Design of A Sewage Treatment Works For A Rural Community. Authors: Edwards, Ekanem, Singh, Sutherland.

Design of a sewage treatment works for a rural community
DESIGN OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS FOR A RURAL COMMUNITY

Emmanuel Ekanem, Ross Edwards, Rohit Singh, Malcolm Sutherland
A group-work-based coursework report submitted for the PG diploma in Urban Water and Environmental Management, at the University of Abertay Dundee, December 2002 REVISED MAY 2013
Copyright of LabSearch, a working title of Dr Malcolm Sutherland 2013
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The findings of this report, were researched, selected and compiled together, by the students, the names of whom are listed on the front page. Ross Edwards studied the preliminary treatment and sludge processing phases, which involve the screening, grit removal, plus the sludge dewatering, stabilising, thickening and conditioning processes. He wrote the text for Screening, and for most of Chapter 4. He also produced the calculations for Appendices 2, 8 and 9. Emmanuel Ekanem considered the options for tertiary treatment, and researched the legislation, which governs the discharge of sewage effluent: into sensitive waters. He also advised on the layout and contents of the report. Rohit Sinyh worked on many of the engineering calculations for the grit removal, secondary treatment, and the clarifiers. He produced the calculations in Appendices 3, 5, and 6 (the alkalinity). Malcolm Sutherland investigated the likely flow-rates and composition of the raw wastewater, the equalisation method, studied ihe options and principles of secondary treatment involving (dc) nitrification, and enquired about the monitoring required. He also compiled the report, wrote the text for the other chapters, and produced the calculations for the other appendices. All four authors contributed their knowledge to producing the Power point slides.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains a basic theoretical design of a sewage treatment works (STW), which is to serve a rural community of 10,000 people (where the population rises to 12,000 during the summer). The works is designed to discharge treated water to sensitive waters, and should be in operation for the next 50 years. This is a combined sewer, which therefore accepts storm-water as well as domestic wastewater. The STW will contain the following: 2 storm-water tanks, an equalisation tank, dual screening, 3 grit removal chambers, 2 anoxic tanks, 2 oxidation ditches, 2 secondary clarifiers, a sludge thickener tank, a sludge stabilization tank, and a sludge filter belt press. The STW is designed to treat a maximum influent of6DWF (around 18000m3/day), and retain up to the same volume in the storm-water tanks for later treatment. Excess wastewater in flows exceeding 12DWF (36000m3/day) will be passed via the storm-water tanks, screened, and discharged; this excess wastewater is not expected to contain BOD, N and P levels, which exceed EU guidelines. The dual screens will be fitted within the 1.5m diameter sewer entering the STW plant, and are designed to treat up to 12DWF. The grit chambers each treat up to 3DWF. Each of the treatment plants downstream, are expected to treat up to 6DWF. The screenings and grit will be collected for landfill disposal. The anoxic tank is located upstream from the oxidation ditch. The ditch is designed to allow nitrification to occur, whereby organic and ammoniacal nitrogen is converted to nitrate. This wastewater is passed back to the anoxic tank, where the influent wastewater and recycled sludge from the secondary clarifier help to eliminate oxygen in the water, and allow denitrification to occur. The volume of the oxidation ditch and anoxic tank, are 3600m3 and 1300m3 respectively. The volume of the secondary clarifier is approximately 1500m3. Lime and FeCl3 (iron chloride) addition help to maintain the pH of the wastewater at around pH7, and remove phosphorus. Around 430kg of lime and 210kg of FeCl3 is required. It is calculated that around 1620kg of solids, in 173m3 of surplus sludge, is produced each day. The surplus sludge undergoes 4 treatment stages, before it can be collected for landfill disposal. The sludge is de-watered, using a gravity-thickening tank, before undergoing stabilisation (to remove odours and pathogens). Thereafter, the sludge is chemically conditioned and put through a filter belt press, to produce a cake with a solids content of between 20% and 40%. From this, around 820kg of sludge solid, are expected to be transferred, to landfill. The sewage treatment plant can be automatically monitored and controlled, using telemetry, which provides information for the water company in charge. Automatic water sampling of the influent, effluent, as well as flow rate monitoring facilities will be installed on-site. Redundant treatment tanks (e.g. oxidation ditch, anoxic tank) are also provided for emergencies.
CONTENTS
Abbreviations Introduction 1: Inputs and Legal requirements 1:1: 1:2: 1:3: 1:4: Page 4 Page 5 Pages 6 - 10
Inputs and Wastewater Composition Legal Requirements for the Discharge of Sewage Effluent into Sensitive Waters Predicted Energy and Capital Costs Layout of the Sewage Treatment Plant Pages 11 - 15
2: Preliminary Treatment 2:1: 2:2: 2:3: 2:4: Equalisation Storm water Tanks Screening Grit Removal
3: Secondary Treatment 3:1: 3:2: 3:3: 3:4: 3:5: 3.6: 3:7: 3:8: Principles of Secondary Treatment Choosing and Appropriate Treatment Designing the Secondary Treatment Plant Supplied Oxygen Demand for the Aerobic Tank Sludge Recycling and Re-circulation The Secondary Clarifier De-nitrification and the Anoxic Tank Chemical Treatment
Pages 16 - 22
4: Sludge Treatment 4:1: 4:2: 4:3: 4:4: 4:5: Characteristics of Sludge and Processing Sludge Thickening Sludge Stabilisation Sludge Conditioning Sludge De-watering
Pages 23 - 30
5: Monitoring at the STW Conclusion References Appendices
Pages 31 - 32
ABBREVIATIONS
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD: the BOD measured over a 5-day incubation, and normally called BOD C-BOD: the carbonaceous BOD D.O.: Dissolved Oxygen (in wastewater) DWF: Dry Weather Flow (m3/day) (domestic wastewater only) MLSS: Mixed Liqour Suspended Solids MLVSS: Mixed Liqour Volatile Suspended Solids N-BOD: Nitrogenous BOD Q: flow rate (m3 per day) Total BOD: the sum of C-BOD and N-BOD
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of sewage treatment, as defined by the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal (1889-1915), is to remove the pestilence and odours which ii produces, along with other elements, compounds and organic matter which can degrade both water quality and its ecology (Harrison, 2001). The report is based an entirely theoretical design of a sewage treatment works (STW), which is to serve a population of 10,000 residents, and an extra 2000 visiting tourists during the summer The most important issue is that the plant is to discharge treated effluent into waters, which are classified under EU regulations as sensitive. The aquatic habitat is therefore vulnerable lo small nutrient inputs, especially N and P, which can lead to eutrophication. Attention must therefore be given to removing nitrogen and phosphorus from the wastewater. The area of the proposed site is 150m x 300m (approx.), which is 45,000m2. It generally consists of broad topography, with a very gentle slope downhill to the edge of the sensitive lake. A combined sewer overflow (CSO) sewer pipe of 1.5m diameter arrives at the site. The main decisions in this report, include the selection of appropriate preliminary, primary, secondary, chemical, and sludge treatment methods. The preliminary treatment has to be very effective, as no primary sedimentation tanks are needed for the nitrifying secondary treatment. This is the oxidation ditch treatment, which also requires anoxic tank treatment, where nitrogen is converted from NO3 to N2 gas. Phosphorus must also be removed, and there are biological and chemical treatment options for achieving this. Sludge disposal and treatment must produce de-watered compost, which is suitable for landfill disposal methane production must also be fully accounted for. Finally, the influx of storm-water should be predicted, and this must be contained within the STW site with few exceptions. On a final note, as nearly all the values and calculations produced in this report are theoretical, it is almost certain that the predicted tank sizes, settings and treatment requirements will be slightly different for an active STW. Over the years, the population is expected to increase, and the composition and volume of wastewater produced per person (per day) will also change over this time, just as this does in reality, from day to day, and between the seasons- Values are at best approximate, and should be used as indicators rather man accurate measurements (Rendell, 1999).
CHAPTER 1: INPUTS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1: Inputs and wastewater composition

Wastewater from both storm water and domestic sources is a mixture of suspended and dissolved materials. Suspended solids (SS) cause turbidity within the water, reducing photosynthesis, and suffocating benthic life, especially in rivers. Sewage Treatment usually involves preliminary, primary, secondary, and (more rarely) tertiary treatment. Domestic sewage is composed of about 1g/L of impurities in suspended, colloidal or dissolved form, as shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1: a generalised diagram showing the major components of domestic wastewater (Harrison, 2001).
Contaminants in effluent, which can harm receiving waters, include carbonaceous BOD, nitrogenous BOD, phosphorus, solids, heavy metals, organics, pathogens, and even thermal pollution. The design on the treatment plant is mainly focused on removing both forms of BOD, the solids, plus N and P, The reduction in pathogens occurs along with the removal of BOD (Rendell, 1999; MetCaff and Eddy, 2002). Each person produces around 60g of BOD, and around 200 litres of wastewater each day (which therefore contains circa 300mg/L BOD). The biological oxygen demand results from heterotrophic respiration by microbes, leading to oxygen depletion in water, due to high nutrient inputs by sewage. High BOD levels in effluent lead to high bacterial, protozoan and algal populations, and reduced populations of macro-invertebrates (e.g. fish); visual and aesthetic pollution also results, and these characteristics make the receiving water unfit for consumption (Kiely, 1997).
Total suspended solids in raw sewage occur at around 400mg/L in UK waters (Rendell, 1999; Metcaff and Eddy, 2002). Typical P concentrations range between 5 and 15mg/L, and Total N values (the sum of all organic and ammonium nitrogen), range between 40 and 80mg/L (Mudrack and Kunst, 1997). It is essential to know how much wastewater the proposed works is expected to receive. There are no straightforward answers or figures to this problem, although Rendell (1999) lists the following assumptions. Dry Weather Flow" (DWF) is the daily wastewater production, under dry weather conditions. The calculation is as follows:
DWF = PG + E + (trade/industrial flow)

P = population (persons) G = volume produced per person per day (m3/person/day) E = infiltration of water in the pipe network (m3/day) Trade/industrial flow in m3/day
This does not take into account, the storm water inputs, which are unpredictable over any period of time. A theoretical approach taken by engineers in recent years is the "Formula A" equation, which is used to calculate the peak flow of wastewater:
Peak flow = DWF + 1.36P + 2E

Thus the STW should be equipped to cope with all but the most severe storm overflows. The infiltration will not be considered in the report, as this is a new pipe system (although it is likely to increase over the years). Rendell (1999), states that the average flow is around 3DWF. The STW is designed to treat an influent of up to 6DWF per day, and a storm-water tank will be provided, to accommodate up to 6DWF (this is normal practice, for STW plants discharging to sensitive waters (Kiely, 1997)). It is designed to meet me needs of 12,000 people, and thus treat up to 18,000m3 of wastewater per day (2,400m3 at DWF x 6 x 120%). Multiplying values by 120% is used throughout the calculations, in order to allow some variations in the flow-rate and organic load entering the plant. With 10,000 local inhabitants, it can be assumed that there is no heavy industry. There will be public services and small companies in the community, but for this project, only the domestic wastewater will be accommodated by the STW.
1.2: Legal requirements for the discharge of sewage effluent to sensitive waters
Annex IIA of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC contains two descriptions of what are called Sensitive Waters: Lakes, streams...(and)...enclosed bays, which are found to have a poor water exchange, whereby (organic) accumulation may take place. In these areas, the removal of phosphorus
should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on (he level of eutrophication. ...estuaries, bays and other coastal water's which are found to have a poor water exchange, or which receive large quantities of nutrients. Articles 4 and 5 of the same directive set out the minimum requirements of treated effluent chemical standards for 5 main categories of pollutant (Table 1) (SEPA 2002):
Table 1: EU requirements for effluent discharges to sensitive waters (correct in 2002)
The predicted levels of these entering the STW are provided in Table 2 and in Appendix 1 (Kiely, 1997):
Table 2: predicted concentrations of specified pollutants entering municipal sewage treatment works
1.3: Predicted capital and energy costs

No appropriate figures on predicted capital costs for building a STW were found, either in the literature, or on the internet. It can only be assumed that the likely capital costs, should not amount to more than 5 million (based on discussion with George Rintoul of Scottish Water, 2002). The Water Environment Federation (1997) provides general values, for the electricity consumption of the following treatment processes and methods (of relevance to this project). It also states mat for secondary treatment, the oxidation ditch or extended aeration methods use between 1,600 and 2000kWh/miI. gallons (-1.52 to 1.83MJ/m3).
Table 3 provides some suggested electricity consumption figures for activated wastewater treatment plants with nitrification. These values are for a 5-mgd plant, which therefore treats approximately 19,000m3 per day (no figures for a 4-mgd plant were obtainable):
Table 3
The net electricity use per unit volume of wastewater decreases with increasing size of the wastewater intake by the STW, The values quoted here, should be observed cautiously; converting these into financial costs does not consider other payments, such as environmental levy (axes, VAT, maintenance, and labour costs.
1.4: Layout of the sewage treatment plant

The STW Site Map over-page (Figure 2) contains drawings of each treatment process unit (e.g. sludge tank, equalisation tank). Those are not drawn perfectly to scale, although it can be seen, that there is a substantial area of remaining space for future expansion.
10
Figure 2: layout of the proposed STW for the rural community
11
CHAPTER 2: PRELIMINARY TREATMENT AND OVERFLOW FACILITIES

2.1: EQUALISATION
In general, there are peak flows in the mid-morning and early evening hours. With these varying flows come varying concentrations of pollutants, particularly BOD (Figure 3). The treatment plant is designed to treat wastewater set at a specific level, and thus the flow rate within the STW premises needs to be controlled, by establishing it at an average hourly flow rate (Kiely, 1997).
Figure 3: a typical depiction of varying wastewater flow rates Mid BOD levels throughout the day
A set volume of wastewater is transferred to an equalisation tank. Particularly if there is a long dry weather spell, the wastewater will be more concentrated in pollutants. Peak daily flows, if released into the STW, could result in poorly treated effluents. The volume of the 1 DWF-receiving equalisation tank is illustrated in Figure 4:
Figure 4: calculation of the equalisation volume
12
Qasim (1994), and Metcalf and Eddy (2002) provided graphs showing the average domestic wastewater flow-rate throughout the day. However, the average input each day is 3DWF, and storm-flow will alter the shape of the graph shown above. Metcalf and Eddy (2002) stated that using collected influent data, and using statistical methods of predicting the average flow-rates, is needed, before an equalisation tank can be provided for a combined sewer input. No predicted volume for the equalisation tank has been calculated as a result.
2.2: STORMWATER TANKS

SEPA expects a STW to have a 3 or 6-DWF capacity storm-water lank, and it is normal tor a STW discharging to sensitive waters, to be able to retain up to 12DWF, and treat up to 6DWF of wastewater per day. Each of the 2 tanks is to accept up to 3DWF (7200m3). Sedimentation will occur, as the wastewater must be retained, prior to being re-allocated to the STW. The percentage of settleable solids being retained by the tank varies; one German design is reported to intercept up to 70%, although this depends on sampling data for the analysis of the SS settling characteristics (Michalbach, 2000). A more realistic prediction is around 25% (Article 20, Watershed Protection Techniques, 2000). Storm-water tanks at the Forfar STW are radial (akin to radial primary sedimentation tanks); the tank at St Andrews STW is rectangular. Sludge removal can be conducted through a pipe (sludge well) in the radial tank, whereas a scraper device (e.g. the Parkson Corp. SuperScraper, 2002) (B) can be used in rectangular designs (Figures 5, 6):
Figure 5: the radial sedimentation tank and rectangular tank
Figure 6: the rectangular tank with conveyor belt grit scrapers along floor
13
Grit removal It is not mentioned how much BOD is removed through storm-water storage, but for primary sedimentation, this seldom exceeds 30%*. Furthermore, the BOD concentration will approach 25mg/L at 12DWF. No references were found, which stated the (%) solids content of the outgoing sludge production (which will also contain grit). Should the stormwater input exceed 12DWF, the excess needs to be screened prior to it being discharged. Figure 7 shows the tangential design, which is simpler to operate (Metcalf & Eddy, 2002). The wastewater passes into the upper chamber, around it, and exits (blue arrows). The grit is kept behind the mesh in the chamber, and passes downwards (brown arrow).
Figure 7: The tangential fine-mesh screening"; removal chamber for excess storm water
2.3: SCREENING (see Appendix 2 for calculations)

Bar screening is the coarse screen of choice for medium to large wastewater treatment facilities. The screen, and cleansing provision, will be housed within a chamber located directly behind the inlet sewer, and immediately ahead of the grit removal unit (Figure 8):
Figure 8: photograph of screens at the entrance to a STW
14
Chamber parameters The chamber is required to house a dual screen assembly, each capable of handling peak design flow (12DWF). This ensures system redundancy in the event-of failure of either assembly. Stop gates are proposed are proposed both up and downstream of each rack at the entrance to and exit from each channel. The channel base is to be set 0.08m lower than the sewer inlet, within the normal parameters (0.07-0.15m) (Qasim 1994). Headless and velocity within the chamber can be controlled either internally via installation of a Parshall Flume, for example - or externally - by control of wet well levels- Velocities should not exceed 0.9ms-1 through the screen, nor drop below 0.4ms-1. These parameters prevent flowthrough and sedimentation of solids. Assembly cleaning A mechanical system will be employed in this design, within the regular screening chamber. This is deemed cost and energy efficient for medium sized facilities (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). A continuous back-raking, back-return system is proposed due to the decreased potential for failure as a result of obstruction, relative to that of a front-cleaning mechanism. This system does have drawbacks. The submerged moving parts require the isolation and drainage of the channel in order that maintenance is expedient. However, this is considered and provided for in the dual-channel design employed. Screenings are to be elevated to the operation floor and disposed of into a removal hopper. Screening composition and quantity Screening composition and quantities can vary widely. The amounts removed by the bar screen in the proposed system are around 0.06m3/day (max 0.1 m3/day) (Appendix 2). Screenings recovered from the chamber produce odours, so the removal of screenings to sanitary landfill will be daily, or as is dictated by the odour nuisance (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). A summary of the screening provisions is provided in Table 4:
15
2.4: GRIT REMOVAL (see Appendix 3 for calculations)

The provision of the grit removal chamber is essential, as primary sedimentation is not required for the oxidation ditch. It is there to remove heavy inorganic particles, which can abrade mechanical equipment, and reduce the frequency of anaerobic digester cleaning due to grit accumulation (Figure 9). Rectangular and square-horizontal grit removal chambers have been used for many years, and this design has been selected. It is calculated that a chamber, with a hydraulic retention time of 1 minute, designed to receive an influent of3DWF, will have a length, width and depth, of 15m, 0.4m and 1m, respectively. Four of these will be provided: two to treat the 6DWF (max.) of influent; and two redundant chambers. The quantities of grit being removed will vary. This is performed using a conveyor with scrapers, from which the grit is placed in a large refuse container, which can then be collected for disposal at a landfill. Metcalf and Eddy (2002) quoted values of 0.004 to 0.2m3 grit per mega-litre of waste-water (for 2.4ML at 1DWF, the maximum grit collected would be 0.6m3).
Figure 9: a schematic diagram of the grit removal chamber and the conveyor used to collect the grit
16
CHAPTER 3: SECONDARY TREATMENT

3.1: PRINCIPLES OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
The effluent must be oxygenated; otherwise, volatile organic matter, which will deoxygenate the water through the formation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds, will still persist (Kiely, 1997). Biological oxygen demand is represented by this equation: (Organic matter) + O2 + (Nutrients) CO2 + NH3 + (new biomass) + (end products) Controlling bacterial respiration and synthesis, is crucial in the design of secondary treatment plants. There are a wide variety of such plants, depending on the wastewater composition, the population served, and the legal requirements. The water environment must be kept at around pH7 (between pH5 and pH9).
3.2: CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE TREATMENT

Trickling filters These have been used for decades, and can treat low/moderately BOD-rich influents to a very high standard. However, they are very odorous, they attract flies, and are difficult to control when low temperatures restrict biological activity. In recent years, this process has fallen out of favour, also due to biomass accumulation on the filter media surface, and reoccurring filtering problems (Kiely, 1997.) Activated sludge processes This involves biological breakdown of the sewage in a water medium, and is usually assisted by mechanical aeration. Many methods are not appropriate for this design, but with an activated process, there is better control on the biological reaction rates, and shorter hydraulic retention times (Harrison, 2001). The most appropriate method is the oxidation ditch, which is suited to allowing nitrification to proceed. In addition, it is reliable, less energy-demanding, and produces a high-quality effluent.
3.3: DESIGNING THE SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT

The tank is designed to take up to 6DWF (circa 14,400m3) of influent, and is prepared to receive a Total-BOD level of as much as 756mg/L (see Appendix 4 for calculations).
17
The Oxidation ditch layout (see Appendix 4 for calculations) The oxidation ditch is different by comparison with a conventional activated sludge treatment (where DO levels are lower, around 1mg/L at 20C) (Arundel, 2000). An example (in Mequito, Nevada) is provided in Figure 10. Rendell (1999) stated that the MLSS must be around 3500mg/L. The two-stage biological nitrogen removal model is represented in Figure 11.
Figure 10: an oxidation treatment system in the United States
Figure 11: the de-nitrification process, whereby anoxic conditions are created by combining BOD-rich raw sewage with recycled NO3-rich oxidation ditch effluent
The BOD concentration will vary with Q, due to dilution by siormwater (which itself contains around 25mg/L (Kiely, 1997)). Figure 12 shows the variation in BODs levels with the influent (over-page):
18
Figure 12: note that the BOD at 1DWF is set at 350mg/L, to account for unexpectedly high inputs. This setting applies to the calculations in Appendices 5, 6, and 8 through 10
The Total-BOD is different to the BOD, (C-BOD) value, which does not account for nitrification (N-BOD) (this occurs after 6 days incubation (Figure 13) (Metcaff and Eddy, 2002)). The Total-BOD = 756mg/L, and the calculation is given in Appendix 4.
Figure 13: carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand in BOD
The volume of the aeration tank can be calculated from the F/M ratio, which must not exceed 0.12 days, in order for nitrification to proceed. A maximum value of 0.1 is allowed for designing an oxidation ditch:
19
Rendell (1999), in calculating the volume, simply uses a BOD5 value, which does not include the nitrifying component. The volume of the tank is calculated to be around 3600m3. Providing a second (redundant) oxidation tank is a normal feature (Metcaff and Eddy, 2002). The biomass production is predicted to be around 350kg VSS/day (Appendix 4), and the MLSS concentration is set at 3500mg/L (Rendell, 1999). If a depth of 7.5m is allowed, and the width/length ratio is 1:10, then the dimensions would be (approx.) 7.5m x 70m (length) x 7m (width).
3.4: SUPPLIED OXYGEN DEMAND FOR THE AEROBIC TANK

There are 2 ways of calculating the oxygen demand, and both results are given in Appendix 4. The more detailed method, prescribed from Metcalf & Eddy (2002), is used here. This is based on both the C-BOD, and N-BOD:
It is predicted mat around 50 tonnes of air will be required for the oxidation ditch. Four types of aerators can be used to provide this, and these are calculated to have different oxygen transfer efficiencies and power consumption levels (Table 5) (Rendell, 1999):
Table 5: oxidation ditch aerators
The fine bubble turbine aerator is the most efficient type of aerator, although a surface lowspeed aerator is almost as satisfactory.
3.5: SLUDGE RECYCLING AND RECIRCULATION

In the past, treated effluent was simply discharged to nearby water bodies. Not only was this harmful to the aquatic environment, but scientists later realised that an opportunity to conserve and improve the biological activity needed for secondary treatment, was being missed as well.
20
For both me oxidation ditch, and for extended aeration, the recommended recycle ratio (r) values will lie between 0.75 and 1.0 (also see Figure 14). The surplus sludge being sent to the anaerobic tank will be around 173m3/day, with a solids mass of around 1 tonnes (this includes precipitates from Fe salts used in P removal). The sludge mass (Appendix 7) is significantly larger than the biomass produced (Appendix 5). This may owe to the use of empirical values and calculations under Rendell's (1999) method. The result in Appendix 7 is still used for the calculations in the sludge treatment, although this may be an overestimation.
Figure 14: the pipe network within secondary treatment which involves recycling sludge
3.6: THE SECONDARY CLARIFIERS

The final clarifier fulfils a similar purpose to that of a primary sedimentation tank. The depth must be greater than 3 metres. Ideally, about 4 m should be allowed, for the 0.7 to 1.0m of sludge thickening, plus the 1m layer of buffering, and the 2 m layer of effluent clarification. The hydraulic retention time should not fall below 2 hours (resulting in inefficient settling of solids), nor should it rise far above this value (as septicity may develop) (Kiely, 1997). Given that hT = 2 hours for the full (6DWF) intake:
Volume of clarifier => 18000 m3/day (24hrs 2hrs) = 1500m3 = 333.3m2 = 10.3m (x120% = 12.5m )
Area Diameter
=> 1500m3 4.5m => 333.3
As with the oxidation ditch, a second (redundant) clarifier will be provided for emergencies Odours arising from the clarifier are not expected to be serious (Mctcalf and Eddy,2002).
21
3.7: DENITRIFICATION AND THE ANOXIC TANK

In the oxidation ditch, the high MLSS (Mixed Layer Suspended Solid) concentrations and (F/M) ratio allows nitrification to occur, which involves two bacterial organisms: Nitrosomonas 55NH4+ + 76O2 + 109HCO3- C5H7O2N (biomass) + 54NO2- + 57H2O + 104H2CO3 Nitrobacter 400NO2- + NH4+ + 4H2CO3 + HCO3- + 195O2 C5H7O2N (biomass) + 3H2O + 400NO3For denitrification to proceed, the water must be completely deprived of free oxygen (i.e. it becomes anoxic), in order for nitrate to be converted to nitrogen gas: NO3 (aq) NO2 (aq) NO (aq) N2O (aq) N3 (g) If this is performed in a separate channel which precedes the aerobic reactor tank, then a hydraulic retention lime of about an hour may be adequate (Rendell, 1999). The dissolved oxygen (DO) must be less than 0 5ppm; the oxidation ditch DO is min. 1.5ppm. For an MLSS of between 2000 and 4000mg/L, the anoxic tank volume must be around 40% and 20% of the aerobic tank volume, respectively (Barnes et al, 1983). Qasim (1999) states that an h, of 1.5 hours is adequate, thus: 720m3 x 1.5hours = 1125m3 (x 120% = 1350m3) This is around 37.5% of the volume of the oxidation ditch, within Bames' recommendation. If the depth = 7.5m, the length and width of the tank could born be around 13.5m. As the water is septic, strong odours may be produced, and so this process will be housed inside, unlike the oxidation ditch (Metcalf& Eddy, 2002).
3.8: CHEMICAL TREATMENT (see Appendix 6 for calculations)

Inefficient de-nitrification With varying temperatures, de-nitrification may not always be fully accomplished, and if NO3 levels in the effluent still do not meet the requirements set out by SEPA, methanol can be added to the anoxic tank, as an additional carbon source for nitrate removal. Metcaff and Eddy (2002) stated that this precaution is rarely necessary for municipal wastewater. Phosphorus Removal Phosphorus is an important contributor to eutrophication. It is the main limiting nutrient, and if released into sensitive waters even at small quantities (>2mg/L), can seriously disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. It can be treated biologically, although this is both a very
22
complicated, and possibly unsuccessful, approach (Arundel, 2000). A simpler method is to treat the secondary effluent using inorganic salts. Aluminum and iron salts are often used. Fe is less toxic to the microorganisms, and can be applied as FeSO4 or FeCl3. FeSO4 addition requires careful lime addition, and this can be complicated and inaccurate. FeCl3 is also cheaper, as it does not require a nearby industrial source. Less FeCl3 is required (209kg/day), in comparison to FeSO4 (360kg/day). FeCl3 is therefore chosen, which will produce around 140kg of Fe(OH)3 precipitate (Rendell, 1999; Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). Alkalinity treatment: lime addition As seen on page 17, the chemical reactions involving Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, include the reaction with carbonate, which leads to increased acidity. This effect must be counterbalanced with the addition of CaCO3, or else the secondary treatment ecosystems will collapse (Metcaff and Eddy, 2002). The required addition to the oxidation tank is around 356.4kg/day (see Appendix 6).
23
CHAPTER 4: SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

In municipal WWTP, sludge is a treatment by-product derived mainly from primary sediments and secondary clarification, Pre-treatment products - including screenings and removed grits - are not handled as sludge. The nature of sludge is dependent upon the stream designed and implemented- However, a generic characteristic of sludge is the high water content. This, coupled with the nature of the solids associated, creates the requirement for adequate processing.
4.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF SLVDGE AND PROCESSING

Sludge consists of a suspension of organic and inorganic solid materials (at 1-5%), held within a liquid phase, primarily of water, but also containing a plethora of aqueous materials. It is precisely this diversity of content, which causes the high level of system complexity and financial commitment involved in sludge processing. The chemical composition of sludge is described in the table over-page (sourced from Qasim, 1994). Wastewater sludge types dictate the content and character. The three dominant types are primary (extracted from the primary clarifiers), waste activated (from biological treatment) and combined sludge (both primary and WAS). The basic blueprint for sludge processing involves four stages: (a) Thickening (b) Digestion/stabilisation (c) Dehydration (d) Disposal Sludge management commands that odour production and release must also be accounted for, and dealt with appropriately. For example, the design proposal commands the presence of odour scrubbers at any point of emission (eg. unit housing dewatering press and screening filter).
4.2: SLUDGE THICKENING

Sludge thickening, as a process, is based upon the "Waste Hierarchy" primary principle of reduction. The concentration of the sludge solids reduces the volume required for subsequent processes within the treatment stream, increasing efficiency and minimising costs associated with transportation, equipment and construction. Thickening can be accomplished by several methods. For medium sized plants, such as is being considered, these include gravity thickening, dissolved air flotation (DAF) and centrifugation.
24
25
Continuous Flow Gravity Thickening is the method, which has been preferred in this design. Gravity thickening is executed within circular sedimentation dishes, which allow the influent solids to stratify contents of the thickener. This is illustrated in Figure 15, with a photographed example in Figure 16:
Figure 15: concentration profile of municipal wastewater sludge gravity-thickener (Qasim, 1994)
Figure 16: sludge thickener (in the foreground)
The system is based upon the principle of sedimentation pressure, within the thickening layer, forcing the water and gas from the inter-aggregate spaces. This area - the "sludge blanket" - must be maintained accurately using a SVR, value (ideally 0.5 to 2d) to determine the rate of thickened sludge removal. Gravity thickening is adaptable, and able to treat a range of sludge types, including those dictated by this project. Thickening achieved is generally 2-5 times (10% max.) the influent solid concentration, which is ample for design requirements. The equipment required circular tank, rotating scraper arm, collecting mechanism and overflow weir - is relatively minimal and simple in design. This translates to low installation, maintenance and replacement costs. The operation is also financially efficient due to the largely passive nature of the treatment. A minor drawback is the necessity for a blending/dilution lank to ensure the design criteria for hydraulic loading is met. This also requires mixing (air or mechanical), which add slightly to operation costs. (A diagram of a tank is provided overpage (Metcaff and Eddy, 2002).
26
(sourced from Metcaff and Eddy, 2002)
27
DAF is less economically viable for such a small plant. It is capable of higher removal rates and accuracy than gravity thickening. However, for the design proposed, these are not necessary and are coupled with aeration systems that are, by comparison, high maintenance financially. Centrifugal thickening again incurs high power and maintenance expenses. Thus, it is frequently limited to places where no other option is practicable (i.e. limited space).
4.3: SLUDGE STABILIZATION

Sludge stabilisation is the process by which pathogens, material putrification and odours are all attenuated by either physical, or chemical, or biological methods. The final disposal procedure for the treated sludge dictates the degree of stabilisation if any - required. At a medium-sized STW, a process of anaerobic biological digestion has become the treatment of choice and as such has been adopted for this design (example in Figure 16).
Figure 16: anaerobic sludge digestion tanks
Anaerobic stabilisation Anaerobic digestion is a process of organic matter utilisation by a combination of anaerobic and facultative micro-organisms, executed over a simultaneous, two-phase reaction, which results in the decomposition of any organics present. The process creates the reaction products methane and carbon dioxide, and as a side effect creates a stable, low odour, low pathogen sludge. Potential negatives are the initial capital costs, sensitivity of system operation, and the poor supernatant created. These can be offset by the low operation and maintenance costs, the ability to retreat poor supernatant, and the fact that the methane produced can be used to heat the bioreactor, in all or part, via a water boiler. A schematic diagram is provided in Figure 17 over-page.
28
Anaerobic digestion falls into one of two categories - "high rate" or "standard rate" - based on the temperature at which the reaction is executed- Standard rate systems are unheated and unmixed, resulting in 30-60d digestion periods. High rate systems are fully mixed and heated - usually by methane-derived energy - to temperatures within the thermophilic range of methane-producing bacteria (45-65C). This results in efficiency and dehydration benefits and so was used for this project:
Figure 17: the high-rate sludge digestion apparatus (Qasim, 1994)
The factors dictating anaerobic operation, i.e. bioreactor capacity, heating, mixing, reactor gas harvesting and use, supernatant quality and sludge are calculated in Appendix 8.
4.4: SLUDGE CONDITIONING

Further dehydration is needed. Conditioning procedures involve physical or chemical processes. This stage can also be used to fundamentally change the sludge according to the downstream requirements - for example disinfection and odour treatment. Chemical conditioning processes are used in conjunction with mechanical filtration systems. This can be subdivided into organic and inorganic chemical dosing. Organic chemicals used are hydrophilic, long chain polymers, which displace sludge- bound water, remove charge and precipitate aggregate formation. This is the method of conditioning selected for the project design, as only small quantities are needed.
4.5: SLUDGE DE-WATERING

The general method of dewatering is by this stage of design predetermined by upstream choices. The methods available can be classified as either mechanical or non-mechanical in nature. Mechanical processing followed by disposal to landfill is the proposed method. Vacuum, belt and plate and frame systems are all deemed suitable. These methods fulfil the criteria for cake content and ability to treat the influent sludge. A belt filter press is to be employed (example shown in Figure 18). Such machines use moving belts to dehydrate the conditioned sludge in a continuous process. The process itself is based upon chemical conditioning, and continues with a passive dehydration due to
29
gravity. The true dehydration process is a result of pressure exerted by roller compression of the sludge. The parameters for belt filter sludge processing are displayed in the scanned tables over-page (sourced from Qasim, 1994). The benefits of such a system are the drier cake that is formed, in comparison with other filtration methods. Centrifugal systems, although similar to vacuum filtration in performance, were discounted due to excessive maintenance costs and solids presence (in supernatant). Drying systems were also discounted, due to the land requirement and climatic considerations. The dewatered sludge, subsequent to the dehydration process, is suitable for short/medium term storage prior to disposal to sanitary landfill site.
Figure 18: filter belt press used in a STW in Montana (sourced from www.ci.helena.mt.us, 2002)
Sludge processing: summary tables
Tables 6a 6c: design settings for the sludge processing
30
Flow Monitoring Monitors must be established to measure (1) influent, (2) effluent, (3) storm tank (3DWF) overflow weir discharge, and (4} the combined storm overflow weir (6DWF) discharge. Annual reports must be submitted to SEPA, giving all flow data records; these must contain values for DWF, average WF, maximum storm flow-rates, and the duration of overflow rates from the combined (6DWF) and on-line (3DWF) storm-water tanks. Unusual Conditions The performance of the STW will not be reviewed for periods, during which there are: 1 2 3 4 very low temperatures (effluent <5C), or freezing of equipment snow deposits which inhibit the treatment performance tidal/fluvial flooding unforeseen power supply toss over long periods
An emergency electricity generator must be available, in case of an internal electrical failure. The STW must instantly re-activate from the moment power is restored.
CONCLUSION
As stated in the introduction, the calculations and assumptions in this report are entirely empirical, and not all issues in relation to designing a sewage treatment plant have been thoroughly discussed. For example, temperature and heat transfer in the treatment tanks, disinfection, and the efficiency of the treatment methods, has not been fully considered. Disinfection tends to apply to STWs in Europe, which discharge to waters being used for recreational purposes. Although this report assumes that this is not the case, the use of the lake could change in the near future. One important fact to consider is that, on average, the removal efficiency of BOD, N and P will never be complete in the secondary treatment. Although BOD removal is usually above 90% in oxidation ditches, N and P removal is less successful, with proportions rarely above 50% (Rendell, 1999). Both oxidation ditches may therefore be required to treat the nitrogen. The secondary treatment is also vulnerable to temperature and climate. Where temperatures fall below 5''C, the micro-organisms may even become dormant. Sedimentation in the clarifier is also subject to temperature, whereby the hydraulic retention time increases with decreasing temperature (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). Disposal of sludge and grit to landfill is an increasingly expensive option. An alternative may be agricultural land spreading, although this is also a controversial issue, due to the presence of heavy metals and pathogens in the sludge. On a final note, not only are the predicted treatment tank volumes, wastewater characteristics, and other calculated values approximate; the findings in this report provide only a limited insight into the many factors, which will determine the efficiency and requirements of the STW as a whole. It can be said however, that the types of treatment selected are appropriate, and the proposed site provides enough space for the STW, and for gradual future expansion.
REFERENCES
Arundel, J. Sewage and Industrial Effluent Treatment. Ch.4: Biological Treatment Methods, ppIOO-103, 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd., U.K. Bames, D., Forster. C.F, Johnstone, D.M. Oxidation Ditches in Wastewater Treatment. Ch.6: Aeration Methods, ppl84. 1983 Pitman Books Lid,. U.K. Ebbing, D.D. General Chemistry (5th Ed.). CD,3: Chemical Reactions: An Introduction, pp96. Copyright 1996 by Houghton Miffin Company EC Directive 98/15/EEC amending Directive 91/271/EEC: Urban Wastewater Treatment. Water Quality in the European Union (website), 2002 Harrison, R.M. Pollution - Causes. Effects and Control (4th Ed.). Ch.5: Sewage and Sewage Sludge Treatment, pp 13-119. 2001 The Royal Scoiety of Chemistry. Kiely, G. Environmental Engineering. Ch.12: Wastewater Engineering, pp516-529, 531-533, 538-539, 541-544, 546-551. Copyright 1997 Irwin/McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering (4th Ed.). C'h.2: Constituents in Wastewater, pp54-55, 88. Ch-3: Analysis and Selection of Wastewater Flowrates and Constituent Loadings, ppl86. Ch.5: Physical Unit Operations, pp315-327, 385-387, 394- 395. Ch.6: Chemical; Unit Processes, pp494-497. Ch.7: Fundamentals of Biological Treatment, pp611626. Ch.8: Suspended Growih Biological Treatment Processes, pp710-718, 738-739, 748754, 710-718. Ch.14: Treatment, Re-use and Disposal of Solids and Biosolids, pp1491-1493. Ch.15: Issues related to Treatment-Plant Performance, ppl 652. 2002 McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. Mudrack, Kunst. Biology of Sewage Treatment and Water Pollution Control; pp12, 15. Parkson Corporation. The SuperScraper Bottom Sludge Scraper. (Website no longer available) Qasim, S.R. Wastewater Treatment Plants: Planning, Operation and Design (2nd Ed.). Ch.13: Biological Waste Treatment, pp444, 481. Ch.16: Sources of Sludge and Thickener Design, pp645-676. Ch-17: Sludge Stabilization, pp681-718- Ch.I8: Sludge Conditioning and Dewaleriny. pp725-757. Copyright 1999 Technomic Publishing Co.,Inc. Rendell, F. Water and Wastewater Project Development. Ch.4: Basic Concepts, pp78-79. Ch.6; Design, pplll-180. 1999 Thomas Telford Publishing Ltd. SEPA, 2002. Municipal Sewage Treatment Works: General Conditions (of consent). (Website no longer available)
USEPA. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal. USEPA Technology Transfer EPA-625 (1974. 1979). Veissman, W. (Jr.), Hammer, M.J. Water Supply and Pollution Control (5th Ed.). Ch.8: Water Quality, pp281-288. 1993 Harper Collins College Publishers. U.S.A. Water Environment Federation, 1997. Energy Conservation in Waste-water Treatment Facilities - Manual of Practice (MFD-2). Ch. 1: Energy-Efficient Wastewater Treatment, p9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Design of A Sewage Treatment Works For A Rural Community. Authors: Edwards, Ekanem, Singh, Sutherland.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Design of A Sewage Treatment Works For A Rural Community. Authors: Edwards, Ekanem, Singh, Sutherland.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Design of a sewage treatment works for a rural community