Solley David 2000

THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA
Report by: David Solley - 2000 Churchill Fellow Project: To study the Upgrading of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants for Nutrient Removal
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report
David Solley
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PROGRAMME
5 5 5 5 6
UPGRADING OF LARGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
7 7 7 8 11 11 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 32
20/03/02 Page 2 of 39
4.1 NUTRIENT REMOVAL 4.1.1 Biological Nutrient Removal 4.1.1.1 BARDENPHO AND UCT BNR PROCESSES 4.1.1.2 THREE STAGE VERSUS FIVE STAGE BNR PROCESS 4.1.1.3 SUBSTRATE UTILISATION 4.1.1.4 PREFERMENTATION OF PRIMARY SLUDGE 4.1.1.5 HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME (HRT) 4.1.1.6 SOLIDS RETENTION TIME (SRT) 4.1.1.7 PLUG FLOW AND COMPLETE MIX REACTORS 4.1.1.8 CYCLIC/BATCH OPERATION 4.1.1.9 ATTACHED GROWTH PROCESSES 4.1.1.10 SECONDARY RELEASE OF PHOSPHORUS 4.1.2 Sludge Settleability, Scum and Foam 4.1.3 Control and Instrumentation 4.1.3.1 AERATION CONTROL 4.1.3.2 RECYCLE FLOWS CONTROL 4.1.3.3 SLUDGE SOLIDS CONTROL 4.1.3.4 EXTERNAL CARBON DOSE CONTROL 4.1.4 Separate Sidestream Treatment 4.1.4.1 SHARON PROCESS 4.1.4.2 PHOSPHORUS STRIPPER 4.1.5 Chemical Nutrient Removal 4.2 BIOSOLIDS HANDLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL 4.2.1 Digestion 4.2.2 Sludge Hydrolysis 4.2.3 Dewatering and Thickening 4.2.4 Incineration, Agricultural Reuse and Final Disposal of Biosolids 4.3 EFFLUENT POLISHING, DISINFECTION AND REUSE 4.4 ODOUR CONTROL 4.4.1 Chemical Scubbing 4.4.2 Biofilters 4.4.3 Disposing Odorous Air into Diffused Aeration Systems 4.5 PRIMARY TREATMENT AND PLANT BYPASS
Upgrading of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants for Nutrient Removal C:\WINNT\Profiles\so7sbw.000\Desktop\working\Churchill Report.doc Final Report

4.6 4.6.1 4.7 5 OPERATION Operator Training DESIGN DETAILS CONCLUSIONS
David Solley
33 33 34 35
RECOMMENDATIONS
37
REFERENCES
38
TABLES TABLE 3.1 TABLE 4.1 PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS COST COMPARISON OF SIDESTREAM N REMOVAL PROCESSES 6 24
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 4.1 FIGURE 4.2 FIGURE 4.3 FIGURE 4.4 FIGURE 4.5 FIGURE 4.6 3 STAGE BARDENPHO BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESS...........................8 UCT BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESS............................................................9 OXIDATION DITCH PROCESS CONFIGURED FOR P REMOVAL......................................10 BCFS PROCESS.........................................................................................................................10 5 STAGE BARDENPHO BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESS.........................11 BIO-DENIPHO PROCESS.........................................................................................................17
APPENDICES APPENDIX A ITINERARY APPENDIX B - CONTACTS APPENDIX C TREATMENT PLANT DETAILS APPENDIX D PHOTOGRAPHS
Upgrading of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants for Nutrient Removal C:\WINNT\Profiles\so7sbw.000\Desktop\working\Churchill Report.doc
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 3 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
David Solley
David Solley 200 Kadumba St, Yeronga, Qld 4014 Senior Process Engineer, Brisbane Water 07 3403 3325 ep5psbw@brisbane.qld.gov.au To study the upgrading of large wastewater treatment plants for nutrient removal in Europe and North America, with particular reference to overseas design and operations experience. This fellowship involved an eight week programme including visits to 40 wastewater treatment plants and two international water industry conferences in six countries (France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, USA and Canada) and two continents. In the Netherlands, the BCFS oxidation ditch plants and SHARON process were inspected courtesy of Mr. Rob Vromans (BDG Engineers) and Mr. Jan Mulder (Hollande Eilanden en Waarden) respectively. In Denmark, Kruger A/S (Dr. Marinus Neilsen & Mrs. Tine Onnerth) introduced their advanced control technology, as well as inspecting the Cambi process. Low effluent nitrogen BNR plants operating in similar climatic conditions to those in Brisbane were inspected in Hillsborough County (Tampa Florida, USA). The pioneer for BNR technology in North America, Prof. Cliff Randall (Virginia Tech.) organised an itinerary including inspection of various BNR upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay region (USA) and discussed his past and current BNR research. Tours of BNR plants in Western Canada were organised by Dr A. Warren Wilson (Reid Crowther P/L). These plants included some of the earliest and recent North American BNR upgrades, including those incorporating primary sludge fermentation. Where very low effluent nitrogen concentrations (less than 5 mg/L) are required, a five stage Bardenpho process (with primary settling) or oxidation ditch process (without primary settling) is recommended. These processes are also suitable for achieving both low phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. Advanced control and instrumentation offers great potential for achieving lower effluent nutrients and improved treatment efficiency. Key areas for improved control include aeration control, recycle stream flow control and sludge solids/SRT control. This control will be implemented at the Luggage Pt, Gibson Is and Oxley Ck WWTPs in Brisbane. Effective utilisation of substrate is key to obtaining maximum nutrient removal in BNR processes. Reduction of aeration to that required for complete nitrification, maximising EBPR, step feed of influent wastewater between anaerobic and anoxic zones and prefermentation of primary sludge, will all contribute to achieving this objective. Side stream treatment of digestion dewatering liquors can be implemented for removal of 15 to 30% of the nitrogen load. The SHARON process is the most cost effective and simple of the proven technologies. Research and pilot trials of alternative sidestream treatment processes will be conducted over the next two years. Sidestream phosphorus removal is likely to be unnecessary for most plants. Multi-level training and qualifications for operators of advanced wastewater treatment plants would be a positive development for the wastewater treatment industry. The Open Learning Institute will be contacted to determine how their operations training programme and qualifications could be further developed. The information gathered from this fellowship will be disseminated through this report, presentations to colleagues and the wider water industry, working with colleagues to implement the recommended improvements, and presentation of future case study results.
Final Report 20/03/02 Page 4 of 39
Name: Address: Position: Telephone: Email: Project Description:
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION Background
David Solley
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Australia are being required to remove nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) from the wastewater to prevent degradation of water bodies and the environment. Many new small to medium sized nutrient removal plants have been built in Australia in the last decade, but large WWTPs built in the 1970s for large cities are only now being upgraded for nutrient removal. Large existing plants have typically been upgraded because of the value of the existing assets and the high cost of new infrastructure. This Fellowship provided the opportunity to visit upgraded large WWTPs in regions where these plants have been operating for a number of years. No such plants and first hand design or operations experience currently exists in Australia. The plants and countries visited represent a selection of centres where significant developments have taken place and an extensive operating history exists. The fellowship and this report do not attempt to comprehensively cover all worldwide developments in wastewater treatment plant upgrading and BNR technology.
2.2
Purpose The purpose of this fellowship was to: Study the upgrading of WWTPs overseas; Investigate nutrient removal upgrades; Focus on both design and operational aspects; Increase personal skills and knowledge; Benefit Australia; Pass on the skills and knowledge gained.
2.3
Acknowledgements The support of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia in making this fellowship possible is gratefully acknowledged. Thank you also to my employer Brisbane Water, for their assistance and providing time to undertake the fellowship. The hospitality and freely given time and knowledge of each person who hosted me overseas is greatly appreciated. Prof. Cliff Randall (Virginia Tech.), Dr A. Warren Wilson (Reid Crowther P/L) and Mr. Rob Vromans (BDG Engineers) were exceptionally generous. Special thanks to Dr Peter Dold, Dr A. Warren Wilson and Mr. Nick Reid for planting the seed and strongly encouraging me to travel overseas to see how things are done elsewhere.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 5 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 3 PROGRAMME
David Solley
The fellowship involved an eight week programme and included visits to: 40 wastewater treatment plants; 2 international water industry conferences; 6 countries in two continents.
The two conferences attended were: The First World Water Congress of the International Water Association, held in Paris, France; The Second International Symposium on Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology, held in Narbonne, France.
Countries visited included: France; The Netherlands; Denmark; Sweden; USA (Florida, Atlanta, Chesapeake Bay region); Canada (Calgary, Okanagan Valley, Vancouver).
Table 3.1 below, lists the highlights of the fellowship programme. TABLE 3.1 PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS Location Activity Organisation/Contact France 1st World Water Congress IWA 2nd Int. Symposium on SBR Technology IWA 3 WWTPs Vivendi Water/OTV The BdG Engineers 4 BCFS oxidation ditch WWTPs Netherlands Jan Mulder & Grontmij 2 SHARON sidestream processes Denmark 4 BioDenipho plants & Cambi process Kruger A/S Sweden Trickling filter WWTP Gryaab/Peter Balmer ANOX AB (research activities) Asa Malmqvist Florida, USA 3 WWTPs Hillsborough County 4 WWTPs Orange County Atlanta, USA 3 WWTPs City of Atlanta/Joe Porter Chesapeake 6 WWTPs Prof. C. Randall Bay, USA Virginia Polytechnic (research activities) Prof. C. Randall Canada 7 WWTPs Reid Crowther Ltd Appendices A to D contain greater detail on the itinerary, personal contacts and wastewater treatment plants visited for this fellowship.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 6 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 4
David Solley
UPGRADING OF LARGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Prior to the last decade, wastewater treatment plants were constructed primarily for organic carbon removal. During the last decade, the process of upgrading wastewater treatment plants to meet more stringent environmental requirements has tended to be almost continuous. The main driver for these upgrades has been increased eutrophication and pollution of receiving water bodies, though water reuse requirements are beginning to have an impact on treated wastewater quality. The process of upgrading is likely to continue as effluent requirements become more stringent and treatment technology develops, driven by increasing urbanisation and increased understanding of the detrimental environmental effects of wastewater discharges.
4.1
Nutrient Removal The primary objective of any nutrient removal upgrade is that the nutrient removal requirements be met, usually for nitrogen and/or phosphorus. Elements to be considered in achieving this objective include the process configuration, design, and the control and operation of the process. Secondary considerations for an upgrade include the capital and operating costs, the degree of flexibility incorporated for unexpected conditions, the reliability and robustness of the process and the ease of operation. Capital cost is largely influence by the size of the tankage required for the process. Operating costs are mainly influenced by personnel, energy and chemical usage. For activated sludge processes, the settling characteristics of the sludge will have the greatest influence on reliability and operability.
4.1.1 Biological Nutrient Removal Almost all wastewater nutrient removal processes developed in the last decade have been based on biological nutrient removal (BNR) principles. This is largely due to the overall cost advantages of BNR in most cases. Chemical treatment to further remove phosphorus is sometimes applied, when the nutrient removal achieved by BNR is insufficient to meet effluent requirements. Non-biological removal of nitrogen from municipal wastewater is difficult to achieve (in comparison to BNR). Therefore, the usual strategy is to remove all the required nitrogen and as much phosphorus as possible with BNR, then remove the remaining phosphorus requirement with chemical precipitation of phosphorus (refer Section 4.1.5). Biological nitrogen removal is achieved by the nitrification/denitrification process, where the influent ammonium is oxidised to nitrite/nitrate, which in turn is reduced to nitrogen gas. Two different groups of bacteria carry out the two step process. The ammonium oxidising bacteria operate in an aerobic environment and the nitrate/nitrite reducing bacteria operate in the absence of dissolved oxygen. The denitrifying bacteria also require substrate/carbon for the reduction reaction. The processes can be achieved in a number of formats, including attached growth/fixed film systems and suspended culture/activated sludge systems. Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) is achieved by bacteria capable of storing substrate/carbon and releasing phosphorus in an anaerobic zone (that is, in the absence of dissolved oxygen and nitrate/nitrite). These bacteria are then able to utilise
Upgrading of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants for Nutrient Removal C:\WINNT\Profiles\so7sbw.000\Desktop\working\Churchill Report.doc Final Report 20/03/02 Page 7 of 39
David Solley
the stored substrate to store excess amounts of phosphorus in an aerobic environment. By wasting excess biosolids from the aerobic zone of the process, excess phosphorus is removed from the wastewater by these phosphate accumulating bacteria. Recent research also shows that excess phosphorus uptake can occur in the presence of nitrate/nitrite and absence of dissolved oxygen (anoxic conditions) (refer Section 4.1.1.3). EBPR is conventionally achieved in suspended culture/activated sludge processes, but recent research has successfully demonstrated EBPR with attached growth processes (albeit with some difficulty). For biological removal of both nitrogen and phosphorus, nitrification/denitrification and EBPR are combined in the one process, usually using a single sludge system. For low effluent concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus, a conflict usually exists in municipal wastewater, where the amount of substrate available for EBPR and denitrification is limiting on one or both of the processes (refer Section 4.1.1.3). Additional substrate can be added to the process to make up the substrate deficit, for either the denitrification or EBPR processes. Alternatively, chemical precipitation of the required phosphorus deficit can be applied. A large variety of process alternatives have been developed on the above principles, each with a particular advantage or designed to overcome the limitations of another. The choice of process type is largely dependent on the nutrient removal requirements, site constraints and the influent wastewater characteristics amongst other factors. Some of the significant process alternatives examined as part of the fellowship are presented below. 4.1.1.1 Bardenpho and UCT BNR Processes Of the processes investigated, most fall into two main groups; the Bardenpho process and the University of Cape Town (UCT) Process. In the three stage Bardenpho process (refer Figure 4.1), influent wastewater combines with return sludge from the clarifier in an unaerated reactor (anaerobic zone). In this zone, phosphorus is released and substrate stored by the phosphorus accumulating bacteria, in the absence of nitrate. The process flow then enters an anoxic zone, where it combines with a nitrate recycle from the end of the aerobic zone. In this unaerated zone, the returned nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas. The flow then enters an aerobic zone, where ammonia is oxidised to nitrate. Phosphorus is removed from the process with the excess biosolids, which are wasted either from the clarifier underflow or the aerobic zone. Nitrogen is removed as nitrogen gas bubbling from the anoxic zone.
Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle
Anaerobic
Anoxic
Aerobic
Figure 4.1
3 Stage Bardenpho Biological Nutrient Removal Process

David Solley
One limitation of the Bardenpho process, is that nitrate returned to the anaerobic zone with the return sludge from the clarifier can reduce the effectiveness of the phosphorus release/substrate storage mechanism. The magnitude of this effect is directly related to the levels of nitrate in the return sludge stream. In a process designed for low nitrogen, low nitrate levels are likely achieved, minimising the mass of nitrate returned with the sludge to the anaerobic zone. Endogenous denitrification of the return sludge in the clarifier sludge blanket, return channels or pipe work can also reduce the mass of nitrate returned. In Johannesburg/Westbank type modifications, a specific predenitrification zone can be included for nitrate removal from the RAS. In some plants, a proportion of the influent wastewater (say 10%) can be fed to the predenitrification zone, to increase the denitrification rate that would be achieved by reliance on endogenous respiration (Bonnybrook and Summerland WWTPs, Canada). In order to better protect the anaerobic zone from nitrate, the UCT (University of Cape Town) configuration returns sludge from the end of the anoxic zone to the anaerobic zone, which can be controlled to have low or zero nitrate (refer Figure 4.2). Disadvantages cited for this configuration include the need for an additional recycle stream (and associated pumps, pipes etc), and diluted mixed liquor solids in the anaerobic zone resulting in larger anaerobic volume. Some proponents of the UCT configuration argue that a larger anaerobic zone is not required, as the process favours a greater mass proportion of phosphorus accumulating bacteria.
Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle Anoxic Recycle
Anaerobic
Anoxic
Aerobic
Figure 4.2
UCT Biological Nutrient Removal Process
Two VIP (Virginia Initiative Project) plants were inspected near Chesapeake Bay in the USA. These plants are essentially high rate UCT processes that achieve excellent phosphorus removal and good nitrogen removal with a low hydraulic retention time (HRT). The oxidation ditch process for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal is essentially a three stage Bardenpho process with a very high mixed liquor recycle rate (refer Figure 4.3). Typically these plants are configured without primary settling, with the process usually operated at long sludge retention time (SRT) and long HRT (so called extended aeration). The advantage of this process is that effluent total nitrogen of less than 3 mg/L is possible for almost any wastewater (Randall et.al., 1992). With very low nitrate levels in the return sludge, good phosphorus removal is
David Solley
also possible. The disadvantages include large tankage requirements and the disadvantages associated with not including primary settling (such as higher aeration demand, and no primary sludge available for anaerobic digestion and subsequent gas utilisation; refer Section 4.1.1.3).
Anaerobic Anoxic
Influent
Return Sludge Aerobic
Effluent
Figure 4.3
Oxidation Ditch Process Configured for P Removal
The BCFS oxidation ditch plants (Netherlands) included a UCT type configuration with an oxidation ditch (refer Figure 4.5). This may be unnecessary from a phosphorus removal viewpoint, because with an oxidation ditch it should be possible to operate the process with low nitrate in the sludge return stream. However, the proponents of this system cite the advantages of better settling sludge and better utilisation of substrate (by denitrifying dephosphating bacteria) for this system (refer Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.1.3 respectively for discussion of these aspects).
Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle Anoxic Recycle
Anaerobic
Selector
Anoxic
Anoxic
Aerobic
Figure 4.4
BCFS Process
The Bonnybrook plant (Calgary, Canada) has the capability of operating in either a Bardenpho or UCT configuration. Experience at this plant was that the UCT configuration gave greater variation in the phosphorus removal performance compared to the Bardenpho configuration (the current operating configuration).
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 10 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 4.1.1.2 Three Stage Versus Five Stage BNR Process
David Solley
For greater removal of nitrogen, five stage processes are proposed to give greater nitrate removal. Typically, a secondary anoxic zone is included after the primary aeration zone, where endogenous denitrification occurs. Alternatively, additional external substrate can be dosed into this zone for higher denitrification rates. Following this zone, a secondary aeration zone is usually included to reaerate the wastewater and nitrify any ammonia produced as a result of the endogenous activity in the secondary anoxic zone. Figure 4.4 shows the five stage Bardenpho process configuration. Randall (1997) concluded from his investigations, that an effluent TN limit of 3 mg/L cannot be achieved with a three stage BNR process. Accounting for the unbiodegradeable TKN in the effluent (usually greater than 1 mg/L) would require effluent ammonia and nitrate levels totalling 2 mg/L. This is not typically achievable with a three-stage process. Process options for low nitrogen then include a five stage BNR process, or post-denitrification in a denitrification filter for example. As discussed in Section 4.1.1.1, Oxidation ditches without primary settling (essentially a three stage process), have demonstrated in South East Queensland and overseas that they are another alternative for effluent TN less than 3 mg/L.
Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle
Anaerobic
Anoxic
Aerobic
Anoxic
Aerobic
Figure 4.5 4.1.1.3 Substrate Utilisation
5 Stage Bardenpho Biological Nutrient Removal Process
To achieve low effluent concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus, a conflict can exist between the amount of substrate available and required. This is often the case with municipal wastewater. It follows then, that the appropriate utilisation of available substrate for the various biological processes is a critical success factor for BNR. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, for low concentrations of both nutrients, the focus is usually to first achieve the nitrogen removal requirement. Therefore, the required amount of substrate available for denitrification should be ensured. As demonstrated by the BCFS plants (Netherlands), this can be achieved in a couple of ways (van Loosdrecht, 1998). The use of denitrifying phosphorus removing bacteria (DPB) can maximise the use of substrate. These bacteria remove 1 mg/L of P for every 4-5 mg/L of nitrate removed, essentially utilising the same substrate for both objectives (about 20
David Solley
mgCOD/L). Kuba et. al. (1996 & 1997) report that these bacteria require recycling of activated sludge through anaerobic and anoxic conditions for a good accumulation, and are found in abundance in many UCT-type processes. A maximum reduction of 50% of the COD required, compared to conventional aerobic phosphorus uptake/nitrogen removal processes is reported. DPB observations are widely supported (Randall, 1997). At the Genemuiden WWTP (Netherlands), the DPB activity was found to be not as high as at other BCFS plants. This was possibly due to low VFA in the wastewater, nitrate or oxygen recycle to the anaerobic zone and less recycle of nitrate to the anoxic zone. That is, the BNR process was not operating as well. It is not known whether other process configurations with suitable anoxic and anaerobic fractions and recycles can achieve enhanced phosphorus uptake under anoxic conditions. Results from the Westbank plant (Kelowna, Canada), suggest that significant phosphate uptake is taking place in the anoxic zones of this three stage Bardenpho process; the DPB mechanism a likely cause. Randall suggests that the UCT process favours DPB because the UCT process provides the most reliable EBPR. Because the UCT process best protects the anaerobic zone from nitrite/nitrate, the VFA present in the wastewater is all used for EBPR, thus maximising DPB. It also follows then that the VFA/PO4 ratio is also an important factor in determining the degree of DPB possible. Step feed of influent was applied at a number of plants inspected. One variation found at the Bowie plant (Maryland, USA) and the Kelowna, Lake Country, Westbank and Summerland plants (British Columbia, Canada), was to step feed influent wastewater, part to the anaerobic zone and the remainder to the anoxic zone. This ensured that the required proportion of the substrate required for EBPR and denitrification was applied to the respective zones. An added benefit is that the solids concentration in the anaerobic zone is kept higher, and its size could therefore be reduced. Although this process would result in readily biodegradable substrate being fed directly to the anoxic zone (with its low F/M ratio), there was no evidence of a significant deterioration in sludge quality or rise in SVI (refer Section 4.1.2). The percentage of wastewater fed direct to the anoxic zone was 50 to 60% in the Bowie plant and up to 30% for the Canadian plants. In New York City, 13 of the 14 wastewater treatment plants are to be converted from plug flow aeration processes to step feed anoxic/aerobic processes for nitrogen removal. At the Bjergmarken WWTP (Roskilde, Denmark), a proportion of the raw wastewater could be bypassed around the presettling and sent direct to the bioreactors. The proportion of wastewater fed direct to the bioreactor was controlled to ensure sufficient substrate for denitrification. Endogenous substrates are a significant contributor to the requirements for denitrification. These are produced and utilised throughout the BNR process. Therefore, it follows that the denitrification process benefits if the aerobic retention time and oxygen provided are minimised, providing the maximum endogenous substrate for the anoxic process. Usually, the objective of the aeration zone is complete nitrification, so excess aeration provided above that required for complete nitrification is wasted. This additional aeration also consumes endogenous substrate that should be saved for the anoxic zone and denitrification, and also causes
David Solley
unnecessary release of nutrients through the cell destruction of the aerobic endogenous activity. These minimum aeration objectives were the focus of many processes inspected (Netherlands, Denmark, Chesapeake Bay/USA and Canada). The objectives were often achieved through control of the aerobic fraction and oxygen supplied. Further detail of this control is given in Section 4.1.3.1. Van Loosdrecht et.al. (1997) supported maximising the fraction of nitrifying bacteria in the BNR process to minimise aerobic endogenous activity, through: Operating at long SRT Primary settling to minimise the accumulation of inerts and heterotrophic bacteria Not combining chemical phosphorus removal with the activated sludge process, to prevent accumulation of chemical precipitates in activated sludge.
Primary settling of wastewater is often incorporated in treatment plants to minimise energy requirements and operating costs. The primary sludge removed is usually stabilised in an anaerobic digester in combination with waste activated sludge (WAS) (refer Section 4.2). Methane gas produced in the digestion process can be used for various energy needs at the plant. Energy is also saved in reduced aeration and costs are saved with lower excess biosolids production in the BNR process. However, plants lacking sufficient substrate or with a poor TKN/COD ratio may require the substrate available from primary sludge for the BNR process (primary sludge usually contains a more favourable TKN/COD ratio than that for settled wastewater). Oxidation ditches without primary settling usually produce very low effluent nitrogen levels through utilisation of all the available substrate and a favourable TKN/COD ratio. Prefermentation of the primary sludge to obtain VFA and readily available substrate for the BNR process is discussed in Section 4.1.1.4. Of course, there is always the option to meet substrate needs from an external source; whether it is commercial grade methanol, acetate or a waste product from another industry. Of the plants inspected that dosed an external carbon source, methanol was most commonly utilised for denitrification. One disadvantage is that the activated sludge culture needs to adapt to utilising methanol, whereas dosing with acetate requires no acclimatisation. This is most likely due to the natural occurrence of acetate substrates in most municipal wastewaters. 4.1.1.4 Prefermentation of Primary Sludge Prefermentation of primary sludge is another method for gaining readily biodegradable substrate for the BNR process. The substrate gained is in the form of volatile fatty acids (VFA), which is the required substrate for EBPR. For this reason prefermentation is most often applied to EBPR, where the prefermenter substrate is dosed to the anaerobic zone. The critical ratio in assessing the VFA requirements for EBPR is TP/VFA, and prefermenters are usually sized/designed on this basis. Prefermenter generated substrate could be dosed to anoxic zones to assist with denitrification, but this wasnt found at the plants visited. Fermentation of primary sludge will lead to the release of nitrogen and phosphorus, which had previously been removed from the effluent with the primary sludge. For this reason, careful consideration must be given to this additional nutrient load when assessing the benefits of prefermentation (important for nitrogen, more so than for phosphorus).
David Solley
There are various types of prefermenter configurations available, but complete mix and static fermenters were the types incorporated at the plants inspected (Canada). In the static fermenter, primary sludge is discharged to a reactor/tank, which is similar in configuration to a gravity thickener (sludge loading approximately 30 kg/m2/d). A thick sludge blanket is maintained in the reactor, corresponding to the required sludge age. The fermentation products are elutriated from the sludge blanket into the supernatant by the thickening action and stirring of the scraper/picket fence rake. These systems are favoured for their simplicity and easy control (i.e. maintenance of a sludge blanket level). Static prefermenters can be controlled to various sludge blanket levels, corresponding to the required sludge age for a particular temperature/season (Kelowna plant, Canada). Complete mix fermenters incorporate a complete mix reactor ahead of a separation process, which is usually a gravity settler. At the Bonnybrook plant (Calgary, Canada), the formation of methogenous bacteria is controlled by periodically aerating the fermenter reactor for short periods, using a course bubble diffuser system installed in the reactor. At Penticton WWTP, the static fermenters are fully mixed for an hour a day (and at times, on a couple of other occasions throughout the day also), using vertical shaft mixers. This is also to control the formation of methogenous bacteria and elutriate the VFA. Odour control is necessary for prefermenters and those inspected were fully covered, with odorous gas removed to odour treatment systems (refer Section 4.4 and Appendix C). The Nansemond (Virginia, USA) and Summerland (Kelowna, Canada) plants operate their primary clarifiers to maintain deep sludge blankets, in order to ferment the settled solids. The VFA formed is elutriated from the sludge blanket to the primary effluent in much the same way as a static fermenter; by action of the sludge thickening and stirring of the sludge blanket by the scraper mechanism. In doing so, the Nansemond plant is able to consistently reduce the effluent total phosphorus from about 1.1 mg/L to less than 1 mg/L. Reid Crowther P/L recommended reducing the primary settling tank (PST) peak overflow rate from the normal 4.5-5.5 m/hr to less than 3.5 m/hr in this mode of operation, to allow thickening of the primary sludge in the PST. (This is similar to the approach that has been adopted at Luggage Pt WWTP in Brisbane). 4.1.1.5 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) Hydraulic retention time has perhaps the greatest influence on the capital cost of a treatment plant. The greater the HRT, the larger the tankage required. The HRTs of the plants inspected varied from 6 hours to greater than 24 hours. Generally, the plants achieving greater nitrogen removal operated at a higher HRT (apart from exceptions such as Largo WWTP, which incorporates post-denitrifying filters). There is often a link between HRT, SRT and MLSS concentration in the bioreactor (refer Section 4.1.1.6). For example, oxidation ditches without primary settling and long SRT often require a high HRT to maintain MLSS in a workable range (say 4000 to 5000 mg/L). Phosphorus removal does not appear to be influenced significantly by HRT in the normally applied range. The VIP plants (Virginia, USA), based on the UCT configuration, were designed and are operated with very low HRT (about 6 hours). These plants achieved low phosphorus levels (less than 1 mg/L) and moderately low nitrogen levels (8 mg/L). It should be noted that even lower nitrogen results (say 6 mg/L) could probably have be
David Solley
obtained by increasing the nitrate recycle (to 2 times the inlet flow rate), but this performance was not required to meet licence at these plants. The wastewater treated at these plants is quite dilute compared to Australian conditions. So when comparing performance, the effluent concentrations should not be considered in isolation to percentage removal and the effluent nutrient mass figures, which are not quite as impressive. 4.1.1.6 Solids Retention Time (SRT) The solids retention time is one of the key parameters in designing and operating a BNR plant. The SRT defines the average time which bacteria are retained in the process, and with the wastewater loading, effectively determines the mixed liquor solids level in the process. The maximum SRT value (and hence solids level) possible for the process, is defined by the capacity of the final clarification step. That is, the limit for solids in the bioreactor corresponds to the maximum allowable flux loading on the clarifiers. Put another way, the SRT determines the size of the clarifiers for the process and has a large influence on capital cost of a plant. It follows then, that an improvement in solids settleability can lead to greater flexibility and possible increase in the SRT of the process or lower capital cost (refer Section 4.1.2). Wastewater temperature also has an influence on the required SRT for a process, with lower temperatures requiring higher SRTs. This is most important with respect to nitrification. Many plants in cold temperature have difficulty fully nitrifying during winter months, and this is often reflected in their nitrogen licence (Canada and Denmark). The generally held view is that for nitrogen removal, the longer the SRT, the better the performance; and for phosphorus, the shorter the SRT, the better the P removal performance. So to achieve both N and P removal, a compromise is often required. The approach is usually to ensure the required biological N removal and supplement the biological P removal with chemical precipitation. For complete nitrification, a minimum SRT is required, dependent on the aerated fraction in the bioreactor and the wastewater loading and temperature. The SRT then required to achieve the desired nitrate level is dependant on the substrate available. If there is adequate readily available substrate in the raw wastewater, then the reliance on endogenous denitrification is diminished and the SRT could be quite low. If the TKN/COD ratio is unfavourable, then the plants reliance on endogenous denitrification increases and generally the SRT is increased. Of the plants inspected, many are achieving very low effluent phosphorus and low nitrogen with quite a low SRT (e.g. the Canadian plants such as Kelowna and Summerland and the VIP processes in Virginia, USA). On the other hand, many long SRT plants achieved very low nitrogen and phosphorus, albeit often with the addition of precipitant chemicals. Control of SRT is fundamental to the performance of most BNR process. It provides a stable control parameter, which allows adjustments in mixed liquor solids to meet varying wastewater loadings. Many plants have different SRT set points for different seasons of the year; or may more directly control SRT to wastewater temperature (Summerland WWTP, Canada). Further details on SRT and solids control are given in Section 4.1.3.3. 4.1.1.7 Plug Flow and Complete Mix Reactors
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 15 of 39
David Solley
Each zone in a BNR process can be designed either as a plug flow reactor, complete mix reactor, or some variation between the two extremes. A plug flow reactor provides the most efficient arrangement, where all the flow remains in the reactor for essentially the same duration; that is, a uniform residence time. Plug flow reactors can generally be sized smaller than complete mix reactors. Plug flow reactors also allow for better control. For example, when recycling from a plug flow anoxic zone to the anaerobic zone in the UCT process, there is a much better chance that the recycle stream has low nitrate in the plug flow reactor than in a complete mix reactor. Selectors in particular are reported to give much better performance in the plug flow configuration (refer Section 4.1.2). However, maintaining mixed liquor solids in suspension in a plug flow reactor can be difficult to achieve and can promote short-circuiting when mechanically mixed. Unless the reactor is configured such that the forward velocity of the mixed liquor through the reactor is greater than about 0.27 m/s (as in an oxidation ditch), then the best that can be achieved will be a number of complete mix reactors in series. The greater the number of complete mixed reactors, the closer the approximation to plug flow. The efficiency and power requirements of the mechanical mixing system also needs to be balanced against the desire for plug flow. Each complete mix zone will require at least one mechanical mixer. Very efficient mixing can be provided for large complete mix reactors, using large diameter impeller, slow speed mixers (Kelowna WWTP, Canada). 4.1.1.8 Cyclic/Batch Operation Various alternatives exist for cyclic/batch operation BNR processes. In these processes, the aeration and wastewater feed applied are cycled to produce varying conditions in the reactor. The Danish developed Bio-Denipho process has been adopted throughout Denmark and applied in various parts of the world (Florida, USA and Australia). Figure 4.6 shows the various phases of the process, as usually applied (alternatives exist with phases where both reactors operate in an anoxic mode). Mixed liquor is fed alternatively to the two main bioreactors, which are sequentially operated in anoxic and aerobic modes. The process is reported to give increased flexibility over continuous processes, in that the HRT and mass fraction of the anoxic and aerobic zones can be adjusted by variation of the various phase lengths. A greater degree of on-line instrumentation is usually applied to these types of processes, aimed at optimising this available flexibility. The process also eliminates the requirement for a nitrate recycle, leading to some potential energy savings. Of the plants inspected, the performance of the cyclic processes did not exceed the performance of many continuous processes, despite this increased flexibility. This is likely either because there has been an increasing focus on providing flexibility in continuous processes, or the degree of flexibility is not required due to the continuous processes being quite well matched to their loading conditions. The SRT and HRT adopted were at the long end of the range for the examined plants, indicating that the increased flexibility had not lead to great capital cost savings. At the South County plant (Tampa, USA), the process has not been operating in the cyclic BioDenipho mode for over six months. The operators have preferred operating the plant in a continuous mode, with the two oxidation ditches operating continuously in series. A
David Solley
low DO concentration is maintained at this plant, which would be promoting substantial SND (simultaneous nitrification/denitrification).
Anaerobic
Anoxic Aerobic Return Sludge
Anaerobic
Aerobic Aerobic Return Sludge
PHASE A
Anaerobic Aerobic Anoxic Return Sludge Anaerobic
PHASE B
Aerobic Aerobic Return Sludge
PHASE C
PHASE D Bio-Denipho Process
Figure 4.6
4.1.1.9 Attached Growth Processes As an alternative to suspended growth processes (e.g. activated sludge BNR), attached growth BNR processes are being investigated and adopted for a number of plants. These process types include: trickling filters, suspended and fixed carrier processes, biological filters.
Suspended and fixed carrier processes are usually combined with activated sludge in the same process stream. Biomass grows on the carriers, as well as forming activated sludge flocs. The carrier media are retained in the bioreactor and the activated sludge flows through to the clarifier for separation. For many attached growth projects, the aim of installing the media in the aerobic zone is to improve the plants nitrification capacity. The biomass growth for nitrification is usually more difficult to establish in an activated sludge process, and also forms only a thin biomass film on the carriers, avoiding the bulky heterotrophic growth that often leads to clogging of the carrier media. The effectiveness of clogged media is severely reduced due to limited contact between the wastewater and the biomass, plus the media can sink to the bottom of the reactor floor.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 17 of 39
David Solley
Trials using LinPor sponges overcame clogging problems by utilising airlift pumps to squeeze out inert material (Chesapeake Bay, USA). At the Annapolis plant (Maryland, USA), ring-lace attached growth media are installed in the last two thirds of the aerobic zone of the bioreactor. Most of the nitrification at the Annapolis plant was complete in the first third of the aeration zone, so it was difficult to gauge the success of the trial. From this and similar trials carried out in Canada and Australia, it seem appropriate to install media throughout the whole aeration zone in processes with up-front anaerobic/anoxic zones (e.g. MLE, Bardenpho or UCT processes). Most of the readily available substrate has been absorbed onto the activated sludge flocs in the unaerated zones and nitrifier growth on the carriers should predominate for the whole aerated zone. Worm growth on ring lace or carrier media is also a common problem with attached growth processes. This has been successfully controlled in aeration zones by turning the air off each day for a period, and also by chlorinating the RAS (Annapolis, USA). Carrier media have also been successfully used for separate denitrification reactors or within unaerated zones with an activated sludge process. Mechanical mixing is then required to keep the media mobile and any activated sludge in suspension. Estimated of the mixing power require for carriers in unaerated reactors is estimated between 10 to 13 W/m3 (Maurer, 2000). This was confirmed by Anox AS (Sweden), as between 10 to 20 W/m3. Trickling filters were included in a couple of plants inspected (Goteburg, Sweden and Vancouver, Canada). The reported advantages of trickling filters, which lead to their inclusion in these plants, included their robust performance, low operating cost, simplicity and higher nitrification rates (for Goteburg). None of the trickling filter plants examined achieved low effluent nitrogen. Post-denitrification filters, with the addition of substrate for denitrification, have been included at several plants throughout Europe and the USA. Two French water companies (OTV/Vivendi and Degremont/Lyonnaise) have implemented biological filter processes as the main biological treatment process in the Paris region (France). The biological filter processes adopted there are the companies proprietary products (such as BIOSTYR and BIOFOR) which are filters configured for nitrogen removal. Methanol addition to the unaerated section of the filter provides suitable conditions for denitrification. These processes are compact and achieve substantial nitrogen reduction, though not matching that of BNR processes elsewhere and at higher capital and operating cost. The BAF process (biologically aerated filter) at the Roanoke plant (Virginia, USA), has experienced media retention and inlet screening problems. The second stage filters also clog with algae regularly. The BAF is taken off-line twice a day for cleaning. 4.1.1.10 Secondary Release of Phosphorus
Secondary phosphorus release occurs under anaerobic conditions, when phosphorus is released by the EBPR bacteria without substrate storage. This is believed to have a detrimental effect on EBPR, as excess phosphorus uptake by these bacteria cannot then occur in the aerobic zone. Low effluent nitrate can cause secondary release of phosphorus in the final settling tanks (FSTs) and RAS return stream. To overcome this effect, the preference is often to operate with some effluent nitrate, when low
David Solley
concentrations of phosphorus are required. Secondary release can also occur if anaerobic or secondary anoxic zones are too large, such that for a significant part of the zone, the nitrate and VFA are zero. These effects may be controlled by providing flexibility in the sizing of these zones and through control of nitrate levels (i.e. recycle rates, DO and carbon dosing control; refer Section 4.1.3). An alternative view is that secondary release in an anoxic environment may not necessarily be a disadvantage, as substrate storage has still been measured with this release (Randall, Virginia Tech.). The mechanism could be associated with glycogen storage, as the glycogen may be converted to PHA at the end of the anoxic zone. 4.1.2 Sludge Settleability, Scum and Foam Activated sludge settleability and the degree of scum formation and foaming can be the most influencing factors in determining the ease of operating a BNR plant. Sludge settleability governs the final clarification or separation step in the activated sludge process. A sludge that has poor settleability results in difficulty with separating the biological solids from the treated effluent. In the worst case, process failure occurs when the sludge solids are lost with the effluent. Poor sludge settleability usually also indicates that the activated sludge will have poor thickening and dewatering characteristics (that is, low thickened sludge and cake solids content from thickening and dewatering processes such as gravity thickeners, belt presses and centrifuges refer Section 4.2). The most widely adopted measure of sludge settleability is the sludge volume index (SVI). BNR plants are notorious for sludges that have poor settling characteristics and high SVI values, usually greater than 150 mL/g and often in the 200 to 300 mL/g range. The result of this is that the final clarifiers in a BNR plant are usually sized conservatively, to avoid process failure when the sludge is settling poorly. If plants can be designed to reliably produce a good settling sludge, then the reliability of the process is increased and/or the size of clarifiers can confidently be reduced, resulting in capital and operational savings. Of the plants inspected, the BCFS processes (Netherlands) and VIP processes (Virginia, USA) consistently produced the lowest SVI sludges. The features of these processes proposed to lead to this excellent sludge settleability include a UCT configuration and plug flow or compartmentalised anaerobic selectors. The BCFS processes use a carousel type selector configuration and the VIP processes, two to three complete mix reactors in series. Some complete mix anaerobic selectors also produced good settleability, so this is obviously not the only influencing factor. Selectors are designed so that a sufficiently high F/M (food/micro-organism) ratio exists for the floc forming bacteria to out-compete filamentous bacteria. In theory, anaerobic selectors are sized such that all the readily available substrate is adsorbed into the activated sludge flocs in this high F/M environment. This substrate is then not available in a low F/M environment where filamentous bacteria have a competitive advantage. Good settling sludges were produced at the plants where the anaerobic zones were greater than 10% of the bioreactor volume. The benefits of the UCT process in producing good settling sludge is attributed to that processs complete elimination of nitrite from the anaerobic selector. The presence of nitrites in the aerobic zone is reported to favour filamentous bacteria (Randall,
David Solley
Virginia Tech.). Nitrite is a powerful oxidiser and is thought to inhibit floc-forming bacteria. In the UCT process it is possible and best to control the nitrate recycle to have little or no nitrate at the end of the anoxic zone, as the presence of nitrate usually indicates the present of some nitrite. Oxidation ditches (without upfront anaerobic selectors) could have nitrite contact conditions quite easily with their high recirculation rates, and this may be the cause of their notoriously poor settlebility. Low selector nitrate/nitrite is also possible with other process configurations (e.g. Bardenpho and BioDenipho processes), by maintaining low effluent nitrate and/or by completely denitrifying the return sludge. In the BCFS processes, the first part of the anoxic reactor is also compartmentalised to provide an anoxic selector (refer Figure 4.4). This selector is provided for absorption of the soluble hydrolysis products that remain after the anaerobic zone. Introduction of this anoxic selector reportedly lead to reductions in SVI from around 150 mL/g to between 80 and 100 mL/g at one of the BCFS plants, which is typical for the process type (van Loosdrecht, 1998). Many plants reported severe scum problems, particularly when mixed liquor concentrations were high (generally during winter). One successful control method was to remove the scum from the bioreactor (Canada and Atlanta, USA). The approach is to remove the scum forming organisms from the surface of the bioreactor where they are growing. Several of the Canadian plants selectively wasted sludge and scum together from the end of the bioreactor. Foam control using poly-aluminium chloride dosing (e.g. PAX-14 by Kemwater) has been successful practised in the Netherlands and in Denmark (Naestved WWTP) against microthrix filamentous bacteria. The chemical is dosed at 70 to 80 mgPAX/kgVSS. The theory is that the alum coats the filaments and decreases their competitiveness. Improvements are reported to occur in 2 to 3 days from commencement of dosing. 4.1.3 Control and Instrumentation The degree of control applied to the plants inspected varied from manual adjustment of equipment without the aid of on-line instrumentation (e.g. no on-line DO meters at Falkenburg WWTP, Florida), to state of the art control systems with automatic setpoint adjustment (Denmark). More advanced control systems generally allowed plants to achieve improved performance, rather than lower staffing levels. In essence, the more advanced control systems have allowed monitoring and tuning of the treatment process to a degree that would never have been considered manually. It is in this area of advanced control and instrumentation that the greatest improvements could be made in achieving low effluent nutrients in Australia. Improved instrumentation is partly responsible for the improvements in control. Reliable nutrient meters are becoming available, and advances are focused on reduced maintenance, low running costs (e.g. less reagents) and higher sample frequency. For example, the Dr Lange Nitrax probe is used extensively in Europe for online nitrate, utilising the UV measurement principle. This meter is capable of giving true on-line readings, rather than the reactor chemistry meters, which have a sample frequency of about fifteen minutes or so.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 20 of 39
David Solley
All plants with on-line nutrient analysers, incorporated sample filtering (using simple cross-flow membrane systems). 4.1.3.1 Aeration Control Control of aeration in BNR plants has been achieved in many ways, the usual objective being to control to a DO set-point in the aerated zones, sufficient to remove ammonia-nitrogen. By controlling the aeration to the minimum required to achieve complete nitrification (say ammonia less than 1 mg/L), the following objectives can be achieved: The substrate utilised aerobically is minimised, providing the maximum fraction of substrate for denitrification, Aeration energy is minimised, Aerobic degradation of the biomass is minimised.
Essentially, aerating the process after all ammonia is removed is wasted effort and is likely to be detrimental to the process. At the Genemuiden WWTP (Netherlands), the aeration in the main aerobic reactor is controlled to a DO set point at the reactor outlet. In the anoxic/aerobic swing reactor, the surface aerator is controlled by turning the aeration on when the ORP value at the outlet of the reactor is less than a set point (say < -100 mV); and off when the DO at the outlet of the main aeration reactor reaches above a high set point. Controlling the ORP in the swing zone between zero and 150 mV can ensure that suitable conditions for simultaneous nitrification/denitrification (SND) occur. In this way, the aeration mass fraction is optimised at this plant. Sen and Randall (1990) successfully controlled aeration at the Bowie WWTP using feedback from an on-line effluent alkalinity meter. The effluent alkalinity was used to control the oxygen supplied by increasing when alkalinity rose above a set range and vice versa. The control method is appropriate for systems with long HRT, low F/M and high recycle rates (e.g. oxidation ditches). Low DO levels were also maintained (0.5 mg/L), to reduce the oxygen applied and maximise SND. Sen and Randall also showed that effluent phosphorus levels rose along with turbidity, when the amount of oxygen supplied was insufficient for substrate stabilisation and nitrification. In this way, turbidity has been used to control aeration in the Schreiber Corporation plants (Maryland, USA). In Denmark, the aeration system DO set points were controlled to ammonia and OUR (as determined by the on-line DO and air flow rate measurements). Similar automatic DO set point adjustment to on-line ammonia values has been implemented at the Beckton WWTP (U.K.). The operational mode of aerobic/anoxic swing zones can also be controlled to effluent ammonia values. The Summerland plant (Kelowna, Canada) automatically changes the aeration system DO set point through 12 different set point values during each day. The set-point values are manually entered by the operator, with the objective of maintaining ammonia between 0.6 and 0.8. Grab samples are taken from time to time, to monitor the effluent ammonia achieved. The samples are analysed using the commonly available test kits that utilise pre-packaged reagent vials (Merck, Dr.Lange and Hach).
David Solley
Set point adjustments are manually made on the basis of these results and wastewater temperature. At the end of an aerobic zone, over-aeration is often caused by low oxygen demands mismatched with the inability of the aeration system to sufficiently reduce the airflow. Also, the requirement for mixing in this zone (i.e. to keep the mixed liquor in suspension) often requires the airflow to be higher than that required by the biological process. This can lead to carryover of oxygen into the anoxic zone and reduced efficiency of the denitrification process. Solutions to the problem include: Installing supplemental mechanical mixing in these aeration zones (Utoy Ck WWTP, Atlanta USA). Installing coarse bubble diffusers for the low aeration demand sections of the aeration zone (Westbank WWTP, Kelowna Canada). Pulsing the aeration system on and off in these sections, to provide minimum aeration but sufficient mixing.
4.1.3.2 Recycle Flows Control The mixed liquor recycle flows in a BNR process have also been successfully controlled for improved nutrient removal at many plants. Control of the nitrate (or A) recycle, aims to return the optimum mass of nitrate to the anoxic zone to maximise removal. In the UCT type processes, this is particularly critical, in that the nitrate at the end of the anoxic zone (where the mixed liquor is recycled to the anaerobic zone) should be minimised preferably to zero. Most plants keep the mixed liquor recycles at a constant rate, while the most basic control paces the mixed liquor recycles to the plant inflow (Florida, USA). The BCFS plants controlled the nitrate and anaerobic mixed liquor recycles to ORP values from meters located at the ends of the anoxic and anaerobic zones respectively. When the redox value becomes greater than a set-point value (-100 mV at the end of the anoxic and 300 mV at the end of the anaerobic), the respective pump rate is reduced linearly with increasing redox value. In Denmark, Kruger AS control the nitrate recycle rate to the nitrate level at the end of the anoxic zone. In their experience, they found ORP to be too sensitive a control parameter. Control of the return sludge flow from the FSTs has also been optimised at some plants. Kruger A/S (Denmark) control the return sludge flow to a constant suspended solids level in the return stream. Two different set point flow rates are adopted for day and night (for sludge dewatering reasons). Control of the sludge return flow rate to maintain a constant sludge blanket level in the FSTs, has also been successfully adopted at some plants in Denmark and Florida. Dr Lange Sonatax ultra sonic sludge blanket detectors are used in Netherlands successfully. As an indicator of the efforts being made to reduce maintenance, the instrument has a wiper to automatically clean biofilm growth off the element, with an alarm indicated when the wiper needs replacing. At the South County plant (Florida, USA), the return sludge flow is paced to the main stream effluent flow rate. This gives a much better response to the flow being applied to the FSTs than using plant inflow. However, pacing of the return sludge flow to plant flow should be applied cautiously, as this may have disastrous results during
David Solley
peak flow conditions. Although the objective of returning solids to the bioreactor during the peak load is desirable (from a F/M ratio perspective), the solids flux loading on the FSTs is greatly exacerbated by higher sludge recycle flows at the time when the loading is critical. 4.1.3.3 Sludge Solids Control The two usual choices for solids control in the activated sludge process are either to maintain a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) level, or to control to a solids retention time (SRT). Control to a set point MLSS range is often favoured, due to its simplicity. The operators of a treatment plant often become comfortable with a solids level that is suitable for the BNR process. This may work very well, especially for plants where the loading does not vary significantly. Different MLSS levels may be adopted for different mixed liquor temperatures or seasons of the year. Some of the BCFS plants (the Netherlands) control to solids and are greatly aided in this by the use of on-line suspended solids meters. Control to a set point SRT provides control of the MLSS appropriate to the process requirements and independent of plant loading. While arguably a technically superior control method, in practice the control can be erratic when wasting solids from the FST underflow, due to variations in RAS solids concentration. When mixed liquor wasting from the bioreactor is practised, control to an SRT set point becomes simple and easy to control (the volume of sludge wasted per day is equivalent to the bioreactor volume divided by the SRT in days). Mixed liquor sludge wasting from the end of the BNR bioreactor also has the advantage of: Wasting sludge with the highest phosphorus content. Providing the opportunity to selectively waste collected scum with the mixed liquor (Canada).
As with MLSS control, different SRT set points are often adopted for different mixed liquor temperatures or seasons of the year. On-line solids meters were widely used throughout Europe and America for control, with reported success. Most instruments used an infrared measurement principle. This is different to the experience in Brisbane, where the accuracy of readings was poor unless the meters were frequently calibrated (at least weekly). This may be due the highly varying sludge quality at the plants where these meters were installed (these meters are optical instruments and varying floc/filament sizes and proportions are likely to require very frequent calibration). 4.1.3.4 External Carbon Dose Control Control of external carbon dosing to an on-line effluent nitrate value is often applied to post-denitrification processes (France, Netherlands & USA). Kruger A/S (Denmark) control external carbon dosing to the main BNR process through monitoring of nitrate levels and the calculated OUR (from DO and air flow meters). The capacity for denitrification is calculated (as the OUR/4), and the denitrification need is calculated (as the measured nitrate in the effluent or recirculation point). When the need exceeds the capacity, then carbon dosing is implemented.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 23 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 4.1.4 Separate Sidestream Treatment
David Solley
Significant quantities and concentrations of nutrients can be found in the sidestreams of most wastewater treatment processes. The most common of these is the dewatering liquid from digested sludge, which is very high in ammonium and phosphorus. This sidestream includes centrate/filtrate from the cake dewatering process and any digester supernatant removed. Other high nutrient sources may include tankered industrial or septic wastes. Most of these sidestreams are conventionally returned to the head of the main process, where they are combined with the raw wastewater. Estimates of the nitrogen load from this sidestream return are between 15 and 30% of the total nitrogen load on the process. The phosphorus load is largely dependent on the degree of EBPR and the degree to which struvite and similar compounds form in the sludge digesters and surrounding pipe work. A promising recent development is the separate treatment of these high nutrient sidestreams, which is reported to be more efficient and lower cost (Vandaele et al., 2000). The effect of sidestream treatment is to unload the main nutrient removal process, resulting in lower effluent nutrient concentrations. Sidestream treatment methods for nitrogen removal include: Air stripping, Steam stripping, MAP (magnesium ammonium phosphate or struvite) process, Ion exchange processes, Conventional biological nitrification/denitrification processes, Nitrification/denitrification variations involving sequencing batch reactors (SBR), membrane bioreactors and attached growth systems.
Mulder (2000) gives cost estimate for the various different techniques available for nitrogen removal from sidestreams, shown in Table 4.1 below. TABLE 4.1 COST COMPARISON OF SIDESTREAM N REMOVAL PROCESSES Process Cost estimate (Euro/kg N) Air stripping 6.0 Steam stripping 8.0 MAP/CAFR process 6.0 Membrane bioreactor 2.8 Biofilm airlift reactor 5.7 SHARON process 1.5
Sidestream treatment processes for phosphorus removal include MAP and chemical precipitation processes. Very few plants incorporating anaerobic digesters were found to carry out sidestream phosphorus removal, and yet many achieved excellent effluent phosphorus results. This is due to the formation of struvite, calcium phosphate and vivianite in the digester, which usually removes the necessity for P removal from sidestream flows. Studies show that greater quantities of magnesium are also taken up by the EBPR bacteria, which then becomes available in anaerobic digesters for struvite formation (Pattarkine and Randall, 1999). Typically, up to two thirds of the released phosphorus remains in the digested sludge in these various crystaline forms.
David Solley
To maximise the effect, it is recommended that removal of supernatant from anaerobic digesters is not practised. The Danish experience is also that phosphorus release from anaerobic digesters is generally not a problem. 4.1.4.1 SHARON Process The SHARON (Single reactor for High activity Ammonia Removal Over Nitrite) process has been developed in the Netherlands for the treatment of high strength ammonium wastewater from the dewatering of digested sludge (Mulder et. al., 2000). Two plants utilising the SHARON process were inspected in the Netherlands; the Dokhaven plant in Rotterdam and the Utrecht WWTP. In this process, the ammonium is nitrified to nitrite as the intermediate, followed by denitrification of nitrite to nitrogen gas. This has the following advantages over conventional nitrification/denitrification (via nitrate): 75% of the aeration energy is required to oxidise ammonium to nitrite, and 60% of the carbon addition is required for denitrification starting with nitrite.
The ammonium oxidation is simply controlled to nitrite by operating at elevated temperature (30 to 40 C) and low solids retention time (SRT). The process is essentially achieved without sludge retention, such that biomass growth and washout are in equilibrium. That is, the SRT is equal to the hydraulic retention time (HRT), at about 1 to 2 days. The process generates excess heat, usually requiring a heat exchanger for cooling. A heat exchanger may also be required for heating during startup. pH control is very important and can be achieved with the addition of alkali. However, experience has shown this is unnecessary and that addition of methanol with the resulting recovery of alkalinity through denitrification is sufficient to maintain a stable pH. The Dokhaven plant operates with a simple single reactor system operating in a aerobic/anoxic cycle, which is superior to the two reactor continuous system at Utrecht WWTP. The process is very stable and simple to operate. Greater than 90% removal of ammonium is achieved with the SHARON process, which is fairly independent of the initial ammonium concentration. Therefore, a greater mass of nitrogen is removed with higher initial nitrogen concentrations, favouring the process for high concentration applications (around 1 g.NH4/L or higher at the Dokhaven plant). The SHARON process has been evaluated in a number of studies as being the most cost effective (Mulder et al.,2000) and most robust (Vandaele et al.,2000) sidestream treatment for nitrogen removal. Evidence from the two sites inspected indicated that the SHARON process was highly effective. The new ANAMMOX (aerobic ammonium oxidation) process is currently being developed as a variation on the SHARON process, in which the ammonium is oxidised by serving as the electron donor in a denitrification reaction. In effect, the ammonium meets the energy requirements of the denitrification process, removing the need for substrate addition. By combining the process with a process in which nitrite is produced (e.g. SHARON), a nitrogen removal process is possible which requires much less oxygen (half that required for the SHARON process), no additional substrate and very low sludge production (Van Loosdrecht and Jetten, 1998). This, and similar processes are being developed by a number of different research groups
David Solley
and shows promise for lower cost and more effective nitrogen removal from sidestreams. (Brisbane Water in co-operation with the University of Queenslands Advanced Wastewater Management Centre, Redland Shire Council and the Queensland Governments Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology Scheme will be researching and pilot-trialing ANAMMOX type processes over the next two years). 4.1.4.2 Phosphorus Stripper One innovative alternative developed for the BCFS process (Netherlands), puts a twist on sidestream treatment by specifically creating a high strength phosphorus stream from the main BNR process. Where chemical phosphorus removal is required, they have implemented a system that withdraws pre-settled phosphorus rich liquor from the end of the anaerobic zone (that is, following EBPR phosphorus release). The phosphorus is then chemically precipitated from this high strength stream. Greater efficiency is achieved by chemically dosing in the sidestream rather than the main process stream, due to the high phosphorus concentrations. An in-tank settler has been developed for decanting the phosphate rich liquor from the anaerobic zone (van Loosdrecht et.al., 1998). 4.1.5 Chemical Nutrient Removal BNR has been chosen for most nutrient removal upgrades in order to minimise chemical usage and costs. Where chemicals are added, they are often in the form of substrate for the BNR process. The most common substrate chemicals added are methanol, ethanol or acetate. Acetate is usually more expensive, but has the advantage of being suitable substrate (VFA) for EBPR and not requiring biomass acclimatisation for nitrogen removal. Acclimatisation is likely not required for acetate because it occurs natural in most domestic wastewaters, whereas methanol or ethanol does not. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, chemical phosphorus removal is often applied to BNR plants to remove additional phosphorus that is not removed in the biological process. This is usually achieved by dosing precipitant chemicals either into the mixed liquor entering the bioreactor, or the mixed liquor stream feeding the FSTs. This was widely practiced at the treatment plants inspected. The FSTs need to be adequately sized for the additional chemical sludge load, which can be significant. Alternatives precipitant chemical dosing points include: dosing to the PST feed (which places an additional chemical sludge load on the PSTs) (France), dosing the effluent from the FSTs (which would require a downstream separation process such as settling or filtration), dosing into the sewers, which is often practised for odour control, dosing to a separated sidestream (refer Section 4.1.4.2).
The two main precipitant chemicals used for phosphorus removal are alum and ferric salts. There is some concern that ferric salts can have a detrimental effect on EBPR processes, due to some inhibition of the phosphorus accumulating bacteria. This has recently been summarised and studied in a series of papers by de Haas et.al. (2001). At the Bonnybrook plant (Calgary, Canada), it was also reported that iron salts caused
David Solley
the UV disinfection to become ineffective, due to increased fouling of the UV lamps and reduced efficiency from adsorption. It is also important not to remove too much phosphorus (through overdosing of chemical precipitants), as this has lead to nutrient deficiency in BNR processes (Virginia, USA). 4.2 Biosolids Handling, Treatment and Disposal The management of biosolids is a major challenge for modern wastewater treatment plants. A variety of techniques are used for the handling, treatment and disposal of biosolids. Mainstream BNR processes place greater demands on the sludge stream of nutrient removal plants. New biosolids stabilisation and treatment processes have been introduced to increase the destruction of volatile solids and pathogens (refer Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). In doing so, biosolids disposal options are improved. With greater volatile solids destruction comes greater release of bound nutrients, often requiring separate treatment of sludge return liquors for nutrient removal (refer Section 4.1.4). 4.2.1 Digestion Many plants include digestion processes for sludge stabilisation. Aerobic digestion is not common, but anaerobic digestion is widely used. In Denmark, the numbers of plants incorporating anaerobic digestion is still increasing, with those using aerobic digestion remaining unchanged over the past few years. This seems fairly typical of Europe and America. Aerobic digestion is often chosen with the objective of retaining excess phosphorus bound with the EBPR bacteria. However, many plants have demonstrated this in unnecessary, due to formation of struvite and similar compounds from the released phosphorus in the anaerobic digester (refer Section 4.1.4). As an alternative to conventional mesophilic anaerobic digestion, thermophilic anaerobic digestion is being adopted at many plants. The defining difference between the two processes is the operating temperature; about 37 C for mesophilic and 55 C for thermophilic. Different anaerobic bacterial groups dominate at either operating temperature. Reported characteristics of thermophilic digestion include: HRT lowered to 12 days or less (mesophilic time almost halved), Disinfects/pasteurises the sludge, increasing disposal options, Suitable for 100% WAS, Struvite precipitation increased at higher temperature, Volatile solids destruction not greatly increased over mesophilic digestion, May need steam to heat sludge effectively (scaling of heat exchangers reported otherwise, though a few plants still used heat exchangers).
4.2.2 Sludge Hydrolysis Sludge hydrolysis processes cause the rupture of biosolids cell structures, releasing the water tied up in the cells and dissolving organic cell matter. Essentially, the sludge is cooked prior to digestion. This released substrate results in greater overall volatile solids destruction when applied prior to anaerobic digestion. Various hydrolysis processes have been developed including Cambi, Krepro, Porteus, Krampol (Alfa Laval) and Zimpro.
David Solley
In the Cambi process, steam is used to directly heat sludge under pressure prior to digestion. At the Naestved WWTP (Denmark), the Cambi process heats dewatered waste activated sludge (at about 14 to 16% DS) to a temperature of between 160 to 180 C and pressure of between 8 to 10 bar. The sludge is subject to these conditions for between 30 and 60 minutes. Following cooling, the sludge is pumped to the anaerobic digesters for stabilisation (a mesophilic process). The Cambi process appears much simpler than many of the alternatives. The Cambi thermal hydrolysis process is reported to give the following advantages over conventional anaerobic digestion: Increased biogas production (by approximately 60%); Increased volatile solids destruction; Improved dewaterability of digested biosolids (from say 18% to greater than 35% using a belt filter press, though very dependent on the dewatering equipment); Less polymer usage for sludge dewatering; Increase in the digester reaction rates and hence digester capacity; Improved stability of the digested sludge cake; Pasteurisation of the waste biosolids (suitable to meet the USEPA standards).
Thermal hydrolysis may also be applied to primary sludge, but the improvements in biogas production and solids destruction during digestion are not nearly as significant as those for waste activated sludge. However, thermal hydrolysis is often applied to primary sludge for the pasteurisation benefits. The Cambi process is reported to usually give an energy benefit. That is, the energy available from the increased biogas produced exceeds the energy requirements for the Cambi process. This would be dependent on the nature of the biosolids raw product and the thickening/dewatering equipment used. No figures were provided for the Naestved plant (as the plant had only recently been commissioned - March 2000). Other plants report significant savings in energy and biosolids disposal costs, leading to payback periods as short as four years for some case study plants. Sludge hydrolysis processes create a higher nutrient mass in the sludge dewatering filtrate return stream, caused by the increased biosolids destruction. This higher nutrient return to the main process increases the requirement or possibility for sidestream treatment (refer Section 4.1.4), and options are being investigated at the Naestved plant. 4.2.3 Dewatering and Thickening Sludge characteristics significantly influence dewaterability of sludge, with BNR sludges reported to have reduced dewaterability. This appears to correlate to the poorer settleability of BNR sludges (refer Section 4.1.2). Improvements to the settling characteristics of activated sludge are also likely to lead to improvements in the thickening and dewatering behaviour of the sludge. Primary sludge thickening using gravity settlers appears very effective, and is often implemented with the dual purpose of sludge fermentation. Typical dry solids of between 5 and 9% are achieved. With low load rates, good thickening can also be obtained from the mainstream PST. The choice of sidestream thickener or mainstream
David Solley
thickener becomes an economic question; larger plants typically favour a sidestream thickener and smaller plants generously sized PSTs (refer Section 4.1.1.4). In warmer climates, methogenous activity may also limit thickening due to rising sludge (caused by methane bubbles). Secondary sludge thickening is carried out by a variety of processes including dissolved air flotation (DAF), gravity tables, gravity thickeners, rotary drum thickeners and centrifuges. Performance is variable and likely linked to the particular sludge characteristics of the plant. Centrifuges are the most commonly applied dewatering process unit. They generally appear to achieve better performance than belt filter presses, their main competitor (apart from the BFP at the Naestved plant, which achieves 35% DS on Cambi sludge). Centrifuges are achieving very high dry solids contents, in many applications greater than 27% DS. The centrifuges in these applications are usually operating at much higher speeds. High solids centrifuges are installed at the Annacis Island plant (Vancouver, Canada) to achieve 33% dry solids. The specification requirement for polymer dose at this plant was to be less than 8.5 kg.poly/t.sludge, but dosing rates at the time of inspection were 12 kg/t (during commissioning). The filter press at Westbank WWTP (Kelowna, Canada) has experienced substantial operational problems and requires the addition of wood pellets to aid with the dewatering. The press obtains about 27% cake solids, but with poor capture ranging between 80 and 95%. The poor capture results in the return of sludge fines to the main process stream, leading to operational problems in the main BNR process. 4.2.4 Incineration, Agricultural Reuse and Final Disposal of Biosolids In general, incineration of sludge in being reduced in the United States, due to gas emission concerns. The Danish trend is for agricultural reuse of biosolids to increase, and for incineration to perhaps decrease. However, in many parts of Europe, incineration is applied due to the restrictions on agricultural use of biosolids. In France, OTV/Vivendi have implemented fluidised bed incineration technology (e.g. the PYROFLUID process). They also have a wet air oxidation process (ATHOS), which involves exposing thickened sludge to pure oxygen under pressure at a temperature of about 240 C and pressure of 50 bar. This transforms the sludge to simple compounds (75%) and easily biodegradeable compounds (25%). Treatment of incinerator flue gas is extensive, using electro-static precipitation (ESP) and gas scrubbers. At the Hampton Roads VIP plant (Virginia, USA), the multiple hearth incinerators produce cyanide in the flue gases, which is precipitated out and returned to the inlet of the plant. This cyanide is toxic to the nitrifying bacteria, causing the nitrification process to perform very poorly. To overcome this problem, a separate sidestream activated sludge process effectively treats the cyanide before the stream enters the main process. The formation of cyanide is particular to multiple hearth incinerators and can be avoided with fluidised bed technology. Composting of biosolids is applied at many of the plants inspected. High odour and operational costs dog many of these processes. As a solution to odour concerns, the
David Solley
Okanagen Valley plants (Canada) have located a regional composting facility for several plants in a remote location. The large French WWTP (Colombes Station, Paris) has two options for biosolids disposal; agricultural reuse following lime stabilisation or incineration. This provides good flexibility to meet varying market demands and costs. 4.3 Effluent Polishing, Disinfection and Reuse Most American treatment plants have implemented effluent filtration as one of their final treatment processes. The majority of these are conventional dual media filters, allowing automatic backwash controlled to head-loss across the filter. A few of these filters have the option to activate the filter for denitrification, by dosing substrate (usually methanol) and encouraging biomass growth on the filter media. The use of Dyna-sand type sand filters was not recommended for BNR plants, as the vibrating/fluidised-bed operation breaks up the sludge flocs and leads to high effluent solids (Canada). Chlorination is still the most widely adopted disinfection process, but in America dechlorination is also a requirement. UV disinfection is increasing being applied with good effectiveness, perhaps due to these plants also including effluent filtration prior to disinfection. Reuse of effluent was generally limited to irrigation for the plants inspected. For the Florida (USA) plants, this reuse is extensive with many plants having zero discharge to surface water. These Florida plants also implement groundwater recharge and some industrial reuse (for cooling water make-up). 4.4 Odour Control Odour control and treatment were evident on almost all treatment plants visited. The extent of odour control varied widely, with some plants only collecting odorous gas from the inlet works and sludge treatment areas to those completely covered (generally for the underground plants). Only for plants contained in buildings or underground, were the final settling tanks or aerated zones of the bioreactor fully covered. The odour control on some PSTs is limited to either covering and collecting gas from the launders only, or by drowning out the weirs to reduce turbulence and eliminate the release of odour. The later example is a notable approach, where the release of odorous gas is limited throughout the plant by reducing turbulent zones where odours are generated. With odour control comes the increased risk of confined space and explosion hazard. At the Dokhaven plant in Rotterdam (built completely underground), all plant equipment is intrinsically/explosive safe, with automatic shut down of all equipment (sewage dumped to river in case of emergency). Most areas of the plant have online H2S monitoring and alarming for personnel safety. Odour treatment processes examined include: Chemical scrubbing,
David Solley
Biofilters, Disposing odorous gas into the bioreactor through the aeration system.
4.4.1 Chemical Scubbing Chemical scrubbers using caustic soda and/or sodium hypochlorite are the most commonly used odour treatment method used on the treatment plants visited. The scrubber commonly consists of a packed column with odorous air flowing upward counter-current to the scrubbing liquid sprayed from the top of the column. Caustic soda is used to raise the pH of the scrubbing liquid and increase the solubility of odorous compound such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Hypochlorite added to the solution then provides for oxidisation and destruction of the odorous compounds. Two such scrubbers are often used in series, to increase percentage removal of odorous compounds. OTV/Vivendi (France) promote the use of their four stage chemical scrubber product (AQUILAIR), incorporating an up-front acid scrubber for removal of nitrogenous compounds, and a final sodium thiosulphate tower for elimination of aldehydes and ketones. The Dokhaven plant in Rotterdam incorporates ion exchange to produce demineralised water for the scrubber make-up in its odour treatment plant. This has largely prevented scaling in the packed towers. 4.4.2 Biofilters Odour biofilters are essentially media filled columns on which biomass is maintained that feeds on odorous compounds. Biofilters come in many forms; from somewhat crude hole in ground types to the containerised modules (such as the OTV/Vivendi product ALIZAIR), they are all essentially designed on the same principle. Odorous air is passed through the filter bed of compost type material, which is kept moist by sprinkling water over the top of the bed. Selective bacteria grow on the filter media, removing the odorous compounds. Alkalinity, in the form of carbonate (lime, seashells etc) is often included in the filter material to combat acidification. The compost material can include any or a combination of the following: Wood chips, Coconut husks, Digested sludge cake, Peat, compost, green waste, Sea shells, Lava, Lime or nutrients.
Biofilters are reported to be sensitive to overload, which can have the effect of destroying the active biomass in the filter. Hydrogen sulphide concentrations greater than 10 ppm for prolonged periods are reported to be harmful to biofilters. For this reason, biofilters are often only used as a polishing treatment when high strength odours are treated. However, with suitable air flows and corresponding low contaminant concentrations, biofilters have been successfully applied to inlet works at many treatment plants.
David Solley
The typical design contact time for a biofilter is about one minute (Canada). Reported loading rates for biofilters range from 500 m/h and 50 g.H2S/h/m3. 4.4.3 Disposing Odorous Air into Diffused Aeration Systems A number of plants dispose of odours by blowing the odorous gas through the aeration system on-site. The theory is that the odorous compounds in the gas will be degraded (oxidised) by the main biological treatment process. The transfer of odorous compounds into solution in the wastewater would need to be much greater than that for oxygen (which at best is usually about 20%), to achieve the normally required removal/destruction efficiencies (usually greater than 95% removal). It is likely that dilution of the odorous compounds is occurring across the whole aeration basin, reducing the odour threshold below that which is detectable. There are two ways of feeding the odorous gas to the diffusers; either by connecting the gas collection pipe work to the suction of the existing aeration blowers, or by using a separate blower system to pump the gas into the pressure aeration header (downstream of the main aeration blowers). Either way, the primary concern is corrosion and damage to pipe work, blowers and diffusers from the highly corrosive odorous gas. At the Ommen plant (the Netherlands), the concentration of H2S in the collected odorous gas stream is between 100 and 200 ppm, which is a corrosion concern. The odorous gas is fed to the main blowers suction. To overcome the corrosion concerns, the system has been designed to ensure a high degree of dilution from the atmospheric air drawn into the system, so that the concentration of corrosive compounds through the blowers and downstream rubber membrane diffuser system (Nopon) are very low. 4.5 Primary Treatment and Plant Bypass The use of the lamella settlers for primary treatment and storm overflow pretreatment has been applied to many French treatment plants. The OTV/Vivendi process (ACTIFLO) includes coagulation and flocculation stages, where ferric chloride, polymer and micro-sand are added to form dense flocs. Sludge is also recycled from the settler underflow to seed new floc formation in these zones. The flocs are separated out in a counter-current lamella settler, with further treatment of the sludge involving separation of the micro-sand from the sludge using a hydrocyclone. Excellent removal of solids is reported (80% TSS removal) at very high loading rates (130 m/h), making the units compact and effective. Phosphorus reduction is also often achieved through the use of ferric chloride. The Degremont/Lyonaise process is similar in principle, without the use of micro-sand. OTV/Vivendi also have a lamella settling process without chemical addition (MULTIFLO), which also gives higher loading rates that conventional primary settling (20 m/h). One novel method of dealing with high wet weather flows is the Kruger ATS system (Denmark). This system allows the aeration tanks to be used as settling tanks during high flows. The capacity of the plant is increased because the plant can normally operate with a higher MLSS than would be possible if extra settling was not provided for wet weather flows.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 32 of 39
David Solley
Many plants in America have incorporated flow equalisation basins for storage of peak wet weather flows. These are often simple earth formed basins, with or without concrete lining. Stored wastewater is pumped through the treatment plant when the wet weather flows have subsided. 4.6 Operation Little information is readily available on the capital and operating costs of treatment plants, and the basis of the available information is variable and often unclear. The scope of plant upgrade costs can be extremely variable. Some information is presented in Appendix C, but this should be viewed with caution due to these variables and inaccuracies. Numbers of operational staff are also presented in Appendix C. These figures show wide variation in the numbers of operational staff, though again, the responsibilities and duties of these personnel are variable and often unclear. Shift operation is practised at most large plants and all US plants inspected. In the USA, the EPA regulates the minimum number of operators that are required on a plant at any time, usually requiring 24 hour supervision for plants greater than about 20 ML/d (ADWF). In theory, the implementation of automation may assist with removing the requirements for staffing, but this is very difficult to achieve and had not been attempted for the plants inspected. Teamwork between designers and operators produced good results at a number of the outstanding treatment plants inspected (BCFS plants - Netherlands, VIP Hampton Roads plant Virginia USA, Summerland Kelowna, Canada). It is important to have operations involvement with plant designers, as at the very least this appears to give operators a sense of ownership and pride in the plant, as well as keeping designers in touch with the reality of operating the plant. At these plants, the operators also maintained good long-term contact with the designers of the plant and designers were readily accessible by the operations staff. A correlation was also evident between plants that were well maintained, and those achieving impressive results and high staff moral. Those that appeared scrappy often achieved poor results and demonstrated poor staff moral. Reasonable funding support for plant maintenance is a likely necessity for good staff moral and the resulting plant performance. At the Summerland plant (Canada), there is a particular focus on only doing what is most important and relevant to operation. For example, the sludge SVI is not measured, but rather the sludge blanket level in the FSTs is measured and monitored. This is considered most relevant to operation of the process and can more easily be measured automatically. In a similar way, the SRT is monitored rather than MLSS. 4.6.1 Operator Training Skilled and educated operators were evident at BNR plants performing well, and it was clear that modern treatment plants require appropriately skilled staff. Formal government training programs exist in Europe and America, with multi-level training leading to BNR operation qualifications offered.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 33 of 39
David Solley
In the USA, five levels of operator qualification exist, usually corresponding to both level of experience and formal training (with examination). The USEPA require certain skill levels in attendance at treatment plants, resulting to a chronic shortage of skilled operators in many US states. The Netherlands has three levels of qualification corresponding to nutrient removal knowledge/skills; including basic, denitrification and dephosphating levels. National training courses are run for each level. In addition, all operators are also qualified in either a mechanical or electrical trade. Few BNR treatment plants had the skills of a full-time engineer on-site, dedicated to the performance of a particular plant. 4.7 Design Details Some interesting design details are briefly mentioned below: Thin wall concrete construction of Dutch/BCFS tanks (as thin as 100mm thick). The design is based on crack control and with circular tank configuration for strength. Tanks have been operating for 4 to 5 years without sign of deterioration. Optimum depth of aeration tanks was raised, with many tanks greater than 6 metres deep and up to 9 metres deep. The deeper tanks supposed to provide the optimum cost efficient aeration. Optimum depth of unaerated zones for efficient mechanical mixing also of interest. Deeper tanks thought to be best (6 metres plus). Forward velocity (0.3 m/s) of oxidation ditch reported to give very good aeration efficiency due to longer spiral bubble path. High velocity plug flow reactors advocated for improved aeration efficiency. Covered launders on final clarifiers effectively applied to reduce algae growth in the Netherlands and USA. Good reduction in maintenance costs. At treatment plants in Canada, they are experiencing higher rates of corrosion in the unaerated zones of the bioreactors. This is giving rapid corrosion of the mechanical equipment (mixers and pumps) and concrete. Measures taken to overcome this include use of stainless steel (grade 316), high cement content concrete and greater wall thickness (sacrificial layers).
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 34 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 5 CONCLUSIONS
David Solley
Almost all wastewater nutrient removal processes developed in the last decade have been based on biological nutrient removal (BNR) principles, due to overall cost advantages. Chemical precipitation to further remove phosphorus is sometimes applied to achieve lower effluent phosphorus. Very low effluent nitrogen concentrations (less than 5 mg/L) can be achieved using either a five stage Bardenpho process for plants incorporating primary settling, or oxidation ditch process without primary settling. The UCT process best protects the anaerobic zone from nitrate and nitrite and should give the most effective phosphorus removal. Where low effluent nitrogen and phosphorus are required, low phosphorus levels can be achieved without the complexity of the UCT process, due to the necessary low nitrate levels in the RAS stream. The effective utilisation of substrate is key to obtaining the maximum nutrient removal in BNR processes, and this can be achieved through: Minimising aeration to just satisfy the requirements for complete nitrification, thus maximising the availability of endogenous substrates in the anoxic zones and reducing release of nutrients through endogenous activity in the aerated zones. Maximising of enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR), which will likely result in the maximising of denitrifiying phosphorus removing bacteria (DPB). Step feed of influent wastewater between anaerobic and anoxic zones, so that the substrate available for denitrification is maximised and the minimum substrate requirement for EBPR is met. Prefermentation of primary sludge, to release additional readily available substrate.
Low effluent nutrient levels have been achieved with bioreactor hydraulic retention times (HRTs) as low as 6 hours, though plants achieving nitrogen levels less than 5 mg/L operated with HRTs greater than 13 hours. Many plants are achieving very low effluent phosphorus and low nitrogen with a low solids retention time (SRT), though again, very low effluent nitrogen levels were generally achieved with long SRTs. The plants achieving the lowest SVI values utilised UCT process configurations and plug flow or compartmentalised anaerobic selectors. However, some complete mix anaerobic selectors also achieved good SVI values. Good settling sludges were produced at the plants where the anaerobic selector zones were greater than 10% of the bioreactor volume. The UCT process is reported to produce good sludge settling characteristics due to this process complete elimination of nitrite from the anaerobic zone. This may also be achievable with other process configurations. Scum is often associated with high mixed liquor solids and SRT levels. Scum has been successfully controlled by removing the accumulated scum from the bioreactor surface. It is in the area of advanced control and instrumentation, that great potential exists for achieving lower effluent nutrients and improved treatment efficiency. Instrumentation is continually improving and has reached the point where instruments such as nutrient analysers can reliably be used for on-line control. Key areas for improved control include aeration control, recycle stream flow control and sludge solids/SRT control.
David Solley
Between 15 and 30% of the influent nitrogen mass is estimated to be returned to the main process with the sludge dewatering liquors (following sludge digestion). Various treatment processes have been developed to remove the nitrogen from these sidestreams, separate to the main BNR process. Of these, the most cost effective and simple applied to date is the SHARON process. Much work is continuing on new process alternatives, of which the ANAMMOX type processes appear the most promising. Separate phosphorus removal from the sidestream is usually unnecessary in meeting effluent phosphorus levels, as up to two thirds of the released phosphorus in the anaerobic digester is reportedly bound in struvite and other similar compounds. Many plants incorporating anaerobic digestion without sidestream treatment are achieving excellent phosphorus removal results. Anaerobic digestion is widely practised for the stabilisation of biosolids in BNR plants. The advantages of anaerobic digestion include that they are energy positive (that is, they provide an energy input into the plant) and are low maintenance. Concerns with respect to uncontrolled excess phosphorus release appear unfounded. Emerging variations include thermophilic digestion for lower HRTs and pasteurisation; and sludge hydrolysis for increased solids destruction, improved dewatering and pasteurisation. Effluent filtration is applied to most North American treatment plants. Disinfection technology is moving toward UV treatment. Where chlorination is applied, dechlorination is also a requirement. Odour control and treatment were evident on almost all treatment plants visited. The extent of odour control varied widely, with some plants only collecting odorous gas from the inlet works and sludge treatment areas, to those that were completely covered. Odour treatment processes included chemical scrubbing, biofilters and disposing of odorous gas through the plants diffused aeration system. Teamwork between designers and operators produced good results at a number of outstanding treatment plants. A correlation was also evident between plants that were well maintained, and those achieving impressive results and high staff moral. Multiple levels of operator training and qualification exist in Europe and America, leading to qualifications in BNR process operation. The information gathered from this fellowship will be disseminated through: Making this report available to colleagues, managers and the wider water industry. Presentation and discussion of the findings of this fellowship with colleagues and the wider water industry (through the Australian Water Association at their monthly evening meeting). Working with colleagues (including an immediate team of ten wastewater process engineers and over 30 plant operators) to implement the improvements recommended by this report. Presentation of results from case studies detailing the implementation of the knowledge gained from this fellowship, to colleagues and the wider water industry (state and national AWA conferences).
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 36 of 39
Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 6 RECOMMENDATIONS
David Solley
The implementation of biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes for nutrient removal projects is recommended, with chemical precipitation applied where additional phosphorus removal is required. Where very low effluent nitrogen concentrations (less than 5 mg/L) are required, a five stage Bardenpho process (with primary settling) or oxidation ditch process (without primary settling) will achieve the required performance. These processes are also suitable for achieving low phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. Aeration should be minimised in BNR processes, so that complete nitrification is just achieved. The aeration control system should automatically adjust aeration system set points to achieve this nitrification objective. In a similar way, recycle flow rates and solids concentrations/SRT should be optimised by automatic control systems. This work will be implemented on the Luggage Pt, Gibson Island and Oxley Creek WWTPs in Brisbane. Reductions in HRT should be investigated at many plants and where possible stresstesting of one process train could determine the reliable operational value. In this way, a reliable minimum HRT can be developed for a particular plant, process configuration type and loading case. This will be carried out at the Luggage Pt WWTP. Plug flow or compartmentalised anaerobic selectors should be provided in BNR processes to ensure good sludge settling characteristics. Selectors should be sized to effectively adsorb the readily available substrate from the wastewater. The elimination of nitrate returned to the selector is also recommended. These selector types will be provided for the Luggage Pt, Oxley and Gibson Island WWTPs. Where very low effluent nitrogen concentrations are required for plants incorporating digestion, side stream treatment of the digester dewatering liquors could be implemented for removal of 15 to 30% of the nitrogen load. The SHARON process is the most cost effective and simple of the proven technologies, and further work should focus on developing key emerging technologies (e.g. ANAMMOX, which will be investigated over the next two years by Brisbane Water with the AWTT research project). Anaerobic digestion should be incorporated in BNR plants due to the energy savings and effective stabilisation available. The decommissioning of anaerobic digesters as part of a nutrient removal upgrade is questioned. Digestion alternatives such as thermophilic digestion and sludge hydrolysis should be investigated for the advantages these processes offer. Footprint space and hydraulic allowances should be made for the incorporation of final effluent filters in new plants and upgrades where possible. This will alleviate the impact on Australian plants if the North American trend of implementing this process step is followed. The implementation of odour control should be developed on many Australian treatment plants. The extent of odour collection systems needs to be carefully
David Solley
considered, to avoid unnecessary capital and operating costs. The effectiveness of low cost biofilters should also be investigated and developed. Teamwork between plant operators and designers is required, so that operators have input to the design of plants and have ready access to designers throughout the life of a facility. This will be developed at Brisbane Water, by further improving the cooperation between design and operations activities. Formal training and qualifications for operators of advanced wastewater treatment plants would be a positive development for the wastewater treatment industry. Multilevel training/qualifications would raise the profile of expert operators in the industry, and likely lead to improved recognition, skills, expertise, remuneration and moral. The Open Learning Institute will be contacted to determine how their operations training programme and qualifications could be further developed.
REFERENCES de Haas, D.W., Wentzel, M.C. and Ekama, G.A. (2001). The use of simultaneous chemical precipitation in modified activated sludge systems exhibiting biological excess phosphate removal, Water SA, 26, 4, 439-504. Kuba, T., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Brandse, F.A. and Heijnen, J.J. (1997). Occurrence of denitrifying phosphorus removing bacteria in modified UCT-type wastewater treatment plants, Wat. Res., 31, 4, 777-785. Kuba, T., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., and Heijnen, J.J. (1996). Phosphorus and nitrogen removal with minimal COD requirement by integration of denitrifying dephosphatation and nitrification in a two sludge system, Wat. Res., 30, 1702-1710. Mulder, J. W., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M, Hellinga, C. and van Kempen, R. (2000). Full scale application of the SHARON process for treatment of rejection water of digested sludge dewatering, 1st World Water Congress of the IWA, 3, 267-274. Paffoni, C. (2000) Seine Centre, The new flexible Columbes Sewage Treatment Plant from theory to practice, 1st World Water Congress of the IWA, 3, 496-503. Randall, C.W. and Ubay Cokgor, E. (1999). Performance and economics of BNR plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA, 8th IAWQ Conference on Design, Operation and Economics of Large WWTP. Patterkine, V.M. and Randall, C.W. (1999). The requirement of metal cations for enhanced biological phosphorus removal by activated sludge, Wat. Sci. Tech., 40, 2, 159-165. Randall, C.W. (1997). The advantages of combining biological nutrient removal processes in single-sludge activated sludge systems, The International Workshop of the COE, The University of Tokyo.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 38 of 39
David Solley
Randall, C.W., Barnard, J.W. and Stensel, H.D. (1992), Design and Retrofit of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Biological Nutrient Removal, Technomic Publishing Company, Pennsylvania, USA. Sen, D., Randall, C.W. and Grizzard, T.J. (1990), Alkalinity and turbidity measurements as feedback controls to improve performance of a biological removal system, JWST, 10, 291-298. Vandaele, S., Bollen, F., Thoeye, C., November, E., Verachtert, H. and van Impe, J.F. (2000). Ammonia removal from centrate of anaerobically digested sludge: state of the art biological methods, 1st World Water Congress of the IWA, 4, 280-287. Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Brandse, F.A. and de Vries, A.C. (1998). Upgrading of wastewater treatment processes for integrated nutrient removal the BCFS Process, Wat.Sci.Tech. 37, 9, 209-217. Van Loosdrecht, M.C..M. and Jetten, M.S.M. (1998). Microbiological conversions in nitrogen removal, Wat.Sci.Tech. 38, 1, 1-7. Wamble, M.V. and Randall, C.W. (1994). Investigation of hypothesized anaerobic stabilisation mechanisms in biological nutrient removal systems, Water Environ. Res. 66, 2, 161-167.
Final Report
20/03/02 Page 39 of 39
David Solley
Appendix A Itinerary
SUNDAY 25-Jun-00
MONDAY 26-Jun-00
TUESDAY 27-Jun-00
WEDNESDAY 28-Jun-00
THURSDAY 29-Jun-00
FRIDAY 30-Jun-00 BRISBANE Air: Depart Brisbane 12:15 7-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress 14-Jul-00 NARBONNE/CAHORS Rail:Narbonne 12:09 Cahors 14:45 21-Jul-00 TOULOUSE/GATWICH/ ROTTERDAM Train: Cahors 8:42 Toulouse 9:51 Air: Toulouse 12:10 Rotterdam 16:45 28-Jul-00 DENMARK Dick Eikelboom /Apeldoorn 4-Aug-00 SWEDEN Goteburg 11-Aug-00 FLORIDA
SATURDAY 1-Jul-00 PARIS Arrive Paris 6:15 8-Jul-00 PARIS/DAMME, BELGIUM IWA 2000 Congress 15-Jul-00 CAHORS, FRANCE
2-Jul-00 PARIS
3-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress
4-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress 11-Jul-00 NARBONNE,FRANCE
9-Jul-00 DAMME/PARIS/ TOULOUSE/NARBONNE Air: Paris 15:50 -Toulouse 17:10; Rail: Toulouse Matabiau 19:00 Narbonne 20:25 16-Jul-00 FRANCE
10-Jul-00 NARBONNE,FRANCE
SBR Symposium
SBR Symposium
SBR Symposium
SBR Symposium
Holiday
17-Jul-00 FRANCE
18-Jul-00 FRANCE
19-Jul-00 FRANCE
20-Jul-00 CAHORS, FRANCE
22-Jul-00 AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS
Holiday
Holiday
Holiday
Holiday
Holiday
23-Jul-00 AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS
24-Jul-00 NETHERLANDS Jan Mulder, Rotterdam /Dokhaven WWTP
25-Jul-00 NETHERLANDS BCFS/Rob Vromans 1-Aug-00 DENMARK Kruger A/S 8-Aug-00 FLORIDA
26-Jul-00 NETHERLANDS BCFS/Rob Vromans 2-Aug-00 DENMARK Kruger A/S 9-Aug-00 FLORIDA
27-Jul-00 AMSTERDAM/HETHROW / COPENHAGEN Rogier Van Kempen @ Grontmij 3-Aug-00 DENMARK/SWEDEN ANOX A/B 10-Aug-00 FLORIDA
29-Jul-00 DENMARK
30-Jul-00 DENMARK Air: Amsterdam 9:55 Copenhagen 15:00
31-Jul-00 DENMARK Kruger A/S 7-Aug-00 FLORIDA Air: Stockholm 7:05 Gatwick - Miami 14:40 Tampa 19:52 14-Aug-00 ATLANTA, GEORGIA RM Clayton & Utoy Ck WWTP's
5-Aug-00 SWEDEN
6-Aug-00 SWEDEN/FLORIDA Moz departs Stockholm pm
12-Aug-00 ATLANTA, GEORGIA Air: Orlando ?? Atlanta ?? 19-Aug-00 CHESAPEAKE BAY
Hillsborough Cty 15-Aug-00 ATLANTA/ WASHINGTON DC South Rv WWTP Air: Atlanta 15:30 Washington DC 20:20 22-Aug-00 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Hillsborough Cty 16-Aug-00 CHESAPEAKE BAY Bowie & Annapolis WWTP's, USEPA 23-Aug-00 ROANOKE/ WASHINGTON DC Roanake WWTP Air: Roanoke 9:15 Washington DC ??? 30-Aug-00 OKANAGAN VALLEY Kelowna & Penticton WWTP 6-Sep-00
Orlando/Orange Cty 17-Aug-00 CHESAPEAKE BAY Blue Plains, Arlington and Norfolk WWTP's 24-Aug-00 WASHINGTON DC/ CALGARY Air: Washington DC 10:00 Calgary14:19 31-Aug-00 KELONA/VANCOUVER Drive Kelwona to Vancouver 7-Sep-00
Orlando/Orange Cty 18-Aug-00 CHESAPEAKE BAY
13-Aug-00 ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Hampton Rds WWTP 25-Aug-00 CALGARY 26-Aug-00 CALGARY
20-Aug-00 CHESAPEAKE BAY Air: Washington DC 15:30 - Roanoke 16:34
21-Aug-00 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Virginia Tech 28-Aug-00 CALGARY/ OKANAGAN VALLEY Drive Calgary to Kelowna
Virginia Tech 29-Aug-00 OKANAGAN VALLEY Westbank & Summerland WWTP's 5-Sep-00 BRISBANE Arrive Brisbane 9:05
Bonnybrook WWTP 1-Sep-00 VANCOUVER Annacis Is WWTP 8-Sep-00 9-Sep-00 2-Sep-00 VANCOUVER
27-Aug-00 CALGARY
10
3-Sep-00 VANCOUVER/HONG KONG Air: Depart Vancouver 5:35
4-Sep-00 HONG KONG
C:\WINNT\Profiles\so7sbw.000\Desktop\working\Churchill Report.doc
Final Report
David Solley
Appendix B - Contacts
Final Report
David Solley
CONTACT
COMPANY Conference Secretariat Conference Secretariat Dept Biochemical Engineering BCFS Designer & Operator BDG Engineering BDG Engineering Rotterdam Waterboard TNO Institute Environmental Science Grontmij Dept Env. Eng, Tech Uni Denmark Kruger A/S Kruger A/S Kruger A/S Malmo University Cambi Goeteborg Water Anox A/B Anox A/B Reid Crowther Reid Crowther Reid Crowther Public Utilities, Orange County Florida Reedy Creek Energy Services Inc. WW Operations Manager Utilities Manager Chesapeake Bay USEPA Virginia Tech Hampton Rds Sanitation District City of Atlanta
Wagonlit Evenements Dr. J.P.Delgenes Dr. Mark van Loosdrecht Franke Brandse A.C.de Vries Rob Vromans Jan-Willem Mulder Dick Eikelboom Rogier van Kempen Prof.Paul Harremoes Dr.Marinus Nielsen Tine Onnerth Anders Haarbo Jes La Cour Jansen Jens Munck Peter Balmer Thomas Welander Asa Malmqvist Warren Wilson Barry Rabinowitz Gerry Stevens County Gabor (Gabe) L. Delneky Ted W. McKim unty Joe R. Cozatt unty Sandy Hnderson Richard Batiuk Prof.Cliff Randall Robert Kincaid Joseph Porter
PHONE 33 1 55 07 2610 33 4 68 42 31 15 278
FAX 33 1 5507 2615 33 4 6842 31 15 278
EMAIL iwa@cwtfrance,com sbr2000@ensam.inra.fr Mark.vL@stm.tudelft.nl fr.brandse@wxs.nl acdv@xs4all.nl bdgasi@wxs.nl jw.mulder@zhew.nl d.h.eikelboom@mep.tno.nl rogier.vankempen@grontmij.nl ph@imt.dtu.dk MKN@kruger.dk tbo@kruger.dk adh@kruger.dk jlacour@inet.uni2.dk cambi@cambi.dk info@gryaab.se thomas.welander@anox.se Asa.Malmqvist@anox.se wwilson@reid-crowther.com brabinowitz@reid-crowther.com gstevens@reid-crowther.com gabe.delneky@co.orange.fl.us ted_mckim@corp.disney.com cozattj@hillsboroughcounty.org hendersons@hillsboroughcounty.org batuik.richard@epa.gov cliff@vt.edu bkincaid@hrsd.dst.va.us
31 6 5131 31 78 639 31 55 549 3210 45 45 251599 45 39 690 222 46 39 690 222 46 39 690 222 45 45 827 065 45 39 45 8800
31 165 33 31 78 631 31 55 549 6366 45 45 932850 45 39 690 806 46 39 690 806 46 39 690 806 45 45 827 066 45 39 45 8808
46 46 18 2150 46 46 13 3201 403 254 3344 403 254 3333 250 762 3727 407 836 7216 407 824 7447 813 264 3858 813 264 3858 410 27 5731 540 231 6018 757 423 7514 404 350 6166 250 762 7789 407 836 5379 407 824 5868 813 264 3860 814 264 3860 540 231 7916 757 423 8734 404 350 6123
Final Report
David Solley
Appendix C Treatment Plant Details

Sheet 1: Sheet 2: Sheet 3: Sheet 4: Sheet 5: Sheet 6: Sheet 7: Sheet 8: Sheet 9: General Wastewater Characteristics Preliminary/Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment Control Tertiary Treatment Biosolids Operation Nomenclature
Final Report

PLANT City/Town State/Country Date Comm. EP ADWF ('000) (ML/d) 2000 N.A. 1999 1000 1997 550 1987 470 1996 40 1998 16 1996 35 1999 30 400 1992 92 1997 72.5 1997 750 1993 40 1997 773 1989 1990 2000 240 85 220 9.1 5.3 10.8 8.6 50 9.3 170 29.5 328 38 23 17 68 45 72 114 57 115 300 150 11.4 38 157 150 114 150 200 200 100 4 14 40 2 5.6 480 Biological Process
David Solley
Nitrogen Removal (mg/L) Phosphorus Removal (mg/L) N.A. 1 >46% N.A. 1 1 2 1 N.A. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.3 1 1 N.A. 1 1 1 1 0.64 0.75 0.75 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.25 N.A. Primary Treatment (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Part Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No N.A. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Odour Control (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A. Yes Yes Yes Yes Combined Sewers (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 25% Yes Yes Yes No No No N.A. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Industrial (%) Disinfection
Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River Oaks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern WRF Water Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook A Bonnybrook B Bonnybrook C Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country Westbank Annacis Island
Paris Paris Rouen Rotterdam Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Roskilde Elsinore Copenhagen Naestved Goteburg Hillsborough Cty Hillsborough Cty Hillsborough Cty Largo Orlando Orlando Orlando Orlando Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Bowie Annapolis Richmond Norfolk Norfolk Roanoke Calgary Calgary Calgary Okanagan Valley Penticton Kelowna Okanagan Valley Okanagan Valley Vancouver
France France France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Sweden Florida, USA Florida, USA Florida, USA Florida, USA Florida, USA Florida, USA Florida, USA Florida, USA Georgia, USA Georgia, USA Georgia, USA Maryland, USA Maryland, USA Virginia, USA Virginia, USA Virginia, USA Virginia, USA Alberta, Canada Alberta, Canada Alberta, Canada B.C., Canada B.C., Canada B.C., Canada B.C., Canada B.C., Canada B.C., Canada
300 2000
1988 1997 1993 1997 1989 1997 1994 1998 1991 1999 1995 1998
33
240 240 120 33
995
N.A.-stormwater t'ment N.A. Biological filter 10 BNR activated sludge 20 A-B activated sludge N.A. BNR activated sludge 10 BNR activated sludge 10 BNR activated sludge 10 BNR activated sludge 10 A-B activated sludge N.A. BNR activated sludge 6 BNR activated sludge 8 BNR activated sludge 8 BNR activated sludge 8 BNR activ. sludge + TF 15 Nit/post-denit AS 1.4 BNR activated sludge 3 BNR activated sludge 3 BNR activated sludge 3 BNR activated sludge 3 BNR activated sludge 3 N.A. - reuse scheme 3 BNR activated sludge 3 BNR activated sludge NH4 limit BNR activated sludge NH4 limit BNR activated sludge NH4 limit BNR activated sludge 8 BNR IFAS N.A. BNR activated sludge 8 BNR activated sludge 8 BNR activated sludge 8 BNR activated sludge BNR activated sludge NH4<10 BNR activated sludge NH4<10 BNR activated sludge NH4<10 BNR activated sludge 6 BNR activated sludge 6 BNR activated sludge 6 BNR activated sludge 6 BNR activated sludge 6 Trickling filt./Solids cont. N.A.
15 32
20 53
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Chlorination Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor UV UV UV Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor UV (low P) UV (low P) UV (low P) UV Chlor/Dechlor UV N.A. UV (low P) Chlorination
26% significant significant leachate Disneyland
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
+ septage significant
Final Report

