Leachate Treatability Study

HOD LANDFILL Antioch, Illinois

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

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

Prepared by:

RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. Formerly SEC Donohve, Inc. Solid Waste Division 1240 Dichl Road • Naperville, Illinois 60563 • 708/955-6600

March 1993 Waste Management of North America- Midwest HOD LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY [; tr Project No. 70006

0 n I : ri •

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

MARCH 1993 0.0 Executive Summary

A treatability study was conducted for HOD Landfill to determine the ability of a preliminary treatment facility design to reduce contaminants to limits acceptable for discharge 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 Oxygen Demand (COD)/g Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS) per day and the r reactors were monitored for treatability performance and optimal operating conditions. r: 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 conservative purposes. The reactor will be capable of successfully operating at varying loadings between 0.1-0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS with a pH range of 7.0-8.0 and temperature between 20-30 *C in the reactor. 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 process efficiency and reduce effluent concentrations. In addition, when a high concentration of MLVSS is maintained in the reactor, sludge settling is hindered. Therefore, polymer n flocculant should be added prior to decanting the effluent, or the reactor can be initially fed under 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 achieved o at all loading conditions tested. Metals were reduced by > 95% and virtually no Total Toxic Organic (TTO) parameters (with the exception of 0.052 mg/1 chloromethane and 0.030 mg/1 o acetone), were detected in one sample. As seen in Table 11, all results showed excellent ii compliance with all limits established by the City of Antioch.

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). II HOD LANDFILL LEACHATE 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 ...... 2 2.1 Sampling/ Analytical Protocol ...... 2 2.2 Reactor Description/ Operation ...... 2 2.3 Feed Composition ...... 3 2.4 Data Collection ...... 4 2.5 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) ...... 4

3.0 Experimental Results ...... :. 5 3.1 COD/BOD Reduction ...... 5 3.2 Ammonia Reduction ...... 5 3.3 Total Toxic Organic Results ...... 6 3.4 Metals Reduction ...... 6 3.5 Operating Parameter Results ...... 6 3.5.1 Sludge Age ...... 6 3.5.2 Sludge Yield ...... 6 3.5.3 Settleability ...... 8

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

5.0 Summary/ Conclusions ...... 9 Ill HOD LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Operational Schedule Table 2 Sampling/ Operational Protocol Table 3 Weekly Feed Composition Table 4 Influent Performance Data Table 5 Reactor 1 Performance Data Table 6 Reactor 2 Performance Data rr Table 7 Total Toxic Organics Table 8 Metals Removal Data Table 9 Sludge Yields Table 10 Leachate Treatability Summary Table 11 Design/ Operating Parameters

D LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Reactor Design/ Set-up Figure 2 COD Removal tr Figure 3 Ammonia Removal Figure 4 Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 1 R Figure 5 Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 2 Figure 6 Design Loading Selection (COD/ Ammonia)

APPENDIX APPENDIX GLOSSARY

L 1.0 INTRODUCTION/ PURPOSE

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

Initial analysis of HOD wastewater has previously indicated that it will be necessary to pretreat 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). TTO serves as an indicator of strength and toxicity for industrial discharges. While discharge standards are not specified for landfill leachates, 40CFR413.14 (f) (g) established an EPA industrial discharge guideline of 2.13-4.57 mg/1.

A treatment process consisting of equalization followed by clarification and subsequent treatment via use of a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) has been initially proposed for wastewater pretreatment. The SBR would be typically operated as an extended aeration, high sludge age system (> 25 days) to maximize treatment efficiency. However, two pilot scale reactors were operated at varying loading (0.1-0.7 gCOD/gMLVSS) conditions to determine the design performance at high and low loading rates. The treatability study was conducted over a nine week period, with five weeks for acclimization and four weeks for design/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 MLVSS concentration. Influent leachate used during the study was taken from HOD's on-site storage 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) went to HOD Landfill in Antioch, Illinois to collect leachate to be used for the treatability study. Leachate was pulled from three areas of the landfill: twenty-five (25) gallons of leachate were composited from Piezometers 2A and 3A; twenty-five (25) gallons were 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 laboratory at CID Biological Treatment Facility (BTF) in Calumet City, Illinois and kept in cold storage (to inhibit natural biodegradation and prevent the release of volatile 0 compounds) for use during the nine week study. 0 Biomass 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 1 i.. describes the feed that was used during the two phases of the study, acclimatization, c 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

