Regeneration
Series B {July 29 • Auguit 7. 1970
Date
PH
Auguat 7
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
5.8
5.9
August 7
Treatment Cycle
11:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
5.7
6.1
1:00 P.M.
Influent Effluent
6.2
6.4
2;00 P.M.
Influent Effluent
6.4
6. 5
Total Carbon (mg/1)
540
415
415
360
340
320
360
325
oo
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 40
35
30
35
35
35
40
40
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 500
380
385
325
305
285
320
285
-------
Table 4-A
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Sertc. No. 1 (Auguit 13 - 24, 1970)
AuKuit 13-14
Treatment Cycle
Auguit 13 Auguit 14
?:UUA. M. 11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 9:00 A. M. 11:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
pH
Total Carbon (rng/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COO (mg/1) 1576
MLSS (mg/1) 220
MLVSS (mg/1) 203
BOD (mg/1)
9:00 A.M.
uen
6.3
8.5
680
55
49
6.7
1135
167
134
123
7.3 6.7 6.9
797 990 909
121 110 143
117 100 134
53
7.0
992
106
106
77
7.0
791
71
71
64
6.7
240
40
200
859
129
117
6.9
240
40
200
930
149
135
"6.7
230
35
195
769
149
115
146
6.8
210
35
175
729
96
76
123
-------
Table 4-A (cont.)
Ul
August 13 - 14
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Series No. 1 (August 13 - 24. 1970)
August 14 - 17
August 1 7 - 18
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l)285
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Treatment Cycle
Regeneration Cycle Treatment Cycle
August 14
1:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M.
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
7.1
320
35
/1)285
1073
191
160
7. 1
270
35
235
979
93
73
6.9
410
35
375
1425
155
134
Z09
6.9
340
30
310
1190
115
98
178
August 17
9:00 A.M.
7.1
115
55
60
197
34
29
40
August 17
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.1
405
35
370
1645
300
255
6.9
330
57
273
1330
362
324
11:OOA.M. 1;OOP.M.
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
6.4
410
27
383
1273
145
124
189
6.6
335
35
300
1000
95
84
176
6.8
335
20
315
1353
124
94
6.8
300
20
280
1169
68
68
-------
Table 4-A (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adiorption - Aerobic Regeneration
(August 13 - 24, 1970)
Serlei No. 1
Augu»t 17 - 18
AuguBt 18-19
pll
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Treatment Cycle
Auguat 17
3:00 P.M.
Influent Effluent
7.1
465
25
440
1392
100
84
543
6.9
375
25
350
1417
64
61
346
Auguat 18
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
5.2
620
45
575
1845
130
123
603
5.3
470
37
433
1394
MS
134
496
August 18
9:00 A.M.
5.7
420
67
353
1071
75
63
422
Regeneration Cycle
11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M.
5.6 5.7
385 345
70 . 50
315 295
923 919
45 34
39 31
5.6
330
45
265
891
37
31
354
August 19
9:00 A. M,
S.7
248
40
208
760
41
35
271
-------
Table 4-A (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Series No. 1 (August 13 - 24, 1970}
August 19 - 20
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
H-1
.IV
. Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
T r e a t me
August 19
9:00 A.M.
Influent
6.3
310
50
260
887
57
39
Effluent
6.5
300
50
250
1012
144
108
nt Cycle
11:00 A. M.
Influent Effluent
6.8
340
55
285
844
103
79
150
6.6
310
55
255
747
58
51
134
1:00
P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
7. 1
380
60
320
957
113
85
6.6
310
50
260
764
73
67
7.2
430
70
360
917
133
91
211
6.4
375
70
305
880
71
49
194
August 20
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.5
290
90
200
2330
1088
925
450
6.8
280
90
190
742
68
62
186
-------
Table 4-A (cont.)
00
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Acliorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Serte* No. 1 (Auguit 13 - 24, 1970)
Augm t 20-2 1
Auguit 20
9:00 A.M.
6.6
280
90
190
1367
395
325
375
Regeneration
11:00 A.M.
6.7
260
70
190
774
113
98
Cycle
1:00 P.M.
6.6
250
90
160
740
83
74
3:00 P.M.
6.4
230
90
140
622
73
64
171
Augu*t 21
9:00 A. M
7.3
200
110
90
398
36
32
169
-------
NO
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Table 4-A (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Seriea No. 1 (August 13 - 24, 1970)
August 21
- 22
Treatment Cycle
August 21
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.7
390
90
300
1062
98
91
6.8
380
110
270
1397
360
355
11:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
7.3
325
95
230
835
155
133
170
7. 1
290
100
190
794
140
135
154
1:00
Influent
7.0
350
105
245
802
98
98
146
P.M. 3:00 P.M.
Effluent Influent Effluent
7.0 6.9 7.1
300 345 285
100 110 110
200 235 175
632
66
61
121
August 22
9:00 A. M.
Influent Effluent
6.7
290
100
190
732
42
42
117
7.1
265
100
165
682
78
75
144
-------
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MISS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Table 4-A (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
SerieiNo. 1 (Auguit 13 - 24, 1970)
Augmt 22 - 24
Regeneration
Auguit 22
9:00 A.M.
6.8
260
100
160
699
98
90
176
Cycle
Auguit 24
11:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M.
6.9 7.4
240 170
110 ISO
130 20
494
65
65
114
-------
Table 4-B
(Jl
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/l)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Series No. 2 (September 3-11, 1970)
September 3-4
Treatment
September 3
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6. 1
420
50
370
1607
525
525
7.4
225
90
135
657
123
113
11:00
Influent
5.6
420
30
390
1610
412
406
610
Cycle
A.M.
Effluent
6.3
340
30
310
1247
386
386
449
1:00
Influent
5.5
420
20
400
1557
507
500
P.M.
Effluent
6.2
310
30
280
1140
264
236
3:00 P.M.
Influent Effluent
5.3
485
20
465
1710
450
425
655
5.8
340
20
320
1227
260
248
437
September 4
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.4
350
30
320
1485
394
394
446
6.6
285
30
255
1217
275
275
242
-------
VJi
Table 4-B (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adeorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Seriee No. 2 (September 3-11, 1970)
September 3-4
pH
Total Carbon (ing/I)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/l)
BOD (mg/l)
September 8
Treatment Cycle
11:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.0
350
20
330
1410
313
313
6.3
290
30
260
1360
224
208
September 4
1:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M.
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
6.6
260
25
235
1004
192
175
288
6.4 6.5 6.8
220 280 230
30 30 30
190 250 200
837
156
152
188
Regeneration Cycle
September 8
9:00 A.M.
6.9
60
30
30
275
119
87
100
-------
Table 4-B (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Series No. 2 (September 3-11, 1970)
September 8 - 9
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLS3 (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Treatment Cycle
September 8
9:00 A.M.
Influent
300
35
265
860
123
86
Effluent
260
35
225
692
223
153
11:00
Influent
PH
485
40
445
1309
129
95
428
A.M.
Effluent
METER
340
40
300
975
92
75
302
1:00
Influent
DOWN
410
40
370
1425
106
76
P.M.
Effluent
350
50
300
1110
111
85
3:00 P.M.
Influent
585
40
545
1752
77
46
650
Effluent
445
40
405
1330
110
85
471
September 9
9:00 A.M.
Influent
7.2
380
85
295
1375
344
326
337
Effluent
7.4
360
85
275
1129
234
216
271
-------
Table 4.{T (coot, j
t-\lp miwi Operation of Pilct WMJ. 1
Carbon Adsorption Aerobic-KegcnexatioA
Series No. 2 (September 3-fl." 1$70)
Sept e n> b e r,. 9 - 1 0.
Regeneration Cycle
September 9 September 10
9:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 9:00 A.M.
J.H
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l> 270
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
7.1
355
83
270
1202
111
111
333
7. 1
285
95
19D
742
78
71
7.1
280
100
180-
6TJ
98
95,
7.Z
255
90
165
672
61
56
178
7.1
250
110
140
579
40
.38
219
-------
Table 4-B (cont.)
Ul
Start-up and Operation of Pilot Unit 3
Carbon Adsorption - Aerobic Regeneration
Series No. 2 (September 3-11. 1970)
September 10-11
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 445
Total COD (mg/1)
MISS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/I)
September 10
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.9
515
70
445
1990
242
242
7.1
450
85
365
1732
273
260
T
11:00
Influent
7. 1
480
65
415
1811
230
223
327
r e a t m i> n t
A.M.
Effluent
7. 1
460
65
395
1635
207
207
323
Cycle
1:00
Influent
7.2
505
50
455
1895
240
210
P.M.
Effluent
7.2
475
55
420
1729
207
193
3:00
Influent
6.9
515
55
460
1922
220
220
368
P.M.
Effluent
7. 1
480
55
425
1735
210
177
367
September 11
9:00 A.M.
Influent Effluent
6.9
465
65
400
1749
325
325
176
7.4
410
80
330
1410
171
166
150
-------
Table 5
01
A « RAW INFLUENT
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Serie* (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
B - UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November •> - 10
D « PILOT UNIT J EFFLUENT
November 9
PH
Temperature (* C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 440
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Treatment Cycle
A
7.2
22
460
20-
440
350
9:00 A.M.
B C
7.
18
420
40
380
1280
76
63
290
1 7.1
18
390
20
370
1100
55
45
310
D
7.1
18
135
10
125
400
57
49
115
10:00 A.M.
A B C
7.3
21
420
25
395
1280
90
72
7.2
21
365
30
335
1060
68
59
D
7.3
21
150
30
120
480
42
39
11:00 A.M.
ABC
7.4
20
400
35
365
1301
27
15
310
7.4
20
360
35
325
1100
56
49
300
12:00 A.M.
D A B C
7.3
20
175
20
155
480
32
29
170
7.4
22
410
30
380
1520
96
78
7.3
22
360
35
325
1120
69
60
D
7.4
22
240
30
210
740
79
69
-------
Table S (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
(November 9-December 11. 1970)
Ui
A » RAW INFLUENT
November 9
pH
o
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
in Series
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 9 - 10
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treatment
1
B
8.2
23
360
10
350
1280
82
65
330
:00 P.M.
C
7.5
23
290
25
265
1120
88
78
340
2:00
DAB
7.2
23
220
20
200
900
60
50
235
9.6
24
560
20
540
2101
138
118
P.M.
C
8.5
23
435
25
410
1400
90
75
Cycle
D
8.0
23
325
20
305
1140
99
81
November 10
9:00 A.M.
A B C D
9.2 8.7
23 20
985 860
50 60
935 800
3680
293
247
1515
9.9
20
815
60
755
3780
185
159
1394
9.4
20
743
40
703
2907
162
132
1333
REGENERATION
11/10 THRU 11/12 - 9:00 A.M.
48 HOURS
-------
Ol
00
A « RAW INFLUENT
November 12
PH
Temperature ( C.)
Toul COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (tag/I)
BOD (mg/1)
PH
o
Temperature ( C.)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Table 5 (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Serlei (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
B « UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 12 - 13
D « PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treatment Cycle
9:00 A.M.
ABC
9-7 8.4
24 21
880
41
33
470 320
1:
9.6
22
1200
56
43
400
7.9
21
980
62
55
450
00 P.M
9.6
22
1040
49
40
400
10:00 A.M.
D ABC
7.4
21
1120
110
101
450
8.2
22
880
55
50
295
9.8
21
740
32
26
2
9.6
23
1380
70
54
8.9
21
T O
840
43
39
D
7.6
21
C
860
78
93
:OOP.M.
9.3 7.7
23 24
T O
1180
56
53
11:00 A.M.
ABC
10.3
23
INOPERABLE
780
43
29
. . _ . - 320
Novemb
22 21
9.7
23
740
31
25
310
er 13
21
12:00 A.M.
D A B C D
8.4 10.5 9.9 7.8
23 24 24 24
660 800 760 620
33 51 45 50
29 36 40 49
260
-9:00 A.M. REGENERATION
11/13 THRU 11/16 - 9:00 A.M.
21 72 HOURS
C INOPERABLE
980
47
42
2060
128
106
515 405
1760
110
90
315
1500
153
133
280
-------
cn
RAW INFLUENT
November 16
pH
Temperature (° C.)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
PH
o
Temperature ( C*)
Tctal COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
T»ble 5 (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11. 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 16 - 17
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
TreatmentCycle
9:00 A.
A B
8.2 7.2
24 20
900
66
62
M.
C
7.1
20
1660
340
316
D A
7.2
20
T O
1560
234
217
10:00 A.M.
B C
7.8 7.3
19 19
11:00
DAB
7.3 7.7
19 20
A.M. 12:00 A.M.
CD ABC D
7. 5 7. 5 7.7 7.4 7.4
20 20 20 20 20
C INOPERABLE
780 900
60 63
60 63
1220 800
91 58
89 57
700 640 760 620 600
50 50 70 54 52
49 49 68 50 48
IMPROP'ER DILUTIONS
1:00 P.
7.7
21
860
60
60
M.
7.4
21
640
50
47
7.4
21
T 0 C
640
62
51
2:00 P.M.
7.7 7.5
21 21
INOPERABLE
880 660
67 51
62 44
November 17 -
7.3 8.4 7.9
21 23 21
640 860
50 105
47 105
9:00 A.M. REGENERATION
7.8 7.7 11/17 THRU 11/18 - 9:00 A.M.
24 HOURS
21 21
740 700
72 63
70 63
IMPROPER DILUTIONS
-------
Table 5 (cent.)
SUrt-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
In Seriei (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
RAW INFLUENT
November 18
PH
o
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 865
Total COD (mg/l>
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treatment Cycle
A
9.1
31
955
90
865
415
B
8.6
21
870
75
795
345
9:00 A.
C
7.4
21
680
40
640
260
M.
D A
7.2
21
425
40
385
205
10:00 A.M. 11:00
B C D A B
9.2 8.1 7.7 9.
22 22 22 21
810 745 555 795
35 45 60 65
775 700 495 730
2400
192
160
340
A.M.
C
1 8.
21
680
40
640
1680
124
110
275
D
6 8.2
21
560
50
510
1840
278
233
270
12:OOA.
A B
9.2
20
790
45
745
2360
215
177
M.
C
8.0
20
715
50
665
2000
178
156
D
7.6
20
695
25
670
2040
145
130
-------
Table S (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Seriei {November 9 - December 11. 1970)
RAW INFLUENT
November 18
PH
o
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 18-19
Treatment Cycle
1;
B
8.5
21
920
55
865
2520
242
194
580
00 P. M.
C
8.4
21
830
40
790
2160
154
134
470
2:00 P.
DAB
7.1
21
765
40
725
2000
158
142
430
8.6
20
960
65
895
2640
300
238
M.
