leachate treatability study · hod leachate pretreatment process and/or to develop modifications to...

Leachate Treatability Study

HOD LANDFILLAntioch, Illinois

r. „'- <••> ••• o ••» j^V u v/v >• \.'l»

Waste Management of North America- MidwestTwo Westbrook Corporate Center • Suite 1000• Westchester, Illinois 60154

Prepared by:

RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.Formerly SEC Donohve, Inc.Solid Waste Division1240 Dichl Road • Naperville, Illinois 60563 • 708/955-6600

March 1993

[;tr

0nI :

ri •

Waste Management of North America- MidwestHOD LANDFILL

LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY

Project No. 70006

n[ J Prepared by:! , RUST Environment & Infrastructure[ Formerfy SEC Donohue, Inc.^ 1240 East Diehl Roadn Naperville, Illinois 60563

MARCH 1993

rr:

n

ooii

0.0 Executive Summary

A treatability study was conducted for HOD Landfill to determine the ability of apreliminary treatment facility design to reduce contaminants to limits acceptable fordischarge to the City of Antioch POTW. Two pilot scale Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs)were operated at varying loading conditions between 0.1 and 0.7 g Chemical OxygenDemand (COD)/g Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS) per day and thereactors were monitored for treatability performance and optimal operating conditions.

Optimal design/ operating conditions were evaluated during the study as well. The full-scale system should be designed with a loading of 0.2 gCOD/gMLVSS for conservativepurposes. The reactor will be capable of successfully operating at varying loadings between0.1-0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS with a pH range of 7.0-8.0 and temperature between 20-30 *C in thereactor. Table 11 presents the optimal design/operating conditions for the full-scale process.During higher loading conditions, pH control will be necessary to maximize the processefficiency and reduce effluent concentrations. In addition, when a high concentration ofMLVSS is maintained in the reactor, sludge settling is hindered. Therefore, polymerflocculant should be added prior to decanting the effluent, or the reactor can be initially fedunder anoric conditions to decrease the population of poorly settling microorganisms.

rV-! Results of the study showed an average of >87% organic removal (as measured by

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and COD) and >90% ammonia reduction were achievedat all loading conditions tested. Metals were reduced by > 95% and virtually no Total ToxicOrganic (TTO) parameters (with the exception of 0.052 mg/1 chloromethane and 0.030 mg/1acetone), were detected in one sample. As seen in Table 11, all results showed excellentcompliance with all limits established by the City of Antioch.

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix).

II

HOD LANDFILLLEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES / FIGURES / APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

6.0 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

1.0 Introduction/Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Sampling/ Analytical Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Reactor Description/ Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 Feed Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.5 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 53.1 COD/BOD Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.2 Ammonia Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.3 Total Toxic Organic Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.4 Metals Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5 Operating Parameter Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.5.1 Sludge Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5.2 Sludge Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5.3 Settleability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.0 Design/ Operation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5.0 Summary/ Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Ill


LIST OF TABLES

rr

D

trR

Table 1 Operational ScheduleTable 2 Sampling/ Operational ProtocolTable 3 Weekly Feed CompositionTable 4 Influent Performance DataTable 5 Reactor 1 Performance DataTable 6 Reactor 2 Performance DataTable 7 Total Toxic OrganicsTable 8 Metals Removal DataTable 9 Sludge YieldsTable 10 Leachate Treatability SummaryTable 11 Design/ Operating Parameters

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Reactor Design/ Set-upFigure 2 COD RemovalFigure 3 Ammonia RemovalFigure 4 Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 1Figure 5 Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 2Figure 6 Design Loading Selection (COD/ Ammonia)

APPENDIXAPPENDIX GLOSSARY

L

1.0 INTRODUCTION/ PURPOSE

The purpose of this treatability study was to demonstrate the adequacy of the proposedHOD leachate pretreatment process and/or to develop modifications to the design to meetthe discharge standards established by the Village of Antioch POTW.

Initial analysis of HOD wastewater has previously indicated that it will be necessary topretreat the wastewater to remove BOD, Suspended Solids, Iron, Zinc, and Ammonia/TKN.Additionally, it is desirable to minimize the discharge of Total Toxic Organics (TTO). TTOserves as an indicator of strength and toxicity for industrial discharges. While dischargestandards are not specified for landfill leachates, 40CFR413.14 (f) (g) established an EPAindustrial discharge guideline of 2.13-4.57 mg/1.

A treatment process consisting of equalization followed by clarification and subsequenttreatment via use of a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) has been initially proposed forwastewater pretreatment. The SBR would be typically operated as an extended aeration,high sludge age system (> 25 days) to maximize treatment efficiency. However, two pilotscale reactors were operated at varying loading (0.1-0.7 gCOD/gMLVSS) conditions todetermine the design performance at high and low loading rates. The treatability study wasconducted over a nine week period, with five weeks for acclimization and four weeks fordesign/performance data collection. The study was originally designed to run seven weeks,however the acclimization period was extended by two weeks to achieve a steady MLVSSconcentration. Influent leachate used during the study was taken from HOD's on-sitestorage tank, the east and west manholes, and piezometers 2A and 3A.

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BODLMOXOJ.

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

2.1 Leachate Sampling/ Analytical Protocol

On Friday, December 4, a sampling team from RUST (formerly SEC Donohue) wentto HOD Landfill in Antioch, Illinois to collect leachate to be used for the treatabilitystudy. Leachate was pulled from three areas of the landfill: twenty-five (25) gallonsof leachate were composited from Piezometers 2A and 3A; twenty-five (25) gallonswere composited from the East and West manholes; and twenty-five gallons (25)were pulled from the leachate storage tank on site which represents Piezometers 1,8, 9, and 10. The leachate was immediately transported to the pilot study laboratoryat CID Biological Treatment Facility (BTF) in Calumet City, Illinois and kept in cold

0 storage (to inhibit natural biodegradation and prevent the release of volatilecompounds) for use during the nine week study.

0Biomass used to seed the reactors at the beginning of the study was taken from the

i CID's full scale SBR process which is already acclimated to leachates. Table 1i..

describes the feed that was used during the two phases of the study, acclimatization,and design data gathering. Table 2 provides the sampling analytical and operational

x_ protocol for the study, as well as the laboratories used during the study. The reactors[ I were monitored daily for environmental conditions as well as compliance with the

Antioch POTW standards.

