FINAL REPORT August 2012pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M2V9.pdfFINAL REPORT August 2012 . USAID ... 2.3 Description of Project Area ... 4.2.2 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

PACKAGED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

August 2012

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

August 2012

TableofContents1.0 ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................................................1‐1 2.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................2‐1

2.1 ProgramDescription..........................................................................................................................2‐1 2.2 ProjectOverview.................................................................................................................................2‐1

2.2.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................2‐3 2.2.2 Scope.........................................................................................................................................2‐3

2.3 DescriptionofProjectArea.............................................................................................................2‐4 2.4 InfluentBasisofDesign....................................................................................................................2‐5

2.4.1 EstimatedFlowRate..........................................................................................................2‐5 2.4.2 Loading....................................................................................................................................2‐6

2.5 PopulationRanges..............................................................................................................................2‐7 2.6 ReferenceMaterials............................................................................................................................2‐8

3.0 DataCollection...............................................................................................................................................3‐1 3.1 SiteVisitsandObservations...........................................................................................................3‐1

3.1.1 Meetings..................................................................................................................................3‐1 3.1.2 CommunityVisits................................................................................................................3‐2 3.1.3 InformationCollected........................................................................................................3‐5

3.2 MarketResearch..................................................................................................................................3‐9 3.2.1 DataCollectionMethods...................................................................................................3‐9 3.2.2 DataCollected.......................................................................................................................3‐9

4.0 EvaluationofInformation.........................................................................................................................4‐1 4.1 IntroductiontoWastewaterTreatmentProcesses...............................................................4‐1

4.1.1 PhysicalTreatment.............................................................................................................4‐1 4.1.2 BiologicalTreatment..........................................................................................................4‐2 4.1.3 ChemicalTreatment...........................................................................................................4‐3 4.1.4 Pre‐andPost‐Treatment.................................................................................................4‐4

4.2 EvaluationofPackagedWWTPTechnologies.........................................................................4‐6 4.2.1 ActivatedSludge..................................................................................................................4‐6 4.2.2 MovingBedBiofilmReactor........................................................................................4‐17 4.2.3 IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge..................................................................4‐20 4.2.4 MembraneBioreactor.....................................................................................................4‐23 4.2.5 BasisofCostInformation..............................................................................................4‐26 4.2.6 PackagedWWTPTechnologiesEvaluationConclusions.................................4‐27

4.3 EvaluationofPotentialCommunities......................................................................................4‐27 4.3.1 ExistingInfrastructure...................................................................................................4‐27 4.3.2 Population...........................................................................................................................4‐28 4.3.3 PotentialGrowth...............................................................................................................4‐28 4.3.4 PotentialforReuse...........................................................................................................4‐28 4.3.5 CommunityInterest........................................................................................................4‐28 4.3.6 LandAvailability...............................................................................................................4‐29 4.3.7 GeopoliticalLocation......................................................................................................4‐29

5.0 AdditionalTopics..........................................................................................................................................5‐1 5.1 CollectionSystems..............................................................................................................................5‐1 5.2 OperationandMaintenanceofPackagedWWTPs................................................................5‐2 5.3 Reuse........................................................................................................................................................5‐4 5.4 EmergencyOperations......................................................................................................................5‐4 5.5 FutureExpansion................................................................................................................................5‐5 5.6 Sludge.......................................................................................................................................................5‐5 5.7 Funding....................................................................................................................................................5‐6 5.8 TransportationandImport.............................................................................................................5‐7

5.8.1 Transportation.....................................................................................................................5‐7


Table of Contents

August 2012

5.8.2 Import......................................................................................................................................5‐8 5.9 SpareParts.............................................................................................................................................5‐8 5.10 Redundancy...........................................................................................................................................5‐9 5.11 EnvironmentalAspects.....................................................................................................................5‐9 5.12 Sustainability........................................................................................................................................5‐9

6.0 SummaryofResults.....................................................................................................................................6‐1 6.1 FeasibilityofPackagedWWTPsintheWestBank................................................................6‐1 6.2 FeasibleTechnologies.......................................................................................................................6‐1 6.3 FeasibleManufacturers....................................................................................................................6‐1 6.4 FeasibleCommunities.......................................................................................................................6‐2

7.0 ConclusionsandRecommendations.....................................................................................................7‐1 7.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................7‐1 7.2 Recommendations..............................................................................................................................7‐1

8.0 AppendixA:ManufacturerRequestforInformation....................................................................8‐1 9.0 AppendixB:AquaTreat(ExtendedAeration).................................................................................9‐1 10.0 AppendixC:Aqua‐AerobicSystems(SBR).....................................................................................10‐1 11.0 AppendixD:DeltaProcess(ExtendedAeration).........................................................................11‐1 12.0 AppendixE:Gaylord(ModularExtendedAeration)..................................................................12‐1 13.0 AppendixF:GE(MBR)............................................................................................................................13‐1 14.0 AppendixG:GlobalWater(ExtendedAeration)..........................................................................14‐1 15.0 AppendixH:ITT/ABJ(SBR)...............................................................................................................15‐1 16.0 AppendixI:Newterra(MBR)...............................................................................................................16‐1 17.0 AppendixJ:Siemens(ExtendedAeration).....................................................................................17‐1 18.0 AppendixK:Siemens(OxidationDitch)..........................................................................................18‐1 19.0 AppendixL:Siemens(SBR)..................................................................................................................19‐1 20.0 AppendixM:Siemens(MBR)...............................................................................................................20‐1 21.0 AppendixN:Smith&Loveless(ExtendedAeration,IFAS,MBR)..........................................21‐1 22.0 AppendixO:Tipton(ExtendedAeration).......................................................................................22‐1 23.0 AppendixP:Veolia/AnoxKaldnes(MBBR)..................................................................................23‐1 Figure1:WastewaterDischargeinWadi..........................................................................................................2‐1Figure2:ExamplesofPackagedWWTPs..........................................................................................................2‐2Figure3:WestBankTopography.........................................................................................................................2‐4Figure4:VisitedCommunitiesbyPopulation.................................................................................................3‐4Figure5:Al‐BirehWastewaterTreatmentPlant............................................................................................3‐7Figure6:ExampleofScreening.............................................................................................................................4‐1Figure7:TypicalChemicalStorageTotes.........................................................................................................4‐4Figure8:ExamplesofPre‐Treatment.................................................................................................................4‐5Figure9:ExamplesofPost‐Treatment...............................................................................................................4‐5Figure10:ExamplesofExtendedAerationPackagedWWTPs................................................................4‐8Figure11:ExampleofOxidationDitchWWTP............................................................................................4‐12Figure12:ExamplesofMBBRMedia...............................................................................................................4‐17Figure13:ExampleofIFASFixedMediaUnits............................................................................................4‐20Figure14:ExampleofIFASFluidizedMedia................................................................................................4‐20Figure15:ExampleofBiocarrierScreens......................................................................................................4‐21Figure16:ExampleofMBRPackagedWWTP..............................................................................................4‐23Figure17:RawWastewaterinWadialNar.....................................................................................................5‐1Figure18:NahhalinPackagedWWTP................................................................................................................5‐2Figure19:ExampleofSludgeDryingBeds.......................................................................................................5‐6Figure20:ExamplesofPackagedWWTPsReadyforOver‐landTransport.......................................5‐8


Table of Contents

August 2012

Table1:EstimatedWastewaterGeneration....................................................................................................2‐6Table2:EstimatedWastewaterUnitLoading.................................................................................................2‐7Table3:EstimatedWastewaterLoading...........................................................................................................2‐7Table4:WastewaterGenerationbyPopulationRanges.............................................................................2‐8Table5:CommunitiesinWestBankVisitedbyExpats...............................................................................3‐3Table6:EffluentRequirementsforKeyWastewaterParameters..........................................................3‐6Table7:EstimatedPercentRemovalforKeyWastewaterParameters................................................3‐6Table8:AvailablePackagedWWTPTechnologies.....................................................................................3‐10Table9:ExtendedAerationCaseStudies.......................................................................................................4‐10Table10:ExtendedAerationSummary..........................................................................................................4‐11Table11:OxidationDitchCaseStudies...........................................................................................................4‐13Table12:OxidationDitchSummary.................................................................................................................4‐14Table13:SequencingBatchReactor(SBR)CaseStudies........................................................................4‐15Table14:SequencingBatchReactor(SBR)Summary..............................................................................4‐16Table15:MovingBedBiofilmReactor(MBBR)CaseStudies................................................................4‐18Table16:MovingBedBiofilmReactor(MBBR)Summary......................................................................4‐19Table17:IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge(IFAS)CaseStudies............................................4‐21Table18:IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge(IFAS)Summary..................................................4‐22Table19:MembraneBioreactor(MBR)CaseStudies...............................................................................4‐24Table20:MembraneBioreactor(MBR)Summary.....................................................................................4‐25


List of Acronyms

August 2012

ListofAcronymsARIJ AppliedResearchInstitute‐

JerusalemAS ActivatedSludgeB&V Black&VeatchBNR BiologicalNutrientRemovalBOD5 5‐dayBiochemicalOxygen

DemandCAPEX CapitalExpenditureDO DissolvedOxygenEIA EnvironmentalImpact

AssessmentEPA U.S.EnvironmentalProtection

AgencyERP EmergencyResponsePlanEQA EnvironmentalQualityAuthority

(currentlyMEnA)FTE FullTimeEquivalentGIS GeographicInformationSystemgpcpd gramspercapitaperdaygpd gallonsperdayHRT HydraulicRetentionTimeIEE InitialEnvironmentalExaminationIFAS IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivated

SludgeINPII InfrastructureNeedsProgram

PhaseIIJWC JointWaterCommitteeJWU JerusalemWaterUndertakinglpcpd literspercapitaperdaym3/day cubicmetersperdayMBBR MovingBedBiofilmReactorMBR MembraneBioreactorMEnA MinistryofEnvironmentalAffairs

(formerlyEQA)MENA MiddleEastandNorthAfrica

mg/L milligramsperliterMGD MilliongallonsperdayML MixedLiquorMoA MinistryofAgricultureMoLG MinistryofLocalGovernmentMPN MostProbableNumberNIS NewIsraeliShekelO&M OperationandMaintenanceOD OxidationDitchOPEX OperationalExpenditurePA PalestinianAuthorityPF PeakingFactorPLC ProgrammableLogicControllerPM PreventativeMaintenancePWA PalestinianWaterAuthorityRAS ReturnActivatedSludgeRFTOP RequestforTaskOrderProposalSBR SequencingBatchReactorSRT SolidsRetentionTimeTN TotalNitrogenTP TotalPhosphorusTPAT Technical,Planning,andAdvisory

TeamTSS TotalSuspendedSolidsU.S. UnitedStatesUSD UnitedStatesDollarUASB UpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanketUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyfor

InternationalDevelopmentWAS WasteActivatedSludgeWBG WestBank/GazaWQ WaterQualityWWAC WastewaterAdvisoryCommitteeWWTP WastewaterTreatmentPlantWBWD WestBankWaterDepartment


Acknowledgements

August 2012 1

AcknowledgementsWewouldliketoexpressoursincereappreciationtothoseindividualswhoprovidedassistanceto us during the preparation of this Feasibility Study. Many individuals shared their time,expertiseandinformationtomaketheStudysuccessful.Inparticular,wewouldliketothankthestaffoftheUSAIDWestBank/GazaMissionwhohavesupportedthisStudyandassistedbysharinginformationandresources.Wewouldalsoliketothank the Palestinian Water Authority, West Bank Water Department, Ministry ofEnvironmentalAffairs,MinistryofAgriculture,andMinistryofLocalGovernmentfortheirtimespentmeetingwithusaswellastheinformationtheysharedandtheirinputintothedirectionoftheStudy.Additionally,weappreciatethevaluablesupportprovidedbythetalentedlocalINPIIstaffbothduringourvisits to theWestBankand inrespondingto follow‐upquestionsandrequests forinformation.ThetechnicalreviewsandassistanceprovidedbyBlack&Veatchstaff,particularlyScottLevesque,wereinstrumentalinperformingandcompletingathoroughStudy.This Study would not have been possible without the participation of the packaged WWTPmanufacturersandrepresentatives.Manyofthemanufacturersperformedpreliminarydesignsbased on the unique characteristics of wastewater in the West Bank, which required asignificant amount of time and effort. They shared their time and experience to make theinformationprovidedinthisStudymorecomplete.Finally,wewishtoexpressourappreciationandgratitudetothemanyPalestinianpeoplewhoso graciously welcomed us on our trips to the West Bank. Their willingness to shareinformation and answer all of our questions, coupled with the genuine hospitality we wereshownduringourvisitsthroughouttheWestBank,wasnothingshortofphenomenal.WehopethattheresultsofthisStudywillleadtoimprovementsinpublicinfrastructureandwastewaterservicesthatpositivelyimpactmanyoftheirlivesandhelpsupportanindependentandviablePalestinianstate.GregKolenovsky,PE,PMP,PgMPReginaCassanova,PETrigonAssociates,LLCAugust2012


1.0 Executive Summary

August 2012 1‐1

1.0 ExecutiveSummary

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)West Bank / Gaza (WBG)Mission is considering the use of packagedwastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) as part ofefforts to support development of needed wastewater treatment infrastructure in the WestBank. PackagedWWTPsareusedsuccessfullyaroundtheworldasacost‐effectivemethodoftreatingwastewaterandasanattractivealternativetotraditional,larger‐scaletreatmentplantsforcertainapplications.TheUSAIDWBGMission authorized theBlack&Veatch (B&V) team to perform a FeasibilityStudy (Study)under the InfrastructureNeedsProgramPhase II (INP II) relative to theuseofpackaged WWTPs. The purpose of the Study was to evaluate the overall validity andapplicabilityofutilizingpackagedWWTPsintheWestBank.DataCollectionData was collected by visiting the West Bank and by evaluating potential treatmenttechnologies. Regina Cassanova and Greg Kolenovsky of Trigon Associates, LLC (Trigon,subcontractortoB&V)performedavisittotheWestBankbetweenMarch3,2012andMarch14, 2012 in order to gather information on the feasibility of installation and operation ofpackaged WWTPs for West Bank communities. Information was gathered throughconversationswithlocalandUSAIDstaff,visitstoarandomsamplingofover30communitiesandvisitstoexistingwastewatertreatmentplantsintheWestBank. Meetingswerealsoheldwith the local INP II staff as well as local ministries and authorities, which consisted of theMinistryofLocalGovernment(MoLG),theMinistryofAgriculture(MoA),thePalestinianWaterAuthority(PWA)andtheEnvironmentalQualityAuthority(EQA)whichisnowtheMinistryofEnvironmentalAffairs(MEnA).Market research was conducted on the potential treatment technologies available for use inpackagedWWTPs.Over10manufacturerswerecontacted,andinformationontheirtreatmenttechnologieswasrequested.Eachtypeoftechnologywasevaluatedbasedonfour(4)differentcasestudiesinwhichtheoreticalcommunitypopulationsandrelatedaveragewastewaterflowsweredefined. Thisallowedthe treatmentcharacteristics, capitalcosts,operationalcosts,andeaseofoperationtobeevaluatedbetweenthedifferenttechnologies.AnadditionalvisitwasmadetotheWestBankbetweenJune23,2012andJuly13,2012.Thegeneralpurposeof thesecondvisitwastopresenttheDraftStudyandsolicitcomments fromUSAID and other stakeholders. The Draft Study was presented to USAID, and a separatemeetingwasheldwiththePWA.Additionally,aworkshopwasheldtopresenttheDraftStudyto stakeholder organizations including PWA, MoLG, MoA, MEnA, and the West Bank WaterDepartment (WBWD). Attendees of theworkshop recognized that a large percentage of thepopulationintheWestBankexistsinsmallcommunities.Specifically,thefactthatfortypercent(40%)ofthepopulationliveincommunitieswithapopulationlessthan7,500wasakeydriverandallowedthedifferentstakeholderstorecognizewastewatertreatmentinsmallcommunitiesas a necessary development and the potential role packaged WWTPs could serve. Thestakeholdersagreedtoseta futuremeetingatwhichselectioncriteriawouldbedevelopedtodeterminepotentialpilotstudycommunitiesinwhichtoimplementpackagedWWTPs.EvaluationofInformationTreatmenttechnologyinformationwasreviewedandcorrelatedintoastandardformattoallowforeaseofevaluation.Additionally,informationonthefour(4)casestudieswasreviewedand,wherenecessary,supplementedinordertomaketheinformationabletobecomparedtooneanother. A summary of the major details of each technology are presented in Table ES‐1.



August 2012 1‐2

Based on the evaluation of the packaged WWTP technologies, following are the generalconclusionsassociatedwitheachtechnology:

ExtendedAeration–LowerCAPEX;lowerOPEX;largerfootprint. Oxidation Ditch – Lower CAPEX at higher flows; lower OPEX; larger footprint;

straightforwardprocess. SequencingBatchReactor –LowerCAPEX; lowerOPEX; smaller footprint;PLCcontrol

required;uniqueoperationswithsingletankaddscomplexity. MovingBedBiofilmReactor–HigherCAPEX;higherOPEX;Lesstemperaturedependent

thancommonASprocesses;finescreeningrequired. IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge–HigherCAPEX;higherOPEX; lesstemperature

dependentthancommonASprocesses. MembraneBioreactor–HigherCAPEX;higherOPEX;smallerfootprint;consistentlyhigh

quality effluent; PLC control required; fine screening required; additional chemicalsrequiredforcleaning.

AdditionalTopicsAdditional topics related toWWTPsshouldbe considered in the implementationofpackagedWWTPs to maximize the potential for success by selecting appropriate communities forimplementation.Forexample,itisrecommendedthatanycommunityevaluatedforapackagedWWTPhaveacollectionsysteminplacebythetimeapackagedWWTPisinstalled.Othertopicsarenecessary for theplanningof thedesignandconstruction,suchas thepotential forreuse,future expansion, funding, transportation and importof theequipment, need for redundancy,environmental aspects, and sustainability. Many of the other additional topics pertain torequirementsonceaWWTPisinstalled,suchasoperationsandmaintenance(O&M),emergencyoperations,sludgehandling,andspareparts.SummaryofResultsThis Study has determined that the use of certain packagedWWTP technologies in theWestBankisafeasiblemethodforcontinuingtodeveloptheemergingwastewatersector. Further,packagedWWTPtechnologieswillbemostsuccessfuliffirstimplementedincommunitiesthathavecertaincharacteristics.ThepackagedWWTPtechnologieswhichmayhaveapplicationintheWestBankinclude:

ExtendedAeration, OxidationDitch, SequencingBatchReactor(SBR), MovingBedBiofilmReactor(MBBR), IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge(IFAS),and MembraneBioreactor(MBR).

There are many potential manufacturers for the packaged WWTP processes that may beimplemented. Because of the limited history of wastewater treatment in the West Bank, aparticularmanufacturer’slackofhistoryintheWestBankshouldnotnecessarilyprecludethemfrombeingconsideredforuse.Additionally,themanufacturersthatparticipatedinthisStudyrepresentonlyasmallsubsetoftheavailablemanufacturersthatcanprovidepackagedWWTPtechnologies.Thesemanufacturersshouldnotbeconsideredasanall‐encompassinglist.The selection of communities to receive packaged WWTPs is just as critical to successfulimplementationasselectionofthetreatmenttechnologyitself.PackagedWWTPswilllikelybemostsuccessfulifimplementedincommunitieswiththefollowingcharacteristics:



August 2012 1‐3

• populationrangeoflessthan7,500peoplepreferred,• not anticipated to expand beyond the maximum capacity of the selected technology

duringtheexpected20‐yeardesignlifeofthefacility,• locatedinAreaA,• reliable potable water pipe network installed to each building or planned to be

constructedinthenearfuture,• collectionsysteminplacebythetimeapackagedWWTPisinstalled,• canachieveconnectionof80‐100%oftheareatoacollectionsystemandWWTP(s),• implementationofapackagedWWTPsystemhasthesupportoftheLocalGovernment

andcommunitymembers,• land is available for the constructionof a packagedWWTPat an appropriate location

(i.e., downstream of the community and in close proximity to agriculture or a wadi,dependingontheintendeduseordischargeofthetreatedwastewater),

• in an areawheremultipleWWTP siteswill be locatednear one another so thatO&Mmaybeaccomplishedmoreefficientlybyonegroupofoperators,and

• haveagriculturewhichmeetstherequirementsforreuseandwherethecommunityhasaneedandinterestinreusingthetreatedwastewater.

ConclusionsandRecommendationsThekeyconclusionsfromthisassessmentare:

CesspitsappeartobeprevalentthroughouttheWestBankandmaybecontributingtogroundwatercontaminationandothernegativeenvironmentalandsocialissues.

Allofthelocalauthoritieswithwhommeetingswereheldappeartobe infavoroftheuseofpackagedWWTPswheredetermined tobe feasible. When theDraftStudywaspresentedtovariousstakeholderorganizations,theyallagreedtosetafuturemeetingat which selection criteria would be developed to determine potential pilot studycommunities.

Influentwastewaterisexpectedtobeveryhighlyconcentratedrelativetotypicallevelsobserved in theU.S.andotherpartsof theworldwherepackagedWWTPsarewidelyused(e.g.,3to4timeshigher).

Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse screening at a minimum.Dependingon thewastewatercharacteristicsand technologyrequirements,otherpre‐treatmentmayberequired,whichcouldincludeanunloadingstation,equalizationtank,greasetrap,finescreeningand/orgritremoval.

Stringent effluent wastewater requirements, coupled with the anticipated highlyconcentratedinfluent,mayrequiretertiarytreatmenttobeincluded.

TherearemanypotentialmanufacturersforthepackagedWWTPprocessesthatmaybeimplemented. While installation history in the West Bank is limited because of thelimitedwastewatersectordevelopment,allofthelarge,well‐establishedmanufacturersthatwerecontactedasapartofthisStudyhaveapresenceintheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica(MENA)andexpressedaninterestinworkingintheWestBank.

Therearealargenumberofcommunitieswhichhaveapopulationinarangethatmaybe serviced by a packaged WWTP (less than 7,500 people preferred). Further,communities of this size contain 40%of thePalestinianpopulationof theWestBank.Additionally, certain geopolitical and physical characteristics will provide a betteropportunity for successful implementation and should be taken into account whenselectingpotentialcommunitiesforpackagedWWTPimplementation.

UseofchemicalsshouldbecarefullyconsideredbothintermsofthehandlingthatmayberequiredaswellasthelikelihoodofgettingthechemicalsintotheWestBankforuse.

ProperO&MiscriticaltothesuccessfulimplementationofpackagedWWTPs.



August 2012 1‐4

Packaged WWTPs are able to produce reuse‐quality effluent when designed andoperatedproperly.

Inadditiontobeingapermanentsolutionforsomecommunities,packagedWWTPscanalsobeusedasashort‐termsolutionto“fillthegap”betweenseptictanks/systemsandlarge,regionalWWTPs.

ConsideringthatithasbeendeterminedfeasibletoutilizepackagedWWTPsintheWestBank,and given the many benefits for Palestinians that would result, it is strongly encouraged toproceed with implementing collection systems and packaged WWTPs in appropriatecommunities. The following recommendationsaremade to furtherdevelop this concept intoconstructibleprojects:

1. B&V/Trigon will work with USAID, PWA and other stakeholder agencies to developspecific criteria to identify actual communities appropriate for utilizing a packagedWWTPsuccessfully.Basedontheresults,USAID/PWAshouldselectone(1)ortwo(2)communitiestoreceivepilotpackagedWWTPsandmoveintotheplanningphase.

2. PerformPlanning Phase that includes determining influentwater quality and effluentwaterrequirements,appropriatetreatmenttechnologies,sludgehandlingrequirements,andpotentialsites.

3. PerformaPreliminaryDesignPhasethatincludesdeterminingthedesignrequirementssuch as the pre‐treatment and treatment technology to be used, site location, InitialEnvironmental Examination, obtain survey data of the site and collection systemlocations,performapreliminarydesignofthepackagedWWTPandprovideanOpinionofProbableConstructionCost.

4. Perform a Final Design Phase that includes designing of the packaged WWTP andassociated collection systems, performing an Environmental Impact Assessment ifnecessary, identification of any dual‐use materials and coordination with USAID todetermine approval for import, development of RFTOP, and development of a draftEmergencyResponsePlan.

InadditiontothissuggestedphasedprocessforimplementingpackagedWWTPsandassociatedcollection systems, there are several items which were beyond the scope of this Study thatshould be addressed at a high‐level because they will have an impact on the successfulimplementationof thiswork. Addressing these itemswill likely involveanumberof entities,such as USAID, the Palestinian Authority (PA) (includingmultipleMinistries, Authorities andDepartments),andsupportfromtheINPIIstaff. Additionally,thereareotherrelatedentities,such as the Technical, Planning, and Advisory Team (TPAT) and the Wastewater AdvisoryCommittee(WWAC)whichareworkingtoadvancethewastewatersectorintheWestBankandwith whom discussion on these items should be coordinated. All of these items could beconsidered part of establishing the overall governmental/regulatory framework underwhichthe packaged WWTPs and collection systems would be designed, built, operated andmaintained.

1. DeterminewhowillowntheWWTPsand/orcollectionsystems(e.g.,localmunicipality,MoLG,PWA,etc.).

2. Determinewhowillbe responsible forO&Mof theWWTPsand/or collection systems(e.g.,localmunicipality,MoLG,PWA,privatecontractor,etc.).

3. Determine how the capital expenses and ongoing O&M expenseswill be funded (e.g.,donoragencies,userfees,etc.).



August 2012 1‐5

Table ES‐1: Packaged WWTP Technology Evaluation Summary

EXTENDED AERATION OXIDATION DITCH SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR

INTEGRATED FIXED‐FILM ACTIVATED SLUDGE

MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR

GENERAL

Manufacturers (partial list) Aqua Treat, Delta Process, Gaylord, Global Water, Siemens (Davco), Smith & Loveless, Tipton

Siemens (Orbal) Aqua‐Aerobic Systems, ITT (ABJ), Siemens

Veolia (AnoxKaldnes) Smith & Loveless, Veolia GE, Newterra, Siemens, Smith & Loveless, Veolia

Technology History

Long, successful history. Commonly used in U.S. for packaged WWTPs. Equipment is not proprietary.

