Part 19

There are few cities which treat their sewage by the process of straining and roughing. This consists of removing the suspended matter by means of rapid straining through beds of coke or sand arranged like the rapid sand or mechanical water filter. Coke beds, especially in cold climates, have not been a success. The chief objection to the rapid sand filter is the wash water which contains much organic or mineral impurities of the sewage and which requires special treatment which experience has shown to be difficult and expensive. Difficulty has also been found in disposing of the sludge deposited upon the filter surface. Of this process the bulletin of the California State Board of Health says: “The process is an expensive one at best, both as respects construction and operation. The effluent from such works can be made fully equal to, if not better than the effluent of plain sedimentation basins from a sanitary point of view.” The experience of the Cleveland Testing Station with these filters was not favorable. The filters when operated at rates from 30 to 60 gallons per acre per 24 hours removed from 25 to 40 per cent. of suspended matter and their action was simply mechanical, there being no increase in the dissolved oxygen content. The report from the station says that the difficulties encountered in their operation were sufficient to eliminate the process as a method in itself or in combination with other processes.

Treatment in Tanks

The treatment of sewage in tanks, either by chemical or biological processes, has been adopted by many cities, especially as a preliminary treatment. These processes are known as plain sedimentation, chemical precipitation and the septic process. Of these the treatment in the Imhoff tank is the most popular at the present time.

Plain Sedimentation

By allowing the sewage either to flow into properly constructed tanks or through them at a velocity low enough to allow some of the suspended matter to separate from the liquid and to be deposited on the bottom from which the sludge is removed, is another process that has been used by a number of American and European cities. The first tanks were constructed so that they could be filled with sewage and then after the suspended matter had settled the effluent was drawn off. This was known as the fill and draw plan. Later what is now known as the continuous flow principle was used. The velocity of the flowing sewage is reduced sufficiently as it enters and passes through the tank for the suspended matter to settle. The sludge which collects at the bottom of the tank must be removed frequently. The results are affected by the quantity and quality of the sewage, fresh sewage being capable of greater clarification by sedimentation than stale sewage. The range in storage period for American sewages is from four to twelve hours and the removal of suspended matter is from 45 to 75 per cent.

In some cities plain sedimentation has been used in connection with dilution and in others as an aid to filtration. The chief objection to the process is the sludge which is extremely offensive and must be treated separately. It does not dry readily, is difficult to handle and if allowed to accumulate causes serious nuisance. Because of these difficulties and the fact that the sludge from the Cameron and Imhoff tanks can be more easily disposed of the septic process has gradually forced plain sedimentation into the background.

Colloidal tanks were designed to carry the process of clarification further than plain sedimentation, but they have not come into general use. Metcalf and Eddy in their “American Sewerage Practice” say of this process: “There has been a feeling that while under some conditions a portion of the colloidal solids could be removed by such devices, the work accomplished was not likely to be sufficient to offset the expense of construction and some difficulties in operation.”

The Septic Process

In the septic process the raw sewage is conveyed to tanks, and allowed to stand until the solids have settled to the bottom and have been partially destroyed or liquefied by bacterial action. Two types of tanks are used in the septic process, one known as the Cameron type and the other as the Emscher or Imhoff tank.

The best constructed Cameron tanks are not less than 8 feet in depth and are usually large enough to hold about six hours’ maximum flow of sewage. The desirable time of detention depends upon the character of the sewage, both as to strength and freshness, strong and stale sewages demanding a longer period. The tanks are usually built with baffles at the entrance to retard the current and to deflect the suspended matter to the bottom which is so constructed that the sludge, after bacterial action has taken place, can be drawn off from time to time.

H. W. Clark, formerly chemist of the Massachusetts State Board of Health, has expressed the belief that the rate of flow through a septic tank should not be greater than that which will cause passage in twelve hours.

Charles G. Hyde in the California Board of Health Bulletin says that as a rule the period should not be greater than 24 hours nor less than 12 hours, except possibly with weak or stale sewages. He advocates multiple units so that the storage periods may be controlled to give optimum results.

The effluent which is turbid, putrescible and rich in organic matter cannot be discharged into streams with safety without further treatment, unless the volume of water is sufficient to complete the purification by dilution. As the solids settle a scum which forms on top of the tank, keeps out light and air and produces a condition favorable for the bacterial activity caused by minute organisms known as anaerobic bacteria. These germs thrive and functionate best in the absence of oxygen, and their chief function in sewage treatment is the conversion of the solid organic matter into a soluble form, somewhat less complex in chemical composition. The sludge is rotted and when full bacterial action has taken place is humified. In plain sedimentation the solids are simply deposited upon the bottom of the tank and are removed practically unchanged. In the septic tank, however, a part of the solids after settling are broken down or digested, thus somewhat lessening the difficulty of disposing of the sludge.

Reports vary widely as to the amount of suspended matter that can be removed by the septic process. The Iowa State College bulletin says that the amount of purification does not usually exceed 25 to 40 per cent. Professor Whipple places the removal between 60 and 70 per cent., and the State Board of Health of California says it may vary between 35 per cent. and 85 per cent., averaging perhaps 50 to 60 per cent. H. W. Clark places the amount at not less than 40 per cent. and adds that it will vary according to the character of the sewage, the variations being from 30 per cent. with weak sewage to 80 per cent. with strong sewage.

All reports concur that in many cases the Cameron type of tank has failed to produce efficient results. Among the objections raised by authorities are the following:

The sludge is not thoroughly digested and is somewhat offensive. The odor is obnoxious and the effluent is too stale and is treated with difficulty by oxidation processes. Gilbert J. Fowler, Sanitary Expert of England, says the defects which have shown themselves are a nuisance both from the tank effluent and the sludge and an excessive quantity of suspended solids in the tank effluent. Charles G. Hyde believes a review of the principles and results of operation appear to justify the conclusion that “the septic effluents are only less dangerous than crude sewage to the extent of efficiency of removal of organic matter.”

The Imhoff Tank

In an effort to overcome the defects in the Cameron tank, the Imhoff or Emscher tank was developed and this now seems to have the preference among cities making new installations. The tank consists of two compartments, one above the other. It has a smaller area than the ordinary septic tank, but is much deeper. The sewage passes at a low velocity through the upper chamber, which is comparatively shallow and V-shaped, the sides being sufficiently steep to allow the solids to be deposited at the bottom of the V which is equipped with slots. Through these the solids pass into the second chamber below which is much deeper than the other. The inclined partition wall must be cleaned frequently with hose or squeegee in such a way as not to clog the slots. The floating pieces of wood and cork must be skimmed off, but the greater part of the suspended matter that floats will generally sink after a time. Dr. Karl Imhoff, the inventor of the tank, advises spraying with a hose to expedite the sinking. Care must be taken to keep the sides clean and the sludge in the lower tank below the slot level. If neglected suspended matters will rise to the surface behind as well as in front of the scum boards. Dr. Imhoff advises the reversal of the flow of sewage about every three weeks after skimming off the floating matter when one sedimentation chamber feeds more than one sludge chamber. The rate of flow in the upper chamber is sufficiently rapid to prevent any septic action, yet slow enough to allow much of the suspended matter to settle.

The effluent in a comparatively fresh condition passes out of the tank for further treatment or for discharge into water courses. It therefore does not become stale nor does it come in contact with decomposing sludge, thus eliminating in part the objections advanced by authorities against the Cameron tank.

In the lower tank the sludge, after passing through the slots is slowly digested through septic and other actions without any disturbance by the flow of the liquid sewage, above. Before the tank can deliver good, well digested sludge—that is, a black alkaline odorless sludge—it must be inoculated with a proper amount of good sludge, or the raw sludge must be permitted to “ripen.” Dr. Imhoff has found that even without inoculation a tank will discharge good sludge from the beginning if ripe sludge is emptied into the system from cesspools which have been in use a long time.

In some instances cities have had considerable trouble with acid decomposition during the ripening period. This produces a sludge of objectionable odor and one not easily dried. It decomposes very slowly and may rise in a mass to the surface of the sludge chamber. Various remedies have been suggested, among them the addition of lime. “I cannot advise such addition,” Dr. Imhoff has written. “All plants which are known to me and in which acid decomposition has occurred have sooner or later adjusted themselves of their own accord.”

When properly inoculated the particles of sludge rise and fall constantly in the process of giving off the gases. The fresh sludge particles entering the chamber through the slot are covered so that the entire mass becomes thoroughly mixed and the untreated sludge in a short time is inoculated with the proper organisms. The decomposed sludge is discharged from time to time through pipes leading from the bottom of the tank to drying beds.

Dr. Imhoff has advocated the discharge of sludge from each sludge chamber once every two to six weeks, that the optimum of the sludge level should be about three feet below the slot level and if it is desired to promote the early incidence of proper decomposition the sludge should not be allowed to remain quiet at the bottom of the sludge chamber. He advocates constant stirring and a uniform introduction of fresh organic matter and the discharge of the decomposed matter. The scum layer, he says, must be agitated frequently by a jet of water or otherwise and the sludge at the bottom of the chamber should be agitated by a water stirring system. As a substitute, he suggests that the whole body of sludge be pumped out and returned. To determine the elevation of the sludge surface, he advises lowering into the sludge chamber a very thin piece of sheet iron one foot square in area held in a horizontal position. If the level is too high, there will be gas bubbles on the surface of the settling chamber above the slot or there will be floating sludge and in extreme cases foaming sludge. As compared with other tank processes the experience of cities indicates that the Imhoff type has many advantages. Certain inherent difficulties, however, have been pointed out in several reports. Gilbert J. Fowler has expressed the belief that “the comparative short time of settlement means that variations in the character of the sewage must be quickly reflected in the character of the tank effluence and that the filters (when they are used for further treatment) must be called upon rapidly to accommodate themselves to fluctuating conditions.” He believes that this is not conducive to the development of the most efficient bacterial activity. Storm water above moderate dilution, he says, will have to receive separate treatment and he is of the opinion that ordinary stand-by tanks will still be necessary for this purpose, the sludge from which will have to be dealt with. From the results of the operation of an experimental plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, Matthew Gault, Superintendent of Sewers, draws these conclusions: “It appears to be perfectly feasible to treat Worcester sewage by means of Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters. The results of experimental treatment of the effluent from chemical precipitation tanks indicated that the advantages gained by chemical precipitation as a preliminary treatment were not commensurate with the cost. The Imhoff tank was quite as efficient in sludge digestion as experimental septic tanks have been and much more efficient so far as sedimentation of the sewage is concerned. It was operated without the production of the offensive odors characteristic of the septic tank and the sludge itself was disposed of without creating a nuisance. The effluent from the Imhoff tank was normally as fresh in appearance and odor as the sewage flowing into the tank.”

The experience of the New Jersey State Board of Health with Imhoff tanks has been that if properly designed, constructed and operated, they are a valuable means of sewage clarification. The observation of its engineers has shown that under these conditions the tanks overcome a great deal of trouble due to odors and greatly simplify the sludge problem. “However, their proper operation is a considerable problem,” reads one of its reports. “And the cost of keeping them in working order is several times greater than for septic or sedimentation tanks.” In view of the initial cost of this form of tank as compared with the older single story types the New Jersey engineers believe that “in cases where the works are far removed from a populous community, so that the odor problem is not serious, it is doubtful whether the Imhoff tank has any material advantage over a properly constructed, well baffled sedimentation tank of the old type.”

The Cleveland Sewage Testing Station reports that the most consistent results were obtained from the operation of the Imhoff tank, an average suspended matter removal of 50 per cent. being secured. A recent city report says: “In general it may be said that a detention period of thirty minutes accomplished a removal of suspended matter from 40 to 45 per cent. as compared with a 50 per cent. removal effected by a detention period of two hours and fifteen minutes.”

In a bulletin of the California Board of Health, Charles G. Hyde sums up the importance of the septic process thus: “The septic process as carried out either in the Cameron or Imhoff type, but especially in the latter, has at present two distinct fields of usefulness; first, it constitutes an effective means of preparation for any final process which can be better conducted with a sewage from which the suspended solids are more or less completely removed; secondly, it may be employed when disposal by dilution is permissible if the source of unsightly sludge and scum is removed.” Another advantage may be added, the Imhoff tank produces a sludge that can be disposed of easily.

Chemical Precipitation

By using some coagulant such as copperas, lime, sulphate of alumina or perchloride of iron, the subsidence in basins of between 40 and 55 per cent. of the total organic matter and between 60 and 95 per cent. of the total suspended matter can be obtained. The bacterial removal is between 80 and 90 per cent., depending upon the character of the sewage. The objections to this process are great cost of chemicals and labor required and the difficulty of disposing of a large amount of sludge. There are a few plants of this kind in operation at the present time and there seems to be a general agreement among authorities that the process is now a back number. Fowler says, “It may be doubted whether dilute sewages resulting from the lavish use of water in American cities lend themselves generally to economical treatment by this process.” Metcalf and Eddy in their “American Sewerage Practice” express the opinion that the quantity of chemicals required for results would be a prohibitive expense. The sewerage commission report of New Jersey contains the statement that “on the standpoint of the officials in charge of the experimental station at Lawrence, Massachusetts, chemical precipitation is a process of the past.” The experiments of the Massachusetts State Board of Health showed that it is quite impossible to obtain effluents by chemical precipitation which compare in organic purity with those obtained by intermittent sand filtration. About the only plants of any importance in the United States are those at Worcester, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island. According to the report of the Superintendent of Sewers of Worcester, the experimental plant in that city has shown that “the cost of operation of Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters per million gallons of sewage treated would be much less than the cost of operation of chemical precipitation or sand filtration as carried on in Worcester.”

Slate Beds

The equipment for this process consists of tanks with horizontal slabs of slate separated a few inches by stone blocks. The sewage is allowed to stand in the tank for about two hours, during which the suspended matter is deposited on the slabs and is digested by multifarious forms known as aerobic germs, _i. e._, germs requiring oxygen for the continuance of their proper vital function. The deposits are thereby reduced to harmless and inoffensive humus. Slate beds are dosed and rested alternately so as to give them an opportunity to replenish their supply of oxygen. Multiple units are therefore necessary. The effluent must be treated as a tank effluent. Fowler suggests that when filters are used to purify the effluent, “humus” tanks be provided between the slate and the filter to retain the solids washed away from the beds and somewhat to equalize the composition of the effluent passing into the filter.

Dosing Chambers

After the effluent has passed from a tank after being treated by one or more of the preliminary processes, it usually flows into a compartment known as the dosing chamber where it is admitted to the filter for further purification.

When enough of the liquid has accumulated in the chamber it is automatically emptied by means of a siphon, thus permitting the intermittent application of the sewage to the filter bed. When more than one bed is used the siphons are arranged so that the liquid alternately flows to different filters or parts of filters.

Contact Filters—Single and Double

The treatment of sewage in a single contact filter is classed as a preliminary process and when treated in double contact beds or those arranged in tandem as a final process. A contact filter is a basin filled with broken stone, coke, slag or coarse gravel, thoroughly underdrained. The size of stone or other material to be used depends upon the degree of purification desired, and the manner of operating the beds. The smaller the stone the more brilliant the effluent will be, but all reports agree that the cost of operation will be greater and that there will be a more rapid loss of filter capacity. Experience has taught the superiority of the coarser material because the interstices being so large the bed is not so liable to choke. Watson advises a fine medium bed only when a highly purified effluent is desired, when it would be difficult to get rid of humus from the filtrate, when a high cost of maintenance is not prohibitive and when a temporary stoppage of the whole plant would not be a serious matter. He believes it is not suitable for installations of any magnitude. Beds have been built with various depths, the range being between four and seven feet. Some have been built shallower and have given good results. The method of applying the sewage is important. Some tanks are overfed and others are underfed. Francis E. Daniels, Director of Water and Sewage Inspection of the New Jersey State Board of Health, describes a method which has been found to be successful in plants in this state. At these plants the effluent is applied on the top and at one corner of the contact beds. At the point of application a small area of contact material from 6 inches to one foot deep is removed from the top of the bed, and fine cinders are substituted. An embankment about a foot high is constructed of the same material around this area so that all of the tank effluent applied to the beds strains through the cinders. Mr. Daniels says that a great deal of the suspended matter is thus removed from the tank effluent which reduces clogging and increases the life of the beds. It is Mr. Daniels’ experience that the value of underfed beds is diminishing. If the effluent is very septic this method has the advantage of reducing odors, but as Mr. Daniels has pointed out, the practise of reducing the storage capacity of tanks is becoming prevalent.

In many plants the sewage is distributed by mechanical appliances, some being motor driven and others cable driven. Springfield, Missouri, which uses a motor drive, reports a saving in power, first cost, moving weight, and maintenance, over the cable drive. Another advantage is that the length of the filter can be increased at will. The total cost of the distribution per million gallons according to Springfield’s experience is $1.25 for cable drive and $1.61 for direct motor drive.