As a result, there is a difficult balance of achieving the Phosphorus consent while using chemicals economically and staying within the Fe / iron consent. This can be because the variable flows that smaller rural plants experience make it difficult to achieve consistency and the standard of existing assets such as settlement tanks / clarifiers and sludge holding tanks are not sufficiently sized to handle the resulting increase in solids produced by the use of ferric. While larger plants have been successful in getting P levels down further, the discharge levels in the next Asset Management Period might well be not possible to reach.įor smaller plants in particular, it’s often a struggle to reach levels of 0.25mg/l with Ferric Sulphate dosing. Ferric Sulphate dosing – consįerric Sulphate has essentially been doing the P-removal job just fine for plants with higher Phosphorus consents, however consents are getting tighter and trials in AMP6 indicated that 0.25mg/l was getting towards the limit of chemical dosing technology. It is comfortably capable of reducing P levels down to 0.5 mg/l at larger plants, and has been shown to reach 0.25mg/l in some cases. ![]() ![]() It is a tried and tested technology that the industry is used to. To reach the discharge limits set out in the more recent Asset Management Plan periods, as low as 0.5 in AMP6 and 0.25mg/l in AMP7, often a double dose of Ferric Sulphate is required – known in the industry as two-point dosing – followed by Tertiary Solids Removal. Subscribe to PII Magazine, E-newsletter and Podcast - for free!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |