&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4204)
EPA 832-B-96-002
September 1996
Interim Report-Evaluation
Of The Advanced Ecologically
Engineered System (AEES)
"Living Machine"Wastewater
Treatment Technology-
Frederick, MD.
-------
-------
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
AN INTERIM PROCESS EVALUATION OF THE
AEES "LIVING MACHINE"
i • , • ', . ,,.-.. ,••'.-. . '' ....
FREDERICK COUNTY, MD
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT.
. MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
Report No. 832-B-96-002
Contract No. 68-C2-0102
Work Assignment No. 3-18
September 1996
-------
-------
EPA1 s Environmental Technology Verification Program
/ ,- . ; - • - \ • • . >
Throughout Its history, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has evaluated technologies to determine their effectiveness
in preventing, controlling,, and cleaning iip pollution. As a part
of the Environmental Technology Initiative, EPA is now expanding
these- efforts by instituting a new program, the Environmental
Technology Verification 'Program "-- or ETV -- to verify the
performance of a larger universe of innovative technical
solutions to problems that threaten human health or the
environment. ETV was created to substantially accelerate the -
entrance of new environmental technologies into the domestic and
international marketplace. It supplies technology buyers and
developers, consulting engineers, states, and the U.S. EPA
Regions with high quality data on the performance of new ' . •
technologies to encourage more rapid protection of the ;
environment with better and less expensive approaches^ EPA will
utilize the expertise of both public and private partner .
"verification organizations," including federal laboratories,
states/ universities, and private sector facilities, to design
efficient processes fpr conducting performance tests of '
innovative technologies.v Verification organizations will oversee
and report verification activities based on testing and quality
assurance protocols developed with input from all major ,
-stakeholder/customer groups associated with the technology area.
i ' ' "" ','-••'
This interim process evaluation report on the Applied Ecological
Engineered Systems (AEES) "Living Machine," prepared, in ;
cooperation with EPA's .contractor -- Parsons Engineering Science,
Inc. --serves as an' example o~f the type-of independent testing.
envisioned under the GPA's new ETV Program. Currently'ETV pilot
.projects are underway involving the testing; of small- package
drinking'water systems (EPA has partnered with NSF Int'!.}',
•pollution prevention< and waste treatment systems v(EPA has
partnered with the State of California), site characterization
technologies (EPA has partnered with Sandia and Oak Ridge
National.Labs.), and indoor air products (EPA has partnered' with '
the Research Triangle Institute). For'further information
regarding the ETV Program, contact the Penelope Hansen, Program
Coordinator,, at 202/260-2600. • • ...
-------
Disclaimer
The information in this document has been funded wholly, or in part, by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-C2-0102, Work Assignment
No. 3-18. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or a recommendation for use.
-------
Acknowledgments
Mr. Sherwood Reed, P.E. of Environmental Engineering Consultants, Norwich, VT
and Mr. James Salisbury of Parsons Engineering Science, Iric., Fairfax, VA were the
principal authors of this report. This work was performed under the direction of Mr. Robert
E. Lee, Chief of the Municipal Technology Branch, and Mr. Robert Bastian, Work
Assignment Manager, USEPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
Ms. Lauren Fillmore and Ms. Lisa Allard of Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Fairfax, VA
provided project management and direction during the study and the preparation of this
report. Additional project support was provided by Mr. Brian Stone, P.E., Mr. Keith
Kornegay, Mr. Robert Cain, and Mr. Glenn Pearson of Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
^ . - ^
The authors wish to thank Dr. John Todd and Ms. Beth Josephson of Ocean Arks
International, Falmouth, MA, and Mr. Michael Shaw and Ms. Lynne Stuart of Living
Technologies, Inc., .Burlington, VT for their cooperation and assistance during this study.
The authors especially wish to thank Mr. Stanley Serfling, Ms. April Smith, Ms. Janette
Emming and Ms. Kerrie Kyde, the Ocean Arks staff at the Frederick, MD facility, for their
assistance and patience during the data collection phase of this project. .
Ill
-------
IV
-------
Foreword
Providing effective and reliable wastewater treatment in a cost-effective manner is a
problem facing urbanizing areas across the country. The Clean Water Act (PL92-500 and
its more recent amendments) led to the construction of .many new wastewater treatment
facilities to help control water pollution from both industrial and municipal sources. In the
future^ add-on processes will be needed to upgrade many of these treatment facilities. In
addition, more facilities will be needed to help deal with small volume municipal point
sources as well as non-point sources of water pollution if the water quality objectives of the
Clean Water Act are ever to be fully realized.
Many treatment technologies are currently available for use in meeting essentially
any level of wastewater treatment found to be necessary to meet regulatory requirements—
including technologies that can effectively and reliably treat wastewater to meet drinking
water quality. However, many of these currently available technologies are expensive to
build and operate, require extensive energy resources, and produce large volumes of sludges
that are also expensive to properly manage.
In an effort to offer, a new approach to meeting a variety of advanced treatment
requirements, "ecological engineering" concepts are being used to design wastewater
treatment systems that incorporate naturally-occurring, complex ecological systems within a
highly controlled environment. After working with a number of small pilot-scale facilities
employing his early proprietary designs, generally referred to as "Solar Aquatics" {which
evolved from work with self-contained aquaculture production systems), Dr. John Todd,
President of the non-profit Ocean Arks Ltd., has developed a series of second generation,
design (non-proprietary) demonstration-scale projects he refers to as "Advanced Ecologically
Engineered Systems" (AEES) or "Living Machines." To date a total of $5.75 million in
federal funding to support these demonstration-scale "Living Machine" projects has been
provided by Congress'in the form of special add-on appropriations to EPA's budget (in FYs
'92-'95). Most of these funds were awarded through a cooperative agreement to the
Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine and Polymer Sciences, a financial
supporter of Dr. Todd's earlier efforts to develop the original "Solar Aquatics" technology,
toj assist in the design,-construction, operation and documentation of results associated
with the demonstration-scale "Living Machine" projects.
Dr. Todd promotes his "Advanced. Ecologically Engineered Systems" (AEES) or
"Living Machines" as a new, low cost, solar powered, no chemical use alternative
wastevyater treatment technology capable of being constructed in modules as additional
capacity is needed. These systems incorporate many of the same basic processes (e.g.,
sedimentation, filtration, clarification, adsorption, nitrification, denitrification, volatilization,
anaerobic and aerobic decomposition) utilized in more conventional advanced biological
treatment systems. Dr. Todd is trying to simulate these processes as they occur in natural
biological ecosystems (such as lakes, rivers and wetlands). He is attempting to encourage
them to operate at optimal rates under controlled conditions. Still, his ecologically
engineered systems incorporate variations of well established treatment technologies such
as anaerobic bioreactors, complete > mix aerated tanks, aerobic fluidized bed reactors,
clarifiers, high rarte constructed Wetlands, and plant-covered ponds. However, Dr. Todd
approaches'the design and operation of his facilities from an ecological systems point-of-
view and attempts to incorporate objectives well beyond just achieving the desired
¥ ,
-------
wastewater treatment goals into his projects. For example, Todd emphasizes the
importance of snails, freshwater clams and other invertebrates in his "ecological fluid beds,"
as well as utilizing a variety of aquatic and wetland plants throughout his systems. He also
stresses the value of his systems as a potential opportunity to produce fish as well as
aquatic and wetland horticultural plants to be marketed locally, and for educating the public
about the importance of natural biological systems in purifying and recycling wastewater.
Robert Bastian, 24 December 1995
-------
Contents
• ' . .' ' •.-'" •.-••'.- • ' ..''•' -' .. • Page
Disclaimer......... ..;.... jj
Acknowledgments j|j
.Foreword .......v;........ jv
Contents .;.................... .........; vi
List of Figures :, ........... '. .......viii
List of Tables .....:x
List of Abbreviations xii
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background ....1-1
1.2 Objectives of the Study 1-2
1.3 Organization of the Report .; 1-3
2,. ' Description of the AEES Facility in Frederick, MD 2-1
; 2.1 Introduction '. 2-1
2.2 Anaerobic Bio-reactor.. '. ...2-3
2.3 Aerated Tanks '. :.. , .....2-3
2.4 Ecological Fluidized Beds.... ....2-4
2.5 Duckweed Clarifier '.-. 1 ....;. ..2-5
2.6 High-rate Marsh „ 2-5
3. Flow Monitoring...... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ............. 3-1
.3.2 Influent Flow Monitoring < .3-1
3.3 Effluent Flow Monitoring ......3-1
4. Wastewater.arid Residuals Sampling ;...... 4-1
4.1 Introduction...... :..... , ... ..4-1
4.2 Sampling Locations..... 4-1
4.3 Sampling Methods......... 4-2
5. Tracer Study ...'................ 5-1
- 5.1' Introduction 5-1
5.2 Test Locations :..; .„ ......5-1
5.3 Tracer Study Methods..... ... ,...,5-2
6. Analytical Procedures 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Field Analyses ..............6-1
6.3 Laboratory Analyses 6-1
7. Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..7-1
7.1 Introduction.. ,...,.... ........7-1
7,2 QA/QC Program Implementation and Procedures ....7-1
-7.3 QA/QC Program Results ...........7-2
7.4 Conclusion ..7-5
-------
Page
8. Flow Data
8.1 Introduction .- 8-1
8.2 Influent Flows 8-1
8.3 Effluent Flows 8-1
9. System Performance 9-1
9.1 Introduction 9-1
9.2 Wastewater Characteristics ....:'. 9-1
9.3 Treatment Efficiencies.. 9-8
9.4 Residuals Characteristics 9-11
9.5 Operations and Maintenance During the Process Evaluation 9-20
10. Hydraulic Detention Times 10-1
10.1 Introduction .:....... *.... 10-1
10.2 Tracer Study Results ; 10-1
10.3 Calculation of Hydraulic Detention Times 10-2
11. Comparison of Study Data with Ocean Arks' Data... , 11-1
11.1 Introduction 11-1
11.2 Comparison of Data Sets 11-2
12. Investigation of the System Without Plants 12-1
12.1 introduction 12-1
12.2 Wastewater Sampling ;..'. ; ...12-1
12.3 Analytical Procedures and QA/QC .12-1
- 12.4 Process Performance Without Plants... 12-1
12.5 Comparison to Process Performance With Plants. 12-2
13. Evaluation of the AEES Facility in Frederick, MD .... .13-1
13.1 Introduction , , .,, ...13-1
13.2 Process Performance 13-1
13.3 Process Residuals, '. ; ...13-8
13.4 Cost Comparisons 13-9
13.5 USEPA- Ocean Arks Data Comparison.. ...-. 13-14
13.6 Role of Plants in the AEES Process 13-17
14. Conclusions and Recommendations 14-1
14.1 Conclusions ... ....14-1
14.2 Recommendations ...<. ..< 14-4
15. References '. 15-1
APPENDICES
A. Quality Assurance Project Plan
B. Raw Data: Flow Monitoring
C. Raw Data: Water Quality and Residuals
D. Raw Data: Tracer Study
E. Raw Data: Water Quality (System Without Plants)
F. Cost Estimates for Conventional Treatment Systems
G. Cost Estimates for the AEES
VU1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Process Flow Diagram for the Frederick, MD AEES Living Machine ...2-2
Figure 4-1 Wastewater and Residuals Sampling Locations ...... . ..... ....... ______ ......4-2
Figure 5-1 Tracer Study Sampling Locations ............ . ...... ........ . ...... ........ ....... 5-2
Figure 9-1 Eleven Week Performance Evaluation - Chemical Oxygen Demand ....9-4
Figure 9-2 Eleven Week Performance Evaluation - Biochemical
.Oxygen Demand.. ........... ....... ............... ........... ... ..... ........ ...:.... ..9-5
Figure 9-3 Eleven Week Performance Evaluation - Suspended Solids ...... . ......... 9-6
Figure 9-4 Eleven Week Performance Evaluation - TKN, Ammonia and Nitrate ...9-7
Figure 9-5 Eleven Week Performance Evaluation - Total Phosphorus...... ...... .....9-9
Figure 9-6 - Eleven Week Performance Evaluation - Dissolved Oxygen and pH...9-10
Figure 9-7 Contributions of Process Components - Total COD Removal ..... ..... 9-14
Figure 9-8 Contributions of Process Components - Total Biochemical
Oxygen Demand Removal .... ....... .. ______ .'; ...... ... ......... ... ....... . ........ 9-14
Figure 9-9 Contributions of Process Components - Total Suspended Solids
Removal ........... . ..... ..... ....... ........ ........ . ..... .. ...... . ................. ....9-15
Figure 9-10 Contributions of Process Components - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Removal.... ...... ..... ............. ..... ...... ...... ......... .-.' ....................... ..9-15
Figure 9-1 1 Contributions of Process Components - Ammonia Removal. ........... 9-16
Figure 9-12 Contributions of Process Components - Total Phosphorus
Removal ............... ...... ............ . ......... . ..... ...:................ ...... . ..... 9-16 '
Figure 10-1 Tracer Study to Determine HDTs ..... . ..... . ..... .... ....... .... ...... .......... 10-1
Figure 12-1 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Total Chemical Oxygen Demand. ........ ....... ...... . ....... ..12-5
Figure 12-2 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter. Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand ......... ........... ........12-6
Figure 1 2-3 Cpmparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter. Total Biochemical Oxygen Demand... ........ .. ........ . ...... 12-7
Figure 12-4 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Soluble Biochemical Oxygen Demand. ... ............... . _______ 1 2-8
Figure 12-5 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Total Suspended So/ids.............. ......... ....... ...... ......... 12-9
Figure 12-6 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Volatile Suspended Solids ......... , ................ ............ 12-10
Figure 12-7 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ........ ,. ............. ..." ....... .. 1 2-1 1
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page
Figure 12-8 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Ammonia .„... 12-12
Figure 12-9 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Nitrate : 12-13
Figure 12-10 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Phosphorus 12-14
Figure 12-11 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: pH . 12-15
Figure 12-12 Comparison of System Treatment With and Without Plants
Parameter: Dissolved Oxygen 12-16
-------
LIST OF TABLES
• • . ~~ . , -'"'••. • • . .'•-'• • • ' '' ' Pa9e
Table 2.1 ; Water Quality Goals for the AEES Facility ............... 2-1
Table 4.1 Wastewater Sampling Locations , '. ..- ..4-1
Table 5.1 Tracer Study Sampling Locations..... 5-1
, Table 5.2 Calculated HOT and Sample Times for Tracer Study 5-3
Table 6.1 Summary of Laboratory Analyses. 6-2
Table 7.1 RPDs and PRRs for Analyzed Samples........ '..'. I..................7-3
Table 7*.2 Study Completeness.. ...7-4
Table 8.1 Mean Daily Wastewater Flows into TrainB..... .8-2
Table 9.1 Water Quality Summary for AEES Facility .....9-3
Table 9.2 Pollutant Treatment Efficiencies for AEES Facility..,.:..... ........9-12
Table 9.3 Pollutant Removal Contributions for AEES Facility ....9-13
Table 9.4 Sludge Data Summary...... ..i 9-18
' • • * . . ''•••- ,.'• ' '% - '
Table 9.5 Plant Data Summary, ...9-19
Table 9.6 Weekly Chemical/Bacteria Additions to Train B 9-20
Table 9.7 Weekly Sludge Removals .9-21
Table 9.8 Weekly Plant Removals from Train B 9-22
Table 9.9 Abnormal Operations and Modifications that Occurred During
the Study 9-24
Table 10.1 Actual and theoretical HDTs for the AEES \10-3
Table 1O.2 Percentage Lithium Recoveries for the Tracer Study 10-4
Table 11.1 T-test Results for Total Chemical Oxygen Demand 11-2
Table 11.2 T-test Results for Total Suspended Solids. ,.. ...... 11-2
Table 11.3 T-test Results for Volatile Suspended Solids ........11-2
Table 11.4 T-test Results for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ...11-3
Table 11.5 T-test Results for Ammonia......... , 11-3
Table 11.6 T-test Results for Nitrate.......! 11-3
, Table 11.7 T-test Results for Total Phosphorus.. ....11-4
Table 11.8 Descriptive Statistics for Total Chemical Oxygen Demand ;..... 11-5
Table 11.9 Descriptive Statistics for Total'Suspended Solids 1.1-5
^ - ' " r . ', - L ' ' . ' . - .
Table 11.10 Descriptive Statistics for Volatile Suspended Solids 11-6
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Table 11.11 Descriptive Statistics for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 11-6
Table 11.12 Descriptive Statistics for Ammonia 11-7
Table 11.13 Descriptive Statistics for Nitrate 11-7
Table 11.14 Descriptive Statistics for Total Phosphorus 11-8
Table 12.1 Water Quality Summary for AEES Facility... 12-3
Table 12.2 Pollutant Treatment Efficiencies for AEES Facility 12-4
Table 13.1 Performance of the Frederick AEES During the Study Period 13-2
Table 13.2 AEES Process, Capital Costs , 13-11
Table 13.3 Annual O&M Costs for the AEES System 13-12
Table 13.4 AEES System, Present Worth and total Annual Costs 13-13
Table 13.5 Capital and O&M Costs for the 40,000 and 80,000 gpd
Alternatives .- 13-15
Table 13.6 Capital and O&M Costs for the 1,000,000 gpd Alternatives 13-16
Table 13.7 Present Worth Comparison, AEES and Conventional Systems 13-17
31
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AGES Advanced Ecologically Engineered System ,
BOD, Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand '
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EEC Environmental Engineering Consultants
EQ Exceptional Quality
gpd gallons per day
HDTs Hydraulic Detention Times
kg kilograms
LD Laboratory Director ,
mgd million gallons per day
MFEMPS Massachusetts. Foundation for Excellence in Marine and Polymer Sciences
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
.mg/L milligrams per liter
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
NH4 Ammonia
NIST . National Institute of Standards in Technology
NO? Nitrate '
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OAI - Ocean Arks International
O&M Operation and Maintenance "'/• ;
Parsons ES Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
PRR Percent Recovery Range ".' '••;•".'•
QAC Quality Assurance Cpordinator
QAM Quality Assurance Manager
QAPjP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RPD Relative Percent Difference
SF , Subsurface Flow
SM Standards Methods
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN , Total Nitrogen • • ,. ,
TP Total Phosphorus ,
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
\m
-------
-------
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The Advanced Ecologically Engineered System ,(AEES) in Frederick County, MD is
one of several related, projects in the United States intended to provide Water quality
improvements for a variety of water sources. The AEES technology is also called a "Living
Machine" because of the ecologically-based components in the treatment process. The
system was conceived by Dr John Todd, the President of Ocean Arks International {OAI}, a
non-profit institution based in Falmouth, MA.
The other AEES demonstration facilities are located in South Burlington, VT, San
Francisco, CA, and near Harwich, MA. The'Frederick facility is intended to provide
advanced levels of treatment for untreated raw sewage. The Burlington pr.oje.ct uses
essentially the same technology, and has.the same purpose as Frederick, but is designed to
operate at a higher flow rate and in a colder climate. The project in Harwich, MA uses a
floating raft incorporating a portion of the AEES technology to provide in-situ water quality
improvements in lakes and ponds. The project in San Francisco also uses part of the AEES
technology to provide final high fiow rate polishing for treated secondary effluent; the intent
is to produce a water quality which would allow unrestricted irrigation reuse of the treated
water in California. This report describes the evaluation of performance of the AEES facility
in Frederick County, MD during the period between the end of February 1995 and late June
1995. The original proposal to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) stated
that the purpose of the demonstration facilities was to: "(Dtest the efficacy of using
Advanced Ecologically Engineered Systems under the particular climate conditions prevailing
in the specific areas; (2) test the ability of the'systems, and individual components within
the system, to "improve water quality in accordance with established parameters; and
(3) determine the costs of operating the system under given conditions and during specified'
time periods". The proposal further stated that the purpose of the demonstration facilities
was to enable operators, water resources officials and community users to understand the
dynamics of natural systems, and to become involved in revitalizing the. water supply in a
sustainable way.
These AEES demonstration projects were funded in part with special appropriations
from the US Congress, by a grant to the Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine
and Polymer Sciences (MFEMPS) which has subcontracted out much of the .effort to OAI.
The demonstration facilities are staffed by OAI personnel and, performance data are
routinely collected. However, it was agreed that an independent evaluation by USEPA
would be desirable, and funds from the special appropriations were set-aside for that
purpose. All of the AEES facilities were included in the study but the focus for independent
data collection was the system in Frederick County, MD, since it was expected to be
operating at "steady state" conditions when the study period commenced.
The facility in Frederick County, MD was constructed in 1993 and has been in
operation since that time. Following a "ramp-up" period from January to July 1994, the
facility continued to move toward "steady state" operations during the latter part of that
year. It incorporates the experience gained at previous OAI pilot systems in Massachusetts,
1-1
-------
Section 1
Vermont and Rhode Island, and represents a "second generation" design, this "Living
Machine" technology is intended to clean wastewater to advanced treatment standards
using "natural, solar-powered, greenhouse-based technology without the use of chemicals".
A related but technically distinct concept called "Solar Aquatics" was developed by OAI and
also utilizes a greenhouse and contained treatment elements also claimed to be based on
solar energy. Although the "Solar Aquatics" technology is sometimes confused with the
"Living Machine", the former is now marketed by another firm which holds the exclusive
rights to this technology. The "Living Machine" system in Frederick County, MD, is located
adjacent to the Ballenger Creek wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and draws wastewater
from Ballenger Creek after screening and degritting for treatment by the AEES process.
! '
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (Parsons ES) was selected by USEPA, under
Contract Number 68-C2-0102, to perform this independent evaluation. Under the same
contract, Mr. Sherwood Reed of Environmental Engineering Consultants (EEC), Norwich,
VT, was retained as the technical director of this effort.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The basic objective of this effort is to provide an independent evaluation of the
AEES "Living Machine" technologies which have.been built and are operated with federal
funding in Maryland, California, Vermont, and Massachusetts. "Natural" treatment
processes based on solar energy inputs and with a minimal of mechanical equipment and
conventional energy sources may offer considerable advantages for highly effective
treatment at relatively low costs. Positive results from this independent evaluation
sponsored and published by the USEPA may then serve to help provide a better
understanding of these technologies and their potential use in the United States.
i
The major objectives of this study were to:
• Evaluate the performance of the individual treatment components'-and the overall
AEES process through monitoring of flow, characterization of wastewater and
residuals, and determination of hydraulic detention times via tracer studies. All of
this work was to be performed at the AEES facility in.Frederick County, MD. by.
Parsons ES.
• Compare the capital costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the AEES
process with equivalent conventional wastewater treatment tephnologies. This
comparison would be performed for flow rates of 40,000,80,000 and 1,000^000
gallons per day (gpd). AEES costs would be provided by the designers of the
"Living Machine" whereas conventional WWTP costs would be prepared by
Parsons ES;
• Carry out a statistical comparison of the water quality data generated by this study
to that produced by OAI, both from their on-site laboratory and their certified testing
laboratory (at Ballenger Creek WWTP). The purpose of this exercise was to validate
the OAI procedures and results, thereby reducing the requirement for independent
testing in future evaluations of this type. •
• Evaluate the performance of the "Living Machine" with and without plants in the
treatment units in order to quantify and document the contribution of the floating
macrophyte plant species to the AEES wastewater treatment process.
The original intent was to collect independent water quality data over an 8 week
period while the Frederick AEES was operated at steady state conditions. This part of the
study was then extended, resulting in an assessment of 11 weeks' duration. The study to
1-2
-------
Section 1
evaluate the roje of the .plants in treatment was then added, which meant that the total
.duration of the sampling effort was 14 weeks. The sampling started the week of
February 28, 1995 but was not continuous thereafter and the study period actually,ended
on June 23, 1995.
The Frederick facility contains three sets of parallel units (trains) inside the
protective greenhouse. Flow to two of these trains (A & B) was maintained as closely as
possible to steady state during the study period. The sampling effort inside the greenhouse
focused on just one of the trains'(Train B), considering it to be representative of the overall
system performance.
1.3 Organization of the Report .
This report contains 1.4 sections, a list of references, and appendices. The
appendices contain all of the data collected at the Frederick AEES facility during the study
period, the quality assurance project plan and the detailed cost estimates prepared for the
AEES process and for the conventional alternatives. Section 2 describes the physical
components at the Frederick facility while Sections 3 to 7 describe the data collection and
monitoring procedures, and the quality assurance/quality control procedures used. .
Section 8 details the flow data collected during the study. Sections 9, 10, 11, and
12 discuss water quality performance, hydraulic detention times in system components,
comparison of independent data to OAI data, and the evaluation of the treatment
contribution from the plants.
Section 13" provide the cost data for the AEES process and the conventional
alternatives, and evaluates the capabilities of the AEES process based on the data collected
during the period of the USEPA study. Section 14 presents the conclusions and
recommendations drawn from this study.
1-3
-------
-------
Section 2
Description of the AEES Facility in Frederick, MD
2.1 Introduction
The AEES facility in Frederick Co., MD is designed to treat 40,000 gpd of screened
and degritted sewage. A schematic of the process, prepared by the system designer, is
shown on Figure 2-1 {the detention times given on Figure 2-1 are preliminary estimates).
All of the components, except the anaerobic bio-reactor are housed in a greenhouse with
plastic glazing (Nexus design steel frame, Serac glazing). The anaerobic bio-reactor is
outside the greenhouse and is partially buried with an exposed cover. The original water
quality goafs for this system, when operated-at 40,000 gpd, are summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Water Quality Goals for the AEES Facility
Water Quality Parameter
Goal for AEES Facility
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Ammonia (NH3/NH4)
Nitrate (NO3)
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Total Phosphorus (TP)
< 10 mg/l
, < 10 mg/l
< 1 mg/l
< 5 mg/l
< 10 mg/l
< 3 mg/l
The system is located adjacent to the Ballenger Creek Sewage Treatment Facility;
the influent for the AEES is taken after the screening and degritting units at the Ballenger
plant. Since the AEES system is a demonstration project all effluent and wasted sludges
are returned to the Ballenger facility. The greenhouse, structure encloses three sets of the
components shown on Figure 2-1. Two of these process "trains" are used to demonstrate
the capability to treat the design flow rate under steady state conditions. The third train is
used for testing and experimentation but typically receives one third of the 40,000 gpd
design flow.. The nomenclature used to identify the treatment units in this process, as
shown on Figure 2-1, was developed by the system designers. ,
/The conceptual design and structural details of the anaerobic bio-reactor were
developed by Sunwater Systems, Inc. located in Solario Beach, CA. The "Living Machine"
concept, and the conceptual design of the AEES facilities were developed by Ocean Arks
International, a non-profit institute located in Falmouth, MA. The engineering and structural
details for the greenhouse and "enclosed components were provided by Living Technologies,
Inc., located in Burlington, VT. The computer controls for the greenhouse units were
provided by Q Com Environmental Control in Irvine, CA.
2-1
-------
Section 2
A demaratiuoa
monflj-uioo project
-------
Section 2
2.2 Anaerobic Bio-Reactor
The first treatment unit at the Frederick facility is the partially buried anaerobic
reactor. It has a concrete floor and concrete block side walls and is lined with 30 mm high
density polyethylene. The floating plastic membrane liner contains a layer of insulation for
thermal protection. The reactor is 15 ft wide and 28 ft long and maintains a 9 ft water
depth. As shown on Figure 2.1, an internal dam about 6ft tall contains a permanent
sludge blanket. The untreated wastewater enters this zone via diffuser pipes on the bottom
of the tank and then flows upward through the sludge blanket and then into the second
compartment. A unique aspect of the second compartment are strips, of polypropylene
mesh netting suspended from the reactor cover and spanning the full width of the tank.
This mesh assists in trapping and settling solids and provides significant surface area for
colonization by attached growth microorganisms. The settled sludge in this compartment
undergoes^some anaerobic digestion. Sludge is removed from this compartment on a
weekly schedule via perforated pipes on the bottom of the reactor. At a flow rate of
37,000 gpd, the theoretical fluid detention time is 18% hours in this reactor. ^Untreated
wastewater is pumped, at a constant rate, from the Ballenger WWTP screening and grit
removal unit to the bio-reactor. A depth of about two feet of settled sludge from the
Ballenger facility was added to the first compartment at start-up to serve as the initial
sludge blanket.
In order to control odors in the greenhouse and on the site, the effluent from this
reactor is piped to small covered aerated tanks with a detention time of about 20 minutes
at design flow. The effluent leaving this unit is aerobic and odor free and ready for
treatment in the greenhouse. The exhaust gasses from this aeration unit are routed to an
underground earth filter for odor control.
.The basic purpose of this anaerobic reactor is to signifipantly reduce the
concentrations of BOD5 and solids (TSS) in the wastewater prior to treatment in the
greenhouse. Supplemental heat is not added to this reactor so a relatively warm climate is
required for successful sludge digestion. The designers have replaced this anaerobic reactor
with an aerated aerobic unit in the "Living Machine" now under construction in South
Burlington, VT.
2.3 Aerated Tanks
As shown on Figure 2.1, the aerated effluent from the anaerobic bio-reactor flows
to the first of two aerated tanks in series. Each tank is 10 ft in diameter and 9 ft deep, the
top 4 ft of the tank is above the concrete greenhouse floor the remainder is below ground.
The cylindrical tank walls are corrugated steel, of the type commonly used for culvert pipe.
The interior of the tank is lined with a 20 mm plastic membrane container to insure
complete fluid retention. Both aeratjon tanks arejoperated in the complete-mix aeration
mode to keep all solids in suspension and to insure rapid circulation and contact with the
submerged roots of the plants floating on.the water surface of these tanks. Wifley Weber
circular diffusers are used as the aeration source in these tanks, and other process units.
Air is supplied for the entire-system with three Roots blowers (1-1 hp, 1-1.5 hp, 1-2 hp)
which operate continuously. '
The plants used on these tanks are floating macrophytes; the first tank usually is
covered with water hyacinth (Eictihornia crassipes )., the second with pennywort
(Hydrdcotyle umbef/ata). About 1 hour per week of operator time is required for the care of
these plants. Any plant material removed from these tanks is composted. The theoretical
detention time in each tank is 8.5 hr at design flow (13,300 gpd/train). Table 10.1 in
Section 10 compares theoretical to actual detention times in all of the process units.
2-3
-------
Section 2
A variety of biological, bacterial, and mineral additives are applied to the wastewater
prior to the aeration tanks to enhance treatment responses and maintain health of the
plants. Bacterial additions include Bactapure N for nitrification, and XL to assist in
breakdown of grease and sludges; mineral additions consist of Mar/ah powder intended to
improve mineral content and health of plants; the biological additive is Kelp meal to
supplement the potassium content in the wastewater. Typical dosages of these materials
can be found in Table 9.6 in Section 9 of this report.
It is the basic purpose of these aeration tanks to reduce the dissolved wastewater
BOD5 to low levels and to commence the nitrification of ammonia. The roots of the floating
plants are intended to serve as a substrate for the support of attached growth nitrifying
organisms.
In the original design and layout of units in the Frederick greenhouse the flow from
the second aeration tank passed directly to the next treatment component which is the
"ecological fluidized beds". Sludge accumulation in these beds required very frequent
cleaning so a small clarifier was added to the process train after the second aeration tank,
this is shown on Figure 2.1. Most of the sludge removed from this clarifier is wasted to the
anaerobic bio-reactor; a small percentage is recycled to the first aeration tank. The mixed
liquor suspended solids in these tanks was typically less than 150 mg/L, in a complete mix
activated sludge process the mixed liquor solids might range from 1500 to 4000 mg/L
depending on the purpose of the reactor.
2.4 Ecological Ruidized Beds , ,
As shown on Figure 2.1, there are three of these units in the process train. The
outer container of these tanks is the same size and constructed of the same materials used
for the aeration tanks. These units also include an inner tank which contains the pumice
gravel which is the media used in these beds. Flow enters in the annular space between .
the inner and outer tanks and is lifted by air lift pipes to the top of the inner ring containing
the pumice media. The bottom of the inner tank is not sealed so 'the down flowing liquid
returns to the outer annular space and is again circulated onto the top of the pumice gravel.
The air lifts not only move the liquid but the air bubbles provide the oxygen source to
maintain aerobic conditions in the circulating liquid.
The depth of pumice in the inner tank is about 8ft. The pumice gravel has a
median size of about 0.5 inch. This size media was selected to provide a high surface to
volume ratio for the attachment of the microbial organisms for effective nitrification in the
bed. Pumice was selected as the material because of it's low density which renders it
nearly buoyant. This feature is critically important to successful operation of the unit. As
sludge is separated from the fluid stream in the bed the hydraulic capacity in the forward
flow direction is impeded, if accumulation were allowed to continue the bed would
eventually become completely clogged. To correct this potential problem the unit is
designed with additional aeration diffusers beneath the pumice bed. When these aerators
are on the whole inner tank acts as an upflow airlift so the flow direction is reversed; the
aeration also "fluidizes" the pumice bed and suspends the buoyant pumice gravel in the
liquid. This also releases the trapped sludge which is washed over into, and settles at the
bottom of, the outer annular space. Most of this sludge is removed manually from this
space and is also returned to the anaerobic reactor.
The choice of "ecological fluidized bed" as the name for this unit is somewhat
misleading. It is normal practice to define the function of a treatment unit while operating
in the forward flow direction. In this case, when the bed is in the treatment mode the
2-4
-------
Section 2
pumice is not fluidized and the bed acts as a dqwnflow, coarse media, filter unit. It is only
during the backwash cleaning operations that'the pumice is fluidized. ,
The three Ecological Fluidized Beds were originally designed and operated as three
aerobic units in series. Operational experience soon indicated that nitrification was
essentially complete after the second unit. The third tank was therefore converted to an
anoxic unit to provide additional capacity for denitrification. This was accomplished
without major physical changes in the unit. The airlift delivery pipes were turned off and a
1.5 hp recirculating pump located at the top of the central tank. This induces an upflow
direction in the pumice bed and the pump delivered the fluid to the bottom of the annular
space. The lack of aeration and the resulting low oxygen levels created anoxic conditions in
the pumice creating an environment suitable for denitrif ication. This modified unit is still
backwashed in the same manner described previously.
: Denitrification requires a carbon source for the reaction to function and the available
carbon (BOD5) in the wastewater is very low at this point and,insufficient. As a result it is
necessary to add a carbon .source to the water prior to the denitrification process. A variety
of carbon sources were fried including sugar and acetate but methanol has become the
standard. Table 9.6 in Section 9 summarizes the carbon source additions during the EPA
study period. ;
The theoretical detention time in each of these-units is about 7 hours at design
flow. Table 10.1 in Section 1 compares theoretical detention times.to actual times as
measured during the EPA study period. It is the basic purpose of the first two units to
essentially complete removal of BOD5 and nitrification of the ammonia contained in the
wastewater. The'third unit is now used for denitrification of that ammonia.
The water surface of the annular space in these tanks is used to support the
hydroponic growth of tree seedlings and other plants suspended in pots around the
perimeter of the tank. The plants do remove some nutrients and micronutrients from the
water but their contribution to the treatment function of the system is believed to be
minimal. However, these plants can provide a beneficial return since they can be sold. It is
estimated that an annual revenue of about $1,200 could be achieved from sale of these
plants during the spring/summer gardening season in Maryland. _
2.5 Duckweed Clarifier ,
The three Ecological Fluidized Beds are followed by a hopper bottomed clarifier for
final separation pf most of the remaining sludge prior to the final marsh component in the
system. The tank for this clarifier and the materials used are the same as previously
described for the aeration tanks. The settled sludge is periodically removed from this tank
and discharged to the Ballenger Creek WWTP. The water 'surface on this tank is covered
with duckweed (Lemna spf) and other small floating plants. It is not believed that these
plants contribute significantly to treatment due to the very small root structure. The
theoretical detention time in this final clarifier is calculated as 8.5 hours, at design flow.
2.6 High-rate Marsh
The High-rate Marsh is the final component in the process train. It is similar in
concept to the subsurface flow (SF) constructed wetland concept used for treatment of
municipal and domestic wastewaters. This High-rate Marsh consists of a lined excavation
in the floor of. the greenhouse filled with clean,selected gravel, and planted at the top with a
variety of, plant species. The rectangular bed is about 13 ft wide and 30 ft long and
contains a 3% ft depth of gravel. The top foot of gravel is small 3/8" stone, the remaining
2-5
-------
Section 2
depth is composed of 13&" stone. The theoretical detention time, at design flow in this unit
is about 9 hours.
„ This high rate marsh is operated and maintained differently than the conventional
subsurface flow wetland. In the latter case, the depth of the SF wetland bed typically does
not exceed 2 ft to allow the roots of the vegetation to interact with all of the wastewater
flowing through the bed. Deeply rooted emergent vegetation such as bulrush (Scirpus) or
common reeds (Phragmites) are typically used. This is necessary in the SF system since the
plant roots supply the oxygen which is necessary for nitrification of the wastewater
ammonia. The plant litter is allowed to accumulate on top of the bed and the
decomposition of this material provides some of the carbon source needed for
denitrification. The SF wetland bed is sized to accomplish the limiting treatment response,
typically either nitrification or denitrification. One of these SF wetland units, depending on
only the plant litter as a carbon source for denitrification would have to be much larger than
the "Living Machine" High-rate Marsh.
The "Living Machine" high rate marsh does not have to provide significant
nitrification since the ecological fluidized beds are intended for that purpose. Since
methanol is used as a carbon source the plant litter is not allowed to accumulate on top of
the bed. Since deeply rooted plants are not really needed a variety of plants can be grown
for aesthetic and commercial horticultural purposes. These plant roots are in contact with-
the flowing wastewater and certainly provide some uptake of nutrients and micro nutrients,
but they are not one of the major components responsible for treatment as in the SF
concept. In essence this final high rate marsh acts as a polishing filter with the upper
surface maintained as a commercial horticultural operation. Seedlings are planted and
raised to marketable size and then replaced with new plant material. It is estimated that a
revenue of about $3,600 per year could be achieved from sale of these plants during the
summer gardening season in Maryland.
Based on the performance data documented in Section 9 this high rate marsh unit,
as operated in Frederick County, provides a relatively small improvement in wastewater and
therefore, may not be an essential treatment component in the "Living Machine" process.
A marsh with a larger area might contribute more significantly to treatment but would result
in a very high cost for the enclosing greenhouse structure. In most climates it should be
possible to locate a larger marsh outside the greenhouse but then it could not serve for
commercial horticultural purposes. The 80,000 gpd "Living Machine" now under
construction in South Burlington, VT does not include a marsh component.
2-6
-------
Section 3
Flow Monitoring
3.1 Introduction
Influent and effluent flow monitoring was carried out over the duration of the study.
.This monitoring was necessary to provide data concerning the quantities of wastewater
treated during the study period, and to assist with the calculation of system hydraulic;
detention times (Sections). The following section describes where and how this flow
monitoring was performed.
3.2 Influent Flow Monitoring
' . -., • • . •''-'. \ . ' •-.
Influent flow monitoring was achieved using a flow meter installed by the field study
team. This meter was a doppler flow meter, manufactured by Controllotron, and was
installed on the influent pipe to the first Train B Aerated Tank. The flow meter measured
flow rates and totalized flows, and downloaded its data to a local computer. This meter
monitored the average daily influent flows into Train B which was the treatment train
investigated in this study.
" - ' ' , ' f
3.3 Effluent Flow Monitoring
Effluent flow monitoring was performed using the existing OAI flow meter at the
discharge pipe of the Train B High-rate Marsh. This flow meter was a tee-mount, impellor
flow sensor manufactured by Great Lakes Flow Meters. The .flow meter measured mean
flow rates and downloaded its data to a local computer. Using this meter, it would be
possible to calculate the average daily effluent flows from Train B of the AEES Facility:
3-1
-------
-------
Section 4
Wastewater and Residuals Sampling
4.1 Introduction : ,
/• r ' • , • " ••"-'"" • . f
This section describes the water quality and residuals sampling protocol that was
followed during the evaluation of the AEES Facility. Composite and grab wastewater
samples were collected for the system performance assessment. Samples of the process
residuals (sludge and plants) were also collected during the study. Information on the
sampling locations and methods is provided below.
4.2 Sampling Locations
•x ' • i ' . >
4.2.1 Wastewater "Sampling Locations
During the study, wastewater samples were taken from six locations throughout the
AEES Facility. The study examined Train B of the treatment system. These sampling points
are listed in Table 4.1 and displayed graphically in Figure 4-1.
Table 4.1 Wastewater Sampling Locations
Sample Point
Description of Location
W1
Raw influent into the Anaerobic Bio-reactor,
after primary screening
W2
W3
W4
, W5(1) '
W6
Anaerobic Bio-reactor effluent -
Effluent from the 2nd Aerated Tank
Effluent from the 3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed
Effluent from the 1 st Ecological Fluidized Bed
Effluent from the High-rate, Marsh
(1) The position of sampling location ,W5 was changed after the first
week of the study. Originally, sample point W5 was located at the
. outlet of the Duckweed Clarifier. However, as noted in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (see Appendix A), little difference existed in
water quality between effluent from the 3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed
and effluent from the Duckweed Clarifier. In the second week of the
study, this sampling location was moved to sample effluent from the
1st Ecological Fluidized Bed, where it remained until the end of the
study. : .
4-1
-------
Section 4
4,2,2—Residuals Sampling Locations
Samples of both sludge and plants were collected during the study. Sludge samples
were removed from the Anaerobic Bio-reactor (Sample Location S1) and the clarifier
following the 2nd Aerated Tank (Sample Location S2). Plant samples were taken as
follows: water hyacinth from the 1st Aerated Tank, pennywort from the 2nd Aerated Tank,
and both duckweed and azolla from the 2nd Ecological Fluidized Bed. Figure 4-1 also
summarizes these sampling locations.
Figure 4-1 Waste water and Residuals Sampling Locations
^ to Trains A and C
Train B (Sampled Train)
Raw
Influent
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
Aerated Tanks
Clarifier
Treated
Effluent
High-rate Marsh
Duckweed
Clarifier
Ecological Fluidized Beds
4.3 Sampling Methods '
4.3.1 Composite Wastewater Samples
Time-proportioned, composite 24-hour wastewater samples were collected
throughout the study using ISCO automatic samplers located at the sampling locations
described in Section 4.2. The six samplers used for the study were inspected, cleaned, and
calibrated at the beginning of the study and, subsequently, on a routine basis throughout
the remainder of the study period. One sample was collected from each location every
week for the eleven week duration of the study.
Before each sampling event, the sampler tubing and collection container were rinsed
with the wastewater being tested, and the samplers were filled with ice for sample
4-2
-------
Section 4
preservation, the automated samplers were then programmed to take the required number
of samples and locked to maintain sample security.
Each automated sampler was programmed to composite 48 %-hourly samples
during the 24-hour sampling period. In addition, the sampler was programmed to flush its
sample tubjng with fresh wastewater before and after taking each %-hourly sample. The
r automated samplers also recorded any abnormalities detected during the sampling period
{e.g., inability to take a full sample) which enabled the field team to-detect sampling errors
that might have occurred. ' ,
When the 24-hour composite samples were removed from the'automated samplers,
the sample temperatures were taken and the collection containers were agitated to
distribute any settled solids throughout the sample. The sample was then transferred into
sample bottles and preserved in ice before shipment to the laboratory for chemical analysis.
Information on the analytical procedures is presented in Section 6. '
4.3.2 Grab Wastewater Samples
Grab wastewater samples were also collected for dissolved oxygen, pH,
temperature and feCal coliform analysis. These samples were obtained using the same
automated samplers used for the composite sampling.
Before collection of a grab sample, the sample collection container was rinsed with
fresh wastewater and any remaining ice was emptied from trie sampler. The wastewater
sample was then taken and transferred to a clean container in preparation for field analysis.
Samples that had to be analyzed for fecal coliform were segregated at this stage, and
preserved in ice before shipment to the laboratory. Field analyses to determine dissolved
oxygen (DO), pH, and temperature were then performed on the grab samples. Information
on analytical procedures is presented in Section 6.
.4.3.3 Sludge Samples
Sludge samples were collected ~from the system using a sampling pole and
transferred into a clean container prior to field analysis. At this point,, samples to be
analyzed for Part 503 metals, TKN, total phosphorus, % solids and fecal coliform were
segregated and preserved in ice before shipment to the laboratory- Field analyses for DO,
pH, and temperature were then carried out on the samples. Information on analytical
procedures is presented in Section 6.
4.3.4 Plant Samples
Plant tissue samples were collected by hand from the sampling locations. Samples
of water hyacinth and pennywort were dissected into a stem section and a root section
using a clean plastic knife, and. then placed inside sample containers. These sample
containers were preserved in ice before shipment to the laboratory for analysis. Information
on analytical procedures is presented,in Section 6.
4-3
-------
-------
Section 5
Tracer Study
5.1 Introduction
This section describes the methodology used to perform the tracer study at the
AEES Facility. The objective of the tracer study was to examine the individual stages of the
treatment system in order to determine the actual hydraulic detention times (HDTs) of the
process components. Information on the tracer study protocol is provided below.
5.2 Test Locations
The tracer study was performed at several locations throughout the AEES system.
Each sampling location had an injection point for the tracer compound and a water sampling
point for sample collection. The stages of the process examined are summarized in
Table 5.1 and displayed graphically in Figure 5-1.
Table 5.1 Tracer Study Sampling Locations
Sample Point
Description of Location
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
. Across High-rate Marsh •
Across Duckweed Clarifier ' • '
Across the three Ecological Fluidized Beds
Across the 1st Ecological Fluidized Bed
Across the two Aerated Tanks
Across the 1 st Aerated Tank
i
Across the Anaerobic Bio-reactor
The tracer study was carried out "in reverse order"; from the end of the process,
towards the head of the process. The reason for this was to prevent the anomalous
detection of previously injected tracer compound in the later stages of the study.
5-1
-------
Section 5
Figure 5-1 Tracer Study Sampling Locations
Train B
Raw
Influent
to Trains A and C
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
High-rate Marsh
Aerated Tanks
Clarifier
Duckweed
Clarifier
Ecological Fluidized Beds
Treated
Effluent
5.3 Tracer Study Methods
5.3.1 Tracer Compound and Injection •'.,'•
The tracer compound used in this study was lithium chloride. Dyes are more
typically used 'for tracer studies but, in this case, the plants in the AEES might have taken
the dye up through their roots. For this reason, it was necessary to use a compound that
would not be absorbed by the plants and, consequently, lithium chloride was selected.
The required quantities of lithium chloride for each sample location were calculated
and weighed out using calibrated laboratory scales (accurate to oil g). Before each part of
the study, the tracer compound was dissolved in deionized water and injected in a single
batch solution at the head of the system component being tested. The time of injection
was noted so that sampling would be started at the correct time.
5.3.2 Sample Collection
Discrete wastewater samples were collected with an ISCO automatic sampler that
was moved to a position downstream of the relevant sampling location at each stage of the
5-2
-------
Section 5
tracer study (T1 through T7J. This sampler was inspected, cleaned, and calibrated at the
beginning of each stage of the study.
Before each sampling event, the collection containers were cleaned and sample
tubing was rinsed with the wastew^ter being tested, the sampler was then filled with ice
for sample preservation. The automated sampler was programmed to take the required
number of samples and locked to maintain sample security.
The automated sampler .was programmed to take discrete hourly samples during the
24-hour sampling period. In addition, the sampler was programmed to flush its sample
tubing with fresh wastewater before and after taking each hourly sample. The automated
sampler also recorded any abnormalities detected during the sampling period (e.g., inability
to take a full sample). ' . •'•.-•
The first discrete sample for a sample location was always taken one hour "after
injection of the tracer compound. The last sample was taken at'three times the theoretical
HOT. These times are summarized in Table 5.2 . , ., _-'••.
1 Table 5.2 Calculated HOT and Sample Times for Tracer Study
Sample Point Description of Location
Theoretical HOT
ID
Sampling End <2>
.: ' . . • . T1
T2 •
T3 •:
T4
' T5 '
T6
f 7
High-rate Marsh
Duckweed Clarifier
Three Ecological Fluidized Beds
1st Ecological Fluidized Bed
Two Aerated Tanks
'1st Aerated Tank
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
9 hours
7% hours
19% hours
6% hours
18 hours
9 hours
1 9 hours
27 hours
23 hours
59 hours
20 hours
54 hours
27 hours
57 hours
(1) Calculated by Parsons ES. . '
(2) Time measured after injection of lithium chloride. •
When the discrete, samples were, removed from the automated sampler, the
collection containers, were agitated to distribute any settled compounds throughout the
sample. Each sample was then transferred into a sample bottle, preserved with nitric acid,
and stored in ice before shipment to the laboratory for chemical analysis. Information on
the analytical procedures used is presented in Section 6. .
5.3.3 Calculation of Hydraulic Detention Times
On receipt of the analytical data, graphs of lithium concentration versus time were
plotted., The centroid of each graph was calculated and used to derive the actual HDTs of
each system component. As a check on the accuracy of the tracer study, calculations were
also performed to confirm the percentage recovery of lithium chloride for each sample
location. More information on these calculations is presented in Section 9.
5-3
-------
-------
Section 6
Analytical Procedures
6.1 introduction
The analytical procedures used during this investigation may be separated into two
general categories: field analyses and laboratory analyses. The following sections describe
the methods used during the study to perform both types of test. -
6.2 Field Analyses
Field analyses were carried out on the wastewater and sludge grab samples
collected during the study. These analyses were as follows:
•-• ' ,PH;' ' . • •-' ' .•'•',' . ' :
• dissolved oxygen; and
• temperature.
' . ' • * . / .
Sample pH was measured using a portable pH meter and probe; dissolved oxygen
was measured using a portable DO meter and probe; and sample temperature was
measured using a thermometer. Both the pH and DO meters were calibrated before use and
then as required during sampling. Duplicate samples were analyzed according to the.
Quality Assurance Project Plan (Section 7 and Appendix A).
No field analyses were performed on the plant samples collected.
' • ' ,
6.3 Laboratory Analyses . -
A variety of chemical analyses were performed on the wastewater and residuals
samples collected during the study. These analyses, and the USEPA approved methods
followed, are summarized in Table 6.1. ,
6.3.1 Wastewater
The composite wastewater samples obtained for the process evaluation of the AEES
were analyzed for a range of water quality parameters (Table 6.1). These parameters Were
selected as they were/considered to be indicative of general water quality. The methods
that were used for analyses of these conventional pollutants are the type most commonly
specified in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for municipal
wastewater treatment plants. The results of these analyses were used to evaluate the
removal, efficiencies of the Anaerobic Bio-reactor and the different'process components in
Train B of the treatment system. Factors such as solids removal, and nitrification and
denitrification efficiencies could be estimated using this data. Discrete wastewater samples
collected during the tracer study were analyzed to determine lithium concentration. The
results of these analyses were used in the calculation of HDTs for the system components.
Duplicate analyses and spike samples were analyzed for these wastewater samples
according to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (Section 7 and Appendix A). '
6-1
-------
Section 6
Table 6.1 Summary of Laboratory Analyses
Measurement
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), total
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), soluble
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), total
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), soluble
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia
-------
Section 7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
7.1 Introduction
' '"•'-< ' . • • - \ . . .= "<'. -
A quality assurance/quality control; (QA/QC) program was established for this study
with the objective of gathering sufficiently precise and accurate data for evaluating the
AEES facijity. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) was prepared prior to data
collection to identify and/or establish procedures fpr the following: .
QA/QC program organization and responsibilities; , - -
QA/QC objectives for precision, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and
comparability; - !|
Sampling and analytical procedures;
Quality control checks and system audits; -
'. Data validation and calculation of data quality indicators; and
Corrective action.
In addition to the Project Manager and Technical Directors identified in the Work
Plan, the QAPjP identified QA/QC program staff to assume the roles of Quality Assurance
Manager (QAM), Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC), and Laboratory Director (LD).
QACs and LDs were identified for both field and analytical activities. The QA/QC
responsibilities and lines of authority for each of the QA/QC program staff are summarized
in the QAPjP. ,
A copy of,the QAPjP is presented in Appendix A. .
7.2 QA/QC Program Implementation and Procedures
7.2.1 Field Activities , , ' , .
Prior to initiating sample collection, the field QAC and LD reviewed and practiced
sample collection and handling techniques and instrument calibration procedures. The
meters and equipment were calibrated prior to the start of field activities to ensure all were
in good working condition and again during field activities, as required in the QAPJP- The
field LD, or a designated member of the field team, completed all field QA/QC
documentation including chain-of custody forms, sample labels, field data sheets, and
logbook notes. Quality control checks for field activities consisted of duplicate analyses on
field pH, DO, and temperature measurements.
A field audit was conducted on the second day of sample collection activities. The
audit was conducted .by the, field QAC to evaluate the performance of the. field LD, who
was the principal sample collector during the study. The audit covered sample collection
and handling, as well as calibration and use of field instruments.
7-1
-------
Section 7
7.2.2 Analytical Activities
In addition to following the project specific QA/QC guidelines in the QAPjP, the
Parsons ES laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia, adheres to it's own QA/QC protocols described in
their Quality Assurance and Quality Control manual (Parsons ES, 1992). Technicians are
well qualified and undergo a formal training and certification program fbr each analytical
parameter they perform. The quality of work performed by the laboratory is indicated
through successful participation in the USEPA performance check sample program.
The laboratory analyzed a variety of QC samples during the conduct of this study to
assess accuracy and precision of the data including: calibration standards, system blanks,
laboratory control samples, duplicate samples, and matrix spike samples. Calibration
standards, system blanks, and laboratory control samples were performed with each set of
samples to ensure that analytical procedures and measurement systems were working
properly. Duplicate samples were performed on a minimum of 10% of the samples
collected for a specific parameter to assess the data quality objectives for precision, Matrix
spike samples were also performed on 10% of the samples collected for TKN, ammonia,
nitrate, and total phosphorus to assess the data quality objectives for accuracy.
A laboratory audit was conducted three weeks after initiation of analytical activities.
The audit was conducted by the laboratory QAC to evaluate the performance of the
laboratory technicians receiving and analyzing samples for the study. The audit covered
sample receipt and handling, facilities and general equipment, QA/QC documentation,
chemical analysis, and data reduction, validation, and reporting.
The laboratory QAC was responsible for reviewing, validating, and reporting all data
generated. The QAC evaluated compliance with method detection limits and calculated
precision, accuracy, and completeness values from the data.
7.2.3 Program Activities
Monthly reports were prepared by the QA/QC program staff. The field and
analytical LDs reported QA/QC activities using the LD Field Form 1 and LD Lab Form 1,
respectively, from the QAPjP. The field and analytical QACs reviewed the monthly reports
from the LDs and reported QA/QC activities using the QAC Form 1 from *the QAPjP. All of
the reports were submitted to the QAM, who reviewed the reports arid reported QA/QC
activities to the Program Manager using the QAM Form 1 from the.QAPjP.
Guidelines for implementation of corrective action procedures are identified in the
QAPjP. Documentation of problem conditions was reported on the QAC and QAM Forms 1
and on the cover letters from the laboratory (if applicable).
7.3 QA/QC Program Results
7.3.1 Field Activities
Documentation of field instrument calibrations are provided in the field logbook. No
significant problems with equipment calibration were identified. All required field QA/QC
documentation, including chain-of custody forms, sample labels, field data sheets, and
logbook notes, was recorded and/or prepared daily during field activities. Duplicate analysis
on field pH, DO, and temperature measurements were evaluated from April 12,1995,
through the end of the sampling period. All duplicate analyses were within 20 percent of
the original value as shown in Table 7.1. Duplicates were not performed for the first six
7-2
-------
Section 7
weeks of the study; however, results of duplicates performed later in the study indicated no
technique or equipment problems.
Table 7.1 RPDs and PRRs for Analyzed Samples
Parameter
COD (total and soluble)
BOD (total and soluble)
TSS
vss
TKN '
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total phosphorus
Tptal phosphorus
Field pH
Field DO
Field temperature .
Fecal coliform
Part 503 metals
Matrix
water
water
water
water ,
water
sludge/plants
water
water
water
sludge/plants
water/sludge
water/sludge
water/sludge
water/sludge/plants
sludge/plants
RPD
{maximum)
3.9%
8.6%
i.
46%"'
27% .
12%
9%
4.2%
5.1%
12%
. 9.1%
0.4% -'•-.
20%
11.1%
,46%(2> '•
•15%
RPD PRR ':' PRR
Limit Limit
20% 97-105% 80-120%
20% . 90-115% 80-120%
30% ' -
30% -''.,-• - -
20% 87-120% 80-120%
30% 111-128% 70-130%
20% ' 97-1 27%131 , 80-120%
20% 79-109% 70-130%
20% 85-108% 80-120%
30% 80-116% 70-130%
- . . • - .•-.-/'
- -. ' - * ~ '
•'• -
•_'••-'•
30% ' ,80-118% . 70-130%
RPD Relative Percent Difference
PRR Percent Recovery
Range
(1) One duplicate analysis exceeded the control limit for this parameter. ,
(2) Only one duplicate analysis exceeded 30%,
(3) One matrix spike
exceeded the- control limit
although there was
for this parameter.
no control limit for this parameter.
Results of the field audit were satisfactory with two minor nonconformities. The,
stock buffer solutions used for calibrating the pH meter were past the recommended one
year expiration date and the thermometer used for field activities had not been calibrated
with an NIST (National Institute of Standards in Technology) traceable thermometer.
7-3
-------
Section 7
7.3.2 Analytical Activities
Results of duplicate and matrix spike samples in terms of relative percent difference
(RPD) and percent recovery range (PRR), respectively, are presented in Table 7.1. Data
quality objectives were met with the exception of one duplicate for TSS and one spike for
ammonia. Percent completeness for each sampling location is provided in Table 7.21 The
percent completeness is the percent of the total data set that is valid (i.e., that meet the
RPD and PRR control limits and are analyzed within the allowable holding time). The
objective for this study is 90% completeness. Three sampling points for TSS analyses were
slightly below this objective; however, the overall percent completeness for each parameter
was J>.93.
Results of the laboratory audit were satisfactory:with one minor nonconformity.
The laboratory does not have a standard operating procedure for data reduction, validation,
and reporting. However, the laboratory*does address this topic in their QA/QC .manual.
Table 7.2 Study Completeness
Parameter
Total COD
Soluble COO
Total BOD-
Soluble BOD
TSS
VSS
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total phosphorus
Field pH
Reid DO
Field temperature
Fecal Coliform
Part 503 metals
Percent solids
W1
100%
100%
93%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
W2
100%
100%
- 93%
93%
86%
93%
100%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
% Completeness by Sample Location
W3 W4 W5 W6 S1
100%
100%
93%
93%
86%
93%
100%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
93%
100%
93%
100%
100%
100% ,
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
93%
86%
1 00%
100%
93%
100%
1 00%
100%
100%
100%
100%
1 00%
93%
93%
100%
1 00%
100% ' 100%
100%'
100%
100% 100%
100% '100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100%
1 00%
% Comp
S2 Plants Overall
100%
100%
93%
93%
93%
96%
100% 100% 1OO% ,
96%
1OO%
100% 100% TOO%
100% 100%
100% , , 1OO%
100% 1OO%
100% 100% 700%
100% 100% 700%
100% WO%
7.3.3 Program Activities
QA reports were prepared for the months of March, April, May, and June 1995. No
major problem conditions were reported that required extensive corrective action. Several
minor problems were identified and quickly resolved during the conduct of this study and
include the following:
• As discussed in Section 7.3.2, variances to the data quality objectives Were
observed with two sets of data. The variance observed with the TSS duplicate data
7-4
-------
Section 7
for the March 15 samples was attributed to a non-homogenous sample. The
variance observed with the ammonia matrix spike data for the April 12 samples was
attributed to matrix interference, since the laboratory control sample run
concurrently was well within the control limit.
• A problem condition 'with BOD analyses was identified and resolved quickly by the
QAC when it was discovered that the wrong seed innoculum had been shipped to
the laboratory from the supplier. ,
• During the beginning of the study, some TKN values were determined to be less
than the ammonia values for the corresponding samples. The reason for this was
judged to be a consequence of the analytical method for TKN when the analyzed
sample contained a high percentage of nitrogen as ammonia. The TKN analysis
(USEPA Method 351.3) involves refluxing the sample for a period of time which can
drive volatile ammonia from the sample before the analysis is complete. This
problem was rectified by modifying the analytical method slightly to decrease the
reflux period and, consequently, minimize the loss of ammonia from the sample.
Where this,had occurred, the value for TKN was assumed to equal the value for
NH3. - - :
• It was suggested that analytical variability was the reason that some VSS values
were determined to be greater than TSS values. This only occurred when both TSS
and VSS were of low magnitude. Where this occurred, the VSS value was assumed
to equal the TSS value. .
• A review of the field QA report for March revealed that field duplicates were not
being performed for pH, DO; and temperature. This field activity was initiated
immediately thereafter by the field LD.
7.4 Conclusion
In general, the QA/QC requirements identified in the QAPjP were met during the
conduct of this study and all of the required QA/QC documentation is on file. The data
quality objectives for accuracy and precision were not achieved in two cases; however, the
reason was not attributed to analytical performance. In both cases, the variances were
attributed to sample characteristics. For this reason and the fact that the number of
samples collected for this study is relatively small, the sample data impacted by these
variances are used in the data analysis. , ,
7-5
-------
-------
Section 8
Flow Data
8.1 Introduction
The flows of' waste water treated by the AEES Facility were measured for the
duration of the eleven week study using influent and effluent flow meters. This section
summarizes the results and findings of the flow measurements. The raw data from which
this summary \s drawn is presented in Appendix B.
8.2 Influent Flows
The recorded Train B influent data demonstrated that mean daily flow rates between
10,000 and 15,OOQ gpd were being achieved for the duration of the study (not including
periods when the plant was shut down). The average of mean daily flows over the course
of the study was calculated to be 13,451 gpd which is comparable with the anticipated
flow rate into Train B of approximately 13,300 gpd. The weekly mean influent flow rates
are summarized in Table 8.1. '.''
-There were some instances during the study when accidental power outages and
problems with the flow meter and associated computer resulted in "gaps" in the recorded
flow data. Where this occurred, the missing flow data were either calculated from daily
totalized flow data recorded by hand in the field, or the data were interpolated from the
recorded flows. In addition, as noted in the table, on three occasions the AEES Facility was
shut down and, consequently, was not receiving influent flow for a period of days. The
influent flows for these days have not been included in the calculations of the daily mean
flows.
8.3 Effluent Flows
The effluent flow data recorded by the existing OAI flow meter showed a large
variability in comparison with the influent flow data. The cause of this could have been the
effluent flow meter. For this reason the effluent flow data was deemed to be unreliable and
not used in the evaluation. The influent flow totals were considered to be sufficient data
for the process evaluation. '"!'.'•."
8-1
-------
Section 8
Study Week
Weekl
Week 2
WeekS
n/a
Week 4
WeekS
. Week6
Week?
WeekS
WeekS
Week 10
Week 1 1
n/a
n/a
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
Table 8.1 Mean
Dates
2/28/95 to 3/3/95
3/4/95 to 3/1 0/95
3/1 1/95 to 3/1 7/95
3/1 8/95 to 3/24/95
3/25/95 to 3/31/95
4/1/95 to 4/7/95
4/8/95 to 4/14/95
4/1 5/95 to 4/21/95
4/22/95 to 4/28/95
4/29/95 to 5/5/95
5/6/95 to 5/1 2/95
5/1 3/95 to 5/1 9/95
5/20/95 to 5/26/95
5/27/95 to 6/2/95
6/3/95 to 6/9/95
6/1 0/95 to 6/16/95
6/1 7/95 to 6/23/95
Daily Wastewater
Mean Daily Flow
1 1 ,622 gpd
1 3,303 gpd
13,870 gpd
13,804 gpd
13,463 gpd
13,238 gpd
14,775 gpd
13,542 gpd
13,456 gpd
12,639 gpd
13,743 gpd
14,239 gpd
no data
no data
no data
13,009 gpd
13,6 14 gpd
Flows into Train B
Comments
The plant was shut down on 3/1 7/9$
owing to a power outage (this day is not
included in the daily mean) >
The plant was shut down from 3/1 8/95 to
3/20/95 owing to a power outage (these
days are not included in the daily mean)
'
Flow meter malfunction resulted in the
inaccurate reading of influent flows
Flow meter malfunction resulted in the
inaccurate reading of influent flows.
Influent flow was shut down between
5/24/95 and 6/1/95
Flow meter malfunction resulted in the
inaccurate reading of influent flows :
.Low influent flows on 6/1 7/95 and 6/1 8/95
owing to clogging of influent pump at
Ballanger WWTP (these days are not
included in the daily mean)
Mean of Mean Daily Flows
13,451 gpd
8-2
-------
Section 9
System Performance
9.1 Introduction
The data generated during the eleven week wastewater and residuals sampling
study {Section 4) was used to evaluate the performance of the AEES Facility. This section
summarizes these data and details some observations concerning the AEES process. The
raw data on which this section is based is presented in Appendix C.
9.2 Wastewater Characteristics
,By the end. of the eleven week study, individual water quality samples had been
taken from each sample location.(W1 to W6J throughout the process. Analysis of these
samples yielded the data that was used to assess the process performance of the AEES
Facility. However, before these data were used, they were examined and adjusted to
remove any spurious points and statistical outliers that might influence the evaluation.
SL2J—Data Manipulation and Statistical Assessment
The first step of the data manipulation was to review the field notebook and
laboratory reports to remove any data points that were known to be invalid. Some values
were removed because of a process upset and a sampling mishap that occurred during the
study. Additionally/the first week's data for point W5 could not be used since the initial-
location for sample point W5 was moved after Week 1 of the study (see Section 4). There
were also a few cases where, owing to analytical variability, some values for VSS exceeded
those for TSS. In these cases, the value for VSS was assumed to equal the TSS value.
Similarly, the analyses for ammonia yielded some values that exceeded the TKN values.
This was determined to be a consequence of the analytical method for TKN when the TKN
comprises mainly ammonia. Consequently, the analytical method was modified slightly to
account forjhis but, where this had already occurred, the TKN was assumed to equal the
ammonia value. >
After the initial review, the data were examined statistically. This involved testing
to identify how the study data, were statistically distributed, followed by discordancy testing
to remove any "outliers" (points that are outside a data set's normal distribution). Outliers
were removed in order that they would not influence the process evaluation, by influencing
the mean data either upwards or downwards. Once these statistics had been performed,
the data were used to derive means from which the process could be assessed. These
means are presented in Section 9.2.2.
Full, details of the data manipulation and statistical assessment are presented in
Appendix C. '
9-1
-------
Section 9
9.2.2 Mean Water Quality Data
The mean water quality data from the eleven week study are presented in
Table 9.1. The raw data, indicating the values removed after data manipulation and
statistical assessment, are presented in Appendix C.
The mean values for chemical oxygen demand (total and soluble), along with the
associated standard deviations, are depicted graphically m Figure 9-1. Most of the COD
(total) reduction occurs in the Anaerobic Bio-reactor, even though further treatment takes
place downstream. The very slight increase in total COD in the Aerated Tank effluent could.
be a result of the sludge recycle to the Aerated Tanks from upstream. However, the
standard deviations of the data from sample points W2 and W3 overlap to a large degree
which indicates the insignificance of this small peak. .
Soluble COD appears to increase slightly in the effluent from the Anaerobic Bio-
reactor which suggests that some of the total COD reduction is caused by breakdown of
compounds into a more soluble form. The major decline in soluble COD appears to take
place in the Aerated Tanks, after which the levels fall only slightly throughout the rest of
the system.
The mean values for total and soluble BOD, along with the associated standard
deviations, are depicted graphically in Figure 9-2. As in'the case of COD, the. major
reduction in total five-day BOD occurs in the Anaerobic Bio-reactor, although additional
decreases occur in the subsequent process components. The soluble BOD increases slightly
after the Anaerobic Bio-reactor which could be a result of the breakdown of BOD-causing
compounds into a more soluble form. -The Aerated Tanks appear to remove the remaining
BOD from the wastewater before it passes out of the system.
In this case, "soluble" BOD may be a slight misnomer since the fraction of BOD
analyzed by the USEPA method (Method 405.1) is actually that which passes through a
0.45//m cellulose-nitrate membrane. Therefore, this BOD fraction is not necessarily
"soluble". However, since the Method 405.1 definition of soluble BOD is used by the
USEPA, it is a valid one with respect to this process evaluation.
•
The mean values for suspended solids (total and volatile), along with the associated
standard deviations, are displayed graphically in Figure 9-3. Again, the Anaerobic Bio-
reactor appears to be responsible for the majority of TSS and VSS reduction taking place in
the treatment system. The peak that occurs following the Anaerobic Bio-reactor could
possibly be a consequence of the sludge recycle to the Aerated Tanks from upstream (a
similar, less-defined peak occurs for total COD). Alternatively, root matter from the plants
in the Aerated Tanks may be sloughed off into the system, resulting in an increase in
suspended solids; or it could be a combination of these two factors.
Most of the ensuing solids reduction appears to be carried out by the 1st Ecological
Fluidized Bed. With respect to suspended solids, there is very little noticeable difference
between the effluent from the 3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed and the High-rate Marsh.
The mean values for the nitrogenous components (TKN, ammonia and nitrate), along
with the associated standard deviations, are displayed graphically in Figure 9-4. this graph
provides an indication of what is occurring with respect to nitrification and denitrification
throughout the system. Both TKN and ammonia decrease steadily as they pass through the
process. There is a slight peak of TKN that occurs after the Aerated Tanks but this may be
a result of the aforementioned sludge recycle from upstream (the overlapping standard
deviations between W2 and W3 may mean that this peak is not even significant). There is
9-2
-------
>.
Ij
o
(O <
UJ 3
CC LU
O LU
u. u
0)
i?
-
>•
a.fc
CC
^
1
•—
CO
3
O
5
CO
CD
S
•
. 8 i s
-< is «
LU r-
j:
vrata ME
Effluent
oa
x
§
O TJ
li
T2 S
m 2
t£
Ecological
id Bed Effluent
• .5
•"" -o
3
U.
•£
ted Tank E
«
oblo Bio-raaotor
Effluent
a
c
c
D '
I"
i
£
I
I
•s
i
i
i
' -• '• " x
• - 3-
1
E.
o
' -
t
c<
to
r*
00
ai
ai
m,
CO
S
|
q
CO
•
Q
O
O
"3
K
1
ct
CO
»
-d
IO
CO
CO*
CO
,
CM
CO*
to
o
cb
a
3
ID
E
3
O
O
10
OC
2
CO
10*
O
^-
0
d
CO
00
0
D)
in
Q
3
"to
o
1
C
'
CO
CO*
o>
b
g
D)
in
D
o
5
o
CO
6
10
CO
05
O3
CO
q
03*
0
»
^
0
Ob
»
•a
"o
CO
•a
a>
3
D
1
W
3
a
o
1
o
C1
cc
CO
«
q
CM'
q
CO
0
•<*
CO
CO
0)
'*>
"2
CO
•a
3
0
3.
0
CO
03
O
w
Q
O
C
O3
0)
CM
O
CO*
CO
CO*
to*
10
a
5
a
0
0
7
03
O
-
to
IT
10
03
CN
CN
q
CO
CM
03
CO
CO
CO
10
CM
s=
t
5
3
£.
£
in
c
o>
o
^^
CN
03
CO
d
IO
d
CO
d
D)
ID
IO
?
Composite Samples
0»
CO
q
q
03*
to
00
CM
00*
CO
CO
Q.
OJ
3
i
v>
3
to
3
I
O
1
||
1
1
iH§^
^^«s
^^^N!
^S;
1
1
1
I
§§s§s»
03
05*
O
CO
&
o
"o
Coliform
ta
o
1
f
to
'ij
CO
CM
03
O5
|
H
3.
T3
y
|
a
p
to
w
1C
10*
o>
o>
O5
CM
3
O
CD
X
O
d Dissolved
3
|
to
CO*
M
00
^
5
to
•a
m
O
0) :
3
g .
0)
1
D
-------
C
'o
Q.
J>
Q.
£
to
03
{|/6iu) pueiuea ueBAxo
9-4
-------
ua.6XxQ
9-5
-------
CO ,W
.2 ^
i£ co
g|
f) C ^
05 E §
2 5 §"
u.
0)
ai
s
03
2
CO
J3
S ro «
Q> O ^
-------
(l/6ui) puetuaq uaBAxQ
9-7
-------
Section 9
also a slight increase in ammonia in the Anaerobic Bio-reactor effluent which could indicate
that a fraction of the TKN is broken down to ammonia in this component of the process.
Alternatively, this could be a result of the sludge recycle into the Anaerobic Bio-reactor.
There is very little reduction of TKN or ammonia observed passing through the Duckweed
Clarifier and High-rate Marsh.
Nitrate levels begin to increase visibly within the Ecological Fluidized Beds,
indicating that most nitrification is occurring in these units. The effluent from the High-rate
Marsh demonstrates a reduction in nitrate concentrations, suggesting that dentrification has
begun to occur in the last two stages of the process (the Duckweed Clarifier and High-rate
Marsh). ' .\ • '
»i
The mean values for total phosphorus, along with the associated standard
deviations, are displayed graphically in Figure 9-5. As with total COD, total _BOD and,
suspended solids, most of the phosphorus removal occurring in the system appears to take
place in the Anaerobic Bio-reactor. Once again, there, may be a slight increase occurring
within the Aerated Tanks which could be attributed to the sludge recycle. However, the
overlapping standard deviations of the data -at points W2, W3 and W5 suggest that the
increase is not a significant one. There is also a slight decrease in total phosphorus within
the Ecological Fluidized Beds. :
The mean values for field pH and dissolved oxygen, along with the associated
standard deviations, are displayed graphically in Figure 9-6. The pH remains consistently
between pH 7 and pH 8 throughout the process, 'and the small standard deviations of this
data suggest that with respect to pH the system is very stable. The level of dissolved
oxygen Is at approximately the same level in both the influent and the treated effluent. This
level increases within the process system in the Aerated Tank and Ecological Fluidized Bed
effluents, since these units are both aerated. The increase of DO observedlin the Anaerobic
Bio-reactor effluent is likely to be the result of the aeration that the wastewater undergoes
in the three odor-control tanks following this system component. . '..
Graphs were not plotted for fecal coliform or temperature. The mean fecal coliform
count in the raw influent decreases by over 99.9% by the time it has left the treatment
system. From the data, it is not possible to tell where in the process most of. this reduction
is taking place. The field sample temperatures taken at each sample location increased
throughout the duration of the study, as the weather got warmer and, therefore, .it is
doubtful that this data would be useful in the process evaluation. This data was collected
purely for QA/QC purposes.
9.3 Treatment Efficiencies
Using the water quality data described in Section 9.2, treatment efficiencies were
calculated for the overall process as well as for the individual process components of the
AEES Facility. The individual component treatment efficiencies were calculated using the
following equation:
Component Treatment Efficiency = [(Pa - Pb)/Pa] x 100
Where: Pa = pollutant concentration in component influent
Pb = pollutant concentration in component effluent
9-8
-------
C
O
® S
o o
in c s:
-L a-
-------
Sample pH
q
CO
q
oi
q
d
11
§ ?
5 I
O
C QJ
> I
^ 2
HI 03
Q_
c
05
03
>•
X
O
73
03
>
O
to
to
a
2
0)
u_
f
IT
Q.
2
CD
LE
i
*
q
06
q
CO
IXA
VXi
-XH
* ~ r
CO -C C
LU
O 0)
'5 03 ^
"5 ® 3
o .H 5:
CO "O
O 03
'3 °°
£
Q.
CO
CO
gjltf
w « .
CO
a
CO
QC
oo r» CD in ^ co CM
(l/Biu) ueBAxo paAjossja
,9-10
-------
Section 9
The calculation of the system's overall treatment efficiency >was based on the
following equation: / .
Process Treatment Efficiency = [(P, - Pe)/P,] x 100
Where: Ps = pollutant concentration in raw influent to AEES
Pe = pollutant concentration in treated effluent from AEES
An exception to this formula was used in the case of nitrate treatment efficiency.
This pollutant is generated in the process during nitrification and, therefore, the overall
•treatment efficiency was calculated by looking at the performance of the denitrifying
components of the process (the Duckweed Clarifier and High-rate Marsh).
The overall and individual component treatment efficiencies for the selected
pollutants are shown in Table 9.2. , .
In addition to this, the percentage contributions to pollutant removal of each system
component was calculated for the major water quality parameters (excluding nitrate). This
was calculated using the following equation:
Contribution to Ppllutant Removal = t(Pa - Pb)/(Pi - Pe)l x 100
Where: Pa = pollutant concentration in component influent
. . Pb •= pollutant concentration in component effluent
PI = pollutant concentration in raw influent to AEES
- Pe = . pollutant concentration in treated effluent from AEES
In some situations, an increase of a given pollutant .occurred within a system
component. For example, an increase of suspended solids takes place after the Aerated
Tanks which, it is suspected, is caused by the sludge recycle. In these instances, system
components had to be combined in order to calculate thejr correct percentage contributions
to pollutant removal. ...
The percentage contributions to pollutant removal for the selected pollutants are
shown in Table 9.3 and are also displayed as pie charts in Figures 9-7 through 9-12.
These figures confirm the previous observations that the Anaerobic Bio-reactor is
removing the vast majority (65% to 85%) of total COD, total BOD, TSS, and total
phosphorus from the wastewater passing through the system. In the case of TKN and
ammonia, it is evident from the pie charts that most nitrification is taking place in the 2nd
and 3rd Ecological Fluidized Beds, with some occurring further upstream in the 1st
Ecological Fluidized Bed and the Aerated Tanks.
9.4 Residuals Characteristics
During the eleven week study, various samples tif the process residuals (sludge and
plants) were collected from sample locations throughout the process. Analysis of these
samples yielded data that were used to assess the quality of the residuals generated by the
process. This assessment would examine how suitable the sludge and plants were for land
disposal and(or composting.
9-11
-------
Csj
UJ LU
T: LU
Z °
W- <
^ i
fc 2
UJ cc
t_ ui
2 °-
O
UJ ai
CC >
H 3
I- tu
1
2
E
co
5
S
°-
E
8
8
S
U
.£
c
CO
CO
o
c:
o
to
o -2
(U (U
o
T3
a
co
8
CO
Q.
0)
I
a
O)
CO C
J -2
£ i
c I
5 w
j* §
M §
J2 E
5 £
O
•-
CO
,£
co
+*
D
O
Q.
«- CM CO
9-12
-------
CO
(0
O
2
s
'
'8
'
£9
CC cc
O u
0 -S
_l LU
IU
2
CO
o
CC
m
S
2
J.
.0
o
0
m
||
CO J
"O 1=
a UL
reactor
6
m
u
In
2
CD
CO
C '
'-
- . ' •
1
2
CO
D.
'•
CN
#
CO
O
CM
•
^
0
CO
o
^
JC
co
•o
-Si
75
H
^9
0
S3
J^
^o
n
*^ •
CO
"c
o
E
E
-CO
c
•55
c
•2
c
CO
c
•2
c
V
13
•t
z.
CN
«
v§
CM
O
i
o
CO
o
Q.
to
O
Q-
75
1—
I
'£
o
u
0)
J3
§
CO
t>
cu
OQ
cu
• c
15 .
I .
u -£
O H-
•o o
o w
o
*3
§
CO
•o Z
CO C
m o
_, u
.0)
N
co
= o
^ -i
_3 ">
LL. =6
"5 ^
O CU
P. -B
o
s
75 t> ^
CO
CO
i=
•o
Cl>
a>
€'•
•o
CO
CO
u
OJ
J S
2 E
' £T
2 "i
o c
CO ~
a>
a
o
u
- o
-£•'•1:
1 I
c
_o
*4-»
_co
3
O
CO
u
"8
CO
cu
CO
o
a.
3
Q.
CU
-C
o
LL.
trt"
>«~"
•o
CO
n
*w
O
U
cu
4-«
o
4=
co
' 3
U
CO
0
H*
o
to
cu
(0
o
a.
3
a.
cu
JZ
o
, LL
c
a>
"c
.0
ra
.y
"c
V
4^-
"o
a>
3
1
0)
- 4-*
2
a
O
i
o
S.
4-»
CO
"E
o
*^
CO
c
cu
o
a.
0
p
9-13
-------
Figure 9-7
Contributions of Process Components
Total Chemical Oxygen Demand Removal
Duckweed Clarifier and
High-rate Marsh
2nd and 3rd Ecological 2%
Fluidized Beds
6%
1st Ecological
Fluidized Bed
20%
Aerated Tanks
4%
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
68%
Figure 9-8
Contributions of Process Components
Total Biochemical Oxygen Demand Removal
2nd and 3rd Ecological
Fluidized Beds
7%
1st Ecological
Fluidized Bed
12%
Aerated Tanks
12%
Duckweed Clarifier and
High-rate Marsh
1%
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
68%
9-14
-------
Figure 9-9
Contributions of Process Components
Total Suspended Solids Removal
2nd and 3rd Ecological
Fluidized Beds
7%
Aerated Tanks
and 1 st Ecological
Fluidized Bed
8%
Duckweed Clarifier and
High-rate Marsh
1 %
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
84%
Figure 9-10
Contributions of Process Components
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Removal
Duckweed Clarifier and
High-rate Marsh
3%
2nd and 3rd Ecological
Fluidized Beds
42%
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
27%
Aerated Tanks •
and 1 st Ecological
Fluidized Bed
28% .'
9-15
-------
Figure 9-11
Contributions of Process Components
Ammonia Removal
Duckweed Clarifier and
High-rate Marsh
Anaerobic Bio-reactor,
Aerated Tanks and
1 st Ecological
Fluidized Bed
13%
2nd and 3rd Ecological
Fluidized Beds
77%
Figure 9-12
Contributions of Process Components
Total Phosphorus Removal
2nd and 3rd Ecological
Fluidized Beds
16%
Duckweed Clarifier and
High-rate Marsh
2%
Aerated Tanks
and 1st Ecological
Fluidized Bed
2%
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
80%
9-16
-------
Section 9
The raw results from the analysis of the sludge are presented in Appendix C. Before
these data can be compared with the 503 Regulations for sludge disposal, the
concentrations of metal (in mg/l) must be converted to a dry weight basis. The converted
>• data are shown in Table 9.4. Note that this conversion assumes all of the metals are
concentrated iri the solid fraction of the sludge.
For the sludge samples taken from both sampling locations, there are no
concentrations of metals that exceed the limits as described in the 503 Regulations.
Therefore, with respect to the current metals regulations, there would be no restrictions on
the land application of the sludge generated by the AEES.
However, the fecal coliform count in the sludge from the Anaerobic Bio-reactor
would appear to be well in excess of the Land Applicable Minimum Criteria permitted by,the
503 Regulations for pathogens. This would preclude the land application of the sludge from
this unit unless it had first been treated to reduce the fecal coliform count. The sludge from
the clarifier (sample location S2) contains less fecal cofiform, although it is still over the
limit for, exceptional quality (EQ) sludges, meaning that it could only be applied to
agricultural land, forests, public contact sites and/or reclamation sites in limited situations
by using additional restrictions (e.g., limited site access and crop uses). Its application to'
sites other than these would be permitted without restriction. . ,
The data from the plant analyses are shown in Table 9.5. These data are compared
with the 503 Regulations (for land application of sewage sludge) owing to the absence of
other suitable standards for the land application of compostable, material. This comparison
is made assuming that no metals are lost during composting (e.g., from leaching), and that
any compost bulking agents used do not affect the metals content of the product. •
The data indicate that the plants contain very low concentrations of the metals
controlled by the 503 Regulations and that these concentrations are well below the EQ
limit. The general trend appears to be that the plant roots hold more metals than the plant
stems which is probably a result of sludge that covers the root systems (i.e., it is the sludge
,that is the location of most of these metals, not the plants). However, it could also be
.caused by preferential storage of metals in the roots so further examination of this
phenomenon would be required before a definite conclusion could be drawn. Fecal coliform
counts on the plants are also less than the pathogen Pollutant Limit and exhibit the trend of
being higher for the plants' roots, although the coliform on the composted product would
likely be different to that on the plants prior to composting. Therefore, on the basis of the
. above information, the composted product from these plants could be allowably land
applied.
There do not appear to be any major differences between plant type with respect to
metals concentration but there was ten times more fecal coliform on the hyacinth root than
on the pennywort root. This could be a result of the process since the pennywort sample
was taken from the 2nd Aerated Tank whereas the hyacinth was taken from the 1st
Aerated Tank. Fepal coliform could, therefore, be reduced .between these two tanks.
However, once again the difference is more likely, to be attributable to sludge accumulation
or root storage: the hyacinth roots are significantly larger than those on the pennywort;
Consequently, fecal coliform counts would be higher on the hyacinth root.
9-17
-------
O)
I
(O
o
a.
ui
a.
S
<
(O
3
|
<
•J3
C
«
1
u
£
H
S
CO
o
1
i
<
«
•5
K
eo
3
10
g
0
II 1
•o
*^
e.
T5
ill
g.
2
^
*••
«3
e • £
S
t
5
•B .
i|I
I
e-
33.
Sei
I S -5 1
S S g:§
£ S'i<3
o S
U i2
= J! 5
o "S 5
a >s -2 T:
1 HE
cS — s
5
c
o
i
co
CO
ID
CO
CO*
CO
5
D
O
^
[Arsenic
CD
c
f.
co
5
£
en
co
8
o
a
iCadmlum
CO
c
S
rt
i?
8
CM
CO
I
"3
3
U
CO
u
f.
cc
CO
to
CO
§
8
ID
If
I
^
D
a
R
5
§
I
I
t
o
•s
2
en
0
«
CD
6
CO
t
D
I
E
3
J
i
a
8
o
CO
s
1
1
•)
o
5
a
E
3
i
3
|
<0
C
CO
eo
CO
eo
en
CO
O
C4
S
I
5
i
to
CO
to
CO
CO
eo'
eo
ri
CO
CO
I
I
"a
1 Selenium
i
c
rv
oE
N
s
*~
s
.*"
8
CO
1
s
1
R
§.
ts
S
si 1
i 5 s
I
^>
•*•*
e_
i
•gs |
».
s
£__
*M
" — £
a
S
s_
f
|||
1>f
t
s
S
^ . 3
55 if
5s 15
0
X
UJ
s '•
•S 's
:£st§
jf*§
5 il
— ii
|
C
c! :
s
5
c
g
1
I
8"
r«
s
|
d
1
|
S
u
£
I
U
5 '
J CJ «
ill
a. g 5.
5- £ 5-
D
.u
I I
i 11
I t !
i & i
xceed
0 o
m O.
SS g E
£ 1 &
I - "
! 1 -
t *- c
o c o
& S e
O C o
O. S Q.
§ 1
*•*
S I1 *
1 1 D
I'- *
g S -g
11 s
s E e
n
I s
ja >•
r* „ eo
. CO .£
e re
S JS
25
e I
^ I
S «
i I
J. 8
-E Si
S te
I 1
- e
.2 I
•« s
g 1 f
| J I
> 2 c»
fll
lform fo
I i
III
= £
S',-r
J
1 I
JB
•O
118
E E
3=3-3
££<}<>
*- o u u 'o
° ^ J2 £ £
I | § J J
•9 e d « «]
II I
I ^
• 3
CO <
9-18
-------
o
$
Q
O
2.
in
. o>
CD
Q 2
II
I
o
<
i
?
s
z
09
§
J?
s.
PS-0330-1200/
P5-O419-121S
P4-0330-11S5/
P4-0418-1130
P3-O330-1150/
P3-O419-1125
P2-0330-1140/
P2-O419-1115
P1-O33O-1 13S/
P1-O419-111O
S =
1 1°
5 J! ?
fill
° 1 ' J
cf -3 ~
P, - S
, J,
1
' 1
IOuckwaad 1
& Aiolla
Pannywort
(root!
t E
'annywo
taf & att
~ =
JI
1. Hyacinth
(laaf & ttam
1
^^
^^
B
i
i
i
12nd Ecological 1
FluldliadBad
2nd Aaratad
Tank
y
!'
CN
Aaratad Tank
S
•g
]
1
%H
^t!
B
i
-
sj
|
1
o
10
CO
o
09
5
0
CO
CO
r*
O)
c
£
0.
61
1
5
J2
i
O
O
s
co"
o
o
i
o
8
"c
c
2
Z
CN
V
CO
V
IO
V
CO
CN
V
V
*
in
2
f
o
V
m
10
CN
6
V
o"
V
6
V
CN
0*
V
IO
CN
O
V
s
IO
03
t
|,
"8
V
S
V
,.
CN
V
CO
V
CO
CN
O
O
1
CO
f
1
f,
CO
CO
CN
to
in
CO
r>
0
co'
CN
O
s-
8
cn
'i-
f.
f
._
Q.
f,
S
y
V
CN
V
CO
V
«
V
o
8
o
00
2
i
1-
o
o"
V
o
6
V
o
6
V
o
o
V
o
5
V
e
IO
1
fr
p
CN
V
CN
V
CN
V
V
CN
V
f
in
t
*
1
V
IO
y
V
CO
V
V
o
o
CN
*
3
1
u
CO
CN
V
CO
oi
V
IO
CN
V
' CO
CN
V
CN
V
CO
o
o
^ •
2
I
1
•I
CO
IO
o
CO
CO
2
CO
IO
8
09
CN
§
r»
2
1.
-
PS-O330-1200/
P5-0419-1215
P4-O330-11S5/
P4-O419-1130
P3-0330-11SO/
P3-O419-112S
P2-O330-114O/
P2-O419-1115
'. . f
P1-O33O-1 13S/
P1-0419-1110
•< \ 1 3
If 11
3 3 S."
a
* • ^
OJ = J €
" in * 1
J *
-S
1
.1
1
CN
CN
CN
8
*
O
O
§
o
C3
%
CN
"5
E
3
i
f
I
I
9-19
-------
Section 9
9.5 Operations and Maintenance During the Process Evaluation
9.t511—Chemical/Bacteria Additions .
Various bacteria and chemical additions are made to the AEES process stream
during the course of normal operations. The purpose of these additions is to maintain the
bacterial populations for nitrification and denitrification, and to provide a carbon source and
nutrients to the organisms within the system. The quantities of chemicals added to Train B
during the eleven week evaluation are shown in Table 9.6.
Table 9.6 Weekly Chemical/Bacteria Additions to Train B
Addition:
Study Week Dates
Weekl
Week 2
Weeks
n/a
Week 4
WeekS
Week 6
Week?
WeekS
WeekS
Week 10
Week 1 1
(1)
(2)
(3)
2/28/95 to 3/3/95
3/4/95 to 3/1 0/95
3/1 1/95 to 3/1 7/95
3/1 8/95 to 3/24/95
3/25/95 to 3/31/95
4/1/95 to 4/7/95
4/8/95 to 4/1 4/95
4/1 5/95 to 4/21/95
4/22/95 to 4/28/95
4/29/95 to 5/5/95
5/6/95 to 5/1 2/95
5/1 3/95 to 5/1 9/95
Bactapur N and XL were dosed
N-2000, XL and Pond KLEAR on
Bacteria "'
150ml
4,250 ml
2,050 ml
300 ml
300 ml
350 ml
2,050 ml
1,650ml
4,250 ml
2,150ml
4,050 ml
5,950 ml
into the system until
May 1 (during Week 9
Carbon
Source (2)
5 Ibs
6lbs
33 Ibs
13 Ibs
15 Ibs
17 Ibs
21 Ibs
13.31
14.1 I
11.21
8.81
10.91
April 30; the
of the study).
Mariah Kelp Meal
Powder
J 00 Ibs131
5 Ibs
22 Ibs
16 Ibs
6 Ibs
7 Ibs
5 Ibs
5 Ibs
5 Ibs
5 Ibs
5 Ibs
5 Ibs
bacteria additions were
Until April 1 4, the carbon source used was sodium acetate; the carbon source was changed
on April 17 (during Week 7 of the study).
The Week 1 addition of Mariah powder was added into
none
3 Ibs
none
2 Ibs
4 Ibs
7 Ibs
5 Ibs ,
5 Ibs
5 Ibs
none
^ 1 Ib
5 Ibs
changed to
to methanol
the Anaerobic Bio-reactor.
9-20
-------
Section 9
9.5.2 Sludge and Plant Disposal ! ,
As part of normal operation of the AEES, quantities of sludge and plant material are
removed from the system. Sludge removed is pumped directly back to Ballanger .Creek
WWTP whereas plant material is composted on site, A log is kept of these activities to
record the residuals quantities being produced as a result of the system operation.
Sludge is pumped out of the Anaerobic Bio-reactor, the Ecological Fluidized Beds
and the Duckweed Clarifiers. The sludge volumes removed from Train B during the eleven
week study are shown in Table 9.7. ,
Table 9.7 Weekly Sludge Removals
Sludge Removed from:
Study Week
Week 1
Week 2
WeekS , ,
n/a
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Dates
2/28/95 to 3/3/95
3/4/95 to 3/1 0/95
3/1 1/95 to 3/1 7/95
3/18/95 to 3/24/95
3/25/95 to 3/31/95
4/1/95 to 4/7/95
4/8/95 to 4/14/95
4/1 5/95 to 4/21/95
4/22/95 to 4/28/95
4/29/95 to 5/5/95
5/6/95 to 5/12/95
5/1 3/95 to 5/1 9/95
Total Sludge Removed
(1) 1st, 2nd
and 3rd Ecological Fluidized
Anaerobic
Bio-reactor
3,600 gallons
3,600 gallons
3,600 gallons
4,200 gallons
6,000 gallons
4,800 gallons
10,200 gallons
- 7,200 gallons
3,600 gallons
5,200 gallons
2,400 gallons
2,400 gallons
56,800 gallons
Beds in Train B only.
Ecological
Fluidized Beds111
none
1 ,400 gallons
700 gallons
1 ,000 gallons
1 ,500 gallons
800 gallons
600 gallons
800 gallons
500 gallons
1 ,000 gallons
700 gallons
240 gallons
9,240 gallons
.Duckweed
Clarifier'21
none
• none
none
100 gallons
1 00 gallons
200 gallons
1 00 gallons
100 gallons
100 gallons' "
1 00 gallons
none
75 gallons
875 gallons
(2) Duckweed Clarifier in Train B only. ,- , •'.
9-21
-------
Section 9
Plant material is also removed from various parts of the process. This is done in
order to stimulate growth among the remaining plants (consequently increasing pollutant
uptake), to reduce overcrowding of the tanks', to remove plants that are infected or
infested. Plant material is also removed because various plants in the system are grown to
be sold to outside customers. The quantities of plant matter removed from Train B during
the eleven week study are shown in Table 9.8.
Table 9.8 Weekly Plant Removals from Train B
Study Week Dates
Total Mass of
Plants Removed'11
Locations from which
Plants were Taken
Weekl
Week 2
2/28/95 to 3/3/95
3/4/95 to 3/1 0/95
none
93lbs
n/a
1 st, 2nd & 3rd Ecological Fluidized Beds,
Week3
n/a
Week 4
WeekS
3/11/95 to 3/17/95
3/18/95 to 3/24/95
3/25/95 to 3/31/95
4/1/95 to 4/7/95
none
19 Ibs
87 Ibs
12 Ibs
Duckweed Clarifier and High-rate Marsh
n/a
3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed and D'uckweed
• Clarifier .
2nd & 3rd Ecological Fluidized Beds,
Duckweed Clarifier and High-rate Marsh
3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed, Duckweed
Clarifier and High-rate Marsh '
Weeks
Week 7
WeekS
Week 9
Week 10
Week 1 1
Total Plants
4/8/95 to 4/1 4/95
4/1 5/95 to 4/2 1/95
4/22/95 to 4/28/95
4/29/95 to 5/5/95
5/6/95 to 5/1 2/95
5/1 3/95 to 5/1 9/95
Removed from Train B
none
50 Ibs
7 Ibs
none
. 199 Ibs
797 Ibs121 -
1,264 Ibs121
n/a ' ,
1st, 2nd & 3rd Ecological Fluidized Beds
High-rate Marsh
n/a
1 st and 2nd Aerated Tanks, 3rd Ecological
Fluidized Bed, Duckweed Clarifier and High-
rate Marsh
1 st and 2nd Aerated Tanks and High-rate
Marsh
(1) Wet weight. . • , .
(2) 795 Ibs of this weight was the plants removed from the Aerated Tanks in preparation for the second
stage of the study. •
9-22
-------
Section 9
9.5.3 Abnormal Operations and Modifications
During the course of the study, events occurred that might have affected the
"normal" operating conditions of the AEES. Ail of these events were recorded by the
Parsons ES field team and are presented in Table 9.9.
In situations where these operating abnormalities might have affected the study
data, this fact was recognized and spurious data points were noted and removed. For
example, on March 7 an operating mishap resulted in 600 gallons of sludge being pumped
into the system before sample location W2. This event adversely affected the data for
points W2 and W3 during this week of the study (Week 2), so these points were removed
during data manipulation (Section 9.2.1).
9-23
-------
Section 9
Table 9.9 Abnormal Operations and Modifications that Occurred During the Study
Date
Event
March 1 Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was off between 0930 and 1030.
March 7 A mishap occurred during sludge removal from the Anaerobic Bio-reactor, resulting in
approximately 600 gallons of sludge being pumped into the system after the Anaerobic Bio-
reactor (before sample point W2).
March 10 One of the three Air Blowers was repaired (this blower had been inoperative since the start
of the study). The repair meant that system aeration would now be increased.
March 10 Approximately 600 gallons of mixed liquor from Ballanger Creek WWTP was added to the
1st Aeration Tank of each train to seed the system.
March 10 Approximately 300 gallons of solids were recycled from the 3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed to
the 1st Ecological Fluidized Bed.
March 17 Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was shut off owing to contractors at Ballanger
Creek WWTP damaging the inlet line.
March 20 Inlet line was repaired, allowing flows into the AEES to resume (this shutdown resulted in
scheduled sampling being suspended for one week).
April 7 A quantity of iron filings were added into the Anaerobic Bio-reactor to induce phosphate
precipitation. .
April 10 Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was off between 0700 and 1000.
April 11 . Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was off between 0400 and 0700.
April 17 Methanol was substituted for sodium acetate as the carbon source for the process.
April 17 A flushing valve to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was discovered to be malfunctioning. This
situation was thought to have existed for up to one month and it had resulted in blockage of
one third of the inlets pipes to the Bio-reactor. The valve was subsequently repaired.
April 17 Plants in the Aerated Tanks were cut back.
April 24 Half of the shade cloth was placed on the roof of the greenhouse.
April 26 Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was off between 0830 and 0940.
May 1 The second half of the shade cloth was placed on the roof of the greenhouse.
May 10 At 0800, the 1st Aerated Tank (Train B) overflowed owing to plant matter blocking the
outlet pipe. The blockage was later cleared. ,
May 18 All of the plants (hyacinth and pennywort) were removed from the Train B Aerated Tanks in
preparation for the second part of the study.
June 14 Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was off between 1030 and 1200.
June 15 3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed (Train B) was changed to aerobic operation. This filter had been
operating anaerobically since the start of the study.
June 17 to 18 Influent flow to the Anaerobic Bio-reactor was off for approximately 24 to 36 hours, owing
to clogging of the influent pump at Ballanger STP.
June 17 and 18 Each of the Ecological Fluidized Beds were backflushed for 24 hours each.
June 20 At Parsons ES' request, 3rd Ecological Fluidized Bed (Train B) was changed back to
anaerobic operation to maintain process continuity for the study.
9-24
-------
Section 10
Hydraulic Detention Times
10.1 Introduction
, The actual hydraulic detention times of the AEES components were calculated using
the data obtained during the tracer study (Section 5). This section summarizes the results
of this study and explains how the HDTs were calculated. All of the raw data from the
tracer study is presented in Appendix D. ,
10.2 , Tracer Study Results /
In most simple flow systems, where there, are few branches and no recycling, the
concentration of the tracer compound measured at a given point will begin to rise sharply
after injection. The "compound will then attain a peak concentration that will begin to
s decrease sharply at first, gradually becoming less severe over time. Plotting the
concentration of the tracer compound detected over time will, yield a plot such as that
shown in Figure 10-1.
Figure 10-1,
Tracer Study to Determine HDTs,
. Location: Across High-rate Marsh
0.00
9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00
21:00 23:00
Time
1:00
5:OO
7:00
9:00
11:00 '
10-1
-------
Section 10
The above graph shows the data from the tracer study of the High-rate Marsh at the
AEES. Following the completion of the tracer study, data had been obtained that
characterized the flows throught the various system components of the "Living Machine".
Using this graphical data, calculations were carried out to establish the actual HOT
of each system component. The method used to determine this information is desbribed
below.
10.3 Calculation of Hydraulic Detention Times
The actual HOT of the lithium chloride through each system component was
calculated in the following manner:
1. The time at which the tracer material was first injected was identified. This
established the zero-time benchmark for that sample location.
2. The HOT is defined as the x-axis ("time" axis) coordinate of the centroid of the area
under the curve. The "centroid" of the area under the curve is the area's geometric
center.
3. The first step of determining this x-axis coordinate is to find the partial area under
the curve between two data points and applying the concept of discrete integration.
4. The area beneath the curve between two points is estimated by assuming a straight
line between the two points and finding the partial area of the region as though it
were a true trapezoid. A small amount of error is introduced here since the actual
function defining the concentration over time is, more than likely, not a straight line;
between any two consecutive points. However, the closer the data points are
together, the less error is introduced. .
5. After the entire curve is separated into discrete "smaller" areas, the moment arm
about the y-axis for each smaller area is computed by finding the distance from the
y-axis to the midpoint of the smaller area.
6. The problem is then solved, borrowing from statics, using the following equation;
Cy = Z[M.xd(A)]/S[d(A)]
Where: Cy = Centroid of time {x-axis centroid coordinate)
M = • Moment arm distance of each d(A) from the y-axis
d{A) = Partial area under the curve between each two
consecutive data points
The difference in hours between the time of lithium chloride injection ancl the
calculated x-axis centroid coordinate is, therefore, the actual HOT of that system
component.
10-2
-------
•Section 7O
Table 10.1 Actual and Theoretical HDTs for the AEES
System
Component
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
1 st Aerated Tank
2 Aerated Tanks
1st Ecological Fluidized
Bed
Time of Injection
(date/time)
5/9/95 @ 10:30
5/2/95 @ 9:30
4/25/95 @ 10:00
4/24/95 @ 10:00
Calculated Centroid
(date/time)
5/1 0/95 @ 4:58
5/2/95 @ 1 8:57
4/26/95 @ 6:57
,4/24/95 @ 15:04
Actual HDT
(hours:mins)
•, 18:28
10:52
,20:57
6:15 ,
Theoretical HDT
(hours:mins)
18:30
8:30
17:00
7:00
3 Ecological Fluidized
Beds
6/20/95 @>10:00 6/21/95 @ 10:55
24:55
21:00
Duckweed Clarifier
High-rate Marsh
4/1 2/95 @ 9:50
4/4/95 @ 9:00
4/12/95 @ 22:02
4/4/95 @ 1 9:24,
12:12
10:24
8:30
9:00
TOTAL HOT
121
86:56
74:00
(1) Theoretical HDTs were calculated by OAI and are based on a flow of 37,000 gpd into the Anaerobic Bio-
reactor, and 13,300 gpd into train B. X ,-'..-.
(2) The total HOT is calculated by adding the HDTs of the Anaerobic Bio-reactor, both Aerated tanks, all
.three Ecological Fluidized Beds, the Duckweed Clarifier and the High-rate Marsh.
The calculated HDTs for the various individual process components of the AEES are
shown in Table 10.1. It is apparent from this data that most of the detention times
determined by the tracer study are within 1 to 3 hours of the theoretical times. The
exception to this, among the individual units measured, is the Duckweed Clarifier which has
an actualHDT of 12 hours and 12 minutes; 3 hours and 42 minutes above the theoretical
HOT. With respect to the totalsystem detention time, the estimated HOT of the system is
approximately 3Yz days whereas the theoretical. HDT is closer to 3 days.
Calculations were also performed to estimate the percentage recoveries of lithium
chloride in each part of the tracer study. These were done as a test of the tracer study
accuracy since, a suitably substantial recovery (approximately 9Q%) of lithium is typically
required to make the test valid. A summary of the lithium percentage recoveries is provided
in Table 10.2.
AH but two of the calculated recovery percentages was in excess of 100%. The
excess was attributed to analytical variability and so it was still considered that the lithium
recovery was satisfactory to validate the tracer study results. The study ort the three
Ecological Fluidized Beds and the,single Ecolqgical Fluidized Bed yielded .lithium recoveries
of 90% and 88%, respectively. .These percentages are considered sufficient to validate the
calculated HDTs, however, the less-than-tptal recoveries might suggest that the calculated
HDTs should be of slightly longer duration than the tracer study showed.
10-3
-------
Section 10
Table 10.2 Percentage Lithium Recoveries for the Tracer Study
System Component
Percentage Recovery of Lithium
Anaerobic Bio-reactor
1st Aerated Tank
2 Aerated Tanks
1st Ecological Fluidized Bed
3 Ecological Fluidized Beds <2>
Duckweed Clarifier
High-rate Marsh
> 100%
>100%
>100%
88%
90%
>100%
>100%
(1) Occurrences where the lithium recovery is in excess of 100% is attributed to analytical variability.
(2) The first time this sampling location was tested, the lithium recovery was only 65%. This was attributed
to an instance when sludge was pumped out of the Ecological Fluidized Beds during that part of the tracer
study. The tracer study of the three Ecological Fluidized Beds was subsequently repeated and a
sufficiently high recovery was attained.
10-4
-------
Section 11
Comparison of Study Data with Ocean Arks' Data
11.1 Introduction . -; •
In addition to the water quality sampling carried out by Parsons ES during the study
period, sampling was also performed, by OAI staff at the AEES. The samples collected by
OAI were analyzed both at the OAI on-site laboratory and, at a local certified laboratory.
Potentially, this additional data could be used to increase the size of the data set for the
process performance evaluation if it was found to be statistically similar to the Parsons ES
study data. - , .
/ - - - ••!
Consequently, parametric statistical testing was performed on all three sets of data
to assess their statistical similarity. In addition, a simple visual comparison of the data's
summary statistics was also performed. The details of these comparisons are described in
this section.
11.2 Comparison of Data Sets •• ~
11.2.1' Statistical Comparison of Data
After data manipulation and statistical assessment (Section 9,2.1), parametric
testing was carried out on the study data. The data from OAI were not altered in any way
before this "testing since it was assumed that any necessary data manipulation {such as".
removal of spurious data or statistical, outliers) would have been performed by OAI
themselves. . *
' ' ' ••'..-'/ . • • . • f • ~
Two-tailed T-tests (which assumed equal variances between the study data) were
the parametric tests performed on the data. These tests generated a factor that
represented the probability that the twp data sets tested had come from populations having
the same mean, therefore indicating the statistical similarity of the data. Since not all of
the Parsons ES and OAI data were collected on the same date and time, this T-testing
assumed that there were no significant variations between these data owing to different
sample dates and times. To verify this assumption, as well as T-testing all of the study
data, tests were also carried.out that only examined the data that were taken on the same
days. The results of these T-tests are shown in Tables 11.1 through 11.7.
The two-tailed T-tests performed on the data showed similarities and differences
between the various Parsons ES study data, and the data generated at OAl's on-site and
certified labs. Assuming that a T factor of 0.5 (50% probability that the data are similar) is
reasonable, 11 out of the 30 data sets compared between Parsons ES and the OAI on-site
lab were statistically similar. Comparisons-between Parsons ES' and the OAI certified lab's
data showed that 7 but of 12 of the sets were similar (using the 0.5 T factor). The
parameters that display the best similarities between laboratories, are TSS, TKN, ammonia
and total phosphorus. , - '
11-1
-------
Section 11
Table 11.1 T-test Results for Total Chemical Oxygen Demand
Laboratory
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ESVs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Table 11. 2
Sample Location
Wt
W2
W3
W4
W6
W1
. W6
T-test Results for Total
T-test
All Data
0.211
0.034
- 0.000
0.256
0.334
n/a
n/a
Suspended Solids
Result
Same Day Data
0.339
n/a
0.012
n/a
0.443
n/a
n/a
•' ' .
T-test Result
Laboratory
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Table 11.3
Sample Location •
W1
' W2
W3
W4
W6
W1
W6
T-test Results for Volatile
All Data
0.502
0.512
0.459
0.645
0.134
0.192
0.059
Suspended Solids
Same Day Data
0.132
n/a
0.857
n/a
0.470
n/a
n/a
T-test Result
Laboratory
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Sample Location
W1
W2
'W3
W4
we
.W1
W6
All Data
0.265
0.543
0.338
0.559
0.251
0.140
0.000
Same Day Data
0.090
n/a
0.494
n/a
0.871 ',
n/a
n/a
11-2
-------
Section 7 7
Table 1 1 .4
T-test Results for Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
T-test Result
Laboratory
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAlSite Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
'.-':"• table
Laboratory
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Sample Location
W1
W2 , ' •
, W3
W4
W6
W1
W6
11.5 T-test Results for
Sample Location
W1 -
W2
W3
W4
W6
W1
W6
All Data
ji/a ,
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.615
0.857
Ammonia
• ' _-' T-test
All Data
0.627
0.506
0.159
0.482
0.126
0.708
0.857
Same Day Data
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a1
n/a
n/a
n/a
Result
Same Day Data
: 0.567
n/a
0.131
n/a
0.906
.n/a
n/a
Table 11. 6 T-test Results for Nitrate
Laboratory '
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Sample Location
wi
W2
W3
W4 • .
W6
. ' WI
W6
T-test
All Data
0.042
' 0.000
O.O64
0.144
0.277
0.016
0.916
Result
• Same Day Data
0.038
n/a
0.189
n/a
. 0.820
n/a
n/a
11-3
-------
Section 11
Table 11.7 T-test Results for Total Phosphorus
Laboratory
Sample Location
T-test Result
All Data Same Day Data
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Site Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
Parsons ES vs OAI Certified Lab
W1
W2
W3
W4
W6
W-1
. W6
0.429
0.699
0.726
0.840
0.735
0.831
0.617
0.165
n/a
0.589
n/a
0.596
n/a
n/a
For the data taken on the same days, the probability of similarity increased in 10 out
of 18 cases (and decreased in the remaining 8 cases). Only in 4 of the 10 cases where
there was an increase in the probability did the T factor change to suggest that the data
were similar. The parameters showing the best similarities in this case were ammonia and
total phosphorus.
Therefore, although the testing indicated some similarity between the data, it was
Inconclusive with respect to showing total statistical similarity or dissimilarity between the
laboratories and sampling methods used in this study.
11.2.2 Simple Comparison of Data ,
Following the inconclusive results of the statistical comparison of the data, a less
complex method was chosen to perform a general comparison of the study data.
Descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, and variance) were generated for
the individual data sets and a "visual" comparison of these parameters was performed. This
method involved looking at the descriptive statistics and making an informed judgment on
their similarity based upon knowledge of reasonable laboratory error and sample variability.
Although subjective, this comparison was thought to be appropriate for identifying whether
the data sets were really as dissimilar as the T-testing had suggested. The descriptive
statistics for the Parsons ES and the OAI data are shown in Tables 11.8 through 11.14.
This comparison of the study data revealed that, despite the results of the T-tests,
the Parsons ES data and the OAI data were actually quite similar. For example, T-tests of
the total COD data for sample location W1 did not indicate similarity between the data sets
(T factor of 0.211) but the descriptive statistics did show some similarity (10% difference
between means, 2% difference between standard deviations). Comparable cases can also
be observed for a number of other parameters at various sample locations.
Based on these comparisons, it is considered that the Parsons ES data and the OAI
data are not as different as the T-testing implied. This is not surprising since analytical and
sample variability will inevitably lead to discrepancies between data which may be
interpreted by the T-tests to be a result of greater differences than they actually are.
11-4
-------
Section 7 7
Table 1 1 .8 Descriptive Statistics for Total Chemical Oxygen Demand
Laboratory
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Table
Laboratory.
Parsons ES f
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab \
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES •
O A Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Sample
Location
W1
W1
W2
W2
W3
W4
W4-
W6
Vi/6
Mean
1,307
1,193
445
377
399
292
73.4
59.8
53.2
42.3
Descriptive Statistics
Median Standard Variance
Deviation
1 ,290
1,109
429 ,
368
415
275
60.8
53.0
58.4
35.0
1 1 .9 Descriptive Statistics for Total
, Sample
Location
W1
W1
W1
W2
W2
W3
W3
W4
. W4
W6
W6
W6
Mean
470
536
564
78.0
84.0
148
143
9.9
11.4
3.5
2.2
1.8
243
240
76.1
80.9
81.4
58.5
39.1
25.9
33.0
26.8
Suspended
59,147
57,337
5,796
6,552
6,632
3,424
1,530
673
1,089
721
Solids
Descriptive Statistics
Median Standard Variance
. Deviation
' 493
530
.535
82.1
85.0 ,
152
142
.9.6
10.0
2.0
1.7
1.5
136
1 50
175
22.6
25.1
36.2
33.9
6.3
7.0
2.4
- 1.4
1.2
18,602
22,490
30,475
513
.628
1,313
1,150
40 .
50
.6
2
2
Count
11 •
21
10
21
10
18
10
21
11
19
Count
10
, 21
11
10
20
10
18
10
21
9
18
11
11-5
-------
Section 11
Table 11.10 Descriptive Statistics for Volatile Suspended Solids
Laboratory
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Table
Laboratory
Parsons ES
OA Certified Lab
Parsons ES
OA Certified Lab
Sample
Location
W1
W1
W1 .
W2
W2
W3
W3
W4
W4
W6
W6
W6
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Median Standard Variance
Deviation
364
410
442
64.0
69.0
122
112
6.3
7.3
2.3
1.8
• 1.2
11.11 Descriptive
Sample
Location
W1
W1
W6
W6
Mean
55.9
54.2
8.4
7.9
362
410
425
60.7
71.5
121
106
• 5.0
7.2
2.0
1.3
1.0
Statistics for
96.4
108
131
20.7
20.9
,. 30.8
25.6
5.5
4.0
0.5
1.3
0.5
Total Kjeldahl
9,284
11,555
17,041
426
436
948
657
30
16
0
2
0
Nitrogen
Descriptive Statistics
Median , Standard Variance
Deviation
58.4
54.2
5.0
5.4
7.1
8.8
7.0
6.7
50.3
77.9
48.6
44i4
Count
10
21
11
10
20
10
19
10
23
9
17
11
Count
11
11
11
10
11-6
-------
Section 77
Laboratory
Parsons ES •
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
• * '~ • • i
Laboratory
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
'OA Certified Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES '
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Table 11.12
Sample
Location
W1
« ' "
W1 ;
W1
• W2 • .
W2
W3
W3
W4
W4
W6
W6
W6
Table 11.13
Sample
Location
W1
W1
W1
W2
W2
' W3
W3
W4
W4 ;
W6
W6
W6
/Descriptive Statistics for Ammonia
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Median Standard Variance
Deviation
25.6
26.3
26.2
33.8
35.1
28.0
30.2
7.5
5.9
5.5 .
2.5
6.0
Descriptive
25.1
25.9
24.9
33.8
35.0
28.1
30.3
4.4
4.1
2.6
0.4
3.3
Statistics
4.2
3.1
' 2-8
5.9
4.8
4.6
3.8
6.6
5.9
6.3
4.0
6.1
for Nitrate
17
10
8
35
23
21
14
44
34
39
16
37
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Median Standard Variance
Deviation ,
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.4
0,7
10.5
14.1 .
5.4
, 8.0
5.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.3
0,7
9.0
12.0
5.7
7.3
5.3
0.1
1.8
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.4
^6.9
6.5
5.2
6.4
5.1
0
3
O
0
0
0
0
47
42 ,-
27
41
26
Count
11
2O .
11
10
21
10
20
11
21
11
18
10
Count
11
21
11
10
21
9
20
11
23
10
20
11
11-7
-------
Section 11
Table 11.14 Descriptive Statistics for Total Phosphorus
Descriptive Statistics
Laboratory
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
OA Certified Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES ,
OA Site Lab
Parsons ES
OA Site Lab '
OA Certified Lab
Sample
Location
W1
W1
W1
W2
W2
W3
W3
W4
W4
W6
W6
W6
Mean
13.6
12.9
13.8
8,2
8.0
8.5
. 8.4
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
7.0
Median
13.4
12.4
13.8
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.2
7.1
6.8
6.9
. 6,6
6.6
Standard
Deviation
2.2
2.2
2.7
1.5
0.9
' . 1.2
1:.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
Variance
,. 5
5
7
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Count
10
21
11
10
21
9
20
10
23
11 ,-, .
20
11
11-8
-------
Section 12
Investigation of the System Without Plants
12.1 Introduction .
At the request of USEPA, an additional investigation was performed on the AEES to
determine the extent to which the plants in the Aerated Tanks affected the process
performance of the system. This study was carried out over a three week period before
which all of the plants (water hyacinths and pennywort) were removed from the Train B
Aerated Tanks. As with the main process performance study, composite and grab
wastewater samples were collected from the system during the study period. Information
concerning the methods and results of this investigation is presented below. The raw data
1 for this section is presented in Appendix E.
1,2.2 Wastewater Sampling
12.2.1 Sampling Locations :
The wastewater sampling locations used for this part of the study were the same as
those used in the eleven week study. The locations of these sample points may be found in
Table 4.1 and Figure 4-1.
12.2.2 Sampling Methods
As in the previous stage of the study, time-proportioned, composite 24-hour
wastewater samples were collected for the study duration using ISCO automatic samplers.
The samplers were located at the sampling locations identical to those described in
Section 4.2.1. One sample was collected from each location every week for the three
week duration of the study. The same sampling, cleaning, and maintenance protocols were ,
'followed as was used for the eleven week process performance evaluation (Section 4.3.1).
The wastewater grab samples collected for field analysis were also collected in an
identical manner to those gathered for the process performance study (Section 4.3.2).
12.3 Analytical Procedures and QA/QC '"••'- '
Identical field and laboratory analyses were performed on the saroples collected
during this part of the study as were carried out during the process performance evaluation
(Section 6). The QA/QC procedures and requirements were also identical to those
previously used (Section 7).
12.4 Process Performance Without Plants
This part of the study yielded three weeks of water quality data by which the
performance of the AEES without plants could be assessed. Sample collection and
laboratory analysis went ahead without incident for this part of the study so data
12-1
-------
Section 12
manipulation was not required. Additionally, detailed statistical analyses of these data were
not performed owing to the small sample size; it was considered inappropriate to identify
outliers from a sample size of three samples. Simple summary statistics were calculated,
however. The mean water quality data for the three week evaluation of the process'
without plants are presented in Table 12^1. .
As before, treatment efficiencies were calculated for the overall process as well as
for the individual process components of the AEES Facility. This was done using the
equations detailed in Section 9.3. The calculated efficiencies are summarized in
Table 12.2.
12.5 Comparison to Process Performance With Plants
The data generated during the three week process evaluation (without plants) were
then compared with that from the eleven week evaluation (with plants). Owing to the small
sample size from the three week study, statistical comparison of the two data sets was
considered to be inappropriate as it would not yield conclusive results. Therefore, the
comparison was limited to using graphs to visually contrast the data.,
Figures 12-1 through 12-12 show how the various water quality parameters are
reduced throughout the AEES, with and without plants in the Aerated Tanks. The standard
deviations of the data are also displayed on the graphs to show the variability of the data
sets and to provide an indication of the true extent to which the the data points are
"different". . • .
For the parameters COD (total and soluble), BOD (total and soluble), TSS, VSS, and
phosphorus (Figures 12-1 to 12-6, and 12-10), there does not appear to be a significant
difference between the process with and without plants in the Aerated Tanks. Neither is a
significant difference apparent between the parameters for pH and DO (Figures 12-11 and
12-12).
However, there do seem to be some differences between the graphs for TKN,
ammonia, and nitrate (Figures 12-7 through 12-9). Both TKN and ammonia in the system
effluent are lower, and nitrate is higher, when the system is operating with plants in the
Aerated Tanks. This suggests that nitrification may be more effective when the plants are
present in the system. The lower nitrate levels in the effluent from the system without
plants would seem to be a result of the reduced nitrification upstream, rath'er than improved
denitrification in the latter part of the process system.
However, these differences could be regarded as slight when the closeness and/or
overlap of the standard deviations are taken into account. Additionally, the differences for
these parameters are most marked downstream of the 1st Ecological Fluidized Bed whereas
the plants were removed upstream of that process component.
None of this is to say that there is no difference at all between the performance of
the AEES with and without plants. Additional water quality data would be required in order
to observe more subtle differences between the two modes of operation. What this part of
the study appears to have demonstrated is that no major differences are apparent when the
process is operating without plants in the Aerated Tanks. ,
12-2
-------
Ij
o
to z
m <
S-
CM
(0
CO
>
a:
ui
o
<
co
CO
Q
j^
75
O
2
CO
c .
cc
0)
j:
u
s !
o S
S c
I23
cs
™
*
=5
1,1
•5 £
jO **-
U QQ
I
8 •
s „
1 1
± ••§
a c
J ffl
A .
S
.2
d tank Ef
V
£
V> '
%
S
bic Bio-r
Effluent
.0
i :
c
o
r
—
1 o
' O
CO
i
CO
^
1
ITS
i
S-
i
M
• ' . -''S
•*••
' ' S'
CO
Q.
CD
co
CM
CN
CO
in
cri
CO
CO
CO
co
d
co
CO
o
CM
*~
£
Q
J
5
3
CO
IS.
CM
CO
cn
CO
CO
in
CM
'CM
co
O
d
cn
en
O)
E
£)
J
5,
"5
CO
a
'"*
a
CO
O
co"
en
CO
in
CD
co
£
to
D
CQ
3
O
*
CO
en
'£
CM
cn
O
cri
CO
q
en
E
10
a
5
D
o
CO
en
CM
CO
CO
CO
q
CM
in
o
q
cn
in
E
CO
•5
~o
CO
•a
•§
c
Q.
co
a
5 .
0
X
O
-o
CO
"o
CO
CO
O
13
CO
r>
CN
CN
tn
CN
CN
m
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
q
CM
o
o
3
CO
-------
o
0)
25
ca
O
£
CO
1U
UJ CO
< £
CC <
S -
CO 5
LU o
O I
ii
o >
ii t
u. -i
b s
< b
LU <
CC Uj
O
Q.
0
E
£
. .
c
2
0
Q.
—
CO
1
O
r- CM n
12-4
-------
w
4-»
_ro
o.
5
o
c;
.
3
i .
0) -g
E |
-M QJ
<0 JC
w
>/ * •
1_
W £
II
C (o
o >-
CO CB
-c: Q.
(0
Q.
I '
CO
+-I
_to
Q.
3
O
J= JC
c
eg
Q.
O
O
O
"CD
+-*
£
.f
Q
O
O
2
o
I
•fl
I
H3?
m -C C
CO i- W o a 3
> o .N q=
LU 5 -ft
. q=
2 JS
3
•»«
. _c
'o
Q.
-JS'
Q.
E
CO
-a 3
•
0)
•
III
Q) tO -^'
I °S
< CQ
a>
1 s
'
o
o
CO
o
.0
o
o
o
00
o
o
CD
O
o
o
o
CM
(l/Bai) pueiuaa uaBAxo
12-5
-------
a,
CO
4->
JS
D_
<
1 I
CO O)
s
S
E ^
CD Q
CO JI
*o o
c E
O (0
•8 SB
CO O_
Q.
O
O
c
co
Q.
+-•
ZJ
o
I
Q
O
O
03
£1
=3
O
CO
i
C/3
•£
_CO
_£.
|
o
o
o
_0>
o
3
0
CO
I
u
1
<5 -c- c
CO >•• «0 (1)
^^ 1 k* "^
£0 T3
O 0)
'5 o° £
.2 -a »
o w 3
o .H 5=
in is g:
-gl^
CO "•
re "D
_o a)
.2 "a S
o w 3
2c
|2
T3
0)
«£
Q.
CO
£ S
« 5 ^
^ t> i
w w ^
re V a-
= .o uj
< 03
a>
O)
re 4->
re
tr
o
o
§
CO
§
CM
8
(l/Btu) pueiuaa uaBAxo
12-6
-------
.5
o
* I
•.C X
o
c?
£ J= ;|'
3 to' O
Q» P .P
O
w
co
s-
o
Q)
-g
*C (0
co a.
a.
o -
O
(I/Bui) puBuiaa ueBAxo
12-7
-------
O
4-»
JO
Q. 13
+- s
3 2
o R
1
3
o>
2.
3
(0
.
U. I-
E
Q)
CO
H-
o
11
co co
Q. Q-
O
O
OT
I I
•>-> co
g *
.c j=
in
Q
O
00
in
Q
O
03
O O
5 3
.5 .2
o ' o
1
1
o
o
CO
o
in
CN
o
o
CN
o
in
(1/OlU) PUBUI9Q
|BOILU9llOOig
12-8
-------
IT)
CNI
'I
_eo
a.
.•i-i
o
•a
c
c ^ •
c ^O
to 1§
o a?
c
o
(0
a.
o
O
£
J2
a.
£
03
CO
(I/Bui) spijos pspuedsns
12-9
-------
I
JO
0.
4-»
o
i*
,0
•a C/D
±i c:
fl3 C
5 S
<* E
t CD
ca
a.
o
O
(I/6iu) spijos papuedsng
12-10
-------
I
O
o ^
- §
(0
K S §:
-If
Q) C _Qj
3 to 5^
o> 2 ^
il h- S
o
to il
>• 0)
c
o
.J2
CO
Q.
O
O
to
I
_a>
a.
|
12-11
-------
V)
•*->
J2
Q_
4-*
O
•o
-
CO
2 ! -
3 CO o
.2> 2 -S
u. I- E
E 2
0) CO
to °-
>.
CO
H—
O
c
O
CO
*c
CO
Q.
O
O
£
Q.
E
CO
(M-l/Bai) eiuouiLuv
12-12
-------
0
1
CM
t—
0)
1_
.i
LL
CO
£
(0
Q_
3
o
.1± .
•a
c
CO
5 5»
J|
o __ • -
II:
E-£
OJ Q_
CO
CO
0
C
0
co
*C
CO
a.
o
O
~ ' ' — '•' - • . - "' '
CO -• .•'.'"•
C 1 .-i *.
TO CO ' /"
Q- c .-./•/
• +•• CO- i • / /
i ^ •/. /
•C ^ / /
5 ^ / /
• ~^ . — • , . • ., " 1
•2 '*••''" ' •'.-'- /
4-» -M - , . ' \ 1
* Z, \
1 ' \ \
i --T, •-•-.. \ \
'' - \ \
\
' \ \
• - I-^BC
.'••••''' , \
'.' - ' -.''••: " . \
• '- ' - '
- - . -'",;. 1
.-...'•'-.' ' " . '
•
', ,
•"'••'•• " ' ':''
"- - •
' ' t
• ' •
•.''"•'' '
' | " ' .•_''•;•'_... • . <
'
»
15 -o
.U 0)
'5 °° ^
5 "5 w §
> 0 .£J 5=
UJ -n «^
••of"1
«=.
To "o
, ** ^2
O) na ^
"5 — "S ®
>• O 0> 3
UJ ^ **•
^w E
c •
n -o § - •-
^i£
• • <.
.
o *~
CNlll
> Q3 03 3
> re "r 5:
< s m
.
03
O)
CO +J
CO .
cc
0 0 0 0 0 0
m 5f co CM «-
'o
0.
0)
Q.
E
CO
(N-I/6UJ)
12-13
-------
CM
t=
CO
CL
•*->
o
Jd
ra jo
* 8-
CO
§ ^
1 1
Q. Q.
]S ]§
£ £
I
o -S
»_ ••» • •
J= tD i—
3 Q Q)
u.
E
^ (0
CD £
c
o
CO
Q.
O
O
52 S>
to TO
o o>
BCQ, £
J2 -a g
!Ǥ!
•
rTo T)
_O OJ
---0 S
s «i
21S
(0
.2
Q.
E
(0
w
00
-------
1
«
a.
•4->
O
c
(0
T- - Q.
r- -
»= co
5:2
:
CO
CO
c
o
.J2
CD
a.
o
O
O
c,
-
CO
_co *eo
Q. ' "c
<4-> CO
•§• *
-C .C
X X
Q. a.
cu
LL
f
iZ
CO »- O}' Q>
^ "01 J "^
^ iS
-C
to
o
'
> O O'.N 5:
m 2 £
•S 5.
co u.
co -a
u a>
•5 03 ^
«
,<0 *->
h- c
-o §
i;
(Q
O o
s § s
CN S CO »
> Q>
-------
I
JO
a.
•M
O
"i
o
CM i -C5
r- CD
o
. s
OD co
^_ CL
C
O
jtn
*C
ra
a.
o
O
Q.
E
CO
(l/Biu) ua6Axo paAjossiQ
12-16
-------
Section 13
Interim Evaluation Of The AEES Facility In Frederick, MD
13.1 Introduction
Previous sections of this report have described, and presented the results of, the
independent monitoring program performed at the AEES in Frederick, MD. This section will
present an evaluation of these data, which were the major objectives of this study. These
objectives were to:
• Evaluate the performance of the individual treatment components and the overall
AEES process, through monitoring of flow, characterization of wastewater and
residuals, and determination of HDTs.
• Compare the capital costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the AEES
process with equivalent conventional Wastewater treatment technologies.
• Carry out a statistical comparison of the water quality data generated by this study
to that produced by OAI, both from their on-site laboratory and their certified testing
laboratory (at Ballenger Creek WWTP). The purpose of this exercise was to validate
the OAI procedures and results, thereby reducing the requirement for independent
testing in future evaluations of this type.
• Evaluate the performance of the "Living Machine" with and without plants in the
"treatment units in order to quantify and document the contribution of the floating
macrophyte plant species to the AEES wastewater treatment process. .
This report is based on the evaluation of the data collected during the February to
June 1995 EPA study period, Conclusions based on this short study period are considered
to be interim. The AEES continued in operation through 1995 and into 1996 with data
x?pllection by the OAI .staff. It is intended,, if funding is available, to conduct a final,
complete evaluation in 1996 based upon all 1995/96 performance data. A cursory
examination of data collected since June 1995 indicates that the AEES process has not yet
solved all problems with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus removal which are discussed
later in this section. ,
13.2 Process Performance ,
The performance goals established by Ocean Arks for the Frederick "Living
Machine" are compared below to the mean water quality values observed during this
11 week EPA study period. These observed values were measured at the end of the
process. A summary of all of the water quality observations can be found in Table ,9.1, in
Section 9, and in Appendix C. ,
13-1
-------
Section 13
Table 13.1 Performance of the Frederick AEES During the Study Period
Parameter
Unit
Performance Goal
Actual Mean Performance
BODS
TSS
Ammonia
N03
TN(1>
TP
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l
mg/l-P
10
10
1
5
<10
3 .;
12.5
3.5
5.5
5.4
13.8
6.8
(1) The value for TN (total nitrogen) is derived by taking the sum of TKN and NO3 from the system effluent in
Section 9, Table 9.1. - , .
It is apparent from this comparison that the "Living Machine" did not meet any of its
established performance goals during the study period, with the exception of the goal for
TSS. Consequently, it could be concluded that the process has not aphieved its intended
objectives and/or that more modest performance goals should be defined. However, this is
not a completely valid conclusion if both the influent wastewater characteristics and the
status of the Frederick AEES during the study period are taken into account.
It was the premise of Ocean Arks when establishing these goals that the
wastewater at Frederick would have "typical" moderate strength characteristics, i.e.: BOD5
** 220 mg/L, TSS * 220 mg/L, TN * 40 mg/L, TP * 8 mg/L. The actual wastewater
characteristics at Frederick could instead, be considered a "strong" wastewater, i.e.: BODS
* 469 mg/L, TSS * 470 mg/L, TN * 56 mg/L, TP ' * 14 mg/L. Consideration was given,
prior to the EPA study period, to reducing the flow rate into the AEES facility so that
loadings on the system would more closely match the original Ocean Arks expectations. It
was finally decided, with EPA concurrence, that the system should be operated at the
design flow rate of 40,000 gpd so the system did have to contend with higher than
expected wastewater strength.
It was the premise of EPA, in planning this study, that the Frederick facility was
truly in "steady state" operation with all of the "bugs" eliminated and all of the components
and procedures operating at their optimum potential. This expectation proved not to be
valid. The "Living Machine" technology is still evolving so that procedural and operational
changes continued to be made during the EPA study period. Typical examples of these
changes included variations in the backflushing frequency and duration for the pumice filter
beds, and the type and dose of carbon source used for denitrification. As shown on Table
9.6 sodium acetate was the carbon source in use at the beginning of the study, and this
continued until the 7th week. The change to methanol had a very significant impact on the
characteristics of the final effluent. The average effluent during the first six weeks was:
BOD5 7.4 mg/L, and NO3 6.9 mg/L; after these modifications the effluent concentrations
in the last four weeks of the study averaged: BOD 23 mg/L, and NO3 2 mg/L. It is clear
that denitrification improved due to the change to methanol as the carbon source but the
13-2
-------
Section 13
effluent BOD increased due the presence of the residual methanol. In this case, it is believed
that as operational experience with methanol improves the procedure will be optimized to
yield both a low effluent nitrate and a low BOD5 .
It is believed that when the AEES "Living Machine" process is fully optimized and
truly operating at steady state conditions it should be capable of satisfying all of the
specified treatment goals except phosphorus. Effective phosphorus removal may require
the addition of suitable chemicals and/or filtration through suitable media. This opinion
regarding the potential capability of the "Living Machine" still needs to be demonstrated.
Unfortunately, the process demonstration at Frederick, MD is not well suited for this
ultimate purpose, since wastewater is pumped into the AEES facility at a uniform rate so
the system is not exposed to the normal diurnal flow variations or the peak flows which
occur in response to storm events, In addition, sludges are returned to the adjacent
municipal treatment plant without processing. Dewatering on reed beds is proposed for
future applications of the "Living Machine". In this case, the leachate from these reed
beds would have to return to the AEES facility for treatment. The need to include
treatment of this very strong leachate with the normal wastewater stream might reduce the
claimed capacity of the system by about 5 percent (i.e.: a 40,000 gpd unit could only treat
38,000 gpd of wastewater and .600 gpd of very strong sludge leachate). The AEES
' facilities in Frederick and South Burlington are well suited to demonstrate the capabilities of
the process under "ideal" operating conditions., :
13.2.1 Anaerobic Bio-reactor
It is clear from examination of Figures 9-7 to 9-12 that the anaerobic bio-reactor
was a critical component in the successful performance of the AEES system at Frederick. It
removed more BOD5, COD, TSS, and phosphorus than all of the other system components
combined. The effective removal of BOD5, COD, and TSS was essential for the operation of
the system since the greenhouse components could not contend with the untreated
wastewater if applied directly. This reactor was also very effective for solids removal as
evidenced by the 84 percent removal of TSS. It is also apparent that at least some
anaerobic digestion is occurring in the reactor since the volatile TSS was reduced while
ammonia and soluble COD and soluble BOD5 increased significantly. It is believed the major
mechanism responsible for removal of phosphorus, BOD, and COD in this unit is effective
removal of the solids in the incoming wastewater and in the recycled sludges. The BOD and
COD can undergo further reduction due to digestion of the solids but most of the
phosphorus will remain with the sludge removed from the unit. It has been estimated that a
solids reduction of at least 20 percent is accomplished by the anaerobic digestion in this
reactor. As shown in Table 10.1 the theoretical and measured detention time in this unit
are the same at about 18.5 hours at design flow. Table 9.1 shows a positive dissolved
oxygen concentration in the effluent from this reactor; that is due to the small aeration
tanks prior to the greenhouse which were discussed in Section 2 of this report.
The observed advantages of this anaerobic unit would seem to. favor its continued
use with future applications of the AEES technology. Anaerobic reactors can deal
effectively with high organic loads and organic compounds which might not be easily
treated by the units inside the greenhouse. Using such a reactor as the initial treatment step
protects the greenhouse processes from upsets and disruptions even with low to moderate
strength wastewaters. Its use would be essential for high strength wastewaters. It does
require odor control for any exhaust gasses and the digestion process is temperature
dependent and would be less efficient in cold climates. These constraints seem a small price,
13,3
-------
Section 13
to pay for the advantages of the anaerobic technology. Even if the digestion process was
negligible during the cold winter month the solids wasting requirements might not increase
more than 20 percent based on the experience at Frederick. It might be possible to sustain
a significant level of digestion by adding extra layers of insulation around the perimeter of
the tank in cold climates, and possibly heating the sludge wasted from the greenhouse
before it is returned to the reactor. It has, however, been decided to replace this anaerobic
reactor by increasing the aerated tanks in the greenhouse from two to five, per train, in the
system under construction in Vermont.
Sludge is routinely wasted from this unit to the Ballenger Creek WWTP, and sludge
is routinely added with sludge from the pumice filter beds (sludge from the final clarifier is
also wasted to the Ballenger Creek, WWTP). Similar arrangements are planned for the
80,000 gpd system now under construction in South Burlington, VT. In future applications
of the AEES technology where it cannot depend on an adjacent treatment plant it will be
necessary to add suitable headworks for screening and grit removal to protect the anaerobic
bio-reactor. It might also be necessary to increase the volumetric capacity of the unit to
accommodate all of the sludge from all of the greenhouse clarifiers and to achieve further
stabilization and solids reduction via anaerobic digestion.
13.2.2 Aerated Tanks
The measured detention time in the two. aerated tanks is about 21 hours (Table
10.1). This is comparable to the detention time commonly used in the extended aeration
activated sludge process. There are however, two major differences with the AEES tanks: a
layer of vegetation floats on the water surface of the tank, and the suspended solids.
concentration maintained in these tanks is quite low. The uptake of nutrients and other
pollutants, by the plants, is minimal but the plant roots are expected to provide a substrate
for support of the microorganisms providing treatment of BOD and for nitrification of
ammonia nitrogen. •
As might be expected with a long detention time, these tanks provide a 91 percent
removal of soluble BOD5 and a 70 percent removal of soluble COD. Much of this removal
occurs via generation of new microbial solids and the volatile solids increase by 91 percent
in the tank effluent, and the TSS also increases by 90 percent. There is a small reduction in
ammonia (17 %) in these tanks but the Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) increases by about seven
percent. The small ammonia removal is probably due to a. lack of sufficient nitrifying
organisms in the tank environment. The small increase in TKN is probably due the increase
of microfaial solids mentioned previously and the associated uptake of ammonia nitrogen.
The average effluent TSS from the second tank was 140 mg/L. Since the tank was
completely mixed that would also be the concentration of solids contained in the tank
(mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)). That is a much lower concentration than typically
maintained in conventional activated sludge processes and may be one reason for the low
ammonia removal efficiency. In the general case, the nitrifying organisms cannot compete
with the heterotrophic organisms which consume the BOD, that is why many conventional
treatment processes are two stage systems. However, in long detention time activated
sludge systems the soluble BOD reaches low levels and the nitrifiers can compete if they
are present in high enough concentrations. In order to keep the population of nitrifiers at
high levels it is necessary to recirculate some of the sludge removed by clarification to the .
aeration tank and to maintain a MLSS concentration of about 2000 mg/L. The AEES
aeration units at Frederick provide neither significant sludge return or maintenance of
13-4
-------
Section 13
sufficient MLSS to achieve significant nitrification which could be expected in the complete
mix mode of operation. . . - • .
The roots of the floating macrophytes on these tanks are also intended to serve as
the substrate for the nitrifying organisms which allows their retention in an otherwise mixed
tank. In this case the mixing action brings the wastewater into contact with the organisms
attached to the plant roots. This activity is apparently not very effective at the Frederick
facility, and there may be two contributing reasons. It is possible that the roots are covered
with accumulated TSS so that oxygen and the wastewater ammonia cannot get to the root
surfaces and the accumulated organic matter would discourage occupation by the nitrifiers.
The major reason is that there are just not enough plants in the Frederick AEES facility. The
amount of root matter available is a function of the number of plants present and that in
turn is a function of the surface area of the container. The volume, or depth of water in the
container then influences the number of opportunities for wastewater ammonia tp come
into contact with the plant roots. At the Frederick AEES facility the ratio of depth to surface
area is about 1 ft:20 ft2. Treatment basins using floating macrophytes are typicaljy about
three feet deep and have a depth to surface area ratio of at least 1ft: 140 ft2. It is obvious
that the latter system can have many more plants and therefore many more contact
opportunities between roots and ..circulating wastewater., These macrophyte basins are
typically used jn subtropical and tropical climates, without greenhouse protection. The AEES
system at Frederick is constrained by the costs required to provide the greenhouse and it is
not possible to provide enough water surface and plants to depend on the use of
microorganisms attached to the plant roots for significant nitrification.
' . * ' ' '
The aeration tank technology as used at Frederick, MD is therefore a hybrid concept
with minimal capability for nitrification by either complete mix or attached growth microbial
processes. The nitrification potential of this system component can only be improved if
one or both of these mechanisms are optimized. The complete mix pathway could be
improved by maintaining a higher concentration of MLSS in these tanks. That would require
improved clarification after the aeration tanks and routine return of a portion of that sludge
to the first tank in series. These high MLSS concentrations would probably result in the
plant roots becoming completely ineffective for nitrification because of sludges trapped in
the roots. The plants would still survive and grow but their function would largely be
aesthetic. Substrate for attached growth nitrification could be provided with the use of
commercially available submerged plastic media. It is also possible to continue the present
mode of operation and design- these tanks for only BOD5 removal and depend on the
"ecological fluidized beds" for nitrification. This approach would still require improved
clarification after the aeration tanks to reduce the solids load on the filter beds.
13.2.3 Ecological Fluidized Beds . > ' "
These beds are a unique and imaginative attempt to solve several treatment issues:
1. the need to provide a media that can effectively trap solids and also serve as the
substrate for microbial nitrification and denitrification, and 2. a media which can be cleaned
easily without excessive use of energy or large volumes of water for backwashing. The
pumice gravel used in these units would seem to be an ideal choice for these purposes. The
first piimice bed achieves a 71 percent removal of TSS, 53 percent removal of BOD5, and a
31 percent removal of TN. The three pumice beds in series produce a 93 percent removal of
TSS, 83 percent removal of BOD5, and a 56 percent removal of TN.
13-5
-------
Section 13
As described in Section 2, the final bed in the set is operated as an anoxic upflow
reactor to accomplish devitrification of the nitrates produced in the earlier process units. As
shown on Table 9.1 the average effluent nitrate from this, third bed was 10.5 mg/L during
the study period. This, however is somewhat misleading since the carbon source addition
was changed to methanol at about the 2/3 point in the study period, and in the final sample
the nitrate concentration was down to 4.2 mg/L. This suggests that very effective
denitrification is possible once the use of the methanol addition is optimized.
The removal of accumulated TSS from the pumice bed is accomplished by aeration
which reverses the flow in the inner ring and "fluidizes" or suspends the pumice gravel in
the upflowing water. This flushes the retained TSS out of the bed and into the annular
space outside the pumice container. A perforated pipe was added at the bottorn of that
annular space for sludge wasting but that has not proven to be very effective and a manual
vacuum operation is routinely used to remove this sludge. A hopper bottom on the entire
tank with a suitable airlift might be a more effective method for sludge management in
these units.
It is believed that effective management of TSS is the key to successful operation
of these pumice bed filters. Rapidly accumulating sludges in the beds require very frequent
cleaning and the oxygen demand from the sludge tends to reduce the effectiveness of
nitrification. It is suggested that a full sized, and more effective clarifier between the
aeration tanks and these filters would significantly improve the performance of the entire
AEES process. The small clarifier installed at this point in the Frederick facility was an
"after-thought." The 80,000 gpd "Living Machine" now under construction in South
Burlington, VT has a specifically designed clarifier at this point.
The pumice gravel seems, at first glance, to be an ideal choice for .this service. The
gravel provides a high surface area for microbial growth and its low density allows
suspension with minimal airlift energy input. However, the softness of pumice creates a
problem for operation of the units. The inter-particle abrasion occurring during the
backflushing operation causes significant degradation of the gravel particles.and loss of the
abraded fines. The loss has been equivalent to almost a one foot depth of gravel in some of
these tanks during the first year of operation. As a result of these losses, a higher density,
harder volcanic stone has been selected for use in the 80,000 gpd facility under
construction in Burlington, VT. At the Frederick facility it might be possible to reduce the
rate of loss if more effective clarification ahead of the pumice beds would reduce the
frequency of backflushihg required. •
13.2.4 Duckweed Clarifier
The Frederick, MD facility has a "Duckweed" clarifier after the final pumice bed. The
"Duckweed" portion of the unit name is due to the presence of a mat of floating duckweed
(Lemna sp.) on the water surface of this tank. In its present location in the flow path at
Frederick this clarifier is not a very effective component in the process and does not
contribute significantly to treatment. This is primarily due to the the very effective TSS
removal in the pumice filter beds. A sampling point was originally planned for the EPA study
after this clarifier. Data collected by the Ocean Arks staff indicated that there was an
insignificant change in water quality between the effluent from the third pumice bed and
the effluent from this clarifier so the sampling point was moved to the third pumice bed
outlet as shown on Figure 4-1. This clarifier is not needed in this position at .Frederick since
the high rate marsh is there for final effluent polishing, but as noted below the marsh
13-6
-------
Section 13
provides a marginal level of further water quality improvement. As a result, both this
clarifier and the final,marsh unit have been eliminated from the 80,000 gpd unit now under
construction in South Burlington, VT.
A significant improvement in performance at the Frederick facility should be possible
using this clarifier, but significant piping changes would be necessary. The effluent from
the final pumice bed could bypass this clarifier and flow directly to the high rate marsh.
Effluent from the second aeration tank could bypass the pumice beds and-flow directly to
this clarifier. A small 10 gpm pump would then be required to return the clarified effluent to
the inlet of the first pumice filter bed. This arrangement would then replicate to flow path
intended for South Burlington and would keep the existing high rate marsh in service.
, 13.2.5 High-Rate Marsh
This unit was intended for final effluent polishing via physical filtration by the1 gravel
media, by microbial action of the contained organisms, and by contact with the roots of the
plants growing in the marsh. The measured detention time in this unit was about 10.5
hours, and is the reason for the term "high-rate" since the detention time in marshes of this
type is usually measured in term .of days; Space and cost limitations for the enclosing
greenhouse would preclude the use of a larger marsh. The marsh produced an additional 65
percent removal of TSS but TSS was already at the project goal in the effluent from the
pumice bed filters. A 32 percent further removal of BOD,was achieved but the final marsh
effluent still exceeded the 10 mg/L goal, on average. A 27 percent ammonia removal was
achieved, and nitrate removal averaged 48 percent confirming that an anoxic environment
exists in the graver marsh bed. Removal of total nitrogen (TN) averaged, 33 percent but the
final effluent (14 mg/L) still exceeded the 10 mg/L Ocean Arks goal. The nitrogen removal
in the bed is beljeved due to the combination of solids removal and denitrificatibn; uptake
by the plants growing on the bed is a negligible contribution.
To provide a major contribution to wastewater treatment this marsh would have to
have a significantly larger area and/or improved control ovej denitrifiction carbon sources.
as a rule-of-thumb at least five pounds of BOD5 are required to denitrify one pound of
wastewater nitrate. At 18 mg/L it is clear that the marsh influent contains insufficient BOD5
to support complete denitrification and the short detention time may not be sufficient. In
most marsh systems the plant litter is allowed to accumulate and becomes an additional
carbon source for denitrification. At the Frederick facility, the marsh surface is managed as
a horticultural nursery so the plants are removed before they can develop deep root systems
and litter is not allowed on the bed surface. ' ,'
It is believed that performance at the Frederick facility can meet treatment goals for
BOD5, TSS, and nitrogen forms with improved clarification and methanol management in
the upstream units. This would reduce the function'of the present marsh to a horticultural
role. A,gravel bed marsh may still be a useful final polishing unit for the AEES concept, and
a larger bed could be located outside the greenhouse, even in cold climates. However, such
a marsh would be intended for treatment and have minimal horticultural use.
1 - - s
13:2.7 Phosphorus Removal
The performance goal for phosphorus was set by Ocean Arks at 3 mg/L. During the
EPA study period the final effluent phosphorus averaged 7 mg/L, or 50 percent removal for
the overall process. The untreated wastewater had an unusually high organic strength but
13-7
-------
Section 13
the phosphorus concentration at 14 mg/L was typical of most municipal waste waters. Most
of the phosphorus removed in the. system was taken but in the anaerobic bio-reactor, the
next largest contribution was from the pumice filter beds. Neither of these processes have
an inherent affinity for phosphorus, the likely removal pathway is with the sludge which
was separated from the liquid in these units and then wasted.
None of the biological pathways available in the current AEES process can be
expected to remove large quantities of phosphorus. Biological phosphorus removal is
possible in specially designed and operated treatment plants. The patented Bardenpho
process is one example; these processes tend to induce biological uptake of phosphorus by
the microorganisms and result in the production of large quantities of sludge. The other
commonly used phosphorus removal pathway in wastewater treatment is chemical additions
to precipitate the phosphorus; these also produce large quantities of sludge. It is possible to
remove significant amounts of phosphorus via plant uptake and harvest but the plant
density and harvesting program at the AEES facilities are not sufficient to account for
significant amounts of phosphorus. Based on the,data presented in Tables 9.1, 9.5 and 9.8
it can be calculated that about 751 kg/yr of phosphorus enters the AEES with the incoming
wastewater, at a flow rate of 40,000 gpd. Approximately 0.44 kg/yr of phosphorus would
leave the facility with the routinely harvested and composted plant material. Additional
phosphorus is removed during the horticultural operations but it is unlikely that the total
annual phosphorus for all plants leaving the greenhouse exceeds 1 kg/yr. The plants in the
Frederick AEES system can therefore, account for about 0.1 percent of the phosphorus
entering the system. Either significant phosphorus removal should be dropped as an AEES
performance claim or more positive methods for removal incorporated in the system.
13.2.8 Fecal Coliforms
Fecal coliforms were only measured in the untreated wastewater and the final
effluent. QA/QC procedures require a grab sample so the data only represent a specific
point in time during the sampling day. The apparent removal by the over all system was
quite good. The untreated wastewater had a typical concentration of 8 x 106 cfu/100 mi,
and the final effluent 170 cfu/100 ml for a four log reduction. Final disinfection of this
effluent would not be required for most discharge or reuse purposes. The San Francisco
AEES is intended to produce 2.2 cfu/100 ml which is the "Title 22" water quality
requirement by the State of California for unrestricted irrigation use.
13.3 Process Residuals
The residuals leaving the AEES process include sludges from the anaerobic bio-
reactor and sludges from the final duckweed clarifier and the plants removed from the
water surfaces on the various tanks. The plants removed during the horticultural operations
are not included in the "residuals" estimate since they are intended for replanting and not ,
disposal. The sludge removed from the pumice filter beds is returned to the anaerobic
reactor and are accounted for in the sludge wasted from that unit. The volume of sludge
and the weight of plants removed during the EPA study period are given in Tables 9.7 and ,
9.8 respectively.
Samples of sludge and plant material were collected on several occasions and tested
for nitrogen, phosphorus and the metals of concern for land application of sludge (503
regulations). The plant material showed no unusual concentrations of any material and the
final compost could be used for any agricultural or horticultural purposes. .The sludges from
13-8
-------
Section 13
the system met all of the 503 limits except for fecal conforms, • and 'these limits could be
met with additional stabilization and treatment of the sludges.
the total amount of residual materials removed from the AEES facility in Frederick
can be estimated from the data in Tables 9.7 and 9.8. Based on the data in Table 9.7 an
average of 4434 gallons of sludge per week were wasted from the anaerobic bio-reactor; at
2.8 percent solids; that is about 472 kg/wk of dry solids, the final clarifier would contribute
about 2 kg/wk, and the plant residuals about 1 kg/wk of dry material. On an annual basis,
the residuals production would be about 12 dry tons (metric) per year. A comparable
40,000 gpd extended aeration package plant, with a final denitrification filter, would waste
about 1000 gallons of sludge per day with about 2 percent solids, this would equal 76 kg/d
of dry solids or 14 dry tons (metric) of sludge per year., The AEES system produces slightly
less sludge than a conventional extended aeration treatment process, which also includes
final filtration, and the effluent characteristics of the two systems are comparable. This
should not be surprising since the process functions in each system are also similar. The
difference in: residuals production between the, two systems is probably due to the
estimated 20 percent solids reduction achieved in the AEES anaerobic bio-reactor.
13.4 Cost Comparisons ,
Previous discussion in this section evaluates the performance of the AESS process
and compares that performance and residuals production-to conventional wastewater
treatment technology. It is the intent of this section to compare costs for construction,
operation, and maintenance of the AEES process to conventional1 treatment processes
capable of delivering the same effluent quality. Cost comparisons at three flow rates were
developed: 40,000 gpd (Frederick, MD flow rate), 80,000 gpd (S. Burlington, VT flow rate)
and 1,000,000 gpd. T,he cost estimates for the AEES process were prepared by Living
Technologies, Inc., in Burlington, VT; the costs for comparable conventional technologies
were developed by process specialists and staff at Parsons Engineering Science, Fairfax,
VA. All of the individuals contributing to this effort are listed in the Acknowledgements for
this report. , . -
Great care has been taken in the development of these comparisons to be sure that
"apples are compared to apples" with respect to process capabilities, residuals management
requirements and the inclusion or exclusion of particular items in the cost estimates. An,
example is the level of phosphorus removal. The original specification given to Parsons
Engineering Science required the conventional processes to achieve all'of the original Ocean
Arks performance goals. However, the AEES facility at Frederick, MD does not satisfy this
goal so it was dropped from the second iteration of cost estimates for the conventional
systems.
All of the costs cited are essentially for the process components, ancillary facilities
such as headworks, administration and laboratory buildings, roads and fences, power
transmission, telephone service, etc will vary with the size of the treatment plant. All of
these features would probably be included in a 1 mgd capacity treatment plant but none of
these elements, or land costs are included in .either set of cost estimates at any of the three
flow rates. All costs are given in 1995 dollars, the calculations of present worth value and
total annual cost are based on 7 percent interest and a 20 year recovery period.
13-9
-------
Section 13
13.4.1 AEES Process Costs
The costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the AEES system at
40,000, 80,000 and 1,000,000 gpd are given in Table 13.2. The original data were
provided by Living Technologies, Inc. at Burlington, VT. The cost estimates at the 80,000
and 1,000,000 gpd flows are for a location in Maryland with a similar climate to Frederick,
not the low temperature environment expected in Burlington, VT. As a result, the propbsed
process train for 80,000 gpd has four aeration tanks instead of the five under construction
at South Burlington, VT. The costs for the 40,000 gpd. system are based on actual costs for
the Frederick, MD system with some deductions for a special railroad crossing and
landscaping; it does include the cost of the anaerobic bio-reactor. The AEES projections for
80,000 gpd and 1 mgd do not utilize an anaerobic reactor, extra aeration tanks are
provided instead. It was necessary for the senior author of this report to make some
adjustments and modifications to these costs based on the actual operational experience at
Frederick, MD with respect to labor and utilities, residuals production and management,
and horticultural revenues. Adjustments were also made so that the unit costs for labor
rates, and power, etc, were compatible between the Parsons and AEES cost estimates. The
costs are presented for an AEES system, with and without a greenhouse'since the
greenhouse should not be required in warm, frost-free, southern climates. The original cost
estimates prepared by Living Technologies can be found in Appendix G.
The reed bed included in Table 13.2 is, in essence, a sand bed planted with reeds
(Phragmites}. The bed provides for sludge dewatering and long term stabilization since
cleaning, and sludge removal are only required every 5 to 7 years. The leachate draining
from this sludge is returned to the basis treatment process for treatment. This
consideration has not been included in the proposed AEES design capacity flows. For
example, a 40,000 gpd AEES system might only have the capacity to treat 38,000 gpd of
municipal wastewater plus this leachate. An O&M cost will occur every 5 to 7 years for
removal and disposal of sludge from these beds. This estimated cost is included in
Table 13.3 as a pro-rated annual cost. .
Table 13.3 presents operation and maintenance costs for the AEES system at
40,000 gpd, 80,000 gpd and 1 mgd. The original, and a revised second set of estimates
were provided by Living Technologies, Burlington, VT. Some line items have been modified
by the senior author of this report to reflect actual costs for energy and horticultural
revenue at Frederick, MD and also adjusted so the labor rates, etc would be the same for
both the AEES and Parsons ES estimates. For example, the potential horticultural revenue
claimed in the first AEES cost estimate was $5,411 (at the 40,000 gpd system), this
increased to $17,472 in their revised estimate even though the revised system would be in
a smaller greenhouse and without a marsh component. The actual horticultural revenues
during 1995 at the Frederick, MD facility was about $2,400 and 75 percent of that came
from the plants grown on the marsh component, the remainder ($600) came from potted
plants suspended in the annular space on the pumice filter beds. It was assumed (by the
senior author of this report) that the $600 revenue from potted plants could be increased by
a factor of four so $2,400 was entered in Table 13.3. The revenue for 80,000_gpd and
1 mgd was then calculated based on the ratio of greenhouse areas available. Similar
procedures were used to scale up other 40,000 gpd costs to the other two flow rates. The
unmodified revised cost estimate prepared by Living Technologies; Inc. is given in Appendix
G.
13-10
-------
Section 13
Table 13.2 AEES Process, Capital Costs
40,000 gpd 80,000 gpd . 1 mgd
' w/g-house w/o grouse w/g-house • w/o g-house w/g-house w/o g-house
Facility Description'
Size of Anaerobic . . '
Bio-reactor (ft2) , 635 635 none
Size of "Living '
Machine" (ft2) 2,184 2,184 '< 3,000
Power (kwh/d) 409 409 . 624
Operator (hr/wk) 20 20 30
Residuals (dt/yf) ,' 12 12 ' 24
Reed Bed Area (ft2) . 5,280 ,5,280 1.0,560
none none • ••• none
3,000 31,584 31,584
624 5,728 5,728
30 126 . 126
24 300 300
10,560 132,000 132,000
Facility Costs
AEES Facility '
Reed Beds
(2)
TOTAL COST
(3) ,
$402,475 $348,414 $560,457 $485,289 $4,043,026 $3,554,987
$26,400 $26,400 $52,800 $52,800 $660,000 $660,000
$428,875 $374,814 $613,257 $538,089 $4,703,026 $4,214,987
(1) Assumed to include bonds, insurance, mobilization, overhead & profit, and contingencies.
(2) Sized at 0.22 ft2/kg/yr dry solids, cost $5/ft2 w/all overhead, etc, sizing ratio and unit cost provided by Living
Technology, Inc. - , . , -
(3) Totar cost does noi include disinfection since fecai coliform < 200cfu/100 ml at Frederick.
13-11
-------
Section 13
Table 13.3 Annual O&M Costs for the AEES System
Item
40,000
gpd
w/g-house w/o g-house
Energy "'
Materials & Supplies
Bioaugmentation
Methanol
Contingencies la
Gas
Labor'31
Sludge Disposal (4)
Maintainance IS>
Hort. Revenue (SI
TOTAL O&M COSTS
$9,000
$4,300
$2,901
$1,080
$3,231
$26,000
!$2,000
$4,288
($2,400)
$50,400
$9,000
$4,300
$2,901
$1,080
$0
$26,000
$2,000
$3,748
($2,400)
$46,629
80,
w/g-house
$13,666
- $5,450
$5,802
$1,688
$4,438
$78,000
$4,000
$6,132
($3,300)
$115,876
000 gpd
w/o g-house
$13,666 .
'
$5,450
$5,802
$1,688
$0
$78,000
$4,000
$5,380
($3,300)
$110.686
*
1
w/g-house
$125,443
$31,500
$10,800
$15,604
$70,088
$327,600
$50,000
$47,030
($35,000)
$643,065
mgd
w/o g-house
$125,443
$31,500
$10,800
$15,604
$0
$327,600
$50,000
$42,150 '
($35,000)
$568,097
(1) Electrical power at $0.06/KWH
(2) Contingencies = 15% of Materials and supplies
(3) Labor at $25/hr including benefits
(4) Sludge disposal, at $500/dt every 7 years, assume 2/3 reduction of mass on bed during 7 years. This is the
cost every seventh year/7. ' ' • - . '
(5) Maintenance at 1 % of capital cost
(6) Horticultural revenue, based on 4 times the 1995 actual return at Frederick, MD
13-12
-------
Section' 13
Table 13.4 summarizes capital and O&M costs for the AEES process and presents .the
present worth and total annual costs.
Table 13.4 AEES System, Present Worth and Total Annual Costs
Item 40,000 gpd 80,000 gpd 1 mgd
w/g-house ,w/o g-house , w/g-house w/o g-house w/g-house w/o g-house
Capital Costs
O&M Costs ,
Present Worth
• total Annual
$428,875
$50,400
$960,500
$90,900
$374,814
$46,629
$866,700
$82,000
$613;257
$115,876 .
$1,835;,600
$173,800
$538,089
$110,686
r
$1,705,700
$161,500
34,703,026
$643,065
$11,486,700
$1.087,000
$4,214,987
$568,097
$10,207,800
$966,000
13.4.2 Costs of Conventional Treatment Technologies
These cost estimates were prepared by process specialists at Parsons Engineering Science.
They have provided capital and O&M cost estimates for conventional wastewater treatment
processes recieving the same influent characteristics as the present AEES system in
Frederick* MD, with the capability to produce the same quality effluent (i.e.: BOD5 < 10
mg/L, TSS < 10 mg/L, Ammonia < 1 mg/L,/and TN <10 mg/L. Since low levels of
phosphorus are not achieved by the AEES facility at Frederick this requirement was also
dropped from the Parsons alternatives. However, all of the Parsons alternatives can remove
phosphorus to comparable levels (« 50%). As indicated previously, these estimates only
include the direct process costs and related O&M, the ancillary facilities and activities
typically found at larger treatment plants are not included. These omissions are to insure
compatibility with the AEES estimates., *
This section presents a brief discussion and summary tables. The detailed Parsons cost
estimates and related discussion can be found in Appendix F. The comparisons are at the
40,000 gpd, 80,000 gpd, and 1 mgd flow rates to again be compatible with the"AEES
estimates. The process specialist developed costs for the most cost effective conventional
process at each of these flow rates. As a result, the process selected varies with the flow
rate. The systems are:
1. 40,000 gpd: . A prefabricated packaged extended aeration plant with a final anoxic
filter for denitrification and filtration^ followed by ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The
only chemical addition is methanol as a carbon source for denitrifieation.
2. 80,000 gpd: A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) followed by a filter with backwash
and UV disinfection. Methanol is not, needed in this case since the wastewater
BQD5 provides sufficient carbon in an anoxic period which is developed during the
SBR operational sequence. Two options were developed: a prefabricated package
r plant, and on-site constructed concrete tanks. -
3., . 1,000,000 gpd: Two optioris were developed for this flow rate: A prefabricated
^extended aeration package plant with a cylindrical steel tank erected on a concrete
pad, the system includes an anoxic filter for denitrifieation, and UV disinfection;
methanol is used as a carbon source. The second alternative is a Carrousel
13-13
-------
Section 13
oxidation ditch process with typical concrete aeration/anoxic zone tanks, final
clarifiers and sludge return pumping, a polishing filter and UV disinfection. Methanol
is not needed in this case because the wastewater BOD5 provides sufficient carbon
for denitrifiaction in the anoxic zone of the oxidation ditch.
The costs for residuals management and final disposal are included in the estimates.
At the 40,000 and 80,OOO gpd flow rates sludge, disposal is via a contract septic/sludge
tank truck hauler which convey the sludge to an off-site facility for final treatment and
disposal. Such a procedure is commonly used at these lower flow rates. The 1 mgd
systems include on-site sludge management and stabilization procedures. The 1 mgd
package plant includes digestion and contract land application for final disposal. Digestion is
not required for the 1 mgd oxidation ditch since there is no primary sludge. The sludge
management costs for this alternative are derived from actual process costs for the
Downington WWTP in Pennsylvania.
* . •" '
The O&M costs are based on manufacturers data on power requirements,
manpower, and chemicals. The unit O&M cost for sludge processing, stabilization, and
disposal at the 1 mgd flow rate is based on historical data from ALCOSAN Diversified
Residuals Management Program (1994) and Sludge Management Alternatives Evaluation
Report (1994). This unit cost at $500 per dry ton includes belt press filter dewatering, lime
stabilization and contract land application; The costs for the smaller flow rates is based on
a $95/hr rate for the sludge hauler. This cost, converted to $/dry ton (metric) is $1,000 per
dry ton produced by the WWTP at the 40,000 and 80,000 gpd flow rates. A $500/dt cost
was also added for the .final sludge disposal operations in the AEES cost estimates.
Tables 13.5 and 13.6 present summary data for the three flow rates. ,
Table 13.7 compares the total present worth costs of the AEES process and the
Parsons ES alternatives for the three flow rates. The cost differences at the 40,000 gpd
and 80,000 gpd are within 15 percent and therefore not significant. The cost difference' at
1,000,000 gpd is very significant and favors either of the two conventional treatment
alternatives. It can be tenatively concluded that the AEES process will cost about the same
as conventional technology at flow rates less than about 100,000 gpd; at flow rates of
100,000 gpd or higher conventional wastewater technology is apparently more cost
effective. This is probably due to economy of scale issues. An oxidation ditch at 100,000
or 1,000,000 gpd can usually be a single process unit whereas the AEES system must have
several replications of greenhouses and process tanks.
Neither the conventional or the AEES costs represent a complete treatment system.
Some items not included are: headworks, roads, fences, administrative and laboratory
facilities, chemical storage, and redundant treatment units. As a result, these costs cannot
be compared to treatment system costs published elsewhere. Addition of these costs
would increase the costs of both the AEES and conventional processes.
/ . ' •
13.5 USEPA-Ocean Arks Data Comparison
It was the intent of this part of the study to compare the data produced by the EPA study
team during the 11 week study period to that produced by Ocean Arks staff in their on-site
laboratory at Frederick and by their QA/QC certified laboratory at the Ballenger Creek
WWTP. The purpose of the comparison was to validate,, if possible, the Ocean Arks data
13-14
-------
Section 13
Table 13.5 Capital
Item
Capital Costs
Construction
Bonds, Insurance, 3%
Mobilizaton, @ 4%
Misc. Costs, @ 1 0%
Subtotal
OH&P1, 15% '
Contingency! 1.5%
Total Capital Costs
Annual O&M Costs
Energy2 , $0.06/KWH
• Methanol3, $0,23/lb' '
Contingencies4, 15%
Labor5, $25/hr
Sludge Management6
Maintenance, 1 % of Capital
Costs '
Total O&M Costs
Total Present Worth
Total Annual Cost
and O&M Costs
40,000 gpd
, $266,289
$7,989
.$10,652 ,
$26,629
; $311,559
$46,734
$46,734
$405,025
$7,931
$2,902 :
$435
$36,500
$13,140
$4,050
$64,958
$1,093,200
$103,192
for the 40,000 and 80,000
80,000 gpd. Steel
- . '
$450,149 :
$13,504
$1;8,006
$45,014
$526,674
$79,000
$79,000
$684.676
' •'- , .
$7,493
$0
$0
$54,750
$26,280
$6,847
$95,370
$1,695,000
$160,000
gpd Alternatives
80,000 gpd. Concrete
•'. •' ; • ' --.
$416,802,
$12,504
$16,672
$41,680
$487,659
$73,149
$73,149
$633,956
'
$7,493
$0
$-0
. $54,750
$26,280
$6,340
$88,119
$1,567,500
$148,000
(1) Construction contractor's overhead and profit. '
(2) Electrical power for process
(3) Methanol at .35 Ib/d. ,
and UV. disinfection.
.
' ' ' . •
- ' • " ' •
(4) A percentage of chemicals and supplies. . <
(5) Includes" fringe benefits.
. • '
- '' '•
..• :; -'. -. , -
13-15
-------
Section 13
. Table 13.6 Capital and O&M
Item
Capital Costs
Construction
Bonds, Insurance, 3%
Mobilizaton, @ 4%
Misc. Costs, -@ 10%
Subtotal
OH&P1, 15%
Contingency, 15%
Total Capital Costs
Annual O&M Costs
Energy2, $0.06/KWH
Methanol3, $0.23/lb
Contingencies4, 15 %
Labor5, $25/hr
Sludge Management6
Maintenance, 1 % of Capital Costs
Total O&M Costs
Total Present Worth
Total Annual Cost
(1) Construction contractor's overhead and profit.
Costs for the 1 ,000,000
1 mgd. Packaged
,$2,111,460
$63,344
$.84,458
$211,146
$2,470,408
$370,561
$370,561
$3,211,530
$88,053
$10,786
$1,618
$146,000
$164,250
' $32,115
$442,822
$7,902,800
$746,000
gpd Alternatives
1 mgd. Carrousel
$2,100,227
$63,007
$84,009
$210,023
$2,457,266,
$368,590
$368,590
$3,194,446
' ' - • "•
$42,304
• $0
$0
$146,000
$196,188
$31,944
$416,436
$7,606,169
$718,000
(2) Electrical power for process and UV disinfection. . '
(3) Methanol at 1 30 Ib/d.
(4) A percentage of chemicals and supplies.
(5) Includes fringe benefits.
-
13-16
-------
Section 13
Table 13.7 Present Worth Comparison, AEES and Conventional Systems
System Size
40,000 gpd
80,000 gpd
1,000,000 gpd
AEES
w/ Greenhouse
w/o Greenhouse
$960,000
$866,700
$1,835,600
$1,705,700
$11,486,700
$10,207,800
Conventional System
Package Plant
SBR
w/ steel tanks
w/-concrete tanks
Carrousel
$1,093,200
$7,902,800
$1,695,000
$1,567,500
$7,606,200
sources so that in continued or future evaluations of the AEES process the EPA study team
would not have to continue to produce an independent water quality data set for
performance evaluation.
Although some of the data sets were considered.to show statistical similarities, the
T-test results did not suggest that these similarities existed throughout the data. The best
similarities were found between the USEPA data sets and those produced by the certified
laboratory at the Ballenger Creek WWTP. Similarities'between analytical parameters were
best between the results for TSS, TKN, ammonia and total phosphorus. The lack of
statistical similarity between the different data sets are almost certainly a result of sampling
and analytical variations between the USEPA and OAI data. A simple visual inspection of
the data sets indicated that the data were more similar than the T-tests had implied.
Therefore, although statistical dissimilarities exist, an objective examination of any
one of the three data sets will .lead to the same conclusions regarding performance
capabilities of the AEES process. Consequently, it can be concluded that the data
generated by OAI are reliable and could be used in the future for an objective assessment of
system performance.
13.6 Role of Plants in the AEES Process
As shown on Figure 2-1, prepared by Ocean Arks, plants supported by solar energy
are included on almost every unit in the AEES system and their contribution is believed
essential to the performance of the process, hjaving committed to plants and solar energy
the design logic then requires the use of a greenhouse when colder seasonal climates
'prevail, for protection and continued year-round growth of the plants. A commitment to a
greenhouse then creates a design dilemma since the high cost of the space enclosed,by a
13-17
-------
Section 13*
greenhouse then requires deep high rate treatment units for cost effective use of that
space. Such high rate units then minimize the surface areas available for utilization of plants
so the role of the plants is diminished as is the original highly desirable intent to utilize
plants and solar energy as major components in the system. A treatment system based on
the use of plants and solar energy as major components must provide sufficient surface
area so the plants are in fact a major physical presence in the system.
Plants were utilized on all of the treatment units at the AEES facility in Frederick,
MD and are intended for similar use at the 80,000 gpd facility under construction in South
Burlington, VT. The plants are considered essential for treatment on some units and for
horticultural purposes on others, depending on the plant species used. Regardless of their
purpose, the presence of these plants in the AEES greenhouse creates an aesthetically
pleasing and often beautiful environment unlike any other conventional wastewater
treatment system.
As discussed in a previous section, at the plant density and harvesting schedule
used in the Frederick AEES facility the plant uptake of pollutants and then removal via
harvesting accounts for a negligible fraction of pollutant removal in the system. The major
removal mechanisms are believed to be microbial activity and physical separation of
particles via settling and filtration. It is believed that the floating plants can contribute to
this microbial activity through colonization of their root systems by the organisms
responsible for treatment and this was the intent of the floating macrophytes used on the
two aeration tanks at Frederick, MD. ' ,
the plants were present, and completely covered the water surfaces in the aeration
tanks during the first 7 weeks.of the EPA study period, so their contribution to treatment is
included, but cannot be separately defined, in the performance data collected during* that
period. At the suggestion of the EPA study team and with the concurrence of Ocean Arks
all of the plants were removed from these tanks for the second phase of .the study (the
disposal of these plants is not included in the residuals balance discussed in a previous
section). The system was'allowed to come to equilibrium and then sampling and testing of
system performance without these plant continued for the remainder of the period.
Although wastewater characteristics might vary during the two study periods it was hoped
that a comparison of the "plants" versus " no plants" operational periods might help define
the treatment contribution of the plants. A detailed discussion and data comparisons can
be found in Section 12 of this report.
There is no significant difference, without the plants, for removal of COD, BOD5,
TSS, VSS and phosphorus when the data in Table 12.2 (without plants) is compared to
Table 9.2 (with plants), for either the final system effluent or just the effluent from the
aerated tanks. There are slight, but significant differences for the nitrogen forms. The TKN
and ammonia are lower and the nitrate levels are higher when the aerated tanks contain
plants. The nitrate concentrations leaving the aerated tanks is somewhat higher with plants
on the tanks, suggesting that the microbial activity on the plant roots does contribute to
nitrification. However, this diminished nitrification capacity without the plants can
apparently be compensated by nitrification in the pumice filters so there is no major
difference in performance of the overall system with or without plants on the aeration
tanks. This observation has been confirmed by continued operation without the plants after
the end of the EPA study period. As a result, it can be concluded that the floating
macrophytes used on the aeration tanks do not contribute significantly to treatment. The
13-18
-------
Section 13
potential is there, but the limited surface area available on .these deep tanks does not permit
a sufficient number of plants to make a significant difference in performance.
The duckwesd and azolla floating on the surface of the final clarifier may make a
contribution to treatment by their physical presence on the water s'urface. Their presence on
the water surface adsorbs most of the solar radiation and prevents development of,algae in
this tank. Such algae would be removed in the final high rate marsh at Frederick, but at the
South Burlington AEES facility without a marsh this algae could have an adverse impact on
final effluent quality.
13-19
-------
-------
Section 14
Conclusions and Recommendations
14..1 Conclusions
These conclusions are based on the evaluation of data collected during the EPA
study period extending from February through late June 1995. Operation of the AEES
process at Frederick, MD is expected to continue into :at least mid 1996, If funding is
available, a final evaluation will be conducted at that point and will consider all data. Some
of the conclusions given below with respect to system performance may be modified
somewhat in this final evaluation., .
1. During the 11 week USEPA study period, the AEES.at Frederick, MD did not, on an
average basis, meetiits performance goals for BOD5, ammonia, NO3, TN or TP.
However, the removal of TSS was significantly better than the 10 mg/l performance
goal.
2. Based on the .data collected during this study, it is believed that the AEES has the
potential to produce,an effluent with: BOD5 < 10mg/(, TSS < 10 mg/l. Ammonia
< 1 mg/l, NO3 < 5 mg/l> TN < 10 mg/l, and fecal coliform < 200 cfu/100ml.
. Optimization of methanol feed, and of the aerobic and anoxic Ecological Fluidized
Beds will be required to realize this potential.
3. During the EPA study period, the concentrations of BOD5, COD, TSS, and VSS
entering the AEES process were higher than expected and this may have had some
impact on system performance. On a mass basis, the system removed about twice
the amount of organic pollutants it was designed for. Most of this removal occurred
in the preliminary Anaerobic Bio-reactor.
4. The AEES, as presently configured and operated, cannot remove phosphorus to the
desired level (£.3 mg/l). Some additional process modification will be necessary to
achieve low phosphorus levels in the system effluent; or phosphorus removal claims
for the process should be abandoned.
5. The AEES was not at true "steady state" operation during the entire study period
-and procedural changes by OAI staff took place during the study which were
intended to improve the performance of the facility; For example, the carbon source
for denitrification was changed to methanol about two thirds of the way through the
study which had a significant impact on the effluent BOD5 and nitrate levels.
Functional changes at the Ballenger Creek vyWTP, beyond the control of OAI, also
impacted significantly on the influent wastewater characteristics at the AEES
facility. , ' ••',/'.-.-' , ,
6. ' The Anaerobic Bio-reactor, designed by Sunwater Systems, Inc. was essential to the
successful performance of the Frederick "Living Machine". It removed more COD,
BOD5, TSS and phosphorus than all'of the other system components, combined and
also contributed significantly to solids reduction. •
14-1
-------
Section 14
7. The floating macrophytes in the Aerated Tanks were shown to contribute in a minor
way to nitrification, probably through microbial' activity in the plant root zone.
However, the AEES could achieve suitable levels of nitrification in the Ecological
Fluidized Beds without any plants in the Aerated Tanks. The emergent plants on the
High-rate Marsh do not appear to contribute significantly to treatment in this unit
either. .
8. The issue is not the basic capability of plants in providing a contribution to
treatment, but rather that there are insufficient numbers of plants in the AEES
greenhouse to contribute significantly. In the current AEES design there is not
enough available water, surf ace on the tanks to support the number of floating
plants required. Shallow tanks with a much larger water surface area would be
required, and the cost of a greenhouse to cover this increased area would be
prohibitive. The main value of the plants presently used in the AEES is aesthetic,
although they also have economic value as a horticultural nursery if plant species
with some market value are used.
9. The High-rate Marsh at the Frederick AEES facility is also not large enough to
contribute significantly to treatment. It might be possible to .construct a marsh with
a larger area, outside the greenhouse, and depend on the plant residues in the
marsh as the carbon source for denitrification whereas, in the current process, it is
necessary to add methanol as a carbon source to achieve denitrification.
Denitrification cari be achieved in the final, anoxic Ecological Fluidized Bed which
means that the High-rate Marsh is not really necessary except for horticultural
, • purposes.
10. The pumice gravel used in the Ecological Fluidized Beds is too soft to withstand
inter-particle abrasion and particle loss during the backflushing operations that are
used to clean the beds. These losses have reduced the depth of pumice by almost
a foot, in some tanks, during the first year of system operation. More effective
clarification ahead of these beds would reduce the filtration and backflushing
requirements and, additionally, the use of a iow density, abrasion-resistant material
should be considered as the media in these beds.
11. The Duckweed Clarifier located after the final Ecological Fluidized Bed does not
contribute significantly to treatment at the Frederick AEES. However, in future
systems, a final clarifier may be necessary if the marsh is not used. The clarification
provided after the Aerated Tanks at Frederick is inadequate and results in too
frequent backflushing of the first Ecological Fluidized Bed. The Duckweed Clarifier
could be put to use for this purpose at Frederick, if some piping changes were
made. •
12. The sludge and other residuals produced by the AEES at Frederick, MD are slightly
less than that from a conventional extended aeration process, designed for the same
performance goals and flow rates. The digestion occurring in the Anaerobic Bio-
reactor at the Frederick facility is believed responsible for this difference since
digestion in this unit results in a 15 to 20 percent solids reduction. If this Anaerobic
Bio-reactor is not used in future "Living Machines" then residuals production would
be at least comparable to conventional technology.
13. The present worth and total annual costs of the AEES process are approximately the
same as conventional wastewater treatment technology at flow rates of 80,000 gpd
or less. At higher flow rates the conventional processes are likely to be more
economical to build and operate.. At 1,000,000 gpd, for example, the AEES
14-2
-------
Section 14
process with greenhouses would have a present worth value of $11,500,000, while
a conventional oxidation ditch process would have a present worth value of
$7,600,000, Both of these costs represent only the key treatment components and
not a complete treatment facility. Common items such as roads, administration and
laboratory facilities are excluded from both estimates. The higher AEES costs at the
higher flow rates are probably a result of the need to utilize several replicates of
tankage and greenhouse structures, as compared to a few large tanks for
conventional systems. , .
14. The detention times in the AEES unit processes as measured during the USEPA
study were comparable to the theoretical detention times calculated, by OAI. The
total detention time for the process (including the Anaerobic Bio-reactor) was 3.6
days at a flow rate of 37,000 gpd. The total detention time for the components
inside the greenhouse was 2.8 days. The detention time in the Aerated Tanks was
21 hours which is comparable to conventional extended aeration activated sludge
processes.
15. Statistical analysis of the USEPA study data and the OAI performance data for the
Frederick facility did not suggest that, in the main, the, two data sets were
statistically similar. However, when the data's summary statistics were compared
; visually, general similarities were noted between the data sets. It was also
considered that an objective assessment of either data set would reach the same
conclusions regarding system performance.
16. Sludges wasted from the AEES facility in Frederick, MD are returned to the
Ballenger Creek WWTP and have no further impact on operations of the AEES
system. Future "stand-alone" applications of the AEES technology propose the use
of reed beds for sludge dewatering and stabilization. No such system has been
constructed so the impacts cannot be evaluated. It is believed that operator time
will have to increase, and the necessary return of the leachate from the reed beds to
the AEES process for treatment may reduce the claimed treatment capacity of the
system. ','„'.,
17. The corrugated metal and plastic lined tanks used at Frederick are not the best
choice for this service and are likely to, require high costs for repair and liner
replacement during a 20-year design life. A different type of tank will be used at
the new facility in Vermont. This tankage, based on farm silo concepts, is bolted
steel with an integral inner waterproof coating of plastic or glass. The cost
..effectiveness of the AEES process will be improved as the number of separate tanks
required is reduced.
18. A variety of bacterial supplements and mineral and organic additives are routinely
used in the AEES facility at Frederick in addition to the methanol used as a
denitrification carbon source. The value of these other additives is not clear arid;
was not evaluated during this study. Based on experience with conventional
wastewater technology, effective nitrification in the AEES process should not
require the continuous addition of bacterial supplements. ,
19. The OAI "Living Machine" claims to be an ecologically-based process supported by
, solar energy which is minimally dependent upon mechanical equipment and
chemicals.. In fact, the AEES process utilizes the same mechanical energy sources
and chemicals as conventional wastewater treatment technologies designed to
achieve the same performance goals. In effect, the AEES process is an extended
aeration process followed by aerobic/anoxic filtration. The plants growing in the
14-3
-------
.Section 14
system, and utilizing the solar energy, provide largely aesthetic and horticultural
benefits.
20. A predecessor concept known as "Solar Aquatics" was also developed by OAI and
the lessons learned from this earlier technology were the basis for many of the
improvements utilized at the Frederick, MD facility. The "Solar Aquatics"
technology is now marketed by others. It is believed that many of the technical and
cost limitations of the "Living Machine" discussed in this report would apply to the
"Solar Aquatics" process also.
14.2 Recommendations
1. A follow-up study of the Frederick, MD facility is recommended to validate the
potential. performance expectations described above. It is assumed that the
Frederick system will be in true steady state operation by late fall 1995. An
independent evaluation of the 1996 performance data generated by ' OAI'. would
complete this effort.
2. Operational modifications to the Frederick facility should be considered by OAI. The
Duckweed Clarifier is now ineffectual but, with some piping changes, it could be
used as a clarifier after the Aerated Tanks. This would also require a pump to move
the clarifier effluent back tb the first Ecological Fluidized Bed.
3. Nitrification in the first two Aerated Tanks at Frederick could be improved by
maintaining a higher sludge concentration in these tanks with sludge recycle from
the modified clarifier. Nitrification could also be improved by addition of appropriate
media in these tanks to provide the substrate for the nitrifier organisms.
4. The Anaerobic Bio-reactor used at Frederick is an excellent primary component in
the AEES process and its continued use is recommended in future applications.
Perhaps the second compartment could include a deeper, hopper-bottomed pit
instead of the present configuration. This would allow more time for digestion and
sludge storage, and reduce the frequency of sludge wasting.
5. The 80,000 gpd AEES in South Burlington, VT should be operational In late 1995.
This facility incorporates modifications and "lessons learned" from the Frederick
facility, and it also must operate in a colder climate. An'independent evaluation of
the OAI performance data from this facility in late 1996 would establish the
capabilities of this modified system.
14-4
-------
Section 15
References
Grubbs arid Beck (1972). Extension of sample sizes and percentage points for significance
tests of outlying observations. Technometrics, 14, pp. 847-854.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (1994). ALCOSAN Diversified Residuals Management
Program. Parsons ES, Fairfax. ,
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (1992). Quality Assurance and Quality Control Manual.
Atlanta Laboratory.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (1994). Sludge Management Alternatives Evaluation
Report. Parsons ES, Fairfax.
15-1
-------
-------
Appendix A
Quality Assurance Project Plan
This Appendix contains the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) for the process
evaluation of the Ocean Arks AEES in Frederick, MD. The QAPjP describes the Quality
Assurance Plan organization and responsibilities) the objectives of the plan and the sampling
and analytical procedures used on the project.
A-l
-------
-------
. -FINAL, .. , , •'••
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
CONTRACT NO. 68-C2-0102
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 3-18
SUBMITTED BY:
PARSONS ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER:
EEC TECHNICAL DIRECTOR:
ROBERT BASTIAN
SHERWOOD REED
PARSONS ES TECHNICAL DIRECTOR: \/M-*W/J
' i °~ • J To / TT
y^-^B^H.
PARSONS ES PROJECT MANAGER:
x^/^t-*>
LAUREN EILLMORE
PARSONS ES QUALITY
ASSURANCE MANAGER:
ELAINE WILSON
DATE
DATE
2/2.
/ D4
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
ABBREVIATIONS LIST
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 General Overview 1-1
1.1.1 Description of the Advanced Ecologically Engineered System 1-1
1.1.2 Laboratory Selection Criteria 1-5
1.1.3 Statement of Project Goals 1-6
1.2 Experimental Design 1-6
1.3 Critical Versus Non-Critical Measures 1-8
1.4 Schedule " •• " -v •'•'•• 1-8
• 1.5 Quality Assurance Program Organization and Responsibilities 1-11
1.5.1 Responsibilities 1-13
2 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
2.1 Quality Assurance Objectives ,
2.2 Quantitative Objects
2.2.1 Precision
2.2.2 Accuracy
2.2.3 Method Detection Limits
2.2.4 Completeness
2.3 Qualitative Objectives
2.3.1 Representativeness
2.3.2 Comparability
2.4 Impact of Not Meeting Quality Objectives
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-4
3 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
3.1 Sampling Objectives
3.2 Sampling Locations
3.2.1 Flow Monitoring
3.2.2 Tracer Study
3.2.3 Performance Evaluation
3.2.4 ^ Residuals Testing
3.3 Sampling Schedule ,
3.4 Sampling Protocol
3.4.1 Sampling Equipment ".
3.4.2 Sampling Procedure ... •
,3.4.3 Sample Transfer ;
3.5 Sample Handling ,
3.5.1 Sample Preparation
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-7
3-8
3-8-
3-8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
SECTION
PAGE
3.6 Sample Custody
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.7 Analytical Procedure
3.8 Calibration
Chain of Custody
Sample Labeling
Field Data Sheet
Sample Receipt and Documentation
Sample Storage and Security
4 APPROACH TO QA/QC
4.1 Calculation of Results '
4.1.1 Data Utilization
4.1.2 Data Validation
4.2 Internal Quality Control Checks
4.2.1 Calibration Standards
.4.2.2 Spiked Sample Analysis
"4.2.3 System Blanks
•4.2.4 Duplicate Analysis
4.2.5 Additional Internal Quality Control Checks
4.3 System Audits
4.4 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
4.4.1 Precision
4.4.2 Accuracy
4.4.3 Completeness
4.4.4 Method Detection Limit
4.5 Corrective Action
4.6 Quality Assurance Reports to Management
4.6.1 QA Forms and Reporting
4.6.2 Quality-Related Training
4.6.3 QA Results In The Project Final Report
: References
3-9
3-9
3-11
3-11
3-11
3-15
3-15
3-15
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-7
4-7
4-13
4-13
4-14
4-14
4-14
4-17
4-17
4-18
4-25
5-1
u
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
SECTION
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Critical and Non-Critical Measurements
1.2 Project Schedule '
2.1 Quantitative Objectives
3.1 ' Sample Volumes, Containers, Preservation Techniques
and Holding Tunes •
3.2 Field Data Sheet for the Tracer Study
3.3 Field Data Sheet for Water Quality Study
3.4 Field Data Sheet for the Residuals Study
1-9
1-10
2-2
3-5
3-12
3-13
.3-14
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Process Flow Diagram for the Ballenger Creek Living Machine
1-2 Quality Assurance Program Organization :
3-1 Sampling Locations at the AEES Facility in Frederick
3-2 Chain of Custody Record
4-1 Operation and Maintenace Log Sheet
4-2 QA Report Form: LD Lab. Form 1
4-3 Quality Assurance Field Adit Checklist
4-4 Quality Assurance Laboratory Audit Checklist .
4-5 QA Report Form: LD Field Form 1 '
4-6 QA Report Form: QAC Form
4-7 A Report Form
1-3
1-12
3-2
3-10
4-3
4-4
4-8
4-10
4-19
4-21
4-23
m
-------
ABBREVIATIONS LIST
QAPjP
EPA
OWEC
O&M
AEES
OA
COD
BOD
TSS
VSS
TKN
NH4
NO3 -
TP
DO
Parsons ES
LD
QAC
QAM
PM
TD
MDL
PJPD
PRR
L
HRT
WWTP
COC
NPDES
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Operation and Maintenance
Advanced Ecologically Engineered System
Ocean Arks International
Quality Assurance
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Total kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia
Nitrate -
Total phosphorus
Dissolved oxygen
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
Laboratory Director
Quality Assurance Director
Quality Assurance Manager
Project Manager
Technical Director
Method detection limit
Relative percent difference
Percent recovery range
Liter
Hydraulic retention time
Wastewater treatment plant
Chain of custody
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW
i ' . S ' ' ' "'"•
The evaluation of new technologies for wastewater treatment is supported by the
United States Environmental Protection1 Agency (EPA) as required by Section 201 of the
Clean Water Act. Technology transfer programs in the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) are. designed to allow new and emerging
technology development. OWEC often, evaluates new wastewater treatment processes or
applications to verify performance, since information provided by the developer of the
technology is sometimes incomplete. These evaluations are beneficial in answering
design-related questions, identifying specific weaknesses or limitations, providing cost
dat^ and resolving operation and maintenance (O&M) problems. .In addition, the results
of the evaluation may identify a specific range of conditions under which the process or
technology demonstrates maximum or minimum performance efficiency. These
technology evaluations are an essential first step in, disseminating actual field data-on the
operation of selected processes or techniques.
The wastewater control technology evaluated in this study is the Advanced
. Ecologically Engineered System (AEES) developed by Ocean Arks International (OA), a
non-profit educational and research institution. -The purpose of this study is to gather
reliable data and information on the effectiveness of the AEES technology for wastewater
treatment. s '
1.1.1 Description of the Advanced Ecologically Engineered System
.In May 1992, the House Subcommittee, on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation
hearings featured the potential benefits of using advanced ecological engineering of living
systems to clean wastewater. Since this time, federal funding totaling, $3. 75 million has
1-1
-------
been provided by congress for the development and evaluation of OA's AEES
demonstration facilities in Maryland, California, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
The Maryland AEES facility, which is located on a one quarter acre lot in
Frederick, was constructed in 1993. and is currently operational. This facility incorporates
the experience gained from previous OA systems in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode
Island, and represents a second generation design of what OA terms a 'Living Machine".
The system is designed to clean wastewater to advanced wastewater treatment standards
using a natural, solar-powered greenhouse instead of chemicals. The Frederick facility is
the focus of the independent testing program to -be conducted under this work assignment,
since the facilities in California and Vermont are either under construction or in the
planning stages.
The Frederick facility, which is called Ballanger Creek AEES, takes sewage from
the neighboring Ballanger Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. The screening and degritting
operations at the treatment plant are not very effective, therefore, AEES often receives
influent that contains scum and grit. The AEES system was originally designed for 40,000
gallons per day (gpd) maximum steady state flow, but the recorded flows have been closer
to an average of 33,000 gpd. The lower flow rates are due to a higher'strength sewage
than anticipated and also the design capacity of the anaerobic bio-reactor (approximately
30,000 gpd). During the proposed study period, it is anticipated that the three treatment
trains will run at approximate flow rates of 13,300 gpd, 10,000 gpd and 13,300 gpd.
The process begins-when raw wastewater is pumped from the treatment plant to
the AEES. Once at the AEES, primary treatment of the wastewater occurs in an outdoor
anaerobic bio-reactor, as shown in Figure lrl. Wastewater is retained within this stage of
treatment for approximately 24 hours, during which time the organic wastewater
constituents are partially broken down by bacteria in the absence of oxygen. Flow from
the bio-reactor is then pumped into one of three treatment trains; the AEES has three
i
parallel secondary and tertiary treatment trains.
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1-1
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR THE
BALLENGER CREEK LIVING MACHINE
A demonstration project of an innovative ecological wastcwatcr treatment technology in.Frederick. Maryland.
The system is designed, and managed by Ocean Arks International. The project is funded U.S. EPA.
WASTl-WATER )
ANAEROBIC
HO-REACTOR
J-stage system for
lombincd BOD reduction,
rSS removal and solids
digestion. "
.retention lime =
1 day for water.
1 year for solids)
VERATEDTANKS
or biological
reatment using
suspended
microorganisms
retention time '
= 1.0 day)
iCOLOGICAL
"LUIDIZED BEDS
or tertiary biological
rcalmcnt,
retention time
= 1.5 days)
DUCKWEED
CLARIFIER
final sedimentation.
(retention time
= 0.5 days)
Methane Gas
floating insulated cover
biosolids recycled to ABRand fed to fish
-Fish .
(or lake stocking.
bait, or animal feed
Secondary
Quality Water
. Tertiary
Quality Water
Pumice Biofiller
SWS San Diego, CA.
HIGH-RATE MARSH for polishing
effluent to advanced tertiary quality/
(retention time = 0.5 days)
Advanced Tertiary j
Quality Water I
1-3
-------
Secondary treatment takes place in two aerated tanks in series, followed by a
secondary clarifier. Wastewater is retained in the aerated tanks for approximately
24 hours (12 hours in each tank) before flowing through the secondary clarifier. Floating
plants such as duckweed, water hyacinths, and pennywort are contained in the aerated
tanks. Flow from the secondary clarifier is then pumped into one of the three tertiary
treatment units. Tertiary treatment is achieved in three pumice stone filters located in
series, followed by a tertiary clarifier. Wastewater is retained in the pumice stone filters
for approximately 36 hours, the buoyant pumice stones in these tanks providing additional
surface area for microbial growth. The pumice stone filters also contain plants such as
duckweed, oregano, cedar, foxtail, and elephant ears. Wastewater flow from the pumice
stone filters is then pumped into one of three high-rate marshes, which contain various
plant species; any accumulated sludges are settled out and removed at the tertiary clarifier
tanks prior to the marshes. Each marsh has a capacity of 4,000 gallons and a retention
time of 10 hours. The gravel media and plant roots in the marshes perform the final
treatment of the effluent to meet advanced wastewater treatment standards. . >
Other demonstration facilities in California, Vermont, and Massachusetts will be
evaluated as part of this work assignment. The facility under construction in San
Francisco, California, is a skid-mounted demonstration polishing facility designed to treat
approximately 30,000 gpd of secondary effluent to meet California Title 22 reuse
standards (oxidized, filtered to a very low turbidity standard, and disinfected to
2.2 coliforms per 100 ml). This facility is planned to be operated for a minimum of six
months. .
The Chittenden County, Vermont facility is currently in the planning and design
stage. It is. intended to treat, approximately 80,000 gpd. The design is based on the same
principles used in Frederick and San Francisco but adapted to Vermont climatic conditions
and wastewater influent temperatures.
The Harwich, Massachusetts, demonstration project involves the evaluation, of a
'Lake Restorer" bioremediation system located in Flax Pond in this community. Flax
1-4
-------
Pond is polluted due to long-term seepage from adjacent septage pits over the years.
Ammonia nitrogen is believed to be the pollutant of major concern. The, Lake Restorer
device is; essentially an airlift unit suspended from a floating raft. The airlift raises pond
water through a media and. over the vegetated surface of the raft. -
1.1.2 Laboratory Selection Criteria ,
The laboratory or laboratories selected for this study will conform to the following
criteria: - . , / , " . ,
' . ,' ' ' --".I.- f - ^ ^ _ -
• Have an active quality assurance (QA) program that is based on a written QA
protocol; ' , .
• Have a designated QA staff member with the authority to implement corrective
actions: and i .
• Have demonstrated good analytical performance based on a federal or state
performance sample program, or a sample splitting program.
Specific QA components that will be evaluated for the laboratory will include the
following:
• Documentation of routine quality control analyses including spikes, duplicates,
blanks, unknowns, calibration standards, detection level standards, and
, performance standards; •
• Assignment of sample accession numbers to all samples to ensure proper cross-
reference, of analytical results;
• Proper sample storage procedures to ensure sample integrity;
"• Documentation of routine maintenance of analytical instruments;
• Documentation of routine calibration of analytical instruments;
• Certification or training of laboratory staff in general laboratory procedures
and specialized instrumentation; and
• Documentation of the successful use of corrective actions -and follow-up
evaluations to identify, resolve, and prevent problem conditions.
1-5
-------
1.1.3 Statement of Project Goals
The goals of this study are to:
• Evaluate the performance capabilities and cost effectiveness of the AEES
technology under demonstration in Maryland;
• Compare the influent, effluent and sludge data gathered by Parsons ES to
influent, effluent, and sludge data gathered by OA and analyzed by a certified
laboratory to determine the possibility of using OA influent, effluent, and
sludge data in the evaluation. The degree of water quality sampling will be
kept flexible to consider the use of the OA data analyzed by the certified
laboratory;
• Comparison of the capital and operation and maintenance costs of the
demonstration facilities to more conventional wastewater treatment approaches
for meeting the same water quality objectives;
- • Prepare one draft report that includes process descriptions of the Living
' Machine technologies (i.e., direct observation and literature comparisons),
findings on the Ballanger Creek AEES process performance evaluation, and
comparisons to conventional wastewater treatment systems (e.g., land
treatment, sand filters, BNR);
• Prepare a second draft report that provides an assessment of the status and
potential for future application of the Living Machine technology for
wastewater treatment; and -
• Prepare two final reports based on revisions made to the two draft reports.
1.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The Ballanger Creek AEES performance study will consist of the following tasks:
• Flow monitoring;
• Tracer study;
• Performance evaluation; .' . '
1-6
-------
- • Residuals testing; and •
• Collection of available, existing data at OA AEES facilities in California,
Vermont, and Massachusetts. . .
A brief description of these tasks is presented in the following paragraphs.
Flow Monitoring: Influent and effluent flows will be monitored and recorded to
determine the average daily influent and effluent flow rates through the Ballanger Creek
AEES. • ''.'•• - .'.:._ ;. ._' •" ; .... -"•• , ' '
Tracer Study: A tracer study will be conducted to determine the detention time
; "•.-,'•,•' . - >' •
within each major system component of the selected treatment train. Lithium chloride will
be the tracer compound that is used due to its conservative properties. The detention time
for seven components of the system will be determined. Discrete wastewater samples will
be collected hourly up to three times the theoretical detention time and will be analyzed
for lithium concentration.
, Performance Evaluation; A performance evaluation will include water quality
testing to determine the treatment achieved in the selected, treatment train. Water quality
parameters that will be tested for include total and soluble chemical oxygen demand
(COD), total and soluble biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)' total suspended solids
(TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia (NHU),
nitrate (NO3), total phosphorus (TP), pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and fecal
coliform. <3rab samples will be collected for measurement of pH, DO, temperature, and
fecal coliform; the remainder of the samples will be 24-hour composite samples.
Residuals Testing: Analytical testing will be conducted on the process' residuals
(i.e.,, sludge and plants), to determine the characteristics of the residuals resulting from the
wastewater treatment process in. the selected treatment train. Residual samples will be
tested for pH, percent solids (sludge only), ;TKN, TP, fecal coliform, and the Part 503
metals.
1-7.
-------
Data Collection at Other OA Facilities: All available data from OA systems in
California, Vermont; and Massachusetts will be obtained through site visits. Key areas of
information to be obtained will include design, operation and maintenance requirements,
performance data, and applicability. Design and cost data are the only information
available for the Vermont system, since this facility is still in the planning and design stage.
; !
1.3 CRITICAL VERSUS NON-CRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
Critical measurements are defined as 'measurements that are necessary to achieve
the project objectives" (EPA, 1989). Procedures for critical measurements will follow
EPA-approved methods as described in Section 3. A list of critical -measurements to be
performed is provided hi Table 1.1. Table 1.1 also lists non-critical measurements, which
will be analyzed to better define process operations, document process control data, or
provide general background information. The system conditions (i.e., test operating
parameters and process controls) for each measurement are noted in Table 1.1. System
conditions are defined as parameters that are routinely monitored to ensure proper
operating conditions for critical measurements.
1.4 SCHEDULE .
The time sequence of the study components is presented in Table 1.2. The study
will be conducted over an approximate seven month period. Assuming approval of the
site-specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP), the field activities will tentatively
begin in mid-March, 1995. Prior to beginning field activities, an initial background review
of the Ballanger Creek AEES wastewater, flow, and sludge data will be conducted. The
facility has been operational for nearly one year and during this time wastewater and
sludge samples have been taken to determine the effectiveness of the treatment, system.
Effluent flow rates from three treatment trains have also been monitored. This historical
OA data will be collected and reviewed. Since changes have been made to the three
treatment trains to make the system more effective, some of the historical OA data
obtained may not be appropriate for comparison to the current treatment system. The
1-8
-------
I
a.
a
I
so
S o
1
tmtmts
2 2 2 2 22 222 ~
J 2, 3, 2, &.&•&•&-&
jsaaa'aa aaa
a a a a a -a a a a
a a a a a
llllljljlit Jill
H
1
S
*
•1 1
II
13
1 1 f
6: • ^ 5»
|>S S Sl'-S-S
3 5 «^ as . J « a
I
5 I «
III
I
I I
i S.
§
CQ
I
.
, 8 8
1
, .
Q D Q O ^5 to
O O w J«
« « H >
O O
U U
§
ii
S
•a
•§
I
g
•8-
"
V 3*
Q &.H
1-9
-------
TABLE 1.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
Task Description
Date
Start of Data Collection and Review of O A Data from
Frederick facility •
Submission of Quality Assurance Project Plan and Health
and Safety Plan
Start of Technical Direction
Start of Field Testing
Start of Additional Field Testing
Start of Data Collection from OA facilities in MA, VT, and
CA
Submission of draft "Future Potential of Living Machine
Technology" report
Submission of draft "Frederick AEES Living Machine
* System" report
Receipt of comments on draft reports
Submission of final reports
February 1, 1995
February 15, 1995
February 1, 1995
- {
February 27, 1995
9 weeks after start of field
testing
June 1, 1995
August 15, 1995
August 15, 1995
September 1, 1995
September "30, 1995
1-10
-------
changes that have taken place and the reasons for the alternations will be obtained during
the background review. . '
Field data collection will' begin in late February and is anticipated to continue for 9 weeks.
The data collection will be extended 4 weeks if OA data analyzed by the certified
laboratory does not statistically compare to the gathered Parsons ES data. The extended
sampling period will provide additional data for the database and a broader view of the
treatment achieved by the system. .Following data collection and evaluation, two draft
reports will be submitted to the EPA. Based on EPA revisions, revised draft reports will
be submitted for EPA's peer review process. Two final reports will be submitted to the
EPA following incorporation of peer review comments and EPA approval.
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Quality assurance program organization for this study is shown in Figure 1-2 and
includes individuals' from/each party participating in the study. Due to the need for
specialized expertise in natural systems for the treatment of wastewater, Parsons
Engineering Science, Inc.'(Parsons ES) will use the services of Environmental Engineering
Consultants (EEC) to complete the assignment. Parsons ES will have overall
responsibility for QA Parsons ES Atlanta Laboratory will have QA responsibility for their
portion of the work.
To implement an effective QA program, the QAPjP includes the following,
assignments: : , . ,
• Laboratory Director (LD) -The. laboratory and field monitoring .organizations'
, will each assign a LD who will be responsible for maintaining daily quality
control of all sampling and analysis activities; • ...
• Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC) - The laboratory and field monitoring
organizations will each assign a QAC who will be responsible for confirming
1-11
-------
FIGURE 12
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
TECHNICAL DIRECTORS
Sherwood Reed (EEC)
Billy Komegay (Parsons ES)
^^^^^^fy"j^^^^s^f^^^^o^^s^y^
LABORATORY
QUALITY ASSURANCE
COORDINATOR
Greg Jones
USEPA
WORK ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
Robert Bastian
PROJECT .MANAGER
Lauren Fillmore
ANALYTICAL
LABORATORY
DIRECTOR
TBD
QUALTTY ASSURANCE
MANAGER
Elaine Wilson
HELD
LABORATORY
DIRECTOR
James Salisbury
HELD
QUALITY ASSURANCE
COORDINATOR
Lisa Allan!
1-12
-------
quality control of all laboratory or field activities by conducting monthly
_ internal QA reviews; .
:• Quality Assurance Manager (QAM);- A QAM will be assigned to the project
". who will be responsible for overall project QA and for coordinating QA
activities of the laboratory and field monitoring organizations;
• Project Manager (PM) - The PM will interact with the QAM to ensure that the
QA objectives for the project are achieved; and .
technical Director(TD) - The project TD will ensure that quality assurance is addressed
in all technical management aspects of the study.
1.5.1 Responsibilities :
As shown in Figure 1-2, the LDs from each organization will provide quality
control (QC) data to the organization's QAC. QACs will report to the QAM and the
QAM will report to the PM The QA organization can function independently of the
technical management organization, Responsibilities of each of the QA staff are outlined
as follows: •
by:
Laboratory Director: The LD maintains daily QC of all laboratory/field activities
• Ensuring that QC documentation. including chain of custody (COC) forms,
" laboratory notebooks, calculations, analytical data, and QC data is compiled;
• Maintaining QC procedures including calibration and internal standards,
duplicate analyses, and spike sample analyses;
• Maintaining acceptable analytical and reporting schedules to ensure that sample
analyses or field measurements are performed in a timely manner;
• Preparmg;monthly reports using LD Form 1 (Section 4), which summarizes
laboratory and/or-< field analytical results, QC analytical results, and any ,
, corrective action(s) required and performed.
1-13
-------
Quality Assurance Coordinator; The QAC monitors the performance and
adequacy of the QC checks for all laboratory and/or field activities by:
• Verifying documentation by reviewing COC forms, laboratory notebooks (or
other appropriate data reporting systems), calculations and analytical data, QC
data, and the LD Form 1; ,
• Verifying the'performance of QC procedures including calibration and internal
standards, duplicate analyses, and spike sample analyses;
•, Preparing monthly reports using QAC Form 1 (Section 4), which consists of
the QAC's comments on the review of analytical or field QC data including
identification of possible QC discrepancies;
• Preparing special reports to notify the QAM and/or PM (within 24 hours) of
any discrepancies or required corrective actions;
• Maintaining and updating the organization's QA file, which will include LD
Form 1, QAC Form 1, and any special reports to the QAM and/or PM.
Quality Assurance Manager: The QAM maintains and coordinates QA of all
e
laboratory and field activities by: ' ;
• Verifying results from LD Form 1;
• Verifying QA activities noted in QAC Form 1;
• Verifying that reports are reviewed by the Technical Directors and that they
have signed a project review sign-off sheet, as required by .the Project
Management Plan (ES, 1992); . • , ' ••;.',
• Verifying that the analytical schedule is being met;
• Preparing monthly reports using QAM Form, 1 (Section 4), which summarizes
analytical results and field data, QC analytical results, QC discrepancies, and
corrective actions taken to address QC discrepancies; and ,
• Maintaining and updating the project QA files, which include LD Form 1, QAC
Form 1, QAM Form 1, and any additional QA reports.
1-14
-------
Project Manager: The PM ensures that overall QA objectives for the project are
met by: ' " ' ' ,
' ;• Reviewing and verifying monthly QAM Form 1 reports; and
• Initiating corrective actions identified by the QAM..
Technical Director: The project TD ensures that QA program requirements are
being met and that the technical objectives of the project are achieved by:
i . • •
"* * Renewing and verifying monthly QAM Form 1 reports.
Preparation and submittal of QA report forms is described in detail in Section 4.
Table 1.1 delineates each organization's responsibility in performing the critical
measurements for this study.. In addition, the laboratory will be responsible for providing
sample containers, receiving samples, and ensuring the sample handling procedures are
followed as described in Section 3.
1-15
-------
-------
-• . SECTION 2 •..'-.-• ....
QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
2.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE OB JECTTVES
" " \ '"••'-/'•'• "• ' - ,
, The QA objective of this project is to gather sufficiently precise and accurate data
to permit the evaluation of the AEES Living Machine in Frederick, Maryland. Chemical
analyses of wastewater and residual samples vail be conducted using EPA-approved
methods. The collected data includes the following:
, • Concentrations of lithium in each discrete sample collected for the tracer study;
. Concentrations of COD, BOD, TSS, VSS,. TKN, NH4, NO3, TP in each
wastewater composite sample; ,
•" pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and fecal cdliform in each wastewater grab
sample; , •; .-•.".'
• Concentrations of TKN,; TP, fecal coliform, and Part 503 metals in each
residual sample; and
• pH and percent solids (sludge only) in each residual sample.
The collected data should be suitable for determining the following: ,
1 - ' - • .,•<-- *..-•'".." 7
• Conventional pollutant concentrations, wastewater flow rates, and tracer
concentrations in the wastewater;
• Removal of conventional pollutants by the AEES;,and • '
• Detention time of each-major system component.
2.2 QUANTrrATTVE OBJEC1TVES
A summary of the quantitative objectives for this study are shown in Table 2.1.
Descriptions of each of the QA objectives are provided in the paragraphs below.
•'2-1
-------
*
1
H
ci §
S i
£Q £H^
^ S
^^ r^t
c
E~*
1
n
8
g ^
5C?
Cr*
p, »-•
SB
|* g §
3 5 fe.
^ ^
s^
1 1
£
S
Q
|
1
•s
S
1
Measurement
* -
°$?°$?005?£S?
O\ ON CA w\ OS O\ ,CA O\- O\
Q
cs es c5 S S P ts
•H -H -H -H ' ' -H S -H
•H
^». ^-. • Q
^> T^ CQ
eoooS-S-oSo
CSCStSCSootSgW
en en O
SSTt'^'Tt'^'riH"^
eg
"a
Bh CtO W> BO "5b "5b *M E *5b
EEEEEEE--E
"So .
a K
n o o — • «•« o
*>^ <•-* o o v v m V) m
t>
3
.a
**
•£
CO
&
S'SSS5SS^S
5 5 5 5 5 5 • 5 - 1 5
???????55?
0 0
3 1 a I
2 S 2 S
Q Q* Q" Q" w co Z Z *
OOOOcocoSSS
OOffl«H>HPZ
^
So o o o o o o
C7k Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
» s E s
-H -H | ' ' ' -H '
-H
' ' 1 ' '
s s s • • ' •. a •
Q 0
o d S ' ' 0-
BO
^b ^5i) , E 3 O "5i> "^b "Bb
E E _,- K • E E E ,
00 0.
• E
' .S .S .2
>, Sx S,
I 1 ' 1 2 2
c*l v* in "5 "C *5 ^s ^s
in VD vD --5 *s .M «c «£
co en en ti. U- U. co CO
§
m
en
"-S 00
** Ofl CtO
^ "a 13
Gj Eo co
s -5s a ss "E. "B ss s
^. *5 *O i ** «5 *S «S JS
•? k? -3 »? *? *? «^ k?^
>^S3^>^^>
g
S? <»
. £• ' S
li.J
ex ^ .5 —
**> C CO ?• ^
o a. o. s ' g .a ^ g
Z HH o,H Q Jt
2-2
g
'
i
i
60
{
•o
o
s
M
1
Ok
CO
o
1
££
55
M
Fecal coliform
o o
_ Ok Ov
o
en
•H
o
en
1 S
•5 •
> 0
BO
1
*."
* <*">
£ 1
o
3
.a
"•S s
CB
&
O O
W) bo
"O "O
3 3
CO CO
en .
Part 503 Metal
Percent solids
.
i
1
'„' i
i i
° I
•^ s
ok .3
" 8 - e
- Q |
<^« CO g
g a. £g
|||l
.Slip
. ct< c L.
~ 1 S =
,in g " a
J5 'e ^ M
-r 1 1 ^
(Jl "O .Q °
CS 09 JS ^j
'»* Jo '*' S
^ *j S
• i 1 1 1
• ."i >.
a
• *- 5 ° 1
O w " *n
i 1 = 1
I i "s 1
ti Z3 to w
Sw w rt
-------
2.2.1 Precision ,
Precision objectives for all of the chemical' analyses, except those for pH, are •
presented as relative percent difference (RPD) of duplicate analyses. The precision
objectives for pH are listed in pH units,and are expressed !as limits for duplicate analyses.
The duplicate or matrix spike duplicate analyses will be performed on at least 10 percent.
of the samples collected for analysis. In cases where more than two replicate observations
are made, a relative standard deviation will be utilized as an estimator of precision.
Equations used to estimate precision are presented in Section 4.
2.2.2 Accuracy
Accuracy objectives are expressed as the percent recovery range (PRR) for spiked
samples. Accuracy objectives for T'S.S, VSS, fecal coliform, DO (field measurement) and
pH (field measurement) are not available for this study. Ten percent of the samples
collected for chemical analysis will be spiked. Laboratory control samples will be used to
determine accuracy for BOD and COD analyses. '
2.2.3 Method Detection Limits
Method detection limits are presented in Table 2.1.
2.2.4 Completeness
Completeness objectives for chemical analyses are to obtain 90 percent of all data
within allowable limits for precision and accuracy.
2.3 QUALITATIVE OB JECTTVES
2.3.1 Representativeness
The objectives of the sampling program are to collect samples that will be
representative of the' sample type. , For example, 24-hour composite samples of
wastewater will be collected from the research site once per week over a period of several
2-3
-------
weeks to account for daily variation in pollutant parameters. This data and potentially the
existing OA data will be analyzed for possible trends in daily variation. If such trends
become apparent, the sampling schedule will be modified accordingly to maintain the QA
objectives. The field activities will continue for a minimum of 9 weeks, and will not
address seasonal variation.
2.3.2 Comparability
Standard measurement units "for all critical measurements are listed in Table 2.1.
2.4 IMPACT OF NOT MEETING QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
4
The overall impact of not meeting one or more of the QA objectives will be to
reduce the validity of the database. Therefore, whenever possible, samples will be
reanalyzed if the data are outside the allowable Q A objectives. ,
2-4
-------
SECTIONS
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
3.1 SAMPLING OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the sampling program is to (1) collect representative samples
of wastewater from the selected treatment train in the AEES, (2) measure wastewater
flows, and (3) define the detention time in major system components. The assumption of
representativeness for the conventional pollutant analytical samples will be satisfied by
collecting samples using sampling techniques that are appropriate to the particular waste
stream. The variability of the constituents in the wastewater will be assessed by collecting
sufficient samples over a period of time.
" • • f ' r .'
3.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
3.2.1 Flow Monitoring
The AEES currently has flow monitoring devices on the three discharge pipes from
the marsh unit. These devices have provided OA with accurate effluent flow data.
Effluent flow data recorded from the monitoring device will be used to determine the
average daily flow through the selected treatment train. Influent flow monitoring devices
are not currently installed at the facility. As a result, a flow monitoring device will be
installed on the influent pipe to the first aeration tank of the selected treatment train for
this evaluation. Data from the influent monitoring device will be used to determine the
average daily flow into the selected treatment train. The OA effluent flow meter and the
influent flow meter will be calibrated prior to the start of the field studies.
3-1
-------
AEES FACILITY IN FREDERICK
A demonstration project of an innovative ecological waste-water treatment technology in Frederick. Maryland.
The system is designed, and managed by Ocean Arks International. The project is funded U.S. EPA.
WASrUWATHK
INPUT
ANAEROBIC
BIO-REACTOR
3-stagc system for
combined BOD reduction.
TSS removal and solids
digestion.
(retention time =
1 day for water.
1 year for solids)
AERATED TANKS
for biological
treatment using
suspended
microorganisms
(retention time
a 1.0 day)
floating insulated cover
Methape Gas
recycled solids
digested solids
Solar Energy
~~"7F * ( Compost j
ECOLOGICAL '
FLUIDIZED BEDS
for tertiary biological
treatment.
(retention time
3 l.Sda>.s)
biosolids recycled to ABR and fed lo fish
Secondary |
Quality Water I
Fish
for lake stocking.
I bait, or animal feed
Tertiary
Quality Water
DUCKWEED
CLARIF1ER
final sedimentation.
(retention time
s 0.5 days)
© SWS San Diego. CA.
udge Sampling Location
Water Quality Sampling Location
Tracer Study Sampling Location
HIGH-RATE MARSH for polishing
effluent to advanced tertiary quality.
(retention time = 0.5 days)
3-2
j Advanced Tertian
I Quality Water [
(1) may be moved to after first pumice stone filter.
-------
3.2.2 Tracer Study
The tracer study will be performed at several locations throughout the system, as
shown in Figure3-1, to determine the detention time and performance of the major system
components. Wastewater samples will be collected at the following seven locations:
• Marsh; • , - ./
• Final clarifier; -
> - . - } • • '
• Three pumice stone filters in series;
• First pumice stone filter;
• Two aerated tanks in series;
• First aerated tank; and ' , :
• Anaerobic bio-reactor. •
. the tracer study will conducted at the end of the process train and work forward to
prevent any influence from previous tests.
• ' -•''•', i • * •
3.2.3 Performance Evaluation
The performance evaluation will' include water quality testing. Wastewater
samples will be collected from the following six sampling locations, as shown in
Figure 3-1: ^ ,
••" Raw sewage to anaerobic bio-reactor; • ; . • -
• Anaerobic bio-reactor to first aeration tank; .
• Clarifier following second aeration tank to first pumice stone filter; !
" • Third pumice stone filter to final clarifier; .• _ • .• : -
• Final clarifier to marsh; and ; ,
• Marsh effluent. . ' . • '
There has been some discussion about.,the usefulness of the sampling location from
the final clarifier to the marsh. -OA indicates that there is little difference in the water
3-3
-------
quality from the third pumice stone effluent to the final clarifier effluent. There does
appear, however, to be a significant difference in water quality from the first pumice stone
filter to the second pumice stone filter. If after review of OA data this is indeed trie case,
then the sampling location will be switched to the area between the first pumice stone filter
and the second pumice stone filter.
3.2.4 Residuals Testing
Wastewater sludge samples will he collected from three locations in the treatment
"*• ,
process including the anaerobic bio-reactor, the clarifier after the aerated tank, and the
final clarifier after the pumice stone filter. Five plant samples will be collected in the
treatment process (locations to be determined).
3.3 SAMPLING SCHEDULE
The field activities are anticipated to begin in late February 1995, and will continue
for approximately 9 weeks (13 weeks, if necessary). Flow rate measurements and the
tracer study will be performed in conjunction with the water quality sampling.
3.4 SAMPLING PROTOCOL
3.4.1 Sampling Equipment • > .
The sampling equipment used in this study will consist of automatic Isco samplers
^ ,
and manual aids such as sampling poles. All sampling equipment that is placed in direct
contact with the sample will be made of, or lined with, inert non-toxic plastic materials,
Teflon, stainless steel, or glass, and will be equipped with lids made of similar material.
The required container type is shown in Table 3.1. All sampling equipment, including
automatic samplers will be cleaned and inspected on-a routine basis.
Prior to the start of the first sampling round,. reusable automatic sampler tubing
will be scrubbed with hot water .and detergent then rinsed several times with tap water,
followed by distilled or deionized water and finally rinsed three times with the wastewater
3-4
-------
TABLES.!
SAMPLE VOLUMES, CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES AND HOLDING
' .•• ' . • -TIMES '•' ."• • ' ' ' • : ' •'- •
(
Analysis
COD, total and soluble
BOD, total and soluble
TSS
vss
TKN '. • ,
NH4
N03
TP
Lithium '
Fecal coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Part 503 metals
TP
TKN
Percent solids
Matrix ;
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Sludge/Plant
Sludge/Plant
Sludge/Plant
Sludge/Plant
- Sludge
Minimum
Quantity
Required
0.25 L x
l.OL
1.0 L
- '
1.0 L
. - ' •
• . .' •- ' '
0.25 L
0.12 L
0.12L/10g
1.0 L / 10 g
1.0 L / 10 g.
-710g
: -
Container
Type
Plastic
< Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic '
Plastic
Sterile plastic
Sterile plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Sample
Preservation
2mlH2S04/l
-------
to be sampled. After the sampling event, the tubing and collection container will be rinsed
with tap water. Prior to subsequent sampling events, the tubing and collection container
will be flushed three times with the wastewater being tested. A dedicated automatic
sampler will be located at each sampling location. Each automatic sampler will be
calibrated according to manufacturer specifications! A notebook will be maintained by the
person performing the sampling and will note the cleaning, inspection, and calibration of
all samplers used in this study. Manual sampling aids such as sampling poles will be
designated for sampling only one type of sample (i.e., pumice stone filter effluent). This
equipment will be rinsed with the wastewater being sampled and wiped clean prior to each
sample collection. •
All sampling containers and labels will be supplied by the laboratory. Whenever
possible, new sample containers supplied and cleaned by the laboratory will be used and
will not require pre-cleaning by the field team. Prior to initial sample collection, sampling
containers (Isco- automatic sampling containers, grab samplers) will be cleaned according
to the following standard EPA procedures: '_
• Wash with synthetic, biodegradable, non-phosphate detergent;
• Rinse with hot tap water; . .
• Rinse with 20 percent hydrochloric acid;
• Rinse with tap water;
• Rinse with 20 percent nitric acid;
• Rinse with tap water; ••••-,
• Rinse with distilled or deionized water; and
• Allow to dry.
All cleaning using the above procedure will be conducted in areas of adequate
ventilation and away from areas that could subject the freshly cleaned equipment to
airborne contamination. Further, personnel engaged in cleaning will wear appropriate
dress including laboratory coats and safety glasses.
3-6
-------
3.4.2 Sampling Procedure
Wastewater samples will be collected from six locations once per week for at least
nine weeks by Parsons ES personnel and will consist of 24-hour, time-proportioned
composite samples collected with portable automatic samplers and grab samples. Samples
will be chilled to 4°C during composite sample collection. Composite samples will be
used for conventional pollutant characterizations; grab samples will be used for
.measurement of fecal coliform, pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. After collection,
the wastewater samples will be stored On ice. , , ,
Samples of residual sludge and plant tissue will also be collected by Parsons ES
personnel. There will be three sludge grab samples taken on different days from three
locations and five plant samples taken from locations within the treatment train. The
samples will be stored on ice until shipped to the laboratory. EPA procedures will be
' ~" " . ' . - '' • ' . ',"..'*-,..
followed for all sampling. .
The tracer study will be conducted by adding a solution of lithium chloride, in a
single batch; to the influent of the major system component being tested. The testing will
start from the end of the treatment train and proceed backwards until all components are,
tested. The lithium chloride solution will be prepared by dissolving seven pounds of dry-
lithium chloride in each ten gallons of water required. Approximately one gallon of the
solution will be needed for every 10,000 gallons per day of actual flow into the treatment
train. As a significant amount of heat is released during the dissolution of the lithium
chloride, care must be exercised during preparation of the solution.
Sampling of the' effluent from the system component being tested will begin after
one-quarter of a theoretical hydraulic retention time (HRT) has passed and will continue
up to three times the theoretical HRT. Discrete samples will be collected on an hourly
basis using an automatic discrete sampler. Samples will be collected in plastic containers. .
• Influent and effluent flow rates will be measured for one of the treatment trains.
The effluent flow meter has been installed by OA staff. The instantaneous effluent flow
3-7
-------
rate is currently recorded, however, the software for totalizing the flow is not yet
functional. At this time OA staffperform calculations to' obtain the totalized effluent flow.
Flow data will be obtained in this manner if the software is not available at the time of the
sampling. The OA calculations will be reviewed to verify the results of the Calculations.
An influent flow meter will be installed to the selected treatment train. The flow meters
will be calibrated prior to the start of the sampling session. Documentation of the
calibration will be retained in the project file.
3.4.3 Sample Transfer
Samples for this study will be analyzed by the Parsons ES laboratory, with the
exception of fecal coliform. Fecal coliform. will be analyzed by a certified laboratory,
different to that already used by OA for coliform analyses. The fecal coliform samples will
be hand delivered to this laboratory. Other -samples will be delivered via ah overnight
courier service to the Parsons ES laboratory in compliance with hazardous waste transport
regulations. All samples will be delivered in iced containers within 24 hours of sample
collection. Samples which are not immediately delivered to the laboratory will be stored
at 4°C in a secured refrigerator. Upon receipt of the sample by the laboratory, the sample
will be immediately refrigerated or analyzed. .The laboratory will receive chain of custody
forms and field sheets for each sample.
3.5 SAMPLE HANDLING
3.5.1 Sample Preparation -
A sufficient volume of wastewater will be collected to conduct the chemical
analyses. The minimum sample volume required for each chemical analysis is presented in
Table 3.1. Composite samples will be stored hi an iced or refrigerated container during
collection. Immediately following collection,' the samples will be preserved according io
the techniques listed in Table 3.1. The lids of the sample containers should be taped shut
and samples will be shipped to the laboratory in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of
4°C or less. A description of the type of container, container preparation, and
3-8
-------
preservation techniques for each critical measurement is presented in Table 3.1. The
following information will be collected for each sampling event:
1 ' - * • ' • • . . - -• ' - • • * " '*••".
, ,• Date and time that each sample is collected;
• Weather conditions; r , - * ' . '
• Field pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen for each wastewater and sludge
. sample; and
• Narrative description of the sample during sample collection (color, plant type,
' etc.). ^
3.6 SAMPLE CUSTODY
Sample custody will consist of the following procedures:
• Chain of custody (COC); •
• Sample labeling;
• Sample receipt and documentation; and
• Sample storage and security.
3.6.1 Chain of Custody
The COC is a documentation mechanism for tracking a sample from the time of its
collection through its delivery to the analytical laboratory (Figure 3-2). The chain begins
with the sampling person who will initiate a COC form for each sample. As the samples
are passed from individual to individual, the transfers will be noted on these forms. This
process will continue until the samples are delivered to the laboratory, where the receipt of
each sample listed on the COC form will be verified and the form will be signed as
received and entered into .the project file,
,"-,.• The COC form will document the material sampled, location sampled, and the
number and type of containers collected and shipped to the laboratory. The form must be
completed in accordance with the designations stated in this QAPjP to minimize
3-9
-------
cs
en
O
LU
O
LU cc
08
CO ^
CfJ >•
55" Q
s s£
ff 5°
2 |
LU g
O
CO
cc
£
=
tn
Q
S
3
J
J
j
ft
u
PROJECT NAME/LOCATION:
0
z
m
o
S
gineering Science, Inc.
aoratory
ifiltu Hr M P
Parsons En
Atlanta Lai
9RflR P.har
.
I
1
> 0
r n £3
; o "?
: . m
> CO CM
> S £2
3 <0 **
) ~ O
1 <
• Js
t •
Received for Laborato
1
1
3
C
03
•o
f • "
T)
cc
•n
CC
•
S3
1
o
I
I
J3
t. .
o
o
1
u
£
e
Q
3
13
e
07
en
CD
•n
f
cc
-------
ambiguity or confusion. To ensure quality control for sample documentation, each
laboratory will be required to maintain copies of all COC forms that are initiated.
3.6.2 Sample Labeling
Information on the sample label should be identical to the corresponding
information entered on COG forms. This information should be verified before samples
are released for transport. The following information, at a minimum, will be required on
each sample label:
Date Collected
Client
Project Number
Location
Analysis Required
Time Collected
Collected by
Preservative(s)
Parsons ES Sample Number Sample Type (i.e., grab)
3.6.3 Field Data Sheet
'--.-. '' • / • ' /
The appropriate field data sheet (Table 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4) will be completed by the
sample collector for each day of sample collection. The field data sheet will document
study location, sample type (i.e., grab versus composite), sample code, preservation
technique, date and time sampled, and weather conditions during sampling.
3.6.4 Sample Receipt and Documentation
After samples have been Collected, labeled, and, the appropriate information on the
COC forms recorded, the forms and field data sheets will be transported with the samples
to the laboratory. Upon receipt of the samples, the laboratory's sample custodian will
' "*•
inspect each sample for integrity, and check the samples against the COC
3-11
-------
Table 3.2 . Field Data Sheet for the Tracer Study
LITHIUM CHLORIDE TRACER STUDY
Tracer Dosage and Sample.Collection
DATA SHEET NUMBER:
PAGE
OF
Section of process being investigated:
Dosage of Lithium Chloride Tracer
Date and time of dosage:
Dosing performed by:
Location of lithium chloride injection point:
Dosage of lithium chloride: '
a) quantity of lithium chloride used:
b) volume of water used to make solution:
Weather conditions at time of dosing:
Other comments (e.g. problems, notable details, etc.):
Sampling of Wastewater to Detect Tracer
Date and time of sampling:1
Sampling performed by:
Location of sample point:
Sampler ID Number (if available):
Sample Type (e.g. composite, grab, etc.):
Sample ID Number(s):
Sample Preservation Method Used (See Table 3.1 in QAPjP):
Weather conditions at time of sampling:
Description of Sample and Other comments (e.g. problems, notable details, etc.):
3-12
-------
Table 3.3 Field Data Sheet for Water Quality Study
WATER QUALITY STUDY
Sample Collection and Field Analysis
DATA SHEET NUMBER:
PAGE
OF
Wastewater Sampling
Date and time of sampling:
Sampling performed by:
Location of sample point:
Sampler ID Number (if available):
Sample Type {e.g. composite, discrete, grab, etc.
Sample ID Number(s):
Sample Preservation Method Used (See Table 3.1 in QAPjP):
Weather conditions at time of sampling:
Description of Samples and Other commenits (e.g. problems, notable details, etc.):
Wastewater Grab Sampling and Field Analysis
Date and time of sampling:
Sampling performed by:
Location of sample point:
Sample Type (e.g. composite, discrete, grab, etc.):
Sample ID Number(s): '
Sample Preservation Method Used (See Table 3.1 in QAPjP}:
Weather conditions at time of sampling:
pH meter calibrated?
DO meter calibrated?
Field pH:
Field DO (%):
Sample Temp (°C):
Sample sent to laboratory-for fecal coliform analysis?
Description of Sample and Other comments (e.g. problems, notable details, etc.):
3-13
-------
Table 3.4 Field Data Sheet for the Residuals Study
RESIDUALS STUDY
Sample Collection and Field Analysis
DATA SHEET NUMBER:
PAGE
OF
Sludge Sampling and Field Analysis (NB. sample needed for fecal coliform analysis}
Date and time of sampling:
Sampling performed by:
.ocation of sample point:
Sample Type (e.g. composite, discrete, grab, etc.):
Sample ID Number(s): •
Sample Preservation Method, Used (See Table 3.1 in QAPjPJ:
Weather conditions at time of sampling:
pH meter calibrated?
DO meter calibrated?
Reid pH:
Reid DO {%):
Sample Temp (°C):
Sample sent to laboratory for fecal coliform analysis?
Description of Samples and Other comments (e.g. problems, notable details, etc.):
3lant Sampling (NB. sample needed for fecal coliform analysis)
Date and time of sampling:
Sampling performed by:
.ocation of sample point:
Sample Type (e.g. composite, discrete, grab, etc.):
Sample ID Number(s):
Sample Preservation Method Used (See Table 3.1 in QAPjP):
Weather conditions at time of sampling:
Sample sent to laboratory for fecal coliform analysis?
Description of Sample (including plant type) and Other comments (e.g. problems, notable details, etc.
3-14
-------
form. When the samples received and the COC forms are in agreement, the custodian will
sign the COC form> enter the sample information intp the laboratory log, and assign a
laboratory accession number to each sample. Any discrepancies between, the COC form
and a sample label will be documented and the sampling organization will be notified. If
the1 discrepancies cannot be corrected, then the sample will be discarded. Corrective
actions, as described In Section 4, will be initiated to ensure that the problem does not
recur.
3.6.5 Sample Storage and Security ,
During storage, samples will be maintained in a refrigerator at 4°C ± 2°C, unless
otherwise specified. Maximum holding time allowed for each analysis is indicated in
Table 3.1. If analyses are not initiated within the maximum allowable holding time, the
samples will be discarded and new samples will be collected. Corrective actions, as
described in Section 4, will be initiated to, ensure that the problem does not recur.
Samples will be retained for 30 days after analyses have been completed so that any
unforeseen analytical problems may be addressed. At the end of 30 days, the samples will
be discarded. , • \ ' •' •
3.7 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
The standard.methods for conventional pollutant analyses were chosen because
they are the type most commonly specified in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits for municipal wastewater treatment/plants. Analytical
procedures and references to be used in this study are presented in Table 2.1. This table
also'presents the minimum analytical detection limits. All standard procedures are taken
from EPA support documents or EPA approved manuals.
3.8 CALIBRATION
, . Calibration standards will be performed as required by EPA (EPA, 1983) for the
conventional pollutant analyses listed in Table 2.1. Calibration procedures for the critical
3-15
-------
-------
SECTION 4
APPROACH TO QA/QC
4.1 CALCULATION OF RESULTS
4.1.1 Data Utilization
Evaluation of OA's AEES will be based on data collected during the monitoring
phase of the project. Effluent purity as well as technology effectiveness will be based on
the degree, to which wastewater constituents; are removed from the waste stream as it
passes through the individual treatment trains of the Living System. Pollutant removal
effectiveness will be .calculated using percent.removal -of selected pollutants, from
individual components of the system as well as .the final product delivered from the
system. Percent removal of pollutants from individual components of the system will be
calculated using the following equation:
Percent Removal = (Pb-P»)/Pb * 1.00
Where: Pb = Pollutant initial concentration
• • - Pa = Pollutant concentration after treatment train , ' •
The percent removal of pollutants in the final product will be based on the
following equation:. •
, Percent Removal =(Pi-Pe)/Pi* 100
; • " " , » • .
Where: P; = Pollutant concentration in influent
Pe = pollutant concentration in effluent
Those pollutants being monitored for. overall system removal as well as component
reduction from the waste stream include COD, BOD, TSS, VSS, TKN,'NEfc, NO3,.and
TP. ' • ' • '.'••' ''•-'.- ' ' - -' '' -••'•'••'
4-1
-------
The evaluation of the OA's AEES will incorporate operation and maintenance
costs performed during the study. Collected data will include material or equipment
replacement costs, maintenance, and any problems encountered at the project site. Figure
4-1 is an example of the log sheet that will be used to collect O&M information. •
4.1.2 Data Validation
The laboratory directors selected for assuring quality of samples collected at the
study site will be responsible for reviewing and validating all data generated. Data will be
validated by spot checking field notebooks, hand-written notes as well as computer
generated data and calculations. All data conforming to QC limits will be acceptable for
use in this project. Data found to be acceptable will be compiled and reported to the
QAC's and PM along with accompanying QC verification datal Data entered into
spreadsheets will be periodically checked against raw data.
Data that does not conform to allowable, QC limits will be reanalyzed when
possible. Reanalysis of samples may not be possible in some situations, and in such
circumstances, the unacceptable data,either will not be used or, if used, will be noted in
the Project Final Report with an explanation of why those analyses were not repeated.
/
The integrity of data produced will be verified by QACs and the QAM. The LD
will report data which are outside the allowable QC limits to the QAC, who will be
responsible to ensure that corrective actions are taken. QA forms and reporting
requirements are described in Subsection 4.6. Data found to be unacceptable for precision
purposes will be recorded on Figure 4-2.
4.2 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
The internal quality control checks for all critical measurements are presented in
this section. Samples will be collected in sufficient volume to allow for appropriate
internal quality control analysis.
4-2
-------
g
-------
FIGURE 4.2 QA REPORT FORM: LD LAB FORM 1 (pg 1 of 2)
REPORT PERIOD
SAMPLE CUSTODY
Chain of custody forms attached:
QC sample preservation techniques maintained:
Yes( )No(
Yes( )No(
RESULTS
Test
Initiation
Date
Sample
Description
Accession
Number
Critical
Measure-
ment
Precision
RPD
Accuracy
% recovery
System, conditions monitored during tests:
Percent Completeness:
It is estimated that
of
Yes()No.()
submitted samples were analyzed during this report period.
samples will be analyzed during the report period ending
DOCUMENTATION
Analytical data and QC data entered onto computer:
Laboratory notebooks and records maintained:
Yes( )No( )
Yes ( )No ( )
QA/QC ANALYSES
REPORT PERIOD:
4-4
-------
FIGURE 4.2, QA REPORT FORM: LD LAB FORM 1 (pg 2 of 2)
Not
Applicable
Calibration Standard
Internal Standards •
Split Samples
Spiked Samples
Replicate Analyses
Other
Analyses
Performed
Yes No
()
•C)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
0
( )
( )
( )
()
Within QC
Limits
Yes No
COMMENTSi
CORRECTIVE ACTION
REPORTPERIOD:
Problem conditions) identified during report
period which required corrective action:
QAC notified of problem condition:
Cause of problem condition identified:
Yes( )
Yes( )
- Yes( )
No()
No ( )
No( )
PROBLEM CONDITIONS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
ANTICIPATED OA EFFORTS FOR THE NEXT REPORT PERIOD
Approved By:
Date
Laboratory Director
4-5
-------
4.2.1 Calibration Standards
Calibration standards will be used daily for TKN, NELt, NO3, and TP analysis.
Internal quality control checks will be employed to ensure that the analytical equipment is
functioning properly and the method is being performed correctly by the analyst.
Calibration standards will be utilized to establish standard curves which will allow
calculation of sample concentrations based upon instrument response.
4.2.2 Spiked Sample Analysis
Spiking samples with a known standard will be used to monitor data accuracy.
Ten percent of the samples collected for analysis of TKN, NH,, NO3, and TP will be
spiked. For proper spike determination, the standard addition of the spiking compound
will be at a level approximately mid range in,the calibration range. Allowable spiked
sample recovery ranges for each analysis are presented in Table 2.1.
4,2.3 System Blanks
System blanks will be analyzed to ensure that system conditions are not biasing the
data. These will include filters, laboratory pure water, and reagents.
4.2.4 Duplicate Analysis
Duplicate or matrix spike duplicate analysis will be performed on all critical
measurements listed in Table 2.1. At a minimum, ten percent of all samples collected for
analysis will be subjected to duplicate analysis. . t
4.2.5 Additional Internal Quality Control Checks
In addition to the internal quality control checks listed above, analysis of
performance samples will be used in this study to ensure and maintain quality control.
Performance samples are currently analyzed by the Parsons ES Laboratory two times per
year to maintain quality control and such samples are provided by the EPA.
4-6
-------
4.3 SYSTEM AUDITS
Technical system audits will be conducted by each QAG to qualitatively evaluate
the components of the field and laboratory procedures. These audits will be performed
shortly after initiation of the study (one to two weeks) to allow early detection 'of
problems and identify needed corrective actions as soon as possible. During such audits,
all components of each field and laboratory procedure will be evaluated and will include
the following:
• Sample collection, delivery, storage and chain of custody; _
• Field and laboratory analysis techniques including equipment calibration;.
technician performance and data calculation methods; and
• QC procedures including calculation of data quality indicators.
Following receipt of the data generated during this period, the systems audit will
continue with an evaluation of the following components: .
• Data reduction, validation and reporting procedures; and
• Quality control ,reports. .
Field and laboratory checklists, as shown in Figure 4-3 and 4-4, will be used during
the;system audit. Results of the findings of the systems audits will be forwarded to the
QAM who will summarize the information in a letter report to the PM. If necessary,
corrective action will be initiated using procedures described in Subsection 4.5.
4.4 CALCULATION OF DATA QUALITY INDICATORS
Data quality indicators . from this study will include precision, accuracy,
completeness and method detection limit. These indicators will be used to determine if the
QA objectives for this study are being met.
4-7 •
-------
££
j
i*"
Si^
1
1
;V;;
"/""•
•>
DC
L,
D
O
"*
- -1
-
;:s
"S
0
u
D
O
O
^
CO
u
**"
111
J
11
cc
11
i.
LU
CC
rntiPSTioNS
1 —
c
TJ
03
re
O)
o
2
a.
o
5
03
z
CN
a?
a
•a
03
CO '
il
;S
Automatic samplers routinely cleaned, inspected, and cal
and documented in a notebook.
CO
oT
O
CD
in
.0
Q.
C
re
03
u
•o
03
Q.
"5
•c
re
•o
03
03
O
Q.
,CD
"5.
re
CO
*
Q?
O
Collection container/sampler is chilled (4° i 2°C) during
rnllprtinn handlina. and transDort to lab.
LO
oT
O
Sampler is set to obtain a 24-h composite sample.
CO
-
5T
0
^
O
Q
^ -
Grab samples are collected for field measurements of pH
and tfimnerature. and for fecal coliform. ,
^
-
T3
03
03 U
-g » 03
— 0 "n
Sample containers for fecal coliform are kept closed until
moment the sample is collected, the stopper or cap is pn
from contamination, and replaced immediately after sam|
rnllp.rtion.
00
n
CJT
o
.
O3
Required sample volumes are collected for each paramet
«
fi
a?
O
Sample label is complete and legible and corresponds to
information on COC.
o
,
n
ST
a
15
'a
•o
re
Q)
03
a.
o
u
.52
E
o
H-
O
o
CJ
£
n
"tx"
O
tf
o
a.
CO
I
h.
3
CO
•o
03
a.
re
03
, re
CO
V-
03
"re
4-*
0
u
03
a.
re
CO
2
CN
>
cT
O
j
"E
•o
<
i
1
~i
E
c
u
_(
^
i
i
, i
i
i
r
T—
-;
\
i
'}
-
<>
f"~
^
;-"i
V
• V
/
CO
+•
c
i
(
I
C
{
"^
1
1
J
1
O
i
cc
1
<
.111
03
.CO
T3
C
SOPs for instrument and automatic sampler calibration a
are available.
LU
O
UJ
CO
C3 c
^ -2
CC ro
III 3
II
a. Q.
4-8
-------
r
o
u
o
LU
O
UJ
u.
LU
O
<
cc
w
en
CO
4
LU
tr
LU
O
LU
O
O c
Z .2
E IS
LU' 5
LU -"
Z
S
gLU
0. O.
in
gj
in
CM
s.
•. s
'-\'
C/3
CC
U.
•z.
o
o
•J\
V
ffi
f
fs
^
>*>
v" S1
ff
LU
5
o
o
z
(/)
111
*"
LU
o
LU
cc
LU
LL
LU
CC.
<
UJ
I
"5
CO
2
.S
.»*-
CO
CD
"5.
E
CO
U)
.c .•'
"D «
.11
.CD IT
...
Q.
cTT'
O -.
w meter calibration.
<
D_
LU
1
Q. •
O
g
*-•
CD
'w qj
3 3
CD It
fj
-: '
<
Q.
LU
^
2
jroughly between samples and af
r distilled water.
• <
LU
CO
|'
3
0
to
"3
Q.
CO
CB
%CZ
' as
o Q"
•2 CD
« R
jp 0
"5 ._
IE'
££ (D
CD i_
0. 0 ,
I!
:
V
''
-a
r QUESTIONS
Q
<
-TO m
fc c
Field technician has been
procedures prior to field a
CM
O
Verify documentation of f
CO
— ID
> JZ
pH meter is calibrated dail
standards which bracket t
•*
J 5
pH electrodes are rinsed t
calibration with deionized
in
w
o
Calibration is checked per
recorded in a logbook.
CO
s'
TJ,
£
CO
co
_O
3
O
to
u.
CD
• 3
Q.
^.'
i.^
o
Stock buffer standards an
more than one year.
00
2r
DO meter is calibrated dai
05
• ' •
w
. w
DO calibration checks are
o
$1
DO membrane is checked
^
-o
DO membrane is rinsed ai
CM
CO
DO probe is immersed in
durina calibration.
CO
o
Thermometer is checked
2
— _
=" °
Thermometer is periodica
traceable calibrated therrr
LO
" ~
A duplicate is conducted
field parameter (DO, pH,
to
; —
O'
CD
Q.
to
D>
C O
jo .ti
Q- 5
p o
CO
It
15
to
as
en
4-9
-------
CO
§
O
UJ
5
h
Q
cc
I
cc
g
s
CO
CO
UJ
cc
UJ
o
UJ
o
(O
DC
UJ
Z MJ
UJ uJ
CO <
II
II
• .,:
i/i:
'•jii H-
if 5
.:••;' O
,;;;i,: J
CC Z
u_
•z. co
0 "f
U >
UJ
• uj
UJ
It
,„ Uj
fit
V
I
L
c
I-
' C
-
-
"?•
.J.
UJ
Sample Receipt and Handling
Sample temperature is recorded upon receipt at the lab and
' comnia ic ohprkerl fnr adeauate observation.
3 .
C <
„.
UJ
Personnel releasing and receiving custody of sample sign the
*• mr fnrm
<
UJ
03
CT
1 «
w o
.1 ^
o •£
•o c
. c
V QJ
o ^
^ '>
0 5
5 w
"e '•=
3 C
51
« o:
11
II
.2 '^
i 03 .-
ill
) co S
CO
.((
LLJ
Sample custodian notes condition of custody seal, physical
4 condition of sample, and number of samples received.
<
UJ
5 Sample procedures and responsibilities are documented.
•\'
,-5
''
n
;
;
f
,
-
£ '
D-
111 S'
,
Sample is refrigerated until utilized for testing (wastewater
samples).
'
f
H\
^'
fff
Facilities and General Equipment
Laboratory has separate designated areas for sample
1 submission, sample storage, extractions, organic analysis, wei
ohnmictrv anH wastfl riisnosal.
.
m
Source of laboratory pure water available, checked daily for
^ ASTM Type II quality, and corrective action taken as necessar
,
-o
CO
T3
03
L3
03
U
.52
0
t
•o
CO
CO
03
U
*-* •
Q.
03 .
13
03
O
Q.
CO
TJ
O
O
«- "5
.-S'i
JS c
•5 t
UJ S
CO
'
Temperature of cold storage units recorded daily in logbooks,
r^nokla rtf maintaininn 4.° 4- 2 C. •
Drying oven temperature recorded daily in logbooks, capable c
,v,n;r.toimr>n im-inR°r.
!
03
Muffle furnace temperature recorded daily in logbooks, capabi
c
„* mointalninn RRO 4- /- ROT.
,?,
'"!
•'-
>,
:'*
•;*
Mill
^
V
A^
/;
•
0
-
03
BOD incubator temperature recorded daily in logbooks, capab
of maintainina 20 +/- 1°C.
nnnimpntatinn/Oualitv Assurance/Quality Control
-
-------
•o
w
o
3
o
o
6
1
LL
I
o
c
<
ff"
u.
c
<
oc
f*
i
<
u
c.
2
<
S
c7
(/
<
J
C
^
^
u
c
C
u
u
1
^X
C
4
i
!
i
1
i
.
- •
O
j
>
w
5
3
C
:
3
;
j
^
3
I
Ll
J
y
J
0
2.
= •
c
JJ .
JJ
5' i
ii
Si
o
/>
3C '
<
0.
?:
tt
,%
;•
%sj
^j
• VJ *
^ UJ
?? o
05 o
u.
Z CO
8>
-•
LLJ
...'^ O
^ S rf rf
* CC Q- O.
•• LU LU LU
,"' LL.
>-' ty
^^ QC
^ w
5.
v -f :
-. £ fi .2 <5 = <=
j in 'tn to to -c t:
. 0. Q- 0. 0_ .> .£
> C> O O O •£ «
3 CO CO CO CO J= £
} «* in CD r>- oo
t
^
03
O
03
UJ
C
igbooks are legible and pages numbered co
: .2
i -o
1 0
: m
.
03
j£
c •
'S3
s maintained in accordance with GLP (e.g.,
s. riates. initials, etc.)
o r
a'S
o
<
Q-
LU
to
.O
V
O ,
charts are maintained and current for each i
Rr •
*-
' *= n
) r- CT
111
03 ;
<0
O
'•5
conditions are reported to QA Coordinator
ir verbal' reoorts)
; E c
: OB 5
i.3 t
i S '1
J.Q.S
CM
*
V
o
a
03
1
rds sHow corrective action implemented to
• 8 a
> v ~
!oJ
: 0 t
CO
•
M
CO
£
TJ
to
to
%
•o
i
i
"55- >
c
o
2
. 03
a.
,0
. "5 '
! c
; 03
, Q.
' °?
S
c
erforma
inely produces acceptable results on EPA p
in sarrmles •
3 '•£
_! 3
•.'•li
-.
•• :
x ;
T
3
sf.
~"'"'fs
*
'il
%•
'"'f
V
\i
^
^ ;.
rt-*
.52
-------
>- CD
•° T3
•O Q
Q
cc
§
LU
o
I
en
(O
a
••a-
ui
S
£2
u.
LU
O
LU
O
CO
i
CC
LU
LU CC
1
LU
to <
•z.
o *•*
S M
II
CO
r
o
u.
H
o
u
y?
|;=
;'v.
n
z
LU
S
D
U
0
Z
CO
JJ
^
JJ
2
JJ
3C
JJ
J.
r
IT QUESTIONS
c
<
0.
oT
q
k.
•*-
CO
CD
Q.
re
CO
"o
CD ^
CD "C
A duplicate or spike is conducted on ten p
each parameter, or a minimum of one per
CO
-
"•
-.«•
•*rt,
ata Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
Q
u
£
13
erforme
Q.
CD
to
CO
c
o
Data reduction is computerized or calculat
oermanentlv bound notebooks
'-
CO
re
•s
CO
co
03
1
0>
u»
u_
O
T>
Individual analysts verify completeness an
CM
.
Q.
ST
O
.2
"C
2
'&
8
•o
CD
j=
_co
3
2
+•*
co
CD
CD
"I
CD
O
.2
"5.
ffe
£ <
-D 0
* CD
•> c
CD —
«- JE
.CO t
co i;
O co
en
**"•
0
CD
CO
CO
^
CO
5
o
Q.
Q.
Laboratory project manager reviews and a
data to be complete, legible, and accurate
•«*
•
Q.
"o?
O
•o
i
^
CO
T3
to
CD
15.
0
o
£
CD
CO
•8 co
CJ LU
< CO
° §
"O CO
11
in
f
^0
to O
O co"
s. —
CO CO
CO T3
CD »-
kl CO
o "°
^^
Sample report includes analytical method,
precision, and completeness), blank and s
form, and copies of all raw data
CO
4-12
-------
4.4.1 Precision
Duplicate analysis will be performed to assess method precision. A sufficient
volume of sample will be collected to allow for duplicate analyses. At a minimum, ten
percent of the samples collected will be subjected to duplicate analysis. Precision will be
determined for all parameters listed in Table 2.1. Precision will be the relative percent
difference (RPD) between'duplicate analysis. RPD will be calculated using the following
equation:
RPD= fRepl-Reo2>> x 100
(Rep l+Rep2)/2 ,
Where: Rep 1, Rep 2= Observed values for duplicate analysis.
4.4.2 Accuracy
Spiked sample analysis will be performed to assess method accuracy. A sufficient
volume of sample will be collected to allow for spiked sample analysis. Ten percent of the
samples collected, for NEU, NO3, TKN, and TP will be assessed for method accuracy. For
proper spike determination, the standard addition will be at a level approximately mid-
range in the calibration range. Laboratory control/samples will be used to determine
accuracy for BOD and COD analyses.
. i ' : • - ' ' • • ••"...•
: : \ . ' . -
Accuracy will be determined by calculating the .percent recovery range (PRR) of
the sample spike for NO3, NHL,, TKN, and TP analysis. PRR will be calculated using the
following equation:
PRR = Cs-Cu x 100 %
Ca
Where
.Cs = Measured concentration in spiked sample.
Cu = Measured concentration in unspiked sample.
Ca = Actual concentration of spike added.
4-13
-------
4.4.3 Completeness
\
Completeness objectives for this project are listed in Table 2.1. It will be assessed
as the percentage of all analyses performed whose results are within the QA objectives for
precision and' accuracy. Completeness will be calculated using the following equation:
%C = Jrfv x 100%
Mt
Where : % C = Percent completeness.
Mv = Number of valid measurements. , ;
Mt = Total number of measurements. .'.-'-
4.4,4 Method Detection Limit
For the critical measurements listed in Table 2.4, method detection limits will be
based on values that are established in the referenced standard procedure for each analysis.
Referenced MDL's may not be attainable in the presence of matrix interferences.
4.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Each corrective action will involve nine steps as specified in the EPA Preparation
Aid for Category II Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA, 1989). These steps are
described as follows:
1. Initial Recognition of a Problem Condition.
** i •'
Corrective action will be initiated when one or more of the following problem
situations or conditions occur:
• Procedures for sample collection,, handling and storage do not adhere to
quality control standards described in Section 3.
• Predetermined limits for data quality indicators are exceeded.
• Equipment or instrumentation is found to be faulty. . ,
• Procedures or data are not suitable,for their intended use.
• The schedule for either the analytical data reporting and/or submittal of QA
reports/forms is not being met.
4-14
-------
• Data reduction, validation and reporting procedures, as described in
- Subsection 4.1, are not being followed.
• Performance and system audits indicate QC deficiencies. .
2. Identification of a Problem Condition.
Upon recognition of a problem condition, the person making the observation will
report the problem to the laboratory's QAC. The QAC will then judge whether it is severe
enough to warrant immediate notification of the QAM. Problems not warranting
immediate notification of the QAM will be reported in the monthly QA report (Subsection
4.6) and corrected under the direction of the QAC. If such problems are not successfully
rectified, they will be referred to the QAM for further corrective action.
3. - Assignment of Responsibility for Investigating the Problem.
The QAM will notify the PM of all problem conditions reported: by the QACs.
These conditions will be reviewed by the QAM and the PM to determine the magnitude of
the problem, possible corrective action and who will be responsible for investigating the
situation. In general, the QAM will direct the QAC of the affected laboratory to conduct
the investigation. However, in critical situations, the QAM will work directly with the
QAC to evaluate and resolve the problem.
, / t. . ' / .-'.'. . • . , ,' '
4. Investigation to Determine the Cause of the Problem.
Investigation of a problem will involve a review of the procedures that may be
^ntributing to the unacceptable situation. Each procedure, including system conditions
for critical measurements, will be reviewed with respect to deficiencies in QC. This may
include a review of sampling procedures, instrument calibration, system conditions and/or
, and data handling and reporting.
5. -Determination of an Appropriate Corrective Action.,
Following investigation of the problem, the QAC and/or QAM, in consultation
with the PM, will determine appropriate action to correct the situation. The corrective
action will indicate steps to take to preclude repetition of the problem.
4-15
-------
6. Assignment of Responsibility for Implementing the Corrective Action.
In most cases, the QAM will assign the QAC of the affected organization to
implement the corrective action. The QAC will work closely with the LD to -ensure that it
is properly implemented. Problem resolution may require the issuance, of standard
operating procedure (SOP) memoranda to assist the process. Where unusual or
significant corrective actions must be implemented, the PM, with assistance from the
QAM, will be responsible for implementation.
7. Establishment of the Effectiveness of the Corrective Action.
Effectiveness of the corrective action will be assessed by reviewing ensuing results
over an appropriate period of time. The QAC. and/or QAM will be responsible for
evaluation of effectiveness.
8.
Verification that the Corrective Action Has Eliminated the Problem.
Based on the review of the ensuing results, the QAC and/or QAM will prepare a
report describing the actions taken and their effectiveness. This report will identify any
additional actions, if necessary, that will be required. The report will be submitted to the
PM. ; -
9. Documentation of the Problem Condition, Corrective Action Taken, Effectiveness
of the Corrective Action and QA Activities to Prevent Further Problem Occurrence.
Documentation of minor problem conditions and their resolution will use the
standard QA report forms described in Subsection 4.6. This documentation will include:
• Report (LD Form 1) from the LD to the QAC regarding the occurrence of
a problem condition.
• Report (QAC Form 1) from the QAC to the QAM describing the problem
and corrective actions taken.
• Report (QAM Form 1) from the QAM to the Project Manager discussing
the problem condition and its solution.
• Unusual problem conditions will require special documentation. This
documentation will consist of one or more of the following reports:
• Telephone memoranda from the QAC to the QAM regarding the problem.
4-16
-------
• A special report from the QAC to the QAM regarding the nature of the
. problem and steps that could be taken to correct the problem.
• A special report, if necessary, from the .QAM to the PM describing the
problem and possible steps for its solution.
• Telephone memoranda or letters from the QAM assigning responsibility for
, investigating the problem.
• A report from the QAC to the QAM regarding the effectiveness of the
corrective action and any needed additional steps.
• Copies of all documentation prepared as the result of a corrective action
will be maintained by the QAM in the QA file.
4.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
The main goal of the QA program is to ensure precision and accuracy of the
analytical data. It will be achieved by ongoing monitoring of the field operations and by
proper management and monitoring of laboratory analytical procedures. This QA
program has been designed so that QC problems can be identified and corrected quickly.
All data generated or collected during this study will be maintained in a manner which
provides for a permanent and traceable path for an external review or audit.
i _,. , - >, . _ ..'...-... , . ,
4.6.1 OA Forms And Reporting
The roles of the QA staff in preparing and submitting QA reports are described in
Section 1. To ensure timely reporting, the following QA report forms will be utilized in
this study. . • , - - , . ••
LD Form 1: This form will be completed by the LD for each-month of field work or
analytical testing and will be submitted to the organization's QAC. When completed, LD
Form 1 (Figure 4-2) will include: ,
• A surnmary of samples collected/received and ensuing analytical' results;
• Completed QC analytical results;- , ' ,
• . Problems requiring corrective action(s); and
•.•-•', A confirmation that previously noted corrective actions have been taken.
4-17
-------
It should be noted that LD Form 1 is intended to provide a summary of results.
The checklist format will be utilized to minimize the time and effort required by the LD to
report the QC results.
A modified LD Field Form 1 is presented in Figure 4-5 for use by the field
laboratory director. This form relates to sample collection.
OAC Form 1: This form (Figure 4-6) will be completed monthly by each QAC and will be
submitted to the QAM. The QAC monthly report will include:
• A summary of samples collected/received and their status;
• Field and/or laboratory sample analytical results;
• QA results;
• A description of quality control discrepancies; and
• 'Copies of LD Form 1 which were completed during the reporting period. ,
"It should be noted that the QAC monthly report will include both QC results and
sample analysis results. Copies of original QC and analytical data must be included with
the monthly QAC report. QAC Form 1 is intended as a checklist for reporting the
necessary information. The QAC may have to prepare special reports which identify
significant problems that require the immediate attention of the QAM or the PM.
O AM Form 1: This form will be completed monthly by the QAM and will be submitted to
the PM. When completed, QAM Form 1 (Figure 4-7) will include:
• A summary of the samples collected and/or analyzed; :
• QA results; and ,
• QC discrepancies and actions taken.
4.6.2 Quality-Related Training
It is anticipated that properly trained and qualified personnel will be assigned to
this project. As a result, quality-related training will not be required for this study.
4-18
-------
FIGURE 4-5 QA REPORT FORM: LD FIELD FORM 1 (pg 1 of 2)
REPORT PERIOD
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Sampling procedure followed correctly:
Equipment maintain*** in good condition:
Equipment cleaned properly:
Yes(
Yes(
Yes<
No(
No(
No(
REPORT PERIOD
SAMPLE CUSTODY
Chain of custody forms attached
QC sample preservation techniques
maintained
Samples are correctly labeled
Information on sample labels
correspond with COG forms
Yes( )
Yes( )
Yes(,)
Yes( )
No(
No(
No(
No(
DOCUMENTATION
Field data sheets completed daily
Rainfall records maintained
Operation and maintenance costs
recorded daily '
Yes()
Yes( )
Yes( )
No ( )
No ( )
No( )
4-19
-------
FIGURE 4-5 QA REPORT FORM: LD FIELD FORM 1 (pg 2 of 2)
CORRECTIVE ACTION
REPORT PERIOD
Problem conditions) identified during
report period which required
corrective action:
QAC notified of problem condition:
Cause of problem condition identified:
Yes(
Yes(
Yes(
No( )
No()
No ( )
PROBLEM CONDITIONS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
ANTICIPATED OA EFFORTS FOR THE NEXT REPORT PERIOD
Approved By:
Date
Laboratory Director
4-20
-------
FIGURE 4-6 QA REPORT FORM: QAC FORM 1 (pg 1 of 2)
REPORT PERIOD
The following information is included in this report:
Conventional pollutant
analysis results:
Field measurement results:
Quality assurance results:
Copies of QA Form 1:
Not
Applicable
Yes
( )
( )
( )
( )
No
( )
( )
( )
( )
QA REPORT
OA PROGRESS TO DATE
Problem condition(s) identified during report
period which required corrective action:
Cause of problem conditon identified:
Corrective action initiated:
Corrective action resolved problem condition:
QAPO notified of corrective action:
PM notified of corrective action:
Yes(
Yes(
Yes(
Yes(
Yes(
Yes(
No(
No(
No(
No(
No(
No( )
PROBLEM CONDITIONS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
4-21
-------
FIGURE 4-6 QA BEPORT FORM: QAC FORM 1 (pg 2 of 2)
^ANTICIPATED OA EFFORTS FOR THE NEXT REPORT PERIOD
Approved By:
Date
Quality Assurance Coordinator
4-22
-------
FIGURE 4-7 QA REPORT FORM: QAM FORM 1 (pg 1 of 2)
REPORT PERIOD
The following information is included in this report:
•' ' Not applicable Yes No
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT ANALSIS RESLULTS
FIELD MEASUREMENT RESULTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE RESLUTS
COPIES OF LD FORM 1
COPIES OF QA FORM 1
QA\QC REPORT
OA PROGRESS TO DATE
. Problem condition(s) identified during report
period which required corrective action:
, Cause of problem conditon identified:
Corrective action initiated by QAC:
Corrective action resolved problem condition:
QAM notified of corrective action:
PM notified of corrective action:
Yes ( ) No (-. )
Yes ( ) No ( )
Yes( ) No( )
Yes()No()
Yes()No()
Yes()No()
4-23
-------
FIGURE 4-7 QA REPORT FORM: QAM FORM 1 (pg 2 of 2)
PROBLEM CONDITIONS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
ANTICIPATED OA EFFORTS FOR THE NEXT REPORT PERIOD
Approved By:
Date
Quality Assurance Coordinator
4-24
-------
4.6.3 OA Results In The Project Final Report
The Final Report for this project will include a separate section that addresses how
the QA program was implemented during the project. This section will include:
• A description of QA activities;
• Results of QC analyses;
• A description of corrective actions that were taken; and
• ,Copies of relevant QA documentation (e.g., QAM monthly reports).
4-25 . ;
-------
-------
SECTIONS
REFERENCES
Engineering-Science, Inc. 1992. Project Management Plan for the Evaluation of
Municipal Wastewater Technologies and Sludge Management Systems.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. '
U.S.; Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Preparation Aid for HWERL's Category
IV Quality Assurance Project Plans, Office of Research and Development,
Hazardous Waste and Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector
Training: Sampling, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.
5-1
-------
-------
Appendix B
Raw Data: Flow Monitoring
This appendix contains abbreviated raw flow data for Train B of the process,
recorded by both the influent (Parsons ES) and effluent (OAD flowmeters during the process
evaluation pf the AEES Facility. The actual flow data from the influent flowmeter is'in the
form of minute-by-minute flow totals and is considered too much data to include here. For
simplicity and brevity, only daily flow totals are shown, these are provided in Table B.1
The periods when the plant was shut down (Section 9.5.3) are indicated in the table
by grey shading. Influent daily flow totals annotated with "est". were not recorded
electronically by the flowmeter but were interpolated from flow total data recorded in the
field notebook. This had to be done when problems were encountered with the computer
which prevented it from recording the flow data.
B-.1
-------
Table B.1
AEES Facility Flow Data
Influent and Effluent Flows for Train B
Date
2/28/95
3/1/95
3/2/95
3/3/95
' 3/4/95
3/5/95
3/6/95
3/7/95
3/8/95
3/9/95
3/10/95
3/11/95
3/12/95
3/13/95
3/14/95
3/15/95 -
3/16/95
3/t7/95 ' v'
3/18/95
3/19/95
3/20/95 '
3/21/95
3/22/95
3/23/95
3/24/95
3/25/95
3/26/95
3/27/95
3/28/95
3/29/95
3/30/95
3/31/95
4/1/95
4/2/95
4/3/95
4/4/95
4/5/95
4/6/95
4/7/95
4/8/95
4/9/95
Day
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday-
*' SafaBtfay
•. Sunday' ,
•. ' Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday -
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
, Sunday
Influent Flow
gallons
70,704 est
10,704 est
11,928 est
13,162 est
13,162 est
13,152 est
13,152 est
12,392
13,856
13.892
13,528
13,977
13,997
13,877
13,770
13,791
13,808
6,483
23S
301 "
5,221
13,900
13,605
13,970
13,740
13,741
.1 3,551
13.004
13,451
13,360
13.507
13.630
13,486
13,314
13,318
13.269
13,183
12,951
13,144
13,815
15,838 est
Effluent Flow
gallons
8,194
6,538
12,211
8.813
11.612
10,095
6,470
10,113
12,587
7,140
13,802
9,780
12,443
11,753
11,205
11,807
11,829
, 4,694
0
0
3*248
11,201
12,230
11,753
10,896
10,787
10.665
10.199
9,540
7,580
9,809
11.030
9,284
10,398
10,500
10,674
9,672
7,007
6,992 ,
9,348
4,389
B-2
-------
Table B.1 (continued)
AEES Facility Flow Data
Influent and Effluent Flows for Train B
Date
4/10/95
4/11/95^
4/12/95
4/13/95
4/14/95
4/15/95
\4/16/95
4/17/95
4/18/95
4/19/95
4/20/95
4/21/95 '
4/22/95
4/23/95
4/24/95
4/25/95
4/26/95
. 4/27/95
' 4/28/95
4/29/95
4/30/95 ,
5/1/95
5/2/95
5/3/95
5/4/95
5/5/95
5/6/95
5/7/95
5/8/95
5/9/95
5/10/95
5/11/95
5/12/95
5/13/95
5/14/95
5/15/95
5/16/95
5/17/95
5/18/95
5/19/95
5/20/95
Day
Monday '
' Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday ,
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday ,
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday1
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Influent
gallons
15,838 est
16,838 est
14,264 est
14,271 est
13,660 est
13,660 est
13,660 est
13,660 est
13,229 est
13,131 est
13,696 est
14,061 est
14,061 est
14,061 est
14,061 est
13,147 est
13,300 est
12,736 ;
; 12.826
10.380
11.804
12.025
13,436
13.183
14,043
13,600
13,534
13,477
13,303
12,999
14,329
14,318
14,240
14,879
15,104
13,890 ;
13.085
no data
no data
no data
no data
Effluent
gallons '
6,051
11,642
6,660
10.559
9.920
9,342
9,366
8,201
7.889
8,561
9,894
10,280
10,341
10,017
8.975
8,567
10,203
9,872
6,935
5,367
6,604
7,059
9,026
6,644
18.842
10,656
12.098
11.960
12,246
11,918
7.604
11.103
14,402
16,311
16,647
1 5,783
15,315
13,512
12,984
12,773
13,866
B-3
-------
Table B.1 (continued)
AEES Facility Flow Data
Influent and Effluent Flows for Train B
Date
5/21/95
5/22/95
5/23/95
-_ 5724/95 -
5/25/95 f"
5/28/95
," 5/27/95
; S/28/95 , '"
S/28/9S^s;
5730/95;;'
S/31/95
eyiyas' _,^
6/2/95
6/3/95
6/4/95
6/5/95
6/6/95
6/7/95
6/8/95
6/9/95
6/10/95
6/11/95
6/12/95
6/13/95
6/14/95
6/15/95
6/16/95
'e/tr/95
em/95
6/19/95
6/20/95
6/21/95
6/22/95
6/23/95
Day
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
\ Wednesday
Thursday
*, Friday
.''.. Saturday •
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday %
- Wedljesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday •
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Influent
gallons
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data ' ,
no data
s no- data
no data
•• , no- data
no data
nftdata
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
13.240
13.840
14.340
12,340
12,710
13,180
14,050
10,600
1,040
7,400
13,090
13,320
13,910
13,870
13,880
Effluent
gallons
14,546
14,639
12,960
531 "
' 812:
' 0
*T" "
0
98
o >t
4,676
8.550
7,082
7.197
11.012
13,514
13.572
14.621
16.497
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
B-4
-------
Appendix C
Raw Data: Water Quality and Residuals
This appendix contains the raw wastewater quality and residuals data recorded
during the eleven-week process performance study. As well as listing all of the data, the
appendix also describes the data manipulation and statistical analyses performed to identify
statistical outliers and spurious data points. :
All of the raw water quality data for the eleven-week performance evaluation, along
with their summary statistics, are shown in Tables C.1 to C.6.
The raw residuals data were not subjected to the statistical analyses that were
performed upon the wastewater data. This was owing to the small sample size (3-5
samples) which, it was considered, made distribution testing and lack-of-fit .testing
meaningless. Summary statistics, however, were generated for the residuals data. All of
the raw sludge data, along with their summary statistics, are shown in Tables C.7 and C.8.
The raw data for the plant samples are provided in Table 9.5 (Section 9:4).
Data Manipulation
As described in Section 9.2.1, .the first step of the data manipulation was to review
the field notebook and laboratory reports to remove or modify data points that were known
to be invalid for any reason. The data removed or modified were:
1. Samples W2-0308-0955' (Table C.2) and W3-0308-.1023 (Table C.3): all of the data
., for these two samples were disregarded as the samples were contaminated by raw
sludge following a process mishap (Section 9.5.3).
2. Sample W5-03Q1-1210 (Table C.4): the data for this sample could not be used
since the location for sample point W5 was moved after Week 1 of the study (see
Section 4).
3. Sample W6-0316-1045 (Table C.6): the TSS and VSS data for this sample were
uncharacteristically high. These data were determined to'be caused by of pieces of
algae that had been scraped off the piping following the replacement of the sample
tubing in effluent pipe. Therefore, the solids data for this sample were considered
to be unrepresentative of the normal effluent and they were discarded. The other
parameters for this sample appeared to be unaffected, so they were retained.
4. Samples W2-0412-1150 & W2-0426-0935 (Table C.2), W3-0426-1000 (Table C.3),
W5-0426-1040 (Table C.4), and W6-0330-1030 & W6-0413-1050 (Table C.6):
analysis of these samples yielded VSS values that slightly exceeded the TSS values.
This was determined totbe the result of analytical variability when the two values
were, in fact, very close (i.e., the total solids'comprised mostly volatile solids). In
these cases, the value for VSS was assumed to equal the TSS value. •
C-1
-------
H 5 •
to
}
o
•
1
1
•
(
t
i
c
«
o
Q
£
to
O
^
*
CO
o
^
i
o
CM
5
0
^-
5
g
O
>
3
S
)
o
i
i
;
1
1
t
S
C
r*
CO
ID
£
1
10
g
C9
i
OS
n
n
*£
CM
CM
*
to
2
o
8
S
in
CM
CJ
*r
^
>
i-
o
•
1
1
o
i
o
CM
to
£
«
S
S
03
i
c
w
8
n
CO
in
CO
D
2
01
q
4
o
3
to
>
ra
q
)
o
1
1
t
c
(
o
tn
i
e
8
to
C
1O
e
r*
c
to
g
*
cc
to
ph
to
V
M
5"
^
^
M
<£
CM
O
J
6
o
O
^
I
I
2
c
4
p
a
•
c
r
c
r*.
r^
CO
u
e
*
cc
CO
o
CD
09
CM
CM
5
C:
^t
>
CD
2
o
I
1
1
L
1
1
ta
2.400.000
S
&
CM
t
I
M
3
to
2.400,000
24,000,000
>
>
o
o"
>
o
in*
i
o
o?
>
oS
£
|
:
•<
r*.
pt
r*
€
0
g
o
a
r»
p*
a
I**
.CM
C
a
s
pC
p*
p»
.pi
EN
CO
O
CM
CD
S
O
•4
0
?
i
a
CD
O>
-
1
L
I
C
p*
p
c
r
0
c>
^
-er
O)
c
cr
o
1
in
i
c
(
q
0
o
o
q
r
c
f
o
a
0
p*
q
r*
ii
1
0)
-
0
s
q
4
q
2
-
}
L
01 —
O) t
o o>
S e
o e
.2 (O
O)
c
g _ .£ • _»
IgMii
S '™ .*S o o rv
I S S
a § s
Sue
g
•a
jo
1
e
I
s'-f 5
** CD
I s' 's i
5 2- s
f i
1 I
II
§ I
s I
I §
•o •= i
1 i -
s: g
o 2
•• c
I!
E |
I ^ = I E
o -*^
S 5
i i
o £
5 5
5 S
ll
II
ll
,1
1*
CO CO
2 °
S £
3 2 -a Z
S 5 = '-
> > a o
w
11
o o • t> o
E E g E
~ o o o
-------
• ' "" /
!
-.'.''•
I.
If
i:
*P
Q S i 3
«N >; i a 1 ]
0 5|J S
05 < £C 2 UJ
| 31J I
oe £ S fe
Ul °- CM S ' -
i- « > g
|||
B'2 '
> - i
UJ Q.
ti 1
CO
«
1
I
•5
t(
- •" • 1
W2-OS1 7-1005 § § •§ -8 g
. • s
W2-0510-09SO I g § i S
W2-OS03-1020 g « | g „
W2-O428-O935 § « S S "
f"s CO O O f**
« W2-0419-1005 £ g 8 2 0-
£ ™ *^ "^ *~ tO
?
5* - '
1 W2-0412-11SO S 8' 1 § 5
6
S *• SO O rs,
W2-O405-10O5 g « n g P
W2-0329-1010 | § S g Jj
- ' S
O «• o o *
W2-O315-1015 « 0
W2-030S-0955 § J I '§' |
W2-0301-1130 | | § g ,o
S^O llxcor-M
1 1 * S 8 S. 5 S
: 5=»
"E c
•5 | -:••*»»
C •? O tO N N C*
• s **•,»-«««
* § S § °- "2
- - 2 i 1 § s i?
J= P
U) C4 CM «-. «-
J «? 9 . e
1 I 5 1 '!' s
= g g o -o 'S-
S •>=<=•;<;<;
1 I I I 1 I
5 § § § 1 : ''
S 0 j a «
. 1 5 = s 2 » <
i- Ifi- 5lfi ,S 2 5
J B> '9 t £ g
• * 5 * 5 J3
§ . • " ,
.. _ a o co r*.
I i (ri oi « «.
•V CO O K>
cj q 01 f g
!cft w W ^ x
P* ^ CO O 2
"to to * * co , ,,
»- ^ o> . *7
01 » CM O »
CO CD CO 0 —
r* CD w *T ^
n n .n o co
= ' 2
CO •- *- CD CM
^ oi m ' 1 t -
o> in v o f^
» " S 2 S
IA CO O . .
ID * O 01
CM 2 " 2 £!
10 S 8 d CO
10 0) CM O *
SID Cft *t 1
c9 CM o rv
Mil!: 1.
• ;; E
<
CO (•» CM O CO **
•^ ui » *: 9 "»
0 CO CJ O 01 <
5 S ». g 5
CO •- °> 'O CM
a 2 S§2
» p^ *: o £ •
w to ej *t *J J
m n N o 10 j
"I
1 <
W 03 *- (D 0 c
5 3 9 2 g ;|
«
i^ m co M to
O ^ « *T *? '
v <• n o flo
q w co to pv
S*- m n T~ *7 ;
'*• a o 00
o o o o o
5 s-5 ? 4
E 6 || |
1 . 1 •
n z | a «
S S 1 i 2
G2-0517-1020 ^
G2-O51O-1OO5 ^
G2-OS03-1030 ^
G2-0426-0950 %
„ G2-O419-101S ^ |
& ||-
*" ' ^^
=| G2-O412-12OO ^ |
»_ • ^!
* — ' ^ ~
1 1 C
G2-0405-1020 M J
G2-0329-1025 ^ c
G2-0315-1O3O ^ *
G2-0308-1010 ^ *
G2-O301-1135 ^ r
§*= •
i - 0 ^ r-
£ S* ^ 2
"» I
ij j|g
ft
1 ^ ^
1"
1 |:-
; ' s if ^
\ \*.
S M i-
^ -
^ *"
i ii
S i _
E "I
S S S
S. Z iS
5 «? 5
i^ " £
2 10 "!
r! ri S
5 » 2
N n t
g n 0
5 2 g
? •?- S
; » t
; ~ s
; « 5
'. 0 «8
: » 2
is 1-
: 1
Bl 9
^ £
a 9
•»" S
-«— ffc
oi w
w q
n 2
10 9
•»' 2
3. 5 - '
5: ? .
.— .—
1?
IRold 00
Simplo Temp.
1 —
A -
IS-
f ? Jc
J w e
«* Q ,O
S .2 S
-
-
,
IS
c 1 a
111
^ o o
• • B g-
t S'E
' • JS 8
4 ? j
lie
o "S f
S « S
s « s
£ ^g ,0.-
£ « ^
•O T3 O
! Ii
S E S
E £ f
§co c
cct a
S S a=
§ s i s
•I e S
* § -3
f s I
I 11
i. o °
If I
O 3 fc.
O O O
£ S »
I'll
— >!.•£
Ja t>
c §
O ^j
•o | c
§ 5 S
•£
«
>
c
I I
>
-------
m
d
S
<
CO
Ul
g
o
OL
O
U
|
*
&
a
1
g
s
ititlitioil /
W3-0510-1020
W3-O5O3-1O45
W3-042B-1000
W3-O419-1O30
W3-O412-1215
W3-O4O5-1 03O
W3-O32S-1035
W3-O315-1O45
W3 -04303-1 023
W3-O3O1-1150
§5 =
1 •? °
5 i *
c • £
cj £ ra
•g g
11
55
I
I
1
1
|
C
1
"m
e
I
^
C
Q
r*.
in
e
B»
C
«r
?
0
K
c;
S
(0
•t
3
'T
2
o
^
a
q
Q
>
ID
*
f
«*•
CO
Cl
ca
>
1
i
^
c
n
o
01
u
.>
.>
*-
«
if
in
s
i
«i
a
"
q
_
^
ID
Ol
O
S
CO
s
01
1
o
o
u
i
1
.
CD
GO
O
IS.
•i
o
R
S
O
i
D
O
n
oi
o
g
q
o.
CD
tn
>
CO
1
1
.
c
p»
o
^
T-
e
tn
cr
ec
r«*
CD
i
3
ID
03
(D
q
a
0
0
Ol
?
(0
a
N
*~
S
ID
OJ
G
~8
S
00
*J
*
CD
^
|
!
^
M
i
CO
8
0
•*
q
D
q
4
O
a
>
•
n
i
CM
t
O
f*
to
u
e
CO
10
CO
o
O!
^r
to
ID
*
I
r»*
in
n
01
at
s
^
to
CO
s
CO
CD*
V
O
CD
V
>
>
.
C
C4
CD
C
C9
ID
Ol
ID
d
CD
C4
"5
e
n
ID
CO
*
3
ce
n
CJ
i
o
s
12
CD
"f
•*
8
CD
CO
CO
CO
«
o
CO
c*
>
_
\
| Ammo nit
r*.
c
10
r
<
CO
e
O
C
CM
S
O
03
C
O
1
$
tn
a
c
r»
d
0
I
g
O
1
CM
n
O*
d
1
CO
1
m
CO
d
01
2
i
i
•
'
CD
P
a
CO
d
c
Ol
CD
CO
a
rC
r»
tn
CJ
cc
N
O>
a
ts
4tt
1
s
»
0
o
I
s
CO
*
in
Ol
f
i
!
L
i
.
<
CO
Wlter Quality Rnulta |
1
c
lUtistfcal /
G3-O517-1055
G3-O51O-1O30
G3-O503-105S
G3-0426-1010
G3-0419-104O
G3-O412-1230
G3-O40S-1O4O
G3-O329-10S5
G3-O315-111S
G3-O308-1035
G3-0301-12OO
g S 3
in
JJS
II
1
s
c
1
£
z
c
•
T!
3
S
1
tl
1
1
1
|
1
|
i
i
i
ii
i
i
i
i
jj;
1
|
1
1
i
1
1
i
i
1
1
i
!
!
O
tr
r*
i*.
u
r*
CO
u
r*
p-
u
tv
C4
r*K
r*
a
r*
CD
If
r-
s
rZ
N
CC
rC
»
rC
»
S
d
M
d
0
s
ft
>
-
1
i.
i
CO
c
r«
o>
c
r
u
c
u
c
e
tr
ir
tr
ui
r*
CD
q
n
o
0
o
0
o
0
q
r*
q
r*
q
r»
q
CO
o
a
CD
2
o
n
»
0
q
£
-
j
L
1
L
t
* c i
S
S S
2 e t f
U9 (O
P g
C-4
-------
''
• • ?.--•••
«
•J!.'
$& ••
<. < t
H > N
^ Ul *O CO
* £si i
5 =11 s"
•§ g 2 f |
§- S » °
5s5
If
S £
JO
•? I • :
CO
CO
»
. • " i
*
' '- -j
1 1
''-"...
s, " 5 1 -
WS-0517*1110 § to 5 -S <
; * • g g -3
s
i WS-0510-10SO 258*5
W5-O503-1110 § ai 8 J .5
, WS-O419-110O J ^ J « 0
=5 W5-0412-1250 = S g- g S
3 *• ID o
• , W5-O4O5-105O 5 2 g S ^
- *~ n °* at
WS-O329-1105 S o> 5 ID 2
, W C5
- • . s
W5-0315-1120 | 5 £>• 2 '3
W5-O3O8-1O45 g 5 ? § ^
, I
: _ " X *«. ~ «» «,
W5-0301-1210' S J f . 3j 3
§5 =
S-o •» q 10 ,0 ~
I'ljg •" S S « S
82" , .,
"Eg
i •§ ~ ® '"v q CM 01
U O • •
i. .- i •: ! I 3 s
1
•= °- *• O O 10
£ 5 S 8 2 g
. J imi
! "3 5 '•* * *
x 1 S 5 "' 3
c oi ^ oo at o>
1 f 1 I I !
"'- a -
, S °J 1
CM T- T- (D
»-iiS3 |
• • <
S cu S 5 $ !?
>ili! |
i 1 s g s ;
2 -3 3 "5 2 ; ;
O r* J
• ~*
to o> m »- •* *«
« o a! ^. o -S
,
O en a CM o
8o> oi -T 1^
CM . CM CM °°
=> 2 S 0, 0
-; •= ? ? o.
o a «: ^ ^ "
E E 1 I 1
I :
O
^S o .
c ^
a 5 i I i
^i.i ^- £
65-0517-1125 ^ "
G5-051O-11O5 ^ .J
G5-O503-1120 ^ J
l|
. "G5-0426-10SS ^ 5
„ G5-O419-1115 ^ ?
=1 GS-0412-1310 ^ [H
G5-O4O5-11OO ^ ™.
G5-0329-112S ^p g
GS-O315-1125 Sl| J
05:0308-1055 ^ ?
GS-O301-1220 ^ ^
^^ (D
g ^ 0 ^ CM
i I * l| 5
1 s | 1| §
s ° If
^W;
'•••'"* 'is
X §|| rC
1 1s
I |s
= ^ 2
I 1 T ,
1 2 f i
.1 S2:
£ £ E L
S -3 ,
2 §
r» q •
ri 2
• - ^"
5 g,
CM q
«* "05
m § — o
_0 — 0 CO
0 * » g
2 t " ' | * =
. o cr — o .
i--i'?. § S 51
« — S w ~ ri
0 CM _ " •O .
.— v O • ^ • o ® 1^
1 S 1 °> i S £ "c
° . HlHf
^ "f.Jiin
2 o 5 5 •= S
Sra^JDff^'
' • J r o s s -g
»: * - -ol-'^a.c
- - . • i i § s i s
•^ ° = «,• o S
§ S > 1 .f s
jj „ OT Q >* qj
n o. 5' S S > -g S
^ - l| liH
M M ;£
s§ iJllll
™ jo o £ o £
In M!
oj g • £ I c £ g--t
« 2 o -^ £• * -S §
*^ *" t^ *0 C ^
cog Jl£gS!°
*~ ^5 S o o To S
•S » ji .0 eg
1 1 11 £ I
S 9 ' i I I 1 i 1
, S 2 f t S 1
— s i g i g. g
22 S5£«|>-
•S«»oSc
-— J S 5 S co i
o o " tt > ™
1? JJ=J-oi.
§55555
« » CO Z CO CO
» w CO ,i^ CO OJ
£ o > 1— I- 1—
a. o o o o ID eo •
1 § § S E S S
)2 -S -S 0 0 0 0
io u;°7cocococo
_ a. a) fe •
S 1 o c £ . . • •
C-5
-------
cr
I
"> £
S <
5 =>
12 £C
111
I
l
11
ui ^
o G:
II
co
UI
I?
S*i £2.
ii
G 8
^
s
r Quility R
i
i
Statlitloil /
W4-05 18-0950
W4-0511-1010
W4-O504-OS55
W4-O427-1000
W4-0420-1050
W4-O413-1O15
W4-0330-1000
W4-O31S-1O3O
W4-O309-104O
W4-0302-10SO
si 5
s £*
c • to
35*
if
55
1
f
5c
|
1
§
s
c
e
1
7>
£
i i
< i
*- f^
* '
^ e
w c
o in
ID T
«r a
i S
T w
$ «
B *
^ «
^ n
D «N
> «a
B cr
3 S
i> a
j oj
I 5
: o.
! 2
CN
; 2
^
jr
«.
«r
CN
CO
o
g
•
1
G9
•
t
t
O
«N
§
CM
0
O
«*
»
0
*r
^~
^
^
«
o
2
o
V
o
3
*
n
^
a
|
-
0,
C
«
a
0
c
r*
u
C|
i
0
o
^
(D
^
t
2
pj
q
d
tn
04
O
03
01
Q
E
«
CO
*r
CD
II
a
c
i
•*
to
n
oi
oJ
2
q
N
5f
4
o
in
0
o
£
2
t
to
(
(t
c
c
N
TO
g
IX
r^
O
O
01
-
OJ
CD
•*
es
TO
CD
Ol
>
^
E
.
?
i
c
01
c
o
p*
c
n
c
r
^
(
0
en
u
a
o
c
c
c
d
"~
Q
e
c
CM
8
f.
,_
_„
i
;
i
i
ri
e
o>
c
r^
•
L
C
S
r-C
^
CD
CO
a
rC
CM
c
CD
r*
CD
q
™
°.
o
o
0)
^
^
o
i
L
i
CO
CO
g
Water Quality Results
•a
o
s.
•
Statistical /
G4-O518-10O5
G4-O511-102O
G4-0504-1005
•
G4-0427-1010
G4-O42O-T10O
G4-O413-1030
G4-O4O6-1025
G4-033O-101S
G4-O316-1035 ,
1
G4-O309-1050
~
G4-O3O2-1100
m
JJS
•E =
ij
si
i;.
i
c
€
s
•
1
=
-
•
I
v «
•
I
r
l!
I
i^
P
|;
h
h
1s
1*
h
1s
h
h
h
h
h
1=
1
i
S
0
.J
a
<<
IN.
c
a
c
01
0
4O>
"C
.01
»t
r%
^r
a
e>
Ol
CN
in
Ol
o
ei
Ol
^
Ol
CN
in
C9
-
B
2
2
c
I
o
O
1C
0
o
a
-o
o
o
o
o
a
0
I
c
CN
CN
O
CD
in
F>
o
)
CN
0
-
o
[
— o
« To
d> a
ft _;
oi T
e
I | rf,
CO
e
§ I
CQ g
O W
2 S
1 _t
19 *-
IS
a §
ll
2 V
I" -2
1.1
If
Jd °
§ i
I S
tr -— o
" S S ?J
s ? ^ «:
:l!il
' g 8 .3
I I
3 i f
11
§ s
1 §
CO "o
10 >
»I
If
II
H
S g
I §
g I
£ c
« ?
g £
i I
- 1 2
I f s
~ « 1
•o >
M
CD rr
• g
I'*
I S
I *
2. -2
I I
2 2
1
1 1
to u
s s
g g
s s
•o -a
To To
c c
£ 2
II
•s — "°
W (0 C
S 1
o o
•a 31
o o
Is
i s
2 1
o c.
•S s
CO CO
CO CO
E E E E
o o o o
W CO CO CO
i
»^ CN W
C-6
-------
2*
H o
il
"• !S.'3I
•S.I -i
•3•-'ESi I
-J Si"
•g • S S o £
« a 2 I 5
I-. "T* tt O
1 f^ in ' s s
W6-O51B-1O35 o
•S f 9 -: « o *
g| g ?3 2 J2 «
wo
; , ! 11 33 s
• 1 J3'JI a
• .
1 5 S "• "• °-
| . 'g § ». •• «
| « ". » « u>
I S S 2 ° ri
= ^ 2 0) 01 0)
'.-..- 1 till!
o U> f^ (D
CO ID *- f^
t S S R ?
$ » -' ^ ,o
=« 5 - °. S
•- ° *: 10
S S S S S
* co « >: <°
S
••?. ? i 1 S
s
w « oi r-.
« i-: rC •» 9
*- .^- CD :1?
E ' 1 1 1 1 = ?•
> > > > a o
« "• W. Z M 03
1 S > ^ " "
i£ i§ -2 o o o o
3 0 B t t w <" <" O3
C-7
-------
z
o
§
fc 2
5
S1-O51O-1140
S1-O427-1200
S1-0413-1145
S1-O330-1235
IAS
ijg
ci _
•C g
I I
|
JS
S
1
i
B
3
S
£
S
IO
J5
IO
n
IO
|
5
CO
CO
CM
CO
IO
D
10
I
CO
o.
i
3
2
L
i
3
I
O
o
c
i
1
0
o
to
o
CD
0
*-
1
"
%
0
o
CO
_,
1
E
R
»
as
?
a
o
1
i
a
CM
d
CO
r«
CM
£
CO
*
CM
39
09
CM
CO
*
3
&
^
o
CO
e
o
S
C4
O
1
o
d
o
o
1
o
CO
CM
o
B
d
CM
99
d
CO
a
_o
i
B
O
e
0
CD
O9
O
o
1
s
0
CM
o
d
as
as
o
e
§
o
t
CM
o*
N
d
CO
"a
3
5
O
O
c
0
o
o
CO
p
e
c
I
m
d
0*
O9
CM
09
O
o
CO
CO
"
o
CM
S
CO
I
5
5
u
0
0
c
c
o
CM
CM
1
i
0
09
IO
10
CM
CM
CM
CM*
O
CO
10
CO
CM
CO
1
1
1
to
T
s
CD
CQ
*•
1
CO
CO
6
0
CO
CO
'"'
R.
10
-
CO
10
CO
a
]
a>
o
o
c
0
CO
c
s
o
e
o
1
en
CM
§
O
g
o
d
CO
d
8
S
d
to
CO
o
d
F*
1
d
CO
"5
5
D
e
e
o
c
CM
O
1
d
CO
CM
d
CM
8
A
d
§
d
CO
1
%
a
10
i—
tv
CM
•"
I
S
d
n
o
o
CM
*~
J
10
-
10
CO
?
I
o
o
fm
1
"c
o
o
d
d
CO
E
|
E
D
%
c
CO
V,
e*j
i
as
CO
CO
CM"
09
S"
to
g
3
CO
D
3
1
1
e
§
l£
g
d
S
d
g
IO
•—
O)
S
"
o
§
g
to
1
e>
§
o
o
o
•V
r^
|
C
CM
"o
E
0
I
I
to
I
<0
I
18
CO
CO
_>•
atlstteal A
fn
SI -O5 10-1 140
S1-O427-1200
S1-0413-1145
SI -0330-1 235
H?
•B e
m o
si
1
. 1
i
*
1
B
5 ,
1
a
£
C
CO
CO
n
CO
CN
CO*
s
to
s
o
CM'
O
«"
o
co'
5
CD
CO
CO*
*
1
X
•a
i
CO
o
o
CM
d
CM
d
o
CM
O
d
CO
d
CM
o
CO
d
*
n
3
•a
D
u
*
e
o
o
CO
0
la
CO
CO
CM
O
10*
9
CM
^
0)
*
p
a.
3
C-8
-------
g J
UI C
U,
00
6
CD
(/)
I
UI
a
a
CM
1
£ c3 >
£ | o
S ~ §.
U CO <
•Bl"£
s
i
j
R
CO
.fa
1
C
Statistical fi
S2-O5 10-1 155
S2-O413-1200
S2-O330-1215
8 « —
1 g
; • «•
i
V:i
? . e
e ,
l
c •
5* •
I
i
£
0»
C
0
ej
69
C
^1
1
CO
a
E
5
a>
m
CO
CM
O
CO
3
CO
>
i
1
L
i
£
*
S
1
1
i
a
e
0
CO
9
CO
z
i
£
i
*
r
j
c
i
C"
a
o
00
B
5
{
i
>
ID
CO
*
.
o
c
o
as
t
o
§
c
o
c
6
O
3
6
6
9
o'
CO
>
1
:
1
C
CO
o
e
o
i
g
c
o
c
o
a
D
O
p
0
3
p"
1
o
C9
f
\
\
t
1
If
c
o
o
o
c
c
o
1
n
a
e
1C
6
c
s
o
6
o
0
CM
0
i
6
CO
>
_
>
•^
u
c
CO
1C
Q
a
1
o
a
5
if
s
eo°
O)
CO
CO
10
o
00
m
>
I
a.
1
co
o
11
c*
o
1
1C
c
o
CO
6
£
T.
O
s
a>
o
0
9
O
5
6
CO
*
^
1
«
c
o
o
I
.<
o
i
§
e
o
m
e
o
d
9
6
M'
O
a'
1C
9
?
«
>
i
a
!
»
O
p
e
C
1
r
o
S
6
S
CO
CO
o
«
6.
o
CO
o
«
»
i
i
i
4
10
(
{
c
r.
O
i
o
I
|
o
6
i
6
1C
g
6
^
6
o
)
CO
"
J
=?
c
o
I
J
c
'O
6
o"
6
o
6
CO
»
l
5
u
r
1
e>
e
CO
o
CD
to
o>
o
9
CO-
>
I
1
1
Q
O
e
c
c
«i
o
o
c
e
c
c1
a
r-
S
s
$
1
9
0
S
o
3
-
I
!
1
1
<
J
^
0
Istlcal Analyses
0
S2-05 10-11 55
S2-0427-1145
S2-O413-1200
S2-0330-1215
lil
II
; I I
J
1
i
; i
*
" ... B
"•' • 5
- •. 3
' £
1
I
CO
C
CO
00
u
a
e>
c
o
^
o
00
l£
ce
S
CO
CO*
J
co
CO
(
1
c
e
V-
o
c
o
1C
o
n
p
p*
X
6
CM
d
m
o
m
~?
3
O
i
(
(
ID
C
O
0
o
5
1C
•""
o
s.
ta
s
CO
o'
1C
CO
«
L
i
L
i
1
C-9
-------
Appendix C
5. Samples W5-0308-1045 & W5-05TO-105 (Table C.4), W4-0302-1050 &
W4-0309-1040 (Table C.5), and W6-0302-1110 & W6-0309-1100 (Table C.6):
these samples gave values for ammonia that exceeded the samples' TKN values.
This was determined to be a consequence of the analytical method for TKN when
the TKN comprises mainly ammonia (the sample must be refluxed for a period of
time which can drive some of the volatile ammonia from the sample). When this
was first observed, the analytical method was modified slightly to account for this.
However, where this occurred, the TKN value was assumed to equal the ammonia
value.
Statistical Analysis
After the initial review described above, the data were analyzed statistically. The
analyses performed on the data were as follows:
• Kolgomorov-Smirnov (K-S) distribution testing to determine whether the data was in
a normal or lognormal distribution. T.hese analyses were performed as many
statistical tests (e.g. = T-tests) assume a normal distribution. Consequently, if the
data is lognormal, it is necessary to "transform" it before further tests are
performed.
/ ' - *
• K-S lack-of-fit testing to identify any statistically outlying data that should be
discarded. These outliers were removed in order that they would not influence the
process evaluation, by influencing the mean data either upwards or downwards. It
was intended that, by removing outliers, the data would better reflect the normal
operating conditions of the process rather than being influenced by a "spike" result.
The K-S distribution tests were performed on the water quality data using the
program Statgraphics Plus, Version 7.0 (distributed by Marmgistics).
The K-S lack-of-fit tests^were carried out using the following equation:
TNI =
X(n) - X
Where TN1 is the factor generated by the discordancy test; ,
X(n) is value being tested for discordancy;
x is the mean of the data set; and
s is standard deviation of the data set.
This lack-of-fit test assumes a normal distribution and identifies a single outlier only.
This was considered suitable for the sample sizes in this study (in most cases, the n was
between 9 and 11). In each case, the value furthest from the mean was tested by
comparing the factor generated with a critical value, for a 5% significance level, found in
statistical tables (see Table C.9). If the generated factor was greater than the critical value,
then the point tested was determined to be an outlier and was removed from the data set.
C-10
-------
Appendix C
In the main, the. K-S distribution testing of the data was inconclusive as to its
nature. This is not surprising owing to the relatively low number of values in the data sets.
Because of this situation, an assumption had to be made concerning the distribution of the
data.
Typically, most environmental data occurs in a lognormal distribution which is a
reasonable assumption considering that much environmental data comprises data gathered
about the mean value with some spike values - these spikes skew the data into a lognormal
distribution pattern. If this assumption was made, the data would have to be "transformed"
(by taking the natural log of each data value) before further statistical tests were carried
out.
Table C.9 Critical Values for a Single Outlier in a Normal Sample
.'.«''
3
•\
i .4
5
. ' -6,.;
7
. • 8
' 9
10
-12
14
15 • '
16
18
20
30 ;
40
Significance Level
•:"&%'•-.
1-15
1.46 , .
1.67 :
i.82
- 1 .94
2.03
2.11 .
2.18
2.29
2.37
2.41
2.44
2.50
2.56
2.74
2.87
1%
1.15
1 .49
1.75
1.94
2.10
2.22
2.32
2.41
2.55
2.66
2.71
2.75
2.82
2.88
3.10
3.24
This table is abridged from Grubbs and Beck (1972).
However, in this situation, it was considered that a spike value might, influence the
data adversely (by increasing or decreasing the mean),' with respect to the evaluation of the
system's "normal" operating conditions. This is because one spike, in a sample population
of 9-11 values could have a large influence on the mean, therefore, for this process
evaluation, the assumption was made that the data was in a normal distribution pattern
and, consequently, the data was nol transformed before further statistical testing.
The lack-of-fit testing identified a total of 26 outliers throughout the data sets.
Additional K-S distribution tests were subsequently performed on the modified data.
C-11
-------
Appendix C
The results of both the K-S distribution tests and the lack-of-fit tests are provided in
Tables C. 10 through C.20.
Table C.10 Distribution Test Results for Total Chemical Oxygen Demand
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Laboratory
Sample
Location
Whole Data Set
Normal(2)
Lognormal
(3)
ID
Outlier Removed <4)
Normal
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
W1
W2
W3 .
W4
W5
W6
0.966
0.914
0.781
0.816
0.486
0.799
0.943
0.928
0.588 '
0.998
0.767
0.741
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.890
0.957
n/a
(1) These factors are basicall probabilities that the data is arranged,in either a normal or a lognormal
(2) This column shows the factors for the K-S test of the hypothesis that the distribution is "normal".
(3) This column shows the factors for the K-S test of the hypothesis that the distribution is "lognormal".
(4) This column shows the factors for the K-S test of the hypothesis that the distribution is "normal", once a
single outlier has been removed from the data set. "n/a" in this column indicates that there were no
outliers removed from this data set.
Table C.11 Distribution Test Results for Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Whole Data Set Outlier Removed
Normal Lognormal Normal
0.881
0.642
0.357
0.720
0.979
0.676
0.958
0.618
0.569
0.997
0.989
0.9998
0.986
n/a
0.921
n/a
n/a •
0.894
C-12
-------
Appendix C
Table C. 12 Distribution
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES,
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Table C.13
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES • .
Parsons ES
Table
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
'Parsons ES '
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
Test Results
Normal
Oi849
0.940
0.517
0.886
0.892
0.371
for Total Biochemical Oxygen
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Whole Data Set
Lognormal
0-947
, 0.955
0.533
0.9998
0.309
0.554 ":•
Distribution Test Results for Soluble Biochemical Oxygen
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Demand
Outlier Removed
Normal
n/a
n/a
0.427
0.858
0.720
0.262
Demand
Whole Data Set Outlier Removed ,
Normal
0.947
0.692
0.953
0.521
0.912
O.TQ8
, Lognormal
0.983
0.849
0.917
0,534
0.969
0.158
, Normal
n/a
n/a
n/a
0;419
n/a
O.075
N "'""'"', i
C.14 Distribution Test Results for Total Suspended Solids
Sample
Location •
W1
W2
W3
. W4
W5
W6
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Whole Data Set Outlier Removed
Normal
0.575
0.941
0.710
0.047
: 0.340
0.233
Lognormal
0.920
0.879
0.485.
0.357
0.519
0.492
• Normal
,0.987
n/a
n/a
0.304
0.722 . -
0.347
C-13
-------
Appendix C
Table C.15 Distribution Test Results for Volatile Suspended Solids
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
Table C. 16 Distribution
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
K-S Distribution Test
Whole Data Set
Normal Lognormal
0.924 0.9996
0.945 0.923
0.922 0.996
0.042 0.305
0.097 0.228
0.149 . 0.295
Test Results for Total Kjeldhal
K-S Distribution Test
Whole Data Set
Normal Lognormal
0.865 0.797
0.906 0.972
0.914 0.811
0.826 0.986
0.772 0.894
0.590 0.978
Factor
, Outlier Removed
Normal
0.999
n/a
n/a
0.103
0.242
0.109
Nitrogen
Factor
Outlier Removed
Normal
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a , ,
Table C.17 Distribution Test Results for Ammonia
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
K-S Distribution Test
Whole Data Set
Normal Lognormal
0.999 0.999
0.961 0.993
0.999 0.991
0.315 ~ '• 0.891
0.994 0.9995
0.271 0.975
Factor
Outlier Removed
Normal
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a >
C-14
-------
Appendix C
Table C.18 Distribution
• ,
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES •*
Parsons ES
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES ,
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
: , >-•
Laboratory
Parsons ES
Parsons ES
Sample
Location
W1
W2
W3
; W4
W5
W6
Table C. 19
.
Sample
. Location
' W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
, Table. C.20
Sample
Location'
W1
W6
Test Results for Nitrate
K-S Distribution Test Factor
. . Whole Data Set
Normal
0.262
0.448
0.309
0.886
' 0.739
0.074
Lognormal
0.540
0.358
0.773
0.504
0.944
0.762
Distribution Test Results for Total Phosphorus
•-p
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Whole Data Set
Normal
0.247
, 0.995
0.505
0.011
0.985
0.993
Distribution Test
, .Lognormal
0.405
0.990
0.135
0.038
0.994
0.994
Results for Fecal Coliform
K-S Distribution Test Factor
Outlier Removed
Normal
n/a
n/a
0.529
.. n/a
0.853
0.696
' • *
•
Outlier Removed
Normal
0.895
n/a
0.783
0.627
n/a
n/a
Whole Data Set Outlier Removed
Normal
0.586
0.008
Lognormal
0.858
0.663
Normal
n/a
0.325
A simple description of the study data is provided in Table C.21.
C-15
-------
Appendix C
Table C.21. Simple
Statistical
Description for Water Quality Data
Statistics
Sample
Location
W1
•
W2
Water Quality
Parameter
COD (total)
COD (soluble)
BOD5 (total)
BOD5 (soluble)
TSS
VSS
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform 8,
Reid pH
Reid DO
COD (total)
COD (soluble)
BOD5 (total)
BOD5 (soluble)
TSS
VSS
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
Field pH
Field DO
Mean
1,307.0
157.5
468.8
70.1
470.4
364.0 ,
55.9
25.6
0.16
13.6
109,091
7.98
2.9
444.7
216.2
160.0
107.7
78.0
64.0
43.3
33.8
0.15
8.17
7.26
4.9
Standard
Deviation
243.2
13.6
116.4
- 14.3
136.4
96.4
7.1
4.2
0.07
2.2
6,872,184
0.27
1.0
76.1
15.6
32.4
22.9
22.5
20.7
6.7
5.9
0.06
1.47
0.17
1.3 ,
Analysis
One outlier (21 2) was removed from these
data statistically.
Two values (229 & 71 5) increased the
standard deviation of the data. One outlier
(1,040) was removed from these data
, statistically. •
One value (520) increased the standard
deviation of the data. One outlier (765) was
, removed from these data statistically.
Three values (0.24, 0.28 & 0.29) increased
the standard deviation of the data.
One outlier (37.6) was removed from these
data statistically.
The range of values (2,400,000 to
24,000,000) was responsible for the high
standard deviation.''
The range of values (1 .2 to 4.7) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One value (1 1 7) increased the standard
deviation of the data.
The range of values (33.5 to 91.3) was'
responsible for the high standard deviation.
i
Two values (0.24 & 0.26) increased the
standard deviation of the data.
-
C-16
-------
Appendix C
Table C.21 Simple Statistical Description for Water Quality Data (continued)
, Statistics
Sample Water Quality
Location Parameter
W3 COD (total)
COD (soluble)
BOD5 (total) :
• "* ' . •''--,
. BODS (soluble)
...;'• , '* TSS • • '
vss
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
'
' Total Phosphorus
Field pH
Field.DO
W5 COD (total)
COD (soluble)
BOD5 (total)
i " •
BOD5 (soluble)
•' • '"
TSS
VSS
4 . '
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
. Field pH
Field Dp
Mean
399.4
63.8
105.6
.
9.7
148.0
122.0
46.0
28.0
0.38
•• • •
8.54
7.61
4.9
149.8 ,
50.7
49.4
6,4,
42.6
33.6
29.9
22.9
2.12
8.0
7.47
5.5
Standard
Deviation
81.4
7.0
9.1
3.1
36.2
30.8
6.0
4.6
. 0.22
1.19
,0.12
1.1
27.6
11.5
10.0 /
2.2
9.2
1 1 .6
6.1
4.1
1.41
1.2
0.07
1.3
Analysis
One outlier (105) was removed from these
data statistically. "
One outlier (71) was removed from these
data statistically.
The range of values (6.3 to 1 5) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
. ' • . . ' , • •. •
One value (182) increased the standard
deviation of the data.
Two values (0.62 & 0.85) increased the
'Standard deviation of the data. One outlier
(1.58) was removed from these data
.statistically.
One outlier (1 .69) was removed from these
data statistically. : -
" ' ' : - ' • ' - .','•'
One outlier (279) was removed from these
data statistically.
One outlier (7.2) was removed from these
data statistically.
The range of values (4.0 to 1 0.0) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (1 22) was removed from these
data statistically. , •
One value (62.5) increased the standard
deviation of the data. One outlier (101) was
removed from these data statistically.
The range of values (0.22 to 4.71) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (7.44) was removed from these
data statistically.
**" '
• r~ ' '. ; ' \ : ' r ~~~~ ~~~ ^~~~' — ! '
C-17
-------
Appendix C
Table C.21 Simple Statistical Description for Water Quality Data (continued)
Sample
Location
Water Quality
Parameter
Statistics .
Mean Standard
Deviation
Analysis
W4 COD (total) 73.4 39.1 The range of values (25.6 to 141) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
, One outlier (256) was removed from these
- data statistically.
COD (soluble) 43.2 19.0 The range of values (14.2 to 74.1) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
•»• ' One outlier (130) was removed from these
data statistically.
BODS (total) 18.4 11.6 The range of values (4.0 to 39.0) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (73) was removed from these
data statistically. • '
BODS (soluble) 11.3 11.2 The range of values (4.0 to 37.0) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (59) was removed from these
data statistically.
TSS 9.9 6.3 One value (25.7) increased the standard
deviation of the data. One outlier (98.3)
was removed from these data statistically.
VSS 6.3 5.5 One value (21.4) increased the standard
deviation of the data. One outlier (43.3)
was removed from these data statistically.
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
Field pH
Field DO
10.0
7.5
10.49
7.0
7.15
3.5
4.8
6.6
6.89
0.8
0.14
0.9
The range of values (3.1 to 17.9) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
The range of values (0.32 to 1 7.9) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
The range of values (1 .32 to 24.1 ) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (34.5) was removed from these
data statistically.
' '. • •
W6 COD (total) ' 53.2 33.0 The range of values (10.0 to 128) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
COD (soluble) 38.3 23'.1 The range of values (10.0 to 78.6) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
, One outlier (128) was removed from these
data statistically. '
BODS (total) 12.5 13.2 The range of values (4.0 to 42.0J was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (88) was removed from these
data statistically.
BODS (soluble) 10.2 12.8 The range of values (4.0 to 41.0) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (80) was removed from these
data statistically.
C-18
-------
Appendix C
Table C.21 Simple Statistical Description for Water Quality Data (continued)
Sample Water Quality
Location Parameter >
W6(contd.) TSS
vss
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform
i . - •
Field pH
Field DO
Statistics
Mean Standard Analysis
Deviation
3.5 2.4 The range of values (2.0 to 8;2) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (1 9.8) was removed from these
data statistically.
2.2 0.4' One outlier (10.4) was
data statistically.
8.4 7-0 ' The range of values (1.
responsible for the high
5.5 . 6.3 The range of values (0.
responsible for the high
removed from these
5 to 23.5) was
standard deviation.
1 to 17.3) was
standard deviation.
5.40 5.20 The range of values (0.39 to 1 7.3) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (69.7) was removed from these
data statistically.
6.8 ,0.8
170 236 , The range of values (4 to 800) was
responsible for the high standard deviation.
One outlier (30,000) was removed from
these data statistically. ' v
C-19
-------
-------
Appendix D
Raw Data: Tracer Study
This appendix contains the raw data recorded during the tracer study performed at
the AEES, to determine hydraulic detention times of the various process equipment. The
data are in the form of sampling times and ;the corresponding lithium chloride
concentrations, and are provided in Tables D.1 through 6.7. The graphs of the tracer stqdy
data are presented in Figures D-1 through D-7.
The detection limit for the lithium analyses was 0.02 mg/l lithium. Where the
concentration of lithium was determined to be < 0.02 mg/l, a concentration of 0.02 mg/l is
quoted for the purposes of plotting the graphs and calculating HDTs.
D-1
-------
Table D.I
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T1 (High-rate Marsh)
Sample
Starting Point (9:00)
T1 -0404-1 000
T1 -0404-1 100
T1 -0404-1 200
T1 -0404-1 300
T1 -0404-1 400
T1 -0404-1 500
T1 -0404-1 600
T1 -0404-1 700
T1 -0404-1 800
T1 -0404-1 900
T1 -0404-2000
T1 -0404-21 00
T1 -0404-2200
T1 -0404-2300
T1 -0404-2400
T1 -0405-01 00
T1 -0405-0200
T1 -0405-0300
T1 -0405-0400
T1 -0405-0500
T1 -0405-0600
T1 -0405-0700 .
T1 -0405-0800
T1 -0405-0900
T1 -0405-1 000
T1 -0405-1 100
T1 -0405-1 200
Time
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00-
12:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.052
0.381
0.766
0.971
0.920
0.820
0.663
0.501
0.348
0.236
0.165
0.117
0.097
0.075
0.061
0.049
0.040
0.036
0.035
0.032
0.029
0.028
0.023
D-2
-------
Table D.2
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point.T2 (Duckweed Clarifier)
Sample
Starting Point (9:50)
T2-0412-1050
T2-0412-1150
T2-0412-1250
T2-0412-1350
72^0412-1450
72-0412-1550
T2-0412-1650
T2-0412-1750
72-0412-1850
72-0412-1950
72-0412-2050
T2-0412-2150
T2-04 12-2250
T2-041 2-2350
T2-0412.-0050
72-0413-0150
72-0413-0250
T2-041 3-0350
T2-041 3-0450
T2-041 3-0550
T2O41 3-0650
T2-04 13-0750
|T2-041 3-0850
Time
9:50
10:50
11:50
12:50
13:50
14:50
15:50
16:50
17:50
18:50
19:50
,20:50
21:50
22:50
23:50
0:50
1:50
2:50
3:50
4:50
5:50
6:50
7:50
8:50
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.020
0.020
0.042
0.024
0.079
0.182
0.395
. 0.464
0.437
0.415
0.408
0.382
0.344
0.313
0.264
0.230
0.186
0.164
0.146
0.121
0.108
0.095
0.088
0.075
D-3
-------
Table D.3a
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T3 (Ecological Fluidized Beds)
Second Attempt
Sample
Starting Point (10:00)
T3-0620-1100
T3-0620-1200
T3-0620-1300
T3-0620-1400
T3-0620-1500
T3-0620-1600
T3-0620-1700
T3-0620-1800
T3-0620-1900
T3-0620-2000
T3-0620-2100
T3-0620-2200
T3-0620-2300
T3-0620-2400
T3-0621-0100
T3-0621-0200
T3-0621-0300
T3-062 1-0400
T3-0621-0500
T3-0621-0600
T3-062 1-0700
T3-0621-0800
T3-062 1-0900
T3-0621-1000
T3-0621-1100
T3-0621-1200
T3-0621-1300
T3-0621-1400
T3-0621-1500
Time
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.020
0.023
0.076
0.134
0.183.
0.221
0.262
0.277
0.288
0.297
0.304
0.298
0.297
0.293
0.287
0.275
0.271
0.264
0.260
0.249
0.241
0.234 .
0.224
0.218
0.209
0.202
0.195
0.190
,0.183
0.178
D-4
-------
Table D.3a (continued)
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T3 (Ecological Fluidized Beds)
Second Attempt
Sample
T3-0621-1600
T3-0621-1700,
T3-0621-1800
T3-0621-1900
T3-062 1-2000
T3-0621-2100
T3-062 1-2200
T3-0621-2300 >
T3-062 1-2400
T3-Q622-0100
T3-0622-0200
T3-0622-0300
T3-0622-0400
T3-0622-0500
T3-0622-0600
T3-0622-0700
T3-0622-0800
T3-0622-0900
T3-0622-1000
T3-0622-1100
T3-0622-1200
T3-0622-1300
|T3-0622-1400
T3-0622-1500
T3-0622-1600
T3-0622-1700
T3-0622-1800
T3-0622-1900
T3-0622-2000
T3-0622-2100
Time
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1 :00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
1 0:00
1 T:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
1 7:00
18:OQ
19:00
20:00
21:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.170
0.166
0.160
0.154
0.150
0.145
0.141
0.136
0.131
0.126
0.122
0.117
0.114
0.108
0.106
0.101
0.098
0.095
0.092
0.088
0.086
0.084
0.081
0.077
0.076
. 0.073
0.069
0.067
0.068
0.065
D-5
-------
Table D.3b
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T3 (Ecological Fluidized Beds)
First Attempt
Sample
Starting Point (10:00)
T3-0417-1100
T3-0417-1200
T3-0417-1300
T3-0417-1400
T3-0417-1500
T3-0417-1600
T3-0417-1700
T3-0417-1800
T3-0417-1900
T3-041 7-2000
T3-0417-2100
T3-041 7-2200
T3-041 7-2300
T3-041 7-2400
T3-0418-0100
T3-041 8-0200
T3-041 8-0300
T3-041 8-0400
T3-041 8-0500
T3-041 8-0600
T3-041 8-0700
T3-041 8-0800
T3-041 8-0900
T3-0418-1000
T3-0418-1100
T3-04 18-1 200
T3-0418-1300
T3-0418-1400
T3-041 8-1 500
Time
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/i)
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.087
0.123
0.162
0.200
0.216
0.229
0.233
0.249
0.203
0.193
0.197
0.200
0.202-
0.211
0.220
0.214
0.207
0.202
0.193
0.185
0.200
0.197
0.185
0.181
0.173
D-6
-------
Table D.3b (continued)
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T3 {Ecological Fluidized Beds)
First Attempt
Sample
T3-0418-1600
13-041,8-1700
T3-0418-1800
13-0418-1900
T3-041 8-2000
T3-0418-2100
T3-04 18-2200
T3-04 18-2300
T3-041 8-2400
T3-0419-0100
T3-041 9-0200
T3-04 19-0300
T3-04 19-0400
T3-04 19-0500
T3-041 9-0600
T3-04 19-0700
T3-04 19-0800
T3-041 9-0900
T3-0419-1000
T3-0419-T100
T3-0419-1200
T3-0419-1300.
T3-0419-1400
T3-0419-1500
T3-0419-1600
T3-0419-1700
T3-0419-1800 .
T3-041 9-1 900
T3-041 9-2000
T3-0419-2100
Time
16:00
17:00
18:00
1 9:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1 :OQ
2:00
3:00
4:00 ...
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:0.0.
1 2:00
13:00
14:OO
15:00 .
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.165
0.158
0.149
0.143
0.137
0.132
0.126
0.122
0.118
0.1 13
0.109
0.103
0,099
0.095
0.092
0.090
0.084 ,
0.084
0.077
0.081
0.084 .
0.085
0.081
0.078
0.074
0.074
0.065
0.063
0.063
0.063
D-7
-------
Table D.4
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T4 (1st Ecological Fluidized Bed)
Sample
Starting Point (1 0:00)
T4-0424-1100
T4-0424-1200
T4-0424-1300
T4-0424-1400
T4-0424-1 500
T4-0424-1600
T4-0424-2400
T4-0424-2500
T4-0424-1 900
T4-0424-2000
T4-0424-2100
T4-0424-2200
T4-0424-2300
T4-0424-2400
T4-0425-0100
T4-0425-0200
T4-0425-0300
T4-0425-0400
T4-0425-0500
T4-0425-0600
Time
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1 :00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.020
0.574
0.450
0.359
0.289
0.243
0.207
0.176
0.154
0.133
0.118
0.106
0.092
0.090
0.081
0.076
0.068
0.066
0.058
0.053
0.047
D-8
-------
Table D.5
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T5 (Aerated Tanks)
Sample
Starting Point (10:00)
T5-0425-1100
% T5-0425-1200
T5-0425-1300
T5-0425-T400
T5-0425-1500
T5-0425-1600
T5-0425-2500
T5-0425-2600
T5-0425-2700
T5-0425-2000
T5-0425-2100
T5-0425-2200
T5-0425-2300
T5-0425-2400
T5-0426-0100
T5-0426-0200
T5-0426-0300
T5-0426-0400
T5-0426-0500
T5-0426-0600
T5-0426-0700
T5-0426-0800
T5-0426-0900 ,
T5-0426-1000
T5-0426-1100
T5-0426-1200
T5-0426-1300
T5-0426-1400
T5-0426-1500
T5-0426-1600
T5-0426-2500
T5-0426-2600
T5-0426-2700
Time
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00 •
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00 ,
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/I)
0.020
0.135
0.238
0.313
0.370
0.406
0.434
0.447
0.456
0.458
. 0.446
' 0.435
i 0.427
0.421
0.400
0.392
0.372
0.360
0.338 ;
0.327
0.315 ,
0.300
0.279
0.268
0.268 , •
0.262
0.253
0.239
0.233
0.226
0.215
0.178
0.163
0.150
D-9
-------
Table D.5 (continued)
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T5 (Aerated Tanks)
Sample
T5-0426-2000
T5-0426-2100
T5-0426-2200
T5-0426-2300
T5-0426-2400
T5-0427-0100
T5-0427-0200
T5-0427-0300
T5-0427-0400
T5-0427-0500
T5-0427-0600
T5-0427-0700
T5-0427-0800
T5-0427-0900
T5-0427-1000
T5-0427-1100
T5-0427-1200
T5-0427-1300
T5-0427-1400
T5-0427-1 500
T5-0427-1600
Time
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
• 8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.140
0.135
0.130
0.122
.,- ' 0.116
0.137
0.123
0.119
0.117
0.114
0.111
0.103
0.100 '
0.095
0.092
0.081
0.077
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.067
D-10
-------
Table D.6
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T6 (1st Aerated Tank)
Sample
Starting Point (9:30)
T6-0502-1030
T6-0502-1130
T6-0502-1230
T6-0502-1330
T6-0502-1430
T6-0502-1530
T6-Q502-1 630
T6-0502-1730
T6-05Q2-1830
T6-0502-1930
T6-0502-2030
T6-0502-2130
T6-0502-2230
T6-0502-2330
T6-0502-0030 ,
T6-0503-013Q
T6-0503-0230
T6-0503-033Q
T6-0503-0430
T6-0503-0530
T6-0503-0630
T6-0503-0730
T6-0503-0830
T6-0503-0930
T6-0503-1030
T6-0503-1130
T6-0503-1230
Time
9:30
10:30
1 1 :30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
1 6:30
17:30
18:30
19:30
20:30
- 21:30
22:30
23:30
0:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
4:30
5:30
6:30
7:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.020
0.504
0.445
0.390
0.344
. 0.304
0.278
0.252
0.233
0.212
0.198
0.186
0.171
0.161
0.151
0.142
0.137
0.132 ,
0.129
0.125
0.119
0.116
0.112
0.107
6.102
0:094
0.089
0.084
D-11
-------
Table D.7
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T7 (Anaerobic 3io-reactor)
Sample
Starting Point (10:30)
T7-0509-1130
T7-0509-1230
T7-0509-1330
T7-0509-1430
T7-0509-1530
T7-0509-1630
T7-0509-1730
T7-0509-1830
T7-0509-1930
T7-0509-2030
T7-0509-2130
T7-0509-2230
T7-0509-2330
T7-05 10-0030
T7-05 10-01 30
T7-05 10-0230
T7-05 10-0330
T7-05 10-0430
T7-05 10-0530
T7-05 10-0630
T7-05 10-0730
T7-05 10-0830
T7-05 10-0930
T7-0510-1030
T7-05 10-1 130
T7-0510-1230
T7-0510-1330
T7-05 10-1 430
T7-05 10-1530
Time
10:30
1 1 :30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
1 6:30
17:30
18:30
19:30
20:30
21:30
22:30
23:30
0:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
4:30
5:30
6:30
7:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.020 .
0.025
0.040
0.076
0.188
0.344
0.503
0.575
0.636
0.682
0.670
0.680
v 0.674
0.667
0.654
0.621
0.585
0.539
0.506
0.476
0.461
0.452
0.427
0.395
0.330
0.279
0.257
0.237
0.225
0. 1 96
D-12
-------
Table D.7 (continued)
Tracer Study Data Summary
Sample Point T7 (Anaerobic Bio-reactor)
Sample
T7-0510-1630
T7-05 10-1 730
T7-05 10-1 830
T7-0510-1930
T7-051 0-2030
T7-05 10-2 130
T7-05 10-2230
T7-05 10-2330
T7-051 1-0030
T7-0511-0130
T7-051 1-0230
T7-051 1-0330
T7-051 1-0430
77^0511-0530
77-0511-0630
77-0511-0730
77-0511-0830
T7-05 11-0930
77-0511-1030
T7-0511-1130
T7-0511-1230
77-0511-1330
T7-051 1-1430
77-0511-1530
T7-0511-1630
T7-0511-1730
T7-0511-1830
I
T7-05 11-1 930 ...
Time
16:30
17:30
18:30
19:30
20:30
2.1:30
22:30
23:30
0:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
4:30
5:30
6:30
7:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
16:30
17:30
18:30
.19:30
Lithium Chloride
Concentration (mg/l)
0.177
0.159
0.140
0.128
0.130
0.125
0.108
0.103
0.094
0.087
0.088
0.082
0.074
0.068
O.Q63
0.061
0.059
0.058
0.052
0.048
0.042
0.040
0.039
0.038
0.037
0.038
0.040
0.034
I
D-13
-------
l
T o ?
Q S -5
0 Q S*
o -^
3
8 o
£ to
o
o
(I/BUI) UOJJBJIU90UOO IQJ1
D-14
-------
0)
S
(I/Bui) uojiBJjuaouoo ion
D-15
-------
,8?
to 03
co -—
« 0> (0
o>
131
O
CO
O
O
O O O O
(|/6ui) uoiiejjuaouOo ion
D-16,
-------
Q q>
-
r\
CO CO
eo
o
O
(I/6iu)
ion
D-17
-------
LO
Q
is
11
0) J?
SI"
5 $
D) ^
03 '.1
O 5
2 .2
X. 4^
H CD
o
o
(I/Bui) uoijBjjuaouoo ion
D-18
-------
0)
E
(l/Biu) uojjenuaouoo ion
/D-19
-------
Q
fc
Si
•= OQ
E .o
& <$.
03 P
Q QJ
-o
3
Co
c
o
S c
h- o
'•M
(0
o
(l/Biu) uoijBJiuaouoo ion
D-2O
-------
Appendix E
Raw Data: Water Quality (System Without Plants)
This appendix contains the raw data from the three-week study that investigated
the performance of the Advanced Ecologically Engineered System once the plants had been
removed from the Aerated Tanks.
These water quality data were not subjected to the same statistical analyses that
were performed upon the wastewater data from the eleven-week process evaluation. This
was owing to the small sample size (3 samples per location) which, it was considered,
made distribution testing and lack-of-fit testing meaningless. Summary statistics, however,
were generated for this data. '
All of the raw water quality data for this three-week evaluation, along with their
summary statistics, are shown in Tables E.1 to E.6.
E-1
-------
< z
E521
3
&
I
a
I
|
|
'
W1-OR22-0935
W1-OB1S-1010
W1-OS08-0945
III!
||
si
j
1
i
i
c
i
|
O
e
Ci
S3
*"
f.
ia
o
o
o
V3
q
q
1
C9
!
Totll COD
S
M
a
o
r*
n
3
O
ID
1
o
S
cs
«,
1
n
Solubit CO
c
8
n
ID
n
'
I
C9
I
§
M
OJ
0
n
i
[Totll BQDt
R
o
p»
a
M
^
'
q
ID
r*
§
o
S
q
o
n
1
g
I
1
£
S
CT
ID
«,
q
S
ID
O
i
i
o
i
co
a
(A
12
g
i
m
o
B
^
q
-------
2
g
u
o
S
O z
a §i
a: S S
in UU
•a?- i i
co
^
e
£•
i
o
«
1
t>
•»
•1
Statistical A
W2-OC21-OS30
W2-OB14-09SS
W2-O807-103S
Iff I
li
!
:• t
' 1 .
'. i
|
1
; :
e ^
< 09
m
o
c
^
0
K
D
O
a
r*.
I
o
CD
2
IA
>
p
S
*
e
n
ti
^
a
O
a
»
*
a>
t
i
»
i
r*«
e
fin
&
OS
P
4-
s
Cj
n
9
jj
9
p
;
C
N
B>
C
C
/Q)
A
«.
n
n
"t
7
«
9
I
i
s
1
<
5
c
O
o
o
o
o
o
^
1
1
r*
o
<
8
*"
C
fC
«|
«r
CD
ID
5
5
>
I
f
L
i
G2-OB21-O935
G2-O814-1O15
G2-OBO7-1O45
s-
lt
o
s
I
.€
•<5
E
3
S
1
I
E-3
-------
f? »
§
«
S
5-i
UI o.
S I
•i
1
&
2-
S
•3
5
*
-1
W3-0821-09SO
W3-O014-1O30
W3-OSO7-1110
IfH
in*
II
s&
I
1
s
X
i
e
1
1
|
CN
«r
s
9
S
CO
1
o
I
q
9
GO
n
CO
i
n
n
u
|
«
C
10
s
»
s
CN
fl)
id
m
o
to
J
o
o
8
N
O
.
1
O
o
a
1
n
o
o
5
2
o
o
e
e
9
S
0>
o
D
.
|
«
^
n
09
"
5
3
CO
o.
m
CD
CD
0
"C
Ol
o
|
i
r*
1C
5
a
s
1C
0
CO
1
o
s
s
CO
D
A
5
c
«
S
«>
M
CO
10
O)
i
e
S
q
o
1
CO
f
to
s
5
M
•3
GO
0
S
•o
o
,
CO
CO
I
N
CO
CD
CO
•s
z
s
a
^
d
ID
S
a
6
e
o
i
I
,,,
to
ID
IO
CM
CO
z
I
i
'M
5
n
o
IO
«
6
5
o
o"
S
o
N
O
n
z
I
|
z
e>
pC
IT
co
s
m
*
S
S
s
p.
-------
<
Q
111 =
LU
H
S
o S
2 J5
I J2
iy
> 0>
f- o
u.
1-
< .£
ui o
E Q-
I- _£
Q.
ea
(O
s
I
i
1C
j
C
•g
s
r
S
J.
1
•I
03
WS-0621-101O § CM §
WS-OB14-1O55 S1'^ § i*
WSV0607-1145 2 S R S
^1°S 2 oo " !
|j85
•B J
•8 | t "» ^ ^ t
• If a s <»• - s
(00
* S « q « «
•S ^ " a » s
•g §•?«."««
• * S •• S 5 S 5
•' f. iilss
I 2: 5 2'r -2
I S S n ^ c?
= m ra co ra co
1 •-••lf|'|s
! 8 ! §i 1
E — 2 3
E S = | 5 J>
5 IS- § ? s
co ci ex V «j
. •? «- a -a
CT ^ cj d PC
eo co
. _
M CM CM O' "°
C, C, C, C, C,
I | i t i
i
1 I I 1 IJ
SAMPLES
m
O
•- •
J
er Quality Re
1
I
Statistical A
•-
G5-O621-1O15 H| ,
• G5-O614-11O5 i|
G5-0607-1155 Si| i
1 1 g ^ 1 °
y. '.HI'S
J I*
jc SsS; «x
J §§§§ ,«
1 - 111 ^
1 • 1 =.
• * 1| "*
e 5§§§S ._
" ^ *
<= § -
;
s =
•* o ?
E - "•
e- s %
in 0
«' S
2 §
eo 9
u> ^
-: q I
« eg ^Q
2
cs
CO CO §
1
.
S 2 i
" • s
«. • *>
CD P Q)
- • ^ co
• a s
o
o
• £
52-5
3
i
3
u
o <». "5
<°' « °
£
«J
- • ? I
Jc
o
c
o- -
i s
5 »'5=
t f
E-5
-------
U)
111
i
J2 "s
i2
£ o 1
«i H ^
Q x 1
>-
u.
•S"
CO
i
ifcf I
ii! I
£ 2-2 I
5&? s
i II
5 =
Ui o
eft |\,
,
«r Quality Ri
1
M
e
•1
SUti>tic*IA
W4-OB22-1010
W4-0615-1O4S
W4-O603-1015
. lili
II
II
3
i
i
s
!
o
c
c
K
0
c
in
in
Ci
f-.
O
CD
CO
K
o
d
to
CM
CO
in
5
jTotil COD
c
c
o
CO
o
e
S
*"
i
CD
CO
i
CD
cn
CO
I
[Soluble COD
c
fx
O
to
c
CM
CD
|x
OS
O
CM
q
ID
CD
n
1
(Total BOD6
&
rx
> a
CO
tn
o
CM
to
IX
q
m
m
CD.
at
D
(Soluble BODB
J
c
0
c
IX
O
O
CM
*r
CM
CO
IX
CD
CD
"5
f)
0
a
e
a
0
e
tc
cs
CD
~
CD
CO
If
CD*
CD
CO
5
E
t
u
c
CM
oa
0
01
in
CD
CO
ui
to
3)
CO
»
1
c
c
0
p
IX
tc
CO
o>
CN
at
CD
CO
rx
D
i
[Ammonia
c
g
p
in
o
S
CO
*•
in
en
q
O)
CM
n
CM
a
9
03
e
Q
IX
C
fx
q
CD
O
2
00
2
CD
i
3
3
CO
S
G4-Q622-1025
1
G4-O61S-110B
G4-O60S-1035
o E
1
1
J
§
CO
£
&
•o
E-6
-------
--I
<
a
cc
Ul
I
if
— o
S «'
si
i5
5 5
£ c
ui 6
S •£
£ -2
^ a.
1U £
.^I
S
S
<
0
5 * *
. CO 0
ra o ^ K.
o o" «' ri ,
°- °- 2 § ' s
"* N ~ ° <
? 3 2 & s
> o °! -•! r-
> " 2 2 e
« S 2 o
-
o o «= =i
0 ,
(D
^
O 1**
» ^
0 c
6 °
s -•
9 ®
>r*»
^
£
.
09
1U
.J
4
09
ffi
1.
i
4
C
5
o
"S
1
1
in
•«.„;.
GS0615-113S
66:0608-1105 ;
8 5 3 -
| I o I S
o JE ra ~
•p c
ll 1
»a
J O
3 Z
z ' a
J g
• *
-------
-------
Appendix F
Cost Estimates for Conventional Treatment Systems
Introduction
This task involved obtaining or developing capital and O&M cost data for
conventional treatment systems for comparison against the Advanced Ecologically
Engineered System that is presently being pilot-tested in Frederick, MD. All of the
conventional treatment systems that were costed are packaged treatment systems; the
only costs that were estimated were for concrete tankage, electrical supply and connection,
and instrumentation. Specifically, the costs for yard piping, buildings, site preparation,
land, and equipment redundancy are not included in these cost estimates. These cost
estimates were developed to be comparable with cost data provided by OAI for similarly
sized AEES. .
Influent Wastewater Characteristics and Effluent Discharge Criteria
For the purpose of this report, the influent wastewater characteristics (strength) and
effluent-criteria for the conventional, treatment systems are the .same as for the AEES.
These values are provided in Tables F.1 and F.2 below.
Table F.1 Influent Waste Characteristics
Parameter
Total COD
Soluble COD
Total BODS
Soluble BOD5
TSS
VSS
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
Unit
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
rrig/I
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
• • '- i
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-P '
Concentration in Influent
. . . i
t 1,043
174.5
325
. 81 .5
• 357 .
273
45
25.9
0.1
11.2
F-1
-------
Appendix F
Table F.2 Effluent Criteria used for Conventional Treatment Cost Evaluation
Parameter
Unit
Effluent Critieria
Total BOD5
TSS
Ammonia
Nitrate -
Total Phosphorus
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-P
< 10
< 10
< 1
< 5.
< 6
The flowrates included in this evaluation are 40,000 gpd (the same flowrate as the
AEES in Frederick, Maryland), 80,000 gpd, and 1 mgd.
Biological nitrogen removal has been included in the selection of the conveptional
treatment systems for comparison. Nitrification, the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate, and
denitrification, the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas, can be accomplished biologically
without" the addition of an external carbon source by two of the conventional systems
evaluated - the oxidation ditch and the sequencing batch reactor. The packaged extended
aeration plants require an external carbon source (methanol) for denitrification. The
carrousel oxidation ditch requires alum for phosphorous removal. 1 '
Conventional treatment systems
The costs of the following treatment technologies were evaluated in this estimate:
• For the 40,000 gpd conventional system, we have costed out a small conventional
(extended aeration) packaged wastewater treatment plant.
• For the 80,000 gpd system, we have costed out sequencing batch reactor with
prefabricated tankage and With concrete tankage option.
• For the 1 mgd system, we have costed out a packaged BNR wastewater treatment
plant and a carrousel oxidation ditch.
Ultraviolet disinfection was included for microbial inactivation prior to discharge. This cost
was based on a manufacturer's quotation, for the complete UV disinfection lamps with a
steel channel and the appropriate instrumentation.
Method of Cost Estimating
The cost of the equipment and size of the tankage has been provided by the
manufacturer of the technology based on historical information assembled as a result of
supplying these systems to clients in the requested size range. In the cases where the
manufacturer recommends that the tankage be constructed of reinforced concrete, the
F-2
-------
Appendix F
quantity of concrete has been estimated and priced; If not included in the manufacturer's
quote, materials and labor pricing for installing the equipment was estimated as a
percentage {25%} of the equipment cost. The cost for instrumentation was included in the
manufacturer's quotation; the equipment recommended by the manufacturer allows for
automatic operation of the system. Mobilization, bonds and insurance, and miscellaneous
direct cost are assumed to be a, percentage of the direct cost of construction. Overhead
and profit is assumed 'at 15%, and a contingency of 1 5% was included to cover other items
that could not accurately estimated.
1 The AEES is primarily a treatment process for the liquid stream and not the solids
stream; therefore, this evaluation focuses on the treatment cost of the liquid stream.
However, capital and O&M 'costs for sludge handling and disposal are estimated*, where
applicable. The method of disposal assumed for the smaller facilities (40,000 and 80,000
gpd) is via a septic hauler to an off-site treatment facility, eliminating any capital costs.
This method of sludge disposal is typical for treatment facilities of this size. The larger 1
mgd facilities are costed for a sludge handling facility, which includes a polymer system,
belt filter presses, and lime stabilization equipment: A sludge digestion tank is included in
the package plant and the corresponding capital costs. Sludge digestion is not required for
the sludge produced by the oxidation ditch since primary sludge is not produced by this
system. The cost is based on information received from the Downingtown WWTP, PA.
The cost estimate for O&M is based on information from the manufacturer on power
requirements, number of operators required, and the additional cost of chemicals, if
required,, A unit O&M cost for sludge processing, stabilization, and disposal at the 1 mgd
facilities is based on historical data from ALCOSAN Diversified Resuidua/s Management
Program, 1994 and Sludge Management Alternatives Evaluation Report, 1994. This value,
$500.00 per dry ton, includes belt filter press dewatering, lime stabilization, and contract
land application. Costs for sludge handling and disposal at the 40,000 gpd and 80,000 gpd
facilities is estimated based on quotes for septic haulers to remove and dispose the
residuals from a proposed 15,000 gpd SBR facility in the Village of Aldie> VA,
In developing a conceptual estimate of this type, the focus is on the tankage and
the equipment. Other ancillary items, such as exterior lighting and paving, while required
for construction, have not been included. It is assumed that the costs of these ancillary
items have not been included in the cost estimate prpvided by OAI.
Cost Estimates for 40,000 gpd Conventional Treatment System
Extended Aeration S
The estimated capital cost for a packaged treatment system that is rated for 40,000
gpd is $405,000. This cost is for a complete steel packaged extended aeration system
constructed on an at-grade concrete pad. A denitrifying filter and UV disinfection are
included at. the end of the process for denitrification and final polishing as well as
disinfection. The packaged treatment system is 12 feet wide by 12 feet high by 80 feet
long and the filter is 8 feet wide by 1 2 feet high by 16 feet long.
•„ The estimated cost for annual operation and maintenance, which includes sludge
processing and disposal, is approximately $65,900. Based on a twenty year plant life and
assuming an annual inflation rate of 7%, the present value for operation and maintenance is
F-3
-------
Appendix F
$697,000. The total present value, $1,102,000, is the sum of the capital cost and the
present value of operation and maintenance.
Cost Estimates for 80,000 gpd Conventional Treatment System
Sequencing Batch Reactor - Package Treatment System
For this flow regime, two sequencing batch reactor systems were costed out; one
with concrete tankage and one with prefabricated tanks. These costs are the average cost
of these two SBR Systems.. The estimated capital cost for an SBR that is rated for 80,000
gpd is $659,800. This cost is complete for two 24' x 24' tanks with mixing equipment, a
filter with automatic backwash, and UV disinfection. -
The average annual cost for operation and maintenance of the two SBR systems is
estimated at $78,000 per year. Assuming a 7% interest rate and a life cycle of 20 years
bring the present worth of operation and maintenance to $827,6QO. The total present
value for capital cost and O&M is estimated at $1,486,900.
Cost Estimates for 1 mgd Conventional Treatment Systems
Packaged BNR Treatment Plant
The estimated capital cost for a 1 mgd packaged BNR treatment plant $3,324,700.
This cost is complete for a circular packaged system, complete with a denitrification filter,
UV disinfection, and a s'ludge handling facility. This cost is based on a steel structure that.
is field-supported on a concrete pad.
The annual cost for operation and maintenance is estimated at $371,400 per year.
Assuming a 7% inflation rate and a life cycle of 20 years bring the present worth of
operation and maintenance to approximately $3,934,900. The total present value for
capital cost and O&M estimated at $7,259,600.
Carrousel Oxidation Ditch
The estimated capital cost for a carrousel oxidation ditch is $3,307,700 and
includes a concrete carrousel "racetrack" style tank complete with mixers and a return
sludge pumping station, aeration equipment, two final clarifiers, polishing filter, and UV
disinfection and a sludge handling facility!
The annual cost for O&M of the carrousel system is $320,900 and the present
worth cost at 7% interest over 20 years is $3,399,700. The total present worth cost of
this system is $6,707,400.
F-4
-------
Pack. Plant (40,000 gpd)
EPA ABES Evaluation
Task 3D: Conventional Treatment Systems Estimate
Treatment System
Mean's Ref. No.
Division 1 - Genei
Evaluated and Avg Daily Flow:
Item
al - • • ,
Division 2 - Sitework
Division 3 - Concrete
1.1-140-6300
i.i-soa-ono
Division 7 - Them
Footer excavation and construction
Base slab construction
lal and Moisture Protection •
Division 8 - Doors and Windows
Division 9 - Finishes .
Division 10 - Specialties (none)
Division 11 - Equipment
Package Plant (12* w x 12' h x 80' 1)
inc. filtration equipment
UV disinfection
Division 12 - Furnishings (none)
Division 13 - Special Construction
Division 14 - Conveying Systems (none) •
Division 15 - Mechanical
Division 16 - Electrical
-'.
^
Subtotal
Bonds, Insurance @
Mobilization @
Miscellaneous Direct Costs @
Total
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency @
Package Plant @ 40,000 gpd
Qty.
184
36
1
1
;
Unit
If
cy
-
Is
Is
3%
4%
10%
15%
15%
. Unit
Price
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
$ 238,750.00
$ 9,450.00
Total
Price
$ 9,200.00
$ 8,888.89
$ 238,750.00
$ 9,450.00
> 266,288 89
J 7,988 67
! 10,651.56
; ' 26 628 89
1 311,558.00
! 46,733.70
i 46,733.70
! 405,025.40
F-5
-------
Pack. Plant (40,000 gpd)
EPA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ESTIMATE
SYSTEM: PACKAGE PLANT
FLOWRATE: 40,000 GPD
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ITEM
EST. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
EST. ENERGY CONSUMPTION - UV
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION
METHANOL
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
OPERATOR @ $25/HR INC. FRINGE
SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL (1)
TOTAL DAILY OPERATING COST
YEARLY OPERATING COST
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ESTIMATED
AT 1% OF CONSTRUCTION COST
BFS
KJK
•
QTY
4
QTY
40000
KW-HRS/DAY
358
4.1
LBS/DAY
35
UNIT/DAY
HRS/DAY
UNIT/DAY
GALLONS
(
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT VALUE BASED ON 20 YEARS AT 7%
UNIT
PRICE
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
U.P.
$ 0.23
UNIT
PRICE
$ 25.00
UNIT
PRICE
0.0009
10.594
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 25.07
$ 0.30
TOTAL
$ 7.95
t
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 100.00
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 36.00
$ 169.32
$ 61,801.06
-
$ 4,050.25
$ 65,851.32
$ 697,628.87
' X
Note: (1) Sludge collected by septage hauler and disposed by the hauler at a cost of $95/hr. The cost to
remove sludge from a 15,000 gpd SBR plant is $5,000 per year. Cost per gallon treated at this rate is
S0.0009/gal. treated
F-6
-------
,SBR (80,000 gpd)
••••-• EPA AEES Evaluation
Task 3D: Conventional Treatment Systems Estimate
Treatment System
Mean's Ref. No.
Division 1 - Gene
Division 2 - Skew
, Division 3 - Conci
1.1-140-6300
1.1-500-0170
Division 4 - Maso
Division 5 - Misce
Evaluated and Avg Daily Flow:
Item
ral
ork
rete". -. • . • . . -
Footer construction.
Base slab construction
Tank wall construction
nry
>
llaneous Metals
Division 6 - Woods and Plastics
Division 7 - Them
Division 8 - Doors
-• - • •
lal and Moisture Protection
and Windows
i , .
Division 9 - Finishes
Division 10 - Speci
, Division 1 1 - Equii
Division 12 - Fund
Division 13 - Speci
Division 14 - Conv<
Division 15 - Mech
Division 16 - Electr
•
• •• ]
]
<
<
1 _ __I
aides
nnent
SBR Equipment and installation
Filtration equipment
UV disinfection
shings (none)
al Construction
tying Systems
anical '•
ical • ... •
Subtotal
Bonds, Insurance @ -
Mobilization®
Miscellaneous Direct Costs @
Fotal
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency®
SBR @ 80,000 gpd
Qty.
250
140 .-.
250
1
1
1
Unit
>-.lf
cy
cy
Is
rls
Is
3%
4%
10%
15%
15%
Unit
Price
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
$ 350.00
$ 230,742.40
$ 40,000.00
$ 11,060.00
Total
Price
$ 12,500.00
$ 35,000.00
$ 87,500.00
$ 230,742.40
$ 40,000.00
$ 11,060.00
$ 416,802.40
$ 12,504.07
$ 16,672.10
$ 41,680.24
$ 487,658.81
$ 73,148.82
$ 73,148.82
$ 633,956.45
F-7
-------
SBR (80,000 gpd)
EPA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ESTIMATE
SYSTEM: SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR
FLOWRATE: 80,000 GPD
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ITEM
EST. OPERATING BRAKE HP - SBR
EST. ENERGY CONSUMPTION - UV
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION - NONE
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
OPERATOR @ $25/HR INC. FRINGE
SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL (1)
TOTAL DAILY OPERATING COST
YEARLY OPERATING COST
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ESTIMATED
AT 1% OF CONSTRUCTION COST
BFS
KJK
,
QTY
4
QTY
80000
. -
*
s
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT VALUE BASED ON 20 YEARS AT 7 %
1 -
KW-HRS/DAY
334
8.16
UNIT/DAY
HRS
UNIT/DAY
GALLONS
/
UNIT
PRICE
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
UNIT
PRICE
$ 25.00
UNIT
PRICE
0.0009
10.594
•
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 23.38
$ 0.60
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 100.00
TOTAL -
PRICE
$ 72.00.
$ 195.98
$ 71,531.12
$ 6,339.56
$ 77,870.69
$ 824,962.07
Note: (1) Sludge collected by septage hauler and disposed by the hauler at a cost of $95/hr. The cost to
remove sludge from a 15,000 gpd SBR plant is $5,000 per year. Cost per gallon treated at this rate is
$0.0009/gal. treated
F-8
-------
Pack. SBR (80,000 gpd)
EPA AEES Evaluation
Task 3D: Conventional Treatment Systems Estimate
Treatment System Evaluated and Avg Daily Flow:
Mean's Ref. Nc
> Item >,
Division 1 - General
Division 2 - Sitework
Divisions - Coi
1.1-140-6300
1.1-500-0170
ncrete '••"._•
Footer construction
Base slab construction
Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Division 8 - Doors and Windows »
Division 9 - Finishes
Division 10 - Specialties (none)
Division 11 -Eq
uipment
Package Plant (12' w x 12' h x 80' 1)
inc. filtration equipment
UV disinfection
Division 12 - Furnishings (none)
Division 13 - Special, Construction
Division 14 - Conveying Systems (none) . ,
Division 15 - Mechanical ,
Division 16 - Electrical
•
.
•
Subtotal
Bonds, Insurance @ ^
Mobilization®
Miscellaneous Direct Costs @
Total
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency @
Package Plant @ 80,000 svd
Qty
,244
36
1
1
Unit
If
i cy
Is ,-
Is
3%
4%
10%
15%
15%
Unit
' Price .
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
$ 418,000.00 |
^
$ 11,060.00
i
Total
Price
$ 12,200.00
$ 8,888.89
,
$ 418,000.00
$ 11,060.00
$ 450,148.89
$ 13,504.47
$ 18,005.96
$ 45,014.89
$ 526,674.20
$ 79,001.13
$ 79,001.13
$ 684,676.46
F-9
-------
Pack. SBR (80,000 gpd)
EPA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ESTIMATE
SYSTEM: SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR
FLOWRATE: 80,000 GPD
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ITEM
EST. OPERATING BRAKE HP - SBR
EST. ENERGY CONSUMPTION - UV
•
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION - NONE
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
OPERATOR @ $25/HR INC. FRINGE
SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL
TOTAL DAILY OPERATING COST
YEARLY OPERATING COST
BFS
KJK
KW-HRS/DA
QTY
4
QTY
80000
334
8.16
UNIT/DAY
HRS
UNIT/DAY
GALLONS
TENANCE ESTIMATED AT 1 % OF CONSTRUCTION COST
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT VALUE BASED ON 20 YEARS AT 7%
UNIT
PRICE
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
UNIT
PRICE
$ 25.00
UNIT
PRICE
0.0009
10.594
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 23.38
$ 0.60
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 100.00
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 72.00
$ 195.98
$ 71,531.12
$ 6,846.76
$ 78,377.89
$ 830,335.34
•
>
• .
Note: (1) Sludge collected by septage hauler and disposed by the hauler at a cost of $95/hr. The cost to
remove sludge from a 15,000 gpd SBR plant is $5,000 per year. Cost per gallon treated at this rate is
S0.0009/gal. treated
1 1
F-10
-------
Pack. Plant (1 mgd)
• .• EPA AEES Evaluation
Task 3D: Conventional Treatment Systems Estimate
Treatment System Evaluated and Avg Daily Flow:
Mean's Ref. Nc
> Item
Division 1 - General
Division 2 - Sitework
Division 3 - Concrete
1.1-140-6300
-. •
1.1-500-0170
Footer construction (121' dia. tank)
Footer construction (12* x 105' filter)
Base slab construction (tank)
Base slab construction (filter)
Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Division 8 - Doors and Windows
Division 9 - Finishes
Division 10 - Specialties (none)
Division 1 1 - EC
uipment
Package Plant (121 w x 12' h x!20' 1) '
1 inc. filtration equipment
UV disinfection
Division 12 - Furnishings (none) -
Division 13 - Special Construction "
Division 14 -Conveying Systems (none)
Division 15 - Mechanical
Division 16 - Electrical
••
,
,
.
1
Subtotal
Bonds, Insurance @
Mobilization @
Miscellaneous Direct -Costs @
Total
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency @
Subtotal
• ••
Solids Handling Facility (1)
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency®
Package Plant @ 1 mgd
Qty.
379.S
234
425.7
46.67
1
1
• -
Unit
If
If
cy
cy
Is'
Is
'
3%
4%
10%
15%
15%
15%
15%
Unit
Price ;
,
••- •
$; 50.00
$ 51.00
$ 250.00
$ 251.00
" '! ' '
$ 1,165,000.00
$ 44,800.00
-
Total
Price
$ 18,997.00
$ 11,934.00
$ 106,418.38
$ 11,713.33
$ 1,165,000.00
$ 44,800.00
• .
•
5 1,358,862.71
5 40,765.88
! 54,354.51
> 135,886.27
I 1,589,869.37
! 238,480.41
1 238,480.41
i 2,066,830.19
880,539
132,081
_ 132,081
F-1'1
-------
Pack. Plant (1 mgd)
Subtotal
1,144,700
Total
$ 3,211,531
NOTE: (1) Capital costs were scaled using the six-tenths rule.
Log-log plot of capacity versus equipment cost for a given type of equipment
should be a straight line with a slope of 0.6. Solids handling capital cost were
scaled from a 7 mgd (5.5 DTPD) design capacity plant - Downingtown WWTP.
Aerobic digester cost was included in the original cost estimate. This cost estimate
represents additional solids handling equipment downstream of the digester -
polymer system, belt filter presses, and lime stabilization equipment.
F-12
-------
Pack! Plant (1 mgd)
EPA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ESTIMATE
SYSTEM: PACKAGE PLANT ,
FLOWRATE: 1 MGD
PREPARED BY
CHECKED BY.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ITEM
EST. DAILY POWER REQUIREMENTS
EST. DAILY POWER REQUIREMENTS- UV
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION - NONE
METHANOL
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
OPERATOR @ $25/HR INC. FRINGE
SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
. •. • • ..
SLUDGE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL
A .
TOTAL DAILY OPERATING COST
YEARLY OPERATING COST
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ESTIMATED
AT 1 % OF CONSTRUCTION COST
• ' . - - ,- ' v
BKS
KJK
OIY
1
UIY
0.9
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST
PRESENT VALUE BASED ON 20 YEARS AT 7%
KW-HRS/DAY
3939
81.6
LBS/DAY
130
UNIT/DAY
EA
UNIT/DAY
DTPD
I
%
UNIT
PRICE
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
U.P.
$ 0.23
UNIT
PRICE
$200.00
UNIT
PRICE
$500.00
10.594
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 275.72
$ 5.71
TOTAL
$ 29.55
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 200.00
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 450.00
$ 960.98
$ 350,757.35
$ 20,668.30
$ 371,425.66
$ 3,934,883.41
F-13
-------
CARROUSEL (1 mgd)
EPA AEES Evaluation
Task 3D: Conventional Treatment Systems Estimate
Treatment System Evaluated and Avg Daily Flow:
Mean's Ref. No.
Item
Division 1 - General
Division 2 - Sitework
Pump station wet well
Pump station drywell
Division 3 - Concrete
1.1-140-6300
1.1-500-0170
Footer construction (caroussel)
Base slab construction (caroussel)
Tank wall construction (caroussel)
Footer construction (clarifiers)
Base slab construction (clarifiers)
Tank wall construction (clarifiers)
•
Division 4 - Masonry (none)
Division 5 - Miscellaneous Metals
•
Division 6 - Woods and Plastics
FRP tanks for alum addition
Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Division 8 - Doors and Windows
Division 9 - Finishes
Division 10 - Specialties
Division 11 -Equi
pment
Aeration Equipment
RAS Pump Station
Filtration equipment
UV disinfection
Clarifier Mechanisms
Division 12 - Furnishings (none)
Division 13 - Special Construction
Division 14 - Conveying Systems (none)
,
Division 15 - Mechanical
Division 16 - Electrical
Carrousel Oxidation Ditch @ 1 mgd
Qty.
1
1
634
1044
599
283
94
124
2
-
1
1
1
1
2
v
Unit
mh
mh
If
cy
cy
If
cy
cy
ea
•
Is
Is
Is
. Is
ea
•
Unit
Price i
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
$ 350.00
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
$ 350.00
$ 9,000.00
$ 206,250.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 312,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 60,000.00
, ' -•
*
Total
Price
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 31,700.00
$ 261,000.00
$ 209,650.00
$ 14,130.00
$ 23,500.00
$ 43,400.00
$ 18,000.00
$ 206,250.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 312,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 120,000.00
'
F-14
-------
CARROUSEL (1 mgd)
I
Subtotal •
Bonds, Insurance @
Mobilization @
Miscellaneous Direct Costs @
Total
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency®
Subtotal
Solids Handling Facility (1)
Contractor's OH & P @
Contingency®
Subtotal
•'• • - . •
Total Estimate
-- : - -
i
3%
4% .
10%
•>
15%
15%
15%
15%
-
NO it: (1) Capital costs were scaled using the six-tenths rule.
•
.
$ 1,347,630.00
$ 40,428.90
$ 53,905.20
$ 134,763.00
$ 1,576,727.10
$ 236,509.07
$ 236,509.07
$ 2,049,745.23
$ 880,538.75
$ 132,081
$ 132,081
$ ,1,144,700
$ 3,194,446
• ,
Log-log plot of capacity versus equipment cost for a given type of equipment
should be a straight line with a slope of 0.6. Solids handling capital cost were
scaled from a 7 mgd (5.5 DTPD) design capacity plant - Downingtown WWTP.
The digester is not required for the Carrousel oxidation ditch. This cost estimate
represents solids handling equipment (polymer system, belt filter presses.
and lime stabilization equipment).
F-15
-------
CARROUSEL (1 mgd)
EPA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ESTIMATE
SYSTEM: CARROUSEL OXIDATION DITCH
FLOWRATE: 1MGD
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
ITEM
EST. DAILY POWER REQUIREMENTS
BFS
KJK
EST. DAILY POWER REQUIREMENTS- UV
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION - NONE
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
OPERATOR @ $25/HR INC. FRINGE
SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL
TOTAL DAILY OPERATING COST
YEARLY OPERATING COST
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ESTIMATED
AT 1% OF CONSTRUCTION COST
OTY
8
OTY
1.08
KW^HRS/DAY
1850.0
81.6
GAL/DAY
'UNIT/DAY
bis
UNIT/DAY
DTPD
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST,
PRESENT VALUE BASED ON 20 YEARS AT 7%
UNIT
PRICE
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
U.P.
UNIT
PRICE
$ 25.00
UNIT
PRICE
$500.00
10.594
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 129.50
$ 5.71
TOTAL
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 200.00
TOTAL
PRICE
$ 537.50
$ 872.71
$ 318,539.88
$ 2,365.09
> 320,904.97
J 3,399,667.26
F-16
-------
Appendix G
Cost Estimates for the AEES
The AEES cost estimates presented in Tables G.1 and G.2 were provided in August
1995 by Living Technologies, Inc., Burlington, VT. They include significant revisions of
original estimates that were provided in May 1995. As noted in Section 13 of this report
some modifications to the estimates below were made by the senior author of this report to
reflect the actual costs for power and gas, the actual sludge production, and the actual
horticultural revenue at the AEES facility in Frederick, MD. Additional minor changes were
made to ensure compatibility between the AEES and Parsons ES estimates for labor rates,
power rates, maintenance needs, etc. ,
Notes by the Senior Author of this Report
Table G..1 estimates sludge production at 40,000 gpd at about 2 dry ton per year.
; Based on the actual data from the Frederick system, the sludge production would be 12 dry
ton per year. This then requires an increase in size and costs for the reed beds. These
increases were then, extrapolated for the 80,000 gpd and 1 mgd flows for the cost tables in
Section-13 of this report. . -
Table G.1 estimates horticultural revenue at 40,000 gpd at $17,472. The May
1995 cost estimate produced by Living Technologies assumed a horticultural revenue of
$5,411. The actual horticultural revenue at the Frederick, MD facility during the 1995
market season was about $2,400 with 75 percent of that for the plants grown on the High-
rate Marsh. The sale of potted plants grown on the other tanks returned about $600. The
cost estimates for the systems in this appendix do not include a marsh component so the
only horticultural revenue is from the potted plants. An estimate of 4 times the actual
potted plant revenue was used for the 40,000 gpd AEES costs.tabulated in Section 13.
This value was then extrapolated to the higher flow rates.
Table G,2 gives gas costs at 40,000 gpd. at $1,800 per year. Based on the records
at Frederick, MD the gas costs are $3>231 per year. This value was then extrapolated to
the 80,000 gpd and 1 mgd rates in Section 13 of the report.
Table G.2 also gives electricity costs at $5,000 for 40,000 gpd. Based/on records
at Frederick, MD the electricity costs were about $9,000 per year. This value was then
extrapolated to the higher flow rates in the cost tables in Section 13.
The cost of reed beds increases because of the higher sludge production which then
increases the capital costs of the system, and" also the maintenance costs which are taken
as a percentage of the capital costs. Parsons ES used 1% in their estimates whereas
Tables G.1 and G.2 used 2.5%. For continuity, a value of 1% was used for all of the cost
tables in Section 13.
G-1
-------
Appendix G
Table
Item
Greenhouse Area
Number of operators
Costs w/ greenhouse
Construction
Annual O&M
Costs w/o greenhouse
Construction
Annual O&M
G.I Total
Units
ft2
«
*
$
$
Estimated System
40,000 gpd ' .
2,184
0.6
$402,475
$47,697
$348,414
$44,545
Costs for the AEES
80,000 gpd
3,000
0.8
$560,457
$66,689
$485,289
$62,410
-
1,000,000 gpd
31,584
3.6
$4,043,026
$373,471
$3,554,987
$339,270
Total Cost w/ greenhouse & reed bed „
Horticultural revenue
Plant residuals
Sludge residuals
Reed bed area
Reed bed cost
Construction
Annual O&M
Total Present Worth
Total Annual Cost
$
kg/yr
kg/yr
ft2
$
$
$
$
$
$17,472
430
4,148
1,383
. $13,826
$416,301
$49,128
$562,063
$88,427
$24,000
86 j
8,295 .
2,765
$24,886
$585,343
$68,690
$1,313,045
$123,946
$221,088
10,785
103,693
34,564
$207,386
$4,250,412
$384,675
$8,325,659
$785,913
G-2
-------
Appendix
-------
-------
|