Used in U.S. for packaged WWTPs. Equipment is not proprietary.

Long history. Multiple manufacturers which promotes competitive pricing. SBR equipment is not proprietary.

Technology was developed in 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, such as the biocarriers, may be proprietary.

Technology was developed in 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, such as the biocarriers, may be proprietary.

Membrane technology more recently developed. Membrane equipment and membranes are proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows 6 – 190 m3/day (1,500 – 50,000 gpd). Up to 3,800 m3/day (1 MGD) with modular

130 – 1,900 m3/day (35,000 – 500,000 gpd)

75 – over 1,200 m3/day (20,000 gpd – over 317,000 gpd)

Up to 570 m3/day (150,000 gpd) 8 – 1,200 m3/day (2,000 – 317,000 gpd)

2 – 3,800 m3/day (500 gpd – 1 MGD)

Handle High Loading (Yes/No) Yes, if designed to handle high loading

Yes, if designed to handle high loading





Sludge Yield Low due to extended solids retention time

Low due to extended solids retention time

Medium to low, dependent on cycle times


Medium to low dependent on solids retention time design values used


Achieve Nitrification Yes, if designed to nitrify. Complete nitrification required to achieve 10 mg/L TN.

Yes, if designed to nitrify. Complete nitrification required to achieve 10 mg/L TN.





Achieve Denitrification Yes, if designed to denitrify. Complete denitrification required to achieve 10 mg/L TN.

Yes, if designed to denitrify. Complete denitrification required to achieve 10 mg/L TN.





Achieve Phosphorus Removal Yes, if designed for P removal (chemical addition)

Yes, if designed for P removal (chemical addition)




Yes, if design for P removal (chemical addition)

Meet Effluent WQ Requirements

With tertiary filter With tertiary filter With tertiary filter With tertiary filter With tertiary filter Yes

Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond Peak)

No, may wash out microorganisms. Yes, because of relative high tank volumes. Microorganisms can be “washed out”.

Yes, because fill cycle provides equalization

No, washout may lose biocarriers No, washout may lose biocarriers No, membrane flux defines maximum flow that can pass through membrane

Handle Organic Overloading (beyond designed loading)

No, will not achieve desired level of treatment. Long time for microorganism population to recover.

No, microorganisms adversely affected by shock loads. Will not achieve desired level of treatment


Yes, biofilm provides protection against initial harmful effects of shocking.


Yes, will cause more frequent backwashing of membrane

Process Control Upstream pump station, Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of Sludge Wasting, RAS Flow Rate Control

Upstream pump station, Rotation speed and submergence of aerator rotor, Denitrification, RAS Flow Rate Control, Frequency of Sludge Wasting

Upstream pump station, PLC, Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of sludge wasting

Upstream pump station, Aeration, Denitrification

Upstream pump station, aeration flow rate (which controls degree of air and mixing in tank), Denitrification, RAS flow rate control, frequency of sludge wasting

Upstream pump station, Filtrate pump, Aeration, Denitrification, RAS Flow Rate Control

Pre‐treatment Requirements

Equal. Tank, Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (minimum), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (min.), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (minimum), Grit removal

Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Fine Screen (6mm max), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Coarse Screening (min), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Fine Screening (2mm), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Temperature and pH Requirements

10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical

10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less

temperature dependency than comparable suspended growth AS process

10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less temperature dependency than comparable suspended growth AS process

10 ‐30o C; 6.0 – 8.0 pH – typical

Requires PLC (Yes / No) No No Yes No No Yes

WWTP Profile (i.e. typical tank height above natural ground)

3.0 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet) 3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet) 3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet) 3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet) 3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet ) 3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)

Main Treat. Process Footprint (1)

140 – 530 m2 (1,500 – 5,700 ft2)

300 – 710 m2 (3,200 – 7,600 ft2)

80 – 380 m2

(800 – 4,000 ft2) 190 – 400 m2

(2,000 – 4,200 ft2) 180 – 420 m2 (1,900 – 4,500 ft2)

100 – 490 m2

(1,000 – 5,200 ft2)



August 2012 1‐6

EXTENDED AERATION OXIDATION DITCH SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR

INTEGRATED FIXED‐FILM ACTIVATED SLUDGE

MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR

COST INFORMATION

Capital Expense (1) US$3,500 – 5,000/m3/d (US$13 ‐ 19/gpd)

US$4,000 – 10,500/m3/d (US$15 ‐ 40/gpd)

US$3,500 – 8,000/m3/day (US$13 – 30/gpd)

US$5,500 – 17,500/m3/d (US$21 – 66/gpd)

US$ 18,500 – 23,500/m3/d (US$70 – 89/gpd)

US$5,500 – 10,500/m3/day (US$21 – 40/gpd)

Operational Expenses

Power (Connected) (1) 15 ‐ 90 kW (20 ‐ 120 hp) 10 ‐ 65 kW (15 ‐ 90 hp) 15 ‐ 85 kW (20 ‐ 110 hp) 15 ‐ 125 kW (20 ‐ 165 hp) 20 ‐ 130 kW (25 ‐ 175 hp) 30 ‐ 220 kW (40 – 300 hp)

Manpower 0.25 FTE (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week)

0.25 FTE (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week)





Chemicals

Generally low. Will require supplemental alkalinity (lime or caustic) and metal salts for P removal. Disinfection (if installed).





Required for cleaning (sodium hypochlorite, citric acid). P removal. Sodium hydroxide for pH control.

Sludge Hauling Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled periodically

Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled periodically

Medium to low quantity, hauled periodically

Low quantity, hauled periodically Medium to low quantity, hauled periodically

Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled periodically

CONSTRUCTION

Construction Time

Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – 6 months Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 months

Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 –6 months Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 months



Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – 6 months Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 months


Construction Skills Concrete work, steel welding, piping, electrical

Concrete work, steel welding, piping, electrical





OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Ease of O&M

Daily operations are straight forward, typical for AS processes. Will require attention to achieve low TN.


Once PLC is set up (typically by manufacturer) operation is relatively straight forward. PLC maintenance may require internet connection to manufacturer. Will require attention to achieve low TN.



Daily operations are more automated and require more operator skill for troubleshooting than other technologies. Will require attention to achieve low TN.

Odors Odor‐free (except raw wastewater treatment component)

Raw WW treatment component. Issues if not operated correctly.

Odor‐free (except raw wastewater treatment component)




Noise Aeration equipment produces noise (can equip w/ noise control enclosures)

Mech. aerators produce noise. Interaction of blades at ML surface can generate loud continuous splashing noise

Aeration equipment produces noise (can equip w/ noise control enclosures)




Operator Skill Required Standard wastewater operator skills required

Standard wastewater operator skills required

Standard wastewater operator skills required plus special maintenance skills required for some equipment (automatic valves, aeration blowers, etc.)

Standard WW operator skills required

Standard wastewater operator skills required

High

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Dependable process. Not adaptable to shock loading. Microorganisms can be washed out during high flow.

Large footprint for complete process (OD and Clarifier). Can be constructed into ground to lower profile. Area around aerators or mixers can become a house‐keeping challenge due to spray of ML. DO levels in ditch are critical. DO control can be difficult in shallow ditches.

Treatment phases are time‐, not volume‐, dependent. Influent distributed throughout entire reactor; therefore, settling occurs without short‐circuiting, flow turbulence or mechanical turbulence.

Coarse bubble aeration system may be more expensive to operate than a fine bubble system in a comparable AS WWTP. Capacity may be expanded by adding biocarriers. No RAS stream needed.

Coarse bubble aeration system may be more expensive to operate than a fine bubble system in a comparable AS WWTP. Capacity may be expanded by adding biocarriers.

Typically higher operational costs than suspended growth AS processes due to higher process aeration requirement because of lower oxygen transfer efficiency at high MLSS concentration and air scour blowers. Chemical costs are also higher.

(1) Based on Case Study flow rates.


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐1

2.0 Introduction

2.1 ProgramDescriptionTheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID),throughitsWestBank/Gaza(WBG)Mission,hashiredBlack&Veatch(B&V) formulti‐disciplineengineering,constructionmanagement, capacity development and overall programmanagement services in support oftheimplementationoftheInfrastructureNeedsProgramPhaseII(INPII).Theprimarygoalofthe INP II is to provide increased access for Palestinians to improved public infrastructure,therebyprovidingacriticalfoundationtosupportanindependentandviablePalestinianstate.Thoughotherproject typesmaybe included, INPIIeffortsarecurrently focusedprimarilyonprojects within the West Bank related to water supply, wastewater collection andtreatment/sanitation,androadrehabilitationandconstruction.

2.2 ProjectOverviewThereiscurrentlyaverylimitedamountofwastewatercollectionandtreatmentinfrastructurethroughouttheWestBank.Thereareafewexceptions,butgenerallyspeaking,theexistenceofwastewatercollectionsystemsandsomeformofdownstreamtreatmentislimitedtothelargercitiesintheWestBank. Mostofthesmallervillagesandtownshavenowastewatercollectionsystemsor treatment facilities.Wastewater tends to be collected into small cesspitsnear thesource(e.g.,residencesorbusinesses).Individualusersaregenerallyresponsibleforhavingthecesspitscleanedoutoccasionallyviatheuseofvacuumtrucks,whichthendisposeofthewaste,typicallybydirectdischargetoawadi.

Figure 1: Wastewater Discharge in Wadi

The USAID WBG Mission is considering the use of packaged wastewater treatment plants(WWTPs) as part of efforts to support development of needed wastewater treatmentinfrastructure. PackagedWWTPs are used successfully around the world as a cost‐effectivemethod of treating wastewater and as an attractive alternative to traditional, larger‐scaletreatmentplantsforcertainapplications.PackagedWWTPs canbeviewedas “filling thegap”between septic tanks/systemsand large,regional WWTPs. In the U.S., packaged WWTPs are often used as a short‐term or interimsolution during the development of communities/subdivisions. The packaged WWTPs maylater be decommissioned and/or moved to other locations or the sites converted to pumpstations as part of a regionalization process. The packagedWWTPs allow for the collectionsystemstobeinstalled/developedforusersandproperwastewatertreatmenttooccuruntiltheregionalizedtreatmentstrategiescanbefullyimplemented.


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐2

Forthepurposeofthisfeasibilitystudy(Study),apackagedWWTPisdefinedasoneinwhichamanufacturerprovidesapre‐designedand/orpre‐manufacturedWWTPwhichisfabricatedandpackagedinamannerthatallowsforeaseofshipping/transportandminimizessiteworkattheWWTP site. A packaged WWTP may be comprised of one or multiple steel tanks, one ormultiple containerized units, or field‐erected tanks into which pre‐packaged equipment isinstalled.Whenmultiplesteeltanksareprovided,theymaybearrangedinparallelasseparatetrains,orinserieswhereeachtankisdedicatedtoadifferentprocessstep(knownasamodularWWTP).ConcreteslabsandpossiblyconcretetanksmaybenecessarydependingonthesizeoftheWWTPandtheparticularprocess/manufacturer.

Figure 2: Examples of Packaged WWTPs


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐3

2.2.1 PurposeTheUSAIDWBGMission authorized the B&V team to perform a Study relative to the use ofpackaged WWTPs. The purpose of the Study was to evaluate the overall validity andapplicability of utilizing packagedWWTPs in theWestBank. The Studydidnot include finalselectionofparticularcommunitiestoreceivepackagedWWTPsnordiditincludeperformingapreliminaryordetaileddesignforaspecificlocation.

2.2.2 ScopeThe scope of the Studywas defined in a detailed Scope of Services dated February 8, 2012,which was approved and authorized by the USAID WBG Mission on February 20, 2012. AsummaryoftheTasksandSubtasks,aswellasexcerptsfromtheScopeofServices,includedintheStudyfollows:

TASK1. DATACOLLECTIONSubtask1.1–InitialVisitbyExpatriateStaff“AninitialvisittotheWestBankwillbeperformedbytwo(2)expatriatestaffexperiencedinwastewater treatmentand theuseofPackagedWWTPs.Thepurposeof thevisit is togatherinformationonthefeasibilityofinstallationandoperationofPackagedWWTPsforWestBankcommunities throughconversationswith localandMissionstaff;acquaintingthemselveswiththelocalinfluentandeffluentcharacteristicsandconstraints;sitevisitstoexistingPackagedWWTPs, ifavailable;and conductingamarket research to check thelocal availability of adequate PackagedWWTPs. Additionally, information on the localphysicalandenvironmentalconditionsandconstraintsunderwhichthePackagedWWTPswouldbe installedandoperatedwillbecollected.This informationwillbe incorporatedintotheoverallfeasibilitystudy.”Subtask1.2–MarketResearch“Upon completion of, and considering the information collected during Subtask 1.1,performmarketresearchofPackagedWWTPsandtheiruseandapplicabilityfortheWestBank. Identify and document the various technologies that appear to be available andappropriate.Summarizeboththepositiveandnegativeattributesofeachoftheidentifiedtechnologies.”TASK2. FEASIBILITYSTUDYREPORTSubtask2.1–ReportPreparation“BasedontheeffortscompletedduringTask1,prepareareportthatpresentstheresultsofthefeasibilitystudy.”Subtask2.2–PresentationofReport“Following submittal of the draft report to theMission, a formal presentation shall bedeveloped to present the findings of the study to the Mission, the PWA and localgovernments as deemed necessary by the Mission. It is anticipated that the two (2)expatriatestaffinvolvedinSubtask1.1willparticipateinthispresentation.”

The Study was led by Greg Kolenovsky and Regina Cassanova of Trigon Associates, LLC(Trigon),subcontractortoB&VundertheINPII.TechnicalreviewandsupportwasprovidedbyB&VandotherTrigonstaff.


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐4

2.3 DescriptionofProjectAreaThe Study generally includes all of theWest Bank. A map of theWest Bank is included inSection3.1.2ofthisstudy(Figure4).GazahasnotbeenconsideredintheStudyduetocurrentpoliticalconditions.TheWestBank isanareaofapproximately5,680squarekilometersandgenerallyconsistsofrugged mountainous terrain through the center from north to south and barren desert‐liketerrainintheeast/southeast.Elevationsrangefromalowofapproximately‐408metersattheshorelineof theDeadSeato thehighestpointofapproximately1,016meters in theRamallahandAlBirehGovernorate.SeeFigure3foramapoftheWestBanktopography.Theclimateisgenerallycharacterizedassubtropicalwithrainfalltypicallylimitedtothewintermonths.TheWestBankhashot,drysummersandcool,rainywinters.

Figure 3: West Bank Topography


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐5

2.4 InfluentBasisofDesignThe evaluation of the applicability of a wastewater treatment process begins with anunderstandingof thequantity andquality of the rawwastewater thatwill be treated. In theWest Bank, most areas do not have wastewater collection systems and or treatment plants.Therefore,itisdifficulttoquantitativelydeterminethequantityandqualityofrawwastewaterthroughouttheWestBank.For the purposes of this Study, the quantity and quality of raw wastewater have beenresearched, and assumptions made, which are discussed in the following subsections. If apreliminarydesignisperformedforanactualcommunity,itisrecommendedthatwaterqualityandquantitydatabecollectedforthatcommunitytotheextentpossible.Thisprocessmaybedifficult since no collection system may exist and, further, household water practices maychangeonceacollectionsystemandtreatmentplantareinstalled.

2.4.1 EstimatedFlowRateThe estimatedwastewater flow rate for a certain treatment facility is based on the assumedwastewater generation per person and the population of the area for which the treatmentfacilitywillhandle. Wastewatergenerationisdefinedasthevolumeofwastewatergeneratedperperson(alsoreferencedas“percapita”)perdayinunitsofliterspercapitaperday(lpcpd).Inareasoftheworldwherecollectionsystemsexist,itiscommonpracticetomeasuretheflowof wastewater at certain points in the system at which the contributing population (orhouseholds) is known. The wastewater generation rate can then be calculated for thatcommunity.Then,basedonpopulationextrapolation,anestimateofthefutureflowratecanbecalculated. Wastewater generation rates vary among different communities depending onfactorssuchasthereliabilityofthewatersource;wateruseandreusebytheresidents;climate;andthepercentageofwastewatercontributedbyresidential,commercialandindustrialusers.Typically, not all potablewater consumption results inwastewater generation. (For example,landscapeirrigationdoesnotproducewastewater.)Ontheotherhand,infiltrationandinflowtothe wastewater collection system contribute to the wastewater flow arriving at a treatmentplant. In theWestBank, these factorsareexpectedtooffsetoneanother,suchthatpercapitapotable water consumption (all uses) and per capita wastewater generation (arriving at theplant)aresimilar.Within the West Bank, wastewater generation rates will vary in different communitiesdependingontheexistenceofawatersystem,wastewatercollectionsystem,andthereliabilityofeach. Ingeneral, citizens in theWestBankarewater‐frugalandemploywastewater reusewithin and near the home. Additionally, communities located in more arid areas may havedifferent wastewater generation rates. For the purposes of this Study where the use ofpackaged WWTPs is being evaluated across the West Bank as a whole, no actual flowmeasurementsweretakensincethedatawillvaryacrossthearea.Thewastewatergenerationratehasbeenassumedbasedonpublishedinformationcitedbelow.VariousresourceswereevaluatedduringthedesktopstudyinordertoconfirmthewastewatergenerationratetobeassumedforthepurposesofthisStudy,aslistedinSubsection2.6. TheVillageWastewater System Feasibility Report for theWest Hebron and South Nablus Clusters(2002)assumedadomesticwastewaterflowrateof72lpcpd.SewageCharacterisationasaToolfortheApplicationofAnaerobicTreatmentinPalestine(2002)citedwaterusageaccordingtotherecords of JWU (2000; the water supply company) as “…103 l/d for the total area. TheconsumptionforthetwocitiesRamallahandAl‐Birehishigheramountingto137[lpcpd],whileAl‐Jalazoon, this is only51 [lpcpd].” Further,WastewaterEngineering–TreatmentandReuse


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐6

(2003) indicatesthatthepercapitawaterconsumptionintheEasternMediterraneanisintherangeof40–85 lpcpd. TheAlYamounWastewaterSystemBasisofDesignReport,Revision2(2011)providesdetaileddiscussionof thecorrelationofwaterconsumptionwithwastewatergeneration. Additionally, the Al Yamoun Basis of Design Report states that the wastewatergenerationrateassumedfor the initialdesignof theAlYamounWWTPwas80 lpcpdandtheultimatedesignwas120lpcpd.Further,apeakingfactorof2.5wasassumedtoestimatepeakhourlyflow.ThewastewatergenerationvaluesassumedintheAlYamounWastewaterSystemBasisofDesignReport,Revision2(2011)areapplicableforuseinthisStudyandsummarizedinTable1.

Table 1: Estimated Wastewater Generation

PARAMETER VALUE UNITS

Initial Design 80 lpcpd

Ultimate Design 120 lpcpd

Peaking Factor 2.5 N/A Source:AlYamounWastewaterSystemBasisofDesignReport,Rev2(2011)

Theincreaseinwastewatergenerationfromtheinitialdesigntoultimatedesignrepresentsananticipated increase in water usage and wastewater generation that will occur over time.Consistent water supply and knowledge that wastewater is being reliably taken away fromhomesandtreatedinanappropriatemannerwouldtendtoincreasethewastewaterflowpercapita.Considering thatpeaking factors(PF)aredependentoncollectionsystemsizeandhigherPFsareassociatedwithsmallercollectionsystems,thePFusedduringdetaileddesignofapotentialPackagedWWTPshouldbeevaluatedbasedon the sizeof theactual collection system itwillserve.

2.4.2 LoadingThe quality of raw wastewater is determined by the amount of biological and contaminantloading that ispresent. Manydifferentwaterqualityparametersareable tobemonitored inrawwastewaterandthroughoutthetreatmentprocesses.Thereareafewparametersthattendtobe themost important and relevant fordetermining the feasibility of a treatmentprocess;theseparametersare5‐dayBiochemicalOxygenDemand(BOD5),TotalSuspendedSolids(TSS),TotalNitrogen(TN),TotalPhosphorus(TP),andFecalColiform.Wastewaterloadingisdeterminedbytheunitloadingandthewastewatergenerationrate.Theunitloadingismeasuredingramspercapitaperday(gpcpd).Wastewaterloadingismeasuredinmilligramsperliter(mg/L)andiscalculatedbydividingtheunitloadingbythewastewatergeneration rate and converting to the appropriate units, as shown in the following equation.Additionally,whenwaterqualityanalysesareperformedina laboratory, theresultsareoftenreportedinmg/L.

1000

1

Published information on the wastewater unit loading in the West Bank was reviewed,includingWastewaterEngineering–TreatmentandReuse(2003),SewageCharacterisationasaTool for the Application of Anaerobic Treatment in Palestine (2002), and the Al YamounWastewater System Basis of Design Report, Revision 2 (2011). It was determined that thewastewaterunitloadingsassumedintheAlYamounWastewaterSystemBasisofDesignReport,Revision2(2011)andshowninTable2wereapplicableforuseinthisStudy.


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐7

Table 2: Estimated Wastewater Unit Loading


BOD5 65 gpcpd

TSS 75 gpcpd

TN 13 gpcpd

TP 2.0 gpcpd Source:AlYamounWastewaterSystemBasisofDesignReport,Rev2(2011)

According to Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse (2003), the wastewater unitloading in theWestBank is less than that in theUnitedStates (U.S.),which tends tohave thehighestunitloadingacrosstheworld. However,becausethevolumeofwastewatergeneratedperpersonperdayintheWestBankismuchlessthanthatseenintheU.S.(ontheorderofone‐fourthtoone‐thirdthepercapitaflow),aparticularvolumeofwastewaterintheWestBankwillhaveamuchhigheroverallloadingthanwhatistypicallyseenintheU.S.Asdiscussedinanearliersection,itisanticipatedthattheamountofwastewatergeneratedperpersonwillincreaseovertime.Astheamountofwastewatergeneratedincreases,itisassumedthat the unit loadingwould remain steady; as a result, thewastewater loading concentrationwould decrease as the same amount of loading would be diluted in a larger volume ofwastewater.ForthepurposesofthisStudy,theestimatedwastewaterloadingwasassumedasshown inTable3,which isbasedon80 lpcpdand isconservativelyon thehigherendof theexpectedloadingrange.

Table 3: Estimated Wastewater Loading


BOD5 815 mg/L

TSS 940 mg/L

TN 165 mg/L

TP 25 mg/L

2.5 PopulationRangesThe use of packaged WWTPs is optimized at certain flow rates and loadings. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the EPAWastewater Technology FactSheet – Package Plants (2000), which states that packaged WWTPs “commonly treat flowsbetween 0.01 and 0.25 MGD”. This corresponds to flows between 40 cubic meters per day(m3/day)to950m3/day(10,000gallonsperday(gpd)to250,000gpd).Additionally,multipleunitsmaybe installed inparallel in order to achievehigher flow rates. However, these flowrangescorrespondtowastewaterwithabiologicalloadingconsistentwiththatseenintheU.S.,which is less concentrated than that seen in theWestBank. Considering that the sizing of abiologicalprocessismoredependentonbiologicalloadingthanflow,apackagedWWTPsizedtohandle950m3/day(250,000gpd)ofU.S.wastewatermayonlyhandleaboutone‐thirdofthatflowofwastewaterwithtypicalWestBankloading.Table4showscertainpopulationrangesand,basedontheEstimatedWastewaterGeneration,thecorrespondinginitialandultimatewastewaterflows.


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐8

Table 4: Wastewater Generation by Population Ranges

2012 POPULATION (1)

INITIAL FLOW (based on 80 lpcpd)

ULTIMATE FLOW (based on 120 lpcpd)

NO. OF COMMUNITIES (2)

% OF POP.

m3/day gpd m3/day gpd

1000 80 21,000 120 32,000 163

12%

28%

40% 2,500 200 53,000 300 79,000 127

5,000 400 105,000 600 159,000 103

7,500 600 158,000 900 238,000 44

10,000 800 211,000 1,200 317,000 22

15,000 1,200 317,000 1,800 476,000 22

25,000 2,000 528,000 3,000 793,000 14

More than 25,000 > 2,000 > 528,000 > 3,000 > 793,000 12 Note (1): Population data from Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2007 census, with projection to 2012 based on information from the Ministry of Local Government. Note (2): The number of communities shown is the number which have a population greater than the previous category and up to the population of the given category. (For example, there are 14 communities which have a population greater than 15,000 and less than or equal to 25,000.)

ForthepurposesofthisStudy,thefeasibilityofdifferenttechnologieswereevaluatedatcertainpopulationincrementsintheformofcasestudies.Greaterthan85%ofthecommunitiesintheWest Bank have a 2012 population less than or equal to 7,500 people. Further, thosecommunities contain 40% of the population of theWest Bank. Therefore, the four (4) casestudies target the followingpopulation ranges: up to1,000people; between1,001 and2,500people;between2,501and5,000people;andbetween5,001and7,500people.ImplementationofpackagedWWTPs is generallypreferred for communitieswithpopulations less than7,500people.TheremaybepotentialfortheuseofpackagedWWTPsinslightlylargercommunities.Astherequireddesign flow increases, the implementationof apackagedWWTPwouldchange fromsinglepackagedunitstothosethatwouldincorporatemultipletrains. Additionally,theuseofmodular packaged WWTPs or field‐erected structures could also be necessary. The actualimplementationofapackagedWWTPat largerdesign flowswoulddependon the technologyselectedandthemanufacturer’scapabilities.

2.6 ReferenceMaterialsA significant number of previous studies, reports, regulations and standards/guidelineswereobtained and reviewed during the course of the Study. Many of these were utilized indeveloping thewastewater characteristics for the Study due to the limited amount of actualwastewater collection system infrastructure in the West Bank, which makes sampling andtestingforastudysuchasthisdifficultandimpractical.TheStudyutilizeddataandinformationfrom,butnotlimitedto,thefollowingsources:

VillageWastewater System Feasibility Report for theWest Hebron and South NablusClustersFinalReport,EnvironmentalHealthProject,PreparedforUSAID,2002.

SewageCharacterisationasaToolfortheApplicationofAnaerobicTreatmentinPalestine,Mahmoud,etal,2002.

WastewaterCharacteristicsinPalestine,Nashashibi,M.andvanDujii,L.A.,WaterScience&Technology,Vol32,1995.


