COLD WEATHER NITRIFICATION OF LAGOON … WEATHER NITRIFICATION OF LAGOON EFFLUENT USING A MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR (MBBR) TREATMENT PROCESS Mr. Flemming G. Wessman1 and Mr. Chandler

COLD WEATHER NITRIFICATION OF LAGOON EFFLUENT USING A MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR (MBBR) TREATMENT PROCESS

Mr. Flemming G. Wessman1 and Mr. Chandler H. Johnson 1AnoxKaldnes, Inc., 58 Weybosset Street, 4th Floor, Providence, RI

ABSTRACT

Since 2000, the population at Johnstown, Colorado has increased over 22%, and shows no signs of slowing down. Faced with more residents and impending year round ammonia limits, the Town of Johnstown was forced to upgrade their wastewater treatment facility. The existing treatment facility in Johnstown consisted of three lagoons, whose main purpose was to achieve settling of total suspended solids and organic matter (BOD) removal. To meet the new increase in flows and nutrient limits, the Town of Johnstown had two choices: eliminate all existing lagoons and build a new conventional activated sludge facility, or continue to utilize the existing lagoons for organic matter reduction and add a down stream post-nitrification fixed film treatment system. By choosing the latter option, the Town of Johnstown managed to save about 50% of the cost of building a whole new plant. The post-nitrification MBBR was installed during the winter of 2003/2004 and brought online in June 2004. December 2004 to mid-January 2005, the average influent water temperature was 4.2°C, the MBBR treatment system removed an average of over 40% of influent NH3-N. In fact, the effluent NH3-N decreased by 35%, 42%, and 58% in December, January, and February, when compared with the same months in the winter prior to the installation of the MBBR treatment system. Throughout the warmer months, the MBBR treatment removed an average of 85% of influent NH3-N while the effluent BOD has been, on average, less than 1 mg/L, making it very easy for the plant to meet its permit requirements month after month.

KEYWORDS

Waste water, treatment, Moving Bed™ biofilm process, MBBR, experiences, nitrification, Lagoon.

INTRODUCTION

Since 2000, the population at Johnstown, Colorado has increased over 22%, and shows no signs of slowing down. Faced with more residents and impending year round ammonia limits, the Town of Johnstown was forced to upgrade their wastewater treatment facility. Johnstown is located about 50 miles north of Denver, and during winter time their lagoon wastewater temperatures frequently dip below 40°F (4.5°C). The existing treatment facility in Johnstown consisted of three lagoons, whose main purpose was to achieve settling of total suspended solids and organic matter (BOD) removal. To meet the new increase in flows and nutrient limits, the Town of Johnstown had two choices: eliminate all existing lagoons and build a new conventional activated sludge facility, or continue to utilize the existing lagoons for organic matter reduction and add a down stream post-nitrification fixed film treatment system. By choosing the latter option, the Town of Johnstown managed to save about 50% of the cost of building a whole new plant.

4738

WEFTEC®.06

Copyright 2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved©

Fixed film technologies are well known for biological treatment of ammonia in cold temperatures as the bacteria / biofilm grows on a substrate / media and are kept within the system rather then being washed out during colder temperatures as a conventional activated sludge system would typically see happen. The Town of Johnstown investigated the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) treatment technology for meeting its new effluent ammonia and increased flow requirements. Overall treatment requirements for the system are summarized in the table below.

Month Effluent limit (mg NH4-N/L)

January 16 February 12 Mars 5.1 April 2.9 May 1.5 June 1.3 July 1.2 August 1.2 September 1.1 October 1.1 November 2.2 December 13

Table 1. Overall treatment requirements

The ability of the MBBR to be designed for a future flow capacity by sizing the tankage for the ultimate build out flow and loads was attractive as the initial investment only required media to meet the current flows and loads. Once the systems flows and loads increased the town only has to add additional media to provide the additional surface area needed for biofilm growth.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MOVING BED™ BIOFILM REACTOR

