EPA-660/2-73-016
DECEMBER 1973
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Recovery of Fatty Materials From
Edible Oil Refinery Effluents
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 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.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, 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.
For sate by the Superintendent oj Documents, U.S. Government Frtnttng Office
Washington, P.O. 20*02 - Price $1.60
-------
EPA-660/2-73-015
December 1973
RECOVERY OF FATTY MATERIALS
FROM EDIBLE OIL REFINERY EFFLUENTS
By
Wendelin C. Seng
Grant 12060 DQV
Program Element 1B2037
Project Officer
Clifford Risley, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
New full scale equipment and modification to the existing
standard waste treatment equipment were installed at the
Swift & Company modern, high-volume, edible fat and oil
refining plant at Bradley, Illinois, complete with neces-
sary controls and instrumentation to study methods for
removing and upgrading the fatty materials for resale.
Concurrent with the above, an in-plant survey was conducted.
The waste streams were characterized as to source , flow
rate, and ether solubles, suspended solids and BOD content.
Many commercially available synthetic acrylamide polymers
were laboratory tested as flocculants in combination mainly
with alum for plant waste water clarification. Four were
tested over several months at Bradley. All were found very
effective, provided that suitable pK levels and dosage were
used.
Cathodic protection devices and impressed current success-
fully controlled corrosion and build-up of solids on the
walls of the existing Skimmer and Air Flotation Units, but
statistically significant enhancement of flocculation was
not shown. However, other concurrent and later work by
Swift at other plants has shown impressed current is a
valuable aid to waste water clarification.
Several instruments and controls were evaluated relative to
the water clarification system.
Concurrently, a DeLaval PX-213 bowl opening, disc stack,
centrifuge was tested to concentrate and upgrade the removed
fatty materials after caustic and sulfuric acid treatment.
The system was capable of handling in one shift all the
material removed over 24 hours.
An overall economic evaluation indicated the 7000 pounds of
oil recovered (99% ether soluble) , valued at 4-1/4 to 4-5/8
cents per pound, would offset 60% of the total daily direct
operating costs for the waste treatment system, including
the oil reclaiming system.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant
12060 DQV (formerly WRPD 185-01- (R-l) -68) by Swift & Com-
pany under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Work was completed as of December 30, 1970.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
IV Equipment Addition and Modifications 9
V In-Plant Survey 33
VI Evaluation of Flocculants 45
VII Influence of Cathodic Protection
Devices 67
VIII Oil Recovery System Evaluation 75
IX Economic Evaluation 83
X Publications 87
XI Glossary 89
XII Appendices 91
A. Analytical Procedures 93
B. Determination of Flow Rates 105
C. Evaluation of Flocculants Data 107
D. Oil Recovery System Data 139
iii
-------
FIGURES
1 Bradley Waste Treatment Flow Diagram 11
2 Overall View of Waste Water Clarification
System 12
3 New Waste Treatment Building 13
4 Chemical Mix Loop with pH Probe Chamber,
and Magnetic Flowmeter 14
5 Instrument Panel, with Temperature,
Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, and pH
Indicators (left middle) and Recorder
(top right), and Controller for Acid
Pump (lower right) 15
6 BIF Automatic Acid Pump (left center),
Canned Acid (middle center), and
Caustic (right center) Transfer Pumps 16
7 Skimmer Unit, Effluent End, and "Side
Tank" for Removed Grease Skimmings
(left center) 17
8 Air Flotation Cell, with In-Line Blender
(far right center) in Supply Header, and
Pressure Retention Tank (center) 18
9 (right to left) Pressure Tank, Manual
Back Pressure Valve, Polymer Addition
Pipe, and Air Flotation Cell. Treated
Effluent Sample Pump (far left center) 19
10 Alum and Polymer Solution Tanks and
Metering Pumps 20
11 Storage Tank (left) for DeLaval Centrifuge
Water Phase, and Two Grease Skimmings
Treatment Tanks (right) 27
12 Dorr-Oliver P-50 Ceramic Cyclone (right
center), and DeLaval PX-213 Centrifuge 28
IV
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Page
13 Enclosed Motor Control Center 29
14 Schematic Diagram of Main Process Sewers
and Water Sources Leading to Hot Well 34
15 Bradley Plant Water Usage by Meter Readings 35
16 Sub-Process Flow Rates 37
17 Main Process Sewer Flow Rates 40
18 Ether Soluble Concentrations in Main
Process Sewer 41
19 Ether Solubles and Flow Rate of Combined
Outdoor Tank and Tank Car Washing Areas 43
20 Effects of Initial pH and Acid Dosage
on Clarified Phase Final pH, Turbidity,
and Effective Surface Potential 49
21 Effects of Initial pH and Alum Dosage
on Clarified Phase Final pH, Turbidity,
and Effective Surface Potential 50
22 Effects of Initial pH and Alum Dosage
on Clarified Phase Final pH, Turbidity,
and Effective Surface Potential 51
23 Effects of Initial pH and Alum Dosage
on Clarified Phase Final pH, Turbidity,
and Effective Surface Potential 52
24 Effects of Initial pH and Alum Dosage
on Clarified Phase Final pH, Turbidity,
and Effective Surface Potential 53
25 Minimum Turbidity Curve; and Initial pH,
Final pH, and Alum Dosage Required 55
26 Basic Impressed Current Cell 68
27 Comparative Skim Tank Performance at a
Swift Beef Slaughtering Plant With No
Treatment, With Impressed Current Only,
and With Impressed Current and Chemicals 72
-------
TABLES
1 Caustic Refining Wash Water Composition
in ppm 33
2 Contaminant from Hydrogenation Area in ppm 36
3 Average Characteristics of Deodorizer
Condensate Water in ppm 38
4 Production Data for Bradley Refinery 42
5 Polymers Used in Laboratory Tests 46
6 Comparison of Different Coagulants (All
Levels) 47
7 Comparison of Coagulant Level 47
8 General Effect of Polymer Addition at
Various Coagulant Levels 47
9 Comparison of Different Polymer Systems
(Ranked in Order of Performance) 48
10 Use of Ferric Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate
for Flocculating Bradley Waste Water 54
11 Skimmer Unit: Regression Coefficients for
Variables Significant at the 90% Confidence
Level or Above 59
12 Air Flotation Unit: Regression Coefficients
for Variables Significant at the 90%
Confidence Level or Higher 60
13 Regression Coefficients Among Analyses
on Raw Waste and Skim Unit Effluent 61
14 Regression Coefficients Among Analyses
for Air Flotation Unit 62
15 Averages, All Data, by Shift for Bradley
Flocculant Tests 63
16 Averages, All Data, by Polymer for Bradley
Flocculant Tests 64
VI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
17 Weekly Cycle of Waste Load 65
18 Comparative Costs for Polymers as of
12/15/70 66
19 Comparative Costs for Coagulants as of
12/15/70, Truckload Quantities 66
20 Typical Oil Recovery System Data 78
21 Recommended Operating Conditions for
Oil Recovery System 79
22 Additional Quality Analyses for the
DeLaval Recovered Oil 80
23 Estimated Direct Operating Costs for
Bradley Waste Treatment System 84
24 Waste Water Clarification Experimental
Data 107
25 Oil Recovery System Operating Data 139
26 Oil Recovery System Sample Analyses 144
27 Oil and Ash Distribution to DeLaval and
Cyclone Streams 148
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All personnel were from Swift & Company, mainly from the
Research and Development Center, except as indicated.
The project was originally developed by Dr. D. R.
Erickson, et.al., and Mr. Earle Fritz. Mr. W. C. Seng
was Project Director.
The design, construction/ operation, and report prepara-
tion dealing with the Bradley facilities were performed
by a team consisting of Messers. C. Berry, P. G. Bowman,
P. C. Houle, J. Keigher, J. G. Killebrew, J. R. McFarland,
and W. C. Seng.
Analytical work was done by Messers. R. Gregory, W. D.
Pohle, and M. L. MeHugh, et.al.
Mr. J. L. Shank, with able assistance from Mr. J. R. Newman,
performed the laboratory screening studies and evaluations
on polymers and flocculation for waste water clarification.
Mr. H. T. Anderson handled installation, evaluation, and
reporting on the cathodic protection devices for waste
water clarification.
Statistical analyses were performed by Messers. T. V.
Kueper, H. D. Cook, and L. H. Jones.
The support and cooperation of Swift Edible Oil Company
management, particularly Mr. G. M. Kreutzer, Director of
Refinery Operations, Mr. E. G. Latondress, Bradley Plant
Operations Manager, and Mr. E. Morin, is acknowledged with
sincere thanks.
Finally, support of the project by the EPA and the help
provided by Messers. William J. Lacy, George Keeler,
Kenneth A. Dostal, Albert C. Printz, Jr. (Original Grant
Project Officer), Mr. Ralph G. Christensen, and Mr.
Clifford Risley, Jr., the Grant Project Officer, is
acknowledged with sincere thanks.
Vlll
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Installation of the new waste water clarification chemi-
cal treatment equipment and controls resulted in very
substantially improved performance as to final effluent
quality. However, because the system is undersized and
because substantial periods of high plant waste loading
occur, an average effluent containing 400 ppm suspended
solids, ether soluble, and BOD cannot be maintained con-
sistently even though overall average removal effici-
encies of 90% were obtained. The data obtained would
facilitate design of new facilities to handle such
wastes and produce an effluent of any desired final
composition.
2. The four commercially available synthetic acrylamide
polymer flocculants used in combination with alum for
waste water clarification all performed about equally
well. Best results were achieved for both the Skim tank
and the Air Flotation cell when the final Air Flotation
pH was in the range of 3.5 to 6.0. For the Air Flota-
tion cell, good results were obtained at all alum
dosages ranging from 100 to 700 ppm, provided the pH
was consistent with the 3.5 to 6.0 range. The relation-
ships between initial and acid adjusted pH, alum dosage,
final pH, and minimum turbidity of the waste water are
summarized in Figure 25.
3. The In-Plant Survey showed that most of the water flow
and contaminant loading come from general clean-up
operations and are not correlatable with product pro-
duction rates.
4. Use of cathodic protection devices and impressed current
successfully controlled corrosion and build-up of scale
and fat on walls of the Skimmer and Air Flotation units.
However, it was not possible to demonstrate a beneficial
effect on effluent clarity. However, other concurrent
and later work by Swift at other plants has shown
impressed current used under proper conditions is a
valuable aid to waste water clarification.
5. The new equipment installed to upgrade the quality of
the removed fatty materials through chemical treatment
and centrifugal separation functioned very successfully.
A recovered oil containing an average of 99% ether
-------
solubles was obtained at recoveries averaging over 95%.
Daily value of the 7000 pounds thus recovered at today's
conservative price of 4-1/4 to 4-5/8 cents per pound is
$298 to $320. This represents 60% of the total waste
treatment direct operating costs.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The marketability and value of the recovered oil is of vital
importance to offsetting the cost of the waste treatment
system. A study is recommended to further explore markets,
define quality requirements and value, and determine justi-
fiable additional processing methods.
Further research is recommended on the use of impressed
current-cathodic protection systems to enhance clarification
of waste waters. Parallel testing procedures, however, are
definitely indicated.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
The overall objectives of this project were to establish a
flexible and complete effluent treatment facility at the
Bradley, Illinois, Refinery of Swift & Company, and then to
use these facilities to determine the most effective and eco-
nomic methods to remove the fatty materials from the effluent
and produce an effluent containing 400 ppm BOD, 400 ppm ether
solubles, and 400 ppm suspended solids, or less, suitable for
discharge to the Kankakee, Illinois, sewer system. It was a
further principal objective of this project to upgrade the
quality of the recovered fatty materials such that a more
salable product could be obtained which would offset part or
all of the cost of the waste treatment.
On July 10, 1968, Swift & Company accepted an EPA Research &
Development Grant of $249,307 or 70% of project cost, which-
ever was less.
The Bradley Refinery is a modern, high-volume, edible fat
and oil refinery engaged in all types of processing. Before
the initiation of the Grant, it was equipped with existing
standard sewage treatment facilities consisting of a large
Skim Tank unit and an Air Flotation cell comparable in de-
sign to a Pacific Separator.
In the United States, there are about 250 to 300 plants
processing about 18 billion pounds of edible fats and oils
annually. The effluent of these plants is principally fatty
material which is difficult to treat in present sewage
facilities and represents an economic loss. Information
developed through this Grant will aid all plants that handle
any type of fatty materials.
The scope of the work included:
EQUIPMENT ADDITION AND MODIFICATION
Full scale new equipment installation and modifications were
made to the existing facilities and were used to carry out
the studies.
IN-PLANT SURVEY
A complete survey of the individual waste streams originat-
ing in the plant was conducted. Each stream was character-
ized as to flow and contaminant composition in terms of
suspended solids, ether solubles, and BOD, relative to the
pounds of product processed in each area.
-------
EVALUATION OF FLOCCULANTS
Work prior to the Grant had indicated that a number of com-
mercially available synthetic polyacrylamides were effective
materials when used in combination with coagulants such as
alum for removal of waste materials from fat and oil proces-
sing. The necessary chemical tanks, metering pumps, and pH
control equipment were installed as part of the new facili-
ties. A number of synthetic polymer floccing agents were
tried on a laboratory scale to determine optimum pH and
dosage levels and to determine the relative performance of
each. Four of these polymers were evaluated in the full
scale facilities. Swift & Company is actively engaged in
developing such floccing agents, and a number of Swift's
products were tested.
INFLUENCE OF CATHQDIC PROTECTION DEVICES
The technology of cathodic protection for corrosion concrol
is well known, and such equipment was installed in the
existing Skim Tank and Air Flotation units. However, an
interesting and potentially useful side effect of cathodic
protection had previously been observed at a Swift & Company
packing plant. A flocculant was being tested in one of the
catch-basins which was cathodically protected for corrosion
purposes. It was subjectively observed that the presence
of an impressed voltage increased the effectiveness of the
flocculant. Therefore, devices were installed in the Skim
Tank and Air Flotation units which allowed a study of the
effects of various impressed voltages on the efficiency of
flocculation.
PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION
A number of process controls and instruments were installed
to enable optimum operation and study of the system.
Further, these instruments and the methods of control were
evaluated. They included:
1. Flow control valves and recycle pipe lines to maintain
a continuous average flow through the Waste Water
Clarification System.
2. A magnetic flow meter and recorder to monitor the total
flow rate through the system.
3. Automatic pH measurement and acid addition equipment to
adjust the pH of the waste stream to the Skim Tank.
-------
4. Continuous turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature
measurement probes, and a recorder for same, on the
chemically treated waste effluent.
5. A continuous total carbon analyzer to monitor the
treated effluent.
6. Necessary controls for operation of the oil recovery
equipment.
OIL RECOVERY
This was one of the more important areas studied since it
was here that at least a part, and possibly all, of the
cost of waste treatment could be recovered.
Preliminary laboratory work had shown that the recovered
waste grease skimmings could be treated with caustic to pH
10, followed by the addition of sulfuric acid to a level
of pH 2.5, all at 170°F, and then the material could be
separated in a centrifuge thereby recovering an oil phase
containing in excess of 90% ether solubles.
Full scale equipment was installed capable of treating in
a single shift all of the waste skimmings recovered in 24
hours. Basically, the equipment consisted of two 6500-
gallon tanks for chemical treatment of the skimmings and
a DeLaval PX-213 bowl opening centrifuge for subsequent
separation.
-------
SECTION IV
EQUIPMENT ADDITION AND MODIFICATIONS
GENERAL
The first objective of the Grant was the installation of new
equipment, process controls, instruments, and modification
of existing equipment. The overall process flow and des-
criptions of the major equipment, both new and existing,
will be covered in this section.
Figure 1 is a simplified process flow diagram for both the
waste water clarification and the oil recovery systems.
Photographs, Figures 2 through 13, illustrate the whole
system. Figure 2 is an over view of the existing Skimmer
unit (left side) and the Air Flotation cell (middle).
Figure 3 shows the new waste treatment building, the two
agitated waste grease treatment tanks, and the storage tank
for the dilute acid water phase from the DeLaval centrifuge
in the oil recovery system. The building is located to the
left side of Figure 2 equipment and contains essentially
all the new equipment except for the large tanks shown in
Figure 3, and certain other items as made clear below. All
new equipment is powered through the enclosed motor control
center (Figure 13) in the building.
When the word, "existing," is used it will mean that the
particular item of equipment existed before the Grant.
WASTE WATER CLARIFICATION SYSTEM
Process Flow and Equipment Description
All the plant waste drains into an existing below-ground
concrete sump (upper left hand corner, Figure 1) having an
effective capacity of about 3 minutes at the typical plant
flow rate of 280 gallons per minute. Two existing 900
gallon per minute pumps are used to move the waste flow to
the existing Skim unit. A 3 inch diameter recycle line and
float control valve were installed at the process sump to
average the flow forward. Previously, the flow was inter-
mittent, i.e. the pumps turned on at high level and turned
off at low level. Originally, it was planned to install an
automatic diaphragm air operated valve modulated by ah air
bubble tube sensing the level in the sump. However, it
became known that the pumps could not tolerate in excess of
a 45 psi back pressure without blowing out the packings.
Therefore, the recycle float valve line was installed as a
first step. It has enabled maintaining a continuous aver-r
-------
age flow forward, except that an operator must adjust a
downstream manual valve if the plant flow rate exceeds a
rate change of ± 15%, approximately.
Before reaching the Skim tank, the waste flow (from under-
ground header) passes through a "chemical mixing loop"
(Figure 4) consisting of 3 inch diameter pipe arranged as
a horizontal hairpin turn 10 feet long. The inlet (bottom)
section of this mix loop is Teflon lined pipe, and the rest
is type 316 stainless steel. Near the inlet end, the water
phase from the DeLaval Centrifuge (oil recovery system) is
recycled and injected into the first (left) tee and into the
waste stream. Sulfuric acid (66° Baume) is injected into
the middle tee under automatic control for adjustment of the
raw waste pH.
Five feet downstream from the acid addition point, a 1 gpm
sample stream is directed through a Union Carbide pH probe
cell (inside the stainless sheet metal box). The pH signal
inputs to a Union Carbide Model 1420 Water Monitor Instru-
ment (Figure 5) located in the new waste treatment building.
The pH signal then inputs to a Foxboro Model 62H4E Elec-
tronic Controller with a proportional band and reset which,
in turn, adjusts the rate of 66° Baume sulfuric acid from a
BIF Simplex Propsuperb Pump, Model 1731-22-4816, maximum
capacity 54 gallons per hour (Figure 6, left center). The
resultant pH is recorded on an Esterline Angus Model E1124E
Multipoint Recorder.
The waste flow then proceeds around the chemical mix loop
in turbulent flow and exits through a Brooks Model 7103-D15
Standard Magnetic Flow Head with Teflon lining and equipped
with a continuous electrode cleaning device. The output of
the magnetic flow meter is recorded on a Brooks Model 7611
Recorder with a 24 hour circular chart and totalizer.
Maximum capacity is 750 gallons per minute but has been
spanned for 0 to 600 gpm.
The waste flow proceeds to the Skimmer unit which has an
effective length of 36-1/2 feet, a width of 10 feet, and a
liquid depth of 5 feet for an overall retention of 13,700
gallons or a nominal retention time of 45.7 minutes at 300
gpm. The Skimmer is equipped with surface scraper blades
to skim off the grease and deliver it via a cross conveyor
to an existing steam coil heated 400 gallon tank near the
effluent end (Figure 7).
No provisions are made in the Skimmer for continuous removal
of settled solids. It must be cleaned out approximately
once a month. Two existing Chicago pumps, operated by float
10
-------
pHJPROBE
66°BeH2S04
MAGNETIC
/^FLOWMETER
ALUM |N"LINE
MIXER
TURB.JEMP.,D.O. PROBES
AIR
PRESS.
TANK
^-SKIMMINGS
DECANTED
WATER PHASES
WATER
PHASE
TANK
JT1
PORTABLE
SLUDGE
BIN
RECOV'D
OIL
K
66°B«
50% H2S04
NaOH i r
L L
50MM
CERAMIC
CYCLONE
D
DE LAVAL
CENTRIFUGE
D-D
STEAM
STEAM
D
POL11GAL
TREATMENT TANKS
FIGURE I BRADLEY WASTE TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
FIGURE 2: OVERALL VIEW OF WASTE WATER
CLARIFICATION SYSTEM
12
-------
FIGURE 3: NEW WASTE TREATMENT BUILDING
13
-------
FIGURE 4: CHEMICAL MIX LOOP WITH pH PROBE
CHAMBER, AND MAGNETIC FLOWMETER
14
-------
FIGURE 5:
INSTRUMENT PANEL, WITH TEMPERATURE,
DISSOLVED OXYGEN, TURBIDITY, AND pH
INDICATORS (left middle) AND RECORDER
(top left), MAGNETIC FLOWMETER RECORDER
(top right), AND CONTROLLER FOR ACID
PUMP (lower right)
15
-------
FIGURE 6:
BIF AUTOMATIC ACID PUMP (left center),
CANNED ACID (middle center) AND CAUSTIC
(right center) TRANSFER PUMPS
16
-------
FIGURE 7: SKIMMER UNIT, EFFLUENT END, AND
"SIDE TANK" FOR REMOVED GREASE
SKIMMINGS (left center)
17
-------
FIGURE 8:
AIR FLOTATION CELL, WITH IN-LINE BLENDER
(far right center) IN SUPPLY HEADER, AND
PRESSURE RETENTION TANK (center)
18
-------
FIGURE 9: (right to left) PRESSURE TANK, MANUAL BACK
PRESSURE VALVE, POLYMER ADDITION PIPE, AND
AIR FLOTATION CELL. TREATED EFFLUENT
SAMPLE PUMP (far left center).
19
-------
FIGURE 10: ALUM AND POLYMER SOLUTION
TANKS AND METERING PUMPS
20
-------
switches located in the effluent sump of the skim tank,
carry the waste stream through a Mixing Equipment Company
Model 4-LBC-150 Lightnin' Line Blender (Figure 8, far right
center), equipped with a 1.5 HP, 230/460 volts, 60 cycle,
3 phase TE motor. Internals are of type 316 stainless steel
construction. Air is injected directly into the bottom of
the mixer under a pressure of 30 to 45 psi at a rate equiva-
lent to at least 4% by volume of the water processed.
The waste stream proceeds through an existing pressure tank,
a manual valve, and then into the flotation cell (Figure 9).
A pressure of at least 30 pounds and preferably 40 pounds is
maintained in the pressure tank.
A 20% alum solution is injected 20 feet upstream from the
in-line mixer. Similarly, a polymer at 0.2% solution is
injected just downstream of the manual valve after the
pressure tank (Figure 9). Two 300 gallon solution tanks
for polymer and one 300 gallon solution tank for alum, with
one positive displacement metering pump for alum and one
for polymer are located in the new waste treatment building,
(Figure 10). All tanks are identical, of Atlac 382 Poly-
ester Fiberglass reinforced construction, and were obtained
from the Resin-Fab Corporation. The two metering pumps are
Milton Roy Model MR1-48-142R Milroyal Simplex, Teflon
packing, self-lubricating, polar crank design controlled
volume pumps, with double ball checks, column valve liquid
end, carpenter 20 construction, and 1/2 HP TE motors. The
stroke length is manually adjustable from 0 to 100% capacity
while the pump is operating. Maximum capacity is 88 gph,
each.
The existing Air Flotation cell is not a commercially
designed unit, but was built in general conformance to a
Pacific Separator. It is 13 feet 6 inches in diameter, by
10 foot high liquid height, with a nominal volume of 11,000
gallons. It has a shallow (18 inch) bottom cone and center
drain outlet, equipped with a variable speed surface skim-
ming sweep-arm and bottom scraper, both driven with the same
drive. Nominal retention time is 36 minutes at 300 gallons
per minute. Skimmings are removed via a 3 feet long radial
trough at one point in the circumference and are discharged
by gravity into an existing 850 gallon steam coil heated
steel tank. The clarified effluent discharges by gravity
into an underground sump (Figure 2, lower right) from where
it is normally pumped to the 200 foot by 300 foot lagoon on
the premises. Effluent from the lagoon goes to the Kanka-
kee Municipal Waste Treatment Plant. However, the Air
Flotation effluent can be by-passed directly to a sewer
line going to the Municipal Treatment System.
21
-------
A Worthington Model 3/8 CNG-4 centrifugal pump, Wbrthite
construction, is located directly under the effluent header
from the air flotation cell (Figure 9) and pumps a sample
stream to the Union Carbide dissolved oxygen and turbidity
probe assemblies inside the waste treatment building. The
temperature probe is located in the air flotation cell
effluent at the point of exit from the cell. Turbidity,
temperature, and dissolved oxygen readings are indicated on
the Union Carbide Model 1420 Water Monitor instruments
(Figure 5) and are recorded on the above mentioned Ester-
line Angus recorder.
Evaluation of Controls and Instruments in the Waste Water
Clarification System
General;
Reference should be made to the above portion of Section IV
and to Figure 1 for details on the specifications of the
controls and instrumentation and their location in the
process.
Process Sump Recirculation Line and Float Valve:
The function of this valve is to provide a continuous aver~
age flow from the process sump to the Skimmer unit.
Originally, it was intended that an automatic diaphragm
operated valve modulated by an air bubble tube level sensing
device in the process sump itself would be used to obtain an
average flow forward, instead of the original on-off pump
forward situation. However, it became known that the two
900 gpm capacity process sump pumps could not tolerate a
back pressure in excess of 45 psi without blowing out the
pump packings. Therefore, a recycle line and butterfly
valve arrangement was installed as a first step. This
arrangement has enabled a continuous flow forward into the
waste treatment system most of the time and could handle
fluctuations in the waste flow of +15% from a given set-
ting. However, if this range is exceeded, then an operator
must adjust the downstream manual back pressure valve to
accommodate the different flow rate. For this reason, it
would be desirable to install an automatic flow control
valve, modulated by the level in the waste sump, in addition
to the butterfly recycle valve. Such an automated valve
would be important to eliminate the operator attention re-
quired and to prevent overflowing of the sump or, on the
other hand, pumping it dry. The recycle line, however, has
prevented a buildup and hardening of grease on the surface
of the water in the sump and would continue to avoid exces-
sive back pressure on the two transfer pump packings.
22
-------
Air Flotation Unit Recycle Line:
In order to maintain a continuous flow to the air flotation
cell, a recycle line was installed to take water from the
air flotation cell effluent sump and pump it back to the
inlet of the Skimmer. The recycle pump is operated on and
off, automatically, by means of a float switch located in
the effluent sump of the Skim tank. Most of the time this
recycle line is not needed since the process sump recycle
line is operative and maintains a continuous flow forward
through the system.
Magnetic Flow Meter on Raw Waste Stream:
The Brooks magnetic flow meter in combination with the
Brooks (Bailey) flow recorder does an excellent and reliable
job of measuring the raw waste flow through the system. The
recorder is equipped with a 24-hour chart and with a total-
ing function, thereby providing a very accurate record of
instantaneous and total flow through the system. The
magnetic flow meter is Teflon lined and is equipped with a
self cleaning probe. The lining has remained in excellent
condition after several months of use and has required no
maintenance. Actually, the flow through the magnetic flow
meter not only includes the raw waste, but also includes
the small flow of concentrated sulfuric acid used for pH
adjustment and the dilute acid water being recycled from the
oil recovery DeLaval Centrifuge system. These flows are so
low as to be insignificant compared to the raw waste flow.
Raw Waste pH Control;
The pH control system has succeeded in eliminating the ex-
tremes of pH, that is above 10 and below 4 in the Skimmer
effluent. This degree of control has very substantially
improved the typical efficiency of the system. However,
closer control would be desirable. To achieve this, however,
would necessitate the addition of at least a 3 to 5 minute
surge tank in the raw waste line, equipped with a mixer
into which acid would be added.
The raw waste was found to be essentially unbuffered. A
typical situation is that the raw waste pH is between 9 and
10. This requires that the acid be added at approximately
10% of the maximum BIP pump capacity of 54 gallons per hour,
or 5 gallons per hour. If one is attempting to control the
pH at 7, then a shift of only 0.05 gpm, or less than 0.1% of
the pump output, causes the pH to vary 1 3 pH.
23
-------
Originally, the Foxboro control instrument was equipped with
a proportional band of 5 to 300% and the pH probe was
located inside the waste treatment building 100 feet away.
This resulted in a lag time of 30 seconds. Subsequently,
the pH probe was relocated to a point about 5 feet down-
stream from the point of acid addition and the proportional
band was converted to the 15 to 1000% range. The relocation
of the probe reduced the lag time to about 5 seconds. This,
in combination with the use of proportional band setting of
700%, substantially reduced cycling and hunting of the pH
control system.
Originally, the approximately 100 feet of pipe carrying the
concentrated acid from the BIF pump in the waste treatment
building to the chemical mix loop was 1/4 inch black iron.
However, it was rapidly found that sludge existing in the
concentrated acid would plug this 1/4 inch pipe readily.
This pipe was then replaced with 3/4 inch stainless steel
which has functioned quite well since.
The chemical mix loop is type 316 stainless steel and,
originally, the last few feet of the 66° Be acid delivery
pipe entering this mixed loop was also of type 316 stain-
less steel. However, after about one month's operation,
the acid line at the point of entry into the 3 inch diameter
chemical mix loop corroded and began leaking badly at the
threaded joints. So, 7 feet of the stainless steel mix loop
inlet section were replaced with flanged Teflon lined pipe
and tees where the 66° Baume sulfuric acid, the diluted acid
water from the DeLaval Centrifuge, and the alternate alum
solution lines enter the mix loop. Also the 9 foot vertical
section of the pipe carrying the 66° Baume acid to the mix
loop was replaced with 1 inch Teflon lined pipe. A 4 foot
U-trap section was included to prevent the lighter water
rising through the heavy acid. These changes have been very
effective in correcting the corrosion that occurred.
However, three weeks later the Teflon lining was found to
have bulged out from the pipe wall for the first 1 foot
length of and over about a 30° arc of the 3 inch diameter
run of the tee where the concentrated acid entered. Also,
thin shavings of the Teflon were peeled up in the direction
of flow in this tee and, to some extent, in the upstream
tee. All other sections of the Teflon pipe were in good
condition. The magnetic flow meter, which is also Teflon
lined, was inspected and found to be in perfect condition.
An inspection was made of the faulty tee by the manu-
facturer, and the conclusion was reached that the failure
was due to pinhole penetration of the acid to the wall of
the pipe. The tee was shortly thereafter replaced and has
operated for several months without difficulty.
24
-------
Air and Alum Addition to Air Flotation Cell Supply System;
Originally, both air and alum solutions were added to the
suction side of the transfer pumps taking flow from the
Skimmer to the Air Flotation cell. This resulted in exces-
sive cavitation, corrosion, and erosion of these pumps,
and also much of the time resulted in air binding of the
pumps. Under the Grant, a Mixing Equipment Company
Lightnin in-line mixer was installed in the supply pipe
to the Air Flotation cell. Air, under pressure, is added
directly to this in-line mixer. Alum solution is added to
the pipe line about 20 feet upstream from the in-line mixer.
The arrangement has functioned perfectly since its instal-
lation and it is felt that it has dramatically improved the
overall performance of the system.
Turbidity Probe in Air Flotation Unit Effluent;
This device was found to be unsatisfactory primarily because
the two halves of the prism came unglued on three occasions.
When the unit was operative, it did measure turbidity and
tracked the process quite well. It was also found that the
turbidity device required cleaning about once an hour to
maintain a reasonably accurate measurement.
Dissolved Oxygen Probe in Air Flotation Unit Effluent;
The dissolved oxygen probe functioned quite well except that
it required cleaning once an hour to obtain reasonably accu-
rate readings. Use of this device during the test period
demonstrated that the dissolved oxygen content of the plant
effluent was essentially always at saturation. In future
installations it is not recommended that a dissolved oxygen
device be incorporated since it does not really provide
useful information that would enhance the efficiency and
control of the system.
Temperature Probe in Air Flotation Unit Effluent;
This probe has operated 100% reliably.
Total Carbon Analyzer on Air Flotation Unit Effluent:
The Union Carbide Model 1212 automatic total carbon analyzer
was investigated heavily over a long period of time. How-
ever, it was found unacceptable and inadequate for the
purpose intended for the following reasons:
1. Stable calibration of the device on standard solutions
could not be achieved for more than a few hours at a
time.
25
-------
2. The unit is equipped with a multiple disc filter on the
input sample stream. Clearances between discs range
from 0.0035 to 0.0062 inches. All particles in the
sample to be tested must pass through this filter. Un-
fortunately, much of the contaminant grease is larger
than this in size and tends to plug the filter device
quite rapidly in spite of automatic use of hot water for
back flushing. The effect is to prevent continuous use
of the device with accurate results for more than an
hour or two.
3. After the sample passes through the filter, it must pass
through the sample valve measuring block assembly prior
to being injected into the reaction chamber. This
sample valve block has a drilled hole of 1/16 inch
diameter and is about 1 inch long. The sample orifice
channel becomes coated and partially plugged after
operation for only a few minutes. As a result, the
accuracy of the device is badly affected.
For the above reasons, it was concluded that although a
total carbon analyzer will accurately measure the total
carbon content of a sample once it enters the reaction
chamber, this unit is not practical as a continuous moni-
toring device. Furthermore, considering the cost, a
turbidity device is considered a more practical type of
instrument considering the degree of accuracy and the
level of contaminants to be expected in an effluent from
an oil refinery. If one was interested in monitoring BOD
in the 10 ppm range, then a total carbon analyzer, no
doubt, would have much greater utility.
OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM
Process Flow and Equipment Description
The bottom half of the simplified process flow diagram
(Figure 1) illustrates the oil recovery system. Skimmings
from the Skimmer and Air Flotation units are heated and
held in the two "side tanks" as long as possible, and are
then dewatered. Since these tanks are not agitated, the
skimmings tend to separate into a water and oil phase, and
the water phase is drained back into the process sump. The
dewatered skimmings are moved with an existing positive
displacement Viking pump to either one of the two large
agitated plastic treatment tanks (Figure 11). Each one of
these 10 foot diameter by 11 foot 9 inch high tanks, having
a capacity of 6,500 gallons, can nprmally accept 24 hours
collection of waste grease. While one is being used to
collect the grease, the contents of the other are chemically
treated and centrifuged.
26
-------
FIGURE 11:
STORAGE TANK (left) FOR DELAVAL
CENTRIFUGE WATER PHASE, AND TWO
GREASE SKIMMINGS TREATMENT TANKS
(right)
27
-------
FIGURE 12:
DORR-OLIVER P-50 CERAMIC CYCLONE
(right center) AND DELAVAL
PX-213 CENTRIFUGE
28
-------
FIGURE 13: ENCLOSED MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
29
-------
The two treatment tanks are constructed of fiberglass
reinforced Atlac 382 polyester resin, with a 20 square foot,
2 inch diameter, double-hairpin steam coil, by the Justin
Manufacturing Company. The steam coils can be removed
readily from the bottom of the tank through a single flanged
opening. Bach tank is equipped with a Mixing Equipment
Company Lightnin1 Mixer, Model 72Q5, with a 5 HP TEFC motor,
120 inch shaft, dual axial flow turbines of 33 inches in
diameter operating at 84 rpm, wetted parts of type 316
stainless steel. The bottom impeller is located 26 inches
from the bottom, and 6 inches above the top of the double
hairpin steam coil which passes radially across the center
line of the tank. The steam coils are rated for 125 psi.
Sarco 1/2 inch pressure and temperature regulating steam
valves with filled bulb temperature sensing elements are
used to control the temperature of the contents of the tank.
As a backup temperature control to avoid exceedina the 200°F
temperature limitation of the plastic tanks, a Sarco filled
bulb actuated on-off micro switch control, in combination
with a solonoid valve in the steam line, is utilized.
Sizing of the treatment tank agitators was based upon a
viscosity of 850 centipoises for untreated waste grease
which had an excessive oil content of over 50%. A mixing
time of approximately 15 minutes was stipulated for each
chemical (30 minutes total). After treatment, at 2.5 pH,
the viscosity is less than 100 centipoise, all at 170°F.
When a tank is to be treated, 50% sodium hydroxide and 66°
Baume sulfuric acid are transported from 55 gallon drums
by means of Crane canned chemical pumps, (Figure 6) located
inside the treatment building. The one for caustic is a
Dynapump Model 882-E. The pump for acid is a Model SF-3/4-
3/4-CI/CA20. Further details of the treatment procedure
will be covered in Section VIII.
After treatment, the waste grease is transported with a
Worthington Centrifugal Pump, Model 1CNG-32, with a 5 HP
TEFC motor, 3600 RPM, 4 inch diameter open impeller, and
Durametallic type CRO double mechanical seals, through a
50 millimeter^Dorr-Oliver P-50 ceramic cyclone, and then
to a DeLavaJ. Mo'del PX-213 bowl opening, disk stack type-
centrifuge, equipped with automatic cycle controls, feed
valves, and all necessary accessories (Figure 12). The
purpose of the ceramic cyclone is to remove as much of the
sand and grit as possible from the feed to the centrifuge.
The sludge underflow from the centrifuge and the underflow
grit stream from the ceramic cyclone are pumped by means of
a small Worthington centrifugal pump into a truck-portable
scavenger bin located outside the building. The sludge pump
30
-------
is a Worthington 3/4 CNG-42, all Worthite fitted, plain
packing, acid resistant, 3-7/8"inch impeller, with 1/2 HP
TEFC motor, 1750 RPM. The portable sludge bin is 15 feet
10 inches long by 7 feet 2 inches wide by 42 inches overall
height. However, the bin is equipped with a lid which is
at the 30 inch level, giving an actual capacity of 2,100
gallons. The bin belongs to the Kankakee Disposal Company.
The sludge is hauled away and emptied for $150 a load.
The water phase from the DeLaval Centrifuge is pumped by the
pressure developed by the centrifuge to a 4,700 gallon
plastic tank outside the treatment building (Figure 11).
This tank was also made by Justin and is of exactly the same
fiberglass and resin construction as the 2 treatment tanks,
except that it has a domed top and is 8 feet in diameter
with a 12 foot 6 inch straight side. Further, it has no
agitator and is equipped with a direct steam injection
sparge header instead of steam coils. Steam temperature and
pressure controls are identical to those on the treatment
tanks. Actually, steam heating is required only in the
wintertime to prevent freezing. DeLaval acid water from
this tank is recycled back to the chemical mix loop of the
water clarification system using a Worthington Centrifugal
Pump, Model 1CNG-64, all Worthite fitted with a 3600 RPM,
5 HP TEFC motor, double mechanical seals, and 6-3/8 inch
diameter open impeller. The flow rate is adjusted manually
to suit conditions and to spread the flow over 24 hours
operation.
The clarified recovered oil from the DeLaval Centrifuge is
pumped with a Model 1CNG-64 Worthington Centrifugal Pump,
all Worthite fitted, with a 5 HP TEFC motor, 3600 RPM,
5-7/8 inch diameter open impeller, and double mechanical
seals, to an existing storage tank in the outdoor plant
tank farm for storage.
Concerning the steam coils and the two plastic .treatment
tanks, several weeks after operations began it?Became
apparent that a heavy buildup of cake would form on these
coils requiring maintenance and cleaning every few days to
maintain heating capacity. Therefore, to enable direct
steam injection, fifteen 3/16 inch diameter holes were
drilled on each side of one coil section in each tank on
the horizontal plain located 2 inches apart directly under
the lower agitator impeller. This change for direct steam
injection has been quite successful. Future units should
have a direct steam sparge header, instead of coils.
31
-------
SECTION V
IN-PLANT SURVEY
The sources of waste water from the Bradley Refinery can be
conveniently divided into two parts: Plant Interior and
Plant Exterior. Figure 14 is a schematic diagram of the
major sewer lines and their origins. It can be seen that
the outdoor tank farm area and tank car washing area empty
into a common diverter prior to entering the hot well. All
the major sewer lines from the interior of the plant enter
the hot well through a common line.
A description of the flows and constituents of the two main
areas and their measureable subdivisions follow. Average
data are also shown in Figure 14.
PLANT INTERIOR
Plant Water Intake
The entire plant uses water at the average rate of 3800
cu ft/hr or 475 gpm. This figure includes sanitary wastes
and other water that is directed to separate sanitary
sewers. Figure 15 illustrates the plant water intake for
a typical 24 hour period and the amounts of water used for
boiler make up. The condensate from this goes to the
industrial sewers directly, or after it has been used for
clean up. The average flow is 900 cu ft/hr or 110 gpm.
Caustic Refining
Oil from storage tanks is treated with caustic and centri-
fuged to remove gums and soap-stock. These "foots" are
pumped to the outdoor tank farm for sale. The oil is then
washed and centrifuged and this wash water constitutes
a continuous source of process waste water (Stream E,
Figure 14). Typical compositions of this wash water are
illustrated in Table 1. The average flow from this process
is 10 gpm. Additional such tests yielded similar results.
TABLE 1
CAUSTIC REFINING WASH WATER COMPOSITION IN PPM
ETHER
SOLUBLES
ge 1800
urn 874
urn 2936
BOD
IJZQ
400
2500
COD
5000
3880
7400
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
688
129
1470
33
-------
AVERAGE FLOW & PPM COMPOSITION
STREAM
A
B
C
D
E
P
G
H
GPM*)
~~3T"
100
15
0.23
10
47
120
305
ES
55T
3300
300
6000
1800
580
6800
4150
BOD
4TO
400
1240
3670
COD
5To
1000
5000
SS
408"
180
688
3630
a) Flow races are also shown on schematic diagram below
MILK
ROOM
9
PROD. ,
PACK &
FILL
t
REMELT
«*s
Typical
Floor
Drain
20
60
20
B
C
15
D
0.23
10
INDOOR
TANK
FARM
HYDRO-
GENATION *
BLEACHING*
CAUSTIC
A
REFINING *
50
35
20
1 C
X3
11
DO
G
120
1
fc
ov
cc
v
HOT
WELL
OVERFLOW
COOLING
WATER
SUMP
27
TANK CAR
HASH
3 DEODORIZERS
To Waste
Treatment
111111
OUTDOOR TANK FARM
COOLING
TOWER
47
FIGURE 14: SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF MAIN PROCESS SEWERS
AND WATER SOURCES LEADING TO HOT WELL
34
-------
U)
en
.c
^J-
-------
Bleaching
After the caustic refining step, the oil is bleached using
precoat type pressure filters, and clays and asbestos for
filter aids. The main contaminant that reaches the process
sewer from this step (Stream D, Figure 14) are the caustic
solutions that are used to clean the filters. The filters
are first dry cleaned and then immersed in caustic. When-
ever the cleaning solution becomes too dirty, it is dumped
to the sewer. This dumping may occur daily or weekly de-
pending on the efficiency of dry cleaning. The amount is
10 gallons of 50% caustic in 1000 gallons of cleaning water
per batch. Ether solubles varied from 2000 to 10,000 ppm.
During cleaning relatively small amounts of spent filter
aids are dropped on the floor and are subsequently flushed
to the sewer during clean up. This is one source of sus-
pended solids found in the waste water. Additional suspended
solids find their way into the waste water when the filter
aid storage areas are cleaned. The common plant practice
has been to flush filter aids from burst bags or spills down
the sewer.
Hydrogenation
When required, oils can be hydrogenated to provide the
desired consistency for various blends. Nickel catalyst
and hydrogen produced at the plant are used to produce oils
with varying degrees of saturation. The main contaminants
that reach the sewer from this area are very small amounts
of nickel and cleaning waters. This flow (Stream C, Figure
14) is transported by a stream lift which causes a small but
usually continuous flow of water. Figure 16 illustrates the
typical flows from the hydrogenation area over a typical 24
hour period. Table 2 illustrates the concentrations of con-
taminants from this area.
TABLE 2
CONTAMINANT FROM HYDROGENATION AREA IN PPM
Average
Minimum
Maximum
ETHER
SOLUBLES
300
165
506
BOD
4lfi)
SUSPENDED
COD SOLIDS
1000 180
640 86
1760 350
36
-------
U)
30-
20-
w
Steam Lift from
Hydrogenation Area
Samples
Caustic Refining
Wash Water
1 1
10 12
p.m.
10/21
"I I
2
i i
4
i I i
6
a.m.
10/22
r
8
1 I I
10
I I I
12 2
1 1 r~
4
p.m.
10/22
-i 1 T-
6 8
1 1
10
FIGURE 16: SUB-PROCESS FLOW RATES
-------
Deodorization
Oil to be deodorized is pumped from the indoor storage area
to one of three deodorizers. *These are actually steam
stripping chambers for the removal of fatty acids. Fatty
acids are recovered in condensers and pumped to the outdoor
tank farm for sale. There is an intermittant flow of water
(Stream A, Figure 14) from the condenser amounting to 10 to
15 gallons during 10 to 15 secbnds of each minute. It has
the following average characteristics, based on 6 grab
samples.
TABLE 3
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEODORIZER COMPENSATE WATER IN PPM
ETHER SUSPENDED
SOLUBLES BOD COD SOLIDS
533 4T5" 9TO T08
The relatively clean deodorizer condensate water flows
through an overload pipe into the hot well sump.
Indoor Tank Farm
Transfer of the various types and quantities of oils in-
volves the large storage tanks in the banked indoor tank
farm. The major sources of waste water from this area are
the erratic flows due to washing and cleaning processes to
remove oils and greases that accumulate due to leaks, trans-
fer operations, pump failures, etc. The total flow and
contaminant load from this area, plus that from cleaning
operations in the caustic refining, bleaching and hydrogena-
tion areas, are shown as Stream G in Figure 14.
The individual flows from each area comprising stream G were
estimated based upon the typical usage of cleaning hoses.
Excavating through concrete floors to expose individual
sewers was not considered practical or necessary. On this
basis, flow from the indoor tank farm, hydrogenation,
bleaching and caustic refining areas averaged 50, 35, 20,
and 15 gpra, respectively.
Overall Waste Water
The combined overall industrial process waste stream is
shown as Stream H in Figure 14. Full details of flow and
composition are given in Section VI, Table 15.
38
-------
Milk Room, Production Pack and Fill, Remelt Areas
These production areas and machinery are thoroughly cleaned
during the midnight shift and this constitutes the major
hydraulic and contaminant load during this 8-hour period
(Stream B, Figure 14). Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the
variations in flow and contaminant load that can be experi-
enced during this period. Flow measurements were made using
a conductivity technique described in Appendix B, Section
XII. here again, the flows comprising Stream B flow through
underground sewers. The individual flows were estimated,
based upon typical hose usage, to average 20, 60, and 20 gpm
for the milk room, production pack and fill, and the remelt
areas, respectively.
PLANT EXTERIOR
Outdoor Tank Farm
This area consists of tanks used for the storage of raw
edible vegetable oils and tallows. The area is banked to
prevent major oil spills reaching' past the tank farm area.
The area also contains cone tanks for the dewatering of
inedible oils that have been removed from the waste stream
or from the reclaim area. The major water wastes from this
area are the water drawn from the cone tanks and the conden-
sate water from the oil heating operations.
Tank Car Washing
The tank car washing area is adjacent to the outdoor tank
farm but is unbanked so that spills that may occur usually
run into the diversion box area and thus end up in the
waste stream. An average of 10 tank cars a week are washed
and this usually occurs during the day. Figure 19 illus-
trates the flows and concentrations from the combined flow
of the outdoor tank farm and the tank washing area (Stream
F, Figure 14) after one tank car has been washed. A holding
tank is used to retain the bulk oil flushed out of the tank
car. This oil is then pumped to the inedible oil holding
section of the outdoor tank farm.
The individual flows comprising Stream F flow through common
underground sewers, and based upon typical hose usage, were
estimated to average 27 and 20 gpm for the tank car wash and
outdoor tank farm areas, respectively.
39
-------
150-
&
u 10(M
H
5
50-1
3 O O
Clean Up
1
3
TIME
T~
11
T
1
9 11
p.m.
1 T
7 9
a .m.
FIGURE 17: MAIN PROCESS SEWER FLOW RATES
-------
10,000-
9,000-
8,000-
7,000-
a
. 6,000_
w
§ 5,000_
4,000-
3,000-
2,000.
1,000_
"
o-o
I I
7 9
p.m.
\ I I F T I r
11 1 3 5 7 9 11
TIME a.m.
3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 79 11 1
FIGURE 18: ETHER SOLUBLE CONCENTRATIONS IN MAIN PROCESS SEWER
-------
Relationships Between Production and Waste Load
Twenty-four hour plant production data for each major area
were subjected to statistical regression analyses to
determine relationships with plant waste flow rate and
contaminants loading. No correlations were found for
individual production areas, or grand total production.
This is consistent with the survey results which show that
most of the waste results from general cleaning indoors
and outdoors.
Table 4 gives average and range production data for each
production area in thousands of pounds per 24-hour day,
covering 42 days of operations.
TABLE 4
PRODUCTION DATA FOR BRADLEY REFINERY
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION, 1000 lb/24 hr
AREA AVERAGE RANGE
Caustic Refining3) 54l265-990
Hydrogentation 290 165-385
Bleaching 630 270-980
Deodorizing 815 601-946
Shortening Manufacturing 552 449-661
Margarine Manufacturing 156 92-205
a) All oils processed.
42
-------
u»
I I I
10 11 12
I i
234
a.m.
10/16
\
6
-2200
-2000
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200 £
-looo a
^
- 800w
^ 600 §
o
_ 400W
200
FIGURE 19: ETHER SOLUBLES AND FLOW RATE OF COMBINED
OUTDOOR TANK AND TANK CAR WASHING AREAS
-------
SECTION VI
EVALUATION OF FLOCCULANTS
The purpose of this part of the overall study was to
evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of synthetic poly-
acrylamides, readily available commercially from Swift or
others before this project, in combination with alum and
other such coagulants. In general, coagulants such as alum
produce a pinpoint sized particle. The role of the polymer
is to produce a further agglomeration of these pinpoint
particles to a size that will be more amenable to separa-
tion.
All polymers tested were polyacrylamides and derivatives
thereof. A typical structural formula is given below:
Acrylamide
Unit
Acrylic Acid
Unit
Quarternary
Ammonium
Unit
c=o I
NH2 / X
/ \
c=o
1
OH
t
Y
(CH2)2
1
(CH3)2KHC1
Z
n
Anionic properties are imparted by copolymerization with
acrylic acid, with the carboxylic acid group of acrylic
acid serving as a center of negative charge. Cationic prop-
erties can be imparted by quarternary ammonium compound
copolymerization, in which the quarternary nitrogen serves
as a center of positive charge.
When alum is added to a waste water, it reacts with the
alkalinity of the water producing a voluminous flocculent
precipitate. The following represents this reaction:
Al2 (S04)3 + 3Ca(HC03)2 = 3CaSO4 + 2Al(OH)34+ 6CO2 (Eq. 1
Actually in practice the mechanism is more complex involving
five distinct actions:
1. A chemical reaction occurs similar to the above which
results in formation of a gelatinous amphoteric precipi-
tate, aluminum hydroxide hydrate, which acts either
negatively or positively, in this case positively
because of the negatively charged surroundings.
45
-------
2. Colloidal particles in the water are negatively charged
and repel each other. The positively charged aluminum
ion from alum reduces these charges and permits
coagulation.
3. The aluminum ion from alum reacts with soaps, saponified
fats, and surfactants producing a less soluble material
with lower emulsifying properties.
4. Collodial particles are adsorbed by the floes.
5. Suspended particles are physically entrapped.
First, laboratory screening tests were performed on seven
polymers in combination with alum and some other coagulants.
Then four of these polymers were selected and evaluated in
the full Bradley Waste Treatment System. Analytical pro-
cedures are described in the Appendix A, Section XII.
LABORATORY SCREENING TESTS
The following polymers were screened in the laboratory
tests:
TABLE 5
POLYMERS USED IN LABORATORY TESTS
Polymer No. Name Charge
1Nalco 673 Nonionic
2 Dow NP-20 Nonionic
4 Swift X-400 Anionic
5 American Cyanamid P-250 Nonionic
6 Swift X-lll Cationic
7 Swift X-420 Anionic
8 Swift X-700 Nonionic
The first study of the experimental laboratory screening
program consisted of comparing the above polymers with
three coagulants (alum, zinc chloride, and ferric sulfate)
and three initial pH levels (9.5 ambient, 7.0, and 5.0 as
adjusted- with sulfuric acid before chemicals addition). No
buffer was used for these or later described laboratory
tests in order to simulate intended field treatment. After
flocculation and flotation of the oil phase, the turbidity
of the clarified water was measured in JTU's (Jackson Tur-
bidity Units) at 30 seconds and 2 minute intervals. The
Jackson Turbidity Units were determined on a direct reading
Hellige Turbidometer. Typical Bradley plant waste effluent
representing a 48-hour composite sample, was treated in 100
milliliter graduates. After the addition of the coagulant,
4 fi
-------
the graduates were shaken 20 times to simulate air flotation
conditions, followed by gentle inversion (5 times) after the
addition of the polymer. At 30 second and 2 minute inter-
vals the clarified portion was removed and read in the
Hellige cell.
The composite sample used for this study had the following
analysis: Total Solids - 4,227 ppm; Suspended Solids -
3,152 ppm; Ether Solubles - 2,736 ppm; and pH - 9.5.
The test data of this study were subjected to statistical
analysis with the following results at 95% confidence level:
1. Zinc chloride and alum are both better than ferric
sulfate. Zinc chloride was better than alum. Their
relative performances are compared in Table 6 on the
basis of average turbidity of the clarified water
sample.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT COAGULANTS (ALL LEVELS)
Coagulant Mean JTU
Zinc chloride ~~57%
Alum 609
Ferric Sulfate 643
2. Under all conditions, the highest level of coagulant
used (500 ppm) was most effective at reducing turbidity:
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF COAGULANT LEVEL
Coagulant Mean JTU
0 ppm680
50 ppm 643
100 ppm 615
500 ppm 501
3. Polymer, in conjunction with 100 ppm or more of coagu-
lant, significantly lowered turbidity:
TABLE 8
GENERAL EFFECT OF POLYMER ADDITION AT
VARIOUS COAGULANT LEVELS
Mean JTU for Coagulant Level, ppm of:
Polymer Level 0 50 100 500
0 ppm 6~78~ 5IO~ 647 53T
2.5 ppm 681 647 579 462
47
-------
Anionic and nonionic polymers generally performed better
than the single cationic tested, especially at lower
pH levels:
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT POLYMER SYSTEMS (RANKED IN
ORDER OF PERFORMANCE)
Polymer
No.
