903R88107
United States Environmental Protection Agency
CBP/TRS 17/88
October 1988
Assessment of Cost and
Effectiveness of Biological Dual
Nutrient Removal Technologies
in the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin
Volume I
U S. Ff«'i'onmeital Protection A|enc»
ftf^an information Resource
Cr:.u OPM52)
;H Cne'^u'^est
Mhu H 19107
• ^^^
Chesapeake
Bay
H ^B^f Program
TD
225
.C54
Vol. 1
-------
-------
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
U.S. E"vrorn>e*tal Protection Agency
ft.?on HI information Resturca
Cr-lcr (3PM5?)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
ASSESSMENT OF COST AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT
REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES IN THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE BASIN
VOLUME I
PREPARED BY
HAZEN AND SAWYER ENGINEERS, P.C.
730 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003
AND
J. M. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, PSC,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
7373 BEECHMONT AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45230
CONTRACT NO. 68-03-4049
PREPARED FOR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE BRANCH
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
I
I
I
IThe mention of trade names on commercial products in
this publication is for illustration purposes and does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by
•_ the U.S. Environmental Proection Agency.
1
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
t
1
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Single sludge, dual Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) systems, are "emerging"
technologies offering the promise of nitrogen and phosphorus control at costs
significantly below those of conventional nutrient removal techni logies. This
report compiles information on BNR from the limited number of plants with
sufficient operating history to demostrate the potential cost savings,
treatment effectiveness, and reliability of BNR systems. A particular
objective of the report is to provide a bas'is for estimating incremental costs
for retrofitting and operating existing plants in the Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin with BNR systems to achieve two selected levels of nutrient removal.
The design, performance and costs of three BNR processes (Bardenpho, A20 and
UCT) were evaluated. Key concepts and design criteria were evaluated for each
process through review of literature, assessment of ongoing research efforts,
and site visits to operating pilot and full-scale BNR plants. This
information was applied to standard engineering procedures to assess BNR
treatment effectiveness and to estimate incremental costs to retrofit existing
plants in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin for nitrogen and phosphorus
removal. BNR technology in conjunction with chemical dosing and effluent
filtration was evaluated for its effectiveness in meeting the following two
levels of long term average performance:
Low Level nutrient discharge - TN = 3 mg/l
TP = 0.5 mg/l
High Level nutrient discharge - TN = 8 mg/l
TP = 2 mg/l
These levels are not to be considered as limits to be met over monthly or
shorter term averaging periods.
On a long term basis, all three processes were judged capable of meeting the
high level nutrient of discharge level without filtration given: a (5-day)
BOD-to-phosphorus ratio of 20 or more, conservative clarifier design, and
provisions for supplemental chemical dosing in case of process upset. Only
Bardenpho with continuous chemical dosing to precipitate phosphorus and
effluent filtration to remove fine solids (with their related phosphorus and
nitrogen loads) was judged capable of meeting the low level nutrient discharge
concent rat ions.
-------
With process sizing for warm-weather operation, total capital, annual
operation and maintenance (O&M), and total annual costs were developed for
retrofitting existing plants plants in five size categories: 0.5, 1.0, 5.0,
10.0, and 30.0 MGD design flows. For each size category, retrofit costs were
developed for four generic secondary treatment wastewater processes:
conventional activated sludge, extended aeration, activated sludge plus
nitrification, and fixed film systems. The resulting cost tables, cost curves
and equations for each level of effluent nutrient discharge and each treatment
process are presented in Volume I, Tables 5.1 through 5.8 and Figures 5.9
through 5.32, respectively. Increased retrofit costs to provide additional
tankage required for year-round nitrification are presented in Section 5.3.
Specific wastewater characteristics and design criteria are presented in
Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 respectively.
Eight plants in the basin with design flows greater than 30.0 MGD were studied
individually. The costs developed for retrofitting these plants are included
in Volume II of this report. The eight plants are: Arlington, Hopewell,
Lower Potomac, Alexandria and Richmond, in Virginia; Patapso and Back River in
Baltimore, Maryland and Blue Plains in the District of Columbia.
IV
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
1
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XV
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Objectives 1-1
1.3 Approach 1-2
1.4 Organization 1-4
2.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING POTWs IN THE CBDB 2-1
2.1 POTW Inventory Sources . 2-1
2.2 NPDES Permit List Data 2-1
2.3 1986 U. S. EPA Needs Survey Data 2-1
3.0 AVAILABLE BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
TECHNOLOGIES 3-1
3.1 General Biological Dual Nutrient
Removal Process Discussion 3-1
3.2 Bardenpho Process 3-1
3.2.1 Bardenpho Process
Background 3-1
3.2.2 Bardenpho Process
Description 3-1
3.2.3 Bardenpho Process
Design Criteria 3-5
3.2.4 Bardenpho Process
Licensing 3-14
3.2.5 Bardenpho Process Performance
Assessment and Factors
Affecting Performance 3-14
3.2.5.1 Summary of
Operating Data 3-14
-v-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
(Continued)
3.2.5.2 Ability to Meet
Discharge
Requirements 3-20
3.2.5.3 Factors Affecting
Performance of
Bardenpho Process 3-21
3.2.6 Bardenpho Process
Applicability to CBDB 3-28
3.2.6.1 Types of Plants
For Retrofit 3-28
3.2.6.2 Retrofit Examples 3-29
3.3 Description of A/0 Process with
Nitrification/Dentrification 3-33
3.3.1 Background 3-33
3.3.2 Description of the A/O with
NIT/DEN 3-33
3.3.3 Design Criteria 3-38
3.3.4 Licensing 3-49
3.3.5 Assessment of Performance 3-49
3.4 UCT Process 3-62
3.4.1 UCT Process Background 3-62
3.4.2 UCT Process Description 3-62
3.4.3 UCT Design Criteria 3-64
3.4.4 Licensing 3-66
3.4.5 UCT Process Performance
Assessment 3-67
3.4.5.1 Summary 3-67
3.4.5.2 UCT Process Ability
to Meet Discharge
Limits 3-69
3.4.6 Applicability to CBDB 3-69
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL
RETROFIT DESIGN 4-1
4.1 General 4-1
4.2 Influent Wastewater
Characteristics 4-1
4.3 Assumed Characteristics of
Existing Plants 4-3
VI
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
(Continued)
Paqe
5.0
4.4 Process Selection
4.5 Retrofit Design Criteria
4.6 Eight site Specific Plant
Studies
BNR TECHNOLOGY COSTS
5 . l Introduction
5.2 General Design Assumptions and
Rationale for Capital and O & M Cost
Development for all BNR Retrofit
Designs
5.3 Construction and Capital Cost
Development
5.4 O & M Cost Development
5.5 Costs Curves Development
5.6 Sizing and cost Development
for Operation at Lower Temperature
APPENDIX TITLES
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
A- 4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
B-l
B-2
Table 1 - Summary of WWTP in CBDB
Table 2 - Inventory of WWTP in CBDB
(0.5-1.0 MGD)
Table 3 - Inventory of WWTP in CBDB
(1.0-2.5 MGD)
Table 4 - Inventory of WWTP in CBDB
(2.5-5.0 MGD)
Table 5 - Inventory of WWTP in CBDB
(5.0-10.0 MGD)
Table 6 - Inventory of WWTP in CBDB
(10.0-30.0 MGD)
Table 7 - Inventory of WWTP in CBDB
(30.0 MGD and above )
Table 8 - CBDB POTW with flows >
0.5 MGD in year 1984.
Table 1 - Data Summary for Fort Meyers
WWTP
Table 2 - Data Summary for Fort Meyers
WWTP
4-4
4-4
4-6
5-1
5-1
5-10
5-14
5-27
5-28
5-43
PAGE
A-l
A- 2
A-5
A-7
A- 9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
B-l
B-2
VI1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
(Continued)
APPENDIX TITLES PAGE
B-3 Table 3 - Palmetto, Florida WWTP Summary B-3
B-4 Table 4 - Tarpon Springs WWTP Summary B-4
C-l Computer Analysis of Major
Plant Components C-l
C-2 Concrete Tank Costs C-l8
C-3 Tank Baffle Costs C-21
C-4 Mixer Costs C-22
C-5 Clarifier Concrete Costs C-24
C-6 Clarifier Mechanical Equipment Costs c-25
C-7 Aeration Equipment Costs C-26
C-8 Aeration Blower Calculations C-27
C-9 Anoxic Recycle Pump Costs c-29
C-10 Return Activated Sludge Pump Costs C-30
C-ll Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Requirements and Design Basis C-31
C-12 Gravity Filter Feed Pump Station
Costs C-32
C-l3 Incremental Operating Power
Requirements C-33
C-14 Chemical Costs C-34
C-15 Anaerobic Digester Supernatent
Treatment Costs C-35
C-16 Building Cost for Additional RAS
Pumps and Blowers C-36
C-17 Alum Feed Systems Costs C-37
C-18 Effluent Filter Costs c-38
C-l9 Method of Sludge Treatment and
Disposal for CBDB POTW's C-39
C-20 Additional Maintenance Materials Costs C-48
C-21 Cost Curve Regression Analysis C-49
REFERENCES
Biological Nutrient Removal from EPA
Document #625/1-87-001 1
Additional References EPA Dual Nutrient
Control Project 10
Additional Cost References 15
vii i
-------
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Table 3.14
Table 3.15
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME I
PAGE
Summary of POTW Inventory
by Process and Size in the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin 2-2
Summary of POTW Inventory
by Process Group 2-3
Summary of Potw Inventory
by State and Size 2-5
List of POTW Discharging to the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
by State 2-6
Operating Bardenpho Plants 3-2
Description of each Zone of
Bardenpho Treatment 3-6
Typical Design Criteria for the
Bardenpho Biological Nutrient
Removal Process 3-7
Design Criteria of Five Stage
Bardenpho Facilities 3-8
TSS Required to Meet Total
Effluent Phosphorus of 2.0 MG/L 3-13
Summary of Design Elements for
Bardenpho Dual Nutrient Removal
Process 3-15
Royalty Fees Reported for Some
Bardenpho Facilities 3-16
List of Plants Contacted and
Their Data Availability
(Bardenpho Process) 3-17
Summary of Annual Average
Bardenpho Plant Operating Data 3-18
Summary of Factors Affecting/
Biological Phosphorus Removal in
The Bardenpho Process 3-26
Considerations for Five Stage
Bardenpho Retrofit to Existing
Plants 3-30
Summary of A/O Plants in the U.S. 3-35
Typical Design Criteria for the
A2O Process for Biological
Nutrient Removal 3-39
Samples of Denitrification Kinetic
Coefficients 3-41
Summary of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Pilot Plant Operating Results 3-46
-------
Table 3.16
Table 3.17
Table 3.18
Table 3.19
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8
Table 5.9
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME I
(Continued)
PAGE
Summary of Design Elements for A/O
with Nit/Den as Dual Nutrient
Removal Process 3-50
Influent and Effluent Data (1986)
for the Largo WWTP 3-52
Consideration for Three stage
Retrofit of A/O with Nitrifi-
cation/Denitrification 3-61
Virginia Initiative Plant Design
Criteria 3-65
Grouping of POTWs in the CBDB 4-2
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Activated Sludge
(LLND) 5-16
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Activated Sludge
(HLND) 5-17
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Extended Aeration
(LLND) '5-18
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Extended Aeration
(HLND) 5-19
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Activated Sludge
with Nitrification (LLND) 5-20
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Activated Sludge
with Nitrification (HLND) 5-21
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Fixed Film (LLND) 5-22
Summary Plant Modifications,
Design Criteria, Capital and
O&M Costs - Fixed Film (HLND) 5-23
Construction Unit Costs 5-24
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
f
1
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME I
(Continued)
M Table 5.12 Operation and Maintenance Costs
PAGE
Table 5.10 BNR Royalty Fees 5-26
Table 5.11 Operation and Maintenance Staffing
Requirements and Labor Costs For
Conventional Secondary Plants 5-28
Basis 5-29
Table 5.13 Operations and Maintenance Costs
Chemical and Power Cost Basis 5-30
Table 5.14 Tank Sizing for Operations at
Lower Temperatures 5-43
Table 5.15 Incremental (%) Capital Costs for
BNR Retrofit at Lower Temperatures 5-44
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME I
PAGE
Figure 3.1 Schematic Diagram of Five Stage
Bnrdenpho for Biological Nutrient
Removal 3-3
Figure 3.2 Sludge Residence Time (SRT) Versus
Percent Phosphorus in Sludge for
Eastern Service Area Plant, Orange
County, Florida 3-24
Figure 3.3 Five Stage Bardenpho Retrofit for
The City of Oldsmar, Florida 3-23
Figure 3.4 Schematic Diagram of the A/0
Process with (A2O) 3-34
Figure 3.5 Specific Denitrification Rate as a
Function of Anoxic Zone F/M Ratio 3-42
Figure 3.6 Specific Denitrification Rate
Versus Wastewater Temperature 3-43
Figure 3.7 York River Treatment Plant 3-54
Figure 3.8 Relationship of Influent BOD:P
Ratio and Effluent Phosphorus 3-57
Effect of Influent BOD:P Ratio
on Biomass Phosphorus
Concentration 3-58
Schematic Diagram of University
of Capetown Biological Nutrient
Removal Process 3-63
Low Level Nutrient Discharge -
Extended Aeration 5-2
Figure 5.2 LLND - Activated Sludge 5-3
Figure 5.3 LLND - Activated Sludge with
Nitrification 5-4
Figure 5.4 LLND - Fixed Film 5-5
Figure 5.5 High Level Nutrient Discharge -
Extended Aeration 5-6
Figure 5.6 HLND - Activated Sludge 5-7
Figure 5.7 HLND - Activated Sludge with
Nitrification 5-8
Figure 5.8 HLND - Fixed Film 5-9
Figure 5.9 Activated Sludge Process Retrofit
(LLND) - Capital Costs 5-31
Figure 5.10 Activated Sludge Process Retrofit
(HLND) - Capital Costs 5-31
Figure 5.11 Extended Aeration Process Retrofit
(LLND) - Capital Costs 5-32
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 5.1
xii
-------
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME I
(Continued)
PAGE
Figure 5.12 Extended Aeration Process Retrofit
(HLND) -• Capital Costs 5-32
Figure 5.13 Activated Sludge With Nitrification
Retrofit (LLND) - Capital Costs 5-33
Figure 5.14 Activated Sludge With Nitrification
Retrofit (HLND) - Capital Costs 5-33
Figure 5.15 Fixed Film Process Retrofit
(LLND) - Capital Costs 5-34
Figure 5.16 Fixed Film Process Retrofit
(HLND) - Capital Costs 5-34
Figure 5.17 Activated Sludge Process Retrofit
(LLND) - O&M Costs 5-35
Figure 5.18 Activated Sludge Process Retrofit
(HLND) - O&M Costs 5-35
Figure 5.19 Extended Aeration Process Retrofit
(LLND) - O&M Costs 5-36
Figure 5.20 Extended Aeration Process Retrofit
(HLND) - O&M Costs 5-36
Figure 5.21 Activated Sludge With Nitrification
Retrofit (LLND) - O&M Costs 5-37
Figure 5.22 Activated Sludge With Nitrification
Retrofit (HLND) - O&M Costs 5-37
Figure 5.23 Fixed Film Process Retrofit
(LLND) - O&M Costs 5-38
Figure 5.24 Fixed Film Process Retrofit
(HLND) - O&M Costs 5-38
Figure 5.25 Activated Sludge Process Retrofit
(LLND) - Total Costs 5-39
Figure 5.26 Activated Sludge Process Retrofit
(HLND) - Total Costs 5-39
Figure 5.27 Fixed Film Process Retrofit
(LLND) - Total Costs 5-40
Figure 5.28 Fixed Film Process Retrofit
(HLND) - Total Costs 5-40
Figure 5.29 Activated Sludge With Nitrification
Retrofit (LLND) - Total Costs 5-41
Figure 5.30 Activated Sludge With Nitrification
Retrofit (HLND) - Total Costs 5-41
Figure 5.31 Extended Aeration Process Retrofit
(LLND) - Total Costs 5-42
Figure 5.32 Extended Aeration Process Retrofit
(HLND) - Total Costs 5-42
Yl 1 1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals contributed to the preparation and
review of this report. Contract administration was
provided by the Office of Municipal Pollution Control,
Washington, D.C.
Major Authors:
Robert P. G. Bowker - J. M. Smith & Associates, PSC,
Cincinnati, Ohio
John M. Smith - J. M. Smith & Associates, PSC,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Heraang Shah - J. M. Smith & Associates, PSC, Cincinnati,
Ohio
Contributing Authors:
Neil Webster - J. M. Smith & Associates, PSC, Cincinnati,
Ohio
David Walrath - Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., New York, New York
Sandeep Mehrotra - Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., New York, New
York
Reviewers:
Wen H. Huang - EPA-OMPC, Washington, D.C.
Joseph Macknis - EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis,
Maryland
Contract Project Officer:
Norbert Huang - EPA-OMPC, Washington, D.C.
xiv
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
A/0
A20
ADF
AOR
APCI
ARCY
A.S.
BNR
BOD.
CAS
CBDB
DAF
DNR
DO
DT
ENR
EPA
ESA
F/M
ft
ft3
ft:
G
gal
gpd
gpd/ft:
gpm
HLND
HP/MG
hr
HRT
IA
kg
Kmax
Kn
Kuch
1
Ib
Air Products and Chemicals Process
(nitrification/denitrification)
Air Products and Chemicals DNR
Process
average design flow
air dissolution efficiency
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
aeration basin to anoxic basin
recycle
activated sludge
biological nutrient removal
biochemical oxygen demand
Conventional Activated Sludge
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
dissolved air flotation
dual nutrient removal
dissolved oxygen
detention time
engineering new record index
Environmental Protection Agency
Eastern Service Area
food-to-microorganism ratio
foot
square foot
cubic feet
velocity gradient - feet per second
per foot
gallon
gallons per day
gallons per day per square foot
gallons per minute
high level nitrient discharge
horsepower per million gallon
hours
hydraulic residence time
innovative/alternative
kilogram
maximum specific nitrification rate
half saturation constant
kilowatt-hour
liter
pound
xv
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
(CONTINUED)
Ib/lb VSS/day
LLND
Ipd 3 •
Ipd/m
Ips
nu
rn^/d
m /s
mg
mg/g/hr
mg/mg VSS/hr
mg/1
MGD
min
MLSS
MLVSS
MOP
mph
N
0 & M
OMR
P
POTW
PRT
psi
psig
Q
RAS
RBC
RT
scf
scfm
SDNR
SRT
TDK
T.F.
TKN
TN
TP
TSDS
TSS
tu
U.C.
pound/pound VSS/day
low level nutrient discharge
liters per day
liters per day per cubic meter
liters per second
meter
square meter
cubic meter
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per second
million gallons
milligrams/gram/hour
milligram/milligram VSS/hour
milligrams per liter
million gallons per day
minutes
mixed liquor suspended solids
mixed liquor volatile suspended
solids
manual of practice
miles per hour
nitrogen
operation and maintenance
EPA OMR cost index
phosphorus
publicly-owned treatment works
phosphorus residence time (days)
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch gang
plant flow, MGO
return activated sludge
rotating biological contactor
residence time
standard cubic foot
standard cubic feet per minute
specific denitrification rate
solids retention time
total dynamic head
trickling filters
total kjeldahl nitrogen
total nitrogen
total phosphorus
Ten States Design Standards
total suspended solids
turbidity unit
Unifornity Coefficient
xvi
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
(CONTINUED)
UCT — University of Cape Town
V — volume of reactor, MGD
VFA — volatile fatty acids
VIP — Virginia inovative plan
WPCF — Water Pollution Control Federation
WWTP — Waste Water Treatment Plant
yd — cubic yards
yr — year
xvii
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Control of nutrients in wastewater treatment plant
effluents is becoming increasingly important as more
stringent discharge requirements are imposed in order
to protect surface and ground waters. In fresh water,
phosphorus has generally been considered the "limiting
nutrient" in controlling the proliferation of algae and
other nuisance aquatic growth. However, for some
estuarine and other water bodies, control of both
phosphorus and nitrogen may be necessary in order to
prevent deterioration in water quality.
The Chesapeake Bay is an ecologically sensitive area
for which control of both phosphorus and nitrogen
discharges may be necessary to ensure water quality
protection. Although nutrients reaching the Bay
originate from both point and non-point sources, point
sources represent a substantial contribution for which
controls can be implemented using a combination of
conventional and "alternative" wastewater treatment
technology.
Historically, removal of phosphorus from wastewater has
been accomplished by chemical precipitation with metal
salts. However, this approach has high operating costs
associated with the purchase of chemicals and with the
treatment and disposal of large volumes of additional
sludge generated from the chemical precipitation
process.
Conventional nitrogen removal is generally accomplished
through biological nitrification and denitrification.
The percentage of wastewater treatment plants
practicing nitrogen removal in the United States is
small, although a significant percentage are currently
converting ammonia to nitrate in the nitrification
process. Separate stage denitrification can be a
costly process to implement, is sensitive to
operational control parameters, and often requires the
purchase of additional chemicals such as methanol to
serve as a carbon source for denitrifying bacteria.
Within the last fifteen years, significant and exciting
developments have occurred in biological removal of
nutrients from wastewater. It now appears that removal
of both nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater can be
reliably achieved at a cost considerably less than with
the conventional approach of chemical phosphorus
removal and biological nitrification-denitrification.
1-1
-------
Several proprietary processes are now marketed in the
United States and abroad for dual nutrient (nitrogen and
phosphorus) removal. In addition, on-going research at
universities and other institutions has improved the
knowledge of the mechanisms of nutrient removal, and has
resulted in some promising modifications to processes
currently used at full-scale.
It should be noted that these dual biological nutrient
removal systems are still considered to be "emerging"
technologies, in that some of the mechanisms of
phosphorus removal and the specific design approaches and
design criteria for certain wastewater characteristics
are not thoroughly understood or defined. However, the
number of operating plants, and the extent of research in
this area combined with the large body of knowledge
already available makes use of these technologies
feasible for most cases at the present time. Results of
on-going research and plant operations will likely expand
their applicability, improve reliability, and reduce the
overall costs of full-scale implementation.
1.2 Objectives
Because of the sensitivity of the Chesapeake Bay to
nutrient discharges, it is of considerable value to
determine the technical and economic feasibility of
implementing biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes
in publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) in the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin (CBDB). Meeting this
objective is complicated by the fact that, for the vast
majority of cases, implementation of biological nutrient
removal processes requires retrofitting existing
wastewater treatment facilities.
The objectives of this study are therefore to:
1. Review and assess the performance and capability of
BNR processes for removal of nitrogen and phosphorus
from municipal wastewater to two selected levels:
Low Level Nutrient Discharge - TN = 3 mg/1
TP = 0.5 mg/1
High Level Nutrient Discharge - TN » 8 mg/1
TP = 2 mg/1
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
2. Assess the technical feasibility of retrofitting
wastewater treatment plant configurations found in
the CBDB with biological dual nutrient removal
processes.
3. Develop a series of cost curves to allow estimation
of the capital costs and additional operating costs
associated with retrofitting plants in the CBDB
with BNR processes.
The above nutrient discharge levels represent expected
long-term average performance, appropriate as input to
nutrient modeling. Operating experience with BNR is
still too limited to accurately determine the monthly
or weekly nutrient discharge limits the processes can
reliably meet.
1.3 Approach
The general approach used in meeting the above
objectives of this study was as follows:
1. Develop a state-of-the-art knowledge of BNR
processes by:
a. compiling and reviewing all available
literature on the subject.
b. obtaining available information from leading
researchers on BNR technology.
c. conducting site visits to operating pilot-and
full-scale BNR facilities to obtain performance
data and to assess operational problems and
cost information.
2. Collect and summarize data from the EPA Needs
Survey on sizes, types, locations, and discharge
requirements of existing municipal wastewater
treatment plants in CBDB.
3. Develop a list of assumptions to allow development
of cost curves showing retrofit costs as a function
of existing plant type, design flow, and degree of
effluent nutrient levels required.
4. Conduct detailed cost analyses based on developed
assumptions to yield capital costs of retrofit by
existing plant type, design flow, and effluent
nutrient level; and incremental increase in
operation and maintenance costs associated with
implementation of biological nutrient removal
systems.
5. Provide guidance for different applications of the
above cost information under conditions different
from those assumed in its development. Specific
methodologies applied in the approach are detailed
-------
1.4 Organization
This report has been organized as follows:
Chapter 1 - Introduction
This chapter briefly summarizes the specific objectives
of this study and introduces the general approach
adopted to estimate costs for retrofitting BNR
processes to the existing POTW's in the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin.
Chapter 2 - Summary of Existing POTW's in the
CBDB
This chapter summarizes data on plant types and
processes, design flows, locations by state, and
existing discharge permit requirements as taken from
the 1986 EPA Needs Survey.
Chapter 3 - Available Biological Nutrient Removal
Technologies
This chapter provides a description of the dual
biological nutrient removal processes considered for
application to the CBDB, a summary of
currently-accepted design criteria, an assessment of
the performance of.the technology based on published
data and performance data collected during the site
visits, an assessment of the ability of processes to
meet assumed effluent nutrient limits, and a discussion
of the applicability of the technology for retrofit in
the CBDB.
Chapter 4 - Assumptions for Nutrient Removal
Retrofit Designs
This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the
approach used in the cost analysis, the assumptions for
existing CBDB plant configurations, the assumed design
criteria for BNR processes to meet specific effluent
limitations.
Chapter 5 - Cost Estimates
This chapter presents the cost curves as a function of
existing plant type, design flow and effluent discharge
criteria, along with a methodology for using the cost
curves. Summary tables showing total costs for
retrofitting the plants by plant size and effluent
limitations.
1-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
2.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING POTW'S IN THE CBDB
2.1 POTW Inventory Sources
An inventory of POTWs in the CBDB was developed from two sources.
The first source was an EPA permit, listing of all POTWs in the
seven states above 0.5 mgd that discharge to the CBDB and had NPDES
Permits. The seven states included in the CBDB are Pennsylvania
(PA), Maryland (MD), Virginia (VA), New York (NY), West Virginia
(WV), Delaware (DE) and The District of Columbia (DC). The number of
POTW's in the NPDES printout totaled 256 but the number listed
included 12 plants which were less than 0.5 mgd. Appendix A-l is a
printout of the original NPDES permits, list of all POTW's above 0.5
mgd in the CBDB that was furnished by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program.
2.2 NPDES Permit List Data
The NPDES listing was used to establish existing plant design flow
and present effluent discharge limits for phosphorus and TKN. the
existing plant design flow was used to group the plants by size. The
plants were grouped in the following size categories.
0.5 - < l.o mgd
1.0 - < 2.5 mgd
2.5 - < 5.0 mgd
5.0 - <10.0 mgd
10.0 - <30.0 mgd
> 30 mgd
2.3 1986 U.S. EPA Needs Survey Data
The Needs Survey data were searched to obtain specific plant design
and treatment component information. This information was used to
indicate the type of treatment processes employed. These were
categorized as follows:
Extended Aeration
other Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge with Nitrification
Fixed Film (trickling filter or RBC)
Other (Such as lagoons)
Table 2.1 shows the number of POTW's by type of process and plant
size. Extended aeration, activated sludge and activated sludge with
nitrification constitute over 70% of the treatment systems in use in
the CBDB. Table 2.2 lists the distribution of final effluent filters
and alum addition facilities in the CBDB.
2-1
-------
z
M
en
ffl
Cd
z
05
Q
X
03
W
C-l
Z
8
o
ro
A
oc
CN
00
CN
o
(N
00
(N
<#>
in
(N
OP
CN
<*>
oo
<*>
(M
00
CN
O
O
CM
(N
o o
W
iH
•
CN
Cd
ij
oa
rtj
EH
THE CHESA
Z
M
*
Cd
N
M
en
Q
z
(flj
en
en
Cd
8
06
On
-» TJ
col a*
0)
.^
jj
••H
f-H
._<
6
«.
en
3
o
01 r-t
CQl Cb
Cul
4-1
O
Ll
0)
e
U-l
O
OJ
CT>
c
fd
OS
31
Z
m
v
I
o
*
o
r-l
O
•
o
l^
V
1
o
•
m
o
•
m
v
I
m
CN
X
os
z
H
2
b
o
g
S
CO
CN
V
I
O
o o
CN
CN
CN
VO
00
CN
3
CO
UJ
T3
0)
(1)
2
vo
CO
4J
to
•
-H
v in o r* oo «*
1 CN r-H
in
•
0
Cd •
C5 S OS
•
OS
en (d
en u <
CJ Cd • Q •
O CU EH D EH
OS X CJ J X
Q
vJ M
en QS
EH
• H
EH Z
o- H
•I
1
CN i— 1 «T
1
1
Cd
C5
Q
£ 3
J J
M en
Cb
•
Q Q EH O EH
Cd £ Cd X
X J X Cd
MM M
Cti Eb| tti 4-
Cd CJ
X <
M
Cb. 4-
£ •
J J
M cn «|
GM H*4
• OS
Q EH EH OS
Cd U M Cd
X
-------
J
CD
Z
o
M
E-
*— t
Q
S§
O
tt X
U»*")
— J
W5 <
05
co o:
8^
06 Q
0. Z
<
>•
a tn
Q<
X CO
« E-
O J
E- M
z &.
w
> E-i
Z Z
IH U
3
X J
E-i Ou
O Ob
rt. CO
Cu X
O E-
t— 1
S- X
a:
< CO
5 a
x a
3 U
V)
U
£
z
M
1 -i JJ S
ft, -1 3 CN
1 , 1 _,
) »M -^ ^
1 -0 Ou <
11
[ -v
X
£ g .
3 T3
«: <
£
UJ
— 1 4J
JJ -l •-< Du <
J U
t-l iJ
O ••*
< z e •
C>4 3 T3
(^ _^ rv* fiM
-C ^ U ' *
GL. JJ < <
O •-<
3
ce
CO
en tn ~i jj
X ' t*w ^^ O
a <
•-• «
JJ
c
1)
i • •
C -1 JJ
O iu ~t O>
U •*-••-'
U Ou
*n^
U
•
*j a
C -H 3 -^
O -« + ^
--•».<
U -~
«J JO
Ij —
«a .
B "
< a 3-g
JJ f-4 -O O
•o--« «
01 9 -*
•o id
c —
41 . .
JJ r-l 4J
X 4
t-l p^ O O O <•"»
O O O O O O
^ M o o o r-
e
o •
in o • o
• • o <*i
ft in M v o J
V V V O <
o m o • o E-I
. . • o i*> o
tH tS in *4 A fl
\
i
13
4)
*»4
•-^
id
jj
(A
c
• M
c
o
4J
• H
T3
•a
o
-^ C
*«* id
id
JJ -O *-*
Ill 41 -O 41
3 -a 4J
c ^ id jc c
O w 8 O ^
ij 4i 3 m 04
••^ iH
•• ^i"O >i «) 1 «
jr ^ fl ^H u
jj c id e >iT3 41
•^ O O -H T3 J3
s e c * jj
e 3 i o o
« >i o -i e «
Jj F-( .^ << • 1 3
CCU 4J -1 rH
fl O — 1 -*• r-l • <
»-l < "O W
a n -o o) a. T3 + 4>
U Id U «t T3
f^ « 4> • -3
rt JJ B jj ^ a u rH
id ^ 3 — J
-------
The classification of the plants by type of treatment was performed
to facilitate the development of cost estimates for implementing
biological dual nutrient removal at each facility. The presence of
filtration and/or alum addition was noted since these components are
required to meet effluent phosphorus limits for some or all of the
year depending on the specific phosphorus limits.
In addition, the POTW design criteria in the EPA Needs Survey for
phosphorus and TKN removal were checked against the limits shown in
the NPDES listing. Where the EPA Needs Survey showed that the plant
had a specific ammonia removal design capability, the effluent
ammonia design number was shown as a permit discharge limit, along
with the TKN discharge permit limit. The ammonia removal requirement
was used to determine if the activated sludge plant was listed in the
"other activated sludge" or "activated sludge with nitrification"
classification.
Appendix A-l to A-7 shows the listing of each plant included in the
study, the design flow, secondary treatment facilities and the
present discharge permit limits for the facility. The plants are
ranked by size, in ascending order within each state.
Table 2.3 is a summary of the POTW's grouped by state and plant
size. The states are listed in descending order by the number of
POTW's in each state. Plants less than 5 mgd in size constitute just
over 75% of the number of POTW's in the basin.
Table 2.4 is a summary of the total design flows for all the POTW's
in each state, ranked in descending order of total flow by state and
includes flow from industrial plants as well. Three states; New
York, West Virginia and Delaware, together have less than 5% of the
total flow to the basin. A 100 percent of the total flow to the
basins is from POTW's.
2-4
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
z
M
CO
<;
00
U
Z
06
Q
X
f^
03
H
rf
U
cu
rtj
CO
u
a
u
u ~
38 rH
EH ^*
U
Z (U
H ••*
4J
r*i » -H
H rH
CN N "H
M O
U CO fl
J fa
03 Q
< Z '-w
EH < 0
U U
EH CD
< J3
EH E
CO 3
Z
X
03
*
X
as
O
EH
Z
U
^
z
H
3
H
04
fa
O
X
OS
^
z
*
CO
ZdPdPdPdPdPdPdP
U ro ^* ^D r*1* r** p** ^*
OS^rHOCOrHrHO
ta l Ul U
EH 04 1 Zl >| Zl 3l Ql Q
CO
•^r
rH
±
O
CN
CN
CN in
^^
dP
C^
•
O
in rH
CN
0P
P»
•
O CO
CN
dP
rH
•
O
\O CN
^*
OP
CO
•
CO
VO CN
vo
dp
VO
•
VO
rH CN
vo
J
EH <
Z EH
J U O
4! U EH
EH OS,
O W fa
EH| CulO
•
>,
(U
i_i
3
C/3
tn
T3
0)
0)
Z
^;
0,
CO
V£
00
<7^
rH
rg
C
fl
J-J
03
.,j
rH
U)
JJ
• f^
S
(1)
CL
CO
Q
CU
z
s
0
H
fa
— .
rH
>-•
U-l
0
en
^
r^
fl
c
.-i
u
O
C
o
C fl
5 -U
0 fl
JZ T3
>,
OJ OJ
1-1 >
(U l-i
S 3
CO
J_l
fl 0)
r; fQ
JJ 0)
Q)
0) Z
4J
fl C
JJ -H
to
U
.C fl
O OJ
fl Q<
i
••^ <*>
Jj
•Q 0)
fl JJ
.^
U-l £
0 J2
3
• W
0
z en
•— c
CN fl
4- rH
~ a
,—.
CN
•— •
2-5
-------
TABLE 2.4
TOTAL DESIGN FLOW OF POTWs >_ 0.5 MGD DISCHARGING
TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE BASIN, BY STATE
State
VA
MD
PA
DC
NY
WV
DE
TOTAL
Total Design
Flow
to CBDB (1)
mgd
579.7
421.7
414.2
309.0
64.5
7.4
2.8
1,799.3
Industrial
Flow to
CBDB
mgd
45.39
37.10
62.53
0.00
14.67
1.18
0.98
161.85
Percent of
Total Design
Flow
32.2%
23.4%
23.0%
17.2%
3.6%
0.4%
0.2%
100%
(1) The total present design flow which includes the
domestic and industrial flows that were obtained from
the 1986 Needs EPA-1 form.
2-6
-------
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 AVAILABLE BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 General Biological Dual Nutrient Removal Process
Discussion
A literature review was conducted for information on
the combined removal of phosphorous and nitrogen by
biological processes. In addition, visits were made to
facilities that were in operation utilizing these
systems. The amount of information on operating BNR
facilities is limited, with most of the operating
plants utilizing the Bardenpho Process. The data
available on operating systems and pilot plants shows
that the BNR process is a viable process. The
remainder of this chapter presents information on the
three (3) processes that provide for BNR and are:
Bardenpho Process
A 0 Process
UCT Process
3.2 Bardenpho Process
3.2.1 Bardenpho Process Background
The Bardenpho process was first developed in Pretoria,
South Africa in the early 1970's. Bardenpho stands for
Barnard-Denitrification-Phosphorus removal, and
is a five-stage activated sludge process. The process
is marketed in the United States by Eimco Process
Equipment Company.
There are currently nine (9) operating Bardenpho plants
in the U.S., three (3) under construction, and about
ten (10) plants designed or currently being designed.
Plant capacities range from 0.2 MGD to 15.6 MGD. Table
3.1 is a list of operating Bardenpho plants in the
U.S., the rated capacity of each plant and the plant
effluent requirements for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus. Many of the facilities use effluent
filtration and chemical addition as a polishing process
for phosphorus removal.
3.2.2 Bardenpho Process Description
As shown in Figure 3.1, there are two anoxic stages
used to accomplish high levels of biological nitrogen
removal by denitrification. An anaerobic stage
(fermentation zone) is provided ahead of the original
four stage Bardenpho nitrogen removal system to create
3-1
-------
Table 3.1
OPERATING BARDENPHO PLANTS (USA and CANADA)
FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
Plant
Palmetto, EL
Environmental
Disposal Corp.
Pluckenmin, N.J.
American Gulch WWTP
Payson, AZ
Eastern Service
Orange County
Area/ EL
Ft. Myers' -
Central, FL
Ft. Myers -
South, FL
Tarpon Springs,
FL
Orchard
Development, PA
Kelowna, B.C.