PLANT INFLUENT PW W F/A DW F ADW F /EP BOD 5 (L/EP/d) (mg/L) N.A. 240 155 468 228 331 309 287 543 128 227 738 424 BODsol (mg/L) CO D VFA (mg/L) (mg/L) CO D/ BOD
David Solley
T KN (mg/L) T KN/ CO D T KN/ BOD NH 4 / T KN T P/ TP COD (mg/L) T P/ VFA T P/ BO D
NH 4 (mg/L)
Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River O aks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern W RF W ater Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country W estbank Annacis Island
N.A. 4 3 2.1 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.4 1.6 3.4 5.9 7.3 4.2
256 350 115 241 205 233 111 96 468 265 181 126 176 250 150 200 200 220 230
559 780 695 550 671 405
2.2 2.2 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.6
50 65 62 63 67 32 14 38 42 20 38 39 35 30 36 27
31
0.09 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.08
0.20 0.19 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.29
10.9 16 8.5 9.4 14.5 4.5 5.2
0.019 0.021 0.012 0.017 0.022 0.011
0.043 0.046 0.035 0.046 0.062 0.041
860 512 419
1.8 1.9 2.3
0.04 0.08
0.08 0.16
8.8 4.1 7 7.5 6.5 10 7.5 6.9 4.7
0.017
0.033
28 23 20 24
0.22 0.16 0.20
0.72 0.67
0.04 0.03
1.6 2 3 345
570 540
2.6 2.3
39 11
0.02
192 129 142 214
25 27 25 40 35 33 32 30 52
21 16 18 28 20 18 19
0.13 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.26
0.81 0.61 0.74 0.70 0.57 0.55 0.61
5.8 4.9 5.1 9 6 5.5 6 7 11 9
0.03 0.038 0.036 0.042 0.037 0.037 0.026 0.031 0.045
70 90
833 2.5 2 424
162 150 232 225 202 300
400 349 14 580
2.7 1.5
0.08 0.09
0.014 0.017
2.9
33
0.09
0.63
0.016
Final Report

