Document dn1BNb3zyMZ5Znro2BgqZJJ6b

.PROGRESS REPORT TECHNICAL SCRVI^Cg 0 (\M f \D ^ J^RUNMIOCM PLANT | " 0131| 1 : 4 ] 119 1 REPORT NO. IDATE 1 _____5___;I 1 / 6 771- w.di Plant OENERAL OFFICE OTHERS 0G.L. Bratsch *H D.W. Jackson D P.E.Heisler Hffl w.C.Engman G3 B.W.Corlew *a B 6Q .B 'B 'B 1B B B ' Q to B 'B . 'B B ' *B M. P. LUX EB D. Danna (4) Anniston BD J.C. Landwehr D.B. Hosmer/ Nitro F.J. Holzapfel `QQW.R. Kellogg B R.E. Howard S. 2nd St. @ P.B.Hodges iS P. 0. DeGarao . W.Papageorge *DT.M. Patrick B' i B *B * J.F. Quinn B : "V. . ' B B B TO RECEIVE DETAIL SECTION *0 , ' *B . H N R.L. Wiese *B TITLEl Aroclor Removal Experiment - WGK Waste Water PERSONNEL! M. Poresman (C. F. Buckley) PROBLEM! Removal of Aroclor from WGK Waste Water SUMMARY During December 1970, a large scale experiment was conducted at the Village of Sauget Waste Treatment Plan to evaluate whether Aroclor in acidic waste waters could be effectively reduced by precipitation and settling of Ca++, Mg++, etc. when the waste water is neutralized by the addition of lime. The experiment was conducted for a total of 72 hours with the amount of waste water neutralized averaging 23.3 MGD. A total of 90 samples were collected from the influent and effluent. Eighteen shift samples covering the 72-hour period were analyzed for Aroclor and removal efficiencies were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Aroclor removal efficiency not increased by neutralization. 2. Further analysis of samples not justified because consistent results were obtained from the 18-shift samples. Mike Foresman Pollution Control SVV 297244 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This dooNweat la the property el Hiaurti P--paay mad the reelptoat to raapoaafeto for ita aafeheeptos aad diapoettloa. It cowtatoa coeflde* Ual tofenaatloa el Meoaaato Coaptqi which moat mat ha wpwlmal, revealed teaaaathortoed peraeaa or aaat outetde the coaapaay wither prepet aathortoetlea. Either retain to eecure Alaa or deetroy. ' _______ FORM K r0 REV--E/M - STLCOPCB4067154 91341:4119 (5) AROCLOR REMOVAL EXPERIMENT PURPOSE: To conduct a large scale' experiment under field conditions to determine If Aroclor In acidic waste waters can be re duced by precipitation of Ca++ and Mg++, etc. when the waste water is neutralized by the addition of lime. DISCUSSION: The test was conducted at the Sauget Village Treatment Plant for a period of 72 hours starting on Tuesday morning, Dec ember 15, at 8:00 A.M. The pH of the total influent to the treatment plant was controlled to between six and nine by the addition of lime from Department 265. Samples of the influent and effluent at the treatment plant were collected by automatic samplers and analyzed for Aroclor content. PROCEDURE: .........1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. On December 15, at 8:00 A.M., lime was added to the treatment plant influent in a quantity sufficient to maintain the pH between six and nine. Department personnel were required to regulate the addition of lime to the north area sewer. 2. After the pH of the influent had stabilized between six and nine (approximately two hours), continuous hourly samples and composite shift samples were collected at the influent and effluent to the , treatment plant. 3. The pH of the influent was monitored with a recording pH meter con nected to the Parshall flume at the treatment plant. Monsanto per sonnel monitored the pH meter so that fluctuations in pH were con trolled by regulating the lime addition from Department 265. 4. After the test had been in progress for 16 hours, the two sets of shift samples were analyzed by the laboratory. The results showed that the removal efficiency was not significantly greater than the control efficiency so it was decided to continue the test for the full 72-hour period/ . 5. A control removal efficiency was calculated as 6^1.256 by using data from unneutralized influent and effluent samples analyzed during the last six months. 6. All samplers used were reconditioned, using new tubing and each sample was collected in a separate clean bottle to insure that Aroclor con tamination did not occur. ! .. , 7. All of the shift samples were analyzed by the laboratory with a total of 12 shift samples analyzed for a 48-hour test, or 18 samples for a 72-hour test.. If the results of these samples were not consistent, selected houriy samples could be analyzed as needed to establish the Aroclor removal efficiency. . DSW 297245 STLCOPCB4067155 91341:4119 (5) * Page Three 1/6/71 TABLE 1. AROCLOR CONTENT SHIFT SAMPLES INFLUENT SAMPLES SAMPLE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ' PCB (ppb) 1 Day - 12/15 170 2 Middle - 12/15 241 3 Late - 12/15 4, Day - 12/16 5 Middle - 12/16 6 Late - 12/16 802 69 249 107;- 7 Day - 12/17 8 Middle - 12/17 147 206 9 Late - 12/17 106 TYPE 1242 1242 1242 1242 1242 1242 1242 1242 1242 EFFLUENT SAMPLES 10 Day - .12/15 11 Middle - 12/15 12 Late - 12/15 13 Day - 12/16 - 14 Middle - 12/16 15 Late - 12/16 16 . Day - 12/17 17 . Middle - 12/17 18 Late - 12/17 r '' 5 1242 121 1242 375 1242 18 1242 70 1242 42 1242 145 1242 149 1242 356 1242 DSW 297246 STLCOPCB4067156 91341:4119 (5) Page Pour 1/6/71 TABLE #2. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY - SHIFT SAMPLES # INFLUENT 1 170 2 24l 3 802 4 ' 69 5 249 6 107 7 147 8 206 9 106 EFFLUENT % REMOVED (1.0 EFF/INF) 10 5 97.1 11 121 49.8 12 375 53.3 13 18 74.0 14 70 71.9 15 42 16 145 60.8 _* 17 149 18 356 27.7 _ Ave. (7 samples) 62.0% * Increase in Aroclor content from influent to effluent due to scour and short circuiting of settling basins. DS\N 297247 \ STLCOPCB4067157 <L# STLCOPCB4067158 91341:4119 (5) Page Six 1/6/71 SUMMARY: - The eighteen shift samples collected during the 72-hour period of the experiment were analyzed by the WGK laboratory for Aroclor content with the results as shown In table #1. The removal efficiencies were calculated for each shift and then averaged as shown in table #2. Because of the wide range in Aroclor content of the shift samples (5 ppb-------^-375 ppb), a second method was used to calculate the removal efficiency. Influent and effluent curves were plotted as Aroclor content (ppb) versus time and then a total removal efficiency was calculated by using the areas under both curves as shown in figure #1. This method gave an Aroclor removal efficiency of 44# as compared to a 62# removal efficiency when calculated as shown in table #2. More sophisticated methods of data analysis were not justified due to the small number of samples analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The neutralization of the treatment plant influent did not increase the removal of Aroclor in the settling basins. Efficiency calculated at 62# compared to 64# for unneutralized influent. ' 2. Because the average removal efficiency was lower than the control, further analysis of the hourly samples is not justified. DSW 297249 STLCOPCB4067159