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

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILL 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 present in the reactors (as ammonia) so there was no need to supplement the feed in order to maintain the necessary 200:5 ratio of COD:Nitrogen. pH levels were regulated between 7.5 and 8.5 by adding hydrochloric acid to the reactors. Defoaming agent was used on an as-needed basis (typically 1 drop per day) to minimize sludge loss. f; Reactors 1 and 2 were operated in a batch mode, feeding 2.5 to 3 liters per cycle to each reactor with 3 to 5 cycles per week, depending on the feed composition (see n Section 2.3). Reactor 1 was designed to operate with a MLVSS concentration of 4,000 mg/1 and achieve a loading rate of 0.2 gCOD/gMLVSS-day. Reactor 2 was designed to operate with a MLVSS concentration of 2,000 mg/1 and to achieve a loading rate of and 0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS-day. Reactors were generally idle one day a week (Sunday) to facilitate monitoring and testing. o Both reactors were initially seeded with three (3) liters of sludge taken from CID's I full scale process and operated with an initial target 25 day sludge age. This was i; achieved by removing a predetermined amount of sludge on a weekly basis. 2.3 Feed Composition r' As shown in Table 1, the study was designed to operate under varying influent composition tojaccount for the variation in the site's leachate quality that would be expected during full-scale operation. COD was analyzed to determine the organic strength of the three leachate components (Piezometers, Manholes, and Tank). Based on the combined feed strength, the SBR cycle time and the feed volumes were adjusted to maintain constant loading rates from week to week. Table 3 presents the weekly feed composition, combined influent strength (based on COD concentrations G in the Piezometer, Manhole, and Tank leachates), as well as the weekly cycle time. i .'• NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOOLANDTTLL UUCBATt TKEATAMOJIYStVOT r : 2.4 Data Collection

Analytical work was conducted according to the sampling protocol outlined in Table 2. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH were monitored on a daily basis to ensure proper environmental operating conditions. Samples taken from the influent were typically prepared simultaneously with the feed. Reactor samples were taken at the end of each cycle while the supernatant was being decanted. Prior to decanting, n approximately 3.5 mg/1-wastewater polymer coagulant was added to each reactor and mixed liquor solids were allowed to settle.

During weeks 6, 7, 8, and 9, effluent from the reactors was refrigerated and weekly composite samples were sent to Weston Gulf Coast Laboratories for analysis. Sampling for Total Toxic Organics analysis was conducted at the end of the week, n immediately prior to sending the samples so that laboratory recommended holding times 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 Solid Waste (SW-846), Third Edition, and Standard Methods, 17th Edition. To ensure accurate, valid data, QA/QC procedures were used throughout the study. Both CID BTF and WESTON Gulf Coast have developed and implemented QA/QC programs to provide defensible data on a timely basis. All instruments are calibrated and checked on a daily basis, and Blanks, Duplicates, and Control standards are routinely analyzed to ensure accurate results. f1 L

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 throughout the 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 the influent leachate. The results, graphically presented in Figure 2, show a consistent reduction in COD concentrations. The influent COD ranged from 1,200 mg/1 to 3,120 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 on organic loading. Furthermore, BOD results consistently showed greater than 99% reduction with influent concentrations ranging from 798-1,275 mg/1, and average effluent concentrations of 6.1 mg/1 in Reactor 1, and 8.6 mg/1 in Reactor 2, well below Antioch's 300 mg/1 standard. r ^_ 32 Ammonia Reduction T: i L. 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 effluent r - ammonia concentrations in Reactor 1 were <5 mg/1, while ammonia levels averaged L <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 LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATAU1JTY STUDT 6 higher loaded system (Reactor 2) when pH levels exceeded 8.0. pH tends to increase during treatment as organic acids are released during biodegradation. As a result,

there is an increase in the concentration of unionized ammonia (NH3~ species) which tends 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. TTO represents 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 detectable limits 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 were detected in the two of the water blanks that was analyzed simultaneously. Therefore, it is possible, since acetone and methylene chloride are readily degradable, that the detection 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 consistently well 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 established by the City of Antioch.

NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). HOD LANDFILL LEACHATETKEATAMILrfY STUDY 3.5 Operating Parameter Results

Operating parameters were measured throughout the study to determine site-specific sludge yield and settling characteristics to be used in the design of the treatment facility.

3.5.1 Sludge Age Both reactors were designed to operate with an extended sludge age to accommodate both carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand, thus maximizing COD/BOD and Ammonia removal. The reactors were seeded from CID's full-scale reactors which operate with a minimum sludge age of 25 days. The average sludge age maintained in the reactors was a function of the sludge produced and removed during the study. Typically, lower loaded systems can operate with a longer sludge age. Based on the results of the study, the average sludge age in Reactors 1 and 2 was 35 days and 18 days, __ ^^ D respectively. The sludge age was lower in Reactor 2 because sludge was being i 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). tn ^ 3.5.2 Sludge Yield T -. \ The amount of sludge produced in each reactor typically depends on the loading conditions. Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS) and < Mixed Liquor Total Suspended Solids (MLTSS) were measured on a weekly basis 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 the I j volume of sludge used for analysis). The amount of sludge produced was 0.15 p 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, while lower loaded systems typically exhibit lower sludge yields.

3.5.3 Settleability The settleability of the biomass in the reactors was measured each week. For each 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 phases f~ of settling, unhindered settling and compression settling. The sludge settling 1 rate was determined from the unhindered settling zone to average 1.1 ft/hr t^ 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, when I 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 and L r ^_ operating conditions for the full-scale reactor. Based on the results of this study presented [ 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 conservative l_ 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 settling L rates, or the process can be operated with a partially anoxic fill. In addition, phosphorous

i NOTE: Bold items are defined in the Glossary (Appendix). BOD LANDFILL 9 nutrient addition will be necessary to maintain a COD:N:P ratio of 200:5:1. The full-scale study should also allow for pH control to maintain a pH below 8.0, and be housed in a heated building for temperature control during cold weather.

Table 10 summarizes the design and operating parameters recommended for the full-scale SBR to successfully treat HOD's leachate. r The results of the treatability study summarized in Table 11 conclusively demonstrate that treatment with the SBR technology will enable HOD's leachate to meet the City of Antioch'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. Effluent will 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 and 30 °C, leachate treated by the pilot scale SBRs consistently met discharge limits established by the City of Antioch POTW.

The SBRs consistently provided >87% reduction in the organic strength of HOD's leachate, with average effluent COD ^concentrations <400 mg/1 and BOD concentrations < 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 effluent

concentrations <10 mg/1 (Antioch NH4-N Limit = 20 mg/1) when pH was maintained 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), as proposed in the Process Description Report (August 11,1992) will further assure that both ammonia and TTO removals are maximized.

Metals in the effluent were consistently below the Antioch's discharge limits (See [ Table 8, with average removals of >95% during treatment. Sludge settling in the SBR should be enhanced by adding polymer flocculant, and the poorly settling microorganisms, which tend to remain in suspension can be reduced by 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 STUDY OPERATIONAL SCHEDULE

Week Feed Make-Up Studj Focus 1 75% Composite1 Acclimatization 25% Piezometers 2A, 3 A (Limited Analysis) 2 75% Composite1 Acclimatization 25% Piezometers 2 A, 3 A (Limited Analysis) 3 75% Composite1 Acclimatization 25% Piezometers 2 A, 3 A (Limited Analysis) 4 75% Composite1 Acclimatization 25% Piezometers 2A, 3 A (Limited Analysis) 5 75% Composite1 Acclimatization 25% Piezometers 2A, 3 A (Limited Analysis) 6 75% Composite1 Design/Performance 25% Piezometers 2A, 3 A Study 7 50% Composite1 Design/Performance 50% Piezometers 2A, 3A Study 8 75% Composite1 Design/Performance 25% Piezometers 2 A, 3 A Study 9 25% Composite1 Design Performance 75% Piezometers 2A, 3 A Study Ammonia > 300 mg/1

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

HOD LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLE 2 SAMPLING/OPERATING PROTOCOL HOD LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY

Value/Days Analyzed for Item Influent Reactor Laboratory

Sludge Age 25 Days Target Mixed Liquor Concentration Reactor 1- 4,000 mg/g VSS Loading Reactor 1- 0.2g COD/g VSS-day Target Mixed Liquor Concentration Reactor 2- 2,000 mg/g VSS Loading Reactor 2- 0.4g COD/g VSS-day Temperature, pH, D.O., Ammonia M-F M-F CID BTF COD M, F M, W, F CIDBTF BOD* W F CID BTF Total Phenolics* Weekly Weekly Composite Contract Lab Composite Fats, Oils, Greases* Weekly Weekly Composite Contract Lab Composite Phosphorous* Weekly Weekly Composite Contract Lab Composite Total Suspended Solids M, F M, W, F CID BTF TKN* Weekly Weekly Composite Contract Lab Composite Cyanide* . Weekly Weekly Composite Contract Lab Composite Iron, Zinc* Weekly W, F Contract Lab Composite Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se)* _ Weekly Weekly Composite Contract Lab Composite Settling Test I/Week CID BTF Total Toxic Organics* React.l:Week 4&6 F Contract Lab React.2: Week 5&7 F Mixed Liquor Solids F CIDBTF Sludge Waste Day F CIDBTF Not analyzed during acclimatization period

HOD LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLES HOD TreatabilityStudy Weekly Feed Composition

FEED FEED ORGANIC LOADING (gCOD/gMLVSS) WEEK CODCONC. NH3-NCONC. FLOW RATE VOLUME CYCLES Reactor 1 Reactor 2

(mg/1) (IT1E/I) (liters/cycle) Jliters) (#/week) MLVSS (mg/D LOADING MLVSS (mg/1) LOADING 1 1,640 294 2.96 5.75 3 14,300 0.035 8,300 0.061 2 1,640 294 2.96 5.75 4 16,100 0.042 4,000 0.169 3 1,520 260 2.96 5.75 4 3,800 0.165 2,800 0.224 4 1,340 303 2.96 5.75 5 4,550 0.152 2,750 0.251 5 1,500 285 2.96 5.75 5 4,050 0.191 2,900 0.266 6 1,500 330 2.96 5.75 5 4,071 0.190 2,419 0.319 7< 2,218 330 3.48 5.75 3 4,669 0.144 2,336 0.287 8 2,907 330 2.96 5.75 5 3,92f 0.381 2,092 0.715 9' 3,120 500 2.46 5.75 3 4,496 0.148 2,628 0.254

WEEKS 1-5: Acclimization Period WEEKS 6-9: Design/ Performance Data

LOADING = COD CONC. x FLOW RATEx CYCLES MLVSS x VOLUME x OPERATING TIME OPERATING TIME= Weeks 1 thru 6 & 8: 5 days/week *Weeks 7 & 9: 6 days/week TABLE4 HOD TREATEBILITYSTUDY Influent CharacterizationData

INFLUENT DATE PH NH3-N COD TSS Alk BOD Phenoiics O&G Phosph. TKN CN- (nw/n (ntfl) (nw/H (n*/l) 0*t/l) (mgj\) (ms/1) (mg/n (mg/1) (mRl) WEEK1 14-DCC-92 lS-Dec-92 16-Dcc-92 17-Dcc-92 18-Dec-92 WEEK 2 21-Dec-92 7.0 330 22-Dec-92 72 252 1,640 1,400 23-Dcc-92 7.1 300 24-Dec-92 25-DCC-92 WEEK 3 28-Dec-92 72 260 1,520 113 29-Dec-92 30-Dec-92 31-DCC-92 01 -Jan -93 WEEK 4 04-Jan-93 05-Jan-93 06-Jan-93 7.6 330 1,260 122 1,400 07-Jan-93 7.05 310 08-Jan-93 8.1 270 1,420 320 WEEKS 11 -Jan -93 12-Jan-93 13-Jan-93 72 250 1,500 540 1,900 14-Jan-93 15-Jan-93 72 320 158 1,500 WEEK 6 18-Jan-93 1,500 186 r 19-Jan-93 20-Jan-93 21-Jan-93 22-Jan-93 330 2,180 210 1,085 0.83 -6 0.63 203 -0.01 WEEK? 25-Jan-93 26-Jan-93 27-Jan-93 190 2,240 175 28_Jan-93 L 29- Jan -93 112 797.6 1.9 20 0.73 169 -0.01 WEEKS Ol-Feb-93 02-Fcb-93 0 03-Fcb-93 04-Feb-93 05-Fcb-93 2,907 144 1275 1.0 -6 0.52 191 -0.01 WEEK 9 08-Fcb-93 0 09-Feb-93 10-Feb-93 500 3,120 ll-Fcb-93 12-Feb-93 N.AT*) 2.1 23 0.66 25.4 -0.01

NOTES: c 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 STUDY Reactor 1 Performance Data

REACTOR 1 -- EFFLUENT DAlb PH IhMP VOLUME DO NH3-N COD MLTSS MLVSS l» A Ik BOD Phenolic* O&G Phosph. TKN CN- (D1K/I) (mg/1) (me/1) (De«.C) (lit era) (mi/I) (mi/I) (rnc/D (me/I) (nut/1) (me/I) (mc/I) (mc/n (mn/D (mx/l) WEEK1 14- Dec- 92 15- Dec- 92 16- Dec- 92 8.7 5.75 68 43,800 14,300 17- Dec- 92 8.5 6.00 48 18- Dec- 92 8.6 5.75 -5 320 WEEK 2 21-Dec-92 8.4 15.8 5.75 9.5 -5 270 40,700 16,100 -16 400 22- Dec- 92 8.3 16.3 5.75 9.4 -5 23- Dec- 92 8.2 16.8 5.50 7.4 -5 360 279 500 24- Dec- 92 8.4 12.1 5.80 8.0 70 270 11,050 3,800 44 500 25- Dec- 92 WEEK 3 28- Dec- 92 8.0 16.8 5.50 9.1 -5 247 -16 300 29- Dec- 92 8.2 17.5 6.00 10.0 -5 210 30- Dec- 92 8.1 15.2 6.00 9.4 -5 31-Dec-92 8.2 18.6 5.75 9.0 -5 235 -16 400 Ol-Jan-93 WEEK 4 04- Jan- 93 8.3 19.2 5.50 9.6 -5 180 -16 300 05- Jan- 93 7.9 22.0 5.75 8.9 -5 11,500 4,550 06- Jan- 93 8.1 17.5 5.75 9.0 -5 210 -16 200 07- Jan- 93 8.0 20.5 5.75 7.3 -5 08- Jan- 93 8.1 19.2 5.75 8.9 -5 250 -16 200 WEEKS ll-Jan-93 8.0 16.5 5.50 8.9 -5 225 8,900 3,700 -16 200 12- Jan-93 8.0 18.7 5.75 9.3 -5 13- Jan- 93 8.0 21.6 5.75 8.8 -5 235 -16 200 14- Jan- 93 8.1 21.3 5:75 8.5 -5 15- Jan- 93 7.7 16.3 5.75 9.4 15 9,500 4,400 -16 300 WEEK 6 18- Jan- 93 7.8 23.6 5.50 7.6 -5 225 -16 19- Jan- 93 7.3 19.4 5.75 8.4 -5 20- Jan- 93 7.9 18.2 5.75 9.0 -5 260 -16 5.375 21-Jan-93 7.6 17.3 5.75 8.2 -5 22- Jan-93 8.0 18.3 5.75 9.4 -5 295 9.400 4200 -16 0.014 -6 0.18 7.4 -0.010 WEEK? 25- Jan- 93 8.0 19.9 5.75 8.0 -5 260 -16 26- Jan- 93 7.9 17.8 5.75 7.8 -5 27- Jan- 93 7.8 18.8 5.50 8.8 -5 320 -16 28- Jan- 93 8.1 19.6 5.75 8.4 -5 29- Jan- 93 8.1 21.5 5.50 8.4 -5 205 10.900 5,200 29 9.9 0.01S 12 0.26 5.8 -0.010 WEEKS Ol-Feb-93 8.0 18.1 5.40 8.6 -5 220 -16 02-Feb-93 8.1 18.1 5.75 8.8 _^ 03-Feb-93 8.2 19.2 5.75 9.4 _c 250 -16 04-Feb-93 8.2 19.6 5.75 9.0 _c 05-Feb-93 8.2 28.6 5.75 6.6 -5 245 8.100 4,100 -16 3.0 0.015 -6 0.33 8.6 -0.020 WEEK 9 08-Feb-93 7.4 17.5 5.50 9.2 -5 150 8,273 4,391 -16 09-Feb-93 7.4 17.6 5.75 8.8 '-5 10-Feb-93 7.2 18.0 5.50 9.6 -5 170 -16 ll-Feb-93 7.2 17.4 5.75 9.3 -5 12-Feb-93 75 183 5.50 8.7 -5 140 8.200 4600 -16 N-A^ 0.012 12 048 1 i -0010 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 6 HOD TREATEBILITY STUDY Reactor 2 Performance Data

REACTOR #2 UAlb pk ItMP VOLUME DO NH3-N COD MLTSS MLVSS TSS Alk BOD Phenolic* o&c Phosph. TKN CN- (mg/l) (mtfl) (fflK/D (De*.C) Often) (me/!) (me/D (me/0 rmc/D (rae/H 1 (oiK/l) (mc/D (m«/D (me/1) (mK/I) WEEKl 14- Dec-92 15-Dec-92 16- Dec- 92 8.8 5.75 94 25,000 8,300 17-Dec-92 8.6 6.00 100 18- Dec-92 8.5 5.50 58 V WEEK 2 21-Dec-92 8.3 15.0 2.75 9.6 -5 13,800 4,000 22- Dec- 92 8.4 16.1 5.50 9.0 60 23- Dec- 92 8.1 16.2 5.25 9.6 -5 347 25 400 24- Dec- 92 8.4 12.7 6.00 7.6 85 340 7,800 2,800 22 500 25- Dec- 92 WEEK 3 28- Dec- 92. 7.8 30.2 3.00 6.5 -5 29- Dec- 92 8.4 17.2 6.00 10.2 75 270 30- Dec- 92 8.2 17.8 6.00 8.2 88 31-Dec-92 7.8 26.0 5.75 6.0 25 320 -16 Ol-Jan-93 WEEK 4 04- Jan- 93 8.4 18.1 5.00 9.8 -5 260 18 300 05- Jan- 93 8.0 20.2 6.00 8.6 45 7,300 2,750 06- Jan- 93 8.1 19.4 5.75 8.4 45 250 -16 300 07- Jan- 93 7.7 20.4 5.75 6.4 28 08- Jan- 93 8.0 19.2 5.75 8.9 -5 305 17 200 WEEKS 11- Jan-93 8.0 16.5 5.50 9.3 -5 305 6,300 2,500 23 300 12- Jan- 93 8.1 17.4 5.75 9.3 45 13- Jan- 93 8.2 17.1 5.75 9.5 43 270 -16 300 14- Jan- 93 7.9 17.8 5.75 8.1 51 15- Jan- 93 7.9 21.3 5.50 8.4 -5 8,000 3,300 28 100 WEEK 6 18- Jan- 93 7.8 17.0 5.50 8.7 -5 300 -16 19- Jan- 93 8.3 15.8 5.75 9.6 105 20- Jan-93 8.3 15.8 5.75 9.1 150 515 36 21-Jan-93 8.3 18.7 5.75 8.3 150 22- Jan-93 8.4 23.8 5.75 8.0 160 380 6,100 2.800 -16 9.025 0.034 8 0.22 93.5 -0.010 WEEK? 25- Jan- 93 7.6 24.7 5.50 7.3 ,-5 350 -16 26- Jan- 93 8.0 17.6 5.90 8.5 50 27- Jan- 93 7.5 18.4 5.50 8.7 32 240 19 28- Jan- 93 8.2 19.5 5.75 7.5 65 29- Jan- 93 7.7 20.6 5.50 8.2 -5 265 5,400 2,700 24 13.2 0.0069 6 0.26 27.8 -0.011 WEEKS Ol-Feb-93 8.2 17.8 5.40 8.8 -5 315 -16 02-Feb-93 7.9 17.8 5.75 8.5 32 03-Feb-93 8.0 21.2 5.75 8.6 20 350 -16 04-F«b-93 8.2 18.2 5.75 9.4 -5 05-Feb-93 7.7 21.7 5.75 7.4 15 335 4,300 2.400 -16 3.7 0.042 -6 0.27 13.6 -0.020 WEEK 9 08-Feb-93 7.6 20.9 5.50 8.1 -5 205 4,200 2,355 -16 09-Feb-93 7.7 17.9 5.75 8.9 -5 10-Feb-93 7.7 17.9 5.50 9.8 -5 200 -16 Il-Feb-93 7.3 17.4 5.75 9.3 -5 12-Feb-93 7.6 17.3 5.50 8.8 _r 175 5.100 2.900 17 N.Af*> 0.012 9 0.13 3.5 -0.011

NOTES: WEEKS 1 through 5- ACCUMIZATION Period WEEKS 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. Table 7 Page 1 of 2 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Total Toxic Organics Results

PARAMETER REACTOR 1 REACTOR 2 (ue/H (1/22/93) (2/5/93) (l/29#3) (2/12/93) Pesticides Alpha BHC -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 BeuBHC -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 Delta BHC -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 gamma BHC (Lindane ) -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 Heptachlor -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 Aldrin -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 Heptachlor eporide -0.043 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 Endosulfan I -0.043 -0.052 -1.0 -0.040 Dieldnn -0.086 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 4,4'- DDE -0.086 -0.10 -2.0 -0.081 Endrin -0.086 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 Endotulfan II -0.086 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 r 4,4' -ODD -0.086 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 Endosulfan sulfate -0.086 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 4,4' -DOT -0.086 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 Methoxychlor -0.43 -0.52 -1.0 -0.040 Endrin aldehyde -0.036 -0.10 -0.20 -0.081 alpha -Chtordane -0.43 -0.52 -10 -0.040 gamma -Chlordane -0.43 -0.52 -10 -0.040 Toxaphene -0.86 -1.0 -2.0 -0.81 Aroclor-1016 -0.43 -5.2 -1.0 -0.40 Aroclor-1221 -0.43 -5.2 -1.0 -0.40 Aroclor-1232 -0.43 -5.2 -1.0 -0.40 Arocior-1242 -0.43 -5.2 -1.0 -0.40 Aroclor-1248 -0.43 -5.2 -1.0 -0.40 Aroclor-1254 -0.86 -1.0 -2.0 -0.81 Aroclor-1260 -0.86 -1.0 -2,0 -0.81 Vola tiles Chloro methane -10 -10 -10 52 Bromomethane -10 -10 -10 -10 Vinyl Chloride -10 -10 -10 -10 Chloroethane -10 -10 -10 -10 Methylene Chloride -5 -5 "KB) -5 Acetone 19(B) -10 32(B) 30 1,1 - Dichloroelhene -5 -5 -5 -5 1,1 - Dichloroe thane -5 -5 -5 -5 1,2- Dichloroelhene (Total) -5 -5 -5 -5 Chloroform -5 -5 -5 -5 1,2-Dichloroelhane -5 -5 -5 -5 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane -5 -5 -5 -5 Carbon Tetrachloride -5 -5 -5 -5 Bromodichloromethane -5 -5 -5 -5 1,2— Dichloropropane -5 -5 -5 -5 cis— 13~ Dichloropropene -5 -5 -5 -5 Trichloroethene -5 -5 -5 -5 Dibromochloromelhane -5 -5 -5 -5 1,1,2-Trichlorocthane -5 -5 -5 -5 Benzene -5 -5 -5 -5 trans- 13- Dichloropropene -5 -5 -5 -5 Bromoform -5 -5 -5 -5 Tetrachloroethene -5 -5 -5 -5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane -5 -5 -5 -5 Toluene -5 -5 -5 -5 Chloro benzene -5 -5 -5 -5 L Ethyl benzene -5 -5 -5 -5 Xylene (total) -5 -5 -5 -5 Acrolein -500 -500 -500 -500 Acrylonitrile -100 -100 -100 -100 Dichlofodifluoromeihane -20 -20 -20 -20 Trichlorofluoromethane -10 -10 -10 -10 2-Chloroelhylvinylether -10 -10 -10 -10 2,3,7,8- TCDD(Dk>xnO -0.0006 -0.0003 -0.0003 -0.0007 (B) indicates that parameter was detected in laboratory blank. - indicates that parameter was below the laboratory detection limits. t • Table 7 Page 2 of 2 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Total Toxic Organics Results

PARAMETER REACTOR 1 REACTOR 2 fUE/11 H/22/93} (2/5/931 O/29/93) (2/12/93) Scmivda tiles Phenol -10 -15 -14 -9 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether -10 -15 -14 -9 2-Chlorophenol -10 -15 -14 -9 1,3- Dichlorobcnzene -10 -15 -14 -9 1,4- Dichlorobenzene -10 -15 -14 -9 1,2- Dichlorobenzene -10 -15 -14 -9 bis (2-diloroisopropyl)ether . -10 -15 -14 -9 N — Nitroso - Di - n — propyii mine -10 -15 -14 -9 Hexach loroethane -10 -15 -14 -9 Nitrobenzene -10 -15 -14 -9 Isophorone -10 -15 -14 -9 2-Nitrophenol -10 -15 -14 -9 2,4- Dimethylphenol -10 -15 -14 -9 bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane -10 -15 -14 -9 2,4 - Dichlorophenoi -10 -15 -14 -9 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene -10 -15 -14 -9 Naphthalene -10 -15 -14 -9 c Hexach lonobu tadiene -10 -15 -14 -9 4-Chloro- 3- methylphenol -10 -15 -14 -9 Hexach lorocyclopcnladicne -10 -15 -14 -9 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol -10 -15 -14 -9 ir 2-Chloronaphthalene -10 -15 -14 -9 Dimethylphthalate -10 -15 -14 -9 Acenaphlhytene -10 -15 -14 -9 2,6- Dinitrotoluene -10 -15 -14 -9 Acenaphthene -10 -15 -14 -9 2,4 — Dinitrophenol -50 -75 -70 -46 4— Nitrophenol -50 -75 -70 -46 2,4 — Dinitrotoluene -10 -15 -14 -9 Diethylphlhalatc -10 -15 -14 -9 4— Chlorophcnol-phenyicthcr -10 -15 -14 -9 Flourene -10 -15 -14 -9 4,6- Dinitro -2- methylphenol -50 -75 -70 -46 N - Nitrosodiphenylamine -10 -15 -14 -9 4— Bromophenyl -phenytethcr -10 -15 -14 -9 Hexachlorobenzene -10 -15 -14 -9 Pentachlorophenol - -50 -75 -70 -46 Phenanthrene -10 -15 -14 -9 Anthracene -10 -15 -14 -9 Di -n - Butylphthalate -10 -15 -14 -9 Flouranlhene -10 -15 -14 -9 Pyrene -10 -15 -14 -9 Butyl benzylphthalatc -10 -15 -14 -9 3,3'- DichlorobenzJdine -20 -30 -28 -19 Bcnzo (a)anthracene -10 -15 -14 -9 Chrysene _ -10 -15 -14 -9 bis (2-Bhylhexyl)phthalalc -10 -15 -14 -9 Di-n-Octyl phthalate -10 -15 -14 -9 i; Benzo (b) fluoranthene -10 -15 -14 -9 I „ Benzo (k) fluoranlhene -10 -15 -14 -9 Benzo (a)pyrene -10 -15 -14 -9 Indeno (l,2,3-cd)pyrene -10 -15 -14 -9 Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene -10 - -15 -14 -9 Benzo(gji,i)perylene -10 -15 -14 -9 0- 1,2- Diphenylhydrazioe -10 -15 -14 -9 N — Nitrosodimethyiamine -10 -15 -14 -9 Benzidine -100 -150 -140 -93 Detected TTO (mg/1) 0.019(8) 0 0.042(8) 0.082 Maximum Detection Limit (mg/l) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Antioch't Limits 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