4
8
5
2
1
7
6
Name
Swift X-400
Swift X-700
American Cyanamide P-250
Dow NP-20
Nalco 673
Swift X-420
Swift X-lll
Charge
An ion ic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Cationic
Mean
JTU
~52T
571
591
593
601
646
685
Additional laboratory screening studies were conducted in
which the relationships between surface charge, pH, and
turbidity were further investigated. The procedure used
a 48 hour composite effluent sample, different from the one
used above, with the following analyses: Total Solids -
8,168 ppm; Suspended Solids - 5,694 ppm; Ether Solubles -
5,391 ppm; BOD - 9,120 ppm; and pH - 10.2. It was treated
with varying amounts of sulfuric acid and alum, after which
2.0 ppm of Swift X-400 polymer was added to effect final
flocculation. The graduate cylinder method was used was in
the first study. The Effective Surface Potential (ESP) was
determined on a Water Associates' Streaming Current Detec-
tor. The pH was determined using a Leeds & Northrup meter.
The results of this study are summarized in Figures 20
through 24. The data suggests that sulfuric acid alone acts
as an effective pre-floc agent for coagulant aid at pH 4 as
illustrated in Figures 20 and 24. All the Figures suggest
that, as expected, the alum required to achieve maximum
clarity was reduced as the pH was lowered.
The Figures also show that the point of maximum clarity (or
minimum JTU) appears as the ESP approaches zero, but is not
necessarily maintained even though the EPS may remain near
zero as the curves move from left to right, or in the
direction of increasing the alum dosage. This suggests that
a zero particle charge is not necessarily associated with
optimum solids removal through flocculation. It is also
seen, in general, that the point of maximum clarity is often
rather sharply defined, particularly in the raid-alum
dosage and pH ranges. The data suggests an optimum pH
exists for any given condition of flocculation.
48
-------
JTU
pli
ESP
+10-
0-
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40-
-50-
-60
1500
10-
9-
7.
6_
5-
4-
3-
Sample: Bradley Composite, Frozen
pH Adjustment: None (as received,
pH 10.2)
Pre-Floc: Sulfuric Acid
Collector: X400 anionic,
2.0 ppm
Lo alum used.
-1000
500
300
100
80
60
40
20
,- x ESP
JTU
-M i a ir.i'vUu
TurLidiLy
(Point A,
rig. 25)
* PH
200
400
ppm
600
800
1000
FIGURE 20: EFFECTS OF INITIAL pH AND ACID DOSAGE ON
CLARIFIED PHASE FINAL pH, TURBIDITY, AND
EFFECTIVE SURFACE POTENTIAL
-------
JTU
pH
ESP
+10-
-20-
-30-
-40-
-50-
Sample: Bradley Composite
pH Adjustment: None (pH 10.2)
Pre-Floc: Alum
Collector: X400 2.0 ppm
Minimum Turbidity
(Point B, Fig. 25}
200
400 600 800 1000
ALUM, ppm
FIGURE 21: EFFECTS OF INITIAL pH AND ALUM DOSAGE ON
CLARIFIED PHASE FINAL pH, TURBIDITY, AND
EFFECTIVE SURFACE POTENTIAL
50
-------
JTU|
pH
ESP
+10-
1500
10-
9-
-1000
500
300
Sample:
pH Adjustment
Pre-Floc:
Collector:
Bradley Composite
to pH 8.0 with
sulfuric acid
Alum
X400 2.0 ppm
ESP
-20-
-30-
-40-
-50-
8-
7_
6-
5-
3-
-60
100
80
60
40
20
0
JTU
i-.ir.ir.iUi.i Turbidity
(roir.t C, Fig. 25)'
i 1 I I I
200 400 600 800 1000
ALUM, ppm
FIGURE 22: EFFECTS OF INITIAL pH AND ALUM DOSAGE ON
CLARIFIED PHASE FINAL pH, TURBIDITY, AND
EFFECTIVE SURFACE POTENTIAL
51
-------
JTU
pH
ESP
+10-
0
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40"
-50-
-60-
1500
10-
9-
8
7 _
6-
5-
4
4
3 -
500
300
100
80
60
40
20_
0
bampie : Bradley Composite
pH Adjustment: to pH 6.0 with
sulfuric acid
Pre-Floc: Alum
Collector: X400 2.0 ppm
1000
n
/
< /
*\ /
/
/A
/
I
V
,
^ /. JTU
§^« /
/
/ pH
V9C
^"^t
o ^^^
^^~-i minimum TurLiciity
(Point L», Fly. 25)
) 200 400 60Q 800 1000
ALUM , ppm
FIGURE 23: EFFECTS OF INITIAL pM AND ALUM DOSAGE ON
CLARIFIED PHASE FINAL pH, TURBIDITY AND
EFFECTIVE SURFACE POTENTIAL
52
-------
JTU
pli
ESP
+10
1500
10-
9-
-1000
500
300
Sample: Bradley Effluent
Composite
pH Adjustment: to 4.0 with
sulfuric acid
Pre-Floc: Alum
Collector: X400 2.0 ppm
A ESP
-10 -
-20-
-30
-40-
-50-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
-60
100
80
60
40
20
0
iiiniiuuiu Turbidity
(Point L, Fiy. 25)
1 ill i]
200 400 600 800 1000
ALUM, ppm
FIGURE 24: EFFECTS OF INITIAL pH AND ALUM DOSAGE ON
CLARIFIED PHASE FINAL pll, TURBIDITY, A1\D
EFFECTIVE SURFACE POTENTIAL
53
-------
Minimum Turbidity Curve
To summarize the relationships between initial and acid
adjusted waste pH, alum dosage, and final pH, when using 2
ppm of Swift X-400, the curve in Figure 25 was constructed
from the data in Figures 20 through 24. The curve connects
all points of minimum turbidity for the corresponding final
pH. Tie lines are used to show the adjusted pH of the waste
sample before alum addition. This figure was used as a
guide to the best range of conditions to be explored in the
Bradley waste treatment system evaluations described below
under the heading "Bradley Flocculation Tests".
Another laboratory study was undertaken to investigate the
use of sodium aluminate and ferric sulfate as coagulants.
Again, the same sample as used in the first study was used.
The test procedure was comparable to that in the first
study, except that 2 ppm of Swift X-400 was the only polymer
utilized.
The waste water had been held in a frozen state before being
used for this study. 100 cc samples were treated with
varying amounts of either ferric sulfate or sodium alumi-
nate, shaken 15 seconds, 2 ppm Swift X-400 polymeric floccu-
lant added and mixed, and after 3 minutes a 25 cc sample was
withdrawn from the bottom. The turbidity of the sample was
read on a Hach Turbidimeter.
Previous work had shown that as the pH is lowered towards
pH 4, the removal of suspended solids is increased. Treat-
ment with both of these chemicals confirmed this previous
knowledge. The sodium aluminate was not too effective
because its addition raised the pH and increasing amounts
resulted in poorer clarity. The data in Table 10 illus-
trates the effect of the two chemicals.
TABLE 10
USE OF FERRIC SULFATE AND SODIUM ALUMINATE
FOR FLOCCULATING BRADLEY WASTE WATER
Initial pH
Ferric
9.5
9.5
9.5
8
8
8
6
6
6
4
4
4
ppm Chemical
Sulfate
1,000
750
500
750
500
250
500
250
100
100
50
0
Final pH
4.5
4.8
5.3
3.7
5.3
7
4.3
5.3
5.8
3.6
3.9
4
Turbidity
14 JTU
24
30
15
30
630
14
115
450
21
27
50
54
-------
Ui
en
Tie Lines: Initial pH to Final pH
from Curve.
(b)
Minimum Turbidity Curve.
{ ) Data from Figures
20 through 24.
100
200
300
400 500
ALUM, ppm
600 700
800 900
FIGURE 25: MINIMUM TURBIDITY CURVE:, AND INITIAL ptl,
FINAL pH, AND ALUM DOSAGE REQUIRED
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
Initial pH ppm Chemical
Sodium Aluminate
9.5
9.5
9.5
8
8
6
6
6
4
4
1,000
500
100
1,000
100
500
100
50
100
50
Final pH
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
8.8
9.3
7.2
6.9
6.6
5.8
Turbidity
900 JTU
600
440
830
750
630
520
300
77
35
BRADLEY FLOCCULATION TESTS
Based upon the laboratory screening tests above, four poly-
mers were selected for field evaluation, namely: Swift
X-400, American Cyanamid P-250, Dow NP-20, and Nalco 670.
Nalco 670 was used rather than the 673 since it was more
readily available and was considered even more effective.
Except for brief tests with ferric sulfate, alum was used
exclusively as the coagulant. Zinc chloride was not used
because of concern over potential toxicology questions.
Sodium aluminate was not used because of the negative labo-
ratory screening tests.
General Procedure
The tests were set up on a shift basis. Dosages of alum
and polymer were held as nearly constant as possible during
an entire shift. Alum at 20% solution concentration was
laetered into the Air Flotation Cell supply about 20 feet
upstream from the inline mixer. Polymer at 0.2% solution
concentration was added immediately after the back pressure
valve between the pressure retention tank just ahead of
the Air Flotation cell. The manually adjusted Milton Roy
metering pumps for the alum and polymers were set at rates
corresponding to the total waste in-put flow rates as
measured by the magnetic flow meter in order to maintain
the desired dosage levels. Concentrated sulfuric acid was
added either manually or automatically into the chemical
mix loop ahead of the Skim unit to adjust the pH of the raw
waste to desired livels. The aforementioned Figure 25 was
used to select the adjusted raw waste pH corresponding to
that alum dosage which would be expected to yield maximum
treated effluent clarity. In other words, in the field
tests an attempt was made to follow the optimum pH-alum
curve, rather than a random experimental approach. This
approach was necessary to maintain generally good system
performance because all of the waste from the plant was
being treated and effluent quality had to be maintained at
acceptable levels whenever possible.
56
-------
Four levels of alum were used, typically 100, 300, 500 and
700 ppm. Two levels of polymer addition were used, 2 and
4 ppm. Finally, the alum dosage was maintained constant
over three shifts and the polymer was changed from shift to
shift. The pH's were varied accordingly. Typically, the
recovered skimmings were collected over a 24-hour period and
then were treated through the centrifuge as described later.
Typically, one week was required to test a single polymer
through the above schedule. Each polymer was tested essen-
tially one week at a time, in this fashion, and then a
second round was conducted. In all, 184 shifts of data were
obtained.
Samples of the raw plant waste, effluent from the Skimmer,
and effluent from the Air Flotation cell were collected
every two hours, i.e. four samples per shift. Then these
four individual samples for each stream were composited
into a single shift sample. Equal volumes for each of the
four 2-hour samples were used.
Complete system raw operating data was recorded each hour by
technicians and the plant waste treatment system operators.
The resultant operating data (after basic calculations),
along with analytical results, are given in Table 24 in
Appendix C, Section XII.
During the entire period the cathodic protection devices
were in operation at standard conditions.
Major Results
The following were the major results. Details are given in
subsequent paragraphs.
1. The polymers all generally performed about equally at
all dosages used. No more than 2 ppm need be used as
a practical matter.
2. Best results were achieved for both the Air Flotation
cell and the Skim tank when the final Air Flotation pH
was in the range of 3.5 to 6.0.
3. Concerning the Air Flotation cell, good results gen-
erally were obtained at all alum dosages ranging from
100 to 700 ppm, provided the pH of the stream was con-
sistent with the 3.5 to 6.0 range. Brief tests with
ferric sulfate showed that, although results were good
and required perhaps somewhat less dosage compared to
alum, considerable difficulty was experienced in putting
the ferric sulfate into solution and in handling the
large amount of sludge remaining in the solution through
the pumps. Of more importance, the ferric sulfate
colored the resultant recovered oil red.
57
-------
4. In spite of broad variations in the raw waste composi-
tion, pH, and flow rate, the system performed well on
an overall average basis, consistent with original
projections. However, the Bradley system, given the
present waste load, is substantially undersized to pro-
duce a waste consistently under 400 ppm of all contami-
nants, particularly BOD.
5. It is believed that the data contained herein would
facilitate calculation and determination of the appro-
priately designed new system equipment or, in the case of
Bradley, the addition of a second Air Flotation cell to
arrive at a plant waste effluent of any desired final
composition.
Regression Analyses
Regression analyses were performed on all of the data to
determine the effect of pH, stream contaminant composition,
temperature, flow rate, and alum and polymer type and dosage
(where applicable) on the quality of the effluent from the
Skim tank and Air Flotation cell, and the percent removal
of each contaminant component. The regression data at the
90% confidence limit or above for the Skim unit are sum-
marized in Table 11, and for the Air Flotation cell in Table
12. In Table 11 is an example showing how the regression
coefficients can be used to estimate or predict the Skimmer
and Air Flotation effluent compositions knowing the values
for the respective influent composition, pH, temperature,
and so on.
For the Skim unit, the correlations obtained are fair,
with pH, input contaminent concentration, and temperature
controlling Skimmer effluent quality. Performance was
generally independent of flow rate.
For the Air Flotation unit, none of the input variables
except ether solubles concentration yielded useful correla-
tions with effluent quality. It is felt that this general
lack of good correlation is due largely to (1) the basic
ability of the system to handle the waste load, and (2) the
fact that pH, alum, and polymer levels were maintained as
much as possible within the ranges needed to provide good
operation, i.e. in accordance with Figure 25.
Other regression correlations were developed relating BOD
with the ether solubles and suspended solids content for the
raw waste (Table 13), Skimmer effluent (Table 13), and Air
Flotation effluent (Table 14). For the latter, turbidity
was also correlated with ether solubles, suspended solids,
and BOD. These correlations support the obvious, that BOD
and turbidity depend on ether solubles and suspended solids
content but the accuracy of prediction is low.
58
-------
V£>
TABLE 11: SKIMMER UNIT
Regression Coefficients for Variables Significant
at the 90% Confidence Level or Abovea)
Effluent
Dependent
Variable
(22) Sus.
Sol ids, ppm
(24) Sus.
% removed
(25) Ether
Sol . , ppm
(27) Ether
% removed
(3)b)
Waste
Intercept gpm
-5977
Solids,
+ 167.
-5378.
Sol,
234. - .10
(28) BOD, ppm -5912. +3.
(30) BOD,
% removed
19.
(21)
Effluent
PH
+211.
+232.
+172.
- 3.72
(12,14,16)
Contaminant
Load , ppm
+ .49
+.0021
+ .48
+0033
+ .41
.0072
(43)
Temp
OF
+46.
- 1.09
+38.
- 1.43
+44.
(21)2
pH
Sq'd
-.51
-.39
Std«=)
Error
1940.
47.
1829.
46.
1320.
56.
R2d>
42%
12%
28%
10%
40%
9%
a) For example, Skimmer effluent suspended solids, ppm, can be estimated as fol-
lows: Eff. Sus. Solids, ppm = -5977 + 211 (Eff. pH) + .49 (Influent Sus.
Solids, ppm) + 46 (Temp, °F) ± 1.65 (1940) for 90% confidnece.
b) Numbers in ( ) are data column references in Table 24.
c) Confidence ranges on predicted values may be calculated by multiplying standard
prediction .errors by I 1.96, ± 1.65, and ± .68 for 95%, 90%, and 50% confidence
levels, respectively.
d) R is the regression equation correlation coefficient. R2 is the proportion
(here expressed as a percentage) of the total variation in the dependent
variable that has been accounted for by use of the regression equation.
-------
TABLE 12: AIR FLOTATION UNIT
Regression Coefficients for Variables Significant
at the 90% Confidence Level or Highera)
Effluent
Dependent
Variable
(32) Sus.
Intercept
(6)
Alum
Ppm
(7)
Poly
ppm
(5)
Waste
gpm
Solids, ppm +432.
(34) Sus.
% removed
(41) Tur-
bidity
Effluent
Dependent
Variable
(3 5) Ether
Sol. ,ppm
(37) Ether
% removed
(41) Tur-
bidity
Solids
+ 16
-653.
Intercept
+1041.
Sol. ,
-123.
-653.
-.14
(5)
Waste
gpm
(6)
Alum
PPm
+ .27
(7)
Poly
PPm
+.1054
Influent
Sus. Sol ids
ppm
+ .02
+.0049
(25)
Influent
Ether Sol.
ppm
+.0107
+.0018
(31) (31)2
Effluent pH
pH Sq ' d
+7.69
(31) (31)2
Effluent pH
pH Sq ' d
+36.
+ 8.
(43)
Temp
OF
+7.04
(43)
Temp
OF
+1.29
+7.
Std°)
Error
595.
133.
342.
Std
Error
402.
40.
339.
*\
R2
2%
8%
13%
o
R-2
17%
14%
15%
a) See sample calculation, Table 11, footnote (a)
b) Numbers in ( ) are data column references in Table 24.
c) See note (c) in Table 11.
-------
cr»
TABLE 13
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS3^AMONG ANALYSES
ON RAW WASTE AND SKIM UNIT EFFLUENT*3)
Dependent
Variable Intercept
(16) Raw Waste
BOD, ppm +2829.
(16) Raw Waste
BOD, ppm +3302.
(2 8) Skim Unit
BOD, ppm +2118.
(2 8) Skim Unit
nnn r>«m 4-9 2^4.
(12)C) (14)
Waste Waste
Sus. Solids Ether Sol.
ppm ppm
+.2274
+.0849
(22)
Skim Unit
Sus. Solids
ppm
+.1873
(25)
Skim Unit
Ether Sol.
ppm
+.1300
Stdd>
Error
2159.
2275.
1529
1574.
R2
17%
8%
22%
17%
a) Simple regression coefficients. Inclusion of both suspended solids and ether
solubles in the regressions did not improve the correlations.
b) See sample calculation, Table 11, footnote (a)
c) Numbers in ( ) are data column references in Table 24.
d) See footnote (c) in Table 11.
-------
Effluent
Sus. Solids
ppm
+.3044
+7572
(35)
Effluent
Ether Sol.
Ppm
~
+.3038
+1.578
<38>
Effluent (41) Std<*)
BOD, ppm Turbidity Error
394.
396.
+.2357 306.
546.
754.
+1.364 735
*
R2
13%
11%
32%
62%
27%
32%
a) Simple regression coefficients. Inclusion of both suspended solids and ether
solubles in the first, second, fourth and fifth regressions above did not
improve the correlations.
b) See sample calculation, Table 11, footnote (a).
c) Numbers in ( ) are data column references in Table 24.
d) See footnote (c) in Table 11.
-------
TABLE 15
AVERAGES, ALL DATA, BY SHIFTS, FOR BRADLEY FLOCCULAKT TESTS
Variable
Raw Waste
gal.
gpm
ph
Sus.Solids, ppm
Sus.Solids, Ib.
Ether Sol., ppm
Ether Sol., Ib.
BOD, ppm
BOD, Ib.
Skimmer Effluent
pH
Sus.Solids, ppm
Sus.Solids, Ib.
Sus.Solids,% removed
Ether Sol., ppm
Ether Sol., Ib.
Ether Sol.,% removed
BOD, ppm
BOD, Ib.
BOD, % removed
Air Flotation Effluent
Alum, gal.
Polymer, gal.
Alum, ppm
Polymer, ppm
pH
Sus.Solids, ppm
Sus.Solids, Ib.
Sus.Solids,% removed
Ether Sol., ppm
Ether Sol., Ib.
Ether Sol.,% removed
BOD, ppm
BOD, Ib.
BOD, % removed
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
NP-20, % of shift
P250f % of shift
X-400, % of shift
N-670, % of shift
Overall Removals, %
Sus. Solids
Ether Solubles
BOD
Shift
157,200
328
10.1
2,917
3,832
3,329
4,305
3,194
4,235
7.1
2,438
3,065
19.8
2,522
3,149
26.8
2,525
3,357
20.6
337
222
436
2.33
5.4
477
612
80.1
434
540
82.9
856
1,062
68.4
375
7.1
109
16.0
32.0
35.0
17.0
84.0
87.2
74.9
143,322
299
8.5
4,301
5,097
5,122
5,964
3,798
4,512
6.1
1,956
2,324
54.3
1,821
2,144
64.0
2,699
3,210
28.7
325
216
464
2.55
5.0
559
680
70.8
370
453
78.9
880
1,037
67.8
293
7.0
110
15.0
34.0
32.0
19.0
86.7
92.4
77.0
138,407
288
9.0
3,679
4,293
3,984
4,525
4,012
4,534
6.5
2,706
2,892
32.6
3,195
3,382
25.3
2,439
2,798
38.3
297
205
452
2.59
5.0
401
453
84.3
357
396
88.3
741
832
70.3
362
7.3
111
16.0
28.0
35.0
21.0
89.4
91.2
81.6
63
-------
TABLE 16
AVERAGES, ALL DATA, BY POLYMER FOR BRADLEY
FLOCCULANT TESTS
Table
Column Polymer
Ref.No. Variable NP-20 P250 X-400 Nalco 670
Raw Waste
4.
5.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
gal. 173
gpm
pH
Sus. Solids, ppm
Sus. Sol ids, Ib
Ether Sol., ppm
Ether Sol,lb
BOD , ppm
BOD, Ib
3
5
3
4
4
5
,693 145,102 133
362
9.2
,497
,091
,361
,909
,167
,729
302
9.3
2,900
3,462
3,360
3,968
3,660
4,334
4
5
5
6
3
3
,816 150
276
9.1
,418
,014
,699
,369
,518
,978
3
4
3
3
3
4
All
,782 146,632
314
9.3
,482
,305
,205
,922
,467
,313
Skimmer Effluent
21.
22.
23.
25.
26.
28.
29.
-
pH
Sus. Solids, ppm
Sus . Solids , Ib
Sus. Sol ids.
% removed
Ether Sol. ,ppm
Ether Sol. ,lb
Ether Solids,
% removed
BOD , ppm
BOD, Ib
BOD,% removed
1
1
1
1
2
3
6.4
,403
,947
61.8
,371
,981
59.6
,209
,188
44.3
7.1
2,131
2,443
29.4
2,062
2,389
39.8
2,698
3,260
24.8
3
3
3
4
2
2
6.3
,217
,588
28.4
,881
,200
33.7
,635
,987
24.9
1
2
1
1
2
3
6.2
,908
,403
44.2
,525
,915
51.2
,463
,150
27.0
305
9
3,627
4,408
4,146
4,941
3,654
442
6
2,356
2,757
37
2,490
2,877
41
2,558
3,134
29
.2
.6
.4
.8
.1
Air Flotation Effluent
2.
3.
6.
7.
31.
32.
33.
-
35.
36.
-
38.
39.
-
41.
42.
43.
Alum, gal.
Polymer , gal .
Alum, ppm
Polymer, ppm
PH
Sus. Solids, ppm
Sus . Solids , Ib
Sus * Solids,
% removed
Ether Sol. ,ppm
Ether Sol , Ib
Ether Sol,
% removed
BOD , ppm
BOD, Ib
BOD, % removed
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
368
259
457
3
4.7
375
523
73.1
317
400
79.8
673
866
72.8
248
6
107
343
206
477
2
5.1
529
639
73.8
361
425
82.2
770
902
72.3
315
6
110
1
285
196
441
2
5.3
468
545
84.8
419
492
88.3
895
,035
65.3
388
7
112
1
310
225
417
3
5.2
514
625
75.0
438
542
71.7
935
,117
64.5
386
9
110
320
214
450
2
5
481
586
78
389
466
83
829
982
68
343
7
110
.1
.7
.8
.7
64
-------
Averages, All Data, By Shifts
The average data for each shift are presented in Table 15.
The first shift is midnight to 8 a.m., the second is 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., and the third is 4 p.m. to midnight.
Results were not greatly different for all shifts. Overall
removals of contaminants were 84.0 to 89.4% for suspended
solids, 87.2 to 92.4% for ether solubles, and 74.9 to 81.6%
for BOD. However, removal efficiencies for the Air Flota-
tion cell were generally 2.5 times as high as for the
Skimmer unit, i.e. 70 to 88% compared to 20 to 40%. Overall
BOD removals were typically 10% lower than for suspended
solids and ether solubles. This is explained in part be-
cause 50 to 150 ppm soluble BOU are contained in the raw
waste which the system does not remove.
Air Flotation effluent contained an overall average of 479
ppm suspended solids, 387 ppm ether solubles, and 826 ppm
BOD. The system is undersized and too many high peak load
periods occur to obtain a 400 ppm effluent for all contami-
nants consistently.
Averages, All Data, For Each Polymer Tested
Average data for each polymer tested are given in Table 16.
The averages for the Air Flotation unit are not greatly
different and, based on the regression analysis, there was
no significant performance difference between polymers when
the effects of all the other input variables was considered.
Weekly Cycle of Waste Load
All data for which data existed for all three shifts of
each day were grouped by days to investigate for the
presence of a weekly cycle. The data below show that
the waste load on Saturday and Sunday is much lower than
during the week, particularly as to pounds of contaminants,
Otherwise, Monday followed by Tuesday showed a signifi-
cantly higher load compared to the remaining week days.
TABLE 17
WEEKLY CYCLE OF WASTE LOAD
(All data was
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
used for which
Number of
Data Days
1
8
11
12
13
5
1
data existed on
Process
Waste , gpm
221
302
301
318
294
290
192
all
3 shifts.)
Ether
Sol., Ib.
639
9569
5385
3195
4446
3212
474
65
-------
COMPARATIVE COST FOR POLYMER FLOCCULENTS AND COAGULANTS
The following tables list comparative costs for the four
polymers and five coagulants tested, f.o.b. point of ship-
ment. Also given is the cost at a dosage of 1 ppm in
500,000 gallons of treated water. Note that there is
relatively little difference in the daily cost of polymer
treatment at the dosages indicated. But, alum is much
cheaper than most of the other coagulants.
TABLE 18
COMPARATIVE COSTS FOR POLYMERS AS OF 12/15/70
Polymer
Swift X-400
Am. Cyan.
P-250
Dow NP-20
Nalco 670
Pounds
0 to 1,999
2,000 to 4,999
5,000 up
100 to 4,999
5,000 to 20,000
0 to 499
500 to 999
1,000 to 1,999
2,000 to 5,000
5,000 up
0 to 499
500 to 1,999
2,000 to 4,999
5,000 to 19,999
20,000 up
Cost/ Cost @ 1 ppm*
Pound /500,000 gal.
$1.75 $7.29
1.70 7.08
1.65 6.87
1.55 6.46
1.40 5.83
2.55 10.62
2.05 8.54
1.84 7.66
1.65 6.87
1.55 6.46
2.06 8.58
1.66 6.91
1.31 5.46
1.26 5.25
1.21 5.04
* requires 4.165 pounds of polymer
TABLE 19
COMPARATIVE COSTS FOR COAGULANTS AS OF 12/15/70
' TRUCK LOAD QUANTITIES
Coagulant
Alum, powder
Zinc Chloride, granula
Ferric Sulphate, powder
Sodium Alumina te, pulverized
Ferric Chloride , powder
* 416.5 pounds are required.
Cost/
Pound
$0.0300
0.1415
0.0455
0.1270
0.0650
Cost @ 100 ppm*
/500,OQO gal.
$12.50
58.94
18.95
52.90
27.07
66
-------
SECTION VII
INFLUENCE OF CATHODIC PROTECTION DEVICES
Cathodic protection was installed in the Skimmer and Air
Flotation units. The latter included protection of the
pressure retention tank, the main body of the Air Flotation
cell and also its effluent collecting ring.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Cathodic protection involves constructing an electric cell
which is designed to arrest corrosion. For a tank to
corrode, iron in the free state (zero valence) must give
up two electrons and pass to the ferrous state. The driving
force for this reaction has been measured at 0.865 volt.
The ferrous iron so produced is capable of losing an addi-
tional electron and passing to the ferric state. The
driving force for this reaction is 0.45 volt. Equations
representing these reactions are:
Fe Fe++ + 2 electrons (Eq. 2)
Fe++ Fe+++ + 1 electron (Eq. 3)
To cathodically protect a tank from corroding, one simply
impresses a voltage against the tank such that electrons do
not leave the iron and, therefore, oxidation of the metal
does not occur. Proper voltage at the tank wall must be
slightly above 0.865 volt. The Skim tank and the Flotation
Cell at Bradley were so protected. This was accomplished by
means of a rectifier-anode system.
Figure 26 is a simplified diagram of a basic impressed cur-
rent cell. Impression of the voltage potentials as outlined
above prevent corrosion.
Concerning the role of impressed current in flocculation and
waste water clarification, the following are the several
mechanisms postulated:
1. Impressed electrical energy acts to enhance the several
mechanisms described in Section VI for flocculation.
For example, in the anode areas, the pH is lowered
because of anion migration and soaps are converted to
fatty acids. Thermodynamically speaking, the sponta-
neous reaction resulting in the formation of a
saponified fat is reversed by impressed current.
2. Contaminant particles are repelled from both the anode
and cathode after the charges on such particles are
altered by impressed current potentials.
67
-------
Anode
Tank Wall
Cathode
Current Flow
Rectifier
FIGURE 26: BASIC IMPRESSED CURRENT CELL
3. Gas bubbles are formed at both anode and cathode which
become attached to contarainent particles and rise to the
surface.
The kinetics of impressed current flocculation and clari-
fication were not studied, but such a study and the use of
Nernst's equation would probably be of value.
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
Skimmer
Twelve stabilized high silica "Duriron" electrodes func-
tioned as anodes. Duriron anodes have an attritional rate
of 2 mg per ampere year. Anodes used in this system were
1-1/2 inch diameter by 5 feet long. This size was used to
withstand greater mechanical shock. Only Duriron anodes
and steel vessels were employed.
Anode configuration was previously known to have an impor-
tant bearing on system performance. The arrangement chosen
for these studies is described in the following paragraphs,
but later work has shown that a three-dimensional configura-
tion is beneficial.
One anode was installed parallel to and 12 inches from the
6 inch inlet distribution pipe. Both pipe and anode are
parallel to and 18 inches above the Skimmer floor. Five
pairs of anodes were installed parallel to and 17 inches
from the side walls. These anodes were installed on a line
starting 20 inches above floor level 30 inches from the
inlet end to 12 inches below liquid level at the sludge
68
-------
removal structure (grease baffle, inclined deck, and grease
take-away conveyor). The sludge removal structure is 12
inches from the effluent release weir. The twelfth anode
was installed 12 inches from and parallel to the bottom of
the sludge removal structure. Effluent water passed under
this structure and was released over a wier at the 5-foot
liquid level.
The Skimmer walls were originally covered with a firm thick
cake consisting of corrosion products, fat and scale.
Severe corrosion existed on tank walls under this coating.
All anodes were installed in parallel circuit. Anode leads
were of 18-7 strand cable. The Skimmer, which was grounded
at two terminal points, functions as the cathode as this is
the structure receiving protection against corrosion. Two
terminals of 2 inch by 3 inch copper plate, 1/4 inch thick,
with terminal fittings, were used to insure constant and
adequate grounding. All anodes in the Skimmer were ener-
gized by power from a rectifier. This rectifier was an air
cooled, bridge circuit, full wave selenium stack model with
choke. Current input was single phase, 115 volt, AC. Out-
put rating was 28 amperes at 18 volts.
Air Flotation System
Seven Duriron anodes were installed in Flotation Cell which
is 13 feet, 6 inches diameter, with liquid level to 10 feet
4 inches deep. These were also 1-1/2 inch diameter, 5 feet
long. These were installed in perpendicular position 30
inches from the cell wall and of equal distance from each
other. The bottom end was 20 inches from the tank floor
which was conical.
Pressure Retention Tank
One 1-1/2 inch diameter by 5 foot anode was installed in the
retention tank. This unit is 40 inches in diameter by 6
feet 6 inch side walls with dome shaped bottom and top. A
potted anode assembly was made with a 2-1/2 inch by 6 inch
nipple. Irradiated polyolefin and suitable epoxy produced
desired electrical insulation and proper pressure resistant
requirements. The assembly was inserted through a 3 inch
coupling. A double thread bushing completed the assembly.
This anode was in perpendicular position 12 inches from the
outside wall.
An anode string was used in the collecting ring. Seven
1-1/8 inch diameter by 9 inch long "Duriron" shell anodes
were installed in parallel circuit. Each anode was 5 feet
from each other. These were installed 2 inches below water
level.
69
-------
All anodes in the flotation cell, retention tank, and
collecting ring were installed in parallel circuit. One
rectifier provided DC power for all anodes in all three
units of the Air Flotation system.
An air cooled bridge circuit selenimum stack rectifier with
single phase, 115 volt input was used. DC current rating
was at 22 amperes at 18 volts.
Potentials were measured with multi combination meters
designed for corrosion control. A copper-copper sulfate
half cell was used with electrode extensions to determine
potential profile from anode to cathode. It was used
principally to determine if uniform current distribution
existed. It was also used at times to determine if a
particular anode was effective.
Mechanical failures of operating equipment (particularly
skim bars) were the only cause of failure of an anode. A
protective shield was installed to prevent damage to anodes
when heavy objects fell on the anode system.
IMPRESSED CURRENT TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
The cathodic protection system was operated during the
entire period when data was collected for evaluation of
flocculants, as well as several months previous. Typical
operating conditions were: 6 volts rectifier output, or
anode potential, resulting in copper-copper sulfate half-
cell readings of 1.2 volts; and 12 to 25 amperes current
flow through each of the separate circuits for the Skimmer
and Air Flotation units.
Many days of pulsed tests, that is, alternately running with
and without current for two hour cycles with sampling of
input and output streams every 15 minutes, were conducted.
However, the "noise" of the other process variables pre-
vented clear-cut results as to a beneficial effect on
flocculation. It has been determined recently that at least
three to five days are required for adequate polarization of
the vessel. Also, more anodes located in a three-dimensional
pattern is beneficial. However, long term cycles and
altered anode arrangements were not possible within the time
and project funding available. Further, to isolate floccu-
lation effects of impressed current, side by side tests are
needed, e.g. two Skimmer units, one with and the other with-
out impressed current, on an identical supply stream. This
was not possible at Bradley.
70
-------
Corrosion was brought under control in all areas where
cathodic protection was installed. This is particularly
significant since sulfuric acid was introduced in waste
water at the Skimmer inlet, and coagulating aids were in-
jected into the waste water stream to the Air Flotation
cell and they would normally accelerate corrosion. But the
impressed current inhibited corrosion in the retention tank,
flotation cell and effluent collecting ring.
Metal surfaces below the water line remained free of
adhering deposits of fat and scale forming products. A
thick, firm cake did not form.
Our recommendation for future research is that parallel test
units are required to provide evaluation of flocculation
effects produced with or without impressed current.
IMPRESSED CURRENT RESULTS AT OTHER PLANTS
Recent extensive test results for a full-scale catch basin
at a major Swift beef slaughtering plant are summarized in
Figure 26. Curves are shown for operation with no treat-
ment, with impressed current only, and with both impressed
current and chemicals for removals of grease (Fats, Oils,
and Grease [FOG], by standard hexane extraction), COD, and
suspended solids.
Fat recovery in the catch basin is particularly intriguing.
The addition of impressed current, on the average, increases
the efficiency of the catch basin for removing fat. The
addition of both chemicals and current, of course, is more
spectacular. The influent fat level to the catch basin
during the test period varied from an indicated low of 262
ppm to a high of 5158 ppm. The efficiency of the catch
basin on fat removal increases as the total fat load in-
creases, particularly if impressed current is applied. For
example, on one test day the influent to the catch basin was
5158 ppm of fat. This was reduced to an effluent fat con-
tent of 1551 ppm with the aid of impressed current. The
addition of chemicals to the catch basin provides further
reduction in fat content. With the aid of 200 ppm of ferric
sulfate and 2 ppm of anionic polymer, an influent containing
3723 ppm of fat was reduced to 80 ppm in the effluent.
Because of the nature of the effluent at this plant, the COD
loading varies from 2600 to over 11,000 ppm. The influence
of impressed current is minimal on the COD loading while it
does assist in fat removal and this, of course, represents
a portion of the COD value. The anolyte stream is an energy
source and this serves primarily to prepare the solids for
71
-------
to
2000
Grease, ppm
1500
100C
500
without
treatment
current
current
and
chemicals
v
8000-
COD, ppm
6000
4000-
2000.
minutes
30
4000i
Suspended Solids, ppm
3000
2000-
1000-
minutes
FIGURE 27: COMPARATIVE SKIM TANK PERFORMANCE AT A SWIFT BEEF
SLAUGHTERING PLANT WITH NO TREATMENT, WITH IMPRESSED
CURRENT ONLY, AND WITH IMPRESSED CURRENT AND CHEMICALS
-------
chemical treatment. The addition of chemicals to the catch
basin reduces the total COD of the effluent to less than 100
ppm.
Suspended solids are difficult to evaluate. The plant ef-
fluent varied in measurable suspended solids from 240 ppm
to over 7000 ppm. The catch basin, by itself, removes
almost 2/3 of this type of material. The addition of im-
pressed current appears to decrease the efficiency of the
catch basin for removing suspended solids although actually
it is preparing the solids for further treatment because
of the effect of the anolyte stream. That is, particles
tend to become fragmented and are then susceptible to chemi-
cal coagulation. Addition of both chemicals and current
reduces the suspended solids to a very low figure, actually
measured at 1 ppm, and produced an effluent with a turbidity
of 63 Jackson Units.
Test results at a major competitive pork plant indicate that
chemical and electrical effects may be synergistic. Specif-
ically, with proper chemical treatment only, reductions of
38% BOD, 44% grease, and 24% suspended solids were experi-
enced. Addition of impressed current increased the removals
to 81% BOD, 96% grease, and 91% suspended solids. Use of
current only without chemicals effected a 27% BOD reduction
but analytically indicated an apparent increase in grease
and solids. The analytical indications are caused by anodic
de-emulsification which makes the fat and solids more sus-
ceptible to solvent extraction and, also, to chemical attack,
Physically, fat was removed from the system at the same time
analytical procedures indicated an increase.
73
-------
SECTION VIII
OIL RECOVERY SYSTFM EVALUATION
GENERAL
The lower half of Figure 1 illustrates the overall process
flow diagram for the Oil Recovery System. Section TV,
entitled "Equipment Addition and Modification", gives de-
tails not covered in the subsequent discussion. Analytical
procedures are described in the Appendix A, Section XII.
TEST PROCEDURE
Typically, grease skimmings from both the Air Flotation cell
and the Skimmer were collected for a 24-hour period in one
or the other of the two large treatment tanks. With the ex-
ception of two tests (Runs 6 and 15 of Tables 25 through
27), the waste grease collected represented operations when
only one polymer was used. The grease skimmings were always
dewatered prior to pumping the waste grease to the treatment
tanks. The waste grease was always kept warm with the
agitators running.
When a tank was to be treated and processed the pH was
adjusted to 10, minimum, using 50% sodium hydroxide and
allowed to mix for a period of approximately a half hour.
Samples were taken intermittently and checked with a pH
meter and appropriate adjustments were made. Then the
pH was adjusted to approximately 2.5 by the addition of
concentrated 66° Baume sulfuric acid. Again, it was mixed
for a period of up to a half hour with periodic pH
checks. This was the procedure used for all but runs
27 through 34. In these runs, only concentrated sulfuric
acid was used to lower the pH to 2.5. It was clearly
noticed that, if the pH were not low enough, the oil
phase from the DeLaval centrifuge tended to foam quite
badly, causing air binding of the recovered oil transport
pump.
After startup of the centrifuge and check-out of all
the operating instruments and accessories, feed was
started through the machine. At least one to two hours
was allowed to pass before specific test data were taken.
For each run, all operating data were recorded and actual
weights and analyses for two cycles were obtained for
the oil phase, water phase, and any two of the total
sludge, cyclone underflow, and centrifuge sludge streams.
The feed rate was not measured but samples were analyzed.
75
-------
INITIAL TEST RUNS
A number of shakedown runs were undertaken during which
it soon became apparent that operations with a 122
millimeter ring dam would not provide good separation
under any conditions. Additionally, it was found that
the machine must be operated with a rather dilute sludge
discharge so as to prevent caking and build-up of solids
within the bowl and serious erosion of the bowl periphery.
During the same operations, it became clear that the
presence of filter aids and asbestos fibers used in the
plant operations tended to plug up the vertical distribution
holes in the DeLaval centrifuge disc stack.
As a result, a 15 foot screw conveyor originally provided
was removed and replaced with a 5 gallon pot and Worthington
centrifugal pump with interconnecting piping to carry the
now liquid sludge outdoors to the sludge bin.
Also, one each of Dorr-Oliver P-50 and P-25 ceramic cyclones
and a Bauer 600-3 three inch Nylon cyclone were installed
to test them for removal of at least part of the fibers and
gritty materials from the waste grease feed.
These same initial test runs showed that it was necessary to
operate with an on-feed cycle time of 90 seconds or less,
again to prevent build-up of solids within the bowl.
All subsequent tests are discussed below.
TESTS WITH 119, 116 and 114 MILLIMETER RING DAMS
The basic operating and analytical data are given in Tables
25 through 27 and include both the observed and calculated
data and analyses. Where certain stream analyses were cal-
culated, these are shown with an asterisk. For example,
only two of the three streams, centrifuge sludge, cyclone
sludge, or total sludge, were collected, weighed, and ana-
lyzed. The third was calculated.
All data were subjected to statistical and graphical
analysis and evaluation to determine the effects of feed
rate, composition, pH, and temperature on oil recovery
percentage and oil phase quality. First, however, feed
analyses were calculated from the rates and analyses of the
effluent phases and were compared to the actual feed
analyses measured. In most cases, they agreed very well.
The correlations were run with both calculated and actual
feed analyses, eliminating those runs which did not balance
well.
76
-------
The results of these evaluations were as follows:
1. Neither oil quality nor oil recovery were affected
significantly within the typical ranges of the data for
feed rate composition and pH and temperature. In other
words, the original laboratory-determined conditions
proved out well.
2. Equivalent results were achieved without using sodium
hydroxide in the chemical treatment but rather using
sulfuric acid alone.
3. Best performance was achieved when using the 114
millimeter ring dam although results with the 116
millimeter ring dam were nearly as good. Furthermore,
no smaller ring dam is indicated.
4. A 45 second "on feed" cycle time was optimum.
5. Typical operating data using the 114 mm ring dam and
recommended operating conditions are given in the
following paragraphs.
TYPICAL OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM DATA WITH A 114 MM RING DAM
Table 20 gives typical operating and analytical data for the
oil recovery system when using the 114 millimeter ring dam
for a 45 second "on- feed" cycle plus 15 seconds "shoot" time
for a total of 1 minute per cycle.
As the table shows, 88.9% of the oil as ether solubles was
recovered in the oil phase. Only 1.9% of the original ash
content in the feed went to the oil phase. The water phase
typically contained 1.8% of the original ether solubles and
43.1% of the original ash. The total sludge contained 3.4%
of the original ether solubles and 50.8% of the original
ash. It is seen that 37.6% of that ash removed in the total
sludge was removed by the cyclone. Observations of a series
of laboratory centrifuge spin tube samples of the cyclone
sludge compared to the centrifuge sludge indicated that at
least 70 to 80% of the coarser particles were removed in
the cyclone underflow.
Although the pH of the feed varied from 2.0 to 3.5, it is
believed that the pH of 2.5 is the optimum. On several
occasions it was found that, when this pH was exceeded, the
oil phase tended to foam. This was corrected when somewhat
more acid was added to the feed, bringing the pH closer to
the 2.5 level. Also, a number of centrifuge spin tests,
both in the field and in the laboratory, showed that the pH
77
-------
TABLE 20
TYPICAL OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM DATA
Basis: 45 .-seconds "on feed"
1 rqihute total cycle
114 mm ring dam
Cyclone DeLaval Total
Feed Oil Water Sludge Sludge Sludge
Rate, Ib./min. 114 29 44 15 26 41
Temp., °F. 180
Analyses
00 Moisture, %
Ether Sol., %
Ether Insol., %
Ash, %
pH
Distribution
67.0
28.3
4.7
1.7
2.6
0.8
98.9
0.3
0.13
95.0
1.3
3.7
1.9
90.6
4.4
5.0
2.4
93.1
2.3
5.1
2.3
92.1
2.7
5.2
2.4
Ether Sol. to, % 88.9 1.8 2.0 1.8 3.4
Ash to, % 1.9 43.1 18.6 30.9 50.8
-------
of 2.5 was optimum to yield the clearest water phase. In
general, no lower a pH than 2.5 should be used in order to
minimize corrosion of the centrifuge and other equipment.
It is believed that somewhat superior separation results
would be achieved at higher tmperatures than the 170° to
180° used. However, adequate results were achieved and no
higher temperatures than this are suggested in order to
minimize corrosion attack.
Based upon all the studies. Table 21 is presented, giving
the recommended operating conditions for the oil recovery
system.
TABLE 21
RECOMMENDED OPERATING CONDITIONS
FOR OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM
Feed Centrifuge
Rate, Ib/min 114 Ring Dam, mm 114
Temp, °F 180 "On Feed" Time, sec 45
pH 2.5 Operating Water:
Pressure to P-50 Supply, psi 45
Cyclone, psi 40 To Machine, psi 27
Temp, °F 160
Sludge, Ib/cycle 26
Water Phase Back Pressure Valve:
Air to Diaphram, psi 10
Water Pressure, psi 25
CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF FEED TO DELAVAL CENTRIFUGE
Table 25 lists the total amount of raw feed treated and the
corresponding amounts of 50% caustic and 66° Baume sulfuric
acid used. Concerning the total gallons listed, actually
the treatment tanks were emptied only down to the 30 inch
level, equivalent to about 1,500 gallons. Thus, when both
sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid were used in the treat-
ment procedure, then a proportionally larger amount was
required to treat the residual 1,500 gallons of^raw feed
from the preceding day's operations. This wasrftot true when
only concentrated acid was used.
For 17 days centrifuge runs when both caustic and con-
centrated sulfuric acid were used, a net total of 58,269
gallons of raw feed were treated and required an average of
143 pounds of 50% sodium hydroxide and 152 pounds of 66°
Baume sulfuric acid per 1,000 gallons of feed treated.
When only sulfuric acid was used, less than half that above
was needed.
79
-------
OIL YIELD
As indicated in Table 20, for the 114 millimeter data a
typical oil recovery (ether solubles) of 88.9% was achieved.
Actually, over 95% of the ether solubles would be recovered
since only one half the sludge is lost after dewatering.
This water, plus the water phase from the centrifuge, is
recycled to the process. The raw feed treated and processed
averaged 3,430 gallons per day. At the typical 28% ether
solubles content, it contained about 7,800 pounds of oil
per day. Using a conservative recovery of 90%, the amount
of oil recovered averaged 7,000 pounds per day. This repre-
sents about 0.75% of total production through the plant.
OIL QUALITY AND MARKET VALUE
Table 20 gives the typical moisture, ether solubles, ether
insolubles, and ash content of the recovered oil phase when
using optimum conditions. A series of eight oil samples
were additionally analyzed for free fatty acid, FAC color,
and titer. The results of these analyses are given in Table
22 along with the average values . The sample for 8/7 was
considered typical and the further analyses of saponifica-
tion number, unsaponifiables, and iodine value were also run
on , it .
TABLE 22
ADDITIONAL QUALITY ANALYSES FOR
THE DELAVAL RECOVERED OIL
Run
Date
873/70
8/5/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/18/70
Average
Run
No.
To-
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
FFA
%
2474"
20.4
14.8
24.4
16.5
23.6
20.3
31.0
21.9
FAC
Color
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
27
21
Sap. Unsap.
Titer No . %
37.6
36.8
31.5
35.4 198.2 2.5
39.2
34.1
32.0
32.9
34.9
Iodine
Value
65.2
A "National Provisioner" quotation for inedible house
grease, 37.5 titer, 20 FFA Max, and 39 FAC Max, unbleached,
f.o.b. Chicago, carlot basis was 6-5/8 cents per pound, with
yellow grease at 6-1/4 cents per pound, as of November 24,
1970. Possible uses for the recovered oil appear to be in
the animal feed area and the soap area. If used in animal
feeds, the requirement for "feed grade" is that the specific
-------
type of product will have been adequately tested to prove
its safety for feeding purposes. Currently, a number 2
grade tallow, inedible, in the price range of 6-1/2 cents
to 10 cents per pound is being used in animal feeds. At
the soap usage level, the indicated value today is in the
range of 4-1/2 cents to 6-1/2 cents per pound. To be con-
servative, a 4-1/4 to 4-5/8 cents per pound value was used
in the calculations below.
Based on a recovery of 7,000 pounds of oil per day for 250
operating days (excluding weekend operations), a total
1,750,000 pounds annually would be recovered, having a
value of $74,375 to $80,937.
81
-------
SECTION IX
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Direct operating costs for the Bradley Waste Water Clarifi-
cation and Oil Recovery Systems for Monday through Friday
operation were calculated and are shown in Table 23. Costs
for the Waste Water Clarification System are shown sepa-
rately from those for the Oil Recovery System. Annual
depreciation charges were not included, first of all because
no accurate figure is known for the total capital for what
were the existing waste treatment facilities; and secondly,
because it is felt they would represent a small percentage
of the expected total daily overall costs.
Total new capital expenditure under the Grant for both the
Waste Water Clarification and Oil Recovery Systems was
$150,000. Of this amount, 38%, or $57,000, was expended for
additions to the Waste Water Clarification System and 62%,
or $93,000, was expended for the Oil Recovery System. The
overall total purchase cost of the major equipment amounted
to 57% of the total capital investment. Assuming a 10 year
life and 365 days of operation, the daily depreciation cost
for the additions to the Waste Water Clarification System
amount to $15.60. Similarly, the daily depreciation cost
for the Oil Recovery System is $25.50.
The total Waste Treatment System is operated 7 days a week.
It should be remembered, however, that on the weekends the
waste load from the plant is substantially lower than during
the normal week and, therefore, chemicals cost and the
amount of oil recovered would be reduced. However, it is
believed that the direct operating costs shown in Table 23
give a good representation of the situation.
Referring to Table 23, the total daily direct operating cost
for the Waste Water Clarification System is $328, of which
38.4% is for chemicals, 4.9% is for utilities, 46% is for
direct labor, and 10.7% is for maintenance. A total daily
waste flow of 500,000 gallons was assumed.
Total direct operating cost for the Oil Recovery System is
$171, of which 4.7% is for chemicals (sulfuric acid), 29.3%
for disposal of the combined centrifuge and grit cyclone
sludge (after removing approximately 50% of its volume by
decanting), 9.9% for utilities, 44.4% for direct labor, and
11.7% for maintenance. As discussed earlier, 7,000 pounds
of reclaimed oil obtained each day with a value at 4-1/4
to 4-5/8 cents per pound would yield $298 to $320 per day.
This value would generate a "profit" of $127 to $159 per day
83
-------
TABLE 23
ESTIMATED DIRECT OPERATING COSTS FOR
BRADLEY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
Basis: 500,000 GPD Waste Flow, Monday through Friday
$/day $/day %
WASTE WATER CLARIFICATION
Chemicals:
Alum, 500 ppm, 2080 ppd, $0.03/lb. 62
Swift X-400 polymer, 2 ppm,
8 ppd, $1.65/lb. 13
Sulfuric acid, 66° Be, drums,
1700 ppd, $0.03/lb. 51
Total Chemicals 126 38.4
Utilities:
Power, 1370 Kw hr., $0.0094/Kw hr. 13
Steam, 3000 ppd, $1.00/1000 Ib. 3
Total Utilities 16 4.9
Direct Labor:
1 man/shift, $6.29/hr. (incl.
fringes but not supervision
or materials handling) 151 46.0
Maintenance (excl. depreciation): 35 10.7
TOTAL - WASTE WATER CLARIFICATION 328 100.0
OIL RECOVERY
Chemicals:
Sulfuric Acid, 66° Be, drums
260 ppd, $0.03/lb. 8 4.7
Sludge Disposal:
$150/2100 gal. load every 3 days 50 29.3
Utilities:
Steam, 3000 ppd, $1.00/1000 Ibs. 3
Power, 1440 Kw hr., $0.0094/Kw hr. 14
Total Utilities 17 9.9
Direct Labor:
1.5 men/day, at above rate 76 44.4
Maintenance (excl. depreciation): 20 11.7
TOTAL - OIL RECOVERY 171 100.0
84
-------
over the direct operating cost of $171 per day for the Oil
Recovery System (excluding depreciation). On an overall
basis, the value of the oil would offset between 60 to 64%
of the grand total daily waste treatment operating cost of
$499, excluding depreciation.
At the present time, inedible oil and tallow prices are
about 25% above the average for the past 10 years. However,
it is also felt that the recovered oil may find a market
where its value would approach 6 to 6-1/2 cents per pound
at present day prices. In any case, it is believed a fair
assumption that over the years, the value of the recovered
oil can be expected to offset approximately 60% of the
direct operating cost of such a waste treatment facility.
It will be noted that the cost of alum and sulfuric acid
represents a high percentage of the overall daily operating
cost. The price of 3
-------
SECTION X
PUBLICATIONS
1. McFarland, J. R. Water Pollution Abatement for Edible
Oil Refineries. Swift & Company. (Presented at Ameri-
can Oil Chemists' Society. New York. October 22, 1968.)
10 p. (Not published.)
2. Clemens, O. A., and J. V. Ziemba. Better Way to Treat
Liquid Wastes. Food Engineering. 43(8):47-49, August
1971.
Seng, W. C. Removal and Recovery of Fatty Materials
from Edible Fat and Oil Refinery Effluents. Swift &
Company. (Presented at Second National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes. Denver. March 23-26, 1971.)
Proceedings, Second National Symposium on Food Process-
ing Wastes. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific
Northwest Regional Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Water Pollution Control Research Series 12060 03/71.
p. 337-366.
4. Ramirez, E. R. Purification of Industrial Waste Water
by Electro Coagulation. Swift & Company. (Presented
at Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association.
Chicago. March 16, 1973.) 21 p.
87
-------
SECTION XI
GLOSSARY
Air Flotation
Unit
Coagulant
The 13 foot 6 inch diameter by 10 foot high
cell (Figures 2 and 8} for flotation and
removal of waste water contaminants through
use of air bubbles and flocculant chemicals,
Alum, ferric sulfate, and other such
chemicals.
Coagulant Aid - A synthetic acrylamide polymer.