The idea behind the development of the Kaldnes Moving Bed™ biofilm process (MBBR™ biofilm process) was to adopt the best features of the activated sludge process as well as those of the biofilter process without including the worst. Contrary to most biofilm reactors, the Moving Bed™ biofilm reactors utilises the whole tank volume for biomass growth, as does the activated sludge reactor. Contrary to the activated sludge reactor, however, the MBBR does not need any sludge recycle, as is also the case in other biofilm systems. This is achieved by having the biomass grow on carriers that move freely in the water volume of the reactor, kept within the reactor volume by a sieve arrangement at the reactor outlet. Since no sludge recirculation takes place, only the surplus biomass has to be separated - a considerable advantage over the activated sludge process. The reactor may be used for both aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic processes, see Figure 1.

4739

WEFTEC®.06


a. Aerobic reactor b. Anoxic and anaerobic reactor c. The biofilm carrier (K1)

Figure 1 - Principle of the MBBR™ biofilm technology and shape of the original biofilm carrier (K1)

In aerobic processes, the biofilm carrier movement is caused by the agitation set up by the air, while in anoxic and anaerobic processes a mixer keeps the carriers moving. In the aerobic reactors a special medium bubble aeration system has been developed. This type of aeration system is very robust and will not require any maintenance or replacement. The oxygen transfer rate (OTR) is high due to the presence of the biofilm carriers. Tests have shown that the OTR is equal to what you achieve with fine bubble aeration systems (membrane aerators) in activated sludge reactors (Hem, 1999 & Hem, 2002). The carriers are kept within the reactor by an outlet sieve. This may be vertically mounted, rectangular mesh sieves, but lately the sieve is more often shaped as a cylindrical bar sieve, vertically or horizontally mounted. The agitation in the reactor is so arranged that the carrier elements are constantly being moved upwards over the surface of the sieve. This action creates a scrubbing effect that prevents clogging.

4740

WEFTEC®.06


Figure 2 - The moving bed biofilm reactor

The original and mostly used biofilm carrier (K1) is made of high density polyethylene (density 0,95 g cm-3) and shaped as a small cylinder with a cross on the inside of the cylinder and “fins” on the outside (see Figure 1c). The cylinder has a length of 7 mm, and a diameter of 10 mm (not including fins). One has later introduced various carriers of other sizes and shapes, but the K1 carrier is still the one mostly used (Ødegaard et al., 1994 & Ødegaard et al., 1999).

a) Principal drawing b) MBBR at Johnstown WWTP

Figure 3 – System components

4741

WEFTEC®.06


The filling of carrier elements in the reactor may be decided for each case, giving considerable flexibility in the specific biofilm surface area. A maximum filling of about 70%, based on empty reactor volume corresponds to a specific growth area of biofilm of about 350 m2/m3. The reactor volume is totally mixed and consequently there is no dead or unused space in the reactor. Different reactor shapes can be used and the MBBR process is ideal for upgrading of overloaded activated sludge plants or for converting unused tankage into biofilm reactors.

As in every biofilm process, diffusion of compounds in and out of the biofilm plays a key role. Because of the importance of diffusion, the thickness of the effective biofilm (the depth of the biofilm to which the substrates have penetrated) is significant. Since this depth of full substrate penetration is normally less than 100 μm, the ideal biofilm in the moving bed process is thin and evenly distributed over the surface of the carrier. In order to obtain this, the turbulence in the reactor is of importance, both in order to transport the substrates to the biofilm and to maintain a low thickness of the biofilm by shearing forces. As demonstrated in Figure 3, much less biomass is growing on the outside of the carriers than on the inside. This is probably caused by the fact that abrasion, caused by carrier collisions, is limiting growth.

Various investigations have shown that the typical biomass concentration when calculated on reactor volume, is in the order of 2-5 kg SS/m3 (Rusten et al., 1994, 1995a, 1998), about the same as in activated sludge reactors. Since the volumetric removal rate, however, has been demonstrated to be several times higher in the moving bed process (Rusten et al, 1995a), the biomass of this process must be much more viable than in similar activated sludge processes.

