Mikkeli Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Case Study

Introduction to the problem

Wastewater treatment plant in Mikkeli (Eastern Finland) is located near historical center and harbor area. Nowadays the city of Mikkeli faces an acute question whether to replace WWTP with a new plant and new technologies or not. Currently activated sludge (AS) process is used in WWTP. Moving bed biofilm reactor (MMBR) and membrane reactor (MBR) technologies are possible option for replacement of AS process and are under consideration. The new plant is planned to be situated inside a rock and process that will match the task should be selected. Main tasks of students are: 1. To choose the strategy of Mikkeli WWTP development. Will it be oriented on AS or MMBR or MBR processes. Please note that abovementioned technologies should not be considered as the only possibility, other options can be selected as well. Please do not forget to explain why you have selected this or that development strategy. 2. Once the strategy is chosen, please prepare detailed description of suggested technological process (please remember to provide

characteristics of all equipment, estimate removal efficiency of contaminants from water). Why chosen process is beneficial? 3. Estimate costs. It is possible to prepare brief business plan in order to demonstrate if benefits from chosen process will cover costs.

Background information The necessity of wastewater treatment became obvious when industrial revolution hit Europe at the end of the 19th century and first wastewater treatment plants WWTPs appeared in England and Germany. Both biofilms on slate and activated sludge process were invented in between 1900-1910. Over the years, activated sludge was adopted as the most versatile technology. Please find more information about WWTP in Finalnd and which process is mainly used. With years more stringent requirements were adopted. At the moment, both total nitrogen and total phosphorus are regulated. Find information about water directives e.g. Wastewater directive 98/15/EC, EU Council directive 91/676/EEC, Watershed directive 2000/60/EC. What directives regulate wastewater discharges in Finland? Does it have more stringent legislation? The Mikkeli WWTP was built in the 1960s having activated sludge process as a method of treatment. The reactor is organized as a recycling oxidation ditch, which has quite efficient for both ammonia and carbon removal. See the water treatment diagram below.

Activated sludge process Basically activated sludge process contains three main components: 1. aerated reactor with microorganisms in form of suspension 2. sedimentation tank for solid-liquid separation 3. recycle system. What is important in activated sludge system is formation of flocculent settleable solids, which can be removed in sedimentation tank. Often AS process is used together with physical and chemical treatment methods, which are applied as preliminary step and disinfection, filtration as a post treatment. In order to design AS process following parameters should be considered: 1. volume the aeration basin 2. the amount of sludge production 3. required amount of oxygen 4. wastewater characterization. Benefits of AS process are: Relatively low installation cost Good quality of effluent Land requirements are not high Disadvantages of AS process are: 1. Non flexibility of the method (In case of unexpected increase in the volume of sewage, effluent of not high quality is obtained). 2. High operation cost 3. Sludge disposal 4. Sensitive to certain industrial wastes

More information concerning AS process can be found in Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse George Tchobanoglous, Franklin Louis Burton, H. David Stensel.

MBBR (moving bed biofilm reactor) This is one of the methods which use surface biofilm for wastewater treatment. It uses plastics pieces with high surface areas to grow biofilms. The concept of using biofilms so microbes that grow on a solid surface originate back to the begging of 20th century when slate slabs were used for biofilm growth. The technology was displaced by activated sludge as a more convenient technology but with the cheap production of plastic, it now become recognized as a helpful method for some circumstances. MBBR in its modern concept first originated from Norway in 1980s, when more stringent regulations for nitrogen loads became in place (Weiss et al., 2005). In France this technology used only from 2006, 18 installations by 2011 by Vinci, 8 by Veolia. There are totally around 400 worldwide in 22 countries (Rusten et al., 2006). With MBBR technology, there is better ammonium removal than for ordinary AS (Di Trapani et al., 2010) and less solids production (Weiss et al., 2005). Although some concerns over nitrate removal (DI Trapani et al., 2010) MBBRs are convenient way to remove nitrogen if incorporated into systems with denitrification basins. Other parameters of these systems are: No sludge recycling (Weiss et al., 2005). Better ammonium removal (Di Trapani et al., 2010) Compact (50% of space compared to activated sludge)

 Little temperature dependency

Note: IFAS (integrated fixed film activated sludge) is another name for moving biofilm reactor when there is return activated sludge. Example is HYBAS by AnoxKaldnes (www.anoxkaldnes.com).

There are certain disadvantages of his technology such as: increased chemical demands increased (doubled) power (aeration) demands (Rosso et al., 2011;Sen et al., 2008) Sometimes similar efficiency for COD and ammonia in comparison to conventional AS (Rosso et al., 2011)

Membrane reactors (MBR) There are 800 operating plants (2009) out of which 566 are industrial (in Lin et al., 2012) and they can provide better effluent quality, especially for suspended solids. However, the use of membrane systems should be justified as in some cases AS and MBRs have similar performance for COD ,P, ammonia. (Lerner et al.,l 2007). Still, the market of MBR is growing steadily (Lesjean, Huisjes, 2008). Please find major advantages of using membranes for WWT. An example of membrane reactor is given below.

