Organica Water Resource Recovery Operational Performance · Table E 1: Process Performance Test...

Report 03 September & October 2018

CLIENT: eThekwini Municipality

PROJECT NO: 6509

PROJECT NAME: Organica Demo Plant

DOCUMENT NO 6509-RE-000-OP-0003

Organica Water Resource Recovery Facility Operational Performance Report

Client: eThekwini Municipality Project No: 6509 Project Name: Organica Demo Plant

6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page ii

DOCUMENT REVISION REGISTER

REV

ISIO

N

DA

TE

Approval

REMARKS BY

CH

ECK

ED

SH

EQ

CO

MM

ERC

IAL

BU

SIN

ESS

D

EVEL

OP

ME

NT

OP

S E

XEC

UTI

VE

AA 2018/10/11 JJA MCO First Draft

00 2018/11/16 JJA SDE Issued for publication

THIS PAGE IS A RECORD OF ALL ISSUES AND REVISIONS. THIS PAGE AND THE REVISED PAGE ARE ISSUED WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS UPDATED. REVISED PAGE NUMBERS AND REVISION DESCRIPTION MUST BE INDICATED IN THE REMARKS FIELD


6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Organica Demonstration Plant located on the eThekwini Verulam Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) aims to demonstrate the Food Chain Reactor Technology (FCR) within South Africa. Being located on the eThekwini Verulam WWTW offers the opportunity for the FCR to be compared to existing technologies such as Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS).

With the exceptions of a few operational deviations such as power failures and Blower-Motor-protection being activated, the Organica Demonstration Plant performed stable during September & October 2018. The Organica Demonstration Plant also completed its process performance test at the end of September 2018 which involved a seven day period of rigorous analytical testing. Table E 1 shows the average values for the various parameters tested during the course of the process performance test.

eThekwini Verulam WWTW receives wastewater from both domestic and industrial sources and as a result the influent has a high strength and is highly variable in composition. The FCR similarly to the CAS is capable of treating these high strength wastewater that varies in composition.

Table E 1: Process Performance Test Results

Influent* FCR Effluent* Unit TSS 414 9.4 mg/L COD 1121 50.0 mg/ℓ sCOD 621 37.2 mg/ℓ Total Nitrogen 41.0 mg/ℓ as N Ammonia 27.9 1.0 mg/ℓ as N Nitrates 1.1 2.6 mg/ℓ as N Nitrites 0.03 0.1 mg/ℓ as N Ortho-Phosphates 12.9 6.0 mg/ℓ as P Total Alkalinity 350 mg/ℓ as CaCO3 pH 7.5 7.9 - Electrical Conductivity 1.64 1.5 mS/cm * Daily values averaged for 7 days

The removal efficiencies is comparable to that of the eThekwini Verulam WWTW as indicated in Table E 2, however the substrate loading rate per unit of reactor volume is 1.86 times higher for the FCR than for the CAS plant. The substrate removal rate for the FCR is higher with a factor of 2.70, 2.02 and 2.58 as compared to that of the CAS for COD, Ammonia and Ortho-phosphates respectively. The specific substrate loading and removal rates are given in Table E-2 and Table E-3 below.

This confirms that wastewater can be treated in smaller reactors with FCR Technology than with CAS Technology. This also translates in to a smaller physical footprint of the WWTP.


6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page iv

Figure E 1: Chemical Oxygen Demand for Influent and FCR Effluent

Table E 2: COD, Ammonia and Ortho-phosphates Removal Efficiencies

CAS 50%ile

CAS 90%ile

FCR 50%ile

FCR 90%ile

Chemical Oxygen Demand 94.9% 6.3% 94.7% 96.0% Ammonia 92.4% 70.5% 96.4% 93.7% Ortho-phosphates 44.2% 26.4% 57.5% 54.8%

Table E 3: Substrate loading rate per unit of reactor volume

CAS FCR Unit Chemical Oxygen Demand 558.5 1 036.5 g/m3.day as O2

Ammonia 13.2 24.5 g/m3.day as N Ortho-phosphates 6.6 12.3 g/m3.day as P

Table E 4: Substrate removal rate per unit of reactor volume

CAS FCR Unit Chemical Oxygen Demand 365.1 985.6 g/m3.day as O2

Ammonia 11.5 23.2 g/m3.day as N Ortho-phosphates 2.7 7.0 g/m3.day as P

The Verulam WWTW is a 12 MLD CAS plant. Currently it is only operating at 5-6 MLD, thus being hydraulically under loaded. This enables the plant to effectively breakdown the strong industrial influent and very high COD’s due to the reducing environment created by anaerobic conditions as well as longer retention times and a tendency for over aeration.

Accordingly the CAS’s COD removal efficiency is similar to that of the FCR’s. This is due to the presence of multiple severe anaerobic zones (due to hydraulically under loaded PSTs and equipment failure) in the

1

5

25

125

625

3125

COD

(mg/

L)

Influent tCOD Influent sCOD FCR Effluent tCOD FCR Effluent bCOD COD Discharge Limit


6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page v

Verulam CAS system, which enables the plant to break non-biological degradable (biological inert) COD chains and rings. Furthermore the CAS system has hydraulically under-loaded secondary settling tanks with a higher SVI sludge and the high sludge blankets allows for in-situ filtering and settling of colloidal particles. This further reduces the reported COD of the effluent. The colloidal particles are particles smaller than 1μm and are therefore not reported as suspended solids but rather as part of the soluble COD that is typically considered inert COD after extended aeration of the mixed liquor.

The FCR technology in the Organica Demonstration Plant has a greater removal efficiency for orthophosphates despite the fact that the current process configuration is not setup with the intention for orthophosphates removal. The orthophosphates removal is purely biological as no chemical phosphate removal is employed currently. The orthophosphate removal is due to the natural uptake of phosphorus through the microorganisms and the plants roots for growth and cell division.


6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary iii List of Tables vii List of Figures vii List of Appendices vii List of Abbreviations viii 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose of the Report ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Scope of Report ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Effluent Discharge Limits 1

3. Process Flow 2

4. Sampling and Analytical testing 3 4.1. Sampling ................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2. Analytical Testing ....................................................................................................................... 3 5. Operational deviations 4 5.1. Conventional Activated Sludge .................................................................................................. 4 5.2. Food Chain Reactor ................................................................................................................... 5 6. Operational Performance 6 6.1. Flow Trends ............................................................................................................................... 6 6.2. Nitrogen Trends ......................................................................................................................... 7 6.3. TSS Trends ................................................................................................................................ 8 6.4. COD Trends .............................................................................................................................. 9 6.5. Phosphorus Trends ................................................................................................................. 11 6.6. pH & Alkalinity Trends .............................................................................................................. 11 6.7. Electrical Conductivity Trends .................................................................................................. 12 7. Specific Power consumption 12

8. Mixed Liquor suspended solids 12

9. Removal Efficiencies 13

10. Loading and Removal rates 13

11. Conclusion 14


6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Wastewater Discharge Limits* .................................................................................................... 1 Table 2: Specific Power Consumption .................................................................................................... 12 Table 3: MLSS and MLVSS Concentrations ........................................................................................... 12 Table 4: COD, Ammonia and Ortho-phosphates Removal Efficiencies ................................................... 13 Table 5: Substrate loading rate per unit of reactor volume ...................................................................... 13 Table 6: Substrate removal rate per unit of reactor volume ..................................................................... 13 Table A 1: Raw Data - TSS & COD ........................................................................................................ 16 Table A 2: Raw Date - TN, NH4 & NO2 + NO3 ...................................................................................... 17 Table A 3: Raw Data - PO4, Alkalinity, pH & Electrical Conductivity........................................................ 18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Process Block Flow Diagram ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Daily Average Inflow to Organica Demo Plant ............................................................................ 6 Figure 3: Total Nitrogen in Influent ............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4: Ammonia in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent .................................................................. 7 Figure 5: Combined Nitrate and Nitrite in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent .................................... 8 Figure 6: TSS in Influent ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: TSS in CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 8: COD in Influent .......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 9: COD in CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent .................................................................................... 10 Figure 10: Ortho-phosphates in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent ................................................ 11 Figure 11: pH and Alkalinity in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent ................................................... 11 Figure 12: Electrical Conductivity in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent ........................................... 12 Figure B 1: YTD Influent TSS .................................................................................................................. 20 Figure B 2: YTD Effluent TSS.................................................................................................................. 21 Figure B 3: YTD Influent COD ................................................................................................................. 22 Figure B 4: YTD Effluent COD ................................................................................................................ 23 Figure B 5: YTD Influent Total Nitrogen .................................................................................................. 24 Figure B 6: YTD Ammonia ...................................................................................................................... 25 Figure B 7: YTD Nitrates & Nitrites .......................................................................................................... 26 Figure B 8: YTD Orthophosphates ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure B 9: YTD pH & Alkalinity .............................................................................................................. 28 Figure B 10: YTD Electrical Conductivity ................................................................................................ 29

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Raw Data B. Year to Date Trends C. 3rd Party Laboratory Waste Quality Reports


6509-RE-000-OP-3 Rev: 00 Page viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Centigrade

ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow

BOD5 Five Day Biological Oxygen Demand

CAS Conventional Activated Sludge

CIP Clean in Place

fCOD Filtered Chemical Oxygen Demand

FCR Food Chain Reactor

m3/d Cubic meters per day

m3/h Cubic meters per hour

mg/ℓ Milligrams per Litre

MLD Million Litres per Day

MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids

MRW Murray & Roberts Water

mS/cm Milisiemens per centimetre

NH4-N Ammonia as Nitrogen

NO2-N Nitrite as Nitrogen

NO3-N Nitrate as Nitrogen

PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow

PO4-P Ortho-phosphates as Phosphorus

PST Primary Settling Tank

PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow

RAS Return Activated Sludge

sCOD Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand

tCOD Total Chemical Oxygen Demand

TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

TN Total Nitrogen

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UV Ultra Violet

VSD Variable Speed Drive

VSS Volatile Suspended Solids

WAS Waste Activated Sludge

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

YTD Year to Date


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 1

Report Number: 03 – September & October 2018

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Murray & Roberts Water (MRW) together with technology partner Organica Water (Organica) designed, fabricated, installed and commissioned a demonstration plant that showcases the Organica Food Chain Reactor (FCR) Technology on eThekwini Municipality’s Verulam Wastewater Treatment Works. The Organica Demonstration Plant cold commissioning (C3) started in mid-February 2018 with hot commissioning (C4) being completed end of April 2018. MRW is in the midst of a 12 month Operational period (started May 2018) where the FCR Technology is demonstrated by treating a side stream of wastewater that consists of both domestic and industrial wastewater.

1.2. Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide feedback and operational results regarding the demonstration of the Organica FCR Technology and to compare the FCR Technology against Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) Technology.

1.3. Scope of Report

The scope of this report is the operation of the Organica Demonstration Plant for the month of September & October 2018 as well as the year to date trends for May until October 2018. The performance results for the existing CAS biological reactor are included in this report to provide a basis for comparison. This report also describes the sampling and testing regimes that are followed in order to obtain the results. Operational deviations are also highlighted in this report as these have a significant impact on the operational performance of either technology.

2. EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMITS

The effluent discharge limits is as per Table 1 below.

Table 1: Wastewater Discharge Limits*

GENERAL LIMITS UNIT CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 75 mg/L PH 5.5 – 9.5 AMMONIA 6 mg/L as N NITRATE / NITRITE 15 mg/L as N SUSPENDED SOLIDS 25 mg/L

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY 70 (above intake) 150 (maximum)

mS/m

ORTHO-PHOSPHATE 10 mg/L as P *EXTRACT FROM WASTEWATER LIMIT VALUES APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER INTO WATER RESOURCE, REVISION OF GENERAL AUTHORISATIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 39 OF THE NATIONAL WATER ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 36 OF 1998), DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 2

3. PROCESS FLOW

Figure 1: Process Block Flow Diagram

SCREENING DEGRITTING PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS

4MLD CAS REACTOR

SECONDARY SETTLING TANK

8MLD CAS REACTOR

SECONDARY SETTLING TANKS

CHLORINE CONTACT TANK

FINAL EFFLUENT TO RIVER

RAW WASTEWATER

FINE SCREENING & DEGRITTING

0.12MLD FCR REACTOR

PRESSURIZED HYDRO-

CYCLONEDRUM FLITER UV

DISINFECTION

PRIMARY DIGESTERS

SECONDARY DIGESTER

WAS DIGESTER SLUDGE DEWATERING

SLUDGE DRYING BEDS

SLUDGE DISPOSAL

SLUDGE

WATER

SAMPLING POINTS

ORGANICA DEMONSTRATION PLANT


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 3

4. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TESTING

4.1. Sampling

One (1) litre discrete grab samples are taken four (4) times per day at 09:00, 11:00, 13:00 and 15:00 and combined to form a daily composite sample that is analysed. Samples are taken on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Samples are taken from the following process streams on the plant:

• An Influent sample taken downstream of the coarse screening and degritting units but upstream from the Primary Settling Tanks (PST) i.e. at the PST distribution chamber.

• A CAS Effluent sample from the overflow of the Chlorine Contact Tank before discharging into the river.

• A FCR Effluent sample is obtained from downstream of the UV disinfection before being discharge into the CAS final effluent flowing to the Chlorine Contact Tank.

All grab samples are stored in an onsite refrigeration unit at approximately 4°C during and after the composite sampling process in order to preserve samples until quality testing of samples can commence. At this stage in the demonstration period the samples are composited in equal parts. Part of the original grab sample is kept in the refrigerator as a backup should some event lead to the contamination of the composite sample.

4.2. Analytical Testing

Colorimetric determinations are used for all but a few parameters. This allows near instantaneous results on which can be acted upon. Monthly water samples are sent to an independent 3rd party laboratory for verification of results. The 3rd party laboratory also tests for other parameters that cannot be tested onsite such as BOD5, VSS, Total Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Faecal Coliforms. The following water quality parameters are tested on site in the dedicated laboratory: (* indicates parameters that are determined with colorimetric methods)

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Total Chemical Oxygen Demand (tCOD)* • Filtered Chemical Oxygen Demand (fCOD)* • Total Nitrogen (TN)* • Ammonia (NH4-N)* • Nitrates (NO3-N)* • Nitrites (NO2-N)* • Ortho-phosphates (PO4-P)* • Alkalinity (as CaCO3)* • pH • and Electrical Conductivity

Analytical Testing of water samples occurs on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. All samples are to be analysed as soon as possible to avoid biological activity from altering sample quality.


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 4

5. OPERATIONAL DEVIATIONS

5.1. Conventional Activated Sludge

• Verulam WWTP is hydraulically under-loaded as it was initially designed as a 12MLD WWTP, however the WWTP is currently receiving between 5 and 6MLD of wastewater.

• Majority of the COD that enters the plant is soluble COD and therefore the PST’s are primarily adding residence time to the process. This leads to severe anaerobic conditions in the PST’s as there is no continuous primary sludge removal. At times bubbles can be seen forming in the PST’s accompanied with foul odours being released into the surrounding environment.

• The mixer in the anoxic zone and 3 out of 6 surface aerators are not operational on the 4MLD CAS Reactor. Sludge is settling within the reactors, decreasing the solids load on the downstream SST.

o Two of the three surface aerators that were not in operation were returned to operation in early October leading to the settled sludge in those parts of the reactor being re-suspended, overloading the downstream secondary settling tanks and resulting in sludge carry over into the final effluent.

• One out of four surface aerators are not operational on each train of the 8MLD CAS Reactor. Sludge is settling within the reactors, decreasing the solids load on the downstream SST.

o The surface aerators that were not in operation were returned to operation in late September leading to the settled sludge in those parts of the reactor being re-suspended, overloading the downstream secondary settling tanks and resulting in sludge carry over into the final effluent.

• The CAS biological reactors are operating at elevated MLSS concentrations due to the sludge dewatering facility not being operational. Insufficient quantities of sludge can be dewatered daily due to space & climate limitations in the sludge drying beds.

o Since the downstream clarifiers were not designed to handle MLSS of approximately 16 000 ppm coupled with the sludge bulking that occurs from time to time there is an elevated sludge blanket in the clarifiers that spill over causing elevated TSS in the CAS Final Effluent.

• DO control of the surface aerators are not operational. Inline DO probes are indicating 0ppm O2 in the CAS reactors leading the surface aerators to operate at maximum frequency. It is entirely possible that to a certain degree, over aeration of the wastewater is occurring.

• Verulam WWTP is also currently experiencing bottlenecks with regards to sludge dewatering and sludge removal.

o The bottlenecks have resulted in the mixed liquors being abnormally high which is likely to compromise the treatment efficiency of the works as well result in a host of operational challenges. Compliance may be compromised. Other factors such as energy consumption and aeration efficiency will not be comparable at this stage as long as the bottlenecks exist.


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 5

5.2. Food Chain Reactor

The following operational deviations occurred in the Organica Demonstration Plant:

• Foaming remained an issue on the first tank of the Organica Demonstration Plant reactor. It was not as severe as in August 2018. The plant was reopened for site visits in mid-September.

o The cause of the foaming was determined to be Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) that is accumulating in the first tank of the FCR Reactor. The FOG alongside hydrophobic microorganisms forms a strong surface tension entrapping air bubbles. Water spray is sufficient to break the surface tension and destabilize the foam bubbles causing the foaming to recede

o The reason for the FOG accumulating in the reactor is due to the overflow connection between tank 1 and tank 2 only being engaged during high hydraulic flows. Since the FCR is operating under steady flow conditions the overflow connection is not engaged. This is due to the mechanical design of the steel tanks. On larger plants where the reactor(s) is not divided and forms one unrestricted reactor(s) this problem will be minimized and/or completely eliminated.

o Further method of minimizing the impact of FOG in any Fine bubble diffused aeration (FBDA) biological reactors is to have upstream removal of FOG via an aerated grit chamber with scum scrapers or primary settling tanks with scum baffles and scum scrapers to remove the FOG from the water surface.

o The solution to the foaming that the Organica Demonstration Plant is currently experiencing is to install a foam spraying system underneath the floorboards of the reactor to break up any foam as it forms and suppress it back into the mixed liquor. Further spray nozzles will be installed to direct the water surface to flow towards and over into the overflow connection between tank 1 and tank 2 preventing the future accumulation of hydrophobic compounds such as FOG in tank 1.

• On 9 September the FCR Blower’s motor protection was triggered and the blowers were offline and the main inlet valve remained open as it was left in Manual mode. The reactor was without air and unable to treat the incoming wastewater to the specified limits.

o The main inlet valve has an interlock that will close the valve and therefore stop the incoming wastewater should the blowers experience an error. This interlock can only be activated if the valve is in Automatic Mode.

• The Organica Demonstration Plant suffered a power failure on Saturday 20 October 2018. Power was returned Monday 22 October 2018.


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 6

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE

6.1. Flow Trends

During the first 3 months of the operational period, as described in the Demonstration Philosophy, the intention is to provide a steady feed flow of 5m3/hr to the Organica Demonstration Plant. Due to procurement and supply delays the signal splitter only arrived on site late in October, which will provide a duplicate signal to the intake pump station in order to mimic the diurnal flow patterns experienced on the Verulam WWTW. Due to this delay steady flow operations was continued until end of October 2018. The dips in flow is due to power failures and the blower-motor-protection-error interlock being triggered on the main inlet valve in order to preserve the final effluent quality.

Figure 2: Daily Average Inflow to Organica Demo Plant

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

Veru

lam

WW

TWFl

ow R

ate

(m3 /

hr)

Org

anic

a De

mon

stra

tion

Plan

t Fl

ow R

ate

(m3 /

hr)

Organica Demonstration Plant Verulam WWTW


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 7

6.2. Nitrogen Trends

Figure 3: Total Nitrogen in Influent

Figure 4: Ammonia in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

In Figure 4 the peaks in Ammonia concentration on 09/09/2018 and 23/10/2018 is due to a lack of aeration as a blower-motor protection-error and a power failure occurred respectively. Nitrification of the wastewater did not complete fully.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

and

Am

mon

ia (m

g/L

as N

)

Inflow TN

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

and

Am

mon

ia (m

g/L

as N

)

Inflow NH4 CAS Effluent NH4 FCR Effluent NH4 NH4 Discharge Limit


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 8

Figure 5: Combined Nitrate and Nitrite in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

6.3. TSS Trends

Figure 6: TSS in Influent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

and

Am

mon

ia (m

g/L

as N

)

Inflow NO2+NO3 CAS Effluent NO2+NO3

FCR Effluent NO2+NO3 NO2 + NO3 Discharge Limit

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)

Inflow TSS


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 9

Figure 7: TSS in CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

In Figure 7 the peaks in TSS concentration on 09/09/2018 and 23/10/2018 is due to a lack of aeration as a blower-motor protection-error and a power failure occurred respectively. Carbonisation of the wastewater did not complete fully leading to some solid in the mixed liquor not settling.

6.4. COD Trends

Figure 8: COD in Influent

1

5

25

125

625

3125

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)

CAS Effluent TSS FCR Effluent TSS TSS Discharge Limit

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Chem

ical

Oxy

gen

Dem

and

(mg/

L as

O2)

Inflow tCOD Inflow sCOD


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 10

Figure 9: COD in CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

Verulam WWTW receives a combination of domestic and industrial effluent. The various industries that discharge in to the Verulam Sewer Network include a Textile Factory, a Dry-packed, Bottled & Canned Foods Producer, a Potato and Corn Snack Factory, a Toothpaste Factory and a Tissue Paper Producer.

Several studies indicate that an effective treatment for textile effluent involves decolourization of dyes under the reducing conditions present in an anaerobic reactor1,2. Due to the presence of primary settling tanks (PST) that is hydraulically under loaded as well as surface aerators that is not operating, anaerobic conditions develop, creating the reducing environment necessary to breakdown the textile effluent. The Organica Demonstration Plant receives its wastewater from upstream of the PSTs prior to the reducing anaerobic conditions, resulting in a higher effective inert COD (iCOD) being fed to the biological reactor of the Organica Demonstration Plant.

In Figure 7 the peaks in COD concentration on 09/09/2018 and 23/10/2018 is due to a lack of aeration as a blower-motor protection-error and a power failure occurred respectively. Carbonisation of the wastewater did not complete fully leading to elevated COD as there were also an elevated TSS concentration due some solid in the mixed liquor not settling.

1 Delée, W. , O'Neill, C. , Hawkes, F. R. and Pinheiro, H. M. (1998), Anaerobic treatment of textile effluents: A review. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 73: 323-335. 2 Bell, J. and Buckley, C. (2003). Treatment of a textile dye in the anaerobic baffled reactor. Water SA, 29(2), pp.129-134.

1

5

25

125

625

3125

Chem

ical

Oxy

gen

Dem

and

(mg/

L as

O2)

CAS Effluent tCOD FCR Effluent tCOD FCR Efflent bCOD COD Discharge Limit


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 11

6.5. Phosphorus Trends

Figure 10: Ortho-phosphates in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

In Figure 10 the peak in orthophosphate concentration on 09/09/2018 is due to partial treatment of the wastewater through the biofilm as lack of aeration due blower-motor protection-error that occurred. Insufficient treatment did not keep the MLSS in suspension resulting in fewer microorganisms that are able to treat the wastewater.

6.6. pH & Alkalinity Trends

Figure 11: pH and Alkalinity in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Ort

ho-P

hosp

hate

s (m

g/L

as P

)

Inflow PO4 CAS Effluent PO4 FCR Effluent PO4 PO4 Discharge Limit

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14To

tal A

lkal

inity

(mg/

L as

CaC

O3)

pH

Inflow pH CAS Effluent pH FCR Effluent pH pH Discharge Range Inflow Alkalinity


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 12

6.7. Electrical Conductivity Trends

Figure 12: Electrical Conductivity in Influent, CAS Effluent and FCR Effluent

Due to the nature of the influent that Verulam WWTW receive i.e. a combination of both domestic and industrial effluent, both biological treatment technologies i.e. Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) and Food Chain Reactor (FCR) is able to reduce the high electrical conductivity of the incoming wastewater however further chemical and / or membrane technologies will be required to effectively treat the wastewater with regards to the electrical conductivity beyond what is biologically achievable.

7. SPECIFIC POWER CONSUMPTION

Table 2: Specific Power Consumption

FCR UNIT SPECIFIC POWER CONSUMPTION 1.69 kWh/m3

8. MIXED LIQUOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS

Table 3: MLSS and MLVSS Concentrations CAS FCR UNIT MLSS 14 000 2 570 g/m3 MLVSS 10 716 2 031 g/m3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Elec

tric

al C

ondu

ctiv

ity (m

S/cm

)

Inflow EC CAS Effluent EC FCR Effluent EC Max EC Discharge Limit


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 13

9. REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES

In the table below the 50th and 90th percentile removal efficiencies for both the CAS and FCR WWTP are given.

Table 4: COD, Ammonia and Ortho-phosphates Removal Efficiencies CAS

50TH PERCENTILE

CAS 90TH

PERCENTILE

FCR 50TH

PERCENTILE

FCR 90TH

PERCENTILE COD 94.9% 6.3% 94.7% 96.0% AMMONIA 92.4% 70.5% 96.4% 93.7% ORTHO-PHOSPHATES 44.2% 26.4% 57.5% 54.8%

The 90th percentile removal efficiency for the CAS is not representative of standard operations on the Verulam WWTW as Verulam WWTW returned several surface reactors to operation re-suspending settled sludge in the reactor resulting in overloaded secondary settling tanks and severe sludge carry over into the final effluent for extended periods of time.

The FCR’s Ortho-phosphate removal efficiency far exceeds that of the CAS’s. The FCR does not employ any dedicated orthophosphates removal systems whereas the CAS system have multiple anaerobic zones promoting the growth of polyphosphate-accumulating microorganisms. The phosphorus removal in the FCR is due to the natural uptake of nutrients by the microorganisms in order to sustain biological growth in the form of cell growth and multiplication of cells phosphates is a vital compound of DNA & RNA. The plants also require phosphors for several key plant functions including energy transfer, photosynthesis, transformation of sugars and starches, nutrient movement within the plant and transfer of genetic characteristics from one generation to the next.

10. LOADING AND REMOVAL RATES

The table below indicates the average substrate loading rate per unit of reactor volume for the FCR WWTP.

Table 5: Substrate loading rate per unit of reactor volume CAS FCR UNIT COD 558.5 1 036.5 g/m3.day as O2

AMMONIA 13.2 24.5 g/m3.day as N ORTHO-PHOSPHATES 6.6 12.3 g/m3.day as P

The table below indicates the average substrate removal rate per unit of reactor volume for the FCR WWTP.

Table 6: Substrate removal rate per unit of reactor volume CAS FCR UNIT COD 365.1 985.6 g/m3.day as O2

AMMONIA 11.5 23.2 g/m3.day as N ORTHO-PHOSPHATES 2.7 7.0 g/m3.day as P


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 14

11. CONCLUSION

With the exception of a few data points (due to power failures and blower motor protection) the FCR shows stable performance. The FCR has proven its ability to accommodate high variability with regard to the influent characteristics.

A high Electrical Conductivity is typical of industrial effluent as well as the presence of non-biological degradable compounds such as dyes. Dyes can be biologically treated under the reducing environment of anaerobic conditions which is present in the CAS system due to non-operational equipment while there are no anaerobic zones in the FCR system. When large quantities of textile effluent enters the FCR, the final effluent contains an elevated concentration of typically inert COD. The inert COD is present in the form of the decolourisation of the water, due to the excessive amount of dye that cannot be effectively treated without anaerobic conditions within a biological reactor system. Further chemical treatment i.e. chemical coagulation & precipitation would be required to remove the remaining colour of the water in turn reducing the inert COD, orthophosphate and electrical conductivity of the final wastewater. This can be achieved using either Ferric Chloride, Polyaluminium Chloride, Aluminium Sulphate or other chemicals able to achieve the same result.

The CAS’s COD removal efficiency is similar to that of the FCR’s. This is due to the presence of multiple severe anaerobic zones in the CAS system and its ability to break non-biological degradable COD (biological inert) chains and rings. The hydraulically under-loaded secondary settling tanks with a higher SVI sludge and high sludge blankets allows for in-situ filtering and settling of colloidal particles further reducing the reported COD of the effluent.

The current setup of the FCR does not employ either dedicated biological or chemical phosphorus removal. The phosphorus removal in the FCR is due to the natural uptake of nutrients by the microorganisms in order to sustain and promote the biological growth of the plants as well as the growth and multiplication of microorganisms in the MLSS and fixed biofilm. The FCR’s phosphorus removal exceeds that of the CAS. The CAS relies on anaerobic zones that stimulates and promotes the growth of polyphosphate-accumulating organisms facilitating the removal of phosphorus from the wastewater through the settled cell mass i.e. waste activated sludge. Verulam WWTW was not initially intended to operate under enhanced biological phosphorus removal conditions i.e. the presence of anaerobic zones in the biological reactors, however this has come about due the multiple surface aerators not being operational for extended period of time.

On average the substrate loading rate on the FCR is with a factor of 1.85 higher than that of the CAS. The substrate removal rate for the FCR is with a factor of 2.70, 2.02 and 2.58 higher than that of the CAS for COD, Ammonia and Ortho-phosphates respectively. This confirms that wastewater can be treated in smaller reactors with FCR Technology than with CAS Technology. This also translates in to a smaller physical footprint of the WWTP.


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 15

A A

ppendix

Organica Water Resource Recovery Facility eThekwini Verulam Wastewater Treatment Works Operational Performance Report

Raw Data – July & August 2018


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 16

Table A 1: Raw Data - TSS & COD

Date TSS (mg/L) COD (mg/L as O2)

Inflow TSS CAS TSS FCR TSS Inflow tCOD Inflow sCOD CAS tCOD FCR tCOD FCR sCOD 02/09/2018 388 26 22 740 370 84.6 72.6 54.5 04/09/2018 496 228 20 2590 1870 200 68.5 47.1 06/09/2018 420 16 22 1140 490 148 77 49.4 09/09/2018 372 8 46 800 460 55.3 116 69 11/09/2018 372 16 26 940 480 62.7 64.1 34.9 13/09/2018 360 64 10 1330 380 50.9 47.3 41.2 16/09/2018 332 12 10 520 200 44.7 48 39.7 18/09/2018 664 8 10 1700 750 41.6 50.4 46.1 19/09/2018 540 16 1320 670 64.2 43.1 20/09/2018 504 24 12 1230 1200 60.1 47.4 37.4 21/09/2018 380 8 800 350 45.4 41.4 22/09/2018 332 10 830 380 61.1 46.2 23/09/2018 348 34 8 560 240 56.5 37.5 26.9 24/09/2018 316 8 840 450 41.2 28.4 25/09/2018 476 448 4 2270 1060 340 53.1 36.7 27/09/2018 364 28 16 1040 390 83.6 62.3 42.7 30/09/2018 292 42 8 800 310 96.1 54 39 02/10/2018 528 4045 8 1640 980 4870 58.5 40.8 04/10/2018 432 1100 16 2100 1280 1400 52.2 37.4 07/10/2018 354 18 16 880 360 31.8 31.8 29.4 09/10/2018 404 556 26 1970 1120 2400 65.7 48.4 12/10/2018 496 12 6 1860 930 37.9 12.8 7.6 14/10/2018 344 14 14 790 270 28.4 68.2 3 16/10/2018 284 16 16 1290 660 35.9 71.4 52.1 18/10/2018 308 10 8 1110 710 23.7 67.2 15.4 21/10/2018 364 10 10 1180 420 20.7 49.3 35.6 23/10/2018 436 14 38 1010 600 26.7 142 84.7 25/10/2018 456 14 16 1150 390 19 63.8 42.9 28/10/2018 300 18 18 1440 790 24.1 42.8 30.8 30/10/2018 432 8 10 1900 1730 30.3 43.2 13.4

Average 406 282 15 1230 635 425.8 60.5 40.0 90th Percentile 530.4 882.4 28.4 2134 1216 2000 84.8 57.4 50th Percentile 372 18 12 1110 480 56.5 58.5 40.8


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 17

Table A 2: Raw Date - TN, NH4 & NO2 + NO3

Date Inflow TN (mg/L as

N) NH4 (mg/L as N) NO2+NO3 (mg/L as N)

Inflow NH4 CAS NH4 FCR NH4 Inflow NO2+NO3 CAS NO2+NO3 FCR NO2+NO3 02/09/2018 23 20.6 11 1 1.11 1.03 1.5 04/09/2018 47 32.8 7.5 1 1.06 1.05 1.07 06/09/2018 38 26.7 10.1 1 1.04 1.04 1.06 09/09/2018 21.8 7.6 5.7 1.05 1.01 1.02 11/09/2018 31 25.8 2.1 1.4 1.25 1.02 4.68 13/09/2018 35 26.1 1 1 1.04 1.03 1.61 16/09/2018 42 33.9 1 1 1.05 1.07 4.9 18/09/2018 55 36.3 1 1 1.03 1.05 1.05 19/09/2018 37 29.5 1 1.03 1.1 20/09/2018 35 27.1 3.6 1 1.13 1.05 1.1 21/09/2018 46 28.2 1 1.05 1.29 22/09/2018 39 35.1 1 1.53 2.54 23/09/2018 40 21.5 6 1 1.02 1.05 7.44 24/09/2018 32 26.1 1 1.03 3.98 25/09/2018 58 27.8 4.4 1 1.03 1.01 1.69 27/09/2018 37 33.8 3.5 1 1.04 1.05 1.14 30/09/2018 40 25.5 5.9 1 1.05 1.03 5.99 02/10/2018 36 30.7 11.8 1 1.03 1.01 2.35 04/10/2018 31 25.5 2.1 1 1.04 1.05 1.97 07/10/2018 41 26.3 1 1 1.05 1.65 4.09 09/10/2018 43 29.7 5.2 1 1.04 1.37 1.32 12/10/2018 57 42.3 1 1 1.04 1.03 1.01 14/10/2018 40 27 1 1 1.05 1.11 1.07 16/10/2018 37 32.1 1 1 1.05 1.01 1.19 18/10/2018 34 22.1 1 1 1.03 1.31 2.54 21/10/2018 42 32.1 1 1 1.04 1.13 1.88 23/10/2018 49 36 1 14 1.05 3.78 1.19 25/10/2018 34 32.7 1 1 1.05 2.42 1.03 28/10/2018 72 36.9 1 1 2.16 1.21 1.18 30/10/2018 35 27.9 1 1 1.03 1.16 2.43

Average 40.0 29.1 3.8 1.6 1.07 1.21 2.29 90th Percentile 55.6 36.06 10.64 2.26 1.15 1.54 5.12 50th Percentile 39.5 27.8 2.1 1 1.04 1.05 1.50


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 18

Table A 3: Raw Data - PO4, Alkalinity, pH & Electrical Conductivity

Date Ortho-phosphates (mg/L as P) Inflow Alkalinity (mg/L

as CaCO3) pH Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm)

Inflow PO4 CAS PO4 FCR PO4 Inflow pH CAS pH FCR pH Inflow EC CAS EC FCR EC 02/09/2018 15.9 12.8 6.9 419 7.37 7.74 7.86 1.799 1.532 1.576 04/09/2018 18.2 12.8 7.8 500 10.14 7.89 7.9 3.92 1.6 2.03 06/09/2018 17 12.5 4.6 317 6.62 7.48 7.61 2.19 1.84 1.986 09/09/2018 14.2 7.7 10.5 286 7.12 7.71 7.47 1.205 1.412 1.58 11/09/2018 15.5 8.4 6.2 346 6.68 7.63 7.68 2.04 1.531 1.521 13/09/2018 8 7.4 4.5 359 6.93 7.86 7.8 1.513 1.591 1.48 16/09/2018 15.2 8.1 6.7 364 7.35 7.87 7.69 1.605 1.491 1.329 18/09/2018 14.1 8.3 6.8 353 6.3 7.83 7.85 2.81 1.621 1.78 19/09/2018 11.3 6.1 307 6.7 7.88 2.42 1.644 20/09/2018 13.6 8.2 5.5 363 7.09 8.02 7.94 1.728 1.719 1.703 21/09/2018 15.7 6.2 384 7.97 7.9 1.638 1.624 22/09/2018 14.2 6.2 368 7.63 7.91 1.239 1.563 23/09/2018 11.7 10.2 6.7 356 8.67 7.88 7.9 1.734 1.563 1.388 24/09/2018 13.4 6.3 280 7.2 7.74 1.013 1.258 25/09/2018 10.7 8.6 5.3 394 7.26 7.64 7.79 1.69 1.394 1.332 27/09/2018 16.9 8.3 7 324 7.29 7.89 7.78 1.223 1.43 1.519 30/09/2018 13.2 16 5 291 7.26 7.56 7.76 0.96 1.479 1.35 02/10/2018 13.4 5.8 394 7.26 7.35 7.69 2.26 1.409 1.444 04/10/2018 15.1 5.8 5.8 446 9.48 7.75 7.75 1.825 1.473 1.453 07/10/2018 17.3 6.6 6 313 7.37 7.88 7.54 1.26 1.315 0.94 09/10/2018 13.4 11.4 6.2 342 6.81 7.41 7.67 1.33 1.254 1.399 12/10/2018 17.8 7 4.3 306 6.18 8.08 7.76 2.8 1.698 0.456 14/10/2018 16.5 6.4 7.5 349 7.57 8.15 7.94 1.15 1.539 1.418 16/10/2018 16.4 6.9 5.9 420 7.15 8 7.75 1.567 1.494 1.728 18/10/2018 13.9 5.7 5.1 292 6.7 7.96 7.75 1.295 1.394 1.463 21/10/2018 14.6 6.4 8.1 339 7.3 8.08 7.7 1.112 1.461 1.49 23/10/2018 15.2 6.4 7 340 6.86 7.98 7.74 1.34 1.389 1.544 25/10/2018 14.6 5.8 5.7 313 6.85 7.95 7.61 1.185 1.398 1.542 28/10/2018 16.4 7.8 7 324 7.3 8.09 7.68 1.41 1.367 1.319 30/10/2018 14.1 7.5 5.5 324 6.79 8.07 7.71 1.589 1.513 1.489

Average 14.5 8.6 6.3 354 7.33 7.82 7.76 1.709 1.496 1.484 90th Percentile 17.4 12.8 7.86 425.2 8.83 8.08 7.92 2.802 1.7106 1.8212 50th Percentile 14.6 8.15 6.2 349 7.26 7.87 7.76 1.605 1.491 1.49


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 19

B

Appendix


Year to Date Trends – May to August 2018


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 20

Figure B 1: YTD Influent TSS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)

Inflow TSS


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 21

Figure B 2: YTD Effluent TSS

1

10

100

1000

10000

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)

CAS Effluent TSS FCR Effluent TSS TSS Discharge Limit


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 22

Figure B 3: YTD Influent COD

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Chem

ical

Oxy

gen

Dem

and

(mg/

L as

O2)

Inflow tCOD Inflow sCOD


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 23

Figure B 4: YTD Effluent COD

1

10

100

1000

10000

Chem

ical

Oxy

gen

Dem

and

(mg/

L as

O2)

CAS Effluent tCOD FCR Effluent bCOD COD Discharge Limit FCR Effluent tCOD


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 24

Figure B 5: YTD Influent Total Nitrogen

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

and

Am

mon

ia (m

g/L

as N

)

Inflow TN


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 25

Figure B 6: YTD Ammonia

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Amm

onia

(mg/

L as

N)

Inflow NH4 CAS Effluent NH4 FCR Effluent NH4 Discharge Limit NH4


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 26

Figure B 7: YTD Nitrates & Nitrites

0

5

10

15

20

25

Com

bine

d N

itrat

e an

d N

itrite

(mg/

L as

N)

Inflow NO2+NO3 CAS Effluent NO2 + NO3 FCR Effluent NO2 + NO3 Discharge Limit NO2+ NO3


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 27

Figure B 8: YTD Orthophosphates

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ort

ho-P

hosp

hate

s (m

g/L

as P

)

Inflow PO4 CAS Effluent PO4 FRC Effluent PO4 Discharge Limit PO4


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 28

Figure B 9: YTD pH & Alkalinity

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Tota

l Alk

alin

ity (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

pH

Inflow pH CAS Effluent pH FCR Effluent pH Discharge Range pH Inflow Alkalinity


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 29

Figure B 10: YTD Electrical Conductivity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Elec

tric

al C

ondu

ctiv

ity (m

S/cm

)

Inflow EC CAS Effluent EC FCR Effluent EC Max EC Discharge Limit


6509-RE-000-OP-0003 Rev: 00 Page 30

C

Appendix


3rd Party Laboratory Water Quality Report

Talbot Laboratories (Pty) Ltd ● Company Registration Number: 2016/334237/07

20 Pentrich Road, P.O Box 22598, Pietermaritzburg, 3200, KwaZulu-Natal

Tel: +27 (0) 33 346 1444 ● Fax: +27 (0) 33 346 1445 ● Email: [email protected] ● Web: www.talbot.co.za

1

2018/10/12 ANALYTICAL REPORT

OUR REF: 006368/18 COMPANY NAME: MURRAY & ROBERTS POWER & ENERGY A DIV OF MURRAY &

ROBERTS LIMITED CONTACT ADDRESS: P O BOX 3040, BEDFORDVIEW, 2008 CONTACT PERSON: JACO JANSEN QUOTE: QU07-0109 ORDER NUMBER: 22165109-OP-45200 DELIVERY: COURIER SERVICE SAMPLE TYPE: EFFLUENT SAMPLES DATE SUBMITTED: 2018-09-25

Determinand Units Method No

Results 013813/18 013814/18

INFLUENT / SCREENED

SEWAGE 20.09.18

CAS EFFLUENT 20.09.18

Ammonium* mg N/ℓ - 41# 5.2# Biological Oxygen Demand* mg O2/ℓ - 630# Chemical Oxygen Demand (Filtered) mg O2/ℓ 3 727 31 Chemical Oxygen Demand (Total) mg O2/ℓ 3 1 301 46 Nitrate/Nitrite* mg N/ℓ - <0.1# 0.2# Orthophosphate mg P/ℓ 66G 5.22 1.19 Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 312 14 Total Alkalinity mg CaCO3/ℓ 10G 505 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen* mg N/ℓ - 53# Total Nitrogen* mg N/ℓ - 53# Total Phosphorus mg P/ℓ 90 4.47 Volatile Suspended Solids* % 62 91 Faecal Coliforms colonies per 100mℓ 31 9 400

Determinand Units Method

No Results

013815/18 013816/18 FCR EFFLUENT

20.09.18 FCR MLSS

20.09.18 Ammonium* mg N/ℓ - 0.8# Chemical Oxygen Demand (Filtered) mg O2/ℓ 3 34 Chemical Oxygen Demand (Total) mg O2/ℓ 3 38 Faecal Coliforms colonies per 100mℓ 31 6 900 Nitrate/Nitrite* mg N/ℓ - 1.3# Orthophosphate mg P/ℓ 66G 0.13 Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 6 2 655 Volatile Suspended Solids* % 62 77

http://www.talbot.co.za/

Talbot Laboratories (Pty) Ltd

006368/18

2


Results 013817/18 013818/18

CAS MLSS 20.09.18

FCR WAS 20.09.18

Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 13 240 8 280 Volatile Suspended Solids* % 62 77


No Results

013819/18 INFLUENT / SCREENED

SEWAGE 20.09.18 Oil & Grease* mg/ℓ 52 4

Technical Signatory: This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the General

Manager of TALBOT LABORATORIES. Tests marked with an asterisk (*) are not SANAS accredited and are not included in the Schedule

of Accreditation for T0122. Results marked with a (#) have been sub-contracted to a peer laboratory. Uncertainty of Measurement (UoM)

UoM values apply to tests analysed at T0122 and are identified in the attached Appendix. UoM values for T0122 microbiological results are available upon request. UoM values for subcontracted tests are available on request. UoM values for ICP elements applies to total, dissolved and acid soluble metals. UoM is calculated as a percentage and should be applied to the respective results.

Results relate to the samples as taken and in the condition received by the laboratory. Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of SANAS accreditation and

shall be solely used at the discretion of the customer. Sample preparation may require filtration, dilution, digestion or similar. Final results will be

reported accordingly.

Talbot Laboratories (Pty) Ltd ● Company Registration Number: 2016/334237/07

20 Pentrich Road, P.O Box 22598, Pietermaritzburg, 3200, KwaZulu-Natal

Tel: +27 (0) 33 346 1444 ● Fax: +27 (0) 33 346 1445 ● Email: [email protected] ● Web: www.talbot.co.za

1

2018/10/25 ANALYTICAL REPORT

OUR REF: 006676/18 COMPANY NAME: MURRAY & ROBERTS POWER & ENERGY A DIV OF MURRAY &

ROBERTS LIMITED CONTACT ADDRESS: P O BOX 3040, BEDFORDVIEW, 2008 CONTACT PERSON: JACO JANSEN QUOTE: QU07-0109 ORDER NUMBER: 2216509-OP-45200 DELIVERY: COURIER SERVICE SAMPLE TYPE: WATER SAMPLES DATE SUBMITTED: 2018-10-16


Results 014804/18

INFLUENT 14.10.18 Ammonium* mg N/ℓ - 35# Biological Oxygen Demand* mg O2/ℓ - 336# Chemical Oxygen Demand (Filtered) mg O2/ℓ 3 390 Chemical Oxygen Demand (Total) mg O2/ℓ 3 844 Nitrate/Nitrite* mg N/ℓ - <0.15# Orthophosphate mg P/ℓ 66G 4.95 Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 309 Total Alkalinity mg CaCO3/ℓ 10G 310 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen* mg N/ℓ - 51# Total Nitrogen* mg N/ℓ - 51# Total Phosphorus mg P/ℓ 90 6.04 Volatile Suspended Solids* % 62 87


No Results

014805/18 014806/18 CAS FINAL

14.10.18 FCR FINAL

14.10.18 Ammonium* mg N/ℓ - 0.26 0.31 Chemical Oxygen Demand (Filtered) mg O2/ℓ 3 32 52 Chemical Oxygen Demand (Total) mg O2/ℓ 3 36 72 Faecal Coliforms colonies per 100mℓ 31 26 360 Nitrate/Nitrite mg N/ℓ 65Ga 0.31 3.50 Orthophosphate mg P/ℓ 66G 0.40 1.09 Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 20 27


No Results

014807/18 014808/18 FCR MLSS

14.10.18 CAS MLSS

14.10.18 Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 1 665 10 810 Volatile Suspended Solids* % 62 81 76

http://www.talbot.co.za/

Talbot Laboratories (Pty) Ltd

006676/18

2


Results 014809/18

FCR WAS 14.10.18 Suspended Solids at 105°C mg/ℓ 5 6 935

Technical Signatory: This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the General

Manager of TALBOT LABORATORIES. Tests marked with an asterisk (*) are not SANAS accredited and are not included in the Schedule

of Accreditation for T0122. Results marked with a (#) have been sub-contracted to a peer laboratory. Uncertainty of Measurement (UoM)

UoM values apply to tests analysed at T0122 and are identified in the attached Appendix. UoM values for T0122 microbiological results are available upon request. UoM values for subcontracted tests are available on request. UoM values for ICP elements applies to total, dissolved and acid soluble metals. UoM is calculated as a percentage and should be applied to the respective results.

Results relate to the samples as taken and in the condition received by the laboratory. Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of SANAS accreditation and

shall be solely used at the discretion of the customer. Sample preparation may require filtration, dilution, digestion or similar. Final results will be

reported accordingly.

Date post:	20-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Organica Water Resource Recovery Operational Performance · Table E 1: Process Performance Test...

Documents