-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TR-1
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON REMOVAL
FROM
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
by
James L. Hatheway
Division of Field Investigations - Denver Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
March 1971
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC CA1I( R IOVAL
FROM
MUNICIPAL AND INDUS1 1AL WASTEWATER
Abstract
Physical-chemical treatment processes provide overall removal of
organic waste matter of more than 95 percent on raw domestic or
domestic-industrial wastewaters desptte variations in organic loadings
and the presence of toxic chemicals.
The annual operating cost for physical-chemical treatment of raw
wastewaters is equal to or less than the cost of conventional biological
treatment.
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
SU O1ARY
REVIEW OF LITERAflJRE.
ACTIVATED CARBON
COSTS
ADSORBENT RESINS
OXIDATION PROCESSES..
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page
111
1
3
4
4
14
16
21
22
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 ROCKY RIVER WASTE TREATMENT PLANT CLARIFICATION/CARBON 5
PROCESS
2 TREATMENT OF PRIMARY EFFLUENT BY POWDERED CARBON, 5
LEBANON, OHIO
3 TREATMENT OF PRIMARY EFFLUENT BY GRANULAR CARBON, 8
LEBANON, OHIO
4 TOC REMOVAL 9
5 BOD REMOVAL 10
6 TREATMENT OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT BY FILTRATION, CHEMICAL 11
CLARIFICATION AND/OR CARBON ADSORPTION
7 CARBON ADSORPTION PILOT PLANT AVERAGE WATER QUALITY 13
CHARACTERISTICS, JUNE 1965 TO JULY 1969
8 INDUSTRIAL WASTE ADSORPTION TREATMENT PLANTS 15
9 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS, GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION. . . 17
10 CAPITAL COST COMPARISON 18
11 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST COMPARISON 19
12 TOTAL COST COMPARISON 20
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
This paper summarizes the results of studies undertaken to deter-
mine methods of removing total organic carbon (TOC) from municipal and
industrial wastewaters. A conventional biological treatment facility
will provide, at best, approximately 90 percent removal of suspended
solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Although the effluent
from these plants meets current state water quality regulations, more
stringent demands are being instigated to remove a greater amount of
the contaminants, such as phosphate, nitrate and total organic carbon,
from wastewater before it is discharged into the receiving waters.
Two possibilities are available to remove organic contaminants
from wastewater. These are to provide tertiary treatment to the
effluent from the secondary biological treatment facility, thereby
significantly increasing the cost of treatment, or to provide treatment
of raw wastewater by a physical-chemical treatment process. The physi-
cal-chemical process includes chemical clarification, filtration, and
adsorption
Granular activated carbon adsorption has proven to be one of the
most successful and economical advanced waste treatment processes and
is in full-scale operation in municipal water, municipal wastewater and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities (2) (3) (4) (5) (6). When
used in conjunction with chemical precipitation and filtration, 95
percent or greater removal of TOC, BOD, chemical oxygen demand (COD),
total phosphates and suspended solids and 78 percent of total nitrogen
- Numbers in parentheses refer to bibliography.
-------
2
can be removed from raw wastewater (7). In addition, the carbon ad-
sorption process, as a secondary treatment step, has the following
potential advantages over biological processes (3).
1. The land requirement can be as much as 10 times greater
for a biological treatment facility.
2. The capital costs are higher for a conventional biological
process.
3. Shock loadings, toxic wastes and low temperatures have less
effect on carbon adsorption.
4. Operating conditions can be easily changed in a carbon
adsorption system to meet varying influent quality flow
changes.
5. Odor problems are reduced with the carbon adsorption
process.
6. The volume of sludge produced is greater in a conventional
biological process.
-------
3
SUMMARY
A review of literature shows that efficient removal of TOC from
secondary effluents and raw wastewater, either domestic or domestic-
industrial in origin, is practicable. Physical-chemical treatment
facilities, consisting of chemical clarification, filtration and
carbon adsorption, can remove more than 95 percent of the TOC from
either secondary effluents or raw wastewaters.
The physical-chemical treatment process should be applied directly
to raw wastewaters, as this provides the best quality effluent at the
lowest cost. Studies have shown that for a 10 million gallon per day
wastewater flow, the capital and annual operating costs for a physical-
chemical facility are less than for an activated sludge facility. Es-
timates of annual operating cost for physical-chemical treatment vary
from $0.03 to $0.11 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated, depending
on size and design efficiency of the treatment facility.
Although there has been only a small number of studies conducted
on removal of organic contaminants from industrial wastewaters, the
physical-chemical treatment process should provide an excellent quality
effluent, as this process is not affected by shock loadings, pH fluctu-
ations, changes in temperature or toxic substances.
-------
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
processes for increased removal of organics from domestic and
industrial wastewater streams are in varying stages of development.
These processes include:
1. Activated Carbon
2. Adsorbent Resins
3. Oxidation Processes
ACTIVATED CARBON
Over the last few years, many lab and field evaluation tests have
confirmed the technical and economic feasibility of treating raw waste-
water and secondary effluent with activated carbon to remove organics.
This •has resulted in the application of a physical-chemical process to
treat wastewater. This process utilizes: (a) chemical clarification,
either lime precipitation or metallic salts (FeC1 3 or alum), and filtra-
tion to remove colloidal substances, and (b) adsorption of organics by
activated carbon (1) (7).
The following paragraphs summarize either completed or on-going
work utilizing carbon adsorption practices.
A granular activated carbon wastewater treatment process has been
demonstrated at the Cuyahoga County wastewater treatment facility in
Rocky River, Ohio (3). This carbon adsorption process treated chemically
clarified raw sewage and produced an effluent which was better than
effluents normally obtained from conventional biological secondary
treatment facilities. Data from the Rocky River study are summarized
in Table 1 (8). The clarification/adsorption process removed 75 percent
of the TOC, 81 percent of the COD and 93 percent of the BOD contained
in the raw sewage.
-------
5
TABLE 1
ROCKY RIVER WASTE TREATMENT PLANT CLARIFICATION/CARBON PROCESS! ’
Carbon Column Effluent
Raw Clarified Carbon Contact Time, Minutes Percent
Water Water 4.7 14 23.4 32.6 Removed
Suspended 107 65 31 13 15 7 93.3
Solids mg/i
BOD, mg/i 118 .57 27 21 ii 8 93.3
COD, mg/i 235 177 117 67 50 44 81.3
TOC, mg/i 52. 53 33 18 15 13 75
1/ Data from Rizzo, J. L., and R. E. Schade, “Secondary Treatment with
Granular Activated Carbon.” Water and Sewage Works, August 1969. (8)
TABLE 2.
TREATMENT OF PRIMARY EFFLUENT BY POWDERED CARBON, LEBANON, OHIO J
TOC
Powde red
.
Run
Carbon
(mg/I)
Flow
(gptn)
Primary
Effluent
(mg/i)
Carbon
Effluent
(mg/i)
Percent
Removal
3 200 5 69.0 10.2 85.2
5 200 5 41.7 3.7 91.1
6 200 5 46.3 4.1 91.1
7 200 5 48.4 6.7 86.1
9 300 5 67.1 11.0 83.6
1/ Data from Masse, Arthur N., “Removal of Organics by Activated
Carbon.” Robert A. Taft Water Research Laboratory, August 1968
(Tnimeo) (3).
-------
6
A 7200 gallon per day physical—chemical pilot plant was field
tested for one year at the Ewing-Lawrence Sewage Authority wastewater
treatment facility near Trenton, New Jersey. The wastewater is comprised
of approximately 25 percent industrial wastes and 75 percent domestic
wastes (1). This pilot plant consistently provided greater than 95
percent removal of TOC and BOD despite the variations in waste strengths
and composition. The effluent contained 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/l)
or less of TOC compared to about 30 mg/I for the same wastewater treated
conventionally by a trickling filter. The phosphate and nitrate removal
rate was 90 percent or greater during the study. In addition, the
study showed that 340 lbs. of activated carbon will remove approximately
45 lbs. of TOC (1).
The 10 gallon per minute powdered activated carbon pilot plant at
Lebanon, Ohio, waste treatment facility operates on primary effluent (3).
TOC removal varied from 83 to 91 percent and is summarized in Table 2.
The final effluent from this carbon adsorption process was always less
turbid and lower in organic carbon than the effluent produced by the
activated sludge plant operating on the same primary-treated wastewater (3).
Activated sludge normally does not reduce the organic carbon concentra-
tion below 20 mg/l (9).
The Lebanon facility has also been tested using granular activated
carbon (10). The lime clarification-carbon adsorption system operates
at steady flow conditions treating primary effluent. This primary
effluent is fed to the lime clarification process for removal of sus-
pended matter and phosphates. The wastewater then passes through dual-
media filters to the carbon contactors for removal of additional soluble
-------
7
organics. The clarification process by itself removed 76 percent of
the TOC. The overall removal of ROD, TOC, and COD by this process was
87 percent. Table 3 summarizes the organic removal from the system.
The authors (10) suggest that the TOC removal rate may be lower than
what could be expected since the carbon columns were not designed for
efficient backwashing. This inability to efficiently backwash the
carbon columns could reduce the amount of activated carbon available
for organic adsorption.
Physical-chemical treatment of the District of Columbia raw waste-
water in a 100,000 gpd pilot plant which consists of two-stage lime pre-
cipitation, filtration, pH control, ion exchange and carbon adsorption
provided 98 percent, 95 percent, and 78 percent removal of phosphorus,
organics and total nitrogen, respectively, for the 6-month operating
period (7). The lime treatment phase of this process alone removed
approximately 96 percent of the phosphorus and 80 percent of the BUD,
TOC and COD. The final effluent from the carbon adsorption beds con-
tained average residual organics of 5 mg/ i BOB, 6 mg/l TOC and 13 mg/i
COD. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the removal rates of TOC and BUD in each
step of this physical-chemical process..
Personnel of the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Cent er con-
ducted pilot-scale studies of adsorption on granular carbon from four dif-
ferent secondary effluents derived from domestic and industrial wastes
(2). These waste sources had been treated by either activated sludge
or trickling filters.
The study determined removal of TOC, turbidity and phosphate from
these secondary effluents by either filtration and carbon adsorption or
chemical clarification, filtration and carbon adsorption. Table 6
-------
8
TABLE 3
TREATMENT OF PRIMARY EFFLUENT BY GRANIJLAR CARBON 1/
LEBANON, OHIO
BOD
TOC
COD
SS
P
Turbidity
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(JTU)
Primary Effluent 76 76 192 85 9 55
Lime Clarification and 25 2 6 67 10 1 2.
Dual Media Filtration
Effluent
Granular Carbon 10 11 27 1 1 1
Effluent
Overall Removal (%) 86.8 85.5 86.9 98.7 88.9 98.2
Average ratios determined from study
BOD 10 COD
TOC — . 8 TOC 3.13
if Data from Villiers, R. V., E. L. Berg, C. A. Brunner, and A. N. Masse,
“Treatment of Primary Effluent by Lime Clarification and Granular Carbon.”
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Nay 1970. (10)
-------
TABLE 4
TOC REMOVAL 1 ’
Month
(1970)
Influent
(mg/i)
Clarification
Residual Percent
(mg/i) RemovaLV
Filtration
Residual Percent
(mg/l) Removai. ’
Ion Exchange 1 !
Residual Percent
(mg/i) RemovaiF
Adsorption
Residual Percent
(mg/i) RemovalF
March 118 2.5.5 78 20.1 83 14.9 87 3.7 97
April 102. 22.8 77 19.9 81 14.8 85 4.9 95
May 114 18.8 84 16.8 85 13.5 88 8.1 93
June 85 18.1 79 18.5. 78 14.5 83 8.3 91
July 78 17.6 78 17.3 78 11.8 82 5.2. 93
August 96 17.5 82 18.4 81 6.1 93 ” 7.6
1/ Data for District of Columbia 100,000 gpd physical-chemical pilot plant. Table from D. F. Bishop,
T. P. O’Farrell, and J. B. Stamberg, “Physical-Chemical Treatnient.of Municipal Wastewater.” Robert
A. Taft Water Research Center, October 1970 (7).
2/ Intermittent Operation, percent removal based on intermittent influent concentration.
3/ Accumulated percent.removal.
4/ Ion exchange placed after adsorption.
-------
TABLE 5
BOD REMOVAL—
Month
(1970)
Influent
(mg/l)
Clarification
Residual Percent
(mg/i) RemovalF
Filtration
Residual Percent ,,
(mg/i) Removai ’
Ion Ex
Residual
(nig/l)
change - i
Percent 31
Removal—’
Adsorption
Residual Percent 3
(mg/l) Removal—
March 142 31.4 78 2.3.7 83 16.7 88 3.7 98
April 12.6 2.8.3 78 24.3 81 18.6 85 6.4 95
May 158 2.6.1 83 19.4 88 12.6 90 . 6.5 96
June 111 18.1 84 15.1 86 9.6 90 7.5 93
July 99 13.0 86 11.8 88 7.8 92 3.0 97
August 98 . 16.2 83 13.9 86 4.3 93& 4.7
1/ Data for District of Columbia 100,000 gpd physical-chemical pilot plant. Table from D. F. Bishop,
T. P. O’Farrell, and J. B. Stamberg, “Physical-Chemical Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.” Robert
A. Taft Water Research Center, October 1970 (7).
2/ Intermittent Operation, percent removal based on intermittent influent concentration.
3/ Accumulated percent removal.
4/ Ion exchange placed after adsorption. .
-------
Symbol Source
A Batavia -
B Lebanon
C Hamilton
D Remington
E “Primary”
2/ Ca lime as CaC; Al alum as A1 2 (S0 4 ) 1 .14H 2 0.
3/ In = input value; Fiit. = after filtration only; Clar. after chemical clarification and filtration; Fiit.-Carbon after filtration and
carbon adsorption; Clar.-Carbon = after chemical clarification, filtration and carbon adsorption.
4/ Indicates jar tests; not filtered.
5/ Partially clarified with alum.
6/ 38-minute empty-bed contact time; all others 20-minute bed contact time.
7/ Data from D. F. Bish, L. S. Marshall, T. P. O’Farreil, R. B. Dean, B. O’Connor, R. A. Dobbs, S. H. Criggs, and R. V. Villiera. “Studies on
Activated Carbon Treatment.” Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, February 1967 (2).
EP.BLE &
TREAThENT OF SECONDARY EFFTJJENTS BY FILTRATION, CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION AND/OR CARBON ADSORPTIONZ/
Dose
P lantI/ Chem. J (mg/i) In
i
Turbiditya’
(JTU)
TOC .’ (mg/i)
Phosphates 3 i
(mg/i)
Put.—
Filt. Carbon
Ciar.
Clar.-
Carbon In
Filt.— Ciar.—
Put. Carbon Clar. Carbon
In Clar.
Al
Al
Al
Ca
Al
Ca
Ca
Ca
Al
Ca
Al
Ca
Ca
Al
Ca
Ca
A- l - ’
A- 2fü
A-3
A-3
A-4
A-5
B- l i
B- 2 ’
B-3
1/
260
400
450
450
300
303
133
151
350
227
300
300
151
150
150
378
19
1.1
0.3
0.7
10 6.7 0.2
15 10 0.5
0.6
0.6
7.1 5.5 0.2
15 8.7 1.6
0.3
120
31
31
21
35
9.5
18
90
200
13
13
14
130
130
120
11
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
1.3
0.7
3.3
0.9
0.8
7.0
0.9
33 4
30 1
17
19
9 0
11 0
12
10
8 0
13 0
11
13
9 0
16
18 -
116 14
71
72
72
18 17- 4
24 19 5
15
20
19 14 4
40 18 5
15
15
12 12 2
37
37
189 157 22
Type of Waste
Domestic
Domestic
Mixed
Domestic
Domestic
58
58
19
23
35
33
21
29
24
24
20
11
ii
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.8
2.0
2.8
0.0
0.4
0.2
8.8 - 6.5
39 28
Type of Treatment
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Overloaded Trickling Filter
-------
12
shows the removal of turbidity, TOC and phosphate by either filtration;
filtration and carbon adsorption; filtration and chemical clarification;
or filtration, chemical clarification and carbon adsorption. As can be
seen in this table, chemical clarification and filtration alone removes
TOC from an influent range of 12-72 mg/i to an effluent range of 8-33
mg/l. When the effluent from this clarification step is passed through
the carbon adsorption columns, the TOC is further reduced with the final
effluent having 1 mg/I or less of TOC. This suggests that the extent of
residual TOC in the original secondary effluent was an unadsorbable frac-
tion on the order of I mg/l (2).
A 0.3 MCD granular activated carbon pilot plant has continuously
treated unfiltered activated sludge effluent from the Pomona water re-
clamation plant from June 1965 through July 1969 (11) (12). Successful
backwashing of the first stage activated carbon column, which served as
a filter and adsorber, made pretreatment of the secondary effluent un-
necessary. The average TOC concentrations in the influent and effluent
from this pilot plant study were 12 and 3 mg/l respectively (75 percent
TOC removal). Table 7 summarizes the average water quality character-
istics of this study.
Other municipalities which utilize carbon adsorption include
Cincinnati, Ohio; Wayne County, Michigan; Cortland, New York; Leetsdale,
Pennsylvania; South Tahoe Public Utility District, California; and Nitro,
West Virginia (3) (6). Except for Cincinnati, TOC data were not avail-
able. Cincinnati removes 86 percent of the TOC in its physical-chemical
wastewater facility (6).
-------
13
TABLE 7
CARBON ADSORPTION PILOT PLANT
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS1’ ’,V
JUNE 1965 to JULY 1969
PARAMETER INFLUENT EFFLUENT
SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/i 9 0.6
COD mg/i 43 10
DISSOLVED COD mg/i 30 8
TOC mg/i 12 3
NITRATE as N mg/i 8.1 6.6
TURBIDITY (Jtu) 8.2 1.2
COLOR (Platinum-Cobalt) 28 3
ODOR (Ton) 12 1
CCE mg/i 0.026
BOD mg/i 3 1
1/ Data for Pomona, California, Water Reclamation Plant.
2/ Table from 3. N. English, A. N. Masse, C. W. Carry, J. B. Pitkin,
and 3. E. Haskins, “Removal of Organics from Wastewater by
Activated Carbon.” Advanced Waste Treatment Seminar, San
Francisco, California, October 28-29, 1970 (12).
-------
14
Industrial wastewater treatment facilities experience wide fluctu-
ations in raw wastewater characteristics. Biological systems operate
least effectively under fluctuating temperature and pH conditions, and
in addition, dyes, detergents and other refractory contaminants can pass
through these systems without receiving any degree of treatment. Toxic
wastes upset biological waste treatment facilities. Due to these and
other factors, carbon adsorption systems are being utilized by industry
(6). Table 8 lists •a variety of industries which presently treat their
wastewaters by carbon adsorption techniques.
An investigation of the removal of color and organic carbon from a
paper mill bleaching effluent was conducted at Continental Can Co.,
Augusta, Georgia (13). This investigation utilized only the chemical
clarification step in the physical-chemical process. Aluminum chloride
was found to be the most economical coagulant, removing 80 percent of the
color and 30 percent of the total carbon.
Costs
The major portion of the operating costs for treatment of wastes by
activated carbon relates to the amount of carbon exhausted per unit of
wastes treated. Based on the pilot plant study, Rocky River, Ohio, will
construct a 10 NGD treatment facility at a cost of $1.6 million. This
is $200,000 less than the cost of the conventional activated sludge plant
designed to treat this same wastewater. The annual operating cost for
the adsorption portion of the process is estimated at $0.03/bOO gal. (8).
The Pomona Pilot Plant Study results indicate that the cost of a 10 MGD
waste treatment facility utilizing carbon adsorption with no pretreatment of
the secondary effluent would be $O.08/l,000 gal. of treated wastewater (11).
-------
TABLE 8
INDUSTRIAL WASTE ADSORPTION TREATMENT PLANTS 1 ’
REACTI VATION
OR
AVERAGE REGENERATION
LOCATION IMPURITY FLOW RATE METhOD
1. Washington, New Jersey Polyols 100 gpni Furnace
2. E. St. Louis, Illinois Nitropheriol 50 gpni Caustic
3. Burlington, Iowa TNT 100 gpm None
4. Southampton, Pa. Dye 350 gpin Furnace
5. Portland, Oregon Insecticides 100 gpin Furnace
6. Conway, North Carolina Phenol 25 gpm Caustic
7. Wilmington, California Refinery 2,900 gpm Furnace
Wastes
8. Latrobe, Pa. Cyanide 20 gpm
1/ Table from D. G. Hager and P. B. Reilly, ‘ t Clarification-adsorption in the Treatment
of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater.” Presented at the 42nd Annual Conference
of the Water Pollution Control Federation meeting in Dallas, Texas, October 5-10,
1969 (6).
-------
16
Table 9 summarizes capital and operating costs for four plants,
three for secondary effluent treatment and one (Rocky River) for primary
effluent treatment. These cost estimates were made by different groups
and therefore differ in procedure for calculating’such items as overhead,
maintenance and amortization. Each plant also differs in process con-
figuration and objective’; therefore, care should be taken not to directly
compare one with another (3).
The economics of a clarification-adsorption process compared to an
activated sludge facility for a 10 I D wastewater flow are given in
Tables 10, 11 and 12 (6). The primary treatment portion for both the
activated sludge facility and the clarification process is identical.
The capital cost for a clarification..adsorption process is less than for
an activated sludge facility (Table 10). The annual operating costs, on
the other hand, are higher for carbon adsorption (Table 11). combining
the operating costs with amortization of capital shows that the costs of
the two systems are essentially the same for the 90 percent BOD removal
level (Table 12). Should a higher degree of treatment be required in
the future, the clarification-adsorption system could deliver up to 95
percent BOD removal for an increase of 0.7 cent per 1,000 gal. annual
operating cost. The activated sludge facility would require the addition
of a “tertiary tt system to achieve the 95 percent BOD removal level, thus
resulting in additional capital costs. This would result in a cost much
greater than the 0.7 /l,000 gal. required for the carbon adsorption process.
ADSORBENT RESINS
Adsorbent synthetic resins are being investigated as alternatives
-------
TABLE 9
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 1 ’
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION
Pittsburgh Activated Lake Rocky
Carbon Co. Tahoe Pomona River
Capacity, MCD 10 7.5 10 10
Investment ($1,000) 1,489 1,306 1,670 1,600
Operating Cost (Q/l0 0 0 gal.)
Carbon 1.20 1.18 1.10 0.69
Fuel 0.11 ---- 0.25 0.12
Chemicals ---- 0.99 3.80
Power 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.55
Labor 0.74 0.40 1.50 1.10
Overhead 0.27
Amortization 3.07 3.53 4.10 3.23
(20 Years) (20 Years) (15 Years) (20 Years)
Maintenance 0.63 0.33 0.50 0.55
Total Operating Cost 6.87 7.18 8.30 10.04
1/ Table from Arthur N. Masse, “Removal of Organics by Activated Carbon.” Robert A. Taft Water
Research Laboratory, August 1968 (mimeo) (3).
-------
18
TABLE 10
CAPITAL COST COMPARISON!!
10 MGD Plant
In Thousands of Dollars
Activated Clarification
Primary Sludge Adsorption
Preliminary 75 75 75
Preaeration 98 98 98
Primary Settling 275 275 275
Activated Sludge System 730
Secondary Settling 200
Adsorption 950
Sludge Thickening 42 72 48
Sludge Dewatering 140 600 240
Disinfection 32 32 32
Buildings 200 200 200
Sludge Incineration 400 450 450
Sub Total $1,262 $2,732 $2,368,
Contingencies (207 ) 250 550 470
Contractors Profit (lO0i ) 126 273 236
Engineering, Legal, Financial (l2%) 150 328 2.85
Total Cost $1,788 $3,883 $3,359
Design Basis:
BOD Removal 90% 957
Suspended Solids 90% 957
1/ Table from D. G. Hager and P. B. Reilly, “Clarification—Adsorption in
the Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewaters.” Presented at
the 42nd Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation
Meeting in Dallas, Texas, October 5-10, 1969 (6).
-------
19
TABLE 11
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST COMPARISONI’
10 MCD Plant
Activated Clarification
Primary Sludge Adsorption
BOD Removal 3570 9O7 9O7 957
Cents Per 1,000 Gallons
Primary Treatment 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Activated Sludge 2.2
Clarification
Chemicals 0.3 0.3
Extra Sludge 0.1 0.1
Adsorption System 3.2 3.9
Sub Total 3.3 5.5 6.9 7.6
Incineration 2.6 3.6 3.8 3.8
Total /l,OO0 gallons 5.9 9.1 10.7 11.4
1/ Table from D. G. }tager and P. B. Reilly, “Clarification-Adsorption in the
Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewaters.” Presented at the
42nd Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Contro1 Federation Meeting
in Dallas, Texas, October 5-10, 1969 (6).
-------
20
TABLE 12
TOTAL COST COMPARISONL”
10 MGD Plant
Activated Clarification
Primary Sludge Adsorption
BOD Removal 357 90° ! , 9070 957
Cents per 1,000 Gallons
Operating and Maintenance 5.9 9.1 10.7 11.4
Amortization of Capital 4.0 8.7 7.2 7.2
(57,--20 years)
Total /1,O0O gallons 9.9 17.8 17.9 18.6
1/ Table from D. C. Hager, and P. B. Reilly, “Clarification-Adsorption in
the Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewaters.” Presented at
the 42nd Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation
Meeting in Dallas, Texas, October 5-10, 1969 (6).
-------
21
to carbon or for specialized application. At the present stage of de-
velopment, adsorbent resins are not likely to replace carbon (7).
Vanderbilt University is studying the properties of chemcoke, an
apparently competitive material for activated carbon. The study will
determine the ability of chemcoke to adsorb refractory materials (14).
OXIDATION PROCESSES
The Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory has investigated the ef-
ficiency of oxidation ponds for removal of carbon from pulp and paper
mill wastewaters (15). They found that for an unbleached Kraft pulp
mill, the oxidation ponds removed approximately 60 percent of the TOC
and COD and 90 percent of the ROD. For a sulfite pulp mill, the removals
were 20 percent for COD, 32 percent for TOC and 73 percent for BOD.
A variety of chemical oxidation processes have been investigated,
such as chlorine catalyzed by ultraviolet light) metal catalyzed photo-
oxidation, and ozone. Of these, only ozone appears to be technically
feasible. Airco, Inc., is currently constructing a 50,000 gpd plant to
determine its feasibility(4).
-------
22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Weber, W. J., Jr., C. B. Hopkins, R. Bloom, Jr., “Physicochemical
Treatment of Wastewater”. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion , January 1970.
2. Bishop, D. F., L. S. Marshall, T. P. O’Farrell, R. B. Dean, B.
O’Connor, R. A. Dobbs, S. H. Griggs, and R. V. Villiers, “Studies
on Activated Carbon Treatment”. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation , February 1967.
3. Masse, Arthur N., “Removal of Organics by Activated Carbon”. Robert
A. Taft Water Research Laboratory, August 1968. (Mimeo)
4. “Current Status of Advanced Waste- Treatment Processes”. Advanced
Waste-Treatment Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1, 1970.
5. Beebe, R. L., and J. I. Stevens, “Activated Carbon System for
Was tewater Renovation”. Water and Wastes Eng. , January 1967.
6. Hager, D. G., and Reilly, P. B., “Clarification-Adsorption in the
Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater”. presented at the
42nd Annual Conference of the Water pollution Control Federation
Meeting in Dallas, Texas, October 5-10, 1969.
.7. Bishop, D. F., T.P. O’Farrell, and J. B. Stamberg, “Physical-Chemical
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater”. Robert A. Taft Water Research
Center, October 1970.
8. Rizzo, J. L. and R. E. Schade, “Secondary Treatment with Granular
Activated Carbon”. Water and Sewage Works , August 1969.
9. Campbell, L. A., “Uptake of Dissolved Organic Carbon by Activated
Sludge”. Water Pollution Control , October 1966, 104, No. 9.
10. Villiers, R. V., E. L. Berg, C. A. Brunner, and A. N. Masse, “Treat-
ment of Primary Effluent by Lime Clarification and Granular Carbon.”
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, May 1970.
11. Parkhurst, J. D., F. 0.’ Dryden, G. N. McDermott, and 3. English,
“Pomona 0.3 MGD Activated Carbon Pilot Plant”. presented at the
39th Annual Meeting, Water Pollution Control Federation, Septem-
ber 29, 1966.
12. English, S. N., A. N. Masse, C. W. Carry, J. B. Pitkin, and J. E.
Haskins, “Removal of Organics from Wastewater by Activated Carbon”.
presented at the Advanced Waste Treatment Seminar, San Francisco,
California, October 28-29, 1970.
-------
23
13. Clarke, 3., “How Color and Organic Carbon are Removed from Bleach
Plant Effluent”. Pulp and Paper , February 1969.
14. Fisher, G. T., “Refractory Adsorption on Chemcoke”, School of En-
gineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. (Research.
Project Sponsored by FWQA).
15. Willard, H. K., Sanitary Engineer, Paper and Forest Industries.
Memorandum dated February 3, 1971, to Jim Hatheway, DFI-DC.
GPO 835-291
------- |