Description of the plant

The post-nitrification MBBR was installed during the winter of 2003/2004 and brought online in June 2004. Installed in the upgrade were two parallel MBBR process trains, each consisting of two concrete reactors in series, creating a total footprint of just 60 ft X 60 ft, and a total volume of 43,200 ft3. The new reactors were placed between Lagoons 2 and 3. A by-pass around lagoon 2 for winter time operation is also included. This was done to minimize the temperature loss in Lagoon 2 so in this case effluent from Lagoon 1 flows directly into the MBBR

Also included in the upgrade was a dissolved air flotation (DAF) device for high-rate solids separation and phosphorus removal.

4742

WEFTEC®.06


Figure 4. Flow diagram of Johnstown WWTP

The overall design concept is to allow wastewater to flow via gravity from the existing lagoons directly to the MBBR system. The existing lagoons will provide organic removal and the MBBR system will provide additional organic removal and nitrification of ammonia nitrogen. The design for the initial flow rate of 0.75 MGD is based on filling the MBBR reactor to 26% its liquid volume with media to treat an average BOD load of 194 lb/day and an NH3-N load of 126 lb/day. When the wastewater flow increases over time to the build out design flow of 1.5 MGD, the design is based on a filling degree in the MBBR reactor of 56% its liquid volume and treat an average BOD load of 800 lb/day and an NH3-N load of 275 lb/day. Since the maximum filling capacity of an MBBR is 70% of liquid reactor volume, the overall treatment capacity of the MBBR can be upgraded by just adding media to the reactor and extra air to the existing aeration grid system.

4743

WEFTEC®.06


The design is based on the following influent wastewater characteristics and effluent requirements.

Design Flow of 0.75 MGD

Effluent Limit Inf. BOD Inf. TKN Temp BOD Load TKN Load(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) C (lb/day) (lb/day)

January 16 103 23.3 4.5 644.27 145.74February 12 101 23 5.8 631.76 143.87March 5.1 31 20.2 4.9 193.91 126.35April 2.9 25 18.8 9.6 156.38 117.59May 1.5 21 18.2 14.1 131.36 113.84June 1.3 17 18.1 19 106.34 113.22July 1.2 14 18.2 22.3 87.57 113.84August 1.2 15 18.1 21.2 93.83 113.22September 1.1 19 18.1 16.6 118.85 113.22October 1.1 24 18.5 11.2 150.12 115.72November 2.2 31 20.2 4.9 193.91 126.35December 13 100 22.9 6.2 625.50 143.24

Design Flow of 1.5 MGD

Effluent Limit Inf. BOD Inf. TKN Temp BOD Load TKN Load(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) C (lb/day) (lb/day)

January 16 140 23.1 7.2 1751.40 288.98February 12 138 22.6 8.2 1726.38 282.73March 5.1 64 22 6.3 800.64 275.22April 2.9 56 21.4 10.3 700.56 267.71May 1.5 50 21.2 14.2 625.50 265.21June 1.3 43 21.1 18.4 537.93 263.96July 1.2 39 21.1 21.3 487.89 263.96August 1.2 40 21.1 20.4 500.40 263.96September 1.1 46 21.1 16.4 575.46 263.96October 1.1 54 21.3 11.7 675.54 266.46November 2.2 64 22 6.3 800.64 275.22December 13 138 22.5 8.5 1726.38 281.48

Table 2. Design figures

4744

WEFTEC®.06


The month of November for both design options (0.75 MGD and 1.5 MGD) is the month requiring the maximum amount of surface area for treatment of BOD and NH3-N to the levels of < 10 mg/L & < 2.2 mg/L respectively. This month is therefore used as design basis. Below is a summary of the design during the month of November for both the initial design flow and the future design flow with reactor dimensions.

Number of Basins 4 (2 Trains of 2 Basins in Series)

Basin Dimensions 30 ft Width by 30 ft Length by 15 ft Depth (12 ft SWD)

Aeration Type Engineered Orifice System with complete floor coverage

• Initial Design Flow = 0.75 MGD – Daily Average

• Future Design Flow = 1.5 MGD – Daily Average

• Peak Hydraulic Flow = 4.5 MGD

• Initial Influent BOD5 = 31 mg/L (193.9 lb/day) ** Month of November

• Future Influent BOD5 = 64 mg/L (800 lb/day) ** Month of November

• Initial Influent TKN = 20.2 mg/L (126.3 lb/day) ** Month of November

• Future Influent TKN = 22 mg/L (275.2 lb/day) ** Month of November

• Temperature = 4.9ºC – Initial Design; 6.3 ºC – Future Design

• Media Percent Fill = 26% Basin Volume – Initial Design Conditions

= 56% Basin Volume – Future Design Conditions

• Air Requirements:

Initial Design Flow = 1,303 SCFM

Future Design Flow = 3,772 SCFM

• Blower Pressure Required = 6.37 psig (4.87 psig (water pressure) + 1.5 psig (for line losses))

4745

WEFTEC®.06


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The plant has been extensively followed up since the start up in June 2004. The source of data that is presented below is from the Board of health and the operator log sheet.

Overall performance

As the graph below illustrates, the plant has achieved the effluent ammonia limit every month since the MBBR reactors were installed.

18

14 13,4

11,5

14

16

6,57,5 7

9

15

25

18

14 13,4

11,5

14

16

6,57,5 7

9

15

25

18

14 13,4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Janu

ary-04

Februa

ry-04

March-0

4

April-0

4

May-04

June

-04

July-

04

Augus

t-04

Septem

ber-0

4

Octobe

r-04

Novem

ber-0

4

Decem

ber-0

4

Janu

ary-05

Februa

ry-05

March-0

5

April-0

5

May-05

June

-05

July-

05

Augus

t-05

Septem

ber-0

5

Octobe

r-05

Novem

ber-0

5

Decem

ber-0

5

Janu

ary-06

Februa

ry-06

March-0

6

Date

Efflu

ent A

mm

onia

& L

imits

(mg/

L)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Influ

ent F

low

(MG

D)

Eff Ammonia 30-day Avg Monthly LIMIT Inf Flow

MBBR Operational Since 6/2004

Figure 5. Results 2004

From December 2004 to mid-January 2005, the average influent water temperature was 4.2°C, the MBBR treatment system removed an average of over 40% of influent NH3-N. In fact, the effluent NH3-N decreased by 35%, 42%, and 58% in December, January, and February, when compared with the same months in the winter prior to the installation of the MBBR treatment system. Throughout the warmer months, the MBBR treatment removed an average of 85% of influent NH3-N while the effluent BOD has been, on average, less than 1 mg/l, making it very easy for the plant to meet its permit requirements month after month.

4746

WEFTEC®.06


Loss of nitrification

During the first winter there was a pH excursion to 9 while the wastewater temperature dropped to less then 3C. Figures 6-8 show the progression of the system losing nitrification when the pH increased to 9 and temperature dropped to less then 3C (Figure 6), to a slight recovery in nitrification even though the wastewater temperature was still below 5C (Figure 7) to a complete recovery in nitrification when the pH and temperature recovered to normal levels (Figure 8).

Johnstown WWTPAmmonia Profile Through 2 Stage MBBR

With Temperature and pH 11-17-12/8

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

17.11

.2004

18.11

.2004

19.11

.2004

20.11

.2004

21.11

.2004

22.11

.2004

23.11

.2004

24.11

.2004

25.11

.2004

26.11

.2004

27.11

.2004

28.11

.2004

29.11

.2004

30.11

.2004

01.12

.2004

02.12

.2004

03.12

.2004

04.12

.2004

05.12

.2004

06.12

.2004

07.12

.2004

08.12

.2004

Date

Am

mon

ia (N

H3-

N) (

mg/

L)

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

Tem

pera

ture

( C

) & p

H

Temperature Influent NH3-N Reactor 2 Effluent pH

Figure 6 – Ammonia Profile with pH & Temperature vs. Time – Loss of Nitrification

