&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4204)
EPA 832 R-92-002
September 1992
Sequencing Batch Reactors
For Nutrif Jcation
And Nutrient Removal
f Priiiiedon Recycled Paper
-------
llif
liii
1!
KM,,
inn
iSH
"Mil!,!1!
Ill
!| .
i
HIIIIII
>-', i!i!l
M
HI' I1'!
Ill
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Enforcement and Compliance
Washington, D.C. 20460
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS
FOR NITRIFICATION AND NUTRIENT REMOVAL
SEPTEMBER 1992
-------
-------
NOTICE
This document has.been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental .
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Mention of trade
name! or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
-------
TABLES.
4 SITE VISITS
CONTENTS
Section ... ' ' . '. '
FIGURES iii
IV
EXECUTIVE -SUMMARY. ' \ 1
Background and Obj ectiyes '. ...-./......' - 1
Findings ...,...'..>..... : 2
Conclusions .'. '. V ,- .,..'.. .^ .. ~ 3
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET 'FS-1
1 DESCRIPTION OF SBR PROCESS }' !
INTRODUCTION . l~ l
Cycle Operation ' \~ *
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT l~ 2
Advantages "" *
Disadvantages 1" °
2 THEORY OF NITRIFICATION, DENITRIFICATION, AND PHOSPHORUS
..... 2
................. ' ........ ;
.- ........... - - ' ..... 2' 2
REMOVAL [[[ ..... 2 " 1
NITRIFICATION. . ...................... ................. ' ........ ; 2' 1
DENITRIFICATION ............................ ../- ........... - - ' .....
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL ........................ ' - ................. 2' 3
3 DESIGN ......................... ............................... ' 3 " 1
INTRODUCTION ................................ . .................. 3' 1
STANDARD SBR DESIGNS WITH NITRIFICATION: ...................... 3- 3
Aqua-Aerobic Systems.. ........... : ............ .......... 3" 3
Austgen Biojet ...................... ............. ........ 3" ^
Fluidyne ......... . ................. ....... -.- ............. 3' ^
. JetTech ................................. ............... 3~ 6
Purestream ......................... ..................... " °
Transenviro ..................... - . .............. ........ 3" ^
SBR DESIGNS FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL .............. ..... 3- 7
Aqua-Aerobic Systems ............... " .............. ........ 3-10
Austgen Biojet .............................. _- ..... ' ...... 3-10
Fluidyne . V ............... . ...... ' ........... - / '/' " - " '-3-11
JetTech ............................ ' ....... '' -1- ........... ' 3'11
* ^11
Purestream. . . . ? .................. _; ........................ .
Transenviro .................... ...................... : 3-11
INTRODUCTION ........................... ........... ...... ......' 4- 1
PLANT. OBSERVATION ............................................ 4~ 1
Marlette , Michigan ................................. ...... 4" 1
Graf ton , Ohio ................ . .............. ............ 4~ 5
-------
CONTENTS
Section
5 ANALYSIS OF SBR PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
PERMIT LIMITS.;-..:...; ..:...
PLANT DATA
Armada, Michigan
Buckingham, Pennsylvania : . . .
Caledonia, Minnesota :
Clarkston,'Michigan - Chateau Estates Mobile Home' Park.
Conover,. North Carolina - Southeast Plant
Del City, Oklahoma- ,...:.
Dundee, Michig'an
Fairchance, 'Pennsylvania. '.'. . . .% .
Grundy Center , Iowa "
Manchester, Michigan
McPherson, Kansas . . .
Mifflinburg, Pe-nnsylvania . '
Monticello, Indiana - White Oaks on the Lake Resort....
Muskegan Heights, Michigan - Clover Estates Mobile
Home Park
Walnut Grove, Pennsylvania. ....... : . .
Windgap, Pennsylvania :
6 COST ANALYSIS : :
INTRODUCTION
CAPITAL COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS. . . ,. '.
7 REFERENCES
Page
5- 1
5- 1
5.- 1
5- 5
5- 6
5- 6
5- 7
5- 7
5- 7
5- 7
5- 8
5- 8
5- 8
5- 8
5- 9
5- 9
5- 9
5- 9
'5,-10
i
6- 1
6- 1
6- 1
6- 4
7- 1
APPENDIX A
11
-------
FIGURES
. " Page
Figure .; . °~
FS-1 TYPICAL SBR OPERATION FOR ONE CYCLE -. FS' 7
FS-2 UTILITY, OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS FS' 8
1:' TYPICAL SBR OPERATION FOR ONE CYCLE '. 1- 3
".-.'_ /' -
2 AUSTGEN BIOJECT ICEASR BASIN '. ' l~ 4
3 DENITRIFICATION CYCLE FOR SBR ,- ' 3~ 8
4 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA
MARLETTE , MICHIGAN ; , 4" 3
5 -CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA
MARLETTE, MICHIGAN 4* 4
6 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, GRAFTON, OHIO .- 4- 7
7 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE.DATA, GRAFTON, OHIO 4- 8
8 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA,
SHELTER ISLAND. NEW YORK 4~l:L
9 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA,
SHELTER ISLAND, NEW YORK 4'12
10 UTILITY, OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS SUPPLIED
BY SBR FACILITIES -. 6" 3
ill
-------
TABLES
Table
FS-1
FS-2
1'
2
3
U
5
6
cup ITNTT RFT TARTT TTY - SUMMER . . '.
CUD T1MTT PFT TARTT TTY - UTNTFR' "
crYMllTMr'T? AT? P\7T?MTQ TM A THRFF TANK SYSTEM
TVDTrAT rvrt TT TTHR A'
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Objectives ... '
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has supported new
developments in wastewater treatment to promote the evolution of more efficient
treatment techniques. Programs within the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (OWEC). allow the application of new technology developments before
adequate field evaluations .have been completed. This support of full scale
applications of' new technologies without the 'benefit" of long term evaluation
comes with inherent potential risk of O&M and process problems due to lack of
experience. Evaluation of new technologies seeks to determine performance
capabilities and to identify weaknesses, limitations in use, maintenance
shortcomings, and cost effectiveness.
OWEC evaluates certain technologies to verify overall performance and
application to specific treatment needs. Results of evaluations may indicate.
the limitations of a technology for further .consideration and support. Where
technologies are Successful and show beneficial applications, the USEPA is
interested in providing current information to encourage their use.
This report specifically addresses the use of Sequencing Batch Reactors
(SBRs) for nitrification and nutrient removal. Although limited use of SBRs
began in the 1960s, it was not until the early 1980s that the technology became
more widely accepted and used. After early acceptance and use, USEPA expressed
increased interest in this technology especially in the comparative costs and
performance.
The USEPA funded a development project in 1980, conducted, by the University
of Notre Dame, to evaluate -,batch treatment of municipal wastewater. The
project involved the conversion of an existing 0.4 MGD continuous flow
activated sludge facility at Culver, Indiana into a two-tank SBR.(l) Results
of this 20-month project led to the use of SBR technology at several- other
municipal facilities. An important factor in the recent development of SBRs
was the advent of more reliable instrumentation combined with microprocessor
control.(2) _
-------
Page 2
Recently, concern over nutrient discharges to natural water systems and
more stringent regulations has led to modifications in SBR systems to achieve
nitrification, denitrification, and biological phosphorus removal. Presently,
approximately 170 SBRs are operating in the U.S. Of these, approximately 40
were designed, specifically to include nutrient removal.
. . »s
.In putting together 'this report, information was 'compiled from the
literature, equipment '.manufacturers, and wastewater treatment plant personnel.
The study focused on'well established plants'that had nutrient data available.
There are few plants with total nitrogen or phosphorus permit limits so .the
,, ,.
data for these nutrients are limited.
Findings
' Sequencing Batch Reactors are designed for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and total suspended solids (TSS) removal from typical domestic wastewater for
small (<5 MGD) municipal and private installations. Modifications to the basic
design can be mad.e to allow nitrification, denitrification, and biological
phosphorus removal to occur. Cycle time, design parameters, and equipment vary
among manufacturers. Influent wastewater characteristics, effluent
requirements, and site specific conditions influence' design development.'
Data were collected from 19 municipal and private SBR wastewater treatment
plants in the United States. The average design flow 'for .these plants ranged
from 0.028 to 3.0 MGD. The average mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)
concentration for eight of'the plants ranged from 2000 to 3600 mg/1. The food
to mass ratio (F/M) , available for six plants, ranged .frota 0.01 to 0.09 Ib
BOD/lb MLSS-day.' The solids retention time (SRT) was available for two plants,
which were designed for Nitrification,', denitrification, and biological
phosphorus removal. The SRT for' these two plants ranged from 17 to 30 days.
The average effluent BOD concentration ranged from 3 .'0 to -14.0. mg/1 with
removals ranging from 88.9 to 98.1 percent. The average effluent TSS ranged
from 3.7 to 20.2 mg/1, excluding one plant with an average effluent TSS of 52
mg/1. No influent TSS data was available for this plant. Removals for TSS
ranged from 84.7 to 97.2 percent.
-------
Page 3-
Eight planes measured both influent and effluent ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N)
concentrations. Effluent -NH3-N concentrations for these eight plants ranged
from 0.285 to 1.68 mg/1. Ammonia removal ranged from 90.8 to 96.8 percent.
Denitrification data was limited. One plant monitored both influent and
effluent total nitrogen concentrations. Total nitrogen removal for this plant
averaged 56 percent. Denitrification was occurring at three additional-.plants
that measured both effluent' nitrate,-nitrite nitrogen (NOs t N'O^-N) and influent
NH3-N.
Seven plants measured effluent phosphorus concentrations. "The average
effluent phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.53 to 4.27 mg/1. .Two plants
measured both influent and effluent, phosphorus concentrations. One of these
plants average 57 percent phosphorus removal, while the other averaged 64
percent removal in the summer and 69 percent in the winter. Two plants added
chemicals for phosphorous removal and are not included in these findings.
r
Conclusions
The SBR performance data shows that typical SBR designs can meet effluent
BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 10 mg/1. With some additional design
modifications, SBRs can successfully nitrify to limits of 1 to 2 mg/1 NH3-N.
They also appear to achieve denitrification when properly designed and achieve
phosphorus removal without chemicals to less than 1.6 mg/1, although data on
both processes are limited.
SBR's flexibility to meet changing . influent conditions due to ability to
adjust cycles can be especially important for 'biological' nutrient removal
design and process optimization. Current SBR designs are typically very
conservative with long HRTs, ;low F/Ms -and high MLSS. . -
SBR aeration design is different from a conventional activated sludge
system, since all the process air must be supplied during the FILL and REACT
cycles. Downstream processes following SBRs must be sized for higher flow
rates due to high decant ratios unless flow equalization is used.
-------
Page 4
The SBR market is competitive which will encourage cost effectiveness when
compared to competing technologies. State standards have.not yet .been
developed for SBRs similar to those that many states have for conventional
systems. Current .designs are based on several factors, including fundamental
process knowledge, manufacturer's information, actual plant performance
experience, and .permit requirements.'
-------
Page FS-1
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET
Description -. A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is an activated sludge
biological treatment process that is applicable to treatment -of municipal and
industrial wastewater for small to medium flowrat.es , (0 to 5 mgd) . An SBR
treatment cycle consists 'of a timed sequence''which typically includes the
following steps: FILL, REACT, 'SETTLE, DECANT, IDLE.''whert biological nutrient
removal (BNR) is desired, the steps in the cycle are adjusted to provide anoxic
or anaerobic periods within the standard cycles.
Aeration in an SBR may be provided by fine or coarse bubble diffusers, floating
aerator/mixers or jet aeration devices". The SBR process is usually preceded, by
some type of preliminary treatment such as screening, communition or grit
removal. Because the SBR process operates in a series of timed steps, reaction-
and settling can occur in the same tank, eliminating the need for a final
clarifier.
The SBR technology has the advantage of being very flexible in terms of
matching react and settle times-to the strength and treatability
characteristics of a particular waste stream. .
Common Modifications - , SBRs can be modified to provide secondary, advanced
secondary treatment, nitrification, denitrification and biological nutrient
removal. SBR manufacturers have adapted the sequence of batch treatment cycles
described above in various ways. .' Some systems use acontinuous inflow and
provide a baffle to minimize short-circuiting.' SBRs were^qriginarty configured
in pairs so that, one reactorvwas"filling during half of'each cycle (while the
wastewater in the other reactor was reacting, settling and being Scanted) .
The modified configurations available include one- SBR with an influent
surge/holding tank; a three ,SBR system in which the fill time is one third of
the total cycle time; and a continuous inflow SBR.
Technology Status - There are currently . (July 1991) .approximately 170
wastewater treatment facilities in the United States which employ the SBR
technology. Approximately 40 of these SBR systems are designed or operated for
BNR.
-------
; Page FS-2
Typical Equipment/No. of Manufacturers - Complete -SBR systems are available in
the United States from the following manufacturers: . .
Aqua-Aerobic Systems . .
Austgen Biojet
Fluidyne s . ,
JeCTech ' ... . ,
Purestream " . .
Transenviro . .
Applicatlons - Sequencing batch reactor technology is applicable for any
municipal or industrial waste where conventional or extended aeration activated
sludge treatment is appropriate. SBR sizes can range from 3,000 gpd to over 5
MGD. The technology is applicable for BOD and TSS removal, nitrification,-:
denitrification and biological phosphorus removal. The technology-, is
especially applicable for industrial pretreatment and for smaller flow (< 1.0
MGD) applications as well as for applications where the waste is generated for
less than 12 hours per day.
Limitations - SBRs require oversize effluent outfalls because the entire daily
wastewater volume must be discharged during the decant period(s), which is
typically 4 to 6 hours per day. Aeration systems must be sized to .provide the
total process air requirements during the AERATED FILL .-and REACT steps. The
cost-effectiveness of SBRs may limit their utility at design flow rates above
10 MGD. Earlier SBRs experienced maintenance problems with decant mechanisms
but these have largely been resolved with present:day designs.
Performance - The average performance based -on data- f.rom 19 plants, is
summarized below: > .
BOD Removal " 89 -'98%
TSS Removal 85 - 97%
Nitrification 91 - 97%
Total Nitrogen Removal >75 %
Biological Phosphorus Removal 57 - 69%
-------
Page FS-1
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET
Description - A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is an activated sludge
biological treatment process that is applicable to treatment -of municipal and
industrial wastewater for' small to medium flowrates (0 to 5 mgd). An SBR
treatment cycle consists, 'of a timed sequence which typically includes the
following steps.: FILL, REACT, SETTLE, DECANT., IDLE. ' Whert biological nutrient
removal (BNR) is desired, the steps in the cycle are adjusted to provide anoxic
or anaerobic periods within the standard cycles.
Aeration in an SBR may be provided by fine.or coarse bubble diffuser's, floating
aerator/mixers or jet aeration devices. The SBR process is usually preceded-by
some type of preliminary .treatment such as screening, communition or grit
removal. Because the SBR process operates in a series of timed steps, reaction
and settling "can occur in the same tank, eliminating the need for a final
clarifier.
The SBR technology has the advantage of being very flexible in terms of
matching react and settle times to the strength and treatability
characteristics of a particular waste stream.
Common Modifications - SBRs can be modified to provide secondary, advanced
secondary treatment, nitrification, denitrification and biological nutrient
removal. SBR manufacturers have adapted the sequence of batch treatment cycles
described above in various ways. Some systems" use a continuous inflow and
provide a baffle to minimize short-circuiting. SBRs were originally configured
in pairs so that one reactor^was filling during half of each cycle (while, the
wastewater in the other reactor was reacting, settling and being decanted).
The modified configurations available include one - SBR with an influent
surge/holding tank; a three SBR system in which the fill time is one third of
the total cycle time; and a continuous inflow SBR.
Technology Status - There are currently (July 1991) approximately 170
wastewater treatment facilities in the United Scates .which employ the SBR
technology. Approximately 40 of these SBR systems are designed or operated for
BNR.
-------
, Page FS-2
Typical Equipment/No, of Manufacturers - Complete SBR systems are available in
che United States from the following manufacturers:
Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Austgen Biojet
Fluidyne . - .'
JetTech ' . . '
Purescream . . .. ."'.
Transenviro ' '. ' x
''Applications - Sequencing batch reactor technology is applicable for any
municipal or industrial waste where conventional or extended aeration activated
sludge treatment is appropriate. SBR sizes can range from 3,000 gpd to over 5
MGD. The technology is applicable for BOD and TSS removal, nitrification,
denicrification and biological phosphorus removal. The technology is
especially applicable for industrial pretreatment and for smaller flow.-;,<< 1.0
MGD) applications as well as for applications where the waste is generated for
less than 12 hours per day.
Limitations - SBRs require oversize effluent outfalls because the entire daily
wastewater volume must be discharged during the decant period(s), which is
typically A to 6 hours per day. Aeration systems must be sized to provide the
cotal process air requirements during the AERATED FILL .and REACT steps. The
cost-effecciveness of SBRs may limit their utility at design flow rates above
10 MGD. Earlier SBRs experienced maintenance problems with decant mechanisms
but Chese have largely been resolved with present-day designs.