22 Reactor Description/ Operation

c

0As seen in Figure 1, the two pilot study reactors were 6 liter glass containers withloosely fitting plastic lids. Proper mixing conditions and oxygen levels weremaintained by the use of mechanical mixers and aeration diffusers. Heating tubeswere placed along the inside wall of the reactors to maintain a constant temperature

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILL

f ;n

o

i;r'

G

3

of 20*C ± 5'C. Essential phosphorous levels were sustained at a ratio of 200:1(COD:Phosphorous) by adding phosphoric acid. Excess nitrogen was already presentin the reactors (as ammonia) so there was no need to supplement the feed in orderto maintain the necessary 200:5 ratio of COD:Nitrogen. pH levels were regulatedbetween 7.5 and 8.5 by adding hydrochloric acid to the reactors. Defoaming agentwas used on an as-needed basis (typically 1 drop per day) to minimize sludge loss.

Reactors 1 and 2 were operated in a batch mode, feeding 2.5 to 3 liters per cycle toeach reactor with 3 to 5 cycles per week, depending on the feed composition (seeSection 2.3). Reactor 1 was designed to operate with a MLVSS concentration of4,000 mg/1 and achieve a loading rate of 0.2 gCOD/gMLVSS-day. Reactor 2 wasdesigned to operate with a MLVSS concentration of 2,000 mg/1 and to achieve aloading rate of and 0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS-day. Reactors were generally idle one daya week (Sunday) to facilitate monitoring and testing.

Both reactors were initially seeded with three (3) liters of sludge taken from CID'sI full scale process and operated with an initial target 25 day sludge age. This was

achieved by removing a predetermined amount of sludge on a weekly basis.

2.3 Feed Composition

As shown in Table 1, the study was designed to operate under varying influentcomposition tojaccount for the variation in the site's leachate quality that would beexpected during full-scale operation. COD was analyzed to determine the organicstrength of the three leachate components (Piezometers, Manholes, and Tank).Based on the combined feed strength, the SBR cycle time and the feed volumes wereadjusted to maintain constant loading rates from week to week. Table 3 presents theweekly feed composition, combined influent strength (based on COD concentrationsin the Piezometer, Manhole, and Tank leachates), as well as the weekly cycle time.

i .'• NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOOLANDTTLLUUCBATt TKEATAMOJIYStVOT

r :

n

n

f 1

L

2.4 Data Collection

Analytical work was conducted according to the sampling protocol outlined in Table2. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH were monitored on a daily basis to ensureproper environmental operating conditions. Samples taken from the influent weretypically prepared simultaneously with the feed. Reactor samples were taken at theend of each cycle while the supernatant was being decanted. Prior to decanting,approximately 3.5 mg/1-wastewater polymer coagulant was added to each reactor andmixed liquor solids were allowed to settle.

During weeks 6, 7, 8, and 9, effluent from the reactors was refrigerated and weeklycomposite samples were sent to Weston Gulf Coast Laboratories for analysis.Sampling for Total Toxic Organics analysis was conducted at the end of the week,immediately prior to sending the samples so that laboratory recommended holdingtimes were not exceeded and the integrity of the sample was preserved.

2.5 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC)

Samples were analyzed in accordance with EPA Test Method for Evaluation of SolidWaste (SW-846), Third Edition, and Standard Methods, 17th Edition. To ensureaccurate, valid data, QA/QC procedures were used throughout the study. Both CIDBTF and WESTON Gulf Coast have developed and implemented QA/QC programsto provide defensible data on a timely basis. All instruments are calibrated andchecked on a daily basis, and Blanks, Duplicates, and Control standards are routinelyanalyzed to ensure accurate results.

i . NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILL

i •

L

3.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Tables 4,5, and 6 present the influent and effluent results from Reactors 1 and 2 throughoutthe nine week study. These results are discussed in the sections below.

3.1 COD/BOD Reduction

Throughout the nine week study, both reactors effectively removed COD from theinfluent leachate. The results, graphically presented in Figure 2, show a consistentreduction in COD concentrations. The influent COD ranged from 1,200 mg/1 to3,120 mg/1 due to the varying mixtures of leachate from the piezometers, manholes,and tank. The effluent COD concentration from both reactors was consistently low,with average removal efficiencies of 90.5% and 87.3% in Reactors 1 and 2,respectively. The study showed very little difference in COD removal based onorganic loading. Furthermore, BOD results consistently showed greater than 99%reduction with influent concentrations ranging from 798-1,275 mg/1, and averageeffluent concentrations of 6.1 mg/1 in Reactor 1, and 8.6 mg/1 in Reactor 2, wellbelow Antioch's 300 mg/1 standard.

r^_ 32 Ammonia Reduction

T:iL.

Ammonia removal was monitored in each reactor on a daily basis. This parameter[ : typically serves as an indicator of the completeness of the biological reactions taking

place within the reactors. As seen in Figure 3, the ammonia reduction achieved in!_ Reactor 1 and 2 was consistently >98% and >90%, respectively. In general,, ammonia removal efficiencies decrease with increasing loading conditions. Influent[ i ammonia concentrations ranged from 250 mg/1 to 500 mg/1. Average effluentr - ammonia concentrations in Reactor 1 were <5 mg/1, while ammonia levels averagedL <41.5 mg/1 in Reactor 2. Elevated concentrations of ammonia occurred in the

I

t : NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILLLEACHATE TREATAU1JTY STUDT

6

higher loaded system (Reactor 2) when pH levels exceeded 8.0. pH tends to increaseduring treatment as organic acids are released during biodegradation. As a result,there is an increase in the concentration of unionized ammonia (NH3~ species) whichtends to inhibit nitrification. The average ammonia concentration in Reactor 2 was<8.7 mg/1 when pH was maintained below 8.0.