4747

WEFTEC®.06



With Temperature and pH - 12/8 - 1/11

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

08.12

.2004

10.12

.2004

12.12

.2004

14.12

.2004

16.12

.2004

18.12

.2004

20.12

.2004

22.12

.2004

24.12

.2004

26.12

.2004

28.12

.2004

30.12

.2004

01.01

.2005

03.01

.2005

05.01

.2005

07.01

.2005

09.01

.2005

11.01

.2005

Date

Am

mon

ia (N

H3-

N) (

mg/

L)

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

Tem

pera

ture

( C

) & p

H

Temperature Influent NH3-N Reactor 2 Effluent pH

Figure 7 – Ammonia Profile with pH & Temp. vs. Time – Slight Nitrification Recovery


With Temperature and pH - 1/17 - 3/2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

17.01

.2005

19.01

.2005

21.01

.2005

23.01

.2005

25.01

.2005

27.01

.2005

29.01

.2005

31.01

.2005

02.02

.2005

04.02

.2005

06.02

.2005

08.02

.2005

10.02

.2005

12.02

.2005

14.02

.2005

16.02

.2005

18.02

.2005

20.02

.2005

22.02

.2005

24.02

.2005

26.02

.2005

28.02

.2005

02.03

.2005

Date

Am

mon

ia (N

H3-

N) (

mg/

L)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Tem

pera

ture

( C

) & p

H

Temperature Influent NH3-N

Reactor 2 Effluent pH

Figure 8 – Ammonia Profile with pH & Temp. vs. Time – Complete Nitrification Recovery

4748

WEFTEC®.06


Flotation.

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) device for high-rate solids separation and phosphorus removal were installed after Lagoon 3. The MBBR and DAF combination have successfully been installed at numerous plants around the world (Wessman F et. al 2005). Since the MBBR requires no sludge return the TSS (mg/l) in the MBBR effluent is approximately the same as TSS (mg/l) in the influent, making the DAF an excellent solution for particle separation.

The operating result of the DAF during the first year is demonstrated in the table below.

Parameter DAF influent

Range Average

DAF Effluent

Range Average

Turbidity, NTU 18-80 40 2-28 15

BOD mg/l 24-35 27 3-13 10

TSS mg/l 19-62 35 8-25 11

Table 3. Design figures

CONCLUSION

The new MBBR at Johnstown WWTP has successfully operated through the first year with wastewater temperatures below 2 ◦ C. Effluent concentrations were well below the discharge limits. Throughout the warmer months, the MBBR treatment removed an average of 85% of influent NH3-N while the effluent BOD has been, on average, less than 1 mg/L.

REFERENCES

Hem, L. (1999) Oxygen transfer rates in Kaldnes Moving Bed™ biofilm reactors at two Norwegian wastewater treatment plants. Aquateam report (99-058).

Hem, L. (2002) Measurement of oxygen transfer rates in clean water and domestic wastewater. Aquateam report (02-009).

Hem, L., Rusten, B., Ødegaard, H. (1994) Nitrification in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Research, Vol. 28, No 6, pp. 1425-1433.

Rusten, B., Hem, L., Ødegaard, H. (1995b). Nitrogen removal from dilute wastewater in cold climate using moving bed biofilm reactors. Water Environm. Res., Vol. 67, No1, pp 65-74,1995.

4749

WEFTEC®.06


Ødegaard, H., Rusten, B., Wessman , F.(2004) State of the art in Europe Of the Moving Bed™ biofilm reactor (MBBRTM) Process, WEFTEC 2004

Ødegaard, H., Rusten, B., Siljudalen, J. (1999) The development of the moving bed biofilm process–from idea to commercial product. European Water Management, Vol.2, No. 2.

Ødegaard, H., Rusten, B., Westrum, T. (1994) A new moving bed biofilm reactor-

Applications and results. Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol. 29, No 10-11, pp 157-165.

Wessman F, Nielsen I, Bungum S. (2005) Nitrogen Removal in Moving BedTM Biofilm

Reactor Plants IWA specialized conference proceedings

4750

WEFTEC®.06


Documents

COLD WEATHER NITRIFICATION OF LAGOON … WEATHER NITRIFICATION OF LAGOON EFFLUENT USING A MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR (MBBR) TREATMENT PROCESS Mr. Flemming G. Wessman1 and Mr. Chandler