Size
Effluent
Polishing
Processes
1.4 MGD Filtration
Alum addition
0.85 MGD Filtration
Alum addition
1.7 MGD Filtration
6.0 MGD Filtration
11.00 MGD Alum addition
12.0 MGD Alum addition
4.0 MGD Filtration
0.2 MGD
6.0 MGD Filtration
Effluent Requirements
TN TP (mg/1)
3.0
2.5
(1)
1.0
3.0
3.0
6.26
6.0
1.0
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.5
3.0(2) 0.5(2)
3.15
2.0
(1) Permit based on NH3 » 0.5 mgA and N03 = 2.0 mgA
(2) At 12.0 MGD design flow (300 Ibs/d - TN, 50 Ibs/d - TP)
3-2
-------
EH
Z >
W
3
hj
CK
a,
U
\
/
1
o 0 O
^
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
/
*EAERATION
ZONE
, 1
U
>
a
U _
o 0 O
o 0 O
o O O
H
b
OS
J ~
<
Z
cc
u
EH
Z
M
p
6
(
O
6
EH,
Z
ECOND ANOX
ZONE
to
z
.n
ANAtlKOBlC FIRST ANOXIC NITRIFICATK
ZONE ZONE ZONE
(FERMENTATION
ZONE)
i-}
b
Z
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (RAS) Q (TYP)
W
u — •
Q O,
3
J Z
IW K
EH U
CO M
< z
3 —
rH
\
c^
o
_•
V
04
Z
CQ O
o as
<
EH EH
CO Z
M EH
fe 3
Z
b
O J
<
2 U
< M
OS U
U
CQ
o
b
u
OS
o
o
H
b
-------
anaerobic/aerobic sequencing conditions necessary for
biological P uptake. Return activated sludge (RAS), is
mixed with primary effluent and flows to the anaerobic
stage to promote fermentation reactions and P release
prior to passing the mixed liquor through the
four-stage Bardenpho process. Phosphorus is removed
from the system in the waste sludge, which contains 4%
to 6% phosphorus by weight.
Depending upon the influent characteristics for P, N
and BOD,-, the biological process can achieve on a
long-term average basis, target levels of 3.0 mg/1 TN
and 2.0 mg/1 P without filtration. For weak
wastewaters or high P in the influent, a small amount
of chemical, such as alum, can be added to the
reaeration chamber to reduce effluent phosphorus.
Effluent filters can also be used as a polishing step
to remove suspended P. The Bardenpho design solids
retention time (SRT) may be in the range of 10 to 20
days, depending on the wastewater temperature and
influent nitrogen concentration.
A large portion of the fully nitrified mixed liquor
from the first aerobic stage is recycled back to the
first anoxic stage, and combined with the mixed liquor
suspended solids (MLSS) from the fermentation zone to
promote rapid denitrification. The organic material in
the raw wastewater is used as a carbon source by the
denitrifying bacteria; therefore, additional carbon
source such as methanol is not necessary.
Except for synthesis during denitrification in the
first anoxic zone, ammonia and organic nitrogen in the
raw wastewater are untouched as they pass from the
fermentation zone to the nitrification stage. Mixed
liquor from the nitrification stage flows to the next
stage, which is anoxic. The remaining nitrates in the
mixed liquor are reduced because of the endogenous
oxygen demand of the biological solids.
The fifth stage is aerobic, and is similar to the
post aeration stage of a conventional two-stage
nitrification-denitrification process. The dissolved
oxygen (DO) of the wastewater effluent is increased to
2 to 4 mg/1 to prevent further denitrification in the
clarifier, and to prevent the release of phosphates to
the liquid in the clarifier.
The nitrification zone is designed on the basis of
providing a sufficient solids retention time (SRT) as a
function of temperature for nitrification and aerobic
sludge stabilization, if desired. The anoxic zones are
3-4
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
designed on the basis of using specific denitrification
rates as a function of the total system solids
retention time or organic loading, design temperature,
and influent nitrogen concentration. In many cases,
the nitrification and anoxic zone design detention
times are increased to provide a total SRT that will
result in an aerobically digested sludge for disposal.
In the first anoxic stage, nitrates contained in the
internal recycle from the nitrification stage are
reduced to nitrogen gas. About 70 percent of the
nitrate produced in the system is removed in the first
anoxic stage. The second anoxic stage provides
sufficient detention time for additional nitrate
removal by mixed liquor endogenous respiration using
nitrate instead of oxygen. The final aerobic stage
(reaeration) provides an aerated mixed liquor prior to
clarification to minimize anaerobic conditions and
phosphorus release in the secondary clarifiers. Table
3.2 is a detailed summary of the purpose of each stage
of the Bardenpho process.
3.2.3 Bardenpho Process Design Criteria
Typical design criteria for the Bardenpho process are
listed in Table 3.3, which includes hydraulic residence
time (HRT), internal recycle and return sludge flow
rates, SRT, mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and
food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratios. Also listed are
typical power requirements for each stage in horsepower
per million gallon of tank capacity (HP/MG). Table 3.4
contains a summary of the design criteria of existing
or recently designed five stage Bardenpho facilities.
The following paragraphs describe a basis of design for
each zone of the Bardenpho process.
Fermentation Zone •
An anaerobic basin is required to ensure that the
biomass is subjected to adequate anaerobic
conditioning. Phosphates are removed only through the
incorporation of the phosphates into the sludge, and
subsequent wasting of the sludge that contains
phosphates. Bacteria can be induced to take up
phosphates at rates higher than their metabolic
requirements if they are subjected to anaerobic stress
for short periods. During the anaerobic stress period,
bacteria release some of the phosphates in the sludge,
but this release will allow the bacteria to take up
3-5
-------
a
§
e
S
o
£• <*
il
N
!§
TJ *
5 -3
2 g*
>w
LJ Si C*
3 > 3
0 V g.
V *J r-4 S .Q 3 *J ^ IM ^^ '
m
i!
I2| _
»l'l
8 -a
c 8 c
- a - S
tl 1
Jj «S§
J H pi»J
i _ 3 Sc
_
39
*
ST.-?!
-« fl
> a
i ^H *J
8 J'j ^ S y 3
w w <«« w 1 c
323385 *
-4 3 > -. u
m >,^ <« i-. 3 "
*J O « *J *-* a **
-ff
B -2 a
5 QZ "g g s ?5 5'
na sP > •* •* —* ^2'— ^^H
8 - • 'ova S S -< 8 Q 6 -
" *" 3 S S sli «• 3 ^ >, i; z
n^j VOO Qu«4 u«3uAJ «39v
C'4 >UL( k< £ --4 MM -4O«4J
2| Jsl 5§3 --C-l< fi?"
«i - « 4 " '8 o TJ
0»u(AUW
-------
I
Table 3.3
TYPICAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE BARDENPHO
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESS
PARAMETER VALUES
F/M (lb BOD5/lb MLVSS) 0.05 - 0.2
BOD5/P 20 - 30;1
SRT (days) 10 - 20
MLSS (mg/1) 3,500 - 4,500
HRT (hours)
Fermentation 1-2
First Anoxic 2-4
Nitrification 4-12
Second Anoxic 2-4
Reaeration 0.5-1
Total 9.5-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mixing Requirements (HP/MG)
I Fermentation 30-80
First Anoxic 30-75
Second Anoxic 30-80
_ (minimum of 5 HP per basin)
™ Return Sludge Flow 100
(% of influent)
Internal Recycle Flow 400-600
(% of influent)
• Clarifier Hydraulic 200-500
Overflow Rate (gpd/sqft)
I Solids Loadings (Ibs/day/sqft) 10-20
I
I
I
I
I
3-7
-------
*?
•
ro
CO
L T
t— 4
31
i£
EH
U
M
EH
M
tJ
U
Cb
0
Oi
z
00
Q
OS
03
U
CJ
*•£
EH
Cfl
a
>
M
fa
fa
O
M
OS
rj
EH
QS
U
z
o
M
en
CO
Q
C -
O Ul
O m
k-M O
i_4 C
ITS — 1
04
£
*
O
O
0
CJ
fa
k
1-1
i
Ul
rQ
rH
0
CJ*
•
CO
"
c
3
O
rH
0)
i^
fa
4*.
0
-U
3
o —
rH 4-1
C ^tJ ^J
O iH
c -H cu cr
O 4J > Ul
•H ^ «J OX
•^ -U rH *-» 4J T3
0) ^rHCNfl X'O Ci-HCN^a
>( Ul VJiHtJlCJ1 c -4 e a o >-iSa)cc -HUI
in fa «t Z i< fli EH CO 3
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TT
•
ro
U
J
2
H
TJ
0)
3
•H
4J
C
0
u
co
co
oa
u
o
as
04
O
35
a.
z
a
OS
d+
CO
w
a
C-l
CO
Cl]
M
On
O
<
as
1-4
f-i
M
as
CJ
z
0
M
CO
u
Q
(S3
<
rfl
UJ
a
CT
O
03
*
0)
rH
T3
CT*
C
•H
w
co
^~
>
•H
U -1*
tsj C 0) U
rt» (Q 4-J (tj
U ffl On
C H C
O 1 *£ rH 4-1
03 — 3 ro
Q. 06
IB
U
0)
as
rH
» C QJ
O U U
CJ (1) -r» fl
(0 0) <
c u co
us *•»
o
^
o I-H CN • 00 in O
o o o o o r-
1 rH CM CM CN O
in rH
rH
•
*•» r— ) CN (0
01 ^ W
>i M X X <0
(Q )H U O 4J O iT3
T3 O« J3 1) C -H C ^< "^ Cu m ro m ro m
rH rO rH ro
o
0 0
•H - 1 1 1 1
CN CN 1 1 1 1
O
\o o
• CN o m o in
•-H «. VO VO ^O ro
rH in CN
3
o *->
C rH 4J
O MH MH
•H U
4J Q) D1
03 > cn
"•> -U O\
rH — C rH w sxx (Ucn
4J g g ~HOO"H-'
O Si^ *^ W C5 ^ C C3 *i (
EH Ui S On fll «33 -^ 03
CO ? 0) \ )H 0)
CO O X QJ fO -U
1-3 (H -H 33 rH (0
2 fa s — cj os
Q)
03
rd
r;
_l
31
U
M
4-1
CO
^
jl
H
[
3-9
-------
even more phosphate when the same bacteria are
subjected to an aerobic environment. Dissolved oxygen
and nitrate concentration must be absolutely minimized
in this reaction, so as not to hinder the release of
phosphates. Normally, 1 to 2 hours of hydraulic
detention time is provided in this tank based on post
operating experience.
Mixing is usually provided with submerged turbine
mixers with a range of 30 to 80 HP per MG of tank
volume. A minimum 5 HP mixer is recommended for
smaller tanks. Eimco has also provided a system for
mixing using very large bubble aeration called an Atara
system as part of their patent protection criteria.
First and Second Anoxic Zones
The fraction of total nitrates produced in the
nitrification tank that are removed is a function of
the internal recycle rate from the aerobic zone,
according to the nitrogen balance on the system. For
example, using a 4:1 internal recycle rate, two-thirds
of the ammonium nitrogen oxidized in the nitrification
stage is then directed to the first anoxic stage.
4Q INTERNAL RECYCLE
2Q ,
I
100% RETURN"
SLUDGE FLOW
FIRST
ANOXIC
ZONE
60
NITRIFICATK
ZONE
2O ^
W "• ••
Nitrates to first anoxic
40
X TKN oxidized
4Q + 2Q
= 2 X TKN oxidized
3
The first anoxic stage is designed for complete
denitrification of the recycled nitrates. The tank
volume is calculated as a function of the MLSS,
specific denitrification rate/ wastewater temperature
and the mass of nitrates to be removed.
First Anoxic Volume (MG)
N
(MLSS) (SDNR) (8.34)
3-10
-------
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
N = Mass of nitrogen to be removed (Ibs/day)
MLSS = Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (mg/1)
SDNR = Specific Denitrification Rate (Ibs NCU/lb
MLSS/day
(See Section 3.3 for a more detailed discussion of
SDNR, Figures 3.2, 3.3, and Table 3.14)
The second anoxic basin is used to denitrify remaining
nitrates, beyond that accomplished by recycle to the
first anoxic basin. The mass of nitrate to be reduced
is the arithmetic difference between TKN oxidized and
the nitrate reduced in the first anoxic zone. The
reduction of nitrate in this zone occurs by endogenous
respiration of the MLSS at a comparatively low rate.
This tank volume design will be function of system SRT,
wastewater temperature, MLSS and SDNR. Consideration
should also be given to increase tank volume to allow
the removal of entering DO in the aeration tank
effluent.
Nitrification Zone
The first step in the design is the selection of the
necessary nitrification rate as a function of
wastewater temperature. Total system aeration tank SRT
is used where biological growth can occur. The minimum
SRT can be based on the maximum specific growth rate,
for example, as presented in the Water Pollution
Control Federation (WPCF) Manual of Practice (MOP)
FD-7, which is adjusted baaed on temperature and pH.
Complete nitrification should be the goal. A safety
factor of 2-3 is often applied, depending on peak to
average flow conditions or actual measured ammonia
peaking factors.
Reaeration Zone
A reaeration basin is always required following a
second anoxic zone to raise the DO content of the mixed
liquor, to strip nitrogen gas prior to the clarifiers,
and to possibly provide for the uptake of any
phosphorus released in the second anoxic zone. Usually
a 30 minute detention time is used, based on a maximum
month average daily incoming flow rate.
Clarifier
Biological phosphorus removal processes without
effluent filtration require conservative clarifier
design. Clarifiers should be sized on the basis of
hydraulic overflow rates and solids loading rates with
due consideration to peaking conditions.
3-11
-------
Consideration of secondary effluent suspended solids
and phosphorus content of the solids is an important
parameter in overall plant performance. The Bardenpho
process converts soluble P to suspended biomass in the
aeration basin, which must be removed in the clarifier.
This is important because of the high P concentration
of the solids, which can range from 4% - 6% total P.
Table 3.5 presents the relationships between the
effluent TSS required at various total P contents and
soluble residuals, in order to meet an effluent P of
2.0 mg/1. In the performance review of this process,
it was observed that the Bardenpho process can reliably
meet the total P effluent criteria of 2.0 mg/1 without
effluent filtration with conservative clarifier design.
Effluent Polishing
Where an effluent limitation of less than 1.0 mg/1 of
Total P was required, facilities, visited included
chemical addition and in all but two cases effluent
filtration. All the facilities visited that were using
chemicals dosed with aluminum sulfate (alum). Alum
will precipitate phosphorus as aluminum phosphate,
according to the following reaction:
A1»(SO.),xl4H_0+2PO~3—>2A1PO.+3SO ~2+14H00
2432 44 2
The theoretical molar and weight ratios of aluminum to
phosphorus are 1:1 and 0.87:1, respectively. On a
theoretical basis, therefore, 9.6 pounds (Ibs) of 100%
dry alum are required per Ib of P removed. Alum is
typically supplied as a 50% solution, and has a density
of about 10.8 Ibs per gallon.
Actual dosages of dry alum (Mol.Wt=594) have been much
higher than theoretical amounts, especially for
effluent P concentrations less than 1.0 mg/1. Molar
ratios in the range of 2-4:1 for dry alum to P have
been reported. At a 3:1 molar ratio, 28.81b of dry
alum is required per Ib of P; or 57 Ib, 50% liquid alum
per Ib P removed. A dosage of 57 mg/1 of liquid alum
would be designed for 1.0 mg/1 of supplemental P
removal.
The optimum alum feed point is near the effluent end of
the reaeration tanks, prior to the clarifier splitter
box.
3-12
-------
I
I Table 3.5
TSS REQUIRED TO MEET TOTAL ,
I EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS OF 2.0 MG/L
I
I
Effluent Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Effluent
Soluble P
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
% P in Solids
4
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
6
30
27
23
20
17
13
10
7
3
I
I
Total P = Soluble P + (%P/100) X TSS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-13
-------
Effluent filtration should be provided for polishing
effluent TSS to remove phosphorus associated with the
solids for effluent total P concentrations of less than
1 mg/1. Typical design hydraulic rates are less than 2
gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sqft) of filter
media.
Summary
A summary of the design elements related to the
Bardenpho process is provided in Table 3.6.
3.2.4 Bardenpho Process Licensing
Eimco markets the Bardenpho process in the U.S. The
related U.S. patent describes a four-stage process,
anoxic (denitrification), and an aeration stage. Also
described in the patent is an internal recycle of mixed
liquor from the second to the first-stage, and an
adaptation to remove phosphates by regularly wasting
sludge.
Eimco charges a one time application or royalty fee for
the Bardenpho process, which can include start-up
training, guarantee of performance, monitoring and
follow-up training. Patent fees paid by some Bardenpho
plants are listed in Table 3.7. An estimate used to
project patent fees for the purpose of this report is
given as follows:
Bardenpho Royalty Fee ($) = $60,000 x Q
Where: Q = Plant design flow
3.2.5 Bardenpho Process Performance Assessment
and Factors Affecting Performance
3.2.5.1 Summary of Operating Data
Plant site visits were conducted and telephone surveys
were made to obtain actual Bardenpho plant operating
data. Table 3.8 presents the plant data summarized in
this section.
Table 3.9 is a summary of the performance data from
these Bardenpho plants, which shows flow and influent
and effluent data for BOD-/ TSS, TN and TP. The
range of effluent values for TN from the plants is from
1.9 to 4.4 mg/1, which establishes the ability of the
3-14
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3.6
SUMMARY OF DESIGN ELEMENTS
FOR BARDENPHO DUAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESS
Design or Operational
Parameter
Reactor Type
Method of 2nd Stage
Denitrification
Type of Mixing in
An/Ax Stages (c)
Chemical Feed Required
SRT
F/M
MLSS
Sequence of Zones
Hydraulic Detention Time
Internal Recycle Rate
Return Sludge Rate
Patent Fee
Effluent Polishing
Design to Meet
Effluent 5-5-3-0.5 (a)
Complete mix or Plug Flow
Suspended growth reactor with
endogenous denitrification
Submerged turbine
Alum (b)
12 - 25 days
0.04 - 0.2 Ibs BOD./lb MLSS
3,000 - 4,500 mg/1
An/Ax/O/Ax/0 (c)
10 - 21 hours
4:1 avg. 6:1 peak
1:1
$60,000 X Q°*75
Filtration (b)
(a) BOD5:TSS:TN:TP
(b) For effluent TN = 8.0 and TP = 2.0, alum is used
for standby only, and effluent filtration is not
required.
(c) Anaerobic/Anoxic/Aerobic/Anoxic/Aerobic
3-15
-------
Table 3.7
ROYALTY FEES REPORTED FOR SOME BARDENPHO FACILITIES
Plant Capacity Royalty Fee
Rogers, AK 6.7 MGD $227,200
(under construction)
Springdale, AK 15 MGD $369,000
(under construction)
Oldsmar, FL 2.25 MGD $110,000
(retrofit plant
under construction)
Cocoa, FL 4.5 MGD $154,000
(retrofit plant
under construction)
Environmental Disposal 0.85 MGD $ 65,000
Corp., NJ
Eastern Service Area, FL 4.0 MGD $129,000
(ESA)
3-16
-------
1
1
••
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Plant
Tarpon Springs
(Jan-Apr, 1987)
Palmetto, PL
(Jan-Dec, 1986)
Ft. Myers Central
(Jan-Dec, 1986)
Ft. Myers South
(Jan-Dec, 1986)
Payson, AZ
(Jan-Dec, 1986)
Environ. Disposal
Pludcemin, NJ
Corp. (Jan-Dec, 1986
Eastern Service
Orange County, FL
Area (Jan-Dec, 1985
and 1986)
Table 3.8
List of Plants Contacted And Their
Data Availability (Bardenpho Process)
Plant Clarifier Plant
Influent Alum Effluent Effluent Effluent
Data Usage Data Data Filtration
X X
XX XX
XX X
XX X
X XXX
XX XX
)
XX XX
3-17
-------
<3J
EH
Q
C3
Z
M
EH
2
U
CU
O
EH
Z
(4j
J
cu
o
OS
0,
CTi Z
U
ro Q
as
Cd <
j cn
CQ
< Cd
EH tJJ
aS
W
(£
J
<
z
z
fa
o
JH
as
rf
5
§
^
cn
«•»
rH
sT-u
— 3
o, o
i— i
t«
O C
EH M
4->
-» 3
rH 0
cn
e
z z
_i C-4
*^^ r^
(0 ~
4J
0 C
EH M
4J
rH 3
\0
Cn
£
<«.«•
cn
cn c
r. .1
"^ 4-1
rH 3
\o
cn
£
m
Q
O C
CQ H
4J
04 C
" 3
UVH
Q UH
0 C
CQ M
*-+
3 Q
O O
rH £
fa »-*
4->
C
10
O4
—
vo in vo o vo CTN
ro • o rH o o
ro ^- >—
•*~
ro
1 o ^r
m r~
-* CN — •
^" VO O> p- O
• CM • • •
•*r • CN CM ro
UJ ^
-^
kO ro
1 ^O ro
ro rsi
r^ ^o r**
• • •
•«r CN in
i oo r>
I ro in
rH rH
rH ro O
• • •
(N rH CO
I o in
I vo ro
rH rH
_^ :_J
r^ ^^
i
1 CM CO
ro rH
VO fl O^
VO (N rH
• • •
fN rH VO
J
J fa 1 J
fa fa
» cn
* O Vj »
Cn 4J (0
O c (U S >H
04-rt g 4J
Ul W rH • C
(0 Ql 10 4-1 Cl)
EH cn cu fa u
U
in CM ^" in m p» *-»
O rH CM O O O «—
— ' ' — •
o ^r m rj>
ro r*» ^^ ro
ja
--^ cr* *-*
rH ro CM r- in (Ti —
• . . . . . ro
in r» ro CN CN I-H >-•
^- —
rr CO CM VO
in CM r~ o
CM ro rH ro
rH O CO 00
• • • c
r* ro I-H I-H
CT> rO rr rH
*T rH CTl VO
rH CM rH I— 1
CN TJ- o in
• • • •
ro ro CM rH
^ vo o in
j < a) i - c o cn >H u
S! .C O w O d) -H
4J 0) -r4 O4 4-1 >
• 3 >i > cn cn >H
4->O (OC-r4r3 flCl)
fa cn cu cd Q z u cn
z
EH
rQ
C
(0
a.
EH
i_i
0
H |
cn
.^j
cn
cu
4J
c
(0
(0
a
c
•H
cn
c
O
•H
4-1
10
4J
•H
g
•H
rH
4-1
•H
e
4-1
0)
rn
Q
U
CM
^J
^^
\^
fT^J
rH
X^
tr>
g
r-
o\
•
0
II
^
10
'O
x^
cn
J3
rH
0
m
*^
<0
— •
Q
0
s
CM
C^
t
T
g
CN
•— I
II
io1
'O
\^
cn
rH
O
in
i— i
"x^
cn
g
ro
•
r^
II
>,
(0
T3
"x
ca
&
rH
O
O
ro
OJ
Z
EH
^->
n
«-•
a,
EH
4J
C
0)
3
rH
>4H
MH
vV
)H
0)
•H
MH
••H
V4
(0
rH
U
*-»
O
«-»
3-18
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plants to meet low effluent limits for TN, because of
the four-stage process. For the plants that measure
effluent NO,, the values were 0.5, 0.5, 1.2, 1.6 and
2.6 mg/1 for Ft. Myers - South, Ft. Myers - Central,
Eastern Service Area, Payson, Arizona and Pluckemin,
New Jersery respectively. The average influent TKN for
all the Bardenpho plants was 27.6 mg/1. Average
percent removal of total nitrogen was 90%.
Phosphorus performance was more variable for the
Bardenpho plants, with an effluent TP in the range of
0.5 - 3.6 mg/1, depending upon whether alum addition
was used and whether the plants used effluent filters.
The two Bardenpho facilities in Ft. Myers, FL met
effluent TP levels of 0.6 and 0.5 mg/1 for the Central
and South plants, respectively without effluent
filtration. Liquid alum dosage for these plants was
about 60-65 mg/1. Palmetto and Eastern Service Area,
FL plants use filters and alum to meet effluent TP
levels of 0.6 and 0.7 mg/1, with alum dosages of 65
mg/1 and 30 mg/1, respectively. The Tarpon Springs, FL
plant, which just started up in the summer of 1986, had
an effluent TP of 3.6 mg/1 without alum, but filters
were in service. The Environmental Disposal
Corporation Plant operated for three months without
alum addition and averaged 1.1 mg/1 effluent TP.
The American Gulch WWTP in Payson, AZ was the only
facility which did not use alum, and which recorded
secondary clarifier effluent soluble and total
phosphorus. The annual average clarifier effluent TP
was 2.4 mg/1 with a range of 0.21 to 5.6 mg/1.
Effluent soluble P was about 85% of TP, and effluent
TSS from the secondary clarifier averaged about 6 mg/1
for the year. The Payson plant uses one of two trains
because of low flow, and uses the spare fermentation
tank as a means to hold the wastewater and increase the
septicity of the wastewater. The plant monitors
volatile fatty acids (VFAs) from this septization tank,
which they feel will dictate the phosphorus release in
the fermentation tank. The variability of P removal at
this plant has been related to high flows and high DO's
in the influent wastewater.
The Kelowna, B.C. WWTP recently (October, 1986)
completed some modifications to the facility to improve
phosphorus removal, which consisted of the following:
1. Decreased retention time in the anaerobic
conditioning zone.
3-19
-------
2. Decreased dissolved oxygen levels in the aerobic
zones "(to 1.0 mg/1).
3. No dissolved oxygen to the secondary clarifiers.
4. Adding 15 - 20 mg/1 of alum prior to the
secondary clarifier to prevent any re-release of
phosphorus.
Operating data from the Kelowna plant for November, 1986
to April, 1987 shows a consistent effluent orthophosphorus
level less than 0.2 mg/1. Effluent nitrates ranged from
about 0.5 to 1.0 mg/1 and ammonia was 0.5 to 6 mg/1 during
the same time period.
Orthophosphate levels in the fermentation zone were
analyzed at several plants, to determine levels of
phosphorus release. The following results were obtained
from these plants:
Average Orthophosphate Levels (mg/l)
Plant In the Fermentation
Average Range
Ft. Myers - South, FL 116 69-154
Ft. Myers - Central, FL 90 51-137
Eastern Service Area, FL 18
Payson, AZ 34 15- 60
The ratio of released P to influent P ranged from about
4:1 to about 15:1 for these facilities. To evaluate
biological performance where the operating data was
available the ratio of effluent soluble P to total P was
calculated. Effluent soluble to total P ratios ranged
from 0.4 to 0.89, with an average of about 0.6.
All of the plants visited had very good settling sludges
(SVI - 60 to 90 mg/1), and conservatively designed
clarifiers, resulting in effluent TSS in the range of 5 to
10 mg/1 (Appendix B-l to B-4).
3.2.5.2 Ability to Meet Discharge Requirements
The Bardenpho process can be expected to produce an
effluent TN of 3 mg/1 and TP of 2 mg/1 on a long terra
average basis with conservative clarifier design, and no
effluent filtration, but whould have supplemental alum
addition on a standby basis. As design and operating
experience is being gained the ability to meet lower TP
levels without alum addition is becoming better
documented. However, to produce an effluent containing
0.5 mg/1 TP consistently, it is recommended that effluent
3-20
-------
1
1
•
1
•
1
1
1
•
1
V
1
•
1
1
1
1
1"
1
1
1
filters be used, and that facilities
for chemical addition
be provided for supplemental chemical feed. A summary of
the ability of the Bardenpho process
to meet the given
effluent target levels on a long-terra average basis are as
follows:
Effluent Target Levels
Low
TP = 3 mg/1, TN
TP = 0.5 rag/1) TP
5 stage process
(Bardenpho) for N removal
Back-up alum facilities
Filtration to assume meeting
TP limit
High
= 8 mg/1
= 2 mg/1
5 stage process
(Bardenpho)
adequate for P
removal , more than
adequate for N
removal .
Back-up alum
facilities
3.2.5.3 Factors Affecting Performance of Bardenpho
Process .
Phosphorus Removal
There are several documented factors
biological P removal in the Bardenpho
Nitrates in the fermentation
which affects
process :
zone.
Dissolved oxygen in the fermentation zone
BODs /P influent ratios
Septicity of raw wastewater
volatile fatty acids (VFAs)
Sludge wasting rates and %P
and presence of
in the waste sludge
Solids handling sidestream returns
3-21
-------
Anaerobic conditions are required in the fermentation
zone. Generally, anaerobic means the absence of
electron acceptors, primarily oxygen and nitrates,
where the DO should be less than 0.10 mg/1, and the
nitrates less than 0.10 mg/1. Nitrates will inhibit P
removal, and should not be present in the sludge
returned to this zone.
Since wastewater can be high in DO, especially during
periods of high flow due to rainfall, plants that
experience high DO levels, should consider a
Pre-fermentation basin. Performance data from the
Bardenpho plants indicate that higher nitrate levels in
the effluent or return sludge affected effluent P more
than any other process variables discussed.
Effluent soluble P concentrations as low as 0.2 mg/1
have been achieved by the Bardenpho process. However,
this removal efficiency is dependent upon the
availability of fermentation substrate products needed
by the P-storing microorganisms. These fermentation
products used by the phosphorus storing bacteria are
either (1) generated in the anaerobic zone, (2) present
in the raw sewage (septic wastewater) or (3) added
externally from other processes. The amount of
fermentation products produced, and then consumed, by
P-storing organisms is unknown, however.
Some facilities, such as Kelowna, B.C. and Payson, AZ,
generate short-chain organics, which are measured as
VFA's prior to the fermentation zone. In Kelowna,
thickener supernatant (from primary sludge) was
normally routed to the anaerobic zone. When thickener
supernatant was no longer directed to the fermentation
zone, it was determined that without the VFA's in the
thickener overflow, the P removal efficiency decreased
significantly. The Payson, AZ plant uses a standby
basin as a pre-fermentation basin. The Environmental
Disposal Corporation plant in Pluckemin, New Jersey
also closely monitors VFA production added to the
anaerobic zone.
Without the addition of external VFA's, the wastewater
should have a sufficiently high BOD5 to total P ratio
to provide the amount of substrate readily available
for the formation of fermentation products. Eimco has
recommended a minimum BOD5/TP ratio of 20:1. The
BODc/TP ratio also can impact sludge production rates
3-22
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
and sludge wasting rates which dictates P removal.
Higher BOD5/TP ratios are generally required for
systems with longer solids residence times.
The operating SRT Of the system will effect the
efficiency of phosphorus removal. Most operating
experience to date has focused on maximizing biological
P removal systems by operating with SRT values not in
excess of that required for nitrification. The SRT
required will determine the sludge wasting rate, and
wasting sludge is the method used to remove stored P
from the systems.
The amount of P removal in a biological phosphorus
removal system will be a function of the sludge
production, phosphorus content of the sludge and the
amount of BOD removed, as follows:
(Yn) (Fp) = DP/DBOD
where: Yn = net solids yield, gTSS/gBOD removal
Fp = fraction of P in dry solids
DP/DBOD = P removal per unit of BOD removal,
g/g
Net solids yield is a function of SRT and influent
wastewater characteristics. The fraction of P in the
solids is variable for high P uptake systems. Research
conducted at the Eastern Service Area (ESA) plant in
Orange County, FL has indicated that saturation P
levels in the sludge will increase at higher steady
state SRT levels (see Figure 3.2), thus projecting a
higher P removal capability at higher SRT's. At
constant stress in the fermentation tank, an increase
in cell residence time correspondingly increases the
proportion of bacteria storing phosphorus. P-uptake
capability is influenced by the percentage of P-storing
bacteria.
The ESA theory is to operate the plant based on P
residence time, where at a specific SRT, sludge P level
should reach an equilibrium where total sludge P wasted
equals influent P loading. The P residence time is
given as follows:
PRT = V x Peg
Q x (pinfl-peffl}
PRT = Phosphorus residence time (days)
Peq = Phosphate concentration in mixed liquor
(mg/1)
3-23
-------
CM
•X
CO
o
(N
(N
I- o
u «
Ul
>•
<
Q
•- U
ce <
in ce
UJ <
X
LJ >
cj a
CJ CJ
cr —
LU >
a. ce
t/i tn <
3 a
ul 2 -
ce ce ce
LJ UJ O
> *- -J
to u.
ce
ui ce
LJ O
Z LJ U
-. CJ "" U
" >- Q LJ
=3 U
LU -J Z
U l/> <
z ce
LJ z a
a —
U1
<
a
I/I CO —
UJ 3 Z
ce ce <
~ o ° -1
° LJ x a.
u .J u a.
S " a en <
r; 3 o LJ
~. _j x ce
^ uo a. <
. CM
CM
ce
3
U
NI 31VHdSOHd
3-24
-------
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V = Volume of reactor, MGD
Q = Plant flow, MGD
P. f. = Influent total P
P1^! = Effluent total P
er r 1
The optimum P removal as a function of. SRT, would have
to be determined as an operations procedure at each
Bardenpho facility and does not necessarily affect
retrofit design as is discussed in this report.
The impact of effluent TSS has been discussed under the
Bardenpho performance evaluation. Clarifier
performance will dictate whether effluent filtration is
required. For example, an effluent TSS of about 10-12
mg/1 would be required to meet an effluent total P of
less than 1.0 mg/1, if the effluent soluble P was 0.5
mg/1 and the % P in the sludge was 4%.
Waste activated sludge should be handled quickly, and
preferably, aerobically, to prevent resolubilization of
the P. Most new Bardenpho plants incorporate dissolved
air flotation and aerobic digestion into the plant
design. Plants with anaerobic digestion should include
treatment of the supernatant with chemicals such as
lime or alum.
In summary, there are many factors which affect
biological nutrient removal in this process. The
adverse impacts of the most of these factors can be
handled in proper design and operation. These factors
and possible corrective measures are summarized in
Table 3.10.
Nitrogen Removal
Nitrification will be affected by wastewater
temperature, pH, high flows, aeration capacity, peak
ammonia levels and sludge residence times.
Denitrification in the Bardenpho process will depend
upon the internal recycle rate and endogenous
respiration rate in the second anoxic zone.
A typical nitrogen balance for the five stage Bardenpho
system to meet an effluent TN of 3 mg/1 is shown below:
3-25
-------
Table 3.10
SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING
BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL IN
THE BARDENPHO PROCESS
Performance
Affecting
Factor
Nitrates in
fermentation zone
Dissolved oxygen
in fermentation
1.
4.
2.
3,
4,
Considerations for Correction
Design Operation
Design flexibility to 1.
return 50% RAS to
Anaerobic zone and 50%
RAS to first Anoxic 2.
zone
Design for complete 3.
denitrification
Design for peak of
6:1 internal recycle
rate
Provide removal of
nitrates in RAS prior to
return to fermentation
zone
Flexibility to by-pass 1.
large portion of high
flow/high DO wastewater
directly to first
anoxic zone 2.
Minimize aeration of
raw sewage and RAS 3.
Provide pre-fermentation
tank
Compartmentalize fermen-
tation zone, which
requires more mixers and
baffle walls
Monitor ND., in
effluent aftd RAS
Vary RAS return
to AN/AX zones
Control nitrifi-
tion and
denitrifica-
tion rates
Monitor DO in
influent and
RAS
Control reaera-
tion zone
Keep wastewater
septic
3-26
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3.10
, (continued)
SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING
BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL IN
THE BARDENPHO PROCESS
Performance
Affecting
Factor
BOD5/P ratio
Effluent total
suspended solids
Resolubilized
P returned to
main stream
plant
1.
3.
Considerations for Correction
Design Operation
With variable BOD./P
ratios provide pre-
fermentation zone or some
method to add volatile
fatty acids to fermen-
tation zone
Perform wastewater
characterization
study prior to design
Design fermentation
zone for detention
time required during
peak flows
to
Design conservative
clarifier capacity
Perform pilot study
to determine soluble
P removal capability
and determine need
for effluent filtration
Provide standby alum
addition facilities
Provide for rapid
handling of WAS and
keep sludge aerobic
Provide for chemical
treatment of super-
natant for anaerobic
digester
3-27
1. Control VFAs
fermentation
zone. Monitor
VFA and phos-
phates in
fermentation
zone
2. Experiment with
proper SRT to
maximize P re-
moval and main-
tain nitrifica-
tion and;
3. Maintain tight
control of
wasting rates
and %P in
sludge
1. Monitor SVI of
MLSS and
clarifier
effluent TSS
2. Control
clarifier
sludge blanket
levels
3. Add alum as
required
1. Keep sludge
aerobic and
handle quickly
2. Monitor side-
stream for
phosphate or
ortho P.
-------
Nitrification is mostly affected by wastewater
temperature a,nd SRT. Effluent TKN is harder to
control, and is more variable from the Bardenpho plants
reviewed as shown below:
NOx-N TKN
mg/1 mg/1
Pluckheim, NJ
average 2.61 0.18
range 1.06-5.63 0.02-1,62
Orange Co., FL
average 1.22 0.76
range 0.35-4.2 0.50-1.08
Payson, AZ
average 1.64 1.54
range 0.15-1.28 1.06-2.54
Ft. Myers
Central, FL
average 0.45 2.26
range 0.15-1.28 1.16-7.94
Ft. Myers
• South, FL
average 0.52 4.6
range 0.28-1.07 1.15-18.5
effluent nitrate nitrogen levels are usually low (in
the range of 0.5-2.5 mg/1) because of the two anoxic
zones. The performance of the denitrification process
is best controlled by the recycle rate to the first
anoxic zone. Nitrates must also be controlled to
maximize phosphorus removal, which the five stage
Bardenpho process can achieve because of the two anoxic
zones provided.
3.2.6 Bardenpho Process Applicability to CBDB
3.2.6.1 Types of Plants for Retrofit
The five stage Bardenpho process can be retrofitted to
any configuration of activated sludge plant, including
extended air and single-stage nitrification plants.
Fixed film secondary processes cannot be retrofitted
for Bardenpho, except perhaps in the as yet untested
context of using the trickling filter (TF) or rotating
biological contactor RBC unit as the nitrification
stage and by adding the other process units.