2.0 Introduction

August 2012 2‐9

ImplementationoftheSewerageProjectNablusWest,LahmeyerInternational,2007. Tulkarem and Wadi Zeimar Wastewater Quality and Quantity Measurements, Birzeit

UniversityCivilEngineeringDepartment,2010. WastewaterEngineering–TreatmentandReuse,4thEdition,Tchobanoglous,etal,2003. Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) for Municipal Wastewater Treatment—An Australian

Perspective,Chapman,S.,etal. APackagedPlantApproachtoDecentralizedWastewaterTreatment,Antonneau,N.,etal,

2010. Memorandum of Understanding on Guidelines and Technical Criteria for Sewerage

Projects,Israeli‐PalestinianJointWaterCommittee,2003. PalestinianStandards,PS742‐2003,TreatedWastewater. TR 34‐2012, Palestinian Authority Technical Regulations for Water Treatment for

AgriculturalIrrigation,2012. IsraeliEffluentQualityStandardsandWastewaterTreatmentRules,2010. AssessmentofPotentialWestBankWastewaterProjectsforUSAIDFunding,DraftReport,

MWH,2010. AlYamounWastewaterSystemBasisofDesignReport,Revision2,Black&Veatch,2011. DraftProcessSelectionReport;TenWastewaterSystems,Black&Veatch,2011. Agriculture Census 2010, Press Conference on the Final Results, Ramallah, Palestine,

PalestinianCentralBureauofStatistics,2011. Waste‐Water Treatment Technologies: A General Review, Economic and Social

CommissionforWesternAsia,UnitedNations,2003. EPAWastewaterTechnologyFactSheet–PackagePlants,EPA832‐F‐00‐016(September

2000). EPABiologicalNutrientRemovalProcessesandCostsFactSheet,EPA823‐R‐07‐002(June

2007). Effluent Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Rules, Israeli Public Health

Regulations,2010. A sustainableapproach for reusing treatedwastewater inagricultural irrigation in the

WestBank–Palestine,McNeill,L.S.,etal,2008. Desk Study on theEnvironment in theOccupiedPalestinianTerritories, United Nations

EnvironmentProgramme,2002. AlQudsUniversity–WastewaterTreatmentPlant,<http://www.alquds.edu>. BirzeitUniversity–Campus,SewageTreatmentPlant,<http://www.birzeit.edu>. ProspectsofEfficientWastewaterManagementandWaterReuse inPalestine–Country

Study, prepared within the Framework of the EMWater Project, Birzeit UniversityInstituteforWaterStudies,2004/2005.


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐1

3.0 DataCollection

3.1 SiteVisitsandObservationsIn fulfillment of Subtask1.1– InitialVisitbyExpatriate Staff of the Scope of Services, ReginaCassanova and Greg Kolenovsky (herein referred to as “expats”) of Trigon Associates, LLC(Trigon,subcontractortoB&V)performedavisittotheWestBankbetweenMarch3,2012andMarch14,2012.Thegeneralpurposeofthevisitbytheexpatswastogatherinformationonthefeasibility of installation and operation of packaged WWTPs for West Bank communitiesthroughconversationswith local andUSAIDstaff, acquaint themselveswith the local influentand effluent wastewater characteristics and constraints, perform site visits to variouscommunitiesthroughouttheWestBank,andvisitexistingwastewatertreatmentplants intheWestBank,ifpossible.In preparation for the visit, the expats and other Trigon Home Office staff performedpreliminaryresearchtoidentifyandreviewpreviousreportsandstudiesconductedwithintheWestBankandobtainuseful information for the Study. An exampleof informationobtainedincludedpreviousestimatesofwastewatergenerationratesandcharacteristics(e.g.,BOD,TSS,TNandTPconcentrations,etc.)intheWestBank.Additionally, information was obtained in advance from the Ministry of Local Government(MoLG) that listed all villages, towns and cities in the West Bank along with the estimatedpopulationandthegovernorateinwhichtheyarelocated.Thisinformationwasimportedintoa geographic information system (GIS), and amapwas created to show the location of eachauthority, color‐coded based on the estimated population. Besides helping to prepare andorient the expats for their trip, themapwas later used in planning for site visits to variouscommunitiesthroughouttheWestBank,asdescribedinSubsection3.1.2.In fulfillment of Subtask 2.2 – Presentation of Report of the Scope of Services, the expatsperformed a second visit to theWest Bank between June 23, 2012 and July 13, 2012. ThegeneralpurposeofthesecondvisitbytheexpatswastopresenttheDraftStudy(deliveredonJune19,2012)andsolicitcommentsfromUSAIDandotherstakeholders.

3.1.1 MeetingsThefirstfewdaysoftheexpats’visitinMarch2012mainlyinvolvedmeetingwiththelocalINPIIstaffaswellaslocalministriesandauthorities,whichconsistedoftheMoLG,theMinistryofAgriculture (MoA), the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the Environmental QualityAuthority (EQA – now the Ministry of Environmental Affairs [MEnA]). Generally speaking,everyone theexpatsmetwithappeared tobe in favorof theuseofpackagedWWTPsshouldtheir use be determined feasible. Each entity does have their own preferences they woulddesire to be incorporated into future plans for packagedWWTPs,which could be addressedduringthelocationselectionanddesignofspecificWWTPs.TheMoAisprimarilyfocusedonthereuseofwastewatereffluentforirrigationpurposes.TheMoA ismostlyconcernedwith the levelsof certaineffluentwastewatercharacteristic suchasnitrogen,sodiumandchloridesbecauseoftheirpotentialimpactoncrops.TheMoAalsohasapreference for larger wastewater treatment plants versus smaller plants because of thepotential for irrigating largeramountsofagricultural landthrougheffluentreuse. Theexpatsobtainedacopyof theAgricultureCensus2010,PressConferenceon theFinalResults fromtheMoA.


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐2

The MoLG provided an explanation of the different governance structures for West Bankcommunities(e.g.,MunicipalityA,B,C,D;VillageCouncil;ProjectCommittee)andexpressedawillingness to support the Study in any way possible, including sharing information oncommunities throughout the West Bank that might be necessary. As stated previously, theMoLG provided a listing of all villages, towns and cities in the West Bank along with theestimatedpopulationandthegovernorateinwhichtheyarelocated.ThePWAalsoviews theuseofpackagedWWTPs favorablywhere theiruse is applicable. Infact,theyhaveapprovedtheuseofpackagedWWTPsformultiplelocations(suchasAl‐Reehan,Al‐Tireh and the Bethlehem Industrial Zone), which will apparently include membranetreatment. The PWA also expressed the view that awastewater collection system is neededalong with a treatment plant to truly be effective. During the meeting, a representative ofORGUT introduced thepurposeof theTechnical, Planning, andAdvisoryTeam (TPAT) to themeetingattendees.TheMEnAalsoagreeswiththeconceptofutilizingpackagedWWTPsandseetheirapplicabilityin certain situations. Theprimary concern expressedby theMEnA is that packagedWWTPsshouldnotbeviewedasatotalreplacementoflargerregionalWWTPswherethattypeofplantmaybemoreapplicableandfeasibletoconstruct.MEnAstatedthatthetypicalenvironmentalreviewprocesswouldneedtobefollowedto locateandpermitapackagedWWTPduringthedesign.MeetingswerealsoheldinJune/July2012duringtheexpat’sreturnvisittotheWestBank.TheDraft Study was presented to USAID, and a separate meeting was held with the PWA.Additionally, a workshop was held to present the Draft Study to stakeholder organizationsincludingPWA,MoLG,MoA,MENA,andtheWestBankWaterDepartment(WBWD).AttendeesoftheworkshoprecognizedthatalargepercentageofthepopulationintheWestBankexistsinsmall communities. Specifically, the fact that forty percent (40%) of the population live incommunities with a population less than 7,500 was a key driver and allowed the differentstakeholders to recognize wastewater treatment in small communities as a necessarydevelopmentandthepotentialrolepackagedWWTPscouldserve.ThestakeholdersagreedtosetafuturemeetingatwhichselectioncriteriawouldbedevelopedtodeterminepotentialpilotstudycommunitiesinwhichtoimplementpackagedWWTPs.

3.1.2 CommunityVisitsOver the course of several days in March 2012, the expats performed visits to numerouscommunities throughout the West Bank, ranging from small villages and towns withpopulations under 1,000 to larger cities with populations greater than 40,000. The mainpurposeofthesevisitswastoperformarandomsamplingofcommunitiesandgetafeelfortheterrain, environmental conditions, and other factors that could impact the applicability ofpackagedWWTPswithintheWestBank.ThefirstdayfocusedonlocationswithinthecentralportionoftheWestBank(RamallahandAl‐Bireh,JerichoandJerusalemGovernorates).TheseconddayfocusedonthesouthernportionsoftheWestBank(BethlehemandHebronGovernorates). ThethirddayfocusedonthenorthernWestBank(Salfit,Qalqilya,Nablus,Tulkarem,TubasandJeninGovernorates).Atleastone(1)communitywasvisitedwithineachofthe11governorates.Table5 lists the communities thatwere visited by the expats, andFigure4 provides amapshowingthelocationofeachcommunity,color‐codedbypopulation.


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐3

Table 5: Communities in West Bank Visited by Expats

Community Governorate Approx.

Population Community Governorate Approx.

Population

Silat adh Dhahr Jenin 6,186 Ein Siniya Ramallah/AB 766

Al Fandaqumiya Jenin 3,631 Dura al Qar Ramallah/AB 3,120

‘Anza Jenin 2,000 Ramallah Ramallah/AB 29,319

Jenin Jenin 41,866 Beituniya Ramallah/AB 21,099

Az Zababida Jenin 3,913 Al Bira Ramallah/AB 40,788

‘Aqqaba Tubas 11,002 Al ‘Auja Jericho 4,423

Tubas Tubas 18,504 Hizma Jerusalem 6,566

Ramin Tulkarem 1,895 Beit Sahur Bethlehem 13,254

‘Anabta Tulkarem 7,691 Bethlehem Bethlehem 27,078

Huwwara Nablus 5,905 Beit Jala Bethlehem 14,839

Bizzariya Nablus 2,387 Nahhalin Bethlehem 7,515

Deir Sharaf Nablus 2,608 Dura Hebron 31,434

Al Badhan Nablus 2,634 Kharsa Hebron 7,236

Nablus Nablus 134,671 Nuba Hebron 4,715

Jit Qalqilya 2,347 Kharas Hebron 6,500

Yasuf Salfit 1,718 Hebron Hebron 174,191

Iskaka Salfit 974 Halhul Hebron 24,060 Source:DatabasedonlistprovidedbytheMoLG


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐4

Figure 4: Visited Communities by Population


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐5

3.1.3 InformationCollectedThe informationgatheredby theexpatsduring thevisit to theWestBank inMarch2012andusedintheStudyisdescribedwithinthissection.

3.1.3.1 Influent Characteristics

As stated in Section 2.4 Influent Basis of Design, the evaluation of the applicability of awastewatertreatmentprocessbeginswithanunderstandingofthequantityandqualityoftherawwastewater that will be treated. Evaluation of published literature before the site visitindicatedthat,ingeneral,collectionsystemsrarelyexistintheWestBank.Further,wastewaterintheWestBankhasaveryhighloadingrate,ascomparedtotheU.S.,basedlargelyonlowpercapita water usage. It was determined that it would be difficult to collect representativewastewater samples for analysis, andmost importantly, that thedata from samples collectedfromcesspitswouldnotberepresentativeofwastewaterthatwouldtravelthroughacollectionsystem to aWWTP. Therefore,wastewater sampleswerenot collected aspart of this Study.The influent characteristicsweredeterminedbyassumptionsbasedon the reviewof existinginformation,asdetailedinSection2.4InfluentBasisofDesign.

3.1.3.2 Effluent Requirements

Onecharacteristicbywhichwastewater treatment technologieswereevaluated iswhetherornot theywill produce treatedwastewater that meets the effluent requirements. In the U.S.,WWTPsarepermittedbasedontheeffluentrequirements. Standardeffluentrequirements intheU.S.are30mg/LBOD5and30mg/LTSS.Treatedwastewatertobeusedforreusemaybepermitted for10mg/LBOD5and10mg/LTSS. Dependingon local requirements,additionalparameterssuchasNitrogenandPhosphorusmaybeincludedinthepermitrequirements.For the West Bank, effluent requirements for WWTPs are currently set by the Joint WaterCommitteewhichhasmembers frombothPalestine and Israel. TheWestNablusWWTPhasbeenrecentlyusedasaprecedentforsettingeffluentrequirementsof20mg/LBOD5,30mg/LTSS, 50 mg/L TN, no limit for TP, and 1000 MPN/100mL fecal coliform. Additionally, theMemorandumofUnderstandingonGuidelinesandTechnicalCriteriaforSewerageProjects,(MOU,2003)statescertainrequirementsforWWTPs.Forreuse,theMoAregulatesuseoftreatedwastewaterforirrigationofagriculture. TheMoAhas defined different qualities of treatedwastewater depending on the type of agriculture towhichthetreatedwastewaterisbeingapplied(ClassA,B,C,D).Inadditiontothesepotentialeffluent requirements, the Israeli Government has indicated that the Israeli Public HealthRegulationsaretobemetwhentreatedwastewaterisdischargedintowadis.Table6presentsasummaryofcertainkeyparametersandtheeffluentrequiredbyeachpotentialregulation.


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐6

Table 6: Effluent Requirements for Key Wastewater Parameters

PARAMETER WEST NABLUS WWTP

MOU 2003 Ph 2

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE ISRAEL PUBLIC

HEALTH REGULATIONS

Class A Class B Class C Class D

BOD5 (mg/L) 20 10 20 20 40 60 10

TSS (mg/L) 30 10 30 30 50 90 10

TN (mg/L as N) 50 25 30 30 45 60 10

TP (mg/L as P) No limit 1

Phosphate (mg/L as P)

30 30 30 30

Fecal Coliform (colonies/100 ml)

1000 200 200 1000 1000 1000 200

Source: West Nablus WWTP information from B&V, Memorandum of Understanding on Guidelines and Technical Criteria for Sewerage Projects (2003), Palestinian National Authority TR 34‐2012 and Israel’s Public Health Regulations (Effluent Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Rules) 2010.

The determination of which effluent requirements will govern the potential design of apackaged WWTP should be made at the time that a specific community is identified.Considering the high loading of the wastewater, even the least strict requirements wouldrequireaveryhighpercentageofremovalforthemajorparametersasshowninTable7.

Table 7: Estimated Percent Removal for Key Wastewater Parameters

PARAMETER ASSUMED INFLUENT VALUE

MoA CLASS D EFFLUENT & % REMOVAL

ISRAEL EFFLUENT & % REMOVAL

BOD5 (mg/L) 815 60 (93%) 10 (99%)

TSS (mg/L) 940 90 (90%) 10 (99%)

TN (mg/L as N) 165 60 (64%) 10 (94%)

TP (mg/L as P) 25 N/A 1 (96%)

ForthisStudy,itwasdecidedthatpackagedWWTPtechnologieswouldbeevaluatedagainstthemost strict effluent requirements. Therefore, a technology determined to be capable ofhandlingthemoststringenteffluentrequirementsfordischargetoawadiwouldalsobecapableofhandlingthemorerelaxedrequirementsforreuse.TheactualbasisofdesignofapackagedWWTP will be dependent on current regulations and applicability of the MOU 2003 andagreementoftheJointWaterCommittee.Treatmenttothemoststrictrequirementsrequiresveryrobusttreatmentprocesses.Achieving10mg/LTSSwill require filtration, suchas tertiary clothdisk filters, tertiarygranularmediafilters,ormembranes(tertiaryorMBR).Achieving10mg/LBOD5willrequireaconservativelysizedbiologicaltreatmentprocess.Evengiventhesetwodesigncriteria,nitrogenremovalisthelimiting factor. For the wastewater strength in the West Bank, achieving 10 mg/L TN willrequire essentially complete nitrification and denitrification. The biological process must beconservativelysizedandwouldlikelyincludeapre‐anoxiczone,aerobiczone,post‐anoxiczoneand a re‐aeration zone (e.g., 4‐stage Bardenpho process). An external carbon source such asmethanolmaybenecessary.Achieving1mg/LTPwillrequirefeedingametalsaltsuchasalumorferricchloridetoprecipitatephosphorus.


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐7

3.1.3.3 Community Characteristics

Awidevarietyofcommunitieswerevisitedduringthesitevisitstogathergeneralinformationontheexistinginfrastructureandcommunityneedswithrespecttowastewater.Communitiesranged in size from approximately 750 to 175,000 people. The existence of wastewatercollectionsystemsandsomeformofdownstreamtreatmentappearstobelimitedtothelargercitiesintheWestBank. Mostofthesmallervillagesandtownshavenowastewatercollectionsystemsortreatmentfacilities.Additionally,mostofthesmallervillagesdonothaveareliablewatersource. Insomeareas,citizensstatedthatwastewaterhadcontaminatednaturalspringwater.Inotherareas,theodorofrawwastewaterwasapparentnearthewadi.Inthoseareaswherewastewatercollectionsystemsarenotavailable,wastewatertendstobecollected into individual cesspits near the source (e.g., residences or businesses). Individualusersaregenerallyresponsibleforhavingtheircesspitscleanedoutoccasionallyviatheuseofvacuumtrucks,whichthendisposeofthewaste,typicallybydirectdischargetoawadi.Throughout the West Bank, new homes and businesses were actively being constructed. Itappearsthatgrowthofbusinessesandfamiliesiscontinuingatahighrate.

3.1.3.4 Existing WWTPs Operating in the West Bank

ResearchoftheexistingWWTPsoperatingintheWestBankhasidentifiedthefollowing:

AWWTPexists inAl‐Birehwhichtreatsapproximately5,750m3/day(1,500,000gpd).This is a regionalized WWTP that, per A sustainable approach for reusing treatedwastewater inagricultural irrigation in theWestBank–Palestine (L.S.McNeill, 2008),uses activated sludge. Per previous B&V site visits, the WWTP is known to haveconcreteoxidationditcheswithsurfaceaeratorsandbeltfilterpressdewateringofthesludge.

Figure 5: Al‐Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant

BirzeitUniversityhasaWWTPthattreatsapeakflowof600m3/day(160,000gpd)perthe university website. L.S. McNeill states that the WWTP employs a contactstabilization treatment system. Per previousB&V site visits, theWWTP consists of acircularsteeltankwithconcentricclarifier.

AnaeratedlagoonWWTPislocatedinJenin.Asof1993,thecapacitywas760m3/day

(200,000 gpd) per theUnitedNationsDesk Study on theEnvironment in theOccupied


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐8

PalestinianTerritories. Expats visited thisWWTP,whichwas being rehabilitated andexpanded,duringthesitevisitinMarch2012.

An activated sludge WWTP treats approximately 35 m3/day (9,000 gpd) at Al Quds

University located in Abu‐Dies. Per the university website, a portion of the treatedwastewater receives additional treatment through ultrafiltration and reverse osmosismembranes.

PerUSAID,aWWTPexistsinIrtasVillagewhichtreats10m3/day(2,500gpd).

Per USAID, a WWTP exists in Ein Sinya which treats 10 m3/day (2,500 gpd). Per

previous B&V site visits, this WWTP was an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket pilotstudythatisnolongerinoperation.

Duringthesitevisits,anexistingpackagedWWTPwasvisited in thevillageofNahhalin. Theconstruction had been funded by The Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem (ARIJ). Frominformationobtainedbytheexpats,thepackagedWWTPwasdesignedforanaveragedailyflowof 50m3/day (13,000 gpd), and themainplant tankwas approximately 12500mm (40 feet)longby3280mm(11feet)wideby3280mm(11feet)high.Theentiresitewasapproximately12timesthesizeofthemainplanttank.ThispackagedWWTPwasfullofwastewaterbutwasnot in operation. In general, it appeared that the technologies present in the WWTP wereappropriate;however,basedoninformationcollectedthereappearedtobemultiplemodesoffailureforthisspecificsituation,includingthefollowing:

Nocollectionsystemexists for thevillage. Wastewaterwas intendedtobe truckedtothepackagedWWTP.ThiswouldnotallowforconsistentflowtotheWWTP.

No training on operation of the facility was apparently provided to the LocalGovernment.TheLocalGovernmentisresponsibleforoperationofthefacilitybutdoesnotknowwhatis“wrong”withtheplant.

TheWWTPsitewaslocatedinthecommunityandnotnearthewadi. TheWWTPwasnotconstructedwithamethodtodischargetreatedwastewatertothewadi(suchasaforce main) except by discharging it a long distance over farmland that was activelybeing used. The negative public perception of this prevented the Local Governmentfromdoingso.

Additionally, the Local Government had acquired a lease on the land on which theWWTPis locatedfroma local farmer. EventhoughthepackagedWWTPisnot inuse,theLocalGovernmentisstillpayingtheirleasefortheuseoftheland.

3.1.3.5 Summary of Findings and Challenges

Basedontheresultsoftheexpat’svisitinMarch2012andinformationcollected,thefollowingare a few of the primary findings, assumptions and challenges that were considered in theStudy:

• Allofthelocalauthoritieswithwhommeetingswereheldappeartobe infavoroftheuseofpackagedWWTPsiftheiruseisdeterminedtobeappropriate.

• Influentwastewaterisexpectedtobeveryhighlyconcentratedrelativetotypicallevelsobserved in theU.S.andotherpartsof theworldwherepackagedWWTPsarewidelyused (e.g., 3 to 4 times higher). Thismay limit the types of treatment processes thatwould work satisfactorily, increase WWTP footprints and require supplementalalkalinity.


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐9

• Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse screening at a minimum.Dependingon thewastewatercharacteristicsand technologyrequirements,otherpre‐treatmentmayberequired.

• Stringent effluent wastewater requirements, coupled with the anticipated highlyconcentrated influent, may require tertiary treatment/polishing processes to beincluded.

• ReliabilityofpowersuppliesandwatersuppliesshouldbeconsideredforthepotentialimpactonpackagedWWTPs.

• CesspitsappeartobeprevalentthroughouttheWestBankandmaybecontributingtogroundwatercontaminationandothernegativeenvironmentalandsocialissues.

• Many communities throughout the West Bank do not have existing wastewatercollectionsystems.Thiswouldposeasignificantchallengeforwastewatertreatmentifacollectionsystemwerenotinstalledalongwithatreatmentplant.

• UseofchemicalsshouldbecarefullyconsideredbothintermsofthehandlingthatmayberequiredaswellasthelikelihoodofgettingthechemicalsintotheWestBankforuse.For example,while visiting theHebron area, the expatswere informed that a certainsmallindustrialWWTPcouldnotbeoperatedbecausetheprocessisbasedprimarilyontheuseofsulfuricacid,andthischemicalwasnotallowedtobeimportedintotheWestBank. Additionaldiscussionofdual‐use itemswhichwouldbedifficult to import intotheWestBankisprovidedinSection5.

• Sustainabilityoftreatmentplants isofcritical importance.Mechanismsmustbeput inplacetoensuresuccessfuloperationandmaintenanceoftreatmentplants.

3.2 MarketResearch

3.2.1 DataCollectionMethodsInordertoevaluatethefeasibilityofdifferenttreatmenttechnologies,informationwasneededon the capabilities of the different technologies and a method for comparison had to bedetermined. A list of themajor industry‐proven packagedWWTP technologieswas created.Then,alistofpotentialmanufacturerswasgenerated.Arequestforinformationwassenttothemanufacturers toobtain informationand isprovided inAppendixA. Therequest includedasummary of the purpose of this Study, the assumed influentwater quality, required effluentwaterquality, anda request for information about thepotential technologiesofferedbyeachmanufacturer. Additionally,a listofquestionswassent togetdetailed informationabout themanufacturing,shipping,constructionandoperationofeachtechnology. Finally, four(4)casestudies were defined in which four different theoretical design flow rates were given andpreliminarydesign informationandcapital costwasrequested. Thepurposeof the fourcasestudieswas to be able to compare the effectiveness of a certain technology at different flowratesandalsotocomparedifferenttechnologiestooneanotheratthesameflowrate.Themanufacturersthatwerecontactedincludedbothlargeandsmallorganizations,andbothU.S.‐based and international‐based that are able to meet the Buy American requirements.Communication was predominantly via email to provide for a written record ofcommunications, although some phone conversations did occur where clarifications wereneeded.Additionally,asitevisitwasheldatonemanufacturer’sfacilitytoviewexamplesofthemanufacturingprocessandequipmentinstallations.

3.2.2 DataCollectedThe request for information was created in a manner that was intended to collect similarinformation from the different vendors and, therefore, make comparisons more apparent.However, as with any request that goes to multiple organizations, the level of detail the


3.0 Data Collection

August 2012 3‐10

manufacturers provideddiffered greatly. Since the influent loading ismuchhigher than thattypicallyseen inmostother locations, themanufacturersweregenerallynotable touse theirstandarddesigns. Someof themanufacturersperformedpreliminarydesign calculationsandput together very detailed proposals of what they would offer for the four case studies.However,someothermanufacturerswerenotasmotivatedtoprovideinformationotherthantheirstandardproducts.Whileanattemptwasmadetomotivatethemanufacturerstoproviderealistic information for thisStudy,notallprovided information thatwasasuseful asothers.The information submittedby themanufacturers (emails, answers to questions, case studies,proposals, cut sheets, references, etc.) is provided in the Appendices. The submittedinformation has been reviewed and, where necessary, supplemented in order to make thevaluesabletobecomparedtooneanother.DiscussionofeachtechnologyandthefindingsarepresentedinSection4.

