CBP/TRS 288/99
                                                  EPA-R-99-020
                                                 September 1999
                     Final Report
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants for
BNR Retrofits Using Advances in Technology
              Chesapeake Bay Program
                      100% recycled/recyclable paper
                      50% post consumer fiber using vegetable based inks
                                      EPA Report Collection
                                      Regional Center for Environmental Information
                                      U.S. EPA Region HI
                                      Philadelphia, PA 19103

-------
                                                                       M>      X*
                                                                        It PRO^°

                                                               Regional Center lor Tmii onmental Inlonnatitin
                                                                       US EPA Region III
                                                                        1650 Arch St
                                                                     Philadelphia, PA 19103
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency For the Chesapeake Bay Program

-------
                    FINAL REPORT
EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS FOR
   BNR RETROFITS USING ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
                      Submitted to
             THE POINT SOURCE WORKGROUP
           NUTRIENT REMOVAL SUBCOMMITTEE
              IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
               CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
                      Prepared by
                  Clifford W. Randall, PhD
                   Zeynep Kisoglu, MS
                    Dipankar Sen, PhD
                    Pramod Mitta, MS
                     Ufuk Erdal, MS
             ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
                    VIRGINIA TECH
               BLACKSBURG, VA 24061-0246

-------
                             CONTENTS


                                                            Page

INTRODUCTION                                                1

      Scope of Project                                            1

SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATIONS                                 2

      Pennsylvania WWTPs                                        4
      Maryland and New York WWTPs                               5
      Virginia WWTPs                                            6
      Summary Tables

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BNR                        26

BNR PROCESS SCHEMATICS                                      27

BNR EVALUATION SUMMARIES                                   28

APPENDIX I:

      BNR Process Schematics                                      1

APPENDIX II:

      SUMMARIES OF BNR EVALUAT; ON REPORTS

           Maryland Reports                                     1

           New York Reports                                     20

           Pennsylvania Reports                                   24

           Virginia Reports                                       55

-------
   EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS FOR BNR RETROFITS
                        USING ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
 INTRODUCTION

 This project was initiated on June 1, 1995 for the purpose of stimulating efforts towards the
 reduction of point source nutrient discharges to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
 Prior to the project, a few engineering firms had developed reports wherein they estimated the
 total costs for biological nutrient removal (BNR) retrofits at the wastewater treatment plants
 (WWTP) throughout the Watershed. The estimates indicated that implementation of nutrient
 removal throughout the Watershed would be very costly. The USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
 Office and the responsible State Offices perceived that further conventional point source nutrient
 removal implementation efforts were likely to meet with considerable political resistance because
 of the projected costs,  and sought possible BNR alternative designs and configurations based
 upon technological and knowledge advancements.

 The cost estimates developed prior to this project were based on conventional BNR design
 approaches. These approaches typically assume that process volume requirements for biological
 nitrification are very large for near complete nitrification under typical winter conditions, and that
 most existing secondary clarifiers are too  small for the increased solids loadings likely to occur as
 operational changes are made to obtain nutrient removal. There also was uncertainty regarding
 the performance and reliability of BNR processes in general, which added to the conservative
 nature of the cost estimates. Meanwhile, the Virginia Tech BNR research group had been
 working with several full-scale WWTPs in Virginia and Maryland to demonstrate that BNR
 processes can be reliably operated, can be more economical to operate than  fully nitrifying
 processes, and that retrofits can be relatively inexpensive to implement.  The group had
 successfully experimented with fixed film media integrated into activated sludge at the
 Annapolis, Maryland WWTP to reduce the aeration basin and clarifier capacities needed for
 implementation of nitrogen removal at that facility. The successful demonstration reduced the
 construction needs from a one-third  increase in aeration volume and a 150% increase in clarifier
 volume to no increase  in aeration volume  and a 50% increase in clarifier volume. Consequently,
 the Point Source Work Group of the Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Removal Subcommittee,
 at the urging of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, requested that the Virginia Tech BNR
 research group undertake the task of evaluating selected  plants throughout the Watershed for
 BNR retrofits utilizing recent advances in knowledge and technology.

 Scope of Project

 The primary emphasis  of the BNR retrofit recommendations was to be enhancement of nitrogen
 removal, but would include biological phosphorus removal if deemed economically favorable.
 The research group agreed to do the  project, and a total of 51 WWTPs located in the states of
 Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia were designated for evaluation.  Subsequently, two
 WWTPs located in the Susquehanna Basin of New York were selected for evaluation and
 substituted for two in Maryland. The project was funded by Chesapeake Bay Program funds
 administered by the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program and Region III Offices. The evaluations
generally assumed that the desired effluent TN concentration was  8 mg/L or less.  When
 phosphorus removal was included, the target effluent TP concentration was 2 mg/L or less.

The distribution of WWTPs by state was 16 in Pennsylvania, 9 in  Maryland, 24 in Virginia, and 2
 in New York.  Fifteen  of the Pennsylvania WWTPs are located in the Susquehanna River Basin

-------
   222 4 mTnn              '                                   A Pa"tS ^ ^8™* tO t
   222 4 m.Ilion gallons per day (MOD) of wastewater, and were discharging 163 2 MOD with a
   nn'T
-------
 managers. The costs per pound of additional nitrogen removed were flow weighted to determine
 the average for each state and for all plants evaluated.
 Table 6.  Projected Nitrogen Removal and Cost per Pound of Additional Nitrogen Removal
STATE
PA
MD
NY
VA
Total/Average
Current Flow
MGD
163.2
12.2
32.3
130.8
339.0
Current
Nitrogen
Discharged
Lb/year
6.593 x 10"
561,735
1.437x10"
5.935 x 10"
14.527 x 106
Additional
Nitrogen
Removal*
Lb/year
4.579 X 10"
455,750
662,850
4.285x10"
9.982 x 10*
Average Cost
per Additional
Ib of N Removal
S/lb
0.97
1.31
2.49
0.48
0.94
 *Annual average over a 20 year period assuming flow increase to design or projected flow

 The results in Table 6 are conservative for additional nitrogen removal because the numbers are
 based on the most economical modification that would reduce the effluent TN to 8 mg/L or less,
 even when a small increase in cost would decrease the effluent TN substantially below 8 mg/L.
 Also, the effluent TN concentration used for the calculations was the concentration that would be
 achieved under the most limiting conditions, e.g., winter temperatures, and lower effluent
 concentrations could be obtained, if desired, during warmer weather, resulting in a lower average
 for the year.

 The results project that implementation of the recommendations of this report would result in the
 following percent reductions in nitrogen discharge from the evaluated WWTPs, by state: 60% for
 PA, 54% for MD, 45% for NY, and 55% for VA. The overall projected percent reduction  in
 nitrogen discharge for the evaluated WWTPs is 56%, for a 20 year average total reduction of
 9.982 x 106 Ibs/year, at an average cost of $0.94 per pound of projected additional  nitrogen
 removal.

 The results show that there was a very wide variation in the recommended modifications and their
 projected costs.  All costs were based on present worth for an amortization period of 20 years,
 and the value of the dollar during the year the evaluation was performed. Some plants required
 no or very little modification to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Program target standards of 8
 mg/L TN and 2 mg/L TP. Most of these simply needed changes in the method of operation, and
 several of them would realize a reduction in annual O & M costs if the changes were made. For a
 few of the plants the O & M savings would be sufficient to pay for the entire costs of
 modification to BNR operation.  Net savings would be realized by several more of the WWTPs if
 the modifications were based on current flows rather than design and/or desired maximum flows.
 That is to say, the costs of operating those plants could be reduced sufficiently to pay for all
 modifications in a short time period (<10 years), with a net savings for the modifications until the
 influent flow reaches a magnitude that requires major construction modifications to preserve the
 pre-BNR capacity.  The Throop, Pennsylvania, Mattawoman, Maryland and Opequon Creek,
Virginia WWTPs are three examples of such plants. All three could be easily and economically
modified for very good  BNR for the forseeable future, i.e., 10 years or more, based on current
flows and likely increases, but will require substantially more expensive BNR retrofits if
modified to maintain the pre-BNR design capacities.  Also,  a significant percentage of the plants
evaluated could be  inexpensively but adequately modified for BNR by "temporary
modifications", i.e., modifications with a projected equipment life of 5 to 15 years, if the owners
were willing to accept such modification standards until plant expansion is needed. Instead, the

-------
 modification costs in this report were based on the "permanent modification" standards of each
 owner, if such standards were known.
Pennsylvania WWTPs

The results of the 16 Pennsylvania WWTP evaluations are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Pennsylvania WWTPs Evaluated for BNR Removal
WWTP
Altoona City (E)
Altoona City (W)
Chambersburg
Greater Hazleton
Hanover
Harrisburg
Lancaster
Lebanon
Scranton
State College
(UAJA)
Susquehanna
(Lancaster Area)
Throop
Williamsport(C)
Williamsport W)
Wyoming Valley
York City
Total/Average
BNR Design
Flow
MGD
9.0
13.5
4.5
8.9
4.5
30.0 •
29.7
8.0
16.0
6.0
12.0
7.0
7.2
4.5
32.0
26.0
218.8
Total Capital
Costs
$
1.230 xlO6
1.233x 106
6.347 x 10"
7.84 x 10"
0.060 x 10"
25.448x10"
1.077xl06
4.039x10"
2.815 xlO6
0.780x10"
1.619x10"
3.320 x 10"
6.339x10"
5.246x10"
0.763 x 10"
1.780x10"
69.936 x 106
Capital
Cost/Flow
S/MGD
136,667
91,333
1,410,444
880,899
13,333
848,250
36,263
504,875
175,938
130,000
134,917
474,285
880,417
1,165,778
23,843
68,462
319,634
Cost per Ib
Add. N
Removal
$0.51
0.42
2.69
3.24
0.08
2.00
0.19
1.19
0.76
0.33
1.12
1.68
1.36
2.58
0.18
0.42
$0.946
The 16 Pennsylvania WWTPs can be easily classified into two categories based on the capital
costs of the needed modifications for BNR. Six of the plants, accounting for only 29% of the post
BNR design flows, would account for 79% of the total capital costs. Of the six, the Harrisburg
plant, alone, accounts for 36% of the total projected capital costs. The six plants, their post BNR
design flows, their projected capital costs for BNR, and the BNR modification costs per MGD,
are listed in Table 8. The capital cost per MGD would be nearly $900,000, and the cost per
pound additional N removal projects to $2.09/lb.

                Table 8. Pennsylvania High Cost BNR Modification Plants
WWTP
Chambersburg
Greater Hazleton
Harri.-Targ
Lebar. .n
W'msport Central
W'msport West
Total/Average
BNR Design
Flow
MGD
4.5
8.9
30.0
8.0
7.2
4.5
63.1
Total Capital
Costs
$
6.347 xlO6
7.840x10"
25.448x10"
4.039 x 10"
6.339 x 10"
5.246 xlO6
55.26 x 106
Capital
Cost/Flow
S/MGD
1.4104 xlO6
880,899
848,250
504,875
880,474
1.166x 10°
875,737
Cost per Ib
Add. N
Removal
$2.69/lb
$3.24/lb
$2.00/Ib
$1.19/ib
$1.36/lb
$2.58/lb
S2.09/Ib

-------
 The high capital investment and cost per pound projections suggest that these plants are good
 candidates for nutrient trading with non-point source controls or other WWTPs, if such an option
 is developed.

 In contrast to the six plants listed in Table 8, the 10 other plants account for 155.7 MOD (71%) of
 the post BNR design flow, but only $14.676 x 106 (21%) of the projected capital costs, for a
 modification cost of only $94,258 per MOD. Also, five of these 10 plants would have a
 reduction in annual O&M costs from converting to BNR. The projected average cost per  pound
 of additional N removal by these 10 plants is only $0.41/Ib.  It is unlikely that non-point controls
 could even remotely approach these costs, and obviously could not promise the same reliability of
 N reduction. Clearly, these plants are good candidates for economical BNR modification  and
 operation.

 Maryland and New York WWTPs

 The nine Maryland WWTPs included in this draft report are small scale plants, with one
 exception, and, consequently, the projected costs per additional pound of nitrogen removed are
 very high for most of them.  The information is tabulated in Table 9. The two New York plants
 are relatively large, but one is a trickling filter (TF) plant, and the other has very severe site
 constraints.  Consequently, the projected costs for implementing BNR at the two NY plants are
 high. Their data also are included in Table 9.

          Table 9. Maryland and New York WWTPS Evaluated for BNR Removal
WWTP
Brunswick
Chestertown
Crisfield
Elkton
Federalsburg
Georges Creek
(Alleghany Cty.)
Indian Head
Mattawoman
Winebrenner
MD Totals/Avg.
Binghampton
Endicott
NY Totals/Avg.
BNR Design
Flow
MGD
0.7
0.9
1.0
2.7
0.75
0.6
0.49
15
0.6
22.74
25
8
33
Total Capital
Costs
$
390,000
1.350x10"
1.949xl06
1.970x 106
1.525xl06
1.663x10"
532,000
4.250 x 10b
1.480xl06
15.109 x 106
13.057x10"
6.656x10"
19.713 x 106
Capital
Cost/Flow
S/MGD
557,143
1.50x10*
1.949xl06
729,630
2.033 x 106
2.772x10"
1.085 xlO6
283,333
2.467 xlO6
0.664 x 106
522,280
832,000
597364
Cost per Ib
Add.
N Removal
$0.50/lb N
$5.92/lbN
$4.95/lb N
$1.87/lbN
$3.34/lbN
$3.55/lbN
$2.90/lb N
$0.07/lb N
$3.77/lbN
1.31/lbN
$2.24/lb N
$3.35/lbN
S2.49/Ib N
Only two of the Maryland WWTPs, Brunswick and Mattawoman, have the potential for low cost
BNR modification. This is because most of the other plants have fixed-film biological processes,
either trickling filters or rotating biological contactors, or are old facilities that need substantial
upgrading before BNR is possible. One, Chestertown, is an aerated lagoon system that cannot
maintain nitrification during the winter months.  The cost per pound of additional nitrogen
removed is relatively small for the nine plants collectively, but that is because the Mattawoman
flow dominates the total flow, and it potentially can be modified for BNR very economically.
The seven WWTPs other than Brunswick and Mattawoman account for only 31% of the design

-------
BNR flow, but 69% of the projected capital costs. The cost per additional pound of N removal
for the seven "high cost" plants averages $3.36/lb N, which is substantially higher than the
$2.09/Ib N average of the high cost Pennsylvania WWTPs. Clearly, it would be economical to
upgrade the Brunswick and Mattawoman WWTPs for BNR.  The other plants do not fall into the
low cost category based on cost per additional pound of potential nitrogen removal, and non-point
pollution reduction trading may be more attractive. However, this cost per pound is still
considerably less than the estimates for some types of non-point source controls. Also, some of
the Maryland plants are in need of upgrades for conventional treatment.  If they are to be
upgraded or expanded, it may be possible to economically include modifications that enable BNR
along with the expansions and upgrades.

Virginia WWTPs

The twenty-four Virginia WWTPs are primarily small plants, as shown by the data listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Virginia BNR Modification Plants
WWTP
Arlington
Colonial Beach
Dahlgren
Dale Services^ 1
Dale Services#8
DuPont,
Waynesboro
Fishersville
Front Royal
Harrisonburg
H. L. Mooney
Leesburg
Lower Potomac
Luray
Merck and Co.
Middle
River/Verona
Opequon
Parkins Mill
Purcellville
Rocco Foods,
Edinburg
Strasburg
Stuarts Draft
Waynesboro
Woodstock
Total/Average
BNR Design
Flow
MOD
30
2.0
0.325
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
16
18
4.85
67.0
2.0
1.2
4.5
6.25
2.0
1.0
1.2
0.975
1.4
4.0
1.0
173.7
Total Capital
Costs
$
560,000
90,000
30,000
220,000
220,000
0
790,000
50,000
4.688 x 106
490.000
2.980 x 106
20.800 x 106
0
0
150,000
570,000
97,000
1.3 xlO6
4.480 x I06
120,000
1.240x 106
3.500 x 106
70,000
42.445 x 106
Capital
Cost/Flow
S/MGD
18,667
45,000
92,000
73,000
73,000
-
395,000
13,000
293,000
27,222
614,000
310,448
0
0
33,000
91,000
49,000
1.3x10"
3,733,000
123,000
886,000
875,000
70,000
244,358
Cost per Ib Add.
N removal
$0.605/lb
-$0.065/lb
-$0.12/lb
$0.29/lb
$0.29/lb
-$0.11/lb
$2.20/!b
$0.02/lb
$0.54/lb
$0.063/Ib
$0.68/lb
$0.50/lb
N/A
0
$0.30/lb
$0.16/lb
-$0.79/lb
$1.80/lb
$0.338/lb
-$0.14/lb
$2.36/lb
$1.27/lb
-$0.22/Ib
$0.48/lb

-------
 Four of the Virginia plants are large and collectively will be designed to treat 131 MOD by BNR, which is
 75% of the Virginia total. The other 20 WWTPs treat an average flow of only 2.14 MGD and twelve of
 them are designed to treat 2 MGD or less. Although the plants are relatively small, they should be much
 more economical to modify for BNR removal than the typical Maryland WWTP. This is because nearly all
 of them are activated sludge (AS) process facilities, and several of them are oxidation ditch AS systems.
 Oxidation ditches typically are easy to operate for biological nitrogen removal, simply by changing the
 operating approach. The primary expense for most of them is the purchase and installation of timer
 switches for the aerators. Also,  most  of the Virginia facilities are not near design flow, and can
 be easily modified for BNR with the existing activated sludge basin volumes and clarifier
 capacities.  However, the recommended constructive or operative modifications may lead to a
 downsizing of the plants' hydraulic design capacity.  Therefore, the  resulting BNR process might
 have a shorter useful service life (as plant flow increases) than a more permanent retrofit designed
 to maintain the existing permitted design capacity.  The savings accumulated during the interim
 years, however, may be sufficient to pay for much  of the subsequent expansion. Regardless, the
 average cost per additional pound of N removed for the Virginia plants is projected as only
 $0.48/lb, the lowest of the three  states. Even this figure is misleading because most of the
 projected capital costs would be expended on six of the WWTPs, and three plants project much
 higher costs per additional pound of N removed than the rest.  The seven high capital outlay
 and/or high N removal cost plants are listed in  Table 11.

 Table 11.   Virginia High Cost BNR Modification Plants-
WWTP
Fishersville
Harrisonburg
Leesburg
Lower Potomac,
Fairfax County
Rocco Farm
Foods,Edinburg
Stuarts Draft
Waynesboro
Total/Average
BNR Design
Flow
MGD
2.0
16
4.85
67.0
1.2
1.4
4.0
96.45
Total Capital
Costs
$
790,000
4.688 x 10"
2.980x10"
20.8 x 10"
4.480 xlO6
1.240xl06
3.500 x 10"
38.478 x 106
Capital
Cost/Flow
S/MGD
395,000
293,000
614,000
310448
3,733,000
886,000
875,000
398,942
Cost per Ib Add.
N removal
$2.20/lb
$0.54/lb
$0.68/lb
$0.50/lb
$0.338/lb
$2.36/lb
$1.27/lb
$0.61/Ib
The seven plants listed above account for only 56% of the total discharge flow, but nearly 91% of
the projected BNR modification capital costs. In spite of the high capital costs, the projected
average cost per additional pound of nitrogen removed is only $0.61/lb. The other 17 Virginia
plants would have a cost per Ib additional N removed of only $0.27, and six of these plants should
save money over 20 yrs by implementing the recommended BNR approach. Two of the
evaluated plants, Merck, Inc. and Luray, have no reason to implement BNR because their
wastewaters are nitrogen deficient for biological wastewater treatment, which necessitates
nitrogen addition.

-------
 o
 o
Q.
(O
U
Q
O.
a.
 o
 a














•o
J
£•
fl)

CO
Ul

o.
§?£
f
K E
J
K I
z E
cod
coc,
«» _l
§t
m =
Li. Q
|i
&
^
n
5!


z z
COCOCOCOCOGOCOCOCO
ooooooooo
AAAAAAAAA
CO
CN •CNCNCNCNCN'leN
O
i • i ° ,

, . 0 So S
CM o'
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOCOOO
•n 05
cio-^oo5-o

ll|g||fll
mOOiDu!cJS5§
                                                                 CD
                                                                 CO

                                                                 1
                                                                 CD
                                                                £


                                                                I
                                                                 O
                                                                 CD
                                                                 O
                                                                 O
                                                                 O)
                                                                *a>
CD
O>
CO
                                                                 o  a>

                                                                 «  8
                                                                 CO  X
                                                                 a,  e»
                                                                "
                                                                  .
                                                                 =  2
                                                                 W  (8

                                                                If"











































.s
'c
n
>
"5.
M
C
C
0)
0-











1








x
BL

-1
if
_J
» O) >
h E
K E

35 _|
**" *Si
it
=
cod
e?

~
§»
§ E
_
0
U. Q
Si O
E S
o
0.


c
m
a

TJ
C
O
•o n -a <*
1 1 1 |
IT <£.(£. C
(0 <0 TO ^S
> >• >• ^ o"
> > > > J 5"
ggg s^gg^-l % -. 1
ZZZ Z2ZZo.fi 5 o z_
>>> >=>><§ = 9 >
iSi ScSctj^l1 § J J
OOOgOgOOg1" « ggfl O
>,>.>,o>.>.>->,ots' >. oooo >.
w«wx«_««cC> ^ OlQiQIQl rt
___co^<*'^^co:' *^ ioraiSco ^
S = = ^ = > = = ^z > >?£?£?£! 5
T3TJ^ — ^T3^^— ^ "D — — — — t3

COCOCOT'COCOCOCOT;^; co r;r;7;r! ™
OOOOOOOOOO 0 OOOO 0
O>O>G>I " ^


CNCNCO' T^T-CM'CNC°T~ "~ v t-'
OOOOOOOOOO O OOOO O
cococococococococoT- co cocoinco co
in in in in in o o
CN CN CN CN CM CN CN

oommmminomo m min^-m in

mcjimo^ o CM CNIOCN 05-«:eoiri«S<;0s >H 2 N ^5 OT E ^ T— t ^ O
— ^r t/j J5 O)*_ — (OQJ o_ S_ ^
oj^3^2c^o *« «tn?fl'2'
ioE-5o.2g^Caj^ = go2!S|g^
25?a)mC'°oraDTO-C':^^>%^S
<55=!.>-

-------

















J3
c
1
1
rS
1
IPDES Pe
z
T>
C
|
ID
a.
0
M
3
Summa

«
^3
™

































C
i
>•
i
j






IU
S

T"
a
8»
K E
e ^i
H E
!*_
 i
§1
m c


i§
E Z
i!
.





~
1




g
c
a
-> o
= O
•- !
0 C
•s •-
ij
Is
M 0




V ^
V °
oil <*>



Vo


8«





^K
5
8_
Ion-John
Endicoll
- O
U
? JS
5 >







































>a
31
k









09
Ul
5
z



I

8*
_,

*~ s

2 *•»
•" E
>
?^
i *_

0 Ol
i- E


a E
j
~ o
Is
»
L



9


>.
5 o i
c r- c
a n CD
~" ' n 7^
£ 11
9 „- & 5
i o < o
~> ;£ i « >
to O *"
=- 7 "- c 5
if « >. ^ i
n °c e- o. = >• ~>
| ,._ 2. || |||
— to to . 2 Z (0 - c ' U* Cy O
ES5 o' ~- ' •"J2= """.15 =
§ ^ J? n
w «NI j^tf)rt^pliii(n

" 0 " """T3 ^*<° °"d^

o
J " 1
§ ™ 0 S
1 8 « S S s
— "" « -c ^ 8 S 'S
liilltalfiijilijl^ill1
?
































CD
I



£
(B
i
I
OTAL
Includes coc
i- »

-------
  (0
  *••
  (0
  o
  o

  •o

  (0
  JO
  ra

  O
  0)
  0>
  o
 0
 *••
 O
 ra
 E
 £
 3
CO
JD

XI
ra
                                                                                CO CO  CN CO 00
                                                                                                                      >- > <
                                                                                                                      a: a: t- x
                                                                                                                                          10

-------
             c
             re
             (0
         =
        ITJ
         §3
         a £
         o
         Z
           >
                                                      **" in
cd
                   rooo
                                                                                           • o>  co
                                                                                         °ocoo
 w
 o
 o

 •o

 <0
 M
 To

 o
 O)
 o
Z
•o
 o
 o
 re

 £

 E
 2
CO
re


                                                                                                        00
                                                                                                        •
                                       ol
co
05
05
                                          £1
                                          m
                                          o

                                          "o.
                                          a.
                                          0
                                          _2
                                          a=
                                          ai

                                          T3
                                          0)
                                          C
                                          5

                                          E
                                          o
                                          O
                                          £

                                          aj
                                          o.
                                          c.
                                          ca
                                         ^

                                          w
                                          
-------











W2
£
0

H
^
<
»J
^
<
>
#
X
CQ
T
<-«
<
-J
a.
H
£
w
g
<
H
g
u.
O
>
ftS
<
S
0E—4
5
«
D
C/)
rn
—
2
t2
H









IV >- -r
-£ g.2
•s -o f> s _
10 S § TJ
- « -2 — £
38311
W 3 U * *>
ra OO 13 <•- •"
*^ o O
£ i!

|l> e " ^-\
So o y «
c: •« c "O
« w 2 e
g S I a «
" £••£ s i
s o •« ,3 .H
« u S ^
> js jtf e
0 c "e «*
CN .S g 52-

.n ^ ~
"•^ *j« *•» «• *"
eo u xC 5 T3
.tS co rn 2 C
Q. U S R5
r^ fe ^3 S 3
U <2 « (H 0
•« s S =5 5
?; »> oo o e
r5 O DO •§ -5
f- O 3^ W
oo S2-
	
1
Suggested Treatment Process
Modifications for improved nutrient
removal


„ B oo - ^
S . o CU W
cj 6 S «S
E °i - ^

e «> E
y E «
t S t5
3 CO S?
4J >%
U " oo
H
H"S
C eo
1"
> >.
. Q
U-i -^^
o -a
di flj
W j*j
E .«
« J










































T3
C
cs
"5
05
S




O O
VI V
O O
*A €A
— • rs





*-• KM
1 1
•— CN



O 0
CO O\
rr m
— oi

Conversion to MLE configuration
Operating with cyclic aeration

— 
XI
2
X.
CQ






(N
O^
>ri
V*






v-t
»o




m
TT"I

O
§0
JS
•0
€
i
u
_c
^rf
L.
0>
«
CO
M
W
4>
t5
T3
1
2
'3
CQ


I/-)
vo
C5




00
<

£
o
—
^
UD
- 0.
W f-
ii ^
I ^
•M **^.
U ^
Q" S
O o «=
^? • 4> C
«£ — ' = co
CN S °-U
. **• f» ^"
— «n •£ >»
~ O 'S h
« 5 * -o
2 S Q c
^- -a a S
r-~ c ^- S
(A § 2 %




 w o « Ci
PI III!,
C'M^'S a« f «
g • S o c Sbo^'2
! 1 .1 -i - s ^ t
= S. = fc.y^c,"1
S t-S 1-8 s.¥f
a = «c3§l2"
-ij  OJ
00 c "E
— CN m 
>
>
^
Q
-J
Ij
T"
^
so
2
u




*o r^
t^ oo
CN —
&* o
CN
v~v

d denitrification filters after the
indary clarifiers.
~ o
3 H
oa S


\0
rn
O




00
<
O
o£
D
CQ
00

leu
w ET
Q ^
ij ~.
u. >
	 . 	 __





>n
in
CO
&•»






CN
^>
i




CO
VO
^L

Improving aeration required for
nitrification
Correcting overflow of raw influent
and mixed liquor to the Creek
Providing redundancy to take part of
the oxidation ditch out of service to
remove grit
Adding a grit removal system to
protect equipment such as diffusers

— '• 0
fN
VO
O
C
o
*^
ta P-
a -g
x .ts
O Q
i^
U
s
u

oo
•jj
0 a.
gH
S ^
*J ^.^
0 £
12

-------









C/5
>-^
£+
o
MN
H
<
S
J
<
>


£
fc
CQ
H
' OF TREATMENT PLAN
&*
&
<
M
S
S
VI
•
f<>
«
2
65















 h Z
•S n._
<£ -o « g _
is .1 1 1
Crt CU *-• -^ O
O ofl JO "O e
Uoo u 13 c
3 C n u
l"'|o
u. S -°
^* •— 1 — "
|.i§ i
§ M S =
S S I <£ f
>-" Q. ^ t/1 5
J5 0 -3 o J
 J= •* C
S e s »
IN •— (Q ^-^
r- & ^
— • **~ *?• f- W-
.S S § 1 1
& " -n S §
U tS S i- c
^^ V^ ^2 (^M ^
"<5 S S T3 -
*^ co en O e
0 o so ^ •=
H O 3 ^ 60
W 60 S-

Suggested Treatment Process
Modifications for improved nutrient
removal

„ £ oo ~ _
c ra c c O
5 ai 2 — 9
t % "g a. 0
5 I s _«s
u E oc - ^

cu£
u P u
H i3 *"*
b co ?.
> U O
U S co


„
u 2

r «
^ 55
^ >>
<^ -0
0 T3
u 22
» c/l
3 j
Z























and mixer blades
Adding a chemical P removal system
/•>
-

Conversion of existing AS basins to
anoxic and aerobic zones
Conversion of existing primary
aerobic digester to activated sludge
tanks
— CN


(N
m
O




oo
<





Q
<
*

5 o-
^ H
Q ^
5>
r- b
k- O ^
w -: e
i— o «
^*— V^ C
-S 'i T3 °-
•5 -2 e o
> U « js
^" >^ C t«
OS C' O 3 «
o § S o S
w .£ -a •£ i=
>- -a •=: ^
— a. co ? o


si
rr\ OO
1 <^
! i
— • CN



0 0
O ir>
>n CN
oo" rr"
— • CN

Modification of the AS basins to MLE
system
Modifications of the AS system to
three two pass step feed reactors with
anoxic zones at the head of each pass
— '• CN



^




oo
<




^—
<
O


< a.
I H
< ^
S3:



\o r~
os r-
•*' ro
 -r"
% >* _ S>
f ce ^3 •£
3 •= £ £ «
is •£ o 2? «
fl5 5 « ^ .52
CS C to D.T3




•M
Jj
z
S

S eu
7 H
- £
^£









































.2

O
**
£
u



•f CN
CN \q
CN CN
(A 1A

— CN


CN Os
r~ 
-------










£
0





<
%
M


zr
OF TREATMENT PLA]
^^
Si
<
^^
g
S
m*
V
2
c?




0> L- ^
£ •» «"i
O «j B £ T3
a S .2 -2 JJ
3S|il
^ 3 g CO 4
CO ^*3 T3 *g
O ^2
£— t ^ *S

111 1
[_ O. S g J
g o ^ u •£

_ •+* TJ """
-


i|lii
al |||
 £
5 c «3
did


— |j
= 73
E .2























a two stage biological filters/anoxic-
aerobic biological filters


















vj vO
— r-i oo m
rr &o W jo
ft^ V)
. C8 JP •
_ CN (N m

m r^
00 O\ O- *O
**! of of 'N-
M (N
. (B JO -
— fN fS m


(N VO *O §
m u-i ij-i 5
^5 ^D O^ ^*
o" \o" t-" °°
. (8 JO
— s c. £
•^
v->
D
m
oo
si
11 '




*O T3
CN  m
of fs

— oi


II
r^ r»
— oi


Addition of extra AS volume and
clarifiers

— '•



01


^
2 2
c -
H c

Z
1 GREATER
1 HAZLETON JOI
14

-------










O5
z
o
t*4
H
.
^*A "to in< c
r ^ ofl ^ ^3 E
vJ 3 C CO ^
1 " 1 o "
(2 f £
oo § y S
III 1
^ J-.il i
S J2 O •£
•. flj ^>
> £ * .S
0 c 1 £,
— «

	 ,g; *j* y:
*- CO f*A ^ C
O CJ ^^ "-S CC
9- r* eo tf.
,*? fe T3 o 3
— - „. « ^= ^
ea ^2 Q> T3 *-
•s c/i oo o e
c? O OO "S •—
*- CJ 3 2 
Suggested Treatment Process
Modifications for improved nutrient
removal

«- 2J 00 -s ^
C C8 .C C Q~
t ^ •§ s o
5||JS


ill
3 1 >>
a^<^

-
i —
> 2
OQ
^ >>
CM -^
o -a
^ flj
E "
eo j
Z























Addition of biofilters
(N






TQ
1 < £
^ •£ "
jo '^ x
>
—
•*'
0
—
3








oo
p
o



m
(N
1






oo
?5
Create anoxic conditions over a
section of the ditch;
Cycling brush aerators on and off to
create anoxic and aerobic conditions at
different times;
Combination of 1 and 2
— tN rn



VO
fi

I „
I-S
^ 2

a.
< H

< ^

* <
> z
D 2
< °
= s





ON O
— 0
(N fS
— CN

^3
^ ri
OS (N
— «' (N



00 OO
VO TT
r*^ \f\
 E
>-, V
S. <
i.
£
^
3

D
m
n
2
al
I
| S- 1 8-
.tS "O c/) ~ *O to
> c _,- •; c _
•* C8 •£ 5 ca •£
o - •; _ - -c
0 T3 ? _ -0 ?
^.1) rn u-i
S'S.Pi-d'^^^TJ
04 ^S^^^S^

m oo
in *O
.m 1
r-i en




t- oo
(w) OO
— " CN"
(N en
Fluidized bed or static bed upflow /
downflow denitrification filters
Conversion of anaerobic zones to
anoxic zones with supplemental
modifications in the reactor and
implementation of chemical P removal
Conversion of reactors to incorporate
anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic zones
for biological N and excess P removal.
— '• (N rn



rn
(N
C
ill
L- > O
5 "x 3
< o o.

^
—
U
aJ
jj
~T
< 0.
U H

^^
15

-------
41 t« -y
I S.E
o"S S n-o
S ^ -2 -2 ^
S yn £ -3
VJ 3 ««-  ta r ) -c
.« « s :
>• jr •=• _c
a.s§ s


_ erf -r:
^ 15 "o 2 g -a
^ .ts « oo 2 B
^^ 5_ 4> S ca
S S"s-s s =
HM tj ti: i> L~ o
tf
z,
CQ



iRY OF TREATMENT PLA
•5 « B ^ -
•5 55 oo o c
H rj =°2 ~
U oo £
f^ so ^r
^. M <\
fN (N —
i
— • rsi r^





OS Os OS
r«-> n oo
"\ ^J, ^
— " t3-" >o"

™~ rs <^i
c ^ eo je c
o F c .t; —
Suggested Treatment Process
Modifications for improved nutrient
removal
1. An anoxic-aerobic conflgurati
within existing AS basins with prime
effluent bypass around the trickli
filters,
2. An anoxic-aerobic configuration w
the addition of a fifth AS basin
parallel to the existing four,
3. Addition of a denitrification filter, in
addition to the modifications of
Option 1
M £ 00 —
>. e « c £ r\
^ § ai •= J2 u
5 e % -5 s: o
^J S3 ^ m ^^
P
C/3

•
m
4>
2
OS


<3|3«£
u- "**

c S S
L> P U
- 5 to
3 S £>
U jS &o

•^ 4J
~ ra
> 00
f ^
21
= tft
Z ^

i/^



00
<
*•
0
w
\






SO
r-;
o
«*»




(N
IO
fN
I





<0
OO
rsf


Conversion to MLE configuration.


so
m



/3

AUTHORITY WWTP






<^1
cn
o
s~*
&.
E ?
J: .2
U 03
NwS ^-S
(N T
— (N
W &

6<» — (N





O
OO






g





r*i
(N

"-•




O^
\O^

— '


Conversion of the A/O tanks to MLE
configuration



*O
TJ*


D
$
Ium VGI\OI 1 I AK£.A
JOINT AUTHORITY
Installation of anoxic zones immediately
after the anaerobic zones


VI
Tf
OS
1
y
n u
00°
' ." C
ill
i o u
**. CO v
~S
&5 °
*" &«»







SO
ro








OO
Vl

-.a
^ u U.
s < a
«  g
C •- U
ro oo oo
— CN c»i



>o
m



/3
<
vYiuuirtivioruRi
SANITARY
AUTHORITY WEST
16

-------









03
Z
o

H

P
^•j
>
w
Z
CQ
H
Z
OF TREATMENT PLA
^
tf

P
02
*

—
^2
***
-H







eu S Z
•£ p —
lllll
CO s| ?
58Ia 1
^-^ Cu c e/j -
« o -a ,3 |
^* !• ^« C
o e "c <^
— (O

15 "5 2 5 ^
.•S « CD .2 e
(?|^1 1
__. "ti ..^ _c
73 a S -o -
o S ||-S



Suggested Treatment Process
vlodifications for improved nutrient
removal


c «o .c = Q~
fc ^ "I a O
3! s « s


sis
^ E «

3 W ^^
cj £J oo


1-" u
5- 2
^ ^5
*0 T3
E .2





















Integrated Fixed Film AS (IFAS)
Process

rr















7^
J




ro r~
gs
O 0

— CN


VO
^5 \G
— CN




O CO
o vo
— r-
- CN
_e

50% of denitriflcation taking place
the aerobic zone via cyclic aeration.
MLE cyclic aeration.

— fN

CN
CN
O
3 CO
0 .=
A o
a s
x u
O 3
e a-
- Cu
J •£
-J ^
"^ ^
U >• t
2 oi tsi
WYOMl
SANITA
AUTHO




o ^° ^
g 2 2
1
— CN 01

0 <--
O — r«">
PO CN OO
1 1 <-l
— CN f)



O 0
OO OO
0 ^. f".
•— CN <->
(J tU C C
"5 "y "~ CO
Cyclic aeration of the first two aero
cells with / without a nitrate recy
system:
Conversion of the first aerobic cell
each activated sludge tank to
anoxic cell with a nitrate recycle;
Conversion of the anaerobic cells to
anoxic cells with the addition of a
nitrate recycle; addition of ferrous
sulfate for chemical phosphorus
removal.

— '• CN ro

—
~*





0
^
Z
f O.
J ^""
0 ^
- H
if







































5
Si
u





o
•o
o




OO
CN





O
"">


i Feed Anoxic-Oxic
figuration w/Baffles&Mixers
0- C
4J O
oo U

CN
m





00

1.
£
^
^
D
JP
•7
13
s/
<




wi
0
o
1



oo
1




o
OS


ic aeration
u
u

s
0





00
<

u
<^
CD
_1
<
1 COLON
j WWTP





CN
O
1



VO
"P




o

c *™
o Ji
« •£
o 5
.!2 cc fe
"° -O o
£j en <0
n •£ re
o. *^ «
o, c u
co "-* ^»
u £ °
^ o >>
i| s
ra D c
s: -s 8

00
CN
O

Q- c

 CN —
— CN C^


adjustment of alkalinity and pH for
implementation of nitrification,
separation of an anoxic zone in the
aerobic digester,

— '• CN
m
^ (N
— OO
00 00
c
11
- N "
o .2! «
rt ™"" ?^
= -2 w
o *° oo
O cyo <

oo
U
»/
— • -a
> c
on ™ a
U) '-' —
^dC £
m f_ o
J > 'S
^ ?• o
2: > u
C) >• v>
17

-------
 cc
 Z
 O
 »—<
 H
 <
 P
«
H
Z
3
ON
H
Z
w
§
o t- -y
5 8.5
'o -o « c ^
O (0 C 5 TJ
s ts .2 -2 s
en o> •*-* .ts ;
o oo co -o ;
C_) *W |M "O 1
^ 3 U- CO (
~eS CO -5 *fc« *~
S 1-
H ^ S5

3) § 8 -5>
c -2 c "^
1 2 § i
c3 «3 £ « '
u£.S S g
5° .§0:5
>• .S S =
0 - "i ^
CN .S g 52.

•5-SZ g?
•S CO O1 O e
•£. u w ~ «
3* . ttt v
,* fe -a 5 S
o «S a c c
•« <2 o '-5 -
S en 00 O c
i2 ,<» SP 5 -s
H°5 S

:atment Process
• improved nutrient
loval

























l>
*0
i ' «'

— CN f!




rr •^-
— — O 0s ^O
« — W-j — g^
*?*? *? f w
(O JD U
^^ CM f"l



0000
Os o "O r*i
O (N «• >O \O
^ 6O fe4 6O &^

CO X) • ,™
o S
^ a. o Q.
(N i 0\
^ i « E
&> &Q (
JC *^ JS
CO CJ J3 CJ





•q- oo
CN OX
CO J3




o o
OS OO
^ o>
CO -D
4-<
i 1
i 1
« g a
III-
g « N c5
?C
C 1
0 I
£•5
3 J
CJ ^3
CN *O
O —
SS

CO" -0





o\ «*>
CN cn
CO X>




0
0 °.
•O CN
co ji
3
0
 S
< S







rr
>o

o
v»





n\
w>
1





OO
o
•v"
es constructed using
is






r*\
vC
O

O
V)





=
i






O
o\
TT
V)
s
a
*
3
J
o




m oo
m «-: «
— o o
o w w
€^ *^^ C^
CO -O
— CN




CN
^TT
CO JO
— ' CN



O O
r- oo
C> OS
§ *
Sf 41 |8'5
a -5 s «s I * s







o
•o
O
V}





1
^





o
^
°°.
o"
CN
p Feed Anoxic-
1 Expansion from 54 |
H
<
H
U.
O
>
»s
<
s
s
£3
CO
f$
—
2
H •










Suggested Trei
Modifications for
rem<

- S a> s -
M-l§
= 1 g «1
CJ .2 .2 ^ S-
u, <* *•
n S E
JJ i s
= i ^
0 2 c^


P-" u
t «
^> i2
^ 55
^S
u- -O
0 -o
U «
£ .52
1 J
t> 'g
0 g
-G CO
1!
o S
S -£P
s -a
ro














" § 1 " a 1 8
i|8Hii
SISH^*
Ulllil
0 |3 S S2m
•MN ^ "5
— CO -Q O CN <"1
£>
f
O

CO
<



0
oi
O
a
^- m
Z S a,
OJ^, •• <
? c-
D<*
Q^^
reate an anaerobic/ar
illowed by an anoxic
loxic/aerobic switch
id by turning off the ;
U .2 S C
o
m

en
<



la
j
>
co
^ a.
,_1 UM
= ^
-1
u- ^
Si
E g
0 <->
^^
•s>
c ^
o .5
S «
^ 8
j>« »
< 0
r~
CN
CN

CO
<



_)
<:
>-
0
oi
H Q.
z p
O £
^ >
u. >
S .s
SJ
i?
C cu
CO JS
"8.S
5 S
"si
Q J§

p
od

CO
<


O
c^
3
CQ
2
O
co
•^ cu
gs
^1
Q
iJ
CO
CO
Cfl
c2
fN
0
i
Q
O
oo
CN

CO
<
D-
t—
?

£
>
U
Z
o
0
s
J
E
jjg>-'eo?<-3:>
1 0 « co « 5 0
S *" M e •= v> S
•S-g ^.2 8-S JJ
§ E S S -g 5 g
•s .S < c g oo °o
Z^. " ^^ ^\ O '^^
S W CO  ff 1
.£ -S 4> -
--- ^ "^"^ > *•*•> F-
•g e =°sl
. >
Ci u.
[T] !Z
H J
•< O
fc/7 ^^
^2^
g o _j '
SCO
"~\ fc"^ ^x
M 5 ^
w *^ t—
CO J t
en _j z
u O O
_j a. CJ
plementation of Step
:robic Operation and
.§<
f^
>ri
•
< E-
S ^
Rg
0 U
0. x
0£ <
Ul U.
^ £
0 <
J L.
                                                                                         18

-------













O5
»-3T
Z
0
^N
H
<
D
-J
<
>-
W

tf
z
eo
H
OF TREATMENT PLAN
;^,
^
&
<
S
^-<
S
^
(/)
fO
—
2
«5







U Jr -7
t— V *—
"S ^ 	
« "8 § i-g
£ « .2 -5 JJ
en U «s •— o
O oo <° "O e
rj QO, a -a E
^ 3 1C re o
~ea & '-B "tr
S 0 °
£ 2 -o
f^ ^^ —
U C " '— •
g>.l c -S
5 — ^2° e
^^ •*"" .—
4-4 —J
8 .s 1 is.
^N .— . (q -^-^

- J= g «•
oj u Z S -a
.ts « aa -2 c
o_ *U •*—• A
— . (C e«
C3 IM -a Jr -
u <£ 1 ^ 8
•.« ,_ t/) *— ^1
ea £3  "o ^*
° S 88J.S
*" O = ^  E
a s <"
t I «
3 S >>
U i- oo


Q_
i" U
> 2
> &o
*2
0 TD
u *i
= Tn
3 j




























7 MOD Capacity. Construction of 6
v Secondary Clarifiers and 3, 6-Pass
Basins. Four New Blowers.
^ 5 oo
2 Z <






















<
Z






<
Z






<
z

Change,
rogen Deficient wastewater
0 .«
Z Z


""!
—



Q
O




IRAY WWTP
_;





°- <• <•
o < 5
w Z Z


— tN rn




tN
<; oo ON
Z r~ — r
1 CN
— • tN rn




O

P.
Z 2-
l\
S U
2 5






o
n
O
60







O






0
V^

lie aeration
o
^^
o


1/1
^0
fl
5
•^ crt
n u
"O JS
x a
0 =5



O-
IDDLE RIVER
ERONA WWT1
2£





m r— vo
O O O O
frO SO W fr<»

— fN ri ^-




O\ TT -q-
oo in u-i
O — CN fN

— • (N rn rr






O O O
t— — r-
O m m m
— • fs en -"T
t; o OJD u t;— ts— ro.
§^.S5 § .g §^E c
^tsE •£« « _ EL -1 -^
'i £ 3 g? > g * 1 |igd
Z0>^'5b ^S _f— s~° o
siSl «-S ts| l-s^gi
s 1 .§ S i i - u «^E = ^
ESg .2 « =§« e l>a « ^
£8Jl 13 l||.-|f^|l
O- ««? o.« |°^ z e « Sz as S S
«t-§ us»o
-------








Z
0
H

P
-J
^tH
^•^
*^
^
Z
ffl
H
Z
<
J
£H
H
OF TREATMEN
K^
ft!

S
OJ
—
2
H








_e fe Z
•is a.—
lllll
trt 4> •" •— • o
Q Qu ™ ~O 2

•^ oo ^ <*- fc-
(2 2 •*
~"
^ J-.I | |
S.sl S


rr r* . en
CO 0 Z £ "O
.- <" QQ .2 C
O QJ 4_t OT
(j o "S y ^
— - - £5 •— .c
re i: u "d *-
o S ||.S
&o ^

*•>
c
lU
S '£
V 3
o C
S T3
Suggested Treatment P
Modifications for improve
removal


= |-S|Q
JlJII
u, -
c 1 E
O C 
— rsj
OO TT
r? rs
— ' ri






o
(^ OO
OS \O
— rsi

c
E
j=
*^ Q
^ o
s 2
Q. 3
O e£
 Si
u •£ O
if£
you
o" £ -5

- oi

S
—
§
'5 Wl
cs u
O =i



j
i
oo
Cri >
^« ^
0- >



O

iZ Z

— rsi
Z Z

— rsi





o
z5
— rsi

u
o
"c 2
S £
.52 ?
E"SE
't &o Q
•= o Q
1 12
J U —

— rsi

r^» p
O — •

U.
00 00



OJ UQ
J J
J -J
-j "3 J
uj c uj
csi •— c^ ^
-^ x ^ *^
0. ^0. s^.



90 Pj 00 00 (M

O (=' S 2 *-"
6<» *? 6<» VJ *?
^~* f^l ro ^^ *o
^5 f*\ ~* *^V ^^
O ^C •O fN OJ
f""- r^* oo CN ^>
11111
- rs n ^ -/I






o o o o o
rsi — o oo rr
o so  ^'l S jo «= ^
| 'I g-S'ia'i'i'^w s^Q
cd = d c2.2|-l§I'io = S5(n-
gS g S S2^c-|^,yu.2.-Sg^
'^® '30 '3u«»'~'a£:i'i2jiI2js£'2
KT? S'X 5CwC3'SrS~OQi-S
ea ra ry^C®vttIc/3"n
e^£.c<^cce^'*d>ej)S«r^^®"e5<^^

— ' rs fi ^r "^

o
— •
CJ .O
_O "^3
§ o | w E
< 2£ i ^



lg
O ( -H
O '-5
a.
H

O
oi
03
oo
K
H
00





sO
<*!
w

SO
OS
1






o
T
—



lie aeration
o
"

oo
O
e
_o
'S
0


H
u.
ei
Q
f-
ci
— ^
H

20

-------







CO
£
O
NH

.,
<
P
J
<
>
£9
«/
W
Z
CQ

2
^
^<
ci
<
^•^
^
f-t
S
3
en
•
#^t
" }
4»
jjj
es











fll 1— *7
r- 4i ^
•£ cL —
lllll
o & fj =3 g
(J Ofl.iJ T3 E
^ 3 1C co  Q O
£ I*
|.f§ S
? « S 5
fi S3 « 2 S
sol S J
I?1U1
>• J3 "^ £
0 c "e ^
 "•* <-  i:
U 3
u c
2 -o
i sz
Jh
eo ••" O
0> k. C
£ o Cu U
3 g CO .. 5
r j O u S ^
Vw^ — «> -i- ^^
fT . OS *^


il §
fc *3 tS
S «J !P
3 OJ *^
(J S 00
c™*

fc £
^ «
$ , £•
5 -a

4) £J
« en
3 j












































en
0
_C
u

•3







L,
5
^
< •&,
t t
<» F •* c
u. f— i_ H
£ S £ S
_ OJ p-~ D
sl5l
6
. t*. . <<-
ca O xi O




r^
SO 
>v e
.0 -s §
" °° "S '* >»
(5 c u •* ^s
•aiS-Sg^-i
OJJ 2 — UN rt *"
^ fc c e2 2 o.^

O
as
O
CQ
oo
i)
Z Cu
 J
2 •- ^
eo i- «-
L. ^ '^
ttj 1— 5
to •£
:. o «>
-C ^ o
g J g
5 ^-s
o — o
JS5 Z* CJ
ol §



^
eS


5
•M en
n V
T3 -C
— 0
X *-
0 =5
X.
&
^:
t*i
u
o

/)
3

21

-------
 o

I
 c
 Q.
O
 c
 o

?s
 o
c

•D
 O
O


n




I
















3
3
9
removed
III
- z
w —
o a =
5
a
**
_
> E,
o o
EC!
K 5
2 •^
- O =
— «
II
li

^
c —
0)
3
!U
•a
u
S°t
—
Current Eff TN
mg/L Ib/d
|
r
•g
0)
> a
E C3
:

0
0

•w 10
co m
^- co
in N.
01 03


o r»-
O CO

AOI^^CO O)O)O)
omr^cMco J2cM IJ
«CM
S
R8
o
00
O U?
CO «
i^m

v^
j^g
^ifia
'£Htt
fl
CM <
cn Z

o ^
r- •)
1 Brunswick
[Chestertown
«.» c.
CO TT
tf) CO
S5»-S
to o
CO CO
CO O O O O
O> co eo co co
CO O O l&uC
in to' eo fc£,^Sc
^ * ^2 g co
a
10 r*." c?cn CT>
CM CM ?RCM CM
o r^- co co CM
o* «- o o o
Cnsfield1
Elkton
Federalsburg
Georges Creek
Indian Head
5" §
O) CO »-
•v co
? CM g
CO 0
r- co
CO O
r*- co
I? s
oo m
co r^
f^ 03 f^
*- CM

*- O
eo' in
CM CM
ID 0 °
10 CO «M
•*• ° 51
Mattawoman2
Winebrenner
Totals
Q
O
o  o



I1

ll

   I
                                            « c
                                              -




































a
g
•
K
)
>
•a
« =
S
E
£
— z
$« =
° I
•o
a _
*

w £ =
0 ^
||
— 0»
•c o

=
1 =
g
v —
3
Q
3
U
3 =
O ~
S
B,-
01 _

-
zs
1
»
It
w c
2
2

"f
i o
Z O
: S

^
\






m •v
m CM
T CO

*- CM Cft CO
tO ^- CO CM
O' O CM CO


78
CO CO
CM CO
u,or~o
silif

n CM
jj x •
I c £ Si
!!<§!
CO (O
O T-


o co o
04 ° -

go *- co co
0 «-; . CO h- CO

o to
CO Tf
CM r^-
O CO
S 0 CM
s ^ s
 o o OD ^- m

«, CO/-CO •* CM CM
S O( O CO O V
§5 Or ca CM co  r*- 0 ^~
CO JTj; »- CM CM ^
,000 0 00
«||- O ^ f,^ CO y^
rt CM CM *° ^- ^*

o
"w ™ « "c "=
| 5 m c H <
lillll




^ 03
CM «
«- O

CM CO CO
*— co cr
T- T— *—


CO CM
CO CO
CM OJ

Hi

? 40
iO CM
?s s





01 00
U> 03
sss
88«

o co r*-"

CO T- CM
CO 00 S.
CM 0 »-
CM *- CM
O CO O
O) CO CJ
CM CM CM
10 0 CO
^ tO O)
CO V CO
N *
S 2.
< c
0) »
s"g- 1
j^i
CM
o'


is
0°

S §g
CM 0-0-
CM
CO
O CO
•*"" O
O> CO

SSI
CO
CO
CO
I
SJ|


rt
03

0 CO
r: 03
25S
g^g

" ® z

§•«• 03
O» CM

0 ID 
f£.
o
III









1
CN
5
s
at
5
1
1
N.
N.








1



?

„
~s
s

                                                                                                                           V

                                                                                                                           z
                                                                                                                           J3
                                                                        O
                                                                                                                               22

-------
Co.!
ion*J N limov«d
i
i-
jj,
Ii
tu
i
If
IU
i
5 a
o g
i
f



ll





•

~
is 1
is 1
0 0
s a s
irt O

8 5 f
Ol



s a
r* **•

"%
1 2
•s
|









2
|
1
i
|
M ^
<< C
!;
i!
a «
fe I
If

 Jl
  i
  i
1!
ft

 \\
 *•
II
       o o o *** •-
       8- p>
                    s


                    s
    3S82SSSgSsSgsgJSSbS
                                —  > = O  2 c


                                |fiii!
                                                                23

-------
9

I
c
3


I
S.
O

'M
O
O
A
      iSl
 ff
 OS

 i"  _
 COC  ~
 5

 £l  i

 D
       ii*
Projected
Add. TN

20 yr. To

thousand
       .   5
       o b ^
     ffl _ p
     |l
       i  §
     5 H  E
_ M

 ' 2
  S
K Q.
. ffl
              "     o> S
           O300 O^OCO^O^ O
           10 O 10 00 00 O CD C5
             -
              ^
           oo  evi i d b a '"• d
      o o o «- o' o o' r-. o'  »-

      ,1   fll!
      Ulclsfll  1
      Illlfsli    i
                              .^% V

                              15
                          sz *
                          oS2
                               «o
                               OS
                                »,  TJ
                               <8
                          mK £ «
                          Sz°I
                          «»: i!

                          II SI
                          ilk'
                               S  S
                              CD _ O)

                             8
                          n  s
                         . S
                         >- Q.
                                    o>  u>


                                    00  CO ,
                               V • fi »- -V O) ^ O CO ^Z IT) O CO ^' CO W <-  ^;
                               q^ioo>ijg^o0q = oc>4io

                                     n " N  *"  *~
                                                         9 °.
                                                      Sit   .

                                                      22>   5
                                                      II?*  f
                                                         £v   .

-------
•o
a
£
a
O
o
O
n
n
t-















































•-Eg1
*£«„

§,5 «

0 S

CQ £ £
I !
«J «
z
m £
DC _• «
§1*^

||S1
z E w S
ilii
«5«i
l< |
1 i ,
^^ * 1
flj Uj W *

S E
0.
S
lifi
r <
3 di
!ii
t <
a
O
|f
• = E
u
S» 0
> C S
Q
S O
£ S o
o"~ S
_ IA
M
O
Is
1- Q.



: n

•v tn 01
Ol CO ^f
CM CO CM

Ol CO IO
r^ os  IA to


O O
0 0
CD CO




CO CO CO

ii I



« CO
"

0
N *° S

 v>
o
Is
i- a.



. 0
a
2
fl

2§''SSJ-c>lSinSg"0i ?
0o9ooo'tN00P o'°2 °bo '-09 S
oooo oococoeoa>o>a>f.mzzTcoco .coc->co^.-»™ T mo) «»





CO O O O "*
OOCO04O^-fNCO^.CN^.'-OCOxn^-O T-OOCOO CO
1 5 "- ^ m
<§<<<<<<,.u:!<
< O I- < <

-------
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BNR

 The most important advancement in biological wastewater treatment since the invention of the activated
 sludge process has been the invention and development of biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes.
 Historically, the activated sludge process has been the method of choice for the efficient removal of
 biodegradable organic matter from wastewaters, and for producing effluents low in BOD and suspended
 solids.  However, increasing urbanization and larger populations have resulted in conditions that show that
 the removal of BOD and suspended solids is insufficient treatment for the protection of the nations
 receiving waters, and that the removal of the nutrients, phosphorus and  nitrogen, is also needed. Biological
 nutrient removal processes can be used to reduce both phosphorus and nitrogen to low effluent
 concentrations without the utilization of chemicals and the resulting increases in waste  sludge production,
 oxygen requirements, and other operational costs.

 There are several advantages to implementing BNR at activated sludge  wastewater treatment plants, even
 without consideration of the reduction of environmental impacts. For example, most activated sludge
 plants now are required to obtain near complete nitrification, i.e., the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate, all 12
 months of the year. The requirement to completely nitrify typically increases the oxygen transfer
 requirements, and therefore the electrical energy costs for transferring oxygen, by 50 to 100% more than
 the requirements for the removal of BOD, alone. However, the oxygen transfer requirement can be reduced
 by a substantial fraction by utilizing denitrification with recycled nitrates to remove influent BOD.  All
 BOD removed this way does not require subsequent oxygen transfer for its removal.  The electrical energy
 costs of a fully nitrifying municipal WWTP typically can be reduced by approximately 20% by
 implementation of denitrification with the influent BOD as the necessary organic carbon source.
 Furthermore, denitrification will restore some of the alkalinity destroyed during nitrification, and this will
 reduce or eliminate  alkalinity addition for pH adjustment.  Additionally, denitrification utilizing the influent
 BOD will reduce the total amount of waste activated sludge (WAS) produced for a given SRT.

 The advantages of nitrification-denitrification processes in activated sludge systems may be summarized as
 follows:

 1.        Reduces or eliminates organic chemical addition for denitrification.
 2.        Reduces or eliminates alkalinity addition to  replace that consumed during nitrification.
 3.        Reduces aeration requirements and equipment because of BOD stabilization using oxidized
         nitrogen as the terminal electron acceptor instead  of DO.
 4.        Reduces WAS production because  less sludge is produced by denitrification metabolism relative
         to DO metabolism.
 5.        Reduces the potential for filamentous growth by reducing the amount of available organics
         entering the aerobic zone.

 Plant operators also should note that controlled cycling of aeration during aerobic digestion will reduce
 both the electrical energy costs of digestion and the amount of nitrates recycled with the digester
 supernatant, without reducing the amount of solids destroyed during the digestion process.

 Potential disadvantages of implementing nitrification-denitrification are:

 1.        May require additional capital costs, i.e., for baffles and mixers in a conventional plug flow
         activated sludge system, plus mixed liquor recycle pumps and  lines for the internal recycle of
         nitrates.
2.        Incorporation of non-oxic zones shortens the aerobic SRT of the activated sludge process, and this
         may require increasing the total reactor volume and/or clarifier capacity.
 3.        Increases the design and operating complexity of the activated  sludge system.

 Biological phosphorus removal (BPR) implementation also has several  advantages, which can be
enumerated as follows:

 1.        Reduces or eliminates chemical addition for phosphorus precipitation and removal.
                                                                                             '   26

-------
 2.      Reduces or eliminates the need for alkalinity addition by preventing alkalinity consumption by
         chemical precipitation.                                          .
 3.      Improves the settling properties of the activated sludge by selecting for high specific weight
         phosphorus-storing flocculating bacteria instead of filamentous forms.
 4       Reduces aeration requirements and equipment by 10% or more.
 5'      Retrofits are simple, and frequently can be accomplished without increases in reactor or clarifier
         volumes.

 Potential disadvantages of BPR are as follows:

 1       Typically requires some additional capital costs, i.e.,  baffles and mixers in an anaerobic zone.
 2.      Requires more careful design.
 3.      More sensitive to operate because nitrate and DO recycles must be controlled, and clarifiers need
         to be operated to prevent phosphorus release.
 4.      Sludge handling requirements may be more complex.

 It is possible to implement either BPR or biological nitrogen removal independently from the other, but the
 processes are more efficient,  stable, and economical when implemented together, for most municipal
 waste waters.
 BNR PROCESS SCHEMATICS

 There are several ways the biological reactors of WWTPs can be configured and/or operated to
 obtain BNR.  Some of the more common ones are illustrated in Appendix I. The simplest of
 these are the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) and Anaerobic/Oxic (A/O) processes for
 biological nitrogen and biological phosphorus removal, respectively.  Plug-flow activated sludge
 plants can be easily modified to either schematic by the installation of baffles, mixers, and, for
 nitrogen removal, an internal recycle. The effluent concentrations that will be produced will
 depend primarily upon the wastewater BOD:TP ratio for BPR, and upon the BOD:TN ratio and
 the amount of internal recycle for nitrogen removal.  Typically, effluent concentrations  of less
 than  1.0 mg/L phosphorus and less than 8 mg/L nitrogen can be obtained with these simple
 schematics, without effluent filtration. Frequently, BPR can produce effluent TP concentrations
 of less than 0.5 mg/L without substrate addition or chemical precipitation. For example, the
 Bowie, Maryland oxidation  ditch BPR system averaged 0.21  mg/L during 1997 without chemical
 addition or effluent filtration.  This plant simultaneously produces  effluent total nitrogen
 concentrations of less than 4 mg/L, year round. If insufficient BOD is available in the wastewater
 relative to the phosphorus for low effluent concentrations, the BOD can be supplemented by
 fermenting the primary sludge to produce volatile fatty acids such as acetic and propionic.  If
 effluent nitrogen concentrations less than 5 mg/L are desired, a second anoxic zone, as
 incorporated into the Bardenpho and Modified Bardenpho schematics, can be installed.

 While it frequently is advantageous to modify the process schematic by installing baffles, mixers
 and recycles, many plants can  be upgraded to BNR just by changing the method of operation.
 This is particularly true for oxidation ditches and small extended aeration plants. The oxidation
 ditches typically can be operated for BNR,  with very efficient nitrogen removal, just by
 controlling the oxygen inputs.  This can be  accomplished by cycling brush aerators on and off, for
 example. If phosphorus levels to less than  1 mg/L are desired, however, a separate anaerobic
 zone needs to be installed ahead of the ditch, as shown in the process flow schematic for the VT2
 process.

 Small extended aeration plants can be operated for very good nitrogen removal simply by cycling
the aerators on and off. The operator first has to determine the optimum on-off cycle for his
                                                                                         27

-------
system and its loading conditions for successful operation.  Aerobic digesters also can be
operated this way to reduce energy costs and increase nitrogen removal.  Actually, nitrogen
removal can be improved at most plants by cycling the air on and off, but there is little reason to
do so with a plug flow configuration because it easily can be operated for nitrogen removal
without air cycling, i.e., by establishing an anoxic zone.

It is especially easy to modify a plug-flow activated sludge  process for BNR if the reactors have
multiple passes, and can be operated with step feed. Anoxic zones can be established at the head
of each pass without the installation of baffles and mixers to accomplish denitrification. The feed
is fed in steps into each anoxic zone. An anaerobic zone with a baffle and mixers is
recommended at the head of the reactor to accomplish BPR.

New plants can be construction as full BNR plants, i.e., with both nitrogen and phosphorus
removal, for an additional cost of less than 5 % in comparison with a fully aerobic, complete
nitrifying activated sludge plant. The VIP and Nansemond  plants owned and operated by the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) are examples.
BNR EVALUATION SUMMARIES

Descriptive summaries of the completed BNR evaluations are given in Appendix II.
                                                                                     28

-------
     APPENDIX I





BNR PROCESS SCHEMATICS

-------

A


k


Anaerobic



RAS

Aerobic

s
V

               Anaerobic/Oxic (A/O) Process for Biological
                         Phosphorus Removal
                                N03-R
  Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic (A2/O) Process for Combined Biological Nitrogen and
                           Phosphorus Removal
Appendix I

-------
         ML-R
                                  NO3-R
1
	 ^

Anaerobic

fe~
A
—^
\.

Anoxic
i

r


Anoxic
->

Aerobic

k-l
V
RAS
          Modified UCT Process for Combined Biological Nitrogen and
                            Phosphorus Removal
                    NO3-R
^

Anaerobic

^


Anoxic

-

Aerobic
RAS

*

Anoxic

">

Aer

rC
Modified Bardenpho Process for Combined Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
                    NO3-R
              Anoxic
Aerobic
                          RAS
    Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) Process for Biological Nitrogen Removal
Appendix I

-------
                  NO3-R
          Bardenpho Process for Biological Nitrogen Removal
                                   Return Activated Sludge
      Reaeration          Denitrification            Nitrification
       R - D - N Process for Biological Nitrogen Removal
Appendix I

-------
            Anoxic
    Anaerobic
Aerobic
            FILL
      MIX
AERATE
            IDLE
    DRAW
    OFF
SETTLE
                        Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR)
        Suitable for Combined Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
         Anaerobic
                                                   30%
                                                             Influent
Anoxic
                   Aerobic
                   Anoxic
      VT2 Process for Oxidation Ditch Modification for Combined
             Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
Appendix I

-------
               APPENDIX II
SUMMARIES OF BNR EVALUATION REPORTS
                                              Page
 Maryland Reports                                  1

 New York Reports                                 20

 Pennsylvania Reports                              24

 Virginia Reports                                  55

-------
  Maryland Reports - Potomac River Basin
                CITY OF BRUNSWICK WWTP, BRUNSWICK, MD

 The Brunswick WWTP  is an activated  sludge  facility located  in Frederick County,
 Maryland and it discharges to the Potomac River.  The plant is permitted for an average
 flow rate of 0.7 MOD; however, the current annual average flow  is only approximately
 0.325 MOD.  Routine monitoring of the influent wastewater is conducted only for BODs.
 For this reason, the analysis of the plant's nitrification capacity was performed based on a
 BOD5 to COD ratio of 1 to 2,  and ammonia, TKN and TP values measured in September
 1990.   The  plant is currently accomplishing complete  nitrification, as  the effluent
 ammonia concentrations are less than 1  mg/L year round.

 Preliminary treatment at the plant includes a communitor, an influent pumping station,
 grit removal  and an aerated flow equalization tank.  Secondary treatment  follows the
 equalization  tank, and consists  of two activated sludge basins and two secondary
 clarifiers.  The volume of each activated sludge basin is 117,000 gallons, and provides a
 retention time of 8.0 hours at the design average flow rate of 0.7 MOD, and 17.3 hours at
 the current average flow rate of 0.325 MOD.  Coarse bubble diffusers are used for
 aeration. The diameter and the side water depth of each secondary clarifier is 30 ft and 13
 ft, respectively, yielding an SOR of 495 gpd/ft2  at the design average flow, and 230
 gpd/ft2 at at the current average flow rate. The RAS pumping system is adequate for both
 current and future flow conditions.  Sludge  is  wasted from the RAS line into an aerobic
 digester. Secondary effluent is chlorinated and dechlorinated in two contact tanks.

 The two aeration basin-secondary clarifier  trains are completely separate.  The current
 configuration  of the plant does not offer the flexibilty of taking an aeration  tank out of
 service while operating with two clarifiers, or to take a clarifier out of service and operate
 with two aeration basins.  MLE and cyclic aeration processes were considered for BNR.
 The existing basins do not have adequate hydraulic retention time to incorporate excess P
 removal at design flow.  Therefore a chemical P removal system is recommended for both
 BNR systems.

 For implementing the MLE configuration, baffle  walls would be constructed in  the
 existing aeration basins to create dedicated anoxic zones in the influent end of each basin.
 The anoxic zone would  occupy approximately 40%  of the AS basin volume.   A
 submersible mixer should be installed in each of the anoxic zones to keep the biomass
 solids suspended.  A submersible pump also should be installed for nitrate recycling to
 the anoxic zone.  A DO control system (DO  probes and a programmable logic controller)
 is  recommended to maintain an optimum DO level around 3 mg/L in the aerobic zone at
 all times.  The anticipated effluent TN concentration would be 8 mg/L at a nitrate recycle
 flow rate of 1.0 MOD per basin.
Appendix II

-------
    Implementation of cyclic aeration  would require a system to shut off the air to the AS
    basins to establish anoxic conditions for denitrification.  Typical aerobic a^£ic^le

    TrTZb  'T fr°m 6° ? 9° minUtCS °f the t0tal <**' 
-------
                CHESTERTOWN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

 The Chestertown  treatment plant is  a two stage aerated lagoon system that serves
 Chestertown and surrounding communities in Kent County, on the Eastern Shore of MD,
 and discharges to  the tidal Chester River. The plant is designed to treat a flow of 0.9
 MOD, and currently receives an average flow of 0.60 MOD. The plant consists of two
 very large lagoons aerated through plastic tubing. The last section of the second lagoon is
 relatively quiescent to encourage settling  of suspended biomass solids.  Data for  the
 period from Jan 97 - May 98 was obtained for evaluation.