The retrofit can use existing tank volumes. First, the
tank volumes required for the Bardenpho system must be
3-28
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
determined and compared to the tank volumes available
at the existing plant tankage. Then, either new tanks
can be added or baffles installed in the existing
plant. The details of how the plants in the CBDB will
be retrofitted are included in Section 4 and 5, but
Table 3.11 includes the major considerations for
retrofitting the exisiting plants.
3.2.6.2 Retrofit Examples
Three plants that are being retrofitted for the
Bardenpho process are described below:
1. Cocoa, Florida
2. Springdale, Florida
3. Oldsmar, Florida
Cocoa, Florida
The Jerry Sellers WWTP is a 3.0 MGD Schrieber activated
sludge process with an aeration tank detention time of
6.5 hours and two final clarifiers with a design
overflow rate of 600 gpd/sqft. The plant also includes
a chlorine contact tank, a gravity thickener and
aerobic digesters.
The plant is being expanded to a 4.5 MGD five stage
Bardenpho process. A new fermentation basin and first
anoxic basin are being added, as well as some
additional aeration volume to be used with the existing
aeration tank. The secondary clarifiers will be
converted to second anoxic basins and the chlorine
contact chamber will become the reaeration basin. New
clarifiers (200 gpd/sqft), chlorine/dechlorination
tanks, RAS pumps, effluent sand filters, dissolved air
flotation thickeners and belt filters will also be
constructed. The March, 1986 bid price for the
expansion was $8.7 million and the Bardenpho royalty
was $145,000.
Oldsmar, Florida
The City of Oldsmar WWTP is being expanded to a 2.25
MGD five stage Bardenpho facility from a 1 MGD extended
aeration activated sludge process. The existing three
train aeration tank will be baffled to allow
separation of the Bardenpho zones. The existing
aeration basins will be modified to include the
fermentation, first anoxic and nitrification zones,
while the existing rectangular clarifier will be
converted to the second anoxic tank. A new reaeration
3-29
-------
Table 3.11
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIVE STAGE BARDENPHO RETROFIT
TO EXISTING PLANTS
Process Requirement
Five stages
Internal recycle
RAS
Aeration
Mixing
Clarifiers
Chemicals and Effluent
Filtration
Retrofit
Determine existing tank volumes,
and use baffels where possible.
Usually best to add new
fermentation and first anoxic
tanks up front. Convert aeration
basin to nitrification and/or
second anoxic and add small
reaeration tank prior to
clarifiers. Tank volumes will be
dependent on nitrification
requirements.
Size internal recycle pump with
capability to pump 400% to 600%
plant capacity.
of
Provide additional pump at
capacity of 100% of plant flow.
Determine additional aeration
capacity required accounting for
nitrification/denitrification.
Install new mixers in the
fermentation and anoxic zones at
about 50 HP/MG - tank volume.
Clarifiers should have overflow
rate less than 400 gpd/sqft so
that additional clarifiers will
usually be required.
Provide backup alum addition
facilities. Effluent filters
should be installed if TP effluent
levels less than 1.0 mg/1 is
required.
3-30
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
tank, alum feed system and two final clarifiers were
added as part of the expansion. Effluent filters are
being constructed to meet the permit conditions of
5;5;3:1 (BOD5:TSS:TN:TP). Figure 3.3 is a
schematic diagram of the retrofit design for the
Oldsmar WWTP.
The existing aeration tanks provided a detention time
of 24 hours at 1 MGD and the existing clarifiers were
designed at a overflow rate of 510 gpd/sqft. When
expanded to 2.25 MGD the aeration basin will provide
1.5 hours of detention time (DT) for the fermentation
zone, 2 hours DT for the first anoxic zone and 7.8
hours DT for the nitrification zone. The converted
clarifier will provide 1.8 hours DT for the second
anoxic zone.
Large bubble air mixing (ATARA SYSTEM) was provided in
the fermentation zone and submerged mixers were
designed for the anoxic stages.
The solids handling facilites included DAF thickening
and lime stabilization. The bid price for the project
was $3 .78 million.
Sprinqdale, Arkansas
The Springdale WWTP treats a very high strength BOD_
waste (400-500 mg/1) and was a two-stage trickling
filter plant, including primary clarifiers. A
Bardenpho retrofit was constructed, including keeping
the first trickling filters as a roughing process with
by-pass capabilities. New Bardenpho tanks and new
secondary clarifers were added. The existing anaerobic
digesters were kept in service but an aerated
supernatant treatment process was added.
3-31
-------
C/3
u:
Z CS Ul
< C J
6* J
Z Z
&
03
^-i
X
a
C"* !_J
a
2 a
a <
Z 33
in
as
k
Y
f 2 • QS \
L z a J /-
\ 03 U /'O
XJ_^X z
in
o
o
*.
1 * t '
C
3IH(
i
» £•"
j as z
: a <
; < £"
j a
7 2 •
Vz a
V!L
o
z
/•
13
/••
•j-j
<
as
<
^ y
J^~
<
a
* /™>
? 2
*Mri
1 '^4
fN .-M
Z 03
S3
X <
s a
xf
Z 0
U3 < «
M OS Z
x a <
u < s*
1
i\
1 X
1
1
1
z
0 U
r1 *
< <*i
u ^~
a ^o
2 a
£" Z
Z N
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
O
a
-L.
O
a
as
a
a°
o -^
a
Mm
a
OS
a
I
< •
E^ o
z —
a
aq a
2 z
a o
a N
o -
z •
< o
EH ~~
u] a
OS Z
P
J in
a
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF A/0 PROCESS WITH
NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION
3.3.1 Background
The A/6 process with nitrification/denitrification
(NIT/DEN) using an activated sludge system was
developed in the U.S. by Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc. The system is similar to the Phoredox concept
presented by Barnard (1972) except that the anaerobic
and aerobic zones are divided into a number of
compartments. As shown in Figure 3.4, A/0 with NIT/DEN
consists of three zones, anaerobic, anoxic and
aeration. A list of A/0 plants is shown on Table 3.12,
indicating the size of the facility, the permit
requirements and the current status of each facility.
Only the Largo WWTP in Florida uses the A/0 with
nitrification/denitrification. This modification is
referred to here as the A 0 process.
3.3.2 Description of the A/0 with NIT/DEN
The original A/0 process is a two zone system
(anaerobic/aerobic) designed for biological phosphorus
removal. Denitrification is achieved by adding an
anoxic zone between the anaerobic and aerobic reactors.
The anaerobic and anoxic zones are typically equal in
volume and are baffled to provide compartment. These
two zones comprise about 35-50% of the reactor volume.
The zones are divided into 3-4 equal sized compartments
to provide plug flow conditions through the reactors.
The anaerobic zone and anoxic zone are equipped with
one low speed turbine type mixer per compartment to
maintain biological solids in suspension.
•
Influent wastewater and return activated sludge are
mixed prior to introduction to the anaerobic zone.
Mixed liquor flows through the series of anaerobic,
anoxic and aerobic compartments, and is then separated
in the secondary clarifier. Sludge is returned from
the clarifier to the anaerobic zone and the excess
sludge, high in phosphorus, is wasted. RAS is about
30-50% of influent flow.
2
At the microbiological level, the A O process works
by putting the microorganisms under alternating
anaerobic/aerobic conditions. A special type of
3-33
-------
w EH
-3 <
U >
>i M
u EH
u u
OS <
U 2 W
M a: u
X 3 Q
O 6-< 3
Z U J
< 05 Cfl
I I
U W
OS <
< OS
z
ID
u4
t,
Ct,
o
80
O
O
o
o
51
os
§
Z
I
OS
u
<
z
D -»
JO
T
3|
,1
^_ I
(N
03 ^
to "•
a z
u o
§£
OH <
U
O M
< H
OS
W EH
X M
EH Z
Ct* Q
o \
z
i °
QS E^
U <
< U
M M
O C&4
u os
a: £H
U M
OS
3-34
-------
I
I
I
I
plant
Largo, FL
Lancaster, PA
Pontiac, MI
• Fayetteville, AR
• Rochester, NY
Baltimore, MD
• Titusville, FL
Springettesbury, PA
I
I
I
I
York, PA
Huron River Valley, MI
Warminster, PA
Newark, OH
Genesee County, MI
TABLE 3.12
SUMMARY OF A/0 PLANTS IN THE U.S.
Plant
Capacity (MOP)
15.0
30.0
1.75
11.0
15.0
70.0
3.0
15.0
26.0
12.0
8.0
10.0
30.0
Effluent
Requirements (mg/1)
TP NH.
TN
4
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2
3.0
2.0
2.0
(summer)
N
N
N
2.0 1.5/4.5(a)
2.0 2/6(a)
1.0
2.0
N
1.0
N
(sunnier)
2.5
(summer)
4.6
8
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Status
Operation
Start-up Sept., 1987
Operation
Start-up Oct., 1987
Start-up Aug., 1987
Start-up Dec., 1987
Start-up 1988
Start-up 1988
Construction
Start-up Dec., 1987
Start-up 1988
Start-up 1988
Start-up 1988
(a) Seasonal nitrification (summer/winter)
N - Not required
1
I
I
I
3-35
-------
biology capable of existing under alternating
stress/growth conditions proliferates. The organisms
have the special ability to store energy in the form of
polyphosphate chemical linkages. In the anaerobic
zone, where substrate (BOD) concentration is high,
those organisms that have stored energy in the form of
polyphosphates use that energy to actively transport
the BOD through the cell wall while decomposing stored
polyphosphate to simple orthophosphate. Thus, in the
anaerobic zone the BOD of mixed liquor decreases while
the orthophosphate concentration increases.
When the organisms reach the aerobic zone they use the
oxygen to convert the stored BOD to CO- + HO and
increased cell mass. The excess energy from this
reaction then goes to recreating the cellular
polyphosphate pool from the phosphate released in the
anaerobic zone. Since new cells are grown, the amount
of phosphate removed from solution is greater than that
previously solubilized in the anaerobic zone, thus
effecting net phosphate removal. The amount of
phosphorus within the cell may also change to
accommodate varying phosphorus loads at the treatment
plant. Phosphorus (P) is removed from the system as
a fixed biological material in the waste sludge. The
amount of P in the sludge will be dependent on the
BOD and J? 7n the influent and the sludge yield.
The A 0 system is designed to obtain biological
nitrification. Nitrification is a reaction carried out
by another group of bacteria known as nitrifying
bacteria that in the presence of oxygen oxidize ammonia
ion (NH.+) first to nitrite (NO -) and then to
nitrate (NO,-). This process and the phosphorous
removal process occur simultaneously, but do not
interact.
An internal recycle stream normally equal to 1-3 times
the influent flow is taken from the outlet of the
aerobic zone and returned back to the inlet of the
anoxic zone for denitrification.
In the anoxic zone, organisms capable of biological
denitrification are favored due to the presence of
nitrates recycled from the end of the aerobic zone.
Denitrification is a mechanism by which bacteria that
normally use dissolved oxygen for oxidation of BOD use
the oxygen chemically combined with nitrogen in the
nitrate (NO,-) ion. In the A 0 system, the source
of carbon is the BOD of the influent wastewater, thus
3-36
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
no additional source of carbon such as methanol is
required. The nitrogen in the nitrate ion forms
nitrogen gas and is thus removed from the wastewater
stream.
Biological nitrification takes place simultaneously in
order to provide the nitrate which will be recycled to
the anoxic zone. Due to the use of stages within the
aerobic zone, the nitrate concentration will be
greatest in the final aerobic stage and therefore the
mixed liquor that is recycled from this pointr
The following paragraphs describe the design basis for
each zone of the A 0 process.
Anaerobic Zone
Dissolved oxygen and nitrate concentrations should be
minimized in the anaerobic zone, as in all biological
phosphorus removal processes. It is recommended that
relatively short detention time between 0.5 - 1.0 hours
be used. The anaerobic zone is compartmentalized (with
walls or baffles) into a number of equal compartments.
The intent of the stages is to create stress for the
microorganisms to release ortho P, and to minimize
interference from nitrates and DO.
Anoxic Zone
As in the previously described biological systems, the
amount of total nitrates that can be removed in the
denitrification tank is directly related to the
internal anoxic recycle (ARCY). Nitrogen balances
using 100% and 200% ARCY are shown below to illustrate
nitrate removal efficiencies:
1.4Q '
I
• 408 RAS floH
A Ufl Y f P
2. 4Q
NITRIFI-
CATION
1 .40
NITRATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AT 1002 ARCY:
5^5 x 1002 = 422
3-37
-------
2Q
1 .40
I
• 402 RAS flow
ANOX1C
3.4Q ^
NITRIFI-
CATION
1 .4Q
NITRATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AT 2005 ARCY:v
— x ,005 = 595
The anoxic zone should be maintained free of dissolved
oxygen. The anoxic residence time is short, on the
order of 0.5 to 1.0 hours.
AEROBIC ZONE
In the aerobic zone a dissolved oxygen level in the 2-4
mg/1 range is maintained. The hydraulic residence time
(HRT) in this zone is dependent upon the rate of
nitrification. For reliable nitrification, depending
on strength and temperature of the wastewater,
hydraulic residence times in the order of 2-6 hours are
recommended. The mixed liquor volatile suspended
solids (MLVSS) are maintained in the 3000-5000 mg/1
level.
CLARIFIER
The clarifier is operated in a conventional manner to
separate the mixed liquor into return sludge and
effluent. Consequently, the return sludge
concentration is 2-4% by weight solids, thus allowing
low return sludge flow in the order of 30-50% of
influent flow.
3.3.3 Design Criteria
Typical design criteria for the A 0 process are
listed in Table 3.13 which includes hydraulic residence
times (HRT), internal recycle and return sludge flow
rates, SRT, mixed liquor suspended solids, F/M ratio,
and the required horsepower per million gallon of tank
capacity. The Largo A 0 WWTP design criteria are
also summarized in Table 3.13.
3-38
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
Table 3.13
TYPICAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE A 0 PROCESS
FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
Parameter
P/M (day ~1)
B005/P
SRT (days)
MLVSS (mg/1)
HRT (hours)
Anaerobic
Anoxic
Aeration
TOTAL
Mixing Requirements (HP/MG)
Anaerobic
Anoxic
Return sludge flow - %Q
Internal recycle flow - %Q
Clarifier overflow
rate gpd/sqf t
Typical Largo, Florida
Values VWTP (15 MGD)
0.15 - 0.7 0.25
15:1 - 20:1 9:1
5-8.5
(summer)
3,000 - 5,000 2,500
0.5 - 1.0 0.7
0.5 - 1.0 0.6
2-6 3.6
4-8 4.9
50
50
20-50 5-40
100 - 300 100
400 - 500 800
3-39
-------
The anoxic zone is designed for complete
denitrification of the recycled nitrates. A design
example for the anoxic zone using specific
denitrification rates (SDNR) is shown below.
Design Example
Plant flow (Q) = 10 MGD "
Influent TKN = 30 mg/1
Internal Recycle = 200%
RAS flow = 40%
MLSS = 3,500 mg/1
Temperature = 20 C
There are several references for specific
denitrification rates as shown on Table 3.14 and
Figures 3.5 and 3.6. The SDNR is related to the anoxic
stage food to mass ratio (F/M). Thus, the higher, the
influent strength, the higher should be the BOD and
nitrate removal rate. Figure 3.5, illustrates the
function of F/M versus specific denitrification rate in
kg NO,/kg MLSS/day (days ~ ) and Figure 3.6 shows
the SDNR versus wastewater temperature.
For purposes of this example, use the SDNR shown on
Figure 3.5: SDNR = 0.03 (F/M) + 0.029 (1)
Design
1. Calculate nitrate loading
a. Influent TKN = 30 mg/1
b. Subtract fraction of influent nitrogen load
that is assimilated into new biomass. Assume 8
mg/1
c. Dissolved nitrogen should be completely
nitrified after accounting for assimilation
except for a residual ammonia concentration of
1 -2 mg/1.
d. The fraction (fn) of nitrate formed that is
returned to the first anoxic basin is dependent
on the internal recycle rate and the return
sludge flow rate.
3-40
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
TABLE 3.14
EXAMPLES OF DENITRIFICATION KINETIC COEFFICIENTS (Non-Carbon Limited)
Source
EPA Nitrogen Manual
Barnard
Eimco (Stensel)
Benefield & Randall
Orris Albertson
SDNR (a)
0.024 (Ib/lb vss/d)
0.033
0.061
3.6 mg/g/h
0.03(F/M)+0.029
(Ib/lb vss/day)
0.07 (mg/mg vss/h)
0.10 1st Part UCT
0.05 g/g/d 2nd Part UCT
(0.13-0.35 g/g vss/d)
1.25 mg/g/hr
Temperature
Correction
10°C
15°C
20°C
1.094
T~20
1.06
T-20
_ ,_
0=1.12 @ 7-20C
0=1.06 @ 16-25 C
(a) SDNR - Solids Denitrification Rate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-41
-------
0.10 -r-
I O-M +
0.06 -
O 0
C*
E Z 0.04 - •
il
LU •*"
SI
0.02 -
O
LU
a.
CO
' I I
I I
I I -I
SONfl = 0.03 (F/M) * 0.02S
FULL SCALE PLANT
T = 20* C -
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
F/M RATIO (Kg BOD/Kg MLSS-OAY)
2.0
FIGURE 3.5 - SPECIFIC DENITRIFICATION RATE AS A FUNCTION OF
ANOXIC ZONE F/M RATIO.
REFERENCE:
BURDICK, C.R., REFLING, D.R., AND H.D.
STENSEL. ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
TO ACHIEVE NUTRIENT CONTROL. JOURNAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION, 54,
(7), 1078, 1982.
3-42
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
f
I
I
Denitrification Kinetics
^ .20
nj
•o
.15
Q. .2 •
"«
o
•£.05
• Largo
a EPA Ret.
a
a a a
a
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature, °C
FIGURE 3.6 _ SPECIFIC DENITRIFICATION RATE (days - 1)
VERSUS WASTEWATER TEMPERATURE
REFERENCE: APCI, "WASTEWATER TREATMENT WITH
NUTRIENT REMOVAL"
3-43
-------
Nitrate loading :
30 mg/1 influent TKN
-8 mg/1 assimilated
-1.5 mq/1 residual
20.5 mg/1 NO, formed
P - Internal recycle flow
Flow to anoxic zone
fn
=
20.5 mg/1 NO, x 0.58 = 12 mg/1
(nitrate to Be dentrified)
2. Calculate volume of anoxic basin
a. Equations
SDNR , "03 * Q
VOL x MLSS
P/M - Q x BOD ,
F/M - VOL x MLSS (4)
Where:
NO, = Nitrate concentration to be denitrified (mg/1)
VOL = Anoxic basin volume (MG)
MLSS = Mixed liquor suspended solids (mg/1)
Q = Influent flow (Q)
BOD_ = Influent BOD- concentration (mg/1)
b. Substitute equations (3) and (4) into equation (1)
and calculate volume:
unr - Q x [N03 - 0.03 x BOD]
VUIj " MLSS x 0.029
VOL = 10MGD x (12 mg/1 - 0.03 x 200 mq/1)
3,500 mg/1 x 0.029/days
VOL * 0.59 MG
F/M =0.96 Ibs BOD/lb MLSS
SDNR * 0.061 days
Detention time - 1.42 hrs
This approach is conservative compared to other
denitrification rates. For example the Largo facility
3-44
-------
1
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^H
(see Figure 3.6) data is extrapolated to an SDNR of 0.
days , which would correspond to a volume of 0.26
MG (detention time of 0.63 hrs ) and an F/M of 2.16
days . Models for sizing anoxic zones have also
been developed.
SDNR's can be adjusted for different temperatures as
shown on Table 3.15.
Nitrification Zone
The volume of the aeration basin is calculated to
provide the minimum SRT required for nitrification
adjusted with a safety factor. Minimum SRT should be
based on the maximum specific growth rate such as
presented in the vVPCF Manual of Practice (MOP) for
nutrient control FD-7, modified for temperature.
Following the format in MOP-FD-7 and using the data
presented in the previous example, the volume of a
3
completely mixed nitrification basin for a 10 MGD plant
can be calculated:
Design Example
1. Calculate minimum SRT
K 4- NH x SF
a. (Monod equation) SRT = N 3
MU v If
01 n -\ A c\
3 max
Where:
Kmax = Maximum specific nitrification rate (days )
NH, = Ammonia nitrogen in effluent (mg/1)
KN = Half saturation constant mg/1
SF = Safety factor based on peak flow or peak
ammonia
•Conservative estimates for Kmax at various temperatures
1
are:
Temp (^C) Kmax (days — )(1)
10 0.3
20 0.65
30 1.2
3-45
-------
TABLE 3.15
SUM-1ARY OF FAiTETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PILOT PLANT OPERATING RESULTS
Month
1985
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October (a)
November
December
Mode
AO
AO
A20
A20
AO
AO
AO
and A 0
AO
and A 0
AO
AO
AO
AO
Temp. Range
4.
7.
11.
11.
18.
20
24.
25.
22.
21.
16.
13.
3-13.4
3-17.2
4-19.2
9-17.0
3-22.0
.8-25.3
5-28.2
8-28.1
2-28.0
0-23; 8
9-21.6
7-16.4
Effluent
(Ave)
(11.2)
(11.0)
(14.8)
(14.6)
(20.3)
(22.7)
(26.4)
(27.0)
(26.0)
(22.8)
(19.5)
(15.2)
BOD
5
5
3
2
5
7
6
4
3
3
2
2
TSS
3
3
3
2
3
3
6
6
7
11
8
7
Averages (mg/1)
NH3-N
4
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
2.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.2
1.3
T-P
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.7
3.2
1.3
3.1
2.6
1.5
1.9
0.6
0.8
NO -N
3.4
6.4
2.4
2.2
6.7
6.7
6.8
8.4
13.3
Influent
BOD :TP
30
26
27
21
18
17
20
17
15
16
19
19
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
(a)Alum dosage was used from September-December, 1985.
3-46
-------
1
i
I
1
1
I
I
I
(1) linear extraction
Assume K = 1.0 mg/1 and NH effluent =1.0 mg/1 @
T = 20°F
Min. SRT @ 20°C = 1.0 -I- 1.0(1) = 3
0.65 x 1.0
Min. SRT = 3 days @ 20°C with a S.F. of 1
2. Calculate volume
a. VOL = SRT x Q x BOD0 x Yb x SF
K
MLSS
Where:
BOD = BOD removed (mg/1) (Steady State average)
Yb = Nit yield coefficient (mg TSS/mg BODR)
SF = Safety factor based on peak flow and NH.,
load (typically in the range of 1.5-3.07
b. Lower yield (Yn) assumptions provide a more
conservative estimate of process performance (0.9 -
1.1 mg TSS/mg BOD5)
c. VOL =3daysx(SF)xlOMGDx(200 mg/l-20mg/lxO.9mg TSS/mg BOD,,
3,500 mg/1-
VOL = 1.38 MG x SF
Detention time = 3.3 hours
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.7 days and the nitrification reactor detention
tm time is 9.3 hours.
Clarifier and Effluent Polishing
§The biological removal process requires conservative
clarifier design to remove suspended P as previously
described. However, if effluent filtration is required
I for effluent total P less than 1.0 mg/1, clarifier
capacity can be sized according to conventional
activated sludge design criteria.
a SF of 2 yields a design SRT of 6 days at
20 C and a hydraulic detention time of 6.8 hours.
At 15 C the design SRT using an SF of 2 becomes
3-47
-------
2
Alum may be required at A 0 facilities to reduce
soluble P levels. Depending on efflent target levels,
for example steady alum dosage would be designed to
achieve effluent TP of 0.5 mg/1, whereas alum would
only be required as standby for the three-stage
biological process to reduce TP to less than 2.0 mg/1.
2
The A 0 process can be expected to produce on a
long-term basis, an effluent of 8 mg/1 TN and 2 mg/1
TP, without filtration. The A 0 system can be
designed to meet much lower TP levels with alum
addition and filters. However, A 0 process is
limited in its ability to meet lower TN levels because
there is only a first stage anoxic basin, and the
internal recycle rate is about 100-300% of influent
flow corresponding to a 42 to 68% nitrate removal.
A method to retrofit or design new plants to meet lower
TN levels of 3 mg/1, for example, would be to use
denitrification filters, such as deep bed or fluidized
bed filters. Deep bed denitrification filters are
installed at the Fiesta Village WWTP in Ft. Myers, the
Locust Point WWTP in Tampa, Florida and in the Kanapaha
WWTP in Mainesville, Florida.
The denit filter is a deep bed, static, downflow filter
with about 6 feet of coarse sand media (effective size
= 2.5 mm). The filter is used for removal of TSS and
suspended P. Unless a suitable carbonaceous waste is
available at lower cost, methanol is fed to the
influent as a carbon source for the denitrifiers. The
beds are backwashed every 2-4 hours, to remove the
captured TSS and the microbiological yield.
Effluent nitrate and TSS levels are reported to be
about 1.0 mg/1 and 5.0 mg/1, respectively from
operational denit filters. Design flow rates are about
2 gpm/sqft for average daily flow rates. Methanol (6.6
Ibs/MG) dosage is about 3 mg/1 per mg/1 of NO.,
reduced.
The design would be affected by the influent DO, (which
impacts methanol dosage), and by the nitrate loading
and wastewater temperature. Filter depth is calculated
based on F/M ratios, adjusted for temperature which
influences the specific denitrification rate.
There are no actual A/0 plants using denit filters but
the Fiesta Village WWTP receives NO, loadings of 7
mg/1, which is similar to that of tRe A/0 process
3-48
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
effluent, and produces an effluent TN of less than 3.0
mg/1. Alum addition and filtration produces an
effluent TP of about 0.5 mg/1 at the Fiesta Village
facility.
Summary
A summary of the design elements for the A/0 process
with NIT/DEN is provided in Table 3.16.
2
3.3.4 A 0 Licensing
2
Air Products and Chemical Company markets the A 0
process in the U.S.
Air Products charges a one time application fee for the
A/0 process, which includes process design, a guarantee
of performance and training. An estimate used to
project patent fees for the purpose of this report is
given as follows:
2
A 0 Royalty Fee = $l,000/lb Phosphorous removed/day
3.3.5 Assessment of Performance
There are several A/0 retrofits and new designs, but
there is only one full scale A 0 plant; Largo, -
Florida. Data from a site visit to this facility/ A 0
pilot plant operating data from Fayetteville, Arkansas,
and the data on the A/0 retrofit at the Hampton Roads
Sanitation District's York River Plant in Virginia, are
summarized in this section
City of Largo
The City of Largo WWTP is a 15 MGD A O process. The
facility has three separate treatment trains receiving
primary clarifier effluent flow. The two larger units
are each designed for 6 MGD and the smaller plant has a
design capacity of 3 MGD. Discharge requirements for
the facility are as follows:
BOD- - 5 mg/1
TSS - 5 mg/1
TN - 8 mg/1
TP - 4 mg/1
The design criteria and equipment sizes were shown in
Table 3.13. The anaerobic and anoxic zones are covered
3-49
-------
Table 3.16
SUMMARY OF DESIGN ELEMENTS
FOR A/0 WITH NIT/DEN AS DUAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESS
Design or Operational
Parameter
Reactor Type
Method of 2nd Stage
Denitrification
Type of Mixing in
An/Ax Stages
Chemical Feed Required
SRT
F/M
MLSS
Sequence of Zones
Hydraulic Detention Time
Internal Recycle Rate
Return Sludge Rate
Patent Fee
Effluent Polishing
Design to Meet
Effluent 5-5-3-0.5(a)
Complete mix or Plug Flow
(typically staged)
Denitrification Filters
Deep Bed with methanol (b)
Submerged turbine
Methanol (b)
Alum (b)
5-8.5 (summer)
0.15 - 0.7 Ibs BOD-/lb
MLSS
2,000 - 4,500 mg/1
An/Ax/0 (c)
2-6 hours
2:1 avg. 3:1 peak
0.2 - 0.5
$800 - $l,200/lb P removed/day
(capacity)
Deep Bed (b)
(a)
BOD5:TSS:TN:TP
(b) For effluent of TN » 8.0 and TP = 2.0 alum is
used for standby only, and effluent
denitrification filters are not required.
(c) Anaerobic/Anoxic/Aerobic
3-50
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tanks with mechanical submerged turbine mixers.
Effluent from the secondary clarifiers is filtered and
chlorinated.
The A 0 process at Largo, receives primary effluent
flow and is a high rate process, considering the short
hydraulic detention time of 4.9 hours. A performance
summary of the Largo A 0 plant for 1986 is shown on
Table 3.17. Effluent TN averaged 7.9 mg/1 and ranged
from 5.9 - 9,7 mg/1. The effluent nitrate
concentration averaged 5.7 mg/1 and ranged from 4.7 -
6.9 mg/1. effluent TP levels averaged 2.3 mg/1 with a
range of 0.6 - 3.1 mg/1. Effluent TP Vas decreasing
late in the year and averaged 0.7 mg/1 for the first
four months of 1987. Although the plant has alum feed
and filtration units the plant does not use alum or the
effluent filters.
The plant operates with an internal recycle of about
100% of the plant flow and an RAS flow of JO-30%. An
estimated nitrogen balance for the Largo A 0 plant is
shown below:
(OCNI IRIGATION)
= 7 m(]/ 1
PRIMARY
i r n urN i
20
IKN
UIOLOCICAI
2 fiicj/l IKN
8 mg/1 IN
(ASSIMII At ION)
5 mq/1
The Largo plant was retrofitted in phases from a
contact stabilization process to the A 0 process.
There are 3 anaerobic stages and 2 anoxic stages at the
plant.
Fayetteville, Arkansas (Pilot Plant)
The Fayetteville, Arkansas WWTP is designed as a 17 MGD
facility, with the following criteria:
Hydraulic detention time - (hr)
Anaerobic -
Anoxic
Aerobic
SRT (winter) -
MLSS -
Internal recycle -
Clarifier overflow -
0.9
0.9
8.3
10 days
3,500 mg/1
100 - 300% Q
540 gpd/sqft
3-51
-------
i
3
§
M
g
§
—»
r* oo
_^ j—k
r^ ^^
• rH
ro *—
a £
CQ r^C
s
g
§
1
Q
CH
§
J3
.j
Si
52
M
^ ^O iQ 00 c^i p1*" (N po
oo CN <"O oo ro r— * rH
« rH r^ fH 'H r— t rH
Q-
rH-u rHr-Hor^r^ooo
W O f^ '^ *^ ^N CN CN rO
" a
tn\ inor^oNincNO
I§
u) r^r^oor^TO'^i
rr c c3 tn vo in vo ^* ^*
dllH rHrHiHrHrHrHrH
rH
t[-l p«^ ^o f^ ^ft ^^ ^^ 00 ^p
tO 2 lAvOsOVO^'rou^
*^-t r'-or^ooc^^
r-H 'u jj ^oooooor^i/^r1**
^ag
§3
rn ^^ itj rt3 fl3 rt3 rtj (tj
UrH CNvOiH^C^f^^O
H C ^ GO O\ Q\ O\ GO t-H
2M rHr^rHlHrH^CN
r-t -U
^^s* 3 ro r^ t/^ ro ^3* rn ^s*
ffl O rH rH
co r**- rH in \0 r^» in oo
UjC rOrOrHCNI^OvO
6-tM CNrnnrOCNCNrH
P -M
^v 9 ^D ^-^ ^l1 O ^* *^ CN
CP Cj /H) ^H
s
^^
in
SON CN rH f*l O CN rH
VH CNfOfNCNCNrHrH
JJQ iHOinvor-ovo
fHS Or-ICNr-IONrHr-l
fll ^- rH rH rH rH rH rH
0) VO
JJ 00 5-9 ^ ^ 51 S TJ
(u ON (u d) (u U4 Ju 3 «3
Q rH *^ Ct4 £ r?£ 2b ^ ^
r- in ao T o
r^ ao ao o rH
rH rH
r* oo in in vo
CN rH r-t rH O
m m •«* m r-t
^" ro oo ON v^
O O O rH rH
rH rH rH rH rH
CN ^r in o ao
vo vo vo m m
in OO CO VO rH
r** r** ON r*^ oo
i1 «H r^ ON r-t
oo ON r^* r^* co
•H rH CN CN CN
CN CN r-t CO CN
co co m m r~
^» v^ o CN VO
r-l rH CN CN r-l
CN rH CM *» CN
CN CN r-l O CO
in in ^" vo CN
rH rH rH rH rH
O •* PO CN O>
r-t ON ON ON CO
r-t
3 3T y O 8)
< to O Z Q
CO
CN
(N
CO
rH
^
m
ON
r-»
m
CO
CN
in
o
CO
CN
in
o
<»
0
rH
«T
1
8
Jj
<0
u
4J
c
§
f
n3
c
I
13
3-52
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The plant must meet a 10:10:5:1 (BOD.:TSS:NH3:TP)
effluent requirement in the winter aRd a 5:5:2:1
effluent limitation in the summer. Prior to the design
a 1 MGD pilot plant project was conducted, starting in
January 1985. The plant could be operated as an A/0 or
A 0 process.
A summary of the 1985 operating temperatures and
effluent characteristics for the pilot plant work is
presented in Table 3.15. Effluent TP ranged from 0.5 -
3.2 mg/1 and ammonia nitrogen ranged from 0.2 - 2.3
mg/1 when operated as an A/0 or A 0 process. Alum
jar tests were also performed during the pilot plant
study, where 1.37 mg/1 of soluble P was reduced to 0.65
mg/1 with 15 mg/1 of alum and to about 0.3 mg/1 with an
alum dosage of 30 mg/1. Alum was added to the pilot
plant study during September - December 1985 and
effluent TP averaged 1.2 mg/1.
York River WWTP
The York River plant operated by the Hampton Roads
Sanitation District, was retrofitted to be operated as
an A/0 process and was started up in June 1986. Plans
are also made to operate the facility as an A 0
process. Two basins were converted by installing
baffle walls to divide the basins into seven cells as
shown on Figure 3.7. Within three weeks, following
plant start-up, in August 1986, the plant was producing
an effluent total P of about 2.1 mg/1, with an influent
P of 8.7 mg/1. The plant was not nitrifying during
this time period and operated at an SRT of 4 days.
Other operating conditions were tested at the York
River WWTP project during the period of September to
December 1986. The results of these tests for
biological P removal are summarized below:
3-53
-------
z
UJ
-J UJ
U. H-
^ £ «
• r^ *
-J
<
>
o
2
UJ
oc
5 2
< o
^ a 8 z
I- H t 0
5 £ 5 P "
i i ti §
< o < u. uj
e w « 5 *
H W 3 0 S
£ 2 § * <
uj (j x -. J-
>^* •** J^% "^
o a. o =
; 1 i*
QC Q.
2 ^
O
5
o
V
0
UJ
^
^
<
• a
z o
0
a.
r
•p
il
U 1-
J7 CL
s S
t §
Z m
U M
O
§ UJ 2
Is 5 l^g
O2 5 ooe 2
£3 S SS5
wjrf ^ ««"
8« § §2u1
£ aj £B
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Average Influent Average Effluent
Phase Total P (mg/1) Total P (mg/1)
4 - day SRT Target
(33% anaerobic 9.1 3.3
mass fraction)
(50% anaerobic
mass fraction) 9.4 1.29
5 - day SRT
(RAS rate varied
60-80%) 9.6 1.9
(50% anaerobic mass ^
fraction) (1.34 - 2.21)
10 - day SRT target 9.6 1.4
* Not including period during loss of effluent TSS
The increase in the percentage of anaerobic mass
fraction from 33% to 50% of the total system solids
significantly improved phosphorus removal. Effluent
TSS was less than 10 mg/1 and the percentage of
effluent soluble P to total 'P during this project was
about 73%.
The York River full scale A/0 system demonstrates the
ability of this biological nutrient removal process to
consistently reduce TP levels to less than 2 mg/1
without alum addition and without effluent filtration.
ABILITY TO MEET EFFLUENT TARGET LEVELS
The A2O process can be expected to reliably produce an
effluent TN of 8 mg/1 and TP of 2 mg/1 on a long-term
average basis, with conservative clarifier design and
no effluent filtration. However, facilities to dose
alum should be installed as a back-up system.
For an effluent TN level of 3 mg/1, denitrification
filters would be required with methanol addition. An
effluent total phosphorus of 0.5 mg/1 would require
effluent filters and a supplemental chemical feed
system. A summary of the ability of the A20 process to
meet the given effluent target levels are as follows:
3-55
-------
Effluent Target Levels
Low High
(TH=3 mg/1, TP=0.5 mg/1) (TN=8 mg/1, TP=2.0 mg/1)
3 stage process . 3 stage process
denitrification effluent . conservative clarifier
filters design
Alum addition at . back-up alum facilities
30 mg/1
FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
Phosphorus Removal
There are several significant-factors which affect
biological P removal in the A 0 process:
Available organics in the anaerobic zone
(i.e. soluble BOD/P ratios)
Sludge residence time (SRT)
Effluent suspended solids
Available Organics
Effluent soluble phosphorus levels achievable are
dependent on the availability of fermentation product
as substrate the P storing bacteria, relative to the
amount of phosphorus that must be removed in the
system. The required ratio of substrate per unit of
phosphorus removed is given as BOD- removal/p
removed. Phosphorus removal, as already discussed,
depends on wasting organisms high in P content.
Due to the rapid assimilation of fermentation products
in the anaerobic zone, it has not been possible to
measure their production rate. Soluble BOD
concentration of the influent wastewater can be used as
an indication of the amount of substrate available for
the formation of fermentation products. A soluble
BOD/soluble P ratio of at least 15:1 is recommended to
produce an effluent soluble P concentration less than
1.0 mg/1. Figure 3.8, as an example, shows the effect
of these parameters (sol BOD/sol P) on effluent P and
orthophosphate. The figure includes data from
literature and information from a site visit to the
Largo A 0 WWTP.
Influent soluble BOD_: soluble P also can effect
biomass phosphorus content on a dry weight (TSS) basis.
As shown on Figure 3.9, P content has been shown to
decrease with an increasing influent soluble BOD,-:
soluble P ratio because of the limited P available per
unit of biomass.
3-56
-------
•».3
1
1
1
* g 3"°
I 1
Z 2.5
Io
u
s
cr
O
I 1 2'°
13
3
° 1.5
1 §
u.
1"-
01
1.0
1
0.5
1
10
c
i I 1
- SOLUBLE BOD5 / SOLUBLE
D DEPERE
A REEDY CREEK
O A/0 PROCESS
1 "i
P -
BOD5 / TOTAL P _
• DEPERE WWTP
A REEDY CREEK WWTP
°0 • A/0 PROCESS
+ MODIFIED BARDENPHO PROCESS
O ^
O
o
0 * 0
o
o
° o ++
0 «0
o ° o •
0 0
A c4
i i i
> 10 20 30
_
—
• 0
• O
1
40 50
m INFLUENT SOLUBLE BOD5/SOLUBLE P OR BOD5/TOTAL P RATIO
1 FIGURE 3.8 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFLUENT BOD5 : TOTAL P, SOLUBLE
BOD5: SOLUBLE P, AND EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
• Reference: Tetreault, M.J., Benedict, A.H., Kaempfer, C.,
and E.F. Barth. Biological Phosphorus Removal-
IA Technology Evaluation. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 58, (8), August, 1986.
1
- 3-57
-------
6.0
5.0 -
4.0 -
3.0
O
U
CO
cc
O
Q.
O
* 2.0
CO
1.0
0.0
D DEPERE
A REEDY CREEK
O A/0 PROCESS
O
a
10 20 30 40
INFLUENT SOLUBLE BOD5/SOLUBLE P
50
FIGURE 3.9 _ EFFECT OF INFLUENT SOLUBLE BOD5:SOLUBLE P ON
BIOMASS (TSS) PHOSPHORUS CONTENT.
REFERENCE:
Tetreault, M.M., Bendedict, A.H., Kaempfer, C.,
and E.F. Barth. Biological Phosphorus Removal-
A Technology Evaluation. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 58, (8), August, 1986.
3-58
-------
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
In summary, BOD5:P is the major parameter that
affects biological P removal in the A 0 process.
Enhanced bio P removal requires enough readily
degradable organic substrate to permit P release under
anaerobic conditions and subsequent P uptake in the
aerobic zone. It is emphasized that the anaerobic zone
must be as free as possible from nitrate and dissolved
oxygen concentrations.
Sludge Residence Time (SRT)
Bio P removal is dependent on wasting sludge from the
system. A 0 processes are normally operated at short
aerobic hydraulic detention times and shorter SRT's.
The process should not be operated at SRTs in excess of
that required for nitrification.
Effluent TSS
There is a direct relationship between effluent TSS,
biomass P content and soluble P residual. The soluble
P achievable can be determined by pilot studies and the
effect of suspended P in the effluent can be
calculated.
Nitrification/Denitrification
Nitrification is controlled by altering the SRT of the
system. Wastewater temperature will impact
nitrification rates significantly, as it may take twice
the hydraulic detention time for nitrification to occur
at 10 C as it does at 20 C. Denitrification
reactions are also affected by temperature as shown in
the design examples.
The amount of denitrification is controlled by the rate
of internal recycle. An A 0 system will generally
not produce an effluent N03 of less than 6 mg/1
because recycle rates are on the order of 100-300% of
influent flow. To meet TN limits of less than 3 mg/1,
a design incorporating denitrification filters would be
required.
APPLICABILITY TO CBDB
The three stage A/0 with nitrification/denitrification
can be retrofitted to any configuration of activated
sludge plant. Fixed film systems are not compatible
with the A 0 process except as roughing processes.
3-59
-------
2
A retrofit A 0 process would incorporate three zones,
anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic with multiple stages in each
zone. This requires extensive baffling. Generally,
the number of stages recommended for each zone are as
follows:
Anaerobic - 3 stages
Anoxic - 3 stages
Aerobic - 4 stages
The retrofit can use existing tank volumes, divided
into zones and stages. Table 3.18 summarizes the
considerations for retrofitting existing plants with
the A20 process.
3-60
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 3.18
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THRi'c STAGE RETROFIT OF
A/0 WITH NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION
Process Requirement
. Three Stage
. Internal recycle
. RAS
. Aeration
. Mixing
. Clarifiers
. Chemicals and
Effluent Filtration
Retrofit
Determine existing tank volumes
and use hydraulic detention times
of 1/1/6 hours for An/Ax/Ae
zones. Baffle each zone to get
3/3/4 compartments for An/Ax/Ae.
Size anaerobic zone at 1 hour,
anoxic zone on denitrification
rates and nitrogen balance, and
aerobic zone on nitrification
rates .
Size internal recycle for removal
requirements of nitrates, i.e.
100% recycle 50%, 200% recycle
66% removal. Use nitrogen
balance.
RAS flow rates are normally in
the range of 20-50%, so that no
additional pumps are usually
required.
Additional aeration will be
required if existing plant does
not already nitrify.
Install submerged turbine mixers
in the An/Ax stages to stir tank
contents.
Clarifiers should have overflow
rate less than 400 gpd/sqft to
take out suspended P. Can
achieve effluent P levels less
than 2.0 mg/1 without filters.
Alum addition facilities are
usually provided and deep bed
denitrification filters can be
used to produce an effluent TN= 3
mg/1 and TP = 0.5 mg/1
3-61
-------
3.4 UCT PROCESS
3.4.1 UCT Process Background
This process was developed at the University of
Capetown in South Africa and is known as the UCT
process. The UCT system is a three stage activated
sludge process, similar to the original three stage
modified Phoredox process designed to biologically
remove nutrients. There is also a modified UCT process
which is a four stage process with two (2) anoxic zones
and two separate internal anoxic recycle lines. The
purpose of this modification is to control
denitrification of the return sludge and the mixed
liquor internal recycle separately. Figure 3.10 is a
schematic diagram of these two UCT processes.
The only full scale UCT processes are in South Africa.
An extensive pilot plant study was conducted at the
Lamberts Point WWTP for the Hampton Roads Sanitation
District (HRSD) in Norfolk, Virginia in 1985 - 1986,
using the UCT process scheme. As a result of this
pilot work a 30 MGD facility called the Virginia
Initiative Plant (VIP) concept was designed. The VIP
process differs from the UCT process in that each
treatment zone is compartmentalized into individual
cells and it is a high rate process. The VIP plant
schematic is also shown on Figure 3.10.
3.4.2 UCT Process Description
The three stage process includes an anaerobic, anoxic
a^d aerobic (nitrification) zone. It is similar to the
A O process except that the return sludge is
discharged to the anoxic zone rather than the anaerobic
zone, and the mixed liquor recycle number one (R-l) is
pumped from the anoxic zone to the anaerobic zone. The
second recycle (R-2) is the internal anoxic nitrified
mixed liquor that is returned from the aeration zone to
the anoxic zone.
The purpose of this process flow scheme is to:
1. Provide for denitrification of any nitrates in the
RAS in the anoxic zone.
2. Recycle mixed liquor from the anoxic to the
anaerobic zone will be completely denitrified to
prevent inhibition of phosphorus release in the
anaerobic reactor.
3-62
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
.- 1
DJ
u
z
u
3
Cu
Z
u
o
£
0)
tfl
en
0
-------
Figure 3.LO shows the typical means of return sludge
and internal recycle which are as follows:
RAS - 0.5 to l.OQ
Anoxic Recycle (R-l) (ARCY) - 1 to 2Q
Nitrified Recycle (R-2) (NRCY) - 1 to 2Q
The purpose of each zone is the same as the first three
stages of the Bardenpho process. The UCT process can
also be configured as a five stage process, using two
anoxic and two aerobic zones, as shown on Figure 3.1.
3.4.3 UCT Design Criteria
The only UCT process designed in this country is the
VIP in Norfolk, Virginia, which was developed in 1986.
Even this design, is considered a modification of the
original UCT concept. The purpose of this project was
to demonstrate that: (1) a biological nutrient removal
facility would provide an annual average of about two
thirds removal of TP and TN, while sized according to
conventional secondary treatment criteria and (2) be
within the same range of costs as a comparable
conventional secondary process. The total hydraulic
detention time of this system is 9.1 hours which
classifies it as a high rate process. Design criceria
for the VIP concept is presented in Tabla 3.19.
On an annual average basis, this process is expected to
remove 70% of both TP and TN, but less TN in the winter
because of lower nitrification rates during colder
temperatures.
The design basis for each zone is similar in concept to
the previously presented Bardenpho and A 0 processes.
The VIP concept uses compartments in each zone to
improve both phosphorus removal and denitrification.
The anaerobic zone is sized strictly on the basis of
hydraulic detention time. The addition of external
fermentation products is dependent on the soluble
BOD- and septicity of the raw sewage.
The anoxic zone is designed based on a specific
denitrification rates which is temperature dependent.
The rate of denitrification is lowerQat lower
temperatures, especially below 16-18 C. The anoxic
zone should be designed for complete denitrification to
prevent the recycling of nitrates to the anaerobic
zone. In similarity to the first stage anoxic zone of
the Bardenpho process, the removal of nitrates
3-64
-------
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
TABLE 3.
VIRGINIA INITIATIVE
CRITERIA (MODIFICATION OF
Annual Avg . Daily Flow
Raw Sewage BOD_
Raw Sewage TSS
Raw Sewage TKN
Raw Sewage TPO.
BOD5:TP
Hydraulic Detention Time
Anaerobic
Anoxic
Aerobic
Total
Mixing Power
Anaerobic
Anoxic
ARCY Pumping Capacity
NRCY Pumping Capacity
Total SRT
MLSS
3-65
19
PLANT DESIGN
MODIFIED UCT PROCESS)
28.4 MGD
150 mg/1
124 mg/1
27.6 mg/1
6.2 mg/1
24:1
1.6 hours
1.6 hours
5.9 hours
9.1 hours
66 HP/MG
66 HP/MG
2.1Q .- 2.8Q
1.8Q - 2.1Q
8.9 days
2,500 mg/1
-------
(denitrification) will be dependent on the ARCY rate.
For example, if a rate of 200% of Q is used, 50% of the
oxidized ammonia will be returned to the anoxic zone
for denitrification as illustrated below:
ARC r - 2 Q
INFLULNI-Q r
3Q
•
AN
t
60
i
N
A X
RC Y
RA
- 2Q
4Q
S -Q
A C R
20 n rLU(.Nr-Q
v^
1
TKN Oxidized and
Returned to Ax Zone =
3Q
2Q
x 100% = 75%
Anoxic basin sizing must be based on a nitrate nitrogen
balance on the system, and on the specific
denitrif ication rate, (Ibs NO., removed/lb MLSS/hr)
available from the literature or from pilot testing
results.
Nitrification design will be based on maintaining the
critical minimum SRT rate based on nitrification at the
minimum design temperature. The VIP design has
selected an SRT of 8.9 days but the sizing of the
facility was based on conventional secondary treatment
criteria, so that nitrification in the winter can be
variable.
Clarifier sizing should be conservative because of the
requirement to capture suspended P associated with the
volatile solids.
It is anticipated that the three stage modified UCT
process could be designed to meet an effluent discharge
requirement of 8 mg/l-TN and 2 mg/l-TP. Lower
phosphorus levels could be achieved by effluent
polishing processes such as alum addition and effluent
filters.
3.4.4 Licensing
Air Products and Chemical, Inc claims licensing rights
associated with the CJCT process, but there is no basis
to assign royalty fees for plants using the UCT
process.
3-66
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
3.4.5 UCT Process Performance Assessment
3.4,5.1 Summary
The only available data for the UCT process is the data
from the pilot project of July, 1985 - September, 1986
conducted at the Lamberts Points WVvTP in Norfolk,
Virginia. Primary effluent was pumped to the pilot
unit at a rate of about 2 gpm. Different flows,
loadings, temperatures and operational configurations
were tested. The following results of this study are
summarized below.
Nitrogen Removal
During the pilot plant test the effluent nitrates
varied from about 3.9 to 6.9 mg/1 , while effluent TKN
was in the range of 1.3 to 6.9 mg/1. Effluent total N
was therefore in the range of 6.8 to 11.3 mg/1.
Generally, TN was less than 8 mg/1 during the different
phases of testing. A nitrogen balance is shown below,
which typifies the results of this pilot plant testing.
Of Nl THir ICAf ION
10 mq/I - NO
J
INI 1 III N I
24 mij/l-IKN
nioi
fR
ff FLUfNI
NO - 5-6 mrj/1
J K/S - 2-3 mq/1
IN - 8 mq/1
MASH: si.uncr
6*g/l-0rq. N
Reportedly it was estimated that 75% of the
denitrification occurred in the anoxic basin and the
remainder in the clarifier sludge blanket and in the
anaerobic zone. Effluent TKN values were about 6-7
mg/1 when the SRT was lowered to 5-6 days during a
period of time when the wastewater temperatures was
17°C.
The goal of the study was to remove one third of the
total nitrogen in the winter and two thirds of the
total nitrogen in the summer. These objectives were
reportedly met in a system similar in size to a
conventional secondary treatment facility.
3-67
-------
Phosphorus Removal
Effluent total phosphorus concentrations routinely
averaged 1.5 mg/1 or less. Most of the P was soluble
(60-85%) because of the low effluent TSS. The effluent
TP values may be higher in full scale facilities
because of the unusually low effluent TSS experienced
in the pilot plant work.
The pilot plant study identified three factors which
significantly affected biological P removal. These
are:
1. BOD./TP ratio
2. Process mode
3. Aerobic zone hydraulic residence time.
Effluent phosphorus was consistently below 1.5 mg/1
with a B005:TP ratio of 20:1, whereas at a BOD :TP
ratio of 10:1 the effluent TP was about 2.0 mg/1. As
more P is available for accumulation, the waste sludge
P content will increase up to a maximum point. While
operated in the A 0 mode, pilot plant effluent P was
higher at the lower BODg:TP ratios. It was theorized
by the researchers that there would be a higher nitrate
level in the RAS to the anaerobic zone with the A 0
process. Therefore, a greater portion of the influent
organic matter could be consumed by denitrifying
organisms, leaving less organic matter for the
P-removing organisms. Phosphorus removal was optimized
when nitrate recycle was minimized.
According to the pilot plant work, a short HRT in the
aeration zone results in a higher rate of removal of
phosphorus. This was attributed to a higher observed
sludge yield (Ibs TSS/lbs BOD5) at shorter HRT's and
apparently shorter SRT's whicn results in more
available biomass for P accumulation.
In summary, the UCT process recycles anoxic zone MLSS
to the anaerobic zone to prevent nitrate interference
with phosphorus removal. RAS is returned to the anoxic
zone to provide denitrification of nitrates in the
return sludge.
The UCT process can be modified to meet various design
requirements/ such as the following:
1. Three stage or five stage process for higher
nitrogen removal.
3-68
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
2. UCT can be used as a high rate process in a
retrofit to an existing conventional secondary
treatment plant, without additional tank volume.
Nitrogen removal requirements would have to be
seasonal in this case.
3. Flexibility can be provided to control aeration
hydraulic residence time independent of plant flows
in order to optimize P removal. Flexibility of the
VIP process can be designed by providing multiple
cells in the aeration tank.
4. Anaerobic and anoxic zones can be compartmentalized
into smaller cells to accelerate P release in the
first anaerobic zone and to provide the most
denitrification in the first cells of the anoxic
zone.
3.4.5.2 UCT Process Ability to Meet Effluent
Target Levels
The three stage UCT process can be expected to produce
an effluent TN of about 8 mg/1 and TP of 2 mg/1 on a
long-term average basis with conservative clarifier
design and no effluent filters. A back-up system for
alum addition should be provided. No operating
experience or pilot plant data has been found on a five
stage UCT process to assess the performance capability
of this modification to meet lower effluent levels. It
is expected that a five stage UCT process could be
designed to produce similar effluent target levels as
the Bardenpho process.
3.4.6 Applicability to CBDB
The data generated from the studies so far indicate
that the three stage UCT process can be potentially
retrofitted to any configuration of activated sludge
plants but because of the limited data that is
available, its applicability to CBOB will not be
substantial until additional full scale data becomes
available. As a higher rate process, the effluent
limits achievable would be higher than for the five
stage Bardenpho. In fact, the key issue is whether
nitrogen effluent requirements are annual averages
versus monthly averages or if TN requirements are only
in effect during the summer.
As an example, no additional tank volume would be
required for an extended aeration and nitrification
3-69
-------
process with 20 and 10 hour detention times,
respectively. An additional anaerobic and anoxic zone
would be added for a conventional activated sludge
process with a hydraulic detention time of six (6)
hours .
Pumps for internal recycle, blowers for nitrification,
baffle walls to separate zones, RAS pumps, more
clarification capacity, an alum feed system and in some
cases more tank volumes would be required for a
retrofit application.
Because of the limited experience with the UCT process
in the U.S., it has not been considered further in the
development of retrofit costs in this report.
3-70
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 NUTRIENT REMOVAL RETROFIT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
4.1 General
This chapter sets forth the assumptions under which BNR retrofits
are sized for costing in Chapter 5. Costs developed in Chapter 5
should be applied directly only to retrofits where these assumptions
hold.
Sizings and costs are developed for two performance levels as
outlined in Chapter 1, for five plant sizes (0.5, 1.0, 5, 10 and 30
ragd), and for four process categories:
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge with Nitrification
Fixed Film
Table 4.1 shows the numerical distribution of 230 existing treatment
plants in the CBDB by size and by the above process categories. The
few plants with other processes (as indicated in Chapter 2) have
been arbitrarily grouped into the most closely matching categories.
4.2 Influent Wastewater Characteristics
Based on the EPA publication "Selected Background Documents for
the Notice of Data Availability for the BCT Mechodology" (EPA
44/2-84-017), average influent wastewater characteristics were
assumed as follows:
PARAMETERS VALUE
SS 200 mg/1
VS 75%
Settleable solids 15 mg/1
BOD 200 mg/1
SBOD 65 mg/1
COD 500 mg/1
SCOD 400 mg/1
pH 7.6
Cations 160 mg/1
Anions 160 mg/1
TP 6.5-9 mg/1 U)
TKN 30 mg/1
N02 0 mg/1
N03 0 mg/1
Oil and Grease 80 mg/1
Temperature 2 0"C (summer)
I*)9 mg/1 TP for non phosphate-ban areas; 6.5 mg/1 for
phosphate-ban areas.
4-1
-------
r-l
•
^
W
J
03
£H
Z
H
to
«£
CO
u
u
rtj
z
h*4
3
Q
>,
co u]
in
C
(0 (N
OS
in
0*
V
I co vo en CN
on <-i
•
H
0
*
rH
v r^ * co r>
1 C* rH rH
in
i
o
u
0
n
CM
H
in
CM
0
vO
^"
in
vo
0)
VO
OS 9 •
CO U JH
CO H < COOS
W O E^ Q
UW -Q • >M PdS
OCU E-iD E-> HZ XM
05> O»4 X O'v HH
ftiE-" r4iCO M "OS fafa
J
<
H
4-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
4.3 Assumed Characteristics of Existing Plants
o Plant flow and load capacity does not need to be
expanded.
o Influent flow peaking factors for the various
plant sizes are as follows:
Plant Size 4 hour
Average Daily Peaking
Flow (mqd) Factor (% ADF)
0.5 300
1.0 275
5.0 200
10.0 180
30.0 160
The above peaking factors were established in a previous
JMS EPA project entitled, "CAPDET and Planning Level Cost
Estimates for Secondary Treatment System".
o Preliminary treatment is installed and will be
maintained without modification.
o Primary clarifiers are installed at all plants
except extended aeration.
o Extended aeration plants have no sludge digestion
facilities.
o Extended aeration and activated sludge
nitrification systems have sufficient aeration
capacity to meet BNR oxygen requirements.
o Conventional activated sludge plants have only
sufficient aeration capacity for carbonaceous
8005 removal.
o Fixed film plants have no aeration capacity.
o In activated sludge plants, the return activated
sludge (RAS) capacity with all RAS pumps
operating is 75 percent of the plant design flow.
o Existing plant units are sized as follows:
4-3
-------
Aeration Clarifier
Basin Overflow
Process HRT hrs gpd/sq ft
Extended Aeration 20 600
Conventional A.S 6 600
Single Stage Nitrification 10 400
T.F. or RBC — 600
Since it has not been demonstrated that trickling
filter or RBC units are useful in BNR, these were
neglected in sizing retrofits.
4.4 Process Selection
All of the processes evaluated in Chapter 3 were judged capable
of meeting the HLND target for TN and, with a supplemental alum
feed, the HLND target for TP.
With continuous chemical addition (alum) and filtration all
were judged capable of meeting the LLND target for TP, but only
Bardenpho, with two separate stages of denitrification was
judged capable of meeting the LLND target for TN.
4.5 Retrofit Design Criteria
Thus out of the BNR alternatives discussed in Chapter 3, the
A2O process with alum addition facilities was selected for
developing HLND retrofit costs, and the Bardenpho process with
alum addition facilities and effluent filtration was selected
for developing LLND retrofit costs.
Based on the process evaluations in Chapter 3, the design
criteria below were developed to meet the two target levels.
Additional criteria for sizing of aeration and sludge
processing systems are given in Chapter 5. The design criteria
cover warm weather operation only. Sizing corrections for
year round operation are also set forth in Chapter 5.
4-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design
Criteria
SRT - Days
MLSS - mg/1
HRT - hrs
Fermentation
1st Anoxic
Nitrification
2nd Anoxic
Reaeration
Total (hrs)
Recycle Flows
RAS - % Q
ARCY - % Q (1)
Clarifier Overflow - gpd/sq ft
Mixing - HP/MG (2)
Filtration - gpra/sq ft
Alum Dosage - mg/1 (4)
Pump Head - ft.
RAS
ARCY
Filter Feed Pump Station
C1) ARCY - Anoxic Recycle
(2) Minimum mixer HP/Tank is 1.5 H.P.
(3) Based on filter removing excess su
High
Low Level
Level Target Target
(Bardenpho) (A20)
15 8
3,500 3,500
2 1
3 1
10 6
3
0.5
18.5 8
100 50
400 200
600 (3) 400
50 50
5
30 10
15 15
5 5
30
spended solids not
captured in 600 gpd/ft2 clarifiers
(4) Year round dosing equivalent (dosing intermittent)
To ensure that both the low level and high level nutrient
removal processes meet the total phosphorus target levels on a
long-term average basis, all year round, it is necessary that
alum addition facilities be provided at all plants.
For this study the chemical costs are based on an influent TP
of 9 mg/1 which is applicable to states which have not imposed
a detergent phosphate ban. Chemical costs based on influent TP
of 6.5 mg/1, applicable to states with phosphate bans in
effect, are also presented in Appendix C-14.
4-5
-------
4.6 Eight Site Specific Plants Studies for CBDB
The EPA requested that retrofitting costs for eight plants in
the basin be determined on an individual basis. The costs for
retrofitting these plants are presented in Volume II of this
report. The eight plants and their existing flows are shown
below:
Arlington, VA - 30 MGD
Hopewell, VA - 32 MGD
Fairfax (Lower Potomac), VA - 36 MGD
Baltimore (Patapsco), MD - 50 MGD
Alexandria, VA - 54 MGD
Richmond, VA - 70 MGD
Baltimore (Back River), MD - 150 MGD
Washington (Blue Plains), DC - 309 MGD
The design criteria used for the eight plant study were
developed from site specific information including facility
planning documents, as-built plans, existing permits and
performance data.
4-6
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
5.0 BNR TECHNOLOGY COSTS
5.1 Introduction
This report presents the overall assumptions, general
design criteria and process flow diagrams for
retrofitting four types of existing CBDB plants to
achieve two levels of BNR. Additional engineering
analysis including the detailed cost development and
the revised flow diagrams are presented in this
section.
The general cost estimating approach used in
development of the BNR retrofit costs is a combination
of 1) standard engineering cost estimating techniques,
2) cost from previous EPA planning level cost curves
and 3) cost from recently bid projects. The standard
engineering cost estimating techniques employed include
detailed conceptual design, plant and equipment layout,
quantity take-off of material and equipment, firm
equipment quotations and the application of unit cost
data.
The standard engineering estimating procedures were
used for eight of the eleven major construction cost
components that represent approximately 80% of the
total plant construction costs. These estimates are
considered -accurate to + 15-20%. The remaining
comparative cost estimates were estimated using
planning level cost curves are considered accurate to
+ 30%. The 0 & M cost estimates are considered
accurate to + 25%.
It must be recognized that the accuracy of the above
estimates are for the costs for plant modifications as
shown in Figures 5.1 through 5.8. They should not be
indiscriminately applied for plant situations that are
substantially different.
We believe, however, that the procedures used are
entirely appropriate for the overall cost estimating
goals of this project. We have been extremely thorough
in fully describing the basis of all cost estimates
used and in providing documentation for the specific
component cost development. This documentation is
provided in Appendicies C-l through C-20 for both
construction and 0 & M costs.
5-1
-------
DO
Q
CO
0
LU
O
DC
LU
DC
cn
• a
S'
o
Q
Ul
Q
Z
X
Ul
LU
Q.
H
H
<
Q.
Ul
Ul
O
cc
<
ra o
I ® 1
— >.
111
Q
j^
W
DC
B
S
g
U
-
g
M
UI
(9
e
13
/a
®
c
en
D
o
§
Jf;
°
y
< 0
E
2
<7>
o
1
<§,
to
UJ
5-2
-------
( CL
< '-
CQ
Q
CQ
O
J-
u.
O
CC
LU
<
o
in
I
HI
a.
H
h-
< (A
Ul
c
o
0)
(0
C
Q.
LU
C
O
ra
o
•o
C » ^ •" "
^ in
^D ^3 ^Ji ^3 ^3 *O ^3 "O
L0<< <<<<<<
OJ
u -
E Z
ui i-
£ 1
X o>
5 §
(0
o a>
'•= S
<5 J2
< O
S
to
a
CO
LU
U
U
H
5-3
-------
CO
0
CQ
O
J
a.
O
cc
Hi
cc
o
Cu
£
z
z
UJ
o
Q
M
a
UJ
<
>
U
Ui
a.
h-
z
-H"
a.
o
c
re
T3
c
OJ
0
«> oj
(0
w
0)
D5
el
i.i
o
JD
O
TO
T5 "O rt *- o a u
C -O 2 f> -O T3 T3
re < a. S < < <
I
ention time
£
° "§-
o
UJ
3
™ \^t
I,!
0>
c
1
5 H>
•= '§
(0 "2
u ai
5-4
-------
CO
Q
m
o
PLANT
O
DC
UJ
DC
(/>
h-
•o
u
|
*a>
•a S
"5 O)
3
—T O
u. -
Qm
< u
** 01
z%
V-O
s i~ f
u>
>.
U)
0)
u
o
•« i-3
c > ,,
s
1
10
o c
en ~ ra
c m •-
c o
0
in
•»
O
s
m
Q.
cr Q.
< «
m m m "~
TJ'OTS Q.T3'DT3T3T3
>»T3T3-OT3T3
CD <<<<<<
13 I
TJ
(A
cr
u
z
g
(A
11! "?
3 WO
-I . .
U. • «
0
ffl
O
o
0> w
o «
o •=
S u-
0,0,
1*
.
0>
§
m
0 = J
CC H- O
S«
o
in
U)
<
CC
g-
x
UJ
5-5
-------
CO
Q
ffl
O
<
CL
O
DC
LU
CC
§
<
IU
a
UJ
Q
U
U4
a.
I-
h-
Ul
Ul
CO
O
CO
Ul
u
O
£
g
X
E
T3
O)
1 3«
03 O
O
U) CVJ
Q.
O>
O
o
u
to
0.
c
0
*" a. E £
O> £ ® "o
.E 3 «5
tS Q. >. • 3
Q
z
03
O
a
u
CO
«
j3 d>
li
c
a
u
OT w
S §
< O
n
C3
g
x
n
s
§>
o
o
II
00 C\J
H N
z a.
_2
a.
CO
*»
'x
5-6
-------
ffi
o
CO
o
_l
QL
O
QC
UJ
CC
UJ
o
o
Ul
o
_l
1
Ul
>
i
UJ
a,
>
h-
1
r
E.
O)
o
o
o
ro
Q.
(0
0 E
c ®
O .
'= >• ~
nj
m .Q to c o
-------
Ul
L?
a
o
CO
o
UL
o
DC
LU
DC
O
p
o
z
E
Z
X
111
o
o
M
u
LU
Q.
<
Q.
CO
ID
C
o
N
«g H
I « 1 S
C 0) >> T3 C
- 1
Q
g
I
r^
t
LO
g
15
*- -- -T5 «~V w
(/) (fl ^^ irt ^3
= I | e <
52
X,
(/)
2
5-8
-------
OQ
Q
CO
O
Q.
H
U.
O
cc
K-
LU
CC
trt
Ul
oc
a
o
UJ
X
111
a.
e
c
o
2
3
Ol
£.
05
O
U
C3)
-
o- 9
Q.
E o
s 3.S !
.2 °
"O <2 o
a> >. 5 is
o o S CD
I 3?
c o
o
1-1
so
oo
H
hi
00 CM
Ul
O
m
cc
o
03
O
O _
«t
o —
f 5
o =
fi u.
0,0,
sr
O)
52
o
s
•= ~ .2 c
m JC ^ •;
o
as
o
m
CO
<
cr
^>
(0
cr
o
—
'x
5-9
-------
5.2 General Design Assumptions and Rationale for Capital
and O&M Cost Development for all BNR Retrofit Designs.
The existing plants to be retrofitted as shown in Figures 5.1
through 5.8 were assumed to be constructed in accordance with
the Ten State Standards or equivalent design criteria
established by the CBDB States. All retrofit designs
presented herein follow standard sanitary engineering design
practice and accepted design criteria and standards. Plant
size used in the analysis were 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10 and 30 mgd.
The conceptual designs for BNR retrofitting are based on the
most cost effective approaches to achieve specific functions.
An example is the use of in-tank submersible low-head
propeller pumps for recycling nitrified effluent to the anoxic
stage. If actual retrofits follow other approaches — for
example providing a new pumping station for the effluent
recycle above — costs will be higher. The costs indicated,
include a contingency of 20 percent, corresponding to the
level of uncertainty in the estimate. Thus, the cost
relations may safely be regarded as median estimate for high
value (cost effective) designs.
The interest rate used to calculated the amortized capital is
8.875% which is established by the EPA. Plant design lifetime
is taken as 20 years.
5-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
All construction costs are based on July , 1987 dollars,
ENR index of 4404. Although the one ENR City index within
the CBDB for Baltimore is below 4404, we believe the cost
relations developed for an ENR index of 4404 are directly
applicable to extimating overall costs for retrofiting
in CBDB.
All 0 & M labor costs are based on the EPA index for
March, 1987 of 7136. All other 0 & M component costs are
based on the appropriate EPA OMR indexed for March, 1987.
Biological design parameters used are as follows:
Temperature coefficient theta 1.03
Alpha 0.8
Beta 0.9
BOD rate constant 0.001351 mg/l/hr.
Endogenous coefficient 0.075 day
Yield coefficient 0.3 - 0.75 Ib/lb
Nitrification rate temperature
correction (1.1008) (T-20)
Denitrification rate temperature
correction (1.12) (T-20)
The following factors were used to convert construction
costs to capital cost.
% Construction
Non Component Cost Items Cost Added
Cost increase for retrofit work (1) 20-25%
Yard piping 10%
electrical 12%
controls & instrumentation 10%
site preparation & misc.
site work 10%
engineering 10%
construction supervision 9%
contingencies 20%
interest during construction (2) 1/2 PCI
land $4000/ACRE
(1) Cost increase due to construction in and around existing
facilities, temporary disposal of sludges and mixed
liquor tank drainage for retrofit activities, temporary
pumping of process flows and all related site activities
necessary to keep existing plants operating at maximum
possible efficiency.
(2) I - interest rate; C » capital cost; P = construction
period. P = 1 year for 0.5 and 1.0 ragd, P = 2 years for
5 mgd and above.
5-11
-------
Electrical control and instrumentation costs includes
process sensing equipment, computer or micro processor
installation and software costs for automated control of
critical operations such as filter backwashing, D.O. controls,
RAS and ARCY recycle flows as a function of plant flow.
Added tankage is based on the difference between new process
requirements and the Ten State Standards for the types of
plants being mofified, (Appendix C-l).
All new clarifiers to be reinforced concrete circular tanks
with 16 feet deep sidewalls, 1.5 feet freeboard and 14.5
sidewater depth. See Appendix C-l for clarifier area
requirement. All baffles to be constructed of 8" reinforced
concrete. See Appendix C-3 for baffle requirements.
All new tankage to be reinforced concrete with 18 feet deep
sidewalls, 15 feet below grade, and 1.5 feet free board.
Appendices C-l, C-2 and C-3 contain quantities and costs for
a conventional activated sludge (CAS), High Level Nutrient
Discharge (HLND), Low Level Nutrient Discharge (LLND) with
a 3 hour aeration basin. The costs for these 3 hour aeration
basins were not used in the final cost preparations.
Additional RAS pumping based on adding the difference
between Ten States Standards design requirements and the
new process requirements described in Section 4.5 and in
Appendix C-ll. Additional RAS pumping is provided for
conventional activated sludge (LLND) and fixed film (LLND).
It is assumed that the added pumps will not require an
additional pumping building for the activated sludge
(LLND), but will require a new building for the fixed film
(LLND). All RAS pumping utilitizes open impeller centrifugal
pumps at a discharge TDK of 15 feet. RAS pumping is designed
based on needed additiional firm capacity with 100% redundacy
for 0.5 and 1.0 mgd plants and 50% redundancy for 5, 10 and
30 mgd plants. See Appendices C-10, 11 and 16 for RAS and
building Criteriaand costs.
All ARCY pumps are submerged propeller pumps designed for a
discharge TDK of 5 feet. No back up pumps are provided
because of the ease of pump installation and replacement.
5-12
-------
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All new blowers are designed to deliver the Standard
Cubic Feet per Minute (SCFM) required by the process'
with a discharge pressure of 8 psig and with an actual
air dissolution efficiency actual oxygen transfer rate
(AOR) of 6% for 1.0 mgd and below 8% for 5.0 mgd and
above .-
The added blower capacity (where the existing plant is
equipped with blowers) is based on the addition of firm
capacity increase with no added redundancy. See
Appendix C-7 and C-8 for blower sizing details.
New blower installations for the fixed film plants
include firm capacity plus 50% redundancy.
Extended aeration and conventional or high rate
activated sludge plants with nitrification facilities
have adequate blower capacity.
The added in plant gravity filter pump stations are
designed to process the peak 4 hour flow with the
largest of three pumps out of service. These pumps are
equipped with variable speed drives.
The effluent filters are designed as gravity dual media
filters at a filtration rate of 5 gpm/ft at average
daily flow. Filters include 20 inches of mixed media
with backwash storage and pumping, surface wash, air
scour, and full automated control.
Final effluent filtration will be added at all LLND
plant retrofits.
The supernatant treatment system includes a reactor
clarifer plus a lime addition system and liquid loading
station for the lime sludge.
The alum addition system is based on supply of year
round-average alum dosage of 10 mg/1 for high level
treatment and 30 mg/1 for the low level systems. The
alum system includes alum storage facilities, metering
pump, mixers and associated piping and controls.
Alum facilities will be installed at all plants.
It is assumed that the alkalinity of wastewater is
sufficient to meet all nitrification requirements.
5-13
-------
The general cost estimating procedures used for cost
development of each major component are summarized
below:
COMPONENTCost Development Methods (1)(2)(3)
Concrete tankage SCEP, CC, EBCD
Mixers. SCEP, EBCD
ARCY recycle pumps SCEP, EBCD
Alum feed system SCEP, CC
Clarifiers SCEP, CC
Blowers SCEP, CC
Diffusers EBCD, SCEP
Buildings CC, SCEP
Dual media gravity filters CC
Internal pumps stations CC
Supernatent treatment EBCD
(1) SCEP - standard cost estimating procedures;
includes conceptual design, quantity take off,
equipment quotations, and application of unit cost
data.
(2) CC - costs from planning level cost curves from EPA
'publications including EPA I/A manual, EPA cost
estimating reports 600/2-79-162a, 162b and 162c.
(3) EBCD - Experience recent (last year) bid cost data.
No capital or O & M cost increase have been included
for additional sludge quantities in this analysis. It
is recognized that lime treatment of anaerobic digester
superatant will add to the overall costs of the plants
employing anaerobic digesters, and that there will also
be some increase in sludge production for the Fixed
Film processes. The low level BNR systems, however,
will produce less, sludge than the conventional plants
and on an overall cost basis for the CBDB plants the
accumulative total costs of sludge handling was
considered to be no more than + 5% of the total cost
of existing plants which is well within the accuracy of
this cost estimate.
5.3 Construction and Capital Cost Development
Construction and capital costs were developed for the
four basic plant types for high and low treatment
levels and for plant sizes of 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 and
30.0 mgd.
5-14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
The major construction cost components are shown below:
Component
Concrete tankage
Mixers
ARCY recycle pumps
Alum feed system
Clarifiers
Blowers
Diffusers
Buildings
Dual media gravity filters
Internal pumps stations
Supernatant treatment
Tables 5.1 through 5.8 summarize the major plant
modifications, design criteria, construction costs,
capital costs and 0 & M costs for each system. This
data was used to develop the three sets of eight curves
used to describe the incremental capital, 0 & M and
total costs for retrofitting the CBDB plants.
The unit costs used in the development of the specific
construction cost items shown in Tables 5.1 through 5.8
and Appendices Cl through C20 are summarized in Table
5.9.
2
The royalty fees for the Bardenpho and A 0 process
for each size plant is presented in Table 5.10. These
are one time fees and are not included in the capital
cost estimates or curves since they are not universally
applied, are subject to some negotiation and are
subject to change.
Total construction costs were developed by adding
non-component costs including electrical, control and
instrumentation, yard piping, site preparation and
existing plant retrofit costs to the component costs.
Total capital costs were developed by adding
engineering and construction supervision,
contingencies, interest during construction and land
cost to the total construction costs.
5-15
-------
o 00 f^ » O m
i- m o> oo oo IN
o
u
-4 14 O 1
Su o ••» • i
• u a o
M -< 0 U -4
U 4 Z
«*4 ^
O •) UI
- u an
44 • g.
• a • -4 u - §
w • a • 4 K 3
• W 4 -OO. 03 O,
U II 4 O «4 4 *O
0 -< O • — . 0 C -I
G — « "O O C 44
0 • -I 4 JJ -UK
0 a 8 MCU.43
0 3 0 H 4 Q u
"S 0. < " 0 " " u
u DO t3 b* •- *> o Ma* zee
WCO4-O « UiU
4
£
4
1
4
5 8
c w >>
• 4 W
a 4 B
• • C 4 -4
I • • 0
•O *4 #* 5 M W O
c o • • • • ii • M
*OP>*)U II •
•« 4 u o • a, g. «>
X w -• W ff ff
~TJc-* ao> K
JN a 4 4 4 -o » to q
-'jf w C • • O < O
3»4O«)4-40i
5O.U9 C — U 14 >M Z
•o C u • • cr o
>4 C • -4 S U -1 M
^U4a.'OJl-i- « 00 10 r«
U U U U U U
1
£
u
0
*M
8
•o
•4
^
•
1 J
• " -o
• • 4
1 3*15
•4 4 I H
4 -4 14 M
• -O 4 •? >
-4 U 6 U)
• u
• • M Z
? !5-^
« * « S i3
1 5 .2B
-• j >• w
U U « H
B in i at z
-ESz3' 2S
1 MO 1 U) < U)
in w K «> u 5
K « < B. H W Z
E < S z _i B. 3
< J B 5 M s -I
H O < O. tor M 3
00 «1
IN X
»A «n
1^
UI
p
SH
to z
a u
M Z
U
O <£
00 *4
m
'^
f» -O
CO ->
tM
M
O
^
>-*
i
cu
s
M
£°
O H4
»-l l-l
AL CONSTRUCT
AND CONSTRUC
H
Sz
M
S
ENGINE
>6 m -4
S2"
fsi eo *
•-4
» 0 ft 9*
«*1 0 «0
O C4
-
u
a.
IN
i
i-t
M
TOTAL
S (20Z)
ING CONSTRUC
gas
U) O Q
U H
O M
(-•Co
•-> • i sO O CT» ^D
9 O 1 nA OJ o* 00 »
o U ^ '
M
Nl
5 '
0.
O .-» 1 •-!
•H (
1
«*> 0 I
•H 1
1
o M -» m
^ "^ T T
u «n o o
0
0
d °
< f-4 CA
2 ' ^
3 s i
i § i
S 5 ui
H ^ U
Z u>
Z 5 cq Q 3
S 2351
N 0
fN -*
CO CO
0 0
.0 «
f^ -H
o r^
(N
o
i 2
I"
0 -•
X 8
C
a. (
3
l-l wt U
u a
3 u «
* u ^
>* w»
O 0 -^
M (1 00
C 3
"* C "-1
U C (fl
c -. o
-( (1 ^
00 W U
cot
5-16
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
s
H
gg
-j
a z
uS
O w ">
Sag
M - O
VI
a z X
w o xi
> < a
U u.
* 2 ^
pi 2 «
Oj
u <
30.
11 >•
Q£
1
V)
<
B
t-t
L)
X
V)
u
a
U)
fi
S
u
i^
u.
H
a.
o
o
m
u
•§ »4
« - — O
• aj u ~ •
a • a o
i H o S"
*i in u
0 W
o • u •- o
u "2 • 1
e • K H
• u Z
• X 0 J
•a < o.
n -o c o
3 C «
O « u ^
X
Z C
-• 3-i-c
.• £ 82
^ . • • _ u .
« • u a. UK o
* u 9 • u B -«
• u a • -> u
u U M M » m •
• c c n • EC a.
U g -fl _i o • U
§« — -0 O •
•Q e • ~ J> jt
u • —i & • -* (2
u o 3 o -~ S
• O l/l Q. • O
•M«<»«l««-lO. l-l X
CU w S « B OUI
-• o « -• o S3
• 1 0 C O « • 0 UlU)
% y
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "
•s
u
c
0
•1 14
-a :
w • •
C K
u t w
M M U 0
1 TJ S. 2
U K
^ c •
• 5 cr • c
U • U § f • 0
-i -i • M i a * o
O**««4O«4tl« ^
U««HC*4KV>W «
• J) ^ • U O • V>
c • • • a A •* M
• u -4 3 u B H
• u « -< e -* M
»ta O. • « « -0 O
• u • § u c « O
CCU3K4Ot«
OQOkJ3d«4b Z
u C • -1 I H
2-1 »i u « a -0 J5 H
-i o o< u 3 -a 3 u
w«m<«aa* 3
CW-O-O-O-O-OTJ P
35333333 g
O* 0 ^ (M »H
-
i-i •« O O O « «
.* tA O CM 00 •*
<*» t/1 *O O* O »^ »A
CM (M «-4
O »^ •* fM O O O
• •« ••«)>•
-• u e M
M C -< H
• « tt. • Z
TANKS - Includln* 1
CLARIFIERS
AERATION - blower*
PUMPS - ARCY, RAS,
FILTERS - itructuM
SUPERNATANT TREATMI
ALUM FEED
f** f»
01 ^
0 C*
-* 00
rt
0 SO
r-* •*
0 o
o o»
(M ^
8
SUBTOTAL
NON COMPONENT COST!
•* 00
^
eft in
N 00
O «
(M
«-l
•n .a
O 91
-O r-
m
N
S!
>
2
V)
?!
M l->
dy
ee
P M
TOTAL CON!
ENGINEERING AND CO*
<^O*O
^ ^^
^^ 00 ^1 (S
-* ^ fM
-» C* i-t
•-« O O
|*3 in
-0 0
-• a o
" 8-
w
O l-l O
91 in
-1 H
5
a.
in o
in
m o
0
TOTAL CAP]
OIK COST (S/YEAR) •
ft ** O •*
rH ^4 rl ^
(~ •» 00 PJ
r^
f. IN < «
r^ •"* (*>
- - «
O P4 * rt
i •!(
u m u u
-j
MAINTENANCE MATER I *
LABOR
CBEMICALS
POWER
S 3
CO in
i-i
-V 00
- 91
S 3
**•* O
•f) rH
1-4
rt
0
0
41
f
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (
•o
c
ft
X
c ^
0 V
^ o
11 U
11 u
a
U 11
a u
v a.
•i U
n
00
I 2
a. o
^ M)
C
H 3
X
fcJ
M
C O
O" U
•^ *J
10 rt
w U u
C • -i
v -o — a
G ti K It
u -o ~
n C v
C c 0 N
-I o i -•
-4 U > 3
« 3 u C
O i* b C
i w a t
U w 3
u e « -o
u o c
-i 0 ^
.. IM (J O
t> 0 3 U u
•O U U VI
o u c O «
C 0 u
-4 T3 U "1 C
C -• -i
*J ^ *J K
0 j^ o 0 in
U U ^ (J r^
0 — CO
u 3 -i
C 00 K CO
V II C 3
C u -i C u
NOTES: 1. Noncompo
misc. si
2. Engineer
3. Total AT
factor a
5-17
-------
M
S
w
g»H
at
•J U
z
sa
HI V) U)
5gS
8 -8
X X
S S o
-ie
ui u S
X U*
§U1 HI ^
H
cu
*n H X
U) <
« 0.
H >•
3
|
V)
<
^4
g
H
B
x
o
HI
V)
Ul
o
M
S
§
M
U.
Ht
a.
O i NOOmCKOf^
• 1 O* O* •* 00
O 1 00 -1 "•
in i
Q
fr*
in o-i-4rooinoo(N
V Q 0 ! S •» »
u (J -« i
• o Z '
e u —
•4 U
• 4 Ul
ap 4)r^
iiiiii •%ac u U(J u
4
• a.
i I
c o
O *M
J
•4
^
^
?3
M
«
u •o
: s
• -4 41
u B M *a
• e e •
w -q • • -4
-" o c 3 ik -a x
*4 0 e *H e U
O w o • -4 h in
>>• o • -o • -o >.
WMW Q-4 UCW
-4 o m m a "• o ui « IM C -4 H
• «a*w « 4 4 b. • x
U H M fll ^1 e Ul
newS^K M o.Sx
a a • H • uui3H
4 • uiceeZuw
•o ff o • • u -g o 3 S
83 -4 •» • 3 _4 . U fi
a*< u IM X -4 J> > u
V O U O • H
_>._.* e S emipj x
4 u -i J! 3 H -.as •? i 5 q
3 OS 3 3 -" U MX HU
T3 < »4 • 4 3 IMOI 5J
px ^4
09 «
fn (M
X 09
rx *4
" "*
^4 (M
(M «
*4
o «
(N in
>n rt
•n •*
SUBTOTAL
NON COMPONENT COSTS (1)
00 r*>
•* N
<6 <-4
9 (N
o> >n
M
(*l 00
O M
PI
•0 *0
P* O
00 —1
rf"l ^4
£
SJ
C4J
HI
U)
HI
i
VI
S2
TOTAL CONSTRUCTI
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCT
in r-* r» O
03 n o
r* _i
N ** O O
•/> s «
rt
f* a) wi
M
0* 00 >n O
*• o m
0 (N
o •» «n
*^
Ht
N
t-t
§
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES (20X)
INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCT
LAND
00 O i •» co m (N
(S • 1 O> O O* 00
0 0 I -1 4 m
•H 1
1
00 - I „ „ M
00 0 I
1
O (S -* m
*? ** T V
0 .n U U
TOTAL CAPITAL
O&M COST ($/YEAR) * 1000
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
LABOR
CHEMICALS
POWER
r-- tn
•* >n
•-» (N
M O
•n o
S 2
-0 CO
fl«
n
«n
o
o
o
r-t
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ($/YR)
•o
c
x
C u
0 If
•** >
* u
<• M
Q.
M («
O. *J
* a
-^ u
* .n
• CO
? 2
0. 0
a ie
c
•O -4
M ID
4 3
wi
C 0
O • u
40 4
*• U t-i
e • -«
u -o ~ a.
3 -o w o
U 4 13
« CO
c c o N
^0-4-4
-4 u > 3
4 3 U C
O K « C
-4 u a 4
U M 3
u C " "O
U O C
« 0 C 4 V
-4 O U
-4 W M M
•• «4 U O
« O 3 U U
•^ U k4 VI
3 " w Z V
u u e o «
C O w
-•g»35
• • -
W ^> U M
M -MM
o jt o o m
0 H -4 U f>
o ^ oo
U 3 -4 •
B M 4 00
v ii e 3
Sw - e «
-4 U S 4
fr" S * i.
8 • e -> o
U 0 -4 4 u
C 4 «• u o
0 -4 C 0 it
Ul
u
fl
o
Z
5-18
-------
I
I
I
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
»
2
w
H
a «
x at
*j 4
£
M
^
e
B
X
sj
Ul
u
0
Wl
>*4
ii
5
»*
h
>4>
(U
o
0
o
eQ 0
u ~
111
M
-tf V) •
c m
4 H
tJ X
X *
•0 0
e
B
•4
«1
m
• a o
u ff
• 3
w, a •
U *J) M
6 U ? 4
0 • -4 •
0 -4 TJ 0
-44-0
T) • 0
• a.-, a
u O 3
14 14 ta. .i
0 O.M 4
>M -~ U>
B -4 t) -4 W
-4 -4 Q.-- X U
• 4 •> lf> « X
U •>>> tf Q U
no K 2
• COO M U
•t
•a
4
w K
u
B -4
O U
-4 4
4 a
4 °
4 U
3-2
»4
•4 *4
4J U
• 4
-4 «4
-4 m
• or Q m o
M M " °
«4 O • • <-l
4 O K «
"«
- Install concrata
- Add ARCY puops «
- Add 502 addition
- Add standby alias
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
O> ^ O « O O
rf> r* J"
*+ *4 B W>
w -g -• 4
in
N
S 5
i-»
S 2
»
M H
H U
U 3
C- U>
TOTAL CON
ENGINEERING AND CO
00 4
»-l *
TOTAL CAP
DIM COST (S/YEAR)
<^ -* Ch ^O
**4 ^4
SO O • 00
" "• - <"
CO IN -» O
« -4
-4 U 3
W N
40 u
a g n
B 0
5-O u
tl
•O 4
W 4 w
M • ~4
B c ~- a
-4 O X It
-4 O U
~ U TJ
K 3 c II
M £4 0 H
•-4 u -4 -4
•^ n vi M4
B -4 4
-4 0 > 3
« o u 5
U U C
-< u a 4
U -1 3
o o e •
fj u C 4 41
-I u O u
V «l -4 U It
u u VI U
U O
v -e 3 u u
-O C u n
3 4 u X «
-4 VI U U
S- B O V
~ O u
-4 ** CJ VI C
O -4 *4
4 M v>
o .M o o in
U 14 f4 CJ f*«
S^, a
-4 •
B It 4 CO
• • 6 3
6 w -4 B w
0 -4 U 3 4
NOTES: 1. Nonconp
misc. »
2. Englnee
3. Total A
factor
5-19
-------
a
z
§<
«
£ P?
H U]
ss
— at
u. u
eg
Z I/I VI
U) H
vi a vi
3 -8
a* vi
z x
w o »^
0 « O
2 H
= < a
_j d z
I/I M 3
u.
Sail
52 g
> a,
5*3
< j
a.
"^ S
m' 5
u 5
_1 V)
«
5
•^
2
H
g
z
o
Ul
w
a
i
NT MODIFICATI
3
O 1
O 1
m 1
1
O 1
Q O i
U O •* <
* a Z >
Cu ~
« 4 • W
4 1*4 kl N
J3 • 1-1 O 1
Ml VI • 1
?C *4 mi
-1 -4 HI
4 u 44 5
• " • -4 _J
— « -4 a. u a.
^4 K
**4 • H U O 1
4 O i
.a C 33 cr u ^ i
-4 Q 0
•O H Qi « 1
c -o g • •
• • • 3 »> "
tt ~* r+ -* kl
J< 4 QUO in 1
q M w u 4 • i
• * a..* o i
w B 4 (M 4 C i
•» a. • o •» i
• If e - u
• g a 4 j> e G
h 3 4 T) 4 -4
O & -* 0 C tj
C 4 -0 40
O *4 m • U **4 **
U 4 3 B b • 0
-4 <*4 3 Q O
TJ _ _ _w ^ _ «)W
• • U 4 f
boc-4vi4.a. u
o 14 • — . — aa. x u
•> a. u 41 B ff • «z
C flO.3004 OU4
— • • «a -4 z«
H
i :
"c ^
^T»
u 3
•" ^^
1*1 M
U N
«- S
s7 | i :
4 a. 1 we •
« c ff a -• o
• 43 -4 ^ U
x »iJ<*44 2
si 4 • a • •* «>
u K K-O b W K w
n»WW4«3-< M
-^ 4 -4 -4 • Q, 8 U H
• U U IM • B M
O U 4 4 -4 > 19 4 Q
•4 aag-ooeu 0
^•^eese-^Me
ocuu^fiiM^B 9
u • 4 • C o
e MM _< .4 a • H
c'lToo— 3"333 U
Jt ** « M
•W •O-04-O-O'O'O P
i i i i i i i i O
!•> O ^ *^
o o o **
o
IM
?
^
4rf
j; -a
: a
-4 •
a u •«
^ 4V*4
S ,2k?fi
4
-4 U C VI
IH « -i 3
K4 2-1 H
• 4 h. 4 Z
A e u
• • M S
?U M 3 H
e < n <
-4 i c2 o ul
"2 S p 2
3 -< • M fi
•4 .O >4 «J
SO 4 H
VI i OS X
•#4 (tf 4a 1 ^ O
MX H W
1 MO I VI < Ul
lit M p! Z U.
I/I IH H Ul W S
g52|SS5
< J C 5 »-• 3 -4
H O < ft* t*. W <
4 <*y
r« O
00 CO
-» 0
i> CO
t-t *-4
*A O
•H
(A
8«
H H
SZ
U)
v> z
|
O 0»
0 «
^
o P*.
P*. CO
-* o
9> *n
t-t CM
r* »^
r*i
^
0
>-
5
Ul
1^
^
a.
ii
AL CONSTRUCTI
AND CONSTRUCT
Si
ENGINEERI
O O ^^ *A
(*J fN ^H
f-i
4> f*-»
O *-t
o
ft*
w
^
i
H4
TOTAL
S (20Z)
ING CONSTRUCT
•> W ft
3 >-* 5
M u a
x
W H
P V)
x a
•-• 3
H B O
§i- z
X <
M J
<••» O 1 <* C4 CN t
T* 1
•* O 1 C* ^ 00 *O
(* Q O I ?4 (N
" «" :
W
fsl
fN w O i O* * » •*
-t «5 • i *H •* -» en
-* H I ** *""
a.
,n • t ^ ~« •-« en
r-t 0 1
1
0 (M -T m
*i* "^ T 7*
u *o o u
o
o
J O
< *-« w
S . .j
3 s g
:* H 1
H —
O v> u
H — U
z v>
H i
8u a
H at 11 pe
z o X E
5s « a »
< 3 no 5
o x J o £
oo m
^t
o
o
o
fMl
«
TOTAL
COST (SfYR)
i|
i
.*
s
•a
c
4
C u
0 V
i-l 0
4 U
M tl
4 W
a
a. u
v a.
*i 4
•1 O
CO
•0 O
C -i
0. 0
a. MI
c
•0 -4
4 3
tj
vt
c o
0 • o
40 ~»
» U u
C * «4
3 ^ 0^ u
C -o ~.
u 4 -d
HI c t>
c: c a M
_ 0 -. -.
-4 M _l
• U -i 4
-i 0 > 3
4 3 U C
O X « 2
-4 u a 4
u « 3
w C *l -^
U 9 C '
W U C 4 «
_> 0 u
-4 U M U
•• »*4 O 0
V O 3 U "
T) *4 U HI
3 u
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
S
3 .
<
5 S
H* W
H H
S Z
{52
»-> u.
Q a H
tj S!
il
* 5
w S
-1 M
3
H
^
H>
B
X
o
t-l
o
IFICATIONS
i
a*
-4 O
-4 O
14 ^
C -4
•4 U
Ot
4 hi
J> O O
?0 O O
4 U «
-4 • Z
W U —
00
-4 W Ul
MO N
• 11 0
J< U)
c i
u w O* O in
tj 0
•O IM u ^4 o
• o • B
u -• 9 o
U M -• -• u
o a • 4
>M -o a. a
e • o -4 a.
-4 O. k> —
• • o. • •
MB a oo
• 0 • O 4
go m a i ix
1 i 1 1 1 CO
u
X U
H Z
§2
Ul W
ft. U.
9 «
i
e
o
tU
u
*
1 §• .
4A M a
" •» 8
• 4 U
• A 01
K
a • •
-4 •
W
•••IB
• u or i • e
-» • w 8 O
p"i 1*4
ii i ii
u u o u u
m
I
u
o
1*
— t
*O
•4
3
•
• 1
S 3
"5^4
-H u e w
"M tj M i
IM e -< »-.
4 3 U. • Z
A • Ul
TANKS - Includlnc
CLARIFIERS
AERATION - blovora
PUMPS - ARCY, RAS,
FILTERS - atructur
SUPERNATANT TREATM
ALUM FEED
-i CO
i- M
*4 *4
OD m
Q
£
M
STRUCTION
NSTRUCTION
TOTAL CON
ENGINEERING AND CO
C4 C4 -4|
r> r*. o
•« 00 OD
r* 10 a) in
"* rt
00 -1 -« O
^ O* <*4 flO
O M •* <•>
1 -II
O «A U U
CA
MAINTENANCE MATERI,
LABOR
CHEMICALS
POWER
.n ,n
•» o\
a> (M
- *
•43 o
^
l-l !«.
•rt ••<)
N ^
«n
o
o
o
I
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
T>
C
4
X
C u
0 V
0
u
4)
U
^
A
^4
a
4
U
in
a
00 0
c -i
0. 0
«nl
Q. ' 00
C
-0 -i
hi «
4 3
X
W
C 0
0 • u
-« u
40 ~ 0.
B « M 4
g -o » u
« en
e e o M
-* O -1 -i
-" O > 3
4 3 C S
U M « C
-4 u a 4
u n 3
n e •> u
U 0 C •
0 U C 4 V
-* O w
-4 w n w
.• >M o 0
V O 3 U u
-O U u n
3 4j u X «
U M C O w
5,3 .S
e — -«
o J< o o in
O U -. o r~
S^, gg
-1 •
e a 4 «
« « C 3
e u -i q u
O -4 U 3 4
NOTES : 1 . Noncorap
mlac. a
2. En»ln«e
3. Total Ai
factor
5-21
-------
M
g
S
z
u
§-» O **
u. i-i O
H
Q < O
-c U.
""a5*
•• a **
^ flu
j» jj
W 5
0 flu
H >•
1
2
M
^
1*4
e
H
B
z
^
M
Ul
a
ICATIONS
to
M
c -4 _. e i
o n — • p
-4 . • tf O 1
«* U — 1 • It 1
e 001* i
• u *.
u u te M •
• • 0 O
•O 1*4 M
U M O 1
-4 • • .0 • 1
4 C V *^ ^ O 1
Ox j( « U '
M C « U . £
-4 • O •» —
MB M o i
m » or u • ED vim
• • > a i
CO C O. C J H HI
•" 8-4-8 Z
e 3 K • - <
• *' a | £ w £ a.
j< -Q o -4 U irt O
[* • u -• • Q W > 1
• -> ao -
w -j is .a • S «
• u • • - — -a It
Mil <• •» », > J« -" 3
• C • • • « -a g -~ Q,
ililllli-i-s 2!
U 1 •• •••**ON*3
o. " 3 u 3 o o«4
• w • X . < g « u
over or — cc *•• «o w
•2 "« 7"5"s "» I1 • * « 3
c
-4
O
4
U
-4
M !•
•O 0
•4 jQ
3
Ul w
• h
Jtf • • •
q • • • > • •
i • K O & 3
M 5 W - ff
w -• J> 3 u
• • • o ck o
• a ». • -q
• 3 • a. 2 w u
8-4 • « < «9
er w u u S S o
14 • o a. o
ax •*•• « 9 Cr x o
a • • fl • • 3 o M
• o I 3 u i a o «
• « w a • • o u u, «>
• • B» K -4 >• H
1 • ^4 < *4 g W)
»*tCL^ftW^«l U O
>F ! - S S o « a
HtJwSu O
83323''2'' *"
i l i l l l l l i 1 l U
« m o* f*. ^
^ •* 0> -• CD !••
N "^ •* *
o O O o» m ^4 m
M «n CM !o ^
04
O "
7 7 ? * 7 7 7
U U U O U (J U
r
a.
M
O
**4
i*
•o
•4
3
• -2
5
M •
•4 U tj
• • • 4)
•• • •*
4 *H * { tH
• W g M
4 • W
TANKS- Includlot 1
CLARIFIERS
AERATION - blow«n
PUMPS - ARCY, RAS,
FILTERS - acructui
SUPERNATANT TREATS
ALUM FEED
O *4
**
" -»
I* M
00 CO
s *
fM -^
A*
si
M X
TOTAL CO)
ENGINEERING AND C(
CM
i^ 00 ^ 00
00 *^
00 <-0 -* 4
-* O» M O
^ 00 00 -O
^
^H
I-4
OM
1-4
S
i
V)
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES (201
INTEREST DURING CC
LAND
<"l O 1 I- n rj
I -ii
U *n u 0
o
H ^
^ i S
^ i 2
§28
Z I/I
i i ?
O H oi i- a:
z o r ui
5« « B i
< •< B 5
o 2 J o e.
T~ 00
« S
^ IN
W9 «
49 r"i
f-i
S (N
GO •>
«>
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
•o
C
C u
*J 0
4 U
W d
4 h*
1 3
« a
-* u
n
• 00
QA O
C -i
a a
a *
•o -
M />
H -
X
Ml
C 0
O u
40 t
w U M
C • -«
v -o ^ a
3 "0 * o
W "4 ^ T3
« C b
C C 0 N
- *j — < r*
-4 U > 3
• 3 u C
U w II C
— i M Q, IP c ;
B w -^ C w
0 -4 14 S «
f" t * U
C -. 0
O O -« (fl -
C n «o w o
O -4 C O *l
Z £ W r- —
U
i
5-22
-------
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
.
H
g
z
o
Q M Vt
Z Ul H
-j Q >
I
M
X
S
l-r
g
Z
VI
Ul
o
VI
DIFICATION
i
j^.
i
.a
33 -^
• 8 S
I-, 5
H4 . O
— u
CD • *
O .* -4 J
-4 (3 « -i
e H * «
• •
•» >4
ute o -o
S • S 5
.3 : .g
u K •
- e «•> w
M -4 U *4
J» • O O fi If
q « • 4 a c
3 Q. <-> j< ao -4
u g • c • >o -o
3 u • u ->
• a u -a -4
u • J<-43
• u ? e c! — J»
S-. -o u • x
-4 • O • U
o • o -4 <•* »> e
u a.— > o « o
0 0 O 4
•O 14 b. u •> 4
• a.ut a 4 8
u — a — ui
•*4 4 M • -HO
_ « O — -4 •
• C 0 4 0 •
1 i 1 1 i 1 i
J
JC
r
w
• u
•M O
•O -4 A
5 -o
3 -< «
• • 3
3 W K U 5
• • • goo
• H • «•>
• • u CLJ> O
8- -4 c 4 a
(7 •
• r^
i i i i i i i
U U U U U U U
I
£
u
0
?
T)
•4
3
m
u -g
: 1
• u -o
1 * tk "* I
• -4 H M
• -o • -a >
-4 44 C M
->
S *
s-
« f-4
rt o
2
M
a>
£
S
J3
i
i
2°
M
H M
M Z
TOTAL CON
ENGINEERING AND CO
O
t-t
^ r4 >A
O M 4f <*>
1 • 1 1
u in u u
»j
3
MAINTENANCE MATERI
LABOR
CHEMICALS
POWER
a o
IN •a
SUBTOTAL
NUAL COST
A
a
« -o — a
3 -a o> u
14 -0 ~
w 4 -a
« c u
c c o N
^0-4-4
^1?|
5sM
u c » -a
u a c
v u e <•
—« o
0 u c O *•
C O w
-4 -O O «l C
C -41
• • e 3
c •> -4 e ,j
o -4 K c «
r« v <
•i »
• C ~ 0
U O -4 4 u
e 4 « u u
0 -< C 0 <»
z a u »> «4
•H (N n
5-23
-------
TABLE 5.9
CONSTRUCTION UNIT OOSTS (1)
Item
In place reinforced concrete - basins and general
In place reinforced concrete - clarifiers
In place reinforced concrete - baffle walls
Excavation - easily removed soil, short haul distance
Backfill - lightly compacted
Buildings - general purpose (per floor)
Buildings - laboratory and administrative
Ductile iron yard piping including fittings
and valves:
6"
8"
12"
18"
30"
Construction Labor
Land
Escalation factor used - ENR Od 4402, July, 1987
Notes Unit Cost
(1) $325/cu yd
(3) $340/cu yd
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(7)
(8)
(9)
$300/cu yd
$7.50/cu yd
$10.00/cu yd
$30/sq ft
$70/sq ft
$ 24/lin. ft
$ 31/lin. ft
$ 41/lin. ft
$ 70/lin. ft
$I10/lin. ft
$ 30/hr
$4000/acre
4403
NOTES
1. All costs include labor, materials, equipment and contractor's overhead
and profit, effective July, 1987.
2. In the large sized plants economies of scale can be realized and
appropriate scaling factors were used in calculating costs.
3. Concrete cost increased approximately 5% because of more complex form
work.
4. Baffle wall construction expected to be simpler than other concrete work.
5. All excavation costs in this report are based on easily removed soil with
a short haul distance. If rock is encountered, cost would increase
substantially. More efficient methods could be used in large plants which
is taken into account with the scaling factors selected.
5-24
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 5.9
(Continued)
CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS (1) (CONT'D)
6. Backfill will not be machine tamped since settlement is not considered to
be a problem.
7. Square foot unit costs were selected from Means Construction Cost Data -
44th addition (1986) and include electrical and mechanical equipment.
General purpose buildings for blowers, etc. were based on amalgam of
figures for warehouse and factory buildings. Administration and
laboratory additions used factors for office and laboratory buildings.
Cost includes structure, mechanical and electrical equipment.
8. Unit prices for ductile iron piping include an allowance for fittings and
valves.
9. Labor costs includes union scale, direct wages, fringes, supervision and
contractors overhead and profit.
5-25
-------
TABLE 5.10
BNR ROYALTY FEES
Plant
Design
MGD
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
Bardenpho ( 1 )
$ X 1000
36
60
201
337
769
A2O ( 2 )
$ x 1000
19
38
187
375
1126
NOTES:
1. Bardenpho royalty fee estimate
basis: Fee = $60,000 x Q°.75.
2. Air Products royalty fee for A2O
Process: $l,000/lb day Phosphorus
removed. Royalty fee estimate
above based on 6.5 mg/1 phosphorus
in influent and 2 mg/1 phosphorus
in effluent, for HLND process.
5-26
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
5.4 O&M Cost Development
The approach taken in the development of O&M costs was to
develop the incremental O&M cost increase for modification of
existing plants to the BNR processes as shown in Figures 5.1
through 5.8. the incremental O&M costs were developed for
labor chemicals, power, and maintenance materials. Each of
these items are discussed below.
Labor costs were first developed for existing extended
aeration, activated sludge, activated sludge plus nitrification
and fixed film plants using EPA staffing estimates for
conventional secondary treatment plants as a function of flow.
These staffing levels are shown in Table 5.11. The labor costs
associated with these staffing levels were determined using the
WPCF special report "Salaries of Wastewater Personnel" updated
by the EPA OM&R index. These labor costs are also shown in
Table 5.11.
The labor costs for the convential plant and BNR retrofitted
plants are shown in Table 5.12.
The electrical cost for each retrofit plant was determined by
calculating the incremental increase in H.P. for each plant
size and retrofit design and by applying unit electrical power
cost of $0.07/kwh which is the industrial rate for CBOB
facilities. The incremental power requirements are shown in
Appendix C-13.
The chemical costs include cost for alum addition, and lime
addition for anaerobic digester supernatant where applicable.
The unit costs of electrical power and chemicals are shown in
Table 5.13. The calculation of alum and lime cost is presented
in Appendix C-14. The basis of the required lime dosage and
calculation is presented in Appendix C-15.
5.5 Cost Curve Development
The cost information developed in this chapter is presented in
this section. The incremental capital cost for each of the BNR
retrofit designs is presented in Figures 5.9 through 5.16. The
incremental O&M cost curves are presented in Figures 5.17
through 5.24. The total cost with capital amortized at 8.875%
for 20 years is presented in Figures 5.25 through 5.32.
5-27
-------
TABLE 5.11
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
AND LABOR COST BASIS FOR CONVENTIONAL SECONDARY PLANTS
STAFF CATAGORY NUMBER OF STAFF PERSONS (
AND TOTAL ANNUAL COST $
0.5 1.0 5.0 10 30
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Superintendent 18,060 23,414 28,445 33,024 33,024
(1) (2)
Assistant Superintendent 26,445 52,890
(1) (2)
Operation Supervisor 22,640 45,280
(3)
Shift Foreman 61,920
(9)
Operators 161,379
(1) (1) (1)
Maintenance Supervisor 16,770 16,770 16,770
(2)
Laboratory Technician 41,280
(2) (2) (6) (7) (14)
Laborer 24,768 24,768 74,691 99,330 182,406
Total 42,828 48,182 119,906 198,209 594,949
NOTES: (1) Plant staffing requirements were taken from EPA Document,
Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. Man-hours in this Document are based on fifteen
hundred hours per year assuming a 5-day work week, and an average
29 days for holidays, vacations and sick leave, and 6 1/2 hours
per day of productive work.
(2) Plant labor cost were taken from WPCF Special Report, 1980
Salaries of Wastewater Personnel, which was updated using the
EPA CMSR Labor index 5528 for January, 1980 and the Labor index
of 7136 for July 1987.
5-28
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
g&
m en O O r— 1*5
S3:
»—t
2
4) C
N n<
(A
Ig,
0. «
Ul
1 r*- CD co
^ 00 ^
vo r* r* ^ GO
.—I fN CD
I O \O '
Sr^ i
fN .—t
in in p** CD oo
^ «» CO in .—I
r-^ fN CO
in oo P* ^H c^
m rsi cp in m
in CN oo oo &
in \o ^ m r-(
P-» ^ CO m I
« o *^ y? o% I
r* ^^ QD CD ^ i
CM • » » * * |
ro CD ro r^ |
..J m wa ^ r^>
S *H fN |
oo TM r^t *v '
o> r* CT* r** '
as;
-H o r- o ^
38835
r^ (*^ ri co ^
^ in m ri in
•1 CN 10
oo CN vo i
CN co o i
co ft on i
i en
' •»•
I cn
CN oo en co *
co CN to en i
sag a j
CN co cn co i
**aa i
ri CN at A e
ooomomog iflw 0
iN'»S$
0) -O u) 4) 4-S
4-1 U *J Ui
C • O C 3
S 4J ra -H o
E c •-1 ig t-i
B 4) > Z
Ui -n Ci —
•H C 5
ass-
(D c cn
V) IX)
u --i
i W it) n) c
^J , ^J^ ^^ ^,
w o o o e-
in
-------
TABLE 5.13 '
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
CHEMICAL AND POWER COST BASIS
COST ITEM
Electrical Power (7)
Chemicals
Chlorine (1)
UNIT
KWH
2,000 Ib cylinder
100 Ib cylinder
UNIT COST
$ 0.07
$ 0.255/lb
$ 1.07/lb
Lime (2)
Slaked-100% Basis
$ 67.50/Ton
Ferric
Chloride (3)
100% Basis Tank Truck $176.00/Ton
Alum (4)
Truck Dry Basis $120/Ton
Small Quantity Dry Basis $155/Ton
Fuel (5)
No. 2 fuel oil
6,000 gal quantities
$ 0.80/gal
NOTES: 1. Chlorine cost from Van Waters & Rogers.
2. Lime cost from Chemical Lime, Inc.
3. Ferric Chloride cost from Dupont.
4. Alum cost from Skyhawk Chemicals.
5. Fuel cost from Baltimore, MD., W.W.T.P.
6. All cost are based on Chesapeake Bay Area.
7. Electrical power from survey of CBDB utilities
(Industrial rates).
5-30
-------
1
1
1OOOOO-
a
o
IS
~
— 1OOOO,
§i :
s
I s
• %
u 10OO-
1 ! !
2
II
* 100
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
^x
^
r1
^
^^
s^
^
j
F
^
^
r"
.
X"
• 0.1 1.0 FLOW (ogd) 10.0
1
1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
1OOOOO —
1
1 !
IE
3
s
• s
• 2?
«3 1000-
1 S :
• z
v n
•• E
I ^
" ^ 100-
-"'
^^^
^
=
SF
I
"; »
1
1
"
s*
r*
^ *
^**'
, f^~
— i
^^
•P*
X
FIGURE 5.9
- •
1OO.O
FIGURE 5.10
,-
£
1.0 FLOW Ingti) 10.0 100.0
5-31
-------
FIGURE 5.11
EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
e»
O
^noon
CJ
_l
t~
•— 1
a.
U 10OO-
_J
c
iD
S
5,
"* 100-
^^^~
I*
^
0.1
0
4
[^
^^
^-*
|
^-*
|
p^-1
1.0 FLOW (nqd)
.•
1 _^-
--^
— ••
" 1
1
10.0 1OO.<
FIGURE 5.12
EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
1OOOOO-
s
1000
5
0.1
1.0 FLOW (ngd) 10.0
100.0
5-32
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
FIGURE 5.13
.ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH NITRIFICATION RETROFIT LLND
100000-
•10000
en
CJ
1OOO
100
0.1
,00
ioao
FIGURE 5.14
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH NITRIFICATION RETROFIT HLND
100000
•^oooo
3
CJ
1000
M»«
2
5
0.1
1-0 FLOW (ngd) 10-0
5-33
10O.O
-------
RGURE 5.15
FIXED FILM PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
1OOOOOJ
O
0
•«*
•^oooo
t—
CJ
2
1— 1
tJ 10OO-
•<
5 :
LU
2
^^
CJ
* 100-
0
s^
1
X"
x>
^
^
1
r J
.c
_sS^
^
> F
^S'
im
^
1 (
p-1
ng
dl
1
*•
a
^
0
i
^
k^'
^
'
-*•
1
„, *
OO.(
FIXED FILM PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
RGURE 5.16
10OOOO-
a
a
•^oooo-
es
^
a.
" 1OOO-
^ :
5,
-I^M.
a
^x
-^
.1
_^~
t
1.
^
o F
^
10M
^
I (
x-
ng
i
d]
-------
1
1
1
es
1 i
• 4*
2S 1000-
| P :
• 3
U
1 '
a 100-
i I
a
Icr
2
1-1
ACTIVATED
_^^
^x^"
^J
1
1
• ACTIVATED
1 I
JS 1000:
|c« :
g :
G3
0
I -
a K»-
«^
c
ffl
a
In*
i
i— i
•tAai
^x
x^
^>*
^
^
n
SLUDGE PROCESS
V
x
x "*
i \^S^
<"
^
^
RETROFIT
/
1.0 FLOW (ngd) 100
SLUDGE PROCESS RETROFIT
,>'
11
'
*s
j
f
X
f*
_^~
r
(LLND)
i
^
i ft
^
'
^
(HLND)
*•
<*
RGURE 5.17
^
ioao
FIGURE 5. 18
'
'
• ai to FLOH (mgd) 100 ioao
I 5-35
-------
FIGURE 5.19
EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
1000
1OO
s
5
5
10
ai
--
,
1
. —
!^
A F
0.0*
f (
og
x
d
x
I
»
*
14
.X*
jr"
9LO
^J
^^
fc^'
-X1
^
ioa
5-36
-------
1
1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1 |
0
1 5
• "mm
JS.
1 g i
u
1 :
™ 0 100-
' I i
a:
12
1-1 10-
^
^x^
^
x^
^
1
1
| ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1
S
4*
„ 1000;
JS
1,
i
1 ~
» a 1OO:
• S :
• 2
• i
2
5.
1 =
•-«
ItfW
x^
^
1
u
X
WITH NITRIFICATION RETROFIT
J
^
X*
x^1
xl
i
^
J
•^
_
^
IX
x-
^<
1.0 FLOH (ngd) iao
WITH NITRIFICATION RETROFIT
^
-1
x-
t
X
^
,
^^
f
1
^^
lx*
-x'
•J
FIGURE &21
LLND
-*
10OO
FIGURE 5.22
HLND
— ai 1.0 RON (ngd) 10.0 1000
| 5-37
-------
FIGURE 5J23
FIXED FILM PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
1OO
— 1000
3
CJ
100
10
ai
l
10 FLOW (agd) 10.0
ioao
FIGURE 5.24
FIXED FILM PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
1OOOO
1000
100
ai
1.0 FLOW (ngd) KXO
ioao
5-38
-------
1
1
1OOOO'
c?
1 i
^ 10OO
1 e :
• s
CJ
I i
>- 100.
i i
LU
« cr
1 ^
• •— •
^* m.
ACTIVATED
^
J
I
I
I ACTIVATED
1OOOO :
1 i
2S 1000-
Icn
i
u
1 5
1- 10O-
|=i
iTl
3
1 =
• *-• 10.
^f
^x*^
\
SLUDGE PROCESS
r
*
x
^
\ V^
^1
RETROFIT (LLND)
r
X
•"
.^
\
1
^^
K"
fS
1-
FIGURE 5.25
1.0 FLOW (ngd) iao
SLUDGE PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
t-
^
^ *"
^S
^
^
s^
**
^4
f
jX
^>
F-
^
^
^
f
X
ioao
FIGURE 5.26
.»
• ai 1.0 FLOW (ngd) iao ioao
| 5-39
-------
FIGURE 5.27
FIXED FILM PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
10
1000
en
o
CJ
100-
10
0.1
1.0 FLOW (ngd) mo
1000
FIGURE 5.28
FIXED FILM PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
0
«*>
— 1000-
CJ
^
g
° 100-
_l
3
5,
1-1 10.
0
^
.1
x'
I
X
u
,
1.
sS^
\<
o F
_,
x^
T.IW
*^
(
DC
d]
I 1
..r^
ao
j
^
i
^
^
x
P;,
100.
5-40
-------
1
I ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1OOOO
1 I
10OO-
1 i i
u
1^
£
t- 100-
• ^ i
I 5
LU
1 =
• •— •
^" -in.
s*
x'
x1
X
1
1
1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE
1
1 i
_ 1000:
JS
1 g i
CJ
1 i
i- too-;
• ^ :
H
a
_ >T*
1 ^
• l~*
^™ *rt.
^
^
_^r
^
J*^
-
=!P
™
*
WITH NITRIFICATION RETROFIT
X
_^
^^
^x""
^
^
^
.^
1
•^
y
^,
x*
1.0 FLOW (ragd) iao
WITH NITRIFICATION RETROFIT
^
^x
^1
1
x'
ff
^^~
i f^~
x
^
FIGURE 5J2'
LLND
^ ™
ioao
FIGURE &30
HLND
^
X1
^
• ai 1.0 FLOW Ifflgd) mo ioao
| 5-41
-------
FIGURE 5.31
EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS RETROFIT (LLND)
toooo
0
** 1OOO-
—
.^
in
•2
g 100-
1
5,
2
5,
z
1-1 10-
a
x**'
1
x-
^
f
1
.J
.0
^^
^
• F
^x"*"
lt»
^x^
I
•q
d
1
a
^
o
i
ix
x*
r
^
1(
••
XX
FIGURE 5.32
EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS RETROFIT (HLND)
1OOOO-
o
** 1000:
2S
S,
CJ
i
<
? -WO:
_i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As noted earlier, these curves include all costs except the
royalty fee which uis shown in Table 5.10. Each curve was
developed by a linear least squares regression analysis of the log
transformation of the individual data points for each plant for
plant sizes of 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 and 30.0 ragd. The costs used
for each data point are summarized in Tables 5.1 through 5.8.
The cost curves were extrapolated from 30 to 40 mgd. A cost
equation for each curve along with the regression analysis has
been presented in Appendix C-21.
5.6 Sizing and Cost Development for Operation at Lower
Temperatures.
The capital costs shown in Tables 5.1 through 5.8 were developed
for reliable HLND and LLND targets at minimum wastewater
temperature of 20 C. Where equivalent reliability is required all
year round, the nitrification and denitrification detention times
and the corresponding process tank volumes must be increased to
compensate for lower rates of biological activity.
Table 5.14 shows the sizing for a temperature of 10°C in relation
to sizing determined for 20°C as per the equation applied in the
sample calulations shown in Section 3.3.3.
Table 5.14 TANK SIZING FOR OPERATION AT LOWER TEMPERATURES
Sizing Parameters
at Temperature Shown
Ratio of Sizing at 10°C
to Sizing at 10°C
Nitrification
SRT (days)
HRT ( hrs . )
Volume (mg)
Denitrif ication
HRT ( hrs . )
Volume ( mg )
20°C
3 (x SF)
3.3
1.38
1.42
0.59
10° C
4 (X SF)
4.4
1.85 (xSF)
4.4
1.83
1.66
1.66
1.66
3.1
3.1
.(T-20)
Rate-temperature relation:
Nitrification rate at temperature T = rate @ 20 C x (1.1008)
Denitrification rate § temperature T - rate @ 20 C x (1.12)(T-2°)
5-43
-------
Based on the ratio of tank sizing at 10°C to sizing at 20°C, the
Table 5.15 list the percent increase in capital cost for reliable
operation at minimum wastewater temperature of 10°C.
TABLE 5.15
INCREMENTAL (%) CAPITAL COST FOR BNR
RETROFIT AT LOWER TEMPERATURES
Percent Increase in Capital
Processes Cost for Operation at 10 C
HLND LLND
Activated Sludge 100% 148%
Extended Aeration 100%
Activated Sludge
with Nitrification 68% 133%
Fixed Film ' 148% 168%
5-44
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
I
I
•
•
APPENDIX A-l
TABLE 1
• ORIGINAL SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
> 0.5 MGD IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE BASIN
FURNISHED BY EPA
State Number of Plants
Pennsylvania (PA) 108
| Maryland (MD) 56
Virginia (VA) 51
• New York (NY) 20
• West Virginia (WV) 4
Delaware (DE) 4
• District of Columbia (DC) _ 1
TOTAL 244
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-1
-------
m r^
i <"••> x <"<•>
§
o
F-l
V
1
m
0
U
8
lz
u
a a.
g
|
5
Cu
j
M U
Q Qi
a ™
•>.&
ACTIVATED
SLIBGE WITH
NITRIFICATION
OTHEH
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
Q%
||
B
IE
g. 222 2 22
in in o in in
r-t rH in r-l ON r-<
'x o o o
rp • •
E CVJ rH fN r-t (N CN
XX XX XX
X X X X XX XX
X X
XXX X XX
XX X X X X X X XX
XX X XX
*n *-4 q\ m in in
oooooooooooooo'oooooooo'o
i *
rH r-l
CN CN rH
X X
XXX
X X
X XX
P* (^ CD GO O* O>
o o o o o o
U
• A
.
d
s.di
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 §
1
I
•
1
1
1
•
1
1
f-
i
UJ
g
2 a.
g
M
s
l-«
1
1
E K
Q S
3 Ct.
h. P
|!l
!lB
i|l
I!
2
11
u
I
M
U
—4
i"
c
,-t &
*\ rn
i1
xxxxx xx xx x x
x x
XXX
X XX XXX XX XXX
X X XX XXXX X XX
X X X X X XX
t^^»vOap^<"^^U"> u"1 (NrycN
tf\ tft u*i ii» 1/1 u> 1/1 \o vo ^o^or^r<><>«•
2 • • • Q • S fl S C ^: £ rt £ >• Z
^QQ OS Q 3C* *»«* * »»»^ u »•* •
^•SZ S S* ^«Ujflt0^0t lUA^Q)' • (d ^*Z4J*» >4
aO«»Q»*jQ«5aj-^-g'(fla)S3 r-(|B>H>a<>"Bi ~^£?l>t'''*1
.c|||jP u|IIIJ«|*p .lllsl5"^ >:loS = a^o'
Siiiili|iil!^iiilll ^wafslsl 'ililill
A- 3
-------
g
•H
EH
XX X
w
SI
8
> U w
(H rn h,
M *"^
c^l
XX
in oo
o o
X X
•n in S S
0000
ID »
a
U 03 O J CO
A-4
-------
I
<*n mrommm
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
O
QO.I CNfNtNfM CNCN
,!
V > W 1-1
I
<
TE
CITY/
i i §2§ii i 5
rn ft
§
O
tN(N (N(N
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X X X X
XXX XX XXX
I X H H MX
XXX XX XX X XXXXX
X XX
•-(•Hr-^r^r-li-lrHMiHr-li-liHi-lf-I^FHrtf-li-J^HiH^p^i-I^H^-ICNfSMfNtNlfMNMCNr^
£ *
• ft • i i
. S • S 4) flw •
^^|^^
>
*4!
«c cc
>,
• QJ.
a; •-< &
ffi -dS
rf rf > » <
'** o - • «
.
im
ie
ir
sv
A
e
Mansf
Miller
Highsp
Miller
--,>,O5«-tJH'64)
fHUI-l4JgiwjCBCai Q>^4
A- 5
-------
a.
u
Zl
o
o
a a.1
g
»-*
E-
00
,-t
o
X X
X XX
2m
HH 3 b.
X X
X X
5
c
O QC
EM O
Efc
X X
X X
CO
95
XX XXX
XXX XX X XXXX
0
I
10
"a
z z z z
Z Z
C < X O. X
• «
-5 iHW-
u) D •J
<,JD
r>4
Vj 1) fl ~H •-*
A-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ft.
U
Zl I
m <•">
i i
^ s
3 o
ii
O O
O O
g
t—t
2
R in
V
I
Qg
<
a
u
X X
XXX
X X X X X X X
XX X X
X X
X XX X
XXX
X X
X X X X X
X X
X X XXXX X XXX XXX
XXX
a S3
w
gSgq*1
• Si
A-7
-------
§ §
o
o
a a. i g CM (N f-t
s
XXX
xx
x
ig
XXX XX
XXX
XX X X
0g
2S
3888 3 8889839 383
g
en
. -- o zzz
SN-88.fi
43>-i ••< j3 u Q i-*nicr
IT >< • H m Q •" 'li-i J c
3 < <
W
W S
I
-S
1
I
A-8
-------
1
1
IS z
0.
[O
y
Iu5
3 a.
§
i i
i J
1 i 1
O QC
• 5 8 "
^B *% o
^^ ^ w • z
go go
ICQ w v &•* 5 "3!
S a i £> w 2
1 0 g|g
H in 4! J P
1 S "*
^^ H n
IS o t* C3
H go,
* Q5
^H Q *~^
•i s? S
U 3
1 la
as
1
1 -
S s
I i ?
• S B
S 5
1
rO m i^l ro r*^ Z 2
< I i5ii §§
i S O O C3 O O O
L^ O O ^> ^ f^* o
r-< 00-00
ECN(N (NrH CN OCN »H O
XX XXXXX X
XXXXX XX X
X XX X XX
X X X X X
XXXX X X XXXX X X
'O ^3 *9 ^3 ^^ ^^ *3 ^3 ^J C3 ^P ^3 ^3 ^3 ^3 ^3 ^3 ^H ^3 ^3 *^ ^3 r*** ^3
Q^ O(Ninr^^\OOiA*iO O OO O t^ O •"< O4 «S O r-t *S VO O
\x> « OD 91 r^ in
S 26
i# S J 3 tf tf >
5fiS *!« •».x* ^ t>* •
* f^ • £ 04 Q A Q 2 ^^ ^ *» 3 JH
on • Q) * rf U * • * S Z Z S» 13 * o^ j—*1 r* • * *
A- 9
s
ro
tN
j]
5
s
M
§
i
5
i
1
«
-------
21 i
o
o
5
«
Cb
06
T
1
.
3 2 88
H
»
I;
i
<
TE
CITY/
(N fN i *o en
rH •-( i-l v0 a ao
o CN
r-lt-l
(1) ' J3
•H ow !B b
flb S Ifl U4 (D
ID a in S
w . <
3 w ffi
• J3—
U U) • • »
4) fl «C rt C
jj 0 ffi a q
.».
' Q fl
2 ^
u •> ». .•!>.
2 w-S -SI* «rfMsC
» X ID
. 8 b b
Z X >» W
a
S
I
5
A-10
-------
1
1 ,. ^ l l m l
I*xlS 8 8 PS 8 «
U (N CO Q r-4 rH CN
»
•M S < 388 333
• I-H n- • • . • • • .
• QO.|E • > • • o\
n& sss s s 2 sa$;x£ s
• .. i i
• rf- ^2^2 3 1 j I
1 r» 2£ rf S •« »"u ** 8 S
• < g ^_* Si'Qi'l £'£es5^0 tS
§ 0
|« . 3 "8,32 ^ ^" -3 - *»
K J 1 JC Z Z B 58 fc< •< CB O
1
A-11
I
a
(N
-------
ooooe omc cm»ireocroe ooeoc-oo ci^oom
coccocc cc-cr- ir>coceo c^ocircc- c~ec —
*C C OC Ov»GC ^'r^CLff^wCO C^-CCCVCC C-CCC9
a i/l . . .••«.....>*..'<•••.••>>•<...............
a- 1/1 —c»f—ir\rr»ir irtr—inrc ine ir^^-u-ca> aair—tv• If
A a.
C ir. • • «
a
.a ~
a. C=EJ- »>» c c. c c. c s ccoocc oocciS) cbccc.cc ccoc^cmir -niroc c jiccir.oc oaoeof
i k. in cfr*.c*«too G«*oomoo cvcocv.
3> CM
<
c
i;
: (/. :
I- t- .......*...............>.........................>.....
lT>- _•
.T
c>-
i~ ccccccc CCG cc c cc o» c c cc-o cr-eocco e c c c
41— G^CC>Of C> C^'G CO O OO O4S O G GOG OG'vtOtf)O O O O O
T7 CCCCCCC CCC CO C OC O^ O G COO tfl^-^Cr-O O G O C
f-uj *n ^r>u^rH-^)i/'tf'- J^intn 91^1 IT. inm tnc i/t in ^>mm ov^tn^Dro in m in in
— cr ...•«•••«•»•••««•«•••«•••••••»«••••••••••«««•«•••««.«•
oco 7 /vtCttCa-acO' accw «•« 0 «t« aoct ^ OD ODAOB ^f^Oflb^o CB CD ao ^
U. U ^- •.(V^IS^-^^* ^•v.v v^ ^ •.«• v*w ^ v V.«B^ ^^^H^« • If 4 w> v« WM «>
t-u
•oU
ac a c cccccc ccc a
C7 CL - O CCCOOC CCC —
a (- [[[
V: _J O (V v. M (H (<• «• x IN(M»> O
^.a
C -
_t-
U.»* '""i/>*~^C<~COfC.r'COCG COOGCGU^GG OCGOOOr^OGOOOGOCG
_' CC«v.f Cf C C C C C CCC <• C CCCOCCr-GC COCCI
03
j u a i/ (Ncr^cccGc CGCOC utc »• oc c/^GGvor- 0000000.00000*0000 ooococcoco
X i/; »-. or-— i- £a " M fc-U
§ " CT
[d 5 «' c r.c-cor.c.Gof r.c.c C'coGOco«or>o«DOooooc.oo3o>ocf GOOOOOOOOOOOC.OGCJG
a. 2 a >- « c c c ^ f^« c i/ cc-oc c cc c cc— *a.« cr^u-.^ooooc cr-<^«^r-t. ooccoGor-cccc-occc-c
*
>-C — c
3>- U. c
t-
l/ltt
~^f
y.+* » u a«l- a.u _io.
e-9 •-•- <» »--3a « o *•»-
au; 2? *• in&« i- HM »»
u m «u> >- a. « x> >•
>.z * _;; ^ ct->u u; wac acw) *»»*- .^r-c ^*u »« t-w uuuiMOflCCu^a.1-. i u. izxae «u- ««
x ^ t-b. ex a»a x « o.ui»->Uk.x u-u t-o at-uin » »-= UJ at zh.0 •<,•»
L,K » =a u «HW ac w> ^«< a.**ctv. + i t-zroe z«ai-> MJ «ca **u
V? u o ui*> - c>u «
«u; » » j- u. at u.»~uiu. * i- ^>w n^uj ui u o>-«o uir « ocrb.z
u~ _ r t-u.c.b. bkhCzaKX « • c^>-^u.'ar£r3- ja ut-co a
O.J a. a «U C 2C «»- OU.» WO u) • «*-*-O *- • MlUiO IO
«u — C1 u>«7 i* c ar«n ^oo oa a>«2^« i-sro
i/ib. a. r.7v u ui ^ i uy
u'u. a: ^-u.oub. tfao-oa »-i- 3 • 2-0
X b.t-3 W.HCC= WC^I— tUZt-^V^JQ. O«JXOt- I- l«^t- 7Xt-«»-fl(»-«e». •-! «O 3 II- • =»Z>-UJt->— IJ Ul
oz o«c«b.- za«3«t-a;c«-i«n:>i 0.0 t-f
3»UJ»-K«3«JU1»=> >MU>O.»»(J>UMOU ZZU
zcirc ~« w cc
r> 3i-«>Cb.<*aiA c.t-z>-«« -c .-;
ra»- j«-u.zief "-
^ z cca sc<^=
-sX. u
» L^UU.U fa c cccc.cct.cccc cocccac-ccoccrc ococ^ooceioc-.cc CCCDOCOC c c
>- co&cc' >irxi»ii» xxx^^xxxxxxxa xii xxxxxxxxxxi xrxvxaz a ZTXV
K
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
r «• c c c c c r~o c c * c c c w c cc c c ccc o cc c o cc c cec e ccc c c c cc cc c c c c ccc c cc
a a i/ccccr-cccr^u*c — cccc.ceccccccccccccccccoccccccccccccccc.ee
V- If. • ••••••••»......»•••.««•«•.•«•»•••.•««••«••••••••«•«•«
•f oi/^c-c ir^crcr-cTr>,tri/-c'C'ccccccccccccccceccc:cocccococcc"C'cccccf-C'
r ..."... .1"
a r-ir«<1v.—.r<»>r-»(•>—
c
i i/.
«. *- ^r -J .„ ct~>c*r~tr>
TJ oc.r- o oe.r r t»-or <-> c oo/».cc. ecr-eio«"O«M<
« c» 1-1 i> a -; u, c (. c i
>-f- it- i :i x • —i. — a r u a »
CT* rof-cy uaro^—*>«fe- cx»-»- : ^
3u? U-i— in H«'- -i.a' 4.a o. a- *• »^»y r* t-^-^ « nri~3-ja.a T «"r >• a.
i^a i art-u, =• u«c »• ?. f- i- f-^
i^t> ^ ^ > ».t-cv> r uo u HC^CX^ fC'a a.us
s_.*?« t- a. r _^acar-sa.'^.u- r ~3.nj
j.*- t-.. aruuu. i~tr (-cc 2 u.' ^^.^-j «-c. »«r i- «o z>«>-t-». rear-i-H. 1-1
u. r ... v.t- i(- —»->-un <3 acwu o^c> ca ru u—aa —ou_a C2-3 ~3—cau
«c7 « tt?^.7«.iru^-""~s riK ^« a. ei- _K»-U c.i^>->-«r«i."Piai 0.2« cr — i_-«iz3 i c
u u' t.. > >c c j •*-(..i. «ou^^ <-.. i i f-cT« »:> >-x > = trr r
= « 3.f-r- .»-r>-c>-* •* t- «i. i-o a j.11- ta **. jt-ii- c itti _
(j u. u .-"-i if: HI- c. —i-•>>->••-«i- t- (-f-w.ua i- »<-^ —«»c >>~>2b ~v
— a.
— t- r c « oa u.u z >c a 7 - >~c t- c IT c c
L cr- — wr-<» fsc^w
c
-------
•f.
(X
v c c o-tro*^*^ — vc^ •
a- rf
U C
I"
««- CO
IS V
V-U 1-
a —
u u
r_ u - T"i-i*f rc
_ »• r c t^». >t c (Nrf c f^rf c e yirc e i/^c c c c c •> ir r: c /-« c u- c c c ic r^c
u— -v • ......... • ....... .............. ...... ......... .......
o/"a a c • — >•
_ i c c r i- (- a « I- a 3- ^ »- - a. a « 2
>-fc-^. T a a •- _!>• «- u O.»K*O J. at
^r***-fr- Mt-*- o ^v-awK »r D^-or 9»-7t*'H-«7u^*»-r~
—<^.T:~ _ — — — o u c.n i n t- i>-^« =•>• i- jit-< i _; u. t- ^ 3 » T
>-Z3? <« >-»• « u ox Tr — ar _• a u: i~
.-. _ ^ - < ~ i- -»-_« u —^ a i i :j -t av.-ct-a c u 3
.:«:_, ^- u r J z = — zra a «u •-« t-i. a_t-v •- (.ua<-e
*^c «•« « c. n z. (— a^^ ^^ z««< :rt* rr^^) 4< H^T ^r(^3^uxc^ z
r.^-iAoa ^ i:_ :r»t- uv. e. -jr.- ua i s e-^ ti^u «c «. i i- i
a^jL— _ = «. ^wa»-
*? y »- ^- a. ^ ^- » i— cj"^3^> (" xr^f~>T*
&ra:2>- ceo « cc o-aa trc ac
a > u c ^a« ux>-a.s a z=.a r^ji-zcr .
»- srriri it-Caere or^r£.ii3 w.c a L-e — o «T3.-— .
•
.
racr t-t»a •- «»r au cs r c wo u i. c.u wra iac^ aa
i ^- — arc- u i^ — i. C^7 i = jir ai^ irti a«a- car « < -i a.r
c o ^«=2 »n » ».ca -; cc.c e cu->-ic cza c ; u. « =c»c
a £i=*.»-z» o«:>;=uO(n~;sKa.x;zxxH*-« ^
a. -sx>- »-^sinuu;»ir ccc rv.«(>>a:co &«iac s w:i i/
.«>-^--;_)C' U.U.T- w» jjir,i-ii^««»c— a ju;««C7a-*i7O i •->«>-. a >-..di- 3=07 3 i-3r
i cc -c £ >»za «:•-•- aa a»c zcrirt ac: t-waai •« uu VKCAS^ a-u. «;*•* ^u.2 •« u
'
^---.i/ K_rir^r-s««a ou ^t a H L u 32 s a_u r»a i TC c -^->-i- at- -'-a
T — I;T~. y s -jj: » >.••» -««y •»^s-u'^._'r.-33 _iT j_~nu;cj> c^^'« v;- > —'_;— —
vr«<-.-*uu.r i>-»- '_ =
« » — : . -at • "- -
a c--«N.<'»tr«cr-«»c— p-^
a Q •»••«« •!»<»«»<»
A-14
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I- If CC C CC C C C C C C C C CC C CC CCC C C <
o a ccccccroccccccccccccccccccocccccoocc<
O ./ CCC-CCCCCCCC-CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC-CCT!CCCatCCCC• c
• a
c —
3 y IT CC
fr.uJ J~ C J1O
r a .....•••«••«••••••••«•••••••••••••••«•••«••
a — ^ ^ tzy*
c c cc cc c cc cc ccccccc
ZCCOCCCCCCC
r 14 *- c - r- ,- - r r .~. v e- -*c~ r. a .* f f * ^
CC OlTO (S« C IT.«S •
- (-:>. it-
. l a c i. i- « •- »-w : c
c. : t- >- — t- l- '-L. i- u».*)^u.
^.aKf ii«u.« or u;t- i-it-u:jc r;
: j >- u t- u U' »-3>-u KIT
t-uit- 3 iu»- • ui
••» z r a ir>»; »^ >->ar aru u
r i^ec o s ri-««-.a:^ •-«-««:
-t- ?-«*-i i.r -,: —r-
c '^
at- i '^
«j.«— it u ct- c s.a i-
-c. (->a«-c ca
L a. e,c i L —*.«.«•. a i.c.3
?<«<»i>.r-ta^ix= i—
»- 1» t- * c ;> :. _»- u ir N
^vu v. z o i: if K v. K. »- u: :. _ v;«f-za t- *^
>-r —•«= « c u :r o C ^
u _ j- «••!<;•-.•- ^ c r a < c a i L LL — _i> L i _ 2 c « c — u " a «^ * «< c «_ « >•— x-a—
u;«;i' — j c: - i.r-^ i.t L- w
— — fa cr»-
-------
— »r»cuB>mc'irocooou'*oiroc c VPC oc o
eeooooo<£tvi-oor»eoar»«ccrT-c (Nwioir e w^cf^eeer-cccc
^-cf^c c *-c o^^f* c '*iccc^»*^or«op**i«c — yc ir^ccc c1
c
I-
c
C
c
c
o
OC5
cc
»»ccc cacccccc
a_; 7
GUI-
O«IM>O« ^r-m^
•••••••••••...
r«»-«>e — — c— «T»T —
ac a
" ; 3. —
« t~ ....
f:jc
•» a
C 1^
_(-
u —. r. r;
» e e
» o c
fff ^ rt er
»- u a * —
>-a a
If \~ *£. C
?
—
..
o
c-oc
cee
re Oirococ rf-
cc or-ce^c f^
<--i/«oe-r
»^ a rsoeeoo*' eoooe-c-oc coeoee.«.r.-
ui- i- a «-u. c
t-cc c >•
.1 . M/> . .
y «• ri-c r>s.r is
_;^j j-»r — i-r aaat *
u— l c -u.; < yau'
i— cu.r r t-r »^..we
r«ee»c—«s.<««ir.'«r-«»c—«s*'»ir«:r««o-c — fvm^if .er-eco c—
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
1
Ii
•-
1°-
a
£
• So.
i
1$
1
1 1
< 2
P X
§ffil
is
(^ it
•I if
• Q 2 g
•*• •- UJ 3 3
X o U»'«oW
iona>fgcg<0
w*kJW^«9oi!;5ss«»
o « o, « oj o r «> «? 2 S «
« a> r*
o
Jrt
CO
o
0>
o
00
o
r»
«
co
-------
CN
I
QQ
CN
X
« w
*J
S ^
S S
»4 =*
or*
|ij 35
is
li
§i
2 W
11
g
!S
'i
3
— ooooooooo 6
cv •? o> le c\j <•> •- ro co oj oj p n
6°b°6cio6b666 b
mo>^'wCM'»r^f».o»(Oc?uj oj
c\joa>^»-oJCNJ»-^*'«-i»- CM
O.
I
& n f* *> •*• •*•*- — •*••*•*•*- • «
lll
B-2
-------
1
1
I
t
J °-
o
1
• 5
1 3
1 1
£ 2
j; t—
1
M .j I
§o-S
E£ 5
Si o
I i 1 •
rf? ~
1
1g
d
o
1
Z
1
Io
100
I
c
o
1
1
1
lAIOOta 05 00 CM ui ^
a> oo to 04 *
*^355l«J3S~Snrt *
nut a} [JJ
CM ^ rt C^ ^ ^» rt N ^ *• ^ '
(M
S 2 S * £ n n N 12 2 3 £ n
"*""" *•--*-- - ^
--•»- »-h»«M-»« «
*•
>. J J|
1 2 5 ~ m S S -X « § 2
C ^^ fM ^ 2? C ^~ ?? Q^ 4 2 K O
"^ < "
B-:
1
^
5
,
«
i
3,
a
I I
2 1
I f
2 5
"3
4 v.
1 *
I "*
« •
S" 8
u f 4
a^ ^ 'S
|l 1 |
i— ^ S
i cr c ^
So ? :
}
-------
APPENDIX B - 4
TABLE 4
TARPON SPRINGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT
MONTH/1987 FLOW (mqd) BODS TSS TOTAL N TOTAL P
January
February
March
April
Average
2.25
2.52
3
2.85
2.66
1.7
2
2.2
2.7
2.15
2.3
3
4.2
9.5
4.75
3.11
3.25
3.37
7.89
4.41
2.8
3.68
4.2
3.8
3.62
Notes: No alum addition
MLSS - 7,500 mg/l
estimated influent TKN - 35-40 mg/l
TP - 7-9 mg/l
Effluent Permit
TSS - 6.26 mg/l
BOD - 6.26
TOT N - 6.26
TOT P - 3.15
B-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
EXTENDED AERATION - HLNR
Tank and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 20 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow race: 600 gpd/sq.ft,
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank. Type det. time (HR)
An 1
Ax 1
Ae 6
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank Type
An
Ax
Ae
CLARIFIERS (16 ft. walls, 1.5 ft
Area Required, sq.ft.
Diameter, ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Concrete Volume, cu.yd.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant
Retrofit plant, add'l area, acres
0.5
0.42
3376
833
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.17
-0.25
1.0
0.83
6752
1667
0.04
0.04
0.25
0.33
-0.5
5
4.17
33758
8333
volume
new tanks
0.21
0.21
1.25
1.67
-2.5
10
8.33
67515
16667
, MG
0.42
0.42
2.50
3.33
-5
30
25.00
202545
50000
1.25
1.25
7.50
10.00
-15
Mixer Horsepower
1
1
2
2
free board, 14
417
23
709
63
3.5
0.2
833
33
1098
97
6.5
0.3
10
10
21
21
63
63
.5 ft. SWD)
4167
73
3673
300
11
0.5
8333
103
6591
514
17
0.8
24990
126
2 units
18804
1428
27
1.3
C-1
-------
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
3IOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
EXTENDED AERATION - LLNR
Tank, and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 20 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft.
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate. MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank Type det. time (HR)
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
2
3
10
3
0.5
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank Type
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
0.5
0.42
3376
833
1.0
0.83
6752
1667
5
4.17
33758
8333
10
8.33
67515
16667
30
25.00
202545
50000
volume
new tanks, MG
0.04
0.06
0.21
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.13
0.42
0.13
0.02
0.42
0.63
2.08
0.63
0.10
0.83
1.25
4.17
1.25
0.21
2.50
3.75
12.50
3.75
0.63
0.39 0.77 3.85 7.71 23.13
-0.031 -0.062 -0.3125 -0.625 -1.875
Mixer Horsepower
4
6
21
31
31
42
63
63
CLARIFIERS: No additional clarifiers required.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plane 3.5 6.5 11
Retrofit plant, add'l area, acres 0.0 0.0 0.0
17
0.0
125
188
188
27
0.0
C-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
J
I
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE- HLNR (A)
Tank, and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 6 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft.
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank Type det. time (HR)
An 1
Ax 1
Ae 6
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
cu.f t .
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.5 ft
tank width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank Type
An
AX
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
0.5
0.13
1013
1333
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.17
0.04
5570
338
20.0
20.0
1
1.0
0.25
2025
2667
0.04
0.04
0.25
0.33
0.08
11140
675
20.0
35.0
1
5
1.25
10127
13333
volume
new tanks
0.21
0.21
1.25
1.67
0.42
55700 1
3376
20.0
85.0
2
10
2.50
20255
26667
•
, MG
0.42
0.42
2.50
3.33
0.83
11400
6752
20.0
110.0
3
30
7.50
60764
80000
1.25
1.25
7.50
10.00
2.50
334200
20255
20.0
200.0
5
Mixer Horsepower
1
1
-
67
1296
768
481
2
2
-
103
1656
981
606
10
10
-
337
5656
3352
1186
21
21
-
609
9576
5675
1560
63
63
-
1673
25056
14848
2638
C-3
-------
APPENDIX C-1
CLARIFIERS (16 ft. walls, 1.5 ft free board, 14.5 f.t. SWD)
Area Required, sq.ft.
Diameter, ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Concrete Volume, cu.yd.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant
Retrofit plant, add'l area, acres
417
23
709
63
3.5
2.0
833
33
1098
97
6.5
3.0
4167
73
3673
300
11
4.5
8333
103
6591
514
17
6.6
24990
126
2 units
1880-*
1428
27
10.2
C-4
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE - LLNR (A)
Tank, and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 6 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft,
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MOD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank Type det. time (HR)
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
2
3
10
3
0.5
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
cu.ft.
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.5 ft
tank width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank Type
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
0.5
0.13
1013
1333
1.0
0.25
2025
2667
5
1.25
10127
13333
10
2.50
20255
26667
30
7.50
60764
80000
volume
new tanks, MG
0.04
0.06
0.21
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.13
0.42
0.13
0.02
0.42
0.63
2.08
0.63
0. 10
0.83
1.25
4.17
1.25
0.21
2.50
3.75
12.50
3.75
0.63
0.39 0.77
3.85
7.71
23.13
0.26 0.52 2.60 5.21 15.63
34813 69625 348125 696250 2088750
2110 4220 21098 42197 126591
20.0
110.0
1
20.0
110.0
2
20.0
210.0
5
20.0
420.0
5
20.0
310.0
20
Mixer Horsepower
2
3
3
258
4536
2688
1228
4
6
6
411
7056
4181
1394
21
31
31
1737
26216
15535
2721
42
63
63
3443
50576
29971
4463
125
188
188
9908
137376
81408
6952
C-5
-------
APPENDIX C-1
CLARIFIERS: No additional clanfiers required.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant 3.5 6.5 11 17 27
Retrofit plant, add'1 area, acres 2.3 4.3 7.3 11.3 18.0
C-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE - HLNR (B)
Tank and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 3 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.lt.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank. Type
An
Ax
Ae
det. time (HR)
1
6
Total volume addtional tanks
mi11 ion gal
Additional volume required, MG
cu,tt.
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.) ft
tank width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank Type
An
Ax
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
0.5
0.06
506
1333
1.0
0.13
1013
2667
5
0.63
5064
13333
volume
10
1 .25
10127
26667
30
3.75
30382
80000
new tanks, MG
0.02
0.02
0.13
0. 17
0. 10
13925
844
20.0
40.0
I
0.04
0.04
0.25
0.33
0.21
27850
1688
20.0
80.0
1
0.21
0.21
1.25
1 .67
1.04
139250
8439
20.0
100.0
4
0.42
0.42
2.50
3.33
2.08
278500
16879
20.0
210.0
4
1.25
1.25
7.50
10.00
6.25
835500
50636
20.0
420.0
6
Mixer Horsepower
1
1
122
2016
1195
647
2
2
212
3456
2048
979
10
10
737
11736
6955
1643
21
21
1424
21696
12857
2555
63
63
4070
59296
35138
4629
C-7
-------
APPENDIX C-1
CLARIFIERS (16 ft. walls, 1.5 ft free board, 14.5 ft. SWD)
Area Required, sq.ft.
Diameter, ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Concrete Volume, cu.yd.
23
'09
63
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant 3.5
Retrofit plant, add'1 area, acres 1.7
833
33
1098
97
6.5
3.1
4167
73
3673
300
11
5.3
8333
103
6591
514
17
8.2
24990
126
2 units
18804
1428
27
L3.0
C-8
-------
I
I
I
a
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE - LLNR (B)
Tank and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 3 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft,
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank type
det. time (HR)
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
2
3
10
3
0.5
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
cu.ft.
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.5 ft
tank width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank type
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
0.5
0.06
506
1333
1.0
0.13
1013
2667
5
0.63
5064
13333
10
1.25
10127
26667
30
3.75
30382
80000
volume
new tanks, MG
0.0*
0.06
0.21
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.13
0.42
0.13
0.02
0.42
0.63
2.08
0.63
0.10
0.83
1.25
4.17
1.25
0.21
2.50
3.75
12.50
3.75
0.63
0.39 0.77
3.85
7.71
23.13
0.32 0.65 3.23 6.46 19.38
43168 86335 431675 863350 2590050
2616 5232 26162 52324 156973
20.0
130.0
1
20.0
130.0
2
20.0
220.0
6
20.0
440.0
6
20.0
390.0
20
Mixer Horsepower
2
3
3
312
5256
3115
1394
4
6
6
506
8176
4845
1560
21
31
31
2108
32096
19020
2970
42
63
63
4018
62016
36750
4795
125
188
188
12211
171936
101888
11553
C-9
-------
APPENDIX C-1
CLARIFIERS: No additional clarifiers required.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant 3.5 6.5 11 17 27
Retrofit plant, add'1 area, acres 3.0 5.5 9.3 14.4 22.9
C-10
-------
B
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
•^B
1
I
I
1
i
i
i
i
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
SYSTEM:
SINGLE STAGE NITRIFICATION - HLNR
Tank and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 10 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: *fl9 gpd/sq.ft
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant :
Flow Rate, MGD 0.5 1.0 5 10
Aeration Basin Volume, MG 0.21 0.42 2.08 4.17
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft. 1688 3376 16879 33758
Clarifier Area, sq.ft. 1333 2667 13333 26667
ADDITIONAL TANKS
volume
Tank, type det. time (HR) new tanks, MG
An 1 0.02 0.04 0.21 0.42
Ax 1 0.02 0.04 0.21 0.42
Ae 6 0.13 0.25 1.25 2.50
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal 0.17 0.33 1.67 3.33
Additional volume required, MG -0.04 -0.08 -0.42 -0.83
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank type Mixer Horsepower
An 1 2 10 21
Ax 1 2 10 21
Ae -
CLARIFIERS: No additional clarifiers required.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plane 3.5 6.5 11 17
Retrofit plant, add ' 1 area, acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C-11
30
12.50
101273
80000
1.25
1.25
7.50
10.00
-2.50
63
63
_
27
0.0
-------
SYSTEM:
APPENDIX C-1
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
SINGLE STAGE NITRIFICATION - LLNR
Tank and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank type det. time (HR)
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
2
3
10
3
0.5
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
required, cu.ft.
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.5 ft
tank, width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank type
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
i Detention Time: 10 hours
flow rate: 4rOO gpd/sq.ft.
An and Ax zones : 50
0.5
0.21
1688
1333
0.04
0.06
0.21
0.06
0.01
1.0
0.42
3376
2667
0.08
0.13
0.42
0.13
0.02
5
2.08
16879
13333
volume
new tanks
0.42
0.63
2.08
0.63
0.10
hp/MG
10
4.17
33758
26667
, MG
0.83
1.25
4.17
1.25
0.21
30
12.50
101273
80000
2.50
3.75
12.50
3.75
0.63
0.39 0.77
1435
3.85
7.71
23.13
0.18 0.35 1.77 3.54 10.63
23673 47345 236725 473450 142O350
2869
14347
28694
20.0
70.0
1
20.0
140.0
1
20.0
180.0
4
20.0
290.0
5
Mixer Horsepower
2
3
3
185
3096
1835
896
4
6
6
339
5616
3328
1477
21
31
31
1212
18816
11150
2306
42
63
63
2340
35494
21033
3385
86082
20.0
210.0
20
125
188
188
6757
94176
55808
3551
C-12
-------
• APPENDIX C-1
• CLARIFIERS: No additional clarifiers required.
Land Area Requirements, acres
• Existing plant 3.5 6.5 11 17 27
• Retrofit plant, add'1 area, acres 1.8 3.4 5.7 8.8 14.0
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
C-13
I
-------
APPENDIX C-1
SYSTEM:
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
FIXED FILM - HLNR
Tank and Clanfier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 0 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank type
An
Ax
Ae
det. time (HR)
1
I
6
Total volume addtional
million gal
tanks
Additional volume required, MG
cu.ft.
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.5 ft
tank width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank type
An
Ax
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
0.5
0.00
0
1333
1.0
0.00
0
2667
5
0.00
0
13333
10
0.00
0
26667
30
0.00
0
80000
volume
new tanks , MG
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.17
0.17
22280
1350
20.0
70.0
1
0.04
0.04
0.25
0.33
0.33
44560
2701
20.0
140.0
1
0.21
0.21
1.25
1.67
1.67
222800
13503
20.0
220.0
3
0.42
0.42
2.50
3.33
3.33
445600
27006
20.0
340.0
4
1.25
1.25
7.50
10.00
10.00
1336800
81018
20.0
250.0
16
Mixer Horsepower
I
1
176
2736
1621
896
2
2
321
5616
3328
1477
10
10
1334
17936
10629
2472
21
21
2252
34176
20252
4231
63
63
7566
90816
53817
7259
C-1 4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
APPENDIX C-1
CLARIFIERS (16 ft. walls, 1.5 ft free board, 14.5 ft. SWD)
Area Required, sq.ft.
Diameter, ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Concrete Volume, cu.yd.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant
417
23
709
63
3.5
Retrofit plant, add'l area, acres 2.3
833
33
1098
97
6.5
4.3
C-15
4167
73
3673
300
11
7.3
8333
103
6591
514
17
11.3
24990
126
2 units
18804
1428
27
17.9
-------
APPENDIX C-1
SYSTEM:
BIOLOGICAL DUAL NUTRIENT PROJECT
FIXED FILM - LLN'R
Tank, and Clarifier Sizing for Retrofit
Existing Aeration basin Detention Time: 0 hours
Existing Clarifier overflow rate: 600 gpd/sq.ft.
Mixer Requirements for An and Ax zones: 50 hp/MG
Existing Plant:
Flow Rate, MGD
Aeration Basin Volume, MG
Aeration Basin Area, sq.ft.
Clarifier Area, sq.ft.
ADDITIONAL TANKS
Tank type det. time (HR)
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
3
10
3
0.5
Total volume addtional tanks
million gal
Additional volume required, MG
cu.ft.
area required, sq.ft.
Depth of water 16.5 ft
tank width, ft
tank length, ft
Number of Tanks
MIXER REQUIREMENTS
Tank type
An
Ax
Ae
Ax
Ae
Concrete Requirements, cu.yd.
Excavation area, sq.ft.
Excavation Volume, cu.yd.
Backfill Volume, cu.yd.
0.5
0.00
0
1333
1.0
0.00
0
2667
5
0.00
0
13333
10
0.00
0
26667
30
0.00
0
80000
volume
new tanks, MG
0.04
0.06
0.21
0.06
0.01
0.39
0.39
51523
3123
20.0
160.0
I
0.08
0.13
0.42
0.13
0.02
0.77
0.77
103045
6245
20.0
160.0
2
0.42
0.63
2.08
0.63
0.10
3.85
3.85
515225
31226
20.0
310.0
5
0.83
1.25
4.17
1.25
0.21
7.71
7.71
1030450
62452
20.0
310.0
10
2.50
3.75
12.50
3.75
0.63
23.13
23.13
3091350
187355
20.0
310.0
30
Mixer Horsepower
2
3
3
366
6336
3755
1643
4
6
6
595
9856
5841
1809
21
31
31
2558
37816
22409
3551
42
63
63
5086
73776
43719
6123
125
188
188
14574
204336
121088
9524
C-16
-------
I
APPENDIX C-1
CLARIFIERS: No additional clarifiers required.
Land Area Requirements, acres
Existing plant 3.5 6.5 n 17 27
Retrofit plant, add'1 area, acres 4.1 7.6 12.9 19.9 31.6
I
I
I
I
C-17
-------
4J
S3
3 .X IS
"i i C
TJ Ifl
I|
fl) 4J
S
3 o «t
'5'^
(rt (2
o £
— . /£
ro 2^
rH
^^
1^1 ^J
o **"*
nl C
33 -H
rH
«
N
|
4J
> £
1 S1
^^
^H tA
"oj
0)
^
8 3
vV
N
••H a)
CO Q
c^sls
rO VO ^^ rH f^ VO CO tO VO
n ^* <^o oo p** r^ r*^* r*"" *"fl*
rH
ooinoin ooino
ooencnoo oocncn
rHrHOOO rHrHOO
Q Q
W U
OS OS eocncNocn minr^-in
ro in vo r^ en ro o r** ^fl1
M M rHCNVO rHCNr-'V
rH
a a
M u invocNinvo CN T»« r^ ^
_ _ i-HrHCN rHrHCN^*
as a:
u u
C5 C5 vo vo vo vo vo vo vo vo vo
rH ^p oo r** ro en ro in r^
i< (f, rHrHCNmvO CNCOVOO
Z Z
<< << vOf*incNo orHinm
CN <» rH CN ro rH CN
EH g-i rH rH CN
J r4
'g J3 inoooo
O QrH-iH OrHinOO
m O CO S I-H m
C-18
-------
I
I
ro
CN
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
4-1
TJ C/J
CD O
4.J O
.£ -x S
*33 ((§
35
5 $
4J
CO
§ O «fr
'5'-X.
fa C
5$
*- <£
rH
P^
14-j 4J
.2 VM
I 5
rH
*
N
|
4J
5 £
1 ST
5 £
| -R
a 3
a)
N
•H aj
Q -P £
O S rg
Sil
00 00 en (Tl CN
^H CN O f- 00
i— 1 rH ^"
m m o m o
rH rH rH O O
Q
W
^J^ 00 ^J^ ^O ^l^ 02
in T m o CN
rH CN en r*» oo M
0
*r in en r» ^r Cd
rH rH CN 'V i— 1
rH «
CO
vo vo vo vo in fJ
ro r*» rH m oo
m m r"» i—i r*» <;
rH CN
z
m vo r-t m r*- •<
CN ro ^> r^ m
rH CN r- E-i
j
<
VO VO VO VO VO
in r- en rH ro z
CN rH o o en
in 00 CN CN rH O
CO ^O ^^
•H M
M
rH in ^j* in oo
o vo oo o m Q
H
•H O O rH rH
cn in rH o CN O
fl
> s
•H O
•P Vl)-H <
g am i
«• "Q id T
_,^J 3 o :
rH in r_| -H i-
JJ *•* W «W 0
C *"^ *H rH
O 03 rH T] M vV n
> 'y ^ moooo ••* js js -I
O rH O O rH in O O O *H *H 1
O CO tH rH CT) rf( 3 EC D
en ^^ Ln ^p ^s*
C3 en ^3 ^< ^*
fH rH VO O VO
<-( CN
in m o m o
rH rH rH O O
m CN o vo *r
en r*> in en <«p
rH in en vo
CN
en m rt ro m
rH CN ro ro
vo vo vo vo vo
>H m in -H in
CN m in oo oo
^* in m vo •*
rH CN OO &> rH
vo vo vo ^* vo
en rH iH en r^
O VO 00 ^" rH
en in oo m ^
rH co en
So ^" o m
rH en vo en
r-i rO r- rH
CN
in en CN o r»
oo co rH ^r m
•H en CN co r»
rH CN VO
,
§0)
co
1) -H A)
J14J O
3s a
r1'H *
0 IM
3 V4 rH rH 'flj
» M >T]
j 5 a "1 °. °. °. °. a -S
J -H Q 0 rH in 0 0 -H -H
C 3 M rH CO ft, S
o ^* o o o
rH in en en
CN
in in o in o
•H rH rH O O
r-( rH rH rH >H
co m vo ^* co
r^* ^* en CN m
rH in on en
CN
en m ^r CN CM
•H CN ^r r»
vo vo vo o o
rH m en CN m
CN en in o r-
rH iH
CN «* en o o
r^ CN r* in o
r-4 •V
vo vo vo vo vo
r^ vo en iH oo
CN in r-» ^» o
iH cn en
r^ TP en CN oo
in o en en in
CN
VO rH ^* CN VO
r-« CN en in vo
rH en en CN m
rH CN r~
in o O o o
Ornmgo
C-19
-------
CO
U-l
O
co
4J
si
OJ to
3 (3
Scaling
Factor
4J
o
00 CJ^ CO CO CO
rH CN O O P^
rH CN m
vo oo in o ^
rH rH CO VO CM
vo vo vo vo vo
CM co in p*» CM
ro ^ oo ^ CN
rH CN
oo co vo m CM
CN ^ VO CN CM
rH CO 00
vo vo vo vo vo
co in *H r«" co
co oo oo r^ co
vo CM r** co ^*
co r» o
rH CM co m co
rH rH CO VO P*
vo in co vo ^
vo CM in co r-
co m m o m
CN m ^>
o o o o
^'ss
CO W
C O
m
CO
0)
^•^ u ^^ *^ r i
C O Q -"H C
S C O rH O -H
Q) •Oin-HCl)a4J
> fl cn u "c c c
0) rH «J 4-1
-------
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-3
TANK BAFFLE COSTS
PLANT SIZE - MGD
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 30.0
I
I
I
I
I
I Type LL HLLLHLLLHLLLHLLLHL
Of
Plant (Costs in thousands of dollars)
I EA 14 21 28 42 70 105 140 210 210 315
CAS (6HR)(a) 7 16 14 32 35 80 70 160 105 240
I CAS (3 HR)(b) 5 10 10 21 26 53 53 105 79 158
• AS + N 7 21 14 42 35 105 70 210 105 315
F.F. 7 14 14 28 35 70 70 140 105 210
NOTES:
- 8" reinforced concrete baffles constructed across entire tank width.
Baffles constructed to divide the existing and new tankage into the
required zones and compartments. Tank baffling requirements used were:
IHL LL
AN Zone 3 1
AX Zone 3 1
— AER Zone 4 0
™ - The number of separate baffles required decreased in large plants where the
construction of multiple tanks effectively reduce the number of required
• baffles to ensure plug flow.
- Cost for construction of baffles in larger plants reduced due to economies
m of large concrete volumes used.
- Baffle costs reduced at those plants where a large amount of tankage
• required to be added, i.e., Fixed Film Plants and CAS (3HR) plants due to
new tank construction being designed to provide common walls as required
baffles.
C-21
-------
^ en
i w
6 55
f]
a y
a §
fti H
0^ ^~
*— "k
o
1
1
o
4J rH O
S JSrH-
1 O
d< £ X
w
IH O
38
^s
ff
F
1
U)
u
^« _«| JM» .Mk .TT * '
•"^ ' ' ' ' r^ r^ i i [Aj r>4 ^T Hi m \£) p1^ p^.
i ! °. °.
VOVO VOVOI 0000 rHrH CN (N
{ j rH rH r-J rH
> 1 1 |
rHrHI rH r-t | f*1fO P*r» OOI
! 1 1 ^^ |
iti i
ro ro 1 mm mm mro vovoi
ill w 1
£J2'*0 ^0 0 0 UJ OOOO OfNfNCN VOOOOO
'H'- rHfNCNin invovor^ vot~-r»cn infNfN
rH i-H rH fN fN
OOO OOO
vor-»r* oooo ooo fNfNfN CN CN oi
rHrH rH rH rH rHrHrH rH rH r-l
in
I-HCNCN romm mmm ooo ooo
_j i i i i >
rn r^ i~l rH r~ 1 r™1
CNCNCN CNCNCN invfiVO U1V0VO fO
rH rH rH
"*
^*
,H
CN
rH
vo
_rHCN rHCN rHCN rHCN rHCN
§22 §22 §22 §22 §22
»n o o o o
• • • • *
o rH m o o
f^ PO
C-22
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
tn
ro
J3
o
W
•-•
»n
S
M
C
•H
«
0)
1
u
en
.u
0)
H u
tn to
J-)
-------
APPENDIX C-5
CLARIFIER CONCRETE COSTS
PLANT TYPE
Extended Aeration
Conventional
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
with Nitrification
Fixed Film
CLARIFIER REQUIREMENTS FOR BNR
High Level Low Level
Yes
Yes
None
Yes
None
None
None
None
Plant Size
MGD
Concrete
Volume Cost (1)
cu yd M $
Scaling (2)
Factor
Adjusted
Cost
M $
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
NOTES :
1 . Based on
63
97
300
514
1428
cost of
30
46
143
244
678
$475/cu y
1.15
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
d for in-p]
35
53
157
256
678
Lace concrete,
2.
plus excavation and back fill complete. Based
on recent bid prices for similar sized clarifiers
from JMS design treatment plants.
Based on experienced economy of scale for in-place
concrete.
C-24
-------
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-6
CLARIFIER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT COSTS
NOTES:
I
Plant
Size
0.5 MGD
1.0 MOD
5.0 MGD
10.0 MGD
30.0 MOD
darifier
Diameter
ft
25
35
75
105
125
Number
of Units
1
1
1
1
2
Basic
Mechanism
Cost (1)
$ x 1000
29
32
54
77
172
Weirs,
Baffles,
& Piping
Cost (1)
$ x 1000
4
5
8
12
26
Installation
Cost (1)
$ x 1000
3
3
6
9
21
Total
Cost (1)
$ x 1000
36
40
68
98
219
I
I
I
I
1. All costs were developed from firm manufacturer's quotations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
C-25
-------
5
r;
Q,— O
>** in o
O. — o
u S 8
J:s
•3 O X
u
N
35.
0)
1
M
H
o Q o o o
i/1* in u"» o Q
* ^* \O O O*
r^ *** o cR r»J
* K0 r*t in O*
•-« in o o
S m
S333*
OOOOO
SO O O O
wCpOO
moookte
»i ? CD o
tinfo<»m
r-imo
t o r* <*>
1 <0 p- ^-*
-4 CM CO
in in tn i
VO lA ^ *
^ ^ .H
CD *£ <* SO 00
•as
33S33
• r» in «
onn<*
1/10000 •^^
10 Ch <£ O CH
ooooo
m u"» o Q o
CN ~4 <*i w <-^
r* «* CM n *5 o i-i
-« r* CO
8S3S
or^
-1 IN
0> -> O O O
M rs in v^ o
ooooo
tni/iutmo
^« o* •» r» ao
VO O O v*> fN
o ^o o •* oo
— « »H l-n in f*>
-H ^ oo
CM ri o
> m ui cp
— < ?
s si * a
o u 31 s
•-< a) > in o
*J o ^ o a
a o a u
-I 5 o IS
3u 0
S? •§ «
g .3 •- a J
9 a
u
.3 «
«>,4
Ski
3~* O fl)
fl « Q > C
a H 3 « o
OUT] JS •-<
o • « c a 4j
01 3 o 01 <9
» V » r-4 ZJ O
01 > at e v c ••<
ti ^ *j a J5 « u
" " ~ ^'3
a-a
a ol a-a
.^4 Q)
.
Q) Oj
> s
^ -o jj 6
el'II
J M J -3
*3*j
B'TltM-«4 ^ C ^ ^
Qi o O ^ 000 *o
(J vW -«4 t*4 •**
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-8
OXYGEN REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS
Influent BOD-, So (mg/1)
Effluent BOD,7 Se (mg/1)
Influent TKN, No (mg/1)
Effluent NH.-N, Ne (mg/1)
MLVSS, Xv (mg/1)
SRT (days)
HRT (hrs)
HLND
150
10
29
8
2800
8
6
LLND
150
10
29
3
2800
15
10
* Influent to the aeration tank
PEAKING FACTORS AND OXYGEN TRANSFER
EFFICIENCIES (OTE)
FLOW, Q
(mgd)
PC
Pn
OTE %
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
4.27
3
3
2
81
14
86
2.47
2.68
2.66
2.62
2.60
2.56
6
8
12
12
12
NOTE: PC: peaking factor for BOD. load
Pn: peaking factor for nitrogen load
CALCULATIONS!
1. Carbonaceous 0- requirements (02*TC
(02}TC = Q(So~Se) (8.34)/0.68-1.42 X V (8. 34) /SRT
(02}peak ~ {02}TC X Peakin9 Factor (Pc)
2. Nitrogenous 02 requirements (0
(02)TN * 4*57 IQ(N°"Ne) (8.34)-0.12
V(8.34)/SRT]
*°2*TN X Peak^n9 Factor (Pn)
3. Air Requirements
Air Required
Ibs Q2/day
(AOR) X (0.075^2) x (0.23 02 in air) (1440)
C-27
-------
APPENDIX C-8
(CONTINUED)
CARBONACEOUS
OXYGEN REQUIRED
Flow
(mgd)
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
Avg.
340
681
3404
6808
20423
HLND
Peak
1452
2595
10689
19471
50445
NITROGENOUS
REQUIRED (Ibs
Flow
(mgd)
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
Avg.
200
400
2000
4000
12000
HLND
Peak
536
1064
5240
10400
30720
(Ibs O./day)
LLfcD
Avg.
417
811
3988
7976
23885
OXYGEN
O./day)
- LLND
Avg.
325
641
3179
6357
19055
Peak
1781
3090
12522
22881
58996
Avg.
228
343
1142
2284
6852
AIR REQUIRED (SCFM)
HLND
Peak
974
1306
3586
6532
16923
LLND
Avg.
280
408
1338
2676
8013
Peak
1195
1555
4201
7653
19792
AIR REQUIRED (SCFM)
Peak
871
1705
8329
16528
48781
Avg.
134
201
671
1342
4026
HLND
Peak
360
535
1758
3489
10306
LLND
Avg.
218
323
1066
2133
6393
Peak
584
858
2794
5545
16261
C-28
-------
I
I
I
^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-9
ANOXIC RECYCLE (ARCY) PUMP COST AND HORSE POWER
Plant Type
and Size
All High Level
Processes (200% Q)
0.5 MGD
1.0 MGD
5.0 MGD
10.0 MGD
30.0 MGD
All Low Level
Processes (400% Q)
0.5 MGD
1.0 MGD
5.0 MGD
10.0 MGD
30.0 MGD
NOTES :
1. All pump costs
Size
GPM(2)
694
1389
6944
13889
41667
1389 "
2778
13889
27778
83333
based
Cost(
Number
Required
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1)
Unit
Cost
M$
3
6
11
16
35
8
9
18
34
134
on firm manufacturer
Total
M$
9
18
33
48
105
24
27
54
102
402
' s quot
Horse
Unit
HP
2
3
12
20
40
5
10
18
30
71
ation pi
Power
Total
HP
6
9
36
60
120
15
30
54
90
213
us
2.
installation. Costs are based on Flygt low-head propeller
pumps at sized for a TDH of 5 feet.
GPM shown is based on two operating pumps to provide required
recycle flow. Normal 50% pump redundancy provided.
C-29
-------
APPENDIX C-10
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP COSTS
Plant Type
and Size Required
Activated RAS Number Pump Installation Total Installed
Sludge Flow Pumps Size Punp Cost Cost Cost
Low Level GPM(l) (4) GPM $ X 1000(1) $ X 1000 $ X 1000
0.5 90 2 90 4 3 7
1.0 180 2 180 5 4 9
5.0 900 3 450 7 6 13
10.0 1800 3 900 13 10 23
30.0 5400 3 2700 18 14 32
Fixed Film
Low Level
0.5 175 2 175 5 4 9
1.0 350 2 350 6 5 11
5.0 1,750 3 875 12 10 22
10.0 3,500 3 1750 15 12 27
30.0 10,500 3 5250 36 29 65
NOTES: (1) See appendix C-ll for development of flow rates and design basin.
(2) Based on information supplied by Worthington
Punps.
(3) Allowance for pump installation materials and labor plus piping
(materials and labor) for pump station only. Extensions and
modifications of yard piping will be covered as a separate item.
(4) Based on 100% redundancy at 0.5 and 1.0 mgd and 50% redundancy at
5, 10 and 30 mgd.
C-30
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000AJ7\tiff\2000VUON.tif): Unspecified error
-------
APPENDIX C-12
GRAVITY FILTER FEED PUMP STATION COST
Plant
Size
MGD
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
1987
Adjusted
Cost
$ X 1000
24
30
187
298
683
Pump
Motor
H.P.
Total
3
7
46
100
688
NOTES:
- Costs for 0.5 and 1.0 MGD pump station costs based
on using 1987 quotes for installed packaged lift
stations utilizing two constant speed pumps, each
rated at 100% of station design flow.
- Cost for 5.0 - 30.0 MGD pump station based on fact
sheet 3.1.13 in EPA Inovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual, EPA document
430/9-78-009, 1980.
- Costs include normal earthwork, in place concrete
structures, back wash facilities, electrical,
ventilation and controls, etc., wet well and dry well
and multiple pumps sized for 30 ft TDH.
- Construction costs from fact sheet decreased by 20%
since electrical and controls for pump station
included in electrical costs for entire plant
retrofit.
- Construction Costs adjusted to July, 1987 ENR of 4403
from September, 1976 ENR Cost Index of 2475.
- All pump stations designed for 4 hour peak flow rates
as shown in Section 5.1 Chapter 5.
C-32
-------
I
1
1
IVJ
a
g
15
pq
m o*
rH
H' 3
a
§1
QJ
w
85
1
IM
Q
O
1
1
1
"a!
5
rH
10
i
03
*rj
flj
rti
1
§
i— i
cu
i/i i/^ ro
r§53 *
3) co co co ro ro
x \o
ad
• in m
vw J I II
•H £
s
v«
<1)
f
rH
03
jj oo oo m
5 d ' '
{JJ CO l^ ^*
rH
CO
3
n)
s> m oo oo o o
•H CN rH rH
Sin m
•H^ ' ' '
JJ
2
1
1
Q)
4>J *^Q 00 0^
m oo in in
in vo II
o in m r~ m vo
CTN rH r— t rH
rH
oo in in
I 1 1
rH 1 rH rH 1
CN m in in
m CN it
o^ co ^i* r** r^ ^n
in VO rH rH rH rH
oo in in
I I 1
rH 1 rH rH |
oo f» in o
r* m rH CNII
rH
^» t,rt ^Q f^ ^^ QQ
in o vo m rH m
rH CN
o in o
rH 1 r-| CN 1 1
VO vo O OO
vo oo in o
m vo r-l H m
CO
I
CO
J
0
£
1
rH
M-l
1
g
10 •
<4J CO
CO U
ri
is
OP
U O
3s
4J CO
fl
* •
rH CN
1
O
S5
I
I
I
C-33
-------
0.5
.0
.0
1.
5.
10.0
30.0
APPENDIX C-14
CHEMICAL COSTS BASED ON 9 M3/L TP INFLUENT
Plant
Size
MGD
Lime Costs
$/yr
H.L.
Alum Costs
$/yr
H.L. (2)
Total
S/yr
H.L.
Lime Costs
$/yr
L.L.
Alum Costs
$/yr
L.L. (3)
•total
$/yr
L.L.
300
600
3,100
6,200
18,500
1,823
3,645
15,225
30,450
91,350
Alum Quantity
H.L. - 15 tons/yr/MGD
L.L. - 45 tons/yr/MGD
Lime Quantity(1)
9.10 tons/yr/MG
2,123 300 5,468 5,768
4,245 600 10,935 11,535
18,325 3,100 45,675 48,775
36,650 6,200 91,350 97,550
109,850 18,500 274,050 292,550
Alum Costs
$203/ton for plants over 5 MGD
$243/ton for plants under 5 MGD
Lime Cost (Hydrated Lime)
$67.50/ton as 100% CaO
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CHEMICAL COSTS BASED ON 6.5 M3/L TP INFLUENT
Plant
Size
MGD
Lime Costs
$/yr
H.L.
Alum Costs
$/yr
H.L. (5)
Total
$/yr
H.L.
Lime Costs
$/yr
L.L.
Alum Costs
$/yr
L.L. (4)
Total
$/yr
L.L.
300
600
3,100
6,200
18,500
1,276
2,552
10,658
21,315
63,945
Alum Quantity
H.L. - 10.5 tons/yr/MGD
L.L. - 27 tons/yr/MGD
Lime Quantity (1)
9.10 tons/yr/MG
1,576 300 3,281 3,581
3,152 600 6,501 7,161
13,758 3,100 27,405 30,505
27,515 6,200 54,810 61,010
82,445 18,500 164,430 182,930
Alum Costs
$203/ton for plants over 5 MGD
$243/ton for plants under 5 MGD
Lime Cost (Hydrated Lime)
$67.50/ton as 100% CaO
Notes
1. Lime Quantity is slaked
Line and is 139% of
CaO Lime in Appendix C-15.
2. Alum dosage for HLND is based on 30 mg/1 as dry alum for a 4 month per year
polishing dosage to insure total effluent P of 2.0 mg/1.
3. Alum dosage for LLND is based on a molar AL/P ratio of twice the
stoichiometric for removal 1.5 ng/l of P (from BNRP effluent of 2.0 mg/1 of P
to 0.5 mg/1 P).
4. Alum dosage for LLND at 6.5 mg/1 of influent TP is based on BNRP effluent TP
of 1.4 mg/1. This is due to higher BNRP TP removal at higher BOD:TP ratios.
5. The polish dosage of alum for HLND for 6.5 mg/1 influent TP has been
established at 70% of the polishing requirement required for an influent TP of
9.0 mg/1. This is due to higher inherent BNR removal in the reactor and
smaller amount of time that polishing is required.
C-34
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-15 ,
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SUPERNATANT TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Plant Size
MGD
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
Supernatant
Flow
GPD
2,200
4,500
22,500
45,000
135,000
Lime
Dosage
Ibs/day
20
40
180
360
1,080
Lime
Feed
System
Cost
$xlOOO
-
-
31
46
90
Separation
Tank/Clarifier
Pumps
Cost
$ x 1000
5
10
20
40
60
Total
Cost
$xlOOO
5
10
51
86
150
- Based on 2,000 mg/1 digester supernatant alkalinity and 1,000 mg/1 of lime
as CaO added to the supernatant flow to be treated.
- Hydrated lime feed system cost taken from EPA Report "Estimating Water
Treatment Costs, Doc. * 600/2-79-1626, August, 1979.
- Separation tank/clarifier and pump cost based on quotes from suppliers and
includes excavation and all installation costs.
C-35
-------
APPENDIX C-16
BUILDING COST
FOR BLOWERS AND RAS PUMPS (3)
Plant
Size
MGD
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
Building Size
Length X Width
(ft. X ft.)
(Two Stories) (1)
15 X 15
20 X 20
20 X 30
30 X 40
30 X 60
Unit
Cost
$/sq ft (2)
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
Total
Building
$ X 1000
14
24
36
72
108
Cost
(2)
1. New building to be two story masonary construction
with new blower space on top floor and pumping
facilities for ARCY and RAS on the bottom floor.
2. Per square foot for each story. Costs includes
plumbing, electrical, HVAC and complete furnishing
3. New building constructed only at Fixed Film plants
C-36
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
APPENDIX C-17
ALUM FEED SYSTEM COSTS
Plant
Size
MGD
0.
1.
5.
10.
30.
5
0
0
0
0
Notes:
1. Cost of
High Level
Feed Rate
Discharge Low Level Discharge
Cost(l) Feed Rate Cost(l)
Ib/hr
1
3
17
33
100
.7
.3
.0
.0
.0
( 5
( 9
( 51
( 99
(300
.2)
.9)
.0)
.0)
.0)
alum feed systems
$xlOOO
19
20
35
49
72
was dev
Ib/hr $xlOQO
5
10
52
104
312
.2
.4
.0
.0
.0
(15.6)
(31.2)
(156.0)
(312.0)
(936.0)
27
34
65
72
83
reloped from cost
2.
reference (6). Figures for equipment labor and piping
were adjusted to present day costs.
Using I&A Manual and adjusting the cost to an ENR Index
= 4404
Values in parenthesis are for maximum feed conditions,
while all other values are for average yearly
conditions.
C-37
-------
C2J3
§j£
Scu
o
—« o
n o
£ X
U)
BJ
o
fN
~" o
4J O
fl
•H W-
u <~ o
3 fN O
•U -« O
2
Cn 4J
(0
8-
10
0) >
N
2
o o o o o
CN ^ O O O
rH fN VO
O O O O O
rH (M ID O O
rH PO
O «N (*»
rH
*H w w
fe TJ 5)
Q O "4
< p "•> -u
^* « 'rH
I 3
Q) VM
M rH ^^ 3
w IQ C w
> 0 -H
Ifl -H 09 TJ
.3 t| ^
^ o *H Q •
I
V JC
CO
N
•rH
co
s
(N
I
10
0)
to
c
.25
vo -.
vo
5
* '
i 5^
•H VO
U S rH
— -^ «B r-4 Q 4J -H
VO 09 -W MH TJ
0) 5 flT'S Q. f
S i 5
IQ 3
1-40)
53
*
m •-(
» g
«W )
*8
8 d S S1 .2 " -1
* (0
•• M
n <
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I t I
• a a
Q K
1 ? § -
1 = i s i
1° 2 s 3 -"
« s*$ :
M a 5
Q S u ">
z = 5 <>;
|S 2 *
a. ft "-
< v> *
i f
IS 1
'
1
1
1
1"
1
|
VP>
j iwo*.iai
-Wis j*tnol
j6pnts jo &unai|.wn|
jo/1 uounqjj->sia|
^vsadsio uwao)
SuipsBjds puirii
6uiipuaai/n^ P»"l| x
W>M,Lj
*iP>TS J«f>d
uotiniinni
i Xja«nr»K ta»HJ
»-i1iH^"J|
uonnTTnn
»0 jcr*>a6|J
-uoT3tj»majiJ
mjMM »idf^n>M
-uof^«j«uiaiil
uoniH* *TM
•apT»Tio-aTJJ»4i
•a^l 'MMlio^
£U1J9)IMQ UlOCl
6uT»«pnu|
u»T3»V>W ivl
UQJ5»7X)ni2|
boiujipnu X^fAUQ)
•MM j^n^l
»4n;Tru»o)
J»5TtJ «»X3»A|
po «UT->OTU3J
3
S
1
|
;
,
>
>
M >
X K
<
3 S
£
a-
. -
g*
SI
X
K
s
p
•
•
«>
1
-------
I
u
Q
Z
U
0.
a.
iwoaeicii
****>is -wool
1°
UMDO|
uonnnnn
uonnnnn
; V
i"!
!-,,$ 8
tip -
§*.* 88B3i SI
i
*!
jj
Si
83
^ii
*£
888
C-40
-------
1
1
1
4
1
*
1
1
1 1 I
I5 1
? !i«
1 s lag ?
O m 5 '
z 2 £ o
1 i 2i*
«" —
II S"
£ g
0.
1
1
1
1*
1
1
1 VtOdblQI
*t*»ns J*0ol
*6pPTS JO buijaujvwi
JO/» uoi)nqij)KiQ|
{nodsiQ U«DO|
fuipwjds pmni x
fauiLpiSUi/nu pu»1|
3UAQVU4J
•tfiniS J«od
uot-mnnni
1 XTIOOC»K IVHJ
MIVTT^dl
uonwnnn
no jo?M*fai
uonmuiaji j*wa
•»••• PTTOS/'M
•TtXiarU-ool
»MM PTIOB/«(
uon«jau|aii-dol
• I«/(cuAii
UTIK Aj»TOl*
-UOJl>J«J|JUll
(•« p»npfntJ
-uor-)«j*ufauil
>OJ"I4 •iditpnM
-«o^«j«u|auii M
UOT1TPW «"TV(
••PTJOTO-OJJJBJ
•win 'ja^TiVi
blf J^IMQ M«C|
GUVUKPTUU
umsnou Twl
uon«iJii>Tai
tUTUMpntl *4|MIO| M
•MM j^n^l
•ta)in«0|
MtTM «««a»Aj x
•UDOtn (ApiTSl
hifXifl Jtvi
uot^fppo /TV *H
uonwm«ros «^ii
UOTMPT>0 «"T«»nOJ
IIHHQH^ 1*MI
biT4»teoj
uofurtra 3Tnn»»ivt
ia6Ao-uof)Mfeia|
»?<*«•«
iTY-«wn«*fa|
ai*»»«l
5,,-ft 8
sir -
1 "
1 1
^^ j
i
X
X
1
1
1
I
.
1
i 1
i 1
i
M
H «
4
**
* n
i
1*
1 4
M
M
X.
4
cs
0 O
i
it
s
3
1
X
H
K
<
8
«
C
!
M
4
<
8
tf
t
•i
4
<
»
5t
*•
1
I
4
4
X
K
<
3
•
t
\
•.
M
.
3
t
:
1
1
»•
M
-
8
tft
i
rij
X
M
M
M
8
U
i
e
j
i
«
>
x
-1
i
1
w «
«
•«
«
)
4
8S
r» ••
ii
2S
it
k 3
|
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
UN
4
4
1
i
4
<
82
Si
n
• *
ii
3 L
X
?
•X
1
4
i
j
X
X
I
(
1
!
t M
1
j-
i
M
M
i 8 3
•! • •
m- '
fii
111
M >
M
i
X
M
-
-
M
1
1
M
1
2 S
j
IHanpton, VK.
N.Y.
Erdicott, N.Y.
1
M
*
M
8
tit
>
•s
V
•I
-------
I
u
Q
U
a,
i 3
s a
% M
i I o
>- ,. #
| a o
* * ^ s
^jj Q
O O
JO/t
inodna uwool
jinmmiAj
P>IS J
uo?i«T
1
%l
to
MJM
(8
fS
s-
I|K
88J888(8l8888(f8
Oid
"'fi
C-42
-------
t
u
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
CO
2
I I
< ^
o
o
o
o
-------
APPENDIX C-19
SUMMARY OF THE MOST COMMON SLUDGE HANDLING
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CBDB PLANTS
PLANT SIZE RANGE 30.0 - 40.0
TYPE OF SLUDGE TR'MT AND DISPOSAL NO. %_
Aerobic Digestion 1 14%
Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion 0
Anaerobic Digestion 5 71%
Air Drying 1 14%
Incineration 4 57%
Land Fill/Trenching 7 100%
Land Spreading 0
C-44
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-19
SUMMARY OF THE MOST COMMON SLUDGE HANDLING
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CBDB PLANTS
PLANT SIZE RANGE 10.0 - < 30.0
TYPE OF SLUDGE TR'MT AND DISPOSAL NO. %
Aerobic Digestion 3 11%
Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion 0
Anaerobic Digestion 17 65%
Air Drying 6 23%
Incineration 9 34%
Land Fill/Trenching 16 61%
Land Spreading 6 23%
C-45
-------
APPENDIX C-19
SUMMARY OF THE MOST COMMON SLUDGE HANDLING
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CBDB PLANTS
PLANT SIZE RANGE 5.0 - < 10.0
TYPE OF SLUDGE TR'MT AND DISPOSAL NO. ^
Aerobic Digestion 1 4%
Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion 3 13%
Anaerobic Digestion 9 39%
Air Drying 5 21%
Incineration 4 17%
Land Fill/Trenching 14 60%
Land Spreading 8 34%
C-46
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C-19
SUMMARY OF THE MOST COMMON SLUDGE HANDLING
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CBDB PLANTS
PLANT SIZE RANGE 2.5 - < 5.0
TYPE OF SLUDGE TR'MT AND DISPOSAL NO. %^
Aerobic Digestion 12 25%
Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion 1 2%
Anaerobic Digestion 28 59%
Air Drying 25 53%
Incineration 3 6%
Land Fill/Trenching 29 61%
Land Spreading 15 32%
C-47
-------
APPENDIX C-20 '
ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE MATERIALS COSTS (1)
System
Extended Aeration - L.L.
Extended Aeration - H.L.
Conventional Activated
Sludge - L.L.
Conventional Activated
Sludge - H.L.
Activated Sludge
+ Nitrification - L.L.
Activated Sludge
+ Nitrification - H.L.
Fixed Film - L.L.
Fixed Film - H.L.
Maint. Cost
% of Total Const. Cost(2)
3
2
4
3
4
2
4
3
NOTES:
Maintenance Costs are for parts, supplies and
repairs to existing equipment and facilities.
Additional Maintenance cost estimate provides for
high maintenance costs for those systems where
additional blowers and filters have been added to
account for larger percentage of mechanical
equipment to be maintained.
Total Construction cost is from Tables 5.1 through
Tables 5.8.
C-48
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
APPENDIX C-21
REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR TABLES 5.1 - 5.8
PROCESS TYPE: ACTIVATED SLUDGE (HLND)
FLOW
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CAPITAL COSTS
558
765
1920
3176
6988
OlM COSTS
56
67
211
345
803
ANNUAL COSTS
117
150
419
689
1561
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital cost)- 0.6164*Log(MCD) * 2.8974
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflclent(s) 0.6164
Std Err of Coef. 0.0278
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OtM COST
Log(0 t M cost)- 0.6663*Log(MCD) + 1.8852
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
Ho. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflclent(s) 0.6663
Std Err of Coef. 0.0391
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Log(Total cost)- 0.6407*Log(MGD) + 2.2111
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflcient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6407
0.0317
2.8974
0 0403
0.9939
5.0000
3.0000
1.8852
0.0568
0.9898
5.0000
3.0000
2.2111
0.0460
0.9927
5.0000
3.0000
C-49
-------
PROCESS TYPE: ACTIVATED SLUDGE (LLND)
FLOW
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CAPITAL COSTS
1310
1973
5562
9075
21917
001 COSTS
117
207
501
852
2125
AKNUAL COSTS
259
421
1104
1336
4503
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital cost)- 0.6815*Lo»(MGD) + 3.2994
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
Ho. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6815
0.0226
3.299A
0.0328
0.9967
5 0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OtM COST
Log(0 & M cost)- 0.6826*Lo»(NGD) + 2.275*
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficlent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6826
0.033*
2.275*
0.0*85
0.9929
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL AKNUAL COST
Log(Tot«l cost)- 0.6818*Log(HCD) + 2.6075
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degree* of Freedom
X Coefficients)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6818
0.0259
2.6075
0.0376
0.9957
5.0000
3.0000
C-50
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
PROCESS TYPE: EXTENDED AERATION (HLND)
FLOW
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CAPITAL COSTS
412
565
1214
2012
4122
OiM COSTS
27
34
93
173
372
ANNUAL COSTS
71
95
224
391
819
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital coat)- 0.5572»Log(MGD) -I- 2.7534
Coastant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observation!
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Co«f.
0.5572
0.0304
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OtM COST
Log(O & M cost)- 0.6545*Log(MCD) + 1.5717
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflclent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6545
0.0391
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Log(Total cost)- 0.5987*Log(MCD) + 1.9927
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedoa
2.7534
0.0441
0.9912
5.0000
3.0000
1.5717
0.0568
0.9894
5.0000
3.0000
1.9927
0.0474
0.9911
5.0000
3.0000
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.5987
0.0327
C-51
-------
PROCESS TYPE: EXTENDED AERATION (LLND)
FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS
OlM COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
884
1305
3157
4596
10028
62
96
292
532
1477
158
238
635
1030
2565
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital cost)- 0.5821*Log(MGD) + 3.1102
Constant
Std Err of Y Eat
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflclent(j)
Std Err of Coef.
0.5821
0.0193
3.1102
0.0280
0.9967
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OlM COST
Lo((0 & M cost)- 0.7655*Lo((MGD) + 1.9868
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient^)
Std Err of Coef.
0.7655
0.0351
1.9868
0.0509
0.9937
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRAHyORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Log(Total cost)- 0.6696»Log(MGD) + 2.3747
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficients)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6696
0.0288
2.3747
0.0419
0.9945
5.0000
3.0000
C-52
-------
J
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROCESS TYPE: ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLUS NITRIFICATION (HLND)
FLOW
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CAPITAL COSTS
424
590
1348
2239
4518
O&M COSTS
25
33
96
179
465
ANNUAL COSTS
71
97
243
422
955
LOG TRAN70RMATIOM REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capltal cost)- 0.5759*Log(MCD) + 2.775*
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflcl«nt(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.5759
0.0246
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OlM COST
Log(0 & M cost)- 0.7172*Log(MCD) + 1.5514
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of 'Freedom
X Coefflclent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.7172
0.0460
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Logdotal cost)- 0.6336*Log(MCD) •*• 2.0015
Constant
Std Err of Y EJC
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflclent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6336
0.0338
C-53
2.7754
0.0357
0.9946
5.0000
3.0000
1.5514
0.0668
0.9878
5.0000
3.0000
2.0015
0.0491
0.9915
5.0000
3.0000
-------
PROCESS TYPE: ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLUS NITRIFICATION (LLND)
FLOW
0.5
1-0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CAPITAL COSTS
1131
1751
4642
736*
16375
OlM COSTS
71
113
348
629
1558
ANNUAL COSTS
194
303
852
1428
3335
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital cose)- 0.6A51*Log(MCD) + 3.2380
Constant
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflclent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6451
0.0149
3.2380
0.9984
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OlM COST
Log(0 t M cost)- 0.7306«Log(MCD) •*• 2.0557
Constant
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficients)
Std Eir of Coef.
0.7506
0.0214
2.0557
0.9976
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Log(Total cost)- 0.6887«Log(MGD) + 2.4793
Constant
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coeffielent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6887
0.0180
2.4793
0.9980
5.0000
3.0000
C-54
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROCESS TYPE: FIXED FILM (HLND)
FLOW
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
CAPITAL COSTS
774
1213
3337
5631
14400
OiM COSTS
86
123
288
544
145*
ANNUAL COSTS
170
255
650
1155
3016
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital cost)- 0.7011*Log(MCD) + 3.0779
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(j) 0.7011
Std Err of Coef. 0.0290
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OtM COST
Lo((0 t M colt)- 0.7072*Log(MGD) -I- 2.0127
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficients) 0.7072
Std Err of Coef. 0.0459
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Log (Total cost)' 0. 7037*Log(MGD) -I- 2.3672
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.7037
0.0357
3.0779
0.0421
0.9949
5.0000
3.0000
2.0127
0.0667
0.9875
5.0000
3.0000
2.3672
0.0519
0.9923
5.0000
3.0000
C-55
-------
PROCESS TYPE: FIXED FILM (LLND)
FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS
04M COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
0.5
1.0
5
10
30
1633
2464
6940
11738
28347
158
253
626
1116
2777
336
521
1379
2390
5853
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - CAPITAL COST
Log(Capital cost)- 0.6914*Log(MGD) + 3.3961
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficlent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6914
0.0240
3.3961
0.0349
0.9964
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - OtM COST
Lo((0 t, M cost)- 0.6834*Log(MGD) + 2.3850
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficlent(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6834
0.0354
2.3850
0.0514
0.9920
5.0000
3.0000
LOG TRANFORMATION REGRESSION OUTPUT - TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Log(Total cost)- 0.6870*Log(MCD) -I- 2.7107
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefflcient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
0.6870
0.0290
2.7107
0.0420
0.9947
5.0000
3.0000
C-56
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
FROM EPA DOCUMENT # 625/1-87-001
REFERENCES
When an NTIS number is cited in a reference, that reference is available
from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
1. Greenburg, A.E., Lein, G. and W.J. Kauffman. Effect of Phosphorus
Removal on the Activated Sludge Process. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 27: 227, 1955.
2. Srinath, E.G., et al. Rapid Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage by
Activated Sludge. Experientia (Switzerland), 15: 339, 1959.
3. Levin, G.V., and J. Shapiro. Metabolic Uptake of Phosphorus by
Wastewater Organisms. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 37: 800,
1965.
4. Shapiro, J., Levin, G.V., and Z.G. Humberto. Anoxically Induced
Release of Phosphate in Wastewater Treatment. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 39: 1810, 1967.
5. Levin, G.V., Topol, G.J., and Tarnay, A.G. and R.B. Samworth. Pilot
Plant Tests of a Phosphate Removal Process. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 476: 1940, 1972.
6. Levin, G.V., Topol, G.J., and A.G. Tarnay. Operation of Full Scale
Biological Phosphorus Removal Plant. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 47: 1940, 1975.
7. Vacker, D., et al. Phosphate Removal through Municipal Wastewater
Treatment at San Antonia, Texas. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 39: 750, 1967.
8. Bargman, R.O., et al. Continuous Studies in the Removal of
Phosphorus by the Activated Sludge Process. Chem. Engr. Prog. Symp.
Ser., 67: 117, 1970.
9. Milbury, W.F., et al. Operation of Conventional Activated Sludge
for Maximum Phosphorus Removal. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 43: 1890, 1971.
10. Menar, A.B., and D. Jenkins. The Fate of Phosphorus in Waste
Treatment Processes: The Enhanced Removal of Phosphate by Activated
Sludge. Proceedings of the 24th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
Lafayette, Ind. 1969.
-------
11. Barnard, J.L. Cut P and N Without Chemicals. Water and Wastes
Engineering. 7, 1974.
12. Barnard, J.L. A Review of Biological Phosphorus Removal in the
Activated Sludge Process. Water S.A., 2: 136, 1976.
13. Nicholls, H.A. Full Scale Experimentation on the New Johannesburg
Extended Aeration Plants. Water S.A., 1: 121, 1975.
14. Venter, S.L.V., et al. Optimization of the Johannesburg
Olifantsvlei Extended Aeration Plant for Phosphorus Removal. Prog.
in Wat. Technology 10: 279, 1978.
15. Osborn, D.W., and H.A. Nichols. Optimization of the Activated
Sludge Process for the Biological Removal of Phosphorus. Int. Conf.
on Advanced Treatment and Reclamation of Wastewater, Johannesburg,
S.A., June, 1977.
16. Stensel, H.D. et al. Performance of First U.S. Full Scale Bardenpho
Facility. Proceedings of EPA International Seminar on Control of
Nutrients in Municipal Wastewater Effluents, San Diego, Calif.,
Sept., 1980.
17. Hong, S.N., et al. A Biological Wastewater Treatment System for
Nutrient Removal. Presented at the 54th Annual WPCF Conference,
Detroit, Michigan, October 4-9, 1981.
18. Marais, G.V.R., Loewanthal, R.E. and J. Siebritz. Review:
Observations Supporting Phosphate Removal by Biological Excess
Uptake. Selected Papers on Activated Sludge Process Research,
University of Capetown, April, 1982.
19. Stensel, H.D., Fundamental Principles of Biological Phosphorus
Removal. Presented at the Workshop on Biological Phosphorus Removal
in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Annapolis, MD., June 22-24, 1982.
20. Funs, G.W., and M. Chen. Microbial Basis for Phosphate Removal in
the Activated Sludge Process for the Treatment of Wastewater.
Microb. Ecol., 2: 119, 1975.
21. Deinema, H., Van Loosdrecht, M. and A. Scholten. Sane Physiological
Characteristics of Acinetobacter Spp Accumulating Large Amounts of
Phosphate. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater,
Vol. I. IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar, p. 154, Sept. 24, 1984,
Paris, France.
22. Buchan, L. The Location and Nature of Accumulated Phosphorus in
Seven Sludges from Activated Sludge Plants which Exhibited Enhanced
Phosphorus Removal. Water SA, 7: 1, 1981.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
23. Lawson, E.N., and N.E. Tonhazy. Changes in Morphology and
Phosphate-Uptake Patterns of Acinetobacter Calcoaceticus Strains.
Water SA, 6: 105, 1980.
24. Lotter, L.H., The Role of Bacterial Phosphate Metabolisms in
Enhanced Phosphorus Removal from the Activated Sludge Process.
Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater, Vol. I.,
IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar, p. 173, Sept. 24, 1984, Paris,
France.
25. Hascoet, McC., Florentx, M., and P. Granger. Biochemical Aspects of
Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater. Enhanced Biological
Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater, Vol. I., IAWPRC Post Conference
Seminar, p. 33, Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France.
26. Suresh, N., Warburg, M., Timmerman, M., Wells, J., Coccia, M.,
Roberts, M.F., and H.O. Halvorson. New Strategies for the Isolation
of Microorganisms Responsible for Phosphate Accumulation. Enhanced
Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater, Vol. I., IAWPRC Post
Conference Seminar, p. 131, Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France.
27. Brodisch, K.E.U. Interaction of Different Groups of Micro-organisms
in Biological Phosphate Removal. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus
Removal from Wastewater, Vol. I., IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar, p.
121, Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France.
28. Lotter, L.H., and M. Murphy. The Identification of Heterotrophic
Bacteria in an Activated Sludge Plant with Particular Reference to
Polyphosphate Accumulation. Water SA, 11(4): 172, October 1985.
29. Hong, S.N. et al. A Biological Wastewater Treatment System for
Nutrient Removal. Presented at EPA Workshop on Biological
Phosphorus Removal in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Annapolis,
MD., June 22-24, 1982.
30. Ekama, G.A., Marcis, G.V.R. and Siebritz. Biological Excess
Phosphorus Removal. Chapter 7, Theory, Design, and Operation of
Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Processes, Water Research
Conmission, Pretoria, South Africa, 1984.
31. Rensink, J.H., H.J.G.W. Donker and H.P. de Vries. Biological P
Ranoval in Domestic Wastewater by the Activated Sludge Process.
Presented at 5th European Sewage and Refuse Symposium, Munich, June,
1981, Procs. 487-502.
32. Fukase, T., Shibeta, M., and X. Mijayi. Studies on the Mechanism of
Biological Phosphorus Ranoval. Japan Journal Water Pollution
Research, 5, p. 309, 1982.
-------
33. Arvin, E. Biological Removal of Phosphorus from Wastewater. GRC
Critical Rev. Environmental Control, 15: 25-69, 1985.
34. Rabinowitz, B. The Role of Specific Substrates in Excess Biological
Phosphorus Ranoval. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of British
Colombia, October 1985.
35. Wentzel, M.C., Dold, P.L., Ekama, G.A. and G.R. Marais. Kinetics of
Biological Phosphorus Release. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus
Removal from Wastewater, Vol. I., IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar, p.
89, Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France.
36. Hones, P.H., Tadwalker, A. and C.L. Hsu. Studies in the Enhanced
Uptake of Phosphorus by Activated Sludge: Effect of Substrate
Addition. Proceedings, New Directions and Research in Waste
Treatment and Residuals Management, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada, June 23-28, 1985, pg. 324.
37. Ccmeau, Y., Hall, K.J., Hancock, R.E.W., and W.K. Oldham.
Biochemical Model for Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal.
PROCEEDINGS, New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and
Residuals Management, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
B.C. Canada, June 23-28, 1985, pg. 324.
38. Miyamoto-Mills, J. et al. Design and Operation of a Pilot-Scale
Biological Phosphate Removal Plant at the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District. Water Science Technology, 15: 153, 1983.
39. Arvin, E. and G.H. Kristensen. Exchange of Organics, Phosphate and
Cations Between Sludge and Water in Biological Phosphorus and
Nitrogen Removal Processes. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal
from Wastewater, Vol. I., IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar, p. 183,
Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France.
40. Timmerman, M.W. Biological Phosphate Removal from Domestic
Wastewater Using Anerobic/Aerobic Treatment. Chapter 26 in
Development in Industrial Microbiology, p. 285, 1979.
41. Nicholls, H.A. and D.W. Osborn. Bacterial Stress: Prerequisite ,
for Biological Removal of Phosphorus. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 51(3): 557, 1979.
42. Deinema, M.H. et al. The Accumulation of Polyphosphate in
Acinetobacter Spp. Microbiology Letters, Federation of
Microbiological Societies, 273-279, 1980.
43. Senior, P.J., et al. The Role of Oxygen Limitation in the Formation
of Poly B Hydroxybutyrate during Batch and Continuous Culture of
Azotobacter beijerincku. Biochem, Jour., 128: 1193, 1972.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
44. Gaudy, A. and E. Gaudy. Microbiology for Environmental Scientists
and Engineers. McGraw Hill, 1980.
45. Harold, P.M. Inorganic Polyphosphates in Biology: Structure
Metabolism and Function. Bacteriol. Reviews, 30: 772, 1966.
46. Sell, R.L., et al. Low Temperature Biological Phosphorus Removal.
Presented at the 54th Annual WPCF Conference, Detroit, Michigan,
Oct., 1981.
Repeat
47. Levin, G.V., Topol, G.J. and A.G. Tarney. Operation of Full Scale
Biological Phosphorus Removal Plant. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 47, (8), March 1975.
48. Tetreault, M.J., Benedict, A.H., Kaempfer, C., and E.F. Barth.
Biological Phosphorus Removal - A Technology Evaluation. Presented
at the 58th Annual WPCF Conference, October, 1985.
49. Emerging Technology Assessment of Biological Removal of Phosphorus,
Technical Report, Weston Inc., EPA Contract NO. 68-03-3055, May
1984.
50. Nutrient Control. Manual of Practice FD-7. Facilities Design,
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1983.
51. Barnard, J.C. Biological Denitrification. Journal International
Water Pollution Control Federation, 72: 6, 1973.
52. Arora, M.L., Barth, E.F. and M.B. Umphres. Technology Evaluation of
Sequencing Batch Reators. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 57: 807, 1985.
53. Irvine, R.L. et al. Municipal Application of Sequencing Batch
Treatment at Culver, Indiana. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 55: 484, 1983.
54. Irvine, R.L. et al. Organic Loading Study of Full-Scale Sequencing
Batch Reators. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 57: 847,
1985.
55. Rensink, J.H., Donker, H.J.G.W., and T.S.J. Simons. Phosphorus
Removal at Low Sludge Loadings. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus
Removal From Wastewater, Vol. I, IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar,
Sept. 24, 1984, p. 217, Paris, France.
56. Simpkins, M.J., and A.R. McLaren. Consistent Biological Phosphate
and Nitrate Removal in an Activated Sludge Plant. Progr. Water
Technol. (G.B.) 10 (5/6): 433, 1978.
-------
57. Paepdce, B.H. Introduction to Biological Phosphorus Removal.
Proceedings of the Seminar on Biological Phosphorus Removal in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Penticton, British Columbia, April
17 and 18, 1985.
58. Irvine, R.L., Stensel, H.D. and J.F. ;ileman. Summary Report,
Workshop on Biological Phosphorus Removal in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, Annapolis, Maryland, June 22-24, 1982. Sponsored by U.S.
EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, September, 1982.
59. Levin, G.V. Presented at the EPA Workshop on Biological Phosphorus
Removal in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, San Francisco, Calif.,
1983.
60. Inventory of Full Scale Biological Phosphorus and Nitrogen Removal
Facilities. Report submitted to the U.S. EPA, Brown and Caldwell
Engineers, March 1984.
61. Peirano, L.E. Low Cost Phosphorus Removal at Reno-Sparks, Nevada.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 49, 1568, 1977.
62. Oldham, W.K. and GJM. Stevens. Operating Experiences with the
Kelowna Pollution Control Centre. Proceedings of the Seminar on
Biological Phosphorus Removal in Municipal Wastewater Treatment,
Penticton, British Columbia, April 17 and 18, 1985.
63. Leslie, P.J. Design of the Kelowna Pollution Control Centre.
Proceedings of the Seminar on Biological Phosphorus Removal in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Penticton, British Columbia, April
17 and 18, 1985.
64. Burdick, C.R., Refling, O.K., and H.D. Stensel. Advanced Biological
Treatment to Achieve Nutrient Control. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 54, (7): 1078, 1982.
65. Stensel, H.D. et al. Evaluation of Nutrient Removal at Pay son,
Arizona. Proceedings, New Directions and Research in Waste
Treatment and Residuals Management, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, June 23-28, 1985, p. 476.
66. Barth, E.F., and H.D. Stensel. International Nutrient Control
Technology for Municipal Effluents. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 53 (12): 1691, 1981.
67. Rang, S.J. et al. A Year's Low Temperature Operation in Michigan of
the A/0 System for Nutrient Removal. Presented at the 58th Annual
Water Pollution Control Federation Conference, Kansas City,
Missouri, October 1985.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
68. FuJcase, T., Shibata, M., and Y. Mayaji. Factors Affecting
Biological Removal of Phosphorus. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus
Removal from Wastewater, Vol. I, IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar,
Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France, p. 239.
69. Deakyne, C.W., Patel, M.A., and D.J. Krichten. Pilot Plant
Demonstration of Bilogical Phosphorus Removal. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 56 (7): 867, 1984.
70. Groenestijn, J.W., and M.H. Deinema. Effects of Cultural Conditions
on Phosphate Accumulation and Release by Acinetobacter Strain 210A.
Proceedings of the International Conference, Management Strategies
for Phosphorus in the Environment, Lisbon, July 1-4, 1985.
71. Nicholls, H.A., Pitman, A.R. and D.W. Osborn. The Readily
Biodegradable Fraction of Sewage; Its Influence on Phosphorus
Removal and Measurement. Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal
from Wastewater, Vol. I, IAWPRC Post Conference Seminar, Sept. 24,
1984, Paris, France, 105.
72. Siebritz, I.P., Ekama, G.A., and G.R. Marais. Biological Phosphorus
Removal in the Activated Sludge Process. Research Report W46,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Capetown, 1983.
73. Maier, W. et al. Pilot Scale Studies on Enhanced Phosphorus Removal
in a Single Stage Activated Sludge Treatment Plant. Enhanced
Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater, Vol. II IAWPRC Post
Conference Seminar, Sept. 24, 1984, Paris, France, p. 51.
74. Tracy, K.D. and A. Flammino. Kinetics of Biological Phosphorus
Removal. Presented at the 58th Annual Water Pollution Control
Federation Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, October 1985.
75. Vinconneau, J.C., Hascoet, M.C., and M. Florentz. The First
Applications of Biological Phosphorus Removal in France.
Proceedings of the International Conference, Management Strategies
for Phosphorus in the Environment, Lisbon, July 1-4, 1985.
76. McCarty, P.L., Beck, L., and P. St. Amant. Biological
Denitrification of Wastewaters by Addition of Organic Materials.
Proceedings 24th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, Indiana, 1969.
77. Peirano, L.E., et al. Full Scale Experiences with the Phostrip
Process. Presented at the Workshop on Biological Phosphorus Removal
in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Annapolis, Md., June 22-24, 1982.
78. Oldham, W.R. and H.P. Dew. Cold Temperature Operation of the
Bardenpho Process. Presented at the 14th Canadian Symposium on
Water Pollution Research, 1979.
-------
79. Nagashima, M. et al. A Nitrification/Denitrification Recycling
System for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal from Fermentation
Wastewater, Fermentation Technology, 57: 2, 1979.
80. Ekama, G.A., Siebritz, I.P. and G.R. Marais. Considerations in the
Process Design of Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Processes.
Selected Papers on Activated Sludge Process Research at the
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, April, 1982.
81. McLaren, A.R. and R.J. Wood. Effective Phosphorus Removal from
Sewage by Biological Means. Water SA, 2, 47, 1976.
82. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979, p. 214.83.
83. Stensel, H.D. Design of Biological Nutrient Removal Systems by a
Graphical Procedure. Civil Engineering for Practicing and Design
Engineers. 2: 1, 1982.
84. Wastewater Treatment Plant Design. Water Pollution Control
Federation Manual of Practice MOPS, Washington, DC, 1977.
85. Wuhrman, K. Nitrogen Relationships in Biological Treatment
Processes-III. Denitrification in the Modified Activated Sludge
Process, 3: 177, Water Research, 1969.
86. Panzer, C.C. Substrate Utilization Approach for Design of Nitrogen
Control, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE,
110 (2) 369, April, 1984.
87. Barnard, J.L. The Role of Full Scale Research in Biological
Phosphate Removal, Proceedings, New Directions and Research in Waste
Treatment and Residulals Management, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, June 23-28, 1985.
88. Rabinowitx, B. and W.K. Oldham. The use of Primary Sludge
Fermentation in the Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal Process,
Proceedings, New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and
Residuals Management, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, June 23-28, 1985.
89. Barnard, J.L., Activated Primary Tanks for Phosphate Removal, Water
SA, 10 (3): July, 1984.
90. Leslie, P.J. Design of the Kelowna Pollution Control Centre,
Proceedings of the Seminar on Biological Phosphorus Removal in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Penticton, British Columbia, April
17 and 18, 1985.
8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
91. Nutt, S.G., and N.W. Schmidtke. Technical and Economical
Feasibility of Retrofitting Existing Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants in Canada for Biological Phosphorus Removal. Proceedings of
the Seminar on Biological Phosphorus Removal in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, Penticton, British Columbia, April 17 and 18, 1985.
-------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
EPA DUAL NUTRIENT CONTROL PROJECT
1. Deakyne, Charles W., Patel, Manu A. and Krichten,
David J., "Pilot Plant Demonstration of Biological
Phosphorus Removal." Journal WPCF, 867-873, 56,
July (1984).
2. Manning, John F. and Levine, Robert L., "The
Biological Removal of Phosphorus in a Sequencing
Batch Reactor." Journal WPCF, 87-94, 57, January
(1985).
3. Gullicks, H.A. and Cleasby, J.L., "Design of
Trickling Filter Nitrification Towers." Journal
WPCF, 60-67, 58, January (1986).
4. Abufayed, A.A. and Schroeder, E.D., "Kinetics and
Stoichiometry of SBR/Denitrification with a
Primary Sludge Carbon Source." Journal WPCF,,
387-397, 58, May (1986) .
5. Abufayed, A.A. and Schroeder, E.D., "Kinetics and
Stoichiometry of SBR/Denitrification with a
Primary Sludge Carbon Source." Journal WPCF,
398-405, 58, May (1986) .
6. Earth, E.F., Kaempfer, C., Benedict, A.H., and
Tetreault, M.J., "Biological Phosphorus Removal:
Technology Evaluation." Journal WPCF, 823-837,
58, August (1986).
7. Argaman, Y. and Brenner, A., "Single-Sludge
Nitrogen Removal: Modeling and Experimental
Results." Journal WPCF, 853-860, 58, August
(1986) .
8. Richards, and Parker, S., "Nitrification in
Trickling Filters." Journal WPCF, 896-902, 58,
September (1986).
9. Langeland, W.E. and Rittmann, B.E., "Simultanous
Denitrification with Nitrification in
Single-Channel Oxidation Ditches." Journal WPCF,
300-308, 57, April (1985).
10. Rebhun, M., Gahil, N. and Narkis, N., "Kinetic
Studies of Chemical and Biological Treatment for
Renovation." Journal WPCF, 324-331, 57, Spril
(1985).
10
-------
I
I
I
/•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11. Irvine, R.L., Ketchum, L.H., Arora, M.L., and
Earth, E.F., "An Organic Loading Study of
Full-Scale Sequencing Batch Reactors." Journal
WPCF, 847-853, 57, Augut, (1985).
12. Arora, M.L., Barth, E.F., and Umphres, M.B.,
"Technology Evaluation of Sequencing Batch
Reactors." Journal WPCF, 867-875, 57, August
(1985).
13. Reddy, M.P., Keely, S.J., Hale, B. and Reardon,
R., "Operational Experiences for Combined Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Removal Via Bardenpho Process."
Presented at the March 3-4, 1987 TREEO Center
Conference.
14. Daigger, T., and Waltrip, G.D., "Enchanced
Secondary Treatment for Incorporating Biological
Nutrient Removal." Proceedings from the WPCF
Conference, 1986.
15. Karlsson, I., "Low Energy System for Nutrient
Removal." Proceedings from the WPCF Conference,
1986.
16. Refling, D., "Innovative and Economic Advance
Biological Treatment Processes." Proceedings from
the WPCF Conference, 1985.
17. Moore, T., "Biological Nutrient Removal at Payson,
Arizona." Proceedings from the WPCF Conference,
1985.
18. Ketchum, L.H., Irvine, R.L., Breyfogle, R.E. and
Manning, J.F., "A Comparison of Biological and
Chemical Phosphorus Removals in Continuous and
Sequencing Batch Reactors, WPCF 59 (1): 13-18,
January (1987).
19. Tanaka, K., Ishida, T., and Murakami, T., "Full
Scale Evaluation of Biological Phosphorus and
Nitrogen Removal."
20. Bundgaard, E., Bangsbo-Hansen, 0., Kristensen,
G.H., and Jansen, J.L., "Advanced Biological
Treatment-Nutrient Removal." Monte Carlo, (1986).
11
-------
21. Burdick, C.R. and Dallaire, G., "Florida Sewage
Plant First to Remove Nutrients with Bacteria
Alone - No Need for Costly Chemicals." Civil
Engineering - ASCE, October, 1987.
22. DiFiore, R.S., "Sludge Production and Handling
Considerations for Phosphorus Removal Systems;
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant; Raleigh,
NC," Presented at the NC AWWA/WPCA Seminar on
Nutrient Reduction in Municipal Wastewater,
September 9, 1986, Raleigh, NC.
23. DiFiore, R.S., "Phosphorus Removal Case Studies -
Chemical and Biological, "Presented at the NC
AWWA/WPCA Annual Conference; November 11, 1986,
Winston-Salem, NC.
24. "Assessment of Phased Isolation Ditch
Technologies," Brown and Caldwell Consulting
Engineers, report prepared for EPA-WERL under
contract 68-03-1818, September, 1985.
25. Brannon, K.P., Randall, C.W. and Benefield, L.D.,
"The Anaerobic Stabilization of Organics in a
Biological Phosphorus Removal System," presented
at the 59th Annual Conference of WPCF, Kansas
City, MO, 1986.
26. Tracy, K.D., Adams, M.E. and Flammino, "Control of
Activated Sludge Settling Characteristics with
Anaerobic Selectors," presented at the 59th Annual
Conference of WPCF, Kansas City, MO, 1986.
27. "Retrofitting POTW's for Phosphorus Removal in the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Area, Second Draft
Report," McNamee, Porter, and Seeley, March, 1987.
28. "Demonstration of Biological Phosphorus Removal at
KilmornocJc, Virginia, Progress Report II."
McNamee, Porter, and Seeley, May, 1987.
29. Maxwell, Mark, "Design and Operational Factors for
Maximizing Phosphorus Removal." Proceedings from
the WPCF Conference, 1985.
30. Nasr, S. and Knickerboker, K. "Biological Nutrient
Removal at Payson, Arizona." Presented at the
58th Annual WPCF Conference, October, 1985.
31. Kordachi, D.A., and Robert, M.R., "Full Scale
Phosphate Removal Experiences in the Umhlatuzama
Works at Different Sludge Ages." Water Science
and Technology, 261-281, 15, 198_.
12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
32. Reddy, M., Keely, S., Hale, B., Reardon, R.,
Koopman, B. "Development of Operational Control
Strategies for Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal Treatment Facility". Presented at the
ASCE Environmental Conference, July 7, 1987.
33. Carr, B.H. "Bugs Eat Sewage Treatment Cost".
Engineering News Record, pg.21, April 30, 1987.
34. Hull, H. "Bardenpho Pilot Study". Springdale,
Arkansas, Wastewater Department, April, 1986.
35. Steven, G.M. "Operating Experiences with the
Kelowna Facility". City of Kelowna.
36. McKim, T.W. "Biologic Phosphorus Removal Via
Operationally Modified Activated Sludge".
Presented at the Seminar for Biological Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Removal (The Florida Experience),
March 3-4, 1987, Treeo Center, Gainesville,
Florida.
37. Blanknian, E.2 "Combined Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal Via A 0". Presented at the Seminar for
Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal (The
Florida Experience), March 3-4, 1987, Treeo
Center, Gainesville, Florida.
38. Randall, C.W., Grizzard, T.J. "Biological
Nutrient Removal at the Retrofitted Maryland City,
and Bowie, Maryland. Sewage Treatment Plants,
Proposal to Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, State of Maryland, March 25, 1987.
39. "Virginia Initiative Plant, Pilot Plant Program
(Executive Sumary)". Prepared for Hampton Road
Sanitation District, March, 1987, Norfolk,
Virginia.
40. Randalls, C.W. "Quarterly Report No. 1 York River
STP Nutrient Removal Project Chesapeake Bay
Initiatives". Submitted to State Water Control
Board of Virginia for Hampton Roads Sanitation
District, June 16 - September 15, 1986.
13
-------
41. Randalls, C.W. "Quarterly Report No. 2 York River
STP Nutrient Removal Project Chesapeake Bay
Initiatives". Submitted to State Water Control
Board of Virginia for Hampton Roads Sanitation
District, September - December 15, 1986
42. "Phosphorus Removal and Sludge Stabilization
Evaluation". City of Rochester, Minnesota, April,
1987, Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers.
43. Nutt, S.G. and Schmidtke, N.W. "Technical and
Economical Feasibility of Retrofitting Existing
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Canada
for Biological Phosphorus Removal", Kitchener,
Ontario.
44. "Design Guidelines - Biological Nutrient Removal
Processes". Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., July,
1986, Maitland, Florida.
45. Snyder, Bruce R. "Wastewater Treatment Design for
Bionutrient Removal*. Presented at the March 3 -
4, 1987, Treeo Center Conference.
46. Lamb, James C. Ill, Shoaf, Stephen R., Francisco,
Donald E., "Pilot Studies of Biological
Phosphoruous Removal", Presented at the North
Carolina WPCA Association Annual Meeting, November
1986, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
47. Tracy, K.D., Flanunino, A. "Kinetics of Biological
Phosphorus Removal". Presented at the 58th Annual
Conference of WPCF at Kansas City, MO, 1985.
48. Hong, S.N., Spector, M.L., Galdieri, J.V. and
Seebolem, R.P. "Recent Advances on Biological
Nutrient Control by the A/0 Process". Presented
at the 56th Annual Conference WPCF at Atlanta, GA,
1983.
49. Hong, S.N., Krichten, D.J., Kisenhauer, K.S., and
Sell, R.L. "A Biological Wastewater Treatment
System for Nutrient Removal". Presented at EPA
Workshop on Biological Phosphorus Removal,
Annapolis, MD, June, 1982.
50. Sell, R.L., Krichten, D.J., Noichl, O.J., and
Hartzog, D.G. "Low Temperature Biological
Phosphorus Removal". Presented at the 54th Annual
Conference WPCF at Detroit, MI, October 8, 1981.
14
-------
I
I
I
»*>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
ADDITIONAL COST REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, "Estimating Staffing for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facilities", March, 1973.
2. A report prepared under the Direction of the Personnel
Advancement Committee Water Pollution Control
Federation, "1980 Salaries of Wastewater Personnel",
Special Report, March 1981.
3. J.M. Smith and Associates, PSC, Consulting Engineers,
"Capdet and Planning Level Cost Estimates for Secondary
and Advanced Secondary Treatment Systems", September
1984.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Quarterly
Indexes of Direct Cost for Operation, Maintenance and
Repair (3rd. Qtr. 1973=100) of Raw Wastewater Pumping
Stations, and Gravity Sewers", 3RD Quarter CY - 1984.
5. Benjes, H.H., Jr., "Attached Growth Biological
Wastewater Treatment Estimating Performance and
Construction Cost and Operating and Maintenance
Requirements", January 1977.
6. Hansen, S.P., Gumerman, R.C., Gulp, R.L., "Estimating
Water Treatment Costs" Vols. 1, 2, and 3, August, 1979,
EPA Reports EPA 6500/2 -79-162a, 162b and 162c.
7. Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Construction
Consultants and Publishers, "Means Mechanical Cost
Data", 1984, 7th Annual Edition.
8. Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Construction
Consultants and Publishers, "Means Electrical Cost
Data", 1984, 7th Annual Edition.
9. McMahon, L.A., "Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy
Construction Costs", 1984, Vol. 4., Annual Edition No.
16.
10. Engelsman, C., "Heavy Construction Cost File", 1984.
11. Peterson, E.N., Jr., "Building Construction Cost Data",
1986, 44th Annual Edition.
12. Bowker, R.P.G., Stensel, H.D., "Design Manual for
Phosphorus Removal", September, 1987.
15
-------
13. Richardson Engineering Services, Inc., The Richardson
Rapid System, "Process Plant Construction Estimating
Standards", Vols. 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1984 Edition.
14. J.M. Smith and Associates, "Bid Data for Yellow Springs
Wastewater Treatment and Abbeville Wastewater Treatment
Facility".
15. J.M. Smith and Associates, "Standard Engineering
Estimating Techniques Including Unit Pricing, Firm
Equipment Quotes Based on Conceptual Designe.s and Unit
Take Off".
16. "Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment
Manual," MCD-53, USEPA 430/9-78-009, February, 1980.
17. "Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for
Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities," USEPA,
17090 DAN 10/71, October, 1971.
18. "Attached Growth Biological Wastewater Treatment:
Estimating Performance..." EPA Contract No. 68-03-2186,
January, 1977.
19. "Estimating Construction Costs and O&M Requirements for
Wastewwater Filtration Facilities," EPA Contract No.
08-03-2186, July, 1976.
20. "Estimating Water Treatment Costs, Vol. 1, 2, 3,"
EPA-600/2-79-162a, b, c, August, 1979.
21. "Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance
Syatama, 1973-1977," USEPA 430/9-77-015, May, 1978.
22. "Quarterly Indexes of Direct Cost for Operation,
Maintenance and Repair", (1967 » 100), Based on
Composite 5 MGO Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
(3rd. Qtr. CY - 1983).
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Innovating and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual", February/
1980.
24. Patterson, W.L., Banker, R.F., Black and Veatch,
"Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for
Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities", October,
1971.
25. "Recommended Standards for Sewage Works", revised
edition 1973.
16
------- |