3.2.2.1 Available Packaged WWTP Technologies

The list of availablepackagedWWTP technologies and a list of some industrymanufacturerswhichprovidethattypeoftechnologyarepresentedinTable8.Table 8: Available Packaged WWTP Technologies

TECHNOLOGY POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS

Activated Sludge

Extended Aeration Aqua Treat (based in Jordan), Delta Process, Global Water, Siemens, Smith & Loveless,

Tipton

Oxidation Ditches Siemens

Sequencing Batch Reactors Aqua‐Aerobic Systems, ITT (ABJ), Siemens

Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Veolia (AnoxKaldnes)

Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Smith & Loveless, Veolia

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) GE, Newterra, Siemens, Smith & Loveless,

Veolia

Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Not evaluated in detail (see Section 4.1.2.4)

3.2.2.2 Technologies / Companies with History in West Bank

BasedontheexistingWWTPslocated intheWestBank, itappearsthatoverall thereareveryfewopportunities forwastewater treatment technologies tohave ahistory in theWestBank.ThefewexistingolderregionalizedWWTPsappeartousealagoonmethodfortreatment,whichis generally very easy to operate and maintain but would not meet the strict effluentrequirements that are currently being targeted. During the site visit and based onconversations with USAID, it is apparent that packaged WWTPs are currently beingimplemented in theWestBankata slowpace. Additionally, thePWA indicated that theyaremoving forwardonboth regional andpackagedWWTPsutilizing the advanced technologyofmembranes.Therefore,thisStudywillnotgiveprioritytoatechnologybecauseofitsprioruseintheWestBank.Similarly, the low number of existing WWTPs in the West Bank precludes many potentialmanufacturers fromhavingexisting installations in theWestBank. However, all of the large,well‐establishedmanufacturersthatwerecontactedasapartofthisStudyhaveapresenceintheMiddle East andNorth Africa (MENA) and expressed an interest inworking in theWestBank.


4.0 Evaluation of Information

August 2012 4‐1

4.0 EvaluationofInformation

Thissectionprovidesageneralintroductiontowastewatertreatmentprocesses,asummaryoftheevaluationofthepackagedWWTPtechnologiesincludedintheStudy,andadescriptionoffactorstobeconsideredwhenevaluatingcommunitiestoreceiveapackagedWWTP.

4.1 IntroductiontoWastewaterTreatmentProcessesWastewatertreatmentinvolvesthecombinationofdifferentprocessesbywhichwastewateriscleaned. Individual processes may be physical, biological or chemical in nature. Physicalprocesses employ an actual physical device or concept to remove contaminants fromwastewater, such as a bar screen. A biological process utilizes microorganisms to consumecertain components in thewastewater. The addition of a chemical to change themakeup ofcertaincomponents,suchasaddingaflocculanttoenhancesolidssettling,isachemicalprocess.

Thegoalofeachofthesetypesofprocessesistoremoveorchangethemakeupofcontaminantsinthewastewatertoimprovetreatment.Atreatmentplantmayimplementmultipleindividualprocesses inorder to removedifferent typesof contaminants,prepare thewater for thenextstepoftreatment,andtoultimatelyproducetreatedwastewaterofanappropriatequality. Ingeneral,mostpackagedWWTPswillemploybiologicaltreatmentasthemainformoftreatment,andchemicalandphysicalprocessesenhancetheoverallperformanceoftheWWTP.

TheevaluationofdifferentpackagedWWTPtechnologiesincludedafullrangeoftheavailableprocesses.Theseprocessesarediscussedandevaluatedwithinthissection.

4.1.1 PhysicalTreatmentPhysical treatment utilizes an actual physical device or concept for the processing ofwastewater.Examplesofphysicaltreatmentincludethefollowing:

• wastewaterdetainedinacompartmentforacertainamountoftimetostabilizetheflow(flowequalization),

• solidparticlesremovedfromwastewater(screening,gritremoval),• wastewater velocity slowed so that flocculated microorganisms and other particles

settletothebottomofatankviagravity(settlingtank/clarifier),• wastewater pumped or pulled through a barrier that prevents the passing of certain

smallconstituents(membranes).

Theseexamplesofphysical treatmentprocessesarenot all encompassingbut give an ideaofhowphysicalprocessesworkandwhytheyarecriticaltothesuccessofaWWTP.

Figure 6: Example of Screening



August 2012 4‐2

4.1.2 BiologicalTreatmentIn biological treatment of wastewater, microorganisms are employed to consume certaincomponents in the wastewater. In general, microorganisms can be freely distributed in thewastewater(SuspendedGrowth)ortheycanbecontainedwithinabiologicalgrowthattachedto a fixed surface within the wastewater stream (Attached Growth). There are alsocombinations of suspended and attached growth processes. In suspended growth processes,microorganismsformparticlescalledfloc,whichcanbeseparatedfromtreatedwastewaterbysettling, flotation,or filtration. Inattachedgrowthprocesses,microorganismsare retained intheprocessviaassociationwithmedia.Theseparatedmicroorganismsmayeitherbewastedorreturnedtothewastewaterstreamtosupplementthefoodtomicroorganismratio.Biologicaltreatmentisalsoclassifiedaseitheraerobicoranaerobic.Aerobictreatmentinvolvesan oxygen‐rich environment which is provided using diffusers, mechanical aerators, or jetnozzles. Atmospheric air is commonly used and pure oxygenmay also be used. Anaerobictreatment is accomplished in an oxygen‐starved environment and can be used to target theremoval of certain parameters. Aerobic processes are the predominant processes employedtoday.ThecombinationofaerobicandanaerobicprocesseswithinasingleWWTPcanachieveaveryeffectivelevelofwastewatertreatment.

4.1.2.1 Suspended Growth Processes

Suspended growth is a type of biological treatment inwhichmicroorganisms aremixedwithrawwastewater to create amixed liquor in order to break down contaminants. Subsequentseparationofthemicroorganismsfromthemixedliquoroccursinaseparationtank/clarifier.The separated, or clarified, water is discharged from the treatment process. Themicroorganisms (biomass) are returned to the aeration basin where they are mixed withincomingrawwastewaterandtheprocessbeginsagain. Excessbiomass isremovedfromtheprocessperiodically.Suspended growth processes can be configured for continuous or batch treatment. In acontinuous treatmentprocess,wastewater flows throughoneormorebasins/environmentsandthentoaclarifier(ormembranes)forsolidsseparation.Sequencingbatchreactorsperformthesameprocessbutinadifferentconfiguration.Insteadofthewastewaterflowingbygravitythrough different basins, thewastewater is held in one basin inwhich all the different steps(includingsettling)takeplaceoveracertaintimeschedule.Whileone(ormore)batchreactoris processingwastewater, another reactor is receiving the influentwastewater until it is full.Thereactorscyclethroughfill‐react‐settle‐decantphases.

4.1.2.2 Attached Growth Processes

Anattachedgrowthprocess is similar in concept to a suspendedgrowthprocess, except thatsomeformofmediaisintroducedtotheprocessonwhichthemicroorganismsgrow.Examplesofattachedgrowthtreatmentincludetricklingfilters,rotatingbiologicalcontactorsandmovingbedbiofilmreactors (MBBR). While the first two typesof treatmentarenotusually foundaspartofapackagedWWTP,MBBRareusedinpackagedWWTPs.MBBRisatypeoftechnologyinwhich small media are introduced into an aeration tank and are mobilized by the aerationoccurringinthebasin.

4.1.2.3 Variations of Biological Treatment

One variation on the suspended and attached growth treatment processes includes acombination of the two. This variation introduces attached growth media into suspended



August 2012 4‐3

growthbasins.IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge(IFAS)includesbothfixedandfluidizedmedia. The increase in surface area created by themedia in the basin allows for a greaterbiomass inventory,andtherefore thetreatedwaterquality isable tobeachieved inasmallerfootprintthanwitheithersuspendedgrowthorattachedgrowthalone.Advanced treatment methods include membrane bioreactors (MBR) in which low‐pressuremembranes(microfiltrationorultrafiltration)areusedforsolidsseparation. Membranesmaybe immersed inmixed liquorwithin tanks or encased in pressure vesselsmounted on racks.Water is filtered through themembrane,whichprovides aphysical barrier that rejectsmanycontaminantsincludingtheaccumulatedbiomass,bacteriaandsomeviruses.

4.1.2.4 Anaerobic Processes

There are also anaerobic biological processeswhich are available in both the suspended andattached growth methods. In general, anaerobic treatment can be utilized to target certainconstituents for removal andmay be used in conjunction with aerobic treatment to achievecertaintreatmentresults.Anaerobicdigestionproducesmethanegaswhichmaybeharnessedfor power generation; however, it is an explosive gas and must be handled appropriately.Anaerobic digestion also produces unpleasant odors. Odor control processes may beimplementedtocapturetheairandscruborburnittoreducetheodor.One anaerobic process is an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB). The wastewater isintroduced into theanaerobic chamber frombelowand flowsup throughadevelopedsludgebed. This technology may have good potential for use in developing countries due to therelatively low cost and energy consumption. A detailed study was conducted specifically toevaluatetheapplicabilityofUASBfortheWestBankbyMahmoud(2002).Thisstudyconcludedthat“applicationofaone‐stageUASBreactorinPalestineisonlypossibleifdesignedatprolonged[HydraulicRetentionTime]HRT due to low solids hydrolysis duringwintertime.” The processproducesmethanewhichmustbecapturedandhandledappropriatelyandcanbeapotentialenergysource.Thereareconcernsregardingthelackofestablishedmanufacturersforthistypeof equipment, which did not allow a detailed evaluation of this process within this Study.Consideringtheseitems,thereisreasonablepotentialforthesuccessfuluseofUASBintheWestBankinthewarmerareas(suchasJericho). ApackagedWWTPmaybethemostappropriatescale to evaluate a pilot test of this technology. However, it is recommended thatimplementationof packagedWWTPs related to this Studybeginwith those technologies thathaveestablishedmanufacturerstoassistinasuccessfulimplementation.

4.1.3 ChemicalTreatmentTheadditionofachemicaltochangethemakeupofcertaincomponentsisachemicalprocess.Chemicalprocessesareusuallyemployed toenhance theperformanceorefficienciesofotherprocesses.Forexample,phosphorusremovalmaybetargetedbytheadditionofachemicalthatcauses the formation of certain phosphorous compounds which are more likely to settle bygravityinaclarifier.ToachieveaneffluentTotalPhosphorusof1mg/L,wastewaterwithWestBankstrengthcharacteristicswouldrequiretheadditionofametalsalt.Thedecisionofwhichmetal salt to use is usually determined through jar‐testing in which samples of the actualwastewateraredosedwithdifferentchemicalsand/ordifferentdosagesinordertodeterminethemostefficientchemicalanddoserate.In cases where nitrification of the wastewater is necessary in order to achieve the requiredNitrogenremoval,alkalinitywillneedtobeaddedtothewastewater.Alkalinityisthebufferingcapacityofwaterandcanbeaddedchemically. LargerWWTPscommonlyusehydrated lime,whichcanbecumbersometostoreanddifficulttofeed;smallerWWTPscommonlyusesodium



August 2012 4‐4

hydroxide(caustic),whichiseasierthanlimetostoreandfeedbutismoreexpensiveperunitvolume.

Figure 7: Typical Chemical Storage Totes

4.1.4 Pre‐andPost‐TreatmentThereareadditionalprocesseswhichmaybeincludedbeforeandafterthebiologicalprocesstooptimizetheoveralltreatmentefficienciesand/orprotectequipmentwithintheWWTP.

4.1.4.1 Pre‐Treatment

Primarytreatmentprocesses,sometimesreferredtoaspre‐treatment,includethefollowing:

• UnloadingStation–Iftheentirecommunityisnotconnectedtothecollectionsystem,itmaybenecessarytoincludeanunloadingstationsothattankertrucksmayunloadrawsewagecollectedfromseptictanks/cesspits.ThisisnotcommonintheU.S.butmaybenecessaryintheWestBank.Aninfluentpumpstation,ifrequired,mayalsoserveasanunloadingstation.

• EqualizationTank–Dependingonthetreatmentprocessesandanticipated flowrates,anequalization tankmaybe included tobalanceoutpeakandaverage flowsandalsoprovide normalization of water quality changes. The wet well of an influent pumpstation,ifrequired,mayserveasanequalizationtank.

• GreaseTrap–Dependingonthesensitivityofthetreatmentprocessestogreasefouling,and theamountof greaseanticipated, agrease trapmaybe included to collectgreaseupstreamoftheWWTP.

• Screening–Screeningisrequiredtopreventdamagetodownstreamequipmentsuchaspumpsormembranes.Dependingonthetreatmentprocess,thescreeningmayincludecoarseorfinescreening.Grindersmaybeusedtochopupsolidsintosmallerparticlesin lieuof screening,but it isnot recommended formostapplicationswherescreeningcanreadilybeaccomplished.

• GritRemoval–Removalofgrit(inorganicsolids)isaccomplishedbyagritchamber.InsmallpackagedWWTPs,agritchamberisusuallynotincludedandthegritisremovedalongwiththeorganicsolidsthathavesettledout.However,duetothehighanticipatedsolidsloadingintheWestBank,gritremovalmaybenecessary,oratleastconsidered,atmostplants. If agrit chamber isnot included,gritwill accumulatewithin theWWTP,andtheWWTPwillneedtobeperiodicallytakenofflineinordertoremovethegrit.Anallowanceforstorage,haulingoroverflowtoawadioftherawwastewaterwouldneedtobeprovided.



August 2012 4‐5

Figure 8: Examples of Pre‐Treatment

4.1.4.2 Post‐Treatment

Tertiarytreatmentprocesses,sometimesreferredtoaspost‐treatment,includethefollowing:

• Filters – Filtersmaybe used to further reduce the amount of suspended solids in thewastewater. In packagedWWTPs in the U.S., sand filters are commonly used after aconventional biological treatment process to achieve more strict treated waterrequirements associated with reuse. Other examples include cloth disk filters andmembranes.

• Disinfection–Disinfectionoftreatedwastewaterinactivatesdisease‐causingorganisms.Types of disinfection include the injection of a chemical into the treated wastewaterstream or the passing of the treated wastewater through ultraviolet (UV) lights.Chemicals may be stored as a liquid (e.g. sodium hypochlorite), stored as a gas andmixedintoacarrierwaterstreamforinjection(e.g.chlorinegas),orstoredandinjectedasagas(e.g.ozone). Thetypeanddegreeofdisinfectionneededisdeterminedbytheintended use of the treated wastewater and Owner preferences for type of chemicalstorage, volume of chemical storage required, frequency of chemical deliveries, andsafetyrequirements.

Figure 9: Examples of Post‐Treatment



August 2012 4‐6

4.2 EvaluationofPackagedWWTPTechnologiesThedifferentpackagedWWTPtechnologiesevaluatedasapartof thisStudyarepresented inthe following subsections. The information is presented in a consistent manner for eachtechnologytoallowforeasiercomparisonstobemadebythereaderbetweenthetechnologies.In general, a discussion of the technology is followed by information regarding the return tooperation after a power outage, construction, and preventative maintenance. Then, a tablepresentingtherequiredfootprint,capitalexpenseandpowerrequirementsforeachofthefour(4)casestudiesisshown.

The footprint information shown represents the footprint required for the maintreatmentprocess,nottheentireWWTPsitethatwouldberequired. It is intendedtoallowforcomparisonofrequiredlandacrossthedifferentflowsandtechnologiesbutisnotappropriate fordeterminingthetotal landneededforaWWTPsite. Thisassumesthatthefootprintrequiredforanypre‐orpost‐treatmentrequiredwouldberelativelysimilaracrossthetechnologies.

The capital expense information shown represents an estimate of the design andconstructionvalueofapackagedWWTP.Section4.2.5providesadditionalinformationonthebasisforthecostinformationprovidedherein.

The connected power information shown represents an estimate of the connectedpower that will be required by the equipment for the packagedWWTP. It does notrepresent theoperatingpower,whichwillbe less than theconnectedpower. Aswiththe footprint information, it is intended to allow for comparison of the energyrequirementsacrossdifferentflowsandtechnologiesbutdoesnotrepresenttheactualamountofelectricitythataparticularpackagedWWTPwillconsume.

Finally, a one‐page table describing a summary of different aspects of each technology ispresented. It includes topics such as process information, cost information, construction,operation&maintenanceandadditionalcomments.Mosttopicsareself‐explanatory.However,afewofthetopicsareintroducedbelow:

HandleHydraulicOverloading(beyondPeak)–Thistopicaddresseshowthetechnologywill handle flows greater than the peak design flow. It is intended to provideinformationonhowthetechnologywouldoperateduringanon‐designsituation.

HandleOrganicOverloading (beyonddesigned loading) – This topic discusses how thetechnologywillhandleorganicloadinggreaterthanthedesignvalues.Itisintendedtoprovide information on how the technology would operate during a non‐designsituation.

Operational Expenses – An operational expense is provided based on assumptionsdetailedinSection4.2.5.Informationisalsoprovidedonthoseitemswhichmakeupthe majority of operational expenditures: energy usage, manpower, chemicals, andsludge hauling. This information is presented so that comparisons may be madebetween the different technologies to gauge the differences in the primary items thatimpactoperationalexpenditures.

4.2.1 ActivatedSludgeActivatedsludge(AS)isthemostcommonsuspendedgrowthbiologicalwastewatertreatmentprocessinusetoday.Whiletherearemanyvariationsoftheactivatedsludgeprocess,alloftheprocessessharethefollowingkeycomponents:

Mixingofinfluentwithmicroorganismsinatank(orreactor)tocreateaMixedLiquorofwastewaterandmicroorganisms;



August 2012 4‐7

Subsequent separation of the microorganisms from the Mixed Liquor to produce aclarifiedwater;

Dischargeoftheclarifiedwaterfromthetreatmentcycle; Returnofthesettledmicroorganismmass(ReturnActivatedSludgeorRAS)tothetank

(orreactor)wheretheoriginalmixingofmicroorganismsandinfluentoccurs;and Removal of excess biomass (Waste Activated Sludge or WAS) from the treatment

processcycleatselect,controlledintervals.TheactivatedsludgetechnologyhasbeenadaptedinseveralwaysforuseinpackagedWWTPs.This includes modifications to the technical parameters or the construction requirements.Examplesoftheseprocessesinclude:

ExtendedAeration, OxidationDitch,and SequencingBatchReactor.



August 2012 4‐8

4.2.1.1 Extended Aeration

Extended aeration is a type of activated sludge process that uses long (20 to 30days) solidsretention time (SRT) to ensure process stability, complete nitrification, and low sludgeproduction.Thesesystemscanbeadaptedtoawidevarietyofinfluentflows,biologicalloadingand operating conditions. In the U.S., extended aeration packaged WWTPs are commonlydesignedwitha24‐hourhydraulicretentiontime(HRT)intheaerationbasin.Fortheloadinganticipated in theWest Bank, manufacturers have indicated that the HRTwould need to beincreasedbeyond24hoursinordertoadequatelytreatthewastewater. Thiswouldcauseanincrease in the footprintof thepackagedWWTPbeyondwhatwouldnormallybe seen in theU.S.forasimilarflowrate.ThemanufacturersofextendedaerationpackagedWWTPs thatwerecontacted for thisStudyhadconcernsregarding theuseof this technology to treat thehigh loadinganticipated in theWestBank.Onemanufacturer(DeltaProcess)didnotfeeltheycouldofferaproductthatwouldbecost‐effectivebecauseoftherequiredfootprintanddecidednottoparticipatefurtherintheStudy. Another manufacturer (Davco, a Siemens division) also elected to not participatebecauseofuncertainty and concernsaboutbeing involved in an internationalproject suchasthis.A third manufacturer (Global Water) did provide detailed information on their technology;however,theproducthasmultipleadd‐onsinadditiontoextendedaerationwhichareintendedto produce a potable water quality effluent. When asked whether their product could bemodified by removing certain add‐ons since theywere not necessary, the responsewas thattheydonotrecommendremovingtheadd‐ons.Finally, a fourthmanufacturer (Smith & Loveless) evaluated the situation and recommendedthat their factory‐built extendedaerationunitswouldnotbeappropriate for this application.Specifically,theyindicatedthatextendedaerationwouldnotbecost‐effectiveatthetwosmallercasestudyflowratesbecauseofthelargefootprintthatwouldberequired. Smith&Lovelessdid propose their field‐erected extended aeration units for the two larger case studies. Thefield‐erected extended aeration unit is a circular packaged plant erected at the WWTP sitewhichhasdifferent compartments customized to the treatment required tomeet theeffluentrequirements.

Figure 10: Examples of Extended Aeration Packaged WWTPs



August 2012 4‐9

Figure 10: Examples of Extended Aeration Packaged WWTPs (continued)

Short duration power outages (i.e., a few hours) will not have a significant effect on theextended aeration process. If wastewater continues to enter the packaged WWTP, it willcontinue topushwastewater through theprocess. Aerationwouldnotoccurduringapoweroutagebecausetheblowerswouldnotoperate,andthereforetreatmentwouldnotbeasrobust.Ifapoweroutageoccurred thatwasgreater thana fewhours, thewastewatermaygoseptic,and the microorganisms needed for treatment may die. At the point when plant operationreturns to normal, it may take days or weeks for the biological process to redevelop andproducetreatedwastewateroftherequiredcharacteristics.The time needed for initial start‐up of the biological process (or regrowth if needed) can bereducedby“seeding”theWWTP.ThiscanbeperformedbytransferringRASfromanoperatingWWTP to the one that is starting up. Another option is to purchase commercially‐availablebiologicalstart‐upseed.Insomesituations,usingexistingRASasthebiologicalstart‐upseedisthe preferredmethod for two reasons. First, using existing RASmay be less expensive thanpurchasingcommercially‐availablebiological start‐upseed. Second, if theWWTP fromwhichRASisbeingtakenisreceivingsewagewithsimilarcharacteristics,theexistingRASmaycontainamicroorganismpopulationthathasalreadydevelopedtotreattheexpectedincomingsewage.Commercially‐available biological start‐up seed is a product offered by some manufacturers



August 2012 4‐10

(suchasGlobalWater)andisaconsumablethatwouldneedtobereplacedregularlyifdesiredbytheoperator,whichwouldimpactongoingoperationalexpenses.Constructionofextendedaerationsystemscanoccurinmultipleapproaches.Theseapproachesinclude:

Pre‐manufactured metal tanks/containers delivered to the site. Site work includesconstructionofconcretepad(s),placementofthetank(s),pipeworkandelectrical.

Pre‐manufacturedsteel componentsdelivered to thesiteand field‐erected into tanks.Siteworkincludesthoseitemsmentionedaboveandalsosteelwelding.

Reinforced concrete tanks constructed onsite and field‐installation of pre‐packagedequipment. Site work includes construction of concrete tanks, installation ofequipment,pipeworkandelectrical.

Modularextendedaerationsystemsmaybeanoptiontomeetlargerflows.Modularsystemsinsuchanapplicationmayconsistofsteeltanksprovidedforeachoftheprocesssteps.TheyareconnectedtooneanothertocreatetheentireWWTPatthedesiredtreatmentcapacity.Informationontheestimatedfootprint,capitalexpenseandpowerrequirementsforextendedaerationareshowninTable9.

Table 9: Extended Aeration Case Studies

Population Capita 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500

Average Flow m3/day 80 200 400 600

gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000

Footprint m2 140 250 400 530

ft2 1,500 2,600 4,200 5,700

Capital Expense $US/m3/d $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3, 500

$US/gpd $19 $17 $15 $13

Power (Connected)

kW 15 30 60 90

hp 20 40 80 120



August 2012 4‐11

Table 10: Extended Aeration Summary

GENERAL

Manufacturers (partial list) Aqua Treat, Delta Process, Gaylord, Global Water, Siemens (Davco), Smith & Loveless, Tipton

Technology History Long, successful history. Commonly used in U.S. for packaged WWTPs. Equipment is not proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows 6 – 190 m3/day (1,500 – 50,000 gpd). Up to 3,800 m3/day (1 MGD) with modular






Meet Effluent WQ Requirements With tertiary filter


No, may wash out microorganisms.


No, will not achieve desired level of treatment. Long time for microorganism population to recover.

Process Control Upstream pump station, Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of Sludge Wasting, RAS Flow Rate Control

Pre‐treatment Requirements Equal. Tank, Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening(minimum), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Temperature and pH Requirements 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical

Requires PLC (Yes / No) No


3.0 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)

Main Treat. Process Footprint (1) 140 – 530 m2 (1,500 – 5,700 ft2)

COST INFORMATION



Power (Connected) (1) 15 ‐ 90 kW (20 ‐ 120 hp)


Chemicals Generally low. Will require supplemental alkalinity (lime or caustic) and metal salts for P removal. Disinfection (if installed).


CONSTRUCTION

Construction Time Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – 6 months Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 months



Ease of O&M Daily operations are straight forward, typical for AS processes. Will require attention to achieve low TN.




ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Dependable process. Not adaptable to shock loading. Microorganisms can be washed out during high flow.




August 2012 4‐12

4.2.1.2 Oxidation Ditch

An oxidation ditch is a type of activated sludge process in which the wastewater flows in acontinuousflowcycle. Atypicaloxidationditchlayoutisanovalpatharoundacenterwallor“island”. Other oxidation ditch configurations fold the flow path within itself creating a “U”configurationwhenviewedfromabove.Movement of the wastewater around the ditch is typically induced by mechanical aeratorswhich have three purposes: oxygen transfer, mixing of influent with mixed liquor, andrecirculation of themixed liquor around the ditch.Mixed liquor recirculation can be used todelivernitrifiedmixedliquortoananoxiczonefordenitrification.IntheU.S.,oxidationditchesarenotcommonlyused inpackagedWWTPapplicationsbecauseof the large footprint that isrequired. However, they have relatively low operating costs and are relatively simple tooperate.Therefore,theyareincludedinthisStudy.

Figure 11: Example of Oxidation Ditch WWTP

Shortdurationpoweroutages(i.e.,afewhours)willnothaveasignificanteffectontheprocess.If wastewater continues to enter the oxidation ditch, it will push wastewater through theprocess. Solidsmay settle in the oxidation ditch. Aerationwould not occur during a poweroutagebecausetheaeratorswouldnotoperate,andthereforetreatmentwouldnotbeasrobust.Ifapoweroutageoccurredthatwasgreaterthanafewhours,thewastewatermaygosepticandthemicroorganisms needed for treatment may die. At the point when operation returns tonormal,itmaytakedaysorweeksforthebiologicalprocesstoredevelopandproducetreatedwastewateroftherequiredcharacteristics.ConstructionofanoxidationditchpackagedWWTPmayconsistoffield‐erectedsteeltanksorconstructionofconcretetanksandtheinstallationofthenecessaryequipmentprovidedbythemanufacturer.Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for anoxidationditchareshowninTable11.



August 2012 4‐13

Table 11: Oxidation Ditch Case Studies



gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000

Footprint m2 300 580 690 710

ft2 3,200 6,200 7,400 7,600

Capital Expense $US/m3/d $10,500 $7,000 $5,500 $4,000

$US/gpd $40 $26 $21 $15

Power (Connected)

kW 10 25 45 65

hp 15 30 60 90



August 2012 4‐14

Table 12: Oxidation Ditch Summary

GENERAL Manufacturers (partial list) Siemens (Orbal)

Technology History Used in U.S. for packaged WWTPs. Equipment is not proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows 130 – 1,900 m3/day (35,000 – 500,000 gpd)








Yes, because of relative high tank volumes. Microorganisms can be “washed out”.


No, microorganisms adversely affected by shock loads. Will not achieve desired level of treatment

Process Control Upstream pump station, Rotation speed and submergence of aerator rotor, Denitrification, RAS Flow Rate Control, Frequency of Sludge Wasting

Pre‐treatment Requirements Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (min.), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)




3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)


COST INFORMATION







CONSTRUCTION





Odors Raw WW treatment component. Issues if not operated correctly.

Noise Mech. aerators produce noise. Interaction of blades at ML surface can generate loud continuous splashing noise


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Large footprint for complete process (OD and Clarifier). Can be constructed into ground to lower profile. Area around aerators or mixers can become a house‐keeping challenge due to spray of ML. DO levels in ditch are critical. DO control can be difficult in shallow ditches.




August 2012 4‐15

4.2.1.3 Sequencing Batch Reactor

Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) systems are a simple, yet sophisticated, variation of theactivatedsludgeprocess.Insteadofwastewaterflowingbygravitythroughdifferentzones,thewastewaterisheldinonebasininwhichthedifferenttreatmentphasesoccurinsequenceovera controlled time schedule for each phase. SBR operation incorporates aeration andclarification in a single tank. Multiple reactors and/or equalization tanks are used toaccommodate continuous influent flow. For example, while one basin is in the treatment(aeration) phase, another basinwill be in the clarification phase. Thus,while one (ormore)batchreactor(s)isprocessingwastewater,anotherreactorisreceivingtheinfluentwastewateruntilitisfullandisabletobeginitsreactionphase.Control of the sequencing of the treatmentphases requires aProgrammableLogicController(PLC). The PLC controls the sequence and timing of the treatment phases based onpredeterminedtreatmentprocesssetpoints.TypicalSBRprogrammingprovidesforautomaticadjustmentofthesesetpointstohandlehigh(peak)flowevents.PoweroutageswillstoptheSBRprocessatthecurrenttreatmentphase.SBRbasinsareoftenconstructedwithanoverflowstructureor fitting to allowwastewater entering the reactor tocontinuetomovethroughthesystemandnotcompletelyoverflowthebasin.Theotheroptionis to allow the upstream system to surcharge. The approach between these two options isdetermined during final design based on the specific situation and Owner/Operatorpreferences.Whenpowerisrestored,thePLCwillreturnoperationtothecurrenttreatmentphase.Aswiththeotheractivatedsludgeprocesses,ifthewastewaterbecomessepticandthemicroorganismsneededfortreatmentdie,itwilltakesometimeforthebiologicalprocesstoreturntonormal.ConstructionofanSBRpackagedWWTPwouldprobablyrequiretheconstructionofreinforcedconcretetanksandtheinstallationofthenecessaryequipmentprovidedbythemanufacturer.Whilesteel tankscanbeused forSBRreactors, thenatureof therequiredequipmentandthetypicaltreatmentvolumesfavorreinforcedconcretetankconstruction.Informationontheestimatedfootprint,capitalexpenseandpowerrequirementsforanSBRareshowninTable13.

Table 13: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Case Studies



gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000

Footprint m2 80 150 260 380

ft2 800 1,600 2,700 4,000

Capital Expense $US/m3/d $8,000 $5, 500 $4,000 $3,500

$US/gpd $30 $21 $15 $13

Power (Connected)

kW 15 30 55 85

hp 20 40 75 110



August 2012 4‐16

Table 14: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Summary

GENERAL Manufacturers (partial list) Aqua‐Aerobic Systems, ITT (ABJ), Siemens

Technology History Long history. Multiple manufacturers which promotes competitive pricing. SBR equipment is not proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows 75 – over 1,200 m3/day (20,000 gpd – over 317,000 gpd)


Sludge Yield Medium to low, dependent on cycle times









Process Control Upstream pump station, PLC, Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of sludge wasting

Pre‐treatment Requirements Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (minimum), Grit removal


Requires PLC (Yes / No) Yes


3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)

Main Treat. Process Footprint (1) 80 – 380 m2 (800 – 4,000 ft2)

COST INFORMATION

Capital Expense (1) US$3,500 – 8,000/m3/day (US$13 – 30/gpd)





Sludge Hauling Medium to low quantity, hauled periodically

CONSTRUCTION




Ease of O&M Once PLC is set up (typically by manufacturer) operation is relatively straight forward. PLC maintenance may require internet connection to manufacturer. Will require attention to achieve low TN.



Operator Skill Required Standard wastewater operator skills required plus special maintenance skills required for some equipment (automatic valves, aeration blowers, etc.)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Treatment phases are time‐, not volume‐, dependent. Influent distributed throughout entire reactor; therefore, settling occurs without short‐circuiting, flow turbulence or mechanical turbulence.




August 2012 4‐17

4.2.2 MovingBedBiofilmReactorAmovingbedbiofilmreactor(MBBR)isanattachedgrowthprocess.Smallmedia(biocarriers)on which the microorganisms live in a biofilm are introduced into a tank, either aerobic oranoxic in nature. The biocarriers aremixed throughout the tank by the air provided by theaerationsysteminthebasin.In MBBR systems, solids retention time in the aeration basin is much greater than in acomparable activated sludge system. AnMBBR systemdoes not return sludge settled in theseparationprocesstothereactor,but insteadwastes itdirectlytothesludgesystem. NoRASpumpingisrequired.Themedia,generallymadeofplastic,aredesignedtoprovidehighsurfaceareasonwhichthebiofilmcontainingthemicroorganisms(biomass)cangrow.ThisenablestheMBBRprocesstoprovideadensermicroorganismpopulationperunitvolumethanasuspendedgrowthactivatedsludgetreatmentprocess.

Figure 12: Examples of MBBR Media (courtesy Veolia/AnoxKaldnes)

WWTPsutilizingthistypeofmediarequirethewastewatertoleavetheaerationbasinthroughscreensorsieveswhichensurethatthebiofilmcarriersdonotleavethebasin.KeyelementsinanMBBRprocessare:

Biocarriers–providesurfaceareaformicrobialfilmgrowth Aeration–providesbothoxygenformicroorganismsandmixing Screens–retainbiocarriersinreactors.

TheMBBRandIntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge(IFAS)processessharemanyofthesameattachedgrowthadvantagesanddisadvantages.IFASisdiscussedinthefollowingsection.ThemostsignificantapparentadvantageofanMBBRprocessoveranIFASprocessistheMBBRdoes not require a RAS stream. However, an additional MBBR reactor may be required toachieve the same level of treatment as provided by an IFAS system. The selection ofwhichprocess is more appropriate for a given situation is dependent on influent characteristics,desiredleveloftreatment,desiredtypeofsludgetreatment,aswellasoperatorpreference.Themajor disadvantage shared by both anMBBR process and IFAS process is that they usecoarsebubblediffusersandoperateathighDOconcentrationsinordertoachieveappropriate



August 2012 4‐18

DOat the center of themedia. This leads to greater energy consumption than a comparablesuspendedgrowthactivatedsludgeprocess.Shortdurationpoweroutages(i.e.,afewhours)willnothaveasignificanteffectontheprocess.If wastewater continues to enter the packaged WWTP, it will push wastewater through theprocess. Aeration would not occur during a power outage because the blowers would notoperate,andthereforetreatmentwouldnotbeasrobust. SolidsmaytemporarilysettleinthepackagedWWTP. Thebiocarrierswill float to thewater surfaceandcollect inamass that isclearlyvisible.Ifapoweroutageoccurredthatwasgreaterthanafewhours,wastewatermaygosepticandthemicroorganisms needed for treatment may die. As with the other processes, returning theoperationtonormalwillincluderedevelopingthebiologicalprocess.Duringfloweventswhichexceedthepeakflowdesign,thebiocarriersmaybewashedoutofthebasin. Theywouldbecollecteddownstream,washedtoremoveattacheddirtanddebris,andreturnedtotheaerationbasin.Washoutcanbepreventedbycertainallowancesinthedesignsuchasscreensorsieves.ConstructionofanMBBRsystemcanoccurinmultipleways.Theymaybeprovidedinfactory‐builtsteeltanks/containersorfield‐erectedconcretetanks,dependingonthedesignflow.Informationontheestimatedfootprint,capitalexpenseandpowerrequirementsforanMBBRareshowninTable15.

Table 15: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Case Studies



gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000

Footprint m2 190 240 340 400

ft2 2,000 2,500 3,600 4,200


$US/gpd $66 $36 $26 $21

Power (Connected)

kW 15 40 80 125

hp 20 55 110 165



August 2012 4‐19

Table 16: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Summary

GENERAL Manufacturers (partial list) Veolia (AnoxKaldnes)

Technology History Technology was developed in 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, such as the biocarriers, may be proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows Up to 570 m3/day (150,000 gpd)








No, washout may lose biocarriers



Process Control Upstream pump station, Aeration, Denitrification

Pre‐treatment Requirements Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Fine Screen (6mm max), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Temperature and pH Requirements 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less temperature dependency than comparable suspended growth AS process



3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)


COST INFORMATION

Capital Expense (1) US$5,500 – 17,500/m3/d (US$21 – 66/gpd)





Sludge Hauling Low quantity, hauled periodically

CONSTRUCTION







Operator Skill Required Standard WW operator skills required

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Coarse bubble aeration system may be more expensive to operate than a fine bubble system in a comparable AS WWTP. Capacity may be expanded by adding biocarriers. No RAS stream needed.




August 2012 4‐20

4.2.3 IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludgeIntegrated fixed‐film activated sludge (IFAS) is a combination of attached growth andsuspendedgrowthtechnologiesintoasinglebiologicalprocess.AnIFASsysteminstallsafixed‐filmmedia (biocarriers) into the activated sludge reactor. Themicroorganismsgrowon thatmedia in a biofilm. As with the MBBR process, the IFAS biofilm provides an overall higherdensity of biomass available to incoming wastewater than is possible with a similar‐sizedsuspendedgrowthtreatmentprocess.Available IFAS systems come in two forms, fixed media and fluidized bed media. The fixedmedia form can be a hexagonal nylon typemesh stretched across ametal frame or a plastic“hexagonal‐honeycomb”tubematerial.Thefluidizedbedmediaareindividualloosegeometricshapedplastic carriers placed in the activated sludgemixed liquor. The features of attachedgrowth growing onbiocarriers are the samewith IFASprocesses as they arewith theMBBRprocessesdiscussedintheprevioussection.

Figure 13: Example of IFAS Fixed Media Units

Figure 14: Example of IFAS Fluidized Media

TheIFASprocessresemblesasuspendedgrowthactivatedsludgeprocess(i.e.,aerationbasin,clarifier, andRASsystem). Thekeydifference is thata comparablecapacity IFASWWTPwillhavesmalleraerationbasinsthanaconventionalsuspendedgrowthactivatedsludgeWWTP.Asmallerbasinvolume ispossiblebecause themicroorganism treatmentpopulation inan IFASWWTPhasahigherdensity(massperunitvolume)thaninacorrespondingsuspendedgrowthactivatedsludgeprocess.AsmentionedfortheMBBR,theIFASprocesshasgreaterenergyconsumptionthancomparablesuspendedgrowthactivatedsludgeprocessesbecauseoftheuseofcoarsebubblediffusersandhighDOconcentrations.



August 2012 4‐21

Shortdurationpoweroutages(i.e.,afewhours)willnothaveasignificanteffectontheprocess.If wastewater continues to enter the packaged WWTP, it will push wastewater through theprocess. Aeration would not occur during a power outage because the blowers would notoperate,andthereforetreatmentwouldnotbeasrobust. SolidsmaytemporarilysettleinthepackagedWWTP.Inafluidizedbedversion,thebiocarrierswillfloattothewatersurfaceandcollectinamassthatisclearlyvisible.Ifapoweroutageoccurredthatwasgreaterthanafewhours,wastewatermaygosepticandthemicroorganisms needed for treatment may die. As with the other processes, returning theoperationtonormalwillincluderedevelopingthebiologicalprocess.As with the MBBR process, during flow events which exceed the peak flow design, thebiocarriersmaybewashedoutofthebasin. Theywouldbecollecteddownstream,washedtoremove attached dirt and debris, and returned to the aeration basin. Washout can bepreventedbycertainallowancesinthedesignsuchasscreensorsieves.

Figure 15: Example of Biocarrier Screens

Construction of an IFAS system can occur in multiple manners. For smaller flows, IFASpackaged WWTPs may be provided in factory‐built steel tanks. Higher flows may requireconstruction of concrete tanks at the site, with the necessary equipment provided by amanufacturer.Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for an IFASsystemareshowninTable17.

Table 17: Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Case Studies



gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000

Footprint m2 180 260 340 420

ft2 1,900 2,800 3,700 4,500


$US/gpd $89 $85 $81 $70

Power (Connected)

kW 20 45 90 130

hp 25 60 115 175



August 2012 4‐22

Table 18: Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Summary

GENERAL Manufacturers (partial list) Smith & Loveless, Veolia

Technology History Technology was developed in 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, such as the biocarriers, may be proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows 8 – 1,200 m3/day (2,000 – 317,000 gpd)


Sludge Yield Medium to low dependent on solids retention time design values used






No, washout may lose biocarriers



Process Control Upstream pump station, aeration flow rate (which controls degree of air and mixing in tank), Denitrification, RAS flow rate control, frequency of sludge wasting

Pre‐treatment Requirements Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Coarse Screening (min), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Temperature and pH Requirements 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less temperature dependency than comparable suspended growth AS process



3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet )


COST INFORMATION

Capital Expense (1) US$ 18,500 – 23,500/m3/d (US$70 – 89/gpd)





Sludge Hauling Medium to low quantity, hauled periodically

CONSTRUCTION








ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Coarse bubble aeration system may be more expensive to operate than a fine bubble system in a comparable AS WWTP. Capacity may be expanded by adding biocarriers.




August 2012 4‐23

4.2.4 MembraneBioreactorMembraneBioreactors(MBR)combinebiologicaltreatmentwithphysicalseparation.Typically,thebiologicalprocessissuspendedgrowth(activatedsludge),butIFASalsohasbeenused.Themembraneallowswatertopassthroughverysmallporeswhilerejectingmicroorganismsandothersolidssuspended in thewater. A typicalMBRprocessusesmultiplecompartments, thelastofwhichcontainsimmersedmembranesforsolidsseparation.Therefore,aclarifierisnotused. In the second photograph shown in Figure 16, the membrane assembly can be seenagainstthefarwalloftheaerationbasin.

Figure 16: Example of MBR Packaged WWTP

ThreetypesofmembranesarecommonlyavailableforMBRprocesses:flatplate,hollowfiber,andtubular.Flatplateandhollowfibermembranesareusedinimmersedconfigurations,whilehollowfiberandtubularmembranesareusedinencasedconfigurations.Eachmanufacturerhasdesigned theirequipmentaroundaspecificmembrane. Therefore, eachMBRmaybeslightlydifferentandhavedifferentoperatingprocedures.Filtratepumpsareusedtopumporpulltreatedwastewaterthroughthemembrane.Ingeneral,membrane treatment requires the use of a filtrate pump to control flow. Onemanufacturerindicated that theirdesignusesgravity (i.e., pressureheadofwater above themembrane) inlieu of a filtrate pump. The flow through themembrane is termed “Flux”. Flux is a limitingfactor in MBR design as it controls the size of the membrane zone, operating pressure, andexpected membrane cleaning frequency. As flux through a membrane increases, morecontaminants are collected on the membrane surface. Over time, membrane pores becomeblocked(referredtoasfouling),andflowthroughthemembranecanbecomerestricted.Maintenancewillincludeextendingtheservicecycleofthemembranethroughairscouringandback‐flushing and, once the service cycle can no longer be extended, chemical cleaning.Depending on the specific manufacturer’s design, cleaning may require removal of themembraneassemblyfromthebasin,orthereactormustbetakenofflineanddrainedtoallowmaintenanceactiontobeaccomplishedinsidethereactor.Onemanufacturerhas indicatedthatchemicalcleaningcanbeperformedwiththemembraneassemblyinplaceandwithoutdrainingthereactor. Chemicalcleaningmayinvolvetheuseofsodiumhypochloritefororganicfoulingoramildacidsuchascitricacidforinorganicfouling.Whenoperatingproperly,membranesproducewaterverylowinsolids.Withtheappropriatebiologicalprocessestoremovenitrogenandphosphorus,theeffluentwillbeveryhighqualitytreatedwastewater.Specifically,MBRswillmeetthemoststricteffluentrequirementswithout



August 2012 4‐24

theneedforadditionalequipment.Variationsintheinfluentwaterquality,includingspikesinsolidsbeyondthedesignedloading,areabletobeprocessedbythemembranesandconsistenteffluentwaterqualityproduced.Spikesintheamountofdissolvedconstituentswillneedtobehandledbythebiologicaltreatmentfirstinorderforthemembranestobeabletoremovethoseparameters.Morefrequentbackwashingwouldberequiredduringanorganicoverloadingduetoincreasedfouling.During any power outage, it is critical that the membranes remain submerged to preventdamage.Oncepowerreturns,thesystemshouldgothroughacleaningprocesstoreverseanyfouling on the membranes. In addition to a power outage, MBR manufacturers noted thatcertainchemicalsorhighlevelsofgreasecouldpermanentlydamagethemembranesifallowedintothepackagedWWTP.Construction of an MBR system can occur in multiple manners. For smaller flows, MBRpackagedWWTPsmaybeprovided in factory‐built steel tanks/containers. Higher flowsmayrequirefield‐erectedunits,withthenecessaryequipmentprovidedbyamanufacturer.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for anMBRareshowninTable19.

Table 19: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Case Studies



gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000

Footprint m2 100 300 400 490

ft2 1,000 3,200 4,200 5,200


$US/gpd $40 $26 $23 $21

Power (Connected)

kW 30 75 150 220

hp 40 100 200 300



August 2012 4‐25

Table 20: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Summary

GENERAL Manufacturers (partial list) GE, Newterra, Siemens, Smith & Loveless, Veolia

Technology History Membrane technology more recently developed. Membrane equipment and membranes are proprietary.

PROCESS INFORMATION

Range of Flows 2 – 3,800 m3/day (500 gpd – 1 MGD)





Achieve Phosphorus Removal Yes, if design for P removal (chemical addition)

Meet Effluent WQ Requirements Yes


No, membrane flux defines maximum flow that can pass through membrane


Yes, will cause more frequent backwashing of membrane

Process Control Upstream pump station, Filtrate pump, Aeration, Denitrification, RAS Flow Rate Control

Pre‐treatment Requirements Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Fine Screening (2mm), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)

Temperature and pH Requirements 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 – 8.0 pH – typical

Requires PLC (Yes / No) Yes


3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)


COST INFORMATION

Capital Expense (1) US$5,500 – 10,500/m3/day (US$21 – 40/gpd)


Power (Connected) (1) 30 ‐ 220 kW (40 – 300 hp)


Chemicals Required for cleaning (sodium hypochlorite, citric acid). P removal. Sodium hydroxide for pH control.


CONSTRUCTION




Ease of O&M Daily operations are more automated and require more operator skill for troubleshooting than other technologies. Will require attention to achieve low TN.



Operator Skill Required High

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Typically higher operational costs than suspended growth AS processes due to higher process aeration requirement because of lower oxygen transfer efficiency at high MLSS concentration and air scour blowers. Chemical costs are also higher.




August 2012 4‐26

4.2.5 BasisofCostInformation

4.2.5.1 Capital Expenditures

Capital expense information provided herein is based upon information frommanufacturers,wastewatertreatmentprojectsrecentlytenderedintheWestBank,andindustryinformation.As mentioned earlier, information provided from the manufacturers varied. The submittedinformationwas reviewed and, where necessary, supplemented in order tomake the valuesable to be compared to one another. Where cost was not included in the proposals, thefollowingassumptionsweremade:

US$530/m3/day(US$2/gpd)fortankagewhereon‐sitetanksmustbeconstructed, US$265–1,320/m3/day (US$1 ‐5/gpd) for sitework (dependingonamountof field

erection), US$130–265/m3/day(US$0.50‐$1.00/gpd)forshipping(dependingonwhethersteel

tankstobeshippedorconcretetankstobebuiltonsite), US$265–790/m3/day(US$1‐$3/gpd) forelectricalandinstrumentation(depending

onsophistication), US$130/m3/day(US$0.50/gpd)forfiltration,and US$130/m3/day(US$0.50/gpd)forchemical/disinfectionsystems.

TheunitcapitalexpenseisprovidedonaU.S.Dollarpercubicmeterperday(andpergallonperday)basis.Asthedesignflowofatreatmentplantincreases,theunitcapitalexpensebecomeslessbecauseoftheeconomiesofscale.Forexample,extendedaerationpackagedWWTPswereestimated to have a unit capital expense ranging from US$3,500 – 5,000/m3/d (US$13 ‐19/gpd). The lowerunit cost is associatedwithhigher flow rates and thehigherunit cost isassociatedwiththelowerflowrates.Seetheexamplesbelow:

80m3/day(eq.pop.of1,000)*US$5,000/m3/day=US$400,000CapitalExpense 200m3/day(eq.pop.of2,500)*US$4,500/m3/day=US$900,000CapitalExpense 400m3/day(eq.pop.of5,000)*US$4,000/m3/day=US$1,600,000CapitalExpense 600m3/day(eq.pop.of7,500)*US$3,500/m3/day=US$2,100,000CapitalExpense

Duringtheexpat’stripinJune/July2012,discussionswereheldwithPWAstaffontheAl‐TirehprojectandtheengineersfortheAl‐ReehandevelopmenttoobtaincostinformationonWWTPprojectsthathaverecentlybeentendered. Thetenderedcostsfortheseprojectsrangedfrom$4,000‐$7,500/m3. Note thatboththeAl‐TirehandAl‐Reehantendersconsidereda lowerinfluentqualityandlessereffluentrequirementsthanwhat isassumedinthisStudy,andtheywerealsolargerplantsutilizingmembranetechnology.The capital expense information is based on the anticipated high influent loading and stricteffluentrequirementsasdiscussedinSection3.1.3.2.OnceapotentiallocationforapackagedWWTPisselected,anyreductionintheactualdesigninfluentloadingoreffluentrequirementsshouldresultinareducedunitcapitalexpense.

4.2.5.2 Operating Expenditures

Operatingexpense informationprovidedherein isbasedupon informationon themanpower,power and chemical consumption, maintenance and solids handling costs. The costinformationwasbaseduponmanufacturer‐dataandindustryinformation.Thisinformationisprovidedasabasisofcomparisonofthetechnologiesandhasagenerallevelof accuracy that is appropriate for a feasibility study of wastewater treatment in a location



August 2012 4‐27

where no historical operational data exists onwhich to base assumptions. Additionally, it isdifficult toaccuratelypredict theoperationalexpensesbecauseof theunknown locationsandoperationalstrategy.Whererequired,thefollowingassumptionsweremade:

US$40,000/yearsalaryfortheoperationalstaff, Operatingpoweris50%oftheconnectedpower. Powercostof0.6NIS/kWhrandaconversionof3.8NIS/USD. ChemicalcostofUS$0.10/m3foralltechnologiesexceptMBR.Assumedachemicalcost

ofUS$0.15/m3forMBRtoaccountforchemicalcleanings. MaintenancecostofUS$0.05/m3foralltechnologies. SolidshandlingcostofUS$0.05/m3foralltechnologies.

4.2.6 PackagedWWTPTechnologiesEvaluationConclusionsBased on the evaluation of the packaged WWTP technologies, following are the generalconclusionsassociatedwitheachtechnology:

ExtendedAeration–LowerCAPEX;lowerOPEX;largerfootprint. Oxidation Ditch – Lower CAPEX at higher flows; lower OPEX; larger footprint;

straightforwardprocess. SequencingBatchReactor –LowerCAPEX; lowerOPEX; smaller footprint;PLCcontrol

required;uniqueoperationswithsingletankaddscomplexity. MovingBedBiofilmReactor–HigherCAPEX;higherOPEX;Lesstemperaturedependent

thancommonASprocesses;finescreeningrequired. IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge–HigherCAPEX;higherOPEX; lesstemperature

dependentthancommonASprocesses. MembraneBioreactor–HigherCAPEX;higherOPEX;smallerfootprint;consistentlyhigh

quality effluent; PLC control required; fine screening required; additional chemicalsrequiredforcleaning.

Note that a reduction in the effluentwater quality requirements from thoseused in the casestudies(suchasbeingabletouselowqualityreuseforcertainagriculture)willresultinsmallerCAPEX,OPEXandfootprintthanwhatwaspresentedinthecasestudies.

4.3 EvaluationofPotentialCommunitiesTheselectionofthecommunitiesinwhichpackagedWWTPsmaybeinstalledisjustascriticaltothesuccessoftheimplementationastheselectionofthetreatmenttechnologyitself.TherearemultiplefactorswhichwillmakecertaincommunitiesmoreappealingandappropriatefortheuseofpackagedWWTPs.ThoughtheidentificationandselectionofspecificcommunitiestoreceivepackagedWWTPswasnotwithinthescopeofthisStudy,theauthorsfeelitisimportanttokeepthesefactorsinmindduringanyfutureselectionprocess. Someofthekeyfactorsarediscussedherein.

4.3.1 ExistingInfrastructureMost types of wastewater treatment require a relatively steady flow of wastewater into thetreatment plant to keep the process biologically active and the water fresh and generallyoperatemoreefficiently. Citizens incommunitieswhichdonothavea reliablepotablewatersupplyandpipenetworkaremorewater‐frugalandthereforeproducealoweramountandlessconsistentflowofwastewater. Thosecommunitieswhichhaveareliablewatersupplyandanexisting potable water pipe network are more likely to have a steady flow of wastewateravailable for treatment. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of successful treatment, it is



August 2012 4‐28

advisedthatcommunitieswhichpresentlyhaveareliablepotablewaterpipenetworkinstalledto each building are given priority with respect to receiving a packagedWWTP. If a watersystemisplannedforacommunityinthenearfuture,thecommunitymayalsobegivenpriorityatalesserdegree.Similarly, it is critical that a community to receive a packaged WWTP have a wastewatercollection system to takewastewater from the sourceanddeliver it directly to the treatmentplant.SeeSection5.1foramoredetaileddiscussionofwastewatercollectionsystems.

4.3.2 PopulationPackagedWWTPsareoptimizedwhenoperatingatcertainflowrangesandbiological loading.Eachtypeoftechnology,andpotentiallyeachmanufacturer’smodel,mayhaveadifferentflowrangeatwhichitoperatesatoptimumefficiencies. Basedontheinformationprovidedbythemanufacturerswith respect toappropriate flowrangesand loading, it isnoted thatpackagedWWTPsintheWestBankappeartobemostappropriateforcommunitieswithlessthan7,500people. As therequireddesign flowincreases, the implementationofapackagedWWTPmaychange from single packaged units to those that would incorporate multiple trains/units.Additionally, the use of modular packagedWWTPs or field‐erected structures could also benecessaryathigherflows.TheactualimplementationofapackagedWWTPatanydesignflowwould depend on the technology selected, manufacturer’s capabilities and the communitygeography.

4.3.3 PotentialGrowthManyWestBankcommunitiesareexpectedtohavegrowthinpopulationovertime.Asuitablecommunity for a packagedWWTP is one that is not anticipated to grow beyond that whichwouldresultinaflowbeyondthecapacityoftheWWTPduringtheexpecteddesignlifeofthefacility.ThislimitationisrecommendedsothatanyfutureexpansionneededduringthedesignlifeofafacilitywouldbewithintheflowsabletobereasonablytreatedbyapackagedWWTP.

4.3.4 PotentialforReuseUseofthetreatedwastewaterwillbedeterminedbytheagriculturalwaterneedsofthelandintheimmediatevicinityofthecommunityatwhichapackagedWWTPislocated. TheMoAhasdefinedtheacceptableusesfortreatedwastewaterandthewaterqualityrequirementswhichmust be met in Palestinian National Authority TR 34‐2012. Areas with agriculture that isappropriateforreuse,suchasolives,dates,andalmonds,willallowforthetreatedwastewatertobereusedlocally,offsettingthedemandforpotablewaternormallyrequiredbyagriculture.Treatedwastewater incommunities thatdonothaveagricultureappropriate forreusewouldlikely be disposed of in the nearest wadi unless another option for reuse is identified. Theintendeduseordisposalmethodforthetreatedwastewatershouldbedeterminedduringthedesign phase, since it could impact the required effluent quality, and the location of thepackagedWWTP determined based on this information. It is recommended that priority isgiven to those communities that have agriculture in close proximity which meets therequirementsforreuse,andwherethecommunityhasaneedandinterestinreusingthetreatedwastewater.

4.3.5 CommunityInterestThesuccessoftheimplementationofapackagedWWTPbeinginstalledandoperatedwithinacommunity will be heavily dependent on the community’s interest and support. The LocalGovernmentwouldneedtobeinvolvedinthecoordinationofmanycriticalissueswithrespect



August 2012 4‐29

to theneedsof their constituents, requirements for the constructionof thepackagedWWTP,andcommunicationwithallpartiesduringoperationofthepackagedWWTP.Additionally,theLocalGovernmentwill be critical in communicatingbetween their constituents andUSAID toprovideapackagedWWTPthathas thebest chances for successover its life. Therefore, it isimperativethattheimplementationofapackagedWWTPsystemhasthesupportoftheLocalGovernmentandthecommunitymembers.

4.3.6 LandAvailabilityIn general, the anticipated footprint of apackagedWWTP for small communities is relativelysmall as compared to a larger regional‐type WWTP. Packaged WWTPs have differing landrequirementsdependingonthetechnologyutilized.TheanticipatedfootprintsarepresentedinSubsection4.2. LandwillberequiredforthepackagedWWTPandancillaryequipment. Thelocationofthelandshouldbebasedonthegeographyofthecollectionbasinandtheintendeduseof the treatedwastewater. Ingeneral, treatmentplantsshouldbe locateddownstreamofthe community it serves to take advantage of gravity in the collection system to minimizepumping.Ifthetreatedwastewaterwillbereused,theproximitytotheagriculturalareashallalsobe taken intoconsideration. If the treatedwastewater is tobedischarged, thepackagedWWTPshouldbelocatednearthewadi,inanareaabovethefloodlevel.A feasiblecommunitywillbeonewhichhas landavailable for theconstructionofapackagedWWTPatanappropriatelocation.

4.3.7 GeopoliticalLocationAreaswithintheWestBankaredescribedasA,BorCdependingonhowmuchauthorityandcontrol thePalestinianAuthority (PA)has. Those areas classified asAreaA are theoreticallyundertotalPAcontrol. Assuch,projectswithinAreaAshouldhaveminimalIsraeli influence,exceptasrelatedtoJointWaterCommitteeapprovalfortheprojectandtheimportofmaterialstotheWestBank.Itisrecommendedthatcommunitiesforwhichacollectionsystem,packagedWWTP and any associated infrastructure arewholly located in Area A are given priority forselectiontoreceiveapackagedWWTP.


5.0 Additional Topics

August 2012 5‐1

5.0 AdditionalTopics

ThissectionprovidessomegeneraldiscussionofvarioustopicsthatarerelatedtoWWTPsandwereconsideredtosomeextentduringthisStudy.

5.1 CollectionSystemsWastewater collection systems are pipe networks that collect raw wastewater from sourcessuch as houses, schools, businesses and industrial locations and transport it to a location fortreatmentand/ordisposal.Indevelopedcountries,itistheindustry‐standardtotransportrawwastewatertoatreatmentplantbeforethetreatedwastewaterisdischargedorreused.Collection systems in theWest Bank predominantly exist inmajor cities and somemedium‐sized cities. In general, collection systemsdischargeuntreatedwastewater to the localwadi.For example, approximately half of the rawwastewater generated in the city of Jerusalem isdischarged to Wadi al Nar (see Figure 17), which flows to the Dead Sea and passes manycommunitiesalongtheway.

Figure 17: Raw Wastewater in Wadi al Nar

In themajority ofWest Bank communities, no collection system exists. Septic tanks, whichoperate more like cesspits, are used at each building. No leach field is associated with thecesspits. Each owner of a cesspit is responsible to have their tank cleaned (typically by avacuumtruck)inordertoremovesolidsandliquidfromthetankandpreventoverflowsfromoccurring.In general, wastewater treatment processes require a relatively consistent flow of rawwastewater into theWWTP. For biological processes, this is necessary in order to keep thebiologyfreshandwatermovingthroughthesystem. ItwouldnotbeidealtoonlycollectrawwastewaterfromcesspitsandtruckthewastewatertoaWWTPbecausethiswouldnotprovideaconsistentflowofwastewatertotheplant.AsdescribedinSubsection3.1.3.4ExistingWWTPsOperatingintheWestBank,thereisapackagedWWTPinstalled inNahhalin(fundedbyARIJ)whichwasnotsuccessful(seeFigure18).Oneofthemodesoffailurewasthatnocollectionsystemexistsorwasconstructedforthevillage,andwastewaterwastruckedtothepackagedWWTPresultinginveryinconsistentflowthroughthepackagedWWTP.Thistypeofscenarioshouldnotberepeatedinthefuture.



August 2012 5‐2

Figure 18: Nahhalin Packaged WWTP

Therefore, it is recommended that any community evaluated for a packaged WWTP eitheralreadyhaveacollectionsysteminstalled,willhaveacollectionsysteminplacebythetimeapackagedWWTPisinstalled,oracollectionsystemisdesignedandconstructedalongwiththepackagedWWTPdesignandconstruction.BasedoninformationfromthePWA,itappearsthatitisagoalofthePWAforcollectionsystemstobeinstalledinlocationswheretheywillserveat least80%ofthepotentialusers. Thiscanprovechallenging forsomecommunitiesdueto themountainousterrain. ThroughtheuseofpackagedWWTPsandstrategicsitelocations,itmaybepossibletoserve100%ofacommunitywith a collection system. Therefore, it is recommended that selection of feasible packagedWWTP sites include an evaluation of the potential collection system layout, and thosecommunities which can achieve 100% of the area serviced (potentially by more than onepackagedWWTP)begivenpriority.IntheU.S.,themajorityofcollectionsystemsinvolveacombinationofgravitysewersandforcemains.Gravitysewersareanetworkofpipesandmanholesinwhichtherawwastewaterflowsbygravitytotheendlocation. Forcemainsarepressurizedpipesinwhichrawwastewaterispumpedfromapumpstationtotheendlocation.Anotherfeaturethatcanbeimplementedtomaximize theuseof gravity sewers is a lift station. Lift stationsarepumpstations that “lift”wastewater fromthe lowelevationat theendofonegravitysystemtoahighelevationat thestartofanothergravitysystem.Duringdesignofacollectionsystem,itisidealtomaximizetheuse of gravity sewers because of the power consumption and operational and maintenanceneedsassociatedwithpumpstations. Gravitysewersmayrequireperiodiccleaningtoreducesolidsdeposition,greaseaccumulationandthepotentialforcloggingofthepipes.

5.2 OperationandMaintenanceofPackagedWWTPsOperation and maintenance (O&M) of WWTPs is critical to achieving the desired level oftreatmentand longevityof the facility,and this isespecially true forpackagedWWTPs. O&Mwill includetasksthatshouldoccuratregular intervals(preventative)aswellasurgent itemsthat are not expected (emergency). O&M is commonly referred to as one item, but they areactuallytwounique,butrelated,topics.

OperationofaWWTPincludesmonitoringandchangingthetreatmentprocesssothatitis in a state thatwill produce the desired quality of treatedwastewater andwork asefficiently as possible. Operation includes both general housekeeping and process‐controltasks.Operatorswillneedtoadjustthetreatmentprocessinordertooptimize



August 2012 5‐3

treatment.TheEPA“BiologicalNutrientRemovalProcessesandCosts”FactSheetstatesthat “…[Biological Nutrient Removal] BNR processes are very sensitive to influentconditions which are influenced by weather events, sludge processing, and othertreatmentprocesses(e.g.,recyclingafterfilterbackwashing).”Examplesofoperationaltasksincludeadjustingtheamountofaeration,wastingactivatedsludge,oradjustingachemicalfeedrate.

Maintenance includes both preventativemaintenance (i.e., plannedmaintenance) andmaintenance of items that need attention. Examples of maintenance tasks includelisteningtothesoundsofapieceofequipmentinoperationtodetermineifanythinghaschanged, repackingpumpsealsaftera certainnumberofhoursofoperation,or fixingdamaged/inoperableequipment.

Preventativemaintenance(PM)performedonpackagedWWTPequipmentwillextendthelifeoftheequipmentandmaximizethecostbenefitoftheoverallproject.Eachtypeoftechnologyhas certain key components which need PM to prevent costly emergency repairs orreplacements,suchas:

Extendedaeration‐blowersandRASpumps, Oxidationditch–aeratorsandRASpumps, SBR–aerationequipment,PLC,automatedvalvesanddecanters, MBBR–blowersandwastepumps, IFAS–blowersandRASpumps,and MBR–membranes,filtratepumps,PLC.

In almost every instance ofWWTP ownership and operation, PM ismore cost‐effective thanoperating equipment until failure, forcing new equipment acquisition and often requiringemergencymeasures.ProvidingtheappropriatenumberandtypeofpersonneltooperateandmaintainWWTPsisakeypartofasuccessfulWWTPO&Mprogram. Toofewpersonnelwillresult inactionseithernotbeingaccomplished,ortheoperatorsmayberushedtocompletionresultinginpoorworkquality. On theothersideof thestaffingchallenge,anover‐staffedWWTPprogramwillhavehigher than necessary labor costs. Thus, matching operations and maintenance personnelstaffingtotheworktaskrequirementsisessentialnotonlyforfinancialreasonsbutalsofortheoverallhealthoftheWWTPworkforce.ToassistWWTPowners/managersinmanagingtheirwork forces, theamountofwork thatmustbeperformed isoftenquantified intoan industryacceptedunit–theFullTimeEquivalent.A full time equivalent (FTE) is the theoretical number of full‐time employees required toperformtheworkduringafixedtimeperiod,suchasoneweek,onemonth,oroneyear. FTEsimplifies work measurement by converting work load hours into the number of peoplerequired to complete that work. For packagedWWTPs, it is anticipated that one packagedWWTPwillrequirelessthanoneFTE.Therefore,itwillbemosteffectivetohaveanO&Mstaffthat handlesmultiple packagedWWTPs in an area that can be traveled to daily. Operatorswouldbeassigned tomonitormultiplepackagedWWTPs,whichwould likely includevisitingeach one daily. Operator responsibilities should incorporate the geopolitical restrictions ontravelwithintheWestBank.ForthepurposesofthisStudy,itwasassumedthatoneFTEwouldworkeight(8)hoursperdayforfive(5)daysperweek.In addition to determining the number of operators necessary to staff potential packagedWWTPs, it is also necessary to determine the organizational structure under which theoperatorswillbeemployed. Duringtheexpats’visits, itwasunderstoodthatthegovernment



August 2012 5‐4

structures that currentlyexisthave limitationson thepay scales that couldbeoffered to thistypeofemployee. Further, itwas indicated that individuals that receive trainingonoperatorskills may become motivated to seek work elsewhere to access higher pay, as people aregenerally more willing to travel for well‐paid employment. This situation may lead to asituationinwhichstaffisnotabletoberetained.IntheU.S.andothercountrieswithmaturewastewatersectors,manyWWTPsareoperatedbyprivatecompanies. OperatingcompaniesarecontractedbytheWWTPownerstoperformtheO&M on theWWTP. These companies provide training to their employees and the supportnecessary togrowaskilledoperatorwork‐force. At this time, it is recommended thatUSAIDand PWA continue to evaluate the organizational structure under which WWTP operatorswould be employed and consider the potential for a private company to take on thatresponsibility.

5.3 ReuseInmanywater‐scarcelocationsaroundtheworld,wastewateristreatedtostandardsthatallowit tobe reusedas an alternatewater source. The standardswhichgovern the level towhichwastewater is treatedmust be carefully defined in order to protect the environment and thehealth and wellness of citizens. In theWest Bank, extremely arid areas such as the JerichoGovernorate may be motivated to implement reuse because of the lack of water resources.Otherareasmaybe interested inreusetooffset theuseofwater foragriculturalneedsor forother environmental goals. TheMoAhasdefined the requirements surrounding the reuse oftreatedwastewater inPalestinianNationalAuthorityTR34‐2012. Thisdocumentdefines four(4)differentcategoriesofeffluentrequirementstowhichwastewatermustbetreatedinordertobereused,eachofwhichisappropriateforapplicationwithcertaintypesofagricultureandirrigationmethods.WhenitisdeterminedthataspecificpackagedWWTPwillbeimplemented,itisrecommendedthatthelikelylocationofthepackagedWWTPisdeterminedintheplanningphase,priortothedesign. Additionally, the types of agriculture available and the desire for reuse by the localgovernment should be determined during the planning phase. This will define the effluentrequirements for each particular location and the potential types of technology that mayeffectively meet those effluent requirements. During the preliminary engineering phase ofdesign,theprocessselectioncanbemadebasedontheappropriateeffluentrequirements.

5.4 EmergencyOperationsOperation of a packagedWWTPduring an emergency is something that should be evaluatedbeforehandandplanned for, to theextentpossible. Developmentof anEmergencyResponsePlan(ERP) isan industrybestpracticethatshouldbeundertakenwithparticipation fromtheOwner, design engineer, manufacturer and operator. An ERP will outline potentialclassifications of emergencies and the appropriate actions to be taken during a specificemergency. It will also define how to return to normal operation once the emergency hasended.Informationsuchaspersonnelphonenumbers,medicalresources,materialsafetydatasheets,etc.areincludedintheERP.Emergenciesthataffectoperationmayresultfromnaturalevents (excessive rainfall), onsite accidents (personnel injury, chemical spill), offsite events(short‐term or long‐term electrical source failure, blocked access to WWTP site, loss ofcommunications, personnel absence), andWWTP events (process failure, equipment failure,effluentrequirementsnotmet,WWTPoverloading).



August 2012 5‐5

Whenevaluatingdifferentpotential treatment technologies for thepurposeof thisStudy, it isimportant tounderstandhoweach technologywould likely respondduringdifferent typesofemergencies. Also, it is necessary to understand how the technology will recover after anincident has occurred. For instance, a power outagemay cause a certain technology to shutdown,butthewastewaterwillcontinuetoflowbygravitythroughtheprocess.Whenpowerisreturned, the technology will return to processing the wastewater. A different type oftechnologymayoverflowonto the facility siteduring apoweroutageorhavemoredifficultyreturningto“normal”operation. Themanufacturerswereaskedtoidentifypotentialcriticalemergency scenarios thatwould causea significantdisruption to theWWTPs. The scenariosthatwereidentifiedincludedalong‐termpoweroutageandlackofO&M.Adiscussionofhoweachtechnologywouldhandlealong‐termpoweroutageispresentedinSubsection4.2.

5.5 FutureExpansionWhere it is anticipated that the population of a certain community could grow beyond thedesigncapacityofapackagedWWTP,allowancesshouldbemadeduringdesigntoexpandthefacility relatively easily to accommodate the additional flow. Some of the allowances madeduringdesigncouldincludeallocationoflandforadditionalequipment,pipinginamannerthatwillallowfutureexpansion,andsizingtheelectricalsupplytoallowfortheexpansion. Atthetimewhena specific community is identified for apackagedWWTP, it shouldbedeterminedwhetherthedesignshouldincludeallowancesforfutureexpansion.PackagedWWTPs can also be used as a short‐termor interim solution in advance of longer‐termregionalizationplans.Forinstance,intheU.S.packagedWWTPsareofteninstalledalongwithassociatedcollectionsystemsduringthedevelopmentofnewcommunities/subdivisions.This allows residences and businesses in the development to receive sewage collection andtreatmentservicesquickly.Overtime,asacity/communitydevelopsfurther,alargerWWTPmay be constructed to handle a larger population from amore regional area. At this point,packagedWWTPsmaybedecommissionedorthesitesconvertedtopumpstationstosendflowto the regional WWTP. Depending on the exact type and configuration of plant, it may bepossibleforsmallerpackagedWWTPstoberelocatedandusedatotherlocationsfairlyeasily.ThiscouldbeanappropriateapplicationintheWestBank,consideringthattherearelong‐termplans to build a number of regionalWWTPs. PackagedWWTPs could be installed relativelyquicklytoprovideserviceforcommunitiesthatarewithintheboundariesofplannedregionalWWTPs, and once the regionalization process occurs at some point in the future and thenecessary infrastructure is put in place, the packaged WWTPs can be decommissioned orrelocated.

5.6 SludgeSludgeismadeupoftheresidualsolidsthatareremovedfromwastewater.PackagedWWTPsusuallyincludeatankinwhichthesludgethatisremovedfromtheprocessisstoreduntiltheoperator is ready to dispose of it. PackagedWWTPsusually donot include an onsite sludgeprocessingfacilitybecausethelandand/orequipmentrequirementsdonothaveaneconomicalcost/benefitratiofortheamountofsludgeproduced.Sludgemustbe removed from theprocess for treatment tobeoptimized. Some technologiesallow forperiodic removalof the sludge,while some technologies require regular removalofsludge.Sludgemustbehandledanddisposedofproperly,accordingtolocalregulations.Sludgeleaving a packagedWWTPwill typically have a solids content of approximately one percent(1%),whichisstillhandledasa liquidandwouldneedtobetransportedwithatankertruck.Thesludgewouldneedtobefurtherprocessedwithamethodsuchasdryingbedsorbeltfilter



August 2012 5‐6

presses.ResearchindicatesthatdryingbedsarecurrentlyinuseatWWTPsintheWestBank.Additionally,oneof theexpatsobservedbelt filterpresses inusetohandlewaste fromstone‐cuttingfacilitiesinHebron,andbeltfilterpresseswerealsoinuseattheAl‐BirehWWTPduringapreviousB&Vsitevisit.In theU.S., it iscommonpractice for thesludge frompackagedWWTPs tobe transportedviatankertrucktoaregionalWWTPwhichhasasludgeprocessingfacility.ForpotentialpackagedWWTPsintheWestBank,theprocessforsludgehandlingwillneedtobedeterminedduringtheplanningphase.ThismayincludeidentifyingaregionalWWTPwhichiswillingtoacceptsludgefor processing, or it may involve construction of a sludge processing facility specifically forprocessing of sludge frommultiple packagedWWTPs. As indicated earlier, the cost/benefitratio for a sludgeprocessing facilitywillbecomemore reasonable for the treatmentof largerquantitiesofsludgethanjustthatfromonepackagedWWTP.ForsomelocationsintheWestBank,itmaybenecessarytoincludedryingbedsatthesiteofthepackagedWWTP,dependingonthelikelihoodofsludge‐haulingandidentificationofanappropriateprocessingfacility.

Figure 19: Example of Sludge Drying Beds

Research has indicated that dried sludge may be disposed of in landfills in the West Bank.Duringthedesignphase,itwouldbecriticaltoidentifythelandfillthatwouldbeappropriateforsludge disposal and begin identifying any permitting requirements that would be necessary.Additionally, there is the potential for land application of the dried sludge if and whenappropriateenvironmentalregulationsaredefined.

5.7 FundingFunding for wastewater infrastructure improvements is critical for both the capital andoperational expenditures. In general, capital expenditures (CAPEX) include the amountrequiredtodesignandconstructaWWTPandcollectionsystem.OnceaWWTPishandedoverto theOwner, theoperational expensesbeginandcontinue throughout the lifeof theWWTP.Operationalexpenditures(OPEX)includeitemssuchasenergyusage,manpower,chemicalsandsludgehauling. A steadystreamof income to theOwnerorganization is required inorder tofundtheOPEX.The determination ofwhether to build aWWTP and collection system should be based on acost/benefit analysis. For the wastewater sector in the West Bank, there appears to be asubstantialenvironmentalandsocialbenefitthatwouldresultfromtheseimprovements. Theconsideration of whether packaged WWTPs or regionalized WWTPs is appropriate wouldincludeanevaluationoftheeconomiesofscaleandalsotheadditionalcommunitiesthatwouldbenefit fromwastewater treatment. Regarding theeconomiesof scale,packagedWWTPsaresmaller and generally serve a smaller population than conventional regionalized plants.



August 2012 5‐7

Therefore,itisexpectedthatpackagedWWTPsdonotbenefitfromeconomiesofscaleandwillbemoreexpensivethanregionalizedWWTPswhenviewedonaU.S.Dollarpercubicmeterperdaybasis.Iftheevaluationincludesthecostsassociatedwithdevelopingtherelatedcollectionsystems, thecostpervolumemaybecomemore in linewithoneanother. Evenconsideringapotentiallyhigherunitcost,themostbeneficialaspectofthescaleofapackagedWWTPisthatitwillallowforcommunitiesthatmaynotbeplannedforconnectiontoregionalizedWWTPstoreceiveservice.AsstatedinSubsection2.5,greaterthan85%ofcommunitiesintheWestBankhave a 2012 population less than 7,500 people, and these communities contain 40% of thepopulationoftheWestBank. Additionally,packagedWWTPsprovideanopportunitytobegindevelopingthewastewatersectorbycreatingacollectionsystemandimplementingtreatmentuntilsuchatimethatthecommunityisconnectedtoaregionalizedWWTP.OPEXassociatedwithapackagedWWTPwillbetheresponsibilityoftheorganizationtowhichownership of the infrastructure is transferred. As with the water systems, a method forcollecting user fees will need to be established. At this time, individual users are generallyresponsible for having their cesspits cleaned out occasionally via the use of vacuum trucks.Those individual users who regularly arrange for cesspit cleaning should be accustomed toallocatingamonthlypayment forwastewaterserviceand thereforewould likelybewilling toredirect their expenses to a wastewater utility/user fee. Educating users on the need forwastewatercollectionsystemsand treatmentwillassist ingainingsupportof thewastewaterfeesandthepotentialincreasethatahouseholdmayseeintheamountofmoneytheyallocatetowardswastewater.

5.8 TransportationandImportFor the purposes of anyprojectwhichmaybe constructed throughUSAID, themanufacturerwouldneedtomeetthe“BuyAmerican”requirements.Therefore,itappearsthatthemajorityofmanufacturerswouldshippre‐packagedtanksand/orcontainersfromtheirfactorylocatedsomewhereintheU.S.Thiswouldlikelyrequireover‐landshippingtotheappropriateU.S.port,over‐sea shipping to a nearby port (e.g., Ashdod, Ashkelon, Hadera or Haifa), and over‐landshippingtothepackagedWWTPsite.Thetanks/containerswillgothroughIsraelicustomsandmaytravelthroughmultipleIsraeli‐controlledcheck‐pointsintheWestBank.

5.8.1 TransportationThepre‐packagedtanksandcontainerswillbe,atamaximum,thestandardshippingsize.Thiswill allow for the most efficient over‐land and over‐sea shipping. Manufacturers of pre‐packaged tanks will most likely construct the tanks in a manner that will allow them to beshipped as‐is and also potentially use the space inside of the tanks for shipping of ancillaryequipment. Whereamanufacturerisshippingpre‐fabricatedsteelandotherequipmenttobefield‐erected/installed,itwillbeplacedinastandardcontainerforshipping.PackagedWWTPsthatare factory‐builtwill requiremoreshippingsince thecomponentsaremostlyassembled;however,thesiteworkwillbeminimized.PackagedWWTPsthatarefield‐erectedwillrequirelessshippingsincethecomponentswillnotbeassembledandpotentiallyabletobepackagedinamoreefficientmanner;however,moresiteworkwillbenecessarytoinstalltheWWTP.Over‐land shipping through the West Bank will likely require the approved use of Israeli‐controlledroads.SomePalestinianroadsareexcessivelynarrowandwindingandwillpreventsafetransportoftheWWTP.



August 2012 5‐8

Figure 20: Examples of Packaged WWTPs Ready for Over‐land Transport

5.8.2 ImportBasedoninformationreceivedfromUSAID,IsraelhasadoptedtheWassenaarArrangementviatheirControlonMilitaryExports(ControlledDualUseEquipment)Order2008.TheWassenaarArrangementisaninternationalagreementonthecontrolandimport/exportofcertainitems.There are approximately 50 countrieswhich are participating in this arrangement (includingtheU.S.,butIsraelisnotaparticipatingstate). InadditiontotheregulationsstipulatedbytheWassenaarArrangement,Israelhasalsoindicatedthatanadditional54productsarecontrolled.Ingeneral,dual‐useequipmentisdefinedasequipmentwhichcanbeusedforbothpeacefulandmilitary purposes. Review of the Wassenaar Arrangement and the additional productscontrolledbyIsraelindicatethatthereareafewitemsrelatedtowastewatertreatmentwhichmayreceiveadditionalscrutinyduringimportandpossiblerejection.

SulfuricAcid, HydrogenPeroxide, PotassiumPermanganate, Metalpipesof50–200mm(2–8inch)radius,and Rollerbearingsof6mm(0.25inch)diameter.

Itispossiblethatthereareadditionalitemswhicharealsoregulatedbytheserestrictions.Tominimize thepotential forpackagedWWTPequipment toberejectedby Israeli customs, it iscriticalthatthelistofrestricteditemsiscommunicatedwithanypotentialmanufacturers,andtheuseofanyoftheseitemsis identifiedduringdesign. Additionally, it isrecommendedthatUSAIDdeterminewhether items thatareregulatedandarerequired for theconstructionofaWWTPorcollectionsystemwouldbeprohibitedorifexceptionsareabletobearranged.

5.9 SparePartsSparepartsarethoseitemskeptonhand,inadditiontotheequipmentactuallyinoperation,foruseifandwhenanitemneedsmaintenanceorreplacement.Thismayincludecertaintypesofequipment,certainpartsofequipmentandanyspecialtoolsrequiredtoworkontheequipment.Manufacturerscommonlyrecommendthesparepartstobekeptonhandfortheirequipment.WhenamanufactureroroperatorofaWWTPdeterminesthesparepartsthatareneeded,theygenerallyconsiderthefollowingcategories:

equipmentorcomponentswhichrequiresfrequentmaintenance, equipment or components which would be needed immediately if maintenance was

requiredinordertocontinuetreatment,or



August 2012 5‐9

equipmentorcomponentswhichwouldtakeaverylongtimetoacquire.For packagedWWTPs in theWest Bank, it is necessary to consider the spare parts that areavailable within the region and those that are not commonly available. Additionally, it mayprovecost‐effectivetokeeponegroupofsparepartscentrallylocatedforagroupofsimilarly‐equippedWWTPs. For instance, three (3)MBRWWTPs locatedwithina reasonabledistancefromoneanothermaysharespareparts.ThemanufacturerswererequestedtoprovidealistoftheirrecommendedsparepartsandthisinformationisincludedintheAppendices.

5.10 RedundancyDependingonOwner‐requirements,locationandtreatmentgoals,WWTPsmaybedesignedtoprovideredundancyinthetreatmentprocess.RedundancywithinaWWTPreferstotheabilityoftreatmenttocontinuewhilecertainpiecesofequipmentareoutofservice.Incertaincriticalfacilities, a veryhigh redundancy rate is required, andall equipment is installed induplicate.However, most WWTPs do not require this type of redundancy. Another way to provideredundancy isto installmultipleparalleltrainsofequipmentsothatonemaybetakenofflineandallowsomeleveloftreatmenttocontinue. For instance, theheadworksofa largeWWTPmayincludeachannelinwhichamechanicalbarscreenoperatesandabypasschannelwhichallows flow togo throughamanualbar screenduring timeswhen themechanicalbar screenneedsservice.DesigningforredundancyiscommoninlargerWWTPs.ForpackagedWWTPs,designingforredundancyisnotascommonandmaybemoredifficulttoimplement considering that the processes come as a package. For potential locations forimplementationofpackagedWWTPs, itshouldbedeterminedwhetheritwouldbeacceptablefortheentirepackagedWWTPtobebypassedduringtimeswhentheWWTPisoffline(suchasformaintenance),andrawwastewaterisdivertedtoawadiorotherdisposallocation.Ifthisisnotacceptable,thetypesofredundancyrequiredwillneedtobedeterminedduringthedesign.

5.11 EnvironmentalAspectsIt is anticipated that an environmental reviewwill be required by USAID andMEnA for anypotentialpackagedWWTP locations. Additionally, if the land isnotdesignated formunicipalwaste, the site selection would likely need permitting approval through the Joint WaterCommittee.An environmental reviewmay include an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and/or anEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA). PerUSAIDandMEnA,anIEEshallbeperformedon“projects where significant environmental impacts are uncertain, or where compliance withenvironmental regulations must be ensured.” Also per USAID and MEnA, an EIA shall beperformedon“projectswhicharelikelytohavesignificantenvironmentalimpacts.AnEIAmaybecarriedoutasaresultofanIEE.”Therefore,itisrecommendedthatanIEEisperformedasapartofthePreliminaryDesignPhasefortheselectedsiteofapackagedWWTP.

5.12 SustainabilitySustainability of a WWTP is an important concept to be considered during the design of afacility. A WWTP should be designed to provide a treatment plant that is able to operatethroughout the intended design‐life in amanner thatmaximizes sustainability and thereforemaximizesthebenefittotheOwner. Sustainabilitymaybeevaluatedondifferentaspectsofa



August 2012 5‐10

WWTP and the operational expenditures. There are two (2) potentialmethods tominimizeOPEXandthereforemakeaWWTPmoresustainablefortheOwner.ThefirstmethodinvolvesmethodstominimizetheOPEXandthesecondmethodinvolvesmethodstooffsettheOPEX.MinimizingtheOPEXisagoalofallOwnersandisaffectedbydecisionsmadeduringdesignaswellasduringoperation.

Duringdesign,theselectionoftreatmentprocessesmaybemadetominimizetheuseofconsumablessuchaselectricityand/orchemicals.

Theuseofsparepartscanbemademoresustainablebyselectingtreatmentprocessesand the equipment with common spare parts and possibly are common to multipleWWTPslocatedinacertainarea.Thiswillreducetheamountofsparepartsthatneedtobekeptonhand.

The selection of equipment can give preference to those types that have spare partsreadilyavailable intheWestBankorsurroundingareasinordertominimizethetimeandtransportnecessary.

Treatmentprocessesmaybeselectedwhichminimize theoperatorattentionrequiredandthereforereducethemanpowerneeded.

OffsettingtheOPEXinvolvestheinstallationofequipmentwhichcantakeadvantageofon‐siterenewableenergysourceswhichwilloffsettheuseofconsumables,specificallyelectricity.Themost likely candidates foron‐site renewable energy sources forWWTP locations in theWestBankincludesolarenergy,windenergyandconversionofmethanegastoenergy.SolarpanelsarecurrentlyutilizedintheWestBankasacommonpractice.However,theyaregenerallyusedinsmallapplicationssuchasforheatingresidentialwater.ThelandthatwouldberequiredtopoweraWWTPbyeither solarorwindenergywouldbemuchmore significant. Large‐scalepowergenerationbyphotovoltaic cellsorwind farms isnot commonlypracticed in theWestBankandwouldbeanewconcepttobeexplored. TheapplicabilityofthesetechnologiesataWWTPsitewouldneedtobedeterminedonceaspecificsiteisselectedandthelandavailabilityisdetermined.AnotherrenewableenergysourcethatisavailableataWWTPistheconversionofmethanegasinto energy. Methane gas is created during anaerobic digestion and can be reused as analternative energy source. See Section 4.1.2.4 Anaerobic Processes for discussion of ananaerobictreatmentprocess.


6.0 Summary of Results

August 2012 6‐1

6.0 SummaryofResults

6.1 FeasibilityofPackagedWWTPsintheWestBankThis Study has determined that the use of certain packagedWWTP technologies in theWestBankisafeasiblemethodforcontinuingtodeveloptheemergingwastewatersector. Further,packagedWWTPtechnologieswillbemostsuccessfuliffirstimplementedincommunitiesthathaveacertaingeopoliticalandphysicalenvironment.In addition to packaged WWTP equipment, a successful packaged WWTP may incorporatedifferent treatment steps to optimize treatment, including pre‐treatment, chemical addition,filtration and/or disinfection. Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarsescreening at a minimum. Depending on the wastewater characteristics and technologyrequirements,otherpre‐treatmentmayberequired,whichcouldincludeanunloadingstation,equalization tank, grease trap, fine screeningand/orgrit removal. Chemical additionmayberequiredtooptimizephosphorusremoval,pHcontrol,orcleaningofmembranes. Also, filtersanddisinfectionmayberequiredtomeetcertaineffluentrequirements.

6.2 FeasibleTechnologiesPackaged WWTPs may be implemented with various different technologies. This Studyevaluatedafullrangeoftheavailableprocesses.OneofthetechnologiesdoesnotappeartobefeasibleforimplementationasapackagedWWTPintheWestBankatthistimeforthefollowingreason:

UpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanket –UASB isnot appropriate for implementation in theWestBankatthistimebecauseofthelackofestablishedmanufacturersforthistypeofequipment. There is reasonable potential for the successful use of UASB in theWestBank in the warmer areas (such as Jericho). However, it is recommended thatimplementationofpackagedWWTPsrelatedtothisStudybeginwiththosetechnologiesthathaveestablishedmanufacturerstoassistinasuccessfulimplementation.

Multiple packagedWWTP technologies appear to be feasiblewhen evaluated against generalWestBank requirements. However, each of these technologies is notnecessarily feasible orappropriate at all locations throughout theWest Bank; it will be necessary to select specificpotential communities for implementation and then determine the technology(ies) that aremost appropriate for that location. The packaged WWTP technologies which may haveapplicationintheWestBankinclude:

1. ExtendedAeration,2. OxidationDitch,3. SequencingBatchReactor(SBR),4. MovingBedBiofilmReactor(MBBR),5. IntegratedFixed‐FilmActivatedSludge(IFAS),and6. MembraneBioreactor(MBR).

6.3 FeasibleManufacturersThere are many potential manufacturers for the packaged WWTP processes that may beimplemented. For thepurposesofanyprojectwhichmaybeconstructed throughUSAID, themanufacturer would need to meet the “Buy American” requirements. Additionally,manufacturersshouldbeestablishedandabletoprovideinstallationhistoriesthatdemonstrate


6.0 Summary of Results

August 2012 6‐2

their ability to successfully provide the equipment. The manufacturer’s installation historyshouldbegivenadditionalattentioniftheequipmentisproprietaryinordertoconfirmthatthetechnologywillmeetthelong‐termgoalsoftheproject.However,becauseofthelimitedhistoryofwastewater treatment in theWest Bank, a particularmanufacturer’s lack of history in theWestBankshouldnotnecessarilyprecludethemfrombeingconsideredforuse.ThemanufacturersthatparticipatedinthisStudyrepresentonlyasmallsubsetoftheavailablemanufacturers that can provide packagedWWTP technologies. Thesemanufacturers shouldnotbeconsideredasanall‐encompassinglist.

6.4 FeasibleCommunitiesThe selection of communities to receive packaged WWTPs is just as critical to successfulimplementationasselectionofthetreatmenttechnologyitself.PackagedWWTPswilllikelybemostsuccessfulifimplementedincommunitieswiththefollowingcharacteristics:

populationrangeoflessthan7,500peoplepreferred, not anticipated to expand beyond the maximum capacity of the selected technology

duringtheexpected20‐yeardesignlifeofthefacility, locatedinAreaA, reliable potable water pipe network installed to each building or planned to be

constructedinthenearfuture, collection system installed to each building, planned to be constructed by the time a

packagedWWTP is installed,oracollectionsystem isdesignedandconstructedalongwiththepackagedWWTP,

can achieve connection of 80 ‐ 100% of the area to a collection system and WWTP(potentiallybymorethanonepackagedWWTP),

implementationofapackagedWWTPsystemhasthesupportoftheLocalGovernmentandcommunitymembers,

land is available for the constructionof a packagedWWTPat an appropriate location(i.e., downstream of the community and in close proximity to agriculture or a wadi,dependingontheintendeduseordischargeofthetreatedwastewater),

in an areawheremultipleWWTP siteswill be locatednear one another so thatO&Mmaybeaccomplishedmoreefficientlybyonegroupofoperators,and

haveagriculturewhichmeetstherequirementsforreuseandwherethecommunityhasaneedandinterestinreusingthetreatedwastewater.


7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

August 2012 7‐1

7.0 ConclusionsandRecommendations

7.1 ConclusionsThekeyconclusionsfromthisassessmentare:

1. CesspitsappeartobeprevalentthroughouttheWestBankandmaybecontributingtogroundwatercontaminationandothernegativeenvironmentalandsocialissues.

2. Allofthelocalauthoritieswithwhommeetingswereheldappeartobe infavoroftheuseofpackagedWWTPswheredetermined tobe feasible. When theDraftStudywaspresented to the various stakeholder organizations, they all agreed to set a futuremeeting at which selection criteria would be developed to determine potential pilotstudycommunitiesinwhichtoimplementpackagedWWTPs.

3. Influentwastewaterisexpectedtobeveryhighlyconcentratedrelativetotypicallevelsobserved in theU.S.andotherpartsof theworldwherepackagedWWTPsarewidelyused(e.g.,3to4timeshigher).

4. Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse screening at a minimum.Dependingon thewastewatercharacteristicsand technologyrequirements,otherpre‐treatmentmayberequired,whichcouldincludeanunloadingstation,equalizationtank,greasetrap,finescreeningand/orgritremoval.

5. Stringent effluent wastewater requirements, coupled with the anticipated highlyconcentratedinfluent,mayrequiretertiarytreatmenttobeincluded.

6. Multiple packagedWWTP technologies appear to be feasible when evaluated againstgeneral West Bank requirements, including extended aeration systems, oxidationditches, sequencing batch reactors,moving bed biofilm reactors, integrated fixed‐filmactivatedsludgesystems,andmembranebioreactors.

7. TherearemanypotentialmanufacturersforthepackagedWWTPprocessesthatmaybeimplemented. While installation history in the West Bank is limited because of thelimitedwastewatersectordevelopment,allofthelarge,well‐establishedmanufacturersthatwerecontactedasapartofthisStudyhaveapresenceintheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica(MENA)andexpressedaninterestinworkingintheWestBank.

8. TherearealargenumberofcommunitieswhichhaveapopulationinarangethatmaybeservicedbyapackagedWWTP(lessthan7,500peoplepreferred). Communitiesofthis size contain 40% of the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Additionally,certain geopolitical and physical characteristics will provide a better opportunity forsuccessful implementation and should be taken into accountwhen selecting potentialcommunitiesforpackagedWWTPimplementation.

9. TheexistenceofawastewatercollectionsystemisacriticalcomponentforaWWTPtooperatesuccessfully.

10. UseofchemicalsshouldbecarefullyconsideredbothintermsofthehandlingthatmayberequiredaswellasthelikelihoodofgettingthechemicalsintotheWestBankforuse.

11. ProperO&MiscriticaltothesuccessfulimplementationofpackagedWWTPs.12. Packaged WWTPs are able to produce reuse‐quality effluent when designed and

operatedproperly.13. Inadditiontobeingapermanentsolutionforsomecommunities,packagedWWTPscan

alsobeusedasashort‐termsolutionto“fillthegap”betweenseptictanks/systemsandlarge,regionalWWTPs.

7.2 RecommendationsConsideringthatithasbeendeterminedfeasibletoutilizepackagedWWTPsintheWestBank,and given the many benefits for Palestinians that would result, it is strongly encouraged toproceed with implementing collection systems and packaged WWTPs in appropriate



August 2012 7‐2

communities. The following recommendationsaremade to furtherdevelop this concept intoconstructibleprojects:

1. B&V/Trigon will work with USAID, PWA and other stakeholder agencies to developspecific criteria to identify actual communities appropriate for utilizing a packagedWWTPsuccessfully.Basedontheresults,USAID/PWAshouldselectone(1)ortwo(2)communitiestoreceivepilotpackagedWWTPsandmoveintotheplanningphase.

2. PerformPlanningPhasethatincludesthefollowing:

o determinethedesignflowforthepackagedWWTPs,o performsamplingtoidentifyinfluentwaterqualityateachofthecommunitiesif

possible.OtherwiseuseestimatesfromthisStudy,o determinewhethereachcommunityhasanopportunityforreusebasedonlocal

agriculture.Ifso,identifythepreferredmodeofreuse,o determinetheeffluentrequirements,o determinewhich technologies are appropriate for specific locations andwater

qualityrequirements,o identifywhetherthereisaregionalWWTPwithinanappropriatedistancethatis

willingtoacceptsludgeforprocessing,o determine whether the construction of a sludge processing facility would be

necessary,o determine whether the construction of sludge drying beds on the packaged

WWTPsitewillbenecessary,o identify landfills for sludge disposal and begin identifying any permitting

requirements,o identifypotentialsitesforpackagedWWTPs,o if a collection system does not exist, perform a conceptual design to estimate

requirements,o determinethepeakingfactortobeutilizedindesignbasedonthepopulationto

beservedandthecollectionsystemsize.

3. PerformaPreliminaryDesignPhasethatincludesthefollowing:o determinewhether theWWTPwould likely requireexpansionover thedesign

life,o determine which specific technology/process type will be used for each

community,o determinewhattypesofpre‐treatmentarenecessarydependingontheinfluent

characteristicsandthespecifictechnology/processrequirements,o determinewhetheritwouldbeacceptabletooverflowtoawadiduringperiods

whentheWWTPisoffline(suchasformaintenance)oriftheWWTPneedstobedesignedwithredundancy,

o determinespecificsiteandconfirmlandavailability,o performanInitialEnvironmentalExaminationoftheselectedsite,o obtainsurveydataofcommunities,o performpreliminarydesignanddetermineanopinionofprobableconstruction

costandlandrequirements,o furtherrefinedesignofcollectionsystem.

4. PerformaFinalDesignPhasethatincludesthefollowing:

o designofpackagedWWTPs,o designofassociatedcollectionsystem,o performanEnvironmentalImpactAssessment,ifrequired,



August 2012 7‐3

o identification of any dual‐use materials and coordination with USAID todetermineapprovalforimport,

o developmentofRFTOP,ando developmentofdraftEmergencyResponsePlantobefinalizedbyoperatoronce

packagedWWTPisinoperation.InadditiontothissuggestedphasedprocessforimplementingpackagedWWTPsandassociatedcollection systems, there are several items which were beyond the scope of this Study thatshould be addressed at a high‐level because they will have an impact on the successfulimplementationof thiswork. Addressing these itemswill likely involveanumberofentities,such as USAID, the PA (including multiple Ministries, Authorities and Departments), andsupport from the INP II staff. Additionally, there are other related entities, such as theTechnical, Planning, and Advisory Team (TPAT) and the Wastewater Advisory Committee(WWAC)whichareworkingtoadvancethewastewatersectorintheWestBankandwithwhomdiscussionontheseitemsshouldbecoordinated.Alloftheseitemscouldbeconsideredpartofestablishing the overall governmental/regulatory framework under which the packagedWWTPsandcollectionsystemswouldbedesigned,built,operatedandmaintained.

1. DeterminewhowillowntheWWTPsand/orcollectionsystems(e.g.,localmunicipality,MoLG,PWA,etc.).

2. Determinewhowillbe responsible forO&Mof theWWTPsand/or collection systems(e.g.,localmunicipality,MoLG,PWA,privatecontractor,etc.).

3. Determine how the capital expenses and ongoing O&M expenseswill be funded (e.g.,donoragencies,userfees,etc.).


8.0 Appendix A: Manufacturer Request forInformation

August 2012 8‐1

8.0 AppendixA:ManufacturerRequestforInformation

Arequestforinformationwassentviaemailtothemanufacturerstoobtaininformation. Therequest includedasummaryof thepurposeof thisStudy, theassumed influentwaterquality,requiredeffluentwaterquality,andarequestforinformationaboutthepotentialtechnologiesoffered by each manufacturer. Additionally, a list of questions was sent to get detailedinformationaboutthemanufacturing,shipping,constructionandoperationofeachtechnology.Finally,four(4)casestudiesweredefinedinwhichfourdifferenttheoreticaldesignflowratesweregivenandpreliminarydesigninformationandcapitalcostwasrequested.Thepurposeofthe four case studies is to be able to compare the effectiveness of a certain technology atdifferentflowratesandalsotocomparedifferenttechnologiestooneanotheratthesameflowrate.Therequestforinformationisprovidedbelow.TrigonispartneredwithBlackandVeatchonaProgramintheWestBankwhichisbeingfundedby USAID. The Program covers water, wastewater and roadway infrastructure. Regardingwastewater,Ihavepersonallyworkedonthedesignofmultiple large‐scaleconventionalWWTPsfor thisProgram. Thewastewater sector isdeveloping in theWestBank,but,at thispoint, theinfrastructureisvirtuallynon‐existent.WhenGregandItouredtheWestBankinMarch,wesawcollectionsystemsinonlyahandfulofthecommunitieswevisited.ThereareevenlessWWTPs.Asthelarge‐scaleWWTPdesignsdeveloped,werealizedthatthesewouldonlyprovidetreatmenttothe larger cities. We proposed the use of packaged WWTPs as a potential way to providewastewatertreatmenttomanymorecommunities,andUSAIDagreedtosupportafeasibilitystudyonthistopic.Hence,wearecurrentlyevaluatingabroadrangeofpackagedWWTPtechnologiestodetermine suitability in theWestBankand thecapability toachieve the treatedwatergoals.WeplantowrapupthereportbytheendofMay, issuethedraftinJune,andreturntotheWestBanktopresentthefindingsinearlyJuly. Atthatpoint,weanticipatethatUSAIDwilldeterminehowtheywouldliketoproceedwiththeinformationwepresent.AsImentioned,weareevaluatingabroadrangeofpotentialpackagedtreatmenttechnologies–extendedaeration, IFAS,MBR,etc. Weareevaluating thedifferent technologiesbasedona few“case studies” defined by four different flow rates and assumed influent characteristics (shownbelow). I would like to find out what types of technologies you provide which may be anappropriate fit forpackagedtreatment intheWestBank. Inadditiontogeneral informationonthose technologies,wewould like specific information for each of these four case studies. Wewould like information on the footprint, typical drawings, equipment and HP, effluent waterquality,requiredscreening,tanksizing,chemicalusage,capitalcost,operationalcost,etc.Pleasenotethatwearen’tasking foryoutoperformacompletedesign foreachofthesescenarios,butinsteadourintentionisthatyoucanrelyonpreviousprojectsorhighlevelestimatesforthis.INFLUENTWATERQUALITYBOD5815mg/LTSS940mg/LTN165mg/LTP25mg/LThefollowingeffluentwaterqualityrequirementscanbeconsideredasatarget.Weareinterestedinunderstandingtheeffluentqualitytowhichyourequipmentcantreat.Thereareafewlevelsofeffluentwaterquality,whichareslightly lessstrict than thesevalues,whichmaybesuitable forcertainareasdependingonthelandandcropsavailableforirrigation.



August 2012 8‐2

EFFLUENTWATERQUALITYBOD10mg/LTSS10mg/LTN25mg/Lforirrigation10mg/LfordischargetoriversTP1mg/LfordischargetoriversFecal10MPN/100mlforirrigation200MPN/100mlfordischargetoriversPeakingfactorof2.5Populationof1,000=ADF21,000gpdPopulationof2,500=ADF53,000gpdPopulationof5,000=ADF105,000gpdPopulationof7,500=ADF158,000gpdIalsohaveaprettyrobustsetofquestionsthatIamaskingallthemanufacturers.Someofthesemaybeansweredbythedocumentsyouwouldprovide inresponsetotheflowrates,butIwouldliketoaskwhatIhopeisthecompletelistofquestionsatthistime,sothatyouandyourfolkswillonlyhavetomakeonepassatthis.GENERAL

1. DoesthismanufacturermeettheBuyAmericanrequirements?2. Pleaseprovidedimensionaldrawings,includingthefootprintofthemodelsoffered.3. Whatarethedifferentmodelsavailableandtheflowrangesforeach?4. Whatistheexpectedusefullifespanforthisequipment?5. Whatisthelongestthatoneoftheseunitshasbeeninstalledandoperational?6. Providealistofreferencesofactualinstallations/clients.Iunderstandthatsomeclients

maybeconfidential.Pleaseprovidewhatinformationyoucan.PROCESSINFORMATION

1. Whatwaste/sludgeisgeneratedbythisprocess?Areinorganicshandleddifferentlythanorganics?

2. Howareinorganicsremovedfromthesystem?3. Arethereanyotherwasteproductsgenerated?4. Whatequipmentneedspower?Whatisthehorsepowerofeachpieceofequipment?Canit

handle50HZpower?5. Isthereacertaintemperaturerangeatwhichthisequipmentisintendedtooperate?6. Doyouhaveanyrequirementsorrecommendationsforscreening(i.e.coarse,fine)?7. Doyouhaveanyrequirementsforanyothertypesofpretreatment?(grease,eqtank,etc.)8. Whatistheanticipatedeffluentwaterquality?Whatitemsdoyourecommendtobeadded

totheprocess(ifnecessary)inordertomeetthetreatedwaterrequirements?COSTINFORMATION

1. Estimatedcostforshipping?2. What is the capital cost for this unit? If possible, please give this information for the

differentmodelsizesthatareoffered.3. Whatisthecosttoinstallthisunit?4. Pleaseshareexamplesofoperationalcostsforactualinstallations.

CONSTRUCTION

1. Wherearetheunitsassembled?2. Howwouldshippingtakeplace?



August 2012 8‐3

3. Willtheitemsfitinstandardshippingcontainers?4. AnyforeseeableissueswithimportthroughIsrael?5. Istheentireunitskid‐mounted?Containerized?6. Whatfieldassemblyisrequired?7. Whatdurationshouldbeexpectedforconstructionoftheplantsiteandinstallationofthe

equipment?8. Whatoccursduringstartupofthefacility?9. What facilities are required at the plant site? I.e. power, potablewater, cover for the

equipment,etc.10. What constructability issueshavebeenencounteredwith this technology that shouldbe

accountedforduringdesign?OPERATIONANDMAINTENANCE

1. Whatwillhappenduringapoweroutage?Whatistheprocessthattheequipmentwillrunthroughwhenpoweristurnedonafterapoweroutage?

2. Besidesapoweroutage,arethereanyscenariosthatyouwouldclassifyasanemergencyforthistechnology(forexample,membranesmaybecomefouledduringapoweroutage)?Ifso,whatwouldoccurduringaneventandtheaftermathwithrespecttothetechnologyanditsrecovery?