(B) indicates that parameter was detected in laboratory blank. - indicates that parameter was below the laboratory detection limits. Li "'7

TABLES HOD TREATABILFTY STUDY Metals Removal Data

ANTIOCH INFLUENT (mg/1) REACTOR #1 (mg/1) REACTOR #2 (mg/1) PARAMETER LIMFTS WEEK WEEK WEEK (mg/0 6 7 8 9 AVO 6 7 8 9 AVG 6 7 8 9 AVG Arsenic, Total 0.1 0.0074 -0.020 0.0029 0.013 -0.0108 0.0064 -0.020 0.0029 0.0024 -OXW9 0.0067 -0.020 0.0033 0.0050 -0.0088 Cadmium, Tola! 0.5 -0.0050 -o.obso -0.0050 -0.0050 -0.005 -0.0050 -0.0050 -0.0050 -0.0050 -O.OIK -0.0050 -0.0050 -0.0050 -0.0050 -0.005 Chromium, Total 1.0 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.02 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.02 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.02 Copper, Total 1.0 0.072 0.099 0.028 0.058 0.06425 -0.020 -0.020 0.028 -0.020 •-0.022 0.023 0.021 0.034 -0.020 -0.0245 Iron, Total 10.0 24 40.6 020 42.1 26.725 0.23 0.59 0.20 0.21 0-3075 2.3 0.89 1 0.21 1.1 Mercury, Total 0.0005 0.00064 0.00094 -0.00020 0.0016 -0.0008 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 -OXWtt -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.00020 -0.0002 Manganese, Total 1.0 0.35 0.61 -0.010 0.66 -0.4075 -0.010 -0.010 -0.010 -0.010 -wa -0.010 0.019 0.017 -0.010 -0.014 Nickel, Total 0.8 0.052 0.035 0.051 0.044 0.0455 0.041 0.032 0.051 0.05 0.0435 0.052 0.038 0.052 0.043 0.04625 Lead, Total 0.6 -0.050 -0.050 -0.050 -0.050 -0.05 -0.050 -0.050 -0.050 -0.050 HMJ5 -0.050 -0.050 -0.050 -0.050 -0.05 Selenium, Tola! 1.0 -0.002 -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.002 -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.0020 -6-MB -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.0020 -0.002 Zinc, Total 1.0 0.63 0.67 0.044 0.39 0.4335 0.056 0.043 0.044 0.060 0.05075 0.081 0.062 0.079 0.052 0.0735 TOTAL -25.189 -42.112 -0.4131 -43.344 -27.764 -0.4406 -0.7922 -0.4131 -0.4296 -0.5189 -2.5499 -1.1472 -1.2625 -0.4172 -1.3442 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 98.1REMOVA% L EFFICIENCY 95.2% Negative sign (-) indicates that parameter was below laboratory detection limits. TABLE 9 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Sludge Yield (g MLVSS/g COD)

REACTOR 1 REACTOR 2 WEEK LOADING OBSERVED YIELD LOADING OBSERVED YIELD (g COD/g MLVSS) (g MLSS/g COD) (g MLVSS/g COD) (g CODyfe MLVSS)^ (g MLSS/g COD) (g MLVSS^ COD)

WEEK #6 0.190 0.400 0.136 0.319 0.485 0.304

WEEK #1 0.144 0.450 0.291 0.287 0.306 0.201 WEEK #8 0.381 0.085 0.075 0.715 0.141 0.109

WEEK #9 0.148 0.094 0.114 0.254 0.294 0.176 AVERAGE 0.216 0.257 0.154 0.394 0.307 0.198 TABLE 10 HOD Treatability Study Design / Operating Parameters

ITEM DESIGN Loading (F:M) 0. 1 - 0.4 gCOD/gMLVSS- day

Sludge Age > 20 days

Dissolved Oxygen >2.0mg/l

Design Feed Strength COD = 5,000 mg/1

NH4 = 350 mg/1

Aeration Type Fine Bubble

Operational pH Range 7.0-8.0

Nutrients COD:N:P = 200:5:1

pH Control Necessary Sludge Settleability Flocculant and/or partial anoxic fill % COD Reduction >90% FIGURE 1 Reactor Design/ Set-up

MIXER

FEED PUMP FLOW METER AIR

LEACHATE FEED DECANT

AIR DIFFUSER

HOD LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATABIUTY STUDY EFFLUENT COD CONCENTRATION (mg/1) ro ro CO CO 0 en o en o en "o en o o o o o o o o o o o o o o • I r•o O CD O - CD ro

CiO 1>• 4 n O * CD 33 3} O Tl i CO * ?i S N> T1 D C ro » }! 3§3 o> 4^- i IN.) -»• > O O f*.;LIMIZATI C CD O CO * D l\3 - <^ i O ro - +> D> D z CO +> CO TJ O m O O D DO CO u.j D 0 0 0 •O- 3 i CO +>• CO a > 1 - +• [ ) 2 2 5 m o> 3 r m d r 2 H ro Q> 1 3 DESIGN / 1 "^ 0 CO • +> [ ] CO ro * 1 C•O 4J c_ +> D 0> >ERFORM / 3 i CO • ^ CO CO - >+ D O c_ - 4^ 0) 3 CO *>• O 3D JO CO m •B »• T) o o m O 4^- o o en »^ D CD | CT ->- 00 CD ^P cb u 01 CO - 4> D CO 2 - +> r CD 1 CT I CO CO FIGURE 3 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Ammonia Removal DESIGN/PERFORMANCE DATA AMMONIA REMOVAL Reactor 1- 98.8% Reactor 2- 90.0% 500 AC CLIMIZAT ON PERIO D D [SIGN/ PEF FORMANC:E DATA ————— * ————— ^ -» 450 w•• 400 O D INFLUENT 350 cc n D n n A REACTOR 1 D UJ 300 ————D ——— O * REACTOR 2 D O D O 250 ———D ———— ————D ——— z O 200

I 150 ———~ ^ 111 D 100 • —— w+— • • • A • 111 * —— «——— 50 V ** ——*V — • * • , , , i , A , AAA i . , AAAA i , AAAAA »AAA* . AAAA! , AAAAA

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 FIGURE 4 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 1

IUUU T. J \ > J fc t* I , i > / ^J • ^ i 900 - si — i 5 j { s ^ i c9 [ * li 5 t I < / i ii ri -» j fc < 800 - L !i J ] — 1 i 1 1 , 700 - L-H "-i 1 ,1 c ] « b 600 - — cp— t 1l 11 500 - 1 Q> •Do) 3 400 - 5) 300 -

200 - Ra e = 1 I f flir (82 > n I/ft 100 -

n

10 15 20 25 30 Time (minutes)

Week 4 a Week 5 * Week 6 O Week 7 * Week 8 A Week 9 FIGURE 5 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Sludge Settling Characteristics- Reactor 2

t j Riite « 7.3 t/hi (8 25 ml/f ) 1' s r• J 900 - * .;^s-1 1 51 i 1 ' l < t c 800 - <^ _[3— j] 700 - • c ——[ ]— 11 ' p [ •§• 600 - / ii j 4 t 1 1 / 5 500 - < « Hui• ^ "§ 400 - ^ 1 /S |;1 55 » ' ;-,' ii | < > ^ i | 300 - i i - 1 Il 200 - i -! 100 -

n

10 15 20 25 30 Time (minutes)

Week4 D Weeks * Week 6 o Week 7 ± Week 8 A Week 9 FIGURE 6 HOD TREATABILITY STUDY Design Loading Selection 600

O Effluent COD (mg/l) • Effluent Ammonia (mg/l) 500 COD Limit* 429 mg/l

~ 400

3 o 300 E < oO o 200

0) Design Loading —— LU 100 < 0.6 gCOD/gMLVSS NH4 Limit 20 mg/l

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 Loading (gCOD/gMLVSS)

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

Anoxic: Conditions present in the reactor when aeration is not supplied and there is no free oxygen 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 microorganisms to degrade the pollutants in wastewater.

Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand: The amount of oxygen required by bacteria to degrade the carbon • containing pollutants in wastewaters. COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand. The equivalent amount of oxygen required to degrade r the organic pollutants in a wastewater after oxidation by strong chemicals, such as potassium permanganate.

' 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 the aeration tank an extended period of time to allow them enough time to degrade pollutants in 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 in an 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 aeration i 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 as i 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 enhance settleability.

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

QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control. The process used to ensure quality of work is properly maintained. Settleability: The ability of the bacteria to settle and separate from the treated wastewater under tranquil conditions after treatment. ' SBR: Sequencing Batch Reactor. An activated sludge process accomplished by a single reactor, which serves as both the aeration tank and settling tank. i 1 SBR Cycle: The operational sequence for a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) consisting of the 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 certain amounts of organics as their food source. L Supernatant/ Decant: The clear upper portion of a settled mixed liquor taken from an aeration tank. l TTO: Total Toxic Organics. The sum of concentrations of all detectable priority pollutants organics and dioxin.

0