 During the evaluation period,  effluent BODs  and TSS  values averaged 16.1  and 37.3
 mg/L, respectively. Very good DO concentrations were maintained in the aerated lagoons,
 and the effluent NUt and TP concentrations were within the discharge limits.  Complete
 nitrification was obtained during warm weather but not throughout the winters.  However,
 while the ammonia levels  sometimes  exceeded  7 mg/L  during  the  winter,  the  plant
 discharged a year round  average NHj-N value of only  3.0  mg/L.  Effluent NOX
 concentrations also were low indicating substantial denitrification of the formed nitrates
 within the aerated lagoons.  However, effluent organic nitrogen concentrations frequently
 reached significant  values, such as 19 mg/L in April 98.  It appears that substantial algae
 growth occurs in the  lagoons, and are discharged  in the effluent rather than settling.
 Because of the high organic nitrogen content, the average TN concentration in the final
 effluent was 10.7 mg/L. Effluent TP averaged 2.9 mg/L.

 The main units of the plant are  two aerated  lagoons, an anaerobic digester and a chlorine
 contact tank. The surface areas of the lagoons are 23 and 32 acres, and each lagoon has a
 side water depth (SWD) of 6 feet. The liquid depth can vary by as much as two inches.
 Each lagoon is equipped with two 100 HP blower. An anaerobic digester with  a volume
 of 280,000 gallons  was designed to digest the sludges produced in the aerobic lagoons.
 The final treatment unit is a five-pass chlorine contact tank designed for disinfection of
 the effluent before discharge.

 The plant is already accomplishing nitrification and denitrification to an extent  sufficient
 to comply with the  Chesapeake Bay goal of 8 mg/L on an annual average. However, the
 effluent contains excessive amounts of total nitrogen because of the biomass suspended
 solids being discharged in the effluent.  Thus,  it is recommended that a deep  bed  sand
 filter be  added  to  the treatment system between the second aerated  lagoon and the
 chlorine contact basin to remove the suspended solids and thereby reduce the effluent
 organic nitrogen  concentration.   In addition to  reducing  the  organic  nitrogen in the
 effluent, some removal of  organic phosphorus is expected, even though the soluble
 phosphorus PC>4 and the TP values in  the effluent usually were approximately  the same
 except during April  and May 98. Nonetheless, an average TP value of 2.9 mg/L suggests
 that the plant does not need any modification to reduce to remove phosphorus.

Analysis of the data indicates that installation and operation of deep bed sand filters will
reduce the effluent TN to an average of 5.5 mg/L at both current and design flow rates.  It
Appendix II

-------
    backh n           '    M   °f ^ d£eP bed fllter5' indudinS filter in^t P^ps
    backwash pumps, air scour blowers and control units, plus site work yard pipiLTd
    electrical upgrade, will be $ 1,350,000.  Estimated changes in annual M&O cosUotaTs
    4 500   Estimated additional TN removals following the upgrade are 9 500 a^d  4 250
    bs/yr for current and design flowrate conditions, respectively.  The esi rr/ateTcost'per
    additional pound nitrogen removed is $5.92/lb.                       »"«wica  cost per
Appendix II

-------
                          CITY OF CRISFIELD WWTP

 The Crisfield WWTP is a contact stabilization design activated sludge plant located on
 the southern end of the Eastern Shore of Maryland.  It discharges into  the Chesapeake
 Bay.  Because the plant is located at or just above sea level, it suffers from infiltration-
 inflow of seawater during high tides in addition to normal infiltration-inflow.  The plant
 is permitted for a flow of 1.0 MOD, and effluent concentrations of 30 mg/L BODs, 30
 mg/L TSS and 2.0 mg/L TP.  There are no effluent ammonia or nitrogen requirements in
 the current permit.

 According to 1995 data, the loading and flow decrease substantially in winter, to almost
 75% of summer flows and loads.  Raw influent BODS and TSS samples are collected
 twice a week, whereas only one or two sets of samples are analyzed each  month for TKN
 and  TP tests.   The  average BOD5/TKN  and  BOD5/TP ratios were  5.93 and  42.4,
 respectively. The average BODS value for the year 1995 was 125 mg/L at an average raw
 influent flow of 0.6 MOD.

 The raw influent is screened through a 1 inch mechanical bar screen and flows from there
 to a rectangular grit chamber, or to an influent surge tank that is used during high flows.
 The grit chamber does not perform adequately and during high flows some of  the grit
 enters  the AS tanks and accumulates at  the  bottom.   The AS  basins  are  contact
 stabilization units designed in a donut shape with clarifiers in the middle. The outer ring
 has three chambers: reaeration, contact and aerobic digester zones. The basins are  aerated
 with coarse bubble diffusers installed on swing-arms.  The nominal HRT is 7.8 hours at
 1.2 MOD and 9.4 hours at 1.0 MOD.  Without any primary clarifiers, the  AS basins have
 to treat a higher load for the same flow as compared to facilities with primary clarifiers.
 In 1995, the plant maintained complete nitrification all year round at flows of 0.5 MOD in
 winter and 0.65 MOD in summer.  The effluent NOx averaged 13.6 mg/L with an average
 TN of 15.6 mg/L.

 The plant has two secondary clarifiers with SORs of 622 gpd/ft2 at 1  MOD and 750
 gpd/ft2 at 1.2 MOD  wastewater flow.  These rates exceed the  MDE guidelines for a
 conventional WWTP, which are 600 gpd/ft2, and would correspond to a flow of 0.9
 MOD.   The solids loading rate exceeds 20 Ib/d/ft2 at  MLSS of 2600  mg/L with an
 influent flow rate of 1.0 MOD and a RAS flow rate of 50% of influent.  The plant  does
 not  have the flexibility to take  a clarifier out for maintenance.   Additional secondary
 clarifier capacity is necessary  to operate with nitrification at design flows of 1.0 or 1.2
 MOD.  The secondary effluent is chlorinated in two parallel contact tanks with an HRT of
 65 minutes.  It is dechlorinated and reaerated before discharge.  Two aerated holding
 tanks are used for sludge digestion. Typically a MLSS below  10,000 mg/L is maintained.

 Besides the suggested modifications for operational improvement to the headworks and
 grit chambers, three options were considered for AS basin modifications for BNR:

 1.   Operation of the AS basin volume of 0.2 MG in each tank (current configuration),
Appendix II

-------
   2.  Conversion of the two AS basins to a volume of 0.305 MG each by incorporating the
       aerobic digestion section into the activated sludge basin.  The digestion section would
       be  moved into  the existing clarifiers, with new units constructed to replace  the
       existing units;                                                        F      e
   3.  Conversion of only a part of each aerobic  digester into an AS basin to provide a total
       volume^of 0.235 MG for aerobic digestion.  Each AS basin would have a volume of


   It is recommended that the AS basins be reconfigured into anaerobic(15%)-anoxic(25%)
   aerobic order with step feed capabilities for handling high flows. The RAS would be sent
   to the head of the anaerobic zone.  The nitrate recycle could be fed to  the head of the
   anoxic cell  for BPR in  addition to nitrogen removal, or to the first anaerobic cell for
   nitrogen removal with chemical P removal.   Based on  the  analyses performed  it is
   recommended that one AS basin be taken out of service in winter while operating with
   both clanfiers when the flows decrease to  75 % of summer flow. The coarse  bubble
  diiiusers should be replaced with membrane or ceramic fine bubble diffusers   With the
  addition of two new clarifiers, the system should be able to operate satisfactorily for one
  month with one clarifier out of service in winter when both AS basins are in operation  A
  RAS pump station that can independently control flows from individual clarifiers would
  have to  be designed to operate with the new clarifiers.  The station should have  WAS
  pumps, also.  Existing secondary clarifiers shall be  converted to aerated  sludge holding
  tanks that can be used as aerobic digesters.   It  is proposed that a ferric chloride or alum
  teed system be available as a backup for BPR.

  Cost  estimates were made without including the grit removal system  modifications   They
  include construction of RAS and WAS pump  stations. Total capital cost was estimated to
  ^  ™1    MGD' ^ $2'° M at L0 MGD-  Total chanSe in Bating costs at 0 7
  MGD is $9,894. The total cost per adc tional Ib of N removed is $7.40 at  1 2 MGD and
  $4.95 at 1.0 MGD with one secondary clarifier.
Appendix II

-------
                          TOWN OF ELKTON WWTP

 The Town of Elkton WWTP is a rotating biological contactor (RBC) plant located in
 Cecil  County.  The current permit is based on a maximum monthly average wastewater
 flow of 1.6 MOD, and limits the BOD5 to 30mg/L, TKN to 20 mg/L, and TP to 2.0 mg/L
 on a monthly average. Furthermore, the permit specifies an effluent TN level of 8 mg/L
 which should be achievable through installation of biological nutrient removal (BNR)
 facilities designed to meet a seasonal (May through October) average of 8 mg/L.  Actual
 dry weather and wet weather flows are 1.4 MOD and 2.5 to 3.0 MOD, respectively.

 The WWTP is rated for an average flow rate of 2.7 MOD, whereas the monthly average
 and maximum flow rates to the plant during the period of July 1997 through June 1998
 were  1.37 MOD and 1.70 MOD, respectively.   The monthly average of raw influent
 BODS was  172 mg/L for this period, and TKN averaged 28 mg/L. The primary effluent
 has not been  monitored  at the  Elkton WWTP.  For this reason,  primary  effluent
 characteristics  were calculated  using typical removal efficiencies of primary clarifiers
 (BODS: 35%; TKN: 20%; TP: 15%). The data show that the plant is not able to achieve
 good nitrification, as both the annual average and the monthly average values of ammonia
 concentration in the final effluent are all 9.0 mg/L or greater.  The DO levels in the RBC
 troughs seemed to be sufficient  for nitrification; hence, other approaches  should be
 considered to improve nitrogen removal. NOx, on the other hand averaged 4.1 mg/L
 monthly.

 Preliminary treatment consists  of an Aqua Guard  screen  with  O.Sinch  openings, a
 comminutor, a grit collector,  and two primary clarifiers.  The grit chambers were not
 operating at the time of the visit, but the flow passes through them. The SOR and HRT at
 the average flow of 1.37 MOD with both units  operating are 242 gpd/ft2 and 2 hours,
 respectively.  The clarifiers are operated with an 8 inch sludge blanket, and the sludge is
 pumped directly to the belt filter press at a rate of 6 hours per day and 3 days per week.
 Polymer is  added for sludge conditioning, and eventually  the  sludge is composted.
 Clarifier effluent is by-passed to an aerated surge tank during high  flow times, whereas
 the regular flow goes to the RBCs after alum addition.  The overflow is then diverted
 from the surge tank to the pump station  and then recycled back to the headworks. There
 are two banks of  "BioSpiral"  RBCs and  two banks  of two rectangular  secondary
 clarifiers.  Each bank of RBCs  is made up of four trains of three RBCs.  Eight of the
 twelve RBCs have standard media shafts at 100,000 ft2 and four have high density shafts
 at 150,000 ft2.  The RBC  troughs are  aerated in order to increase sloughing.  C116
 Polytreat polymer is added to the effluent of the contactors to improve settling properties.
 Mixed liquor from the RBCs flows into  two banks of two secondary clarifiers each, one
 of which is in operation in each bank.  Each clarifier has an SOR of 360 gpd/ft2 and an
 HRT of 1.26 hours at 1.37 MOD,  with two of the clarifiers operating.  Link belt sludge
 and scum collection is employed. The sludge is returned back to the primary clarifiers for
 settling.  There is also  a  sludge  recycle line from each clarifier to the  flow control
 chamber immediately upstream of the RBCs.  Two chlorine  contact tanks are used for
 disinfection purposes, and  the center channel between them is used for dechlorination.
Appendix II

-------
 The tanks have a contact time of 35 min. at peak  flow.  Caustic is  also fed to the
 secondary effluent with chlorine. Cascade aeration of the effluent is used to maintain a
 final effluent minimum DO concentration of 5 mg/L. Final effluent is then discharged to
 Big Elk Creek.

 The following two process alternatives were considered for implementing BNR:

 1.  Construct a nitrification-denitrification filter downstream of the existing secondary
    clarifiers: BOD removal would occur in the RBCs and both nitrification  and
    denitrification  would  occur within the attached growth of the biological filters.
    Examples of nitrification-denitrification filters are  Biofor®  Filters, which  use
    expanded  shale as the filter media;  BiostyrRFilters, which use lighter than water
    plastic media;  and the Kaldnes Process,   which uses polyethylene media with  a
    density slightly less than that of water.   Because the BOD present in the influent is
    removed in the  RBCs, a methanol  feed system would be constructed to provide an
    organic carbon source for denitrification in the tertiary filters.
 2.  Decommission the  existing RBC units and Construct an Oxidation Ditch Activated
    Sludge System: It is recommended  that an oxidation ditch system with two parallel
    ditches  be  constructed to replace  the  existing RBC  units  in  the treatment train.
    Oxidation ditches are high internal recycle systems that can be operated for excellent
    nitrogen  removal  by  optimizing  the oxygen  inputs.    Typically,  effluent  TN
    concentrations of less than 5 mg/L are easily achievable. If it is desired to implement
    biological phosphorus removal  as well, an anaerobic reactor could be constructed
    upstream of the ditches.  This configuration at Bowie, Maryland typically averages
    <0.3 mg/L TP and <4 mg/L TN.  Other types of BNR activated sludge processes such
    as  A2/O,  VIP,  modified UCT  or  sequencing  batch reactors  also  would  perform
    satisfactorily and could be used instead of the oxidation ditch configuration if desired.
    If the oxidation ditch system is constructed, the primary cl  . ifiers become e:  -,mdable
    and could be modified into  anaerobic reactors  for biolo^cal phosphorus   :moval.
    The existing secondary clarifiers  probably could  be used for activated  sludge
    operation, but should be examined and evaluated for this purpose because they have
    shallow side water depths (10 ft.). They are likely to be usable for current flows, but
    may become limiting as the influent  flow approaches the design flow of 2.7 MOD.

The estimated  capital  costs for the two-  alternatives are $3,019,030 and $3,674,720,
respectively. The cost of Alternative 2 would increase to $4,271,720 if the anaerobic
reactor is included. Alternative 1 would have very high energy costs because it would not
be possible to reduce aeration costs  in the RBCs, and additional organics would have to
be purchased for denitrification. Additionally, there would be  the cost of aerating the
nitrifying  filters, the costs of backwashing the filters, air sour blowers, and the cost of
purchasing an organic carbon source such as methanol for denitrification. Consequently,
the O&M costs for Alternative 1 are projected as $80,500 per year.  The O&M costs for
Alternative 1  >re projected to  be  only $10,700,  for the  maintenance of the  aeration
brushes and RAS pumps. The estimated total costs for implementing nitrogen removal is
$2.72 for Alternative 1 and $2.62 for Alternative 2, per Ib additional N removal.
Appendix II

-------
                            FEDERALSBURG WWTP

 The  Federalsburg WWTP is a trickling filter plant located  in Caroline County on the
 Eastern Shore of Maryland.  It discharges into Marshyhope Creek, which eventually flows
 into the Nanticoke River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.  The current permit is valid
 until  August  1999,  and it  limits the  WWTP  discharge  to  average  TKN  and TP
 concentrations of 10 mg/L and 2 mg/L,  respectively.  The average effluent BOD limit is
 30 mg/L  for the period from October 1st through April 30th, and is 20 mg/L for May 1st
 through September 30th. The current average wastewater flow to the plant is 0.36 MOD,
 and the design flow is 0.75 MOD.

 The effluent characteristics  were summarized from operating data for the period  from
 November 1996 through April 1998. The average effluent concentrations for BOD,  TSS,
 TKN and NOx-N were 6.6, 12.1, 2.4, and 15.5 mg/L," respectively. The plant achieved
 complete nitrification throughout the period with effluent ammonia values well below 1.0
 mg/L most of the time. The total nitrogen discharged from the plant, mostly in the  form
 of oxidized nitrogen, was 53 Ibs/day in an average flow rate of 0.355 MOD.  The average
 effluent TP concentration of 1.9 mg/L was slightly less than the permit limit.

 Preliminary treatment processes at the Federalsburg WWTP  include 3 Celco type static
 screens and 2 Evtec Teacup grit removal units. The screens have a mesh size of 0.10
 inches, and their  flow capacities  are 750 gpm each for a  total of 2250  gpm.   The
 centrifugal grit removal units have a flow capacity of 900 gpm each. The design of the
 grit removal  system  was based on the removal of 95% of particles  1 OOum and larger.
 Flow from the grit removal units is combined with secondary sludge flow and diverted to
 the primary clarifiers through 3 flow distribution pits, only one of which was in operation
 at the time of this evaluation. There are 2 primary clarifiers with sufficient space for one
 more unit. However, currently only one clarifier is in use.  The design sludge production
 rate was 2708 gpd at 3% solids concentration.  The clarifiers have diameters of 50 ft with
 surface areas of 1963 ft2 and  surface overflow rates of 275 gal/day/ft2 at the design  flow
 of 750 gpm.

 Following .an equalization step,  biological  treatment  at the Federalsburg  WWTP  is
 achieved with 2 parallel trickling filters filled with synthetic high cone media.  The media
 depth and surface area are 13.5 ft and 30 ft2/ft3. The current total recycle rate around the
 filters is 1200 gpm, and the full recycle capacity is  1200 gpm  per filter.  The design  total
 and soluble BOD loadings to the trickling filters are 1038 and 769 Ibs/day.   The design
 ammonia  loading, on  the other hand is  125 Ibs/day. Two secondary clarifiers  with
 diameters of 50 ft and minimum side  water depths  of 12  ft are operated for solids
 separation. The surface overflow rate at  a design flow rate of 375 gpm per unit is 275
 gpd/ft2.  The  secondary sludge concentrated  to 0.5%, and  is pumped to the primary
clarifiers at a design rate of 16,306 gpd by pumps that operate for 10 min. every hour.

Secondary effluent is disinfected by  chlorination in a contact  tank with  a hydraulic
retention time of 60 minutes. Following dechlorination, treated water passes through a 6-
Appendix II

-------
 step cascade aerator  prior to discharge.  Combined primary and secondary  sludge  is
 further treated anaerobic digestion.  The digester volume 249,000 gallons and  the waste
 sludge production rate at 3% solids concentration is 5,017 gal/day. The digester contents
 are mixed with 2 mixers.  The digested sludge goes to two sand drying beds of 9,220 ft2
 surface area for dewatering.

 Because complete  nitrification  was  successfully achieved  throughout  the  period of
 evaluation, the installation of a  tertiary denitrification filter built downstream of the
 secondary clarifier is  recommended for enhanced nitrogen removal.   In this alternative
 BOD removal  and nitrification  will take  place in  the  existing trickling filters  and
 denitrification  will  be  accomplished  in   the  tertiary  bio-filters.  Operation  of the
 denitrification filters will require the addition of an external carbon source.  Methanol  is
 the most widely used  organic carbon in similar situations because it usually is the most
 economical.  Examples of denitrification filters are Terra® filters, which use sand as the
 filter media, and Biofor® filters which use  expanded shale as the filter media.  A
 pumping station would be needed to pump the  clarifier effluent to  the denitrification
 filters. A methanol feed system is also needed.

 The capital cost for implementing  nitrogen removal at the  Federalsburg WWTP was
 estimated to  be $1.5  M.  This amount includes concrete structure and manufacturer's
 equipment.   The cost for the methanol feed system  includes storage tank,  chemical
 metering pumps, containment area, fire suppression system, safety equipment, piping and
 a prefabricated  enclosure to house pumps.  On the other hand, the estimated changes in
 annual M&O costs were calculated to be S11.3K at current flow, and S18.8K  for the
 design flow.  The overall cost for the removal of each additional pound of nitrogen is
 $3.37.
Appendix II                                                                       10

-------
               GEORGES CREEK WWTP, ALLEGANY COUNTY

 The Georges Creek WWTP is an oxidation ditch activated sludge facility permitted to
 treat a flow of 0.6 MOD, and the annual flows and loads are close to the design capacity.
 Operating data for 1995 was analyzed for the purposes of this study. The plant received
 an average flow of 0.626 MOD, and the average monthly BOD5 was  146  mg/L. In the
 absence of data for TKN and TP, they  were estimated to be 29.1 mg/L and 4.9 mg/L,
 respectively, using the ratios  for BOD5/TKN (5:1) and BOD5/TP (30:1) that are typical
 for Maryland. The plant did not have  any data on ammonium-N, NOx or TP in the final
 effluent.

 The influent enters the plant through a wet well  and then it is pumped to  the oxidation
 ditch.  As the plant does not have a grit removal unit, grit accumulates in the wet well and
 in the ditch. The ditch is aerated and mixed with jet aerators. The velocity of the water in
 the ditch is not enough to keep grit in suspension.  Based on operating information, a
 significant volume (10% or higher)  of the ditch  may now be filled with grit.  Because
 there is only one ditch, the plant cannot take it out of service for maintenance. Ditch
 effluent is controlled manually with a valve. The pipe carrying the mixed liquor from the
 ditch to the clarifier is smaller  than the  influent  pipe, and this causes a hydraulic
 bottleneck, which causes the ditch to overflow.  The overflow  should be corrected to
 prevent nitrifier loss and discharge of mixed liquor to Georges Creek.  Because only one
 blower is used for aeration of the  ditch, the DO concentrations are only 1 mg/L close to
 the jets.  It is even lower between the jets.  The plant has two secondary clarifiers  with
 SORs of 565 gpd/ft2 at design flow with both units in operation. With a SWD of 8 ft, this
 SOR is high for a nitrifying mixed liquor.  The plant cannot operate with  one clarifier,
 and it  has to bypass as  much as half of the normal  flow around  the facility to prevent
 solids washout. Sludge is wasted through a Wye connection on the RAS line. Secondary
 effluent is disinfected using a  UV  system, which has  to be replaced or upgraded to allow
 the peak design flow of 2.1 MGD to pass through the plant.

 Based  on DO levels in the ditch  and an evaluation of the existing aeration system, it
 appears that nitrification would  be  limited  by  the capacity of the aeration  system.
 Because of anoxic conditions at the lower depths of the ditch, any generated NOx would
 get denitrified.

 The following modifications should be  considered to implement BNR:

 1.  Improve the aeration system for nitrification: According to the calculations, the jet
    aeration system already in  use can provide 1440 Ib of oxygen per day. However, due
    to clogging of the jet nozzles this capacity is  probably only about  85% of design at
    present.   For an MLE  configuration, the oxygen demand  for BOD  and  nitrogen
    removal will be 1440 Ibs per day at average load.  For BOD removal alone,  1150 Ibs
   of oxygen are needed daily.  Therefore the current system needs to be  upgraded for
   nitrification.  One alternative is the installation of two 25 HP brush aerators, with
   timers or PLCs and DO probes. The  brush aerators will also help increase the liquid
Appendix II

-------
    velocities in the ditch, reducing the quantity of grit settling out. Another alternative is
    the installation of a ceramic or membrane  fine  bubble  diffuser  system with new
    piping. The peak demand could be met with two 30 to 35 HP blowers.
 2.  Correct the overflow of raw influent and mixed liquor to the  Creek by providing the
    plant with the capacity to treat the MDE recommended peaking factors for a facility
    of this size: Construction of a new clarifier with its own RAS system must have the
    highest priority.   Flow distribution boxes  and  appropriate piping must  also  be
    considered.
 3.  Provide redundancy to take part of the oxidation ditch out of service to remove grit:
    This will prevent loss of nitrification capacity when the system needs to be taken out
    of service.  The ditch can  be partitioned into two U-shaped AS  basins, and 30% of
    each basin should be anoxic according to the calculations.  The nitrate recycle pump
    should be able to operate in a range from  120 and 300 % of the influent flow.
 4.  Add a grit removal system to protect equipment such as diffusers and mixer blades:
    T1  'O grit removal systems were found to be feasible: a Schreiber channel type grit
    re  -oval system and  a Pfsta-grit system on the influent sewer line upstream of the
    influent wet well.
 5.  Add a chemical P removal system: Predictable Biological P removal would require an
    anaerobic reactor before the oxidation ditch. Chemical P removal would decrease the
    capital costs.

 The cost calculations  were done  for each  item listed above.   Implementation of N
 removal, at a minimum, requires that the aeration system be improved as recommended
 under Item 1, and sufficient redundancy be established to permit an activated  sludge unit
 to be taken offline, as recommended in Item 3.  It is recommended that the approach of
 Item 3 be considered  instead of Item 1 to provide the plant with a desired level  of
 operability.  Item 5 has to be implemented for P removal. The capital costs of the five
 items  are $456,000;  $1,156,000;  $1,663,000; to  be  estimated;  and  $1,920,000,
 respectively,  corresponding to  the items listed  in the above order. Additional  Derating
 costs with nitrification and denitrification sum to $1,748, and the  projected tota. ..ost per
 Ib of additional N removed excluding P removal is $3.55.
Appendix II                                                                       12

-------
                              INDIAN HEAD WWTP

 The Indian Head WWTP is a small, activated sludge plant located in Charles County,
 Maryland, and it services the Town of Indian Head. The plant is permitted for a flow of
 0.49 MOD, and the current permit requires the plant to maintain seasonal nitrification.
 The plant discharges to Ginny Creek, which is a tributary of the Mattawoman River and a
 sub-tributary of the Potomac River. At present, the plant receives an annual average flow
 that is 50 to 60 % of the design flow of 0.5 MOD.

 In 1995, the raw influent BOD5 averaged 287 mg/L, which is a fairly high value for  the
 Mid-Atlantic  region.  For the purposes  of this design, a COD/BOD ratio of 1.5 was
 assumed; however, if in the future the COD/BOD ratio exceeds 2.0, the plant may have
 difficulty nitrifying without addition of media in the existing tanks or adding additional
 tanks. The raw influent BOD/TKN ratio averages 12.0.

 The raw influent enters the facility  through  three separate sewer  lines into a Parkson
 Aquaguard screen. Following screening, the wastewater is degritted in a Pistagrit unit
 and sent to the AS basins.  The AS basins are an old package plant with a concentric
 clarifier that has since been retrofitted to  operate with  external clarifiers. The outer ring
 is partitioned to yield two semicircular basins, each of which can be step fed. The HRT
 in the basins is 14.2 hours at the design flow of 0.5 MOD. Aeration is accomplished with
 ceramic disc diffusers.  The mixed liquor  leaves the basins through a submerged port that
 does not allow foam to  pass through to the secondary clarifiers.  The two clarifiers have
 SORs of 354 gpd/ft2 at  0.5 MOD.   A telescopic valve is used to control the RAS flow
 rate from each clarifier, and RAS is then pumped to the AS  basins. The flow rates for
 RAS and WAS are controlled  by a Programmable Logic Controller.  Secondary effluent
 is disinfected with chlorine gas and dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide prior to discharge to
 Ginny Run.

 The secondary clarifiers located in the midst of the AS basins were converted to primary
 aerobic  digesters, and  aerated  with coarse bubble diffusers.   Thickened and digested
 sludge is pumped into  a secondary digester.   Supernatant is  returned to the AS basins.
 Sludge is then trucked to Mattawoman WWTP at the rate of three truck-loads each day.

 Two alternatives for BNR were evaluated.   Both  alternatives use the entire  AS tank
 volume;  therefore, a separate surge  tank or effluent pumping is required to overcome the
 hydraulic limitations downstream of the secondary clarifiers, which causes the weirs  to
 become submerged and solids to overflow:

 1.   Conversion  of existing  AS basins  to anoxic  and aerobic  zones:  The design
    calculations showed that the plant would  have  to  operate at MLSS levels of 2800
    mg/L during average month loads in  winter and 3750 mg/L during a peak month.
    Because of limited aeration volume, a  dedicated anaerobic zone was not included for
    biological P removal. P removal can be accomplished by chemical precipitation. It is
    recommended that two anoxic cells, each  with a volume  of 12.5 % of the  AS tank
Appendix II

-------
                      m^^
       is recommended that a nitrate recycle ?60 to 150 % ofTnflt t.  pr£Ven< Settlin§'  «
                  control of RAS withdrawal from each
      automated DO contro system should be installed, including DO probes  a PLC

      motor control on the blowers.  A side mounted submersible mixer should be i

      to prevent settling.  It is recommended that a nitrate recycle (60 to 150
  The first alternative can be implemented at a lower cost but it has a lower safety factor

















 The second alternative provides  a higher safety  factor when one tank is taken out of

Appendix II

                                                                               14

-------
                             MATT A WOMAN WWTP

 The Mattawoman  WWTP  is an activated sludge plant that services most of Charles
 County.  The plant is rated for a flow of 15 MOD. Currently the flow ranges from 7.5
 MOD in dry months to 10 MOD in wet months, including the recycle flows from filter
 backwash, belt filterate, and gravity thickener overflow, which adds up to an average of
 1.28 MOD. Operational data for the year 1995 was analyzed for this study.

 Raw  influent BODS  averaged  182  mg/L  during  1995.    The  primary  effluent
 measurements for BOD5 and TKN were 104 and 28.1 mg/L, respectively.  There was a
 large increase in primary  effluent TKN from June through October, possibly due to
 increased trucking  of sludge from other facilities and septage.  Final effluent nitrogen
 concentrations were determined by averaging the two consecutive samples analyzed each
 month.   Although ammonium-N  concentrations averaged 3.46 mg/L, presence of a
 substantial amount  of nitrification between June and February is apparent from the other
 nitrogen species. The average organic N concentration was 3.30 mg/L, which is higher
 than the averages at other facilities in the region.  The difference may be a  result of low
 MCRTs (3 to 4 days) causing incomplete hydrolysis of organic nitrogen to ammonium-N.
 Effluent TN averaged 13.8 mg/L,  which is much lower than primary effluent TKN,
 indicating the presence of denitrification. The amount of denitrification taking place was
 calculated from a nitrogen mass  balance to be  7.28 mg/L.   The reduction  in primary
 effluent BOD5/TKN ratio should be monitored as it can adversely affect denitrification
 because of insufficient organic carbon levels.

 The WWTP has screening  and grit removal for preliminary treatment. The wastewater
 leaving the grit chamber enters a wet well where it mixes with the recycle flows. Primary
 clarification takes place in four old and one new clarifier.  The new clarifier has an SOR
 of 800  gpd/ft2.  The old  clarifiers  do not perform as efficiently as the new one at  800
 gpd/ft2  and a raw influent flow of 7.4 MGD.  Without the large clarifier, the four small
 units are operated .at  1800  gpd/ft2, necessitating  the addition  of coagulants for suitable
 operation.  There are six parallel rectangular AS basins with a nominal HRT of 6.0 hours
 at the design flow rate of 15 MGD. Aeration is achieved by coarse bubble diffusers. The
 basins have a submerged pipe outlet for the mixed liquor to pass to six clarifiers; four old
 and two new.  The SOR at the design flow of 15 MGD is 550 gpoVft2 and the solids flow
 rate at 3000 mg/L MLSS and 50% RAS flow rate is 21 lb/d/ft2, both of which are higher
 than  normal  design  practice.     Therefore,  additional  secondary  clarification  is
 recommended.   The plant  uses  a P removal  tertiary system  that  includes  four
 clariflocculators followed  by final effluent  filters.   Ferric chloride  is   used  for
 precipitation.

 Primary and WAS are thickened in two  open gravity thickeners. The thickened sludge is
 held in aerated holding tanks prior to dewatering.  Belt presses  are used  for solids
 dewatering.
Appendix II                                                                      15

-------
 A review of the plant operation data showed that the plant nitrified at low MCRTs, and
 the kinetics of nitrification can be enhanced by the plug flow pattern of flow in the AS
 basins by operating with the  DO maintained  between 4 mg/L (summer) and 8 mg/L
 (winter).  The observed denitrification may be a result of reduced aeration with high
 temperature, low DO  zones in  the basin created by the plug flow pattern, and  low
 operating MCRTs, which cause a relatively high biodegradable SCOD in the first half of
 the basin.   Data from  1995 show a substantial increase in primary effluent  TKN in
 summer without a corresponding  increase in BOD5,  which  indicates an  inadequate
 organic carbon source for denitrification.  Besides, as the plant approaches design flow,
 nitrification is expected to decrease. For this reason, septage receiving procedures must
 be examined and COD/TKN ratios must be monitored.

 In order to achieve a seasonal average goal of 8 mg/L effluent TN, two alternatives were
 developed:

 1.  Modification of the AS system to six parallel basins with anoxic and aerobic zones
    (MLE configuration); flexibility to take one AS basin out of service between June and
    December; flexibility to take one clarifier out of service; step feed to handle high
   flows above 25 MOD: Modifications are recommended to pump septage to either the
    gravity thickeners or an aerobic digester when the  raw influent flow exceeds 12.5
    MOD.   It is recommended  that an additional primary clarifier of the same size as the
    existing large clarifier be added  for the  design primary effluent rate of 17.5 MOD.
    This will reduce the SOR to 650 gpd/ft2 at a primary effluent flow rate of 17.5 MOD
    when two large units are in service.  Without a new clarifier, Stamford baffles and
    chemical coagulant addition can  enhance primary settling when the large clarifier is
    out of service. A minimum of two anoxic cells are recommended in the first 25 to 40
    % of the AS  basin.  An anoxic volume  of 45% is recommended to maintain
    denitrification during periods of low COD/TKN ratio  in the primary effluent.  The
    nitrate recycle pump should be capable of pumping a maximum of 250% of the raw
    influent  flow. Automated DO control is optional. The existing secondary clarifiers
    are shallow for BNR (10 ft). It is recommended that  an additional secondary clarifier
    be constructed to upgrade the plant. The RAS from the new clarifier will be piped to
    the secondary sludge pump station.  The plant can use two point chemical addition for
    P removal, using the final clarifiers as secondary clarifiers.

2. Modification of the AS system to three,  two-pass step feed reactors with anoxic zones
   at the head of each pass; addition of one secondary and one primary clarifier; the
   flexibility to take one AS basin out of service at any time of the year; flexibility to take
   one  clarifier out of service at any time of the year: The  influent to the two  pass
    system will be step  fed to  the beginning of the first pass and the beginning of the
   second pass.  An anoxic zone will be created at the beginning of each pass, followed
   by a multi-cell aerobic zone.  Effluent  soluble organic N is expected  to be 0.5 mg/L
   higher then Alternative 1.   Without a nitrate recycle the effluent TN may be higher
   than 8 mg/L during the months with peak nitrogen loads.
Appendix II                                                                     16

-------
 At the time the report was prepared, it was not clear whether the addition of wastewater
 flow contributions from a power plant would be considered to be a part of the 15 MOD of
 wastewater flow allocated for this facility.  If it is not, the potential raw influent flow and
 primary effluent flow will increase by an additional 1.5 to 2.5 MOD, and this will have an
 impact on the primary and secondary clarifier requirements.

 In the cost calculations for both alternatives, the modifications for septage handling and
 for constructing a common effluent channel are not included.  The County would realize
 operational savings in excess of $ 114,400 per year at 15  MOD by the conversion from
 coarse bubble  to  fine bubble aeration.  Also, there would be additional savings of
 $103,000  per year in sludge dewatering and hauling costs at 15 MOD because of an
 increase in operating MCRT from 3 days to 8 days. With the addition  of a primary
 clarifier, the projected total capital costs for the project is $8.5 M.  Without the addition,
 the  plant  maintains  its  hydraulic  capacity  at  15  MOD  and the  capital  costs  of
 modifications is $5.8 M. The cost per Ib of additional N removed with Alternative 1
 implementation, and with Primary Clarifier addition, is $0.94  .  Without the primary
 clarifier the cost per pound of N removed would be $0.07.
Appendix II                                                                       17

-------
               WASHINGTON COUNTY WINEBRENNER WWTP

The Winebrenner WWTP is a rotating biological contactor (RBC) plant located at Fort
Richie, Washington County, Maryland. Originally the plant was constructed to serve Fort
Richie Military Base and the civilian population.   The Base has been scheduled for
closure and currently personnel are in the process of moving out of Fort Richie.  The
current permit  based on an average flow of 0.6 MOD does  not limit the TKN  or TN
discharge.   The current average flow rate is approximately 0.3  MOD, and the plant
discharges to Falls Creek, which flows into the Potomac River.

Raw influent COD, TKN and TP levels are not measured at this facility, and they were
estimated based on typical ratios  for municipal wastewater.  The measured  monthly
average values for raw influent BODs and NH3 are 125 and 12.2 mg/L, respectively.
Assuming a TKN to  ammonia ratio of 2:1, the raw influent TKN concentration was
estimated a-. 25 mg/L.  The  facility is currently accomplishing complete  nitrification
because the Affluent ammonia concentration is less than 1.0 mg/L year round.   Final
effluent BOD5, TKN, NOx and NH3 are 3.6, 3.0, 14.5, and 0.6 mg/L, respectively.

Preliminary treatment processes consist of a manually cleaned  coarse bar screen followed
by a communitor, aerated grit chamber, flow equalization tank and two primary clarifiers.
The flow metering system consists of a Parshall flume and an ultrasonic level sensor.
The SOR of the primary clarifiers is 611 gpd/ft2 at the permitted flow rate of 0.6 MOD,
which  is  an adequate value for the existing clarifier configuration.  Secondary treatment
consists of six RBCs with multilayer stacked polyethylene discs, and three circular
secondary clarifiers. The RBCs can be operated as two parallel trains with three RBCs in
each train, or as  one train with six units in series.  Coarse bubble diffusers provide
supplemental aeration to the RBC  units.  The SOR of the secondary clarifiers is 283
gpd/ft2 at the permitted flow rate of 0.6 MOD, so the clarifiers have excellent capacity.
Overflow from the clarifiers flows into two chlorination tanks with an HRT of 55 minutes
at 0.6  MOD, and then to the dechlorination unit with an HRT of 16.6 minutes  at 0.6
MOD.

Two alternatives are proposed for the implementation of BNR:

1.  Construct an AS basin with anoxic zones upstream of the RBC units and integrate the
    RBC  system into the AS system: Because nitrification occurs in the RBC units, a
    nitrate recycle system would be constructed to recycle nitrified RBC effluent to the
    unaerated zones of the AS system.  Submersible mixers will be needed in the anoxic
    zones to prevent settling of mixed liquor suspended  solids.  The RAS line  would
    recycle solids from the final clarifier to  the anoxic zones. The anticipated effluent TN
    concentration would be 8 mg/L year round.

2.  Construct a :;   ;trification filter downstream of the existing secondary clarifiers: Both
    BOD remova; and nitrification will take place in the  RBCs, and denitrification will
    take place in the tertiary filters (e.g.: Tetra or Biofor filters). A methanol  feed system
Appendix II                                                                     18

-------
     would be needed because the BOD would be consumed before the flow enters the
     tertiary filters. The anticipated effluent TN concentration will be 3 mg/L year round.
 Capital costs for the two alternatives are $1,320,000 and $1,480,000, respectively.  The
 capital  cost for the denitrification filter includes concrete structure and  manufacturers
 equipment.  The estimated change in O&M costs are $5,700 for the first alternative, and
 $10,200 for the second for current flow conditions, with the difference attributable to the
 methanol  feed.  All  costs presented  are  for  denitrification,  as the plant is  already
 nitrifying.  The cost per Ib of additional nitrogen removed for alternatives  1 and 2  are
 $4.96 and $3.77, respectively.  Thus, alternative 2 removes more nitrogen at  a lower unit
 cost.
Appendix II                                                                         19

-------
 New York Reports

    BINGHAMTON-JOHNSON CITY JOINT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

 The Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant (BJCJSTP) is an activated
 sludge facility that receives wastewater from the City of Binghamton, Village of Johnson
 City,  Town of Vestal  and a number  of other smaller towns  and villages along
 Susquehanna River.  The plant has an effluent permit for 20 MOD of flow.  However, the
 annual average flow has exceeded this level, and primary clarifier influent flow was
 measured to be close to 25 MGD.

 The plant has a new permit specifying the BOD and TSS  discharge levels to be 30 mg/L
 at 20 MGD. The permit also specifies a seasonal ammonia limit of 11 mg/L as a monthly
 average, effective  between June  and October.  As the  plant influent TKN fluctuates
 between 10 mg/L in wet weather and less than 20 mg/L in dry weather, the plant was able
 to  maintain the effluent  ammonia  below  11 mg/L during most  months without
 nitrification with a high rate AS process.  However, the  high rate  process discharges a
 significant amount of N as soluble organic N.

 After screening through coarse bar screens, Binghamton wastewaters constituting 85 % of
 the total  flow mixes with Johnson City wastewaters in the grit chambers. The flow then
 passes through communitors and the combined influent mixes with plant  recycles, and
 then fed  to primary clarifiers. The performance of the clarifiers is  not known.  24-hour
 composite samples shall  be used in determination of the clarifier effluent  quality.  The
 plant has six rectangular primary clarifiers with an overflow rate of 1,365 gpm/ft2 at 25
 MGD. Six parallel AS basins follow the clarifiers. The HRT is 2.5 hours at a combined
 influent  flow of 25  MGD.  Such a r'- >rt retention time does nof allow the plant to
 maintain  sufficient  biomass in  the  b:   s.  Aeration  is achieved with coarse  bubble
 diffusers.  As the plant  operates one   jwer  at a time , the quantity of the oxygen
 transferred with  one blower may be <:  .miting factor in treatment.  There are seven
 rectangular secondary clarifiers after the AS basins. At the design flow, the SOR of the
 clarifiers  is 820 gpm/ft2, which  is substantially  higher  than what is acceptable for
 nitrification systems operating without polymer addition.  It is suggested that the covers
 of the secondary clarifiers be removed for the operators to be able to visually monitor the
 performance. Secondary effluent is chlorinated in a contact tank.

 The combined sludge is thickened  in a covered gravity thickener. Thickened sludge with
 3.5 to 5 % total solids content is pumped to three anaerobic digesters.  At an sludge flow
rate of 0.085 MGD, the HRT in the digesters is 15 days. Digested sludge is dewatered in
 three belt filter presses, one or two  of them operating at a time. Sludge is composted with
 an in-vessel system.  It is recommended that the capacity of the whole solids handling
system be evaluated, especially considerin-i the future changes in sludge volume.

Three alternatives were suggested for the implementation of BNR:
Appendix II                                                                     20

-------
  1.  Upgrade of existing AS system with moving bed of plastic media: Hollow plastic
     cylinders with serrated  surfaces have  to  be installed in the  AS  basin to  support
     additional biomass in biofilms. Sufficient media will be installed to support all the
     nitrification in the biofilm.  Each aeration tank will be modified to operate with 25%
     anoxic volume and media will be installed in both  anoxic and aerobic  zones.  The
     system  can  be  operated  with  or  without  RAS.    Each  aeration  tank will be
     compartmentalize into four cells with mixers.  Nitrate recycle would be required to be
     100% of influent flow.

 2.  Construction of a parallel biological filter system with 12.5 MOD treatment capacity
     to operate in parallel with the  existing AS system which  would  be modified for
     nitrogen removal to treat 12.5 MGD of flow:  Biofor system and Biostyr system can
     be used for the  filters. Biofor would be designed  with  anoxic filters upstream of
     aerobic filters.  Biostyr, on the other hand, incorporates the anoxic and aerobic media
     in one filter.  The filters will have a recycle from the  aerobic zone to  the anoxic zone.
     Each aeration tank will also be modified to include 25 to 33 % anoxic  volume. A
     nitrate recycle system should be installed in each tank.

 3.  Replacement of entire AS system with a two  stage  biological filters/anoxic-aerobic
     biological filters  for BOD and N removal:   Half of the secondary clarifiers can be
     used as additional primary treatment units, while the other half is demolished with the
     AS system.

 The estimated capital costs of the three alternatives are $13,057,000; $17,541,000; and
 $24,541,000, and the estimated annual change in the O&M costs are $266,875; $166,875;
 and $226,046. The estimated costs of additional nitrogen removal are $2.24 and $2.62
 per Ib N  removed,  for Alternatives 1  and 2, respectively.   It is  recommended  that
 Alternatives 1 and 2  be evaluated further.  Alternative 2 may be the easiest to operate,
 provided that qualified instrumentation staff is available at the plant.
Appendix II                                                                        21

-------
                       VILLAGE OF ENDICOTT WWTP

 The Village of Endicott in Broome County, New York operates an 8 MOD trickling filter
 wastewater treatment plant which has difficulty meeting the permit limit of 30 mg/L for
 BOD and TSS in winter.  A seasonal ammonia permit valid between June and October
 limits the ammonia-N loads to 830 Ibs/day.  The annual average  daily flow was 7.39
 MOD  for the 1995-1996 period, and  the  average  daily loads of influent BOD and
 primary effluent TKN were 6585 Ibs/day and  1187 Ibs/day, corresponding to 107 mg/L
 and 19 mg/L, respectively.  Wastewater flows and loads are higher in winter, with peak
 hourly flows exceeding 30 MOD.

 The WWTP site is bordered by  a landfill on two sides, and on the other two  sides by
 wetlands which restricts the any pi  nt expansions to remain within the property limits.
 The raw influent is treated throug:  a barminuter, an aerated grit chamber, and  two
 primary clarifiers.  The primary effluent is then fed to two 120 ft diameter rock media
 trickling filters operated in parallel. The effluent from the filters is sent to a pump station
 from where it is pumped to two secondary clarifiers.  Secondary effluent flows to a
 chlorine contact tank from where it is discharged to Susquehanna River. The primary and
 secondary sludges are anaerobically digested and composted.  At present, the trickling
 filters do not nitrify.

 Three options were recommended for the implementation of BNR:

 1.   Modify the existing trickling filters with plastic media to increase the height to 18 ft.
    Then load the  process with  50%  of the primary effluent to allow  year round
    nitrification.  Install an AS/solids contact basin with sufficient anoxic volume (40% of
    the total volume) for denitrification, using the remaining 50% of the primary effluent
    as the organic carbon source.  The aerobic volume could be used for nitrification of
    the ammonium-N present in the  trickling filter effluent and  in the primary effluent.
    Upgrade the  secondary clarifiers  by  the  addition  of three new  clarifiers  to
    accommodate operation in this mode. A nitrate recycle is not required to maintain an
    effluent NOx of 6 mg/L.

2.   Retain the  rock media and feed 50% of the primary effluent just for BOD removal.
    Install an anoxic-aerobic AS basin to treat a mixture of primary effluent and trickling
    filter effluent, and achieve nitrification and denitrification.  Feed at least  50% of
    primary  effluent to  the AS  basins to supply  the  organic carbon required for
    denitrification in the  anoxic zone of the  AS basin.  Upgrade the secondary clarifier
    capacity to accommodate this operation.  A nitrate recycle with a maximum capacity
    of 250% of the influent flow is necessary.

If the existing  two shallow clarifiers are demolished, the space can be used for the new
    AS basins and for four new secondary clarifiers for the Options 1  and 2.
Appendix II                                                                    . 22

-------
 3.  Install an anoxic-aerobic biofilter system downstream of the trickling filters.  Operate
    the biofilters with 50 to 100% of the primary effluent, nitrify in the aerobic filter and
    recycle the nitrates to the anoxic filter upstream for denitrification. The effluent from
    the aerobic biofilter is to be discharged to the chlorine contact tank.  An anoxic and
    aerobic filter sequence can be designed with Biofor expanded shale media or Biostyr
    polystyrene media.  The maximum nitrate recycle  rate required will be  2.2 Q.  It is
    recommended that four  Biostyr filters be installed and operated in parallel.  This
    alternative does not  use the trickling filter or the secondary clarifiers.  However, it is
    possible to benefit by reducing some of the primary effluent BOD with  the trickling
    filters.

 Option 1 has the highest cost, $10,032,000; Option 2 has the lowest cost as it does not
 include any modifications to the trickling filters, $6,656,000.  If the demolition of the
 existing clarifiers is to be included the additional cost will be $1,300,000.  Option 3  will
 cost $8,004,000. The estimated changes in the O&M costs are $168,381; $124,003; and
 $115,863 for the Options 1, 2 and 3.  The total cost of additional N removal  is $3.35 per
 Ib of N removed for Option 2.  If Option 2 is implemented with new clarifiers, the cost
 will increase to $3.86.   The total cost of additional N removal is $3.83 per Ib of N
 removed for Option 3.
Appendix II                                                                        23

-------
 Pennsylvania Reports

              ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITY EASTERLY PLANT

 The Altoona Easterly WWTP is an activated sludge facility designed for  an annual
 average flow of 9 MOD. The plant services the eastern sections of the City of Altoona
 and discharges to a tributary of the Susquehanna River.

 The discharge permit sets the effluent NH4-N at 2.5 mg/L from May 1st to October 31st,
 and at 4.0 mg/L for the rest of the year.  The plant has to and does nitrify year round to
 meet the monthly average limits  for NHU-N. The layout of the facility is amenable for
 implementation of nitrogen removal to achieve a TN value of 8 to 10 mg/L N.

 The average flow for the July 1996 to June 1997 period was 6.7  MOD.  Average raw
 influent BOD5 was 77 mg/L, which is fairly dilute, indicating the presence of significant
 infiltration/inflow effects. It was assumed that the raw influent TKN was 20% of the raw
 influent BODs, as the plant does not have any data on influent TKN values.  An increase
 proportional to the increase in flow was assumed to take place for COD and TKN levels.

 Preliminary treatment units consist of two mechanically cleaned screens, and two aerated
 flow holding tanks.  The activated sludge system, on the other hand,  consists of two
 separate trains of four basins each, which can be operated either in parallel or in series.
 Each cell is aerated with Sanitaire ceramic plate diffusers.  The first cell has the highest
 density of diffusers.  Foam entrapment occurs  in the  Easterly plant because of the
 configuration of the basins.   There is an imbalance in flow distribution from the center
 channel to  the aeration cells.  Thus, it was recommended that one of the three  influent
 gates be closed or the two flow trains be operated in series.

 Mixed liquor leaving the aeration tanks flows to secondary clarifiers, each with a SOR of
 346 gpd/ft2 with all  tr-?e units in service. The RAS drains into a common wet well and
 the plant does not ha • j independent control  of RAS withdrawal  rate from each clarifier.
 WAS also  is pumped out of the RAS  wet well.  Disinfection of the treated water is
achieved by two Katadyn UV units.  WAS is pumped to an Eimco gravity belt thickener,
 from where the RAS is discharged at 3  to 4 % TSS to two aerobic digesters, which are
 operated in series.  Sludge from the digesters is dewatered using an Eimco belt filter
press.

 For the BNR modification assessment, TKN was assumed to be 20 ± 2.5% of the  influent
BOD5 concentration. According to the calculations, at a ten day MCRT with maximum
month COD loads in summer, the MLSS would be 2200 mg/L, and it would increase to
2500 mg/L if one of the eight activated sludge cells were taken  out of service.  The
former value would v  3000 mg/L for the corresponding COD loads in winter at 15 day
MCRT.  For both  .  .ditions, 75 % of the activated  sludge tank volume  would be
operated under aerobr- conditions. The first cell of each train will be operated anoxically
with mixers installed to minimize  settling. The density of the diffusers in the first aerobic
Appendix II                                '                                    24

-------
 cell should be increased to have 33% more aeration capacity.  The automated DO control
 system also would be upgraded and put in service.

 Nitrate recycle pumps, designed for a maximum flow rate of 1.5 times the influent flow
 of 9.0 MOD should be installed in the last aerobic cell of each train.  It is recommended
 that the plant be operated at a RAS flow rate of 75 to 100 % of the influent flow, and a
 chlorination system be used to maintain SVIs below 175 mL/g.  The modifications also
 should consider the prevention of foam entrapment in the activated sludge basins.

 The capital costs of the suggested modifications at an average daily flow of 9.0  MOD
 total $1,230,452.  The change  in operating costs following conversion will be small at
 $1,733 per year.  Although there will be energy savings from a decrease in aeration
 requirements, they  will be offset by the energy cost  of the mixers in the anoxic zones.
 The estimated cost per pound  of additional nitrogen removed over a 20 year period is
 $0.51 per IbN.
Appendix II                                                                      25

-------
              ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITY WESTERLY PLANT

 The Altoona City Westerly WWTP is an activated sludge plant that went online in 1991
 with a design flow of 9 MOD, and it services the western sections of the City of Altoona
 and the Alleghany Township.  It discharges to the Beaverdam Branch of Juniata River, a
 tributary of the Susquehanna River.  According to the discharge permit, the plant has to
 nitrify on a year round basis to meet average limits for ammonium-N of 2.5 mg/L from
 May 1st to October 31st, and 4.0 mg/L for the rest of the year. The plant has nitrified since
 start-up, and the  layout  is  amenable  for  nitrogen  removal.   Because  of high
 infiltration/inflow  rates from  combined  sewers in old sections of Altoona,  the target
 average effluent TN will be 8 to 10 mg/L on an annual basis.

 The average flow for the June 1996-June 1997 period was 9.1 MOD, which is almost the
 design value set for the plant.  The average raw influent BODs of 92mg/L is indicative of
 a very dilute influent and also indicates the presence of excessive infiltration/inflow.  The
 plant does not have any data on raw influent TKN. For this reason, it was assumed that
 the raw influent TKN was 20 % of the raw BOD5,  yielding an average value of  18.3
 mg/L.  The final effluent data shows that the  plant completely nitrifies as the average
 NH4-N concentration was 0.24 mg/L.  The average final effluent total nitrogen value was
 13.8 mg/L for the 1996-1997 period.

 The raw influent is first screened by two  Envirex mechanically cleaned bar screens with 1
 inch openings and then passes through three aerated  grit chambers.  The wastewater is
 then sent to the activated sludge basin through an aerated channel. During high flow
 conditions, 2.5 MG aerated holding tanks and the primary clarifiers and activated sludge
 tanks of the  old plant are  used for holding, and the maximum instantaneous flow is
 limited to 20 MOD (13.890 gpm).  Secondary treatment has two trains of four cells each.
 These cells with a. nominal HRT of 9 hours can be operated in parallel or in series.  Each
 cell  is aerated  with Sanitaire  ceramic plate diffusers, and each  cell has installed DO
 probes.  The configuration  of the plant  has caused Nocardia problems  (foaming) from
 time to time.  There are three secondary clarifiers, with a combined SOR of 315 gpd/ft2 at
 9 MOD. The plant does not have independent  control of the RAS withdrawal rate from
each clarifier as the RAS drains into a common  wet well.  The RAS flow is typically set
at 100% of the influent flow.  The WAS is removed from the  RAS  wet well by  six
pumps. -The secondary effluent is disinfected by two Katadyn UV units, each unit rated at
 10 MOD.  Waste sludge is pumped to a Komline Sanderson gravity belt thickener that is
operated 24 hours per day. Thickened sludge is discharged at 3 to 4 % TSS to two
aerobic digesters.  Sludge from the digester is sent to a Komline Sanderson press and the
dewatered sludge is stored in a covered area and land applied.

The desired effluent TN was set at 7 to 9 mg/L for the BNR implementation analysis and
the effluent NO   vas set at 5 to 7 mg/L,  on an annual basis.  To achieve  these values, an
anoxic zone wi;  )e created in \   Irst cell of each flow train with mixers installed, and
 75% of the acthaied sludge tanl-    lume will be operated under aerobic conditions.  The
ceramic diffuser caps should be replaced with membrane disks.  One downcomer should
Appendix II                                                                    26

-------
 be installed to feed the diffusers in each anoxic cell. The density of the diffusers in the
 first aerobic cell should be increased to be 33% greater than the average density.  The
 automated DO control system should be put back into service.

 Nitrate recycle pumps, designed for a maximum flow rate of 1.5 times the influent flow
 of 13.5 MGD, should be installed in the last aerobic cell of each train. It is recommended
 that the plant be  operated at a RAS  flow rate of 75 to 100 %, and a chlorination system be
 used to maintain SVIs below 150 mL/g.   The modifications also should consider  the
 prevention of foam entrapment in the activated sludge basins.

 The  capital costs of the suggested  modifications for the flow of  13.5  MGD total
 $1,232,956. The change in operating costs following conversion will be small; $1,733
 per year. Although there will be energy savings in the aeration requirements, they will be
 offset by the energy cost of the mixers in the anoxic zones.  The estimated cost per pound
 of additional nitrogen removed amortized over a 20 year period is $0.42 per Ib N.
Appendix II                                                                      27

-------
                           CHAMBERSBURG WWTP

 The Chambersburg WWTP is a three stage trickling  filter plant  designed  to treat an
 average flow of 4.5  MOD  with  both  BOD/COD removal and nitrification.   The
 wastewater is domestic sewage with a substantial amount of flow from food processing
 industries.

 The treatment train includes flow equalization, grit removal, primary clarifiers, two rock
 media trickling  filters  in series, secondary clarifiers,  nitrification filters with  plastic
 media, final clarifiers, tertiary filters, and chlorination.

 The BNR evaluation considered two options:

 1.  Trickling filters for BOD removal and nitrification, followed by denitrification filters
    using methanol: In order to increase  the  capacity from 4.5 to 6.8 MOD, it  is
    recommended that the rock media in the primary filters be replaced with plastic
    media.  Also, a forced draft aeration system should be constructed to improve DO
    levels at the surface of the biofilm. The  secondary filters used for nitrification should
    have sufficient surface area for reliable performance. The ammonium-N concentration
    average would vary between 1 and 5  mg/L in winter.  A third and larger secondary
    clarifier should be constructed.  An additional effluent sand filter would be installed
    in parallel to the first effluent filter. Methanol would be added  to the  influent to the
    filters.  This  would help develop a biofilm for denitrification on the deep bed filters.
    The effluent  TN would be  reduced from 15 mg/L to 4 mg/L.  The nitrogen removal
    for each year was calculated for denitrification of an additional 11 mg/L of nitrogen at
    the flow projected for that year.

2.  An AS system for BOD removal, nitrification and denitrification: The AS  system
    would replace the primary filters, secondary filters, final clarifiers, and  tertiary filters.
    Two examples of several possible AS configurations are MLE and oxidation ditch
    systems.  Based on site constraints, a MLE process with an HRT of 12 hours is
    recommended. Use of membrane diffusers is recommended over surface aerators to
    reduce the long term operating cost. One or two additional secondary clarifiers would
    have to be constructed at a recommended SOR of 400 gpd/ft2 at average flow.

The capital costs of implementing Option 1 would be $6,347,250 in 1995 dollars, with an
increase in annual operating costs of $129,096.  The cost per Ib of additional N removed
is estimated to be $2.69.  For Option 2, the capital costs are estimated as $8,060,000 and
the total incremental annual operating costs as $137,660. For this option, the cost per Ib
of additional N removed would be $4.55.
Appendix II                                                                      28

-------
          GREATER HAZLETON JOINT SEWER AUTHORITY WWTP

 The Greater Hazleton WWTP is an activated  sludge plant located in Luzerne County,
 Pennsylvania.  The plant is adjacent to an industrial park and receives a combination of
 municipal and industrial wastes (18%). It is rated for an average flow of 8.9 MOD and a
 maximum flow of 14.6 MOD. Flows  above 14.6 MOD can be bypassed. Currently, the
 flows vary from 5.0 MOD during a dry month to an excess of 9.0 MOD during a wet
 month.  The plant discharges to Black Creek,  which is a tributary of the Susquehanna
 River.  Because of two textile plants  that do  not  pre-treat their dye wastewaters, the
 influent to the plant is colored, and  it  causes Black Creek to be colored and the aquatic
 life to  be  in a sharp decline downstream  of the discharge point.  The facility has not
 nitrified even though the MCRTs has been increased above 5 days during warm weather.
 This may be because of a lack of adequate  AS  tank volume  and/or some  possible
 inhibition  from the  industrial wastewaters.  However, as of June 1996, most of the
 industries  had  implemented pre-treatment  systems. The only major dischargers yet to
 implement pretreatment were the textile plants.

 Ammonium-N or TKN are not among  the routinely measured parameters like BODs and
 TSS.  The only  final effluent nitrogen species concentrations available were  from the
 Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Sampling Program for the year 1994.  Those data indicated that
 the plant accomplished limited nitrification from July to October 1994, as the effluent
 ammonium-N concentrations ranged between 9 and 10 mg/L for  flows between 5 to 8
 MOD.   Maximum effluent NOx was 3.6 mg/L, with an average TN value of 16 mg/L at
 an average flow of 6.2 MOD.

 The raw municipal wastewater is pre-screened by a coarse manual bar screen, and sent to
 a  rectangular aerated grit chamber.  Then  the industrial wastewaters combine with the
 pre-treated  municipal  wastewater, and pass through a  second  coarse screen  before
 entering a building where it is screened with two mechanically cleaned Dorr Oliver
 screens. The flow passes through a Parshall flume and  enters a chamber with three sluice
 gates, two of which  divert the flow to two primary clarifiers that have SORs of 1007
 gpd/ft2 at 8.9 MOD.  Primary effluent is then pumped  to two trickling filters, which can
 be bypassed if necessary.  The effluent from the filters enters a  distribution box  with
 automated valves that can bypass flows above 9.4 MOD. BODS removal in the trickling
 filters reduces the primary effluent BODs to 90 mg/L from 110 mg/L.  Two rectangular
 AS basins, with nominal hydraulic retention times  of 2 hours at  8.9 MOD follow the
 filters.  Each basin can be step fed  through four gates spaced 30 ft apart.  Basins are
 aerated  with ceramic fine bubble diffusers arranged  such that there is a decrease in
 density  from the front end to the downstream end.  The effluent from the  two activated
 sludge basins enters  a  box with four telescopic valves that distribute the flow to four
 secondary clarifiers.  The SOR is 550 gpd/ft2 at design flow.  The plant does not have
 separate piping from each clarifier to  adequately control RAS flow rates. As a result, one
 of the clarifiers  has a  tendency to accumulate  sludge.   Secondary effluent  is then
 chlorinated in two contact tanks with HRTs of 34 minutes at design flow.
Appendix II                                                                    29

-------
 RAS pumps withdraw sludge from a central collection box.  At an average flow rate of 5
 MOD, RAS averages 35 %. It decreases to 25 % when flow increases to 8.9 MOD in a
 wet month.

 The WWTP does not have adequate AS tank volume and secondary clarifier capacity for
 nitrification.   Thus,  any upgrade for BNR  will  have to  provide  the  capacity  for
 nitrification and denitrification.   A nitrification  rate  test should be conducted to  see
 whether one or more of the industrial wastes are inhibitory.  Should the magnitude of
 inhibition  be such that  it results  in a substantial increase in  volume requirements,  the
 compounds causing the inhibition  will  have to be removed by pre-treatment.

 There are two options for enhancing the secondary treatment system:

 1. -Addition of extra AS volume  and clarifiers: It  may be difficult to  implement this
    option  because of space limitations.  The existing basins would be  modified to an
    anoxic-aerobic configuration for denitrification, with nitrate recycle.  The HRT of the
    existing basins would be 5 hours. Two new AS tanks with  a HRT of 6.5 hours would
    have to be constructed, also in an  anoxic-aerobic configuration.  A circular clarifier
    with a diameter of 75 ft or a rectangular clarifier with a surface area of 4500 ft2 would
    be added. These additions would require construction of a flow distribution structure.
  ,  A new RAS pump station is also proposed.  The aeration system would have to be
    upgraded to service the new basins.
2.  Addition ofbiofilters:. A Biostyr aerated filter, or equivalent, arranged in an  anoxic-
    aerobic configuration could be added.  Nitrification rate will determine the size of the
    filter.   With the small footprint of the filters, this option would not cause any space
    problems.   The  effluent  from the filter would have a  TSS  of 10 to 15 mg/L,
    eliminating the need for new clarifiers.   The existing  RAS system would not be
    modified.   Existing  secondary clarifiers  would  be treating only 3.4 MGD, which
    would reduce the SOR below 200 gpd/ft2.

The -capital and annual O&M costs for modifying the existing AS basins and adding  the
Biostyr system are $7.84 M and $130 K, respectively. The annual operating costs are for
8.9 MGD.  The cost per Ib of N removed was calculated from the Net Present Value of
annual costs, and was found to be  $3.24.
Appendix II                                                                      30

-------
                      HANOVER AREA REGIONAL WWTP

 The Hanover Area Regional WWTP services Perm Township, most of the Borough of
 Hanover, all of the Borough of McSherrystown and all of Conewago Township.  The
 facility is an oxidation ditch activated sludge plant that is permitted to treat a maximum
 monthly average flow of 5.5  MOD, and discharge to  the South Branch of Conewago
 Creek. The permit limits are based on an average daily flow of 4.5 MOD. The plant has
 a monthly average ammonium-N permit of 1.5 mg/L from May 1st to October 31st, and
 4.5 mg/L  for the rest of the year.  Thus, the plant has to nitrify year round.  The
 corresponding CBOD permits are 15 and 25 mg/L, respectively.

 The raw influent and primary effluent flows and loads were analyzed for the year 1995,
 during which the average flow was  3.46 MOD and the average raw influent BOD5 was
 201 mg/L.  The estimated contribution of industries to the organic load was 40 %.  The
 ammonium-N levels in the primary clarifier effluent averaged 24 mg/L, 20 to 30 % of
 which possibly was from the recycles (digester supernatant and belt filtrate).  MCRTs
 were manitained between 9 and 14 days.  Effluent ammonium-N averaged less  than 1
 mg/L for 1995, and the  effluent TN averaged  19.7 mg/L for the same period.   Mass
 balances were performed on the nitrogen species for different conditions in the oxidation
 ditches.  It was found that partial denitrification was taking place in the ditches.

 Raw influent is screened by an automatic bar screen with 1 inch openings.  Wastewater
 then flows through a Parshall flume into a wet well.  Recycles from solids dewatering and
 falter backwash are also brought into the same well. Influent is then pumped into a grit
 chamber.  There are two primary clarifiers following grit removal, with SORs of 630
 gpd/ft2 at a flow rate of 4.2 MOD.  A flow distribution box is used to distribute the raw
 influent between the two clarifiers.  The  plant has two oxidation ditches, each with two
 passes. The average length of liquid flow path is 487 ft.  Operating volume of each ditch
 is 1.43 MG. Aeration is achieved by brush aerators with variable submergence.  Two
 secondary clarifiers with SORs of 475 gpd/ft2 at  a flow rate of 4.2 MGD follow the
 ditches.  Secondary effluent is filtered, then chlorinated and aerated prior to discharge
 into a 7000 ft long outfall pipe.

 The primary sludge is pumped  directly to the anaerobic digesters, and the WAS is
 thickened in two DAF thickeners to 4 %  solids and pumped into the digesters.  The
 primary  digester  has a fixed  cover, and  the  secondary digester has a floating top.
 Digested sludge is dewatered by two presses of different sizes.

 The following options were considered for the implementation of BNR:

 1.   Continuous aeration with three or four brush  aerators while adjusting the water level
    in the oxidation ditches with a moveable effluent weir to create anoxic conditions
    over a section of the ditch;
2.   Cycling brush aerators on and off to create anoxic and aerobic conditions at different
    times;
Appendix II                                                                     31

-------
    3                                                        with variabie D° ieveis

           to allow an adequate DO drop. However, this alternative is not recommended

   In cyclic mode of operation all four brush aerators can be cycled. During off-cycle DO is
   allowed to drop throughout the ditch to create anoxic conditions for denitrificat on  Off
   cycles shall be short enough to prevent settling. During the on cycle all four brthes wi
   be turned on at high speed  to aerate the ditch. The durations of the on and off cycle Jan
   be .adjusted based  on effluent  ammonium-N  and NOx  levels.  According to  S
   calculations, the  aerators can be turned off 30 to 50 % of the time,  and stilf achieve
   complete nitrification.                                                      owucve

   The third option allows the operator to run one brush aerator continuously while others
   are cycled off in a staggered pattern.  The on  and off times  can be  controlled  by a
   Programmable Logic Controller or individual electronic timers.

  Both options 2 and 3 are viable if filamentous bacteria growth at low DO is inhibited by
  high DO during aerobic periods.   Automated  DO control is not  recommended in any
  option unless DO levels are used to cycle the brush aerators on and off.  A DO control
  system can be used to control the levels of the weirs.  The weir level would be adjusted
  when the on times or off times exceed preset maximum values.

  The capital cost for  using a logic controller, installing DO probes and automated liquid
  leve  adjustment is estimated to be $250,000.  The annual savings in the operation of the
  plant would  be $16,227 because of reduced  aeration  requirements.   The  plant has
  sufficient alkalinity to nitrify without the aid  of alkalinity recovery from denitrification.
  The effluent  TN would be reduced from 19.7 mg/L to 6 mg/L. The cost per pound of
 additional N  removed over  a  20-year period is estimated to be $0.08 based on  1996
 dollars.
Appendix II

-------
                              HARRISBURG WWTP

 The Harrisburg WWTP is a pure oxygen activated sludge plant designed for a flow rate of
 30 MOD, located on a compact site adjacent to the Susquehanna River.  Nitrification is
 not achieved any time of the year, with effluent unoxidized nitrogen levels averaging
 between  17 and 22  mg/L during dry weather.  P is removed chemically  with ferric
 chloride addition to the primary clarifier effluent to meet a permit limit of 2 mg/L for TP.

 Raw wastewater enters the plant through grit chambers, then flows to four flocculation
 chambers upstream of the rectangular primary clarifiers, which SORs of 975 gpd/ft2 at an
 average daily flow rate of 30 MOD.  Primary effluent is pumped  to a distribution box
 which feeds three parallel AS basins.  At design flow, the nominal HRT is only 2.5 hours.
 The mixed liquor from the AS basins flows through a second set of flocculating chambers
 to secondary clarifiers with SORs of 610 gpd/ft2 at the design  flow of 30 MOD.  The
 secondary effluent is disinfected in two chlorine contact tanks prior to discharge to  the
 Susquehanna River.  The AS basins are aerated with pure oxygen, but the installed
 automated DO control probes are not  currently being used.   Primary and  secondary
 sludges are thickened in gravity thickeners and sent  to two heated primary anaerobic
 digesters.  The primary digesters are followed by two secondary digesters.

 Considering the low  MCRTs  used at  the plant (2 to 3 days), the mix of industrial and
 municipal wastes received in the influent, and DO levels less  than 2 mg/L in the first cell
 of each AS basin, it is not surprising  that the plant does not nitrify.  The  final effluent
 TKN typically ranges between 18 and 21 mg/L during dry weather flow.  The available
 space limits the alternatives for the implementation of BNR to two:

 1.  The flow through the pure oxygen basins would  have to be reduced  to  12  MOD.
    These trains would be operated in the MLE configuration for nitrogen removal at a
    design HRT of 6.25 hours. A parallel 18MGD Biostyr train would be constructed  for
    nitrogen removal. Primary effluent organic carbon would be used for denitrification.
    This alternative could produce a year round effluent quality of 8 to 10 mg/L TN.
 2.  The pure oxygen system would continue to be operated as a high rate system without
    nitrification as designed at present.  Aerated biological filters like Biostyr, Biofor, or
    Safe would be added for nitrification. These would be followed by denitrification in
    fluidized bed filters or additional  Biostyr filters.  The cost estimates are based  on
    using fluidized bed filters.  This alternative uses methanol for  denitrification and it
    can meet an effluent TN of 3 to 5 mg/L on a year round basis.

 The capital and operating costs for the two alternatives are similar. For Alternative  1,
 these costs are $27,637,740 and  $499,772,  respectively, and the cost of  additional N
 removal  is $2.19.  For alternative 2, capital and operating costs  are$25,447,500 and
 $1,182,222, respectively, and the cost of additional N removal is $2.00 per Ib N removed.
Appendix II                                                                      33

-------
                              LANCASTER WWTP

 The Lancaster WWTP is an activated sludge plant that is rated at a capacity of 29.7
 MOD, and it is required to nitrify to satisfy an effluent permit of 2.5 mg/L ammonium-N
 from May 1st to October 31st, and a winter permit of 7.5 mg/L.  The newer section of the
 plant treats a flow that averages 20.7 MOD.  It has four anaerobic-oxic pure oxygen trains
 followed  by three circular clarifiers, each with a diameter of 150 ft, whereas the older
 section treats 9 MOD and has three anaerobic-oxic pure oxygen trains followed by two
 circular clarifiers each with a diameter of 100 ft. The secondary effluents from the two
 systems combine immediately prior to the chlorine contact tanks.

 In older trains, the ratio of the anaerobic volume to the total reactor volume is  14.5 %,
 which is adequate for biological P removal. However, it is on the low side for conversion
 to an anoxic zone for biological nitrogen removal except in instances where the primary
 effluent has substantial concentrations of readily biodegradable organic carbon for rapid
 denitrification. The average primary effluent TKN is possibly between 17 and 22 mg/L.
 On dry days (20 to 23 MOD), effluent NOx has ranged between 7 and 10 mg/L. Thus, it
 is possible that denitrification occurs  in the anaerobic  cells with nitrates recycled via
 RAS, and in the third cell of the aerobic zone which has low DO levels. It should be
 possible to achieve nitrification and denitrification with nitrate recycle. To overcome the
 lack of sufficient organic carbon in the third aerobic cell, step feeding can be practiced.
 The secondary clarifiers have an SOR of 575 gpd/ft2 at 9 MOD, which is somewhat  high
 for a BNR plant. Precautions shall be taken to maintain an SVI less than 85 mL/g.

 There are four new  trains that have anaerobic cells  which occupy  16.5% of the  total
 volume of the AS basins. This percentage is also on the low side for operation as an
 anoxic  zone.  Twenty  (20) to 30 % of the  dry weather primary effluent flow  should
 continue to be step fed to the third aerobic cell. The three secondan clarifiers have SORs
 of 390 gpd/ft2 at 20.7 MOD, and they have adequate capacity at des.gn flow  for SVIs up
 to 150 mL/g.

 Ferric chloride can be used for chemical P  removal as it produces the least amount of
 solids when compared with alum and lime.  Experience with BNR facilities shows that
 the dose of ferric chloride required for satisfying an effluent TP permit can be less than 20
 gallons  per MOD of waste water treated.

Three options for implementing BNR are proposed:

 1.   Fluidized bed or static bed upflow/downflow denitrification filters;
2.   Conversion of anaerobic zones to anoxic zones with additional modifications in the
    reactor and implementation of chemical P removal;
3.   Conversion of reactors  to incorporate  anaerobic,  anoxic and  aerobic  zones for
    biological N and excess P removal.
Appendix II                                                                    '  34

-------
 The cost of biological nitrogen removal with chemical P removal without step  feed
 (Option 2)  is the  lowest of the options evaluated.  Without step feed, the capital costs
 would be $1,077,180, and with step  feed it will be $2,381,054.  The predicted annual
 change in operating costs is $20,944 for both feeding configurations.  The cost per Ib of
 additional N removed is estimated as $0.190 without step feed, and $0.373 with step feed.

 Capital costs for implementing biological nitrogen removal with excess P removal within
 the available reactor volume (Option 3) are $2,884,630 and $3,762,304 for without and
 with step feed to the third aerobic cell. The annual change in operating costs is projected
 to be $40,669 for both feeding configurations. The cost per Ib of additional N removed is
 $0.331 without step feed, and $0.455 with step feed.
Appendix II                                                                       35

-------
                           CITY OF LEBANON WWTP

 The City of Lebanon \VWTP is an activated sludge plant that serves seven municipalities
 in the Lebanon area of central Pennsylvania.  These include the City of Lebanon, Cleona
 and Cornwall Buroughs, North Cornwall, North Lebanon,  South Lebanon and West
 Lebanon Townships.  The plant is rated for a capacity of 8 MOD, and it has to nitrify all
 year round because it discharges to Quittapahilla Creek, which  is in the Susquehanna
 River watershed. The permitted effluent ammonium-N is 2.5 mg/L for summer and 7.5
 mg/L for winter.  The TP limit is 2 mg/L. The uniqueness of the Lebanon WWTP comes
 from its configuration: primary effluent  is pretreated in 21.5 ft tall trickling filters with
 vinyl core plastic media.  Then the  effluent is treated in four AS tanks for nitrification.
 Phosphorus is removed chemically with waste pickle liquor.

 The wastewater flows thr. "jgh an aerated grit chamber where lirre  is added to supplement
 alakalinity.  It then flov,.   .rough a coarse  bar screen for rat .'emoval and through a
 Parshall flume for the mea -  rment of the flow rate. Following uiis, the flow is valved to
 a rapid  mix basin and flocculation tank. Waste pickle liquor is added to the rapid mix
 basin for chemical P removal. Two  primary clarifiers with an SOR of 800 gpd/ft2 follow
 P removal.  The clarifiers are  shallower than depths used in current  design practice.
 Addition of lime, waste pickle  liquor and a polymer  enhances  the BODs and solids
 removal across the clarifiers. Primary sludge is withdrawn at an average solids content of
 3% and it is fed to an anaerobic digester. Primary effluent is pumped up to two trickling
 filters, each with a diameter of 39.5 ft and a media depth of 21.5 ft. A minimum flow rate
 of 3000 gpm is  maintained  through the  filters.  Four rectangular AS basins follow the
 trickling filters with a hydraulic retention time of 5.0 hours at 8  MOD. Each  basin is
 aerated  with five 25 HP vertical  turbine  aerators, and the DO levels are maintained in a
 range between 2 and 4 mg/T   The plant has two old, shallower (8ft) clarifiers and two
 new, deeper clarifiers (12f   The plant  has four effluent filters to which the secondary
 effluent is pumped.  Curre.   •', the  filters  are operated as single media anthracite coal
 filters.  The filters are not kept in service during normal operation, and they are put into
 service for only a few days each year to be tested.

All four clarfiers drain  to  a common  return  sludge  well.   The  plant has difficulty
maintaining satisfactory  control over RAS withdrawal  rate from  individual clarifiers
 because- of the  lack  of independent sludge pumping  from each clarifier.   WASis
discharged to primary clarifiers where it is co-thickened.  Primary  sludge is then pumped
to  a primary digester where the storage time is  30 to 60 days.  The  sludge is  then
dewatered with an Envirodyne filter press and land applied.  Digester supernatant and
 filtrate from the belt filter press are recycled to headworks.

Data from  1995  were evaluated for this study. The plant operates the AS basins at
MCRTs of 6 days in summer and 15  days in winter.  The operating MLSS increased from
2000 mg/!   n su: ner with  all basins in service to 4n :0 mg/L in winter. The monthly
average o: .aw iu. aent and primary effluent BOD5 weie 310 and  197 mg/L respectively.
These numbers are  higher then  typical  values because the influent includes industrial
Appendix II                                                                      36

-------
 wastewaters as well. The data shows  that a substantial reduction in BOD and COD
 loading to AS basins can be achieved if intermediate clarifiers are installed between the
 trickling filter and the AS basins.  Overall, the percent reduction in COD in the primary
 clarifiers and trickling filters increases  from 46 % to 71 %.  The COD available in the
 trickling filter effluent will  limit the quantity of nitrates that can be denitrified in the
 anoxic zones.

 Final effluent ammonium-N  concentrations show that the plant is capable of maintaining
 complete nitrification all year round at  the'present flows of 5.7 MOD.  A mass balance
 for nitrogen indicates that 20 to 25 %  of the primary effluent TKN is removed in the
 WAS and  trickling  filter waste solids.  If there  were  no denitrification, complete
 nitrification would result  in  an effluent NOx of 16.4 mg/L and TN of 18.3 mg/L.  The
 accuracy of the mass balance  is confirmed  by the TN  concentration  of  18.5 mg/L
 calculated for 5.7 MOD of flow.

 To  improve denitrification it will be necessary  to bypass a certain amount  of primary
 effluent feed directly to the  AS basins.  The organic load will increase the  secondary
 sludge  and it will be limited by the AS tank volume.  The mixture  of 10%  primary
 effluent and 90% trickling filter effluent  should contain at least 20 mg/L of additional
 biodegradable  COD  for denitrification, which will help denitrify  an additional 4 to 5
 mg/L of NOx.  Trickling filter effluent COD will increase from 129 mg/L to 175 mg/L as
 a result of the bypass.

 For BNR implementation three options were considered:

 1.  An anoxic-aerobic configuration within the existing AS basins with primary effluent
    bypass around the trickling filters, to remove an additional 7 mg/L of nitrogen and to
    achieve a TN level of 11 mg/L on an annual average.  The dedicated aerobic zone will
    occupy 60% of the tank  volume,  and nitrates will be recycled from the  end of the
    aerobic zone to the anoxic zone.  Nitrate recycle could be eliminated by increasing the
    RAS flow to 70% of the influent flow.   The Recommended MCRT is  8  days in
    summer and a maximum of 16 days in winter.  The MLSS is  expected to be 3800
    mg/L at an MCRT of 16 days.
 2.  An anoxic-aerobic configuration  with  the addition of a fifth AS basin in parallel to
    the existing four and with a 20 to 25 % bypass, to yield an effluent TN of 8.5 mg/L.
    The configuration of the fifth  basin will be similar to that of Option  1,  but the
    increased bypass  will  bring  in additional  organic carbon that would increase the
    quantity of denitrification. The capacity of the nitrate recycle pumps will,  therefore,
    be increased from  40% to  200%.
3. Addition of a denitrification filter, preferrably in addition  to  the modifications of
    Option 1, to denitrify 14  mg/L of nitrates: This option  will allow denitrification to
   yield an effluent NOx concentration of about 2 mg/L.  Existing filters can be modified
   with methanol addition, but it needs to be examined in a pilot study.
Appendix II                                                                      37

-------
           ™    J °f thC thiee °Pti°nS in the °rder of 1, 2 and 3 are as follows: $1 251 600-
         ,600;  and $5 501,600.  There is a wide gap between the changes in the annual'

   operating costs with nitrification and denitrification of the three options: $153- $15 837-

   f   t%L°P*°n 2  ^ 3 haS the mixinS re^™*nt,  which is estimateto coll

   $4^0  F°0nand,0pti0n thfee  ^  ^ C°St °f methan01 addition to  the filters 5
   S^i 10    H «? ?oC°St Per adftional nitr°gen rem°v^ for Options  1, 2 and 3 are
   $0.61, $1.19, and $1.39, respectively. The costs and the amount of nitrogen removed are
   m an increasing order, the lowest being Option 1.
Appendix II
                                                                               38

-------
                    SCRANTON SEWER AUTHORITY WWTP

 The Scranton Sewer Authority WWTP  is an activated sludge facility that services the
 population of both Scranton and Dunmore in North East Pennsylvania, and discharges to
 the Lackawanna River, a tributary of the  Susquehanna River. The plant was permitted to
 treat a flow of 20 MGD.  In 1995, the  annual average primary effluent flow was 13.8
 MOD, including 1 MGD of recycle flow. The average raw wastewater flow was 12.9
 MGD.  The BNR study was based on an  annual average flow of 16 MGD, with a
 maximum month flow of 20 MGD.

 TKN has  not been among the  parameters measured  at the plant, and therefore it was
 assumed to be 1/5.5 of the BOD5 concentration (110 mg/L) in the primary effluent, for an
 average TKN concentration of 20 mg/L. According to  the effluent data, the plant nitrified
 all year round. Effluent NOx concentrations were measured by Hach colorimetric method
 and they averaged just  below  7.0  mg/L in November and  December  of  1995.  For
 comparison, NOx measured at other plants by the Cadmium  reduction column method
 and Hach kit showed that the Hach kit yields  20 to 40  % lower results. Chesapeake Bay
 Nutrient Sampling Data showed an effluent TN of 9.9 to 11.9 mg/L at 12.3 to 14 MGD.

 The plant has two Parkson Aquaguard screens with 3/4 inch mesh, and two rectangular
 non-aerated grit chambers.  There are four rectangular primary clarifiers with SORs  of
 819 gpd/ft2 at 16 MGD.  The primary effluent flow rate is  monitored by a flow meter in
 the channel connecting each clarifier to an activated  sludge basin.   Each AS  basin is
 divided into two separate passes operating in parallel, each  with five downcomers from a
 650 tubular membrane diffuser system.  Based on a  primary  effluent flow rate of 16
 MGD, the  nominal HRT is 9.83  hours. Each basin has the flexibility to be step fed, with
 primary effluent introduced at ten locations.  The RAS is also fed to the front end of the
 basin.  Operation at a RAS flow of 8 MGD results in a substantial recycle of NOx to the
 first third of the basin. The plug flow configuration encourages denitrification of some of
 the recycled nitrates. Overall, the existing arrangement can denitrify 25 % of the nitrates
 generated.  The four rectangular secondary clarifiers that follow the four AS basins have
 SORs of 490 gpd/ft2 at 16 MGD.  The plant uses a Stranco ORP meter to  control the
 chlorine dose for disinfection. For sludge thickening, two DAF units are used, and filter
 presses are used for further dewatering. Lime is added  to dewatered sludge to stabilize it,
 and the s-ludge is then landfilled.

 Nitrogen mass balance evaluation  based on a primary  effluent TKN of 20 mg/L shows
 that as  much as  14  mg/L  of  NOx can  be generated  through nitrification.  After
 denitrification of 25 % of the generated  NOx, the average effluent NOx concentration
 will be 10.5 mg/L. To overcome possible Nocardia problems, the plant has installed an
 RAS chlorination system that is used at high SVIs.  Magnesium hydroxide slurry is used
 to supplement alkalinity.

The Scranton WWTP is an excellent candidate for BNR, as the plug flow nature of the
AS  basins  allows  nitrogen removal  to be implemented using  the MLE  configuration.
Appendix II                                                                    39

-------
 According to the plant data, effluent temperature averaged 8°C in January.  Therefore
 BNR evaluations were performed for an MLE configuration and water temperatures of 8
 to 23°C.  The operating MCRT required for nitrogen removal varied  from 7 days in
 summer to 12 days in winter. The maximum predicted MLSS was 2750 mg/L in winter.
 An  annual  average effluent  TN value of 6  mg/L can  be maintained  with  MLE
 configuration which represents a reduction of 5 mg/L in the TN from the present average
 of 11 mg/L.   TN levels of 7 mg/L  and lower are expected at  temperatures lower than
 10°C.  The anoxic volume used in the calculations was 30 % of the AS tank volume.  A
 nitrate recycle rate of 100 %  was selected for design purposes. The nitrate recycle pumps
 should be connected to variable frequency drives which can vary the flow rate from 40 to
 100  % of the influent flow. Each anoxic section would be mixed with submerged mixers.
 Nitrogen removal for flows up to the existing capacity of 20 MOD also is feasible with
 the existing volume of the AS tanks and clarifiers with the use  of Integrated Fixed Film
 Activated Sludge (IFAS) process.  The cost of implementing an IFAS process with
 sponge media would be about $3.0 Million.

 As a result of denitrification, the cost of aeration is expected to decrease by 15 to 20 %.
 This will result in 100 HP less power draw by the blowers. However, the operation of 12
 mixers and nitrate recycle pumps will result in an additional power requirement of 96 HP.
 Therefore, the aeration savings  will  be almost negated  by the increase  in power
 requirement  for mixers and nitrate  recycle pumps.   The plant  also  will realize an
 alkalinity recovery as a result of denitrification, which will reduce or eliminate the need
 for magnesium hydroxide addition.

 The  capital costs for modification of eight passes in four tanks to the MLE configuration
 is $2.816 M. The cost of maintenance on mixers and pumps is expected to average
 $6,000 per year.  The annual savings in magnesium hydroxide as a result of alkalinity
 recovery from denitrification would increase from $18,000 in Year 1 to $34,700 in Year
 20.  The present worth of annual savings, discounted at 3  %, is $252,325.  The total
 present worth cost of the project over a 20 year period would be $3,283,076.  Additional
 nitrogen removed would be 4.463 M Ib over a 20 year period, yielding a cost of $0.76 per
 Ib of additional N removed.
Appendix II                                                                     40

-------
          STATE COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT AUTHORITY

 The University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) WWTP is an A/O process plant rated for a
 flow of 6 MOD, and the existing permit requires nitrification and seasonal phosphorus
 removal. The plant discharges to Spring Creek, which is a tributary of the Susquehanna
 River.

 Data collected from January 1996 to June 1997 were analyzed for the study.  The plant
 receives higher flows when the University is in session.  The flows and loads decrease
 20% during the period between May and August, the summer break for the school. Raw
 influent BOD5 concentration averaged 257 mg/L for the year 1996 and 294 mg/L for the
 January 1997 to June  1997 period, which was relatively dry.  The NH4-N content was
 approximately 10% of BOD5, and the TKN was estimated to be  1.5  times the NH4-N
 concentrations.  The average NFLrN  concentration in the final effluent  was 0.9mg/L,
 showing that the plant achieves complete nitrification all year round. However, when the
 infiltration from  snowmelt runoff resulted in a sharp and sudden decrease in liquid
 temperature, the effluent NH4-N concentration increased above 20 mg/L in April of 1996.

 Average effluent TN for 1997 was 15.5 mg/L, and 13.0 mg/L of this was NOx remaining
 after denitrification. According to the nitrogen mass balance, nitrification converted 75%
 of the TKN present in the primary effluent to oxidized-N, and denitrification then reduced
 the N  concentration to  11.8 mg/L (57% of NOx formed).   Phosphorus removal  is
 achieved via alum addition, and after filtration  effluent P content is below the permit
 requirement of 0.13 mg/L.  However, during winter months when the permit is not in
 effect, alum addition is ceased and the effluent rises above 3 mg/L, because the anaerobic
 zones are kept anoxic instead of anaerobic with the introduction of NOx in the RAS.

 Raw wastewater enters the plant through a Worthington comminutor and passes through
 primary clarification.  A flow distribution box is used to distribute the primary effluent
 and RAS between the two circular and one rectangular activated sludge tanks, all with
 A/O configuration.  The anoxic cells are mixed to prevent  settling,  and aerobic cells are
 aerated with membrane disc diffusers.  Preceding the three secondary clarifiers is a flash
 mix and flocculation tank for alum addition. The clarifiers have SORs of 400 gpd/ft2 at
 the design flow.   Secondary effluent is then filtered in dual media filters  in eight filter
 cells, which use anthracite  as the top  layer and sand as the lower layer.   Disinfection
 (chlorination) is the next and final step in the treatment train.

 The upgrade will  consist  of conversion of the A/O tanks to  the  MLE configuration by
 creating anoxic zones with inclusion of a nitrate recycle. According to  the nitrogen
 balance, the average concentration of NH4-N nitrified to NOx was  27 mg/L.  For a TN
 concentration of 8 mg/L, 6 mg/L of which is TKN,  21 mg/L of NOx will be denitrified
 following modification. In order to prevent Nocardia foams, gates can be installed at the
 surface  of each baffle located within the aerobic zone. A  chlorine  spray system is also
 suggested. Alum would continue to be used for P removal.
Appendix II                                                                    41

-------
   The estimated total capital cost is $783,793, based on 1997 dollars  O/M costs would

   increase to $4,634, although there would be savings in aeration energy cos™ The oZal

   removed             *       C°llege WWT? W°Uld be $OJ3 per Ib of additional N
Appendix II
                                                                              42

-------
           SUSQUEHANNA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
                   LANCASTER AREA SEWER AUTHORITY

 The service area of the Lancaster Area Sewer Authority is located south of Route 30 and
 to the east of the Susquehanna River in Eastern Pennsylvania.  The activated sludge plant
 owned and  operated by this authority  is located  near the  Susquehanna River, but
 discharges to Dry Run which is a very small tributary of the River.  During dry weather,
 the entire flow in Dry Run is made up of the plant effluent. The plant has an effluent total
 P permit of 2 mg/L, and the ammonium-N permit is 12  mg/L from May 1st to October
 31st. The  ammonium-N permit is  being changed  to 5 mg/L  as  a  monthly average
 applicable over the same period.

 The WPCP is rated at 12 MOD, and the average flow for the July 1995 - July 1996 period
 was 9.45 MOD.  The plant receives a mixture of municipal and industrial wastewaters,
 with 10%  of the flow and 30% of the BOD load originating from the industries.  The
 influent BODs averaged 169 mg/L, and the primary effluent BODs averaged 110 mg/L
 during the period of evaluation.  Raw influent TKN was 29 mg/L, and the primary
 effluent TKN was assumed to be 80 % of the raw value.  The average effluent TKN and
 ammonium-N were 1.8 mg/L and 0.6 mg/L, respectively.  The average effluent TN was
 10.2 mg/L, which indicates that a substantial amount of denitrification  is taking place in
 the anaerobic zones as a result of NOx recycle with the RAS. A mass balance performed
 on the nitrogen species showed that 50%  of the NOx generated during nitrification was
 denitrified in the system  as operated.

 The raw influent  is  screened through 3/4inch screens  and  degritted in aerated grit
 chambers.  Then, the wastewater passes through two Worthington comminutors.  The
 plant has two 90ft diameter  primary clarifiers, and a third clarifier (30ft diameter) was
 being added at the time  the report was written. The plant then separates into two  flow
 trains, and each train has three anaerobic cells (17 % of total volume) and three aerobic
 cells (83 % of total volume) connected in series. The nominal hydraulic retention time at
 a design flow of 12 MOD is 5.68 hours.  The air diffusers are arranged for tapered
 aeration. The plant maintains an MCRT of 6 to 10 days.  At these MCRTs, MLVSS is
 only 65 to  70 % of MLSS, which implies the presence of a substantial amount of  inert
 material. There are two  100 ft diameter secondary clarifiers equipped with Rapid Sludge
 Removal (RSR)  systems.  The third  clarifier has a  140  ft diameter and the sludge  is
 removed via a Tow-bro unit.   The SOR with all clarifiers  in service is 385 gpd/ft2 at 12
 MOD.

 The RAS flow rate from each clarifier can  be controlled by telescopic valves. The WAS
 is collected in a wet well and from there  it  is pumped to the primary clarifiers where it is
 co-thickened and sent to the gravity thickeners.  The average TP increases from a range of
 3 to 7 mg/L in the raw influent to concentrations greater than  10 mg/L in the primary
 clarifier effluent because of release under anaerobic conditions. Thickened sludge is  sent
 to belt filters and lime is added after dewatering to stabilize the sludge.
Appendix II                                                                    43

-------
   The proposed  modifications  are aimed  at  decreasing  the  average  effluent  NOx
   concentrate from 8.3 to 5 mg/L, and thus reduce the TN concentration from 10 2 to 7
   mg/L.  The proposed configuration includes anoxic zones immediately after the anaerobic
   zones and a nitrate recycle system for additional denitrification.  The aerobic  vo ume
   would decrease, however, and the density of the diffusers would need to be increased™
   maintain the current amount of oxygen transfer. The nitrate recycle system would be
   installed in each tram to pump Nox from the end of the aerobic zone to L begging of
   the anoxic zone  It is recommended that the plant install a nitrate recycle  system whha
   Krn  A   ^    t0 handle,denitrification requirements at a peak month flow r'e of
   15 MOD.  A small increase in the ferrous sulfate dose to maintain 2 mg/L total P should
   De adequate.

   The  primary effluent BOD levels are expected to decrease with the addition of a  third
   clarifier, and this reduction will provide adequate capacity to maintain  performance as
   flows increase from an annual average of 9.5 MOD to 12 MOD.  To accomodate  further
   increases in flow, the anaerobic zone can be operated as an anoxic zone or  a third AS
  train can be added.

  The costs/savings of the proposed modifications would arise from:
   1.  Electrical costs of operating nitrate recycle pumps and mixers;
  2.  Electrical savings in aeration costs from denitrification  of'an additional 32 me/L
     NOx                                                                 '    &
  3.  Increase in chemical costs if the plant switches to chemical P removal-
  4.  Associated operator time for maintenance and the cost of repairs on new equipment.

  The capital cost for N removal with biological excess P removal is $1,618 500 and the
  operating costs are $23,258.  The cost per pound of additional N removed over a 20-year
  period is $1.12 based on 1996 dollars.  The annual operating costs would increase in
  proportion to the flow and at the rate of inflation. The capital and operating costs of N
  removal with chemical P removal would be the  same as bio-P removal.  However an
  additional $15,000 would be spent for the  chemicals.   Thus, the cost of an additional
 pound of N removed would increase to $1.24.
Appendix II
                                                                               44

-------
     THROOP WWTP, LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN SEWER AUTHORITY

 The Throop regional WWTP is an activated sludge plant that services municipal and
 industrial customers to the east and south of the City of Scranton.  The plant is permitted
 to treat a flow of 7 MOD,  and  the design peak wet weather flow is 14 MOD.   Plant
 operation during  1995 was examined, as the flow conditions were  considered to be more
 representative of current conditions than those in 1996. The average flow was 4.26 MOD
 for 1995.

 The raw influent BODs averaged 105  mg/L, which is approximately 50  % of average
 levels observed at plants where the raw influent is transported through new sewers with
 low levels of infiltration/inflow.  NH4-N levels  reaching the plant were 70 %  of TKN,
 with an average TKN value of 29 mg/L.  The effluent ammonium-N levels were less than
 1 mg/L in 1995.  A nitrogen mass balance showed that of 20 mg/L of TKN in the primary
 effluent, 4.5 mg/L was removed in the biomass, 1.5 mg/L was  discharged as soluble
 organic nitrogen  in the plant effluent, and the remaining 14 mg/L of ammonium-N was
 nitrified, resulting in a total of 11.1 mg/L of oxidized nitrogen. The resulting deficiency
 in alkalinity was satisfied  by adding hydrated  lime.  Denitrification  of  6.5  mg/L of
 oxidized-N  will also  recover 23  mg/L  alkalinity as  CaCOs, which is  equivalent to the
 alkalinity of 570 Ib/day of pure lime added to a flow of 4.5 MOD.

 The plant's headworks consist of two grit  chambers, a Parshall  flume  and Weisflo
 mechanical bar screens.  Primary clarification is achieved in four 93 ft by 33 ft tanks with
 SWD depths of 10 ft, yielding an SOR of 570 gpd/ft2 at 7 MOD.  The four activated
 sludge basins  of  169ft x 29ft x  15ft have an HRT of  11.7 at 4.5  MOD and  they are
 followed by four secondary clarifiers with 570  gpd/ft2 SORs at 7 MOD.  Space is
 available to the left of the existing units to add an additional secondary clarifier.  The
 secondary effluent is chlorinated  and aerated prior to discharge.   From analysis of DO
 concentrations in  the activated sludge tanks and the pattern  of fluctuations observed in
 chlorine demand,  it was concluded that during times of low DO, incomplete oxidation of
 NH4-N to NO3-N was occurring,  resulting in NO2-N consumption of chlorine.  Primary
 and secondary waste sludges are processed in a DAF unit, a digester and a belt filter.

 The evaluations showed that the  activated sludge basin  volume and secondary clarifier
 capacity are limiting  factors for  implementation  of further removal  of  nitrogen.
 According to the calculations, an additional  activated sludge  basin and a clarifier are
 required at the design flow.   Besides, the existing tanks need to be retrofitted to include
 anoxic and aerobic zones with nitrate recycle pumps.   Therefore, it is recommended that
 all the activated  sludge basins be  converted to  a Modified Lutzack Ettinger (MLE)
 configuration.  The nitrate recycle pump should be sized to operate at flow rates of 50 to
 200 percent of the influent flow to be able to  supply sufficient oxidized-N  to the anoxic
zones where the denitrification will take place.

Following items were considered to be essential for the BNR upgrade at the design flow
of 7.0 MOD:
Appendix II                                                                    45

-------
        •  Improvement of plant hydraulics and flow distribution structures;
        •  Addition of a new activated sludge basin-
        •  Modification of the existing basins to MLE configuration-
        •  Addition of a new secondary clarifier
        .  Upgrade of the RAS system to meet the needs of the new configuration-
        •  Upgrade of the aeration system
Appendix II
                                                                              46

-------
          WILLIAMSPORT SANITARY AUTHORITY CENTRAL PLANT

 The Williamsport Central WWTP is an activated sludge facility located on a narrow tract
 of land between 1-180 and a railroad track that runs parallel to the Susquehanna River.
 The plant is rated  for a flow of 7.2 MOD, with most of the flow being from domestic
 sources. Currently, during wet weather periods, the flows can increase above 7.2 MOD
 because of infiltration/inflow, part of which comes from combined sewers.

 Operating data from 1996 showed  that the average flow rate of raw influent was 8.98
 MOD and the plant has limited capacity for seasonal nitrification.  Because denitrification
 causes problems with rising sludge  in the secondary clarifiers, the plant operator prefers
 not to nitrify. Average raw influent BODs was 102 mg/L, which represents a fairly dilute
 wastewater.  This  value was 175 mg/L during dry weather (August) when the influent
 flow averaged 6.50 MOD.  Analysis of data showed that the maximum month to average
 month COD ratio  was 1.17. .Fluctuations in COD must be considered, as COD load
 determines the MLSS levels at which the AS basins should be operated at the MCRTs
 required for nitrogen removal.  The plant was operated at the low MLSS value of 1318
 mg/L during  1996, with a VSS percentage of 85.5%.  Plant effluent data  show partial
 nitrification of NFLt-N at warmer temperatures. Increased nitrification caused a 90 to 100
 mg/L drop in effluent alkalinity.

 Pretreatment consists of 3/4 inch mechanically cleaned screens followed by grit removal
 channels.  The plant also has covered preaeration tanks  that were built as part of the
 original primary treatment facility, and they are used to strip odors from the sewage. The
 three primary clarifiers following pretreatment are rectangular with SORs of 950 gpd/ft2.
 The clarifiers accomplished 50% TSS and 25% BODs removal at an average flow of 9.0
 MOD in 1996. The plant has eight AS tanks (HRT of 5.27 hours at 7.2 MOD), arranged
 in  two sets of four tanks on two  sides of a feed channel, and under normal operation
 conditions all eight  tanks are operated in parallel.  Aeration of the basins is accomplished
 by two Sutorbilt positive displacement blowers.  RAS can be fed either  to the primary
 effluent channel or directly to the AS tanks. Three rectangular secondary clarifiers have a
 SOR of 667 gpd/ft2 at the design  flow.  Sludge wastage  is from the RAS lines and the
 WAS is sent to the gravity thickener.  The Plant has two chlorine contact tanks located
 adjacent to the secondary clarifiers. Two of three digesters are used as primary anaerobic
 digesters, and the primary digested sludge is  sent to the old  elutriation tanks for further
 thickening. Sludge  from the secondary digester is passed through a belt filter press and is
 landfilled.

 Under these conditions, it was recommended that the AS system be designed with three
 anoxic cells in each train, all of which can be operated aerobically.  The first two anoxic
 cells should be installed within the first aerobic tank.  The third anoxic cell should be
 constructed within the second AS tank and occupy 33%of its volume.

 A nitrate recycle system should be constructed for each flow train and the capacity should
 be 2.5 imes the influent flow of 7.2 MOD.  Operation at 4000 mg/L MLSS in winter and
Appendix II                                                                     47

-------
   at 2300 mg/L m  summer necessitates  two additional clarifiers.  A  flow distribution
   structure  shall also  be constructed to distribute flow between the existing and new
   clarifiers.   Also a new  RAS  pumping station  must be  added.   By increasing the
   dimensions of the  new secondary clarifiers, step feeding the primary effluent under high
   flow conditions, and using fixed film media integrated into  the activated sludge aerobic
   zone, a nitrogen removal safety factor can be obtained.

  The capital costs of the modifications recommended for nitrogen removal implementation
  are estimated to be $6,339,416.  The operating costs would increase by  $36 675 per year
  because of the energy costs of operating the blowers, etc., compared to the current cost of
  operation. The cost of removing an additional pound of nitrogen would be $1 36  in 1997
  dollars.
Appendix II

-------
           WILLIAMSPORT SANITARY AUTHORITY WEST PLANT

 The Williamsport West Plant is an activated sludge plant that receives wastewater from
 Duboistown, Old Lycoming Township, Parts of Loyalstock  Township, and Western
 Williamsport  on the  westside  of Lycomick Creek.  The  plant discharges  to  the
 Susquehanna River.  Sixty-five (65) to 70 % of the load treated at this plant is from an
 industrial park.  A significant portion of the  fairly high COD load is not biodegraded
 during activated sludge treatment because of a high non-biodegradable organic fraction.
 It is not known if inhibitive compounds are present. The plant is permitted for a flow of
 4.5 MOD, and for effluent concentrations of 2 mg/L TP, 2.5 mg/L ammonia-N, and 7.5
 mg/L ammonia-N in winter.

 The year 1996 was a fairly wet year with raw influent  flows fluctuating between 2.2 and
 4.6 MOD, with an average annual flow of 3.5 MOD. The primary effluent COD to BOD5
 ratio averaged 3.4,  which  is substantially higher than  the  corresponding ratio  for
 municipal wastewater (1.5 -  2.5). This implies the presence of slowly biodegradable or
 non-biodegradable COD. Also, the COD of the plant effluent averaged 138 mg/L, which
 typically varies between 30 and 60 mg/L for municipal WWTP effluents.  An analysis of
 secondary effluent showed the absence of oxidized nitrogen forms and  the presence of
 high levels of NH4-N (21 mg/L).  Plant effluent NKrN averaged 57% of the primary
 effluent TKN, which further indicates the absence of nitrification.

 Preliminary treatment consists of mechanical bar screens with linch openings and a
 rectangular grit chamber.  Raw influent is then pumped to a pre-aeration chamber used
 for scrubbing odors, especially from May to October. Two primary  clarifiers follow, with
 SORs of 1500 gpm/ft2 at the peak month flow of 4.5 MOD.  Primary sludge is sent to  the
 gravity thickener.  Primary clarifier effluent is mixed  with RAS before it is fed to  the
 activated sludge system that is comprised of six tanks  (cells).  Each cell has an HRT of
 5.3 hours at the design flow of 4.5 MOD, and  they are aerated with Lightnin' draft tube
 aerators (DTAs).  These aerators have a mixer with impellers located within an air sparge
 ring. Air is injected through nozzles in the ring. Each day the DO drops below 0.5 mg/L
 during peak load hours, which occur after 10 am when  all of the industries have resumed
 operation.   The  AS basins are operated  at  MLSS  levels of 1000 to 1500  mg/L,
 corresponding to an MCRT of 5  to 7 days, because the aeration system capacity is not
 capable of supporting  higher biomass concentrations.  Also,  the secondary clarifiers
 cannont support higher SORs or SVIs between 200 and  400 mL/g. Flow from one half of
 the plant goes to  two square secondary clarifiers, each with an SOR of 700 gpd/ft2 at
 maximum flow.  The remaining  flow enters a secondary clarifier  with an SOR of 950
 gpd/ft2, which is very high for an activated sludge system. WAS is pumped to the gravity
thickener.  The plant has two  chlorine contact tanks for disinfection. Final effluent is not
dechlorinated.

The Williamsport West Plant has the  following limitations for the implementation of
nitrification: limited space for new construction, absence of nitrification / denitrification
under existing conditions, and possibly the presence  of inhibitory compounds  in the
Annenriix II                                                                    49

-------
 influent.  Two options are suggested for implementing nitrogen removal. The first option
 is designed to treat 130 mg/L of primary effluent BODs, and remove 300 mg/L of primary
 effluent COD. Effluent COD would average at 130 mg/L.  The AS  tank volume would
 be expanded to include the volume of the two existing square clarifiers. The total basin
 volume with eight cells  would be 1.22 MG, and the nominal HRT at the flow of 3.5
 MOD average daily flow would be 8.4  hours.  The system would be designed in an
 anoxic-aerobic sequence, with the anoxic zone occupying 27% of the total tank volume.
 Nitrates would be recycled from the end of the last aerobic cell to the anoxic cell in each
 pass.  The existing aeration system would be modified with membrane or ceramic fine
 bubble diffusers.  Secondary clarifier capacity needs to be increased to be able to operate
 with MLSS  levels of 3000  mg/L in  summer  and 4000 mg/L  in  winter.   Two new
 rectangular clarifiers could be accomodated within the space available.  The AS system
 must  have a new instrumentation  system for DO control.   During some  months
 supplemental alkalinity may have to be added to nitrify an average of 21  mg/L NHrN.

 The second option is plant expansion to:

 1.  A Single Stage Activated Sludge System:  Additional AS cells, possibly downstream
    of the existing tanks would be constructed. A third train of four cells also should be
    added in parallel to the existing ones. Three new clarifiers and a new RAS pump
    station should be added, too. A new chlorine contact tank would be added to provide
    adequate time for disinfection.
 2.  Separate Stage Fixed Film:  Expansion will include two new clarifiers, and high rate
    biofilters such as Biofor  or Biostyr. The advantages of separate  stage treatment are
    the smaller footprint, and possibly removal/concentration reduction  of inhibitory
    chemicals. The disadvantages are additional aeration energy consumption, additional
    alkalinity needs, and methanol addition for post-denitrification.
 3.  Integrated  Fixed Film AS (IFAS) Process: This  alternative would be insertion  of
    Fixed  film media into the aerobic zone.  Floating sponges such as  Linpor media or
    plastic Kaldnes media would be the most effective.

 The cost of modifying the existing treatment system  for Option 1 was estimated.  The
 construction cost  estimate totals $5,245,557 based on 1997 dollars.  Capital costs total
 $6,800,000 based on a 20 year  life.  Annual  operating costs  would increase by an
 estimated  $72,675  per year.  The present  worth of the increased M&O would be
$1,500,000. Cost per pound of additional nitrogen removed would  be $2.58 per Ib N
removed.
Appendix II                                                                     50

-------
              WYOMING VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY WWTP

 The plant services  35  municipalities  in and around  Luzerne  County  in  Central
 Pennsylvania. The plant is designed to treat a dry weather flow of 32 MOD and wet
 weather  flow of 50  MOD  for  conventional  treatment,  and  it discharges to the
 Susquehanna River.  In 1995, the dry weather flow averaged 19  MOD, and the annual
 average flow was 22 MOD.  Evaluation of 1995 data showed that the plant maintained
 good nitrogen removal by operating at high MCRTs (above 25 days), and by maintaining
 MLSS concentrations of 5000 mg/L with AS basin DO concentrations of 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L.
 However, effluent ammonium-N will increase unless the plant undertakes modifications
 to maintain N removal at lower MCRTs.

 In 1995,  the raw influent BOD5 and TKN values averaged 200.7 mg/L and 26.6 mg/L,
 respectively.  Nitrification was limited by the capacity of the aeration system, as indicated
 by effluent ammonium-N levels that varied between 3 and 6.5 mg/L for several months of
 the year and averaged 2.21 mg/L.  The effluent NOx was low with a 2.24 mg/L average,
 indicating good denitrification in the reactors. Total N in the effluent was 6.52 mg/L.

 During normal flows, the influent is screened through two Weismann  Wiesflo fine screens
 prior to being pumped by centrifugal pumps to the grit chambers. When the flow exceeds
 the capacity of the centrifugal pumps or the Weisflo screens, the excess flow is diverted to a
 set of Archimedes screw pumps. The plant has four Schreiber grit and scum removal units.
 Following grit removal, the raw influent is distributed between four activated sludge flow
 trains.  Each train has two circular activated sludge tanks designated as the  Schreiber GRD
 (with central anoxic zone) and GRO basins (with intermittent aeration capacity) followed by
 a circular secondary clarifier. The flow is aerated in the outer ring of the GRD basin and  it
 exits the GRD basin to enter the GRO basin. Each train has its own set of Aerzen positive
 displacement blowers. Basins have O2 minimizers that control DO injection on the basis of
 change in turbidity resulting from the presence of unstabilized colloidal organics in the
 mixed liquor.  It is used for cycling the aeration. However, due to poor mixing between the
 sludges in the different rings of the basins, the minimizers can not be used effectively for
 cyclic aeration purposes.

 Analysis of the secondary clarifiers at  the design flow rate of 8 MGD per train shows  a
 surface overflow rate of 315 gpd/ft2 which is lower than the typical design  rate of 400
 gpd/ft2 used for secondary clarifiers at facilities which incorporate nitrification. The layout
 requires a clarifier to be taken out of service if a basin is taken out of service. Each train has
 three RAS archimedes screw pumps (Schreiber tube pumps,  Model 1400) installed in  a
 RAS well. Each pump can discharge at a maximum flow rate of 8 MGD.  Therefore, in
 theory, the RAS flow rate can be increased to  200 percent with all pumps in operation.
 Optimum operation has  been observed at RAS flow rates of 100 percent at the present
 average flow of 24 MGD. Each GRO and GRD basin has a pipe which can be used in the
 future as part of a nitrate recycle system.  Because of extensive denitrification, the nitrate
 recycle  required to maintain an effluent total nitrogen less than 8 mg/L at design flow is
expected to be less than 100 percent of the influent wastewater flow.
Appendix II                                                                     51

-------
 Sludge is wasted by a telescopic valve located in the discharge
 box.  Waste sludge  enters a thickening  pit located below th<
 maintaining  continuous WAS feed and clear liquid  decanting,
 above 2%  solids in the pit.   This sludge is then dewatere
 centrifuges, with the  final sludge having a 24 % solids content
 dewatered sludge to raise the pH prior to incineration at temperati

 BNR implementation will require operation at lower MCRTs and
 maintain complete nitrification.   DO set point is expected to  1
 mg/L. This will decrease the denitrification in the aerobic zone i
 NOx unless cyclic aeration or a nitrate recycle system is also ins
 volume of the plant is only 20% of the total volume, but this is
 adequate amounts of NOx. Thus, it was recommended that 50C
 place in the aerobic zone via  cyclic aeration. Cycle time can be
 the monthly  average effluent  ammonium-N and NOx.  Suggest
 summer and 20 days in winter. Some structural modification will
 studies show that cyclic aeration does not have sufficient capacity
 nitrogen removal at dry weather flows above 24 MOD.

 The installation of programmable timers is the only modificati*
 removal.  The cost will be $100,100 at 24 MOD, and the cost
 projected as $0.023/lb. For a dry weather flow of 32 MOD, a ni
 an aeration control system needs to be installed.  The cost of th
 $762,600, with the cost per Ib  of additional N removed being $0.!
Appendix II

-------
                     YORK CITY SEWER AUTHORITY STP

 The York City sewage treatment plant (STP) is a combination  pure oxygen and A/O
 activated sludge plant that discharges to Codorus Creek in Manchester Township, York
 County, Pennsylvania.  Codorus Creek is classified for warm water fish, recreation, water
 supply and  aquatic  life.  Hence,  the  discharge permit regulates  nitrogen species  as
 follows:  all year round nitrification is required with effluent ammonium-N values not to
 exceed a monthly average of 1.7 mg/L from May 1st to October  31st, and a monthly
 average of 2.1 mg/L for the rest of the year. Permitted weekly average and instantaneous
 maximum levels are 1.5 and 2.0 times the monthly average values, respectively. The total
 phosphorus permit of the plant is for 2 mg/L as a monthly average.

 This plant was evaluated for the period from May 1995 through April 1996, during which
 the plant achieved complete  nitrification all year round.  The effluent ammonium-N
 averaged 0.1 mg/L, with a peak monthly concentration of 0.2 mg/L.  A nitrogen balance
 revealed that total nitrification averaged 12.9 mg/L, and 2.2 mg/L of nitrogen was being
 denitrified. The phosphorus content of the WAS was  3.5 to 4.0 % on a VSS basis.  The
 average influent flow to the plant was  13 MOD.

 The York City STP was designed to treat a flow of 26  MOD. The treatment train consists
 of bar screens, grit removal,  8 primary clarifiers with  a surface overflow  rate of 960
 gpd/ft2,  activated sludge basins  and secondary clarifiers in three  independent trains,
 secondary effluent filtration, and disinfection. The oldest  section  is  an 8  MOD pure
 oxygen train with two tanks and receives  raw influent. This train is used when the raw
 influent flow exceeds  18  MGD.  The second train has a 7.5  MOD  A/0™  process
 configured as two parallel tanks, and  primary effluent is fed into this train.  Finally, the
 third train also has an A/O™ configuration,  but has three' parallel tanks  receiving a
 mixture of primary effluent and raw influent. The surface overflow rates of the secondary
 clarifiers  of the trains are 630  gpd/ft2,  318  gpd/ft2,  and 242  gpd/ft2, respectively.
 Phosphorus removal is biological in Trains 2 & 3, but in Train 1 it is achieved chemically
 by the addition of ferrous sulfate.

 With the existing flow arrangements, Train 1 cannot nitrify, and it would have to be down
 rated to 1.5 MGD  and  operated with 3600 mg/L MLSS in a peak  month in  winter to
 facilitate nitrification.   Additionally,  the  hydraulic and  load treatment capacity  of the
 other two trains should be increased  to accomodate the flow not sent to Train 1 with
 consideration given to the surface overflow rates of the secondary clarifiers.  Besides the
 above suggestions, the  following modifications were also  suggested  for the  activated
 sludge basins for better nitrogen removal at York City STP:

 /.   Cyclic aeration of the first two aerobic cells with / without a nitrate recycle system:
    With a cycle time of 30 min for the air on and off periods and without nitrate recycle
    6 mg/L of N can be  denitrified.  With nitrate recycle, an additional  2 mg/L of N can
    be removed.
Appendix II                                                                      53

-------
 2.  Conversion of the first aerobic cell in each activated sludge tank to an anoxic cell
    with a nitrate recycle;
    With a modification of the surface aerators in Trains 2 and 3 to obtain anoxic cells
    that will be mixed a few minutes every 30 min to prevent settling. The pure oxygen
    supply in the first aerobic tank of Train 1  should be shut off.
 3.  Conversion of the anaerobic cells to anoxic cells with the addition of nitrate recycle;
    addition of ferrous sulfatefor chemical phosphorus removal.
    The anaerobic zones of Trains 2 and 3 will be made anoxic,  with nitrate recycle.
    Phosphorus removal will be achieved chemically with ferrous sulfate addition  to the
    raw influent.

 The cost calculations showed that all alternatives that include denitrification result in
 savings because of reductions in aeration costs. The Capital cost of Alternative 1 without
 a nitrate recycle system and for treatment of 18 MOD of raw influent flow is $30,000, and
 there will be  substantial savings  in operating  costs ($20,000 per year) because of
 denitrification. Alternatives 2 'and 3 both include nitrate  recycle systems, and their total
 capital  costs are similar. Alternative 3 includes chemical phosphorus removal with the
 additional cost of ferrous sulfate addition.  At the design flow of 26 MOD, the annual
 operating  cost  is $30,000.   The additional  operating  costs  of  nitrification  and
 denitrification are $25,993 to obtain an additional 5.5 mg/L of N removal, for a cost of
 $0.42 per Ib of N removed.
Appendix [I                                  •                                       54

-------
 Virginia Files - Potomac River Discharges

                              ARLINGTON WWTP

 The  Arlington Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Northern Virginia is currently
 being expanded and upgraded for BNR.  However, construction of the BNR  upgrade is
 not expected to be completed by the year 2000, and thus, will not meet the goal of 40%
 reduction of controllable nitrogen inputs  to the Chesapeake Bay  agreed upon by the
 governors of the three states.  Therefore, the USEPA and the Virginia Department of
 Environmental Quality are considering the  option of implementing temporary BNR
 modifications at this facility in order to accomplish some degree of nutrient removal in
 the interim period before the final upgrades, if the upgrades can be accomplished at a
 reasonable cost.

 The Arlington WWTP is rated for an average daily  flow rate of 30 MOD. The facility is
 currently operating at  its design capacity.   The current average daily flow rate is 32.4
 MOD, which exceeds the permitted flow and illustrates the need for a capacity upgrade.
 The facility has preliminary, primary, secondary, and  tertiary treatment facilities.  The
 secondary treatment process consists of three activated sludge basins and each basin has
 four passes.  Coarse bubble diffusers are used in the activated sludge basins to aerate the
 mixed liquor.  The hydraulic retention time (HRT)  of the activated  sludge basins  is
 approximately six hours at the design average flow rate of 30 MOD. The activated sludge
 basins are followed by six circular secondary clarifiers. The secondary clarifiers have a
 diameter of 115 feet and a side water depth of 11 feet.

 The facility is currently operated in the step feed configuration with four primary effluent
 feed points in each activated sludge basin.  Approximately 25% of the influent is fed at
 each  step feed  point.   The average effluent  TN during the year of evaluation was 9.0
 mg/L, which is  only 1 mg/L higher than the Chesapeake Bay goal of 8.0 mg/L.

 The current operation of the plant is optimized for nitrogen removal.  However, the lack
 of baffle walls between the anoxic and aerobic zones results in back-mixing between the
 zones and promotes growth of low DO filamentous  bacteria, causing poor activated
 sludge settlability.  Installation of baffle walls could provide sufficient  control  of the
 filamentous bacteria and make improved nitrogen removal possible. This would reduce
 the effluent total nitrogen to a maximum of approximately 8.0 mg/L, and would result in
 a reduction  of  approximately 11% from the current average effluent TN level of 9.0
 mg/L. It is  likely  that  the annual average would be closer to 6 mg/L if the baffles and
 mixers were installed.  However the following economic analysis assume that the effluent
nitrogen would average 8 mg/L.

Capital cost for implementing interim nitrogen and phosphorus removal modifications is
$560,000, and it is planning level estimate with a 20%  contingency.  Since the plant is
Appendix II                                                                     55

-------
   already optimized  for nitrogen removal,  additional  aeration  cost  savings  will be

           6'   ^ 6Stimated 2° year increase in maintenance and  operation  cost  is
-, ~  -                         •>— —**•**«"" •" *"«"ncuiuii;c ouu  operation  cost  is
$544,000  The overall cost for implementing nitrogen removal includes the  cost of

achieving demtrification only, and it is $0.605 per pound of additional nitrogen removed
Appendix II
                                                                                56

-------
                           COLONIAL BEACH WWTP

 The Colonial Beach WWTP is  an activated sludge facility that  serves the town  of
 Colonial Beach, and is located in Westmoreland County, VA.  It discharges to Monroe
 Bay, an inlet of the tidal Potomac River. The current permit requires the plant to maintain
 an average BODs and TSS of 21 mg/L and 28 mg/L, respectively, at all times. An effluent
 ammonia concentration of 4.63 mg/L or less must be met April through September.  The
 DO concentration in the plant effluent must be no less than 6.5 mg/L and the permitted
 effluent flow rate is 2 MGD. At present the plant receives an average flow of 0.64 MGD.

 The  flows,  concentrations  and loads to the plant over the twelve  month  period from
 August 1996 through July 1997 were analyzed. The raw influent BOD5 averaged 89 mg/L
 for that period.  The influent TKN, NHs and TP values were usually measured once a
 month, and no TKN or NHs measurements were recorded on the same day during the
 period from March 1997 through July 1997. Therefore, in some months, the NHs values
 seemed to be higher than the TKN values, and these values were not considered in the
 analysis. The Influent TP values  averaged 3.5 mg/L over an 8  month period. TP
 measurements were not available for the remaining 4 months. Effluent TKN and NOx
 concentrations averaged 0.44 and 13.1 mg/L, respectively.

 A mechanical bar screen is installed  in the influent channel.  Following screening, grit is
 removed from the wastewater via a stirred grit chamber. The plant has two grit chambers,
 each of which is equipped with a 0.75 HP constant speed paddle mixer to control velocity
 in the chamber. Flow, then, enters a wet well that distributes the flow to the equalization
 tanks. The plant has two equalization tanks, but only one tank was in operation. These
 basins are equipped with a coarse bubble air diffusion system. Flow fromthe EQ basin
 enters activated sludge tanks.  The facility has two completely mixed activated sludge
 (CMAS) tanks, currently, only one is operated at a time.  Lime is  fed to the  tanks to
 control the pH. The flow passes to  one of the two clarifiers in operation, and  clarified
 water then enters one of the two chlorine contact units.   A post aeration chamber is
 provided at the end of the chlorine contact unit to achieve dissolved oxygen concentration
 of at least 6.5 mg/L in the final effluent.

 The plant has two aerobic digesters for waste sludges, and flow from the digesters enters
 the belt filter press.  Dewatered sludge  consisting of  17 % ODS (oven dried solids) is
 applied to landfill. Filtrates generated during filtration and supernatant from the aerobic
 digesters are returned to the  equalization basin.

 Considering the effluent values, complete nitrification of the ammonia formed from the
 complete ammonification of all the sources of organic-N was assumed to be possible.
 Because of the current low flows relative to design flow, it was concluded that successful
 nitrogen removal could be accomplished by cycling the aerators on and off in the CMAS
 tank.  Thus, the capital costs will include a DO control system with a DO probe in each
AS tank, a PLC, and electrical work for the installation, for the estimated sum of $90,000.
The estimated annual change in O&M  costs would be a total reduction of $7,100 at
                                                                              57

-------
   current flow and $15,500 at design flow.  The estimated total cost for implementing BNR


   I' *°n n*f n If ^ °nly'IafIthe fadlityis ca?able of nitrifying year round, and it sums up
   to $0.065 per Ib additional N removed.                                             H
Appendix II
                                                                              58

-------
                         TOWN OF DAHLGREN WWTP

 The Dahlgren Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is an Orbal configuration oxidation
 ditch activated sludge plant owned and operated by the Utilities Division of King George
 County, VA and it discharges to the Potomac River. The current permitted flow is 0.325
 MOD, but an expansion scheduled for  1998 will increase the plant capacity up to 0.5
 MOD. The plant received an average flow of 0.28 MOD from October,  1996 through
 October,  1997, which is about 86 % of the design flow of 0.325 MOD. Discharge permit
 limits effluent average ammonium-N concentrations to 1.35 mg/L, but the plant does not
 have a discharge limit on TN.

 The raw  influent BODs averaged 251 mg/L over the  thirteen month period, and  during
 periods of high infiltration, BOD concentrations decreased down to monthly averages as
 low as 197 mg/L.  The highest monthly average was 370 mg/L during August, 1997. The
 raw influent TKN values were not routinely measured during plant operation. However,
 influent ammonia concentrations were measured at least once a week. TKN values were
 estimated based upon an ammonia-TKN ratio of 0.7 was assumed.

 The average water quality values for each month were in compliance with the permit
 requirements, except for  May  and June  of  1997 when  the  effluent ammonia  levels
 exceeded the permit requirement of 1.35 mg/L by 70% because of low DO concentrations
 in the mixed liquor. Effluent ammoniuni-N averaged   0.92 for the period of evaluation.
 Overall, the data indicate that the Dahlgren Orbal-like oxidation ditch system is capable
 of maintaining complete nitrification all year round for the current flows and loads.

 The first  unit of the WWTP is  an equalization basin.  From equalization, wastewater
 flows directly to the oxidation ditch.   The existing equalization volume is sufficient to
 equalize the BOD and TSS of the influent wastewater, but it is operated  as an overflow
 basin, which means it does nothing to equalize the flow. The biological process of the
 plant consists of a single Orbal-type oxidation ditch, with three concentric rings.  Flow
 enters the inner ring  of the oxidation ditch,  and  then flows successively through the
 middle and outer  rings before exiting to  the secondary clarifiers.    The ditch  has a
 hydraulic  detention time (HRT) of 1.25 days at the design flow of 325,000 gpd, and will
 provide an HRT of 0.81 days for  the planned flow of 0.5 MOD.  Aeration is provided by
 vertical discs mounted on horizontal shafts. The number of discs on each rotor in each
 ring can be varied to control the amount of aeration within each ring. The facility has two
 solids-contact type  secondary clarifiers, designed for an average overflow rate of 350
 gpd/ft2, and a weir loading rate of 2,500 gpm/ft. The overflow rate is very adequate for
 the current design flow of 0.325 MOD.  When the flow is increased to  0.5 MOD,  the
 overflow rate would be 536 gpd/ft2.   The plant has two aerobic digesters.  Secondary
 effluent passes through a 3 pass chlorine contact  tank. This  provides an HRT of 50
 minutes at design flow. Sludge dewatering is accomplished using a Model 3500 Envirex
 type belt  filter press.  Polymer  is added during  dewatering.   Dewatered sludge is
 transported to a landfill 3 days a week.
Appendix II                                                                    59

-------
 The Orbal-type oxidation ditch operated at  this facility was designed to accomplish
 substantial amounts of nitrogen removal if the oxygen inputs are carefully controlled.
 This can be accomplished by placing the appropriate number of discs on the aerators in
 the three ditches. If this proves to be too insensitive, further control can be accomplished
 by cycling aerators on and off.  Once the appropriate disc configuration and on-off
 cycling periods are established, the cycling can be accomplished using timers to turn the
 aerators on and off throughout the  day.  The objective is to  supply enough oxygen to
 remove  much of the BOD and to completely nitrify all of the available ammonia, but
 limit the oxygen inputs so that a substantial fraction of the influent BOD will be removed
 by denitrification.  It will be necessary for the operators to measure effluent ammonia and
 NOx at least three times during the work day, and make appropriate adjustments to the
 timers for the rest of the 24 hour period, to optimize N removal. Once the patterns are
 determined, the adjustments will be simple to make.  A Hach kit could be obtained and
 used by the operators to determine the ammonia and NOX concentrations.  The control of
 oxygen transfer for optimum nitrogen  removal can be accomplished by adjusting the
 numbers of discs on the rotors so that the first ring acts as an anoxic zone with an internal
 nitrate recycle from the second ring, which will continue to be used as an aerobic zone.

 Effluent total phosphorus (TP) concentrations exceeded the permit limit of 2.0 mg/L only
 one  month during  the thirteen-month evaluation period.  Thus, no modifications are
 needed to improve  phosphorus removal unless the managers/operators are  interested in
 implementing biological phosphorus removal rather than chemical phosphorus removal.

 Capital costs for implementing BNR are based on installing timers in the MCCs of the
 aerators to operate the aerators in cyclical aeration mode if necessary, and two DO probes
 for continuous DO monitoring in the ditch, yielding a total of $30,000. The projected net
 decrease in O&M  cost  is $4,900  as  a result of savings from  energy consumption
 reduction. The net additional cost/savings per Ib of N removed is estimated as $0.12.
Appendix II                                                                     '60

-------
             DALE SERVICES SECTION 1 AND SECTION 8 WWTPs

 The Dale Services Corporation operates two WWTPs designated as Section 1 and Section
 8, and both discharge into a tributary of the Potomac River Tidal Estuary.  The plants are
 contact stabilization activated sludge design facilities permitted for flows of 3 MOD each.
 At present the plants meet the P, BOD and TSS permit limits of 0.1 mg/L P, 2 mg/L
 BOD, and 3 mg/L SS. However, TKN concentrations in the effluent are 10 to  15 mg/L,
 which exceeds the ammonia limit as  well as the TN concentration goals for  effluents
 discharging into tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.

 Raw wastewater arrives at the treatment plants to pass through a coarse bar screen and a
 Parshall flume.   The flow proceeds to a splitter box where the flow is  appropriately
 divided among three contact stabilization AS units. The flow is introduced into a contact
 (mixing) zone where the raw wastewater is  mixed  with AS using compressed  air
 generated  by blowers.  The  bioreactors perhaps can be more accurately described as
 "modified orbal systems". The flow then passes to the secondary clarifiers. The RAS is
 pumped to the reaeration zone where the bacteria are given time to stabilize any stored or
 trapped organics, and the flow is then re-introduced to the contact zone. The WAS is sent
 to a primary and then to a secondary  aerobic digester, from where it is sent a gravity
 thickener for dewatering.  Secondary effluent is  pumped to chemical  clarifiers  for
 precipitation of phosphorus and coagulation of suspended solids with aluminum chloride.
 When necessary the pH of  the clarified water can be adjusted with  lime addition.
 Effluent is then pumped to four multi-media  pressure filters, and further to  the UV
 disinfection unit.

 Although the wastewater quality was similar, the average flow to Section 8 was 2.12
 MOD, whereas it was 3.0 MOD to  Section 1 in  1996. The raw and final effluent TKN
 concentrations were 40 and 12 mg/L, respectively.  Phosphorus concentration in the raw
 wastewater was  5.2 mg/L, and it was reduced to 0.08 mg/L after tertiary treatment. As
 the NOx concentration in the effluent was below 1 mg/L, the TKN can be assumed to  be
 a measure of the ammonia concentration in the final effluent, which is relatively high.

 Although the reactors were designed to operate as Contact  Stabilization  Process Units,
 currently the contact and reaeration basins are  operated at similar,  but unusually high
 MLSS concentrations: 4200 to 6400 mg/L, and MLVSS constitute 75 % of MLSS.  This
 is a result of strong backmixing and high RAS rates. The HRT of each one of the reactors
 in Section  1 can be approximated as 0.4 days (9.6 hours) at an average  flow rate of 3
 MOD. The HRT of the  reactors in Section  8 are 0.56 days (13.4 hours) at an average
 flow of 2.15 MOD.  As the flow will reach 3 MOD in 5 to  6 years, the calculations for
 both plants were made using  3 MOD.   The operating MCRT was calculated to be  15
 days.  The raw influent pH varied at a low  range of 6.7 to 6.9.   Raw wastewater and
 bioreactor alkalinities were measured to be between 125 and 175 mg/L as CaCOs, and 65
to 125 mg/L as CaCO3. These numbers indicate either a high CO2 partial pressure  or
alkalinity due to non-carbonate sources.
Appendix II                                                                    61

-------
 Full  nitrification  at  Dale City  WWTPs  can be achieved by  addition of alkalinity,
 maintaining the pH  at 7.2 and  the  DO at 2.0  to 2.5 mg/L, without any  changes in
 configuration and  operation.  For denitrification to take place, an anoxic zone of at least 2
 hours HRT is required.  It is recommended that part of the volume  of aerobic sludge
 digesters be incorporated into the bioreactor zones, thereby increasing the total reactor
 volumes to 12 hours HRT. The designed  air supply facilities at the Dale City WWTPs
 have a total capacity of 21,000 ft3/min.  However, at present the  real air supply capacity
 of the blowers is not known.  These  should be determined by testing.  If denitrification
 can be achieved, the air requirements  will be significantly lowered (approximately 20 %).
 A separate sludge digester at each plant shall be designed and constructed for treatment of
 WAS, as in the future the whole volume  of the aerobic digesters will be. needed for
 anoxic zone.

 The capital costs for the three stages (adjustment of alkalinity and pH for implementation
 of nitrification, separation of an anoxic zone in the aerobic digester, and use of the whole
 volume of the digester for anoxic zone) of modifications  are $330,000; $220,000; and
 $1,080,000.  Capital costs for second  stage are based on an effluent TN concentration of
 8.0 mg/L, and for third stage are based on an effluent TN of 4.0 mg/L. The estimated
 annual change in  the O&M  costs are an increase of $430,000 for the first stage, and
 reductions of $140,000 and $180,000  for the second and third stages. The estimated total
 costs of additional N removal at the Dale City WWTPs are $0.68 and  $0.29 per Ib of N
 removed  for the first and second stages.  A cost calculation for the  third stage is  not
 presented.
Appendix II                                                                       62

-------
       H. L. MOONEY WWTP, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY AUTHORITY
 The  Mooney WWTP is rated for an average  daily flow of 18 MOD.  However,  the
 existing tertiary filters can only treat up to 12 MGD, which is sligntly less than the current
 annual average flow rate of 12.8 MGD.  After preliminary and primary treatment,
 wastewater flows into four activated sludge basins, each with two passes and two baffle
 walls at the upstream and downstream ends. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) of the
 activated sludge basins is 6.3 hours at the design average flow rate of 18 MGD, and it is
 9.4 hours at the current annual average flow rate of 12 MGD.  Fine bubble membrane
 diffusers are used in the activated sludge basins to aerate the mixed liquor.  The activated
 sludge basis are followed  by four 95 foot diameter secondary clarifiers. Three  of the
 secondary clarifiers have a side water depth of 12 feet, and the fourth clarifier has a side
 water depth of 16 feet.

 In the current operating mode, both effluent from the primary clarifiers and the return
 activated sludge are  fed into the first pass of the activated sludge basins. High chemical
 doses are used in the primary clarifiers to  increase BOD and phosphorus removal. The
 two  passes of  the  activated  sludge basins are operated  under  aerobic condition to
 accomplish BOD removal and nitrification.  However, nitrification has sometimes been
 inconsistent in the past.  The facility is currently  conducting a study to determine the
 cause for the occasional loss of nitrification. For the most part, the facility nitrifies year
 round.  Mathematical analysis of the process shows that the facility can nitrify year round,
 unless nitrification is inhibited due to toxicity.

 To accomplish  denitrification it  is recommended  that the activated sludge basins  be
 operated in the modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) mode. All of the primary effluent and
 the RAS would be fed into the first zone of each basin, which would be an anoxic zone
 occupying 15% of the total basin volume.   It is predicted that this would result in an
 effluent TN concentration of 14 mg/L or less. A second anoxic zone would decrease the
 TN concentration down to less than 8 mg/L year round.  At design flow, the nitrification
 and denitrification capacity of the facility will be limited by the secondary clarifiers
 because of the high surface overflow rates and high solids loading rates.  Additional
 secondary clarifiers will be required to maintain adequate treatment at  design capacity.
 However, additional  secondary clarifiers are not required to accomplish an effluent total
 nitrogen concentration of less than 8.0 mg/L at the current annual average flow rate. The
 modifications recommended  will  result  in reducing the  effluent total nitrogen by
 approximately 50% from the current level.

 Capital  cost for implementing interim nitrogen and phosphorus removal  modifications is
 $490,000, and it is a planning level estimate with a  20% contingency. The estimated 20
 year decrease in maintenance and operation cost  is $124,000.  The overall cost  for
 implementing nitrogen removal includes the cost of achieving denitrification only, and it
 is $0.063 -per pound of nitrogen removed.
Appendix II                                                                      63

-------
            LEESBURG WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY

 The WWTP of the Town of Leesburg is an in-series combination trickling filter-activated
 sludge facility with intermediate clarifiers. It currently is rated for an average daily flow
 of 4.85 MOD, and the facility discharges into the freshwater Potomac River. The plant
 has a discharge permit that regulates the ammonium-N and TKN concentrations in the
 final effluent. The monthly average ammonium-N concentration is required to be 3.0
 mg/L or less between May and October, and  the TKN concentration is required to be 6.0
 mg/L or less for the same period.  A review of the plant operating data from September
 1995 to August 1996 showed that the facility received a current annual average flow of
 2.86 MOD, and that the current monthly average BOD and TKN concentrations ranged
 from 124 to 247 mg/L and 15.3 to 30.7 mg/L, respectively.

 Preliminary treatment facilities at the Leesburg WWTP include mechanical screens, raw
 sewage pumps and grit chambers. Flow then  goes to three circular primary clarifiers with
 SORs of 572 gpd/ft2 at the design average flow of 4.85 MOD.  The secondary treatment
 process consists of four trickling filters and three circular intermediate clarifiers, followed
 by an AS system and two rectangular final clarifiers.  The trickling filters are also known
 as roughing filters, two of which have  plastic media in their entire filter depth of 4.0 ft
 whereas the other two filters  have 1.0 ft of plastic media on top of 3.0 ft of rock media.
 Currently, the filters are removing 70 to 85 % of the BOD present in the primary effluent,
 and partially nitrifying at the current average flow. The intermediate clarifiers have SORs
 of 572 gpd/ft2 at the design average flow. The clarifier effluent is pumped to two single
 pass AS basins,  with a  HRTs of 4.7 hours  at the design  average flow. They  have  a
 tapered aeration system with  ceramic diffusers. The SORs of the final clarifiers are 379
 gpd/ft2 at the design average flow.  The RAS flow rate from clarifier underflow varies
 between 60 and  150%.  P removal is  achieved by ferric chloride addition to the final
 clarifier influent.   Tertiary treatment consists of mainly two automatic backwashing
 gravity sand filters.  Filtered  effluent is pumped to an outfall structure consisting of two
 cascade aerators, and flows by gravity to the Potomac River. Disinfection is achieved by
 chlorinating the final clarifier effluent.  Sodium bisulfite is fed prior to discharge for
 dechlorination.

 The  existing roughing filters remove  most  of the  BOD and insufficient amounts of
 organic carbon  are  left  available  for  efficient  denitrification.    The  Following
 modifications are recommended for implementation of BNR at the Leesburg WPCF:

 1. Level I - Effluent TN concentration of 9 to 12 mg/L in summer; 16 to 18 mg/L in
   winter.  No additional tanks will be constructed, and the modifications will be limited
   to changes within the existing AS system, and roughing filters will be kept in service:
   An anoxic zone shall be created at the influent end of each of the two AS basins and a
   portion of the primary effluent shall be bypassed to the anoxic zones. Each anoxic
   zone shall occupy approximately 30% of the AS volume, with a HRT of 1.86 hours.
   The nitrate recycle pumping system shall  be capable of pumping 50 to 150 % of the
Appendix II                                                                    64

-------
     primary effluent.  Bypassing 50% of the  flow around the filters will decrease the
     loading on the filters, which would enable  them to partially or completely  nitrify
     during the wanner months. The anticipated range of effluent TN level is 9 12 mg/L,
     May through October.  During the colder months, TN may range as high as 16 to 18
     mg/L.

 2.  a) Level 2 - Year round effluent TN concentrations of about 8 mg/L, and 6 to 8 mg/L
    from April  to  October.   Requires modifications  of the existing AS system and
     replacement of two of the roughing filters with new AS basins: The remaining two
     filters would treat  up to  1.0 MOD under average conditions, and would be able to
     nitrify year round.  The total HRT of the AS  system would increase from 4.65 hours
     to 9.3 hours.  A MLSS concentration of 3000 to 3500 mg/L is anticipated in four
     parallel operating AS basins.  Each basin will have an anoxic zone (30%)  at the
     influent end.  Submersible mixers are needed to keep mixed liquor in suspension.  A
     nitrate  recycle pumping system capable of pumping 100 to  300 %  of the flow is
     required.  P removal will be achieved with chemical addition.

 3.   b) Level 2 - Nitrogen removal with BPR: A2/O process is recommended.  Two  of the
    existing filters will be demolished and two additional AS basins constructed. A total
    HRT of the AS basins will be 9.3 hours. Anaerobic and anoxic zones would occupy
    approximately  15%  and  30% of  the basin  volume,  respectively.   All  other
    modifications and nitrogen removal capacity would be similar to Alternative 2. The
    effluent P  level would range from 1.0 to 2.0 mg/L on a monthly average basis.

 Capital costs  of the three  alternatives can  be  listed as $290,000; $2,770,000; and
 $2,980,000 in the order presented above. The calculations for the estimated changes in
 the  annual O&M costs  showed that Alternative  1  results in an increase of $1,400;
 whereas Alternatives 2 and 3 result in reductions of $1,000 and $38,900.  The total cost
 of additional N removal  are $0.13; $0.73; and $0.68 per Ib of N removed for  the three
 alternatives.
Appendix II                                                                     65

-------
   LOWER POTOMAC POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT, FAIRFAX COUNTY

 The Lower Potomac Wastewater Treatment Plant, originally rated for an average daily
 flow of 54 MOD, is currently being upgraded to a design flow rate of 67 MOD with
 biological nitrogen removal.  The current  annual average flow rate is approximately 45
 MOD.  The average BOD, TSS, TN and  TP concentrations reaching the plant are 250
 mg/L, 200 mg/L, 33  mg/L and 6.5 mg/L, respectively. The corresponding current average
 effluent concentrations are 4 mgBOD/L, 6 mgTSS/L, 12.5 mgNH3-N/L, 2.0 mgNO3-N/L,
 15 mgTN/L, and 0.22 mgTP/L.

 The original treatment system consists of preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary
 treatment processes.  The secondary treatment process consists of six parallel step-feed
 design activated sludge basins, with three passes in each basin.  The basins  are equipped
 with medium bubble diffusers (Pearlcomb®) manufactured by FMC Corporation to aerate
 the  mixed  liquor.   The hydraulic  retention  time  of the activated sludge  basins is
 approximately five hours at the design average flow of 54 MOD.  Four of the existing
 eight clarifiers which were built as part of the most recent upgrade,  have a diameter of
 145  feet and side water depth of 16 feet. The four older clarifiers have a diameter of 120
 feet  and side water depth of 10.5 feet.  The activated sludge basins were operated at the
 time of the evaluation by feeding all of the primary effluent at the beginning of the third
 pass, and by feeding the return activated sludge into the first pass.  Therefore, the first
 two  passes in each basin were used to reaerate the return sludge and the third pass was
 used as a contact stabilization basin for primary effluent. The purpose was to reduce the
 suspended solids loading to the clarifiers, because they were considered to be the primary
 treatment limitation.  Because of  the short  hydraulic retention  time  and clarifier
 limitations, the facility was unable to nitrify in the current mode of operation when the
 mixed liquor temperature was slightly below 20 °C.

 After dewatering,  the sludge is incenerated onsite in a multiple hearth furnace.   It is
 known that the incinerator stack scrubber water contains cyanide, and is recycled back to
 the headworks.  It is possible this inhibits the nitrification rate.

 The current upgrade  is aimed primarily at increasing the plant capacity and resolving the
 secondary clarifier problems, but will include provisions for biological nitrogen removal.
 The plant capacity is being increased to 67 MOD, and six new rectangular clarifiers with
 a SWD of 16 ft are being built to replace the four old shallow ones. The total aeration
 basin volume is being expanded by 14.7 MG with a SWD of 22 ft. Three aeration basins
 will  be  step-fed into six passes with alternating anoxic-aerobic zones.   The anoxic
 volume  will be 5.1 to 7.3  MG total, i.e. 1.7 to 2.43 MG per basin. Four new  blowers will
be installed for increasing the air capacity in deep aeration basins.  After the upgrade is
completed, currently  projected as January 10th, 2002, the plant is supposed to maintain an
effluent TN concentration of 8 mg/L and less year  round.   This would remove an
Appendix II                                                                      66

-------
additional 0.96 Mlbs of TN per year at the current average  flow of 45  MOD, and an
additional 1.43 Mlbs of TN per year at the design flow of 67 MOD.

The construction cost of the expansion and BNR upgrade is currently budgeted at $20.8
M. Assuming the total costs are necessary for BNR implementation, the cost per pound
of additional nitrogen removal would be approximately $0.50/lb.  In actuality, the flow
expansion costs should be deducted and the cost per pound should be further discounted
by the reductions in O&M costs that are likely to be realized by the implementation of
denitrification.
Appendix II                                                                     67

-------
                            PURCELLVILLE WWTP
 The Purcellville Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in Loudoun County, Virginia, and
 it discharges into a small unnamed tributary of the north fork of Goose Creek which
 eventually flows into the Potomac River. The existing plant is going to be abandoned
 when the new plant under construction is completed, presumably by the  end of the year
 2001. the main reason for the construction of the new plant at a different location was
 that the existing plant is in the flood plain.  Also, the new plant will double the capacity
 from 0.5  MOD to 1.0 MOD.  The  current average flow rate reaching the plant is 0.31
 MOD.

 The existing plant is  an -tpgrade of a trickling filter (TF) plant,  and  it operates an
 activated  sludge system a ^ a trickling filter process in series for secondary treatment,
 with the TF serving as a polishing step.  The new plant is going to be a  step feed MLE
 system with 3-pass aeration basins.  The activated sludge process will consist of a three-
 stage anoxic zone, and the last stage of it designed to be a swing  zone which can be
 operated as either an aerobic or an anoxic zone.  The preliminary and primary treatment
 units preceding the secondary treatment basins will consist of a mechanical bar screen,
 grit and grease removal unit and primary clarifiers. Chemical phosphorus removal will be
 achieved by addition of ferric chloride.  Flow from the equalization basin  downstream of
 the primary clarifier will be distributed between the activated sludge basins. The center
 feed secondary clarifiers have a side  water depth of 14 ft, and are designed with large floe
 zones for  secondary phosphorus precipitation.  Downstream  of the secondary clarifiers,
 will  be AquaRobics disk filters,  UV disinfection and cascade aeration prior  to final
 discharge. Sludge from  the primary clarifier and the waste activated sludge from the
 secondary clarifier will be sent to a  gravity thickener, and then to two aerobic digesters
 and a sludge holding tank prior to disposal.

 The projected cost of the new plant is between $5.1 M and $5.4 M without BNR,  and it is
 between $6.4 M and $6.7 M with BNR.  Thus, the cost of including BNR into the new
 plant will  be $1.3 M. The projected increase in nitrogen removal with the new plant is
 17,000 Ibs for the first year, and 720,000 pounds over the 20 year design life.  The
 estimated  cost per pound of additional nitrogen removed is $1.80/lb over the  20 year
 period.
Appendix II                                                                      68

-------
 Virginia Reports - Shenandoah Valley WWTPS

                        DUPONT WAYNESBORO WWTP

 The Du Pont Waynesboro nylon manufacturing plant, located in Waynesboro, Virginia,
 produces a  variety of synthetic fibers, and the manufacturing processes generate a
 wastewater that has a high nitrogen  content.   The  wastewater  originating  from  the
 manufacturing processes had an average flow rate of 341  gpm from January-July, 1997,
 and this flow is treated on site in an activated sludge  facility. The domestic wastewater
 generated within the facility is not mixed with the process wastes,  and is directly
 discharged to the sewerage system of the town.  Treated effluent  from the Du Pont
 WWTP is discharged to the nearby South River, a tributary of the South Fork of the
 Shenandoah River, and flows to the Potomac River. The existing discharge permit limits
 ammonium-N to a maximum of 0.801 mg/L between January 1st and May 31st, and to a
 maximum of 0.689 mg/L between June  1st and December 31st.

 Wastewater  from the Lycra,  Permasep, Nylon and DI  sumps of  the  manufacturing
 processes has an average temperature of 31°C, and first flows into an equalization blend
 tank. The nominal EQ hydraulic retention time (HRT) for an average flow of 253 gpm is
 8.2 days at maximum water level. The effluent maintains a temperature of 20°C even in
 cold month. Mixing is provided via the aeration system, which consists of blowers and
 Kenix mixers.  Here, backwash water from the anthracite coal filters which provide final
 treatment of the  effluent  discharge,  mixes with  the process  water.   Flow from a
 wastewater retention tank  also occasionally discharges to the blend tank.  The filter
 backwash  water provides  a source of microbial seed  for the  aerated  blend  tank.
 Consequently,  bacteria convert  the  organic nitrogen, present  primarily as  dimethyl
 acetamide (DMAc) and hexametylene diamine (HMD), to ammonia (ammonification).
 Bacterial activity  in  the equalization tank  also results in 30 % COD  and 33 % TN
 removals.  The  aeration feed tank is the next step before six 0.25 MG aeration  tanks and
 five clarifiers, i.e., the activated sludge process.  Currently, only three aeration  tanks and
 two clarifiers are being used, and only one clarifier is used at a time.  There  are plans to
 remove the two smaller of the  remaining  three clarifiers.   Nominal volume of each
 circular aeration tank is 0.25 MG, yielding an HRT of 1.55 days at an average flow of 341
 gpm. Mixing is provided via 4 ft Kenix static aerators, and 15 ft3/min per 1000 ft3 tank
 volume of air flow was used as mixing criteria. At average conditions, the F:M ratio was
 0.052 for the first half of 1997. Alkalinity adjustments are accomplished by adding lime.
 When only one  clarifier is used at average flow conditions (341  gpm), the SOR is 148
 gal/ft2/day.

 Secondary effluent from the clarifiers is passed  through a 10 MG polishing tank, also
 aerated  via Kenix mixers.  Currently, Du Pont is planning to remove this  tank as the
 effluent from the clarifiers is well nitrified and the large tank is no longer needed. Two
 parallel  2 ft deep anthracite coal filters follow the polishing tank before discharge. The
 filters are backwashed once daily, and the backwash water is sent back to the blend tank.
 Final effluent is  combined with the effluent from the consolidated sump, which receives
Appendix II                                                                     69

-------
 process waters from a chemical sump, acid recovery ditch, textile sewer and pumphouse
 sewer.  Storm water overflow is also combined at the final discharge point. Currently, the
 centrifuges are not in operation, and the sludge is settled periodically and land applied via
 spraying.

 The average BOD5 was 431 mg/L for the influent and 233 mg/L for the aeration feed
 effluent, indicating a 46 % reduction  between the two points.  TKN was not one of the
 measured parameters. Total nitrogen measurements were performed using an ANTEK
 7000V Nitrogen Analyzer, and ammonia and nitrate nitrogen were believed to be absent
 in the blend tank influent, indicating that the nitrogen was almost entirely in the organic
 nitrogen form.  The  average  concentration of nitrogen entering the AS process is 63
 mg/L, and the effluent data shows that excellent nitrification  is accomplished, and the
 effluent ammonia averaged only 0.09 mg/L during the period  of evaluation.  However,
 high levels of TN (46 mg/L) are discharged, and almost 100% of it is in the form of
 nitrates.

 Two alternatives were considered for improved nitrogen removal:

 1.  Sequencing aerated/nonaerated periods in the existing aeration tanks, accomplished
    by cycling the air on and off. The  tanks would continue to be used in parallel, and no
    structural modifications would be necessary.
 2.  Converting one of the aeration basins into an  anoxic tank  for denitrification, and
    keeping two tanks aerated for nitrification (Bardenpho Process). This alternative will
    require some piping work because  the existing piping does not allow the operation of
    the basins in series. Methanol addition in a post-anoxic tank would be required in all
    cases to achieve an effluent nitrate nitrogen level of 5 mg/L. If desired, methanol can
    be added at the coal filters, converting them to denitrification filters.  They would
    require methanol  addition equal in amount to that of  :e post-anoxic tank..  The
    alternatives for the methanol application point should be iield tested to determine the
    most suitable one.

 The results of the  cost calculations for each alternative are as follows:

 1.  If cyclic aeration is implemented manually by turning the aerators on and off, there
    would be no capital costs  and  it could result in an estimated 48% reduction in the
    amount of quicklime that has to be  added  for pH adjustment.  The estimated benefit to
    the company would be $0.11 per Ib additional N removed.
2.  If automated cyclic aeration is desired, a  DO control system and instrumentation can
    be installed for approximately $290,000,  and the cost per Ib of additional N removed
    would be $0.17.
3.  Capital c sts  for installing mixers in  the AS tanks for Alternative 1, in addition to
    installatb-  of an aeration control system  and a PLC, would  be $400,000, and the net
    decrease ID O&M would be $4,300.  The total cost per !b  of additional N  removed
    would be $0.33.
4.  Capital costs for Alternative 2 are for modifying the existing basins to operate as two
Appendix II                                                                      70

-------
parallel trains of two tanks in series operating in the MLE configuration. The sum is
$560,000.  Mixers, DO control and monitoring system, and a nitrate recycle pumping
system are the items that need to be installed. The net decrease in O&M costs for this
alternative is 51,600, with a total cost per Ib of additional N removed of $0.51.
The existing basins would be modified to operate as two parallel trains, each basin
consisting  of three tanks in series operating in the Bardenpho configuration.  The
capital cost  and the net increase in O&M costs  would be $630,000 and  $900,
respectively.  The total project cost per Ib of additional N removed would be $0.54.
                                                                          71

-------
                              FISHERSVILLE WWTP

  The Fishersville WWTP is an activated sludge plant that is currently rated for an average
  daily flow rate of 1.4 MOD.  It discharges into Christian Creek, which flows into Middle
  River, which is a tributary of the South Fork of the Shenandoah River. The discharge
  permit limits ammonium-N concentrations to a monthly average of 8.14 mg/L between
  June and December,  and to 10.6 mg/L between January and May. The current annual
  average  flow  rate  is 1.30 MOD, and  the  current annual average  BOD and TKN
  concentrations in the plant influent are 135 mg/L and 17 mg/L, respectively.

  After screening and grit removal, wastewater is pumped  into  a common  channel that
  distributes the flow between two AS basins. The HRT of the basins at the design average
  flow of 2.0 MOD is 10.1 hours. The aeration system consists of medium bubble diffusers
  and three positive displacement blowers.  The AS basins are followed by four rectangular
  secondary clarifers with SORs. of 550 gpd/ft2 each at design average flow.  Secondary
  effluent is  chlorinated, dechlorinated and reaerated prior to discharge.  The facility has
  four aerobic digesters equipped  with coarse  bubble diffusers.   The sludge  is then
  dewatered and land applied.

  Flow distribution between the AS basins is accomplished in the influent channel.  Rags
  and debri accumulate around the stem of the weir gate and obstruct the influent flow and
  affect the  flow distribution  between the basins.   This  unequal  distribution  causes
  difficulty in  optimizing the process  for best  results. The effluent of the  Fishersville
  WWTP has an average TN value of 11.2 mg/L and an average TP value of 2.5 mg/L. The
 N and P removal can be enhanced by operating the AS system in the A2/0 configuration.
 Flexibility should be provided to operate the AS system in the MLE configuration for
 BNR and chemical P removal during the winter months. The following modifications are
 recommended:

 1.  Replace the existing weir gates with slide gates;
 2.  Create an anaerobic/anoxic switch zone  followed by an anoxic and an anoxic/aerobic
    switch zone at the influent end by turning off the air;
 3.  Construct three baffle walls in each AS basin;
 4.  Install submersible mixers in the anaerobic and anoxic zones;
 5.  Install a DO control system;
 6.  Install a nitrate recycle system;
 7.  Install a chemical P removal system.

 These modifications would enable the facility to meet a year round average of 8.0 mg/L
 for TN with both reactors in service.

 The  total  capital costs of implementing  BNR  is $980,000 with  an estimated annual
 reduction  in O&M costs of $3,800 without chemical P removal, and an increase in O&M
costs of 52,600 with chemical P removal. The estimated total cost is $2.20 and $2.90 per
 Ib of additional N removed annually, with and without chemical P removal, respectively.
Appendix II                                                                     72

-------
                              FRONT ROYAL WWTP

 The Front Royal WWTP is an activated sludge facility located in Warren County, VA,
 and it discharges to the Shenandoah River.  The  facility was upgraded to a 4.0 MOD
 treatment facility in 1992, and designed to handle a peak flow of 12.0 MGD.  Average
 and maximum influent ammonia concentrations for the period  from January  to  May
 usuallly  vary from  13.0 to 16.6, and from 7.0 to  13.9 mg/L for the period from  June
 through December, respectively.  Nitrogen and phosphorus removals are not required
 under the current permit.  At present the plant receives an average flow of 2.4 MGD.

 During the 14 month evaluation period (September 96 - October 96), the raw  influent
 BODs and TSS concentrations averaged 143 mg/L and 182 mg/L, respectively. The raw
 influent TKN, NH4-N and TP analyses were not performed during the evaluation period,
 so the BODs to TKN ratio was assumed to be 6.7:1.

 The first stage of the plant consists of equalization basins.  Following equalization, two
 aerated grit chambers are provided, followed by primary clarification. Each grit chamber
 is provided with diffused aeration. Following grit removal, the plant has two rectangular
 primary clarifiers. The average detention time and the surface overflow rate at 2.04 MGD
 are 1.3 hours  and 1,370 gpd/ft2, respectively. There are four aeration basins, and the
 average detention time is 6.9 hours at 1.02 MGD per basin.  Aeration is provided by two
 mechanical aerators in each basin. The plant has four final clarifiers. Two of the clarifiers
 have a diameter of 52 ft and the remaining two clarifiers have  a diameter of 63 ft.  The
 side water depth of all four final clarifers is 12.5 ft.  At 4.07 MGD, the surface overflow
 rate of all four final clarifiers is 503 gpd/ft2 each. The weir loading rate  of the  smaller
 clarifiers  are 4,260 gpd/ft2 at 4.07 MGD,  while the larger clarifiers operate at a weir
 loading rate of 6,770 gpd/ft2  at the same  flow  rate. Each clarifier includes a circular
 sludge collector  mechanism manufactured by Envirex. Aerobic digesters are used to
 digest both primary and secondary sludges  plus foam. Primary clarifier sludges directly
 enter the digesters. However, the sludge from the secondary clarifiers first enter a gravity
 thickener before being transferred to the digesters. "

 The aeration  basins  have adequate capacity  to  accomplish  both denitrification  and
 complete nitrification at the current flow rate of 2.4 MGD. However, at design flow (4.0
 MGD), two additional aeration basins will be needed to accomplish an effluent TN level
 of 8.0 mg/L year round. The minimum aeration basin HRT required at this facility is 9.0
 hours to meet the TN goal of this project.

 Calculations  for  the implementation of cyclic  aeration to achieve  nitrification and
 denitrification indicated  that total cycle periods  of 3.64,  3.35  and 3.06 hours with
 unaerated periods of approximately 46% would provide NOx concentrations of 5, 6 and 7
 mg/L,  respectively, in the final effluent without nitrate  recycle.  However, pilot studies
 should be run to determine exact cycle durations for final design.
Appendix II                                                                     73

-------
    The cap,tal cost for miplementing nitrogen removal at current flow is based on installing
    a PLC for cychcal aerauon and DO control, and sums up to $50,000.  The capUaHSf"8
    ,a*a.I,ng  narogen removal at design flow is based'on constructing  two 1°
    aeration basms tdentical  to the existing basins,  a primary  effluent  flow  dis
    suture, and a secondary clarifler influent flow distribution^ sums up™ $7

    2*5(5 T^^ ChangeS ? " & ° °OStS at C™' flow ^d « design flowe
    $2,500 and  $2,900,  respect.vely.   Cost savings due  to alkalinity recoveredfr™

   sUDmDu"Catt10" t  °l b\'ealiZed 3t  ^ fadHty *«»« » <"' ^ added ,"
   supplement alkahmty m the wastewater. The estimated total costs for implementing
   n^ogen removal are $0.02 and $1.16 per Ib of additional N removed, for cu^Tflow
   and des,gn flow cond,,,ons. All costs presented are for implementing denitrifSZ oT
   not for mmficauon, because the facility is already capable of year round nitrification
Appendix II
                                                                            74

-------
                            HARRISONBURG WWTP

 The Harrisonburg WWTP is an activated sludge plant designed for a flow rate of 16
 MOD, and at present the plant receives flows of 7.5 to 8.0 MOD, with wet weather flows
 of 24 to 25 MOD.  The plant is located off 1-81, south of the City of Harrisonburg.  At
 present, the plant receives 40% of its total load from industrial sources, which includes
 three large poultry processing facilities and one dairy.  The Plant has a draft permit which
 requires it to nitrify and meet effluent TKN concentrations of 9 mg/L (January to May)
 and 4 mg/L (June to December).

 The raw influent reaching the plant is  screened through two mechanical bar screens,
 degritted in two sets of grit chambers, and flows by gravity to four primary clarifiers, each
 of which has an integrated DAF section.  The clarifiers were designed with a SOR of 510
 gpd/ft2 at the design average flow.  In the recently completed upgrade,  the old primary
 clarifier flocculation basins were converted to anoxic/anaerobic selectors with a nominal
 HRT of 11.3 min at average flow.  The selector effluent is distributed between eight AS
 basins, with a nominal HRT of 10 hours. Aeration is provided with ceramic fine bubble
 diffusers.  There  are four secondary clarifiers, with SOR of 379 gpd/ft2 at average flow.
 The secondary  effluent is pumped to eight anthracite filters, each with a loading rate  of
 1.65 gpm/ft2 at  16 MOD. The effluent is chlorinated, dechlorinated and post aerated prior
 to discharge.

 The plant is operated at  aerobic MCRTs of 5 to 12 days.  Between June and December,
 complete nitrification is achieved except a few instances where ammonium-N exceeded 4
 mg/L between January and April.  Effluent nitrate concentrations average at 16 mg/L.

 In a pilot study being run  for the evaluation of BNR, 25% of one of the AS basins has
 been converted  to an anoxic zone by turning the air off without mixers. The only nitrate
 recycle was with the RAS operated at 75 %. The results showed that between November
 and December,  an average denitrification of 3 to 4 mg/L of NOx was achieved compared
 to a control basin without an anoxic zone.

 Analysis of the raw influent BOD shows an  average of 200 mg/L with a peak month
 value of 237 mg/L for  the period  between  September 1994 and June  1995.  Using  a
 computer model and assuming a 70% aerobic volume, an effluent TN of 8 mg/L between
 May and November and  10 mg/L for the rest of the year, it was found that the average
 month MLSS would be  2900 mg/L, and during summer months  one  of the AS basins
 could be taken off service. Thus, the analysis shows that the plant can achieve nitrogen
 removal without any additional basins or clarifiers.  Some features such as  step feed could
 be added to handle high  flows. RAS chlorination could be  used  to control SVIs when
 they are out of the upper boundary of the range of 60 to 125 mL/g.

 Essentially, most  of the  modifications for BNR are in-basin modifications with some
 improvements for  automated control.  Two dedicated anoxic zones should be constructed
 using baffles in  the AS basins, with one switch cell. The nitrate recycle pump should be
Appendix II                                                                   75

-------
     designed for a maximum recycle rate of 3 times the influx* n
     may  be included, with two  DO probe T ft iS'  Automated °O control
     overaeratio, ThcptohMwfB<^3                       -mgs  by preventing
    The capital costs of these modifications are calculi t« u  *? ^ A ^
    reduction of $570 in the O&M costs. £e ^Sj ^f Lv  'f Lr' 4?'
    reduction of 1 1 mg/L in the effluent ^ "54^ Ib N
Appendix II
                                                                           76

-------
                                 LURAY WWTP

 The WWTP for the Town of Luray is an oxidation ditch activated sludge system designed
 to treat a combined municipal-industrial wastewater with an average flow of 1.6 MOD
 and a peak flow of 2.2 MOD.  Average dry weather flow during 1997 was about 1.2
 MOD, while average flow during wet months was about 2.0 MOD.  Of this flow, between
 650,000 and 750,000 gpd is wastewater from the Wrangler textile plant located in Luray.
 The typical Wrangler wastewater strength is BOD5 640 mg/L, COD 1280 mg/L, TSS 115
 mg/L, NH3-N 0.6 mg/L, and pH 6.8.  However, the Wrangler wastewater contains very
 high non-biodegradable organic-N concentrations, i.e., 100 to 120 mg/L. Typical
 combined wastewater strength is BOD5 220 mg/L, COD 495 mg/L, TSS 125 mg/L, TKN
 50 mg/L, NHs-N 6.4, and pH 7.2. The combined wastewater is nitrogen deficient for
 activated sludge metabolism, and an available source of nitrogen has to be added to
 accomplish BOD removal.

 The Luray plant is required to meet monthly average effluent concentrations of 30 mg/L
 TSS and 30 mg/L BOD5, and weekly average effluent concentrations of 45 mg/L TSS and
 45 mg/L BOD5. In addition the minimum acceptable pH is 6.5, and the fecal coliforms
 should not exceed 200 per 100 mL. The facility had not effluent TN and TP requirements
 when this evaluation was performed,  but limitations of 8 mg/L TN year round, and 1.5
 mg/L TP year round.

 The treatment system consists of: dual 40 inch Rotamat Fine Screens and a bar screen
 bypass in the head works, dual oxidation ditches with 8 20 HP, 16 ft Magna rotor brush
 aerators per ditch, dual 50 ftdia. Spiraflo clarifiers with 8.5 ft. SWD and full surface
 skimming, dual 28 ft. dia. Hydro-Flow clarifiers with 9.75 ft. SWD, disinfection by UV,
 and cascade aeration. In addition, the plant has two stage dual thickeners for sludge
 processing, followed by aerobic digestion and belt filter press dewatering. The plant also
 is equipped with a septage pretreatment system,  which consists of aeration.  The
 dewatered solids go to the Page County landfill for final disposal.

 The plant effluent concentrations from June 3 - July 10, 1996  averaged 44 mg/L BOD5,
 167 mg/L COD, 128 mg/L TSS, and 39 mg/L TKN, but only 0.29 mg/L NH3-N. By
 contrast, effluent concentrations averaged 7.6 mg/L BOD5, 30 mg/L COD, 10.6 mg/L
 TSS, and 0.25 mg/L NH3-N during September, 1996.  February,  1997 averages were 10
 mg/L BOD5,40 mg/L COD,  20 mg/L TSS, and 0.22 mg/L NH3-N. A review of the
 operating data for  1996 and 1997 indicated that these values were fairly typical, although
 during dry periods the plant performed much better. TKN data was not available for
 September and February.

 The data show that the treatment processes work very well except when rainfall events
 occur. Then high infiltration and inflow results in very high flows through the treatment
 plant, and the washout of activated sludge solids  from the clarifiers.  The impacts of the
 TSS concentrations on the effluent concentrations of BOD and COD can be seen in the
data listed above.  Both parameters vary directly with the magnitude of the TSS
Appendix II                                                                   77

-------
 concentration.  In contrast, the effluent ammonia concentration is not affected by the high
 TSS concentrations because ammonia is soluble.  The data clearly show that the
 biological process is capable nf near complete nitrification under nearly all conditions,
 including high flows.  Howe .T, when the mixed liquor temperature dropped below 11° C
 during December, 1996, the effluent ammonia concentration increased to as much as 7
 mg/L, and averaged 5.8 mg/L over a seven day period. However, the average for the
 month was only 1.95 mg/L. Apparently the operating SRT was not high enough to
 prevent partial washout of the nitrifiers during the low temperature period.

 A special investigation of the soluble effluent concentrations from the Luray WWTP was
 performed from 6/3 - 7/9, 1996. During the period the activated sludge process nitrified
 completely, to an average of 0.018 mg/L NHa-N, the effluent oxidized nitrogen
 concentration was low (3.02 mg/L), and the soluble phosphorus concentration was
 typically below 2.0 mg/L. However, the soluble organic nitrogen was very high and
 averaged 42.2 mg/L. It was clear from the results that the biological process was
 effectively nitrifying and denitrifying all of the biologically available nitrogen, but a large
 quantity of non-biodegradable organic nitrogen was present in the waste water. The
 effluent wastewater also has a dark blue color from the dyes used by Wrangler in the
 production of stone washed jeans, and these dyes are the likely source of the non-
 biodegradable organic nitrogen.

 It was concluded from the investigation that the non-biodegradable organic nitrogen was
 not having an effect on the eutrophication of the receiving waters, and that any efforts to
 remove it would be very expensive. The most economical technically feasible treatment
 would involve the addition of activated carbon. Considering the unlikely environmental
 impact of the discharged nitrogen, it is recommended that no modifications be made to
 the Luray WWTP for purposes of nitrogen removal.  The operator could operate the
 aerobic digesters cyclic aeration to reduce the electricity costs, and this would reduce the
 nitrogen in the digesters, but the impact on the effluent nitrogen concentration would be
 small. No other efforts to improve nitrogen removal are recommended. However, it is
 recommended that efforts be made to reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration into the
 town sewers, and it is noted that such a project is ongoing at the present time (1999).
Appendix II                                                                     . 78

-------
                         THE MERCK AND CO., INC WWTP

   The Merck  WWTP is an activated sludge plant with a permitted flow of 1.2 MOD.
   Merck & Co., Inc.'s facility in Elkton,VA is a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant, and it
   historically has been  producing Amprolium, resulting  in  a  high COD  and nitrogen
   wastewater.  Recently, however, the production line was switched to CRIXIVAN, and the
   wastewater now has a higher COD strength, but is nitrogen deficient.  Consequently the
   activated sludge  WWTP was upgraded  to  treat the high COD load with addition  of
   ammonia to satisfy the nitrogen requirements.  Nitrogen remaining in the final effluent is
   discharged to the receiving water. Currently,  the average TN  in the final effluent after
   mixing with  cooling water is approximately 3.5 mg/L. Therefore, the facility does not
   have to implement any modifications to  the existing treatment plant,  as long as future
   changes in the raw water quality do not result in higher final effluent nitrogen levels.
   Hence, Merck  should  have a, contingency plan to modify  the existing system, when
   necessary.

   Current operational data shows that the raw influent contains 98 mg/L of TKN and 45
  mg/L of ammonium-N, after addition of ammonia.  BOD and COD values are 2,402 and
  5,077 mg/L, respectively, at an average flow of 0.906 MOD.  Projected flows and loads
  of raw influent for maximum CRDQVAN production indicate that influent concentrations
  will remain the same, but the influent flow rate will increase to 1.20 MOD, increasing the
  loads to the treatment plant.  As the industry is unsure  about the future nitrogen loads,
  BNR evaluation was performed at three different levels of N loading:
  1.  Current maximum month N load for maximum production.
  2.  Future N load of 2,400 Ib/day which is approximately twice the current maximum
     month load.
  3.  Future N loads of up to 3,500 Ib/day.

  Current treatment processes start with equalization and  neutralization (with phosphoric
  acid or magnesium hydroxide), and follow with two AS treatment trains.  Each train has a
  maximum of three basins used in series for AS operation.  The aeration system consists of
  coarse bubble diffusers in the  basins and four centrifugal  blowers. The effluent from the
 AS basins is'distributed between two clariflocculators, the overflow from which is sent to
 two trickling filters as a polishing step.  The underflow  from the  clariflocculators is
 recycled to the first AS basin  in each train.  Treated effluent from the trickling filters is
 distributed between two final clarifiers.  The final effluent is  then mixed with cooling
 water  and discharged into a receiving stream.

 WAS  is pumped to the  waste sludge storage  tank and dewatered using two belt  filter
 presses. The dewatered sludge can be dried, incinerated or both. Filtrate from the presses
 is fed to the trickling filters.

 At Level 1 N load, the plant does not require any modifications for nitrogen removal as
 the water is nitrogen deficient and ammonia is externally added.  Better monitoring of
 ammonia and nitrate levels in the treated effluent prior to mixing with cooling water is
Appendix II

-------
recommended to minimize addition of excess nitrogen to the process. As the MCRT
increases, the nitrogen requirement decreases due to a decrease in generated biomass.
Therefore, Merck may choose to operate with three basins :  each train and at high
MCRTs.

At Level 2 N loads, a Bardenpho system is recommended to produce a final effluent TN
concentration of 8 mg/L. The required modifications consist of creating an anoxic zone
at the influent and effluent ends of each AS basin train and recycling nitrified mixed
liquor from the aerobic zone effluent to the anoxic zone at the influent  end.   TN
concentrations lower than 8 mg/L could be achieved by endogenous denitrification in the
second anoxic zone.  Furthermore, a 3 mg/L effluent TN level could be achieved by the
addition of biodegradable COD to the second anoxic zone. Each of the two anoxic zones
would occupy 16 %  of the train volume.  Submersible mixers would be installed in the
unaerated zones to prevent settling of mixed liquor. A reaeration zone following the
second anoxic zone would strip the nitrogen gas.

For Level 3 N loads, in addition to recommended modifications for Level 2 N loads, a
feed system for a supplemental carbon source  such as  methanol should be provided.
Implementation of denitrification at levels 2 and 3 would lower the aeration requirements
because the denitrification process consumes COD under anoxic conditions.

There is no capital cost for treating the Level 1 nitrogen load. Capital cost for the Level 2
nitrogen load is for  converting the system to a Bardenpho process, and it sums up to
$840,000.  For  Level 3, the modifications include a methanol feed system and an
additional blower in addition to the requirements for Level 2 modifications.  It sums up to
$1,440,000. The estimated changes in annual O&M costs for the Levels 1, 2, and 3 are
$0, $37,000 reduction and $113,000 increase, respectively. If the Bardenpho  process is
implemented for  Level 3 with larger anoxic zones, methanol feed could be avoided.
However,  additional  tank volume wiould be necessary.  The total costs for  additional
nitrogen removal for this plant is $0, as currently no modifications are required.
Appendix II                                                                     80

-------
                       MIDDLE RIVER/VERONA WWTPS

 The Middle River WWTP is an oxidation ditch activated sludge facility currently rated
 for an average daily flow rate of 4.5 MOD, and it discharges into the Middle River which
 is a tributary of the South Fork of the Shenandoah River.  The Augusta County Sanitary
 Authority owns and operates the plant, and also owns and operates the much smaller
 Verona RBC WWTP which is located adjacent to the Middle River WWTP, and their
 final effluents are combined prior to discharge. The discharge permit limits ammonium-
 N concentrations to a monthly average of 3.1 mg/L between June and October, and to 3.8
 mg/L between November and May. The current annual average flow rate to the plant is
 3.65 MOD.  The annual average BOD and TKN concentrations in the plant influent are
 130 mg/L and 22 mg/L, respectively.

 After preliminary treatment, the wastewater is pumped into two oxidation ditches each of
 which has an HRT of 1.2 days at  the design average flow of 4.5  MOD.  Two brush
 aerators are used in each ditch. The brush aerators in each one of the inner, middle and
 outer channel of the ditches  are constructed with a common shaft.  Thus, the operator
 does not have the flexibility to control the  DO level in the ditches to optimize nitrogen
 removal. Mixed liquor than flows into two  circular clarifiers with an overall SOR of 448
 gpd/ft2 at design flow rate.  The secondary effluent is disinfected  using UV light and
 reaerated using cascade aeration before discharge  into Middle River.   The WAS is
 aerobically digested in the  inside channel of the oxidation ditches, then dewatered and
 land applied.

 The effluent monitoring data from August  1996 to April 1997 showed  that the facility
 currently accomplishes nitrogen removal to  levels below 8.0 mg/L even after combining
 with the effluent from the Verona WWTP.  The combined  effluent of the Middle River
 and Verona WWTPs had an average TN value of 5.9 mg/L and  an average TP value of
 1.3 mg/L. The performance of the plant for BNR can be further improved by installing a
 DO control system consisting of a PLC and two DO probes in each ditch, to optimize the
 DO levels in  the ditches for  cyclic aeration.  It is also recommended that the nitrified
 effluent from the Verona WWTP be combined with the raw influent to the Middle River
 WWTP so that the nitrates it contains are denitrified in the Middle River WWTP.  These
 modifications would enable the plant to achieve an average  effluent TN of 3.5 to 4.5
 mg/L year round. A chemical P removal system is not necessary as the current effluent
 level is less than 2.0 mg/L.

 The total capital costs of implementing controlled  BNR would be $150,000, with a
 negligible estimated annual change in O&M  costs. The estimated total cost of additional
 N removed is $0.30 per Ib.
Appendix II

-------
                       OPEQUON WRF, CITY OF WINCHESTER
 The Opequon WRP is an activated  j  ,

 of 5 MOD, and the plant was rer      '
 MOD. The facility discharges into
 and on to the Chesapeake Bay via
 limits the effluent monthly  ave^e
February  1st to April 30th, and to 044
average daily flow rate for 1995  was 5

10. 20 MOD.  T, 1995 average daily Bc

                                             p
                                               ^
                                                             *? " aVera8e flow
                                                             dfrcflow rate <*
                                                             ° ^ Shenand^ River

                                                                   diSCh^e P«nit

                                                                 O °'9 mg/L  fr°m
                                                                  31sL  ^ CUITen<
 HRT of 10.9 hours at the design ave age flow
 bubble diffusers.  Mixed liquor flowTlntn'
 with SOR, of 550 gpd/ft2 a;"igs   °
 discharge end of the RAS line to coc
flows into gravity filters for addition
using chlorine prior to discharge.      SUSpended
                                                        SORS °f
                                                     ™& ^ ^° AS basins
                                                         lapered aeration
                                                               r condary
                                                              VaJveS « "^ at
                                                         rfes'  Secondary effluent
                                                    removal, and is then disinfected
                                                      » « -unts of RAS

   feeding in the AS basins can be impTemented to H         -   JUSted manUaIly- SteP
   The facility  has  m excessive ^^^^^^^^M^

   denitrification, the air demand will decreased ' ?h     ^^  ^ lmPlementation  of
   then disrupt the denitrification process               "^ IeVek Ove^ration may
                                                         could  be  created  at  the

  three anoxic zones RAS however^oulTh/f ^ ^^ W°Uld be fed to ^ of the
  prevent dilution of RAS.' Cons^^ %£*£*! JtT8 ^ ^ ^ tO

  intermediate in the second, and fully dilmed  in ^,T,   ^^ m ^ first P358'
  permits a higher MCRT wimout o^oStafth? f %        US' ^ ^ °peration
  RAS and those produced  fo °dJ ^c ^      "? f'5-  Although *e nitrates in the

  denitrified,  most of the nitrates p^Sd LS^W  ^l-"11 "^ ^^ ^  be
  the effluent.                 P       m the third aeroblc Pass will be discharged in



 Four different levels of modifications are recommended for different BNR goals:
                                                                   of 10 to 15
first 60 ft of eac.

DO levels m the aerobic zones
                                                              ««
Appendix II
                                                                          82

-------
     2.  Level 2 - Modifications that can achieve 8 to 10 mg/L TN without BPR:  A dedicated
        anox,c zone shall be created m the first 60 ft of each pass by installing baffle walls
                       miXerS'     C°ncentrations in the aerobic zones should be Hmite?to
        Level 3 -Modifications that can achieve effluent  TN concentrations of less than 8
        mg/L without BPR: In addition to the modifications of Level 2, a submersTbTe nlatf
        recycle pump would be installed in the downstream  end of the third pass aeroWc zone
       £ol™  of denitrification could be achieved  by installing baffles after  1 ^ee
    4.  Level 4 - Modifications that can achieve effluent TN concentrations of less than 8
       mg/L with BPR to less than 1 mg/L: In addition to the modifications of Level 3, an
       anaerobic zone with an HRT of 1.5 hours is recommended at the beginning of the first
       pass  for BPR.  Greater control of denitrification could be  achieved  by installing
       baffles after all three anoxic zones.

   Costs for level  1  were not calculated as it only includes  operational modifications and
   diffuser relocations. The capital costs for the Levels 2, 3 and 4 are $370,000; $510,000;
   and $570,000 respectively. The estimated annual increase are in O&M costs for the three
   Levels are $6000; $7000;  and $7000.  The estimated total  costs of additional N removal
   for Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 are then $0; $ 0.13; $0.17; and $0.16, respectively.
Appendix II

-------
                            PARKINS MILL WWTP

 The Parkins Mill wastewater treatment plant is an oxidation ditch facility that consists of
 four ditches, and is located in Frederick County, VA, where it discharges to Opequon
 Creek.  The design average flow rate is 2.0 MOD and peak flow (one d<:y instantaneous)
 is 5.0 MOD. However, current average flow is approximately 1.09 MOD.   The current
 discharge permit requires that  the  average  ammonium-N concentration be  1.7 mg/L
 between December  1st and April 31st, and 1.5 mg/L from May 1st through November
 31st. There are no limitations on TN levels.

 Available plant operating data, influent wastewater characteristics, and performance data
 for the  12-month period from November  1996  to October 1997 were examined.
 Measurement of effluent NC^-N was  not among the routine daily analyses.  For this
 reason NOa-N was monitored between 12/29/97 and 1/9/98 at times corresponding to
 three different operational changes.  Average flow for the above mentioned  12-month
 period was 0.98 MOD, with a minimum and a maximum monthly average of 0.82 and
 1.60 MOD, respectively.  The following ratios were assumed to be valid for the Parkins
 Mill WWTP to enable nitrogen balance analysis: CBOD to TKN of 5.5, CBOD to TP of
 30, and TKN to NH,-N of 1.5.

 Preliminary treatment consists of mechanical screens and a vortex grit chamber.  Flow
 from the grit chamber is measured via a Parshall flume and sent to the wet well of the
 influent pump station. The influent pump station (3 pumps) sends the wastewater to the
 primary splitter  from where it is distributed to four oxidation ditches.  Flow is split
 between the four oxidation ditches, with 12.5 % going to each  of ditches 1 and 2, and
 37.5 % to each of ditches 3 and 4. Oxidation ditches 1 and 2 are the original units at the
 plant, and they are 56 % smaller than oxidation ditches 3 and 4.  The hydraulic retention
 time (HRT) for secondary treatment at average flow conditions is 26.2 hours at the design
 average flow of 2.0 MOD. Return activated sludge (RAS) varies between 80 and 100 %
 of the influent flow.  Currently, the aerators in all ditches are turned off for a 2 to 3 hour
 period every night. The plant has four clarifiers, two of which (Cl and C2) are used for
 waste sludge thickening.  The two larger and newer clarifiers (C3  and C4) are used for
 secondary clarification. It is likely that additional clarification will be needed as flows
 approach 4.0 MOD.  An additional 70 ft. diameter clarifier would provide an overflow
 rate of 346 gpd/ft2,  and a solids loading rate of 17.4 Ibs/d/ft2. Because the site is area
 limited, a better choice may be to use all four clarifiers for clarification and go to either a
 centrifuge or a belt filter for initial sludge thickening. Clarifier effluent is filtered by two
 sand filters that are operated continuously and backwashed one compartment at a time. A
 chlorine residual of 0.3 ppm is maintained on the filters, and because this residual is not
 sufficient for proper disinfection, the filtered water is passed through a UV disinfection
 step. The final effluent is further oxygenated by cascade aeration before being discharged
to Opequon Creek.

Sludges wasted from clarifiers 3 and 4 and thickened in clarifiers 1  and 2 are pumped  to
the two aerobic digesters.  They are operated with downcomer headers and coarse bubble
Appendix II                                                                    84

-------
 diffusers.  A belt filter press follows the digesters for further thickening, and it dewaters
 the waste sludge up to a dry solids content of approximately 12 %.  A high molecular
 weight cationic polymer  is  used as the flocculant  aid.   Thickened  sludge is  then
 transferred to a landfill via trucks.
        measurements on  24-hour composite samples  of plant effluent taken between
 12/29/97 and 1/9/98 showed NO3-N levels from 0.0 to 13.2 mg/L in the final effluent,
 with an average of 6.6 mg/L for 1 0 samples. Effluent samples from ditch 1 taken on the
 same days, but collected 1 5 minutes after the daily 2-hour shutdown, showed significant
 denitrification, i.e., zero NOs-N values for 6 out of 10 days, with one high value of 17.6
 mg/L, and  an average value of 3.5 mg/L.  However, denitrification was not occurring
 steadily and in a predictable way. This was probably because of the varying location of
 the aerobic and probable anoxic zones  in the ditches, depending on the location of the
 resting brush aerator. In other words, the anoxic and aerobic zones are not fixed and do
 not ensure consistent nitrification and denitrification.

 The first alternative  recommended for BNR implementation is air-on/air-off cycling with
 short air-off periods and one brush operating at a slow pace to maintain forward flow in
 each ditch.   The operators  should determine the optimum air-on and air-off periods for
 combined  nitrification  and denitrification  by experimenting  with the  system  while
 monitoring the effluent nitrate and ammonia concentrations.

 A second alternative for BNR implementation is to modify the ditches and operate them
 in the Bio-Denitro configuration, a process described by Randall et al, (1992). Basically,
 the sequence is to alternatively operate one of the paired ditches as an anoxic reactor and
 the other as an aerobic reactor, with the influent being introduced into the anoxic ditch.
 During the remaining cycle time, both ditches  are operated as aerobic reactors.  Effluent
 should be discharged from  the aerobic ditch at all  times to obtain the best performance.
 Because the ditches  have a common wall, piping  work for this modification should be
 minor.

 The capital  costs for Alternative 1 include installation of an aeration control system with
 PLC based instrumentation and DO probes for cycling aerators on and off, and they sum
 up  to $97,000.  Alternative 2  requires the modifications to be  able to feed  one anoxic
 ditch at a time, cycling of aerators in each ditch to  provide completely anoxic or aerobic
 conditions in each one,  and variable effluent withdrawal always from the aerobic  ditch.
 Two  submersible mixers  are required  in  each  ditch  to provide mixing  and  water
 movement during anoxic periods.  The capital costs  sum up to $680,000.

 The estimated annual reductions in O&M costs for  Alternatives  1 and 2 are $3 1 ,400 and
 $25,800, respectively. The  estimated total costs for implementing BNR with Alternative
 1 shows savings of $0.79 per Ib additional N removed, whereas with Alternative 2 the
cost would be $0.96 per Ib additional N removed.
Appendix II                                                                      85

-------
                         ROCCO FARM FOODS WWTP

 Rocco Farm Foods Inc. in Edinburg, VA is a poultry-processing industry, and the WWTP
 is currently rated for an average flow rate of 1.2 MGD.  The WWTP is a Schreiber
 Process activated sludge plant that discharges to Stoney Creek, which is a tributary of the
 North Fork of the Shenandoah River.  The current discharge permit limits ammonium-N
 concentrations in the final  effluent to 6.84 mg/L January through May, and to 1.95 mg/L
 June through December. The effluent TKN is limited to 50 mg/L and 4.15 mg/L for the
 same periods of the year, respectively.

 Currently, the wastewater contains 34.6 mg/L ammonia, 140 mg/L TKN and 140 mg/L
 TN after preliminary treatment by dissolved air flotation (DAF), and the final effluent
 concentrations are 0.3 mg/L ammonia, 2.2 mg/L TKN, 125.5 mg/L NOx and 128 mg/L
 TN.  Phosphate phosphorus  is reduced from  35 mg/L to 15.7 mg/L, as  P,  without
 chemical addition.

 The pretreatment facilities at the Rocco WWTP include screening, flow equalization, and
 grease removal using DAF. Process wastewater then flows into a pumping station to
 combine with the plant storm water and domestic wastewater.  Wastewater is pumped to
 an anaerobic lagoon, and most of the lagoon effluent is sent to an aerobic "Schreiber
 Process" AS basin. The remainder of the flow is sent to an equalization lagoon and then
 sent to the AS basin.  The Schreiber basin has an HRT of 24 hours at the design flow rate
 of 1.2 MGD.  The Schreiber basin  is equipped with  a DO probe to monitor DO levels
 continuously.  Aeration is accomplished by stationary fine bubble diffusers. The mixed
 liquor flows into a circular secondary clarifier with an SOR of 211  gpd/ft2 at the design
 flow. The underflow from  the clarifiers goes to the RAS wet well, from where the WAS
 flow is also withdrawn.  Part of the WAS is sent back to the anaerobic lagoon, with the
 rest sent to dewatering by filter press.  The dewatered waste sludge is land applied.  The
 secondary effluent flows into a chlorine contact  tank  for disinfection and subsequent
 dechlorination using sulfur  dioxide.

 The anaerobic lagoons remove 80 to 90 % of BOD present in the raw wastewater, but no
 significant nitrogen removal occurs.  The BOD to TKN ratio in the influent to the AS
 basin is approximately 1.5,  which is not adequate to accomplish denitrification to meet an
 effluent limit of 8 mg/L.  Five alternatives were considered for implementation of BNR:

 1.  Construct a dedicated anoxic zone outside the existing AS reactor and operate the
   resulting total AS process in the MLE configuration: A new pumping station would
   be required to recycle the nitrified effluent from the aerated AS basin to the unaerated,
   anoxic basin.  Submersible mixers would be installed in the anoxic tank to prevent
   settling of the mixed liquor. Since the anaerobic lagoon effluent has limited BOD, the
   amount of denitrification that can be achieved is also limited. The anticipated effluent
   TN would be 20 mg/L at a nitrate recycle flow rate of 5.8 MGD (4.8 Q).
Appendix II                                                                    86

-------
 2.  Construct a dedicated anoxic zone inside the existing AS reactor and operate the
     resulting AS process in the MLE configuration:  A concentric anoxic zone could be
     constructed inside the Schreiber reactor.   Because most of the BOD is removed
     upstream  in  the  anaerobic lagoon,  the  existing  Schreiber  reactor  should  have
     sufficient  volume for the anoxic-aerobic  configuration.   The  piping  should be
     modified to feed  the reactor from the  center (i.e. the anoxic zone).  Submersible
     mixers .would not be necessary  in the anoxic zone as the traveling bridge can be
     modified to have  paddles for mixing. The anticipated effluent TN is 20 mg/L at a
     nitrate recycle flow rate of 5.8 MOD because of the limited BOD available after the
     anaerobic lagoon.   One disadvantage of this alternative is that the Schreiber reactor
     would have to be taken out of service for the  construction of the anoxic zone.
     Nitrification and denitrification can be accomplished in the existing reactor by some
     operational changes.   These changes in the aeration patterns can be  accurately
     determined only by experimenting with the Schreiber Process.

 3.  Construct a dedicated anoxic zone upstream of the existing AS reactor and construct
     a pumping station to  divert a portion of the anaerobic lagoon influent to the anoxic
     zone  to  enhance  denitrification: An in-line  macerator would  be installed  on the
     suction piping of the  anaerobic lagoon influent pumps to prevent large objects from
     being transferred to the anoxic tank. By bypassing approximately 0.05 MOD  around
     the lagoon, the denitrification in the anoxic zone would be benefited. This alternative
     will require a  nitrate recycle  rate  of 11.5  MOD  to  achieve an  effluent  TN
     concentration of 12 mg/L. Such a high recycle would also  recycle excessive amounts
     of DO from the aerobic zone and would significantly reduce denitrification capacity.

 4.   Construct an anoxic tank upstream of the AS basin, a nitrate recycle pumping system,
    and a denitrification filter downstream of the secondary  clarifier for additional N
    removal  with  methanol addition:  In  addition to  the  modifications presented  in
    Alternative 1, a denitrification filter and a new pumping station would be  constructed.
    Because the flow to the filter would be BOD deficient, a methanol feed  system also
    would be necessary. The anticipated effluent TN is 3.0 mg/L.

 5.  Construct an additional Schreiber reactor to operate the AS process  with cyclic
    aeration  controlled by the DO probe  system:  The Schreiber Process is  designed to
    remove  nitrogen by  simultaneous nitrification  and denitrification  accomplished
    through DO control.  However, because  the ammonia  load is so high, the existing
    reactor cannot optimally achieve  nitrogen removal.  Therefore, a second reactor is
    needed. This alternative can produce an effluent with 12 mg/L of TN.

The capital costs of the alternatives are $2,020,000; $610,000; $2,200,000; $4,480,000;
and $1,740,000 for the  Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The calculations of the
estimated  annual changes  in the O&M costs showed that each  one of the Alternatives 1
through 5  will bring  a reduction  in O&M costs:   $148,200; $153,700;  $162,200;
$106,800; and $168,100, respectively.   The calculations  of estimated total costs of
additional nitrogen removal indicated that Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 will bring  an increase
Appendix II                                                                       S7

-------
 in the costs of $0.038; $0.038; and $0.338, respectively; whereas Alternatives 2 and 5
 results in reductions of $0.137 and $0.021 per Ib of additional N removed, respectively.
Appendix II                                                                        88

-------
                               STRASBURG WWTP

 The Strasburg WWTP is an oxidation ditch activated sludge facility currently rated for an
 average  flow of 0.975 MOD, and the facility discharges  to  the  North Fork of the
 Shenandoah River.  The plant has a maximum ammonium-N permit limit of 10.4 mg/L
 between January and May, and 4.9 mg/L between June and December.  Current annual
 average  effluent  flow  from the facility is 0.6 MOD.    The facility is currently
 accomplishing complete nitrification as the effluent ammonia concentration is less than 1
 mg/L year round.

 Preliminary treatment  facilities include a mechanical screen  installed  in  an influent
 channel in the headworks building. After screening, the wastewater flows into a manhole
 from which the flow is diverted to two oxidation ditches, which are  operated in parallel
 with an HRT of 24.2 hours  at the design average flow of 0.975 MOD.  Aeration is
 accomplished via brush aerators.  Mixed liquor from the ditches is distributed between
 two secondary clarifiers. The  SOR of the clarifiers is 388 gpd/ft2 at the design flow.  The
 RAS and WAS flow rates are adjusted with  a PLC, which is used to adjust the valves.
 Secondary  effluent  flows into achlorine  contact tank  for  disinfection, followed  by
 dechlorination with sulfur dioxide.

 WAS is pumped into an aerobic digester for VSS reduction.  The underflow from the
 digester is pumped into a storage tank where sludge is  mixed with polymer and  then
 transferred to a Plate & Frame press for dewatering to a concentration of 25 to 30 %
 solids.

 Because of the lack of a flow distribution structure, flow distribution between the ditches
 is sometimes uneven causing one of the ditches to be either under or over loaded, which
 also affects the BNR capacity.

 BNR can be accomplished by operating the ditches with cyclic aeration, where two brush
 aerators in  each oxidation ditch  will  be turned off periodically to establish anoxic
 conditions.  The existing DO probes will be used to continuously monitor the DO levels.
 With a  PLC installed, automatic adjustment of the effluent weir elevation will provide
 DO control at the set point. It is recommended that DO  levels  be maintained at  1 to 2
 mg/L. The PLC will also control the timing sequence of the aerators to accomplish cyclic
 aeration.  The cycle durations  should be determined by the operators through full-scale
 pilot testing.

 Capital  costs are based on modifying the existing oxidation ditches to  operate  in a cyclic
 aeration mode, and total  $120,000.  The estimated annual change in O&M costs would be
 a reduction  of $120,000.  The estimated total costs for implementing BNR  consist of
 denitrification costs as the plant is  currently nitrifying.  The savings per Ib additional N
 removed is estimated to be $0.14.
Appendix II

-------
                            STUARTS DRAFT WWTP

 The Stuarts Draft WWTP is an oxidation ditch activated sludge plant that is currently
 rated for an average daily flow rate of 1.4 MOD. It discharges into South River, which
 flows into the South Fork of the Shenandoah River. The discharge permit limits TKN
 concentrations to a monthly average of 4.0 mg/L between  June and December, and to
 12.6 mg/L between January and May.  The required weekly averages are 6.0 mg/L and
 18.9 mg/L for the same periods. The current annual average flow rate is 0.98 MOD, and
 the current annual average BOD and TKN concentrations in the plant influent are  198
 mg/L and 31 mg/L, respectively.

 After preliminary treatment, wastewater is combined with RAS and distributed between
 three oxidation ditches, of which two were part of the original design.  The combined
 HRT of the ditches is 19.7 hours at the design average flow of 1.4 MOD. Each ditch is
 provided with  brush aerators, and  the mixed liquor flows into three circular secondary
 clarifiers.  The SORs of the clarifiers are 396 gpd/ft2 at design average flow. Following
 clarification, the wastewater is chlorinated, dechlorinated and reaerated prior to discharge.
 WAS is pumped into the aerobic digesters, dewatered using a mobile belt filter press, and
 land applied.

 The influent flow  distribution between the ditches is not even because headless in the
 pipes varies at different flows.  As  a result of unequal flow distribution, some basins are
 over loaded.  Improper loading also causes unequal loading to the secondary clarifiers,
 and as a result, the facility experiences a significant amount  of solids washout.  Because
 of these design limitations,  the facility has not been  able to accomplish consistent
 nitrogen removal.  The effluent of the Stuarts Draft WWTP  has an average TN value of
 10.4 mg/L and an  average TP value of 1.8 mg/L. The data  for the period August 1996
 through April 1997 was used for the BNR evaluations. BNR can be improved by:

 1. Constructing a new oxidation  ditch flow distribution structure, ensuring that  the
   ditches are loaded in proportion to their volume.
 2. Installing a DO control system for the oxidation ditches to operate them cyclically.
 3. Constructing a new secondary clarifier influent flow distribution structure.
 4. Constructing a  52 ft diameter secondary clarifier to ensure that excessive amounts of
   biosolids are not washed away.

 These modifications will  enable the facility to meet an effluent TN limit of 4.0 to 5.0
 mg/L. A chemical  P removal system is  not necessary as the  current effluent  level is 2.0
mg/L.

 The total capital costs of implementing BNR is $ 1,240,000 with  an estimated annual
 reduction in O&M costs of $5,900.  The estimated total cost is $2.36 per Ib of additional
N removed annually.
Appendix II                                                                    • 90

-------
                        CITY OF WAYNESBORO WWTP

 The Waynesboro WWTP is a combination trickling filter-RJBC that serves the City of
 Waynesboro, Virginia.  The plant discharges to the South Fork of the Shenandoah River,
 which eventually flows into the Potomac River. The current permit requires the plant to
 maintain average effluent ammonia and BODs concentrations of 2 mg/L and 7.5 mg/L,
 respectively, June through October.  The average BOD5 limit for November through May
 is  15 mg/L  and there is no limit for ammonia for that period. At present, the plant
 receives an average flow of 3.63 MOD, which is more than 90 percent of the design flow
 of 4 MOD. The plant also has a severe I&I problem which can result in flows exceeding 9
 MOD, which is the maximum flow that can be pushed through the plant.

 The flows and loads received at the facility over the twenty  two month period from
 January 95 through October 96 were analyzed for this evaluation. The raw influent BOD5
 averaged 135 mg/L  for that period. The  raw influent  BOD5  to TKN and BOD5 to TP
 ratios were not determined during the period except for two TKN and TP measurements
 performed on June 1, 19 96. Based upon  these measurements, BODs to TKN and BOD5
 to TP ratios were calculated to be 6.7 and 75, respectively.

 A Parkson Aquaguard type automatic screen is installed in  the influent channel.  The
 screen utilizes  a  continuous belt made up of filter elements that fit together providing
 horizontal and vertical  clear spacings of 6  mm and  25  mm,  respectively. Following
 screening, grit is removed from the wastewater via a Smith & Loveless Size 11 Pista Grit
 System.  All  flows then  enter  a wet well that was designed to maintain  flow to the
 trickling filters. The plant has two primary clarifiers.  Each clarifier has a diameter of 57
 feet and a side  water depth (SWD) of 10 ft. The design overflow rate is 790 gpd/ft2 and
 the current overflow rate at average flow  is 711  gpd/ft2. The clarified liquid flows over
 the peripheral weir into a control well, from where it flows to the trickling filters.  Sludge
 is pumped from the bottom of the clarifiers to the anaerobic digester. The plant has two
 high rate trickling filters that are 92 ft in diameter.  Each filter contains 6 ft x 6 ft plastic
 media blocks, which have a very high void fraction (0.95%).  Effluent from both filters
 returns to the control well  where the flow is split and recirculated to the filters. The
 secondary clarifiers are similar in design to the primary clarifiers but slightly larger
 because trickling  filter biomass solids do not settle and concentrate as readily as sewage
 organic solids.  The design overflow rate is 600 gpd/ft2 and the  current overflow rate is
 547  gpd/ft2. During normal operation, clarified water enters the  wet well  of the tertiary
 pumping station.  The tertiary pumps  lift the  flow  to the inlet channels of the RBC's.
 There are two RBC trains, each containing 7 rotating assemblies. Each rotating assembly
 consists of a series of polyethylene disks (Walker Process Corporation, Model F-89 and
 F- 89 N).  Flow from the RBC's next flows to  the  tertiary filters where suspended
 material is removed and returned to the treatment process. The plant utilizes 3 automatic
 backwash  filters manufactured by Infilco. Disinfection is currently accomplished by
chlorination, which is followed by dechlorination. Gas chlorination also is used when the
tertiary treatment  process is bypassed.  To remove excess chlorine in the effluent,  the
Appendix II

-------
 plant is equipped with a SO2 feed system.  To achieve a minimum of 6 mg/L dissolved
 oxygen (DO) in the effluent, flow passes over a 5 step cascade aerator. Aerated effluent
 is finally discharged to the South River via a 24 inch pipe.

 The facility has two anaerobic digesters that are normally operated in series. The sludge
 is heated by means of an external heat exchanger. There is no mixing in the secondary
 digester.  The sludge is drawn off the bottom of the secondary digester and sent  to
 dewatering. Flow from the digester enters to the belt press, an Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley
 Klampress size 3, Type 85. Dewatered sludge is transported for land application.

 Effluent characteristics for the period from January, 1995 through October, 1996 show
 that the WWTP successfully nitrifies all year round, and produces an average effluent
 ammonium concentration of 1.21 mg/L, with  a monthly average range of 0.46 to 3.61
 mg/L. Therefore,  the wastewater could be   denitrified  by  the addition of tertiary
 denitrifying filters, and the desired effluent nitrate concentration could  be selected by
 controlling the addition of an organic carbon  source such  as methanol to accomplish
 denitrification.  Thus, an effluent total nitrogen  (TN) concentration of either 8 mg/L
 (Alternative  1;  329,000  Ib methanol per year) or 4 mg/L (Alternative 2; 432,000 Ib
 methanol per year) could be selected, as desired.

 Capital costs include  construction of the denitrification filters for both alternatives, and
 thus the total is same  for each: $3,500,000. The two alternatives  vary in terms of O&M
 costs, with increases of $69,400 and $89,500 for alternatives 1 and 2, respectively.  The
 estimated costs per Ib of additional N removed is $1.61 and $1.27 for the first and second
 alternatives, respectively.
Appendix II                                   '                                    92

-------
                        TOWN OF WOODSTOCK WWTP

 The Town of Woodstock WWTP  is an oxidation ditch activated sludge plant located in
 Shenandoah County, VA, and the  treated wastewater is discharged to the North Fork of
 the Shenandoah River.  It is an  oxidation ditch activated sludge plant  with a design
 capacity  of  1.0 MOD, and  the dry and wet weather flows received at the plant  are
 approximately 0.6 MOD and 1.0 MOD.  Operators are on site 10 to 11 hours every day.
 Current discharge permit does not put any limitations on effluent nitrogen species.

 Data for the 12-month period  from January 1997 to December 1997 were examined.
 Historically, measurements of effluent NOs-N have not been performed.  Influent TKN,
 effluent ammonia-N and nitrate-N  measurements typically are not performed at the plant,
 either.  Effluent  ammonia-N values  from April  1992 through February  1993  were
 available, however, and these data  were used for this evaluation.  BOD5 values showed a
 wide range of variance during the period under study; with the lowest and highest values
 being 77.5 mg/L (March 1997) and 2.24.6  mg/L (December 1997), respectively.  The
 average raw  influent TKN concentration, calculated from a for BODS to TKN ratio of 6,
 was 20.4 mg/L. The effluent pH, BOD5 and TSS concentrations rountinely achieved  by
 the plant are in compliance with the permit requirements. The effluent ammonia values
 varied between 0.02 mg/L and 0.43 mg/L, except for an average of 2.46 mg/L during
 November. Apparently nitrification was mildly upset that month, because it is believed
 that the Woodstock WWTP oxidation ditch AS system is capable of accomplishing year
 round nitrification.

 The influent  flow enters the treatment plant through a gravity main  and, after screening,
 passes through a Rotating Hydro degritter unit.  There is also a bypass line equipped with
 a  Rotosheer™ screen unit with  bar  screens in a 2 ft wide channel.    After  flow
 measurement, flow is divided  between the oxidation ditches via  a splitter box. The
 facility has two 650,000  gal oxidation ditches identical in size and operation, and each
 ditch is equipped with  two 30 HP brush aerators. Two  identical rim-fed circular
 secondary clarifiers follow the ditches.  The  nominal hydraulic retention time (HRT) is 4
 hours, and the actual HRT is 2.54 hours at the average influent and return  activated
 sludge (RAS) flows of 0.77 and 0.45 MOD, respectively. At these average flow rates and
 with a total surface area of 1,816  ft,  the surface loading rate of the clarifiers is 672
 gpd/ft2, which  is high for BNR treatment with clarifiers  of this design.  A  27,000 gal
 chlorination  tank  follows  the  clarifiers.   Following  disinfection, the effluent  is
 dechlorinated by the  use  of sulfur  dioxide. The  chlorinator and the sulfonator used are
 both Advance type. Final effluent  is discharged to the North  Fork of the Shenandoah
 River.  Sludge is wasted to  the two 20,000 gal capacity aerobic digesters three times  a
 week. Digested sludge is hauled by trucks once per week for land application.

 Because they  have a large internal recycle rate (usually 80 to 120 times the influent flow),
 oxidation  ditches can  obtain near complete denitrification if  anoxic  zones  can be
established within the ditches.  It is  recommended  that  this  primarily operational
Appendix II                                                                     93

-------
     modification be made at the Woodstock WWTP Th,,* •* •
     aerator be operated continuously, while Ae^er iTcvH 7 nc°^°^ed ** ™ brush
     the BOD loading. The operator^ nee ^ to dete^Tne Z   °D     °ff * aCCOrdanCe with
     experimentation. TimJshould be fn Li dTthe SffTT f" "* ^ ^^ by
     especially when the operators are not tfflM nTpm  f      ,       6aSe of oPeration,
     RAS flow should also'be constructed ^m^nBEPR^T  ^ ** ^°^°n °f Ae
     accomplished by building a small .-cSrS^S^?'*?!? '" ^ f^ Jt C3n be
     HRT of 2 to 4 hours with 30 to 50 % of Te Luen  L          u °Xldatl°n ditch'  An
     be sufficient for efficient biological phosphont "mova? *"*** ^^ *** ™* Sh°uld
          ,                                                               DO in the
    chlorination system to control growth of flll^ti!'     mStaIling * new retum sl"dge
    costs for thesemodification^ Twou^ota S^^T "^ ditCheS" ^ Ca^
    costs are estimated to be $1 1,000  The cost of add^    ^    ^ Change in °&M
    $0.22 per Ib.                          °St °f addltl°nal N removal is estimated to be
Appendix II
                                                                            94

-------