FAC Color - Method Cc-13a-43, Fat Analysis Committee
of the American Oil Chemists Society, for
color measurement of oil samples.
Flocculant
JTU
Side Tanks
Skimmer
Skimmings
Titer
- Both, for example, alum and Swift X-400
polymer.
- Jackson Turbidity Unit.
- The 400 and 850 gallon steam coil heated
holding tanks adjacent to the Skimmer and
Air Flotation units, respectively, for
temporary storage of skimmings.
- The 10 foot by 40 foot rectangular tank
(Figures 2 and 7) for quiescent flotation
and removal of waste water contaminants
from the plant waste water stream without
the use of air.
- Solid waste and fatty materials floated to
and removed from the surface of the Skimmer
and Air Flotation units.
- A measure of the solidification point of
the fatty acids, by Method Cc-12-59,
American Oil Chemists Society.
89
-------
A
B
C
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
Page No.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 91
DETERMINATION OF FLOW RATES 105
EVALUATION OF FLOCCULANTS DATA 107
TABLE 24: WASTE WATER CLARIFICATION
EXPERIMENTAL DATA 107
OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM DATA 139
TABLE 25: OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM
OPERATING DATA 139
TABLE 26: OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM
SAMPLE ANALYSES 144
TABLE 27: OIL AND ASH DISTRIBUTION TO
DELAVAL AND CYCLONE STREAMS 148
91
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
TOTAL RESIDUE ON EVAPORATION
A.P.H.A. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 12th Ed., 1965, p. 423.
When sample contained a large amount of solids
the sample size was reduced.
TOTAL SUSPENDED RESIDUE
A.P.H.A. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 12th Ed., 1965, page 424.
Samples in which the suspended matter was pri-
marily oil or fat sometimes yielded a suspended
residue less than the ethyl ether soluble material
because of oil passing through the filter or
rendering out on drying.
ETHYL ETHER SOLUBLE - SEWAGE
This is a procedure for determining the fat, oil and
fatty materials in waste waters. A copy of the pro-
cedure is attached. The sample is acidified to split
the fatty acids from any soap that might be present.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
A.P.H.A. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 12th Ed., 1965, pgs. 406-409 and 415-421.
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
A.P.H.A. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 12th Ed., 1965, pags. 510-514.
OXYGEN DEMAND INDEX (Using O.D.I. Reagents)
Manual of Laboratory Methods for Sewage Plants.
Illinois Department of Public Health
Division of Laboratories
January 1970
When the O.D.I, exceeded 420 appropriate dilutions
were made to bring the transmission of the sample
within the range for the calibration graph.
93
-------
CHLORIDES - WATER AND WASTEWATER (Levels of 0.01 to 0.1%)
A copy of the method employed is attached.
OIL IN WASTEWATER AT 10 to 500 PPM
A copy of the method employed is attached.
TURBIDITY
The turbidity of samples was measured using the Each
Laboratory Turbidiraeter Model 1860A. Appropriate
dilutions were made of the sample when measurements
exceeded the range of instrument.
pH - MEASUREMENTS
The pH measurements were made with a pH meter, using
conventional methods for standardization.
ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES CONTAINING MORE THAN 25% FAT
MOISTURE AND VOLATILE (Hot Plate Method)
American Oil Chemists Society Offical Method
Ca-2b-38.
FAT AND OIL CONTENT (Ethyl Ether Soluble)
The residue from the hot plate moisture is ex-
tracted with ethyl ether as directed in the
method for ethyl ether soluble. Attached Method
No. 1089, beginning with C,3.
INSOLUBLE MATERIAL
The insoluble material = 100%-(% Moisture +
% Ethyl Ether Soluble).
94
-------
RESEARCH METHODS
Swift & Co., R&D Center Method 1101
OIL IN WASTE WATERS AT 10 to 500 PPM
PRINCIPLE: One thousand ml. of sample is extracted with
petroleum ether, the petroleum ether is evaporated, the
residue is weighed and reported as oil.
A. APPARATUS;
1. Graduated cylinder, 100 and 1000 ml. capacity.
2. Separatory funnels, 2 liter capacity.
3. Beakers, 250 and 800 ml.
4. Gooch crucibles, Coors No. 5, 130 ml. capacity and dia.
top rim 55 mm.
5. Asbestos, long fiber acid washed for Gooch crucibles.
6. Filter flask, 1000 or 2000 ml. capacity.
7. Crucible holders, Filtervac No. 3 LaPine Scientific Co.
Cat. No. 100-96 or equivalent.
B. REAGENTS;
1. Petroleum ether, A.O.C.S. Specification H 2-41.
C. PROCEDURE FOR EXTRACTED OIL;
1. Measure and record volume of sample using a 1000 ml.
graduated cylinder.
2. Transfer sample to a 2-L separatory funnel.
3. Rinse the sample bottle with 250 ml. of petroleum ether
(P.E.) and pour rinsing into the graduated cylinder used
for measuring the sample. Rinse the graduated cylinder
and pour the P.E. into the separatory funnel.
4. Stopper the separatory funnel, shake vigorously for
about 30 seconds, and allow the two phases to separate.
5. Draw off the aqueous phase into a 1 liter beaker and
decant the P.E. into a 800 ml. beaker.
95
-------
6. Return the aqueous phase to the separatory funnel, add
250 ml. of P.E. and repeat 4 and 5, decanting the P.E.
extract into the 800 ml. beaker containing the first
extraction.
Note: Save the aqueous phase if oil in residue after
extraction is to be determined.
7. Evaporate the P.E. on the steam bath to about 50 ml. and
transfer to a weighed 250 ml. beaker. Rinse the 800 ml.
beaker 2 times with approximately 20 ml. P.E. and add
the rinsing to the 250 ml. beaker.
8. Evaporate the P.E. on the steam bath, cool the beakers
in a dessicator and weigh. Calculate the ppm of residue
as oil as directed in section E.
D. PROCEDURE FOR OIL IN RESIDUE AFTER EXTRACTION WITH
PETROLEUM -EHTER;
1. Filter the aqueous phase, from C, 6 through a Gooch
crucible as directed in Method 1087.
2. Transfer the Gooch crucible to a funnel supported in a
weighed 250 ml. beaker. Pour 10 ml. of acetone and then
100 ml. of P.E. through the Gooch crucible collecting
the P.E. in the beaker.
3. Evaporate the P.E. on the steam bath, cool the beaker in
a dessicator and weigh. Calculate the ppm of residue in
the beaker as oil as directed in section E.
E. CALCULATIONS;
(A-C)X 106
Oil, ppm = B
A - Gm. of residue from C, 8 or D, 3.
B = Ml. of sample from C, 1.
C = Gms of residue in solvent used for extraction.
See Section F.
F. DETERMINATION OF RESIDUE IN SOLVENT;
1. Evaporate 500 ml. of P.E. from a weighed 250 ml. beaker
on the steam bath by adding 100 ml. evaporate and add
another 100 ml.
-------
2. After the final addition of 100 ml. P.E., evaporate,
cool the beaker in dessicator, and weigh.
3. Calculate the residue in 500 ml. P.E. and 100 ml. P.E,
4. Repeat F, 1, 2 and 3 using the same beaker.
97
-------
RESEARCH METHODS
Swift & Co., R&D Center Method 1094
Rev. June, 1970
CHLORIDE - WATER & WASTE WATER
(LEVELS OF 0.01% TO 0.1%)
PRINCIPLE; Twenty-five ml. of a neutral or slightly alka-
line solution is titrated with 0.0705 N AgN03 using a
potassium chromate solution as an indicator.
A. APPARATUS:
1. Buret, 50 ml.
2. Erlenmeyer flask, 500 ml.
3. Pipet, 25 ml.
B. REAGENTS:
1. Silver nitrate, A.C.S. grade.
2. Sodium chloride, A.C.S. grade.
3. Potassium chromate, A.C.S. grade.
4. Indicator papers to cover pH range from 3 to 10.
5. Sodium hydroxide, A.C.S. grade.
6. Sulfuric acid, sp.gr. 1.84 A.C.S. grade.
7. Ammonium acetate, A.C.S. grade.
C. SOLUTIONi
1. Silver nitrate, 0.0705N. Dissolve 11.980 g. in dis-
tilled water, dilute to 1 liter in a volumetric flask,
and mix thoroughly.
2. Sodium chloride, 0.0705N. Dissolve 4.121 g. NaCl (dried
at 140°C) in distilled water, dilute to 1 liter in a
volumetric flask, and mix thoroughly.
3. Potassium chroraate indicator. Dissolve 50 g. of K2CrO4
in about 200 ml. distilled water, add silver nitrate
solution until a definite red recipitate is formed.
Allow to stand overnight, filter and dilute the filtrate
to 1 liter.
98
-------
4. Sodium hydroxide, 5%. Dissolve 5 g. of sodium hydroxide
in 100 ml. of distilled water.
5. Nitric acid, 10%. Add 10 ml. of cone HN03 to 90 ml. of
distilled water or sulfuric acid, 5%, add 5 ml. of cone
H2SO4 to 95 ml. of distilled water.
6. Ammonium acetate-acetic acid solution. Dissolve 10 g.
of ammonium acetate and 1 ml. of acetic acid in 1000 ml.
of distilled water.
D. STANDARDIZATION OF SILVER NITRATE SOLUTION:
1. Pipet 25 ml. of sodium chloride into a 500 ml. Erlen-
meyer flask, add 75 ml. of ammonium acetate-acetic acid
solution C, 6 and 1 ml. of K2CrO4 indicator solution.
2. Titrate with 0.0705 N AgNO3 to the end point, the ap-
pearance of a definite reddish color. Add the silver
nitrate in increments of 0.2 ml. when approaching the
end point.
3. Titrate a blank (25 ml. of distilled water plus 75 ml.
of ammonium acetate-acetic acid solution C, 6 and 1 ml.
of K2CrO4 indicator soln.) as directed in D, 2.
Ml. 0.0705 N NaCl x 0.0705
Normality of AgNO3 soln. = A-B
1.762
A-B
A = ml. AgNO3 solution used to titrate the salt
solution D, 2.
B = ml. AgN03 solution used to titrate the blank D,3.
E. PROCEDURE;
1. If the sample contains suspended matter filter a por-
tion through Whatman folded 2V filter paper. See Notes
G, 1 and 2.
2. Pipet 25 ml. of sample or filtrate into a 500 ml. Erlen-
meyer flask. If pH of the sample is outside the range
of 4 to 8 adjust pH to within this range using 5% NaOH
or 10% HNO3. pH may be checked with indicator paper
before and after any adjustment.
99
-------
3. Add 75 ml. of ammonium acetate-acetic acid solution C, 6
using a graduated cylinder, 1 ml. of K^CrC^ indicator
and titrate with 0.0705 N AgNC>3 using 0.2 ml. increments
when approaching the end point, the appearance of a
definite reddish color.
4. Titrate a blank (25 ml. of distilled water and 75 ml. of
ammonium acetate-acetic acid solution C, 6) as directed
in E, 3.
F. CALCULATIONS:
% chloride, chlorine = (S-B) x N x 35.46 x 100
V x 1000
= (S-B) x N x 3.546
V - (S-B) x 0.01
ppm chloride = mg/1 - (S-B) x N x 35,460
V = (S-B) x 100
S - Ml. of AgNC>3 solution used for titration of the
sample £, 3.
B = Ml. of AgN(>3 solution used for titration of the
blank, E, 4.
V = Ml. of sample pipetted for analysis.
When N = 0.0705 ± 0.007 and V = 25 ml. and the titration
for the blank does not exeed 0.2 ml., the simplified
equation may be used.
% chloride, chlorine - S x 0.01
ppm = S X 100
G. NOTES:
1. If the sample is highly colored, pipet 25 ml. of sample
into a 150 ml. in beaker, add 3 ml. A1(OH)3 suspension,
mix, allow to settle, filter, wash, and combine filtrate
and washing. Transfer to a 500 ml. Erlenmeyer flask,
adjust pH, dilute to 100 and proceed as directed begin-
ning with E, 3.
100
-------
2. If sulfide, sulfite, or thiosulfate is present, make the
water alkaline to phenolphthalein with sodium hydroxide
solution. Add 1 ml. H.2Q2 ant^ stir. Neutralize with
sulfuric acid and then proceed with the analysis
beginning with E, 2.
3. Report results below 0.1% to the nearest 0.005%. Report
results above 0.1% to the nearest 0.01%.
101
-------
RESEARCH METHODS
Swift & Co., R&D Center Method 1089
Rev. Oct. 1969
ETHYL ETHER SOLUBLE -*. SEWAGE
PRINCIPLE: The sample is acidified with hydrochloric acid
and then evaporated to dryness. The grease is extracted
from the residue with ethyl ether.
A. APPARATUS;
1. The apparatus is exactly as described in Ja 8a-49, Oil -
Water, A.P.H.A. Method, A, 1 to 9 inclusive.
2. Desiccator containing Desichlora or Drierite, indicating
type.
B. REAGENTS;
1. The reagents are exactly as described in Ja 8a-49, Oil -
Water, A.P.H.A. Method, B, 1 and 2.
2. Ethyl Ether, U.S.P. Grade. Determine nonvolatile
residue by evaporating five 100 ml. portion of the ethyl
ether. If the residue exceeds 0.005 g (5 mg) calculate
the residue per 125 ml. to the nearest 0.001 g. and use
this value for B in the calculations. Check each new lot
or drum of ethyl ether for nonvolatile residue.
C. PROCEDURE;
1. Transfer 100 ml. of the well mixed sample to a 250 ml.
beaker using a 100 ml. graduate cylinder.
2. Add 0.5 ml. of HC1, sp. gr. 1.19 and mix thoroughly.
See Note E, 1. Evaporate to dryness on a steam bath or
hot plate, remove and cool to room temperature. See
Note E, 2.
3. Add 100 ml. of ethyl ether, warm on the steam bath and
stir thoroughly to dissolve the grease and oil in the
residue.
4. Filter the soln. thru Whatman No. 2 or equivalent grade
filter paper, collecting the filtrate in a tared 250 ml.
beaker. Rinse the beaker with 10 to 20 ml. of ethyl
ether and transfer to the filter. Wash the paper with
two 10 ml. portions of ethyl ether.
102
-------
5. Place the 250 ml. beaker under a stream of clean, dry
air on a steam bath and evaporate off the ethyl ether.
6. Transfer the beaker to an air oven maintained at 103°
i 1°C and dry for 1-1/2 hours. Remove from the ovenf
place in a desiccator, cool to room temperature and
weigh to the nearest 0.001.
D. CALCULATIONS:
Ethyl ether soluble, ppm = (A-B) x 1,000,000
100
= (A-B) x 10,000
A = Weight of residue from sample in grams, C, 7.
B = Weight of residue in ethyl ether in grams, B, 2.
E. NOTES:
1. Test solution with indicator paper. If the pH is more
than pH 1.0 add another 0.5 ml. of cone. HC1, mix
thoroughly and test.
2. Remove immediately when the last traces of moisture
evaporate, or only a trace of moisture remains.
103
-------
APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF FLOW RATES
A technique for the determination of flow rates in circum-
stances where weirs cannot be used was developed for the
in-plant survey. Essentially, the method consists of three
steps as follows :
1. Samples of effluent are taken and either the chloride
content or specific conductance (expressed as sodium
chloride) is determined.
2. A concentrated solution of sodium chloride at a known
concentration is metered into the sewer downstream
from the sample point in step 1.
3. Samples are taken downstream from step 2. The unknown
flow rate can then be calculated from the following:
R2 = Rl (c-b)
b-a
Where, R^ = flow rate of brine solution added, 1/min
R2 - flow rate of unknown stream, 1/min
a = initial (Step 1) chloride concentration in
the R2 stream being measured by chloride
titration or conductivity, mg/1
b = chloride concentration downstream (Step 3)
after brine injection, Mg/1
c = chloride concentration of the RI brine
solution added, mg/1
Example :
A 50,000 mg/1 sodium chloride brine solution, containing
30,500 mg/1 chloride, is added to a sewer stream at a
rate of 4 1/min. The initial stream chloride concentra-
tion (a) is 100 mg/1, and the downstream chloride
concentration (b) is found to be 500 mg/1. Then the
unknown (R2 ) stream flow is :
R2 = (4) (30,500-500) = 300 1/min.
(500-100)
105
-------
TABLE 24
WASTE WATER CLARIFICATION EXPERIMENTAL DATA
la
Run
No.
?.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ifi
17
18
19
20
21
22
?T
24
25
26
27
Ib
Shift
?nd Date
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
i
2
3
i
2
3
1
6/10/7
6/10/7
6/11/7
6/11/7
6/11/7
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/13/7
6/13/7
6/13/7
6/14/7
6/14/7
6/14/7
6/15/7
6/15/7
6/15/7
6/16/7
6/36/7
6/16/7
6/17/7
6/17/7
6/17/7
v ' / -1- f -
6/18/7
6/18/7
6/1P/7
* r -*'-{
6/19/7
1C
Poly
T^e
400
1*00
40Q
400
400
400
400
1*00
400
400
400
HOO
uoo
40 0
UOO
uoo
noo
uoo
uon
fjOO
'ion
fjOO
400
HOO
400
400
2
Alum
"fc
0.
0.
104.
224.
224.
390.
290.
328.
328.
314.
224.
224.
20R.
328.
288.
310.
320.
322.
304.
30I».
400.
440.
400.
335.
476.
440.
3
Poly F
gal.
07
152.
288.
250.
224.
?24.
270.
262.
200.
200.
150.
144.
192.
167.
184.
192.
220.
224.
140.
224.
224.
?70.
?4?.^
200.
5P5.
215.
200.
4 5
law Waste Raw Waste
gal . oom
130800.
147800.
123FOO.
139200.
94600.
118800.
123200.
112000.
117000.
97000.
62000.
115200.
104800.
98000.
1H600.
136400.
108000.
140*00.
132800.
1R9200.
20^FOP.
1 9 li . ? 0 0 .
171800.
201800.
10R700.
143400.
119200.
273.
308.
258.
290.
197.
248.
257.
233.
244.
202.
129.
240.
218.
204.
237.
284.
225.
293.
277.
^2.
4?4.
405.
359.
420.
225.
299.
248.
6
i Alum
pfon
0.
0.
150.
475.
378.
634.
519.
562.
678.
1015.
390.
428.
426.
579.
423.
575.
455.
486.
360.
290.
412.
«^13.
397.
670.
6PS.
739.
7
Poly
ppm
HTTP
2.0
4. 6
3.6
4.7
3.7
4.3
4.6
3.4
4.1
4.8
2.5
3.6
3.4
3.2
2.8
4.0
3. 1
2.1
2.6
2.2
2.7
2.8
1.9
t.k
3.0
3.2
1
li
^
H
H
§
22
8
iTl
*J
f
O
o
o
Cj
f<
§
g
i-3
S
*)
*V
W
D
H
X
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
o
00
la
Run
No.
7T
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Ib
Shift
and Date
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
«
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
6/24/7
6/24/7
6/24/7
6/25/7
6/25/7
6/25/7
6/26/7
6/29/7
6/30/7
6/30/7
6/30/7
7/1/70
7/1/70
7/1/70
7/2/70
7/2/70
7/6/70
7/6/70
7/7/70
7/7/70
7/7/70
7/8/70
7/8/70
7/8/70
7/9/70
7/9/70
7/9/70
1C
Poly
Type
~4W
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
920
920
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
2
Alum
gal.
TTRT
374.
359.
367.
416.
339.
348.
30R.
383.
356.
351.
385.
343.
371.
371.
341.
298.
221.
304.
398.
371.
332.
332.
332.
332.
319.
236.
3
Poly
gal.
TW7
115.
252.
268.
159.
333.
212.
2*7.
367.
189.
235.
193.
240.
149.
149.
255.
213.
133.
133.
143.
149.
149.
133.
133.
133.
133.
111.
4
Raw Waste
gal.
137UOO.
145000.
125600.
148400.
136800.
130800.
144200.
156400.
178000.
187000.
168800.
182200.
161000.
159200.
139800.
134800.
89600.
176400.
104400.
146000.
128800.
139600.
111600.
141600.
158400.
136000.
115000.
5
Raw Waste
gpm
5$b.
302.
262.
309.
285.
273.
300.
326.
371.
390.
352.
3*0.
335.
332.
291.
281.
187.
368.
218.
304.
268.
291.
233.
295.
330.
283.
240.
6
Alum
*B?
517.
573.
495.
609.
519.
483.
392.
431.
381.
417.
42^.
427.
467.
532.
507.
667.
251.
583.
546.
577.
476.
595.
469.
419.
470.
412.
7
Poly
-*s
1.5
4.0
3.6
2.3
5.1
2.9
3.P
4.1
2.0
2.7
2.1
2.9
1.8
2.1
3.7
4.7
1.5
2.5
1.9
2.3
2.1
2.3
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.9
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
H
©
la
Run
No.
ITT
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Ib
Shift
and Date
IT
2
3
1
?
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
7
3
1
2
3
7/10/7
7/10/7
7/21/7
7/22/7
7/22/7
7/22/7
7/23/7
7/23/7
7/23/7
7/24/7
7/24/7
7/27/7
7/27/7
7/28/7
7/29/7
7/30/7
7/30/7
7/31/7
8/3/70
8/3/70
8/3/70
8/4/70
8/4/70
8/4/70
8/5/70
8/5/70
8/5/70
lc
Poly
Type
"T5U
250
20
20
2fl
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
2
Alum
gal,
221.
281.
296.
324.
388.
458.
472.
414.
420.
420.
325.
443.
327.
327.
369.
678.
310.
158.
740.
355.
283.
4 1 4 .
610.
"01.
205.
296.
]92.
3
Poly
₯nt
141*.
133.
234.
153.
258.
346.
118.
119.
119.
232.
295.
265.
265,
154.
305.
200.
281.
111.
117.
191.
237.
21K
149.
136.
371.
254.
4
Haw Waste
gal.
i^ 5 K rt to .
121200.
99600.
127600.
112000.
100400.
133600.
125600.
114800.
110000.
128000.
196400.
162400.
200000.
187400.
237600.
190000.
154000.
139200.
138800.
99200.
134000.
139800.
1^9000.
152000.
135600.
122600.
5
Raw Waste
gpm
2 fl
253
208
266
233
209
278
262
239
229
267
409
33S
417
390
495
396
321
290
289
207
279
291
?9n
317
283
255
-«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.
»
6
Alum
PP*
465
59F
509
694
913
708
660
733
765
508
452
403
327
395
571
327
206
345
512
572
61P
S 7 h
722
270
43*
313
n
M»
»
*
*
*
*
7
Poly
-9S
2.3
2.6
3.6
2.7
5.1
5.1
1.8
2.0
2.1
3.6
3.0
3.2
2.6
1.6
2.5
2.1
3.6
1.6
l.fi
3.8
3.5
3.0
2.1
1.8
5 . 4
4.1
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
la
Run
No.
82
83
8U
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
9U
95
96
97
98
99
100
Jfc** w
101
102
103
10U
105
106
107
108
Ib
Shift
and Date
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
8/^/70
8/6/70
8/6/70
8/7/70
8/7/70
8/7/70
8/10/7
8/10/7
8/10/7
8/11/7
8/11/7
** » *^ * * r *
8/11/7
8/12/7
8/12/7
8/12/7
8/13/7
8/13/7
8/17/7
8/17/7
8/17/7
8/18/7
8/18/7
8/18/7
8/19/7
8/19/7
8/20/7
8/20/7
lc
Poly
Type
670
670
670
670
670
670
250
250
250
250
UOO
UOO
UOO
1*00
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
2
Alum
gal .
88.
88.
88.
376.
332.
332.
351.
371.
332.
558.
619.
U39.
255.
273.
223.
160.
170.
29 U.
35U.
221.
SOS.
U55.
362.
322.
376.
157.
207.
3 45
Poly Raw Waste Raw Waste
gal. gal. gpm
339.
200.
186.
150.
265.
265.
281.
296.
265.
25U.
337.
1U2.
3U1.
30U.
2U8.
1U9.
17U.
156.
221.
221.
359.
322.
208.
202.
269.
157.
163.
1U7UOO.
129600.
117200.
1U8800.
120000.
128000.
1U1800.
152000.
135000.
175UOO.
159ROO.
13UOOO.
168000.
160000.
135600.
162UOO.
1U6UOO.
115800.
1U6UOO.
161200.
178000.
1U6800.
119600.
1U6600.
1U3UOO.
128UOO.
123UOO.
307.
270.
2UU.
310.
250.
267.
295.
317.
281.
365.
333.
279.
350.
333.
283.
338.
305.
2U1.
305.
336.
371.
306.
2U9.
305.
299.
268.
257.
6
Alum
PPP
120.
137.
151.
506.
553.
519.
U96.
U89.
U92.
637.
776.
657.
30U.
3U2.
330.
197.
232.
510.
U8U.
275.
68U.
621.
607.
UUO.
525.
2U5.
336.
7
Poly
ppm
U.6
3.0
3«
.1
2jh
.0
u.u
U.I
3f*
.9
3.9
3.9
A M
2.9
Ugh
.2
2.1
U.O
» A
3.8
?m»
.B
1.8
2.3
2.7
3.0
2.7
U.O
v
U.3
3.U
2.7
3M|
.7
21
.U
2.6
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
la
Run
No.
109
110
111
112
113
11U
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
12 U
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
13U
135
Ib
Shift
and Date
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
8/20/7
8/21/7
8/21/7
8/21/7
8/2U/7
8/2U/7
8/2U/7
8/25/7
8/25/7
8/25/7
8/26/7
8/26/7
8/26/7
8/27/7
8/27/7
8/27/7
8/28/7
9/3/70
9/3/70
9/3/70
9/U/70
9/>U/70
9/W70
9/8/70
9/8/70
9/8/70
9/9/70
Ic
Poly
Type
250
250
250
250
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
UOO
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
2
Alum
gai.
361*
215
296
3UU
38U
296
U77
360
318
21U
223
186
166
133
118
129
527
232
52
U61
U28
359
371
3UO
295
27U
*
»
*
»
*
*
3
Poly ]
gal.
1W7
1U7.
288.
118.
1U2.
173.
119.
276.
203.
177.
138.
221.
157.
122.
133.
118.
126.
333.
292.
310.
207.
19U.
195.
1U9.
1U3.
193.
186.
4 5
tew Waste Raw Waste
?al . gpm
6800.
159?00.
118000.
88000.
156600.
122600.
103000.
116UOO.
108000.
9UOOO.
120000.
112000.
96000.
11UOOO.
101200.
81000.
106000.
195UOO.
190200.
153600.
1UUOOO.
1UUOOO.
15UOOO.
160UOO.
1U0600.
167000.
192800.
*ftfi
332
2UP
183
326
255
215
2U3
225
196
250
233
200
238
211
169
221
U07
396
320
300
300
321
33U
293
3U8
U02
9
.
*
6
Alum
U5U.
366.
67U.
UUO.
627.
576.
821.
669.
678.
357.
398.
388.
292.
263.
29U.
2UU.
5UO.
2UU.
68.
6U1.
595.
U67.
U6U.
U85.
353.
285.
7
Poly
-95
1.8
U.9
2.7
1.8
2.8
2.3
U.7
3.7
3.7
2.3
3.9
3.2
2.1
2.6
2.9
2.3
3.U
3.0
U.O
2.8
2.7
2.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
1.9
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
to
la
Run
No.
131T
137
138
139
140
14 1
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Ib
Shift
and Date
0
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
o
3
1
o
3
1
2
1
o
3
1
2
-J
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
/" /70
/9/70
/10/7
/10/7
/10/7
/H/7
/11/7
/11/7
/14/7
/14/7
/14/7
/15/7
/15/7
/15/7
/16/7
/16/7
/16/7
/I7/7
/17/7
/17/7
/18/7
/18/7
9/21/7
9
9
9
9
/21/7
/21/7
/22/7
/22/7
Ic
Poly
Type
670
670
670
670
670
670
670
20
20
20
0
0
20
*>0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
250
250
250
250
250
2
Alum
gal.
74T7
308.
355.
288.
249.
415.
355.
267.
629.
322.
2R5.
0.
0.
422.
350.
359.
248.
231.
164.
26R.
448.
469.
529.
555.
465.
508.
504.
3
Poly I
gal.
TOT:
231.
244.
207.
167.
415.
355.
267.
211.
190.
190.
0.
0.
359.
494.
47ft.
3?6.
430.
326.
352.
227.
20*.
303.
291.
265.
224.
202.
4 5
law Waste Raw Waste
gal . gpm
198000!
180000.
156800.
160200.
193000.
168000.
165400.
20*800.
212000.
206000.
0.
0.
199400.
232ROD.
203200.
1P1600.
215200.
198000.
186600.
245600.
198000.
191000.
142600.
190800.
235200.
144000.
255
413
375
327
334
402
350
345
429
442
429
0
0
41*
48*
4?3
37*
448
413
389
512
413
398
297
398
490
300
*
^
*
*
*
6
Alum
PPm
WRT
311.
395.
368.
312.
430.
424.
323.
612.
30*.
2*8.
0.
0.
424.
301 .
354.
?73.
21 *.
166.
288.
36*.
474.
554.
779.
488.
433.
702.
7
Poly
2!3
2.7
2.6
2.0
4.3
4.2
3.2
2.0
1.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
3.*
4.2
4.6
*. 6
4.0
3.3
3.7
1.8
2.0
3.1
4.0
2.7
1.9
2.8
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
la
Run
No.
163
16 4
IBS
16 B
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
Ib
Shift
and
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Date
/22/7
/23/7
/23/7
/23/7
/24 /7
/ 2 4 / 7
/ 2 4 / 7
/25/7
/25/7
/28/7
2 9/28/7
7
1
o
3
1
2
3
i
A.
3
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1
1
1
1
/2P/7
/29/7
/29/7
/29/7
/30/7
/30/7
/30/7
0/1/7
0/1/7
0/1/7
0/2/7
lc
Poly
Type
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
400
400
WO
It 00
400
400
400
400
/1 00
'tOO
400
It 00
400
2
Alum
gal .
371.
371.
278.
265.
266.
149.
160.
355.
271.
384.
370.
296.
296.
424.
415.
285.
261.
266.
no.
276.
332.
229.
34 5
Poly Raw Waste Raw Waste
gal.
149.
140.
1 li 9 .
177.
178.
179.
160.
355.
303.
118.
119.
119.
145 .
230.
32R.
19F.
174.
224.
192.
232.
225.
199.
gal.
1M800.
178000.
122200.
1R4000.
153200.
131 800.
95000.
131400.
147000.
118000.
133400.
113200.
187000.
203200.
1P5800.
206800.
160000.
124800.
123200.
122200.
1 U 5 8 0 0 .
13ROOO.
gpm
295.
371.
055 t
342 .
319.
275.
198.
274.
306.
246.
278.
23R.
390.
423.
387.
431.
333.
2RO.
257.
255.
304.
28^.
6
Alum
PPM
C24.
41.*.
457.
324.
34 P.
227.
338.
^42 .
370.
652.
555.
524.
317.
418.
447.
276.
326.
428.
390.
453.
455.
337.
7
Poly
PPM
2.
1.
*» .
1.
o t
0 .
3.
P .
'' .
o
«- .
1.
2.
1.
0
*- *
3.
1.
2 9
3!
3.
3.
3.
2.
1
P
It
K
7
1
7
4
1
0
7
1
5
2
5
9
1
5
1
8
1
9
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
la
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11
-PJL
11.1
9.9
6.2
9.4
11. 4
6.1
6.1
4.5
«*.!!
^.?
6.4
R.5
6.3
6.1
1.*
6.4
11.5
6.0
6.0
6.5
9.5
11. R
8.9
9.3
5.7
6.3
8.1
12
Suspended
ppm
1500.
1020.
1910.
560.
3720.
4550.
2150.
650.
1180.
540.
380. .
1260.
131*0.
130.
17340.
Ift99f).
14610.
29375.
10984.
2786.
1324.
3925.
2020.
2950.
3085.
10485.
6925.
13
Solids
IB
1636.
1257.
1968.
650.
2934.
U508.
2209.
607.
1151.
436.
. 196.
1210.
1171.
106.
16H28.
71602.
13159.
3UU9f*.
12165.
3931.
2248.
6357.
289H.
496U.
2783.
12539.
6884.
14
Ether
PPM
740.
770.
2540.
530.
3210.
7100.
2720.
1010.
9FO.
380.
350.
720.
1290.
1?0.
700.
9h310.
71130.
32850.
17030.
4110.
1850.
4870.
2970.
4520.
3250.
19210.
8090.
15
Solubles
Ib
807.
949.
2618.
615.
2532.
7034.
2794.
943.
936.
307.
180.
691.
1177.
98.
180.
107784.
19037.
3857U.
13373.
5799.
3141.
7887.
4755.
7607.
2932.
22974.
8042.
16
BOD
PPm
2400.
1010.
1300.
1110.
5600.
1900.
2480.
1090.
2220.
560.
580.
5RO.
980.
300.
5000.
5000.
5000.
5000.
5040.
4770.
1880.
4160.
29RO.
3440.
5440.
5000.
5000.
17
Ib
2618.
1244.
1340.
1788.
4418.
1882.
2548.
1018.
2166.
453.
299.
538.
856.
245.
4737.
5R87.
4503.
5871.
5587.
6R60.
^192.
6737.
4741.
5789.
4908.
5979.
4970.
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
la
Run
No.
TJT
29
30
31
32
33
3ft
35
36
37
3R
30
ftO
ftl
ft 2
ft 3
Mi
ft 5
ft 6
ft 7
US
ft 9
50
51
52
53
5ft
11 12
Suspended
JDH
THT
10.2
6.2
11.2
7.6
7.1
6.8
10. p
11.8
9. ft
3.2
11.5
8.2
10.9
11.7
ft. 8
8.6
11.8
12.2
s.9
9.5
11.2
11.3
8.7
11.5
5.0
fi.7
ppm
13W.
1080.
120.
25PO.
ft60.
3220.
2fi5f>.
ftRFO.
llfiO.
R70.
755.
B25.
525.
2170.
1200.
2390.
880.
2680.
3550.
3300.
1180.
970.
RIO.
2210.
3ftftO.
Ift30.
370.
13 14 15
Solids Ether Solubles
Ib
iWn.
1306.
125.
3193.
52ft.
3512.
31RF.
6339.
1751.
10ft ft.
1062.
9ft9.
70ft.
2881.
1399.
2686.
R57.
39ft2.
3090.
ft018.
1267.
1129.
753.
2609.
ft5ftft.
1621.
35H.
Ppm
3*0*7
2066.
112ft.
3105.
63*.
322ft.
2*59.
ftft65.
725.
590.
610.
FOO.
ft55.
1880.
1500.
2150.
620.
3310.
36ftO.
ftftftO.
860.
930.
1«30.
1950.
2900.
15ftO.
390.
Ib
ft3^T.
*>ft98.
1177.
38h2.
72ft.
3516.
3«i3R.
5*2ft.
1076.
920.
P5P.
911.
610.
2ft96.
17ft8.
2ftl7.
ft63.
ft869.
3169.
5ft06.
923.
1082.
1703.
2302.
3831.
17ft6.
37ft.
16 17
BOD
ppm
23W.
20ftO.
3000.
5000.
1670.
5000.
5000.
5000.
38hO.
850.
930.
IftlO.
1680.
1880.
PftO.
ft 88ft.
2120.
ft880.
ft580.
2320.
22ftO.
1580.
38ftO.
2300.
3200.
2760.
7ftO.
Ib
2To"ft.
2ft66.
31ft2.
61*8.
1^05.
5ft ^h.
6013.
6521.
C700.
1325.
1^09.
2U2.
2255.
2ft96.
979.
5ft90.
158ft.
7179.
3987.
2?2ft.
2ft06.
1839.
357ft.
2716.
ft227.
3130.
709.
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
la
Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
U mJ
6U
65
VJ /
66
67
68
\f U
69
70
71
/ ±.
72
73
7**
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
11 12
Suspended
_£IL
7.0
6.9
9.2
11. «*
11.0
11.6
11.7
10.9
8.6
11.0
11. «*
b i. ~
9.0
7.1
11.1
5.9
11.3
6.R
12.7
11.8
6.1*
6.8
6.9
9^9
8.1*
10.8
11.1
ppm
880.
1590.
5550.
930.
7280.
5190.
1*690.
2070.
11*80.
1660.
890.
1060.
680.
710.
161*10.
1620.
1520.
5010.
11*1*0.
6990.
2230.
5630.
7510.
5200.
3015.
2620.
2780.
13 14 15
Solids Ether Solubles
Ib
981.
1607.
1*610.
989.
6800.
1*3«*5.
5225.
2168.
11*16.
1522.
950.
1736.
921.
1181*.
2561*7.
3210.
21*08.
1671*.
8091.
181*1*.
6291.
8756.
6028.
3822.
2962.
2 8 1* 2 .
ppm
920.
570.
5650.
121*0.
1*700.
5160.
t*530.
3120.
1700.
1320.
11*80.
1830.
380.
3'tO.
11650.
If 00.
1500.
5710.
1160.
6857'.
21*52.
5370.
6775.
1*681.
301*3.
2U20.
3667.
Ib
1026.
576.
1*693.
1319.
1*390.
1*320.
501*7.
3268.
1627.
1210.
1579.
2997.
51U.
567.
18207.
792.
2376.
7333.
13U6.
7937.
20?P.
600T.
7899.
51*26.
3855.
2736.
371*9.
16 17
BOD
ppro
1620.
2380.
10800.
1900.
6520.
1021*0.
8320.
51*00.
2200.
2t*20.
1860.
1880.
1*60.
11*90.
5000.
3nt*n.
3520.
5000.
10UO.
30t*0.
3FOP.
f* 8 0 0 ,
t*320.
5280.
1*080.
2170.
2560.
Ib
1807.
2U05.
8971.
2021,
6090.
8571*.
9270.
5656.
2106.
2220.
1985.
3079.
623.
21*85.
7811*.
602«*.
5577.
61*21.
1?07.
3519.
2978.
53RU .
503R.
6120.
5172.
21*51*.
2617.
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
la
Run
No.
82
83
8'*
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
91*
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
10U
105
106
107
108
11 12
Suspended
pH
6 . 2
11.5
7.1*
6.2
6.2
10. I*
11.3
ll.l*
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.8
11.1*
6.9
11.2
11.1
7.1
11.1*
9.8
6.9
11.1
6.6
7.7
9.6
7.8
11.1*
7.0
ppm
i*5o.
2100.
8585.
11*00.
1500.
3750.
8590.
1*070.
5020.
2280.
1150.
11*80.
3570.
32680.
1680.
2680.
1310.
2100.
7730.
520.
1280.
11210.
3690.
5100.
261*0.
920.
51*60.
13 14 15
Solids Ether Solubles
Ib
"51T3.
2269.
8391.
1737.
1501.
1*003.
10158.
5159.
5652.
3335.
1530.
1653.
5001.
1*3608.
1899.
3629.
1599.
2028.
91*38.
699.
1900.
13721*.
3680.
6235.
3157.
985.
56T9.
ppm
1 281.
2762.
9913.
1260.
1210.
1*080.
7280.
1*520.
5100.
21*30.
1300.
1*880.
2360.
2230.
1800.
2390.
211*0.
1278.
'*622,
712.
11*28.
11*901*'.
3871*.
17676.
2171.
2007.
537U.
Ib
157TT.
2985.
9689.
1563.
1210.
1*355.
8609.
5729.
571*2.
3551*.
1730.
51*53.
3306.
2975.
2035,
3237.
2612.
1231*.
56U3.
957.
2119.
1821*7.
3861*.
21611.
2596.
211*9.
5530.
16 17
BOD
ppm
2ThTT.
1*800.
9600.
2320.
11*80.
1*1*00.
501*0.
5280.
1220.
3120.
900.
'f 320.
2070.
5000.
l* '* 0 0 .
2880.
1060.
21*80.
1*21*0.
1*1*0.
1*000.
5000.
5000.
5000.
35UO.
2560.
9600.
Ib
2-6T5.
5188.
9383.
2879.
11*81.
1*697.
^960.
6P9^.
1373.
'* 5 6 1* .
1197.
1*827.
?900.
6671.
1*975.
3900.
1291*.
2395.
5176.
591.
5938.
6121.
1*987.
6113.
1*233.
271*1.
9879.
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
oo
la
Run
^T^b.
NO*
109
110
111
112
113
111*
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
12U
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
13'*
135
11
g iy
7.n
9.1*
6.8
11.2
12.0
9.3
8.5
ll.fi
11.9
11.2
11. 1*
7.7
8.9
10.9
10.9
11.9
11.3
9.9
8.F
10.8
10.8
10.7
11.0
10. 6
6.1
8.7
10. P
12
Suspended
ElE
3920.
920.
301*0.
9365.
1225.
17500.
7550.
2190.
7950.
2550.
930.
8080.
1880.
1750.
1110.
2075.
2100.
2100.
5960.
M35.
1655.
2730.
81*60.
21*95.
1750.
3975.
1H70.
13
Solids
5j>
U799.
1221.
2n
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
la
Run
No.
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
11 12
Suspended
J2IL
9.9
10.5
11.1
8.2
11.0
11.0
11.0
8.4
10.9
8.1
6.5
0.0
0.0
6.8
10.3
8.0
9.0
10.3
5.7
5.6
10.0
5.8
6.7
6.7
8.6
10.3
6.7
PPM
6422.
3750.
2840.
2650.
2295.
2275.
1635.
3120.
6080.
1420.
1020.
0.
0.
1110.
900.
1000.
770.
1100.
4500.
8460.
12170.
2630.
1710.
4350.
8630.
3310.
2650.
13 14 15
Solids Ether Solubles
Ib
6491.
6192.
4263.
34R5.
3066.
3661.
2290.
4303.
10435.
2510.
1752.
0.
0,
1845.
1745.
1694.
1166.
1974.
7430.
13165.
24927.
4342.
2723.
5173.
13732.
6492.
3182.
EPjn
5700.
3800.
3190.
2440.
3160.
2710.
1800.
2130.
4450.
1270.
890.
0.
0.
2590.
950.
950.
480.
1200.
4880.
7830.
13520.
4380.
1480.
7450.
6860.
3550.
2090.
Ib
5761.
6275.
4788.
3190.
4221.
43F2.
2522.
2938.
7637.
2245.
1^79.
0.
0.
4^07.
1*42.
16P9.
726.
2153.
8058.
12185.
27693.
7232.
2357.
8860.
10916.
6963.
2510.
16
17
BOD
ppm ID
5000. 5054.
4320. 7133.
2340. 3512.
4080. 5335.
2420. 3233.
4720. 7597.
3600. 5044.
3170. 4303.
2100. 3604.
3780. 6683.
2240. 3*48.
0. 0.
0. 0.
2?fin. 4589.
15*0. 3065.
1610. 2728.
700. 1060.
2060. 3697.
5000. 8256.
10000. 15562.
10000. 20483.
4800. 7926.
240. 382.
2580. 3068.
2580. 4105.
6240. 12240.
1460. 1753.
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RAW WASTE
H>
la
Run
No.
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
11
12
Suspended
nTY
10. 9
11.2
7.2
8.8
11. 4
10.5
11.1
11.0
10.7
11.0.
5.4
11.0
10.7
7.6
6.7
11.3
11.4
10.0
12.2
11.0
11.1*
11.8
ppm
2280.
1980.
2550.
2570.
2970.
8120.
4030.
2630.
2245.
2259.
3196.
1771.
778.
3154.
2903.
1750.
5763.
1352.
1044.
5400.
5283.
2236.
13
Solids
Ib
2696.
2939.
2598.
3515.
3794.
8925.
3192.
2882.
2752.
2223.
3555.
1671.
1213.
5345.
4498.
3018.
7690.
1407.
1072.
5503.
6423.
2536.
14
15
16
Ether Solubles
Ppm
2140.
2020.
2950.
1350.
3340.
10100.
3570.
3440.
3480.
2963.
2792.
2647.
809.
3036.
2815.
1443.'
5693.
5351.
1647.
6550.
5862.
3097.
Ib
2530.
2998.
3006.
1846.
4267.
11102.
2828.
3769.
4266.
2915.
3106.
2499.
1261.
5145.
4362.
2488.
7596.
5569.
1692.
6675.
7128.
3512.
PPm
10000.
3840.
3680.
1440.
7680.
10000.
2640.
5000.
1440.
2220.
5000.
2740.
1480.
4440.
5000.
2910.
10000.
10000.
3520.
10000.
10000.
17
BOD
1&
11826.
5700.
3750.
1969.
9812.
1099?.
2091.
5479.
1765.
2184.
5562.
2586.
2308.
7524.
7747.
5018.
13343.
10408.
3616.
10191.
12159.
4400. 4990.
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
SKIMMER UNIT EFFLUENT
la
Run
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
21
22
23
Suspended
PH
2.6
5.U
2.5
3.1
3.9
5.3
6.3
4.6
3.8
4.5
4.5
3.5
U. 3
4.3
fi.l
5.8
7.1
6.2
5.7
7.R
in. 2
8.8
6.7
6.7
5.6
6.5
6.0
ppm
830.
470.
1110.
500.
900.
460.
1950.
60.
240.
380.
10.
460.
1820.
59.
17930.
3040.
9058.
44734.
3172.
2933.
1862.
1920.
323.
855.
1670.
10925.
6355.
Ib
905.
579.
1144.
580.
710.
455.
2003.
56.
234.
307.
5.
4 4 1 .
1590.
48.
16987.
3458.
8158.
52529.
3513.
4138.
3161.
3109.
462.
1438.
1506.
13065.
6317.
24
Solids
Percent
removed
44. P
53.9
41.8
10.7
75.8
89.8
9.3
90.7
79.6
29.6
97.3
63. 4
-35.8
54. P
-3. 4
83.9
38. 0
-52.?
71.1
-5.7
-1*0.6
51.0
8U. 0
71.0
45.8
-4.1
8.2
25
26
27
28
Ether Soluble
ppm
890.
500.
1120.
520.
910.
897.
161*0.
110.
190.
250.
50.
270.
1500.
60.
73240.
15180.
40?90.
53360.
7990.
'* 1 10 .
1660.
3030.
330.
820.
2010.
11*910.
5910.
Ib
970.
616.
1154.
603.
111.
888.
1685.
102.
185.
20?.
25.
259.
1311.
49.
69389.
172P8.
3fi?90.
62659.
88U9.
5799.
2818.
4907.
472.
1380.
1813.
17831.
5875.
Percent
removed
-20.2
35.0
55.9
1.8
71.6
87.3
39.7
89.1
80.?
34.?
85.7
62.5
-16.?
50.0
-36520.0
83.9
-90. R
-62.4
33.5
0.0
10.2
37.7
88.8
81.8
38.1
22.3
26.9
ppm
2560.
820.
1640.
880.
900.
1000.
3760.
300.
380.
580.
60.
200.
3700.
60.
*000.
^000.
5000.
5000.
2400.
4080.
2540.
3280.
520.
940.
2740.
5360.
5680.
29
BOD
Ib
2792.
1010.
1690.
1021.
710.
990.
3863.
280.
370.
469.
31.
192.
3233.
49.
4737.
5687.
4503.
5871.
2658.
5757.
4312.
5312.
745.
1582.
2472,
6410.
5646.
30
Percent
rempved
-6.6
18.8
-26.1
20.7
83.9
47.3
-51.6
-72.4
82.8
-3.5
89.6
64.2
-277.5
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.3
13.5
-35.1
21.1
82.4
72.6
49.6
-7.2
-13.6
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
SKIMMER UNIT EFFLUENT
la
Run
Ho.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
10 39
M 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
21
22
23
Suspended
pH
8.8
5.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
7.3
5.7
7.2
3.6
8.0
8.8
4.3
9.1
7.6
11.4
6.1
9.0
7.7
12.0
8.3
10.1
9.8
11.1
8.0
9.5
6.7
6.1
ppm
1300 .
1690.
160.
2090.
480.
3330.
1200.
2495.
860.
360.
620.
280.
445.
530.
805.
1450.
510.
3290.
8350.
1670.
720.
780.
1220.
1860.
1810.
920.
300.
lb
nn?9.
2043.
167.
2586.
547.
3632.
1443.
3254.
1276.
561.
872.
425.
597.
703.
938.
1630.
381.
4840.
7270.
2033.
773.
908.
1135.
2196.
2391.
1043.
287.
24
Solids
Percent
removed
0.0
-56.4
-33.3
18.9
-4.3
-3.4
54.7
48.6
27,1
46.2
17.8
55.2
15.2
75.5
32.9
39.3
42.0
-22.7
-135.2
49.3
38.9
19.5
-50.fi
15.8
47.3
35.6
18.9
25
26
27
28
Ether Soluble
PPm
1315.
2024.
192.
2032.
490.
4602.
1192.
2555.
710.
265.
340.
220.
460.
605.
905.
1250.
410.
3270.
8650.
1550.
610. .
590.
1240.
1630.
1150.
820.
360.
lb
1506.
2447.
201.
2514.
559.
5020.
1433.
3332.
1054.
413.
478.
334.
617.
803.
1055.
1405.
306.
4810.
7531.
1887.
655.
686.
1154.
19?4.
1519.
930.
345.
Percent
removed
65.4
2.0
82.9
34.5
22.8
-42.7
58.3
42.7
2.0
55.0
44.2
63.3
-1.0
67.8
39.6
41.8
33.8
1.2
-137.6
65.0
29.0
36.5
32.2
16.4
60.3
46.7
7.6
ppm
2170".
4320.
440.
4800.
780.
4560.
2020.
3120.
1050.
320.
400.
260.
1080.
1970.
1160.
2960.
1530.
4400.
4880.
2160.
1370.
1110.
1940.
2960.
2400.
1900.
520.
29
BDD
lb
2TU3.
5224.
460.
5940.
889.
4974.
2429.
4069.
1558.
499.
563.
395.
1450.
2615.
1352.
3327.
1143.
6473.
4248.
2630.
1471.
1292.
1805.
3495.
3170.
2155.
498.
30
Percent
removed
5.9
-111.7
85.3
3.9
53.2
8.7
59.5
37.6
72.6
62.3
56.9
81.5
35.7
-4.7
-38.0
39.3
27.8
9.8
-6.5
6.8
38.8
29.7
49.4
-28.6
25.0
31.1
29.7
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
to
U)
SKIMMER UNIT EFFLUENT
la
21
22
23
Suspended
Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
61*
65
66
67
68
69
7ft
71
72
73
71*
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
JgH
Ttf
5.1
6.0
2.6
<*.!
8.8
8.8
5.7
6.1*
7.6
6.8
6.5
6.3
2.9
6.0
3.R
6.U
11.3
6.7
U.2
6.3
6.1*
6.8
8.1
6.3
6.1
6.3
PEP
660.
6UO.
21*50.
730.
1*660.
1380.
1000.
970.
610.
111*0.
660.
360.
190.
790.
2U60.
790.
1*10.
**300.
510.
71*0.
985.
2050.
2680.
81*00.
2050.
825.
3205.
Ib
736.
61*6.
2035.
776.
1*352.
1155.
llll*.
1016.
58U.
101*5.
701*.
589.
257.
1317.
381*1*.
1565.
6i*9.
5522.
592.
856.
8U.
2290.
3121*.
9737.
2598.
932.
3277.
24
Solids
Percent
removed
25.0
59.7
55.8
21.5
35.9
73. U
78.6
53.1
58.7
31.3
25.8
66.0
72.0
-11.2
85. 0
51.?
73.0
14.1.
61*. 5
89. h
55.8
63.5
6U.3
-61.5
32.0
68.5
-15.2
25
Ether
Ppm
620.
UUO.
2200.
860.
570.
1550.
1000.
1280.
560.
1310.
500.
280.
120.
si*o.
1*500.
570.
f*«*0.
45UO.
57U.
601*.
679.
1756.
2200.
6015.
1836.
791*.
2961.
26
27
28
Soluble
Ib
691.
**t*l*.
1827.
915.
532.
1297.
1111*.
13UO.
536.
1201.
533.
H58.
162.
900.
7033.
1129.
697.
5830.
66fi.
699.
561.
1962.
2565.
6972.
2327.
897.
3027.
Percent
removed
32.6
22.8
61.0
30.6
87.8
69.9
77.9
58.9
67.0
0.7
66.2
81*. K
68.1*
-58.8
6T.3
-1*2.5
70. R
20. h
50.5
91.1
72.3
67.2
67.5
-28.1*
39.6
67.1
19.2
PP*n
1860.
1720.
5120,
870.
2120.
2220.
2260.
18UO.
1010.
1560.
1310.
560.
620.
1120.
31*1*0.
1170.
670.
5000.
1320.
800.
1330.
3280.
3920.
l»800.
2960.
121*0.
1*320.
29
BOD
Ib
2075.
1738.
U252.
925.
1980.
1858.
2518.
1927.
967.
11*31.
1398.
917.
839.
1868.
5376.
2318.
982.
6U21.
1532.
9?6.
1100.
3665.
1*570.
556U.
3752.
11*02.
t* 1*17.
30
Percent
removed
-14.8
27.7
52.5
5i*. 2
67.«t
78.3
72.8
65.9
51*. 0
35.5
29.5
70.2
-31*. 7
21*. 8
31.2
PI. 5
82.3
0.0
-26.9
73.6
63.0
31.6
9.2
9.0
27.1*
t*2.8
-68.7
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
SKIMMER UNIT EFFLUENT
la
Run
No.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
lOfi
107
108
21
22
23
Suspended
_£H_
6.5
3.7
4.1
4.4
4.2
6.2
8.9
6.1
3.8
8.8
6.1*
7.2
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.R
6.6
8.1
4.4
6.1
7.6
5.9
6.7
8.4
6.4
6.5
5.7
PPrc
737.
725.
1775.
950.
230.
2510.
8530.
890.
620.
1770.
920.
1750.
4800.
15330.
910.
1250.
1180.
520.
1720.
200.
860.
3540.
1890.
3170.
2950.
1060.
2930.
Ib
906.
783.
1734.
1178.
230.
2679.
10087.
1128.
698.
2589.
1224.
1955.
6725.
20456.
1029.
1693.
1440.
502.
2100.
268.
1276.
4334.
1885.
3875.
3528.
1135.
3015.
24
Solids
Percent
removed
-63.7
6 5 . It
79.3
32.1
*4.P
3^.0
O.P
78.1
87. P
22.3
20.0
-18.2
-34.4
53.0
1*5.8
53.3
9.9
75.2
77.7
61.5
32.8
68. 4
48.7
37.8
-11.7
-15.?
4R.3
25
Ether
ppm
818.
723.
1689.
911.
150.
2260.
9inn. 1
870.
7*0.
16^0.
850.
2540.
3910.
2860.
730.
1120.
970.
1^5.
1U57.
302.
2310.
3233.
1957.
2955.
2563.
1101.
3197.
26
27
28
Soluble
Ib
1005.
781.
1650.
1130.
150.
2M?.
0868.
1102.
PUH.
2'!!8U.
1131.
2838.
5U78.
3816.
825.
1516.
118U.
429.
1778.
406.
3429.
3933.
1952.
3612.
3065.
1179.
^290.
Percent
removed
36.1
73.8
82.0
27. P
87. P
44. P
-26.?
P0.7
K*;.?
^2.9
34.6
47.9
-65.6
-28.2
59.4
53.1
54. P
65.1
68.4
57.5
-61.7
78.4
49.4
83.2
-18.0
45.1
40.5
ppm
1030.
1740.
2570.
1700.
260.
?060.
*?80.
1720.
880.
2440.
1440.
2880.
5000.
5000.
2140.
1680.
1640.
800.
1540.
240.
4960.
5000.
5500.
5000.
5000.
2000.
5000.
29
BOO
Ib
1266.
1340.
2512.
2109.
260.
2199.
6244.
2180.
990.
3569.
1916.
3218.
7005.
6671.
2420.
2275.
2002.
772.
1880.
322.
7363.
6121.
4987.
6113.
5979.
2141.
5145.
30
Percent
removed
52.3
74.1
73.2
26.7
82.4
C3.1
-4.7
67.4
27.8
21.7
-60.0
33.3
-141.5
0.0
51.3
41.6
-54.7
67.7
63.6
45.4
-23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
-41.2
21.8
47.9
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
to
en
SKIMMER UNIT EFFLUENT
la
Run
No.
109
110
111
112
113
11'*
115
116
i* A **
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
12't
125
126
127
12"
129
130
131
132
133
Jk ff ff
13'*
X .* *r
135
21
22
23
Suspended
PH
INI*
6.9
5.5
6.1
6.9
6.3
6.9
8. 6
8.8
9.U
9.9
R.7
6.0
8.9
7.8
8.6
6.1*
6.P
5.9
3. 1
lo.i.
10.3
10.1*
3.5
2.7
6.1
V> * J*
6.3
ppm
110.
1000.
850.
19000.
1020.
5880.
23600.
850.
2760.
1*550.
850.
1800.
850.
1610.
260.
2610.
2150.
1070.
1360.
1005.
1260.
1030.
2760.
520.
1570.
715.
1375.
Ib
13H
1327
836
139UU
1332
6012
20272
825
21*85
3567
850
1681
680
1530
219
1763
1900
171*3
2157
1287
1513
1?3R
351* U
R95
18HO
995
2210
24
Solids
Percent
removed
97. T
-8.6
72. 0
. -102.8
16.7
66. 1*
. -212.5
61.1
65.2
-78. U
8.R
77.7
5U.7
8.0
76.5
-25.7
-2.3
U9.n
77.1
75. P
2^.8
62.7
R7.3
79.1
10.2
82.0
6 . It
25
26
27
28
Ether Soluble
Ppm
31*5.
1027.
1310.
11*620.
1000.
1*910.
21360.
9'*0.
2310.
1*070.
930.
U90.
710.
2070.
230.
2850.
nun.
360.
650.
F30.
^ItO.
580.
l«»un.
270.
900.
670.
1190.
Ib
U22.
1363.
1289.
10729.
1306.
5020.
1831*8.
912.
2080.
3190.
930.
1391.
568.
1968.
19 U.
1925.
1007.
586.
1031.
678.
61*8.
696.
181(9.
361.
10^5.
9^3.
1953.
Percent
removed
90.8
2.2
57.7
-11. R
28.0
65.3
-229.1
70.8
70.2
-30.0
3U.O
81.9
53.2
l*.R
76.7
-18.?
H9.5
56. R
83.5
78.5
55.3
36.9
13.2
85.3
73.9
87.0
50.1*
ppm
730.
2020.
780.
5000.
1880.
5000.
5000.
1360.
3600.
5000.
171*0.
1*000.
1760.
1*320.
620.
1760.
1970.
1700.
31*1*0.
1370.
I960.
1UO.
1900.
1220.
^8/*0.
1600.
2380.
29
BOD
Ib
893.
2682.
767.
3669.
21*55.
5112.
f*295.
1320.
32U2.
3919.
17U1.
3736.
1U09.
1*107.
523.
1188.
1697.
2770.
5U56.
1755.
7353.
1369.
21*1*0.
1632.
'*502.
2228.
3826.
30
Percent
removed
85. U
-21.6
1% "9 I
87. I*
50.0
30.8
0/»
. 0
-20.1
6. 8
28.0
-2.3.7
23.6
20.0
U2.1
0.0
68. 6
2U.7
t*7.8
-8.9
31.2
65.7
-1.0
21.3
-7.9
68 . 8
-26.3
55.5
17.3
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
la
21
22
23
"Suspended
Run
No.
lW
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
"67??
6.7
9.3
6.8
5.7
7.3
9.5
2.4
9.2
5.9
6.7
0.0
0.0
6.6
7.6
5.9
6.2
6.2
5.8
7.7
6.5
6.0
6.7
4.4
6.8
7.8
6.5
dSS.
228o!
4450.
1*330.
125.
4360.
745.
840.
915.
350.
470.
0.
0.
610.
550.
1920.
300.
550.
3400.
4230.
2300.
800.
1000.
2490.
6000.
3660.
1110.
Ib
43Ti.
3765.
6680.
5662.
167.
7017.
1043.
1158.
1570.
618.
807.
0.
0.
1014.
1066.
3253.
454.
987.
5614.
6582.
4711.
1321.
1592.
2961.
9547.
7179.
1333.
SKIMMER
24
Solids
Percent
removed
25.2
39.2
-56.fi
-PS. 3
94.5
-91.fi
54.4
73.0
84.9
75.3
53.9
100.0
100.0
45.0
38.8
-92.0
61.0
50.0
24.4
50.0
81.1
69.5
41.5
42.7
30.4
-10.5
58.1
UNIT EFFLUENT
25
Ether
5$TC.
2430!
4740.
1530.
200.
3750.
730.
830.
1250.
230.
500.
0.
0.
880.
450.
2030.
250.
710.
3140.
4080.
2340.
1700.
1290.
2190.
5900.
3260.
1160.
26
27
28
Soluble
Ib
5"OT4.
4012.
7115.
2000.
267.
6036.
1022.
n44.
2145.
40P.
859.
0.
0.
1463.
872.
3440.
378.
1274.
5185.
6349.
4793.
2807.
2054.
2604.
9388.
6394.
1393.
Percent
removed
12. 1
36.0
-48.5
^7.?
93.R
-3K.3
59.4
6T.O
71. P
R1.8
4^.8
100,0
100.0
66. n
52.6
-113.fi
47.9
40.8
35.6
47.8
82.6
61.1
12.8
70.6
13.9
8.1
44.4
5$m.
3500!
49fiO.
4310.
2070.
5000.
2070.
inno.
ison.
580.
I4on.
0.
0.
970.
600.
4880.
420.
1070.
5000.
7200.
5000.
2100.
780.
4480.
820.
6960.
1730.
29
BOD
Ib
5TT?4.
5779.
7445.
5636.
2765.
8048.
2900.
1379.
3089.
1025.
2405.
0.
0.
1613.
1163.
8270.
636.
1920.
8256.
11204.
10241.
3467.
1242.
5327.
1304.
13652.
2077.
30
Percent
removed
u.u
18.9
-111.9
-5.6
14.4
-5.9
42.5
67.9
14.2
84.6
37.5
100.0
100.0
64.8
62.0
-203.1
40.0
48.0
0.0
27.9
50.0
56.2
-224.9
-73.6
68.2
-11.5
-18.4
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
SKIMMER UNIT EFFLUENT
la
Run
No.
163
161*
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
171*
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
181*
21
22
23
Suspended
pH
8.7
7.6
5.5
6.5
3.5
6.0
6.5
10.1*
5.6
6.1*
l*.0
'*.5
6.1*
5.9
5.9
8.1*
2.6
6.6
11.5
6.2
6.5
6.1
PPM
1*580.
1720.
1790.
620.
1260.
1930.
1170.
3550.
1911.
1703.
1*722.
1182.
1752.
1085.
2179.
1226.
2070.
2275.
801*.
31*30.
'*5-7-l*.
890.
Ib
"^W*
5UT6.
2553.
182U.
81*8.
1609.
2121.
926.
3890.
23U2.
1675.
5253.
1115.
2732.
1838.
3376.
2111*.
2762.
2367.
826.
31*95.
5561.
1009.
24
Solids
Percent
removed
- 1 0 0 . R
13.1
29.8
75.8
57.5
76.2
70.9
-31*. 9
11*. 8
21*. 6
-1*7.7
33.2
-125.1
65.5
21*. 9
29.9
61*. 0
-68.?
22.9
36.1*
13.'*
60. T
25
Ether
ppro
I*h2 0 .
1700.
1330.
680.
1260.
11*1*0.
1300.
3700.
1569.
11*73.
1*1*26.
1011.
1759.
972.
2156.
1158.
1897.
1890.
R5P.
3160.
3982.
955.
26
27
28
Soluble
Ib
5TTT5.
2523.
1355.
930.
1609.
1582.
1029.
1*051*.
1923.
11*1*9.
1*921*.
951*.
271*3.
161*7.
331*0.
1997.
2531.
1967.
667.
3220.
U81*?.
1083.
Percent
removed
- .1 1 1 . X
15.8
51*. 9
1*9.6
62.2
85.7
63.5
-7.5
5H. 9
50.2
-58.5
61.8
-117.1*
67.9
23.1*
19.7
66.fi
61*. R
60.5
51.7
32.0
69.1
PPn
7Tfl*TT.
3360.
3200.
1330.
21*20.
3200.
1810.
5000.
2880.
261*0.
5000.
211*0.
5000.
1900.
381*0.
2130.
1*21*0.
1*560.
1610.
7360.
2020.
1680.
29
BOD
Ib
8775.
1*987.
3261.
1819.
3092.
3517.
11*31*.
51*79.
3530.
2598.
5562.
2020.
7797.
3219.
5950.
3673.
5657.
1*71*6.
1651*.
7500.
21*56.
1905.
30
Percent
removed
29.5
12.5
13.0
7.6
68.1*
68.0
31.1*
0.0
-100.0
-18.9
0.0
21.8
-237.8
57.2
23.2
26.8
57.6
51*. t*
51*. 2
26. 1*
79.8
61.8
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
ro
oo
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
la
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
31
32
33
Suspended
pH
3.1
5.4
5.2
3.0
4. 3
3.2
7.0
4.P
4.2
4.3
4.8
3.3
4.4
4.8
5.5
5.3
6.7
4.5
5.3
4.8
8.3
8.1
6.3
4.3
4.0
4.1
5.7
ppjn
300.
600.
310.
210.
400.
20.
220.
100.
30.
90.
180.
50.
2230.
90.
1380.
500.
872.
1284.
387.
486.
870.
2720.
473.
180.
200.
850.
900.
Ib
327.
739.
319.
243.
315.
19.
226.
93.
29.
72.
93.
48.
1949.
73.
1307.
568.
785.
1507.
428.
685.
1477.
4405.
677.
302.
180.
1016.
894.
34
Solids
Percent
removed
63.8
-27.6
72.0
58.0
55.5
95. P
88. 7
-66. R
87.5
76. 3
-1699.9
89.1
-27.5
-57.5
97.3
83.5
90.3
97.1
87.7
83.4
53.2
-41.6
-46.4
78.9
88.0
92.2
85.8
35
36
37
38
Ether Solubles
PPm
320.
590.
790.
210.
400.
90.
210.
90.
40.
40.
170.
50.
2370.
60.
990.
300.
670.
460.
380.
390.
790.
2650.
660.
130.
160.
1680.
770.
Ib
349.
727.
298.
243.
315.
89.
215.
84.
39.
37.
67.
48.
2077.
49.
937.
341.
603.
540.
420.
550.
1341.
4292.
945.
218.
144.
2009.
765.
Percent
removed
64.0
-18.0
74.1
59. P
56.0
89. q
87.1
18.1
78.9
84.0
-140.0
81.4
-54.6
o.o
98. R
98.0
98.3
99.1
95.2
90.5
52.4
12.5
-100. n
84.1
92.0
88.7
86.9
ppm
85U.
1360.
700.
520.
790.
200.
520.
180.
170.
140.
200.
80.
^600.
180.
5000.
5040.
1000.
7380.
1330.
1230.
1150.
3760.
1030.
280.
280.
1170.
1360.
39
BOD
Ib
977.
1676.
721.
603.
673.
198.
534.
168.
117.
113.
103.
76.
3146.
147.
4737.
5733.
900.
2794.
1473.
1735.
1952.
6089.
1475.
471.
252.
1399.
1352.
40
Percent
removed
66.7
-65.8
57.3
40.9
12.2
80.0
86.1
40.0
68.4
75.8
-233.3
59.9
2.7
-200.0
0.0
-0.8
80.0
52.4
44.5
69.8
54.7
-14.6
-98.0
70.2
89.7
78.1
76.0
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
la
31
32
33
Suspended
Run
NO.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
pH
5.3
3.8
4.6
4.5
5.3
6.3
3.7
4.5
2.6
6.7
6.8
3.6
7.9
4.7
3.7
4.8
6.4
6.5
11.3
6.3
7.4
4.3
4.4
6.3
5.R
5.1
5.2
ppm
600 .
410.
180.
1510.
260.
620.
150.
590.
855.
380.
110.
190.
195.
40.
105.
400.
130.
1280.
1070.
300.
380.
130.
250.
770.
300.
140.
210.
Ib
6F7.
495.
188.
18R8.
296.
676.
180.
769.
1269.
592.
154.
288.
261.
53.
122.
449.
97.
1883.
931.
365.
408.
151.
232.
909.
396.
158.
201.
34
Solids
Percent
removed
53. 8
75.7
-12.4
27.7
45.8
81.3
87.5
76.3
0.5
-5.5
82.2
32.1
56.1
92.4
86.9
72.4
74.5
61.0
87.1
82.0
47.2
83.3
79.5
58. R
83.4
84.7
30.0
35
36
37
38
Ether Solubles
PPm
3TT.
232.
83.
1856.
143.
432.
124.
470.
735.
255.
50.
170.
245.
30.
195.
220.
170.
970.
2320.
130.
140.
70.
140.
370.
120.
40.
140.
Ib
4TT.
280.
86.
2297.
163.
471.
149.
613.
1091.
397.
70.
258.
328.
39.
227.
247.
127.
1427.
2020.
158.
150.
81.
130.
436.
158.
45.
134.
Percent
removed
72 . ^
88.5
56.7
8.B
70.8
90. P
89.5
81. R
-3.5
3.7
85.2
22.7
46.7
95.0
78.4
82.4
58.5
70.3
73.1
91.fi
77.0
88.1
88.7
77.3
89.5
95.1
61.1
Ppm
660.
630.
230.
3120.
320.
1130.
720.
1020.
1670.
580.
140.
320.
460.
140.
220.
1170.
1430.
2800.
4880.
500.
420.
100.
400.
1840.
340.
220.
280.
39
BOD
Ib
7^6".
761.
240.
3861.
365.
1232.
865.
1330.
2479.
904.
197.
486.
617.
185.
256.
1315.
1068.
4119.
4248.
608.
451.
116.
372.
2172.
449.
249.
268.
40
Percent
removed
70.2
85.4
47.7
35.0
58.9
75.2
64.3
67.3
-59.0
-81.2
65.0
-23.0
57.4
92.8
81.0
60.4
6.5
36.3
0.0
76.8
69.3
90.9
79.3
37.8
85.8
88.4
46.1
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
w
o
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
la
Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6t*
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7k
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
31
32
33
Suspended
J&L
5.5
3.3
2.5
2.6
2..R
s.n
7.1
3.7
«*.5
2.8
'*.8
i*.'»
5.U
2.7
U.I
3.6
5.8
7.1
R.I
3.U
6.1
5.9
6.6
6.0
6.6
6.6
5.7
PPP>
360.
110.
U70.
1*20.
200.
350.
620.
110.
50.
250.
550.
270.
HO.
11*0.
250.
310.
350.
1270.
21*5.
320.
1230.
1380.
770.
350.
1000.
1560.
225.
Ib
1*01.
111.
1221.
1*1*6.
186.
293.
690.
115.
'*7.
229.
587.
l*'*2.
51*.
233.
39n.
fill*.
551*.
1631.
281*.
370.
1017.
15U2.
897.
't05.
1267.
176»*.
230.
34
Solids
fercent
removed
tfS.i*
82.8
l»0.0
U2.1*
95.7
71*. 6
38.0
88. F
91.8
78.0
16.fi
25.0
78.9
82.2
S9. 8
60.7
iu.R
70. U
51.9
56.7
-2U.8
32. P
71.2
95.8
51.2
-89.0
92.9
35
36
37
38
Ether Solubles
PPm
230.
80.
1820.
510.
250.
610.
1*50.
150.
80.
280.
330.
10.
20.
110.
310.
200.
2UO.
1200.
165.
260.
1317.
1252.
581.
, 20H.
681.
1287.
12.
Ib
256.
80.
1511.
5U2.
233.
510.
501.
157.
76.
256.
352.
16.
?7.
183.
U8U.
39F.
380.
15U1.
191.
300.
1089.
1399.
677.
236.
863.
1U55.
12.
jeercenc
removed
62.9
81.8
17.2
l;0.6
56.1
60. fi
55.0
88.2
85.7
78.6
3U.O
96. U
»3.3
79. P
93.1
6U.9
H5.U
73.5
71.2
56.9
-93.9
28.7
73.5
96.6
62.9
-62.0
99.5
PPm
730.
380.
UOOO.
960.
520.
340.
900.
160.
11*0.
620.
860.
60.
300.
300.
U90.
U20.
3^0.
3280.
l*l»0.
1*30.
301*0.
2880.
1200.
670.
11*00.
2380.
200.
39
BOD
Ib
81U.
38U.
3322.
1021.
1*85.
281*.
1002.
167.
13U.
568.
918.
98.
U06.
500.
765.
832.
538.
1*212.
510.
1*97.
2515.
3218.
1399.
776.
1771*.
2691.
20U.
40
percent:
removed
60.7
77.9
21.8
-10.3
75.1*
81*. 6
60.1
91.3
86.1
60.2
3U. 3
89.2
51. P
73.2
85.7
61*. 1
U5.1
3U. 3
66.6
1*6.2
-128.5
12.1
69.3
86.0
52.7
-91.9
95.3
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
la
31
32
33
Suspended
Run
No.
82
83
84
«5
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
pH
6.8
3.8
3.3
4.1
3.9
4.3
6.9
5.4
3.4
5.0
3.4
3.R
6.1
5.8
5.1
5.8
5.9
8.6
2.9
6.3
4.9
3.8
5.9
6.1
3.5
4.8
5.8
PPM
440.
360.
560.
400.
210.
190.
1130.
580.
320.
390.
400.
550.
230.
680.
250.
400.
180.
1100.
450.
180.
370.
150.
860.
1650.
6368.
500.
450.
Ib
540.
389.
547.
49 R.
210.
202.
1336.
735.
360.
570.
532.
614.
322.
907.
282.
541.
219.
1062.
549.
241.
549.
183.
857.
2017.
7615.
535.
463.
34
Solids
Percent
removed
40.?
50.3
R8.4
^7.8
8.R
92.4
86.7
34.8
48.3
77.9
56.5
68.5
95.2
95.5
72.5
68.0
84.7
-111.5
73.8
10.0
56.9
95.7
54.4
47.9
-115.8
52.8
84. R
35
36
37
38
Ether Solubles
PPM
501.
301.
440.
323.
90.
120.
1880.
470.
370.
260.
350.
440.
240.
700.
80.
350.
230.
1042.
346.
229.
202.
92.
888.
1209.
4R3.
323.
452.
Ib
615.
325.
430.
400.
90.
128.
2223.
595.
416.
380.
4fi5.
491.
336.
934.
90.
474.
280.
1006.
422.
307.
299.
112.
885.
1478.
553.
345.
465.
Percent
removed
38.7
58.3
73. fl
64.5
40.0
94.fi
79. 5
45.9
50. R
84.0
58.8
82.fi
93.8
75.5
89.0
68.7
76.2
-134.1
76.2
24.1
91.2
97.1
54.6
59.0
81.9
70. R
85.8
Ppm
850.
1120.
1?80.
9?0.
140.
320.
1220.
810.
520.
400.
770.
900.
400.
1840.
180.
540.
380.
2100.
580.
380.
730.
240.
1320.
2800.
480.
730.
1080.
39
BOD
Ib
1044.
1210.
1251.
1141.
140.
341.
1442.
1026.
585.
585.
1024.
1005.
560.
2455.
203.
731.
463.
2028.
708.
510.
1083.
293.
1316.
3423.
574.
781.
1111.
40
Percent
removed
17.4
9.6
50.1
45.8
46.1
84.4
76.8
52.9
40.9
83.6
46.5
68.7
92.0
63.2
91.5
67.8
76.8
-162.4
62.3
-58.3
85.2
95.2
73.6
44.0
90.4
63.5
78.4
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
N>
la
Run
No.
itro-
110
111
112
113
114
116
117
118
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
31
32
33
Suspended
pH
J O
4.1
3.7
4.4
5.7
9.9
6.8
7.3
6.7
3.3
7.F
6.7
6.1
6.F
7.3
7.7
5.8
6.2
5.7
3.4
5.7
7.8
4.8
4.2
2.8
5.4
6.3
ppm
7W.
150.
570.
210.
316.
425.
265.
550.
405.
165.
210.
870.
405.
360.
200.
200.
640.
740.
1350.
600.
490.
680.
700.
340.
885.
250.
140.
Ib
3T8".
199.
560.
154.
412.
434.
227.
533.
364.
129.
210.
817.
324.
342.
168.
135.
56«^.
1205.
2141.
7F8.
588.
816.
899.
454.
1037.
348.
225.
34
Solids
Percent
removed
-136.3
85.0
32.9
98.8
69.0
92.7
98.8
35.7
85.3
96.3
75.2
51. F
52.^
77. F
2^.0
92.3
70.7
^n. P
n.7
40.7
61.1
33.0
74. R
34. F
43.6
65.0
89.8
35
Ether
ppm
59.
161.
610.
200.
220.
250.
300.
410.
280.
240.
200.
540.
310.
350.
200.
140.
690.
7in.
1330. 2
530.
230.
290.
590.
200.
550.
210.
100.
36
37
38
Solubles
Ib
T2~.
213.
600.
146.
287.
255.
257.
398.
252.
188.
200.
^04.
748.
337.
168.
94.
Ron.
347.
109.
678.
27F.
348.
757.
267.
644.
292.
160.
Percent
removed
82.8
84.3
53.4
98. R
78.0
94.9
98.5
56.3
87.8
94.1
78.4
63.7
"6.3
f?3. ft
13. ft
9^. ft
^9. 4
M.F
-104. F
O.ft
57.4
50. n
59.0
25.9
38.8
6 8 . P
91.5
PPM
180.
340.
400.
360.
300.
1020.
520.
1000.
520.
440.
500.
2000.
470.
470.
440.
too.
760.
-------
la
U)
Ul
lf*3
1UB
1U8
150
151
152
153
15U
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
31
32
33
Suspended
34
Solids
35
Ether
36
37
38
Solubles
Percent
_£L
5.5
H.3
T . '
6. 6
6.3
3.8
6.7
5.8
2.7
5.3
5.5
3.9
mS * f
0. 0
0.0
5.9
6.3
vv 9 ..*
U.5
U 6
H- « t t
5.5
** »»
6|t
r
5.9
' *
H 7
T '
'f'. 9
6. 8
U.R
Ppm
550.
19 0*.
160.
no!
105.
165.
275.
380.
130.
0.
0.
luo!
390.
160.
310.
90.
360.
1080.
120.
200.
70.
890.
290.
50.
Ib
555
206
285
20"
187
177
1 \\ 7
227
'(72
671
2.23
n
0
698
271
660
2U2
556
1H8
560
2212
198
318
83
l/»lfi
568
60
removed ppm
88.
qq|
96.
-12.
97.
8^
* '
' ' ' '
69.
-8.
72.
100.
100.
31.
71*.
79.
H6 .
H3i
97.
91.
53.
85.
80.
97.
85.
92.
O C
-' ' *
5
t;
7
7
0
ft
Q
T;
0
5
3
n
n
1
t;
6
R
F
3
U
0
0
0
1
1
0
h
'4 50.
130.
160.
220.
360.
1080. 1
80.
200.
190.
110.
90.
0.
o.
360.
110.
290.
50.
130.
2.0.
360.
UUO.
150.
210.
30.
180.
2'iO.
90.
Ib
U 5 U .
21 ft.
2UO.
287.
r'.80.
7^8.
112.
275.
326.
19 fi.
15U.
0.
0.
598.
213.
U91.
75.
233.
33.
560.
901.
2U7.
33U.
35.
286.
H70.
108.
39
BOD
Percent
removed ppm
91.
9U.
96.
8^.
-79.
71.
99.
7t;.
8ft .
52.
82.
100.
100.
59.
75.
85.
80.
81.
99.
91.
81.
91.
83.
98.
96.
92.
92.
0
P
P
F
Q
2
0
0
8
1
0
n
0
0
5
7
0
F
3
1
1
1
7
R
0
F
2
1*00.
200.
2'iO.
5UO.
uun.
^80.
220.
200.
«on.
220.
180.
0.
0.
870.
120.
360.
120.
280.
120.
850.
1050.
180.
520.
300.
11*0.
f*20.
1UO.
Ib
f*OU.
330.
^60.
706.
587.
Rll.
308.
275.
1373.
388.
309.
0.
0.
1UU6.
232.
610.
181.
502.
198.
1322.
2150.
297.-
828.
356.
222.
823.
168,
40
Percent
removed
92.0
9U.2
95.1
5 7. ft
78.7
92. f*
89.3
^0.0
55.5
£2.0
87.1
100.0
100.0
10.3
PO.O
92.6
71.1*
73. 8
97.6
88.1
79.0
91. U
33.3
93.3
82.9
93.9
91.9
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
AIR FLOTATION UNIT
la
31
32
33
Suspended
Run
No.
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
34
Solids
35
Ether
36
37
38
Solubles
Percent
4.8
4.7
3.9
4.9
3.8
4.5
4.2
6.4
5.2
5.6
3.3
3.4
6.3
4.7
4.0
7.6
2.5
3.3
4.0
5.7
6.5
4.0
ppm
100.
310.
110.
40.
250.
1300.
660.
300.
221.
208.
492.
343.
493.
378.
125.
428.
670.
516.
102.
233.
683.
243.
Ib
118.
460.
112.
54.
319.
1428.
522.
328.
270.
204.
547.
323.
768.
640.
193.
738.
P9'< .
537*.
104.
237.
830.
275.
removed
97.
81.
93.
93.
80.
32.
43.
91.
88.
87.
P9.
70.
71.
65.
94.
6^.
67.
77.
87.
93.
85.
72.
8
9
8
5
1
P
5
5
4
7
«;
9
8
1
2
n
F
3
3
?
0
P
PPm
170.
280.
140.
30.
370.
210.
500.
220.
120.
197.
459.
323.
394.
422.
134.
295.
664.
350.
64.
146.
381.
222.
Ib
201.
415.
142.
4 1 .
472.
230.
396.
241.
147.
193.
510.
304.
614.
715.
207.
508.
886.
364.
65.
148.
463.
2?1.
Percent
removed
96.2
83.5
89.4
95.5
70.6
85.4
61.5
94.0
92.3
86.6
89.6
68.0
77.6
56.5
93.7
74.5
64.9
81.4
90.1
95.3
90.4
76.7
240.
680.
560.
100.
540.
520.
1130.
600.
220.
340.
1300.
740.
940.
670.
340.
380.
1120.
770.
200.
960.
1600.
240.
39
BOD
Ib
283.
1009.
570.
136.
689.
571.
895.
657.
269.
334.
1446.
698.
1466.
1135.
526.
655.
1494.
801.
205.
978.
1945.
272.
40
Percent
removed
96.5
79.7
82.5
92.4
77.6
83.7
37.5
88.0
92.3
87.1
74.0
65.4
81.2
64.7
91.1
82.1
73.5
83.1
87.5
86.9
20.7
85.7
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
TABLE 24 (Continued)
AIR FLOTATION UNIT EFFLUENT
VI
la
Run
No.
1
2
3
1^
5
6
7
p
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2'*
25
26
27
41
Turbidity
JTU
270.
f*70.
190.
150.
290.
110.
220.
PO.
60.
90.
100.
60.
100.
80.
700.
120.
560.
290.
200.
1300.
770.
1600.
850.
150.
120.
580.
5'*0.
42
Oxygen
ppm
7
9
10
9
7
7
9
9
8
in
10
10
9
R
9
9
12
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
9
43
Temp
oF
1'* '»
106
108
111
110
111
111
108
inn
10?
105
107
103
97
108"
110
110
112
110
10'*
100
110
98
mo
105
120
116
AIR FLOTATION
la
Run
No.
2T~
29
30
31
32
33
31*
35
36
37
38
39
HO
M
«*2
1*3
U'*
'(5
'*6
'*7
l»8
U9
50
51
5?.
^3
5U
41
Turbidity
JTU
POO.
250.
110.
820.
230.
830.
120.
650.
350.
300.
130.
180.
260.
50.
100.
750.
180.
lino.
1600.
280.
220.
90.
?30.
1000.
300.
120.
160.
UNIT EFFLUENT
42
Oxygen
ppm
7
10
11
10
10
10
9
8
11
10
9
10
9
9
9
10
3
2
1
3
10
7
11
10
*
e;
fi
43
Temp
op
11*
111*
111
lOfi
106
105
101
110
102
105
101
100
103
105
102
111
103
115
11'*
107
105
10U
102
107
llfi
107
113
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
TABLE 24 (Continued)
to
AIR FLOTATION
la
Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
41
Turbidity
JTU
260.
110.
670.
250.
120.
300.
450.
55.
65.
190.
350.
20.
20.
85.
130.
150.
230.
1700.
260.
130.
1230.
1900.
530.
170.
420.
1100.
90.
UNIT EFFLUENT
42
Oxygen
ppm
6
5
10
10
10
10
18
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
in
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
43
Temp
op
106
100
106
108
108
110
107
109
113
111
107
109
113
105
115
108
111
109
107
113
111
109
110
111
110
109
111
AIR FLOTATION
la
Run
No.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
P9
90
91
92
93
9 4
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
41
Turbidity
JTU
450.
210.
200.
170.
400.
240.
580.
430.
120.
310.
280.
350.
150.
180.
70.
320.
150.
290.
170.
160.
470.
110.
630.
440.
270.
420.
340.
UNIT EFFLUENT
42
Oxygen
ppm
10
R
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
in
10
10
10
10
6
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
43
Temp
OF
110
112
115
110
111
118
102
110
112
110
109
112
110
112
114
111
118
113
113
105
106
109
122
116
118
117
112
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
TABLE 24 (Continued)
CO
AIR FLOTATION
la
Run
No.
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
41
Turbidity
JTU
110.
180.
240.
120.
230.
250.
1000.
530.
200.
2300.
290.
1000.
170.
1500.
290.
110.
530.
400.
530.
270.
490.
460.
590.
230.
630.
220.
130.
UNIT EFFLUENT
42
Oxygen
ppm
10
10
10
10
10,
8
10
3
9
in
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
n
8
10
10
10
5
7
43
Temp
°F
TTT~
110
117
116
113
114
122
118
114
121
118
115
127
1.21
123
122
1?4
114
112
110
106
115
115
106
115
107
102
AIR FLOTATION
la
Run
No.
136
137
138
139
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
1M
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
1,62
41
Turbidity
JTU
420.
100.
180.
120.
210.
90.
75.
80.
160.
100.
80.
0.
0.
390.
90.
150.
85.
100.
45.
350.
500.
110.
280.
65.
55.
210.
45.
UNIT EFFLUENT
42
Oxygen
ppm
3
5
10
ft.
10
10
11
10
4
=;
/t
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
43
Temp
oF
ill
113
IOF
99
102
105
10F
107
94
97
99
0
0
110
100
107
102
101
106
112
114
inq
106
113
113
lOfi
108
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
00
AIR FLOTATION
la
Run
NO.
163
16U
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
17U
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
181*
41
Turbidity
JTU
80.
20.
100.
80.
150.
150.
320.
180.
200.
270.
190.
220.
1*50,
U60.
UO.
420.
3UO.
230.
70.
200.
620.
180.
UNIT EFFLUENT
42
Oxygen
ppm
0
n
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
Temp
oF
118
111*
116
111*
118
121
127
123
117
117
113
118
105
99
100
103
10R
117
112
113
m
115
-------
APPENDIX D
OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM DATA
TABLE 25
OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM OPERATING DATA
Date Date
Run Skims Polymer Cent.
No. Collected Used Run
6/10 400.00 6/12
2 6/11 400.00 6/17
3 6/15 400.00 6/18
4 6/21 400.00 6/24
5 6/21 400.00 6/24
6 6/24 400.25 6/25
7 6/25 250.00 6/29
8 6/29 250.00 7/10
10 7/3 20.00 8/3
11 8/4 670.00 8/5
12 8/5 670.00 8/6
13 8/6 670.00 8/7
14 8/10 250^00 8/11
15 8/11 250.40 8/12
16 8/12 400.00 8/13
17 8/17 400.00 8/18
18 8/20 20.00 8/21
19 8/21 20.00 8/24
20 8/24 400.00 8/25
21 8/25 400.00 8/26
22 9/3 670.00 9/4
23 9/4 670.00 9/8
24 9/10 670.00 9/11
25 9/11 670.00 9/14
26 9/15 20.00 9/16
27 9/18 20.00 9/21
28 9/21 250.00 9/22
29 9/22 250.00 9/23
30 9/23 250.00 9/24
31 9/24 250.00 9/25
32 9/28 400.00 9/29
33 9/29 400.00 9/30
34 10/1 400.00 10/2
139
-------
TABLE 25 (Continued)
DELAVAL MACHINE DATA
Operating Water On Feed
Run Ring Dam Cycle
No. No. psi °F sec.
2 116 20 148 90
3 116 20 162 90
4 116 20 155 90
5 116 20 167 90
6 116 20 155 60
7 116 20 157 90
8 116 20 160 90
10 116 20 155 50
11 116 22 150 60
12 116 22 150 45
13 116 22 150 45
14 116 22 152 45
15 116 22 155 45
16 116 22 152 45
17 116 22 149 45
18 116 22 150 45
19 116 22 152 45
20 116 22 150 45
21 116 22 150 45
22 116 22 148 45
23 114 26 150 45
24 114 27 150 45
25 114 27 150 45
26 114 27 150 45
27 114 27 148 45
28 114 27 147 45
29 114 26 146 45
30 114 26 156 45
31 114 26 140 45
32 114 26 140 45
33 114 26 140 45
34 114 26 150 45
140
-------
TABLE 25 (Continued)
SKIMMINGS TREATMENT FEED TO CYCLONE OR DELAVAL
Run
No.
~~T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Skimmings
gal.
2644
4553
5777
5973
0
4700
6022
4700
0
4700
3231
5679
4700
2840
6316
4798
5679
5337
5679
5679
5288
0
5288
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50%
NaOH
Ib
24T~
285
351
373
0
0
439
570
0
636
285
483
439
373
0
0
527
636
549
724
724
0
724
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66°Be
H2SO4
Ib
237
434
290
395
0
0
500
605
0
842
526
526
842
290
0
605
474
500
342
395
869
0
790
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pres.
psi
34
36
37
37
34
40
0
35
0
25
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
0
39
38
38
38
40
38
40
40
38
40
0
40
40
Temp
«F
~T7o
170
188
180
174
180
180
180
180
184
180
180
180
182
182
182
182
180
164
160
165
150
179
178
182
182
160
164
166
166
0
155
170
Ib/
cycle
170.00
206.00
206.75
211.50
234.20
152.30
203.70
204.00
0.00
152.50
114.50
122.80
113.50
115.50
117.00
115.00
118.00
118.50
105.50
94.00
106.50
0.00
122.00
120.00
114.00
111.00
111.50
108.00
112.50
114.00
0.00
116.00
114.50
Ib/
min
136.00
117.71
118.14
120.85
133.82
121.84
116.40
116.57
0.00
122.00
114.50
122.80
113.50
115.50
117.00
115.00
118.00
118.50
105.50
94.00
106.50
0.00
122.00
120.00
114.00
111.00
111.50
108.00
112.50
114.00
0.00
116.00
114.50
141
-------
TABLE 25 (Continued)
.OIL PHASE WATER PHASE
Back Pressure
Run
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Temp
op
ff
162
188
162
162
167
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$''1 -
o^.o
lb/
cycle
37.50
43.50
61.50
63.00
74.50
13.50
40.00
29.00
40.00
43.50
39.00
25.00
37.00
33.00
35.00
33.00
35.00
46.50
25.00
25.00
20.00
0.00
35.00
36.00
29.00
36.00
38.00
28.00
22.00
30.00
0.00
24.00
^17. 00
lb/
cycle
30.00
24.85
35.14
36.00
42.57
10.80
22.85
16.57
36.92
34.80
39.00
25.00
37.00
33.00
35.00
33.00
35.00
46.50
25.00
25.00
20.00
0.00
35.00
36.00
29.00
36.00
38.00
28.00
22.00
30.00
0.00
24.00
17.00
Air
psi
-------
TABLE 25 (Continued)
CYCLONE SLUDGE DELAVAL SLUDGE TOTAL SLUDGE
Run
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
lb/
cycle
17.00
24.50
26.25
25.00
28.00
18.50
30.00
29.00
15.00
19.50
0.00
15.00
15.00
15.50
14.00
14.00
15.50
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.50
0.00
15.00
15.50
15.00
15.50
14.00
17.50
15.00
15.00
Not
15.00
15.00
lb/
min
13760
14.00
15.00
14.28
16.00
14.80
17.14
16.57
13.84
15.60
0.00
15.00
15.00
15.50
14.00
14.00
15.50
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.50
0.00
15.00
15.50
15.00
15.50
14.00
17.50
15.00
15.00
used.
15.00
15.00
lb/
cycle
25.50
25.50
21.00
23.50
23.50
30.50
23.50
23.50
0.00
16.00
0.00
17.50
16.50
14.50
14.00
16.00
18.50
15.00
13.00
15.00
18.00
0.00
27.00
24.50
28.00
27.50
27.00
28.50
24.00
23.00
0.00
25.00
25.00
lb/
min
2074~0
14.57
12.00
13.42
13.42
24.40
13.42
13.42
0.00
12.80
0.00
17.50
16.50
14.50
14.00
16.00
18.50
15.00
13.00
15.00
18.00
0.00
27.00
24.50
28.00
27.50
27.00
28.50
24.00
23.00
0.00
25.00
25.00
lb/
cycle
42.50
50.00
47.25
48.50
51.50
49.00
53.50
52.50
0.00
35.50
26.50
32.50
31.50
30.00
28.00
30.00
34.00
30.00
28.00
30.00
33.50
0.00
42.00
40.00
43.00
43.00
41.00
46.00
39.00
38.00
0.00
40.00
,40.00
lb/
min
34.00
28.57
27.00
27.71
29.42
39.20
30.57
30.00
0.00
28.40
26.50
32.50
31.50
30.00
28.00
30.00
34.00
30.00
28.00
30.00
33.50
0.00
42.00
40.00
43.00
43.00
41.00
46.00
39.00
38.00
0.00
40.00
40.00
143
-------
TABLE 26
OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM SAMPLE ANALYSES
Run Moist. Sol Insol Ash
No. % % % % pH
T 73.53* 21.49* 4.57* 2751* 375"
2 75.55* 22.51* 3.89* 1.91* 1.1*
3 49.00 5.27 45.73 1.30 2.3
4 62.10 30.60 7.20 2.50 2.0
5 62.10 30.60 7.20 2.50 2.0
6 85.10 11.40 3.50 1.90 3.4
7 86.10 13.30 0.60 2.20 5.1
8 79.70 14.70 5.60 2.10 2,6
10 53.50 35.20 11.30 4.50 2.6
11 61.00 34.90 4.10 4.00 2.4
12 60.10 40.40 -0.50 2.80 3.5
13 70.80 25.50 3.70 2.50 3.3
14 62.20 35.80 2.00 2.90 2.1
15 59.90 30.20 8.90 2.20 2.9
16 63.70 32.30 4.00 2.80 2.4
17 46.80 37.00 16.20 3.20 3.3
18 74.90 20.10 5.00 3.00 3.3
19 66.40 28.20 5.40 3.10 2.0
20 68.10 26.50 5.40 3.10 3.3
21 71.20 23.10 5.70 3.10 2.9
22 76.20 18.80 5.00 2.00 3.0
23 73.70 17.70 8.60 2.30 3.2
24 2.20 2 8
25 54.90 35.60 9.50 2^30 2^
26 66.50 28.30 5.20 2.90 3.4
27 60.40 36.20 3.40 1.40 2.4
28 60.40 36.80 2.80 0.90 2.2
29 60.00 35.30 4.70 1.80 1.7
30 74.98* 20.76* 4.25* 1.52* 2.1
31 62.80 33.20 4.00 1.40 2.0
32 66.00 30.20 3.80 1.50 2.1
33 74.80 21.80 3.40 0.40 3.2
34 82.00 15.50 2.50 1.00 3.0
a) Calculated from: Ether Insol, % = 100 - (% Moist. +
% Ether Sol)
* Calculated from material balance
144
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
OIL PHASE
WATER PHASE
Run
No.
r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Moist .
%
8.80
1.00
0.20
1.20
2.50
0.80
7.10
2.20
1.80
0.57
0.87
0.79
1.00
0.83
0.92
0.79
0.45
34.30
0.83
0.80
0.54
2.70
1.40
0.62
0.58
0.59
1.40
0.59
0.52
0.39
0.42
0.72
0.33
Ether
Sol
%
84.70
86.09
92.41
98.60
97.20
99.10
90.90
93.80
97.80
99.40
98.60
99.20
98.70
98.10
97.50
98.30
98.50
62.30
97.60
96.50
99.40
98.20
98.40
98.60
99.50
99.10
98.40
98.80
99.00
99.90
99.00
98.60
99.10
Ether**)
Insol
%
6.50
12.91
7.39
0.16
0.27
0.09
2.00
4.00
0.44
0.01
0.57
0.06
0.30
1.07
1.58
0.91
1.10
3.40
1.60
2.70
0.06
-0.90
0.20
0.80
-0.08
0.31
0.20
0.61
0.48
0.71
0.58
0.68
0,57
Ash
%
0760
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.80
4.50
0.30
0.25
0.02
0.18
0.15
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.21
0.13
1.50
0,15
0.49
0.20
0.26
2.40
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
5.30
0.10
0.20
Moist.
%
92.30
97.30
97.60
93.70
93.10
96.30
95.60
95.30
95.20
96.60
98.00
97.20
91.40
95.20
93.90
92.20
96.30
92.60
95.80
91.10
93.10
99.60
95.00
93.80
92.40
47.20
92.60
93.10
93.90
94.70
99.10
95.40
95.80
Ether
Sol
%
3.70
0.56
0.80
0.56
0.90
1.80
2.90
1.00
0.51
0.55
1.00
0.47
0.11
0.15
0.47
0.39
0.20
0.03
0.24
4.10
0.71
1.18
0.60
2.80
3.10
18.30
1.30
1.10
1.10
0.60
0.30
0.40
1.20
a) Calculated from:
Ether Insol, % - 100 - (% Moist. +
% Ether Sol)
145
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
WATER PHASE
CYCLONE SLUDGE
Run
No.
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Ethera)
Insol Ash
4.00
2.14
1.60
5.76
6.00
1.90
1.50
3.70
4.29
2.85
1.00
2.33
8.49
4.65
5.63
7.41
3.50
7.30
4.00
4.80
6.20
-0.78
4.40
3.40
4.50
34.50
6.10
5.80
5.00
4.70
0.60
4.20
3.00
276U
2.30
1.20
3.40
3.40
1.30
1.50
2.40
5.70
4.40
2.30
5.60
4.20
3.00
3.80
3.70
2.80
4.20
2.80
3.20
2.80
1.60
3.00
1.80
2.90
1.40
0.90
2.90
1.70
2.00
2.30
1.50
1.30
37?
1.1
2.3
2.2
1.9
3.3
4.7
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.7
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.7
2.8
1.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.2
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.4
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.6
Moist.
89.70
92.20
91.90
86.10
89.90
89,70
93.30
93.70
90.40
90.40
0.00
91.20
90.60
86.40
84.40
85.70
85.40
63.80
80.20
91.00
85.10
93.90
92.50
91.20
86.20
59.80
93.40
65.90
88.10
88.20
89.20
93.10
Ether
Sol
4.20
7.52
4.62
7.30
4.70
5.40
4.50
2.00
7.50
8.10
0.00
7.10
3.90
7.60
5.30
3.40
7.90
30.10
8.40
2.10
6.31
2.42
1.70
3.90
7.20
39.00
3.90
28.10
6.10
6.00
Not
5.10
3.70
Ethera)
Insol
6.10
0.28
3.48
6.60
5.40
4.90
2.20
4.30
2.10
1.50
0.00
1.70
5.50
6.00
10.30
11.90
6.70
6.10
11.40
6.90
8.59
3.68
5.80
4.90
6.60
1.20
2.70
6.00
5.80
5.80
used.
5.70
3.20
Ash
474T
2.40
1.60
3.50
3.90
2.80
1.90
3.60
7.10
6.60
0.00
2.20
5.20
4.10
5.40
4.60
5.00
3.80
7.40
5.30
3.00
2.30
3.80
4.00
4.10
1.70
1.70
1.90
3.10
2.20
2.10
1.60
a) Calculated from:
Ether Insol, % = 100 - (% Moist.
Ether Sol)
146
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
DELAVAL SLUDGE
Ether Ethera)
TOTAL SLUDGE
Ether Ethera)
Run
No.
M
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Moist.
91.
70*
89.25*
87.
89.
88.
82.
96.
93.
91.
96.
85.
86.
86.
81.
76.
85.
70.
81.
85.
0.
93.
95.
95.
92.
97.
87.
94.
88.
92.
93.
93.
30
50
60
61*
30
30
73*
58*
44*
40*
40*
95*
57*
80*
50*
00*
28*
00
74*
44*
87*
32*
34*
04*
43*
36*
50
04*
10*
Sol
2.86*
25.32*
10.44
3.00
3.60
10.54*
1.70
0.10
6.54*
2.82*
5.42*
7.60*
6.90*
2.95*
12.31*
3.50*
18.52*
11.90*
10.21*
0.00
1.54*
1.45*
1.97*
-7.90*
-0.20*
2.92*
0.41*
5.00*
1.70*
2.38*
2.58*
Insol
5.43*
-0.26*
2.26
7.50
7.
6.
80
84*
2.00
6.
1.
0.
9.
6.
6.
14.
11.
10.
10.
7.
4.
0.
4.
3.
2.
15.
2.
10.
5.
6.
5.
4.
4.
60
72*
58*
12*
00*
70*
22*
11*
70*
96*
10*
49*
00
71*
10*
14*
58*
85*
03*
15*
62*
80*
58*
32*
Ash
372T*
2.79*
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.76*
1.60
2.70
5.71*
5.17*
4.81*
4.09*
5.00*
7.97*
6.65*
6.20*
5.89*
4.10*
5.41*
0.00
3.64*
2.20*
1.64*
3.26*
2.30*
2.70*
1.47*
2.36*
2.90*
1.78*
1.92*
Moist.
90.
90.
90.
87.
89.
85.
94.
93.
0.
91.
91.
94.
87.
86.
85.
83.
80.
74.
75.
86.
85.
87.
93.
93.
92.
80.
96.
79.
92.
88.
92.
91.
93.
90
70
74*
71*
31*
29
57*
49*
00
00
40
10
90
40
40
70
60
80
70
00
20
80
30
80
50
60
00
00
00
30
50
60
10
Sol
3.40
16.60
7.21*
5.21*
4.20*
8.60
3.27*
1.15*
0.00
7.40
8.30
4.80
4.70
7.60
6.10
3.16
10.30
16.80
13.10
7.00
8.41
2.27
1.60
2.40
3.80
9.00
1.20
12.50
2.60
5.40
1.70
3.40
3.00
Insol
5.70
0.00
2.94*
7.03*
6.49*
6.11
2.11*
5.23*
0.00
1.60
0.30
1.10
7.40
6.00
8.50
13.14
9.10
8.40
11.20
7.00
6.55
9.93
5.10
3.80
3.70
10.40
2.80
8.50
5.40
6.30
5.80
5.00
3.90
Ash
3770"
2.60
2.58*
3.59*
3.76*
3.40
1.77*
3.14*
0.00
6.20
4.80
3.80
5.00
4.10
5.20
6.40
5.90
5.00
6.70
4.70
4.30
1.90
3.70
2.90
2.50
2.70
2.10
2.40
2.10
2.30
2.90
1.90
1.80
a) Calculated from: Ether Insol, %
% Ether Sol)
* Calculated from material balance
100 - (% Moist. +
147
-------
TABLE 27
OIL AND ASH DISTRIBUTION TO DELAVAL AND CYCLONE STREAMS
OIL DISTRIBUTION,
FRACTION TO:
ASH DISTRIBUTION,
FRACTION TO:
Run
No.
~~T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Oil
0.8694
0.8076
0.9314
0.9598
1.0104
0.7705
1.3420
0.9070
0.8124
0.8312
0.7919
0.8987
0.9280
0.9029
0.7623
0.9056
0.8669
0.8727
1.1110
0.9929
0.0000
0.9734
0.8308
0.8943
0.8878
0.9112
0.7256
0.9325
0.7918
0.0000
0,9357
0.9492
Total
Sludge
0.0395
0.1789
0.0558
0.0390
0.0301
0.2427
0.0645
0.0201
0.0493
0.0475
0.0498
0.0364
0.0653
0.0451
0.0222
0.0919
0.1508
0.1311
0.0967
0.1407
0.0000
0.0189
0.0224
0.0506
0.0963
0.0110
0.5128
0.0434
0.0542
0.0000
0.0537
0.0676
Water
0.0911
0.0136
0.0128
0.0086
0.0135
0.0930
0.1179
0.0408
0.0075
0.0105
0.0098
0.0012
0.0022
0.0067
0.0047
0.0025
0.0003
0.0045
0.0736
0.0187
0.0000
0.0076
0.0288
0.0403
0.0820
0.0102
0.0098
0.0242
0.0072
0.0000
0.0082
0.0388
Oil
0.0544
0.0110
0.0252
0.0119
0.0254
0.0373
0.4016
0.0203
6.8872
0.0218
0.0122
0.0123
0.0168
0.0085
0.0188
0.0132
0.1898
0.0114
0.0420
0.0129
0.0000
0.2250
0.0130
0.0140
0.0231
0.0378
0.0144
0.0128
0.0187
0.0000
0.0517
0.0296
Total
Sludge
0.3806
0.3304
0.4996
0.3292
0.3307
0.5757
0.2113
0.3848
0.3608
0.3967
0.4022
0.4785
0.4840
0.4444
0.5217
0.5862
0.4083
0.5736
0.4838
0.4664
0.0000
0.4162
0.4202
0.3251
0.7471
0.8579
0.5679
0.4789
0.5476
0.0000
1-.6370
0.6288
Water
0.5664
0.6599
0.4820
0.6430
0.6283
0.4034
0.3688
0.6862
0.5301
0.3515
1.1911
0.5742
0.6198
0.6263
0.5228
0.4009
0.4801
0.4494
0.4282
0.4804
0.0000
0.3616
0.2869
0.3684
0.2882
0.2914
0.5072
0.5118
0.5784
0.0000
1.6810
0.6528
Cyclone
Sludge
0.1810
0.1494
0.1721
0.1654
0.1865
0.1790
0.1271
0.2436
0.2109
0.0000
0.1074
0.2369
0.2500
0.2307
0.1750
0.2264
0.1551
0.3393
0.2728
0.1505
0.0000
0.1526
0.2246
0.1860
0.1605
0.2371
0.1710
0.2719
0.2007
0.0000
0.6788
0.2096
148
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
1. Re:
w
RECOVERY OF FATTY MATERIALS FROM EDIBLE
REFINERY EFFLUKNTS
Seng, Wendelin C.
Swift & Company, Oak Brook, Illinois
Research and Development Center 12060 DQV
n. SzenvfiriagOrwizz-ion U- s> Environmental Protection Agency Final
, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-660/2-73-015, December 1973,
16. Abstrsvi
New full scale equipment was added to existing standard waste
treatment equipment at the Swift & Company Edible Oil Refinery
at Bradley, Illinois. Synthetic acrylamide polymer flocculants
with alum, and impressed current, were evaluated for removal of
fatty materials from the plant waste water. An in-plant waste
water survey was made. A DeLaval PX-213 bowl opening, disc stack
centrifuge was successfully tested to concentrate the removed
fatty material after caustic and sulfuric acid treatment. The
7000 pounds daily of recovered oil {98% ether soluble), worth
4-1/4 to 4-5/8 cents per pound, could offset 60% of the total
waste treatment direct operating costs. (Seng-Swift & Company)
i7a. Descriptor-* *Treatment facilities, *Industrial wastes, *Waste water treat-
ment, *Oil wastes, *Polymers, *Flocculation, *Centrifugation, *Market valu<
*Byproducts, *Cathodic protection, *Water pollution sources, Coagulation,
Rectifiers, Biological oxygen demand, Suspended solids, Anodes, Anions ,
Cathodes, Cations, Water pollution, Turbidity, Zeta potential/ Flotation/
Operating Costs, Laboratory tests, Instrumentation, Corrosion control.
17b, fc/ent/rjc
*Fatty wastes, *Electro-coagulation, *pH control, Hexane solubles,
Edible fats, Edible oils.
17 c, COWRR field & Group 05D, 05E
,y ,.,-- W,V ,9. s-.~.«rityC
(j
------- |