FITCHBURG PILOT PLANT REPORT - UMass Amherst units/1971 FITCHBURG PIL… · fitchburg pilot plant...

FITCHBURG PILOT PLANT REPORT

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

RESEARCH PROJECT 70-02

L—«---1

,ARCH 1971

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

CAMP DRESSERInc.

McKEE

ONE CENTER PLAZA

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

BOSTON. MASS. 02108 TEL. 617 742-5151 CABLE: CAMDRES

September 1, 1971

Mr. Thomas C. McMahon, DirectorDivision of Water Pollution ControlWater Resources CommissionDepartment of Natural Resources100 Cambridge StreetBoston, Massachusetts 02202

Fitchburg Pilot Plant StudyFinal Report-Research Project 70-02COM 448-3-RT

Dear Mr. McMahon:

In accordance with the contract agreement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Divisionof Water Pollution Control and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., dated August 18,1969, we have conductedstudies at a pilot plant facility established at the existing Fitchburg wastewater treatment plant. Thisstudy was to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of a two-stage activated sludge system toremove carbonaceous and nitrogeneous demanding material from Fitchburg wastewaters.

This report contains the results of our studies.

Very truly yours,

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Inc.

Charles A. ParthumSenior Vice President

'ATER RESOURCES • WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT • SEWERAGE AND SEWAGE TREATMENT • INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT

RAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL • WATER AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - REFUSE DISPOSAL • RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

One

Two

Introduction

GeneralPilot Plant ObjectivesAcknowledgements

Summary, Conclusions and East Fitchburg Wastewater TreatmentPlant Design Criteria

Extrapolations For East Fitchburg Wastewater Treatment PlantDesign Criteria

AerationpH ControlC la ri tiersPhosphate RemovalSludge Handling and Treatment

Three Pilot Plant Description

GeneralPilot Plant Facility

HeadworksFalulah Paper Company Settling TanksTwo-Stage Activated Sludge SystemPilot Filters

Laboratory FacilitySampling and Operational Data Collection

Four Wastewater Characteristics

Municipal WastesIndustrial Wastes

five Plant Performance

First and Second Stage Aeration System EfficiencyClarifier PerformanceAmmonia and Phosphorus RemovalGrease RemovalSummary

Page No.

1

112

66

6889

1011

13

1313

14

1414171719

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE

March 1971

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Inc.Consulting Engineers

Boston, Massachusetts

Publication of This Document Approved by Alfred C. Holland,State Purchasing Agent200-6-72-051818 Estimated Cost Per Copy! S4.9I

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

Chapter

Six Nitrification

Theory of NitrificationNitrification StartupBench Scale Nitrification StudiesPilot Plant NitrificationEffect of Rainfall on NitrificationEffect of Process Upsets on NitrificationUse of ChemicalsSpecific Growth Rate StudiesOxygen Uptake StudiesOxygen Utilization Constant

Seven Phosphorus Removal

Eight Sludge Handling

Gravity ThickeningFlotation ThickeningVacuum FiltrationWet OxidationCentrifugationSuspended Solids RemovalDenitrification in Granular Filters

Nine Pilot Filters

Suspended Solids RemovalDenitrification in Granular Filters

Page No.

21

21212223252727272930

33

39

39394244444546

45

4546

Appendix I Pilot Plant Data

Appendix II Pilot Plant Data Forms

Appendix 111 Wet Oxidation Report

Appendix IV Centrifuge Report


LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

1 Pilot Plant Dimensions and Design Parameters at Various Flows 6

2 Pilot Plant Analyses and Measurements 11

3 Effect of Rainfall on Strength of Municipal Wastewater 13

4 Average Laboratory Analysis of Pilot Plant Wastewaters 13

5 Plant Performance Summary Measured at Second Stage Effluent 19

6 Summary —Bench Scale Nitrification Studies 22

7 Periods of Nitrification 23

8 Oxygen Utilization Constants 31

9 Phosphorus Removal Jar Tests with Lime 33

10 Effect of Sodium Aluminate on Phosphorus Removal and First Stage 33Mixed Liquor

11 Gravity Thickening Tests 39

12 Waste Activated Sludge Handling, Conditions, and Results 43

13 Results of Leaf Tests for Various Operating Conditions 44

14 Results of Pilot Filter Runs 46

15 Denitrification Results —Filter No. 1 49

16 Denitrification Results —Filter No. 2 49


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

1 Schematic Flow Diagram —Fitchburg Pilot Plant 72 Submersible Raw Sewage Pumps 83 Headbox for Diurnal Flow Variation 84 Two-Stage Activated Sludge Pilot Plant —First Stage 9

Two-Stage Activated Sludge Pilot Plant —Second Stage 105 Pilot Filter (during backwash operation) 106 Daily Variation of First Stage %BOD Removed, MLVSS and Aeration 15

Time7 Pilot Plant Results— BOD and COD 168 Pilot Plant Results —Effluent Suspended Solids 169 Pilot Plant Data —Clarifier Overflow Rate 17

10 Pilot Plant Results —Second Stage Effluent NH3 andTKN 1811 Pilot Plant Results —Grease Removal 1812 Major Operational Periods —Fitchburg Pilot Plant 2013 Daily Variation of Second Stage Effluent Ammonia, First Stage MLVSS 24

and First Stage Aeration Time14 Second Stage Effluent Ammonia (mg/l) 2515 Effect of Rainfall on Nitrification 2516 Variation of Specific Growth Rate (U) 2817 Oxygen Uptake Rates of First Stage Mixed Liquor 2918 Oxygen Uptake Rates of Second State Mixed Liquor 3019 Diurnal Variation of Oxygen Uptake Rates of First and Second Stage 31

Mixed Liquor20 Effect of Temperature on Oxygen Utilization Constant of Ammonia 3221 Effect of Sodium Aluminate on Phosphorus Removal and Sludge Solids 3522 Effect of Clarifier Operation on Phosphorus Removal 3623 Effect of Dosage of Aluminum on Phosphorus Removal 3724 Effect of Sodium Aluminate on Phosphorus Concentration 3825 Effect of Polymer Dose on Sludge Thickening 4026 Effect of Sludge Loading Rate on Sludge Thickening 4127 Effect of Static Mixer on Sludge Thickening 4228 Effect of Hydraulic Loading on Duration of Filter Runs 4529 Suspended Solids Removal in Pilot Filters 4730 Turbidity Removal in Pilot Filters 4831 Denitrification Results 50


FITCHBURG PILOT PLANT REPORT

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

General

In 1967, Camp, Dresser &McKee was engaged by theCity of Fitchburg to make an engineering investiga-tion to determine a plan for the effective treatment ofwastewaters from the municipality, several largewater consuming industries, the City and the sur-rounding Towns o1 Ashburnham, Lunenburg andWestminster. The basic recommendations of the studyentitled, Reporton Comprehensive Plan for Domesticand Industrial Wastewater Disposal, dated August,1968, concluded that two wastewater treatment plantswould most effectively and efficiently treat the muni-cipal and industrial wastewaters from the area. Aproposed municipal wastewater treatment facilitywould be located in East Fitchburg, adjacent to themunicipal airport, and would treat the wastewatersfrom most of the City of Fitchburg, the Town of Lunen-burg, and various industries in the City of Fitchburg.The existing municipal plant would be abandoned.The initial design capacity of this plant is expected tobe approximately 12.4 million gallons per day (mgd),of which about 20 percent will be industrial waste-waters.

A proposed West Fitchburg wastewater treatmentfacility would be located on an abandoned lake bedadjacent to the Weyerhaueser Company, Paper MillNo. 7 in West Fitchburg. This treatment plant would beconstructed to serve portions of West Fitchburg, theTown of Westminster and two major paper industries:the Weyerhaeuser Company, Paper Division and theFitchburg Paper Company, a division of Litton indus-tries. The plant, designed to treat approximately 15mgd, was originally proposed to include flocculationand primary sedimentation for the industrial waste-waters, and conventional activated sludge for thefurther treatment of all wastewaters. Subsequentchanges in the design loadings expected at the plantand in the methodology of activated carbon systemshave resulted in the design of an activated carbonsystem for the treatment of the wastewaters fromWest Fitchburg in place of the proposed activatedsludge system. However, no change was made in thepretreatment of the wastes prior to treatment in theactivated carbon system.

During our study of the Nashua River, analyses ofriver water samples did not establish a definite rela-tionship between the water quality of the river and

available phosphorus and nitrogen because of limiteddata. We were able, however, to establish that a signi-ficant portion of the carbonaceous and nitrogenousBiochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) must be re-moved from discharges to the Nashua River in orderto meet a Class "C" stream classification. A computermodel of the river was developed and a modified oxy-gen sag analysis was used to determine loadingswhich could be accepted from each of the Fitchburgtreatment facilities and still maintain river standardsduring critical lowflow periods.

Adequate removal of carbonaceous oxygen demand-ing material can be accomplished by conventionalactivated sludge or any of its modifications, such as acompletely mixed system. Removal of nitrogenousoxygen demanding material can be accomplishedeither by removing the ammonia by stripping or byoxidizing it into nitrate. Alter considering a numberof possible processes, we recommended that the Cityconstruct a two-stage activated sludge plant for thetreatment of wastewaters at the East Fitchburg treat-ment facility. This plant was designed on the basisof results from this pilot plant and will result in themaximum amount of carbonaceous oxygen removaland will also oxidize the nitrogenous oxygen demand-ing material in the second stage aeration basin.

Pilot Plant Objectives

On August 17,1969, Camp, Dresser & McKee signed acontract with the Massachusetts Division of WaterPollution Control to conduct a Research and Demon-stration Grant to further investigate the concepts ofthe two-stage activated sludge system and to developcertain design criteria for the East Fitchburg waste-water treatment plant. The basic objectives of the pilotplant study were as follows:

1. Construct and operate a two-stage activatedsludge pilot plant with an average capacity of 15-20gallons per minute (gpm) located at the existingFitchburg Sewage Treatment Plant.

2. Provideasuitable representative waste expectedat the East Fitchburg wastewater treatment facilityfor the pilot plant study by utilizing wastewaters fromthe existing sewage treatment plant and obtainingthose from the major paper industry by pumping to thepilotplantsite.

3. Develop a specialized activated sludge for (a) the

CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE

removal of carbonaceous material and (b) the oxida-tion of ammonia (NH3) to nitrate (NO3~) in order toachieve the highest possible degree of removal ofoxygen demanding material from the wastewaters.

4. Obtain information on the settleability of thesludges developed in the two aeration systems of thepilotfacility.

5. Study of removal of suspended solids (SS) fromthe second stage effluent in granular filters.

6. Study nitrate reduction in granular filters by theaddition of a carbon source.

7. Study the reduction of phosphates (PO4~) by theaddition of chemicals to the first aeration stage.

8. Investigate the waste sludge characteristics asthey pertain to sludge thickening; air flotation andgravitythickening.

9. Investigate the waste sludge characteristics asthey pertain to the filterability of the sludge.10. Investigate the possibility of centrifugation of

the waste sludge.11. Evaluate sludge incineration and high rate oxi-

dation of thesludge.

The pilot plant at Fitchburg had a two-fold purpose —Research and Demonstration. In addition to the re-search aspects of the project, as outlined above, theproject sought to demonstrate the feasibility of thetwo-stage activated sludge system for the oxidationof carbonaceous and nitrogenous organic bearingmaterials. In determining the feasibility of this sys-tem, valuable data was collected which was utilizedto determine the design criteria for the East Fitchburgwastewater treatment facility. The processes were

modified so that design criteria could be establishedon aeration time, oxygen uptake of the mixed li-quors, clarifier operation and various sludge charac-teristics such as thickening, dewatering and final dis-posal.

Initially this study was conducted with wastes fromthe City of Fitchburg and the Falulah Paper Company.In July of 1970, the Falulah Paper Company ceasedmanufacturing paper in Fitchburg. This significantlyaffected the results of the pilot study in certain areas,as discussed in this report.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded under a contract with theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, Water ResourcesCommission, Division of Water Pollution Control.This Research Project No. 70-02 was under the direc-tion of Charles A. Parthum, Senior Vice President,and Alan E. Rimer, Project Engineer. Warren W.Terrell had direct responsibility for the operation andmaintenance of the pilot plant and Norton G. Truewas supervisor of the laboratory personnel and facili-ties.

Special thanks is extended to Mr. Jack Elwood andthe staff of the Division of Water Pollution Controlfor their assistance and guidance throughout thecourse of this investigation and to Mr. George LanidesCommissioner of Public Works, Fitchburg, Massa-chusetts and to the staff at the Fitchburg SewageTreatment Plant for the many hours of help renderedduring this study.


CHAPTER TWO

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND EAST FITCHBURGWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA

Summary and Conclusions

The operation of the Fitchburg Pilot Plant resultedin several conclusions and findings which are notedbelow. A more detailed discussion of each of thesepoints is presented in the appropriate chapter.

1. The municipal sewage tributary to the existingFitchburg treatment plant was relatively weak due tolarge amounts of infiltration. The average BOD, sus-pended solids and ammonia were 134, 109 and 11.6milligrams/liter (mg/l) respectively.

2. When the Falulah Paper Company was operating,the wastes delivered to the pilot plant had a moderate-ly high BOD and COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), anaverage pH of 6.4 and a high suspended solids con-tent. Plain settling by upflow clarification was a veryeffective method for removing the suspended solids.

3. The two-stage activated sludge process provedto be a satisfactory method for removing BOD, COD,suspended solids and for the oxidation of ammonianitrogen. It was found that the second stage systemnot only removed the ammonia, but also provided ad-ditional removal (polishing effect) of BOD, COD andsuspended solids.

4. The sludge formed in the second stage aerationsystem was generally light and fluffy in nature andhence required a low overflow rate (hydraulic loadingrate) in the second stage clarifier to insure propersettling.

5. The average oxygen uptake rate of the first andsecond stage mixed liquor micro-organisms was mea-sured at about 35 and 16 mg/l per hour, respectively.

6. The variation of the oxygen uptake rate in thefirst stage mixed liquor varied considerably over thecourse of a day and with the characteristics of the in-coming sewage. The second stage mixed tiquor oxy-gen uptake rate was relatively constant throughout a24-hour period.

7. In order to maintain a viable nitrifying sludge,the pH of the second stage mixed liquor had to bemaintained between 8.0 and 8.4. It was also deter-mined that the activated sludge in the second stagecould be maintained if the pH was adjusted in the firststage aeration basin so that the resulting pH of thesecond stage mixed liquor was approximately 7.7.

8. The ability of the nitrifying sludge to oxidizeammonia to nitrate was significantly affected by thetemperature of the wastewater. The nitrifying sludgecould not be established during the winter months.

The nitrifying sludge could be established more rap-idly if the aeration tank was seeded with sludge whichwas already nitrifying.

9. The use of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was pre-ferred over the use of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3)for pH adjustment in the second stage mixed liquor.The chemical costs of NaOH and Na2CO3 were 30and 50 dollars per million gallons respectively ofsewage treated.10. The Specific Growth Rate Constant, which is de-

fined as the rate at which the nitrifying bacteria oxi-dize the ammonia (NH3), ranged from 0.5 to 0.1 mgNH3/mg MLVSS/day (milligrams of ammonia oxi-dized per mg of mixed liquor volatile suspendedsol ids per day).11. The Oxygen Utilization Constant varied from

2.0 to11.0mgO2/mg NHg removed/day (milligramsoxygen consumed per milligram of ammonia oxi-dized). This parameter was inversely proportional tothe mixed liquor temperature. At low temperaturesthe nitrifying bacteria required more oxygen to oxi-dize the same amount of ammonia than at a highertemperature.12. The occurrence of rainfall significantly affected

the performance of the treatment plant in oxidizingthe ammonia. The loss in efficiency was probablycaused by the decreased cell residence time due tohydraulic overloading of the aeration systems and amarked decrease in ammonia concentrations in theincoming waste.

13. The operation of a nitrification treatment plantmust be closely monitored as the system is easily up-set, resulting in a decrease in the ability of the plantto satisfactorily oxidize ammonia.

14. Though results were quite erratic, satisfactorydenitrif ication, that is conversion of nitrate to elemen-tal nitrogen, was accomplished in granular filtersusing methanol (CH3 OH) as a carbon source for thedenitrifying bacteria.

15. Partial removal of phosphates was accom-plished by adding sodium aluminate (ivÂÔ^.) tothe first stage mixed liquor. The maximum removalachieved at the pilot plant was about 84 percent.

16. The addition of sodium aluminate tended to re-duce the first stage sludge volume index and increasethe concentration of the fi rst stage return sludge.

17. Gravity thickening of the waste activated sludgeyielded a thickened sludge with a concentrationaveraging 2.7 percent.

18. Flotation thickening was quite successful inconcentrating the waste activated sludge from the


pilot plant. Normally the sludge would thicken from0.6 percent to approximately 5,0 percent. By using apolymer, an additional 1 to 2 percent thickening wasachieved.

19. The thickened sludge was readily filtered on aleaf test apparatus. The total solids content of thefiItercake produced ranged from 18.5to 29.6 percent.

20. Wet oxidation of the waste activated sludgeshowed that the COD of the waste activated sludgewas reduced 25 percent and the inflow solids were re-duced by 60 percent.

21. Centrif ugation produced a sludge cake with anoptimum total solids of 36.1 percent.

22. Filtration of second stage effluent throughgranular filters produced an effluent which averaged5 to 6 mg/l of suspended solids with a turbidity of3to4JTU's(JacksonTurbidityUnits).

23. Optimum suspended solids removal in the gran-ular filters occurred at a hydraulic loading of 1.9gpm/sq ft.

This research and demonstration project showed con-clusively that a two-stage activated sludge sewagetreatment process is a feasible method for abatingpollution in the Nashua River from municipal and cer-tain industrial wastes produced in the City of Fitch-burg.

Extrapolations For East Fltchburg WastewaterTreatment Plant Design Criteria

Aeration: Through the course of the project the aera-tion time in each unit was varied according to rawsewage flow. The design of the headbox permittedthe maintenance of any preset flow rate. At the de-sign flow of 15 gpm the average detention time ineach aeration basin was 4.0 hours except that inAugust, 1970, the volume of the first stage aerationbasin was reduced to give a detention time of 21/s hoursat 15 gpm.

Aeration time in an activated sludge system is alwaysan important design criteria. Approximately half-waythrough the project, it was decided to design the EastFitchburg sewage treatment plant for a first stagedetention time of approximately 2 hours, based onthe experience at the pilot plant to that time. It wasdecided that if the opportunity presented itself, thedetention time in the pilot plant first stage aerationbasin would be decreased also. This opportunity oc-curred on the 5th of August, when the partition in thefirst stage tank ruptured, requiring that the tank berepaired. Accordingly, the partition was repaired, butin a position which provided 21/£ hours detention timeat a flow rate of 15 gpm. The data indicated that thedecrease in aeration time did not significantly alterthe performance of the process and if anything, theBOD removed was somewhat higher with the shorter

aeration time (See Chapter Six).

To adequately size aerators for the proposed EastFitchburg treatment plant, oxygen uptake studieswere conducted on each of the mixed liquors. Thefirst set of tests, described in Chapter Six, measurednot only the maximum oxygen uptake rate, but alsothe time required for the mixed liquor to reach theendogenous respiration state. The second set of testswas used to determine the actual uptake conditions inthe pilot plant aeration tanks.

The oxygen uptake studies also indicated that the oxy-gen demand is significantly higher in the first stagethan in the second stage. This is due to the fact thatmuch more energy is expended in oxiziding the carbo-naceous BOD than that of the nitrogeneous BOD.The mechanical aerators in the proposed facility re-flect the higher energy requirements of the first stage.A total of 400 and 360 horsepower were necessary foraerating the first and second stage systems, respec-tively.

pH Control: Several findings were made regardingthe operation of the second stage aeration systemwhich had a bearing on the design of the plant. pHcontrol is necessary not only in the startup period,but also on a continuing basis. Several researchers1-2-3

have indicated in the literature, that the optimumgrowth rate of the nitrifying bacteria may occuraround a pH of 8.4. However, in these investigationspH control generally could be eliminated once thenitrifying sludge was formed. This was not the case atFitchburg and it is thought that there was some toxicmaterial in the waste which inhibited the growth ofthe nitrifiers, making it necessary to continuously ad-just the pH to a range between 7.8 and 8.5, even inthe warmest weather.

It was found that the use of sodium hydroxide (NaOH)was superior for adjusting the pH than the use of so-dium carbonate (Na2CO3> as there was less problemwith solution freeze-up and handling.

It was further found that the nitrification processcould not be started up during the winter months,which is due to the fact that the growth rate of thenitrifying organisms is inversely proportional to tem-perature. This failure to start up during cold weathermonths may mean that upon completion of the pro-posed sewage treatment plant, the second stage pro-cess will have to be set in operation under favorableclimaticconditions.

It was also determined that the nitrification processcan be easily upset if close control of the process isnot maintained. It appears that dilution of the in-coming ammonia may tend to reduce the performance


of the process and that at times, when the pH controlis relatively erratic, the nitrification performance wasalso erratic. For a more complete discussion of thefindings regarding nitrification, refertoChapterS/x.

Clarifiers: Operational data from the pilot plant clar-ifiers was more difficult to use for scale-up purposes.This problem is usually true in pilot studies and liesin the fact that small clarifiers tend to be upset quiteeasily. Generally speaking, it was noted that thesecond stage sludge was quite light and fluffy in na-ture. Adequate settling was achieved at low overflowrates, 300 to 400 gallons per day per square foot(gpd/sq ft). Filtered BOD and COD tests indicatedthat often times a poor final effluent was due to over-flow rates above 400 gpd/sq ft.

The two sludges formed in the two-stage activatedsludge process are quite different due to the natureof the organisms present in each tank. The micro-organisms in the first stage system are characteristicof a conventional activated sludge plant. That is, theyare generally quite dense and settle rapidly. The mi-cro-organisms in the second stage are far fewer innumber and are characterized by their fluffiness orlight density. This lighter density created settlingproblems which were overcome by using an overflowrate of about 300 - 400 gpd/sq ft, based on maxi-mum day flow. The final clarifiers in the proposedwastewater treatment plant have been designed for1,000 gpd/sq ft at a flow equal to about 1.3 times the1990 average day flow. This is a higher overflow ratethan used in the pilot plant, but it must be kept in mindthat the performance of small clarifiers is erratic andiseasilyupset.

Phosphate Removal: Tests using sodium aluminateshowed that the removal of phosphorus was inconsis-tent. The best phosphorus removal was on the orderof 80 percent and occurred at a molar aluminum tophosphate ratio (i.e. AI/P) of approximately 1.7. Muchof the literature indicates that a molar AI/P ratio of1.2 to 1.3 is adequate for complete removal of phos-phorus.

As it is not presently known if phosphate removal willbe required at the proposed treatment plant on a fulltime basis, and as the removal itself was inconsistentusing aluminate, various provisions have been madefor phosphate removal. Equipment has been providedat the new treatment facility. Continuing tests will beconducted at the full scale plant.

The proposed sludge handling at the East SewageTreatment Plant accounts for a major part of the capi-tal investment. The pilot plant study investigated themost feasible methods of sludge handling. All testswere run on waste first stage activated sludge, for at

no time during the pilot plant operation was sludgeintentionally wasted from the second stage system.In the proposed plant second stage activated sludgewill only be wasted occasionally.

Sludge Handling and Treatment: During the studyno significant attempt was made to investigate theeffect of the return sludge rate on sewage treatmentperformance except to insure that adequate returnsludge was available to maintain the proper mixedliquorsuspended solids (MLSS). This was largely dueto the inability to adequately adjust the sludge pumpsystems. Throughout most of the study the sludge re-circulation rate ranged from 20 to 40 percent of theaverage sewage flow.

Since all the sludge tests were run at various periodsduring the study, changes in other parameters suchas flow, aeration time, sodium aluminate feed, etc.,had a noticeable effect on the sludge characteristicsand subsequently its treatment.

Both air flotation and gravity thickening were studiedin the pilot plant. The air flotation thickener had a netarea of 1.0 square foot. The gravity thickener wasfabricated from a 55-gal Ion drum and had a full lengthsight window. These studies paralleled the proposedoperation at the East Fitchburg treatment plant andrevealed the significant effect certain process modi-fications could have on the plant. (See Chapter Eight).

For example, the data indicated that air flotationthickening was a feasible and acceptable method forsludge thickening at Fitchburg. With the addition ofpolymers to enhance flotation thickening, an addi-tional 2 percent concentration of total solids was nor-mally achieved.

After thickening, the waste activated sludge will bedewatered by vacuum filtration. Accordingly, testswere made in conjunction with the thickening to de-termine the filterability of the waste sludge. Dewater-ing by centrifugation was also studied. Centrifugationtests were run at the Bird Machine Company's labo-ratory in Walpole, Massachusetts.

The leaf test simulates operations of a vacuum filter-Leaf tests on samples of thickened sludge indicatedthat this sludge was readily dewatered by vacuum fil-tration. The filter cake from the test ranged from 18.5to 29.6 percent total solids. The cake had all the pro-perties of a good filter cake in that it was readily dis-charged from the screen. The leaf tests were run atoperating conditions normally associated with regu-lar vacuum filter operation.


CHAPTER THREE

PILOT PLANT DESCRIPTION

General

A pilot plant facility was constructed at the existingFitchburg sewage treatment plant located adjacent toCrawford Road in Southeast Fitchburg. The existinglaboratory was renovated, and an area near theheadworks was graded for the pilot units. The pilotplant was designed to accept wastewater from theFalulah Paper Company at a rate of approximately 2to 5 gpm and from the municipality at a rate of appro-ximately 10to20gpm.

The pilot plant consisted of four basic units: (1) theheadworks, including the raw sewage pumps andheadbox, (2) the clarifiers for the wastewater fromFalulah, (3) the two stage activated sludge system,and (4) the 6-in diameter pilot filters. A schematic ofthe pilot plant is illustrated in Figure 1. Table 1 listsall the physical dimensions and design parameters ofthe various units.

Pilot Plant Facility

Headworks: The pilot plant headworks consisted oftwo units; the raw sewage pumps, and a headbox forapproximating the daily sewage flow variation. Themunicipal sewage was pumped from the grit chan-nel of the sewage treatment plant by means of twosubmersible close coupled 1'/2-in pumps each with acapacity to handle approximately 18 gpm. When bothpumps operated in parallel, it was possible to obtaina flow of about 25 gpm (See Figure 2). These pumpsposed significant operational difficulties throughoutthe study. They plugged easily, even though they hadan open impeller design, and when clogged with rags,would generally destroy the pump seals which pro-tected the motor from moisture. Each pump motorwas rewound several times.

I n October of 1970, it was decided to use these pumpsas standby only, and accordingly, a paper sizing pump(purchased from the Falulah Paper Company) was in-stalled. This pump was located in a newly constructeddry pit and had the capacity of handling much largersolids, which reduced the maintenance of the pumptoaminimum.

The sewage was pumped from the grit channel up toa headbox where provision was made to vary the flowaccording to the selected design criteria for aerationtimes, etc. The headbox consisted of an influent bay

TABLE 1 — PILOT PLANT DIMENSIONS AND DESIGNPARAMETERS AT VARIOUS FLOWS

Gallons Par Minute

10 15 201 it stag*

Aeration Tank-Initial

DimensionsVolume (gals)Detention Time (hours)Aerators (numbers)

Aeration Tank-Final

DimensionsVolume (gals)Detention Time (hrs)Aerators (number)

Clarifier

DiameterSide Water DepthVolume (gals)Surf ace Area (ft!)Surface Overflow Rate (gpd/ft!)Detention Time (hrs)

2nd Stag*

Aeration Tank

DimensionsVolume (gals)Detention Time (hrs)Aerators (number)BOD Loading

Clarifier

DiameterSide Water Depth (ft)Volume (gals)Surface Area (ft*)Surface Overflow Rate (gpd/ft!)Detention Time (hrs)

Dec., 1969to Aug., 1970

6.0 ft* 8.9 ft "9,0 ft3.600

Aug.. 1970 to End

6.0ft"5.4tt«9.1ft2,200

6ft8.25ft1.7402B.2

3.67 2.44 1.83

5102.9

7651.9

1.0201.45

5.95ft*9ftx9ft

3,600

9 f t8.253.92063.5

227 340 4536.5 4.4 3.3

Falulah Settling Tanks

Initial (Wading pools used alternately)

Flow (gpm)Diameter (n)Side Water Depth (in)Volume (gals)Surface Area (ft')

2.261424628.2

SurfaceOverflowRatelgpd/ft'J 112Detention Time (hrs) 1-86

Final (2 steel tanks used in series as upf low clarifiers)

Tank No. 7

Flow (gpm) 2.2Diameter (ft) 3Side Water Depth (ft) 3.5Volume (gals) 185Surface Area (ft1) 7.1Surface Overflow Rate (gpd/ft2} 448Detention Time (hrs) 1 .4

Tank No. 2

2.23

3.01587.14481.2


CENTRIFUGATION(OFF-SITE)

INCINERATION( OFF-SITE)

FALULAH SETTLING TANKS

pH CONTROL SODIUM ALUMINATE(PHOSPHATE REMOVAL]

S )= SAMPLE POINT

CARBONACEOUS REMOVAL

SCUM REMOVAL

NITRIFICATION gENITRITRlFICATiqN

FIG. I SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM FITCHBURG PILOT PLANTCAMP DRESSER & McKEE

Ill

Figure 2. Submersible Raw Sewage Pumps

with an effluent weir which spilled into three controlbays (See Figure 3). Each control bay drained to thepilot plant or to waste. The direction of flow, either tothe plant or to the waste, was determined by the oper-ation of automatic ball valves activated by electrictimers. At the midpoint of the project, the automaticball valves were deactivated and the variation of flowto the pilot plant depended on the variation in head inthe grit channel. This resulted in a reasonable approx-imation of normal diurnal flow fluctuations, exceptduring times of high flows to the plant when the headover the raw sewage pumps was high enough to signi-ficantly increase the flow to the pilot plant.

Falulah Paper Company Settling Tanks: The facili-ties for the pretreatment of the Falulah Paper Com-pany waste were located at the pilot plant. It wasnecessary to settle the wastewaters from Falulah priorto discharge to the activated sludge system becauseof the very high suspended solids which were presentinthewastewater.

Initially, two 6-ft diameter by 14-in side water depth"swimming pools" were used for gravity settling ofthe waste. The water was pumped to these settlingbasins from the mill, approximately 2,500 feet away,through a 11/4-in plastic pipe. Although the overflowrate of these clarifiers was sufficient (100-200 gpd/sqft) there was little capacity for sludge storage. A sig-nificant amount of settled fiber and clay was noticedpassing over the effluent weir of the clarifiers.

To alleviate this situation, the Falulah Paper Companyprovided us with two 3-ft diameter tanks which weremodified to serve as primary clarifiers

The units were set up to operate in series as upflowclarifiers and the waste was discharged to the pilotplant headbox at a constant flow rate. The tanks were4.0 and 3.5 feet deep, respectively, and provided ade-quate sludge storage. Consequently, the effluent fromthis unit was far superior to the effluent from the"swimming pool" clarifiers.

Figure 3. Headbox for Diurnal Flow Variation

Two-Stage Activated Sludge System: Another majorgroup of units at the pilot plant consisted ot the two-stage activated sludge treatment system. The aerationbasins were arranged in such a way as to provide forvarious detention times. Aeration was accomplishedby means of diffusers which were supplied air by twocompressors.


In the first stage, where carbonaceous BOD was oxi-dized, the aeration time initially was 4 hours at a flowof 15 gpm without sludge recirculation. Subsequently,this detention time was reduced to about 2Va hours.After aeration the mixed liquor flowed to the firststage clarifier where separation of the solids wasachieved. This sludge was then recirculated back tothe influent end of the first stage aeration basin. Al-though the first stage was used primarily for carbona-ceous BOD removal, experiments were also carriedout to ascertain the feasibility of phosphate removalby the addition of salts of aluminum in the first stage.

The effluent from the first stage clarifier flowed to thesecond stage aeration basin where the detention timewas held at 4 hours, based on a flow rate of 15 gpmthroughout the study. In this aeration system ammo-nia nitrogen (NhL) was oxidized to nitrate-nitrogen(NOs). To achieve this the pH had to be elevated to8.4± by the addition of either NaOH or Na2CO3. Asin the first stage, solids separation was accomplishedin the second stage clarifier. Sludge was returned tothe influent end of the second stage aeration basin.

Both treatment systems were prefabricated pack-age sewage treatment plants manufactured by theDavco Company of Thomasville, Georgia. Generallyspeaking, the units were adequate for this pilot plant,but required initial and continual modifications toserve the varied needs of the study. The most signifi-cant operational problem encountered was the inade-quacy of the sludge recirculation system. The airliftpumps operated very erratically and pumped toomuch or too little sludge. Closer control was required

than that these units were design for. A sludge returnsystem utilizing a positive displacement screw pumpwas therefore constructed. Provisions for better con-trol of sludge wasting were also made at the sametime.

In the clarifiers scum was collected from the top ofthe clarifier and returned to the aeration tank bymeans of an airlift system. This soon proved inade-quate as the scum concentration continually built upin the aeration basin. A scum removal unit, whichconsisted of a 55-gallon drum, piped so as to permitremoval of scum to waste, was therefore constructed.The underflow was discharged to the second stageaeration basin. Scum collected on the second stageclarifierwas piped directly to waste. (See Figure 4).

Other equipment associated with the activated sludgesystem included the gravity and air flotation thick-eners, which are described in Chapter Eight.

Pilot Filters: Other major units at the pilot plant con-sisted of two 6-in diameter pilot filters, which werehoused in the basement of the existing AdministrationBuilding. These pilot filters serve a two-fold pur-pose; to study the removal of suspended solids ingranular filters, and to investigate the denitrificationofthetreated waste by biological means. The effluentfrom the second stage clarifier was pumped to a dis-tribution header on the filters. Each filter was equip-ped with a pressure regulator and pump which insureda constant flow through the filter regardless of theheadless occurring in the filter at any particular time.Adjacent to each filter was a manometer board for re-

1

Figure 4.Two-Stage

ActivatedSludge

Pilot Plant(first stage)


10

Figure 4.Two-StageActivatedSludgePilot Plant(second stage)

Figure 5. Pilot Filter(during backwash operation)

cording headlosses through the filter, and numeroussample taps on each side of the filter. A diagram ofthe filter apparatus is illustrated \nFigure5.

Initially, backwashing of the filter was accomplishedusing city water from a hydrant adjacent to thebuilding. Because of residual chlorine in the city'swater supply, this practice was discontinued in orderto encourage the growth of the denitrifying bacteria.A backwashing facility was designed which utilizedfilter effluent stored for the purpose. With the instal-lation of this system, denitrification was institutedrapidly.

Laboratory Facility

Upon completion of design of the pilot plant facility,a determination of the analyses to be run at the pilotplant predicated the selection of the laboratory equip-ment and supplies. The laboratory area in the existingAdministration Building at the sewage treatmentplant was utilized and consisted of three rooms withample counter and storage space which requiredsome modifications. Additional electrical power wasbrought in, the existing fume hood and blower sys-tems were modified, some minor plumbing for labo-ratory apparatus was required, and the entire areawas cleaned and painted. After these modificationsthe laboratory was equipped to run all necessary ana-lyses to completely monitor the operation of the pilotplant.Analyses and tests at an activated sludge pilot plantfall into two categories: tests for control of operation,and tests to document plant performance. Tests forthe control of operation included: settleable solids,


11

suspended solids, volatile suspended solids andsludge volume index (SVI) of the mixed liquor, as wellas temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen (DO). Thiswas done on both stages of aeration at regular inter-vals (See Table 2). When some of these tests were eli-minated, the efficiency of the plant decreased in ashort period of time, indicating the need for constantmonitoring.

TABLE 2 —PILOT PLANT ANALYSES

AND MEASUREMENTS

To«l or Analysis

FOR CONTROL

1. Flows; Influent andReturn Sludge

2. pH

3. Temperature

4. DO 1st and 2nd Stages

5. Seltleable Solids.1st and 2nd Stages

6. MLSS.MLVSS*1st and 2nd Stages

FOR PERFORMANCE tt

I. Solids (T.S., T.V.S., S.S..V.S.S.)

2 BOD (5-day, 20° C)

3. COD

4. Copper (Cu)

5. Nitrogen (TKN, NH3. NO2,NO3|

6. Phosphate (PO,)

7. pH

8. Turbidity

9. Hexane Soluble (Grease)

10. Chlorides

II. Chlorine Demand

12 Coliform Bacteria

13. Alkalinity

IntermittentlyEvery Every throughout2 hre * 4 hrs * Dally the Study

' 24hoursaday, 7dayaaweekt Onacompositesamplett On composite samples of raw sewage, Falulah waste, combined influent,

13t and 2nd stageeffluent

Analyses and testing for efficiency (as indicated inTable 2} were conducted on daily composite samplestaken at different points throughout the pilot plantand indicated the removal rates or decreases in con-

centration through the two-stage system either as awhole or each stage separately. Removal of 5-dayBOD, COD, suspended solids, total solids, phosphates(PO4), grease, oil, and other special components ofthe influent waste were determined for both stages.A complete nitrogen analysis (TKN, NH3, NO2, NC>3)of the second stage aeration system was also routinelyconducted.

Along with the daily analyses for both control and ef-ficiency, other special tests were performed at dif-ferent periods throughout the project. Tests for alka-linity, chlorides (Cl), coliform bacteria, and copper(Cu) in the influent waste were performed periodically.Bench scale testing was performed and is discussedherein.

All analyses were carried out using the proceduresand apparatus in accordance with Standard Methodsfor the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 12thEdition, and all results calculated and recorded as perthe same reference.

Sampling and Operational Data Collection

The collection of wastewater samples is often as im-portant as the analysis of the sample itself. Withoutthe proper sampling procedure and frequency of sam-pling, laboratory results may be misleading. A repre-sentative type of sample is the integrated or compo-site sample which indicates the character of the waste-water over a period of time. The composite sample ismade by taking grab samples at equally spaced inter-vals over a period of time.

For this study, grab samples were taken every hourand added to a 24-hour composite. Samples weretaken at the following sample points:

1. Raw sewage at the headbox to tnenrst stage;2. Falulah waste at the headbox just before mixing

with the new sewage;3. Combined influent waste, a mixture of the Falu-

lah waste and raw sewage;4. The effluent from the first stage clarifier;5. The effluent from the second stage clarifier at

point of discharge to the main drain of the pilotplant; and

6. The discharge from the pi lot filters.These sample points are indicated on Figure 1.

When Falulah Paper Company shut down, only foursample points were used. Those being the raw sew-age (1), first (4) and second stage (5) effluents and thepilot filter discharge (6). From daily composite sam-ples at these various points, the overall treatment orindividual stages of treatment were analyzed.

Samples of activated sludge and recirculated sludge


12

were taken from each stage and composited for solidsanalyses.

During the study all sampling was done manually byCamp, Dresser & McKee and City of Fitchburg per-sonnel, although an automatic system was tried, Themanual sampling insured that the pilot plant waswatched closely. The sample size collected was suchthat 24equal samples yielded approximately 1 gallonof composite. Samples were kept refrigerated at 3-5" Cto inhibit bacterial growth, but no preservatives wereadded.

Initially it was felt that a more automated method ofsampling could be installed at the pilot plant, for itwas desired to simplify sampling as much as possibleand still collect a representative sample. The systemdesigned involved the use of electric timers whichactuated a sampling pump and solenoid valves. Theunit was designed to collect a constant volume ofsample every 15 minutes.

The system did not function properly. Although thetimer afcd the sampling pump worked adequately,the solenoid valves continually clogged. Solids in thewaste accumulated on the bronze vatve seat and whenthe valve closed, the particles of waste left a small

opening which then allowed sample water to pass con-tinuously through the valve.

If such a system were to be built again, it is recom-mended that:

1. Solenoid valves be used on sample sources whichhave little or no suspended solids.

2. Washing machine valves be used to handlewastes with a large amount of solids in place of thesolenoid valves.

3. The sampling pump be located below the liquidlevel of the point to be sampled, which would elimi-nate the need for priming.

4. The automatic timers be chosen to allow the sole-noid valve to be opened for a short time (fractions ofasecond) rather than many seconds.

As important as proper sampling procedures were themethods provided for recording results and observa-tions and the arrangement of data forms. Operationaldata was recorded on a daily log sheet. Pertinentdata from these log sheets was averaged and re-recorded on a weekly data sheet of laboratoryanalysis. Samples of these forms are illustrated inAppendix I. In addition to the data forms, a detailedpilot plant diary was maintained and a biweekly"progress report" written.


13

CHAPTER FOUR

WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

Municipal Wastes

The municipal wastewaters from the City of Fitchburgare a combination of domestic sewage and industrialwastes. There are many small industries in Fitchburgwhich discharge a wide variety of wastes into themunicipal sewerage system. In most cases the indivi-dual quantity is small, but the total amount is signi-ficant. Qualitatively, however, the wastewater is quiteweak due to large amounts of infiltration, which enterthe old, partially combined sewer system, especiallyafter rainfall. In fact, during the course of this studythere was one point along the main trunk line sewernear South Street where water from the Nashua Riverentered the sewer system directly. The break has sincebeen repaired.

As the Fitchburg sewerage system is combined, it wascons'dered_sasonable to assume that rainfall would

Industrial Wastes

The only major industrial waste treated during thisstudy originated from the Falulah Paper Company,which originally intended to discharge its wastes,after primary treatment, to the proposed East Fitch-burg wastewater treatment facility, although at thetime of the study they discharged directly to theNashua River. Falulah contributed wastewater to thepilot plant until July 2, 1970, after which the millclosed permanently. The data collected during thisperiod served as a good benchmark to ascertain theeffect of such an industrial wastewater on the opera-tion of the plant.

The flow from Falulah was relatively constant fromMonday through Friday with no flow on Saturday andSunday. Qualitatively, the raw Falulah waste had amoderately high BOD and COD. an average pH of

un LhU M iy IN 0raw waste. Analyzing the influent concentrations ofBOD, COD, suspended solids and ammonia in the rawwastewater, it was determined that the maximumdilution occurred one to two days after a rainfall.However, the fluctuation of concentrations betweenwet and dry periods was not particularly large, whichmay be due in fact to the infiltration into the seweragesystem during dry weather.

A comparison of overall averages, averages duringdry periods, and averages during wet periods forvarious parameters is illustrated in Table 3. A "dryperiod" is defined as a day following a day with zerorainfall, and a "wet period" is defined as a day fol-lowing a day with rainfall.

TABLE 3 —EFFECT OF RAINFALL

ON STRENGTH OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER

auuui'S^1, aTra'H'Vtil'y1 nigh sUspehaea sonas contentprior to primary settling. The pH was quite alkalineduring periods of washdown. Primary settling re-moved a large percentage of the suspended solids aspreviously described in Chapter Three.

Table 4 indicates average analyses of the FalulahPaper Company wastewaters after settling. The twoperiods shown indicate the operation of the "swim-ming pool" and then the upflow clarifiers. For com-parison purposes, data for the raw sewage and com-bined waste (raw and Falulah) are presented. The datafor BOD are not included because of the limitednumber of observations available for certain periods.

TABLE 4 —AVERAGE LABORATORY ANALYSISOF PILOT PLANT WASTEWATERS — 1970

Raw Sewage Combined Value(mg/l)

4/3 2/2 4/3

Average Value

Average ValueDuring Dry Periods

Average ValueDuring Wet Periods

BODmg/l

134

140

107

COD Suspended Ammoniamg/l Solids (mg/l) mg/l

294

300

266

109

113

83

11.6

11.8

10.7

COD

S3

vss

2/2/70 4/3/70

4/2/701 6/26/70'

370 160

220 70

160 30

2/2

4/2

200

65

55

6/26

250

90

80

4/2 6/26

240 250

110 110

85 85

' Settling basins consisted of two 6-ft diameter * 1-ft SWD "swim-ming pools" in parallel

2 Settling basins consisted of two 3-ft diameter * 3.5-ft SWD upflowclarifiers in series


14

CHAPTER FIVE

PLANT PERFORMANCE

First and Second StageAeration System Efficiency

A measure of the operational efficiency of an activatedsludge plant can be derived by studying such para-meters as BOD and COD removal, although these fac-tors may not be the sole criteria for determining theperformance of the plant. Analysis of various para-meters are presented to illustrate the effectiveness ofthe pilot plant to function under varying loading con-ditions. The period extending from April 22 to Nov-ember 20, 1970, was used for reporting data herein,as it was during this period that the operation of thepi lot plant was relatively constant.

Figure 6 illustrates the daily variation of three para-meters in the first stage of the pilot plant, namely:aeration time, MLVSS and the percent BOD removed.By examining the curve of first stage detention time,one can readily see the marked effect of changingthe aeration tank volume. The movable partitionruptured on August 5, 1970 and at that time wasmoved to ailow a detention time of 2.4 hours at anaverage raw sewage flow of 15 gpm. Prior to thattime the detention time was approximately 4 hours atthe same sewage flow.

It is interesting to note that in the first stage mixedliquor there was no significant change in the volatilesuspended solids operating level before or afterchanging the partition. The variation in the MLVSSshown is probably due to the amount of daily sludgewasting. The curve illustrating the BOD removal indi-cates that reducing the detention time resulted in aslightly better removal of BOD. It appears that a de-tention time of 4 to 5 hours yielded a BOD removalbetween 70 and 80 percent, while the detention periodof 2 to 4 hours resulted in a BOD removal of betweenSOand 90 percent.

The additional percentage of BOD removed in thesecond stage portion of the pilot plant was not signi-ficantly greater than that removed in the first stagesystems. Often times, in fact, the final effluent BODwas greater than the effluent BOD from the first stage.The cause of this phenomenon was due to poor sett-ling in the second stage clarifier, which was a resultof the very light sludge formed in the second stageaeration system. The inefficiency of the second stageclarifier is discussed in detail herein.

Clarlfler Performance

Figure 7 indi rectly shows the effect of the poor settlingin the second stage system. Illustrated in this figureare the final effluent concentrations of BOD, COD,filtered BOD and filtered COD. Note that a "filtered"BOD and COD was one where the effluent sample wasfirst filtered through a No. 4 filter paper, which re-moved any residual suspended matter. That portionof the BOD and COD associated with the suspendedsolids was thus removed.

It is felt that in the properly designed prototype plant,the final clarifiers would produce an effluent BODand COD which would probably approach the resultsshown by the filtered test and would probably liewithin the shaded area on Figure 7. For example, 90percent of the time the pilot plant produced an ef-fluent BOD and COD equal to or less than 39 and 83mg/l, respectively. A prototype plant might be ex-pected to produce an effluent BOD and COD of 24and 57 mg/l, respectively, 90 percent of the time.These figures represent the filtered analyses illus-trated on Figure 7.

Figure 8 illustrates the suspended solids removal inthe pilot plant from April 22 to November 20, 1970.The curve indicates that 90 percent of the time thefirst stage effluent suspended solids were equal to orless than 57 mg/l and that 90 percent of the time thesecond stage effluent suspended solids were equal toor less than 47 mg/l. Although it would appear thatthe lower suspended solids in the second stage ef-fluent should have resulted in an overall reduction ofBOD and COD through the second stage, in fact, thesludgethat carried over contained a sufficient amountof BOD to affect the results.

The overflow rates for the first and second stageclarifiers are shown in Figure 9. The overflow rate isa parameter denoting the hydraulic loading of a clari-fier based on raw sewage flow with units of gallons/day/square foot of surface area (gpd/ft2). Studyingthis figure in conjunction with Figure 8 leads to theconclusion that in the first stage effluent, suspendedsolids of 57 mg/l occurred when the overflow rate wasequal to or less than 920 gpd/ft2. In the final planteffluent the suspended solids equal to or less than 47mg/l occurred when the overflow rate was405 gpd/ft2.


FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

oI

4

UJ

0

4500

COg_|Oto

3500

atuozUJa.CO 25OO

CO

UJ

!5_J

§ 1500

QCO

X

3

500

0

100

90

6AUG./70 CHANGED PARTITIONIN AERATION TANK.

OUJ>o2UJ

oOm

70

50

F E B MAR APR MAY JUN

1970JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

FIG. 6 DAILY VARIATION OF 1ST STAGE %BOD REMOVED,MLVSS AND AERATION TIME


16

FILTERED REFERS TO THEBOD OR COD IN A SAMPLEAFTER PASSING IT THROUGHNO. 4 FILTER PAPER ANDHENCE IS A MEASURE OFDISSOLVED BOD OR COD-

BOD OR COD TIED UPWITH SUSPENDED MATERIAL

40 60 BO IOO2ND STA6E EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mfl/l)

120

FIG. 7 PILOT PLANT RESULTS 22APR. TO 20NOV, I970BOD COD

I 00

60

40

20

1ST STAGE SS— 2ND STAGE SS

20 . 40 60 80 100

1ST AND 2ND STAGE EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/ l )

140

FIG.8 PILOT PLANT RESULTS 22APR. TO 20NOW, 1970EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS


17

120

too

80

o<

— — — 1ST STAGE

..— .. 2ND STAGE

200 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 800 880 960 1040 II2O 1200

1ST AND 2ND STAGE CLARIFIER OVERFLOW RATES (gpd/ft2)

FIG. 9 PILOT PLANT DATA 22 APR. TO 20 NOV., 1970CLARIFIER OVERFLOW RATE

It is significant that in order to achieve a 10 mg/l re-duction in the final effluent suspended solids (i.e.f i rst stage suspended solids - second stage suspendedsolids = reduction in suspended solids 57 - 47 = 10mg/l) the overflow rate had to be decreased from 920to 405 gpd/ft2. The nitrifying activated sludge wasdifficult to settle, but because of the size of the pilotplant clarifiers, the overflow rate had to be less thanthat in a corresponding prototype second stage clari-fier since the pilot unit is much more easily upset.

Ammonia and Phosphorus Removal

Figure 10 indicates the ability of the pilot plant tooxidize ammonia. The second stage effluent ammoniaand TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen) were equal to or lessthan 4.3 and 9.5 mg/l respectively, 90 percent of thetime. Average effluent ammonia and Kjeldahl nitro-gens were equal to approximately 0.5 and 4.0 mg/lrespectively.

Figure 10 also indicates the organic nitrogen which isthe shaded area encompassed by the NH3 and TKNcurves. On the average, the organic nitrogen in the ef-fluent was approximately 3.5 mg/l. A more completediscussion of the operation of the second stage is in-cluded in Chapter Six.

In general, phosphorus removal averaged 50 percentwith a peak of 84 percent when aluminate was added.A discussion of phosphorus removal is included inChapter Seven.

Grease Removal

Grease in sewage can be removed in an activatedsludge process through biological assimilation andsedimentation. The scum at the pilot plant was con-tinuously removed from each clarifier. The first stagescum was pumped to a scum barrel and there trapped.The underflow continued to the second stage aerationtank. Scum was periodically removed from this barrel.There was a much smaller volume of scum in thesecond stage so it was pumped to the baffled end ofthe chlorination chamber where it was trapped andremoved by hand occasionally.

Figure 11 illustrates the grease removal at the pilotplant for the period April 22 to November 20, 1970.The combined influent concentration of grease asmeasured by the Hexanol-soluble test was equal to orless than 42 mg/l 90 percent of the time. The twostage process produced an effluent with 10 mg/l orless of grease 90 percent of the time.


18

IOO

NOTES'

NH3 = AMMONIA NITROGENT K N = T O T A L KJELDAHL NITROGEN.

THE TKN ANALYSIS MEASURES _NH3 NITROGEN + ORGANICNITROGEN.

I 1 ORGANIC NITROGEN.

2 4 6 6 10 18

2ND STAGE EFFLUENT NH3 AND TKN (mg/l)

FIG. 10 PILOT PLANT RESULTS 22APR. TO 20NOV, 1970SECOND STAGE EFFLUENT NH3 AND TKN

UJ t-o <ro: ftu HQ- z

UJ

10 20 30 40 50 60

GREASE ( A S - HEXANOL SOLUBLE - mg/l}

FIG.II PILOT PLANT RESULTS 22 APR. TO 20 NOV., 1970GREASE REMOVAL


19

Summary

Figure 12 illustrates the major operational periodsexperienced during the pilot plant and can also beused to assist in the interpretation of the various pilotplant data.

the pilot plant from April 22, 1970 to November 20,1970 and also the percentage of time that 50 and 90percent removal of the particular parameters wasequalled orexceeded.

In Appendix II the results of all analyses made at theTable 5 summarizes the operational performance of pilot plant are shown.

TABLE 5 —PLANT PERFORMANCE SUMMARYMEASURED AT SECOND STAGE EFFLUENT

April 22, 1970 - November 20, 1970'

90% TimeEffluent was

Parameter (mg/l)

BOD

BOD (filtered)2

COD

COD (filtered)3

SS

vssNHg

TKN

N03

Turbidity5

40.0

24.0

85.0

58.0

49.0

36.0

4.5

9.5

4.3

42.0

50% TimeEffluent was

(mg/l)

22.0

6.0

60.0

38.0

27.0

19.0

0.7

4.2

8.3

17.0

90% Removal orBetter Occurred

— % of time (mg/l)

20

74

6

23

7

18

44

4

N/A4

2

90% RemovalEffluent was

- (mg/l)

12.0

14.0

34.0

28.0

10.0

9.0

0.4

1.8

N/A

5.0

50% Removal orBetter Occurred

— % of Time

90

100

88

100

69

93

67

92

N/A

67

50% RemovalEffluent was

- (mg/l)

39.0

42.0

80.0

67.0

46.0

39.0

1.5

10.0

N/A

24.0

' It was during this period that pilot plant operation was relatively constant and free of start-up problems.! Filtered BOD's not run daily as were regular BOD's.3 Filtered COD's not run daily.

« N/A = Not Applicable.5 Jackson Turbidity Units.


20

NMOQ 1HHS IVNId

BICA1VNV UNVNOI101TKO VIVO

S3S013 "00 a3dWd HV1H1VJ

asarns l,oaoeiavNHirM QNZ osas

ONHdHVS 3J.ISOdHOD MH fr2 1UV1S

CL

o-JQ_

GQXp

o —

enoo

-Izo

(T.UJa.

a:o

CVI

o

21

CHAPTER SIX

NITRIFICATION

Theory of Nitrification

Removal of nitrogenous oxygen demanding materialin a conventional single stage activated sludge waste-water treatment plant may be an inefficient and gen-erally unreliable process while removal of carbona-ceous oxygen demanding material is readily accom-plished. In a plant designed to remove the nitrogenousoxygen demanding material, the ammonia is oxidizedto nitrite and nitrates in the process. The process ofconversion of the nitrogenous material is accom-plished by autotrophic bacteria of the genera Nitro-somonas and Nitrobacter. The organism Nitrosomo-nas convert ammonia to nitrite.

REACTION:

2NH4+1 + 302-*2NO2~

1 + 2H2O + 4H+1

The organism Nitrobacter converts nitrite to nitrate.

REACTION: 2NO2~1 + O l '1

In most situations, oxidation of ammonia to nitrite,mediated by Nitrosomonas, is generally much slowerthan that of oxidation of the carbonaceous materialby the heterotrophic organisms. Thus the oxidation ofammonia is the rate limiting step and in order to main-tain a nitrifying flora in a conventional activatedsludge system, it is necessary that the overall sludgegrowth rate be less than the growth rate of the nitri-fying organisms or these organisms will be lost withthe excess sludge. In order to maintain this condi-tion, the organic loading to the aeration basins mustbe kept low. This generally requires long aerationtimes (such as in an extended aeration system).

The aeration time required for nitrification can be re-duced by using a two-stage process in which twoseparate sludges are developed. In the first stageaeration basin the bulk of the carbonaceous oxygendemanding material is removed, where aeration timesare from 2 to 3 hours, based on influent waste flow,andthe mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) rangesfrom 2,000 to 3,000 mg/l. In the second stage aerationbasin the sludge growth rate should be comparativelylow as the rate of growth is controlled largely by thegrowth rate of the nitrifying organisms. A 3 to 4 houraeration period is adequate for complete nitrification,based on influent flow, with a MLSS concentration of1,000 to 2,000 mg/l.

Dividing the activated sludge system in this mannerwith specialized flora in the two individual stages hasthe advantage of reducing the total aeration time.More stable performance is also obtained. Growthof the nitrifying organisms is inhibited by a numberof constituents in the wastewater, including cyanide,various forms of chromium and copper. Copper mayhave had this effect on the nitrifying systems, butcould not be proven.

Based on the pilot plant experience, it is expectedthat a full scale treatment plant will substantiallyconvert the ammonia to nitrites and nitrates duringmost of the year, particularly in those periods whenstream flow is lowest and the higher degree of treat-ment is needed.

Nitrification Startup

Researchers have shown that among the items whichmust be controlled to achieve consistent nitrificationin an activated sludge plant are temperature, pH, dis-solved oxygen, influent BOD, and the sludge retentiontime, referred to as sludge age.1-2'3 Sludge age can bedefined mathematically as the mass of mixed liquorvolatile suspended solids under aeration divided bythe amount of volatile suspended solids lost, eitherthrough wasting sludge or through solids carryoverin the clarifier effluent.

During the initial start-up of the pilot plant, a greatdeal of trouble was experienced in developing a nitri-fying flora. It was difficult to retain sludge in thesystem because of clarifier upsets and the waste tem-perature was low, 44 to 50°F during February andMarch.

To overcome the problems of sludge retention andwaste temperature, flow into the second stage was re-duced to 6 gpm, resulting in a 10-hour aeration time.By doing this, it was hoped that the ambient air sur-rounding the tank and the longer detention time wouldcause a general rise in the waste temperature. At thesame time, pH adj ustment of the second stage was in-stituted using sodium hydroxide, for the literatureindicated that the optimum growth rate of nitrifiersoccurred in the pH range from 8.2 to 8.5.' A pH con-troller permitted the maintenance of a pH of 8.4± .2. Atthis time it was also felt that the nitrifying populationwas quite low. Accordingly, a known source of nitri-fying sludge was obtained from the Marlboro Pilot


22

Plant which was being run for the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts under a Research and DemonstrationProject. In the week following the seeding of thesecond stage aeration basin, the weather turned warmand the raw waste temperature increased about 6°F.This was still not sufficient to insure adequate nitrifi-cation and so bench scale studies were conducted todetermine the proper combination variables whichwould yield complete nitrification.

Bench Scale Nitrification Studies

In order to determine the factors which resulted inincomplete nitrification in the pilot plant during thestartup, three bench scale pilot plants were run in thelaboratory. It was reasoned that if during Februaryand March of 1970 nitrification could not be initiatedunder warm controlled laboratory conditions, therewas little chance to achieve nitrification at the pilotplant where conditions varied widely.

Physically, each unit consisted of a 5-gallon glass car-boy with air supplied first by means of a laboratorypump and later from the blowers at the pilot plant. At6-hour intervals, the air was shut off and the sludgeallowed to settle for 30 minutes in each unit. Two litersof effluent were then siphoned off and replaced withtwo liters from a composite sample of first stage ef-fluent collected from the pilot plant on the previous

day. At each 6-hour interval, the pH, temperature anddissolved oxygen of the bench unit effluent were re-corded and a sample was composited for ammoniaand nitrate analyses.

Because temperature, pH, and the type of bacteriawere known to be important factors in nitrification,these parameters were closely watched and varied inthe bench units. Each unit was fed the same quantityof first stage effluent from the pilot plant. In Units No.2 and 3, the pH of the first stage effluent and the mixedliquor was maintained at 8.5 using sodium hydroxide(NaOH). The temperature of each unit was maintainedat about room temperature (70° F), and the air sup-plied was approximately constant and equal for eachunit. Units No. 1 and 2 contained sludge obtained di-rectly from the second stage of the pilot plant andUnit No. 3 contained sludge obtained from a processknown to be giving satisfactory nitrification (i.e.,Marlboro Pilot Plant). Also, 20 mg/l of ammonia chlo-ride was added to Unit No. 3 to make up for the lowconcentration of ammonia in the raw sewage due tothe infiltration during this testing period. (At the timeit was suspected that the concentration of ammoniawas so low that it might be a limiting parameter.)

The data and results of the bench scale studies areindicated in Table 6. Several conclusions may bedrawn from this data. First, a comparison of the pilot

TABLE 6 —SUMMARY-BENCH SCALE NITRIFICATION STUDIES

Unit

Pilot Plant-2nd Stage

Bench Unit No. 1

Bench Unit No. 2

Bench Unit No. 3

Unit


Bench Unit No. 1

Bench Unit No. 2

Bench Unit No. 3

Feed

Pilot Plant-1st Stage Effluent

Pilot Plant- 1st Stage Effluent

Pilot Plant- 1st Stage Effluent

Pilot Plant-1st Stage Effluent

OPERATING CONDITIONS

pH Adjusted to 8.5

No

NO

Yes

Yes

OPERATING RESULTS

Temperature (F°) PH

Average

48

74

73

72

StandardDeviation

1.5

2.8

2.9

3.0

Average*

6.8

6.0

7.2

6.9

Ammonia Added

No

No

No

Yes

StandardDeviation

0.2

0.7

0.4

0.7

Type of Sludge




Nitrifying Sludge

Ammonia Removal {%)

Standard

4.5

69

78

76

9.0

25

36

25

* The values of pH for Bench Units 1,2 and 3 were recorded 6 hours after adjusting to 8.5, thus the averages are somewhat below this figure.


23

plant and Bench Unit No. 1 indicates that nitrificationis greater at higher temperatures. A comparison be-tween Bench Unit No. 1 and Bench Unit No. 2 revealsthat at higher values of pH there is a greater degree ofnitrification. A compairson between Bench Unit No. 2and Bench Unit No. 3 indicates that the quantity of in-fluent ammonia is not a significant factor in achievingnitrification and also that non-nitrifying sludge maydevelop into nitrifying sludge under the proper condi-tions of temperature and pH.

stage aeration tank was changed, thereby reducingthe first stage aeration time which in turn caused adecrease in nitrification in the second stage. The dataindicates a decrease of first stage MLVSS from 1600to 900 mg/l in the four days after replacement of thepartition, with a subsequent drop in nitrification. Dueto high solids carryover from the first stage, thesecond stage flora had been predominantly carbona-ceous and at this point little nitrifying bacteria re-mained.

Results of these tests assisted us in determininghow to subsequently operate the pilot plant to obtainnitrification.

Pilot Plant Nitrification

Conditions which define good nitrification have arbi-trarily been assumed to be those periods when theaverage removal of ammonia exceeded 90 percentand/or the effluent ammonia was normally less than1 mg/l. Operating periods of poor nitrification werecharacterized by variable detention times, pH, andmixed liquor solids. The shaded areas of Figure 13indicate periods of good nitrification, based on thesecriteria. On August 6, 1970, the partition in the first

Referring to Figure 13, one sees that the first periodor poor nitrification occurred with a condition of ra-pidly decreasing first stage MLVSS. In the first periodof nitrification the first stage MLVSS were changingbut slowly and were relatively constant at 3000 mg/l.The nextperiod of good nitrification occurred under acondition of low first stage MLVSS. However, in thisperiod the solids were quite constant only varying from1200 to 1600 mg/l. The pH was controlled accuratelyand the temperature was warm. This period of goodnitrification was then interrupted because of the rup-ture of the partition in the first stage aeration tankand a subsequent loss of the first stage sludge. Table7 shows the operating conditions for period of goodand poor nitrification.

TABLE 7 —PERIODS OF NITRIFICATION

2nd Stage MLVSS 2nd Stage pH 2nd Stage Det. Time 2nd Stage Sludge Agemg/l . hours days

Average Std Dev Average Std Dev Average Std Dev Average Std Dev

Periods of Good Nitrification'

4/27/70 - 5/29/70

7/7/70 - 8/3/70

8/25/70 - 9/28/70

10/7/70-11/16/70

Periods of Poor Nitrification1

6/1/70 - 7/6/70

8/4/70 - 8/24/70

9/29/70-10/6/70 '

835Increasing

715

1,020Quite variable

896

141

245

218

140

859 192Quite variable

1,041Erratic

788

146

112

7.9 0.5Variable

but steady

9.0

8.0

7.9

8.1Erratic

8.5Erratic

7.8

2.8

0.3

0.3

4.0-5.0

4.5-7.0

4.0-4.5

4.5-7.0

0.5 3.0-5.0

0.4 3.0-5.0Decreasing

0.7

3.2

0.7

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.4 3.0-6.0 0.7Increasing

11.2

11.5

11.6

9.8

9.8

13.2

2.3

8.1

10.0

8.6

5.9

9.0

5.7

1.1

1 90%NH3 Removed of < 1 mg/l NH3 in Effluent 90% NH3 Not Removed or >1 mg/l NH3 in Effluent


4 4 8 — 14584-A

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

S AUG., 70 CHANGEDIN AERATION TANK.

NOV

"GOOD NITRIFICATION" DEFINED AS>90% NH3REMOVED OR<lmg/ INH IN FINAL EFFLUENT

FIG. 13 DAILY VARIATION OF 2ND- STAGE EFFLUENT1ST. STAGE MLVSS AND 1ST- STAGE AERATION

AMMONTIME


25

Figure 14 compares the second stage effluent ammo-nia for good periods of nitrification against the per-cent occurrence in time for a particular effluent am-monia value. This figure illustrates that an effluentammonia of equal to or less than 1 mg/l can be ex-pected about 80 percent of the time and that 90 per-cent of the time the effluent ammonia would be 2,4mg/l or less with an average influent ammonia ofabout 11.0 mg/l. Also plotted is a curve showing theoverall average of nitrification in the entire pilot plantperiod since feeding the tanks with activated sludgefrom the Marlboro Pilot Plant. This curve includesboth good and bad periods of nitrification.

Effect of Rainfall on Nitrification

Because of the nature of the combined sewer systemin Fitchburg, the occurrence of rainstorms often af-fected the treatment at the pilot plant. Figure 15 il-lustrates several rainstorms with the rainfall accumu-lations deposited noted. Also shown is the secondstage aeration time and the percent NH3 removed. It

is believed that two factors account for the decreasein nitrification efficiency after rainstorms. The firstis assumed to be the limiting amount of ammoniacaused by dilution of the waste. The second is the de-crease in aeration detention time (thus sludge age).The literature on nitrification indicates that the growthrate of nitrifying bacteria are not affected until suchtime as the influent ammonia drops below one partper million.4 It is assumed, therefore, that the loss innitrification was not caused by dilution but becauseof the decrease in aeration time resulting from therelatively high flows coming into the pilot plant.

It was noted that for several days after a rainstormthe water level in the grit channel was consistentlyhigher than during dry weather periods and the pumpslifted more sewage into the pilot plant because of thehigher head over them. As the cell residence timewas decreased due to the higher flow, the nitrifyingbacteria had insufficient opportunity to feed uponthe influent ammonia and the sludge age was de-creased.

100

1ST PERIOD2ND PERIOD3RD PERIOD4TH PERIODALL PERIODS

27 APR. TO 29 HAY7 JULC TO 3 AUG.-

25 AUO. TO 28 SEPT.7 OCT. TO 16 MOV.6 APR. TO 16 MOV.

cwo 0.30 U> Z.O 2.5 3.0

FIG. 14 2ND STAGE EFFLUENT AMMONIA (mg/l)


SEED- and AERATION TANK : WITH "MARLBOROSLUDGE ;AND START ADJUSTING sH

2 DAYS ,RAIN0.98"2=DAYS

RAIN 1,87

;RAIN 0;RAIN 0.26

3! DAYSRAIN 2.79

I "GOOD NITRIFICATION" DEFINED As>90%NH^ REMOVFD

27

Effect of Process Upsets on Nitrification

The problems of instituting nitrification have beendescribed and the data indicates that the nitrificationprocess yields an effluent of low ammonia contentand high nitrates when the two-stage process is func-tioning properly. In November of 1970, it was decidedto turn over operation of the pilot plant to city person-nel. The purpose was two-fold: (1) to gain additionalinformation on nitrification in the cold weather, and(2) to keep the plant running as it was anticipated thatan operator's training school would be started inFebruary of 1971 utilizing this facility. Maintenanceof the process would eliminate the problem of re-seeding the tanks in early February which had beenunsuccessful the year before.

To insure that the pilot plant ran more smoothly, anew raw sewage pump was installed and the sludgerecircu lationsystemswererebuilt.lt was assumed thiswould insure more constant flows and eliminate prob-lems due to plugging in all the pumps. In the processof constructing these facilities, the flow to the pilotplant was very erratic and for several days therewas no flow for periods of up to one day. At onepoint a large amount of floating sludge appeared inthe first stage clarifier and flushed over into thesecond stage. The first stage sludge was completelylost at this time. Nitrification in the second stage fellto zero.

Upon the return of more favorable flow conditionsand close monitoring of the system, nitrification didnot return. In fact, a situation similar to the winter of1970 occurred, when in fact, the ammonia concentra-tion in the second stage effluent was consistentlygreater than the ammonia concentration in the rawsewage. This was probably due to the hydrolysis oforganic nitrogen to ammonia through the process. Bymid-December, the first stage MLSS had returned toan acceptable level, but no nitrification developed inthe second stage. By the first week of January in 1971,with still no nitrification, the pilot plant was shutdown without collecting any cold weather data andthe training school program opening was moved toMay, 1971.

Use of Chemicals

pH adjustment of the second stage was accomplishedby the addition of chemicals to the mixed liquor.Two chemicals, sodium hydroxide {NaOH) and so-dium carbonate (Na2COg) were utilized to determinewhich resulted in the most efficient and economicalmeans of pH adjustment.

During the period that NaOH was added to the secondstage mixed liquor, the average pH was 8.2 and the

total cost of the chemical was approximately $30 permillion gallons of sewage treated. When Na2CO3 wasadded to the second stage mixed liquor, the averagepH was 7.8 with an approximate cost of about $50 permillion gallons.

Specific Growth Rate Studies

The Specific Growth Rate Constant (U) for nitrifica-tion is defined as the milligrams per liter of nitrogenoxidized per milligram of MLVSS per day." This valuein effect defines the rate at which the nitrifying bac-teria are oxidizing the ammonia in the waste. Figure 16shows the variation of the Specific Growth Rate Con-stant throughout the course of the pilot plant. Theshaded areas signifies those times when there wasgood nitrification in the pilot plant (good nitrificationbeing defined as greater than 90 percent removal ofammonia or less than 1 mg/l ammonia in the secondstage effluent). The specific growth rate varies con-siderably, as would be expected.

In the first period of good nitrification, the growthrate averaged 0.05 and was generally decreasing.During this period sodium hydroxide {NaOH} wasbeing fed for pH control and the pH in the secondstage during this period generally decreased from ahigh of 9.0 to a low of 7.0. This probably accounts forthe decrease in the growth rate. Upon the return to ahigher pH value {evidenced in the second shadedarea) a higher, though quite variable specific growthrate was attained with an average of approximately0.1 mg NH3 oxidized 1 mg MLVSS/day.

In the third shaded area the growth rate averaged0.09 and generally increased with calendar time. Itmay be significant to note that this increase startedupon thechangeoverfrom sodium hydroxide (NaOH)to sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) for pH adjustment.The pH during this period averaged 7.8.

In the fourth period, the rate averaged 0.06 and thepH at this time averaged 7.6. However, at this timethe sodium carbonate was being fed into the first stageaeration tank in an attempt to precipitate out metallicions which were believed to be inhibiting nitrification.

A comparison of the specific growth rate constants inthis study and a study done in Manassas, Virginia in-dicate that the growth rates as determined at Fitch-burg are quite similar.6 The Manassas study showedan average growth rate constant of 0.07 at 12°C and0.1 at about 17°C and approximately 0.13 at 22°C. Atthe pilot plant at Marlboro, Massachusetts, Metcalf &Eddy2 found the growth rate constant to be 0.18 at20° C at an optimum pH of 8.4.


28

IO

IQ.

ZUJ

UJ

UJ

§tooz(N

6.5

PERIODS OF GOODNITRIFICATION"

0.16

UJ

SEED 2ND AERATIONTANK WITH "MARLBORO"SLUDGE AND STARTADJUSTING pH.

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

1 "GOOD NITRIFICATION" DEFINED 'S£90%NH3 REMOVED1 OR ilmg/|NH3 IN FINAL EFFLUENT.

1970

FIG.I6 VARIATION OF SPECIFIC {GROWTH RATE (U)

NOV


29

It is believed that the generally low values of the am-monia specific growth rate were caused by presenceof certain toxic materials in the Fitchburg municipalsewage. The composition of these toxic materials arenow known to be copper and steps are being takento remove them from the waste. Other studies indi-cate that nitrification plants were run at volatilesolids concentrations ranging from 800 to 6,000 mg/l.At Fitchburg the maximum MLVSS attained wasaround 1,500 mg/l. The average operating range ofthe Ml_VSS was from 700 to 1,100 mg/l.

The data shown on Figure 16 indicates that for thewastewaters encountered at Fitchburg, no statisti-cally viable relationship exists between mixed liquorpH and the specific growth rate. Yet experience at thefacility indicates that pH adjustment of between 7.8and 8.4 is required to insure oxidation of the ammo-nia down to 1.0 mg/l or less.

Oxygen Uptake Studies

Oxygen uptake studies were undertaken to determinethe total oxygen requirements of both the first stage

and second stage aeration system. The method em-ployed consisted of obtaining a 5-gallon grab sampleof mixed liquor from the first or second stage aera-tion tank and allowing the sludge to settle for approx-imately 30 minutes. The supernatant was then si-phoned off. In the case of the first stage mixed liquor,a sample of raw sewage equal in volume to the super-natant was added to the settled sludge. In the case ofthe second stage mixed liquor, a sample of first stageeffluent equal in volume to the supernatant was addedto the settled sludge. Immediately upon mixing, thenew sample was continuously aerated and, using thedissolved oxygen probe, rates of oxygen uptake weredetermined at various intervals until the endogenousphase was reached. The results of these tests areshown in Figures 17 and 18.

A simple statistical analysis of the data in Figures 17and 18 indicates approximate average rates of oxygenuptake of 35 mg/l/hour for the first stage and 16.5mg/l/hour for the second stage. The data for thesecond stage is shown to be more closely groupedthan that of the first stage. The smaller variability ofthis stage can probably be attributed to the fact that

UPTAKE SATE • mp OF OXYGEN

CONSUMED/LITER OF 1ST. STAGE

MIXED LIQUOR/ HOUR

25 50 75 100 125

TIME AFTER FEEDING RAW SEWAGE {KIN. }

150 200

FIG. 17 OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES OF 1ST STAGE MIXED UOUOR


the ammonia removal process occurring in the secondstage was not as sensitive to changes in ammonia con-centrations as the first stage system was to changesin BOD concentration. Also, in both stages, there wasvery little decrease in the oxygen uptake rates afterabout 60 minutes of detention time, indicating thatthe sample was beginning to approach the endoge-nous phase.

In order to determine how oxygen utilization variedduring the day, uptake rates were determined for grabsamples of mixed liquor at 2-hour intervals through-out a random 24-hour period. The results, shown inFigure 19, indicate that the oxygen utilization variedin proportion to the BOD load to the plant, as mightbe expected.

Oxygen Utilization Constant

Combining the data from the second stage oxygen up-take studies and the specific growth rate constant

previously described, an estimate of the oxygen re-quired for ammonia oxidation can be made. This value,computed by dividing the oxygen uptake rate by thespecific growth rate constant, is known as the oxygenutilization constant in units of milligrams of oxygenper milligrams of ammonia oxidized. As both tempera-ture and pH varied in the second stage aeration tank,the resulting constants were quite variable. However,at 72° F and at the pH between 8.0 and 8.6, Table 8 \ I-lustrates that the average utilization rate was about4.0. The theoretical value at 72°F is 4.57 milligramsof oxygen per milligrams NH« oxidized.

The effect of temperature is illustrated in Figure 20,where the oxygen utilization constant from controlledlaboratory studies and from pilot plant operatingdata are shown. Generally speaking, as the tempera-ture decreased, the oxygen utilization constant in-creased, which indicates that at colder temperaturesthe nitrifying organisms require more oxygen to oxi-dize the same amount of ammonia.

,E so

UPTAKExRATE = m<i OF OXYGEN

CONSUMED/LITER OF 2 NO- STAGE

MIXED LIQUOR/HOUR

50 75 100 125 150

TIME AFTER FEEDING 1ST STAGE EFFLUENT <MIN.)

FIG. 18 OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES OF 2ND STAGE MIXED LIQUOR

200


31

UPTAKE RATE = mo OF OXY6ENCONSUMED/LITER OF 1ST. AND2ND- STAGE MIXED LIQUOR/HOUR

12 AW 12 PM 12AM

FIG. 19 DIURNAL VARIATION OF OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES OF1ST 8 2ND STAGE MIXED LIQUOR

TABLE 8 —OXYGEN UTILIZATION CONSTANTS

Oxygen UptakeTemp Rate (O2)

Date °F pH <mg O2/mg MLVSS/day)

8/11/70 72 8.6 .2478/26/70 72 8.3 .1848/31/70 72 8.1 .1209/10/70 69 7.9 .7969/14/70 69 7.7 .2359/23/70 72 8.0 .3299/28/70 65 8.0 .52810/9/70 67 8.3 .35610/12/70 65 8.2 .59310/16/70 64 8.3 .149

Specific GrowthRate (U)

(mg NH3/mg MLVSS/day)

.059

.054

.078

.072

.116

.078

.089

.053

.070

.054

Oxygen UtilizationConstant (O2/U)

(mg O2/mg NH3 oxidized)

4.193.411.54

11.052.024.215.936.728.462.76


32

35

30

QIIIN 25O

Xo10z

9£ 20NO

t»E

»-Ze is«ftzoozot-<N 10-J

(-3

Zu(9>-Xo 5

05

-

\\\

* LAB STUDIES

D PILOT PLANT

$ THEORETICAL AMOUNT AT 68CF

^ 1

Ô

D

Q

^ .«

D

*(T)**

O

D

5 60 65 70 75 SO2ND. STAGE MIXED LIQUOR TEMP. (°F )

FIG.20 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON OXYGENUTILIZATION CONSTANT OF AMMONIA


33

CHAPTER SEVEN

PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL

Phosphorus, in the form of phosphate (PO^.), likenitrate (NO«), serves as a nutrient for plankton andaquatic weeds. Heavy fertilization, known as eutro-phication, can stimulate the heavy growth of algaeor weeds and eventually create a nuisance condi-tion in lakes and rivers due to the decaying of deadorganic matter. It is not easy to categorize the removalof phosphorus in an activated sludge plant fontheactual reactions may be both biological and chemicalin nature. The phosphates may be removed from thewastewater through chemical precipitation with mul-tivalent metal ions. At Fitchburg, sodium aluminate(Na2Al2O4 - 2H2O) was used for this purpose. Thereaction of aluminum and the phosphorus is shownbelow:

AI+3= Hn (P04)3'n ->AI P04<S> + nH *1

Theoretically, one mole of Al+3js necessary to preci-pitate one mole of phosphorus as P. The reaction de-pends on the pH of the mixed liquor as the solubilityof aluminate is insured at an elevated pH.

Due to side reactions involving the aluminum ion,specifically hydrolysis of AI+9 it is necessary, even inclosely controlled studies, to increase the aluminatedosage to such a point that the molar quantity of Al/Pis slightly greater than 1.0. During this study the Al/Pratio ranged from 0.5 to 4.2.

TABLE 9 — PHOSPHORUS REMOVALJAR TESTS WITH LIME

Ca(OH)2

pH (mg/l)

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

61.9

75.0

97.0

119.0

Settleable Solids

30 minutes (ml/1)

11.0

11.0

12.0

12.0

PO4 Dissolved (as P)

(mg/l)

24.8

20.2

19.2

17.2

Studies were conducted to determine the most effi-cient method of removing phosphorus from the pilotplant wastewater. Two primary methods of phosphateremoval were utilized during the study. One seriesof tests utilized lime and polymers in the laboratory.The lime was added to the raw sewage in increasingdosages resulting in pH'sof up to approximately 10.0.The second method utilized was in the full scale plantwhere sodium aluminate was added at the head endof the first stage aeration basin. Here the phosphatewas flocculated and subsequently settled out in thefirst stage clarifier.

The laboratory studies were conducted over a periodof several days at random periods throughout theproject. Table 9 indicates the results from one suchrun where lime was used. Adjustment of the pH to9.8 resulted in the reduction of only 30 percent of thephosphorus and produced a good deal of sludge.

TABLE 10 —EFFECT OF SODIUM ALUMINATE ON PHOSPHORUSREMOVAL AND FIRST STAGE MIXED LIQUOR

Operating Period

February 2 - May 20, 1970(No Aluminate)(Residual Alum from Falulah)

May21 -July3, 1970(Aluminate Added)

July 4-August 19, 1970(No Aluminate)

August 20 - November 3, 1970(Aluminate Added)

Average Tola!Phosphorus

Removal

34.4

50.2

15.2

57.5

Average First StageReturn Sludge

Suspended SolidsCM

1.90

1.68

0.73

0.99

Average First StageMixed Liquor

Suspended Solids(mg/l)

3,708

3,531

2,090

2,494

Average First StageSludge Volume

Index

102

82

85

65

CAMP DRESSER 6. MCKEE

34

The effects of the addition of sodium aluminate to thefirst stage mixed liquor were studied in detail. Sodiumaluminate was added in two periods of operation (May21 through July 3 and August 19 through November3). Figure 21 illustrates that the first stage mixed li-quor suspended solids, returned sludge suspendecsolids and percent removal of phosphorus are alllowerduring periods when sodium aluminate was notadded. The sludge volume index was significantlyhigher. Average values for the various operatingperiods are summarized in Table 10.

During the first operational period, the solids con-centration was somewhat higher due to the fact thatadaily program of sludge wasting had not been esta-blished and the Falulah Paper Company was discharg-ing its wastewater to the plant. This had an effect onphosphate removal, as well as other parameters, be-cause the wastewater normally had quite a high res-idual alum concentration, which probably helped toform a floe and remove a portion of the phosphatesin the municipal wastewaters.

The increase in suspended solids concentration andthe lower sludge volume index during the period whenaluminate was added was due to the precipitatedaluminum phosphate in the sludge. It should be notedthat without sodium aluminate the average removalof total phosphorus in the first stage during the periodwhen Falulah was not discharging to the plant wasabout 11 percent throughout the whole study, where-as the addition of the aluminate increased this removalto an average of 57.5 percent.

The performance of the first stage clarifier seemed toaffect the concentration of phosphorus in the firststage effluent for the results indicate a significantcorrelation between suspended solids and total phos-phorus in the first stage effluent. This phenomenon isillustrated in Figure 22 which shows the importanceof properly designed clarifiers when phosphorus is tobe removed from a wastewater through precipitationwith metal ions.

Figure 23 illustrates the relationship of the AI/P ratioand the precent removal of phosphorus in the firststage system. The peak removal of phosphorus wasonly 84 percent at an AI/P ratio of 1.7, far higher thanwould beexpected theoretically. The average removalfrom the statistical line of best fit (regression line) was63 percent at that dose.

The average influent concentration of total phospho-rus (as P) during the study was 5.2 mg/l. Therefore,in terms of quantities, an AI/P ratio of 1 would requireapproximately 140 Ibs of sodium aluminate per mil liongallons of wastewater and other AI/P ratios would bein proportion to that 140 Ibs/mg.

Although themajority of phosphorus removal was ac-complished in the first stage, the second stage didprovide a polishing effect. Considering all operatingperiods, the first stage removed an average of 50.5percent of the influent phosphorus and the secondstage removed an additional 7.5 percent, which ac-cording to Figure 24, resulted in an average effluentphosphorus concentration of about 2.0 mg/l. Thestream classification for the Nashua River limits thephosphorus in the effluent to a maximum of 0.5 mg/l,provided the plant effluent is the stream flow. It wouldappear that the required stream standard could not bemet if the stream flow were very low. Provisions for aphosphate removal system have been made in the pro-posed East Fitchburg wastewater treatment f aci lity.

In order to effectively dose the sodium aluminate, itwas necessary to make a determination of the molarratio of AI/P ratio and the percent removal of phos-phate. Regression analyses indicated the phosphorusremoval increased with increasing dosages of sodiumaluminate, but that the increase in removal was notlarge enough to conclude that higher AI/P ratios ex-perienced at the pilot plant resulted in increased re-movals of phosphorus.


FEB. MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

1000

100

QUJ

UJa:

COôc.oXQ.COOXQ-

OI-

FEB MAR OCT NOV

FIG. 21 EFFECT OF SODIUM ALUMINATE ON PHOSPHORUSREMOVAL AND SLUDGE SOLIDS


36

MAR APR MAYFEB NOV

FIG. 22 EFFECT OF CLARIFIER OPERATION ON PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL


CO

%

PH

OS

PH

OR

US

R

EM

OV

ED

lu

* en

co

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

•

^^

•

^ i -r*-^^

•

•STATISTICAL LINEOF BEST FIT-7

• ^ r* **"

••

• •

•

•

•

•

1

3 0.50 1.00 1.30 ZOO

MOLAR AI+'/P RATIO

FIG. 23 EFFECT OF DOSAGE OF ALUMINUM ON PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL


10

O>

ê»-zId

u.U-LU

UJ

enozCM

I

a:oxQ.

OXQ. 2

O

JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN.

1970

JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV.

FIG.24 EFFECT OF SODIUM ALUMINATE ON PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION

CO00

39

CHAPTER EIGHT

SLUDGE HANDLING

One of the areas of most interest in a pilot plant ofthis type was a study of the characteristics of thewaste sludge and a prediction of how various treat-ment methods would satisfactorily dewater the sludge.In this study, gravity and air flotation thickening,vacuum filtration, centrifugation and wet oxidationwere investigated.

Gravity Thickening

Gravity thickning is a simple operation which in-volves the settling of waste activated sludge with orwithout stirring and/or chemical conditioning. Sinceit is desired, within reasonable limits, to have thesolidscontentof the thickened sludge as high as pos-sible prior to vacuum filtration, gravity thickening ofthe waste sludge might be economical because of itsinherent simplicity.

For activated sludge plants gravity thickeners areusually designed on the basis of a solids loading ofabout 8 Ibs per day per square foot and a liquidloading o1 about 800 gpd per square foot. At theseloadings it is usual to expect a thickened sludge con-centration of approximately 2.5 percent.

In tests conducted at the pilot plant a 55-gallon drumwas used for settling the sludge with neither stirringnor chemical conditioning. The results of the tests areshown in Table 11. The average increase in suspendedsolids concentration was about 0.9 percent, withthickened sludge concentrations averaging 2.74 per-cent. The high initial waste sludge concentration wasdue to the fact that Falulah was discharging waste-water with a significant amount of alum, which re-sulted in a more concentrated waste sludge thanmight normally be expected in a plant treating onlydomestic wastewater, as previously described. Al-though gravity thickening produced satisfactory re-sults, other methods, such as flotation thickeningwere found to be more efficient.

Flotation Thickening

Flotation thickening involves the release of minuteair bubbles into the sludge mixture. These bubblesbecome enmeshed with the sludge and lift the parti-cles to the surface and thereby concentrate it. Theminute air bubbles are produced by first saturatinghigh-pressure (70-80 psi) water with air and then re-ducing the pressure to atmospheric pressure upon

TABLE 11 —GRAVITY THICKENING TESTS

Date

June 9,1970

June 12, 1970

June 15, 1970

June 16, 1970

Notes:

Time

1000

113013101430

103012301430

08451145

Flow(gpm)

0.50

0.180.040.00

0.150.300.00

0.400.70

Raw SludgeSuspended Solids

1.59

1.902.78

1.171.51

1.131.55

Thickened SludgeSuspended Solids

1.95

2.622.993,21

2.273.003.49

2.132.96

LiquidLoading

(gpd/sq ft)

267

9621

80160

214374

Solids3

Loading(Ib/day/sq ft)

36-2

15.65.1

8-020.6

20.649-4

1 Na2AI2O4was being added to the first stage mixed liquor for phosphate removal during the period whengravity thickening tests were conducted.

2 Supernatant was withdrawn continuously during gravity thickening tests.3 Based on suspended solids concentration of raw sludge.


40

mixing with the incoming sludge. The unit used atFitchburg was a one square foot air-flotation thick-ener purchased from the Komline-Sanderson Com-pany of Peapack, New Jersey. For our testing, the airsaturated water flow was held constant at 2 gpm. Asthe thickener had one square foot of area, this wasequivalent to 2 gpm/ft2 and is approximately thesame recycle per square foot used on full scale meth-ods. This unit did not have automatic studge drawoffand sludge had to be scraped manually from the sur-face with a paddle at about five minute intervals.

Two sludge thickening aids (polymers) were used inthe studies, Primafloc C-7 and Nalco 636. In general,for each run made with a polymer, an additional runwas made without the benefit of the polymer, at thesame waste sludge flow. The operating variables inair flotation thickening included waste sludge flow,waste sludge suspended solids concentration, and therecycle ratio. The recycle ratio is defined as the wastesludge flow divided by the air saturated recycle water(2gpm).

The benefit of the addition of polymers was oftendramatic. When the polymer flow ceased, the thick-ener would run for a few minutes and then sludgeparticles would begin to appear in the under flow.Soon the unit would completely short-circuit and theinfluent sludge would be entirely diverted to theunderflow with little or no thickening.

Figure 25 illustrates the effect of an increase of thepolymer dose on the thickened sludge total solids, ex-pressed as a percent. During these thickening teststhe Falulah Paper Company was not operating norwas sodium aluminate being added to the first stageaeration tank. For the tests using Primafloc C-7, theaverage unthickened sludge concentration was 0.96percent. For the runs using Nalco 636, the averagesludge concentration was 0.88 percent.

The sludge characteristics during the study of the flo-tation thickener varied. When the Falulah Paper Com-pany ceased operation, the waste activated sludgefrom the pilot plant attained the characteristics nor-

3?

1

1

• Xjx^ * _^*>

a

o

• .X

• _^^^

r-NALCO 6

S^/

r^^f** *"

J6 .X"

C-7 __

^^

X

-^

u -"

10 TESTS USING C-• TES

-o- —

TS USING W7

\l_CO 636

0 2 4 6 S 10 12 14 16

POLYMER DOSE ( Ib/TON DRV SOLIDS)

FIG. 25 EFFECT OF POLYMER DOSE ON SLUDGE THICKENING


41

mally expected with a domestic waste under aerationas the suspended solids concentration of the sludgeranged from 0.5 to 1.5 percent. On the average, thesuspended solids concentration was 0.6 percent. Onthe other hand, when Falulah wasdischarging into theplant and sodium aluminate was being added to thefirst stage mixed liquor for phosphate removal, thewaste sludge suspended solids ranged from 0.6 to 2.1percent with an average value of 1.5 percent. WhenFalulah was not discharging into the plant but the so-dium aluminate was still being added, the waste acti-vated sludge suspended solids concentration rangedfrom 0.5 percent to 1.4 percent, with an average valueof 0.9 percent.,

The additional thickening, over and above that whichinitially occurred in the unit, ranged from 1.8 percentto 10.5 percent and it was not unusual to have addi-tional thickening averaging 5 percent. This additionalthickening probably occurred because the sludgemixture still had entrapped air bubbles which floatedthe sludge. In a prototype installation, such a pheno-menon could result in a thicker sludge going to thevacuumfilterand result in higheryieldsfrom the filter.

All sludge thickening tests, with the exception of tworuns, were made using a Kenics mixer, manufacturedby the Kenics Corporation, Danvers, Massachusetts.The unit was a one-inch diameter pipe with a special

Table 12 shows the operatingconditions and parametersmeasured for all sludge thick-ening runs. As would be ex-pected, during the periodwhen Falulah contributedwaste to the pilot plant, theunthickened waste sludgeconcentration was high, anaverage of 1.4 percent, andthe thickened sludge aver-aged 6.3 percent. These val-ues were just about the sameas when polymers were addedto the sludge which did notcontain any Falulah waste.

Figure 26 illustrates the effectof sludge loading rate onsludge thickening. In general,when the waste sludge con-tained no polymers or so-dium aluminate as the sludgeloading rate (Ibs/ftVhr) in-creased from 1 to 2, the per-cent float of the sludgedropped from 4.8 to 3.2 per-cent. With the use of poly-mers or sodium aluminate,no such discernable trend wasevident. The points do gen-erally illustrate the down-ward trend in the yield of thethickener when the sludgeloading rate was increased.

An interesting phenomenonwas noted when thickenedsludge was allowed to set fora period of from several hoursto a day prior to leaf testing.A significant amount of addi-tional thickening occurred.

.0

•

7u

in

TO

TA

L S

OLI

DS

O

F F

LOA

T

ra

w

* w

at

•0

i

(

\

NcÂtjCfftF

C-7 NO F/

NALCO 636

NO POLY. OR

a

(

A 0

\ |

'-NO POLYM

tun. AHILULAH

Na2AI204

D

a0

4

4O

^?RS OR NojAI

a

D

O

o

°4

3 1 Z 3 * S

SLUDGE LOADING ( Ib /itVhr )

FIG. 26 EFFECT OF SLUDGE LOADING RATE ON SLUDGE THCKENNG


42

helical partition, installed within it. The unit was de-signed to provide continuous mixing of any additivewith the sludge prior to entering the thickening unit.Figure 27 illustrates the results utilizing the staticmixer to disperse the polymer. In general, it wouldappear that the use of the mixer reduced the percent-age of total solids in the float sludge at an equivalentpolymer dose. This may be due to the tortuous paththe sludge must follow through the mixer with thesubsequent shearing effect on the sludge. Table 12,however, illustrates that when the static mixer wasnot used, more chemicals, primarily FeClg, wereneeded to obtain a satisfactory yield in the leaf tests.It is our opinion that detailed studies should be con-

ducted with this mixer for it may prove to be a valu-able substitute for the complicated chemical mixingequipment employed prior to vacuum filtration.

Vacuum Filtration

The leaf test method may be used to determine thefilterabilityof a sludge and should be a good measureof the effectiveness of a vacuum filter. Vacuum filtertests with a small prototype unit were not possiblebecause sufficient waste activated sludge was notgenerated in a day to run even the smallest unit formore than one hour.

,-NOT USINGSTATIC MIXER

-USING STATICMIXER

1 2 9 4

POLYMER DOSEllb/TON DRY SOLIDS)

FIG.Z7 EFFECT OF STATIC MIXER ON SLUDGE THICKENING

The leaf test apparatus wastherefore employed and con-sisted of a circular polyprope-lene housing upon which wasmounted a stainless steelscreen. This screen, which hadan effective area of 0.1 squarefeet is designed to approxi-mate the actual surface foundon a full scale coil vacuum fil-ter. The test procedure con-sisted of submersing the leafinto a batch of thickened wasteactivated sludge, applying avacuum, and then gently aggi-tating the apparatus in thesludge. The time of vacuumbreak was noted. AH thick-ened sludge was conditionedwith ferric chloride (FeClg)and hydrated lime (CaOH2) invarying dosages. The chemi-cal dosages used were the op-timum dosage as determinedby a series of Buchner funneltests. All leaf tests used 25percent submergence and avacuum of between 13 and13.6 inches of mercury. Thevariables in the leaf tests were"drum speed," in minutes perrevolution, and the percenttotal solids of the thickenedsludge.

Table 13 indicates that in allcases a properly conditionedthickened sludge could ade-quately be dewatered usingthe vacuum filter. The result-ing cake had a percent totalsolids ranging from 18.5 to29.6 percent. The cake was


43

TABLE 12. WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE HANDLING, CONDITIONS, AND RESULTSI

FLOTATION THICKENING TESTS

Dote 9Mn

6-18-70 0.3

6-23-70 0 .4

6-26-70 0.5

6-29-70 0.5

6-19-70 0.7

7-24-70 0.4

7-16-70 0.4

7-21-70 0.8

7-17-70 0.8

7-17-70 0.8

7-20-70 0 .8

7-20-70 0.87-15-70 0-6

7-2-70 0.4

7-2-70 0.4

7-1-70 0.45

6-29-70 0,45

7-23-70 0.8

7-30-70 0-5

7-30-70 0,5

8-4-70 0,5

7-30-70 0.5

8-4-70 0.5

8-4-70 0.5

8-18-70 0.5

8-1B-70 0.5

8-18-70 0.5

8-18-70 0.5

8-17-70

10-1-70 0.6

10-20-70 0.3

11-2-70 1.2

SS %

1.26

1.37

1.34

1.55

0.91

0.61

0.58

TestingAssume

0.25

0.25

0.50

0.50

0.56

1.54

1.48

1.21

1.62

0.57

0.47

0.62

0.81

0.57

1.49

1.10

1.02

1.11

1.14

0.95

1 .00

2.04

1.19

0.96

Nora*

C-7

C-7

C-7

C-7

C-7

C-7

Nalco636

Nalco636

Nolco636

Nalco636

Nalco636

Nolco636

Nalco636

Nalco636

Nolco636

Colgon2630

Notes: 1. All thickener run) were

2. AllThe

eaf tests utheoretical

M in/rev

2468

Polyme,

roa/l Ib/ton

Non«

Non,

None

None

None

None

None

9.7 7.75+

None

9.8 3.92

None16 5.72

25 3.25

None

63 10,*

106 47.0

6,7 2.35

7.6 3.24

None

10.6 2.61

14.9 5.23

25.2 16.9

None

5.7 1.12

5.7 1,03

ll.B 2.07

11.7 2.46

None

None

None

1! 3.96

made with reeve 1

ed 25% submergence andvacuum Filtration ond dew

Filtrationsec

306090

120

Float SludgeSludge LoadrnB

TS % Ib/fÂr

7.89 1.89

5.52 2.74

5.69 3.34

6.42 3.87

6.05 3.19

4.28 1.22

5.20 1.16

5.30

5.37 1.00+

4.77 1.00

6.51 2.00

3.27 2.00

4.91 1,68

6.14 3. OB

6.16 2.73

8.46 3.64

5.60 2.28

4.92 1.17

3.94 1.55

4.20 2.02

14.7

7.00 1 .42

11.9 3.72

6.05 2.75

10.7

4.36 2.65

3.79 2.78

3.95 2. 35

3.69 2.38

6.5 6.12

1.79

5.54 5.76

B flow = 2gpm/ft2.

at the drum speeds 'atering time) are:

Dewatersec

64127191254

TEST «. NDITIONS.'

Underflow

Na2Al2O4keing Ied te No- ' Deration tonkFolulah waste Included

14

200

47

No NojAljOj or Falulah waste

Sludge held 18 hn thickened la 7.00%

Sludge held fn basin for several fwun show afloat TS - 7.55%

Quite clear

64

Sludge held several houn thickened to 6.73%

With secession of polymer Feed, sludge wouldnot thicken and wai discharged in underflow

Quite clear

68

39

16 Sludge held 24 houn thickened to 11.6%

36 Sludge held 24 houn thickened K> 11.1%

29

Sample of August 4, 1970, after beingheld IB hour.Leaf teir data fo right

31 Sludge held 24 houn thickened to 15.9%

54 Sludge held 18 hours thickened to 16.6%

119 Conditioning after thickener with Nalco 636produced a iludge which would not dewat«r.(Concentration 10-200 mg/l)Sample of Auguit4, 1970, after being held18 hounLeaf test data to tight

80 No( usmg static miter___

292 Using italic mixer

276 Not using static mixer

165 Using static mixer

234

Sludge held 18 houn thickened to 8.7%Feeding NaÂl^Qt 'n(o >i> aeration ttnV

54 Na2Al2Q4 being Fed to 1st aeration tank

148 Na2AI2O4 bs!ng fed te 1tf °*raf'on nnk

(Thickener area - 1 ft2)

ndicared (min/rev).

1

Temp"F

686868

6464646666686868

6868626262

67676762626282827373

777777636370

636363

6868

----

79797979646464

5B5858

_

Fe 1.13 vo (wn/2 VacuumpH % of Sid. % of Sid. in. Hg

1-27.27.27

6.3 -816.3 .816.3 .816. .766- -766- .766- -566- -566- -56

.66

6.5 9.34

6.5 9.346-4 9.60

6.4 9.60

6.4 9.60

7.54

6.2 9-32

6.2 9.32

6.2 9.32

6.6 10.5

6-6 10-56-4 10-0

6-4 10.0

6-4 10.0

6.4 10,2

6-4 10.26.7 3,266-7 3,266.7 3.26

6-9 1.606.9 1.606.9 1.606.4 2.366,4 2.366.4 2.366-4 7,156.4 7.156-3 10.26.3

6.3 10.16.3 10.16.3 10.16-55 9.546-55 9.546.45 6.13

6.3 7.146-3 7.146-3 7.14

6.3 6.556.3 6.55

6-876.876.606.60

6.4 \2.7

6.4 \2.7

8.13

8.136.46-46.4

6.96-96.9

3.62

3.62

3.62

.

12.7 1312.7 13.5

12.7

18.1 1318.1 1318.1 1324.6 1324.6 13.3

24.6 13.321.8 13.5

21.8 13.521.8 13.5

16.6 13.4

46.5 13.5

46.5 13.528.2 13.2

28.2 13.2

28.2 13.2

37.8 13.5

28.0 13.8

28.0 13.8

28.0 13.8

31.5 13.8

31.5 13.8

40.0 13.5

40.0 13.540.0

40.8 ' 13.5

40.8 14.0

26.1 13.6

26.1 13.6

26.1 13.6

30.4

30.4

30.41B.9

18.9

18.9

26.8 13.5

26.8 13.4

36,6 13.513.5

50.7 13,5

50.7 13.5

50.7 13.559.5 13.5

59.5 13.5

13.6 13.5

25.8 13.5

25.8 13.5

25.8 13.5

18.7 13-5

18.7 13-5

45.8 13-5

45.8 13.5

52.8 13.552.8 13.5

40.6 13.5

40.6 13.5

54.2 13,5

54.2 13.5

13.5

13.5

13.5

13.5

13-5

13-5

1.08 13.5

l.OB 13.5

1.08 13.5

LEAF TESTS

DiumSpeed

m in/rev

246246246246

462466

46846468

46246

24624646468468466

468

46

46464646468

46846B

VacuumBreak

1-15

2-03-20

NoneNone2-30

0-40

3-03-01-01-45

3-20-

None3-20

1-452-00-52

1-37

3-30

2-30

1-45

1-45

2-20

1-25

1-50

1-30

2-463-5

2-10

J-30

1-25

2-52-30

1-102-45

2-15

1-252-02-15

1-30

1-451-35

2-02-30

1-50

2-02-301-50

2-02-15

1-15

1-452-20

1-50

2-15

-1-50

2-361-35

2-06

2-10

3-05

1-15

1-40

2-25

1-50

2-55

3-15

1-45

2-05

-

FILTEI

TS %

20.5

25.3

23.830.1

23.422.7

24.1

26-322.6

25.623. A21 .B22,624.1

24.2

25-529.5

21.922.3

23.6

22.0

20.4

23.9

22-9

25.4

20. B20.3

19.8

24-3

26.621.0

22.8

22.2

23-5

25-7

24.5

21.9

23.6

24.4

19.521.1

22.9

20.8

24.3

25.622.29,13

7.5720.3

21.?

18.5

23.3

20.2

20.8

23.8

2fi.O25.0

28.821.4

22.0

26.2

29.6

22.4

23.5

23.6

22.6

23.7

26.3

.

-

CAKE

Thicknesi

1/41/45/161/45/161/41/41/41/45/161/41/41/41/41/4

5/16

5/16

1/41/45/163/8

5/16

5/16

5/163/B7/16

1/45/16

3/161/41/41/43/B5/163/85/161/41/47/165/16

1/43/81/4

1/21/2

5/163/93/B3/B1/2-

7/161/43/B3/8

1/41/4

-

-

YieldIb/frZ/hr

2.04

1.551.12

4.84

2.552.01

4.44

3.74

1.77

2.651.14

2.654.93.06.853.80

2.59

4.0

4.37

3.64

2.18

- 4.63.25.24.13.3

5.43.9

10.2

6.34.7

9.25.12.83.032.42

1.763.73.24.76

3.76

2.684.42

2.80

3.822.02

0.98

4.65

3.20

2.74

1.76

6,40

3.82

5.28

3.51

4.05

4.417.27

5.48

4.965.04

4.00

3-33

3.00

4.10

2,34

2.04

15.62.04

-

£H

12.2

12.2

12.0512.2

12.1

12.2

12.212 .211.9

12.0

12.0

12.012.012.112.212.112.0

12.212.2n.2

12.2

12.3

12.3

12.3

12.312.1

12.1

11.9

11.9

12.0

11.8

11,9511.912.3

12.3

12,2

)2.D

12.0

12.0

12.2

12.3

-12.3

12.4

12.412.4

12.0

12.4

12.0

-12.2

12.2

H,711.9

-12.0

-

FILTRA

S5mg/l

346474885223

17232394262276265738717497274

4951,710

124221241

117

231233

39229645440511469

11762

22613995

134148211

318170

-322359237218220405192-

449640

35025258

176188-

E

Yietdgal/ft^/hr

5.551.21

6.766.10

15.18.40

6.86

20.8

11.0

7.03

12.66.91

5.0814.3

10.0

8.56.09.95

14.5

9.58.4

12.1

9.35.24.13.3

11.5

8.315.311.2

8.6

14.3

8.75.7

11.59.96.4

13.7

1.44

10.1

7.25

15.0

12.0 - .10.414.010.2

8.60

9.00

7.956.40

13.9

9.80

-8.35

8.6810.5

17.5

13.6

7.619.01

-9.26

9.11

7.35

4.97

8.61

8.566.62

•

44

readily discharging from the leaf after dewateringand normally had a thickness of between 1/4 and 1/2-in.The filter cake illustrates the average yield from thevacuum filter when various chemicals were utilizedfor phosphorus removal and conditioning prior tosludgethickening.

Considering the filtrates from all tests, it was foundthat the filtrate suspended solids ranged from a lowof 17 mg/l to a high of 885 mg/l. The average sus-pended solids of the filtrate was on the order of 300mg/l. The pH of the filtrate was always around 12.0.

TABLE 13 —RESULTS OF LEAF TESTS FORVARIOUS OPERATING CONDITIONS

Test Conditions ofSludge Thickening

1. No polymers

2. No polymersNa2AI2O4 addedFalulah included

3. Polymer C-7No

4. Polymer C-7Na2AI2O4 added

5. Polymer- Nalco 636No Na2AI2O4

6. Polymer-Nalco 636Na2AI2O4 added

2A. No polymersNa2AI2O4 addedNo Falulah

Number Averageof Total Solids

Testa of Cake (%)

8 24.1

24.0

22.8

21.5

24.2

AverageCake YieldIbs/ftVhr

3.87

2.54

5.54

3.98

2.82

1 Na2AloO4 was added to (irst stage for phosphorus removal.

Wet Oxidation

Laboratory tests were performed by Zimpro Inc., onthe waste activated sludge to determine its suitabi-lity for wet oxidation as it was proposed to considerthis process for the East Fitchburg wastewater treat-ment facility. Wet oxidation is a process which can ac-complish varying degrees of organic matter destruc-tion through the oxidation of sludge solids in anaqueous medium by applying heat and pressure.

Some of the advantages claimed for the process in-clude:

1. flexibility in achieving any degree of oxidation,2. flexibility in the type of sludge handled,3. production of a small volume of oxidized mat-

erial that settles rapidly, compacts well, dewaterseasily (often without adding chemicals) is susceptibleto biologic treatment, and offers few nuisance prob-lems, and

4. operation in a small closed system.

D isadvantages that have been associated with the pro-cess include:

1. possible air pollution and odor problems,2. the need for high quality supervision and fre-

quent maintenance,3. the necessity of having to recycle wet oxidation

liquors back through the wastewater treatment pro-cess (this may represent a considerable organicload and the fine ash could plug sludge vacuum fil-termedia),and

4. the cost of construction and operation.

The results of the tests by Zimpro, Inc., showed,using an intermediate oxidation process, that the in-soluble volatile solids were reduced by 60.1 percent.However, the wet oxidation process was not consi-dered for the plant because the cost of the system wasfound to be high when compared to the cost of othertypes of sludge disposal. The complete test reportmay be found in the Appendix.

Centrifugation

An alternate method of sludge dewatering investi-gated was centrifugation. In this process the sludgesample is subjected to high gravity forces, which hasthe effect of squeezing out the water. The tests wererun on a sample of waste activated sludge (total,solids= 0.90 percent) at the Bird Machine Company's labo-ratory in Walpole, Massachusetts. Runs made on thesludge without the use of polymers and at variousloading rates produced a cake varying from 5.6 to36.1 percent total solids.

The addition of a polymer (Dow Purifloc A-23) at adosage rate of 0.495 Ibs per ton of dry solids produceda sludge cake with a total solids ranging from 3.8to 21.3 percent. The results of these tests appear tobe inconsistent with the findings for the sludge with-out a polymer.

A second series of tests was completed in July, butBird did not publish them. The complete report of thefirst series of the centrifuge tests can be found in theAppendix.


45

CHAPTER NINE

PILOT FILTERS

Studies were conducted at the pilot plant to determinethe applicability of granular filters for the reductionof the nitrate, resulting from the two-stage activatedsludge system, to nitrogen. In addition, studies wereconducted to measure the efficiency of the filters toremove suspended sol ids from the effluent.

Two 6-in plexiglass columns, each 9 feet high wereused in the studies. (The head over each filter wasabout 15 feet.) Filter No. 1 contained two feet of an-thracite and one foot of filter sand. The anthracitehad an effective size o11.0 mm and a uniformily coef-ficient of 1.8. The filter sand had an effective size of0.5 mm. The second column was filled with 2 feet offilter sand with an effective size of 0.5 mm. Each fil-ter had its own pump system and rate controller de-vice. The units were backwashed on a daily basis,first, using city water and later with filtered effluent.

Suspended Solids Removal

Each filter was run at three different flow rates. Themajority of the runs, however, were at a flow of 0.5gpm which is equivalent to a hydraulic loading of 1.9gpm/sq ft of filter area. Initially each filter was run forone week at 1.9,3.6 and 6.0 gpm/sq ft respectively. Insubsequent weeks the flow averaged 1.9 gpm/sq ft asthis loading resulted in the best suspended solids andturbidity removal.

Figure 28 illustrates the effect of hydraulic loading onthe duration of individual filter runs. As one wouldexpect, the duration of a filter run was dependentupon the hydraulic loading. Cessation of a filter runoccurred when the headless in the filter exceeded theheight available on the manometer board or in anyevent, after an elapsed time of approximately 24

1—FILTER NO. I

FILTER NO. 2

—- 1 1 r2-0 ANTHRACITE ES = I.Omml'-0" FILTER SAND ES = 0.5mm2'-0" FILTER SAND ES = 0.5mm

FILTER NO. 26.0 gpm/ft2

3 6 9 12 l! IB 21 ;

DURATION OF FILTER RUN (HOURS)

FIG. 28 EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC LOADING ON DURATION OF FILTER RUNS


46

hours. Backwashing of filters was done daily. It issignificant to note (Figure 28), that the rate of increaseof head I oss was consistently higher for Filter No. 2than the rate of increase for Filter No. 1. This may beattributable to the fact that Filter No. 2 had more thantwice the height of filter sand than Filter No. 1.

The results of the pilot filter runs are shown in Table14, and illustrate that as a tertiary treatment system,both filters significantly reduced suspended solidsand turbidity from the feed water - treated secondstage effluent from the pilot plant. The actual compa-rison of day to day operation of the pilot filters isshown on Figures 29 and 30. Inspection will indicatethat as the feed suspended solids and turbidity in-creased or decreased, there was a similar rise or fallin the characteristics of the filter effluent. For FilterNo. 1 the effluent suspended solids ranged from zeroto about 16 mg/l and had an average value of 5,3 mg/lThe very high values shown on Figures 29 and 30 oc-curred at a time of very high flows in the pilot plantand also are due to a faulty sampling port. The normalrange of effluent suspended solids for Filter No. 2varied from zero to approximately 20 mg/l with anaverage concentration of 5.8 mg/l.

TABLE 14—RESULTS OF PILOT FILTER RUNS

FilterNo.

111222

2nd stageeffluent

HydraulicLoading(gpm/tt')

1.93.66.01.93.66.0

AverageEffluent

SuspendedSolids(mg/l)

5.311.1

8.55.8

15.09.2

32.0

EffluentTurbidity(JTU's)

367488

15

Time forHeadlessto Reach6-ft.O-ln

(hrs)

252213191210

Figure 30 shows that turbidity, measured in JacksonTurbidity Units (JTU), of the feed water normallyranged from 10 to 30 JTUs with an average of 15JTUs.The effluent from Filter No. 1 and No. 2 averaged 3and 4 JTUs, respectively.

Generally the effluent produced from the pilot filterswas clear, colorless and odorless. At times of bestoperation, the filter effluent could not be distinguishedfrom tap water. Later in the project when methanblwas being added for denitrification, the filter ef-fluent exhibited a very light brown color.

Denltrlfication in Granular Filters

Subsequent to the study of the removal of suspendedsolids in the granular filters, the filters were run,topromote the growth of denitrifying bacteria to accom-plish denitrification. Methanol (CH3OH) was fed tothe filters to be.utilized by the denitrifying bacteria,as a carbon source in the process of converting ni-trate to nitrogen gas (reduction). That is:

2CH3OH + 2NO3

As the denitrifying bacteria also reduced any dis-solved oxygen in the wastewater, additional methanolwas added to compensate for the dissolved oxygen inthe feed water The empirical formula for the milli-grams per liter of CHgOH used during the pilot studywas 2 (NO3) + 0.8 (DO) where NO3 is the nitrate ni-trogen concentration and DO is the dissolved oxygenconcentration of the influent wastewater. This formu-lation was developed by J. English at the Pomona ad-vanced waste treatment research facility in Pomona,California.6

Instituting denitrification in the pilot filters was ini-tially quite difficult. This was believed due to a highresidual chlorine in the city's water supply, used forfilter backwash, which killed the denitrifying bacteriaeach time the filters were backwashed. The methodsused to dose methanol to the influent feed were origi-nally inadequate and when nitrification began, itwas very erratic.

In the first filter, which contained anthracite and sand,backwashing was a problem due to a cementing ac-tion of the anthracite grains caused by the biologicalslime. Even with a bed expansion of 70-100 percentduring backwash, the large clumps were only partiallybroken up.

Filter No. 1 was placed in operation on September 25,1970. Several days later, as shown on Figure 31, ap-proximately 40 percent denitrification was achieved.Subsequently this dropped to zero and slowly climbedagain until by the 10th of October a 40 percent levelof removal had been achieved. By mid-October deni-trification had fallen off again.

The daily denitrification results for Filter No. 1 areindicated in Table 15.

On October 14,1970, Filter No. 2 was placed in opera-tion and similar results occurred as denitrificationwas either low or non-existent in each column. (SeeTable 16)

The methanol supply was sufficient to overcome thedissolved oxygen in the waste and also to provide

CAMP-DRESSER & MCKEE

CTJCOa

oco

oUJQZUJaCO

zUJ

2nd STAGE EFFLUENT ftINFLUENT TO FILTERS

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

60FILTER NO. I

UJ

ANTHRACITE -T-0" FILTER SA^D)

AUG SEP ocr NOV

OCT NOV

FIG. 29-SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL IN PILOT FILTERSCAMP DRESSER & McKEE

448—14619

00

2ND STAGE EFFLUENTAND INFLUENT TO FILTER

80

<0

>- 60

m(E

40

Ow

*o

20 wn***• l/V U P'^

AUG. SEPT. OCT.

FILTER NO. I

2'-0" ANTHRACITE

l'-0" FILTER SAND

AUG. SEPT. OCT.

> 1970

FILTER NO. 2

2'-0" FILTER SAND

AUG. SEPT. OCT.

80

60

40

20

FI6.30-TURBIDITY REMOVAL IN PILOT FILTERSCAMP DRESSER & McKEE

49

TABLE 15 — DENITRIFICATION RESULTS

FILTER NO. 1

ANTHRACITE AND SAND MEDIA

CH3OH Influent Effluent NO3

Flow Dose NO3 NO 3 RemovalDate (gpm) (mg/l) (mg/l) <mg/l) (%)

9/24/70 ,5 138 • 6.4 2.6 59

9/25/70 .5 - 4.0 8.9 0

9/28/70 .5 59 6-15 9.8 0

9/29/70 .5 - 3.0 2.0 33

9/30/70 .5 ;- 2.92 2.37 19

10/1/70 .5 - 3.1 -

10/2/70 .5 - . 3.5 3.55 0

10/5/70 .5 - 3.37 3.24 4

10/6/70 .5 - ' 4.37 ' 4.5 0

10/7/70 .5 - . - . -

10/9/70 .5 71 8.6 6.87 20

10/13/70/ .5 67 7.63 4.63 39

10/14/70 .5 - 7.0. 8.9 0

10/15/70 .5 - - -

10/16/70 .5 - . 5.75 5.37 7

10/19/70 .5 48 4.12 4.25 0

10/20/70 .5 175 5.25 6.5 0

10/21/70 .5 121 4.12 5.5 0

10/22/70 .57 128 - -

10/23/70 .5 155 3.5 3.5 0

10/26/70 .5. - 7.0 5.87 16

10/28/70 .55 220 5.9 3.8 36

10/29/70 .55 212 7.8 7.0 10

11/2/70 - - 12.3 8.0 35

11/3/70 2.0 _90 14.7

11/4/70 2.0 85 15.3 4.0 74

11/5/70 2.0 94 13.6 1.6 88-

11/6/70 2.0 73 11.4 . 1.5 87

11/10/70 2.0 7 11.8 2.9 75

11/11/70 2.0 - 11.5 0.9 92

11/16/70 2.0 7 7.8 4.7 40

11/18/70 2.0 ' 7 7.3 5.0 32

11/19/70 2.0 5 11.7 7.15 39

11/20/70 2.0 5 6.0 3.4 43

TABLE 16- DENITRIFICATION RESULTSFILTER NO. 2

SAND MEDIA

CH3OH Influent Effluent N03

Flow Dose NO3 NO>3 RemovalDate (gpm> (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%)

9/24/70 .5 138 6.4

9/25/70 .5 4.0

9/28/70 1.0 29 6.15

9/29/70 - - 3.0 - -

9/30/70 1.0 - 2.92

10/1/70 1.0 - '3.1

10/2/70 1.0 - 3.5 -

10/5/70 1.5 - 3.37

10/6/70 1.5 - 4.37

10/7/70 1.5 - -

10/9/70 1.5 24 8.6

10/13/70 .5 75 7.63

10/14/70 .5 - 7.0 6.6 6

10/15/70 .5 - . . .

10/16/70 .5 - 5.75 5.77 0

10/19/70 .5 48 4.12 5.5 0

10/20/70 .5 175 5.25 7.0 0

10/21/70 .5 - 4.12

10/22/70 .64 129

10/23/70 .5 141 3.5 2.75 21

10/26/70 .5 - 7.0 7.0 0

10/28/70 .57 187 5.9 5.0 15

10/29/70 .55 220 7.8 9.0 0

11/2/70 - - 12.3 10.4 v 15

11/3/70 2.0 96 14.7 13.6 7

11/4/70 2.0 94 15.3 11.4 25

11/5/70 2.0 97 13.6 10.4 24

11/6/70 2.0 77 11.4 7.6 33

11/10/70 2.0 8 11.8 6.75 43

11/11/70 2.0 - 11.5 4.5 61

11/16/70 2.0 8 7.8 6.3 19

11/18/70 2.0 8 7.3 6.6 10

11/19/70 2.0 5 11.7 8.5 • 27

11/20/70 2.0 5 6.0 2.0 67

sufficientcarbonsourcesforthedenitrifying bacteria. periods normally lasted 30 to 45 minutes, there wasIn addition, throughout the initial operating period sufficientcontacttimetokillthedenitrifyingbacteria.(through late October), an excess of methanol was .fed to the columns. The excess feed was due to an A backwashing system utilizing the abandoned Falu-error in the mixing preparation of the chemical. lah upflow clarifiers for effluent storage tanks was

established. The filtered effluent was stored in theseIn late October, it was determined that the city's mun- tanks and backwash water pumped as needed. It isicipal water supply, which was being used for back- apparent from Figure 31 that this procedure had anwashing operations, actually contained a chlorine immediate effect on the growth of the denitrifyingresidual of approximately 1 .0 mg/l. As backwashing bacteria. Eight days after starting this backwash sys-

.-..--—. . _ .,. : —»_ «— . '. — .. .- • ,— — — ,,— - . f-'ftk.xD rs \DC~ccc'D c. Mj—^rc" — —..-.— — — -^ — *

50

tern, denitrification in Filter No. 1 had increased toalmost 90 percent. Though erratic, it stayed between75 and 90 percent for a period of 10 days, then droppedrapidly down to a level of approximately 30 percent,at which time the unit was shut down. Filter No. 2showed a steady increase in denitrification, but theefficiency was not as good as in Filter No. 1. Theresults are shown in Table 16.

Though the data is variable, it has been shown thatdenitrification by using granular filters is possible.However, due to errors in feeding and an excess ofmethanol, no suitable conclusions can be drawn as tothe relationship of methanol required per unit ofnitrate removed.

Further testing was not possible because the pilotplant was shut down due to a loss of nitrification.

IOO

FILTER NO.KI'ANTHRACITE, Z'SANO]FILTER NO.3(2'SAND)

20

10

SEPT. 20

FIG.3I DENITRIFICATION RESULTS


REFERENCES

1. Downing, A.L., and Howard, A.P., "Some Observations on the Kinetics of Nitrifying Activated SludgePlants," Water Pollution Research Laboratory Reprint, No. 475, Stevenage, England.

2. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Modifications to High-Rate Trickling Filter Process,October, 1970. (Marlboro Pilot Plant Report)

3. Johnson, W.K. and Schroepfer, G. J., "Nitrogen Removal by Nitrification and Denitrification" WPCFAugust, 1964, p. 1015.

4. Domey, W. H,, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Northeastern University, Un-published research on the ammonia oxidation rate at low concentrations of ammonia.

5. Mulbarger, M. C., "Modifications of the Activated Sludge Process for Nitrification and Denitrification,"presented at the 43rd WPCF Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, October, 1970.

6. English, J. N., Nitrate Removal in Granular Activated Carbon and Sand Columns, Preliminary Report,Pomona Advanced Waste Treatment Research Facility, Pomona, California, February, 1969.


FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS - RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

PILOT PLANT STUDY ON TWO-STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATMENT

OPERATING DATA

UAIt RAIN -1970 FALL

IN.

FEBFEBFE6FEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMAR

23 0.3B4 1.9856 0.09910LI 1.96121315 0.1816 0.4117181920232425262723456 0.47910111213 0.0316171819202324 0.06252627 0.8430 0.49

1 tHKbKAIUKt 11- 1AIR COMB 1ST

INF EFF

49

3033

5149443636

424247

384243413443504645

394349

5148495354474849485255

48474346

4947444546

484748

4849

484848484947

4848

5049495049484948484649

47474345

4848444545

474648

4747

484848 •504847

4546

4948484949474949494752

2NDEFF

47474444

4847464645

474548

4746

474747484848

4546

4948495050474748484848

AVbFLOW

17.813.314.013.5

11.513.013.115.415.713.611.111.210.7

11.511.411.58.410.210.412.411.912.5

14.415.816.313.613.012.612.412.812.013.313.712.711.611.712.2

AVG00

MG/L

2.22.66.73.3

3.22.55.75.77.1

4.64.43.5

5.15.74.66.63.64.83.85.04.2

2.41.91.91.71.61.92.65.12.62.73.12.43.93.5

MLSSMG/L

3870423044703190365039303000380055604140

2144222625782608303035843456336038604424

3350320838103970

37803020223533803740

44003760502041904690

408038103610

MLVSSMG/L

2830270531201940234025802010248033702520

1480156418411842215025162416228426683384

2470237026502950

2570

-Ibl 5 1 A(jt AtKAl 1UN —

SETT SVI RETSOL ML/G SLUDGE

ML/L

350365302300246346268275302242

172196212

336300326424348440489372427

390365264279330460479474582412518550435510368

90866794678889725458

808882

93869710978

145115112

1031201188288

10812611598110

106133101

GPM

7.610.411.49.2

10.88.7

12.19.38.87.010.27.24.9

5.34.57.14.13.03.93.93.63.8

3.63.73.53.63.63.63.53.53.22.83.12.43.42.52.7

RSSSZ

1.232.220.934.181.090.490.771.37

2.65

2.211.630.711.001.62

2.341.511.441.76

1.191.131.891.26

1.741.681.532.421.68

2.391.890.892.422.18

1.912.241.64

RSVSS WASTE% SLUDGE

0.871.850.561.780.540.320.520.85

1.54

1.550.350.220.691.10

1.661.041.201.19

0.850.830.980.90

1.19

GAL

60138250

7400

2334450

00

00

2880

1100

287215

011410800609075000

PH

5.705.306.106.40

6.606.406.407.007.00

7.107.207.00

6.806.306.606.506.806.906.706.806.40

6.406.506.80

7.106.606.506.706.707.206.706.906.807.007.00

DATE1970

MAR 31APRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPR 10APR 13APR 14APR 15APR 16APR 17APR 20APR 21APR 22APR 23APR 24APR 27APR 28APR 29APR 30MAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAY 11MAY 12MAY 13MAY 14MAY 15MAY 18MAY 19MAY 20MAY 21MAY 22MAY 25MAY 26MAY 27



OPERATING DATA

r\« inFALLIN.

0.260.531.98

0.270.10

0.02

0.07

0.11

0.04

1.061.41

0.08

•— i cnrcuR i UKC i r j — • —AIB COMB 1ST

INF EFF

4256444651505662486161565858504856495273686061.69596346445479686557565253626169536263

495045444847475050525252525252525353545357565756575857565861606160605658626262575961

485047444747485050515152525250525352525556565656565756565761606060605757576060566061

2NDEFF

484948454847485050515252525151515252525555565657565657555663626160605857576060575960

AVU

FLOW

13.514.413.911.210.513.412.615.213.517.918.317.318.113.816.617.413.814.112.910.814.714.716.913.09,512.012.814.011.615.614.113.816*012.413.313.014.912.516.110.712.210.7

AVGDO

MG/L

3.22.53.15.03.72.52.62.63.44.46.35.14.33.72.32.72.92.52.12.72.02.71.91.92.63.22.81.92.11.51.61.61.31.62.45.05.23.62.82.31.72.4

MLSSMG/L

3690

37204610

3300436033502960

265025703500350035503270377039403870348035003860395045004800377048303430430040203890406038303980390039403690437039203550

MLVSSMG/L

2770

26903230

2430335022402310

205019802650256014202480273029402910263026802980305034503090296041302570

30802990304030103060385031202910343031802830

— Ail SIAlaC HCKBIlUn —

SETT SVI RETSOL HL/G SLUDGE

ML/L

361403382422456394394302398368316313265262299336434352397525428375302352500522538375451494410421398392538477451471401600478500

97

10291

1199090134

1001018596122107105133110107869112611611299931449510410296140119115119108137121140

GPM

3.13.13.02.62.72.62.22.43.12.52.72.82.37.63.73.43.13.63.23.63.83.83.94.13.73.83.73.13.93.53.53.13.93.83.83.63.43.63.33.53.33.5

RSSS

2.01

2.362.00

2.282.312.572.89

2.472.721.432.791.511.382.501.491.821.771.741.591.561.811.602.301.052.333.962.172.012.763.371.531.941.971.951.621.731.70

RSVSS WASTE% SLUDGE

1.47

1.731.41

1.681.731.882.19

1.832.121.091.940.951.042.191.091.391.321.301.221.221.431.211.750.791.793.311.691.542.362.991.181.461.011.521.271.400.88

GAL

5609000600690

2130

1297555008410200

1511141110501180

100075757575757575757575809996

PH

6.506.606.606.506.506.406.506.406.707.005.706.806.907.306.506.506.606.806.907.007.006.907.207.106.906.606.506.806.607.407.307.207.407.206.606.206.506.706.806.906.506.20



OPERATING DATA

DATE RAIN -1970 FALL

IN.

MAY 28MAY 29JUN 1JUN 2JUN 3JUN 4 1.28JUN 5JUN 8JUN 9JUN 10JUN 11JUN 12JUN 15JUN 16JUN 17JUN 18 0.02JUN 19 0.14JUN 20 0.02JUN 21JUN 22JUN 23JUN 24JUN 25JUN 26JUN 29JUN 30 0.04JUL 1 0.08JUL 2 0.02JUL 3JUL 6JUL 7JUL 8JUL 9JUL 10JUL 13 0.16JUL 14JUL 15JUL 16 0.48JUL 17JUL 20JUL 21JUL 22

TEMPERA TURt IF)AIR COMB 1ST

INF EFF

5957827570636279767477707166707273

7678735676687367

75767678747468717674817268

6060656565656363656667656565656766

6466666565666666666567686868686868687069717170

6060666565656462656667676465656666

6466666666656668676767686969706868687170737170

2NDEFF

6061656565656462656768676465666666

6566666766656768686767686969696868687171737171

AVli •FLOW

12.912.319.518.018.617.918.020.922.817.420.818. 220. L19.315.918.113.0

14.112.813.312.212.214.612.314.712.011.414.313.810.215.012.313.112.713.311.38.613.912.611.8

AVGDO

MG/L

2.61.92.01.81.93.62.81.91.51.21.01.41.92.12.93.02-7

20.02.12.53.13.31.71.71.62.51.82.11.52.31.01.22.81.81.4U32.23.31.83.2

MLSSMG/L

36604370361040304060319034203230261023902190209028702740215032303890

387039004060

4556514037903588403233503450323034503220

15801685223019042020179016761860

MLVSSMG/L

29683850279032002930245024102620191017901610141019501910152521302650

261026702650

3050319024752432273022402350225024102310

12201320170015301550139012401460

-lil b 1 Abt AtKAIIUN —


ML/L

391446412342372350280338196179157159125133145

210250240240238195230220231191167187210128199105128127138152140150170

10610211484911098110475747176434867

546459

52376061575748576039

6675567275788991

GPM

2.83.53.23.53.03.23.14.13.63.34.13.34.23.14.23.34.4

4.64.74.54.44.54.34.54.54.24.24.44.34.47.07.04.04.13.84.84.94.64.44.4

RSSS%

1.611.951.511.542.082*391.921.551.511.191.271.440.951.291.111.072.05

1.212.171.670.691.941.682.711.362.841.791.351.130.850.78

0.290.610.970.470.530.440.420.68

RSVSS WASTE* SLUDGE

1.371.591.181.241.611.83

1.161.110.870.930.630.660.950.760.721.46

0.81i.771.120.531.251.111.750.922.171.170.890.780.600.56

0.210.460.740.370.400.320.320.53

GAL

1001001251251751751751751751751750

1752300050125130151371291301231300

236227160150150150150150150150150160

122120120

PH

6.606.806.606.006.006. 306.507.006.907.107.307.707.507.407.206.907.10

7.407.107.307.207.307.307.607.607.507.207.107.007.106.807.107.507.607.407.207.207.207.307.30

FITCHBURG. MASSACHUSETTS - RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


OPERATING DATA

DATE1970

JUL 23JUL 24JUL 27JUL 28JUL 29JUL 30JUL 31AUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUG 10AUG 11AUG 12AUG 13AUG 14AUG lbAUG 16AUG 17AUG 18AUG 19AUG 20AUG 21AUG 24AUG 25AUG 26AUG 27AUG 28AUG 31SEP 1SEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEP 10SEP 11SEP 14SEP 15SEP 16

RAINFALLIN.

1.58

0.03

0.04

0.22

0.060.390.96

0.17

0.22

0.11

0.020.120.86

TEMPERATUREAIR COMB i

INF I

78

90848282

837362

708267768478

7971726872706974726769577059745958566764485058

72

75747474

747272

7273717373

7372727072698171737271706870726870697070686768

i r jSTFF

72

75767676

747371

7276727374

7473727273687172737272696770726868686970676666

2NDEFF

72

75767777

747372

7376727374

7473737273687172737272696770726868686969676666

HVljFLOW

9.6

8.99.110.812.4

12.414.314.3

14.513.613.213.714.115.1

15.710.812.212.420.018.317,319.416.513.215.313.113.614.215.716.414,315.215.710.116.716.115.2

AVGDO

MG/L

1.7

2.41.71.31.3

2.40.71.8

2.72.03.32.82.01.2

0.40.90.61.21.51.41.61.80.6I. I1.62.02.21.91.31.31.60.91.42.01.53.32.6

MLSSMG/L

192017001690169017101770196021102000

215221301700132011081760

17902190191631203050352034001980186022902500235028202970278024503030319039504050309030903190

2810

MLVSSMG/L

154013301220125013001340143015701480

16301590142011009501400

150018501672260024602550255014501350166018701720217021102020I86022002490

2620223022202300

1990

— iii iiSETTSOL

ML/L

173

147160153175

195198205

19216112390148

221

205264301308274130126131143152190184166156182238228244195

190206187

Atat AtKAt lUPI —SVI RET

HL/G SLUDGE

90

86948998

9299

9094938184

123

106849887806567575764676159636074576063

59

66

GPM

4.8

5.34.64.54.6

4.74.95.4

3.84.95.14.44.74.4

4.54.33.74.34.34.24.44.34.14.13,34.64.3.4.43,43.83,94,04,23.84.04,04,0

RSSS*

0.710.470.590.660.531.000.730.760.830.560.751.040.710.520.600.63

0.880.961.081.211.300.980.82I. 111.050.531.100.961.091.181.241.771.621.641.370.951.330.961.24

RSVSS HASTEt SLUDGE

0.570.370.420.500.400.860.530.570.630,390.560.780.600,440.500,50

0,730.780.860.920.970.710.610.620.730.470.850.700.800.850.921.371.261.211.010.700.98

0.88

GAL

125

120100100100

120120200

0120700007578752590751501501251201201201201501501601301200

150225125300210120150

PH

7.70

7.107.106.907.20

7.607.307.30

9.007.207.207.107.307.10

7.307.507.207.407.307.507.507.507.107.407.507.908.307.607.307.307.107.707.707.10

7.307.40

FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


OPERATING DATA

UH I C HH in —

1970 FALLIN.

SEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTDCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTNOVNOVNOV

17IB 0.18212223242528 0.1829301 0.0325678910111213141516 0.81\7 0.081819202122 0.0923 0.3424 1.102526 0.0527 0.0228293031I23 0.10

i enrcK« i unc i r iAIR COMB 1ST

INF EFF

5950758078707456515155535153645866

6765646551405647425752576152453739394150

4652

6968677171707065666568666666696868

676767676565

656563636166

6262616262

626063

6867677172707165666467656465676767

656667676464

646163636164

6261606160

615962

2NDEFF

6767677172707165656466656465666667

656667676464

626261616162

6260596059

615962

AVl»FLOW

13.520.015.012.714.113.810.215.713.818.518.717.212.612.512.89.810.910. 0

9.68.35.97.810.69,310.510.511.110.312.110.917.913.714.110.811.211.410.18.710.29.19.4

AVGDO

MG/L

3.14.22.33.03.44.14.02.63.22.52.11.32.62.02.04.12.23.82.13.14.86.15.84.76.12.62.54.54.34.27.53.53.74.84.25.14.55.55.04.75.03.1

MLSSMG/L

256022602580237020302100212016602430253027903250229020702650

3820

25502160239024102730

28603050297027901900

15301840187019101380

44402210

MLVSSMG/L

18201580188017701500151014301250

170019202010149014701770

2330

1310138015001520

18842050194019001280

1190146015001590980

27301600

-lil ilAt»t ACKftllUN —SETT SVI RETSOL ML/G SLUDGE

ML/L

165171130170130144140106110119105111105100130150157

150121110101107114

1451421391329599125105161167193205190192237216180

647550716468666345473734454849

41

4750424441

4945443452

10590103107137

4881

GPM

4.33.34.04.13.23.83.64.04.24.04.34.03.13.63.64.43.53.23.72.84.03.53.63.53.23.13.43.62.33.13.33.23.23.13.63.13.12.33.02.92.63.2

RSSSX

0.951.421.070.870.960.870.770.700.781.151.381.410.970.751.05

0.96

1.070.770.620.651.11

1.060.760.951.390.69

0.800.640.570.740.60

0.651.11

RSVSS WASTE* SLUDGE

0.691.110.800.650.710.640.530.52

0.810.950.920.630.520.68

0.58

0.670.480.390.390.67

0.680.480.580.890.44

0.580.490.450.610.47

0.450.87

GAL

2631771761751751752751751201751601201361451860

1001441501501021401321500

15017014216265000

200180180200200150150192138

PH

7.007.207.207.307.707.807.807.407.207.207.307.707.607.807.707.807.707.507.807.808.008.208.50

8.308.408.408.108.80

7.708.108.909.309.008.608.80

9.108.40



OPERATING DATA

UAlb1970

NOV 4NOV 5NOV 6NOV 7NOV 8NOV 9NOV 10NOV 11NOV 12NOV 13NOV 16NOV 17NOV 18NOV 19NOV 20

RAIN -FALLIN.

0.0.

0.0.

0.

0.

5511

5221

39

39

1 tMPtKAIUKb (h JAIR COMB 1ST

INF EFF

494461

42445249453735364246

626059

6159605960615959606056

615959

57595758585857585856

2NDEFF

595957

56585757575756585656

AVbFLOW

9.49.79.412.09.810.613.211.912.911.39.78.39.812.911.8

AVGDO

MG/L

4.75.06.0

4.12.01.75.62.81.52.63.02.21.62.1

MLSSMG/L

214018401830

1600197017701590122010401450403025403240

MLVSSMG/L

159013301250

1350

1420

103017322027001730

-13 1 i 1 AUC ACKA 1 IUM —


ML/L

216180140

150167156159153141143166230191172

1009776

104798996115137114577553

GPM

3.73.33.43.23.33.33.33.33.62.93.33.33.13.12.6

RSSS%

0.560.870.47

0.690.910.690.950.300.260.222.162.721.07

RSVSS WASTE* SLUDGE

0.380.640.34

0.58

0.53

0.220.050.181.702.32

GAL

1500

130150

1501501501501441400

2801500

PH

8.708.108.10

8.708.808.608.809.008.909.508.508.408.800.89

FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS - PILOT PLANT STUDY


OPERATING DATA

L»H 1 C

1970 AVGDO

MLSSMG/L

MLVSSMG/L

MG/L

FEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEbFEBFEBFEBFEBMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMAR

234569101112131516171819202324252627234569101112131617181920232425262730

5.5.6.6.

6.8.7.9.9.

9.8.8.

9.9.9.10.9.9.9.9.9.

8.7.6.6.7.7.8.8.8.9.8.8.8.9.9.

2496

71936

396

522039665

586296106397508

2180195023201675221020101420159523801750

16381390944808774146810647366561180

663640540530

8047355581320186

825665920650751

1290290920

1930158020401380187016451145137215101450

136211557726726601220882504524972

523492484496

510

-^MU il

SETTSOL

ML/L

30724528027925523879178190200

22218597

817477757467657067

869292771449707173354652566053

AljC AtKAl 1UN —

SVI RETML/G SLUDGE

14012512016611511855

11179114

135133102

556910411462

98109124

1061251645875

84106795361

4320657

GPM

10.687.08.319.3

8.38.28.812.519.58.08.08.35.9

5.35.14.95.05.04.85.14.94.8

4.84.14.94.83.94.95.36.46.25.95.75.55.45.35.0

RSSS%

0.601.810.591.091.710.010.49

0.63

1.160.840.220.510.240.160.210.160.180.13

0.150.150.190.13

0.470.280.430.270.04

0.180.990.110.130.16

0.200.350.23

RSVSS%

0.511.860.500.901.050.010.39

0.28

0.950.720.190.420.200.140.180.130.140.10

0.110.110.150.11

0.12

NA2ALZU4PH AS AL+++

MG/L

6.05.66.26.7

6.76.56.97.27.3

7.57.47.2

7.26.66.76.66.97.26.86.86.6

6.66.76.8

7.1

6-86.66.86.87.36.96.97.07.07.1

FILTER NO 1 FILTER NO 2-SAND G COAL- SAND

FLOW CH30H FLOW CH30HGPM HG/L GPM HG/L

FITCH6URG, MASSACHUSETTS - PILOT PLANT STUDY


OPERATING DATA

u« i c1970

MARAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAY

311236789101314151617202122232427282930I45678

11121314151819202122252627

AVGDO

MG/L

9.28.06.210.29.99.010.99.69.59.69.79.48.47.97.78.08.26.27.48.16.66.86.56.47.07.37.15.67.03.83.43,52,62,46,66,85.14,73.86,35.24,8

MLSSMG/L

675

8761055

1840144012001210

12701350117510101195117093010901045104511451245122013901340128013851300176013451355152016101495125016201440141010501450

MLVSSMG/L

490

544640

1190950675805

86484066760470069549561264764566577572083676090077583510108057857601030900700114510008541010890

-tnu S 1 H\iC AtKAflUN—


ML/L

52545362100123108898483833710211078779510090938489803110011111612111810010410897109112103719772100103125

77

6058

66757469

808166767985968580856965817986948576598071716968565950709886

GPM

3.73.23.23.71.76.55.75.65,17.95.03.46.33.81.86.85.23.73.02.42.42.32.32.42.32.42.22.32.52.32.42.42.42.32.42.32.12.32.12.32.42.4

RSSS%

0.24

0.660.21

0.580.320.260.26

0.150.570.390.480.250.220.260.260.350.430.530.320.340.300.240.570.340.200.660.690.850.790.780.590.940.531.140.730.47

RSVSS%

0.16

0.410.12

0.360.220.150.16

0.090.350-220.280.150.130.150.140.240.250.310.200.200.170.140.340.180.120-380.400.50

0.47

0.55

0.690.440.28

NAÂL/114PH AS AL+++

MG/L

6.6.6.6.6.7.7.8.8.7.8.8.7.7.7.8.7.8.9.8.8.8.8.8.7.e.7.7.B.8.8.8.8.8.8.7.8.7.7.7.7.7.

76667647260079218515714342740265521907 08 0524

FILTER NO I FILTER NO 2-SAND £ COAL- SAND

FLOW CH30H FLOW CH30HGPM MG/L GP« MG/L



OPERATING DATA

un i c1970

MAYMAYJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUN•JUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJUL

28291234589101112151617181920212223242526293012367891013i4151617202122

AVGDO

MG/L

3.74.83.42.62.75.13.52.91.22.01.32.21.52.14.34.02.8

4.44.12.41.81.91.01.92.3

2.11.00.81.71.82.86.22.51.85.02.93.74.4

MI.SSMG/L

16601530127512701420916925107511601260126014901510151012101025

9841090111015201350143614951676164415701350162016301580

110010951195132012107001000810

MLVSSMG/L

9808957807868505106356707408057759749701040795675

7207006621050948932938109211201420857107010901050

799790822965835597685550

-tnu i i HOC ACKA i i uni-SETT SVI RETSOL ML/G SLUDGE

ML/L GPM

798475705073389246485768788180

4750809398501051081201228710211066977893608476534861

5049543951419942414553525352

4745726172347064727764626741

7084506362754875

2.42.42.02.32.22.32.42.32.42.42.42.32.42.32.32.32.3

2.42.42.42.42.42.32.4

2.42.42.22.32.32.42.42.32.22.22.62.12.22.32.3

RSSS%

0.560,510.730.64**********0.710.610.700.780.83

0.940.760.730.760.94

0.811.011.230.841.151.061.831.130.971.201.691.930.560.89

0.330.620.750.530.480.340.390.45

RSVSS%

0.340.310.430.380.340.35*****0.440.430.490.30

0.610.510.470.480.63

0.520.741.150.530.790.691.180.720.640.791.181.290.370.69

0.220.420.500.360.320.230.260.30

raaÂLlUH

PH AS AL + + +MG/L

7.17.28.37.87.87.77.48.18.18.28.28.58.27.07.78.18.1

9.08.68.78.67.48.68.58.28.28.57.38.38.57.98.17.99.08.88.48.68.48.58.4

0

10121291315204322313935

39

3944453617

2840

FILTER NO 1 FILTER NO 2-SAND C COAL- SAND

FLOW CH30H FLOW CH30HGPM MG/L GPM MG/L



OPERATING DATA

Utt 1 C

1970

JULJULJULJULJULJULJULAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEP

232427282930313456710111213141516171819202124252627283112347891011141516

AVGDO

MG/L

5.2

5.04.64.54.3

5.42.41.4

1.21.12.02.00.51.3

0.61.11.51.11.60,71.21.61.02.82.43.62.73.03.01.62.22.41.93.93.34.94.0

MLSSMG/L

725740945900940850

1120114012301280156014601450156015601610

14301670180017401640172013901530161016301780233016101560165015901540187021001720178015801460

1260

MLVSSMG/L

480488595590650610728740785780

1050940970

104110901100

97011701305119011601150880

107010101040121015501050980

10701090970

1270

110012301390940

770

— tnuSETTSOL

ML/L

58

75808081

9299105

114138150133125

130

160125147142125120116118140132127122118122123150141141132

120126100

: «ciVI./G

80

79888595

808082

7895968577

90

88718982897872727856787871767980678174

82

79

:*H i luit— •RET

SLUDGEGPM

2.2

3.22.22.12.1

2.62.42.9

2.43.03.43.02.95.0

2.83.22.83.23.03.23.23.94.94.13.93.23.13.13.22.72.93.23.23.23.13.02.8

RSSS%

0.330.320.400.550.551.400.570.961.070.720.300.790.940.590.720.59

0.720.750.830.78L.480.870.711.410.671.231.030.500.760.970.851.020.810.971.010.520.850.840.80

RSVSS%

0.230.210.260.350.361.030.370.630.700.450.200.530.660.400.490.40

0.500.530.570.531.020.600.480.970.460.840.700.320.500.650.540.670.540.530.680.350.550.540-50

PH

8.6

7.38.88.48.7

6.18.18,0

9.58.58.68.78.78.9

8.28.18.18.39.03.38.58.38.28.08.18.18.28.18.07.27.68.17.98.27.78.08.2

NA2AL204AS AL+++

MG/L

19208

131513161922322525242137293250

15

FILTER NO I FILTER NO 2•SAND & COAL- SANDFLOW CH30H FLOW CH30HGPM MG/L GPM MG/L

2.1

2.0

0.60.60.60.60.6

1.51.51.51.5

1.51.51.51.5

FITCHBURGt MASSACHUSETTS - PILOT PLANT STUDY


OPERATING DATA

UA 1 C

1970

SEP 17SEP 18SEP 21SEP 22SEP 23SEP 24SEP 25SEP 28SEP 29SEP 30OCT 1OCT 2DCT 5OCT 6OCT 7OCT 8DCT 9OCT 10OCT 11OCT 12OCT 13OCT 14OCT 15QCT 16OCT 17OCT 18OCT 19OCT 20OCT 21OCT 22OCT 23DCT 24OCT 25DCT 26OCT 27OCT 28OCT 29UCT 30OCT 31NOV 1NOV 2NOV 3

AVGDO

MG/L

4.13.22.73.53.13.64.52.54.34.22.72.66.04.54.44.83.95.42.35.26.06.66.16.46.72.82.55.55.35.47.62.33.85.25.65.75.17.77.25.77.65.8

MLSSMG/L

122012301140139013501050

1550132087011401190129013301270

1650

15301410141015601290

14101440147014201410

14551230142012001320

20301370

MLVSSMG/L

740745760920864720

1010880600770800755920838

1050

960885905941800

859850880886875

7787289257721000

1170825

-£NU i I *"SETTSQL

ML/L

100100979410093931269081779988798590102

908876919693

10095918791887585948887907967907672

HjC ACKftl IUN

SVI RETML/G SLUDGE

818185677488

8168936783685966

61

5753646172

6763596462

6471617559

3752

GPM

2.82.93.23.23.13.33.02.72.52.52.42.72.62.83.23.32.92.93.03.52.32.83.02.73.03.22.53.22.23.23.13.13.43.22.33.32.92.42.93.23.63.4

RSSSz

1.090.520.720.570.640.530.320.840.500.860.850.890.540.500.60

0.50

0.500.420.400.540.46

0.490.480.790.570.51

0.700.840.391.030.25

0.261.04

RSVSS%

0.690.330.460.150.400.340.200.550.330.570.520.560.320.330.40

0.31

0.300.270.250.320.28

0.300.300.480.360.32

0.430.510.250.660.17

0.150.61

PH

8.08.47.47.68.07.77.68.07.57.87.97.28.28.07.97.48.38.28.28.28.28.08.28.38.3

8.07.57.67.67.7

7.57.27.78.17.98.07.7

7.98.1

AS AL+++MG/L

23212145423950405033

4243605055

566666524045

37

2731

FILTER NO 1SAND £ COAL-FLOW CH30HGPM MG/L

0,5

0.50.50.50.5

0.5

0.50.5

0.5

1717

35

FILTER NO 2SAND

FLOW CH30HGPM MG/L

0.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

12 0.50.5

5 1.0

1.01.01.01.51.51.5

12

2

1.5

0.50.50.5

0.50.50.50.50.5

3149

1012

0.50.50.50.60.5

314

1011

0.5

0.50.5

0.5

1517

30



OPERATING DATA

UH 1 C

1970

MOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOV

456789101112131617181920

AVGon

MG/L

6.07.16.4

4.56.03.25.25.45.55.76.66.02.86.2

MLSSMG/L

157021701280

1360147015403820102016903000356020202460

MLVSSMG/L

9301300750

90810101020

650700

123022001230

-tfiu i 1 *SETTSOL

ML/L

707261

7075678296918284102109108

Aljit: AtKAl 1UN —SVI RET

ML/G SLUDGE

443347

55455325894828285343

GPM

3.62.82.53.03.03.73,03.53.93.53.23.63.43.43.0

RSSS

0.370.350.98

0.810.530.860.360.851.190.230.621.492.05

RSVSS

0.220.210.59

0.550.360.52

0.530.480.090.380.94

NftÂLrfCUHPH AS AL+++

MG/L

7.77.37.4

8.27.67.77.67.98.08.48.07.67.47.7

23242423

4339

FILTER NO I FILTER NO 2-SAND 6 COAL- SANDFLOW CH3QH FLOW CH30HGPM MG/L GPM HG/L

0.50.50.5

0.50.5

333628

0.50.50.5

0.50.5

151512

DATE1970



ANALYTIC DATA

FEB 2FEB 3FEB 4FEB 5FEB 6FEB 9FEB 10FEB 11FEB 12FEB 13FEB 15FEB 16FEB 17FEB 18FEB 19FEB 20FEB 23FEB 24FEB 25FEB 26FEB 27MAR 2MAR 3MAR 4MAR 5MAR 6MAR 9MAR 10MAR 11MAR 12MAR 13MAR 16MAR 17MAR 18MAR 19MAR 20MAR 23MAR 24MAR 25MAR 26MAR 27MAR 30

56 150 60 18 1237 190 50 14 1141 85 50 13 1057 HO 57 14 1123 116 31 9 663 131 52 12 2139 13 1120 110 26 6 746 103 51 13 841 112 44 11 11

58 15 1184 17 16

58 140 62 15 12

RAWINF

15718911232710117116890108161

190167149148169185131271210202432

284

FALULAHINF

360403319272390696

414319441

273372740782378347152

1375

195

COMBINF

189210127120212191

102127148

171157353308260259202272405291237226321274219241221315

199286192203

— LUU r1ST

STAGEEFF

62683838575667324243

60585624596551628063678414470906563588775105

106593744

1b/ L — — „2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT

STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFFEFF

55 .6042353875102594245

6453495151675156685052381016266788062377173

91401848

200 354

184

166

97

45

33

37

DATE1970

MAR 31


PILOT PLANT STUDY ON THO-STAGfc ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATMENT

ANALYTIC DATA

RAW FALULAHINF INF

BOD MG/l —COMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

APRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAY

1236789101314151617202122232427282930145678

11121314151819202122252627

126 112 10966 123 8466 104 69

78 81 50

139 196 143149 168 146

103 66 80

97 65 96

63 46 47761001151138352706363

837866

292130

16

2728

16

24

32363533383519142722

231315

253132

40

2935

14

16

21253231273826243832

19215

FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2TAP 12 EFF EFF

RAHINF

16098

141

172

203165165

305205203

244399195

212

202

268228157136135201

209234283

FALULAHINF

332204

175184

238

143

232248269

290255135

158479172

127

107170165250

86107

11392

COMBINF

181102

143121

198152

147160174290227205

207221202207244225288226

204261199

279206161207133166185274280281

uuu1ST

STAGEEFF

7975

5042

75

368847978841868080998710939675754

8811995

971046319597858876564

HWL2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT

STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFFEFF

4136

17568

7962

U523766826375924283686478273043

3010853

49684739675542562827

DATE1970

MAY 28MAY 29JUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUN 10JUN 11JUN 12JUN 15JUN 16JUN 17JUN 18JUN 19JUN 20JUN 21JUN 22JUN 23JUN 24JUN 25JUN 26JUN 29JUN 30JULJULJULJULJULJULJULJUL 10JUL 13JUL 14JUL 15JUL 16JUL 17JUL 20JUL 21JUL 22

RAW FALULAHINF INF

COMBINF

67

98


PILOT PLANT STUDY ON TWO-STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATHENT

ANALYTIC DATA

— BOD KG/L-IST 2ND

STAGE STAGE6FF EFF

12

22

20

26

72538042569943765060

25252918152620222542

36431828223732161617

126821001008767129126

808370907613315211413811310319012997

2624

20

16

162123L614262531342819331820

298

20

19

18212434342612111316935196

FILT 1 FILT I FILT 2TAP 12 EFF EFF

RAWINF

344236361255262219218338204236204247354227303344230

307218279261

FALULAHINF

10412211813410913715293121119130144122176142142113

133230192146

75665458557

COMBINF

332275373214266160198294183227241293339229215398214

500248275262307213446131355592233927425318297302262221303256291

LUU P

1STSTAGE

EFF

54548690786254109821098571117548011097

89969512696821889512210471807486888810879103718794106

lb/ L — — — — —2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FlLSTAGE TAP 12 EFF E

EFF

27277011894624671625854425266427162

585255445971129122547098655151435885757155555966



ANALYTIC DATA

DATE1970

JUL 23JUL 24JUL 27JUL 28JUL 29JUL 30JUL 31AUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUG 10AUG 11AUG 12AUG 13AUG 14AUG 15AUG 16AUG 17AUG 18AUG 19AUG 20AUG 21AUG 24AUG 25AUG-26AUG 27AUG 28AUG 31SEP 1SEPsepSEPSEPSEPSEP

234789

SEP 10SEP 11SEP 14sep 15StP 16

RAH FALULAH COMBINF INF INF

971249610611193

129105143

12114412019510891

8711215084142104146127136173167166155113159183167109114204

143

DUU r1ST

STAGEEFF

81714213424

242746

492927343221

1014916

29

2721372711

1U/L

2NDSTAGE

EFF

122416272212

161920

243219244341

5121232

40

5033434429

FILT 1TAP 12

5

2

166373746

5132620197171697

26272516

42333

11

4

FILT 1EFF

2

2

1

114267

27

36121388

35271611

16191515

2817

10

3

FILT 2EFF

1718203226126

17242312

5


297273327233247239201372307279

273381295363302293

307261362225417

36333439636832834535735538646147736031446529330

— uuu1ST

STAGEEFF

117851047758927575110128

9511088101145122

142948976117

1051196810311399119639482117105781127381

n<j/ u2ND

STAGEEFF

50424646303841454160

6673516510985

6961717945

76785267636371398662505066545157

FILT 1TAP 12

14

306030

4436362183100

32515064

39

393566

2357

FILT 1EFF

154126

224444294057

362536394334

554437

46395539

273554

234226

FILT 2EFF

5736

(.54929

17555515

23

30

FITCHBURGt MASSACHUSETTS - RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


ANALYTIC DATA

UB 1 C

1970 RAH FALULAH

SEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTDCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTOCTDCTQCTOCTOCTDCTOCTOCTOCTQCTNOVNOVNOV

INF INF

17182122232425282930125678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031123

DUU ni»/ LCOMB 1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT I FILT 2INF STAGE

EFF

124164234140140117264157184267153222 50670 16178 14

156 25

174153150146134

241 24200 28187 50174 2964 16

207165162171171

216 30135 33

STAGE TAP 12EFF

2312216712085721251792685

12 885 11

11

3 57

271825

2 121 1762 853 963 11

69

51

EFF

1092078113301

2559123024

1

13014

11

2112

2

21

EFF

119131696122072621111911

11

1511514

21112

93

0

RAW FALULAH COMB— uuu nti/ u —1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2

INF INF INF STAGE STAGE TAP 12

3837440604316318334263309358464228447336360

336

543339295308374

508488402428177

349351329349383

488360

EFF

993383147988159183155124138118127145109

94

12174696673

881071019267

8697978694

108151

EFF

686353687537295173737239677862

43 74

5858504242

54 25068826156

8652523745

5466

EFF

304537601431771711241621468747110101

90

708150204

239321177165192

131

209124

132

EFF

38373445

46

57

310

UATE1970

NOV 4NOV 5NOV 6

NOV 8NOV 9NOV 10MOV 11NOV 12NOV 13NOV 16NOV 17NQV 18NOV 19NOV 20



ANALYTIC DATA

RAW FALULAHINF INF

COMBINF

166138

•—BOD KG/L-IST 2ND

STAGE STAGEEFF EFF

29 ]25 ]39

FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2TAP 12 EFF EFF

RAW FALULAHINF INF

COMBINF

383430312

620417275318400383400415

— uuu r1ST

STAGEEFF

117101150

187190

136218

304415

Ib/L2ND

STAGEEFF

393953

68106687568596774

FILT 1 FILT 1TAP 12 EFF

411477451

7661

FILT 2EFF

602

76


PILOT PLANT STUDY ON TWO-STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEHAGE TREATMENT

ANALYTIC DATA

u« r c1970

FEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFESMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMAR

234569101112131516171819202324252627I34569101112131617181920232425262730

RAW FALULAHINF

24616432245364220442465

375458SO511187182939272

67

INF

200274186146238590

198189273

128167651348360228158622

67

iuaiCOMBINF

25616636289799

6975100

1018

168198123138110126

11561

SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2

STAGE STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFFEFF EFF

655914132632301

1516

18191739920344226

14

423

6344175

27623218

30

52117

3261835371821

2920

•VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L-RAW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

90673247475084242057

36485559621135376767163

123178149109141402

156124202

9611757118421216085524

11468

376177

456164

6947116114989369111

2839

2714142811315

181417342925193715

14

2436152814313412

29

51416

2519102929221

76 4110261

4020

2231



ANALYTIC DATA

LJAI t OUil1970

MARAPRAPRftPR&PRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRftPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRMAYMAYHAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYHAYMAYMAYMftYMAYMftY

31123678910131415161720212223242728293014567811121314151819202122252627

RAH FALULAHINF

476048

59

50

7075

704272

113996410084134121ISO1247262818712680937037326082847067

INF

628156

146

182

339172766150109133143105542489957

11937527964844265293654

3041

COMBINF

638052

64

88

8084

113116117115110165108831391331771331147011910813496981121026354831138962

SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT I FILT 2


57

143729

15

8815

19594611273250471235181517114243654346212023323728

46

1515315

41

1

4027

235273162245261423192070

2732362332162029294122

—VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L-RAW FALULAW COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

415927

57

7066

56

585693609068111103921245454

698955832526

70837067

314912

61

221863218243644423831183723102621308573036

34

1241

396830

53

65

7364

7195875784

767711385110113795785788859856356

721047233

36

21

686

10422742032384512296

158

42303012422119

26

23

111381

26

3616

16162531101529187235

202718210321416

3121



ANALYTIC DATA

UB 1 C

1970

MAYMAYJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJULJUL

2829123458910111215161718192021222324252629301236789101314151617202122

RAW FALULAHINF

6893150105165819213693114100119160909717068

1015249110

INF

376171944365916645361071274254824828

55543051

suaiCOMBINF

11415711816010692US11288961061559440124109

14034641207513211C88734510482125124

10387979578181119114

SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2


1025304641211947473751

5123401533

197273217695537251737363661

2425432821423430

2423378757283240311932312232234215

91217209443625151225253460

935362626282620

-VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L-RAH FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

587211784107617311373977884133859712464

926354523243944151737352231412715

1239110372669978767682128

9477

61221312518837292623

4122381325

211195035222433171316112021172915

825119

111

20 2115 230 1831

6812094756545867310285

10387918672163102106

77

7554227171622322339

35

19403428

29

135

363619131013192140

352324251918



ANALYTIC DATA

UAI C OUil

1970 RAH FALULAH COMB

JULJULJULJULJULJULJULAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEP

INF

232427282930313456710111213141516171819202124252627283112347B910111415

INF INF

1001051059871

1118513513660

10718313913887139

1409017492

5 167

10 12628 10435 173

1381378314223414921317021112310156

SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1

STAGE STAGE TAP 12 EFFEFF EFF

FILT 2EFF

-VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L-RAW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

1001051059871

1118513513660

4272921103540275750

1714131236127

2317

1130

0

9

10310

0

34 27 1318313913887139

3625192450

1615172842

006663

000015

5

102835

1409017492167

1261041731381378314223414921317021112310156

4721343545

274658514563552742374637307122

3518404417

213441283545292259341832254132

5151024185

102835

32381720

21041

1314

450683

01625

1711I5

200

120

104611

82022

219133

838880776490621109844

9014212411270123

9778

12559100

838412986

11370

11118414615413315910789

4171815103424194124

313021182439

2919121530

113331361254471242353728236017

126610363413

17158

131633

1912163815

1258291541

650318

24252923



ANALYTIC DATA

UA i e1970 RAW FALULAH

SEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPOCTOCTQCTQCTOCTQCTQCTOCT3CTOCTQCTOCTUCTOCTOCTOCTQCTQCTOCTOCTOCTOCTQCTQCTOCTOCTQCTQCTOCTNOVNQV

INF INF

1617182122232425282930125678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 .2930311Z

iuatCOM8INF

699680254162114104124180182X40138128126

188

140

264138118116154

158132132190108

14486112136102

218

STAGE

U iULlUi mi»/ L— — — — — — ——————————T 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2£ STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFFF

2637304835292450646146956431

58

51

4918212522

279752394

25301619

EFF

27274442222432154660783878129

48

39

3029152017

7929304021

2424383829

228

22419216

1008415602

11

16

3693

517082

0

137

021

1726

110435346172193

2

132

40110

10230110

0

13

103172220113710166

1

11

19200

473

00

0

45

•VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS HG/L-RAW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

210 46

4972602201369610096170164138120114108

114

136

198118118108116

15411411618298

1218610611896

164

9132523321721

524743494224

47

34

3613IB2121

279

2348

22301618

81622191910227

2254662975

47

31

1918151817

7721203221

2321363312

36

DATE1970

NOV

MOVNDVMOVNDVNOVMOV 10NOV 11NOV 12NQV 13NQV 16NOV 17MOV 18NOV 19NOV 20

F1TCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS - RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


ANALYTIC DATA

SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/LRAW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2INF INF INF STAGE STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFF

EFF EFF

--VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L-RftW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

120

50

32

5046

62

2230514

2109

91902

142126

88

11546

31

40

39



DATE1970

FEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEB 10FEB 11FEB 12FEB 13FEB 15FEB 16FEB 17FEB 18FEB 19FEB 20FEB 23FE6 24FEB 25FEB 26FEB 27MARMARMARMARMARMARMAR 10MAR 11MAR 12MAR 13MAR 16MAR 17MAR 18MAR 19MAR 20MAR 23MAR 24MAR 25MAR 26MAR 27MAR 30

ANALYTIC DATA

RAWINF

6.66.06.46.35.86.96.76.26.16.7

6.16.36.66.66.36.97.76.76.96.76.4

FALULAHINF

4.34.24.44.14.14.2

4.24.54.6

4.74.44.95.35.75.36.74.8

Kl-l

COMBINF

7.05.45.95.55.66.76.75.35.45.8

6.16.3

6.55.75.86.36.46.06.85.8

1STSTAGE

EFF

6.95.66.15.85.87.16.75.95.76.2

6.37.06.77.96.15.86.87.86.16.66.1

2NDSTAGE

EFF

7.15.66.25.96.07.16.86.05.86.3

6.57.26.98.06.16.17,06.66.26.96.2

—TOTAL SOLIDS MG/LCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

575410365359563433456310327425

355394370482331397488408435381679645

702

344292277304421318265262265303

267314283361307153324303301321546468

511

334281260287339363305293282313

264314298374347257309316305252563485

372

TOTAL VOLATILESOL

COMBINF

17915211615814017917818638160

1L310911810138153194163206136295247

237

nu/STGEFF

93846896475869148

159

313740205330547687496276

L — — —2NDSTAGE

EFF

8078511065379861181377

3144505910520416583556758

130 147



DATE1970

MAR 31APRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPR 10APR 13APR 14APR 15APR 16APR 17APR 20APR 21APR 22APR 23APR 24APR 27APR 28APR 29APR 30MAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAY

145678

MAY 11MAY 12MAY 13MAY 14MAY 15MAY 18MAY 19MAY 20MAY 21MAY 22MAY 25MAY 26MAY 27

ANALYTIC DATA

RAW FALULAHINF INF

— PH-COMBINF

1ST 2NDSTAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

6.26.86.66.26.4

6.7

6.7

6.76.36.7

7.06.76.46.78.0

7.1

6.86.97.37.0

6.96.96.9

6.87.2

7.27.1

4.34.44.54.45.8

4.3

4.4

4.34.44.3

4.34.24.54.64.6

4.5

4.34.34.44.6

4.64.64.4

4.44.7

4.5

5.95.76.16.06.4

6.9

6.2

6.56.36.4

6.96.56.36.47.6

6.4

6.17.27.17.0

6.96.96.7

6.46.7

7.26.3

7.06.36.66.6

6.4

6.56.57.0

7.37.16.76.87.4

8.4

6.5

7.27.3

7.07.27.0

6.67.0

8.27.3

7.07.37.78.4

10.0

6.5

6.7

7.67.78.3

8.28.17.47.97.9

8.2

7.27.97.78.1

7.97.78.0

7.77.7

8.07.5

—TOTAL SOLIDS MG/LCDMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

TOTAL VOLATILESOLIDS MG/L

COMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

444

397

398

450

450

339

364

397437462514

426414423416398412

364352387361441353398

364

328

371

314

338

272

303

329282374358

269315321312328348

202300299319389245309

484

383

400

354

420

489

437

427431474481

429404461437464428

256350379410417338452

150

94

153122174147138144

86150124125177120251

71

29

813167515355

25131651107214

136

176

33

143

194

156

88

145

153188221218

140

85

70

60

82

8878

11669

102

98

59

97

90

121119121160

951121359793157

2511880978973

133



DATE1970

MAY 28MAY 29JUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUNJUN 10JUN 11JUN 12JUN 15JUN 16JUN 17JUN 18JUN 19JUN 20JUN 21JUN 22JUN 23JUN 24JUN 25JUN 26JUN 29JUN 30JUL 1JULJULJULJULJULJULJUL 10JUL 13JUL 14JUL 15JUL 16JUL 17JUL 20JUL 21JUL 22

ANALYTIC DATA

RAW FALULAHINF INF

•-PHCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

7.1

7.06.77.0

6.9

6.8

4.5

4.44.24.64.6

4.3

7.0 4.77.1 4.57.0 4.4

4.6

6.7

6.96.66.97.4

7.0

6.6

7.2

7.27.07.57.8

7.3

7.1

7.7

7,97.77.77,7

7.9

7.0 7.3 7.87.1 7.5 7.86.9 7.0 7.6

7.7

7.06.97.07.0

4.4 7.04.2 6,54.4 6.84.5 6.6

7.2

7.2

7.67.27.3

7.0

7.37.17.47.17.27.07.1

7.57.07.36.97.5

7.8

7.77.57.8

7.2

7.77.37.77.47.37.27.5

8.38.08.27.77.8

8.4

8.27.88.1

7.8

8.57.98.08.07.98.08.1

— TOTAL SOLIDS MG/LCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

373402454351393382377471352357366324488345352386

443450

510334374537339294403426361383386

411426399358342376350404

288304300287265236276337291304313284354257

277329

311350364322231218404297272293288326267321

260367350259221264253304

373362504426375368367448339373391354425336331331340

442402428400292411518374389457367385418480

334564492436451458446437

TOTAL VOLATILESOL

COMBINF

1371182011221391311031881141511439921890148152

183

225151205232123142207190132167181

175159238151158142173170

nw»STGEFF

373468843135

128448368559910

6078

78

1174445137214864084871466594

52801617167425491

L___— _

2NDSTAGE

EFF

956813612360117331255559816691285256100

102

1231365992119104811579888110155

771581631351688213190



ANALYTIC DATA

DATE1970

JUL 23JUL 24JUL 27JUL 28JUL 29JUL 30JUL 31AUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUG 10AUG 11AUG 12AUG 13AUG 14AUG 15AUG 16AUG 17AUG 18AUG 19AUG 20AUG 21AUG 24AUG 25AUG 26AUG 27AUG 28AUG 31SEP 1SEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEP

234789

SbP 10SEP 11SEP 14SEP 15SEP 16

— — - — rnRAW FALULAH COMBINF INF INF

7.07.16.97.07.07.06.97.07.2

7.06.97.1

6.97.0

7.06.86.97.07.3

5.66.97.47.16.97.06.9

7.1

7.07.17.27.17.1

1STSTAGE

EFF

7.47.67.57.37.37.37.27.27.3

7.27.27.3

6.97.2

7.27.27.17.57.6

7.27.27.97.57.67.47.5

7.4

7.47.47.87.77.5

2NDSTAGE

EFF

8.17.78.88.07.97.87.87.87.8

7.97.78.1

8.07.8

7.77.78.08.88.0

7,87.88.17.97.77.87.9

7.2

7.87.77.98.07.9


EFF EFF

378341389306252345302400363349

350416349398283379

380319437329

394376512437456454420395315548363457358500200437

213239238222191213239246361247

226265251287252301

317261282285

300277306266427315282229300428316278231393311230

431423335452359351370368404376

370383417468428450

444457514458

409451423439532541480450267551578443438524399399

TOTAL VOLATILESOL

COMBINF

16313417196100167128184158215

159200136205127187

153139185146

167157249248256272247256116309158246185298147225

nwSTGEFF

35505941367155628387

84766612276134

1079743157

10472101712131251295510318014691411957463

L

2NDSTAGE

EFF

6099881097710013291110106

92111100153114149

127120143222

14214212615223425518320366227193194133258123109

FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

PILOT PLANT STUDY ON TWO-STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATM6NT

ANALYTIC DATA

DATE1970

SEP 17S6P 18SEP 21SEP 22SEP 23SEP 24SEP 25SEP 28SEP 29SEP 30OCTGCTOCTOCTQCTOCTDOTOCT 10OCT 11OCT 12OCT 13OCT 14OCT 153CT 16OCT 17OCT 18OCT 19OCT 20DCT 21DCT 22OCT 23OCT 24OCT 25OCT 26OCT 27OCT 28OCT 29OCT 30OCT 31

KH


7.06.97.17.06.87.07.0

7.06.97.06.97.0

6.5

7.16.96.96.86.9

6.97.07.06.86,5

7.07.07.07.07.0

1STSTAGE

EFF

7.47.37.37.27.37.67.5

7.67.48.07.17.48.1

7.8

7.67.67.87.87.9

7.78.08.48.18.9

7.98.58.98.78.5

2NDSTAGE

EFF

7.57.67.98.07.47.77.3

7.77.77.67.77.68.5

8.0

8.17.78.07.98.2

7.17.17.57.57.5

7.27.77.77.87.9


EFF EFF



EFF EFF

NOVNOVNOV

7.1 9.0 7.9

352367514440389387387520489391570436443

525

616

591424358369385

474438412418241

353372

466

509407

291Z52289308341350400357371324341444380

366

420

398448491364

510514624582559

784884

651

893899

393382460514625456468529363415316461510

615

674

671616584670620

595593622627607

695835

669

675874

162178265229203196158297

203343222116

239

297

312234185192192

26423519523995

147201

276

249219

1008387

117131159190165

165140227158

151

195

258224166180

264247248257262

325393

228

333378

8282152158194142162216

16018180127

215

250

285223226300300

332281341273294

247401

271

232337

DATE1970

NOVMOVNOVNOV,MOVNOVMOV 1UNOV 11•MOV 12NOV 13NOV 16NOV 17NOV 18NOV 19NOV 20



ANALYTIC DATA

RAW FALULAHINF INF

-PH—COMBINF

7.07.07.2

1ST 2NDSTAGE STAGE

EFF EFF


EFF EFF



EFF EFF

8.68.88.8

8.37.97.8

264

365

708

631

790

816

80

158

323

178

307

317



ANALYTIC DATA

UM 1 C

1970

FEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEbFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMAR

2345b

^101112131516171819202324252627234569101112131617181920232425262730

RAW FALULAHINF

80863324243528211823

1323336221353545455555

INF

280600330300380

1000

175200470

15047010001000700220150

1000

1 1COMBINF

1251604443674726314886

1323

6670225275854380140

TURBIDITY JTU'S1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2


28432625271611121622

767917224080421710

32252930265220222027

1614121111211950352625

CHLORIDES MG/LCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

96689189

9511110812679817276677315414684265

718587102154108104659092

901051111338588737374104246

96210

61897999114109109798587

879711211112310485717772248200169127

73 76 89

HEXANES MG/LCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

97174

95183

91132



ANALYTIC DATA

LJAl t

1970

MARAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRftPRAPRAPRMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYHAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAY

MAYMAY

3112367e9101314151617202122232427282930145678

11121314151819202122252627

RAW FALULAHINF

2931412823

17

23

363433

4736434377

58

42454863

355335

3038

3232

INF

120130130160460

32

180

220320320

130790770420450

280

1207070180

125130120

5545

58

.-— — — r iCOMBINF

4446655365

58

40

746767

65978577

100

65656578

444445

6937

10036

TURBIDITY JTU'S1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2


16233733

55

375340

1733456012

8

14

3532

343618

3429

2111

9538306140

12

23

384242

1524583123

13

17112435

282813

2825

152


EFF EFF

132 148 160126 129 137110 126 127113 139 123117 145 138114 118 127111 107 113

1159090

897872777467727375747672696668

73717466

36

63

78

9393

978683787986757677798282736668

68666464

11311593

899587878380827978807591807067

72726754

40

67

74

49

56

83


EFF EFF

180

2252019

19

DATE1970 RAH FALULAH

INF INF

FITCHBURG* MASSACHUSETTS - RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


TURBIDITY JTU'S-COMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

ANALYTIC DATA

FILT 1 FILT 1TAP 12 EFF

FILT 2EFF


EFF EFF


EFF EFF


2829123458910111215161718192021222324252629301236789101314151617202122

33

36464035

46

408047

53

57315150

62

8878

93

110

35077200

135

190200270200

47

46564345

73

657386

67

7252

100 .7245

44

554235

43

42434835434449

9

24191315

22

292339

29

3138483627

25

161612

9

1813149161717

2

42291620

17

151717

11

1513222518

15

161617

14

18181613121313

6566

6373

6477

69

48

64

54

62

64

62

6654

66

60

60

45

60

63

61

5450

65

63

59

65

67

64

5961

71

63

5666

77

60

6565

61

64

62

5356

38

2931

2926

30

2333

31

32

29

51

35

68

1811

15

20

13

12

5

13

4

9

5

10

1



ANALYTIC DATA

uaic — — - — ii1970 RAW FALULAH COMB

JULJULJULJULJULJULJULAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEPSEP

INF

2324272829303134567101112131415161718192021242526272831123478910111415

INF INF

575238384338446248

516052

5155

10043543571

704476585247535062

8714545

TURBIDITY JTU'S1ST

STAGE STAGEEFF

201813122016122221

221511

2119

2717192123

202224202324231621

2222153317

SEP 16

1- i-ID,EF

11109765579

12118

1617

1312162210

1415111-81718181428

1616131516

FILT 1TAP 12

1022

2

812

922

278

12123

121011

12121514

3622

491

FILT 1EFF

3311

1

412

24

232563

883

7876

332

321

FILT 2EFF

698

1276

1013125

1

-—CHLORIDES MG/LCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF


EFF EFF

18 7

39

48

7083535963825064651127569

121418L61332353421273319566

17121193437735865177297636

34429

6272910496

22213

735722104

12564

22222

610374862


PILOT PLANT STUDY ON TWO-STAGE ACT IVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATMENT

ANALYTIC DATA

DATE TURBIDITY JTU'S CHLORIDES MG/L HEXANES MG/L1970 RAH FALULAH COMB 1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2 COMB 1ST 2ND COMB 1ST 2ND

INF INF INF STAGE STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFF INF STAGE STAGE INF STAGE STAGEEFF EFF EFF EFF EFF EFF

SEP 17SEP 18SEP 21S£P 22SEP 23 53 L6 9 9 3 2 43 45SEP 24SEP 25 63 32 37 48 50StP 28SEP 29SEP 30OCT 1OCT 2OCT 5UCT 6QCT 7QCT 8OCT 9 90 36 44 4 20ocr 10OCT 11UCT 12OCT 13OCT 143CT 15OCT 16OCT 17OCT 18OCT 19UCT 203CT 21GCT 22OCT 23OCT 24OCT 25UCT 26 57 15 16 9 1 0 50OCT 27OCT 28GCT 29OCT 30QCT 31*OV 1NOV 2 95 18 18NOV 3

125100458475

2518181820

1722131115

4423

16332

3221

7684539059

2521231416

10020222015

43331

434422

633

22

5748397161

151414159

1612101524

9

11

1

11

0

1I

FITCH8URG, MASSACHUSETTS - RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


ANALYTIC DATA

DATE TURBIDITY JTU'S CHLORIDES MG/L HEXANES MG/L1970 RAH FftLULAH COMB 1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 1 FILT 2 COMB 1ST 2ND COM8 1ST 2ND

INF INF INF STAGE STAGE TAP 12 EFF EFF INF STAGE STAGE INF STAGE STAGEEFF EFF EFF EFF EFF EFF

NOV 4 100 15 28 3 3 7NOV 5 45 16 17 1 2 2NOV 6 48 28 49 2 2 3.MOV 7NOV 8MOV 9NOV 10MOV 11NOV 12MOV L3NOV 16MOV 17NOV 18;MDV 19MOV 20



ANALYTIC DATA

LJHl C

1970

FEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFEBFE6FEBFEBMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMAftMARMARMAR

234569101112131516171619202324252627234569101112131617181920232425262730

RAWINF

4.1.1.2.3.4.

1.1.3.

3.3.3.3.5.7.5.5.8.6.6.

— wnnuiîM mnai n\*/FALULAH COMB 1ST

INF INF STAGE

872131

484

09878175095

1.3 50.8 11.6 11.2 21.4 2

3

10.9 11.5 2

1.4 31.3 4

51.5 41.4 41.4 42.0 41.1 5

1055710

96652

245

.7

.6

.1

.1

.1

.8

.4

.9

.4

.4

.5

.2

.0

.2

.0

.9

.9

.4

.8

.5

.2

.0

.2

.6

.4

.5

.9

.1

.3

.0

EFF5.1.1.4.4.6.7.2.3.4.

6.7.7.8.8.6.4.6.6.9.10.

9.7.9.

9.10.u.10.

15.7.7.7.4.

6.5.

2NDSTAGE

9650323504

41412780995

187

3547

8435I

25

EFF7.4.1.3.5.6.7.4.3.10.

7.7.14.8.8.8.6.6.7.7.10.

10.10.10.11.14.

11.B.8.6.6.

5.5.

9089059472

08932270099

80304

17457

29

____M_____pj

RAWINF

12.06.56.29.59.614.79.75.19.210.6

119,512.812.614.3

16.814.316.016.717.316.2

TOTALT TO fir* C M1 1 KUbt MFALULAH

INF

3.93.23.24.23.5

5.24.8

3.03.63.64.41.9

KJEDAHL(TkfM. _. . .i ur» / iI 1 r\N I Htof u

COMB 1STINF

12.26.55.49.0

14.2

5.08.38.8

13.3

14.612.914.514.613.515.316.016.213.915.7

STAGEEFF11.14.43.04.26.58.510.34.16.07.0

9.49.610.211.1

10.18.11U510.914.212.612.0

19.613.8

2NDSTAGE

EFF9.47.33.44.06.910.610,76.56.37.4

10.210.110.212.3

11.98.610.410.711.714.2

12.010.4

COMBI N F

0.170.310.260.32

0.330.390.250.740.41

0-430.270.15

0.470.420.300.46

•ni I KA 1 11ST

S T A G EEFF0.200.290.250.210.170.170.320.260.230.39

0.310.280.200.530.370.630.360.210.080.340.49

0.300.35

: innua-2ND

S T A G EE F F0.140.180.240.510.250.240.330.330.290.37

0.370.270.560.560.370.490.380.260.200.190.290.370.280.27

FILT 1 FILT 2EFF EFF

0.49

0.72

0.50

0.80

0.2612,3 7.0 7.3

1.500.45 0.170.30 0.40

ufti t1970

MAR 31APR 1APR 2APR 3APR 6APR 7APR 8APR 9APR 10APR 13APR 14APR 15APR 16APR 17APR 20APR 21ftp* 22APR 23APR 24APR 27APR 28APR 29APR 30HAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYMAYWAYMAYMAY

145678

11121314151819202122252627

flnnuixi**RAW FALULAHINF INF

7.9.6.7.10.6.5.8.8.11.3.4.4.4.7.10.9.9.

5233949257143.95I57

2

10023111

131

24

.0

.4

.8

.7

.5

.2

.6

.0

.0

.9

.9

.0

.7

.0

imnî riw LCOMB 1ST 2NDINF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF5.9 6.0 6.33.0 5.0 6.72.5 5.2 6.60.9 3.5 5.52.5 4.7 5.32.1 4.3 3.72.7 5.0 2.92.1 5.6 6.45.1 4.03.0 4.0 5.53.4 4.8 3.84.6 5.8 4.64.7 5.8 4.67.5 7.8 5.36.9 8.8 7.12.8 5.5 5.5<t.9 6.8 .6.4 7.0 3.46.1 9.5 2.57.0 8.6 0.47,5 8.6 0.46,9 8.4 0.75.6 . 7.9 1.09.6.7.4.5,7.5,5.6.7,

11.3.3.4.4.6.11.8.7.

2565169605549201120

986869857B

103355

B96

.9

.6

.7

.5

.0

.6

.0

.9

.5

.8

.0

.6

.1

.3

.0

.<*

.3

.0

0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.

5030604206300510450



ANALYTIC DATA

TOTAL KJEDAHLNITROGEN (TKN) MG/L

RAH FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF

10.39.911.9

9.57.3

8.87.7

7.98.3

9.2 6.6 11.98.7 6.5 7.1

11.3 7.7 5.89.8 7.1 8.3

15.612.3

15.616.216.1IB. 419.617.516.216.620.618.414.120.519.220.310.715.712.214.8

19.517.918.6

2.12.13.2

2.02.62.54.54.93.52.13.0

3.65.42.8

3.35.1

11.611.712.5

14.314.413.316.717.9

13.0

17.117.110.416.017.019.410.110.911.312.4

20.615.814.1

10.610.413.3

11.511.412.213.712.5

12.08.6

13.713.26.7

12.014.115.77.35.48.98.9

12.512.210.0

7.56.56.4

2.83.34.33.12.3

1.33.22.84.43.03.0

5.82.72.93.75.0

4.41.82.2

COMBI N F

0.370.150.420.28

0.360.31

0.40

0.31

0.20

0.280.310.070.17

0.110.250.310.28

0.310.330.270.450.500.300.690.450.410.470.650.53

•IN 1 1 H» 1 t

1STSTAGE

EFF0.250.180.180.250.260.160.48

0.000.650.21

0.210.170.18

0.200.160.090.210.200.300.250.500.390.600.291.231.852.371.591.040.710.211.370.69

: » iiu j—2ND

STAGEEFF0.370.140.180.190.320.842.70

0-770.900-750.63

0.800.841.150.461.072.951.615.005.556.053.525.903.108.106.502.307.505.506.501.187.400.694,372.75

PUT 1 FILT 2EFF EFF

0.70 1.75 4,380.37 0.31 4.26

2.22 2,75



ANALYTIC DATA

UA 1 C

1970


2829123458910111215161718192021222324252629301236789101314151617202122

AnnuNiftRAW FALULAHINF INF

9101110759109991066555

55512

.6

.5

.6

.1

.9

.3

.4

.1

.8

.8

.2

.7

.4

.7

.0

.0

.5

.7

.0

.4

.1

11131101000000010

0000

.6

.2

.0

.1

.8

.0

.7

.7

.9

.2

.4

.3

.0

.0

.2

.1

.0

.4

.0

.0

.8

imnî nij/COMB 1STINF STAGE

8910865798810765443

64510U13

79158788877111211151213

.2

.7

.6

.4

.4

.2

.5

.4

.3

.9

.3

.7

.3

.5

.4

.4

.8

.8

.3

.0

.0

.1

.7

.7

.1

.2

.4

.9

.0

.0

.0

.9

.3

.7

.8

.9

.3

.8

.1

EFF6.8.10.7.6.3.7.9.7.7.14.11.4.4.4.4.4.

2.4.4.8.8.16.8.8.16.9.7.9.6.7.7.

14,12.12.

u2ND

STAGEEFF

30484887982373262

070453775040500

777

03030022513244444

04452594101432005410000

.0

.0

.8

.4

.4

.4

.5

.3

.7

.9

.1,3.5.3.4.8.1

.9

.4

.6

.0

.5

.4

.3

.6

.7

.9

.1

.1

.0

.2

.2

.0

.8

.9

.6

.4

.3

.0

.1

TOTALT D n f C. Ill

~ M 1 1 nuudl

RAW FALULAHINF

17.919.223.318.115.914.318. 122.016.218.216.820.525.021.922.020.318.1

23.320.122.320.6

INF

3.32.52.14.33.42.52.93.12.8

3.13.51.63.44.3

2.0

4.63.21.52.8

KJEOAHL1 Ttf M t ttr- 1 11 1 M» f no/ L.

COMB 1STINF

15.317.321.416.114.114.016.219.513.817.015.214.623.718.817.815.014.0

22.117.819.118.320.524.7

12.5

16.114.412.813.413.013.711.313.522.118.815.627.722.221.6

STAGEEFF9.410.015.011.110.16.711. 013.912.3

15.811.88.2

11.4

16.114.413.2

12.524.119.911.1

10.810.611.09.110.29.6

21.118.018.5

2NDSTAGE

EFF1.62.04.59.54.63.33.46.09.05.56.46.18.5

10.111.810.38.6

6.412.312.27.46.46.0

13.58.3

2.62.97.76.04.32.02.1

10.29.65.83.95.73.42.4

NITRATE (N03-I MG/LCOMB 1ST 2ND PUT I MLT 2INF STAGE STAGE EFF EFF

EFF EFF

0.29 0.82 8.550.18 0.67 8.050.30 0.80 4.500.10 0.17 3.50

0.25

0.24

0.210.210.160.110.200.35

0.170.230.150.880.880.640.301.20

0.100.200.120.110.210.271.600.290.22

0.14'0.230.180.16

0.560.20

0.36

0.330.380.460.330.300.75

0.570.410.71

4.001.060.251.06

0.410.370.531.750.870.483.250.751.010.730.531.310.410.28

5.005.30

2.50

1.323.001.050.400.291.22

5.800.880.91

6.002.902.508.60

7.508.171.315.006.809.069.307.265.307.4011.3010.8510.253.75

DATE1970

JUL 23JUL 24JUL 27JUL 28JUL 29JUL 30JUL 31AUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUG 10AUG 11AUG 12AUG 13AUG 14AUG 15AUG 16AUG 17AUG 18AUG 19AUG 20AUG 21AUG 24AUG 25AUG 26AUG 274UG 28AUG 31SEP 1SEPSEPS£PSEPSEPSEP

234789

SEP 10StEP 11SEP 14SEP 15SEP 16

AMMONIARAW FALULAHINF INF

1 11 n 3COMBINF

13.315.016.49.110.611.110.914.315.113.6

13.814.214.113.313.313.9

13.513.614.912.214.7

13.514.318.716.415.916.016.711.717.718.315.715.815.519.512.412.3

I nu/ u1ST

STAGEEFF13.212.79.412.69.39.411.312.011.5IL.l

11.313.711.912.311.711.1

13.513.312.211.112.0

11.311.515.413.813.615.414.210.914.815.815.214.413.818.012.311. I

2NDSTAGE

EFF0.00.20.50.00.00.00.00.00.51.2

0.92.60.30.81.63.1

0.90.60.40.52.1

4.12.00.30.50.20.40.50.20.90.90.20.30.71.61.00.0



ANALYTIC DATA

TOTAL KJEDAHLNil

RAW ftINF

UljCNULAHNF

0.2

0.20.20.2

0.30.20.2

i i rnCOMBINF

23.421.223.316.518.216.517.2

24.3

23.025.322.922.421.523.5

22.522.823.020.227.1

23.623.529.527.724.525.827.422.732.930.129.027.726.327.820.822.6

I nw^ L.1ST

STAGEEFF19.220.221.117.313.614.516.9

17.3

16.218.716.017.117.816.0

21.318.517.915.220.3

17.017.519.622.318.320.720.115.423.121.720.319.817.720.716.917.1

2NDSTAGE

EFF3.23.94.13.42.83.13.0

3.3

4.35.93.14.56.07.6

4.43.74.34.84.6

7.85.52.63.93.53.94.34.07.54.83.63.84.04.34.83.8

COMBINF

0.190.25.0.320.150.160.15

0.180.280.210.25

0.23

0.240.230.210.29

0.190.250.350.310.280.170.15

0.160.18

-rai i KM i i1ST

STAGEEFF

0.480.650.900.430.750.65

0.630.470.470.51

0.47

0.400.520.590.600.45

0.530.600.430.350.340.370.600.450.390.35

0.420.370.400.420.30

: »nu3—2ND

STAGEEFF

7.137.207.005.634.506.75

4.004.755.506.00

4.37

6.256.506.105.805.00

2.723.404.2510.506.125.503.602.806.507.00

6.905.006.504.502.75

-I MG/LF1LT I FILT 2

EFF EFF



ANALYTIC DATA

U« 1 C AHMUIVl A \nr\3 1 nu/ L.1970 RAH FALULAH COMB 1ST 2ND

INF INF INF STAGE STAGE

SEP 17SEP 18SEP 21SEP 22SEP 23SEP 24SEH 25SEP 28SEP 29SEP 30OCT 1OCT 2OCT 5OCT 6OCT ?QCT 8OCT <jDCT LOOCT iiOCT 12OCT 13OCT 14QCT 15DCT 16OCT 17OCT 18OCT 19OCT 20DCT 21OCT 22DCT 23OCT 24OCT 25OCT 26OCT 27OCT 28OCT 29OCT 30OCT 31NOV 1NOV 2NOV 3

15.415.416.714.613.916.115.718.215.118.723.616.815.514.416.2

13.9

19.115.614.314.314.7

18.117.016.614.58.5

16.515.516.817.017.6

18.516.7

EFF14.911. 014.613.812.914.315.316.813.215.917.516.514.413.613.2

13.2

17.413.814.414.410.1

15.614.414.211.26.4

15.713.713.514.013.3

16.515.7

EFF1.23.10.70.00.91.20.72.57.05.47.08.54.25.31.8

0.4

0.00.30.40.40.0

2.90.70.30.00.0

0.20.00.00.00.0

0.00.5

TOTAL KJEDAHLNITROGEN (TKN) MG/L

RAW FALULAH COMB 1STINF INF

0.20.2

INF STAGEEFF

26.9 20.920.3025.2

25.327.429.824.528.240.427.731.325.526.5

12.318.918.417.318.321.623.819.020.623.524.820.521.819.1

25.3 19.2

2NDSTAGE

EFF2.45.93.83.33.84.72.95.5

10.88.9

10.711.99.99.95.3

3.4

26.824.225.229.1

31.630.327.926.313.1

29.926.727.427.6

33.627.5

17.318.218.713.9

20.320.219.717.310.5

21.219.419.119.118.9

21.923.1

3.12.92.83.0

8.03.93.63.72.9

3.12.83.13.33.0

3.43.2

COMB•NITRATE (N03-) MG/L-

1ST 2ND FILT 1 FILT 2INF STAGE STAGE

0.180.24

EFF EFFEFF0.310.400.480.400.290.310.290.330.260.320.460.500.260.36

0.27

0.310.22

0.23

EFF3.103.505.836.005.006.404.006.153.002.923.103.503.374.37

8.60

8.107.637.00

5.75

4.125.254.12

3.50

7.005.805.907.805.80

12.3014.70

2.608.909.302.002.376.303.553.244.50

6.87

4.638.90

5.37

4.256.505.50

3.50

5.87

3.807.00

8.00

6.60

5.77

5.507.00

2.75

7.00

5.009.00

10.4013.60

DATE1970

NOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNOVNDV 10NOV 11NOV 12NDV 13NOV 16NOV 17NOV 18NOV 19NOV 20



ANALYTIC DATA

AMMONIA (NH3) MG/LRAW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF17.1 13.9 0.011.3 10.5 0.016.6 11.7 0.4

16.915.210.714.0

15.922.619.213.910.7

16.414.69.3

15.016.311.827.620.715.56.8

1.72.61.21.00.70.23.21.64.82.2

TOTAL KJEDAHLNITROGEN ITKN) MG/L

RAW FALULAH COMB 1ST 2NDINF INF INF STAGE STAGE

EFF EFF27.7 19.9 3.320.6 16.1 3.026.0 20.2 4.2

38.3 26.6 5.526.8 24.0 7.520.5 14.8 4.929.2 20.3 5.2

18.6 13.6 6.7

COM5INF

—ni i KB i c IHU.S— i1ST 2ND

STAGE STAGEEFF EFF

15.3013.6011.40

15.6011.8011.5012.0018.507.807.207.30

11.706.00

i "i»/L —FILT 1

EFF

4.001.601.50

2.900.90

FILT 2EFF

11.4010.407.60

6.754.50

Appendix II

PILOT PLANT DATA FORMS

Sheet 1 of 2

F I T C H B U R G P I L O T P L A N T

D A I L Y O P E R A T I N G D A T A LOG

Date

Ref. No

Timeof

Day

0100

0300

0500

0700

0900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

Flows (gpm)

Raw Falulah CombinedReturn Sludge

1st Stage 2nd Stage

Sludge Wasted(gallons)

1st Stage 2nd Stage

Sludge Dep-Hi in Clarifier(feet)

1st Stage 2nd Stage Initial

Form 3-CDM-448-3-1-23-70

Sheet 2 of 2

F I T C H B U R G PHOT P L A N T

DAILY O P E R A T I N G D A T A LOG

Date

Ref. No

Timeof

Day

0200

0600

1000

1400

1800

2200

Timeof

Day

0200

0600

1000

1400

1800

2200

DISSOLVED OXYGEN(mg/l)

1st Stage 2nd Stage

PHCombined

Influent

Effluent

1st Stage 2nd Stage

TEMPERATURE, °F

RawSewage

FalulahWaste

Comb.Influent

Effluent1st Stage

MLSS (mg/l)

1st Stage 2nd Stage

M.L. SET- SOLIDS*

1st Stage 2nd Stage

SLUDGE VOLUME INDEX

1st Stage 2nd Stage

AirTemperature

°F Initial

2nd Stage

*30-minute settling (ml/1)

Ref. No,

FITCHEURG PILOT PLANT

SUMMARY OF DAILY OPERATING DATA

Day and Date

Rainfall

Average Air Temp. °F

Waste Temp °FRaw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Combined Influent Flow gpmMaximumMinimumAverage

1st Stage AerationAir Used cfm AverageDO mg/1 - Average

- Maximum- Hinimum

Return Sludge gpm AverageWaste Sludge gpm Average

Suspended Solids %Volatile Susp. Solids %

MLSS mg/1MLVSS mg/1ML Set. Sol. 30 min. ml/1Sludge Volume Index

2nd Stage AerationvAir Used cfm AverageDO mg/1 - Average

- Maximum- Minimum

Return Sludge gpm AverageWaste Sludge gal

Suspended Solids %Volatile Susp. Solids %

MLSS mg/1MLVSS mg/1ML Set. Sol. 30 min. ml/1Sludge Volume Index

pH ValueCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Form l-CDM-448-3-1-20-70

Sheet 1 of 2

Ref. No.

FITCHBURG PILOT PLANT

ANALYTIC DATA - COMPOSITE SAMPLES

Day and Date

pH ValueRaw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent !2nd Stage Effluent

Alk/Acid pH 7.0 mh/1 as CaC03Raw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent

Turbidity JTURaw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Suspended Solids - mg/1Raw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Volatile Suspended Solids - mg/1Raw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Residue on Evaporation - mg/1Combined Influent - Total

- Volatile1st Stage Effluent - Total

- Volatile2nd Stage Effluent - Total

- Volatile

Hexanol Soluble - mg/1Combined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

;

Form 2-CDM-448-3^-1-20-70

Sheet 2 of 2

FITCHBURG PILOT PLANT

ANALYTIC DATA - COMPOSITE SAMPLES

Day and Date

BOD - 5 day - 20°C - mg/1Raw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

COD - mg/1Raw SewageFalulah WasteCombined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Nitrogen Forms as N - mg/1Raw Sewage - TKN

- NH3Falulah Waste - TKN

- NH3Combined Influent - TKN

- NH31st Stage Effluent - TKN

- NH3- N02- NO.,

Znd Stage Effluent - TKN- NH-3- N09- N03

Chlorides - mg/1Combined Influent1st Stage Effluent2nd Stage Effluent

Phosphate as P - mg/1Combined Influent - Total

- DissolvedL$t Stage Effluent - Total

- Dissolved2nd Stage Effluent - Total

- Dissolved

Form 2-CDM-448-3-1-20-70

Date

PILOT FILTER ANALYSES

Date

Flow (gpm)

CH3OH (ml/min)

Turbidity

Suspended Solids

COD

BOD

N03

Date

Flow

CH3OH (ml/min)

Turbidity

Suspended Solids

COD

BOD

Date

Flow

CH3OH (ml/min)

Turbidity

Suspended Solids

COD

BOD

N03

Tap No. 4 Tap No. 12 No. 1 Effluent No. 2 Effluent 1

FITCHBURG PILOT PLANTSUMMARY

PILOT FILTER NO.OPERATING DATA

Ref. No

Date

Hour

0000

0100

020003000400

0500

06000700

0800

0900

ion1100

1200130014001500

1600

1700

18001900

20002100

2200

23002400

1 2 3

Head Loss at Tap Number

4 5 6 7 8 9

i1

10 11

i

12 13 14 15

Turbidity at Tap Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

i

12 13 14 15

Flow

(gpm)

Notes on Backwashing: Flow Rate (gpm)

General Comments:

Percent Expansion Length of Backwash (Min)

Date:

Tester:

CAMP, DRESSER & McKEE

Fitchburg Pilot Plant

Vacuum Filter Tests

SLURRYCHARACTERISTICS

1. Temperature2. PH3. % Suspended Solids4. Ml FeCl^5. Ml CaO6. Additive

TEST CONDITIONS

1. Filter Media2. J0 Submergence3. Drum Speed MPR4. Filtration Time (Sec)5. Dewatering Time6. Vacuum (in) Mercury

OBSERVED DATA

1. Vacuum Break (Sec)2. Filter Cake

a. Total wt. wetb. Total wt. dryc. Total Solidsd. Thickness (in)

3. Filtratea. Total vol mlb. PHc. Suspended Solids

CALCULATED RESULTS

1. % Moisture in Cake2. Yield Ibs/sq ft/hr3. Filtrate gal/sq ft/hr

REMARKS

REPORT ON

LABORATORY OXIDATIONS

WASTE ACTIVATED PILOT PLANT SLUDGE

FITCHBURG. MASSACHUSETTS

FOR

CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE

Prepared By: ZIMPRO INC.Subsidiary of Sterling Drug Inc

FEBRUARY. 1970

*Z IMPFtOROTHSCHILD, WISCONSIN 54474 TELEPHONE (WAUSAU) 715/359-3166

REGIONAL OFF-ICES: CHICAGO • NEW YORK • ATLANTA * DALLAS ' SAN DIEGO

®

ROTHSCHILD, W I S C O N S I N 54474

TELEPHONE (WAUSAU) 715/359-31SS

February 13, 1970

Mr. Allan E. RimerCamp, Dresser & McKeeOne Center PlazaBoston, Massachusetts 02108

Dear Mr. Rimer:

Subject: Fitchburg, MassachusettsWaste Activated Pilot Plant SludgeLaboratory Oxidations

In accordance with your discussions with Mr. Frank Groman,we are pleased to submit for your review two copies of ourreport on the above laboratory work including appropriatediscussions on the following:

Method of Processing SamplesRecommended Alternative SystemsPerformance CriteriaSummary and Discussion of Results

We are sending under separate cover the oxidized slurries anddried filter cake from the Low and Intermediate laboratoryoxidations. We are happy to have the opportunity to performthis work and look forward to your comments.

Mr. Frank Groman will be in contact with you. If you haveany questions, please do not hesitate to call on us.

Very truly yours,

ZIMPRO INC.

JL Robert NicholsonManaer of Sales Development

JRN:adenclosures

cc: Mr. Frank Groman, Jr.

SUBSIDIARY OF STERLING DRUG INC.

METHOD OF PROCESSING SAMPLES

Low and Intermediate oxidations were performed in a laboratoryshaking autoclave to determine the effects of each oxidation.One hundred milliliters of the sludge to be processed wereplaced in a rocking autoclave and charged with the appropriatequantity of air. The system was brought to temperature and heldfor the specified length of time. The system was cooled and thesample removed for analysis. This yielded a 4.1% and 25.6% CODreduction respectively.

Filtration characteristics of these samples were determined bythe method in which the specific filtration resistance is usedto estimate the vacuum filtration rate.

BOD values were also determined. Analytical and settling dataare given in Table I and II respectively.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS

Based on the above results and our experience, two (2) alterna-tive Zimpro .systems are presented for consideration. They are:

(1) Low Oxidation - Dewatering

1A - with vacuum filtrationIB - with centrifugation

(2) Intermediate Oxidation - Dewatering

2A - with vacuum filtration2B - with centrifugation

Flow diagrams showing a schematic for the above alternate Zimprosystems will be furnished upon request.

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Based on the laboratory results and our considerable experienceinvolving continuous processing of other sludges, which arecomposed mainly of waste activated sludges from other munici-palities, we predict the following performance criteria for theabove recommended alternatives:

- 1 -

Design Pressure, psi

Insoluble Volatile SolidsReduction, %

Vacuum Filtration:

Suspended Solids Feed %Filter Rate, Ibs./ft.2/hourCake Moisture , %Suspended Solids Capture, %

Centrifugation:

Cake Moisture, %Suspended Solids Capture, %

LowOxidation

350

45

6-7^03-064-6888-92

66-7088-92

IntermediateOxidation

800

85

20.015.050-5599.5

60-6588-92

Filtrate and Supernatant Treatment Characteristics:

(Activated Sludge System)

BOD5, ppm 4000BOD5 loading, Ibs BOD/lbs MLVSS 1.5BOD5 Reduction, % 95MLVSS, ppm 3000Activated Sludge Production:

Ib/lb BODs removed 0.6

(1)

40001.5953000

0.23

(1) For further information on biotreatment of filtrate andsupernatant, see Appendix C.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A. Batch vs. Continuous Pilot Plant Runs: Zimpro has collecteddata from continuous pilot plant-_runs using a vacuum rotary fil-ter. This pilot plant has been in operation for about 4 yearshandling all types and combinations of sludges at differentoxidation and heat treatment levels (250 8-hour runs using avacuum rotary filter). Our laboratory autoclave runs cover15 years and 500 separate runs. Comparison of results fromlaboratory autoclave and continuous pilot plant runs are asfollows:

- 2 -

(1) Higher filtration rates using leaf tests and lowerspecific filtration resistances are obtained inbatch runs than in continuous runs at low oxidationlevels.

(2) Any results at high oxidation levels with batch andcontinuous pilot plant runs and laboratory autoclavesare comparable.

Therefore, the results from the laboratory autoclave runs onFitchburg sludge as given in Tables I and II must be temperedwith this experience and know-how gained by Zimpro.

B. Zimpro Experience - Waste Activated Sludge: Zimpro hascollected data from continuous low oxidation pilot plant runsusing a vacuum rotary filter in correlation with filter leaftests and specific filtration resistances (25 8-hour runs onstraight waste activated sludge). We have developed considerabledata over several years on activated sludges from Denver, Colorado,Kalamazoo, Michigan, and other locations which indicate specificfiltration resistances comparable to those for Fitchburg inTable I and separate vacuum filter rates of straight activatedin the neighborhood of 2.0 to 4.0 Ibs. dry solids per squarefoot per hour. These data are summarized in Appendix A.

C. Zimnro Experience - Installation: The current operatingZimpro systems total an aggregate of 52 years of operation atthermal conditioning and high oxidation levels. Presently,there are 19 installations under construction. A list of allinstallations is given in Appendix D.

Zimpro sludge systems have been developed and designed andtechnical and operational services have been provided entirelyby our Research and Development Center in Wisconsin. Oursystems are not a result of a license granted by an outsidedesigner.

D. Dewatering of Intermediate Oxidation Sludge: The resultsof the Intermediate Oxidation run given in Tables I and II alsoneed interpretation due to the low raw COD value. Based onthese results and our experience- in pilot plant and operatinginstallations, consideration should be given to dewatering anddirect disposal of higher oxidation sludge in lieu of low oxi-dation - dewatering - incineration. We have obtained encouragingresults from our 12.4 TPD Unit operating in Rockland County,New York, which are summarized in Appendix B-l.

- 3 -

E» Phosphorus Removal: According to Table I, the total in-fluent phosphorus is 0.09 grams per liter with about 50% and65% of this phosphorus precipitated into the filter cake ascalcium or magnesium for low and intermediate oxidations re-spectively. These removals are low compared to those normallyexperienced in pilot plant and operating installations, prin-cipally due to a low initial COD value. Normal removals shouldbe:

Low Oxidation 70- 80%Intermediate Oxidation . . 95-100%

F. Primary Sludge: Raw primary sludge generally contains morecrude fiber than straight waste activated sludge. The use ofprimary (if available) with activated sludge will generallyimprove vacuum filtration rates as follows:

Estimated Fil-Primary tration Rate

Content. % Ibs./ft.2/hour

0-10 2-3

20-25 4-5

30-50 10-15

- 4 -

LABORATORY OXIDATIONS - FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS

ANALYTICAL DATA

Fraction

Sample Number

COD, g/1

% COD Reduction

Volatile Acids asAcetic Acid, g/1

Total Solids, g/1

Ash. q/1

Volatile Solids, g/1

PH

Chlorides, g/1

Total Phosphorus, g/1

Total Nitrogen, g/1

Ammonia, g/1

Soluble Hardness asCaCO3. mg/1

% Insoluble VolatileSolids Reduction

Volume, ml/1

Wet Weight, g/1

Specific FiltrationResistancesec2/g x lO^

BOD 5, mg/1

Waste AsReceived

Primary-Activated

0-2

12.2_

0.1

9.6

2.0

7.6

6.1

0.07

0.09

0.42

0.05

165

-

—

—

1080

-

LOW OXIDATIONJ-

OxidizedSlurry

305-13-1

11.7

4.1

0.3

9.8

2.0

7.8

4.7_

0.10

0.41

0.11

-

40.1_

—

5

-

*Filtrate

305-13-2

4.7_

0.3

3.5

0.4

3.1

4.8_

0.05

0.35

0.11 *T

-

-

980

—

-

1860

FilterCake

305-13-3

6.5_

-

6.3

1.8

4.5_

_

0.05

0.05_

-

-_

14.4

-

-

INTERMEDIATE OXIDATION

OxidizedSlurry

305-13-4

9.1

25.6

3.4

7.2

2.0

5.2

4.2

—0.11_

0.26

-

60.1

—_

23

-

Filtrate

305-13-5

5.4_

0.9

2.9

0.5

2.4

4.2_

0.04_

0.25

-

-

970

—

-

3560

FilterCake

305-13-6

3.2

—

-

4.4

1.4

3.0_

_

0.07__

-

_

—12.9

-

-

TABLE II

LABORATORY OXIDATIONS - FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS

SETTLING DATA

Sample Number

% COD Reduction

Sett

lin

gT

ime

% Hour

% Hour

1 Hour

2 Hours

4 Hours

8 Hours

24 Hours

Waste asReceived

0.2

-

990 ml/1 T

970 ml/1 T

750 ml/1 T

750 ml/1 T

750 ml/1 T

700 ml/1 C

500 ml/1 C

LowOxidation

305-13^1

4.1

680 ml/1 T

550 ml/1 C

550 ml/1 C

550 ml/1 C

470 ml/1 C

450 ml/1 C

440 ml/1 C

IntermediateOxidation

305-13-4

25.6

390 ml/1 T

370 ml/1 T

370 ml/1 T

370 ml/1 T

370 ml/1 C

370 ml/1 C

370 ml/1 C

BIRD MACHINE COMPANY, SO. WALPOLE, MASS. OSO71

PHONE: 617 668-0400 / TELEX: 32 442Q /CABLE: BIP.DMACHIIM SOWALPQLEMASS

August 10, 1970

Camp, Dresser & McKeeConsulting EngineersOne Center PlazaBoston, Massachusetts

Attention: Mr. A. Rymer

Reference: Fitchburg, Mass.Pilot Plant Sludge Sample

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find a copy of our Laboratory Report #7044 out-lining the test work that was done on the above mentioned sludge,and indicating that completely erratic results were receivedwhich could be attributed to the small quantity of sample sludgethat was available to us. The 50 gallon sample did not permitstable operation and I believe on the next tests we perform thata larger quantity of sample material plus fewer runs made wouldprovide much more conclusive results.

Please advise us with information on the approximate date whenyour next sample would be available in order that we may scheduleour lab time accordingly. Scheduling of our lab facilities isbecoming more and more difficult and I would again draw your attention to the fact that a 6" test machine would perhaps be of morevalue to you at the pilot plant. We have a $300. /day fee for theWalpole Lab Facilities which may have to be imposed after the nextseries of tests, but I will endeavor to keep this service on ano-charge basis for as long as possible.

Very truly yours ,

BIRD MACHINE COMPANY

Sales EngineerEnvironmental Control Equipment

A,S.Nisbet:dc:7Enc.

422 N. N.W. Hwy., PARK RIDGE, ILL. 60068 1430 West PeacMree St., N.W. ATLANTA, GA. 30309 6415 S.W. Canyon Court, PORTLAND, ORE. 97221 3445 Golden Gateway, LAFAYETTE, CALIF. 94549

BIRD MACHINE COMPANY

South Walpole? Massachusetts

Laboratory Report No. 7044

CUSTOMERS Camp, Dresser, McKeeBoston, Massachusetts

CROSS REFERENCES City of FitchburgSewage Treatment Plant, Pilot facilities

MATERIALS Waste Activated Sludge

PROBLEMS Dewater and Clarification

TESTSs Bird 6" OBS Centrifuge

TEST DATEs July 9C 1970

WITNESSs Mr. Don Grogen

REFERENCESs Discussion with the witness

SAMPLE # 966 (received July 9, 1970)

One barrel containing waste activated sludge was received in the laboratorfor large scale test work. The sample, as received, contained 0.89% totalsolids and has a specific gravity of 3/ 0, also a pH of 7.

PROBLEM

The customer wishes to dewater and clarify this material. The sludge isfrom a pilot plant at Fitchbarg, Mass* and consists of municipal sewageand infiltration. Presently the thickened sludge going into drying bedsand the effluent into sand filters. Greater removal of nitrates, nitritesand phosphates is desired so sand and activated charcoal or column fil-ter is contemplated. Daily, about 6.5 million gallons of straight sewageat 3 to 4 thousand parts per million suspended solids are received at theexisting facility, which is being heavily overtaxed.

TESTS

A total of 15 test runs were conducted using the 6" continuous Centrifugeon this activated sludge. Variables investigated doing these tests con-sisted of various feed rates, pool depth, dilution water, and both typeand amount of chemical flocculation. The material was tested with 22 floe-culants to determine the most efficient. The following is a list of floe-culants testeds

Dow Purifloc

Bird Machine CompanyLaboratory Report No. 7044Camp, Dresser, McKee

Tylac Tychem 80308011802080138023A-21A-23A-22501N-12AP-273S-2610670673ST-270ST-269WCL-565PCL-7127

Hercules Reten 220205210

CyanamLd Superf 1CK84

The best test was with Dow Purifloc A-23 at 0.1% solids. For detailsof the test runs, please refer to the dats sheets attached to this report

DISCUSSION

Dewatering and clarification tests indicate that material similar tothat tested would be a good application for Bird Centirfugal. Recover-ies range form 63 - 93% at feed rates varying form 0.5 - 2.1 gallonsper minute. There was some benifit from the use of flocculants throughthe quality of the cake declined; Dilution water does not appear toaid the results.

Dow Seperanii ii

Nalcon

Calgon

RNelson/jlk

Bird Machine CompanySolid Bowl centrifugalLaboratory Report No. 7044

RUN NO. 1

Feed: % SolidsSp. Gr.Temp.GPM

Cake; % SolidsPPH WetPPH Dry#/ftJ Wetft3/hr. Wet

Effluent: % SolidsSp. Gr.

AMP InOut

Volt InOut

Floe: % SolidsPPH Solids

dosage #/tonGPM dilution H2O% RecoveryRPMV nvaxri *-\r

RQ7 — .

1 m

ROOM

.9811.7404.736.3—1.10.27l n «..8.59170170

71.6cnnn _.

0-\?ct

Material;Dates

2

.79.8302.94

. \.830.16

8.59170170

71.9

3

2.125.618910.638.44.90.07

8.59170170

93.4

4

.5936.151.8

.140.15

99170170

83.6

: Sludqe7-9-70

5

.9433.57.52,5

.200.11

89170170

88.1

6

1.9721.9367.9

.980.34

89170170

63.1

7

„„„ _— \

^2.0417.7407.1

1.10.33

8 ^91701700.1.14631.6.49564.4

i

Bird Machine CompanySolid Bowl CentrifugalLaboratory Report No. 7044

RUN NO. 8 9

Feed: SolidsSp. GrTemp.GPM

Cake : % SolidsPPH WetPPH Dry#/ft3 Wetft3/hr. Wet

Effluents % SolidsSp. Gr.

AMP InOut

Volt InOut

Floe : % SolidsPPH Solids

dosage #/tonGPM dilution H20% recoveryRPM

1 m — .

.5921.37.51.6

.200.26. u— — •89170170

.146109.2A.QK -

71.9

91 95..

1.3121.3163.4

.440.34

89.5170170

__,

84.1

63.1

Customers Camp, Dresser, McKeeMaterial: SludqeDate s

10

1.0920.5153-7

.41 '0.32

89.5170170

^

101

65.4

11

2.113.82047.736.35.60.22

89170170

30.5

80.1

7-9-70

12

.525.5361.9838.2.950.07

89170170

123.9*}

93.4

13

.817.9393.08

1.060.07

89170170

„ *w79.6

i

93.0

14

.49.6151.44

.410.27

89170170

275.4

71.9

15

-s

"::::::"<;.796.6543.56

"V,

1.460.30 ^

8 /

9170170

>: <139.4 /

69.7i.1

s'n N:pssvw HDNI b3d Oi X 01

3Nllrt3S Ol'E "ON

_j_ •~*~'«i—-—— -—•— • -i——--T—*— ——i—iT.TT~ 1 1 i ! ' ' i rrrn-t—+—1—<-^—— - ( -— .-h-.-.—i-t—f-H—r">—i

'VTfl HI 3QVHOI;EO 'ssvw 'Koi HDNI M3d OL X 01

HdVdO 3NHW3S Oi'E 'ON

OtEEO "SSVW 'NOJ.SQ8 HDNt U3d 01 X 01ort ~ON

Date post:	10-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongxuyen
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

FITCHBURG PILOT PLANT REPORT - UMass Amherst units/1971 FITCHBURG PIL… · fitchburg pilot plant...

Documents