EPA-f 80/2-73-018
NOVEMBER 1973
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Air Flotation -
Biological Oxidation
of Synthetic Rubber
and Latex Wastewater
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
-------
EPA-660/2-73-018
November 1973
AIR FLOTATION-BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION OF SYNTHETIC
RUBBER AND LATEX WASTEWATER
A. H. King
J. Ogea
J. W. Button
Project 12110 GLP
Program Element 1BB036
Project Officer
Joseph W. Field, III
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson Street
Dallas, Texas 75"201
Prepared for
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20*f60
For sale toy the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.60
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
-Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The operation of a secondary waste-water treatment system
at Firestone's Lake Charles, Louisiana Synthetic Rubber
Plant was studied for a nine-month period. The system
was designed to reduce the five-day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BODj) by 90 percent to a 7 mg/1 level and reduce
Suspended Solids by 95 percent to a 10 mg/1 level. An
average BODj reduction of 8^.2 percent and Suspended
Solids reduction of 85.2 percent was accomplished during
the demonstration period.
The raw wastewater flow is 3.55 million gallons per day,
and consists primarily of salt brine, dilute acid wastes,
boiler water blowdown, dilute latex, and coagulated rubber
solids. The average raw waste concentrations are: BOD5,
72 mg/1; Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Mf7 mg/1; Suspended
Solids, 197 mg/1.
The wastewater treatment system includes neutralization,
coagulation and flocculation, primary clarification,
biological treatment, final clarification and sludge
Impoundment. Primary and secondary clarification is
accomplished by dissolved air flotation. A completely
mixed aerated lagoon provides the necessary biological
treatment.
The treatment plant cost was $1.^73.000. The total pro-
ject cost was approximately $2,000,000, since it was
necessary to separate process wastewater from storm water.
This separation was necessary to avoid treating large
quantities of rain water contaminated with process waste-
water. The average operational, maintenance, and depre-
ciation costs were $0.^99 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater
treated.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project
Number 12110 GLP under the partial sponsorship of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I
II
III
IV
VI
VII
VIII
Conclusions
Recommendations
Introduction
Scope
Background
Theoretical Considerations
Chemical Coagulation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Biological Oxidation
Process Development
Initial Wastewater Characterization
Wastewater Chemical Studies
Laboratory Air Flotation Tests
Laboratory Bio-Oxidation Studies
Pilot Air Flotation Tests
Sludge Dewatering Studies
Treatment Facilities
General Description
Design Concept
Design Criteria
Demonstration Sampling and Testing
Sampling
Testing
Problems
Treatment Plant Performance
Operational Data
Process Design Criteria from
Operational Data
System Performance
1
3
7
9
10
17
21
21
21
23
29
37
53
53
55
55
66
78
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section
IX Financial Considerations 85
Construction Costs 85
Operating and Maintenance Costs 85
Total Annual Costs 88
X Acknowledgements 89
XI References 91
XII Appendixes 93
Photographs 95
Development and Construction 105
Timetable
Design Data 109
Equipment and Construction Costs 133
Laboratory Testing Equipment 135
vi
-------
TABLES
.Number
1 Pilot Air Flotation Performance Data 31
2 Results of Pilot Vacuum Filtration 38
Tests (A)
3 Results of Pilot Vacuum Filtration 38
Tests (B)
*f Pertinent Parameters *f6
5 Waste Sampling and Testing Schedule 51
6 Metal Analysis of Final Effluent 5^
7 Wastewater Flow Rates 55
8 Chemical Feed Rates 56
9 Downtime on Air Flotation Clarlfiers 57
10 Sludge Characteristics 59
11 Influent-Effluent Characteristics 60
12 Wastewater Characteristics After 61
Chemical Treatment
13 Primary Clarifier Effluent - Aerated 62
Lagooon Effluent Characteristics
l*t Monthly Suspended Solids Removal Data 63
15 Monthly Performance Data - Nine Months 6M-
Demonstration Period
16 Monthly BOD*- Loading Rates for Aerated 71
Lagoon y
17 BOD* Removal Rate Coefficients 75
18 System Performance 78
19 Operating Maintenance and Demonstration 87
Cost
20 Total Annual Costs 88
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Schematic of Air Flotation System 11
Primary Flotation Clarifier
2 Schematic of the Laboratory Bio-Oxidation 27
Unit
3 Schematic of Pilot Air Flotation Unit 32
If Percent Suspended Solids Removal Vs. 33
Loading Rate for Permutit Pilot
Clarifier
5 Percent Suspended Solids Removal Vs. 35
Percent Recycle Rate for Pilot
Air Flotation Clarifier
6 Flow Diagram of Treatment Plant
7 Plan of Primary Air Flotation Unit
8 Aerial View of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
9 Schematic of Wastewater Automatic 50
Composite Sampler
10 Solubility of Oxygen in Plant Wastewater 67
Vs. Temperature
11 Solubility of Air in Plant Effluent 68
Vs. Temperature
12 Percent Removal Vs. Influent Suspended 69
Solids for Primary Clarifier
13 Percent Removal Vs. Influent Suspended 70
Solids for Secondary Clarifier
l»f Effluent BOD* Vs. 6005 Loading for 72
Aerated Lagoon
15 BOD^ Removal Vs. BOD^ Loading for 73
Aerated Lagoon
viii
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number
16 BOD* Removal Vs. Effluent BOD5 - 76
Removal Rate Coefficient for
Aerated Lagoon
17 Sludge Yield Vs. BOD* Removal - 77
Determination of Biological
Oxidation Constants
18 Biochemical Oxygen Demand- Influent 80
and Effluent
19 Chemical Oxygen Demand - Influent 81
and Effluent
20 Influent and Effluent Total Organic 83
Carbon
21 Influent and Effluent Suspended Solids
ix
-------
SECTldN I
CONCLUSIONS
The wastewater treatment facility at Firestone Synthetic
Rubber and Latex Company's Lake Charles, Louisiana plant
was studied for a nine-month period from October 1, 1971
through June 30, 1972. The following conclusions were
reached based on the results of the study presented in
this report.
1. A completely mixed derated lagoon was an effective
and acceptable means of removing oxygen consuming
pollutants from the wastewater. An average overall
BOD* removal of 8*f.2 percent was accomplished dur-
ing the study period.
2. Dissolved air flotation was the only effective
means of solids removal that produced a high
quality effluent. An average overall suspended
solids removal of 85.2 percent was accomplished
during the study period.
3. Conventional sedimentation methods were not success-
ful in clarifying plant wastewater.
^f. Chemical treatment of the wastewater was necessary
to remove colloidal materials and to provide an
effective floe for initial and final dissolved air
flotation clarification.
5. Final dissolved air flotation clarification was
required to produce a high quality effluent and to
prevent sludge auto-oxidation.
6. Turbulence within the chemical coagulant and preci-
pitation treatment system had an adverse effect on
solids removal during clarification and increased
the amount of chemicals required to produce an
effective floe.
7. Cleaning of the primary clarifier was necessary
every four to six weeks due to the accumulation of
solids. The final clarifier only required cleaning
every ten to twelve weeks due to the solids con-
centration of the lagoon effluent and the nature of
the effluent solids.
-------
8. Carbon black particles present in the wastewater
had an adverse effect on float stability during air
flotation and required higher alum dosages for
effective clarification.
9. Wastewater pH had a definite effect on clarification
efficiency. Initial wastewater pH adjustment
resulting in a 6.5 to 8.0 pH after chemical treat-
ment provided the best environment for effective
floe formation.
10. The average substrate removal rate coefficient (k)
was found to be 0.067 1/mg-day. indicating that the
wastewater was amenable to rapid biological oxida-
tion. This compares with sewage having a range
between .017 and .0^2 1/mg-day. (7)
11. A lagoon retention time of approximately one day was
found to provide maximum BOD reductions. Longer
retention times resulted in lower BOD removals due
to relatively low organic loading ratios and sludge
auto-oxidation.
12. Lagoon dyke construction must be such that it will
withstand the degree of turbulence necessary to
maintain a completely mixed regime.
13* Sufficient concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and other essential nutrients were present in the
wastewater to support biological activity without
supplemental nutrient addition.
l^f. The ambient air temperature had little effect on
aerated lagoon performance. The relatively short
stabilization period and the temperature of the raw
wastewater maintained adequate lagoon temperatures
for efficient lagoon operations all year long.
15. Capital costs, including construction, were
$1,^73,000 for the wastewater treatment facility.
Operational, maintenance, and depreciation costs
were $0.^-99 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater
treated, excluding sludge disposal.
16. The average sludge generation was 6.3^ gallons/
1,000 gallons of wastewater treated.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMffiNDATIONS
DESIGN MODIFICATIONS
The operation of the waste treatment facilities could be
improved and the operating and maintenance cost could be
reduced if a number of engineering and operational adjust-
ments could be implemented, as follows:
?aw Wastewater Equalisation - Adequate equalization as a
irst step prior to pH adjustment, chemical coagulation and
flocculation, and primary clarification, is definitely
recommended. Equalization would result in improved pH con-
trol for alum coagulation, more economical usage of neutral-
izing reagents, coagulants, and flocculants, and more
efficient operation of the primary air flotation unit.
Equalization would reduce or eliminate frequent variations
in wastewater characteristics such as pH, flow rate,
influent suspended solids. BOD, and COD. Acid usage for
pH control would be almost completely eliminated, since the
equalized wastewater pH would be slightly acidic. As a
result, caustic usage would be reduced in an amount equiva-
lent to the reduction in acid usage. In addition, the
over-feed of coagulants and flocculants would be reduced
due to a reduction in the amplitude of variations in the
chemical demands of the influent wastewater.
Air flotation units, particularly this installation, are
sensitive to changes in flow. Due to the narrow width of
the effluent weir, large variations in the water level
within the flotation compartment result in poor removal of
floating solids. Variations in the influent will also cause
corresponding variations in percent recycle and the air-to-
solids ratio. This installation has provisions to maintain
a fairly constant influent flow to the primary air flotation
unit by recirculating part of the clarified effluent;
however, the desirability of adequate equalization is not
diminished from an economic standpoint since equalization
would result in substantial savings from reduced chemical
usage*
Reduction of Turbulence - Revisions are recommended in the
design of the flow measuring and flash mixing facilities to
eliminate or reduce the high degree of turbulence in the
wastewater after floe formation.
-------
High shear and turbulence are inherent in the design of the
flow measuring boxes. The primary flow measuring device
consists of orifices cut in a partition within the flow
measuring box. The orifices have a free discharge. The
flow is determined by the head of water above the center
line of the orifices on the upstream side. The high
velocity of the water as it cascades from the orifices
against the opposite side and bottom of the box imparts
turbulence that is detrimental to the floe that has already
been formed. Also, the 20-inch outlets in the bottom of
the flow measuring box allow air entrained with the cascad-
ing water to be carried down to the bottom of the flash
mixing tank, producing a high degree of agitation within
the tank*
Due to the fact that the outlet nozzles of the flash mix-
ing tanks are five feet higher than the inlet nozzles of the
air flotation units, there is a siphoning effect within the
20-inch lines between the flash mixing tanks and the air
flotation units. The siphoning action draws air into the
water at the outlet of flash mixing tanks, entraining it
with the water that is discharged into the distribution
flumes of the air flotation units. The entrained air causes
a high degree of agitation within the inlet distribution
flumes.
It is therefore recommended that the flow measuring boxes
be eliminated completely and that an alternate method be
used to obtain flow measurements. Since the removal of
the flow measuring tanks will cause an excessive difference
in the water level between the alum coagulation vessel and
the vessel immediately downstream, it is recommended that
the alum coagulation vessel be equipped with a level con-
troller and level control valve to keep its outlet nozzle
flooded in order to eliminate the entrainment of air.
It is also recommended that the flash mixing tanks be
equipped with level controllers and level control valves
to maintain their water levels above their outlet nozzles,
thus eliminating the turbulence within the inlet distribu-
tion flumes of the air flotation units caused by entrained
air.
Care should be exercised in the design and layout of
similar installations to eliminate conditions that may
cause turbulence in the water after floe formation. It is
recommended that no elevated vessels be utilized in the
part of the treatment system handling floe-bearing water,
although differences in elevation may appear to be insig-
nificant. By this it is meant that the water level should
-------
be held approximately at the same elevation within all
vessels from the point of chemical treatment through the
outlet of the flotation compartment of the air flotation
unit. Also, it is recommended that the velocity within
interconnecting lines be held well below the turbulent flow
range, with particular care being exercised to eliminate
turbulence at the entrance and discharge points.
Settled Solids Removal - Due to problems encountered with
settled solids within the air flotation units, it is
recommended that settled solids removal equipment be
installed in the flotation compartment of the primary air
flotation unit. The 5° slope of the vessel bottom in the
direction of water flow and the sludge collection troughs
and blowdown headers are not effective in the removal of
settled solids.
Aerated Lagoon Shape - It is recommended that in installa-
tions similar to this treatment system the aerated lagoons
be of rectangular shape in order to obtain maximum benefit
from mechanical aerators. Mixing, flow, and oxygen trans-
fer are not evenly distributed throughout the lagoon due to
its irregular shape. This allows short-circuiting of flow
through the lagoon and allows solids to build up in stagnant
areas. If a non-rectangular lagoon is already available, as
was the case in this instance, this should be considered in
equipment selection and design.
Lagoon Dykes - It is also recommended that when earthen
dykes are used in the construction of an aerated lagoon, the
inside slopes of the dykes be lined with a material suitable
for the prevention of erosion of the dykes caused by wave
action.
Future Requirements - Revisions to the primary and final
clarification equipment for the reduction of turbulence is
of primary concern, since clarification may be improved as
well as operating cost lowered. These revisions are in the
process of being made.
Additional testing is necessary to determine the return on
investment possible if an equalization facility with ade.-
quate retention time was constructed.
Determination of the best means for disposal of the solids
removed from the clarifiers is of paramount importance.
An economically feasible method must be found to dispose of
the solids without causing additional environmental pro-
blems. Additional sludge dewatering studies must be made
to determine the most economical way of reducing sludge
volumes.
-------
SECTION
INTRODUCTION
On February 1, 1971, the Firestone Synthetic Rubber and
Latex Company was awarded a demonstration grant by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section Six of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The
grant. Number 12110 GLP, provided an amount not to exceed
$392,288. over an 18-month period from February 1. 1971
to August 31, 1972, for the development, construction, and
evaluation or a wastewater treatment system at the
company*s Lake Charles, Louisiana synthetic rubber plant.
The basic purpose of this project was to demonstrate the
efficiency and economics of a system consisting of neu-
tralization, chemical coagulationand flocculation. primary
and secondary clarification, and mechanical aeration in the
treatment of a synthetic rubber waste, particularly with
respect to biological oxygen demand (BODijO, chemical oxygen
demand (COD), and suspended solids removal.
The specific objectives were to:
1. Demonstrate, in full scale plant operation,
the BOD^ and COD removal capabilities of a
completely mixed aerated lagoon with a one-
day retention time.
2. Demonstrate the effectiveness of dissolved
air flotation clarification for the removal
of suspended solids from a synthetic rubber
waste.
3. Compare actual parameter removal capabilities
with those projected during the process
development phase of the project (i.e.,
BOD* removal and 95$ suspended solids
removal).
k. Determine the capital, operating, and main-
tenance costs of a treatment system incor-
porating these features.
-------
BACKGROUND
At the Lake Charles plant, Firestone produces over 30 dif-
ferent types of emulsion and solution polymerized
butadiene-styrene copolymers. Total daily production is
about 800 long tons per day, of which approximately 60 per-
cent is emulsion polymerized and *fO percent is solution
polymerized.
Considerably less wastewater is generated by the solution
polymerization process than by the emulsion polymerization
process since a hydrocarbon solvent, rather than a soap
solution, is used as the polymerization medium* In fact,
approximately 85 percent of the total wastewater produced
is generated by the emulsion process. Total daily final
effluent flow averaged 3«55 million gallons per day over
the demonstration period, excluding sanitary sewage,which
was treated by a separate in-plant facility.
Treated plant effluent is discharged into Bayou D'Inde,
which in turn empties into the Lake Charles Ship Channel
on the Calcasieu River. The receiving waters are
estuaries subject to salt water intrusion from the Gulf of
Mexico.
The present secondary wastewater treatment facility began
operation on May 27, 1971 after two years of research and
development work. The basic wastewater characterization
study, definition of the problem, and a conceptual design
were done by Firestone with assistance from two consulting
firms. Extensive laboratory and pilot work was performed
by plant personnel in arriving at the final treatment plan
and in generating the design data for the total wastewater
treatment plant.
The treatment system installed was designed utilizing the
data available from laboratory studies, pilot plant opera-
tion, and previous Firestone experience in the field of
wastewater managemmt. The system, including neutraliza-
tion, chemical coagulation and flocculation, primary air
flotation clarification, biological oxidation, and secondary
air flotation, was designed to exceed effluent quality
requirements set by the Louisiana Stream Control Commission.
-------
SECTION IV
^THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
CHEMICAL COAGULATION
In waste treatment, "coagulation" is a chemical process
which involves the addition of chemicals to effect the
destabilization and aggregation of dispersed materials,
usually in suspended or colloidal form.
Simple colloidal dispersions are two-phase systems. The
five common types are gas-in-liquid, solid-in-liquid,
liquid-in-liquid, solid-in-gas, and liquid-in-gas. The
predominate phase is referred to as the dispersion medium.
The colloidal particles are referred to as the disperse
phase. Colloidal particles are usuallv defined as those
ranging in size from about 10"° to 10-° centimeters. They
do not settle on standing and cannot be removed by conven-
tional physical treatment methods. The most significant
characteristic of colloids is their large surface area-to-
volume ratio. Because of this, the effects of surface
phenomena, such as adsorption and electrostatic attraction,
are magnified, and play a central role in determining the
bulk physical properties and stability of colloidal systems.
Most colloids can be classified as either hydrophilic or
hydrophobic. Hydrophilic particles have an affinity for
water. Water molecules attach to hydrophilic colloids and
form a layer around the particle which hinders close con-
tact and therefore aggregation of colloidal particles.
The affinity for water is often the result of the presence
of polar groups on the surface of the particle. Particles
of this type will assume a charge as a result of ionization,
which depends on the pH of the medium. Conversely, hydro-
phobic particles hav« little affinity for surrounding water
molecules. Since no solvation occurs, the stability of
this type of colloid is due to the repulsive interaction of
similarly charged colloids. In both cases the overall
condition of electroneutrality must be satisfied. However,
the localization of excess electrical charges around the
particles and the attraction of counter-ions create an
electrical double layer that causes the particle to act as
if it were electrically charged.
Most colloids found in nature are negatively charged. The
fixed negative layer is surrounded by a second layer of
counter-ions. The electrostatic potential at the shear sur-
face of the double layer is called the zeta potential. In
-------
general, the stability of colloids is dependent on the
magnitude of the zeta potential. The dispersion remains
stable so long as the zeta potential exceeds a critical
value below which the factors tending to destabilize the
colloid (gravitational and Van der Waals forces) come into
play and promote aggregation.
The stability of colloids is due to the repulsive inter-
action of similarly charged particles and, in the case of
hydrophillc colloids, to solvation. If the solvation is
weak, the colloid can be destabilized by neutralizing the
charge on the particles. This can frequently be achieved
by adjusting the pH to the isoelectric point. At the iso-
electric point the net charge on the particle is zero, and
no double layer exists to produce a zeta potential. The
repulsive force can also be reduced by adding ions or
colloids of opposite charge to the colloidal system. This
lowers the zeta potential and tends to destabilize the
colloidal system.
According to the Schulze-Hardy rule, the valence of the
counter-ion is important in its ability to destabilize
colloids by zeta potential reduction. On a molar basis,
bivalent ions are 10-50 times and trivalent ions about
300-700 times more effective than monovalent ions. There-
fore, the most commonly used coagulants are those that
produce trivalent ions, such as compounds of iron III and
aluminum III.
For a given metal ion concentration, the rate and degree of
coagulation depends on the pH of the medium. In addition,
chemical coagulation is successful only when the concentra-
tion of metal ions is high enough to precipitate hydroxides.
The hydroxide floe formed sweeps the dispersion together and
entraps particles in the floe.
Coagulant aids are reagents used in conjunction with coagu-
lants. These reagents, including polyelectrolytes. acti-
vated silica, and bentonite, serve to bind floe particles
together by forming chemical bridges.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
Dissolved air flotation is a treatment method used for the
removal and concentration of suspended solids, sludges, and
other floating matter. There are three basic types of
dissolved air flotation systems: (1) pressurization of the
total influent liquid, (2) pressurization of part of the
influent stream, and (3) recirculation and pressurization
of a fraction of the clarified effluent. The Lake Charles
plant uses the pressurized effluent system, and it will be
ID
-------
H
ALUM
ORGANIC
COAGULANT
AID
RAW WASTE
ORGANIC
POLYELECTROLYJE
FLASH MIX
TANK
ALUM MIX
TANK
FLOC-FORMER
COMPARTMENT
RECYCLE
SKIMMERS
LAMELS
•6i
PRESSURE
RETENTION
TANK
RECIRCULATION
CLARIFIED EFFLUENT
COMPARTMENT
CLARIFIED
EFFLUENT
Q-
RECYCLE
PUMP
FIGURE I
SCHEMATIC OF AIR-FLOTATION SYSTEM PRIMARY FLOTATION CLARIFIER
-------
Implicit in the following discussion that a pressurized
recycle system is being considered (see Figure 1).
In this type of system a portion of the clarified effluent
is pressurized to MO-65 psig in the presence of enough air
to approach saturation. This portion is then combined with
the bulk liquid. Upon release of the pressurized air-
liquid mixture to the atmospheric pressure of the flotation
unit, the solubility of air in water decreases rapidly,
resulting in the release of micron-size air bubbles from
the supersaturated liquid. The minute air bubbles become
enmeshed in floe particles or adhere to suspended solids,
buoying them to the surface. Ferris wheel-type skimmers
continually remove the resulting float from the surface.
The clarified effluent is drawn off continuously from near
the bottom of the unit. Periodically the unit is emptied
and settled solids are removed from the bottom.
A flotation system generally consists of the following
components:
1* Recycle Pressurizing Pump
2. Air Injection Facilities
3. A Pressure Retention Tank
4-. A Sludge Removal Pump
5. The Flotation Unit
Figure 1 shows these components for one of Lake Charles'
dissolved air flotation units.
The mechanisms and driving forces involved in solid-liquid
separation by flotation are similar to those governing sedi-
mentation. The application of Stokes1 Law determines the
floatability or settleability of a particle in a given
waste. (9)
v = g P2 (ds - dj.)
I5v
where:
g = Gravity constant, ft/sec2
D = Diameter of particle, ft
ds = Density of particle, lb/ft^
dx = Density of liquid, Ib/ft
V = Viscosity of liquid, Ib/ft-sec
v = Particle separation velocity, ft/sec
12
(1)
-------
When the particle separation velocity is positive, the
particle settles. However, if the separation velocity is
negative, the particle will float. In dissolved air flota-
tion the density of the air-solid combination is less than
the suspending medium, the particle separation velocity is
negative, and the particle rises. The air bubble
increases the difference in density between the particle
and the suspending medium, thereby increasing the particle
separation rate.
The performance of a flotation unit, in terms of influent
and effluent solids concentrations, can be related by
means of an air/solids ratio, defined as the mass of air
released per unit mass of solids in the influent liquid.
Although the amount of solids present can be determined
analytically, the quantity of air released must be calcu-
lated from the absolute pressure and the air solubility.
The solubility of air in water is directly proportional to
the absolute pressure and inversely proportional to the
temperature. Therefore, at a given temperature the theor-
etical quantity of air released when pressurized recycle
is reduced to atmospheric pressure may be calculated from
the following equation. (
s = sa [t Pal - 1 (2)
where:
s = Air released, cm^/l
sa = Air saturation at atmospheric pressure,
cm3/!
Pa = Absolute pressure, Ib/sq in.
f = Fraction of saturation attained
The actual quantity of air released depends upon the tur-
bulent mixing conditions at the point of pressure reduc-
tion and the accuracy of the assigned degree of saturation
factor. The degree of saturation depends upon the design
of the pressurization system, particularly the pressure
retention tank. Conventional static designs usually yield
up to J>0 percent of saturation; whereas, up to 90 percent
of saturation can be reached with the use of special
packing or mixing.
-------
The air/solids ratio can be calculated by the following
equation.(6)
A = C sa R (f P-l) (3)
S Q Sa
where:
A/S = Air/solids ratio
C = Air density, mg/cm^
s& = Air saturation at atmospheric
pressure, cm3/l
R = Pressurized volume, liters/day
P = Absolute Pressure, atm
Q = Waste flow rate, liters/day
Sa = Influent suspended solids, mg/1
f = Fraction of saturation attained
SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES
The major difference between the air flotation unit used
by Firestone and a conventional air flotation unit is the
use of lamels in the flotation compartment of the clari-
fier. The lamels allow higher loading rates in the unit
without producing turbulent flow. The lamels are a series
of parallel vertical baffles approximately four inches
apart which rise from the bottom of the clarifier to near
the normal water level (see Figure 1).
The lamels produce two specific effects. First, they
reduce turbulence, eddies, and back-mixing. Second, the
frictional resistance of the lamels provides a relatively
calm area near the surface of the lamel where particles can
rise to the surface without excessive interference caused
by flow across the unit.
The lamel concept is based on the Reynolds theory in which
mass velocity in an open channel.is related to the hydraulic
radius and the liquid vlscosity.'ij)
-------
H
Re = CO
where:
^Re = Reynolds number
Rn = Hydraulic radius, ft
G = Mass Velocity, Ib/sq ft-sec
V = Viscosity, Ib/ft-sec
For a given Reynolds number, assuming the viscosity
remains constant throughout the system, the only two vari-
ables are the hydraulic radius and the mass velocity, and
the product of these two variables is equal to a constant
value. Therefore, if the hydraulic radius of a given
channel is decreased, the mass velocity of the liquid can
be increased and still maintain the same Reynolds number.
It has been found that laminar flow exists below Reynolds
numbers of 2100 and that turbulent flow exists for
Reynolds numbers greater than *fOOO. Therefore, for a
Reynolds number insuring laminar flow, higher loading rates
can be maintained in a unit with lamels than in a conven-
tional unit because of the smaller hydraulic radius.
Stated another way, "By dividing the flotation chamber into
a number of narrow channels, it is possible to increase the
total unit flow without producing disturbing turbulence . .
with proper use of lamels, flow rates can be achieved which
are more than double those normally possible with conven-
tional flotation equipment." (13)
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
The six major variables of a dissolved air flotation
system are as follows:
1. Recycle ratio
2. Pressure maintained in recycle system
3. Air/solids ratio
H-. Retention time
5. Loading rate
6. Chemical feed rates
-------
The percent of clarified effluent recycled back into the
unit directly affects the amount of air that can be
released. At the same pressure, a higher ratio can
release more air into the flotation unit. However,
increased recycle also increases the loading rate and
decreases the retention time. In addition, high recycle
rates may cause severe turbulence, which reduces unit effi-
ciency.
The pressure maintained in the pressurizing system affects
clarifier performance. Increased pressures produce higher
air solubilities which enable larger quantities of air to
be dissolved. Howeverj economic considerations require
that the pressure be maintained as low as possible without
affecting unit performance. Also, higher pressures can
produce turbulence and increase bubble size, both of which
reduce unit efficiency. Pressures of MO-90 psig have been
used, with *fO-60 psig used most frequently.
The air/solids ratio must be high enough to insure that
sufficient air is released to float all of the suspended
matter. However, an excessively high air/solids ratio
does not improve effluent quality, and in some cases can
actually decrease effluent quality. The optimum air/
solids ratio varies between different wastes, dependent on
the nature of the solids, the quality of the air-to-solid
bond, and the solids concentration.
The retention time also affects unit performance. There
are two important retention times, the retention time in
the pressurization system and the retention time in the
flotation unit. Up to a point, the effluent suspended
solids level decreasesand the concentration of solids in
the float increases with increasing retention time. A
long retention time insures maximum air saturation in the
pressure retention system and allows time for particles
with low separation velocities to reach the surface. How-
ever, too long a retention time may allow the breaking of
weak air-to-solid bonds, the breaking of air bubbles, and
disintegration of the float.
Loading rates are related to retention time and unit size.
For a particular unit, as the loading rate increases the
retention time decreases, and vice versa. Under conditions
common in chemical process industries, loading rates are
designed on the basis of 2.5" gpm/ft of surface area in th
flotation compartment for conventional flotation designs.
If chemical flocculation is used, the chemical feed rates
will affect effluent clarity. Generally, an optimum feed
-------
rate will exist, with a lower rate producing insufficient
solids removal and a higher rate producing increased tur-
bidity caused by excessive floe or large, bulky floe
particles.
BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION
Biological wastewater treatment is nothing more than
nature's self-purification process working under concen-
trated and controlled conditions. Biological treatment
processes are used to remove organic matter from waste-
water through the microbial metabolic processes of oxida-
tion and cell synthesis.
Under aerobic conditions, micro-organisms use dissolved
oxygen in the water to convert organic wastes into cellu-
lar matter, plus the energy needed to support cellular
activity. In the process some cellular mass is also con-
verted into energy or end products, particularly if there
is a low food-to-micro-organism ratio. Endogeneous meta-
bolism occurs in all cells in which energy is utilized for
cellular activity. The amount of cellular matter consumed
in endogeneous metabolism depends upon several factors,
including food-to-micro-organism ratio, the average sludge
age. and the waste characteristics. Endogeneous meta-
bolism is represented mathematically by the coefficient
"b", which has the units of reciprocal time, or a frac-
tional decrease in cell mass per day.
When organic matter is removed from a waste by biological
oxidation- two basic processes occur: (1) oxygen is con-
sumed by The active biological mass for energy, and (2)
new cell mass is synthesized. The organisms may oxidize
a portion of their cellular mass as well as oxidize the
organic portion of the waste. These reactions may be
schematically represented by the following general rela-
tionships, (o)
Organic matter + 02 + NH-j Cc,en^ New Cells + C02 + H20 (5)
Cells + 02 * C02 + H20 + NH3 (Auto-oxidation) (6)
Several mathematical models have been proposed to explain
the mechanism of BOD^ removal by biological processes.
Almost all show that at high BOD^ levels the rate of
removal per unit of active biological sludge remains
17
-------
constant to a limiting BOD* concentration below which
the rate becomes concentration dependent, and therefore
decreases. The following rate equations have been
offered for this concentration dependent phase. **>>
x (7)
Xa dt
and
Xa
where:
= kL2 (8)
a = Volatile suspended solids synthesized
per unit of BOD^ removed, rag VSS /mg BODr
k = Substrate removal rate, coefficient
(or sludge growth rate), 1/mg-hr
I*e = Effluent BOD^, mg/1
L0 = Influent BOD^, mg/1
t = Aeration time, hours
X = Concentration of biological volatile
a solids, mg/1
Integrating (7), it becomes
Le = e-k Xa t (9)
Lo
and (8) becomes
e
or rearranging and solving for "k11, (6)
Le Xa t
-------
The data from most completely mixed systems In which the
effluent BOD^ concentration is low can be correlated
according to'equation (10). The removal rate coefficient
is temperature dependent, as shown by equation (12). (°)
kT = k20o0eT-20 (12)
where:
6 = Experimental temperature coefficient
T = Temperature °C
The sludge yield from a biological treatment system can be
estimated from the following relationship, (oj
^ xv * S0 = sLj, - bX^ (13)
where:
= Sludge yield, mg/1
= Average MLVSS in system, mg/l/day
£ = Cell yield coefficient, rag SS/mg BODr
b = Endogenous respiration constant, day
Lr = BOD* removal, mg/1
S0 = Influent VSS, mg/1
Sludge yield from biological oxidation may vary for several
reasons. The wk" rate in the BOD^ test may vary, depend-
ing on the characteristics of the waste and the micro-
organisms. Also, variations in the VSS content of the
influent wastewater will influence the sludge yield.
Probably most important, in most industrial wastes the
rates and concentrations of the influent streams may change
markedly during the course of the measurement period.
AERATED LAGOOHS
A waste stabilization pond is "any pond system designed to
fulfill a biological waste treatment requirement." \10)
An aerated lagoon is a waste stabilization pond in which
mechanical aerators supplement or replace algae as a means
of providing the required dissolved oxygen. Oxygen is
supplied to an aerated lagoon by the physical action of the
surface aeration units and oxygen transfer through the air-
liquid interface.
19
-------
Aerated lagoons, usually six to 18 feet deep, can
require up to 15 times less land area, and can improve
efficiency by at least a factor of five compared to a
conventional waste stabilization pond. They are less
sensitive to system variations or shock loadings com-
pared to other forms of biological oxidation processes
(such as trickling filters) because of their large vol-
umes. In an aerated lagoon, stabilization is accomp-
lished by a dispersed-growth phase. Due to the dis-
persed nature of the culture, an aerated lagoon does not
require extremely close control over operating variables
such as temperature, pH, and organic loading.
Full advantage of the potential of the aerated lagoon
can only be realized by installing sufficient aeration
equipment to keep the system completely mixed as well as
to satisfy the necessary oxygen requirements. If the
turbulence level in the basin is increased to maintain
solids in suspension, the system becomes analogous to an
activated sludge process.
Since the active biological solids level in an aerated
lagoon is low, BOD^ removal is primarily a function of
the retention time, temperature, and the nature of the
waste. A small fraction of the BODt is never removed,
even after long periods of aeration, because an equili-
brium is reached between synthesis and the release back
into solution of cellular breakdown products caused by
auto-oxidation.
20
-------
SECTION V
PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
INITIAL WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Firestone, assisted by a consultant, measured and
evaluated the plant's raw process wastewater In terms of
flow, BOD5, and other basic parameters. During this
evaluation a continuous composite sampler was placed in
the combined raw vastevater stream just above the final
settling basin, and daily composite waste samples were
collected for a 12-day period. A rectangular contracted
veir was constructed in the final settling basin's outlet
trench and total wastewater flow measured.
The final wastewater flow rates remained relatively con-
stant during the study period; however, no rainfall occurred
during this period. It should be noted that during this
phase of work the plant storm water and effluent sewers
were combined. Later measurements indicated very large
Increases in flow during and after a period of rain.
Wastewater segregation was therefore an absolute pre-
requisite to the design of a wastewater treatment facility.
A complete wastewater flow study was conducted throughout
the plant complex. As a result of this study, plans were
initiated to design and install an entirely new network of
effluent trenches and storm water ditches. The installa-
tion of the plant effluent distribution and collection
system will not be discussed to any extent in this report
since only the wastewater treatment system itself is under
consideration.
After the initial wastewater characterization study was
completed, the plant's laboratory facilities were expanded
to allow complete and comprehensive in-plant wastewater
testing. Average raw wastewater characteristics over the
demonstration period are shown in Table 11.
WASTEWATER CHEMICAL STUDIES
Initial chemical treatment studies were conducted to deter-
mine if the wastewater required the addition of a coagulant
or flocculant during primary clarification.
The raw wastewater contains trace amounts of colloidal
materials in the form of latex, soap, oil, and similar
21
-------
emulsions that impart turbidity as veil as add to the
•wastewater's oxygen demand. Other materials are present
as very fine particles of rubber, talc, lime, amd carbon
black that exist as a fine-solid suspension. Effective
clarification required the addition of a primary coagulant
followed by a flocculant aid to remove the suspended and
colloidal particles from the vastewater.
Various inorganic and organic coagulants were evaluated
on samples of the plant's combined vastevater utilizing
a six-paddle Phipps-Bird jar test apparatus. During these
tests, the Inorganic metallic salts of aluminum and ferric
sulfaie performed successfully as primary coagulants.
The cationic organic polyelectrolytes tested were not very
successful during these tests. The inorganic metallic
salt*s ability to form a hydroxide floe provided much
better clarification because of its ability to remove very
fine solid particles.
Numerous polyelectrolytes varying in molecular weight and
degree of charge were evaluated during the jar studies.
The very high molecular weight, medium charged, anionic
polyelectrolytes proved to be the most effective floccu-
lants evaluated during the tests.
Aluminum sulfate (alum) was used as the primary coagulant
since the chemical was already being used within the plant.
Dosage rates of 30 to 150 mg/1 were required for adequate
clarification during the tests. Flocculant aid dosages
of 0.25 to 1.0 mg/1 were required*
Later jar tests were successfully run using a low molecular
weight, high charge density, cationic polyelectrolyte in
conjunction with alum. Tests performed with some of the
higher molecular weight catlonlcs were not successful due
to their inherently lower charge densities.
The alum, however, could not be totally replaced by the
cationic polyelectrolyte and still provide excellent
effluent clarity. Small dosages of alum in conjunction
with the cationic polyelectrolyte produced comparable
results. Cationic polymer dosages of 2 to 3 mg/1 with
10 to 20 mg/1 of alum produced excellent effluent. The
anionic polyelectrolyte dosages remained near those found
during early jar tests.
22.
-------
AIR FLOTATION TESTS
Flotation tests were conducted to evaluate the feasibility
of dissolved air flotation as a primary solids removal
method. Samples were synthesized by mixing one part of
carbon black wastewater with two parts of non-black waste-
water to duplicate the effluent that would exist after
installation of the new effluent distribution system. Pre-
treatment of the wastewater with a coagulant and flocculant
aid was necessary during these air flotation clarification
studies.
Additional laboratory air flotation tests were performed to
determine if air flotation could be utilized as a secondary
solids removal method. These tests were performed during
laboratory bio-oxidation studies using samples of waste-
water removed from the bio-oxidation unit. Effluent from
the unit required the addition of a flocculant aid to bring
about effective clarification during the flotation tests.
The following conclusions were drawn from the laboratory
air flotation tests:
1. Pretreatment of the wastewater with alua
followed by an anionic polyelectrolyte was
required. Average dosage rates of 65 mg/1
alum and 0.25 *»g/l Betz 1110 were used dur-
ing these tests* Alum dosages near 100 mg/1
with polyelectrolyte dosages of 0.5 to 1.0
mg/1 were required to treat successfully
wastewater with abnormally high levels of
carbon black.
2. Recycle pressurization was the only success-
ful dissolved air flotation method. Total
or partial pressurization of the wastewater
and subsequent release into the flotation
chamber resulted in floe break-up and poor
solids flotation.
3. Recycle rates of 33-1/3# were used during
most of the tests with very good results.
*f. Clarified effluent proved to be more effect-
ive than tap water for use as the recycle
stream. Surface active materials present
in the clarified effluent produced a more
dense, slower rising air blanket that was
very effective in clarification.
23
-------
5* Sludge rise rates were 1.5 to 2.0 ft/min during
the flotation tests.
6. A recycle pressure of 50 psig gave the most
effective air-water mixture. A recycle pres-
sure of 30 psig produced too large an air
bubble for good clarification. Pressures
above 50 psig did not improve clarification.
7. Suspended solids removals of 90JS were
accomplished during the laboratory air flota-
tion tests.
8. BODt reduction during laboratory air flotation
was'around 28$. COD reduction was not deter-
mined.
9. Float stability was adversely affected by the
presence of excess carbon black in the waste-
water. A weak air-to-solid bond was observed
when insufficient alum floe was present.
A limited number, of tests were run on the wastewater from
the laboratory secondary treatment studies; however, the
following general conclusions were drawn from the tests:
1. The wastewater required pretreatment with a
flocculant aid to produce a cohesive floe
large enough for good flotation. The floe
produced during biological treatment was dis-
persed and exhibited poor settling qualities.
2. The solids in the wastewater from the biologi-
cal treatment unit proved to be amenable to
air flotation, with good float stability and
rise rates observed.
A laboratory air flotation test kit was purchased for con-
ducting the latter air flotation tests. The test kit con-
sisted of the following equipment:
1. Pressure Bomb - A quart stainless steel
whipped cream dispenser equipped with a metal
tire air valve in place of the cylinder pierc-
ing apparatus.
-------
2. Flotation Chamber - A 500 ml graduated separat-
ing cylinder with a bottom stopcock valve for
air introduction and effluent withdrawal.
3. Air Gauge - A 20-120 Ib tire-type air gauge
for determining bomb pressure.
The following additional equipment was also utilized in
performing the tests:
1. A manual control air regulator installed on
the plant laboratory air supply. An automatic
type air chuck with flex hose was connected to
the outlet of the regulator for bomb pressurl-
zation.
2. A Phipps-Bird six-paddle gange mixer with one-
liter beakers was used during the chemical
pretreatment work.
LABORATORY BIO-OXIDATION STUDIES
Initial laboratory biological treatment studies were con-
ducted to determine the biodegredability of combined waste-
water and a feasible biological process for treatment.
Composite samples of the wastewater were tested to deter-
mine:
1. Toxic!ty of the wastewater from a biological
standpoint.
2* Nutrient requirements for biological
stabilization.
3. Oxygen requirements of a full-scale treat-
ment system.
k. Oxygen uptake rates at various organic
leadings.
J>. BOD^ loading ratio for biological treatment.
6. Retention time necessary during aeration.
The bio-oxidation studies were initiated by aerating mix-
tures of wastewater with activated sludge from a sewage
-------
treatment plant for a two-wee^period, gradually increas-
ing the ratio of plant vastewater to sanitary wastewater
until the volume of wastewater under aeration consisted of
100 percent plant wastewater. The acclimated organisms
were then used as seed material for the laboratory lagoon
studies. The bio-oxidation tests were carried out in five
laboratory aerated lagoon units, each equipped with mixers
and each having a two-liter capacity.
Initially the wastewater was fortified with nitrogen and
phosphorus to insure proper ratios for microbial develop-
ment. Later analysis of the wastewater indicated that it
contained sufficient nutrients without fortification. Sub-
sequent bio-oxidation studies were performed without forti-
fication.
The laboratory units were fed wastewater on a continuous
basis, varying retention times between one and five days
and temperatures between 5°C to 15°C. The laboratory
units were initially aerated; however, it was determined
that complete mixing was not occurring. Mixers were then
placed into the units during the subsequent tests.
Warburg respirometer studies were conducted to determine
oxygen uptake rates in each laboratory aerated lagoon unit
and to test for inhibitory or toxic materials. Toxicity
tests were performed by measuring oxygen uptake rates at
various wastewater concentrations, correcting the uptake
rates by the particular dilution factor. Results of the
Warburg respirometer and biological treatment studies were
as follows:
1. The wastewater is non-toxic based on the
Warburg respirometer studies. Sanitary
wastewater organisms can become acclimated
to the wastewater quite readily.
2. The wastewater already contains the nec-
essary nitrogen and phosphorus levels to
support microbial development.
3. 90 percent BOD^ reductions are possible
using a completely mixed aerated lagoon
for secondary treatment. Effluent BOD,-
levels of 7 mg/1 or less may be attained
in such a system.
*f. Secondary or final clarification is
required to remove the excess microbial
growth.
26
-------
A
AIR
.AIR-LIQUID
INTERFACE
AIR PRE-SATURATION
CHAMBER
ro
INFLUENT FEED
VESSEL
SLIDING BAFFLE
ADJUSTABLE OVERFLOW TUBE
CLARIFICATION CHAMBER
AERATION CHAMBER
AIR DIFFUSER
BIO-OXIDATION UNIT
FILTER
FIGURE 2
SCHEMATIC OF THE LABORATORY BIO-OXIDATION UNIT
EFFLUENT
COLLECTION
VESSEL
-------
5. An air flotation clarifier would provide the
best method of final clarification. Settle-
ability of the sludge from the laboratory
aerated lagoon was very poor due to its dis-
persed phase of growth.
6. The aerated lagoon should not be operated at
more than a one-day retention period to pre-
vent under loading and consequent auto-
oxidation.
7. BOD,- loading ratios near 0.20 pounds BOD^
per^pound of MLSS per day were found to pro-
vide excellent effluent BODY'S.
8. An average oxygen uptake of 2.6 mg/1 per hour
was found. Based on this oxygen uptake
figure and a wastewater flow of 3A mgd,
1,768 pounds of oxygen would be required for
the full-scale aerated lagoon.
Additional laboratory bio-oxidation tests were performed
utilizing a laboratory bio-oxidation unit that was fabri-
cated inside the plant, ° A schematic of the laboratory
unit is shown on Figure 2. The bio-oxidation unit can be
used to simulate several basic biological treatment pro-
cesses. Based on previous work, the unit was operated as
an aerated lagoon with the influent feed rate adjusted to
provide a 2^-hour retention period. The influent waste-
water was treated with 100 mg/1 alum and 1 mg/1 anionic
polyelectrolyte and filtered prior to conducting the tests.
initially, wastewater was mixed with some of the
laboratory*s seeded BOD5 dilution water and aerated to per-
mit acclimation.
The bio-oxidation unit was then started up by partially
filling the unit with the acclimated wastewater. The unit
was operated for two days before beginning the studies.
The bio-oxidation tests were run at laboratory temperatures
near 25°C. Tests were run on samples taken from the
influent, effluent, and the aeration chamber. Conclusions
from these additional bio-oxidation studies were as fol-
lows:
1. BOD* reductions of near 90 percent were
accomplished with a three to five-fold
increase in suspended solids during bio-
logical oxidation. The MLSS levels were
28
-------
difficult to determine since the biological
floe formed during the tests adhered quite
readily to the bottom and sides of the bio-
oxidation unit.
2* MLSS levels of 60 to 150 mg/1 would be expected
in the full-scale aerated lagoon.
3. A BOD* loading ratio near 0.5 lb BOD,- per Ib
MLSS per day was found during the lao tests,
differing considerably from the lover loading
ratio of 0.2 Ib BOD^ per Ib MLSS per day
previously reported; The non-agreement was
due to the difference in the MLSS levels within
the aeration chamber*
PILOT AIR FLOTATION TESTS
A pilot air flotation unit was rented from one of the ma^or
manufacturers of this equipment for development of design
data for the full-size air flotation unit. The company's
nonconventional air flotation pilot unit, incorporating a
baffled flotation compartment, was selected for study
because of its relatively wide loading range capabilities.
Earlier laboratory tests suggested that the float stability
could become a problem if the float was not removed within
a short period of time, depending primarily on the waste-
water's carbon black concentration and the chemical floe
characteristics.
The pilot unit was operated over a three-month period to
determine such design and operational information as:
1. Optimum wastewater loading rate and effective
range of operation.
2. Optimum recycle rate and pressure.
3. Optimum air-to-solids ratio.
if. Suspended solids removal efficiency*
5* BODc, COD, and turbidity reductions dnr-
BODc, COD. and turbidity reducti-
Ing air flotation clarification.
6. Volume and concentration of sludge removed
during air flotation. Sludge accumulation
In bottom of air flotation unit*
29
-------
Operational data from the pilot air flotation test are
presented in Table 1.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT AIR FLOTATION EQUIPMENT
The pilot air flotation equipment consisted of chemical
feed pumps, recycle pressurization system, and a pilot air
flotation unit. The pilot air flotation unit as set up dur-
ing the test period is shown in Figure A-l (Page 96 ).
Figure A-2 (Page 96 ) shows the pressurization system and
the chemical feed pumps. The pilot air flotation unit was
a section from a full-scale unit, having a 10-square-foot
flotation area and designed for an average flow rate of
50 gpm. Since the pilot unit was a section from a full-
scale unit, hydraulic conditions remained constant regard-
less of clarifier width, enabling direct scale-up to a
full-size unit from the pilot data.
'»
The coagulation and flocculation vessels, shown schematic-
ally in Figure 35 were supplied by Firestone. The coagula-
tion vessel was equipped with an air driven mixer with a
marine-type impeller to minimize shear during alum coagula-
tion. The vessel size permitted a 25-minute retention
time during normal raw wastewater feed rates (37»5 gpm).
The flocculation tank provided a five-minute retention
period. Flow within the flocculation vessel provided suf-
ficient mixing for efficient flocculation.
PILOT AIR FLOTATION TESTING PROCEDURES
Alum was used as the primary coagulant with Betz Poly-Floe
1110 used as the flocculant aid. The alum was diluted
from a 50 percent solution by weight to a 10 percent solu-
tion before being fed. The flocculant aid. an anionic
polyelectrolyte, was dissolved and diluted to a .066 percent
solution by weight before being charged. Normal alum dosage
of 65 to 100 mg/1 and flocculant aid dosages of 0.5 to 1.0
mg/1 were required during the pilot flotation tests. Pump
settings versus chemical charge rate curves were constructed
for the pilot unit's chemical feed pumps. The curves were
then used to set chemical feed rates during the pilot tests.
Feed to the pilot inlt was from a 100 gpm centrifugal pump
drawing suction from the inlet end of the existing final
settling basin. Flow was measured by an orifice plate
installed in the inle t header line and recorded on a mercury
type flow recorder. Recycle rates were determined by meas-
uring the time required to fill a five-gallon container and
30
-------
TABLE 1
PILOT AIR FLOTATION PERFORMANCE DATA
Test
No
1
2
a
!
I
9
10
11
12
K
Avg
Avg*
Note:*
Influent Characteristics
Total Vol Susp Turbid-
Solid TS Solid ity
mg/1 mg/1 mp/1 APHA
1876 276 100 83
31*36 tf08 19^ 75
29$) 268 9^ W
3060 3*fO 620 102
30*fO 272 66^- 1^
2^-92 8^f 222 96
328*f 152 121 l1^
3220 l^fO 117 86
2956 12 113 H2
3268 kO 116 116
39M-8 3Mf 2^f5 105
1+760 W> 190 120
2860 »tl6 238 170
2312 3^ 132 136
310^
253
Test Nos 7,
226
2^2*
11. and
120
Effluent
Total Vol
Solid TS
me/1 mg/1
1872 22!f
3!f2*f 300
3035 308
3136 292
2736 272
2216 6M-
3092 80
296^ 92
266»f 72
3lMf 20
372^- 1 36
^92 ^36
2816 20
2386 272
2950
1M- not included
178
Characteristics
Susp
Solid
BK/1
l»f
17
36
28
32
5^
8
l*f
12
1+8
5^
?-°
^9
27
21*
in average.
Turbid-
ity
APHA
17
25
3^
23
20
^3
12
10
21
12
20
3p
2M-
52
2*f
pH
Unit
7.9
7-l
7.5
7.5
8.3
8.3
8.1
7.8
8.1
8.0
7'§
7.8
M
7.6
7.9
'ji
(50J& Rec, 7.^
SludKe
Total
Solid
i.
2.26
2.96
1.51
5.5^
5.80
5.95
5-21
if.05
l.>+7
7.^3
5.60
3.05
^. 52
2.22
If. 11
) Load I
Vol
TS
_2
1.23
1.27
.66
1.9^
1.71
3-33
3.12
2.00
.68
2.M+
2.11
1.00
1.86
1.00
1.7^
:late, 3
Reduction
Uusp
Solid
_JU
86.0
97. ^
81.9
9^.2
95.8
85.6
55A
93-2
87.6
89.6
80A
71.6
95.8
62.9
88.0
91.3*
.0 Load
Turbid-
T
ONOO-V] 'oovo oo oo\o vn oo-
-------
ALUM COAG.
TANK
V
ANIONIC
'POLYELECTROLYTE
FLOCCULATION
TANK
t x>
>RESSUREXI**»-
RELEASE
-<
V.
1
I
T-!
)
i i i
)CLAMEL
K*
1,
1
t
\
1 1 .
|
VALVE i .
FLOW RECORDER
AIR ROTOMETERH
AIR-
PILOT AIR FLOTATION UNIT
RECYCLE PUMP
PRESSURE RETENTION
TANK
FIGURE 3
SCHEMATIC OF PILOT AIR FLOTATION UNIT
SLUDGE
^CLARIFIED
^EFFLUENT
-------
roo
90
-I80-.
I
2370 • -
260
NO CARBON BLACK PRESENT IN WASTE WATER
o
en
50 ••
UJ
o
w40
a.
ui
a.
10 •-
0 9 9 4/15/70
0 o—0 7/28/70
• —* • 6/16/70
1 1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
6
1 - i •
7
— ' 1 —
8
1
9
10
LOADING RATE (GPM/FT2 )
FIGURE 4
PERCENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL VS. LOADING RATE FOR PERMUTIT PILOT CLARIFIER
-------
adjusted accordingly. Sludge Volumes were determined in
a similar manner.
LOADING RATE DETERMINATIONS
The effect of carbon black in the influent to the pilot
air flotation unit was clearly demonstrated during the
loading rate tests, as shown in Figure *f. An optimum load-
ing rate of 6,0 gpm/sq ft was found with carbon black pre-
sent in the wastewater, while a loading rate near ^.0 gpm/
sq ft was optimum during very low carbon black influent
periods. The later tests indicated the necessity of being
able to operate the primary air flotation unit within a
^-.0 to 6.0 gpm/sq ft loading range. During the majority
of the pilot studies, the pilot unit was operated at a 5.0
gpm/sq ft loading rate, with carbon black normally being
present in the wastewater.
RECYCIE RATE AND PRESSURE DETERMINATION
Recycle rates of 13.6 percent to 50 percent were evaluated
during the pilot tests, with rates near 20 percent providing
the best degree of clarification. Turbulence became evi-
dent in the flotation unit at about 33 1/3 percent recycle,
especially near the inlet of the flotation compartment. The
turbulence resulted in higher suspended solids levels in the
effluent from the pilot unit.
Figure 5 illustrates the importance of maintaining the waste-
water pH above 6.5 pH after chemical treatment. As can be
seen from Figure 5» the overall suspended solids removal
efficiency was severely affected when the pH of the waste-
water was allowed to fall below the 6.5 pH level after chemi-
cal treatment.
AIR-TO-SOLIDS RATIO DETERMINATION
An optimum air-to-solids ratio was not determined during
the pilot work. The influent suspended solids content
varied markedly, as shown in Table 1, making the latter
determination difficult, if not impossible. Air was intro-
duced to the pressure retention tank at a constant rate of
0.1 SCFM and in excess of the amount needed for recycle
saturation. Based on the average suspended solids level
during the pilot work and a 5-0 gpm/sq ft loading rate with
33-1/3 percent recycle, an average air/solids ratio of O
Ib air/lb solids was run during the pilot trials.
-------
100 T
u
u
ui 50 ••
o.
45 •-
40
6.0pH WASTEWATER 5/27/70
aOpH WASTEWATER 4/14/70
20
10
25
PERCENT
30 35
RECYCLE RATE
40
45
FK3URE 5
PERCENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL VS! PERCENT RECYCLE RATE
FOR PI LOT AIR FLOTATION CLARIFIER
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Suspended solids removals of near 97 percent with effluent
suspended solids levels as low as 5 mg/1 were attained dur-
ing the pilot tests. The average suspended solids
removal rate was 91*3 percent, with an effluent suspended
solids concentration of 21 mg/1. The latter figures con-
sidered all the tests with the exception of those outside
the k to 6 gpm/sq ft loading rate and above the 33-1/3 per-
cent recycle rate.
BOD5, COD, AND TURBIDITY REDUCTIONS
An average BOD^ reduction of 19.8 percent was accomplished
during the pilot; studies. BOD* determinations were made
on composite influent and effluent samples from the pilot
unit during three different days of operation. Influent
BOD^ averaged 58.0 with an average effluent BOD^ of *f6.5.
During the latter evaluations, an average COD reduction of
52.0 percent was accomplished. Turbidity reductions aver-
aging 80 percent were observed during the pilot tests, as
shown in Table 1.
SLUDGE VOLUMES CONCENTRATION AND ACCUMULATION
Sludge rates were taken over a five-day period and ranged
from 0.20 gpm to 0.37 gpm, averaging 0.2o gpm. The latter
sludge rates were measured at a loading rate of 5*0 gpm/sq
ft and a 33-1/3 percent recycle rate. During the tests,
the average sludge concentration was If.11 percent total
solids by weight, and *+2.3 percent volatile content based
on dry solids content. Sludge total solids varied from a
low of 1.^7 percent to a high of 7.^3 percent, as shown in
Table 1.
The full-scale primary unit would be expected to generate
approximately 25,375 gallons/day sludge, or 9,386 pounds
dry solids/day based on the data collected during the pilot
work.
Very little bottom sludge accumulation was observed in the
flotation compartment of the pilot unit during the tests.
Only about an inch of sediment was evident after a three to
four week operational period.
The pilot air flotation studies were run on primary waste=
water only, and all design and operational data pertained
36
-------
to the primary clarification_system. No secondary treat-
ment facilities were in operation during the pilot air
flotation tests.
SLUDGE DEWATERING STUDIES
Several different sludge dewatering methods have been evalu-
ated. Sludge from the pilot air flotation unit as well as
from the full-scale clarifiers was used in the evaluations.
Sludge Drying Bed - A simulated sludge drying bed was con-
structed utilizing a 55-gallon drum and a screen tray. Sludge
was placed on the screen and allowed to dry. Free water was
allowed to drain from the bottom of the drum. Although some
dewatering was accomplished, the drying bed proved to be
unsuccessful due to sludge stratification upon standing and
blinding of the screen after a short period of time.
Centrifueation - Centrifugation was evaluated on a labora-
tory basis using both high and low speed centrifuges, and
at the pilot scale level using a high speed, bowl-ana-dish
type solids ejecting centrifuge. Although some dewatering
was obtained, operational problems occurred that eliminated
this method from consideration. Due to the presence of
solids within the sludge that were lighter than water,
effective separation could not be obtained. Also, the
centrifuge was subject to plugging caused by agglomerated
rubber particles.
Screening - A pilot dual-cell, rotating screen dewatering
unit was evaluated. The unit was ineffective due to
rapid blinding of the screen, allowing sludge to be dis- .
charged through the dewatered solids outlet. Both organic
and inorganic flocculant aids were used unsuccessfully in
an attempt to alleviate this problem.
Vacuum Filtration - Three methods of vacuum filtration
were investigated using a rotary drum vacuum filter. First,
vacuum filtration was attempted without sludge conditioning
and without the use of precoat material. The filter cloth
blinded almost immediately, eliminating any filtration and
creating a difficult cleaning job on the filter cloth.
The pilot vacuum filter was then used in an attempt to
dewater the sludge, using lime as a sludge conditioner.
Filtration was accomplished but filtration rates were
extremely low. See Table 2.
37
-------
TABLE 2
RESULTS OF PILOT VACUUM FILTRATION TESTS*
Filtrate Rate 2.05 GPH/sq ft
Sludge Rate 19.21 Ib/hr/sq ft
Solids Rate 0*761 Ib/hr/sq ft
Lime Used 0.138 Ib/lb dry solids
Filter Cake Produced 3.02 Ib/lb dry solids
Percent Solids in Cake. ..... 37.7
*With sludge conditioning but without precoat.
Based on the filtration rates obtained, a total filter area
of 803 square feet would be required, assuming a service
factor of 75 percent for the dewatering equipment. There-
fore, the advantage of continuous operation was outweighed
by the disadvantages, such as the large filter size
required, the hard to handle dewatered solids, high mainten-
ance costs, high initial capital costs, and a high degree
of operator attention.
Next, vacuum filtration with the use of a precoat was
tried. The precoat increased filtration rates consider-
ably. See Table 3»
TABLE
RESULTS OF PILOT VACUUM FILTRATION TESTS*
Filtrate Rate 6.67 GPH/sq ft
Sludge Rate . 67.5 Ib/hr/sq ft
Solids Rate . 2.9 Ib/hr/sq ft
Precoat Used 0.256 Ib/lb dry solids
Filter Cake Produced *f.3 Ib/lb dry solids
Percent Solids in Cake ..... 28.8
*With precoat but without sludge conditioning.
-------
In addition to the gotfd filtrate rates, this type of fil-
tration produced a soft, but not tacky, filter cake. Also,
the initial cost of the equipment is relatively low.
However, this method also had some disadvantages. Precoat
usage was high because of losses during filter cake removal.
The service factor was low due to the time required to apply
precoat material and the high degree of maintenance necess-
ary on this type of equipment. Also, the precoat increased
filtration costs and sludge disposal costs since it added
to the sludge volume.
Pressure Filtration - Studies on a pilot horizontal plate
and frame filter indicated that a sludge of at least 50
percent dry solids could be obtained. During the tests,
a 1.5 hour filtering cycle and 225 psi terminal filtration
pressure were used. The initial cost of this type of sys-
tem is high. Also, it was determined that lime sludge
conditioning and the use of a precoat would be necessary.
However, the filter produced a relatively dry, firm filter
cake that was 50-65 percent solids. Relatively large rub-
ber particles did not present a problem. The pressure
filter proved to be very reliable and consistent. Removal
of the dewatered solids and cleaning of the filter plates
was not a problem.
Because of these advantages as well as the low operating
costs and ease of filter capacity expansion, pressure filtra-
tion was considered to have the greatest promise of operat-
ing successfully and economically of all the methods tested.
39
-------
SECTION VI
TREATMENT FACILITIES
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Figure 6 is a flow diagram of the treatment facilities.
Starting at the lower left hand corner of the page, the
raw wastewater flows through a mechanically cleaned bar
screen for removal of large solids. The pH is adjusted as
it enters the wet well sump, or surge tank, for the raw
wastewater pumps.
The water is then pumped to the alum coagulation vessel
where coagulation of the suspended solids takes place.
Alum and cationic polyelectrolyte are added to the water
within the transfer line between the pumps and the alum
coagulation vessel at points as widely separated as possi-
ble. Either may be added to the water separately or both
may be added simultaneously.
The alum coagulation vessel is divided into three compart-
ments by baffles. There is a mixer in the first compart-
ment to insure that the alum and cationic polymer are
thoroughly mixed with the wastewater. The remaining two
sections are quiescent, in order to allow the floe to grow.
Leaving the alum coagulation vessel, the wastewater flows
through a flow measuring box into the primary flash mixing
tank. Anionic polyelectrolyte is added to the wastewater
at the inlet of the flash mixing tank.
The water leaves the flash mixing tank and enters the floe-
former compartment of the primary air flotation unit
through a 20-inch line. An inlet distribution flume dis-
tributes the water evenly across the floe-former compart-
ment.
Figure 7 shows the layout of the primary air flotation
unit. The final air flotation unit is a mirror image of
the primary unit with the exception that there is no clari-
fier effluent recirculated to maintain a constant flow in
the final unit, as is done for the primary unit.
The clarified effluent from the primary clarifier is
pumped to the aerated lagoon for BODr reduction by biolo-
gical treatment. The effluent of the lagoon is pumped to
the final clarifier flow measuring box.
-------
FINAL EFFLUENT!
s+
S4
COMBINED SLUDGE
SLUDGE IMPOUNDMENT
FINAL
CLARIFIER
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
PRESSURE
$ RETENTION
& TANK
AERATED LAGOON
FEEDTANK '
ALUM
COAGULATION
TANK
ANIONIC POLYELECTROUTTE
MAKE-UP TANKS
SAMPLE
POINT
FIGURE 6
FLOW DfAGRAM OF TREATMENT PLANT
CAT. POLYMER" FE
FEED TANK TANK
-------
F
1,
T
P
NALAIR
STATION
^'1 *.
0 SLUDGE
nun ._.
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT 9
THIS CENTER LINE — ^
PRIMARY AIR FLOTATION UNIT 1
55'-0"
J-io^s'-e" , _ 48'-8"
y
M
SLUDGE COMPARTMENT G-
<
UJ
z
-J
i
V
W
»*
« t*-Ro EFFLUENT 1^-TO RECYCLE
J£f 1 PUMPS Bw| PUMP
6.
SKIMMER DISCHARGE RAMP
IFROM FLASH T
MIXING TANK T
T*
rE5iboENT P^ TREATED LIQUID COMPARTMENT -, -^
yWIER *— • ^ / /
> ^ Illl »
*• EFFLUENT COMPARTMENT | ^m
1 | lUJE
_ DIRECTION OF SKIMMER TRAVEL z§
ux
FLOTATION COMPARTMENT 4 SB!
*—LAMELS ^ Jg
| INLET BAFFLES -T ft °\°~
*/ AIR FLOTATION INLET COMPARTMENT « \
FLOC FORMER COMPARTMENT
r/ r '^ -/ |
. -S
^tf
1 .
9
RECIRCULATED CLARIFIED EFFLUENT*
TO MAINTAIN CONSTANT FLOW THRU
AIR FLOTATION UNIT.
FIGURE 7
PLAN OF PRIMARY AIR FLOTATION UNIT
-------
FIGURE 8
AERIAL VIEW OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
-------
Alum is added to the lagoon effluent within the transfer
line. Cationic polyelectrolyte is added to the wastewater
within the flow measuring box. The flow measuring box
discharges into the final clarifier flash mixing tank
where anionic polyelectrolyte is added.
The wastewater is transferred from the flash mixing tank
to the final clarifier inlet distribution flume via a
20-inch line. The effluent from the final clarifier is
discharged to a concrete-lined trench, which in turn
empties into a ditch which leaves the plant property.
DESIGN CONCEPT
The treatment facilities were designed with the objective
of providing the best practical treatment for the plant
wastewater that would exceed any foreseeable water quality
standards which might be required, and in particular, to
exceed the criteria set by the Louisiana Stream Control
Commission.
Since a plant expansion was in progress, it was necessary
to anticipate the effect of, and to make allowances fcr the
additional wastewater.
After a wastewater characterization study, it was decided
to construct a single wastewater treatment system to treat
the total plant wastewater, rather than provide separate
treatment facilities for various parts of the plant. It
was also decided to make every practical effort to segre-
gate storm water from plant wastewater.
The original basic treatment scheme was similar to that
shown in Figure 6, with one major exception - that approxi-
mately *f5 minutes retention time be provided for equaliza-
tion by utilizing the west side of the old settling basin,
now held in standby for impounding spills. Existing
equipment was utilized in the design and construction of
the facilities whenever it was practical.
DESIGN CRITERIA
Studies indicated that chemical coagulation of suspended
solids and clarification by dissolved air flotation would
be required for primary treatment, that 2^-hour retention
with aeration and mixing would be required for secondary
treatment, and that final clarification, preferably by
dissolved air flotation also, would be required prior to
the discharge of the,wastewater.
-------
The following table shows the pertinent parameters of
the wastewater as determined for conditions before and
after the proposed treatment,
TABLE
Pertinent Parameters
Parameter
Haw Wastewater
Before Treatment
Final Discharge
(Estimated)
Flow
(MGD)
2.9
3.^*
BODj
Dissolved
Oxygen
Suspended
Solids
Oil &
Grease
Total
Chromium
Phenols
Chlorides
Sulfates
as SOif
(Ib/day)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(Ib/day)
(mg/1)
(Ib/day)
(mg/1)
(Ib/day)
(mg/1)
(Ib/day)
(mg/1)
(Ib/day)
(mg/1)
(Ib/day)
(mgA)
1,707
71
Nil
3jlfS
725
30
2.7
0.11
7-2
0.30
16,9*6
701
12,^23
193
7
5?
Less Than 283
Less Than 10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than 16,9^3
Less Than 701
12,^23
*Plant expansion in progress, which increased flow.
Extensive laboratory and pilot plant tests, were conducted
by plant personnel to verify the results of earlier studies
and to provide additional data needed for the design of
treatment equipment. From these tests it was determined
that alum and anionic polyelectrolyte would definitely be
required in the chemical treatment of the raw wastewater.
-------
It was decided that existing unloading and storage
facilities would be utilized for receipt of alum and that
the anionic polymer would be received in the dry form and
would be stored in a new building at the treating facili-
ties. An alum serving tank with transfer facilities
would be installed for the treatment system.
Due to the anticipated cost of chemicals required, it was
decided that the feed of chemicals should be proportional
to the effluent flow. Previously existing facilities that
were incorporated into the present treatment system include
the raw wastewater pump wet well and the twin settling
basins.
It was decided that floating-type mechanical aerators would
be used in order to allow for fluctuations in the water
level in the aerated lagoon, since retention time, and
consequently lagoon level, appeared to be a critical factor
in BOD^ reduction.
Preliminary specifications were drawn up by plant engineer-
ing personnel. The services of an engineering firm were
then obtained for finalizing specifications and obtaining
competitive quotations on the required equipment.
-------
SECTION VIT
DEMONSTRATION
SAMPLING AND TESTING
During the grant period, Firestone personnel carried out
complete daily testing of plant wastewater, following a
sample schedule recommended by the EPA Water Quality Office.
Sample points were selected at various locations throughout
the treatment system so that individual unit performance
as well as overall system performance could be studied and
evaluated.
SAMPLING
Locations - There were nine major sampling points. The
location of each is denoted by a numbered flag in Figure 6.
Procedures - Three different sampling methods were used.
A continual, automatic composite sampler was used for col-
lecting raw wastewater, primary clarifier effluent, lagoon
effluent, and final effluent (sample points 1, 2, 3,and *f).
Figure 9 shows the automatic sampling system. Grab samples
from sample points 7, 8, and 9 were caught every six hours
and combined for a 2*f-hour composite sample. Grab samples
from sample points 5 and 6 (primary and secondary sludge)
were caught every eight hours and combined for a 2^-hour
composite.
Schedule - Samples were taken every day at the nine major
sampling points. Table 5 shows the tests that were performed
on each sample.
Automatic Composite Sampling System - The sampling system
consists of four samplers for obtaining composite samples
from four separate points in the wastewater treatment sys-
tem: the raw wastewater, the primary clarifier effluent,
the lagoon effluent, and the final clarifier effluent.
Each sampler is composed of two 3A-inch three-way valves
with pneumatic actuators. The three-way valves of each
sampler are connected by a ten-inch long piece of 3A-inch
pipe, the volume of which determines the amount of the sam-
ple that is retained each time the sampler is actuated.
The sample stream flows continuously into the lower valve,
up through the interconnecting pipe, and out through the
-------
MAGNETIC CURRENT TO
TOrilRRFNT PNFIIMATIC WACTFWATFR WA4TFWI
TRANSDUCER TRANSDUCER FLOW RECORDER FLOW REC
_____ i • _____ _____
I____l !_-..»* j, - -.11.™.
JER
ORDER
EXTRACTOR
'"
FINAL EFFLUENT FLOW FLOW
MAGNETIC INTEGRATOR INTEGRATOR
FLOW METER
^^^^^^_ i ^^^^^^_v 1
PULSE PULS
FLOW COUNTER COUN
TOTALIZER 'J VENT VENT
TIMFR ^LjsLrtJ 3 WAY AIR IfSj
TIMER U/^l ACTUATED \d_
~^~^ 1 *|i* VALVES t
RETURN LINE^ ^-W 3 WAY A(R ^
^2j\ VALVES /
i
I
. J j cdfflfifcs
LINE j^^-^ ' ^~
E
TER
« « ....1
PRIMARY UNIT
FLOW TRANSMITTER
— - — —
FLOW
TOTALIZER
TIMER
yM— ..„..
0-
^
(^
{ J SAMPLE
>«_«C 1 IMC
* i REFRfGERATED CONTAINER
FIGURE 9
SCHEMATIC OF WASTEWATER AUTOMATIC COMPOSITE SAMPLER
-------
TABLE 5
WASTE SAMPLING AND TESTING SCHEDULE
PH
Total Solids
Inorganic
Organic
Susp. Solids
Inorganic
Organic
Set. Sol. (Ml/1)
Turb. (APHA)
BOD5
COD'
DO
TOG*
Cr +6
Cr +3
S0ij.
Oil & Grease
Phenol
POif.
Chloride
NHo*
Nitrate N*
Nitrite N*
Total Carbon
0
"*""^ i
H 3>
D (D
•P PH
frt C3
w V
5 CO
ti at
rtPQ
A
t A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
1
3
ID
3
^»
___*
•n
H
<* 3
w ol
£
^4
t3
0) o
N-P
>i «H i-l
rH dJI H fn
of CQI cd Q> ^
2 j s -P c
•H Ol 0* «J ct
PE< 4-»| H ^ EH
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
J fel
>^ $4 — « CO
7 Q) M
OJ-P C
3
0) fH
p» ctf
H B
o P
hft.
'•H
-P
p cd
a
CMI 0)
CD .**ll ^~l
-i -P dl -H
p^ c^ ^^
H
CD -H
O^HS
(P R|4-' ^4-H
SO -HX3
H OTO h «
M
6 (d
O H
f-i O
^ >
(JJ f^
two rt
Ti E
4-i *-H4-( uq o; to t-i
CM M«HI Cflj 0) rH rH rj £
W DJfhq 1-^1^ O fol CQ P^
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
u
0)
s?
O fH
H Cd
u
I)
M^"
•d a
H f-
B
B
B
B
Results in mg/1 except as noted.
*A11 tests were run daily with the following exceptions:
1. TOG & TC - 2/week
2. Nik Nitrite, and Nitrate - I/week
A = 2lf-Hour continuous composite
B = 1 Grab/6 Hours (2*f-hour composite)
C =1 Grab/8^Hours te^-hour composite)
-------
return outlet of the upper valve while the sampler is
in the de-energized position. When the sampler is ener-
gized, both valves rotate simultaneously. The return out-
let of the upper valve is shut off and the interconnecting
tube is opened to the vent connection. At the lower valve
the sample supply is shut off and the interconnecting pipe
is opened to the drain outlet of the valve. This allows
the sample that is trapped between the valves to drain
down into a sample container.
Although the system consists of four samplers, Figure 9
shows only two in order to simplify the diagram. In
reality, the flow integrator of the primary unit flow
meter actuates samplers for both the raw wastewater and the
primary clarifier effluent, and the flow integrator of the
final effluent flow meter actuates samplers for the lagoon
effluent and the final clarifier effluent.
The output of each of the flow integrators goes to a pulse
counter which provides the signal to actuate the samplers.
The counter provides the actuating signal each time a pre-
determined quantity of water has been indicated by the
flow integrator. The predetermined quantity may be
changed by adjusting the dial setting of the counter,but
must not be changed after the sampling period of a compos-
ite sample has begun or the integrity of the sample will
suffer.
A timer determines the length of time that the samplers
remain actuated. Only sufficient time must be provided to
allow the sample to completely drain into the sample con-
tainer.
Sample pumps have been provided for the raw waste water and
final clarifier effluent samplers, since these two streams
are in concrete trenches. No sampling pumps are needed for
the primary clarifier effluent or the lagoon effluent since
these streams are already under pressure in transfer pipe
lines.
A chest type freezer was used to keep the sample containers
refrigerated. The thermostat of the freezer was replaced
with one of the proper range to maintain a controlled
temperatue of M)° F. Holes were drilled through the back
of the freezer in order to run the drain tubes from the
samplers into the sample containers inside the freezer.
-------
TESTING
Methods - All analytical testing was done in accordance with
/the twelfth edition of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and WastewaterT with the following exceptions:
1. Nitrogen as ammonia - Determined by the Hach Test
Kit method.
2. Nitrogen as nitrite - Determined by the Hach Test
Kit method.
3. Phenols - Determined by the Hach Aminoantipyrene
method.
87 making determinations on standard solutions, the Hach
method was found to be both accurate and reliable. However,
a spectrometer was used for concentration determinations '
rather than the standard color wheel* A transmittance ver-
sus concentration curve was determined from standard solu-
tions.
Outside Testing - Heavy metal tests were run on a quarterly
basis as part of the routine test and analysis of the pro-
cess effluent. The tests were run on 2*f-hour composite
samples that were chemically stabilized and shipped to an
outside laboratory. Table 6 summarizes the results of the
tests.
PROBLEMS
Several problems were encountered in the testing procedures
during the demonstration period. The TOC instrument was
not received until mid-October and was not used for testing
until the first of November. The high chloride content of
the wastewater, an average of about 1300 mg/1, caused some
difficulties. Chloride interference in the COD tests was
enough to increase the test results by 10-15 percent.
Nevertheless, the tests were performed in accordance with
Standard MethodsT which does not correct for a chloride con-
tent below 2000 mg/1. Sample turbidity caused some diffi-
culties in determining the hexavalent chromium content.
Starting the first of November, samples were prepared in a
manner that reduced the turbidity problem, causing the
results to be appreciably lower than the reported values
for the preceding months. There was some difficulty in
getting representative sludge samples. The installation of
a sludge circulation system in each clarifier during March
resulted in more uniform samples for laboratory analysis
during the remainder of the demonstration period.
-------
TABLE 6
METAL ANALYSIS
of
FINAL EFFLUENT
Antimony as Sb
Chromium, Total as Cr
Cobalt as Co
Copper as Cu
Iron, Total as Fe
Lead as Pb
Manganese as Mn
Mercury as Hg
Molybdenum as Mo
Nickel as Ni
Sllrer as Ag
Tin as Sn
Zinc as Zn
(Additional Metals)
• ^ mmmmj _.._ _ _ » ^
Aluminum as Al
Barium as Ba
Beryllium as Be
Boron as B
Cadmium as Cd
Calcium as Ca (ppm)
10/29/71
ND (1000)
50
100
80
1500
100
250
ND (0.1)
1000
ND (100)
10
ND (1000)
160
530
ND (100)
ND (10)
ND (10)
32
Sftitple Date
2/8/72
ND (1000)
50
ND (100)
ND (10)
900
ND (100)
250
8.8
ND (1000)
200
10
ND (1000)
1*>
-
5/16/72
ND (1000)
50
ND (100)
20
2000
ND (100)
220
ND (0.1)
ND (1000)
300
ND (10)
ND (1000)
300
-
*Resuits reported in ppb unless otherwise noted.
ND - Not detected belov indicated concentration.
-------
SECTION VIII
TREATMENT PLANT PERFORMANCE
OPERATIONAL DATA
Wastewater Flow Data - Raw and final wastewater flow data
during the demonstration period are presented in Table 7
below.
TABLE 7
WASTEWATER FLOW RATES
Raw Wastewater _ Final Effluent
High* Low* Average** High* Low* Agerage**
Date gpm gpm gpm mgd gpm gpm gpm mgd
Oct.71 2831 2231 2388 3. ^3 28lif 2105 2551 3.6?
Nov. 3030 20M+ 2562 3.69 3019 2^56 2620 3.77
Dec. 3^23 2156 2731*- 3.9^ 2966 23^ 2823 **.06
Jan.72 3^73 1935 2613 3.76 3079 2228 261^ 3-76
Feb. 2696 1553 1993 2.87 2869 836 2175 3.13
March 2696 1692 2159 3.11 291^ 2025 2^-86 3.58
April 27^5 1635 2117 3.05 2925 1800 2369 3.^1
May 2576 16^2 2150 3.10 27^1 1676 23^3 3-37
June 28*K) 1897 2182 3.1^ 2891 800 2180 3
Average 2322 3.3^ 2^f62 3.55
*Daily average data
**Monthly average of daily data
Very little wastewater flow equalization is built into the
primary wastewater treatment system. Adequate flow
-------
stabilization, however, is provided by the aerated lagoon
during secondary treatment.
Segregation of the process waste-water and storm waters
after completion of the effluent collection and distribu-
tion system has provided even less flow equalization than
existed before the effluent and storm sewers were combined.
The primary air flotation clarifier was sized such that dur-
ing normal raw wastewater flow rates, approximately 20 per-
cent of the clarified effluent is recirculated back through
the unit to maintain optimum clarifier loading conditions.
The primary clarifier1 s flow recirculation system has
helped to maintain a fairly constant flow rate within the
unit. During very high wastewater flow periods, no means
of regulating flow is provided and clarifier performance is
affected.
Chemical Feed Bates - Chemical feed rate data for the
Primary and Secondary Clarification Units are presented
in the following Table 8.
TABLE 8
CHEMICAL FEED RATES*
Month
Primary Clarification
Cat. Anionic
Alum Polymer _P_oJj
Secondary Clarification
Cat. Anionic
ler Polymer
Oct. 71
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 72
Feb.
March
April
May
June
Average
20
Mf
62
52
20
Ho
37
29
30
37
^•••^•^^••••^^^•••^•IMM
V.6
2.6
1.5
0.0
2.8
5.V
4.7
3.6
3.6
3.2
•MHMM^MMM^MMMW^i^
.79
.76
.85
.63
•73
.70
.70
.61
.70
.72
•^M^BBB^Mi^^HMi^
58
36
58
57
33
29
27
2^t
3V
VO
3.8
2.V
1.8
0.0
V.7
V.8
3-8
3.2
3.1
3.1
H^HBHVi^^HBMM^H^MHW
.82
.75
.89
.62
.61
.57
• M-9
.53
.65
*Data represent daily average concentrations as mg/1 based
on total wastewater flow.
56
-------
Turbulence within the chemical treatment units, especially
in the primary treatment unit, resulted in higher chemical
requirements than experienced during earlier jar tests.
Use of the cationic polyelectrolyte in conjunction with
alum improved clarification efficiencies by producing a
chemical floe that was tougher than the fragile alum floe;
however, turbulence was still a problem.
The earlier jar tests ran on effluent from the laboratory
aerated lagoon indicated that an anionic flocculant aid
alone would bring about effective flocculation. However,
the water in these laboratory tests did not contain the
carbon black present in the effluent from the full-scale
aerated lagoon, A cationic coagulant was required during
the full scale evaluations due to the presence of carbon
black and also to the biological sludge's dispersed nature
and apparent charge neutrality. The carbon black concentra-
tion in the lagoon effluent steadily decreased during the
nine-month demonstration period. The alum and flocculant
aid requirements consequently also decreased during the
same period,
Clarifier Downtime - Table 9 was compiled to show down-
time on the air flotation clarifiers during the demonstra-
tion period.
TABLE 9
DOWNTIME ON AIR FLOTATION CLARIFIERS
Primary Clarifier
Secondary Clarifier
Date
Oct. 71
Nov,
Dec.
Jan. 72
Feb.
March
April
May
June
Total
DT
(Hrs)
10.50
0.00
169.50
123-50
11.25
7.75
0.00
0.00
18.25
DT for
Clean-
ing
(Hrs)
8.50
0.00
83.50
0.00
11.25
7.75
0.00
0.00
18.25
% DT
for
Clean-
ing
80.9
0.0
**9.3
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Total
DT
(Hrs)
17.33
12.50
117.75
23.92
59.33
3.92
11.25
^.75
16.00
DT for
Clean-
ing
(Hrs)
8.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.00
0.00
10.33
0.00
0.00
% DT
for
Clean-
ing
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.9
0.0
91.8
0.0
0.0
1. Total downtime over the 9-month period was 5*2$ of
total possible operating time.
2. Total downtime over the 9-month period was
total possible operating time.
of
57
-------
Downtime figures have been reported for both the
"primary" and "secondary" clarifier; however, in examin-
ing the results tabulated above, the following discussion
should be considered.
Firestone's wastewater treatment system was designed to
insure that a primary air flotation clarifier would be in
operation 100 percent of the time. The dissolved air
flotation units are interconnected to permit use of the
"secondary" clarifier as the primary clarifier when nec-
essary.
During periods of downtime on the secondary clarifier, the
aerated lagoon will "normally" contain enough surge capa-
city to absorb the wastewater discharge until the secondary
unit can be returned to service.
Primary clarifier downtime during the nine-month demonstra-
tion period was 31+Q«75 hours, which represented 5.2 percent
of the total possible operating time. The primary unit was
shut down six times during the demonstration period for
cleaning, resulting in 129«25 hours downtime, or 37»9 per-
cent of the total downtime. The cleaning downtime figure
was abnormally high for the number of cleanings. Mainten-
ance requirements during some of the cleanings resulted in
extended downtime.
The bulk of the solids removed from the bottom of the pri-
mary clarifier during cleaning was solids that were rich
in carbon black having a relatively high specific gravity.
Secondary clarifier downtime during the demonstration period
was 266,75 hours, or *f.l percent of the possible 6,552 hours
operating time. The secondary unit was shut down three
times for cleaning during the nine-month period. Cleaning
of the final clarifier accounted for 32 hours, or 12.0
percent of the total downtime.
Both air flotation units incorporate bottom sludge blow-
down headers, located inside sludge collection troughs,that
tie into the suction line of the clarifier sludge pump.
The sludge collection trough runs the width of the flota-
tion compartment near the outlet and beneath the float
removal ramp. The floor of the clarifier is sloped towards
the outlet end and into the sludge collection trough. The
clarifiers, after a period of time, require a shutdown to
remove the settled solids.
During normal operation the sludge is routinely drawn off
the bottom of the clarifier: however, due to the nature of
the sludge, not all of it will migrate to the sludge
-------
collection trough. Cleaning of a clarifier normally
requires a 6 to 10-hour period using a firehose to flush
the solids into the sludge collection troughs. The sludge
pump is left operating during the water-flushing operation
until all the sludge is pumped from the unit.
___ Cfcaracterlsties - Influent-Effluent data collected
during the demonstration period are shown in Table 11. The
data represent the average of all the daily test results
run on 2tf-hour continuous composite samples made up of
6-hour grab samples. Primary and aerated lagoon effluent
characteristics are shown in Table 13. The data represent
the average of all the daily test results run on 2*f-hour
continuous composite samples.
Monthly Percent Removal Data - Monthly performance data are
shown in Tables l*f and 15 for the more pertinent vastevater
parameters*
Sludge Characteristics - Primary and secondary sludge
characteristics are shown in Table 10 below. Tests vere
run on 2M~hour composite samples composed of 8-hour grab
samples*
TABLE 10
SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
(All Data)
Primary Sludge
Secondary Sludge
Sludge Std.
Parameter* Avg. High Low Dev- Avg.
Std.
Lov J3gv.
Total
Solids
Inorganic
Solids
Organic
Solids
Oil &
Grease
7.80 19.63 .62 3.^ 5.75 18.08 1.2»f 2.31
3.20 15.62 ,»«6 1.78 3.12 7.1*f .to 1.08
lf.63 16.20 .16 2.69 2.6M- 13.30 .to 1.61
1.67 8.90 .05 1A5 .66 9.76 .01
*Data as weight %
During the first five months of the demonstration period.
an outside firm was contracted to remove and dispose of the
59
-------
TABLE 11
INFLUENT -
C HARAfiTRR T 8 TTC S
OY
O
(All
Data)
Raw Wastevater
Wastevater Parameter*
pH (Unit)
Total Solids
Inorganic Solids
Organic Solids
Suspended solids
Suspended Inorg. Solids
Suspended Org. Solids
fettleable Solids (mJVl)
uMidlty (Afffi?
BCID5
COTT
DO
Total Carbon
TOC
Chromium (+6)
SOk
Oil & Grease
Phenol
POtt
Chloride
raj-OO
Nitrate (H)
Average
7.7
3^3
3179
266
197
118
6.2
70
72.1
•4*frf7
kT
86
63
.023
.181
71*
M0.9
.199
*0
3.5
.78
.72
High
12.3
7715
5552
800
100.6
*96
33^.6
2167
131
1.050
1.500
3800
1026.0
.980
85
2603
3.88
2.*9
Lov
2.5
1130
28
0
7
31.9
92
.0
52
33
.000
.909
250
2.0
.010
0
32*
1.0
.08
.00
Std.
Dev.
0.9
865
820
1 Q^
88
£2
39.1*
257
18
18
.080
262
11
2.0
.60
Final I5f f 3 uent
Average
7.3
3220
3101
120
29
10
20
.3.9
1*
11.5
cy^
^7 C%
25
.005
73*
" 28
11*1
2.8
177
10.6
2*3
161
82
7.00
77
51.3
201
.165
1560
99.8
.*00
233*
*•*,
ilao.
Lov
5.8
200*
1935
2*
0
0
0
1.9
.000
,009
**0
.1
.000
0
"it
.03
.20
Std.
0.6
618
611
17
P
.80
10
10.*
31
1.2
10
8
.01*
.0*6
117
9.1
.053
11
335
2.0
.2*
^Results in mg/1 unless noted.
-------
TABLE 13
WASTEWATBR CHARACTERISTICS AFTER CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Wastewater Parameter
pH (Unit)
Total Solids
Inorganic Solids
Organic Solids
Suspended Solids
Suspended Inorganic Solids
Suspended Organic Solids
Settleable Solids, nl/1
NH3 (N)
Nitrate (N)
Nitrite (N)
Equalized Raw Water
to Mix Tank No 1
Average High Low
7.3
^•^T 5
o*| ft ill
268
271
121
150
15.3
2.9
.6k
.73
10.3
7116
6852
1095
975
706
730
125.0
8.5
5.10
3.18
6.3
128>f
llMf
50
»*
10
19
.1
.9
.<*
.12
Feed to Primary
Clarifier
After Mix Tank. No.l
Average High
7-3 11.5
339^
3101
2*f3
189
77
112
7.8
-
-
-
6692
6328
1120
759
&2
621
N 100.0
-
-
-
Lov
6.2
!5Mf
1156
35
22
2
2
0.1
-
-
-
Feed to Secondary
Clarifier
After Mix fa.njr No.p
Average High
7.2 10.2
327*f »f980
3098 if?52
177 9^5
129 ^51
6»f 25»f
65 ^35
7.1 32.0
-
-
-
Low
6.0
2080
1990
20
30
7
6
0.3
-
-
-
Results in mg/1 unless noted.
-------
TABLE
CO
PRIMARY CLARIFIER EFFLUENT - AERATED LAGOON EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS (ALL DATA)
•
Wastewater
Parameter*
pH (Unit)
Total Solids
Inorganic Solids
Organic Solids
Suspended Solids
Suspended Inorg. Solids
Suspended Org. Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Turbidity (APHA)
COD
DO
Phenol
Primary
Average
3308
3090
152
52
22
31
2.8
22
51.1
162
1+ $
176
C;Larifi,er Effluent
High
12.2
1030M-
7356
29^8
282
178
163
60.0
O r*
85
116 .'8
553
8.2
980
Low
2.8
15^0
1212
0
2
0
0
0
20.8
50
0
000
Std.
Dev.
918
790
186
29
21
8.7
1 O
17
19.1
6^
1.5
127
Aerate^ Laeoon Effluent
Average
3370
3191
180
62
62
-
-
-
-
Hi£h.
10.5
5^75
90^-
650
298
-
-
-
-
Low
3.7
2175
2028
30
25
0
2
-
-
-
—
Std.
Dev.
.7
663
633
106
79
33
-
-
-
~
*Results in mg/1 unless noted.
-------
TABLE
ON
MONTHLY
Month
October 1971
November
December
January 1972
February
March
April
May
June
Average
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Primary Clarif ier
Infl . Eff. % Rem.
283 ^ 9 82.7
206
236
175
192
21*f
158
122
208
199
>+5
35
31
70
50
1+2
52
93
52
78.2
85.2
82.3
63.5
76.6
73. ^
57. M-
55.3
73.9
REMOVAL DATA
Secondary Clarifier
Infl. Eff. fo Rem1.
191 33
I*t2
180
ll»f
135
ll>f
I3»f
86
128
136
19
Mf
27
21
28
25
28
37
29
82.7
86.6
75*6
76.3
8»t A
75A
81.3
67. M-
71.1
78.7
Overall
Raw
283
183
202
172
276
16M-
162
117
20*t
196
Final
33
19
Vf
27
21
28
25
28
^7
29
% Rem.
88.3
89.6
78.2
#f.3
92A
82.9
8^.6
76.1
81.9
85.2
All test results as mg/1
-------
TABLE
MONTHLY PERFORMANCE DATA - NINE MONTHS DEMONSTRATION PERIOD
Month
October 71
November
December
January 72
February
March
April
May
June
Average
iu5
88.1
75.9
64-. 0
88.1
70.5
!+7.6
56.7
68^3
71.5
BOD
Final
13.8
11.1
20.9
20.2
10.2
7.3
5.1
7.1
6.1
J.1.3
% Rem.
87A
?g'?
68. M-
88A
89.6
89.3
87.5
91*1
W-.2
f!
653
539
^51
1+60
*+30
275
339
¥f7
COD
linai
80
71
101
9^
70
67
ot
58
73
% Rem,.
85.7
89.1
81.3
79.2
8^.8
8*f.i+
82.8
76.7
82.9
83.7
Raw
65
56
68
81
57
68
6*f
TOG
Final
21
26
26
27
23
20
29
21
2H
% Rem.
67.7
53.6
61.8
66.7
59.6
63.0
54-.7
67.2
62! «T
Oil and Grease
Phenol
Total Chromium
October 71
November
December
January 72
February
March
April
May
June
Average
*A11 test
5H
36.6
86.*8
35.0
21 .'5
27.2
39.9
results as
Final
778
6.7
7.8
13.0
6.1
6.3
5.7
7.1
rag/1
% Rem.
85.3
81.7
81.9
85.0
82.6
79.8
77.0
8o!l
82.2
.281
.190
.167
.123
.100
.093
.159
.177
.192
Fin n^
.066
.051
.087
.072
.031
.028
.031
.032
.ofe
.0^+9
% Rem*
8O
81.9
5^.2
7*;i
72.0
66.7
79.9
76.3
.271
.091
.1^2
.166
Il95
.226
.222
.257
.198
Final
.077
.025
".031
.050
io53
.039
.069
.O^o
% Rem.
72." 5
66.9
81.3
76.6
77. ^
76.5
82. ^
73.2
7 5! 8
-------
plant's combined sludge. During this period the combined
sludge volume averaged 22,500 gpd. Sludge total solids
averaged 5.6$, yielding 11,3^0 Ib/day of dry solids.
On-site lagooning of the sludge was begun on March 16,
1971. Both primary and secondary sludge were pumped
directly from the air flotation clarifier to the sludge
impounding lagoon. Plans are to utilize the sludge
impounding lagoon for sludge disposal until a satisfactory
means of dewatering and/or disposal can be found.
Recycle Rater Loading Ratet and Air-To-Solid Ratio -
Recycle rates between 22 and 30 percent proved to be the
optimum operating range for both air flotation clarifiers.
Recycle rate variations around the primary clarifier during
normal operations did not affect solids removal efficiencies
to any great extent. Recycle rate adjustments were made
only during extended high or low raw wastewater flow periods.
However, varying the recycle rate across the secondary air
flotation clarifier produced a greater effect on solids
removal. Recycle rates below or above the 20 to 30 percent
range resulted in rapid decreases in suspended solids
removal across the secondary unit, especially -during the
earlier operational period when carbon black levels were
relatively high in the lagoon effluent. For this reason,
recycle adjustments were recommended on the unit whenever
flow rates were varied.
Loading rates near 5»5 gpm/sq ft were found to be optimum
for the primary clarifier, with loading rates near M-.2
gpm/sq ft being optimum for the secondary clarifier. Pri-
mary effluent clarity begins to drop sharply below loading
rates near *f.5 gpm/sq ft. The secondary clarifierrs per-
formance was found to be relatively stable between 3*5 to
5.0 gpm/sq ft loading rates.
Air-to-solids ratio determinations were performed only on
the secondary air flotation clarifier. Air-to-solids ratios
near 0.1 Ib air/lb solids provided the best clarification.
Higher air-to-solid ratios resulted in poorer solids removal
with those above 0.3 Ib air/lb solids showing visual tur-
bulence (due to excess free air) in the air flotation
compartment near the recycle release headers. Flow and
solids variation around the primary air flotation unit made
it difficult to accurately determine an optimum air-to-
solids ratio and impossible to control at a set ratio dur-
ing operation.
-------
PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA FROM OPERATIONAL DATA
Air Flotation - Air-to-solids ratios of near 0.06 Ib air/lb
solid provided effective solids removal across the primary
clarifier; whereas, secondary air-to-solid ratios near 0.1
Ib air/lb solid produced the best clarification.
Oxygen and air solubility curves are shown in Figures 10
and 11 for the plant's combined wastewater. During the
solubility determinations, a permeable membrane dissolved
oxygen meter and a, constant temperature water bath were used
in developing the data. Dissolved oxygen measurements vere
performed on distilled water as an experimental control dur-
ing the tests. The distilled water control agreed fairly
well with handbook data. From the oxygen solubility data,
a curve was constructed for the plant wastewater over the
normal wastewater temperature range.
Figures 12 and 13 are included to show the relationship
between percent solids removal and influent suspended solids
levels during actual operation. Data for the curves were
taken from the Hay through June, 1972 period of operation.
The curves suggest that percent suspended solids removal
across an air flotation unit alone is not necessarily a
measure of system performance, as indicated by the curve's
scattered points. Many other variables affect the perform-
ance of an air flotation system, as discussed in the
theoretical section of this report, and must be taken into
account before drawing any definite conclusions concerning
operational variables.
Biological Oxidation - Monthly BOD* loading rates are
shown in Table 16.
66
-------
10 T
.-, 8 -•
o
Z
UJ
X
O
o
UJ
3
O
tn
7 ••
5 + ACTUAL OXYGEN SOLUBILITY
• • • IN DISTILLED WATER
© © © IN PLANT WASTEWATER
X X X IN DISTILLED WATER -
4 +• EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL
-h
•+•
20
40
30
TEMPERATURE (°C)
FIGURE 10
SOLUBILITY OF OXYGEN IN PLANT WASTEWATER VS. TEMPERATURE
50
-------
17 T
16 -•
15 • •
14 • •
at
ID
_l
O
CO
13 ••
12 . .
25
1 1
35 40
TEMPERATURE (°C)
FIGURE II
SOLUBILITY OF AIR IN PLANT EFFLUENT VS. TEMPERATURE
45
-------
1001
90
80 +
2 601
H 50+
z
UJ
40-
30-
20-
10--
0
_l—. , 1
100 200 , t .
INFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L)
ft
300
"400
FIGURE 12
PERCENT REMOVAL VS.INFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
DURING MAY AND JUNE, 1972
-------
100-f
90
80
704-
UJ
« 50
£40
as
UJ
°- 30
20
10
0
1 , , , 4
50 100 150 200
INFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L)
FIGURE 13
PERCENT REMOVAL VS. INFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
DURING MAY AND JUNE,1972
-------
TABLE 16
MONTHLY BOD^ LOADING RATES FOR AERATED LAGOON
Month
Influent
BOD (mg/1)
Lagoon
MLSS (mg/1)
Retention
Time(Days)
BOD Loading
mg/1 BOD/day
mg/1 MLSS
Oct. 71
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 72
Feb.
March
April
May
June
Average
9 Months
Average
Mar. -June
'72
59.8
65.0
55-5
52.8
60.9
1+8. 7
^2.7
50.2
¥f.6
5^*lf
U6.6
191
1*1-0
136
117
166
101
80
75
119
12?
9*t
0.625
0.625
0.375
0.375
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.78
1.000
0.501
0.7^3
1.088
1.203
0.367
0.4-82
0.531*
0.669
0.375
0.^-8
0.^96
An average monthly BOD* loading of .5^8 Ibs BOD^/day/lbs
MLSS was found during the demonstration period. The latter
loading rate was considerably higher than those found during
the initial laboratory studies, the difference being in the
MLSS concentration that was maintained in the aeration
basin. Laboratory bio-oxidation tests by plant personnel
agreed very well with the actual 6005 loadings found during
the nine-month study period.
Figure l*t is a curve shoving the relationship between
effluent BOIte and the BOI>5 loading rate. The latter curve
suggests non-linearity below a BODe- loading rate of around
O.M-8 mg/1 BOD5/day/mg/l MLSS with a minimal attainable aver-
age effluent BOD? of near V mg/1 at the low substrate con-
centrations. (The last four months of the demonstration
period were used for curve construction to better represent
normal lagoon performance.)
Figure 15. relating BODjj removal to BODjj loading, is presented
to show the average BOD^ removal efficiency during the March
through June period of operation. A relatively constant
BOD5 removal efficiency of 86.2 percent was demonstrated
during this period.
71
-------
ro
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
(9
6.0 -•
UJ
3 5.0
to
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 •
O.I
0.2
0.8
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BODS LOADING (MG/L BOD5/DAY/MG/L MLSS)
FIGURE 14
EFFLUENT BODs VS. BODs LOADING FOR AERATED LAGOON
WEEKLY AVERAGES FOR MARCH-JUNE,1972
0.9
1.0
-------
0.6 -r
0.4-
a
o
m 0.3
O 0.2
to
o
o
"O.I
V
X-SLOPE = 0.662
1+
w
_l , | 1 1 1 1 1 1 —
Ol 02 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 I.O
600 LOADING (MG/L BOD/DAY/MG/L MLSS )
FIGURE !5
BOD5 REMOVAL VS. BOD5 LOADING FOR AERATED LAGOON
WEEKLY AVERAGES FOR MARCH-JUNE.I972
-------
Monthly substrate removal rate coefficients are shown In
Table 17 fop the nine-months' demonstration period. An
average substrate removal rate coefficient (k) of .0023
1/mg-hr (or .055 1/mg-day) was found during the nine-
month period. An average (k) .0028 1/mg-hr (or .06?
1/mg-day) was shown for the last four months of the
demonstration period. BOD* removal rate versus effluent
BODtf curves is shown in Figure 16 using average weekly
data during March through June, 1971. The slope of Curve
A represents the average BOD* removal rate coefficient as
determined graphically, while Curve B was drawn to depict
(k) as the mathematical average of all the data considered
during the latter period of operation.
Figure 17 was constructed using bi-weekly data averages
from March through June, 1972, for graphical determinations
of the biological oxidation constants, "si11 and "b". The
slope of the sludge yield versus BOD* removal rate curve
represented an average cell yield coefficient (a) of
.Mi-7 mg/1 VSSp/mg/1 BOD* removal for the biological treat-
ment system. The "Y" intercept of the latter curve
represents an average endogenous respiration constant (b)
of .08% day-1. Using the sludge yield equation presented
in Section V, equation (13) becomes:
Xv = S0 + .V+7 Sr - .06% Sv (13-D
The above equation does not describe the sludge yield for
the first five months of the demonstration period for
reasons presented in the following discussion.
The aerated lagoon after its initial construction was used
as a sedimentation pond prior to installation of the
effluent collection and distribution system. The effluent
from the plant's carbon black masterbatch units was
diverted into the lagoon before being allowed to enter the
final settling basin. (Presently the emergency spill and
temporary sludge storage basins.)
Bio-oxidation studies indicated that the smaller lagoon
contained the necessary volume required for effective bio-
logical oxidation of the plant's combined wastewater.
Economic considerations therefore dictated that the small
lagoon be utilized as the aerated lagoon in the wastewater
treatment scheme.
-------
TABLE 17
BOD REMOVAL RATE COEFFICIENTS
Month
October 71 ?"
November (1)
December (2)
January 72(2)
February
March
April
May
June
9 -Mo Avg
^f- Mo avg(3)
BOD^ (Lo)
mg^
1
59.8
65.0
55.5
52.8
60.9
>+2*.7
50.2
53.3
46.6
BOD,r (Le)
7
1^
13.8
11.1
20.9
20.2
10.2
7.3
5.1
7.1
6.1
11.3
BOD (Lo-Le)
mjL
1
1+6.0
53.9
3^.6
32.6
Stf
38.' 5
L+2.0
1+0.2
MLSS (Xa)
mg
1
191
136
117
166
101
80
75
119
125
94
k
1/mg-hr
.0011
.0022
.0013
.0029
.0012
.0023
.0038
.003*+
.0022
.0023
.0028
k calculated with 15 hour retention time. Low levels in lagoon due to
errosion of dykes,
k calculated with 9 hour retention time. Extremely low levels due to
repair work in progress on dykes.
March to June, 1972.
-------
0.7 T
0.6 ••
a
§ 0.5
*
0.4 -•
o
z
Ul
CE
tf)
O
2 0.3
0.2 ..
•*^
T
SLOPE SKS0.075
SLOPE -K- 0.067
8
10
234567
EFFLUENT BOOs(MG/L)
FIGURE 16
BODs REMOVAL VS. EFFLUENT BODs-REMOVAL RATE COEFFICIENT FOR AERATED LAS0ON
WEEKLY AVERAGES FOR MARCH-JUNE, 1972
-------
0.6 T
0.5-
V)
0.4-
<
UJ
o
o
O.I
Y-INTERCEPT*0.084 «b
0.6
SLOPE* 0.447=3
+
-1 1
07 0.8 0.9
BOO REMOVAL (MG/L BODr/DAY/MG/L MLVSS)
1.0
FIGURE 17
SLUDGE YIELD VS. BODs REMOVAL- DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION CONSTANTS
VAND'V FOR AERATED LAGOON FOR MARCH-uuNE,i972
-------
The aerated lagoon1s irregular geometry was dictated by
the physical location of the large impoundment lagoon and
the railroad spur that crosses the southeast corner of the
impoundment pond.
Solids, comprised mainly of carbon black and rubber that had
previously settled out in the lagoon, were not removed prior
to placing the aerated lagoon into operation. The aerated
lagoon required sufficient time to reach a solids stabiliza-
tion period after it was placed in operation.
Initial lagoon MLSS levels tested near 300 mg/1, with MLSS
levels around 200 mg/1 at the beginning of the demonstra-
tion period. MLSS levels during the last four months'
operation averaged near 100 mg/1, close to the MLSS levels
found during in-plant laboratory bio-oxidation studies.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Table 18 has been constructed to show a comparison between
actual system performance and design target- performance for
several of the more pertinent wastewater parameters.
TABLE 18
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Parameter Final Discharge
Flow (MOD) 3.55
BOD5 -Ibs/day 3*+0
mg/1 11.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 5.0
Suspended Solids -Ibs/day 857
mg/1 29
Oil and Grease -Ibs/day 213
mg/1 7.2
Total Chromium Ib/day lA
mg/1 .0^9
Phenols -Ibs/day 1.1
mg/1 .038
Chlorides -Ibs/day 33,7^1
mg/1 l,llfl
Sulfates as SO^ 21 705
mg/1 '73*+
78
-------
Clarification - Overall suspended solids removal averaged
8?.2 percent during the demonstration period. Final efflu-
ent suspended solids averaged 29 nig/I. Average suspended
solids reductions of 73*9 percent and 78.7 percent were
accomplished around the primary and secondary air flotation
units respectively during the nine-month period* Suspended
solids removal efficiencies were lover than those accomp-
lished during pilot air flotation studies. Turbulence
within the mixing and flocculation equipment hindered floe
development and consequent solids removal. Equipment modi-
fications directed at eliminating turbulence should enable
the clarification units to reach higher removal levels.
The lower suspended solids removals during May and June,
1972 were the result of worn skimmer seals on the sludge
removal rakes. (The rubber skimmer seals were the original
ones, having been in service for over a year.) Replacement
of the seals has resulted in improved solids removal for
both clarlfiers* (See Figure 21)
Average oil and grease removals of 82.2 percent were
accomplished during the demonstration period, as shown in
Table 15. The average oil and grease content of the final
effluent was 7.1 mg/1. Improved solids removal during
clarification would result in lower oil and grease levels
In the final effluent, since the oil exists mainly in the
suspended solids, and not as free or floating oil.
Average BOD5 and COD reductions of 29.1 percent and 63.8
percent, respectively, were accomplished during primary
clarification. These were somewhat higher (approximately
10 percent) than those accomplished during the pilot studies,
Overall BODJ and COD reductions averaged 8M-.2 percent and
83-7 percent during the demonstration period (See Table 1?).
Figures 18 and 19 were constructed to show Influent and
effluent BOD* and COD levels during the nine-month period.
Effluent results reflect the increase in BOD? and COD
levels during the December 15, 1971 and January 15, 1972
period when maintenance work was being performed on the
aerated lagoon dykes. The BOD5 and COD influent curves
show a downward trend over the nine-month period as the
result of better in-^plant housekeeping.
An effluent BOD5 level of 7 mgA or less was met during the
last four months of the demonstration period. Lagoon per-
formance has been very satisfactory following the mainten-
ance period. Figure 20 shows the influent-effluent TOC
levels during the demonstration period. The total organic
carbon instrument was placed in operation during the second
-------
LU
o
X
o
u
160
ISO
140
130
120
no
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
\ A k A
—•N
OCT.
NOV. |97) DEC.
APRIL MAY
JAN. FEB. MARCH
FIGURE 18
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
WEEKLY AVERAGES OCT.,1971- JUNE, 1972
JUNE
-------
.05
~ 900 •
2
UJ
Q
UJ
O
>•
X
o
o
3E
UJ
x
o
OCT\ NOV.
1971
DEC. ' JAN. ' FElT " MARCH "APRIL
FIGURE 19
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
WEEKLY AVERAGES OCT., 1971-JUNE, 1972
MAY JUNE
1972
-------
week In November, 1971, following a delay in receiving the
instrument. An average TOC reduction of 61.5 percent
was observed with an effluent TOC average of 2V mg/1 dur-
ing the demonstration period*
Average Phenol and Chromium reductions of 7^.5 percent
and 75.8 (Table 15) were accomplished during the demonstra-
tion period* Complete removal of these chemicals is not
expected with the existing wastewater treatment system.
82
-------
120 T
.00
-J
a
z
o
CO
0*
o
o
z
C9
ce
o
110 -•
100 -•
90
80
70
60
SO
40
v\.
NO DATA J
30 '
20 • •
10
0
/
A
A
OCT. NOV. ' DEC.
1971
JAN. FEB.
FIGURE 20
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
WEEKLY AVERAGES OCT., 1971-JUNE,1972
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
1972
-------
500 T
400 -s
CD
* 300
en
o
en
0
g
a.
en
3
cn
200 •'
100 -i
'
V\',
-A/ ."
- L«v
-A
/x-
x"^
A
-
OCT.
NOV. DEC.
'
MARCH APRIL MAY
JAN. FEB.
FIGURE 21
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS
WEEKLY AVERAGES OCT., 1971-JUNE, I 972
JUNE
-------
SECTION IX
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The total cost of the wastewater treatment facilities was
$1,^72,528, including engineering costs. A detailed equip-
ment cost breakdown is included in Appendix D.
Included in the engineering costs are survey work, water
testing, pilot plant testing, producing plans and specifi-
cations, obtaining quotations and bids, and supervision and
inspection of construction.
Some factors that increased the total cost for this particu-
lar case that would not necessarily contribute to the cost
of similar facilities are listed below.
1. The remote location of the aerated lagoon
required pumping of the wastewater over great
distances between the clarifiers and the
lagoon.
2. Due to anticipated high chemical costs,
more instrumentation was provided than would
be required for most similar treatment
facilities.
3. Two electrical substations were required
due to the distance between the aerated
lagoon and the remainder of the treatment
facilities.
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The total operating and maintenance cost for the nine-month
demonstration period was $367,27^, which includes $57,^^
spent for sludge disposal by contract, but excludes all
costs attributable to the demonstration studies.
The annual operating and maintenance cost, excluding sludge
disposal costs, would normally be $*f09,751, or $0.336 per
1,000 gallons of raw wastewater treated.
85
-------
Sludge was disposed of by a contractor for five and one-
half months during the demonstration period at a cost of
$0.015 per gallon, or $57,^^ for the total volume handled.
At this rate, the annual cost of sludge disposal would have
been $125,2^5, or $0.103 per 1,000 gallons of raw wastewater
treated.
Present impounding of the sludge has delayed the cost of dis-
posal while a more desirable means of disposal is sought.
A breakdown of operating and maintenance costs is included
in the following table.
86
-------
TABLE 19
OPERATING MAINTENANCE AND DEMONSTRATION COST
ITEM
DEMONSTRATION COSTS
Salaries and Wages
Fringe Benefits
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
Indirect Costs .
Total
OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS
Salaries and Wages $ 52,071
Fringe Benefits 15,527
Supplies 11K),068
Utilities 25,216
Repairs 76T988
Sub Total 309.870
Sludge Disposal
TOTALS
Nine-month Demonstration
Period
Operating &
Maintenance Demonstration
Costs Costs
Projected
Annual
Operating
and
Maintenance
Costs
$ 10»t,if23
26,106
80,665
1,722
1,331
$ 228,785
$ 69,^26
20,702
186,753
33,620
99T25Q
*f 09 T 7 51
125T2*f5
87
-------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Refer to Table 20 for a tabulation of the annual costs. The
interest listed is the approximate average annual interest
on the unpaid balance for a loan in the amount of the capi-
tal cost of the facilities, at an interest rate of 7 percent
per annum. The equipment replacement cost and depreciation
is estimated to be 10 percent of the capital cost.
With a total annual cost of $608,5^2. which excludes sludge
disposal costs, the cost of treatment was $OA99 per 1,000
gallons of raw wastewater treated. If sludge disposal costs
of $0.015 per gallon were included in the operating costs,
the total annual cost would be $733,787, or $0.602 per
1,000 gallons of raw wastewater treated.
TABLE 20
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Item Annual Cost
Interest on Capital Cost of $1,^-72,528 $ 51,538
Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost *K)9,75l
Estimated Equipment Replacement and
Depreciation lV7T253
Total Annual Cost $ 608,5^2
(Excluding Sludge Disposal Costs)
Sludge Disposal Costs $
Total Annual Cost $ 733.78?
(Including Sludge Disposal Costs)
Costs are presented both with and without sludge disposal
due to the extremely high cost of the method of disposal
utilized. It is felt that a more economical means of dis-
posing of this particular sludge can be found. It is also
felt that wastewater from another synthetic rubber plant
utilizing identical processes will produce a sludge of an
entirely different nature due to slight variations in pro-
cess equipment and operating procedures. Even a slight
variation in the nature of the sludge could make it more
amenable to conventional methods of dewatering.
-------
SECTION X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was supported in part by Environmental
Protection Agency Demonstration Grant No. 12110 GLP.
Appreciation is expressed to Mr.William J. Lacy, Chief of
Industrial Pollution Control, ORD; Mr. Charles R. Ris,
Project Manager; and Mr. George Putnicki and Mr. Joseph
W. Field, Project Officers, for their help during the
course of the project.
Sincere appreciation is expressed to Mr. R. A. Riley,
President of The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and
Mr. J. R. Laman, Corporate Director of Environmental
Engineering, for their administrative guidance and support,
Special appreciation is extended to Mr. T. E. Salisbury,
President of The Synthetic Rubber and Latex Division; Mr.
J. R. Swenson. Project Director; Mr. M. W. Carlson.
Financial Officer; Mr. P. A. Boley, Lake Charles Plant
Manager; and the many other Firestone personnel who were
directly involved in the project.
89
-------
SECTION XI
REFERENCES
1. Busch, A. W., "Biochemical Oxidation of Process Waste
Water," Chemical Engineering. Vol. 72, No. 5, PP 71-76
(March 1, 1965)
2. Busch, A. W.. "Liquid Waste Disposal System Design,"
Chemical Engineering. Vol. 72. No. 7, pp 83-86
(March 29, 1965)
3. Busch. A. W., "Treatability Versus Oxidizability of
Industrial Wastes and the Formulation of Process Design
Criteria," Proc. 16th Industrial vaste ConferenceT
Purdue University (1961)
*f. Characklis, W. G., and Busch, A. W., "Industrial
Wastewater Treatment," Chemical Engineering DeskbookT
Vol. 79, No. 10, McGraw-Hill, Inc. (May 8^ 1972)
5» Eckenfelder, W. W., "Design Procedures for Wastewater
Treatment Processes." Center for Research in Water
Resources, University of Texas (October, 1968)
6. Eckenfelder, W. W., Industrial Water Pollution Control,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1966)
7. Eckenfelder, W. W., "Principles and Practice of
Industrial Water Treatment." Seminar on Water Pollution
Control in the Chemical Industry,. University of Texas
(1969)
8. Ford, Davis L., "Laboratory Methology for Developing
Biological Treatment Information," (Date of publica-
tion unknown.)
9. Geinopolos, Anthony, and Katz, W. J., "Primary Treatment,"
Chemical Engineering Deskbook, Vol. yO, No. 22,
McGraw-Hill, Inc.(October % 1968)
10. Gloyna, E. F. and Aquirre, I. J., "Designs for Waste
Stabilization Ponds and Aerated Lagoons," XI AIDIS
Congress, Quito, Ecuador, S.A. (July 21-29, 1968)
11. Gloyna, E. F.; Brady, S. 0.; and Lyles, H.; "Use of
Aerated Lagoons and Ponds in Refinery and Chemical Waste
Treatment." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. M, No. 3, Part 1, pp M-29-^39 (March 19, 1969)
91
-------
12. Lungren. Hans, "Air Flotation Purifies Wastewater
from Latex Polymer Manufacture," A.I.Ch.B. 65th
Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio (May *f-7, 1969)
13. Lundgren, Hans, "Recent Advances in Air Flotation
Technology," TAPPI Sixth Annual Water and Air
Conference, Jacksonville, Fla.(April 26-30, 1969)
Ross, R. D., and others, Industrial Waste Disposal,
Reinhold Book Corp., New York (1968)
92
-------
SECTION XII
APPENDIXES
Appendix Page
A Photographs 95
B Development and Construction 105
Timetable
C Design Data 1O9
Wastevater Handling and Treating
Equipment
Control Instrumentation
Water Quality Monitoring
Instruments
D Equipment and Construction Costs 133
E Laboratory Testing Equipment 135
93
-------
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
-------
FIGURE A-l
PILOT AIR FLOTATION UNIT
FIGURE A-2
PILOT AIR FLOTATION UNIT RECYCLE PRESSURIZATION
AND CHEMICAL FEEDING EQUIPMENT
-------
FIGURE A-3
MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN AND WET WELL NEUTRALIZATION FACILITIES
-------
FIGURE A-lf
SOUTH SIDE OF AIR FLOTATION CLARIFIERS
ALUM MIX TANK, FLASH MIXING TANKS, FLOW MEASURING BOXES, AND PRESSURE RETENTION TANK
-------
FIGURE A-5
NORTH SIDE OF AIR FLOTATION CLARIFIERS - SLUDGE, RECYCLE, AND CLARIFIED EFFLUENT PUMPS
-------
s PC *>«
H
O
O
FIGURE A-6
PRIMARY AIR FLOTATION CLARIFIER FROM TOP OF ALUM MIX TANK
-------
FIGURE A-7
AERATED LAGOON
-------
H
O
ro
FIGURE A-8
FLOCCULENT AID MAKEUP TANKS
-------
V • f
• •
FIGURE A-9
CONTROL PANEL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
103
-------
APPENDIX B
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE
105
-------
TABLE B-l
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE
The following is a schedule of the major steps in the
development and construction of the wastewater treatment
facilities.
Date
From
To
Phase of the Pro.lect
July 1, 1969 Aug. 25, 1969
Aug. 25, 1969 Aug. 27, 1969
Sept. 30, 1969 Nov. 2*f, 1969
Nov. 25, 1969 Apr. 2, 1969
Dec. 1, 1969 Apr. 2, 1970
Jan. 22, 1970 Dec, 31, 1970
March 10, 1970 Aug. 7, 1970
July 27, 1970 Aug. *f, 1970
Obtained proposals outlining
scope of work and estimated
cost of plant survey from
prospective consultants.
Selection of consultant for
plant survey.
Performance of plant survey
and treatment studies by the
consultant.
Performance of laboratory
testing and development of
a plan of action by plant
personnel.
Development of preliminary
specifications for the treat-
ment facilities by plant
personnel.
Retention of an engineering
firm to develop flow dia-
grams, finalize specifica-
tions, and obtain competitive
quotations.
Pilot testing by plant
personnel.
Evaluation of bids for air
flotation units and mechani-
cal aeration equipment.
106
-------
Date
From To Phase of the Pro.lect
Aug. ^, 1970 Dec. l*f, 1970 Issuance of purchase orders
for the required equipment.
Sept. 1, 1970 Dec. 1, 1970 Performance of engineering
and drafting for construction,
Oct. 1, 1970 Jan. 20, 1971 Obtained bids for major por-
tions of work required.
Nov. 15, 1970 Feb. 25, 1971 Issuance of contracts for
construction and equipment
erection.
Nov. 20, 1970 May 26, 1971 Construction and erection of
equipment.
May 27, 1971 Oct. 1, 1971 Start-up of equipment and
correction of defects.
Oct. 1, 1971 July 1, 1972 Demonstration period.
107
-------
APPENDIX C
DESIGN DATA
109
-------
TABLE C-l
WASTBWATER HANDLING AND TREATING EQUIPMENT
Mechanically Cleaned Bar Screen
No.
Bar Spacing
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Flow Depth
Modes of Operation
1. Automatic
2. Hand
Wet Well Pumps
No.
Type
Capacity
Total Head
Alum Coagulation Vessel
Diameter
Height (Straight Sides)
Capacity
Top
Bottom
Alum Coagulation Vessel Agitator
Size
Speed
No. of Impellers
Diameter of Impellers
Primary Flow Measuring Box
No.
Width
Length
Depth
Primary Flow Measuring Element
No. of Orifices
Diameter of Orifices
1
1 Inch
31 0"
6 • v
31 On
Timed on and off
Pushbutton Start
and Stop
Centrifugal
2100 gpm
52 Feet
15' 0"
12' 6"
17,000 Gallons
Open
Cone
5 HP
188 rpm
2
Inches
1
if* 0"
7* 0"
If1 0"
Orifices with free
discharge
8
5.625 Inches
110
-------
Primary Plash Mixing Tank
Diameter 9' 0"
Height (Straight Side) 7' 6"
Top Open
Bottom Dished head
Volume 3,375 Gallons
Primary Clarifier Floe Former Compartment
Width if8» 8"
Length 61 0"
Depth (Working) if1 2"
Primary Clarifier Floe Former Agitator
Horsepower 1 HP
Speed 13.25, 9.92, 6.63, &
3.30 rpm
Diameter of Paddle Reels 3' 0M
Primary Clarifier Inlet Compartment
Width MJ1 8"
Length 31 0"
Depth (Working) 3' 10"
Primary Clarifier Air Flotation Compartment
Width *f8f 8"
Length 15T 0"
Depth (Average Working) V 0"
Primary Clarifier Treated Liquid Compartment
Width 3' 0"
Length *f8« 8"
Depth (Working) ^' 2"
Primary Clarifier Effluent Compartment
Width 3f 6"
Length 21* 0"
Depth 2' 10"
Primary Clarifier Recycle Pump
No. 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 1,000 gpm
Total Head 1?0 Feet
111
-------
Primary Clarifier Pressure Retention Tank
No.
Diameter
Height (Straight Shell)
Capacity
Design Pressure
Primary Clarifier Air Flow Meter
No.
Type
Flow Range
Inlet Pressure
Inlet Temperature
Clarified Effluent Pumps
No.
Type
Capacity
Total Head
Primary Flotation Compartment Skimmers
No. of Flights
Skimmer Speed (Ft per min)
Driver Horsepower
Primary Sludge Transfer Pump
No.
Type
Capacity
Total Head
Lagoon Effluent Transfer Pumps
No.
Type
Capacity
Total Head
Mechanical Aerators
No.
Size
Type
Speed
1
if' 6"
8« 6"
1,050 Gallons
75 psi
Variable area
0-10 SCFM
50 psi
70°F
Centrifugal
3,500 gpm
69 Feet
18
0 to 15
1
Centrifugal
80 gpm
Feet
Centrifugal
3,500 gpm
6§ Feet
6
25 HP
Low speed floating
56 rpm
112
-------
Final Clarifier Flow Measuring Box
No. 1
Width Ifi Q"
Length 71 0"
Depth 4« 0"
Primary Flow Measuring Element Orifices with
free discharge
No. of Orifices 8
Diameter of Orifices 5.625 Inches
Final Clarifier Flash Mixing Tank
Diameter 91 0"
Height (Straight Side) 7' 6"
Top Open
Bottom Dished head
Volume (Working) 3,375 Gallons
Final Clarifier Floe Former Compartment
Width *f8» 8"
Length 6' 0"
Depth (Working) if' 2"
Final Clarifier Floe Former Agitator
Horsepower 1 HP
Speed 13.25, 9.92, 6.63,
& 3.30 rpm
Diameter of Paddle Reels 3' 0"
Final Clarifier Air Flotation Compartment
Width W 8"
Length 151 0"
Depth (Average Working) *f' 0"
Final Clarifier Inlet Compartment
Width if 8' 8"
Length 3' 0"
Depth (Working) 3' 10"
Final Clarifier Treated Liquid Compartment
Width 3' 0"
Length fo1 8"
Depth (Working) *tf 2"
-------
Final Clarifier Effluent Compartment
Width 3' 6"
Length 21' 0"
Depth 21 10"
Final Clarifier Recycle Pump
No. 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 1,000 gpm
Total Head 150 Feet
Final Clarifier Pressure Retention Tank
No. 1
Diameter *f' 6"
Height (Straight Shell) 8* 6"
Capacity 1,050 Gallons
Design Pressure 75 psi
Final Clarifier Air Flow Meter
No. 1
Type Variable area
Flow Range 0-10 SCFM
Inlet Pressure 50 psi
Inlet Temperature
Final Clarifier Flotation Compartment Skimmers
No. of Flights 18
Skimmer Speed (Ft per min) 0-15
Driver Horsepower 1
Final Clarifier Sludge Transfer Pump
No. 1
Type Centrifugal
Capacity 80 gpm
Head ^5 Feet
Acid Serving Tank
No. 1
Diameter 21 6"
Length (Straight Shell) 5' V1
Capacity 200 Gallons
Material of Construction Steel
-------
Caustic Serving Tank
No. 1
Diameter M 0"
Length (Straight Shell) 10' 0"
Capacity 975 Gallons
Material of Construction Steel
Alum Serving Tank
No. 1
Diameter 51 0"
Height 6' 0"
Capacity 820 Gallons
Material of Construction Fiberglass reinforced
polyester
Cationic Polyelectrolyte Tank
No. 1
Diameter 8' 0"
Height of Shell 11' - 0"
Capacity ^?136 Gallons
Material of Construction Fiberglass reinforced
polyester
Primary Clarifier Coagulant Aid Makeup Tank
No. 1
Diameter 7' 0"
Height *f' 0"
Capacity 1*150 Gallons
Material of Construction Steel
Liner Plastisol
Primary Clarifier Coaguland Aid Feed Tank
No. 1
Diameter
Height
Capacity 288 Gallons
Material of Construction Polyethylene
Material of Construction - Fiberglass reinforced
Supporting Shell polyester
Final Clarifier Coagulant Aid Makeup Tank
No. 1
Diameter 7* 0"
Height **' -0"
Capacity 1,150 Gallons
Material of Construction Steel
Liner Plastisol
-------
Final Clarifier Coagulant Aid Feed Tank
1
No
Diameter
Height
Capacity
Material of Construction -
Inner Tank
Material of Construction -
Supporting Shell
Alum Metering Pumps
No
Type
Capacity
Maximum Discharge Pressure
511
288 Gallons
Polyethylene
Fiberglass reinforced
polyester
Plunger, single, simplex
0-50 gpm
100 psi
Cationic Polyelectrolyte Metering Pumps
3
No
Type
Capacity
Maximum Discharge Pressure
Coagulant Aid Metering Pumps
No
Type
Capacity
Maximum Discharge Pressure
Plunger, single, simplex
1.25 gph
1,000 psi
Plunger, single, simplex
50 gph
100 psi
116
-------
TABLE C-2
CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION
Wet Well pH Indicator -Recording
Controller
Range
Local Monitor
Recording at Control Panel
Alarms
Control Functions
Alum Coagulation Tank pH Monitor
Range
Local Monitor
Recording at Control Panel
Alarms
Control Functions
V/et Well Level Transmitter
Range
Type
Input
Output
Wet Well Level Indicating Controller
Type
Scale Range
Input
Output
Output goes to
5-9 pH
Yes
Yes
No
pH Adjustment
5-9 pH
Yes
Yes
High and Low
None
0-100 Inches H20
Pressure transmitter
with bubble tube
Air pressure, equal to
static head above
submerged bubble
tube
3 to 15 psi air
Pneumatic
0-100
3-15 psi air
3-15 psi air
Wet well level
control valves
Wet Well Level Control Valve (Normal Operating)
Size
Type
Body Material
Disc Material
Body Rating
8"
Butterfly
Cast iron/rubber seat
Stainless Steel
150 psi
117
-------
Wet Well Level Control Valve (Normal Operating)
(Continued)
Actuator Type
Positioner
Input Range
Failure Position
Operating Supply Pressure
Pneumatic diaphragm
motor
Yes
3-15 psi
Closed
20 psi
Wet Well Level Control Valve (Impounding)
Size
Type
Body Material
Disc Material
Body Rating
Actuator Type
Positioner
Input Range
Failure Position
Operating Supply Pressure
Primary Unit Flow Transmitter
Range
Type
Primary Element
Input
Output
Output goes to
8"
Butterfly
Cast Iron/Rubber seat
Stainless steel
150 psi
Pneumatic diaphragm motor
Yes
3-15 psi
Closed
20 psi
inches water
Pressure transmitter
with bubble tube
Orifice holes in primary
flow measuring tank
Air pressure correspond-
ing to static head
above end of sub-
merged bubble tube
3-15 psi
Primary unit flow
indicator, Pen No. 1
of wastewater flow
recorder, primary unit
flow integrator, final
clarifier ratio station,
primary clarifier alum
ratio station, primary
clarifier cationic
polyelectrolyte ratio
station, and primary
clarifier anionic poly-
electrolyte ratio
station
118
-------
Primary Unit Flow Integrator
Type
Input
Input from
Output
Output goes to
Primary Unit Flow Indicator
Type
Scale
Flow Corresponding to Scale
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Wastewater Flow Recorder
Type
Scale Range
Flow Corresponding to Scale
Input Signal
No. 1 Pen (Red) Signal from
No. 2 Pen (Blue) Signal from
No, 3 Pen (Green) Signal from
Final Clarifier Flow Transmitter
Range
Type
Primary Element
Input
Output
Pneumatic
3-15 psi
Primary unit flow trans-
mitter
120 Volt AC pulse
Flow totalizer and auto-
matic sampling system
counter
Pneumatic
0-100
0-*f,500 gpm
3-15 psi
Primary unit flow
transmitter
None
Multi-Pen, pneumatic
0-100
0-*f, 500 gpm
3-15 psi
Primary unit flow
transmitter
Final clarifier flow
transmitter
Final effluent flow
transmitter
0-25 inches water
Pressure transmitter
with bubble tube
Orifice holes in final
clarifier flow
measuring tank
Air pressure correspond-
ing to static head
above end of sub-
merged bubble tube
3-15 psi air
119
-------
Final Clarifier Flow Ratio Station
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Flow Corresponding to Scale
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Output Signal goes to
Pneumatic
0-3.0/0-100
Ratio/Primary unit flow
0-^,500 gpm
3-15 psi
Primary unit flow
transmitter
3-15 psi
Final clarifier flow
indicating controller
(Remote set point)
Final Clarifier Flow Indicating Controller
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Flow Corresponding to Scale
Inputs
Input Signal
Output Signal
Modes of Operation
Final Clarifier Flow Control Valve
Size
Type
Body Material
Disc Material
Body Rating
Actuator Type
Positioner
Input Range
Failure Position
Operating Supply Pressure
Primary Clarifier Low Flow Transmitter
Primary Element
Type
Range
Output Signal
Pneumatic
0-100
Set point/Final
clarifier flow
0-*f,500 gpm
Remote set point/Final
clarifier flow
3-15 psi/3-15 psi
3-15 psi
Remote/Local
8"
Butterfly
Cast iron/Rubber seat
Stainless steel
150 psi
Pneumatic diaphragm motor
Yes
3-15 psi
Closed
20 psi
Orifice plate
Differential pressure cell
20-205 inches H20
3-15 psi
120
-------
Primary Clarifier Low Flow Indicating Controller
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Flow Corresponding to Scale
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Modes of Operation
Pneumatic
0-100
Primary Clarifier
Effluent Flow
0-*f,500 gpm
3-15 psi
Primary clarifier low
flow transmitter
3-15 psi
Automatic/manual
Primary Clarifier Low Flow Control Valve
Size
Type
Body Material
Disc Material
Seat Material
Body Rating
Actuator Type
Positioner
Input Range
Failure Position
Operating Supply Pressure
Primary Clarifier Alum Ratio Station
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Output Signal Goes to
Butterfly
Cast iron
Stainless steel
Rubber
150 psi
Pneumatic diaphragm
motor
Yes
3-15 psi
Closed
20 psi
Pneumatic
0-3.0/0-100
Ratio/Output
3-15 psi
Primary clarifier flow
transmitter
3-15 psi
Stroke length positioner
primary unit alum
metering pump
Primary Clarifier Anionic Polyelectrolyte Ratio Station
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Pneumatic
0-3.0/0-100
Ratio/Output
3-15 psi
Primary clarifier
flow transmitter
3-15
121
-------
Primary Clarifier Anionic Polyelectrolyte Ratio Station
(Continued)
Output Signal Goes to
Stroke length positioner,
primary coagulant aid
metering pumps
Primary Clarifier Cationic Polyelectrolyte Ratio Station
Pneumatic
0-3.0/0-100
Ratio/Output
3-15 psi
Primary clarifier
flow transmitter
3-15 psi
Stroke length positioner,
primary cationic
polyelectrolyte
metering pump
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Output Signal Goes to
Final Clarifier Alum Ratio Station
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Output Signal Goes to
Pneumatic
0-3.0/0-100
Ratio/Output
3-15 psi
Final Clarifier flow
transmitter
3-15 psi
Stroke length positioner,
final clarifier alum
metering pump
Final Clarifier Anionic Polyelectrolyte Ratio Station
Type
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Output Signal
Output Signal Goes to
Pneumatic
0-3.0/0-100
Ratio/Output
3-15 psi
Final clarifier
flow transmitter
3-15 psi
Stroke length positioner,
final coagulant aid
metering pumps
122
-------
Final Clarifier Cationic Polyelectrolyte Ratio Station
Type Pneumatic
Scale Range 0-3.0/0-100
Scale Indicates Ratio/Output
Input Signal 3-15 psi
Input Signal from Final Clarifier
flow transmitter
Output Signal 3-15 psi
Output Signal Goes to Stroke length positioner,
final clarifier
cationic polyelectro-
lyte metering pump
Primary Clarifier Effluent Compartment Level Transmitter
(or Clarified Effluent Level Transmitter)
Type Pneumatic pressure
transmitter with
bubble tube
Range 0-38 Inches water
Input Air pressure correspond-
ing to static head
above end of submerged
bubble tube
Output 3-15 psi
Output Goes to Primary clarifier
effluent compartment
level indicating
controller
Primary Clarifier Effluent Compartment Level Indicating
Controller (or Clarified Effluent Level Indicating Controller)
Type Pneumatic
Scale Range 0-100
Input Signal 3-15 psi
Input Signal from Primary clarifier
effluent compartment
level transmitter
Output Signal 3-15 psi
Output Signal Goes to Primary clarifier
effluent compartment
level control valve
123
-------
Primary Clarifier Effluent Compartment Level Control Valve
Size 8"
Type Butterfly
Body Material Cast iron
Disc Material Stainless Steel
Seat Material Rubber
Body Rating 150 PSI
Actuator Type Pneumatic diaphragm
motor
Positioner Yes
Input Range 3-15 PSI
Failure Position Closed
Operating Supply Pressure 20 PSI
Primary Clarifier Sludge Compartment Level Transmitter
Type Pneumatic flange
mounted differential
pressure transmitter
Range 0-20 to 0-205 inches
water
Input Static level in vessel
Output Signal 3-15 PSI
Output Signal Goes to Sludge compartment
level indicator and
pressure switches,
pump start and stop
Final Clarifier Sludge Compartment Level Transmitter
Type Pneumatic flange
mounted differential
pressure transmitter
Range 0-20 to 0-205 inches
water
Input Static level in vessel
Output Signal 3-15 PSI
Output Signal Goes to Sludge compartment
level indicator and
pressure switches,
pump start and stop
Sludge Compartment Level Indicator
Scale 0-100/0-100
Scale Indicates Primary unit sludge
level/Final unit
sludge level
Input Signal 3-15 PSI/3-15
-------
Sludge Compartment Level Indicator (Continued)
Input Signal from
Red Pen (Right)
Green Pen (Left)
Alum Serving Tank Level Transmitter
Type
Range
Input
Output Signal
Output Signal Goes to
Final Effluent Flow Transmitter
Type
Size
Output
Output Signal Goes to
Alum Feed Rate Recorder
Type
Pen No. 1 (Red)
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Primary clarifier sludge
compartment level
transmitter
Final clarifier sludge
compartment level
transmitter
Pneumatic flange
mounted differential
pressure transmitter
0-20 to 0-205 inches
water
Static level in vessel
3-15 PSI
Alum serving tank level
indicator and pressure
switches (to fill tank
and provide high and
low level alarms)
Magnetic flow meter
12 inch
Converted to pneumatic
(3-15 PSI)
Pen No. 3 of the
wastewater flow
recorder, flow
integrator, flow
totalizer and counter
for the automatic
sampling system
—Pen, pneumatic
0-M-OO
Alum dosage to primary
treatment in mg/1
3-15 PSI
Ratio setting of
primary clarifier
alum ratio station
-------
Alum Feed Rate Recorder (Continued)
Pen No. 2 (Green)
Scale Range
Scale Indicates
Scale Multiplier
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. 3 (Blue)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. *f (Purple)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Scale Multiplier
Input Signal
Input Signal from
0-100
Alum flow rate to
primary treatment
in GPH
Times 0.5
3-15 PSI
Primary clarifier alum
ratio station output
signal
Alum dosages to final
clarifier in mg/1
3-15 PSI
Ratio setting of
final clarifier alum
ratio station
0-100
Alum flow rate to
final clarifier in
GPH
Times 0.5
3-15 PSI
Final clarifier alum
ratio station output
signal
Cationic Polyelectrolyte Feed Rate Recorder
Type
Pen No. 1 (Red)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. 2 (Green)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Scale Multiplier
*f-Pen, pneumatic
0-30
Cationic Polyelectrolyte
dosage to primary
clarifier in mg/1
3-15 PSI
Ratio setting of pri-
mary clarifier
cationic polyelectro-
lyte ratio station
0-100
Cationic polyelectrolyte
flow rate to primary
clarifier in GPH
Times 0.025
126
-------
Cationic Polyelectrolyte Peed Rate Recorder (Continued)
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. 3 (Blue)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. ^ (Purple)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Scale Multiplier
Input Signal
Input Signal from
3-15 PSI
Primary clarifier
cationic polyelec-
trolyte ratio sta-
tion output signal
0-30
Cationic polyelectro-
lyte dosage to
final clarifier in
mg/1
3-15 PSI
Ratio setting of final
clarifier cationic
polyelec trolyte
ratio station
0-100
Cationic polyelectro-
lyte flow rate to
final clarifier in
GPH
Times 0.025
3-15 PSI
Cationic polyelectro-
lyte ratio station
output signal
Anionic Polyelectrolyte Feed Rate Recorder
Type
Pen No. 1 (Red)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. 2 (Green)
Scale
Scale Indicates
*+-Pen, pneumatic
0-1.^
Anionic polyelectro-
lyte dosage to
primary clarifier
in mg/1
3-15 PSI
Ratio setting of primary
clarifier anionic
polyelectrolyte
ratio station
0-100
Anionic polyelectrolyte
flow rate to primary
clarifier in GPH
127
-------
Anionic Polyelec trolyte Feed Rate Recorder (Continued)
Scale Multiplier
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen Wo. 3 (Blue)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Pen No. If (Purple)
Scale
Scale Indicates
Scale Multiplier
Input Signal
Input Signal from
Final Effluent Flow Transmitter
Size
Auxiliary Equipment
Output Goes to
Primary Clarifier Sludge Flow Meter
Type
Size
Times 0.5
3-15 PSI
Anionic polyelectro-
lyte ratio station
output signal
0-1. if
Anionic polyeleetro-
lyte dosage to final
clarifier in mg/1
3-15 PSI
Ratio setting of final
clarifier anionic
polyelec trolyte
ratio station
0-100
Anionic polyelectro-
lyte flow rate to
final clarifier in
GPH
Times 0.5
3-15 PSI
Final clarif ie r anionic
polyelectrolyte
ratio output signal
Magnetic flow meter
12 inch
Magnetic to current
converter, current
to pneumatic con-
verter, pneumatic
flow integrator,
flow totalizer,
counter and timer
Pen No. 3 of the waste-
water flow recorder
and automatic com-
posite sampling
system
Magnetic
3 inch
-------
Primary Clarifier Sludge Plow Meter (Continued)
Auxiliary Equipment Magnetic to current
converter, current
to pneumatic con-
verter, flow inte-
grator, flow
totalizer
Output Goes to Primary unit sludge
flow recorder
Final Clarifier Sludge Flow Meter
Type Magnetic
Size 3 inch
Auxiliary Equipment Magnetic to current
converter, current
to pneumatic con-
verter, pneumatic
flow integrator,
flow totalizer
Output Goes to Final clarifier
sludge flow
recorder
Primary Clarifier Sludge Flow Recorder
Type Pneumatic
Input Signal 3-15 FBI
Input Signal from Primary clarifier
sludge flow meter
Final Clarifier Sludge Flow Recorder
Type Pneumatic
Input Signal 3-15 PSI
Input Signal from Final clarifier
sludge flow meter
129
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER QUALITY MONITORING INSTRUMENTS
Raw Waste-water pH Monitor
Range 2-12 pH
Local Monitor Yes
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms High and Low
Raw Wastewater Turbidity Meter
Range 0-200
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Primary Clarifier Effluent Turbidity Mefer
Range 0-50
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Final Clarifier Effluent pH Monitor
Range 0-15 pH
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Final Clarifier Effluent Turbidity Meter
Range 0-50
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Final Clarifier Effluent Temperature Monitor
Range 0-150°F
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
130
-------
Table C-^ (Continued)
Final Clarifier Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Monitor
Range 0-15 mg/1
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Final Effluent pH Monitor
Range 2-12 pH
Local Monitor Yes
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms High and Low
Lagoon Water Dissolved Oxygen
Range 1-15 mg/1
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Lagoon Water Temperature
Range 0-150°*
Local Monitor No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Lagoon Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Monitor
Range 0-15 mg/1
Local Monitor, No
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
Lagoon Effluent Temperature Monitor
Range °-150°F
Local Monitor Jo
Recording at Control Panel Yes
Alarms No
131
-------
APPENDIX D
EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
133
-------
TABLE D-l
EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Item Total Cost
Engineering $1^,538
Bar Screen . 10,800
Raw Wastewater Pumps 23,000
Neutralization Facilities . 72,100
Alum Coagulation Vessel 18,700
Chemical Serving Facilities 33,300
Clarifiers? Including Flow Measuring Boxes, .... 255,100
Flash Mixing Tanks, Recycle Pumps, Pressure
Retention Tank, Recycle Piping, and
Clarifier Influent Lines
Clarified Effluent Pumps 9,700
Transfer Lines to and from Lagoon 52,l*00
Lagoon 50,600
Mechanical Aerators 69,100
Lagoon Effluent Pumps . .13,500
Piping Within Treatment Area ... 23^,200
Electrical -Treatment Area 150,355
Electrical -Lagoon Area .. .86,135
Instruments 53,700
Sludge Transfer Pumps M-,000
Sludge Transfer Piping 9,100
Sludge Loading Pump and Piping 5,100
Chemical Makeup Building 3^,500
Domestic Water Supply Line 9,000
Sanitary Sewer. . . 2^,800
Trenches 9^,300
Grading .1^,500
$1,^-72,528
-------
APPENDIX E
LABORATORY TESTING EQUIPMENT
135
-------
TABLE E-1
LABORATORY TESTING EQUIPMENT
Total Organic Carbon Analyzer
BOD^ Incubator
Dissolved Oxygen Meter
Portable pH Meters (2)
Laboratory pH Meter
Conductivity Meter
Colorimeter
Turbidity Meter
Manometric BODe Apparatus
Gang Stirrer
Air Flotation Test Kit
Drying Oven
Vacuum Oven
Muffle Furnaces (2)
Electric Water Bath
Large Hot Plate
Electric Hot Plate
Balance
Electronic Calculator
Refrigerator
Laboratory Cupboards (2)
Beckman Model 915
Lab Line 5, Cubic Foot
Delta Scientific Model 85
Corning Model 6
Corning Model 7
YSE Model 31
B and L Spectronlc 20
Hellige
Hack
Phipps-Bird, 6-Place
Permutit Company
Blue M, 0 - 11*0° C
National Model 5830
Blue M Models M15-1A
and M30A-1C
Precision Scientific
Lindberg Type H2
Thermostatic Thermolyne 1900
Mettle Model H10W
Cannon Model No. l6*f-P
Philco, 17 Cubic Foot
Curtin No. 872^2?
136
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
JC R*fWtt#a>
s? **k
1
1 — ^
*.' "
-V
'f 3. Accession No.
v
Titl* AIR FLOTATION-BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION OF
SYNTHETIC RUBBER AND LATEX WASTE-WATER
King, A.H., Ogea, J., and Button, J.W.
JO. Prc-jtctNo.
12110 GLP
Firestone Synthetic Rubber and Latex Company
P.O. Box 1361
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
™M*?J&>: f %3*ip.- -
------- |