Performance - The average performance based on data, \fr.6m 19 plants is
summarized below: i .
BOD Removal 89 -' 98%
TSS Removal 85 - 97%
Nitrification 91 - 97%
Total Nitrogen Removal >?5 %
Biological Phosphorus Removal 57 - 69%
-------
Page FS-3
Chemicals Required - Chlorination and dechlorination chemicals are required for
applications which, involve .the direct discharge of domestic waste (unless UV
disinfection is utilized). Also, some facilities have found it necessary to
add alum or ferric chloride to meet stringent effluent phosphorus limits.
Residuals Generated - Secondary sludge is generated at quantities similar to
the activated sludge process depending on the system' operating conditions (SRT
'-. " t * ^
and organic load). \ : - . '
Design Criteria
BOD Loading:
SRT:
Detention time:
F/M:
Cycle time (conventional)
Cycle time (BNR):
30 to 60 Ibs BOD/1000 ft3/day
5 to 30 days
6 to 12 hours
0.05 to 0.5 Ibs BOD/lb MLSS
k to 6 hours
6 to 8 hours
Unit Process Reliability - Tables FS-1 and FS-2 indicate the percent of time
when the summer and winter monthly average.effluent concentration of the given
pollutants met the criteria shown in the first column. These tables were
developed from the data discussed in the performance section of this sheet,
although some start-up data was eliminated.
Environmental Impact - Solid waste, odor and air pollution impacts are similar
to those encountered with standard activated sludge processes..
Toxics Management - The same potential for sludge conCamiriation, upsets' and
: 11 .
pass-through of toxic pollutants exists for"SBR systems as with standard
activated sludge processes. ; - .....'
-------
Page FS-4
TABLE FS-1. SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - SUMMER
Monthly Average Data - April through September
.
<. 5 me/1
" ** *"O/
<1 mg/1
<2 mg/1
<3 mg/1
<4 mg/1
<5 mg/1
<10 rag/1
<20 mg/L
<30 mg/1
if Plants
BOD
mg/1
0.0%
0.0%
1.4-%
14 . 4%
26 . 7%
34.9%
69.9%
96.6%
98.6%
14
TSS
mg/1 '
0.0% !
' 0.0%' "
2.1%
7.6%
16.7%
25.0%
61.8%
88.2%
93.8%
14
TKN
mg/1
' 16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
83.3%
83.3%
83.3%
100.0%
1
NH3-N
mg/1
'42.6%
61.7%'
77.4%'
87.8%
91.3%
92.2%
98.3%
100.0%
100 . 0%
11
N03+N02-N
me/1
-
6:7% ,
53.3%
68.9%
75.6%
91.1%
93.3%
97 . 8%
97 . 8%
97.8%
5
P
ELS/l
' - 24.4%
53.7%
78.0%
62 . 9%
8 5. .4%
95.1%
100 . 0%
100.0%
100.0%
5V
TN
SL&Z1.
0.0%
.- 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
' 0.0%
0 . 0%
25.0%
75.0%
9,1. 7 X
1 .
Daca taken from the following 15 wastewater treatment facilities:
Armada, MI; Buckingham, PA; Caledonia, MN; Del City. OK;.Dundee, MI; Grafton,
OH- Manchester, MI; McPherson, KS; Southeast WWTP, Conover, NC; Walnut Grove,
Stroudsburg, PA; Chateau Estates, Clarkston. Ml'; Clover Estates, Muskegon
Heights, MI; Grundy Center IA; Mifflinburg, PA; and Windgap, PA.
-------
Page FS-5
TABLE FS-:2. SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - WINTER
Monthly Average Data - October through March
-
<.5 mg/1
<1 mg/1
<2 mg/1
<3 mg/1
<4 mg/1
<5 mg/1
<10 mg/1
<20 mg/L ,
<30 mg/1
// Plants
BOD
mg/1
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
12.2%
23.7%
'35.3%
65.5%
89.2%
95.7%
14
TSS
mg/1
On^^
''0.0% '
0.0%
2.0%
7 . 4%
16.8%
20.8%
55.0%
82.6%
90.6%
14
TKN
mg/1
' 0,0%'
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1'
NH3-N
mg/1
45.5%
65.2%
76.8%
82 . 1%
83.0%
86.6%
92 . 6%
,100.0%
100 . 0%
11
N03+N02-N
- mg/1
25C 5% -
s 61.7%
68.1%
78.7%
89.4%
89.6%
95.7%
100 . 0%
100.0%
5
, P
mg/1
^24.6%
50.8%
80.3%
86.9%
93.4%
96.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100 . 0%
5
TN
. mg/1 -.
0 . 0%'
' 0.0%
.0.0%
.0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
38.5%
100 . 0.%
100 ."0%
1
Data taken from the following 15 wastewater treatment facilities:
Armada, MI; Buckingham, PA; Caledonia, MN; Del City, OK; Dundee, MI; Grafton,
OH; Manchester, MI; McPherson, KS; Southeast WWTP, :-Conover, NCr Walnut Grove,,
Stroudsburg, PA; Chateau Estates, Clarkston, MI; Cloveir Estates, Muskegon
Heights, MI; Grundy Center IA; Mifflinburg, PA; and Windgap,.PA.
-------
Page FS-6
Flow Diagram - Figure FS-1 illustrates a typical SBR over one cycle.
Coses - July 1991 dollars, ENR (Engineering News Record) Index. Construction
costs were available for six plants, while five plants supplied total capital
costs. Construction costs were converted to capital costs by adding 15 percent
for engineering and construction supervision and 15 percent for contingencies.
All capital costs were adjusted to July 1991 costs.. -Figure FS-2 presents, the
cost data available for utility, operating and capital costs.compared to actual
and design flow. '. % '
References
Evaluation of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Nitrification and Nutrient Removal.
Prepared by HydroQual, Inc., October 1991.
Sequencing Batch Reactors - Summary Report (EPA 625/8-'86/011) U . S .
Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research, Information,
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
PERCENT OF:
MAX
VOLUME
25
to
100
CYCLE
TIME
25
INFLUENT
100
35
100
20
100
to
35
15
36
to
25
FILL
PURPOSE/OPERATION
AIR
'ON/OFF
gg&^g^l ^ AsDTDAT£
- REACT Tl
&&&&$£&
£M^&gg3 "ffiZ*
..... y
. AIR
SETTLE OFF
j CLARIFY
DRAW
OFF
EFFLUENT
REMOVE
EFFLUENT
mi P ^^ AIR
IULt ^ . ADJUST ON/OFF
WASTE-
"SLUDGr
Figure F-1. Typical SBR Operation for One Cycle
-------
1
c
<
01
£<
cnv»
o
uu.
0 0.1
£cn
35
t-lt-l
»-_J
3_l ,
t-H
3E
0.01
E~T~I imr
PI 1111
ii i i mini i i HIM
o
o E
0 ~
!>> i i H mn i lilllil
v e.oi o.i i
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
tniu
ov»
"a.
CDO
5 01
££-<
O.i
0.01
0.001
i 11 nun nillllH I I III!
o.ooi o.oi o.i i 10
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
in
to*
10
b i 11 Him i ii
0 0 0
0 0
o
0 O
rTTTTB
o ~
= 0
- . o
o.il 1 I
t lilt"" '
0.01 0.1 i
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
Figure F-2. Utility, Operating and Capital Costs
-------
Page 1-1
SECTION 1.
DESCRIPTION OF SBR PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
The SBR is a modification of conventional continuous flow"activated sludge
sewage treatment. The SBR is a fill-and-draw system that operates in a batch
rather than in a continuous mode. A conventional activated sludge (CAS) system
carries out.aeration and sedimentation/clarification simultaneously in separate
tanks. The SBR process performs these operations sequentially i.n the same
tank. An SBR system is comprised of either a storage tank and an SBR tank, or
a minimum of two SBR tanks to handle continuous influent. A modification of
the SBR process, the Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEASR),
manufactured by Austgen Biojet, operates with a continuous feed and
intermittent withdrawal. A baffle wall installed in the ICEASR treatment tank
buffers this continuous inflow.(3)
Cycle Operation
A typical SBR cycle for BOD and TSS (Total Suspended Solids) removal is
divided into the following five steps:
1. Fill - Raw wastewater flows into the tank and mixes with mixed liquor held
in the tank. Aeration is on and biological degradation begins to take
place. . / .
i'
2. React - The mixed liquor is aerated for a "specified time until the design
effluent BOD is reached. . - . ..-.-
3. Settle - Aeration is stopped and the solids settle to the bottom of the
tank.
=4. Draw - Treated effluent is decanted from the top of the tank and
discharged.
-------
Page 1-2
5. Idle - Time between cycles. Idle is used in multiple tank configurations
to adjust cycle .times between SBR reactors. Sludge wasting can occur
during idle, draw or settle. Differences in fill time may exist due . to
diurnal fluctuation. Other minor variations in individual SBR tank cycles
are regulated with the idle step.
' Eigure 1 illustrates -this sequence of events. (4)- 'The l'CEASR modification
does not have a separate idle or fill phase since it uses continuous fill. The
* / ' * '
baffled pre-reaction "compartment in an ICEASR;tank permits wastewater to.-enter .
continuously without causing a significant disturbance during settle and draw.
Figure 2 illustrates the 1CEASR tank configuration.<3>
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT ,
The SBR system consists, of one or more tanks equipped with a reactor inlet,,
aeration equipment, a sludge draw off mechanism, a decant mechanism vfor
removing clarified supernatant, and a control mechanism to time and cycle-the;
processes. Tanks may be constructed of steel or Concrete. The shape is .not
critical and SBRs can be retrofitted into existing rectangular or circular
tanks.
SBR manufacturers offer a variety of features designed to meet different
performance needs. Decant mechanisms and air diffuse-r'.designs may differ
markedly.between manufacturers. Decant mechanisms include a submerged outlet
pipe with automated valves, weir troughs connected to flexible couplings,
floating weirs, movable baffles, tilting weirs and floating submersible
pumps (D Some decant mechanisms have the potential problem 'of drawing solids
when beginning the DRAW phase. Solids may get trapped^bn,;the piping during
aeration. This can be minimised by decanter, modifications or by recirculating
the first few minutes of flow to ^. second reactor until the supernatant clears.
It is important to insure that effluent removal is uniformly distributed across
the tank; the draw mode is the peak hydraulic flow within the cycle and short
circuiting can cause uncontrolled suspended solids loss.
-------
PERCENT OF:
MAX
VOLUME
25
to
100
CYCLE
TIME
25
INFLUENT
100
35
FILL
bO(
p*
REACT
PURPOSE/OPERATION
AIR
ON/OFF
ADD
SUBSTRATE
AIR
ON
REACTION
TIME
100
20
SETTLE
AIR
OFF
.CLARIFY
100
to
35
15
DRAW
EFFLUENT
AIR
OFF
REMOVE
EFFLUENT
35
to
25
IDLE
CYCLE
ADJUST
WASTE
"SLUDGE
AIR
ON/OFF
Reference (4)
Rgure 1. Typical SBR Operation for One Cycle
-------
PRE-REACT CHAMBER
REACTOR
INFLUENT
MAIN CHAMBER
BAFFLE WALL / /DECANTER
WASTE SLUDGE
PUMP
AIR/DIFFUSERS'
TREATED EFFLUENT
Keference (3)
Figure 2. Austgen Biojet ICEAS* Basin
-------
Page 1-5
Aeration systems include jet aeration, fine bubble and coarse bubble
diffused aeration, and floating mechanical aerators. Jet aeration can provide
either aeration or mixing without aeration in one unit by operating the pumping
system with the air supply on or off. Some manufacturers supply separate
mixing mechanisms for this purpose. One variation to the typical aeration
system is retrievable aerators, which' allow aerators to be cleaned or replaced
without emptying the SBR.-(-?) Other systems include backflush mechanisms to
clean the aerators. -..-, , ' -
\ - * ,
Advantages
The SBR system has advantages compared to a CAS system and offers much
flexibility. Some of the technical and financial advantages are;
* Early in plant lifetime, when plant flow may be significantly below
design flow, level sensors that control cycle times can be set at a
lower level. Cycle times would be the same as design-, but power would
not be wasted in over-aeration.(5)
* A greater, dissolved oxygen driving gradient exists during the first
part of the react cycle due to the low/zero DO concentration during
anoxic fill. This results in somewhat higher .oxygen transfer
efficiencies for a given size of aeration equipment.^)
* An SBR tank operates as an equalization tank during fill and can
therefore tolerate peak flows and .shock loads of BOD without
degradation of effluent quality. -~
* A return activated "* sludge (RAS) pumping system' is not needed since
aeration and settling occur in the same tank.. Sludge volume and
sludge age are controlled by sludge wasting.
* Periodic discharge of flow may enable effluent to be held until permit
limitations are met.
-------
Page 1-6
Growch of filamentous organisms which cause sludge bulking can be
controlled by adjustments in the food-to-mass ratio (F/M) and aeration
time during the fill cycle.
SBR systems may require less physical space than a CAS system when
considering the entire plant-. SBR systems can be retrofitted into a
wide range of existing ,tank structures.' . '
Disadvantages
The following are potential disadvantages of the SBR system. These are
usually overcome through proper design, process adjustments, or equipment
modifications.
* Problems with sludge settling .will result in solids in the effluent
and a -loss of the process performance.
* Floating decant mechanisms may be subject to mechanical problems.
Fixed systems require that the sludge blanket be below the intake
before decanting. Both systems may draw, in trapped solids when first
starting the decant phase .
* Surface freezing of controls and, decant mechanisms .may occur in cold
climates during the settling and decant phases.
*
The relatively high flow rate during decant may require flow
equalization or over design when followed by' disinfection or
filtration facilities . (6) '-'"!'
i
>" .
With long SRTs, denitrification may occur during settle and sludge may
begin to rise due to the formation of nitrogen gas. This "is usually
aggravated at elevated temperatures .
-------
Page 1-7
* Aeration equipment must be larger, since process air must be supplied
over a shorter period. ' .
* Effluent sewers must be oversized since decant flows are much higher
than 'normal inflow.
-------
-------
Page 2-1
SECTION 2. .
THEORY OF NITRIFICATION, DENITRIFICATION , AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
The following sections describe biological processes that occur naturally
in the environment and which can be encouraged to take place for the purpose of
nutrient removal in wastewater treatment systems.- . '.
''.'"' / **
NITRIFICATION
Nitrification is the biological oxidation of ammonia (NH4+)- to nitrite
N03- + 2H+ + H20
Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen concentration, and solids retention time
(SRT) are important parameters in nitrification kinetics/. The rate of
nitrification in an activated sludge system decreases with decreasing
temperature. The optimum temperature is between '-25 and 35°C, The optimum pH
for nitrification is in the range of 7.5 .to 9.0. Below pH 7 .0. and .above pH 9.8
the nitrification rate is les^ than 50 percent of the optimum. Alkalinity is
destroyed by the oxidation of ammonia, thereby- reducing the pH. A ratio of
7.14 mg alkalinity is destroyed per mg. of ammonia nitrogen oxidized. Aeration
partially strips the carbon dioxide from the wastewater thereby reducing
alkalinity reduction; however sufficient alkalinity must remain in the
wastewater so as not to depress the pH. Maximum nitrification r.ates occur at
dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 2 mg/1. The nitrification process
consumes 4.57 Ibs of oxygen per pound of ammonia nitrogen converted to
nitrate.
-------
Page 2-2
The nicrification race is also dependent on the fraction of nitrifying
bacteria present ,in 'the system. A principal means of increasing the
nicrif ication rate is to increase the fraction of nitrifiers. This can be
accomplished by increasing the aeration basin mixed liquor suspended .solids
(MLSS) concentration which increases the SRT. Lowering the ratio between the
5-day BOD and the total Kjeldahl, nitrogen concentration (BODs/TKN) by
nitrifying in a separate second stage aeration system would also increase the
percentage of nitrifiers and thus the .nitrification rate.(.8) This approach,
however, has not been found to be 'a cost effective d'esign^ for normal municipal
wastewater.
DENITRIFICATION
Biological denitrification is a process in which nitrate is reduced to
nitrogen gas by microorganisms in the absence of dissolved oxygen.
Denitrification can occur provided a sufficient source of nitrate and organic
carbon are present. The denitrification process can be expressed by the
following reaction:
N03
+ organic carbon > N2.(gas) + C02
The denitrif ication process occurs in two steps. The first step involves
the reduction of nitrate to nitrite. In the second 'step, nitritei is reduced to
produce nitrogen gas. Numerous species of facultative heterotrophic bacteria,
including Pseudomonas, Micrococcus, Achromob.acter , . and Bacillus are capable of
converting nitrate to nitrogen gas. Nitrate replaces oxygen in the respiratory
processes of the organisms capable of deni trif legation ' under anoxic
conditions.
Environmental factors including temperature, pH, and disso' "ed oxygen
concentration have an effect on the rate of denitrif ication. Denitrification
occurs at temperatures in the range of 10 to 30°C. The rate of denitrif ication
is reduced below pH 6.0 and above pH 9.0. The optimum pH is in the range of
6.5 to 8.0. A dissolved oxygen concentration greater than 1 mg/1 inhibits
deni trif ication.
-------
Page 2-3
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Phosphorus in wastewater may be present as orthophosphate, polyphosphate,
or organic phosphorus. Orthophosphate is the more easily removed of the three
types of phosphorus. Polyphosphates are converted to orthophosphate by
hydrolysis and organic phosphorus as converted to orthophosphate through.
bacterial decomposition. (9) .- .
' . * / ^
Conventional secondary biological treatment systems accomplish partial
.phosphorus removal by using phosphorus for biomass synthesis during BOD
removal. A typical phosphorus content of microbial solids is 1.5. to 2 percent
based on dry weight. Wasting of excess microbial solids may result in a total
phosphorus removal of 10 to 30 percent,'' depending on the BOD to phosphorus
ratio, the system sludge age, sludge handling techniques and sidestream return
flows.(9)
Additional biological phosphorus removal will occur i.f wastewater is
subjected to both anaerobic and aerobic conditions. When an anaerobic stage
(absence of DO and oxidized nitrogen) precedes an aerobic stage, fermentation
products are produced from the BOD in the wastewater by the action of
facultative organisms. The phosphorus storing microorganisms are able to
assimilate the fermentation products under anaerobic conditions. Because many
competing microorganisms cannot function in this manner, the phosphorus storing
microorganisms have a distinct advantage over other organisms in the activated
sludge system. Thus, the anaerobic phase results in the development of
phosphorus storing microorganisms.(9,10) .
During,the aerobic phase the stored substrate produces -are depleted and
soluble phosphorus is taken up by the microorganisms in quantities greater than
what is needed to function. This "luxury uptake" of phosphorus is maximized' at
dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 2 mg/1. At lower DO
concentrations the excess phosphorus.will be released from the microorganisms.
-------
Page 2-4
For biological phosphorus removal to occur, an anaerobic stage is required
for che production of the fermentation products. Therefore, if nitrification
is occurring, it is necessary for denitrification to take place before enhanced
biological phosphorus removal can occur. If this does not happen and nitrite
or nitrate are present, the system is anoxic rather than anaerobic. For this
reason, a Tow dissolved oxygen concentration must be maintained for a longer
period when bi'ological phosphorus removal is required than when denitrification
is required. .."_'.'
-------
Page 3-1
SECTION 3
DESIGN
INTRODUCTION '.'"'.,
,".*'*-' ' x
Standard SBR systems are designed to reduce, the BOD and TSS concentrations
of the wastewater. SBR systems have been consistently able to achieve removals
of greater than 90 percent of BOD and TSS.
An SBR system can be designed to achieve nitrification, denitrif ication,
and biological phosphorus removal. Adjustments to the standard operating
strategies are required. These adjustments may require additional plant
capacity and equipment, and are included in the design of a system.
Cycle times are an essential aspect of an SBR system design. The basic
steps in an SBR cycle, FILL, REACT, SETTLE, DRAW, and'lDLE, vary both by
manufacturer and design conditions. Total cycle times may be constant or may
vary with flow. The percent of the reactor volume that is decanted during each
cycle (percent decant) is a design parameter important to batch systems. The
size of the reactor volume is determined by design flow requirements, the
design volume occupied by settled MLSS , and a design decant depth. SBR designs
are unique because the oxygen delivery system must be sized to deliver the
total process oxygen requirements during the FILL and REACT portions of the SBR
cycle.
In a multi-tank system, a'ir piping may be arranged so that one blower- can
aerate more than one -eactor. Table 1 .shows the sequence of events in a three-
tank system which offsets the REACT phase in each basin". (1)
Other important SBR design criteria are similar to those used in the design
of a conventional activated sludge treatment facility'. These include hydraulic
retention time (HRT) , solids retention time (SRT), MLSS concentration, influent
wastewater characteristics, and effluent requirements.
-------
-------
Table 1 _ Sequence of Events in a Three Tank System
Tank Number
Fill
React
Settle
Draw
Idle
Fill
React
Settle
Draw
Idle
React
Settle
Draw
Idle
Fill
React
Settle
Draw
Idle
Fill
Settle
Draw
Idle
Fill
React
Settle
Draw
Idle
Fill
React
Reference (1)
-------
-------
Page 3-3
The following two sections examine SBR designs' for BOD and TSS removal with
nitrification and the variations to these designs necessary to achieve
denitrification and phosphorus removal.
STANDARD SBR DESIGNS WITH NITRIFICATION
A standard SBR system is designed to reduce the BOD and TSS concentrations
of a wastewater. Some .standard.-systems are designed for nitrification as well'.
Table 2 lists typical steps for a standard SBR cycle with nitrification.' This
table also describes the purpose of each step and the conditions that should be
present to best achieve that purpose. Nitrification can only, occur under
conditions of adequate DO (minimum 1 to 2 rag/1) and sufficiently long SRT (5 to
20 days or more depending upon tempe.rature) to ensure growth of nitrifying
bacteria. In an SBR system, nitrification takes place during the REACT phase
and periods of aerated fill.(^'7)
The cycles designed by the majority of the SBR manufacturers studied
deviate from the standard cycle of Table 2 in -one or.more ways. Other
differences occur in tank configuration and design parameters. The following
paragraphs briefly .discuss specific designs of six major SBR manufacturers.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Aqua-Aerobic's tankage and total cycle times are designed to treat the
maximum daily flow. This is to ensure that effluent quality is maintained
during periods of peak flows. Typically, other manufacturers design a shorter
storm cycle to handle peak flows during rain events that-'may reduce effluent
quality if operated for extended periods. A larger SBR,' taYik' is required for
systems designed for the maximum daily flow. _ .
Aqua-Aerobics conventional load system provides for BOD and TSS removal and
limited nutrient reduction. The system operates at an F/M ratio of 0.15 to
0.35 Ib BOD/lb MLSS-day and a MLSS between 1500 and 3000 mg/1.
-------
Sceo
FILL
REACT
SETTLE
DRAW
IDLE
TABLE 2. TYPICAL CYCLE FOR A STANDARD SBR WITH NITRIFICATION
Conditions
Influent flow into SBR
Aeration
Time - half of cycle time
No influent flow to SBR
Aeration
Time typically - 1\ to 2 hours
(varies widely, depending on
BOD removal kinetics and
waste strength
No influent flow to SBR
No aeration
Time - approx. 1 hour (depends oh
settling characteristics)
No influent flow to SBR
No aeration
Effluent is decanted
Time - 1 hour (varies)
No influent flow to SBR
No aeration
Sludge is wasted
Time - variable, determined by
flow rate
Purpose
Addition of raw wasstewater to the
SBR, BOD removal and nitrification
Biological
nitrification
BOD removal and
Allow suspended sol'ids to, settle,
yielding a clear supernatant
Decant - remove effluent from
reactor; 10 to 50 percent of the
reactor volume is typically
decanted, depending on hydraulic
considerations and SBR
manufacturer's design
Multi-tank system, allows time for
one reactor to complete the fill
step before another starts a new
cycle. Waste sludge - remove
excess solids from reactors
A typical total cycle time is 4 to 6 hours
-------
Page 3-5
The SBRs designed by Aqua-Aerobics typically include a separate mixing
device. In addition, - Aqua-Aerobics offers both fixed and . retrievable
diffusers.(7)
Austgen Bioiet
'The Austgen Biojet ICEAS('R) SBR system utilizes continuous inflow and
therefore, does not require a se-parate FILL step./ Continuous inflow also
eliminates the need for an IDLE step. Sludge is wasted during the SETTLE, or
-'DRAW phase. The SBR basin includes a baffle wall that forms a pre-reac.t zone
which has an anoxic environment during SETTLE and DRAW. The "SBR basin is
typically designed with a length to width ratio of at least 3:1. This creates
a plug flow system and prevents short-circuiting of the influent during the
decant sequence.
An Austgen Biojet ICEAS(R) SBR is typically designed to aerate for two
hours within a total cycle time of four hours. Overall cycle times are shorter
than other system 'due to the lack of a separate FILL step. Austgen Biojet
systems may also be designed with one hour aeration and a three-hour cycle to
handle storm flows.
If only BOD and TSS removal are required, the reactor size for an Austgen
Biojet SBR is determined by using a prescribed food 'to microorganism (F/M)
ratio. A F/M ratio between 0.05 and 0.15 Ib BOD/lb MLSS-day is typically used.
If nitrification is required, the determination of the reactor volume required
for nitrification is based on the required degree of ammonia removal, the
nitrification rate, the time of aeration,, and the mixed liquor volatile
suspended' solids (MLVS S), concentration. When both*' BOD removal ' and
nitrification are required, the reactor volumes required for BOD removal and
nitrification are determined,- and the-larger of the two ..is" chosen. (3)
Fluidvne
For small systems, Fluidyne will design a single SBR with continuous
inflow, rather than the standard sequencing reactor. In SBRs with continuous
inflow, the tank is baffled to minimize short-circuiting and there is no
-------
Page 3-6
discrete FILL seep. Fluidyne also designs single- or multi-reactor SBR systems
without continuous inflow. Each Fluidyne SBR tank is equipped with jet
aerators that can provide both aerobic oxidation and anoxic mixing.(H'
JetTech
Design information was" not available from the ' manufacturer. Limited
information was available from the operators of various JetTech SBR systems.
*"'-,- / " '
Based on this information,'a' standard JetTech.cycle appears to be very similar
to the cycle described in Table 2. JetTech does include an additional
BACKFLUSH step that lasts approximately five minutes and serves -to clean out
the aeration system. JetTech systems are often, though not exclusively,
equipped with jet aerators.(12)
Purestream
Purestream typically designs small to medium size SBR systems to treat
private and industrial wastewaters. Purestream SBR 'designs are similar to the
cycle shown in Table 2 but may include an IDLE step to coordinate the cycles
for two sequencing reactors or to increase the design safety factor. The
length of the REACT step in a Purestream design is determined from BOD removal,
nitrification and denitrification kinetics. Purestream designs; SBR systems
with coarse bubble, diffused air and air lift multiple.point decant systems.
Their standard design includes duplicate aeration, air lift decant and sludge
wasting capability.(5)
Transenviro -" ,
Nearly all Transenviro S^R systems are designed for- biological nutrient
removal. Transenviro chooses to' design SBR systems in this manner to avoid
potential settling problems that may occur in reactors without anaerobic or
anoxic sequences.
-------
Page 3-7
SBR DESIGNS FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
When a wascewater treatment facility must meet phosphorus or total nitrogen
limits, SBR designs become somewhat more complex. Operating strategies for
nitrification and denitrification are similar for most systems. Figure 3
illustrates a typical denitrification cycle for an SBR.t1) For denitrification
to occur, an anoxic period'.in the SBR is necessary" following BOD removal and
nitrification. The DO is reduced to less than 0.5 mg/1 during SETTLE, DRAW,
/ ~* '
and IDLE periods. N '
As previously described in the theory section, biological phosphorus
removal requires an anaerobic period. This step can be included in an SBR
system. Table 3 lists typical steps for a SBR cycle that includes biological
nutrient removal. This table also describes the purpose of each step and the
conditions that should be present to best achieve that purpose. To incorporate
the phosphorus removal strategy, the anaerobic period will be longer than the
anoxic period required for denitrification. Two additional steps can be added
to maximize phosphorus removal. The first step is a'separate anaerobic period
following decant which releases some phosphorus to the liquid above the sludge.
This step is followed by a second decant step where supernatant with phosphorus
is drawn off for separate chemical treatment, and phosphorus starved sludge is
returned in the fill period. Sludge wasting occurs following the aerobic step.
In addition to the information presented in Table 3, it -is essential to
biological phosphorus removal that sludge be wasted under aerobic conditions.
The maximum amount of phosphorus is incorporated - into the sludge under aerobic
conditions. For similar reasons, an aerobic digester that "maintains an aerobic
environment for sludge is used with the SBR plants since, digestor supernatant
is normally recycled. "* _
Chemical addition for phosphorus removal is sometimes used, especially when
effluent permit limitations are 2.0 mg/1 or less. When properly 'operating, an
-------
NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION
EN SBR
INFLUENT
CELL SEPARATION
DRAW
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
IDLE ,..; :
CYCLE ADJUST
WASTE SLUDGE
Fteference (1)
Rgure 3. Denitrffication Cycle for SBR
-------
TABLE 3. TYPICAL SBR CYCLE FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
Step
UNAERATED FILL
AERATED FILL
REACT
SETTLE
DRAW
IDLE
Conditions
Influent flow into SBR
No aeration
Time - approximately 1.5
hours
Mixed.
Influent flow into,SBR
Aeration (DO > 2 mg/1)
Time - half of the total
cycle time minus the
unaerated fill time
No influent flow to SBR
Aeration (DO > 2 mg/1)
Sludge may be wasted
Time - typically - 1 to 2
hours (varies
widely)
No influent flow to SBR
No aeration
Sludge is wasted
Time - approx. 1 hour
No influent flow to SBR
No aeration
Effluent is decanted
Time - 1 to 2 hours
No influent flow to SBR
No aeration
Time - 1 to 15 minutes
(typically occurs
during the end of
the DECANT step)
Purpose
Addition of wastewater to the
SBR, continuation of anoxic or
anaerobic conditions to allow
denitrification and to encourage
the growth of phosphorus-removing
bacteria
Addition pf wastewater to the
^ S B R , BOD remova.l and
nitrification, phosphorus uptake'
Biological BOD rem'oval and
nitrification, phosphorus uptake
Allow suspended solids to settle
to yield a clear supernatant,
decrease the DO concentration Co
encourage denitrification; waste
sludge under aerobic conditions
with .maximum phosphorus content
Remove effluent from reactor,.
decrease the . DO concentration
further to e'ncourage
denitrification and the growth of
phosphorus-removing bacteria
Allow coordination of cycles in
multi-tank system; maintain a low
DO concentration to encourage
denitrification and the growth of
phosphorus-removing bacteria
typical total cycle time is 6 to 8 hours
-------
. Page 3-10
SBR can achieve high rates of biological phosphorus removal, though removal
races may decrease during periods of storm flow. Larger reactors, necessary
with longer cycle times, would be required if biological phosphorus removal
were utilized. The additional cost of the larger reactors, however, may be
favorable compared to the cost of continuous chemical addition. This trade-off
needs to be' evaluated on a case by case basis during the design phase.
SBR manufacturers typically offer systems that incorporate.nutrient removal
and deviate in one or more" ways 'from the cycle described in Table 3.- The
following paragraphs summarizes the biological nutrient removal designs for six
'"major SBR manufacturers.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Aqua-Aerobic's low load system provides for BOD and TSS removal and
nitrogen arid phosphorus reduction and operates at a F/M ratio of 0.05 to 0.10
Ib BOD/lb MLSS-day and a MLSS between 3500 and 5000 mg/l.(?)
Austgen Biojet
Austgen Biojet's ICEASR design does not utilize.a.separate UNAERATED FILL
or AERATED FILL step due to'continuous inflow. Instead, Austgen Biojet adds
anoxic sequences to the treatment cycle by alternating aerobic and anoxic
periods during the REACT step. A typical cycle design includes a two-hour
REACT step with two 30-minute periods of aeration and two 30-minute anoxic
periods.
When phosphorus removal to low concentrations (<1 mg/p ' is - required,, an
Austgen Biojet ICEASR SBR is/designed with an anaerobic phase. A phosphorus
removal cycle includes .. four-hour REACT step consisting of four 30-minute
periods of aeration-and four 30-minute anoxic periods. -The ICEASR baffled pre-
react zone has an anoxic environment during SETTLE and DRAW phases. (3>,
-------
Page 3-1-1
Fluidvne
In typical Fluidyne systems, the IDLE step is an anoxic fill period. As
with standard nitrification systems, Fluidyne will occasionally recommend a
single baffled SBR with continuous inflow for small systems. (H'
JetTech /
'. . - - ' / -*
\ '.' '
Based on information supplied by operators of various JetTech SBR systems,
the cycles in JetTech systems designed for biological nutrient removal .appear
to be very-similar to the cycle described in Table 3. JetTech does include an
additional BACKFLUSH step which lasts approximately five minutes and serves to
clean out the aeration system. JetTech systems are often, though not
exclusively, equipped with jet aerators.(I**)
Purestream
Purestream cycle designs for SBR systems with biological nutrient removal
do not differ significantly from the cycle described in Table 3. Cycle times
are established by kinetic considerations and effluent limits.(°)
Transenviro
Transenviro utilizes a variation of the SBR process known as CASS(TM),
which stands for Cyclic Activated Sludge System. This is a fill-and-draw
activated sludge system which combines plug flow initial reaction conditions
with complete mix operation to favor co-current nitrificatipn-denrtrification.
i,
The CASS(TM) cycle sequence typically consists of FILL-AERATION, FILL-
SETTLE, DRAW (effluent removal), and FILL-IDLE... ..Depend! .g on effluent
requirements, these sequences can be adjusted to include FILL NON-REACT, FILL-
MIX NON-AERATION, FILL-REACT, and REACT NO-FILL.
-------
Page 3-12
The CASS(TM) SBR is configured with an inlet zone referred to as a "captive
selector zone". Return Activated Sludge (RAS) is continuously returned to the
capcive selector zone. This zone exposes the biomass to equal sequences of
aerobic and anaerobic initial growth conditions. According to Transenviro,
anoxic mixing is not necessary because the systems have a lower DO by design.
Transenviro normally -designs dual-reactor SBR systems; They also design a
four-basin system, which operates as two', two-basin systems. When designing an
SBR system for a facility with a phosphorus limit, Transenviro normally
includes chemical addition capability.<13> Though chemical addition may only
be used in cases of storm flow or biological upset, it makes evaluation, of
biological phosphorus removal more difficult.
-------
Page 4-1
SECTION 4.
SITE VISITS
INTRODUCTION - ,
Three municipal -wastew-ater treatment plants with SBRs , were visited" to
obtain detailed information 'on operation and' performance^ The three plants
visited represent three different SBR manufacturers. The Marlette, Michigan
SBR was manufactured by JetTech, the Graf ton, Ohio SBR was manufactured by
Fluidyne, and the Shelter Island, New York SBR was manufactured by Austgen
Biojet. These plants were chosen because they were operating well and had
available nutrient data.
PLANT OBSERVATIONS
The following sections summarize the observations made at the three plants.
Marlette. Michigan
The current Marlette, Michigan wastewater treatment plant began operations
on January 1, 1990. The plant was designed for an average daily flow of 0.69
MGD. The influent flow passes through a comminutor and a grit chamber prior to
primary clarifiers. The primary clarifier effluent flows to the SBRs. There
are three reactor basins equipped with jet aerators, however, only two of the
basins are normally used. The present organic loading to the plant is not high
enough to maintain the three units. 'The third SBR is us_ed ;as: an equalization
tank during rainfall events resulting in high flows. During the summer months
of May through August, the SBR effluent is .polished by sand beds prior to
disinfection by ultraviolet light. The disinfected effluent is aerated prior
to discharge to a stream. The plant effluent limits are .shown in:the .following
table.
-------
Page 4-2
Marietta, Michigan Plant Monthly Average
Effluent Limits - mg/1
Period
May - 'October
November - April
Year Round
CBOD
10
15
NA
TSS
20
30
NA
NH7-N
2
No Limit
NA
P
NA '
NA ,
1.0
The three SBRs were '-manufactured by J.etTech and have a volume of
approximately 0.17 million gallons each.' , The 'plant was designed; for.
nitrification and phosphorus removal, but not for denitrification. The plant
has a ferric chloride feed system for phosphorus removal that is used primarily
during rain events. During dry weather operations, phosphorus is removed
biologically rather than chemically.
The SBR is operated at a MLSS concentration of .approximately 3600- mg/1.,
The MLVSS concentration is between 2000 and 2500 mg/1. The SBRs are typically
operated at an F/M of 0.01 to 0.02 and at an SRT in the range of 25 to 30 days.
The, cycle times currently used are not significantly different from those
recommended by the manufacturer. A cycle time of six hours is normally used.
This cycle time includes 1 hour react, 1 hour settle, and 1 hour decant. The
remaining time is for anoxic fill, aerated fill and idle. Since the system
automatically compensates for flow, the time for each of these steps varies.
The cycle times may be adjusted by the plant operator. .;
Chronological plots summarizing the monthly average flow, BOD, TSS, NH3~N,
and total phosphorus for July. 1990 through June 1991 are presented in Figures 4
and 5. During the period July 1990 through June 1991, the-plant'operated at an
average influent flow of 0.42 MGD or approximately 61 percent of design. Plant
influent and effluent data Vere available.. Primary effluent data were not
available; however, plant personnel indicated -that approximately 20 percenc of
the BOD is removed in the primary " clarifiers. 'Based on this 20 percent
removal, approximately 96 percent of the BOD entering the SBR was;'removed prior
to discharge. Ammonia nitrogen was measured during the summer months. The
influent NH3-N concentration varied considerably from the summer of 1990 to the
summer of 1991. During July through October 1990 the influent NH3-N averaged
14.3 mg/1 and during May and June 1991 the influent NH3-N averaged 1.7 mg/1.
A
-------
Monthly Averages
en
Q
o
m
200
150-
100 _
Summer Effluent BOD Limit - 10 mg/r
Winter Effluent BOD Limit - 15 mg/r
Influent
-o Effluent
300
O)
£
CO
CO
200 _
Summer Effluent TSS Limit - 20 mg/L
Winter Effluent TSS Limit - 30 mg/1
A Influent
~o Effluent
100 _
0 N D J F M
July 1990 through June 1991
Figure 4. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data
Marlette, Michigan
-------
en
w'
rj
L.
o
JC
Q.
U)
o
JC
CL
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
1 T
A influent
'o Effluent
Monthly Averages
Effluent Phosphorus Limit -1.0 mg/T
/ V
0.
20.0
X.
en
z.
to
15.0 _
10.0-
I 1 1 1 1 I
Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit - 2.0 mg/L_
influent.
o Effluent
July 1990 through June 1991
Figure 5. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data
Marlette, Michigan
-------
Page 4-5
possible explanation for the decrease in influent-NH3-N may be process changes
implemented in a fertilizer plant that discharges -to the treatment plant.
This, however, was not confirmed. Nitrification was occurring as indicated by
the oxidation of NH3-N .that averaged 95 percent. The plant consistently met
the permitted'NH3-N limit.
The average influent total phosphorus during the period July 1990 through
June 1991 was 3.3 mg/1.. "Approximately 76 percent ^of the ' phosphorus in the
influent was removed during treatment. The monthly average effluent phosphorus
^.concentration was below the permit limit of 1.0 mg/1 for 10 of the 12 months
with available data.
The plant is staffed by two full time operators. It is estimated that
approximately 2.5 hours a day are spent on process control of the SBR. This
includes controlling sludge wasting and performing laboratory analyses. The
plant superintendent and operator were both generally satisfied with the SBR
and its operation. There was originally a problem with air in the decanter,
however, it was resolved, and there have been no other major problems.
Grafton. Ohio
The current Grafton, Ohio treatment plant is an SBR upgrade of a trickling
filter plant. The SBRs went on line in December 1988. .The plant was designed
for an average daily flow of 0.75 MGD. The plant influent passes through a
grit chamber prior to the SBRs. Only two of the plant's three SBRs are
currently in use. The SBRs are equipped with jet aerators. The SBR.effluent
flows to a chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge. - _
" ' " *
The plant receives flow from two local prisons, a small chrome plater, a
plastic extrusion factory,, a foundry, and a circuit board manufacturer in
addition to domestic waste. The wastewater flow from the plastic extrusion
factory and the circuit board manufacturer is pretreated prior to entering the
plant. The plant attributes the high levels of zinc in the sludge to a zinc
plater that previously discharged to the plant. The sludge is stored in the
third SBR prior to disposal. Plant effluent requirements are shown in the
following table.
-------
Page 4-6
Grafton, Ohio Plant
Monthly Average Effluent Limits
Period
Summer
Winter
CBODs
10
25
20
- 30
1.5
15
(a)Monitoring of phosphorus and N03-N required
mg/1
p(a)
No Limit
No Limit
The three S.BRs are manufactured by Fluidyne, and have a volume of
approximately 0.43 million gallons each. The SBRs were designed for
nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorus removal. The capability fpr
chemical addition for phosphorus removal exists, but has never been used. The
SBR was designed for a 41 hour hydraulic detention time at average design flow,
MLSS ranging from 2000 to 2500 mg/1, and an SRT of 20 days. It was being
operated at, a MLSS between 3000 and 4000 mg/1 at the time of the site visit.
Grafton uses an air on/off sequence to achieve biological nutrient removal.
The blowers cycle during both REACT and IDLE. The aeration period is adjusted
by the operator and is changed seasonally, or as conditions require. The FILL
period varies with influent flow. Presently, SETTLE is 70 minutes and DECANT is
50 minutes.
Chronological plots summarizing the monthly average flow, CBOD, NH3-N, N03-
N, and total phosphorus for January 1989 through March 1991 are presented in
Figures 6 and 7. During this period the plant operated at an average influent
flow of 0.53 MGD or approximately 71 percent" of design./ The only plant
influent data available were CBOD. Effluent CBOD, NH3-N,," .Np3^-N02-N and tbtal
phosphorus data were available. Approximately 97 percent, of the BOD entering
the plant was removed. Effluent.ammonia nitrogen is measured year.round. The
average summer effluent NH3-TN concentration during .the period was .0.94 mg/1.
The monthly average effluent NH3-N concentration was below .the permit Limit in
8 of the 11 summer months with data. The plant met its winter WHs-N limits in
all 12 of the winter months. Effluent N03'+N02-N were measured once per month
from September 1989 to March 1991. The effluent total phosphorus concentration
averaged 1.4 mg/1 from January 1989 to March 1991.
-------
o
CD
3:
O
II
LL.
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 1 1 f
o Effluent
T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T
Monthly Averages
< i i I '' i I ' I I I I I II
J F M .A H
JJASONDJFMAMJJASON .' J F M
300
O)
in
a
o
m
o
-A influent
o Effluent
200
100
I I I I I I I I I
"1'''T
Summer Effluent CBOD5 Limit - 15 mg/tr
Winter Effluent CBOD5 Limit 20 mg/L
J F H A H
JJASONDJFMAMJJASON J F M
Figure 6. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data
Grafton, Ohio
-------
O)
z.
-------
Page 4-9
The plant is staffed bv one full time operator. All analytical work is
sent to an outside laboratory. The operator estimates he spends approximately
one hour a day on routine maintenance of the SBR. The plant operator was
generally satisfied with the SBR and its operation. There have been no serious
problems with'the SBR.
-Shelter Island Heights. New York ,
- s
The wastewater treatment plant on Shelter Island, began operation in June
.,1988. It was designed for an average daily dry weather flow of 0.028 MGD, a
peak dry weather flow of 0.072 MGD and a peak wet weather flow- of 0.15 MGD.
Shelter Island, located in the eastern part of Long Island, is a summer resort
and has much higher flows during the summer than in the winter. Peak dry
weather flows during August have in the past reached 0.12 MGD.
The plant has two Austgen Biojet SBRs. There are no grit chambers, bar"
screens, or comminutor before the SBRs. Grit, however, collects in the
splitter box that divides the flow between the two'reactors. The SBR effluent
is chlorinated before discharge to Long Island Sound. The SBR was designed for
nitrification and denitrification but not for phosphorus removal.
The plant was designed to treat a-BOD load of 44 Ibs/day and a TSS load''of
57 Ibs/day at the average daily dry weather flow. The plant was designed for a
NH3-N loading of 8.7 Ibs/day and a TKN loading of 11 Ibs/day. The plant's
effluent permit limits are a 30 day average BOD of 30 mg/1 and TSS of 30 mg/1.
The plant is required to meet a 30 day total nitrogen limit of 10 mg/1 year-
' i
round. The plant has no effluent phosphorus limit.
The SBRs were designed for a normal cycle-time of 6 "hours with an anoxic
mix and a normal cycle time, of 4 hours without an anoxic mix. The plant is
typically operated with a five or six hour cycle time for denitrif ication from
October to mid May and with a four hour cycle time from mid May through
September. The operator reported that cycle'times are changed about four times
per year, depending on flow. A typical 4 hour cycle time includes a two hour
react cycle, a one hour settle cycle, and a one hour draw cycle.
-------
/ Page 4-10
Chronological plocs summarizing Che monthly flow. BOD, TSS, TKN, N03-N, and
total nitrogen data for January 1989 through July 1991. are presented in Figures
8 and 9. Samples are typically collected once per month. During the period
evaluated, che plant operated at an average summer flow (May through October)
of 0.037 MGD or 137 percent of design average dry weather flow (51 percent of
Che design -peak dry weather flow) . . During the winter months '(November through
April) the flow averaged 0.015 MGD or 53 percent of the design average dry
weather flow. The percent. :.BOD' removal .averaged 96 percent .in both the summer
and winter. The TKN' data'"shows 'that nitrification was^occurring. The BOD
consistently met the permit limit of 30 mg/1. The effluent total nitrogen
'averaged approximately 8 mg/1 in both the summer and winter. The plant met the
total nitrogen permit limit of 10 mg/1 in 21 of the 29 months. The average
percent total nitrogen removal was 56 percent.
The plant is staffed by one operator. It is estimated that betweemtwo, and:,
three hours per day of the operator's time is spent operating the SBR. -The;
operator was satisfied with the SBR and its operation.. The plant is .situated
adjacent to the local beach and private beachhouse/.and has never received any
complaints about odors. There have been no major problems with the SBR.
-------
0.10
a
CD
2:
o
II
u_
cn
E
a
o
m
~ o Effluent
O.OBU
0.06-
0.04 _
0.02_
II|I1I[IT
Monthly Averages
0.00
FHAMJJASONDJFMAHJJASONDJFMAMJJ
500
400
300
200
100
I I I
I I
A Influent
-o Effluent
I I | I I I | I I I |
Effluent BOD Limit - 30 mg/1
FMAMJJASONDJFMAHJJASONDJFMAMJJ
cn
C/D
Effluent TSS-Limit - 30 mg/L
100
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJ
February 1989 .through July 1991
Figure 8. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data
Shelter Island, New York
-------
cn
-A influent
.« «-° Effluent
40.0 _
30.0_
20.0_
10.0-
I [ I I I .| I I I | I I I | I
Monthly Averages
I I I I-3
o.o
FMAM-dd-A. SONDdFM A
S 0 N d F M A- M d d
10.0
131
co
o
F M A M d d
ASONDdFMAMddASQN.
d F M A M d d
O)
c
03
cn
o
c_
4J
(0
4J
O
SO.O
40.0_
30.0-
I I I I I I | I ' '. M. ' ' I
Effluent Total Nitrogen Limit - 10.0 mg/L
-A influent
-o Effluent
0.0
FMAMddASONDdFMAMddASON JFMAMdd
February 1989 through July 1991
Figure 9. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data
Shelter Island, New York
-------
Page 5-1
SECTION 5.
ANALYSIS OF SBR PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
PERMIT LIMITS
Effluent permic limitations for the nineteen treatment plants included-in
the performance evaluation are' shewn in Table 4. Also listed in Table .4 are
the manufacturer of each plant and its design flow. Twelve of the 19 plants
have effluent ammonia limits, while three are required to monitor for ammonia.
The effluent limits ranged from 1.5 to 10.0 mg/1 during the summer months. Two
plants have nitrate plus nitrite limits and two have total inorganic nitrogen
limits. -Effluent limits on total nitrogen are required for two plants. Five
plants have effluent phosphorus limits that ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1.
PLANT DATA
The performance data for 19 plants are summarized in Table 5. The
available monthly average data for each plant-are presented'in Appendix A. BOD
and TSS removal ranged from 84.7 to 97.4 percent andconsistently met effluent
requirements. These removal rates are similar to those, achieved by
conventional activated sludge systems.
The 19 plants evaluated in the study were all originally designed for
nitrification and are believed to be presently operating under conditions
favoring nitrification. Influent and effluent ammonia nitrogen data were
available for 8 plants. -Removal ranged from 90.8 to 96.8 j>erCe-nt.- The average
effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration for each of the 8 plants was less than
2.0 mg/1. The low effluent concentrations indicate that nitrification was
occurring. " -
-------
CO
H
s
cu
Cei
aa
to
v. vr.
C
c
21
-I
CM
CO
o
3
co
so
ao'.
O
Z -t-
3 3
O O
O
in
in
oo
Oto
I CM
CO
0-1
CO CO
o m
H
o
in
CO
tyj
o
CO
o
o
o
03
3
O
to co
o o
p-i :->
CO
O
n
to
3
O
co
o
CM
co
O
CM
CO
CM
3
O
CO
o
o o o
in
O CM m
CM \ r-l
co
3
O
CM
\
CO
in
in
CM
333
m o in
r-i m CM
\ ^v \
to co co
o o o
r-l CM CM
\o
r"> CM -*
CM in r-l
O. O O O
ro
O
in m in CM
f^ r-» co ^^ co in
CO
o
in
O
O O
CO
o
in co in
O- , CM CM
O O O O
OOOOOOCMOO
O O r->
3
oa
SBR
Manufacturer
JetTech
c
o
i-<
j->
CTl
iy
CJ
,3
U
C
CO
f-H
CU
Armada , Ml
Austgen Biojet
Fluidyne
<
0, Z
2
ez
Buckinghar
Caledonia
Aqua-Aerobics
0
cu
U
CO
U
rH 10
2 td
_ -^
Clarkston
(Chateav
4J
CU
>
o
r4
CQ
C
CU
00
in
3
Cu
U
5* rtl
Conover, 1
(Southwi
JetTech
Transenviro
gw
- 2
r< CU
CJ CU
CU 3
a a
Austgen Biojet
Fluidyne
'<
a) r~)
Fairchanci
Graf ton, 1
Aqua-Aerobics
JetTech
JetTech
r-l
^_) _. y*
Grundy Cei
Mancheste
Marlette,
JetTech
Aqua-Aerobics
cu
* 00
McPherson
Mifflinbu
cu
)
o
cQ
00
10
0
01
,cu
Z
- CO
Monticell
(White
in
CJ
iH
JO
o
1-1
cu
1
CT
-1
0)
Muskegon
)
Y Austgen Biojet
en Z
cu .
u
CO *O
4-> C
CO CO
W r-l
to
(Clover
Shelter I
Transenviro
.^
0)
o
Walnut Gr
Aqua -Aerobics
. ',
£
Windgap,
' . '
dc Nitrogen
i-
cfl
00
O
I-H
r-l
CO
1-1 1-1 U
CU CU O
^j? §
co 3 H
00
o
H
.O
'i 1
H
cfl
0
2
O
00
C
1-1 00
0 C
'c o
O, AJ
>~> o
CU >i
4-J i 1
co cu
3
-------
Page 5-_3
Effluent ammonia data concentrations for si-x plants ranged from 0.17 to
1.74 mg/1 . These low concentrations indicate that nitrification was most
likely occurring, at least during the summer months. Manchester, Michigan'
supplied monthly maximum effluent ammonia data, however, without influent data
for a comparison, the maximum effluent concentration of 6.6 mg/1 ammonia
nitrogen was too high to indicate, if any nitrification was occurring. The
twelve plants with effluent, ammonia limits were -consistently able to meet their
requirements, including Manchester, Michigan (average limit 10 mg/1).
- / -^
Limited information was available to evaluate denitrification in SBRs. Few
of the plants surveyed have effluent limitations on nitrate or total nitrogen
and therefore do not measure for these constituents. Two of the 19 ' plants
evaluated measured effluent total nitrogen, and 6 plants measured effluent
nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. Shelter Island measured both nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen and TKN in order to report total nitrogen concentrations'. Buckingham,
which measured effluent nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, also supplied limited
summer TKN data. Effluent nitrate and nitrite nitrogen data ranged from 2.11
to 5.6 mg/1 for the 6 plants.
Under denitrifying conditions, nitrate would be converted to nitrogen gas
and removed from the wastewater. Significantly low effluent ammonia and
nitrate nitrogen concentrations (much less than the influent ammonia nitrogen
concentration) would indicate that both nitrification and denitrification were
occurring. Data from Buckingham, Clarkson, and Muskegon Heights indicate that
denitrification occurred at these plants. Relatively low effluent
concentrations of nitrate + nitrite nitrogen and total nitrogen at Caledonia,
Conover, Graf ton, and Walnut Grove indicate that denitrif-ica'tioh was probably
occurring, to some degree, at these plants. Three plants,-' Armada, Dundee, and
McPherson, were designed for Vdenitrification. Information on nitrate or total
nitrogen, however, was not available and denitrification could not be verified.
-------
E
O.
1C
CM
tM
10
i
N
CM
CO
10
-T
01
(/)
&
O>
n
o
CO
J
0>
O>
o
CTl
ID
o>
Ub
CO
CM
CM
r*
0>
co «n . -<
^< o en
CM **.!
to
10
o c
O CO 01 (0
00 CO T) to
0 T3 O
h M « M
00 4J
> > I -rf
« O «J Z
u
to
o
a>
CO
01
O
o
o
In
o
0
0)
,_,
0) ^
CO -T
0 0
ft
CO "^
CO
ft
o>
to
r*.
o
0>
10
_ '
' ea
o
^ , '
0)
m
>
to
o
en
CO
o
r-l U~l
e
o
Caledonia, Kl
10
0
1-1 e
Clarkston, H
(Chateau Est
~
c
(0
Conover , NC
(Southeast P
g
u
u
o
t-l
o
o
o
£
Fairchance.
Graf ton, OH
HH
M
O
C
o
CJ
o
c
3
U
£
Manchester.
Marlette. MI
en
McPherson, J
£
Mifflinburg,
M
O
l/j
5 «
Monticello,
(White Oaks
*J 10
* ",
°0 ffl
Muskegon He:
(Clover Est;
z
o
g
ft
V)
Hi
(U
V
A
to
£
0)
Walnut Grov
Windgap, PA
^4 a
u -a
o a
*> E 0.
tj -( 3
O >> 4J
o> M in
CJ) ^J O
co C E
O) O O
JcSc?
-------
Page 5-5
Phosphorus removal has become an important concern in many areas, most
notably in States surrounding the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Six of the
19 plants evaluated have effluent phosphorus limitations; four of these are
located in Michigan. In addition, Conover, North Carolina is required to
monitor quarterly for phosphorus.
Influent 'phosphorus .data- was very limited. .Four plants that measured
influent phosphorus -concentrations had -concentrations from .2.6 to 12.0 mg/1.
, . / **
Nine of the plants measured' effluent phosphorus levels. Two of these plants,
Marlette and Monticello, add ferric or ferrous chloride for phosphorus removal,
' y
though Marlette only adds the chemical during storm events. Effluent
phosphorus 'concentrations for the eight plants, not including Monticell-o,
ranged from 0.53 to 4.27 mg/1. The seven plants that did not add ferric or
ferrous chloride, and Marlette during normal flows, rely solely on biological
phosphorus removal. The relatively low concentration of phosphorus in the
effluent indicate that at least some phosphorus is being removed biologically,-
beyond that normally expected from sludge wasting. Armada, Dundee, Manchester,
and Marlette usually met their effluent phosphorus requirements, with an
occasional excursion beyond limits. Buckingham's limit of 2.0 mg/1 in the
summer was rarely met, although the plant averaged 64 percent removal of
influent phosphorus. Buckingham has the option of discharging to a holding
lagoon for subsequent spray irrigation and is only required to meet effluent
limits when discharging to a stream.
The following is a short discussion on each plant that provided data on
performance. The three plants that were visited and discussed in Section 5 are
not included. Additional information on the design and operating conditions,
and problems of the plants are discussed. . -_ ~ '
"S
Armada. Michigan
This plant consists of three SBR tanks manufactured.by JetTeeh. .Screening
and grit removal precede the SBRs. This system is equipped with fine bubble
diffusers. Three full-time operators handle the 0.3 MGD facility, as well as
-------
Page 5-6
performing laboratory analyses. The plant usually operated with a srt of 20 to
30 days, but occasionally reached 90 days with good results. The F/M ratio
typically ranged from Q.Q'2 to 0.04 Ib BOD/lb MLSS/day. The total cycle time
was normally 7 hours, and included 20 minutes aerated fill, 120 minutes anoxic
fill, 120 minutes aeration, 60 minutes settle, 30 minutes decant, and 70
minutes idle. The plant began operating in July 1988.
Buckingham. Pennsylvania .
This Austgen- Biojet plant operated with two ICEAS(R) SBRs equipped with
coarse bubble diffusers. This 0.1 MGD plant is run by two full-time operators.
The influent is screened before it enters the SBRs. The plant was designed to
operate at a F/M ratio of 0.045, and had a cycle time of four hours. The .cycle
consisted of 2 hours aeration, 57 minutes sedimentation, and 56 minutes^decant..
As with all ICEAS(R) systems, the tanks fill continuously.
Caledonia. Minnesota
This plant, manufactured by Fluidyne, was constructed with three SBRs but
was operating only two. The SBRs are equipped with jet aerators, and are
preceded by a grit chamber and primary clarifier. Twenty to 30 percent of the
wastewater flows through a trickling filter before it enters the SBRs. This
acts to lower the BOD loading and enhances subsequent nitrification in the SBR.
Two operators handle the operation of the SBR along with other Water Department
duties. This plant has had some .operational problems and .has worked with
Transenviro to solve them. Waste from a milk transfer station contributes to
loading problems. To improve performance, the plant is trying' to raise MLSS
concentration to 3500 'ing/1. Total' cycle time, was fiye- ,;to- six hours, and
included 30 minutes anoxic fill, and 120 minutes aeration. Plant start-up was
in November 1987.
-------
Page 5-7
Clarkston. Michigan - Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
This plant was manufactured by Aqua-Aerobic Systems and consists of one SBR
preceded by an equalization tank. It has been equipped with floating mixers in
addition to coarse bubble diffusers. The MLSS concentration ranged from 1850
to 4500 mg/1 and averaged 3200 mg/L. -The F/M concentration varied from 0.023
to 0.082 and averaged 0,04. Ib ,600/lb MLSS/day. The total' cycle time was 5
hours and 50 minutes.. Plant start-up was in October 1989. . -
. i ',''- / -
Conover. North Carolina - Southeast Plant
This Austgen Biojet plant consists of two ICEASR SBRs equipped with jet
aerators. It was constructed in 1985 and has an average flow of .0.26 MGD. The
total cycle time was 3 hours, which included 90 minutes aeration, 35 minutes
settle, and 55 minutes decant.
Del City. Oklahoma
This plant, with an average flow of 2.6 MGD, was manufactured by JetTech
and consists of two SBRs equipped with jet aerators. The SBRs are preceded by
a comminutor and grit removal system. The total cycle time is varied between 4
and 6 hours, depending on the flow. Effluent from the SBRs passes through an
ultraviolet disinfection (UV) unit.
Dundee. Michigan
This Transenviro plant consists of two SBRs equipped-with ' medium bubble
diffusers. The SBRs are preceded "by a comminutor, bar.: screen, and grit
chamber. Three full-time operators are employed by the -facility. The .flow
averaged 0.7 MGD. The plant operated at a MLSS between 2500 and 3000 mg/1.
The SRT is checked daily and averaged 17 to 20 days'. "Total cycle time .was 4
hours, with 2 hours aeration, 50 minutes settle, and 70 minutes decant.' Plant
startup was in September 1989.
-------
Page 5-8
Falrchance. Pennsylvania
This Austgen Biojet plant consists of four ICEAS(R) SBRs preceded by a bar
screen. The Fairchance-Georges WWTP has an average flow of 0.2 MGD and , is
staffed by one full-time operator and one relief operator. Normal cycle time
was 4 hours and included 120 minutes aeration, 60 minutes settle and 60 minutes
decant. Plant start-up was in April 1989. ' . -
'. " ' /'* ' '
Grundv Center. Iowa '. ^ ' .
This plant, manufactured by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, consists of two SBRs
equipped with fine bubble diffusers and a separate mixer. The MLSS
concentration in the two SBRs ranged from 1800 to 2800 mg/1 and averaged 2300
mg/1. The F/M ratio averaged 0.09 Ib BOD/lb MLSS/day. Total cycle time was.
288 minutes (4.8 hours) and included 15 minutes fill, 84 minutes react, 45:;. ,
minutes settle, and 40 minutes decant. Plant start-up was in April 1,988.,
Manchester. Michigan
This plant was manufactured by JetTech with three SBRs, but only two are
typically used. The third is used during periods of high infiltration. The
MLSS concentration is normally about 3500 mg/1 but has been operated as high.as
8000 mg/1. Total cycle time is 7.5 hours and includes 3.75 hours fill, 95
minutes aeration, and 45 minutes settle.
McPherson. Kansas
i
This plant, manufactured by JetTech, utilized three _SBRs. equipped with jet
aerators. The SBRs are preceded by a bar screen and grit .removal system. Total
cycle time is normally 6 hours and includes 1 to 2 hours aeration, 185 minutes
settle, 45 minutes . decant, and 90 minutes idle. Plant start-up was in June
1990. . -'
-------
Page 5-9
Mifflinburg. Pennsylvania
This Aqua-Aerobic Systems plant consists of two SBRs equipped with fine
bubble diffusers and separate mixers. The MLSS concentration in the two SBRs
averaged 2500 -mg/1. The F/M ratio .averaged 0.028 Ib BOD/lb MLSS/day. Total
cycle time was 6.5 hours and included'36 minutes mixed fill, 97 minutes react,
75 minutes settle, and ' ,45 minutes decant. React includes mixing with
alternating periods o'f /aeration and no air. Plant start-up wa.s in August 1988.
\ *
Monticello, Indiana - White Oaks on the Lake Resort
'? "
This Austgen Biojet plant consists of two ICEAS(R) SBRs designed for 0.05
MGD. Current flow averages 0.004 MGD. One part-time operator devotes 10 to 15
hours per week to the operation and maintenance of the system. Ferrous
chloride is added to assist in phosphorus removal. Total cycle time is four
hours during the summer and six hours in the winter.
Muskegan Heights. Michigan - Clover Estates Mobile Home Park
This Aqua-Aerobic Systems plant consists of one SBR equipped with coarse
bubble diffusers and a separate mixer. Flow averaged 0.035 MGD. The mixed
liquor concentration averages 3400 mg/1. Plant start-up was October 1987.
Walnut Grove.'Pennsylvania
This is a Transenviro plant with one SBR . equipped with coarse bubble
diffusers. Present flow, which comes entirely from 'an- apartment complex,
averages 0.006 MGD. Effluent is discharged into a sand mound.-' The plant has a
subterranean discharge permit'. Total cycle, time was 4 hours and included 75
minutes aeration, 75 minutes settle, and 90 minuu-s decant, skim and idle. The
SBR fills during aeration and idle. Plant startup was in April 1990.
-------
Page 5-10
U'lndgap. Pennsylvania
This Aqua-Aerobic Systems plant consists of two SBRs equipped with coarse
bubble diffusers. Plant startup was in August 1989.
-------
Page 6-1
SECTION 6.
COST ANALYSIS
*
INTRODUCTION
Capital and operating costs' were obtained f-rora plant operators and plan't
design engineers. fable '.(> presents the utility, pperatlngT and' capital or
construction cost information that was available for this analysis. The
capital costs were adjusted to 1991 dollars using the Engineering News .Record
(ENR) Construction Cost Index. Figure 10 presents the available utility,
operating and capital costs.
Greenfield, Tullahoma, and Cow Creek supplied cost data but did not include
plant operating data. The Conover, North Carolina Northeast plant is still
under construction and the information supplied is the bid price.
CAPITAL COSTS ' ' -
Construction costs were available for six plants, and five plants supplied
total capital costs. Construction costs were converted to capital costs by
adding 15 percent for engineering and construction supervision, and 15 percent
for contingencies. All capital costs were adjusted to July 1991 costs. The
costs ranged from $1.93 to $30.69/gpd of design flow.
Shelter Island, with a cost of $30.69/gpd, was said to-have cost two to
three times over budget, due to construction problems. "In addition, Shelter
Island had certain aesthetic, requirements due to its ptoximity to a private
T
beach and clubhouse. ~
The wide range in capital costs was influenced by whether the SBR was
retrofitted into existing plant structures or newly constructed, influent
concentrations, effluent limitations, or additional design requirements.
-------
_l Q
trt «n
O
o
id
g
000
*J *-*
« -* en
3 a e>
u a
0 57!
*« « «j
(0 P ^ *J
3 5 O. «
J J «) O
o
o
rj
o>
ID
bO
c
^4 V)
<§
a
a -o
3 01
§
if.
§
a>
CO
CD
ffi
CO
o>
01
CO
O)
o
m
CM
(M
CM
O
O i> U
u O 3
o c o 3
2 O « O
~ (J UJ U
o
c
3
o
o
.c
0-.
a
o
-------
cr
tu
cn>-
0
ou.
0 0.1
>
_JO
HH » 1
H-_l
»-l
^
0.01
0.
; i M iiiui i i i iiuii i i i um
-
0 ~
E o =
. ^
0 ~
p i i IIIIH i i t nun i ~\ i inn
Bl 0.1 1 10
" S *
1.
2
CflUJ
i- >
Wv o.i
o
u.
CBO
£z
<0 0.01
£j
O>-l
:E
0.001
O.I
10
en
^~
oS
_iu.
-------
-------
Page 6-4
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Overall 1990 operating costs were available for 3 plants. Operating costs
based on 1990 average flows ranged from $0.17/gpd for McPherson, to $2.88/gpd
for Monticello-White Oaks Resort. Buckingham, which had a flow averaged cost
of $1.76/gpd, had operating costs of $234,058. These costs included $61,400 in
sludge disposal fees and ,'$39 , 800 in engineering services ' fees, among other
numerous itemized expenditures.. By. comparison, the operating costs supplied
/ -^
for McPherson ' included only labor, utilities, maintenance, chemicals,. and
supplies.
Separate utility costs were available for four plants. Utility costs
ranged from $0.06 to $.55/gpd actual flow. The range of utility costs is
probably most affected by the difference in electricity costs between different
regions of the United States.
-------
-------
Page 7-1
SECTION 7.
REFERENCES
1. Earth,' E.F., Sequencing Batch Reactors for Municipal Wastewater Treatment.
'Presented at the 8th United State/Japan Conference on Sewage Treatment
Technology, October 1981, Cincinnati, Ohio. / ' -
2. Arora, M.L., E.F. Barth, and M.B. Umphres. Technology Evaluation of
Sequencing Batch Reactors. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 57(8):867-875, 1985.
3. Austgen Biojet Waste Water Systems, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey, Design
Manual, Version 1.1, and installation list, May 1991.
4. Summary Report Sequencing Batch Reactors. EPA/625/8086/001.. U.S.
Environmental'. Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986.
5. Barth, E.F., B.N. Jackson and J.J. Convery. Progress in Sequencing Batch
Reactor Technology. Presented at 9th United States/Japan Conference on
Sewage Treatment Technology, September 19-21, 1983,'.Tokyo, Japan.
6. Purestream, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Equipment, Florence Kentucky,
Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) - An Effective Alternative to Conventional
Systems, and installation list. -
^,
7. Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., Rockford, Illinois. Installation list, plant
data and equipment information. - ... '-,
8. Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1975.
-------
Page 7-2
9. Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal. EPA/625/1.-87/001, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental .Research
Information, Water Engineering Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio,
1978.
10. Goronszy, M.C., And. D. Rigel. Biological ^Phosphorus -Removal in a Fed-
Batch Reactor Without' Anoxic Mixing Sequences. Research Journal of the
Water Pollution Contro;! Federation, 63(5) : 248-258 , 1991.
11. Fluidyne Corporation, Cedar Falls, Iowa. Fluidyne sales brochure,
literature and installation list.
12. JetTech, Inc., Industrial Airports, Kansas, Installation list.
13. Transenviro. Inc., Aliso Viejo;- California. CASSTM (Cyclic Activated
Sludge System) General Description, sales brochure and installation list.
-------
APPENDIX A
Monthly Average Tables and Chronological Plots
for Wastewater Treatment Plants Providing Data
Armada, Michigan
Buckingham, Pennsylvania
Caledonia Minnesota
Clarkston, Michigan (Chateau Estates - manufacturer's data only)
Conover, North Carolina (Southeast Plant)
Del City, Oklahoma
Dundee, Michigan
Fairchance, Pennyslvania
Grafton, Ohio
Grundy Center, Iowa (manufacturer's data only)
Manchester, Michigan
Marlette, Michigan
McPherson, Kansas ; .
Mifflinburg, Pennyslvania (manufacturer's data only)
Monticello, Indiana (White Oaks Resort)
Muskegon Heights, Michigan (Clover Estates manufacturer's data only)
'» t,
Shelter Island, New York '- . ^
Walnut Grove, New York ~
Windgap, Pennsylvania (manufacturer's data only)
-------
-------
Armada Monitoring Data
monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Effluent Effluent
Flow, TSS P
Month MGD mg/1 , mg/1
Jan 1989 0.237 "9.5 0.41
Feb 1989 '.'- 0.200 12.5, ^ O.29
Mar 1989 - 0.285 ' ,11.6 0.55
Apr 1989 0.294 31.1 1.14
May 1989 0.227 16.1 0.57
Jun 1989
Jul 1989 0.199 14.9 0.38
Aug 1989 0.181 17.0 0.49
Sep 1989
Oct 1989 0.209 12.8 1.87
NOV 1989 0.301 9.9 1.42
Dec 1989 0.243 13.3 0.97
Jan 1990 0.404 30.7 1.04
Feb 1990 0.441 17.1 1.25
Mar 1990 0.452 26.2 0.74
Apr 1990 0.491 5.4' ,0.78
May 1990 0.339 4.6 0.59
Jun 1990 0.216 22.2 0.74
Jul 1990 0.169 4.3 1.15
Aug 1990 0.180 4.5 0.92
Sep 1990 0.206 3.4 1.18
Oct 1990 0.298 2.7 1.19
Nov 1990 0.319 2.9 1.00
Dec 1990 0.374 2.8 1.05
Jan 1991 0.343 2.1 0.30
Feb 1991 0.345 3.3 . 1.16
Mar 1991 0.363 4.4 . 0.85
Minimum 0.169 2.1 Q.29
Maximum 0.491 31.1 1.87
Average 0.293 11.4 0.88
Limit NA 30.0 .,. l.bO
.*Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
-------
Armada
a
CD
o
1-1
u_
D)
CO
CO
H-
4J
C
0)
LLJ
0)
3
C.
O
x:
Q.
CO
O
Q.
UJ
on'thly
0.20^
O.OOL
III11111 1111 l'l 11111111'.i 111111" 11111111111111111111II11 M 111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111 -I I H 111-U
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
50.0
40.0-
30.0
-Effluent TSS L'imit - 30.0 mg
iNiliiiliiillllliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiTiiiTiiiTiiiTrnfllllnT
0.0
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
5.00
-Effluent Phosphorus Limit - 1.0 mg/L
4.00_
_^ 3.00
D)
§ 2.00
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
January 1989 through March 1991
-------
BUCKINGHAM, PENNSYLVANIA
Monthly Averages
Date
489
589
689
789
889
989
1089
1189
1289
190
290
390
490
590
690
790
890
990
1090
1190
1290
191
291
391
491
ft
AVG =
STD =
MAX =
HIM =
Flow Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent
MGD . BOO BOO TSS TKN _ , TKN NH3-N NH3-N N02 & N03 P . P TSS
. (mg/L) (mg/L) Ubs/d) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/U (mg/l)
0.099
0.099 272.7
0.077 379
325.9
0.105 215.3
0.109 399.6
0.121 . 355.5
0.136 320.4
0.129
0.141
0.116
0.117 '
0.0998
0.105
0.104
0.115
0.115
0.122
0.14
0.126
0.132
0.134
0.116 324.057
0.016 63.504
0.141 399.600
0.077 215.300
5.04
5.7 .
16.6
9.88
18.8
12.1
18.1
22.16
7.25
2.81
13.5
12.5
12.8
2.8
' 3.8
3.3
2
2
4.2
2.8
3.3
3.2
8.393
6.364
22.160
2.000
26.5
'.7.Z 70-3
'7.9 63.2
'3.5 66.2
2.8 62.9
7.8 62.3
1.3 81.75
3.4
4.8
2.33
6.9
2.5
3.98
2.5
5.5
2.3
3
3.8
27
3.5
3.5
25.4
7.155 67.775
8.007 7.468
27.000 81.750
1.300 62.300
2
7.51 15.1 ,0.9
5.62 '2K6 1.43
23.4 28 2.41
9.3 27.9 0.93
7.5 31.0 0.25
16.5 25.5 1.07
28.2 0.76
0.35
0.25
3.03
3.5
3.44
.--. °-1
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.1
11.638 25.329 1.069
6.897 5.365 1.112
23.400 31.000 3.500
5.620 15.100": 0.100
3> 12.3
0.79
0.6 11.9
0.65 11.3
3.9 14.7
0.73 12.6
.66 8.9
5.35
2.9
2.1
3
2.03
1.9
1.3
2.8
.. 1.2
2.113 11.950
1.426 1.889
5.350 14.700
0.600 B.900
4.6 . '
6
3.3
6.7
4
3.94
1.27
4.8
4.6
3.2
5.1
2.8
2.9
3
3.7
4.5
4.026
1.327
6.700
1.270
254
263
181
212
130
208.
-------
a
en
o
II
u.
iuckingham, Pennsylvania
IK.ii'lt^milllllf illl-ll|lll|lll|lll|IM|lll|lll|MI|lll|lll|lll|lll|III
|lll-|'il|
Mortthl
y Averages
0.40U
(-
h-
0.30U
0.20_
o.i
X
nnJTnlinliiilinliiiliiiliiiliiiliiilniliiihiiliillllllll.HlllllllllirlllllllllllHlllllllllJl
AMJ'JA'SONDJFMA-MJJASON
500
OJ
in
a
o
CD
400 _
300
200
100
Summer Effluent BOD Limit - 10.0 mg/W-
Winter Effluent BOD Limit - 20.0
1%rrl^44i 114>| H444 '^ ' 4'' 4' "<[" 'Ji1' '^ ' 4'' ^^
AHJJAS'ONDJFMAMJJASON JFMA
500
O)
e
en
en
400 _
300
200
100
-A influent
- o Effluent
Effluent TSS Limit - 30.0 mg/U
1 "
AMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFMA
April 1989 through April 1991
-------
cr,
E
cn
E
I
m
z.
i
cn
O
cn
E
I
OJ
O
Buckingham. Pennsylvania
sor~ ^ Influent
tr o Effluent
40 Z
Monthly Averages
illinium
20 Z
AMJJASONOJFMAMJJAS.ON JFMA
50.0.
. 40.0
4.1111 n 111111 i'i I i.i i-|-i i.i.| 111] 111 [Ji 1111111111111111111111111| 11111 ii| i n 11111111111111 n|n1111^
30.0
20.0
10. 0
O.I
Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit - 3.0 mg/b;
Winter Effluent NH3-N Limit - 9.0 mg/L-
1 1 ijl I |)l
1 it:
AMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON J.FMA
20.0
15.0_
10.0_
5.0
Summer Effluent N02-N S N03-N Limit - 8.0 mg/r
AMJJASONDJFMAMJJASO'N JFMA
20.0
cn
ZJ
L.
O
J^
Q.
cn
o
ro
-P
o
II111111II11111
15.0_
10.0
5.0
Summer Effluent" NH3-N Limit - 2.0 mg/tr
11111111111 n ImTmTi 111111111111111111 l-i 1111111111111111 IT
AMJJASONDJFMAMJ.JASON JFMA
April 1989 through April 1991
-------
-------
Month
Apr 1988
May 1988
Jun 1-9 8 8
Jul 1988
Aug 1988
Sep 1988
Oct 1988
Nov 1988
Dec 1988
Jan 1989
Feb 1989
Mar 1989
Apr 1989
May 1989
Jun 1989
Jul 1989
Aug 1989
Sep 1989
Oct 1989
NOV 1989
Dec 1989
Jan 1990
Feb 1990
Mar 1990
Apr 1990
May 1990
Jun 1990
Jul 1990
Aug 1990
Sep 1990
Oct 1990
Nov 1990
Dec 1990
Jan 1991
Feb 1991
Mar 1991
Apr 1991
Minimum
Maximum
Average
0.271
0.278
0.336
0.325
0.348
0.327
0.302
0.306
0.284
0.280
0.267
0.286
0.268
0.264
0.295
0.314
0.315
0.321
0.299
0.289
0.289
0.279
0.261
0.278
0.260
0.284
0.325
0.346
0.368
0.296
0.277
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.269
0.283
0.295
0.260
0.368
0.294
.Caledonia Monitoring Data
monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Flow TSS TSS CBOD
MGD mg/1 rog/1 g/l
243
199
180
177
233
200
171
216
256
205
181
255
211
202
249
207
235
251
206
222
257
217
236
226
264
266
235
411
255
288
200 .
225
293
246
- 183
198
157 .
157
411
229
224
146
164 .
195
195
215 .
.'230
198
234
359
287
335
333
313
373
276
280
387
294
245
239
418
338
471
396
265
195
500
260
273
271
278
324
302
272
284
263
14'6
500
287
- .16.0
13.5
7.5
4.0
2.9
4.2
5.0
6.0
4.2
5.4
6.5
6.0
23.6
58.7
28.6
13.5
8.9
3.1
7.5
12.2
64.0
55.0
14 . 8
16.4
13.0
17.2
33.0
10.0
8.4
15.0
3.3
3.8
6.0
25.0
28.0
8.0
9.0
2.9
64.0
15.3
.uent Effluent
:BOD
ig/1
8.6
8.8
4.5
2.3
~ 2 . 4
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.2
3.8
6.0
12.7
8.7
3.8
3.5
2.5
.4.0
8.2
18.0
29.0
13.2
15.0
13.6
15.0
13.0
5.8
5.4
6.8
3.1
3.8
4.5.
14.0
,13,0
8.0
..3.0
2.3
29.0
7.6-,
TN .
mg/1
,. 5.9
6.1
7.5
11.0
14.5
10.6
18.3
22.0
16.4
9.5
8.3
9.6
15.6
29.3
11.8
30.1
11.8
9.0
1.2.3
8.2
10.9
19.7
13.4
13.0
14.1
5.86
30.08
13.5
Limit
NA
NA
NA
10.0
-------
o
cc
3:
o
1 1
Mont
Caledonia _
1 1 1 1'| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
hly Averages
e.so,_
O.BOU
o.oo
JFHAMJJA
SO'N'DJFMAMJJASO.NO.JFMA
a.
o-
CD 0>
- A- Influent
- o Effluent
JFMAMJJAS
ONOJFMAMJJASONOJFMiA
cn.
en
en
500
400 ~
300 Z
200 r
100 -
JFHAMJJASO
NDJFMAMJJASONOJFMA
C
QJ
D)
4J O
C C-^-.
OJ-M _J
Z) -rf^V.
r-lZ CD
UJ ID
+J
O
flJeni Totai Nitrogen u'imit - 10.0 mg/L"
0.0
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASCINOJFMA
January 1989 through April 1991
-------
to
D>
S5-
ec
o
S3
o
|_4
o
e
z
Cu
CM
U
INFLUENT
^
c
b
S2
^P 1
"^ >
CM ifl
Q
85
1!
OT >>
Z
I
O
*"* "H ^7
O O* g
o '
C
H
?S
ro^,
§.6.
?5
%i.
v>^
g e^
_
g|
ITVH
g|
sc~
fi
w o.
6
SO<
_B
1
jl
. CM ^
* n
\ O O
0 O
r» o CM
vo r- co
in IH o
»-4 CM -CM
r- co oo
oo vo i-i
cn oo vo
i-l CM CM
O Cn Cn .
« CO VO ,
vo P* " ^
in 1-1 o
CO VO V
CO i-l «H
i-l CM iH
odd
CM 00 CO
r» o vn
*
CM i-« O
in in CM
* *
00 CM If
CO 00 -HI
* * 0
^^ ^ft ^^
i-i
i *r vo
i co co
i
| co in
\ CM «
1 CM f4
o r- o
v in in
o o o
odd
^^ ^^ ^x
! <* in
i 0 0
1 0 0
1 O i-l
i ro cn
i cn in
J 00 VO
.1'. .CO CO
CO O
1 vo iH
! CM' n
1 O CO
: d d
l o ro
1 VO CM
1 0 0
r- co
r- «
j CO r-
1
ill
i S l
i i l
l
j 00 Cn
CO f»
1 iH CO
i vo in
1 O O
0 0
o o o
fflfi Cft On
1 1 1
CM CO V
-4 m
m CM
0 0
O 0
O -!
(M r-
CM CM
r- in
co o
co in
CM CO
v in
^
O CM
vo co
CO CM
CM O
CM CM
0 O
CO CO
0 CM
co r^
r- CM
H
f CM
r- ^
i i
i ;
r~ CM
CM ^1
CM "»-l
in r*
So
9t
in in
0 0
0 0
in vo
in o\
CM CM
0 0
0 0
r~ r-
in CM
CM CM
o o
CO CO
«3- VO
in
en CM
CM O
V fO
CM r-
r- in
S
t i
i i
i i
CM CM
r-t 00
CM' «
CM *4
°i S
« O
in in
0 0
o o
* S
9 in oo
VD ro ^*
O O O
O O 0
VO 00 CM
in co vo
in en CM
*-l CM CM
cn CM o
r~ in vo
co r- co
iH CO CM
i en. iri
i in CM
i 1-1 vo
f ^
co in
| ** O
i *H 9
l
i <» cn
1 O «H
1 0 0
iH CM ^H
o ^ o
^ 0 CM
CM ^ iH
CO i-l VO
00 VO VO
1 1-« f-
i v in
on CO cn'
in CM ~ vo
iH ^fM' 'CM
cn- 50 oo
S CM CM
o o o
in in in
O 0 O
o o o
S £ -
i i «J>
i-l CM J^
O «-«
o o
o o
r* m
O CO
VO 00
CM CM
CM CM
CO «
CO VO
co co
^^ ^^
vo in
CO VD
«* r-
VO 1-t
in CM
p- vo
CM i-4
0 0
00 CO
CM V
CO ^
00 O
CO
co in
o co
CO CO
^h '"H
5 s
r* vo
in co
^4 CM
0 0
in in
o o
0 0
cn cn
CM CO
^
n
O
o
CO
r-
CM .
n
VO
in
CM
vo
00
CM .
O
1-(
cn
o
0
p»
in
rt S
n 1-1
ss
-------
-------
CONOVER,. NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHEAST PLANT
Monthly Averages
Influent Influent Influent
Date BOO NH3 TSS
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
189
289
389
489
589
689
789 '
889
989
1089
1189
1289
190
290
390
490
590
690
790
890
990
'1090
1190
1290
191
291
391
491
591
691
/*
SUM =
AVG =
STD =
MAX =
MIN =
195.0
195.0
248.8
222.0
234.0
292.0
246.0
263.0
266.0
266.0
222.0
273.0
291.0
164.6
183.0
227.0
211.0
190.0
218.7
219.3
280.0
242.2
325.5
248.0
325.6
365.9
317.4
307.3
332.9
297.4
7669.6
255.7
49.6
365.9
164.6
20.5
14.0
16.9
11.3
16.3
11.5
15.5
15.1
13.0
10.6
17.1
20.3
12.7
17.6
15.7
14.2
12.0,
12.8
15.7
16.4
18.4
317.6
15.1
2.8
20.5
. 10.6
267.0
208 '.0
117.3
139.0
133.0
132.0
150.0
129.0
166.0
199.0
168.0
152.0
173.0
60.3
166.0
184.0
132.0
165.0
193.0
181.1
275.2 .
170.7
195.8
144.8
193.0
216.9
377.0
240.0
252.0
207.4
5487.5
182 .-9.
58.0
377.0
60.3
Flow Effluent Effluent Effluent Eff Eff
(MGD)~ ' BOO NH3 TSS TN TP
(mg/L) (mg/L> (mg/L) (mg/L) -(mg/l)
0.195-
0.314
0.337
0.259
0.314
0.297
0.271
0.283
0.192
0.293
0.253
. 0.294
0.305
0.338
0.213
0.232
0.250
0.215
0.209
0.223
0.212
0.293
0.194
0.197
0.245
0.208
0.292
0.300
0.255
0.250
7.733
0.258
0.044
0.338
0.192
6.0
9.2
14.5
13.0
13.9
15.5
10.8
6.0
5.7
" 6.8
11.4
10.7
4.7
10.7
7.2
9.7
6.1
13.0
6.9
6.5
7.7
7.1
4.5
5.8
6.6
2.0
3.8
6.1
5.8
3.4
241.1
8.0
3.5
15.5
2.J
0.66
.1.60
2. "10
0.53
0.85
0.92
0.69
0.50
1.00
0.63
1.00
0.90
0.97
1.30
0.80
1.00
1.10
0.80
0.70
1.00
0.60
1.50
0.60
0.60
1.10
0.50
0.50
1.50
l.oo
0.60,
27.55
0.92
0^58
2.10
0.50
8.0
'6.6 -1T.4
17.8
10.9
13.3 10.4
9.6
7.8
6.5
7.9 1.4
7.9
12.3 5.1
10.9
7.3
10.6 3.6
10.1
17.0
-13.6 5.44
9.3
9.0
8.5
7.3
9.2
7.3
11.8
11.5 .'
7.2
6.0
9.1
9.3
5.7
--
289.3 -,~'\'
9.6
2.9
17.8
.5.7.
_
1.40
1.40
0.90
1.50
0.15
0.72
-
-------
Southeast WWTP - Conover. N.C.
3:
o
0.00
J'F.MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAMJ
0)
E
in
o
o
CO
500
400
300
- A'Influent
~o Effluent
100
Effluent BOD Limit ^30.0 rag/U
jJdijiil^ I ill I dl I ill I Ifil
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAMJ
CD
C/3
-'Effluent TSS Limit - 30.0 mg/t;
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJ JASON
J F M A -M J
cn
CO
X
30.0
20.0_
10.0-
JF
MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
JFMAMJ
-------
.DEL CITY, OKLAHOMA
Monthly Averages
Date .
190
290
390
490
590
690
790 '
890
990
1090
1190
1290
191
291 '
391
491
591
691
1-
SUH =
AVG =
STD =
MAX =
MIN =
Flow Influent Influent Sludge Effluent Effluent Effluent
MGD TSS BOO Age" ' HLTSS TSS BOO NH3-N
(mg/L) (mg/L) (Days) (mg/L) (rog/L) (rog/L) (mg/L)
2.629
3.292
4.263
3.806
3.537
2.396
2.135
2.163
2.309
2.091
2.068
2.179
2.273
2.012
2.043
1.962
2.564
2.726
46.448
2.580
0.667
4.263
1.962
164
146 .
124
124
120
136
173
156
148
138
132
138
135
137
146
119.
113
' 105
2454
136
. 17
173
105
.263
' '174
' 110
' 108
112
171
175
164
159
197
170
177
174
168
154
143
116
103
2838
158
38
263
103
21.9
18.8
17.1
19.2
23.4
32.3
23.9
26.4
28.2
25.8
24.3
25.5
20.3
24.4
28.6
37.3
32.0
28.2
457.6
25.4
5.0
37.3
17.1
2939
2867
2663
3051
3172
3105
3012
3115
3014
2552
2513
2663
2371
2580
3213
3265
3034
2735
51864
2881
263
3265
2371
22
13
%13
3
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
6
8
8
3
5
9
5
125
7
5
22
3
16
" 10
7
2
3
6
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
5
2
3
6
3
88
5
3
16
2'
1:9Q
~ 0.32
0.05
0.04
0.20
2.27
0.37
1.30
0.23
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.80
0.20
8.14
0.45
0.66
2.27
0.04
-------
:.co.
Del City. Oklahoma
i ' I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 ' ' ' MohthlV A\/erad
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I I IT
es
4.00-
§ 3.00
O
iI
u_
2.00
l.Oti
. noh I I I I I I'll'l I I I.J'1 I I III I H I I M I I I II I I I I I II I U II I I hi I'l II I II I I II I I I 11 I III
J F M A
: M " J J A SX0 N D J F M A'-M J
300
O)
O
O
CD
200 _
Influent.
o Effluent
100 -
JFMAMJJASOND-J-F M A M. J
D)
£
V)
in
300
200
100
TT
J F M
AMJJASONDOFMAMJ
January 1990 through June 1991
-------
CO
a
CD
CT
- CO
O)
-a
en
50.0.
. Del City, Oklahoma
I I I M I > M !' I I | | | I M I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I
1 ' MohthlV Averages ' ' ' ' ' '
40. OU
CD
n n 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I M
111111111111111 u 111111111111111111111111 i.M 11 r
J F M
J J A S 0 ND J F MA M.J
D)
E
CO
CO
4000
3000,
2000 _
1000 _
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 1 I I I I I M I I I 1 I I I I" I I I I I
F M AM JJASONDJFM A M J
5.00
I
n
I
c.
CO
UJ
J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I.I I I i N| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ij I I L
4.00_
3.00
2;00
1.00
o.oon I II JTtt|44-U±±
ill I 4 I I lAl I I 4,1 I irfil l-kkf I I I I I
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJ
January 1990.through June 1991
-------
>
en to
oo
(f)
40.
30.0 _
= 20.0
10. 0
I -
0.01 I
0.00
Del City, Oklahoma
T 1
-]rniiiiir
Monthly Averages
t ' i
2-00
3.00
A Summer Months-
o Winter Months-
I .'] L
4.00
5.00
to
\
0)
4000
3000 i
I- A°
' =. 2000
1000
01
0.00
_L_I I I I L
i.OO
2.00
3.00
i I I I I I 1 L
1 - 1 - L
4.00
5.00
en
to
CD
o.:
o.oa _
--. 0.06
(O
i-Ii o-04
0.02
0.00
0.
A
00
J L
I I 1 1 1 L__l
i.OO
2.00
3.00
5.00
Effluent NH3-N (mg/L)
-------
Month
Jan 1989
Feb 1989
Mar 1989
Apr 1989
May 1989
Jun 1989
Jul 1989
Aug 1989
Sep 1989
Oct 1989
Nov 1989
Dec 1989
Jan 1990
Feb 1990
Mar 1990
Apr 1990
May 1990
Jun 1990
Jul 1990
Aug 1990
Sep 1990
Oct 1990
Nov 1990
Dec 1990
Jan 1991
Feb 1991
Mar 1991
Minimum
Maximum
Average
'Flow
MGD
0.470
0.394
0.466
0.537
0.420
0.715
0.473
0.367
0.439
0.324
0.827
1.311
1.039
0.701
0.595
0.345
0.263
0.359
0.429
0.649
0.625
1.004
0.964
0.673
0.560
0.263
1.311
0.598
; Dundee Monitoring Data
monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent
TSS TSS ' P BOD BOD NH3-N
.mg/1 , mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 ' mg/1 . mg/1
54'.
56
59
47
66
65
43
60
Limit
NA
43
66
56
NA
43.0
5.4
2.5
1.9
3.0
5.7
1.9
43.0
10.3
,70
,20
0.70
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.60
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.20
0.35
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
1.70
0.59
0.50
112
125
118
89
129
59
105
127
59
129
108
61.0
4.7
3.2
2.O
2.5
3.8
2.0
61.0
12.9
2.3
1.7
1.4
1.2
2.1
1.2
2.3
1.7
NOTES:
1. SBR system began operation on September 21, 1989.
not incluc5^ September 1989. . - ....."
2. Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
The summary does
-------
Dundee
CD
O
ii
u.
O;
o
CD
mliiHiiili'iiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiilii
1.50t_
1.00
C/);
to
J F M A M J J
ASONDJFMAMJJASONOJF. M
200
rrm
influent
r o Effluent
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
100
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
January 1989 through March 1991
-------
ra
E
c
CD
LU
5.00r
Dundee
mi1111 111 i-ii 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 1111111n11 ninTITiTIrnITTI 11111111111111111111111111111
(-' i ' '. ' ' ' ' ' tan'thiy 'Av4ra!ge4 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -
4.00_
3.00_-.
2.00_
1.00
0.00
JFMAM. JJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
2.00
cn
E
cn
13
C_
O
H
CL
CO
O
.C
Q.
C
CO
LU
III 1111111111111111111111111111111 mrT|TTT]TTT]n T11 Tin 11MITTIII11II n I
-Ef'f lu'ent1 Phosphor'ua liirtit - 0.5 mg/L >'""''
1.50
1.00
0.50
TTIII TiniTrnrrriiirmnTT
n nnl 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II111II1111111111II11111111111111111111
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
January 1989 through March 1991
-------
-------
FAIRCHANCE-GEORGES
JOINT MUNICIPAL SEWAGE AUTHORITY
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT 'DATA.
EFFLUENT PERMIT LIMITS:
FLOW: .350 Average Monthly
BOD5 ' 15mg/l Average Monthly
Suspended Solids 25mg/l Average Monthly
NH--N i.5mg/'l Average Monthly
J ' 5.0rag/l Average Monthly ,11/1 to 4/30
D.O. 5.0mg/l minimum
pH 6.0 to 9.0 SU
Fecal Coliform 200/100mg/l Average Monthly
5/1 to 10/31
DMR DATA:
1989
1990
Flow
SS
pH
Fecal Coliform
1991
Flow
BODs
SS
NH3-N
pH
Fecal Coliform
Limited data available
.180 Average Monthly
8mg/l Average Monthly
10mg/l Average Monthly
.7mg/l Average Monthly
6.9 to 7.3 SU
Less than 10/100mg/l Average Monthly
First six months
.210 Average Monthly
16mg/l Average Monthly
15mg/l Average Monthly
.2mg/l Average Monthly
6.9 to 7.3 SU
Less than 10/100mg/l Average Monthly
Influent data limited on ammonia nitrogen(NH3-N)ranging from 1 to 2mg/l
-------
-------
Grafton Monitoring Data
monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Influent Effluent Effluent
Month
Dec 1988
Jan 1989
Feb 1989
Mar 1989
Apr 1989
May 1989
Jun 1989
Jul 1989
Aug 1989
Sep 1989
Oct 1989
Nov 1989
Dec 1989
Jan 1990
Feb 1990
Mar 1990
Apr 1990
May 1990
. Jun 1990
Jul 1990
Aug 1990
Sep 1990
Oct 1990
Nov 1990
Dec 1990
Jan 1991
Feb 1991-
Mar 1991
k
SUMMARY :
Minimum
Maximum
Average
LIMITS:
Winter
Summer
Flow
MGD
0.458
0.734
0.682
0.832
1.021
0.554
0.475
0.329
0.323
0.309
0.669
0.299
0.454
0.549
0.348
0.497
0.498
0.446
0.494
0.488
0.590
0.592
0.438
0.508
0.639
0.618
0.299
1.021
0.532
NA
NA
CBOO
mg/l .
166
146
114
102 '
127
73' .
' 150 '
142 '
147
125
92
134
74
73
199
87
131
188
145
137
130
107
186
133
112
126
160
73
199
130
NA
NA
CBOO
mg/l
59.3
9.0
9.3
5.9
2.8
4.3
" 2.7
3.0'
2.9
2.6
3.1
10.7
3.8
3.0
6.3
2.6
2.5
4.9
3.3
3.2
2.3
1.7
3.1
3.0
4.4
5.0
1.7
10.7
4.2
20.0
15.0
NH3-N
mg/l
16.70
17.55
6.09
1.91
0.77
0.64
2.68
0.42
0.04
1.09
4.83
3.75
2.28
1.69
0.78
0.20
, 0.38
2.07
0.39
0.35
2.42
4.70
1-U80
10.55
?.57
0.04
11.80
3.02
15.00
1.50
Effluent
N03+N02
mg/l
31.1
3.1
13.7
5.3
9.8
11.2
6.6
1.0
3.8
1.2
3.5
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
31.1
5.6
NA
NA
Effluent
P
mg/l
1.48
1.75
1.68
' 4.39
1.72
0.94'
1.44
1.78
2.10
1.86
1.83
1.03
0.78
0.77
1.19
0.23
1.73
2.44
2.19
0.73
0.57
0.58
0.63
0.13
1,08
0.13
4.39
1.40
--
NA
NA
Effluent
Temp
deg C
10.2
9.8
9.2
- 10.3
,11.6
14.3
18/5
21.6
21.0
18.4
14.7
10.2
10.1
10.0
11.5
12.6
16.0
19.7
21.6
22.2
21.6
18.7
16.5-
11.4
13.0
11.5
9.2
22.2
14.9
NA
NA
\
NOTES:
1. The Grafton SBR began operation in December of 1988. The effluent BOO
concentration for December 1988 was omitted "from the summary, assert the
ammonia concentrations for the first three months of operation.
2. The ammonia concentrations during the winter were intentionally high
because Grafton has a high ammonia limit in the winter.
3. Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
-------
Srafton. Chic
2
I
cn
x
C 01
UJ
~ *> Influent
<3"'oT Effluent
i 111 i! 1111111111111! 11111 i 11111111111111ITI111111111111111111II
Effluent NH3-N Limit (Summer) = 1.5 mg/F
Effluent NH3-N Limit (Winter) = 15.0 mg/r
15. OU
10.0 _
JFMAMJ'-JASONDJF'M.AMJJASON 'JFM
50.0
CO
o
o>
CD
3
UJ
PJT
40.0-
j_ 30.0
20.0
10.0
n nh-iiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiiliiilniTniliiiliiilin
iiiliimiMimii
J F M A
MJJASOND. JFMAMJJASON JF-M
(/I
D
C.
O
JZ
Q.
10
C
(U
ZJ
UJ
5.00
4.00_
3.00-
2.00_
1.00-
JFHAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
January 1989 through March 1991
JFM
-------
Srafton, Ohio
a
CD
2:
2
O
ir. 1.1.{. ';!'HH|liill!i|lll|lll|lll|lll|lll|lll|l
! Monthly Averages
TTT1
1.00_
0.50_
nnllllllllllllllllllMlllllllllllllirilllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllUlhllllllllUlllllllllnillll
. JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFM
d_J
O \
CD cn
O E
300
- A influent
o Effluent
200
100
i i i i ii 1 1 1 1
Summer Effluent CBOD Limit - 15 mg/Jr
Winter Effluent CBOD Limit - 20 mg/1
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFM
-------
-------
-.a
s :?
-------
-------
Manchester Monitoring Data
monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
Flow TSS P BOD . NH3-N
Month ' MGD mg/1' mg/1 mg/1 mg/l(l)
Oct 1989 0.333 ' 16.0 0.78- 4.0 7.86
NOV 1989 0.352 80..0 1.83
Dec 1989 0.309',- "350.0 5..14 ' -
Jan 1990 0.414 224.0 4.23
Feb 1990 0.551 131.0 2.40
Mar 1990 0.615 19.0 0.47
Apr 1990 0.526 32.9 0.87
May 1990 0.473 1.8 0.13 2.5 2.71
Jun 1990 0.379 6.1 0.42 2.7 7.10
Jul 1990 0.309 22.0 0.68 3.5 13.60
Aug 1990 0.335 3.8- 0.27 2.1 14.50
Sep 1990 0.338 4.6 0.57 2.8 0.43
Oct 1990 0.378 3.1 0.27 3.1 0.24
Nov 1990 0.301 7.6 0.27
Dec 1990 .0.387 10.0 0.48
Jan 1991 0.338 7.5 0.43
Feb 1991 0.319 7.9 0.23
Mar 1991 0.370 8.1 0.73
SUMMARY:
Minimum 0.301 1.8 0.13 2.1 0.2
Maximum 0.615 350.0 5.14 4.0 14.5
Average 0.390 52.0 1.12 3.0 6.6
Limit 1.00 ;
NOTES:
1. Ammonia concentrations are monthly maxima, (monthly averages
were not available).
-------
2
CO
C O)
Oi E
UJ
Manchester
i I 11 i 11 iii[i i i 11 1111 II | 111|iiI11 I I 11
15.0
10.0
S.O
n f iiliiiliiiliiiliiiliriiiiiliiiliiiliiiliii»rti4iiili'iiliiilinll±l
'o N D J F M A M J J A S ON 0 JFM
o
.c
o.
in
o-
en
C
0)
Z)
UJ
6.00
5.00-
4.00 _
3.00_
2.00 _
1.00
0.00
NDJFMAMJJASON
January 1989 through March 1991
-------
Manchester
a
CD
2
O
Q
O
CD
03 cn
LU
CD
CO
CD cn
UJ
0.80L
0.60_
I I I I I ! I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I
Monthly Averages
I I I I I i I IL
nnTl I I I I I I I-1 I I H'| I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I hi I H I I I I I I I I I M I I 1 I I I I M I I-I I'l I IT
0.40_
0.20-
0 N D J-'F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F.M
5.00
4.0C
3.00
2.00
1.00
J I I | I I I | H I | I I I | I I I | I I I | I I I [ I I I | I I I | I I I | I I I | I I I | I I I | I I'l | I I I | I I I | I I L
I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I I I I I F
'0 N D J F M A M J J A S'O N 0 J F M
400
300
200
1001_
Jl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ II I I I I I I I I I I II I |N I | INI HI | I I I | II I | H I | II L
O
ONDJFMAMJJASONOJFM
January 1989 through March 1991
-------
-------
Martette, Michigan WWTP - Monthly Average Data
Month
790-'
890
990
1090
1190
1290
191
291
391
491
591
691
Flow
(MGD)
0.259
0.274
0.257
0.469
0.403
0.464
0.456
0.484
0.577
0.575
0.443
0.347
INF EFF
BOD . BOD
(mg/L) (mg/L)
138.38
112.47
116.74
127.76
92.06 .
75.22
83.36
133.15
70.71
69.36
89.67
123.5
2.51
1.71
. 3.39
-3.63
A. 26
2.72
3.32
3.2
5.84
4.54
3.83
3
INF EFF INF EFF
TSS TSS PHOS PHOS
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
177.3 '
122.3
' 138.8
178
119'.8
94.9
120.4
220.9
66
102.6
100
99
6.1
8.8
6
28.2
12.5
27.5
12
26.6
13.9
14.4
6.9
6.1
2.07
3.25
3.89
2.8
.2.62
2.51
3.45
4.01
3.09
3.11
4.41
4.19
0.13
. 0.96
1.18
0.8
ff.57
0.79
0.88
1.06
0.64
0.8
0.77
0.8
INF EFF
NH3-N NH3-N
(mg/L) (mg/L)
13.48
17.62
16.81
9.34^
-
1.65
1.77
1.7
0.32
0.33
0.37
-
0.23
0.1
-------
tn
3
f
0_J
o. en
tn e
o
r:
a.
10.G,
£ In'iuen
Effloen
8.0_
6.0_
Marle s. Michigan
; i i i i i
, .... i i i i | i i i | i i i. | i i i | i i i | i i i
Monthly Averages
Effluent Phosphorus Limit - 1.0 mg/l_
20.0
Z'
m
Ol
15.fl-
I I I I I I I I I I | I I I | I I
Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit - 2.0 mg/L_
0.0
S o N D J F M
July 1990 through June 1991
-------
Q
CD
O
rI
U_
0.20 _
0.00
Marietta. Michigan
TT
I I I I I I I I I I
Monthly Ave'rages
O)
E
Q
O
CD
200
150 _
100 _
Summer Effluent BOD Limit - 10 mg/r
Winter Effluent BOD Limit - 15 mg/r
~A influent
-o Effluent
300
D)
£
CD
CO
200 _
Summer Effluent TSS Limit - 20 mg/L
Winter Effluent TSS Limit - 30 mg/1
100 _
S 0 N D 0 F M
July 1990 through June 1991
-------
-------
MCPHERSON, KANSAS
Month Iy Averages
Date
690
790
890
990
1090
1190
1290 .
191
291
391
491
591
691
Flow
HGD
2.545
2.481
2.488
2.024
1.533
1.452
1.541
1.593
1.448
1.749
1.504
1.526
1.596
Influent
BOO
(mg/L)
124.0
148.6
193.0
259.5
223.5
223.0
232.0
215.0
234.5
215.0,
264.5
294.0
212.0
Influent Effluent Effluent Effluent
TSS
(mg/L)
127.0
197.0
168; 0
173.0
175.0
192.0
204.5
212.5
217.5
179.0
202.0
205.0
187.0
BOD _
(mg/O
5.5
7.0
6.5
5.5
5.0
5.5
4.5
13.0
11.0
4.0
4.0
5.5
3.0
, TSS
8.0
16.5
. 9.0
5.5
8.0
10.5
9.0
29.0
22.5
6.0
3.5
7.0
3.5
NH3-N
-------
McPherson. Kansas
o
II
u_
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJ
O>
O
O
CD
300
200U
100_
i4frn$rn1nMi^^
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFMAHJ
300
200
en 100 _
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJ
\
O)
CO
X
4-J
c
03
3
LU
ao.o
15.0_
10.0
5.0_
Summer Effluent NH3-N L'imit - 3.0 mg/L'
Winter Effluent'NH3-N Limit - 6.0 mg/L.
0.0
j i ill i ill i ilL|j
-------
^~'-ia5(Ninvor-rM-»«'>onp-ini«>\o>e(NrNnor-jor^oj»OjJ>jQJo
' oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
^dddd dddd-dddooddodoododoodooooo
-«e-Ci;S«^l.-l.-l»<^lrtrJ>-«
dddoddoddocJddcJddd-HOOoooooooooo
5nl''niXa>e>dWri«o>c»f<4O>o^<1i«»e>oJinr^«o«>«<«o
e^^-*^*^«-*r>l«4v4«4<-< »4 *4 ^^
iniN««n\o«Dr-«no'1>a>"«
O *-(
in S
i5!
II »* ^^r^
g
s*
OO
c>o>««>««
-------
-------
HONTICELLO, INDIANA -'UHITE OAKS RESORT
Monthly Averages
Date
1089
1189
1289
190
290
390
490 '
590
690
790
890
990
1090
1190
1290
191
291
391
491
591
/*
SUM =
AVG =
STD =
MAX =
MIN =
Flow
HGD
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.007
0.009
0.085
0.004
0.002
0.009
0.002
Influent Effluent
CBOO CBOD
(mg/L) (mg/L)
133.
117
79
115
99
81
91
100
162
159
170
116
170
147
171
150
124
113
162
170
2629.000
131.450
31.085
171.000
79.000 '
- '. .4
' '-.: 3
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
5
4
. 4
7
5
5
6
5
6
5
6
97.000
4.850
1.062
7.000
3.000
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
TSS - TSS pH pH Ammonia Ammonia Phosph Phosph
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L), (mg/LO (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
64..
70
68
70
72
67
70
78
88
80
78
63
78
81
97
80
68
81
90
89
1532.000
76.600
9.173
97.000
63.000
2
2
4
5
4
5
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
97.000
4.850
1.352
7.000
2.000
7.8
7.7
T.7
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.6
153.600
7.680
0.098
7.900
7.500
7.7
-7.6
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
1.48.800
7.440
0.132
7.700
7.200.
3.5
3^
2.7
3.1
3.3
2.8
3.2
3
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.9
- 3.1
2-9
6.9
61.600
3.080
0.929
6.900
2.200
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
- 0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.8
5.700
0.285
0.188
0.800
0.100
3.63
3.09
2:98
3.04
2.73
2.56
2.58
2.88
3.06
3.11
2.78
2.44
1.86
' 2.04
1.66
1.91
1.81
2.2
2.58
3.14
52.080
2.604
0.527
3.630
1.660
. 2.07
0.59
0.45.
0.37
0.35
0.45
. 0.4
0.38
0.3
' 0.37
0.34
0.27
0.23
0.32
0.27
0.3
0.41
0.44
0.34
0.35
9.000
'0.450
0.380
2.070
0.230
-------
"""TnT
o.ooeL
Monticello, Indiana - White Oaks Resort
I 1 I i h I ! i ! I I h j H M I H | I H I H I h I I I H I i H I I IN I 1 ! I | I I I ' I M | I I I | M I | ITT
1 ' ' ' ' 'MorlthlV A\>era'ges' p
C3
CD
o
r<
U.
0.000
mliiiliiiliiilniliiiliiiliiiliiilMiliiiliiihiilMiliilllllllllllllll-
ONDJFMA'HJJASON
J F M A M
cn
£
0
O
CD
O
200
133
MINIMI
jent1 ''
'o Effluent
N I I M I I I
~A influ
Efflueat CBDD Limit - l6.0 Ag/L.
T rtTrrnn T
ONDJFHAMJJASON
li T rhr rh TT
J F M A M
"*
O)
CO
CO
I
ONDJFMAMJJASON JFM.AM
ZJ
(0
X
CL
10.0
9.0
8.0
t
(
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
TTTTTI|lli IIITTTTTTTTI III|IM Ml|lll Mljl.ll I I I | I I 1 1 1 1 I | I I I III lit
E E
' ° '-','' ~
r~~ ^ *** A A n "rT~ * ,^ A A ^ A j ^r -A,
E-e » ^^-e e E
^ . , ^
E , E
5ll III III! Ill III III Ml III! Illl Illllll MlllllllLllll'llllllllf
ONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAM
October 1989 through May 1991
-------
en
^
r ^
o
Q. O)
cn £
o''
5.00
Monticello, Indiana - -White Oaks Resort
o Effluent
4.00_
3.00
a.oo
1.00
IIIII1111111III i i II111111II. 111II11111111111111111II1111111111111111111111
-A InflUent! Effluent1 Phosphohus Limit - 1.0 ih>
ONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAM
10.0
8.0_
6.0 _
4.0-
2.0_
I I | I 1 I M H I M I I ! II 1 I I MM I I I i III! Mi Mil h I I I I
1 Sunimer 'Effluent1 Pho'sphohus Limit - 1.5 rag/r
Winter Effluent Phosphorus Limit - 3.0 mg/fcr
ONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAM
October 1989 through May 1991
-------
-------
ca
§
63
H
CD
i
W
C£3
H
ft
cc
c
co
CT
C
o
to
0)
02
0)
2
E
-------
5
in
IU
U)
(U
S1
^
in
I
-------
Shelter Island, New York UWTP Monthly Average Data
nth
189
289
389
489
589
689
789
889
989
1089
1189
1289
190
290
390
490
590
690
790
890
990
1090
1190
1290
191
291
391
491
591
691
791
Flow
(MGD)
0.0113
0.0111
O.Q103
0.0265
0.0352
0.0499
0.053
0.0374
0.0285
0.0185
0.0222
0.0155
0.0145
0.0106
0.0155
0.0246
0.0314
0.043
0.0533
0.0399
0.0333
0.0219
0.0114
0.0095
0.0175
0.0212
0.0329
0.041
INF
BOO
(mg/L)
100
280
110
67
120
150
145
230
72
63
50
83
120
95
150
410
110
130
340
290
120
130
63
88
220
130
82
160
140
220
130
E:FF
BOD
(mg/L)
1
8.7
2.2
.,7.2
- 4. 3
4i2-
1
5.3
8
2.5
2.3
8.3
10
. 16
7
11
11
10
7
6
3
7
-2
3
4
-2
-3
2
-2
6
INF
TSS
(mg/L)
55
135
69-
60
. 180
54
-.130
310
110
70
81
77
65
59
63
46
255
110
650
280
110
100
92
120
180
120
51
57
110
170
210
EFF
TSS
(mg/L)
-4
-5
, -5
4
-5
.-4
10
23
13
9
4
-0.01
6
5
6
-13
-0.6
-4
9
13
6
5
8
-3
3
-3
-4
-3
10
8
INF
TKN
(mg/L)
21
29
19
17
11 _
13
20
' 16
21
9.6
20
20
19
18
23
21
12
19
8
39
2
12
14
19
17
16
18
14
18
16
21
EFF
TKN
(mg/L)
1.8
2.2
1.6
1.6
2
3.2
7,. 2
12
20
2
1
2
1.2
5.6
2
5.8
2
1.8
14
14
1.6
2.8
1.4
2.6
3.4
4.2
1.2
2.4
2.2
6.8
INF
N03
(mg/L)
-0.5
-0.5
0.65
0.6
0.8
0.7
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
-0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
2.4
-0.5
-.0.5
-0.05
0.5
0.9
5.3
-0.5
-0.5
." -0.5,
-'0.5
EFF
N03
(mg/L)
2.5
8.9
8.5
4.9
2.7
2.2
1
-0.5
-0.5
4.2
5
7". 8
1.5
5.9-
' 5.4
2.9
0.9
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
2.1
5
4.6
8.5
4
8.3
2.9
5.3
2.8
-0.5
INF
Tot N
(mg/L)
29
20
18
12
' 14
20
16
21
10
20
20
19.5
18.7
23.9
21
12.5
19
8
39
4.4
12
14
19
17
17
23
14
18
16
21
EFF
Tot N
(mg/L)
4.3
11
6.5
4.7
5.4
~8.2
12 .
20'
6.2
6
9.8
2.7
11.5
. 7.4
- 8.7
2.9
1.8
14
14
3.7
7.8
6
11.1
7.4
12.5
4.1
7.7
5
6.8
-------
ro;
o»
c
0>
O)
o
£_ i-^
4J_J
D)
(0
4J
O
5C.C
Shelter Island, New York
MoritniV
30.0 _
O)
E
= E0.0_
-A influent
-o Effluent
H AM J'JA'SO'NDJFMA'MxJ JASON JFMA.'MJJ.
10.0
MA'MJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAMJ.J
50.0
40.0_
30.0_
nt Phosjbhohjs' Limit - 10.0'm^/L-
0.
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON JFMAMJJ
February 1989 through July 1991
-------
a
CD
2
O
0.010
Walnut Grove
0.008Z
0.006Z
o.oo4i:
o.oo
0.000
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I"
Monthly Averages
MUM
M t i I i i 11 r i i I i i i I i i i I t i i i i i i I i i i I i
D J
Q
O
CD
0> O)
LU
50.0
40. or
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I M
V Effluent BOD Limit - 30!b mg/C
-i i- i i i i i I i r I
tn
en
03 O)
3 £
LU
100
80 ~
I I I I I I M.| II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-
' Effluent TSS Limit - 30!o mg/C
MJJASONDJFMA
CD
13
r-l
10.0
8.0
-I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I -I I
^ ii i i . i Effluent N02--+.NO3 Liifiit - 5.0 mg/
2.0
mg/C.
May 1990 through April 1991
-------
-------
ndgap Municipal Authority
Wlndgap, Pennsylvania
Performance Data
.u
C
QJ
53
H
1*4 |
14-1
W
uent
In
o o»
m el .H
is
«^B
05 i O
S
ID
W
00
S, i
Cji^-l
in Qr
SSi
^^
0)
Month/Year
o.
00
m
00
tH
en
o
m
o
0
at
1C
CT>
p-
at
CO
o
o
at
eg
U)
to
n
o
00
o
en
CO
m
CD
in
in
CM
o
en
at
m
m
oo
p»
CM
vo
CM
n
oo
o
o
10
at
in
in
o
en I
Average
Values
1 1
0 0
CM VO
en
I i
o o
^ tN
CM
in
in
0
CM
60
01
0)
-------
-------
Walnut Grove Monitoring Data
monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Month
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1991
SUMMARY:
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Limit
Flow
MGD
0.002
0.004
0.006'
O.'OO?
0.007
0.006
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.008
0.006
0.009
Effluent
BOD
mg/1
12.2
23.4
17 . 4
'17.9
20.0
12.3
7.0
30.0
2.0
4.3
14.1
7 ."2
2.0
30.0
14.0
30.0
Effluent
TSS
mg/1
9.6
- 17.1
12.2
io;o
' 13.8
16.0
17.7
78.0
8.3
6.0
1.7
3.0
1.7
78.0
16.1
3O.O
Effluent
NO2 & NO3
mg/1
6.29
3.31
_ 3.54
2.02
1.26
3.01
-0.68
3-.70
1.96
2.25
3.79
1.18
0.68
6.29
2.75
5.00
NOTES:
1. Plant began operation, in May, 1990.
2 Flow rate is determined from the pump rate, through the
use of a totalizer, or through the use of .a continuous meter,
3. BOD, TSS and NO2 & NO3 concentrations are typically
determined from one grab sample per month.
-------
-------
-------
3!
------- |