rs
u
.ForN i And Nutrient
oval
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Office of water Enforcement and Compliance washington, D.C. 20460
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS FOR NITRIFICATION AND NUTRIENT REMOVAL
SEPTEMBER 1992
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for pUblication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
CONTENTS Section
Page
FIGURES
.
iii
TABLES .....
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
.
. . . .
1 1 2 3
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET
.
FS-1
1
. .
111111-
Background and Objectives Findings Conclusions
DESCRIPTION OF SBR PROCESS INTRODUCTION Cycle Operation
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT... Advantages.. . . . . . . . Disadvantages......
2
3
.
. . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
.
. .
.
THEORY OF NITRIFICATION, DENITRIFICATION, AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . NITRIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '" DENITRIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL. . . . . ........ . DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . STANDARD SBR DESIGNS WITH NITRIFICATION. . .. . Aqua-Aerobic Systems. Austgen BiCljet Fluidyne JetTech Pures tream Transenviro
4
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
SBR DESIGNS FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems Austgen Biojet Fluidyne JetTech Pures tream Transenviro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . .
SITE VISITS INTRODUCTION PLANT OBSERVATION
.
. . .
Marlette, Michigan Grafton, Ohio Shelter Island Heights, New york
i
. . .
1 1 1
2 5 6
2- 1 2- 1 2- 2 2- 3 3- 1 3- 1 3- 3 3- 3 3- 5 3- 5 3- 6 3- 6 3- 6 3- 7 3-10 3-10 3-11 3 -11 3-11 3-11
444444-
1 1 1 1 5 9
CONTE~TS
Section
5
Page
ANALYSIS OF SBR PLANT PERMIT LIMITS PLANT DATA. . . . . . . . .
PERFO~~NCE
DATA
. . .
.
Armada, Michigan Buckingham, Pennsylvania Caledonia, Minnesota Clarkston, Michigan - Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Conover, North Carolina - Southeast Plant De 1 City, Oklahoma Dundee, Michigan Fa i rchance, Pennsylvania Crundy Center, Iowa... . Manchester, Michigan.......... . McPherson, Kansas. . Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania......... . Monticello, Indiana - fJhite Oaks on the Lake Resort Muskegan Heights, Michigan - Clover Estates Mobile Home Park... ............. . Walnut Grove, Pennsylvania Windgap , Pennsylvania
6
7
COST ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION CAPITAL COSTS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS. . . . . . . .. REFERENCES APPENDIX A
ii
.
1 1 1 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
5555555555555555-
. . .
5- 9 5- 9 5-10
. . . .
6666-
.
7- 1
6 6
7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9
1 1 1 4
FIGURES Page
Figure FS-1
TYPICAL SBR OPERATION FOR ONE CyCLE
.
FS- 7
FS - 2
UTILITY, OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS
.
FS- 8
1
TYPICAL SBR OPERATION FOR ONE CYCLE
.
1- 3
2
AUSTGEN BIOJECT ICEASR BASIN
.
1- 4
3
DENITRIFICATION CYCLE FOR SBR
4
CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA MARLETTE, MICHIGAN .
5
.
CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA MARLETTE, MICHIGAN
3- 8
4- 3 .
4- 4
6
CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, GRAFTON, OHIO ....
4- 7
7
CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, GRAFTON, OHIO ....
4- 8
8
CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, SHELTER I SLAND, NEW YORK
4-11
9
10
.
CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, SHELTER ISLAND, NEW YORK . UTILITY, OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS SUPPLIED BY SBR FACILITIES..... .
iii
4-12
.
6- 3
TABLES Page FS-1
SBR UNIT RELIABILITY
SUMMER
.
FS- 4
FS-2
SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - WINTER
.
FS- 5
1
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN A THREE TANK SYSTEM
.
3- 2
2
TYPICAL CYCLE FOR A STANDARD SBR WITH NITRIFICATION
.
3- 4
3
TYPICAL SBR CYCLE FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
.
3- 9
4
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT
.
5- 2
5
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 19 SBR PLANTS
6
COST DATA FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH EMPLOY SEQUENCE BATCH REACTORS "
PE~~IT
LIMITATIONS FOR 19 SBR PLANTS
iv
.
5- 4
.
6- 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Objectives The
U. S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
has
supported
new
developments in wastewater treatment to promote the evolution of more efficient treatment techniques. Compliance adequate
(OWEC)
Programs within the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
allow the application of new technology developments before
field evaluations have been completed.
applications of new
technologies without
This
support
the benefit of long
of
full
scale
term evaluation
comes with inherent potential risk of O&M and process problems due to lack of experience.
Evaluation
capabilities
and
to
of
new
identify
technologies
weaknesses,
seeks
to
determine
limitations
in
use,
performance maintenance
shortcomings, and cost effectiveness.
OWEC
evaluates
certain
application to specific the
limitations of a
technologies
are
technologies
treatment needs.
technology for
successful
and
to
verify
overall
performance
Results of evaluations may indicate
further consideration and support.
show
and
beneficial
applications,
the
Where
USEPA
is
interested in providing current information to encourage their use.
This (SBRs)
report
for
specifically
addresses
nitrification and nutrient
began in the 1960s,
the
use
of
removal.
Sequencing
Although
Batch
Reactors
limited use of SBRs
it was not until the early 19805 that the technology became
more widely accepted and used. increased interest in this
After early acceptance and use, USEPA expressed
technology especially in the comparative costs and
performance.
The USEPA funded a development project in 1980, conducted by the University of
Notre
project
Dame,
to
involved
evaluate the
batch
conversion
treatment of
activated sludge facility at Culver, of
this
20-month project
municipal facilities. was
the
advent
control. (2)
of more
led to
the
An important reliable
an
of
municipal
existing
0.4
MGD
wastewater. continuous
Indiana into a two-tank SBR. (1) use factor
of SBR in the
technology
at
The flow
Results
several
other
recent development of SBRs
instrumentation combined with microprocessor
Page 2
Recently,
concern over nutrient
discharges
to natural
water systems
and
more stringent regulations has led to modifications in SBR systems to achieve ni trification,
deni trification,
and biological phosphorus
approximately 170 SBRs are operating in the U. S.
removal.
Of these,
Presently,
approximately 40
were designed specifically to include nutrient removal.
In
putting
together
this
report,
information
was
compiled
from
the
literature, equipment manufacturers, and wastewater treatment plant personnel. The study focused on well established plants that had nutrient data available. There are
few plants with
total nitrogen or phosphorus permit limits so
the
data for these nutrients are limited.
Findings
Sequencing Batch Reactors are designed for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS)
removal from typical domestic wastewater for
small «5 MGD) municipal and private installations. Modifications to the basic design
can be
made
to
allow nitrification,
phosphorus removal to occur. among
manufacturers.
denitrification,
and biological
Cycle time, design parameters, and equipment vary
Influent
wastewater
characteristics,
effluent
requirements, and site specific conditions influence design development.
Data were collected from 19 municipal and private SBR wastewater treatment plants in the United States. from
0.028
to
3.0
MGD.
The average design flow for these plants ranged
The
average
mixed
liquor
suspended solids
concentration for eight of the plants ranged from 2000 to 3600 mg/l. to mass
ratio
(F/M),
BOD/lb MLSS-day. which
were
available
for
six plants,
ranged from 0.01
(MLSS)
The food to 0.09
lb
The solids retention time (SRT) was available for two plants,
designed
phosphorus removal.
for
nitrification,
denitrification,
and
biological
The SRT for these two plants ranged from 17 to 30 days.
The average effluent BOD concentration ranged from 3.0 to 14.0 mg/l with removals ranging from 88.9 to 98.1 percent. from 3.7 to 20.2 mg/l, mg/l.
The average effluent TSS ranged
excluding one plant with an average effluent TSS of 52
No influent TSS data was available for this plant.
ranged from 84.7 to 97.2 percent.
Removals for TSS
Page 3
t:i;;h::
pian::c;
:r;easun",c! bo::h influent and effluent ammonia-nitrogen
conclontr3tLons
E:fluent
from 0.285 to 1.68 mgjl.
\H3-N
limited.
these
eight
plants
One plant monitored both
total nitrogen concentrations.
averaged 56 percent.
for
ranged
Ammonia removal ranged from 90.8 to 96.8 percent.
Denitrification data ',.;as efflu~nt
concentrations
(NH3-N)
influent
and
Total nitrogen removal for this plant
Denitrification was occurring at three additional plants
that measured both effluent nitrate-nitrite nitrogen (N03 + N02-N) and influent NH3-N.
Seven
plants
measured
effluent
effluent phosphorus concentrations measured both
influent
plants
average
percent
removal
57
concentrations.
ranged from 0.53
and effluent
percent
phosphorus
The
to 4.27 mgjl.
phosphorus concentrations.
phosphorus
removal,
in the summer and 69 percent
while
the
Two plants One of
other
in the winter.
average
these
averaged
64
Two plants added
chemic3ls for phosphorous removal and are not included in these findings.
Conclusions
The
SBR performance data shows
that
typical SBR designs can meet effluent
BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 10 mgjl. modifications,
SBRs
They also appear phosphorus
can successfully nitrify
With some additional design
to
limits
of 1 to
2 mgjl NH3-N.
to achieve denitrification when properly designed and achieve
removal
without chemicals
to
less
than 1.0 mgjl,
although data on
both processes are limited.
SBR's
flexibility
adj ust
cycles
design
and
can
to
be
process
meet
system, cycles.
influent conditions
important
for
biological
optimization.
Current
SBR
designs
is
different
design
since all
the process air must be supplied during processes
from
following
SBRs
are
to ability
nutrient
to
removal
typically
very
ML~
low FjMs and high
aeration
Downstream
due
espec ially
conservative with long HRTs,
SBR
changing
a
conventional
must
be
activated
sludge
the FILL and REACT
sized
for
rates due to high decant ratios unless flow equalization is used.
higher
flow
Page 4
T11(~
SBR market
is competitive which will encourage cost effectiveness when
compdl'vd
e.O
developed
for
systems.
Current designs
process
competing, SBRs
kno\_iledge,
technologies.
similar
to
those
State that
many
are based on several
manufacturer's
experience, and permit requirements.
standards states factors,
information,
have
have
not
for
yet
been
conventional
including fundamental
actual
plant
performance
Page FS-l
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET
Description
A
sequencing
biological
treatment process
industrial
',,;aste'...,ater
treatment
cycle
FILL,
that
small
consists
following steps: removal (BNR)
for
batch
of
is desired,
(SBR)
is applicable to
a
REACT,
reactor
medium
timed
flowrates
DECANT,
an
activated
sludge
to treatment of municipal and
sequence
SETTLE,
is
(0
which
IDLE.
to
5 mgd).
typically
An
SBR
includes
the
When bio logical nutrient
the steps in the cycle are adjusted to provide anoxic
or anaerobic periods within the standard cycles
Aeration in an SBR may be provided by fine or coarse bubble diffusers, aerator/mixers or jet aeration devices. some
type
removal. and
of
preliminary
treatment
floating
The SBR process is usually preceded by such
as
screening,
communition
or
grit
Because the SBR process operates in a series of timed steps, reaction
settling
can
occur
in
the
same
tank,
eliminating
the
need
being
flexible
for
a
final
clarifier.
The
SBR
technology
matching
react
has
and
the
advantage
settle
times
of to
the
very
strength
and
in
terms
of
treatability
characteristics of a particular waste stream
Common
Modifications
secondary
t rea tment,
SBRs
can
be
modified
ni tr i ficat ion,
to
provide
deni tri fica t ion
and
secondary,
advanced
bio logical
nutrient
removal.
SBR manufacturers have adapted the sequence of batch treatment cycles
described
above
in
various
ways.
Some
systems
provide a baffle to minimize short-circuiting. in pairs so that one wastewater The
in
modified
the
other
a
a
continuous
inflow and
SBRs were originally configured
reactor was filling during half of each cycle (while the reactor
configurations
surge/holding tank;
use
was
reacting,
available
settling and being decanted).
include
one
SBR
with
an
influent
three SBR system in which the fill time is one third of
the total cycle time; and a continuous inflow SBR.
Technology wastewater technology. BNR.
Status treatment
There
are
facilities
currently in
the
(July
United
1991)
Scates
approximately
which
emp'loy
the
170 SBR
Approximately 40 of these SBR systems are designed or operated for
Page FS-2
T';piczd
or >lanufacturers
L·:quipm",r;~·:;CJ.
- Complete SBR systems are available in
the Unit0d States tram the following manufacturers:
Aqua-Aerobic Systems Austgen Biojet Fluidvne JetTech Purestream Transenviro
Applications
Sequenc ing
batch
reactor
technology
is
applicable
for
any
municipal or industrial waste where conventional or extended aeration activated sludge treatment is appropriate. KeD.
technology
The
denitrification
and
is
SBR sizes can range from 3,000 gpd to over 5
applicable
biological
espec ia lly app 1 icab le for
for
BOD and TSS
phosphorus
removal,
removal.
The
nitrification, technology
indus trial pre treatment and for smaller flow «
is 1. 0
KeD) applications as well as for applications where the waste is generated for less than 12 hours per day.
Limitations
SBRs require oversize effluent outfalls because the entire daily
wastewater volume
must
be
discharged
typically 4 to 6 hours per day.
during
the
decant
period(s).
which
is
Aeration systems must be sized to provide the
total process air requirements during the AERATED FILL and REACT steps.
The
cost-effectiveness of SBRs may limit their utility at design flow rates above 10 KeD.
Earlier SBRs experienced maintenance problems with decant mechanisms
but these have largely been resolved with present-day designs.
Performance
The
average
performance
based
on
data
summarized below:
BOD Removal TSS Removal Nitrification Total Nitrogen Removal Biological Phosphorus Removal
89 - 98% 85 - 97% 91 - 97% >75 %
57 - 69%
from
19
plants
is
Page FS-3
Chemicals Requireo - Ctllorlnatlon and dechlorination chemicals are required for app 1 lca t ions
·.."h ich
disinfection is
lnvo 1\'e
the
utilized).
direc t
Also,
discharge of domes tic
some
facilities have
was te
found
(unless UV
it necessary
to
add alum or ferric chloride to meet stringent effluent phosphorus limits.
Residuals
Generated
Secondary sludge
is
generated at
quantities
similar
the activated sludge process depending on the system operating conditions
to
(SRT
and organic load).
Design Criteria
Unit
BOD Loading:
30 to 60 lbs BOD/lOOO ft 3 /day
SRT:
5 to 30 days
Detention time:
6 to 12 hours
F/M:
0.05 to 0.5 lbs BOD/lb MLSS
Cycle time (conventional):
4 to 6 hours
Cycle time (BNR)'
6 to 8 hours
Process
Reliability
- Tables
FS-l
and
FS-2
indicate
the percent of
time
when the summer and winter monthly average effluent concentration of the given pollutants developed
met from
the the
criteria data
shown
discussed
in in
the the
first
column.
performance
These
section
of
tables this
were
sheet,
although some start-up data was eliminated.
Environmental Impact
- Solid waste,
odor and air pollution impacts are similar
to those encountered with standard activated sludge processes.
Toxics
Management
pass- through
of
The toxic
same
potential
pollutants
activated sludge processes.
for
exists
sludge
for
SBR
contamination, systems
as
upsets
with
and
standard
Page FS-4
TABLE FS-l. SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - SUMMER :1onthly Average Data - April through September
BOD
TSS
TKN
NH3-N
!llUl
I!lUl
I!lUl
!1lUl
16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 83.3% 83.3% 83.3% 100.0%
42.6% 61.7% 77 4% 87.8% 91.3% 92.2% 98.3% 100.0% 100.0%
<.5 mg/l <1 mg/l <2 mg/l <3 mg/l <4 mg/l <5 mg/l <10 mg/l <20 mg/L <30 mg/l
0.0% 0.0% 14% 14.4% 26.7% 34.9% 69.9% 96.6% 98.6%
0.0% 00% 2. 1% 16.7% 25.0% 61.8% 88.2% 93.8%
II Plants
14
14
76%
1
11
N03+N02-N mgll 6.7% 53.3% 68.9% 75.6% 91.1% 93.3% 97.8% 97.81~
97.8% 5
'P
!llUl 24.4% 53.7% 78.0% 82.9% 85.4% 95.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 5
TN
mUl 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 91.7% 1
Data taken from the following 15 wastewater treatment facilities: Armada, MI; Buckingham, PA; Caledonia, MN; Del City, OK; Dundee, MI; Grafton, OH; Manchester, MI; McPherson, KS; Southeast WWTP, Conover, NC;. Walnut Grove, Stroudsburg, PA; Chateau Estates, Clarkston, MI; Clover Estates, Muskegon Heights, MI; Grundy Center IA; Mifflinburg, PA; and Windgap, PA.
Page FS-5
TABLE FS-2. SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - WINTER :-lonthly Average Data - October through March
BOD
TSS
TKJ.~
NH3-N
mgLl
mUl
!J1U.l
!J1U.l
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% 100.0% 100.0%
45.5% 65.2% 76.8% 82.1% 83.0% 86.6% 92.6% 100.0% 100.0%
<.5 mg/l <1 mg/l <2 mg/l <3 mg/l
0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 12.2% 23.7% 35.3% 65. S% 89.2% 95.7%
0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 7 . L. % 16 8% 20. 8% SS 0% 82 .6% 90 6%
II Plants
14
14
1
11
P
TN
mgLl
!J1U.l
25.5% 61.7% 68.1% 78. 7% 89.4% 89.6% 95.7% 100.0% 100.0%
24.6% 50.8% 80.3% 86.9% 93.4% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.5% 100.0% 100.0%
5
5
1
N03+N02-N mg/l
Data taken from the following 15 wastewater treatment facilities: Armada, MI; Buckingham, PA; Caledonia, MN; Del City, OK; Dundee, MI; Grafton, OH; Manches ter, MI; Me Phe rson, KS; Southeas t WWTP, Conover, NC; Walnut Grove, Stroudsburg, PA; Chateau Estates, C13rkston, MI; Clover Estates, Muskegon Heights, MI; Grundy Center IA; Mifflinburg, PA; and Windgap, PA.
Page FS - 6
Flow Diagram - Figure FS-l illustrates a typical SBR over one cycle.
Costs
- July 1991 dollars,
ENR
(Engineering News Record)
costs were available for six plants, costs.
Index.
Construction
while five plants supplied total capital
Construction costs were converted to capital costs by adding 15 percent
for engineering and construction supervision and 15 percent for contingencies. All capital costs were adjusted to July 1991 costs.
Figure FS-2 presents the
cost data available for utility, operating and capital costs compared to actual and design flow.
References
Evaluation of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Nitrificatioll and Nutrient Removal. Prepared by HyctroQual,
Sequencing
Batch
Inc., October 1991.
Reactors
Summary
Report
(EPA
625/8-86/011)
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio
P£RCENT OF: MAX VOLUME
2S to tOO
CYCLE TIME
25
INFLUENT
rl
PURPOSE/OP£RATION
Fill
•
pV<::)9 Oo~Oo.o~ ~ .~ 0 Qoo o0t:.
..
pI:!• 0
.~ 0000"0 p'O. 000 0<:> .CO'"-.\) . ~ ..... 0 "",
~
100
35
REACT
.-
00
AIR ON
i;iO<:> C~Cl~O ~\
p' . O·~ OOO~o,O Q'Or::P:o ~\Jo o.oQ9
REACTION TIME
...
~
20
ADD SUBSTRATE
oq ~.Q' £:)':'00 '-' o·0";-Jq. 0'300..-. 0 0 0 0 000
'0 0'0 '<:l0 c:>cO ~~./h o'=> ~ (\0 ~ o~c'
100
AIR ON/OFF
AIR OFF
SETTLE
-- - - -CLARIFY ~
100 to 35
DRAW
-rl
EFFLUENT
10
IDLE
35
6
AIR OFF
"
15
25
-
"
REMOVE efFLUENT
CYClE
ADJUST
AIR ON/OFF
WASTE SLUDGE
Figure F-1. Typical SBR Operation for One Cycle
a: <
W
U'J>-
~,
U'J~
0
0
uu.. >-
0
0.1
0
~U'J
l-IZ
-10 l-I l-I
0
~-I
::J-I l-I
~
0.01 0.01
0.1
1
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
ir <
0
0
tflW ~>-
U'J'
o~
u
u..
t!)o Z
.... tfl ~z
0
<0 a: ....
W-I Cl.-I
0 ....
~
0.001 0.001
0.1
0.01
10
1
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
tfl ~ tfl 0_ tJ .. -Iu..
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
co
~
0
Mtfl
Q.Z
co
0
0
tJM -I
0-1
LU .... ~%
0
tfl-
~ 0
<
0.1 0.01
0.1
DESI6N FLOW
1
10
(MGD)
Figure F-2. Utility, Operating and Capital Costs
Page 1-1
SECTION 1. DESCRIPTION OF SBR PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
The SBR is a modification of conventional continuous flow activated sludge sewage treatment.
The SBR is a
fill-and-draw system that operates
in a batch
A conventional activated sludge (CAS) system
rather than in a continuous mode.
carries out aeration and sedimentation/clarification simultaneously in separate tanks. tank.
The
SBR
performs
these
operations
sequentially
in
the
same
An SBR system is comprised of either a storage tank and an SBR tank,
a minimum of the
process
SBR
t·.... o SBR
process,
manufactured
by
tanks
the,
to handle continuous
Intermittent
Austgen
intermittent withdrawal.
Biojet.
Cycle
Extended
operates
A baffle wall
influent. Aeration
with
a
or
A modification of System
continuous
(ICEASR), feed
and
installed in the ICEASR treatment tank
buffers this continuous inflow. (3)
Cycle Operation
A typical
SBR cycle
for
BOD and TSS
(Total Suspended Solids)
removal
is
divided into the following five steps:
1.
Fill - Raw wastewater flows
into the
in
on
the
tank.
Aeration
is
tank and mixes with mixed liquor held
and biological
degradation
begins
to
take
place.
2.
React
- The mixed liquor
is aerated for a specified time until
the design
effluent BOD is reached.
3.
Settle
-
Aeration
is
stopped and the
solids
settle
to
the bottom of
the
of
and
tank.
4.
Draw
Treated
discharged.
effluent
is
decanted
from
the
top
th.E;;
tank
Page 1-2
J.
Tim? ben.;een cycles.
Idle to
adjust
during
,:':cLe
idle,
times
Idle is used in multiple tank configurations
between
draw or settle.
diurnal fluctuation.
SBR
reactors.
Differences
Sludge fill
in
wasting
can
occur
time may exist due
to
Other minor variations in individual SBR tank cycles
are regulated with the idle step.
Figure
1
illustrates this sequence of events. (4)
The ICEASR modification
does not have a separate idle or fill phase since it uses continuous fill.
The
baffled pre-reaction compartment in an ICEASR tank permits wastewater to enter continuously without causing a significant disturbance during settle and draw. Figure 2 illustrates the ICEASR tank configuration. (3)
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT The SBR system consists of one or more tanks equipped with a reactor inlet, aeration
equipment,
a
sludge
draw
removing clarified supernatant, Tanks
processes. critical
and
may be
SBRs
can
be
off
mechanism,
a
decant
mechanism
for
and a control mechanism to time and cycle the
constructed of steel retrofitted
into
or concrete.
existing
The shape
rectangular
or
is not
circular
tanks.
SBR manufacturers offer a performance
needs.
Decant
variety of features mechanisms
markedly between manufacturers. pipe
with
floating pumps. (1)
automated weirs,
movable
diffuser
Decant mechanisms
weir
baffles,
troughs tilting
designs
different may
differ
include a submerged outlet
connected weirs
to meet
and
to
flexible floating
couplings, submersible
Some decant mechanisms have the potential problem of drawing solids
when beginning aeration.
valves,
and air
designed
the
DRAW phase.
Solids may get
trapped on the piping during
This can be minimized by decanter modifications or by recirculating
the first few minutes of flow to a second reactor until the
Sl
'ernatant clears.
It is important to insure that effluent removal is uniformly distributed across the tank;
the draw mode is the peak hydraulic flow within the cycle and short
circuiting can cause uncontrolled suspended solids loss.
I
PERCENT OF. MAX VOLUME
CYCLE TIME
25 to 100
25
INFLUENT
PURPOSE/OPERATION
11
FILL
AIR ON/OFF
...
0 "'-''-'' v. 0·"6 .. \:J <;)C)/ 00 °Q"c P • 00 \J. " 0 ~. 0°00 0 0 •. 0 P~. 0. cO O<::>C). .0 ~.. Q 0~ ~
P
-
...-
REACT o-q ;S•.;o-: 0 '-'o·o,,;? o. o '3 00 c· 00 0 0 0 0 0 000.oO? cl::)<::lC>OO~< ;," O~O .~ooOO·O ~o·\)c·oQ ';0 O~O.o <:aOO~Oc'O
~
100
35
c;:, /h 0
<::.
':? i'l 0 ~ 0 ~0
100
ADD SUBSTRATE
20
.
AIR ON
REACTION TIME
~
-
SETILE
- --
-
AIR OFF
CLARIFY
100 to
35
15
AIR OFF
rl
35 to
-
...
EFFLUE~
25
DRAW
5
IDLE
-
.
REMOVE EFFLUENT
CYCLE
ADJUST
AIR ON/OFF
WASTE SLUDGE
Reference (4)
Figure 1. Typical SSR Operation for One Cycle
PRE-REACT CHAMBER
MAIN CHAMBER
REACTOR I INFLUENT
-,..
WASTE SLUDGE PUMP AIR/DIFFUSERS
TREATED EFFLUENT
Reference (3)
Figure 2. Austgen Blojet ICEA~ Basin
Page 1-5
Aeration
s,,'s~ems
diffused aeration.
je~
include
aeration,
fine
bubble
and
coarse
bubble
Jet aeration can provide
and floating mechanical aerators.
either aeration or mixing without aeration in one unit by operating the pumping system
with
mixing
mechanisms
system is without
the
air
supply
for
on
this
or
put-pose.
retrievable aerators.
emptying
the
off.
Some
One
manufacturers
variation
to
the
which allow aerators to be
SBR. (7)
Othe r
sys tems
inc lude
supply
separate
typical
aeration
cl~aned
backflush
or replaced
mechanisms
to
clean the aerators.
Advantages
The
SBR
system
advantages
compared
to
a
CAS
system
and
offers
much
Some of the technical and financial advantages are:
flexibility.
*
has
Early
in plant
design
flow,
lifetime,
level
lower level.
when plant
sensors
that
flow may be
control
cycle
significantly bela",,!
times
can be set at a
Cycle times would be the same as design, but power would
not be wasted in over-aeration. (5)
A greater part of anoxic
dissolved
the
react
fill.
oxygen driving
cycle
This
due
to
results
gradient
the in
exists
low/zero
somewhat
during
the
first
DO concentration during higher
oxygen
transfer
efficiencies fo~ a given size of aeration equipment. (2)
*
An
SBR
tank
therefore
operates
tolerate
as peak
an
equalization
flows
and
tank
shock
during
loads
of
fill BOD
and
can
without
degradation of effluent quality.
*
A return
activated
.'1eration
and
sludge
settling
(RAS)
occur
in
pumping the
system
same
tank.
is
not
needed
Sludge
since
volume
and
sludge age are controlled by sludge wasting.
*
Periodic discharge of flow may enable effluent to be held until permit limitations are met.
Page 1-6
I,co,,.;th
of
filamentous
organisms
which
cause
sludge
bulking
can
be
contcolled by adjustments in the food-to-mass ratio (F/M) and aeration time during the fill cycle.
-I<
SBR
systems
considering
may
require
less
physical
the entire plant.
space
than
a
SBR systems can be
CAS
system when
re.trofitted into a
wide range of existing tank structures.
Disadvantages
The
following
are
potential
usually
ove rcome
through
disadvantages
prope r
des i gn.
of
the
proce 5S
SBR
system.
These
adj us tments.
or
in solids
the
are
equipment
modifications.
*
Problems with
sludge
settling will
result
in
effluent
and a loss of the process performance.
*
Float ing Fixed
decant
systems
mechanisms
require
before decanting.
that
may
be
subj ect
the
sludge
to
blanket
mechanical be
below
problems. the
intake
Both systems may draw in trapped solids when first
starting the decant phase.
*
Surface
freezing of controls and decant mechanisms may occur in cold
climates during the settling and decant phases.
*
The
relatively
equalization
or
high
flow
over
rate
design
during
when
decant
followed
may
by
require
flow
disinfection
or
filtration facilities.(6)
*
With long SRTs, denitrification may occur during settle and sludge may begin to rise due to the formation of nitrogen gas. aggravated at elevated temperatures. (6)
This is usually
Page 1-7
.\eCOitLun equipmellt rnU'it be laeger, ovee
*
~
SLr:ce
peocess aie must be supplied
shorter period,
Effluent sewers must be oversized since decant than normal inflow,
flows are much higher
Page 2-1
SECTION 2. THEORY OF NITRIFICATION, DENITRIFICATION, AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL The
following sections describe biological processes
that occur naturally
in the environment and which can be encouraged to take place for the purpose of nutrient removal in wastewater treatment systems.
NITRIFICATION Ni trification (N02-)
and
then
is
the
biological
to
the
nitrate
microorganisms responsible are
the
autotrophic
for
(N03-)
of
form.
ammonia
(NH4 +)
to
The
major
species
two
nitrite of
the biological oxidation of nitrogen compounds
bacteria
oxidizes ammonia to ni tri te.
oxidation
Nitrosomonas
and
Nitrobacter.
Nitrosomonas
Ni trobacter completes the ni trification process
by oxidizing nitrite to nitrate.
The
overall
nitrification
of
ammonia
can be
expressed by
the
following
reaction:
Temperature, ( SRT )
are
pH,
dissolved oxygen concentration,
imp 0 r tan t
nitrification temperature.
in
par am e t e r s i n
an
activated
nit r i f i cat ion
sludge
system
and solids retention time kin e tic s .
decreases
The r a t e o f
with
The optimum temperature is between 25 and 35°C.
for nitrification is in the range of 7.5 to 9.0.
The optimum pH
Below pH 7.0 and above pH 9.8
the nitrification rate is less than 50 percent of the optimum. destroyed by
the
oxidation of ammonia,
decreasing
thereby reducing the
Alkalinity is
pH.
A ratio of
7.14 mg alkalinity is destroyed per mg of ammonia nitrogen oxidized.
Aeration
partially
reducing
strips
alkal ini ty
the
reduc tion;
carbon
dioxide
however
from
the
suffic ient
wastewater so as not to depress the pH.
wastewater
alkalini ty
4.57
nitrate. (8)
lbs
of
oxygen
per
pound
mus t
remain
in
the
Maximum nitrification rates occur at
dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 2 mgjl. consumes
thereby
of
The nitrification process
ammonia
nitrogen
cb'hverted
to
Page 2-2
The
nitrificCi.tion
bCi.ctet-ia
present
nitrification accomplished
rate by
t-"te
in
the
is
to
is
also
system.
the
the
concentration which increases
S-day
BOD
the
nitrifying in a
total
the
fraction
fraction
means
the SRT.
nitrifying
increasing
liquor
the
This
can be
suspended
solids
Lowering the ratio between the (BODS/TKN)
by
separate second stage aeration system would also increase
the
percentage of nitrifiers
Kjeldahl
of
of
of nitrifiers.
aeration basin mixed
(MLSS)
and
on
principal
A.
increase
increasing
dependent
and thus
nitrogen
concentration
the nitrification rate. (8)
This
approach,
however, has not been found to be a cost effective design for normal municipal 'waste'dater.
DENITRIFICATION
Biological nitrogen
denitrification
gas
by
is
a
process
microorganisms
in
the
in
which
ni trate
absence
of
is
reduced
dissolved
to
oxygen.
Denitrification can occur provided a sufficient source of nitrate and organic carbon
are
present.
The
denitrification
process
can
be
expressed
by
the
following reaction:
N03' + organic carbon "'> N2(gas) + C02
The denitrification process occurs
The
in two steps.
first step involves
In the second step nitrite is reduced to
the reduction of nitrate to nitrite. produce nitrogen gas.
Numerous species of facultative heterotrophic bacteria,
including Pseudomonas,
Micrococcus,
Achromobacter,
converting nitrate to nitrogen gas. processes
of
the
organisms
and Bacillus are capable of
Nitrate replaces oxygen in the respiratory
capable
of
denitrification
under
anoxic
conditions. (8)
Environmental
factors
including
temperature,
r. '-1
,
and
dissolved
concentration have an effect on the rate of denitrification. occurs at temperatures in the range of 10 to 30°C. is reduced below pH 6.0 and above pH 9.0.
6.5
to
8.0.
Denitrification
The rate of denitrification
The optimum pH is
A dissolved oxygen concentration greater
denitrification.
oxygen
than
in the range of 1 mg/l
inhibits
Page 2-3
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Phosphorus
in 'wastewater may be present as
or organic phosphorus. type';
of
iiI,d
polyphosphate,
Orthophosphate is the more easily removed of the three
phosphorus
hycil-o] .;''; is
orthophosphate,
?olvphosphates
(Jl-gani c
phosphorus
are
is
converted
converted
to
to
orthophosphate
orthophosphate
by
through
bacterial decomposition. ,Y;
Conventional phosphorus
secondarv
remo'/al
bv
!Ising
treatment
phosphorus
for
systems
biomass
accomplish
synthesis
partial
during
BOD
A tvpical phosphorus content of microbial solids is 1.S to 2 percent
remo'/al
based on dry weight. phosphorus ratio.
biological
removal
Wasting of excess microbial solids may result in a of
30
to
l()
the system sludge age,
percent,
depending
on
the
BOD
to
total
phosphorus
sludge handling techniques and sidestream return
flows.(CJ)
Additional
biological
phosphorus
subjected to both anaerobic
and
removal
aerobic
(absence of DO and oxidized nitrogen) products
are
facul tative
produced
organisms.
assimilate the
from The
the
will
occur When
conditions.
precedes an aerobic
BOD
in
phosphorus
the
if
an anaerobic stage,
wastewater
stol-ing
wastewater
by
fermentation products under anaerobic conditions.
competing microorganisms cannot function in this manner,
stage
fermentation
the
microorganisms
is
action
are
able
of to
Because many
the phosphorus storing
microorganisms have a distinct advantage over other organisms in the activated sludge
system.
Thus,
the
anaerobic
phase
results
in
the
development
of
phosphorus storing microorganisms. (9,10)
During
the
aerobic
phase
the
stored
substrate
products
are
depleted
and
soluble phosphorus is taken up by the microorganisms in quantities greater than what is needed to function. dissolved
oxygen
This "luxury uptake" of phosphorus is maximized at
concentrations
greater
than
2
mg/l.
At
lower
DO
concentrations the excess phosphorus will be released from the microorganisms.
Page 2-4
~nr
for
biological phosphorus removal to occur, an anaerobic stage is required
the production of the
is occurring,
removal can occur.
or nitrate are present, a
Therefore,
if nitrification
it is necessary for denitrification to take place before enhanced
biological phosphorus
reason.
fermentation products.
If this does not happen and nitrite
the system is anoxic rather than anaerobic.
low dissolved oxygen concentration must be
maintained for
For this a
longer
period when biological phosphorus removal is required than when denitrification is required.
Page 3-1
SECTION 3. DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
Standard SBR systems are designed to reduce the BOD and TSS concentrations of the wastewater.
SBR svstems have been consistently able to achieve removals
of greater than 90 percent of BOD and TSS
An and
SBR
system
biological
strategies
a1.-e
can be
steps
times
in
an
to
phosphorus
remova 1.
required.
These
capacity and equipment,
Cycle
designed
are
SBR
cycle size
the
Adjustments
an
essential
cycle,
FILL,
aspect
REACT,
unique
of an
SETTLE,
Total
may
the
standard
require
operating
additional
plant
SBR system design. DRAW,
cycle
and
IDLE,
The
vary
basic
both
by
times may be constant or may
The percent of the reactor volume that is decanted during each
reactor
is a design parameter volume
is
determined
design volume occupied by settled MLSS, are
to
denitrification,
and are included in the design of a system.
(percent decant) of
nitrification,
adj us tments
manufacturer and design conditions. vary with flow.
achieve
because
the
oxygen
delivery
important by
design
to batch systems.
The
flow
the
requirements,
and a design decant depth. system
must
be
sized
to
SBR designs deliver
the
total process oxygen requirements during the FILL and REACT portions of the SBR cycle. (4)
In a multi-tank system, ~erate
more than one reactor.
air piping may be arranged so
that one blower can
Table 1 shows the sequence of events in a three-
tank system which offsets the REACT phase in each basin. (1)
Other important SBR design criteria are similar to those used in the design of a conventional activated sludge treatment facility. retention time (HRT),
These include hydraulic
solids retention time (SRT), MLSS concentration,
wastewater characteristics, and effluent requirements,
influent
Table 1. Sequence of Events in a Three Tank System
Tank Number 1
2
3 Settle
Fill
React Draw Idle Settle
React
Fill Draw Idle
Settle Fill
React
Draw Idle Settle Fill
React Draw Idle Settle
React
Fill Draw Idle
Settle Fill
React
Draw Idle
Reference (1)
Page 3-3
The follo',.;iIls nit r i f i cat ion
C''';O
and
sections examine SSR designs f01- SOD and TSS removal with
the
'J
a ria t ion s
t o t h e sed e s i g n s
ne c e s s a r y
to
a chi eve
denitrification and phosphorus removal.
STANDARD SBR DESIGNS WITH NITRIFICATION
A standard SBR system is designed to reduce the BOD and TSS concentrations of a wastewater.
Some standard systems are designed for nitrification as well.
Table 2 lists typical steps for a standard SBR cycle with nitrification.
This
table also describes the pllrpose of each step and the conditions that should be present
to
best
achic've
that
conditions of adequau, DO (minimum 1 to 20
days
or
bacteria.
more
depending upon
In an SBR system,
NitrLficatLoll
purpose .J
CilI1
only
occur
under
mg/l) and sufficiL,ntly long SRT (S to
temperature)
to
ensure
growth of
nitrifying
nitrification t.l.kes place during the REACT phase
and periods of aerated fill. (4,7)
The deviate
cycles from
designed by
the
standard
the
majority
cycle
of
of
Table
2
the
SBR
manufacturers
in
one
or
more
differences occur in tank configuration and design parameters.
ways.
studied Other
The following
paragraphs briefly discuss specific designs of six major SBR manufacturers.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Aqua-Aerobic's maximum dai ly
flow.
tankage This
and is
during periods of peak flows. storm cycle
total
cycle
to ensure
times
tha t
are
effluent
designed qual i ty
to
treat
the
is maintained
Typically, other manufacturers design a shorter
to handle peak flows during rain events
quality if operated for extended periods
that may reduce effluent
A larger SBR tank is required for
systems designed for the maximum daily flow
Aqua-Aerobics conventional load system provides for BOD and TSS removal and limi ted nutrient reduction.
The system operates at an F jM ratio of 0.15 to
0.35 lb BODjlb MLSS-day and a MLSS between 1500 and 3000 mgjl.
T:\.BLE
Step
L
riPI CAL CYCLE FOR A
STAJ.~DARD
SBR WITH NITRIFICATION
Conditions
Purpose
FILL
Influent flow into SBR Aeration Time = half of cycle time
Addition of raw wastewater to the SBR, BOD removal and nitrification
REACT
No influent flow to SBR Aeration Time typically 1 to 2 hours (varies widely depending on BOD removal kinetics and waste strength
Biological nitrification
SETTLE
No influent flow to SBR No aeration Time = approx. 1 hour (depends on settling characteristics)
Allow suspended solids to settle, yielding a clear supernatant
DRAW
No influent flow to SBR No aeration Effluent is decanted Time = 1 hour (varies)
Decant remove effluent from reac tor; 10 to SO percent of the reactor volume is typically decanted, depending on hydraulic considerations and SBR manufacturer's design
IDLE
No influent flow to SBR No aeration Sludge is wasted Time variable, determined flow rate
Multi-tank system, allows time for one reac tor to complete the fill step before another starts a new cycle. Waste sludge remove excess solids from reactors
A typical total cycle time is 4 to 6 hours
by
BOD
removal
and
Page 3-5
The
SBRs
d e vic e .
designed
b:;
I n " d d i t ion ,
Aqua-Aerobics :\ qua - Ae rob i c s
typically 0
f fer s
include
bot h
a
separate
fix e dan d
mixing
ret r i e v a b 1 e
diffusers. (7)
:\ustgen Biojet
The
Austgen
therefore
does
eliminates
the
DRAW phase. '..Jhich
has
Biojet not
ICEAS(R)
require
need
for an
a
SBR
system
separate
IDLE step.
utilizes
FILL
step.
Sludge
i1noxic
environment
during
SETTLE
that
a
the
sys tem
and
prevents
short - c i rcui t ing
0
the
The
and least
flow
f
inflow
and also
SETTLE or
forms i1 pre-react zone
typically designed with a length to width ratio of at p lug
inflow
Continuous
is wasted during
The SBR basin includes a baffle '..Jall an
continuous
SBR
31.
bas in
is
This creates
influent
during
the
decant sequence.
An Austgen
Biojet
ICEAS(R)
SBR
is
typically
hours within a total cycle time of four hours. than
other
system
due
to
the
lack
of
a
designed
to
aerate
for
two
Overall cycle times are shorter
separate
Austgen
FILL step.
systems may also be designed with one hour aeration and a
Biojet
three-hour cycle
to
handle storm flows.
If only BOD and TSS Biojet
SBR
ratio.
A
is
removal are required,
determined
by
using
prescribed
reactor size for an Austgen food
to
microorganism
(F/M)
F/M ratio between 0.05 and 0.15 Ib BODllb MLSS-day is typically used.
If nitrification is required, for
a
the
nitrification
nitrification suspended
is
rate,
solids
nitrification are
based the
the determination of the reactor volume required on
the
time
(MLVSS) required,
of
required aeration,
degree and
concentration. the
reactor
the
When
volumes
of
ammonia
mixed both
required
removal,
liquor BOD
for
volatile
removal
BOD
the
removal
and and
nitrification are determined, and the larger of the two is chosen. (3)
Fluidyne
For inflow, inflow,
small
systems,
rather
than the standard sequencing reactor.
the
tank
is
Fluidyne
baffled
to
will
design
minimize
a
single
SBR
with
continuous
In SBRs with" continuous
short-circuiting
and
there
is
no
Page 3-6
F_uid~ne
',·;ithO'll
ontLI1UO':S
also designs single- or multi-reactor SBR systems
inflo',.;.
Edch
Fluidyne
SBR
tank
is
equipped
with
jet
aerators that can provide both aerobic oxidation and anoxic mixing. (11)
JetTech
Design
information
information was Based on this to
the
cycle
aeration
available
dt,scribed that
available the
from
the
manufacturer.
Limited
operators of various JetTech SBR
systems.
a standard JetTech cycle appears to be very similar in
lasts
system.
not
from
information,
P,i\CKFLUSH step the
was
Table
2.
JetTech
appro:.:imately
JetTech
systems
does
include
an
additional
five
minutes
and serves
to
are
often,
though
exclusively,
not
clean out
equipped with jet aerators. (12)
Purestream
Purestream
typically
designs
small
private and industrial wastewaters. cycle shown for
t',.;o
in Table
sequencing
2 but may reactors
to
medium
SBR
systems
to
treat
Purestream SBR designs are similar to the
include an
or
size
to
IDLE step
increase
the
to coordinate
design
safety
the cycles
factor.
The
length of the REACT step in a Purestream design is determined from BOD removal, ni tr i fication with coarse
and
deni t d fication
bubble,
diffused air
Their standard design
kine tics. and air
Purestream
lift
multiple
includes duplicate aeration,
air
designs
SBR
point decant lift decant
systems systems.
and sludge
wasting capability. (5)
Transenviro
Nearly
all
Transenviro
removal.
Transenviro
potential
settling problems
anoxic sequences. (13)
SBR
chooses
systems to
that
design may
are SBR
occur
designed systems in
for in
reactors
biological this
manner
without
nutrient o
avoid
anaerobic
or
Page 3-7
SBR DESIGNS FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
l~en
limits,
a wastewater treatment facility must meet phosphorus or total nitrogen SBR
designs
nitrificatioll
,mel
become
somewhat
denitrification
more are
complex.
similar
Operating
for
most
illustrates :1 ~~pical denitrification cycle for an SBR. (1) to occur,
an anoxic period
nitrification.
The
DO
is
in the
SBR is
reduced to
less
necessary
strategies
systems.
Figure
3
For denitrification
following BOD
than 0.5
for
removal and
mg/l during SETTLE,
DRAW,
and IDLE periods.
As removal system.
previously requin~s
Table
described
an
anaerobic
3 lists
nutrient removal.
in
the
period.
typical steps
This
theory
table
section,
This for a
step
can be
SBR cycle
also describes
biological
that
included
removal
strategy,
to maximize phosphorus removal.
an
SBR
the purpose of each step and the
the anaerobic
anoxic period required for denitrification.
in
includes biological
conditions that sllould be present to best achieve that purpose. the phosphorus
phosphorus
period will be
To incorporate longer
than the
Two additional steps can be added
The first step is a separate anaerobic period
following decant which releases some phosphorus to the
liquid above the sludge.
This step is followed by a second decant step where supernatant with phosphorus is drawn off for separate chemical treatment, returned in the fill period.
In addition
to
the
biological phosphorus
Sludge wasting occurs following the aerobic step.
information presented
removal
and phosphorus starved sludge is
in Table
3,
it
is
essential
to
that sludge be wasted under aerobic conditions.
The maximum amount of phosphorus is incorporated into the sludge under aerobic conditions.
For similar reasons, an aerobic digester that maintains an aerobic
environment for
sludge
is used with
the SBR plants since digestor supernatant
is normally recycled.
Chemical addition for phosphorus removal is sometimes used, especially when effluent permit limitations are 2.0 mg/l or less.
When properly operating,
an
NITRIFICATION IDENITRIFICATION IN SBR INFLUENT
n
FILL
PUMP I'O-t-~~~~~~ BOD 5--C0 2 + CELLS
AIR
NH + -N-NO --N 4
PUMP
3
AIR
. . . . . .----..-...ot SETTLE
~-
CELL SEPARATION
DRAW
......m~ .:W%htiJUUrdHtY::H
~lII":W~""""
-
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
IDLE CYCLE ADJUST
Reference (1)
Figure 3. Denitrification Cycle for SBR
Tr'.BU·:
~
T\'PU'::t\L S8R CYCLE FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
Conditions UNAERATED FI LL
Influent flow into SBR aeration T i rr.e = a p pro x i In ate 1 y hours >1 i :-:ed
Purpose
~io
1. 5
Addition of wastewater to the SBR, continuation of anoxic or anaerobic conditions to allow denitrification. and to encourage the growth of phosphorus-removing bacteria
AERATED FI LL
Influent flow into SBR Aeration (DO> 2 mg/l) Time = half of the total cycle time minus the unaerated fill time
Addition of wastewater to the SBR, BOD removal and nitrification, phosphorus uptake
REACT
No influent flow to SBR Aeration (DO> 2 mg/l) Sludge may be wasted Time = typically I to 2 hours (varies widely)
Biological BOD removal and nitrification, phosphorus uptake
SETTLE
No influent flow to SBR .No aeration Sludge is wasted Time = approx. hour
Allow suspended solids to settle to yield a clear supernatant, decrease the DO concentration to encourage deni trification; waste sludge under aerobic conditions with maximum phosphorus content
DRAW
No influent flow to SBR No aeration Effluent is decanted Time = 1 to 2 hours
Remove effluent from reactor, decrease the DO concentration further to encourage denitrification and the growth of phosphorus-removing bacteria
IDLE
No influent flow to SBR No aeration Time = 1 to 15 minutes (typically occurs during the end of the DECANT step)
Allow coordination of cycles in multi-tank system; maintain a low DO concentration to encourage denitrification and the growth of phosphorus-removing bacteria
A typical total cycle time is 6 to 8 hours
Page 3-10
SBR
achi(":(~
can
rates
may
durilH~
decLl,ase
with
longer
cycle
were
utilized.
times,
The
ur
r(jll~S
t1it;h
biological
periuds would
additional
favorable compared to
phosphorus
of stonn
be
required
cost
of
the
flo'......
removal,
Larger
reactors,
if biological larger
though
removal
necessary
phosphorus
reactors,
removal
however,
the cost of continuous chemical addition.
may be
This trade-off
needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis during the design phase.
SBR manufacturers typically offer systems that incorporate nutrient removal and
deviate
in
one
or
more
'Nays
from
the
cycle
described
in Table
3.
The
following paragraphs summarizes the biological nutrient removal designs for six major SBR manufacturers.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Aqua-Aerobic's
10'N
nitrogen and phosphorus
lO;id
s';stern
provides
for
BOD
and
TSS
removal
and
reduction and operates at a FIM ratio of 0.05 to 0.10
lb BOD/lb MLSS-day and a MLSS between 3500 and 5000 mg/l. (7)
Austgen Biojet
Austgen Biojet's
ICEASR design does not utilize a separate UNAERATED FILL
or AERATED FILL step due
to continuous
anoxic
treatment
sequences
periods REACT
during
step
to
the
with
the'
REACT
two
step.
3D-minute
inflow.
cycle
A typical periods
of
by
Instead,
Austgen Biojet adds
alternating
cycle
design
aeration
and
aerobic includes
two
and a
anoxic
two-hour
3D-minute
anoxic
periods.
When
phosphorus
removal
Austgen Biojet
ICEASR
removal
includes
Cj
le
SBR a
to
low
concentrations
«1
rng/l)
is designed with an anaerobic four-hour
REACT
step
phase.
consisting
periods of aeration and four 3D-minute anoxic periods.
is
of
required,
an
A phosphorus four
3D-minute
The ICEASR baffled pre-
react zone has an anoxic environment during SETTLE and DRAW phases,(3)
Page 3-11
i:luici':ne
In '-"'ith
t:lpical
Fluidyne
standard
systems,
nitrification
the
IDLE step
systems,
Fluidyne
is an anoxic will
fill period.
occasionally
single, tJafflc"d Sfl,R '",itti continuous inflo'''' f(Jl' small systems
As
recommend
a
(11)
JetTech
Based on information supplied by operators of various JetTech SBR systems, the
cycles
in JetTech systems designed
to be vee! similar to
for biological nutrient
the C'lcle described in Table '3.
removal appear
JetTech does include an
additional BACKFLUSH step '",hich lasts apPl'oximately five minutes and serves cledn
out
the
exclusively,
aerdtion
system.
JetTech
systems
dre
often,
though
to not
equipped with jet aerators. (12)
Purestream
Purestream cycle
designs
for
do not differ' significantb from
S'BR systems with biological nutrient the cycle desccibed
in Table
3.
removal
Cycle
times
are established bv kinetic considerations and effluent limits. (6)
Transenviro
Transenviro wh ich
stands
utilizes
for
activated sludge
Cyc 1 ic
a
variation
Ac t iva ted
system which
of
the
Sludge
combines
plug
SBR
process This
Sys tem. flow
initial
known
as
is
fill-and-draw
a
reaction
CASS(TM),
conditions
with complete mix operation to favor co-current nitrification-denitrification.
The SETTLE,
CASS (TM) DRAW
requirements,
cycle
(effluent
sequence
typically
removal),
consists
and. ILL-IDLE.
of
FILL-AERATION,
Depending
on
effluent
these sequences can be adjusted to include FILL NON-REACT,
MIX NON-AERATION,
FILL-REACT, and REACT NO-FILL.
FILL-
FILL-
Page 3-12
The C,\SS(T:-1) SBR is configured '.-Jith an inlet zone referred to as a "captive selector zone".
Return Activated Sludge
captive
selector
zone.
aerobic
and
anaerobic
This
zone
initial
(RAS)
exposes
growth
is continuously returned to the
the biomass
conditions.
to
equal
According
anoxic mixing is not necessary because the systems have a
SBR
system
for
a
facility
with
a
includes chemical
addition capability. (13)
be
of
used
in
cases
storm
flow
or
When designing an
Transenviro
Though chemical
biological
biological phosphorus removal more difficult.
limit,
upset,
Transenviro,
They also design a
two-basin systems
phosphorus
it
of
lower DO by design.
Transenviro normally designs dual-reactor SBR systems. four-basin system, which operates as two,
to
sequences
normally
addition may only
makes
evaluation
of
Page 4-1
SECTION 4. SITE VISITS INTRODUCTION
Three obtClin
detailed
visi ted SBR
municipal
information
represent
'Has
wastewater
three
mClnufactured
Fluidvne, Biojet.
and
the
These
operation
different
bv
the
IsL:md,
'Nen,
plants and
with
chosen
GrClfton,
New
York
because
SBRs
performance.
SBR manufacturers.
JetTech,
Shelter
plants
on
treatment
SBR thev
were The
visited
three
The Marlette,
Ohio
SBR
'Has
was
'Nere
plants
Michigan
manufactured
manufactured
to
by
by
Austgen
operating well
and had
available nutrient data.
PLANT OBSERVATIONS
The following sections summarize the observations .made at the three plants.
Marlette, Michigan
The current Marlette, on January 1, MGD.
1990.
The plant was designed for an average daily flow of 0.69
The influent flow passes through a comminutor and a grit chamber prior to
primary clarifiers. are
Michigan wastewater treatment plant began operations
three
The primary clarifier effluent
reactor basins equipped with jet aerators,
basins are normally used. enough to maintain the
flows
however,
through
three units.
August,
the
disinfection by ultraviolet to discharge to a stream. table.
There
only two of the
The present organic loading to the plant is not high The
third SBR is used as an equalization
tank during rainfall events resulting in high flows. of May
to the SBRs.
SBR
effluent
light.
is
polished
During the summer months by
sand bpds
The disinfected effluent
prior
to
is aerated prior
The plant effluent limits are shown in the following
Page 4-2
~arlette,
Michigan Plant ~onthlv Average Effluent Limits - mg/l
Period May - October November - April Year Round
The
three
SBRs
were
approximately
0.17
million
CBOD
TSS
10 15 NA
20 30 NA
manufactured gallons
nitrification and phosphorus removal,
by
-.L
NH3.:li-
NA
2 No Limi t NA
JetTech The
each.
~A
l 0
and plant
have was
a
volume
designed
but not for denitrification.
of for
The plant
has a ferric chloride feed system for phosphorus removal that is used primarily during
rain
During dry
events.
weather operations,
phosphorus
is
removed
biologically rather than chemically.
The
SBR is
operated at a MLSS concentration of appl-oximately 3600 mg/l.
The MLVSS concentration is between 2000 and 2500 mg/l.
The SBRs are typically
operated at an F/M of 0.01 to 0.02 and at an SRT in the range of 25 to 30 days. The
cycle
times
currently
used
l-ecommended by the manufac turer.
are
not
is
diEfel'ent
from
those
A cycle time of six hOUl'S is normally used.
This cycle time includes 1 hour react, remaining time
significantly
1 hour settle, and
for anoxic
fill,
aerated fill
automatically compensates for
flow,
the
and idle.
The
hour decant.
Since the system
time for each of these steps varies.
The cycle times may be adjusted by the plant operator.
Chronological plots summarizing the monthly average flow,
BOD, TSS, NH3-N,
and total phosphorus for July 1990 through June 1991 are presented in Figures 4 and 5.
During the period July 1990 through June 1991, the plant operated at an
average influent flow of 0.42 MGD or approximately 61 percent of design. influent
and effluent data were
available.
Plant
Primary effluent data were not
available; however, plant personnel indicated that approxima, .ly 20 percent of the
BOD
is
removed
in
the
primary clarifiers.
Based on
this
20
percent
removal, approximately 96 percent of the BOD entering the SBR was removed prior to discharge.
Ammonia ni trogen was measured during the summer months.
The
influent NH3-N concentration varied considerably from the summer of 1990 to the summer of 1991.
During July through October 1990 the influent NH.1-N averaged
14.3 mg/l and during May and June 1991 the influent NH3-N averaged 1.7 mg/l.
A
·.
r
o. 80~
o
Effluent
L 0 (!)
0.60
:::E 3
a
0.40
...-1
l..L
0.20
0.00 J
J
200 A
0
Summel"' Effluent BOD Limit - 10 mg/ Win tel"' Effluent BOD Limit - 15 mg/
Influent Effluent
150 --J .......... OJ
E
100
0 0 cD 50
s
J
o
N
o
J
F
A
J
300r----,r----,----,-----y----'T----'T----'T-----r----'T-----r--...., IJ. Influent o Effluent
--J ..........
Summel"' Effluent TSS Limit - 20 mg/ Wintel"' Effluent TSS Limit - 30 mg/l
200
OJ
E
--(f) (f)
t-
J
s
J
July 1990 through June 1991
Figure 4. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data Marlette, Michigan
1 0 . 0 r - - - - - , - - - - - r - - - , - - - , - - - - - r - - - . . - - - - . . . - - - - . - - - - - - - r - -..........- - - - ,
Averages
Influent o Effluent b.
Effluent
Phospho~ue
Limit - i.O mg/
8.0 -.J
"-
en
E
6.0
en :::::l
c...
0 .J::. 0.
4.0
en
0 .J::.
Cl..
2.
O. VL_ _
~
_ _..J.-_ _L..-_
_ _ l_ ___L_ __...L.._ __ I __ __J__ _..L-_ _.J....-_
___J
J
20.0r---,----.--"""T"---r----r---.,..---.,------,r-------r----r----,
Influent o Effluent
.1
Summe~
Effluent NH3-N Limit - 2.0 mg/L
---.J
"en
E
10.0
Z
I
(T')
:J: Z
5.0
o. oL-=::::t::==:=jt:===~==::±==±:::==:±===:::::lI::::==±=::::::f:==:ifb:=:J> J F M A J A s o N o July 1990 through June 1991
Figure 5. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data Marlette, Michigan
J
Page 4-5
pos:~i:)i,·
c-:·:pld!ld~ion
iHlpl"II""ll',·ci This, the
c
d
..
no''''ever,
ror- ::he decrease
f"·j-::ilizer
plant
''''as not confirmed.
oxidation of :JH3-N
in influent NH3-N may be process changes that
discharges
to
the
treatment
plant.
Nitrification was occurring as indicated by
that averaged 95
percent.
The plant consistently met
the pE;rrni.::tecl :;H'l-:J li.mi.::.
The a'/erage June
1991
was
influent 3.3
total phosphorus during the period July 1990 through
mg/l.
Approximately
influent was removed during treatment. concentLltion '",as belo''''
the
permit
76
percent of
the
phosphorus
in
the
The monthly average effluent phosphorus
limit of 1 0 mg/l
for
10 of the
12 months
with available data.
The
plant
is
staffed
approximately 2.5 hours includes
controlling
plant superintendent and
its operation.
however,
a
by
two
full
time
It
is
estimated
day are spent on process control of the SBR.
sludge
wasting
and
and operator were
performing
that This
laboratory analyses.
both generally satisfied with
T)lere WitS originally a
i.t '",as resolved.
operators.
problem with
air
The
the
SBR
in the decanter,
there have been no other major problems.
ill1d
Gritfton, Ohio
The current Grafton, Ohio treatment plant is an SBR upgrade of a trickling filter plant. for
The SBRs wellt on line in December 1988.
an average
grit
chamber
daily prior
currently in use.
flow of 0.75 MGD. to
the
SBRs.
Only
The
plant
t,,,,o
of
The plant was designed
influent passes
the
plant's
The SBRs are equipped with jet aerators.
three
through a SBRs
are
The SBR effluent
flows to a chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge.
The plastic
plant
receives
·_xtrus·ion
addition
flow
from
factory,
to domestic
waste.
a
two
local
foundry, The
prisons,
and
wastewater
a
a
small chrome plater,
circuit
flow
from
board the
manufacturer
plastic
a in
extrusion
factory and the circuit board manufacturer is pretreated prior to entering the plant.
The plant attributes
the high levels of zinc
plater that previously discharged third
SBR
prior
following table.
to
disposal.
to
Plant
the plant. effluent
in the sludge to a zinc
The sludge rec;uirements
is stored in the are
shown
in
the
Page 4-6
Grafton, Ohio Plant Xonthly Average Effluent Limits - mg/l Period
CBOD5
TSS
NH3-N
Summer '"Jinter
10 25
20 30
1.5 15
pea) No Limit No Limit
(a)Monitoring of phosphorus and N03-N required
The
three
SBRs
approximately nitrification,
are
0.43
manufactured
million
by
gallons
denitrification,
and
Fluidyne, The
each.
phosphol"Lls
and SBRs
removal.
have
a
volume
\.Jere
designed
for
The
capab i 1 i ty
for
chemical addition for phosphorus removal exists, but has never been used. SBR
\.Jas
MLSS
of
The
designed for a 41 hour hydraulic detention time at average design flo\.J,
ranging
from
2000
to
2500 mg/l,
and an SRT of 20 days.
It
\.Jas
being
operated at a MLSS bet\.Jeen 3000 and 4000 mg/l at the time of the site visit,
Grafton uses an air on/off sequence to achieve biological nutrient removal. The blo\.Jers cycle during both REACT and IDLE.
The aeration period is adjusted
by the operator and is changed seasonally, or as conditions require.
The FILL
period varies \.Ji th influent flow. Present ly, SETTLE is 70 minutes and DECANT is 50 minutes.
Chronological plots summarizing the monthly average flow, CBOD, NH]-N, NO]N,
and total phosphorus for January 1989
Figures 6 and 7. flo\.J
of
0.53
MGD
During this period the plant operated at an average influent or
approximately
influent data available
\.Jere
CBOD.
phosphorus data were available. th
A
through March 1991 are presented in
plant was removed.
71
percent
of'design.
The
only
plant
Effluent CBOD, NH3-N, NO]+N02-N and total
Approximately 97 percent of the BOD entering
Effluent ammonia nitrogen is measured year round.
average summer effluent NH3 -N concentration during the period
\.Jas
The
0.94 mg/l.
The monthly average effluent NH3-N concentration was below the permit limit in 8 of the 11 summer months with data. all 12 of the winter months.
The plant met its winter NH3-N limits in
Effluent N03-+N02-N were measured once per month
from September 1989 to March 1991.
The effluent total phosphorus concentration
averaged 1.4 mg/l from January 1989 to March 1991.
Effluent
Monthly Averages
1. 50
o. OO .......~........---'_~-'- ........---'_~-'---'----'_~-'---'----I_.!..-~-..l...---I_.L.-~-..l...---I_.!..-....J.-.....J J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
D J
Influent o Effluent
F
M A M J
Summe~ Winte~
/1
J
A SON
J
F
M
Effluent CBDDS Limit· 1S mg/ Effluent CBDDS Limit· 20 mg/L
200 .-J
.......... OJ
E LD 0 0
en
u
100
o J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M
J
J
A SON
J
Figure 6. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data Grafton, Ohio
F M
Monthly Averages Ef fluent NH3-N Limit (Summer) • 1.5 mg/L Effluent NHTN Limit (Winter) • 15.0 mg/L
10.0 Z I (Tl
:r:
z
5.0
o . oL..L.-L-l---=L.:L...L.-L~~~L-.L--l..-l_LI:::::$::~----I--!:lt:=~....L-..L----I_.L....L.....J J F M A ~ J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A S Q N D J F M
40.0 -.J
"'OJ E -...
30.0
C\J
0 Z
+
20.0
(Tl
0 Z
10.0
0.0 J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
~
A M J
J
A 5
0
N 0
J
F
M
5.0
-
-.J
4.0
"'OJ E -...
3.0
en
::l C-
o .c CL en 0 .c
c..
o.OL..J....-L-L-.J.---JL-L....l-...L-l..--L--J_L.-..l-...L-...J...---L.---l_.L...-..l-....L..-!..-..I..---J_.L...-.%.......J J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
~
A
~
J
J
A SON
0
J
January 1989 through March 1991
Figure 7. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data Grafton, Ohio
F
~
Page 4-9
T:,e
plant
i
s::ai:£ec: b':
e;
hour
a
day
full
laborator~.
sent to an outside one
one
on
routine
time
operator.
All
analytical
work
is
The operator estimates he spends approximately
maintenance
of
the
SBR.
The
generally satisfied with the SBR and its operation.
plant
operator
was
There have been no serious
problems '.oJith the, SBR
Shelter Island Heif!,hts, :Je'.oJ York
The wastewater 1988.
It '.oJas
designed
Shelter Island, has
much
Island,
0
to. () 72
~1 CDand
ape a k '.oJ e t
located in the eastern part of Long
higher
began operation
for an average daily dry '.oJeather
fl 0 'N
pea k dry '.oJ eat her
and
treatment plant on Shelter
[lo'.oJs
during
the
summer
than
in June
flow of 0.028 MGD,
a
..oj e il the r
fl 0 w
Island,
is a summer resort
in
winter.
the
0
f
O. 1 5 MGO.
Peak
dry
grit chambers,
bar
weather flows during August have in the past reached 0.12 MGD.
The
plant
screens,
or
has
two Austgen
comminutor
Biojet SBRs.
before
the
SBRs.
There Grit,
are
no
however,
splitter box that divides the flow between the two reactors. is chlorinated beforl' discharge to Long Island Sound.
collects
in
the
The SBR effluent
The SBR was designed for
nitrification and denitrification but not for phospnorus removal.
The plant was designed to treat a BOD load of 44 57 Ibs/day at the average daily dry weather flow. NH3-N
loading of
8.7
Ibs/day
and a
TKN
loading
Ibs/day and a TSS
load of
The plallt was designed for a of
11
Ibs/day.
The
plant's
effluent permit limits are a 30 day average BOD of 30 mg/l and TSS of 30 mg/l. The plant round.
is
required to meet a
30 day total nitrogen limit of 10 mg/l year-
The plant has no effluent phosphorus limit.
The SBRs were designed for mix and a
normal
cycle
time
a
normal cycle
time
of 6 hours with an anoxic
of 4 hours without an anoxi,-
mix.
The
plant
is
typically operated with a five or six hour cycle time for denitrification from Oc tober
to
September. per year,
mid
May
and
wi th
a
four
hour
cyc le
time
from
mid
May
through
The operator reported that cycle times are changed about four times depending on flow.
A typical 4 hour cycle time
includes a
react cycle, a one hour settle cycle, and a one hour draw cycle.
two hour
Page 4-10
Chr-onologicCi:" plots summarizing the monthly flow,
BOD, TSS, TKN,
N03-N, and
total nitrogen data for January 1989 through July 1991 are presented in Figures () and 9.
Samples
evaluated,
the plant operated at an average summer flow
of 0.037
~GD
are
typically collected once per month.
the
flow
weather flow.
averaged
0.015
During the winter months
MGD
or
53
percent
of
the
The met
TKN the
data permit
shows limit
that of
ni trification was 30
mg/l.
The
nitrogen
pennit
limit
of
10 mg/l
in 21
of
the
(November through average
dry
in both the summer
occurring.
effluent
averaged approximately 8 mg/l in both the summer and winter. total
(51 percent of
design
The percent BOD removal averaged 96 percent
and '.... inter. consistently
(May through October)
or 137 percent of design average dry weather flow
the design peak drv weather flow). April)
During the period
The
total
BOD
nitrogen
The plant met the
29 months.
The
average
percent total nitrogen removal was S6 percent.
The plant is staffed by one operator. three
hours
per
day
of
the
operator's
It is estimated that between two and
time
is
spent operating
operator was satisfied with the SBR and its operation. adjacent
to
the
the
SBR.
The
The plant is situated
local beach and private beachhouse and has never received any
complaints about odors.
There have been no major problems with the SBR.
rOEffluent
Monthly Averages
0.08
o
c.9
0.05
~ ~
o
0.04
...--1
lJ..
0.02
o. 00 ..........J....-....l...--'-----"--.L.--J.---J'--.l--..J....-....l...--'-----"---l---J.---J'--.l--..J....-....l...-....L----1..--l---.l.----J'--.L...-..l...-...L-...J.........J...--J F M A M J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
Effluent BOD Limit - 30 mg/l
I> Influent o Effluent
400
-' "-
J
300
Cl
E
o
o
(J)
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON 0
J
F M A M J
J
J
A SON 0
J
F MAN
J
A SON 0
J
F
J
700 600
....... -' "Cl
-
I>
0
Influent Effluent
500 400
E
en en
I-
300 200
F MAN
J
J
NAN
February 1989 through July 1991
Figure 8. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data Shelter Island, New York
J
t·
' - f:.
40.0
0
Inf luent Effluent
Monthly Averages
I
r-
r-
--.J
"""-
30.0
Ol
E Z :Y.
20.0
I-
10.0
o. 0 '---'--....I...-...J-~--'-___l.____''---'---'*'-
.........--=---'----'---'_'__..l...._....I...-...J-~--'-~--'_'__-'--....I...---'L-~--'-__.J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M A M J
J
-.J
"""Ol
6.0
E Z I
4.0
(T)
0 Z
2.0
o. 0 '---..l....__'___'____'____'_--'_'---'--....I...-...J-~___'____l.____''__'__..l....__'___'____'____'____l.____"I~'--..l....--'---'----'----'-__.J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M A M J J
40.0
A Influent o Effluent
Effluent Total Nitrogen Limit - 10.0 mg/L
c (l)
Ol
a
L .j.J .r-!
Z r-1
2
10.
a
I-
o. OL-.-...L...--!.-.....L.--J...---L---l_L.-..I...--!.-.....L.--J...---L~---JL.--.L-...L...--!.-.....L.--J...--L~---JL.--.L-..I...--!.-.....L.--J...---L.......J F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
J
F M A M J
February 1989 through July 1991
Figure 9. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data Shelter Island, New York
J
Page 5-1
SECTION 5.
ANALYSIS OF SBR PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
PERMIT LIMITS
Effluent perrnit the performance
limitations
evaluation are
the manufacturet-
of each plant
ha'le (,tfluent dlfllflonia
limits,
for
the
shown and
'..;hil(,
nineteen treatment plants
in Table 4.
its design
Also
flow.
1 isted
included in
in Table 4 are
T',,;el':e of
19 plants
the
thr,'c' eire; rt,quirt'e! to monitor for ammonia.
The effluent limits ranged from 1.) to III 0 mg/l durLtlg thL' summer months. plants have limits.
nitrate
Effluent
plus nitrite
limits on
1 imits and two have total
total nitrogen are
inorganic
required fot-
Two
nitrogen
two plants.
Five
plants have effluent phosphorus limits that ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 mg/l.
PLANT DATA
The
perfonnance
clata
19
for
plants
are
summari:ced
in
Table
5.
The
available monthly average data for each plant are presented in Appendix A. and TSS removal
ranged from 84.7 to
requirements.
These
removal
97.~
rates
BOD
percent and consistently met effluent are
similar
to
those
achieved
by
designed
for
conventional activated slUdge systems
The
19
plants
nitrification favoring
and
evaluated are
nitrification.
available for 8 plants.
in
believed
the to
Influent
study
were
be
presently
and
effluent
all
originally
operating ammonia
under
nitrogen
Removal ranged from 90.8 to 96.8 percent.
conditions data
were
The average
effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration for each of the 8 plants was less than ~.
0
mg/l.
occurring.
The
low
effluent
concentrations
indicate
that
nitrification
was
TABLE 4. SUMMARY Of EFFLUENT PERMIT LH-IITATIONS FOR 19 SBR PLANTS
Plant Location Armada, MI Buckingham, PA Caledonia, MN Clarkston, MI (Chateau Estates) Conover, NC (Southwest WWTP) Del City, OK Dundee, MI Fairchance, PA Grafton, OH Grundy Center, IA Manchester, MI Marlette, HI McPherson, KS Mi ffl inburg, PA Monticello, IN (\Jhi te Oaks Resort) Muskegon Heights, MI (Clover Estates) SLelter Island. NY Walnut Grove, PA \Hndgap, PA
SBR Manufacturer
Design Flow (mgd)
Eft 1uel1t Li mi ts (mpll) N03 -N BOD/CBOD
TSS
--l:lli3~
ISS lOS jlO\J
30 S 30 S\.,1
ij S lS /,,'..,1
30
30
).U TIN [)~l
JetTech Austgen Bioj et fluidyne Aqua-Aerobics
0.3 0.236 0.52 O. 11
Austgen Bioj e t
0.3
30
30
JetTech Transenviro Austgen Biojet fluidyne Aqua-Aerobics JetTech JetTech JetTech Aqua-Aerobics Austgen Biojet
3.0 0.75 0.35 0.75 08 052 0.69 2.0 0.9 0.05
20 S 9 /2S W IS ISS /20\.] 25
30 26 S/30\J 25 20 S/30 W 30
lOS/l 5\.] 20 S/30\.] 20 S/2S W 10SW
20 S/30\.] 30 SW 30 12 S\.]
3 S/12 W 3.0 S/9.0 W 1.SS/3.0 W
Aqua-Aerobics
0.045
30
30
5.0 TIN
Austgen Biojet Transenviro Aqua-Aerobics
0.028 0.025 1 .0
30 30 lOS /20\.]
30 30 30
SSummer WWinter TIN Total Inorganic Nitrogen DM Daily monitoring QM Quarterly monitoring WM Weekly monitoring
tNO?~
Total N
Tol
,i
I
IS
0S
10
qH
\):1
\J~1
3S 1. SS/S.OW 1 . ')5/15\.]
l)
')S\~
1).5
10 2S
1S\J
10 2 .OSj(J.O\.]
j'
Page 5-3
Effluent
1.74
,ilrcmonia '~hcse
mg/l.
likely
data
10''':
occurring,
at
concentrations
concentrations
least
during
for
six
indicate
the
summer
a
comp,'n-Lson.
nitrogen
~()o
'..:as
the
maximum
high
to
effluent
indicate
if
that
ranged
0.17 was
Manchester,
however,
to
most
Michigan
without influent data
concentration
any
from
nitrification
months.
supplied monthly maximum effluent ammonia data, for
plants
of
nitrification
6.6
was
mg/l
ammonia
occurring.
The
twelve plants with effluent ammonia limits were consistently able to meet their requirements,
including Manchester, Michigan (average limit 10 mg/l).
Limited information was available of and
the
plants
'oucie:;ed ha'ie
therefore
evaluated
do
not
measured
effluent
measure
effluent
nitrate and nitrite nitrogen.
for
to evaluate denitrification in SBRs. limitations un nitrate or
these
total
constituents.
nitrogen,
and
h
Two
plants
total
of
the
measured
effluent
summer TKN data.
nitrogen 19
measured
plants
effluent
Shelter Island measured both nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen and TKN in order to report total nitrogen concentrations. which
Few
nitrate
and
nitrite
nitrogen,
also
Effluent nitrate and nitrite nitl'ogen data
Buckingham,
supplied
limited
ranged from 2.11
to 5.6 mg/l for the 6 plants.
Under denio'ifying conditions, and
removed
from
the
waste'..:ater
nitrate nitrogen concentrations concentration) would indicate occurring.
occurred
SignificantlY
(much
less
than
at
Clarkson,
Grafton,
these
and Walnut Grove
plants.
indicate
occurring,
to some degree,
McPherson,
were designed for denitrification.
nitrogen, however, was
n~~
effluent
ammonia
and
iIlfluent ammonia nitrogen
and Muskegon Heights
concentrations of nitrate + nitrite nitrogen and Conover,
the
low
to nitrogen gas
that both nitrification and denitrification were
Data from Buckingham,
denitrification
nitrate would be converted
at these plants.
Relatively total
indicate that low
effluent
nitrogen at Caledonia,
that deni trification was probably Three plants,
Armada,
Dundee,
and
Information on nitrate or total
available and denitrification could not be verified.
Penod of AnalysIS
~
X of Design Flow
Armada, MI
1/89-3/91
0.293
98
Buck 1 ngham, PA
4/89-4/91
o
116
49
324
CaledonIa, MN
4/88-4/91
o
294
57
Clarkston, MI (Chateau Estates)
11189-4/91
0.055
Conover, NC (Southeast Plant)
1/89-6/91
Del City, OK
Plant LocatIon
Flow
OF PERFORl-1ANCE Din A FOR 19 SBR PLANTS
SU~~Y
TABLE 5
TSS (mg/l)
BOD/CBOD (mil/i) INF EFF X REM
t
,;:;l'
;)
~
FFF
11 "
97
229
6
o3ti
.'b7
50
192
12 4
93 5
26G
7
4
97 2
1 bb
0.26
87
256
8 0
96. 7
183
9 5
94 8
IJ 032
1/90-6/91
2.6
87
158
o
96 8
135
94 9
o
Dundee, MI
10/89-3/91
o
93
108
3 2
03 7 0
FaIrchance, PA
1/90-6/91
o
Grafton, OH
12/88-3/91
o
8
4
206
130
"2
2
1 07
'~t
t'}
()
11
GS
tl!
~
,i
11
111
.j
D
21
"5
74
12 0
56 67
TIlt ,11
1 ~;F
INF
4
195
N03-N+NOrN (m~ /l)
T"N (mil / 1)
12
o 9"S
96 8
5 6
" 92W3 Grundy Center,
12/89-11/90
0.575
72
Manchester, MI
10/89-3/91
0.39
75
Marlette, MI
7190-6/91
o
60
103
90
218
81
105
McPh~;:son,
IA
6/90-6/91
KS
Ml ffl1nburg,
PA
MontIcello, IN (Win te Oaks Resort)
417 .8
195
3 8
98.1
169
o
6 2
03 7 .'
1b t
73
10/89-5/91
o
004
8
131
4 8
96
77
0.035
78
185
9 1
95 1
132
148
6
96.2
135
1/89-7/91
0.026
93
Walnut Grove, PA
5/90-4/91
0.006
24
Windgap, PA
2/90-10/90
0.559
56
11989-90 quarterly data 2Monthly maxima 3S ome start-up data omitted
l~
8
96 to
o
Shelter Island, NY
95 5
11
58 9
SSwnmer average Wwinter average CHChemical added TNTotal Nitrogen
6.6
10 6
91.,
92 2
51
'j'"
4 8
6
o
93 8
21 2
285
131
5 _2
0 57
7b
Ul
CH
95 8
95 2
3 55
17 5
4 4
74 9
0.8
3 69 2 75
96.0
j
90 8
15 95.6
J
42
7 b
20 2 8" 7
n
17
I.,
9
14 0 160
2"
52 0
10/88-3/91
Muskegon HeIghts, MI 1/88-10/90 (Clover Estates)
5
12 9
0.59
95 4
4 j
1 85
57
Page 5-5
Phosphorus notabL'; 19
in
plants
located
l"cmov;:ll
St;i~.cS
an
important
concern
in
many
areas,
surrounding the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay.
evaluated have
in
become
hilS
>1ichigan.
effluent
In
phosphorus
addition,
limitations;
Conover,
North
four
Carolina
most
Six of the of
is
these
required
are to
moni tOl' rj'Jilrter L'f for phosphorus.
Influent influent Nine
phosphorus
of
~arlette
tho ugh
'..Jas
very
concentrations
had
limited.
and
~ollticello, t t
c'
ad cl s
to 4,27
chloride,
and
removal,
t h t' for
C
~arlette
The
hem i cal
the
during normal low
usually
occas iona 1 excurs ion summer
'..Jas
influent lagoon
randy
phosphot'lls,
for
their
beyond
Two
to
of
measured
12,0 mg/l.
these
plants,
eve n t s .
Effluent
including
Monticello,
!'In
that did not
flows,
add
ferric
or
rely solely on biological
concentration
effluent
of
Zllthough
spray
the
hZls
Armada,
phosphol'us
Buckingham's
l imi ts.
Buckingham
subsequent
2.6
that
phosphorus
in
the
least some phosphorus is being removed biologically,
met
met,
0
not
seven plants
relatively
st
pLmts,
beyond that normally expected from sludge wasting. Marlette
from
levels.
dl! l' i n g
eight
The
mg/l.
effluent indicate that at
and
plants
add ferric or ferrous chloride for phosphorus removal,
concentrations
from 0.53
phosphot'us
nly
0
Four
concentrations
plants measured effluent phosphorus
>Ll r 1 c,
ferrous
data
the
phosphorus ranged
phosphorus
plant the
option
irrigation and
is
of
only
requirements,
limit
averaged
Dundee, Manchester,
64
of
2.0
mg/l
percent
discharging required
with
to
in
removal a
an the of
holding
to meet effluent
limits when discharging to a stream.
The
following
performance. not
is
a
short
discussion
on
each
plant
that
provided data
on
The three plants that were visited and discussed in Section 5 are
included.
Additional
information on the design and operating conditions,
and problems of the plants are discussed,
Armada, Michigan
This plant consists of three SBR tanks manufactured by JetTech. and grit diffusers.
removal precede
the
SBRs.
This
system is
Three full-time operators handle
Screening
equipped with fine bubble
the 0.3 MGD facility,
as well as
Page 5-6
performing, LJ.boratoc; arlat'iSeS. 30
davs.
b'_lt
occasionaLl':
typically ranged
fill,
120
minutes
minutes idle
to
90
0.04
davs
Ib
',.;ith
good
results.
BOD/lb MLSS/day.
The
and included 20 minutes aerated fill,
aeration,
60
minutes
settle,
30
The
F/M ratio
total cycle time
120 minutes anoxic
minutes
decant,
70
Pennsylvania
Austgen
Biojet
plant
c 0 a r s e bub b ted iff use r s
operated
·,.;ith
This () 1 >1 GD P 1ant
The influent is screened before
it enters
t'..:o i. s
ICEAS(R)
r uri b y
the SBRs.
SBRs
t '''; 0
equipped with
f u 1 1 - tim e
0
consisted of 2 hours aeration, ICEAS(R) systems,
per a tor s .
The plant was designed to
operate at a F/M ratio of 0.045, and had a cycle time of four hours.
As with all
and
The plant began operating in Julv 1988.
Buckingham,
This
t-eached
from 0.02
was normally 7 hours,
The plant usually operated ',.;ith a srt of 20 to
57 minutes sedimentation,
The cycle
and 56 minutes decant.
the tanks fill continuously.
Caledonia, Minnesota
This plant, was
operating
manufactured by Fluidyne, only
two.
The
SBRs
are
',.;as constructed with equipped
with
preceded by a grit chamber and primary clarifier. wastewater
flows
through
a
trickling filter
jet
three SBRs but
aerators,
and
are
Twenty to 30 percent of the
before
it enters
the
SBRs.
This
acts to lower the BOD loading and enhances subsequent nitrification in the SBR. Two operators handle the operation of the SBR along with other Water Department duties.
This
Transenviro
plant
to solve
loading problems. concentration
to
has
had
them.
some
Waste
To
improve
3500
mg/l.
problems
and
has
worked
with
from a milk transfer station contributes
performance,
included 30 minutes anoxic fill, in November 1987.
operational
Total
cycle
the
plant
time
was
is
trying to
five
and 120 minutes aeration.
to
six
to
raise MLSS hours,
and
Plant start-up was
Page 5-7
:'lic:li,;Zin - I;hateau Estates >lobile Home Park
':lltTS,:Oll
This plant was manufactured by Aqua-Aerobic Systems and consists of one SBR preceded by an equalization tank.
It has been equipped with floating mixers in
addition to coarse bubble diffusers.
The MLSS concentration ranged from 1850
to 4500 mg/l and averaged 3200 mg/l.
The F/M concentration varied from 0.023
to 0.082
~1LSS/day.
and averaged 0.04
hours and 50 minutes.
Conover,
~orth
The
total cycle
time was
Carolina - Southeast Plant
plant
consists
of
[1.';0
ICEASR SBRs
('quipped '.vith
It '.vas constructed in 1985 and has an average flow of 0.26
total cycle
5
Plant start-up was in October 1989.
This Austgen BiojH aerators.
lb BOD/lb
time '.vas
3
hOUl"S,
'.vhich
included 90 minutes aeration,
~1GD.
jet The
3S minutes
sl'ttle, arId ')') minutes dl'can,
Del City, Oklahoma
This plant.
'.vith an average
flow of 26 MGD,
was manufactured by JetTech
and consists of two SBRs equipped with jet aerators. a comminutor and grit removal system. and 6 hours,
depending on the flow.
The SBRs are preceded by
The total cycle time is varied between 4 Effluent from the SBRs passes through an
ultraviolet disinfection (UV) unit.
Dundee. Michigan
This Transenviro diffusers. chamber.
The Three
averaged 0.7 MGD.
SBRs
plant
consists
of
two SBRs
are
preceded
by
a
full-time
equipped with medium bubble
comminutor,
bar
operators are employed by the
screen,
facility.
and
grit
The
flow
The plant operated at a MLSS between 2500 and 3000 mb,'l.
The SRT is checked daily and averaged 17 to 20 days. hours, with 2 hours aeration, startup was in September 1989.
Total cycle time was 4
50 minutes settle, and 70 minutes decant.
Plant
Page 5-8
Fairchance.
Pennsvlvania
This Austgen Biojet plant consists of four ICEAS(R) SBRs preceded by a bar screen.
The
Fairchance-Georges WWTP has
an average
flow of 0.2 MGD and
staffed by one full-time operator and one relief operator.
is
Normal cycle time
was 4 hours and included 120 minutes aeration. 60 minutes settle and 60 minutes decant.
Plant start-up was in April 1989.
Grundy Center,
This
plant,
equipped
with
Iowa
mi1nuf:lctured fine
bubble
by
Aqua-Aerobic
diffusers
and
Systems, a
corlsists
separate
of
mixer.
t'""o
SBRs
The
MLSS
concentration in the two SBRs ranged from 1800 to 2800 mg/l and averaged 2300 mg/l.
The F/M ratio avel-aged 0.09 Ib BOD/lb
288 minutes
(4.'8
hours)
and
included
minutes settle, and 40 minutes decant.
~·1LSS/day.
15 minutes
fill,
Total cycle time was 8i,
minutes
react,
45
Plant start-up was in April 1988.
Manchester, Michigan
This plant was manufactured by JetTech '.
but only two are
The third is used during periods of high infiltration.
The
MLSS concentration is normally about 3500 mg/l but has been operated as high as 8000 mg/l,
Total
cycle
time
is
7.5 hours and
includes
3.75 hours
fill,
95
minutes aeration, and 45 minutes settle.
McPherson, Kansas
This plant, manufactured by JetTech, utilized three SBRs equipped with jet aerators.
The SBRs are preceded by a bar screen and grit removal system. Total
cycle time is normally 6 hours and includes 1 to 2 hours aeration, 10_ minutes settle, 1990.
45 minutes decant,
and 90 minutes
idle.
Plant start-up was
in June
Page 5-9
This
Aqua-Aerobic
Systems
consists
plant
bubble diffusers
and separate mixers.
averaged 2500 m
1.
of
~LSS
The
two
equipped with
concentration in the
F/>1 rdtio averaged 0.028
The
SBRs
lb
75
minutes
settle,
and
45
minutes
decant.
91
Biojet
plant consists of
Current flow averages 0.004 MGD.
hours
per
chlor-ide
week
is
minutes react,
includes
mixing
with
Indiana - '.·,11ite Oaks on the Lake Resort
This Austgen MGD.
React
Total
Plant start-up was in August 1988.
alternating periods of aeration and no air.
>1oflticello,
two SBRs
BOD/lb MLSS/day.
cycle time WdS G ) hours dnd included 36 minutes mixed fill,
fine
to
added
the
operdtion
to assist
two
ICEi\S(R)
SBRs designed for 0.05
One part-time operator devotes 10 to 15
and
mdintenzmce
in phosphorus
of
removal.
the
Total
system. cycle
Ferrous
time
is four
hours during the summer and six hours in the winter.
~uskegdn
Heights,
~ichigan
This Aqua-Aerobic bubble
diffusers
Systems
and a
- Clover Estdtes Mobile Home Park
plant
separate
consists
This
is
diffusers.
a
coarse
The
mixed
Plant start-up WdS October 1987.
Pennsylvania
Transenviro
Present
averages 0.006 MGD.
flow,
plant
'with
one
which
comes
SBR
entirely
equipped from
an
with
permit.
Total
cycle
time
coarse
apartment
Effluent is discharged into a sand mound.
subterranean discharge minutes aeration,
SBR equipped with
Flow averaged 0.035 MGD.
mixer.
liquor concentration averages 3400 mg/l.
Walnut Grove,
of one
was 4 hours
bubble
complex,
The plant has a and
included 75
75 minutes settle, and 90 minutes decant, skim and idle.
SBR fills during aeration and idle.
Plant startup was in April 1990.
The
Page 5-10
This Aqua-Aerobic Systems plant consists of two SBRs equipped with coarse bubble diffusers.
Plant startup was in August 1989.
Page 6-1
SECTION 6. COST ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Capital design
and
operating costs
engineers.
cons,nlction c:api:al
Table
cos:
6
t t' u c
information
:"" ion
obtained from
presents
costs '..: t,l'(J adjusted Con s
were
to
the
that
was
1')91
c: 0 5 t I n de:, .
plant operators
utility,
operating,
available
dollars using
Figure
lO
for
the
and
this
and plant capital
analysis.
Engineering News
preserlt:;
the
available
or The
Record
utility,
operating and capital costs.
Greenfield, Tullahoma, and Cow Creek supplied cost data but did not include plant
operating data.
The
Conover,
North
Carolina
Northeast
plant
is
still
under construction and the information supplied is the bid price.
CAPITAL COSTS
Construction costs were available total
capital
costs.
Construction
for
costs
six plants, were
and five plants supplied
converted
to
capital
adding 15 percent for engineering and construction supervision, for
contingencies.
A11
cap ita 1 cos t s
we r e a d j us ted
costs
by
and 15 percent
to J u 1Y 1 9 9 1
cos t s .
The
costs ranged from $1.93 to $30.69/gpd of design flow.
Shelter three
Island,
times
Island
had
beach and
The
with a
over budget,
cost
due
certain aesthetic
of $30.69/gpd,
was
said
to construction problems. requirements
due
to
its
to have
cost
In addition, proximity
to
two
to
Shelter
a
private
clubhou~e.
wide
retrofitted
range into
in
capital
existing
costs
plant
was
influenced
structures
concentrations, effluent limitations,
or
by
newly
whether
SBR
the
constructed,
was
influent
or additional design requirements.
TABLE 6
COST DATA FOR SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1
lit lilty
Factl1ty
Design Flow, msd
Actual Flow, msd
Startup
~
Armada, HI
0.3'')
a .293
1988
Bucklngham, PA
0.236
a
133
1989
Caledol1l a, MN
0.520
0.294
Conover, NC (Northeast Plant)
1.500
Costs $/year
OperatIng Costs $/v€ar d
Actu,,1 Canst-ruction Costs $
Actual or Estlmat.ed CapItal Costs Sb
Adjusted CapItal Cost~ 1991 $
3,500,000
4,550, 000
4.867.187
2,314,050
3,008.~65a
3, 163,984
1987
1,400,000
1,8.20.liOO
~
1991
3,712,840
4,826,692
4,826,692
1985
908,540
1,181,102
1,366,612
Conover, NC 6 (Southeast Plant)
0.300
0.260
Cow Creek, OK
6,000
2 500
Dundee, HI
0.750
O. 700
1989
O. 140
0 040
Marlette, MI
0 .690
McPherson, KS
37,777
234,O~8
4,420, 000
4,648,796
1988
,290, 000
1,385,598
0 417
1990
3,000,000
3,077,276
2.000
1. 57
1990
Montlcello, IN (White Oaks Resort)
0,050
0 .005
1989
Shelter Island, NY
0 .028
0 022
1988
000
2 500
1985
Greenfl eld,
PA
Tullahoma, TN
aOperallng costs include labor, utilltles, mdlIlleIldIlce, bWllen an actual construction cost 15 given,
and 151 for contingencles
90,000
supplle~,
5,
7b~,
Fl(~v;
~8
o
07
06
o
J I'
S 1 gIl
F 1(1",'
17
a
859,286
55
(j]
10 b9
CJI
J2t
etc
capItal cost was estImated [I'om constructlOlj cost by dddln~ l
~
1
"
2 88
800 ,000 5, 00.0,000
ctlemlcals.
o
294,494
12,000
10~lU
,i
Ill! I
~" ~'I" 1
o 280,000
Cost Pt.'I
t ~ ~
,~ t
,. 90
269, 500 14,400
Upt!r,lt.ll,~·
,005,011
182,500 3,400,000
lItll.lty Cost per 1 ~90 Flow
tCJl
t"!lt:.1IleeflIIt',
dlld
CUII~trucLIOIl ~qperVl~;l()Il
c:: <
UJ en> """ ....... en~
o
o
Uu..
>-
o
"""tfJ
HZ
....JO HH
f-....J ::J....J H
::l:
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
cr
< enUJ en .......
0
0
""">
o~
u
u.. t!l0
z 1-4 en """z <0
0
a:: 1-4
UJ-J Q.-J 01-4 ~
0.001 0.001
0.01
0.1
ACTUAL FLOW
tf) tf)
"""
D
0_
U4It -Ju..
<0 UI-l -J C-J
~~
tf)-
(MGD)
D
D
D
0
D D
~o
I-ltf) """ Q.Z
10
1
0
D
D
D
~
C
~
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
Figure 10. Utility, Operating and Capital Costs Supplied by SBR Facilities
Page 6-4
OPERATION AND
XAI~TENANCE
COSTS
Overall 1990 operating costs were available for 3 plants. based on 1990 average
flows
ranged from $0.17 /gpd for McPherson,
for :1onticel1o-'.·:hi:::e Oaks Resort.
Buckingham,
of $1.76/8pd. had operating cos:::s of $234.058. sludge
disposal
numerous for
fees
and
$39,800
itemized expendi tures.
McPherson
included
Operating costs
only
in
'..Jhich had a
$2. 88/gpd
flow averaged cost
These costs included $61,400 in
engineering
By comparison,
labor.
to
utilities,
services the
fees.
among
operating cos ts
maintenance,
other
suppl ied
chemicals,
and
supplies.
Separate ranged
from
utility $0.06
to
costs
'..Jere
$.55/gpd
available
actual
flow.
for
four
The
plants.
range
of
Utility utility
costs
costs
is
probably most affected by the difference in electricity costs between different regions of the United States
Page 7-1
SECTION 7.
REFERENCES
1
1 .
Barth,
en i
Presented Technolog~,
:\ r
0
r
cJ
~.1
I
~unicipJl ~astewater
S t3 tel Japan
Conference
ted
~incinnati,
letober 1981.
3 ,i t
C
h
K e-
,l C '
Crnphres
I)
c~
c'
,0
urn a 1
4.
Summary
Repol't
En vir 0 n men t 3 1
lr:s~,ll.ldtion
and
Sequencing Pro tee t ion
B,ltch
() t
Technology
': ~ , - . ; i t '-'
r
Information, Cincinnati, Ohio,
5
Bar t h, Re il c tor
E F ,
B~;
T t~ C h 110 1 0
J a c kS 0 jJ
[1
<
if 1d
Purestream,
Inc
of
Poll uti 0 nCo n t r 01
~;e'..J
Jersev,
Design
EPA/62S/8086/001.
u.s.
Ce n t e r
for
E n vir 0 n men tal
Res ear c h
lQS6.
J
I~onvt:'
r';
f','Or,rL'SS
in Sequencing Batch
'I
d.
Sewage Trbllinent Technolor,''',
6.
EV3luation
list, :-1;l',' l'l'll
Reactors
Age n C:I,
Treatment
on
:-lorl'l:-;'o'.,il1, :1anual, '!er';lOll 11,
Treatment.
Ohio
3artr:
1
S e (! u e n e in;.;
Reactors for
Se-pt.e-mber lLJ,21,
l,.,'aste',J,ltt-r
Sequencing Batch Reactors lSBR)
Treatment
l'Hl3, Tokyo, Japan.
Equipmc"nt,
Florence
Kentucky,
, An Effective Alternative to Conventional
Systems, and installation list.
7.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems,
Inc.,
Rockford,
Illinois
Installation list,
plant
data and equipment information.
8.
Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control. Agency, October 1975.
U.S.
Environmental Protection
I ',(
-,.......
. • L1., ......
::.. :-, ','
:- ::'j:-'.
~ Cl :: 0
::-.'~ ~
~ ~
r ma :: :. 0 r. ,
.
--
u ..
- ,~_
....
'.,' ci : e r
. - . ". .:. s e :1 c:; ....
_J
::?-".;625,1-3:",/001.
..
:: r. s :. r, e e r i ;; g
:or
~e:c:er
.
?- e sea r c :.
;::-,,'lironmen:al
L..1 b 0 r a :
?-esearch
Jhi
C inc inn a : i,
0 CI,
0.5.
0 ,
1978
10,
Gorons;::'; Batch
3iologic..11
?-eac:or
~i:hout
Anoxic
~ixing
''';ate r ? 0 1 1. '..1 t ion Con t r 0 1 Fed era t ion,
11
F 1 '..1 :. d ',':-. e
12 .
J e cTecn,
~ 0 ::'
. r.c
Transen'liro,
? 0 r a :: ion,
=<: d a::
Inc
Aliso
Sludge System) General
·:i.eJo,
D~scrlp:lon,
Sequences.
F 1.
,
K3nS..1S,
?-emoval
a of
Fedthe
1 9 9 1.
'..1
i d '; ;1 e
I:lS::~lLlcl:ion
Califor:ci....l
i;1
R.esearch Journal
6 J ( 5) : 2 4 8 - 2 58,
Fa 1. 1 5
Indus:ri31 AL::,por:s,
?hosphorus
(~ASST~
5 3
1e s
bra c h u r e ,
list
(C:;clic
:\c:ivated
sales brochure 3nd ins:3113tion list.
APPENDIX A Monthly Average Tables and Chronological Plots for Wastewater Treatment Plants Providing Data Armada, Michigan Buckingham, Pennsylvania Caledonia Minnesota Clarkston, Michigan (Chateau Estates - manufacturer's data only) Conover, North Carolina (Southeast Plant) Del City, Oklahoma Dundee, Michigan Fairchance, Pennyslvania Grafton, Ohio Grundy Center, Iowa (manufacturer's data only) Manchester, Michigan Marlette, Michigan McPherson, Kansas Miminburg, Pennyslvania (manufacturer's data only) Monticello, Indiana (White Oaks Resort) Muskegon Heights, Michigan (Clover Estates - manufacturer's data only) Shelter Island, New York Walnut Grove, New York Windgap, Pennsylvania (manufacturer's data only)
Armada Monitoring Data monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991
Minimum Maximum Average Limit
Effluent TSS mg/l
Effluent
Flow MGD 0.237 0.200 0.285 0.294 0.227
9.5 12.5 11. 6 31.1 16.1
0.41 0.29 0.55 1.14 0.57
0.199 0.181
14.9 17.0
0.38 0.49
0.209 0.301 0.243 0.404 0.441 0.452 0.491 0.339 0.216 0.169 0.180 0.206 0.298 0.319 0.374 0.343 0.345 0.363
12.8 9.9 13.3 30.7 17.1 26.2 5.4 4.6 22.2 4.3 4.5 3.4 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.1 3.3 4.4
1. 87 1. 42 0.97 1. 04 1. 25 0.74 0.78 0.59 0.74 1.15 0.92 1.18 1.19 1. 00 1. 05 0.30 1.16 0.85
0.169 0.491 0.293
2.1 31.1 11.4
1. 87
30.0
LOO
NA
P
mg/l
0.29 0.88
*Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
Armada 'I
I'
"ill·II:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/III/IIIIIII/1111111111111111!llllllllllillllllllllllllll'l~
~ontnly
1
A'/E!rages
080~
L o
lCl
0.60
L 3
o
0.40
...--1
1.L
0.2
...J
'"
M A
M J
J
A SON
D J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
M A
M J
J
A SON
D J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
M A
M J
J
A SON
D J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
40.0
01
E
(f) (f)
I-+J C Cl.l
::J ...--1
\4\4-
10.
W
(/J
::J C-
4.00
o
.c. 0. (/J o~
3.00
.c....J
0..'" 01
-+J5
c
2.00
OJ
::J ...--1 \4\4-
W
January 1989 through March 1991
BUCKINGHAM, PENNSYLVANIA Monthly Averages
Flow MGD
Date
489 0.099 0.099 589 o.on 689 789 0.105 889 989 0.109 1089 0.121 1189 0.136 1289 190 0.129 0.141 290 390 490 0.116 590 0.117 690 0.0998 790 890 0.105 990 0.104 1090 0.115 1190 0.115 1290 0.122 191 0.14 291 0.126 391 0.132 491 0.134
Influent Effluent Ef fluent Influent Eff l uent Influent Eff l uent Eff luent Influent Effluent Influent BOO TSS P P TSS BOO TKN TKN NH3'N NH3-N N02 & N03. (mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/l) (mg/ l ) (Lbs/d) (mg/ L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
272.7 379 325.9 215.3 399.6 355.5 320.4
5.04 5.7 16.6 9.88 18.8 12.1 18.1 22.16
26.5 7.2 7.9 3.5 2.8 7.8 1.3 3.4
7.25 2.81
4.8 2.33
0.35 0.25
13.5 12.5 12.8
6.9 2.5 3.98
3.03 3.5 3.44
2.8 3.8 3.3 2 2 4.2 2.8 3.3 3.2
2.5 5.5 2.3 3 3.8 27 3.5 3.5 25.4
0.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.1
5.35 2.9 2.1 3 2.03 1.9 1.3 2.8 1.2
8.393 6.364 22.160 2.000
7.155 8.007 27.000 1.300
1.069 1. 112 3.500 0.100
2.113 1.426 5.350 0.600
70.3 63.2 66.2 62.9 62.3 81.75
7.51 5.62 23.4 9.3 7.5 16.5
15.1 21.6 28 27.9 31.0 25.5 28.2
2 0.9 1.43 2.41 0.93 0.25 1. 07 0.76
3.9 0.79 0.6 0.65 3.9 0.73 .66
12.3
4.6
11.9 11.3 14.7 12.6 8.9
6 3.3 6.7 4 3.94
254 263 181 212 130
1.27 4.8 4.6 3.2 5.1 2.8 2.9 3 3.7 4.5
/*
= sro =
AVG
MAX MIN
=
0.116 0.016 0.141
o.on
324.057 63.504 399.600 215.300
67.m 7.468 81.750 62.300
11.638 6.897 23.400 5.620
25.329 5.365 31.000 15.100
11. 950 1.889 14.700 8.900
4.026 1.327 6.700 1.270
208.
~~ckingham. iii!!
I
Pennsylvania
:, '1"'1"'1"'\"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'II"I"II"~ Month y Averages
i
8.4CL
O.30
~
o
t
0.20E
~
.-1
LL
~
0.1
M
J
J
A
SON
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
SON
Summer Effluent Winter Effluent
400
F
J
a
M A
10.0 20.0
.....J .........
01
300
E
ID
o
200
o
CD 100
A
M
J
J
A
S
N
0
J
F
M
A
M J
J
A
S
N
J
F
M
A
SON
0
J
F
M A
M J
J
A
SON
J
F
M A
0
0
A
500 to
400
.....J
......... 01
E (J) (J)
0
Influent Effluent
300~ 200t
~
100
M J
J
April 1989 through April 1991
3uckingham, ;',r+
lu'er:t
~. f
:L.:e:i":
Pennsylvania
Z :::L I--
A
~
J
J
A
SON
0
J
F
M
f=
"'-
01
E
30.0t:
Z I
20.0§
(T)
:r:
z
10.
M
J
J
A
SON
J
F
M
A
Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit = 3.0 Winter Effluent NH3-N Limit - 9.0
40 .0 ~
A
O§
r=
O.
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
J
F
M
A
Z I
15.0
(T)
0
z-l
~"'-
01
10.0
z-S I
(\J
5.0
0 Z
0.0 A
-l
"'01 E U1
Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit = 2.0 mg/ 15.0
::J L
a .c 0U1
a .c
10.0
~
0.. r-1
....,ro a
I-
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
April 1989 through April 1991
N
J
F
M
A
Caledonia Monitoring Data monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Month Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991
Minimum Maximum Average Limit
Flow MGD
Influent TSS mg/l
Effluent TSS mg/l
Influent CBOD mg/l
Effluent CBOD mg/l
0.271 0.278 0.336 0.325 0.348 0.327 0.302 0.306 0.284 0.280 0.267 0.286 0.268 0.264 0.295 0.314 0.315 0.321 0.299 0.289 0.289 0.279 0.261 0.278 0.260 0.284 0.325 0.346 0.368 0.296 0.277 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.283 0.295
224 146 164 195 195 215 230 198 234 359 287 335 333 313 373 276 280 387 294 245 239 418 338 471 396 265 195 500 260 273 271 278 324 302 272 284 263
16.0 13.5 7.5 4.0 2.9 4.2 5.0 6.0 4.2 5.4 6.5 6.0 23.6 58.7 28.6 13.5 8.9 3.1 7.5 12.2 64.0 55.0 14.8 16.4 13.0 17.2 33.0 10.0 8.4 15.0 3.3 3.8 6.0 25.0 28.0 8.0 9.0
243 199 180 177 233 200 171 216 256 205 181 255 211 202 249 207 235 251 206 222 257 217 236 226 264 266 235 411 255 288 200 225 293 246 183 198 157
8.6 8.8 4.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.8 6.0 12.7 8.7 3.8 3.5 2.5 4.0 8.2 18.0 29.0 13.2 15.0 13.6 15.0 13.0 5.8 5.4 6.8 3.1 3.8 4.5 14.0 13.0 8.0 3.0
8.2 10.9 19.7 13.4 13.0 14.1
0.260 0.368 0.294
146 500 287
2.9 64.0 15.3
157 411 229
2.3 29.0 7.6
5.86 30.08 13.5
NA
NA
NA
Effluent TN mg/l
5.9 6.1 7.5 11. 0 14.5 10.6 18.3 22.0 16.4 9.5 8.3 9.6 15.6
29.3 11. 8 30.1 11. 8 9.0 12.3
10.0
Caledonia . t30e-
G .60~
0.40f.0.20
o .0011111111 i II1111I111111111111111111111111 J
F
A
~
J
J
A SON
0
J
F
~
A M J
J
A
SON
0
J
F
M A
Influent Effluent
I>
400
~
0
300
O-.J
0'"'
enOl
UE
20
J
F
M A
M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A
F
M A
M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A
M J
J
A
0
J
F
M A
J
F
M A
(J)-.J
(J)'"'
1- 01
E
100
J
c
SON
40.0
OJ 01 +JO CL~
OJ+J-.J ::J . .-1 ' " '
30.0
..-1ZOl ~ ~
E
..-1-
20.0
wro
+J
o
10.0
-
-
-- -
-
-- -
-
- - -"-_.........-
;-.-=:-=::>"'~
I-
F
M A
M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
January 1989 through April 1991
0
CHATEAU ESTATES , Michigan
Cla~k5ton
DATE
FLOW
(lfonthl
Year)
(tt;D)
BODi
(mgl )
MIXED LIQUOR
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT TSS
NHrN
(mgtl)
(mgtl)
BOD
i
(mgt )
TSS
NHr N
(mgtl)
(mgll )
N0 2-N (mgt1)
N0 3 -N (mgtl)
Total
HLSS
Inorgan1c-N (mgll)
(mgt 1)
HLVSS (mgll )
FIM
(Day-I) ~
11-89
0.0480
----
----
----
19.3
18.5
2.72
0.18
3.5
6.40
1987
1567
----
12-89
0.0531
212
313
34
9.8
2.5
1.08
0.21
6.1
1.39
2863
2170
0.042
1-90
0.0540
168
215
36
7.1
4.2
0.58
0.11
4.0
4.69
2618
2032
0.041
2-90
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
3-90
0.0618
186
163
----
4-90
0.0581
194
238
5-90
0.0588
152
277
6-90
0.0590
171
192
7-90
0.0553
175
395
8-90
0.0531
169
292
----------------
9-90
0.0564
192
212
----
10-90
0.0540
241
482
11-90
0.0540
189
159
-------
12-90
0.0540
206
223
1-91
0.0540
218
2-91
0.0540
----
----
8.7
2.7
0.60
0.10
2.68
3.38
2993
2340
0.044
7.4
2.3
0.23
0.13
3.10
3.46
2544
1961
0.052
17.4
7.3
0.38
0.22
3.60
4.20
3371
2207
0.031
14.2
12.7
2.87
0.20
2.32
5.39
5051
2717
0.023
5.6
1.5
2.35
0.02
1.32
3.69
4480
2572
0.025
4.9
2.5
2.64
0.06
3.75
6.45
3630
2274
0.029
3.7
2.4
2.94
0.03
1.80
4.77
3015
2071
0.042
14.5
7.3
0.25
0.02
1.34
1. 61
1846
1396
0.082
8.0
3.2
1.01
----
----
1879
1556
0.064
41
6.4
1.4
0.42
0.04
1.13
1. 59
3752
2938
0.035
269
57
6.7
6.1
2.01
0.19
4.05
6.25
2860
2262
0.048
151
179
30
13.1
8.3
2.78
0.27
5.64
8.69
3332
2607
0.030
0.0540
236
251
33
45.7
30.1
4.18
0.16
2.17
6.51
3642
2835
0.041
4-91
0.0540
212
240
43
18.7
13.1
1.57
0.09
1.20
2.86
4256
3278
0.031
Average Values
0.0551
192
260
39.1
12.4
7.4
1.68
0.13
2.98
4.83
3184
2281
0.041
Design Values
0.110
220
220
25
5.0
3496
2447
0.07
3-91
~
30
30
~'''''~--'''''''
----
----
----
CONOVER, NORTH CAROLiNA - SOUTHEAST PLANT Monthly Averages
Influent Influent Influent TSS BOO NH3 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Date
189 289 389 489 589 689 789 889 989 1089 1189 1289 190 290 390 490 590 690 790 890 990 1090 1190 1290 191 291 391 491 591 691
195.0 195.0 248.8 222.0 234.0 292.0 246.0 263.0 266.0 266.0 222.0 273.0 291.0 164.6 183.0 227.0 211.0 190.0 218.7 219.3 280.0 242.2 325.5 248.0 325.6 365.9 317.4 307.3 332.9 297.4
Flow (MGO)
Eff Effluent Effluent Effluent Eff TN TP NH3 TSS BOO (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/L)
17.1 20.3 12.7 17.6 15.7 14.2 12.0 12.8 15.7 16.4 18.4
267.0 208.0 117.3 139.0 133.0 132.0 150.0 129.0 166.0 199.0 168.0 152.0 173.0 60.3 166.0 184.0 132.0 165.0 193.0 181.1 275.2 170.7 195.8 144.8 193.0 216.9 3n.0 240.0 252.0 207.4
0.195 0.314 0.337 0.259 0.314 0.297 0.271 0.283 0.192 0.293 0.253 0.294 0.305 0.338 0.213 0.232 0.250 0.215 0.209 0.223 0.212 0.293 0.194 0.197 0.245 0.208 0.292 0.300 0.255 0.250
6.0 9.2 14.5 13.0 13.9 15.5 10.8 6.0 5.7 6.8 11.4 10.7 4.7 10.7 7.2 9.7 6.1 13.0 6.9 6.5 7.7 7.1 4.5 5.8 6.6 2.0 3.8 6.1 5.8 3.4
0.66 1.60 2.10 0.53 0.85 0.92 0.69 0.50 1. 00 0.63 1.00 0.90 0.97 1.30 0.80 1. 00 1. 10 0.80 0.70 1.00 0.60 1. 50 0.60 0.60 1. 10 0.50 0.50 1. 50 1. 00 0.60
317.6 15.1 2.8 20.5 10.6
5487.5 182.9 58.0 3n.0 60.3
7.733 0.258 0.044 0.338 0.192
241.1 8.0 3.5 15.5 2.0
27.55 0.92 0.38 2.10 0.50
20.5 14.0 16.9 11.3 16.3 11.5 15.5 15.1 13.0 10.6
----
8.0 6.6 11.4 17.8 10.9 13 .3 10.4 9.6 7.8 6.5 1.4 7.9 7.9 5.1 12.3 10.9 7.3 3.6 10.6 10.1 17.0 13.6 5.44 9.3 9.0 8.5 7.3 9.2 7.3 11.8 11.5 7.2 6.0 9.1 9.3 5.7
/*
SUM AVG STO MAX
=
loll"
=
=
7669.6 255.7 49.6 365.9 164.6
289.3 9.6 2.9 17.8 5.7
1. 40
1.40
0.90 1. 50
0.15
0.72
~c:.Jtheast
,!
',.MTP -
Conover,
N. C.
':!":!'!': 1111 i 11111 I! 11111: 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfTTTTlTTl"TIT"TIIT1II"TIT"TIIT1II"TIT"TIIT"lIITllrrlT"T11T"lIITllrrlT"ll T1jlrrlT"TIIT1 II"TIT"TIIT1II"TT"11UOOl
Month 1'/
=. ~GC:::
Averages
::j -i
::j --1
J.3oE;~
§
'-f 3:
o
0.2
r-1
l.L
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
Influent Ef fluent
400
-J
"""'01.
J
F
M A M J
Effluent BOD Limit· 30.0 mg/
300
E If)
o o en F M A M
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A
J
J
A SON
J
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
JFMAMJ
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
J
~
J
(f) (f)
I-
....J
"'"
01
E
I CD
10.0
I
Z
J
F M A M J
DEL CITY, OKLAHOMA Monthly Averages
Flow "'GO
Date
Influent Influent TSS BOO (mg/L) (mg/L)
Sludge Age (Days)
MUSS (mg/l)
Eff luent Eff l uent Eff l uent NH3-N TSS BOO (mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/l)
190 290 390 490 590 690 790 890 990 1090 1190 1290 191 291 391 491 591 691
2.629 3.292 4.263 3.806 3.537 2.396 2.135 2.163 2.309 2.091 2.068 2.179 2.273 2.012 2.043 1.962 2.564 2.726
164 146 124 124 120 136 173 156 148 138 132 138 135 137 146 119 113 105
263 174 110 108 112 171 175 164 159 197 170 177 174 168 154 143 116 103
21.9 18.8 17.1 19.2 23.4 32.3 23.9 26.4 28.2 25.8 24.3 25.5 20.3 24.4 28.6 37.3 32.0 28.2
2939 2867 2663 3051 3172 3105 3012 3115 3014 2552 2513 2663 2371 2580 3213 3265 3034 2735
22 13 13 3 4 4 4 5 3 5 5 6 8 8 3 5 9 5
16 10 7 2 3 6 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 2 3 6 3
1. 90 0.32 0.05 0.04 0.20 2.27 0.37 1.30 0.23 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.80 0.20
= = =
46.448 2.580 0.667 4.263 1.962
2454 136 17 173 105
2838 158 38 263 103
457.6 25.4 5.0 37.3 17.1
51864 2881 263 3265 2371
125 7 5 22 3
88 5 3 16 2
8.14 0.45 0.66 2.27 0.04
/-
SUM AVG STD MAX MIN
=
I
Jel City,
Oklahoma
4.0GL
r-
oc.cJ
f~
3.00
~
3:
o
2.00
~
LL 1. 00
....J -........ 01
E
o o
CD
....J -........
100
200
01
E (J) (J)
f-
100
J
January 1990 through June 1991
L:.:el
UJ
40.0
Oklahoma
f=
>((J
o
OJ 0'1
20.0
D
::J ..--1
(J)
10.0
..J
"0'1
4.00
E
Z
I
3.00
(T')
I
Z 4-l C (l)
::J ..--1
44-
W
January 1990 through June 1991
Jel Ci t y,
-_.. _ . , - - - - - - -
'~onthly
Oklahoma Averages lJ.
0
4G .0..--
Summer Month Winter Month
~
W
01
~:
U1
(1)>-
O1CU DO
::J-
L
30.0l-
20.0\:1
r-1
0 0
!a >=
UJ
I::.
L
10.0t
0.0 0.00
1. 00
2.00
3.00
5000
4000
~I::.
UJ--J UJ ......... --J01
:EE
1::.
0
I::.
0
2000
1000
0.08
(J) (J)~
0.06
--J>-
:E CU
......... -0
0 ......... o~
rn
0.04
o
Effluent NH3-N
(mg/L)
4.00
5.00
Dundee Monitoring Data monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991
Minimum Maximum Average Limit
Flow MGD 0.470 0.394 0.466 0.537 0.420 0.715 0.473 0.367 0.439
Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent BOD BOD NH3-N TSS TSS P mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
43.0
0.324 0.827 1. 311 1. 039 0.701 0.595 0.345 0.263 0.359 0.429 0.649 0.625 1.004 0.964 0.673 0.560 0.263 1.311 0.598 NA
112 125 118 89 129 59 105 127
54 56 59 47 66 65 43 60
5.4 2.5 1.9 3.0 5.7
43 66 56 NA
1.9 43.0 10.3
1. 70 1. 20 0.70 1. 20 0.80 0.40 0.60 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.20 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.20
61. 0
0.20 1. 70 0.59
59 129 108
0.50
NA
4.7 3.2 2.0 2.5 3.8
2.3 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.1
2.0 61.0 12.9
1.2 2.3 1.7
NOTES: 1. SBR system began operation on September 21, 1989. The summary does not include ~,=ptember 1989. 2. Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
I
Dundee
r-
100~
r >-
/
~."
.
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
a
J
F
M
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
150
o.-J 0 ..........
enOl E
100
80
M J
January 1989 through March 1991
Dundee ~"v! I [ I Iii ! i I I iii! 1! i I I[ I i I; I I ! I II !I I III II J 1111 111 r
1I
1 1I I1
III I I [ II [~I I I II I I [II III II
I1111111
II I I III [ II I i II I~
~
4.00~
f-
...J
f-L
"OJ E
L
Z
3.00[
I (T)
::r:
z
200~ 1. 00
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M
...J
"OJ E
1.50
U1 ::J L 0
.c 0. U1
1. 00
0
.c Q..
+i C Cl.l ::J
0.50
.-1 ~ ~
W
January 1989 through March 1991
FAIRCHANCE-GEORGES JOINT MUNICIPAL SEWAGE AUTHORITY INFLUE~T
AND EFFLCENT DATA
EFFLUENT PERMIT LIMITS: FLOIoJ: .350 Averago Monthly I5mg/l Average Monthly BOD:; SuspenCled Solids 25mg/l Average Monthly I.5mg/l Average Monthly 5/1 to 10/31 NH3-N S.Omg/l Average Monthly 11/1 to ~/30 D.O. S.Omg/l miniMum pH 6.0 to 9.0 SU Fecal Coliform 200/100mg/l Average Monthly Dt-iR DATA:
1989 1990 Flow BODS 55
NH3N pH Fecal Coliform 1991 Flow BODS 55
NH3-N pH Fecal Coliform
Limited data available .180 Average Monthly 8mg/l Average Monthly 10mg/1 ~verage Monthly .7mg/l Average Monthly 6.9 to 7.3 5U Less than 10/100mg/1 Average Monthly First six months .210 Average Monthly 16mg/l Average Monthly ISmg/l Average Monthly .2mg/l Average Monthly 6.9 to 7.3 5U Less than 10/100mg/l Average Monthly
Influent data limited on ammonia nitrogen(NH3-N)ranging from 1 to 2rng/l.
",cnt~ly
Grafton Monitoring Data averages taken from DMR prof; le
:nfluent Month Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991
Flo\ol MGD
CBOO
mg!l
Effluent Effluent NH3-N CBOO mg/l mg/l
0.458 0.734 0.682 0.832 1.021 0.554 0.475 0.329
166 146 114 102 127 73 150 142
59.3 9.0 9.3 5.9 2.8 4.3 2.7 3.0
16.70 17.55 6.09 1. 91 0.77 0.64 2.68
0.323 0.309 0.669 0.299 0.454 0.549 0.348 0.497 0.498 0.446 0.494 0.488 0.590 0.592 0.438
2.9 2.6 3.1 10.7 3.8 3.0 6.3 2.6 2.5 4.9 3.3 3.2 2.3 1.7 3.1
0.42 0.04 1. 09 4.83 3.75 2.28 1. 69 0.78 0.20 0.38 2.07 0.39 0.35 2.42 4.70
0.508 0.639 0.618
147 125 92 134 74 73 199 87 131 188 145 137 130 107 186 133 112 126 160
3.0 4.4 5.0
SUMMARY: MinilTUTl MaxilTUTl Average
0.299 1.021 0.532
73 199 130
llMITS: lJinter Sl.ITIIler
NA NA
NA NA
Eff l uent Eff l uent N03+N02 P mg/l mg/l
Effluent Temp
deg C
1.48 1.75 1.68 4.39 1. 72 0.94 1.44
10.2 9.8 9.2 10.3 11.6 14.3 18.5 21.6
31. 1 3.1 13.7 5.3 9.8 11.2 6.6 1.0 3.8 1.2 3.5 3.9 2.9 2.6 0.1
1. 78 2.10 1.86 1.83 1. 03 0.78 0.77 1. 19 0.23 1.73 2.44 2.19 0.73 0.57 0.58
21.0 18.4 14.7 10.2 10.1 10.0 11.5 12.6 16.0 19.7 21.6 22.2 21.6 18.7 16.5
11.80 10.55 9.57
0.4 0.3 0.2
0.63 0.13 1.08
11.4 13.0 11.5
1.7 10.7 4.2
0.04 11.80 3.02
0.1 31.1 5.6
0.13 4.39 1.40
9.2 22.2 14.9
20.0 15.0
15.00 1.50
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
/*
NOTES: 1. The Grafton SBR began operation in December of 1988. The effluent BOO concentration for December 1988 was omitted from the summary. as were the ammonia concentrations for the first three months of operation. 2. The ammonia concentrations during the winter were intentionally high because Grafton has a high ammonia limit in the winter. 3. Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
--
_~
TO
Influent EffllJent
Effluent :';H3-;N Limit (Summer) Ef fluent NH3-N Limi t (Winter)
= 1.5 =
15.0
L-
I ("TJ
I Z~
.-J
+J '-.... COl CllE ::J~
100~
r-
\
t
~
'+'+-
~
5. o~
W
F
(T)
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M
40.0
o
z
+ (\J~
30.0
O.-J Z'-.... Ol
-+JE
C~
20.0
Cll ::J rl
'+'+-
/~
10.0
W
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M
UJ ::J L
o
.c: 0. UJ
O~
.c:.....J 0...'-....
Ol
-+J.§ C Cll ::J rl
'+-
'+-
W
January 1989 through March 1991
3rafton.
Ohio
.50>-
;1
1
r1
.3
o r-1
l..L
O.50~
r t
a.aa
LU..u..J..J...U..Li.J....I..I...u...L.L..W..J...U-U-J....I..I...u...LU.L.l..U..u..J..J...U..Li.J....I..I...u...L.L..W..J...U.J..J-J-U-J....I..I...u...LU.L.u..J..J..J-J....I..I...u...L.L..W..J...I....L..Li.J....I..I...u...LL-LJ...u..J...L.U
J
F
M A
M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A
M J
J
A
SON
J
F
M
300 rTTTTTTTTTrTTnTrrTTTTTTTTTnTr1rrrrrrTTTTTTTrTTn"TTrrrrrrTrTTTTTnTT"rTTrTTTTTTnTT"rrrrrrTrTTnTr1I1rTTTTTl
Influent Effluent
Summer Eft luent Winter Effluent
Limi t Limi t
Q
200
O~
0"'"-
CD en UE
100
F
M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M
CRUiDr mUl. 10VI PHloruaer Data
---
~ontblfur
12-19 HO H1
ll11ufnt
hllutDt
Plow
Dlt'
100
rS5
II RLSS
'l9! 11
UrI leqlll
h:p.
1cqllI
(,o/Co,
1&1111
htlff 1111
(11Iql
'1 ms Iql1l
II
U
U
O.ll
5UIll.l
zw
III
lIS
n
J.I
u
1.21
51.1110.9
lUI
SIt
11
U
n
0.11
50.01lD.0
zm
m
...
...
'"
...
.- .
I.t
n
u
51.0/1J.J
1115
m
19J
u
12
U
56.011],]
llli
HO
2JJ
U
50.0/15.1
lUI
]]1
I~Dl
~u.
IR~O'
IRGDI
1111 I
(Iql II
I.m I.m I.m
1.164
lit
201
un om
m
1!1
no
...
101
...
...
m m
19
I.t
101
7.0
J.l
HO
...
HO
1.401
0.109
m
HO
un
1.115
m
HO HO
1.115
J.m
I.m
].Ill
"
1-90
'.m
l.m
,.,0
1.511
10·90
...
...
r55
,
-..
SIl
----
liquor
IW ,
IIr l
I r m9r
1
~11f~
I
Sft t 0 'III 1
$11
, I~
f II/Q I
Idl' II
1111
H/
III
0011
W
1/01
m
171
0.011
]11
1111
iii
III
0.011
.-'
.--
.. .
-..
I!ll
III
III
0.11/
111]
500
199
0.10
110 I
1lI
III
0.011
HI
10.1
U
t
0.01
U.O/I..,
llOl
1I1
m m
1m
)11
III
o III
111
115
t.I
1.1
J
I.ll
65.0/IlJ
lUJ
HI
UJ
1m
f 71
166
0015
I.m
111
III
11.1
U
t
0.11
U.IIIU
1190
no
2611
279
107
un
•.m
0.191
m
110
IU
l.I
U
O.ll
n.oill.l
un
J9I
"
101
1m
191
101
o OIl
IHO
I.m
O.flO
lU
110
10.1
U
l.l
1.l5
H.om.O
1011
lJI
111
I9JO
111
.
1/\
o 091
Arm;,
UU
I. JI
m
In
IU
],I
U
Lit
51.1/11.1
1105
III
10J
1369
III
191
0091
I1J
--
Manchester Monitoring Data monthly averages taken from DMR profile
Month
Flow !1GD
Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent NH3-N P BOD TSS mgjl mgjl(l) mg/l rng/l
1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991
0.333 0.352 0.309 0.414 0.551 0.615 0.526 0.473 0.379 0.309 0.335 0.338 0.378 0.301 0.387 0.338 0.319 0.370
16.0 80.0 350.0 224.0 131.0 19.0 32.9 1.8 6.1 22.0 3.8 4.6 3.1 7.6 10.0 7.5 7.9 8.1
0.78 1. 83 5.14 4.23 2.40 0.47 0.87 0.13 0.42 0.68 0.27 0.57 0.27 0.27 0.48 0.43 0.23 0.73
4.0
7.86
2.5 2.7 3.5 2.1 2.8 3.1
2.71 7.10 13.60 14.50 0.43 0.24
SUMMARY: Minimum Maximum Average
0.301 0.615 0.390
1.8 350.0 52.0
0.13 5.14 1. 12
2.1 4.0 3.0
0.2 14.5 6.6
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Limit
1. 00
NOTES: 1. Ammonia concentrations are monthly maxima (monthly averages were not available) .
I
~.1 I
! I
!i III
i I
a n c h est e r
! ! ! I i II
I
I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I II
I
!
i!
i
!
II
I I II I I II I I
I
~
i
1 -i
:5 Jf-
~
Z
~
I
i
(1) ...L
z~
-;
......J
I
+J',,COl
Il.J E ::J~ ~
44-
W
0.0 0
0
N
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
0
J
F
6.00
~
S.ooC
1\
I
(JJ
::J L
0
J
.c
I
o. (JJ
I
O~
I
.c......J
0... ..........
01
I
3.00
i
+J..§
I
C Il.J
I
)
::J ~
44-
.
I
I
4.00
2.00
W
/
\
----------
------------------
January 1989 through March 1991
M
'.j
o.
a ~ c ne s : e r
DeL
3:
o
c-1
1..L
020L
L
o. 0 0 L.L..L.L..L.LL.LL.l.-L.l.-L.l.-.LL.LL.LLL.LL.LL.L.LL.LL.LL.LLL.L~L.L..L.L..L.L..L.L..L.LL.LL.Lu....;l....L.Jl....L.Jl....L.Jl....L.Jl....L.Jl....L.J'--L-J N A N F o o J F A J J J s o o
4.0
0 0
en
V
3.00
+J-.J c'-...
CJOl ::lE .-i~
2.00
44-
W 1. 00
o. 0 0 L.L..L.LL.LL.L.J.....J-.J.....J-.J.....J-..L..L..L..L..L..L.LL.LL..L..L..L..L..L..L..L..L..L..LL.LL.LL.LL.LL.LL.LL.LL.LL.LL.Ll-.J-l-.J-l-.J-L.....L..JL....L-L....L-~ N F M F J J A s o o J o N o J
o
c.n c.n
300
r-
+-l-.J c'-...
CJOl ::lE
o 200
\
c-1~
44-
W
1O~,IIIIIIIIII~klll~III.bIII.bJII.,II+III.III.,I~ o
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
SON
January 1989 through March 1991
0
J
F
M
Marlette, Michigan
Flow Month (MGD) 790 890 990 1090 1190 1290 191 291 391 491 591 691
0.259 0.274 0.257 0.469 0.403 0.464 0.456 0.484 0.5n 0.575 0.443 0.347
I ~F
EFF
BOO
BOO
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
138.38 112.47 116.74 127.76 92.06 75.22 83.36 133.15 70.71 69.36 89.67 123.5
2.51 1. 71 3.39 3.63 4.26 2.72 3.32
3.2 5.84 4.54 3.83 3
~~TP
I~ F TSS (mg/L) 177.3 122.3 138.8 178 119.8 94.9 120.4 220.9 66 102.6 100 99
- Montnly Average Data
EFF TSS (mg/L) 6.1 8.8 6 28.2 12.5 27.5 12 26.6 13.9 14.4 6.9 6.1
I ~F PHOS (mg/L) 2.07 3.25 3.89 2.8 2.62 2.51 3.45 4.01 3.09 3.11 4.41 4.19
EFF PHOS (mg/L) 0.13 0.96 1. 18 0.8 0.57 0.79 0.88 1.06 0.64 0.8 0.77 0.8
I~F
EFF
~H3-~
~H3-~
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
13.48 17.62 16.81 9.34
1.7 0.32 0.33 0.37
1. 65 1.77
0.23 0.1
!
... : ....... : en ~
:. :: .. ·: e . . . :
:'Ier-ages
~ffluent
1
i
I
I
I
~hospnorus
I
! I I
I
1 :J '11g/lj
1
8.0L-
I I
---1
I
'J)
5
::J
oL
o-.J
L I
.c"'--. 0.01
cnE
0-
.c 0...
40L
l
Summer Effluent NH3-N limit -
• 15.0
r ZI-.J
(TJ"'--.
I
01
10.0
z.§
5.0
July 1990 through June 1991
2.0 mg/L
\iarlette,
Michigan Averages
J.
3C~
O.60~ 1
~
I
o.4oL
Influent Effluent
Summer Effluent BOD Limit - 10 Winter Effluent BOD Limit - 15
--.J
"E
OJ
100
o o co 50
J
A
s
o
N
o
J
F
M
July 1990 through June 1991
A
M
J
MCPHERSO"l. KA"lSAS Monthly Averages
elate
Flow MGD
Influent Influent Eff luent Effluent Effluent BC() TSS BOO TSS ~H3'''l (mg/l)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/l)
690 790 890 990 1090 1190 1290 191 291 391 491 591 691
2.545 2.481 2.488 2.024 1.533 1.452 1.541 1.593 1.448 1.749 1.504 1.526 1.596
124.0 148.0 193.0 259.5 223.5 223.0 232.0 215.0 234.5 215.0 264.5 294.0 212.0
127.0 197.0 168.0 173.0 175.0 192.0 204.5 212.5 217.5 179.0 202.0 205.0 187.0
5.5 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 4.5 13.0 11.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 3.0
8.0 16.5 9.0 5.5 8.0 10.5 9.0 29.0 22.5 6.0 3.5 7.0 3.5
AVG =
1.806
218.3
187.7
6.2
10.6
I·
(mg/l)
0.20 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.50 0.16 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.12
~1cPherson.
J
F
J
J
A SON
0 J
F M A M J
J
A S ON
0
J
F M A M J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0 J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0 J
F M A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F M A M J
~
A
Kansas
~
l> Influent o Ef fluent
...-J
"-.. 01 E
200
o o m
J
...-J "-.. Ol
E (J) (J)
100
f-
Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit - 3.0 mg/L Winter Effluent NH3-N Limit - 6.0 mg/L
F M A M J
J
A SON 0
J
F M A M J
J
A SON
January 1989 through June 1991
0
J
F M A M J
turn.JMBURG. Pf:NNSYLVAHlll
PERroIUWlCE DATA DATE t«J./YR.
AVERAGE
HAl. DAY (....0)
(Itlq/ll
(lllg/1) 3.8 15.5 23.2 22.3 28.8 15.6 11.8 16.3 13.4 10.5 11.0 11.2 14.5 12.3 10.4 8.8 8.5 10.1 8.5 7.1 6.5 12.8 7.4 8.9 10.7 9.5 8.0 8.3 7.8 7.1
(mg/ll 13.0 15.6 19.2 20.5 10.9 14.3 13.8 13.1 9.9 9.0 12.0 9.0 9.9 3.9 4.5 9.3 10.2 9.5 6.8 1.5 6.7 7.7 6.8 5.8 7.9 6.0 6.4 6.7 6.0 10.9
(mg/ll 0.76 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.78 0.38 0.46 0.60 0.39 0.38 0.28 0.30 0.32 0 ..26 0.30 0.49 0.71 1.12 0.30 0.34 0.54 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.34 0.89 0.51
(ro/C') 58.9/14.9 56.1/13.4 51. 6/10. 9 48.2/9.0 49.9/9.9 50.3/10.2 52.9/11.6 56.3/13.5 60.lI15.6 64.2/17.9 65.8/18.8 63.4/17.4 59.6115.3 55.0/12.8 48.0/8.9 50.4/10.2 49.9/9.9 51. 6/10. 9 53.6/12.0 56.9/13.8 61.2116.2 65.3/18.5 65.0/18.4 63.6/17.6 59.9115.5 56.7/13.7 53.9/12.2 49.0/9.4 48.9/9.4 52.1/11.2
(mg/l) 1289 1250 1655 2133 2031 1539 1550 1733 2460 2352 1855 2525 2642 2883 2760 2982 2436 2783 2517 2777 2433 2800 2554 28J8 2382 2542 2262 2267 2283 2440
11.7 20/25
9.8 30.0
0.42 3.0/9.0
55.9/13.3 50.0/10.0
2298 3330
0.86 1.05 1.46 0.99 1.15 2.62 1. 33 2.68 1. 69 1. 57 2.12 1.45 1. 31
97 81 80 118
Average Desiqn
0.73 0.90
1.49 2.30
105 200
7.8 25.0
Ltc
Ltc
113
IlHLSS
TSS
9.1 9.1 9.3 13.1 8.4 5.7 6.96.8 6.6 7.8 6.7 7.3 1.9 1.7 9.5 6.3 8.0 5.6 11.1 6.0 10.8 14.1 6.7 1.5 7.2 5.5 10.1 13.9
0.90 1.60 1.11 2.44 1.43 2.45 1.93 0.76 2.35 1.48 0.68 1. 42
Ttmp.
BODS
10/88 11/88 12/88 1/89 2/89 3/89 4/89 5/89 6/89 7/89 8/89 9/89 10/89 11/89 12189 1/90 2190 3/90 4/90 5/90 6/90 7/90 8/90 9/90 10/90 11/90 12190 1/91 2191 3/91
110 120 110 135 178 101 154 91 95 63 86 88 92 75 106 95 116 109 102 72 115 111 93 115 65
HHr N
NHr H
(....01 0.55 0.65 0.50 0.64 0.54 0.66 0.60 1.08 0.70 1.06 0.62 0.54 0.84 0.57 0.49 0.56 0.71 0.62 0.64 0.76 0.65 0.61 0.87 0.13 1.19 0.76 0.95 1.02 0.80 0.85
1.26 1.33 0.91
tuxrn uooon
EITUJE}rJ'
Da'UJE)lT
rt.eM
Hlnlmum
SVI
.2HL.SS
(ml/g) 85 93 106 206 246 150 194 184 127 91
(r;11 ) 2039
2491 2013 2';80 2846 2958 2514 2364 2720 2400
SVI (el/g) 95 94 143 234 249 259 267 162 122 III
n
2300
84 120 92 152 220 2J8 226 246 214 182 187 229 263 238 232 287 244 2H 243
2543 3JJ7 32J8 3186 3J82 2683 2833 2633 2700 2546 3Jl1 2787 3140 2833 2913 2400 2333 2392 2418
91 92 118 J06 1J8 166 227 243 26J 250 219 196 250 240 252 217 282 280 225 223
267J
193
182
3330
fm (G'))'
-1)
------
0.033 0.038 0.042 0.035 0.036 0.027 0.O~2
O.OH 0.024 o 026 0.023 0.OJ7 0.025 0.013 0.OJ6 0.OJ6 0.032 0.022 0.023 0.018 0.027 0.021 0.028 0.026 0.027 0.029 0.036 0.033 0.025 0.038 0.028 0.049
MONTICEllO, INDIANA -
~HITE
OAKS RESORT
Monthly Averages
D[)~e
Flo\o/
MGD
1089 1189 1289 190 290 390 490 590 690 790 890 990 1090 1190 1290 191 291 391 491 591
0.006 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.009
Influent Ef fluent Influent Etf l uent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Inf [uent Effluent pH Phosph CBOO CBOO TSS TSS Arrrnoni a Arrrnonla Phosph pH ("'9/l)
133 117 79 115 99
81 91 100 162 159 170 116 170 147 171
150 124 113 162 170
(mg/l)
(~/l)
4 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 5 4 4 7 5 5 6 5 6 5 6
64
70 68 70 72 67 70 78 88
80 78 63 78 81 97 80 68 81 90 89
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(",giL)
6 7 6 6
7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.6
7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.4
3.5 3 2.7 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.2 3 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.9 3.1 2.9 6.9
0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8
3.63 3.09 2.98 3.04 2.73 2.56 2.58 2.88 3.06 3.11 2.78 2.44 1. 86 2.04 1.66 1. 91 1. 81 2.2 2.58 3.14
2. 07 0.59 0.45 0.37 0.35 0.45 0.4 0.38 0.3 0.37 0.34 0.27 0.23 0.32 0.27 0.3 0.41 0.44 0.34 0.35
97.000 4.850 1.352 7.000 2.000
153.600 7.680 0.098 7.900 7.500
148.800 7.440 0.132 7.700 7.200
61.600 3.080 0.929 6.900 2.200
5.700 0.285 0.188 0.800 0.100
52.080 2.604 0.527 3.630 1.660
9.000 0.450 0.380 2.070 0.230
2 2 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
1*
SUM AVG STO MAX MIN
0.085 2629.000 0.004 131.450 0.002 31.085 0.009 171.000 0.002 79.000
97.000 1532.000 4.850 76.600 1.062 9.173 7.000 97.000 3.000 63.000
.. : !l ~ ::.: ::;
1. 1 J .
I n d ian a
-,~
hit e 0 a ks Res art
r1 T r1 T •• -~-~~~~"'--'---"-'-'-ITT"I ' I'I1r11"'1'1"TITI-rI"T""1" 'Ir1i i "'I"TI-r,-ri"T""1'Ir111"'1"'1"TITI-rI"T""I"'-1'Ir111 1"'1'IT-rI"T""r"'-l'11 1"'1'1"TI j-rt"T""1rT"1 I~ Month l'y A'lerages ~ J.:'JB_
/
a
CJ. JC6L..
o.COLJ'~ /
0
:r'~
/
I
~
jl
.1
/
0.00
o.
ooo~ I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I I ~
8 en
t
II
II I I It
I I II I I II I I II I
j
~
J
~
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
SON
J
F
M
A
M
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
SON
J
F
M
A
M
67
u
o
60
Ul Ul f-
40 20
-- - - - - -'o
-
- - - - - --- -
--
----- - ---- - - -- - - -- ----
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
SON
J
F
M
A
M
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
SON
J
F
M
A
M
ill
I Cl.
October 1989 through May 1991
4. OO~
t
fJ]
:::J L~
O-.J
..c ""'-
0-01 (fJE o~
..c D.-
rI
1.00r-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8.0
6.0
4.0
- 0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
s
o
N
October 1989 through May 1991
J
F
M
A
M
,
CLOVER ESTATES MOBILE HOME PARK Muskegon Heights, Michigan
IHLUERT
DArE
I KODthlYear I
EFFLUENT
"II ED LIQUOR
BODS
rss
!-p
KLSS
BODS
TSS
Total
(19111
(19111
(1911)
119/11
(19111
(19/11
IDorqa~lC-H
TP (lg/II
II gill
====~=========-==-===-======F====I=================~ ====~=~_-~~7~~~
24
O. 20
o. 0I
11, 4
1I. 61
1. 9
4.9
I I. 4
0.20
o. 0I
11. 2
11.41
2. 0
6282
9.5
35 . 4
0.20
o.01
6. 3
6. 51
3.0
4-88
44 28
4.6
21. 9
0.20
0.01
3.1
3. 31
1.7
5-88
2845
5.3
II. 9
0.20
0.02
3.6
3.82
1.7
6-88
1918
5. 1
14. I
0.20
o.01
3.3
3. 51
1-88
3185
6.0
23.4
O. 20
o. 0I
2.6
2.81
8-88
2556
5. 5
13. 5
0.20
o. 0I
3. 1
3.31
9-88
3538
6.4
9. I
O. 20
0.02
2. 7
2. 92
3.2
10-88
4125
5. 1
13 . 9
0.20
o. 0I
2.3
2. 51
1.5
11-88
4430
4.6
7.0
0.20
0.01
3. 4
3. 61
12 - 88
4113
4.3
7.0
O. 20
o. 0I
2. 9
3. 11
1-89
3793
8.9
22.8
0.20
o.01
4.1
4.31
2-89
34 28
12.2
31. 3
O. 20
o. 0I
3.9
4.11
, 3-89
3786
8.2
13. 6
O. 56
O. 19
3.9
4. 65
1- 88
3050
7
2-88
5333
3-88
4-89
161
5-89
223
6-89
165
1-89
25.5
5.6
3515
9.8
8.3
I. 10
0.25
5.0
6. 35
1.4
228
12. 5
3.1
26 CO
10.6
15 . 4
2. 04
o. 15
2.6
4. 79
2.1
124
25.5
4.1
2793
10.8
11.3
1.43
O. II
2. 2
3.74
1.2
26 05
1.5
I 2. 8
0.20
0.04
1.2
1.44
45
.,-,C. LOVER E STATES
Muskegon Hei9hts) Michigan IlfLUIU
KInD
I1lLUU
DUI
LIQUOR Il00tblfeu)
10D II" )
I
us 11,11 )
18 l -1 (I,ll )
f-r 11,11 )
1-89
IIL5S 11,111
--'.-
100
Ilg,II
f55 llq 111
Uri
llq 111
10 2-.
119111
10)-.
llq III
fotal Inorqanic-. Ilq III
T-P llq III
.-
2078
4.4
4.8
0.20
0.15
1.6
1. 95
1·'0
5115
28.2
36.1
5.20
0.58
2.0
1.78
2.4
2-90
3610
32.1
50. ,
0.20
1. 10
1.6
2. 90
O. 20
3-90
lO"
1.,
6.5
0.42
0.11
4.1
4."
I. 80
4-90
3115
1.4
1" ,
3. 0)
0.39
o. 8
4. 22
5-90
l1l2
1.8
3.2
0.20
0.12
2.1
2. 42
5-!O
2513
, .1
33. 1
0.20
0.01
1.8
2. 01
1-90
2113
13. 1
23.2
1. 10
0.19
1.2
3. 69
1-'0
20"
8. 1
".3
0.20
0.04
1.8
2. 04
'-'0
1910
11. 3
9.5
0.20
O. 12
1.1
2. 02
10-90
2133
11.5
14.0
0.20
0.16
2.9
3.26
3364
"1
20.2
0.51
O. IS
3.4
4.16
3600
30
30
'-89 10-89 11-89 12-89
,
lunge
U5
132
21.2
Du1gD
200
200
22
4.3
5.0
1. 85
Shel ter Island, New York
"'cnt~,
Flo\ol (MGD)
189 289 389
0.0113 0.0111 0.0103
~89
589 689 789 889 989 1089 1189 1289 190 290 390 490 590 690 790 890 990 1090 1190 1290 191 291 391 491 591 691 791
0.0265 0.0352 0.0499 0.053 0.0374 0.0285 0.0185 0.0222 0.0155 0.0145 0.0106 0.0155 0.0246 0.0314 0.043 0.0533 0.0399 0.0333 0.0219 0.0114 0.0095 0.0175 0.0212 0.0329 0.041
J SF
EFF
800
800
(mg/L) 100 280 110 67 120 150 145 230 72
63 50 83 120 95 150 410 110 130 340 290 120 130 63 88 220 130 82 160 140 220 130
(mg/ L) 1 8.7 2.2 7.2 4.3 4.2 1 5.3 8 2.5 2.3 8.3 10 16 7 11 11 10 7 6 3 7 -2 3 4 -2 -3 2 ·2 6
PH TSS (mg/L) 55 135 69 60 180 54 130 310 110 70 81 77
65 59 63 46 255 110 650 280 110 100 92 120 180 120 51 57 110 170 210
~TP
EFF TSS (mg/l) -4 -5 -5 4 -5 -I.
10 23 13 9 4 -0.01 6 5 6 -13 -0.6 -I.
9 13 6 5 8 -3 3 -3 -I.
-3 10 8
Monthly Average Data
IN F TKN (mg/l) 21 29 19 17 11 13 20 16 21 9.6 20 20 19 18 23 21 12 19 8 39 2 12 14 19 17
EFF TKN (mg/l)
16
1.8 2.2 1.6 1.6 2 3.2 7.2 12 20 2 1 2 1.2 5.6 2 5.8 2 1.8 14 14 1.6 2.8 1.4 2.6 3.4 4.2
18 14 18 16 21
1.2 2.4 2.2 6.8
IN F N03 (mg/L) -0.5 -0.5 0.65 0.6 0.8 0.7 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 -0.5 0.5 - O. 5 -0.5 '0.5 2.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.05 -0.5 0.9 5.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
EFF N03 (mg/L) 2.5 8.9 8.5 4.9 2.7 2.2 1 -0.5 -0.5 4.2 5 7.8 1.5 5.9 5.4 2.9 0.9 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 2.1 5 4.6 8.5 4 8.3 2.9 5.3 2.8 -0.5
IN F Tot N (mg/L)
29 20 18 12 14 20 16 21 10 20 20 19.5 18.7 23.9 21 12.5 19 8 39 4.4 12 14 19 17 17 23 14 18 16 21
EFf Tot N (mg/L) 4.3 11 6.5 4.7 5.4 8.2 12 20 6.2 6 9.8 2.7 11.5 7.4 8.7 2.9 1.8 14 14 3.7 7.8 6 11. 1 7.4 12.5 4.1 7.7 5 6.8
She 1: e r .:: 3 l a n:J . f-:'
40
~~
e ',v Y0 r k
~j
Ir, f l:.Jent
~oEf·l-.len:
.J~
!
j
"~'~'g/,£i j
o. oID1mtmri'W.lllil.illl..1JlJl.U.tJ:!tll~!m!W.lll1l:1ill.ll..lfrnW1JlllJJ1!IlW.rm:liliJ.iliLiliJLl..W1ttlJIUJ.!lJI] FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
JFMAMJJ
(T1-l
0 .......... zO'l E
MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
J
F M A M J
J
MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON
J
F M A M J
J
C 11l 0'1
o
1:...-
+J-l
.M ..........
ZO'l E
.-1
~
ro +J o
~
10.
February 1989 through July 1991
I
::: " e ~ t e :' I
I ' 11
~5 ~
and .
~.J e 't!
'( 0
rk
! ' I i I ! i I11I1 :,111 111111,11111111111TfTTTTT1"'-1ITII"II"'-IITII"MI1""'11"'-1ITII"IITII"'-IITI1"1ICT"I!"TI1"11"'-1!"TITIl1"'-1 1"MIITT'TIII~ \.~ 0 t'i 1 Y A\; e I' age S I
n
"'-1
1 -j
-_ .. ':..0
O.06~ ,
I
r-
~
o
o04L I
c--<
lJ.
0.021-
L/' F
~
"-
A M J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M A M J
J
J
A SON
0
J
F
M A M J
J
A SON
J
F
M A M J
J
" Influent o Effluent
400
---.J-
/
300
Ol
E
0 0
m
F
M A M J
Effluent TSS Limit - 30 mg/L
600 500 -l '-.... Ol
400
E UJ UJ
r-
300 2('
-
F M A M J
J
A SON
0 J
F M A M J
J
A SON
February 1989 through July 1991
J
F M A M J
J
I
13
i
~
J.808C
-; -< -<
c
(!)
z
--<
-'
J. J06e
=1
o.oov~ :)
~=l 3 -1
OO~
1=1
::J . :) 0 0 LC..J..i-L-L-":"-L-l.-L....L-..l.......'L.....i..i~I~.L---L...lI-..L1-L-..L-L...l-L...L--'---'--'--'-~' -,-I..L-.L....J,--'--'---'--.L....J,--'---'-~'--'...... A F M N o J 5 M J J A o
mg/
c o
~O
~'-
-j
3
CD
30.0~
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c
~-
\
::0: 100 80
U1 U1
EI r-
---3 ~
_~ § I~j
\\
aa!::' M
- -- - - --- - --
J
J
"
S
0
N
o
I \ I I I
Ef luent
J
F
A
tSSI ILimI I't •I 30.0 I I I , I~ mg/
f-
-+-J-l
60
C"'---
UJOl
::J
E
40
~-
A
May 1990 through April 1991
Wlndgap Municipal Autho~lty Windgap, Pennsylvania Pe~fo~mance
Influent
Flow
Date
Data
BOD (mg/!)
TSS (mg/l)
Effluent
NH 3 -N (mg/l)
B00 5
TSS (mg/l )
NH 3 -N
(MGD)
Maximum (MGO)
2/90
0.649
0.866
121
109
10.0
5.0
5.0
0.38
3/90
0.466
0.621
146
104
18.0
7.0
4.0
0.60
4/90
0.577
0.918
111
92
10.0
4.0
5.0
0.22
5/90
0.843
1.979
123
116
8.0
9.0
14.0
0.74
6/90
0.568
0.783
108
102
12.0
7.0
7.0
0.83
7/90
0.510
1.036
127
58
20.0
6.0
2.0
0.85
8/90
0.533
0.801
183
136
10.0
8.0
4.0
0.72
9/90
0.437
0.588
255
182
15.0
8.0
3.0
0.50
10/90
0.447
0.873
264
278
13.0
5.0
3.0
0.43
0.559
0.941
160
131
12.9
6.6
5.2
0.59
1.0
2.0
175
175
25
30
2.0-5 6.0-W
Month/Yea~
Ave~age
I rna 11 )
(mg/l)
Ave~age
Values Design Values
10-5 20-W
walnut Grove Monitoring Data monthly averages taken from DMR profile Flo·.. . . :'!GD
Effluent BOD :::g/l
Effluent TSS r.:g/l
Effluent N02 & N03 mg/l
1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006
12.2 23.4 17.4 17.9 20.0 12.3 7.0 30.0 2.0 4.3 14.1 7.2
9.6 17.1 12.2 10.0 13.8 16.0 17.7 78.0 8.3 6.0 1.7 3.0
6.29 3.31 3.54 2.02 1. 26 3.01 0.68 3.70 1. 96 2.25 3.79 1.18
SUMMARY: Minimum Maximum Average
0.002 0.008 0.006
2.0 30.0 14.0
1.7 78.0 16.1
0.68 6.29 2.75
Limit
0.009
30.0
30.0
5.00
Honth May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
NOTES: 1. Plant began operation in May, 1990. 2. Flow rate is determined from the pump rate, through the use of a totalizer, or through the use of a continuous meter. 3. BOD, TSS and N02-& N03 concentrations are typically determined from one grab sample per month.