3. What are the recommended spare parts to be kept on hand? Are these items readilyavailableintheWestBank?

4. Areanychemicalsrequiredfortheprocessorforcleaningoftheequipment?5. Whataretheregularmaintenanceitemstobeperformed?6. Whatoperational issuesor challengeshavebeen encounteredwith this technology that

shouldbeaccountedfor?


9.0 Appendix B: Aqua Treat (Extended Aeration)

August 2012 9‐1

9.0 AppendixB:AquaTreat(ExtendedAeration)

See the file “Appendix B Aqua Treat.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


10.0 Appendix C: Aqua‐Aerobic Systems (SBR)

August 2012 10‐1

10.0 AppendixC:Aqua‐AerobicSystems(SBR)

See the file “Appendix C Aqua‐Aerobic.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


11.0 Appendix D: Delta Process (ExtendedAeration)

August 2012 11‐1

11.0 AppendixD:DeltaProcess(ExtendedAeration)

See the file “Appendix D Delta Process.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


12.0 Appendix E: Gaylord (Modular ExtendedAeration)

August 2012 12‐1

12.0 AppendixE:Gaylord(ModularExtendedAeration)

See the file “Appendix E Gaylord.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


13.0 Appendix F: GE (MBR)

August 2012 13‐1

13.0 AppendixF:GE(MBR)

See the file “Appendix F GE.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


14.0 Appendix G: Global Water (ExtendedAeration)

August 2012 14‐1

14.0 AppendixG:GlobalWater(ExtendedAeration)

See the file “Appendix G Global Water.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


15.0 Appendix H: ITT / ABJ (SBR)

August 2012 15‐1

15.0 AppendixH:ITT/ABJ(SBR)

See the file “Appendix H ITT_ABJ.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


16.0 Appendix I: Newterra (MBR)

August 2012 16‐1

16.0 AppendixI:Newterra(MBR)

See the file “Appendix I Newterra.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


17.0 Appendix J: Siemens (Extended Aeration)

August 2012 17‐1

17.0 AppendixJ:Siemens(ExtendedAeration)

See the file “Appendix J Siemens Extended Aeration.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


18.0 Appendix K: Siemens (Oxidation Ditch)

August 2012 18‐1

18.0 AppendixK:Siemens(OxidationDitch)

See the file “Appendix K Siemens Oxidation Ditch.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


19.0 Appendix L: Siemens (SBR)

August 2012 19‐1

19.0 AppendixL:Siemens(SBR)

See the file “Appendix L Siemens SBR.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


20.0 Appendix M: Siemens (MBR)

August 2012 20‐1

20.0 AppendixM:Siemens(MBR)

See the file “Appendix M Siemens MBR.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


21.0 Appendix N: Smith & Loveless (ExtendedAeration, IFAS, MBR)

August 2012 21‐1

21.0 AppendixN:Smith&Loveless(ExtendedAeration,IFAS,MBR)

See the file “Appendix N Smith & Loveless.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


22.0 Appendix O: Tipton (Extended Aeration)

August 2012 22‐1

22.0 AppendixO:Tipton(ExtendedAeration)

See the file “Appendix O Tipton.pdf” on the enclosed CD.


23.0 Appendix P: Veolia / AnoxKaldnes (MBBR)

August 2012 23‐1

23.0 AppendixP:Veolia/AnoxKaldnes(MBBR)

See the file “Appendix P Veolia AnoxKaldnes.pdf” on the enclosed CD.

1

Regina Cassanova

From: Yara Shahrouri <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:35 AMTo: Regina Cassanova; 'Rula Thawabeh'Cc: Greg KolenovskySubject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Dear Regina, Thank you for your email. The budgetary cost is for the tanks & equipment only. The budgetary price is based on delivery ex‐works Jordan free zone. Not lots of work will be needed for the installation of the packaged units as they are compact units. if you have any further query pls do not hesitate to contact us Yara Shahrouri

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:34 AM To: Rula Thawabeh; Yara Shahrouri Cc: Greg Kolenovsky Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs Rula and Yara, Thank you so much for this additional information you have provided. Can you please clarify for me whether you consider this budgetary cost to be for the tanks and equipment only, or if this cost also estimates transportation and complete installation at the site? Thank you,

From: Rula Thawabeh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 6:03 AM To: Regina Cassanova; 'Yara Shahrouri' Cc: Greg Kolenovsky Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs Dear Regina,

2

You can consider a budgetary cost of 150,000 USD per packaged unit , which is 12 m long x 3 m width x 3 m Height as Eng.Yara explained before. Should you need any further info please let us know Best Regards, Rula Thawabeh AquaTreat Tel : +962 6 4711270 Fax : +962 6 4711252 Email : [email protected] Gmail: [email protected] www.aqua-treat.com

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 8:32 PM To: Yara Shahrouri Cc: Rula Thawabeh; Greg Kolenovsky Subject: Re: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs Yara, Thank you for the time spent generating this information for us. Do you also have a budgetary cost for these case studies that you can share? Thank you, Regina Sent from my iPhone On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:55 PM, "Yara Shahrouri" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Regina

Below please find a quick summary of your requirements:

Plant No.

Capacity (GPD)

Capacity (m3/day)

No. of Packaged

units KWH AREA 1 21,000 80 3 18 20 m x 20 m 2 53,000 200 7 28 40 m x 30 m 3 105,000 400 15 35 60 m x 40 m 4 158,000 600 22 54 60 m x 60 m

3

Please note that these are based on quick designs and assumed configuration. Again the BOD of 815 ppm is high, that is why the number of units are a lot. For normal BOD range of 200 – 250 ppm the 80 m3/day will need only 1 unit. Our standard units are 12 m length x 3 m width x 3 m depth

If you need anything else please do not hesitate to contact us

Thanks

Yara Shahrouri

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 02:12 PM To: Yara Shahrouri Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Yara,

I am currently in Palestine presenting the draft report to USAID. I wanted to follow up with you again to determine whether you are able to provide cost and footprint information for your packaged plants based on the influent loading and effluent requirements for the West Bank. Please see my email below.

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

From: Regina Cassanova Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:36 PM To: 'Yara Shahrouri' Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

4

Yara,

Thank you for all the information you have shared. I appreciate the information you’ve shared which is based on a BOD loading of 250 ppm. Do you think you could calculate the footprint and equipment KW/H that you would require for a BOD loading that I had indicated, which is much higher? These are the flows at which I am interested in having this information.

Peaking factor of 2.5

Population of 1,000 = ADF 21,000 gpd




Also, I now see that your process is extended aeration. I was confused because the flier you sent specifically shows SBR. Do you have a flier for your Extended Aeration, MBBR and MBR processes?

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

From: Yara Shahrouri [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:12 AM To: Regina Cassanova Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Dear Regina,

5

Thank you for your email and shared information. Below I will try to address your comments.

GENERAL

1. Does this manufacturer meet the Buy American requirements? Since this project is funded by the U.S. government, USAID requires that equipment purchased as a part of any of these projects meet the “Buy American” requirements. Most manufacturers are able to provide me with a certificate which states that the equipment meets the Buy American requirements. My understanding is that it is required that some instrumental part of the manufacturing process is performed in the U.S. You should be able to find more specific information on this requirement online as well. : we worked on two USAID projects as prime contractor and we had to comply with US source and origin for most of the equipment …some materials were ok to be only from Jordanian origin as well .. so we can comply with this ..however might be hard for smaller plants as it maybe hard to find small sized pumps for example that are actually manufactured in the USA

2. Please provide dimensional drawings, including the footprint of the models offered. We typically try to have our units at a standard size of 12 m x 3 m x 3 m .. so number of units depend on the flow of the wastewater and the BOD .. to give you a rough idea .. a typical plant of capacity of 100 m3/day (26,000 GPD) and a BOD of 200 to 250 mg/l will need one unit … the problem is that your assumed BOD is high 815 mg/l so this will mean that more packages will be needed for the same flow

3. What are the different models available and the flow ranges for each? We custom build and design our plants .. so we can meet the any flow rate needed ..the question will then be –depending on the size – is it more feasible to go with concrete tanks option or packaged option ?

4. What is the expected useful life span for this equipment? We give a 1 to 2 years warranty but plant can live much longer for sure – let us say 10 years

5. What is the longest that one of these units has been installed and operational? We have installations since 2003 as packaged and as concrete plant since 1996

6. Provide a list of references of actual installations / clients. I understand that some clients may be confidential. Please provide what information you can. – ALREADY RECEIVED

PROCESS INFORMATION

1. What waste / sludge is generated by this process? Are inorganics handled differently than organics? The sludge produced is typical sludge generated from an extended aeration activated sludge process .. organic and inorganic matter are handled together in the plant

2. How are inorganics removed from the system? we don’t usually treat inorganics seperatly ..specially in domestic and municipal wastewater

6

3. Are there any other waste products generated? If tertiary treatment is employed there is the backwash water of the filters, there is also the screenings from the screens, grease if grease trap is there and some scum in the settling tank

4. What equipment needs power? What is the horsepower of each piece of equipment? Can it handle 50 HZ power? The pumps, aeration equipment, filters if automatic , instruments,… the horse power really depend on the size of plant and BOD value .. a rough estimate would be as follows (we did this for a project we just designed and it is not packaged ..but the values should be close)

Item Plant Size KW/H

1 200 m3/day 28

2 350m3/day 33

3 400 m3/day 31.5

4 700 m3/day 45

5 1000 m3/day 56

6 1200 m3/day 64

Yes 50Hz is used here. The 60 HZ is only used in USA and Saudi Arabia

5. Is there a certain temperature range at which this equipment is intended to operate? This depends on the site and on manufacturers , but we never had a problem in meeting this in any of the locations we have installations

6. Do you have any requirements or recommendations for screening (i.e. coarse, fine)? Ideally coarse screen to be employed followed by fine screens .. if not feasible at least a coarse screen to be there .. automatic is preferred but again this is related to budget allocated ..

7. Do you have any requirements for any other types of pretreatment? (grease, eq tank, etc.) again depends on quality of wastewater ,,, if oil and grease is expected to be present in high levels then this should be removed .. this can be done by a simple grease trap or a grit and grease removal chamber … we used some compact units that do screening, grit removal and grease removal in one unit .. but again if budget allows it

8. What is the anticipated effluent water quality? What items do you recommend to be added to the process (if necessary) in order to meet the treated water requirements? A BOD of 10 to 20

7

ppm can be met after tertiary treatment step .. if better quality needed (which I doubt) then MBR can be used, or UF system instead of filters ..

COST INFORMATION

1. Estimated cost for shipping? Will depend on number of units and from where .. from Amman to west bank I don’t think it will cost much .. maybe 2000 - 3000 USD per unit

2. What is the capital cost for this unit? If possible, please give this information for the different model sizes that are offered. This will depend on BOD value, but as a rough figure a 100 m3/day WWTP with BOD of 250 ppm will cost around 150,000 USD to 200,000 USD

3. What is the cost to install this unit? Our usual rate would be around 1000 USD / day for supervision on installation … the actual installation will range between 100,000usd to 150,000 usd .. but these are just rough figures

4. Please share examples of operational costs for actual installations. I will try to check and get back to you

CONSTRUCTION

1. Where are the units assembled? In our factory in Qastal / Jordan

2. How would shipping take place? Will coordinate with a shipping agent

3. Will the items fit in standard shipping containers? yes

4. Any foreseeable issues with import through Israel? We just need to check their regulations concerning volume and size and height, they keep changing .. if we get these we will be able to meet them

5. Is the entire unit skid-mounted? Containerized? Yes – but some parts will be shipped loose as will be installedin collection tanks and so on

6. What field assembly is required? The installation of lift pumps, filters and dosing units

7. What duration should be expected for construction of the plant site and installation of the equipment? Around 6 months

8. What occurs during startup of the facility? Usually start up is easy ,, we may need to ask for raw waste water with high BOD content to be brought to site to start the activation process

9. What facilities are required at the plant site? I.e. power, potable water, cover for the equipment, etc. power and water supply for sure, storage area, cranes, site offices and the normal mobilization needs

8

10. What constructability issues have been encountered with this technology that should be accounted for during design? Mainly the level of sophistication of the design, you don’t want to be faced with a sophisticated plant that needs qualified operators and high consumables to give a high quality water while the same is not needed and the qualified operators are not available


1. What will happen during a power outage? What is the process that the equipment will run through when power is turned on after a power outage? You can install standby diesel generators to avoid that … after plant is turned back on the startup will be done again ,,this will be outlined in the O&M manuals

2. Besides a power outage, are there any scenarios that you would classify as an emergency for this technology (for example, membranes may become fouled during a power outage)? If so, what would occur during an event and the aftermath with respect to the technology and its recovery? If membrane technology is foreseen ..the power outage will have more drastic effects because more units are there .. we can check with MBR membranes manufacturers if this affect the membranes in terms of fouling or not

3. What are the recommended spare parts to be kept on hand? Are these items readily available in the West Bank? in normal activated sludge process the normal spares should be kept like bearings, rings and so on and as recommended by each manufacturer ..as for availability in the west bank I am not really sure .. depends on agents there

4. Are any chemicals required for the process or for cleaning of the equipment? in normal simple activated sludge process we will need sodium hypochlorite for tertiary treatment

5. What are the regular maintenance items to be performed? Normal checking and oiling of rotating equipment and daily measuring of all process parameters

6. What operational issues or challenges have been encountered with this technology that should be accounted for? Just to make sure that qualified operator are operating the plant and are alert to any changes in the parameters they measure

Hope I’ve been able to help

Take care

Yara Shahrouri

9

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:39 AM To: Yara Shahrouri Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Ms. Yara,

Again, thank you for the time spent sharing this information. I do have some additional questions, as I would like to include the Aqua Treat products in the feasibility study. I’ve included some background information below, as well as more detailed questions and 4 flow rates at which we are requesting information for the potential technologies.

Trigon is partnered with Black and Veatch on a Program in Palestine which is being funded by USAID. The Program covers water, wastewater and roadway infrastructure. Regarding wastewater, I have personally worked on the design of multiple large-scale conventional WWTPs for this Program. The wastewater sector is developing in the West Bank, but, at this point, the infrastructure is virtually non-existent. When I toured the West Bank in March, we saw collection systems in only a handful of the communities we visited. There are even less WWTPs. As the large-scale WWTP designs developed, we realized that these would only provide treatment to the larger cities. We proposed the use of packaged WWTPs as a potential way to provide wastewater treatment to many more communities, and USAID agreed to support a feasibility study on this topic. Hence, we are currently evaluating a broad range of packaged WWTP technologies to determine suitability in the West Bank and the capability to achieve the treated water goals. We plan to wrap up the report by the end of May, issue the draft in June, and return to Palestine to present the findings in early July. At that point, we anticipate that USAID will determine how they would like to proceed with the information we present.

As I mentioned, we are evaluating a broad range of potential packaged treatment technologies – extended aeration, IFAS, MBR, etc. We are evaluating the different technologies based on a few “case studies” defined by four different flow rates and assumed influent characteristics (shown below). I would like to find out what types of technologies you provide which may be an appropriate fit for packaged treatment in the West Bank. In addition to general information on those technologies, we would like specific information for each of these four case studies. We would like information on the footprint, typical drawings, equipment and HP, effluent water quality, required screening, tank sizing, chemical usage, capital cost, operational cost, etc. Please note that we aren’t asking for you to perform a complete design for each of these scenarios, but instead our intention is that you can rely on previous projects or high level estimates for this.

INFLUENT WATER QUALITY

10

BOD5 815 mg/L

TSS 940 mg/L

TN 165 mg/L

TP 25 mg/L

EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY

BOD 10 mg/L

TSS 10 mg/L

TN 25 mg/L for irrigation

10 mg/L for discharge to rivers

TP 1 mg/L for discharge to rivers

Fecal 10 MPN/100ml for irrigation

200 MPN/100ml for discharge to rivers

Peaking factor of 2.5





I also have a pretty robust set of questions that I am asking all the manufacturers. Some of these may be answered by the documents you would provide in response to the flow rates, but I would like to ask what I hope is the complete list of questions at this time, so that you and your folks will only have to make one pass at this.

GENERAL

11

7. Does this manufacturer meet the Buy American requirements? Since this project is funded by the U.S. government, USAID requires that equipment purchased as a part of any of these projects meet the “Buy American” requirements. Most manufacturers are able to provide me with a certificate which states that the equipment meets the Buy American requirements. My understanding is that it is required that some instrumental part of the manufacturing process is performed in the U.S. You should be able to find more specific information on this requirement online as well.

8. Please provide dimensional drawings, including the footprint of the models offered.

9. What are the different models available and the flow ranges for each?

10. What is the expected useful life span for this equipment?

11. What is the longest that one of these units has been installed and operational?

12. Provide a list of references of actual installations / clients. I understand that some clients may be confidential. Please provide what information you can. – ALREADY RECEIVED

PROCESS INFORMATION

9. What waste / sludge is generated by this process? Are inorganics handled differently than organics?

10. How are inorganics removed from the system?

11. Are there any other waste products generated?

12. What equipment needs power? What is the horsepower of each piece of equipment? Can it handle 50 HZ power?

13. Is there a certain temperature range at which this equipment is intended to operate?

14. Do you have any requirements or recommendations for screening (i.e. coarse, fine)?

15. Do you have any requirements for any other types of pretreatment? (grease, eq tank, etc.)

16. What is the anticipated effluent water quality? What items do you recommend to be added to the process (if necessary) in order to meet the treated water requirements?

COST INFORMATION

5. Estimated cost for shipping?

6. What is the capital cost for this unit? If possible, please give this information for the different model sizes that are offered.

12

7. What is the cost to install this unit?

8. Please share examples of operational costs for actual installations.

CONSTRUCTION

11. Where are the units assembled?

12. How would shipping take place?

13. Will the items fit in standard shipping containers?

14. Any foreseeable issues with import through Israel?

15. Is the entire unit skid-mounted? Containerized?

16. What field assembly is required?

17. What duration should be expected for construction of the plant site and installation of the equipment?

18. What occurs during startup of the facility?

19. What facilities are required at the plant site? I.e. power, potable water, cover for the equipment, etc.

20. What constructability issues have been encountered with this technology that should be accounted for during design?


7. What will happen during a power outage? What is the process that the equipment will run through when power is turned on after a power outage?

8. Besides a power outage, are there any scenarios that you would classify as an emergency for this technology (for example, membranes may become fouled during a power outage)? If so, what would occur during an event and the aftermath with respect to the technology and its recovery?

9. What are the recommended spare parts to be kept on hand? Are these items readily available in the West Bank?

10. Are any chemicals required for the process or for cleaning of the equipment?

11. What are the regular maintenance items to be performed?

12. What operational issues or challenges have been encountered with this technology that should be accounted for?

13

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

From: Yara Shahrouri [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:18 AM To: Regina Cassanova Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Dear Ms. Regina

Thank you for your below email and for your interest.

I would like to first apologize for the delay in getting back to you, as I was traveling. Below please find my comments in red.

1. What is the range of flow rates that the Aqua Treat system can treat? As we can custom design and build the WWTP we can accommodate any flow rate needed. However, to give you an idea, the smallest packaged WWTP we did had a flow rate of 50 m3/day and the largest executed one was 1000 m3/day. We can increase the flow by increasing the number of packages to meet the required flowrate.

2. What effluent water quality can the Aqua Treat system produce? See the influent characteristics and effluent goals at the bottom of this email. we can meet the effluent water quality stipulated below; a BOD of 10 mg/l can be achieved after the tertiary treatment step (i.e. after filtration and chlorination). Should better effluent quality be needed then membrane technology (mainly MBR) should be considered.

3. If the Aqua Treat would not meet the effluent goals by itself, what other processes do you recommend (either pretreatment or posttreatment) in order to meet the goals? In general a BOD of 10 mg/l is quite good, 20 mg/l is also good. As indicated above if better quality is needed (around 5 ppm) then MBR should be considered but really will be expensive in terms of capital cost and operation cost. The effluent can be further improved by installing a Reverse Osmosis System but that will give a high quality water .. almost equivalent to potable water and I don’t think this is your aim here ? but I can be done

14

4. If you are able to, please share with me the locations where you currently have Aqua Treat systems installed. Any details you can share would be appreciated (pretreatement, posttreatment, effluent water quality, pictures of the site, regular maintenance that is performed, who operates the plant, etc.). I am attaching herewith a copy of our WWTP references only (I removed the Water Treatment Plants references and the Operation & maintenance references but I can send to you if you are interested in water treatment plants as well). I am also attaching data sheets of a few of our executed projects. Only Sakan Karim data sheet is for the packaged STP’s .. the Al Hassan is extended aeration plant with concrete structures and Shobak and Shouneh are constructed wet land designs. when you want to decide which process to select many factors should be considered; like the space allocated for the treatment plant, the location, quality of raw waste water, usage of the treated wastewater, kind to community to be serviced, the level of education of the available workforce in the area who will be operating the plant. In addition of course to the regulations of the specific country concerning the treated waste quality. Having all that in mind, we can select the proper process and treatment steps and if to have packaged or fixed types. We have installations in Jordan, Egypt, Palestine and Iraq (but for the ones in Iraq we supplied ex-works our factory in Jordan). We usually provide operation & maintenance manuals, training, installation or supervision on installation, commission and operation if requested by client.

5. Do Aqua Treat products have the “Buy American” certification? If not, are they able to get this and would the company be willing to get this? I am not really sure what is “Buy American” certification .. can you please explain what it is ?

6. I see that the packaged WWTP is an SBR. Do you offer any other types of technology for packaged treatment of wastewater? If so, I am interested to learn about all the different types Aqua Treat offers. Our packaged WWTP are based on extended aeration process, which is continuous flow. We can provide SBR if requested too; trickling filters, MBBR and MBR are also from the process that we can provide.

I hope the above answers your questions. please feel free to contact me at any time and ask for any further information.

Sorry again for the delay in getting back to you

Have a good day

Yara Shahrouri

15

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Ms. Yara,

I am still interested in your product and hoping that you will have an opportunity to provide me with a response. We will be wrapping up our feasibility study over the next few weeks, and I would like to be able to include AquaTreat in the evaluation.

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

From: Regina Cassanova Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:45 PM To: 'Yara Shahrouri' Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Ms. Yara,

Thank you for your response while I was in Ramallah. I am sorry we weren’t able to talk while I was in Palestine, but hopefully we will continue to communicate over email so that I can get a better understanding of the products your company offers. I am now back in the US and have had a chance to review the information you sent. I have the following questions and information to share with you.

I am performing a feasibility study on the use of packaged WWTPs in the West Bank. I am evaluating all available technologies to determine which may be appropriate. I am very interested to learn about the plants you already have installed in Palestine and the region, including any advice you can offer about what would make for a better installation.

16

7. What is the range of flow rates that the Aqua Treat system can treat?

8. What effluent water quality can the Aqua Treat system produce? See the influent characteristics and effluent goals at the bottom of this email.

9. If the Aqua Treat would not meet the effluent goals by itself, what other processes do you recommend (either pretreatment or posttreatment) in order to meet the goals?

10. If you are able to, please share with me the locations where you currently have Aqua Treat systems installed. Any details you can share would be appreciated (pretreatement, posttreatment, effluent water quality, pictures of the site, regular maintenance that is performed, who operates the plant, etc.).

11. Do Aqua Treat products have the “Buy American” certification? If not, are they able to get this and would the company be willing to get this?

12. I see that the packaged WWTP is an SBR. Do you offer any other types of technology for packaged treatment of wastewater? If so, I am interested to learn about all the different types Aqua Treat offers.

INFLUENT WATER QUALITY

BOD 700 - 1200 mg/L

TSS 700 - 1200 mg/L

TN 150 – 200 mg/L

TP 15 – 30 mg/L

EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY

BOD 10 mg/L

TSS 10 mg/L

TN 25 mg/L for irrigation

10 mg/L for discharge to rivers

Fecal 10 MPN/100ml for irrigation

200 MPN/100ml for discharge to rivers

17

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

From: Yara Shahrouri [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:33 AM To: Regina Cassanova Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Hi again

I am sorry but my mobile is : 00962 777 805552

I missed a 5 !

Thanks

Yara Shahrouri

From: Yara Shahrouri [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 09:30 AM To: 'Regina Cassanova' Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

Dear Ms. Regina

18

Thank you for your below email.

Yes we do have installation of packaged WWTP in Palestine. We also have in Jordan and Egypt. I am attaching for your quick reference a brief about our packaged wastewater treatment plants.

In general in order to be able to determine the size and number of the packaged WWTP we will need to know the flow rate and the raw water quality (mainly the BOD5 as a minimum).

Please feel free to call me any time on my mobile: 00962 777 80552 or office 00962 6 4711270 and I will be more than happy to discuss the same

Thank you and have a good day

Yara Shahrouri

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 02:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

I received an email from Osama Yotman suggesting I send my request to this email address. I have tried to phone your company this morning, and it was suggested that I get in touch with Yasmine Sinowe. I apologize if I have spelled the name incorrectly.

I am very interested in speaking with someone about Packaged WWTPs, hopefully today or tomorrow. I am currently in Ramallah and hope to gather as much information as I can this week.

Please feel free to email me, or call me at 02-294-7800.

19

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

From: Regina Cassanova Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:51 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Greg Kolenovsky Subject: Request for Information on AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs

I received your contact information from your website. I am interested in receiving information on the AquaTreat Packaged WWTPs. I am evaluating the feasibility of installing packaged wastewater treatment plants in Palestine and have received information that there are some AquaTreat units already installed. Additionally, I will be in Palestine next week and would like to know if AquaTreat has any individuals who may be available to meet with me and our team in order to discuss your product.

Thank you,

<image001.gif>

Documents

FINAL REPORT August 2012pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M2V9.pdfFINAL REPORT August 2012 . USAID ... 2.3 Description of Project Area ... 4.2.2 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor