rs

oval

u

.ForNi

And Nutrient
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.

Protection Agency and approved for pUblication.

names or commercial products does not constitute

recommendation for use.

Environmental

Mention of trade

endorsement or
CONTENTS

Section

FIGURES .

TABLES .....

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

Background and Objectives .

Findings .

Conclusions .

SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET .

1 DESCRIPTION OF SBR PROCESS .

INTRODUCTION .

Cycle Operation .

DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT... . .

Advantages.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .

Disadvantages...... . .

2 THEORY OF NITRIFICATION, DENITRIFICATION, AND PHOSPHORUS

REMOVAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

NITRIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '" .

DENITRIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

STANDARD SBR DESIGNS WITH NITRIFICATION. . .. . .

Aqua-Aerobic Systems. . .

Austgen BiCljet .

Fluidyne .

JetTech .

Purestream .

Transenviro .

SBR DESIGNS FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL .

Aqua-Aerobic Systems .

Austgen Biojet .

Fluidyne .

JetTech .

Purestream .

Transenviro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

4 SITE VISITS .

INTRODUCTION .

PLANT OBSERVATION .

Marlette, Michigan .

Grafton, Ohio .

Shelter Island Heights, New york .

i

Page

iii

iv

1

1

2

3

FS-1

1- 1

1- 1

1- 1

1- 2

1- 5

1- 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

4- 1

4- 1

4- 1

4- 1

4- 5

4- 9
CONTE~TS

Section

6 COST ANALYSIS .

INTRODUCTION .

CAPITAL COSTS .

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS. . . . . . . .. . .

5 ANALYSIS OF SBR PLANT PERFO~~NCE DATA .

PERMIT LIMITS .

PLANT 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 .

7 REFERENCES .

APPENDIX A

ii

Page

5- 1

5- 1

5- 1

5- 5

5- 6

5- 6

5- 7

5- 7

5- 7

5- 7

5- 8

5- 8

5- 8

5- 8

5- 9

5- 9

5- 9

5- 9

5-10

6- 1

6- 1

6- 1

6- 4

7- 1
FIGURES

1 TYPICAL SBR OPERATION FOR ONE CYCLE .

FS-1 TYPICAL SBR OPERATION FOR ONE CyCLE .

6 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, GRAFTON, OHIO ....

7 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA, GRAFTON, OHIO ....

Page

FS- 7

FS- 8

1- 3

1- 4

3- 8

4- 3

4- 4

4- 7

4- 8

4-11

4-12

6- 3

CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA,

SHELTER ISLAND, NEW YORK .

CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA

MARLETTE, MICHIGAN .

CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA

MARLETTE, MICHIGAN .

AUSTGEN BIOJECT ICEASR BASIN .

DENITRIFICATION CYCLE FOR SBR .

2

9

5

3

4

8 CHRONOLOGICAL PLOTS OF MONTHLY AVERAGE DATA,

SHELTER I SLAND, NEW YORK .

10 UTILITY, OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS SUPPLIED

BY SBR FACILITIES..... . .

FS - 2 UTILITY, OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS .

Figure

iii
TABLES

5 SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE DATA FOR 19 SBR PLANTS .

4 SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT PE~~IT LIMITATIONS FOR 19 SBR PLANTS .

2 TYPICAL CYCLE FOR A STANDARD SBR WITH NITRIFICATION .

Page

FS- 4

FS- 5

3- 2

3- 4

3- 9

5- 2

5- 4

6- 2

SBR UNIT RELIABILITY SUMMER .

3 TYPICAL SBR CYCLE FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL .

1 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN A THREE TANK SYSTEM .

6 COST DATA FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH EMPLOY

SEQUENCE BATCH REACTORS " .

FS-2 SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - WINTER .

FS-1

iv
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. Programs within the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and

Compliance (OWEC) allow the application of new technology developments before

adequate field evaluations have been completed. This support of full scale

applications of new technologies without the benefit of long term evaluation

comes with inherent potential risk of O&M and process problems due to lack of

experience. Evaluation of new technologies seeks to determine performance

capabilities and to identify weaknesses, limitations in use, maintenance

shortcomings, and cost effectiveness.

OWEC evaluates certain technologies to verify overall performance and

application to specific treatment needs. Results of evaluations may indicate

the limitations of a technology for further consideration and support. Where

technologies are successful and show beneficial applications, the USEPA is

interested in providing current information to encourage their use.

This report specifically addresses the use of Sequencing Batch Reactors

(SBRs) for nitrification and nutrient removal. Although limited use of SBRs

began in the 1960s, it was not until the early 19805 that the technology became

more widely accepted and used. After early acceptance and use, USEPA expressed

increased interest in this technology especially in the comparative costs and

performance.

The USEPA funded a development project in 1980, conducted by the University

of Notre Dame, to evaluate batch treatment of municipal wastewater. The

project involved the conversion of an existing 0.4 MGD continuous flow

activated sludge facility at Culver, Indiana into a two-tank SBR. (1) Results

of this 20-month project led to the use of SBR technology at several other

municipal facilities. An important factor in the recent development of SBRs

was the advent of more reliable instrumentation combined with microprocessor

control. (2)
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 removal. Presently,

approximately 170 SBRs are operating in the U. S. Of these, 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, denitrification, and biological

phosphorus removal to occur. Cycle time, design parameters, and equipment vary

among manufacturers. 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. The average design flow for these plants ranged

from 0.028 to 3.0 MGD. The average mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)

concentration for eight of the plants ranged from 2000 to 3600 mg/l. The food

to mass ratio (F/M), available for six plants, ranged from 0.01 to 0.09 lb

BOD/lb MLSS-day. The solids retention time (SRT) was available for two plants,

which were designed for nitrification, denitrification, and biological

phosphorus removal. 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. The average effluent TSS ranged

from 3.7 to 20.2 mg/l, excluding one plant with an average effluent TSS of 52

mg/l. No influent TSS data was available for this plant. Removals for TSS

ranged from 84.7 to 97.2 percent.
Page 3

t:i;;h:: pian::c; :r;easun",c! bo::h influent and effluent ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N)

conclontr3tLons E:fluent \H3-N concentrations for these eight plants ranged

from 0.285 to 1.68 mgjl. Ammonia removal ranged from 90.8 to 96.8 percent.

Denitrification data ',.;as limited. One plant monitored both influent and

efflu~nt total nitrogen concentrations. Total nitrogen removal for this plant

averaged 56 percent. 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 phosphorus concentrations. The average

effluent phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.53 to 4.27 mgjl. Two plants

measured both influent and effluent phosphorus concentrations. One of these

plants average 57 percent phosphorus removal, while the other averaged 64

percent removal in the summer and 69 percent in the winter. 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. With some additional design

modifications, SBRs can successfully nitrify to limits of 1 to 2 mgjl NH3-N.

They also appear to achieve denitrification when properly designed and achieve

phosphorus removal without chemicals to less than 1.0 mgjl, although data on

both processes are limited.

SBR's flexibility to meet changing influent conditions due to ability to

adj ust cycles can be espec ially important for biological nutrient removal

design and process optimization. Current SBR designs are typically very

conservative with long HRTs, low FjMs and high ML~

SBR aeration design is different from a conventional activated sludge

system, since all the process air must be supplied during the FILL and REACT

cycles. Downstream processes following SBRs must be sized for higher flow

rates due to high decant ratios unless flow equalization is used.
Page 4

T11(~ SBR market is competitive which will encourage cost effectiveness when

compdl'vd e.O competing, technologies. State standards have not yet been

developed for SBRs similar to those that many states have for conventional

systems. Current designs are based on several factors, including fundamental

process kno\_iledge, manufacturer's information, actual plant performance

experience, and permit requirements.
Page FS-l

SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR FACT SHEET

Description A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is an activated sludge

biological treatment process that is applicable to treatment of municipal and

industrial ',,;aste'...,ater for small to medium flowrates (0 to 5 mgd). An SBR

treatment cycle consists of a timed sequence which typically includes the

following steps: FILL, REACT, SETTLE, DECANT, IDLE. When bio logical nutrient

removal (BNR) is desired, 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, floating

aerator/mixers or jet aeration devices. The SBR process is usually preceded by

some type of preliminary treatment such as screening, communition or grit

removal. Because the SBR process operates in a series of timed steps, reaction

and settling can occur in the same tank, eliminating the need for a final

clarifier.

The SBR technology has the advantage of

matching react and settle times to

being very flexible in terms of

the strength and treatability

characteristics of a particular waste stream

Common Modifications SBRs can be modified to provide secondary, advanced

secondary t rea tment, ni tri ficat ion, deni trifica t ion and bio logical nutrient

removal. SBR manufacturers have adapted the sequence of batch treatment cycles

described above in various ways. Some systems use a continuous inflow and

provide a baffle to minimize short-circuiting. SBRs were originally configured

in pairs so that one reactor was filling during half of each cycle (while the

wastewater in the other reactor was reacting, settling and being decanted).

The modified configurations available include one SBR with an influent

surge/holding tank; a three SBR system in which the fill time is one third of

the total cycle time; and a continuous inflow SBR.

Technology Status There are currently (July 1991) approximately 170

wastewater treatment facilities in the United Scates which emp'loy the SBR

technology. Approximately 40 of these SBR systems are designed or operated for

BNR.
Page FS-2

T';piczd L·:quipm",r;~·:;CJ. or >lanufacturers - 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. SBR sizes can range from 3,000 gpd to over 5

KeD. The technology is applicable for BOD and TSS removal, nitrification,

denitrification and biological phosphorus removal. The technology is

espec ia lly app 1 icab le for industrial pre treatment and for smaller flow « 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 during the decant period(s). which is

typically 4 to 6 hours per day. 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 from 19 plants is

summarized below:

BOD Removal

TSS Removal

Nitrification

Total Nitrogen Removal

Biological Phosphorus Removal

89 - 98%

85 - 97%

91 - 97%

>75 %

57 - 69%
Page FS-3

Chemicals Requireo - Ctllorlnatlon and dechlorination chemicals are required for

app 1 lca t ions ·.."h ich lnvo 1\'e the direc t discharge of domes tic was te (unless UV

disinfection is utilized). Also, some facilities have found it necessary to

add alum or ferric chloride to meet stringent effluent phosphorus limits.

Residuals Generated Secondary sludge is generated at quantities similar to

the activated sludge process depending on the system operating conditions (SRT

and organic load).

Design Criteria

BOD Loading:

SRT:

Detention time:

F/M:

Cycle time (conventional):

Cycle time (BNR)'

30 to 60 lbs BOD/lOOO ft 3/day

5 to 30 days

6 to 12 hours

0.05 to 0.5 lbs BOD/lb MLSS

4 to 6 hours

6 to 8 hours

Unit 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 met the criteria shown in the first column. These tables were

developed from the data discussed in the performance section of this 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 The same potential for sludge contamination, upsets and

pass- through of toxic pollutants exists for SBR systems as with standard

activated sludge processes.
Page FS-4

TABLE FS-l. SBR UNIT RELIABILITY - SUMMER

:1onthly Average Data - April through September

BOD TSS TKN NH3-N N03+N02-N 'P TN

!llUl I!lUl I!lUl !1lUl mgll !llUl mUl

<.5 mg/l 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 42.6% 6.7% 24.4% 0.0%

<1 mg/l 0.0% 00% 16.7% 61.7% 53.3% 53.7% 0.0%

<2 mg/l 14% 2. 1% 16.7% 77 4% 68.9% 78.0% 0.0%

<3 mg/l 14.4% 76% 16.7% 87.8% 75.6% 82.9% 0.0%

<4 mg/l 26.7% 16.7% 16.7% 91.3% 91.1% 85.4% 0.0%

<5 mg/l 34.9% 25.0% 83.3% 92.2% 93.3% 95.1% 0.0%

<10 mg/l 69.9% 61.8% 83.3% 98.3% 97.8% 100.0% 25.0%

<20 mg/L 96.6% 88.2% 83.3% 100.0% 97.81~ 100.0% 75.0%

<30 mg/l 98.6% 93.8% 100.0% 100.0% 97.8% 100.0% 91.7%

II Plants 14 14 1 11 5 5 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 N03+N02-N P TN

mgLl mUl !J1U.l !J1U.l mg/l mgLl !J1U.l

<.5 mg/l 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.5% 25.5% 24.6% 0.0%

<1 mg/l 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65.2% 61.7% 50.8% 0.0%

<2 mg/l 0.7% 2.0% 0.0% 76.8% 68.1% 80.3% 0.0%

<3 mg/l 12.2% 7 . L. % 0.0% 82.1% 78. 7% 86.9% 0.0%

<L. mg/l 23.7% 16 8% 0.0% 83.0% 89.4% 93.4% 0.0%

<5 mg/l 35.3% 20. 8% 0.0% 86.6% 89.6% 96.7% 0.0%

<10 mg/l 65. S% SS 0% 00% 92.6% 95.7% 100.0% 38.5%

<20 mg/L 89.2% 82 .6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

<30 mg/l 95.7% 90 6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

II Plants 14 14 1 11 5 5 1

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) Index. Construction

costs were available for six plants, while five plants supplied total capital

costs. 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, Inc., October 1991.

Sequencing Batch Reactors Summary Report (EPA 625/8-86/011) U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information,

Cincinnati, Ohio
P£RCENT OF:

MAX CYCLE INFLUENT PURPOSE/OP£RATION

VOLUME TIME rl - AIR

Fill ON/OFF

2S

to 25 •

tOO pV<::)9 Oo~Oo.o~ .. pI:! .~ 0 Qoo o0t:. • 0 .~ 0000"0 ADD p'O. 000 0<:> CO -.\) 0 "", . . '"..... SUBSTRATE

REACT .-

oq ~.Q' £:)':'00 '-'o·0";-Jq. AIR

0'300..-. 0 0 00 000 ON

100 35 00 i;iO<:> C~Cl~O ~\ p' . O·~ OOO~o,O Q'Or::P:o ~\Jo o.oQ9 '0 0'0 '<:l0 c:>cO REACTION ~~./h o'=> (\0 o~c' TIME

... AIR

SETTLE OFF

100 20 - - - - - -

CLARIFY

DRAW -

" AIR

100 OFF

to 15 EFFLUENT

35 -rl REMOVE

efFLUENT

- - IDLE CYClE AIR

35 " ADJUST ON/OFF

10 6

25

WASTE

SLUDGE

Figure F-1. Typical SBR Operation forOne Cycle
a:

<

W

U'J>-

~,

U'J~ 0 0

uu.. 0 0.1 >- 0 ~U'J

l-IZ

-10

l-I l-I

~-I 0

::J-Il-I

0.01

0.01 0.1 1

ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)

ir

< 0 tflW 0 ~>-

U'J'

o~

u u.. t!)o

Z

.... tfl ~z 0 <0

a: .... W-I Cl.-I

0 ....

0.001

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)

tfl

0 tfl 0 0 0 0_

tJ.. 0 0

-Iu..

co 0

Mtfl 0 0

Q.Z

co 0

tJM

-I

0-1 LU .... ~% 0 tfl0

< 0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10

DESI6N FLOW (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

rather than in a continuous mode. A conventional activated sludge (CAS) system

carries out aeration and sedimentation/clarification simultaneously in separate

tanks. The SBR process performs these operations sequentially in the same

tank. An SBR system is comprised of either a storage tank and an SBR tank, or

a minimum of t·.... o SBR tanks to handle continuous influent. A modification of

the SBR process, the, Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEASR),

manufactured by Austgen Biojet. operates with a continuous feed and

intermittent withdrawal. A baffle wall 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 tank and mixes with mixed liquor held

in the tank. Aeration is on 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

tank.