PLANT SCREENING T ype Gap/Bar Spacing (mm) GRIT T ype PRIMARY T ype
David Solley
Chemicals Surface Loading (m/h) Ave(Peak) 50 (100) 8 (32) 7 (20) N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Removal (% SS) (% BOD5) Flow Equalisation
Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River Oaks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern W RF W ater Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country W estbank Annacis Island
Bar Mesh Bar Drum Rotating bar Rotating bar Rotating bar Step screen Step screen Bar Bar Bar Step screen Raked bar Rotating bar Bar Raked bar Raked bar Rotating bar Rotating bar Drum Drum Drum
10 1.5 6 7
N.A. Sedimentation Sedimentation Aerated channel N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Aerated chamber Aerated chamber Aerated channel Aerated channel Aerated channel Classifier on PS Vortex Vortex Vortex Vortex Vortex N.A. Vortex Vortex Vortex Aerated channel Vortex Vortex Vortex Aerated channel N.A. Vortex Vortex N.A. Vortex Aerated channel
10 20 10
6 6 4 4 4 13 19 13 13 19 6 13 6 10 12
Lamella settling Lamella settling Lamella settling Solids Contact N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Solids Contact Circular PST Rectangular PST Rectangular PST N.A. Rectangular PST Circular PST N.A. N.A. Rectangular PST Rectangular PST Rectangular PST Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular N.A. PST PST PST PST
Bar Bar Raked bar Raked bar Raked bar Raked bar Bar Raked bar Raked bar
Circular PST Rectangular PST Rectangular PST Circular PST Circular PST Rectangular PST Rectangular PST N.A. Rectangular PST Rectangular PST
Polymer, FeCl, Sand FeCl, Poly N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. FeCl N.A. N.A. N.A. Alum N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Ferric + NaOCl N.A. N.A. Ferric N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
83 60 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
50 30-40 60 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
1.5 (8.8) N.A. 2.4 N.A. N.A.
N.A.
40-50 N.A.
N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A.
N.A. 1.6 (2.6)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A. No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes N.A. No No
Yes 2.5 1.9 1.9 No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No
58 18 50 50-70
24 9 27 25-40
1.3 (3.3)
1.2
60-70 50
20-40
Final Report

PLANT FLOW PROCESS 2ndary Peak TYPE (x ADW F) N.A. 4 1.4 1.6 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.4 N.A. Biological filter 3 stage Bardenpho A/B activated sludge UCT/BCFS ditch UCT/BCFS ditch UCT/BCFS ditch MUCT/BCFS AKAS A/B activated sludge BioDenipho MLE N removal BioDenipho BioDenipho 2 st BNR + post TF Nitrify/post-denitry AS 3 st B'pho/Oxi ditch 5 st B'pho/Oxi ditch 3 stage Bardenpho 3 st B'pho/Oxi ditch 5 stage Bardenpho 5 stage Bardenpho VIPR 3 stage Bardenpho VIPR VT2/Oxi ditch+anaer Step-feed/IFAS/ring lace Modified UCT VIP/High rate UCT VIP/High rate UCT 3 st B'pho + BAF 3 st Bardenpho/J'burg 3 st Bardenpho/J'burg 3 stage Bardenpho 3 stage Bardenpho Modified UCT 3 stage Bardenpho 3 stage Bardenpho 3 st Bardenpho/W 'bank Trick.filt./Solids cont HRT (hrs) SRT (d) MLSS (mg/L) SVI (mL/g)
David Solley
FRACTIONS TEMP WAS (deg C) Anaer (%) Anox (%) Oxic (%) Selector Config'n Chemicals Carbon + AERATION Type Depth (m)
Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River Oaks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern W RF W ater Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook A Bonnybrook B Bonnybrook C Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country W estbank Annacis Island
18 0.7 22 18 18
20 5 28
3000 4200 4000 5200
80 100 -120 94+/-14 75 118+/-14 80-100 140 100-140 100-200
7-18 7-18 7-18 7-18
RAS RAS ML ML ML ML RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS
33 0 10 11.5 0 45 32.5
66 100 45 56 100
30 24 23 3.5 21
3.4 3.2 2.4 1.6
9-19
0 14 12 N.A. 5.7 9 19 11 7
0.3 86 88 40-60 94.3 91 12 26 27
0.7
40-60
22-25 6-7k Poor 25-30 4-5k 140-175 4.2 12-14 <3000 48-80 10-14 3-4k 14.5 18-22 3.6-4.2k 31.5 7-14 2500 120-130 1.7-3.5k 50-130
22-30 22-30 22-30 22-31
69 63 66
N.A. N.A. Comp mix N.A. FeCl3, Poly Carousel Carousel FeCl3 Carousel FeCl3 Carousel FeCl3 N.A. Plug flow FeCl3 Comp mix N.A. 5 x CMR FeCl3 4 x CMR FeCl3 Comp mix FeSO4+poly Alum Comp mix Alum (little) 4 x CMR Alum 3 x CMR 2 x CMR Alum (rare)
N.A. MeOH N.A. Diffused Surface Surface Surface Surface Diffused Surface+jet Diffused Surface Diffused Diffused Diffused Surface Surface Surface Surf.+diff. Diffused Diffused Diffused Diffused Brush 9 4
5 6
Ethanol N.A. N.A. N.A. MeOH
10
MeOH N.A. N.A. Acetate
3.6 4.3 5.2 6
1.6 2
41 9 6.5 6.3 5 8.4 10 13.5 12
7-28
8 17 11.5 10.5 10-30 15 20 7.5 6 23 23.5 21.5 0-10 5-10 10 33 38
92 60 65 68
Comp mix Ferric Comp mix Ferric Plug flow Alum Plug flow Ferric+NaOCl Comp mix Plug flow NaOH 2 x CMR 2 x CMR
3.1 6.7 6.1 6.1 4.6 6 6 4.5
7-12 7-12
2.5-4k 3-5k
60-110 65-120
12-29 12-29 10-18 10-18 10-18
RAS RAS RAS RAS ML ML ML ML ML ML RAS
7-18 6-20 8-13
3000 3000
170-250 300 Good
10-20 9
10.5 1.25
1.5-3.5k 100-230 1
7 0
21 0
70-80 Comp mix 75-80 Comp mix 70 3 x CMR 59.5 Comp mix 56 3-4 x CMR Comp mix Comp mix 72 Comp mix 100 N.A.
Diffused N.A. N.A. Diffused N.A. Act. PST Diffused Ferric + poly Alum (little) N.A. Diffused Alum N.A. Diffused Alum (little) Fermenter Diffused Alum (little) Act. PST Diffused Alum Ferm.+acetate Diffused Alum Fermenter Turbine N.A. N.A. Jet aerator Alum(30mg/L) Fermenter Diffused N.A. N.A. Diffused
Final Report

PLANT RECYCLES 'S' (x Qi) Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River Oaks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern WRF Water Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook A Bonnybrook B Bonnybrook C Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country Westbank Annacis Island 'A' (x Qi) 'R' (x Qi) CONTROL Solids level Aeration 'S' recycle 'A' recycle 'R' recycle
David Solley
ON-LINE INSTRUMENTATION Carbon Dose DO NH4 NOx PO4 SS Redox FST Alkalinity Turbidity blanket
N.A. 1 1
3 N.A. 3.7 5.7
N.A. N.A. 1.9 2.6 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. N.A. N.A.
0.25-0.5 0.8-1.0 0.6-0.7 1
N.A. 1-2 3 3-4 N.A.
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
DO DO DO DO+Redox DO+Redox DO DO DO DO+OUR+NH4 SS DO DO DO FST level DO+Redox SRT DO SRT N.A. SRT DO SRT DO MLSS DO MLSS DO MLSS MLSS SRT SRT MLSS MLSS SRT DO DO DO DO DO + Alk+Turb DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO
NOx NOx Redox Redox Redox Redox N.A. Redox Redox Redox Redox N.A. N.A.
NOx inflow
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
0.3 0.75-1.1 0.65-0.8 1-1.1 0.9-1 1-1.1 6
SRT SRT MLSS MLSS MLSS SRT SRT SRT SRT MLSS MLSS
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
0.7-1 0.75-1
6-8 2 6-8 6
N.A. 1
0.8
Final Report

PLANT EFFLUENT FILTRATION DISINFECTION EFFLUENT DISCHARGE ODOUR CONTROL Process
David Solley
Odour Chemicals NaOH NaOCl Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Extent Acid Yes Yes Yes Yes Na2SO4 Yes Yes Yes All plant All plant All except FST's All plant Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet, anaerobic, sludge Inlet, anaerobic, sludge Inlet, anaerobic, sludge All except FST's Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet,PST,sludge Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet works, sludge areas Inlet,PST,sludge All but FST & end 2/3 aerate Inlet,PST,sludge Air Vol. (m3/hr) 74,400 600,000 70,000 181,000 H2Sin (ppm)
Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River Oaks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern WRF Water Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country Westbank Annacis Island
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Micro-sieve Sand filters Dual media filters Dual media filters Denitrifying filter Sand filters Dual media filters Sand filters Sand filters Sand filters Sand filters N.A. Dual media filters N.A. N.A. Dual media filters N.A. Dual media filters Shallow sand bed Dual media filters Dual media filters Dual media filters N.A.
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Chlorination Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor UV UV UV Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor Chlor/Dechlor UV (low P) UV Chlor/Dechlor UV N.A. UV (low P) Chlorination
Agricultural land 4 Stage Chem Scrubber River 4 Stage Chem Scrubber River 4 Stage Chem Scrubber River 4 Stage Chem Scrubber River Biofilter - Lava packed River Biofilter - Lava packed River Biofilter - Lava packed River Into diffused air system River Biofilter - coconut husks Sea Sea Sea Sea Into Cambi steam plant Sea Bay + irrigation 2 Stage Chem Scrubber River + irrigation Biofilter - compost packed River + irrigation Biofilter - mulch packed Lake + irrigation 2 Stage Chem Scrubber Irrigation/groundwater Chem Scrubber+biofilter Industry+GW recharge Chem/AC Scrub+biofilter Irrigation/groundwater Irrigation/groundwater 2 Stage Chem Scrubber River 2 Stage Chem Scrubber River 2 Stage Chem Scrubber River 2 Stage Chem Scrubber River River Bay Bay River River Lake River + irrigation Lake Groundwater recharge Lake River Activated C & Fe in sewer 2 Stage Chem Scrubber 2 Stage Chem Scrubber Into diffused air system Biofilter -mulsh,shell,peat Activ.C & Into diffused air Chem Scrubber+biofilter Biofilter -mulch, hog fuel Biofilter Chem scrub+biofilter & AC
100-200
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
6-7
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Inlet,PST launders,unaerated Inlet,PST,unaerated,sludge Inlet,PST,unaerated,sludge Inlet,sludge(+prefermenter) Inlet,PST,unaerated,sludge Inlet,PST,unaerated,sludge Inlet,sludge(+prefermenter) Inlet,PST,unaerated,sludge All except FST's All but FST's & Centrifuge
30-40
Yes
Final Report

PLANT Solids THICKENING Primary Process (dry.t/d) Arches (bypass) Columbe Rouen Dokhaven Genemuiden Vollenhove Dalfsen Ommen Utrecht Bjergmarken Elsinore Lynetten Naestved Rya River Oaks Falkenburg South County Largo South Regional Eastern WRF Water Conserv II Reedy Creek South River R. M. Clayton Utoy Creek Bowie Annapolis Henrico Hampton Rds VIP Nansemond Roanoke Bonnybrook Summerland Penticton Kelowna Lake Country Westbank Annacis Island 50 100 17 17 N.A. Gravity Thickener Gravity Thickener N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Gravity Thickener Rotary Drum Rotary Drum N.A. DAF DAF Gravity Table Centrifuge Gravity Thickener Gravity Thickener Gravity Thickener Rotary Drum Rotary Drum Rotary Drum Rotary Drum Gravity Thickener Gravity table Solids (%) Secondary Process Solids (%)
David Solley
DIGESTION Process Energy Production (%) DEWATERING Process Cake Solids (%) FINAL DISPOSAL Type
8-12 6
5 6 4-5 3-4 4-5
N.A. N.A. Mesophilic Mesophilic
N.A. N.A. 30% plant
Centrifuge Centrifuge Centrifuge Centrifuge
28 30 18-20
Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Incineration (fluidised bed) or Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Incineration (fluidised bed) Incineration (fluidised bed) Incineration (fluidised bed)
55 4.3 90
5-6 5 5-6 3-4 5
Mesophilic Thermophillic Mesophilic Thermophillic Cambi+Meso Mesophilic
N.A. N.A. 90-100 N.A. N.A. Thickening PST's
N.A. Gravity table Centrifuge Centrifuge Centrifuge Gravity thickener Gravity thickener DAF Not used Gravity Table DAF DAF DAF Gravity thickener DAF DAF DAF DAF 5-6 4-5 4-5 4-5
6-7
23 16 44.6
Thickening PST's Thickening PST's
5 6
Gravity thickener/fermenter Thickening PST's Gravity thickener/fermenter Gravity thickener/fermenter N.A. Gravity thickener/fermenter Gravity Thickener
6 4-7 5-6 N.A. 4-9
4-5 N.A. 5.5-6.5 2-3 4.5 5 2.5 4-5 2.5 3-7
Belt press Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Belt press Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Cent/Dryer 20-22/35-38 Incineration (multiple hearth) Yes Belt press 35 Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture City buses Centrifuge 30-32 Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Composting/landscaping Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Belt press Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Aerobic Belt press 16-19 Pelletiser/dryer + agriculture Landfill N.A. Belt press 10-12 Landfill N.A. N.A. Belt press 22 Composting/landscaping Thermophilic Centrifuge 20 Landfill Mesophilic Centrifuge Incineration (rotary hearth) Mesophilic Centrifuge 18-19 Incineration (rotary hearth) N.A. Belt press Land injection N.A. Belt press Lime Pasteurisation/Agriculture Mesophilic Centrifuge 19-21 Composting/landscaping N.A. N.A. Centrifuge 23 Incineration (multiple hearth) Mesophilic Runs 1 blower Centrifuge 25-28 Mesophilic N.A. Lagoons then land application Mesophilic 21 MWh/d Lagoon 10 Agriculture/sub-surface injection N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Regional compost Meso (prim) N.A. GDT/BFP 12-14 Composting/landscaping N.A. N.A. Centrifuge 20-21 Regional compost N.A. N.A. Centrifuge 19-26 Regional compost N.A. N.A. Filter press 27 Regional compost Thermophilic Yes Centrifuge 33 Agriculture + rehabilitation
Yes Yes
Final Report

PLANT Ownership Operation COSTS Delivery Capital Method Cost * Upgrade Annual Cost STAFF No. Operators
David Solley
LICENCE No. Admin No. Eng'rs No. M&E Total No. Shift Ops TN Limit (mg/L) N.A. 10 20 N.A. 10 10 10 10 N.A. 6 8 8 8 15 1.4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NH4 limit NH4 limit NH4 limit 8 N.A. 8 8 8 0 NH4<10 NH4<10 NH4<10 6 6 6 6 6 N.A. TP Limit (mg/L) N.A. 1 >46% N.A. 1 1 2 1 N.A. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.3 1 1 N.A. 1 1 1 1 0.64 0.75 0.75 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.25 N.A. PERFORMANCE Effluent TN & Removal (mg/L) (% rem) Effluen Rem (mg/L)
Arches (bypass) Columbe 40% Private Rouen Public Dokhaven Public Genemuiden Public Vollenhove Public Dalfsen Public Ommen Public Utrecht Public Bjergmarken Public Elsinore Public Lynetten Public Naestved Public Rya Public River Oaks Public Falkenburg Public South County Public Largo Public South Regional Public Eastern WRF Public Water Conserv II Public Reedy Creek Private South River Public R. M. Clayton Public Utoy Creek Public Bowie Public Annapolis Henrico Public Hampton Rds VIP Public Nansemond Public Roanoke Public Bonnybrook A Public Bonnybrook B Public Bonnybrook C Public Summerland Public Penticton Public Kelowna Public Lake Country Public Westbank Public Annacis Island Public
21 Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Corporate Corporate Corporate Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Corporate Corporate Public Public Public Public Private Corporate Public Private Public Public DBO DBO D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L DBO D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L D&L DBO D&L D&L DBO D&L D&L 2195 M.FF 620 M.FF 320 M.NLG 2 FF/kL 20 2 3 1 2 3 1 P/T 1 P/T 1 P/T 15 40 30 2
340 M.SEK* 0.56 SEK/m3 US$27M* US$23M US$0.065/kL
25
35
6 16 13 14 13 25 US$0.5/kL US$0.06/kL US$0.08/kL US$0.08/kL US$0.11/kL
1 3 3 0 6 9 40 25 29
US$0.38/kL
1 16
US$70M* US$100M* US$100M* US$0.25M* US$13M* US$66M US$54M CDN$1M* CDN$4M* CDN$70M
14 35 21 8-10 2
1 12 5 2 0
1 1
5 17
29
Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes
7.0 7.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 2.2 11.4 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 9.0 3.0 1.0
88.7 88.9 88.1 90.6 78.9 81.7 85.8 44.1 97.4 96.2 97.1 93.3 75.0 88.9 97.4
0.3 0.7 1.4 0.6 1.0 <1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 2.0 3.0 0.3 0.5 0.5
2.9 5.0 12.6 8 (6) 10.7
88.6 53.5 67.5 73.3
0.2 1.4 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
2 0
3 0
18 2
13.0 3.0 5.1 5.0 5.4
62.9 90.9 84.1 83.3 89.6
CDN$0.2/kL
CDN$526M
Final Report
David Solley
Nomenclature for Tables

A-B ADWF Alk AS BAF BNR CMR D&L DBO DO FST PWWF EP IFAS MeOH ML MLE MLSS NA OUR PS PST SRT SS TF Turb UV (low P) VFA A-B solids contact process Average dry weather flow Alkalinity Activated sludge Biological aerated filter Biological nutrient removal Complete mixed reactor Design and let Design, build & operate Dissolved oxygen Final settling tank Peak wet weather flow Equivalent persons Integrated fixed film/activated sludge Methanol Mixed liquor Modified Ludsack-Ettinger process Mixed liquor suspended solids Not applicable Oxygen uptake rate Primary sludge Primary settling tank Solids retention time Suspended solids Trickling filter Turbidity Low pressure UV Volatile fatty acid
Final Report
David Solley
Appendix D Photographs
Final Report
David Solley
Covered Actiflow (Activated Primary Settling Tank) Reactors Arches WWTP, Paris France
Actiflow Flowchart
Final Report
David Solley
BCFS/AKAS Reactor Ommen WWTP, The Netherlands
BCFS/AKAS Reactor
Final Report
David Solley
Covered Trickling Filters Annacis Is WWTP, Vancouver Canada
Covered Bioreactors Annacis Is WWTP, Vancouver Canada
Final Report
David Solley
Odour Scrubbers and Pipework VIP WWTP, Norfolk Virginia USA
Ringlace Zone Annapolis WWTP, Maryland USA
Final Report
David Solley
Inboard FST Launders Annacis Is WWTP, Vancouver Canada
Final Report
David Solley
FST with In-board Launders Utoy Creek WWTP, Atlanta USA
Final Report
David Solley
FST Utoy Creek WWTP, Atlanta USA
Final Report
David Solley
Anoxic Zones Bonnybrook WWTP, Calgary Canada
Prefermenter Bonnybrook WWTP, Calgary Canada
Final Report
David Solley
Covered PSTs Penticton WWTP, Canada
Cambi Sludge Hydrolysis Plant Naestved WWTP, Denmark
Final Report
David Solley
Cambi Sludge Hydrolysis Plant Naestved WWTP, Denmark
Covered FST Launders Naestved WWTP, Denmark
Final Report
David Solley
Centriguges Rouen WWTP, Paris France
Covered Bioreactor Under Construction R.M. Clayton WWTP, Atlanta USA
Final Report
David Solley
SHARON Reactor Dokhaven WWTP, Rotterdam The Netherlands
Surface of Underground Dokhaven WWTP Rotterdam The Netherlands
Final Report
David Solley
Bioreactors Contained Below Ground Dokhaven WWTP, Rotterdam The Netherlands
Dr Lange Nutrient Analysers and Membrane Filtration Sample Preparation Bjergmarken WWTP, Denmark
Final Report
David Solley
Scum Accumulation on Bioreactor South River WWTP, Atlanta USA
Flexible Dome Digester Cover Roanoke WWTP, Virginia USA
Final Report
David Solley
Danfoss Nutrient Analyser Buoy Naestved WWTP, Denmark
Final Report
David Solley
Egg-shaped Thermophilic Sludge Digesters Lynetten WWTP, Copenhagen Denmark
Lynetten WWTP Copenhagen Denmark
Final Report
David Solley
Covered Effluent Filters Westbank WWTP, Kelowna Canada
Final Effluent Filters South County WWTP, Orlando Florida USA
Final Report
David Solley
FST with Full Radius Scum Scraper VIP plant, Norfolk Virginia USA
Covered Unaerated Bioreactor Zones Nansemond WWTP, Norfolk Virginia USA
Final Report
David Solley
Odour Pipe Work Nansemond WWTP, Norfolk Virginia USA
Covered Anaerobic Channel Nansemond WWTP, USA
Final Report
David Solley
Covered Biorector and PSTs Nansemond WWTP, USA
FST and Scum Scraper Nansemond WWTP, USA
Final Report
David Solley
Sludge Cake Hopper and Loading Bay Nansemond WWTP
Final Report
David Solley
Sludge Cake Storage & Loading Hopper Annacis Is WWTP, Vancouver Canada
Final Report
David Solley
FST and Sludge Judge Measurement of Blanket Depth Henrico WWTP, Virginia USA
Final Report
David Solley
Fluidised Bed Incinerator Rouen WWTP, France
Final Report
David Solley
Covered Lamella PSTs Rouen WWTP, France
Rotary Drum Screen R.M. Clayton WWTP, Atlanta USA
Final Report
David Solley
Trickling Filters Rya WWTP, Goteburg Sweden
Final Report
David Solley
Caustic Odour Scrubber Kelowna WWTP, Canada
Final Report
David Solley
Construction of In-ground Biofilter Kelowna WWTP, Canada
Odour Biofilters Summerland WWTP, Canada
Final Report
David Solley
Odour Biofilter Summerland WWTP, Canada
Final Report
David Solley
Odour Biofilter Eastern WRF, Orlando Florida USA
Odour Biofilter Canisters South County WWTP, Tampa Florida USA
Final Report
David Solley
Odour Biofilters Maryland, USA
Odour Pipe Work R.M. Clayton WWTP, Atlanta USA
Final Report
David Solley
Covered PSTs, R.M. Clayton WWTP, Atlanta USA
Square FST Roanoke WWTP, Virginia USA
Final Report
David Solley
Chemical Odour Scrubbers Rouen WWTP, France
Final Report

Solley David 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solley David 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PROGRAMME

UPGRADING OF LARGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Name: Address: Position: Telephone: Email: Project Description:

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION Background

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 3 PROGRAMME

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 4

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle

3 Stage Bardenpho Biological Nutrient Removal Process

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle Anoxic Recycle

UCT Biological Nutrient Removal Process

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Return Sludge Aerobic

Oxidation Ditch Process Configured for P Removal

Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle Anoxic Recycle

Return Sludge Mixed Liquor Recycle

Figure 4.5 4.1.1.3 Substrate Utilisation

5 Stage Bardenpho Biological Nutrient Removal Process

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Anoxic Aerobic Return Sludge

Aerobic Aerobic Return Sludge

Aerobic Aerobic Return Sludge

PHASE D Bio-Denipho Process

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 4.1.4 Separate Sidestream Treatment

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 5 CONCLUSIONS

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report 6 RECOMMENDATIONS

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

Churchill Fellowship 2000 Report

3-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress

4-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress 11-Jul-00 NARBONNE,FRANCE

5-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress 12-Jul-00 NARBONNE,FRANCE

6-Jul-00 PARIS IWA 2000 Congress 13-Jul-00 NARBONNE,FRANCE

20-Jul-00 CAHORS, FRANCE

22-Jul-00 AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

23-Jul-00 AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS