EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research 11023 EYI 04/72
Laboratory April 1972
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
High Rate Filtration of
Combined Sewer
Overflows
-------
HIGH RATE FILTRATION OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
by
Ross Nebolsine
Patrick J. Harvey
Chi-Yuan Fan
Hydrotechnic Corporation
Consulting Engineers
New York, New York 10022
for the
Office of Research and Monitoring
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Project # 11023EYI
Contract # 14-12-858
April 1972
-------
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 of
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Pilot plant studies were conducted at Cleveland's Southerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant in 1970 and 1971, to develop and
demonstrate the capabilities of the deep bed, dual media, high rate
filtrate treatment process for storm caused combined sewer overflows.
The treatment system is comprised of a drum screen with a 40
mesh screening element (420 microns opening) followed by a deep bed,
dual media, high rate filter of five feet of No. 3 Anthracite
(effective size 4 mm) over three feet of No. 612 Sand (effective size 2 mm),
The results show suspended solids removals of 93 percent, with
polyelectrolyte addition, at a filtration rate of 24 gpm/sq ft at an
average influent suspended solids of 411 mg/1. Reductions in
biochemical oxygen demand averaged 65 percent.
Capital costs (ENR=1470) for a high rate filtration plant are about
$23,000 per MGD. Total annual treatment costs, including capital and
operating charges, range from approximately $90,000 per year for a
25 MGD plant to approximately $390,000 for a 200 MGD treatment
facilities.
Principal advantages of the proposed system are: high treatment
efficiencies, automated operation, and limited space requirements as
compared with alternate flotation or sedimentation systems.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project # 11023 EYI
(Contract 14-12-858) under the sponsorship of the Office of Research
and Monitoring, US EPA.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 7
III Introduction 9
IV Pilot Plant Facilities 15
V Testing Program 25
VI Characterization of Combined Sewer Overflows 39
VII Screening Results 47
VIII High Rate, Deep Bed Filtration Results 53
DC System Performance 77
X Definition of High Rate Filtration Installations 85
XI Cost Estimates 105
XII Process Potential and Future Research Areas 125
XIII Acknowledgements 131
XIV References ^33
XV Publications
XVI Appendices
-------
FIGURES
PAGE
1 SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 12
LOCATION PLAN
2 HIGH RATE FILTRATION PILOT PLANT 16
FLOW DIAGRAM
3 COAGULANT TESTING APPARATUS 17
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
4 PILOT PLANT FACILITIES 23
5 FILTRATION PILOT PLANT 24
LOCATION PLAN
6 SAMPLING POINT LOCATION SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM 29
7 SUSPENDED SOLIDS MONITOR INSTALLATION 35
8 SUSPENDED SOLIDS MONITOR READING VERSUS 37
LABORATORY RESULTS
9 SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRY 45
AND WET WEATHER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
10 MEAN SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVALS BY 53
FILTRATION
11 FILTER BACKWASH EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS 74
VS. TIME
12 BACKWASH WATER SEDIMENTATION CHARAC- 75
TERISTICS
13 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SUSPENDED SOLIDS 73
REMOVAL
14 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EFFLUENT SUSPENDED 82
SOLIDS QUALITY
15 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EFFLUENT BOD QUALITY 83
VII
-------
FIGURES
PAGE
16 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION PROCESS 88
FLOW DIAGRAM
17 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION PLAN 96
25 MGD CAPACITY
18 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION PLAN 97
50 MGD CAPACITY
19 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION ELEVATION 98
50 MGD CAPACITY
20 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION PLAN 100
100 MGD CAPACITY
21 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION ELEVATION 101
100 MGD CAPACITY
22 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION TYPICAL 102
FILTER SECTION
23 HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION RENDERING 104
24 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST VERSUS DESIGN 106
CAPACITY
25 ESTIMATED ANNUAL TREATMENT COST VERSUS 116
DESIGN CAPACITY
26 USE OF A MASS CURVE TO DETERMINE THE 122
REQUIRED STORAGE
27 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF STORAGE AND 124
TREATMENT FOR 200 MGD OVERFLOW
viii
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent 22
Quality
2 Water Quality Analysis 27
3 List of Polyelectrolytes 33, 34
4 Characteristics of Combined Sewer Overflow (late 40
July - early November 1970)
5 Characteristics of Combined Sewer Overflow (May - 41
early June 1971)
6 Characteristics of Dry Weather Sewage Flow 43
7 Comparison of Screen Types 51
8 Results of Polyelectrolyte Selection Tests 56, 57
9 Suspended Solids Removals by Filtration 59
10 Settleable Solids Removals by Filtration 60
11 BOD and COD Removals by Filtration 61
12 Total Phosphorus Removals by Filtration 62
13 Solids Removals by Filtration 64
14 Grease Removals by Filtration 65
15 Coagulant Selection Tests 67
16 Suspended Solids Removals with Alum and Poly- 68
electrolyte Addition
17 BOD and COD Removals With Alum and Poly- 69
electrolyte Addition
18 Total Phosphorus Reductions with Alum and 70
Polyelectrolyte Addition
ix
-------
TABLES
No. Page
19 Effect of Storage on Filter Influent 72
20 System Performance - Settleable Solids Removals 79
21 System Performance - BOD Removals 80
22 System Performance - COD Removals 81
23 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for 25 MGD 108, 109
Treatment Plant
24 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for 50 MGD 110, 111
Treatment Plant
25 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for 100 MGD 112, 113
Treatment Plant
26 Summary of Estimated Project Costs for 200 MGD 114, 115
Treatment Plant
27 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for 25 MGD 117
Treatment Plant
28 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for 50 MGD 118
Treatment Plant
29 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs ror 100 MGD 119
Treatment Plant
30 Summary of Estimated Annual Costs for 200 MGD 120
Treatment Plant
31 Estimated Capital Costs for Various Treatment
Plant and Storage Capacities 123
x
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Characterization of Combined Sewer Overflow
Results of the sampling and analytical program of combined
sewer overflows for pilot plant evaluation at the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Cleveland support the following conclusions:
1. A total of about 52 overflows a year can be expected. Most
of them have a duration of 5 to 6 hours. The majority of overflows
occur from rainfall having an intensity of between 0.3 and 0.5 inch per
hour.
2. The concentration of suspended solids, settleable solids,
BOD and COD in combined sewer overflow evidenced at the Southerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant in Cleveland was as follows (July to
November, 1970):
Suspended Settleable
Solids Solids BOD COD
(mg/1) (ml/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Mean 234 5.26 92 308
Standard Deviation 135 . 3.02 49 143
Minimum 28 0.2 16 57
Maximum 1560 19.0 580 711
3. The concentration of suspended solids generally reached a
maximum level within 1/2 hour after the beginning of the overflow.
Within 3 to 4 1/2 hours the'suspended solids concentrations dropped to
less than 150 mg/1.
4. Comparing combined sewer overflow and dry weather flow
contaminant levels for the 1970 sampling period, average suspended
solids concentration in the overflow was 25 percent higher than dry
weather flow. The overflow BOD, COD and median fecal coliform
levels were about 70, 80, and 30 percent, respectively of the dry
weather flow.
5. For the spring sampling period (May to early June, 1971),
suspended solids, BOD and COD concentrations in combined sewer
overflows were 110, 30 and 20% greater than in dry weather flows, res-
pectively.
-------
6. From the above quality and quantity findings, the combined
sewer overflow is a major pollutional source which should be consid-
ered for adequate handling or treatment.
Evaluation of Treatment Process
Results of pilot plant testing of drum screening and high rate,
deep bed, dual media filtration process at the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Cleveland support the following conclusions:
Screening Test
1. Screening must be provided prior to high rate, deep bed,
dual media filtration for longer runs, lower headlosses and efficient
filtration. A drum screen with a screen size No. 40 element (equiva-
lent to Tyler screen scale 35 mesh with 420 micron opening size and
43.6 percent open area) is most adequate and more effective for rea-
sonable filtration operation than the corresponding No. 20 (Tyler screen
scale 20 mesh with 841 micron opening-s) and No. 3 (Tyler screen scale
3 mesh with 6350 micron openings) screening elements.
2. The No. 40 screen was selected as the screening compo-
nent. Based on composite sampling for each storm event, the full
ranges of contaminant removals by this screen in combined sewer
overflows were 17 to 40 percent for suspended solids; 50 to 73.5 per-
cent for settleable solids; 4.3 to 22.2 percent for BOD and 4.5 to 41.1
percent for COD.
3. A slotted screen element, furnished by UOP Johnson Divi-
sion, was evaluated. The criteria used for evaluating the slotted
screen elements versus the mesh screen was the head loss and length
of run in the filtration operation. The results showed that head loss in
the filter columns, when preceded by the slotted screen, is in the
order of four times as great as that preceded by a mesh type screen.
Therefore, suspended solids removal by the slotted screen was not as
effective as by the mesh type screen.
High Rate, Deep Bed, Dual Media Filtration Results
4. Conclusions are based on sixty nine pilot filtration test
runs conducted in 1970 and 1971 on combined sewer overflows utilizing
the aforementioned system. Twenty one filtration test runs utilized
selected polyelectrolytes, twenty nine filtration test runs evalu-
ated combinations of coagulants (alum or ferric chloride) and poly-
electrolytes on the filtration system, and nineteen were plain filtra-
tion runs.
-------
5. Based on limited pilot test results utilizing a No. 40 mesh
screen element with a high rate filtration unit, a filter media comprised
of five feet of No. 3 Anthracite (effective size 4.0 mm) over three feet
of No. 612 Sand (effective size 2.0 mm) was shown superior to coarser
or finer media tested and this media was selected as the filtration
component of the treatment system.
6. Due to variations of suspended solids concentration in com-
bined sewer overflows, the removal efficiency of a high rate filtration
system would fluctuate with the influent concentration, whereas the
more important effluent concentration remained comparatively constant.
Results from a typical filtration run at 8 gpm/sq ft with 30 mg/1 alum
and 1.0 mg/1 polyelectrolyte addition are shown as follows:
Number of Average Influent Average Effluent
Samples Suspended Solids Suspended Solids Removal
(mg/1) (mg/1)
3 '442 36 92.0
2 362 48 86.7
2 100 54 46.0
7 . It was found that filtration with polyelectrolyte -addition
would yield better effluent quality or higher removal efficiency than
plain filtration. Suspended solids influent and effluent levels and per-
cent reductions, averaged from six samples per filter run for system
operation with and without polyelectrolyte addition, are indicated as
follows:
Filtration Rate Average Influent Average Effluent Removal
(gpm/sq ft) (mg/1) (mg/1) _
Plain
10 165 30 82
16 175 37 79
24 180 53 70
With Polyelectrolyte
8 400 8 98
16 200 10 95
24 250 18 93
8. It was found that there was no correlation between BOD
removal and filtration rate. Results with 1.0 mg/1 polyelectrolyte
addition are shown as follows:
-------
Filtration
Rate Average Influent Average Effluent Removal
(gpm/sq ft ) (mg/1) (mg/1)
8 67.0 31.3 57.0
16 67.0 27.0 59.7
24 67.0 27.5 60.7
9. Total phosphorous removal was improved with alum
addition. Results of total phosphorous effluent levels and percent
reductions, with and without alum addition, are shown as follows:
Filtration
Rate Average Influent Average Effluent Removal
(gpm/sq ft ) (mg/1) (mg/1) (%)
Without Alum
8 0.71 0.43 38.0
16 0.71 0.39 45.0
With Alum
8 0.90 0.24 73.3
16 0.90 0.37 58.9
10. The addition of alum and polyelectrolyte to enhance pro-
cess performance produced varying results in removals of suspended
solids, BOD and phosphates. Process performance was determined by
suspended solids removals, which ranged from 95 to 65 percent
(filtration rates between 8 and 24 gpm/sq ft ).
11. It was found that the high rate filtration system was more
efficient in removing inorganic (inert) suspended solids than for or-
ganic (volatile) suspended solids. As a possible extension of these
results, the system would be more effective with urban runoff than for
combined sewer overflows, as suspended solids in urban runoff
have a higher inorganic fraction,
12. For filtration with polyelectrolyte addition, filter runs
generally ranged between 4 and 16 hours, with the length of run
determined by effluent quality deterioration. Head losses through the
filter media ranged from 5 feet (8 gpm/sq ft ) to 30 feet (24 gpm/sq
ft ).
13. Based on limited verification procedure, an inline sus-
pended solids monitor (Model 53) furnished by Biospherics Incorporated
-------
has shown promise in correlating results with laboratory determinations
for suspended solids concentrations ranging between 30 and 240 mg/1.
Screening and High Rate Filtration Installation
14. Area requirements for full size high rate filtration plants
including drum screening units, deep bed filtration units, backwashing
facilities, polyelectrolyte feed facilities, and hypochlorite addition
facilities (for plants in the range of 25 to 200 MGD capacity) were
estimated as follows:
Design @ 24 gpm/ sq ft
Plant Capacity (93% S.S. Removal)
25 MGD 3000 sq ft
50 MGD 4600 sq ft
100 MGD 9300 sq ft
200 MGD 16,500 sq ft
15. For high rate filtration plant (s) constructed at remote outfall
locations, it is apparent, from an operational and economic
standpoint, that the waste backwash waters should be directed
to the sanitary sewerage system for subsequent treatment at a
municipal sewage treatment plant.
16. A sufficient degree of automation could be incorporated in
the treatment plant so that it could operate with a minimum attendance
for such items as chemical solution preparation and routine maintenance.
17. Based on pilot plant operational experience, an open,
gravity type filtration system is less prone to occurrence of explosive
conditions than a pressure type filter.
Cost Data
18. Capital cost data without a backwash sludge handling
facility (ENR = 1470) and total annual costs, including capital and
operating charges, for high rate filtration plants, in the range of 25 to
200 MGD treatment capacity, are estimated as follows (design at
filtration rate of 24 gpm/sq ft):
-------
Total
Plant Capacity Capital,Cost Annual Cost
25 MGD $ 830,000 $ 97,270
50 MGD 1,312,000 143,000
100 MGD 2,351,000 256,100
200 MGD 3,754,600 388,210
19. Based on an average suspended solids concentration of
200 mg/1 in a combined sewer overflow and a 300 hours per year
operating period, solids handling and disposal costs, incurred by dry-
weather sewage treatment plants in processing waste screenings and
backwash solids, could range from 3 to 35 percent of the total annual
cost for the combined sewer overflow filtration facility (without sludge
disposal equipment).
-------
SECTION II
REG OMMENDATIONS
1. A demonstration plant for the treatment of combined sewer
overflows utilizing the deep bed, dual media, high rate filtration pro-
cess should be engineered and constructed so that the encouraging
conclusions, judgments and evaluations presented in this report can be
confirmed through the operation of a full scale facility.
2. Additional pilot plant testing should be undertaken to
develop a more complete system, utilizing the same unit process. By
using a finer screening mesh, and possibly a finer filter media, with a
more comprehensive evaluation of in-line mixing and coagulation, a
more efficient and economical system may be developed.
3. A pilot plant consisting of microscreening (23 microns) and
finer filter media should be evaluated to obtain a higher quality
effluent. Suspended solids, in combined sewer overflow, would be
removed mainly by microscreening and the dissolved and colloidal
contaminants could be reduced in the filter by using proper powdered
activated carbon and coagulant dosage. It is expected that the cost/
benefit ratio would justify optimizing this system, since basic unit
processes remain the same with only moderate increase in screen
sizing. Due to the intermittent operation of a full size treatment plant
(about 300 hours per year in Cleveland), the additional annual costs of
activated carbon could be justified by cost-benefit considerations.
4. Define in-depth the capability and associated cost factors
for sewage treatment plants to process waste solids from combined
sewer overflow treatment facilities.
5. Further define, through additional pilot plant studies and
engineering evaluations, the possibilities of the deep bed, dual media
high rate filtration process achieving higher quality effluent levels; and
al^o in applying this new process to other areas of water pollution
control, specifically to the treatment of urban runoff, primary and
secondary treated domestic sewage effluent and high solids river water
(sediment control).
6. The high rate filtration process for combined sewer overflow
treatment located in the area of a domestic wastewater treatment plant
can be utilized for polishing the treatment, overloading or process
malfunction during the majority of the time when it is not raining.
-------
7. For a newly designed domestic wastewater treatment plant,
the high rate filtration process can be adopted to handle both dry and
wet weather flow (combined sewer overflow) with an adequate storage
facility. This dual usage of the high rate filtration process should be
considered.
8. An in-line suspended solids monitor, such as the Bio-
spherics unit, should be further investigated. Depending on further
test results, units such as this should be considered as sensing
devices to enhance automation of the filtration process by providing
positive control of effluent suspended solids concentrations. This
monitor may also provide the important function of producing continuous
and more reliable data.
9. The slotted screening element furnished by UOP Johnson
Division was strong, rugged and maintenance free. Therefore, a
further in-depth study of this screening element should be considered.
Alternate designs of the screen should include the variation of slot
opening, surface wire shape and rod location.
10. Prechlorination of combined sewer overflow prior to high
rate filtration process should be further studied. Due to the advantage
of the mixing effect in the filter bed, prechlorination could improve the
disinfection efficiency.
11. Pilot testing should be conducted to develop mathematical
relationships for a high rate filtration index or parameter to evaluate
filter performance under varying storm generated influent suspended
solids concentrations.
12. In designing or planning of a full size plant, an open,
gravity type filter should be considered for process efficiency and
operating safety. Also, a study of the high pressure pumping alterna-
tive to the filter columns should be conducted. There is a possibility
of high turbulence through the pumps causing suspended solids break-
down which could affect filter performance.
13. To develop an ultimate disposal system for solid materials
removed from combined sewer overflows, further study of backwash
sludge characterization, such as sludge density, biodegradability, and
dewatering method, should be considered.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
General
The problem of pollution of the nation's waterways from combined
sewer overflows has been well documented (1, 2). In addition to
pollution from normal domestic sewage and urban runoff
contaminants, combined sewer overflows also contain, in many cases,
significant quantities of industrial waste. This can be evidenced by
the fact that approximately 40% of the volume of waste waters currently
processed in municipal sewage treatment facilities are of industrial
origin (3). Effective pollution control for an area or a waterbody
cannot be achieved without an adequate method or system for handling
the pollutional discharges which occur from combined sewer overflows.
Recent emphasis has been placed upon developing and evaluating
systems and treatment processes which will adequately cope with the
combined sewer overflow problem. It is immediately evident that no
matter what degree of advanced waste treatment is provided at sewage
treatment facilities, water quality levels cannot be consistently
maintained without controlling the highly contaminated, high volume,
discharges which are experienced during combined sewer overflow
conditions. Modern remedial measures generally follow three avenues:
proper regulation of the sewer system to minimize overflow frequency
and volumes; storage to temporarily detain this high volume, short
duration discharge; and treatment of combined sewer overflows. This
study and report is concerned with evaluating a new method for treating
combined sewer overflow.
The nature of combined sewer overflow, that is, a highly
pollutional, high volume discharge, requires a relatively high rate
treatment process for economical pollution control. Deep bed, high
rate filtration, a newer development in the field of industrial waste-
w,ater treatment, has demonstrated favorable cost-efficiency factors
when dealing with high volume wastewater discharges, especially where
suspended solids comprise one of the principal contaminants (4, 5).
Thus, it was felt that such a process, which currently has significant
applicability and usage in the steel industry, might provide an effective
and efficient solution to the treatment of combined sewer overflows.
-------
To evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of the high rate
filtration process in removing contaminants from combined sewer
overflows, a testing program was undertaken at Cleveland's Southerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City of Cleveland ranks seventh in
the nation in total area served by combined sewers (44,000 acres), and
is fourth in population served by combined sewer systems (1,000,000
persons) (2). As can be expected, Cleveland has a very serious
problem of combined sewer overflows.
Scope oj Project
The development and demonstration project at Cleveland's
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant evaluated deep bed, high rate
dual media filtration for treating the combined sewer overflows
experienced at this sewage treatment plant. The project essentially
covered three areas: first, engineering and construction of a pilot plant;
second, testing the efficiency and effectiveness of the high rate
filtration process in removing combined sewer overflow contaminants;
and lastly, data evaluation and design of representative treatment units
with associated cost estimates.
The field testing, sampling and evaluation program was
conducted in 1970, and again in 1971. The 1970 test work spanned
from July through November and essentially established the feasibility
of the filtration concept and also the essentially components of the
proposed treatment system. The 1971 field test work spanned from
May through August and was substantially comprised of optimizing the
performance of the proposed system via the addition of various
polyelectrolytes and coagulants prior to filtration.
Two additional tasks, not specifically related to combined sewer
overflow, were incorporated into the overall study. The first task was
comprised of a preliminary field test program evaluating deep bed,
high rate filtration as a treatment method for secondary sewage effluent
from activated sludge plants. The second, somewhat unrelated project
task, included an evaluation of a suspended solids effluent monitoring
system. Both of these project tasks are described and reported in
independent sections contained in the appendices of this report.
The Cleveland Situation
As indicated, the pilot test facility evaluating the applicability
of the high rate filtration process was located at the Southerly Waste-
water Treatment Plant, which receives flow from the Southerly Sewerage
10
-------
District of Cleveland. The Southerly District, as shown in Figure 1,
consists of residential, commercial and industrial areas, encompassing
roughly half of the metropolitan region, both in population as well
as land area. This district also includes many of the large industrial
plants located within the greater Cleveland area. Based on preliminary
1970 Census data, the Southerly District is estimated to have 600,000
people of the 1,300,000 residing in the Greater Cleveland vicinity.
The Southerly District covers approximately 62,000 acres.
Generally speaking, the Southerly district is served by a
combined sewer system and all discharges, including sanitary sewage,
industrial wastewater and urban runoff are conveyed by the system.
Considerable portions of the combined sewer system are believed to
have been built over fifty years ago. Most of the new suburban
areas within the district are provided with separate sewer systems.
However, it is reported that numerous cross connections between
sanitary sewers and storm sewers do exist within these suburban
communities.
Precipitation in the study area averages between 30 and 36
inches a year. The monthly average ranges from 1 to 6 inches, with
the greatest precipitation evidenced in the spring months. It is
reported that the study area is subject to frequent low intensity rainfalls
which will account for most of the annual runoff in the area.
The combined sewer overflow problem in the study vicinity is an
extremely complicated one. Based on available information, there are
over 600 overflow structures within the district. The normal dry weather
flow to the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant is 80 million gallons
per day, whereas the hydraulic capacity through the plant is in the range
of 160 million gallons per day. It is estimated that the wet weather flow
in the study area is in the range of two to ten times the dry weather flow,
and causes a substantial discharge of combined sewer overflow to the
Cuyahoga River and to Lake Erie (6).
Essentials of High Rate Filtration
The history of water filtration began with the use of slow sand
filters to clarify drinking water. These were beds of granular material,
arranged in various acreages, which were doused with the water to be
filtered. The water was collected after percolating through several
feet of the filter bed. Usual rates of filtration were in the order of 0. 02
to 0.2 gpm/sq ft. The development of the rapid sand filtration process
occurred before 1900. This process requires the prior application of
11
-------
IM
G>
C.
;U
m
WESTERLY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
LY WASTEWATE
TREATMENT PLANT
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATION PLAN
-------
chemicals to effect coagulation. The water is then passed through
clarification tanks where most of the floe formed is settled out prior
to filtration. These improved filters provided good water at filtering
rates of 2 gallons per minute per square foot. However, of even
greater significance was the fact that they could be cleaned mechanically
without removing the media from the bed. Much recent attention and
test work in potable water filtration has been given to the feasibility
of filtering at higher rates, up to 10 gallons a minute per square
foot (7).
The general practice of industrial wastewater filtration first
emerged in Europe where the supply of water for industrial purposes
became limited. The industrial wastewater filters in Europe were
designed to operate in the general range of 6 to I'D gallons per minute
per square foot. These units were designed to provide reliable treatment
for many years without any great maintenance effort.
Ultra high rate filtration under study for the treatment of combined
sewer overflow, is similar to the industrial type filtration in
Europe except that two layers of media of different composition are
used (5). Together, they form a filter bed that is much deeper than
used previously (7 feet or more). By using dual media, high capacity
filter bottoms and special backwashing facilities, the rate of filtration
of wastewater has been increased greatly.
One of the essential differences between a deep bed, dual media,
high rate filter and its counterpart for potable water treatment is that
the deep bed filter is designed to accept appreciable solids loadings,
on the order of many hundreds of milligrams per liter. To be most
effective, filtration through media that are graded from coarse to fine in
the direction of filtration is desirable. A single medium filter cannot
conform to this principle since backwashing of the bed automatically
grades the bed from coarse to fine in the direction of washing; however,
the concept can be approached by using a two layer bed. A typical case
is the use of coarse anthracite particles on top of less coarse sand.
Since anthracite is less dense than sand, it can be coarse and still
remain on top of the bed after the backwash operation. Another alternate
to achieve filtration through coarse to fine media would be an upflow
filter. But these units have limitations in that they cannot accept high
filtration rates.
13
-------
Over the past few decades, many theories have been promoted
to describe the manner and mechanism by which suspended matter is
entrapped within a filter. Tchobanoglous (8) has categorized filter
removal mechanisms into nine areas, which include straining,
sedimentation, inertial impaction, interception, chemical adsorption,
physical adsorption, adhesion and adhesion forces, coagulation-
flocculation, and biological growth. Just how suspended matter is
intercepted in depth rather than at the surface of a high rate filter,
and which mechanism are principally involved, is not yet fully under-
stood. However, it is presently surmised that due to the longer depth
of travel through the media, the mechanisms contributing to the removal
of suspended material within the filter have a greater change to be
effective (9).
The principal parameters to be evaluated in selecting a high
rate filtration system are media size, media depth and filtration rate.
Since much of the removal of solids from the water takes place within
filter media, their structure and composition is of major
importance. Too fine a media may produce a high quality effluent but
also may cause excessive head losses and extremely short filter runs.
On the other hand media that is too coarse may fail to produce the
desired clarity of the effluent. Therefore, the selection of media for
high rate filtration is made by pilot testing using various materials
in different proportions and at different flow rates. Depth of media
is limited by head loss and backwash considerations. The deeper the
bed, the greater the head loss and the harder it is to clean. On the
other hand, the media should be of sufficient depth so as to be able to
retain the removed solids within the depth of the media for the duration
of filter run at the design rate without permitting a breakthrough. A
deeper bed also affords greater opportunity for interplay of the various
forces which are generated within the filter bed.
The design filtration rate must be such that the effluent will be
of a desired quality without causing excessive head loss through the
filter, which in turn requires frequent backwashing. At high filtration
rates, shear forces seem to have significant effect on solids retention
and removal in a high rate filter. Recent experience at a high rate
filtration facility treating industrial waste water seem to reinforce this
theory, as winter performance of the filtration facility (without chemicals)
was poorer than summer performance, when water viscosities are
lower due to higher water temperatures (10). Polyelectrolyte addition
was required during cold water operating conditions (winter) to maintain
required effluent quality. The addition of polyelectrolyte, and/or
coagulants prior to filtration can have a. significant effect on process
efficiency.
14
-------
SECTION IV
PILOT PLANT FACILITIES
Process Units
An overall schematic of the pilot plant is shown in Figure 2.
The major elements of the treatment system are a screening facility
and a deep bed, high rate dual media filter. As indicated on this
drawing, two storage tanks, 5000 gallons each, equipped with
mixers, were provided between the screen and the filters. The purpose
of these tanks was to provide sufficient combined sewer overflow
storage to allow extended filtration test runs.
Briefly, the combined sewer overflow was lifted from the
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant junction chamber and passed
through a drum type screening unit. The effluent from the screen
flowed by gravity into the two storage tanks. Water from the storage
tanks was then pumped into the filtration test columns.
Four filtration pilot columns were located in the test setup.
Three of the pilot columns were 6-inch diameter plexiglass tubes,
while the fourth was one foot square. All of the pilot columns were
of sufficient size to provide reliable removal data in regard to the
filtration process. The larger unit gave a better indication of the effect
of backwashing on the filtration media, as "wall effects" were evidenced
in the smaller test units during backwashing. Three chemical feeding
systems were included in the pilot plant installation.
In addition, for the 1971 test work, a coagulant-testing apparatus
was incorporated into the pilot plant equipment. This apparatus, as
shown in Figure 3, was comprised of six 3-inch diameter lucite filter .
columns with associated chemical feeding equipment. The coagulant
testing apparatus permitted simultaneous comparison of the effect and
efficiency of trying various coagulants, and polyelectrolytes, at
various dosages, to the filter influent to improve process performance.
Selected coagulants, polyelectrolytes, and dosages were then utilized
in the pilot columns, from which operational data was obtained
(length of run, head loss, etc.).
The flow volumes through each filtration column were controlled
by observing a flow meter and regulating a valve on the effluent from
the filter. Pressure gauges were located along the height of the pilot
filtration column to profile head losses throughout the filter depth. A
15
-------
C7)
C
50
m
ix>
_c£:
0000000000
^
=€7
1
„*.*•
•P"
LJ>
•Hr,
v*
* IW,
r*
7~
r*
r*
V*
r*
T*
V*
*r
T°
7UMCTIOM U4*Mftbl^
PUMUU. O^UUA
0O0O0000 O'-»
Vr UI »»
!
u C.
'"' '
-*M
r ?:
Uo_L _ _»
«•% 4= •
1
I
1 1 J
i f
LOO— 1?
f»-/l
I
T~
1
r*
V
1 * t^**. )^i M^ K^ M
¥ ! Tp OOOG
L^^i. 0 «^*- *• «< «6t «r-
rt-/_ _L .
J ii,
r .
>••« . . ,
(F
*1 ** 40-4
[u r-tzj-
*MP .Wt^M
aacQHOAJcr ^yruithn^
Uri
hEB.
CHEMICAL FE£O
<»UA»ox
PWUO VA.LVC
C.HCCX. VA.LVC
VJHC. KCLtCF VAkUC
. COWUCCTlOW
HIGH RATE FILTRATION PILOT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
31
CD
c
:o
m
CHEMICAL
FEED PUMPS'
(I)-I CHANNEL
CHEMICAL
SOLUTION
(9)-2000ml
BEAKERS
*h
-CXH
_u
FROM STORAGE TANK
,
-cxH
ir,
IV
HXh
HEAD TANK
OVERFLOW
-1X3-
VI
v
\
N\
ION\
TUBE
CONNECTION
AND CHECK
VALVE (TYR) — ^
ANTHRACITE
SAND
GRAVEL
IHXH
TO SEWER
COAGULANT TESTING APPARATUS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
-------
small compressor was included at the test installation to provide a
source of air for backwashing the filter columns. Backwash water was
obtained from the existing service water system at the Southerly Waste -
water Treatment Plant.
Preliminary testing of secondary effluent was accomplished at
the pilot test setup, as indicated on the schematic drawing. Waste-
water was collected in a launder of a secondary sedimentation tank, and
pumped via hose to the test site and to the filter columns.
Major equipment at the pilot plant included the following:
1. Combined Sewer Overflow Pump - self-priming
centrifugal pump, manufactured by Barnes Manufacturing Company,
Model 105 C-E, with cast iron body and cast iron open type impeller
with six inch suction and six inch discharge. The pump was
driven by a 1200 rpm, 10 HP TEFC motor, operating at 230/460 volts.
The pump and motor were mounted integrally on a base plate.
2. Drum Screen - A continuous duty, gravity flow, self-
cleaning straining system manufactured by Zurn Industries,Inc. The
heart of the screen was a rotating drum type straining element enveloped
with replaceable wire mesh plate (4'-0" diameter xl'-O" long). Rotating
on its horizontal axis, the straining elements accepted incoming gravity
flow while partially submerged inside an open chamber. A jet spray
washed off, debris trapped on the mesh as the drum turns, into an
elongated waste collector located inside the element but above the fluid
level. The wastewater was then discharged into a drainage line.
3. Pilot Filter Columns - Three six inch diameter
filter columns - The filter columns were made of transparent plexi-
glass tubing having an outside diameter of seven inches and 3/8"
wall thickness. Each filter was seventeen feet high and consisted
of four sections. The four sections were connected by flanges using
1/4 inch bolts. Nine pressure taps, eighteen inches apart were
provided along the column for measuring head loss development during
filtration. Filter media was supported by a plexiglass plate with a
plexiglass nozzle. Above the plate, an eighteen inch gravel layer was
provided to support the filter media. A rotameter and valve were
installed at the filter discharge end for measuring and controlling the
rate of flow. One filter column - supplied by De Laval Turbine, Inc.
The filter column was 12 inches by 12 inches in cross section and had
a nominal height of 18 feet. Three sides of the column were made of
steel plate and the front side was made of transparent plexiglass plate.
Nine pressure taps, twelve inches apart, were provided along the
18
-------
column for pressure measurement. Filtration rate was controlled by a
rotameter and gate valve on the filter effluent line.
4. Backwash Air Compressor - The air compressor was Model
A490K8 - 103-80, oil free type, manufactured by Corkem Pump Company.
The compressor was mounted on an 80 gallon receiver, ASME Code 200
psig working pressure. The unit was complete with pressure gage,
intake filter, hydrostatic relief valve and constant speed unloaders.
The compressor was driven by a 2 HP drip proof 1750 rpm motor operating
at 230/460 volts.
5. Chemical Feed Systems - Each system consisting of a
metering pump, mechanical mixer and a chemical solution tank. The
metering pumps were positive displacement, diaphragm type, with
plastic end. The pumps were driven by 1/4 HP, single-phase capacitor-
start motors. The chemical solution tanks were epoxy lined steel,
each having a capacity pf 55 gallons and equipped with a cover. The
mixers were driven by 1/4 HP totally enclosed motors. The mixers
have rubber covered shafts and impellers. The pumps, chemical
solution tanks and mixers were supplied by Wallace and Tiernan,Inc.
6. Steel Tanks
a. Combined Sewer Overflow Storage Tanks
Two 5,000 gallon steel tanks were provided for
storing incoming combined sewer overflows. Each tank was made of
carbon steel plate and equipped with overflow, outlet and drain
connections. An agitator was provided for preventing solids settlement
in the tank. The agitator was driven by a 3 HP totally enclosed motor,
operating on 230/460 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle current. The motor is
integrally mounted on a gear reduction unit providing an agitator shaft
speed of 350 rpm. The agitator was manufactured by Lightnin Mixing
Equipment Company. The two tanks had a total capacity of 10,000
gallons providing approximately 7 and 4 hours detention time at 16 gpm/sq ft
and 24 gpm/sq ft flux rate, respectively, with the four filter columns
in operation.
b. Backwash Effluent Storage Tank
One 1,000 gallon steel tank was used as the filter
backwash effluent storage tank.' The tank was made of carbon steel plate
and equipped with outlet and drain connections.
19
-------
7. Coagulant - Testing Apparatus
a. Head Tank
To distribute flow to the six filter columns - an
eighteen inch diameter three foot long, transparent plexi-
glass tube was used as filter influent head tank. Overflow
nozzles were equipped to provide a constant head for filter influent
flow.
b. Filter Columns
Six filter columns, made of three-inch diameter
transparent plexiglass tubing, were installed at the pilot plant site.
Each filter column was eighteen feet high and consisted of three
sections. The three sections were connected by two Victualic
couplings.
c. Chemical Feed System
Three peristalic pumps were installed. Two
units provide four channels each and one unit had one channeL
The pumps were capable of feeding nine different chemicals at the
same time.
8. Secondary Effluent Pump - A positive displacement self-
priming pump was used for delivering secondary effluent to filtration
testing site. The pump was manufactured by Moyno Pump Division,
Robbins and Myers,Inc., Frame SWG 8 - Type CDQ. The unit was
mounted on structural steel "L" type base plate and driven by "V"
belts and pulleys covered by suitable belt guard (450 rpm). The pump
was driven by a 3 HP TEFC motor, operating on 3 phase, 60 cycles,
230/460 volt current.
Test Site
The pilot plant for testing the applicability of high rate filtration
for the treatment of combined sewer overflows was located at the Screen
Building of the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. This Plant
utilizes the activated sludge process for the treatment of sanitary and
industrial waste flows from the Cleveland vicinity. The nature of the
plant waste is somewhat unique in that the industrial contribution is
very large, as evidenced by the low BOD/COD ratio of approximately 0.3.
The dry weather flow to the plant can, therefore, be described as
20
-------
representative of an urban area with a heavy industralize.d concentration.
The average dry weather flow to the Southerly Plant is in the order
of 80 million gallons per day. Under storm conditions, the plant can
accept 160 MGD through its primary facilities. The Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant effects approximately 87 percent removal of suspended
solids and 90 percent removal of biochemical oxygen demand. Plant
effluent quality levels are generally in the range of 26 mg/1 suspended
solids and 16 mg/1 biochemical oxygen demand, as shown in
Table 1.
The pilot plant influent pump, screening facility, and storage
tanks were located outdoors adjacent to the Screening Building, as
shown in Figure 4. The filtration test columns, associated backwashing
and chemical feed equipment, coagulant-testing apparatus and a small
laboratory and storage room, were located inside the Screen Building.
Figure 5 shows the location of the pilot plant inside the Southerly Waste-
water Treatment Plant.
21
-------
Table 1
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY*
CLEVELAND, OHIO (APRIL 1969 - FEBRUARY 1970)
Suspended Solids
B.O.D.
DO
to
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
Plant
Effluent
Average Minimum
20
20
21
10
15
25
33
27
40
37
44
4
2
7
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
(mg/1)
Maximum^
44
62
59
34
32
91
130
61
97
104
100
Removal
Plant
Effluent
(%) Average Minimum
86
88
90
95
94
84
85
85
85
82
80
16
16
12
10
13
17
12
16
15
20
28
2
7
5
7
7
7
4
5
7
10
13
(mg/1)
Maximum
26
25
19
16
20
30
20
24
26
30
55
Removal
&)
84
83
92
92
90
90
93
89
90
87
80
* Data from Southerly Waste-water Treatment Plant Process Department
-------
PILOT PLANT
PIPING
i MIXER
BACKWASH
TANK
6
-------
K
JLIflCTION CHAMBER
(OVERFLOW STRUCTURE)
o
z
o
o
V)
V)
I I
i i
ft
COMMINUTOR
8 DETRITOR
BUILDING
'/A
GRIT
CHAMBERS
I I
FLOW
METER
/\
l\
II
ill
HIGH- RATE
FILTRATION
I EQUIPMENT
SITE
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
HI
TO CANAL
FILTRATION PILOT PLANT LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 5
24
-------
SECTION V
TESTING PROGRAM
Parameters
Two distinct types of test parameters were utilized and
evaluated during this study. The first type of parameter can be called
or described as design parameters, as they relate to the major
features and unit sizes of any proposed treatment system. The second
type can be described as water quality parameters, which are
essentially contaminant levels in and out of the treatment process.
The two major process units or equipment units in the proposed
treatment system are the drum screen and the deep bed, high rate
filter. Construction of a full scale treatment plant employing the
process sequence under study would require design parameters for the
screen and for the filtration process. The major criteria for the
screen are screen type, screen mesh opening and hydraulic loading.
Numerous studies have been performed on various screen types
and screen mesh openings to evaluate their efficiency in reducing
combined sewer overflow pollutants. The intention and major
emphasis of this program was not to determine the optimum removal
characteristics that can be obtained from a particular screen, but to
select a screen of sufficient durability and with sufficient removal
properties that would permit the filtration process to operate in an
efficient and effective manner. Thus, in selecting and operating
the screening facility, Hydrotechnic relied to a great extent on past
experience and minimized the number of variables that were changed
throughout the test program.
The filtration system, which is the heart of the overall process
sequence, can be characterized and described by the following
parameters:
Media composition Length of filter run
Media depth Head loss
Filtration rate Backwash water volume
Coagulant addition Backwash procedure
A definition of these elements allows the construction of a full
scale facility.
25
-------
Water quality parameters or analyses utilized after agreement
with the EPA Project Officer, are those normally associated with
combined sewer overflows. Principal emphasis was given to the
following analyses:
Total Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Phosphate
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Other water quality analyses were also performed, both to
provide a detailed gravity profile of the combined sewer overflow,
and also to provide information as to process performance on a wide
range of wastewater contaminants. Table 2 is a complete listing
of all water quality analyses utilized (11, 12),
Total organic carbon analyses were performed on filter influent
and effluent samples after an automatic analyzer was installed by
Hydrotechnic and EPA at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Turbidity, settleable solids and temperature were determined at the
test site. The bulk of the laboratory analyses were performed by local
commercial laboratories in Cleveland.
These water quality parameters can be used to determine the
effectiveness of the treatment process under study in reducing combined
sewer overflow contaminants. The major water quality parameter for
determining the effectiveness of the treatment process, since the
proposed filtration process is essentially a solids removal process, is
suspended solids. Insoluble BOD, simultaneously removed along
with suspended solids, and soluble (ionizable) phosphates, rendered
removable by the addition of coagulants, are also significant water
quality parameters.
Program Scope
The testing program at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant
for combined sewage storm overflows can be viewed as three separate
operations. The first is the characterization of the combined sewer
overflows. This consisted of sampling combined sewer overflows
and analyzing samples collected for appropriate water quality
parameters.
26
-------
Table 2
WATER QUALITY ANALYSES
Analysis
Method Used
Solids
Suspended Solids (SS) Filtered through glass fiber filter (pore
size 0.8 micron) and dried at 103-105°C.
Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) Filtered and ignited at 550°C.
Total Solids (TS) Evaporated to dryness at 103-105°C.
Total Volatile Solids (TVS) Evaporated and ignited at 550°C.
Settleable Solids (Set.S.) Imhoff cone, by ml/1.
Organic
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD).
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) .
Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
Nutritional
Total Phosphate (TPO4)
Soluble Phosphate (Sol.PO4)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
jBa c ter ipl og ica 1
Total Coliforms
Fecal Coliforms
Fecal Streptococcus
Other
Oil and Grease
PH
Temperature
Turbidity
Unblended, diluted and incubated for
5 days at 20°C.
Oxidized by K2Cr2O7 solution.
Dow-Beckman Carbonaceous Analyzer.
hydrolysis and colorimetry.
Filtration, hydrolysis and colorimetry.
Kjeldahl digestion.
Membrane Filter (pore size 0.45 micron).
Membrane Filter (pore size 0.45 micron).
Membrane Filter (pore size 0.45 micron).
Liquid-liquid extraction.
Electrometric Measurement.
Thermometer.
Hach Colorimeter, Range 0-500 JTU
(Jackson Turbidity Units - Formazin
Standard).
27
-------
The second and third operation involved the proposed treatment
process and was essentially comprised of two individual treatment
components, a screening facility and the filtration facility. Each of
these can be viewed as a separate study, although they are, of
necessity, interrelated in terms of the overall treatment process and
treatment efficiency.
Characterization of'Combined Sewer Overflow
Characterization of combined sewer overflows occurring at the
influent junction chamber of the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant
was performed for fifteen storms, thirteen occurring during 1970
and two occurring during 1971. Figure 6 shows the location of
sampling points for the test project at Cleveland. Sampling point #1 is
the combined sewer overflow characteristic sampling point. Samples
were collected manually.
A test was initiated, and combined sewer overflow characteriza-
tion sampling would begin after an observation of rainfall or reported
rainfall within the Cleveland area. The plant flow meter would be scru-
tinized, and when the flow rose above approximately 100-110 MGD
(normal dry weather flow of approximately 80 MGD) sampling would com-
mence. Samples were collected at 5 minute intervals for the first 30
minutes, and at 30 minute intervals for the next 90 minutes, and at one
hour intervals for the duration of the combined sewage storm overflow.
This was generally determined by monitoring the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant influent flow meter, and when the plant flow dropped
below approximately 90-100 MGD, it was assumed that the combined
sewer overflow conditions had stopped.
Screening
The screen type used for almost the entire duration of the test
work at Cleveland was a mesh type screen. All system data and filtra-
tion data was obtained utilizing a mesh screen.
The mesh screen tested included: No. 3, No. 20 and No. 40
mesh screen. The characteristics of the three screen meshes tested
are:
28
-------
C-O
ID
STORM OVERFLOW
PUMP
JUNCTION CHAMBER
SCREEN
£—"
FILTER INFLUENT
PUMPS
-».To F-3 a F-4
BACKWASH WASTEWATER
HOLDING TANK
Vo^
n °^0°
ML
V)
FILTER
SCREEN CHANNEL
CD
C
XJ
m
SAMPLING POINT LOCATION SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
-------
Mesh Screen Tyler Screen
Designation Screen Opening Scale Equivalent Open Area
(microns) (inches) (mesh) ( % )
No. 3 6350 0.250 3 57.6
No. 20 841 0.0331 20 43.6
No. 40 420 0.0165 35 43.6
At the end of the 1971 test work, a series of tests were per-
formed on a slotted type screen to see if it could provide the necessary
removals to permit an efficient operation. The intention and reason for
evaluating the slotted type screen was because of its sturdy construc-
tion. This testing was accomplished simply by replacing the mesh
element on the rotating drum screen with panels of slotted screen which
were furnished by the Johnson Division of UOP. Two slot screen types
were tested, as follows:
Tyler Screen
Slot Opening Scale Equivalent Open Area
(microns)(inches) (mesh) ( % }
200 .008 65 12
400 .016 35 21.1
Referring to Figure 6, sampling points #2 and #3 were assigned
to the screening unit. Influent and effluent samples were collected at
30 minute intervals for the first 2 hours of the combined sewer overflow
and at one hour intervals thereafter, until the duration of the combined
sewer overflow had ended.
The effluent from the screening unit was directed to two 5,000
gallon storage tanks,.which served as storage reservoirs for conducting
filtration tests.
Deep Bed, High Rate Filtration
The testing program evaluating the filtration components of the
proposed system was conducted primarily in two phases. First, evalua-
tion and selection of system media and filtration rates, and secondly,
optimization of the filtration process via coagulants and polyelectrolyte
addition prior to filtration.
Filtration media evaluated included: four or five feet of
anthracite over three feet of sand. The characteristics of the media
are indicated as follows:
30
-------
Media Effective Size Uniformity Coefficient
No. 4 Anthracite 7.15mm. 1.42
No. 3 Anthracite 4.0 mm. 1.5
No. 2 Anthracite 1.78mm. 1.63
No. 612 Sand 2.0 mm. 1.32
No. 48 Sand 3.15mm. 1.27
Media selection was accomplished in the pilot test apparatus (see
Figure 6). Referring to this figure, the two key points in the filtration
system were sampling points #4 and #8. Sampling point
#4 was at the influent of the filter columns and sampling point #8 was
the filtration column effluent. Sampling points # 5, 6 and 7 were inter-
mediate sampling points along the filtration media depth. It was an-
ticipated that data obtained from samples at these levels would give an
in-depth picture of which areas of the filter performed the major portion
of the suspended solids removal. Influent and effluent samples
(points #4 and #8) were taken at thirty minutes, one hour, and at hourly
intervals thereafter.
Sampling point #9 was at the backwash effluent. Samples of
backwash effluent provided information as to the nature of the backwash
flow, both on an instantaneous and composite basis. Backwash efflu-
ent samples, when viewed in conjunction with a particular backwash
procedure, can be used as a guide to the effectiveness of filter clean-
ing.
The filtration columns were run from 6 to 12 hours, depending
upon head loss and effluent quality. The storage tanks provided
sufficient capacity for extended filter runs.
As indicated in the previous section, the samples collected
during the testing program were analyzed for appropriate wastewater
contaminants. Head loss measurements were taken at each filter
column by reading the various pressure gauges located along the depth
of the filtration media at one hour intervals, or more frequently. These
readings can be used to identify and define the energy expended by the
flow in overcoming friction during the filtration run.
The filter columns were backwashed by using low pressure air
followed by water. Initially, after the filtration run had terminated, the
columns were backwashed by low pressure air at approximately 15 scfm
per sq ft for about 2 minutes. The air was then turned off, and water
introduced at a rate of 25 to 75 gpm per square foot, for 5 to
10 minutes. A rate of 30 gpm/sq ft appears to be sufficient
31
-------
for backwashing. Samples of the backwash effluent (sampling point #9)
were collected. Both composite and grab sampling methods have been
utilized. Composite samples give an indication of the total amount of
material removed in the filter backwash, and grab samples define the
pattern and the peaks of backwash solids concentration.
For the coagulant-testing apparatus which was utilized to
select optimum coagulants and polyelectrolytes and appropriate dosages to
be applied prior to filtration, samples were collected at hourly intervals
for three hours. These samples were composited over a ten-minute in-
terval at each hour. A typical test run would be applying six different
polyelectrolytes at the same dosage to each of the various filter columns
(each column operated at the same filtration rate). Based on effluent
quality data, the efficiency of one polyelectrolyte versus another could
be determined, based on suspended solids reductions.
When dealing with additions of alum, lime, and ferric chloride,
effluent samples were also analyzed for total and dissolved phosphates
in addition to suspended solids, since one of the functions of adding
these coagulants was to effectuate phosphate reductions in the process.
Optimum combinations of chemicals determined from the coagulant test
apparatus were then utilized for full scale pilot runs in the 6-inch
column. A total of 53 polyelectrolytes were evaluated for enhancing
suspended solids removals, including 9 which were of the potable water
grade, that is, acceptable for potable water usage. A list of polyelec-
trolytes evaluated under this test work is contained in Table 3.
In-line Suspended Solids Monitor
An in-situ meter recorder device for rapidly measuring total sus-
pended solids content in the main flow stream, as furnished by
Biospherics, Inc., was utilized in the combined sewer overflow filtra-
tion pilot plant works. Figure 7 shows the installation of the Biospherics
Model 53 suspended solids monitor.
According to the manufacturer, this instrument operates (13) on
the principles of measurement by both light transmittance and light
scattering simultaneously. The operation is step-wise on a 15 second
cycle, in which the photocell windows are wiped clean during each
cycle. When the glass tube is filled with clear water, the transmittance
cell receives the maximum amount of light and the scatter cell is in com-
plete darkness. When suspended solids are added to the liquid, the
transmittance photocell will receive less light due to shadows on its
sensing surface and the scatter photocell will receive light due to light
reflection. The response of each cell is non-linear and, therefore, not
32
-------
Table 3
LIST OF POLYELECTROLYTES
co
CO
Chemical Indust.ies
Atlas Chemical Industries,Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware 19899 (Atlasep)
American Cyanamid Company
Wayne, New Jersey 07470 (Magnifloc)
Calgon Corporation(Coagulant Aid)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan 48640(Purifloc)
Gamlen Chemical Company (Gamafla)
East Paterson, New Jersey 07407
Hercules Incorporated (Hercofloc)
Hopewell, Virginia 23860
Nalco Chemical Company (Nalcolyte)
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Type of Polyelectrolyte s
Cationic
Nonionic
Anionic
105C
521C*,560C
570C*,571C*
227, 228
C-31*, C-41
NC772
810, 814.2
828.1
IN
900N,905N
985N*, 990N*
18(*) (**)
671
1A1,2A2,3A3,4A4,5A5
835A,836A,860A*
865A
235, 240
25**
A-23*
NA710
816, 822, 836
672, 673, 675H
-------
Table 3
(Continued)
co
LIST OF POLYELECTROLYTES
Chemical Industries
Narvon Mining and Chemical
Company (Zeta Floe)
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604
Reichhold Chemicals,Inc.
Tuscaloosa,Alabama 35401 (Aqua-Rid)
Stein-Hall Chemical (Polyhall)
New York, New York 10016
Swift and Company
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Type of Polyelectrolytes
Cationic
C,** CX**
MRL 91
Nonionic
WN**
49-700, 49-701 49-704
49-710, 49-711
M402
Anionic
WA**
295A
X-400
*
**
Approved by EPA For Water Treatment (April 1971)
With Bentonite Clay
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS SENSOR
CONTROL UNIT AND RECORDER
SUSPENDED SOLIDS MONITOR INSTALLATION
FIGURE 7
35
-------
proportional to suspended solids concentration. However, the result
obtained by dividing the response of the scatter photocell by that of the
transmittance photocell is linear. This division is performed electroni-
cally and the linearity is achieved by carefully positioning the photo-
cells in addition to the electronic division of their signals. Liquid
color or light bulb intensity are claimed not to cause errors.
A relationship between the suspended solids monitor readings
and laboratory analyzed suspended solids results is presented in
Figure 8. It was found that the readings from the monitor gave a
reasonable correlation in measuring the suspended solids for concen-
tration range between 30 and 240 mg/1. Based on a limited verifi-
cation procedure, a great scattering of readings occurred in the lower
range (0 to 30 mg/1) of suspended solids concentrations which may have
been caused by deviations in the laboratory bench test; possible errors
in bench test procedure such as sample preparations; probability of
capturing the same slug analyzed by the suspended solids monitor for
direct comparison with laboratory analysis and the variation of light
absorbing or reflecting characteristics of the suspended solids in the
lower concentration range. However, an instrument of this kind showed
a promising potential application for continuous monitoring of suspended
solids level in the filter influent or effluent.
In order to establish an accurate correlation between the
suspended solids value and the monitor reading, a longer term investi-
gation procedure should be more carefully set up. Consistent and
reproducible results may thus be developed. Then, the instrument could
enhance the filtration plant operation by continuously recording the
total suspended solids content of wastewater for the control of coagulant
and flocculant feed rate combinations or flocculant feed alone, and by
continuous effluent monitoring for optimizing filter performance and
filtrate quality by furnishing automatic positive control.
36
-------
280
240
Q
a:
ro
m
_i
UJ
200
to
2 ^
O
S o
2
CO
9co
I o
Sg
si
QL
CO
CO
A = 15 MIN. COMPOSITE SAMPLE
• = GRAB SAMPLE
40
0
80 120 160 200
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
(LABORATORY RESULTS) - mg/l
240
SUSPENDED SOLIDS MONITOR READING
Vs LABORATORY RESULTS-
FIGURE 8
37
-------
SECTION VI
CHARACTERIZATION OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Combined sewer overflow characterization data (sampling point
#1} was collected for thirteen storms during 1970 and for two
storms during 1971. The key parameters for each storm are plotted in
Figures Al thru A15 in the Appendix. Hourly rainfall data (14) is also
indicated on these plots. The rain gage is located at Cleveland's
Hopkins Airport, at the western extremity of the Southerly Sewerage
District, approximately ten miles west of the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant. These plots show the effect of time, in a storm
sequence, on the magnitude of various wastewater pollutants.
Table 4 contains average data, including maximum and
minimum values, for combined sewer overflow sampling in 1970. Mean
suspended solids levels were 234 mg/1, with a range from 28 to 1560-
702 mg/1. Biochemical oxygen demand levels average 92 mg/1, with
values ranging from 16 to 580 mg/1. Chemical oxygen demand
levels averaged 308 mg/1, with values ranging from 57 to 711 mg/1.
As is shown on the combined sewer overflow curves in Appendix A,
concentration peaks, generally referred to as the "first flush" effect,
were evidenced on storms Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12, or during five out
of the thirteen combined sewage storm overflows sampled. The most
pronounced concentration peak occurred during storm No. 1, when in
excess of one inch of rainfall fell within one hour.
The majority of the 1970 combined sewer overflow sampling
was accomplished during the months of August, September and October.
In order to profile combined sewer overflow characteristics in the
earlier part of the rainy season, two storms were sampled during 1971,
one in early May and one in early June. Average results of these spring
storms are presented in Table 5 and individual storm plots presented
in Figures A-14 and A-15 in the Appendix. The data contained in Table 5
(spring storm overflows) indicates that the spring storms produce
an overflow of a more highly pollutional nature, as BOD, COD, total
suspended solids and settleable solids values were substantially higher
than those experienced during the remainder of the summer and fall
periods. As indicated in Table 5, for the spring storms, mean
suspended solids levels were 462 mg/1, mean BOD was 171 mg/1 and
mean COD was 462 mg/1. Both of the spring storms sampled had
pronounced "first flush" concentration peaks, as evidenced from
Figures A-14 and A-15 in the appendices.
39
-------
Table 4
CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(late July - early November, 1970)
Analysis
PH
Temperature (°F)
Turbidity (J.T.U.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TOO (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml./I)
Fecal Coliforms
(#x 106/100 mi.)
No. of
Observations
195
137
195
78
197
198
41
177
• 193
195
197
Standard
Mean Deviation
7.0
69
231
3.40
92
308
126
590
234
5.26
4.55*
0.31
125
2.28
49
143
65
150
135
3.02
5.72
Minimum
6.4
60
55
0.98
16
57
30
264
28
0.2
0.09
Maximum
8.
76
640
9.
580
711
280
1238
1560
19
49
6
3
* Median
-------
Table 5
CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(May - early June, 1971)
Analysis
PH
Temperature (°F)
Turbidity (J.T.U.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/L)
TOG (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Fecal Coliforms
x (106/100 ml)
Total Coliforms
x (106/LOO ml)
Fecal Strep
x (10V100 ml)
No. of
Observations
16
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
16
Standard
Mean Deviation
6.76
58
373
171
462
814
411
6.98
0.53*
0.273
5.42
196
42.4
145.2
197
178
4.68
.462
Minimum
6.50
50
110
85
196
532
177
1.5
.06
Maximum
7.
64
850
245
759
1275
976
14
2.
10
00
25
13
27.36*
0.66*
13.15
0.224
7.0
0.11
62.0
1.10
* Median
-------
The Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant serves a very large
drainage area and this is probably a factor in minimizing "first flush"
effects due to storms occurring in one portion of the drainage area.
Also, the travel time due to the long sewer runs in this drainage area
has limiting effect. Another probable factor is that most of the 1970
data was collected during late summer and fall periods, when lower
intensity storms are more likely to occur. Finally, it is also possible
that the sampling procedure missed some concentration peaks.
Correlating rainfall data and time of combined sewer overflow
at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant is difficult due to the
size of the Southerly Sewerage District. Since the rain gage is located
over ten miles away from the Southerly Sewage Treatment Plant, it
is possible that a heavy downpour adjacent to the plant would have a
pronounced effect on combined sewer overflow, without showing a
corresponding effect on rainfall records, or visa-versa. For example,
the concentration peak in storm No. 1 occurred approximately two hours
after significant rainfall (at rain gage) while the peak in storm No. 12
occurs almost simultaneously with significant rainfall (at rain gage).
For comparative purposes, dry weather flow occurring at the
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant was profiled for a thirty six
hour period (October 10 and 11, 1970). Sampling was performed at one
hour intervals. Hydrotechnic Corporation and the EPA Project Officer
decided that a "round the clock" profiling of normal dry weather flow
would be beneficial, especially when used for comparative purposes
with storm water overflows. As shown in Table 6, mean dry
weather suspended solids were 192 mg/1, with values ranging from
64 to 249 mg/1; mean BOD was 130 mg/1, with values ranging from
60 to 185 mg/1; and mean COD was 383 mg/1, with values ranging
from 164 to 543 mg/1. As previously mentioned, the BOD/COD
ratio of the wastewater at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant
(approximately 0.3) is rather low for a municipal sewage, and is due to
the heavy concentration and amounts of industrial wastewater discharges
into the system.
Comparing average combined sewer overflow levels (Table 4)
and dry weather flow contaminant levels (Table 6) for the 1970
sampling period, suspended solids are approximately 25 percent higher
than normal dry weather flow levels; combined sewer overflow BOD
levels are approximately 70 percent of those experienced during the dry
weather flow; and COD levels are comparable for both wastewater
discharges - 383 mg/1 for dry weather flow versus 308 mg/1 for
combined sewer overflow conditions. The median fecal coliform level
for the dry weather flow at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant was
42
-------
Table 6
Co
CHARACTERISTICS OF DRY WEATHER SEWAGE FLOW
( SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT)
( 9 AM - 10/28/70 to 3 PM - 10/29/70)
Analysis
PH
Temperature (°F)
Turbidity (J.T.U.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(#x 106/100 ml.)
No. of
Observations
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Mean
7.6
Standard
Deviation
0.155
Minimum
7.3
Maximum
63
167
2.35
130
383
116
634
192
5.3
15.7*
1.
60
1.
42
112
37
95
68
2.
13.
0
1
5
0
62
81
0.82
60
164
65
441
64
0.5
5.0
65
266
4.5
185
543
1 74
820
249
9.5
62.0
* Median
-------
15.7 x 10 colonies per 100 ml. The median level for the combined sewer
overflows at the Southerly Plant was approximately 30 percent of this
value.
For the spring storm period (May-early June), based on data
collected in 1971 (see Table 4), it appears that combined sewer overflows
at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant are more polluted than raw
sewage (in terms of total suspended solids, BOD, COD). This
comparison underlines the importance of adequately handling or treating
combined sewer overflows.
Figure 9 profiles dry weather sewage flow and combined sewer
overflow characteristics of the Southerly Was tewater Treatment Plant for
a consecutive period. Dry weather sampling (plant influent) was
commenced at 9 a.m. on October 10/1970 and continued until 4 p.m. on
October 29, 1970, when combined sewer overflow sampling procedures
were initiated. Sampling was terminated at 2 p.m. on October 30, 1970.
This plot shows the "first flush" concentration peak occurring between
4 p.m. and 5 p.m. (1600 and 1700 hours), depending upon the particular
water quality contaminant observed. The hydraulic peak or maximum
combined sewer overflow discharge, occurred at 6 p.m. (1800 hours).
Although the plant inflow cannot be directly related to the quantity of the
combined sewer overflow occurring at the plant bypass, maximum plant
flow coincides with maximum combined sewer overflow, due to the nature
of the upstream overflow structure. As mentioned previously, rainfall
data and combined sewer overflow characteristics cannot be directly
related, due to the size of the drainage area and the distance of the rain
gage from the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The more significant characteristics of the combined sewer
overflow at Southerly can be summarized as follows:
a. A total of about 52 overflows a year can be expected. Most
of them have a duration of 5 to 6 hours. The majority of overflows occur
from storm having a rainfall intensity of between 0.5 and .30 inches/hr
(15).
b. The concentration of suspended solids generally ranged
between 100 and 400 mg/1. The maximum was 1560 mg/1.
c. The concentrations of BOD generally ranged between 50 and
200 mg/1. The maximum was 580 mg/1.
44
-------
en
§p oooopooooogooooooooooooooooo
o ooooooooooOoooooooOOoooooooo
_§MwgK§6a2g|«;o|H§g§gii^aioioScOr2SK
O O O O O •
S 6 - N ki ;
TIME (hours)
100
3 4
3 C
. J
C
. f
1 s
\ '<
1 J
1 1
h
? i
1 1
i s
? i
» i
3 C
? !
| 5
} \
} ?
' C
1 §
> C
i C
> C
I 1
> C
1 f
:> C
? !
3 C
> C
> C
C
' <
3 C
? f
*-*•
n
x--
| i
; ^
J C
I i
J i
| S
9 C
? !
— *.
3 C
; <
3 «
5 C
2 £
) C
i I
? S
1 f
! f
; f
5 5
Q
|J
? j
J S
> C
> . J
| 1
l§
TIME (hours)
1200
400
200
5600
-500
3400
-300
"200
5 100
£
[. J J „_
TURBIDITYj
SUSPENDED
rS£S
= s
§ §
S iQ
O O O O C?
P P P P P
S9 — w w «
OO
oo
n «
OO
oo
w Ii
O O O o O
§p P P P P
O O — pj j*J
R P
in to
TIME (hours)
j£ n to
O O O o
SII§
0 0 O
O O O
TIME (hours)
Z!
CD
C
m
CD
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DRY AND WET WEATHER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
10/28-30/70'
PRECIPITATION .37 INCHES
-------
d. The concentration of suspended solids generally reached its
maximum with 1/2 hours after the beginning of the combined sewer
overflow.
e. In most cases, within 3 to 4 1/2 hours the concentration of
suspended solids in the combined sewer overflow dropped to less
tiietii 150 rag/1.
f. Suspended solids levels are higher than those in dry
weather sewage.
g. The concentrations of BOD were generally lower than those
in the dry weather sewage except for storms occurring in the spring.
BOD levels were highest in the earlier phases of the combined sewer
overflow.
46
-------
SECTION VII
SCREENING RESULTS
System Testing - Wire Mesh Screen
The function of the screen in the overall treatment system tested
at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant was to remove coarser
material (fibrous type,, etc.) that would impede the filtration operation.
It was felt that the major process unit in the proposed system would be
the deep bed high rate filters. The screen facility was operated at a
hydraulic loading (thruput) of 100 gallons per minute per square foot for
the duration of the pilot testing of screening-filtration. This level was
set after a review of previous screening tests performed by others.
Testing accomplished during the first three storms utilized a No.3
mesh screen (equivalent to Tyler Screen scale 3 mesh with 6350 micron
or 1/4 inch openings) ahead of the filter columns. The major function of
the testing performed in the early stages was to define screen sizes and
media that could produce reasonable removals and a reasonable length
of filtration run.
Simply stated, the results of the first three storms demonstrated
that the No. 3 mesh screen was inadequate for an effective high rate
filtration operation. All test filter columns plugged within a few hours,
irrespective of the filter media utilized. On one occasion, the screen
itself plugged. Inspection of the screen showed that fibrous materials
had matted on the screen. The matted material resembled primary paper
mill sludge.
A No. 20 mesh screen equivalent to Tyler screen scale 20 mesh
with 841 micron openings was installed in place of the No. 3 mesh unit.
Operation of the filter test columns, preceded by the No. 20 mesh
screening unit, proved feasible, as reasonable lengths of filter runs
could be accomplished. No plugging problems were evidenced. Com-
plete removal data for the No. 20 mesh screen operation is presented in
Table B-2 in the Appendix. The screening data are summarized as
follows:
47
-------
Average Average Removal
Influent Effluent
Suspended Solids (1)* 470 390 17.0
(mg/1) (2) 219 173 21.0
Settleable Solids (1) 10.2 4.8 52.9
(ml/1) (2) 5.4 2.3 57.4
BOD (mg/1) (1) 169 160 5.3
(2) 72 56 22.2
COD (mg/1) (1) 483 300 37.9
(2) 175 146 16.6
*
(1) Run No. 4SF, Average of 5 Samples.
(2) Run No. 6SF, Average of 11 Samples.
Average removals of suspended solids, for the two storms tested,
approximated 17 to 21 percent. The range of removal experienced during a
screen test run was quite wide due to the extreme variation of the sus-
pended solids concentration in the raw combined sewer overflow. For
the two storms tested with the No. 20 mesh screen, the instantaneous
suspended solids removals varied from 0 to 55 percent. A wide variation in
removal characteristics of the screening unit was also noted for other
wastewater contaminants. Previous work done by others on combined
sewer overflow screening has also shown extremely variable removals
in COD and BOD (16), especially in terms of BOD, which of course
could also be related to the sampling techniques and the reliability of
the BOD test procedure. In regards to Cleveland, the fact that a
significant amount of industrial waste containing dissolved organics
Is generated in the Southerly Sewage District might account for the
highly variable removals of COD and BOD.
Although the No. 20 mesh screen permitted a filtration run to last
for a reasonable time, over 6 hours, the head losses experienced
throughout the run were higher than had been noted in past high rate
filtration testing of industrial waste waters. Thus, a finer screen was
required, and a No. 40 mesh screen equivalent to Tyler screen scale 35
mesh with 420 micron opening was selected. The No. 40 mesh screen,
although of finer construction than the No. 20 and the No. 3 mesh screen,
can still be described as a sturdy type screen which could last for a
substantial period of time without needing replacement. In the Hydro-
48
-------
technic screen testing and in the selection of various screening sizes
for this pilot program, the larger screen sizes were first utilized on the
basis that the coarser screens would perform without physical failure
for a longer period under the abrasive application of combined sewage
storm overflow treatment. 'Screen failures have been experienced using
finer mesh at another demonstration project (17).
Utilizing a finer screen also permitted good filtration operation.
Currently, there are not enough data to compare removal characteristics
of the No. 20 and the No. 40 mesh screen, although, due to the nature
of the screen opening, better removals are expected by utilizing the No.
40 mesh screen. The most significant fact ascertained from the test with
the No. 40 mesh screen was that the head loss through the filter columns
was reduced from that experienced using a No. 20 mesh screen.
The No. 40 mesh screen was selected as the screening component
of the overall treatment system. This screen appears to have sturdiness
and strength of construction necessary for extended life, and also pro-
vides sufficient removals of influent suspended solids to permit reason-
able filtration runs and filtration head losses. As with most screen
installations, the removals of suspended solids, BOD and COD cover a
variable range. The test results of seven storms (1970 test) for the No.
40 mesh screen are summarized as follows:
Number of Average Average Removal
Samples Influent* Effluent*
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 63 176 132 25.3
Settleable Solids (ml/1) 78 5.41 2.15 60.3
BOD (mg/1) 56 75 69 8.2
COD (mg/1) 56 268 209 22.3
*Average of grab samples through seven combined sewer overflows.
Supplementary Testing - Slotted Screening Element
At the end of the 1971 field test work, tests were performed to
evaluate the-applicability of a slotted screen element as an alternate to
the mesh type screen which was used throughout all of the prior test
work. The reason for evaluating the slotted type screen was due to its
sturdy construction, which appears as a potential advantage, consider-
ing the abrasive nature of combined sewer overflows. The testing was
49
-------
accomplished by replacing the mesh screen on the rotating drum with
panels of slotted screen which were furnished by the Johnson Division
of UOP. Two screen meshes were tested, as shown on Table 7.
The criteria used for evaluating the slotted screen elements versus
the mesh screen was filtration operation. By profiling the head loss in
3 deep bed, high rate filtration column, following the drum screen,
determination can be made whether the screening element is removing a
sufficient amount of fibrous material (which might impede filter opera-
tion) for efficient system operation. Since the testing was accomplish-
ed at the end of the test program, and due to limitations of time and
money, and lack of combined sewage overflow, comparison tests were
performed on raw sewage instead of combined sewage storm overflow.
These test conditions are evaluating the capacity of the slotted screens
to remove fibrous material. As evidenced from Table 7, head loss
build up in the filter columns preceded by the slotted screen is in the
order of four times as great as that when preceded by a mesh type screen.
Therefore, material which contributes to filter head loss build up and
filter plugging was not removed as well in the slotted screen as in the
mesh type screen. Also, for the two slotted screening elements tested,
the amount of flow that could be fed through the pilot drum screen sys-
tem was reduced, as versus the mesh type screen. The lower percent of
open area in the two slotted screen elements (see Table 7) probably
accounts for the reduced flow.
In summary, the two slotted screen elements tested do not appear
to provide a feasible alternate to the mesh type screen used throughout
the testing program. Subsequent discussions with Johnson Screen repre-
sentatives indicate that a finer screen opening (slotted variety), with a
larger percent open area than the screening elements tested, might prove
to be a desirable screen configuration. One of the principal assets
noted was the ease in which material was removed from the slotted
screen by the water sprays and, due to the heavy construction, no
serious abrasion problems should be evidenced by using a slotted screen.
50
-------
Table 7
COMPARISON OF SCREEN TYPES
en
Filtration Rate
(gpm/ft2)
16
24
32
Mesh Screen
Slotted Sereen
Filter Following Mesh Filter Following Slotted Filter Following Slotted
Screen (420 micron.) (1) Screen (400 micron) (2) Screen (200 micron) (3)
Length of Total Headloss Length of Total Headless Length of Total Headless
Run for.) (ft.) Run (hr.) (ft.) Run for.) (ft.)
6.0
6.0
11
4.5
5.0
4.5
27
35
35
6.0
21
(1) 43.6% open area - 100 gpm/sq ft Hydraulic Loading
(2) 21.1% open area - 45 gpm/sq ft Hydraulic Loading
(3) 11% open area - 22 gpm/sq ft Hydraulic Loading
-------
SECTION VIII
DEEP BED, HIGH RATE FILTRATION RESULTS
Evaluation of Filter Media
During the initial testing, all the filtration pilot columns, irre-
spective of the media utilized, plugged when preceded by the No. 3
mesh screen. Even filtration columns which contained four feet of No.
4 Anthracite (7.15 mm effective size), over four feet of No. 48 Sand
(3.15 mm effective size), or contained eight feet of No. 4 Anthracite
alone, a very coarse media, plugged within a few minutes to an hour.
Three storms were tested utilizing a No. 20 mesh screen prior to
the filtration columns. Three anthracite sizes were evaluated in con-
junction with No. 612 Sand (2.0 mm effective size) - four feet of
anthracite over three feet of sand. The anthracite types included:
No. 4 Anthracite (7.15 mm effective size)
No. 3 Anthracite (4.0 mm effective size)
No. 2 Anthracite (1.78 mm effective size)
The results of these storms, summarized on Table B-3 in Appen-
dix B, show that No. 3 Anthracite over No. 612 Sand proved to be a
workable media since a reasonable length of filter run could be obtained.
The filtration test columns utilizing No. 2 Anthracite in the upper layers
plugged within a few hours. The test column utilizing No. 4 Anthracite,
the coarsest media, plugged in less than one hour as solids were not
retained in the upper layers of the filter and penetrated into, and plugged,
the lower sand layer. The fine No. 2 Anthracite over the No. 612 Sand
did not prove superior in removal characteristics to the No. 3 Anthracite
over the No. 612 Sand. This is evidenced from Table B-3 in Appendix B.
Surprisingly, the combination of No. 3 Anthracite over No. 612 Sand
proved superior to the finer No. 2 Anthracite and Sand combination even
though the No. 2 Anthracite is a finer media.
When preceded by No. 20 mesh screen, the No. 3 Anthracite -
No. 612 Sand media combination produced a full range of suspended
solids removals from 51.3 to 78.6 percent at 16 gpm/sq ft. The higher
removal was experienced at an influent filter suspended solids loading
of 175 mg/1, while the lower filtration efficiency was evidenced at an
influent suspended solids level of 485 mg/1. Curves for all filtration
runs are presented in Appendix C .
53
-------
Selection of Screening-Filtration System Components
The No. 3 Anthracite - No. 612 Sand media was selected for
more extensive testing in conjunction with the No. 40 mesh screen.
The head loss experienced in the filtration column preceded by the No.
40 mesh screen was less than that utilizing a No. 20 mesh screen. As
a comparison, at 16 gpm/sq ft , the head loss reading after ten hours
filter operation was 10 feet with a No. 40 mesh screen versus 14 feet
with a No. 20 mesh screen.
The influent suspended solids to the filters for both of these test
runs was in the order of 200 mg/1. At higher filtration rates, the differ-
ence in head loss became even more pronounced and the head loss
were more rapidly increased than at lower filtration rate.
In the Hydrotechnic test work, head loss through filter bed was
considered as a key parameter, primarily since the application of the
proposed treatment sequence in a full scale installation would be best
engineered and designed around a gravity filtration system. Open ves-
sels, which provide an avenue for gas release, appear more desirable
than closed or pressure tanks when dealing with raw sewage or combined
sewer overflow. The rationale is that potentially explosive gas
accumulations might occur in pressure vessels, while this condition
would be less prone to happen in an open gravity filter. Special pre-
cautions and design features would have to be incorporated into the
engineering and operation of a filtration facility for treating combined
sewer overflow which utilized closed tanks or pressure vessels,
especially in applications where the dry weather sewage flow contains
significant quantities of industrial wastes. For example, an explosion
occurred in the one foot diameter pilot filter column (closed vessel)
several hours after a filtration run had been performed in the column, and
after the column was backwashed. Possibly some gas accumulations
expanded and the resulting pressure caused failure of one of the plexi-
glass panels in the large column.
The head loss in the filter media during each filtration test run is
indicated in individual data curves in Appendix C. This head loss does
not include pressure losses that will occur across the filter bottom.
Generally, three curves are presented for each filter run: the top curve
indicating the head loss that is experienced through essentially the whole
filter media, and the other curves indicating the head loss in a certain
depth of the media, with the media depth measured from the top of the
bed.
54
-------
Plain Filtration and Filtration with Poly electrolyte Addition
Two basic modes of process operation were evaluated for re-
moving suspended solids and other contaminants which were in sus-
pended form: plain filtration and filtration with polyelectrolyte addition.
Plain filtration is simply filtration without chemicals or any additives.
Filtration with polyelectrolyte addition was also evaluated, since
previous data on general filtrations and on industrial applications of
deep bed, high rate filtration, had shown the merits of utilizing poly-
electrolytes to enhance performance. The coagulant testing apparatus
was utilized to select polyelectrolytes for full scale filtration runs.
Visual observations and previous experience by others (18) had indi-
cated that filtration test column runs were required to conclusively
establish the true effect of the polyelectrolyte on filtration removal
efficiency.
Fifty three polyelectrolytes were evaluated for enhancing
filtration performance. All the work, as previously mentioned, was per-
formed in the coagulant testing apparatus, which permitted simultaneous
evaluation of six different polyelectrolytes at a time. Results of the
polyelectrolyte evaluation tests are presented in Table 8. This table
indicates that some polyelectrolytes are better than others in improving
filter performance. Polyelectrolyte selection to be used in conjunction
with deep bed high rate filtration, is critical, as is evidenced from this
table. Four polyelectrolytes produced good removals (88 percent or more)
and three were tested in the pilot filter columns to obtain operational
data. In general, the anionic polyelectrolytes proved most effective at
this particular test site.
During the 1970 test work, a number of filter runs,were performed
utilizing Nalcolite 671 polyelectrolyte, which was selected after a series
of jar tests. Subsequently, in 1971, the coagulant test apparatus was
installed and permitted a realistic method of selecting a polyelectrolyte.
Therefore, the data from the 1970 test work, utilizing the Nalcolite 671
polyelectrolyte, is not considered applicable to the performance that can
be achieved in the proposed system via the appropriate polyelectrolyte.
Complete test results for all the filtration tests are presented in
Table B-3 through B-6 in Appendix B. For the recommended system (5
feet of No. 3 Anthracite over 3 feet of No. 612 Sand), suspended solids
removals with or without polyelectrolyte addition, are presented in
Figure 10. Suspended solids removals increased appreciably with the
addition of an appropriate polyelectrolyte and ranged from 90.4 percent at
24 gpm/sq ft to 96.7 percent at 8 gpm/sq ft at ah influent concentration
of 300.7 mg/1. Suspended solids reduction without polyelectrolytes
55
-------
Table 8
RESULTS OF POLYELECTROLYTE SELECTION TESTS
Total Suspended Solids
Polyelectrolytes
Atlasep 1A1
Atlasep 2A2
Atlasep 3A3
Atlasep 4A4
Atlasep 5A5
Calgon 235
Calgon 240
Gamafloc NA710
Hercofloc 816
Hercofloc 822
Hercofloc 836
Magnifloc 835A
Magnifloc 836A
Magnifloc 860A*
Magnifloc 865A
Nalcolyte 672
Nalcolyte 673
Nalcolyte 675H
Polyhall 295A
Purifloc A23*
Swift X400
Aqua-Rid 49700
Aqua-Rid 49701
Aqua-Rid 49710
Aqua-Rid 49711
Atlasep 105C
Calgon 227
Calgon 228
Gamafloc NC-722
Hercofloc 810
Hercofloc 814.2
Hercofloc 828.1
Type
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Influent
(mg/1)
204
513
204
181
, 204
250
248
248
164
164
164
236
236
236
181
248
231
231
513
164
513
478
478
478
478
181
250
250
248
236
236
236
Effluent
(mg/1)
60
182
27
13
39
170
63
36
24
32
20
98
95
206
87
72
78
4
250
20
199
252
202
184
244
66
152
188
158
41
194
182
Removal
(*)
71
65
87
93
81
30
75
86
85
81
88
58
60
13
52
71
66
97
51
88
61
47
58
65
49
64
39
25
36
83
18
23
56
-------
Table 8
(Continued)
RESULTS OF POLYELECTROLYTE SELECTION TESTS
Polyelectrolytes
Magnifloc 521C*
Magnifloc 560C
Magnifloc 570C*
Magnifloc 571C*
Polyhall MRL 91
Purifloc C-31*
Purifloc C-41
Aqua-Rid 49704
Atlasep IN
Magnifloc 900N
Magnifloc 905N
Magnifloc 985N*
Magnifloc 990N*
Nalcolyte 671
Polyhall M402
Calgon No. 18*
Calgon No. 25
Zetafloc WN
Zetafloc WA
Zetafloc C
Zetafloc CX
Type
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Cationic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(4)
Total Suspended Solids
Influent
(mg/1)
250
181
250
250
513
164
164
478
181
204
181
204
204
189
513
248
248
513
189
189
185
Effluent
(mg/1)
200
10
140
166
264
27
93
164
65
118
85
106
108
64
373
114
170
330
89
103
97
Removal
20
94
44
34
49
84
43
66
64
42
53
48
47
66
27
54
31
35
53
46
49
* Approved by EPA for Water Treatment (April 1971)
(1) Nonionic, High M.W. Polyelectrolyte Polymer & Bentonite
Clay Mixture
(2) Anionic and Bentonite clay or Aluminum Silicate Mixture
(3) Nonionic and Aluminum Silicate Mixture
(4) Cationic and Aluminum Silicate Mixture
Note: Flux Rate (20-24 gpm/sq ft ), three hour composite
samples.
57
-------
No. 40 MESH SCREEN
No. 3 ANTH
No. 612 SAND
WITH POLYELECTROLYTE
WITHOUT POLYELECTROLYTE
POINTS ARE AVERAGE VALUE
OF 4 TO 20 GRAB SAMPLES
o
s
LU
CO
Q
O
CO
O
LU
Q
z
LU
0_
CO
ID
CO
0
10 20 30 40
FLUX RATE (gpm/sqft)
50
MEAN SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVALS BY
FILTRATION
FIGURE 10
58
-------
ranged from 37.5 at 40 gpm/sq ft to 72.8 percent at 10 gpm/sq ft at
influent concentration of 152 and 114 mg/1, respectively. Suspended
solids removal is the chief criterion for process efficiency. A summary
of filtration test results for two typical combined sewer overflows are
shown on Table 9.
Table 9
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVALS BY FILTRATION
Filtration Number Average
Rate of Influent
(gpm/sq ft ) _Samples (mg/1)
Plain (1970)
10 13 114
16 17 205
24 13 114
32 4 132
40 4 152
With Polyelectrolyte (1. 0 mg/1)
(1971)
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
31
48
74
80
95
Removal
72.8
76.6
35.1
39.4
37.5
8
16
24
6
6
6
300.7
300.7
300.7
10.0
9.0
28.0
96.7
97.0
90.4
Similar to suspended solids, settleable solids removals increase
appreciably with the introduction of appropriate polyelectrolyte, as shown
in Table 10. For filtration rates between 8 and 24 gpm/sq ft with poly-
electrolyte addition, settleable solids removals were 92.8 to 90.7 per-
cent, respectively. Effluent settleable solids values are in the order of
0.1 ml/1.
59
-------
Table 10
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS REMOVALS BY FILTRATION
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft )
Plain
(1970, 1971)
10
16
24
32
40
Number
of
Samples
12
6
4
11
7
Average
Influent
(ml/1)
2.0
2.3
2.4
.72
1.9
Average
Effluent
(ml/1)
.07
.3
.3
.13
.4
Removal
(%)
96.5
87.0
87.5
81.9
78.9
With Polyelectrolyte (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 1.4 0.1 92.8
16 6 1.4 0.1 92.8
24 6 1.4 .13 90.7
Table 11 shows the effect of deep bed, high rate filtration on the
removal of organic pollutants, measured as biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD removals cover a
variable range, both with and without polyelectrolyte addition to the
filtration process. Without chemicals, the reductions varied from 7.5 to
36.4 percent at filtration rates of 32 and 10 gpm/sq ft and average influent
concentrations of 93 and 77 mg/1, respectively. With the addition of poly-
electrolyte, reductions varied from 53.3 to 59.7 percent at filtration rate of
24 and 8 gpm/sq ft and an influent concentration of 67 mg/1. As shown
in Table 11, two factors seem apparent: first, there doesn't seem to be
any significant correlation between filtration rate and BOD removal, and
secondly, process performance with polyelectrolyte addition is substan-
tially better than without polyelectrolyte addition. The nature of the
Cleveland combined sewer overflow, one which contains a heavy
industrial contribution, may account for the variable BOD removals.
Also, the reliability and reproducibility of BOD test results when dealing
with a sewage with industrial waste components may be a factor.
For removals of COD, the data without polyelectrolyte addition
generally follows an expected trend, that is better removals at low
filtration rates. These data for process efficiency with polyelectrolyte
addition do not seem to show a discernible trend for removals in filtration
60
-------
Table 11
BOD AND COD REMOVALS BY FILTRATION
en
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft )
Plain (1970)
10
16
24
32
40
Number
of
Samples
13
20
13
6
4
With polyelectrolyte (1
(1971)
8
16
24
6
6
6
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
77
53
77
93
78
. 0 mg/1)
67.0
67.0
67.0
BOD
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
49
45
67
86
68
27.0
27.5
31.3
Removal
(%)
36.4
15.1
13.0
7.5
12.8
59.7
59.0
53.3
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
117
118
117
244
139
161.2
161.2
161.2
COD
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
44
82
83
187
83
44.5
73.5
70.5
Removal
(#)
62.4
30.5
29.1
23.4
40.3
72.4
54.4
55.6
-------
ranges of 8 to 24 gpm/sq ft. This may be due to the fact that suspended
solids removals were substantially similar at 24 gpm/sq ft and at 8
gpm/sq ft for process operation with addition of appropriate chemical.
Removals with polyelectrolyte addition ranged from 55.6 to 72.4 percent
at filtration rates of 24 and 8 gpm/sq ft , respectively.
More limited data on removals of total organic carbon by filtration
(1970 test data) indicate removals ranging from 42.5 percent at 32 gpm/
sq.ft. with influent and effluent concentrations of 135.7 and 78.0 mg/1,
respectively, to 62.7 percent at 10 gpm/sq ft reducing the influent
concentration from 67.0 to 25.0 mg/1 in the effluent for process
operation with polyelectrolyte addition. Percentagewise, total organic
carbon removals are higher than the respective COD removals.
Table 12 shows the process performance in regard to phosphorus
removal, an important consideration where the effluent is discharged to
a lake. This table illustrates that total phosphorus removal, with poly-
electrolyte addition, does not seem to be substantially influenced by
filtration rates in the range of 8 to 24 gpm/sq ft - Each of the two poly-
electrolytes shown on the table were considered as an optimum poly-
electrolyte. The results for the phosphorus reductions utilizing the two
polyelectrolytes are in the order of 30-50 percent.
Table 12
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVALS BY FILTRATION
Filtration Number Average Average
Rate of Influent Effluent Removal
(gpm/sq ft ) Samples (mg/1) (mg/1) (%}
With Polyelectrolyte Purifloc A23 (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 0.71 0.43 39.4
16 6 0.71 0.39 45.1
24 6 0.71 0.40 43.7
With Polyelectrolyte Magnifloc 560C (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 0.76 0.40 47.2
16 6 0.76 0.36 52.6
24 6 0.76 0.55 26.3
62
-------
Results on removal of nitrogen, a factor considered critical to lake
eutrophication, in some cases indicates removals ranging from 10.9
to 42.5 percent (filtration without polyelectrolyte - 1970 data) with an
average influent concentration of 8.7 to 23.2 mg/1. Table B-6 in
Appendix B presents the test results.
Table 13 gives a further breakdown as to the nature of solids
removals by high rate filtration tested in 1970. For filtration rates of
10, 16, and 24, gpm/sq ft , removals are shown for total nonvolatile
solids, total volatile solids, total suspended solids, total nonvolatile
suspended solids, and total volatile suspended solids. The major
deduction from this table is that removals of nonvolatile suspended
solids are greater than removals of volatile suspended solids. In other
words, the inert or inorganic solids are more amenable to removal by
high rate filtration. As a possible extension of these results, one might
suspect that, as the nature of the solids in combined sewer overflow
becomes more of a nonvolatile variety than a volatile suspended solids
variety, overall system removal of suspended solids would increase.
Another possible extension of this data trend suggests that the filtration
process would be more effective with urban runoff than for combined
sewer overflows, as the nature of the suspended solids in urban runoff
normally tends to be more of a nonvolatile suspended solids or inert
variety, as contrasted to combined sewer overflows (19).
Table 14 summarizes the removal data of greases by high rate fil-
tration. As shown by this tabulation, the test data was subject to
significant variability, with removals ranging from 31.6 to 45.5 at
filtration rates of 32 and 16 gpm/sq ft with composite influent concen-
tration of 28.4 and 25.5 mg/1, respectively. The analysis and inter-
pretation of the greases in sewage has always been a difficult problem,
especially where significant amounts and varieties of industrial wastes
are present, as in Cleveland. During the 1970 testing program, several
results showed extremely high oil and grease concentrations. The cause
of these high values could not be determined but a note on the result
sheet from the laboratory running the analyses indicated that the residue
experienced at the end of the laboratory test did not resemble normal
ether extractable residue.
For plain filtration tests, the length of run was generally in the
range of 6-10 hours for flow rates of 24 gpm/sq ft or less. Filtration
head losses at 16 gpm/sq ft would generally be less than 15 feet and
ranged up to 30 feet and greater for the higher filtration rates. No
deterioration of effluent quality with time or length of filter run was
normally evidenced for the plain filtration mode of operation. At the end
of a filter run, visual observations revealed that solids had penetrated
throughout the depth of the filter media.
63
-------
Table 13
SOLIDS REMOVALS BY FILTRATION
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft )
Number
of
Samples
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
Removal
(%)
Total Nonvolatile Solids
(1970)
10
16
24
5
3
5
202
139
202
162
112
167
19.9
19.4
17.3
Total Volatile Solids
(1970)
10
16
24
Total Suspended
5
3
5
Solids
108
118
180
136
95
175
24.4
19.5
2.8
(1970)
10 5 116
16 5 116
24 5 116
Total Nonvolatile Suspended Solids
30
37
63
74.0
68.0
45.7
(1970)
10 5 54
16 5 54
24 5 54
Total Volatile Suspended Solids
9
12
26
83.0
78.0
52.0
(1970)
10
16
24
5
5
5
62
62
62
21
23
39
66.0
63.0
37.0
Note: Data from runs using 1.5 mg/1 of Nalcolyte 671
(not optimum polyelectrolyte control)
64
-------
Table 14
GREASE REMOVALS BY FILTRATION
Filtration Average* Average*
Rate Influent Effluent Removal
(gpm/sg ft ) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Plain (1970)
16 25.5 13.9 45.5
24 28.4 16.4 45.1
32 28.4 19.4 31.6
With Polyelectrolyte**
(1970)
10 10.9 5.5 49.5
16 23.0 6.5 31.8
24 28.4 16..4 45.1
32 48.4 27.5 43.2
* Composite sample over 6 hours period.
** With Nalcolyte 671 1.5 mg/1 (not optimum polyelectrolyte)
For filtration with addition of appropriate polyelectrolyte, test runs
ranged between 3 and 6 hours before a discernible increase in effluent
solids was evidenced. The length of run was terminated at the point at
which substantial deterioration of effluent quality was evidenced. The
length of run and head loss data for this mode of test operation are indi-
cated in Table B-3 in Appendix B. Head losses were generally below 15
feet, at flux rates of 8 gpm/sq ft and ranged up to approximately 40 feet
at flux rates of 24 gpm/sq ft For test runs using Atlasep 4A4, an accu-
mulation of a few inches of material was noted on the surface of the
filter media, although visual observation indicated that solids had also
penetrated throughout the depth of the media. No problems were
experienced in backwashing this accumulation from the top of the media.
In,a full scale filtration facility, utilizing the deep bed, high rate fil-
tration process with the addition of appropriate polyelectrolyte, the
process would be controlled by both head loss and effluent quality, as is
discussed in Section X.
Removal of coliforms, both fecal and total, via the deep bed, high
rate filtration process does not seem to be influenced by filtration rate,
or polyelectrolyte addition. Removal data covers an extremely broad
range with fecal coliform removals varying from 9.8 to 82.2 percent
65
-------
(Table B-4 in Appendix B). Total coliform removals vary between 0 and
93.4 percent. An interesting observation is that total colitorm removals
are generally higher than fecal coliform removals. However, the remov-
al of coliforms in the filter bed is insignificant for the purpose of dis-
infection.
Filtration with Coagulant Addition - Phosphate Reducing Coagulants
A major portion of the 1971 test work was centered on evaluating
the effectiveness of adding coagulants that would convert soluble phos-
phorus to the insoluble form, with the intention of subsequently removing
it on the deep bed, high rate filter. To evaluate this mode of operation,
a series of preliminary tests were performed in the coagulant testing
apparatus to evaluate chemicals and polyelectrolytes to be used in this
mode of operation. Initial testing evaluated alum, ferric chloride, and
lime. Initial test coagulant dosages were selected by utilizing the
following ratios by weight: 2 Alum/P, 1 FeCls/P and 4.5 Ca (OH)2/P.
The 1970 data had indicated an average phosphorus (P) value of
3.3 mg/1 which was utilized to determine initial test dosages.
The results of the coagulant selection tests are indicated in Table
15, including one run of lime, one run of ferric chloride, and the rest
with alum. Alum was selected for this application after comparison with
lime and ferric chloride. In trial runs, it was found that lime created a
turbid effluent with plugging problems and that ferric chloride occasion-
ally produced an orange yellow colored effluent.
An extended series of tests was performed utilizing various
dosages of alum and various polyelectrolytes, as shown in Table 15.
Process performance in terms of suspended solids removal and in terms
of total phosphorus removal was quite variable. On some occasions,
exceptionally good removals (in the order of 90 percent of suspended
solids and phosphates were attained, while on other occasions, utilizing
similar coagulant dosages and polyelectrolyte dosages, process perform-
ance was very poor (in the order of 30 percent removal or less).
To evaluate this mode of process operation further, a series of
pilot filter column runs were performed to obtain operational data.
Complete results are presented in Table B-3 (Sheet Nos. 5-7) in
Appendix B.
Table 16 presents suspended solids removals from three combined
sewer overflows for the process using alum and various polyelectrolytes.
66
-------
Table 15
COAGULANT SELECTION TESTS
(THREE INCH DIAMETER FILTER)
01
-o
Date
6/1
6/1
6/3
6/3
6/9
6/9
7/8
6/3
6/9
6/9
7/8
7/8
7/14
8/11
7/8
8/11
7/8
7/14
7/8
7/14
7/8
6/1
6/1
Coagulant
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
Alum
50
25
20
40
50
25
30
40
50
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
FeCla ** 25 ma/1
Ca (OH)
Polyelectrolyte
Magnifloc 56 OC (1 mg/1)
Magnifloc 560C (1 mg/1)
Magnifloc 560C (1 mg/1)
Magnifloc 560C (1 mg/1)
Magnifloc 560C (1 mg/1)
Magnifloc 560C (1 mg/1)
Magnifloc 560C (1 mg/1)
Atlasep 4A4 (1 mg/1)
Atlasep 4A4 ( 1 mg/1)
Atlasep 4A4 (1 mg/1)
Atlasep 4A4 (1 mg/1)
Atlasep 3A3 (1 mg/1)
Atlasep 3A3 (.5 mg/1)
Atlasep 3A3 (.25 mg/1)
Swift X-400 (1 mg/L)
Swift X-400 (1 mg/1)
*Purifloc A-23 (1 mg/1)
*Purifloc A-23 (1 mg/1)
*Purifloc C-31 (1 mg/1)
*Purifloc C-31 (1 mg/1)
Nalcolyte 675H
MagniflocseOC (1 ma A)
2 (120 mg/1)
Flux Rate
(qpm/ft2)
20
20
16
16
24
24
20
16
24
24
19
19
24
24
19
16
20
24
20
24
20
20
Filter
Plugged
within 15
minutes
Total
Influent
(mg/1)
214
214
192
192
274
274
244
192
274
274
92
92
84
84
92
54
244
84
244
84
244
214
Very
Suspended Solids
Effluent Removal
(mg/1) %
20
42
24
60
42
18
170
96
6
12
66
82
18
22
54
23
106
26
172
32
144
58
Turbid
90
80
87
69
85
94
30
50
98
96
28
11
79
74
4]
5',
57
69
30
62
41
73
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Influent
(mg/1)
12.1
12.0
7.5
7.5
.58
.58
.96
7.5
.58
.58
1.05
1.05
.23
.23
1.05
.45
.96
.23
.96
.23
.96
12.0
Effluent
(mg/L)
3.0
4.3
2.0
2.9
.04
.04
.76
5.4
<.01
.03
1.0
.96
.08
.10
.55
.34
.65
.09
.73
.10
.76
3.1
(P)
Removal
%
75
64
73
61
93
93
21
28
98
96
5
10
65
57
48
25
32
61
24
57
21
74
* Approved by EPA for Potable Water Treatment.
** Discernable orange color in effluent.
-------
Table 16
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVALS WITH ALUM AND
POLYELECTROLYTE ADDITION
Filtration Number Average Average
Rate of Influent Effluent Removal
(gpm/sq ft ) Samples (mg/1) (mg/1)
With Alum (30 mg/1) and Purifloc A-23 (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 159.7 59.7 62.6
16 6 159.7 54.0 66.2
24 6 159.7 92.5 42.1
With Alum (30 mg/1) and Magnifloc 560C (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 301.7 108.0 64.2
16 6 324.5 181.0 44.2
24 6 192.2 48.0 75.0
With Alum (30 mg/1) and Purifloc C-31 (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 4 217.5 38.0 82.5
16 4 217.5 65.3 70.0
24 4 222.5 89.0 60.0
The alum dosage was 30 mg/1 and the polyelectrolyte dosage was
1 mg/1. The results contained in this tabulation confirm the fact that
the variable performance, in terms of suspended solids removal, occurs
similar to the results obtained in the small-scale coagulant-testing
apparatus. Process performance does improve with decreasing filtration
rate. Filter length of run generally varied from three to six hours, with
the run arbitrarily terminated when an appreciable solids breakthrough
was evidenced. Head loss values range from below 5 feet at a flux
rate of 8 gpm/sq ft to approximately 40 feet at a flux rate of 32 gpm/
sq ft, Generally, an accumulation of 4 to 5 inches was noticed on top
of the filter media, as this accumulation would gradually build up
throughout the filtration run. In addition, depth penetration of solids
throughout the media was also observed. In fact, after approximately
two hours, the media appeared saturated with solids. No backwash
problems were evidenced as the material was readily removed from the
media.
68
-------
Table 17 shows BOD and COD removals by high rate filtration with
alum and polyelectrolyte addition for a typical combined sewer overflow.
The GOD and BOD reductions were approximately equal. Greater COD
than BOD reductions could be anticipated on the basis of previous
test work at lower filtration rates.
Table 17
BOD AND COD REMOVALS WITH ALUM AND
POLYELECTROLYTE ADDITION*
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft )
Number
of
Samples
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
Removal
BOD
(1971)
8
16
24
COD
(1971)
8
16
24
4
4
4
4
4
4
65.8
65.8
65.8
163.8
163.8
163.8
31.5
34.5
30.0
47.0
101.5
126.3
52.1
47.6
54.4
71.3
32.0
22.9
* With Alum 30 mg/1 and Purifloc C-31 1.0 mg/1.
As shown in Table 18, total phosphorus reductions at average
influent concentration of 0.9 mg/1 were 73.3, 47.8 and 42.2 percent at
filtration rate of 8, 16 and 24 gpm/sq ft , respectively. Similar to the
performance experienced in the coagulant testing apparatus, total phos-
phorus reductions parallel suspended solids reductions. Comparing in-
fluent and effluent soluble phosphate values, coagulant addition (30 mg/1
alum) prior to filtration converts approximately 65 to 70 percent of the
soluble phosphate present in the wastewater to the insoluble form.
The actual use of alum in the molar ratio of 2 Al/P should provide com
plete conversion of soluble phosphate to insoluble aluminum-phosphate. Th€
lower results obtained indicate that more thorough mixing at the point of
injection should have been accomplished in order to utilize the aluminum
69
-------
ion for fast aluminum phosphate formation rather than allowing the
aluminum to be made unavailable for phosphate removal by the slower
reaction to form aluminum hydroxide.
Table 18
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REDUCTIONS WITH
ALUM AND POLYELECTROLYTE ADDITION
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft )
Number
of
Samples
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
With Alum (30 mg/1) and PuriflocA23 (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 0.90 0.24
16 6 0.90 0.47
24 6 0.90 0.52
With Alum (30 mg/1) and Magnifloc 560C (1.0 mg/1)
(1971)
8 6 0.61 0.16
16 6 0.57 0.37
24 6 0.51 0.19
Removal
73.3
47.8
42.2
73.8
35.0
62.7
It appears that this mode of process operation is applicable to a
situation where there is a substantial amount of dissolved phosphate in
the wastewater, and where phosphate removal is of greater importance
than suspended solids removal.
Significance of Storage on Filtration Test Results
Section IV described the pilot plant sequence and process units
utilized in the test work at the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The influent to the filters was abstracted from a storage tank, equipped
with an agitator to keep solids in suspension. The combined sewer
overflow was pumped to a drum screen, whence it flowed to the
storage tanks. For most of the test runs, the storage tank was filled
with a sufficient quantity of combined sewer overflow for fil-
tration test runs before the duration of the combined sewer over-
flow had elapsed. The screen was operated throuahout the entire
duration of the combined sewer overflow, which was determined
70
-------
by observing the influent of the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In essence, since the storage tanks were generally filled within
30 minutes, the filtration portion of the testing was conducted on a
sample of wastewater which can be described as characteristic of the
earlier stages of combined sewer overflow. Thus, the average
filter influent during a test run was generally greater in concentration
than the average screen effluent, due to the fact that the filtration in-
fluent sample was collected during the earlier part of the storm, when
higher suspended solids normally prevail. Table 19 compares average
screen effluent and average filter influent for the test runs.
In regard to.solids sedimentation in the storage tank between the
screening unit and the filtration test columns,, it was apparent that the
•nixing devices set up in the tank were sufficient to prevent deposition,
since no significant accumulations of solid materials were evidenced at
:he bottom of the tank after a filtration test run. Therefore, the test set-up
and arrangement, although not exactly identical to the flow sequence that
would occur in an actual full size plant, provides data, which would be
comparable to that in a full size treatment facility.
Backwash Considerations
At the end of each filtration run, air and water were injected
alternately into the bottom of the filter column over a period of time.
For the pilot plant backwash operations, air volume was varied from 2.1
to 15.5 scfm/sq ft over 2.5 to 29 minutes for breaking up the "mud
balls" which accumulated in the filter media. Then, air was stopped
and backwash water was introduced to flush out all suspended solids
until the filter media was clean and the backwash water effluent was
observed to be clear.
Backwash water volume used ranged from 1.9 to 8.6 percent of
the total combined sewer overflow filtered (1970 data) with the median
value at approximately 4 percent. The range of backwash water rate
employed was 31 to 90 gpm/sq ft over 4 to 25 minutes of backwashing.
Due to the "wall effect" in the pilot filter column and inaccurate control
of backwash water as well as inefficient backwash outlet design, an
excessive amount of wash water and air may have been required.
Well designed high rate filtration plants for steel mill wastewater
treatment systems, normally utilize backwash water rates at 30 gpm/sq
ft for 10 minutes and air at 6 scfm/sq ft for 2 minutes (20).
71
-------
Table 19
EFFECT OF STORAGE ON FILTER INFLUENT
(1970 TEST DATA)
Rur. Length
Suspended Solids (Ave.)
Ave. BOD
Ave. COD
Ave. Settleable Solids
to
No.
4 SF
*5 SF
6 SF
7 SF
*8 SF
9 SF
10 SF
11 SF
J13 SF
14 SF
of Run
(Hours)
2
-
6
7
-
9
10
6
-
6
Screen Eff.
mq/1
390
-
138
210
-
133
96
137
-
74
Filter Inf.
417
-
144
236
-
121
113
175
-
85
A
+ 27
-
+ 6
+ 26
-
-12
+ 17
+ 38
-
+ 11
Screen Eff.
160
-
57
43
-
80
57
90
-
53
Filter Inf.
172
-
63
54
-
74
75
97
-
64
A
+ 12
-
+ 6
+ 11
•
- 6
+ 18
- 7
-
-11
Screen Eff.
300
-
its
142
-
137
198
280
-
146
Filter Inf. .
350 +50
-
ISO - 5
143 + 1
- -
112 -25
200 + 2
283 + 3
-
133 - 7
Screen Eff.
mg/1
4.8
-
2.4
2.1
"~
2.3
1.6
2.5
"*
0.9
Filter Inf.
4.2
-
2.6
2.8
"
2.1
1.4
3.2
"
1.4
A
-0.6
"
+ 0.2
+ 0.7
-0.2
-0.2
+0.7
+ 0.5
* - Insufficient Screen Data
w
* - Storage Tank Not Used
-------
Figure 11 shows typical suspended solids profiles of backwash
effluent water from various filtration backwashes. The effluent from the
filter column was normally clear after 4 to 8 minutes of water flush.
Suspended solids levels in the filter backwash water ranged between 50
and 14,000 mg/1.
Figure 12 shows settling characteristics of filter backwash solids.
The majority of suspended solids were removed at a test overflow rate of
approximately 0.7 gpm/sq ft.
As indicated in Table B-3(Sheet Nos. 2 and 4) in Appendix B, a mass
balance between solids removed during a filter run and solids contained
in the filter backwash was developed. In most cases, a good correlation
was not evidenced, probably influenced by the sampling procedure and
the rapidly changing suspended solids levels in the filter backwash
effluent.
73
-------
otiuuu
10,000
^, 5,000
E
W
o
^ 1,000
<0
500
UJ
5
UJ
§ 100
co
50
10
f=
/—
/
h/i
/
/"
/
V
V
V
\
*
V
\
\(
\
v
\
\
10,000
•£, 5,000
£
CO
Q
J 1,000
CO
500
8
0
1
S> 100
(0
50
10
H
^
ffl
/
/
/
-\~\
'
h
\-
\
\
¥
\
\
\
^^
-^
""v^
— ^
y
\
234 56789 10
BACKWASH TIME (min.)
0123456789 10
BACKWASH TIME (min.)
FILTER BACKWASH FROM COLUMN RUN No.4SFn
FILTER BACKWASH FROM COLUMN RUN No. 4SFII
10,000
"01 5,000
V)
Q
g 1,000
SUSPENDED J
— 01
0 0
0 0
50
10
TER BACI
=
P
m
_A\
4
m
1
/
+
rH
\
\
>
^r
H
^
s
X
10,000
o> 5,000
J
CO
Q
jJ 1,000
a 50°
a
UJ
§ 100
CO
50
in
,
/
/
•/—
f—
k
FM
h
v
\
^
\ —
Nd
\
\
\
\
^^
X
x
0 23456789 10 01234567 8 9 K
BACKWASH TIME (min.) BACKWASH TIME (min.)
-------
3.0
CT
CD
Q.
UJ
cr
o
U_
o:
LJ
2.5
^ 2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
INITIAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS 1450 mg/l
AVERAGE TEMP. 54°F
INITIAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS 3310mg/l 0
AVERAGE TEMP 53 F
0 200 400 600 800
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMAINING (mg/l)
BACKWASH WATER SEDIMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS
FIGURE 12
75
-------
SECTION IX
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The proposed treatment sequence is comprised of two treatment
components, the screen facility and the high rate filters. Total system
efficiency was determined by combining the efficiencies of these two
treatment components. Where only filtration tests were performed, total
system efficiency was determined by combining filtration removals and
average screen removals from previous test runs.
The effect of the proposed treatment system (No. 40 mesh screen
and high rate filters with No. 3 Anthracite over No. 612 Sand) in regard
to the removal of key water quality parameters is presented in Figures 13
to 15 and Tables 20 through 22.
During the screening-filtration system operation, process effi-
ciency varied with influent suspended solids concentration, whereas the
effluent concentration remained comparatively constant (21). The
following table shows the results of suspended solids removal from a typi-
cal combined sewer overflow filtration test with 30 mg/1 of alum and
1.0 mg/1 of polyelectrolyte addition. With effluent suspended solids of
36 mg/1, the removal efficiency would be 92 percent at the initial
period of combined sewer overflow when suspended solids concentrations
are about 442 mg/1, whereas the reduction of suspended solids would
be only 46 percent after the peak overflow period when the influent
concentration is 100 mg/1 and the effluent concentration is 54 mg/1.
Average Average
Influent Effluent
Filtration Rate Number of S.S. S.S. Removal
(gpm/sq ft) Samples (mg/1) (mg/1) (%)
8 3 442 36 92.0
2 362 48 86.7
2 100 54 46.0
16 3 442 82 81.5
2 362 60 83.5
2 100 64 36.0
Figure 13 shows the effect of filtration rate upon the removal of
suspended solids, including the effect of polyelectrolyte on process
efficiency. Without chemicals, tested in 1970, suspended solids re-
movals ranged from 40 percent (average of 22 grab samples in 2 filter
runs) at a filtration rate of 40 gpm/sq ft, to 77 percent (average of 8 grab
77
-------
No. 40 ME
No. 3 ANT
No. 612 St
100
90
S 80
< 70
O
2
£ 60
S 50
O
<" 40
Q
UJ
g 30
UJ
CL
S§ 20
1 0
0
SH SCREEN 4 WITH POLYELECTROLYTE
• WITHOUT POLYELECTROLYTE
POINTS ARE AVERAGE VALUE
OF 4 TO 20 GRAB SAMPLES
-*-
^i
J—
^^
T>.
1-1971 TEST
V>>s^
^
1970 TES
^^ w
-X
»
0
10
20
30
40
FLUX RATE (gpm/sq.ft.)
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
50
FIGURE 13
78
-------
samples in one filtration) at a filtration rate of 10 gpm/sq ft with an
influent suspended solids concentration range of 160 to 190 mg/1. With
the addition of an appropriate polyelectrolyte (1 mg/1) tested in 1971,
suspended solids removal efficiencies significantly improved, ranging from
91.6 percent (average of 6 grab samples) at a filtration rate of 24 gpm/
sq ft to 97.7 percent (average of 6 grab samples) at a filtration rate of
8 gpm/sq ft at an average influent suspended solids concentration of
250 to 400 mg/1. With polyelectrolyte addition, process efficiency is
substantially the same at 24 gpm/sq ft as it is at 8 gpm/sq ft although,
as indicated in the previous chapter, head loss build-up is significantly
greater at 24 gpm/sq ft.
Settleable solids removals by the screening-filtration process are
indicated on Table 20. For all filtration rates tested, settleable solids
removal generally falls within the range of 80-90 percent. Without
polyelectrolyte addition, for filtration rates of 16 gpm/sq ft at an average
influent level of 5.8 ml/1, removals are in excess of 94 percent. With
the addition of polyelectrolyte and an average influent level of 8.8 ml/1,
system removals of settleable solids are in excess of 98 percent for
filtration rates of 24 gpm/sq ft. Probably the most significant fact from
this table is that settleable solids removals are substantially increased
at 24 gpm/sq ft with the addition of polyelectrolyte. The proposed system,
with polyelectrolyte addition, essentially removes all of the settleable
material.
Table 20
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS REMOVALS
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft)
Number
of
Samples
Average
Influent
(ml/1)
Average
Effluent
(ml/1)
Removal
Plain (1970)
10
16
24
32
40
12
13
8
5
8
With Polyelectrolyte (1971)
8 6
16 6
24 6
5.1
5.8
5.8
3.2
5.1
5,8
4.8
8.8
.07
.35
.67
.51
.4
.1
.1
.13
98.5
94.1
88.5
85.0
90.5
98.3
97.9
98.6
79
-------
Removal efficiencies for BOD are presented in Table 21. This
table shows a wide range of BOD removals for process performance at
various filtration rates. Without polyelectrolyte addition at filtration
rates of 24 and 16 gpm/sq ft, BOD removals ranged from 39. 5 to 53.2
percent at an influent concentration of 72 mg/1. With the addition of
polyelectrolyte, improvement in BOD removals are evidenced, 65.9 to
78.7 percent at rates of 24 and 8 gpm/sq ft for an influent concentration
of 74.4 mg/1.
Table 21
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVALS
Removal
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq ft)
Number
of
Samples
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
Plain (1970)
10
16
24
32
40
13
14
8
6
8
With Polyelectrolyte (1971)
8 6
16 6
24 6
90.0
72.0
72.0
67.8
90.0
74.4
74.4
74.4
49.0
40.0
49.0
52.0
49.0
27.0
27.5
31.3
43.8
53.2
39.5
23.4
49.8
78.7
63.5
65.9
As can be seen from Table 22, COD removals also exhibit a
wide range of values, with high removals for the mode of operation using
polyelectrolyte addition. The range of both BOD and COD removals
obtained from the pilot tests showed that this process could not be ex-
pected to reduce the dissolved organic contaminants in combined sewer
overflows. Furthermore, due to the industrial component in the waste-
water flow to the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, BOD and COD
removals are probably related as much to the nature of the flow on
that particular day as they are to the efficiency of suspended solids
removals.
80
-------
Table 22
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
COD REMOVALS
Filtration
Rate
(gpm/sq.ft.)
Plain (19 70)
10
16
24
32
40
Number
of
Samples
13
5
6
6
4
With Polyelectrolyte
(1971)
8 6
16 6
24 6
Average
Influent
(mg/1)
188.0
303.3
483.0
213.0
188.0
208.9
201.4
206.7
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
44.0
136.0
228.0
49.0
83.0
44.5
73.5
70.5
Removal
72.5
58.8
59.6
77.0
56.5
78.7
63.5
65.9
As indicated in the previous section, total phosphate removals by
the screening-filtration process, with polyelectrolyte addition, are in
the order of 30 to 80 percent. The amount of phosphate removal is
related to that percentage of total phosphate which is in the suspended
form, and amenable to removal by filtration.
Fecal coliform removals, as shown in Table B-l, in Appendix B,
exhibit a wide range of values. Removals generally lie in a span be-
tween 14,6 to 87.6 percent with an influent range of 4.3 to 20.7 x 106/
100 ml. reduced to 2.1 to 4.8 x 106/100 ml. in the effluent. This is
insignificant for disinfection purposes. A further disinfection process
should be added in conjunction with the screening-filtration system.
Fecal coliform data presented on this table is based on 1970 test work,
which was prior to the system optimization through polyelectrolyte.
addition.
Figures 14 and 15 show effluent suspended solids and effluent
BOD levels for various test runs, relating effluent quality levels to
filtration rate.
81
-------
No. 40 MESH SCREEN
No. 3 ANTH
No. 612 SAND
200
80
^ 160
o>
140
cr
120
100
* WITH POLYELECTROLYTE
• WITHOUT POLYELECTROLYTE
POINTS ARE AVERAGE VALUE
OF 4 TO 20 GRAB SAMPLES
20 30 40
FLUX RATE (gpm/sq.ft.)
50
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS QUALITY
FIGURE 14
82
-------
No. 40 MESH SCREEN
No. 3 ANTH
No. 612 SAND
WITH POLYELECTROLYTE
WITHOUT POLYELECTROLYTE
POINTS ARE AVERAGE VALUE
OF 4 TO 20 GRAB SAMPLES
o
t-
a:
UJ
o
z
o
o
LJ
ID
_l
U-
U.
UJ
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
1970 TEST
1971 TES
10 20 30 40
FLUX RATE (gpm/sq. ft.)
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
EFFLUENT BOD QUALITY
50
FIGURE 15
83
-------
The recommended system is a drum screen (No. 40 mesh screen
element) followed by a deep bed, dual media filter (five feet of No. 3
anthracite over three feet of No. 612 sand). Polyelectrolyte feed is an
essential and critical part of the system to achieve optimum treatment
efficiencies. Data utilizing coagulants ahead of filtration (contained in
the previous chapter) showed inconsistency in treatment efficiencies and
at the present stage of development, polyelectrolyte feed alone appears
optimum.
To summarize, the propos.ed system, with addition of appropriate
polyelectrolyte, achieved the following treatment performance:
Filtration Rate Average Removals (%)
(gpm/sq ft ) Suspended Solids BOD Phosphorus
8 96 43 66
16 95 40 57
24 93 40 46
The average influent suspended solids concentration ranged 50 to
500 mg/1 and the average influent BOD concentration ranged from 30 to
300 mg/1. Effluent levels at 24 gpm/sq ft with polyelectrolyte addition
were 15 mg/1 suspended solids and 22 mg/1 BOD, respectively.
84
-------
SECTION X
DEFINITION OF HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATIONS
General Considerations
The solution to a community or a municipality's problem of
pollution caused by combined sewer overflows will probably be
resolved, in most cases, through a combination of approaches. The
first would be maximization and utilization of the storage capacity of
the sewer system, and its proper regulation, to minimize overflow
frequencies and volume. Another alternative would be to construct
storage facilities which could detain the high volume, short duration
discharges of combined sewer overflows, and retur-n them to a municipal
sewage treatment facility or to a specially designed combined sewer
overflow facility. A third possibility would be to pass the combined
sewer overflow directly through a high rate treatment process such as
the system under study in this research project. These alternatives or
potential solutions could be incorporated and utilized together to form
a composite combined sewer overflow pollution control program. Sewer
separation is not considered, in general, to be a realistic alternative
approach (15).
The test results and the mode of test operation are indicative
of treatment efficiencies and effluent levels that could be achieved by
passing combined sewer overflow discharges directly through the
proposed treatment system. Thus, the nature of the flow to a proposed
screening-filtration treatment process would be one of a variable
nature. Depending upon the overflow hydrograph that would result from
particular combined sewer overflows, the flow to the plant could change
slightly or change very drastically. This, of course, would be related
to the type of downpour experienced and also to the extent of the
drainage area served by the combined sewer overflow facilities. For
example, in small areas, the combined sewer overflow hydrograph would
peak very sharply after initial rainfall. For larger systems, that is
serving extensive areas, the hydrograph would probably be flatter and
peak at a slower rate. Under these conditions, it would be more
realistic to consider a high rate treatment process to handle combined
sewer overflows. In other words, the proposed process is more
applicable to areas where sewer lag times and other factors tend to
flatten out the combined sewer overflow hydrograph such that the
treatment facility would not be subject to an immediate hydraulic shock
load.
85
-------
Due to the nature of combined sewer overflow, that is, a
short duration, high flow volume discharge, it appears likely that, in
many cases, storage will be incorporated into the overall system or
scheme to control pollution from combined sewer overflows. The
economics, desirability, and merits of storage preceeding high rate
filtration would have to be specifically and individually evaluated for
each particular case. For example, if a large storage facility was
provided ahead of the filtration plant, it would probably be possible
to utilize a smaller filtration plant to accommodate the combined sewer
overflow discharge over a longer period of time. If storage facilities
are provided, consideration must be given to returning the greatest
portion of the detained combined sewer overflow to the municipal
treatment plant, after the combined sewer overflow has terminated.
In regard to treatment efficiencies, it is not envisioned that a
substantial improvement in process performance could be achieved if
storage was provided ahead of a filtration facility. As regards overall
system costs, trade-off values between straight line treatment through a
high rate filtration facility versus storage and treatment of the combined
sewer overflow through a smaller filtration plant cannot be effectively
evaluated in a general case due to the variable nature of storage costs.
Straight Line Treatment of Combined Sewage Storm Overflows
In developing conceptual design and cost data for the high rate
filtration process to treat combined sewer overflow, a straight line
treatment system has been assumed. That is, the combined sewer
overflow would be directed to the filtration plant, without any inter-
mediate storage step. No marked improvement in treatment efficiencies
can be achieved by storage ahead of the filtration process and, in
addition, this process seems most suitable for metropolitan communities,
where space and costs limitations would preclude significant storage
facilities. The filtration facility would be sized to treat a certain peak
volume of combined sewer overflow, which would, in turn, be determined
from a study of combined sewer overflow hydrographs from a defined
drainage area. In other words, all overflows in volume equal to or less
than the design capacity of the filtration plant would be handled directly.
Selection of this design hydrograph for sizing the filtration facility would
require an evaluation of water quality levels desired, the probability of
overflows occurring in excess of the treatment capacity at the filtration
plant, and the general degree of water quality control required.
One possible way to accommodate instantaneous combined sewer
overflow peaks in excess of the capacity of the treatment facilities would
86
-------
be to provide storage for this high flow, short duration excess. In
terms of total combined sewer overflow volume, the bulk of the
combined sewer overflow would pass directly through the high rate
treatment process, that is, the filtration plant, and a small portion of
the total volume, as a percent, would be collected in smaller storage
facilities. After the termination of the combined sewer overflow, the
water collected in the storage facilities could be returned to the
municipal sewage treatment plant, or directed to the high rate filtration
facilities. Of course, selection of plant capacity to treat combined
sewer overflows at a particular location, in essence, depends on a
selection of a "design" combined sewer overflow hydrograph based on
cost-water quality benefit analyses. Also, the decision to provide
storage for instantaneous flow volumes in excess of plant capacity is
one which would be determined after a cost-water quality benefit
analysis.
Process Sequence
Based on the results of the testing program, a conceptual
schematic of the proposed high rate filtration system for the treatment
of combined sewer overflows is presented in Figure 16. Combined
sewer overflows would be conveyed from an automated overflow
chamber, or chambers (in case the centralized filtration system is for
many overflow points), to a low lift pump station. Before entering
the pumping station, the combined sewer overflow would pass through
a bar rack (screen) for removal of coarse materials which might cause
problems in the operation, maintenance or wear of the low lift pumps.
In certain locations, where consistent with local topography and sewer
invert, a low lift pumping facility may not be required.
The combined sewer overflow from the low lift pump station
would enter a treatment building and be delivered to drum type screening
units. The wastewater would be introduced into the center of the drum
type screen and would pass through the screening mesh into the influent
channel to the filters. As indicated previously, a gravity type design,
that is, open filtration units, are proposed. The water would be
introduced at the top of the filter and flow downward through the filter
bed. The plant effluent could be discharged by gravity to the respective
receiving water body.
Filtered wastewater would serve as a source of water for back-
washing filters after the overflow has attenuated to a sufficient degree.
The filteration building would be provided with low pressure air blowers
as a source of backwash air. Backwash pumps would be located in the
filtration facilities to deliver water to the filters for backwashing. The
87
-------
COAGULANT- POLYELECTROLYTE SYSTEM5
HYPOCHLORITE. SYSTEM
CO
00
1NFI.UEWY =O
c
33
m
-*(- DISINFECTION AT PLANT
OR IN OTHER RACK ITY
TO
sc.WA.ag.
TRE.ATMLNT
PLANT
BLOWERS
BACKWASH PUMPS
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
treatment building would also include a control area, office space, a
polyelectrolyte feeding set-up, and a system for adding hydrochlorite
to filter backwash water for the prevention of slime growth on the filter
media. The operation of the high rate filtration facility would be
completely automated, and could be left unattended, except for routine
maintenance and periodic delivery of chemicals. In full size treatment
systems, chlorine feed for disinfection could be incorporated into the
filtration facilities.
Dirty backwash effluent from the filtration facilities and
screenings would be directed into the interceptor running to the sanitary
sewage treatment facility. The concentrated solids from the drum
screening units would be passed first through a grinder, and then
through a trash basket or classification device to insure that very
coarse, settleable material is not returned to the sewer system. Sludge
handling facilities should not be located at the filtration site, as this
would prove very costly. Centralization of material handling facilities
has always proved most economical; as an example, the Southerly
Wastewater Treatment receives sludges from another plant in Cleveland.
Under most conditions of treating combined sewer overflow, it
would be possible to backwash the filters after the storm is over. For
situations where a continuous overflow lasts for many hours, two back-
wash handling possibilities appear feasible: first, since the filtration
facilities are located above grade, it is probable that the backwash
from the filtration plant could be discharged downstream of the combined
sewer overflow point. This could be accomplished by utilizing the
available static head (water level) in the filtration plant, even though
this portion of the combined sewer would probably be flowing full.
Another more remote possibility would be to return the filter backwash
effluent to the combined sewer upstream of the overflow point. Under
this alternate, a certain percentage of backwash solids would be
transported to the sewage treatment facility and the remainder to the
filtration plant. The rationale behind this second alternate is that
when backwash is required, it would probably be in the latter stages of
a storm when the flow volumes and solids levels entering the filter
plant would be reduced. Therefore, the filter plant could probably
accept the additional solids material and flow without any major
problem.
To insure smooth operations even in areas with rather mild sewer
slopes, the material from the screening unit, as shown in Figure 16 is
passed through a grinder to minimize solids size, before being discharged
with the filter backwash into the combined sewer. Since the proposed
89
-------
screening filtration system would normally be preceeded by a low lift
pumping facility equipped with a traveling screen (rack), coarser
materials, which could possibly cause sedimentation problems in
combined sewers having flat or mild slopes, would be probably removed
at the screening unit. The nature of the material discharged from the
proposed filtration system in the filter backwash would not cause any
serious problems of deposition in the combined sewer systems. Also,
the intermittent flushing nature of the backwash flow would tend to
disturb any accumulated solids in these sewers.
Mode of Operation
The flow to the filtration facility for treating combined sewer
overflows would be of a variable nature. It would gradually build up,
then reach a hydraulic peak, and then recede gradually. Two possible
methods of operation appear feasible. One method of operation, as is
proposed for a flotation system in the treatment of combined sewer
overflows (22), would be to operate the filtration units in sequence,
based on design flow rate. If a filtration plant had 8 filters designed
to accomodate 100 MGD, or a design rate of 12.5 MGD per filter, they
would be operated, in turn, as the flow built up. For example, if an
overflow was 12.5 MGD, only one filter would be operating, and as the
flow built up higher, additional filters would be turned on after the
design rate of the filters in operation was exceeded. The operating unit
would remain on line and function at decreasing filtration rates as the
filter bed became gradually clogged until filter head loss reached a pre-
set value. The filter would then be ready for backwas-hing. Filtration rate
declining from a maximum value to lesser values does not appear to be
cause for any concern, as this practice is utilized in many water
treatment plants (23), where filters are initially run at high rates, and
then as the head loss builds up within the filter, the rate is decreased
and less water is filtered. Actually, it has been reported that this mode
of operation, commonly referred to as "declining rate filtration" in the
potable water treatment field, results in a better quality effluent than
operating at a constant rate for the duration of the filter run.
An alternate method of filtration would be to equally divide
whatever flow enters the filtration facility among the various filter
units. This is the flow control system that has been successfully
utilized in a gravity industrial wastewater treatment plant in the
Midwest (10). In effect, at the beginning of the combined sewer
overflow, each filter unit would probably be operating below design
rate, and as the storm progressed the filtration rate on each unit would
build and approach the design loading, depending on the volume of the
90
-------
combined sewer overflow. After the hydraulic peak, the filtration rate
on each filter unit would decrease as the storm overflow subsided. This
second mode of operation would be accomplished by flow indicators
and controllers on the effluent end of each filter unit. Essentially, each
filter unit flow indicator sends a signal to a central controller, which
sums up all flow signals from all filters, divides the flow signal by the
number of units, and returns a signal to each individual filter controller,
assigning each individual unit its respective percentage of the flow.
In regard to the second mode of operation, some legitimate
questions may be raised as to whether solids removed at low filtration
rates during the early stages of the combined sewer overflow will be
sheared off and would show up in the effluent from the filter during
operation of the filter at peak flow rates and filtration rates.
The overall percent reductions of suspended solids experienced
during a combined sewer overflow in a full size facility would be greater
than evidenced from the constant-flow test work (see Figure 8) due
to the effect of reduced filtration rates as the storm flow subides. If
it is workable, the second mode of operation might provide a greater
overall percent reduction of contaminants by maintaining minimum
filtration rate for the entire combined sewer overflow. The optimum
method of operation can only be conclusively verified through actual
operation in a demonstration plant or full sized facility.
It must be mentioned, however, that after the hydraulic peak of
the overflow occurs (design for peak at 24 gpm/sq ft), the flow to the
filtration facility would decline. When evaluating and translating test
data into design parameters, it must be remembered that the filtration
rate of a plant would decline after the hydraulic peak of the sewer over-
flow was reached, and as such, constant flow test work parameters
cannot be directly applied to engineering designs, without considering
the nature of the process operation, that is, filtering at varying rates
throughout the duration of the sewer overflow.
For filter backwashing, two types of process control should be
considered: the first parameter would be total head loss through filter
bed and the second would be effluent suspended solids concentration.
For measuring the filter head loss, each filter would be equipped
with a differential pressure transmitter to continuously sense the loss
of head across the filter and transmit a pneumatic signal linearly
proportionate to this head loss to a central control panel. When the
filter head loss would reach a preset value, the differential pressure
switch associated with the filter would be actuated. A contact in this
91
-------
switch would open in a stepping switch circuit and the filter would start
to backwash.
An alternate filter backwash control could be achieved with an
effluent suspended solids monitor. A continuous reading, light scatter
type suspended solids meter would be installed in each filter effluent
pipe to continuously measure the suspended solids concentration and
transmit the reading to a recorder at a central control panel. When
the filter breakthrough would suddenly take place and the suspended
solids concentration indicator would reach a preset level, then a micro
switch would be activated and an alarm would be initiated. The
operator would check the filter performance condition and start to
backwash the filter.
Solids Handling Aspects
As indicated previously, the backwash from the filtration plant
and the material removed by the 40 mesh screening units should be
delivered to the sanitary sewerage system for subsequent treatment.
Insofar as the high rate filtration installation would be designed as a
highly automated, unattended facility, the solids or sludge from this
proposed wastewater treatment system should be handled at another
location, specifically the nearest municipal sewage treatment plant.
If, for some reason, delivering the backwash into a sewer carrying
wastewaters to a municipal wastewaters plant were not feasible, some
intermediate form of solids compaction and dewatering could be
incorporated into the proposed high rate filtration treatment system. One
possibility would be to provide settling basins for the filter backwash,
which would remove backwash solids from the backwash water. The
overflow from these basins would be directed or returned into the
filtration facility. The compacted underflow could be pumped to the
nearest combined sewer which would carry the sludge material to the
sewage treatment plant. The sludge volumes that would result from
treatment of a significant discharge are such that trucking of compacted
sludge seems to be a remote and very unlikely possibility.
Taking the solids handling process one step further, in addition
to providing backwash sedimentation and compaction basins at'the
filtration site, solids dewatering facilities could also be provided.
Assuming that this sludge material would have dewatering properties as
good as primary sewage, the sludge could be handled by vacuum filter or
centrifuge to produce a desirable dewatered cake. The dewatered cake
would have to be conveyed by truck to an appropriate incineration plant
92
-------
of the nearest sewage treatment plant for final disposal. If ultimate
disposal of solid materials removed from combined sewer overflows was
required at the treatment site, some type of incineration process could
probably be utilized. As the solids handling aspects of a proposed
combined sewer overflow treatment process becomes more involved and
complicated, so does the project cost and the effort in manpower that
is required to handle these facilities. Further study of backwash sludge
characterization, such as sludge density, biodegradability, nutrient
content, methods of dewatering and iinal disposal of the sludge should
be taken into consideration.
The proposed treatment system, equipped with backwash
sedimentation basins, could function as an automated and unattended
treatment facility, which is desirable considering the nature and
application of the proposed system. If additional solids handling and
processing facilities were to be incorporated into the proposed treatment
system, it is unlikely that the facility could be left unattended and the
overall treatment process would become much more expensive.
Conceptual Design
A full evaluation and study of a proposed treatment system requires
that conceptual engineering work be developed in order to define,
determine and evaluate integral elements of the treatment system,
and to provide a basis for developing some realistic cost figures. Also,
physical details and arrangements of any proposed treatment installation
are important in determing whether or not the "public acceptance factor"
would be favorable for such a treatment facility. Certain processes and
waste treatment systems can be housed and arranged economically so
that they can be located in many areas without public outcry for
architectural, aesthetic or environmental reasons. For example, trucking
of sludge solids from a treatment facility or exhaust gases and particulates
from a sludge incinerator might cause public opposition.
For conceptual design purposes, the low lift pumping facility and
the treatment plant have been incorporated into one site. Centralization
and integration of pumping and treatment facilities is generally
desirable, although in many cases it is not feasible. For example, land
availability, sewer invert, topography, and a number of physical factors
may make this situation uneconomical or unfeasible. In addition, a
centralized high rate filtration installation to accommodate combined
sewer overflow discharges from various overflow points may receive flows
from a number of pumping stations located at different points throughout
the combined sewer system.
93
-------
A slab on grade type construction is assumed for conceptual
design purposes. For the treatment portion of the system this is a
realistic assumption, although determining the features of a low lift
pump station is very uncertain, particularly due to an assumed sewer
invert. As shown in the following section on cost data, the
evaluation of the treatment plant is considered separately from the
pumping facility, since integrating low lift pumping costs with
treatment costs is not an accurate or efficient approach. Pumping and
wastewater conveyance costs are too variable to be considered in
terms of developing generalized cost data for a particular process or
treatment system.
In developing generalized conceptual designs, effort has been
centered on plant sizes ranging from 25 to 200 MGD design
capacity. This range covers most area of potential application
and provides a sufficient basis for evaluating the merits and cost-
efficiency factors of a high rate filtration system. As a general order
of magnitude reference, a 200 MGD filtration facility could accommo-
date the flow from a 96-inch diameter sewer.
Treatment plant features are delineated and defined on Figures
16 through 23. The facilities shown are designed for filtration
rate of 24 gpm/sq ft, with polyelectrolyte addition for optimum suspended
solids removal. These particular wastewater treatment facilities would
be capable of hydraulically accepting an additional wastewater volume of
approximately 20 percent greater than the design rate of the plant. As
in most, or normal, wastewater treatment designs, plant hydraulic
capacity is generally set somewhat higher than the plant capacity
dictated by process considerations.
As shown in Figure 16, which was discussed earlier, the major
units of the proposed treatment system includes drum screens and high
rate filters. Additional features include: backwash pumps, backwash
air blowers, which are also essential to the process operation. A
polyelectrolyte system and a hypochlorite system are also incorporated
into the treatment plant. Polyelectrolyte will provide for optimum plant
operation in regards to removal efficiencies. The hypochlorite system
is required to disinfect the backwash water so that slime growths do not
occur in the filter media. This system could also be utilized, if
properly sized, to provide chlorine for disinfection of the combined sewer
overflow. Low lift pumping facilities and a bar screen for pump
protection are also shown on this drawing. Depending on the nature and
application in each particular area, the bar screen and low lift pumps
might be located at a site far removed from the plant.
94
-------
Figures 17 and 18 show general arrangements for filtra-
tion plants designed to accommodate 25 and 50 MGD of combined sewer
overflow. The same basic arrangement or module is used in developing
both of these plants. For example, the major difference between the
50 MGD plant and the 25 MGD plant is that additional filters and drum
screens are added, while the basic arrangement and features of the
facilities remain the same. This basic treatment arrangement or module
can be developed up to a capacity of 100 MGD, as shown on both of
these drawings. The ultimate development of this treatment module
would include 16 filter units, each filter being 12 feet by 16 feet.
As shown in Figure 19, the facility consists of three basic
areas. Starting from left to right on the drawing, the first portion of the
proposed facility can be described as a pumping station, housing low
lift pumping units and a bar rack (screen), to lift combined sewer
overflows into the treatment plant. The second area, or head end of
the treatment plant, houses the drum screen units, which treat the flow
prior to entering the filters. These two areas are normally referred to
as the control building portion of the high rate filtration installation.
The third section of this facility contains the high rate filtration units,
which are the major treatment elements.
As indicated in these figures, the facility arrangements and
equipment layouts cannot be described as skimpy, and are the type of
arrangements that would be required in many large municipal plants.
Referring to these figures, the first level in the control building portion
of the treatment facility includes the variable speed low lift pumping
installation, the bar rack (screen), the chlorine and polyelectrolyte feed
equipment, and the backwash pumps, which extract their source of
water from the plant effluent. The upper level of the plant includes the
drum screening units, electrical and control areas, and space allocations
for office, service areas, etc.
Briefly, the flow sequence begins with the combined sewage storm
overflow being conveyed by gravity to the treatment facility. It first
passes through a bar rack (screen) for removal of coarser materials which
might impede pump operation. The combined sewage storm overflow is
then directed by the low lift pumps up to a central distribution channel,
whence the water is fed by gravity to the rotating drum screening units.
The water enters the center of the screens and flows outward through the
circumference. Solids are retained on the screen surface and as the
retained solids reach the top or highest point on the screening
circumference, they are removed by high pressure water sprays. The
screened effluent than flows by gravity into a central filter influent flume.
The water is distributed into each of the high rate filters, and subsequently
after filtration, is discharged by gravity to an effluent sewer.
95
-------
PUMP
TREATMENT
ID
05
POUYELECTROLVTE
TANKS
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW |
DIVERSION SEWER
FUTURE ULTIMATE EXPANSION
TO IS FILTERS
(IOO MGO CAPACITY)
PLAN
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION - 25 MGD CAPACITY
-------
PUMP
TREATMENT
to
o
c
3)
m
oo
®
-SPACE ALLOCATED FOR ELECTRICAL ROOM.
CONTROL ROOM. OFFICE. AND SERVICE AREA
PLAN AT UPPER FLOOR EL. 25'±
BUILDING AREA FOR IOO MGD •
.J
PLAN
FUTURE ULTIMATE
EXPANSION
TO 16 FILTERS
(100 MSP CAPACITY)
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION - 50 MGD CAPACITY
-------
PUMP
TREATMENT.
CD
CO
EL.42'±
DRUM SCREEN
ROOF HATCH
o
c
33
m
CO
PLANT BY-PASS SEWER
BACKWASH PUMPS
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW
DIVERSION SEWER
ELEVATION
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION — 50 MGD CAPACITY
-------
Figure 20 shows a general arrangement for a 100 MGD high rate
filtration installation. The basic filter size for this treatment system
is 18 feet by 20 feet. As indicated on this drawing, the plant could be
expanded to a capacity of 200 MGD, with a total of 16 filters. A
longitudinal section through the 100 MGD high rate filtration facility
is shown in Figure 21. Basic arrangements and area functions are
similar to the two previously discussed plants (25 and 50 MGD). This
particular treatment plant would be equipped with four drum screens,
each 11 foot 6 inches in diameter by 7 feet long. There are eight
filter units, with provision for expansion to 16, if this was desired in a
future stage. As in the other filtration plant arrangements, a truck
driveway is provided across the bottom floor of the plant to provide
easy access for vehicles and chemical delivers.
Figure 22 shows a typical cross section of the filtration portion
of the treatment plant with the filtration units arranged symetrically
about the center line of the filter bay. Water is fed through the filter
influent flume then into each individual filter gullet and subsequently
into the filter media bed. The filtered water flows downward through
the media and filter bottom and out the filter effluent pipe, dropping
into the plant effluent flume. The filter arrangement as shown, is some-
what similar to a gravity filtration arrangement common to many potable
water treatment plant, except that the depth of the media is much greater.
The effluent flume is extended under the entire width of the filter bay
to provide for sufficient backwash water storage. The treated effluent
then flows by gravity to the appropriate water body.
Two access areas are provided, one along the top of the filter
and one between the filter pipework, near the bottom of the filter,
which offers an access corridor for servicing and maintaining the
automatic valves and flow tubes that are in integral part of each filter
unit. Roof hatches are provided at the top of the filter enclosure,
appropriately located in the center of each filter unit. Removable back-
wash troughs permit media changing via an overhead crane, with access
through roof hatches. All the valves integral to the filtration operation
would be automated so that a full time operator would not be required.
As indicated previously, the gravity design has a number of
advantages and optimal features. Perhaps two of the most important
are: first, that an open type filter unit provides an access for gas
release through the media bed, a possible problem due to materials
of domestic or industrial origin in the combined sewer overflow; and
secondly, with the gravity type arrangement, an individual filter
unit can be easily isolated from the remainder of the filters, without
impeding filtration operation or requireing a temporary plant shutdown for
maintenance.
99
-------
PUMP
TREATMENT
O
O
2)
CD
c.
30
m
ro
o
FUTURE ULTIMATE
EXPANSION
TO \
-------
PUMP
DRUM SCRE.ENS
EL.42'±
1_
EL.25'i -j
EL. 13 l
SAR^RACK.
PLANT BY-PASS
SEWER ~QT
^COMBINED SEWER
T| OVERFLOW
— DIVERSION SE.WER
m
ro
HATCH
. ^FILTER INFLJUENT FLUME.
No. I ' , No.3 ;! No.5 :' N..7
HW|L<-i4'» •
FILTER EFFLUENT BASIN
LWL EL.-IOS
_£'
EL. 3! t
rWL. 2O
-GR E.L.Ot
LOW LIFT
PUMP
••PLANT EFFLUENT SEWER
L BACKWASH PUMPS
ELEVATION
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION — 100 MGD CAPACITY
-------
3)
o
c
33
m
no
ro
EL.22.O
GR.E.L.O'
ROOF HATCH
e.L.<->n't
OPERATING
r- WATER LEVE.L
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION - TYPICAL FILTER SECTION
-------
Figure 23 is a rendering of a typical high rate filtration
installation. This particular plant would have a treatment capacity of
100 MGD, and is the ultimate development of the 25 MGD treatment facility
The proposed facilities can be enclosed so that the nature and functioning
of the equipment inside the facility would not be readily apparent. With
this proposed arrangement, plants utilizing the high rate filtration process
in facilities of similar design to the one shown in Figure 23 could be
easily adapted and located in varying parts of a municipality, without
interfering with the architectural or aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.
Perhaps the most significant advantage of high rate filtration of combined
sewer overflows, in addition to its good removal of a suspended
material and other contaminants, is the limited space required for a facility
with such a large treatment capacity. The area requirements for high rate
filtration plants treating combined sewer overflows are shown as follows:
Area Requirements
Plant Capacity Desiqn @ 24 gpm/sq ft
(MGD) ( sq ft )
25 3,000
50 4,600
100 9,300
200 16,500
The area requirements of a high rate filtration treatment system
would approximate 20 percent or less, of the spare requirements
for an alternate flotation treatment system (design at 3 gpm/sq ft
surface loading) (22).
103
-------
OJ
HIGH RATE FILTRATION INSTALLATION - RENDERING
-------
SECTION XI
COST ESTIMATES
Cost of High Rate Filtration
In developing unit cost estimates for a particular wastewater
treatment process, it is necessary to make a number of assumptions
defining a treatment plant which would be typical for many conditions.
This has been accomplished in the preceeding section. Depending on
the location, cost data developed for a particular treatment plant could
be either high or low. This approach provides general order of
magnitude information which can be utilized to determine what systems
deserve consideration as potential treatment processes to solve the
problem of combined sewer overflows.
As noted in the preceeding section, general designs were
developed for a treatment facility to accommodate combined sewer
overflows,including the integration of a low lift pump station with the
treatment essentials. In arriving at representative cost data that can
be compared with other potential solutions for the treatment of
combined sewer overflows, the cost of the influent pumping station has
been seperated from the total cost of the facility, so that the costs will
represent costs of the treatment facilities. Wastewater collection and
conveyance costs, either to or from the treatment facilities, would
probably be extremely variable from one installation to another and
would apply to most processes considered. The treatment plant costs
presented in the summary curves contained in this section can be
compared with alternate processes or engineering schemes, with
associated cost-benefit relationships, for the control of pollution from
combined sewage storm overflows.
Cost estimates for filtration facilities for treating combined
sewage storm overflows are presented for 25 to 200 MGD
capacity plants. This range covers most areas of potential application.
The engineering conceptual design shown in the previous section was
based on a filtration facility utilizing a design rate of 24 gpm/sq ft,
including polyelectrolyte addition . Total construction costs
of a filtration facility for treating combined sewage storm over-
flows are presented in Figure 24. Capital costs data for the
filtration plant includes: the cost of equipment, installation
and construction costs, and a 12 percent allowance for contingencies,
plus a 10 percent allowance for engineering and administration of the
proposed construction. Detailed cost breakdowns, estimated for
25 to 200 MGD plant, including cost data for low lift pump station are
105
-------
5.0
O
O
h-
O_
<
O
4.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
0
\
\
\
\
\
/
X
\
NOTES
CAPITAL
COST— %
\
-
^
/
\/
s
-UNIT
COST
(.FILTER DESIGN RATE! 24gpm/sqft
2. COSTS INCLUDE DRUM SCREEN
AND FILTRATION PLANT
EQUIPME
.NT AND STR
UCTURE.
\j\s
4O
~\J
30
Of~i
C\J
10
0
D 50 100 150 200
DESIGN CAPACITY (MGD)
o
o
o
Iff
H
co
o
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST Vs DESIGN CAPACITY
FIGURE 24
106
-------
presented in Tables 23 through 26.
Estimated total construction costs (Figure 24) of a filtration
plant for treating combined sewer overflows range from $830,000
for the 25 MGD capacity to $3,754,000 for 200 MGD capacity at
design rate of 24 gpm/sq ft.
Figure 25 presents total annual costs for a high rate filtration
plant. These costs are based on 300 hours of facility operation per
year. Other criteria used in developing the annual cost are:
a. Interest at six percent for 25 years.
b. Maintenance at three percent of mechanical equipment
cost and at two percent of electrical and instrumentation
cost.
c. Labor at $15,000 per man year, including overhead and
benefits.
d. Chemical application of polyelectrolyte to filter influent at
1.0 mg/L and application of 15 mg/1 chlorine to filter
backwash.
e. Electricity at $.03 per Kw - Hr.
Estimated annual cost data ranges from $97, 270 per year for a
25 MGD capacity plant to $388,210 per year for a 200 MGD capacity plant.
Annual treatment costs utilizing the high rate filtration process are due
primarily to interest and amortization charges, and are less affected by
the volume of combined sewer overflow to be treated annually. Estimated
detailed cost breakdowns for annual operating and maintenance are
presented in Tables 27 through 30.
The most significant costs associated with the high rate filtration
facility are reflected in interest and amortization payments, as the
operating costs are minimal due to the automated operation of the
facility and the relatively small number of hours of operation per year.
As is evidenced from the previous section, the filtration plant design
and the associated housing of process units, is one that would be
suitable for a cold climate. In warmer areas, and in location where
local engineering practices permit a more compressed equipment
management, the enclosure could be taken off the filtration facility
and much of the related process equipment. It may also be possible to
107
-------
Table 23
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS*
FOR 25 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/sq ft
I. PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill $ 3,800 $ 3,800
Reinforced Concrete 38,500 38,500
Building 50,000 50,000
Bar Screen 20,000 20,000
Pump 80,000 80,000
Piping 5,000 5,000
Heating and Ventilating 10,000 10,000
Electrical 40,000 40,000
Plumbing,Lighting,Interior &etc 20,000 20,000
Sub-total $ 267,300 $ 267,300
Construction Contingency 32,000 32, OOP
Sub-total Construction Cost $ 299,300 $ 299,300
Engineering and Administration 30,000 30,000
Project Sub-total,
Conveyance Portion $ 329,300 $ 329,300
108
-------
Table 23 (continued)
II. TREATMENT PLANT
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Drum Screen
Filter Media & Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing , Lighting , Interior & etc .
Sub-total $
Construction Contingency (12%)
Sub-total Construction Costs $
Engineering & Administration (10%)
Project Sub-total
Treatment Portion $
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,
8,000
142,000
81,000
70,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
110,000
20,000
30,000
15,000
50,000
52,000
40,000
678,000
81,000
759,000
71,000
830,000
159,300
$ 11,000
202,000
92,000
70,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
160,000
20,000
30,000
15,000
50,000
70,000
45,000
$ 835,000
100,200
$ 935,200
93,500
$1,028,700
$1,358,000
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1470
109
-------
Table 24
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS*
FOR 50 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/sq ft
I. PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill $ 3,800 $ 3,800
Reinforced Concrete 38,500 38,500
Building 50,000 50,000
Bar Screen 20,000 20,000
Pump 140,000 140,000
Piping 10,000 10,000
Heating and Ventilating 12,000 12,000
Electrical 60,000 60,000
Plumbing,Lighting,Interior & etc. 25,000 25,000
Sub-total $ 359,300 $ 359,300
Construction Contingency 43, 100 43, 100
Sub-total Construction Cost $ 402,400 $ 402,400
Engineering and Administration 40,200 40,200
Project Sub-total,
Conveyance Portion $ 442,600 $ 442,600
110
-------
Table 24 (continued)
. TREATMENT PLANT
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Drum Screen
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior & etc.
Sub-total $ 1
Construction Contingercy(12%)
Sub-total Construction Costs $1
'Engineering & Administration (10%)
Project Sub-total,
Treatment Portion $1
. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1
11,000
252,000
102,000
140,000
40,000
20,000
20,000
212,000
20,000
30,000
18,000
60,000
90,000
50,000
,065,000
128,000
,193,000
119,300
,312,300
,754,900
$ 14,000
367,000
122,000
140,000
60,000
20,000
20,000
314,000
20,000
30,000
18,000
60,000
120,000
55,000
$1,360,000
163,200
$1,523,200
152,300
$1,675,500
$2,118,100
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index- 1470
ill
-------
Table 25
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS*
FOR 100 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/sq ft
I. PUMP STATION
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Bar Screen
Pump
Piping
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Plumbing , Lighting , Interior & etc .
Sub-total $
Construction Contingency
Sub-total Construction Cost $
Engineering & Administration
5,300
75,000
112,000
40,000
255,000
15,000
20,000
150,000
30,000
702,300
84,300
786,600
78,700
$ 5,300
75,000
112,000
40,000
255,000
15,000
20,000
150,000
30,000
$ 702,300
84,300
$ 786,600
78,700
Project Sub-total,
Conveyance Portion $ 865,300 $ 865,300
112
-------
Table 25 (continued)
TREATMENT PLANT (continued)
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Drum Screen
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Chlorinaticn Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing , Lighting , Interior & etc .
Sub-total $1,
Construction Contingency(12%)
Sub-total Construction Cost's $2,
-Engineering & AdministrationQ-0%)
Project Sub-total,
Treatment Portion $2 ,
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $3,
20,000
470,000
210,000
280,000
80,000
36,000
36,000
416,000
30,000
45,000
30,000
90,000
95,000
70,000
908,000
229,000
137,000
214,000
351,000
216,300
$ '20,600
715,000
250,000
280,000
120,000
36,000
36,000
620,000
30,000
45,000 '
30,000
90,000
130,000
80,000
$2,488,000
298,600
$2,786,600
278,700
$3,065,300
$3,930,600
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1470
113
-------
Table 26
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS*
FOR 200 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/sq fL
I. PUMPING STATION
Excavation and Backfill
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Bar Screen
Pump
Piping
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Plumbing, Lighting , Interior &
Sub-total
Construction Contingency
Sub-total Construction Cost
Engineering & Administration
$ 10,700
150,000
224,000
80,000
480,000
25,000
30,000
330,000
etc. 60,000
$1,389,700
166,800
$1,556,500
155,600
$ 10,700
150,000
224,000
80,000
480,000
25,000
30,000
330,000
60,000
$1,389,700
166,800
$1,556,500
155,600
Project Sub-total,
Conveyance Portion $1,712,100 $1,712,100
114
-------
Table 26 (continued)
. TREATMENT PLANT
Excavation and Backfill $
Reinforced Concrete
Building
Drum Screen
Filter Media and Filter Bottom
Filter Backwash Pump
Air Blower
Piping
Polyelectrolyte Feed
Chlorination Equipment
Heating and Ventilating
Electrical
Instrumentation
Plumbing, Lighting, Interior & etc.
Sub-Total $3
Construction Contingercy(12%)
Sub-total Construction Costs $3
Engineering & Administration (10%)
Project sub-total,
Treatment Portion $3
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5
40,000
800,000
400,000
480,000
160,000
36,000
36,000
548,000
50,000
- 65,000
42,000
130,000
170,000
90,000
,047,000
365,600
,412,600
341,000
,753,600
,465,700
$ 52,000
1,120,000
470,000
480,000
240,000
36,000
36,000
815,000
50,000
65,000
42,000
130,000
240,000
100,000
$3,876,000
465, 100
$4,341,100
434,100
$4,775, 100
$6,487,200
* Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index = 1470
115
-------
500
400
o
o
g
•w-
cs>
O
O
J-
z
Ixl
UJ
a:
I
30O
200
100
/
/
/
/
NOTES
1. FILTRATIC
2ANINI IAI I
. MIMliUJML *
3.COST INC
MAINTAN<
ELECTRIC
/
/
IN RATE: 24
DPERATION!
LUDEiAMOR"
:E,CHEMICA
;iTY AND LA
/
gpm/sq ft
300hrs/yr -
flZATION
LS, POWER,
BOR.
50 100 150
DESIGN CAPACITY (MOD)
200
ESTIMATED ANNUAL TREATMENT COST
Vs DESIGN CAPACITY
FIGURE 25
116
-------
Table 2.7
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS*
FOR 25 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq it
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years
n. OPERATING COSTS
Labor (Includes Overhead
& Benefits)
Maintenance
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Cost)
$ 65,000
20,000
$ 5,250
Electrical & Instrumentation
(2% of Equipment Cost) $ 2,040
Piping (1% of Piping Cost) $ 1,100
Utilities
Electrical($. 03/KWH) $ 600
Chemicals
Chlorine*1l5 mg/1) $ 100
Polyelectrolyte(0,5 mg/1) 3,180
Operating Costs Sub-total $ 32,270
Total Annual Costs $ 97,270
16 gpm/sq ft
$ 80,000
$ 20,000
$ 5,250
$ 2,400
$ 1,600
$
$
600
100
3,180
$ 33,130
$ 113,130
* For Treatment Fortion Annual Cost
** For Filter Backwash
117
-------
Table 28
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS*
FOR 50 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor (Includes Overhead
& Benefits)
Maintenance
$ 102,700
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Cost) $
Electrical & Instrumertation
(i% of Equipment Cost) $
Piping(1% of Piping Cost) $
Utilities
Electrical($.02/KWH) $
Chemicals
Chlorine**( 15 mg/1) $
Polyelectrolyte(0.5mg/l)
Operating Costs Sub-total $
Total Annual Costs $
20,000
7,430
3,000
2,120
1,200
200
6,350
40,300
143,000
16 gpm/sq ft
$ 131,000
$ 20,000
$ 7,440
$ 3,600
$ 3,140
$ 1,200
$ 200
6,350
$ 11,93C
$ 172,930
* For Treatment Portion Annual Cost.
** For Filter Backwash.
118
-------
Table 29
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS*
FOR 100 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor(Includes Overhead
& Benefits)
Maintenance
$ 184,000
$ 35,000
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Cost)
$ 13,710
Electrical & Instrumentation
(2% of Equipment Cost) $
Piping(1% of Piping Cost) $
Utilities
Electrical ($.02/KWH) $
Chemicals
Chlorine **(15mg/l) $
Poly electrolyte (0.5 mg/1)
Operating Costs Sub-total
Total Annual Costs
2,400
400
12,720
$ 72,100
$ 256,100
16 gpm/sq ft
$ 239,000
35,000
$ 13,710
3,700
4,160
$
$
4,400
6,200
$ 2,400
$ 400
12,720
$ 74,830
$ 313,830
* For Treatment Portion Annual Cost
** For Filter Backwash
119
-------
Table 30
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS*
FOR 200 MGD TREATMENT PLANT
PEAK FILTRATION RATE DESIGNED
24 gpm/sq ft 16 gpm/sq ft
I. AMORTIZATION
6 percent Interest Rate for
25 years
II. OPERATING COSTS
Labor (Includes Overhead
& Benefits)
Maintenance
$ 293,500
50,000
Mechanical Equipment
(3% of Equipment Costs) $
Electrical & Instrumentdiion
(2% of Equipment Cost) $
Piping(1% of Piping Cost)
Utilities
Electrical ($.02/KWH) $
Chemicals
Chlorine**(15 mg/1) $
Polyelectrolyte(0.5mg/l)
Operating Costs Sub-total
Total Annual Costs
21,270
6,000
5,480
4,800
800
6,360
$ 94,710
$ 388,210
$ 373,400
$ 50,000
$ 21,270
$ 7,400
8,150
$ 4,800
$ 800
6,360
$ 98,780
$ 472,180
* For treatment Portion Annual Cost
** For Filter Backwash.
120
-------
compress the site requirements, especially in the building, resulting
in a reduction of both capital and operating costs in order of 10 to 20
percent.
The previous paragraphs have delineated capital and operating
costs associated with high rate filtration installations in the treatment
of combined sewer overflows. These costs do not include disposal of
waste screenings and filter backwash since the proposed system would
discharge these to the municipal sewage treatment plant.
Solids handling and disposal costs for municipal sewage
treatment facilities cover a great range, varying from $5
to $55 per ton of dry solids (24). Assuming an average
of 200 mg/1 of solids removed, and a combined sewer overflow
treatment plant operation of 300 hours per year, solids processing and
disposal costs incurred by the municipal sewage treatment plant could
range from 3 to 35 percent of the total annual charges for the combined
sewer overflow treatment facility.
Selection of High Rate Filtration Plant Capacity with Storage
The selection of the appropriate capacity for a high rate
filtration plant to treat combined sewer overflows should be based
on results of a cost effectiveness analysis. To achieve the highest
cost effectiveness system, an optimum storage capacity should be
included in defining treatment plant size. The temporary storage of
combined sewer overflows moderates the peak loadings contributed
by intense storms and avoids excessive treatment plant capacity.
However, the size of storage area depends on local conditions such as
sewer capacity (in-stream storage) and land availability (off-stream
storage). This approach allows the selection of the highest cost
effectiveness system for each particular situation.
A typical example of the estimated capital costs for various
treatment plants and storage capacities is presented in Table 31. This
example utilizes an off-stream storage tank and is based on a synthetic
outflow hydrograph for combined sewer overflow without consideration of
storage in a main sewer. The overflow hydrograph is based on a peak
flow rate of 200 MGD with a time of concentration of approximately
90 minutes and a total duration of six hours as shown in Figure 26.
121
-------
o
_l
_J
<
z
o
3
u.
Q
UJ
O
o
MASS CURVE
SLOPE = 200 MGD
0
SLOPE = 100 MGD
//-2.0 MILLION GALLONS
OUTFLOW
HYDROGRAPH
12345
TIME (HOURS)
I
23 4
TIME (HOURS)
USE OF A MASS CURVE TO DETERMINE
THE STORAGE CAPACITY REQUIRED
FOR A TYPICAL STORM OVERFLOW
122
FIGURE 26
-------
Table 31
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR VARIOUS TREATMENT
PLANT AND STORAGE CAPACITIES
Treatment
Plant
(MGD)
Storage
Tank
(MG)
Treatment Plant
Total Project Cost
($)
Storage
Tank
Cost
($)
Total
System
Cost
(S)
200 0 5,465,700 0 5,465,700
150 0.50 4,700,000 350,000 5,050,000
100 2.00 3,216,300 1,400,000 4,616,300
50 4.50 1,754,900 3,140,000 4,894,900
25 7.15 1,159,300 5,000,000 6,159,300
Figure 26 is a mass curve for a 6-hour period based on the outflow
hydrograph as shown in the lower right corner of the figure. The slope
of the mass curve at any time is a measure of the combined sewer
overflow rate at that time. Plant influent curves representing a uniform rate
of flow are straight lines having a slope equal to the treatment plant
capacity. The vertical distance between successive tangents represents
the overflow volume beyond plant capacity and indicates the required
storage. This approach is based on constant draft while the storage
tank is filling during the overflow event, and it should be utilized
in conceptual design.
As shown in Table 31, and Figure 26 the storage tank is not
needed for the treatment plant capacity having the same peak rate as the
combined sewer overflow. By increasing the storage tank capacity,
the capacity of the treatment plant can be reduced. The treatment plant
total project cost includes the plant influent pumping station and the
high rate filtration treatment plant as shown in Tables 23 through 26.
The storage tank cost is estimated at about $700 per 1000 gallons.
Storage tank costs include excavation, concrete, 10 percent for
engineering and 12 percent of construction cost for contingency, but
the cost of land is not included.
Figure 27 shows the estimated costs of storage, treatment and of
the total system. The optimum point for system design consideration is
the sag point on the total system cost curve. By considering the
reduction of pollutional loading, the highest cost effectiveness for
the 200 MGD peak combined sewer overflow rate is the 100 MGD high
rate filtration plant in conjunction with a 2 million gallon off-stream
storage tank.
123
-------
8.0
7.0
NOTES
I. TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS INCLUDE
STORAGE AND TREATMENT COSTS.
2. TREATMENT COSTS INCLUDE COST
OF INFLUENT PUMP STATION AND
HIGH RATE FILTRATION PLANT.
"3. STORAGE COST IS BASED ON
CONCRETE TANK COSTING $ 700
PER 1000 GALLONS OFSTORAGED
VOLUME.
TOTAL
SYSTEM
COSTS
STORAGE
FACILITIES
COSTS
50 100 150 200
TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY-(MGD)
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF STORAGE AND
TREATMENT FOR 200 MGD OVERFLOW
FIGURE 27
124
-------
SECTION XII
PROCESS POTENTIAL AND FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS
Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
The screening-filtration system delineated in the previous section,
with the addition of appropriate polyelectrolyte, produces suspended
solids removals in the order of 95% or better, which is a highly efficient
system. Much of the the test work under the 1971 field program was
directed at enhancing process performance in regard to phosphate remov-
al, by the addition of phosphate removing coagulants (alum, etc.) The
test results from this mode of filtration operation indicated that phos-
phate removal efficiency was less than desired, in the order of 60%
removal at 8-16 gpm/sq ft, due to the inability of the system to produce,
with consistency, a low suspended solids effluent. Under certain test
runs, using identical coagulant and polyelectrolyte dosages from pre-
viously successful test runs, poor efficiencies were reported both in
regard to phosphates and suspended solids. Visual observations of the
filter media during a test run (alum plus polyelectrolyte) revealed that
the filter media became saturated with solids (visually) a few hours
after the test run had commenced. A possible reason for the high sus-
pended solids in the effluent from a filter under this mode of test
operation is due to the nature of the floe. The floe formed (alum plus a
few hundred mg/1 of influent suspended solids) seems very fluffy,,
voluminous, and difficult to retain within the filter media. This indicates
:hat excess alum may have been converted to aluminum hydroxide.
Based on work on secondary effluent filtration (25) that is, filtering
:he effluent from an activated sludge plant, if the influent solids to the
filter could be reduced to a level in order of 50 mg/1 or less, the suspended
solids removal might improve substantially, and concurrently, the phosphate
removal. To accomplish this may require the use of a much finer screen
mesh ahead of the filter than was used throughout the testing program.
Additional pilot plant testing should be conducted to develop a
more complete system, utilizing the same unit process. By using a finer
screening mesh and a finer filter media, with a more comprehensive study
of in-line mixing and coagulation, a more efficient and economical sys-
tem could be developed.
To achieve a higher degree of treatment for removing dissolved
BOD and phosphate as well as suspended solids in combined sewer
125
-------
overflows, a pilot plant consisting of microscreening (23 micron
openings) followed by filtration with finer media should be evaluated.
Suspended solids would be removed mainly by microscreening. By
introducing the proper dosage of powdered activated carbon and
coagulant ahead of the filtration unit, the dissolved and colloidal
contaminants could be removed by carbon adsorption and coagulation,
and eventually intercepted by the filter media. Probably the cost/benefit
ratio would justify optimizing this system, since basic unit processes
remain the same with only a moderate increase in screen sizing.
Due to the intermittent operation of a full size treatment plant (about
300 hours per year in Cleveland). The additional annual costs of
activated carbon could be justified by cost-benefit considerations.
A slotted screening element furnished by UOP Johnson Divi-
sion was strong, rugged and maintenance free. Further study of the
slotted screening elements should be considered. Redesign of the
components, such as the variation of slot opening, the shape of surface
wire and support rod, and the location of the support rod may be
found appropriate for increasing allowable hydraulic loadings.
The Biospheric's in-line suspended solids monitor should be
further investigated in a pilot study. The calibration procedure should
be more carefully set up to obtain a consistent and reproducible
correlation. This unit then could be considered as a sensing device
to enhance automation of the filtration process by providing positive
control of effluent suspended solids concentration.
Tests on microscreening (16) indicate that fine screening can
produce a low suspended solids effluent, below 50 mg/1. Thus, for a
high efficiency system, suspended solids would be removed mainly by
microscreening, and phosphates, BOD and other contaminants in
dissolved or colloidal form may be trimmed in filter by using coagulant
and powdered activated carbon addition. Microscreening followed by
deep bed, high rate filtration seems a possible alternative system to
produce a very high quality effluent. This system should be further
studies because in areas such as the Great Lakes and others where
stringent control and regulation of phosphate inputs to a water body are,
or will be, required, a system such as the one just described may be of
applicability.
126
-------
Another possibility for improving system consistency and perfor-
mance, when adding phosphate reducing coagulants, might be to under-
take more test work with additional polyelectrolytes and coagulant aids,
etc., to see if a coagulant combination can be developed which will
permit a consistently high degree of suspended solids and phosphate
removal. However current indications are that the finer screen is the
best way to increase process performance.
Treatment of Secondary Effluent from an Activated Sludge Process
Test data in Appendix D shows that secondary effluent levels from
an activated sludge process can be limited to approximately 5 mg/1
suspended solids at filtration rates of up to 30 gpm/sq ft. The basic
concept of deep bed high rate filtration for secondary effluent is essen-
tially the same as the theory involved in the treatment of combined sewage
storm overflow. The major differences are the lower level of solids to be
handled, and the requisite effluent water quality. Based on the data
contained--in Appendix D, indicating that filtration is capable of control-
ling solids levels to below 10 mg/1, this process may be applicable to
situations where a marginal removal of solids and BOD is required to
meet water quality criteria. The major potential advantages of the high rate
deep bed filter for secondary effluent are: first, due to the high filtration
rate, the space requirements, and secondly, because of this high fil-
tration rate, the economics of this process are favorable over shallower
filters operating at much lower filtration rates.
Analogous to the approach taken in regard to combined sewage
storm overflow filtration, a higher quality product water may be obtained
by adding various chemical coagulants prior to the deep bed filter. For
example, alum, lime, and possibly iron coagulants and polyelectrolyte,
applied in proper combination and dosage, might produce an effluent or
product water with low residuals of suspended solids, biochemical
oxygen demand, and phosphates. Through the addition of phosphate
reducing coagulants (alum, lime, iron salts), it may be possible to com-
press or eliminate the flocculator-clarifiers or solids contact clarifiers
that are normally associated with phosphate removal. In many cases, a
filter is required after these units anyway, to reduce phosphate levels to
low concentrations.
Based on the preliminary test results contained in Appendix D, a
research and development grant was applied for and obtained to evaluate
high rate, deep bed filtration in treating secondary effluent from an
activated sludge plant.
127
-------
Under this activated sludge plant secondary effluent testing pro-
gram (26), the selected media (5 feet - No. 3 Anthracite over 3 feet -
No. 612 Sand) for combined sewer overflow treatment was also evaluated
in terms of its capability for polishing secondary effluents. Test
data has confirmed the applicability of this combined sewer overflow
media to reducing suspended solids, BOD, and phosphates to low
residuals.
Urban Runoff Treatment and Sediment Control
Additional areas of application for the deep bed high rate filtration
process are in the treatment of urban runoff and also in treating flows
from particular rivers for sediment control. As shown in Table B-5 the
high rate filtration system was more effective in reducing fixed suspended
solids than volatile suspended solids from combined sewer overflows.
Since the nature of urban runoff would be similar to that of combined
sewer overflows, except that the suspended solids would be of a more
fixed or inorganic nature, the proposed treatment system would probably
be more effective in treating urban runoff than it would be in handling
combined sewer overflow discharges. In regard to sediment control, past
data by Hydrotechnic (27) has demonstrated that high rate filters can
remove inorganic solids such as those that would normally be associated i
with erosion. It may be practical to filter discharges of entire rivers
which contribute heavily to the sediment problem. This might
prove to be a more economical and preferable method of handling the
problem than periodic dredging of rivers to maintain navigable channels,
since dredging creates a pollution problem.
Dual Purpose of Utilization of High Rate Filtration Process
In Cleveland, the total duration of the overflows from the combined
sewer system is approximately 300 hours per annum. This indicates
the possibility of utilizing dual purpose treatment plants based on
the high rate filtration process (15). Such installations would treat
combined sewer overflows when they occur and in between such periods,
for over 95 percent of the time, the filtration process would treat other
wastewaters depending on the location of the process.
For a high rate filtration process for combined sewer overflow
treatment located in the area of the domestic wastewater treatment plant, the
filtration process can be utilized for polishing the treatment plant effluent
as well as to protect the effluent quality during plant overloading or
process malfunction.
128
-------
For a newly designed physical-chemical process to treat domestic
wastewater, the high rate filtration process can be adopted to handle both
dry and wet weather flow, including combined sewer overflows in
conjunction with an adequate storage facility.
The economical benefits of such dual purpose utilization of the
high rate filtration process should not be overlooked.
129
-------
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was undertaken through sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Monitoring
Municipal Technology Branch
1901 North Fort Meyer Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22209
National Environmental Research Center
Edison Water Quality Research Division
Storm and Combined Sewer Technology Branch
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Acknowledgment is made to Mr. William Rosenkranz, Chief of the
Municipal'Technology Branch, Mr. Francis J. Condon, Project Manager,
and initial Project Officer Mr. Edmund Struzeski for their interest,
encouragement and guidance on this project.
Acknowledgment is made to Project Officer Mr. Richard Field,
Chief of Storm and Combined Sewer Technology Branch for his interest and
guidance during the course of the 1971 testing program, and for his review
and many valuable comments and suggestions on the final report.
Acknowledgment is made to Dr. Sidney A. Hannah, Supervisory
Research Chemist, and Mr. James Kreissl of the Advanced Waste Treat-
ment Research Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, for performing and providing the com-
bined sewer overflow suspended solids particle count, and for reviewing
the final report.
The project testing program was conducted in Cleveland, Ohio.
City of Cleveland
Department of Public Utilities
Division of Water Pollution Control
1825 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
131
-------
Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant
6000 Canal Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44125
Acknowledgment is made to Mr. C.A. Crown, Commissioner of the
Division of Water Pollution Control, and Mr. Ray Roth, Assistant Com-
missioner of Southerly Wastewater Pollution Control Center for providing
the pilot plant site. Thanks are due to Messrs. Nabil Ghoubriel,
Superintendent, other members of the staff of the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant, and former Director Mr. W. Tresville for their assis-
tance with background information. Thanks are also due to Messrs. E.
Martin, E. Newbauer and J.N. Donahue, who supported this project as
members of the city's Clean Water Task Force.
The project was conducted by the consulting engineering firm.
Hydrotechnic Corporation
641 Lexington Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022
The project was conceived by Mr. Ross Nebolsine, President,
who provided general guidance and high level review throughout its
duration. General consultation and review was also provided by Mr.
Ivan Pouschine, Jr., Vice President and Mr. Albert S. Toth, Vice
President.
The project was managed for most of its duration by Patrick J.
Harvey, Division Engineer, who also prepared the draft report.
In the initial project stages, including engineering and construc-
tion of the pilot plant facilities, this assignment was managed by Mr.
Harold J. Kohlmann, Manager Engineer. Mr. Chi-Yuan Fan, Principal
Engineer, was in charge of the daily technical aspects of the project,
supervising a field team and an office staff. On site field testing was
directed by Mr. George Vercelli, Senior Engineer, and later by Mr. Rey
Morales, Engineer.
A special note of acknowledgment is due Dr. John C. Eck, who
served as a consultant to Hydrotechnic Corporation on this project.
132
-------
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. "Pollutional Effects of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined
Sewer Systems -A Preliminary Appraisal", U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division
of Water Supply and Pollution Control, November 1964.
2. "Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows 1967",
American Public Works Association, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior,
December 1, 1967.
3. "The Economics of Clean Water - Volume I - Detailed Analysis",
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, March, 1970.
4. A.S.Toth, "Progress in Steel Plant Wastewater Treatment",
paper presented at Chicago Section of Association of Iron and
Steel Engineers, April 4, 1967.
5. R.Nebolsine and RJ.Sanday, "Ultra High Rate Filtration, a
New Technique for Purification and Reuse of Water", Iron and
Steel Engineer, December, 1967.
6. "Master Plan for Pollution Abatement - Cleveland, Ohio",
Havens and Emerson - Consulting Engineers, June, 1968.
7. W.L.Harris, "High Rate Filter Efficiency", Journal of American
Waterworks Association, 62:515 (August, 1970).
8. G. Tchnobanoglous, "Filtration Techniques in Tertiary Treat-
ment", Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 42:603
(April, 1970).
9. "Ultra High Rate Filtration -A New Technique for Purification
and Reuse of Water", Hydrotechnic Corporation - Consulting
Engineers, March, 1967.
10. V.F.Frank and J.P.Gravenstreter, "Operating Experience with
High Rate Filters", paper presented at Water Pollution Control
Federation Annual Convention, Chicago, Illinois, September,
1968.
133
-------
11. "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1971).
12. "Standard Method for Examination of Water and Wastewater",
Thirteenth Edition, American Public Health Association, New
York (1971).
13. "Technical Manual Model 53 and Model 54 Effluent Monitor" ,
Biospherics Incorporated, Rockville, Maryland.
14. "Local Climatological Data - Cleveland Hopkins Intl.Airport",
U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Data Service.
15. R.Nebolsine, P.J.Harvey and C.Y.Fan, - "Ultra High Rate
Filtration System for Treating Overflows from Combined Sewers",
Paper presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Annual
Convention, San Francisco, October, 1971.
16. "Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer Overflows",
Cochrane Division, Crane Company, Federal Water Quality
Administration, Contract No. 14-12-136, June, 1970.
17. "Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of Combined Sewer Overflows",
Cornell, How land, Hayes and Merryfield - Consulting Engi-
neers and Planners, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Contract No. 14-12-128, March, 1970.
18. S.A.Hannah et al, "Control Techniques for Coagulation -
Filtration", Journal American Water Works Association, 59:1149
(September, 1967).
19. R.J.Burns et al, "Chemical and Physical Comparison of Com-
bined and Separate Sewer Discharges", Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 40:112 (January, 1968).
20. "Ultra High Rate Filtration Design Criteria", Hydrotechnic
Corporation - Consulting Engineers, New York, N.Y.
21. Richard Field, "Management and Control of Combined Sewer
Overflows", Paper presented at 44th Annual Meeting of the New
York Water Pollution Control Association, New York, January,
1972.
134
-------
22. D.G.Mason, "The Use of Screening/Dissolved-Air Flotation
For Treating Combined Sewer Overflows", Rex Chainbelt, Inc. ,
Combined Sewer Abatement Technology, Federal Water Quality
Administration, p. 123, June, 1970.
23. H.E.Hudson, Jr. , "Declining-Rate Filtration", Journal American
Waterworks Association, 51:1455 (November, 1959).
24. R.S.Burd, "A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal", Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Office of Research and
Development, May, 1968.
25. R.Nebolsine and J.C.Eck, "Tertiary Treatment of Sewage by
The Ultra High Rate Filtration Process", Paper presented at 44
Annual Meeting of the New York Water Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, New York, January, 1972.
26. "Ultra High Rate Filtration of Activated Sludge Plant Effluent",
Hydrotechnic Corporation - Consulting Engineers, Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Project #17030, HMM.
27. "Enlargement of Water Intake System, Pumping, Filtration and
Chlorination for the La Plate Refinery", Hydrotechnic Corpo-
ration - Christian! and Nielsen - Diesel Electromechanica, New
York, June, 1967.
135
-------
SECTION XV
PUBLICATIONS
R. Nebolsine, P.J. Harvey and C. Y. Fan, "Ultra High Rate
Filtration System for Treating Overflow from Combined Sewers, "
Paper presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Annual
Convention, San Francisco, October 1971.
R. Nebolsine and J.C. Eck, "Tertiary Treatment of Sewage by the Ultra
High Rate Filtration Process, " Paper presented at 44th Annual
Meeting of the New York Water Pollution Control Association, New York,
January 1972.
137
-------
SECTION XVI
APPENDICES
Page
A. Combined Sewer Overflow Characteristics
Figures A-1 through A-15 141-155
B. Combined Sewer Overflow Filtration Test Results
Table B-l: Screening and Filtration System Perfor-
mance (1970 and 1971 Test Data) 156-158
Table B-2: Screening Performance (1970 Test Data). . . . 159
Table B-3: Filter Performance (1970 and 1971 Test
Data) 160-167
Table B-4: Coliform Reduction by Filtration
(1970 Test Data) 168
Table B-5: Solids Reduction by Filtration
(1970 Test Data) 169-170
Table B-6: Phosphate, Nitrogen and Grease Reduction
by Filtration (1970 Test Data) .171-172
C. Combined Sewer Overflow Filtration Tests
Filter Performance Curves, Figures C-l through C-138. . 173-310
D. Secondary Effluent Filtration Tests 311-312
Filter Performance Curves, Figures D-l through D-19. . . 313-331
Table D-l: Secondary Effluent Filtration Test Results. . 332
E. The Effect of Pumping on Particle Size in Overflows. . . . 333
Table E-l: Combined Sewer Overflow Suspended Solids
Particle Counter Run No. 1 334-335
Table E-2: Combined Sewer Overflow Suspended Solids
Particle Counter Run No. 2 336-337
Table E-3: Combined Sewer Overflow Suspended Solids
Particle Counter Run No. 3 338-339
139
-------
cs
"01 2OOO
J 1800
to 1600
3 1400
O 1200
OT 1000
8 800
Z 600
Ijj 400
OT 200
to 0
1300
1200
— 1 100
"01 IOOO
J 900
800
to 700
Q 600
O 500
OT 400
< 30°
1- 200
1- 100
0
IOOO
900
"^ 700
J 600
. 500
ri 4O°
!\
J\
j\\
fl\V
Js \
1 M '"
r
,
y
X
^\
V
V
^-TURBIDI
\
X>M
""-'
~
^- ._
TV
1 — ^.
x
"^^
**••-•
*, ~~
/
^-— •
.^"
^
SI
JSPENC
SOLIDS
>ED
.
i
,^j
j
A
r
\
\ (
\/
V
\J
I -^
wr
\
w
'^*,
1
/
X^
^
f
'OTAL
„,,--
MHOTM,
"*» *
""••••••
SOLID
-.-»
/
/
t
^*
qc
^.^•~
v ••
ITTLEABLE SOLIDS
•
\
i
i /\
i/
L
^
»C^J*
^y
^"^
^
f
*"»»--
/
^/
s
^•^
-COD -
x^>
.--
-TX*
—
/
•£-
BOD -
^888888888
j^iooowow^uj
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
7/29/70 DAILY PRECIPITATION 1.26 INCHES
FIGURE Al
141
-------
-31
v
i "
& •=
Ul
o:
Q- n
01 £<->w
,§ 1800
CO 1600
O 1200
W !000
S 800
§ 600
UJ 400
OT 200
CO 0
1300
1200
— 1100
"o. 1000
J 900
eoo
2 700
O 500
OT 400
< 30°
1- 200
K 100
0
1000
900
^ 700
J 600
. 500
d 40°
500
0 400
55 300
§ 200
K- 100
L o
— 26
v. 24
J 22
20
• 2 a
_l 6
1- % «
2
- 3 o
• < 8
UJ 6
- 1- 4
- uj ^
L « o
r 200
ieo
c: i eo
"S, 140
5 1 20
. 100
- S BO
• m 60
4O
20
°c
c
-SUSPEND
- SOLIDS
FD
— ~c
I
/
v\
^?-r
/
/
r***
\
VM
*• ^
— — *
/
/
J
A
V
\
^
/
s
--•"
T
URBIDI
L^n
— •**
-
TY
9F
\ i
Y
/*
\
^
TTLEABLE SOLI
*ti
k^~
~— >
•+*+**
DS
~
^
x/
"
^m.
7
/
r
'V
\
1
\
n
/
k
y
v-'
rOTAL
—_.
^^^^^
•^
v"
*« -
SOLID
»
ft
V
r
i
x
r
.A
^.
B0n
V"
\
v
~"y
/
^-^
•••—I
'
X
^^
»— —
^
.«• —
/
7
fsrsi
re
-
).D.-
3OOOOQQOOQ
3OOOOOOOOO
?~ 3:se28SJOCJ*
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
8/I9/7O
DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.31 INCHES
FIGURE A 2
142
-------
"o> 2000
CO 1600
§ 1400
0 1200
OT 1000
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
CO 200
CO 0
1300
1200
'"" i inn
"£> 1000
J 900
800
W 700
° 600
0 500
W 400
J 300
1- 200
H- 100
0
1000
900
C 800
15> 700
,§ 600
. 500
d 40°
n O 01 c
itt
o:
a o
r 1000
1- 800
3 700
600
£ 500
5 400
5 300
§ 200
1- 100
0
— . 26
5: 24
J 22
20
- 2 8
_J 6
- u 2
j 0
- < 8
U, 6
1- 4
• W 0
r 200
1 80
:r i eo
- ^, 140
^ 1 20
. 100
§ 80
CD 60
40
20
°C
C
*?! 1
<
H
SPENDE
50LIDS
•n
^*
fl<=—
p^.~
~« — .
^-•^
/
J
~^S
T
/ '
URBIDI1
ry
•>
i
A
r
x
^^
u_.
pu
T
-— v
— •
OTAL
"*%••
- — >
,x
'*"
\
SOLID
c
-SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
-COn
• fc-'*
/<
^
» "*
^
*..„
"^~«
^^i
•i
f
•£_
• .•
son
3888888888
ogcjj6ei^
-------
0.
CJ
u
a:
a.
2.0
1.5
.- 1.0
,§ 1800
CO 1600
§ 1400
0 1200
"* IOOO
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
CO 200
CO 0
1300
1200
~ 1 100
^i IOOO
J 900
800
CO 700
- 600
O 500
W 400
H 200
1- 100
0
IOOO
900
"o> 700
J 600
. 500
Q
d
,J 300
200
100
n
2 900
1- 800
3 700
600
£ 500
5 400
§ 200
H- 100
L 0
) SETTLEABLE SOLIDS (ml/1)
- — ro
n a> o — — — — — wwrjr
3 o o oiv&a>OK>-ba>-t*c
^ i^o
E i ? n
.100
• S 6°
40
20
/
<-V
~AV/
/
,y
V
v-TURBID
te
01
TY-
SPENDED
SOLiC
)C
,
X
p
y
y
^/
y\
f
/o
O
T
/ '
OTAL
SOLID
ETTLEABLE SOLID
'
A/
yflWi
-~*
s., f
\ ^
V
\
/
/
B0n -
p n n -
'
O
O
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
8/30/70 DAILY PRECIPITATION < 0.05 INCHES
FIGURE A 4
144
-------
-35
0)
2.0
1.5
Q.
O
UI
tr
CL
.5
£ i ftnn
<0 1600
§ 1400
O 1200
00 1000
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
OT 200
to 0
1300
1200
" 1 100
"£> 1000
J 900
800
g 700
— 600
0 500
OT 400
<{ 300
0 2°°
1- 100
0
1000
900
•*^ pnn
"S. 700
-§ 600
. 500
d 40°
500
5 400
85 200
h- 100
0
~ 26
V; 24
J 22
20
• Q 18
_l 1 6
O 1 A
to
LJ
i | o
' < 8
U 6
1- 4
LJ 2
40 0
200
1 80
c: i eo
"^ 140
S 1 20
. 100
Q
m 60
40
1
f
L
J^
X
V"\
/
/
X
,'
..»*
V/
Y
L% ^
>r
T
/ '
e
URBID
TV
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
n
j V
r
/
/
V
^^^
_^
^*S
- T
/ '
._<:
OTAL
1
1
SOLID
ETTLEABLE
SOLID
c
4
•V
r.
in
I
/
1
/
\
V
\
\
i-*"
V-
x
, — -~
_COn
Rf
) D
DOOOOOOOOO
5ooooo oooo
3w6
-------
T3
o>
1 l'5
Z
o
PRECIPITAT
D 01 C
V//A
r77?
,§ 1800
(/) 1600
° 1400
O 1?">0
W 1000
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
(/) 200
W 0
!300
1200
^> 1000
J 900
800
2 700
— 600
0 500
05 400
< 30°
H 200
t- 100
0
1000
900
C 800
"o. 700
.§ 600
. 500
d 4°°
50O
- 5 ^oo
CD 300
j§ 200
t- 100
L 0
•x" 24
• J 22
2O
Q 8
_l 6
OT 4
2
111
' < 8
UJ 6
• t- 4
- t 2
L w 0
r 200
1 80
~ 1 60
"o. 140
-§ 1 20
. 100
' § 8°
CD 60
40
20
0
C
^
/
'v
/\
^
"-^
—
/
J
J~-
*
•'
^-Tl
*^x^
RBIDI"
ry.
T
-SUSPENDED
SOLI
-)C .
\ /
\/
y
\/
V
s
\
'
s
s
. — ••
t
»
/
'
*
>^-v
t
/ -
^_ -
.
rOTAL
SOLI
3ETTLEABLE
DS
SOLIL
iq .
.
-
, v^
k~~.
•^r
, •
t
/
ji
*c~
\
6
>~r<
O.D.
D.D.
^888888888
f
-------
"o> 2000
j= 1800
co 1600
0 1200
OT 1000
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
en 200
(n o
1300
1200
"o> 1000
3 90°
800
700
. 500
O
d
(j 300
200
100
0
PRECIPITATION (inches)
) SETTLEABLE SOLIDS (ml/I) TURBIDITY (JTU)
ro _rooJ*o>t*a>c°otV't*o>a>otv-t>a> ooooooooooo o 01 o m c
^» 140
E ion
. 100
- S 80
• S 60
40
20
0
C
C
C
-SUSPEND
- SOLIDS
-SE
:TT
so
LEi
LIC
- n
\
«
\y?
^*-
.—*•
\BL
) S~^
F
\ *
i^
VIV
n
'\
— —
==±
V"
**•%
^^
l^^M!
^— •
*>x_
s^~
^^l
S-— •
>^>~^»
^— i
m_]m^_
\
/
y«
.-*
/
/
ZL-
• — •>.
i
/ '
r
*•**
• "••.
^—
JRBIDr
— —
.—
•QTAL
^^
x""'
•»,
• ..
rv
__
SOLIC
•*»— i
»— ~-
•y
1C
t&
_
•
-•-
»— •
. r on
•
•A
^^-^
X
^**
x%--
•»*—
*•— •
— V
— ..
^.
,—• • •
/
/
••/..
••.pi i
-B.OD-
^-».
•— —^
I^^MV
f
—
*•«
'
W^^M
^"
-• .
*
m^tf^^
•*'
• *
.*
^^
^§88888888
j^fib ooowSSSsS
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
9/18/70
DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.51 INCHES
FIGURE A 7
147
-------
o> 2000
j= 1800
CO 1600
° 1400
O 1200
*" 1000
S 800
§ 600
g 400
CO 200
CO 0
-55
o>
o i •;
z
0 1 0
1.0
?
0- S
o '5
UJ
cc
Q. n
mri n
£%
IUUU
5 900
1- 800
600
> 500
5 400
m 300
§ 200
1- 100
n
- T"!
1 1
A
'j
V
JRBIDI'
y ^
/*
'
^,^~^
rw .
1 Y-v
I
/
m
*t^
XV
•~-~^
-'
^^f^f
"
— i -«
^^J
._"»
A
/
/
s-
su
s
\
\
— .^
SPEND
.OLIDS
c-V
^v_
/
/
Fn
7
/
t-~f~
1300
1200
- I 100
"o> 1000
J 900
800
CO 700
— 600
O 500
OT 400
-J 300
100
0
_l
°
to
LJ
1000
900
C 800
"w 700
^ 600
500
400
300
200
100
0
.
d
200
180
cr i eo
^ 140
^ 1 20
. 100
8°
60
40
20
m
O
O
00
C.O.Dr
oo
0Q
o
0
o
0
^L
V
B.O.D.-
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
9/23/70 DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.18 INCHES
FIGURE A 8
148
-------
•<»
(0
.c
0 . c
Z
o , 0
g
£L 5
O
UJ
o:
^- n
hH
TTTT|
,§ 1800
CO 1600
§ 1400
O 1200
W 1000
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
CO 200
CO 0
1300
1200
— I 100
^5> 1000
J 900
800
CO 700
— 600
O 500
OT 40O
< 30°
I- 200
K IOO
1000
900
C 800
"o> 700
J 600
500
400
300
200
100
0
.
d
IUUU
^900
1- 800
600
£ 500
5 400
5 300
JJ5 200
1- 100
n
^
^11
5PENDED
Xxk
X
NS
'P^s
V
SOLID
1
1
1
~^—
T
/ '
URBIDI
TY
_
S
3
h-
26
24
22
20
18
1 6
14
1 2
10
-SETTLEABLE
— SOLIDS--
T
TOTAL SOLIDS
1 80
~ 160
^, 140
J 1 20
. IOO
Q
ri 60
40
20
°C
c
-C.O.D.-
*
\
s
\
^
s_
•\
\
/
/
\
"N
-BOD-
^
/
•——
\
X
••-•-..
— ^
^
•'
S
,-"
-
s-
''
— —
^•*~~
^"
3OOOOOOOOO
3OOOOOOOOO
jcvi^fcbooocG^f'to 06
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
10/6/70 DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.63 INCHES FIGURE A 9
149
-------
"oi 2000
t. 1800
OT 1600
3 1400
0 1200
OT 1000
S 800
§ 600
W 400
(0 200
V) 0
1300
1200
— 1100
"o> lOpO
3. 9°o
800
OT 700
2 600
O 500
OT 400
^ 300
1- 200
1- 100
0
1000
900
C 800
o> 700
J 600
500
d 40°
<_j 300
200
100
0
PRECIPITATION (inches)
.— ~ r\
w O oi t
— o
IOOO
3 900
t- 800
3 700
600
£ 500
O ^OO
55 300
•§ 200
1- 100
0
v 24
J 22
20
CO
^^ o
J 6
- 8 4
- LJ 2
- ^j Q
: 3 J
UJ ^
r 200
1 60
CT 160
°^> 140
J 1 20
. 100
• S 8°
• 2 60
40
20
0
C
C
c
-SUSPEND
- SOLIDS
ED
—^
SETTLEABL
- SOLIDS-
f
/
jf^f
A.
i
,J
T""
E,
s
4
— /
~ — -
•*>_
/ '
H^^M
•^>
v
•^
v
V
s».
«.—
x^
— —
^-—
— -.
— ~
•i— •
•- —
\
\
\
•-•— ^N
/
/
JL
_ T
/T
rOTAL
— ,
^-«
JRBIDI'
^-=
"• —
SOLIC
k
'•*>.
..^
TV -
1 Y
•=:
>c
>o -
~~—
•&=*•
^
**
"^~
C C
^iii
>PRi
it
X
-— —
"• —
— — i
— —
^ ^
^9M^
^•Ji
>•
s
X.
---*
1 **«»
— ~.
^
^
I
t-
.O.D
•«fc^_
--^
>888888 888
i2S£S2wwo M t u>
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
10/12/70
DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.54 INCHES
FIGURE A 10
150
-------
PRECIPITATION (inches)
. r* r~ h
O 01 O Oi *C
^^^f^
— -~
11 m i
s§ 1800
CO 1600
3 1400
0 1200
1000
8 800
§ 600
UJ 400
CO 200
CO 0
1300
1200
— 1 IOO
"o« 1000
J 900
800
CO 700
2 600
0 500
W 400
J 300
1- 200
t- IOO
0
1000
900
C 80Q
"01 700-
J 600
. 500
o
% 300
200
IOO
0
IUUU
3 900
I- 800
3 700
600
£ 500
5 400
DO 300
§ 200
H- IOO
L o
~ 26
i 24
J 22
20
2 18
-1 1 6
: a !2o
• % 8
a ;
t- 4
w 0
r 200
180
C 1 60
"5, 140
.§ 1 20
. IOO
• § BO
• m 60
40
20
e
c
'"
^v
\
\
v
1
JRBIDITY-^
k
fc__
—
-—
<<
su
SPE
OL
:ND
DS
ED.
,\t
/
/ »
\
\J)
A
/n
/
/
V /
/*
/
\l
\
u
\f~~-
\
s
"
^-'
s*
P
\
\
~ •*
TO'
,^'
•J
1
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS-^"
1
•AL
- ••
S
y
\
^
)LI
•^
DS
-_
ff t^'
J
t
/
t ^^
/
/
,/
^-^
V
\
V
N
.....
^=ss
X
^
^"
»_
"^^.
***.
•a i^
v/
'*"
^-
_ —
j
'•
=^<
/r~
^—
B,0
C.Q.
,D,
D.
?8888888||
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
IO/2I/70 DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.2I INCHES ri/^i IDC A n
FIGURE A II
151
-------
•a!
o>
JC
<->
c
s
cc
z.o
1.5
1.0
o> 2000
,§ 1800
to 1600
3 1400
O 1200
rn
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Q
UJ
1300
1200
— I 100
"£. 1000
,§ 900
800
to 700
^ 600
O 500
W 400
^ 300
i- ioo
° 100
o
1000
900
~ 800
~o> 700
,§ 600
. 500
Q
d
d 300
200
100
1000
; 900
• 800
; 700
600
• 500
Q
CD
o:
300
200
100
0
r
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
to
Q
UJ
1-
Hi
»
£.*>
24
22
20
8
6
2
0
8
6
4
2
1
\
11
K
/i S
\
\
y
\
S
^__
i_J--^
"*•
X
,-*
^x1
•»,_
±^
SETTLEABLE
S<
DLI
•~ — ,
DS
^^
— \
\
\
\
^^
^
400
360
c
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
10/29/70 DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.22 INCHES _
FIGURE A12
152
-------
PITATION (inches)
~ ~ K
Jl 0 01 C
0
LJ
CC
**• 0
•"""
L«J
m
iMi.li
tyy/vs
w,
J 1800
en 1600
§ 1400
0 1200
OT 1000
S 800
§ 600
UJ 400
CO 200
CO 0
1300
1200
* — i inn
'o. 1000
J 900
800
W 700
° SOO
0 500
OT 400
J 300
1- 200
° 100
0
1000
900
C 800
"o> 700
J 600
. 500
d 40°
«J 300
200
100
n
IUUU
1- 800
3 700
600
>: 500
5 400
55 300
§ 200
1- 100
0
) SETTLEABLE SOLIDS (ml/1)
- — t\>
r>o>O — — — Mroror
3 o O oro*O)O>OM*ooo'^*c
^ 140
E I O A
. 100
• d 60
40
20
n
su
SPEND
OLIDS
ED
^^
TOTAL SOLIDS
SE1
TL
OL
EAE
DS
)LE
— i
— —
i — -
^x
>
\
*\
»-•"-
^
.*••"
— "
f
A
-TURBIDIT
_i i
— '
-
1— f- 1
^-..
^-^.
"*•-
-^^
"•\
••^
\
*-^
/
^**f
-~-
-^.^
****.
"•••^
"^7
^ ^—
•
J
4.
~~*~-&
< —
—
s —
-
B.O.
C-0
D.
D.
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
11/2/70
DAILY PRECIPITATION 1.47 INCHES
FIGURE A 13
153
-------
"5J
o>
inc
Z
O
I
CL
O
UJ
CC
Q.
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
0
J 1800
en 1600
§ 1400
O 1200
W 1000
S 800
§ 600
UJ 400
W 200
O) 0
1UUU
H 800
3 700
600
£ 500
Q 400
m 300
§ 200
H 100
n
%
\
•V
•I'
r
?
-\
\
~*
,—'
i
'
\
^•m
"""
'UR
—
BID
11 ••«
,«»*T
TY
_
V
.^^
5US
S(
*•
PEI
5LI
MDE
DS
U
1300
1200
c: 1100
"o. 1000
J 900
800
W 700
0 500
OT 400
J 300
1- 200
H 100
1000
900
C 800
^> 700
J 600
. 500
Q
400
O
J 300
200
100
0
2
U
UJ
«
£O
24
22
20
1 8
16
12
1 0
8
6
4
200
1 80
1 60
140
1 20
100
60
40
20
0
C
C
^
m
m
u\
v
s
s
\_
/
\/
^*
=*s
A
/\
r i
^_
^ r
t
» ,
V
S£-
(
TOT
iOL
/s^
^ S
FTL
SOL
Al
IDS
\
\
EAf
IDS
.
-—L*
\T
3LE
»
X
f\
I \
\ V
VJ
1
l-/^-
f
,A
/ '
N
^
k^
\
ss
^•^
\^
^
• 1
x__
— /
^
— **,
/—
-^^
_^—
^
B.O
C.O
D,
L).
3OOOOOOOOO
3000999900
fio6ow6w4f-
-------
^» 2000
E i fton
3 1400
0 1200
w 1000
S 800
§ 600
£ 400
W 200
to 0
1300
1200
"o> 1000
J 900
800
g 700
- 600
0 500
OT 400
< 30°
1- 200
1- 100
0
1000
900
C 800
"£> 700
.§ 600
500
ci 40°
500
5 400
5 300
§ 200
1- 100
0
5: 24
- J 22
20
• % 18
_l 16
0 ,4
tn ' *
12
j 10
H 4
UJ 2
L w 0
200
1 80
tr leo
CT 140
J 1 20
. 100
- § so
- oi 60
40
20
C
C
SU
S
SPEND
OLIDS
1
^
•j»»ji
ED
•^
ll
IX
tfv
Ivl ? \
Ml *
u '
q
>NAi|
/
^
\
\
V^
%>
^.
1 «
} /
*
A
'\
I
^
,\
\
'\
\
1
X
^
\
^~—
. T
' \
*
JRE
—s;
.,
u
7s
f
's.
X
roT
OL
••--
ior
Y_
x-
0
AL
OS
*•*'
,
ETTLEABl
SOLIDS
L I I
^
^r-
.
e _
V
B.O
xra
•--•
.D-
*N
"^
•v
^
s
i
/
*S
ls—
A
\
c,o
•""*
^-—
D,-
-
\
'
-7-
/
J
,
*
3OOOOOOOOQ
3OOOOOOOOO
TIME (hours)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
6/7/71
DAILY PRECIPITATION 0.47 INCHES
FIGURE AI5
155
-------
TABLE B-l (SHEET No.l)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
FILTRATION
TESTS
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Run
4SF II
4SF III
SSFI*
5SF II*
3SFIII*
6SF I
6SF HI
7SF HI
8SF1
SSFI
9SFII
9SF III
9ASF III
10SFI
10SFI1
10SF HI
10ASF HI
11SFI
11SF 11
11SFIII
13SF II
13SF III
13SFIV
14SFI
14ASFI
Screen
Size
(Mesh)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Filter
Media
48"t4 Anth.**
36"*612 Sand
48"« Anth.**
36"#612 Sand
48 "»4 Anth.**
36"#612 Sand
48"*4Anth.**
3 6 "#612 Sand
48"#3 Anth.
36"4612 Sand
48"t3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
60"*3 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60"#3 Anth.
3 6 "41612 Sand
60"»3 Anth.
36"»612 Sand
48"t3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"#3 Anth.
361'»612 Sand
60"t3 Anth.
36"t612 Sand
60 -#3 Anth.
36"t612 Sand
48"* 3 Anth.
36"*612 Sand
48"*3 Anth.
36"*612 Sand
60"»3 Anth.
3 6 "f 612 Sand
60"t3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
4B"»3 Anth.
36"»612 Sand
48"»3 Anth.
36"*612 Sand
60"*3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"#3 Anth.
36"#6I2 Sand
48 "#3 Anth.
36"* 612 Sand
48"*3 Anth.
36"* 612 Sand
48"#3 Anth.
3 6 "#612 Sand
48 "t3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
Flux
Rate
fapm/it2)
24
24
16
16
16
24
16
16
32
24
40
1.0
40
32
16
24
24
32
16
24
24
16
10
16
32
(1970 TEST DATA)
Poly
Feed
(mg/1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
.5
.5
Suspended
Solids
60.7
59.2
60.6
75.9
63.4
71.1
83.1
81.5
5S.1
46.4
48.4
77.5
31.9
63.7
83.0
71.9
81.3
52.7
68.1
66.6
64.3
74.7
79.3
63.8
67.1
% Re
moval of Contaminants bv Screen and Filter
Settleable
Solids
86.4
82
77
86
85
88
94
86
69
75
81
98
90
85
82
87
85
87
93
99
90
95
95
94
95
.2
.6
.5
.9
.5
.1
.7
.1
.3
.6
.5
.5
.0
.1
.3
.6
.1
.7
.2
.1
.7
.4
.1
.2
B. 0. D.
22.3
26.3
35.4
39.2
24.1
39.5
53.2
25.5
23.4
22.7
22.6
43.8
49.8
76.9
20.1
33.9
10.8
34.9
35.9
33.1
24.3
32.3
33.3
31.2
33.6
C. O
59
59
56
58
46
28
34
35
77
48
.6
.6
.9
.8
.5
.5
.5
.9
.0
.3
56. S
72
41
39
50
48
53
52
58
57
43
51
54
36
16
.5
.5
.3
.5
.0
.8
.8
.9
.5
.5
.5
.4
.8
.1
Fecal
52.0
52.0
-
-
-
71.4
64.2
-
-
34.7
78.0
87.1
86.7
40.7
65.4
74.1
87.6
14.6
29.0
33.3
-
-
-
43.9
48.7
Results of Screen Performance Were Basi
Filter Columns Plugged
td on Previous Filter Run
NOTE: RESULTS OF SCREEN PERFORMANCE WERE BASED ON 1970 TESTING DATA
1K6
-------
TABLE B- I (SHEET No.2)
COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
SYSTEM
Run
No. _
17SF II
17SF [II
17SFIV
18SFI1
18SF III
18SF IV
19SF HI
19SF IV
19ASF II
19ASF IV
19BSF 11
19BSF IV
19CSF II
19CSF IV
20SF II
20SF III
20SF IV
20ASF II
20ASF III
21SF III
21SF IV
21ASFII
21ASF11I
Screen
Size
(Meshl
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
(1971
Filter
Media
Q
Z
I
O
z
s
X
u
H
<
K
H
z
"
z
k
nw
Rate
(gpm/ft
10
16
24
e
24
16
8
16
24
32
16
16
16
16
24
16
8
16
16
8
16
8
24
PERFORMANCE
TEST DATA)
Poly Coagulant
Feed
;fl (mg/1)
0
0
0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Mag.560C
1.0
Mag.S60C
1.0
Mag.560C
1.0
Mag.560C
1.0
0
Mag.560C
1.0
Here. 836
1.0
Here. 836
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
Atlas 4A4
1.0
SwlftX-400
1.0
SwlftX-400
1.0
SwiftX-400
1.0
SwlftX-400
1.0
Feed
(mg/1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
FeCl3 25.0
FeCl3 25.0
FeClj 25.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
% Removal of Contaminants by Screen and Filter
Suspended
Solids
77.6
72.8
62.2
67.7
38.6
41.3
72.8
56.9
81.0
64.4
51.8
56.9
59.8
72.9
58.2
83.4
92.2
71.0
65.5
67.8
49.0
56.0
54.8
Settleable
95.5
94.
6
94.8
97.
84.
85.
97.
91.
93.
91.
60.
76.
76.
78.
93.
93.
93.
5
8
2
8
2
8
7
0
7
0
3
8
9
8
89.6
86.1
95.
-
-
3
95.0
B. 0. D.
11.0
19.2
35.3
41.7
37.9
16.9
23.7
23.2
31.8
39.1
26.2
38.3
29.5
53.8
-
37.1
41.9
40.6
39.8
54.7
28.0
52.0
58.3
52.1
56
49
35
41
-
53
-
60
65
32
59
74
38
-
.8
.7
.0
.1
.9
.3
.8
.6
.5
.4
.7
47.2
71
76
61
74
61
61
64
.6
.4
.5
.4
.5
.5
.5
NOTE: RESULTS OF SCREEN PERFORMANCE WERE BASED ON 1970 TESTING DATA
157
-------
TABLE B-l (SHEET No.3)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
Screen
Run Size
22SF II 40
22SF 111
22SF IV
22ASFII
22ASF III
22ASFIV
22BSF II
22BSF III
22BSF IV
22CSF II
22CSF III
22CSF IV
23SF II
23SF III
23SFIV
23ASF 11
23ASF III
23ASF IV
23BSF II
23BSF III
23BSF IV
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
SYSTEM
(1971
Filter
Flux Poly I
Rate Feed
Media (gpm/ftz) (ma/1)
8 SwlftX-400
1.0
16 SwlftX-400
1.0
24 SwlftX-400
8 Atlas 3A3
1.0
16 Atlas 3A3
1.0
24 Atlas 3A3
1.0
D 8 Purlfl.A-23
2 1.0
16 Purlfl.A-23
1.0
24 Purlfl.A-23
° 1.0
^ 8 Purlfl.A-23
n 1.0
X
„ 16 Purlfl,A-23
H 1.0
S 24 Purlfl.A-23
£ i.o
H
2 8 Atlas 4A4
* 1.0
16 Atlas 4A4
°
o 24 Atlas 4A4
u> I.O
24 Purlfl.A-23
I.O
16 Purlfl.A-23
1.0
8 Purifl.A-23
1.0
24 Maj.560C
1.0
8 Maj.S60C
1.0
16 Maj.S60C
1.0
FILTRATION TESTS
PERFORMANCE
TEST
Coagulant
Feed
(mg/1)
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DATA)
% Removal of Contaminants bv Screen and Filter
Suspended
Solids
82.4
83.1
81.9
82.6
61.2
46.2
71.6
74.3
55.9
86.7
86.8
69.6
97.6
97.9
92.9
93.7
94.2
93. S
81.8
98.3
97.9
Settleable
Solids
99
91
84
93
82
75
96
67
-
.1
.3
.4
.3
.4
.9
.3
.4
96.7
86
73
97
97
96
94
93
94
79
79
79
,1
.7
.0
.1
.1
.0
.9
.0
.2
.2
.2
B. 0. D.
65.5
63.3
63.5
-
50.9
30.4
37.2
59.2
48.7
56. 9
52.9
58.9
82.7
80.4
75.6
71.3
70.3
48.1
57.9
63.7
63.1
C. 0. D.
70.8
64
61
-
-
.1
.4
33.2
60
-
-
77
52
40
75
70
72
56
67
53
65
78
63
.9
.8
.3
.7
.8
.5
.4
.6
.9
.4
.9
.7
.5
NOTE: RESULTS OF SCREEN PERFORMANCE WERE BASED ON 1970 TESTING DATA
158
-------
TABLE B-2
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW FILTRATION
TESTS
SCREEN PERFORMANCE
Suspended
Run
No.
•-' 4SF
cn
CD
5SF
6SF
7SF
9SF
10SF
11SF
12SF
13SF
14SF
14ASF
Screen Size
20 Mesh
20 Mesh
20 Mesh
40Mesh
40 Mesh
40 Mesh
40 Mesh
40 Mesh
40 Mesh
40 Mesh
40 Mesh
Inf.
Avg.
(mg/l)
470
—
219
265
161
155
190
—
193
94
48
Eff.
Avg.
(mg/l)
390
—
173
210
133
93
137
—
144
74
36
(1970 TEST DATA)
Solids Settleable Solids
Inf.
% Removals Avg .
ml/1
17.0 10.2
—
21.0 5.4
20.8 4.4
17.4 5.1
40.0 3.2
27.9 8.8
7.6
25.4 6.S
21.3 3.4
__
Eff.
Avg.
ml/1
4.8
—
2.3
2.1
2.3
1.6
2.5
3.5
2.4
0.9
—
% Removals
52.9
-
57. 4
52.3
54.3
50.0
71.6
53.9
63.7
73.5
-
Inf.
Avg.
(mg/l)
169
—
72
49
90
61
94
-
99
59
67
B. O. D.
Eff.
Avg.
(mq/1)
160
—
56
43
80
57
90
-
94
52
60
Inf.
% Removals Avg.
(mg/l)
5.3 483
—
22.2 175
12.3 154
11.1 188
6.6 240
4.3 475
455
5.1 202
11.9 165
11.7 172
C. O. D.
Eff.
Avg.
(mg/l)
300
—
146
142
137
190
280
374
193
146
134
% Removals
37.9
-
16.6
7.8
27.1
20.8
41.1
17.8
4.5
11.5
22.1
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.I)
COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER PERFORMANCE
Suspended Solids
Run No.
4SF-II
1—1 4SF-III
CD
O
5SF-!
5SF-II
5SF-III
6SF-I
6SF-III
7SF-HI
8SF-1
9SF-I
9SF-II
9SF-III
9ASF-III
Media
48" #4 Anth.
36" #6 12 Sand
48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
48" #4 Anth.
48" #6 12 Sand
48" #4 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
60" #3 Anth.
36" #6 12 Sand
60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
Flux
Rate
(qpm/ft2)
24
24
16
16
16
24
16
16
32
24
40
10
40
Poly
Feed Temp
(mq/1) PH (°F)
0 7.10 70
0 7.13 70.0
0 7.1 75.5
0 7.0 75.5
0 7.0 74.5
0 6.85 72
0 7.47 71.5
0 7.08
0 7.40 -
0 7.20 64
0 7.20 61.6
0 7.20 64
0 7.0 67
Inf.
Avg.
(mq/1)
417
390
485
470
420
173
173
205
93
114
152
114
91
Eff.
Avg. % Removal
(mq/1)
185 55.6
187 52.1
236 51.3
140 70.2
190 54.8
63 63.6
37 78.6
48 70.6
52 44.0
74 35.1
95 37.5
31 72.8
75 17.6
(1970 TEST DATA)
Settleable Solids
Inf. Eff. Inf.
Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg.
(ma/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) .
4.5 1.3 71.1 172
4.5 1.7 62.2 167
5.0 2.5 50.0 92
5.0 1.5 70.0 85
4.S 2.0 5S.6 83
2.6 0.7 73.1 63
2.5 0.35 86.0 66
2.5 0.7 72.0 53
1.8 1.2 33,3 60
2.0 1.1 45 77
2.2 0.9 59.1 78
2.0 0.07 96.5 77
1.9 0.4 78.9 95
B. O. D.
Eff.
Avg. % Removal
(mo/1)
141 18.0
130 22.2
69 25.0
60 29.4
64 22.9
49 22.2
40 39.4
45 15.1
52 13.3
67 13.0
68 12.8
49 36.4
71 25.3
Inf.
Avg.
(ma/1)
350
350
270
240
220
140
149
118
175
117
139
117
190
C.O.D.
Eff.
Avg. % Removal
(mq/1)
228 34.9
210 40.0
160 40.7
136 43.3
162 26.4
120 14.3
117 21.5
82 30.5
49 72.0
83 29.1
83 40.3
44 62 . 4
110 42.1
T.O.C.
Inf. Eff. % Removal
Avq . Avo .
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.2)
cn
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW
FILTER
Run
No,
4 SF-II
4SF-II1
5SF-I
5SF-II
SSF-III
6SFM
6SF-1II
7SF;III
BSF-1
9SF-I
9SF-I1
9SF-1II
9ASF-IH
Media
48"44 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
48*43 Anth.
36 "4612 Sand
48*44 Anth.
48*4612 Sand
48*44 Anth
36*4612 Sand
48*43 Anth.
36*612 Sand
48*43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
60*43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
60*43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
60*43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
48"43Anth.
36*4612 Sand
48*43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
60*43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
60"43Anth.
Flux Poly
Rate Feed
fa cm/It2) (ml/1)
24 0
24 0
16 0
16 0
16 0
24 0
16 0
16 0
32 0
24 0
40 0
10 0
40 0
FILTRATION TESTS
PERFORMANCE
(1970 TEST DATA)
Water
Terminal Length
Head Loss of Run
(Ft.) (Hr.)
— 1.0
36.0 5.0
— 1.5
— 3.5
22.0 8.2
29.8 5.0
16.1 11.0
17.5 16.0
16.5 10.0
34.0 10.0
22.5 2.0
9.0 10.0
18.7 5.0
Total Volume
Filtered
306
1,655
1,440
714
1,812
7,200
2,431
3,536
4,410
14,400
1,020
1,380
2,760
Rate
qpm/ftz
70
66
SO
69
62
50
75
79
75
50
60
71
60
Length
Mln.
11.4
18.4
9.3
IS
19.5
5.8
11.3
7
5
4.5
6.9
4.6
4.5
Tot.Vol.
SSL
170
270
455
224
267
290
189
115
85
225
88
74
61
« Total
Water
Filtered
—
16
31.5
31.3
14.7
4.0
7.3
3.3
1.9
1.6
8.6
5.4
2.3
Air
Scfm Length
Ft2, Mln.
14 3
13.5 3.3
12 4
14 3
18 3
10.5 4
13.5 4
IS 4
IS 3.5
12 5
16.5 3.5
18 4
13.5 2.5
Filter
Area
(Ft. 2)
.213
.223
1.00
.213
.223
1.00
.223
.223
.223
1.00
.213
.223
.223
Susi
Total S.S.
In Influent
aba)
1.068
5.38
5.83
2.79
6.35
10.39
3.50
6.04
3.42
18.21
0.874
1.31
2.09
Total S.S.
In Effluent
.047
2.58
2.83
0.83
2.79
3.7B
0.75
1.41
1.94
8.88
0.806
0.35
1.72
Quantity
Theoretically
Removed In
Column flbsl
1.021
2.80
3.00
1.96
3.56
6.61
2.75
5.63
1.48
9.33
.068
.96
.37
Susp. Sol.
Removed In
Backwash
1.6
-
9.5
1.82
3.2
5.51
1.81
3.61
1.28
-
-
1.7
_
36*1612 Sand
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.3)
COMBINED
SEWER
OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER
Suspended Solids
Run No. Media
10SF-I 48" t3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
1—1 10SF-II 48" #3 Anth.
<-" 36" #612 Sand
CO
10SF-III 60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
10ASF-III 60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
11SF-I 48" #3 Anth.
36* #612 Sand
11SF-II 48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
11SF-IU 60" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
13SF-II 48" #3 Anth.
36" #612
13SF-III 48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
13SF-IV 48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
14SF-I 48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
14ASF-1 48" #3 Anth.
36" #612 Sand
Flux
Rate
(qpm/ft2)
32
16
24
24
32
16
24
24
16
10
16
32
Poly
Feed Temp
(mg/1) £H (°F)
0 6.7 65.5
0 6.8 64.4
0 6.8 64.6
.5 7.15 65.7
.5 7.1 66.1
2.0 7.2 66.2
2.0 7.2 66.2
l.S 7.07 62.0
l.S 7.07
1.5 7.07 62.0
.5 7.0 56.6
.5 7. OS 58
Inf.
Avg.
(mq/1)
132
113
113
148
175
149
149
144
144
144
85
60
Eff.
Avg.
fmq/1) % Removal
BO 39.4
32 71.7
53 53.1
46 68.9
115 34.3
66 55.7
69 53.7
69 52. I
49 66.0
40 72.2
39 54.0
25 58.3
PERFORMANCE
(1970 TEST DATA)
Settleable Solids
Inf.
Avg.
(mq/1)
1.7
1.4
l.S
2.15
3.3
2.9
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.4
0.72
Eff.
i Avg.
(mg/lL ;
0.51
0.50
0.38
0.62
1.5
0.65
0.08
0.6S
0.28
0.3
0.31
0.13
Inf.
Avg.
ift Removal (mg/t)
70.0 93
64.3 72.5
74 . 7 72
71.2 66
54.5 100
77.6 100
97.2 100
72.9 94
88.3 94
87.5 94
77.9 64
81.9 61
B. O.
Eff.
Avg.
(mq/1)
86
62
51
63
68
67
70
75
67
66
50
46
D.
Inf.
Avg.
% Removal (mg/1)
7.5 244
14.5 192
29.2 192
4.S 151
32.0 287
33.0 287
30.0 287
20.2 193
28.7 193
29.8 193
21.9 133
24.6 134
C. O. D. T. O. C.
Eff. Inf. Eff.
Avg. Avg. Avg.
(mq/1) % Removal (mq/1) (mq/1)
187 23.4
120 37.5
126 34.4
88 41.7
230 19.9 135.7 78
200 30.3 133 71
207 27.9 133 92.2
114 40.9 67.0 40.7
98 49.2 67.0 31.1
92 52.3 67.0 25.0
95 28.6 50.0 33
127 5.2 46.0 37
-r-
-
-
42.5
46.6
30.7
39.3
53.6
62.7
34.0
19.6
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.4)
00
COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER PERFORMANCE
Flux Poly Terminal
Run Rate Feed Head Loss
No. Media fa cm/ft2) (ml/1) (Ft.)
10SF-I 48"»3Anth. 32 0 14.8
36"#612 Sand
10SF-II 48'*3Anth. 16 0 12.5
36"#612 Sand
10SF-III 60"#3Anth. 24 0 11.2
36"#612 Sand
10ASF-II1 60"#3 Anth. 24 .5 16.8
36 "#612 Sand
11SF-I 48"#3Anth. 32 .5 13.8
36"#612 Sand
11SF-I! 48"#3 Anth. 16 2.0 8.0
36 "#612 Sand
11SF-III 60"#3Anth. 24 2.0 25.0
3 6 "#612 Sand
13SF-II 48"#3Anth. 24 1.5 16.0
3 6 "#612 Sand
13SF-IH 48"#3Anlh. 16 1.5 4.7
36"*612 Sand
13SF-IV 48"*3Anlh. 10 1.5 5.2
36"#612 Sand
14SF-I 48"t3Anth. 16 .5 2.3
3 6 "#612 Sand
14ASF-I 48"»3Anth. 32 .5 22.3
Length
of Run
(Hr.l
3.0
10.5
10.5
10.0
3.5
10.0
10.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
6.0
8.0
(1970 TEST DATA)
Water
Total Volume % Total
Filtered Rate Length Tot. Vol. Water
(Gal.) gpm/ft2 Mln. Gal. filtered
5,760 49 10 490 8.5
2,142 60 9.6 122 5.7
3,475 71 4 64 1.8
3,310 — — — —
6,720 66 10.7 711 10.6
2,040 90 2.5 47 2.3
3,210 52 4 47 1.4
3,213 70 25 371 4.2
2,328 31 14 95 4.1
1,335 32 13.5 91 6.8
5,760 — — — —
15,560 — — — —
Air , Suspended Solids Mass Balance Analysis
Filter Total S.S. Total S.S.
Scfm Length Area In Influent In Effluent
Ft2 Mln. . (Ft.2) (Lbs) (Lbs)
10 4 1.00 6.33 3.84
15.5 4 .213 2.02 0.57
12 3 .223 3.27 1.53
— — .213 4.02 1.27
6.8 10 1.00 9.80 6.45
2.4 6 .213 2.53 1.12
2.1 3 .223 4.0 1.90
4.0 3 .213 3.85 1.85
4.1 29 .223 2.78 .95
4.0 9 .213 1.60 .44
— — 1.00 4.08 1.87
— — 1.00 7.66 3.29
Quantity
Theoretically
Removed in
2.49
1.4S
1.74
2.75
3.35
1.41
2.11
2.00
1.83
1.16
2.21
4.46
Susp. Sol.
Removed In
Backwash
1.86
.51
—
-
2.05
.695
8.0
1.19
.36
—
—
36"*612 Sand
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.5)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER PERFORMANCE
(1971 TEST DATA)
Suspended Solids Scttleable Solids BOP COD Total Phosphorus
Run No.
17SF1I
17SFIII
17SFIV
18SFII
18SFI1I
19SFIII
19SFIV
19ASFII
19A8FIV
19BSFII
19BSFIV
Flux
Rate
faom/ft2)
10
16
24
8
24
8
16
24
32
16
16
Coagulan
Feed
(mq/1)
0
0
0
0
0
g
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
t Polymer
Feed
(mo/1) pH
0
0
0
Atlas 4A4 6.8
1.0
Atlas 4A4 6.8
1.0
1.0
Mag. 560C 6.7
1.0
Mag. 560C 6.7
1.0
Mag. S60C 6.8
1.0
Mag. S60C 6.8
1.0
7.2
Mag. S60C 7.3
Temp.
(°F)
53
S3
53
62
62
68
68
69
69
70
70
Inf.
Avg.
. (mq/1)
223.9
209.5
214.8
362.3
362.3
362 5
301.7
324.5
192.0
192.0
278
221
Eff.
Avg.
(mq/1)
66
74.8
10E.8
153. 3
292.4
256 7
108.0
181.0
48.0
90.0
176.3
125.3
% Removal
70.5
64.3
50.3
57.5
19.3
29. 1
64.2
44.2
75.0
53.1
36.6
43.3
Inf.
1 Avg.
(mq/1)
2.3
2.3
2.4
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.8
3.8
2.0
2.0
2.5
'2.5
Eff.
Avg.
(mo/1)
.2
.3
.3
.2
1.2
.2
0.8
0.3
.4
2.4
1.4
% Removal
91.3
87.0
87.5
93.9
63.6
94.7
78.9
85.0
80.0
4.0
44.0
Inf.
Avg.
tag/1)
279.2
259.2
257.5
173.2
173.2
154*8
425
457.5
37
37
43.7
44.8
Eff.
Avg.
(mq/1)
275. 8
232.5
185.0
112.3
119.8
142 1 7
360
390
28
25
35.8
30.7
Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff.
% Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (ma/1)
1.2 265 165.3 37.6
10.3 265 149 43.8
28.2 301 196.8 34.6
35.2 488.3 412. S 15.5
30.8 488.3 373.8 23.4
15.3 138.5 83.0 40.1 .61 .16 73.8
14.8 -- -- — .57 .37 35.0
24.3 141 72.7 48.4 .51 .19 62.7
32.4 141 62.7 55.5 .51 .20 60.8
18.1 173.8 152.2 12.4 .50 .31 38.0
31.5 177.8 93.7 47.3 .50 .21 58.0
Length of Total
Run Head Loss
(Hours) (ft.)
6.0 4.2
6.0 6.2
4.0 28.8
5.5 4.6
5.5 10.9
5.5 8.7
5.5 10.3
5.5 23.1
3.0 31.4
3.0 39.3
6.0 X17.5
6.0 12.9
Modto
60- No. 3 Anlh.
36- No. 612 Sand
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.6)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER PERFORMANCE
(1971 TEST DATA)
Suspended Solids Settleable Solids BOD
Flux Coagulant Polymer Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eft.
Rate Feed Feed Temp. Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg.
Run No. (
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET Ho.7)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER PERFORMANCE
(1971 TEST DATA)
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
BOD
COD
Total Phosphorus
en
89.3 13.3
85.5 49.3
Flux Coagulant Polymer Inf. £ff. Inf. Elf. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff.
Rate Feed Feed Temp Avg. Avg. '% Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal
Run No. (gpm/ft2) (ma/I) fag/1) PH I°F) (mo/1) (mg/1) (mo/11 (ma/1) (mo/1) (mg/1) (mo/11 (mg/1) (mq/1) (mq/11
22SFIII
22SFIV
22ASFII
22ASFIII
22ASFIV
22BSFII
22BSFI1I
22BSFIV
22CSFII
22CSFIII
22CSFIV
23SFII
Media
60" No. 3 Anth.
36" No. 612 Sand
16
24
8
16
24
8
16
24
8
16
24
8
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
Alum
30.0
0
Swift x-400 7.5 69 322.7
1.0
Swift x-400 7.5 69 322.7
1.0
Atlas 3A3 7.2 60 251.0
1.0
Atlas 3A3 7.2 60 251.0
1.0
Atlas 3A3 7.2 60 251.0
1.0
Purlfl.
1.0
Purlll.
1.0
Purlfl.
1.0
Purlfl.
1.0
Purlfl.
1.0
Purlfl.
1.0
A-23 6.6 51 159.7
A-23 6.6 51 159.' 7
A-23 6.6 51 159.7
C-31 6.j 50 217.5
C-31 6.5 SO 217.5
C-31 6.5 SO 222.5
Atlas 4A4 7.1 49 300.7
1.0
71
77
57,
128
177
59
54,
92.
38,
65.
89.
10.
.7
.0
.3
.0
.5
.7
.0
.5
,0
,3
.0
0
77.8
76.1
77.1
49.0
29.3
62.6
66.2
42.1
82.5
70.0
60.0
96.7
2.4 .5 79.2 100.0 40.8
2.4 .9 62.5 100.0 40,5
1.9 .2 84.2 43.7 26.2
1.9 .8 57.8 43.7 23.8
1.9 1.1 42.1 43.7 33.8
2.3 .2 91.3 43.0 30.0
2.3 1.8 21.7 43.0 19.5
- - - 43.0 24.5
1.9 .15 92.2 65.8 31.5
1.9 .63 66.8 66. 8 34.5
1.9 1.2 36.8 65.3 30.0
1.4 <0.1 92.8 66.3 12.7
59.2
59.5
40.4
45.5
22.7
30.2
54.7
43.0
52.1
47.6
54.4
80.8
1.0
1.0
.82
.82
.82
.90
.90
.90
.68
.68
.68
.51
.59
.50
.58
.52
.24
.47
.52
.14
.29
.50
49.0
41.0
39.0
29.3
36.6
73 J
47.8
42.2
79.4
57.4
23.5
6.0
3.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Length of Total
Run Head Loss
(Hours) (ft.)
22.2
14.3
2.14
5.1
13.5
4.2
5.4
9.2
12.0
-------
TABLE B-3 (SHEET No.8)
Flux Coagulant
Rate Feed
Run No. (gpm/ft2) (mg/1)
23SFIII 16 0
23SFIV 24 0
23ASFI1 24 0
23ASFIII 16 0
23ASFIV 8 0
23BSF11 24 0
23BSFIH 8 0
23BSFIV 16 0
Media
60" No. 3 Anth.
36" No. 612 Sand
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
FILTER PERFORMANCE
(1971 TEST DATA)
Suspended Solids Settleable Solids BOD COD Total Phosphorus
Polymer Inf. Elf. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Length of Total
Feed Temp. Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. %-Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Avg. Avg. % Removal Run Head Loss
(mg/1) pH C°FJ (mo/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (Hours) (ft.)
Atlas 4A4 7.1 49 300.7 9.0 97.0 1.4 <0. 1 92.9 66.3 14.5 78.1 189.2 72.5 61.7 - - - 5.0
1.0
Atlas 4A4 7.1 49 300.7 28.0 90.7 1.4 .13 90.7 66.3 18.0 72.9 189.2 67.8 64.2 - - 5.0
1.0
Purlfl. A23 7.5 50 210.7 17.7 91.6 .7 < 0. 1 85.7 44.8 14.3 68.1 156.2 48.7 68.8 .71 .40 43.7 4.0
1.0
Purlfl. A23 7.5 50 210.7 16.3 92.3 .7 <0.1 85.7 44.8 14.8 67.0 156.2 65.2 58.3 .71 .39 45.1 6.0
1.0
Purlfl. A23 7.5 50 210.7 18.0 91.5 .7 <0.1 85.7 44.8 25.8 42.4 156.2 60.5 61.3 .71 .43 39.4 6.0
1.0
Mag. 560C 6.9 50 392.8 94.0 76.1 2.0 1.0 50.0 67.0 31.3 53.3 161.2 70.5 55.6 .76 .55 26.3 3.0
1.0
Mag. 560C 6.9 SO 392.8 8.9 97.7 2.0 <0.1 50.0 67.0 27.0 59.7 161.2 44.5 72.4 .76 .40 47.2 6.0
1.0
Mag. 560C 6.9 50 392.8 7.0 98.2 2.0 0.1 50.0 67.0 27.5 59.0 161.2 73.5 54.4 .76 .36 52. 6 4.0
1.0
19.9
40.9
12.3
9.7
5.3
26.7
6.6
12.3
-------
TABLE B-4
COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
COLIFORM
Run
Mo-
4SF-II
4SF-11I
ssr-i
ssr-ii
ssr-m
6SF-I
6SF-III
7SF-III
8SF-HI
9SF-1
9SF-11
9SF-1H
9ASF-I1I
10SF-!
10SF-II
10SF-III
10ASF-1I!
11SF-1
USF-II
USF-1II
13SF-I1
13SF-1I1
13SF-IV
14SF-1
14ASF-I
Media
48"44Anth.
36"V612Sand
48"43Anth.
36-4612 Sand
4 8 "44 Anth.
48 "#612 Sand
48-44 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48"43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48"43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60 -43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60 "43 Anth.
36 "4612 Sand
60"43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48 "43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48-43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60*43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60-43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
48"43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48"43 Anth.
36"*612 sand
60 "43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60"43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48"t3Amh.
36"f612 Sand
48"»3 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
60 "*3 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48-43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48-43 Anth.
36-4612 Sand
48 "43 Anth.
36"4 612 Sand
48 "43 Anth.
36*4612 Sand
48"43 Anth.
36'4612Sand
Flux'
Rate .
24
24
16
16
16
24
16
16
32
24
40
10
40
32
16
24
24
32
-16
24
24
16
10
16
32
REDUCTION BY FILTRATION
(1970 TEST DATA)
Fecal Conform Total Conform
Inf.Avg. Eff.Avg. mf.Avg. Eft. Avg.
Poly .No.xlO6 No.xlO6. % . xlO6 X106 *
Feed 1 100ml ' 1 100ml ' Removal ' 100ml ' ' 100ml ' Removal
0 1.6 1.2 25 — — —
0 1.3 1.2 7.6 — — —
0 .93 .7 24.8 33.0 — —
0 .85 .8 5.8 33.0 11.0 66.6
0 .74 .4 46.0 33.0 — —
0 1.8 .8 55.5 1.9 — —
0 1.7 1.0 41.3 1.9 — —
0 3.1 — — 7.0 15.0 0
0 1.0 .8 20.0 7.6 2.8 63.2
0 15.2 13.7 9.8 29.5 11.4 61.4
0 — 4.6 — 29.5 10.0 66.1
0 15.2 2.7 82.2 29.5 4.0 86.4
0 3.2 2.8 12.5 52.5 26.7 49.2
0 5.1 4.8 11.0 16.0 22.0 0
0 4.6 2.8 39.2 16.0 25.3 0
0 4.6 2.1 54.4 16.0 19.2 0
D.5 1.8 1.0 44.4 5.6 3.9 30.3
0.5 11.0 10 9.2 79.7 51.5 35.3
2.0 11.0 8.3 24.6 79.7 41.0 48.5
2.0 11.0 7.8 29.1 79.7 47.0 40.4
1.5 4.1 2.8 31.7 24.3 6.B 72.0
1.5 4.1 2.7 34.2 24.3 1.2 66.2
1.5 4.1 2.8 31.7 15.0 1.0 93.4
0.5 3.5 2.3 34.2 21.0 16.3 22.4
0.5 3.3 2.0 39. ^ 15.3 5.5 64.1
168
-------
TABLE B-5 (SHEET No. I)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
SOLIDS REDUCTION BY FILTRATION
(1970 TEST DATA)
Total Volatile Solids
Flow
Run Flux
No. Media fej»m/ftz)
4SF-1I 48"»4Anlh.
36"#612 Sand
4SF-III 48"MAnth.
36"(t612 Sand
SSF-I 48"#-1Anth.
36"*612 Sand
5SF-II 48"#4Anth.
36"t612 Sand
SSF-III 48"#3Anth.
,_. 36"*612Sand
CD
/Q 6SF-I 48"#3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
6SF-HI 60"*3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
7SF-III eO'tUAnl1).
36"*612 Sand
8SF-III 60"»3Anth.
36"#612Sand
9SF-I 48"#3Anth.
36"*6I2 Sand
9SF-II 48"#3Anth.
36"*612 Sand
9SF-HI 60"43Anth.
36"»6l2Sand
9ASF-III 60"it3Anlh.
36"*612 Sand
IOSF-1 48"
-------
TABLE B-5 (SHEET No.2)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
SOLIDS REDUCTION BY FILTRATION
(1970 TEST DATA)
Total "olatile Solids
Grab
Run
No^
11SF-I
11SF-II
11SF-1II
13SF-II
13SF1II
14SF-I
14ASF-I
Flux Feed Avg. Avg. Inf. Eff. % % Inf. Eff. % Inf. E«. % %
Media (gum/ft2) mg/1 ITU ITU Avg. Avg. Removal Inf. Elf. * Removal Inf. Eff. Removal Avq. Avg. Removal Avq. Avg. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal
48"#3Anth.
36"*612 Sand
48"#3Anth.
36"»612Sand
60"*3Anth.
36"*612 Sand
48"*3Anth.
36"»6I2 Sand
4S"#3Anth.
36 "»612 Sand
48"#3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"»3Anth.
36"*612 Sand
48"*3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
Flow Poly Inf. Eff.
Flux Feed Avg. Avg. Inf. Eff. %
/ft2) mg/1 TTU ITU Avg. Avg.
32 .5 178 135 582 532 8.6
16 0 170 106 565 447 20.8
24 2.0 170 111 565 509 9.9
24 1.5 167 109 435 351 19.3
16 1.5 167 102 435 314 27.8
10 1.5 167 100 435 318 26.8
16 .5 111 67 301 262 12.9
32 .5 62 46 386 371 3.9
Composite
Composite
Total Nonvolatile Solids
— 512 —
478 468 2.1
478 453 5.2
378 319 15.6
378 296 21.7
378 265 30.0
280 240 14.3
204 227 0
180 175 2.8
180 167 7.2
180 136 24.4
118 95 19.5
US 99 13.9
115 91 20.8
US 82 28.7
116 99 14.6
202 167 17.3
202 149 26.3
202 162 19.9
139 112 19.4
263 220 16.4
263 205 22.0
263 183 30.5
164 HI 14.0
131 149 0
Run
N°-
Media
Flux
Rate
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Nonvolatile Suspended Solids
Poly Inf. Eff. % 11 In'- Eff. * * Inf. Eff. % %
Feed Avg. Avg. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal Avg. Avg. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal Avg. Avg.. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal
48 "#3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"*3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"»3 Anth.
36>'# 612 Sand
48"#3 Anth.
36"ttG12 Sand
48"*3 Anth.
36"#612 Sand
24 1.5 116 63 45.7 — — —
16 1.5 116 37 68.0 — — —
10 1.5 116 30 74.0 — — —
16 0.5 83 49 41.0 110 45 —
32 0.5 — — — 86 60 31
62 39 37.0 — — — 54 26 52.0
62 23 63.0 — — — 54 12 78.0
62 21 66.0 — — — 54 9 83.0
48 33 31.2 71 34 52.0 36 16 56.0
— T— — 70 46 33.5 — — —
39
'.7
11
13
-------
TABLE B-6 (SHEET No.l)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TESTS
PHOSPHATE, NITROGEN AND GREASE REDUCTION BY FILTRATION
(1970 TEST DATA)
Total Phosphate Soluble Phosphate Nitrogen Grease
Grab Composite Grab Composite Composite Composite
Plow Poly Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eft. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eft. Inf. Eff.
Run Flux Feed Avg. Avq. « Avg. Avg. * Avg. Avg. * Avg. Avg. % Avg. Avg. * Avg. Avg. %
No. Media qmp/ft^ mq/1 mq/1 mq/1 Removal mq/1 mg/1 Removal mg/1 tnq/1 Removal mq^ mq/1 Removal mg/1 mq/1 Removal mq/1 mq/l Removal
4SF-H . 48"44 Anth. 24 ' 9 — — — __— ___ — — ____ __ _
36"4612 Sand
4SF-HI 48"#3Anlh. 24 0 — — — 2.SO 2.40 14.3 — — - — — — 18.2 14.8 18.6 — — —
36-4612 Sand
5SF-I 48"43Anth. 16 0 — — ____ ___ _— — ___ ___
48"t612 Sand
5SF-II 48"44 Anth. 16 0 — — ____ ___ _— ____ ___
36"*612 Sand
5SF-III 48"43Anth. 16 0 — — — ___ ___ _ — ____ ___
36-4612 Sand
6SF-I 48-43Anth. 24 0 — — — 0.75 0.40 46.6 — — — — — — 23.2 24.9 0 16.2 19.-3 0
36-4612 Sand
6SF-III 60"43Anth. 16 0 — — — 0.75 0.60 20.0 — — — — — — 23.2 19.9 14.2 16.2 32.7 0
36"4612Sand
7SF-III 60"43Anth. 16 0 — — — 1.00 1.25 C — — — — — — 10.2 6.6 35.1 6.4 3.8 40.6
3 6 "4612 Sand
8SF-III 60'43Anth. 32 0— —— — —— — — — —_ — __-_ ___
36-4612 Sand
9SF-I 48'43Anth. 24 0 — — — 0.40 0.03 90.0 — — — — — — 11.1 9.9 10.9 20.9 20.6 l.S
36 "#612 Sand
9SF-H 4B"«Anth. 40 0 — — — 0.40 — — — — — ___ u.i _ _ _ _ _
36"*612 Sand
9SF-III 60"»3Anth. 10 0 — — — 0.40 0.30 85..S — _ _ _ — _ H.I 8.4 24.2 20.9 7.5 44.2
36-4612 Sand
9ASF-III 60-«Anth. 40 o— ————— — — — — — — —__ — _ _
36'* 612Sand
-------
TABLE B-6 (SHEET No.2)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATiON TESTS
PHOSPHATE, NITROGEN AND GREASE REDUCTION BY FILTRATION
(1970 TEST DATA)
Total Phosphate I..I_T ^Soluble Phosphate
Run
No.
103P-I
•— ' 10SF-II
•V]
00
losr-m
_ Media
4fl"#3Anlh.
36"#612 Sand
48"#3Anth.
3 6 "#612 Sand
60'#3Anlh.
3 C -it 612 Sand
10ASF-III60"#3Anth.
3 6 "#612 Sand
11SF-1
11SF-I!
11SF-1II
13SF-II
13SF-III
13SF-IV
14SF-I
• 14ASF-I
48"#3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"#3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
60"#3Anth.
36"#612 Sand
48"#3Anth.
36"#612Sond
48"t3Anth.
36"#612Sand
48"*3Anth.
36"t612 Sand
48"»3An«h
36"»612 Sand
48"#3Anth.
36"»612 Sand
Flow
Flux
gmp/ft2
32
16
24
24
32
16
24
24
16
10
16
32
Grab
Poly Inf. Iff.
Feed Avg. Avg.
mq/1 n.g/1 mg/1
0 — —
0 — —
0 — —
.5 — —
.5 — —
2.0 — —
2.0 — —
l.S 10.5 6.6
l.S 10.5 5.8
l.S 10. 5 6.8
0.5 10.1 9.8
0.5 11.1 11.9
Cor
Inf.
% Avg.
Removal mq/1
— 1.6
— 1.6
— 1.6
- -
— 0.6
— 0.6
— 0.6
37.1 6.0
44.7 6.0
35.1 6.0
3.0 14.0
0 11.0
oposlte
Eff.
Av9.
mq/1
-
1.3
l'.3
-
1.4
1.3
1.1
6.8
8.1
5.4
8.8
11.0
Grob Composite Composite
Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Int. Eff.
"X Avg . Avg . % Avg . Avg . % Avg . Avg . %
Removal rcq/1 mq/1 Removal mq/1 mq/1 Removal mq/1 mq/1 Removal
— ___ — — —8.7— —
18.7 — — — — — — 8.7 7.0 19. S
18.7 — — — — — — 8.7 7.0 19.5
_ ___ ___ ___
0 — — — — — — 22.1 12.7 42.5
0 — — — — — — 22.1 16.5 25.4
0 — — — — — — 22.1 18.9 14.5
37.1 3.2 2.9 9.4 2.9 2.6 10.4 9.5 7.4 22..
0 28.3 3.8 — 6.0 4.9 18.3 10.2 11.1 0
Composite
Inf.
Avg.
mgil
25.5
2S.5
25.5
-
28.4
28.4
28.4
10.9
10.9
10.9
23.0
48.4
V.i.
Avq.
mg/1
-
13.9
18.5
-
19.4
5.8
16.4
47.5
22.4
5. 5
6.5
27.5
*
Removal
-
45. 5
27.4
-
31.6
79.6
45.1
0
0
49.5
31.8
43.2
-------
CO
600
200
>Z
INFLUENT
<:uu
I 150
d
d
oi 100
Rrt
1
4\
.
^ INF
•FFLUEN
LUENT
T
.
**uu
«? 300
E_^
5
Q 200
o
inn
N
/
>
^-INFL
v — EFF
JENT
-UENT
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN20.MESH. FILTER MEDIA-lJL In. NaJ- ANTH./lg. in. No. 6'2 SAND
DATE 9/3/70 FLUX RATE 24.
RUN
gpm/ft'
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE Cl
173
-------
o
s
111
or
UJ
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
s.s.
C.O.D.
B.O.D.
UJ
X
20
10
0
DEPTH (IN.)
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN 2P_MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 4J_in.No._l_ANTH./-36_in.No._§_i2__sAND
HATF 9/3/70 n IIY RATE 24 ^/ft2
RUN No. 4SF1I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C2
174
-------
t»uu
400
200
r\
X •
— =^
^ 1
, \
"••*._.*-
"^1
N—
MFLUENT
^v.
_,--*
^^
EFFLUENT
d
d
oi
200
100
0
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
DUU
^ 400
E
d
d 200
o
n
•^%<
*• -
.--"••
^C^
v_EF
/—INFLUENT
*<
mm ••
:FLUENT
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN20MESH FILTER ME PI AM- in. No.-l- ANTH./-1§. in. No. 6'2 SAND
24
gpm/ft'
DATE 9/3/70 FLUX RATE-
RUN No. 4SFIII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C3
175
-------
§
o
5
LJ
CC
cr
CO
CO
O
_1
Q
<
LJ
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
3 AMTH/36 in
SCREEN20.MESH. FILTER MFDIA 48 m.
DATE 9/3/70 FLUX RATE _ 24 _
RUN N0.4SF1H
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C4
176
-------
V)
o>
£^
d
Q
CQ
OVJVJ
400
200
0
150
100
50
O
^
"* ?'
L.
— T"
V
>
NFLUENT
-EFFLUE
NT
^
/—IN FLU
FFLUEN
ENT
T
O
d
^ww
200
100
n
.5:
>
INFLUEN
[FFLUEN
T
T
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER MEDIA!§-in.No._i_ANTH./A^ in.No.612 SAND
2
DATE 9/8/7Q FLUX RATE II.
gptn/ft1
RUN No. 5SFI
COMBINED gEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C5
177
-------
1 W
90
80
H 70
/
,V
/
/
x^~S.S.
FB.O.D.
— C.O.D.
CO
05
O
_l
Q
<
LJ
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN20.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 48 . in.No.-±-ANTH./-l§in.No. 6>2 .SAND
DATE 9/8/70 FLUX RATE \& ^n^
RUN No. 5SFI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C6
J.78
-------
toUU
«? 400
E
3 20°
n
V
""N
EFFLUE
X^
— r- ****
^•HNFL
NT -,
^e^-
UENT
q
Q
CO
150
100
50
0
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
6
o
300
200
100
0
INFLUEN
FLUENT
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN20MEsH. FILTER MEDIAA§_ in. NaJJ-ANTH./-Jg- in. No. 6l2 SAND
2
16
gpm/ft'
DATE 9/8/70 FLUX RATE-
RUN Mn 5SFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C7
179
-------
1 W
90
^ 80
^ 70
g 60
1 50
LJ
" 40
a:
£ 30
£ 20
10
n
\
\
4
J
1
/<
s ^
/^/
/ \\
\
Y
\
r-S.S.
rC.O.D.
/-B.O.C
.
cn
w
o
LJ
X
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
•81
— 45
/- 27
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN20_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.18_in.No.J_ANTH./-liin.No._§I2__SAND
HATF 9/8/70 niiv RATE li ffl"1/"2
RUN No. 5$FU
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C8
180
-------
3
600
400
0
EFFLUENT
—INFLUENT
d
o
CD
o>
Q
O
6
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN2p_MESH. FILTER MEDIA-i*L in. No._l_ ANTH./J*6 in. No.6R.SAND
HATF 9/8/70 FLUX RATE L§ 9Pm/ft2
RUN No. 5SF1II
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C9
181
-------
CO
_J
o
S
UJ
o:
H
U.
CO
CO
o
_J
o
<
LJ
20
10
DEPTHdN.)
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN2P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.^8_in.No.^_ANTH./16 in.No._6i2__SAND
DATE 9/8/70 FLUX RATE £ 5?"/ft2
RUN No. 5SFHI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CIO
182
-------
CO
300
200
100
0
-INFLUENT
- EFFLUENT
o>
d
o
CD
300
o>
c
d
4 6 8
TIME (HOURS)
10
SCREEN2QMESH. FILTER MEDIA-Jg_ \n. No.-3—ANTH./-36 jn. No. 6'2 SAND
HATF 9/19/70 FLUX RATE.__li__9prn/ft2
RUN Mn 6SFI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE Cll
183
-------
1 ww
90
80
2 70
V)
g 60
i so
UJ
40
o:
* 30
u~ 20
10
n
j
—"
Vx
\s
\
V.
/ — S.S.
r
*- l
-C.O.D.
X
^..— .
*"• — i
n
-\
\
^"^s*4
/-*
^- B.O.D.
CO
CO
o
UJ
X
20
10
0
DEPTH (IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10 12
/36 in Mn 612
SCREEN20MESH. FILTER MFHIA 48 ?n,Mn 3
HATF 9/19/70 n iiv RATE _ £4
RUN MQ 6SFJ
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI2
184
-------
CO
o>
^
d
o
CD
o>
6^
d
o
d
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN2Q.MESH. FILTER MEDIA-&CL in. Na_2_ ANTH./_2£. in. No._£12_SAND
DATE 9/19/70 FLUX RATF 16 gpm/ft2
RUN No. 6SFJIE
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C13
185
-------
CO
i
o
LJ
a:
UJ
LL
100
80
70
10
0
B.O.D.
X-
=y
, N.
c.o.o.
H
u.
CO
CO
o
LJ
X
20
DEPTH (IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN2Q_MESH. FILTER MFDIA 60 in.MO 3 MTH./36 8n i^n 612 SAMR
DATE_9/i9/70_ FLUX RATE L§ iE"1/^2
RUN No. 6gF?{l
COMBiNED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI4
186
-------
CO
CO
ci
o
CD
LUENT
EFFLUENT
o>
E^
d
o
d
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN40.MESH. FILTER MEDIAE in. No._£_ANTH./_3_6 in. No..£i2LSAND
DATF 9/23/70 FLUX RATF 16 gptn/ft2
RUN Nn 7SFBI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION ..TEST
FIGURE CIS
187
-------
^g
CO
LJ
oc
oc
LJ
I-
CO
CO
O
LJ
X
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN.4QMESH. FILTER MEDIA.j60_in.No.-l-ANTH./-3£in.No. 612 SAND
DATE 9/23/70 FLUX RATE !§ W"/"2
RUN NoT-SFJK
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI6
1S8
-------
CO
CO*
o>
£
O
CD
Ci
q
o
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
SCREEN.1P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA^O- in. Na-3_ ANTH./-36 jn. No. 6'2 SAND
DATE 9/28/70 FLUX RATE 32 W"2
RUN No. 8SFIII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 17
189
-------
o
5
LJ
OH
an
LJ
H
U.
eo
eo
o
_i
o
<
LU
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN 10_MESH. FILTER MFH|A 60 in MO 3 ANTH/36inN» 612 gAMP
HATF 9/28/70 PINY RATE 32 .W"/"2
RUN No. 8SFI{I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FiLTRATJON TEST
FIGURE CIS
190
-------
o>
CO
o>
E^
q
O
CD
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN40.MESH FILTER MEDIA-48-in. Nal_ ANTH./-16-m. No.^l2_SAND
DATE 10/6/70 FLUX RATF 24 gpm/ft2
RUN No. 3SFI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI9
191
-------
i
o
5
LJ
cc
LJ
H
u.
o
_J
Q
<
LJ
X
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.-48_in.No._3_ANTH./_36.in.No._6i2_SAND
HATF 10/6/70 FIIIV RATE 34 iP"171^
RUN No.9S£I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C20
192
-------
r
FLUENT
low
| 100
ci
d
cri 50
o
vm
r1
Z-EF
FLUENT
FLUENT
*j\j\j
^ 200
E^
Q
0 100
O
n
^— INF
1.
~=
LUENT
EFFLUE
NT
02468
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4QMESH. FILTER MEDIAA8_ in. No.^_
10/6
FLUX RATE.
40
10
in.
12
612
SAND
RUN No.9SFII_
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CZI
193
-------
1 \J\J
90
80
x-»
* 70
V)
< 60
i so
UJ
40
o:
* 30
_i
u- 20
10
n
v-C.O.C
\ y
V
/
^*
.
r-B.O.D.
H
u.
(S)
(f)
o
_l
Q
<
UJ
20
10
DEPTH (IN.)
81
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
612
_gANP
SCREEN JO MESH. FILTER MFDIA 48^n.No 3 ANTH/36 in
HATF 10/6/70 pi iix RATE _ 15 _ ^pm/ft2
RUN No.-E?FlI_
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C22
194
-------
CO
CO*
d
d
CQ
150
100
50
NFLUENT
C.
-7
LUENT
-300
O
6
0 2
SCREEN4QMESH. FILTER MEDiAi>P_in.
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
10
ANTH./.^. in. NO.
2
SAND
9pm/ft
HATF 10/6/70 FLUX
RUN No.SSFW
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C23
195
-------
100
CO
i
o
5
Ltl
a:
a:
UJ
f-
co
05
O
_l
Q
<
LJ
20
10
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN!£MESH. FILTER MEDiA.^°_in.No._L_ANTH./.l§.in.No._§iL_sAND
HATF 10/6/70 Fl IIV RATE !Q Spm/ft2
RUN No. 9SFill
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C24
196
-------
300
d
d
CD
Q
Q
o
IQVJ
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
C
>
^-EF
Y~IN
- ••
FLUENT
FLUENT
*•• ••
-7-
^—E
FFLUEN'
-INFLUE
*-•*•
T
NT
) 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME (HOURS)
ANTH./M. in. No. 6I2_SAND
gpm/ff
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER MEDIA^O_ jn.
DATE IO/6/7Q FLUX RATE 40
RUN No. 9ASEUI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C25
197
-------
V)
-------
CO
CO*
300
200
100
ENT
EFFLUENT
IOU
\
? inn
£ IUU
d
d
• crv
CD OU
n
3
HNFLU
FFLUEN
ENT
T
ouu
c? 200
0*
d 100
o
n
?__
3
y — INF
^^^^ ^^
FLUEN1
LUENT
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN4QMESH. FILTER MEDIAlg- in. No.-3- ANTH./^S. in. No. 6I2 SAND
DATE 10/12/70 FLUX RATE ^2 gpm/ft2
RUN No. IQSFI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C27
199
-------
CO
§
o
5
lij
o:
100
90
80
70
20
10
0
B.O.D.
C.O.D.
H
u.
CO
CO
o
_J
Q
<
LJ
DEPTH (IN.)
10
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
\2
SCREEN 10.MESH. FILTER MFDIA 48 ?n.Mo 3 ANTH/36 ip N» 612 gANp
HATF I0/l2/70niiy RATE 32 .gpm/ff2
RUN M» IQSFI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C28
200
-------
300
Q
d
CD
0
o
300
200
0
i r
INFLUENT
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
16
in. NaA_ ANTH./1§. in. No. 6l2 SAND
qpm/ft2
J^MESH. FILTER
DATE 10/12/70 FLUX RATE
RUN No. 'OSFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C29
201
-------
CO
§
o
s
111
cr
o:
UJ
i-
CO
CO
o
UJ
X
20
10
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN 40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.48 in.No.-A-_ANTH./J6_in.No. 6' 2 SAND
DATE IP/ '2/70 FLUX RATE _ 16
Mn IOSF1I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C30
202
-------
o>
e^
O)
C/J
O>
E^
q
q
ori
q
o
d
0
10
12
2468
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 4QMESH. FILTER ME PI A^P- in. NoJL ANTH./J*! in. No. 612 SAND
HATP 10/12/70 FLUX RATF 24 gpm/ft2
RUN No. tOSFJII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C3I
203
-------
o^
C/3
_J
>
O
5
LJ
a:
or
LJ
Q
<
LJ
X
20
10
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREENiP_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.JQ-ln.Na-1-ANTH.XJ^-ln.No. 62° ..SAND
DATE '0/12/70 FLUX RATE 24 flpm/ft2
RUN NoJOSFllI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C32
204
-------
CO
CO
1
ci
O
CD
iJW
$ 200
Q 100
o
n
x— -IN
,_>
FLUENT
- — — —
^^^^
FLUEN1
468
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN40MESH. FILTER MEDIA
DATE'0/13 770 FLUX RATE
RUN NolOAlfJll
in. No._
10
in.
12
SAND
24 gpm/ft^ pOLY NALCO 671
0.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C33
205
-------
o
2
LJ
o:
tr
LJ
h-
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
S.Sr
H
u.
CO
o
Ul
X
20
10
DEPTH C IN.)
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN40_MESH. FILTER MEDIA. JO_in.No._3_ANTH./36_in.No._6l2__SAND
DATF 10/13/70 FL||Y RATF 24 gpm/ffZ pmY NALCO 671
RUN NO.IOASF1I1 ^^
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FJLTRATiON TEST
FIGURE C34
206
-------
CO
vJV^VV
200
100
n
X**
X
r-^
^p
'
r— 1
\
. \*^
>
**x<
|
NFLUENT
*"* ^^
*s^
^"s
>x^
^ — EFFLUEN'
1
o>
d
o
ad
100
50
0
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
tuu
JFLUEN'
,sf
-<
\_
.
^
EFFLUE
:NT
o.
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREENJ^OMESH. FILTER MEDiAl8_in.NaJL.ANTH./-Hin.No.lLi_
HATF 10/21/70 FLUX RATfr 32 gpm/ft2 po|_Y NALCO 671
RUN N. MCCT ^^
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C35
207
-------
1 ww
90
^ 80
^ 70
< 60
| 50
UJ
40
o:
£ 30
H 20
10
n
\
A
/\
/ \
— — -
r-S.S.
'^^ /
\ /N
""v>
L-
X
/
»•-**
C.O.D.
u.
V)
o
UJ
I
20
10
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN 1P_MESH. FILTER MFDIA 48 in.M0 3 ANTHy36 ln Nft 612 gANn
HATF 10/21/70 FLUX RATE 32 .gpm/ft^ POLY NALCO 671
IIOCT 0.5mg/1
RUN No.iiSFl 2_
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C36
208
-------
o>
CO
300
200
100
0
EFFLUENT^
INFLUENT
150
100
50
0
EFFLUENT-A
400
100
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER MEDIA!**- in. No._3_ ANTH./J! in. NO. 6I2 SAND
DATE 10/21/70 FLUX RATE.
RUN N
16
gpm/ft'
POLY.
NALCO 671
2.0mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C37
209
-------
CO
_l
<
O
S
LJ
IT
CC
LU
J-
co
CO
O
_J
Q
<
UJ
20
10
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.4JB_in.No._2_ANTH./-^S.in.No._£12_SAND
DATE_IO/21/LZQ_ FLUX RATE '6 Wm/ft2 POLY NALCO 671
I1CFTT ' 2-0mg/l
RUN No.MSFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 38
210
-------
CO
05
o>
E^
d
O
DQ
400
100
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREENlQMESH. FILTER MEDIA*?-0- in. No.JL_ ANTH./Jg. in. No.612 SAND
DATF 10/21/70 FLUX RATE._24 gpm/ft2 POLY NALCO 671
IIOCTIT 2.0mg/l
RUN Mn liSFIIT 2~
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C39
211
-------
CO
i
o
5
UJ
a:
cc
UJ
CO
o
Ul
X
20
10
468
TIME (HOURS)
DEPTH (IN.)
10
12
SCREEN 4Q_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.-6CLin.No.-S-ANTH.A3§.in.No.
SAND
DATE 10/21/70 pmx RATE
RUN MnliSFIU
24
.gpm/ft2
POLY.
NALCO 671
2.0mq/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 40
212
-------
en
en
o>
E^
d
o
CD
0»
C>
d
300
200
100
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN4Q.MESH. FILTER MEDIANS-in. No._3_ANTH./_36 in. No._612_SAND
o
DATE H/2/70 FLUX RATE-
24
RUN No.J3SfB
gpm/ftc POLY NALCO 671
l.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C4I
213
-------
i
o
s
UJ
QC
tr
ui
U_
to
to
o
UJ
X
20
10
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
SCREEN,10MESH. FILTER MEDIA.i8_in.No.J_ANTH./-3S-in.No._&12_SAND
HATF li/2/70 FLUX RATE ^4 SE"1/'*2 POLY. NALCO 671
RUN Mn I3SFI1
l.5mg/I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 42
214
-------
o>
E^
CO
CO
0>
d
o
DQ
o>
•*~f
d
o
d
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN4Q.MESH. FILTER MEDIA4B_ in. Na_i_ ANTH./_^6 in. No._SiZ.SAND
HATF 11/2/70 FLUX RATE._i6__9pm/ft2 POLY. NALCO 671
i-^QFin l.5mg/l
RUN N" '3ShJU
COMBiNED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C43
215
-------
CO
i
o
s
UJ
(T
tr
UJ
h-
CO
CO
o
UJ
X
20
10
468
TIME (HOURS)
DEPTH (IN.)
93
10
12
SCREEN ICLMESH. FILTER MEDIA.d8_in.No._3_ANTH./_^6in.No._6i2
DATE H/2/70 FLUX RATE _ LS
RUN No.
SAND
PQLY. NAL°Q 67'
l5mg/\
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 44
216
-------
C/5
300
200
100
V
NFLUEN
Q
d
m
Q
6
0
300 p^
20°
100
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN40MESH. FILTER MEDIANS-in.
DATE 11/2/70 FLUX RATE 10
RUN N0.13SFTV
10
12
in. No. 612 SAND
_gpm/ft2 pOLY NALCO 671
l.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C45
217
-------
£;
CO
>
O
s
LU
(T
a:
u
il
h-
U_
^-*
CO
CO
O
_J
Q
<
LJ
I
20
10
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
DEPTH (IN.)
10
12
SCREEN4jO_MESH. FILTER MFD|A 48
DATElL/2V_ZP__ FLUX RATE I0
RUN No. 13SFIV
o. 3 ANTH./!6-in.No. 612
gpm/ft^ pOLY NALCO 671
l.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C46
218
-------
co
CO
300
200
100
0
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
o»
E,
Q
O
m
q
o
d
300
200
100
0
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREENED MESH. FILTER MEDIATE- in.
DATE H/14/70 FLUX RATE |6_
RUN No J4SFI
ANTH./-3.6 in. No._6J2_SAND
2 POLY.-NALCO 671
gpm/ft
0.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C47
219
-------
c
to
>
O
5
UJ
-------
CO
300
200
100
INFLUE!^
-EFFLUENT
o>
£^
q
Q
CD
150
100
50
0
V
EFFLU
NT
ENT
O
6
300
200
100
0
468
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREEN^O MESH. FILTER MEDIA.UL in. No. J_ ANTH./-!§. in. No.612 SAND
,2
DATE H/15/70 FLUX RATE
RUN No. '4ASFI
32
gpm/ft'
POLY.
NALCO 671
0.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C49
221
-------
i
o
5
LJ
(T
o:
u
i-
co
(/)
O
UJ
X
20
10
0
DEPTH (IN)
4 6 , 8
TIME (HOURS)
10
12
SCREENi°_MESH. FILTER MFD|A 42 in.Mo 3 AMTH./36 '» N»
HATF 11/15/70 pi MY RATE 32
RUN N
POLY NALCO 671
0.5mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C50
222
-------
q
0
o
234
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA-6-0- in. NoJL
,6
POLY..
in. No. 6I2
0 mg/l
mg/l
0
DATE 5/5/71 FLUX RATEJP gpm/ftz
f r, No.'7bFlI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C5I
223
-------
\\J \J
Q n
3 \j
ftn
O V
g 70
1 \J
(/}
< fin
\j\j
i 50
UJ
K 40
cc
£ 30
LJ
C 20
10
0
30
u_
^ 20
(0
CO
3
§ 10
UJ
X
0
(
SCREEN 4P_M
PATF 5/5/'
•
d
/
»
1
•
/
*
i — "
rTSS
-j-
^
^1
^^
,-COD
/. —
^— BOD
' .
^m —
DEPTH.dN.)
•• •
^^MM^i^M
^^m-^m^f^m
^^
D 1 \
ESH. FILTER MEDI
71 Fl HY RATF
RUM N« I7SFII
^SS5
: "
=====
:f^
2 3 4 5 (
TIME (HOURS)
A 60 jp.No 3 AMTM/36 in.Nln. 612 5
10 „
>m/ft2 CC
^Att 0 r
MY 0 r
96
72
54
•N
>AND
ng /I
ng /I.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C52
224
-------
q
Q
CD
o>
E_^
q
q
d
o»
E
<
O
300
200
100
23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER MEDIA-6-0- in. No.JLANTHV-^J in. NO. 612 SAND
P_mg/l
Q_mg/|
POLY..
DATE 5/5/71 FLUX RATE-J6 gpm/ft2
RUN Mn I7SFIII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C53
225
-------
l\J \S
ar\
9 \J
Of)
O\J
?
— • 70
i \j
t/>
< cr\
O \J
i 50
UJ
K 40
(T
£ 30
Li
u. 20
10
0
30
P
'u.
- 20
w
3
§ 10
UJ
X
0
i
Sr.RFFN40M
HATF 5/5/"
w
\
N
•••^.,
^S"
s'
-
^* • ^
"'t
L
\ /
\
TSS -
m/ft2 PC
>W FIL
— — —
— — —
4
)
ITH./^6- in
1AG
— — -^
^ •
5 (
No 612 <
0 ,
11 Y 0 ,
TRATION TE
(IN.)
96
69
•^
5AND
Tig/I
Tig/I
ST
FIGURE C54
226
-------
CO
d
d
oi
d
0
d
E^
£L
2 3 4 5 .6
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENIOMESH. FILTER MEDIA^P- in. NaJL ANTH./JSS m. NO. 6>2 SAND
HATF 5/5/7J FLUX RATE 24 . gpm/ft2 COAG Q—mg/l
POLY..
_Q mg/l
RUN NO.JZSEIV.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW F8LTRATION TEST
FIGURE C55
227
-------
100
CO
I
Ul
a:
3
UJ
X
80
70
40
30
20
10
DEPTH.QN.)
TIME
34
(HOURS)
SCREEN4P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.-60_jn>No_3_ANTH./_36 in.No.^l2. SAND
DATE 9/5/71 FLUX RATE-24 gpm/ft2 COAG £—m9'!
,7QFn/ y POLY Q—mg/l
RUN Mn I7SF1V
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C56
228
-------
CO
^
q
Q
CQ
£_
q
q
d
e
600
300
100
0
600
4.00
0
1.00
.40
EFR
INF.
EFF.
EFR
INF.
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENiP.MESH. FILTER MEDIA-gP- in. NaJL. ANTH./-36 jn, NQ. 612 SAND
6/7/71 FLUX RATE_8__gpm/ft* COAG..
0
.mg/l
RUN No.]8SFII_ POLY.ATLA.4A4lrOmg/|
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C57
229
-------
£
i
UJ
01
CO
(0
3
§
UJ
X
20
10
0
234
TIME (HOURS)
DEPTH. (IN.)
SCREENiP_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.^P_fn.No.^_ANTHy_36 in.No. 612 SAND
DATE—l/Z/ZL FLUX RATE
RUN M» 18SF1I
8
-gpm/ft
2 COAG..
.mg/l
POIY ATLA.4A4 I.Omg/1
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C58
230
-------
600
5 400
w! 200
CO
0
_ 300
I 200
d
DQ 0
0
600
^ 400
d
q 200
o
0
1.00
1 -80
E .60
^ .40
£ .20
P 0
(
SCREENS
OATF 6/1
. -"^
*x^
^
r
•-•C
-INF.
•«i^«=!=;
^._. _
^-^
X
/
^EFF
-
,
^^**v
EFR —
/-INF
7~
MNF,
— •
•*^,,^
"^
•)
>MESH. Fl
V7I FI
«.,.. .,_ !ftSF!H
LTER ME
UX RATE
23456
TIME (HOURS)
"DIA^O in No 3 ANITH/36 in. No. 612
:24
gpm/ft2 <
1
:,OAG o
pni Y ATLA.4A4 .0
mg/|
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 59
231
-------
co
I
UJ
IT
cr
UJ
DEPTH.ON.)
u.
CO
CO
3
UJ
X
01234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENiP_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.-6p_in.No._3_ANTH./-36 in.No._6]2 SAND
6/7/71 c. ny RATF 24 /*»2 COAG.. °
qpm/ft
gpm/n pnt Y ATLA.4A4 l.Omg/1
RUN No. I8SFIU ,
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE Ceo
232
-------
600
5 400
w! 200
CO
0
_ 300
1* 200
d
§ 100
0
600
£ 400
o 200
-------
CO
I
111
OL
(T
UJ
to
co
3
UJ
X
20
10
0
0
DEPTH.QN.)
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENi?_MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 60 in.No.A_ANTH./-36.in.No.^i2_ SAND
DATE 6/7/71 ,FLUX RATE_J6 gpm/ft2 {%ffiATLA4A4 , 0^|
RUN No.tQSFiV ' ^m°
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C62
234
-------
V)
9
E,
d
Q
GQ
0
o
E
600
400
200
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
|.00
.80
.60
.20
0
0
\
INF.
INF.
EFF
INF.
EFF.
I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER MEDIA-6-0- in. NaJL. ANTHV-JS in. NO. 6|2 SAND
DATF 6/20/71 FLUX RATE 8 gpm/ft2 COAG. ALUM. 30.0 mg/i
.^em PQLY. MAG.560CI.O mg/|
RUN No.J9SFIH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C63
235
-------
V)
I
Ul
tr
GC
UJ
u.
CO
3
UJ
X
20
10
DEPTH. (IN.)
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.^P_in.No.A_ANTH./-3iin.No.^i2 SAND
RUN No.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C64
236
-------
o>
E^
d
Q
OD
O
c>
E^
CL
O
23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4QMESH. FILTER MEDIA-^P- in. No..3— ANTH./-36. jn. No. 512 SAND
HATF 6/20/71 FLUX RATE_l6_gpm/ft2 COAG .ALUM. 30 .mg/i
l
-------
100
£
V)
I
UJ
-------
300
E^
w! 100
CO
0
_. 150
| 100
Q
O
CD 50
0
300
c? 200
d
Q 100
o
0
|00
^ .80
E* .60
^ .40
_j
f. .20
e o
r-INF.
^\
^
->
1
-EFR
r
" — •—'-•.
T
^ INF.-
-INF.
_ m __
-EFF.
~\^-~-
^^^.
*^n
INF.
• !•
— \
V—
_^<
*^\-
-EFF.
EFF.
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^P-MESH. FILTER MEDIA-§°- in. NoJL- ANTH./.36 jn. No. 612 SAND
DATE 6/21/71 FLUX RATE 24 gpm/ft2 COAG. ALUM. 30 mq/|
,QACcTT pftiv MAG.560CI.Om0/l
RUN No. I9ASFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C67
239
-------
I
UJ
tr
UJ
b
u_
3
UJ
I
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
DEPTH.(IN.)
0 I 2 3 4 56
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. JO_in.No.A_ANTH./36_in.No.^l2 SAND
HATF 6/21/71 pi iiv RATE_24__aDm/ft2 COAG.AUJM 3Q_mg/|
UAIt I-LUA KAIt gpm/TT pnt y MAG.560C I.Omn/l
RUN N0.19ASFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C68
240
-------
300
«? 200
^ 100
CO
0
_ 150
£ 100
d
ci
cci 50
0
300
-------
I
UJ
cc
or
LU
H
to
CO
3
o
<
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
20
10
96
72
54
DEPTH. (IN.)
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.^P_in.No.J_ANTH./_liin.No.l!2. SAND
D/VTF 6/21/71 Ft ux RATE 32 Qpm/ft2 COAG.ALUM 3p_mg/i
DATE FLUX KATE gpm/ft pn| Y MAG.560C 1.0 mq/l
RUN Mn I9ASF1V
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C70
242
-------
600
5 ^OO
^ 200
CO
0
_ 150
f 100
d
d
oi 50
0
300
«? 200
6^
d 100
o
0
|.00
^ .80
E .60
^ .40
_i
£ .20
2 0
SCREENS
DATF 6/
—-£
—— —
— 1 WF
, -
— » —
"•*•- —
>
c^
v«
v
s
\
™— «^___
,^
^^••s
INF.— v
•••— •— JL
»— — •—
• "^ssaJ^
>^r
^•^
*• 1 !•
:INF.
_,— — '
*— "*^
EFF.—^
^EFF.
"^
7— 1
f
e±r_
•KKMKBKaKIB
0
3 MESH. Fl
22/71 pi
RUN Mn I9BSFII
COMBINED SE
r
£-
*" -
LTER Ml
_UX RATI
EWER i
-INF.
— _-.
^
x^
\
V
m-*^*
&^^
-EFF.
*^-" —
^^x
2 3 4 5 .6
TIME (HOURS)
rDIA ^° in Mn ^ AWTW /36 in Mn 612 RANH
EI6
gpm/ft2
r.OAfi ALUM 30 mg/l
POI Y 0 mn/l
OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C7I
243
-------
1
UJ
(T
tr
UJ
3
111
X
DEPTH. (IN.)
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. J^_in.No._3_ANTH./-36 in.No. 612. SAND
DATE 6/22/71 FLUX RATE—I6-
RUN Mft I9BSF1I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 72
244
-------
600
«? 400
OT! 200
03
0
_ 150
|T 100
d
c>
OQ 50
0
300
«? 200
Q 100
o
0
1.00
£ -80
E .60
j '40
2 .20
g 0
<
SCREEN4C
pATF 6/2
— — """
^^
wt* *^ ^ ••• •
HPHHiMIHMHH
EFfi
,-'"
m "
—••——«
INF. -A
~ -«.
*-^-*
^-^
EFR
*"**«*,
T-
•^7"
INF. — ^
1^^ ^^
L-e
INF—.
^^^
-EFR
»
^
^\
"^^_
^^«*.
— "^^
^
~~^
D
5 MESH. Fl
2/71 n
RUN No 19BSFIV
_— .
LTER ME
.UX RATE
INF.— i
1
^
^^^f.
2 3 '
TIME (HOURS
'DIA 60 m Mft 3 j
:I6 <
gpm/ft2 '
\
^— EFF
*
>)
IVNTH./-3-^
-^OAR AL
—
— — — «
5 .6
in, No 612 .SAND
UM. 30 mn/l
poi Y MAG. 560 C .Omg/I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C73
245
-------
g
tO
I
UJ
cr
tr
UJ
DEPTH.QN.)
to
§
§
UJ
X
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 1P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.j60_in.No._3_ANTH./-3i.in.No.^l2. SAND
RUN NQ.19BSF1V
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C74
246
-------
eo
o>
E^
q
Q
CD
Q
Q
d
E_
Q.
O
2 3 4 5 .6
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENiP-MESH. FILTER MEDIA-§P_ in. NoJL ANTH./l6- jn. NO. 612 SAND
DATE 6/23/71 FLUX RATE '6 gpm/ft2 COAG. ALUM 30 mg/i
,QrQpTI POLY. HERC. 836 1.0 mq/.
RUN No. I9CSFH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C75
247
-------
I
UJ
(T
cr
UJ
en
3
UJ
X
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 40 MESH. FILTER MEDIA.-6Q_in.No._3_ANTHiA36 in.No.^l2_ SAND
DATE-^SrFLUX «™-*—w«z S£?u^jlS/!
RUN MO I9CSFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C76
248
-------
300
^
\/-
_\
-INF.
S
/
/-INF.
*fc^
INF.
•• —
*
' —
^
^^
EFF. -
EFF.-
^s^
^==
_^^
^J
D
I MESH. Fl
3/71 p.
RUN Mn I9CSF1V
COMBINED SE
INF.-
•
^t^^"^
LTER ME
UX RATE
WER (
~^ -*»***"
*«*•
2
TIME
IDIA-60_
r 16
)VERFl
EFF-
3
(HOURS
in No 3 i
gpm/ft2 '
.OW Fl
V
^
"-•*••-.
» 5 6
\}
^NTH./^6 jn. No. 612 SAND
SOAG Fe Cl3 15 mg/|
pni Y HERC.836 .0 mrj/i
LTRATION TEST
FIGURE C77
249
-------
I
UJ
(T
CC
UJ
u.
(O
w
3
UJ
X
20
10
DEPTH. (IN.)
96
72
54
I
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENIO.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 6° in.NO.
r»ATF 6/23/71 niix RATE—I^
RUN Nc
SAND
'5 mg/l
pniY HERC.836f.Om9/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FiLTRATION TEST
FIGURE C78
250
-------
CO
ci
d
CD
o
0
o
300
200
.60
.40
.20
0
INF.
r-
EFF.
,6
0 I 2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA_§P_ in. Na_3_ ANTH./36 jn. No..6i2 SAND
DATE.
FLUX RATE _?4 gpm/ft2
FeCIs 25 mg/i
Pf» v ATLA.4A4 I.Omg/l
RUN No.EQSFjjL
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RLTRATIQN TEST
FIGURE C79
251
-------
E
to
I
Ul
IT
(T
UJ
CO
3
Ul
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
DEPTH. (IN.)
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. JO-in.No.^_ANTH./_36 in.No.^Li. SAND
DATE 6/29/71 FLUX
RUN No.20SFtt_
COAG.£fi-£l3
pniYATLA4A4I.Omg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 80
252
-------
CO
CO
d
Q
m
d
q
d
o»
E
<
O
300
200
100
0
INF.
EFF.
.6
2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^ MESH. FILTER MEDIA-§°_ in. No.JL_ ANTH./J36 jn. NO. 612 SAND
HATF 6/29/71 FHIV RATE-J6_ gpm/ft2 COAG.±eCi3 ?5_mq/l
^^^F-,« pni V ATLA.4A4 1.0 mn/i
RUN No.^PSFJU
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C8I
253
-------
g
I
UJ
(T
OC
UJ
h-
eo
3
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
30
20
10
0
0
DEPTH.dN.)
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 40.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 60 in.No.-3— . ANTH./-^§-in.No.^lg- SAND
DATE 6/29/71 FLUX RATE_16
RUN N0.20SFHL
25.mg/|
pniY ATLA.4A4I.OmQ/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C82
254
-------
CO
CO
d
Q
CD
Q
O
300
200
100
0
EFR-
-INR
I—mr.
0*
E^
o.
_j
O
23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4QMESH. FILTER MEDIA-6-0- in. NaJL- ANTH./-3§ in. No. 6'2 SAND
HATF 6/29/71 FLUX RATE_J_ gpm/ft2 COAG. Fe CI3—25_mg/|
onotrnr POLY. ATLA. 4A4 mg/|
RUN N0.2QSFTV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C83
255
-------
CO
I
Ul
OC.
(T
UJ
H
U.
CO
3
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
30
20
10
S X
TSS
L* A
X
NX
BOD
COD
^
DEPTH.dN.)
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 40MESH. FILTER MEDIA.^O_in.No.J_ANTH./-36 in.No.^12. SAND
DATE^/29/IL.FLUX RATE-Ji-gpm/ft
RUN N0.2QSRV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C84
256
-------
o>
e^
CO
CO
o«
d
Cj
CD
Q
o
o»
E
O
.6
2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4.?.MESH. FILTER MEDIA-IP- in. Na-3_ ANTH./-36 jn. No. 612 SAND
DATE 6/30/71 FLUX RATE
RUN N0.20ASFH
gpm/ft*
ALUM. 30 mg/l
pni Y ATLA. 4A4I.Omg/i
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C85
257
-------
100
CO
I
UJ
ir
£
LJ
u.
CO
3
§
UJ
X
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
30
20
10
r-
TSS
*£
V
COD ^ \
DEPTH.(IN.)
234
TIME (HOURS)
3. 6J2 SAND
COAG. AjJJM___3p_mg/1
SCREEN 40MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 60 }n.No.-3.
DATE 6/30/7. FLUX RATE^>_gpm/ft< pn, Y ATLA 4A4 ,.0
RUN No.IQASFH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW .FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C86
258
-------
300
«? 200
w! 100
(O
0
_ 150
| 100
d
d
DQ 50
0
300
MFSH. Fl
HATF 6/30/71 F|
RMM Mn 20ASFm
""
1
LTER ME
.UX RATE
EFF
INF-j
L
2 3 4 5 . .6
TIME (HOURS)
rDIA^O in Mr. 3 ANTH./36 in Wo 612 SANO
- 16
gpm/ft2 <
-OAR ALUM. 30 mg/l
Pfti Y ATLA. 4A4 .0 mrj/i
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C87
259
-------
CO
I
UJ
(T
cr
UJ
DEPTH.QN.)
CO
CO
3
UJ
X
01234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENiP_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.j60_in.No.^_ANTH./-36 in.No. 6i2_ SAND
DATE_-6/30/7LFLUX RATE_16_gpm/ft2 COAfl.^^mj/J
RUN Mn 20ASFTH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C88
260
-------
en
o»
d
QQ
Q
o
g
300
200
100
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
LOO
.80
.60
.40
.20
0
— INF.
^Z
-EFF.
INF.
EFF
INF.
-
EFF.
INF.
I
.6
2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER MEDIA.1P- in. NoJL_ ANTH./_1§ in. No. 6I2 SAND
PATF 7/11/71 FLUX RATF 8 npm/ft2 COAG.ALUM. 30_mg/l
Olot1ir POIY SWIFT X-400I.Om0/»
RUN No. 21SFIII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C89
261
-------
1 W
90
CO
< 60
1 50
UJ
* 40
cc
b
10
30
P
~ 20
CO
CO
3
§ 10
UJ
X
0
(
SCREEN10.M
IWF 7/11/1
,
y r
*v>sC
\ ^>
^^B>B
—•II ' '"
D 23-
TIME (HOURS1
ESH. FILTER MEDIA._§Q_in.No._3_Afs
n Fl NY RATF 8 nnm/f*2 CC
RUN No.glSFm
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLC
.... . .
MHM«M_li
•—^^^••MKM
4 5 i
}
ITH./^i.in.No. 6]2_ j
iLY SWIFT.X-400 l.0r
(IN.)
96
51 a<
^
5AND
Tig/I
no/1
)W FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C90
262
-------
300
5 200
"> 100
C/3
0
_ 150
| 100
d
d
cti 50
0
300
MESH. Fl
/7I Fl
RUN No 2ISF1V
— *****^
1
LTER ME
.UX RATE
r-INF.
\
r-EFF
/
— ^ -fc=*~~*z
?•" ar=
23456
TIME (HOURS)
rDIA ^0 in Mo 3 ANTH/36 in. No. 612 SAND
:I6
gpm/ft2 <
-nAfi ALUM 30 mQ/i
POLY SWIFT X-400 1.0 mV|
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C9I
263
-------
to
o
UJ
OL
tr
H
-------
CO
0»
d
CQ
d
Q
o
300
200
INF.
/—INF.
/— INF.
EFF.
7
100
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
^ .80
f .60
•***
^ A°
££ .20
P 0
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4QviESH. FILTER MEDIA-60_ in. Na-3__ ANTHV-M jn. No. 612 SAND
DATE-^;FLUX RATE-^9pm/"2
RUN No.?IASpJI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C93
265
-------
g
1
2
cc
UJ
i-
V)
w
3
UJ
I
20
10
0
DEPTH.QN.)
72896
54
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 12.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 6°...in.No.-3_ANTH./-36.in.No.^l2. SAND
DATE^m^L. FLUX RATE_^_9pm/f,^
RUN No.EiASFll
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C94
266
-------
300
5 ^oo
^ 100
0
_ 150
| 100
d
d
CD 50
0
300
£ 200
0 100
o
0
1.00
JF '80
E .60
5 -40
? .20
? 0
(
SCREEN4C
OATF 7/13
r
-_1-
INF.
"^^
/—EFF.
L^
rINF.
jL—
.—•
^-INF.
J. »«
•«-
jC^FF-
EFR-
— — -"— •
— «*
~7
^nz
3
}MESH. Fl
/7I Fl
RUN No 2IASRK
r
£.
ii •••lum.i
LTER ME
.UX RATE
-INF.
•"EOBKn on
«— «—
2
TIME
:DIA.60_
:24
EFF.-
, .»,««-«-••
.^— — ™*
3
(HOUR?
in. Na_3_ ^
gpm/ft2 <
— \
••^•ll^ •MB,,
^
S)
^^TH /36
COAG.AL
"^—^
5 6
in. No._£i2_SAND
JM. 30 m«/l
Pfflv SWIFT X-400LOmj/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C95
267
-------
CO
<
i
Ul
u.
u.
0)
3
§
UJ
X
20
10
DEPTH. (IN.)
96
69
51
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN.19.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 60 in.No.JL.ANTH./-36 in.No.J6J2. SAND
ALUM 30 rnq/l
^/i3/7LFLUXRATE_24_yKlll/11 pOLY§^FOt4QQlDmg/l
RUN No. 21 ASF|ll
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C96
268
-------
600
5 4<>0
E^
OT! 200
(/}
0
_ 150
| 100
d
d
cd 50
0
300
JF 200
E^
d"
d 100
6
0
1.00
£ -80
E .60
^ .40
_i
g .20
P 0
(
SCREENS
PATF 7/1
• •
/
_/ —
-<
^^s
^*»
EFF. -
•• —
/-INR
\
\
\ \
/
/^
^
^*
^^.^— — ^«"
-EFF.
—
"-^
EFF
— -i— — —
X.
\
'• •
^— -
INR -
'—
D
>MESH. Fl
9/71 FI
RUN N0.22SF1L
COMBINED SE
^^
^^^
LTER ME
_UX RATE
WER C
^~^^"™"™
' ^.
2
TIME
:DIA-6P_
r 8
>VERFl
EFF.
'*—
3
(HOUR?
in. Na3 _
gpm/ft2
.OW Fl
* INF.—
-
~~T—
_/
F^^
•-— •=
INE —
n
•J
4
5)
fl,MTH/36
COAG-AL
>--
^-1
— .—
• -^
7 —
7 /
/
/
5 6
in. No. 612 SAND
DM. 30mn/I
pniv SWIFT X-400I.Om^/i
LTRATION TEST
FIGURE C97
269
-------
1 \J\S
90
80
« 70
to
< 60
i 50
UJ
C 40
cc
ui 30
Li
u. 20
10
0
30
u.
~ 20
CO
CO
3
§ 10
UJ
X
0
<
SCREEN±?_M
HATF 7/19/
•mm^—*
•HBIM
TSS-
— ^— ^
>\
;>'<
**
~\_^
^\
BOD-7
»——*•—
V
T^<*
COD-
\
\
>f
^7\
-j \
...—• '•"1
— — «--- '
*» ^^*
rx
^i
^^x^
•v^
,x
\\
TP-A
•»
1
DEPTH.
— •«i^««
•— ««— ^
D I 2 :
TIME
ESH. FILTER MEDlA._6P_in.
7! PI IIY RATP 8
RUN N0.22SE1L
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLC
•• ii
3
(HOURS1
No.JL_AN
m/f12 «
IW FIU
I! '
— — — •
'—
* 5 (
I
rrH./_5£in.No.J>!2_ <
iAfi ALUM 30 r
H..Y SWIFT X-400I.Or
FRATION TE$
(IN.)
96
a
72
54
•*
>AND
ng/1
ng/l
5T
FIGURE C98
270
-------
600
5 4-00
OT! 200
CO
0
_ 150
| 100
d
c>
cci 50
0
300
-------
CO
I
UJ
IT
cr
H
u_
to
CO
3
o
<
UJ
X
SCREEN 40_MESH.
DEPTH.QN.)
23456
TIME (HOURS)
MEDIA.-60_in.No.J_ANTH./-56.in.No._612 SAND
DATE_7/J9/7I FLUX RATE '6 gnm/ft2 COAG.ALUJV! - 30_mg/l
- oootrm - Pni.YSWIFTX-400IXXnq/l
RUN Mn 22SF11I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C 100
272
-------
600
CO
d
d
ti
d
0
o
200
v
vf
INF.
.
2 3 4 5 »6
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4QMESH. FILTER MEDIA-60. in. Na.3_ ANTH./-36 jn. No. 612 SAND
DATE 7/19/71 FLUX RATE 24
RUN No. £2SFIV
gpm/ft'
ALUM. 50 mg/l
POIY SWIFT X-4QOI.Omg/1
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C101
273
-------
I
yj
ir
tr
ui
u.
CO
CO
3
u
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
DEPTH.QN.)
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN dP. MESH. FILTER MEDIA.j6p_in.No.^_ANTH./-36_in.No. 6]2_ SAND
TF 7/19/71
24__aDm/ft2 COAG. - 30,mg/|
gpm/n pnl YSwiFTX-4001.Qmg/l
RUN No. 22SFTV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI03
274
-------
300
^
«-«——•
D
^MESH. Fl
0/71 Fl
RUN N", 22ASFII
INF.— v
^^»^j^J«i
y-INF.
•
_, --
«*•
1
LTER ME
.UX RATE
,NF.-,
J.
••™ •"•"•••'
EFF.-
— CS
— - —
r==*-
, — "
EFF.-^
2 3
TIME (HOURS
"OIA 60 i" M« 3
:8
gpm/ft2
•—""•"•"""
_y
EFF-
••«•
^^^
i
*
>)
(\NTH./_36
COAG.4U
«• •—
=^=-
^x
"•v^
"**
5 6
in. No. 612 SAND
JM 30 mo/I
POI v ATLA.3A3 .5 mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI03
275
-------
I
UJ
CO
3
§
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
TP
TSS
BOD
COD
DEPTH. (IN.)
72 a 96
54
234
TIME (HOURS)
SAND
SCREEN!P_MESH. FILTER MEDIA._6P_in.
DATE_IZ2QZ^_FLUX RATE-^gpm/ft* ™Gy£™^™5 %',\
RUN No.a££SEJ]
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI04
276
-------
300
100
en
0
_ 150
f 100
d
o
CD 50
0
300
.
iH«*i""— •"
EFF.
— ' "^^s,
EFF-
J
II •"
~J~
D
>MESH. Fl
3/71 n
p,,N Mo22ASFJIl
,-INF.
^L._ ..
*-* — .
^^•**i
LTER ME
.UX RATE
^^
**^
— —
==— =
*^w«
=T
EFF— ^
^^-S
s^**
23456
TIME (HOURS)
•QIA 60 in Mr, 3 AWTH / 36 in kn 612 SANO
r 16
gpm/ft2 (
-OAR ALUM. 30 mg/l
POI Y ATLA.3A3 . S mg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI05
27?
-------
in
-------
o>
d
Q
CD
o
6
E_
a
O
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
.80
.60
.40
.20
0
INF.
P.
.6
0 I 2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4.0.MESH. FILTER MEDIA-§0- in. NoJL. ANTH./.36 jn. NQ. 612 SAND
HATF 7/20/71 FLUX RATE 24 gpm/ft2 COAG ALUM 3Q_mg/|
OOAcriV pQLY.ATLA.3A3 .5 mg/|
RUN No.22ASFtY
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI07
279
-------
g
co
P_jn.No^ANTHy_36In. No. Jill SAND
RATE -24 gpm/ft2
RUN N0.22ASF1Y
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATiON TEST
FIGURE CI08
280
-------
300
m 50
0
300
£ 200
0 100
o
0
1.00
J -80
E .60
* .40
_j
^ .20
£ 0
(
SCREENS
HATF 7/2
^~
INF.— \
1
•
^^.^
r— EFF
J— -
s^
X
• .
^--
— • — -
^^ ^
—•—•——
Mii^-i^«^—
r'NF.
•"••"••—«
EFF-
r
— *-
.— .— —
}
>MESH. Fl
.1/71 Fl
RUN Mn 22BSFII
COMBINED SE
^^ ^^^^
•••^•^•••i^^
LTER ME
.UX RATE
WER C
"^v/^
EFF-
•
2
TIME
:DIA_6_P_
:8
)VERFL
-INF.
— — — •
— T
— •— ^—
^
~—*—
^EFF.
-INF.^x*
"\
^
^^
3
(HOURS
in. NaA_ i
gpm/ft2
.OW Fl
=^^5:
...
^5.6
k \
\NTH /36 in Nrt, 612 SAND
mar, ALUM. 30 mg/i
pnivPURIFL.A-23I.Omg/i
LTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI09
281
-------
\\J\J
90
RO
Ov
g 70
I \J
<
COD
^^ff ^^
*^^
x\_
•^
• •l^^ fc
— »-«H
7
^"T1*
V"
,><
\
\
\
\
DEPTH.(IN.)
••••MM
•••MMiMi
=H
D I J
ESH. FILTER MEDI
71 Fl L1X RATF
RUN No22BSFlI
r* -
!TiT ••-
^r=E
> 3
TIME (HOURS1
A 60 fp NO 3 AK
8 nr
>m/ft2 «
— •-
-"
^ !
I
ITH./-J§ in
mfi ALU^
— -
"•
5 (
NO 612 <
/I 30 r
M YPURIFLA-23I.Or
96
72
54
•H
>AND
ng/l
ng/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CIIO
282
-------
o»
£^
c/j
CO
d
d
CD
d
q
6
o>
E
<
O
0
334
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^OMESH. FILTER
jn. No.-6[2_sAND
DATE 7/21/71 FLUX RATE-Ji— Qpm/ft2 COAG .ALUM . |Q mq/l
RUN N0.22BSQII POLY-EfflEUtaiam,/.
COMBINED SEWER^QyE^FLQ^L^^
FIGURE Clli
283
-------
to
I
cr
LJ
u.
to
3
Ul
X
20
10
0
DEPTH.QN.)
96
69
51
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 40 MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 6° in.No.J_ANTH./-^§.in.No.^lg. SAND
HATF 7/21/71 niiy RATE '6 qpm/ft2 COAG.ALUM 3p_mg/l
UM.C. ri_u* n««t gpm/n YPURIFL.A-23I.OmQ/l
RUN No.?2BSQU 9
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CU2
284
-------
300
£ 200
w! 100
(0
0
_ 150
1 100
ci
m' 50
0
300
t? 200
0 100
o
0
1.00
C .80
o»^
E .60
5 '40
£ .20
g 0
(
SCREEN^
PATF 7/
L_/
•
-INF.
_^/
/ EFF.
Vr*^""
_7\
X,
"^
SSS!=^
f^*~""~'~'
D
>MESH. Fl
21/71 p.
RUN No,22BSFJV
A
—^
** — -=
-^- —
LTER ME
.(M RATE
^-INF.
^" "^^•^•^•••iW
— -^^——
LEFF.
-INF.
-^^=-
-EFF.
••"••"" ^
•• ••
••«»»
^ i*1*"
^^•)
(VNTH./^6-
COAG.AL
«.
s_
\
\
5 .6
jn Wft 612 SANH
JM. 30 mq/l
POLY PURIFL.A-23 .Omg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CII3
285
-------
g
to
I
UJ
(T
Ul
h-
CO
3
UJ
X
23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 19.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.jSQ_in.No.^_ANTH./-36.in.No.^i2. SAND
HATF 7/21/71 miY RATE—24__nDm/n2 COAG.ALAJM 3p_mg/|
UAit . t-LUXKAit gpm/n POLY.PURiFl=A23LOmg/l
RUN MO 22BSFIV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CII4
286
-------
V)
d
d
CD
d
0
o
300
200
100
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
.80
.60
.20
0
0
INF.
EFF.
INF.
EFF
INF
EFF.
INF.
EFF.
12345
TIME (HOURS)
^MESH. FILTER MEDIA-6P- in. N(X3_ ANTH./-36. in.
30
mg/l
DATE_I/22/7L_ FLUX RATE 8 gpm/ft2 COAG.AU|WL_
oorccn POLY.PyRifkC^LL
RUN N0.22CSFJI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CII5
287
-------
to
I
UJ
ATF 7/22/71 FIIIV RATE 8 ,**2 COAG.ALUM 30_mg/l
RUN Mo 22CSRI
. _
pn|YPURlFL.C-3ll.Omg/i
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CII6
288
-------
CO
o>
q
o
CD
d
o
300
200
100
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
.80
.60
.20
0
0
INF.
EFR
INF.
EFF.
I
.6
2 3
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^QMESH. FILTER MEDIA-6-0- m. NaJL_ ANm/-36 jn. NO. s<2 SAND
DATE 7/22/71 FLUX RATE-16.
RUN Mn 22CSR11
gpm/ft2 COAG.ALUM 30_mg/|
Pfti vPURIFL.C-51 I.Omg/i
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CII7
289
-------
w
_l
I
UJ
cr
3
§
Id
X
100
90
80
70
so
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
--T
BOD
^
TSS
-y
\
DEPTH.(IN.)
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 4QLMESH. FILTER MEDIA. 60 in.No.^-ANTH./-36.in.No.^lg- SAND
DATE_7/22/7l FLUX RATF l6 opm/ft2 COAG.^UJM 3p_mg/|
UAIt I-LUA KAIt gpm/ft pn| YpUR|FLC-3II.Omn/l
RUN N0.22CSFI11,
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CII8
290
-------
300
w
d
§
Q
o
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
-80
.60
.40
.20
o
0
INF.
INF.
-.
1^
I
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENlOMESH. FILTER MEDIA_§P_ in. NoJL_
r>ATF 7/22/71 FLUX RATE 24 gpm/ft2
RUN No.22CSFLV
> .6
in. No.j6l2_SAND
30
PQI v PURIFL.O-3H.O mj/i
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CH9
291
-------
CO
I
UJ
a:
DC
u
CO
CO
3
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
TSS
X
„
TP
BOD
COD
DEPTH.(IN.)
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN4jp_MESH. FILTER MEDIA._iP_in.No.A_ANTH./^6 in.No. J]2. SAND
DATE_Z/2g/ZLFLUX
RUN N0.22CSFIV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C120
292
-------
Q
2
0
o
e
600
400
200
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
|.00
.80
.60
.40
.20
EFF.
INF.
EFF.
EFF.
INF.
INF.
W
EFF.
INF
.6
0 I 2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 4P_ MESH. FILTER MEDIA-6Q- in. Na J_ ANTH./-36 in. No. 6'2 SAND
7/24/71
RATE—§ gpm/ft2 COAG.
pnivATLA. 4A4 l.<
rmg/l
RUN No.23SFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI2I
293
-------
CO
I
UJ
OC
tr
UJ
u.
CO
CO
3
Q
UJ
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
TP
-BOD
TSS
COD
DEPTH. (IN.)
96
72
54
6
01234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 1P_MESH. FILTER MEDIA._6P_in.No._
DATE 7/24/71 FLUX RATE-JL— gpm/f, pn| Y ATLA.4A4 LQ mQ/1
RUN N0.23SFII
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI22
ANTH./-3-^.in.No.-ii2. SAND
0 mg/l
294
-------
o»
CO
CO*
o>
d
Q
ffi
Q
O
O
O
600
400
200
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
I..OO
.80
.60
.40
.20
0
INF.
EFF.
INF.
EPP
INF.
EFR
INF
.6
0 I 2 3 4
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^QMESH. FILTER MEDiA-£P_ in. Na J_ ANTH./-16 jn. NO. 612 SAND
.mg/l
0
DATE 7/24/71 FLUX RATE_1^ gpm/ft2 COAG .
POLY ATLA. 4A4 1.0 mq/\
OTJOtTIlT rv/L-i my/ i
RUN Nn 23SFIU
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI23
295
-------
<
i
UJ
en
-------
o>
§
Q
o
E_
a.
600
400
200
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
.80
.60
.40
.20
0
EFF.
EFF.
INF.
INF.
EFF.
INF.
EFF.
INF.
.6
0 I 2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN^O MESH. FILTER MEDIA-!0- jn. Na_3_ ANTH./J36 jn. MQ. 612 SAND
DATE 7/24/71 FLUX RATE 24 gpm/ft2
0
mg/l
pni Y ATLA 4A4 1.0 mg/i
RUN N0.23SF1V
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C125
297
-------
CO
I
UJ
(T
(T
UJ
H
(O
(/>
3
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
30
20
10
COD
DEPTH.QN.)
0123456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 1P_MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 60 in.No.-^ANTH./-3-!.in.No.^i2- SAND
DATE-Z/M/ZLFLUX
RUN N0.23SFIV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI26
298
-------
CO
o>
d
cd
d
q
0
300
200
100
0
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
0
100
.80
.60
.40
.20
0
INF.
EFF.
.£
INF.
INF.
__-£_.
EFF
EFF.
SCREEN4P.MESH. FILTER
234
TIME (HOURS)
in. NoJI_
• .6
in.No.JLL2_SAND
Q mg/|
DATE 7/24/71 FLUX RATE 24 gpm/ft2 COAG A---, „ -
«,AQFU PQLY.PUraFLA-23tlOmq/|
RUN No. 23ASFH;
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FiGURE CI27
299
-------
I
UJ
cc
tr
UJ
H
u.
to
3
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
TSS
0
\f
COD
-TP
\
V
DEPTH. (IN.)
1
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN £2 MESH. FILTER MEDIA.JSp_Jn.No._3_ANTH./-l§.in.No.^i2_ SAND
DATE J/i4/2_ FLUX RATE-24_gprn/ft2
RUN N0.23ASFU
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATiON TEST
FIGURE CI28
300
-------
300
^ 200
w! 100
0
_ 150
| 100
d
m 50
0
300
MFSH FI
nATF 7/24/71 FI
RUN Nn23ASFIIl
^
^^
^
^
LTER ME
.UX RATE
^ /
^<^
..***'
— *~^
-INF.
•
EFF.
"""*""•"••
— 7
J
**^
•^^
^^«
2 3 4 5 .6
TIME (HOURS)
"DIA 6^ in Nft 3 ANTH /36 in. No. 612 SAND
r 16
gpm/ft2 (
-OAfi 0 mg/|
pniYPURIFL.A-23,.0^/,
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI29
301
-------
I
UJ
(C
UJ
3
UJ
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
BOD
COD-
V
DEPTH. (IN.)
96
69
51
0 I 23456
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 4Q.MESH. FILTER MEDIA 60_in.No.A_ANTH./-36 in.No.^12. SAND
HATE 7/24/71 FI iix RATE l6 aom/ft2 COAG Q mg/1
wr* I L» • —.-...,—, I \-f\Jf\ I \r* | L_ ——.—..—.-.—-. ^plH/ I I f^/^i w Ql ID! C"l A ^^t I C\ /I
RUN NQ.23ASFIV ^m9
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI30
302
-------
300
5 20°
E^
^ 100
CO
0
_ 150
| 100
a
C)
oi 50
0
300
«? 200
e^
d
d 100
o
0
1.00
£ -80
E .60
* .40
_i
f* .20
P 0
<
SCREEN^
HATF 7/2
**••»
'
^~~
/-INF.
JL — — -
-i I. i ••"•
^
A-EFF
/
—
X
•' .
w,
^ (
IT -•-.•=
^EFF.
/-INF.
-L-— .
=^— I
"V-EFF^
D
^MESH. Fl
.4/71 n
RUN M» 23ASF1I1
COMBINED SE
^
^
X
X
LTER ME
.UX RATE
WER (
^^
^^
^-^
/-INF.
i---
^EFF.
^^» «^V ^HB
^"^ ^
2 3 4 5 .6
TIME (HOURS)
:DIA 60 'n Mft 3 ANTH / 36 in. No. 612 SAND
:8
)VERFI
gpm/ft2 (
-OW F
-OAG 0 mg/l
pnivPURIFLA-23, .Om0/l
LTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI3I
303
-------
I
UJ
oc
cr
u
H
3
UJ
I
20
10
DEPTH.dN.)
96
72
54
234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREENiP_MESH. FILTER MEDIA.-60_in.No.J_ANTH./-36.in.No.li2_ SAND
DATE 7/24/71 FLUX RATE—S
RUN N0.23ASRV
.mg/l
PQI Y PURIFLA-23,I.Omg/ I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI32
304
-------
600
d
§
ci
Q
o
lO'O
50
0
300
200
100
0
1.00
-80
.60
.40
.20
0
/-INF.
EFF.
EFF
I
,6
2345
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN 4P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA-§°_ in. NoJL_ ANm/_36 in. NO. 612 SAND
HATF 7/26/71
RUN No.23BSFII
RATE -24 gpm/ft2
0
.mg/l
POLY. MAG.560C 1.0 mg/1
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE C133
305
-------
t/)
I
U!
cr
a:
Ui
u_
3
LJ
T.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DEPTH.ON.)
234
TIME (HOURS)
SAND
SCREEN 1Q.MESH. FILTER MEDIA. 6O in.No.A^.ANTH./-36 in.N
HATF 7/26/71 n ux RATE— 24__QDm/f*2 COAG -- <2 - mg/l
UA.fe - hLUXKAIt - gpm/ft pn| YMAG.560C 1.0 mg/l
RUN Nn 23BSF1I
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI34
306
-------
600
^ 400
°i 200
CO
0
_ 150
£ 100
d
ai 50
0
300
«? 200
o*
Q IOO
0
0
|.00
•"* Of)
*L 60
* .40
£ .20
H 0
(
SCREEN^
^ /
-------
I \J\J
_ 80
^" 7f)
i \J
00
_J
^r 60
1 50
UJ
* 40
(T
u 30
_j
C 20
10
0
30
P
u_
~ 20
00
00
3
§ 10
UJ
X
0
(
SCREEN 4P.M
ftATF 7/26/'
.
TSS-
-r^
_/
X
^
BOD
**^^ /
^.
s_
-^
TP--
— —
-COD
V
V
x
^^^^ ^^^^^
\ ""
\
\
s
DEPTH.(IN.)
^fm^mm
£^S
D i ;
ESH. FILTER MEDI
71 Tl 1 IY BATF
^
— —
===
— *•
^ '-"
^
> 3 4 5 (
TIME (HOURS)
A 60 |p No 3 AMTW/36inWrt 612 <
8
RUN No.^SSEE
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLC
>m/ft2 «
)W FIL
o ,
^IY MA6.560CI.O^
TRATION TEJ
96
69
51
i%
SAND
ng/l
tig/ 1
5T
FIGURE CI36
308
-------
CO
0>
d
c>
CD
0
o
600
400
200
EFF
INF
o
1234
TIME (HOURS)
SCREEN1P.MESH. FILTER MEDIA.6.0- in. Nl Y MAG. 560 C I.Omg/l
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE CI37
309
-------
l\J \J
90
80
^ TO
g 60
2 50
UJ
01 40
\
\
^^
-BOD
^.^
/*
i / *
*
/
/
riss
\
\
\
*:sN
»*^_ ^
\x
\
\
^
/
1
I
1
,/
^^
/\
\
%
•
DEPTH. (IN.)
ssss
***&
D J
ESH. FILTER MEDI
'71 PI IIY PATF
^<
^*-^^
^=
^-•^
, — ——
I 3 4 5 (
TIME (HOURS)
A 60 jp Wo 3 AMTH/36in Mo 612 <
16
_,,.2 COAG. 0 l
UAit ..,^,^,^ y^,,,,,, pOLY MA(it>60CI.O,
RUN N0.23BSRV
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW FILTRATION TES
96 a 72
54
•%
>AND
ng/1
Tig/I
>T
FIGURE CI38
310
-------
APPENDIX D
HIGH RATE FILTRATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
In addition to the major emphasis of the testing project at
Cleveland, that is, treatment of combined sewer overflows, a series of
tests were conducted on secondary effluent from the Southerly Waste -
water Treatment Plant. Twenty test column runs were performed on
secondary effluent. The media utilized in the testing was as follows:
Effective Size Uniformity
Filter Media (mm) Coefficient
No. 1 Anthracite 0.66 1.62
No. 1 1/2 Anthracite 0.98 1.73
No. 2 Anthracite 1.78 1.63
No. 1220 Sand . 0.95 1.41
No. 2050 Sand 0.45 1.33
Summarized results of the testing are indicated in Table Dl.
Data curves for all the test runs are indicated in Figures Dl through D19.
Media combinations utilized included: 48 inches of No. 1 Anthracite over
36 inches of No. 2050 Sand, 48 inches of No. 1 1/2 Anthracite over 36
inches of No. 2050 Sand, and 48 inches of No. 2 Anthracite over 36
inches of No. 2050 Sand. In some of the test runs, alum and poly-
electrolyte were also utilized. Filtration rates tested range from 10
gpm/sq ft to 30 gpm/sq ft. A run was attempted at 45 gpm/sq ft, but
was discontinued when the pressure loss (head loss) generated through
the filter media was beyond range of readings obtainable in the test
column gauges.
The five media combinations mentioned were evaluated under
runs 1SE through runs 10SE, as shown in Table Dl. Unfortunately, due
to the low influent suspended solids levels, it is difficult to draw any
conclusions regarding the various media.
The combination of 48 inches of No. 1 1/2 Anthracite over 36
inch'es of No. 1220 Sand was selected for testing in conjunction with the
chemical additives. The range of influent suspended solids during these
six final test runs was in a higher range than had been experienced in
the testing program. The three column runs performed under the 11 SE
test series had an average influent suspended solids of 13.7 mg/1, with
a maximum of 32 mg/1. The influent solids level in test series 12 SE was
18.4 mg/1. of suspended solids, with a maximum of 40 mg/1 of suspended
solids. These solids levels are representative of a situation where a
311
-------
filter might be applicable. Polyelectrolyte and alum were added to the
filter influent in both series 11 SE and 12 SE. In test series 11 SE, 0.5
mg/1 polyelectrolyte was added plus 5 mg/1 of alum; and in Series 12 SE,
1 mg/1 of polyelectrolyte and 5 mg/L of alum were added. In these last
six test runs, utilizing chemical addition, the high rate filter produced
suspended solids consistently below 10 mg/1 throughout the test run, as
shown in the data curves. Even more interesting is the fact that
changing the filtration rate from 10 gpm/sq.ft. to 30 gpm/sq.ft. had a
negligible effect on the performance of the filter, as evidenced by the
average effluent quality values for the test runs. Average effluent
quality approximated 4 to 6 mg/1.
To summarize, the most important conclusion evidenced from
this test data is that, with chemical addition, effluent suspended solids
can be controlled to below 10 mg/1 at filtration rates of 30 gpm/sq ft
and with lengths of filter runs in excess of four hours. Head loss ex-
perienced during these latter filtration tests with chemicals varied from
6.5 to 35.5 feet.
312
-------
20
CO
Q
_j
o
CO
LJ
Q
Z
LJ
QL
CO
ID
CO
CO
CO
o
UJ
10
40
~ 30
20
10
0
DEPTH (IN)
6 8 10
TIME (HOURS)
12
14 16
FILTER MEDIA 48 jn.No.LJ/2_ ANTH./_36_in No.2Q5PSAND/l8 in. GRAVEL
DATE 8/7/70 FLUX RATE 24 9Pm/ff2
RUN No.lSEII__
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D I
313
-------
CO
Q
_J
o
Q
U
Q
Z
u
Q-
H
LL
CO
§
UJ
20
15
10
0
20
15
10
0
93-
DEPTH (IN.)
IN.-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.No. il/L ANTH./_36_ jn No.?25?SAND/I8 in. GRAVEL
DATE 8/7/7° FLUX RATE !§ ^pm/ft2
RUN NoJSEfiL
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 2
314
-------
CO
Q
_j
o
CO
Q
UJ
Q
Z
UJ
Q.
CO
D
CO
h-
Lu
CO
CO
O
LJ
X
FILTER MEDIA:
DATE_8/7/70
6 8 10
TIME (HOURS)
in. No. ' 1/2 ANTH./_36_ in No.?2§?SAND/l8 in. GRAVEL
FLUX RATE _ ^ 9pm/ff2
RUN No ISE1V
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 3
315
-------
CD"
CO
Q
_J
O
CO
Ld
Q
2
UJ
CL
CO
3
CO
Lu
CO
CO
O
Q
<
UJ
0
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
DEPTH (IN,)
39-
IN.-
18 21
24
3 6 9 12 15
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA j48_ in.No. M/2_ ANTH./.36. ;n No.2^?SAND/18 in- GRAVEL
DATE 8/18/70 FLUX RATE !Q 9Pm/ff2
RUN NolSEIV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 4
316
-------
-
CO
Q
_J
co
Q
LJ
O
z
LJ
Q.
CO
Z)
CO
CO
3
8
0
2
INF;
EFF,
6 8 10
TIME (HOURS)
12
14 16
FILTER MEDIA 48 jn.No..
9/14/
FLUX RATE
ANTH/36_ in Nor.™SAND/I8 in. GRAVEL
10 gpm/ft2
RUN Nn 3SEIV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 5
317
-------
CO
g
_j
o
CO
o
LU
O
LU
CL
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
_J
UJ
34567
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.No._i_ ANTH/_3£. in No£25?SAND/l8 in. GRAVEL
DATE 9/15/70 FLUX RATF 15 W™'"2
RUN No.lSElV
SECONDARY EFFLUENf FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 6
8
318
-------
CO
g
_j
o
CO
O
UJ
o
z
LJ
Q.
CO
CO
CO
8
8
INF,
EFr
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.No. J_ ANTH/M. in No.2^?SAND/l8 in. GRAVEL
DATE.
9/16/70
FLUX RATE
30
gpm/ff
RUN No.SSETV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 7
319
-------
10
NF
CO
o
_i
o
CO
0
u
o
LJ
Q.
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
UJ
0
012345
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.No._!_ ANTH/_36_in No?.259sAND/l8 in. GRAVEL
DATE 9/21/70 FLUX RATE '0 9pm/ff2
RUN No.ZSElV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURED 8
8
320
-------
8
CO
Q
_J
O
co
Q
UJ
Q
2
UJ
Q.
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
UJ
X
0
EFF
DEPTH (IN)
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA _!§_ in.No._L_ ANTH/3§_ jn No^QS AND/18 in. GRAVEL
9pm/ff2
10/14/70 FLUX RATE
5
RUN NQ.9SE1V
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D9
321
-------
CD"
CO
Q
_J
O
CO
Q
LU
Q
Z
LU
Q.
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
LJ
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MEDIA 48_ in.No:_I_ ANTH./36_in No.2Q5C^AND/l8 in. GRAVEL
DATE 107 207 70 FLUX RATE 10 9P^/ft2
RUN N0.9SE1V
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 10
322
-------
8
co
Q
_j
o
CO
Q
UJ
Q
2
UJ
Q.
CO
ID
CO
0
CO
CO
o
LJ
345
TIME (HOURS)
7
8
FILTER MEDIA 48 m.Mo.l 1/2 ANTH/36 in Nlo.l220.gANn/l8 in. GRAVEL
10
gpm/ff
DATE 12/3/70 FLUX RATE _
RUN No.iOSEIL
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D II
323
-------
8
o"
CO
Q
_j
o
CO
o
UJ
Q
z
UJ
Q.
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
UJ
3 -
0
DEPTH (IN)
345
TIME (HOURS)
7
8
FILTER MEDIA 48_in.No.U/2 ANTH/_36_ in NoJ£2QSAND/18 in. GRAVEL
DATEJ2/3/70 FLUX RATE__J5L gpm/ff2
RUN MniOSEIII
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 12
324
-------
8
o"
5
CO
g
_i
o
CO
Q
LU
O
z
LJ
Q.
CO
CO
C/)
O)
O
LJ
EFF'
INF
DEPTH (IN)
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.Nol 1/2 AMTH 736 in Nol220 SAND/18 in GRAVEL
HATr 12/3/70 FLUX RATE 30 9P^^2
RUN MnlOSEIV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 13
325
-------
32
CO
Q
_1
O
CO
Q
LJ
O
Z
UJ
Q_
CO
CO
CO
8
Q
<
24
16
8
0
DEPTH (IN)
8
I 234567
TIME (HOURS)
FILTER MEDIA _4§ in.No.LJ/2_ ANTH./li. in No!i?jO SAND/18 in. GRAVEL
HATF 12/7/70 FLUX RATF 10 9Pm/ff2
RUN No.iiSEIl
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 14
326
-------
CO
g
_i
o
CO
Q
LJ
Q
Z
UJ
0.
CO
CO
J-
u_
CO
CO
o
UJ
32
24
16
8
0
EFE
DEPTH (IN)
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MFHIA 48 in.No.LJ/L ANTH/3JL in NoJ220 SAND/18 in. GRAVEL
15
gpm/ff
DATF 12/7/70 FLUX RATE-
RUN Mn. USEIII
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 15
327
-------
CO
9
_i
o
CO
o
LU
Q
z
LU
Q.
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
Q
<
UU
TIME (HOURS)
gpm/ft'
FILTER MEDIA_48__in.No.U/2 ANTH./36_in
DATE 12/7/70 FLUX RATE 30
RUN Mn MSEIV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
SAND/18 in- GRAVEL
FIGURE D 16
328
-------
CO
Q
_l
O
CO
Q
UJ
Q
Z
UJ
CL
CO
ID
CO
CO
CO
O
UJ
10
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.No.I 1/2 ANTH/M. jn NoJ22Q SAND/18 in. GRAVEL
10
gpm/ff
DATE 12/8/70 FLUX RATE-
RUN No.J2SEU
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE DI7
329
-------
0)
o
Q
UJ
O
z
UJ
Q_
h-
u_
O)
05
O
_J
Q
<
UJ
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MEDIA 48 in.No.U/2 ANTH/36_ in No.2EQ SAND/18 in. GRAVEL
DATE 12/8/70 FLUX RATE __J5 ^pm/ft2
RUN NoJ^SEHl
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 18
330
-------
40
en
Q
Q
UJ
Q
2
UJ
0.
UJ
30
20
10
DEPTH (IN)
345
TIME (HOURS)
8
FILTER MEDIAJ^_jn.No.J_l/2ANTH./16_inNo.!22psAND/l8in. GRAVEL
HATF 12/8/70 FLUX RATE £fi gpm/ft2
RUN Kin I2SEIV
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION TEST
FIGURE D 19
331
-------
TABLE D-l
HIGH-
RATE
Suscended Solids
00
CO
CO
Run
1SE-II
1SE-1II
1SE-IV
2SE-IV
3SE-1V
4SE-IV
5SE-1V
6SE-IV
7SE-IV
8SE-1V
9SE-1V
10SE-II
10SE-II1
10SE-1V
USE- 11
11SE-III
11SE-IV
12SE-II
12SE-III
12SE-IV
Media
48 "41 1/2A
36"»2050S
48"»1 1/2A
36"*2050S
48"*1 1/2A
36"»2050S
48"*! 1/2A
36"*2050S
48"(tlA
36"2050S
48"#1A
36-#20SOS
48"*1A
36"»2050S
4B"»2A
36"»2050S
48"»2A
36"*20SOS
48"*1A
36"»2050S
48"#2A
36"4tl220S
48"*1 1/2A
36"*1220S
48 "*1 1/2A
36"*1220S
48 "(tl 1/2A
36"#1220S
48"*1 1/2A
36"(tl220s
48"#t 1/2A
36"»1220S
48"#1 1/2A
36"*I220S
48 "*1 1/2A
36"*122CS
48 "tl 1/2A
36"*1220S
48 "tl 1/2A
3G"»1220S
Flux
Rate
(qpm/ll
24
Id
10
10
10
IS
.30
45
10
15
10
10
IS
30
10
15
30
10
15
30
Chemical Infl.
feed Tenp.
~i (mq/1) °1'
None 77
None 77
None 77
None 78
None 71
None 75
None 75
None —
0.5 Poly 76
1.0 Alum.
0.5 Poly 78
1.0 Alum.
1.0 Poly 66
S.OAlum.
None 55
None 55
None 55
0.5 Poly 55
S.OAlum.
0.5 Poly 55
S.OAlum.
0.5 Poly 55
S.OAlum.
1.0 Poly 57
S.OAlum.
1.0 Poly 57
S.OAlum.
1 . 0 Poly 57
S.OAlum.
Int.
Avq.
jmq/1)
10.1
10.1
10.1
6.2
4.3
3.6
4.1
Eft.
Avg.
(mg/l)
4.5
3.9
3.6
2.2
0.27
0.34
2.2
Ave.
Removal
55.4
61.4
64.4
64.5
93.7
90.6
47.6
FILTRATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
Turbiditv Total Grqanic Carbon Total Phosphate
Inf.
Avg.
(ITU)
42
42
42
21
23
40
18
Efi.
Avg.
(ITU)
36
31
29
16
18
15
12
Avg. Ini. Eff. Avc1. Inf. Eff. Avg. Terminal
Removal Avq. Avg. Removal Avg. Avg. Removal Head Loss
X (mq/1) (ng/1) * (mq/1)
24 — — — — — — 13.7
22 — — — 3.2 2.5 21.9 11.7
62 — — — 2.0 1.8 !0.0 13.7
33 — — — — — — 2J.1
UNABLE TO ATTAIN 45 GPM/FT2 WITHIN RANGE OF PRESSURE GAUGES — — — — —
4.3 0.14 96.8 15 10 33 — — — 4.3 4.1 4.7 17.3
5.3
9.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
13.7
13.7
13.7
18.4
18.4
18.4
2.3
1.6
0.32
0.25
0.86
4.9
4.6
5.4
6.6
4.9
5.3
66.0
82.3
94.2
95.4
84.3
64.3
66.4
60.6
64.1
73.4
71.2
13
36
18
18
18
23
23
23
31
31
31
S
25
8
11
8
9
14
11
21
17
14
38 — — — — — — 18.4
31 — — — 1.24 1.1 11.3 31.7
56 — — — — — — 5.4
39 — — — — — — 10.1
56 — — — — — — 27.0
61 — — — — — — 29.0
39 — — — — — — 30.0
52 — — — - - — 35.5
32 10 8 20 — — — 6.5
45 10 8 20 — — — 9.0
55 10 7 30 — — — 33'. S
Backwash
Length Total Vol. Total XTotal Air
of Run Filtered Volume Volume Rate
(Mrs.) (Gals.) (Gals.l Tillered Scfm
12 3670 63.5** 1.7 5
12 2650 71.3** 2.7 5
12 1530 63. S** 4.2 0
14 1780 240** 13.5 IS
12 1530 — — —
10 H'lO 74.2** 3.9 10
5 1910 79.5** 4.2 10
6 763 49.1*** 6.4 7
4 763 — — —
S 636 82.6*** 7.7 2.5
8 1020 — — —
8 1660 — — —
8 3060 — — —
7.5 954 — — —
6.5 1350 — — —
4 1530 — — —
8 1020 — — —
0 1660 — — —
8 3060 — — —
* Calculations Based on Composite Samples
** Calculations Based on Flow Rate Times Time of Backwash
*»* Calculations Based on Wat,er Depth i.i Backwash Tank
-------
APPENDIX E
THE EFFECT OF PUMPING ON PARTICLE SIZE IN OVERFLOWS
Tables E-l through E-3 show the effect of pumping on particle
size, as determined by particle counter analysis. These analyses were
performed by the AWT Research Laboratory (Cincinnati) on samples
taken before and after the pilot plant influent pump, that is, at the
Junction Chamber, and at the Pump Discharge.
The data indicate an increase in the number of smaller
particles after pumping. For example, for particle sizes equal to or
larger than 40.173 microns, the number of particles per milliliter in the
Junction Chamber samples were approximately forty-five percent
greater than in the Pump Discharge samples.
333
-------
Table E-t
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PARTICLE COUNTER RUN No. 1*
Particle
Diameter
(Microns)
60.995
54.523
45.987
40.173
36.499
31.885
28.311
25.307
21.345
18.646
16.941
14.800
13.140
11.746
9.907
8.655
* Sampling
Junction Chamber
N/ML
.
1.
12.
60.
123.
306.
779.
1356.
2697.
4616.
6276.
9346.
16318.
21432
31763
42786
Time: 12/3/70
% Cumul.
«•
0.7
2.7
4.6
8.5
15.4
21.3
30.4
38.6
43.5
50.1
60.2
65.4
72.4
77.1
79.9
15:30
Pump
N/ML
1.
2.
6.
24.
55.
174.
563.
1099.
2475.
4393.
6183.
9506.
16822.
23498.
36806.
51361.
Discharge
% Cumul.
0.0
0.2
1.0
1.9
4.3
9.7
14.9
23.8
31.6
36.7
43.5
53 . 6
60.1
68.7
74.6
77.9
334
-------
Table E-l (Continued)
Particle
Diameter
(Microns)
7.863
6.869
6.099
5.452
4.598
4.017
3.649
3.188
REMARKS:
Junction
N/ML
52116.
66246.
90582.
116270.
171705.
242127.
313267.
406437.
Chamber
% Cumul .
82.9
86.4
89.1
92.8
95.8
98.0
100.0
Pump
N/ML
6285.7.
80786.
112093.
142806.
207240.
284525.
358348.
440158.
Discharge
% Cumul.
81.5
85.9
88.9
93.0
96.2
98.3
100.0
N/ML: Number of particles equal to or greater than
given particle diameter.
% C.umul: Cumulative percentage
by volume
for each
particle diameter range (Cumulative by weight assuming all
particles'have the same density).
335
-------
Table E-2
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PARTICLE COUNTER RUN No. 2*
Particle
Diameter
(Microns)
60.995
54.523
45.987
40.173
36.499
31.885
28.311
25.307
21.345
18.646
16.941
14.800
13.140
11.746
*•
9.907
8.655
Junction
N/ML
__
2.
17.
90.
215.
535.
1461.
2840.
6928.
12851.
17962.
25628.
35796.
41996.
49844..
55433.
Chamber
% Cumul.
—
-
0.6
2.4
4.6
8.6
16.5
24.9
41.3
56.2
65.2
74.8'
83.5
87.3
90.4
91.8
92.6
Pump
N/ML
1.
1.
9.
62.
146.
350.
912.
1652.
3683.
6529.
9012.
12875.
19086.
23666.
30565.
36895.
Discharge
% Cumul.
0.0
0.5
2.7
5.1
9.4
17.3
24.7
38.2
50.1
57.3
65.4
74.1
.78.7
83.3
85.9
87.5
* Sampling Time: 12/3/70 17:30
336
-------
Table E-2 (Continued)
Particle
Diameter
(Microns)
7.863
6.869
6.099
5.452
4.598
4.017
3.649
3.188
Junction
N/ML
60130.
66331.
89663.
106291.
143522.
184510.
220173.
249837.
Chamber
% Cumul.
93.4
95.4
96.4
97.9
98.9
99.6
100.0
Pump
N/ML
42130.
50045.
67860.
84087.
120565.
166554.
210269.
262880.
Discharge
% Cumul.
89.1
91.6
93.2
95.7
97.6
98.9
100.0
337
-------
Table E-3
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS
PARTICLE COUNTER RUN No. 3*
Particle
Diameter
(Microns)
60.995
54.523
45.987
40.173
36.499
31.885
28.311
25.307
21.345
18.646
16.941
14.800
13.140
11.746
9.907
8.655
Junction
N/ML
-
1.
7.
36..
68.
159.
399.
695..
•1329.
2130..
2903.
'4413.
9681.
17609.
40509.
66667.
Chamber
%. Cumul .
0.5
1.9
3.0
5.3
9.4
13.0
18.0
22.1
24.8
28.5
37.5
47.1
65.4
78.5
85.2
Pump
N/ML
-
1.
5.
20.
51.
130.
338.
580.
1158.
1972.
2728.
4151.
8031.
13280.
. 30406.
57688.
Discharge
% Cumul.
0.3
1.0
2.1
4.1
7.7
10.6
15.2
19.3
22.0
25.6
32.2
38.5
52.3
66.0
74.7
* Sampling Time: 12/3/70 20:30
338
-------
Table E-3 (Continued)
Particle
Diameter
(Microns)
7.863
6.869
6.099
5.452
4.598
4.017
3.649
3.188
Junction
N/ML
85845.
107328.
128822.
147593.
170150.
185587.
199965.
212483.
Chamber
% Cumul.
90.6
94.3
96.6
98.4
99.1
99.6
100.0
Pump
N/ML
82343.
118032.
156225.
191797
232515.
257370.
276875.
285497..
Discharge
% CunrjuJ.,,
83.7
90.2
94.5
97.8
99.0
99.7
100.0
339
-------
1
ylccession Number
w
2
Subject Field & Group
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Hydrotechnic Corporation, Consulting Engineers
641 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022
Title
High Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows
10
Authors)
Ross Nebolsine
Patrick J. Harvey
Chi-Yuan Fan
16
Project Designation
EPA. ORM Project #11023EYI. Contract #14-12-858
21
Note
22
Citation
"Water Pollution Control Research Series 11023EYI 04/72
23
£c56mfei'h(e;(!rSewIesP Overflow, *Deep bed, dual media, high rate filtration, *Drum
screen, Anthracite, Sand, Suspended Solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Coliforms, Precipitation, Urban Runoff, Activated
Sludge Plant Effluent, Cost Estimates.
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
*Combined Sewers, Cleveland, Ohio
Abstract
Pilot plant studies were conducted at Cleveland's Southerly Wastewater Treatment
Plant in 1970 and 1971, to develop and demonstrate the capabilities of the deep bed, dual
media, high rate. filtrate treatment process for storm" caused combined sewer overflows.
The treatment system is comprised of a drum screen with a 40 mesh screening elemenl
(420 microns opening) followed by a deep bed, dual media, high rate filter of five feet of
No. 3 anthracite (effective size 4 mm) over three feet of No. 612 Sand (effective size 2 mm).
The results show suspended solids removals of 93 percent, with polyelectrolyte addition, at
a filtration rate of 24 gpm/sq ft at an average influent suspended solids of 411 mg/1.
Reductions in biochemical oxygen demand averaged 65 percent.
Capital costs (ENR=1470) for a high rate filtration plant are about $23, 000 per mgd.
Total annual treatment costs, including capital and operating charges, range from approx.
$90, 000 per yr for a 25 MGD plant to approx. $390, 000 for a 200 MGD treatment facility.
Principal advantages of the proposed system are: high treatment efficiencies, auto-
mated operation, and limited space requirements as compared with alternate flotation
or sedimentation systems.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project #11023EYI (Contract 14-12-858)
under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring, USEPA.
Abstractor
Chi-Yuan Fan
Institution
Hydrotechnic Corporation,
Consulting Engineers
WR:I02 (REV. JULY 1969)
WRSIC
SEND, WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT, TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
•fr U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 — 657-060/1517
-------
|