33 Total Toxic Organic Results

The results for Total Toxic Organics (TTO) are summarized in Table 7. TTOrepresents the sum of all detectable priority pollutant organics and 2,3,7,8-TCDD(Dioxin). The results show that virtually all parameters were below the detectablelimits of analysis, with the exception of acetone (0.03 mg/1) and chloromethane(0.052 mg/1) which were detected at very low levels in one sample. Two compounds(acetone and methylene chloride) which are known laboratory solvents and weredetected in the two of the water blanks that was analyzed simultaneously. Therefore,it is possible, since acetone and methylene chloride are readily degradable, that thedetection of these two compounds was in part due to laboratory interference.

In general, the results show that virtually no TTO was detected in either reactor(< 0.082 mg/1), and even during high loading conditions the effluent was consistentlywell below the 2.13 mg/1 limit established by the City of Antioch POTW.

3.4 Metals Reduction

The influent and effluent results for Reactors 1 and 2 are presented in Table 8.Based on these results, the overall metals removal efficiency was 98% in Reactor 1,and 95% in Reactor 2. All ten metals were consistently below the limits establishedby the City of Antioch.

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). HOD LANDFILLLEACHATETKEATAMILrfY STUDY

3.5 Operating Parameter Results

Operating parameters were measured throughout the study to determine site-specificsludge yield and settling characteristics to be used in the design of the treatmentfacility.

3.5.1 Sludge AgeBoth reactors were designed to operate with an extended sludge age toaccommodate both carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand, thusmaximizing COD/BOD and Ammonia removal. The reactors were seededfrom CID's full-scale reactors which operate with a minimum sludge age of25 days. The average sludge age maintained in the reactors was a functionof the sludge produced and removed during the study. Typically, lower loadedsystems can operate with a longer sludge age. Based on the results of the

D study, the average sludge age in Reactors 1 and 2 was 35 days and 18 days,__ ^^

respectively. The sludge age was lower in Reactor 2 because sludge was beingi

produced at a higher rate (due to higher loading conditions) and therefore,more sludge had to be removed from this reactor (See Section 3.5.2).

nt^ 3.5.2 Sludge Yield

T -.

\ The amount of sludge produced in each reactor typically depends on theloading conditions. Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS) and

< Mixed Liquor Total Suspended Solids (MLTSS) were measured on a weeklybasis and sludge was removed to maintain a MLVSS concentration of 4,000

[J mg/1 in Reactor 1, and 2,000 mg/1 in Reactor 2. Sludge yields were.: calculated based on the amount of sludge removed each week (including theI j volume of sludge used for analysis). The amount of sludge produced was 0.15p gMLVSS/gCOD (0.26 gMLTSS/gCOD) for Reactor 1, and 0.20! gMLVSS/gCOD (0.31 gMLTSS/gCOD) for Reactor 2 (Table 9). As

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix).LEACHATE THEAJAMOJIY SWOT

L

8

expected, higher loaded systems typically exhibit higher sludge yields, whilelower loaded systems typically exhibit lower sludge yields.

3.5.3 SettleabilityThe settleability of the biomass in the reactors was measured each week. Foreach reactor, a 1000 ml graduated cylinder was filled with mixed liquor and

I"' the status of the supernatant/sludge interface was routinely recorded over a' 30 minute period. As seen in Figures 4 and 5, there are two distinct phasesf~ of settling, unhindered settling and compression settling. The sludge settling1 rate was determined from the unhindered settling zone to average 1.1 ft/hrt^ in Reactor 1, and 7.3 ft/hr in Reactor 2. These values will be used to

determine the time necessary for settling in the SBR cycle. In addition, whenI the concentration of MLVSS in the system is high, the reactor can be fed

under partially anoxic conditions to decrease the population of poor settling! microorganisms or polymer flocculants can be used to enhance settling.i .

! 4.0 DESIGN/ OPERATION RECOMMENDATIONS

r The results from the treatability study were used to determine the optimal design andL

r ^_ operating conditions for the full-scale reactor. Based on the results of this study presentedr[ in Figure 6, ammonia removal will be the limiting factor in determining the optimal loading

rate. The SBR loading rate can be operated up to 0.6 gCOD/gMLVSS-day and still meet[_ Antioch's ammonia limits. Incorporating a safety factor of 1.5 gives, a maximum loading

ratio of 0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS-day. The plant is being designed with a very conservativel_ target loading of 0.2 gCOD/gMLVSS-day, however the plant can be safely operated,, anywhere between 0.1-0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS-day.

p Based on settleability test results, polymer addition will be necessary to enhance settlingL rates, or the process can be operated with a partially anoxic fill. In addition, phosphorous

iNOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILL

r

9

nutrient addition will be necessary to maintain a COD:N:P ratio of 200:5:1. The full-scalestudy should also allow for pH control to maintain a pH below 8.0, and be housed in aheated building for temperature control during cold weather.

Table 10 summarizes the design and operating parameters recommended for the full-scaleSBR to successfully treat HOD's leachate.

The results of the treatability study summarized in Table 11 conclusively demonstrate thattreatment with the SBR technology will enable HOD's leachate to meet the City ofAntioch's discharge standards, assuming a pH range of 7.0-8.0 and temperature of 20-30 *C,and that the utilization of Ammonia is an effective control discharge parameter (ie. Effluentwill only be discharged after ammonia levels are below 5 mg/1).

5.0 SUMMARY/ CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this treatability study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

When operating within a pH range of 7.0-8.0 and temperatures between 20 and30 °C, leachate treated by the pilot scale SBRs consistently met discharge limitsestablished by the City of Antioch POTW.

The SBRs consistently provided >87% reduction in the organic strength of HOD'sleachate, with average effluent COD ^concentrations <400 mg/1 and BODconcentrations < 9 mg/1 (Antioch BOD Limit = 300 mg/1).

Even during high loading conditions, effluent TTO concentrations (< 0.082 mg/1)were well below Antioch's 2.13 mg/1 limit.

NOTE: Bold items an defined in the Glossary (Appendix).LEACHATE TXEATAHLmf STVDY

10

The SBRs consistently provided > 90% reduction in ammonia, with average effluentconcentrations <10 mg/1 (Antioch NH4-N Limit = 20 mg/1) when pH wasmaintained between 7.0 and 8.0. Utilizing ammonia as a control discharge parameter(ie. effluent will only be discharged after ammonia levels are below 5 mg/1), asproposed in the Process Description Report (August 11,1992) will further assure thatboth ammonia and TTO removals are maximized.

Metals in the effluent were consistently below the Antioch's discharge limits (SeeTable 8, with average removals of >95% during treatment.

Sludge settling in the SBR should be enhanced by adding polymer flocculant, and thepoorly settling microorganisms, which tend to remain in suspension can be reducedby initially feeding the reactor in an anoxic mode.

f ; • Operating loading rate should range between 0.1-0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS.

f • Sludge yields of 0.26-0.31 gMLTSS/gCOD can be expected.

[

i..n' ; Based on the performance and results of this treatability study which are summarized in^ Table 11, HOD's leachate can be successfully treated using the proposed SBR technology

[ to achieve effluent levels well below the standards established by the City of Antioch.

L

L• NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILL

TABLE 1

HOD LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDYOPERATIONAL SCHEDULE

Week

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Feed Make-Up

75% Composite1

25% Piezometers 2A, 3 A75% Composite1

25% Piezometers 2 A, 3 A75% Composite1





50% Piezometers 2A, 3A75% Composite1


75% Piezometers 2A, 3 AAmmonia > 300 mg/1

Studj Focus

Acclimatization(Limited Analysis)Acclimatization(Limited Analysis)Acclimatization(Limited Analysis)Acclimatization(Limited Analysis)Acclimatization(Limited Analysis)Design/PerformanceStudyDesign/PerformanceStudyDesign/PerformanceStudy

Design PerformanceStudy

1 Composite Sample consists of 50% material from permanenttank (which pulls from piezometers 1,8,9,10) and temporarytank (which pulls from East and West rflanholes)


TABLE 2SAMPLING/OPERATING PROTOCOL

HOD LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY

Item

Sludge Age

Target Mixed Liquor Concentration

Loading

Target Mixed Liquor Concentration

Loading

Temperature, pH, D.O., Ammonia

COD

BOD*

Total Phenolics*

Fats, Oils, Greases*

Phosphorous*

Total Suspended Solids

TKN*

Cyanide* .

Iron, Zinc*

Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb,Se)* _

Settling Test

Total Toxic Organics*

Mixed Liquor Solids

Sludge Waste Day

Value/Days Analyzed for

Influent

M-F

M, F

W

WeeklyComposite

WeeklyComposite

WeeklyComposite

M, F

WeeklyComposite

WeeklyComposite

WeeklyComposite

WeeklyComposite

Reactor

25 Days

Reactor 1-4,000 mg/g VSS

Reactor 1-0.2g COD/g VSS-day

Reactor 2-2,000 mg/g VSS

Reactor 2-0.4g COD/g VSS-day

M-F

M, W, F

F

Weekly Composite

Weekly Composite

Weekly Composite

M, W, F

Weekly Composite

Weekly Composite

W, F

Weekly Composite

I/Week

React.l:Week 4&6 FReact.2: Week 5&7 F

F

F

Laboratory

CID BTF

CIDBTF

CID BTF

Contract Lab

Contract Lab

Contract Lab

CID BTF

Contract Lab

Contract Lab

Contract Lab

Contract Lab

CID BTF

Contract Lab

CIDBTF

CIDBTFNot analyzed during acclimatization period


TABLESHOD TreatabilityStudy

Weekly Feed Composition

WEEK

123

456

7 <89'

FEEDCODCONC.

(mg/1)1,640

1,6401,520

1,3401,5001,5002,2182,907

3,120

FEED

NH3-NCONC.

(IT1E/I)

294

294260

303285330

330330

500

FLOW RATE

(liters/cycle)

2.962.962.962.962.962.963.482.962.46

VOLUME

Jliters)5.755.755.75

5.755.755.755.755.755.75

CYCLES

(#/week)344

555

3

5

3

ORGANIC LOADING (gCOD/gMLVSS)Reactor 1

MLVSS (mg/D14,30016,1003,800

4,5504,0504,071

4,6693,92f4,496

LOADING0.0350.0420.1650.1520.1910.1900.144

0.381

0.148

Reactor 2MLVSS (mg/1)

8,3004,0002,800

2,7502,9002,419

2,336

2,092

2,628

LOADING

0.061

0.1690.224

0.2510.2660.3190.287

0.715

0.254

WEEKS 1-5: Acclimization Period

WEEKS 6-9: Design/ Performance Data

LOADING = COD CONC. x FLOW RATEx CYCLES

OPERATING TIME=MLVSS x VOLUME x OPERATING TIME

Weeks 1 thru 6 & 8: 5 days/week*Weeks 7 & 9: 6 days/week

WEEK1

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

WEEK 4

WEEKS

r WEEK 6

WEEK?

L

00

WEEKS

WEEK 9

c

TABLE4HOD TREATEBILITYSTUDYInfluent CharacterizationData

DATE

14-DCC-92lS-Dec-9216-Dcc-9217-Dcc-9218-Dec-9221-Dec-9222-Dec-9223-Dcc-9224-Dec-9225-DCC-9228-Dec-9229-Dec-9230-Dec-9231-DCC-9201 -Jan -9304-Jan-9305-Jan-9306-Jan-9307-Jan-9308-Jan-9311 -Jan -9312-Jan-9313-Jan-9314-Jan-9315-Jan-9318-Jan-9319-Jan-9320-Jan-9321-Jan-9322-Jan-9325-Jan-9326-Jan-9327-Jan-9328_Jan-9329- Jan -93Ol-Feb-9302-Fcb-9303-Fcb-9304-Feb-9305-Fcb-9308-Fcb-9309-Feb-9310-Feb-93ll-Fcb-9312-Feb-93

INFLUENTPH

7.0727.1

72

7.67.058.1

72

72

NH3-N(nw/n

330252300

260

330310270

250

320

330

190

500

COD(ntfl)

1,640

1,520

1,260

1,420

1,500

1,500

2,180

2,240

2,907

3,120

TSS(nw/H

113

122

320

540

158186

210

175

112

144

Alk(n*/l)

1,400

1,400

1,900

1,500

BOD0*t/l)

1,085

797.6

1275

N.AT*)

Phenoiics(mgj\)

0.83

1.9

1.0

2.1

O&G(ms/1)

-6

20

-6

23

Phosph.(mg/n

0.63

0.73

0.52

0.66

TKN(mg/1)

203

169

191

25.4

CN-(mRl)

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

NOTES:I WEEKS 1 through 5- ACCLIMIZATION Period__________

pWEEKS 6 throujjh 9- DESIGN/PERFORMANCE Data Collection

N.A-(') BOD could not be analyzed due to power outage at laboratory.

f •TABLE 5

HOD TREATEBILITY STUDYReactor 1 Performance Data

DAlb

14- Dec- 9215- Dec- 9216- Dec- 9217- Dec- 9218- Dec- 9221-Dec-9222- Dec- 9223- Dec- 9224- Dec- 9225- Dec- 9228- Dec- 9229- Dec- 9230- Dec- 9231-Dec-92Ol-Jan-9304- Jan- 9305- Jan- 9306- Jan- 9307- Jan- 9308- Jan- 93ll-Jan-9312- Jan-9313- Jan- 9314- Jan- 9315- Jan- 9318- Jan- 9319- Jan- 9320- Jan- 9321-Jan-9322- Jan-9325- Jan- 9326- Jan- 9327- Jan- 9328- Jan- 9329- Jan- 93Ol-Feb-9302-Feb-9303-Feb-9304-Feb-9305-Feb-9308-Feb-9309-Feb-9310-Feb-93ll-Feb-9312-Feb-93

REACTOR 1 -PH

8.78.58.68.48.38.28.4

8.08.28.18.2

8.37.98.18.08.18.08.08.08.17.77.87.37.97.68.08.07.97.88.18.18.08.18.28.28.27.47.47.27.275

IhMP(D1K/I)

15.816.316.812.1

16.817.515.218.6

19.222.017.520.519.216.518.721.621.316.323.619.418.217.318.319.917.818.819.621.518.118.119.219.628.617.517.618.017.4183

VOLUME(mg/1)

5.756.005.755.755.755.505.80

5.506.006.005.75

5.505.755.755.755.755.505.755.755:755.755.505.755.755.755.755.755.755.505.755.505.405.755.755.755.755.505.755.505.755.50

DO(me/1)

9.59.47.48.0

9.110.09.49.0

9.68.99.07.38.98.99.38.88.59.47.68.49.08.29.48.07.88.88.48.48.68.89.49.06.69.28.89.69.38.7

NH3-N(De«.C)

6848-5-5-5-570

-5-5-5-5

-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-515-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5_^_ c_c

-5-5'-5-5-5-5

COD(lit era)

320270

360270

247210

235

180

210

250225

235

225

260

295260

320

205220

250

245150

170

140

MLTSS(mi/I)

43,800

40,700

11,050

11,500

8,900

9,500

9.400

10.900

8.1008,273

8.200

MLVSS(mi/I)

14,300

16,100

3,800

4,550

3,700

4,400

4200

5,200

4,1004,391

4600

- EFFLUENTl»

(rnc/D

-16

27944

-16

-16

-16

-16

-16-16

-16

-16-16

-16

-16-16

-16

29-16

-16

-16-16

-16

-16

A Ik(me/I)

400

500500

300

400

300

200

200200

200

300

BOD Phenolic*(nut/1) (me/I)

5.375

9.9

3.0

N-A^

0.014

0.01S

0.015

0.012

O&G(mc/I)

-6

12

-6

12

Phosph.(mc/n

0.18

0.26

0.33

048

TKN(mn/D

7.4

5.8

8.6

1 i

CN-(mx/l)

-0.010

-0.010

-0.020

-0010

WEEK1

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

WEEK 4

WEEKS

WEEK 6

WEEK?

WEEKS

WEEK 9

NOTES:WEEKS I through 5- ACCU Ml ZAT1ON Period |WEEKS 6through 9- DESIGN/PERFORMANCE Data Collection |

N-A.(') BOD could not be analyzed due to fJbwer outage * laboratory.Negative sign(-) indicates that parameter was below laboratory detection limki.

TABLE 6HOD TREATEBILITY STUDY

Reactor 2 Performance Data

UAlb

14- Dec-9215-Dec-9216- Dec- 9217-Dec-9218- Dec-9221-Dec-9222- Dec- 9223- Dec- 9224- Dec- 9225- Dec- 9228- Dec- 92.29- Dec- 9230- Dec- 9231-Dec-92Ol-Jan-9304- Jan- 9305- Jan- 9306- Jan- 9307- Jan- 9308- Jan- 9311- Jan-9312- Jan- 9313- Jan- 9314- Jan- 9315- Jan- 9318- Jan- 9319- Jan- 9320- Jan-9321-Jan-9322- Jan-9325- Jan- 9326- Jan- 9327- Jan- 9328- Jan- 9329- Jan- 93Ol-Feb-9302-Feb-9303-Feb-9304-F«b-9305-Feb-9308-Feb-9309-Feb-9310-Feb-93Il-Feb-9312-Feb-93

REACTOR #2pk

8.88.68.58.38.48.18.4

7.88.48.27.8

8.48.08.17.78.08.08.18.27.97.97.88.38.38.38.47.68.07.58.27.78.27.98.08.27.77.67.77.77.37.6

ItMP(mg/l)

15.016.116.212.7

30.217.217.826.0

18.120.219.420.419.216.517.417.117.821.317.015.815.818.723.824.717.618.419.520.617.817.821.218.221.720.917.917.917.417.3

VOLUME(mtfl)

5.756.005.502.755.505.256.00

3.006.006.005.75

5.006.005.755.755.755.505.755.755.755.505.505.755.755.755.755.505.905.505.755.505.405.755.755.755.755.505.755.505.755.50

DO(fflK/D

9.69.09.67.6

6.510.28.26.0

9.88.68.46.48.99.39.39.58.18.48.79.69.18.38.07.38.58.77.58.28.88.58.69.47.48.18.99.89.38.8

NH3-N(De*.C)

9410058-560-585

-5758825

-5454528-5-5454351-5-5105150150160,-5503265-5-53220-515-5-5-5-5_ r

CODOften)

347340

270

320

260

250

305305

270

300

515

380350

240

265315

350

335205

200

175

MLTSS(me/!)

25,000

13,800

7,800

7,300

6,300

8,000

6,100

5,400

4,3004,200

5.100

MLVSS(me/D

8,300

4,000

2,800

2,750

2,500

3,300

2.800

2,700

2.4002,355

2.900

TSS(me/0

2522

-16

18

-16

1723

-16

28-16

36

-16-16

19

24-16

-16

-16-16

-16

17

Alkrmc/D

400500

300

300

200300

300

100

BOD Phenolic*(rae/H 1 (oiK/l)

9.025

13.2

3.7

N.Af*>

V

0.034

0.0069

0.042

0.012

o&c(mc/D

8

6

-6

9

Phosph.(m«/D

0.22

0.26

0.27

0.13

TKN(me/1)

93.5

27.8

13.6

3.5

CN-(mK/I)

-0.010

-0.011

-0.020

-0.011

WEEKl

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

WEEK 4

WEEKS

WEEK 6

WEEK?

WEEKS

WEEK 9

NOTES:WEEKS 1 through 5- ACCUMIZATION PeriodWEEKS 6 through 9- DESIGN/ PERFORMANCE Data Collection

N-A.(') BOD could not be analyzed due to power outage at laboratory.Negative sign (- ) indicate* that parameter was below the laboratory detection limits.

r

L

Table 7HOD TREATABILITY STUDY

Total Toxic Organics Results

Page 1 of 2

PARAMETER(ue/H

PesticidesAlpha BHCBeuBHCDelta BHCgamma BHC (Lindane )HeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor eporideEndosulfan IDieldnn4,4'- DDEEndrinEndotulfan II4,4' -ODDEndosulfan sulfate4,4' -DOTMethoxychlorEndrin aldehydealpha -Chtordanegamma -ChlordaneToxapheneAroclor-1016Aroclor-1221Aroclor-1232Arocior-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-1260

Vola tilesChloro methaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetone1,1 - Dichloroelhene1,1 - Dichloroe thane1,2- Dichloroelhene (Total)Chloroform1,2-Dichloroelhane1,1,1 -TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideBromodichloromethane1,2— Dichloropropanecis— 13~ DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneDibromochloromelhane1,1,2-TrichlorocthaneBenzenetrans- 13- DichloropropeneBromoformTetrachloroethene1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTolueneChloro benzeneEthyl benzeneXylene (total)AcroleinAcrylonitrileDichlofodifluoromeihaneTrichlorofluoromethane2-Chloroelhylvinylether2,3,7,8- TCDD(Dk>xnO

REACTOR 1(1/22/93)

-0.043-0.043-0.043-0.043-0.043-0.043-0.043-0.043-0.086-0.086-0.086-0.086-0.086-0.086-0.086-0.43

-0.036-0.43-0.43-0.86-0.43-0.43-0.43-0.43-0.43-0.86-0.86

-10-10-10-10-5

19(B)-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5

-500-100-20-10-10

-0.0006

(2/5/93)

-0.52-0.52-0.52-0.52-0.52-0.52-0.52

-0.052-0.10-0.10-0.10-0.10-0.10-0.10-0.10-0.52-0.10-0.52-0.52-1.0-5.2-5.2-5.2-5.2-5.2-1.0-1.0

-10-10-10-10-5

-10-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5

-500-100-20-10-10

-0.0003

REACTOR 2(l/29#3)

-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0

-0.20-2.0

-0.20-0.20-0.20-0.20-0.20-1.0

-0.20-10-10

-2.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.0-2.0-2,0

-10-10-10-10

"KB)32(B)

-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5

-500-100-20-10-10

-0.0003

(2/12/93)

-0.040-0.040-0.040-0.040-0.040-0.040-0.040-0.040-0.081-0.081-0.081-0.081-0.081-0.081-0.081-0.040-0.081-0.040-0.040-0.81-0.40-0.40-0.40-0.40-0.40-0.81-0.81

52-10-10-10-530-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5

-500-100-20-10-10

-0.0007(B) indicates that parameter was detected in laboratory blank.- indicates that parameter was below the laboratory detection limits.

t •

cir

i ;I „

0-

Table 7HOD TREATABILITY STUDY

Total Toxic Organics Results

Page 2 of 2

PARAMETERfUE/11

Scmivda tilesPhenolbis(2-Chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol1,3- Dichlorobcnzene1,4- Dichlorobenzene1,2- Dichlorobenzenebis (2-diloroisopropyl)ether .N — Nitroso - Di - n — propyii mineHexach loroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4- Dimethylphenolbis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane2,4 - Dichlorophenoi1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthaleneHexach lonobu tadiene4-Chloro- 3- methylphenolHexach lorocyclopcnladicne2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2-ChloronaphthaleneDimethylphthalateAcenaphlhytene2,6- DinitrotolueneAcenaphthene2,4 — Dinitrophenol4— Nitrophenol2,4 — DinitrotolueneDiethylphlhalatc4— Chlorophcnol-phenyicthcrFlourene4,6- Dinitro -2- methylphenolN - Nitrosodiphenylamine4— Bromophenyl -phenytethcrHexachlorobenzenePentachlorophenol -PhenanthreneAnthraceneDi -n - ButylphthalateFlouranlhenePyreneButyl benzylphthalatc3,3'- DichlorobenzJdineBcnzo (a)anthraceneChrysenebis (2-Bhylhexyl)phthalalcDi-n-Octyl phthalateBenzo (b) fluorantheneBenzo (k) fluoranlheneBenzo (a)pyreneIndeno (l,2,3-cd)pyreneDibenzo(a,h) anthraceneBenzo(gji,i)perylene1,2- DiphenylhydrazioeN — NitrosodimethyiamineBenzidine

Detected TTO (mg/1)Maximum Detection Limit (mg/l)Antioch't Limits

REACTOR 1H/22/93}

-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-50-50-10-10-10-10-50-10-10-10-50-10-10-10-10-10-10-20-10

_ -10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10

-1000.019(8)

-0.52.13

(2/5/931

-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-75-75-15-15-15-15-75-15-15-15-75-15-15-15-15-15-15-30-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15

- -15-15-15-15

-1500

-0.52.13

REACTOR 2O/29/93)

-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-70-70-14-14-14-14-70-14-14-14-70-14-14-14-14-14-14-28-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14

-1400.042(8)

-0.52.13

(2/12/93)

-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9

-46-46-9-9-9-9

-46-9-9-9

-46-9-9-9-9-9-9

-19-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9

-930.082-0.52.13

(B) indicates that parameter was detected in laboratory blank.- indicates that parameter was below the laboratory detection limits.

Li

"'7

TABLESHOD TREATABILFTY STUDY

Metals Removal Data

PARAMETER

Arsenic, Total

Cadmium, Tola!Chromium, TotalCopper, TotalIron, TotalMercury, TotalManganese, TotalNickel, TotalLead, TotalSelenium, Tola!Zinc, TotalTOTAL

ANTIOCHLIMFTS

(mg/00.1

0.51.01.0

10.00.0005

1.00.80.61.01.0

INFLUENT (mg/1)WEEK

60.0074

-0.0050-0.020

0.07224

0.000640.35

0.052-0.050-0.002

0.63-25.189

7-0.020

-o.obso-0.020

0.09940.6

0.00094

0.610.035

-0.050-0.0020

0.67-42.112

80.0029

-0.0050-0.020

0.028

020-0.00020

-0.0100.051

-0.050-0.0020

0.044-0.4131

90.013

-0.0050-0.020

0.05842.1

0.00160.66

0.044

-0.050-0.0020

0.39-43.344

AVO-0.0108-0.005-0.02

0.06425

26.725-0.0008-0.4075

0.0455-0.05

-0.0020.4335

-27.764

REACTOR #1 (mg/1)WEEK

60.0064

-0.0050-0.020

-0.0200.23

-0.00020-0.010

0.041-0.050

-0.00200.056

-0.4406

7-0.020

-0.0050-0.020-0.020

0.59-0.00020

-0.0100.032

-0.050-0.0020

0.043-0.7922

80.0029

-0.0050-0.020

0.028

0.20-0.00020

-0.0100.051

-0.050-0.0020

0.044-0.4131

90.0024

-0.0050-0.020

-0.0200.21

-0.00020-0.010

0.05-0.050

-0.00200.060

-0.4296

AVG-OXW9

-O.OIK-0.02

•-0.0220-3075

-OXWtt-wa0.0435HMJ5

-6-MB0.05075-0.5189

REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 98.1%

REACTOR #2 (mg/1)WEEK

60.0067

-0.0050-0.020

0.0232.3

-0.00020-0.010

0.052-0.050

-0.00200.081

-2.5499

7-0.020

-0.0050-0.020

0.0210.89

-0.000200.0190.038

-0.050-0.0020

0.062-1.1472

80.0033

-0.0050-0.020

0.0341

-0.000200.0170.052

-0.050-0.0020

0.079-1.2625

9

0.0050-0.0050-0.020-0.020

0.21-0.00020

-0.0100.043

-0.050-0.0020

0.052-0.4172

AVG-0.0088-0.005-0.02

-0.0245

1.1-0.0002-0.014

0.04625-0.05

-0.0020.0735

-1.3442

REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 95.2%Negative sign (-) indicates that parameter was below laboratory detection limits.

TABLE 9HOD TREATABILITY STUDYSludge Yield (g MLVSS/g COD)

WEEK

WEEK #6

WEEK #1

WEEK #8

WEEK #9

AVERAGE

REACTOR 1LOADING

(g COD/g MLVSS)

0.190

0.144

0.381

0.148

0.216

OBSERVED YIELD(g MLSS/g COD)

0.400

0.450

0.085

0.094

0.257

(g MLVSS/g COD)

0.136

0.291

0.075

0.114

0.154

REACTOR 2LOADING

(g CODyfe MLVSS)^

0.319

0.287

0.715

0.254

0.394

OBSERVED YIELD(g MLSS/g COD)

0.485

0.306

0.141

0.294

0.307

(g MLVSS^ COD)

0.304

0.201

0.109

0.176

0.198

TABLE 10HOD Treatability Study

Design / Operating Parameters

ITEM

Loading (F:M)

Sludge Age

Dissolved Oxygen

Design Feed Strength

Aeration Type

Operational pH Range

Nutrients

pH ControlSludge Settleability

% COD Reduction

DESIGN

0. 1 - 0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS- day

> 20 days

>2.0mg/l

COD = 5,000 mg/1

NH4 = 350 mg/1

Fine Bubble

7.0-8.0

COD:N:P = 200:5:1

NecessaryFlocculant and/orpartial anoxic fill

>90%

FIGURE 1Reactor Design/ Set-up

FEED PUMP

LEACHATEFEED

MIXER

FLOW METER

AIR

AIR DIFFUSER

DECANT

HOD LANDFILLLEACHATE TREATABIUTY STUDY

EFFLUENT COD CONCENTRATION (mg/1)

1m

ro•OCDO

CDro

COiOCDOiCON>

roo>iOCDOCOl\3

OroD>DCOCO

OCO

03i

COCO

o>dQ>3COCO

roCO•c_0>3iCOCO

COOc_0)3COCO

Oen

CDCTcbCO

CO

CDCTI

COCO

enoo

oooenoo

roooo

roenoo

CO"ooo

COenoo

0• I

-

*

*»

4 -̂

*- <^

- +>

+>

+>•

- +•

• +>

* 1

+>

• ̂

- >+

- 4^

*>•

4^-

»^

- 4>

- +>

D

D

[

[

D

D

)

]

13

?CIN.

D

D

>• 43 3}

i S! §} 33) -»•

D

n

Tl

T1

1

D

1

>Of*.;LIMIZATIC

zTJmDO0•O-

rDESIG

N/ 1>ER

FOR

M/

Om

|->-

r

i

OO

0 u.j

a >2 2 53 r m2 H ro

"^ 04J

3D JO• •B »o oo o

00 CD^Pu 01

T)m

2

500

-» 450

w

O

• • 4 0 0

cc

UJO

OO

zO

111D

111

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

FIGURE 3HOD TREATABILITY STUDY

Ammonia Removal DESIGN/PERFORMANCE DATAAMMONIA REMOVALReactor 1- 98.8%Reactor 2- 90.0%

—— w+—

V, , , i , A

AC

n———— D ———

——— D ————

I

•* A

, AAA i .

CLIMIZAT

D

••

•, A A A A i

ON PERIO

DD

D

***

, A A A A A

D————— *

n

———— D ———

—— *V—» A A A *

D

n

——— ~^

•

[SIGN/ PEF

•—— « ———•

FORMANC :E DATA————— ̂

D INFLUENT

A REACTOR 1

* REACTOR 2

. A A A A ! , A A A A A

12-Dec-92 19-Dec-92 26-Dec-92 02-Jan-93 09-Jan-93 16-Jan-93 23-Jan-93 30-Jan-93 06-Feb-93 13-Feb-93

DATE


Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 1

Q>D)•o35)

IUUU T.

900 -

800 -

700 -

600 -

500 -

400 -

300 -

200 -

100 -

n

J fc t

Ra

* I

e =

\ >

1

J

I f

t

flir

s ii

(82

,^ •J — i

l

> n

i{

ii

I/ft

s j5 ci

!

>

9 [

ii

/

5 t

1 ,

I <r

L-H

i -L

"-i

^

» jJ

1 ,

i

fc

]

1

*

1

c

1

^

]

l

<

«

— c

1

/

b

p —

1

i

— 1

1

10 15

Time (minutes)20 25 30

Week 4 a Week 5 * Week 6 O Week 7 * Week 8 A Week 9


Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 2

900 -

800 -

700 -

•§• 600 -

15 500 -«

"§ 400 -55

300 -

200 -

100 -

n

j

1

t

'

1

1

<^

1 '

i

'

• cp

ij4

1

s r

H

• J*

ui

. ;

t <• ^

^

^̂s-1

|;1

51 l

1» '

1 i

;-,

<

' i

t

i |

c _[

/

i |

3—

S

-

Ri

j

ite

]

1

« 7

i

.3 t/hi (8

—— [

<

iI

25

] —

/

>

il

ml/f )

[

/

-!

10 15

Time (minutes)

20 25

Week4 D Weeks * Week 6 o Week 7 ± Week 8 A Week 9

30

600

500COD Limit*429 mg/l

~ 400

3oE<Ooo0)

LU

300

200

100

0.0


Design Loading Selection

O Effluent COD (mg/l)• Effluent Ammonia (mg/l)

Design Loading ——< 0.6 gCOD/gMLVSS

NH4 Limit20 mg/l

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Loading (gCOD/gMLVSS)

0.7 0.8

* Based on BOD:COD ratio of 0.7 (BOD Limit = 300mg/l)

r

GLOSSARY

Anoxic: Conditions present in the reactor when aeration is not supplied and there is no freeoxygen available for bacteria.

Biomass: The active bacteria and inert solids present in the aeration tank.

BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand. The amount of oxygen required by microorganismsto degrade the pollutants in wastewater.

Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand: The amount of oxygen required by bacteria to degrade thecarbon • containing pollutants in wastewaters.

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand. The equivalent amount of oxygen required to degradethe organic pollutants in a wastewater after oxidation by strong chemicals, such as potassiumpermanganate.

' COD:N:P The ratio of organics to nitrogen to phosphorus, which is used as a guideline for,- balancing the nutrient requirements for bacterial growth.

Extended Aeration: A form of activated sludge process which keeps the bacteria in theaeration tank an extended period of time to allow them enough time to degrade pollutantsin wastewaters.

[ Loading (gCOD/gMLVSS-day): The ratio of the organic strength of a wastewater (COD)[ to the active bacteria (MLVSS) available in the reactor to degrade the organics over a

certain amount of time.

1 MLVSS: Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids. The concentration of volatile solids inan aeration tank of an activated sludge process, representing the amount of active bacteria

T~ in the aeration tank that is capable of utilizing wastewater as their food source.!

MLTSS: Mixed Liquor Total Suspended Solids. The amount of total solids in an aerationi tank of an activated sludge process, representing the amount of active and dead bacteria,! in addition to solids of inert nature (such as clay particles and metal hydroxides).

j Nitrification: The aerobic biological oxidation of nitrogenous organic compounds such asi ammonia (NH3) to nitrate (NO3").r __

} ~ Nitrogenous Oxygen Demand: The amount of oxygen required by bacteria to degrade the*j nitrogen - containing pollutants in wastewaters.f ^1 Organics: Any compound that is made up of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen.i

t 'i

Polymer flocculant: A manufactured chemical compound added to wastewater to enhancesettleability.

POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works. A term referring to most municipal wastewatertreatment plants.

QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control. The process used to ensure quality of workis properly maintained.

Settleability: The ability of the bacteria to settle and separate from the treated wastewaterunder tranquil conditions after treatment.

' SBR: Sequencing Batch Reactor. An activated sludge process accomplished by a singlereactor, which serves as both the aeration tank and settling tank.

i1 SBR Cycle: The operational sequence for a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) consisting ofthe following process steps: Fill, React, Settle, Decant, Sludge Removal.

Seed: Bacteria which has been acclimated to certain kinds of pollutants in wastewaters and.. is used to facilitate the degradation of those pollutants.

' Sludge Age: The average time (days) which bacterial mass remain an aeration tank of an? active sludge process. Sludge age depends on how much sludge is produced (Sludge Yield)< and how often sludge is removed.

i Sludge Production: In a biological wastewater treatment process, bacteria use organics and; nutrients in wastewater as their food source for their growth. The amount of bacterial mass

increase is called sludge production.

[ Sludge Yield: The increase in bacterial mass increase due to the ingestion of certainamounts of organics as their food source.

L Supernatant/ Decant: The clear upper portion of a settled mixed liquor taken from anaeration tank.

l TTO: Total Toxic Organics. The sum of concentrations of all detectable priority pollutantsorganics and dioxin.

0

leachate treatability study · hod leachate pretreatment process and/or to develop modifications to...

Documents