Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An assessment of the potential for biological phosphorus removal in Canadian wastewater treatment plants Morrison, Kirk Murray 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A7 M67.pdf [ 12.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0062492.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0062492-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0062492-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0062492-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0062492-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0062492-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0062492-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0062492-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0062492.ris

Full Text

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL  FOR  IN CANADIAN  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS  by KIRK MURRAY MORRISON BASc, THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, 1982  THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE (Department o f C i v i l  We  accept t h i s to  thesis  the required  STUDIES  Engineering)  as  conforming  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA OCTOBER,  1988  ®  K i r k Murray  Morrison  In  presenting  degree freely  this  at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  department  this or  publication of  thesis for by  his  or  of  her  representatives.  Engineering  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  88-10-12  .  for  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  It  this thesis for financial gain shall not  Civil  requirements  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  Department  the  British Columbia, I agree that the  available for reference and study. I further  copying  Date  of  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  be allowed without my written  (ii)  ABSTRACT  This  thesis  phosphorus plants.  (Bio-P) Retrofit  prepared were  Incremental internal  designs  against  capital  rates  required  the  removal  of  on  these  in  Canadian  and  (IRR's)  an  for  Bio-P  removal  across  removal were  the  treatment were  Canada,  and  technologies.  calculated  and  capital  investment  f a c i l i t i e s were  calculated.  assessment  the  nine  plants  studied,  removal  i s economically superior  for  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook,  the and  removal plants cost  costs  the Bio-P removal  results,  wastewater  treatment plants  operating  biological  of  the  potential  use  for  t e c h n o l o g y i n Canada i s made.  Of  Weir  f o r enhanced  chemical phosphorus  return  to i n s t a l l  potential  incorporating  f o r n i n e wastewater  compared  Based  assesses the  Regina  wastewater  appears located  of  present Quebec  to  i n Alberta  phosphorus low  cost  likely  offer  removal  the  to  indicate  Gold  Bar,  treatment plants. significant and  chemicals  In  in  removal of  Mclvor  general,  Bio-P  advantages  because these  Bio-P removal  Saskatoon  economic  Saskatchewan  viability  that  chemical phosphorus  Edmonton  of phosphorus  limits  results  of  the  high  provinces.  The  chemicals i n Ontario Bio-P  to  removal  to  and  large  3  (greater British  than  300,000  Columbia,  where  m /d), Bio-P  suitably removal  configured i s presently  plants. used  in  In the  (iii)  Okanagan V a l l e y , removal  the  standards for  Yukon  Northwest  Bio-P  removal  aerobic  also  process  sludge  indicate  in  the  operating common  to cost  practice  sludge  of  dewatering  unfavourable  supernatant/filtrate outside  relative  streams  determined  the that  additional  preparation certain  research  include  kinetic  for  primary  anaerobic  sludge  digestion.  an  can  of  to  by  the  absence  anoxic/anaerobic/ with  potential Bio-P  primary is  capital  and The  combined  with  was  found  unless  the  re-used  very  processes.  digestion,  be  the  thickening,  other  and  The  Canada.  conjunction  perspective  or  to  be  resulting  disposed  of  process.  the of  retrofit Bio-P  optimize  modelling;  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  of  application,  aspects  i n order  in  sludge  land  Bio-P  use  offers  to  of the mainstream treatment  Through  These  the  and  anaerobic  a  limited  gravity  plants  and  from  that  phosphorus  Maritimes  i n these p a r t s of  through  savings  the  i s again  bioreactor,  Canadian  provincial  installations unlikely.  i n Manitoba,  standards  fermentation  applicable  widespread  Territories  of phosphorus removal  Results  of  makes f u t u r e B i o - P  potential and  absence  short  designs,  technology  treatment SRT of  Bio-P  process;  the  use  fermentation;  and  phosphorus  plant  i t  require design.  removal;  gravity  was  the  thickening  release  during  (iv) T A B L E OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. ABSTRACT  (i)  LIST  OF TABLES  (vii)  LIST  OF FIGURES  (ix)  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  (xi)  1.0  INTRODUCTION  1  2.0  BACKGROUND TO STUDY  9  2.1  Biochemistry of B i o l o g i c a l Phosphorus Removal 2.2 Process Development 2.2.1 Mainstream Processes 2.2.2 Sidestream Processes 2.2.3 Kinetic Modelling 2.3 Previous Assessments o f Bio-P Technology 2.3.1 T e c h n i c a l Assessments , 2.3.2 E c o n o m i c A s s e s s m e n t s  9  STUDY METHODOLOGY  42  3.1 3.2 3.3  42 45 51 53 53 54 66 82 84 85 89 90 92 98 101 102 102 111 114  3.0  3.4 3.5 4.0  General Plant Selection Basis Plant Design B a s i s 3.3.1 G r i t Removal 3.3.2 Primary C l a r i f i e r s 3.3.3 Primary Sludge Fermentation 3.3.4 Bioreactor 3.3.5 Secondary C l a r i f i e r s 3.3.6 WAS T h i c k e n i n g 3.3.7 Sludge S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.3.8 Sludge Dewatering 3.3.9 Effluent Filtration 3.3.10 C h e m i c a l T r e a t m e n t 3.3.11 O p e r a t i o n s R e q u i r e m e n t s 3.3.12 M i s c e l l a n e o u s Cost Estimating Basis 3.4.1 Capital Costs 3.4.2 Operating Costs Economic A n a l y s i s B a s i s  15 16 24 27 31 31 35  RESULTS  117  4.1  117  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment P l a n t 4.1.1 Plant Description 4.1.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.1.3 Cost A n a l y s i s  117 124 133  (v) PAGE NO. 4.2  4.3  4.4  4.5  4.6  4.7  4.8  4.9  5.0  6.0  Edmonton G o l d B a r W a s t e w a t e r Treatment P l a n t 4.2.1 Plant Description 4.2.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.2.3 Cost A n a l y s i s R e g i n a Sewage T r e a t m e n t P l a n t 4.3.1 Plant Description 4.3.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.3.3 Cost A n a l y s i s S a s k a t o o n H. M c l v o r W e i r W a t e r Pollution Control Plant 4.4.1 Plant Description 4.4.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.4.3 Cost A n a l y s i s Windsor L i t t l e R i v e r P o l l u t i o n Control Plant 4.5.1 Plant Description 4.5.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.5.3 Cost A n a l y s i s G r i m s b y B a k e r Road P o l l u t i o n Control Plant 4.6.1 Plant Description 4.6.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.6.3 Cost A n a l y s i s M i l t o n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l P l a n t 4.7.1 Plant Description 4.7.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.7.3 Cost A n a l y s i s E l m i r a Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l P l a n t 4.8.1 Plant Description 4.8.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.8.3 Cost A n a l y s i s W e l l e s l e y Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l P l a n t 4.9.1 Plant Description 4.9.2 Retrofit Modifications 4.9.3 Cost A n a l y s i s  138 138 144 156 159 159 163 173 178 178 182 190 193 193 200 208 213 213 218 228 . 232 232 237 245 249 249 254 263 263 263 267 271  DISCUSSION  275  5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9  275 279 283 287 290 291 293 294 299  G e n e r a l Review o f R e s u l t s C h e m i c a l C o s t and A v a i l a b i l i t y Sewage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P l a n t S i z e and C o n f i g u r a t i o n Sludge P r o c e s s i n g N u t r i e n t Removal S t a n d a r d s New V e r s u s R e t r o f i t F a c i l i t i e s O v e r a l l Assessment F u t u r e R e s e a r c h Needs  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  303  6.1 6.2  303 305  Conclusions Recommendations  (vi) PAGE REFERENCES  NO.  307  APPENDICES A. B. C.  L i s t o f Symbols and A b b r e v i a t i o n s B i o l o g i c a l N i t r o g e n Removal O v e r v i e w C a p i t a l Cost E s t i m a t i n g Support Data  316 318 321  (vii) L I S T OF TABLES PAGE NO. NO.  TITLE  2.1  T y p i c a l Operating C o n d i t i o n s f o r Bio-P Processes  20  2.2  Summary o f P e r f o r m a n c e A s s e s s m e n t s o f Bio-P Processes  33  2.3  Sewage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s R e q u i r e d Removal t o L e s s t h a n 1.0 mg/L  f o r Bio-P  34  2.4  Summary o f USEPA S p o n s o r e d Removal E c o n o m i c s  on B i o - P  37  2.5  Phostrip  3.1  Wastewater Treatment  3.2  Material  3.3  Extent of Capital  3.4  Chemical  4.1  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook O p e r a t i o n s  4.2  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook C a p i t a l  4.3  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook O p e r a t i n g C o s t  4.4  Edmonton G o l d B a r P r o c e s s E c o n o m i c Summary  4.5  Edmonton G o l d B a r O p e r a t i o n s C o m p a r i s o n  155  4.6  Edmonton G o l d B a r C a p i t a l  157  4.7  Edmonton G o l d B a r O p e r a t i n g C o s t  4.8  Regina  Operations Comparison  174  4.9  Regina  Capital  175  4.10  Regina  Operating Cost  4.11  Saskatoon  Operations Comparison  189  4.12  Saskatoon  Capital  191  4.13  Saskatoon  Operating Cost  II Savings  Take-Off  Cost  Study  and C o s t s Plants  40  Studied  48  Specifications  104  Cost  109  Factoring  Summary  Cost  113 Comparison  Cost  Summary  Option  Cost  Summary  Summary Summary  136 137 150  Summary  Summary  Cost  Summary  134  Summary  158  177  192  (viii) PAGE NO. NO.  TITLE  4.14  Windsor O p e r a t i o n s  4.15  Windsor C a p i t a l Cost (Existing Facility)  Summary  210  4.16  Windsor C a p i t a l (New F a c i l i t y )  Summary  211  4.17  Windsor O p e r a t i n g Cost  4.18  Grimsby O p e r a t i o n s  4.19  Grimsby C a p i t a l  4.20  Grimsby O p e r a t i n g Cost  4.21  Milton Operations  4.22  Milton Capital  4.23  M i l t o n Operating Cost  4.24  E l m i r a O p e r a t i o n s Comparison  260  4.25  Elmira Capital  261  4.26  Elmira Operating Cost  4.27  Wellesley Operations  4.28  Wellesley Capital  4.29  Wellesley Operating Cost  5.1  Bio-P  5.2  Summary o f Alum C o s t s R e q u i r e d F o u r P e r c e n t IRR  fora  280  5.3  Summary o f I r o n C o s t s R e q u i r e d F o u r P e r c e n t IRR  fora  281  5.4  Summary o f I n f l u e n t  Sewage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  285  5.5  C a p i t a l and C h e m i c a l C o s t s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h Lime T r e a t m e n t o f D i g e s t o r S u p e r n a t a n t  292  Economic  Comparison  Cost  209  Summary  212  Comparison  Cost  229  Summary  230  Summary  231  Comparison  Cost  Cost  246  Summary  247  Summary  248  Summary Summary  262  Comparison  Cost  270  Summary  272  Summary  Summary f o r P l a n t s S t u d i e d  273 276  (ix) L I S T OF  FIGURES PAGE  NO.  TITLE  2.1  S i m p l i f i e d Mechanism P h o s p h o r u s Removal  2.2  Mainstream  NO.  for Biological  13  Bio-P Process Schematics  17  2.3  Sidestream Bio-P Process Schematics  25  3.1  Primary Sludge  Fermentation Process Options  59  3.2  Primary Sludge Flow Diagram  Fermenter  63  3.3  Automatic  3.4  ORP  3.5  Lime T r e a t m e n t  4.1  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook P l a n t  Flowsheet  4.2  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook P l a n t  Layout  4.3  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook R e t r o f i t  Flowsheet  125  4.4  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook R e t r o f i t  Layout  126  4.5  C a l g a r y Bonnybrook R e t r o f i t Layout  Bioreactor  127  4.6  Edmonton G o l d B a r P l a n t  Flowsheet  4.7  Edmonton G o l d B a r P l a n t  Layout  4.8  Edmonton G o l d B a r R e t r o f i t  Flowsheet  145  4.9  Edmonton G o l d B a r R e t r o f i t  Layout  146  4.10  Edmonton G o l d B a r R e t r o f i t Layout  Bioreactor  147  4.11  Edmonton G o l d B a r P r o c e s s O p t i o n s  149  4.12  Regina P l a n t  160  4.13  Regina R e t r o f i t . Flowsheet  165  4.14  Regina R e t r o f i t  Layout  166  4.15  Regina R e t r o f i t  Bioreactor  DO  Control  Process  Schematic  M o n i t o r i n g Schematic  69  f o r UCT  Process  P r o c e s s Schematic  Layout  70 94  (Existing)  (Existing)  (Existing)  (Existing)  (Existing)  Layout  119 120  140 141  168  (x) PAGE  NO.  NC i.  TITLE  4. 16  R e g i n a <C h e m i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal  4. 17  Saskatoon  4. 18  Saskatoon P l a n t  4. 19  Saskatoon R e t r o f i t  Flowsheet  184  4. 20  Saskatoon R e t r o f i t  Layout  185  4. 21  Saskatoon  Bioreactor  4. 22  W i n d s o r Combined P l a n t  Flowsheet  4. 23  W i n d s o r Combined P l a n t  Layout  4. 24  Windsor R e t r o f i t  Flowsheet  201  4. 25  Windsor R e t r o f i t  Layout  202  4. 26  Windsor R e t r o f i t  Bioreactor  4. 27  Grimsby P l a n t  Flowsheet  Grimsby P l a n t  Layout  4. 28  v  Plant  Flowsheet Layout  Retrofit  Flowsheet  (Existing)  (Existing)  170 179 180  Layout (Existing)  (Existing)  Layouts  (Existing)  186 194 195  203 214 215  (Existing)  4. 29  Grimsby R e t r o f i t  Flowsheet  220  4. 30  Grimsby R e t r o f i t  Layout  221  4. 31  Grimsby R e t r o f i t  Bioreactor  4. 32  Turborator  4. 33  Milton  Plant  Flowsheet  4. 34  Milton  Plant  Layout  4. 35  Milton Retrofit  Flowsheet  238  4. 36  Milton Retrofit  Layout  239  4. 37  Milton Retrofit  Bioreactor  4. 38  Elmira  Plant  4..39  Elmira  Retrofit  Flowsheet  4.,40  Elmira  Retrofit  Bioreactor  4.,41  Wellesley Plant  4..42  Wellesley Retrofit  Layout  223 225  Schematic  233  (Existing)  (Existing)  Flowsheet  234  Layout  240  (Existing)  250 255  Layouts  Flowsheet/Layout  (Existing)  Flowsheet/Layout  256 265 268  (xi)  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I with  would  both  would  the  also  Calgary,  like  to  Edmonton, of  i n f o r m a t i o n which  Ms.  Michelle  Morrison  UBC.  preparation  and  of  of  for  Zante  of  are  the  Canada  f o r word  putting  up  with  this of  thesis.  I  Cities  of  the  the in  assistance  the  Windsor;  Environment,  thanks  of  and  the b a s i s f o r the  Council  Van  and  Niagara;  the  for his  assistance  Halton  formed  Peggy  the  the  Oldham  Saskatoon  Research  support;  W.K.  Regina,  deserving  Engineering  and  Dr.  acknowledge  Ministries  Also  thank  research  like  Municipalities Quebec  to  Regional  Ontario  supplying  and the  research.  Natural  Sciences,  for providing processing me  during  financial  services; my  and  stay  and at  - 1 -  1.0  INTRODUCTION  The  requirement  wastewater  i s widespread  municipal Canada  wastewater  (1986)  Manitoba, set of  for  their  show  that  municipal  removal  that  and  in  of  Environment Ontario,  Columbia  have a l l  from  at least  Ministry  a l o n e , 250  plants  have  associated  inventory  Quebec,  Ontario  i n Ontario  an  municipal  Canada,  British  The  from  In  for effluents  treatment standard  Canada.  Brunswick,  treatment p l a n t s .  wastewater  phosphorus  New  Alberta  (1987) r e p o r t s  removal  systems  discharge limits  sewage  Environment  throughout  treatment  Saskatchewan,  phosphorus  phosphorus  of  the  of the  403  some  with  one  form  their  of  discharge  permits.  The  most  phosphorus method,  removal  metal  aluminate, sulphate) at  one  These  established  or  more  react  insoluble through  salts  lime  (generally  chloride, (calcium  points  with  the  by  employed  i n a l l but  Canada w h i c h  USEPA  the  method  calcium  in  the  summary  remove  of  phosphorus.  to  form  removed  theory  and  removal  is  phosphorus  wastewater  added  process.  then  the  sodium  are  wastewater are  this  ferrous  treatment  phosphorus  Chemical  the  or  hydrate)  which  chemical  (1987). of  chloride  of  In  sulphate,  wastewater  complete  with  one  currently  or  precipitates  A  associated  provided  aluminum  phosphorus  sedimentation.  the  widespread  ferrous  oxide  in  metal-phosphate  technology  hence,  i n Canada i s c h e m i c a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n .  ferric or  and,  treatment  removal  is  plants  in  -  A is  more  known  This  recently  as  bioreactor promote c a l l e d  the Bio-P  treatment bacteria  to  plants. are  The  summarized  Anaerobic  as  must  be  being  subjected  must  have  a  available  to  Phosphorus bacteria  from  projects  have  s u f f i c i e n t  the  phosphorus  be  phosphorus.  removed  large  of  t h e i r  amounts  of  secondary  growth  of  Bio-P  periods  of  of  aerobic  absence  of  anaerobic conditions.  both  dissolved  3  anaerobic of  conditions,  v o l a t i l e  fatty  the  bacteria  acids  (VFA's)  consumption.  is  achieved  that  wastewater  which  (N0 ).  demonstrated of  to  the  Numerous  conventional can  to  process.  quantities  nature  the  the  (hereafter  conventional for  periods  to  for  removal  i n  required  refer  supply them  the  i n  plant  bacteria  consume  found  by  n i t r a t e  While  of  of  removal.  conditions  treatment  types  subjected  followed  free  (Bio-P)  removal  follows:  conditions  and  c e r t a i n  bacteria  those  phosphorus  phosphorus  Because  Conditions  bacteria  oxygen  specific  these  r e l a t i v e  for  wastewater  bacteria).  conditions,  2.  of  pathways,  technology  creating  secondary  growth  phosphorus  1.  a  -  b i o l o g i c a l  involves  of  metabolic  developed  enhanced  technology  2  Bio-P  through p i l o t - s c a l e  under  bacteria  treatment to  levels  the  well  and  c e r t a i n can  be  processes, below  1.0  wasting  of  f u l l - s c a l e conditions,  c u l t i v a t e d such mg/L as  in that  t o t a l  -  Bio-P Canada, and  technology  the  United  Denmark.  a p p l i c a t i o n States. 30  using that  of  the  as  design,  (1985)  Bio-P  of  States,  use  Canada.  At  of  29  or  is  i n  that  of  time  stages  has only  plant  in  the  the  plants  i n  were report  either  United  been  United  (1985)  were  in  Italy  approximately  a l .  f a c i l i t i e s  the  and  1985,  et  in  f u l l - s c a l e  treatment  Tetreault  world  France,  A f r i c a  as  wastewater  Bio-P  the  widespread  South  technology  present  Japan,  most  operation  Bio-P  the  the  while  1984,  throughout  A f r i c a ,  estimates  process,  construction  The  South  municipal  A p r i l  -  developed  technology  A f r i c a n  the  been  Currently,  Paepcke  South  has  3  very  the  States.  limited  operational  plant  in  is  a  3 22,000 Bio-P  m / d  activated  plants  (18,000  m /d) 3  sludge  are  presently  and  Westbank,  being B . C .  Kelowna,  designed (4,500  for  B . C .  Two  other  Penticton,  B . C .  m /d). 3  3 F u l l - s c a l e Gold  Bar  Windsor  treatment  L i t t l e  Bio-P phosphorus reduced Other  tests  River  removal.  operating  costs  been  (Shiv^i,  P o l l u t i o n  offers The costs  include  through  run  ..  plant  removal  advantages  disposal  have  most  at  1987)  control  some  the  p o t e n t i a l l y  reduction  in  and  the  m / d  Edmonton  36,300  m  3  / d  plant.  advantages  s i g n i f i c a n t  through  340,000  is  over the  chemical  potential  chemical  usage  reduced  sludge  handling  chemical  sludge  volumes.  for  reductions. and  - 4 -  There  are  also  the  technology  when  the  major  being  one  that  because  Other  disadvantages  production. for  the  of In  has  and  development  the  works. for in  Limited  the  use  of  Canada.  economic  analyses  for  processes,  for  nine  because  sludge provides  i n  an  the  analysis  depending  new,  upon  higher  been  done  on  This  is  of  is  the  sludge required  considered  of  r e t r o f i t t i n g removal  by  phosphorus d i d  framework  the the  the  the  sludge  process  evidence  economic different standards.  consider  regional  a v a i l a b i l i t y  disposal  and  wastewater  having  which  process  technical  preparing  chemical  from  i n  removal  not  of  potential  municipal  plants  and  how  majority  p a r t i c u l a r l y  (1986)  report  of  assessing  a l .  and  the  demonstration  understanding  practices a  laboratory  r e - t r a i n i n g  r e l a t i v e l y  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  handling  is  required.  p o t e n t i a l l y  hypothetical  sewage  only  is  Bio-P  t h i s  plant  plant.  technology. et  Bio-P  with  are  and,  operator  to  has  capacities  differences  i t  of  f e a s i b i l i t y plants  cost,  related  a  with  process,  which  increased  some  Bio-P  of  f a c i l i t i e s  process,  associated  removal  cost  consumption  Bio-P  a  Canviro  treatment  However,  energy  work the  chemical  c a p i t a l  technology  research  disadvantages  a  include  of  been  to  the  addition,  Bio-P  of  additional  the  operation  Because  the  higher  configuration  number  compared  higher  requirements,  of  a  and  regulations,  s i t e  s p e c i f i c  -  comparative  analyses  d i f f i c u l t  draw  for  the  to  use  of  Evans potential  for  economic  i n  a p p l i c a b i l i t y  Site (Shivji,  a of  1987),  a  s i t e the  Regina  and  compares  technologies  and of  from  studies.  these  The  Bio-P  purpose  potential  for  wastewater  of  the  treatment  wastewater  results  research.  should  and 1985).  of  of  the  i n  and  a s s i s t  is,  results  consultants process  with  the  only  i n to  than  of  and  Penticton  the  making  (1987) removal  the  o v e r a l l  to  to  of  draw  assess  the  municipal  research  decisions  i n s t a l l .  B . C .  S h i v j i  Canadian  d i r e c t i o n  the  Edmonton  d i f f i c u l t  of  be  on  phosphorus  are  i n  Their  Westbank,  therefore,  technology The  treatment  of  regarding  Canada  sample  s i t u a t i o n .  1986A)  two  a  the  should  c i t i e s  However,  research  plants.  the  town  conclusions  Bio-P  which  rather  for  on  plant.  Canadian  the  economics  this  use  done  potential  present  items  the  the  general  and  Associates,  technology  municipalities  of  (Stanley  hence,  f e a s i b i l i t y  to  therefore,  work.  i n  analysis  were  L t d . ,  the  this  Alberta  on  specific  1986)  Piesold  from  removal  more  is  regarding  hypothetical  studies  It  comment  Bio-P  technology  Associates,  d i r e c t l y  the  for  Canada  (1985)  focus  s p e c i f i c  (Stanley  type  of  however,  considered  a s s i s t  use  performed.  conclusions  i n  Crawford  analysis  comments,  (Knight  process  the  -  be  d e f i n i t i v e  the  and  can  5  In  w i l l  on  the  addition,  future  Bio-P  - 6 -  i t  In  assessing  the  was  decided  to  representative treatment  existing future  across  and  requirements  plant,  were  phosphorus  removing  phosphorus,  designs The  for  plants  incremental  with  Bio-P  removal removal  were  analysis  of  for  Bio-P  It  a l l  r e a l  across  economies  of  l i f e  the  i n  plants  disadvantages a  nine  decided  hypothetical,  in  removal or not  the  as  and  new  on  a  wastewater  from  these i n  Ontario,  plants  the  had  others,  i t  Bio-P  each  were  carry as  out  f e l t  technology addition,  could  plants  currently  phosphorus  removal  operating,  associated  equivalent  the  chemical  economics  plant.  t h i s  was  In  existing  standards.  an  and  with  each  Through  regarding  of a  the  Bio-P general  potential  developed.  differences  regulations  to  into  phosphorus  and  conclusions  Canada  for  effluent  estimated  plants,  compared  c a p i t a l  for  technology  chemical  compared  were  setting.  country,  were  having both  to  of and  Bio-P  operations  with  evaluated  removal  was  These  technology  technology,  requirements  incoporating  costs,  plants  Some  Canada,  studies  municipal  Nine  studied.  i n  anticipated.  prepared.  chemical  technology  existing  country.  removal  designs,  Bio-P  comparative  of  were  were  of  out  the  Alberta  phosphorus  R e t r o f i t  carry  cross-section  plants  Saskatchewan  f e a s i b i l i t y  be  analysis that  on  the  would  actual,  advantages  become  by  selecting  between  regional  considered  i n  versus  the  more  and  evident  plants  from  conditions, analysis.  - 7 -  The in  presentation  which  the  the  research  research  section  is  the  reviewed  theory  was  with  of  out. i n  Section  of  assessments  state  of  order  material In  to this  technology  the  Through  the  2.0.  Bio-P of  removal.  present  follows  Background  development  Bio-P  the  b a s i c a l l y  presented  past of  thesis  carried  and  f e a s i b i l i t y  understanding  this  i n i t i a l l y  along  economic  of  is  technical t h i s  the  and  review,  an  technology  is  obtained.  Section execution behind  3.0  of  the  this  bases and  is  for  the  the  is  present Bio-P  (IRR's) each  were  plant,  the  c a p i t a l  the the  the  analysis  the  analysis,  also  for  i n  with  presented.  the  rationale  discussed. of  the  section  estimating  of  the  In  plants are  the  techniques  analysis.  discussions  required ( i f  costs  which the  i n  used.  removal  i n  used  the  are  t h i s  cost  results  operating  section,  selection  presented  phosphorus and  methodology  research  modifications  calculated are  this  i n d i v i d u a l l y ,  chemical  economic  Within  designs,  presents  operation,  and  the  4.0  the  for  Also  economic  considered  incremental of  of  d e t a i l  of  rationale  r e t r o f i t  method  Section plant  aspects  presented. the  i n  research.  various  p a r t i c u l a r , studied  outlines  regarding conversion  a p p l i c a b l e ) ,  provided.  i n t e r n a l  c a p i t a l  for  The  rates  required  Each  of to  and  the to the  results return r e t r o f i t  - 8 -  Section in  5.0  Section  4.0  technology  is  Conclusions  and  and  then  provides  a  discussion  An assessment made  formally  of  through  an  recommendations presented  i n  the  of  the  o v e r a l l  potential  analysis  are  Section  developed 6.0.  results  of  the i n  t h i s  generated for  Bio-P  results. section  - 9 -  2.0  BACKGROUND  The  STUDY  objective  understanding status  TO  of  i t s  processes.  both  i n  of  Section  which k i n e t i c  i t  has  s i g n i f i c a n t  the  Bio-P  presented  2.1  i n  b a c t e r i a l wastewater treatment to  support  demand  the  some  results  and  b i o l o g i c a l  dry  weight  i n  solids  basis.  reviews  of  present treatment  is  i n i t i a l l y  Section  2.2  by  experimental  A discussion i n  on  t h i s  used  previous  f e a s i b i l i t y  B i o l o g i c a l  is  an  of  the  i n  a  Bio-P status  section, the  as  design  assessments  Bio-P  removal  of  is  removal  of are  of  phosphorus  a l l  b i o l o g i c a l  removals contents  of  is  required  biochemical  municipal 2  from  oxygen  sewage,  mg-P/L 1.5%  for  b i o l o g i c a l  phosphorus  5-day  Canadian  phosphorus  i n  required  conventional  mg/L of  mg/L  Removal  nutrient  achieved In  1  100  t y p i c a l  Phosphorus  essential  approximately  For  i n  procedures  processes.  removal  (BOD,.) .  generally  of  treatment plants,  and  presented  the  the  an  2.3.  phosphorus  growth,  on  and  removal  followed  also  economic  Biochemistry  Because  is  impact  Section  is  provide  wastewater  Bio-P  developed.  F i n a l l y ,  and  of  to  process  scale  commercial  modelling  plants.  technical  f u l l  This  been  is  removal  i n  2.1.  have  Bio-P  of  Bio-P  various  of  a  the  section  biochemistry  the  processes  t h i s  development  The  discussed review  of  of  to  or  this  10-30%,  2.0%  on  a  -  However, the  i n  bioreactor  bacteria  Bio-P  phosphorus.  consume  Bio-P  sludges  suspended  Bio-P  t y p i c a l  conventional  much  sludge  the  phosphorus  1975). t h i s  a b i l i t y  Joiner,  1983;  however,  is  The  for  over  and  removal, the  results  Gersberg  reason  bioreactors,  past of  t h i s  enhanced  believed  for  has 25  t o t a l that  weight,  and  contains  roughly  three  a a 2%  times  be  the  have of  been  (Fuhs shown  phosphorus 1985).  the  species  b a c t e r i a  and to  of  Chen,  possess  (Brodisch  and  Acinetobacter, predominately  removal.  the  hence  be  t y p i c a l  weight,  assuming  removal  A l l e n ,  to  of solids  that  dry  by  of  p i l o t - s c a l e  sludge  to  Bio-P  amounts  and  a  in  bacteria.  found  bacteria  large  on  remove  conventional  other  Bio-P  should  amounts  report  treatment  types  b i o l o g i c a l  phosphorus  i n i t i a l l y  for  remove  s t i l l  responsible  Bio-P  was  then, to  bacteria  s p e c i f i c  Therefore, 6%  created  during  (1986)  phosphorus  basis.  the  responsible Since  6%  wastewater  as  Acinetobacter bacteria  to  are  large  14%  Eralp  contains  Bio-P  of  report  to  and  (TSS)  t y p i c a l  as  4  growth  (1987) up  K r i e s s e l  solids  phosphorus,  a l .  of  contain  the  conditions  comparatively  et  contents  investigations.  plants,  promote  Daigger  phosphorus  -  removal  which  which  10  the  been years.  research:  p r o l i f e r a t i o n  of  reason  occurrence  the  for  the  subject  of  The  following  Bio-P  bacteria of  considerable points  i n  enhanced research  summarize  the  -  i)  In  order  to  secondary must  be  promote  exposed  and  The  n i t r a t e  presence  of  of  anaerobic  mg/L  to  the  bacteria  b i o l o g i c a l  conditions  of  a  solids  followed  1974).  absence  i n  by  Anaerobic  dissolved  oxygen  (N0 ). 3  bacteria  is  of  in  Rensink  that  dependent  quantities outlined  1978;  suggests  et  VFA's  (i)  upon  the  during  the  (Hall,  a l . ,  N i c h o l l s  1981).  Oldham  minimum V F A c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  acetate) to  Bio-P  (Barnard,  s u f f i c i e n t  (as  of the  anaerobic  conditions  conditions  growth  process,  Bio-P  Osborne,  (1986)  to  refer  growth  and  the  conditions  conditions  i i )  -  treatment  aerobic  (DO)  11  are  f a c i l i t a t e  required the  under  removal  of  4  of  15  anaerobic  to  5  mg/L  of  phosphorus.  iii)  During  aerobic  phosphorus  from  i n t e r c e l l u l a r conditions from  iv)  the  conditions, the  as  stored  polyphosphate as  is  phosphate  bacteria  VFA's  bacteria and  polyphosphate.  Bio-P  of  wastewater  polyphosphate  c e l l  Bio-P  metabolism  p o l y - p  to  store  Under  metabolized (Shapiro  is  provide  take  et  based energy  -hydroxybutyrate  i t  up as  anaerobic and  a l . ,  on for (PHB)  released 1967).  the the  use  of  storage  under  ana-  -  erobic  -  conditions,  polyphosphate PHB  12  or  and  reserve  (Comeau  i l l u s t r a t i o n  of  carbon et  this  replenishment  through  e x t r a - c e l l u l a r  conditions  the  energy  under  1986).  mechanism  is  the  production  breakdown  a l . ,  of  A  v i a  aerobic  s i m p l i f i e d  presented  i n  Figure  2.1.  v)  Because  of  outlined  the  in  (i)  out-compete bacteria  vi)  (Marais  Under  prolonged  Bio-P  bacteria  1988)  While  present result, basis  six  w i l l  the  From  be  Bio-P  the  above  the  Bio-P  are  Bio-P  the  bioreactor  bacteria  aerobic  are  and  able  as to  facultative  1983).  release  (e.g.  aerobic  stored  solution  of as  of  digestion)  polyphosphate,  (Anderson,  mechanism  the  1988;  as  Comeau,  s t i l l form  the  removal i n  not  f u l l y basis  underof  mechanism.  establishing  the As  the  a  design  r e t r o f i t s .  points  influent removal.  follows:  Bio-P  extensively  six  is  generally  the  removal  of  influent  a l .  points  used  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s success  ,  aeration  removal  understanding  for  et  into  Bio-P  above  they  (ii)  in  .  the  the  and  created  conventional  phosphate,  stood,  conditions  i t  is  wastewater The  key  evident are  very  that important  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of  the to the  ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS  FIGURE  2.1-  SIMPLIFIED  AEROBIC CONDITIONS  MECHANISM  PHOSPHORUS  REMOVAL  FOR BIOLOGICAL  -  i)  carbon/phosphorus  i i )  carbon/nitrogen  i i i )  The a  l i m i t  the  quantities  of  on  the  substrates  and  b a c t e r i a l  reason  that  Bio-P  remove  present  the  to  to  of  the  to  Appendix  i s  force  by  interfere w i l l are  be  more  of  to  carbon various  1985).  systems  i n s u f f i c i e n t potential the  f u l l y  discussed.  b i o l o g i c a l  f o r  the  with  stands  carbon/phosphorus  important  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n ,  the  phosphate  on  and Crawford,  Should  under  across  amount  reports  s p e c i f i c  and phosphorus.  i n  (pmf)  the  many  carbon  bacteria  i t  i s  involved  Bio-P  1986),  limited  as  external  a l . ,  r a t i o  processes  from  et  nitrogen  Bio-P  of  removed  f o r  Indeed,  to  be  used  Evans  This  can  sets  then  recommend  accommodate  mechanisms B.  uptake  nitrates  and  i t  i s  1985;  conditions.  individual  (Comeau  motive  I n c . ,  nitrogen  recycled  anaerobic  c e l l  Weston  nitrogen  important  which  PHB b y  proton which  processes  carbon  both  a  very  consumption  consumption.  (Roy F .  The  for  f o r  removal  ratios  be  the  i s  stored  up  phosphorus  available  the  membrane  into  r a t i o  phosphorus  i n t e r n a l l y  c e l l  transfer  of  sets  combined  systems  phosphorus  Since  conditons  f o r  VFA's  amount  wastewater.  aerobic  ratios  removal  to  -  r a t i o  phosphorus  carbon  14  carbon exists  creation explained  F o r a  nitrogen  which  of when  discussion  removal  refer  -  The  importance  stressed Weston  by  many  Inc.  l i m i t s  the  -  carbon/nitrogen  researchers.  (1985)  on  of  15  and  the  Evans  Ekama and  et  a l .  Crawford,  carbon/nitrogen  r a t i o  (1984),  (1985),  ratios  has  for  been  Roy  a l l  F.  present  various  Bio-P  processes.  The  most  important  Bio-P  removal  Bio-P  bacteria  do  not  is  obtain  aerobic  to  the  presented  the  the  added  2.2  addition  uptake  by  a l . an  et  Kelowna  of  P o l l u t i o n  no  zone  the  sludge  addition  report  the  bioreactor.  Plant  c a r r i e d  at  the  through  of  primary  Oldham removal  fermentation, was  on  plant  fermentation  Control  hence, and  treatment  phosphorus  VFA's,  and  performance  by  for  facultative  (1986)  wastewater  superior  primary  where  a l .  influent  s u f f i c i e n t  anaerobic  removal  zone  the  conventional  (generated  showing  (1985) i n  one  where  VFA's  had  as  compared  to  out.  Development  phosphorus  was et  VFA's  anaerobic  Process  Excess  Works  of  Without the  over  phosphorus  of  t r a i n  PHB i n  Nicholls  through  second  content.  advantage  r e s u l t s  of  Srinath  an  store  Northern  addition  sludge)  been  cannot  i n  Johannesburg  t r a i n  VFA  b a c t e r i a .  improvement  the  its  c h a r a c t e r i s i t i c  f i r s t  removal  reported  (1959). activated  from by  Greenberg sludge  may  wastewater  Greenberg et  et  a l .  stated  exceed  its  without a l . that  chemical  (1955)  and  "phosphorus  "requirements"  i f  -  the  phosphorus  satisfactory than  90%  for  Bio-P  (TP)  the  et  removal  these  to  a l .  maintain  achieved  from  Explanations  However, to  adequate  Srinath  ppm T P .  processes  "sidestream" phosphorus  a  for  this  of  a  number  a  greater  sewage  which  phenomenon  observations  development  can  processes. is  removed  advantage  anaerobic the  led  than  instigated of  processes  removal.  Bio-P  take  22  -  more  phosphorus  stated. which  is  removal."  contained  not  research  B.O.D.  t o t a l  i n i t i a l l y were  level  16  of  p r e c i p i t a t e mainstream  to  the  They  phosphorus. processes  Mainstream  Bio-P  w i l l  the  the  use  Reviews now  be  of of  and  of  the  processes  experienced  involve  and  a l l  Sidestream  release  therefore  "mainstream"  processes,  bacteria.  conditions  sidestream  Mainstream  into  mainstream  phosphorus  released  2.2.1  divided  the  anaerobic  the and  In by  conditions.  bacteria  be  under  exposure  of  chemicals  to  the  various  presented.  Processes  processes  include  the  patented  2 Modified Phoredox,  Bardenpho, UCT,  modified  anaerobic/aerobic processes  are  A/0  and  A /0  UCT,  processes.  presented  i n  processes  VIP,  UBC p i l o t  Schematic  Figure  and  2.2.  the  plant  diagrams  non-patented and of  anoxic/ these  -  A l l sludge  or  Bio-P  ditches has  these  extended  removal  r o t a t i n g  of  has  been  Biodenipho  process,  ditches.  The  demonstrated  this  use by  research  of  is  i n  and  (1988).  for  However,  r e l a t i v e l y  new,  in  i t  w i l l  ditches  removal  Although  not  known  the  Canadian  as  oxidation  removal  the  and  oxidation  phosphorus  Bio-P  since  enhanced  of  process,  application RBC's  use  1985).  the  activated  However,  The  (Paepcke,  and  to  oxidation  nitrogen  project,  have  SBR's  only.  (RBC's).  Denmark  could  applicable  achieved  b i o l o g i c a l  Simm  technology  been  i n  are  processes  contactors  developed i n  this  also  combined  considered  -  processes  aeration  b i o l o g i c a l for  18  has  been  development  not  be  of  considered  further.  The developed lakes  i n  and  Phoredox South  A f r i c a  impoundments  phosphorus  removal  discharges.  Barnard  phosphorus combined  and  removal  nitrogen  involves bioreactor.  creating This  the to  (1976) and  Bardenpho  1970's,  the  standards  where  for  proposed  of  nitrogen  municipal the  Modified  phosphorus  removal.  anaerobic/aerobic  generally  processes  achieved  by  were  eutrophication  introduction  the  an is  in  led  only, and  Modified  Phoredox Bardenpho The  and  wastewater process process  Phoredox  sequence shutting  of  off  for for  process i n the  the a i r  - 19  supply  to the  anaerobic SRT  of  zone  the  prevent  front  keep  Phoredox  the  zones  (zones  mixed  liquor via  solids  may  suspension.  of  sufficiently  the  this  Because  anaerobic  the  low  zone  recycle  the but  to minimize  nitrate  r e t u r n t o the  sludge  are  equipped  The  process  with  end  bioreactor  from  operating 2.1,  the  HRT) .  at  process  This  complete  is  is  a  to from  keep  the  nitrification,  very fact  zones the  are  long  large that  Typical  reactor  denitrification  noted  in  (10  23  -  designed  and  at  anaerobic  As  i t is  in  sludge zone  clarifier. 2.1.  a  not  solids  prevent  i n Table  and  anaerobic  reaeration  to  secondary  presented  to  A  anoxic  oxygen)  relatively  provided  requires a  due  to  nitrification.  o c c u r r i n g i n the  c o n d i t i o n s are  Anoxic  mixers  operates  the  conditions  recycle.  not  two  but  activated  the  provides  nitrate  to ensure  of  process  contain  (10-30 d a y s )  provide  are p r o v i d e d i n  i s maintained  Bardenpho  age  hour  in  protection  Modified which  suspension.  Table  Mixers  i s not r e q u i r e d .  The  aerated  reactor.  process  nitrification,  nitrates  zone  to  of the  -  to  phosphorus  removal.  The licensed Salt there  M o d i f i e d Bardenpho  i n North  Lake were  City, eight  America Utah.  by  Eimco  Paepcke  modified  process  i s proprietary  Process  (1985)  Bardenpho  Equipment  reports  plants  that  and  Company as  operating  of or  is of 1985  being  Phostrip  Modified Bardenpho  Parameter  Value  Parameter  Value  A/O Parameter  A / O plus Nitrification Value  Parameter  Value  A S System ..i  F / M , kg T B O D /  F / M , kg T B O D /  kg M L V S S / d SRT, days  ..i  2  M L S S , mg/l  0.1-0.2  kg M L V S S / d S R T , days  600 5,000  H R T , rtr3  M L S S . mg/l  2,000-4,000  H R T , hr3  1-10  0.2-0.7  kg M L V S S / d 10-30  2  F / M . kg T B O D /  SRT, days  2  M L S S , mg/l  1-2  Anaerobic  Anoxic 1  2-4  Aerobic  Nitrification  O.iS-0.25  kg M L V S S / d 2-6 2,000-4,000  SRT, days  2  M L S S , mg/l  4-8 3.000-5,000  H R T . hr3  H R T , hr3  Anaerobic  F / M , kg T B O O /  0.5-1.5 1-3  4-12  Anaerobic  0.5-1.5  Anoxic  0.5-1.0  Nitrification  3.5-6.0  Return Sludge, % of inf. flow  20-50  Int. Recycle, % of inf. flow  100-300  (Aerobic 1) Anoxic 2  2-4  Aerobic 2  0.5-1.0  Phostrip Stripper Feed. % of inf. flow S D T , hr  Sidewater Depth, m  20-30  Return Sludge, % of inf. flow  100  5-20  Int Recycle. % of inf. flow  400  25-40  6.1  •  Elutriatkxi Flow, % of stripper feed flow  50-100  Underflow, % of inf. flow  10-20  P Release, g P/g V S S  Return Sludge, % of inf. flow  0.005-0.02  Reactor-Clarifier Overflow Rate,  48  m3/m /d 2  pH  9-9.5  Lime D o s a g e , mg/l  1  2  3  100-300  B a s e d on activated sludge system design. A v e r a g e m a s s of solids in the system divided by average mass of solids wasted daily. Hydraulic retention time, volume divided by influent flow rale.  TABLE  2.1  -  T Y P I C A L OPERATING  CONDITIONS  ( f r o m USEPA, 1987)  FOR B I O - P  PROCESSES  constructed. majority  of  Bardenpho in  One  South  the  South  type.  No  A f r i c a  have  The licensed  of  by  A/0  A i r  -  21  -  these  is  the  African  reports been  Bio-P  plants  the  Phoredox  of  B . C .  are  plant.  of  the  process  The  Modified  being  used  found.  2 A /0  and  Kelowna,  Products  processes and  are  Chemicals  p r o p r i e t a r y Inc.  of  processes  Allentown,  PA. 2  The  A/0  process  process  is  used  required.  As  essentially  the  when  for  shown  process  sludge  a  zone.  nitrogen  i n to  has  phosphorus  both  difference  anaerobic  improve  used  s i m i l a r  s i g n i f i c a n t Products  is  Figure the  the  A/0  of  also  is  the  A  /0  removal  are  process  is  process.  processes  degree  (Air  whereas  phosphorus  2.2,  the  A i r Products  s e t t l e a b i l i t y  and  Phoredox  between higher  removal,  The that  only  the  A i r  compartmentalization  claim  Products  that and  both  in  processes  Chemicals  Inc.,  1980).  Krichten were A/0  approximately process.  et  a l .  twenty  Typical  (1987)  reports  wastewater  operating  that  treatment  conditions  for  as  of  1987,  plants the  there  using  the  processes  are 2  presented processes  i n  Table  operate  2.1. at  As  shown  considerably  Modified  therein, shorter  Bardenpho process. . . . year-round n i t r i f i c a t i o n be  should be . required, the  have  higher  to  be  operated  at  a  much  the  It  SRT.  A/0  SRT's  and than  noted that 2 A / O process  A  /0 the  should would  -  In Capetown  entering  i n  anaerobic process  an  For  operates  at  l e v e l s  Modified  which  below  f u l l - s c a l e Phostrip, reports  world.  employed  for  scheduled  for  A proposed.  (Ekama  two  zones  can  be any  should  new  such  et  the at  is  It  U n i v e r s i t y nitrogen  The  prevent  being  et  to  a l .  process  the  the  UCT  of  the  that  remove  COD/TKN  is  to  (1984)  can  from  sludge  removal,  equivalent  (as  nitrates  returned  of and  process  activated  phosphorus  lower  not  present phosphorus  r a t i o s  UBC a l . ,  c o n t r o l l e d f u l l - s c a l e  r e l a t i v e l y  as  or  widespread  A/0  there  was  be  noted  i n  1989  the  p i l o t  only  1984)  of  this  as  than  a  the  the  modified  use  f u l l - s c a l e  of  in the  (1985)  UCT p l a n t  UCT process  w i l l  treatment  UCT process UCT  process. the  There  use  be  plant  1988).  the  of  i t s  Paepcke  wastewater  to  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  use  that  divides  separately.  one  (Oldham,  plant  new,  processes.  B . C .  variations  include  that  is  Penticton,  of  These  process  to  Ekama  process  1985,  the  p r i o r  roughly  Bardenpho  number  and  been  the  operation  process  to  return  and  that  mg/L  UCT process.  as  zone  the  b i o l o g i c a l  designed  zone,  of  the  is  at  process.  Modified as  the  SRT  applications  that  for  process.  1.0  Because  the  an  show  Bardenpho  researchers  nitrogen  Bardenpho  calculations  in  2.2)  anoxic  zone.  Modified  as  anaerobic  through  -  process  known  Figure  the  1980's  a  removal  i l l u s t r a t e d  to  early  developed  phosphorus  passed  the  22  does  process.  process, The  f i r s t  the  have  not  the  VIP  modified  UCT  anoxic  RAS and  been  zone  mixed  appear  into  l i q u o r to  have  -  Daigger process The  known  process  as  a l .  the  hydraulic  process,  because  (1987)  at  a  its  nitrogen  short  phosphorus  removal  on  applicable  to  Canadian  ammonia  removal  addition,  process  does  recycle.  It  allows  currently hours.  These on  applicable the  a i n  norm  could  20  be  seasonal Canada, and  the  to  seasonal  requirement  for  hours.  This  to  provide  i n  At a  many  places,  summer. rate  process  p i l o t  complete  plant  mixed  liquor removal,  UBC the  desired  ammonia  In  production.  nominal  t h i s  to  p a r t i c u l a r l y  phosphorus  is  Again,  t o t a l  (UBC)  only.  i t  a  sludge  SRT and  i f  and  is  high  and  process.  addition  the  Columbia  day  only.  where  6  i n  where,  the  ammonia  reduced  basis  days  This  UCT-type  (VIP)  aerobic/anoxic  25  rate  expected  during  d e n i t r i f i a t i o n a  is  maximizes  the  permits  8  weather  that  i t  to  basis.  B r i t i s h  u t i l i z e  at  age,  only  as  high  approximately  warm  claim  of  a  Plant  4  environment  removal  p a r t i a l  of  sludge in  a l .  therefore  for  of  year-round  University  operates  nitrogen  are  et  not  age  required  phosphorus  The  but  is  Daigger  maximizes  a  tested  I n i t i a t i v e  time  removal  the  have  sludge  retention of  -  V i r g i n i a  operates  nominal  complete  et  23  process  HRT o f to  process  removal  19  remove is  very  standards  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  is  rare.  Another Canadian This  environment  process  having  to  process  allows  i n s t a l l  is for  a  which the  the  mixed  appears  to  have  merit  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  l i q u o r  recycle.  of  the  RAS  Therefore,  i n  the  process. without ammonia  -  and  phosphorus  removal  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n .  This  external  source  would  consumed  be  of  -  can  be  process  VFA's  by  24  achieved  would  since  require  VFA's  d e n i t r i f y i n g  along  i n  the  some  addition  the  bacteria  with  influent  of  an  sewage  at  the  front  of  the  process  was  tested  at  the  reactor.  The p i l o t  scale  results  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  level  were Qasim  of  process  does  not  and  appear  It the  processes  VFA's  being  quantities added  to  lab  to  have  Bio-P be  the  anaerobic  processes. i n  an zone  Figure  external for  the  the  the  2  of  hours),  wastewater  the  processes  to  use  process  short  HRT  in  the  mainstream  upon  sufficient  to  should  VFA supply  anaerobic  test.  the  dependent  Good  successful  f u l l - s c a l e  because to  on  to  1988).  However,  Therefore,  processes  2.3.  1  a  influent  Sidestream  Schematic  i n  t o t a l l y  the  present,  report  that  bacteria.  Sidestream  presented  noted  i n  2.2.2  II  used  (Koch,  added  experiments.  been  almost  1980's  were  (1987)  (typically  are  early  VFA's  scale  be  present  of  when  i n  zone  Bio-P  the  Udomsinrot  should  anaerobic  growth  UBC i n  obtained  zone. the  at  promote  the  i n s u f f i c i e n t  w i l l  have  to  be  work.  Processes  include  diagrams  the for  Phostrip these  and  Phostrip  processes  are  -  25  -  sc  PC  *-  WAS  STRIPPER  LIME SLUDGE  PHOSTRIP PROCESS  SC  PC  WAS  PRE-STRIPPER TANK  LIME SLUDGE PHOSTRIP I I PROCESS  FIGURE  2.3  -  SIDESTREAM  BIO-P  PROCESS  SCHEMATICS  -  Developed early  1970's  f i r s t  Bio-P  operation  (Levin process  (Levin  conventional portion  of  is  e l u t r i a t e d  from  to  conditions, operating  produce influent VFA  conditions  of  VFA's sewage  the  are i n  to  provides  a  long  the  effluent  is  supply  fermentable  carbon  claim  stripper  tank  that by  HRT. and  process a  of  as  an  to  much  as  50%.  the  S a l l a the tank  return  the  modification  through  the  presented  VFA's  as  a  conditions,  to  in  lime  Typical Table  2.1.  tank  contained  i n  The  to  by  supply  s t r i p p e r . the  that  endogenous the  size  proposed II  i n  which  sludge.  of  This  more  Levin  a  process.  provided  activated  to the  fact  reduce  Phostrip is  is  aerobic  s t r i p p e r  (1987)  reduces  is  s t r i p p e r  exposure  effort  an  r e a c t o r - c l a r i f i e r  predominantly  and/or  compounds, this  is  through  phosphorus  bioreactor.  Delia  with  a  wastewater.  on  the  known  VFA's  the are  p r e - s t r i p p e r  mixed  upon  as  In  that  from  solely  s t r i p p e r  exception  sludge  process  i n  a  Released a  the  f u l l - s c a l e  routed  to  was  l i k e  solution  i n  a  and  operates  of  i t ,  storage,  Levin  a  S a l l a  the  consumed  modification,  primary  where  r e l i e s  the  s t r i p p e r  t h i s  for  PHB  necessitates  modification In  for  out  i n  anaerobic  overflows  phosphorus  process  production  decay  up  the  anaerobic  bioreactor  is  1960's  process  used  the  sludge.  and  late  process  sludge  precipitated  takes  The  the  the  and  with  Under  from  thickened  the  plant  i n  Phostrip  The  activated  sludge  then  The  1975).  tank.  the  patented  sludge  released  is  States  1972),  both  a l . ,  the  -  United  be  return  phosphorus  returned  a l . ,  activated  s t r i p p e r  addition.  et  et  the  i t  the  to  anaerobic  where  i n  26  easily  and  volume  of  Delia the  -  The  process  incorporation e i t h e r  be  into  sized  a  can  -  also  be  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  to  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  27  accommodate  basin  can  be  modified  plant.  The  to  s t r i p p e r  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n ,  placed  f a c i l i t a t e  upstream  or  of  tank  an  the  can  anoxic  s t r i p p e r  tank.  Phostrip Biospherics report  that  been  or  more  than  that  a l l  achieve  are  as  of  now  a  1987,  i n  plants  2.2.3  Kinetic  A  of  of  number the  phosphorus  have  licensed  Delia  S a l l a  the  operated.  consistently  (1987)  plants  world,  have  and  They been  by  that claim  able  to  less.  Modelling  removal  removal  is  Phostrip  mg/L TP or  researchers  Bio-P  and  been  have  1.0  and  throughout  i n s t a l l a t i o n s containing  Levin  municipal  construction  these  process  MD.  fifteen  p i l o t  effluents  proprietary  Rockville,  of  f i f t e e n of  k i n e t i c s of  Inc.  is  can  have  attempted  mechanism, be  made  such  for  to  that  the  model  the  predictions  various  Bio-P  processes.  Hong the zone  A / O process and  et  a l .  to  phosphorus  e s s e n t i a l l y phosphorus  based release  (1981)  describe uptake on  the  and  developed  s e m i - e m p i r i c a l models  phosphorus i n  the  driving  uptake  release  aerobic force  rates  to  i n  zone. concept  the  the The  for  anaerobic models  are  which  relates  difference  between  -  soluble the  phosphate  bacterial  application Equations  i n the wastewater  mass.  of  Hong  this  developed  (i)  28 -  model  et to  and s t o r e d polyphosphate a l . report  the Largo,  the  Florida  in  successful A/0  plant.  a r e as f o l l o w s :  Anaerobic  Conditions  dPS = k, ( - 1 ^ - PS )X + h R. "dt • 0  1  (ii)  X  Aerobic dPS dt  2  Conditions  = k  2  X PS (  1  s  - p /p*^ /  +  1  I  s o l u b l e p h o s p h a t e (mg/L) b a c t e r i a l s t o r e d polyphosphate (mg/L) maximum s t o r a g e o f p o l y p h o s p h a t e (mg/L) r a t e o f b i o l o g i c a l a b s o r p t i o n o f BOD ^OD (mg/L-hr) X = a c t i v e b i o m a s s (mg/L) p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y c o n s t a n t s (mg/L a n d l' 2 dimensionless respectively) r a t e c o n s t a n t s (L/mg-hr) saturation constant (dimensionless) s  where PS PI P*  h  It VFA's  are  bacteria  appears present  growth,  accommodate  constants  relatively  that  this  i n the and  phosphorus  combined w i t h the  h  anaerobic  that  zone  that  to  BOD  t o the levels  make  sufficient  promote i s  t h e use  of  Bio-P  present  predicted.  i n p r o v i d i n g meaningful  i n the equations,  limited.  assumes  sufficient  removal  the d i f f i c u l t y  model  to  This,  values f o r this  model  -  S i e b r i t z , model  which  removal  could  f o r  mg/L  hence,  It  of  anaerobic  zone  biodegradable to  to the  -  (1983) to  based  the  the  COD t h e n  semi-empirical  amount  assumption  biodegradable"  Bio-P  a  configurations  on  promote  the  removal  defines  and a  i s  factor"  minimum  required  Bio-P  of  phosphorus wastewater  the  of  a b i l i t y  c a l l e d  and  i s  i n  bacteria  The amount  measure This  of  that  is  of  process. a  propensity  COD  growth  phosphorus.  removal  presented  predict  process  was  remove  phosphorus  used  "readily  t r i g g e r  process  be  a l .  various  compositions. 25  et  29  the  of the  and,  r e a d i l y of  the  "excess  calculated  as  follows:  P_ f  =  (S. bsa  -  v  Where  P  f  S.  =  f  xa  excess phosphorus removal propensity factor readily biodegradable soluble COD i n anaerobic zone (mg/L) a n a e r o b i c sludge mass f r a c t i o n  =  f  25) '  =  the  Xcl The amount define excess  of  propensity  enhanced  this  i n  Bio-P  terms  phosphorus  following  of  Where  X  a  is  removal  then  derived  -  used  to  attainable.  coefficient  removal".  emperically  Y  factor  This  c a l l e d is  determine  S i e b r i t z the  et  "coefficient  calculated  using  equation:  =  0.35  0.29  e  =  coefficient of (mg P / m g V S S )  < - ° '  2  4  2  excess  P  f>  phosphorus  removal  the a l . of the  -  -30  The calculated removal that the  by  by  t h i s  amount  the  removal this  be  the  than  14  the  model  model days.  In  when  removal  et  release  and  carbohydrate  behaviour  wasted.  no  nitrates  t h i s  is  not  COD i s et  or  the  a l .  can  then  excess  It  DO a r e  to  be  a  noted  present  in  proportionately  t r i g g e r  present  be  phosphorus  should  case,  required  the of  s u f f i c i e n t l y  not  not  work Tsuno  and  the  Bio-P  by  which  method  developed  for  Barnard the  et  a l .  et  a l .  Kelowna  to  be  (1984)  plants  on  the  development  et  a l .  (1987)  a  model  removal  Wentzell  stoichiometry Bio-P  used  appear  applicable recommended  having  SRT's  less  reports  that  predicted  that  (1985)  plant,  occur.  TOC  PHB.  not  Ekama  be  to  developed  uptake,  does  plants.  applied  by  a l .  describe  of  that  addition,  would  reported  Tsuno  biomass  however,  should  Recent been  coefficient  S i e b r i t z  treatment  model,  Bio-P  If  removal  calculated.  Canadian  that  of  biodegradable  mechanism.  can  the  assumes  zone.  This to  weight  method  r e a d i l y  phosphorus  m u l t i p l y i n g  anaerobic  more  of  and  bacteria. for  and  of  Wentzell  which and et  a l . of  Neither  et  models a l .  simulated  changes  kinetics  f u l l - s c a l e  k i n e t i c  i n  (1987).  phosphorus  i n t r a c e l l u l a r  developed the  has  a  model  to  anaerobic/aerobic  model  a p p l i c a t i o n  would however.  appear  -  2.3  Previous  Technical  Over  the  past  independent  studies  which  the  Bio-P  et  a l .  out  (1983)  for  Weston  Inc.  results (1985)  of  2.2.  a l .  out  for  of  with  achieved  by  (1986)  most  processes.  indicate  a d d i t i o n  Modified  is  that  A/0  less  et  effluent to  and  and  F . the  Crawford  removal  results  summarized  to  than  2.0  be  of  i n an  a l .  1.0  (1983)  f i l t r a t i o n less  processes.  et  be  a l .  mg/L and  or than  Table  effluent  mg/L can  than  i n  that  T e t r e a u l t  achieve UCT  present  Bio-P  the  are  less  Walsh  of  Roy  Canada.  appears  processes.  required  Bardenpho,  Evans  present  carried  Commission.  USEPA.  of  Walsh  investigation  use  five  published.  (1985)  the  of  c a p a b i l i t i e s  a l .  studies  of  been  an  et  for  of  concentrations a l l  of  the  consensus  Bio-P  t e c h n i c a l  Environment  these  r e s u l t s  Sanitary  (1986)  TP concentrations  that  chemical  for  potential  et  general  suggest  the  the  conclusions  u n f i l t e r e d  a l .  prepared  carried  The  achieved  and  the  have  results  T e t r e a u l t  on  the  processes,  (1985)  Canviro  The  years,  reviewed  the  Technology  Assessments  Suburban  studies  evaluation  Bio-P  Washington  comment  Canada.  of  five  removal  summarize  the  -  Assessments  2.3.1  various  31  easily (1985) can  Canviro  be et  supplemental 1.0  mg/L  for  -  The  above  mentioned  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s performance present r a t i o s mg/L  of  of the  s p e c i f i c  These  to  importance  of  substrates  (such  generally  Bio-P  ignored  in  to  phosphorus i n  and  Table  2.3.  other  i n  the  and  the  to  the  Crawford  carbon to  of  to  less  They  anaerobic  studies.  that  c r i t i c a l  removal  concentrations  VFA's)  recognize  are  Evans  phosphorus  summarized  the  sewage  process.  s u f f i c i e n t as  generally  influent  ensure  are  -  studies  carbon  required  TP.  the  32  also  soluble zone.  (1985) nitrogen  than  1.0  note  the  carbon This  is  ACHIEVABLE  EFFLUENT T P  (ma/L-P)  MODIFIED STUDY Walsh  PHOSTRIP et  a l .  A / 0  A2/0  (1983)  -  F i l t e r e d  <1.0  <1.0  <1.0  <1.5  -  Unfiltered  <1.5  <1.0  <2.0  <3.0  <1.0  <2.0  <2.0  <2.0  <1.0  <1.0  <1.0  <1.0  Roy  F .  Weston,  Tetreault Canviro  R.  BARDENPHO  et  et  Inc. a l .  a l .  (1985)  (1985)  (1986)  -  F i l t e r e d  <0.3  <1.0  <1.0  N.R.  -  Unfiltered  <1.0  <2.0  <2.0  N.R.  -  Unfiltered  +  N.R.  <1.0  <1.0  N.R.  -  F i l t e r e d  Chemical  N.R.  <0.3  <0.3  N.R.  -  Not  +  Chemical  Addition  Addition  reported  TABLE  2.2  -  SUMMARY O F PERFORMANCE A S S E S S M E N T S  OF BIO-P  PROCESSES  LIMIT  ON  PARAMETER MODIFIED  N/A  A/O  BARDENPHO  PHOSTRIP  PARAMETER  1.  COD:P  >28  >40  N/A  2.  BOD :P  >18  >25  >25  3.  COD:TKN  >7.1  >8.3  4.  BODg:TKN  >4.3  >5.0  -  5  Not  TABLE  2.3  N/A >6.7  available  -  SEWAGE  CHARACTERISTICS  (from  REQUIRED  Evans  and  FOR  BIO-P  Crawford,  REMOVAL TO  1985)  LESS  THAN  1.0  mg/L  TP  -  2.3.2  Economic  The  most  effectiveness a l .  Bio-P are  of  (1986). was  presently  less  for  following  detailed  technology  concluded  r e l a t i v e l y  that  limited than  Bio-P  -  Assessments  recent  Bio-P  They  candidates  35  15  in  was  c a r r i e d  the  potential  Canada  plants  r e t r o f i t s .  circumstances  assessment  in  They  would  and  of  out  the  by  cost  Canviro  for  the  suggest  et  use  that  of  there  the  country  that  are  note,  however,  that  the  make  Bio-P  removal  more  a t t r a c t i v e : i)  imposition 0.5  of  t o t a l  phosphorus  of  nitrogen  effluent  l i m i t s  of  less  than  mg/L,  i i )  imposition  i i )  major  iv)  increased  increases  achieve  i n  the  confidence  effluent  removal price  in  t o t a l  the  standards,  of  f e r r i c  chloride  c a p a b i l i t y  phosphorus  of  l i m i t s  in  Bio-P of  Ontario,  removal  less  than  to 1.0  mg/L, v)  c a p i t a l  In  funding  spite  results  of  an  advantages annual  of  cost  incremental economically following  of  assistance.  these  conclusions,  economic the  Bio-P  basis c a p i t a l superior  cases:  analysis  which  technology.  (which costs) to  Canviro  the  A/O  chemical  a l .  showed  When  includes  et  process  present  the  compared  the  removal  d i d  economic  on  a  t o t a l  amortization was  found  processes  to  for  of be the  -  i)  New  secondary  standards  i i )  of  R e t r o f i t s  36  plants  1.0  of  -  having  mg/L and  0.3  conventional  effluent  t o t a l  phosphorus  mg/L.  activated  sludge  plants  having  effluent  t o t a l  3 flows  greater  phosphorus  The also found  to  be  Bardenpho  against  removal  phosphorus  basis by  than  between have  the  been  against  is  compare  they and  a  processes  processes  are  were  for  being  Since  alone,  the  the  Modified  more  nitrogen  compared  analysis  v a l i d  Bardenpho  against  aeration presented  c a p i t a l analysis  and  plant  and  nitrogen  larger  i n  not  Modified  combined  difference A  were  the  combined  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  removal  and  were  cost would  UCT  processes  having  chemical  removal.  should  conclusions  mg/L.  understandable  basins.  the  0.3  Phostrip  technology.  reflects  and  removal  requires  aeration  and  n i t r i f i c a t i o n / d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  phosphorus  It  UCT  since  removal  m / d  mg/L and  technologies,  a l .  two  to  a  This  phosphorus  et  1.0  chemical  removal  for  Canviro  of  UCT processes  phosphorus-only  and  13,600  Bardenpho,  economic.  and  phosphorus a  standards  Modified  compared  than  on  also  be  noted  hypothetical  consider  regional  handling  practices  variations and  that  Canviro  treatment in  chemical  plants  sewage costs.  et  a l .  and  based  hence,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  t h e i r  d i d  not  sludge  -  Roy of  Bio-P  Weston,  removal  treatment  Inc.  versus  plants  phosphorus Modified  F .  and  of  -  (1985)  chemical  and  also  sizes  removal  A/0  studied  removal  different  nitrogen  Bardenpho  37  for and  were  economics  hypothetical  new  having  different  The  Phostrip,  standards.  processes  the  considered  i n  this  Table  2.4)  study.  The showed worth  results  that basis  of  Bio-P i n  the  analysis  removal  a l l  was  cases  (as  presented  economically  with  the  i n  superior  exception  of  on  a  present  plants  having  3 capacities  less  standards and  less  than than  phosphorus  1,892 1.0  removal,  m / d  mg/L.  and In  Bio-P  effluent  a l l  was  cases  deemed  t o t a l  phosphorus  involving to  be  nitrogen  economically  superior.  PLANT EFFLUENT  STANDARDS  THROUGHPUT  (m /d) 3  1.892  18.925  189.250  1.  T P <1.0  mg/L-P  Chemical  Phostrip  Phostrip  2.  T P <2.0  mg/L-P  A/0  A/0  A/0  3.  T P <2.0 NH <1.0  mg/L-P mg/L-N  A/0  A/0  A/0  T P <2.0 NH <3.0  mg/L-P mg/L-N  Modified Bardenpho  Modified Bardenpho  Modified Bardenpho  3  4.  3  Note:  l i s t e d represent  Processes process. TABLE  2.4  -  SUMMARY BIO-P  the economically  OF USEPA  REMOVAL  SPONSORED  ECONOMICS  superior  STUDY ON  -  Evans a  and  Crawford  hypothetical  t h i s  49,000  analysis  they  A/0  process)  the  p r e c i p i t a n t .  cost  of  $2,100,000. use  of  noted  the  Bio-P the  was  effluent  Edmonton analysis remove  20  i t  t o t a l  was  1.0  prepared  costs  Removal Chemical  for  both  the  over  of  that  (Liquid  the  Phostrip  a  10%  options  Total alum  It  should  that  the  the  be two  effluent  process.  for From  be  of  as  Assuming  follows:  3,374,467  basins)  i i )  Phostrip  2,175,435  i i i )  A/O  1,839,527  to  offered  return,  Cost  the this  required  removal.  Annual  the  secondary  processes  rate  were  for  between  Plant. plant  as  c a p i t a l  analysis  phosphorus  and  various  Process  aeration  and  chemical  the  Phoredox  the  approximately  achieve  Treatment  A/O  period  cost  economic  should  alum  removal.  to the  an  Wastewater  amortization  to  mg/L  using  calculated  assumption  required  concluded  savings  annual  i)  of  Bar  phosphorus,  year  was  (1987)  Gold  author's  In  to  is  were  c a p i t a l  Canada.  incremental  process  i n  for  (similar  process  chemical  analysis  western  the  $192,000.  over  the  i n  process  that  difference on  standard  s i g n i f i c a n t a  technology  based  S h i v j i  of  economic  removal  Phoredox  savings  large  Phoredox  conclude  the  f i l t r a t i o n  phosphorus  a  an  located  chemical  They  Annual  that  options  a  present  plant  compare  i n s t a l l i n g  -  (1985)  m / d  against  38  ($)  the  -  It made  should  no  be  noted  allowances  sludge  39  -  however,  for  either  fermentation,  or  that VFA  i n  his  analysis,  production  S h i v j i  through  anaerobic  digestor  present  analyses  primary  supernatant  treatment.  A  number  economic removal  and  other  data  i n s t a l l i n g  and  the  (1983)  references  advantages  presented of  of  of  the  Bio-P  (see the  associated estimates  Phostrip  processes.  Table  2.5)  process Levin  which  II  process  savings  i n  operating  that  the  over  and  incremental  for  both  Delia  indicates  Phostrip  showing  the  various  costs.  c a p i t a l  the  chemical  S a l l a  (1987)  c a p i t a l plant  Peirano cost  cost flows,  et  a l .  required  to  3 r e t r o f i t Plant in  i n  152,000  Nevada,  operating  Capital estimated data  the  for  the  the  costs  costs to  to  be  to  m / d  Phostrip  were  estimates  to It is  Water  process  estimated  r e t r o f i t  $5,920,000.  above  Reno-Sparks  is to  other should not  P o l l u t i o n  $4,940,000. be  Bio-P. be  noted  provided.  Control Savings  $1,300,000/year. processes that  were  supporting  -  40  -  _ ANNUAL CHEMICAL ADDITION  P L A N T FLOW (MUSGDi  COSTS  fS  PHOSTRIP  X 10 II  ) SAVINGS  PHOSTRIP II CAPITAL COST (S X 10 )  5  624  414  209  1,200  10  1,248  829  419  1,760  20  2,495  1,657  838  2,540  30  3,743  2,486  1,257  3,270  50  6,238  4,144  2,095  4,680  TABLE  2.5  (from  -  PHOSTRIP  Levin  II  and Delia  SAVINGS  S a l l a ,  AND COSTS  1987)  -  Levin the  Phostrip  and  two-stage  results  (shown  (1975) to  lime  cost  Phostrip  a l .  process  c a p i t a l  the  et  below)  technology.  rate  of  addition  a  of  economic  the  et  a l .  (1982) 70  (1984)  25  year  return,  the  advantages  for  a  be  the  Patapsco  chemical was  not  above  economic  MINERAL ADDITION  129.75  54.75  83.00  52.35  reports that Plant  approximately  documentation  on  USS/MG1  LIME  determined  MUSGD  was of  (1973  TWO-STAGE  29.15  worth  may  6%  costs  mineral  Assuming  COST  PHOSTRIP  50  Based there  ANNUAL  29.40  process,  supporting  a  definite  10  Associates  present  and  FLOW  Deakyne  A/O  with  annual  process.  (MUSGD)  the  t o t a l  removal.  period  suggest  the  associated  phosphorus  amortization  PLANT  r e t r o f i t t i n g  -  compared  those  TOTAL  and  41  that  Whitman,  the  present  at  50  Baltimore,  percent  removal  less  Requardt worth MD than  r e t r o f i t .  of  using the  However,  attainable.  information,  advantages  i t  is  associated  evident with  that Bio-P  - 42 -  3.0  STUDY  3.1  In  METHODOLOGY  General  order  Canada,  i t  to  was  representative plants. plants with  these  designs,  the  a  the  the  cost  of  i n s t a l l  Bio-P  processes,  removal  The  was  an  and  return  o v e r a l l  and  (IRR's)  for  costs  and  of  for  of  nine  costs  for  Bio-P  these  the  the  The  process,  a  over  operation costs,  required  Using potential  these of  was  c a r r i e d  i)  s e l e c t  treatment  ii)  obtain  plant  i i i )  prepare  out  plants  design  preliminary  and  in  for  the  following  study,  operating  Bio-P  r e t r o f i t  data, designs,  nine  to  rates Bio-P  made.  study  a  against  internal  c a p i t a l  a  associated  compared  calculated.  assessment  on  technology.  Bio-P  From  i n  treatment  operating  removal  savings  studies  designs  operating  a  removal  wastewater  calculated  were  Bio-P  r e t r o f i t  operation.  of  return,  Bio-P  cost  rates  of  Canadian  c a p i t a l  was  removal  for  comparative  i n s t a l l i n g  incremental the  out  phosphorus  operating  chemical  of  c a p i t a l  process,  incremental  versus  carry  against  c a p i t a l  removal  to  potential  preparing  chemical  incremental  the  section  involved  comparing  equivalent  chemical  decided cross  This and  assess  stages:  -  iv)  meet  with  v)  revise  vi)  prepare  v i i )  estimate  Bio-P  staff  to  designs  incremental  v i i i ) prepare ix)  plant  as  prepare  -  review  Bio-P  designs,  required,  material  incremental economic  43  take-offs  c a p i t a l  and  (MTO's),  operating  costs,  analyses  o v e r a l l  assessment  and  develop  conclusions  and  recommendations.  As were  previously  studied.  detailed  i n  The  to  nutrient  removal  of  After operating  Bio-P  was  (where  i)  Process  flow  i i )  Detailed  i i i )  Aeration  selection  however,  the  wastewater  i n  impacts  and  regional  new  of  general of  treatment these  terms,  sewage  r e t r o f i t  plants  plants  is were  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  differences  versus  plants  in  chemical  projects  on  the  removal.  selecting  information  the  standards,  types,  data  nine  for  3.2;  evaluate  process  economics  basis  Section  selected  costs,  mentioned,  the  plants  requested  from  applicable)  diagrams  bioreactor system  was  and  and  to  be  each  plant.  design The  and  following  requested:  layout  drawings.  secondary  schematics  studied,  and  c l a r i f i e r  drawings.  blower/aerator  performance  curves. iv)  Pump return  specifications activated  for  sludge  primary pumps.  c l a r i f i e r  underflow  and  - 44 -  v)  Raw  sewage,  primary  characterizations. TSS,  VSS,  N H  3  ,  effluent  and  S p e c i f i c a l l y , N0 ,  TKN,  3  TP,  f i n a l  analyses  effluent  of  temperature  BOD /COD, 5  and  DO  were  requested. vi)  E f f l u e n t  v i i )  Descriptions t h e i r  standards.  ix)  Current  x)  Sludge  type  the  consisted changes  piping  the  plant  the  r e t r o f i t  out  to  to  Finalized then  preparing  from  of  r e t r o f i t  the  phosphorus  were  process  existing  the  i n then  process A  the  and  practices  and  removal. -  process, were  of  and  refinement as  flow  diagrams  description is  the  required,  of  the  the  presented  to  plant and  new  which  equipment  onsite  were  with of  carried  designs.  The  include  input  inspections.  layout  design i n  plant.  p r a c t i c a l i t y  plants of  and  each  held  and  the  data,  diagrams  then  meetings  designs  for  flow  f e a s i b i l i t y  revised  operating  prepared  Inspections  review  r e t r o f i t  design  Meetings  review  developed. the  for  of  modified  to  were  the  disposal  .  designs  a s s i s t  designs  used  receipt  designs.  further  received  dosage  requirements. staff  and  costs.  r e t r o f i t  and  were  and  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  preliminary  identified  handling  costs.  chemical  Following  r e t r o f i t  sludge  associated  yiii)Chemical  Designs  of  basis  Section  drawings used 3.3.  i n  -  Upon layout  completion  drawings,  determining r e t r o f i t  the  over  included  i n  incremental were  also  After The  basis  costs) each of  a l l  was  analysis  This  required  required  for  for  of  i n  quantities  chosen  made  MTO's,  cost  estimating  then  assessment  then  materials  presented  diagrams  the  an  (e.g.  involved the  Bio-P  equivalent  l e v e l  Section  and  of  3.4.  d e t a i l At  chemicals,  this  labour,  calculated.  presented  plant  are  flow  prepared.  Descriptions  operating  completing for  is  o v e r a l l was  MTO's  process  were  those  process.  these  MTO's of  above  -  revised  incremental  arid  removal  power)  the  quantities  chemical  time,  of  45  i n  (both  Section  performed. and of  and  the  the  estimating c a p i t a l  3.4.  The  Section  rationale potential  conclusions  3.5  and  economic  i t s  out.  operating  analysis  describes  Bio-P  and  c a r r i e d  costs  behind  for  was  the  method  selection.  removal  i n  for  An  Canada  recommendations  were  developed.  3.2  In  Plant  order  treatment plants  for  Selection  to  plants, study:  obtain the  Basis  a  representative  following  c r i t e r i a  cross-section  were  used  to  of  select  -  i)  Plants  should  country where  i i )  primary  of  type.  Bio-P  for by  removal  either  Bio-P  Canviro  technology the  r e t r o f i t  processes  (e.g.  RBC's,  f a c i l i t i e s  the  should  activated  i t  was  et  of  regions  removal  standards  f e l t was  s u f f i c i e n t l y  r e t r o f i t t i n g  was  i n  advanced  f e l t to  treatment  SBR's,  addition  This  also  secondary  f i l t e r s ,  considered  It  or  extended  economic.  not  other  or  that  (1986).  the  foreseeable.  sludge  not  of  standards  are  a l .  t r i c k l i n g  be  different  removal  has  consider  New  the  phosphorus  I n t u i t i v e l y  plants  confirmed  that  i i i )  be  -  from  having  phosphorus  should  aeration  was  selected  currently  future  Plants  be  46  lagoons).  to  existing  f a c i l i t i e s .  iv)  A  v)  A  range  of  range  plant  of  sizes  nutrient  should  be  considered.  removal  requirements  should  be  techniques  should  be  considered.  vi)  A  v a r i e t y  of  sludge  processing  considered.  v i i )  A manageable  number  of  plants  should  be  selected.  -  v i i i ) T h e  plant  s t a f f  must  47  be  -  w i l l i n g  to  p a r t i c i p a t e  i n  the  study.  Using A  l i s t i n g  Table  these of  3.1.  c r i t e r i a ,  these, A  few  nine  complete  comments  plants  with  on  were  selected  descriptions,  the  selection  of  is  for  study.  presented  these  plants  in are  warranted.  As  shown  Saskatchewan removal Quebec  and as  According  also  the  and to  are  two  anticipated. considered  since  1,800).  i n  i n  therefore,  removal  the is  this are  not these  an  oxidation  This  again,  is  Manitoba,  Manitoba  applicable  i n  plant  Columbia,  to  are  for  the  considered  to  cases  and  are  not  were  not  phosphorus  town be  having  removal.  Brunswick having  not  lagoon  Bio-P  Manitoba  currently d i t c h  batch  isolated  i n  New  were  currently  small  plants  Alberta, phosphorus  province both  from though  i n  requirements plants  only  even  B r i t i s h  Plants  plants  (1987)  plants  considered  exist  S i m i l a r l y ,  standards  (population  were  only  standards  Peterson  phosphorus  3.1,  Brunswick.  removal  operations  case.  Ontario  New  phosphorus  removal  and  Table  standards  considered  future  on  an  of  McAdam isolated  DESIGN PLANT  Edmonton Gold Bar  FLOW  fm^/di  340000  PROCESS  NUTRIENT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN (mg/L-P) (mg/L-N)  DESCRIPTION  Conventional activated None sludge, single stage anaerobic digestion, sludge lagoons  None  COMMENTS  Potential P removal requirement Ran f u l l - s c a l e Bio-P t e s t i n 1986/87  Calgary Bonnybrook  450000  Conventional activated sludge, single stage anaerobic digestion, sludge lagoons  TP <1.0 (May-Oct) TP <1.25 (Nov-Apr)  None  Regina  90919  Aerated lagoons, two anaerobic digestion, f i l t e r presses  TP  None  stage belt  <1.0  Potential expansion to activated sludge i n 1990 P o t e n t i a l NH_ removal r e q u i r e ment  Saskatoon H.A. Mclvor Weir  90919  Windsor L i t t l e River i) E x i s t i n g 36281 Plant ii)  Current Expansion  27211  Primary c l a r i f i e r s , two stage anaerobic digestion sludge lagoons  None  Conventi sludge, l a n d f i l l Conventi sludge, l a n d f i l l  ted ,  TP  ted ,  TP <1.0 Nov-Apr TP <0.3 May-Oct  onal activa centrifuges disposal onal activa centrifuges disposal  <1.0  None  Potential expansion to secondary t r e a t ment and P removal i n n e x t 5-10 years  None  New f a c i l i t y share g r i t removal and sludge proces f a c i l i t i e s wi e x i s t i n g f a c i  NH_<4 Nov-Apr NH_<1 May-Oct  w i l l  sing th l i t y  Ran f u l l - s c a l e Bio-P t e s t i n 1985-86 TABLE  3.1  -  WASTEWATER T R E A T M E N T P L A N T S  STUDIED  DESIGN  PLANT  FLOW  frn^/di  PROCESS  DESCRIPTION  NUTRIENT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN (mg/L-P) (mg/L-N)  6.  Grimsby Baker Road Ontario  18140  Conventional activated sludge (completely mixed reactors), two stage anaerobic digestion, land application of sludge  TP  <1.0  None  7.  Milton Ontario  12911  Conventional activated sludge, two stage anaerobic digestion, land application of sludge  SP  <0.43  90% N H removal  8.  Elmira Ontario  4550  Conventional activated sludge, chemical conditioning of sludge, f i l t e r press, disposal to l a n d f i l l  TP  <1.0  TKN <3.5 (Apr-Oct) NH<7.5 (NOv-Mar)  9.  Wellesley Ontario  500  Extended aeration, land application of sludge  TP  <1.0  None  TABLE  3.1  -  WASTEWATER TREATMENT P L A N T S (cont'd)  STUDIED  COMMENTS  -  Plants f e l t of  that  i t s  i n  there  (Kamloops  removal  and  Okanagan i n  made  activated However, was in  not  c a r r i e d  Quebec  A plants  studied i n  Calgary,  plant of out.  of  the  were  Ontario Edmonton  removal  for  of  was  was  outside  Okanagan  future that  general  V a l l e y  phosphorus  Additional  f e l t  i n  i t  removal  the  have  1986).  i n  The  the  on  would  data  removal  phosphorus  are  u n l i k e l y  the  use  the  v i a b i l i t y  of  i n  for  i n also  Regina  a  the  shows  Western have  of  of  Bio-P of  operations,  and  plants  use  50,000  was  of  terms  i n  of  hence,  were  / d  removal  the  Ideally,  previously  3  analysis  Section  studied.  m  obtained.  Bio-P  a l l  in  Environment  complete  that  been a l l  the the  Canada.  have  two  Granby  general  selected  or  for  constraints,  however,  located  one  Ministry  City  potential  plants  t h e i r  study  operating  schedule  and  to  p r o v i n c i a l  and  discussed,  review  plants  Bio-P  is  i t  as  V a l l e y .  foreseeable  intended  the  . design  because  Bio-P  Okanagan  currently  the  considered  for  outside  reflected  was at  sludge  not  province.  i t  and  the  addition,  the  Contacts  i n  Canada,  in  V a l l e y  O r i g i n a l l y Quebec.  potential  which  (Environment  In  were  plants  Whistler)  1987).  process  were  two  requirements  (Wetter, the  l i t t l e  only  -  Columbia  application  are  requirements  the  was  present  There  in  B r i t i s h  50  5.  large large  However, considered interested  -  in  being  involved  offered  the  essentially both  a  work, the  new of  plant  plants  a p p l i c a b i l i t y i n  -  study. to  Section  sizes from  of  Saskatoon  evaluate  i n s t a l l a t i o n .  large  discussed  the  opportunity  v a r i e t y no  i n  51  removal  detailed  Bio-P Section  on  the  was  r e t r o f i t the  ways  designs  plants  these are  an  ensure scope  considered.  of  However,  Ontario  were  plants  the  also  plants  not  offer  subject  one  has  create  of  been  and  the the  into  tendency  an  the  to  is  selected  potential  of  designs  of  the  Bio-P  Section  By  t r a n s l a t i n g  removal this  the  Bio-P  for  discussion  past  attempt  to  nine  were  rather  in  to  r e t r o f i t than  based  on as  understanding  than  of  It Bio-P  patented  looking  bacteria  mechanism  were  available.  assessments  rather  Bio-P  plants  removal  processes  plant,  conducive  understanding 2.1.  of  with  existing  plant  for  published  problems  conditions  Therefore,  prepared  p r i n c i p l e s  patented  processes to  to  manageable  large  of  Basis  biochemical  that  technology Bio-P  hence,  Design  various  f e l t  However,  and  Plant  The based  order  i t  5.  3.3  on  study.  r e t r o f i t s  to  as  5.  N i t r i f i c a t i o n / d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n for  a  were  selected  f e a s i b i l i t y i n  maintain  Ontario  Bio-P  the  Therefore, and  was  growth.  the  present  summarized into  at  in  p r a c t i c a l  -  terms,  i t  was  successful  concluded  design  and  52  that  -  there  operation  are  of  a  four Bio-P  requirements plant.  for  These  the  are  as  periods  of  follows:  i)  B i o l o g i c a l anaerobic  i i )  A  HAc)  up  with VFA's  under sludge the  Bio-P  design  and  treatment  modified  for  employed  for  Bio-P  not  15  mg/L  conditions  must  come  t h e i r  to  t h e i r  stored  either  prevent or  from  these  requirements  the  removal.  The  of  the  designs  recycled  unit  following  designs In  so is  to  the  of  doing,  phosphorus  the  presented.  exposure  of  for  the  streams.  impacts  on  operations  sections these  conditions,  provide  phosphorus  many  contact  exposure  aerobic  conditions  four  into  conditions).  long-term  these  of  r e t r o f i t  must  during  and  to  how  (approximately anaerobic  release  systems  of  the  anaerobic  plant.  describe  the  the  released  operation  and  solids  anaerobic  a p p l i c a t i o n  wastewater impacts  of  alternating  VFA's  oxygen  bacteria  sludge  to  phosphorus.  dissolved  during  of  during  mg/L of  processing  removal  The  5  present  Bio-P both  exposed  conditions.  b i o l o g i c a l  (i.e.  Because  be  and  the  be  concentration  to  Nitrates  must  aerobic  must  remove  iv)  and  s u f f i c i e n t  as  iii)  solids  outline  operations design  the  i n  a the  were  procedure  -  3.3.1  In removal VFA's  the  should  be  i n  extended  cases,  t h i s  since  the  of  by  any i n  current  of  performance  performance recycled  and  results  influent  sewage.  with  the  the  aerated  i n  oxidation  the  A l l  of  of  aerated  fermentation  aerated  plant,  exception  u t i l i z e d  for  the  g r i t  material of  the  Primary  of  the back  any  phosphorus  of  for  was  tanks  the  removal  g r i t  the  of  plants  the  Wellesley  g r i t  removal.  provided from  i n  service,  the  a l l was  balances  i t  was  for  Bio-P  was  are  not  removal.  assumed  that  maintained.  C l a r i f i e r s  removal  c l a r i f i e r s  has  unless  c l a r i f i e r s .  plants,  removal  f a c i l i t i e s  required  f a c i l i t i e s  Bio-P  primary to  g r i t  modifications  preparing  R e t r o f i t t i n g  SS  Bio-P  i t  sludge  of the  3.3.2  proposed  new  necessary.  Therefore,  are  as  study,  primary  Operation  the  a  plant,  removal  deemed  affected  the  aeration  However,  of  avoided  in  -  Removal  design  contained  considered  not  G r i t  53  i t  was  percentages  be  effect  on  fermenter  Since  assumed would  no  t h i s  that  the  solids was  not  current  BOD,  maintained.  -  The the  operation  underflow  fermentation the  sludge  i n  the  fermenter.  percent  of  percent  Therefore, were  the  checked  capacity  discharge be  the  100  heads pumped  ensure desired  percent were into  3.3.3  As 15  mg/L  of  VFA's  bioreactor  is  It VFA upon  supply,  was the  present.  In  they  range  of  spare  was  also  VFA's many  N i c h o l l s  et  of  up  conditions  vary  between  of  the  pumps  to  5  may  be  1  and  5  fermenter.  i n  provide  in  each  the  plant  required  also to  deemed  necessary.  ensure  that  Pump  the  sludge  fermenter.  Sludge  i n  to  promote  noted  that, Bio-P  being  Fermentation  the the  presence  the  in  growth  the  of  i n  are the  s u f f i c i e n t report  approximately  zone  of  Bio-P  absence  processes  (1986)  of  anaerobic  present  instances, a l .  minimize  flows.  mentioned,  mainstream  also  since  VFA e l u t r i a t i o n  flow  could  to  rates  sludge  checked  acetate)  essential  s u f f i c i e n t  bioreactor.  (as  with  performance  that  Primary  previously  may  change  increased  average  underflow  f u l l  is  pumping  rates  the  also a  at  c l a r i f i e r s  a s s i s t  sludge  pumping upon  rate  and  influent  existing to  and  A  could  plant  depending  primary  pumping  c l a r i f i e r  Underflow  -  the  Underflow  the  required.  of  54  of  Bio-P  bacteria.  an  solely  external dependent  influent quantities  improved  a  to  the  are  not  phosphorus  -  removal plant  at  the  through  bioreactor. in  Johannesburg  the  influent was  Bio-P  test.  the  to  the  to  responsible Oldham  Kelowna  Barnard experienced  i n  septic  sewers.  plants  where  hence,  VFA  the  the  also  the  zone  of  absence  of  wastewater of  the VFA's  treatment  a  f u l l - s c a l e  improved  plant  good  Bio-P  poor  performance  through  VFA  a r r i v e d  addition  at  of  phosphorus  plants  removal  condition.  the  River  notes  that  African  deficient,  the  treatment  addition  bioreactor.  notes  sewage  anaerobic  performance  treatment  the  (1984)  recommend  was the  connected  to  experienced plant  in  Therefore, VFA's  removal  to  the  a  both  was long,  i n  Bio-P  fresh  and  Oldham  and  anaerobic  zone  of  bioreactor.  process VFA's  addition  could  for  decay  also  the  could  by  emergence  anaerobic  by  of  the  b e n e f i c i a l . process  the  the  the  size  are  of  developers  Phostrip  Possible  methods  zone  as  are  stripper  of  follows:  II  tank  As  The  the  the  of  as  endogenous a  required.  process  Phostrip mentioned,  through  addition  s t r i p p e r of  of  previously  generated  fermentation.  reduce  recognized  to  be  Phostrip  followed  stream  the  poor  However,  VFA  been  for  the  wastewater  that  L i t t l e  of  South  the  Windsor  (1985)  zone  to  Works  suggested  wastewater  anaerobic  Barnard  (1986) the  -  Northern  addition  Oldham  plant  of  VFA  55  VFA-rich This  evidenced  has by  process.  increasing  the  VFA supply  to  the  -  i)  By-pass  the  flow  i i )  Purchase  of  iii)  Produce  eight  out  of  ascertain growth VFA's  i f  of  River  -  basis  to  1986  purposes  of  anaerobic  t h i s  zone  study,  would  acceptable  for  not  s u f f i c i e n t l y  acetic not  a  acid  to  $1.13/kg of  be  as  as  a  was  the  was  alone  1988)  assumed  would  for  was  not  possible  to  to  a l l  promote  where  Windsor  L i t t l e  1988)  available  on  a  was  regular  VFA addition  for  the  to  the  plants.  was  not  that  the  influent The  considered  from  i t  Therefore,  c l a r i f i e r  but  15  mg/L,  a  deemed i n  sewage  purchase  Assuming of  the  plants  concentrations  dosage  range  to  VFA  feasible. a  influent  1985,  that  condition. was  the  Turk,  not  acid).  i n  Canadian  -  primary  septic  and  i n  removal.  the  VFA source  entire  fermentation.  present  Oldham,  assumed  economically  (Speth,  supply  i t  -  Bio-P  increasing  zone,  i t  were  were  required  of  anaerobic i n  VFA's  i t  be  By-passing  studied,  Penticton  r e l i a b l e  the  acetic  sludge  measured  (Kelowna  sufficient  support  not  However,  and  d i v e r t  (e.g.  primary  quantities  measured  that  solutions  plants  bacteria.  and  bioreactor.  were  nine  Oldham,  determined  the  through  s u f f i c i e n t  been  c l a r i f i e r s  VFA-rich  VFA's  Bio-P  have  to  VFA's  the  -  primary  influent  Because  56  was  of  the was bulk  determined  bulk  cost  of  the  annual  cost  approximately  $3,100  for  -  Wellesley  to  $2.8  currently  spend  million  57  f o r Calgary.  o n l y $2,700 and  annual  basis  for  phosphorus  acetic  acid  feed  systems  increased  energy  a c i d w o u l d be Therefore,  -  $1.3  the use  million,  removal would  Clearly  of primary  with this  to the  In  be  use  VFA's i n v o l v e s The the  SRT  of  of  routing  the tank  growth  of  sufficiently bacteria.  primary  the primary  i s maintained  acid-forming  short  to  Similarly,  sufficiently  the  long to permit  contained  within  the  (including  VFA's).  anaerobic  digestor  HRT  Basically, in  produce  long to  growth the  sludge, the  which  to  methane  is  carbon  into  fermenter  promote and  methane-forming  tank of  tank.  bacteria,  of  as  -  sufficiently  breakdown  primary  chosen  anaerobic  of  the  option.  s l u d g e t o an  the  and  acetic  study .  fermentation  heterotrophic  inhibit  of  f e r m e n t a t i o n was  sludge  an  addition,  feasible  t h e o n l y v i a b l e method o f p r o d u c i n g VFA'si f o r t h e  The  on  installed  oxidation  i s not a  sludge  Calgary  respectively  chemicals.  have  costs associated  realized.  W e l l e s l e y and  maintained compounds,  organic operates  formation  acids  like  has  an  been  suppressed.  Four d i f f e r e n t primary  sludge  illustrated  in  c u r r e n t l y used  p r o c e s s schemes  fermenter Figure  3.1.  have  been  Option  a t t h e Kelowna P l a n t  1  f o r the  operation of  proposed. (Gravity  These  Thickening)  (Oldham, 1 9 8 5 ) .  At  a  are is  Kelowna,  -  primary  sludge  is  approximately routed The  of  14  d i r e c t l y  as  the  of  flow  temperature  1 0 ° C  of  Option  (as that As  a a  as  the  sludge  sludge. c l a r i f i e r handling  SRT  into  the  potential  is  weir,  and  to i t  route would  Phostrip for  transportation  a  be  VFA  the  16  is  mg  HAc/L  22 ° C  at  a  to  sludge  solids  feasible In  to  addition, by  and  underflow  the and  escaping  over  the  to  the  control not  various  incorporate t h i s  the  both  the  option  heterotrophic  c l a r i f i e r  such  from  does to  underflow  VFA's  good  sidestream  a  maintained. i n  of  thickener  however,  is  by  to  c l a r i f i e r  place  e l u t r i a t i n g  providing  system  primary  c l a r i f i e r  the  sludge  thickener  take  the  proposed  primary  the  the  was  recycling  i n  from  oxidation  between  to  The  by  process.  of  temperature  of  flow  Tank)  of  should  VFA-rich  not  be  temperature  some  a s s i s t  t h i s  HRT  thickener  approximately  primary  While  process  to  discharging  the  wasting  an  bioreactor.  influent  back  controlled  the  the  Primary  thickener. also  having  1988).  recycling  f a c i l i t i e s .  f l e x i b i l i t y Therefore,  the  w i l l  fermentation  of  fermentation  and  supernatant  HAc/L  supernatant)  result,  c l a r i f i e r  sludge  i n  of  from  a  involves  blanket  from  appears  drops  (Activated  and  thickener  zone  process  (Stevens,  It  thickener  well  mg  2  (1984).  gravity  anaerobic  at  7.5  -  Supernatant  t h i s  approximately  gravity  a  VFA production  influent  Barnard  to  hours.  to  operation  dependent  routed  58  sludge  over  provide  the the  locations. t h i s  option  offers  bacteria  bioreactor.  the  during  PRIMARY CLARIFIER  PRIMARY CLARIFIER  TO ANAEROBIC ZONE  TV"  THICKENER THICKENER  TO SLUDGE HANDLING  TO SLUDGE HANDLING OPTION 2 - ACTIVATED PRIMARY TANK  OPTION 1 - GRAVITY THICKENING  PRIMARY CLARIFIER  PRIMARY CLARIFIER  TO ANAEROBIC ZONE  FERMENTER  TO SLUDGE HANDLING  Cte  OPTION 3 - COMPLETELY MIXED FERMENTER  FIGURE  3.1  -  PRIMARY  OPTION U - GRAVITY THICKENER WITH RECYCLE  SLUDGE FERMENTATION PROCESS  OPTIONS  -  Option Rabinowitz operation the  et as  the  and  contact  hence,  However,  s t i l l  and  respect  to  In w i l l  for  the  being show  4.5  that  essentially is and  routed  VFA-rich  mainstream process. to  flow  days  a to  the  (Koch,  gravity  Thickener VFA's  or  of  is the  underflow and  to  p i l o t  at  bacteria  provide  the  VFA-rich  a  oxidation completely  than  that  downstream process  1988)  plant.  P i l o t  an  produces HRT o f  9  from sludge  has  (Oldham,  generally  for  not  VFA  from  on  that  been  and  is  plant  10-20  mg  hours  and  1988).  Thickener  Options  thickener  supernatant  of  This  plant  operating  (Gravity  4  process,  e l u t r i a t e  while  combination a  UBC  fermenter  does  loadings  same  fermentation.  content  increased.  the  the  premature  water  by  provides  and  wasted  the  exception  e f f i c i e n t  for  Bio-P  proposed  This  disposition  higher  be  at  mixed.  sludge  Penticton  used  Option  the  potential  a  the  process  volumetric  w i l l  new  influent  SRT o f  have  Therefore  proposed  an  the  with  more  was  involves  molecules  the  addition,  operations  of  in  i t  Tank  organic  with  handling  HAc/L  the  result  therefore,  Fermenter)  completely  2,  thickener.  results  is  Option  fermenter  currently  Primary  i n  exists.  mixed  tank  Mixed  B a s i c a l l y ,  Activated  should  f l e x i b i l i t y stream,  (1987).  between  as  -  (Completely  a l .  fermentation  better  a  3  60  1,  where  directed s t r i p p e r is  provide  2  with  and  3.  Recyle) Primary  fermentation to  the  bioreactor  tank  recycled  i n  back  independent  takes  to  a the  is sludge place i n  a  sidestream thickener  SRT c o n t r o l .  This  -  process  provides  d i s t r i b u t i o n , downstream that  the  Kelowna (1988) for  and  sludge  new  Of  that  i l l u s t r a t e d  i n  recycle  (Option  for  were  an  adequate  SRT VFA been The  primary and  used  in  for  the  Westbank be  the  at  the  L e s l i e  generate  Section  gravity  r e t r o f i t  VFA's  plant,  sludge  addressed  process  further  flow  showing  requirements  Design  used  with  i n  Reasons provides  provides with at  adequate  respect  to  Kelowna,  has  t o t a l  Section  diagram  is  thickener  minimizes  mechanical  instrumentation  and  volumes  operated  and  2.2.6  designs.  f l e x i b i l i t y  successfully  fermenter  on  indicates  option.  to  VFA production,  been  (1988)  this  i n  the  operational  s i m p l i f i e d  sludge  major  for  loadings  operation  used  minimizes  has  w i l l  be  discussed  option  to  and VFA  plant.  4)  this  Stevens  w i l l  only  was  SRT c o n t r o l  thickening  3.1,  d i s t r i b u t i o n ,  A  options  to  volumetric  s i m i l a r  B . C . Bio-P  maximizes  aspect  sludge  Figure  that  proposed  respect  operations.  method  environment  contol,  cost  this  four  with  upgraded  Westbank,  the  t h i s  be  -  minimizes  primary  may  reports  yet  handling  existing plant  the  f l e x i b i l i t y  61  for  4.0.  a  t y p i c a l  equipment,  i l l u s t r a t e d  costs.  i n  piping Figure  3.2.  mechanical  c r i t e r i a  equipment  are  as  for  follows:  the  selection  and  s i z i n g  of  -  i)  Fermenter HRT of  (Nominal) 5%  Tank  i i )  -  Tank  of  SWD =  -  62  the  3.5m to  Supernatant  8  hours  average  at  plant  a  primary  influent  sludge  flow  flow.  (minimum).  be  Scraper  =  insulated  mechanism  i f  above  ground.  required.  Pumps  Provide  2x100%  impellor  end  Design  Flow  h o r i z o n t a l ,  suction =  c e n t r i f u g a l ,  open  pumps.  2.5%  of  the  average  v i a  t h r o t t l i n g  plant  influent  flow. Flow  control  actuated Flow  measurement  Local  i i i )  Waste  or  remote  e l e c t r o n i c a l l y  valve.  v i a  o r i f i c e  flow  meter.  recording  (site  s p e c i f i c ) .  Pumps Provide  2x100%  impellor, -  b u t t e r f l y  of  Design  end  Flow  =  h o r i z o n t a l ,  suction  c e n t r i f u g a l ,  open  pumps.  2.5%  of  the  average  v i a  t h r o t t l i n g  plant  influent  flow. Flow  control  actuated Flow  b u t t e r f l y  measurement  of  valve.  v i a  o r i f i c e  meter.  e l e c t r o n i c a l l y  - 63 -  SLUDGE FROM PRIMARY CLARIFIER  THICKENER  FEJ TO BIOREACTOR  FERMENTER SUPERNATANT PUMPS  I •  (FT)  FE)  [FE  FERMENTER RECYCLE PUMPS  FERMENTER WASTE PUMPS  FC - F l o w  TO SLUDGE HANDLING  Controller  FE - Flow Measurement Element FR - F l o w R e c o r d e r FT - F l o w  FIGURE 3.2 - PRIMARY SLUDGE FERMENTER PROCESS FLOW  Transmitter  DIAGRAM  -  Local -  TDH based a  iv)  or  f u l l  Recycle  Design flow  Flow  the  preparing  i)  for  t h i s  a  (where  near  (site  empty  s p e c i f i c ) .  fermenter  into  a p p l i c a b l e ) ,  Flow  suction  =  2.5%  v i a  b u t t e r f l y  or  remote  c e n t r i f u g a l ,  open  pumps.  of  plant  influent  at  average  TSS  o r i f i c e  e l e c t r o n i c a l l y  by  meter.  recording  BOD a n d  following  =4%  of  valve.  flow  calculated The  t h r o t t l i n g  v i a  c a l c u l a t i n g  balance:  Underflow  h o r i z o n t a l ,  measurement  were  fermenter.  end  control  Local  for  recording  pumping  2x100%  actuated  operations  flow  conditions.  Flow  u n i t  on  -  Pumps  impellor,  Flows  remote  digestor  Provide  -  64  solids  preparing  (site  s p e c i f i c ) .  loadings a  assumptions  solids were  on  other  balance used  i n  - 65 -  Note:  In  a  conventional  generally  6-12%  since  primary  the  the  solids  fermenter  plant, (Metcalf  c l a r i f i e r  operation,  ' underflow,;: c o n c e n t r a t i o n  I  i  ii)  iii)  Mass  of  VSS  removed  Note:  be  by  This  loading  on  TSS =  the  that  that  out• by  the  during  The  the  approximately  iv)  Growth to  Note:  the  The  production  30%  of  of  impact is  the  and  of  ignored  this in  =  such  be  for  thickener  reduced.  Eddy,  25%  i t  is  1979)  of  the  VSS  both  the  BOD  is  sludge  used  were  derived  of  as  a  from  (1981)  soluble anaerobic  check  who  to the  can to the work  concluded  organic  carbon  digestion,  is  COD.  bacteria settled  volumes  introduced  Ferguson  of  is  negligible  from  assumption  the  that  waste  influent  solids  the  and  VFA's  the  VFA's  fermenting  mass  and  phase of  However,  increased  that  (Metcalf  made  production  acid  is  is  c l a r i f i e r .  assumption  maximum  sludge  1979).  rate  f e l t  to  addition,  Eastman  Eddy,  subsequently  mg/L  is  sufficient  bioreactor. carried  In  primary  .  primary  bioreactor,  calculated.  ensure  .  solubilized  assumption  the  was  iwould  250  and  underflow  i t  .  Supernatant  thickened  o v e r a l l  is  the  plant  that  solids  compared influent.  biomass  balance.  c e l l  - 66 -  3.3.4  Bioreactor  Design an  of  the  anaerobic/aerobic  placing  anoxic  anaerobic  sequence  zones  flow  are  required  within  the  reactor.  reactors,  p a r t i t i o n s  necessary  to  create  Openings  of  In plug  d i v i d i n g the  plants  flow  of  anaerobic  and  respect  and  creating  s t r a t e g i c a l l y  from  c e l l s the  As to  the  a  these  entering  having  the  were  used  where  nominal  were  the  Concrete  completely created  reactor. tanks  by  i n  walls  mixed  having  cases.  constructing  d i s t r i b u t i o n  0.5 flow  reactors  Consideration  and  of  create  a l l  to  presumed  times  to  flow  zones  were  sized  p a r t i t i o n s  plug  various  retention  were  m/s.  large,  the  in  environments  having  p a r t i t i o n s  for  reactors  different  between  p a r t i t i o n s 0.10  mixed  currently  placed  of  anoxic  of  completely  T y p i c a l l y ,  within  sequencing  reactor.  be  conditions  shown  or  plants  out-of-service  As the  must  i n  250mm  walls  use  involves  reactor,  nitrates  create  In  v e l o c i t i e s  thicknesses  used,  to  backmixing.  through  the  prevent  reactors  series  hours.  to  i n  b a s i c a l l y  zone.  Plug  prevent  bioreactor  was  were  concrete given  to  chambers  for  options  for  zones.  i n  Section  anaerobic, result,  location  the and  2.0,  there  anoxic  and  layout s i z i n g  of  are  many  aerobic  of the  the  zones  within  bioreactors,  d i f f e r e n t  zones,  the with were  - 67 -  optimized  on  sequencing sewage  an  of  i n d i v i d u a l the  anaerobic,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ;  operational  sized in  off  the  4  W/M ,  for  suspension  renewal.  A  F l e x i b i l i t y with  Factors  anoxic  nutrient  and  a i r  and  removal  affecting  aerobic  zones  requirements;  could  be  to  the  prevent of  two  operation valves  conditions  i n s t a l l e d  to  minimum of  anoxic  supply  were  and  shut-off  c e l l s  basis.  the were  cost;  and  created  by  f l e x i b i l i t y .  Anaerobic shutting  plant  to  the  shifted  designated  to  keep  oxygen  the  c e l l s .  per  ensured  were  providing  majority  of  the  between  aerated  solids  through  c e l l  by  Mixers,  b i o l o g i c a l  transfer  mixers  was  were  c e l l s .  surface  provided. a i r  supply  Therefore,  and  non-aerated  conditions.  Automatic  DO  presently  employing  this  to  that  ensure  affect  and  Keay  of  technology.  conditions  this  has  provided  been  at  i n  the  The the  a l l  objective  RAS were  front  previously  i n  of  the  stated  plants of  not  this  too  was  high  bioreactor. by  not  Barnard  to The  (1983)  (1984).  DO Two  was  DO c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  anaerobic  importance  control  DO p r o b e s  control were  was  provided  provided  i n  the  with  a  aerobic  feedback zone  of  control each  loop.  reactor.  - 68  A  process  output valve this  controller  signal on  the  system  was  averages a i r supply  inlet  of  i s presented  intended  the  to the  a  to maintain  -  DO  measurements  equipment key  centrifugal  the  (e.g.  blower).  i n F i g u r e 3.3.  and  a e r o b i c zone DO  to  A  Through  sends a  control  schematic  this  between  an  of  system, i t 1.5  and  2.0  mg/L.  Oxidation provided and  i n the  Oldham  reduction  anaerobic  (1985)  between  laboratory  scale  experiments. on-line  required (one of  i n the  on-line  indicator  monitoring  the  and  usefulness  of  ORP  anaerobic pilot  monitoring  zone  from  and  and  one  recorder  for  i n the  of  a  UCT  ORP the  A  process  during  will  provide  probes  zones  in  Hardware  per  and  with  schematic  the  through  anoxic  anoxic)  Koch  flow  intrusion.  ORP  was  detect  conditions  compatible  system.  to  scale  nitrate  i n c l u d e s two  control  system  a l l plants.  and  zone  monitoring  of  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  monitoring  anaerobic  instrumentation ORP  of  (ORP)  zones  and  the  anaerobic  f o r ORP  the  tests  Therefore,  the  anoxic  anoxic  batch  measurement  protecting  and  r e p o r t on  transition  potential  reactor  some  the  plant's  drawing  i s presented  form  in  of  the  Figure  3.4.  Process  design  reactor  volumes,  effluent  characteristics.  sludge  or extended  sludge  of  the  bioreactors involved  production, In  plants  oxygen currently  a e r a t i o n o p e r a t i o n s , i t was  calculating  requirements  and  having  activated  initially  assumed  AE  - Process  Analyzer  AIC  - Process A n a l y s i s Indicator/Controller  AT  - Process A n a l y s i s Transmitter  >  CENTRIFUGAL BLOWERS  FIGURE  DUMMY LOAD  3.3  -  AUTOMATIC  DO C O N T R O L  SCHEMATIC  AE  - Process  Analyzer  AIR  - Process A n a l y s i s Indicator/Recorder  AT  - Process A n a l y s i s Transmitter  I  o  (ATI 1  1  1 1 r  1 1  1  ORP  j ORP  e .  ANAEROBIC  ANOXIC  FIGURE  -  3.4  ORP MONITORING  AEROBIC  SCHEMATIC  FOR U C T  PROCESS  -  that  the  existing  removal.  In  extended  chemical to  the  This  plants i t  assumed  Environment, checked  by a  respect  models  available. short not or  some  was  phosphorus  to  This l i m i t  sludge.  cases  r a t i o  a  method the  w i l l  i n  on  is  that this then  of  was  would govern  were  developed  the  use data  these  (SP)  that  s u f f i c i e n t  VFA's  amount  be of  with  existing  not  r e a d i l y to  the  models  were  whether  to  remove  concentration.  contained  to  not  removal  of  process  concept  was  was  determine  Bio-P  the  d i d  Bio-P  phosphorus  appear the  to  phosphorus  on  are  a  of  applicable  Therefore,  expect  of  the  not  plant.  c l a r i f i e r .  capacity  models  based  MLSS  assumption  of  no and  assumptions  the  or  equivalent  sludge  bioreactor  amounts  Bio-P  was  i n i t i a l  soluble  there  these  2.0,  was  Ministry  secondary  Section  to  percentage  of  the  Canada.  method  (Ontario  sludge  for  volume  Bio-P  there  activated  required  the  to  specified  zone,  the  considerable  common  Assuming  anaerobic BOD_:P  on  v a l i d i t y  removal  reasonable a  hours  s i g n i f i c a n t  Instead,  i t  7  problem  requires  In  used.  upper  that  mentioned  SRT p l a n t s  not  to  that  required  this  6  loading  As  that  be  phosphorus  mechanism.  and  conventional  ensuring  to  volumes  for  activated  assumed  a  The  s u f f i c i e n t  having  for  to  Another  was  i n i t i a l l y  reactor  1984).  solids  volume  removal,  HRT  -  presently  was  the  phosphorus  was  k i n e t i c  not  between  nominal  create  reactor  aeration,  difference  71  there i n  present  reasonable phosphorus  is a  an  Bio-P i n  since which  the the can  -  be  removed  Oldham  from  and  phosphorus  the  -  wastewater.  Stevens by  72  (1984)  weight  (TSS  Support  who  basis)  for  reported peaked  t h i s  that  at  6.25%  comes the  i n  from  percent  the  Kelowna  plant.  Steps capacity  of  involved  the  process  i)  Assume  i i )  Calculate be  an  are  Calculate  iv)  Calculate WAS  to  of  I f  the  assumption percentage  to  again.  removal  concentration.  phosphorus  required  to  which  achieve  would  have  the  effluent  assumed  percentage  the  assumed  effluent i n  i n  to  i ) .  made  i n  calculated  published i n  i)  i n  is iv)  figures, i)  soluble  figures,  i n  phosphorus  in  the  phosphorus  i ) .  calculated  published  concentration  SP  concentration  percentage  compared  phosphorus  WAS p r o d u c t i o n .  achieve  the  than  amount  b i o l o g i c a l l y  the  the  follows:  the  concentration  v)  as  effluent  phosphorus  i i i )  assessing  achievable  removed  soluble  i n  cannot  iv)  is  conclude  reasonable that  reasonable. is  I f  s i g n i f i c a n t l y conclude  be  achieved  the the  higher  that  the  and  start  -  In  most  of  0.5  mg/L  on  the  general  UBC  p i l o t  8.5%  on  Daigger  et  A/0  A  and  percent  2  /0  on  (1987)  VSS  and  While somewhat a  method a to  to  such  p r e d i c t i v e  would  this  model  was  appear  to  be  Oldham  removal 6"C.  was  S e l l  does  for  for  to  the  and  the  i ) .  an  based  on  Kelowna  In  maximum  reports  of  contents  of  values  of  8  mentioned  to  9  report  plant.  t h i s of  addition,  the the  which  method  is  a b i l i t y  of  fact  indicates  removal  the  approximately  the  that  developed,  based  and  the  phosphorus  . . . l i m i t i n g  was  plant  was  i n d i c a t i o n  phosphorus  This  previously  the  concentration  that  VSS  recognized  be  SP  Kelowna  the  that  the  the  can  that need  be  a for  applied  plants.  that  temperature  c a p a b i l i t i e s  achievable a l .  was  phosphorus.  experiments  et  of  provide  had  in  reach  be  assumed  removal  p i l o t - s c a l e  (1984)  treatment  It phosphorus  i t  and  must  remove as  Canadian  basis,  to  step  assumed  suggested  appear  i t  crude,  process  who  Stevens  of  then  This  effluent  for  contained  basis.  sludges  a  Oldham  was  phosphorus  a l .  achievable  experience  It  weight  -  i n i t i a l l y  operating  of a  an  assumed  plant.  percentage  by  was  cases  73  general  of  consensus  Dew  (1979)  which  showed  over  (1981)  the  a  had  Bio-P  presented that  90  that  lab  effect  on  processes.  amongst  temperature  reported  no  the This  researchers.  results  percent range scale  from  phosphorus  from  1 8 ° C  to  experiments  -  showed at  that  10 ° C  and  authors  Pontiac,  test, mg/L  a  p r e d i c t i o n an  breakdown  that  the  anaerobic  lab  and  some  p i l o t  influent  due  anaerobic  zone,  to  of  l i k e l y  the  et  and  bioreactor.  by  the  Kang  and  Bio-P  test was  10 ° C .  In  less  than  of  a l .  this  study  to  conclude of  the  1.0  i n  to  time i t  sewage and was  as  fact  COD  from  i t  of  poor  that  various  the  temperature. that  the  i n  in  was the  bacteria. removal  zone, the  anaerobic  was  suggest anaerobic zone  (degree  Therefore, neither  t o t a l  reduction  Bio-P  achieved i n  of  in  achieved  Bio-P  anaerobic  stands  removed  b a c t e r i a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  assumed  energy  PHB,  percent  fermenting  the  BOD  BOD i s  that  Bio-P of  UCT process  50  where  amount  report  a c t i v i t y  Kelowna,  was  0  the  the  Since  VFA's  (1987)  with  for  the  influent  Fermentation  upon  t h i s  to  zone.  store  from  they  fermentation  purposes  17"C  that  removal  requirements  o r i g i n a l  VFA addition  retention  of  the  to  than  s e p t i c i t y ) ,  Bio-P  regarding  experiments  Windsor  dependent  that  concentrations  used  rather  without  zone  is  a c t i v i t y  encountered  f u l l - s c a l e  from  to  suggested  a  anaerobic  the  at  minimal  the  However,  Experiences  that  range  s t a b i l i z a t i o n s  COD.  primarily  showed  oxygen  Randall  scale  zone  of  in  of  zone.  was  p s y c h r o p h i l l i c . from  assumption  polyphosphate  anaerobic  results  superior  achieved.  achieved  reason  i t  are  phosphorus  s t a b i l i z a t i o n  to  actually  basis,  temperature  t o t a l  required  5 ° C was  which  consistently  process  -  bacteria  presented  over  The  at  this  Michigan  effluent were  On  Bio-P  (1985)  consistent  removal  15 ° C .  that  Horvatin at  Bio-P  74  for  is of the  fermentation  - 75 -  nor  BOD  stabilization  r e q u i r e m e n t s were nitrification material oxygen as  occurs  thus  calculated  demands  degradation  requirement  in  minus  anaerobic  as t h e sum  the  through  the  contribution  where  Oxygen  o f carbonaceous to  denitrification.  calculations  zone.  and  carbonaceous  Assumptions  nitrification  occurs,  for are  follows:  N i t r o g e n o u s 0^  i)  Demand  = 4.57  x Mass o f Ammonia  Nitrified  (kg/d)  Marais,  ii)  1984)  = 2.86 x Mass o f N i t r a t e s  Oxygen R e c o v e r e d through  (Ekama and  Denitrified  De-  Marais,  nitrification  (Ekama and  1984)  (kg/d)  Other  assumptions  made  in  the  design  of  the  bioreactor  were:  i)  Anaerobic Tables  HRT  2.4  and  1.0  =  hours  2.5,  this  (nominal). i s typical  As for  shown  in  mainstream  Bio-P removal p r o c e s s e s .  ii)  SRT  f o r Bio-P b a c t e r i a  As shown ; process.  in,Table I t - was  2.5,  growth this  assumed  temperature\dependent.  = 6.5  d a y s ( total;)'.  i s typical that  this  f o r t h e A/0 . SRT  was  not  - 76 -  iii)  SRT f o r n i t r i f i c a t i o n equation  (adapted  from  Ekama a n d M a r a i s ,  e = c  , ^ 0 1  Z  J>2_  ( 1 0 -  0  3  <  3  -  T  2  calculated  B e n e f i e l d and R a n d a l l ,  1980  1984A):  0  > > , l - f  x  t  >  -  b  KO + DO  2  ( 1 . 1 2 3 ) *  0  1  -  2  0  ) ! -  1  Z  Where yuL^Q = n i t r i f i e r =0.4 DO K °  f  d"  1  specific  (Benefield  T  = mixed l i q u o r  ^  = unaerated e n  temperature  (°C)  fraction  d o g e n o u s decay c o e f f i c i e n t f o r  =0.04 d "  a t 20°C ( d  1  - 1  )  (Ekama a n d M a r a i s ,  1984A)  = SRT ( s l u d g e a g e ) ( d a y s )  c  Growth y i e l d (Daigger  and R a n d a l l , 1980)  s l u d g e mass  nitrifiers  6  growth r a t e a t 20°C  = DO c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n b i o r e a c t o r (mg/L) = half saturation constant = 1 . 3 mg/L ( B e n e f i e l d a n d R a n d a l l , 1980)  =  iv)  as p e r t h e f o l l o w i n g  coefficent  et a l . ,  (Y) = 0.6 mg VSS/mg  Endogenous decay c o e f f i c i e n t  vi)  Denitrification  & N Where  =  ( k ^ ) = 0.05 d ^  rate kinetics  (adapted  5  1987)  v)  equation  B0D  from  as p e r t h e f o l l o w i n g  Ekama and M a r a i s , T_2  1984):  0.0285 S, . + K f ° X0 bi 20 " anox = maximum mass o f n i t r a t e w h i c h c a n be removed i n t h e a n o x i c z o n e (mg/L) 0 0  and  -  b i  S  77  -  biodegradable COD o f the influent to the bioreactor (mg/L). This was assumed to be equal to 80% of the i n f l u e n t COD (Ekama a n d M a r a i s , 1984). B0D was converted to COD by m u l t i p l y i n g by 2.5.  =  5  K  20  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  *  0.072  mg  (Ekama  V  =  X  mixed  Procedures  than  those  phosphorus procedures  used  used  for  3.3.4.1  i)  Assume  i i )  Determine expected  Design  Removal  Only  SRT =  i f  the  design s l i g h t l y  combined  l i s t i n g s  of  of  the  different  ammonia  and  step-by-step  cases.  Procedure  for  Phosphorus  days  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  temperature  c a l c u l a t i n g previous  6.5  were  for  both  Process  (°C)  process  only,  Therefore, for  (mg/L)  temperature  design  presented  1984)  HRT  the  removal  the  removal. be  l i q u o r  coefficent  Marais,  MLVSS  anoxic  20°C  1984)  temperature  for  phosphorus  w i l l  Marais,  (Ekama and  nominal  ~  T  for  and  at  VSS-d  3  bioreactor  anox  bioreactor  N0 -N/mg  Arhenius 1.03  rate  range  required  equation).  SRT  w i l l of for  occur  the  over  wastewater,  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  the by (see  -  iii)  I f the than  iv)  calculated  6.5  range,  78 -  days  SRT  for nitrification  within  the  then n i t r i f i c a t i o n  expected  i s likely  at  least part  o f the year  and h e n c e ,  is  required.  I f t h e SRT  i s greater  an  anoxic  to  step x ) .  Calculate «,  _  zone i s n o t r e q u i r e d .  t h e e f f l u e n t BOD  5  c  Where  less  temperature  to occur  during  an a n o x i c than  6.5  Therefore,  zone days  proceed  (Se)  K (1 + k , e — — (Metcalf ( 9 ( Y k - k ) - 1) 9  is  1  & Eddy,  1979)  d  K S  k  = h a l f v e l o c i t y constant = 60 mg/L = maximum r a t e o f s u b s t r a t e  utilization  = 5 d" Assume e = 1 . 0 h o u r s . Go b a c k t o s t e p i i ) anox ' C a l c u l a t e b i o r e a c t o r MLVSS: 1  v)  c  vi)  x  =  9  (6 v  c  - ea n a e r ')  Where 9  f o r MLVSS/MLSS  bioreactor  Calculate  bioreactor  n o m i n a l HRT  (hours)  = i n f l u e n t and e f f l u e n t BOD,.  Assume a r a t i o  viii)Calculate  ix)  y  = total  Si,Se vii)  ( S i - Se) Y (1 + k , 0 ) d c'  the  (typically  0.7)  MLSS  solids  loading  on  the  existing 2  secondary  clarifier.  (Metcalf  and  conditions, return  Eddy,  increase  t o step  If this  ii).  1979)  exceeds at  100  average  kg/m d flow  t h e s i z e o f t h e b i o r e a c t o r and  - 79 -  x)  Determine  i f  d e n i t r i f y  the  i t .  involves  This  of  n i t r a t e  (&N) the  and  If the a  xi)  entire  The  size  size  is  larger  can  Calculate  i t of  nitrates  the  of  adequate  is  return  the  maximum  the  anoxic  n i t r a t e  100%  to  the  to  step  to  routed  to  mass zone  entering  calculated  assuming  proceed  inadequate,  of  s u f f i c i e n t being  i n  mass  n i t r a t e  and  zone  is  d e n i t r i f i e d to  approach  anoxic  of  size  c a l c u l a t i o n  be  mass  is  zone  mass  the  comparing  balance  the  anoxic  which  zone.  mass  the  using  n i t r i f i c a t i o n . next iv)  step. and  If  assume  size.  WAS p r o d u c t i o n :  dX  = XV  dt  9 c  Where  dX =  WAS p r o d u c t i o n  (kg/d)  dt  3 V  xii)  Assume  =  an  x i i i ) Calculate the  WAS  t o t a l  achievable  required  to  achieve  return  I f to  volume  effluent  the  concentration. basis),  reactor  this step  (m  SP  the is x i i ) .  )  concentration.  percentage  of  assumed greater  a  phosphorus  in  effluent  SP  than  8.5%  (VSS  -  xiv)  Assume  an  for  Generally,  is  t h i s  the  T  P  the  e f f  "  S  P  the  (if  t o t a l  following  effluent  based  c l a r i f i e r s  Calculate  -  achievable  concentration  existing  xv)  80  suspended  secondary on  any  the  are  solids  c l a r i f i e r s .  performance  of  the  present).  phosphorus  i n  the  effluent  using  equation:  e f f  (  +  * - P  )  100  Where  TP SP  f  f  f  f  = =  effluent t o t a l phosphorus (mg/L) effluent soluble phosphorus (mg/L) (from step xii) = p e r c e n t p h o s p h o r u s i n t h e W A S (%) (from step x i i i ) = VSS i n the e f f l u e n t (mg/L) (from step xiv)  e  % P VSS  f  f  e  If  T  P e  f f  addition  exceeds or  the  effluent  required  f i l t r a t i o n  standard,  should  be  chemical  added  to  the  process.  xvi)  Calculate  oxygen  capacity existing a i r  of  existing  secondary  supply  removal  demand  treatment).  a i r  plants)  equipment  plant  and  (for  or  for plants  compare supply to an  the  to  the  equipment rated  capacity  equivalent not  rated  having  (for of  chemical secondary  -  3.3.4.2  -  Process  Design  Ammonia  and  8  i) '  Assume  i i )  Calculate  iii)  81  „ anaer  =  the  the  expected  the  months  Phosphorus  1.0  hours  required range  i n  Calculate  Procedure  which  the  actual  SRT  by  Marais  (1984A)  of  and  0,  „ = anox  factor  recommend  by  of  is  factor  Ekama of  over for  required.  m u l t i p l y i n g  safety.  a  hours  temperatures  removal  SRT  1.0  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  wastewater  ammonia  Combined  Removal  SRT f o r  design a  for  safety  the and of  1.25.  iv)  Calculate  the  effluent  B0D  and  5  the  bioreactor  MLVSS.  v)  Assume  a  vi)  Calculate  v i i )  Calculate  r a t i o  the  the  for  MLVSS/MLSS.  bioreactor  solids  MLSS.  loading  on  the  secondary  2 c l a r i f i e r . flow  If  this  conditions,  bioreactor  and  exceeds  100  increase  return  to  step  kg/m  the i i ) .  d  size  at  average of  the  -  v i i i ) Determine to  i f  to  As  per  for  plants  secondary  should  placement  of  an  bioreactor  performance  not  be  Phostrip)  as  Wanner  organisms  is  suppressed  in  the  wastewater  For decided  to  guidelines  or  is  et  size  removal  of  is  sufficient  nitrates  mass  of  being  nitrates  balance  approach  is and  the  design  procedure  only.  secondary  the  plants  performance  et  a l . zone  at  to  of  (1987)  the  where  the  under  Bio-P  c l a r i f i e r s  the  majority  processes  secondary  of  through  the  Improved  of  of  the  the  processes  growth  anaerobic  i n  that  growth.  sidestream  that  existing  front-end  s e t t l e a b i l i t y  i n  mainstream  suggest  the  organism  note  only  i n  C l a r i f i e r s  sludge  a l .  conventional  the  xvi)  anoxic  consumed  the  mass  mass  to  r e a l i z e d  mainstream  for  xi)  filamentous  may  s i z i n g  n i t r i f i c a t i o n .  Wanner  improve  of  a  existing  anaerobic  can  suppression  100%  improve  c l a r i f i e r s .  entire  using  steps  of  zone  Again,  Secondary  Conversion Bio-P  the  phosphorus  3.3.5  anoxic  i t .  calculated assuming  -  the  d e n i t r i f y  routed  ix)  82  (e.g.  filamentous  the  substrate  conditions.  i t  was  accordance c l a r i f i e r s .  therefore  with Due  design to  the  -  apparent f e l t  superior  that  effluent  t h i s  s i z i n g  l) .  provided  c r i t e r i a  . Solids  c l a r i f i e r s  added  factor  were  Metcalf  3 2 m /m d  <24  Bio-P  of  safety  met.  and  for  (at  kg/m  combined  overflow  conditions.  Since  guidelines no  for  difference  Eddy  (1979),  average  flow  d  (at  average  and  hence,  no  mainstream  (USEPA,  Further by  concluded should in  a  be  et  Bio-P  1987)  mg/L  rates  having were  is  24  the  suggest  ensure  that  based  the  on  following  sludges,  i n  i t  who,  of  i n  conventionally achieve  d  at  of  this a  of  and  the  be  of  flow Eddy's  there  two  was  sludges  required  removal  assumption  review  TSS  should  that  c l a r i f i e r s  designed  effluent  secondary  average  Metcalf  assumed  phosphorus  v a l i d i t y  (1986)  as  was  size  that  sludges  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the  . . conditions)  2  m /m  same  chemical  the  plants were  concentrations not  of  to  was  for  processes. was  provided  Bio-P  technology,  secondary  c l a r i f i e r s  concentrations  of  10  mg/L  treatment,  RAS  operation.  For flow  of  s e t t l i n g  and  a l .  that able  this  difference  evidence  Tetrault  rates  the  Bio-P  i t  . . conditions)  flow  b i o l o g i c a l / c h e m i c a l  b i o l o g i c a l i n  to  Therefore,  3 sized  sludge,  2 <100  guidelines  for  of  established:  . Loading  USEPA  properties  an  by  were  Rate  -  standards  suggested  Overflow  . i i )  s e t t l i n g  phosphorus  guidelines  83  existing  calculated  equal  existing assumed.  having  to  the  by  assuming  existing  bioreactors,  secondary  c l a r i f i e r  concentrations.  RAS  concentrations  underflow For  plants  of  10,000  -  RAS  pump  i)  A  requirements  minimum  providing average  i i )  operation  of  may  equal  to  follows:  each the  should  being  plant  be  not  deemed  removal  WAS  be  since  for  WAS v o l u m e s  only  were  centrifuges.  capable  influent  flow  of at  available.  create Screw  the  pumps  potential exposed  to  for the  unacceptable.  w i l l  types  Assumed  units,  material  balances  no  the are  For  plants  a i r  l i s t e d  new  units  and  (DAF) for  and  Eddy,  Loading  =  50  kg/m  Thickened  Sludge  SS  =  Subnatant  BOD  250  Subnatant  TSS  5  =  = 3 0 0  4% mg/L  mg/L  d  and  thickener to  encountered  the the  below:  (Metcalf  design  chemical  smaller.  f l o t a t i o n  2 Solids  r e l a t i v e  be  parameters  of  the  f a c i l i t i e s ,  WAS t h i c k e n e r s  design  DAF U n i t  on  new  t y p i c a l l y  of  s i z i n g  effect  Bio-P  dissolved  existing  i)  has  thickeners.  smaller  The research  pumps,  should  were  as  WAS T h i c k e n i n g  Bio-P  plants  defined  DO e n t r a i n m e n t .  atmosphere  sizes  flow  systems  excessive  3.3.6  two  conditions,  Pumping  -  were  of a  84  1979)  i n  units checking  preparation  this and of of  -  i i )  85  -  Centrifuge Thickened  Sludge  SS  =  (Stanley  4%  Associates,  1986) Recycle  BODp.  Flow  =  1,000  mg/L (Metcalf  and  Eddy,  and  Eddy,  1979) Recyle  Flow  TSS =  2,000  mg/L  (Metcalf  1979)  3.3.7  Sludge  Sludge studied  Milton aerobic out  at  was  uses  digestion the  extended  generally  A/0  f l o t a t i o n  WAS.  of  to belt  form  River  f o r  sludges. thickening,  plants  f o r  the  plants  Anaerobic  studied.  primary  Elmira  The  sludge  s t a b i l i z a t i o n  plant,  new  released  prevent or  the  digestion.  nine  of  i n  i s  and  carried  plant  or  the  plant.  T r a d i t i o n a l l y , been  the  digestion  anaerobic  i s  employed  aerobic  of  No  aeration  rejected  recommend  process  out  L i t t l e  phosphorus  has  s i x  methods  and  anaerobic  use  been  conditions.  (1981)  i n  f o r  Windsor  The  sludges  anaerobic  used  plant  Wellesley  stored  s t a b i l i z a t i o n  included  digestion  S t a b i l i z a t i o n  the  Bio-P  Barnard  aerobic  the  approach  f i l t e r  WAS to  f o r  the  recommends pressing  has  since  the  under  both  managing  release.  f i l t r a t i o n (1983)  digestion  i n s t a l l a t i o n s  from  phosphorus  vacuum  belt  and  Hong  Bio-P et  a l .  dewatering the and/or  use  of of  land  -  a p p l i c a t i o n dissolved  for  a i r  sludge,  of  some  costs  gas  to  provinces  undigested  applied  to  for  can  be  applied  to  Associates,  1986A).  processes  to  s i g n i f i c a n t a p p l i c a t i o n  of  was  to  given  for  supernatant.  p r i o r  and  sludge the WAS,  operational is  practised.  continued combined  lands  the  Bio-P  use  with  application  In  Alberta,  that  changes, As  a  could  anaerobic  chemical  treatment  i t  is  (Stanley  of  digestion r e s u l t  especially result,  In  sewage  that  a p p l i c a t i o n  removal  less  1982).  provided  be of  considerably  elimination  of  cannot  M i n i s t r i e s .  of  Furthermore,  sludges  indicate  to  Therefore,  accommodate  costs  guidelines  which  purchase  Environment,  a g r i c u l t r u a l  s t a b i l i z e d  are  result  substantial  land  1986)  sludges  the  plants  the  (Ontario  (Alberta  disposal  i n  undigested  Health,  undigested  WAS w i l l  production.  lands and  of  the  for  digestion,  digestion,  regarding  Ontario,  sludges  d r a f t  b i o l o g i c a l l y  digestion  In  activated  However,  aerobic  through  u t i l i z e s  waste  1985).  addition,  methane  regulations  for  digested  Saskatchewan, sludge  l o s t  Environment rates  In  plant  the  treatment  incurred  a g r i c u l t u r a l  application  the  or  anaerobic  be  make-up  sludge.  Agriculture,  than  from  would  have  for  of  (Leslie,  costs.  gas  Kelowna  thickening  anaerobic  systems  c a p i t a l  methane  natural  using  new  s i g n i f i c a n t  operating  of  of  for  The  composting  plants  i n s t a l l a t i o n  recover  by  -  sludges.  f l o t a t i o n  followed  r e t r o f i t  in  Bio-P  86  i f  in land  consideration and of  aerobic digestor  -  This been et  discussed a l .  100  mg/L  of  the  thickening,  anaerobic  phosphorus v i a  the  dose  be  chemical  phosphorus  which  Deakyne  a l . a  i t  w i l l  (1984)  taken  up  by  hours  of  anaerobic results  less  a  a l .  TSS  1.0  (1987) primary/  coagulant  combined  press  A l / k g  greater  combined  t h e i r  than  et  aluminum  f i l t e r  g  soluble  gravity  dewatering.  resulted  mg/L  i n  being  It t o t a l  returned  supernatant.  selected,  et  of  to  and  i n  Hong  of  contain  Murakami  an  has  researchers.  streams  release  5-6  sludge  p r e c i p i t a t i o n  p r i o r  of  activated  other  adding  digestion  a  press  Should  s i m i l a r  by  concentrations  f i l t e r  streams  phosphorus  sludges  that  by  phosphorus.  sludge,  to  with  supernatant  soluble  activated  waste  lime  digestor  prevented  determined  handling  recommends  separately  was  of  -  experimented  should  successfully waste  and  (1981)  phosphorus than  method  87  treatment  is  necessary  be  released  reports  p i l o t - s c a l e  that  A/0  digestion.  from  a  of to  supernatant/filtrate estimate  during 59%  of  sludge the  process,  was  Murakami  et  f u l l - s c a l e  test  the  amount  processing.  t o t a l  phosphorus  released a l .  carried  of  after  (1987) out  on  96  present the  9000  3 m / d  Shinjiko-tobu  phosphorus  plant  removed  i n  anaerobic  digestion.  presented  by  two-thirds is  released  Levin  of i n  the the  i n the  figures  Delia  S a l l a  phosphorus s t r i p p e r  Approximately  bioreactor  These and  Japan.  in  taken the  was  released  correspond (1987) up  who  under  Phostrip  60%  well  note  with that  aerobic  process.  of  the  during those roughly  conditions Therefore,  -  based  on  these  results,  phosphorus  release  percent  the  of  the  of  production E x i s t i n g when  i t  and  in  the  sludge  was  conservatively  anaerobic i n  the  Anaerobic  the  assumed  was  destroyed,  equal  plus  60  that  to  100  percent  VSS.  used  supernatant  was  from  digestor  VSS  parameters and  VSS  -  remaining  data  available  i)  an  design  operations was  i t  phosphorus  phosphorus  Other  i n  88  used  in  i n  computing  flows place  i n d i v i d u a l  are of  methane  l i s t e d  these  below.  parameters  plants:  Diqestors Reduction  =  65%  (Reynolds,  1982) 3  Methane  Production  destroyed For -  -  i i )  Aerobic VSS  =  (Reynolds,  two-stage  m / k g  1982)  digestors:  Supernatant  TSS  (Reynolds,  1982)  =  Supernatant  B0D  (Reynolds,  1982)  Underflow  1.05  SS  =  5,000  =  5  8%  mg/L  2,000  mg/L  (Reynolds,  1982)  Digestion Reduction  =  50%  (Metcalf  and  Eddy,  1979) Oxygen  Requirement  destroyed  (Metcalf  =  2.3  and  kg/kg  Eddy,  VSS 1979)  VSS  -  Composting sludge  was  Bio-P  addition,  hence,  WAS  allows  However, individual supply  of  the  t h i s  study  general  plant  sludge.  terms  This  only,  recycle plants. not  It  occur  assumed  that  lagoons  from  the  be  sludge  use  to of  method  operation of  a  composting  for  each  s i t e  the  is  and  sludge.  cuttings)  outside  of  Ontario  composted  grass  be  and  In  and to  a mix  scope  of  discussed  in  Dewatering  methods  lagoons,  that  f i l t e r  sludge  the  chips,  plant.  applicable.  by  presses  and  calculate  were  presses  had  employed  and  centrifuges. release  previously  the  plants  centrifuges. volumes,  d i r e c t l y  phosphorus  phosphorus  been  sludge  obtained  s i g n i f i c a n t  a d d i t i o n a l which  f i l t e r  to  compositions  l i t t l e  the  of  r e c y c l i n g  acceptable  location  deemed  required  assumed  an  to  for  method  involve  composting the  the  not  of  method  p r a c t i c a l  Saskatchewan  wood  dewatering  and  was i n  was  where  parameters  flows  (e.g.  Sludge  Sludge  Operating  a  alternate  back  a p p l i c a t i o n  therefore,  included  to  necessitates  material  and  does  streams  of  an  very  i t  appears  land  as  a  B . C . , Alberta,  3.3.8  studied  since  evaluation  bulk  with  i n  for  the  is  supernatant  composting  s t a b i l i z i n g  This  sludges  phosphorus-rich  -  considered  s t a b i l i z a t i o n .  handling  89  and  from  the  release  d i d  It  was  occurred  digested.  also i n  -  In  one  sludge  lagoon  loading  of  37  case  i t  volume.  intermittently  presses,  centrifuges),  between  operating  shifts  Therefore,  prevent this  this  from  problem  dewatering storage  s u f f i c i e n t  the  control  3.3.9  TP  past  the  need  Evans high  and  Crawford,  Evans  containing  phosphorus effluent  of  and  of  SP  concentration  exceed  phosphorus  to  t h i s  the  tank  on  to  a l l e v i a t i n g  c o i n c i d i n g  sludge  for  the  with  sludge  type,  be  release.  Bio-P  mg/L  of  the  to  rationale  weight,  note  exceed  an  required  l i m i t .  effluent  t h i s  1986, is  the  b i o l o g i c a l a  sludge  suspended  solids  effluent  mg/L,  have  a l . ,  the  that  mg/L. 0.25  et  i n  effluent  y i e l d 0.75  achieve  behind  contained  an  technology  (Canviro  c o r r e c t l y  concentrations w i l l  to  sludge  required  of  addition  f i l t r a t i o n  The  w i l l  concentration  methods  added  phosphorus  mg/L  for be  wasting  of  1.0  Crawford  15  may  (e.g.  F i l t r a t i o n  .  by  solids  Bio-P  potential  phosphorus  than  5% p h o s p h o r u s  concentration  of  1985)  a  equipment  of  depending  effluent  less  concentration  s o l i d s .  are  assessments for  concentrations  the  changes  may,  Effluent  Some  storage  chemical  and  additional  assuming  dewatering  sludge  chemicals  purposes  for  specified  or  create  by  Possible  intermittent  Often  conditioning  create  operational  operations,  tank.  the  occurring.  are  done  operated  may  to  1974).  f i l t e r  release.  required was  (USEPA,  3  -  was  This  kg/m yr  For  90  for  p a r t i c u l a t e  Therefore the  should  effluent  TP  -  While s o l i d s  t h i s  reasoning  separation  i n  warranted.  F i r s t l y ,  wastewater  treatment  solids w i l l  be  chemical  be  offset  by  additional Bio-P  For  Bio-P  to  a  chemical  plants mg/L  shows  can  f i l t r a t i o n .  t h i s  amount  through  chemical  phosphorus  is  v i a  Bio-P  sludges  b i o l o g i c a l / removed,  production  is  of  operation  w i l l  from  the  on  the  operation)  performance  removal  any  p r e c i p i t a t i o n  fermenter  c l a r i f i e r  i n  are  i n  chemical,  phosphorus  solids  the  comments  combined  of  effective  no  less  than  to  a  process.  Bio-P  and  or  i n  for  removed  concentrations  same  Therefore,  three  b i o l o g i c a l  (from  need  phosphorus  b i o l o g i c a l  loading  Secondly,  1.0  the  than  the  the  process,  higher  production  bioreactor.  importance  of  process,  increased  BOD  emphasizes  Bio-P  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  solids  -  Phosphorus  sludges.  increased  a a l l  separation. not  91  Levin to  operating that  be  be  Delia  remove  of  any  a l .  TP  properly  concentrations  maintained  (1986),  (1987)  with  a l l  Kang  less  without  and  present  of  designed  effluent  Horvatin  results  than  (1985),  which  show  true.  1.0  quantity  et  S a l l a  T h i r d l y , exceed  effluent  consistently  Tetreault and  experience  mg/L,  should i t  chemical remaining  is  effluent more  (alum soluble  or  cost iron  concentrations e f f e c t i v e salts)  phosphorus.  to  to the  Stevens  happen add  a  small  bioreactor (1987)  to  to  reports  -  on  the  successful  addition  of  15  concentrations  use  mg/L  of  i f  required effluent  would for  incremental Bio-P  were  not  It  since is  required  recycle of  no  streams  WAS w a s  these  cases  TP were  used.  an  eight  removal.  those  TP  were  Certainly mg/L,  would  then  also  Therefore, were  required  design  f i l t e r s  0.5  f i l t r a t i o n  the  period.  mg/L.  say  requirements  result,  month  1.0  to,  where effluent  effluent of  lowered  However,  above  assumed  imposed  for  c r i t e r i a  be no  on  a  a  chemical  for  effluent  Treatment  that  required  as  of  unknown.  Design  u n f i l t e r e d  that  phosphorus  a  s u s c e p t i b i l i t y  since  concluded  Chemical  was  r e l a t i v e l y  i n  Kelowna,  required.  was  system  the  for  As  at  TP concentrations  and  3.3.10  removal  mg/L over  f i l t r a t i o n  over  process.  f i l t e r s  0.3  required.  effluent  practice  resulted  chemical  process  removal  be  t h i s  was  achieve  standards  f i l t r a t i o n required  to  i t  -  alum  averaging  Therefore, not  of  92  was  required  because  of  back-up  was  of  costs  for when  for  small  each  to  these  the  chemical  the  flows  Bio-P  or  system  conditions  systems  involved.  as  phosphorus  upset  were  anaerobic  selected  the  chemical  processes  Design  systems  Lime  a  complete  Bio-P  incremental  of  a  were  treatment  aerobic  optimum  of  digestion  chemical  associated  not  with  i n the  -  recycle and  streams  iron  s a l t s .  quicklime  (CaO)  quantities  tank;  s l u r r y ;  as  i t  a  lime a  is  added  solids  separation. drawing  to  system  to  feeder;  more  mix  the  system  is  i n d i v i d u a l  a  i n  pieces  of  a  lime  supply  which  the  for  indoors.  i n  Figure  equipment  of lime  c l a r i f i e r  located  presented  the  chemical  making  a  over  for  bulk  two-day  and  is  aluminum  selected  for  tank  stream; system  of  a  to  economic  tank  maintaining  entire  the  was  consists  a  recycle  The  for  be  mix/flocculation  the  of  r e l a t i v e  2  deemed  for  lime  (Ca(OH) )  addition  rapid  s l u r r y  of  1988).  tank  c r i t e r i a  cost  (Harvey,  holding combined  -  lime  was  chemical  a  schematic  low  Hydrated  s l u r r y ;  Design  the  involved  The storage  and  93  A 3.5.  are  as  follows:  i)  Bulk  Storage above  Bin(s)  ground  provide  steel  30  tanks  days  storage  at  average  flow  conditions  i i )  Chemical -  Feeder(s)  rotary sized supply  type to of  feeder  provide lime  s u f f i c i e n t  s l u r r y  i n  8  lime hours  to  make  a  2-day  BULK STORAGE HOLDING TANK RAPID MIX/ FLOCCULATION TANK  MIX WATER (SECONDARY EFFLUENT ETC.)  MIX TANK  vo  RECYCLE STREAMS CLARIFIER  EFFLUENT  TO SLUDGE PROCESSING  FIGURE  3.5  -  LIME  TREATMENT  PROCESS  SCHEMATIC  -  i i i )  Mix  0.017  Mix Tank  m  5  minute  Mix Tank  -  (USEPA,  at  a  feed  rate  of  1971)  gradient,  G =  650  m/s.m  Pumps  0.017  Holding  lime  time  Mixer  provide  vi)  retention  water/kg  3  v e l o c i t y  v)  -  Tank provide  iv)  95  m  2 3  x  100%  water/kg  PD lime  metering at  pumps  average  flow  sized  for  . conditions  Tank  above  ground  provide  2  steel  days  tank  slurry  storage  at  average  flow  conditions  v i i )  Holding -  v i i i )  provide  Holding -  Tank  Tank  provide s l u r r y  ix)  Rapid  Mixer 4  3 W/m  . . mixing  Pumps 2  x  feed  100% rate  ground  PD  at  Mix/Flocculation above  energy  steel  metering  average  Tank tank  and  pumps  conditions  Mixers  sized  for  -  rapid  mix  time  at  rapid  96  -  section  average  mix  sized  flow  mixer  for  30  second  conditions  sized  for  G  retention  (USEPA,  =  650  1971)  m/s-m  (USEPA,  1971) f l o c c u l a t i o n retention  section  time  at  sized  average  for  flow  4.5  minute  conditions  (USEPA,  1971) f l o c c u l a t i o n  mixer  sized  for  G =  65  m/s-m  (USEPA,  1971)  x)  C l a r i f i e r ( s ) 3 design  overflow  conditions  xi)  Lime  Sludge  -  provide at  Chemical alum,  f e r r i c  incremental for were  lime  used:  2  x  100% flow  should  dosage  operating of  =  48  m /m  d  at  average  flow  sludge  flow  removal  with  1971)  Pumps  c h l o r i d e  treatment  (USEPA,  average  pumps  rate  2  and cost  be  PD  pumps  for  conditions c o n t r o l l e d  rates  for  hydrated  streams.  by  a  timer  phosphorus lime  calculations  recycle  sized  were  calculated  for  and  s i z i n g  of  equipment  The  following  equations  -  i)  i i )  Alum  (adapted  Alum  Dose  Where  P  F e r r i c  Chloride  F e C l iii)  from  (mg/L) =  Hydrated Ca(OH) Where  Prested  =  =  i)  were  A l k =  =  1.05  SP  to  +  (0.74 of  (mg/L  be  removed  Prested  et  (mg/L)  a l . ,  1977)  1.5  4.0  untreated  associated as  A l k +  A P  +  1.7  CC> ) 2  recycle  CaC0 )  concentration stream (mg/L)  Sludge Alum  F e r r i c  3  3  of  C0  i n  2  with  recycle  chemical  phosphorus  follows:  is  the  =  =  0.355  concentration  Sludge  Alum of  -  0.512  alum  added  (mg/L)  (mg/L)  (mg/L)  the  knowledge  very  =  .982  F e C l  3  -  .422  Lime  Sludge  computing  production,  (mg/L)  Chloride  Hydrated Lime  treated  3.3  1977)  Alum  F e C l  In  =  calculated  Where  iii)  -  from  4.1 A P  a l k a l i n i t y  quantities  Alum  i i )  a l . ,  Lime  CO  removal  of  (adapted  stream  Sludge  et  14.3  (mg/L)  (mg/L)  2  -  concentration  Dose  3  97  =1.04  lime of  important.  A l k  + 5 . 6  P  requirements the  a l k a l i n i t y In  the  +  and of  the  Calgary,  2.4  CO  lime  sludge  stream Edmonton  being and  -  Saskatoon recycled only  plants, from  a l l  anaerobic  that  digestor  run-off.  for of  is  being  production  would  be  these of  the  is  Saskatoon  less  than  those  impacts  r e a l i z e d  i f  It  3  on  by  (300  is  assumed because  to the  400  mg/L  measured  in  the  that  the  would  appear and/or  requirements not  of  to  r a i n f a l l  lime  this  a l k a l i n i t i e s  noted  by  Saskatoon (anaerobic  Edmonton were  reported  CaC0 ).  lagoon  Edmonton and  This  plants,  the  lagoons), and  supernatant three  process  Calgary  mg/L  to  handling  neutralized  S i g n i f i c a n t  lime  Of  Calgary,  Saskatoon.  (2000  add  a l k a l i n i t y  dewatering  considerably  a l k a l i n i t y  and  to  the  sludge  a l k a l i n i t i e s  are  3  by  to  lagoons.  because  same  supernatant  supernatant CaC0 )  dewatering  the  equivalent  -  proposed  monitors  followed  lagoon  was  Therefore,  u t i l i z e  digestion  be  sludge  Saskatoon  supernatant.  the  i t  98  the  case  surface  and for  sludge Calgary  Edmonton.  3.3.11  The somewhat  must plant  operation  different  phosphorus pay  removal  more  than  Operations  a  philosophy plant.  attention in  of  a  to  Requirements  Bio-P than  removal  the  operation  Stevens  (1988)  the  analysis  lab  conventional  plant  notes  chemical  of  requires a  that  results  a  chemical operators  i n  removal  a  Bio-P plant.  - 99  Traditional blanket (e.g.  -  operating parameters  depth  should  anaerobic  be  zone  concentrations,  ORP  such  augmented nitrate  readouts,  t h e y do  f o r a conventional plant.  of  D e p e n d i n g upon t h e t y p e  maintenance  may  staff  to  operation.  Certainly,  a  Bio-P  laboratory  analysis.  As  a  analyses required  of  the  following  f o r a chemical  i)  Fermenter  ii)  Fermenter gravity  iii)  a daily  required  additional  analysis  data  fermenter  VFA  operators  biochemistry  phosphorus  is  required  than  Bio-P  operations  operation i t  removal  r e q u i r e s more  felt  over  and  that  and  above  daily that  phosphorus removal o p e r a t i o n :  l i q u o r VFA's, BOD,  supernatant  TSS  for  time.  sludge  of the p l a n t , a  chemical  and  a  for a  Zone  VSS  Bio-P  TSS,  VFA's,  t h i c k e n e r i s used  BOD,  size  and  result,  process  removal  is  a  additional  a  b a s i s i n most p l a n t s , t h e  parameters little  and  As  minimum,  Bioreactor Anaerobic  Since  the  require  compared  rates  chemical  etc).  a better understanding  operation  by  flow  concentration,  require  removal  as  VSS.  BOD,  TSS,  VSS  (if  a  fermenter).  N0 . 3  analyses  are  additional operation  In p l a n t s o p e r a t i n g  routinely analyses  would  done  on  for  these  consume  very  anaerobic  -  digestors, the of  l i t t l e  Bio-P  be  method  be  In analyses additional  this  generally  plants  devoted  required  for  having  and  ammonia  of  laboratory  time  colourmetric  this  in  that  The  time  using  automated  result  is  sludge  dissolved  a i r  DO  spent  of  fermentation,  flotation)  for  part  digestors per  day  d i s t i l l a t i o n  DO  a  l i t t l e  related  nitrate  would  DO  be  cleaning  l i k e l y  probes.  Bio-P Stevens  per  the  unit  for  used.  with  at  DO  one  presently,  time.  manhour  day  Kelowna.  operations  treatment  removal  be  control  system  additional lime  required  associated  one  nitrate  approximately  maintenance  control  Bio-P  very  would  control  nitrate  standards,  not,  automated  approximately  i n s t a l l a t i o n  primary  technique  additional  the  a  standards,  Bio-P  day  for  A  hence,  the  per  maintaining  of  out  hour  estimates  majority  c a r r i e d  If  w i l l  to  removal  performed.  not  is  out  analysis.  be  plants  carry  time  VFA analyses.  not  A  to  operating  laboratory  may  requirement  (1988)  not  of  ammonia  not  required  VFA monitoring  or  analysis.  removal,  be  be  plants  the  this  having  In  In the  for  would  may  additional  used  since  hour  perform  time  analyses. analyses  to  would  In  additional  plants  are  time  operation.  one  required  would  -  VFA analyses,  digestor  approximately would  additional  related  normal  100  operation  is The  (e.g.  f a c i l i t i e s , w i l l  also  -  r e s u l t  i n  amount  w i l l  u n i t  a d d i t i o n a l be  operation  dependent  operations  101  upon  added,  and  -  and  maintenance  the the  number,  time.  type  degree  of  The  and  size  automation  exact of  the  i n  the  plant.  In operations was  and  therefore  added,  and  Additional (i.e. i f  quantifying maintenance given the  to  s t a f f i n g  the  type  was  assumed  there  was  only  Miscellaneous  for and  that  a  each  size  amount  requirements  i t  a  requirement  staff  additional  3.3.12  as  the  of  were  plant,  of  the  lab  person  additional consideration  u n i t  operations  analysis  required.  expressed  f u l l - t i m e  part-time  for  i n  would  whole be  numbers  hired  even  designs  were  requirement).  Miscellaneous  parameters  used  i n  the  r e t r o f i t  follows:  i)  Pipe  S i z i n g a l l  pipes  m/s  at  the  minimum  was  150mm  the  average  were flow  pipe  minimum  services -  sized  was  on  a  v e l o c i t y  of  1.5  conditions  diameter  pipe  used  diameter  used  for  sludge  for  lines  a l l  other  piping  were  water  f i l l e d  100mm  f r i c t i o n  factors  calculated  as  piping  based  3  times  for the  sludge factor  for  -  i i )  Control  102  -  Valves  control  valves  were  diameter  smaller  than  assumed the  to  pipe  i n  be which  one  pipe  they  were  i n s t a l l e d a  pressure  control  i i i )  of  140  k P a was  assumed  across  a l l  grade  for  valves  Underground to  drop  Piping  be  buried  Ontario  a  minimum  plants  Saskatchewan  and  plants  of  2 . 0m  2.6m to  below  for  Alberta  minimize  and  freeze/thaw  effects  3.4  Given with ±25%  the  Cost  Estimating  the  l e v e l  r e t r o f i t  a c c u r a c y were  compatible  with  of  i t  achievable.  t h i s  level  Capital  Incremental two  d e t a i l  designs,  3.4.1  following  Basis  of  of was  the  engineering  f e l t  that  Therefore, a c c u r a c y were  associated  estimates  estimating  having  techniques  selected.  Costs  c a p i t a l  costs  were  estimated  using  methods:  1.  Preparing  2.  Factoring.  and  p r i c i n g  material  take-offs  (MTO's).  the  -  In equipment, and  long  tanks,  control which  general,  associated  were with  In these of  cases,  the  labour  costs  federal  and  p r o v i n c i a l  the  TIC for  any  item  can  MC +  MHS X  =  Where  TIC MC MHS LR F FST PST  Material from  of  material  items Sources  = = = = = = =  specified of  these  as for  sales  be  and  and in  for  the  sum  F  each  of  +  FST +  and  i n s t a l l a t i o n  unpublished  associated  this  costs  cost  are  thesis also  of  cost  the  d e t a i l  (TIC)  material freight  for costs  charges,  a l g e b r a i c a l l y ,  PST the  item  manhours  were  obtained  estimators,  h i s t o r i c a l  presented  presented  for  follows:  i n s t a l l a t i o n is  items  level  Expressed as  process  item.  i n s t a l l a t i o n ,  expressed  LR +  the  tunnels  and the  i n s t a l l e d  tax.  professional  handbooks costs  identifies  mechnical  concrete  d e t a i l ,  t o t a l i n s t a l l e d cost of material cost i n s t a l l a t i o n manhours labour rate ($/mh) freight charges federal sales tax p r o v i n c i a l sales tax  costs  suppliers,  estimating  in  t o t a l  estimated  and  TIC  l i s t s ,  and  for  instrumentation  MTO s p e c i f i c a t i o n  was  the  3.2  prepared  excavations,  major  prepared,  most  item,  were  major  and  Table  the  MTO i t e m s  the  runs,  buildings  MTO's  -  MTO's  piping  equipment.  103  in  published  data.  A  manhours in  l i s t i n g for  Appendix  Appendix  C.  a l l C.  GENERAL  COMMODITY  CLASS  COMMODITY  LEVEL  OF  DETAIL ASSOCIATED  W I T H MTO  SPECIFICATION  1.  Mechanical  i)  Pumps  -  Equipment  Q,  TDH, Driver  Type ii)  Mixers  i i i )  Chemical  Feeders  (e.g.  -  Driver  -  Chemical (e.g.  iv)  Sludge  v)  Steel  Collectors Storage  -  kW,  General  centrifugal,  PD,  etc.)  kW Throughput,  screw  General  type  Diameter,  SWD  type)  T h i c k e n e r / C l a r i f i e r Dimensions,  volume  Tanks vi)  Chemical '  2.  3.  Storage  Volume,  Lined/unlined  Silos  vii)  Aerators  i)  Pipe  i)  Excavations  Type,  Piping  Drive  Pipe  diameter,  Excavation for  major  tanks,  TABLE  Reinforced  Concrete  Buildings  3.2  -  MATERIAL  and  and  b a c k f i l l  excavations and  volumes  tanks  Floor  TAKE-'  and  tunnels  Concrete i i i )  length  material  s p e c i f i c a t i o n  C i v i l  ii)  kW  area  SPECIFICATIONS  for  quantities (underground  piping) tunnels  GENERAL  COMMODITY CLASS  LEVEL OF DETAIL ASSOCIATED WITH MTO  COMMODITY  SPECIFICATION  Instrumentation and  i)  Control  Valve  Valves  size  Control  type  a n d and a c t u a t o r  throttling  actuator versus  Flow  iii)  Flow M e t e r s  Meter type  (e.g. o r i f i c e )  iv)  Flow T r a n s m i t t e r s  Electronic  v s pneumatic  v)  Microprocessor  Number  vi)  Panel  details  ii)  Based  Recorders  (e.g. b u t t e r f l y ) ,  ORP P r o b e s  3.2  -  o f loops  Controllers None  v i i ) DO P r o b e s  TABLE  vs local  None  MATERIAL  TAKE-OFF  (cont d) 1  SPECIFICATIONS  on-off)  mount  controlled  &  size  -  Material considered Inc.  to  (1987)  be  t h i s  A The  4%.  that  was  of  Base  index the  -  i n s t a l l a t i o n  for  the  Given  a l l  manhour  municipalities.  maximum  difference  between  two  accuracy  t h i s  labour rate  is  rate as  Salary  of  the  of  the in  Means o v e r a l l  Canada  estimate,  i t  $  6.00  Supervision  -  $  2.00  Consumables  -  $  1.00  -  $  4.00  Burden  and  P r o f i t  TOTAL  was  selected.  t h i s  rate,  the  following  assumptions  made:  -  A p r i l ,  Currency  -  Canadian  Labour  -  Union  -  40  -  None  Work  was  $31.00/hr  selecting  Base  is  follows:  -  In  i n  $31.00/hour  $18.00  Overhead  were  R.S.  locations  -  Salary  rates  insignificant.  composite  breakdown  and  same  composite  approximately that  the  shows  construction  f e l t  costs  106  Date  Crafts  Week  Variance  with  Location  hours  1988 d o l l a r s  -  no  overtime  were  -  Freight material assumed 2% w a s  cost. for  charges An  for  Federal for  pipe,  municipal 12  of  material  in  of  c i v i l ,  i n  MTO's  too  bulk 3.3 this  is  while  8%  12%  exempt  of  an  the  for  Act.  Act.  of  the  costs  was  average  a l l  material other  However,  from  of  cost  items  in  equipment  federal  Therefore,  tax is  exempt  Ministry  method  no  cumbersome. i n  summarizes  the  i n  from  the  of  8%  Ontario  tax  for  under  Part  federal  tax  was  applied  to  the  1988).  Municipal  sewage  p r o v i n c i a l 1988).  and  was  used  f e l t  of  the  to  factoring  material  cost  no  incremental the  painting  the  mechanical  tax  plants.  estimate  and  that  sales  Therefore,  Alberta  instrument  bulk  (Stessan,  estimating  general,  v i c i n i t y  extent  the  to  was  In  was  Alberta.  Revenue,  This  i t  7%  of  e l e c t r i c a l , where  of  Saskatchewan  of  factoring.  areas  in  exists  second was  tax  plants  applied  materials  t h e s i s .  percentage  material  plants,  and  Tax  were  piping,  materials was  sales  taxes  costs  of  4%  normally  sales  the  (Ontario  The c a p i t a l  for  equipment  Ontario  p r o v i n c i a l  the  a  estimates.  costs  treatment  Excise  p r o v i n c i a l  p r o v i n c i a l  is  concrete,  of  of  as  plants.  tax  treatment 13  the  A  No  the  sewage  i n  and  estimated  Saskatchewan  sales  with  Schedule  included  and  -  rate  Ontario  f i t t i n g s  accordance  were  average  Alberta  assumed  107  cost bulk  preparation  of  was  to  l i m i t e d  equipment. factoring  Table within  - 108 -  Factoring associated the  with  a  equipment,  equipment. within the  a  involves  piece  as  a  following  the  radius  MC X  =  Where  BF +  TIC  be  FST +  from  TIC  of  c e r t a i n  material  equipment can  bulks  radius  cost and  be  of  its  of the  bulks  expressed  by  PST  provided  should  the  calculated  do  =  Where  the  noted not  in  Specific  that  following  tax and respectively in  developing  Appendix cost  sources  C.  Factors  estimators for  a l l  =  TIC.  the  TIC's  as  allowances  cost  of  the  calculated for plant  by  ENG  the  engineering. r e t r o f i t  equation:  =  t o t a l incremental cost associated the plant r e t r o f i t t o t a l i n s t a l l e d cost for the i t h  =  associated with the cost of engineering  1  and  factors  Z T I ^ + ENG TC  the  C.  include  incremental  equipment  equipment  professional  Appendix  the  used  presented  data. in  be  t o t a l by  is  of  sales tax,  factors  suppliers,  methods  TC  the  estimates  h i s t o r i c a l  It  Therefore,  +  of  l i s t i n g  cost  two  F  A  also  a  equipment,  freight, federal provincial sales  unpublished  above  the  the  F,FST,PST  obtained  is  of  the  t o t a l i n s t a l l e d cost and i t s bulks material cost of the bulk factor  MC BF  used  of  within  of  TIC  the  equation:  TIC  were  equipment  percentage  Therefore, c e r t a i n  r e t r o f i t  of  estimating  with item  plant r e t r o f i t the r e t r o f i t  can  EXTENT OF FACTORING  COMMODITY  Mechanical  Equipment  -  Piping  Installation  cost  Material  and  i n s t a l l a t i o n  fittings  within  piece  mechanical  of  capital C i v i l  and  foundations includes  E l e c t r i c a l  the  work,  and  factored  of  factored  form  mechanical  was  cost  meter  equipment of  a l l  radius  equipment  i n s t a l l a t i o n  excavation,  Material  i t  50  from  of  c a p i t a l  pipe, i t s  factored  cost  valves  and  associated  from  equipment  cost  Material  steel,  a  factored  from  to  a  equipment  assumed  that  the  a l l  equipment  embedded  equipment  of  b a c k f i l l ,  i n s t a l l a t i o n  from  cost  equipment  c a p i t a l  concrete,  steel cost  and  of  motor  cost.  This  r e i n f o r c i n g  grout.  hardwiring  c o n t r o l  a l l  center  c a p i t a l  cost.  In  a l l  MCC was  within  200  (MCC) cases  meters  equipment.  Material  and  mechanical  i n s t a l l a t i o n  equipment  cost  factored  of  area  l i g h t i n g  from  equipment  of  hardwiring  for  c a p i t a l  cost. Instrumentation  Material mounted panel i t  was  meters  .3  -  and  i n s t a l l a t i o n  instruments  factored assumed of  EXTENT  the  to  a  cost  process  from  equipment  that  the  c o n t r o l l e r  c a p i t a l  c o n t r o l l e r / p a n e l  equipment.  OF CAPITAL  cost.  COST  FACTORING  was  a l l or In  f i e l d  display a l l  within  cases, 200  EXTENT OF FACTORING  Material  TABLE  3.3  -  and l a b o u r c o s t  and  associated  the  equipment f a c t o r e d  piping within  EXTENT OF CAPITAL COST  (cont'd)  of painting  a l l equipment  a 50 m e t e r r a d i u s o f  from equipment c a p i t a l  FACTORING  cost.  -  Engineering t o t a l  i n s t a l l e d  the  cost  author's  professional  having the  ±  author's  easily  is  estimating  Operating  included  hydrated  lime),  laboratory  d i r e c t l y  analysis  and  3.4  dry  provides  the  cost  It  weight alum  of  chemical  and  based  generate  on  with  estimates  However,  based  discussions  that  this  should  weight  table  should  the  l i q u i d .  is be  (alum,  maintenance  were  summary  basis.  by  costs  confirmed a  costs  operations,  costs  were  estimating.  in  the  on with  accuracy  was  Costs  operating  power,  Chemical  48.8%  to  and  f e l t  was  of  1988).  methods  was  12%  discussions  subjective.  i t  to  figure  and  (Dicaire,  these  equal  This  experience  1988)  Incremental  a  be  achievable.  3.4.2  Table  2, T I C ^ ) .  very  personal  (Dicaire,  to  experience  of  accuracy  -  assumed  estimators  v a l i d i t y  25%  estimators  (i.e.  personal cost  The  was  I l l  which f e r r i c  labour,  with  noted  that  In  most  cases  natural  from  quotes  chemical  be  chloride  and gas,  materials.  obtained  of  required  alum  from costs  costs  l i q u i d  actually  used.  m u l t i p l i e d  by  the  suppliers. used  are  alum  Therefore,  0.488  to  plants  i n  l i s t e d  the on  containing the  obtain  the  prices unit  -  Power (1988)  and  monthly power demand  costs  drawn.  below.  Therefore, this  the  a r e based  consumer  divided  include  not accurately  1.  Calgary  0.016  2.  Edmonton  0.016  3.  Regina  0.021  4.  Saskatoon  0.021  5.  Windsor  0.016  6.  Milton  0.017  7.  Grimsby  0.015  8.  Elmira  0.018  9.  Wellesley  0.018  costs  were  r a t e s as p e r S t a t i s t i c s 30%  of  the  ( i n c l u d i n g burden) a r e l i s t e d  based  Canada  total  allowance f o r  reflect  the  plants'  Statistics  2.  Saskatchewan  $763/week  3.  Ontario  $802/week  costs  "water  systems"  S a l a r y b u r d e n was  Canada  rates.  Costs  below: $905/week  gas  ($/kw-hr)  (1988A).  Alberta  (Husky O i l , 1 9 8 6 ) .  the  by t h e a v e r a g e  an  on s a l a r i e d  1.  Natural  on  Canada  local utility.  Power C o s t  as  Statistics  Costs  the costs  may  from  Plant  Labour  estimated  obtained  o f an i n d u s t r i a l  although with  staff  were  are l i s t e d  bill  112 -  were  assumed  to  be  $2.30/MMBTU  CHEMICAL COST ( $ / d r y t o n n e )  CHEMICALS REQUIRED  PLANT 1.  Alum  Edmonton  215  N/A  107  107  220  215  215  N/A  97  97  192  215  215  N/A  120  120  Alum  213  215  215  Ca(OH),  N/A  117  117  23  N/A  2 4  186  Ca(OH) 3 .  Ca(OH) 4.  2  2  Alum  Regina  Saskatoon  2  5.  Windsor  AlClg  6.  Milton  Alum  167  186  Lime  N/A  85  7.  FeCl  Grimsby  PRICE USED (1988 $)  215  Alum  Calgary  SUPPLIER* * QUOTE (1988 $)  N/A  Ca(OH) 2.  PLANT PRICE (1987 $)  (spent  catalyst)  300  2  Lime 8.  Elmira  FeCl  9.  Wellesley  Alum  N/A  Notes:  FOB P l a n t  Site  (2)  5% I n f l a t i o n  (3)  B a s e d on one t o n n e o f Fe  f o r 1987 assumed  3.4  -  85  5( ) 3  4 9  85  682< >  1045  241  186  3  3  TABLE  (1)  ( 3 )  CHEMICAL COST  SUMMARY  (2)  300  ( 3 )  85 ( 3 )  682< > 3  241  -  Laboratory labour  rates.  No  analysis  allowance  Maintenance the  routine  f l u i d s , 1%  per  with  year  the  Bio-P  3.5  analyzing  operating  cost  The which the  =  t o t a l  based  supplies  was  items  plant.  which  These  etc.  on  are  were  material  the  above  included.  consumed  include  These  incremental  Analysis  l u b r i c a t i n g estimated  cost  as  associated  associated  be  expenditures  with  Bio-P  internal  rate  removal, of  and  both  the  return  were  plant.  required savings the  and  c a p i t a l  simple  period to  pay i n  represents out  the  c a p i t a l  operational  payback  period  the  is  period  time  investment  costs. as  of  from  Expressed  follows:  A C C AOC  Where  in  Basis  incremental  payback  r e s u l t i n g  SPP  the  fittings,  the  each  simple  a l g e b r a i c a l l y ,  of  period  for  would  are  savings  payback  calculated  materials  were  r e t r o f i t .  Economic  In  simple  the  costs lab  spare  of  -  for  maintenance  gaskets,  114  SPP A C C A O C  = = =  simple payback period (years) incremental c a p i t a l cost ($) annual reduction in operating costs result of the investment ($/year)  as  a  -  Simple  payback  commonly  used  However,  they  allowance also  the  present  a l . ,  can  of  i n  economic that  of  money.  of  return  the  of  they  decision  they  do  not  Therefore,  zero,  on  no  and  are  making. make  any  IRR's  were  materials  investment  is  zero.  c a p i t a l  i n f l a t i o n ,  as  an  investiment  interest,  calculated  (e"  r  -  t  1)  =  = =  project IRR  r Where  IRR's years. sewage  t r were  Twenty  at  follows  and  no  the  end  Assuming  expenditures  salvage  (adapted  such  of  the  from  value  of  project, Linzey  et  shorter  A C C A O C  calculated years  treatment  economics or  rate  equipment be  for  since  plant.  value  time  computed  1973):  zl  for  value  compounding  purchased IRR  time  the  at  were  weakness  represents  concentrated  the  a  each  net  -  parameter  for  continuous  the  the  calculated  periods  a  have  for  IRR that  as  115  was  plant  project  of  Bio-P  upgrading  could  l i f e  for  project  considered  p r i o r  to  lives  removal occur  in  less  to  be  of  the  expansion  were  for  lives  5,  maximum  or  calculated  existing than  20  10,  plants years.  15  and  l i f e  upgrading. to where  assess  of  20 a  IRR's the  expansions  -  It assuming constant i n f l a t i o n the  should no  be  rate  to  anticipated  i n f l a t i o n  is  15%.  -  re-emphasized  i n f l a t i o n .  i n f l a t i o n  116  is the  The achieved  IRR.  i n f l a t i o n  For rate  that  IRR's  c a l c u l a t i o n by  merely  example, is  10%,  were  of  IRR  adding i f  the the  calculated including  the  IRR IRR  assumed  is  5%  and  including  -  4.0  plant  on  plant  is  t h i s  an  section,  i n d i v i d u a l  i n i t i a l l y  influent  sludge  for  Bio-P  required  discussed  disposal. removal (or  Incremental presented removal  can  then  are  with  removal  presented  are  calculated  4.1  for  Calgary  4.1.1  The  Located  sewage i n  Bonnybrook  Plant  south  the can  be  costs rates  to  phosphorus  in  removal.  cost  for  and Bio-P  requirements  operating  calculated.  return  costs  F i n a l l y ,  associated of  those  developed  operational  savings  each  r e t r o f i t t i n g  compared  c a p i t a l  of  performance  for  are  each  description,  plant  l i s t s  for  with  Bio-P  (IRR's)  are  lives.  Wastewater  Treatment  Plant  Description  Bonnybrook treatment  process  and  chemical  internal  project  operation  required  Incremental  operating  and  to  material  removal  and  various  for  that  discussed  standards,  incremental  such  Bio-P  c a p i t a l  respect  presented  bulk  calculated.  incremental  two  the  i d e n t i f i e d  associated  then  be  existing  modifications  and  that  be  with  present)  equipment  w i l l  The  effluent  The  already  such  results  basis.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  and  of  -  RESULTS  Within  are  117  Wastewater plans  Calgary  on  Treatment  which the  Bow  service River,  plant the the  is  City  the of  plant  larger  Calgary. currently  -  serves  118 -  a p o p u l a t i o n o f 506,000.  Inflow  to the plant  averaged  3  344,000  m /d  i n 1986.  The  design  capacity  of  the plant  is  process  and  3  450,000 m / d b a s e d  The  on a v e r a g e  plant  uses  daily  the  contains  screening, aerated g r i t  gravity  thickening,  dissolved anaerobic removal  digestion,  unit  presented  routed in  sludge  primary sedimentation,  a i r and  secondary  operations.  shown  mechanical  sedimentation,  aeration,  single  lagoons  and  chemical  Flowsheets  and  layout  i n the drawings,  out i n twelve t o two s e t s  1971) o p e r a t e  aerators Reactors  removal,  sludge  stage  phosphorus  drawings  are  i n F i g u r e s 4.1 and 4.2, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  As carried  activated  diffused  a i r flotation,  flow.  primary  from  sedimentation i s  Primary  Reactors  effluent i s  1 to 4  (installed  i n a p l u g - f l o w mode a n d u s e m e c h a n i c a l Each  (installed  mode a n d u s e j e t d i f f u s e r s Effluent  clarifiers.  of bioreactors.  f o r aeration. 5 to 8  primary  the  phosphorus  removal  clarifiers  prior  reactor  contains  i n 1985) o p e r a t e and c e n t r i f u g a l  bioreactors  and i s t h e n  i s  in a  blowers  treated  settled  t o d i s c h a r g e t o t h e Bow  ten  aerators.  complete-mix f o r aeration.  with  i n twenty-four River.  surface  alum  for  secondary  PC's  1-4 BIOREACTORS 1-4  ALUM  S C ' s 1-12  i _ CI PCs  5-8 •TREATED EFFLUENT  DEGRITTED INFLUENT  BIOREACTORS  5-8  ALUM  S C ' s 13-24  1 PC's  9-12  I  DAF TO HEAD OF PLANT  M IRRIGATION  THICKENERS  DICESTORS 1-5,9-12  DIGESTOR 7  SLUDGE BLENDING  LAND APPLN SLUDCE LAGOONS DIGESTOR 6  FIGURE  DIGESTOR 8  4 . 1 - CALGARY BONNYBROOK PLANT FLOWSHEET  (EXISTING)  FIGURE  4.2  -  C A L G A R Y BONNYBROOK  PLANT  LAYOUT  (EXISTING!  -  Sludge three with  gravity sludge  dissolved  from  i n a  Digestors  1  to  Digestor  7.  7  and  to  8,  generation  single  stage  and  9  5  The  Digestors  7  8  to  sludge  sludge  disposed  of  v i a  is and is  is  returned 8  can  to  be  r a r e l y  the  done  summer.  subsurface  head  directed  Land in  the  the  1,  recovered  head  of  3  and  located  plant.  2,  is  is  and  4  to  plant  lagoon from  is  fed  to  Digestors  used  i f  to  overflow  also  then  Overflow the  p r i o r  overflow for  power  pumped  o f f s i t e .  and  blended  process  12 is  in  anaerobically  sludge  and  sludge  is  WAS  d i r e c t l y  11  a p p l i c a t i o n  the  and  digestion  10,  lagoons  thickened  sludge  Blended  digested  land  of  to  is  is  then  overflow 9,  8  12  is  The  6  to  to  Digestors  and  gas  heating.  9  slude  Digestors  Digestor  and  12.  1  primary  operation.  to  Digestors  7. and  DAF  digestors.  respectively.  Digestor  c l a r i f i e r s  c l a r i f i e r s  f l o t a t i o n .  6,  -  Thickened  primary  twelve  e s s e n t i a l l y  to  primary  thickeners.  a i r  digested  from  121  from  Dewatered supernatant Digestors  desired.  7  This  however.  a p p l i c a t i o n Sludge  is  i n j e c t i o n .  of  the  dewatered  applied  This  to  l o c a l  operation  is  sludge  is  carried  a g r i c u l t u r a l known  as  the  land  out v i a  CALGRO  program.  A l l located  in  between  the  secondary  p i p i n g  underground primary  c l a r i f i e r s  underground  between  in  these  tunnels.  c l a r i f i e r s , and  the  unit  Tunnels  provide  gravity  digestors.  tunnels.  various  A l l  operations  thickeners, sludge  pumps  is  connections bioreactors, are  located  -  Screw are  enclosed,  large  than  they  amounts  measured 1.0  operation  but  pumps  of  do  to  opinion  the  the  level  of  the  DO p r o b e s  on the  on  have  monthly  BOD  the  a i r  mg/L  TSS  -  25  mg/L  TP  -  1.0  Average on  1985/86  the  As  the  v i s u a l  these  pumps  entrainment  RAS a r e  staff,  not  are  of  normally  l i k e l y  inspection  constituent  to  take-offs  as  (May  of  less the  both  the  the  new  However,  sets  of  position  plant,  problems  and with  inoperable.  for  the  plant  effluent  follows:  through  (November  values  averages)  i n adjust  i n  plant.  standards  are  mg/L-P  provided  provided  system  mg/L-P  monthly  in  plant  is  old  Environment  1.25  (based  t h i s  25  permit  A  are  the  averages)  pumping.  t h i s .  supply  in  made  the  control  -  5  of  loops  tanks  Alberta (based  DO  Feedback  valves  to  1987).  support  Automatic  of  RAS  appear  (Barrett,  seemed  for  Concentrations  the  mg/L  -  used  not  DO.  i n  bioreactors.  are  122  are  October)  through  for  the  l i s t e d  April)  plant below:  influent  -  BOD  -  161  mg/L  TSS  -  153  mg/L  TP  -  4.5  mg/L-P  5  NH  3  -  15.9  N0  3  -  2.6  Tmax  The has  a  -  achieved  mg/L-N  10°C  presence  The  of  average during  N0  of  of  the  the  effluent  1985  3  effect  source  Performance following  >  v  mg/L-N  significant  bioreactor.  -  19°C  Tmin  i t  123  and  in  the on  N0  3  plant  influent the  is  not  has  concentrations  should  process  be  noted  design  of  been and  excellent  with  compliance  Parameter  (mq/L)  Monthly  Compliances  (Maximum  BOD,. o  11  24  TSS  12  24  0.75  24  TP NH  3  7.7  N/A  NO.  13.8  N/A  24)  the  results  Average Concentration  the  known.  1986:  Effluent  as  -  The occurs  i n  operating May  above  the  laboratory  having  is  the is  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  A  that  operated  review  of  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  t y p i c a l l y  the  can  monthly  occur  from  the  to  City  perform  of  a l l  Calgary.  analyses  A  for  a  Modifications  flowsheets  in  the  onsite.  R e t r o f i t  presented  by  c a p a b i l i t i e s  located  R e t r o f i t  of  plant.  suggests  plant  operation,  drawings  that  February.  4.1.2  are  -  show  Bonnybrook  to  The  Bio-P  figures  summaries  through  124  Figures  and  4.3  r e t r o f i t t e d  layout  and  drawings  4.4,  bioreactors  for  the  respectively. are  presented  plant Layout  i n  Figure  4.5.  As modifications for  Bio-P  i)  shown would  be  these  drawings,  required  to  the  following  r e t r o f i t  the  three  Bonnybrook  major plant  removal:  Provide and  additional  modify  primary  i i )  on  Modify  the  sludge  the  primary  existing  sludge  gravity  thickeners  to  thickeners accommodate  fermentation.  bioreactors  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  to  sequence.  accommodate  an  PC  3  1-4 BIOREACTORS  1-4  AL™  SC's  1-12  —i—r . i i i i ; i i  DEGRITTED INFLUENT  PC's  CI  5-8  TREATED EFFLUENT BIOREACTORS  5-8  ALUM  -i—r  I T  9-12  13-24  V  i • i i j i | PC's  SC's  DAF  LIME  THICKENERS  FERMENTER5  FERMENTERS  \  1,2,3  1,2  DIGESTORS 1-5,9-12  4.3  ~  —  "  IRRIGATION  DIGESTOR 7 LAND APPLN  DIGESTOR 6  BONNYBROOK  i  k  SLUDGE LAGOONS  3,4  CALGARY  r x  SLUDCE BLENDING  DIGESTOR  8  DENOTES B I O - P  FIGURE  i—i  Y  RETROFIT  FLOWSHEET  MODIFICATION  TREATED EFFLUENT  SC'S  FIGURE  4.4  -  CALGARY BONNYBROOK  RETROFIT  LAYOUT  1 -  12  BIOREACTORS BIOREACTORS  5 - 8 36  66.5  1  -  4  n TO  a  S C RAS  . "SC's T  0  O  -  JET  $  -  MIXER  (I)M  c-  -  DIFFUSER  1  MECHANICAL /  AERATOR  st  4  FROM  ~-o  o-  PC'»  ©  e FERMENTER SUPERNATANT  e  i  t  1  l  e  e  -X  e.  1. FROM  FROM BLOWERS  to  2  t  i»0  o—  © ©  ©  6  CELL  STATUS  HRT  1,2,3  UNAERATED  0.5  6,5,6  UNAERATED/  0.5  PC'i  (HRS)  FERMENTER  AERATED 7  AERATED  4.5  HRT  (HRS)  CELL  STATUS  1.2  UNAERATED  0.69  3.4  UNAERATED/  0.69  AERATED  FIGURE  4.5  -  CALGARY BONNYBROOK  RETROFIT  AERATED  0.69  AERATED  3.5  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUT  SUPERNATANT  - 128 -  i i i )  Provide  f a c i l i t i e s  supernatant These  necessitate  process.  the  bioreactors i n f l u e n t .  of  introduced  at  provide  and  good  n i t r i f i c a t i o n and  accommodate  of  of  the  phosphorus  located  of  a  point  the  in  the  anoxic to  gravity  at  the  was  plant  lagoon  r e c y c l i n g .  the  existing  for  at  d e n i t r i f y  such  non-aerated The  i n  conditions. occurs,  to  occurs,  the  anoxic  thickener the  head the  supernatant  the  anoxic of  the  would  n i t r a t e s  in  the  for  the  allow i t  combined  use  process  with  be  nitrates  introduced  of  and  when  minimal (0.5  be  hour  introduced times  be  the  gravity  n i t r i f y i n g  During  i n  bioreactor  small  would  be  also  would  tank.  could  would  winter,  would  zone  be  the  the  supernatant of  of  of  the  zone  sludge  front  that  zone  dealing  During  the  would  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  f l e x i b i l i t y  would  primary  the  thickening  complete.  i n f l u e n t  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic zone  supernatant, i n  the  thickening  with  an  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  thickener  b i o r e a c t o r .  g r a v i t y  VFA-rich  close  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  be  n i t r a t e s  required  therefore,  r e l a t i v e l y  the  be  use  n o n - n i t r i f y i n g  HRT)  of  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  thickening  of  creation  The  treatment  i n t e r n a l  would  conjunction  would  i s o l a t i o n  where  use  i n  The  lime  s i t e .  presence  fermentation  the  prevent  f a c i l i t i e s  lagoon  The  to  for  RAS,  f a r t h e r  when  larger and down  to  hence the  -  Four the  Bio-P  r e t r o f i t  s u f f i c i e n t  rate.  from  primary  used  for  to  to  the  heat  loss.  Piping  operations was  not  would  f e l t  fermenter The in  the  test  buried  the  pumphouses. for  the  e x i s t i n g  would New  supernatant  and  new  recycle  s e r v i c i n g recycle  these  pumps  new  where  sludge  would  be  However,  tests  thickeners.  the  not  i t  existing  these  grade  are  pipes  to  minimize  other  unit  a v a i l a b l e .  associated of  bioreactors  with  new  It the  tunnels.  would  be  run  possible.  new  recycle  pumps  pumps  would  also  for  the  above-grade,  thickeners. would  the  the  from  to  wastage  These  c l a r i f i e r  thickeners,  of  below  in  provide  12.  a d d i t i o n a l  the  i n  and  thickeners.  of  and  located  to  construction  to  channel,  the  tunnels  the  lines  5  thickeners  number  supernatant  existing tunnel  be  the  not  thickeners  results  located  warranted  effluent  for  where  small  Supernatant, thickeners  be  do  c a p a b i l i t y  Positive  the  supernatant  primary  the  provided  ferment  c l a r i f i e r s  to  VFA's.  new  of  be  primary  would  the  construction  would  operation,  thickener  primary  from  be  that  and  requirements  Thickeners  design  the  produce  eliminate  the  4,  would  thickeners  thickeners  to  from  advisable  thickeners  at  existing 1  thickeners  existing  time  sludge  -  gravity  the  c l a r i f i e r s  the  be  could  The  committing  would  as  retention  underflow  before  a d d i t i o n a l  129  be  would  be New  be  new  heated required  located  in  the  p i p i n g  for  the  routed  within  this  -  tunnel.  The e x i s t i n g  sludge under  blending a  Bio-P  130 -  pumps and p i p i n g f r o m t h e t h i c k e n e r s  facility  were  scenario.  found  t o be adequate  Therefore,  no  t o the  f o r wasting  modifications  to  these  would be r e q u i r e d .  Modifications  to  shutting  down t h e e x i s t i n g  proposed  anoxic  include  compartmentalizing  installing  new  bioreactors aerators  and a n a e r o b i c  DO p r o b e s  to  4  would  involve  and i n s t a l l i n g m i x e r s  zones.  the  1  Other  first  to replace  i n the  modifications  pass  of  the  would  reactors;  the non-functioning  existing  o n e s ; a n d i n s t a l l i n g ORP p r o b e s a n d r e c o r d e r s .  Modifications conversion  of  operations. walls  diffusers  the reactors  This  (see  and  from  and  the  the  associated  layout.  o f mixers  5 t o 8 would  completely-mixed  involve  4.5)  their  compartmentalized  replacement  would  Figure  installation  to bioreactors  re-arrangement piping  i n the anoxic DO  to  installation  to  Other m o d i f i c a t i o n s  of the existing  include the  of  dividing  of  the j e t  accommodate would  and a n a e r o b i c  probes;  plug-flow  the  include the zones;  the  and t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f  ORP p r o b e s a n d r e c o r d e r s .  The facilities supernatant handling  continued  combined was  with  deemed  t h e Bio-P  use  to  sludge.  of  the  the  lime  be  the  existing treatment most  Consideration  sludge of  practical was  given  handling  the  lagoon  method to  of  pumping  -  the  thickened  digestors.  WAS  d i r e c t l y  However,  p r e v a i l  i n  occur.  In  the  addition,  solids  a p p l i c a t i o n  sludge  would  Environment, would  per  anaerobic  that  digestor for  gas  primary  would  sludge  require  of  wood  In  was  improve notes  the  that  of  market  lime-based  would  permit  digested, the  gas  lagoon (Alberta  production  approximately  as  be  use the  of  for  was  estimated  supply  for  result of  use  the  located.  alternative  required  would  the  an  It  be  However,  with  sludge suggest  for  of  s t i l l  i n  the of  lost  digestors composting  sludge of  the  bulk  handling material  Therefore,  this  evaluation.  land  a p p l i c a t i o n  the  use  It  may  study.  associated  guidelines  be  of  dewatering.  suitable to  would  would  percent  costs  composting  selected  further  80  considered  land  a  have  not  lime/anaerobic  p r o v i n c i a l  ha  would  not  digestor  re-organization  would  release  would  l o s t  anaerobic  conditions  a p p l i c a t i o n  also  lagoon  i t  t o t a l  Problems combined  was  the  make-up.  and  addition,  warrant  gas  fermentation.  chips)  composting  however,  a  sludge  operating  While  production,  operations. (e.g.  WAS.  anaerobic  approximately  natural  20  around  phosphorus  land  by  composting  the  that  the  for  lagoons  Furthermore,  digestion  of  f e l t hence,  rates  for  approximately  composting  and  -  the  incremental  year  Sludge to  was  reduced  i n  to  because  1982).  r e s u l t  $400,000  i t  lagoons  be  131  the  sewage  are that  sludge. sludges  not the  anticipated. addition  Alberta can  be  of In  of  to  fact,  lime  Environment applied  the  may  (1982)  s o i l s  of  -  lower to.  pH  than  those  This  is  because  s o l u b i l i z a t i o n of  lime  may  f a c i l i t y  on  i t  was  supernatant  A  f a c i l i t y  phosphorus in  t h i s  consumption, n i t r i f y i n g because  of  subsequent bioreactor. demand small soluble can  be  range  of  Bio-P  is  conditions.  production,  s o l u b i l i z a t i o n of  the  This  also  explains  associated  with  Bio-P  quantity  of  phosphorus achieved.  alum levels  (10  gas  of  the  the  mg/L) that  lime  and  in  the  It  would  this  where  mg/L  CaC0 .  Table  oxygen  was  lagoon  3  for  a  Bio-P  chemical  4.1.  i n  As  shown  reduced  alum  demand  would  be  under reduced  fermenter  and  the  products  i n  the  carbonaceous  should be  lagoon  existing  the  increased  an  of  treatment  plant  result  s o l u b i l i z e d  removal.  such  400  in  the  addition  mentioned,  production  VSS  the  parameters  for  would  Digestor  oxidation  to  presented  removal  the  a l k a l i n i t y  operating  those  gas  for  300  applied  operations.  Saskatoon  from  be  r e s t r i c t s  Therefore,  previously  the  the  f a c i l i t y  digestor  the  from  versus  removal table,  As  can  sludge  disposal  the  3  comparison  lime  estimate  mg/L CaC0 .  a l k a l i n i t i e s  sludges  sludge.  that  obtained  the  sludge  the  assumed  500  pH of  the  improve  developing  is  in  -  conventional  high  metals  In  figures  removal  which  the  a c t u a l l y  supernatant based  of  to  132  be  noted  required  effluent  TP  of  oxygen that  to 1.0  a  reduce mg/L  -  Table consume  more  operations  The  supernatant Additional lime  carry  also  lime  staff,  f a c i l i t y .  the  4.1  is  and  and  the  that  e l e c t r i c i t y , produce  requirement  for  responsible  treatment  -  indicates  would  operating  out  133  staff  additional  more  lime  are  required  laboratory  to  the  of  fermenter analysis  existing  the  sludge  operate  would  additional  than  treatment  increased  the  f a c i l i t y  require  sludge  the  and  Bio-P  would  for  f a c i l i t y  a  lagoon  production. and  maintain  operation,  required  for  and a  to  Bio-P  f a c i l i t y .  4.1.3  A with  Bio-P  t o t a l  Cost  summary  of  the  removal  is  presented  incremental  approximately associated primary  c a p i t a l  $5,368,000.  with  sludge  the  incremental  cost A  savings  thickeners  can  in for  large  construction  fermentation.  s i g n i f i c a n t  removal.  Analysis  i f  i t  produce  could  c a p i t a l  Table a  of  be  s u f f i c i e n t  of  new  Threfore,  4.2.  Bio-P  portion  costs As  shown,  r e t r o f i t t h i s  gravity there  demonstrated VFA's  associated  for  the  would  be  ($2,404,00)  is  thickeners  for  potential  for  is that  good  the  existing  phosphorus  -  134  PARAMETER  -  BIO-P  CASE  CHEMICAL  CASE  Alum  Consumption  (kg/d)  Lime  Consumption  (kg/d)  Sludge  29,970  4,892  Production  -  Mass  -  Volume  (kg/d) (m /d) 3  Oxygen  Demand  -  w/o  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  -  w/  3 (m / d )  Production  Incremental  Power "  Consumption  (kw)  Incremental  4.1  Includes Based on  -  50,049  47,530  435  413  39,684  37,035  62,960  69,733  27,828  31,168  (kg/d)  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  Methane  TABLE  4,600  +143  1  Operations  CALGARY  Staff  BONNYBROOK  +2  OPERATIONS  COMPARISON '  power s a v i n g s from reduced oxygen an influent flow of 450,000 m / d .  2  demand.  P  - 135 -  A removal Bio-P  is  summary  presented  removal  $1,490,000. in  alum  would This  based  Bio-P  on  the  Another the  cost of not  of  Table in  an  operating As  4.3.  annual  e s s e n t i a l l y  costs  indicated, savings  attributable  assumption  Therefore,  1986  CALGRO  option  is  associated  would  for  increased  selected land  as  be  for  the  of  to  were  operation  new  Bio-P use  of  approximately  large  reductions  sludge  production  i t  was  application  i n  at  an  deemed rates  and  sludge land  calculated  costs  is the  production  lagoons  the  ($112/tonne  production  sludge  to  these  build-up  increased  additional  applied  estimating  to  with  that  costs  sludge  allowed  constructing  future  is  the  incremental  hence,  i n  incremental  result  costs  operation  operation. for  the  consumption.  The were  of  not  too  would  be  to to  In  unit  date.  s i t e s .  costs  assume the  land case,  amortized This to  a  disposed).  t h i s  the  d i f f i c u l t  lagoon  be  applied  would  the  in  CALGRO  the  sludge  lagoons.  e a r l i e r  v i a  using of  produced  option  speculate  that and the cost was on  i  MODIFICATION  UFA  SUPPLV  SPECIFICATION  TEH  FERMENTER FERMENTER  2 0 . 0 H DIAM. 3.5 H SUD, 4.0 CONCRETE EXCAVATION 4 5 L / s , 2 0 M TDH, 12.6 kU 150 MM ASTM A 5 3 AS PER F I G U R E 3.2 4 5 L / s , 15 H TDH, 9.5 kU AS PER F I G U R E 3.2 4 5 L / s , 2 6 M TDH, 16.4 kU AS PER F I G U R E 3.2 2 - 11.6 H M 7.2 N H 5 H 2 5 0 MM ASTM A 5 3 150 MM ASTM A 5 3  MECHANICAL TANK  3 . SUPERNATANT PUMPS 4. SUPERNATANT P I P I NO 5 . SUPNT PUMP I N S T N 6. R E C V C L E PUMPS 7. R E C V C L E I N S T N 6. HASTE PUMPS 10. UASTE PUMP I N S T N 1 1 . PUMPHOUSES 1 2 . PC UNOERFLOU P I P I N O 13. FERM UASTE P I P I N G 14. AREA L I G H T I N G 2.  BIORERCTOR  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  COMPARTMENTRLIZATION ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS NEM REACTOR P I P I N O NEM DO PROBES  CONRETE  DUANTITV  kU  PARTITIONS  2.4 kU 150 MM ASTM R 5 3  L I M E TREATMENT 1. STORROE S I L O S STEEL 14/ EPOXV LINER, 158 M3 OF D I O E S T O R 2. CHEMICAL F E E D E R ROTARV TVPE, 612 kg/hr SUPERNATANT 3 . MIX TANK STEEL, 1.7 M 3 0.64 kU 4. MIX TANK MIXER 5 . HOLDING TANK F D PUMPS 5.6 L / C , 6.0 M TDH, 0.5 kU 6. HOLDING TANK 163 M3 7 . HOLDING TANK MIXER 0.64 kU 8. HOLDING TANK PUMPS 1.0 L / s , 3.0 H TDH, 0.10 kU 10. RAPID MIX/FLOCCN TNK 5.8 M3 11. RAPID MIX MIXER 0.25 kU 12. F L 0 C C N MIXER 0.023 kU 13. C L A R I F I E R MECHANICAL 6.6 M DIAH, 3.0 M SUD, 2.0 kU 14. C L A R I F I E R TANK CONCRETE  EXCAVATION 1.6 L/», 10.0 M TDH, 0.30 kU 25 M • 20 H M 8H  15. L I M E SLUDOE PUMPS 16. B U I L D I N G  4 SAO H 3 S T 6 0 M3 6 1575 H 9 7 3  A  3 167 225 225 3000  H2 M  ARTERIAL COST  <*>  INSTALLATION MANHOURS  360288 146500  5130 1152  26200 206798 17100 28344 17100 22000 17100  7607 144 144 144  M2  41763 29543 123000  1249 1087 4800  1511 N3 16 6 80 660 M 16  415525 16O0O 2800 280000 115544 56000  14355  H  2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 30 103 2 5 0 0 M2  4250  58000 32000 . 5100 1691 1882 35000 1691 1800 9100 1275 904 48962 8250  285 21  1882  SUB-TOTAL ENOINEERINQ TOTAL  TABLE  4.2  -  CALGARY  BONNYBROOK  CAPITAL  COST  SUMMARY  BULK FACTOR  1.64 3.6 3.8 3.8  2.1 2.1 1.34 2. 1 2.2 1.23 6 1.34 3.8 2.6 1.34 3.8 5.2 1.34 1.34 1.84 2.5 3.8  TOTAL INSTALLEC COST  <*>  727719 313470 35712 111446 450894 22248 115967 22248 86944 22248 71827 82165 64413 276720 877136 34944 6115 390208 251928 122304 132704 40934 31624 2357 7438 94640 2357 7114 49213 1777 1260 93694 17415 639 7438 215000 4792459 575095 5367554  -  137  -  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL  ITEM  COST  ($1,991,000) 1.  Alum  2.  Lime  173,000  3.  Natural  4.  Sludge  5.  Power  88,000  Gas  103,000  Disposal  20,000  6.  Operations  7.  Maintenance  94,000  Staff  23,000 Materials l£l^490 _0001 J  TOTAL  TABLE  4.3  -  CALGARY  BONNYBROOK  OPERATING  COST  SUMMARY  -  Based the  c a p i t a l  for  various  project  LIFE  the  340,000  .IRR  Gold  the  Bar Wastewater  Bar  Wastewater  treatment  and  Treatment  plants  River,  560,000. on  plant  screening,  aeration,  Treatment  which  surrounding communities.  based  investment  Plant  Description  Saskatchewan of  the  for  f%>  27.6  Plant  period  follows:  20  Gold  payback for  27.3  3 m / d  digestion  as  IRR's  15  The  air  are  years.  25.6  and  contains  l i v e s  sewage  population  3.6  simple  10  two  North  is  the  (years)  Edmonton  Edmonton  estimates,  13.9  The the  -  5  4.2.1  of  these  investment  PROJECT  4.2  on  138  The  average  uses g r i t  secondary  the  design d a i l y  the  removal,  unit  is  service Located  plant  the the  i n  of  the  larger City  the  c u r r e n t l y  capacity  of  c i t y  on  serves  a  plant  is  flow.  activated primary  sedimentation,  c h l o r i n a t i o n  Plant  sludge  process  sedimentation, single  operations.  stage Digested  and  diffused anaerobic gas  is  -  recovered  and  sludge  pumped  from v i a  is  the  is  used  plant,  land  for  to  and  f a c i l i t y  generation.  located  Dewatered  Flowsheets  are  power  lagoons,  dewatering.  a p p l i c a t i o n .  existing  -  heating  sludge  for  139  and  presented  approximately  sludge  layout  in  Digested  is  12  km  disposed  of  drawings  Figures  4.6  of  the  and  4.7,  respectively.  As primary  shown  divided  Each  into  operated  i n  either  with  the  supply  a i r  i n  the  a  lagoons  Digestor  m  is  wide  plug-flow  or  r a d i a l  feedback headers  the  97.5  m long  and  by  24.7  passes.  The  step-feed  modes.  DO  m wide  A i r DO  and can  is  is be  supplied  control  is  valves  on  modulating  measurements  eight  secondary  bioreactors  Automatic  c o n t r o l l i n g  using  contains  bioreactors  blowers.  loop  plant  from  DO  probes  bioreactors.  Overflow sludge  tanks,  6.17  located  provided  drawings,  bioreactor  four  c e n t r a l l y  located  the  sedimentation  c l a r i f i e r s .  by  in  from  are  overflow  the  both can  be  digestors  returned  and  to  diverted  to  supernatant  the the  head  of  sludge  from  the  the  plant.  lagoons  i f  required.  A l l underground primary the  p i p i n g  between  tunnels.  c l a r i f i e r s ,  digestors.  Tunnels the  the are  unit  operations  available  bioreactors,  the  to  is  located  interconnect  secondary  c l a r i f i e r s  in the and  BIOREACTORS  CI  (8)  TREATED EFFLUENT  O  DICESTORS  FIGURE  4.6  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  (6)  BAR  PLANT  FLOWSHEET  (EXISTING)  -  The Saskatchewan effluent  are  plant  discharges  River.  Alberta  currently  BOD  5  TSS  (based  on  monthly  mean)  -  25  mg/L  (based  on  monthly  mean)  to  for  mg/L,  the  SS  -  235  mg/L  TP  -  7.3  mg/L-P  TKN  -  34.0  mg/L-N  NH  -  24.0  mg/L-N  -  20°C  Tmin  -  7°C  B0D 's 5  and  of  TSS's  respectively.  r e l a t i v e l y  raw  mg/L  Tmax  can  short (Shivji,  plant  sewage  the  averaging  Effluent  t y p i c a l  values are  plant  as  has  NH^  from  March  sludge  age  (5-7  to  North  for  t h i s  Canadian on  1985/86  follows:  been  records October  days)  the  of  (based  excellent  approximately  occur  1987).  is  constituent  214  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  operates  the  -  Performance effluent  follows:  to  standards  mg/L  averages)  3  effluent  Environment  as  Average  5  treated  25  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  BOD  -  -  Influent  monthly  142  at  12  mg/L  with and  indicate inspite which  the  10  that of  the plant  -  The laboratory for  a  plant  with  Bio-P  on  C i t y  study  conducted  a  of  55%  of  good  monthly the  phosphorus  phosphorus  for  attributes was  Brewery  be  to  VFA's.  the  one  sequence.  six one  to  to  the  Gold  t y p i c a l l y  Therefore,  <1.0  is  two plant  were  attributable  influent  and,  hence,  for  a  Bio-P  These or  an  promising  as  observed was  to  that  generally  followed  by  poor  periods  of  poor  Tuesday. on  the  Monday  that  the  S h i v j i weekends.  i n  fermentation  primary  r e t r o f i t .  in  breweries  postulated  (Shivji,  achieved  was  from  to  mg/L were  processed  removal  required  1987  achieved  mg/L)  Monday  of  were  days,  days.  Bar  were mg/L  i t  contains  i t  2.0  interest,  that  and  bioreactors  1.0  sewage  part  of  the  the  Environment,  1986  Results  TP  As  removal  below  on  1987)  Alberta  being  caused  Bio-P  below  two  River  1985,  consecutive  strength  (Yee,  wastewater  i n  operating  started  low  noted  phosphorus  present would  this  wastewater  including poor  for  in  using  (effluent  to  generally  also  discharge  five  removal  performance  of  p a r t i c u l a r  removal  A  required  standards  removal.  with  months  concentrations  Of  Edmonton.  analyses  removal  phosphorus  concentrations  and  time.  experienced  It  TP  time,  the  for  16  plug-flow  a l l  Saskatchewan  conjunction  involved  anaerobic/aerobic  75%  North  for  of  onsite.  the  in  City  perform  phosphorus  f e a s i b i l i t y  study  to  the  for  options  study  the  by  located  to  City,  p i l o t  The  average  is  various the  investigate 1987).  c a p a b i l i t y  discharges  study,  -  operated  potential  imposed  this  the  operation  The  to  is  143  Edmonton  to  Friday. products  periods  i n s u f f i c i e n t sludge  of  VFA's  fermentation  -  4.2.2  For effluent  TP  required. chemical  R e t r o f i t  the  plant  layout  of  concentrations  It  was  also  phosphorus  are  this  of  removal  of  a  i t  than  that  alum  was  1.0  assumed  mg/L  would  be  that  would  used  be  for  a  process.  flowsheets in  study,  less  assumed  presented  drawing  -  Modifications  purposes  R e t r o f i t Bar  144  and  Figures  t y p i c a l  layout 4.8  drawings  and  bioreactor  4.9.  is  for  the  Gold  respectively.  presented  in  A  Figure  4.10.  As modifications for  Bio-P  shown would  i n  Figure  be  required  to  the  following  r e t r o f i t  the  three  Gold  major  Bar  plant  removal:  i)  Provide  primary  i i )  Modify  the  anaerobic,  i i i )  4.8,  Provide recycle  sludge  fermentation  bioreactors anoxic  and  f a c i l i t i e s streams  from  to  aerobic  for the  the  f a c i l i t i e s .  accommodate  the  required  zones.  lime  anaerobic  treatment digestors.  of  the  ALUM PC's  BIOREACTORS  (8)  (8)  SC's  (8)  TREATED EFFLUENT  I !  FERMENTERS -_r1  (4)  I  DIGESTORS  (6)  DENOTES B IO -P MODIFICATION  FIGURE  4.8  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  Cl  BAR  RETROFIT  FLOWSHEET  FIGURE  4.9  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  BAR  RETROFIT  LAYOUT  FERMENTER  SUPERNATANT  t  FROM  o  o  o  o  O  4  o  o a  O  P.C.'s  CM  TO — •  SC's  97.5 m O ~ CELL  STATUS  1,2 3,4,5  UNAERATED UNAERATED/ AERATED AERATED AERATED  6 7,8  FIGURE  4.10  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  MIXER  HRT (HRS.) 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0  BAR R E T R O F I T  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUT  -  Unlike n i t r a t e s the  i n  Calgary  the  influent  bioreactor,  some  the  option  (as  primary  shown  sludge  dictated  Two in  Figure  sequence  is  Figure  i n  sequence process  i n  the  used  considered  the  they  n o n - n i t r i f y i n g  As  both  aerobic  in  of  the  were  Table  option  not  occur,  hence During the  the  head  has  nitrates plant  on  a  f a c i l i t i e s  gravity  the  bioreactor.  and  consists an  This  and  involved f i r s t  thickener  The a  of  The  with  of  an  for  anoxic/  second  option  completely  mixed  anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic  option  is  plant.  be  developed  4.4  During  these  fermenter  conjunction  s i m i l a r  These  operated  c a p i t a l  lower  c a p i t a l  w i l l be  conditions, the  and  gravity  also  winter  would  and  the  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic f l e x i b i l i t y .  the  considered.  uses  p i l o t  both  presence  of  Bar  were  with  UBC  design  the  to  options  during  the were  n i t r i f y i n g  and  conditions.  options  shown  4.11  can  Estimates with  in  where  Gold  in  bioreactor.  i n  as  the  4.11)  conjunction  in  the  options  anaerobic/aerobic  fermenter  of  fermentation  i l l u s t r a t e d  -  Bonnybrook,  design  optimization.  148  not  are  thickener, and  present  thickener When  in  i n  associated Table  operating  an  when in  the  costs.  n i t r i f i c a t i o n return  would  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  does  The  operating does  sludge  anaerobic/aerobic  supernatant  4.4.  anoxic/anaerobic/  excellent  conditions, be  costs  presented  has  operated  bioreactor.  operating  be  and mode.  added  occur,  to the  -  PRIMARY CLARIFIER  ANOXIC  149  -  SECONDARY CLARIFIER  ANAEROBIC  TO SLUDGE HANDLING OPTION 1 - ANOXIC/ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC PROCESS WITH GRAVITY THICKENING  PRIMARY CLARIFIER  ANAEROBIC  SECONDARY CLARIFIER  ANOXIC  AEROBIC  RAS  FERMENTER TO SLUDGE HANDLING  CO  OPTION 2 - UBC PILOT PLANT PROCESS  FIGURE  4.11  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  BAR  PROCESS  OPTIONS  ANOHIC/RNAEROBIC/AEROBIC PROCESS U / GRRVITV THICKENING  1 . CAPITAL COSTS A. FERMENTER B. TUNNEL  TIC  DESCRIPTION 4 - 2 1 M DIAM H 3 . 5 H SUD THICKENERS U / U/G CONCRETE TANKS TOTAL EHCAVATION - 1 9 8 0 M 3 2  -  100  L/«,  35.4  H  0.  2  -  100  L/.,  10  TDH  E. WASTE SLUDGE PUMPS ft PIPING  2  -  100  L/s,  22.5  F. MINED LIQUOR RECVCLE PUMPS ft PIPING  NOT REQUIRED  H  M  TDH  466  NOT REQUIRED  292  1 0 0 L/s, 1 0 H TDH 3 0 0 M , 3 0 0 MM D PIPING  66  2  80  2  -  L/s,  100  22.5  M  187  TDH  60  1016  2037  1997  OPERATING COSTS  DESCRIPTION  A. THICKENER RAKES  4  B. FERMENTER MINERS  M 6.0  ANNUAL COST  MINED LIQUOR RECVLE  f  CSMIOOO)  DESCRIPTION  3400  NOT REQUIRED  kU  NOT REQUIRED  4  SO k U  C. SUPERNATANT PUMPS 0.  292  462  16 - 2 4 6 L/s, 6 H TDH U / VARIABLE FREQUENCV CONTROLLERS  TOTAL  2.  <S»1000»  4 - 2 1 M DIAM M 3 . 5 M SUD U/G CONCRETE TANKS U / MINERS TOTAL EHCAVATION - I 9 6 0 M 3  1092  TON  TIC  DESCRIPTION  C»M1000>  C. SUPERNATANT PUMPS ft PIPING RECVCLE PUflPS ft PIPING  UBC PILOT PLANT PROCESS  7000  NOT REQUIRED  M 6.0  ANNUAL COST <*M1000>  kU  3400  NOT REQUIRED 6  M 20.7  kU  23000  DUMP*  TOTAL  26400  10400  TABLE  4.4  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  BAR PROCESS  OPTION  ECONOMIC  SUMMARY  -  thickener  supernatant  such  complete  that  sludge  is  Therefore, of  based  economics  and  operating  was  an  i n  Digestors  for  for  tunnel.  A l l  bioreactors tunnels.  5  to  The conversion plug-flow  to  adequate  valves  be  Bar  Bio-P  mixers  anaerobic  would  runs  run  such  and along  that  i n  the  the  the  two  f i r s t  of  the  supernatant  i n  tunnel. i n  can  and  to A l l new the  existing  pump  be  capacities  of  pass  suited  operated  removal  be  the  the  i d e a l l y  thickener  could  connected  new  would  each  compartments  f i r s t  located  operation.  are  passes  The  the  constructed  fermenters  Bio-P  five  zones.  side  to  be  underflow  they  in  be  be  located  ferementer  as  in  would  located  bioreactors  f i r s t  anoxic  the  for  fermentation sequence  a  be  the  c l a r i f i e r  supernatant. use  would  with  be  return  the  would  would  would  Conversion  the  and  between  removal  conditions.  i n s t a l l i n g  operation  the  plant.  fermenters  b u i l d i n g  in  reactor,  f l e x i b i l i t y ,  fermenters  purposes,  the  the  sludge  Bar  the  The  control  primary  Gold  Gold  4.9,  6.  digestors  compartmentalizing  the  and  piping  be  the  Figure  fermenter  E x i s t i n g  found  for  insulation  and  primary  of  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  digestor  the  for  selected  shown  existing  were  on  along  nitrates  addition  As  pumps  the  the  bioreactor,  grade  of  further  to  with  below  added  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  thickening  of  be  p r i o r  conjunction  the  would  -  achieved  gravity  north  151  under involve  reactor  to  added  would to  and  accommodate  supernatant and  for  any  line  contain of  the  -  f i r s t the  four  compartments.  existing  a i r  compartments aerated there the  and  is  way  that  tank.  of  ORP  valves  take-offs the  non-aerated  no  -  Shut-off  supply  such  152  to  c e l l s  the  off  monitoring  In  the  would  be  i n s t a l l e d  present  supply  also  and  be  to  on  anoxic  switched  the  a i r  be  anaerobic  could  conditions.  shutting  would  between  operation,  a  portion  provided  of  in  a l l  bioreactors.  Checks five  secondary  that  the  on  both  the  c l a r i f i e r s  solids  on  the  and  hydraulic  west  side  of  loadings  the  on  plant  the  showed 2  solids  loading  for  a  Bio-P  plant  would  be  3 and  that  flow in  the  hydraulic  conditions. Section  required  should  l i m i t s .  the  RAS  would  also  to  these  three  pumps  were  also  found  m /m  - d  at  c l a r i f i e r s  for  specified would  were to  not  within  be  be  However,  chemical  would  - d  average  implemented.  costs  c l a r i f i e r s  kg/m  2  requirements  be  required  incremental  other  29  the  removal  be  be  exceed  extensions  Therefore, on  these  phosphorus  would  removal. Loadings  Since  3.3.6,  extensions  loading  124  phosphorus be  the  r e a l i z e d . acceptable  adequate  for  Bio-P  removal.  The handling the of the  only  modifications  f a c i l i t i e s  digestor f a c i l i t i e s lagoon  for  overflow for s i t e .  the It  to  Bio-P the  lime was  required  removal sludge  treatment  to  would  lagoons of  concluded  the that  convert be and  the  t h i s  sludge  diversion  the  lagoon  the  of  i n s t a l l a t i o n  supernatant was  the  at most  -  economical of  and  p r a c t i c a l  dissolved  composting  for  following  i)  a i r  -  method  f l o t a t i o n  of  handling  for  s t a b i l i z a t i o n  WAS  was  the  sludge.  thickening  considered  but  The  use  combined  rejected  with  for  the  to  be  reasons:  The  cost  of  dissolved  p r o h i b i t i v e . alone  i i )  153  The  would  be  cost  u t i l i t y  tanks,  estimated  is  be  approximately  would  be  required  Digestor  gas  to  the  1988).  process  that  the  TIC  of  and the  would  for  concrete  DAF  Additional  composting  production  components  Allowing  t i e - i n s ,  $1,400,000.  set-up  appears  mechanical  (Kirk,  and  would  f l o t a t i o n  of  $625,000  i n s t a l l a t i o n , i t  a i r  units  c a p i t a l  f a c i l i t i e s . be  reduced  by  3 approximately The  annual  amount  of  cost  composting The  of  natural  Additional  i i i )  22,000  costs  by  not  "making-up" gas  would  would  this  be  be  digesting with  the  an  equivalent  approximately  incurred  to  WAS.  $571,000.  operate  the  operation.  implementation  operations  m / d  would  be  of  different  very  sludge  disruptive  to  handling  the  existing  operation.  F a c i l i t i e s supernatant sludge 4.1,  could  the  respect  were be  located  land  the at  dewatered  addition to  for  of  lime  application  the in  lime sludge the  treatment lagoons  lagoons.  should  not  of  dewatered  the  the  such  As  create  of  that  noted any  i n  lagoon the  Section  problems  sludge.  lime  with  -  A removal  f a c i l i t y  presented results oxygen  comparison  i n  in  previously  TP  of  1.0  consume  under  operator that  the  It  would  increased of  and  be  another  quantity  fermenter.  on  phosphorus  indicates  the  f a c i l i t y  Bio-P  is  removal  production,  of  basis  alum  levels  that  e l e c t r i c i t y ;  would  produce  requirement  is  responsible assumed  required f u l l - t i m e  laboratory  gas  Bio-P  and  conditions.  The  was  table,  a  of  (10  such  assumptions  mg/L)  that  an  would  be  effluent  achieved.  and  supernatant  production.  and  lime  this  for  removal  digestor  small  also  4.5  in  that,  Table  s t a f f ;  shown  noted  soluble  f a c i l i t y .  lagoon  a  parameters  phosphorus  consumption,  be  operations  chemical As  mg/L could  more  removal  be  -  operating  n i t r i f y i n g  should  lower  a  alum  discussed,  to  the  4.5.  reduced  It  required  versus  Table  demand  of  154  to  more  that  position and  Bio-P  would  operate  analyses  a  the  for  require  sludge  than  a  treatment  the  increased  one  a d d i t i o n a l lime  would  operation  required and  chemical of  the  sludge full-time  treatment  be  would  additional  lime  for  the  f a c i l i t y  f a c i l i t y for  the  maintenance  -  155  PARAMETER  -  BIO-P  CASE  Alum  Consumption  (kg/d)  3,441  Lime  Consumption  (kg/d)  9,255  Sludge Mass  -  Volume  (kg/d)  3  Oxygen  (m  /d)  Demand  w/o w/  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  Production  Incremental  Power  Consumption  (kw)  Incremental  4.5  Includes Based on  -  57,576  54,909  523  499  35,624  32,531  65,453  69,822  (kg/d)  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  Methane  TABLE  36,220  Production  -  -  CHEMICAL CASE  (m / d )  36,276  1.  +92  Operations  EDMONTON  38,547  Staff  GOLD  +2  BAR OPERATIONS  COMPARISON  power s a v i n g s from reduced oxygen an i n f l u e n t flow of 340,000 m / d .  demand.  2.  P  -  4.2.3  A with  Bio-P  t o t a l  removal  the  removal  is  presented  Bio-P  removal  in  alum  of  w i l l  over  savings  i n  cost  c a p i t a l  Table  for  costs  4.6.  the  associated  As  Bio-P  shown,  the  r e t r o f i t  is  $4,261,000.  presented  $2,002,000  incremental  c a p i t a l  summary  is  Analysis  of  incremental  A  -  summary  approximately  This  Cost  156  is  the i n  Table  result  an  incremental  in  equivalent  almost  4.7.  an  As  annual  chemical  e n t i r e l y  operating  costs  indicated,  savings  of  phosphorus  attributable  to  for  the  Bio-P use  of  approximately  removal large  system.  reductions  consumption.  Based the  c a p i t a l  for  various  PROJECT  on  these  investment project  LIFE  estimates, is  l i v e s  fyearSt  2.1 are  the  years. as  simple IRR's  payback for  follows:  IRR  (%)  5  41.0  10  46.5  15  46.9  20  47.0  the  period  for  investment  NODIFICATION  VFA SUPPLV  2. BIOREACTOR  I TEH  SPECIFICATION  1. FERMENTER MECHANICAL 2. FERMENTER TANK 9. SUPERNATANT PUMPS 4. SUPERNATANT PIPING 5. SUPNT PUMP INSTN 6. RECVCLE PUMPS 7. RECVCLE INSTN 9. WASTE PUMPS 10. UASTE PUMP INSTN 11. TUNNEL EXPANSION 1. 2. 9. 4. 5.  COHPARTHENTAH ZATION ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS AIR PIPINO VALUES  OUANTITV  21.0 M DIAH, 9.5 H SUD, 4.0 kU 4 CONCRETE 967 M9 EXCAVATION 7629 M9 100 L / s , 35.4 M TOH, 50 kU 2 100 NH ASTM A59 BOO H 150 MM ASTM A59 580 M AS PER FIGURE 9.2 1 100 L / s , 15.0 TDH, 21 kU 2 AS PER FIGURE 9.2 1 100 L / s , 22.5 TOH, 91.5 kU 2 AS PER FIGURE 9.2 1 EXCAVATION I960 H 9 CONCRETE 429 H9 CONRETE PARTITIONS  2.4 kU, 1640 rpn 100 MM GATE VALVES • FLANGES 9. LIME TREATMENT 1. STORAGE SILOS STEEL U/ EPOXV LINER, 196 N9 OF DIGESTOR ROTARV TVPE, 7T1 kg/hr 2. CHEMICAL FEEDER SUPERNATANT STEEL, 9.2 H9 9. MIX TANK 1.2 kU 4. MIX TANK MIXER 5. HOLDING TANK FD PUMPS 11 L / s , 6.0 M TDH, 1.0 kU 6. HOLDING TANK 90B «9 7. HOLDINO TANK MIXER I. 2 kW 8. HOLDING TANK PUMPS 9^1 L / s , 9.0 M TDH, 0.20kU 10. RAPID MIX/FLOCCN TNK IT.9 »9 0.79 kU 11. RAPID MIX MIXER 0.07 kU 12. FLOCCN MIXER 19.CLARIFIER MECHANICAL II. 6 m DIAM, 9.0 M SUD, 2.5 kU CONCRETE 14. CLARIFIER TANK EXCAVATION 15. LI HE SLUDOE PUHPS 5.0 L / s , 10.0 n TDH, 0.70 kU 90 H « 25 H « 6M 16. BUILDING  224 16 6 80 256  N9  9 9 1 1  INSTALLATION MANHOURS  992000 106425  3677 1S25  26000 83280 76154 6900 13070 6900 17400 6900  9576 2601 52 52 52 396 4124  116325 61600 16OO0 2800 280000 115725  2128 3507  109620 54O00 7680 2000 . 3764 58000 2000 1882 12590 1691 904 69625 18150  1 1 1 1 1 1 66 999 2 750  MATERIAL COST C*>  H2  627 78  4980  SUB—TOTAL ENGINEERING TOTAL  TABLE  4.6  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  BAR C A P I T A L  COST  SUMMARY  BULK FACTOR  1.84 3.8 9.8 9.8  2.1 2. 1 1.34 2.4 1.23 5.7 1.34 3.8 2.2 1.34 9.8 4 1.94 1.34 1.84 2.5 3.8  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <#>  750131 224654 47263 102752 197467 166044 8788 51653 8788 66765 8788 12276 248830 130032 34944 6115 390208 229071 273612 69077 45527 2787 14875 132704 2787 7498 52125 2357 1260 133294 98319 2412 17910 922500 9804884 456586 4261470  -  158  -  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL  ITEM  1.  Alum  2.  Lime  ($2,572,000) 361,000  3.  Natural  4.  Sludge  5.  Power  60,000  Gas  23,000  Disposal  13,000  6.  Operations  7.  Maintenance  94,000  Staff  19,000  Materials  ($2,002,000)  TOTAL  TABLE  COST  4.7  -  EDMONTON  GOLD  BAR OPERATING  COST  SUMMARY  -  4.3  Regina  Sewage  4.3.1  Plant  The treatment serves  a  90,919  m  Regina  for  the  treatment  through  effluent  anaerobically  belt  dispensed  of  to  sludge  p e r i o d i c a l l y  (<1.0 for  163,000  is  from  mg/L),  effluent  the  Plant  Regina. and  has  provides The  a  wastewater  plant  design  alum  to  in  f i l t e r  currently  capacity  l a n d f i l l .  presented  to  i n  of  phytoplankton  35  Primary  percent sludge  A  The  effluent. sludge  and  stored t h i s  places  concentrations,  solids, is  t e r t i a r y  is  digestors,  from  s i t e .  4.12.  Environment  and  anaerobic  Sludge on  treatment,  secondary  Creek.  T e r t i a r y  Figure  lagoons,  the  two-stage  stockpiled  Saskatchewan  discharges.  to  c e l l .  and  primary  aerated  Wascana  presses  storage  removed  of  addition  disposed  a  provides  form  digested  by  operate  of  presently in  is  dewatered  plant  Treatment  City  of  plant  treatment  the  Description  entire  secondary  onsite  Plant  / d .  The  Treated  -  Treatment  Sewage  population 3  159  then in  an  c e l l  is  layout  drawing  of  current  permit  to  r e s t r i c t i o n s  pH and  fecal  on  TP  coliforms  -  Because capacity  of  discharges plant which  i n  the to  w i l l  wastewater plant  Wascana  the  early  be  161  flows  and  more  Creek  are  1990's  studied  is  with  -  are  close  stringent  required. to  d r a f t  copy  the  effluent  anticipated,  respect  to  an  It  the  design  c r i t e r i a  expansion  is  t h i s  f e a s i b i l i t y  for  of  the  expansion of  Bio-P  removal.  On Plant  the  Expansion  assumptions  i)  basis  a  Study  (Stanley  made  regarding  were  The  of  plant  phase  w i l l  w i l l  be  be  of  Associates, the  the  Sewage  1986A),  the  Treatment following  expansion:  constructed  completed  i n  i n  two  the  phases.  year  1990  The  f i r s t  and  w i l l  3 r e s u l t  i n  second  phase  w i l l  plant  r e s u l t  130,000  i i )  a  m  E f f l u e n t with  the  1990  -  3  design  w i l l i n  an  be  capacity  completed  increased  of i n  plant  114,000 the  m / d .  year  design  2000  capacity  The and of  / d .  standards following  1995:  w i l l  also  be  phased  schedule:  BOD  -  20  mg/L  TSS  -  25  mg/L  TP  -  1.0  -  25  NH  3  5  mg/L mg/L  i n  accordance  -  1995  -  162  2000:  -  BOD  -  12  mg/L  TSS  -  15  mg/L  TP  -  1.0  mg/L  -  5.0  mg/L  BOD,.  -  8.5  mg/L  TSS  -  10.0  TP  -  1.0  mg/L  -  5.0  mg/L  NH  2000  -  2010:  NH  Stanley nitrogen an  and  for  sludge  compare  these  process. two  as  based  on  those  The  an  mg/L  have  activated  expansion  i n  proposed  purpose  of  sludge  but  conjunction  b i o l o g i c a l  d i d with  this  not a  study  process  as  consider n i t r i f y i n g  is  therefore  alternatives.  Wastewater were  i n  plant  removal  3  (1986A)  removal  the  phosphorus  activated to  phosphorus  alternative  chemical  Associates  3  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s presented  follows:  238  mg/L  TSS  280  mg/L  TP  7.7  mg/L  by  used  Stanley  for  t h i s  Associates.  comparison These  are  -  Other averages  and  l i s t e d  TKN  -  30  Tmax  -  17°C  Tmin  -  1 0 ° C  4.3.2  costs  for  removal  a  proposed The  Bio-P  by  stage  and  aeration  centrifuges would  be  spread  c l a r i f e r , i n s t a l l e d . f i l t e r s  on  be  1985/86  additional press  a  bioreactors provided. land.  a  contact  plant  monthly  operating phosphorus  plant was  i n s t a l l e d  chambers,  For  primary  layout  assumed.  g r i t  presses.  chamber,  be  and  existing  f i l t e r  and  chemical  Bio-P  c l a r i f i e r s ,  phase  to  the  g r i t  would  c l a r i f i e r ,  a g r i c u l t u r a l  for  and  c a p i t a l  configuration  u t i l i z e  a g r i c u l t u r a l  secondary  would  to  second  compared  process  chlorine  on  the  The  plant  secondary a  incremental  digestors  one  and  For  spread  propose  f i l t e r  tanks,  the  Associates  c l a r i f i e r s ,  digestor  on  follows:  general  Stanley  expansion,  based  Modifications  removal  the  were  mg/L  developing  consultants  primary  as  R e t r o f i t  plant,  -  characteristics  are  In  163  the  f i r s t  c l a r i f i e r ,  along  with  new  gravity  thickeners,  sludge  chamber.  Dewatered  sludge  land.  expansion, digestor  would  be  Dewatered  one  and  f i l t e r  extended sludge  a d d i t i o n a l  and  would  press new  primary would  be  effluent  continue  to  be  -  In lime  treatment  f i l t r a t e under  of  would  the  would  guidelines p r i o r  to  in  the  sludge  to  applied  sanitary  the  digestion  of  supernatant  WAS  and  press  Layout  proposed  Bio-P  plant  noted  addition  f a c i l i t i e s  b u i l d i n g .  These  with  the  are  lime  the  but,  system.  were due The  Associates,  to the  the  the  the  anaerobic  the best  chemical  f a c i l i t i e s  l i k e l y  that  plant,  mechanical  sludge  (Stanley  and  o r i g i n a l l y  of  s i t e s  flowsheets 4.13  WAS  disposal  would  of  was  Figures  to  s t a b i l i z e d  increased  process  and  i n  be  the  disposal  by-passing  treatment  v i s i t  present  f a c i l i t i e s removal  i n  must  concluded  f i l t r a t e ,  presented  are  was  presses.  draft  l a n d f i l l  drawings  during  alum  i t  as  the  to  eliminate  continued  secondary  available  f i l t e r  WAS.  phosphorus  the  of  the  given  (Stanley  to  However,  by  the  replaced  with  land  press released  f i l t e r  would  sludge  given  f i l t e r  was  the  sludges  with  followed  the  was  that  also  to  the  process,  phosphorus  but  a g r i c u l t u r a l  Therefore,  handling  It  of  l a n d f i l l s .  1986A).  and  release  combined  capacity  supernatant  digestor  note  was  associated  Associates,  t e r t i a r y  to  proposed  Consideration  the  Saskatchewan  Associates'  p r e c i p i t a t e  application  digestors  production  to  phosphorus  Consideration  around  stress  around  land  being  1986A).  digestor  conditions.  WAS  for  -  Stanley  required  negate  p o s s i b i l i t y  to  the  be  anaerobic  by-passing This  addition  164  digestor method for  of the  4.14.  that  lime  addition  i n s t a l l e d  for  problems,  were  are  designed  to  BIOREACTORS PC's  INFLUENT  GRIT TANKS (3)  CI  (3)  w  (5)  V  V  /  /  TREATED EFFLUENT EFFLUENT FILTERS (4)  •-  THICKENERS  DENOTES B I O - P MODIFICATION  (2) CENTRIFUGES  (4)  HEAD OF PLANT  LIME  /• •  .1.  \/  LAND APPLN  FIGURE  4.13  -  REGINA  PRIHARY DIGESTORS  SECONDARY DIGESTORS  RETROFIT  FLOWSHEET  FILTER PRESSES  (4)  BIOREACTOR  BIOREACTOR  BIOREACTOR  NOT TO SCALE CENTRIFUGES INFLUENT  FIGURE  4.14  -  REGINA  RETROFIT  LAYOUT  -  handle for  43,636  kg/d  of  incorporation  studying  options  measures  have  w i l l  not  into for  not  be  considerable  for  the  c a p i t a l  This  study  processes presented  in  day  SRT  assuredly  occur  d e n i t r i f y  the  n i t r i f i c a t i o n hours  would  operate growth,  at  be  City  for  of  the  of  use  from  for  an  the  anoxic/  Bioreactor  f a c i l i t i e s should  the  result  in  those  proposed  process  remedial  process.  different They  presently  these  would  Bio-P  adequate  the  However,  use a  is  Since  use  Bardenpho  the  proposed  A/0  process  second  phase.  anaerobic/aerobic  layout  drawings  some  also  reduced  operate  n i t r i f i c a t i o n Therefore,  the  be  required.  However,  since  During 25  days  require  a  t o t a l Phase to a  n i t r i f i c a t i o n  nominal 2,  ensure  the  rates  HRT  are  HRT i n  a  the  (9  6.5  almost  a b i l i t y  to  year-round of  only  bioreactor  year-round  longer  at  would  summer.  required,  to  would  the  would  up  bioreactor  result,  required.  w i l l the  a  not  SRT's  and  accommodate  is  the  selected.  I,  during  RAS  The  than  4.15.  Phase as  more  system.  t h e i r  phases.  Figure  and,  a  be  analysis.  savings  on  both  During  the  this  were  based  for  process.  configurations  and  would  defined,  in  cost  phase is  Bio-P  been  Associates  f i r s t  hence,  operable,  Bioreactor Stanley  -  r e p a i r i n g  yet  become  and  a  included  f a c i l i t i e s  by  lime  167  6  would  n i t r i f i e r hours)  winter.  to  6 * 7 . 5 m - 45 m  FERMENTER SUPERNATANT  io 2 FROM PC's  o  \>  o o o  TO SC's  ii  12  O CELL  STATUS  1.2 3-6  UNAERATED AERATED/ UNAERATED AERATED  7-12  -  r  O  10  MIXER  HRT (HRS)  FIGURE  0.5 0.5 1.0  4.15  -  REGINA  R [5313 ETROFIT  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUT  -  The because  i t  and  phosphorus  removal,  suits  c a p i t a l  comparison,  the  complete  reactors  mixed  l i q u o r  the  from  thickeners  addition of  to  HRT's  pumps,  process,  w i l l  underflow  to  transfer  i)  the  Both  is  primary  for  a  phosphorus  (gravity sludge  volumetric  to  a  in  the  primary  of  In of  to  the  process.  this In  would  t h i s  also study,  fermentation  of  the  in  addition  the  thickener Pumps  would  bioreactor.  4.16.  process  thickeners)  the  study,  chemical  Figure  addition,  Bardenpho  bioreactor.  removal  on  necessitates  require  routing  phosphorus  anoxic/  sludge  comparable i n  In  the  in  would  the  required.  This  Associates.  the  NH^  good  part  and  remove  hours.  thickeners  This  to  is  achieve  not  thickening  loadings  RAS  20  selected  requirements  required. to  was  designed the  supernatant  presented  chemical  (centrifuges) minimize  the  flowsheet  process  for  zone  be  regarding  used  of  are  Stanley  anaerobic  the  removal  by  and  to  A  the  pumps  supernatant required  is  required  thickening.  recycle  up  which  of  be  of  are  proposed  sludge  i t  is  process removal  process  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  operation that  Because  Bardenpho  having  anaerobic/aerobic  nutrient  d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n  recycle  The  the  costs.  only,  for  large  d i f f e r s  -  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  best  minimizes  169  phosphorus Assumptions  are  and be  digestors.  as  follows:  secondary required  to  ALUM PC's  BIOREACTORS  (4)  (3)  CI  V  INFLUENT  GRIT TANKS (3)  (4)  /  r  TREATED EFFLUENT  ' EFFLUENT FILTERS (4)  TO HEAD OF PLANT THICKENERS  (2)  CENTRIFUGES  (4)  o  HEAD OF PLANT  LAND APPLN PRIMARY DIGESTORS  FIGURE  4.16  -  REGINA  CHEMICAL  PHOSPHORUS  SECONDARY DIGESTORS  REMOVAL  FILTER PRESSES  FLOWSHEET  (4)  -  ii)  Plug be  flow  aeration  171  tanks  -  using  diffused  a i r  aeration  would  employed.  i i i )  Automatic  iv)  Alum  DO c o n t r o l  would  be  used  Differences processes  are  i)  gravity  The  since  primary  as  larger  c l a r i f i e r  provided.  the  removal.  Bio-P  and  chemical  removal  follows:  for  than  (2-20m  should  be  phosphorus  thickeners  process  they  for  between  therefore  considerably removal  would  be  the  those  units  to  underflow  process  required  diameter sized  Bio-P  versus  provide  rate  of  for  5  an  would  the  chemical  2-10.8m  8  percent  hour of  be  units) at  HRT the  a  plant  inflow.  ii)  Thickener required removal  i i i )  for  the  recycle  Bio-P  pumps  process  and  but  piping  not  for  would  the  be  chemical  process.  Thickener process Additional Bio-P  underflow  supernatant but  not  pumps for  supernatant  process  bioreactors.  since  would  the  piping  the  be  required  chemical would  supernatant  also  for  the  removal be  must  required be  routed  Bio-P  process. for  the  to  the  -  iv)  The  b u i l d i n g  Bio-P  v)  The  housing  aeration  p o t e n t i a l l y  basins  Lime  of  Bio-P  treatment  the  additional a  Bio-P  to  laboratory  comparison  are  presented 2000, and  removal for  required  for  larger  process  be  in  and  the  the  the  for  the  would  be  i n s t a l l e d  anaerobic  a s s i s t  in  the  and  anoxic  -  flow  rates.  with  the the  f i l t r a t e  would lime  treatment  be  of  the  would  be  required  treatment  fermenter  f a c i l i t y  operation  and  analysis.  the  processes  2000  press  member  cleaning,  of  three  combined  f i l t e r  staff  additional  chemical  be  operating  plant  Bio-P  would  process.  ORP p r o b e  and  the  Bio-P  operation,  standards  be  zones.  f a c i l i t i e s  for  -  would  process.  required  A  1995  the  would  supernatant  for  for Mixers  digestor  v i i i ) One  thickeners  non-aerated  ORP m o n i t o r i n g zones  v i i )  the  -  process.  compartmentalized.  vi)  172  operating is  separate  2010)  to  shown time  r e f l e c t  parameters in  Table  intervals the  between  4.8.  Parameters  (1990  changes  Bio-P  i n  -  1995,  effluent  -  As reduced  shown  alum  Table  Small  for  concentrations  Bio-P  i n  Bio-P  oxygen  amounts  the  -  4.8,  consumption,  production. required  in  173  of  order  to  demand  alum  process  removal  (10  to  and  to  the  result  digestor  15  reduce  achieve  would  mg/L)  gas  would  soluble desired  in  be  phosphorus effluent  TP  concentration.  Bio-P power sludge  and  production  results  digestor  associated  with  non-aerated  A Bio-P  t o t a l that tanks, for  A 1995,  1995  Annual r e a l i z e d  removal  is  presented  c a p i t a l shown the  -  2000 of  these  treatment  and  Increased  of  power  treatment  incremental  cost  for  is  the  in  c a p i t a l  Table  the  highly  consumption operations,  thickeners between  removal  processes.  of  the  and  incremental  2000  -  2010  $297,000, three  periods  costs  4.9.  $2,132,000.  difference  chemical  summary  lime  lime  lime  is and  Analysis  the  savings for  and  increased  production.  Increased  of  and  sludge  the  summary  represent  Bio-P  from  in  mixers.  Cost  costs  result  increased  fermenter  zone  incremental the  also  supernatant.  the  4.3.3  with  would  consumption,  a l k a l i n e  the  removal  the  $283,000  presented and  respectively.  shown,  should t h e i r  costs  operating  is  As  It  and  associated  be  the noted  associated  of  thickeners  costs  for  i n  Table  $323,000  1990  would  -  4.10. be  1990  ~  1995  1995  CHEMICAL PARAMETER 1.  Alum  BIO-P  Consumption  1142  Consumption  3197  REMOVAL 8264  -  2000  2000 CHEMICAL  BIO-P 1709  REMOVAL 8264  -  2010 CHEMICAL  BIO-P 1949  REMOVAL 9510  (kg/d) 2.  Lime  2861  3263  (kg/d) 3.  4.  Sludge Production Mass (kg/d) Volume (m / d ) Digestor (n  5. 6.  7.  Gas  1  17023 57  Production  10404  Demand  (kg/d)  10861  Incremental  Power  Consumption  (kw)  Incremental Staff  Operations  Notes; 1.  Dewatered  2.  Assumes  no  sludge. n i t r i f i c a t i o n .  49  17539 58  16762 56  9123  10245  9879  11684  22950  23269  26171  26535  9911  2  +46  + 1  4.8  14698  51  2  +46  TABLE  15380  51  11135  /<*)  Oxygen  16264  + 1  -  REGINA OPERATIONS COMPARISON  +53  +1  MODIFICATION UFA SUPPLV  BIOREACTOR  ITEM  SPECIFICATION  1UANTITV  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  FERMENTER MECHANICAL FERMENTER TANK SUPERNATANT PUMPS SUPERNATANT PIPING SUPNT PUMP INSTN RECVCLE PUMPS RECVCLE INSTN THICKENER BUILDING  20.0 M DIAH, 3.5 n SUD. 4.0 kU 2 CONCRETE 156 M3 EXCAVATION 1700 M3 38 L/f, 19 H TOH, 10.0 kU 2 ISO H H ASTH A53 300 H AS PER FIGURE 3.2 1 38 L/s, 15 M TDH, 7.9 kU 2 AS PER FIGURE 3.2 3 833 H2  1. 2. 3. 4.  COMPARTMENTALIZATION ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS  COMPETE PARTITIONS  LIME TREATMENT 1. STORAGE SILOS OF DIGESTOR 2. CHEMICAL FEEDER SUPERNATANT 3. MIX TANK 4. MIX TANK MIXER 5. HOLDING TANK FD PUMPS 6. HOLDING TANK 7. HOLDING TANK MIXER 8. HOLDING TANK PUMPS 10. RAPID MIX/FLOCCN TNK 11. RAPID MIX MIXER 12. FL0CCN MIXER 13. CLARIFIER MECHANICAL 14. LIME SLUDGE PUMPS 15. BUILDING  353 H3 e  4 48  2.4 kU STEEL U/ EPOXV LINER, 203 H3 ROTARV TVPE, 413 kg/hr STEEL, 1.2 H3 0.50 kU 3.8 L/s, 6.0 H TDH, 0.4 kU 109 H3 0.44 kU 0.63 L/s, 3.0 H TDH, 0.04 kU 2.2 M3 0.10 kU 0.01 kU 4.1 H 01AM, 3.0 M SUD, 2.0 kU 0.74 L/s, 10.0 H TDH, 0.15 kU 25 H M 20 H H 8H  1  2  1 1  2  1 1  2  1 1 1 1  2  500  H2  MATERIAL COST <»>  INSTALLATION MANHOURS  58766 42900  1482 340  8384 39390 STOO 7506 17100  1449 48 144 3354  97075 8000 1400 168000 36540 26000 3600 1458 1882 30463 1275 2800 6020 1275 904 •47274 1882  SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERING TOTAL N DENOTES INCREMENTAL COST BETUEEN BIO-P tt AN EQUIVALENT CHEMICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL SVSTEH.  TABLE  4.9  -  REGINA  CAPITAL  COST  SUMMARY  BULK FACTOR 1.84 3.8 3.8  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <*>  120326 H 93681 M 10540 H 35453 88752 7831 31740 23493 358190 H  2. 1 2.1 1.34  211984 18695 3272 250514  2.4 1.23 6 1.34 3.8 3. 1 1.34 3.8 6 1.34 1.34 1.84 3.8  97S88 35587 24036 2174 7958 105088 1901 11840 40194 1901 1348 96796 7958 215000 1903842 228461 2132303  -  Assuming be  expended  is  7.3  in  years.  PROJECT  the  the  simple  IRR's  for  various  fyears)  -  t o t a l  1990,  LIFE 5  that  176  incremental  payback project  IRR No  (%)  Return  10  6.6  15  11.4  20  13.0  c a p i t a l  period  for  the  l i v e s  are  as  cost  would  investment follows:  - 177 -  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST ($) ITEM  1990-1995  1995-2000  2000-2010  Alum  (559,000)  (514,000)  (593,000)  Lime  140,000  125,000  143,000  Sludge Disposal  44,000  17,000  19,000  Natural  19,000  30,000  48,000  9,000  9,000  10,000  Operations S t a f f  40,000  40,000  40,000  Maintenance M a t e r i a l s  10,000  10,000  10,000  297,000  283,000  323,000  Gas  Power  TOTAL  TABLE 4.10  - REGINA OPERATING  COST SUMMARY  - 178  4.4  Saskatoon  H.  -  M c l v o r Weir Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l  Plant  4.4.1  Plant  The provides Located the  H.  Mclvor  wastewater on  the  plant  Description  Weir  treatment  South  Water f o r the  Saskatchewan  currently  Pollution  services  entire  city  River within  a  Control  population  of  the  Saskatoon.  city  of  Plant  limits,  approximately  3 154,000 and daily  has  a design capacity  o f 90,919 m / d b a s e d  on  average  flow. The  contains  plant  presently  screening, aerated g r i t  anaerobic  digestion,  currently  added  removal  prior  Flowsheets Figures  to  and  4.17  digestion  discharge  layout  and  4.18  sludge  the  f o r the  enhance  BOD  Saskatchewan  plant  and  sedimentation,  lagoons.  to  South  treatment  are  Alum  is  and  SS  River.  presented  in  respectively.  is stabilized  Digestor  Digested 12  and  primary  clarifiers  to  drawings  sludge  process.  approximately  primary  primary  removal,  chlorination  the  to  Primary  heating.  provides  sludge km  north  gas is  is  two-stage  recovered  pumped of  in a  the  to  and  anaerobic  i s used  dewatering  plant  for  for  lagoons  dewatering.  SCREENING/ GRIT REMOVAL  CI  PC's (2)  TREATED EFFLUENT  INFLUENT  TO HEAD OF PLANT  PRIMARY DIGESTOR  FIGURE  4.17  -  SASKATOON  PLANT  SECONDARY DIGESTOR  FLOWSHEET  SLUDGE LAGOONS  (EXISTING)  APPROXIMATE SCALE - 1:1500  SLUDGE PUMPHOUSE HEATING BLDG  03  ADMIN BLDG ANAEROBIC DIGESTORS  o  I l I I _l I  TUNNEL  PC  PC  INFLUENT  CHLORINE CONTACT  GRIT TANKS  I.  TREATED EFFLUENT  FIGURE  4.18  -  SASKATOON  PLANT  LAYOUT  (EXISTING)  -  Digestor  and  lagoon  181  supernatant  Dewatered  sludge  is  requested.  No  formal  -  are  given  returned  away  sludge  to  to  the  g r i t  interested  disposal  chamber.  parties  projects  have  as been  i n i t i a t e d .  It to  is  secondary  l i k e l y  treatment  removal  requirements  Effluent  TP  1988).  Present  TSS  on  B0D  mg/L  -  100  mg/L  mg/L  TSS  -  255  mg/L  TP  -  7.1  mg/L  Tmax  -  2 1 ° C  Tmin  -  mg/L  average  may  be  next  required  ten  mg/L-P are  are  as  upgrade  Phosphorus  this  upgrading.  anticipated  (Munch,  follows:  for  averages,  to  years.  accompany  values  monthly  213  the  influent  as  follows:  are  to  the  9 . 6 ° C  Influent However,  1.0  constituent  -  5  the  standards  100  1985/86  plant  l i k e l y of  -  Average based  w i l l  effluent  5  the  within  concentrations  B0D  plant  that  TKN and effluent  respectively,  were  NH  3  concentrations  concentrations r e a l i z e d  during  of  are 27.3  this  not  measured.  mg/L period.  and  19.5 Since  -  nitrogen  removal  will  assumed  be  i n f l u e n t TKN  that  and NH  The the  through  operation,  BOD  6.0  digestors was be  be  TSS  -  15  mg/L  TP  -  1.0  mg/L-P  was  also  treatment  having  assumed required  that  assumed  plant  f o u r new  hours;  are  equal  to  the  City.  A  laboratory  required  for a  with Bio-P  based  on  the  implemented.  assumption Assumed  that  effluent  follows:  mg/L  would r e q u i r e of  will  were  15  It  the  a l l analysis  -  5  concentrations  minimal, i t  Modifications  designs  treatment  s t a n d a r d s were as  s h o u l d be  onsite.  Retrofit  Retrofit  secondary  perform  i s located  secondary  these  treatment  i s o p e r a t e d by  to  4.4.2  primary  -  concentrations.  3  plant  capabilities  182  that,  employing  f o r comparative chemical  plug-flow bioreactors  four  new  the  same  gravity  secondary sizes  as  thickening  f o r a c h e m i c a l phosphorus  phosphorus  of  existing primary  removal  and  HRT's  two  digestors.  sludge  facility.  a  removal  having nominal  clarifiers; the  purposes,  would  new It not  -  Flowsheets facility of  and  -  layout  drawings  i n F i g u r e s 4.19  are presented  the b i o r e a c t o r s are presented  As  shown  d i f f e r e n c e s would  in  exist  conventional chemical  i)  Two  ii)  The  iii)  Bio-P  would  be  modified  lime  lagoon  supernatant  The  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic conjunction  anaerobic  was  digestion  supernatant gas  facilities.  was  and  a  accommodate  as  thickening i t  plant. lime  composting, to  make  the  the  digestor  sequence  Edmonton with  accommodate  an  and  required.  costs.  s e l e c t e d over and  of  operating  combined  production  gravity  selected,  the  to  s t r e a m s w o u l d be  with  and  for  facility  required to  treatment  done  three  facility:  f o r the  capital  drawings  following  removal  Facilities  both  Layout  the  sequence.  in  removal  fermentation.  bioreactors  analysis  digestor  sludge  fermentation  minimized  drawings,  removal  Bio-P  4.21.  i n Figure  between t h e  the  4.20.  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  bioreactors sludge  the  for  and  g r a v i t y t h i c k e n e r s w o u l d be  primary  the  183  was  in for  felt  This  was  Continued treatment  in best  the primary  that  i t  based  on  use of  of the  order  to  maximize  use  of  existing  SCREENING/ GRIT REMOVAL  PC's (2)  BIOREACTORS (4) —I  SC's (<V)  F  TREATED EFFLUENT  INFLUENT _i  J  CO  WAS  LIME I I I  TO HEAD OF PLANT  FERMENTERS (2) - -1  I  r I  I  l_ PRIMARY DIGESTORS  OENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  FIGURE  4.19  -  SASKATOON  RETROFIT  SECONDARY DIGESTORS  FLOWSHEET  SLUDGE LAGOONS  APPROXIMATE SCALE - 1:1500 ANAEROBIC DIGESTORS  SLUDGE PUMPHOUSE HEATING BLDG  ADMIN BLDG  FERMENTER  LIME FACILITY SC  BIOREACTOR  sc  BIOREACTOR  INFLUENT sc GRIT TANKS  BIOREACTOR  sc  CHLORINE CONTACT TREATED EFFLUENT  BIOREACTOR  1'  'I FIGURE  4.20  -  SASKATOON  RETROFIT  LAYOUT  6 * 10 m - 60  I  i olo  ^ i  o CM  CELL  STATUS  1,2 3-5  UNAERATED AERATED/ UNAERATED AERATED AERATED  O  1  i aiF^ O  O  1  TO S C ' s  6 7  O  4 °  FERMENTER SUPERNATANT  o-  MIXER  FROM PC's  HRT (HRS)  FIGURE  0.5 0.5 0.5 3.0  4.21  -  SASKATOON  RETROFIT  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUT  H 00 CTi  -  located  As  shown  north  of  in  187 -  Figure  4.20,  the existing  the  fermenters  digestors.  Fermenters  l o c a t e d below grade f o r i n s u l a t i o n purposes. system  would  supernatant  be  expanded  piping  would  t o connect  the fermenters.  be r u n i n t h e t u n n e l s  I t would then  the b i o r e a c t o r s .  V a l v e s would be p r o v i d e d such  c o u l d be  would  The e x i s t i n g  the b i o r e a c t o r s .  supernatant  would  be r u n a l o n g  be  tunnel  Fermenter  until  i t reached  the inside  i n t r o d u c e d a t a number  be  walls of  that the VFA-rich  of points along the  bioreactor.  There bioreactors Concrete anoxic air  and  would  be  those  required  dividers  zones.  would  The  minimal  be  aerated  or  unaerated  would  be  installed  would  be  provided.  would  be p r o v i d e d  for a  installed  a i r supply  s y s t e m was u s e d ) w o u l d  differences  piping  i n these I t was in a  chemical t o form  assumed  facility  3,  a n d ORP that  of t h i s  Bio-P  process.  the anaerobic that  a  with valves to  in cells  zones  the  removal  (assuming  be e q u i p p e d  conditions  between  4  probes  and  size  diffused  facilitate 5.  and  automatic  and  Mixers  recorders  DO  control  regardless of the  method o f p h o s p h o r u s r e m o v a l s e l e c t e d .  The Calculations occur  plant  would  indicate  that  a t wastewater  expected  that  operate at this  temperatures  nitrification  would  at SRT,  below only  an  SRT  of  nitrification 16°C. occur  6.5  would n o t  Therefore, during  days.  the  i tis summer  -  months and be the  -  hence, t h e a n o x i c / a n a e r o b i c / a e r o b i c p r o c e s s would  operated year  188  during this  the  process  p e r i o d of time.  would  be  During  operated  as  an  the  only  remainder  of  anaerobic/aerobic  process.  Facilities lagoon  supernatant  sludge  would  be  for would  pumped  therefore  e v e n t u a l l y be  show t h a t  additional  required  to  with the  lime  For  and  this  a chemical comparison  alum  full-time treatment  the  in  the  the  of  digestor  plant  site.  digestors lagoons.  sludge  and  and Lime  would  Calculations  3 acres) would  (approximately  additional  of  the  removal  operating  facility  i t was  assumed  removal.  be  volumes a s s o c i a t e d  As  oxygen  that  operator  would  fermentation  under  It  was be  alum  shown, B i o - P  oxygen  demand  parameters  i s presented  under  that to  operate  for  results  in  nitrifying power  conditions one  a  4.11.  used  i n c r e a s e d l i m e and  assumed  facilities.  be  removal  non-nitrifying  required  between  i n Table  would  consumption  methane p r o d u c t i o n , and  requirements.  and  on  secondary  dewatered  consumption,  and  consumption,  located  lagoon area  comparison  conditions,  staffing  to  treatment  treatment.  chemical phosphorus reduced  lime  be  accommodate t h e  A Bio-P  the  and  additional the  lime  - 189 -  PARAMETER  CASE  BIO-P  Alum  Consumption  (kg/d)  917  Lime  Consumption  (kg/d)  3,508  Sludge Mass  -  Volume  16,598  (kg/d) (m /d)  Demand  -  w/o  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  -  w/  Production  Incremental  -  w/  7,018  Power  (m /d) 3  Consumption  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  TABLE  4.11  13,951  14,299  9,310  10,454  (kw)  +12.0  Operations  -  6,196  +49.5  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  Incremental  122  (kg/d)  N i t r i f i c a t i o n  Methane  14,034  150  3  Oxygen  w/o  7,335  Production  -  -  Staff  SASKATOON  +1  OPERATIONS  COMPARISON  3 Based  CHEMICAL CASE  on  an  influent  flow  of  90,919  m  / d .  P  -  It mg/L)  would  should  probably  concentrations,  with  Bio-P  total  noted be  t o ensure  4.4.3  A  be  190  -  that  required  a  small  to  that effluent  amount  trim  of  soluble  standards  are  alum  (10  phosphorus met.  Cost A n a l y s i s  summary  of  removal  the  incremental  i s presented  incremental  cost  is  capital 4.12.  i n Table  estimated  costs associated  to  As  be  shown,  the  approximately  $2,258,000.  A presented will  summary  the  4.13.  i n Table  result  of  i n annual  As  incremental indicated,  operating  the  use  savings of approximately  of  costs  Bio-P  is  removal  $270,000.  B a s e d on t h e s e e s t i m a t e s , t h e s i m p l e p a y b a c k p e r i o d f o r the  capital  investment  for various project  PROJECT L I F E 5  i s 8.4  lives  (years)  years.  IRR's  f o r the  a r e as f o l l o w s :  IRR No  (%) Return  10  3.7  15  8.7  20  10.5  investment  MODIFICATION UFA SUPPLV  2. BIOREACTOR  ITEM  SPECIFICATION  1. FERMENTER MECHANICAL 2. FERMENTER TANK 3. SUPERNATANT PUMPS I . SUPERNATANT PI PINO 5. SUPNT INSTRUMENTATION 6. RECVCLE PUMPS 7. RECVCLE INSTN 0. WASTE PUMPS 10.UASTE PUMP INSTN I I . TUNNEL EXPANSION  1S.0 M DIAM, 3.5 M SUD, 3.0kU CONCRETE EXCAVATION 26.3 L / s , 21 H TDH,7.6 kU 100 MH ASTM A53 AS PER FIOURE 3.2 26.3 L / s , 15.0 M TDH, 5.5 kU AS PER FIOURE 3.2 26.3 L / s , 26.5 H TOH, 9.6 kU AS PER FIOURE 3.2 EXCAVATION CONCRETE  1. 2. 3. 4.  CONRETE PARTITIONS  COMPARTMENTALIZATION ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS  3 . LIME TREATMENT 1. STORAGE SILOS OF DIGESTOR 2. CHEMICAL FEEDER SUPERNATANT 3. MIX TANK A. MIX TANK MIXER 5. HOLOINO TANK FD PUMPS 6. HOLDING TANK 7. HOLDING TANK MIXER B. HOLDING TANK PUMPS 9. RAPID MIX/FLOCCN TNK 10. RAPID MIX MIXER 11. FLOCCN MIXER 12. CLARIFIER MECHANICAL 13. LI ME SLUDGE PUMPS 14. BUILDING A. LAOOON EXPANSION  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  COMPACTED FILL CLEARING/DRUBBING STRIPPING CLAV LINER PIPING  QUANTITV  2.A kU, 1640 rpn STEEL U / EPOXV LINER, 113 M3 ROTARV TVPE, 450 kg/hr STEEL, 1.2 M3 0.50 kU 4.0 L / s , 6.0 M TDH, 0.40 kU STEEL, 697 M3 2.4 kU 4.0 L / s , 3.0 H TOH, 0.20kU STEEL, 4.8 H3 0.24 kU 0.12 kU STEEL TNK, 6.1 M D, 3.0 M SUD 0.9 L / s , 10.0 n TDH, 0.17 kU 35 M m 20 H « 7M 0.67  H HIGH BERMS  0.30 M TOPSOIL 150 MM THICK 150 MM ft 200 MM ASTM A53  2 1B0 1600 2 30O 1 2 1 2 1 120O 96  MATERIAL COST <*•>  M3 M3 M  M3 M3  160000 49500  2 2 1 1  41000 260OO 3600 1691 3764 73500 3500 3764 8640 1275 1275 66000 3764  1 1 1 1 2 700 M2 2600 6.25 18750 9375 750  M3  h«  M3 M3 H  1.84 3.8 1341 48 3.8 48 3.8 48 240 936  26400 82500 8000 1400 4004  2850 2.1 2. 1 2 2.2 1.23 6 1.34 3.8 1.7 1.34 3.8 5.3 1.34 1.34 2.2 3.8  13000  520  46875 32160  1875 2029  SUB-TOTAL  ENGINEERING TOTAL  TABLE  4.12 -  SASKATOON  CAPITAL  COST  BULK FACTOR  1710 320  7506 31230 5700 6040 5700 8384 5700  300 M3 8 4 40  1 1  INSTALLATION MANHOURS  SUMMARY  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <»> 312448 108094 9920 29369 76324 7831 23633 7831 32805 7831 7440 58394 180156 17702 3098 8459 94825 34913 22006 2457 14728 133241 5085 14728 46767 1652 1852 152645 14728 3010OO 30586 32031 12188 110288 98681  2015934 241912 2257846  H H  -  192 -  ITEM  ANNUAL COST  1.  Alum  ($504,000)  2.  Lime  3.  Natural  4.  Power  5.  Operations Staff  6.  Maintenance M a t e r i a l s  150,000 Gas  30,000 7,000  TOTAL  TABLE 4.13  40,000 7,000 1^270^0001  - SASKATOON OPERATING  COST SUMMARY  -  4.5  Windsor L i t t l e R i v e r  4.5.1  The across River  193  the  Plant  City  Detroit  Pollution  treatment  -  Pollution Control  Plant  Description  of  Windsor  River  Control  is  from  Plant  located  Detroit, is  the  in  southern  Michigan.  larger  of  The  two  plants  The  existing  process  primary  and  plant  contains  sedimentation,  secondary operations.  The  new  clarifiers,  primary  sludge  pumping  removal but  will  layout 4.22  and  and  expansion w i l l  4.23.  for  the  conventional  The  new  expanded  and  facilities the  independently. plant  are  design  A  27,211  activated removal, aeration,  chlorination  secondary  with  a  grit  mechanical  i n v o l v e the  operations  operate  aerated  and  bioreactors,  handling  essentially  drawings  air  centrifuging  facilities.  sludge  the  screening,  diffused  sedimentation, plant  uses  Little  wastewater  s e r v i c i n g t h e c i t y and c u r r e n t l y h a s 3 c a p a c i t y o f 36,281 m / d b a s e d on a v e r a g e d a i l y f l o w . 3 . m /d expansion t o the p l a n t i s c u r r e n t l y i n progress.  sludge  Ontario  unit  installation clarifiers will  share  existing  in  and grit  plant,  Flowsheets  presented  of  and  Figures  EXISTING PLANT (36,281 m3/d) Al  PC'. (4)  SC's (4)  V  GRIT REMOVAL  TREATED EFFLUENT  EXPANSION (27,211 m3/d) PC'« (2)  BIOREACTORS  VO Al  SC'« (2)  CI  TREATED EFFLUENT  TO LIME STABILIZATION & DISPOSAL SLUDGE HOLDING TANK  FIGURE  4.22  -  WINDSOR  COMBINED  PLANT  FLOWSHEET  CENTRIFUGES  (EXISTING)  FIGURE  4.23  -  WINDSOR  COMBINED  PLANT  LAYOUT  (EXISTING)  - 196  passes to  As  shown  through  two  four  will  be  primary  grit  routed  zones.  Aeration aeration.  4.22,  removal  chambers  to  four  a  HRT  aerators  diffused  a i r s u p p l i e d by t h r e e  control  i s not  catalyst  The  new HRT  provided  plant  of  these  the  of  a u t o m a t i c DO  mixed  clarifiers.  discharged constructed  to  the  f o r the plant  be  diffused  air  mechanical utilize  Automatic Spent  DO  aluminum  removal.  the  construction  the  existing  increased  Diffused  hours.  reactors  f o r phosphorus  to  contains  i s 3.23  four  three  i n layout  to  a i r aeration  of  plant.  accommodate will  a  be  used  in  four  e f f l u e n t i s c h l o r i n a t e d and  then  be  provided.  liquor  Secondary  Little  bioreactor  uses  involve  clarifiers  Primary e f f l u e n t i s  existing plant.  will  control will  Bioreactor secondary  similar  requirement.  primary  c e n t r i f u g a l blowers.  will  currently  i s then d i s t r i b u t e d  mechanical  southern  i n the  reactors  Each  bioreactor  expansion  bioreactors,  nitrification and  expansion.  i s added t o t h e r e a c t o r s  The four  whereas  and  of the bioreactors  northern  surface  wastewater  additional  combination  most  raw  bioreactors.  nominal  via  The  Two  f o r the plant  Total  is  Figure  clarifiers.  constructed  currently four  in  -  i s presently  River. expansion.  Two  new  settled  clarifiers  will  be  - 197 -  Sludge either  the  Primary  primary  sludge  conditioned Dewatered percent,  sludge  then  cake  i s trucked  solids  pumped  polymer  site  from  clarifiers  i s  with  stabilization the  i s wasted  a  the  sludge  a waste  to  the  a  raw  holding  to  a  wet  tank,  chemically  disposal  well.  centrifuges.  from  privately  lime product  to  sewage  content  40 p e r c e n t .  a  clarifiers  i n three  solids  the city  content t o a t least  hauls  secondary  dewatered  having  where  or  to  and  by  the  13  t o 21  owned  i s added  lime  to raise  A private contractor  site  approximately  80  kilometers east of the City.  Ontario Ministry the  existing  plant  o f t h e Environment  effluent  (based  (OME) s t a n d a r d s f o r  on m o n t h l y  averages)  a r e as  follows:  BOD  -  15 mg/L  TSS  -  15 mg/L  TP  -  1.0 mg/L-P  As  5  o f A u g u s t 1987, s t a n d a r d s  established. anticipated  However, (Romano,  BOD  the  following  requirements  1987):  -  5 mg/L  TSS  -  5 mg/L  TP  -  0.3 mg/L-P  5  f o r t h e new p l a n t were n o t  (May t h r o u g h  October)  1.0 mg/L-P (November t h r o u g h  April)  were  -  NH  -  3  Average in  the  influent  198 -  1.0 mg/L-N  (May t h r o u g h O c t o b e r )  4.0 mg/L-N  (November t h r o u g h  concentrations sewage  (based  April)  f o r t h e parameters on  1985/86  of  interest  averages)  a r e as  follows:  BOD  -  110 mg/L  TSS  -  155 mg/L  TKN  -  23 mg/L  NH  -  15 mg/L  TP  -  5.2 mg/L  Tmax  -  20°C  Tmin  -  5°C  5  3  Performance following achieved  average  of  effluent  the  plant  has  concentrations  f o r 1985 (1986 d a t a  been  good  with  and c o m p l i a n c e  results  not obtained):  Average Effluent Parameter  Concentration  (mq/L)  Monthly  Compliances  (Maximum 12)  B0D o  5.3  12  TSS  9.5  12  0.82  9  c  TP  the  - 199 -  The review  of  existing  plant  laboratory  nitrification  does  i s not designed  analysis  occur  results  i n t h e summer  to nitrify  indicates  months  but a  that  some  at the operating  SRT.  The an  onsite  plant  i s operated  laboratory  analyses.  However,  capable since  d i g e s t o r s , VFA a n a l y s i s  A full-scale Little the  River  two  Plant  south  primary  in  the  June  influent  was  removal  and  decreased  recommended  full-scale basis  a l l Bio-P not  have  with  related anaerobic  test  was c a r r i e d  modified  1986.  out a t the  In the test,  t o achieve  a  plug-flow  VFA c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were m o n i t o r e d i n correlated removal  with was  phosphorus  initally  realized  removal  achieved  f o r June  with  1985  (City  D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d o f t i m e VFA c o n c e n t r a t i o n s sewage  was  does  1985 t o M a r c h  T P ' s o f 1.17 mg/L  1985).  concentrations Bio-P  removal  Good p h o s p h o r u s  effluent  o f Windsor,  plant  b i o r e a c t o r s were  performance. average  o f performing  the  Bio-P  from  effluent  and i s equipped  i s not performed.  a n a e r o b i c / a e r o b i c sequence. the  by t h e C i t y  lost. should  (Oldham,  exceeded over  15  mg/L  the following  Therefore, Bio-P 1986).  primary  removal  be  HAc.  However,  months sludge  and  VFA  hence,  fermentation  implemented  on  a  - 200 -  4.5.2  Retrofit  Bio-P plant  are presented  bioreactor  layouts  As  proposed  involves  and l a y o u t  4.24  and  on  the  4.25.  drawings,  be r e q u i r e d  new p l a n t  installing  t o both  t o accommodate gravity  Thickeners  Bio-P  thickeners  were  for  selected  over  the  of  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  thereby  pumps  Individual plant  an  i n reduced  removal.  result  recycle  eliminating  associated  fermenters  south  between  underground. existing  be p r o v i d e d  The f e r m e n t e r  the  t h e fermenter Supernatant  Pump  located  The  first sludge mixed  and p e r m i t  sequence  in  f o r mixed Bio-P  would  processes.  the existing  Supernatant,  plant  recycle  Pump B u i l d i n g No. 2.  be  run  would  be r u n  through  No. 1, a n d t h e n  i n t h e dewatering  building.  the  t o the  T h e new f e r m e n t e r w a s t a g e pumps w o u l d be t i e d leading  the  liquor  f o rthe existing  i n Sludge  Building  e x i s t i n g primary sludge headers  vault  volumes  a n d t h e pumphouse  piping  p l a n t and  primary  f o r both  of the bioreactors.  t u n n e l t o Sludge  bioreactors.  sludge  conventional  and w a s t a g e pumps w o u l d b e l o c a t e d Piping  the  addition,  completely  t h e requirement  with  would  a n d t h e new p l a n t .  would be l o c a t e d  for  significant  the existing  as they  bioreactor,  In  three  fermenters use  drawings  a r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 4.26.  would  fermentation.  flowsheets  i n Figures  shown  modifications the  removal  Modifications  into  t o the sludge storage  EXISTING PLANT (36,281 m3/d) PC'S (4)  Al  BIOREACTORS  SC's (4)  CI  V  TREATED EFFLUENT  GRIT REMOVAL  EXPANSION (27,211 m3/d) BIOREACTORS  PC's (2)  CI SC's (2) TREATED EFFLUENT  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  TO LIME STABILIZATION & DISPOSAL  FIGURE  4.24  -  WINDSOR  RETROFIT  FLOWSHEET  to o  LITTLE RIVER  APPROXIMATE SCALE - 1:1750  B - SLUDGE PUMP BUILDING ' ._  FIGURE  4.25  -  WINDSOR  RETROFIT  LAYOUT  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  EXISTING PLANT (36281 m3/D)  NEW PLANT (27211 m3/D) FERMENTER SUPNT  FROM PC's  1  FERMENTER SUPNT  FROM PC s  o —  5  - — )  o  -tx3—  -fx-  CELL  STATUS  1,2 3,4  UNAERATED AERATED/ UNAERATED AERATED  5 CELL  STATUS  1,2 3,4  UNAERATED AERATED/ UNAERATED AERATED AERATED  -fx-  5 6  1.0 1.0  ~  1.0 5.0  -5  L'  -tXH  19 O ~  20  )  TO SC's  o  TO SC's  HRT (HRS)  MIXER  III  FIGURE  4.26  -  WINDSOR  RETROFIT  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUTS  HRT (HRS) 0.6 0.6 2.4  -  The of  the  new  fermenter  f o r the  bioreactors.  Pump B u i l d i n g  No.  204  3 and  -  new  plant  A l l pumps  w o u l d be  would  be  a l l interconnecting  located  located piping  in  south Sludge  would  be  run  modifying  the  underground.  The bioreactors zones. as  second to  Again,  i t provides  major  accommodate an  operating  would  d a y s and  that  occur during  an  a n o x i c HRT  the  RAS.  required,  the  aerobic  of  aerobic  the  HRT's  settleability that  the  removal  Since  total are  result, reactors,  two  HRT  an  that  HRT.  anaerobic  to  be  were  additional  showed  that  of to  Marais  reactors,  below  basins.  The  increase  the  n o m i n a l HRT  small  volume  was  identical  addition t o 4.84  design  of  1.0  SRT  of  required  to  hour  is  1.2 3 h o u r s ,  50  T h e s e w o u l d be  secondary  the  (1984) n o t e  Therefore,  reactor  required.  Calculations  HRT  too  costs.  the  h o u r w o u l d be  drop  selected  convert  reduced  and  anoxic  to  summer a t  result.  reactors  s e q u e n c e was  were r e q u i r e d  1.0  and  minimizes c a p i t a l  anaerobic  existing  total  of  Ekama  allowed  additional  w o u l d be  and  the  would  problems w i l l  existing and  flexibility  f o r Bio-P removal.  denitrify  percent  required  modifications  existing bioreactors  6.5  the  involves  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  Significant  nitrification  modification  to  38  that  if  sludge  concluded  support required.  to  the  located these  hours.  or  percent, i t was  also  Bio-P As  a  existing  south of  reactors  the  would  -  Operation used  in  the  Bio-P  effluent  would  reactors  and  is  into  over the  cells  and  system  is  zone.  as  zones well  valves  would  be  off  to  the  adequate.  installed  reactors.  New  required  Area  primary  three  of  the  dividing and  that  of  the  (if nitrification  end  the  4.26,  of  have  partial  reactor  wall  then  reactors  a  in  air  as  lighting  would  Bio-P in  would  create  additional reactors be  the  (to  flow  west  i t be and  containing  eight  dividing  walls  supply  the would  extended  plant.  The  existing shut  in  the  and  piping  would  constructed. existing also  be  ones  supply for  supply  used  first  non-aerated  the  reactors  be  anoxic  for  air  o f f the  continue to  anaerobic all  be  the  aerators  service  not  end  available to  zones.  would  Figure  three  set-up  non-aerated the  in  walls  aerators  However,  be  At  s i m i l a r to  anoxic  reactor,  of  are  reactor.  would  zones.  reactors  north  Mixers  through the  These  Mechanical  turned  west  be  created.  anaerobic  Bio-P removal,  the  a result,  zones.  generally  in  at  adjacent  As  would  shown  opening  existing  the  anoxic  each  the  e a c h , w o u l d be  separating  east  an  weir.  The  As  anaerobic  through  constructed) exit  flow  -  bioreactors  introduced  and  pass  the  test.  be  would  occurring)  would  of  205  in  two  to the  zones  conditions.  or  potentially  be  required  Additional were  required  blowers  found for  to  to  the  be new  -  As present the  previously  mentioned,  i n the existing plant.  installation  valves  on  the  would a l s o be  o f DO  inlet  probes,  automatic  This  would  process  t o the blowers.  would be r e l a t i v e l y  to  the  ORP  minimal.  i s not  provided  probes  through control  and  recorders  that  DO  control  will  would  be  be  provided.  and  anoxic  new  w i l l be  the reactor  the only  and  designed will  automatic  modifications  of dividing walls zones,  plant  sizes  In a d d i t i o n ,  Therefore,  the i n s t a l l a t i o n  anaerobic  f o r the  Because t h e p l a n t  a d e q u a t e t o accommodate B i o - P r e m o v a l .  the  control  c o n t r o l l e r s and  be  for  be  bioreactors  n i t r i f i c a t i o n , i t was d e t e r m i n e d  required  DO  installed.  Modifications  for  206 -  and  ORP  mixers  monitoring  facilities.  The  third  sludge handling  and  final  facilities.  major  modification  The p r e s e n t  involves  practice of settling  i n the primary c l a r i f i e r  would r e s u l t i n t h e s l u d g e b e i n g  to  i n t h e bottom  anaerobic  conditions  fermenter  and  Therefore,  in a  separately  in  routed  hence, Bio-P  a  would removal  dissolved  t o the centrifuges.  would be i n s t a l l e d existing  plant  to  north the  in  facility,  WAS  a i r flotation A  single  phosphorus  DAF  would  unit unit  of the blower b u i l d i n g . DAF  would  be  be  (DAF)  and t h e release. thickened and  f o r both Piping  run underground.  WAS  exposed  of the c l a r i f i e r  result  the  then plants  from t h e New  WAS  - 207 -  pumps w o u l d DAF  unit  would  n o t be r e q u i r e d .  would  then  be  Piping  have  t h e new p l a n t  r u n t o t h e end o f t h e e x i s t i n g  c o n t i n u e underground.  pumps w o u l d  from  sufficient  Pumps a n d p i p i n g w o u l d  head  I t was  All  p i p i n g would  be l o c a t e d  Incremental  plant,  maintenance, one  A removal  removal  i n this  consumption,  power  with  oxygen  removal will  soluble  effluent  fermenter  have t o b e h i r e d  facility  table,  consumption  solution)  cleaning,  those  an  demand  and  sludge  and  I t was f e l t  that  as a r e s u l t  chemicals  be r e q u i r e d phosphorus  It  (25 mg/L  4.14.  concentrations  As  i n reduced chemical  production.  should  be  However, operations, noted  o f t h e aluminum  i n conjunction  Bio-P  chemical  i n Table  o f t h e f e r m e n t i n g a n d DAF increased.  of this.  fora  equivalent  results  i n the  operation  parameters  are presented removal  is  TP s t a n d a r d .  for  Bio-P  requirements f o r  DO p r o b e c l e a n i n g  of the operating  of the addition  phosphorus  reduce  probe  p e r s o n would  facility,  because  and maintenance  i n c l u d e VFA a n a l y s i s ,  comparison  phosphorus shown  operating  ORP  of the plant.  underground.  a n d DAF o p e r a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e .  additional  t h e WAS  be r e q u i r e d t o pump b o t h t h e DAF s l u d g e t o  a n d t h e DAF s u b n a t a n t t o t h e h e a d  existing  that  t o pump t h e s l u d g e t o t h e DAF.  centrifuges,  Bio-P operation  t u n n e l s and  assumed  the  a  t o the  that  catalyst  w i t h Bio-P removal, t o i n order  t o achieve the  - 208 -  4.5.3  Cost the  new  costs  Cost A n a l y s i s  analyses  facility are  facilities  and t h e c o m b i n e d  presented  incremental  were p r e p a r e d  capital  in  facility.  Table  costs  f o r the existing  4.15  f o r the  facility,  Incremental  and  4.16.  existing,  new  a r e $2,074,000, $970,000 a n d $3,044,000,  capital  As and  shown, combined  respectively.  S i n c e o n l y a s i n g l e DAF u n i t was p r o p o s e d , c o s t s f o r t h e e x i s t i n g and  new  facilities  A presented $91,000  summary  i n Table  would  facilities,  were p r o - r a t e d b a s e d on  be  of  4.17.  incremental  Annual  realized  savings  f o r the  operating  o f $48,000,  existing,  new  costs  is  $43,000  and  and  combined  respectively.  B a s e d on t h e s e capital  the  flow.  investments  Existing New  estimates  simple payback p e r i o d s f o r t h e  a r e as f o l l o w s :  Facility  Facility  Combined F a c i l i t y  43  years  23  years  33  years  Because o f t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e s e payback p e r i o d s , t h e r e is 10,  no  rate  o f r e t u r n on t h e i n v e s t m e n t  15 a n d 20 y e a r s .  for project  lives  o f 5,  - 209 -  PARAMETER 1.  BIO-P CASE  Alum C a t a l y s t  Consumption  (kg/d)  2.  Oxygen Demand w/o  w/  Sludge P r o d u c t i o n "  4.  Incremental  Power  Consumption  (kw)  Incremental  Operations  1  TABLE 4.14 1. 1.  5,885  5,708  9,192  9,519  22,615  25,913  plant  3.  5.  10,581  plant  Nitrification  in existing  1,481  (kg/d)  Nitrification  in existing -  CHEMICAL CASE  (kg/d)  +10  Staff  1  - WINDSOR OPERATIONS COMPARISON  Lime s t a b i l i z e d s l u d g e . B a s e d on c o m b i n e d i n f l u e n t  f l o w o f 63,492 m / d .  P  MODIFICATION 1. UFA SUPPLV  ITEM  SPECIFICATION  1. FERMENTER MECHANICAL 2. FERMENTER TANK 3. 4. 5. 6. r.  SUPERNATANT PUMPS SUPERNATANT PIPING SUPNT PIPING EXCUN SUPNT INSTRUMENTATION RECVCLE PUMPS s . RECVCLE INSTN 9. UASTE PUMPS 10.MASTE PUMP INSTN 1. COMPARTMENTALIZATION 2. EXISTING 2. DO PROBES BIOREACTORS 3. DO CONTROL INSTN 4. 00 CONTROL PANEL 5. ORP PROBES 6. ORP RECORDERS 7. MIXERS 8. DISMANTLE AERATORS 9. AIR PIPING NEW BIOREACTOR 1. EXCAVATION 2. CONCRETE 3. AREA LIGHTING A. PIPING 5. DO PROBES 6. DO CONTROL INSTN 9. NEU AERATION  SLUDOE HANDLINO SUPERNATANT  10.ORP PROBES 11.ORP RECORDERS 12.MIXERS 1. DAF UNIT 2. DAF BUILOINO 3. UAS PIPINO A. U A S PIPE EXC/BCKFL 5. MAS PIPE PAVING 6. OAF SLUDOE PIPING 7. OAF PIPE EXC/BCKFL 8. DAF PIPE PAVING 9. DAF SLUDOE PUMPS 10. DAF SBNT PIPING 11. DAF SBNT PUMPS  OUANTITV  11.9 M DIAH, 3.5 M SMD, 2.5kM CONCRETE EXCAVATION 10.5 L / s . 20.0 M TDH. 2 .9 k U 100 MM ASTN A53 AS PER FIGURE 3.2 10.5 L / s , 49.0 M TDH, 9 .A k U AS PER FIGURE 3.2 10.5 L / s , 26.5 M TDH, 3 .90 kM AS PER FIGURE 3.2 CONRETE PARTITIONS AS PER SECTION 3  1 61 M3 472 M3 2 250 M 150 MS 1 2 1 2 1  55000 16775  25 M3 M  6875 14000 25800 5000 4000 700 16000  M  13130  A  2  A  1.2  kU  150  MM  200  MM  2 8  EA.  A  ASTH A53  100  ASTM A53  AS PER FIGURE 3.3 3.7 kM EA. TURBORATORS 5.0 kM EA. TURBORATORS 1.2 k U EA. 36 H2, 2773 kg/d 10.0 H M 8.0 M 150 MM ASTN AS3 150  MM  2676 M3 1100 H3 732 M2 10O M 2 A  8 2 1 A  ASTN AS3  0.9 L/si, 10 M TDH, 0.20 k U 100 MM Asm A53 3.7 L/s:, 6.0 H TDH, 0.40 k U  MATERIAL COST <*•>  1 86 100 288 50 86 247 43 2 86 2  M2 M  M3 M3  M3 M3  M  INSTALLATION MANHOURS 580 12  4440 26025  1118 30 48  5700 8384 5700 4440 5700  48 48 238 301  288 483 535 1045O 1171 519  302500 30012 15850 7000 5000 20O0O 72000 2000 350 8000  142  152S71  BULK FACTOR  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <•>  1.84  105248 35411 378 17S47 61709 930 7416 33134 7416 17547 7416  3.8 3.8 3.8  14513 30576 36163 10192 8736 1529 23130 8928 28628  2. 1 1.96 2. 1 2. 1 1.39  16591 638550 67520 32573 15288 9602 37440 134784 4368 764 11565  2. 1 1.8 1.8 2. 1 2.1 1.39  253879 36857 28628 3571 20130 24538 3061 172S4 8500 21157 9059  1.6  13130  483 115 230 414 99 197  12500 11254 10714 2151 8923 2151  383  SUB-TOTAL  2.8 3.8 4.05  1852226  ENGINEERING TOTAL  TABLE  4.15  -  WINDSOR  CAPITAL  COST  SUMMARY  (EXISTING  222267 2074493  FACILITY)  I  to H O  I  MODIFICATION 1. UFA SUPPLV  2.  3.  EXISTING  SLUDOE HANDLINO SUPERNATANT  SPECIFICATION  OUANTITV  10.3 M DIAM, 3.5 M SUD. 2.SkU CONCRETE EXCAVATION 7.9 L/s, 20.0 H TDH, 2.2 kU 100 MM ASTM A53  1 61 472 2 250 150 1 2 1 2 1 87 4 2 16 1 64 300 432 75 64 165 32 2 64 2  ITEM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. 9. 10.  FERMENTER MECHANICAL FERMENTER TANK SUPERNATANT PUMPS SUPERNATANT PIPING SUPNT PIPING EXCUN SUPNT INSTRUMENTATION RECVCLE PUMPS RECVCLE INSTN UASTE PUMPS UASTE PUMP INSTN  1. 2. 3. A.  C0MPARTHENTALI2ATI0N ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS  1. DAF 2. DAF 3. UAS A. UAS 5. UAS 6. DAF 7. DAF 8. OAF 9. DAF 1O.0AF 11. DAF  UNIT BUILDING PIPING PIPE EXC/BCKFL PIPE PAVING SLUDOE PIPING PIPE EXC/BCKFL PIPE PAVING SLUDOE PUMPS SBNT PIPING SBNT PUMPS  TABLE  AS PER FIOURE 3.2 7.9 L / s , 49.0 M TDH, 5.4 AS PER FIOURE 3.2 7.9 L/s, 26.5 M TDH, 2.5 AS PER FIGURE 3.2  kU kU  CONRETE PARTITIONS 1.2 k U EA. 36 M2, 2773 k g / d 10.0 M M 8.0 H 150 MM ASTN A53 150 MM ASTN A53 0.9 L / s , 10 M TOH, 0.20 k U 100 MM ASTM A53 3.7 L/s, 6.0 H TDH, 0.40 k U  4.16  -  WINDSOR  CAPITAL COST  M3 M3 M  M3  M3  MATERIAL COST <*>  INSTALLATION BULK MANHOURS FACTOR  65000 16775  580 12  4440 26025  1118 30 48  5700 6O40 5700 4440 5700 23925 4000 700 32000  48 46 827  114429 M2 M  39390  M3  18750 8441  M3  8036 18282 • 6692 1613  M3  M  SUMMARY  1.84 3.8 3.8 3.8 2.1 2. 1 1.39 1.6  1449 173 345 311 74 148 287  2.8 3.8 4.05  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <«> 121992 35075 378 17209 61188 930 7302 23411 7302 17209 7302 50025 8568 1499 45370 186747 27643 85097 5357 29820 18235 2296 12780 70862 15734 6664  SUB-TOTAL  865996  ENGINEERING  103920  TOTAL  969915  fNEW  FACILITY)  I  to  - 212 -  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST fS) ITEM 1.  Chemical  2.  Sludge  3.  Power  4.  Operations  5.  Maintenance  Consumption  Disposal  TOTAL  TABLE 4 . 1 7  Staff Materials  EXISTING  NEW  COMBINED  (43,000)  (32,000)  (75,000)  (31,000)  (35,000)  (66,000)  (2,000)  2,000  0  20,000  20,000  40,000  8,000  Xi!=tP=P=°=l  2 , 000 143^0001  - WINDSOR L I T T L E RIVER OPERATING  COST  10,000 121^0001  SUMMARY  - 213  4.6  G r i m s b y B a k e r Road P o l l u t i o n  4.6.1  The  Plant  town  approximately Pollution plants  20  km  Grimsby  is  southeast  located  of  in  Hamilton.  C o n t r o l P l a n t i s t h e l a r g e r o f two  population  of  Grimsby.  approximately  The  plant  2 0,000 and  southern The  Baker  wastewater currently  has  Ontario, Road  treatment serves  a design  a  c a p a c i t y of  m /d. 3  The contains  plant  grit  aeration,  uses  the  removal,  secondary  digestion layout  Control Plant  Description  of  servicing  18,184  -  and  activated  primary  drawings  f o r the  After  passing  is  distributed  unit  plant  a  presented  and  mechanical  two-stage  operations.  are  process  sedimentation,  sedimentation,  chlorination  sludge  anaerobic  Flowsheets  and  i n F i g u r e s 4.27  and  4.28.  wastewater effluent with  i s routed  RAS.  The  bioreactors contains control  via  not  a  mixture another  f o u r 18.7 is  to  kW  through to  a  two  then  flows  distribution  Mixed  removal  primary  distribution  mechanical  provided.  grit  clarifiers.  chamber to  where  two  Each  surface aerators. is  then  the  Primary  i t i s mixed  completely  chamber.  liquor  chamber,  mixed  bioreactor  Automatic routed  to  DO two  SCREENING & GRIT REMOVAL  BIOREACTORS (2) DISTN CHAMBER  PC's (2)  DISTN CHAMBER  SC's (2)  CI  (30") DISTN CHAMBER  RAS (24")  WAS (18")  to TO HEAD OF PLANT  H  I  LAND APPLN PRIMARY DIGESTOR  FIGURE  4.27  -  GRIMSBY  PLANT  FLOWSHEET  SECONDARY DIGESTOR  (EXISTING)  PUMPING STATION  PC's BIOREACTORS  o  o  o  o I  GRIT REMOVAL  0  o  0  o  N) Ul  •  •CD  DISTN CHAMBER  GARAGE/ BOILER ROOM  DISTN CHAMBER  4.38  RAS PUMPS  APPROXIMATE SCALE - 1:1000  SUBSTATION  FIGURE  SECONDARY CLARIFIERS  -  GRIMSBY  PLANT  TAYOUT  (EXISTING)  I  - 216 -  secondary  clarifiers.  Secondary  d i s c h a r g e d t o Lake O n t a r i o . to  the distribution  30 HP  screw  hence,  DO  Settled  chamber u p s t r e a m  pumps.  permit  The pumps  wasted t o t h e primary  of  clarifiers  primary  i s chlorinated  activated  and  and t h e n  sludge i s returned  o f t h e b i o r e a c t o r s u s i n g two  a r e exposed  entrainment  Combined  effluent  the  t o t h e atmosphere  sludge.  Sludge  is  and also  w i t h t h e s e pumps.  secondary  sludges  a r e pumped  to  3 two  4535  m  agricultural  digestors.  Digested  sludge  is  applied  to  land with digestor supernatant being returned t o the  head o f t h e p l a n t . Waste p i c k l e for  phosphorus  approximately  removal.  standards  a r e as  BOD  A ferrous  chloride  f o r the plant  -  15  mg/L  TSS  -  15  mg/L  TP  -  1.0 mg/L-P  5  i s as  t o t h e secondary  process  solution, containing  i s used.  effluent  based  on  monthly  on  1985/86  follows:  Composition averages,  i s added  8 p e r c e n t i r o n by w e i g h t ,  OME averages,  liquor  of  follows:  the  influent  sewage  based  - 217 -  BOD  -  123 mg/L  TSS  -  14 0 mg/L  TKN  -  22.4 mg/L  TP  -  5.1 mg/L  T  -  16° C  5  Performance following  average  of  the plant  effluent  has  been  concentrations  good,  achieved  with  during  the 1985  and 1986:  BOD  -  12.8 mg/L  TSS  -  7.1 mg/L  TKN  -  1.9 mg/L  TP  -  0.54 mg/L  5  Monthly 1986  were  not obtained.  Environment BOD  5  effluent  (1987),  objective  once  concentration However,  reports  that  i n 1985.  averages  the Ontario  the plant  f o r 1985 a n d  Ministry  exceeded  of the  i t s monthly  TSS a n d TP o b j e c t i v e s were  never  exceeded.  The in  the plant  given  the high  and 1986.  effluent on  a  data  indicates that  year-round  bioreactor  DO  basis.  This  concentrations  nitrification  occurs  i s not surprising, (6.8 mg/L)  i n 1985  -  The Niagara.  plant  An  related  -  i s operated  onsite  analyses,  218  by  laboratory  with  the  the  is  Regional  present  exception  Municipality  in  of  which  N0 ,  all  are  3  of  Bio-P  routinely  performed.  It BOD  was  wastewater  noted during from  a  periodically.  This  is  experience  showed  has  mainstream process be  significant  composed  contain  high  stored The have  composition be  a  of  and  winery  added  that  the  Bio-P  to  is the  fermentation  added  and  to  of the  prior  digestor,  of  waste  to  this  bioreactor.  products  hence,  small  of these  committing  to  This  wastes  in  plant  to  could are  should  could  be  quantities.  wastes,  such  as the  wastewaters  and  These  supply  the  high  primary  bioreactor of  a  to  winery  VFA's.  consistency  evaluated  as  plant that  trucked  addition  process,  concentration  onsite  to  local  to the  causes problems i n the  for  largely  the v i s i t  an  would option  however.  4.6.2  The requires  Retrofit  retrofit  significant  As  shown  Modifications  of the  B a k e r Road  Pollution  m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the  in  Figures  m a j o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s w o u l d be  4.29  and  required:  existing  4.30,  the  Control  Plant  operation.  following  four  - 219 -  i)  Install  a  gravity  thickener  for  primary  sludge  fermentation.  ii)  Modify  the  bioreactors  to  accommodate  c o n d i t i o n s and a n o x i c / a n a e r o b i c / a e r o b i c  iii)  Replace  the existing  RAS  screw  the  pumps  plug  flow  sequences.  with  submersible  pumps.  iv)  Route  WAS  directly  to  facilities  f o r the  lime  digestors  treatment  and  of  the  install digestor  supernatant.  Further VFA  supply  could  fermentation. assumed  that  selected use  study  into  eliminate  However, a  t h e use of t h e winery the  need  f o r t h e purposes  fermenter  would  be  o f an a n o x i c / a n a e r o b i c / a e r o b i c p r o c e s s  south  underflow  o f primary  thickener  A  as a sludge  study,  i t was  thickener  was  as i t would p e r m i t t h e i n the bioreactor.  i n F i g u r e 4.30, t h e t h i c k e n e r w o u l d b e l o c a t e d  of the existing  clarifier supply  shown  primary  of this  required.  over a c o m p l e t e l y mixed fermenter  As  for  wastes  primary  pumps  sludge  and t h e p r i m a r y  clarifiers.  were  found  to  The e x i s t i n g be  to the thickener. clarifiers  adequate Piping  primary f o r the  between t h e  and b i o r e a c t o r s ,  would  be  BIOREACTORS (2) SCREENING & GRIT REMOVAL  to to o  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  FIGURE  4.29  -  GRIMSBY  RETROFIT  FLOWSHEET  GARAGE/ BOILER ROOM  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  SUBSTATION  FIGURE  4.30  -  GRIMSBY  RETROFIT  ,  LAYOUT  APPROXIMATE SCALE - 1:1000  -  run  underground.  A  pumphouse  thickener  supernatant,  line  from  the  line  f e e d i n g the  the  second  major  of  for  conversion  to  an  not  shown,  concrete  and  and  a  would  non-aerated  of  6.5  would  as  8  inch  and  either  modifying  calculations  day  SRT  well  Figure  each  be  as  4.31  reactor  and  show  a  that  wastewater sequence  permitting during  simple  p e r i o d s when  presents a  would  supports  constructed  potentially  be  involve  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  associated  non-aerated  be  would  compartmentalized.  potentially  occurrence  required at  of  six  6 would  existing  waste  layout  of  bioreactor.  and  to  the  The  as  non-aerated  sively  pumps.  the  are  occur.  half  their  dividers  each,  into  house  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  the  hours  tied  anaerobic/aerobic process  flow conditions  aerators  wastage  to  accommodate  The  retrofitted  As plug  be  installed  modification  occur  16°C.  does  proposed  and  denitrification  nitrification the  zones  should  temperature provides  to  Anoxic  nitrification  would  be  digestors.  bioreactors  sequences.  would  recycle  thickener  The  222  non-aerated  cells,  created. would  be  aerated or  nitrification.  and  be  Existing  1  equipped  and  be  mixers  installed  zones.  2  A  would  would  depending be  removed, in  total  HRT's o f  with mixers.  non-aerated They  mechanical  would  h a v i n g nominal  Cells  converted to  be  of 0.48  excluCells  upon  equipped  3  the with  24.4 TO SC's  TO SC's  e  CELL  STATUS  1,2 3,4  UNAERATED UNAERATED/ AERATED AERATED AERATED  5,6 7  e  HRT (HRS) 0 .48 0 .48 0 .48 2 .9  CM  5  4  6  •  •  •  3  d  1  &NT FERMENTER SUPERNATANT  FIGURE  4.31  -  GRIMSBY  o•-  FROM PC's  RETROFIT  MIXER TURBORATOR EXISTING AERATOR  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUT  to to to  - 224 -  aeration  devices  similar  t o those  Figure  4.32).  These  consist  hollow  shaft.  When  the shaft  rotation  of the impellor  wastewater. functions  o f a n open  draws  i s open  as a mixer.  The  Therefore,  between a e r a t e d  remaining  half  as a completely  aerators.  Automatic  DO  cell  control  using would  which would a u t o m a t i c a l l y  effluent  weir  and h e n c e ,  actuator  blades.  automatically  DO  f o r the weir  probes,  height  control  f o r the Turborators  provide  only a fraction  Other installation  o f ORP  the  existing  30 i n c h f e e d  the  center  The replacing prevent  third  probes  the  and i n t o t h e  the  device,  Turborator cells  can  conditions.  would  continue  to  mechanical  be  through  provided  adjust  process  the height  a  of the  t h e submergence o f controller  would  oxygen  the  to a  the existing  be  and  provided. as they  an DO  would  requirement.  bioreactors  and r e c o r d e r s ,  line  attached  n o t be p r o v i d e d  of the t o t a l  to  this  adjust  adjusters  would  modifications  of Cell  a  (see  t o t h e atmosphere,  reactor  loop  aerator  impellor  and n o n - a e r a t e d  feedback  the  Turborators  i s closed,  using  o f each  mixed  as  a i r down t h e s h a f t  When t h e e n d o f t h e s h a f t  e a s i l y be s h i f t e d  operate  known  include  the  and t h e e x t e n s i o n  from t h e c e n t e r  of  o f each r e a c t o r t o  1.  major m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e p l a n t would  the existing  RAS s c r e w pumps w i t h  t h e a i r entrainment  o f t h e RAS.  submersible  involve pumps t o  S u b m e r s i b l e pumps  would  - 225 -  Standard " C " or " D " TEFC flanged motors.  Quill shaft supported by heavy duty bearings for minimal vertical loading on motor.  Mounting hinge permitting field access to impeller for routine maintenance and cleaning.  Heavy wall hollow shaft with adjustable length when used with a V-Belt drive.  Patented impeller draws air down the shaft, shears it and disperses it radially while simultaneously mixing the liquid phase.  COURTESY TURBORATOR TECHNOLOGY INC.  FIGURE 4.32 - TURBORATOR  SCHEMATIC  - 226  be  located  equipped  i n t h e e x i s t i n g s c r e w pump sumps.  with  variable  pumping  rate  sludge  wasting  sufficient installed i n c h RAS  can  to  a n d 18  involve  would  to  pump the  of  of  extending  the  would  be  also  be  designed  digestors.  the  RAS  used  for  to  Piping  pumps' w i t h  WAS  to  major  the  the  modification  digestors  digestor  existing  and  produce would  existing  18  inch  would the  supernatant  R e - r o u t i n g o f t h e WAS  the  be 24  to  involve  subsequent precipitate  to the digestor  WAS  line  would  underground  to  Lime a d d i t i o n f a c i l i t i e s w o u l d be l o c a t e d w e s t o f  existing grit  secondary  therefore  final  the  phosphorus.  pumps  that  be  lines.  and  the  The  into  The pumps w o u l d  c o n t r o l l e r s such  submersible  i n c h WAS  fourth  the digestors. the  and  treatment  released  frequency  varied.  tie-in  re-routing  lime  be  head  The the  -  chamber.  digestor  and  Lime  hence,  sludge  would  would  ultimately  be  pumped  be  to  the  disposed v i a  land a p p l i c a t i o n .  The be  7000  showed  mg/L) that  digestors sludge  impact on a  would  o f low  the  28 be  day  s o l i d s c o n c e n t r a t i o n WAS  digestor SRT  in  maintained.  stabilization.  SRT both  was  assessed.  the  This  was  primary deemed  (assumed  to  Calculations and  secondary  adequate  for  - 227  The digestor  was  impact assessed  acceptability the  primary  of  of  performance. also  addition Ontario  lime  may  of  lower be  sludge  Therefore,  pH  restricts i t was  the  secondary  to  digestor  combined  for  land the  digestor in  market and  a  to  1979),  sludge  was  fact,  the  In  sludge,  the  which  two-stage  impove d i g e s t o r  f o r the  Food,  as  the  Environment  and  be  applied  conventional  sewage  T h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e h i g h e r pH  concluded  that  the  d i g e s t o r would not or  of  cause  land  metals  addition any  in  of  the  lime  of  of  sludge  the  the  sludge.  problems with  application  and Since  Eddy,  sewage s l u d g e s c a n  those  secondary  application.  lime/anaerobic  solubilization  performance  the  application.  lime-based  to.  land  i f anything,  the  than  applied  for  should  improve  that  to  d i g e s t o r performance,  secondary  of Agriculture  (1986) n o t e  sludges can lime  acceptable  of  soils  of  addition  s e p a r a t i o n ( M e t c a l f and  sludge  use  Ministries  Health to  lime  sludge  the  i s solids  The  deemed  of  sludge  respect to  final  objective  addition  lime  with  the  digestion process the  of  -  to  respect digested  sludge.  Because that the  additional Baker  Given  Road  the  fermenter, and  the  analysis  new  of  the  staff  would  plant  should  requirements the RAS  i n the  above  lime  be  for  treatment  pumps,  f o u r m o d i f i c a t i o n s , i t was required to  i t be  converted  operation  combined w i t h  member w o u l d be r e q u i r e d .  and  facilities,  l a b o r a t o r y , i t was  operate  the  felt  to  and  maintain  Bio-P  removal.  maintenance  the  DO  and  requirement  that  one  felt  of  the  ORP  probes  for  nitrate  additional  staff  - 228 -  A removal at  facility,  design  table,  mg/L)  with  removal  consumption,  addition  of the operating those  of small  would  result  oxygen  demand  concentration  i n a Bio-P  c a n be  consumption  would  the  aerators  surface  surface  with  were  in  shows  A with total  Bio-P  Cost  summary removal  incremental  as  the incremental  Because actually  of  the  results  and The  (approximately i n order  15  t o reduce effluent  reduced  power  o f the replacement It i s felt  evidenced  by  of  that the  the  high  DO  i n the bioreactors.  that  Bio-P  removal  would  result  staffing.  Analysis  of the incremental i s presented  cost  liquor  production.  Significantly  i n c r e a s e d l i m e c o n s u m p t i o n and o p e r a t i o n s  4.6.3  of  also  operating  such t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d  the Turborators.  oversized  pickle  liquor  Bio-P  A s shown i n t h i s  sludge  as a r e s u l t  concentrations presently existing  4.18  4.18.  operation  achieved.  be r e a l i z e d  aerators  Table  and  for a  facility  i n reduced  quantities of pickle  s o l u b l e phosphorus c o n c e n t r a t i o n s TP  i n Table  would  be r e q u i r e d  parameters  of the existing  capacity, i s presented  Bio-P  power  comparison  i n Table  i s estimated  operating  additional  capital  costs  staffing  costs  4.19.  As  associated shown,  t o b e $1,061,000. i s presented requirement,  A  i n Table Bio-P  i n a n i n c r e a s e o f $24,000 i n o p e r a t i n g  the  summary 4.20. removal  costs.  PARAMETER  BIO-P CASE  CHEMICAL  P  CASE Pickle  Liquor  Consumption  (kg/d)  272  1,732  1,685  1,895  29.5  38  Sludge Production -  Mass  (kg/d)  -  Volume (m /d) 3  Lime  (kg/d)  387  Oxygen Demand *  (kg/d)  1  2,724  2,912  +4 4  Incremental  Power  Consumption  (kw)  -  Incremental Operations S t a f f  1  TABLE 4.18  - GRIMSBY OPERATIONS  COMPARISON  B a s e d on t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f n i t r i f i c a t i o n . B a s e d o n a n i n f l u e n t f l o w o f 4,550 m / d .  2.  MODIFICATION VFA SUPPLV  ITEM 1. FERMENTER MECHANICAL 2. FERMENTER TANK 3. SUPERNATANT PUMPS 4. SUPERNATANT PIPING S. SUPNT PUMP INSTN 6. RECVCLE PUMPS T. RECVCLE INSTN 8. PUMPHOUSE 8. UASTAOE PUMPS 10.UASTAOE INSTN 11.UASTAOE PIPING  BIOREACTOR  RAS PUMPS  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  COMPARTMENTALIZATION ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS AERATORS TURBORATORS DO OONTROL  8. PIPINO HODS 1. NEU PUMPS  SPECIFICATION  OUANTITV  10.5 M DIAM, 3.5 M SUD, 2.5 CONCRETE EXCAVATION 5.2 L/s, 20 M TDH, 1.5 k U 100 MM ASTM A53 AS PER FIGURE 3.2 5.2 L/s, 15 n TDH, 1.1 k U AS PER FIGURE 3.2 6.1 M M 4.6 M 5.2 L/s, 15 H TOH, 1.1 k U AS PER F I G . 3.2 150 MM DIAM, U/G EXCAVATION/BACKFILL CONRETE PARTITIONS 0.37 k U DISMANTLE 3.7 k U 4 LOOP CONTROLLER DO PROBES VALUE ACTUATORS 750 MM DIAM 212 L/s, 16 M TDH, 53  kU  kU  LIME TREATMENT 1. STORAOE SILOS STEEL U / EPOXV LINER, 24 M3 OF DIGESTOR 2. CHEMICAL FEEDER ROTARV TVPE, 96 k g / h r SUPERNATANT 3. MIX TANK STEEL, 0.16 M3 4. NIX TANK MIXER 0.055 k U S. HOLDING TANK FD PUMPS 0.44 L/s, 6.0 M TDH, 0.04 k U 6. HOLDING TANK 76 M3 7. HOLDING TANK MIXER 0.3 k U 8. HOLDING TANK PUMPS 0.44 L/s, 3.0 M TDH, 0.02 k U 10.RAPID HIX/FLOCCN TNK 0.27 M3 11.RAPID MIX MIXER 0.010 k U 12.FL0CCN MIXER 0.001 k U 13.CLARIFIER MECHANICAL 2.1 M D, 1.0 k U 14.LIME SLUDOE PUMPS 0.079 L/s, 10.0 M TDH, 0.015 15.BUILDING 12 M M 15 M  k  MATERIAL COST <*>  1 48 H3 304 M3 2 100 M 1 2 1 28 M 2 2 1 100 M 30 M3  65000 13200  132 M3 4 2 8 4 8 1 4 4 20 M  36300 4000 700 10200  INSTALLATION MANHOURS 456 61  4000 1O410 54O0 40O0 5400  447 44 44  4000 5400 13130  44 483 12 1254 288  56000 5000 14000 11600 9160  177 72 183  BULK FACTOR 1.84 3.8 3.8 3.8  2.1 2. 1 1.34 1.8 2. 1  TOTAL, INSTALLS! COST <*> 121*92 27600 1885 15504 24475 6872 15504 6872 12066 15504 6872 28366 372 75900 8568 1499 13941 8928 102816 10587 29988 14064 15016  2  30000  3.8  116280  1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 180 M2  5462 5167 484 904 2800 19952 1275 2800 648 904 904 27800 2800  3.2 1.23 6 1.34 3.8 3.2 1.34 3.8 6 1.34 1.34 1.9 3.8  17828 6483 2962 1236 10853 65123 1743 10853 3966 1236 1236 53876 10853 77400  SUB-TOTAL  947117  ENGINEERING  113654  TOTAL  TABLE 4.19 - GRIMSBY C A P I T A L COST SUMMARY  1060771  CO  o  - 231 -  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST  ITEM 1.  Pickle  Liquor  ($12,000)  2.  Sludge Disposal  3.  Power  (6,000)  4.  Line  12,000  5.  Operations S t a f f  42,000  6.  Maintenance M a t e r i a l s  (16,000)  TOTAL  TABLE 4.20  4,000 £24^000  - GRIMSBY OPERATING COST SUMMARY  -  Therefore, the  there  requirement  annual  savings  amount  to  a  i s no for of  232  -  r e t u r n on  the  additional  only  simple  operating  $18,000  payback  capital  would  period  of  investment.  staff  was  be  realized.  59  years;  Even i f  waived, This  clearly  an  would a  poor  proposition.  4.7  M i l t o n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l  4.7.1  Plant  The Burlington  town  in  Ontario.  The  constructed  air  of  Milton  Regional  1949  growth  and  of  plant  screening,  and  is  located  Municipality  has  the  uses grit  been  town.  of approximately  The contains  Description  The  plant  the  activated  aeration,  aerobic  and  layout  i n Figures  in  P l a n t was  both  drawings  4.33  of  central  originally  four  times  currently  sludge  secondary  effluent  and  City  serves  to a  28,000 p e o p l e .  chemical  filtration  the  Halton  expanded  chlorination/dechlorination,  presented  of  of  process  removal, primary sedimentation,  mechanical  Flowsheets  north  M i l t o n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l in  accommodate population  the  Plant  and  for  4.34,  and the  and  diffused  sedimentation,  phosphorus  removal,  anaerobic  digestion.  existing  respectively.  facility  are  PLANT 'A'  ALUM (TYP)  INFLUENT TREATED EFFLUENT  to  w  LAND APPLN  FIGURE  4.33  -  MILTON  PLANT  FLOWSHEET  (EXISTING)  FIGURE  4.34  -  MILTON  PLANT  LAYOUT  (EXISTING!  -  As  shown  i n t h e drawings,  facilities  consist of four  and  Plants  'D').  systems  whereas  235 -  separate t r a i n s  "A', 'B' a n d ' C Plant  Rotary blowers supply  'D' u s e s  draft-tube  the a i r f o r Plant  secondary  'A', 'B',  'C  mechanical  aerators.  'A', 'B' a n d ' C .  b a s e d on a v e r a g e d a i l y  Design flow,  as follows:  Plant  'A  Plant  500  m /d  'B'  2,727  m /d  Plant  'C  1,818  m /d  Plant  'D'  7.865  m /d  7  TOTAL  The  discharges  3  3  treated  effluent  t o the plant.  creek, t h e Ontario  f o r the plant:  4.2 mg/L  SP  -  0.43 mg/L-P (5.5 kg/d)  NH_  -  90% r e m o v a l  Two-stage sludge s t a b i l i z a t i o n . thickened  again  (55 kg/d)  anaerobic WAS  Mile  Because o f t h e s e n s i t i v e  -  5  t o Sixteen  M i n i s t r y o f t h e Environment has  set the following effluent c r i t e r i a  BOD  3  3  plant  nature of t h i s  3  12,910 m /d  Creek which runs adjacent  then  (Plants  and  use coarse bubble d i f f u s e d a i r  capacities of the individual plants, are  the primary  digestion  i s thickened,  prior to final  is  used  f o r primary  a e r o b i c a l l y d i g e s t e d and  disposal.  Both  sludges are  - 236 -  then  disposed v i a land  tank  truck  are  firm.  centralized  application  Sludge  stabilization  ( i . e . they are not s p l i t  p r i m a r y and secondary t r e a t m e n t  Liquid Currently to  using  alum  dosage  used  municipalities. monthly  to Average  averages)  B0D SS  as a r e the  o f 108 mg/L o f d r y alum  i s added  plant  facility.  is  constituent  -  210 mg/L  -  193 mg/L  -  3.8 mg/L-P  TKN  -  33.9 mg/L-N  NH  -  24.3 mg/L-N  -  0.13 mg/L-N  3  was  assumed  typical  values  of  (based  Canadian  on  1985/86  that  t h e minimum  temperature  of the  was 1 2 ° C f o r d e s i g n p u r p o s e s .  Performance following  trains  - 8 . 8 mg/L-P  {  NC>  wastewater  into  removal.  SP  It  facilities  f o r t h e raw sewage a r e a s f o l l o w s :  5  TP  the  and h a n d l i n g  f o r phosphorus  a l l a e r a t i o n b a s i n s from a c e n t r a l  Influent  contracted  facilities).  i s currently  an e q u i v a l e n t  a privately  average  achieved during  of the plant  constituent  1985 a n d 1986:  has been  values  and  reasonable with the compliance  results  - 237  -  Average Effluent  Concentration  (mq/L)  Parameter  Monthly  Compliance  (Maximum  3.0  21  ss  2.5  N/A  TP  .62  N/A  SP  .18  23  TKN  1.2  N/A  NH  .58  22  BOD  c  3  N0 /N0 3  16.4  2  The of  Halton.  plant An  Bio-P r e l a t e d analyses  4.7.2  Revised  N/A  i s operated  onsite  and  4.36,  bioreactors Figure  4.37.  by t h e R e g i o n a l  laboratory  i s available  Municipality i n which a l l  a r e r o u t i n e l y performed.  Retrofit Modifications  flowsheets  M i l t o n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l 4.35  24)  and  Plant  respectively.  f o r Plants  'A',  layout  'B',  are presented  Layout 'C  drawings  f o r the i n Figures  drawings  of  the  a n d 'D' a r e p r e s e n t e d i n  ALUM (TYP)  PLANT 'A'  ci  INFLUENT  TREATED EFFLUENT SCREENING & GRIT REMOVAL  EFFLUENT FILTRATION PLANT 'B'  to u  LIME PLANT "C  TO HEAD OF PLANT  00  JL \ /  Y I  I  '-  J" PLANT 'D' WAS THICKENER  AEROBIC DIGESTOR  WAS THICKENER  , LAND APPLN FERMENTER  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  FIGURE  4.35  -  PRIMARY DIGESTOR  MILTON  SECONDARY DIGESTOR  RETROFIT  TO HEAD OF PLANT  FLOWSHEET  FIGURE 4.36 - MILTON RETROFIT LAYOUT  PLANT ' A '  T  0  s  c  .  s  TO  SC's 1  -3  o  -=> -tx}-  1 vl/  o -3  o  Cto *» o  FROM P C ' s  FROM P C ' s  9.0  26.5  n  TO S C ' s  •  PLANT  o  • o  •  'C  *o  4X-F O-'pOir FROM P C ' s  FROM P C ' s  FERMENTER SUPNT 7.6  in  2  FIGURE  4.37  -  MILTON  RETROFIT  *  13.4  m  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUT  O  -  MIXER  •  -  TURBORATOR  - 241  As  shown  modifications for  Bio-P  i n Figure  would, be  Provide  ii)  Modify  iii)  the  Provide  following three  to r e t r o f i t  The  bioreactors anoxic  and  facilities  aerobic  digestor  to  the  major  Milton  plant  aerobic  for  the  use  of  overloading  the of  post-digestor stabilized  considered  of  a  treatment  of  the  gravity  thickener  was  The  cost  thickener  option would  Similarly, result  use  in  of the  WAS  however,  the  result  the  large  use  in of  increases  the the in  volumes.  t o a f e r m e n t e r was  justifiable.  required  zones.  lime  new  low  would  conversion  volumes  a  digestor.  thickener  sludge  The  as  pre-digestor the  the  supernatant.  installation  was  facilities.  accommodate  f o r primary sludge fermentation.  thickeners  sludge  required  the  primary sludge fermentation  anaerobic,  loss  4.35,  removal:  i)  selected  -  of  the  secondary  also considered.  resulting  from  anaerobic  However, t h e  this  was  not  digestor  increase felt  to  in be  - 242 -  New required located  i n the digestor  would  adjacent  to  of be  the  the  lack  located Plant  'D'  piping  runs  distribution  and  digestors.  Piping  be  would  are not present  clarifier  the  t o create Similar  pump  sufficient influent.  pumps  would  available,  end  plant  This  would  tanks. sludge  t h e wastage  to  recycle  have  and w a s t a g e  pumps  would  be  feed,  the  A  the  anaerobic  i n trenches  plant. t o be  the  of the  f o r t h e raw  would  changes  the required  t o the other  configuration  sequence.  significant the  be  as  pumphouse  constructed pumps.  The  located  to new  i n the  building.  optimal  aerobic  space  run underground  underflow  Considerable  zones.  of  i n the Milton  t o the fermenter  the supernatant,  required  and wastage  aeration  supernatant  digestor  n o t have  a t the south  long  primary  raw s l u d g e  o f 5% o f t h e p l a n t  recycle  necessitate  house  does  would  required.  fermenter  adjacent  pumps  The e x i s t i n g  rate  supernatant,  Because  tunnels  underflow  building  t o pump a t a f l o w  fermenter  a l s o be  clarifier  f o r a Bio-P r e t r o f i t .  capacity New  primary  With  quantities  required  t o the bioreactors anaerobic,  plants, would  the  degree  an  exception  of concrete of  were  be  a n o x i c and a e r o b i c  i t was  be  would  determined  that  anoxic/anaerobic/ of  required  Plant to  'A', provide  compartmentalization.  -  Extensions Plants A  'B'  new  to  the  and  'C  aeration  air  243  supply  to supply  s y s t e m w o u l d be  bioreactor.  used  instead.  each  plant  DO  off be on  of the  Turborator  installed  reactors  an  of  the  was  anoxic  zone,  In  It digestion, w o u l d be use  of  of  land  best  for  the  would  provided  existing would  be for  facility.  be  on  achieved  a vent  for Plant  monitoring  minimize as  (e.g.  However,  a  'D'  would  s e r i e s of  'B'  would  because  of  deemed t o be  with  lime  pipe would  also  and  application for final  the  costs,  completely  'A'  would  serve  as  an  hydraulic  be  the mixed  serve  as  anaerobic  and  piping  of  aerobic  impractical.  continued  treatment  method f o r WAS  existing facilities  retrofit  bioreactor  determined that  combined  the  ORP  to  bioreactor  was  control  the  of v a r i a b l e frequency c o n t r o l l e r s  bioreactors  t h i s was  'C  be  control valve DO  large  as  bioreactors.  attempt  zone,  difficulties,  use  considered  etc.).  flow  drivers.  i n a l l four  operation  an  through the  and  'D'  Turborators  the  in  compartments.'  for Plant  would  in  'B'  header.  required  aerobic  employing  present  a  be  p h y s i c a l l y too  control  'A',  placement of  provided the  Plants  a i r supply  are  DO  not  would  provided  system  i t was  for  through the  A  Automatic  as  control  piping  a i r to the  e x i s t i n g mechanical aerators revised  -  handling allows  disposal.  of as  use  the  supernatant,  i t maximizes  f o r the  continued  the use  -  Facilities supernatant  would  thickening  would  be  back  As  anticipated  to  that  digestor  operation  The plant  table,  the  loading  create  are  The  it  was  summarized  be  of  difficulties  of  DO  i t  ultimate  i t  sludge  with  the  where  for  4.6,  lime  WAS  from  from  facility  the  digestor  existing  pumped  Section  is  not  to  the  respect  to  would  demand, in  (25  be  and  control  chemical  mg/L)  that  the and  analysis  i n operations one  4.21.  As  shown i n  this  result  in  reduced  alum  and  production lime  w o u l d be of  0.43  fermenter, ORP  the  and  sludge would  addition  required  to  of  a  remove  mg/L-SP.  the  lime  instrumentation,  requirements  would  maintenance  staff.  additional  operation  consumption  noted that  specified level  of  the  methane  power  I t should alum  on  i n Table  retrofit  presence  assumed  required.  the  thickener  in  the  and/or l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n .  Bio-P  phosphorus t o the  increase  of  impacts of these m o d i f i c a t i o n s  quantity  an  noted  addition  would  realized.  additional  would  sludge  Increases  facilities,  sludge  of  the  production.  small  north  WAS  oxygen  be  treatment  second  consumption,  also  lime  the  the  sludge  -  located  previously  aerobic  the  the  Lime  to  pumped  disposal.  of  be  tanks.  clarifier  for  244  treatment and  the  necessitate For  Milton  f u l l - t i m e p e r s o n would  be  - 245 -  4.7.3  A  summary  associated with shown,  the  retrofit  of  Bio-P  total  summary  removal  conversion  i s presented  incremental  capital  capital  capital  i n Table  cost  costs  4.22.  f o r the  As  Bio-P  $1,260,000.  of the incremental  i s presented  i n Table  operating  4.34.  costs f o r  As i n d i c a t e d , t h e  removal would  result  s a v i n g s o f $42,000.  B a s e d on t h e s e  rate  incremental  o f t h e M i l t o n p l a n t t o Bio-P  i n an annual  the  the  removal  i s approximately  A Bio-P  Cost A n a l y s i s  investment  c o s t s , t h e simple payback p e r i o d f o r i s 30 years.  o f r e t u r n on t h e i n v e s t m e n t  15 a n d 20 y e a r s .  Therefore,  f o r project  there  lives  i s no  o f 5, 10,  - 246  PARAMETER  -  BIO-P CASE  1.  Alum  Consumption  (kg/d)  323  2.  Lime Consumption  (kg/d)  153  3.  Sludge Production -  Mass  (kg/d)  -  Volume  3 (m  /d)  4.  Oxygen Demand  5.  Methane P r o d u c t i o n  6.  I n c r e m e n t a l Power * Consumption  (kw)  TABLE 4.21 1.  (kg/d)  (m /d)  CHEMICAL P CASE 1,394  1,610  2,287  38  49  4,688  4,783  3 53  446  +4.6  - MILTON OPERATIONS COMPARISON  I n c l u d e s power s a v i n g s f r o m r e d u c e d o x y g e n demand.  0  ITEM  MODIFICATION 1. UFA SUPPLV  1. 2. 34. 5. 6.  SPECIFICATION  PC UNDERFLOW PUMPS PC UNDERFLOW PI PI NO PC PI PINO EXCAVATION PC INSTRUMENTATION FERMENTER MECHANICAL FERMENTER TANK  T . SUPERNATANT PUMPS B. SUPERNATANT PIPINO 9. SUPNT PI PINO EXCUN 10.SUPNT INSTRUMENTATION 11. RECVCLE PUMPS 12. RECVCLE INSTN 13. UASTE PUMPS 1A.UASTE PUMP PIPINO 15. UASTE PI PINO EXCUN 16. UASTE PUMP INSTN IT.PUMPHOUSE 2. BIOREACTOR  1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. 7.  COHPARTMKNTALIZATION DO PROBES DO CONTROL INSTN 00 CONTROL PANEL ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS  8. AERATION PIPING 9.  PLANT D AERATION  LIME TREATMENT 1. STORAGE SILO OF DIOESTOR 2. FEEDER 6 SLURRV SUPERNATANT MIX SVSTEH 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  HOLDING TANK HOLOINO TANK PUMPS RAPID MIX/ FLOCCLN CLARIFIER LIME SLUDOE PUMPS BUILDING  7.5 L / s , 16.O M TDH, 150 H H ASTM AS3  QUANTITY l.OkU  AS PER FIO. 3.2 B.B M DIAM, 3.5 M SUD, 2 . l k U CONCRETE EXCAVATION 3.7 L / s , 20.0 H TDH .8 kU 100 H H ASTM A53 AS PER FIO. 3.2 3.7 L / s , 15.0 H TDH, .8 kU AS PER FIO. 3.2 3.7 L / s , 15 M TDH, 0.8 kU 150 MM ASTM A53 AS PER FIO. 3.2 6.1 M M 4.6M CONRETE PARTITIONS as p » r Section 3.3 PLANT A 0.18 kU PLANT B 0.24 KU PLANT C 0.24 kU PLANT D - 0.55 kU PLANT B - 100 MM PLANT C - 150 MM DISMANTLE SURFACE AEARATORS 1.5 kU TURBORATORS 5.0 kU TURBORATORS STEEL U / EPOXV LINER, 9.6 M3 DRV FEEDER, MIX TANK, MIXER ft DISTRIBUTION PUMPS <38 kg LIME/ hr> STEEL U / EPOXV LINER <30M3> 0.175 L / s , 3.0 M TDH, O.OlkU STEEL TANK UN MIXERS 2.0 M DIAM 0.031 L / s , 10 M TDH 14.5 H M 11.5 M M 7.0 M  2 100 M 300 M3 1 1  40 M3 255 M3  MATERIAL COST <*>  4290 13130  3764 31230  1  5400 3764 5400 3764 13130  2  1 2 100 M 300 M3 1 28 M2 301 8  MS  3 M 8 4 4 10 8 16 80 M 60 M 4 2 ' 5  403 60 44  5400 58000 11000  2  300 M 675 M3  INSTALLATION BULK MANHOURS FACTOR  380 51 1341 135 44 44 483 60 44  5400 82775 28000 18700 7500 8000 1400 4004 ' 10952 8762 26228 5873 5057  2660 448  464 291 288  140OO 4S000  1 1  3130 34204  17 26  1 2 1 1 2 167 M2  8400 458 8538 40328 458  9 320  SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERING TOTAL  TABLE 4 . 2 2 - MILTON CAPITAL  COST SUMMARY  3.8 1.84 3.8 3.8 3.6  2.1 1.96 2. 1 2. 1 2 2' 2 2 1.6 1.8  TOTAL . INSTALLEI COST <s> 16628 28366 I860 6872 108854 23000 1581 14589 73426 4185 6672 14589 6872 14589 28366 1860 6872 12040 173075 59976 32962 14994 17136 2999 8168 22343 17874 53505 20374 14179 6928 25704 82620 3723 35694  2.6 4.05 4.05  23990 1892 8961 51055 1892 71610 1125296 135035 1260331  to  -  248 -  ITEM  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST  1.  Alum  ($73,000)  2.  Sludge  3.  Lime  5, 000  4.  Power  1,000  5.  Operations  6.  Maintenance  Disposal  (22,000)  Staff  42,000  Materials  TOTAL  TABLE 4.23  - MILTON OPERATING COST SUMMARY  5,000  -  4.8  Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l  4.8.1  Plant  20  Pollution a  wastewater  Elmira  km  north  Control  population  of  discharge  Plant  Description  town o f  approximately  from  -  Elmira  The  Water  249  i s located of  Kitchener-Waterloo.  Plant  currently  approximately from  i n southwestern  the  treats  7,100  Uniroyal  Ontario,  The  Elmira  domestic  people, Chemical  as  sewage  well  as  Division  a  Plant 3  located  i n the  b a s e d on  but  plant  an  equalization,  of  mechanical  pressing,  chemical  a  long  plant  aeration,  phosphorus  flowsheet  of  conventional SRT  i s 4,550 m  The  plant  /d  removal  50  sludge days) ,  contains  sedimentation,  secondary  the  activated  (approximately  plant.  primary  shown i n F i g u r e  and  filter  flow  diffused  sedimentation,  existing plant  4.38,  independent p l a n t s w i t h i n  equalization,  grit  removal  d o m e s t i c sewage i s s p l i t is  the  filter  pressing  is  air  unit  presented  in  4.38.  As o f two  A  as  aeration  removal,  aeration,  operations.  its  extended grit  of  flow.  is listed  because  o p e r a t e s as  Figure  Design c a p a c i t y  average d a i l y The  plant  town.  m i x e d w i t h one  third  the one.  and  i n t o two  plant  essentially  After passing primary  streams.  of the Uniroyal  flow  consists  through  clarification, One  third  flow the  of the  flow  ( f o r a combined  flow  SCREENINC  FLOW EQUALIZATION  GRIT REMOVAL  PC's (2)  DOMESTIC INFLUENT  SC's ( 2 )  NEW BIOREACTORS ( 2 )  FILTERS  CI  V  I  TREATED EFFLUENT  INDUSTRIAL INFLUENT OLD BIOREACTOR  Fe  SC  to o LIME + FERRIC CHLORIDE  RAW SLUDGE STORAGE  WAS STORAGE  TO LANDFILL CHEMICAL CONDITIONING  FIGURE  4.38  -  ELMIRA  PLANT  TO FLOW EQUALIZATION  FLOWSHEET  (EXISTING)  FILTER PRESSES  - 251 -  of  1,517  m /d)  aeration  i s  completely domestic  and  i s routed  provided  mixed  with  mechanical  reactors.  sewage  to the "old"  The  and U n i r o y a l  surface  remaining  streams  bioreactor  two  aerators thirds  (combined  where  flow  in  of the of  3,033  3 m /d)  are  operate  to  the  "new"  bioreactors.  i n a p l u g - f l o w mode a n d u s e f i v e  diffused pickle  routed  a i r f o r aeration  liquor)  removal,  t o secondary  clarifiers  chlorinated  purposes.  and waste  stabilization. not  be  maintained  wastewater. press  However,  As  operation  sludges  a r e now  respectively, conditioned pressing. hauled is  a  due  to  result,  was  the a  installed.  routed  with Filter  to a local  ferric cake  industrial  chloride  Primary  landfill  digestion f o r sludge  performance component  and  waste  and secondary  only. and  (approximately  filter,  filter  activated digestors,  They a r e t h e n mixed and lime  prior  35% s o l i d s  f o r disposal.  could  of the  c o n d i t i o n i n g and  t o t h e primary  f o r storage purposes  was u s e d  digestor  chemical  backwash  anaerobic  sludges  consistent  from t h e  Creek.  operated,  activated  (waste  f o r phosphorus  The e f f l u e n t  and t h e n d i s c h a r g e d t o Canagigue  the primary  t o supply  chloride  i n an a u t o m a t i c  When t h e p l a n t was f i r s t of  Ferric  sedimentation.  i s filtered  reactors  r o t a r y blowers  i s added t o t h e b i o r e a c t o r e f f l u e n t  prior  secondary  These  Filter  to  filter  by weight) i s press  filtrate  returned t o the equalization basin.  Ontario plant  effluent  Ministry  (based  o f t h e Environment  on m o n t h l y a v e r a g e s )  standards  for  a r e as f o l l o w s :  the  - 252 -  BOD  -  7.5 mg/L  TSS  -  15.0 mg/L  TP  -  1.0 mg/L-P  TKN  -  3.5 mg/L-N ( A p r i l  NH  -  7.5 mg/L-N  -  6.5-8.5  5  3  pH  Average sewage  values  through  October)  (November t h r o u g h March)  f o r the constituents  i n t h e domestic  ( b a s e d o n May 1985 t o M a r c h 1987 a v e r a g e s )  BOD  -  153 mg/L  TSS  -  202 mg/L  TKN  -  42 mg/L-N  TP  -  8.6 mg/L-P  5  Average effluent  (based  values on  May  f o r the constituents 1985  follows:  B0D  -  650 mg/L  TSS  -  168 mg/L  TKN  -  93 mg/L-N  TP  -  4.8 mg/L-P  5  t o March  1987  a r e as f o l l o w s :  i n the Uniroyal averages)  a r e as  - 253 -  Because effluent,  the Uniroyal  i t was n e c e s s a r y  characteristics.  BOD  alkalinity combined  These a r e as f o l l o w s :  189 mg/L  TSS  -  125 mg/L  TKN  -  48 mg/L-N  TP  -  7.5 mg/L-P  Tmax  -  21° C  Tmin  -  8°C  It  should  be  t o the Elmira  pH o f t h e U n i r o y a l acid production  during  achieved  average  that  Uniroyal  when  plant  ammonia exceed  e f f l u e n t i s l e s s than  Performance following  noted  t o i t s wastewater  flow  t o t h e primary  t o c a l c u l a t e average primary e f f l u e n t  -  5  e f f l u e n t i s added  i s required  t o add  concentrations  i n the  3 0 mg/L a n d / o r when t h e 8.0.  This  i s to buffer  nitrification.  of the plant  has n o t been  effluent concentrations  f o rthe period  good  with  and c o m p l i a n c e  the  results  o f May 1985 t o M a r c h 1987: Average  Effluent Parameter  TSS  Concentration  Monthly  Compliances  (mg/L)  (Maximum 23)  6.3  19  16.5  13  TKN  7.2  14  TP  1.5  8  -  Factors industrial very  plant Four  an o n s i t e  analyses  this  i s operated  the plant  by t h e O n t a r i o  f u l l - t i m e operators equipped  with the exception  the  i s operating  t o perform 5  i s currently  carried  Toronto.  VFA's a r e n o t a n a l y z e d  Ministry  a r e employed.  o f BOD , N 0  analysis  out a t  t h e OME  for the Elmira  The p l a n t  a l l Bio-P  and VFA's.  3  of the  BOD  5  related and N0  laboratory  3  in  plant.  Retrofit Modifications  Retrofit retrofitted  that  include  capacity.  laboratory  4.8.2  performance  and t h e f a c t  close t o i t s design  Environment. has  influencing  wastewater  The  254 -  flowsheets  bioreactors  and  layout  are presented  drawings  i n Figures  of  the  4.39 a n d 4.40,  respectively.  As modifications removal.  shown would  in  these  be r e q u i r e d  The f i r s t  drawings, to retrofit  would i n v o l v e c o n v e r t i n g  digestor  t o a fermenter  t o produce VFA's.  slightly  d i f f e r e n t than  that  The  digestor  would  e s s e n t i a l l y be u s e d  Primary  sludge  VFA-rich  supernatant  the  bioreactors.  proposed  would  be  would  SRT  allowed  to  b e pumped  control  would  only  two  the plant  major  f o r Bio-P  the e x i s t i n g primary The approach used i s  f o r the previous as a g r a v i t y settle  and  plants.  thickener.  ferment  and  o f f t h e t o p o f t h e tank t o be  provided  through  the  SCREENING  FLOW EQUALIZATION  GRIT REMOVAL  p c  '  s  <> 2  N E  DOMESTIC INFLUENT  "  B I 0 R E A C T 0 R S  I  X  INDUSTRIAL INFLUENT  -I—I  I I  r—>-  •  L  ( 2 )  SC'S ( 2 )  FILTERS  CI TREATED EFFLUENT  I I  '  - -I  OLD BIOREACTOR  Fe  SC'S ( 2 )  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION Ul Ul  .  LIME + FERRIC CHLORIDE  WAS STORACE  FERMENTER  TO LANDFILL CHEMICAL CONDITIONING  FIGURE  4.39  -  ELMIRA  TO FLOW EQUALIZATION  RETROFIT  FLOWSHEET  FILTER PRESSES  NEW BIOREACTOR 4 * 2.5 m  42.4 m  »•—4«—•*—«*—H*-  f  FROM PC's  O  2  o  FERMENTER SUPERNATANT  TO SC's  O  O  MECHANICAL AERATOR  MIXER  •  TURBORATOR to  OLD BIOREACTOR  Ul  •  s  TO SC's  CM  oo 8  m o  r .  as o  *  e-  •  FERMENTER SUPERNATANT  TO  SC's  2 * 9.1 - 18.2 m FIGURE  4.40  -  ELMIRA RETROFIT  BIOREACTOR  LAYOUTS  - 257 -  installation existing the at  of recycle  pumps.  thickened t h e base  operation the  roof  such  sludge  o f t h e tank.  Therefore,  i s not provided.  flow  would  be  clarifier  recycling  speed  mixer  conventional thickening  be  required  noted prior  underflow  r a t e s up t o 5 p e r c e n t  using the  by  o f a slow  a  I t should  would  wasting  be p r o v i d e d  and t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n  new p r i m a r y  that  and c o n t r o l l e d  VFA e l u t r i a t i o n  o f t h e tank  addition,  pumps  that to  repairs  to  i t s use.  In  pumps w o u l d be r e q u i r e d  of the plant  influent  flow  creating  the  c a n be pumped t o t h e f e r m e n t e r .  The required  second  anaerobic,  bioreactor. proposed  Again,  i n order  modification  would  anoxic  aerobic  an to  and  involve  conditions  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  minimize  costs.  these  compartments  zones.  required,  would  such  and  that  ORP  control  would  probes,  a single  air  supply  created  easy.  and m i x e r s  M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o the a i r supply the a i r supply  z o n e s c o u l d be i s o l a t e d control  be  from  monitoring  be p r o v i d e d  header.  was  of  be  installed.  controller  a  feedback  and a v e n t  the  new  A n a e r o b i c and installed  piping  o f t h e zones.  by u t i l i z i n g  loop process  sequence  t o the anaerobic  the rest would  the  Conversion  r e a c t o r s t o t h i s p r o c e s s w o u l d be r e l a t i v e l y aerobic  in  would and  in be  anoxic  Automatic  DO  Automatic  DO  loop  DO  with  v a l v e on t h e  - 258 -  Conversion expense Figure  due  to  4.40,  of  their  these  the existing  Mixers  cells,  would be  Turborators would  exit  the mechanical with  a  Total  DO  which control  feasible  to  mechanical  be p r o v i d e d cells  from  DO  would  vary  t h e speed  to  aerators.  the anaerobic  Modifications not  deemed  be  a  walls.  z o n e s and Wastewater  equipped  w o u l d be variable  as  the  i t was  frequency  would  also  be  motors.  not  Turborators  with  provided  of the Turborator  both  monitoring  deemed  and  the  provided  in  zones.  to  necessary.  cells  to  achieved  control  ORP  and a n o x i c  probes  dividing  zones.  DO c o n t r o l  loop  attempt  would  and a n o x i c  f o r the aerated  n o t be  shown i n  aerators  of  t o t h e two r e m a i n i n g  would  As  more  c o n d i t i o n s w o u l d be c r e a t e d  construction  Automatic  involve  operation.  i n the anaerobic  aerators.  feedback  controller  the  would  surface  and p l u g - f l o w  installed  these  reactors  mechanical  through  would  old  completely-mixed  removed f r o m two c e l l s , in  the  the sludge  Phosphorus  handling  release  w o u l d be n e g a t e d b y t h e a d d i t i o n o f f e r r i c  operations  during  WAS  were  storage  c h l o r i d e and l i m e f o r  sludge c o n d i t i o n i n g .  It adequate may  be  was  felt  f o r a Bio-P required  that  the existing  facility.  f o r DO  and  Some a d d i t i o n a l ORP  probe  o n s i t e VFA a n a l y s i s w o u l d be r e q u i r e d . these  operations  staffing  maintenance  cleaning.  was time  In addition,  However, i t was f e l t  o p e r a t i o n s c o u l d be a c c o m o d a t e d by t h e e x i s t i n g  staff.  that  - 259  A removal  facility  facility Bio-P  comparison  are  primary  sludge  existing  reduced solids  operation,  Power c o n s u m p t i o n should  be  required  noted to  that  of  fermenting  this  in  with  indicate  the  pilot  scale  feasibility process.  hence,  ferric  a  result  TP  chloride  and  power  fermenter be  less  volumes  Sludge  operation,  than  will  in  increase.  of d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n .  of  associated  mg/L)  the  No  retrofit digestion  f o r growth  s t u d i e s would  with  a  Bio-P  t h e U n i r o y a l w a s t e w a t e r on  Bio-P b a c t e r i a .  both  (10  It  standard.  concern  potential  addition  the  to  anaerobic  of  as  sludge  table,  production.  because of the  Bio-P  removal  in this  chloride  sludge  will  chemical  shown  ferric  concentrations  and  As  a  s o l u b l e phosphorus c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n order  preparing  problems  4.24.  increased  but,  impact  and  existing  for  be  main  i s the  the  parameters  will  achieve the e f f l u e n t  retrofit,  for  reduced  i s reduced  reduce  The  in  marginally  mass i s a c t u a l l y  operating  i n Table  results  and  the  those  presented  removal  consumption  with  of  -  be  primary  allowance designs,  and  general  inhibition.  has  the  plant  previous  performance  Therefore,  fermentation  growth  b e e n made f o r  however,  required to validate sludge  removal  the and  lab  or  technical the  Bio-P  - 260 -  PARAMETER  BIO-P CASE  1.  FeCl., C o n s u m p t i o n  2.  Sludge Production  3.  -  Mass  -  Volume  3 (m /d)  Dewatered  Sludge  (kg/d)  (kg/d)  CHEMICAL CASE  44  137  758  899  60  59  7.2  7.1  2,577  2,895  -  +5.8  3  Production  (m /d)  4.  Oxygen Demand  5.  Incremental  Power  Consumption  (kw)  Incremental  Operations  6.  TABLE 4.24  1. 2.  (kg/d)  Staff  - ELMIRA OPERATIONS COMPARISON '  Undewatered s l u d g e . B a s e d on a n i n f l u e n t  2  f l o w o f 4,550 m / d .  P  MODIFICATION UFA SUPPLV  BIOREACTOR  ITEM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6.  REPAIRS TO TANK SUPERNATANT PUMPS SUPERNATANT PIPI NO PUMP INSTN RECVCLE PUMPS PC UNDERFLOW PUMPS PIPING EXCAVATION FERMENTER MIXER 1. COMPARTMENTALIZATION 2. ORP PROBES 3. ORP RECORDERS A. MIXERS S. AIR PIPING MODS 6. DO PROBES r. PROCESS CONTROLLER  s.TURBORATORS  SPECIFICATION  1.3 L / S , 20 N TDH, 0.4 k U 100 M M ASTM A53 AS PER FIOURE 3.2 2.3 L / s , IT n TDH, 0.5S k U 2.3 L / s , 21 M TDH, 0.7 k U EXCAUATE/BACKFILL O.A  kU  CONRETE PARTITIONS 0.20 k U 100 H H ASTM AS3 EXISTING PIPING MOOS 2 - 1 LOOP CONTROLLERS VARIABLE FREQUENCV 3.7 k U  QUANTITV  MATERIAL COST C»>  2 100 H 2 2 2 270 H3  3764 1O410 10800 3764 3764  72 H3 A  2 12 50 6 2 1 6  H  INSTALLATION MANHOURS  447 86 108  1275 18800 4000 700 15300 5205  684 224 200  28000 4000 2000 42000  71 71  BULK FACTOR  3.8 3.8 3.8 1.34 2. 1 2. 1 1.34 2. 1 1.8  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <•> 15000 14588 24475 13744 14588 14588 3348 1743 41400 8568 1498 20912 12238 6200 59976 6281 4241 77112  to SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERING TOTAL  TABLE 4.25 - ELMIRA CAPITAL COST SUMMARY  340SO5 40861 381365  0>  - 262 -  INCREMENTAL ANNUAL COST  ITEM Ferric  Chloride  Sludge  Disposal  ($8,000) 0 (900)  Power Maintenance  Materials  TOTAL  TABLE 4.26  1,600 1^7^3001  - ELMIRA OPERATING COST SUMMARY  - 263  4.8.3  A with  Bio-P  total  Cost A n a l y s i s  summary removal  incremental  incremental  of  the  incremental  i s presented capital  operating  cost  costs  savings of approximately of Bio-P  -  is  $381,000.  i s presented  $7,300 w o u l d be  investment  of  r e t u r n on  15  and  20  A  shown,  summary  realized  of  4.26.  i n Table  the the  Annual  through  the  use  the  i s 52  capital  years.  investment  simple payback p e r i o d f o r  Therefore,  there  for project  i s no  lives  of  rate  5,  10,  years.  4.9  W e l l e s l e y Water P o l l u t i o n  4.9.1  The  village  Water  population  of  Control Plant  Plant Description  approximately  Wellesley  capacity  As  removal.  capital  Ontario,  costs associated  4.25.  i n Table  B a s e d on t h e s e e s t i m a t e s , t h e the  capital  of  Wellesley  20  km  Pollution  approximately 3 o f 500 m / d .  west  is of  located  in  southwestern  Kitchener-Waterloo.  Control  Plant  1,000  people,  currently and  has  The  serves a  a  design  - 264 -  The contains  plant  screening, The  stabilization  plant.  As screens, RAS  lift  pump.  from  with  concentrate  i n Figure  requirement  i s wasted a i r lift  t o roughly  operates  aeration  plant  and  and c h l o r i n a t i o n u n i t  operated  as  flowsheet/layout  after  a mixing RAS  a  contact  drawing  passing  zone  of the  settled  blowers.  Alum  from  the aeration  pump.  5 percent  a  long  f o r digestion  the  i t i s mixed  by a  single a i r  and c h l o r i n a t e d . i s added  t o the  removal.  The solids  basin  sludge  SRT prior  to a  is  and i s then  and a p p l i e d t o a g r i c u l t u r a l at  through  where  i s supplied  aerated,  rotary  f o r phosphorus  an  be  4.41,  enters  by t h r e e  a vacuum t r u c k  plant  A combined  the c l a r i f i e r .  Sludge  by  also  T h e sewage i s t h e n  aeration basin  extended  i n F i g u r e 4.41.  shown  i s supplied  tank,  can  t h e raw sewage  with  Air  plant  i s presented  packaged  diffused a i r aeration  operations.  plant  is a  land.  (approximately t o land  holding  allowed hauled  to away  Because t h e  40  application  days)  the  has  been  waived.  Treated  effluent  Ontario  Ministry  of  effluent  a r e as f o l l o w s :  i s discharged  t h e Environment  to  standards  the  Nith  f o r the  River. plant  TREATED  FIGURE  4.41  -  WFrTfT-ggT.lgv P L A N T  FLOWSHEET/LAYOUT  (EXISTING)  - 266 -  BOD  -  15.0 mg/L  TSS  -  15.0 mg/L  TP  -  1.0 mg/L-P  5  Influent  characteristics  (based  on  1985/86  monthly  averages) a r e as f o l l o w s :  BOD  -  150 mg/L  TSS  -  160 mg/L  TKN  -  28.4 mg/L  NH  -  15.0 mg/L  TP  -  5.5 mg/L  Tmax  -  18"C  Tmin  -  7°C  5  3  Performance following  average  achieved during  of  the  constituent  plant values  has  been  and  fair  with  compliance  the  results  1985 a n d 1986: Average Effluent  Parameter B0D TSS TP NH  3  NO-  c  Concentration  Monthly  Compliances  (mg/L)  (Maximum 24)  4.2  24  12.6  18  0.9  21  <0.2  N/A  22.6  N/A  - 267 -  As  shown  year-round.  plant  Environment.  approximately plant.  chlorine  residual  constituents  occurs  g i v e n t h e l o n g SRT.  by t h e O n t a r i o  i s staffed  are  Ministry  by a p a r t - t i m e  analyzed.  performed  of the  operator,  who  at  Analysis  Ministry  of  where  TSS and  for  a l l other  the  Environment  o r Toronto.  Retrofit Modifications  A revised 4.42. taken  nitrification  f o u r hours p e r day t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e  i n Waterloo  4.9.2  approach  data,  An o n s i t e l a b o r a t o r y i s p r e s e n t  are  laboratories  Figure  above  i s operated  The p l a n t  Wellesley  in  the  This i s not surprising,  The  devotes  by  flowsheet/layout f o r the plant i s represented  Because  of t h e nature  f o r the design  of the plant layout, the  was d i f f e r e n t  than  f o r the other  plants.  Since VFA's w o u l d as  a  be produced  fermentation  shut  o f f and  front-half zone  the plant  would  settle  a  of this  zone  n o t be mixed  out.  A  n o t have  by u s i n g  zone. mixer  does  the f i r s t  The a i r s u p p l y installed  to  i n suspension. and hence,  submersible  a  third  keep  the  clarifier,  of the reactor  to this  zone solids  The second  solids  pump w o u l d  primary  would  be i n s t a l l e d  half  would  be  i n the of this  be a l l o w e d  to  near  t h e end  o f t h i s u n m i x e d s e c t i o n t o pump s o l i d s b a c k t o t h e m i x e d  section.  SLUDGE TO LAND APPLN  TREATED EFFLUENT  INFLUENT ALUM  LIME  p  PI P2  TANK DIAMETER - 13.7 m  AIR L I F T PUMP MIXED LIQUOR RECYCLE FERMENTATION RECYCLE  to 00  Zl Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 Z9  MIXING ZONE CLARIFIER SLUDGE HOLDING CHLORINE CONTACT FERMENTATION ANAEROBIC ANOXIC ANOXIC AEROBIC  FIGURE  O -  MIXER  DENOTES BIO-P MODIFICATION  APPROXIMATE SCALE - 1:100  4.42  -  WRT.T.RSLEY R E T R O F I T F L O W S H E E T / L A Y O U T  - 269 -  T h i s would a s s i s t and  would ensure  The land  i n maintaining a fermenting b a c t e r i a population a c o n s i s t e n t VFA s u p p l y .  plant  application  SRT w o u l d b e m a i n t a i n e d  o f the sludge  a t 40 d a y s s u c h  c o u l d be c o n t i n u e d .  n i t r i f i c a t i o n would c o n t i n u e t o occur year-round tion  o f t h e RAS w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d .  Therefore,  As a  that  result,  and d e n i t r i f i c a i t i s proposed  to  o p e r a t e t h e b i o r e a c t o r u s i n g an a n a e r o b i c / a n o x i c / a e r o b i c s e q u e n c e similar RAS  t o t h e UBC p i l o t  t o the anoxic  submersible  pump  zone  would  plant. using  installing  zone,  also  a feedback  and a n o x i c  be measured  installed  pump.  A  t h e end o f t h e a n o x i c  A  mixed l i q u o r  t o these  loop with  line  from  DO  that  control  controller  frequency  t h e output  created  by and  would  be p r o v i d e d by  located  i n the aerobic  and a f l o w  the a i r supply zone  be  s e c t i o n s o f t h e tank  a DO p r o b e  i n the anaerobic  variable  such  c o n d i t i o n s would  Automatic  loop process  on a v e n t  recorder.  and  a mixer.  a single  located  airlift  mixed l i q u o r back t o t h e head o f t h e  o f f t h e a i r supply  creating  near  require routing the  zone.  Anaerobic shutting  the existing  be i n s t a l l e d  z o n e t o t h e pump d e n i t r i f i e d anaerobic  T h i s would  control  header.  and r e c o r d e d  controller  o f t h e fermented  r e c y c l e pumps c o u l d be v a r i e d .  valve  ORP  would  on . a c h a r t  would solids  also  be  recycle  - 270  -  CASE 1.  Alum Consumption  (kg/d)  7.3  2.  Lime C o n s u m p t i o n  (kg/d)  3.9  3.  Sludge Production  4.  Oxygen Demand  5.  Incremental  Power  Consumption  (kw)  Incremental  Operations  6.  TABLE 4.27  1.  3 (m /d)  30  0.54  1.2  (kg/d)  +1.0  Staff  - WELLESLEY OPERATIONS COMPARISON  B a s e d on an i n f l u e n t  3 f l o w o f 500 m / d .  1,  - 271 -  A removal  comparison  facility  presented reduced  of the operating  versus  i n Table  those  4.27.  As  parameters  f o r the shown,  existing  Bio-P  lime  operations require  and  staffing  minimal  power  would  amounts  consumption.  be  of  required  No  as  maintenance.  the  results  is in  Additional  laboratory  T h i s w o u l d be done i n t h e M i n i s t r y and  hence,  to occasional fermentation  costs  would  t h a t a s m a l l q u a n t i t y o f alum  be  in  facilities  measurements. laboratories  increases new  be r e s t r i c t e d  minimal.  VFA  o f Environment I t should  be  be r e q u i r e d t o  s o l u b l e phosphorus c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n o r d e r  t o achieve the  standard.  4.9.3  A Bio-P  total  removal  incremental  is  of the incremental i s presented capital  $52,000.  presented  approximately removal.  Cost A n a l y s i s  summary  approximately costs  (15 mg/L)  zone  will  e f f l u e n t TP  with  facility  removal  a n a l y s i s would  reduce  Bio-P  alum c o n s u m p t i o n and s l u d g e p r o d u c t i o n , b u t w o u l d r e q u i r e  additional  noted  for a  $2,100  cost  capital  i n Table for  a  A  summary  of the  in  Table  4.29.  would  be r e a l i z e d  costs associated  4.28. Bio-P  As  shown,  retrofit  incremental Annual  through  the is  operating  savings  the use o f  of Bio-P  MODIFICATION 1. UFA SUPPLV 2. BIOREACTOR  ITEM  SPECIFICATION  1. 2. 1. 2. 9. 4.  RECVCLE PUMPS RECVCLE INSTN COMPARTNENTALIZATION ORP PROBES ORP RECORDERS MIXERS  5. 6. 7. 8.  DO PROBES FLOU CONTROL VALUE PROCESS CONTROLLER ML RECVCLE PUMP  5.8 L / s , 7 M TDH, 0.56 k U VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLLER PRESSURE TREATED MOOD 0.50 k U O. 17 k U 100 H H DIAM 1 LOOP 5.8 L / s , 7 M TDH, 0.56 k U  QUANTITV 1 1 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  MATERIAL COST <*>  INSTALLATION MANHOURS  2500 2000 H2  71  lOOO 350 1458 1275 3500 1800 2000 2500  3.8 2.1 2.1 1.34 1.34 2.1  14 71  SUB-TOTAL ENOINEERINO TOTAL  TABLE 4 . 3 « - WKT.T.KSLEY CAPITAL  BULK FACTOR  COST SUMMARY  3.8  TOTAL INSTALLED COST <*> 8680 4241 2000 2142 750 1883 1743 7497 2270 4241 9690  46256 5551 51807  M M  - 273  -  INCREMENTAL ITEM  ANNUAL COST  1.  Alum  ($2,000)  2.  Lime  3.  Sludge Disposal  4.  Power  160  5.  Maintenance M a t e r i a l s  200  130  TOTAL  TABLE  (620)  ($2,130  4.29  - WELLESLEY OPERATING COST SUMMARY  - 274  B a s e d on t h e s e the  capital  return years.  on  the  investment investment  -  estimates, is  25  the  years.  for project  simple  payback p e r i o d f o r  Therefore, lives  of  5,  there 10,  15  is  no  and  20  - 275  5.0  DISCUSSION  Within will  be  plants  this  in  A  which  the  general the  Bio-P  the  impacts  removal  chemical  cost  results review  the  of  Bio-P  Parameters  availability,  sewage  standards  plant  retrofit).  these  parameters,  of Bio-P  needs a r e  5.1  and  project  Following an  removal  identified  General  type  the  overall  the  for  as  feasibility  of  considered  ( i . e . new  evaluation  include  assessment  on  and  of  simple  payback  periods  investment plants,  the  incremental and  IRR's  removal  removal  the  Calgary,  when p r o j e c t  return  versus  impacts  the p o t e n t i a l  for  of the  future research  discussed.  Bio-P  for  the  Finally,  capital  would  facilities  be  lives  of  realized  only  operating  i n Table  offers  Edmonton, less from  at the remaining  and  associated with  f o r a l l nine plants studied, i s presented table,  nutrient  Review o f R e s u l t s  summary  this  plant  facility  of  the  review  characteristics,  i n Canada i s made.  A  No  general  4.0  initially  p l a n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n , sludge processing techniques,  removal  in  is  removal  Then, u s i n g t h i s  evaluated.  i n Section  results  o f v a r i o u s p a r a m e t e r s on  are and  developed  of  feasibility  studied i s discussed.  a basis,  size,  section,  analyzed.  presented  use  -  than the  years  As  the  and are  installation  five plants.  removal  5.1.  r e t u r n on Regina  20  Bio-P  costs,  shown  capital Saskatoon  considered. of  Bio-P  INCREMENTAL COST ($ x PLANT  1Q ) 3  CAPITAL  OPERATING  PAYBACK PERIOD (years)  5 Yrs.  IRR 10 Y r s .  (%) 15 Y r s .  20 Y r s .  1.  Calgary  5,368  •1,490  3.6  13 .9  25.6  27.3  27.6  2 .  Edmonton  4,261  2,002  2.1  41.0  46.5  46.9  47.0  3.  Regina  2,132  294  7.3  -  6.6  11.4  13.0  4.  Saskatoon  2,258  270  8.4  -  3.7  8.7  10.5  5.  Windsor Existing New Combined  2,074 970 3,044  48 .43 91  43 23 33  -  -  -  6.  Grimsby  1,060  -24  -  -  -  -  -  7.  Milton  1,260  42  30  -  -  -  -  8.  Elmira  381  7.3  52  -  9.  Wellesley  52  2.1  25  -  -  TABLE 5.1  -  BIO-P ECONOMIC SUMMARY FOR PLANTS STUDIED  -  -  -  -  The four  rates  plants  especially plants. on  alum  of  in  true  In  return  which  Calgary,  i n 1986  and  are,  a  f o r the  277  -  however,  return  Calgary  where  very  would  be  attractive achieved.  B o n n y b r o o k and  approximately  approximately  $2.0  for  the  This  is  Edmonton G o l d  $1.3  million  million  per  was  Bar  spent  y e a r would  be  s p e n t when o p e r a t i n g a t p l a n t d e s i g n c a p a c i t y , t h e r e i s i n c e n t i v e to  seriously  would  be  plant.  to  consider c a r r y out  a a  Bio-P  retrofit.  number o f  These c o u l d i n v o l v e the  i)  Monitoring primary  ii)  of  VFA  effluent  Testing  the  A  full-scale  Isolating  thickener  ability  one  associated the  of  Similarly, significant  and  step  at  the  one  the  influent,  existing  sludge  aeration  clarifier)  operating  the  supernatant.  of  old  in  fermenter.  tanks  from  the  i t i n an  gravity  (and  it's  remainder  of  anoxic/anaerobic/  sequence.  at  the  economic  phosphorus  removal  develop  Bio-P  a  the  secondary  process,  aerobic  of  experiments  concentrations  and  first  following:  t h i c k e n e r s t o f u n c t i o n as a p r i m a r y  iii)  logical  Edmonton  incentive  requirements  bacteria  Gold to  be  Bar  use  plant,  Bio-P  implemented.  population  in  the  there  removal The  is  should  ability  reactors  has  a  to  been  - 278 -  demonstrated (Shivji,  through  1987) .  the f u l l - s c a l e  It  i s felt  fermentation should a l l e v i a t e removal to  test  that  the use  anaerobic  t h e amount  digestion,  of  at the plant  primary  some o f t h e i n c o n s i s t e n t  experienced during the test.  quantify  performed  Work w o u l d  o f phosphorus  should  be  phosphorus  h a v e t o be done  release  digestion  sludge  occurring  proposed  under  for  WAS  stabilization.  The Regina will  and Saskatoon  be  phased for  use o f Bio-P  expanded  approach  these  initially  be  plants.  at  Windsor,  modifications  would  complexity  of  that  the next  The  three required  River plant a  capital Although  retrofit cost  low  Grimsby  these be  Ontario  of  Elmira  plants.  f o r the Milton to  the  modifications  plants A  be a d v i s a b l e  would  be  used  respect  to  sizes, etc.  does  n o t appear t o  phosphorus make  In  to retrofit  and t h e Grimsby  relative  minimal  cost  and  both  optimized with  plants  f o r the  few y e a r s .  removal  a n a e r o b i c and a n o x i c zone  viable.  for  Little  attractive  given  phosphorus  of the five  unattractive  costs.  over  w h i l e t h e B i o - P p r o c e s s was  chemicals  very  especially  upgraded  Chemical  retrofit  excessive  i s also  f o r implementing Bio-P removal would  economically  Windsor  plants,  and/or  fermenter operation,  The  removal  Bio-P  removal  addition, both  plant.  the  major existing  Similarly, the  plant  results  savings would  removal  be  in  i n an  operating  required  at  - 279  the  Wellesley  plant,  the  plant  e c o n o m i e s o f s c a l e make c a p i t a l  5.2  Chemical  The on  the  this  cost  C o s t and  impact,  viability  chemical  calculated  f o r each  years.  4  reasonable  rate  iron  a r e summarized  Table  5.2  reductions  in  to  viable  return  over  f o r the  of  Table  Ontario  availability  by-products  also  Bio-P removal.  has  5.2  alum,  also  plants  Three  size  that  justify.  a major  impact  order to  assess  percent  of  since  5,  IRR,  10,  this  15  and  20  represents  inflation.  salts)  were  a  Costs  for  were c a l c u l a t e d  and  respectively.  i n the Bio-P  event removal  Edmonton, shows  f o r Bio-P (Milton  of  Regina  that  alum  to  become  and  significant  would and  likely  Saskatoon  prices  would  economically  Wellesley)  currently  removal.  of a  even  4  lives  above  5.3  Calgary,  u s i n g alum f o r phosphorus  The  and  and  that,  price  small  In  in a  selected  increase significantly f o r the  removal.  (as opposed t o i r o n  the  However,  Bio-P  was  indicates  a  c h e m i c a l s has  for project  IRR  such  investments very hard t o  costs resulting  i n T a b l e s 5.2  economic  plants. have  of  of  Availability  of  plant  percent  b o t h a l u m and  remain  is  o f phosphorus removal  economic  A  -  aluminum  significant  and  iron  impact  on  o f t h e p l a n t s s t u d i e d use  based the  industrial  economics  industrial  by-  of  - 280 -  ALUM COST FOR 4% IRR ($/dry  tonne)  ACTUAL PLANT  ALUM  COST  5 Yrs.  10 Y r s .  15 Y r s .  20 Y r s  ($/tonne) 1.  Calgary  215  182*  124*  105*  96*  2.  Edmonton  215  126*  91*  79*  74*  3.  Regina  215  282  202*  171*  160*  4.  Saskatoon  215  313  217  185*  170*  5.  Windsor  186  Existing  723  394  286  233  -  New  432  227  160*  127*  -  Combined  598  322  232  187  6.  Grimsby  186  617  376  297  258  7.  Milton  186  790  470  365  313  8.  Elmira  241  712  394  290  238*  9.  Wellesley  241  1,367  744  540  439  TABLE 5.2 - SUMMARY OF ALUM COSTS REQUIRED FOR A 4 PERCENT IRR  *  denotes the  c a s e s where t h e r e q u i r e d  actual  chemical  cost  chemical cost  i s less  than  - 281 -  IRON COST FOR 4% IRR ($/tonne) PLANT  5 Yrs.  10 Y r s .  15 Y r s .  20 Y r s ,  1.  Calgary  1,867  1,276  1, 081  987  2.  Edmonton  1,281  922  804  746  3.  Regina  2,861  2,017  1,729  1,592  4.  Saskatoon  3,198  2,218  1,896  1,738  5.  Windsor Existing  7,420  4,043  2,932  2,388  New  4,414  2, 319  1, 630  1,293  Combined  6,128  3,302  2,373  1,917  6.  Grimsby  6, 432  3,922  3 , 097  2 , 692  7.  Milton  8,133  4,839  3 ,755  3,224  8.  Elmira  7,308  4, 045  2,972  2,446  9.  Wellesley  13,835  7,536  5,463  4,448  TABLE 5.3 - SUMMARY OF IRON COSTS REQUIRED FOR A 4 PERCENT IRR  Note: Current p r i c e  of Ferrous  Current p r i c e  of Ferric  Chloride i n Ontario Chloride i n Ontario  i s $495/tonne Fe i s $ 1 0 4 5 / t o n n e Fe  - 282  products spent  f o r phosphorus removal.  catalyst  while  pickle  liquor  these  products  chemicals.  both  is  approximately the at  per  i s $300  tonne  and  (BASF,  operating  plants  using these  very  Environment industrial  The  economics  Table new  5.2  plant  the Elmira p l a n t in  place  of  alum p r i c e s and  the  at  project  existing  lives life  could  of  be  iron  in used the  $4400  of  these  restricted,  realized this  by  will  Ministry  pollutants  is  whereas  supply be  Ontario  of  industrial  the  happen of  the  contained  in  by-products  on  i n Tables  5.2  w o u l d become e c o n o m i c of  15  o f 20  chemicals.  the e x i s t i n g Windsor p l a n t ,  alum  i s approximately  use  the  tonne  chloride  respectively,  i s shown  necessary  at  1988).  removal  at a project  w o u l d be  the  used  $770 p e r  ferric  the  of  manufactured  cost  Whether o r n o t  availability  Bio-P  the  their  investigate  removal  the  based  cost  commercial  should  increases  (Archer,  Bio-P  shows t h a t  Windsor  should  although  to  in  chloride  Therefore,  cost  of the  of  ferric  or  by-products  impact  tonne  by-products.  plans  to  based,  iron The  catalyst  Similarly,  $680 p e r  speculative,  an  industry.  aluminum  a t G r i m s b y and  1988).  significant  use  relative  aluminum  tonne.  i n commerical  diminish  the  of  f e r r o u s c h l o r i d e used Elmira  spent  Elmira  steel  low  an aluminum  per tonne or approximately  cost  by-products  is  the  and  the  extremely  The $2200  cost of iron per  from  F o r example,  aluminum.  Windsor uses  Grimsby  originating  W i n d s o r p l a n t c o s t s $23 of  -  and  years,  years,  5.3.  f o r the and  i f a l u m was  Significant  t o make B i o - P however.  20  and  for used  increases  economic a t  in  Grimsby  - 283  Table  5.3  i n Ontario, plant. not  Bio-P  While  availability  5.3  can  ratio  in  limit  on  For  zone.  cost  the  current  economic o n l y  hypothetical  i t suggests  unlikely  in  of p i c k l e  be  in As  sets  removed  nitrogen the the  mentioned  sewage  and  plants  since  that  price  of  f o r the low  the  Ontario,  Edmonton  cost  iron  is  use  of  economic  given  iron  the  current  liquor.  removal  considered order  to  Canadian removal. qremoval  that  in  prevent no  This  the  should not  s t a n d a r d s were  on  be  to  phosphorus  the  amount  wastewater removal,  is  also  and  the  were  designed  n i t r a t e s from related  to  to  not  affect  the  case  implemented.  in  a  the  carbon  Bio-P  the  RAS  anaerobic  availability i t  nitrogen viability  however,  Canada,  the  denitrify  Therefore,  carbon  nitrogen  i t sets  hence,  entering  the  the  since  general and  to  to  For  process.  in  a requirement  in  phosphorus  carbon  of the  indeed  of  ratio  biologically.  important  experienced.  general,  would  limit  problems  were  wastewaters  carbon  capability  i s not  herein  result,  the  phosphorus  studied,  denitrification  concluded  from  denitrification  the  a  a  i n f l u e n t sewage  nitrogen  processes only,  is  previously  combined  total  Alberta,  and  influent  which  i s purely  to  Sewage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  As the  in  removal  relative  r e m o v a l w o u l d be  this  available  Bio-P  for  shows t h a t  -  i f total  can  be  ratios  in  of  Bio-P  nitrogen  - 284  Since w o u l d be  i t was  required  phosphorus removal  is  that  supplemental  i t  likely  be  can  also  limited  municipalities.  While  be  by  postulated  available  for  the  this  ratios  for  ratios  recommended by  the  method  plants  conclusion,  studied  (see  E v a n s and  a  of  Table  Crawford  equivalent, favourable sewage.  that the  for This  associated  wastewater  are  generally  a  high due  a  Bio-P  flow  capacities  but  different  retrofits costs BOD  5  through  a  Calgary  plant  capital  similar  will will  and  costs are  that  the  be  plants  generally  mass  of  having  sewage s t r e n g t h s , roughly greater  f o r the  a  of  the  higher  Calgary flow  significantly  rate  higher.  and  B0D :P 5  minimum  are will  2.3),  a  roughly be  low  more  strength  capital  costs  proportional  phosphorus  the  having  This  Edmonton hence,  is  to  costs  removed.  design  capital  but  plant  and  the  i n operating  the  equivalent  biomass)  Table  equivalent  phosphorus c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .  comparison has  be  removal  fact  the  employed  the  ratios  savings  most  limited.  for  r a t e , whereas t h e to  carbon  than  are  of  Bio-P  for  i n the  (see  sewage  retrofit  that  with  (1985)  Bio-P  the  proportional  f o r two  influent  for  to  5.4)  phosphorus  strength  is  Therefore,  operating  to  economics  with  the  carbon  effluent  analysis  comparison  i n d i c a t e s t h a t C a n a d i a n sewage i s l i k e l y  Assuming  addition  carbon  a s s u m i n g a maximum p h o s p h o r u s c o n c e n t r a t i o n  responsible  Bio-P  chemical  i n a l l p l a n t s t o c o n s i s t e n t l y meet t h e  standards,  will  Canadian (i.e.  determined  -  flow  costs savings the  for in  higher  illustrated  plants. the  The  retrofit  - 285 -  AVERAGE INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS PLANT  BOD o c  TP  TKN  BOD„:TP  fma/L) B0D :TKN r  1.  Calgary  161  4.5  22.7*  36  7.1  2.  Edmonton  214  7.3  34  29  6.3  3.  Regina  238  7.7  31.3  31  7.6  4.  Saskatoon  213  7.1  27.3  30  7.8  5.  Windsor  110  5.2  23  21  4.8  6.  Grimsby  123  5.1  22.4  24  5.5  7.  Milton  210  8.8  34  24  6.2  8.  Elmira  189  7.5  48  25  3.9  9.  Wellesley  150  5.5  28.4  27  5.3  TABLE 5.4 - SUMMARY OF INFLUENT SEWAGE CHARACTERISTICS  *  B a s e d on a n NH^ c o n c e n t r a t i o n ratio  equal  t o 0.7  o f 15.9 mg/L a n d a n NH^:TKN  -  However,  since  concentration reduced be  Bio-P  The some  Calgary.  operating  savings the  a  mg/L)  influent  operating  are greater  cost  savings  than  the  phosphorus  cost  savings  those  which  economics,  they  are  A s shown  which  would  given  that  equivalent. soluble  phosphorus  o f approximately  Removals  of  to  plants.  h a v e t o be a d d e d  25  realized  the influent  However,  removals  20  be  10  plant  warrant to  5.1,  fraction  Therefore,  are  operating  a t Edmonton t h a n  relative  Regina  and  characteristics  evidenced  i n the primary  alum  the  sewage a p p e a r s t o  a*s  realized  higher  the  sewage  t h e Edmonton  percent  percent  at  would  at Calgary.  related  i n Table  from  associated  f o r Edmonton a p p e a r d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y h i g h  high  Saskatoon  f o r t h e Edmonton  since  o f t h e sewage.  plants  roughly  have  higher  Therefore,  discussion  savings  Saskatoon are  a  r e m o v a l a t Edmonton, a r e s u p e r i o r t o t h o s e  characteristics  to  4.5  consumption  at  further  cost  has  (7.3 v e r s u s  chemical  realized  with  Edmonton  286 -  i n the  by  TP  clarifier. Regina  concentrations  and  would  w o u l d be r e q u i r e d a t R e g i n a o r  Saskatoon.  The  VFA  significant presence VFA's primary  concentration impact  on  of  the  the  influent  viability  of  sewage  Bio-P  also  removal.  o f c o n s i s t e n t concentrations o f approximately  ( a s HAc) sludge  i n the  influent  fermentation.  could  While  eliminate  there  is  has  no  15 mg/L  the  need  evidence  a  The of for to  -  suggest first  that  step  these  287 -  concentrations  i n evaluating  may  be p r e s e n t ,  the f e a s i b i l i t y  a  of Bio-P  recommended  removal  for a  s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t , w o u l d be t o m o n i t o r VFA's i n t h e raw sewage.  5.4  Plant  As  shown  generally  S i z e and  i n Table  becomes  since for  cost  the unit  t h e range  However, with  and  5.3,  viable  price  should  size  of chemicals  o f consumptions cost  plant  (1986)  suggest  activated 3 m /d.  size  However,  Bio-P  that  sludge  phosphorus  plant  which  due  Table  size  study  will  not  having  i s economic. economic  design  flows  shows  that  should  o f t h e new  removal  increases.  configurations, with  plant  size  significantly  (Haatinen, increase effect  o f manufactured  become  the r e t r o f i t 3  perspective.  linearly  in this  removal  5.2  Bio-P  1988). linearly  associated  equipment.  t o a s s e s s whether t h e r e  a n d t h e 4,550 m / d E l m i r a  economic  plant  t o the scaling  retrofits  plants  removal,  of  does n o t change  expenditures  i s however, d i f f i c u l t  above  as  increase  w i t h t h e p u r c h a s e and i n s t a l l a t i o n  It  t h e use  sewage c o m p o s i t i o n s and p l a n t  savings  capital  increased  5.2  increasingly  Assuming e q u i v a l e n t operating  Configuration  is a  Canviro for  greater  plant  et a l .  conventional than  13,600  alum  be u s e d f o r 3 27,211 m / d W i n d s o r  p l a n t w o u l d be f a v o u r a b l e  f r o m an  - 288  However, t h e r e t r o f i t the  would  not  concluded equally Bio-P for  3 m /d  18,141  of the existing  . Grimsby  be  the  important  retrofit.  Plug  and  factor  Flow  which  more  Windsor  This of  plant  retrofitting  cost  reactors  plant  is  the  an  of  a  economics  due  In a d d i t i o n ,  reactors process  required  Grimsby  less  and  the  reactors  versus  i s approximately  retrofit  w o u l d be o n l y  the  Edmonton  $812,000.  For  the  than  plants. cost  the cost  mixed  Bar  of the  Calgary  million,  Gold  new  those  i n the  of the t o t a l $1.2  the  Similarly,  completely  ( o n l y one h a l f  are  Milton  to the d i f f e r e n c e  flow  generally  to retrofit are  the  reactors.  c o m p l e t e l y mixed r e a c t o r s .  volume)  are than  mixed  removal  smaller  retrofit  to  added.  flow  Bio-P  costs  plug  Bonnybrook r e a c t o r s reactor  t o be  f o r Bio-P  f o r the  to  therefore,  attractiveness impact  f o r completely  i s essentially  cost  plant  r e a c t o r s m i n i m i z e s t h e amount  a  the c a p i t a l  retrofitting  the  flow  to  systems  required  is,  existing  favourably  f o r plug  applicable  example,  Milton  Reactors  systems  aeration  the  potential  compartmentalization  aeration  of  It  plant,  follows:  The p r e s e n c e o f p l u g of  3 12,911 m / d  attractive.  i n the  Factors  36,281 m / d W i n d s o r  the  configuration  Bio-P removal a r e as  i)  plant  economically  that  -  Calgary whereas  plug  flow  -  ii)  use  sludge While  of  Thickening  existing  fermentation  HRT  thickeners  for  will  gravity  can  conventionally  sufficient  definitely  A u t o m a t e d DO  Control  The  of  plant,  associated  the  was  Wellesley  attributable  cost  of  associated  with  $381,000) was  ability  different ideal  in  supply  header  isolated supply  "zones"  of  new  capital  associated  out  of  of  DO  of the  retrofit  cost  example,  cost  percent  a  $52,000) control capital  ($70,000  out  control.  Flexibility  to c o n t r o l the  oxygen  supply  Elmira  existing  For  installation  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o DO  Oxygen S u p p l y S y s t e m The  the  offer  especially in  capital  S i m i l a r l y , eighteen  not  of  the  ($14,000  primary savings.  size  retrofit.  the  the  may  the  reduces  retrofit to  cost  use  control,  Bio-P  percent  facilities.  of  a  the  reduce  DO  significantly  twenty-seven with  automated  with  for  thickeners  fermentation,  facilities.  presence  thickeners  result in capital  designed  fermentation  small  iv)  -  Primary Sludge G r a v i t y The  iii)  289  the  oxygen s u p p l y bioreactor  system  with  numerous  groups of d i f f u s e r s .  o f a i r from each  would  t o a number  i s desirable. consist  take-offs  of  an  An air  supplying  V a l v e s would c o n t r o l  take-off.  of  the  - 290 -  5.5  Sludge  The  common  primary land the  Processing  practice  and waste  application digestor  activated  supernatant  combined being  5.5.  lime  returned  sludge  phosphorus  of  production  removal  The eliminate  use o f r e c y c l e the  therefore  need  make  perspective.  Bio-P  This  disposal  was  high  more  streams  a s shown  comparable  An a l t e r n a t e  f o r a Bio-P p l a n t .  result i n chemical  plants.  purposes  facilities from  would  and  an  would  economic  a t the Calgary  method o f s t o r a g e  w o u l d be r e q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r months  t o be implemented  costs  t o be t h e c a s e f o r  for irrigation  practiced  to  i n Table  a  attractive  land  prior  actually  treatment  to  digestion  may  and Saskatoon  with  and o p e r a t i n g  found  i s currently  d u r i n g t h e summer months.  the recycle  This  f o r lime  prior  use o f anaerobic  o f lime  streams  combined  stabilization  to  t h e C a l g a r y , Edmonton, R e g i n a  perspective i f  digestion  relative  process.  and  As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, t h e  are very  the addition  combined  supernatant/filtrate  The c a p i t a l  operation  of  by d e w a t e r i n g  a Bio-P  dewatering  f o r sludge  treatment  this  Furthermore,  increased  from  anaerobic  to the plant.  with  digestion  followed  necessitates continued  with  associated  and/or  under  requirements  application,  sludges,  to the plant.  o f phosphorus  provincial  anaerobic  i s not favourable  streams a r e returned release  of  plant and/or  i fthis  were  - 291  Bio-P  removal  processing. removal and/or  As  shown  results aerobic  i s more  in  release  operations  or  facility, result will to  land  the  in a  not the  use  not  not  and  production  used.  phosphorus  is  not  of  sludge  plants, when  Therefore, the  use  methods  Elmira  .i n  Bio-P  anaerobic as  sludge  long  as  processing  returned  of Bio-P removal w i l l  be  to  the  advantageous  perspective.  of  of composting sludge  Composting  methane  other  occur  sludge  should  gas  be  be  desired  will, for  for  considered.  suitable for land  i n phosphorus r i c h  plant. of  sludge  application  stabilized  result  recovery  the  to  Windsor  are  released  processing  Should  the  does  mainstream process,  amenable  reduced  digestion  phosphorus  from a sludge  for  -  heating  will  application  not  and/or  new  This  r e c y c l e streams being however,  a  returned  allow power  and  for  the  generation  purposes.  5.6  N u t r i e n t Removal  From  a  nitrogen adversely process.  Bio-P  perspective,  removal  is  affect  the  For  both  phosphorus/nitrogen ensure that n i t r a t e s total  nitrogen  Standards  a  the  requirement  complicating  phosphorus  biological removal, are not  f o r NH  requirement  removal  returned  r e m o v a l , t h i s may  be  care  to the  and  must  be  anaerobic  impossible  total  that  performance  phosphorus/ammonia particular  or  3  could of  the  biological taken zone.  i f adequate  to For  carbon  - 292 -  ($  PLANT 1.  Calgary  2.  Edmonton  3.  CAPITAL COST  X  10 ) 3  ANNUAL COST OF LIME  706  173  1,118  361  Regina  649  136  4.  Saskatoon  841  150  5.  Grimsby  265  12  6.  Milton  199  5  TABLE 5.5 - C A P I T A L AND CHEMICAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LIME TREATMENT OF DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT  - 293 -  to  nitrogen  comparison Table  of the  5.4)  Crawford  with  (1985)  nitrogen total  ratios  ratios  nitrogen  SRT  Bio-P  BOD^:TKN the  removal  avoided.  ratios  wastewater. studied  recommended  indicates  sewage  plants  days) .  by  that  with  A (see  Evans  the  are marginal  and  generally  This in  hence,  operate  creates that  at  another  long  reduce  i f n i t r o g e n removal  Ideally, plant  the  would  optimal  be  to  b i o r e a c t o r DO c o n c e n t r a t i o n  5.7  The  New  and  carbon  to  respect  to  SRT  the  a  relatively  problem plants  from  a  minimize  phosphorus  optimized  than with  fermenter;  the  accommodate  of  Bio-P  f o r plant respect  unit  bioreactors  operations  method  minimize  of  removal  i t should  operating  both  the  to inhibit  a  SRT  be  Bio-P  and  the  nitrification.  Facilities  removal  retrofits.  to  the anaerobic,  i s not required,  i n order  Versus R e t r o f i t  economics  facilities  sludges.  the  of the process.  Therefore,  handling  in  f o r the plants  2.3)  perspective,  production  removal  minimum  (see Table  (10 t o 40  potential  contained  ratios  i n Canadian  removal  sludge  not  removal.  Nitrogen long  are  the  be  The  plant  location  layouts anoxic  c a n be  should  can  of be  and a e r o b i c selected  the  better  for  layout  can  primary  optimized zones;  to best  new be  sludge to  and  handle  best sludge Bio-P  - 294  Three Windsor) the  essentially  were  considered  f e r m e n t e r ( s ) was  sludge  handling  some l e e w a y fermenter Bio-P  chemical  As  very  required  were with  study.  and  the  plant,  In  ii)  location  facilities,  selected  and  in  addition,  the  i n the  and with  are q u i t e favourable.  The  not  competitive  economics  event  industrial  for  chemical phosphorus  The  sewage i s s t r o n g and  The  and  place,  with  that  of  the  Bio-P  use  of  a the  removal  of  alum  was  catalyst.  i t c a n be  VFA's  as  HAc  following  by-products  concluded  that  proposed  plant  Bio-P  c o n d i t i o n s are  are  not  met:  available  removal.  contains g r e a t e r than  ( f o r the  removal  of  4  to  5  15 mg/L  phosphorus).  iii)  of  Assessment  Inexpensive  of  and  associated  while  i s most a t t r a c t i v e when t h e  i)  existing  economics  Saskatoon  B a s e d on t h e a b o v e d i s c u s s i o n removal  the  p r o c e s s , were t h e most f a v o u r a b l e f o r any  attractive  Overall  Saskatoon  respect to bioreactor layout  i n p l a c e o f t h e s p e n t aluminum  5.8  While  already  result,  Windsor  plants.  be  a  f o r Regina the  (Regina,  somewhat l i m i t e d by  techniques  design.  for  facilities  in this  available  removal  Ontario would  was  removal  economics  new  -  i s l a r g e and  i s a new  facility.  mg/L of  - 295  iv)  In  the  case  contains  of  a  plug  automated  DO  -  plant  flow  retrofit,  reactors,  control  and  a  the  existing  gravity  flexible  plant  thickeners,  oxygen  supply  do  not  involve  streams  back  system.  v)  The  sludge  recycling  processing  facilities  supernatant/filtrate  to  the  is  not  plant.  vi)  Combined  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  removal  required.  Without speculate amenable  on  reviewing the  each i n d i v i d u a l p l a n t ,  exact  number  t o Bio-P removal.  of  Alberta  i)  and S a s k a t c h e w a n .  Industrial  are  However, i t c a n be c o n c l u d e d t h a t  the  Alberta removal.  and  ii)  The  would  are  not for  likely  to plants  follows:  readily  available  chemical have  to  located i n  in  phosphorus be  used  at  expense.  terrain  is  relatively  retention  times  Therefore,  t h e sewage may  it  Canada  f o r t h i s a r e as  Saskatchewan  Alum  considerable  applicable  Reasons  by-products  in  to  which  t e c h n o l o g y a p p e a r s t o be t h e most  plants  i t is difficult  can  be  flat  expected be  and in  hence, the  sewers.  i n a fermented s t a t e  reaches the treatment plant.  long  when  -  iii)  The c l i m a t e into  296 -  i s relatively  sanitary  strengths  sewers  should  characteristics  Phosphorus strictly  from  Similarly, upgrading removal)  minimal  relatively  Edmonton,  in  Regina  Alberta  i n the  the  be  will  future  requirement  and  sewage  high.  Sewage  and  Saskatoon  that  likely  years for  i n R e g i n a and S a s k a t o o n indicates  infiltration  hypothesis.  removal  enforced  Therefore,  should  be  seem t o s u p p o r t t h i s  iv)  dry.  be  more  (Spink,  1988).  treatment  plant  ( i n c l u d i n g phosphorus  phosphorus  removal  may  become  more common i n S a s k a t c h e w a n .  v)  The m a j o r i t y are  currently  grow,  plant  Alberta the  plant  f o r smaller  and  lagoons.  As  sludge  facilities, be  is  these  processes of Bio-P  towns may  be  removal  the attractiveness  maximized required  Saskatchewan  i f general in  of  treatment  conjunction  with  removal.  would  and Saskatchewan.  Elmira  viable  will  upgrading  removal  by  to activated  i n new  removal  phosphorus  Bio-P  i n Alberta  S i n c e t h e economic b e n e f i t s  maximized  Bio-P  serviced  upgrading  required. are  o f t h e towns  n o t be  Analysis  indicate that plants  restricted  given  to  large  plants  f o r t h e new W i n d s o r p l a n t  Bio-P  removal  c a n be  the r i g h t process  in and  economically  configuration.  - 297  The  use  of  Bio-P  -  removal  in  Ontario  would  likely  be  3  restricted  to very  large plants  (greater than  are w e l l configured f o r a Bio-P  low  price  c u r r e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h phosphorus removal chemicals.  As  shown  i n Table  to  exceed  $724  economically  use  per  as  of  the  or the  the  Bio-P  of  in only a limited  removal  may  obtained  fifty  activated  c o u l d be that  a  these  have been d e s i g n e d of  the  in  proximity to  same  size  Therefore,  phosphorus  be and  unless  removal  is  dramatically increases,  i s economically  f o r the from  use  the  of  the  Quebec  indicates  extended  f o r Bio-P  the  justifiable  technology  Ministry that  of  there  r e c e n t l y designed  However, is  mills  t w e n t y - f i v e use  aeration  removal.  t o accommodate  Quebec steel  for  products  1987)  or  aeration basin.  chemicals  plant.  plants approximately  sludge  of  the  to  in the are  p l a n t s i n t h e p r o v i n c e w h i c h c u r r e n t l y remove  retrofitted number  Bar  removal  have  cases.  exist  approximately  Bio-P  having  i n Ontario  number o f  (Karazivan,  the  plant  i s due  c h l o r i d e c o s t s would for  by-products  Environment  Of  a  cost of these  Information  phosphorus.  iron  Edmonton G o l d  Some p o t e n t i a l Quebec.  ferric  of  for  industrial  restricted, use  tonne  attractive  configuration the  ferrous or  This  which  t o the  5.3,  process.  300,000 m /d)  an  hence,  (1987) i n d i c a t e s  plants  in  cost  relatively  and  Beland  anaerobic  the  for pickle  process  either  of  province  zone a t t h e phosphorus  inexpensive  liquor  the  supply.  due Uffen  front  removal to  the  (1988)  - 298 -  reports in  that  Quebec  current ferrous chloride  are approximately  respectively those  However,  these  chemical  suitably  prices.  Columbia  and  as  are  shown  and $1155  slightly  i n Table  p e r tonne  higher  5.2,  has been new  proven  plants  Westbank.  use  the p o t e n t i a l  i n the province i s , again,  likely  prices  only  than the  removal  f o r the use  limited  to large  configured plants.  requirements the  These  Therefore,  As p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d ,  result,  p e r tonne  chloride  and Edmonton p l a n t s w o u l d be c a n d i d a t e s f o r B i o - P  of the process and  Montreal).  i n Ontario.  Calgary at  (FOB  $1050  and f e r r i c  for  the  through  being  since  not l i k e l y technology  be  removal  in British  t h e Kelowna f a c i l i t y ,  are c u r r e n t l y  However,  will  the use o f Bio-P  constructed i n Penticton  additional promulgated  in  and as a  phosphorus  removal  i n the near  future,  British  Columbia  is  probably  standards  for  Manitoba,  limited.  Since  phosphorus  removal  Maritimes  and t h e Y u k o n a n d N o r t h w e s t T e r r i t o r i e s  come i n t o  existence i n the foreseeable future,  potential  f o r Bio-P  minimal.  removal  i n these  parts  the  are u n l i k e l y to  non-existent, the of  the  country  is  - 299  5.9  Future Research  Through t h i s of  aspects  could  of  assist  processes.  study  Bio-P  i n both Areas  -  Needs  i t was  determined  technology  which,  t h e d e s i g n and  of  research  t h a t t h e r e a r e a number i f  further  researched,  o p t i m i z a t i o n of Bio-P  requiring  further  study  removal are  as  follows.  i)  K i n e t i c s of Bio-P In  order  Bio-P  to  Removal  accurately predict  process  with  manageable k i n e t i c such  a  model  respect model  should  to  be  able  VFA  concentration,  nitrate  the  anaerobic  influent  and  mass o f a c t i v e  In  addition  kinetics  to  More and  phosphorus  removal  study.  phosphorus zone  returned  to  aeration  time  predictions,  the  production Qasim  traditional  and  kinetic  for  Bio-P  Udomsinrot  coefficients  f o r an a n o x i c / a n a e r o b i c / a e r o b i c  needs  assess  anaerobic nitrate  a  process.  S  work to  a  that  anaerobic  phosphorus,  require further  , k)  predict  concentration  sludge  k  Q  removal,  It is felt  carbon,  of  biomass.  (1987) h a v e c a l c u l a t e d (Y, k.,  phosphorus  to  associated with  processes  performance  i s required.  u p t a k e as a f u n c t i o n o f i n f l u e n t  zone,  the  to  the  zone  be  done  impacts  VFA  to  of  confirm  these  results,  v a r i o u s parameters  concentrations,  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , e t c . ) on t h e  anaerobic  coefficients.  (e.g. zone  -  ii)  Short  SRT B i o - P  300 -  Removal  Because t h e requirements and  total  nitrogen  throughout  Canada,  plants  operate  days).  In  minimize  short  relatively  appears  the  iii)  with  impact  concentrations low  to  i f  be i t  to  occurrence in  10 of  increased  and  some is  (5  sludge  operating  incentive not  to  required.  removal.  this of  work  i t would  varying  the  since n i t r i f i c a t i o n  be  useful  aerated  zone  c a n be i n h i b i t e d  to DO by  q u a n t i t i e s o f DO.  Anoxic/Anaerobic/Aerobic This  to  SRT  results  costs  widespread  activated  the  plant  removal  i t w o l d be u s e f u l t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e minimum  conjunction  assess  because  operating  SRT r e q u i r e d f o r B i o - P  In  not  a  nitrification  Therefore,  are of  Bio-P  there  ammonia  the majority  in a  costs,  complexity,  removal  addition,  nitrification capital  at  f o r year-round  study the  research process.  Processs  h a s shown t h a t  there  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic i s required  t o confirm  a r e economic process.  benefits  Additional  the v i a b i l i t y  of the  - 301  iv)  Primary In  Sludge  designing  assumed  generated the  Fermentation the  that  sufficient  fermenter  production system  and  of  Kinetics  fermenters  i f certain  development  -  sizing  ancillary  It is felt  compute  VSS  function  that  destruction  of  VSS  Primary  Sludge  VFA's were  was be  applied  to  facilities.  The  to  VFA  predict  designed  the economics f o r Bio-P  t h e model and  loading,  i t could  i n a more e f f i c i e n t l y  h y d r a u l i c r e t e n t i o n t i m e and  v)  model  and h e n c e , c o u l d i m p r o v e  removal.  study,  of  criteria  kinetic  could result  this  quantities  its  a  for  should  VFA  be  able  to  as  a  production  solids  retention  time,  temperature.  Fermentation Through  Gravity  Thickening As for  shown i n t h i s primary  study,  sludge  t h e use  fermentation i s required  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic design of however, resolution  Does  of a gravity thickener  process  a thickener f o r primary requires  optimization.  be  should  employed.  sludge  an The  fermentation,  Items  requiring  include:  the  surface  covered to ensure  of  the  thickener  need  anaerobic conditions?  to  be  -  What the Is  i s the  302  -  optimal  retention  a sludge c o l l e c t o r  Phosphorus Release Because  of  country, will  be  the  rake  i t  of  likely  that  is  required  digestor  addition  facility  regarding  this  the  during  the  on  al.  and  (1984)  adapt  will  It above  is  based  phosphorus  digestion  Murakami  six  assumptions designs areas  in  s t u d i e s on  aspects being this  of  et  made  study.  for  of  the  For  the  and  lime  assumptions  These  assumptions  t h e work o f  a l . (1987).  will  Deakyne  However,  et  more  i n o r d e r t o p r e d i c t t h e amount o f respect to digestion  the  lack of  Bio-P  and  on  the  sludge  r e l e a s e which  process.  Phostrip data  the  required.  were  of  of  treatment be  in  processes  method  designs  i s warranted  that  Bio-P  quantities  d i g e s t o r supernatant  felt  digestion  lime  phosphorus r e l e a s e with addition,  this  lime  likely  rate?  Digestion  retrofit to  recycle  study,  amount  were b a s e d  research  to  supernatant of  solids  anaerobic  Therefore,  purposes  of  in  required?  During Anaerobic  wide use  stabilization.  occur  for solids  thickener?  What i s t h e o p t i m a l u n d e r f l o w  vi)  time  feasibility  w o u l d be  the  Therefore,  lime  In  treatment  beneficial.  knowledge  removal,  of  time.  associated with  resulted  preparation further  in of  the  conservative the  research  c o u l d improve t h e economics a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Bio-P  retrofit  into  these  removal.  - 303 -  6.0  CONCLUSIONS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  6.1  Conclusions  1.  Of t h e n i n e to  be  plants  economically  Bonnybrook, and  Regina  was  not  Windsor Elmira  2.  Edmonton  found  Gold  for  plants.  economically  River,  Grimsby  was  the  Bar, Saskatoon  treatment  be  removal  Calgary  Mclvor Bio-P  feasible  Baker  found  Weir  removal f o r the  Road,  Milton,  and W e l l e s l e y p l a n t s .  Assuming  that  alum  would  phosphorus  f o u n d t o be  removal  located  be  removal  economically  s m a l l a s 4,550  Bio-P  to  Bio-P  attractive  wastewater  Little  chemical  3.  evaluated,  used  for a  process,  justifiable  Bio-P  comparable removal  was  f o r p l a n t s i z e s as  m /d. 3  appears  t o be most  applicable to plants  i n A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan  as a r e s u l t  of the  r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c o s t o f phosphorus removal c h e m i c a l s i n these  4.  The  provinces.  use  of  Bio-P  removal  i n Ontario  and  Quebec  is  3 likely  limited  to large  configured plants, unless  (>300,000  m /d) a n d  restrictions  suitably  a r e p l a c e d on  - 304 -  the  use  phosphorus increases  5.  The f u t u r e likely  6.  industrial  removal,  as  the  8.  removal  result  of these  chemical  by-products  in British  of  removal  f o r Bio-P  the  Columbia  is  unlikelihood  of  requirements  relatively  the plant plant  removal  throughout  is critical  Bio-P  removal  Characteristics  Bio-P  appears  However, to  to  of  the  to the technical  removal.  of  future  becomes more v i a b l e a s t h e s i z e  increases.  removal.  o f Canada  requirements.  generally  Bio-P  important  i n the rest  l i m i t e d due t o t h e u n l i k e l i h o o d  the  be  i n s t a l l a t i o n s than f o r plant  9.  for  province.  Bio-P removal of  a  phosphorus  phosphorus removal  7.  or the price  use o f Bio-P  The p o t e n t i a l is  by-products  significantly.  limited  additional the  of  the configuration  economic  more  viability  attractive  of of  f o r new  retrofits.  influent  sewage  and economic  are  very  feasibility  of  -  10.  The  use  of  the  conjunction gravity  305  anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic  with  primary  thickening  Canadian  plants  operating  cost  -  sludge  appears  and  to  offers  savings  process  fermentation  be  very  via  applicable to  potential  relative  in  to  capital other  and Bio-P  processes.  11.  The  common  practice  combined w i t h  1.  anaerobic  sludge dewatering  not  f a v o u r a b l e from  for  the re-use  s t r e a m s c a n be  6.2  of  a Bio-P  or disposal  sludge  digestion  and l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n i s  p e r s p e c t i v e u n l e s s a method of the  supernatant/filtrate  developed.  Recommendations  Full-scale  testing  of  Bio-P  removal  at  the  Calgary  Bonnybrook p l a n t i s warranted.  2.  Manageable  kinetic  production  from  phosphorus  uptake  models  primary in  for sludge  the  predictions  of  fermentation,  bioreactor,  VFA and  should  be  removal  is  developed.  3.  Further warranted.  research  on  short  SRT  Bio-P  Pilot  and  full-scale  aerobic process  Research of  on  primary  testing  s h o u l d be  the sludge  use  of  of  the  anoxic/anaerobic/  considered.  gravity  t h i c k e n i n g as  f e r m e n t a t i o n s h o u l d be  carried  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on p h o s p h o r u s r e l e a s e d u r i n g digestion,  and  the  subsequent  r e l e a s e d phosphorus with  a  precipitation  lime i s warranted.  method out.  anaerobic of  the  - 307  -  REFERENCES AIR PRODUCTS AND Bulking Activated  CHEMICALS INC. (1980), " P r o d u c t i o n o f S l u d g e " , C a n a d i a n P a t e n t No. 1078977.  Non-  ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT ( 1 9 8 2 ) , G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f M u n i c i p a l Wastewater S l u d g e s t o A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands i n A l b e r t a , A l b e r t a Environment S t a n d a r d s and A p p r o v a l s D i v i s i o n , E a r t h Sciences Division. ANDERSON, B. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , p e r s o n a l communication.  Department  ARCHER, J.D. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t W a t e r Resources Branch, Toronto, O n t a r i o , p e r s o n a l communication. BARNARD, J . L . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , " C u t P and N W i t h o u t C h e m i c a l s , and W a s t e s E n g i n e e r i n g " , V o l . 11, No. 7, pp. 33-36. BARNARD, J.L. (1976), "A Review of P h o s p h o r u s Removal i n t h e A c t i v a t e d S l u d g e Vol. 2, pp. 136-44.  Water  Biological Excess P r o c e s s " , W a t e r SA,  BARNARD, J.L. (1983), "Design Considerations Regarding Phosphate Removal i n Activated Sludge Plants", Wat. Sci. T e c h . , V o l . 15, No. 3/4, pp. 319-28. BARNARD, J . L . ( 1 9 8 4 ) , " A c t i v a t e d P r i m a r y T a n k s Removal", W a t e r SA, V o l . 10, No. 3, pp. 121-26.  for  Phosphate  BARNARD, J . L . , STEVENS, G.M. and L E S L I E , P . J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) , " D e s i g n S t r a t e g i e s f o r N u t r i e n t Removal P l a n t " , Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 17, No. 11/12, pp. 233-42. BARRETT, J.L. (1987), The City Department, p e r s o n a l communication. BASF Canada I n c . ( 1 9 8 8 ) , personal communication.  Sales  of  Calgary  Department,  BELAND, Y. (1987), Gouvernment L'Environnement, Assainissement personal communication.  Engineering  Vancouver,  B.C.,  du Quebec, Ministere de Urbain, Montreal, P.Q.,  BENEFIELD, L . E . a n d RANDALL, C.W. (1980), B i o l o g i c a l Design for Wastewater Treatment, Prentice-Hall, Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.  Process Inc.,  BRODISCH, K.E.U. and JOINER, S . J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) , "The R o l e o f M i c r o organisms other than Acinetobacter i n B i o l o g i c a l Phosphate Removal i n A c t i v a t e d S l u d g e P r o c e s s e s " , Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 15, No. 3/4, pp. 177-125.  - 308 -  CANVIRO C o n s u l t a n t s L t d . , N.W. SCHMIDTKE a n d A s s o c . L t d . , D . I . JENKINS and Assoc. I n c . (1986), "Retrofitting Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants f o r Biological Phosphorus R e m o v a l " , E n v i r o n m e n t Canada R e p o r t EPS 3/UP/3. City  o f Windsor  (1985), I n t e r n a l  COMEAU, Y. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , U n i v e r s i t y of C i v i l Engineering, personal  Lab Report - Biophos  o f B r i t i s h Columbia communication.  Test.  Department  COMEAU, Y., HALL, K . J . , HANCOCK, R.E.W. a n d OLDHAM, W.K. (1986), " B i o c h e m i c a l Model f o r Enhanced B i o l o g i c a l Phosphorus R e m o v a l " , Wat. R e s . , V o l . 20, No. 12, p p . 1511-21. DAIGGER, G.T., RANDALL, C W . , WALTRIP, G.D., ROMM, E.D. a n d MORALES, L.M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , " F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal f o r t h e VIP Process, A High-Rate University of Capetown T y p e P r o c e s s " , i n A d v a n c e s i n W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l - B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h a t e Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r s , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . , p p . 185-200. DEKEAYNE, CW., PATEL, M.A. a n d KRICHTEN, D . J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) , " P i l o t Plant Demonstration of Biological Phosphorus Removal", J . W a t e r P o l l u t . C o n t r o l F e d . , V o l . 56, No. 7, p p . 867-73. DICAIRE, personal  D. (1988), JODA communication.  Enterprises,  Vancouver,  B.C.,  EASTMAN, J . A . a n d FERGUSON, J . F . ( 1 9 8 1 ) , " S o l u b i l i z a t i o n o f P a r t i c u l a t e O r g a n i c C a r b o n D u r i n g t h e A c i d Phase o f A n a e r o b i c D i g e s t i o n " , J . W a t e r P o l l u t . C o n t r o l F e d . , V o l . 53, No. 3, p p . 352-66. EKAMA, G.A. a n d MARAIS, G.V.R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) , " B i o l o g i c a l N i t r o g e n R e m o v a l " , Chp. 6 i n T h e o r y , D e s i g n a n d O p e r a t i o n o f N u t r i e n t Removal A c t i v a t e d S l u d g e P r o c e s s e s , W a t e r R e s e a r c h Commission, P r e t o r i a , South A f r i c a . EKAMA, G.A. a n d MARAIS, G.V.R. (1984A), " N i t r i f i c a t i o n " , Chp. 5 i n Theory, Design and O p e r a t i o n of Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Processes, Water Research Commission, P r e t o r i a , South A f r i c a . EKAMA, G.A., MARAIS, G.V.R. a n d SIEBRITZ, I.P. (1984), "Biological E x c e s s Phosphorus Removal", Chp. 7 i n T h e o r y , D e s i g n a n d O p e r a t i o n o f N u t r i e n t Removal A c t i v a t e d Sludge P r o c e s s e s , Water R e s e a r c h Commission, P r e t o r i a , S o u t h A f r i c a . ENVIRONMENT CANADA (1986), N a t i o n a l Inventory o f Municipal W a t e r w o r k s a n d W a s t e w a t e r S y s t e m s i n Canada i n 1986, M i n i s t r y o f S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s Canada.  -  309  -  EVANS, B.W. and CRAWFORD, P.M. (1985), "Introduction of B i o l o g i c a l N u t r i e n t Removal i n Canada", P r o c . I n t . C o n f . on New D i r e c t i o n s and R e s e a r c h i n Waste T r e a t m e n t and R e s i d u a l s Management, V a n c o u v e r , B.C., J u n e 1985. FUHS, G.W. and CHEN, M. (1975), "Microbiological Basis of Phosphate Removal i n t h e A c t i v a t e d S l u d g e P r o c e s s f o r t h e Treatment o f Wastewater", M i c r o b i a l E c o l o g y , V o l . 2, pp. 119-31. GERSBERG, R.M. and ALLEN, D.W. ( 1 9 8 5 ) , " P h o s p h o r u s U p t a k e by K l e b s i e l l a pneumoniae and A c i n e t o b a c t e r c a l c o a c e t i c u s " . Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 17, No. 11/12, pp. 113-18. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ( 1 9 8 8 ) , personal communication.  Federal Excise  Tax  Department,  GREENBURG, A.E., LEVIN, G.V. and KAUFFMAN, W.J. (1955), "Effect of Phosphorus Removal on the Activated Sludge P r o c e s s " , Sewage and I n d u s t r i a l W a s t e s , V o l . 27, pp. 277-282. HAATINEN, H. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , G e n e r a l C h e m i c a l B.C., p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  Canada  Ltd.,  Vancouver,  HALL, E . J . , NICHOLLS, H.A. and OSBORN, D.W. (1978), " P r o g r e s s i n J o h a n n e s b u r g Towards t h e B i o l o g i c a l Removal o f Phosphorus f r o m Sewage Works E f f l u e n t s " , p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 11th Essen C o n f . , I n s t . W a t e r Q u a l i t y , M a r c h 1978. HARVEY, D. (1988), S t e e l Brothers B.C., p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  Canada  Ltd.,  Vancouver,  HONG, S., KISENBAUER, K.S., HARTZOG, D.G. and FOX, G.V. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , "A B i o l o g i c a l W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m f o r N u t r i e n t Removal", presented at the 54th Water Pollution Control F e d e r a t i o n C o n f e r e n c e , D e t r o i t , MI, 1981. HUSKY O I L  (1986),  I n t e r n a l Memorandum, C a l g a r y , A l b e r t a .  KANG, S . J . and HORVATIN, P . J . (1985), " R e t r o f i t o f a Full S c a l e M u n i c i p a l Treatment Plant at Pontiac, Michigan for B i o l o g i c a l Phosphorus Removal", p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Technology T r a n s f e r S e m i n a r on B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal i n M u n i c i p a l W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t , P e n t i c t o n , B.C., A p r i l , 1985. KARAZIVAN, K. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , Gouvernement du Quebec, M i n i s t e r e l ' E n v i r o n n e m e n t , M o n t r e a l , P.Q., personal correspondence.  de  KEAY, G.F.P. ( 1 9 8 4 ) , " P r a c t i c a l D e s i g n C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " , Chp. 10 i n Theory, Design and Operation of Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Processes, Water Research Commission, P r e t o r i a , South A f r i c a .  - 310  KIRK, N. (1988), Rexnord p e r s o n a l communication.  -  Canada  Ltd.,  Vancouver,  KNIGHT a n d PIESOLD LTD. ( 1 9 8 5 ) , Westbank I r r i g a t i o n Waste Management P l a n S t a g e I I R e p o r t , May, 1985. KOCH, F.A. (1988), U n i v e r s i t y of C i v i l Engineering, personal  o f B r i t i s h Columbia communication.  B.C.,  District Department  KOCH, F.A. and OLDHAM, W.K. (1985), "Oxidation-Reduction P o t e n t i a l - A T o o l f o r M o n i t o r i n g , C o n t r o l and O p t i m i z a t i o n o f B i o l o g i c a l N u t r i e n t Removal S y s t e m s " , Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 17, No. 11/12, pp. 259-81. KRICHTEN, D.J., PRUNESKI, L.W. and HONG, S.N. (1987), "Design and S t a r t - u p o f S e v e r a l F u l l S c a l e A/0 P l a n t s " , i n A d v a n c e s i n W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l - B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h a t e Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r s , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . KREISSEL, Removal",  J.F. and ERALP, EPA/600/D-86/071.  A.E.,  "Biological  Phosphorus  LAMB, J . C . (1984), " B i o l o g i c a l Phosphorus Removal: Current S t a t u s a n d F u t u r e P r o s p e c t s " , R e p o r t p r e p a r e d f o r t h e Soap and D e t e r g e n t A s s o c i a t i o n , New Y o r k , NY. L E S L I E , P . J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) , " D e s i g n o f t h e Kelowna P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Centre", presented a t the Technology T r a n s f e r Seminar on Biological Phosphorus Removal in Municipal Wastewater T r e a t m e n t , P e n t i c t o n , B.C., A p r i l , 1985. L E S L I E , P . J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) , K n i g h t and P i e s o l d p e r s o n a l communication.  L t d . , Vancouver,  B.C.,  LEVIN, G.V., TOPOL, G.J., TARNEY, A.G. and SAMWORTH, " P i l o t - P l a n t T e s t s o f a P h o s p h a t e Removal P r o c e s s " , J . P o l l u t . C o n t r o l F e d . , V o l . 44, No. 10, pp. 1940-54.  R.B., Water  LEVIN, G.V., TOPOL, G.J. and TARNAY, A.G. (1975), " O p e r a t i o n o f F u l l - S c a l e B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal P l a n t , J . W a t e r P o l l u t . C o n t r o l F e d . , V o l . 47, No. 3, pp. 577-90. LEVIN, G.V. a n d DELLA SALLA, U. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , " P h o s t r i p P r o c e s s - A V i a b l e Answer t o E u t r o p h i c a t i o n o f L a k e s and C o a s t a l Sea Waters i n I t a l y " , i n Advances i n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h a t e Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . LINZEY, M.P.T., BROTCHIE, J . F . and NICHOLAS, J . F . ( 1 9 7 3 ) , "A Systems A p p r o a c h t o B u i l d i n g P l a n n i n g and D e s i g n " , A u s t r a l i a n and New Z e a l a n d C o n f e r e n c e on t h e P l a n n i n g and D e s i g n o f T a l l Buildings.  - 311 -  MARAIS, G.V.R., LOEWENTHAL, R.E. a n d S I E B R I T Z , I . P . ( 1 9 8 3 ) , "Review: Observations Supporting Phosphate Removal by B i o l o g i c a l E x c e s s U p t a k e " , Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 15, No. 3/4, pp. 15-41. MEANS, R.S. Company I n c . ( 1 9 8 7 ) , Means Heavy C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t D a t a , 1 s t E d i t i o n , 1987. METCALF and EDDY I n c . (1979), Wastewater Engineering: T r e a t m e n t / D i s p o s a l / R e u s e , Second E d i t i o n , M c G r a w - H i l l I n c . MUNCH, R. (1988), City o f Saskatoon Water and Control Department, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, communication.  Pollution personal  MURAKAMI, T., KOIKE, S., TANIGUCHI, N. a n d ESUMI, H. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , " I n f l u e n c e o f R e t u r n Flow Phosphorus Load on t h e Performance o f t h e B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal P r o c e s s " , i n A d v a n c e s i n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l - B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h a t e Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r s , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . , p p . 237-47. NICHOLLS, H.A., OSBORN, D.W. and PITMAN, A.R. (1986), "Biological Phosphorus Removal a t t h e J o h a n n e s b u r g Northern and G o u d k o p p i e s W a s t e w a t e r P u r i f i c a t i o n P l a n t s " , W a t e r SA, VOL 12, No. 1, p p . 13-18. OLDHAM, W.K. a n d STEVENS, G.M. (1984), "Initial Operating E x p e r i e n c e s o f a N u t r i e n t Removal P r o c e s s ( M o d i f i e d Bardenpho) a t K e l o w n a , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a " , Can. J . C i v . E n g . , V o l . 11, p p . 474-79. OLDHAM, W.K. (1985), " F u l l S c a l e O p t i m i z z t i o n o f B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal a t Kelowna, Canada", Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 17, No. 11/12, p p . 243-257. OLDHAM, W.K. (1986), Correspondence t o Lafontaine, Corvie, B u r a t t o a n d A s s o c i a t e s L t d . , V a n c o u v e r , B.C., May, 1986. OLDHAM, W.K. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , U n i v e r s i t y of C i v i l Engineering, personal  o f B r i t i s h Columbia communication.  Department  OLDHAM, W.K. a n d DEW, H.P. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , " C o l d T e m p e r a t u r e O p e r a t i o n of t h e Bardenpho P r o c e s s " , p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 1 4 t h Canadian Symposium o n W a t e r P o l l u t i o n R e s e a r c h . ONTARIO MINISTRIES OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD, THE ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH (1986), O n t a r i o ' s G u i d e l i n e s f o r Sewage Sludge U t i l i z a t i o n on A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands. ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT ( 1 9 8 4 ) , " G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e D e s i g n o f Sewage T r e a t m e n t Works", T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o .  - 312  -  ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT ( 1 9 8 7 ) , R e p o r t on t h e 1985 D i s c h a r g e s from M u n i c i p a l Wastewater Treatment F a c i l i t i e s i n O n t a r i o , M a r c h , 1987. ONTARIO MINISTRY OF communication.  REVENUE  O'REILLY, D. (1984), T h o u s a n d s o f $", C i v i c  (1988), T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o , p e r s o n a l  "Unique Orangeville Plant P u b l i c Works, O c t o b e r , 1984,  will Save pp. 7-9.  PAEPCKE, B.H. (1985), " I n t r o d u c t i o n t o B i o l o g i c a l Phosphorus Removal", p r e s e n t e d a t t h e T e c h n o l o g y Transfer Seminar on Biological Phosphorus Removal in Municipal Wastewater T r e a t m e n t , P e n t i c t o n , B.C., A p r i l , 1985. PEIRANO, L.E., HENDERSON, D.B., GONZALES, J.G.M. and DAVIS, E . F . ( 1 9 8 3 ) , " F u l l S c a l e E x p e r i e n c e s w i t h t h e P h o s t r i p P r o c e s s " , Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 15, No. 3/4, pp. 181-95. PETERSON, D. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , M a n i t o b a D e p t . o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l , p e r s o n a l communication.  - Water  PRESTED, P.B., SHANNON, E.E. and RUSH, R.J. (1977), "Development of Prediction Models f o r Chemical Phosphorus Removal - V o l . 1", R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 68, R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m f o r t h e Abatement o f M u n i c i p a l P o l l u t i o n under t h e P r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C a n a d a - O n t a r i o A g r e e m e n t on G r e a t L a k e s W a t e r Q u a l i t y , M i n i s t r y o f S u p p l y and S e r v i c e s , T o r o n t o , C a n a d a . QASIM, S.R. and UDOMSINROT, K. (1987), " B i o l o g i c a l Nutrient Removal in Anoxic-Anaerobic-Aerobic Treatment Process", I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s , V o l . 30, pp. 257-70. RABINOWITZ, B., KOCH, F.A., VASSOS, T.D. and OLDHAM, W.K. (1987), "A Novel O p e r a t i o n a l Mode for a Primary SLudge Fermenter f o r Use w i t h t h e Enhanced B i o l o g i c a l Phosphorus Removal P r o c e s s " , i n A d v a n c e s i n W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Control Biological Phosphate Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r s , R. Ramadori, E d . , pp. 349-52. RANDALL, CW. , BRANNAN, K.P. and BENEFIELD, L.D. (1987), "Factors Affecting Anaerobic S t a b i l i z a t i o n During Biological Phosphorus Removal", i n Advances i n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Biological Phosphate Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r s , R. Ramadori, E d . , pp. 111-22. RENSINK, J.H., DONKER, H.J.G.W. and DE VRIES, H.P. (1981), " B i o l o g i c a l P-Removal i n D o m e s t i c W a s t e w a t e r by t h e A c t i v a t e d Sludge P r o c e s s " , 5th European Sewage and R e f u s e Symposium, Munchen, J u n e , 1981, pp. 487-503.  -  313  -  REYNOLDS, T.D. (1982), Unit O p e r a t i o n s and Processes i n Environmental Engineering, Brooks/Cole Engineering Division, M o n t e r e y , CA. ROMANO, L.S. (1987), C i t y o f Works, p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  Windsor  Department  of  Public  S E L L , R.L., KRICHTEN, D.J., NOICHL, O.J. and HARTZOG, D.G. (1981), "Low Temperature Biological Phosphorus Removal", presented a t t h e 54th Water P o l l u t i o n Control Federation C o n f e r e n c e , D e t r o i t , MI. SHAPIRO, J . , LEVIN, G.V. and ZEA, G.H. (1967), "Anoxically Induced Release of Phosphate in Wastewater Treatment", J . W a t e r P o l l u t . C o n t r o l F e d . , V o l . 39, No. 11, pp. 1810-18. S H I V J I , M.M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , E n h a n c e d B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal P i l o t P l a n t S t u d y , C i t y o f Edmonton W a t e r and S a n i t a t i o n D e p t . SIEBRITZ, I.P., EKAMA, G.A. and MARAIS, G.V.R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) , "A P a r a m e t r i c Model f o r B i o l o g i c a l Excess Phosphorus Removal", Wat. S c i . T e c h . , V o l . 15, No. 3/4, pp. 127-52. SIMM, R. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , U n i v e r s i t y C i v i l Engineering, personal  o f B r i t i s h Columbia communication.  SPETH, J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) , C I L Stanchem Canada, p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . SPINK, D. (1988), A l b e r t a p e r s o n a l communication.  Ltd., Sales  Environment,  SRINATH, E.G., SASTRY, C A . and P I L L A I , Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage by E x p r e r i e n t i a , V o l . 15, pp. 339-40.  Department  Dept.,  of  Vancouver,  Edmonton,  Alberta,  S.C. (1959), "Rapid Activated Sludge",  STANLEY ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING LTD. ( 1 9 8 6 ) , C i t y o f P e n t i c t o n W a s t e w a t e r Management P l a n S t a g e I I R e p o r t (Final Report), Nov. 1986. STANLEY ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING LTD. (1986A), C i t y o f R e g i n a Sewage T r e a t m e n t P l a n t E x p a n s i o n S t u d y ( D r a f t R e p o r t ) , A u g u s t , 1986. S T A T I S T I C S CANADA ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 62-011, V o l . 13, No. 12.  "Industry  Price  S T A T I S T I C S CANADA (1988A), "Employment, C a t a l o g u e 72-022, V o l . 65, No. 12.  Indexes",  Catalogue  E a r n i n g s and  STESSAN, B. (1988), Saskatchewan Department Regina, Sask., p e r s o n a l communication.  of  Hours", Finance,  -  314 -  STEVENS, G.M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , C i t y o f Kelowna W a t e r a n d D i v i s i o n , K e l o w n a , B.C., p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  Wastewater  STEVENS, G.M. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , C i t y o f Kelowna W a t e r a n d D i v i s i o n , K e l o w n a , B.C., p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  Wastewater  TETREAULT, M.J., BENEDICT, A.H., KAEMFER, C. (1985) , "Biological Phosphorus Removal: E v a l u a t i o n " , EPA/600/D-85/289.  a n d BARTH, E . A Technology  TETREAULT, M.J., BENEDICT, A.H., KAEMFER, C. a n d BARTH, E . (1986) , "Biological Phosphorus Removal: A Technology E v a l u a t i o n " , J . W a t e r P o l l u t . C o n t r o l F e d . , V o l . 58, No. 8, pp. 823-37. TSUNO, H., SOMIYA, I . a n d MATSUMOTO, M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , "A K i n e t i c M o d e l f o r B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h o r u s Removal", i n A d v a n c e s i n W a t e r Pollution Control Biological Phosphate Removal from W a s t e w a t e r , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . , p p . 99-110. TURK, O. ( 1 9 8 8 ) , N o v a t e c C o n s u l t a n t s p e r s o n a l communication.  Inc., Vancouver,  UFFEN, N. (1988), Eaglebrook Environmental Toronto, O n t a r i o , p e r s o n a l communication. USEPA ( 1 9 7 1 ) , P r o c e s s D e s i g n EPA P r o g r a m #17 010 GNP. USEPA ( 1 9 7 4 ) , P r o c e s s D e s i g n Disposal, EPA/625/1-74-006. USEPA 001.  (1987),  D e s i g n Manual  Manual Manual  Canada,  Corporation,  f o r Phosphorus  Removal,  f o r S l u d g e Treatment and  P h o s p h o r u s Removal,  EPA/625/1-87/  WALSH, T.K., BEHRMAN, B.W., WEIL, G.W. a n d JONES, E.R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) , "A Review of Biological Phosphorus Removal Technology", p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Federation Annual C o n f e r e n c e , A l t a n t a , GA. WANNER, J . , OTTOVA, V. a n d GRAU, P. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , " E f f e c t o f an Anaerobic Zone on S e t t l e a b i l i t y of Activated Sludge", i n Advances i n Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l - B i o l o g i c a l Phosphate Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . , p p . 154-64. WENTZELL, M.C., DOLD, P.L., LOEWENTHAL, R.E., EKAMA, G.A. a n d MARAIS, G.V.R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , " E x p e r i m e n t s Towards E s t a b l i s h i n g t h e K i n e t i c s o f B i o l o g i c a l E x c e s s P h o s p h o r u s Removal", i n A d v a n c e s i n W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l - B i o l o g i c a l P h o s p h a t e Removal f r o m W a s t e w a t e r , R. R a m a d o r i , E d . , p p . 79-97.  - 315 -  WESTON, Roy F. I n c . ( 1 9 8 5 ) , " E m e r g i n g T e c h n o l o g y A s s e s s m e n t o f Phostrip, A/0 and Bardenpho Processes for Biological P h o s p h o r u s R e m o v a l " , EPA/600/2-85/008. WETTER, D. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , Waste Management communication.  B.C. M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t Branch, Victoria, B.C.,  and Parks personal  WHITMAN, REQUARDT a n d A s s o c i a t e s (1982), C i t y o f Baltimore M a r y l a n d , P a t a p s c o Wastewater Treatment P l a n t , Analysis of P h o s p h o r u s Removal A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r 70 MGD P l a n t . YEE, A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) , C i t y o f Edmonton W a t e r a n d S a n i t a t i o n Edmonton, A l b e r t a , p e r s o n a l communication.  Dept.,  3iS  «-  APPENDIX A L I S T OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS  - 3.16 -  APPENDIX A L I S T OF SYMBOLS AND  ABBREVIATIONS  AE  Process Analyzer  AIC  Process A n a l y s i s  AIR  Process A n a l y s i s Indicator/Recorder  AT  Process A n a n l y s i s Transmitter  Bio-P  Biological  BOD  B i o c h e m i c a l Oxygen  BOD  5  Indicator/Controller  Phosphorus Demand  5 d a y BOD  COD  Chemical  DAF  Dissolved A i r Flotation  DO  D i s s o l v e d Oxygen  FC  Flow  FE  F l o w Measurement  FR  Flow  FT  F l o w Measurement T r a n s m i t t e r  HAc  Acetic  HRT  H y d r a u l i c R e t e n t i o n Time  IRR  Internal  Rate  MTO  Material  Take-Off  NH^  Ammonia  N0  Nitrate  3  Oxygen  Demand  Controller Element  Recorder Acid of Return  OME  Ontario Ministry  of the  ORP  Oxidation Reduction  PD  Positive  PHB  Poly-B-hydroxybutyrate  pmf  Proton motive  RAS  Return A c t i v a t e d  RBC  Rotating Biological  SBR  Sequencing  SP  S o l u b l e Phosphorus  SRT  Sludge  SS  Suspended  Solids  SWD  Side Wall  Depth  Environment  Potential  Displacement  force  Batch  Age  Sludge Contactor  Reactor  - 317  TIC  Total  I n s t a l l e d Cost  TKN  Total  Kjedahl  TP  Total  Phosphorus  Total  Suspended  TSS  •  States  -  Nitrogen Solids  USEPA  United  Environmental  VFA  Volatile  Fatty  VSS  Volatile  Suspended  WAS  Waste A c t i v a t e d  Acid Solids  Sludge  Protection  Agency  3>"? «-  APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN REMOVAL  OVERVIEW  -  318 -  APPENDIX BIOLOGICAL  In  order  secondary exposed  t o promote  treatment to  degree  of both  the  at  anaerobic  d i s s o l v e d oxygen removal  importance  o f Bio-P  bacteria  solids  some  time  conditions  occurs  the  must  refer  be the  t o the  (N0 ), the 3  i n the plant  selection  in a  during  (DO) a n d n i t r a t e  which  to  OVERVIEW  biological  conditions  Because  of nitrogen  considerable  REMOVAL  t h e growth  plant,  anaerobic  treatment process. absence  NITROGEN  B  of  a  i s of process  configuration.  In  conventional  primarily organic  domestic  wastewater,  i n t h e f o r m o f ammonia  nitrogen.  Under  conditions,  of bacteria  (Nitrosomonas  energy  for cellular  growth.  reaction  oxidizes  ammonia  to  oxidizes  nitrite  following  reactions:  to  can  occurs nitrite nitrate.  nitrogen.  be  used  and N i t r o b a c t e r )  In producing in (  energy,  which N 0 2  )  This  a n <  extent,  (TKN) measurements  a n d ammonia  ammonia  groups  biological  3  of the organic  aerobic  i s found  (NH ) and t o a l e s s e r  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen  refer to the t o t a l  nitrogen  by  t o produce a  two-stage  Nitrosomonas *  is  then  two  first  Nitrobacter  illustrated  by  the  -  319  -  Nitrosomonas 2NH  +  3  30  +  2  2H+  + 2  H0 2  Nitrobacter 2N0  +  2  In  Eddy,  of  low,  temperature  1979)  Because  and  of  bacteria  conventional  and  long at  rates,  can  i f i t occurs  of  oxygen  have  respiration This  is  following  reactions  known  as  created  rates  wastewater of  facultative, and  bacteria  to  and  ensure  nitrifying  often  occurs  periods the  of  in warm  occurrence  treatment  plant  for.  electron  can  be  used  acceptor  heterotrophic is  promote  temperatures.  o f oxygen, n i t r a t e terminal  to  the  e f f e c t s on designed  remove  (Metcalf  required  during  to  These  consumes o x y g e n ,  denitrif ication  reaction:  are  plants  i s not  the by  low  adverse  but  as  growth  dependency  sludge  Under c o n d i t i o n s devoid place  are  nitrification  nitrification  nitrification  required  Nitrobacter.  SRT's  temperature  activated  Since  operation  bioreactor  especially  the  plants  dependent  hence,  growth  weather.  i n the  Nitrosomonas  nitrification,  of  treatment  conditions  growth  have  2  wastewater  ammonia, the  0  in in  bacteria.  illustrated  by  the  -  320  -  denitrifying Carbon +  NO  >  Substrate  Conditions known a s  devoid  plants  (Kelowna,  to  i s not As  as  of  and  employ  nitrify,  nitrification, bioreactor  oxygen  for  2(g)  but  containing  widespread only  Orangeville,  Bio-P  removal  since  must  nitrogen  activated  1984).  are  be  sludge.  wastewater  requirement  plants were  in  for  returned  to  i f i t is  sludge  some  for  Canada  required  However,  activated  made  will  in  the  two  in  be  nitrates  return  as  Ontario)  (O'Reilly,  provision  i n the  denitrification  1984,  denitrification  proposed which  B.C.  CO  conditions.  nitrification.  provide  of  requirement  treatment  +  2(g)  bacteria  "anoxic"  The  N  plants  degree to  of the  3  0-<5  CL  APPENDIX C  C A P I T A L COST ESTIMATING SUPPORT DATA  APPENDIX C C A P I T A L COST ESTIMATING SUPPORT DATA  A.  MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT  1.  Gravity Thickener Mechanical  Includes and  influent  Components  r a k e arm, s c r a p e r b l a d e s , walkway,  e f f l u e n t weir  well.  DIAMETER  SWD  (m)  (m)  21  3.5  98,000  1  1.84  2  20  3.5  95,072  1  1.84  2  15  3.5  80,000  1  1. 84  2  12  3.5  69,625  1  1.84  2  10.5  3.5  65,000  1  1. 84  2  10  3.5  62,724  1  1.84  2  8.8  3.5  58,000  1  1.84  2  6.6  3.5  48,962  1  1.84  2  MAT'L COST  SOURCE  BULK FACTOR  SOURCE  ($)  - 322 -  2.  Clarifiers  Includes  steel  tank,  effluent  w e i r and i n f l u e n t  DIAMETER  MAT'L COST  (m)  rake  arm,  scaper  blades,  walkway,  well.  SOURCE  BULK FACTOR  SOURCE  ($)  6.1  66,000  3  2.2  2  4.1  47,274  3  2.1  2  2.1  27,800  3  1.9  2  3.  Fermenter Supernatant  1 Includes  Pumps  pump and d r i v e r . DRIVER  Q  BULK  TDH  POWER  MAT'L COST  (L/S)  (m)  (kW)  ($)  100  35  50  13,000  3  3.8  2  45  20  13  4.700  3  3.8  2  38  19  10  4,192  3  3.8  2  26  21  7.8  3,753  3  3.8  2  11  20  2.9  2,220  3  3.8  2  7.9  20  2.2  2,220  3  3.8  2  5.2  20  1.5  2,000  3  3.8  2  3.7  20  0.8  1,882  3  3.8  2  1.3  20  0.4  1,882  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  - 323 -  4.  Primary C l a r i f i e r Underflow  Pumps  I n c l u d e s pump a n d d r i v e r . DRIVER  BULK  TDH  POWER  MAT'L COST  (L/S)  (m)  (kW)  ($)  7.5  16  1.8  2,145  4  3.8  2  2.3  21  0.7  2,076  4  3.8  2  2  5.  Fermenter Underflow Recvcle  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  Pumps  I n c l u d e s pump a n d d r i v e r . DRIVER  Q  BULK  TDH  POWER  MAT'L COST  (L/S)  (m)  (kW)  ($)  100  15  21  6,535  4  3.8  2  45  15  9.5  4,192  4  3.8  2  10.5  49  9.4  4,192  4  3.8  2  38  15  7.9  3,753  4  3.8  2  26  15  5.5  3,020  4  3.8  2  6.3  49  5.4  3,020  4  3.8  2  5.2  15  1.4  2,000  3  3.8  2  3.7  15  0.8  1,900  3  3.8  2  2.3  17  0.6  1,882  3  3.8  2  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  - 324 -  6.  F e r m e n t e r Wastage  Pumps  I n c l u d e s pump a n d d r i v e r . DRIVER  BULK  TDH  POWER  (L/S)  (m)  (KW)  ($)  100  23  32  8,700  3  3.8  2  45  26  16  5,500  3  3.8  2  26  27  9.8  4,192  3  3.8  2  10.5  27  3.9  2,220  3  3.8  2  7.9  27  2.5  2,220  3  3.8  2  5.2  15  1.1  2,000  3  3.8  2  3.7  15  0.8  2,000  3  3.8  2  Q  MAT'L COST  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  - 325 -  7.  Lime  S y s t e m Pumps  I n c l u d e s pump a n d d r i v e r . DRIVER  Q  BULK  TDH  POWER  MAT'L COST  (m)  (kW)  ($)  11  6  1.0  5  10  5.6  SOURCE  FACTOR  2,190  3  3.8  2  0.7  2,190  3  3.8  2  6  0.5  1,882  3  3.8  2  4  6  0.4  1,882  3  3.8  2  3.8  6  0.4  1,882  3  3.8  2  1.8  10  0.3  1,882  3  3.8  2  4  3  0.2  1,882  3  3.8  2  3.1  3  0.2  1,882  3  3.8  2  0.9  10  0.2  1,882  3  3.8  2  0.7  10  0.2  1,882  3  3.8  2  1.0  3  0.1  1,800  3  3.8  2  0.6  3  0.1  1,400  3  3.8  2  0.4  6  0.1  1,400  3  3.8  2  0.4  3  0.1  1,400  3  3.8  2  10  0.1  1,400  3  3.8  2  (L/S)  0.08  SOURCE  8.  Lime Feeder and S l u r r y  Mix System  Includes  f e e d e r , mix tank,  dry chemical  slurry  distribution  pumps,  and a s s o c i a t e d  piping  and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n b u l k s .  mix t a n k  civil,  mixer,  electrical,  C a p a c i t y - 38 k g L i m e / h r Material  C o s t - $34,204 - S o u r c e 3  Installation  9.  Submersible  Manhours - 36 - S o u r c e 3  Pumps  I n c l u d e s pump a n d d r i v e r . DRIVER  o (L/S) 246 5.8  BULK  TDH  POWER  MAT'L COST  (m)  (kW)  ($)  6  21  7  0.6  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  15,000  5  3.8  2  2,500  5  3.3  2  10.  Mixers  DRIVER POWER (kW)  BULK MAT'L COST  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  ($)  2.4  3,500  5  1.34  5  1.2  2,000  5  1.34  5  0.73  1,691  3  1.34  5  0.64  1, 691  3  1.34  5  0.50  1,458  3  1.34  5  0.44  1,275  3  1.34  5  0.30  1,275  3  1.34  5  0.25  1,275  3  1.34  5  0.20  1,275  3  1.34  5  0.10  1, 275  3  1. 34  5  3  1.34  5  <0.07  11.  904  Dry Chemical  Feeders  CHEMICAL THROUGHPUT (kg/hr)  BULK MAT'L COST  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  ($)  771  18,000  6  1.23  6  612  16,000  6  1.23  6  455  13,000  6  1.23  6  5,157  6  1.23  6  96  -  12.  328 -  Turborators  DRIVER  BULK  POWER  MAT'L COST  (kW)  ($)  SOURCE  FACTOR  3.7  7;000  7  1.8  5.6  9,000  7  1.8  13.  Dissolved  A i rFlotation  Includes  skimmer  piping,  control  concrete  tank.  Units  mechanism, panel  SOURCE  and  recycle piping.  pumps, Does  compressor, not  include  BULK AREA  MAT'L COST  (m )  ($)  2  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  167  125,000  8  1.6  2  51  90,000  8  1.6  2  - 329 -  14.  Mix Tanks  Includes  steel  electrical  tank,  foundations,  and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n .  structural  Does n o t  steel,  include mixers.  BULK VOLUME (m ) 3  17.9  MAT'L  COST  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  ($) 12,530  2  4.0  2  5.8  9,100  2  5.2  2  4.8  8,640  2  5.3  2  3.2  7,680  2  5.7  2  2.2  6,020  2  6.0  2  1.7  5,100  2  6.0  2  1.2  3,600  2  6.0  2  0.3  648  2  6.0  2  0.2  384  2  6.0  2  - 330 -  15.  Dry Chemical  Includes  Storage  steel  Silos  silo,  foundations,  structural  steel,  i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and epoxy l i n e r .  BULK VOLUME  MAT'L COST  (m ) 3  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  ($)  305  58,000  2  2.2  2  203  36,540  2  2.4  2  180  35,280  2  2.4  2  113  20,500  2  2.4  2  24  5,462  2  3.0  2  10  3,130  2  3.0  2  16.  Storage  Tanks  Includes and  epoxy  carbon liner.  steel  tank,  foundations,  instrumentation  -  331 -  BULK VOLUME  MAT'L COST  (m ) 3  SOURCE  FACTOR  SOURCE  <$>  308  46,200  2  2.1  2  163  35,000  2  2.6  2  117  32,892  2  3.1  2  109  30,463  2  3.1  2  76  19,952  2  3.2  2  30  8,400  2  3.2  2  17.  Mechanical  Aerator  Dismantling  Manhours - 72 Source  -  3  B.  PIPING  1.  Carbon S t e e l / F i e l d  Includes fittings.  supply  Fabricated  and i n s t a l l a t i o n  Prices  include  an  of a l l pipe,  allowance  number o f v a l v e s a n d f i t t i n g s p e r u n i t  v a l v e s and  for a  standard  length of pipe.  - 332 -  PIPE  LABOUR  DIAMETER  MAT'L COST  SOURCE  PRODUCTIVITY  ($/M)  (mm)  SOURCE  (mh/m)  50  76.9  2  4.11  2  75  90.5  2  4.29  2  100  104.1  2  4.47  2  150  131.3  2  4.83  2  200  158.5  2  5.19  2  250  185.7  2  5.55  2  300  212.9  2  5.91  2  400  267.3  2  6. 63  2  450  294.5  2  6.99  2  2.  Gate V a l v e s  (ANSI  150#, C a r b o n  Steel)  PIPE  LABOUR  DIAMETER  MAT'L COST  (mm)  ($)  100  439  3.  Flanges  (ANSI  SOURCE  (mm) 100  SOURCE  (mh) 10  150# RFWN, C a r b o n  PIPE DIAMETER  PRODUCTIVITY  6.7  Steel)  LABOUR MAT'L COST  SOURCE  (mh)  ($) 13.05 e a .  PRODUCTIVITY  10  3.5 e a .  SOURCE  -  C.  CIVIL  1.  Excavation  Includes  excavation  rental  -  f o r foundations,  thickener/clarifier equipment  333  tanks costs  and are  underground  tunnels. factored  piping,  Allowances into  the  for  labour  productivity.  Material  Cost  -  N/A 3  Labour P r o d u c t i v i t y Source 2.  Common  mh/m  1  Backfill  Includes from  - 0.20  backfill  1.  and  Allowances  factored  i n t o the  Material  Cost  -  compaction for  labour  of  equipment  excavated rental  material costs  are  productivity.  N/A 3  Labour P r o d u c t i v i t y  3.  Source -  1  Granular  Backfill  Includes  supply,  material.  - 0.20  placement  mh/m  and  compaction  of  granular  - 334 -  Material Labour  C o s t - $9.00/m ,  .  P r o d u c t i v i t y - 0.20  mh/m  3  Source - 1  4.  Topsoil  Stripping  T I C - $0.65/m  3  Source - 9  5.  Clearing  TIC  and Grubbing  - $0.51/m  3  Source - 9  6.  D y k e s , Berms a n d C l a y  Includes  supply,  material.  TIC  - $5.00/m  Source - 1  3  Liners  placement  and compaction  of  impermeable  - 335 -  7.  Reinforced  Concrete  I n c l u d e s formwork, r e i n f o r c i n g s t e e l , c o n c r e t e ,  placement  and f i n i s h i n g .  Material  C o s t - $275/m 3  Labour P r o d u c t i v i t y Source 8.  - 9.5  mh/m  wire  mesh,  - 1  Concrete  Paving  Includes  formwork,  concrete,  placement  and  finishing.  3  Material  C o s t - $250/m 3  Labour P r o d u c t i v i t y Source 9.  - 4.6  - 1  Pre-Engineered  Buildings  Includes  clad  metal  and  f l o o r slab.  TIC  - $430/m  Source  mh/m  - 1  3  building  complete  E a v e h e i g h t t o 8.0m.  f l o o r area  with  foundations  D.  ELECTRICAL  1.  Area  Lighting  Includes  light  exterior  lighting.  Material  s t a n d a r d s and a s s o c i a t e d  C o s t - $41/m  power  supply f o r  2  2 L a b o u r P r o d u c t i v i t y - 1.6  mh/m  Source - 1 E.  INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL  1.  Flow M e t e r s  (Orifice  Meters)  PIPE  LABOUR  DIAMETER  MAT'L COST  SOURCE  PRODUCTIVITY  SOURCE  (mm)  ($)  150  500  11  11  2  100  400  11  11  2  2.  Flow T r a n s m i t t e r s  (mh)  (Electronic Differential Transmitters)  Material  C o s t - $1500. e a c h  S o u r c e - 11 L a b o u r P r o d u c t i v i t y - 11 mh's Source - 2  each  Pressure  3.  Flow R e c o r d e r s  Material  ( P a n e l Mounted)  C o s t - $2000.  each  S o u r c e - 11  4.  Labour  Productivity  Source  - 2  Flow  Control  Includes  steel  butterfly  valve  with  throttling  actuator.  PIPE DIAMETER  each  Valves  carbon  electronic  - 12 mh's  LABOUR MAT'L COST  SOURCE  PRODUCTIVITY  SOURCE  (mm)  ($)  (mh)  75  1,500  12  10  2  100  1,800  12  14  2  150  2,900  12  18  2  - 338 -  5.  M i c r o p r o c e s s o r Based  Controllers LABOUR  DESCRIPTION  MAT'L COST  SOURCE  PRODUCTIVITY (mh/m)  ($/M) 1 Loop,  2,000  - Analog  Inputs,  - Analog  Outputs  4 Loop,  5,000  8 Analog  Inputs,  4 Analog  Outputs  Variable  2,000  12  71  12  12  177  12  12  71  12  Frequency  6.  ORP  Probes  Material  C o s t - $1,000. e a c h  B u l k F a c t o r - 2.1 Source  7.  - 12  ORP R e c o r d e r s  Material  (includes  Source  transmitter)  C o s t - $350. e a c h  B u l k F a c t o r - 2.1 - 12  SOURCE  - 339  8.  DO  Probes  Material  (includes transmitter)  C o s t - $3,500.  Bulk Factor Source -  -  12  -  2.1  each  - 340 -  SOURCES  1.  Personal  communication,  Vancouver,  B.C., M a r c h  D.  Dicaire,  Unpublished h i s t o r i c a l  3.  Richardson's Rapid Estimating,  4.  Personal  5.  Personal Vancouver,  6.  Personal Vancouver,  7.  8.  data,  communication,  Personal  B.C., M a r c h  Enterprises,  1988  2.  Vancouver,  JODA  1985  1986  G. T e i c h r o e b ,  Chamco  Industries,  1988  communication,  A.  Racine,  Flyght  Canada,  B.C., J a n u a r y 1988  communication, B.C., M a r c h  D.  Skeath,  UKAF  Industries,  1988  communication,  C.  Guarnaschelli,  Technology Inc., Vancouver,  B.C., M a r c h  Personal  Communication,  N.  Vancouver,  B.C., A p r i l  1988  Kirk,  Turborator  1988  Rexnord  Canada,  - 341 -  9.  R.S. Means Company, Data",  10.  Construction  Cost  1987  Personal  communication,  Vancouver,  11.  I n c . , "Means Heavy  Westlund  Industrial  Supply,  B.C., M a r c h 1988  Personal  communication,  (Canada)  L t d . , Vancouver,  H.  Hill,  Fischer  B.C., F e b r u a r y 1988  and  Porter  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0062492/manifest

Comment

Related Items