ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA 330/2-78-012
Alternatives for Nitrogen Control
at the
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kingsport, Tennessee
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER.COLORADO
AND
REGION IV
ATLANTA. GEORGIA
OCTOBER 1978
USEZ.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
ALTERNATIVES FOR NITROGEN CONTROL AT THE
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
KINGSPORT, TENNESSEE
Arthur N. Masse
October 1978
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Denver, Colorado
and
Enforcement Division, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia
-------
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
III. STUDY FINDINGS 5
Nitrogen Levels in Plant Streams 7
IV. NITROGEN REMOVAL PROCESSES AND ASSOCIATED
COSTS 12
Disposal on the Land 12
Nitrification and Denitrification 13
FIGURE AND TABLES
Figure 1 6
Table 1 8
Table 2 9
Table 3 10
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of David L.
Brooman and Francis J. Early of the National Enforcement Investiga-
tions Cente-r»»and the staff of the Wastewater Research Division of
EPA's Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
for the help provided in the conduct of this study and the prepara-
tion of this report.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Tennessee Eastman Company (TEC), located on and discharging
to the Holston River in Kingsport, Tennessee is one of the largest
organic chenacal manufacturing sites in the United States. In 1973,
the Company shipped over 2,270,000 kg (5,000,000 lbs) of chemicals per
day and employed almost 12,000 people. The three major product clas-
sifications are fibers, chemicals and plastics.
The NPDES permit (TN0002640) issued to the Tennessee Eastman
Company and effective July 28, 1974 limited the total nitrogen dis-
charge from Outfall 002, the only outfall containing industrial
wastes, to 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) as a daily average (20 mg/1 at the
average flow of 68,000 m3/day (18 mgd) and 2,720 kg (6,000 lb) as
a daily maximum effective July 1, 1977. The permit further stated
that these limitations would be revised if TEC could demonstrate that
they are unattainable using the "currently planned" wastewater treat-
ment plant and in-plant controls.
TEC notified EPA Region IV that it could not meet the nitrogen
limitations and requested that the limitations be revised to allow a
total nitrogen discharge in Outfall 002 of 3,120 kg (7,000 lb) as a
daily average and 6,800 kg (15,000 lb) as a daily maximum. Region IV
subsequently informed the Company that they could discharge the above
quantities until July 1, 1978.
Region IV also informed TEC [Appendix A] that the National Enforce-
ment Investigations Center (NEIC) would conduct an evaluation with the
following objectives:
-------
Determine the removal capability of the existing waste treat-
ment system with respect to BOD-5, total suspended solids,
total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus. (Subsequent
discussions with Region IV brought out that only nitrogen
removal was of concern, all of the other parameters mentioned
are being reduced to acceptable limits).
De&ermine possible process variations to optimize perfor-
mance of the existing plant including pretreatment so that
effluent limitations may be met.
For the identified process variations, evaluate the cost
of implementation.
Determine the effect of the identified pretreatment modi-
fications and process variations on the final effluent quality.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Tennessee Eastman Company of Kingsport, Tennessee has requested
EPA's Region IV to increase the total nitrogen limitations in their
permit from-i,360 kg/day (3,000 lb/day) as a daily average and 2,720
kg/day (6,000 lb/day) as a daily maximum to 3,195 kg/day (7,000 and
6,800 kg/day 15,000 lb/day), respectively. Region IV subsequently
requested the NEIC to determine the removal capability of the existing
plant and suggest process revisions that would enable TEC to meet the
1,360-2,720 kg/day (6,000 lb/day) limits. Region IV also requested a
cost estimate of the suggested revisions.
An analysis of the DMR data from the Regional files shows that
TEC is meeting the total nitrogen limitations about half of the time
and that, for all of the reporting periods except one, the total nitro-
gen discharged is less than 363 kg/day (800 lb/day) over the 1,360 kg/
day (3,000 lb/day) limitation.
An analysis of further data supplied by TEC shows that the digested
sludge supernatant recycle stream contributes from 454 to 2,270 kg/day
(1,000 to 5,000 lb/day) of nitrogen to the main aerator feed system.
From these data; it was concluded that TEC could meet the 1,360-2,720
kg/day (3,000-6,000 lb/day) limitation by eliminating or reducing the
nitrogen in this recycle stream.
Elimination of the recylce stream completely could be accomplished
by soil spreading and this is presently being investigated by TEC. If
soil spreading does not prove feasible, the nitrogen in the recycle
stream couldibe reduced by biological nitrification and denitrification.
-------
4
This would have to be preceded by chemical coagulation to remove the
heavy metals that would inhibit the nitrifying organisms. The nitrified
effluent can be denitrified by adding it to the raw wastewater entering
the main aerator. The sludges from the metal precipitation ana nitrifi-
cation facilities would have to be dewatered and disposed of. TEC is
presently investigating sludge dewatering and incineration of the dewatered
sludge in the plant's coal-fired boilers.
TEC is presently constructing land disposal facilities so the cost
of this alternative would not be an additional expense to TEC. The
metal removal, nitrification and denitrification facility would have a
capital cost of $1,850,000. Expenses not included in this estimate;
land, site work, piping, electrical work, instrumentation, engineering,
construction supervision, project contingencies and miscellaneous struc-
tures could increase this cost by up to 100%.
Installation of either soil spreading or nitrification and denitri-
fication would enable TEC to meet the 1,360 kg/day (3,000 lb/day) and
2,720 kg day (6,000 lb/day) limitations in the permit.
-------
In mid-"1976, TEC began operating an activated sludge plant to
treat the process wastes discharged through Outfall 002 (Figure 1).
Most of the^rganic-containing wastes are collected in Building 250,
a pump station, and pumped to the aeration basins. A small flow
enters the aearation basins, from a sump on Long Island, where the
treatment plant is located. Wastes containing high manganese and
high suspended solids are pumped to the north end of a lagoon called
Ki.tt Bottom. The overflow from this section of the Kitt Bottom lagoon
goes to the aeration basins.
The mixed liquor from the aeration basins is settled and the
clarifier overflow goes directly to the Holston River. The sludge is
digested aerobically and pumped to the south end of the Kitt Bottom Lagoon.
The supernatant joins the overflow from the north end of the lagoon and
flows to the aeration basins.
The initial sludge handling plan called for the digested sludge
to be sprayed on a nearby field. This proved infeasible because the
percolation rate of the field was too low to accommodate the amount of
sludge produced. Since late 1976, digested sludge has been sent to
the south end of Kitt Bottom Lagoon and suspended solids are accumulat-
ing in this lagoon.
During a visit to TEC by Regional NEIC personnel on December 7,
1977,it was found TEC had reduced the nitrogen load to the waste
treatment plant by 6,350-6,800 kg/day (14,000-15,000 lb/day) and that
the disposapof sludge is now a major problem for TEC [Appendix B].
-------
High TSS
Wastes
Clarifier
Process 4
Wastes
0-/2Z
OOZ
Figure 1. Tennessee Eastman Company Waste Treatment Facility
Figure supplied by Tennessee Eastman Company
-------
7
NITROGEN LEVELS IN PLANT STREAMS
Following the December 7 visit, TEC was reqested to supply addi-
tional information on nitrogen and biological oxygen demand (BOD) in
several streams [Appendices C and D].
The-Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) received from TEC for
1977 [Table 1] show that the nitrogen content of Outfall 002 exceeded
an average of 1,360 kg/day (3,000 lb/day) in 5 of the 12 months and a
maximum of 2,720 kg/day (6,000 lb/day) in 6 of the 12. Other than in
January, the 1,360 kg/day (3,000 lb/day) monthly average value was
exceeded by less than 363 kg/day (800 lb/day), indicating that a slight
increase in nitrogen removal efficiency will allow the Company to meet
the prescribed limitations.
Of importance is the amount of nitrogen that is recycled to the
aeration basins from the Kitt Bottom Lagoon [Table 2]. > If the nitrogen
in this stream were completely removed, and if it is assumed that the
nitrogen in Discharge 002 is reduced by a like amount, the 1,360 kg/day
(3,000 lbs/day) limit would have been met in each month except January.
The daily maximum limitation would have been met in each month except
January and April.
The assumption that" the nitrogen level in Outfall 002 would be
reduced by the same amount as that in the recycle stream is reasonable
if it is also assumed that the removal of this amount of nitrogen from
the aeration basins would not result in a nitrogen deficiency in the aera-
tion basins. A nitrogen deficiency in the aeration basins would result in
upset conditions in the system and in a deterioration of effluent quality.
Table 3 was prepared to determine the probability of a nitrogen
deficiency if recycle from Kitt Bottom to the aeration basins were dis-
continued. Column A represents what the BOD: N ratio in the feed to the
aeration basins would be if the recycle stream from Kitt Bottom Lagoon were
-------
8
Table 1
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS - OUTFALL 002
Kingsport, Tennessee
Date TKN
1977 Daily Average Daily Maximum
lb/day
kg/day
lb/day
kg/day
January
5,086
2,307
7,341
3,330
February
1,987
901
7,596
3,345
March
3,424
1,553
7,248
3,288
April j:
3,794
1,721
8,354
3,789
May
2,706
1 ,227
5,814
2,637
June
1 ,280
581
4,428
2,008
July
1,827
829
6,338
2,875
August
2,062
935
5,280
2,395
September
3,039
1 ,378
7,195
3,264
October
3,111
1,411
5,529
2,508
November
"~1,608
729
5,467
2,480
December
1,313
596
3,405
1 ,544
-------
9
Table 2
TOTAL NITROGEN FLOWS
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
Kingsport, Tennessee
Date
Nitrogen in
Nitrogen from
F1 ow
from
1977
Outfal1
002
Ki tt
Bottom
Kitt
Bottom
1b/day
kg/day
lb/day
kg/day
mgd
m3/day
January
5,086
2,307
958
435
0.39
1,480
February
1 ,987
901
5,068
2,309
1.9
7,190
March
3,424
1 ,553
2,074
941
1.4
5,300
Apri 1
3,794
1 ,721
1,355
615
0.7
2,650
May
2,706
1 ,227
1 ,098
498
0.4
1 ,500
June
1,280
581
1,130
513
0.6
2,270
July
1 ,827
829
2,283
1,036
1.0
3,790
August
2,062
935
3,049
1,383
1.7
6,530
September
3,039
1 ,378
4,428
2,008
1.3
4,920
October
3,111
1 ,411
3,863
1,752
1.2
4,540
November
1,608
729
3,377
1 ,532
1.1
4,160
2,720 -
1 ,234
2,608
1,183
1.1
4,160
a From discharge monitoring reports
b See Appendix D
-------
Table 3
BOD TO NITROGEN RATIOS IN FEED TO AERATION BASINS
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
Kingsport, Tennessee
Date
A3
Bb
1977
B0D:N Ratio
B0D:N Ratio
January
100:3.9
100:4.3
February
100:3.3
100: 5.7
March
100:2.9
100:3.9
Apri 1
100:2.9
100:3.5
May
--
100:3.3
100:3.8
June
100:2.6
100:3.2
July
100:2.3
100:3.2
August
100:2.2
100:3.4
September
100:2.5
100:4.1
October
100:2.4
100: 3.8
November
—
100:1.8
100:2.9
a Column
A assumes
that
nitrogen (but not BOD) removed from
stream entering
aeration basins from
Kitt Bottom.
b Column
B assumes
that
no nitrogen (or
BOD) removed from
stream
enteri ng
aeration basins from
Kitt Bottom.
-------
11
not returned. Column B represents the BOD: N ratio with the recycle
stream. The theoretical BOD: N ratio for optimum performance in a
biological process is 100:5 but paper mills, which must add nitrogen
to make biological processes perform, have operated as low as 100:2.5.1.
Documentation has been accumulated on several other biological treatment
plants, including those treating wastes from complex organic chemical manu-
facturing-facilities, which shows that a low nitrogen content effluent
can be obtained when the BOD: N ratio in the aeration basin feed is con-
trolled.2
The minimum nitrogen content at which TEC can operate is not known.
However, it is known that, in late December 1977, TEC experienced operat-
ing difficulties when the BOD: N got to 100:2. The data in Table 3 indi-
cate that if recycle from Kitt Bottom Lagoon is discontinued, it may be
necessary to add nitrogen to the aeration basins in order to avoid a
nitrogen deficient system. Nitrogen addition can be controlled so as to
avoid nitrogen deficiency and, at the same time, allow the Company to
meet the 3,000 and 6,000 lb/day limitations.
-------
IV. NITROGEN REMOVAL PROCESSES AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
Of the processes which are available for removing nitrogen, two
seem to be the most applicable for TEC. These are: 1) disposal of the
recycle stream by spreading or spraying on the ground and 2) removal
of nitrogen from the recycle stream by biological nitrification and deni-
trificaion.
DISPOSAL ON THE LAND
The process that has been investigated in most detail by TEC, in-
volved spreading the aerobically digested sludge and allowing it to
percolate into the ground. Pilot-scale studies indicated that this
would allow disposal of all of the sludge produced. Preparation of
the field near the treatment plant for full scale spreading, however,
resulted in impairment of the soil permeability and, on start-up, the
percolation rate was too low to allow disposal. The Company is tilling
the soil and trying to re-establish permeability. In addition, the Com-
pany is preparing a near-by wooded site for disposal by spraying. TEC
counts on either or both-of these to be effective in allowing them to
dispose of high ammonia content waste sludge. If spreading and/or spray-
ing are effective, TEC can dispose of all of the nitrogen now being
recycled to the aerators. As previously stated, it may be necessary
to divert some of this nitrogen back to the aerators or to find an alter-
nate source of nitrogen to prevent a nitrogen deficiency from developing
in the biological system.
By spraying the waste sludge on forest land or on a field near
the treatment plant, TEC would incur no expense over and above that
currently planned.
-------
13
NITRIFICATION AND DENITRIFICATION
If land disposal proves ineffective, the nitrogen in the waste
sludge, which is principally in the form of ammonia, can be biologically
oxidized to the nitrate ion and then biologically reduced to nitrogen
gas, wnicn can be vented to tne atmosphere. i ne success i u'i application
of biological nitrification and denitrification has been adequately
demonstrated and the technology is avai 1 able. 3'4 '5 ,6'7 '8 '9"
TEC reports that the aerobic digestion process does not oxidize
the ammonia to the nitrate ion as would be expected. It is likely
that the heavy metals present in the sludge are preventing the develop-
ment of the nitrifying organisms. The removal of heavy metals by pH
adjustment has been well documented io»iiii2» anCj can be readily accom-
plished using rapid mix, flocculation and clarification processes.
Following this, the wastewater could be nitrified (ammonia oxidized
to the nitrate ion) in a conventional aeration tank-clarifier configuration.
The nitrified stream could then be reintroduced into the main body of
wastewater entering the aeration basin. Upon introduction of the high
nitrate stream to the high BOD stream containing recycled organisms, the
nitrate ions would be reduced to nitrogen gas by Diological action. A
well-operated nitrification denitrification system will reduce the nitro-
gen content of the wastewater to less than 2 mg/1.
Both the chemical clarification step for the removal of heavy
metals and the nitrification process would produce sludge that must
be disposed of. This sludge can either be landfilled on site, sent
to an approved landfill or dewatered and incinerated. The filtrate
can be returned to the aeration tank feed. TEC is now evaluating
dewatering of the sludge from the aerobic digestion system and incin-
eration of the filter cake in their coal-fired boilers.
-------
The capital cost of equipment needed to remove the heavy metals
from the sludge and to nitrify the supernatant was estimated using
an EPA publication.* The costs of the thickener and filter needed to
separate the heavy metals were based on treating the sludge from an
18 mgd plant. This is the design flow for the TEC plant. Nitrifica-
tion facilities to treat the overflow from the thickener and the filtrate
were based on cost estimates for a 0.7 mgd plant. This is the sludge
flow given in Appendix D.
The total capital cost for this plant was estimated at $1,850,000.
This cost is in 1976 dollars and does not include the cost of piping,
electrical work, lnstrumentalion, land, site preparation, engineering
and construction supervision, contingencies and miscellaneous structures.
These additions could increase the cost by 75-100%. Operating costs
could not be estimated because no data were available on the amount of
chemical needed to precipitate the heavy metals.
* Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual - Volume III (EPA 600/9-76-014)
-------
References
1. August 28, 1975. Letter: from State of Wisconsin - Department of
Natural Resources to Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Company, Inc.
2. March 1, 1976; March 30, 1976; March 30, 1976; March 31, 1976;
June 17, 1976; Private Comnunications.
3.. "Development of a Pilot Plant to Demonstrate Removal of Carbonaceous,
Nitrogenous and Phosphorus Materials from Anaerobic Digester
Supernatant and Related Process Streams" Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Water Pollution Control Research Series,
0RD-17010FKA05/70.
4. Climenhage, D. H. September, 1972. "Biological Denitrification of
Nylon Intermediate Waste Water". 22nd Canadian Chemical Engineer-
ing Conference.
5. Tucker, D. 0. et. al , May, 1974. "Columnar Denitrification of a
Munitions Manufacturing Wastewater". 29th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference.
6. Jewell, W. J. and R. J. Cummings, October, 1973. "Denitrification of
Concentrated Nitrate Wastewaters". 46th Annual Water Pollution
Control Federation Conference.
7. Hutton, W. C. and S. A. LaRocca. October, 1973. "Design for Biological
Treatment of Concentrated Ammonia Wastewater". 46th Annual Water
Pollution Control Federation Conference.
8. Adams, C. E. Jr. 1974. "Treatment of a High Strength Phenolic and
Ammonia Waste Steams by Single and Multi-stage Activated Sludge
Processes". Purdue University Eng. Bull. Eng. Ext. Ser. No. 145.
9. Adams, Cv E. Jr~ and.W-. W. Eckenfelder,.Jr. March, 1977. Nitrifi-
cation Design Approach for High Strength Ammonia Wastewater".
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 49.
10. Rouse, J. V. "Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Effluents".
ASCE. J. Environ. Eng. Div., 102, Oct.' 76. P. 929-936.
11. "Development Document for Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment
Standards for the Electroplating Point Source Category".
EPA-440/1-78/085.
12. "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Copper, Nickel, Chromium
and Zinc Segments of the Electroplating Point Source Catecory".
EPA-440/1-74-003a.
- 15 -
-------
APPENDIX A
NOV 2 9 193
rir. J. C. 2?av>arun, Manager
Cl^an Ilaviromnon t Fro grain
Tor.nessea i'astman Cop-pany
Kii^sport, Teiuiessoe 37662
Ec: HPDH-S Permit Ho. Tf;C0026'»0
L~or .Mr. Ztiyards:
In ycur letters of June 1, 1977/ Juno 25, 1D76, .-Vvril 2b, 1075*
L'ove^bar .11, 1075 and June 30, 19715, you requested that the refererx:c t;att2r of Exxlifications
pursuant to paragraph 7, and to that ejid, I vish to sppraisa you of ovir
internied course of cation iii thio raattar. Au you axe awara, our Surveillance
end Analysis Divi&ion is currently conducting a. study of the Holsten
Riv^r snd Cnarokeo Reservoir. One of tho primary air-is of this 3turly is;
to d.^v^lop a nutrient bu-i$ot i:* tha h'olaton system. The re'suiti-. of this
ctucty rrfill not L-e available nr. til January 1970.
It in thvs intention of II?A to evaluats the performance anil assess
potential ifications to the existing waste treatment racilic/ which
viil ror^iit attaint-tint cf the present efflner.t limitations. jThia evalv.at.ion
will ha corUuc-noxi by personal of the ;iational Z.nfcrcsw?nt IJ :v estimations
Cejicsr, Danva'Cf Colorado, and will be completed during tha first oix
i^antlis or 1970.
Tha following ore the objectives upon x/hich tho IvrllC will report1
1) Eveluaro tha existing waste treatment gy.3tt.5a v/ith rearvact to
DOI>-5, total susp^r.deu solids, total i*itroc;en, a^onia. nitrogen
iir-c. phosphorus removal capabilities.
2) JLvriluato the f.Uial effluent quality with respect to the rystca's
currant noda of operation,
ji) Suggest treatment process variation to optimize pwrfcrriance of
the exiatijicj plant including rretroatcent of rsafcarial vhich nay
csriou^ly a£fo^t ccnpliauco with effluent liuvitationa.
4) For tho identified. process variations, evaluate the cost of
i.^pl ta t ion .
5) For tha idaatificd protreatment codifications ar.d process
variations, evaluate their effect ca the final efficient quality.
-------
The ultinuta purposa of the I.r.IC evaluation is to rGCor.~r.ond poteutial
chanf?«=s in -cho tiaatstent facility anl/or node of operation to achcsive
the following final effluent liuits:
Dfiilv Avorocis Daily .•ia.^iuuni
Total Mitrogan 5000 li'/D
Total rbosphoras 300 lh/D
0000 lb/3
cOO lb/D
1'ha recrcrv^anuatior.n may iucluda in-plant process changes.
I Lelieve this approach will frovida a fresh look at the overall
pronrjua, incorporating r-ast IIIC
-------
environmental protection agency
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53. BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
Record January 3, 1978
'om Arthur N. Masse
ubject Wastewater Treatment Plant Inspection, Tennessee Eastman Company,
Kingsport, Tennessee - H 7
1 ^°ined J°hn Moebes and Katnleen Taimi of the Enforcement
Division Region IV on a visit to the Tennessee Eastman Company (TEC).
While at the plant, we met with J. C. Edwards and W. Walls of the Environ-
mental Section and Robert Hughes of the Manufacturing Division. The purpose
™;etin9 was to determine what steps would be necessary to enable the
Company to meet their present limitations for nutrients, particularly nitrogen.
During our vist, which consisted of a tour of one of the production facilities
a discussion of their existing and planned waste treatment facilities and a
developed*16 eX1Sting actlvated sludge plant, the following information was
1. Those manufacturing facilities producing nitrogen - containinq waste-
?r!uare nov/ °Peratln9 at about 80% of capacity. ""The company feels
tnat they can maintain the present nitrogen level in the effluent when
they go to full production.
2. The production process for the monacrylic fiber VEREL has been revised
(as of January 977) to reduce the nitrogen flow to the waste treatment
plant by about 14,000-15,000 £/day. TEC feels that no further reductions
in nitrogen compounds are possible by in-process changes.
3. An activated sludge process consisting of three aeration basins folio-.,'ed
— ~raV ;nfJers iS in °Per3tion. High manganese waste are sent to
Kit Bottom lagoon and overflow liquid is returned to aeration basin = 1
4. Aeration basin sM is operated with all floating aerators (2800 ,= 02/dav/
aerator) in service at all times and enough of the raw wastewater is
S.e, . )S asin t0 keep the D-.°- at zero. If the D.0. goes up, more
va.j is se^n. tc the h 1 basin. If analysis show that not enouch
dissolved organic material is being removed in the H 1 basin, thQ fecd
- cIII , Sab?s!n is reduced- 0n the average, 60% of the raw wasters
-y sent to the # 1 basin. The rest is split equally between the other two
aeration basins. Aeration basin # 1 is run at an MLSS of 5,000 mq/1- the
other two are run at 4,000 mg/1. y
5. The mixed liquor from aeration basin £ 1 flows to basins 2 and 3 in
ifronton?! floating aerators kept in service in these basins
controlled to keep the D.O.- between 1 and 2 ppm. As many as 10 aerators
can be ofi m each aeration basin.
-------
6. A cationic polymer (up to 20 ppm of Nalco 8103) is added to the mixed
liquor going to the clairfiers. The dosage is based on jar tests and
is set to maintain the TSS of the effluent below 40 mg/1. The effluent
is aerated and flows continuously to the river.
7. Sludge is returned from the clarifiers to # 1 aeration basin at a
concentration of about 13,000 mg/1 TSS. The return rate is kept at 30-
40%.
8. The siudge_from the cTarifiers (500 gpm at 17,000 mg/1 TSS) goes through
an aerobic cngestion basin (20 days residence lime) and is then sent to
a storage pond from where supernatant overflows to aeration basin # 1.
A large sludge storage pond (10 acres by 15' deep) is being built and
will bemused until permanent sludge handling facilities can be developed
and installed. The planned land disposal process was not effective.
TEC is investigating other sludge disposal processes and feels that
a decision on what to install will have to be made early in 1978.
9. Most of the phosphous in the wastewater comes from the cellulose ester
plant in a 4,000 gpm stream.
-------
APPENDIX C
December 12, 1j77
i'r. J. C. EcV/ar-^
Manager, Clean Environment Program
Tennessee Eastman Company
Kings port, Tennessee 37S62
Dear Mr. Edwards: ,
Please accent ny thanks for the hospitality shown by you and the other
Tennessee tast^?.n Ccmnany rcpresentatives with whom we j«°t on Decorser 7.
The nootlTjj.-zas very helnful in brinnip.7 r-e up to date cn the fisc pro-
gress tnat leenessee Eastman has ir.adp in rG.TOvinQ contaminants fron their
wastewater.
As ;:r. Trainn -entioned in his lettc-r to you of ;!ove"ibar 25, ha has asked
v.ne .iofciop-il -iv. orcecont Inves fci nations Centsr to "evaluate the perfor-
mance en/j assess potential ~odif1 cations to the sxlstino waste trca~"ent
facility ,;hicn will permit attairj-ant of tne crssent affluent linitations."
Tins request was tne reason for ny recent visit.
Jurinj tie reec'ir:'?, you saia that Tennessee Eastman'.would be able to com-
pile and send rve any additional information that I think will be helpful.
r.ava ^ 1 oo'.Su ever the information developed duri ig our paeting an J would
appreciate it if you could send tjo the data requ-sted on tho attached.
If tne data ccjli be sent to
-------
Request for Information to Tennessee Eastman Co.
December 12, 1977
For the following streams, please supoly the monthly averages and daily
maximums (January 1977 to present) of flow, 3CD5, TSS, TKN, Total li,
NO2 S ''O3, ortho and total phosphorus, heavy metals.
A. Feed to wastewater treatment plant from Building 250.
B. Feed to wastewater treatment plant from Kit Bottom manganese
settling pond.
C. Feed to wastev/ater treatment pond from aerobically digested sludge
storage sand.
Soluble and total TOC (or COD) on overflow from No. 1 aeration basin
and on overflow from aeration basias 2 A 3.
The major reraininq sources of all forms of nitrogen entering the oaste
treatment facility. Please provide flow data as well as data on the
types of nitrogen present.
List of all analyses (includinq frequency) taken on wastewater treat-
ment plant feed, effluent and intermediate stream.
-------
APPENDIX D
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
A Division oI £as.mar> Koco* Ccnpcny
KINGSPORT TENNESSEE 375G2 • 615 246 2111
March 3, 19 78
Mr Artnur N. Masse
National Enforcement Investigations Center
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado 80225
Dear Mr. Masse:
In answer to your request for additional Gaca on our Wastewater Treat~e~>t
Syste-n, dated December 12, 1977, Tennessee Eastnan Conpany is suo-itting
the following tables. ^
Tables A-K list the monthly averages and daily maxirauns (January - \ove=oer,
1977) for tre paraneters you requested for the Building 250 Feea, kit
Bottom Feed ana Aerobic Digester Sludge Feed
Table L is a comoilation of data for the average nonthly and dail.
tnaxitnun soluble TOC in parts Der million at the overflew of each of the
wastewater treatment syscens three aeration Dasins. Total TOC or COD are
not monitored at thebe locations.
The major remaining nitrogen inputs to the waste treatment facility, uhicn
you have requested, are contained in an estimated 200 to 500 maepence'-.t
process waste streams. At the present tine we do not have data available
on the airount of nitrogen discharged from each of these processes to our
Wastewater Treatment Systeu.
Table 11 lisjs all rojtine analyses perfor-ned and frequency for sa-ples ta^en
of the wastewater trcatnent plant feed, effluent ard intermediate streams
tnat are applicable to operation of the plant.
Table M has been included to assist your anal)sis of performance of TEC's
Wastewater Treatrc-it Sjsicm. Tne taole lists total nitrogen and flow of
tne high solids v.asto stream fro- manufacturing operations to Kit Bottom
Lagoon. You will note that this stream contains considerable nitrogen.
It should be explained that the flow listed in the tables for Lhe
aerobic digester bludge discharge strean is only an estivate and naterial
balance concentrations indicate it to be in error. There is sore reason
to believe that the July through Kovcier data is nore representatl\e of
the actual operation tr>an the January through June data for this strcaa.
-------
Mr. Arthur N. Masse
Page 2
March 3, 1978
As you know, the Tennessee Eastman Conpany Wastewater Treatrent System
was mocified in June, 1977, to incluae addition of a pol>elecrrolyte to
assise solid separation in the clanfiers. The improved separation
increased excess activated sludge that was in the strean to the aerobic
digesters fron the clarifiers.
Table 0 shows overall perfomance of the Company's wastewater treatnent
facilities fron June through \ovenner, 1977. Ttou will note that an
average of 5,4 79 pounds per aay of total nitrogen was accumulated in the
wastewater treatraert facilities. We Delieve rost of this nitrogen was
contained in accumulated aerooic digested sluage that settleu in Kit
Bottom Lagoon.
As you know, our plans to use the existing soray irrigation facility for
disnosal of excess activated sludge from the wastewater treatment fac-iities
have not been successful. We are no1, investigating other wa> s to dispose
of the excess sludge. It should be pointed out that the raetnod of disaosng
of the sludge will affect wastewater treament performance concerning tne
discnarge of total nitrogen. If a landfarm method of sludge disposal
can be used, tnen some nitrogen will be disposed in the landfann operation.
However, other methods unuer consideration include a sludge dewatenng
step wnicli would provide disposal for only a portion of tne nitrogen in the
excess sludge with the renaming nitrogen returning to the aeration bas-ns
and finally being discharged to the river The sludge disnosal "etrod that
is feasible and is adopted at Tennessee Eastnan Conpany will nave an effect
on tne discharge of nitrogen to the river, and the capabilities of the
systen cannot be determined until this difficult proDlen is resolved.
We hope that the information which we are suonittng herewith is helpful
to you in your scientific studies It is being provided in the spirit of
cooperation out should not be viewed as a waiver of our right to continue
to rely on the provisions relating to nitrogen and pnosphorus contained -n
NPDES Pern-it .10. TN00026A0.
If there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
J. C. Edwards
hanager, Clean Environment Program
bjc
Enclosures
-------
Table A
January, 1977
Kit Bottom Aercr;c rigester
Pera=eter
B-'50 Di
sC-erce
Laeoon Di
¦;charee
Sl'j — e Dis:
: - -±—r e
Average
I'oxiniun
Average
h'3JCI2U3
Average
FIoj, cfs
16 16
17.66
.61
2.L8
1.1
1.1
SOD, lbs/day
20!. ,270
28g,i140
8,575
31,9^2
12,692
51,737
TSS, ppr
5fc
89
<47
89
8,711
19,550
T:2 , lbs/da/
" 7,8^
13,62k
~ 1,015
" 3,630
7,282
9,9^0
Total N, lbs/day
8,235
13,656
958
2,613
7,253
10,202
TO, + NO3, lbs/cay
1<3
61
2
I4
.66
1 LI.
Total Prosphcr-s , lbs/day
911
1,2.28
20
62
1,061.
1,31-9
Z:r.c, lbs/da;.
106
1j18
1
5
1*7
103
Iro-., lbs/day
221.
7I6
22
177
322
791
Karsa^ese, lbs/da;
22k
1»35
231
1,136
69
171-
.13
.16
09
• 15
1 Clli
b . n5
Ccpper, pp-
.Ub
1 20
.18
.1.3
ii.es
12 C
Ver;_ry, ppn
0 0
0 :
0 0
0.0
-
-
Leai, ppn:
.01
.09
.03
.29
_
-
-------
Table B
February, 2 977
Kit Bottom Aerobic Digester
B-550 Di
sc-arF°
Lascc-i Di s
c^arre
Slvdne
5 Cv =.**£5
Average
Kaxinur
A/erage
t 'axicua
Average
t-'axm—
Flo-., cf£
17-?^
21.62
2 96
7-17
1.1
1.1
30D, lbs/day
161,92 5
220,350
ii 0,881
112,252
18,527
32,935
TSS, pp=
62 _
89 ~
" 293
550
U,265
15,792
TiZ., lbs/cay
6,22=
12,562
!. ,921
10,397
6, C32
9,7-0
Total ?!, lbs/cay
6,750
12,570
5,068
10,693
6,625
9,7-2
HOj + NO,, lbs/cay
59
111
3
5
2.61
5 69
Total Frosp^or^s, lbs/cay
1,222
2,296
150
323
895
1,283
Zinc, lbs/day
71
271
16
50
71
8-
Iron, lbs/da^
251
131
166
725
509
617
I'angaiese, lbs/aaj
199
289
2,172
6,165
155
2L0
Cr.ro:iiur, ppn
0 :!i
0 21
0.19
0.58
2-78
3 2°
Copper, ppn
0.79
1.50
0.-5
0.66
9.18
i:.o
Vercury , pp=
0.0
c.c
0 0
0.0
-
-
Lead, ppn
0.01
O.c !j
0.19
0.32
-
-
-------
Table C
Marc.-, 1977
Kit Bottom Aerobe D.rester
Parameter
B-25:- D:
s:v;rce
La^oo- Di
scu^ree
Sl'jize
D-E:-aTe
Average
A-'erage
}'£jc-=jn
A.era§e
f' ay 1'— —
Flo., cfs
17 73
21 52
2.19
10 32
1.1
1.1
BOD, lbs/day
17^,25!.
235,116
35,1-10
170,729
H,70o
21-, -50
TSS, pps
I13 -
- 58 -
- 161 _ -
.191 - -
17,21-9 -
33,250
TZ., Ibs/aay
5.960
8,2-2
3,66*.
16,590
9,?63
17,831
To-al !<, lbs/day
6,061
6,336
2,071.
5,782
9,35-
17,c32
1.0 j + NO3, lbs/cay
8c
1S2
1
3
1.62
2.1-0
Tc'al PnQspi-or'.s, lbs/day
1,525
2,751
102
577
1,1-Sl
3,776
Zirc, lbs/day
106
3£6
1)
17
ali-
L63
Iroi, lbs/day
1-31
622
117
5UI
en
995
I'Eijaiese, lbs/da;.
2C-
20£
2,161
11,6oj
267
575
Crrc-iun, per
0 13
0 2li
0 17
0 25
¦5 1 1
_> ** "*
6 £
Cc=-er, p?=
1 19
1 £6
0.56
1.16
10 15
19 1
1'er:~r.. , ppn
0.0
0 0
0 0
0.0
-
-
Lead, ?pa
o.cs
0. 21-
0 22
0 36
-
-
-------
Table D
April, 1977
P 5. T P- T. 61. s r*
B-250 Di
sc'-E-je
LaEsc- Pi
S C v 2.TT 0
Sl'.ire r:
,r:-3.rre
Average
Mayinja
A' erage
1'E^UIE
Average
I'ayirun
rlsv, cfs
20.63
22.15
1.03
1^ .72
1.1
1.1
BCD, Its/day
182,691
265,339
16,117
82,123
15,55-
2;,:?0
TV?- —
1»8
60
1*27
795
19,-65
31*1637
_
. -
. _
»-
- - - - -
T-2", Its/cay
6,fc IS
17,001
1,306
8,51-0
15,71-3
85,160
Total i:, lbs/day
5,635
7,01-5
1,355
8,51-1
16,021
£6,910
1:03 + :;0S, lbs/day
78
ll!"
2
30
278
71-9
Total Pnospiorus , lbs/aay
2,195
^ ,232
61
1)00
2,293
l> ,6-5
Zi-=, ics/day
57
95
2
13
126
195
Ire-, los/da/
535
833
50
3^6
590
953
A- CT/m ,
l'a-E'-est, lbs/cay
170
U 30
teo
3,250
32L
6C5
Cn-rc=LLV^i, pp=
0 13
0.23
0.17
0 3S
3-67
1- £7
Copper, ??=
0 66
0 82
0 51
1.26
13 20
20 3
Ver;_ry, PP=
0 0
0.0
o.c
0-0
-
-
Leaa, pp:;
0 05
0 12
0.22
0.56
-
-
-------
Tc:D.
le E
,
1977
Parameter
3-2*0 Di
Kit
La^oo-
Botton
Disc-arre
Zerobie
Sluice :
Tir-sster
L'l £ ;-;r:e
£-< erage
Averas
e
Average
yaxin-z:
?lov , cfs
20. CS
25 31
0.57
2.11
1.1
1.1
BOD, Ibs/day
200,-17
295,151
11,3o3
I'll ,175
iL, 526
25,-62
TSS. pp=
30
hO
139
l>-9
20,?S0
31,c=i
T-r, lbs/day
6,531
12.U25
1,263
3,631
10,255
13,995
Tczel K, lbs/aay
6,999
12,-37
1,09s
3,533
10,35S
11- ,-75
HOj + NO3, lbs/day
69
139
0
2
130
lso
Total Fnosphsrus, lbs/day
1,710
3,1»23
28
133
36
lo
Zir;, lbs/day
75
155
1
2
120
m
Iror, lbs/day
3S7
856
9
69
859
1,157
I'a-gsjiese, lbs/day
23^
T tj' O
*J- «"
259
1.582
276
35!-
Ctczilz, pp=
0.12
0 16
0.08
0 12
fc 25
7.t>
Co_psr, pp=
0 65
1 -!•
0.22
0 16
11.5
21.3
)/„_;ury i pp-
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
-
-
Leaa, pp=
0 0-
0 07
0-06
0.11
-
-
-------
Table T
Jur>e,
1977
.
Per arret er
3-2cC Pi
2cnar?e
Kit
Larocn
Bottom
2i scharce
Aerobic I
Slices
irester
c; - a-,-p
A-erase
Averag
e Maxi—-in
Average
I'ayirj;
F1 2 «
, cfs
22 6;
26 C7
0.26
2 53
1 1
1 1
ECC,
lbs/da.y
1c7,1SS
3C-:,C15
9,572
38,792
12,857
25,-£2
?£S,
??= _ . . .
— 31
15
357
... 870
. 18,fU
23,^50.
T.Z.,
I'd s/' cay
5,125
6,?9l
1,278
b.SiS
6,625
IC.-C?
Tcta,
1 lis/dsy
5,107
6,£16
1,130
2,165
7,159
10,-:i2
:.o2 ¦
+ NO,, lbs/day
83
115
20
15^
52L
1,5:3
Tc w —
1 Prcspho-tis , lbs/day
1,520
5,830
53
185
1,501
2,^3
Z-.-c
, Its/day
67
150
1
6
117
150
Ire
, lbs/dc;
UE
967
3^
309
836
1,0=7
anese, lbs/day
175
3J-2
111
589
229
312
Cvrc
0 13
0 30
0 07
0-15
^.15
l.'.l
Ccr-
sr, r?=
o.re
1.77
0 22
o.ps
17-26
23 1
}' S7"C
_ry, pp-
0 c
0 0
0 001
O.OOl
-
-
Leac
. ??=
o :5
0 ce
0 12
1.0^
-
-
-------
Table C
JUy, 1977
Kit 3otton .Aerobic D.rester
Parameter
B-25C Di
sc^arcs
Lasoc- r.
ec*arse
Slu=-e ?i=:
Average
Kaxirvs
Average
Av erage
.v
Fly-, cfs
25-52
27. 53
1.50
k 2h
1.1
1.1
B0-, lbs/cay
2^5,127
362,278
12,S96
10,61.0
">7
— 1 » s ->
TS3, ppn
57
iei
27fc
188
15,019
2- ,f;o
TZ., los/day
5,e?5
6,719
1,877
6,132
7,Cl6
11,;3B
Total Ji, lbs/cay
5.997
e.75"-
2,253
8,955
7,^36
12,595
1.0; + NO,, lbs/day
63
161
1»77
3,891
1.21
1.C57
Tctal Pnosprsrus , lcs/day
1,563
3,15s
10!.
269
36
13
Zi:e, los/ca."
73
121«
3
6
117
185
I re-, lbs/cay
£71
1 , 3-0
28
93
922
1,255
Varra.-ese, lbs/cav
192
511
59
195
179
306
Chro-iu=, pp=
0.22
0.1.0
0 OS
0 16
1*. 05
6.9
Ccpper, pp=
1 16
2.33
0.36
0 55
20 93
23 3
fe—ary, pp=
0.0
0 0
0.0
0.001
-
-
Lea-, pps
0.05
0.10
0.59
1 1-5
_
_
-------
Table H
August
, 19TT
Kit
3ott:=
Aerobzc Di
tester
B-250 D-
sce
Lacoc-1
Discvarse
S:.d?e
-> *- ^
Parage* er
Average
f'a.:i2U3
Average !Ia_vi=;^=
Average
71 ov, cfs
26 19
23 Ui
2 61
1*. 6T
1.1
1 1
BOD, Its/day
2-2.-95
3T1.532
1S,?6L
1.S.ST3
11,005
2M75
TS5, pp=
63
176
l,?o6
10,-63
11-, 527
33,9:0
TC., Its/day
5,799
10,206
2,859
962
5,912
s.en
Total I*, Its/cay
5,Bit
T.E36
3,01-9
1,963
6,222
9,:52
HOa + NOj, lbs/cay
61
131
26
180
319
1,222
Total Prospr.or-LS, lbs/day
2,1-3!*
1*,T05
317
1,1T6
37
1*3
Zmc, Ibs/daj
98
261
T
23
89
23'-
Iron, lbs/day
fell*
65k
55
20fe
TT5
2,L£3
f',2J:ganise, los/ca.<
I5T
512
22 =
T10
16?
551
Chrc^i^, PP-
0 19
0.51
0 10
0 31*
2 65
L 20
Copper, pp=
0 99
1.53
0-1-5
1-T5
13 30
25 2
yercury, ?p=
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
-
Lea-, pp=
0 06
0 OT
0 32
2.16
-
""
-------
PcLran°-'.er
Flo-.-, cfs
BOD, rbs'da/
TSS, PF=
Y:Z., lbs/day'
Tcial if, Its/da/
II02 + NO 3. lbs/cay
Tctal ?ros?.-.crus, lbs/cay
Zirc, Its/day
Irc-i, Its/dsj
Varcaiese, lbs/day
Chrcnii—,
Copper,
Verc-ry, ??=
Lea-, pj-
Tabl
e I
Septe^be
r, 1977
Ki-. 3o
t. tozi
Aerobic Di
rester
5-25C D:
scarce
La===" Di
sc^arce
Q" - - ^ T- ^
r ~ = -*ce
Average
Maximum
Ave-a=e
Average
Kaxi=J=
25 58
26 87
1.^6
5-72
1.1
1.1
255,259
392,337
20,867
55,085
13 ,798
26,50!.
26
35
U 29
L38
13,630
35,590
6,672
"10,358
~L ,-12
' 9,916
7,!-2o
28,698
7,015
10,-36
h,h2S
9,021
7,706
2y,I9J.
60
125
1
5
277
1,588
2,556
5,779
221
532
1,019
3.7L6
102
23e
5
12
85
150
606
1,1-89
32
73
637
1,211
igL
357
159
339
106
222
0.17
o i>6
0 07
0 12
3 31
7 3
0.73
l.ll
0 13
0 22
8 51.
IT 2
O.C
0 0
0.001
0 003
-
-
o :6
c 11
C
0 25
-
-------
Table J
October, 1977
Kit Botton Serene Dir«£ter
Parameter
B-^SC Dis
;cv arce
Letroor Di
s c v £ r •* s
Si-cre Diet-
Average
Maxi=u=
At. erage
Average
Flc- ,
c's
21-78
26.1*5
1-91
h 62
1.1
1.1
BC3,
ibs/day
25=,565
512,-SO
19,76!.
67,-33
17,36!.
27,655
TS5,
ppn ~
1^7
121
Uli 3
780
12,880
20,06}
TIC.,
lbs/day -- - -
6,1-89 -
9,301 -
U ,03!"
- 11,1-27
• 6,71-0
9,665
Total
11, lbs/CEY
6,6=5
S,9ll»
3,363
11,-33
7,-0o
10,-2;
i;o- +
UOj, lbs/d£j
59
10-
2
13
666
2,053
Total
Fr,ospr.on.s , Ibs/d ay
1,620
3,172
181
871-
38
ll
Zinc,
lbs/day
52
8U
5
37
73
133
Iron,
lbs/day
372
617
29
132
521
0Q9
Varganese, lbs/day
133
355
1j00
2,015
1^3
193
Ctrc:
— , PP—
0 13
0.23
o 07
0-18
3-12
k c
Coppe
r, pp-
0 33
0.65
0 17
0 30
7.36
13
l'er:j
•" , P?c
0.0
0 0
0 002
0 C05
-
-
Lead,
P?—
O.C*
0 OS
O 11
0 19
-
-
-------
Tebl
e K
Noverber
1977
B-250 Di
scarce
Kit Bot
La^oo- Dir
c"s r c p
Aerobic Dig*
£ 1,;re D:= c•
:ster
Parsneter
Average
Max—ua
A."erase
V» -VTTT.
A"ers.£e
'•"py-
Flo., cfs
25-79
27-50
1.71
iM
1.1
1 1
BOE, lbs/day
32!-,316
553,901
22,725
122,0?3
20,717
26,325
TSS, ??a
35
60
1,561
2,9=0
16,02-
36,0-0
TC., lbs/day
6,233
8,255
3,635
12,35c
5,'-1-2
9,-l0
Total ]i, les/day
6,336
8,153
3,377
6,957
5.9-7
11,025
UO3 + NO 3, Ibs/aay
53
135
3
10
505
l.SSS
Totsl Phosphorus, lbs/day
1.671-
3,725
12!-
2J U
9=3
1,663
Zinc, lbs/cay
61
126
3
6
72
53
Iron, lbs/day
112
1,3^3
20
52
387
779
)'ar£=-iese, lbs/day
125
2-3
230
825
159
377
Cnrcmun, pp=
0 19
0.90
0 07
0.15
2 53
I 66
Coppe-, P-=
0 31*
0 66
0.13
0 2'-
1..S7
11
Mercury,
0 0
0 0
0.003
0 00S
—
Lead, pen
0.03
0 CS
0.15
0 2-
-
—
-------
Table L
Soluble TOC,
ppn
Aeration
3asin tfl
Aeratio
i Basin A2
Aeratio-. ;
*3
1977
Average
{•'axic.^3
Average
y&xi" ¦—
Average
Jan jary
56.7
100
57 5
105
6c.l
17-
Febr_ary
9^.2
200
55 5
106
51 1
110
1'arcti
82 0
185
13 9
65
«-5-3
1-0
April
ii6 !.
150
39 0
6?
33 7
7£
Nay
57-2
88
L3 5
65
39-7
5-
Jure
56-2
100
36.6
82
36.6
53
July
16 3
130
32 5
95
32.8
51
August
56 0
90
35 0
52
36 1
5£
September
68 I
165
39-6
5^
L0.9
70
October
62 1
100
M.b
68
1-3.2
7S
Iiove~ber
95-2
160
•<7 7
110
1.9 1
£?
-------
Table M
Pe-°jreter B-250
BOD
Daily
ricv
Co-tir.
prf
Co-iti-
T er:p.
D.o".
_
7SS
1A eek
TD5
1/^ee-f
NO; + 3
3/vee/
1."- 3
5A'eek
t;c;
5Aeek
Settleatle Solids
3 A eek
Total ?ncsp"orus
3/-"ee.t
?-e"ols
3/•'eer
ra.-gares e
5/v eek
Cr
5A eek
Cu
5/-ee.'
Fe
5/-ee'
>£
l/-e~-
Pt
3/'-ee<
Zn
5Aee'
TO C
Daily
Freaue^cy
Kit Batten
0C2 Disc-
Daily
Daily
Co^-tiniious
Cc-ti-_c.
Daily
-
Daily
-
Daily
1/vee-;
Da_i>
1 Aeek
Daily
3/-eek
Dai ly
5Aeek
Daily
5Aeek
Daily
l/-eek
Daily
3/-eek
3/veek
3Aeek
3Aee-"
5 A eek
3/veeK
5/-eek
3/-ee'
5 A eek
3Aeek
5Aeek
3/vee <
1 / -eet.
3/-ee''
3/-eek
3/ ^
SAeer
3/- ee'<
De.ly
Da.iy
-------
TA3LE N
Total nitrogen and flow of high solids stream froo plant to Kit
Lagoon.
1977
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Oc-ooer
November
Total nitrogen
lbs./day
Averape Maximus
F] ov
2577 4727
790 790
_ 1788 . . 2751
3145 3145
1976 6546
1623 2549
1536 3009
1646 2869
2503 4229
2355 3816
2353 5015
CFS
/verare Kjxisj
.79 2.66
.80 2.06
_ .73 .91 .
.76 .99
.70 .88
.73 .88
.77 1.42
.76 .88
.84 1 05
.87 1.66
.88 1.10
-------
TOTAI, NTT ROfTTN
June tliroupli November, 1977
V-'nstpunter
1 ro.itmrnt: System
I,ond - 8244
Dliclinrpe - 2495
Accuaiulnt Ion - 5749
0 z
L ersa
/J t */sl>
tj /*/°
£i zro
2004
78
61 f, 2
JZorrDAf
A'ortr/s
¦S ovr*
3022
6981
/9i?/?Of3/C
/P/aajrv/z
(Not Opcrntional)
SFFt/>y
2495
Numbers nre ovnrnge poundn per dny of totnl nitrogen.
002 £?/j
cuj v,
. 0«i«
. Dei*
Swb|«<( .
$*>»•' No ,
Job Nt _
------- |