Fig.1. Membrane reactor (Picture taken from lenntech.com)

Please check the Fig.1 and comment how the reactor works. The table below compares the parameters of some technologies and this will help you in your final decision making.

BOD5/COD removal rate 3 kg BOD5/m3*d

HRT (hours)

N removal rate
3

sludge production

water quality, footprint, if higher water quality is required, larger foot print and O&M costs (e.g. socalled 4 stage Bardenpho technology) largely disinfected permeate/small foot print. e.g. 0,08 TP and 0,4 NH3-N 20 mg/l (Oleszkiewicz Barnard, 2006) TSS and

other factors

Conventional AS

4-8 up to 12 nitrifying AS

for

20 80 g TN /m *d (total N, including 50% denitrification)

yes

depending on configuration

Membrane reactors

same or large than for AS

shorter HRT than for conventional AS

same as for AS

probably less sludge (e.g. Judd, 2008)

larger aeration demand due to higher concentration of suspended sludge in the aeration tank, foaming larger, less readily dewaterable sludge, greater sensitivity to shock loadings (Judd, 2008).

Per reactor volume: 0,8-2,2 kg BOD5/m3*d (Cemagref data) Per area: 1,3-3,6 BOD5/m2*d (Cemagref data)

0,3-0,5h for COD, no nitrification (Leikes, degaard, 2001) 0,8-7,6 h (Orantes and Martinez, )

Per reactor volume: 0,15 kg N/m3*d (Weiss et al., 2005) 0,1-0,3 kg N/m3*d (Rusten et al., 2006) 0,23 kg NH3-N/m3*d (Suhr, Pedersen, 2010) 0,13 kg NH3-N/m3*d (cemagref data) 1,45 TSS/kg BOD5 removed (more than of activated sludge) foot print 50% activated sludge of

MBBR

chemicals required at primary stage, sedimentation through coagulation and flocculation required or other particles removal technology, high 4 -6 mg/l of oxygen for nitrification, increased power demands Better nitrification at low temperatures

1,8-20,5 g COD/m2*d (Orantes and GonzalezMartinez, 2003)

1,3 2,5 h for BOD5; 2,5-11 h for NH3-N Cemagref data)

Per area: g NH3 N/m2*d 0,1 -1,6 (McQuarrie,

6-15 BOD5/m2*d (Cemagref)

0,5-1 h (Sen et al., 2

Boltz, 2011) 0,27; 0,73 Pedersen, 2010) (Suhr,

0,2 g NH3-N/m2*d (Cemagref data) (54;65%) 54-65% at HRT 2,25-5 h 94-96% at HRT 10-11 h temp 8-12oC 0,3 kgN/m3*d (Weiss et al., 2005)

10-30 g COD/m2*d RBC (rotating biological contractor) 15-24 2 g BOD/m *d 12 1-30 g/m *d but usually HRT is shorter 0,7-8 h
2 2

1-3 g NH3-N/m2 *d After Cortez et al. (2008) 0,7-2 g/m *d

2

low sludge

small footprint

Per volume: Biostryr 0,3-0,7 NH3 - N/m3*d BAF

kg

0,8 2,0 kg NO3 N/m3*d (Holloway et al., 2008) 0,1 kg NH3 - N/m3*d (Suhr, Pedersen, 2010)

Table 2. Economics of WWT by different methods

Type of process Capital costs Running costs (Operation and Maintenance costs, O&M) labor, maintenance Conventional AS Higher than AS high, membrane replacement 25-33% of total O&M costs 0,55 -1,7 kWh/m3 (1) 20 -30 % higher than conventional (Faletti and Lino, 2007) 0,5-1,8 kWh/m3 (Verrecht et al., 2010) membrane aeration 74%, biology aeration 11% yes energy chemicals yes, coagulants,

flocculants high,

Membrane reactors

membranes account for 25-50% of total capital costs

not MBBR

clear, regular

8-9 kWh/kg BOD5 (in theory possible to 3,5) (Cemagref) 0,15-0,18 kW/m3 for mixing 3 -3,2 kW/m3 total (Cemagref) yes

installation of grids, and carriers but

50% of space

Table 3. Characteristics of wastewater of MWWTP

year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 amount of wastewater, m3/d 13678 11673 11682 12639 13501 max. amount of wastewater, m3/d 29972 18328 22864 26325 23379 BOD, kg/d 3106 3150 3196 3319 3360 total P, kg/d 132 129 130 126 118 total N, kg/d 748 743 758 783 756 COD, kg/d 6696 6751 7085 7184 7184 Suspended solids, kg/d 3995 4039 4180 4401 4325

Table 4. Degree of wastewater purification at MWWTP

year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 BOD, % 98 98 97 98 98 total P, % 97 98 95 97 96 total N, % 44 44 44 43 37 COD, % 93 94 93 94 94 Suspended solids, % 98 98 96 98 97

average production of dry sludge at MWWTP is

3615 tonn/d

References 1. http://bvwater.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/abstract_siw09_wallislage.pdf Cortez, S., Teixeira, P., Oliveira, R., Mota, M., 2008. Rotating biological contractors: a review on main factors affecting performance. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7, 155-172 Di Trapani, D., Mannina, G., Torregrossa, M., and Viviani, G., 2010. Comparison between hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor and activated sludge system: a pilot plant experiment. Water Sci. Technol. 61.4, 891-902 Faletti, L., and Conte, L., 2007. Upgrading of activated sludge wastewater treatment plant with hybrid moving bed biofilm reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46, 6656-6660 Holloway, R., Zhao, H., Rinne, T., Thesing, G., Parker, J., Beals, M., 2008. The impact of temperature and loading ion meeting stringent nitrogen requirements in a two-stage BAF a comparison of pilot and full scale performance. WEFTEC Judd, S., 2008. The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends Biotechnol. 26(2), 109-116 Leiknes, T., degaard, H., Moving Bed Biofilm Membrane Reactor (MBB-MR): Characteristics and Potentials of a Hybrid Process Design for Compact Wastewater Treatment Plants, Proceedings, Engineering with Membranes, Granada, Spain, June 36, 2001 Lesjean, B., Ferre, V., Vonghia, E., and Moeslang, H. 2009. Market and design considerations of the 37 larger MBR plants in Europe. Desalin Water Treat. 6, 227-233

Lesjean, B., Huisjes, E.H., 2008. Survey of the European MBR market: trends and perspectives. Desalin. 231, 71-81 Lerner, M., Stahl, N., and Galil, N.J., 2007. Comparative study of MBR and activated sludge in the treatment of paper mill wastewater. Water. Sci. Technol. 55(6), 23-29 Lin, H., Gao, W., Meng, F., Liao, B.-Q., Leung, K.-T., Zhao., L., Chen, J., and Hong, H., 2012. Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment: a critical review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 677-740 McQuarrie, J.P., Boltz, J.P. 2011. Moving bed biofilm reactor technology: process applications, design, and performance. Water Environ. Res. 83(6), 560 575 Oleszkiewicz, J.A., and Barnard, J.L., 2006. Nutrient removal technology in North America and the European Union: a review. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada. 41(4), 449-462 Orantez, J.C., and Gonzalez-Martinez, S., (2003) A new low-cost biofilm carrier for the treatment of municipal wastewater in a moving bed reactor. Water. Sci. Technol. 48(11-12), 243-250 Rosso, D., Lothman, S.E., Jeung, M.K., Pitt, P., Gellner, W.J., Stone, A., Howard, D. 2011. Oxygen transfer and uptake, nutrient removal, and energy footprint of parallel full-scale IFAS and activated sludge processes. Water. Res. 45, 5987-5996 Rusten, B., Eikebrokk, B., Ulgenes, Y., Lygren, E., 2006. Design and operation of the Kaldnes moving bed biofilm reactors. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 322-331 Sen, S.P.E., Occiano, V., Wong, P.E.P., and Landworthy, A. 2008. Comparing implementation of MBBR versus BAF on a space constrained site. Proceedings

of the Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC 2008: Session 81 through Session 90 , pp. 6442-6455(14) Verrecht, B., Maere, T., Nopens, I., Brepols, C., Judd, S., 2010. The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Res. 44, 5274-5283 Weiss J.S., Alvarez, M., Chi-Chung, T., Horvath, R.W., and Stahl, J.F., 2005. Evaluation of moving bed biofilm reactor technology for enhancing nitrogen removal in a stabilization pond treatment plant. WEFTEC, 2085 2102

Internet: http://www.ohiowea.org/docs/Wed0800Res_Sludge_Truths.pdf http://www.watermaxim.co.uk/submerged-aerated-filters.php http://www.aaees.org/images/e3competition-winners-2011honor-research03.jpg http://www.madep-sa.com/english/wwtp.html http://www.eu-etvstrategy.eu/pdfs/08_Nutrient_removal_biofilm_reactors_Rusten.pdf Look here also, these are quite interesting: http://typo3.kuster-hager.ch/fileadmin/dokumente/EnhanceingPerformance.pdf http://www.beknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/1091.pdf Difference between AS and membranes http://www.forskningsplatformenvand.dk/Documents/Annual%20meeting%202012/Presentations/Kragelund_D WRP12.pdf