C
8.2
20
870
50
820
2200
182
158
D
7.5
20
820
35
785
2040
164
148
A
10.3
25
1240
55
1185
2840
245
220
7650
November 19
3:00 P.M.
B C
7.2
23
795
60
735
3240
446
400
7650
7.2
23
710
60
650
2800
336
293
7650
D
6.5
23
640
50
590
2640
340
300
7650
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
REGENERATION
11/19 THRU 11/20 -
9:00 A.M. - 24 MRS.
-------
Table 5 (cont.)
ro
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
RAW INFLUENT
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
November 80 -21
T r ea tment Cyc
November 20
pH
Temperature (° C. )
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
A
9.1
26
955
85
670
2827
355
310
B
7.1
23
690
65
625
2747
444
389
9:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M.
C D A B C
6.5
23
680
75
605
2673
479
400
6.5
23
645
140
505
1840
304
271
7.3
24
745
70
675
2853
564
491
6.8
24
645
75
570
2587
381
356
le
D
6.3
24
615
90
525
3040
338
321
11
A B
7.3
25
780
100
680
2773
517
433
:00 A.M.
C
6.8
25
710
95
615
2587
381
329
12:00 A.M.
D A B C
6.3
25
660
75
585
2427
336
314
7.2
25
795
75
720
2773
500
431
6.
25
705
80
625
2640
433
393
6.9 6.1
-------
oo
A = ' RAW INFLUENT
November 20
A
PH
o
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Table 5 (cont. )
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 20 - 21
Treatment Cycle
1:00
B
7.4
25
815
85
730
3067
545
491
P.M.
C
6.8
25
810
90
720
2720
378
367
D A
6.2
25
755
60
695
2453
300
291
2:00
B
7.4
25
900
100
800
3040
592
508
P.M.
C
6.8
25
760
95
665
2853
427
367
November 21
9:00 A.M.
D A B C
6.2
25
710
75
635
2667
389
347
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
REGENERATION
11/20 - 3:00 P.M.
THRU 11/23 - 9:00 A.M.
66 HOURS
-------
A • .RAW INFLUENT
November 23
pH
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 115
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 -December 11, 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 23-24
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treat me nt
A
7.1
16
150
35
115
507
35
29
>55
9:
B
7.2
18
160
85
75
600
81
80
> 150
00A.M.
C
6.9
18
360
100
260
1360
104
86
>150
D
6.6
18
410
100
310
2000
554
445
91
10:
A B
7.4
18
180
45
135
560
85
83
Cycle
:00 A. M.
C
7.0
18
180
55
125
560
60
56
D
6.8
18
175
55
120
520
49
43
11:00
A B
7.5
19
190
40
150
620
82
78
89
A.M.
C
7. 1
19
180
40
140
600
70
64
105
D
6.9
19
175
45
130
500
37
35
91
A B
7.5
20
210
35
175
1000
92
88
12:00 A.M.
C
7.0
20
145
40
105
800
76
72
D
6.7
20
115
40
75
620
49
47
-------
Table 5 (cont.)
Ul
RAW INFLUENT
November 23
PH
o
Temperature { C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
= UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C = PILOT UNIT Z EFFLUENT
November 23 - 24
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
1:
B
7. 5
20
375
40
335
1280
123
120
185
00 P.M.
C
7.2
20
305
35
270
1180
88
86
148
T
D A
6.8
20
285
45
240
940
52
48
118
reatment Cycle
2:00 P.M.
B C
7.7
21
480
40
440
1660
146
134
7. 1
21
425
40
385
1520
116
108
D
6.8
21
380
40
340
1320
66
62
November 24
9:00 A.M.
ABC
7.9 7.3
20 18
565 480
75 60
490 420
2240
359
335
710 660
7.0
18
455
70
385
1960
221
204
240
D
6.8
18
455
55
400
2320
580
480
380
REGENERATION
11/24 thru 11/25 -
9:00 A.M. 24 Hou
-------
ON
A =
RAW INFLUENT
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 -December 11, 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
= PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
November 25
pH
o
Temperature! C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 480
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
November 25 - 26
Treatment Cycle
A
7.5
19
530
50
480
720
43
34
280
B
7.
18
540
90
450
2267
332
321
220
9:00 A.M.
C
4 6.8
18
495
120
375
1947
281
267
200
D A
6.8
18
500
80
420
1813
260
240
210
10:00
B
7.0
18
510
75
435
2053
400
392
A.M.
C
7. 1
18
520
85
435
1867
235
235
D
6.8
18
530
85
445
1973
344
311
11:00 A.M.
ABC
7.
20
480
70
410
1813
253
253
260
5 7.2
20
490
65
425
1813
204
200
220
D
7.0
20
500
70
430
1920
353
347
170
12:
A B
7.5
20
485
60
425
1543
267
239
00A.M.
C
7.3
20
470
70
400
1573
204
185
D
7.;
20
455
70
385
1573
220
204
-------
A = RAW INFLUENT
November 25
A
PH
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (nig/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (rng/1)
..Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
In Series
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
(November 9 - December 11, 1970)
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
November 25 - 26
B
7.6
20
580
. 65 •
515 •
1947.
229
219
340
1:00 P.M.
C
7.3
20
500
65
435
1653
193
177
270
D
7.0
20
480
65
415
1547
154
149
270
Treatment
2:00
A B
7.7
21
690
70
620
2267
274
247
Cycle
P.M.
C
7.4
21
610
85
525
1947
200
175
D
6.9
'21
595
65
530
1840
172
156
November 26
9:00 A.M.
ABC D
8.5 7.2 7.5 7.1
24 19 18 18
550 480 480 450
60 65 75 70
490 415 405 380
690 475 220 215
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
REGENERATION
11/26 thru 11/27 -
9:00 A. M. - 24 Hour
-------
00
A = RAW INFLUENT
November 27
PH
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)855
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Serie« (November 9 - December 11. 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
D * PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Nove mbe r 27
Treatment Cycle
A
6.1
19
890
35
1855
550
243
300
540
9:00 A.M.
B C
7.4
19
530
70
460
1733
181
180
470
7.1
19
525
75
450
1573
193
192
410
D
6.7
19
520
75
445
1413
176
152
365
10
A B
7.2
19
565
75
490
1867
220
220
:00 A.M.
C
7.0
19
570
80
490
1547
142
139
11:00 A
DA B
6.7
19
535
90
445
1440
163
160
7.3
20
580
85
495
1653
220
218
450
. M.
C
7.1
20
565
85
480
1653
142
142
450
12:00 A.M.
DAB C
6.9
20
550
80
470
1600
137
133
395
7.3
22
530
70
460
1680
190
188
7.2
22
540
85
455
1493
132
132
D
6.8
22
500
75
425
1360
131
131
-------
•Table !i (cont.)
November 27
PH
Temperature (° C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
In Series (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
Novembe r 2 7
T reat ment
B
7.4
23
555
85
470
1547
176
153
390
1:00 P.M.
C
7.3
23
540
85
455
1467
148
148
400
D
6.8
23
530
85
445
1413
125
119
370
CycU
2:00
A B
7.3
23
600
85
515
1680
150
150
P.M.
C
7. 1
23
565
80
485
1493
136
136
D
6.9
23
555
85
470
1440
119
119
REGENERATION
11/27 thru 11/30 -
9:00 A. M. - 72 Hour*
-------
-J
o
A •= RAW INFLUENT
November 30
* Start of 1.0 gpm/ft2
PH
o
Temperature { C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 145
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C « PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
D * PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
N ovembe r 3 0 - December 1 *
Treatment Cycle
A
7.3
17
170
25
US
200
98
92
540
9
B
7.3
17
220
45
175
720
102
100
470
:00 A.M.
C
6.6
17
390
90
300
1232
217
217
410
D
6.8
17
41$
100
315
1360
281
238
365
10
A B
7.5
19
195
55
140
420
76
74
: 00 A.M.
C
6.9
19
275
85
190
752
88
74
D
6.9
19
295
100
195
736
112
100
11:00 A.M.
ABC
7.5
21
270
55
215
380
58
58
450
7.1
21
275
60
215
464
60
57
450
12:00 A. M
DA B C
7.0
21
260
55
205
352
62
58
395
7.6
22
190
40
150
440
80
70
7.3
22
185
75
110
416
42
42
D
7. 1
22
180
SO
130
416
50
50
-------
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
In Series (November 9 - December 11. 1970)
i = RAW INFLUENT
November 30
* Start of 1. 0 gpm/ft2
PH
Q
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
= HLOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
November 30 - December 1 *
Treatment Cycle
1;
B
7.5
22
190
45
145
480
83
70
390
00 P.M.
C
7.2
22
175
50
125
448
46
45
400
2:00 P.M.
DA B C
7.0
22
165
40
125
512
56
52
370
8.0
Z3
220
40
180
600
76
66
7.2
23
180
45
135
480
58
,56
D
7.1
23
185
45
140
448
54
46
December 1
9:00 A.M.
ABC
7.5 7.5
21 19
275 240
60 55
215 185
520
68
62
200 210
7.3
19
220
50
170
460
60
60
120
D
7.1
19
220
45
175
500
58
55
115
REGENERATION
12/1 thru 12/2 -
9:00 A.M. - 24 hour*
-------
Table 5 (cent.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Sertea (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
A = RAW INFLUENT
December 2
PH«
Temperature (° C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 80
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 885
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
December 2 - 3
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treatment Cycle
.A
11.0
22
165
80
)885
127
68
67
40
9:00 A.M.
B C
9.8
19
665
60
605
1920
161
139
470
8.4
19
490
80
410
1653
141
122
440
D
7.3
19
440
70
370
1040
132
118
310
10:00 A.M.
A 11 C
9-8
22
740
65
675
2133
209
205
9.5
22
690
70
620
1867
132
108
11:
D A B
8.8
22
i
670
80
590
1813
129
112
10.1
22
720
60
660
2880
181
163
540
00 A. M.
C
9.5
22
700
70
630
2000
104
96
520
D
8.
22
665
80
585
1920
120
108
560
12:00 A.M.
BCD
9.9 9.6 8.9
23 23 23
760 70Q 680
55 65 85
705 635 595
2400 2027 2133
210 137 118
185 114 100
-------
Table 5 (cont.)
RAW INFLUENT
December 2
PH
o
Temperature ( C.)
,_, Total Carbon (mg/1)
*•** Inorganic. Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December II, 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
Decembe r 2 - 3
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treatment Cycle
B
9.9
24
780
55
725
2460
318
227
580
1:00 P.M.
C
9.4
24
755
70
685
2240
144
100
570
D
8.7
24
725
75
650
2453
145
113
520
A B
9.
24
695
50
645
2133
236
173
2:00 P.M.
C
7 9.1
24
680
55
625
2107
150
112
D
7.9
24
665
55
610
2080
137
105
December
9:00 A.
A B
8.7 7.6
23 21
690
80
610
2507
412
358
580 550
3
M.
C
7.3
21
655
80
575
2107
300
245
540
D
6.7
21
615
110
505
2000
205
167
425
REGENERATION
12/3 thru 12/4 -
9:00 A.M. - 24 Hr«.
-------
RAW INFLUENT
December 4
pH
o
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Ct rbon(mg/l)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 675
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
In Serlei (November 9 - December 11. 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C
Decemb er 4
PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
D * PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Treatment
A
8.1
23'
735
60
675
2387
164
138
9:00 A.M.
B C
7.2
24
695
80
615
2520
300
265
6.9
24
660
75
585
2307
272
236
D A B
6.9
24
680
95
585
2280
1177
1123
7.2
24
730
75
655
2733
720
647
Cycle
10:00 A.M.
C D
7.1
24
705
95
610
2333
272
224
7.0
24
695
75
620
2440
244
213
11:00 A.M.
ABC
6.9
24
620
70
550
2333
295
260
6.8
24
630
65
565
2307
231
203
D A
6.8
24
595
65
530
2227
213
180
12(00 A. M.
B C
6.7
25
675
65
610
2253
368
316
6.7
25
650
65
585
2093
238
200
D
6.
' 25
645
«
58-
206
14
H
-------
Table 5 (<:ont.)
A = RAW INFLUENT
Jecember 4
Temperature ( C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
K—I
Ijl Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11. 1970)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT C « PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
December 4
24
625
55
570
Z200
315
290
Treatment Cycle
1:00 P.M.
B C
>.5 6.6
I 24
> 630
> 50
) 580
) 2147
i 288
) 268
D
6.4
24
630
65
565
2120
263
230
A B
7.1
24
605
70
535
2013
204 -
176
2:00 P. M.
C
6.9
24
600
55
545
2013
233
210
D
6.7
24
575
75
500
1880
188
168
D = PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
REGENERATION
12/4 thru 12/7 -
9:00 A.M. - 72 Hr«.
-------
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
In Seriei (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
A - RAW INFLUENT
December 7
PH
Temperature (° C.)
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (m
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C • PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
D e c e m b e r7-8
A
6.8
17
350
55
295
;650
,850
•700
9:00 A.M.
B C
7.5
18
350
75
275
1170
180
152
7.1
18
405
100
305
1250
167
130
T
reatrnent
10;
DAB
6.9
18
450
105
345
1310
171
132
7.3
18
390
75
315
1270
342
242
Cycle
00A.M.
C
7.2
18
375
80
295
1070
191
126
D
7.2
18
370
95
275
1010
150
107
11:
A B
7.3
21
400
70
330
1270
241
171
00 A. M.
C
7.3
21
395
75
320
1090
173
135
D
7.2
21
400
85
315
1010
152
117
12:00 A.M.
ABC
7.2
21
405
60
345
1290
294
224
7.2
21
395
70
325
1230
176
128
D
7.1
21
395
65
330
1190
180
124
-------
Table 5 (cent.)
= RAW INFLUENT
December 7
PH
Temperature (° C.)
Total Carbon {ing/I)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Series (November 9 - December 11. 1970)
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
D e cern b e r 7 - 8
1:00
B
7.4
23
490
70
420
1490
118
95
P.M.
C
7.4
23
460
60
400
1390
180
86
D
7.
23
435
70
365
1250
84
66
Treatment Cycle
2
A B
2 7.9
23
570
55
515
1810
118
86
:00 P.M.
C
7.4
23
520
70
450
1670
158 v
122
D
7. 1
23
490
60
430
1510
159
118
December 8
9:00 A.M.
ABC
7.9 7.4
19 18
655 525
60 65
595 400
1747
268
245
7.6
18
510
60
450
1587
172
172
REGENERATED?"
D
12/8 thru 12/9 -
A.M. - 24 Mrs.
7.5
18
520
70
450
1747
300
253
-------
Table S (eont.)
00
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3
in Seriei (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
RAW INFLUENT
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT 2 EFFLUENT
D = PILOT UNIT J EFFLUENT
December 9 - 10
December 9
Total COD (mg/1) '
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
9:00 A
A B
1533 1773
102 230
72 215
1:00 P.