4. Draw Treated effluent is decanted from the top of th.E;; tank and

discharged.
J. Idle Tim? ben.;een cycles.

Page 1-2

Idle is used in multiple tank configurations

to adjust ,:':cLe times between SBR reactors.

during idle, draw or settle. Differences in

Sludge wasting can occur

fill time may exist due to

diurnal fluctuation. 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 off mechanism, a decant mechanism for

removing clarified supernatant, and a control mechanism to time and cycle the

processes. Tanks may be constructed of steel or concrete. The shape is not

critical and SBRs can be retrofitted into existing rectangular or circular

tanks.

SBR manufacturers offer a variety of features designed to meet different

performance needs. Decant mechanisms and air diffuser designs may differ

markedly between manufacturers. Decant mechanisms include a submerged outlet

pipe with automated valves, weir troughs connected to flexible couplings,

floating weirs, movable baffles, tilting weirs and floating submersible

pumps. (1) Some decant mechanisms have the potential problem of drawing solids

when beginning the DRAW phase. Solids may get trapped on the piping during

aeration. 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 CYCLE INFLUENT PURPOSE/OPERATION

VOLUME TIME 11 - AIR

FILL ON/OFF

25 ... to 25 0 "'-''-'' v. 0·"6 .. \:J 100 P <;)C)/ 00 °Q"c P • 00 \J.

" 0 ~. 0°00 0 0 •. P~. ADD 0 cO O<::>C) 0 .. Q 0-0 . - .. SUBSTRATE

REACT ...- o-q ;S•.;o-: 0 '-'o·o,,;?o. AIR

o '3 00 c· 00 0 0 0 0 0 ON

100 35 000.oO? cl::)<::lC>OO~< ;," .~ooOO·O O~O ~o·\)c·oQ

';0 O~O.o <:aOO~Oc'O REACTION

c;:, /h 0 <::. ':? i'l 0 0 0 . TIME

- AIR

SETILE OFF

100 20 - - - - - - - CLARIFY

- DRAW -

... AIR

100 OFF

to 15 EFFLUE~ 35 rl REMOVE

EFFLUENT

- - IDLE CYCLE AIR

35 .. ADJUST ON/OFF

to 5

25

WASTE

SLUDGE

Reference (4)

Figure 1. Typical SSR Operation for One Cycle
PRE-REACT CHAMBER

REACTOR

I INFLUENT

-,..

AIR/DIFFUSERS

MAIN CHAMBER

WASTE SLUDGE

PUMP

TREATED EFFLUENT

Reference (3)

Figure 2. Austgen Blojet ICEA~ Basin
Page 1-5

Aeration s,,'s~ems include je~ aeration, fine bubble and coarse bubble

diffused aeration. and floating mechanical aerators. Jet aeration can provide

either aeration or mixing without aeration in one unit by operating the pumping

system with the air supply on or off. Some manufacturers supply separate

mixing mechanisms for this put-pose. One variation to the typical aeration

system is retrievable aerators. which allow aerators to be cl~aned or replaced

without emptying the SBR. (7)

clean the aerators.

Advantages

Othe r sys tems inc lude backflush mechanisms to

The SBR system has advantages compared to a CAS system and offers much

flexibility. Some of the technical and financial advantages are:

* Early in plant lifetime, when plant flow may be significantly bela",,!

design flow, level sensors that control cycle times can be set at a

lower level. Cycle times would be the same as design, but power would

not be wasted in over-aeration. (5)

A greater dissolved oxygen driving gradient exists during the first

part of the react cycle due to the low/zero DO concentration during

anoxic fill. This results in somewhat higher oxygen transfer

efficiencies fo~ a given size of aeration equipment. (2)

* An SBR tank operates as an equalization tank during fill and can

therefore tolerate peak flows and shock loads of BOD without

degradation of effluent quality.

* A return activated sludge (RAS) pumping system is not needed since

.'1eration and settling occur in the same tank.

sludge age are controlled by sludge wasting.

Sludge volume and

* 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 may require less physical space than a CAS system when

considering the entire plant. SBR systems can be re.trofitted into a

wide range of existing tank structures.

Disadvantages

The following are potential disadvantages of the SBR system. These are

usually ove rcome through prope r des i gn. proce 5S adj us tments. or equipment

modifications.

* Problems with sludge settling will result in solids in the effluent

and a loss of the process performance.

* Float ing decant mechanisms may be subj ect to mechanical problems.

Fixed systems require that the sludge blanket be below the intake

before decanting. 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 high flow rate during decant may require flow

equalization or over design when followed by 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. This is usually

aggravated at elevated temperatures. (6)
Page 1-7

.\eCOitLun equipmellt rnU'it be laeger, SLr:ce peocess aie must be supplied

ovee shorter period,

* Effluent sewers must be oversized since decant flows are much higher

than normal inflow,
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 is the biological oxidation of ammonia (NH4+) to nitrite

(N02-) and then to the nitrate (N03-) form. The two major species of

microorganisms responsible for the biological oxidation of nitrogen compounds

are the autotrophic bacteria Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. Nitrosomonas

oxidizes ammonia to ni tri te. 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, pH, dissolved oxygen concentration, and solids retention time

( SRT ) are imp 0 r tan t par ame t e r sin nitr i f i cat ion kine tic s . Therateof

nitrification in an activated sludge system decreases with decreasing

temperature. The optimum temperature is between 25 and 35°C. The optimum pH

for nitrification is in the range of 7.5 to 9.0. Below pH 7.0 and above pH 9.8

the nitrification rate is less than 50 percent of the optimum. Alkalinity is

destroyed by the oxidation of ammonia, thereby reducing the pH. A ratio of

7.14 mg alkalinity is destroyed per mg of ammonia nitrogen oxidized. Aeration

partially strips the carbon dioxide from the wastewater thereby reducing

alkal inity reduc tion; however suffic ient alkalini ty mus t remain in the

wastewater so as not to depress the pH. Maximum nitrification rates occur at

dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 2 mgjl. The nitrification process

consumes 4.57 lbs of oxygen per pound of ammonia nitrogen cb'hverted to

nitrate. (8)
Page 2-2

The nitrificCi.tion t-"te is also dependent on the fraction of nitrifying

bCi.ctet-ia present in the system. A. principal means of increasing the

nitrification rate is to increase the fraction of nitrifiers. This can be

accomplished by increasing the aeration basin mixed liquor suspended solids

(MLSS) concentration which increases the SRT. Lowering the ratio between the

S-day BOD and the total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration (BODS/TKN) by

nitrifying in a separate second stage aeration system would also increase the

percentage of nitrifiers and thus the nitrification rate. (8) This approach,

however, has not been found to be a cost effective design for normal municipal

'waste'dater.

DENITRIFICATION

Biological denitrification is a process in which ni trate is reduced to

nitrogen gas by microorganisms in the absence of dissolved oxygen.

Denitrification can occur provided a sufficient source of nitrate and organic

carbon are present.

following reaction:

The denitrification process can be expressed by the

N03' + organic carbon "'> N2(gas) + C02

The denitrification process occurs in two steps. The first step involves

the reduction of nitrate to nitrite. In the second step nitrite is reduced to

produce nitrogen gas. Numerous species of facultative heterotrophic bacteria,

including Pseudomonas, Micrococcus, Achromobacter, and Bacillus are capable of

converting nitrate to nitrogen gas. Nitrate replaces oxygen in the respiratory

processes of the organisms capable of denitrification under anoxic

conditions. (8)

Environmental factors including temperature, r '-1 . , and dissolved oxygen

concentration have an effect on the rate of denitrification. Denitrification

occurs at temperatures in the range of 10 to 30°C. The rate of denitrification

is reduced below pH 6.0 and above pH 9.0. The optimum pH is in the range of

6.5 to 8.0. A dissolved oxygen concentration greater than 1 mg/l inhibits

denitrification.
Page 2-3

PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL

Phosphorus in 'wastewater may be present as orthophosphate, polyphosphate,

or organic phosphorus. Orthophosphate is the more easily removed of the three

type'; of phosphorus ?olvphosphates are converted to orthophosphate by

hycil-o] .;''; is iiI,d (Jl-gani c phosphorus is converted to orthophosphate through

bacterial decomposition. ,Y;

Conventional secondarv biological treatment systems accomplish partial

phosphorus remo'/al bv !Ising phosphorus for biomass synthesis during BOD

remo'/al A tvpical phosphorus content of microbial solids is 1.S to 2 percent

based on dry weight. Wasting of excess microbial solids may result in a total

phosphorus removal of l() to 30 percent, depending on the BOD to phosphorus

ratio. the system sludge age, sludge handling techniques and sidestream return

flows.(CJ)

Additional biological phosphorus removal will occur if wastewater is

(absence of DO and oxidized nitrogen) precedes an aerobic

subjected to both anaerobic and aerobic conditions. When an anaerobic stage

stage, fermentation

products are produced from the BOD in the wastewater by the action of

facul tative organisms. The phosphorus stol-ing microorganisms are able to

assimilate the fermentation products under anaerobic conditions. Because many

competing microorganisms cannot function in this manner, 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. This "luxury uptake" of phosphorus is maximized at

dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 2 mg/l. At lower DO

concentrations the excess phosphorus will be released from the microorganisms.
Page 2-4

~nr biological phosphorus removal to occur, an anaerobic stage is required

for the production of the fermentation products. Therefore, if nitrification

is occurring, it is necessary for denitrification to take place before enhanced

biological phosphorus removal can occur. If this does not happen and nitrite

or nitrate are present, the system is anoxic rather than anaerobic. For this

reason. a low dissolved oxygen concentration must be maintained for 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 SBR system can be designed to achieve nitrification, denitrification,

These adj us tments may

and biological

strategies a1.-e

phosphorus

required.

remova 1. Adjustments to the standard operating

require additional plant

capacity and equipment, and are included in the design of a system.

Cycle times are an essential aspect of an SBR system design. The basic

steps in an SBR cycle, FILL, REACT, SETTLE, DRAW, and IDLE, vary both by

manufacturer and design conditions. Total cycle times may be constant or may

vary with flow. The percent of the reactor volume that is decanted during each

cycle (percent decant) is a design parameter important to batch systems. The

size of the reactor volume is determined by design flow requirements, the

design volume occupied by settled MLSS, and a design decant depth. SBR designs

are unique because the oxygen delivery system must be sized to deliver the

total process oxygen requirements during the FILL and REACT portions of the SBR

cycle. (4)

In a multi-tank system, air piping may be arranged so that one blower can

~erate more than one reactor. Table 1 shows the sequence of events in a threetank 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. These include hydraulic

retention time (HRT), solids retention time (SRT), MLSS concentration, influent

wastewater characteristics, and effluent requirements,
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 C''';O sections examine SSR designs f01- SOD and TSS removal with

nit r i f i cat ion and the 'J a ria t ion s toth e sede s i g n s n e 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 purpose NitrLficatLoll CilI1 only occur under

conditions of adequau, DO (minimum 1 to .J mg/l) and sufficiL,ntly long SRT (S to

20 days or more depending upon temperature) to ensure growth of nitrifying

bacteria. In an SBR system, nitrification t.l.kes place during the REACT phase

and periods of aerated fill. (4,7)

The cycles designed by the majority of the SBR manufacturers studied

deviate from the standard cycle of Table 2 in one or more ways. Other

differences occur in tank configuration and design parameters. The following

paragraphs briefly discuss specific designs of six major SBR manufacturers.

Aqua-Aerobic Systems

Aqua-Aerobic's tankage and total cycle times are designed to treat the

maximum dai ly flow. This is to ensure tha t effluent qual i ty is maintained

during periods of peak flows. Typically, other manufacturers design a shorter

storm cycle to handle peak flows during rain events that may reduce effluent

quality if operated for extended periods 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 FjM ratio of 0.15 to

0.35 lb BODjlb MLSS-day and a MLSS between 1500 and 3000 mgjl.
T:\.BLE L riPI CAL CYCLE FOR A STAJ.~DARD SBR WITH NITRIFICATION

Step

FILL

REACT

SETTLE

DRAW

IDLE

Conditions

Influent flow into SBR

Aeration

Time = half of cycle time

No influent flow to SBR

Aeration

Time typically 1 to 2 hours

(varies widely depending on

BOD removal kinetics and

waste strength

No influent flow to SBR

No aeration

Time = approx. 1 hour (depends on

settling characteristics)

No influent flow to SBR

No aeration

Effluent is decanted

Time = 1 hour (varies)

No influent flow to SBR

No aeration

Sludge is wasted

Time variable, determined by

flow rate

Purpose

Addition of raw wastewater to the

SBR, BOD removal and nitrification

Biological BOD removal and

nitrification

Allow suspended solids to settle,

yielding a clear supernatant

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

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
Page 3-5

The SBRs designed b:; Aqua-Aerobics typically include a separate mixing

d e vic e . In" d d i t ion , :\qua - Ae rob i c s 0 f fer s bot h fix e dand ret r i e v a b 1 e

diffusers. (7)

:\ustgen Biojet

The Austgen Biojet ICEAS(R) SBR system utilizes continuous inflow and

therefore does not require a separate FILL step. Continuous inflow also

eliminates the need for an IDLE step. Sludge is wasted during the SETTLE or

DRAW phase. The SBR basin includes a baffle '..Jall that forms i1 pre-react zone

'..Jhich has an i1noxic environment during SETTLE and

typically designed with a length to width ratio of at

a p lug flow sys tem and prevents short - c i rcui t ing 0 f

decant sequence.

least

the

The SBR bas in is

31. This creates

influent during the

An Austgen Biojet ICEAS(R) SBR is typically designed to aerate for two

hours within a total cycle time of four hours. Overall cycle times are shorter

than other system due to the lack of a separate FILL step. Austgen Biojet

systems may also be designed with one hour aeration and a three-hour cycle to

handle storm flows.

If only BOD and TSS removal are required, the reactor size for an Austgen

Biojet SBR is determined by using a prescribed food to microorganism (F/M)

ratio. A F/M ratio between 0.05 and 0.15 Ib BODllb MLSS-day is typically used.

If nitrification is required, the determination of the reactor volume required

for nitrification is based on the required degree of ammonia removal, the

nitrification rate, the time of aeration, and the mixed liquor volatile

suspended solids (MLVSS) concentration. When both BOD removal and

nitrification are required, the reactor volumes required for BOD removal and

nitrification are determined, and the larger of the two is chosen. (3)

Fluidyne

For small systems, Fluidyne will design a single SBR with continuous

inflow, rather than the standard sequencing reactor. In SBRs with" continuous

inflow, the tank is baffled to minimize short-circuiting and there is no
Page 3-6

F_uid~ne also designs single- or multi-reactor SBR systems

',·;ithO'll ontLI1UO':S inflo',.;. Edch Fluidyne SBR tank is equipped with jet

aerators that can provide both aerobic oxidation and anoxic mixing. (11)

JetTech

Design information was not available from the manufacturer. Limited

information was available from the operators of various JetTech SBR systems.

Based on this information, a standard JetTech cycle appears to be very similar

to the cycle dt,scribed in Table 2. JetTech does include an additional

P,i\CKFLUSH step that lasts appro:.:imately five minutes and serves to clean out

the aeration system. JetTech systems are often, though not exclusively,

equipped with jet aerators. (12)

Purestream

Purestream typically designs small to medium size SBR systems to treat

private and industrial wastewaters. Purestream SBR designs are similar to the

cycle shown in Table 2 but may include an IDLE step to coordinate the cycles

for t',.;o sequencing reactors or to increase the design safety factor. The

length of the REACT step in a Purestream design is determined from BOD removal,

ni tri fication and deni td fication kine tics. Purestream designs SBR systems

with coarse bubble, diffused air and air lift multiple point decant systems.

Their standard design includes duplicate aeration, air lift decant and sludge

wasting capability. (5)

Transenviro

Nearly all Transenviro SBR systems are designed for biological nutrient

removal. Transenviro chooses to design SBR systems in this manner o avoid

potential settling problems that may occur in reactors without anaerobic or

anoxic sequences. (13)
Page 3-7

SBR DESIGNS FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL

l~en a wastewater treatment facility must meet phosphorus or total nitrogen

limits, SBR designs become somewhat more complex. Operating strategies for

nitrificatioll ,mel denitrification are similar for most systems. Figure 3

illustrates :1 ~~pical denitrification cycle for an SBR. (1) For denitrification

to occur, an anoxic period in the SBR is necessary following BOD removal and

nitrification. The DO is reduced to less than 0.5 mg/l during SETTLE, DRAW,

and IDLE periods.

As previously described in the theory section, biological phosphorus

removal requin~s an anaerobic period. This step can be included in an SBR

system. Table 3 lists typical steps for a SBR cycle that includes biological

nutrient removal. This table also describes the purpose of each step and the

conditions that sllould be present to best achieve that purpose. To incorporate

the phosphorus removal strategy, the anaerobic period will be longer than the

anoxic period required for denitrification. Two additional steps can be added

to maximize phosphorus removal. 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, and phosphorus starved sludge is

returned in the fill period. Sludge wasting occurs following the aerobic step.

In addition to the information presented in Table 3, it is essential to

biological phosphorus removal 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
INFLUENT

n

NITRIFICATION IDENITRIFICATION

IN SBR

FILL

PUMP I'O-t-~~~~~~BOD 5--C02 + CELLS

AIR

PUMP

AIR

NH + -N-NO --N 4 3

~-...........----..-...ot SETTLE

CELL SEPARATION

DRAW

~lII":W~"""" ......m~ EFFLUENT DISCHARGE

.:W%htiJUUrdHtY::H

- IDLE

CYCLE ADJUST

Figure 3. Denitrification Cycle for SBR

Reference (1)
Tr'.BU·: T\'PU'::t\L S8R CYCLE FOR BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL

UNAERATED FI LL

AERATED FI LL

REACT

SETTLE

DRAW

IDLE

Conditions

Influent flow into SBR

~io aeration

T i rr.e = a p pro x i In ate 1 y 1. 5

hours

>1 i :-:ed

Influent flow into SBR

Aeration (DO> 2 mg/l)

Time = half of the total

cycle time minus the

unaerated fill time

No influent flow to SBR

Aeration (DO> 2 mg/l)

Sludge may be wasted

Time = typically I to 2

hours (varies

widely)

No influent flow to SBR

.No aeration

Sludge is wasted

Time = approx. hour

No influent flow to SBR

No aeration

Effluent is decanted

Time = 1 to 2 hours

No influent flow to SBR

No aeration

Time = 1 to 15 minutes

(typically occurs

during the end of

the DECANT step)

Purpose

Addition of wastewater to the

SBR, continuation of anoxic or

anaerobic conditions to allow

denitrification. and to encourage

the growth of phosphorus-removing

bacteria

Addition of wastewater to the

SBR, BOD removal and

nitrification, phosphorus uptake

Biological BOD removal and

nitrification, phosphorus uptake

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

Remove effluent from reactor,

decrease the DO concentration

further to encourage

denitrification and the growth of

phosphorus-removing bacteria

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 can achi(":(~ t1it;h r(jll~S ur biological phosphorus removal, though removal

rates may decLl,ase durilH~ periuds of stonn flo'...... Larger reactors, necessary

with longer cycle times, would be required if biological phosphorus removal

were utilized. The additional cost of the larger reactors, however, may be

favorable compared to the cost of continuous chemical addition. 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 lO;id s';stern provides for BOD and TSS removal and

nitrogen and phosphorus 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 inflow. Instead, Austgen Biojet adds

anoxic sequences to the' treatment cycle by alternating aerobic and anoxic

periods during the REACT step. A typical cycle design includes a two-hour

REACT step with two 3D-minute periods of aeration and two 3D-minute anoxic

periods.

When phosphorus removal to low concentrations «1 rng/l) is required, an

Austgen Biojet ICEASR SBR is designed with an anaerobic phase. A phosphorus

removal Cj le includes a four-hour REACT step consisting of four 3D-minute

periods of aeration and four 3D-minute anoxic periods. The ICEASR baffled prereact zone has an anoxic environment during SETTLE and DRAW phases,(3)
Page 3-11

i:luici':ne

In t:lpical Fluidyne systems, the IDLE step is an anoxic fill period. As

'-"'ith standard nitrification systems, Fluidyne will occasionally recommend a

single, tJafflc"d Sfl,R '",itti continuous inflo'''' f(Jl' small systems (11)

JetTech

Based on information supplied by operators of various JetTech SBR systems,

the cycles in JetTech systems designed for biological nutrient removal appear

to be vee! similar to the C'lcle described in Table '3. JetTech does include an

additional BACKFLUSH step '",hich lasts apPl'oximately five minutes and serves to

cledn out the aerdtion system. JetTech systems dre often, though not

exclusively, equipped with jet aerators. (12)

Purestream

Purestream cycle designs for S'BR systems with biological nutrient removal

do not differ' significantb from the cycle desccibed in Table 3. Cycle times

are established bv kinetic considerations and effluent limits. (6)

Transenviro

Transenviro utilizes a variation of the SBR process known as CASS(TM),

wh ich stands for Cyc 1 ic Ac t iva ted Sludge Sys tem. This is a fill-and-draw

activated sludge system which combines plug flow initial reaction conditions

with complete mix operation to favor co-current nitrification-denitrification.

The CASS (TM) cycle sequence typically consists of FILL-AERATION, FILLSETTLE, DRAW (effluent removal), and. ILL-IDLE. Depending on effluent

requirements, these sequences can be adjusted to include FILL NON-REACT, FILLMIX NON-AERATION, FILL-REACT, and REACT NO-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 (RAS) is continuously returned to the

captive selector zone. This zone exposes the biomass to equal sequences of

aerobic and anaerobic initial growth conditions. According to Transenviro,

anoxic mixing is not necessary because the systems have a lower DO by design.

Transenviro normally designs dual-reactor SBR systems. They also design a

four-basin system, which operates as two, two-basin systems When designing an

SBR system for a facility with a phosphorus limit, Transenviro normally

includes chemical addition capability. (13) Though chemical addition may only

be used in cases of storm flow or biological upset, it makes evaluation of

biological phosphorus removal more difficult.
Page 4-1

SECTION 4.

SITE VISITS

INTRODUCTION

Three municipal wastewater treatment plants with SBRs were visited to

obtClin detailed information on operation and performance. The three plants

visi ted represent three different SBR manufacturers. The Marlette, Michigan

SBR 'Has mClnufactured bv JetTech, the GrClfton, Ohio SBR was manufactured by

Fluidvne, and the Shelter IsL:md, New York SBR 'Has manufactured by Austgen

Biojet. These plants 'Nen, chosen because thev 'Nere 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, Michigan wastewater treatment plant began operations

on January 1, 1990. The plant was designed for an average daily flow of 0.69

MGD. The influent flow passes through a comminutor and a grit chamber prior to

primary clarifiers. The primary clarifier effluent flows to the SBRs. There

are three reactor basins equipped with jet aerators, however, only two of the

basins are normally used. The present organic loading to the plant is not high

enough to maintain the three units. The third SBR is used as an equalization

tank during rainfall events resulting in high flows. During the summer months

of May through August, the SBR effluent is polished by sand bpds prior to

disinfection by ultraviolet light. The disinfected effluent is aerated prior

to discharge to a stream. The plant effluent limits are shown in the following

table.
Page 4-2

~arlette, Michigan Plant ~onthlv Average

Effluent Limits - mg/l

Period CBOD TSS NH3.:li- -.L

May - October 10 20 2 NA

November - April 15 30 No Limi t ~A

Year Round NA NA NA l 0

The three SBRs were manufactured by JetTech and have a volume of

approximately 0.17 million gallons each. The plant was designed for

nitrification and phosphorus removal, but not for denitrification. The plant

has a ferric chloride feed system for phosphorus removal that is used primarily

during rain events. During dry 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 are not significantly diEfel'ent from those

l-ecommended by the manufac turer. A cycle time of six hOUl'S is normally used.

Since the system

This cycle time includes 1 hour react, 1 hour settle, and

remaining time is for anoxic fill, aerated fill and idle.

hour decant. The

automatically compensates for flow, the 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. Plant

influent and effluent data were available. 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 Effluent

o. 80~

L

0

(!) 0.60

:::E

3

a 0.40 ...-1

l..L

0.20

0.00

J J

200

A Influent Summel"' Effluent BOD Limit - 10 mg/ 0 Effluent Win tel"' Effluent BOD Limit - 15 mg/

150

--J

..........

OJ

E 100

0

0

cD

50

J s o N o J F A J

300r----,r----,----,-----y----'T----'T----'T-----r----'T-----r--....,

IJ. Influent

o Effluent

Summel"' Effluent TSS Limit - 20 mg/ Wintel"' Effluent TSS Limit - 30 mg/l

--J

..........

OJ

E

---

(f)

(f)

t200

J s J

July 1990 through June 1991

Figure 4. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data

Marlette, Michigan
10.0r-----,-----r---,---,-----r---..----...----.-------r--..........----,

b. Influent

o Effluent

Averages

Effluent Phospho~ue Limit - i.O mg/

8.0

J

O. VL__ __..J.-__L..-_ __l____L___...L..___I____J___..L-__.J....-_ ___J

-.J

"-

en

E 6.0

en

:::::l

c...

0

.J::. 4.0

0.

en

0

.J::.

Cl..

2.

20.0r---,----.--"""T"---r----r---.,..---.,------,r-------r----r----,

--- -.J

"-

en

E

- 10.0

Z

I

(T')

:J:

Z

5.0

.1 Influent

o Effluent Summe~ Effluent NH3-N Limit - 2.0 mg/L

A os N o J F M A J

o. oL-=::::t::==:=jt:===~==::±==±:::==:±===:::::lI::::==±=::::::f:==:ifb:=:J>

J

July 1990 through June 1991

Figure 5. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data

Marlette, Michigan
Page 4-5

pos:~i:)i,· c-:·:pld!ld~ion ror- ::he decrease in influent NH3-N may be process changes

iHlpl"II""ll',·ci c .. d f"·j-::ilizer plant that discharges to the treatment plant.

This, no''''ever, ''''as not confirmed. Nitrification was occurring as indicated by

the oxidation of :JH3-N that averaged 95 percent. The plant consistently met

the pE;rrni.::tecl :;H'l-:J li.mi.::.

The a'/erage influent total phosphorus during the period July 1990 through

June 1991 was 3.3 mg/l. Approximately 76 percent of the phosphorus in the

influent was removed during treatment. The monthly average effluent phosphorus

concentLltion '",as belo'''' the permit limit of 1 0 mg/l for 10 of the 12 months

with available data.

The plant is staffed by two full time operators. It is estimated that

approximately 2.5 hours a day are spent on process control of the SBR. This

includes controlling sludge wasting and performing laboratory analyses. The

plant superintendent and operator were both generally satisfied with the SBR

and its operation. T)lere WitS originally a problem with air in the decanter,

however, i.t '",as resolved. ill1d there have been no other major problems.

Gritfton, Ohio

The current Grafton, Ohio treatment plant is an SBR upgrade of a trickling

filter plant. The SBRs wellt on line in December 1988. The plant was designed

for an average daily flow of 0.75 MGD. The plant influent passes through a

grit chamber prior to the SBRs. Only t,,,,o of the plant's three SBRs are

currently in use. The SBRs are equipped with jet aerators. The SBR effluent

flows to a chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge.

The plant receives flow from two local prisons, a small chrome plater, a

plastic ·_xtrus·ion factory, a foundry, and a circuit board manufacturer in

addition to domestic waste. The wastewater flow from the plastic extrusion

factory and the circuit board manufacturer is pretreated prior to entering the

plant. The plant attributes the high levels of zinc in the sludge to a zinc

plater that previously discharged to the plant. The sludge is stored in the

third SBR prior to disposal. Plant effluent rec;uirements are shown in the

following table.
Page 4-6

Grafton, Ohio Plant

Xonthly Average Effluent Limits - mg/l

Period CBOD5 TSS NH3-N pea)

Summer 10 20 1.5 No Limit

'"Jinter 25 30 15 No Limit

(a)Monitoring of phosphorus and N03-N required

The three SBRs are manufactured by Fluidyne, and have a volume of

approximately 0.43 million gallons each. The SBRs \.Jere designed for

nitrification, denitrification, and phosphol"Lls removal. The capab i 1 i ty for

chemical addition for phosphorus removal exists, but has never been used. The

SBR \.Jas designed for a 41 hour hydraulic detention time at average design flo\.J,

MLSS 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 through March 1991 are presented in

Figures 6 and 7. During this period the plant operated at an average influent

flo\.J of 0.53 MGD or approximately 71 percent of'design. The only plant

influent data available \.Jere CBOD. Effluent CBOD, NH3-N, NO]+N02-N and total

phosphorus data were available. Approximately 97 percent of the BOD entering

th A plant was removed. Effluent ammonia nitrogen is measured year round. The

average summer effluent NH3 -N concentration during the period \.Jas 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. The plant met its winter NH3-N limits in

all 12 of the winter months. 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.
1. 50

Effluent Monthly Averages

J F M

o.OO ....... ........---'_~-'- ........---'_~-'---'----'_~-'---'----I_.!..-~-..l...---I_.L.-~-..l...---I_.!..-....J.-.....J

J F M A M J J A SON D J F M A M J J A SON

200

.-J

..........

OJ

E

LD

0

0

en

u

100

o

/1 Influent

o Effluent Summe~ Effluent CBDDS Limit· 1S mg/ Winte~ Effluent CBDDS Limit· 20 mg/L

J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M

Figure 6. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data

Grafton, Ohio
Monthly Averages

Ef fluent NH3-N Limit (Summer) • 1.5 mg/L

Effluent NHTN Limit (Winter) • 15.0 mg/L

Z

I

(Tl

:r:

z

10.0

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

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F A M J J A 5 0 N 0 J F M

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 F

January 1989 through March 1991

- 4.0

-.J

"'-

OJ

E-... 3.0

en

::l

Co

.c

CL

en

0

.c

c..

40.0

-.J

"'-

OJ

E-... 30.0

C\J

0

Z 20.0

+

(Tl

0

Z 10.0

0.0

J

5.0

Figure 7. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data

Grafton, Ohio
Page 4-9

T:,e plant i e

; s::ai:£ec: b': one full time operator. All analytical work is

sent to an outside laborator~. The operator estimates he spends approximately

one hour a day on routine maintenance of the SBR. The plant operator was

generally satisfied with the SBR and its operation. There have been no serious

problems '.oJith the, SBR

Shelter Island Heif!,hts, :Je'.oJ York

The wastewater treatment plant on Shelter Island, began operation in June

1988. It '.oJas designed for an average daily dry '.oJeather flow of 0.028 MGD, a

peak dry '.oJ eat her fl 0 'N 0 to. () 72 ~1 CDand ape a k '.oJ e t ..oj e il the r fl 0 w 0 f O. 1 5 MGO.

Shelter Island, located in the eastern part of Long Island, is a summer resort

and has much higher [lo'.oJs during the summer than in the winter. Peak dry

weather flows during August have in the past reached 0.12 MGD.

The plant has two Austgen Biojet SBRs. There are no grit chambers, bar

screens, or comminutor before the SBRs. Grit, however, collects in the

splitter box that divides the flow between the two reactors. The SBR effluent

is chlorinated beforl' discharge to Long Island Sound. The SBR was designed for

nitrification and denitrification but not for phospnorus removal.

The plant was designed to treat a BOD load of 44 Ibs/day and a TSS load of

57 Ibs/day at the average daily dry weather flow. The plallt was designed for a

NH3-N loading of 8.7 Ibs/day and a TKN loading 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 is required to meet a 30 day total nitrogen limit of 10 mg/l yearround. The plant has no effluent phosphorus limit.

The SBRs were designed for a normal cycle time of 6 hours with an anoxic

mix and a normal cycle time 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 mid May and wi th a four hour cyc le time from mid May through

September. The operator reported that cycle times are changed about four times

per year, depending on flow. A typical 4 hour cycle time includes a two hour

react cycle, a one hour settle cycle, and a one hour draw cycle.
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 are typically collected once per month. During the period

evaluated, the plant operated at an average summer flow (May through October)

of 0.037 ~GD or 137 percent of design average dry weather flow (51 percent of

the design peak drv weather flow). During the winter months (November through

April) the flow averaged 0.015 MGD or 53 percent of the design average dry

weather flow. The percent BOD removal averaged 96 percent in both the summer

and '.... inter. The TKN data shows that ni trification was occurring. The BOD

consistently met the permit limit of 30 mg/l. The effluent total nitrogen

averaged approximately 8 mg/l in both the summer and winter. The plant met the

total nitrogen pennit limit of 10 mg/l in 21 of the 29 months. The average

percent total nitrogen removal was S6 percent.

The plant is staffed by one operator. It is estimated that between two and

three hours per day of the operator's time is spent operating the SBR. The

operator was satisfied with the SBR and its operation. The plant is situated

adjacent to the local beach and private beachhouse and has never received any

complaints about odors. There have been no major problems with the SBR.
rOEffluent

0.08

Monthly Averages

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 J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J

400

-' "- 300

Cl

E

o

o

(J)

I> Influent o Effluent

Effluent BOD Limit - 30 mg/l

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

700

600 I> Influent

0 Effluent

500 .......

-'

"- 400 Cl

E

- 300

en

en

I- 200

F MAN J J A SON 0 J F MAN J J A SON 0 J F NAN J J

February 1989 through July 1991

Figure 8. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data

Shelter Island, New York
J F M A M J J

Monthly Averages

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

10.0

'- f:. Inf luent

t

· 0 Effluent 40.0 I

rrZ 20.0

:Y.

I-

--.J

"""- 30.0

Ol

E

J F M A M J J

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

"""-

Ol 6.0

E

Z

I 4.0

(T)

0

Z

2.0

J F M A M J J

A Influent Effluent Total Nitrogen Limit - 10.0 mg/L

o Effluent

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

40.0

r-1 2 10.

a

Ic

(l)

Ol

a

L

.j.J

.r-!

Z

February 1989 through July 1991

Figure 9. Chronological Plots of Monthly Average Data

Shelter Island, New York
Page 5-1

SECTION 5.

ANALYSIS OF SBR PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA

PERMIT LIMITS

Effluent perrnit limitations for the nineteen treatment plants included in

the performance evaluation are shown in Table 4. Also 1isted in Table 4 are

the manufacturet- of each plant and its design flow. T',,;el':e of the 19 plants

ha'le (,tfluent dlfllflonia limits, '..;hil(, 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. Two

plants have nitrate plus nitrite 1 imits and two have total inorganic nitrogen

limits. Effluent limits on total nitrogen are required fot- two plants. Five

plants have effluent phosphorus limits that ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 mg/l.

PLANT DATA

The perfonnance clata for 19 plants are summari:ced in Table 5. The

available monthly average data for each plant are presented in Appendix A. BOD

and TSS removal ranged from 84.7 to 97.~ percent and consistently met effluent

requirements. These removal rates are similar to those achieved by

conventional activated slUdge systems

The 19 plants evaluated in the study were all originally designed for

nitrification and are believed to be presently operating under conditions

favoring nitrification. Influent and effluent ammonia nitrogen data were

available for 8 plants. Removal ranged from 90.8 to 96.8 percent. The average

effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration for each of the 8 plants was less than

~. 0 mg/l. The low effluent concentrations indicate that nitrification was

occurring.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY Of EFFLUENT PERMIT LH-IITATIONS FOR 19 SBR PLANTS

Design Eft 1uel1t Li mi ts (mpll)

SBR Flow N03 -N

Plant Location Manufacturer (mgd) BOD/CBOD TSS --l:lli3~ tNO?~ Total N Tol ,i I j'

Armada, MI JetTech 0.3 ISS 30S ij S IS

Buckingham, PA Austgen Bioj et 0.236 lOS jlO\J 30S\.,1 lS /,,'..,1 0S

Caledonia, MN fluidyne 0.52 10

Clarkston, MI Aqua-Aerobics O. 11 30 30 ).U TIN

(Chateau Estates)

Conover, NC Austgen Bioj e t 0.3 30 30 [)~l qH \):1

(Southwest WWTP)

Del City, OK JetTech 3.0 20 30 \J~1

Dundee, MI Transenviro 0.75 9S/2SW 26S/30\J 3S l) ')S\~

Fairchance, PA Austgen Biojet 0.35 IS 25 1. SS/S.OW

Grafton, OH fluidyne 0.75 ISS /20\.] 20S/30W 1 . ')5/15\.]

Grundy Center, IA Aqua-Aerobics 08 25 30 1).5

Manchester, MI JetTech 052 10

Marlette, HI JetTech 0.69 lOS/l 5\.] 20S/30\.] 2S

McPherson, KS JetTech 2.0 20 S/30\.] 30 SW 3S/12 W

Mi ffl inburg, PA Aqua-Aerobics 0.9 20S/2SW 30 3.0S/9.0W

Monticello, IN Austgen Biojet 0.05 10SW 12 S\.] 1.SS/3.0W 1S\J

(\Jhi te Oaks Resort)

Muskegon Heights, MI Aqua-Aerobics 0.045 30 30 5.0 TIN

(Clover Estates)

SLelter Island. NY Austgen Biojet 0.028 30 30 10

Walnut Grove, PA Transenviro 0.025 30 30

\Hndgap, PA Aqua-Aerobics 1 .0 lOS /20\.] 30 2 .OSj(J.O\.]

SSummer

WWinter

TIN Total Inorganic Nitrogen

DM Daily monitoring

QM Quarterly monitoring

WM Weekly monitoring
Page 5-3

Effluent ,ilrcmonia data concentrations for six plants ranged from 0.17 to

1.74 mg/l. '~hcse 10''': concentrations indicate that nitrification was most

likely occurring, at least during the summer months. Manchester, Michigan

supplied monthly maximum effluent ammonia data, however, without influent data

for a comp,'n-Lson. the maximum effluent concentration of 6.6 mg/l ammonia

nitrogen '..:as ~()o high to indicate if any nitrification was 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 to evaluate denitrification in SBRs. Few

of the plants 'oucie:;ed ha'ie effluent limitations un nitrate or total nitrogen

and therefore do not measure for these constituents. Two of the 19 plants

evaluated measured effluent total nitrogen, and h plants measured effluent

nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. Shelter Island measured both nitrate and nitrite

nitrogen and TKN in order to report total nitrogen concentrations. Buckingham,

which measured effluent nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, also supplied limited

summer TKN data. Effluent nitrate and nitrite nitl'ogen data ranged from 2.11

to 5.6 mg/l for the 6 plants.

Under denio'ifying conditions, nitrate would be converted to nitrogen gas

and removed from the waste'..:ater SignificantlY low effluent ammonia and

nitrate nitrogen concentrations (much less than the iIlfluent ammonia nitrogen

concentration) would indicate that both nitrification and denitrification were

occurring. Data from Buckingham, Clarkson, and Muskegon Heights indicate that

denitrification occurred at these plants. Relatively low effluent

concentrations of nitrate + nitrite nitrogen and total nitrogen at Caledonia,

Conover, Grafton, and Walnut Grove indicate that deni trification was probably

occurring, to some degree, at these plants. Three plants, Armada, Dundee, and

McPherson, were designed for denitrification. Information on nitrate or total

nitrogen, however, was n~~ available and denitrification could not be verified.
TABLE 5 SU~~Y OF PERFORl-1ANCE DinA FOR 19 SBR PLANTS

Plant LocatIon

Armada, MI

Penod of

AnalysIS

1/89-3/91

Flow

0.293

X of

Design

Flow

98

BOD/CBOD (mil/i)

INF EFF X REM

TSS (mg/l)

11 "

INF

T"N (mil / 1)

N03-N+NOrN

(m~ /l) TIlt ,11 t ,;:;l' ;)

1~;F FFF ~<Fi·:

Buck 1 ngham, PA

CaledonIa, MN

4/89-4/91

4/88-4/91

o 116

o 294

49

57

324

229

8 4 97 4

6 o3ti

206

.'b7

2 '~t 1 07 t'} () 11 GS tl! ,i 11

1-

Clarkston, MI

(Chateau Estates)

11189-4/91 0.055 50 192 12 4 93 5 26G 7 4 97 2 1 bb .j 11

Conover, NC

(Southeast Plant)

Del City, OK

Dundee, MI

FaIrchance, PA

Grafton, OH

1/89-6/91

1/90-6/91

10/89-3/91

1/90-6/91

12/88-3/91

0.26

2.6

o

o 195

o

87

87

93

56

67

256

158

108

130

8 0 96. 7

o 96 8

3 2 03 7 0

12 0

"2 96 8

183

135

9 5 94 8

94 9

12

IJ 032

o "5

74

o 9"S

" 92W3

D 2 1

5 6

Grundy Center, IA 12/89-11/90 0.575 72 195 3 8 98.1 169 5 95 5 l~ 8 2" 92 2

Manchester, MI

Marlette, MI

McPh~;:son, KS

10/89-3/91

7190-6/91

6/90-6/91

0.39

o 417

.8

75

60

90

103

218

o

96 to

6 2 03 7 .' 1b t

52 0

10 6 91., I.,

51

17

'j'" n J j 7b Ul

Ml ffl1nburg, PA 10/88-3/91 o 73 81 105 11 58 9 9 7 b 42

MontIcello, IN 10/89-5/91

(Win te Oaks Resort)

o 004 8 131 4 8 96 77 4 8 93 8 o 285 90 8 CH

Muskegon HeIghts, MI 1/88-10/90

(Clover Estates)

0.035 78 185 9 1 95 1 132 20 2 8" 7 21 2 0 57 95 8 3 55 4 j 1 85 57

Shelter Island, NY

Walnut Grove, PA

1/89-7/91

5/90-4/91

0.026

0.006

93

24

148 6 96.2

14 0

135 6

15

95 2 17 5 4 4 74 9 0.8 3 69

2 75

Windgap, PA 2/90-10/90 0.559 56 160 6.6 95.6 131 5 _2 96.0 12 9 0.59 95 4

11989-90 quarterly data

2Monthly maxima

3Some start-up data omitted

SSwnmer average

Wwinter average

CHChemical added

TNTotal Nitrogen
Page 5-5

Phosphorus l"cmov;:ll hilS become an important concern in many areas, most

notabL'; in St;i~.cS surrounding the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Six of the

19 plants evaluated have effluent phosphorus limitations; four of these are

located in >1ichigan. In addition, Conover, North Carolina is required to

moni tOl' rj'Jilrter L'f for phosphorus.

Influent phosphorus data '..Jas very limited. Four plants that measured

influent phosphorus concentrations had concentrations from 2.6 to 12,0 mg/l.

Nine of the plants measured effluent phosphorus levels. Two of these plants,

~arlette and ~ollticello, add ferric or ferrous chloride for phosphorus removal,

tho ugh >Ll r 1c, t t c' 0 n l y ad cl s t h t' C hem i cal dl! l' i n g s t 0 !'In eve n t s . Effluent

phosphorus concentrations for the eight pLmts, not including Monticello,

ranged from 0.53 to 4,27 mg/l. The seven plants that did not add ferric or

ferrous chloride, and ~arlette during normal flows, rely solely on biological

phosphot'us removal, The relatively low concentration of phosphorus in the

effluent indicate that at least some phosphorus is being removed biologically,

beyond that normally expected from sludge wasting. Armada, Dundee, Manchester,

and Marlette usually met their effluent phosphol'us requirements, with an

occas iona 1 excurs ion beyond l imi ts. Buckingham's limit of 2.0 mg/l in the

summer '..Jas randy met, Zllthough the plant averaged 64 percent removal of

influent phosphot'lls, Buckingham hZls the option of discharging to a holding

lagoon for subsequent spray irrigation and is only required to meet effluent

limits when discharging to a stream.

The following is a short discussion on each plant that provided data on

performance. The three plants that were visited and discussed in Section 5 are

not 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. Screening

and grit removal precede the SBRs. This system is equipped with fine bubble

diffusers. Three full-time operators handle the 0.3 MGD facility, as well as
Page 5-6

performing, LJ.boratoc; arlat'iSeS. The plant usually operated ',.;ith a srt of 20 to

30 davs. b'_lt occasionaLl': t-eached 90 davs ',.;ith good results. The F/M ratio

typically ranged from 0.02 to 0.04 Ib BOD/lb MLSS/day. The total cycle time

was normally 7 hours, and included 20 minutes aerated fill, 120 minutes anoxic

fill, 120 minutes aeration, 60 minutes settle, 30 minutes decant, and 70

minutes idle The plant began operating in Julv 1988.

Buckingham, Pennsylvania

This Austgen Biojet plant operated ·,.;ith t'..:o ICEAS(R) SBRs equipped with

c 0 a r s e bubb ted iffuse r s This () 1 >1 GD P 1ant i. s r uri b y t '''; 0 f u 1 1 - time 0 per a tors .

The influent is screened before it enters the SBRs. The plant was designed to

operate at a F/M ratio of 0.045, and had a cycle time of four hours. The cycle

consisted of 2 hours aeration, 57 minutes sedimentation, and 56 minutes decant.

As with all ICEAS(R) systems, the tanks fill continuously.

Caledonia, Minnesota

This plant, manufactured by Fluidyne, ',.;as constructed with three SBRs but

was operating only two. The SBRs are equipped with jet aerators, and are

preceded by a grit chamber and primary clarifier. Twenty to 30 percent of the

wastewater flows through a trickling filter 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 plant has had some operational problems and has worked with

Transenviro to solve them. Waste from a milk transfer station contributes to

loading problems. To improve performance, the plant is trying to raise MLSS

concentration to 3500 mg/l. Total cycle time was five to six hours, and

included 30 minutes anoxic fill, and 120 minutes aeration. Plant start-up was

in November 1987.
Page 5-7

':lltTS,:Oll :'lic:li,;Zin - I;hateau Estates >lobile Home Park

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 and averaged 0.04 lb BOD/lb ~1LSS/day. The total cycle time was 5

hours and 50 minutes. Plant start-up was in October 1989.

Conover, ~orth Carolina - Southeast Plant

This Austgen BiojH plant consists of [1.';0 ICEASR SBRs ('quipped '.vith jet

aerators. It '.vas constructed in 1985 and has an average flow of 0.26 ~1GD. The

total cycle time '.vas 3 hOUl"S, '.vhich included 90 minutes aeration, 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. The SBRs are preceded by

a comminutor and grit removal system.

and 6 hours, depending on the flow.

ultraviolet disinfection (UV) unit.

Dundee. Michigan

The total cycle time is varied between 4

Effluent from the SBRs passes through an

This Transenviro plant consists of two SBRs equipped with medium bubble

diffusers. The SBRs are preceded by a comminutor, bar screen, and grit

chamber. Three full-time operators are employed by the facility. The flow

averaged 0.7 MGD. The plant operated at a MLSS between 2500 and 3000 mb,'l.

The SRT is checked daily and averaged 17 to 20 days. Total cycle time was 4

hours, with 2 hours aeration, 50 minutes settle, and 70 minutes decant.

startup was in September 1989.

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 is

staffed by one full-time operator and one relief operator. 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, Iowa

This plant, mi1nuf:lctured by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, corlsists of t'""o SBRs

equipped with fine bubble diffusers and a separate mixer. 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 ~·1LSS/day. Total cycle time was

288 minutes (4.'8 hours) and included 15 minutes fill, 8i, minutes react, 45

minutes settle, and 40 minutes decant. Plant start-up was in April 1988.

Manchester, Michigan

This plant was manufactured by JetTech '.<lith three SBRs, but only two are

typically used. 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, 45 minutes decant, and 90 minutes idle. Plant start-up was in June

1990.
This Aqua-Aerobic Systems plant

bubble diffusers and separate mixers.

Page 5-9

consists of two SBRs equipped with fine

The ~LSS concentration in the two SBRs

averaged 2500 m 1. The F/>1 rdtio averaged 0.028 lb BOD/lb MLSS/day. Total

cycle time WdS G ) hours dnd included 36 minutes mixed fill, 91 minutes react,

75 minutes settle, and 45 minutes decant. React includes mixing with

alternating periods of aeration and no air. Plant start-up was in August 1988.

>1oflticello, Indiana - '.·,11ite Oaks on the Lake Resort

This Austgen Biojet plant consists of two ICEi\S(R) SBRs designed for 0.05

MGD. Current flow averages 0.004 MGD. One part-time operator devotes 10 to 15

hours per week to the operdtion and mdintenzmce of the system. Ferrous

chlor-ide is added to assist in phosphorus removal. Total cycle time is four

hours during the summer and six hours in the winter.

~uskegdn Heights, ~ichigan - Clover Estdtes Mobile Home Park

This Aqua-Aerobic Systems plant consists of one SBR equipped with coarse

bubble diffusers and a separate mixer. Flow averaged 0.035 MGD. The mixed

liquor concentration averages 3400 mg/l. Plant start-up WdS October 1987.

Walnut Grove, Pennsylvania

This is a Transenviro plant 'with one SBR equipped with coarse bubble

diffusers. Present flow, which comes entirely from an apartment complex,

averages 0.006 MGD. Effluent is discharged into a sand mound. The plant has a

subterranean discharge permit. Total cycle time was 4 hours and included 75

minutes aeration, 75 minutes settle, and 90 minutes decant, skim and idle. The

SBR fills during aeration and idle. Plant startup was in April 1990.
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 and operating costs were obtained from plant operators and plant

design engineers. Table 6 presents the utility, operating, and capital or

cons,nlction cos: information that was available for this analysis. The

c:api:al costs '..:t,l'(J adjusted to 1')91 dollars using the Engineering News Record

Con s t t' u c :"" ion c: 0 5 tInde:, .

operating and capital costs.

Figure lO preserlt:; the available utility,

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 for six plants, and five plants supplied

total capital costs. Construction costs were converted to capital costs by

adding 15 percent for engineering and construction supervision, and 15 percent

for contingencies. A11 cap ita 1 cost s we read j us ted to J u 1Y 1 9 9 1 cost s . The

costs ranged from $1.93 to $30.69/gpd of design flow.

Shelter Island, with a cost of $30.69/gpd, was said to have cost two to

three times over budget, due to construction problems. In addition, Shelter

Island had certain aesthetic requirements due to its proximity to a private

beach and clubhou~e.

The wide range in capital costs was influenced by whether the SBR was

retrofitted into existing plant structures or newly constructed, influent

concentrations, effluent limitations, or additional design requirements.
TABLE 6 COST DATA FOR SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

Actual or

Actu,,1 Estlmat.ed Adjusted

Canst-ruction CapItal CapItal Cost~

Costs $ Costs Sb 1991 $

3,500,000 4,550, 000 4.867.187

2,314,050 3,008.~65a 3, 163,984

1,400,000 1,8.20.liOO ,005,011

Factl1ty

Armada, HI

Bucklngham, PA

Caledol1l a, MN

Conover, NC

(Northeast Plant)

Conover, NC

6

(Southeast Plant)

Design Actual Startup

Flow, msd Flow, msd

0.3'') a.293 1988

0.236 a 133 1989

0.520 0.294 1987

1.500 1991

0.300 0.260 1985

lit lilty

Costs

$/year

37,777

OperatIng

Costs

$/v€ard

234,O~8

3,712,840

908,540

4,826,692

1,181,102

4,826,692

1,366,612

lItll.lty

Cost per

1~90 Flow

o ~8

Upt!r,lt.ll,~·

Cost Pt.'I

10~lU Fl(~v;

~" ~'I" 1

"

1 t ,i 1

, t Ill! I

J I' S 1 gIl

F 1(1",'

,. 90

(j]

10 b9

o 17

2 88

o 07

o 06

a 55

6,000 2 500 182,500

0.750 O. 700 1989 3,400,000 4,420, 000 4,648,796

O. 140 0 040 1988 ,290, 000 1,385,598

0 .690 0 417 1990 3,000,000 3,077,276

2.000 1. 57 1990 90,000 269, 500

0,050 0 .005 1989 14,400 280,000 294,494

0 .028 0 022 1988 12,000 800 ,000 859,286

000 2 500 1985 5, 00.0,000 5, 7b~, J2t

Cow Creek, OK

Marlette, MI

Greenfl eld, PA

McPherson, KS

Dundee, HI

Shelter Island, NY

Tullahoma, TN CJI

Montlcello, IN

(White Oaks Resort)

aOperallng costs include labor, utilltles, mdlIlleIldIlce, ctlemlcals. supplle~, etc

bWllen an actual construction cost 15 given, capItal cost was estImated [I'om constructlOlj cost by dddln~ l<Jl tCJl t"!lt:.1IleeflIIt', dlld CUII~trucLIOIl ~qperVl~;l()Il

and 151 for contingencles
f-....J

::J....J

H

::l:

ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)

cr

< 0 enUJ 0 """> en .......

u

u..

t!l0

z1-4 en

"""z 0 <0

a:: 1-4

UJ-J

Q.-J 01-4

0.001

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)

tf)

""" 0 tf) D D D 0_

U4It D D

-Ju.. D

""" I-ltf) 0 D Q.Z <0 D UI-l

-J

C-J

tf)- 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. Operating costs

based on 1990 average flows ranged from $0.17 /gpd for McPherson, to $2. 88/gpd

for :1onticel1o-'.·:hi:::e Oaks Resort. Buckingham, '..Jhich had a flow averaged cost

of $1.76/8pd. had operating cos:::s of $234.058. These costs included $61,400 in

sludge disposal fees and $39,800 in engineering services fees. among other

numerous itemized expendi tures. By comparison, the operating cos ts suppl ied

for McPherson included only labor. utilities, maintenance, chemicals, and

supplies.

Separate utility costs '..Jere available for four plants. Utility costs

ranged from $0.06 to $.55/gpd actual flow. The range of utility 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, Reactors for ~unicipJl ~astewater Treatment.

Presented en i ted S t3 telJapan Conference on Treatment

Technolog~, letober 1981. ~incinnati, Ohio

:\ r 0 r cJ I ~.1 1 3artr: Crnphres Technology EV3luation of

Se (! u e n e in;.; 3 ,i t C h K e- ,l C ' I) c' c~ , 0 urn a 1 () t ': ,-.; it '-' r Poll uti 0 nCon t r 01

:-lorl'l:-;'o'.,il1, ~;e'..J Jersev, Design

:1anual, '!er';lOll 11, and lr:s~,ll.ldtion list, :-1;l',' l'l'll

4. Summary Repol't Sequencing B,ltch Reactors EPA/62S/8086/001. u.s.

En vir 0 n men t 3 1 Pro tee t ion Age n C:I, Ce n t e r for En vir 0 n men tal Res ear c h

Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, lQS6.

5 Bar t h, E F , B~; J a c k S 0 [1 <if1d J I~onvt:' r'; f','Or,rL'SS in Sequencing Batch

Re ilc tor T t~ C h 110 10 jJ 'I d.

Sewage Trbllinent Technolor,''', Se-pt.e-mber lLJ,21, l'Hl3, Tokyo, Japan.

6. Purestream, Inc l,.,'aste',J,ltt-r Treatment Equipmc"nt, Florence Kentucky,

Sequencing Batch Reactors lSBR) , An Effective Alternative to Conventional

Systems, and installation list.

7. Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., Rockford, Illinois

data and equipment information.

Installation list, plant

8. Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control.

Agency, October 1975.

U.S. Environmental Protection
I

',( -,....... -- .• L1., ...... u .. ..... _J -.. ::?-".;625,1-3:",/001. 0.5.

- . ::.. :-, ',' :- ::'j:-'. ::-.'~ .... -,~_ -. ". .:.. s e :1 c:; . ~e:c:er :or ;::-,,'lironmen:al ?-esearch

Cl :: 0 r ma :: :. 0 r. , '.,' ci : e r :: r.s:. r, e e r i ;; g ?- e sea r c :. L..1 b 0 r a : 0 CI, Cinc inna : i, J h i 0 ,

1978

10, Gorons;::'; 3iologic..11 ?hosphorus ?-emoval i;1 a FedBatch ?-eac:or ~i:hout Anoxic ~ixing Sequences. R.esearch Journal of the

''';ate r ? 0 11. '..1 t ion Con t r 0 1 Federa t ion, 6 J ( 5) : 24 8 - 258, 199 1.

11 F 1 '..1 :. d ',':-. e 0 ::' ? 0 r a :: ion, =<: d a:: Fa 1. 1 5 , F1. '..1 i d '; ;1 e 5 3 1e s bra c h u r e ,

12 . J e cTecn, . r.c Indus:ri31 AL::,por:s, K3nS..1S, I:lS::~lLlcl:ion list

Transen'liro, Inc Aliso ·:i.eJo, Califor:ci....l (~ASST~ (C:;clic :\c:ivated

Sludge System) General D~scrlp:lon, 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

Effluent Effluent

Flow TSS P

Month MGD mg/l mg/l

Jan 1989 0.237 9.5 0.41

Feb 1989 0.200 12.5 0.29

Mar 1989 0.285 11. 6 0.55

Apr 1989 0.294 31.1 1.14

May 1989 0.227 16.1 0.57

Jun 1989

Jul 1989 0.199 14.9 0.38

Aug 1989 0.181 17.0 0.49

Sep 1989

Oct 1989 0.209 12.8 1. 87

Nov 1989 0.301 9.9 1. 42

Dec 1989 0.243 13.3 0.97

Jan 1990 0.404 30.7 1. 04

Feb 1990 0.441 17.1 1. 25

Mar 1990 0.452 26.2 0.74

Apr 1990 0.491 5.4 0.78

May 1990 0.339 4.6 0.59

Jun 1990 0.216 22.2 0.74

Jul 1990 0.169 4.3 1.15

Aug 1990 0.180 4.5 0.92

Sep 1990 0.206 3.4 1.18

Oct 1990 0.298 2.7 1.19

Nov 1990 0.319 2.9 1. 00

Dec 1990 0.374 2.8 1. 05

Jan 1991 0.343 2.1 0.30

Feb 1991 0.345 3.3 1.16

Mar 1991 0.363 4.4 0.85

Minimum 0.169 2.1 0.29

Maximum 0.491 31.1 1. 87

Average 0.293 11.4 0.88

Limit NA 30.0 LOO

*Blank spaces indicate data which was not available.
080~

L

o

lCl 0.60

L

'I I'

Armada

"ill·II:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/III/IIIIIII/1111111111111111!llllllllllillllllllllllllll'l~

~ontnly A'/E!rages 1

3

o 0.40 ...--1

1.L

0.2

M A M J J A SON D J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

...J 40.0

'"

01

E

(f)

(f)

I-

-+J

C

Cl.l

::J

...--1

\4- 10. \4-

W

M A M J J A SON D J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

(/J

::J 4.00

Co

.c.

0.

(/J 3.00 o~

.c....J

0..'"01

-+J5 2.00

c

OJ

::J

...--1

\4-

\4-

W

M A M J J A SON D J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

January 1989 through March 1991
BUCKINGHAM, PENNSYLVANIA

Monthly Averages

Flow Influent Effluent Ef fluent Influent Eff luent Influent Eff luent Eff luent Influent Effluent Influent

Date MGD BOO BOO TSS TKN TKN NH3'N NH3-N N02 &N03. P P TSS

(mg/L) (mg/l) (Lbs/d) (mg/ L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/ l )

489 0.099 5.04 26.5 2

589 0.099 272.7 5.7 7.2 70.3 7.51 15.1 0.9 3.9 12.3 4.6

689 o.on 379 16.6 7.9 63.2 5.62 21.6 1.43 0.79 254

789 325.9 9.88 3.5 66.2 23.4 28 2.41 0.6 11.9 6 263

889 0.105 215.3 18.8 2.8 62.9 9.3 27.9 0.93 0.65 11.3 3.3 181

989 0.109 399.6 12.1 7.8 62.3 7.5 31.0 0.25 3.9 14.7 6.7

1089 0.121 355.5 18.1 1.3 81.75 16.5 25.5 1. 07 0.73 12.6 4 212

1189 0.136 320.4 22.16 3.4 28.2 0.76 .66 8.9 3.94 130

1289

190 0.129 7.25 4.8 0.35

290 0.141 2.81 2.33 0.25

390

490 0.116 13.5 6.9 3.03

590 0.117 12.5 2.5 3.5

690 0.0998 12.8 3.98 3.44 1.27

790

890 0.105 2.8 2.5 0.1 5.35 4.8

990 0.104 3.8 5.5 0.2 2.9 4.6

1090 0.115 3.3 2.3 0.6 2.1 3.2

1190 0.115 2 3 0.2 3 5.1

1290 0.122 2 3.8 0.4 2.03 2.8

191 0.14 4.2 27 0.2 1.9 2.9

291 0.126 2.8 3.5 1.3 1.3 3

391 0.132 3.3 3.5 0.1 2.8 3.7

491 0.134 3.2 25.4 0.1 1.2 4.5

/*

AVG = 0.116 324.057 8.393 7.155 67.m 11.638 25.329 1.069 2.113 11. 950 4.026 208.

sro = 0.016 63.504 6.364 8.007 7.468 6.897 5.365 1. 112 1.426 1.889 1.327

MAX 0.141 399.600 22.160 27.000 81.750 23.400 31.000 3.500 5.350 14.700 6.700

MIN = o.on 215.300 2.000 1.300 62.300 5.620 15.100 0.100 0.600 8.900 1.270
~~ckingham. Pennsylvania I

8.4CL

iii!! i

:, '1"'1"'1"'\"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'II"I"II"~ Month y Averages

o

.-1

LL

O.30 t

0.20E

0.1

M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M A

400

.....J

......... 300

01

E

ID 200

o

o

CD

Summer Effluent

Winter Effluent

10.0 a 20.0

100

A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N J F M A

500

to Influent 0 Effluent 400

.........

.....J

E

01 300~ (J) 200t

(J)

100

M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M A

April 1989 through April 1991
3uckingham, Pennsylvania

;',r+ lu'er:t

~. f :L.:e:i":

Z

:::L

I--

A J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M A

40 .0 Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit = 3.0

Winter Effluent NH3-N Limit - 9.0

"'-

01 f=

30.0t: E

Z 20.0§ I

(T)

:r: 10. O§ z

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

Z

I 15.0 (T)

0

z--l

~"'- 10.0

01

z-S

I

(\J 5.0

0

Z

0.0

A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N J F M A

-l

"'-

01

E

Summer Effluent NH3-N Limit = 2.0 mg/

U1 15.0

::J

L

a

.c 10.0

0-

U1

a

.c

0..

r-1

ro

....,

a M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N J F M A

IApril 1989 through April 1991
Caledonia Monitoring Data

monthly averages taken from DMR profile

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent

Flow TSS TSS CBOD CBOD TN

Month MGD mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

Apr 1988 0.271 224 16.0 243 8.6

May 1988 0.278 146 13.5 199 8.8

Jun 1988 0.336 164 7.5 180 4.5

Jul 1988 0.325 195 4.0 177 2.3

Aug 1988 0.348 195 2.9 233 2.4

Sep 1988 0.327 215 4.2 200 2.3 5.9

Oct 1988 0.302 230 5.0 171 2.3 6.1

Nov 1988 0.306 198 6.0 216 2.5 7.5

Dec 1988 0.284 234 4.2 256 2.7 11. 0

Jan 1989 0.280 359 5.4 205 2.7

Feb 1989 0.267 287 6.5 181 3.2 14.5

Mar 1989 0.286 335 6.0 255 3.8 10.6

Apr 1989 0.268 333 23.6 211 6.0 18.3

May 1989 0.264 313 58.7 202 12.7 22.0

Jun 1989 0.295 373 28.6 249 8.7 16.4

Jul 1989 0.314 276 13.5 207 3.8 9.5

Aug 1989 0.315 280 8.9 235 3.5

Sep 1989 0.321 387 3.1 251 2.5

Oct 1989 0.299 294 7.5 206 4.0 8.3

Nov 1989 0.289 245 12.2 222 8.2 9.6

Dec 1989 0.289 239 64.0 257 18.0 15.6

Jan 1990 0.279 418 55.0 217 29.0

Feb 1990 0.261 338 14.8 236 13.2

Mar 1990 0.278 471 16.4 226 15.0

Apr 1990 0.260 396 13.0 264 13.6 29.3

May 1990 0.284 265 17.2 266 15.0 11. 8

Jun 1990 0.325 195 33.0 235 13.0 30.1

Jul 1990 0.346 500 10.0 411 5.8 11. 8

Aug 1990 0.368 260 8.4 255 5.4 9.0

Sep 1990 0.296 273 15.0 288 6.8 12.3

Oct 1990 0.277 271 3.3 200 3.1

Nov 1990 0.269 278 3.8 225 3.8 8.2

Dec 1990 0.269 324 6.0 293 4.5 10.9

Jan 1991 0.269 302 25.0 246 14.0 19.7

Feb 1991 0.269 272 28.0 183 13.0 13.4

Mar 1991 0.283 284 8.0 198 8.0 13.0

Apr 1991 0.295 263 9.0 157 3.0 14.1

Minimum 0.260 146 2.9 157 2.3 5.86

Maximum 0.368 500 64.0 411 29.0 30.08

Average 0.294 287 15.3 229 7.6 13.5

Limit NA NA NA 10.0
Caledonia

. t30eG .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

400 I> Influent 0 Effluent

O-.J 300

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

(J)-.J

(J)'"'

1- 01

E

100

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 SON 0 J F M A

10.0 - - --- - --- - ---"-_.........- ;-.-=:-=::>"'~

20.0

40.0

30.0

c

OJ

01

+JO

CL~

OJ+J-.J

::J ..-1 '"'

..-1ZOl

E

..-1-

wro

+J

o

IJanuary 1989 through April 1991
CHATEAU ESTATES Cla~k5ton , Michigan

DATE FLOW INFLUENT EFFLUENT MIXED LIQUOR

(lfonthl BODi TSS NHrN BODi TSS NHrN N02-N N03-N Total HLSS HLVSS FIM

Year) (tt;D) (mgl ) (mgtl) (mgtl) (mgt ) (mgtl) (mgll ) (mgt1) (mgtl) Inorgan1c-N (mgt (mgll ) (Day-I)

(mgll) 1)

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 ---- 8.7 2.7 0.60 0.10 2.68 3.38 2993 2340 0.044

4-90 0.0581 194 238 ---- 7.4 2.3 0.23 0.13 3.10 3.46 2544 1961 0.052

5-90 0.0588 152 277 ---- 17.4 7.3 0.38 0.22 3.60 4.20 3371 2207 0.031

6-90 0.0590 171 192 ---- 14.2 12.7 2.87 0.20 2.32 5.39 5051 2717 0.023

7-90 0.0553 175 395 ---- 5.6 1.5 2.35 0.02 1.32 3.69 4480 2572 0.025

8-90 0.0531 169 292 ---- 4.9 2.5 2.64 0.06 3.75 6.45 3630 2274 0.029

9-90 0.0564 192 212 ---- 3.7 2.4 2.94 0.03 1.80 4.77 3015 2071 0.042

10-90 0.0540 241 482 ---- 14.5 7.3 0.25 0.02 1.34 1. 61 1846 1396 0.082

11-90 0.0540 189 159 ---- 8.0 3.2 1.01 ---- ---- ---- 1879 1556 0.064

12-90 0.0540 206 223 41 6.4 1.4 0.42 0.04 1.13 1. 59 3752 2938 0.035

1-91 0.0540 218 269 57 6.7 6.1 2.01 0.19 4.05 6.25 2860 2262 0.048

2-91 0.0540 151 179 30 13.1 8.3 2.78 0.27 5.64 8.69 3332 2607 0.030

3-91 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 30 30 ~'''''~--'''''''

---- ---- 5.0 3496 2447 0.07
CONOVER, NORTH CAROLiNA - SOUTHEAST PLANT

Monthly Averages

Influent Influent Influent Flow Effluent Effluent Effluent Eff Eff

Date BOO NH3 TSS (MGO) BOO NH3 TSS TN TP

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/l)

---- 189 195.0 267.0 0.195 6.0 0.66 8.0

289 195.0 20.5 208.0 0.314 9.2 1.60 6.6 11.4 1. 40

389 248.8 14.0 117.3 0.337 14.5 2.10 17.8

489 222.0 16.9 139.0 0.259 13.0 0.53 10.9

589 234.0 11.3 133.0 0.314 13.9 0.85 13 .3 10.4 1.40

689 292.0 16.3 132.0 0.297 15.5 0.92 9.6

789 246.0 11.5 150.0 0.271 10.8 0.69 7.8

889 263.0 15.5 129.0 0.283 6.0 0.50 6.5

989 266.0 15.1 166.0 0.192 5.7 1. 00 7.9 1.4 0.90

1089 266.0 13.0 199.0 0.293 6.8 0.63 7.9

1189 222.0 10.6 168.0 0.253 11.4 1.00 12.3 5.1 1. 50

1289 273.0 152.0 0.294 10.7 0.90 10.9

190 291.0 173.0 0.305 4.7 0.97 7.3

290 164.6 60.3 0.338 10.7 1.30 10.6 3.6 0.15

390 183.0 166.0 0.213 7.2 0.80 10.1

490 227.0 184.0 0.232 9.7 1. 00 17.0

590 211.0 132.0 0.250 6.1 1. 10 13.6 5.44 0.72

690 190.0 165.0 0.215 13.0 0.80 9.3

790 218.7 193.0 0.209 6.9 0.70 9.0

890 219.3 17.1 181.1 0.223 6.5 1.00 8.5

990 280.0 20.3 275.2 0.212 7.7 0.60 7.3

1090 242.2 12.7 170.7 0.293 7.1 1. 50 9.2

1190 325.5 17.6 195.8 0.194 4.5 0.60 7.3

1290 248.0 15.7 144.8 0.197 5.8 0.60 11.8

191 325.6 14.2 193.0 0.245 6.6 1. 10 11.5

291 365.9 12.0 216.9 0.208 2.0 0.50 7.2

391 317.4 12.8 3n.0 0.292 3.8 0.50 6.0

491 307.3 15.7 240.0 0.300 6.1 1. 50 9.1

591 332.9 16.4 252.0 0.255 5.8 1. 00 9.3

691 297.4 18.4 207.4 0.250 3.4 0.60 5.7

/*

SUM = 7669.6 317.6 5487.5 7.733 241.1 27.55 289.3

AVG 255.7 15.1 182.9 0.258 8.0 0.92 9.6

STO 49.6 2.8 58.0 0.044 3.5 0.38 2.9

MAX = 365.9 20.5 3n.0 0.338 15.5 2.10 17.8

loll" = 164.6 10.6 60.3 0.192 2.0 0.50 5.7
J.3oE;~ '-f

J F M A M J

~c:.Jtheast ',.MTP - Conover, N. C.

,! ':!":!'!': 1111 i 11111 I! 11111: 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfTTTTlTTl"TIT"TIIT1II"TIT"TIIT1II"TIT"TIIT"lIITllrrlT"T11T"lIITllrrlT"lllT1jlrrlT"TIIT1II"TIT"TIIT1II"TT"11UOOl

Month 1'/ Averages ::j

-i

::j

--1

§

FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON

=. ~GC:::

3: 0.2

o

r-1

l.L

Effluent BOD Limit· 30.0 mg/

Influent

Ef fluent 400

300

If)

o

o

en

-J

"""'. 01

E

J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A J J A SON J F M A M J

(f)

(f)

IJ F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON JFMAMJ

....J

"'"

01

E

I 10.0

CD

I

Z

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
DEL CITY, OKLAHOMA

Monthly Averages

Flow Influent Influent Sludge Eff luent Eff l uent Eff luent

Date "'GO TSS BOO Age MUSS TSS BOO NH3-N

(mg/L) (mg/L) (Days) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/L)

190 2.629 164 263 21.9 2939 22 16 1. 90

290 3.292 146 174 18.8 2867 13 10 0.32

390 4.263 124 110 17.1 2663 13 7 0.05

490 3.806 124 108 19.2 3051 3 2 0.04

590 3.537 120 112 23.4 3172 4 3 0.20

690 2.396 136 171 32.3 3105 4 6 2.27

790 2.135 173 175 23.9 3012 4 4 0.37

890 2.163 156 164 26.4 3115 5 4 1.30

990 2.309 148 159 28.2 3014 3 3 0.23

1090 2.091 138 197 25.8 2552 5 3 0.05

1190 2.068 132 170 24.3 2513 5 4 0.06

1290 2.179 138 177 25.5 2663 6 3 0.05

191 2.273 135 174 20.3 2371 8 4 0.06

291 2.012 137 168 24.4 2580 8 5 0.06

391 2.043 146 154 28.6 3213 3 2 0.09

491 1.962 119 143 37.3 3265 5 3 0.09

591 2.564 113 116 32.0 3034 9 6 0.80

691 2.726 105 103 28.2 2735 5 3 0.20

/-

SUM = 46.448 2454 2838 457.6 51864 125 88 8.14

AVG = 2.580 136 158 25.4 2881 7 5 0.45

STD = 0.667 17 38 5.0 263 5 3 0.66

MAX 4.263 173 263 37.3 3265 22 16 2.27

MIN = 1.962 105 103 17.1 2371 3 2 0.04
I

4.0GL

rfo

c.cJ 3.00

Jel City, Oklahoma

3:

o 2.00

LL

1. 00

....J

-........

01

E

o

o

CD 100

....J

-........

01

E

(J)

(J)

f200

100

January 1990 through June 1991

J
UJ

>-

((J

o

OJ

0'1

<l:

OJ

01

D

::J

..--1

(J)

40.0 f=

20.0

10.0

L:.:el Oklahoma

..J

"- 4.00

0'1

E

Z 3.00

I

(T')

I

Z

4-l

C

(l)

::J

..--1

4-

4-

W

January 1990 through June 1991
Jel Ci t y, Oklahoma -_.. _.,-------

'~onthly Averages lJ. Summer Month

4G 0 Winter Month .0..--

W

01 30.0l- L

<t~

U1

~: (1)>-

O1CU I::.

DO 0 ::J- 20.0\:1 r-1 0 !a UJ >=

L

10.0t

0.0

0.00 1. 00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

5000

4000

~I::. I::.

UJ--J 1::. 0 0

UJ ......... --J01

:EE

2000

1000

0.08

(J)

(J)~ 0.06

--J>-

:E CU ......... -0

0 ......... o~ 0.04

rn

o

Effluent NH3-N (mg/L)
Dundee Monitoring Data

monthly averages taken from DMR profile

Influent Effluent Effluent Influent Effluent Effluent

Flow TSS TSS P BOD BOD NH3-N

Month MGD mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

Jan 1989 0.470 54 112

Feb 1989 0.394 56 125

Mar 1989 0.466 59 118

Apr 1989 0.537 47 89

May 1989 0.420 66 129

Jun 1989 0.715 65 59

Jul 1989 0.473 43 105

Aug 1989 0.367 60 127

Sep 1989 0.439 43.0 1. 70 61. 0

Oct 1989 1. 20

Nov 1989 0.70

Dec 1989 0.324 1. 20

Jan 1990 0.827 0.80

Feb 1990 1. 311 0.40

Mar 1990 1. 039 0.60

Apr 1990 0.701 0.30

May 1990 0.595 5.4 0.40 4.7 2.3

Jun 1990 0.345 2.5 0.50 3.2 1.7

Jul 1990 0.263 1.9 0.60 2.0 1.4

Aug 1990 0.359 3.0 0.20 2.5 1.2

Sep 1990 0.429 5.7 0.35 3.8 2.1

Oct 1990 0.649 0.40

Nov 1990 0.625 0.50

Dec 1990 1.004 0.50

Jan 1991 0.964 0.30

Feb 1991 0.673 0.30

Mar 1991 0.560 0.20

Minimum 0.263 43 1.9 0.20 59 2.0 1.2

Maximum 1.311 66 43.0 1. 70 129 61.0 2.3

Average 0.598 56 10.3 0.59 108 12.9 1.7

Limit NA NA 0.50 NA

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.
Dundee

r100~

r . >- /

~."

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON a J F M

150

I

o.-J

0 .......... enOl E

100

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

80

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

January 1989 through March 1991
Dundee ~"v! I [ I Iii ! i I r I iii! 1! i I I[I i I;I I ! I II !I IIII IIJ 1111 11111 I 1I I1 III I I[ II [~I IIII II[II III II I1111111 II II III [ II I i II I~

...J

"-

OJ

E

Z

I

(T)

::r:

z

4.00~

ffL

L

3.00[

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

...J

"-

OJ 1.50 E

U1

::J

L

0

.c

0. 1. 00

U1

0

.c

Q..

+i

C

Cl.l

::J 0.50 .-1

W

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

January 1989 through March 1991
FAIRCHANCE-GEORGES

JOINT MUNICIPAL SEWAGE AUTHORITY

INFLUE~T AND EFFLCENT DATA

EFFLUENT PERMIT LIMITS:

FLOIoJ:

BOD:;

SuspenCled Solids

NH3-N

D.O.

pH

Fecal Coliform

Dt-iR DATA:

1989

1990

Flow

BODS

55

NH3N

pH

Fecal Coliform

1991

Flow

BODS

55

NH3-N

pH

Fecal Coliform

.350 Averago Monthly

I5mg/l Average Monthly

25mg/l Average Monthly

I.5mg/l Average Monthly 5/1 to 10/31

S.Omg/l Average Monthly 11/1 to ~/30

S.Omg/l miniMum

6.0 to 9.0 SU

200/100mg/l Average Monthly

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.
Grafton Monitoring Data

",cnt~ly averages taken from DMR prof; le

:nfluent Effluent Effluent Eff luent Eff luent Effluent

Flo\ol CBOO CBOO NH3-N N03+N02 P Temp

Month MGD mg!l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l deg C

Dec 1988 0.458 166 59.3 10.2

Jan 1989 0.734 146 9.0 16.70 1.48 9.8

Feb 1989 0.682 114 9.3 17.55 1.75 9.2

Mar 1989 0.832 102 5.9 6.09 1.68 10.3

Apr 1989 1.021 127 2.8 1. 91 4.39 11.6

May 1989 0.554 73 4.3 0.77 1. 72 14.3

Jun 1989 0.475 150 2.7 0.64 0.94 18.5

Jut 1989 0.329 142 3.0 2.68 1.44 21.6

Aug 1989

Sep 1989 0.323 147 2.9 0.42 31. 1 1. 78 21.0

Oct 1989 0.309 125 2.6 0.04 3.1 2.10 18.4

Nov 1989 0.669 92 3.1 1. 09 13.7 1.86 14.7

Dec 1989 0.299 134 10.7 4.83 5.3 1.83 10.2

Jan 1990 0.454 74 3.8 3.75 9.8 1. 03 10.1

Feb 1990 0.549 73 3.0 2.28 11.2 0.78 10.0

Mar 1990 0.348 199 6.3 1. 69 6.6 0.77 11.5

Apr 1990 0.497 87 2.6 0.78 1.0 1. 19 12.6

May 1990 0.498 131 2.5 0.20 3.8 0.23 16.0

Jun 1990 0.446 188 4.9 0.38 1.2 1.73 19.7

Jul 1990 0.494 145 3.3 2.07 3.5 2.44 21.6

Aug 1990 0.488 137 3.2 0.39 3.9 2.19 22.2

Sep 1990 0.590 130 2.3 0.35 2.9 0.73 21.6

Oct 1990 0.592 107 1.7 2.42 2.6 0.57 18.7

Nov 1990 0.438 186 3.1 4.70 0.1 0.58 16.5

Dec 1990 133

Jan 1991 0.508 112 3.0 11.80 0.4 0.63 11.4

Feb 1991 0.639 126 4.4 10.55 0.3 0.13 13.0

Mar 1991 0.618 160 5.0 9.57 0.2 1.08 11.5

/*

SUMMARY:

MinilTUTl 0.299 73 1.7 0.04 0.1 0.13 9.2

MaxilTUTl 1.021 199 10.7 11.80 31.1 4.39 22.2

Average 0.532 130 4.2 3.02 5.6 1.40 14.9

llMITS:

lJinter NA NA 20.0 15.00 NA NA NA

Sl.ITIIler NA NA 15.0 1.50 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.
-- _~ Influent

TO EffllJent

Effluent :';H3-;N Limit (Summer) = 1.5

Ef fluent NH3-N Limi t (Winter) = 15.0

LI

("TJ

I

Z~

.-J +J '-....

COl

CllE

::J~

'+-

'+-

W

100~rt

5. o~

\

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M

(T)

o

z

+

40.0

(\J~

O.-J

Z'-....

Ol

-+JE

C~

Cll

::J

rl

'+-

'+-

W

UJ

::J

L

o

.c:

0.

UJ

O~

.c:.....J

0...'-....

Ol

-+J.§

C

Cll

::J

rl

'+-

'+-

W

30.0

20.0

10.0

/~

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON

F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON

January 1989 through March 1991

J F M

J F M
J F M

3

o

r-1

l..L

3rafton. Ohio

.50>-

;-

1

1

r1

.-

O.50~

r

t

a.aaLU..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

300 rTTTTTTTTTrTTnTrrTTTTTTTTTnTr1rrrrrrTTTTTTTrTTn"TTrrrrrrTrTTTTTnTT"rTTrTTTTTTnTT"rrrrrrTrTTnTr1I1rTTTTTl

Influent

Effluent

Summer Eft luent

Winter Effluent

Limi t Q

Limi t

O~

0"'"-

CD en

UE

200

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

Dlt' Plow hllutDt ll11ufnt 

Irm9r 1001 rS5 IIrl r55 UrI h:p. II RLSS htlff SIl 

IRGDI 1111 I (Iql II 'l9! 11 IW , 1cqllI leqlll (,o/Co, 1&1111 1111 (11Iql 

12-19 I.m 1.164 lit 201 II U U O.ll 5UIll.l zw III lIS 

HO I.m un m 1!1 n J.I u 1.21 51.1110.9 lUI SIt W 

H1 I.m om no 101 11 U n 0.11 50.01lD.0 zm m ]11 

HO ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -.. '" ... .-. 

HO 1.401 0.109 m m 19 I.t n u 51.0/1J.J 1115 m 19J HO un 1.115 m m I.t u 12 U 56.011],] llli HO 2JJ 

HO 1.115 J.m " 101 7.0 J.l , U 50.0/15.1 lUI ]]1 m 

HO I.m ].Ill I1J HI 10.1 U t 0.01 U.O/I.., llOl 1I1 m 

1-90 '.m l.m 111 115 t.I 1.1 J I.ll 65.0/IlJ lUJ HI UJ 

,.,0 1.511 I.m 111 III 11.1 U t 0.11 U.IIIU 1190 no " 

10·90 •.m 0.191 m 110 IU l.I U O.ll n.oill.l un J9I 101 

IHO I.m O.flO lU 110 10.1 U l.l 1.l5 H.om.O 1011 lJI 111 

-- 

Arm;, UU I. JI m In IU ],I U Lit 51.1/11.1 1105 III 10J 
Manchester Monitoring Data

monthly averages taken from DMR profile

Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent

Flow TSS P BOD NH3-N

Month !1GD mg/l rng/l mgjl mgjl(l)

Oct 1989 0.333 16.0 0.78 4.0 7.86

Nov 1989 0.352 80.0 1. 83

Dec 1989 0.309 350.0 5.14

Jan 1990 0.414 224.0 4.23

Feb 1990 0.551 131.0 2.40

Mar 1990 0.615 19.0 0.47

Apr 1990 0.526 32.9 0.87

May 1990 0.473 1.8 0.13 2.5 2.71

Jun 1990 0.379 6.1 0.42 2.7 7.10

Jul 1990 0.309 22.0 0.68 3.5 13.60

Aug 1990 0.335 3.8 0.27 2.1 14.50

Sep 1990 0.338 4.6 0.57 2.8 0.43

Oct 1990 0.378 3.1 0.27 3 . 1 0.24

Nov 1990 0.301 7.6 0.27

Dec 1990 0.387 10.0 0.48

Jan 1991 0.338 7.5 0.43

Feb 1991 0.319 7.9 0.23

Mar 1991 0.370 8.1 0.73

SUMMARY:

Minimum 0.301 1.8 0.13 2.1 0.2

Maximum 0.615 350.0 5.14 4.0 14.5

Average 0.390 52.0 1. 12 3.0 6.6

Limit 1. 00

NOTES:

1. Ammonia concentrations are monthly maxima (monthly averages

were not available) .
I ~.1 a n c h est e r

I ! I ! i I I I i I ! ! ! 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

-;

I

:5 Jfi

0.0

0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M

6.00

S.ooC

(JJ 1\ I . ::J I

L 4.00 I

0 J

.c

o. I (JJ I O~

.c......J I

0... .......... 3.00 I

01 i

+J..§ I

\ C I Il.J

::J ) 2.00 4-

4-

W

/

---------- ------------------

...L

z~

......J

+J',,-

COl

Il.J E ::J~

4-

4-

W

Z

I

(1)

January 1989 through March 1991
'.j a c ne s : e r

o. DeL

3:

o

c-1

1..L

020L

L

N o J F A JJ A s o N o J F

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

o

4.0

0

0

en 3.00 V +J-.J

c'-...

CJOl

::lE

.-i~ 2.00

4-

4-

W

1. 00

N o J F JJ A os N o J F M

o.00 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-~

o

o

c.n

c.n

r-

+-l-.J

c'-...

CJOl

::lE

c-1~

4-

4-

W

300

o

200

\

1O~,IIIIIIIIII~klll~III.bIII.bJII.,II+III.III.,I~ o N 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M

January 1989 through March 1991
Marlette, Michigan ~~TP - Montnly Average Data

Flow I~F EFF I F EFF I~F EFF I~F EFF

Month BOO BOO TSS TSS PHOS PHOS ~H3-~ ~H3-~

(MGD) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

790 0.259 138.38 2.51 177.3 6.1 2.07 0.13 13.48 1.7

890 0.274 112.47 1. 71 122.3 8.8 3.25 0.96 17.62 0.32

990 0.257 116.74 3.39 138.8 6 3.89 1. 18 16.81 0.33

1090 0.469 127.76 3.63 178 28.2 2.8 0.8 9.34 0.37

1190 0.403 92.06 4.26 119.8 12.5 2.62 0.57

1290 0.464 75.22 2.72 94.9 27.5 2.51 0.79

191 0.456 83.36 3.32 120.4 12 3.45 0.88

291 0.484 133.15 3.2 220.9 26.6 4.01 1.06

391 0.5n 70.71 5.84 66 13.9 3.09 0.64

491 0.575 69.36 4.54 102.6 14.4 3.11 0.8

591 0.443 89.67 3.83 100 6.9 4.41 0.77 1. 65 0.23

691 0.347 123.5 3 99 6.1 4.19 0.8 1.77 0.1
:'Ier-ages ~ffluent ~hospnorus

'J)

::J

o-.J

.c"'--.

0.01

cnE

0-

.c

0...

8.0L5 oL

L

I

40L

... : ....... : en

:. :: .. ·: e ..... :

! 1 i I I I ! I I I

I

1 :J '11g/lj

1I

I

---1I

l

Summer Effluent NH3-N limit - 2.0 mg/L

15.0

r

ZI-.J

(TJ"'--. 10.0

I 01

z.§

5.0

•

July 1990 through June 1991
J. 3C~

O.60~

1

I

o.4oL

\iarlette, Michigan

Averages

--.J

"OJ

E 100

o

o

co

50

Influent

Effluent

Summer Effluent BOD Limit - 10

Winter Effluent BOD Limit - 15

J A s o N o J F M A M J

July 1990 through June 1991
MCPHERSO"l. KA"lSAS

Monthly Averages

Flow Influent Influent Eff luent Effluent Effluent

elate MGD BC() TSS BOO TSS ~H3'''l

(mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/l) (mg/l)

690 2.545 124.0 127.0 5.5 8.0 0.20

790 2.481 148.0 197.0 7.0 16.5 0.20

890 2.488 193.0 168.0 6.5 9.0 0.17

990 2.024 259.5 173.0 5.5 5.5 0.13

1090 1.533 223.5 175.0 5.0 8.0 0.50

1190 1.452 223.0 192.0 5.5 10.5 0.16

1290 1.541 232.0 204.5 4.5 9.0 0.11

191 1.593 215.0 212.5 13.0 29.0 0.18

291 1.448 234.5 217.5 11.0 22.5 0.16

391 1.749 215.0 179.0 4.0 6.0 0.14

491 1.504 264.5 202.0 4.0 3.5 0.13

591 1.526 294.0 205.0 5.5 7.0 0.06

691 1.596 212.0 187.0 3.0 3.5 0.12

I·

AVG = 1.806 218.3 187.7 6.2 10.6
~1cPherson. Kansas

J F A J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A S ON 0 J F M A M J

l> Influent o Ef fluent

...-J 200

"-..

01

E

o

o

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

...-J

"-..

Ol

E

(J) 100

(J)

fF M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J

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 0 J F M A M J

January 1989 through June 1991
turn.JMBURG. Pf:NNSYLVAHlll

PERroIUWlCE DATA

DATE rt.eM Da'UJE)lT EITUJE}rJ' tuxrn uooon

t«J./YR. AVERAGE HAl. DAY NHrH BODS TSS HHrN Ttmp. IlHLSS SVI .2HL.SS SVI fm

(....01 (....0) (Itlq/ll (lllg/1) (mg/ll (mg/ll (ro/C') (mg/l) (ml/g) (r;11 ) (el/g) (G'))' -1) ------

10/88 0.55 1.26 110 3.8 13.0 0.76 58.9/14.9 1289 85 2039 95 0.033

11/88 0.65 1.33 120 15.5 15.6 0.25 56.1/13.4 1250 93 2491 94 0.038

12/88 0.50 0.91 110 9.1 23.2 19.2 0.30 51. 6/10. 9 1655 106 2013 143 0.042

1/89 0.64 Ltc 135 9.1 22.3 20.5 0.40 48.2/9.0 2133 206 2';80 234 0.035

2/89 0.54 0.90 178 9.3 28.8 10.9 0.78 49.9/9.9 2031 246 2846 249 0.036

3/89 0.66 1.60 101 13.1 15.6 14.3 0.38 50.3/10.2 1539 150 2958 259 0.027

4/89 0.60 1.11 154 8.4 11.8 13.8 0.46 52.9/11.6 1550 194 2514 267 0.O~2

5/89 1.08 2.44 91 5.7 16.3 13.1 0.60 56.3/13.5 1733 184 2364 162 O.OH

6/89 0.70 1.43 95 6.9- 13.4 9.9 0.39 60.lI15.6 2460 127 2720 122 0.024

7/89 1.06 2.45 63 6.8 10.5 9.0 0.38 64.2/17.9 2352 91 2400 III o 026

8/89 0.62 1.93 86 6.6 11.0 12.0 0.28 65.8/18.8 1855 n 2300 91 0.023

9/89 0.54 0.76 88 7.8 11.2 9.0 0.30 63.4/17.4 2525 84 2543 92 0.OJ7

10/89 0.84 2.35 92 6.7 14.5 9.9 0.32 59.6115.3 2642 120 3JJ7 118 0.025

11/89 0.57 1.48 75 7.3 12.3 3.9 0 ..26 55.0/12.8 2883 92 32J8 J06 0.013

12189 0.49 0.68 106 1.9 10.4 4.5 0.30 48.0/8.9 2760 152 3186 1J8 0.OJ6

1/90 0.56 1. 42 95 1.7 8.8 9.3 0.49 50.4/10.2 2982 220 3J82 166 0.OJ6

2190 0.71 Ltc 116 9.5 8.5 10.2 0.71 49.9/9.9 2436 2J8 2683 227 0.032

3/90 0.62 0.86 109 6.3 10.1 9.5 1.12 51. 6/10. 9 2783 226 2833 243 0.022

4/90 0.64 1.05 102 8.0 8.5 6.8 0.30 53.6/12.0 2517 246 2633 26J 0.023

5/90 0.76 1.46 72 5.6 7.1 1.5 0.34 56.9/13.8 2777 214 2700 250 0.018

6/90 0.65 0.99 115 11.1 6.5 6.7 0.54 61.2116.2 2433 182 2546 219 0.027

7/90 0.61 1.15 111 6.0 12.8 7.7 0.17 65.3/18.5 2800 187 3Jl1 196 0.021

8/90 0.87 2.62 93 10.8 7.4 6.8 0.29 65.0/18.4 2554 229 2787 250 0.028

9/90 0.13 1. 33 115 14.1 8.9 5.8 0.29 63.6/17.6 28J8 263 3140 240 0.026

10/90 1.19 2.68 65 6.7 10.7 7.9 0.10 59.9115.5 2382 238 2833 252 0.027

11/90 0.76 1. 69 113 1.5 9.5 6.0 0.15 56.7/13.7 2542 232 2913 217 0.029

12190 0.95 1. 57 97 7.2 8.0 6.4 0.13 53.9/12.2 2262 287 2400 282 0.036

1/91 1.02 2.12 81 5.5 8.3 6.7 0.34 49.0/9.4 2267 244 2333 280 0.033

2191 0.80 1.45 80 10.1 7.8 6.0 0.89 48.9/9.4 2283 2H 2392 225 0.025

3/91 0.85 1. 31 118 13.9 7.1 10.9 0.51 52.1/11.2 2440 243 2418 223 0.038

Average 0.73 1.49 105 7.8 11.7 9.8 0.42 55.9/13.3 2298 182 267J 193 0.028

Desiqn 0.90 2.30 200 25.0 20/25 30.0 3.0/9.0 50.0/10.0 3330 3330 0.049

Hlnlmum
MONTICEllO, INDIANA - ~HITE OAKS RESORT

Monthly Averages

Influent Ef fluent Influent Etf l uent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Inf [uent Effluent

D[)~e Flo\o/ CBOO CBOO TSS TSS pH pH Arrrnoni a Arrrnonla Phosph Phosph

MGD ("'9/l) (mg/l) (~/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/L) (",giL)

1089 0.006 133 4 64 2 7.8 7.7 3.5 0.1 3.63 2. 07

1189 0.002 117 3 70 2 7.7 7.6 3 0.4 3.09 0.59

1289 0.002 79 3 68 4 7.7 7.6 2.7 0.5 2.98 0.45

190 0.002 115 4 70 5 7.6 7.3 3.1 0.5 3.04 0.37

290 0.002 99 4 72 4 7.8 7.5 3.3 0.4 2.73 0.35

390 0.002 81 4 67 5 7.7 7.3 2.8 0.2 2.56 0.45

490 0.002 91 5 70 3 7.8 7.4 3.2 0.2 2.58 0.4

590 0.006 100 6 78 4 7.7 7.5 3 0.2 2.88 0.38

690 0.007 162 6 88 4 7.6 7.5 2.9 0.3 3.06 0.3

790 0.006 159 5 80 5 7.9 7.5 3.1 0.1 3.11 0.37

890 0.006 170 4 78 5 7.8 7.6 2.7 0.2 2.78 0.34

990 0.006 116 4 63 5 7.6 7.5 2.5 0.2 2.44 0.27

1090 0.005 170 7 78 6 7.6 7.2 2.8 0.1 1. 86 0.23

1190 0.002 147 5 81 6 7.6 7.2 2.3 0.1 2.04 0.32

1290 0.003 171 5 97 6 7.6 7.4 2.2 0.1 1.66 0.27

191 0.003 150 6 80 6 7.7 7.4 2.7 0.2 1. 91 0.3

291 0.003 124 5 68 6 7.7 7.5 2.9 0.2 1. 81 0.41

391 0.004 113 6 81 7 7.5 7.3 3.1 0.3 2.2 0.44

491 0.007 162 5 90 6 7.6 7.4 2.9 0.6 2.58 0.34

591 0.009 170 6 89 6 7.6 7.4 6.9 0.8 3.14 0.35

1*

SUM 0.085 2629.000 97.000 1532.000 97.000 153.600 148.800 61.600 5.700 52.080 9.000

AVG 0.004 131.450 4.850 76.600 4.850 7.680 7.440 3.080 0.285 2.604 0.450

STO 0.002 31.085 1.062 9.173 1.352 0.098 0.132 0.929 0.188 0.527 0.380

MAX 0.009 171.000 7.000 97.000 7.000 7.900 7.700 6.900 0.800 3.630 2.070

MIN 0.002 79.000 3.000 63.000 2.000 7.500 7.200 2.200 0.100 1.660 0.230
.. : !l ::.: ::; 1. 1J . I nd ian a -,~ hit e 0a ks Res art •• -~-~~~~"'--'---"-'-'-ITT"I'I'I1r11"'1'1"TITI-rI"T""1" 'Ii

r1i"'I"TI-r,-ri"T""1'Ir111"'1"'1"TITI-rI"T""I"'-1'Ir111r11"'1'ITT-rI"T""r"'-l'11r11"'1'1"TITj-rt"T""1rT"1I

Month l'y A'lerages

J.:'JB_ /

/ I

a 0

CJ. JC6L.. :r'~ .1 jl o.COLJ'~ / /

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 t I I I I I I I t 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

8 67

en

u

o N 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M A M

60

Ul

Ul

f40

20

----- - -'- - - --- - ---- -------- ------------ ----

o N 0 J F M A M J J A SON J F M A M

ill

I

Cl.

N 0 J F M A M J J A SON

October 1989 through May 1991

J F M A M
fJ]

:::J

L~

O-.J

..c ""'-

0-01

(fJE

o~

..c

D.-

4. OO~

t

rI

1.00r-- - - --- ---- - ---- --- - ----------- - --- - --- - ----

8.0

6.0

4.0

- 0

J F M A M J J A s o N J F M A M

October 1989 through May 1991
,

CLOVER ESTATES MOBILE HOME PARK

Muskegon Heights, Michigan

DArE

IKODthlYear I

BODS

(19111

IHLUERT

rss

(19111

!-p

(1911)

"II ED

LIQUOR

KLSS

119/11

BODS

(19111

TSS

(19/11

EFFLUENT

Total TP

IDorqa~lC-H (lg/II

II gill ====~=========-==-===-======F====I=================~ ====~=~_-~~7~~~

1- 88

2-88

3-88

4-88

5-88

6-88

1-88

8-88

9-88

10-88

11-88

12 - 88

1-89

2-89

, 3-89

4-89

5-89

6-89

1-89

161

223

165

45

228

124

25.5

12. 5

25.5

5.6

3.1

4.1

3050

5333

6282

44 28

2845

1918

3185

2556

3538

4125

4430

4113

3793

34 28

3786

3515

26 CO

2793

26 05

7

4.9

9.5

4.6

5.3

5. 1

6.0

5. 5

6.4

5. 1

4.6

4.3

8.9

12.2

8.2

9.8

10.6

10.8

1.5

24

II. 4

35 . 4

21. 9

II. 9

14. I

23.4

13. 5

9. I

13 . 9

7.0

7.0

22.8

31. 3

13. 6

8.3

15 . 4

11.3

I 2. 8

O. 20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

O. 20

0.20

O. 20

0.20

0.20

O. 20

0.20

O. 20

O. 56

I. 10

2. 04

1.43

0.20

o. 0I

o. 0I

o.01

0.01

0.02

o.01

o.0I

o. 0I

0.02

o.0I

0.01

o.0I

o.01

o.0I

O. 19

0.25

o. 15

O. II

0.04

11, 4

11. 2

6. 3

3.1

3.6

3.3

2.6

3. 1

2. 7

2.3

3. 4

2. 9

4.1

3.9

3.9

5.0

2.6

2. 2

1.2

1I. 61

11.41

6. 51

3. 31

3.82

3. 51

2.81

3.31

2. 92

2. 51

3. 61

3. 11

4.31

4.11

4. 65

6. 35

4. 79

3.74

1.44

1. 9

2. 0

3.0

1.7

1.7

3.2

1.5

1.4

2.1

1.2
C. LOVER ESTATES

Muskegon Hei9hts) Michigan

DUI I1lLUU KInD IlfLUIU

LIQUOR

10DI us 18 l-1 f-r IIL5S 100 f55 Uri 10 2-. 

Il00tblfeu) II" ) 11,11 ) (I,ll ) 11,11 ) 11,111 Ilg,II llq 111 llq 111 119111 l

1-89 2078 4.4 4.8 0.20 0.15 

'-89

10-89

11-8912-89

1·'0 5115 28.2 36.1 5.20 0.58 

2-90 3610 32.1 50. , 0.20 1. 10 

3-90 lO" 1., 6.5 0.42 0.11 

4-90 3115 1.4 1" , 3. 0) 0.39 

5-90 l1l2 1.8 3.2 0.20 0.12 

5-!O 2513 , . 1 33. 1 0.20 0.01 

1-90 2113 13. 1 23.2 1. 10 0.19 

1-'0 20" 8. 1 ".3 0.20 0.04 

'-'0 1910 11. 3 9.5 0.20 O. 12 

10-90 2133 11.5 14.0 0.20 0.16 

,

lunge U5 132 21.2 4.3 3364 "1 20.2 0.51 O. IS 

Du1gD 200 200 22 3600 30 30 
Shel ter Island, New York ~TP Monthly Average Data

"'cnt~, Flo\ol J SF EFF PH EFF IN F EFF IN F EFF IN F EFf

800 800 TSS TSS TKN TKN N03 N03 Tot N Tot N

(MGD) (mg/L) (mg/ L) (mg/L) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

189 0.0113 100 1 55 -4 21 1.8 -0.5 2.5 4.3

289 0.0111 280 8.7 135 -5 29 2.2 -0.5 8.9 29 11

389 0.0103 110 2.2 69 - 5 19 1.6 0.65 8.5 20

~89 67 7.2 60 4 17 1.6 0.6 4.9 18 6.5

589 0.0265 120 4.3 180 -5 11 2 0.8 2.7 12 4.7

689 0.0352 150 54 -I. 13 3.2 0.7 2.2 14 5.4

789 0.0499 145 4.2 130 10 20 7.2 -0.5 1 20 8.2

889 0.053 230 1 310 23 16 12 -0.5 -0.5 16 12

989 0.0374 72 5.3 110 13 21 20 -0.5 -0.5 21 20

1089 0.0285 63 8 70 9 9.6 2 0.5 4.2 10 6.2

1189 0.0185 50 2.5 81 4 20 1 -0.5 5 20 6

1289 0.0222 83 2.3 77 -0.01 20 2 -0.5 7.8 20 9.8

190 0.0155 120 8.3 65 6 19 1.2 0.5 1.5 19.5 2.7

290 0.0145 95 10 59 5 18 5.6 0.7 5.9 18.7 11.5

390 0.0106 150 16 63 6 23 2 0.9 5.4 23.9 7.4

490 0.0155 410 7 46 -13 21 5.8 -0.5 2.9 21 8.7

590 0.0246 110 11 255 -0.6 12 2 0.5 0.9 12.5 2.9

690 0.0314 130 11 110 -I. 19 1.8 - O. 5 -0.5 19 1.8

790 0.043 340 10 650 9 8 14 -0.5 -0.5 8 14

890 0.0533 290 7 280 13 39 14 '0.5 -0.5 39 14

990 0.0399 120 6 110 6 2 1.6 2.4 2.1 4.4 3.7

1090 0.0333 130 3 100 5 12 2.8 -0.5 5 12 7.8

1190 0.0219 63 7 92 8 14 1.4 -0.5 4.6 14 6

1290 88 -2 120 19 2.6 -0.05 8.5 19 11. 1

191 0.0114 220 3 180 -3 17 3.4 -0.5 4 17 7.4

291 0.0095 130 4 120 3 16 4.2 0.9 8.3 17 12.5

391 82 -2 51 -3 18 5.3 23

491 0.0175 160 -3 57 -I. 14 1.2 -0.5 2.9 14 4.1

591 0.0212 140 2 110 -3 18 2.4 -0.5 5.3 18 7.7

691 0.0329 220 ·2 170 10 16 2.2 -0.5 2.8 16 5

791 0.041 130 6 210 8 21 6.8 -0.5 -0.5 21 6.8
She 1: e r .:: 3 l a n:J . ~~ e ',v Y0 r k

JFMAMJJ

j

j

"~'~'g/,£ij

o. oID1mtmri'W.lllil.illl..1JlJl.U.tJ:!tll~!m!W.lll1l:1ill.ll..lfrnW1JlllJJ1!IlW.rm:liliJ.iliLiliJLl..W1ttlJIUJ.!lJI]

FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON

f-:' Ir, f l:.Jent ~oEf·l-.len: 40 .J~

!

(T1-l

0 .......... zO'l E

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.

MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON J F M A M J J

February 1989 through July 1991
I

::: " e t e:' 5 and . ~.J e 't! '( 0 r k

I I ' 11 !' I i I ! i I11I1 :,111 111111,11111111111TfTTTTT1"'-1ITII"II"'-IITII"MI1""'11"'-1ITII"IITII"'-IITI1"1ICT"I!"TI1"11"'-1!"TII TIl1"'-1"'-11"MIITT'TIII~

\.~ 0 nt'i 1 Y A\; eI' age S 1

-j

-_..

':..0 O.06~

o

c--<

lJ.

,

I

ro04LI

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

400

--.J

-- 300 "-

Ol

E

0

0

m

" Influent

o Effluent

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

600

500

-l

'-.... 400 Ol

E

300

UJ

UJ

r- 2(' -

Effluent TSS Limit - 30 mg/L

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 i 13

-;

-<

-<

--<-'

=1

=l

-1

3

1=1

J J A 5 o N o J F M A

J.808C

::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,--'---'-~'--'- ......

M

J. J06e

o.oov~ :) OO~

c

(!)

z

c

o

CD

mg/

~O ~'- -j

3 30.0~ - - --- - ---- --- - ---- ------- - ~- - --- - ---- -----3

c \

::0: \\ _~ §

aa!::' I~j

A

o J F A

I \ I I I t I I I I' I I I I , I~ Ef luent SS Lim t • 30.0 mg/

M J J N

" S 0

100EI

r80

60

40

U1

U1

f-

-+-J-l

C"'---

UJOl

::J E ~-

May 1990 through April 1991
Wlndgap Municipal Autho~lty

Windgap, Pennsylvania

Pe~fo~mance Data

Date Flow Influent Effluent

Month/Yea~ Ave~age Maximum BOD TSS NH 3-N B00 5 TSS NH 3-N

(MGD) (MGO) (mg/!) (mg/l) (mg/l) I rna 11 ) (mg/l ) (mg/l)

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

Ave~age

Values 0.559 0.941 160 131 12.9 6.6 5.2 0.59

Design 1.0 2.0 175 175 25 10-5 30 2.0-5

Values 20-W 6.0-W
walnut Grove Monitoring Data

monthly averages taken from DMR profile

Effluent Effluent Effluent

Flo·...... BOD TSS N02 & N03

Honth :'!GD :::g/l r.:g/l mg/l

May 1990 0.002 12.2 9.6 6.29

Jun 1990 0.004 23.4 17.1 3.31

Jul 1990 0.006 17.4 12.2 3.54

Aug 1990 0.007 17.9 10.0 2.02

Sep 1990 0.007 20.0 13.8 1. 26

Oct 1990 0.006 12.3 16.0 3.01

Nov 1990 0.008 7.0 17.7 0.68

Dec 1990 0.007 30.0 78.0 3.70

Jan 1991 0.006 2.0 8.3 1. 96

Feb 1991 0.007 4.3 6.0 2.25

Mar 1991 0.006 14.1 1.7 3.79

Apr 1991 0.006 7.2 3.0 1.18

SUMMARY:

Minimum 0.002 2.0 1.7 0.68

Maximum 0.008 30.0 78.0 6.29

Average 0.006 14.0 16.1 2.75

Limit 0.009 30.0 30.0 5.00

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.