A B
1480
118 '
108
. M.
C D
1827 1773
190 208
180 200
*
M.
C D
1347 1293
96 90
90 82
Treatment Cycle
10:00 A.M.
A B C D A
1827 1720 1853
319 200 238
275 189 238
2:00 P.M.
A B C D A
1400 1373 1427
134 112 256
85 87 105
11
B
1560
177
168
:OOA.M.
C
1507
140
117
December 10
9:00 A.M.
B C
1107
128
125
1107
134
103
D A
1507
147
145
D
1160
83
76
12:00 A.M.
B CD
1427 1347 134'
158 118 11-
129 98 10:
REGENERATION
2/10 thru 2/11 -
9:00 A.M. - 24 Hro.
-------
vO
Table 5 (cont.)
Start-up and Operation of Unit 1 - Pilot Unit 2 - Pilot Unit 3 Effluent
in Serie* (November 9 - December 11, 1970)
A = RAW INFLUENT
December 11
A
Total COD (mg/1)' 2080
MLSS (mg/1) 96
MLVSS (mg/1) 76
B * UNIT 1 EFFLUENT
C = PILOT UNIT Z EFFLUENT
D « PILOT UNIT 3 EFFLUENT
Dec embe r 1 1
T reatment
9:00
B
1320
200
170
A.M.
C
1260
138
110
D A
1140
142
130
10:00
B
1440
274
216
Cycle
A.M.
C
1280
232
159
D A
1280
263
226
B
1780
284
226
11:00 A.M.
C
1540
187
155
D A
1340
170
152
12:00 A.M.
B
2020
265
195
C
1660
156
122
164C
144
Total COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
A B
2060
204
146
1:00 P.M.
C
1920
197
147
D
1760
163
150
A B
2020
239
170
2:00 P.M.
C
1900
162
131
D
1860
158
139
-------
00
o
A » RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B » UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C » UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 3 Treatment Cycle
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (tng/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 885
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg /I)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 868
A
9.5
10
15
IS
8.6
!0
>2
>8
10:00 A.
B
6.6
780
55
7Z5
6.8
815
51
764
M.
C
7.2
460
85
375
6.5
415
85
330
A
7.2
630
45
585
February
8.2
1160
50
1140
11:30 A.
B
6.5
770
50
720
M.
C
6.8
505
60
445
A
9.6
1400
68
1332
1:00 P.M.
B
6.8
910
55
855
C
6.3
500
50
450
A
10.2
1430
78
1352
2:30 P.
B
7.2
1340
77
1263
M.
C
6.4
540
58
482
5 Treatment Cycle
6.4
745
50
695
6.2
520
78
442
11.0
1510
45
1465
7.8
850
45
805
6.3
595
55
540
11. 1
1580
55
1525
9-5
1240
60
1180
6.8
665
52
613
-------
00
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 'i (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A » RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C • UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 8 Treatment Cycle
10:OOA.M. 11:30A.M. 1:00 P. M. 2:30 P. M.
ABC ABC ABC ABC
flew (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 727
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1) 1140
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon(mg/l)1052
6.1 6.3
15 740
8 85
7 655
6.1 9.4
0 920
8 92
2 828
6.
580
75
505
6.
720
72
648
2 6.7
495
38
457
February 10
9 9.9
960
78
882
6.9
575
70
505
6.4
540
65
475
7.3
755
30
725
7.3
580
58
522
7.1
542
68
474
7 3
1000
35
965
7.3
625
65
560
7.0
525
68
457
Treatment Cycle
9.4
960
100
860
..... ^4
v
7.2
825
90
735
ann
9.2
638
45
593
8.6
915
95
820
7.0
770
102
668
10.3
1000
45
955
8.7
880
78
802
7.3
742
88
654
-------
A " RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C « UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 12 Treatment Cycle
1— •
00
to
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
A
10.1
852
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 50
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 802
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
10:00 A.
B
8.5
835
45
790
M.
C
6.9
730
58
672
11:30 A.M.
A
9.7
685
48
637
B
7.8
912
50
862
February IS
6.8
485
38
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l)447
6.6
585
80
505
6.3
575
82
493
6.4
390
40
350
6.3
525
78
447
C
6.6
788
55
733
Treatment
6.5
475
72
403
A
8.7
845
32
813
Cycle
6.5
444
42
402
1:00 P. M.
B
7.2
910
45
865
6.7
535
65
470
C
6.6
838
50
788
6.6
462
65
397
A
9.3
940
45
895
6.7
930
40
890
2:30 P. M.
B C
7.8 6.3
860 785
50 50
810 735
6.8 6.8
510 451
65 55
455 396
-------
CXI
oo
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 17 Treatment Cycle
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 892
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
S (mg/1)
1
A
10.7
942
50
892
663
233
233
153
0:00 A.K
B
8.9
632
68
564
267Z
2025
750
320
4.
C
6.4
545
60
485
2198
1939
295
180
]
A
10.5
998
48
950
3620
3146
343
66
.1:30 A.l^
B
9-4
858
71
787
2845
2543
590
250
4. 1
C A
7.6 9.7
730 788
65 70
665 718
2543 2190
1939 2155
400
66
:00 P. M
B
9.2
912
88
824
2715
1939
566
520
C
7.7
821
85
736
2457
2198
270
230
A
10.9
775
92
683
20Z5
1853
285
150
2:30 P.I
B
8.7
875
85
790
2801
2241
576
459
tf.
C
7.8
770
88
692
2758
2285
450
380
-------
00
A « RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation Of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption -Anaerobic Regeneration
B » UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 19 Treatment Cycle
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Dow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l) 688
Total COD (mg/l)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/l)
A
8.0
760
72
688
.517
.669
10:00 A.
B
8.0
785
55
730
2839
2669
M.
C
7.1
595
70
525
2161
1822
A
9.1
845
62
783
3940
3051
11:30 A.
B
8. 4
775
55
720
3093
2627
M.
C
7.2
580
52
528
1610
1695
A
9.4
812
55
757
3262
2457
180
130
1:00 P.
B
8.7
812
50
762
3389
2330
265
185
M.
C
7.5
590
105
485
1907
1652
125
95
A
8.5
945
55
890
3305
3220
205
12S
2:30 P.
B
8.4
815
70
745
2881
2288
225
16S
M.
C
7.8
585
55
530
2161
2118
135
10S
-------
00
171
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A " RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 22 Treatment Cycle
A.
41
I
3<
16!
9i
380 360 405 740 257
365 290 270 500 190
February 24 Treatment Cycle
C » UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
How (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 625
Total COD (mg/1) 2193
Dissolved COD (mg/1) 1885
MLSS
-------
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adiorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A * RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C » UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
February 26 Treatment Cycle
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)490
00
O^ Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
A
6.8
525
35
)490
1795
1581
43
37
10:00 A.
B
7.2
610
70
540
• 2179
1795
715
505
M.
C
6.6
470
78
392
1581
1197
184
164
A
6.9
502
35
467
1538
1496
50
42
11:30 A.
B
6.8
618
75
545
2237
1579
270
230
M.
C
6.6
446
75
371
1316
1009
202
162
A
7.1
490
35
455
1316
1316
57
53
1:00 P.
B
7.5
605
65
535
1974
1491
357
260
M. 2:30 P.M.
C ABC
6.7
440
65
375
1228
1009
146
138
-------
oo
A » RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adaorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 1 Treatment Cycle
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 475
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
A
6.7
510
35
1)475
2161
1144
295
182
10:00 A.
B
6.8
585
70
515
1822
1483
185
155
M.
C
7.0
590
165
425
1610
1101
317
237
A
6.9
480
28
452
2712
13S6
636
412
11:30 A.
B
7.1
555
58
497
1653
1398
152
120
M.
C
7.
430
95
335
1140
1017
75
55
A
0 6.9
480
35
445
1949
m4
333
233
1:00 P.
B
7.2
525
62
463
1652
1483
300
173
M.
C
7. 1
420
80
340
1059
890
152
108
A
7. 1
845
38
807
3008
2754
105
100
2:30 P.
B
7.6
542
50
492
1907
1398
285
195
M.
C
7.1
395
65
330
1356
932
165
107
-------
00
00
A » RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (contlnu«d)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adiorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B • UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 3 Treatment Cycle
A
C - UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
How (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 845
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
A
6.5
890
45
845
1559
1263
202
180
10:00 A.
B
6.7
590
42
548
1949
1907
76
76
M.
C
6.1
425
68
357
1314
1229
27
8
A
9.4
970
42
928
3475
3263
232.
195
11:30 A.
B
7.6
705
45
660
2542
2161
87
80
M.
C
6.3
500
45
455
1610
1525
40
20
1:00 P.M.
B C
8.4 7.8 6.0
1250 745 538
40 45 45
1210 700 493
4449 1991 1864
3729 1907 1483
352 98 60
297 90 50
2:30 P. M.
ABC
8.2 7.2
1610 804
42 48
1668
4999
4746
366
302
756
2712
2500
122
118
5.7
565
48
517
2161
1780
78
76
-------
CO
vO
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C « UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 5 Treatment Cycle
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 650
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS
-------
Tmble 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption -Anaerobic Regeneration
A * RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 9 Treatment Cycle
flow (gal treated)
PM
Total Carbon (ing/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 567
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
6.8
595
32
1)567
2880
1720
55
28
10:00 A.
B
6.7
415
55
360
1640
1040
206
160
M.
C
6.6
600
145
455
1920
1200
350
283
A
6.9
725
38
687
2160
1480
38
31
11:30 A.
B
7.0
452
53
399
1360
1000
193
150
M.
C
7.
425
58
367
1280
1040
104
92
A
1 7.4
60S
40
565
1800
1640
44
39
1:00 P.
B
7.0
505
52
453
1600
1120
160
140
M.
C
7.0
460
65
395
1480
1080
160
133
A
7.1
665
42
623
3880
1840
1110
895
2:30 P.
B
7.3
530
55
475
1840
1240
226
203
M.
C
7.2
475
52
423
1520
1200
235
196
-------
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adaorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 11 Treatment Cycle
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 664
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/l)
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
7.7
705
41
664
282
184
102
58
10:00 A.
B
7.4
595
40
555
2184
1699
108
90
M.
C
7.5
475
48
427
1602
1311
77
67
A
7.9
640
30
610
1990
1893
61
47
11:30 A.
B
7.7
670
42
636
2184
1893
160
94
M.
C
7.4
518
32
486
1602
1505
60
44
A
7.8
795
3*
760
2573
2282
209
157
1:00 P.
B
7.7
665
42
623
1893
1796
122
96
M.
C
7.7
492
42
450
1699
1505
70
51
A
8.1
692
30
662
2184
1990
168
98
2:30 P.
B
7.9
650
42
608
2087
1796
124
102
M.
C
7.9
485
47
438
1505
1214
84
70
-------
ro
A - RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
How (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
/
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 600
Total COD (mg/1)
Dls»olved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adiorptlon - Anaerobic Regeneration
B « UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 15 Treatment Cycle
C • UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
10:00 A.
B
M.
C
A
11:30 A.M.
B
C
A
in non-
1:00 P.
B
M.
C
A
2:30 P.
B
M.
C
665
65
600
(310
1850
238
222
262
45
217
925
630
170
125
380
98
282
967
841
63
44
760
40
720
2775
2145
726
654
355
45
310
1345
630
165
135
260 998
45
215
757
714
65
50
38
960
3700
2983
224
191
500
50
450
1680
840
178
135
310
50
260
883
672
138
87
1450
35
1415
5000
3490
883
834
680
45
635
2310
1600
300
223
465
58
407
1512
1050
145
105
-------
vO
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adaorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A * RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 17 Treatment Cycle
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Total COD (mg/1)
Diaaolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/l)
C * UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
10:00 A.M.
A
3615
2983
188
144
J750
3460
302
109
B
306$
2310
405
3Z8
1920
1130
222
160
C
1555
1260
143
116
March
1750
1210
134
99
A
3780
2182
287
253
11:30 A.M. 1:00 P.M.
B
2983
2650
316
268
C ABC
1680 2776 3025 1640
1388 1835 2562 1300
200 252 264 210
180 225 246 182
2:30 P. M.
ABC
3240 3070 1640
2690 2355 1470
149 300 262
130 260 232
18 Treatment Cycle
2580
2160
144
89
2040
1750
240
188
1540
1420
190
140
-------
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A « RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 22 Treatment Cycle
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 750
Total COD (mg/1)
DUsolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
7.0
910
160
750
• 550
,940
144
92
10:00
B
7.
625
120
SOS
2280.
1930
162
140
A.M.
C
1 7.0
542
82
460
1930
1620
82
67
A
7.0
880
145
635
3200
2850
134
100
11:30 A
B
6.
670
ISO
520
2410
2150
165
147
. M.
C
6 6.
538
85
453
1920
1580
120
91
A
1 8.0
735
155
580
2410
2190
96
76
1:00 P.
B
6.3
675
115
560
2585
2130
194
160
M.
C
6.2
555
75
480
1930
1665
82
64
2:30
A
7 4
640
US
525
2019
1710
90
65
P.M.
B
6.5
650
100
750
2720
2019
142
126
C
6.3
520
95
425
2060
1710
126
116
-------
vO
Ol
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B * UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 23 Treatment Cycle
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l) 240
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l) 745
Total COD (mg/l)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/l)
10:00 A
A B
11. 1 7.0
85 590
40 *185
45 405
90 ZZ40
75 1465
55 232
20 223
. M.
C
6.1
480
130
350
1725
1380
278
338
A
10.1
705
175
530
2410
1725
252
242
11:30A
B
7.
710
200
510
2410
1810
360
313
. M.
C
1 6.3
512
145
367
2200
1465
377
343
A
10.0
845
195
650
3100
2585
215
182
1:00 P.
B
7.8
720
195
525
2630
2240
308
268
M.
C
6.7
535
140
395
2110
1510
394
374
A
9.2
825
200
625
2970
2760
136
110
2:30 P.
B
8.6
700
170
530
2540
2155
360
320
M
C
7.0
490
160
330
2280
1725
374
333
-------
Tablo 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A « RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B * UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 24 Treatment Cycle
•
flow (g&l treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
A
9-5
675
170
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l) 505
Total COD (mg/l)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
2240
1880
9.0
770
260
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l)510
Total COD (mg/l)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/l)
2880
2440
303
280
10:00 A
B
6.8
670
145
525
2600
1720
7.7
580
200
380
2400
1800
372
332
. M.
C
5.
570
120
450
2160
1760
5.
525
235
290
2040
1640
240
192
11:30 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:30 P M.
A
9 8.
1080
190
890
3640
3200
March 26
8 9.
840
160
680
, 2960
2440
303
292
B
5 7.
625
160
465
2320
I960
Treatment
8 7,
610
145
465
2990
1760
456
620
C ABC ABC
2 6.1
550
110
440
2080
1320
Cycle
4 6.2 9.1 8.0 6.5 8.7 7.7 7.0
560 810 600 550 820 630 510
130 200 190 180 220 210 165
430 610 410 370 600 420 345
2200 2040 3880 1920 1760 2160 1800
1720 1680 1840 1800 1640 1880 1600
184 184 1020 193 197 448 234
164 168 950 182 185 408 223
-------
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A = RAW'EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT i EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 29 Treatment Cycle
now (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 490
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
7.2
660
170
490
.615
:065'
237
233
10:00
B
7.
550
155
400
1730
1460
390
360
A.M.
C
2 6.5
510
135
375
1385
1345
126
122
A
9.1
420
195
225
1385
1305
81
73
11:30 A
B
B.
565
205
360
1920
1345
352
312
. M.
C
I 6.5
515
165
350
1650
1420
214
203
A
600
110
490
2420
2150
80
73
1:00 P.
B
7.3
520
140
380
1650
1305
268
244
M.
C
6.7
445
155
290
1690
1305
192
174
A
9.8
580
185
395
2460
2190
98
85
2:30 P.
B
7.2
540
140
300
2065
1500
307
286
M.
C
6 8
480
155
335
1770
1388
220
191
-------
sO
00
A « RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
now (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 185
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 555
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1) 2115
MISS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 525
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B « UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
March 30 Treatment Cycle
C * UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
10:00 A
A B
9.2 6.9
10 530
IS 140
15 390
10 1540
.5 1385
10 332
.7 320
8.5 6.7
ro 650
15 145
15 SOS
. M.
C
6.1
430
120
310
1115
9Z3
123
116
6.0
610
100
510
A
10.3
600
115
485
2000
1885
145
115
March 31
8.3
720
160
560
11:30 A.M.
B
7.2
620
150
470
1775
1575
234
226
Treatment
7 0
580
150
430
1:00 P.M. 2:30 P. M
C ABC ABC
6.2 8.8 73 6.7 8.1 7.2 7.0
505 805 625 530 720 600 545
US 155 160 125 150 145 115
390 650 465 405
1540 2610 2380 1500 2610 2230 1535
1345 2540 1880 1270 2500 2110 1310
183 123 938 160 206 237 202
177 110 852 131 185 214 180
Cycle
6.2
625
125
500
-------
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 2 Treatment Cycle
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 775
Total COD (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (ms/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
A
7.2
940
165
775
1560
1120
386
243
10:00
B
6.
570
145
425
1920
1440
425
285
A.M.
C
8 7.1
450
130
320
1440
1200
115
60
A
8.7
785
180
605
3120
2600
300
206
11:30 A.
B
7.0
fiQO
150
450
2440
1680
403
280
M.
C
5.6
455
1ZO
335
1360
1240
155
123
A
7.4
840
155
685
2800
2640
363
231
1:00 P.
B
6. 1
820
150
670
2720
2160
440
317
M.
C
5.5
600
130
470
1760
1600
228
156
A
7.2
810
160
650
2480
2160
289
171
2:30 P.
B
6.8
740
150
590
284^
2120
420
310
M
C
6.2
525
115
410
2200
1640
364
360
-------
t\>
o
o
A - RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B » UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 6 Treatment Cycle
C * UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/l) 182
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l) 523
Dissolved COD (mg/l) 3790
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/l)
now (gal treated)
PH
DU»olved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/l)
A
8.7
715
182
1)523
3790
604
544
10:00 A,
B
9-4
748
178
570
3340
197
190
, M.
C
5.7
605
165
440
1530
73
63
11:30A.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:30 P. M.
A
9.3
1280
208
1072
3790
300
292
B
8.2
805
192
i>13
2060
170
157
April 7 Treatment
8.2
4230
344
139
8.7
1730
473
440
6.2
1570
180
169
8.4
2660
210
155
8. 1
2260
427
394
C ABC ABC
6.2 8.7 8.6 5.9 8.9 6.0 83
605 1310 900 640 1200 980 700
165 245 190 168 212 200 135
440 1065 710 472 988 780 565
1530 3550 2580 1850 3100 1850 2860
121 206 275 248 302 290 270
117 186 233 238 275 272 254
Cycle
--,...12, 840-.--..-.. . ....
6.4
1730
315
268
-------
Cs)
A - RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
now (gal treated)
pH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B - UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 9 Treatment Cycle
C s UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
9.5
525
1320
142
102
6.5
550
1200
155
122
10:00 A.
B
6.7
590
1160
336
300
6.6
518
1040
270
216
M
C
5.
608
1640
121
113
6.
485
1040
63
60
A
9 8.
570
1320
191
182
April 12
2 8.
688
1680
182
140
11:30 A
B
1 6.8
458
1280
306
276
Treatment
4 6.2
530
1080
280
2)7
. M.
C
5.
450
1360
170
163
Cycle
6.
440
960
33
30
A
9 7.2
930
2880
195
187
27 760------
2 8.1
910
2720
260
200
1:00 P.
B
7.2
578
1480
266
226
7.2
515
960
263
170
M.
C
6.1
535
1320
137
129
6.5
380
880
253
137
A
8.1
830
2360
164
154
8.0
945
3080
180
140
2:30 P.
B
6.8
625
1640
282
277
7.1
675
1600
230
190
M.
C
5.9
525
1320
170
155
6.4
465
1120
107
101
-------
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption.- Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 13 Treatment Cycle
C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
flow (ff&l treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
5 MLVSS (mg/1)
flow foal treated)
oH
r"
Total Carbon (mg/1)
inorganic Carbon (mg/l)
A
10. 1
SZ5
2160
131
127
585
185
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 400
Dissolved COD (mg/l)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/l)
1790
82
49
10:00 A.
B
7.9
408
800
224
218
735
135
600
2240
310
270
M.
C
7.0
392
720
180
175
675
150
525
2090
61
58
A
9.1
795
2200
73
66
April
770
150
620
2310
116
97
11:30
B
8.3
525
1120
182
180
A.M. 1:OOP.M.
C ABC
6.8
442
1040
117
110
2:30 P. M.
ABC
15 Treatment Cycle
745
165
580
2200
290
276
......N/A.. ........... .......
672 595 695 635
120 232 115 120
552 363 580 515
1970 3430 2160 1870
53 85 236 157
49 84 227 135
985 695 620
170 95 105
815 600 515
3020 2050 1830
126 254 158
118 248 155
-------
CSJ
O
RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
iBDie o (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971}
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 16 Treatment Cycle
10:00 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 1:00 P.M.
BC ABC ABC
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 160
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 330
Dissolved COD (mg/1) 1530
MLSS (mS/l>
MLVSS (mg/1)
flow (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 175
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1)277
Dissolved COD (mg/1) 1060
MLSS
-------
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
A - RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE C = UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 20 Treatment Cycle
10:00 A. M. 11:30A.M. ItOOP.M. 2:30P-M.
ABC ABC ABC ABC
flow (gal treated) 12.820
PH 8.1 7.3 6.8 8.0 7.2 7.0
Total Carbon (mg/1) 832 570 450 750 675 545
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1) 140 90 68 170 102 78
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l)692 480 382
Dissolved COD (mg/1) 2725 1930 1400 2045 1860 1520
MLSS (mg/1) 192 323 268 127 37.8 204
MLVSS (mg/1) 152 313 257 108 300 182
-------
O
Ul
A = RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Table 6 (continued)
Operation ot Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27, 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B = UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 22 Treatment Cycle
10:00 A.M. 11:30 A.M.
B C ABC A
C - UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
1:00 P.M.
B C
2:30 P.M.
B C
{low (gal treated)
PH
Total Carbon (mg/l)
Inorganic Carbon (mg/1)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1) 224
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
(low (gal treated)
pH
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
7.7
94
70
24
32
66
64
6.8
490
65
425
1500
348
324
5.8
450
50
400
1500
210
202
7.4
232
60
172
570
78
60
April 23
6.6
445
78
367
1260
350
330
•-"•-£0, 1
7.1
425
35
370
1180
210
195
11.2
680
100
580
2400
198
135
6.4
412
72
340
1180
347
313
6.0
378
65
313
1020
282
242
9.5
560
110
450
2070
128
112
6.9
410
70
340
1420
450
400
6. 1
350
55
295
1140
290
265
Treatment Cycle
14. (
140
7.0 5.6 5.9 7.6 6.5 6.1
1950 1380 1300 2480 1420 1300
405 640 298 363 580 398
133 363 144 ISO 296 195
-------
A'» RAW EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
Dissolved COO (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/l)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Dissolved COD (mg/1)
MLSS (mg/1)
MLVSS (mg/1)
Table 6 (continued)
Operation of Unit 2 (February 3 - April 27. 1971)
Carbon Adsorption - Anaerobic Regeneration
B « UNIT 1 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
April 26 Treatment Cycle
C * UNIT 2 EFFLUENT COMPOSITE
A
1550
124
122
2700
138
136
10:00 A
B
565
70
68
1940
158
15S
. M.
C
565
43
43
1670
114
112
A
1630
170
160
April 27
2260
102
101
11:30 A.
B
1110
94
92
T reatment
1820
158
152
M. 1:00 P.M.
C ABC
755 2180 1470 835
29 184 97 28
29 167 93 28
Cyjcle
1670
134
132
2:30 P.M.
ABC
2540 1900 1270
110 151 39
106 136 36
-------
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Table 7
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle
Leg A - July 13 Leg B - July 14
SS VSS
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:30 A.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:30 P. M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
COD5 SS VSS
1090 195 130
196 54 40
62 42 20
83 6 6
660 135 77
269 210 142
0 240 167
0 29 16
1700 114 62
393 262 202
62 186 122
42 0 0
965
440
386
0
1380
550
303
0
158
236
77
42
220
ISO
51
72
146
220
77
40
166
145
44
69
-------
O
00
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Table I (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 > Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle
Leg A - July IS Leg B - July 16
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
Time
10:00 A.M.
11:30 A.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:30 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3.
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
COD.
S
992
800
303
193
113
854
635
277
2450
880
386
16S
SS
ISO
160
140
42
102
152
104
40
250
133
132
41
VSS
12$
160
140
42
76
152
100
39
200
123
126
37
COD,
5
2150
1150
1050
525
2020
1420
1180
971
2810
1550
1370
840
SS
147
150
153
65
267
173
97
14
240
214
100
44
VSS
105
127
123
62
213
137
74
12
213
190
85
30
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Leg A - July 19 Treatment Cycle
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
Point
•1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
CODj
1615
925
900
1640
1060
715
3100
1615
1060
793
SS
168
122
59
187
170
73
410
220
162
73
vss
133
72
49
152
136
58
330
155
132
55
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
Time
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
COD5 SS VSS
1980 280 233
1030 160 116
767 82 68
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September JO, 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Leg B - July 20 Treatment Cycle
Time Point
9:00 A.M. 1
2
3
4
10:00 A.M. 1
ts) 2
^•^
O 3
4
11:00 A.M. 1
2
3
4
12:00 P.M. 1
2
3
4
CODj
1300
1590
1380
626
1225
1129
730
1380
912
730
1620
1880
1055
806
SS
46
215
212
266
143
42
191
138
36
63
210
206
53
39
VSS
43
200
193
176
140
41
190
125
32
59
206
190
53
36
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
Time
1:00 P. M
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
COD5
1640
1225
912
1690
1330
808
1620
1720
1300
885
SS
150
51
76
180
150
115
150
185
73
56
VSS
150
48
61
173
137
102
137
185
68
S3
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 - Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 - Unit 2 Effluent
Leg A - July 21 Treatment Cycle
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
COD5
2280
1945
2190
555
i780
1550
1030
1750
1470
861
2720
1720
1110
945
SS
112
2YO
480
504
280
227
76
240
176
93
205
155
144
67
vss
83
260
425
386
226
195
67
213
156
76
148
133
140
63
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
Time
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P. M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
COD5 SS VSS
2110 254 250
1420 172 166
2080 1230 1120
2140 258 190
1780 1005 475
2140 905 775
-------
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 » Unit 2 Effluent
Leg B - July 21 Treatment Cycle
Time Point
9:00 A.M. 1
2
3
4
10:00 A.M. 1
2
t\>
H- J
ts)
4
11:00 A M. 1
2
3
4
12:00 P. M 1
2
3
4
COD5
2392
1163
1425
1425
1290
1048
833
1640
1048
833
2634
1882
1371
914
SS
190
220
173
610
213
62
165
170
43
47
475
237
138
86
VSS
140
125
168
455
177
52
113
147
39
34
390
170
103
68
Point 4 « Unit 3 Effluent
Time
1:00 P. M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P. M
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
COD5 SS VSS
1962 193 163
1478 198 150
1048 61 48
2016 227 190
1452 270 183
3340 1380 1220
-------
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
Leg A - July 23 Treatment Cycle
1C TOC pH Temp.
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
TC
565
415
352
280
468
315
300
75
65
70
35
65
62
82
490
350
282
245
403
253
218
6.8
7. 1
6.2
6.3
6.3
5.8
6. 1
85° F.
84
85
85
85
85
85
COD
1693
1190
873
555
1323
635
608
SS
140
203
97
565
197
68
915
VSS
113
187
97
510
183
65
118
DO
7 3
7.7
4.4
0. 1
7.2
2.9
1.3
t\>
I-"
OJ
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
555
405
300
462
625
460
375
75
55
68
85
85
70
68
480
350
232
377
540
390
307
610
470
400
85
78
75
525
392
325
7.4
6. 1
5.9
8.2
8 3
6.2
6.0
8.3
6.8
5.9
90
91
90
93
92
92
92
96
96
95
1561
1323
529
1137
1719
1164
820
1852
1402
1084
250
327
60
94
260
127
96
235
320
56
81
226
125
92
8.3
2.3
1.4
7 1
9. 3
1.0
0.8
136
135
79
121
114
70
10. 0
3.8
0.9
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
585
475
422
820
585
468
208
88
82
82
90
85
78
82
497
393
340
730
500
390
326
7.8
6.5
6.0
8.0
7.6
6.4
6.2
96
95
95
96
96
96
96
1746
1296
979
2619
1534
1137
873
135
62
26
178
74
128
62
26
178
74
9.7
2.9
0.8
7. 1
9.8
3.2
0.9
Total Gallons Treated: 37. 340
-------
Point 1 « Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13,- September 30. 1971)
Point 2 * Unit I Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
tsi
Leg B-July 26
Time
9:00 A.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
CODT
1296
1402
1772
1217
1349
820
635
1270
873
582
3068
1349
767
450
SS
168
69
370
660
183
64
94
180
69
80
160
160
76
64
VSS
148
58
310
548
150
51
73
148
58
65
146
142
58
63
Point 4 * Unit ) Effluent
Leg A-July 27
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A. M
11:00 A. M
12:00 P.M
1;00 P.M.
2:00 P M.
3:00 P. M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
CODT
848
1190
1510
1060
1270
874
582
1250
688
715
715
1265
662
503
1030
609
582
1005
1005
427
1825
1165
555
398
SS
52
170
443
540
128
101
56
195
103
106
56
193
58
81
145
30
35
136
210
46
37
135
115
58
VSS
32
152
403
470
125
81
41
150
74
102
48
U2
57
78
140
29
31
104
194
36
27
123
97
50
Total Gallon* Treated: 57, 310
-------
Point 1 - Raw Influent
Cs)
I—1
Ul
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Leg B - July 28 Treatment Cycle
TOC pH Temp. COD
TC
250
450
470
350
440
380
285
500
350
290
760
510
380
300
1C
40
40
45
110
60
60
60
70
60
60
100
60
60
70
210
410
425
240
355
420
400
390
350
305
640
420
320
300
40
90
140
60
60
70
80
65
50
55
315
330
260
330
290
235
560
355
270
245
380
320
225
430
290
230
660
450
320
230
SS
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
vss
DO
7.0
6.3
6.2
7.5
6.6
6.2
7. 1
6.7
6.2
6.3
9.0
7.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.2
6.3
6.3
6. 1
6.1
9.4
7.5
6.3
6.2
27° C.
27
27
27
28
28
28
30
30
30
28.5
28.5
28. 5
28.5
31
31
31
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
530
1160
1590
1530
1030
1160
918
1140
1030
715
2090
1140
845
820
1240
950
635
1400
952
635
2650
1720
1270
742
18
206
313
1270
120
77
73
220
46
60
146
210
75
42
233
126
52
305
104
39
120
353
360
62
16
203
228
630
117
73
73
177
45
49
122
206
74
41
230
122
52
300
104
37
107
350
354
59
6.7
0. 5
0. 6
0. 3
0.4
0.7
0.7
0. 5
0.6
0.6
7.6
0.6
0.4
0 5
0.2
0. IS
0. 3
0.4
0.2
0. 5
12.0
0.7
0. 3
0. 3
Total Gallon* Treated: 52, 530
-------
Point 1 - Raw Influent
ro
Time
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
Z;00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 * Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 • Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 • Unit 2 Effluent
Leg A - July 29 Treatment Cycle
TC
662
620
575
530
450
400
605
445
345
1C
80
100
145
70
65
70
70
60
75
TOC
578
520
430
620
582
565
515
555
545
482
98
98
160
92
65
105
110
522
484
405
417
490
440
372
460
385
330
535
385
270
PH
Temp.
COD.
6.8
6.5
6.6
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.4
6.1
6.2
6.7
6.4
6.1
6.6
6.2
6.0
6.8
6.7
6.2
6.1
30° C.
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
34
34
34
34
34
34
32
32
32
32
1070
932
964
1250
1025
678
780
970
932
834
912
755
630
1170
600
521
2550
1430
832
855
SS
Point 4 « Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
DO
236
210
73
206
188
30
140
203
133
118
163
155
42
230
118
50
192
360
183
173
213
180
69
200
175
30
120
193
128
118
163
153
42
224
111
48
180
345
145
165
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
6.0
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
Total Gallons Treated: 32. 370
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13,- September 30, 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Leg II - July 30 Treatment Cycle
TOC pH Temp.
TC
315
480
425
310
430
425
525
415
355
310
385
360
285
1C
40
40
60
90
40
130
130
35
38
58
45
45
65
275
420
365
220
370
295
395
395
465
395
475
390
395
360
45
82
130
38
42
42
88
350
383
265
437
348
353
272
380
317
252
340
315
220
8.0
7.6
6.4
7.0
6.2
5.9
6.9
26
28
28
30
30
30
6.3
6.5
6.8
7. 1
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.4
6.3
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
34
34
34
33
33
33
COD
978
1680
1200
1660
1300
1430
850
1300
1250
955
1600
1J30
1130
827
1230
1000
1100
1330
1180
825
SS
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
DO
58
415
180
1090
200
127
150
273
71
52
146
270
260
36
206
98
46
290
95
47
52
320
152
850
183
103
136
273
49
49
146
243
260
36
206
80
46
263
78
38
8.4
0-6
02
0.4
0.3
1.8
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
8. 1
0.4
0.3
C. 3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
Total Gallons Treated: 10,490
-------
Point 1 » Rfcw Influent
00
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Pdnt 2 » Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Leg A - August 2 Treatment Cycle
Time
9:00 A. M.
10:00 A. M.
!1:00 A. M.
12:00 P M.
1:00 P. M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
t
2
3
4
TC
365
450
310
260
390
285
335
335
345
280
715
450
275
230
485
305
260
4S5
300
240
1C
55
52
102
125
60
65
170
50
120
125
45
50
55
80
60
55
65
50
50
65
TOC
310
398
208
135
330
200
165
285
225
155
670
400
220
150
425
250
195
435
Z50
175
PH
7. 1
6.8
6.6
6.5
6.9
6.5
6.7
7.0
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.8
6.3
6.2
6.4
6.4
6.3
Temp.
o
31 C.
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
34
34
34
34
34
34
COD
T
1073
1327
621
198
650
395
141
621
226
198
2711
988
367
113
1214
537
254
1412
734
395
ss
vss
Point 4 * Unit 3 Effluent
DO
128
160
220
132
100
78
51
94
27
30
93
88
144
3
52
8
7
57
14
4
128
160
220
132
100
78
51
94
27
30
93
88
144
3
52
8
7
57
14
4
7.5
6.2
3.8
3.2
6.0
3.5
3.0
S.O
3.1
3.0
5.0
2.8
2.7
2.8
5.3
2.8
2.5
4.8
2.0
2.0
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
ro
I—1
v£>
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent
Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
TC
1C
Leg B - AuguBt 3 Treatment Cycle
TOC
PH
Temp.
425
465
505
335
475
495
325
440
485
305
470
475
530
460
455
500
405
460
425
375
830
465
440
375
60
50
100
260
50
95
270
45
90
230
35
45
100
175
60
105
170
52
50
70
75
55
65
65
365
415
400
75
425
400
55
395
395
75
435
430
430
285
395
395
235
408
375
305
755
410
375
310
7.2
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.8
6.5
6.3
6.9
6.5
6.4
7.0
6.6
6.3
6.5
6.7
6.2
6.8
6.4
6.5
6.4
7.0
6.3
6.7
6.4
30° C
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
COD
SS
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
1237
1717
1667
505
1566
1515
556
1540
1869
909
1364
1426
1364
1162
1338
1465
1035
1364
1263
1212
2601
1389
1288
1042
77
180
303
445
114
237
337
118
236
815
73
158
195
92
101
183
260
89
30
59
93
67
28
81
72
180
300
430
108
237
333
113
234
765
72
150
195
91
101
180
260
87
30
52
93
63
28
DO
2.0
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0. 5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0. 5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
Total Gallons Treated
78. 830
-------
Point t • Raw Influent
Time Point
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 - Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 • Unit 2 Effluent Petit 4 - Unit 3 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - Auguit 4
TC 1C TOC pH Temp.
NO SAMPLES BEFORE 11:00 A.M. - UNIT SHUT DOWN
COD,
SS
VSS
DO
ts)
o
11:OOA.M. 2
3
4
12:00 P.M. 1
2
3
4
1:00 P.M. 2
3
4
2:00 P.M. 2
3
4
290
265
365
510
265
250
395
325
275
375
360
295
380
95
70
205
70
65
65
215
50
50
210
65
55
225
195
195
160
440
200
185
180
275
225
165
295
240
155
7.3
7.0
7.8
7.0
7.1
(>.5
8.7
6.7
6.4
6.5
6.8
6.6
6.4
30° C.
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
867
796
1692
1567
871
771
939
1169
921
697
1169
933
672
170
186
1180
100
146
120
433
170
135
243
170
188
218
170
42
1180
97
142
116
350
170
127
209
163
178
181
0.5
0.4
0.4
8.2
0.5
0.6
2.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 1 <* Raw Influent Point 2 » Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 ' Unit 2 Effluent Point 4 « Unit 3 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg El August 5
Time Point TC 1C TOC pH Temp. COD SS VSS DO
9:00 A.M. 1 465 75 390 6.7 30° C. 6.3
2 375 70 305 6.7 30 0.4
3 315 90 225 6.5 30 0.4
4 360 210 150 I.. 3 30 0,3
10:00 A.M. 1 370 70 300 6.4 30 0.4
2 315 80 335 6.5 30 0.4
3 350 195 155 6.6 30 0.5
4 385 65 320 6.4 31 0.4
11:00 A.M. 1 335 95 240 6.5 31 0.3
2 350 195 155 6.3 31 0.4
3 535 70 465 6.7 32 0.4.
4 350 85 265 6.2 32 0.3
465
375
315
360
370
315
350
385
335
350
535
350
370
395
345
350
300
210
185
175
295
240
190
150
75
70
90
210
70
80
195
65
95
195
70
85
115
195
35
35
60
40
45
115
50
60
65
80
390
305
225
150
300
335
155
320
240
155
465
265
155
200
310
315
240
170
140
60
245
180
125
70
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.5
6.3
6.7
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6. 5
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.7
6.4
6.2
30'
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
12:00 P.M. 1 370 115 155 6.3 32 0.3
2 395 195 200 6.3 32 0.4
3 345 35 310 6.4 32 0.5
4 350 35 315 6.5 32 0.4
1:00 P.M. 1 300 60 240 6.3 32 0.4
2 210 40 170 6.5 34 0.6
3 185 45 140 6.6 34 0.3
4 175 115 60 6.4 34 0.3
2:00 P.M. 1 295 50 245 6.6 34 6.0
2 240 60 180 6.7 34 0.5
3 190 65 125 6.4 34 0.4
4 150 80 70 6.2 34 0.3
Total Gallon! Treated * 31,860
-------
Point 1
Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 • Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 « Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A Augutt 24
Point 4 - Unit 3 Effluent
r\>
to
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P. M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A. M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
Z
3
4
Date
8/24
8/25
8/25
TC
345
205
425
270
120
265
305
270
170
212
745
380
190
170
460
248
200
532
305
245
615
608
360
288
Point
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
1C
72
45
215
215
60
155
242
60
55
135
_ 65
60
45
70
65
40
50
68
62
155
70
75
55
55
II
II
TOC
273
160
210
55
160
110
63
190
115
135
680
320
145
100
395
208
ISO
464
243
190
545
533
305
233
Regeneration
TC
*
275
265
410
PH
6.3
6.8
6.7
3.4
7.5
7.2
8.5
7.2
7.Z
7.4
a. s
8.7
7.8
7.4
7.2
7.4
6.9
7.8
7.5
7.0
8.2
V. 8
6.6
6.3
- LegB
1C
.
218
225
110
Temp.
26° C.
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
August 24
TOC
.
57
40
300
940
517
470
408
635
540
447
705
352
308
820
1100
680
635
1500
728
587
1690
894
682
2040
1970
1030
775
PH
8.8
8.5
7.3
SS
86
92
620
208
101
40
89
86
25
57
178
178
22
23
110
32
16
132
27
15
140
172
41
49
DO
5.3
7.2
1.1
VSS
72
92
615
204
101
40
88
83
24
57
172
176
22
23
77
32
16
126
25
13
99
164
36
45
DO
6.2
8.2
2.6
1.6
8. 1
4.2
3. 1
6.8
5.5
3.2
7.6
7.4
7.0
3.5
7. 1
5.6
2.4
7.0
5.5
2.1
8.5
7.8
5.3
2.3
-------
00
Point 1 » Raw Influent
Time
Point
9:00 A.M. 1
2
3
4
10:00 A.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
lliOOA.M. 2
3
4
12:00 P.M. 1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13
Point 2 =• Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 » Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - August 25
September 30. 1971)
Point 4 • Unit 3 Effluent
TC
1C
TOC
PH
Temp.
COD-
522
475
190
310
490
365
330
485
455
385
390
485
445
390
465
430
350
460
410
338
495
480
405
335
58
72
80
225
80
155
230
75
115
200
55
70
95
150
62
60
110
60
70
75
72
70
80
88
464
403
110
85
410
210
100
410
340
185
335
415
350
240
403
370
240
400
340
263
423
410
325
247
9.4
8.6
7.4
7.3
8.3
7.3
7.7
8.7
7.4
7.6
8.5
9.1
7.6
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.2
9.1
8.3
7.3
10.8
9.8
8.2
7.0
0
2b C.
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
2f>
26
26
2«
21)
21)
21)
21)
28
2 it
1820
1510
1470
1420
1560
970
924
1490
1200
780
1180
1440
1250
850
1420
1220
780
1370
1160
930
1490
1420
1090
780
Regeneration - Leg A August 25
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Date
8/25
8/25
8/26
8/26
Point
Base of Unit 11
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
TC
490
345
385
415
1C
82
210
130
245
TOC
408
135
255
1VO
PH
7.8
7.5
7.4
8.2
SS
DO
7.2
2.7
2.5
0.3
VSS
79
109
97
950
48
153
335
60
192
89
160
68
72
230
130
57
164
178
47
68
70
124
59
48
56
92
66
715
45
151
325
53
167
86
142
65
50
183
75
41
162
135
45
51
60
107
55
45
DO
9.8
10. 5
10.8
3.2
10.7
2.3
1.5
11.2
4.1
2.2
9.5
9.6
4. 1
3.1
9-6
5.5
2.5
9-2
3.8
2.8
7.3
8.6
3.6
2.7
-------
Point 1 • Raw Influent
ro
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P. M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Date
8/2*
TC
Tbble 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971
Point 2 - Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - Auguit 26
1C
Point
Bane of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
TOC
PH
Temp.
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
190
400
460
475
392
520
455
365
435
445
460
370
315
275
355
295
240
400
265
225
645
465
275
235
38
70
115
340
80
145
285
fco
120
185
68
55
82
105
85
68
120
65
65
60
100
65
60
75
152
330
345
135
312
375
170
305
315
260
392
315
233
170
270
217
120
335
200
165
545
400
215
160
8.5
9.1
8.1
8.5
8.9
7.6
8.2
8.4
8.0
8.1
8.9
9.3
8.0
6.8
8.9
8.1
7.0
9.4
8.0
6.4
10.2
9.8
8.4
6.4
27" C.
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
643
1214
1333
1095
1095
1384
1143
1119
1024
976
1429
1381
714
619
1095
738
524
1238
690
548
2119
1286
690
619
TC
440
390
385
255
Regeneration - Leg 13 - August 26
1C TOC pH
95
132
120
165
345
258
26S
90
8.1
6.8
7. 7.1
7.4
ss
31
100
145
640
72
75
380
62
54
72
116
59
33
46
55
45
57
67
54
40
159
82
51
49
DO
3.1
0.2
3.1
0.5
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
VSS DO
30 9.8
91 14.8
128 4.7
570 0.4
62 9.9
61 5.3
370 1.1
60 8. 1
51 5.2
67 1.5
114 8.8
51 9-6
31 3.9
46
55 8.9
44 4.0
57 2.8
60 9-0
50 5.4
36 2.0
159 9-3
80 8.7
40 5.8
47 2.2
Flow from Treatment System - 52. 160" Gallons
-------
tv)
tNJ
(Jl
Point 1
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P. M.
3:00 P. M.
Raw Influent
Point
Time
9:00 A. M.
12:00 Noon
Date
TC
Tahl* 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September30. 1971
Point 2 * Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 • Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - Augu*t 27
1C
TOC
PH
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
390
285
407
315
275
265
255
300
235
200
575
375
285
185
430
340
255
450
370
275
445
460
380
275
62
SB
135
160
62
60
95
60
58
65
115
70
65
65
75
75
70
65
85
75
65
82
90
75
328
227
272
155
213
205
160
240
177
135
460
305
220
120
355
265
185
365
285
200
380
378
290
200
9.2
8.7
7.6
7.5
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
8.5
8.8
8.2
7.4
7.9
7.7
7.2
8.1
7.8
7.2
9.5
9.0
7.8
7.0
28'
23
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
R e g e ne ration
Point TC
Base of Unit II
Unit III
312
245
Temp.
28° C.
23
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
Leg A -
1C
55
100
CODT
1425
821
1038
918
942
628
531
918
531
373
2536
1280
725
327
1377
1038
580
1642
1038
749
1715
1377
1087
749
Auguat 27
TOC
257
145
ss
PH
7.0
7.0
Point 4 « Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
DO
8.2
0.4
DO
570
94
237
200
350
38
45
248
38
36
198
335
61
37
274
133
50
306
150
81
487
333
139
85
570
83
163
173
300
35
45
234
35
36
196
313
43
34
266
126
48
302
133
67
407
315
119
74
7.8
8.5
3.2
0.4
8.0
5.0
0.6
7.8
5.2
0.6
8.0
8.6
5.2
0.4
8. f.
6.2
0.8
8.3
3.8
0.4
8.0
8.2
4.0
0.4
Flow from Treatment System - 36. 240 Gallons.
-------
ro
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time Point
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - August 30
Point 2 a Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 » Unit 2 Effluent Point 4
Time
Date
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M. 8/31
9:00 A.M. 8/31
TC
1C
TOC
PH
Temp,
COD,
Point
Bane of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit UI
Regeneration -Leg B - Auguit 30
TC 1C TOC
345
492
385
260
160
315
85
332
70
Unit 3 Effluent
SS
PH
7.1
5.9
8.6
VSS
DO
2.5
1.2
4.1
DO
1
z
3
4
Z
3
4
Z
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
44 5
365
340
275
320
290
325
375
245
220
435
•420
265
215
455
305
260
500
335
285
550
555
395
315
72
80
130
205
100
88
135
95
68
75
60
100
65
68
85
65
^70
85
70
62
52
75
70
65
373
285
190
70
220
202
190
280
177
145
_
.
.
-
m
.
•
m
•
-
.
. .
.
6.1
5.9
6.3
8.1
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.0
6.7
6.11
6.|)
6.7
6.V
6.6
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.5
26° C.
26
26
26
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
1414
1035
1414
429
833
657
581
909
429
253
1313
1263
1061
354
1313
707
505
1414
985
480
1667
1490
1010
657
250
121
590
425
165
72
158
150
59
147
88
150
62
43
173
76
36
225
96
53
66
207
130
45
240
113
580
390
145
69
154
130
56
142
84
140
57
35
173
73
36
153
84
45
61
183
118
37
2.0
3.4
4.6
1.0
4.8
6.8
4.0
4.8
6.7
3.1
5.1
6.2
1.8
1.2
6.3
1.3
1.6
6.2
1.6
1.4
4.8
6.2
2.1
1.5
-------
ro
Cv)
Point 1 = Raw Inflix nt
Time
Point
TC
Point 2
1C
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September
Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 » Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - Auguit 31
30, 1971)
Point 4 * Unit 3 Effluent
TOC
PH
Temp.
COD,.
SS
VSS
DO
9:09 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A. M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A. M .
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
320
345
525
345
355
405
500
375
340
310
430
Point
Base of Uni
Unit III
Baae of
70
95
225
220
82
135
245
82
108
no
—
t II
Unit H
250
250
300
125
273
270
255
293
232
200
—
Regenerat ion
TC
500
495
8.4
7.6
7.0
8.8
7. n
6.8
7.8
7.0
6.9
6.9
8.3
7.8
7.5
6.8
- Leg A
1C
55
50
30 C.
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
30
30
30
30
- Augui t
TOC
445
445
1031
1055
1535
647
911
1199
1055
935
1199
600
1775
1295
983
733
1415
815
408
1847
1127
767
1535
1487
1103
815
31
pH
5.8
7. 1
5.6
90
257
270
179
197
64
56
223
284
53
70
213
ISO
41
255
100
48
223
92
44
124
257
114
62
DO
2.7
2.2
69
247
220
126
137
40
48
127
218
37
47
130
100
27
203
91
42
187
90
37
84
240
99
41
7.3
0.9
.4
.4
.0
.6
.3
_
-.
-
6.5
1. 1
1.2
1. 1
-------
r\>
ro
oo
Point 1 • Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 « Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Log A - September 1
Tlma
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1;00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
TC
400
410
415
415
400
360
640
405
365
345
440
380
350
460
415
380
605
505
450
405
Point
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
1C
55
55
98
40
40
68
60
45
50
50
50
40
55
40
40
48
70
45
42
40
TOC
345
355
317
375
360
292
580
360
315
295
390
340
295
420
375
332
535
460
408
365
Regeneration -
TC 1C
535 75
345 115
635 112
330 165
pH
6.3
6.0
6.4
6.8
6.2
6.1
6.4
6.7
6.3
6.2
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.9
7.0
6.8
8.5
7.2
6.8
6.9
Leg B
TOC
460
230
523
165
Temp.
o
30 C.
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
- S ept e mbe r 1
PH
5.9
6.4
6.3
6.9
CODT
1432
1309
1210
1481
1407
1062
2271
1333
1105
1086
1555
1506
1136
1704
1457
1136
2074
1802
1481
1257
Point 4 • Unit 3 Effluent
SS
315
1040
135
265
190
152
86
323
200
114
273
260
127
257
220
80
131
335
193
88
vss
305
190
134
260
177
145
79
280
183
109
267
230
126
247
200
74
120
315
193
85
Flow from Treatments/stem - 98,410 Gallon*.
-------
IS)
N
NO
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 1 - Raw Influent
Time
Point
Point 2 * Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - September 2
TC
1C
TOC
PH
Temp.
Point 4 • unit 3 Effluent
ss
VSS
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
290
338
510
300
350
485
340
440
450
405
220
325
355
370
310
330
310
330
320
290
580
350
320
280
35
58
135
170
60
130
165
110
120
185
65
70-
75
120
65
65
80
70
70
80
55
70
65
65
255
280
375
130
290
355
175
330
330
220
155
255
280
250
245
265
230
260
250
210
525
280
255
215
R egene ration -
Time Date
9:00
12:00
A.M.
Noon
Point
Base of
Unit
Unit H
III
TC
370
220
8.6
8.0
6.7
7.E
7.7
6.7
7.0
8.0
6.9
6.8
8.8
6.8
7.4
7.2
8.6
7.6
7.1
8.3
7.5
7.2
7.8
7.2
6.R
7.0
Leg A -
1C
60
65
28° C.
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Sept embe r 2
TOC
310
155
983
1175
1775
1559
1079
1463
1655
1031
1295
1007
671
1055
983
1031
839
935
863
959
839
2398
2062
1103
983
743
pH
7.2
7.2
43
270
230
1290
109
157
1180
95
46
102
38
83
27
47
119
51
62
117
35
49
87
133
55
40
34
148
225
1180
106
143
1040
87
43
95
34
80
21
44
86
31
51
89
35
27
50
130
55
36
Flow from Treatment System - 43, 760 Gallons.
-------
Point 1 • Raw Influent
Table 7 (continued)
2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971}
Point 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
ro
w
o
Time
9:00 A.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
10:00 A.M. 2
3
4
11:00 A.M. 2
3
4
12:00 P.M. 1
2
3
4
1:00 P.M. 2
3
4
2:00 P.M. 2
3
4
3:00 P.M. 1
2
3
4
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A. M.
9:00 A.M.
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 7
Point 4 * Unit 3 Effluent
TC
890
405
53B
415
398
415
442
45Q
390
400
700
525
395
370
585
500
470
560
490
458
525
555
44S
490
Date
9/7
9/7
9/8
9/8
1C
50
45
130
270
58
60
125
55
52
95
60
55
50
68
62
50
'60
65
55
60
45
58
60
55
Point
Base of
TOC
840
360
308
145
340
355
317
395
338
305
640
470
345
302
523
450
410
495
435
398
480
497
388
435
R e ge ner atlon
Unit I!
Unit III
Baae of
Unit II
Unit III
pH
8.4
7.0
6.8
8.2
7.3
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.8
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.9
7.0
6.6
6.9
6.5
6.8
6.6
6.7
6.4
- Leg
TC
-
375
630
410
Temp.
o
28 C.
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
COD
.
1415
1918
1055
1415
1463
1391
1583
1319
1151
2878
2062
1415
1223
2182
1727
1535
2206
1751
1535
1751
2134
1511
1822
B - September 7
1C
-
310
75
355
TOC
-
65
555
55
ss
83
116
226
235
104
68
96
135
65
55
117
138
48
45
117
38
25
77
35
26
46
93
29
25
PH
6.8
5.9
7.9
VSS
73
114
192
220
102
52
94
108
58
50
113
122
46
45
113
35
25
57
35
21
44
76
27
25
DO
3.1
1.1
0.9
DO
2.2
4. 1
5.0
2. 5
4.7
5.6
3.6
4.5
3.8
4.2
4.2
4.7
4.8
1.8
4. 1
3.0
1.9
1.2
2.3
2.0
5.5
1.7
1.5
1.2
-------
ts)
Point 1
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Raw Influent Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - September 8
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
9/8
9/8
9/9
9/9
TC
255
520
455
445
505
500
455
500
480
435
525
465
395
370
515
395
340
490
370
310
1340
520
410
330
Point
Base of
Unit
Base of
Unit
1C
50
65
160
335
68
170
230
65
135
205
55
75
100
140
62
65
108
70
85
82
115
65
62
78
Unit II
m
Unit II
III
TOC
205
455
295
110
437
330
225
435
345
230
470
390
295
230
453
330
232
420
285
228
1225
455
348
Z5Z
R e gene ration -
TC 1C
520 55
405 140
535 75
375 270
pH
7. 1
6.8
6.9
8.3
6.7
6.6
7.1
6.7
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.2
7.0
7.1
6.8
7. 1
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.4
Leg A -
TOC
465
265
460
105
Temp.
o
28 C.
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
Z9
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
S e pt e mbe r
PH
5.8
6.7
6.2
8.3
CODT
702
1980
1720
653
1830
1670
1060
1790
1380
942
2080
1690
1270
870
1810
1110
774
1790
1250
895
2220
1930
1500
920
8
DO
0.8
1.4
0.7
0.7
SS
37
160
514
510
247
253
170
168
69
66
272
180
49
101
154
73
69
209
51
43
278
190
132
40
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
37
158
465
460
236
244
170
164
66
65
269
177
48
91
134
60
55
168
44
36
228
126
103
22
DO
9.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
8.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.3
6.2
0.4
0.9
1.0
-------
Point 1 « Raw Influent
to
Time
9:00A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
TC
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 -« Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 • Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle
1C pH Temp
- Leg A - September 9
Time
9:00 A.M.
Point
B&ie of Unit II
COD,
2700
1690
1360
2360
1810
1310
1100
1910
1410
1100
3170
2120
1650
1240
2100
1360
1210
Z170
1260
1220
1620
2080
1620
1170
Regeneration - Leg B - September 9
TC 1C pH
510 95 6.1
725
540
405
345
545
420
390
520
430
280
560
440.
340
240
575
445
420
490
430
270
580
470
380
240
80
70
110
270
75
75
145
80
75
105
75
75
95
130
80
75
70
75
65
95
85
95
75
125
10.1
8.3
7.5
8.6
8.0
7.4
7.8
7.8
7.4
7.4
8.6
7.3
7.0
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.0
11.4
7.6
7.2
7.2
29° C.
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
SS
142
70
280
118
60
178
120
94
167
282
138
102
47
147
97
35
76
62
21
53
50
44
19
Point 4 • Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
DO
136
53
280
2220
84
58
148
80
72
147
214
108
88
39
140
74
30
73
58
9
35
48
40
17
6.5
2.1
1.8
0.3
2.4
1.2
0.4
1.8
0.8
0.4
4.2
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.4
2. 1
0.9
0.4
0.3
DO
0.7
-------
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Time Point
9:00 A. M. 1
.0:00 A.M.
.1:00 A.M.
.2:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P. M.
3:00 P. M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
2:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
9/13
9/U
9/14
TC
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
•Point 2 * Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 « Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - September 13
1C
Point
Bate of Unit II
Unit III
Baae of Unit II
Unit III
TOC
PH
COD,
ss
325
154
300
203
123
54
49
154
33
36
86
148
23
12
72
28
36
78
23
240
156
92
43
160
Regeneration - Leg A - September 1~3
TC 1C TOC pH
1500
260
405
350
345
255
295
465
320
260
755
520
355
320
575
480
425
600
475
415
990
590
460
405
70
70
190
215
65
95
150
60
75
80
100
65
85
80
70
85
•80
75
80
125
70
75
80
135
1430
190
215
135
280
160
145
405
245
180
655
455
270
240
505
395
345
525
395
290
920
515
390
270
10.6
9.8
7.6
7.8
8.2
7.8
7.6
8.6
7.9
7.8
9.5
9-7
8.2
7.5
9.7
8.4
7.5
10. 1
8.7
7.8
10.8
10.3
8.5
7.7
3340
734
1110
685
1040
735
850
1630
945
710
2740
1750
1440
1090
2100
1530
1490
2200
1510
1370
3340
2000
1470
1130
330
535
275
280
130
220
50
405
55
8.2
6.5
7.1
VSS
DO
4.8
0.4
4.6
Point 4 * Unit 3 Effluent
DO
315
108
287
178
123
48
46
130
20
32
66
144
21
10
44
23
34
75
21
216
ISO
88
38
160
4.8
1.6
1.4
0.7
4.4
A. 1
2.4
4.7
4.0
3.2
8.8
8.5
2.1
3. 1
6.7
2.5
2.8
5.3
2.4
1.7
6.0
7.8
1.4
1.7
-------
Cs)
OJ
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Time
9:00 AM
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
TC
lable I (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 - Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 • Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 14
1C
TOC
PH
640
495
495
415
475
455
455
500
400
415
625
525
475
425
535
395
335
570
410
355
745
575
415
345
75
70
185
205
60
155
150
65
105
ZOO
105
80
65
70
70
65
80
80
75
75
95
80
70
75
565
425
310
210
415
300
305
435
295
215
520
445
410
355
465
330
255
490
335
280
650
495
345
260
9.8
9.2
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.0
6.8
7.8
7.3
7.2
8.5
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.8
7.1
6.9
8.2
7.5
7.1
9.1
9.2
7.8
7.0
30° C.
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
Point
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit U
Unit III
Regenerat ion
TC
515
435
430
275
- Leg B -
1C
75
101
90
195
ss
DO
5.1
4.1
1.2
2.4
Point 4 * Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
DO
97
110
132
346
224
135
308
130
57
190
162
186
51
81
123
94
39
192
47
40
143
215
61
51
76
110
114
340
104
123
304
128
54
135
142
162
46
77
118
83
32
192
44
37
128
205
56
50
4.4
6.8
3.6
1.8
6.4
0.8
0.4
5.5
0.9
0.6
5.5
5.7
1.2
1.0
4.7
0.9
0.8
4.9
1.8
1.8
6.7
5. 5
2.8
1.7
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
ro
(jo
Ul
Time
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
TC
Table 7 (continued)
ition of Unit 1 . Unit 2 - Ui
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg
1C
TOC
570
400
310
700
535
415
550
700
545
470
710,
545
485
705
610
505
640
710
535
460
Point
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
75
120
195
90
115
180
85
9.5
105
100
100
110
110
110
105
105
95
95
90
85
R e gene
495
280
115
610
420
235
465
605
440
370
610
535
475
595
505
400
545
615
445
375
ration - Leg
TC
545
270
515
265
t 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
..eg B -
PH
6.8
6.6
7.4
9.5
7.8
7.3
9.5
7.9
7.9
6.7
9.2
8.5
6.9
8.8
7.8
6.5
9.4
9.8
11.2
6.2
Pdnt 3 * Unit 2
September 1
Temp.
o
31 C.
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Effluent
5
COD1
1750
1140
570
2380
1600
955
1860
2320
1550
1340
2300
1630
1340
2140
1960
I960
2720
2120
1910
1450
- Se pt embe r 1 5
1C
65
100
105
205
TOC
480
170
410
60
PH
6.2
7. 1
6.3
6.9
Point 4 « Unit 3 Effluent
SS
156
216
167
175
119
114
248
178
47
220
170
70
90
178
165
130
210
127
204
157
DO
1. 1
0.4
1.4
2.8
VSS
134
183
150
170
98
89
240
160
47
208
156
70
88
174
151
101
166
125
161
138
DO
1.2
0.8
0.6
7.5
0.4
0.4
8. 1
8.0
0.5
2.0
7.2
0.3
0.8
6.7
0.5
0.6
8.1
7.8
0.5
0.4
-------
u>
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P. M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
Date
9/16
9/16
9/17
9/17
TC
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30.1971)
Point 2 » Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 16
1C
TOC
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
500
570
535
455
570
485
505
575
465
445
675
475
580
455
600
570
525
620
470
425
615
625
460
420
90
80
125
215
85
110
180
75
105
170
100
100
85
140
85
90
105
85
95
105
80
85
85
95
410
490
410
240
495
375
325
500
360
275
575
375
495
315
515
480
420
535
375
420
535
540
375
325
pH
8. 1
9-2
7.5
7.4
8.8
6.6
6.7
8.3
6.9
7. 1
7.8
9.7
6.1
6.7
8.8
7.0
6.5
8.9
7. 1
6.4
8.5
9.1
7.2
6.2
Regeneration - Leg B - September 16
Point TC 1C
Baae of Unit II
Unit III
Ba« e of Unit II
Unit III
610
370
615
305
105
70
165
175
TOC
505
300
450
130
Point 4 - Unit 3 Effluent
Temp.
0
30 C.
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
COD
1440
2320
1328
904
80
1360
1120
1864
1328
1120
1888
1168
1840
1008
1840
1224
1140
1888
1304
1040
2000
1920
1384
1040
ss
43
95.6
113
149
56
72.5
81
98.5
73
71
150
104
100
63
132
67
86
122
66
55
132
153
100
69
VSS
43
83
106
123
53
72.5
95
97
59
69
117
80
100
62
120
66
78
100
59
51
108
106
93
68
DO
7.5
7.8
1. 1
0.9
7.2
1.2
0.7
7.6
1.0
0.9
8.3
8.6
0. 5
2.3
8.0
1-9
2.3
8. 1
7.8
9.2
0.7
1.6
PH
6.8
6.8
6.7
7.3
DO
0.7
1.3
1.8
2.7
-------
ts)
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent
Treatment Cycle -
Table 7 (continued)
- Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30,
Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Leg B - September 17
1971)
Point 4 'Unit 3 Effluent
Time
9:00 A.M.
-
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
Base
TC
625
585
655
655
580
645
675
605
550
500
605
585
585
470
585
545
475
Point
of Unit II
Unit III
1C
55
80
195
280
75
150
315
80
105
130
50
75
80
105
60
65
95
Rege
TOC
570
505
460
575
505
495
360
525
445
370
555
510
445
375
525
480
380
neration > Leg
TC 1C
620 95
225 75
pH
9.8
9.0
7.8
7.2
8.7
7.7
7.4
8.4
7.1
7,1
8.5
8.2
6.9
7.3
8.9
7.4
7.4
A - Sept
PH
6.8
6.7
Temp.
o
29 C.
29
29
29
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
ember 17
DO
4.4
1.4
COD
2216
2000
1984
1488
1968
2480
1440
2000
1600
1200
2024
2296
1440
1200
2104
1488
1304
SS
128
170
297
165
160
153
97
146
80
48
140
174
40
47
146
40
34
VSS
100
160
145
134
150
130
94
132
55
47
120
154
33
44
82
36
24
7.4
8. I
0.8
1.4
7.4
0.8
1.2
7.0
0.8
0.9
0.6
8.0
0.9
0.7
7. 1
0.9
0.9
DO
-------
oo
Point 1 * Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
lOrOOuA. M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
Date
9/20
9/20
9/21
9/21
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 * Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 » Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 20
TC
Point 4 " Unit 3 Effluent
1C
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
515
410
450
490
370
375
405
365
370
400
660
4*5
385
395
375
360
410
455
340
320
840
490
360
305
70
115
145
225
120
120
160
125
135
165
75
115
130
175
135
165
120
US
110
120
100
110
115
105
TOC
PH
Temp.
COD..
445
295
305
265
250
255
245
240
235
235
585
300
25S
220
240
195
290
340
230
200
740
380
245
200
9.7
8.4
8.3
7.2
8.3
8.0
7.3
7.8
7.4
7.2
8.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.2
7.4
8.0
7.4
7.3
7.9
7.8
7.5
7.6
29° C.
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
.
744
1008
824
—
_
-
880
824
800
—
.
.
-
m
.
-
928
880
448
.
.
.
_
SS
130
90
63
143
93
57
VSS
110
80
60
120
87
53
160
150
194
155
ISO
89
Regeneration - Leg B - September 20
Point TC 1C TOC
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
350
565
305
220
130
260
130
435
45
pH
7.0
6.6
7.6
DO
3.6
1.4
4.4
DO
2.9
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.7
0.8
0.5
3.5
1.9
0.8
0.7
2.5
1.0
0.8
2.1
0.9
0.4
4.7
2.6
0.7
0.4
-------
C-0
w
vD
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A. M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
Z
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
9:00 A.M. 9/21
12:00 Noon 9/21
9:00 A.M. 9/22
9:00 A.M. 9/22
int Point 2 =
TC 1C
630 70
580 85
815 450
505 270
540 BO
650 245
655 380
590 85
545 120
605 170
585 110
575 90
575 100
500 135
600 85
540 90
480 105
585 90
565 110
495 110
545 65
615 85
565 100
490 95
Operation of Unit
Unit 1 Effluent
Treatment
TOC
560
495
365
235
460
405
275
505
425
435
475
485
475
365
515
450
475
495
455
385
480
530
465
395
Regeneration -
Point
Base of Unit 1!
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
TC 1C
645 105
305 150
310 180
535 90
Table 7 (continued)
1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Cycle - Leg B - September 21
PH
Temp.
560
495
365
235
460
405
275
505
425
435
475
485
475
365
515
450
475
495
455
385
480
530
465
395
9-4
7.8
7.4
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.4
7.2
6.8
7.3
7.1
6.4
7.B
7.4
7.3
8. 1
7.5
7.2
7.3
29° C.
29
29
29
30° C.
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
COD
1760
1544
1304
824
1544
1384
960
1968
1784
1120
824
1328
SS
90
285
234
135
285
190
74
178
1080
150
86
246
Point 4 - Unit 3 Effluent
VSS
Leg A - September 21
TOC pH
540
155
130
445
7. 1
7.0
6.9
7.2
DO
0.4
1.4
1.8
4.6
DO
84
280
230
126
m
.
-
285
190
70
145
-
.
-
343
120
48
_
.
-
226
.
.
_
9-5
0.4
0.4
0.5
1. 0
0.7
0.5
0-9
0.5
0.4
8.0
0.8
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.5
1.6
0.7
0.6
6.5
1.4
0.4
0.4
Flow from Treatment System = 65, 390 GALLONS.
-------
Point 1 * R«.w Influent
ts»
^
O
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 » Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 « Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle • Leg B - September 23
Point 4 * Unit 3 Effluent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P. M.
Point
1
t
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
TC
890
565
46$
405
560
535
475
580
530
455
645
560
610
485
600
590
500
605
570
520
680
540
500
535
pH
10.4
8.2
7.1
7.2
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.0
8.2
7.3
7.1
6.9
7.8
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.5
7.5
8.2
7.4
7.2
7.0
Temp.
29° C.
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Re generation
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A M.
9:00 A. M.
Date
9/23
9/23
9/24
9/24
Point
Base of Unit H
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
TC
560
455
.
-
COD,
2990
1710
1600
735
2180
1840
1130
1830
1810
1650
1280
2230
SS
158
465
130
460
390
240
127
155
365
270
206
142
62
120
498
335
pH
6.9
6.8
VSS
152
465
120
420
385
220
122
130
340
266
190
135
DO
0.3
0.9
DO
9.2
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
8.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.3
7.4
0.9
0.4
0.3
Flow from Treatment Syitem = 59, 220 Gallons.
-------
Point 1 - Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
9/22
9/22
9/23
9/23
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent °oint 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 22
TC
Point 4 » Unit 3 Effluent
1C
TOC
pH
Temp.
Point
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Base of Unit II
Unit III
COD.J
0
1864
1144
696
1656
1360
936
2480
1440
2184
1520
1280
2664
Regeneration - Leg B - September 22
TC 1C TOC pH DO
1430
460
420
325
490
390
350
545
430
355
745
600
500
420
620
510
440
625
510
450
690
645
515
480
140
95
130
180
100
100
105
90
100
100
105
75
95
90
75
95
90
70
95
90
105
65
95
100
1290
365
290
145
390
290
245
455
330
255
640
525
405
430
545
415
350
555
415
460
585
580
420
380
8.7
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.7
7.7
8.2
7.4
7.5
8.4
8.0
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.7
7. 1
7.2
7.9
7.6
7. 1
7.2
o
29 C.
Z9
29
29
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
22
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
570
410
590
385
120
165
125
132
450
245
465
253
7.4
6.8
6.4
7.2
1. 1
2.3
0.5
0.4
SS
330
370
212
205
455
273
210
213
175
570
250
143
273
VSS
DO
282
330
160
137
_
-
-
385
210
180
140
.
.
-
137
.
•
450
175
no
226
.
.
.
7. 1
2.4
0.4
0.5
2.2
1. 1
0.8
2.0
0.9
0.7
6.4
2.3
1.0
o.a
1.7
0.9
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.5
5.8
2. 1
0.4
0.5
Flow from Treatment System . 75, 230 gallons
-------
C\)
Point 1 • Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
J:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
Point
Date
9/24
9/24
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 - Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 * Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 24
Point 4 ' Unit 3 Effluent
TC
1C
TOC
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1270
480
460
380
480
400
340
490
400
350
720
530
470
410
605
530
4ZO
635
530
470
695
655
550
475
180
100
170
210
105
110
110
95
105
100
115
105
90
95
85
90
100
75
85
90
85
80
95
105
1090
380
290
170
375
290
230
395
295
250
605
425
380
315
520
440
320
560
445
380
610
575
455
370
PH
Temp.
COD_
8.3
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.3
8.)
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.9
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.4
8.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
29° C.
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
3330
1630
1200
1270
.
.
-
2200
1470
945
3330
.
.
-
2410
1920
1680
„
.
-
3330
.
.
.
SS
138 138
245 245
350
286
290
340
82
316
223
192
183
333
VSS
118
220
330
230
234
285
43
223
216
182
180
237
Point
Base of Unit II
Unit III
Regeneration - Leg B - September 24
TC 1C TOC pH
550
400
130
185
420
215
7.3
6.9
DO
1.7
3.1
DO
6.2
3. 1
0.4
0.3
3.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
8.1
3.8
0.8
0.7
2.9
1.0
1.0
2.7
0.9
0.7
7.4
2.3
0.7
0.6
Flow from Treatment Syetem - 26. ZK0 Gallons
-------
ro
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P. M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
TC
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30, 1971)
Point 2 - Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - September 27
1C TOC pH Temp. COD
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Date
_
9/27
9/28
9/28
1700
795
540
555
780
740
505
740
740
730
975
790
690
620
850
755
650
850
775
640
860
720
685
520
Point
Base of Unit
Unit III
Base of Unit
Unit III
175
125
105
115
130
285
235
130
155
245
, 180
150
135
130
150
155
150
165
175
150
145
130
165
185
II
II
-
.
.
-
650
455
270
_
.
-
„
-
.
-
700
600
500
^
.
-
.
_
.
-
R e gene ration
TC
—
385
423
360
r"'
9-4
7.8
7.2
6.8
7.7
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.5
7.6
8.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.1
7.2
8.6
7.7
7.3
7.1
- Leg A -
1C
_
240
110
165
o
29 C.
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
S ept embe r 2 7
TOC
_
145
313
195
T
3330
2940
1960
1640
.
.
-
2540
2410
2090
3330
.
.
-
3010
2440
2110
m
.
-
3030
.
-
-
PH
„
6.7
6.6
7.0
ss
390
140
Z90
260
175
92
177
447
306
120
106
220
VSS
360
126
280
415
172
84
172
412
250
116
102
212
DO
1.3
0.4
2.3
DO
12.2
1.5
1.2
0.8
1.8
0.9
0.7
1-9
0.4
0. 5
7.9
2. 1
0.8
0.8
1.4
0.4
0.5
1.3
0.4
0.4
6.1
1.3
0.4
0.4
Flow from Treatment System - 71, 600 Gallons
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
Time.
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
Time
9:00 A.M.
12:00 Noon
9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30,
Point 2 » Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 " Unit 2
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 28
int
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4'
2
3
4
2
3
4
TC
820
835
650
565
815
645
570
790
660
555
730
845
675
530
685
660
535
660
615
545
1C
130
160
165
185
155
165
150
165
155
155
120
165
16S
150
155
160
155
145
150
150
PH
7.2
7.9
7.1
6.5
7.6
7.2
6.8
7.5
7.1
6.6
6.8
7.4
7.2
6.4
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.3
7. 1
6.8
R egene ration
Date
9/28
9/28
9/29
9/29
Point
Base of Unit
Unit III
Base of Unit
Unit II!
TC
It 440
420
II 405
385
1C
105
180
170
185
COD
2880
2900
2310
1640
»
.
-
2780
2050
1590
3340
.
.
-
2620
1970
1790
„
.
-
- Leg B - Septembe
TOC
335
240
235
200
SS
224
410
285
258
—
.
-
415
208
-
173
.
.
-
350
192
160
.
.
-
r 28
PH
6.6
6.8
6.9
7. 1
1971)
Effluent
VSS
DO
0. 1
1.6
0.9
1.8
Point 4 = Unit 3 Effluent
DO
210
395
280
252
m
.
-
400
205
-
170
.
_
-
340
175
150
„
.
.
12.1
1.2
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
8.6
1.0
0.5
0.6
1.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.7
Flow from Treatment System - 79,360 Gallons.
-------
Point 1 = Raw Influent
t\J
4^
Ul
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:OOP.M.
3:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
TC
Table 7 (continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 = Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg B - September 29
1C TOC pH Temp. COD
Point 4 - Unit 3 Effluent
875
720
710
645
745
685
640
785
660
605
855
725
700
655
755
680
670
70S
640
595
800
710
700
615
155
160
150
170
140
155
175
170
155
150
150
165
160
170
185
170
165
165
150
145
140
145
155
150
720
560
560
475
605
530
465
615
505
455
705
560
540
485
570
510
505
540
490
450
660
565
545
465
8.6
7.4
7.0
7. 1
o
29 C.
29
29
29
7.6
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.0
6.9
8.7
7. 1
7. 1
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.0
8.2
7.3
7. 1
7. 1
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
3330
1770
2310
1920
2020
1560
1280
1740
SS
447
425
530
228
968
323
97
140
VSS
360
355
470
188
700
228
63
86
3030
1720
1SOO
1360
330
495
440
210
235
325
295
133
DO
5.6
2.3
0.7
0.4
3. 1
0.8
0.7
2.8
0.7
0.7
4.7
1.8
0.4
0.5
1.6
0.4
0.4
1. 1
0. 3
0.4
3.7
1.2
0.5
0.6
Flow from Treatment Syttem - 33, 800 Gallons
-------
Point 1 =» Raw Influent
f\J
Time
9:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
Point
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Table 7 {continued)
Operation of Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 (July 13 - September 30. 1971)
Point 2 * Unit 1 Effluent Point 3 = Unit 2 Effluent
Treatment Cycle - Leg A - September 30
TC
1C
TOC
Temp.
870
675
530
540
640
520
515
635
500
485
765
585
570
510
610
560
525
615
540
505
165
150
150
185
155
165
165
140
175
185
145
155
150
160
135
145
165
140
150
155
705
525
480
355
485
355
350
495
325
300
620
430
420
350
475
415
360
475
390
350
9-
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
8.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
6.
5
9
2
0
6
1
0
9
2
8
7
4
0
8
3
0
7
0
0
R
29"
29
29
29
o
30
30
30
o
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
C
C
C,
COD.J
3330
1B30
1590
1280
2630
1720
1410
2760
1986
1870
1380
18
70
Point 4 > Unit 3 Effluent
SS
70
185
43
70
115
120
36
43
90
70
10
VSS
48
100
23
38
100
87
22
32
65
50
7
DO
8.3
2.5
0.9
0.8
1.8
0.7
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.5
7.2
1.7
0.6
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.5
Flow from Treatment System - 22, 590 Gallon*.
-------
APPENDIX B
247
-------
ro
*-
00
Temp. C.
pH
D.O. mg/1
Total Carbon mg/1
Inorganic Carbon mg/1
Total Org. Carbon mg/1
Ti Reduction TOC
Total COD mg/1
% Reduction COD
SS mR/1
VSS mg/1
APPENDIX B
Tablu 1
Operation of Pilot Anaerobic Filter Series No. 1 (Sept. 16-18. 1970)
I = Influent . E * Effluent
September 16
9:00 A.M.
1 E
27.5 27.5
7.4 8.3
ZSO 130
70 120
180 10
94.5
10:00 A.M.
I E
28
7.9
410
80
330
95.7
1875
66.6
462
454
28
8.3
190
110
80
625
240
217
11;OOA.M. 12;00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 3:00 B M.
1 E I E I El El E
30 29 30.5 30.5 30.5 30 30 30 30 30
7.6 8.2 8. 2 8.0 8.1 7.9 8.4 7.7 8.3 7.7
1965 712 2274 622
63.6 ' 72.6
450 188 444 150
420 188 406 140
-------
ro
APPENDIX B
Table 1 (cent.)
Operation of Pilot Anaerobic Filter Series No. 1 (September 16-18. 1970)
I = Influent
Septe mber 1 7
E = Effluent
9:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M.
I E I E
Temp. C. 27 24.5 31.5 30.5
pH 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.6
D.O. mg/1 0.3 0.2
Total Carbon mg/1 620 505 720 545
Inorganic Carbon mg/1 110 120 95 115
Total Org. Carbon mg/1 510 385 625 430
T» Reduction TOC 24. 5 31.2
Total COD mg/1 1875 625
% Reduction COD 66. 6
SS mg/1 462 Z40
VSS mg/1 454 217
11:00 A.M. 12:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:00 P- M.
1E1E IE IE
31 31 28.5 29 27.5 26 30 29
6.7 6.5 6.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
730 (120 710
95 115 70
635 565 640
20.2 11
1965
63.6
450
420
6.5 6.9 6.5 7.1 6.6
0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
685 700 605 695 610
115 85 130 100 115
570 615 475 595 495
23 17.7
712 2274 622
72.6
188 444 150
188 406 140
-------
Table 1 (cent.)
Operation of Pilot Anaerobic Filler Seriei No. 1 (September 16-18. 1970)
Sept embe r 1 8
Influent
Effluent
tN>
U1
o
o
Temp. C.
PH
D.O. mg/1
Total Carbon (mg/1)
Inorganic Carbon mg/1
Total Orgt Carbon mg/1
% Reduction TOC
Total COD mg/1
% Reduction COD
SS mg/1
VSS mg/1
9:00 A.M. 10:00 A
I E I
31 27 30
7.8 6.6 7.7
0 0 0.3
470 400 490
180 150 ISO
290 250 340
13.7 32.3
1833
28.8
531
446
. M. 11:00 A.M.
E IE
28 30 29
6.6 7.5 6.6
0.3 0.3 0.2
385 475 390
155 155 150
230 320 240
25
1305
218
205
12:00 A
I
31
7.4
0.3
645
150
495
53.5
2304
43
600
529
.M. 1:
E I
28
6.4
0.3
430
200
230
1314
280
260
00P.M. 2:00 P M.
E 1 E
33
7. 1
0.4
730
130
600
40
2184
35
430
410
31
6.3
0.4
515
155
360
1419
220
210
-------
ro
Ul
Table 2
Operation at Pilot Anaerobic Filter
Serie« No. 2 (September 24 - October 2, 1970)
September 29
Influent
Effluent
Sept embe r 30
Temp. C.
PH
Total Carbon mg/1
Inorganic Carbon mg/1 130
Total Org. Carbon mg/1 340
% Reduction TOC
Total COD mg/1
% Reduction COO
SS mg/1
VSS mg/1
12:00
I
30.5
77
• f
470
130
340
16.
3105
30
880
690
A.M.
E
30
7 1
f . 1
415
130
285
2
2165
590
510
1:00 P.
I
31
74
• V
490
130
360
13.8
2605
17.7
960
750
M.
E
30.5
7 A
* 4
440
130
310
2145
600
470
2:00 P.M. 10:00
I E I
30 30 30
485 430 480
125 130 75
360 300 405
16.6
2200
12
185
168
A.M. 11:00 A.M.
E I E
28 30 29
440 640 590
85 110 125
355 530 465
1937
112
103
12:00
I
31
640
105
535
2107
0
222
208
A. M.
E
29-5
60S
120
485
3233
690
827
1:00 P.M.
1 E
31 31
590 580
65 90
525 490
2:00
I
32
7f\
• V
620
65
555
2217
7.5
270
253
P. M
E
3!
•
600
80
52(
205;
377
247
-------
APPENDIX B
T»ble 2 (eont.)
Operation of Pilot Anaerobic Fitter
Series No. 2 (September 24 - October 2, 1970)
I ' Influent E • Effluent
Oct obe r 1
9:00 A.M.
I E
Temp. ° C. 29 27
pH 7. 1 7.0
Total Org. Carbon mg/1 610 450
pj % Reduction TOC 26.3
PO Total COD mg/1
ft Reduction COD
SS' irg/1
VSS mg/1
10:00
I
29
7.2
590
10.
2218
16
190
183
A.M.
E
29
7.2
530
2
1860
140
128
11:00 A.M. 12:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M.
I El El E
30 20 30 29 31 30
7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
610 560 630 560 615 545
8.2 11.1 11.4
2410 1974
7.8
257 190
247 180
October 2
2:00 P.-M. 10:00 A.M. 12:00 A. M. 2:00 F
I El El El
30 29
7.2 7.2
580 550
5.2
2560 2144 2460 2259 2380 2064 2157 2
16.5 8 13 0
277 195 243 268 246 168 330
277 175 228 243 220 158 307
-------
ro
m
oo
Temp. C.
PH.
Total Carbon mg/1
Inorganic Carbon tng/1
Total Org. Carbon
7. Reduction TOC
Total COD mg/1
% Reduction COD
SS mg/1
VSS mg/1
Table 2
Operation of Pilot Anaerobic Filter
Serie. No. 2 (September 24 - October 2, 1970)
I * Influent E = Effluent
Sept embe r 24
1 1:00 A.M.
1 E
34 29.5
7.3 9.5
480 235
120 160
360 75
79.1
12:
I
34
7.
460
105
355
1916
357
343
00 A.M.
E
33.5
Z 8.8
280
130
150
57.7
897
53
174
166
1
35
7.
590
85
505
2320
485
450
:00 P. M
I E
34.5
1 7.9
325
110
215
57.4
1107
52
193
188
2:00
I
35
7.0
620
80
540
54.
2400
47.
425
405
P. M.
E
35
7.6
340
95
245
6
1257
5
190
170
-------
Ln
APPENDIX B
Table 2 (cont.)
Operation of Pilot Anaerobic Filter
Series No. 2 (September 24 - October 2, 1970)
I = Influent E = Effluent
Sept ernbe r 2 5
Temp. C.
PH
Total Carbon mg/1
Inorganic Carbon mg/1
Total Org. Carbon mg/1 395
% Reduction TOC
Total COD mg/1
% Reduction COD
SS mg/1
VSS mg/1
9:00 A.M.
I E
33 31
7.0 7.0
490 320
95 95
395 225
43
10:00 A
I
34.5
6.8
500
80
420
29.7
2613
37.7
625
625
. M.
E
33.5
6.8
395
100
295
1627
292
292
11:OOA.M. 12
I E I
35 34.5 35
6.5 6.7 6.
515 420 515
70 75 60
445 345 455
22.4
2907
720
720
:00 A. M.
E
34.5
5 6.7
430
75
355
22
2065
29.0
445
420
1:00 P.M. 2:00 P.
I El
32.5 32 34.5
6.2 6.4 6.4
485 425 505
35 50 40
450 375 46S
16.6 20.
3333
38.3
930
840
M.
E
34
6.5
425
55
370
2
2051
440
365
-------
CO
-------
1
Accession Number
w
5
2
Subject Field & Group
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Peace Dale, Rhode Island
Title
Anaerobic-Aerobic Treatment of Textile Wastes with Activated Carbon
10
Authors)
PodS,' Calvin, P. C.
and
Virgadamo, Philip P.
16
Project Designation
EPA - Grant Project 12090 EQO
21
Note
Environmental Protection Agency report
number, EPA-R2-73-248, May 1973.
22
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
* Wastewater Treatment, * Industrial Wastes, * Textiles
* Activated Carbon, adsorption
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
* Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
* Total Organic Carbon
* Chemical Oxygen Demand,
Abstract The operation of an anaerobic-aerobic bio-oxidation treatment system utilizing
d carbon was studied for 24 months at Palisades Industries, Peace Dale, Rhode
Island. Biological oxidation and conversion of soluble organic waste .onstituents took
place in the aerated basin operated as a mixed dispersed growth reactor without return
sludge. Washed out solids from the aeration basin were filtered by a parallel set of acti-
vated carbon columns. The entrapped solids were then hydrolized when these columns
were regenerated in place anaerobically. A second parallel set of carbon columns provided
for additional removal of solids and soluble organics. However, the biological regeneration)
in these columns was carried out aerobically.
Both the Laboratory and the large scale pilot plant experiments revealed 1) good color
removal; 2) oxidation of organic chemicals fed to the system; 3) major reduction in BOD
and COD in the waste effluent stream; and 4) continued biological regeneration of the acti-
vated carbon; and 5) high degree of removal of suspended solids without conventional
equipment. This study has demonstrated that waste streams from a typical cloth dyeing
and finishing operation can be effectively treated using activated carbon coupled with bio-
logical regeneration. The advantages to this system are a result of the catalytic effect
rendered bv the activated carbon on difficult to degrade organic molecules and the small
renderreQSirements in respect to conventional treatment systems for an equiva^degree
27
Abstractoi
Calvin P. C. Poon
Institution.
University of Rhode Island
WR:102
WRSIC
(REV. JULY 19591
SEND. WITH COPV or DOCUMENT. TO, J*«R
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
«U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 197? 514-1S6"37 1-3
------- |