Addressing the Challenge of Removing

Ammonia from Wastewater

By Joe Nye

The discharge of ammonia from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) has become a challenging
issue throughout the United States. Nearly half of all states – 24 states plus the District of Columbia
-- have adopted new rules modifying how ammonia is measured pursuant to the EPA's 1999 water
quality criteria, which address total ammonia rather than unionized ammonia and provide more
accurate protection for aquatic life.

Biological nitrification is the process of converting ammonia in wastewater to nitrate using aerobic
autotrophic bacteria in the treatment process. Nitrification is actually a two-step process for
removing ammonia from wastewater using two different types of autotrophic bacteria that oxidize
ammonia to nitrite (nitrosomonas) and then oxidize nitrite to nitrate (nitrobacter). Biological
nitrification systems are designed to completely convert all ammonia to nitrate.

Both types of autotrophic bacteria require proper biomass concentrations (mixed liquor suspended
solids [MLSS]), specific environmental conditions (temperature, pH, alkalinity, etc.), enough
residence time in the treatment process, and significantly more air than is required to treat for
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) only. Nitrification requires over four times the amount of
oxygen that is required for BOD removal.

Another factor that should be considered in the design of all WWTPs that provide biological
nitrification is the loss of alkalinity. Adding alkalinity in the form of sodium hydroxide or other
chemicals may be necessary.

Following are some of the most common treatment processes that are used for biological
nitrification at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs).

Conventional Activated Sludge

 A conventional activated sludge system is
capable of treating many different types of
wastewater and is not as difficult to operate as
some other treatment processes.

There are several types of conventional activated sludge treatment processes that are suitable to
nitrification including complete-mix, plug flow, and step feed treatment. All of these processes have
the same basic layout of an aeration basin and secondary clarifier with return and waste activated
sludge pumps. The conversion of ammonia occurs in the aeration basins. Since the time required for
nitrification is longer than for BOD removal, high-rate and contact stabilization activated sludge
treatment processes are not recommended.

Advantages

The conventional activated treatment process is a proven treatment process that is capable of
treating many different types of wastewater and is not as complex and difficult to operate as other
treatment processes. Conventional activated sludge treatment processes that were designed for BOD
removal only can often be modified to provide biological nitrification as well.

Disadvantages

The main disadvantage to constructing conventional activated sludge treatment processes are the
higher capital costs associated with these types of WWTPs. Aeration basins and clarifiers are
generally constructed with concrete and use expensive mechanical equipment such as blowers,
pumps, clarifier mechanisms, etc. Conventional treatment processes are also more susceptible to
bulking sludge from filamentous organisms. This often requires the addition of an anoxic step or
zone.

Extended Aeration

Extended aeration treatment processes are very similar to conventional activated sludge treatment
processes and include aeration basins, clarifiers, return activated sludge, and waste activated sludge
processes. The primary difference is the longer hydraulic and solids residence times in the process.
The hydraulic residence time is typically around 24 hours and the sludge residence time is over 20
days at design flow rates and organic loadings. Conventional extended aeration and oxidation
ditches are typically included in this category. Given enough air, nitrification will occur easily in
extended aeration processes.
Advantages

The conversion of ammonia occurs in the

aeration basins. Photo shows a diffused
aeration system being installed.

Due to the higher hydraulic and solids residence times, extended aeration treatment processes are
more forgiving and can provide high quality effluent for different types of wastewater. Extended
aeration processes are also even less complex than conventional activated sludge treatment process
to operate. With enough oxygen, extended aeration treatment processes can provide very high levels
of biological nitrification.

Disadvantages

The primary disadvantage to extended aeration treatment processes is the size of the facilities that
are required to provide the longer hydraulic and solids residence times. Therefore, only smaller
systems should consider using the extended aeration treatment process. The cost of constructing
these types of processes is also more expensive because the aeration basins and clarifiers are
generally constructed with concrete and due to the mechanical equipment that is required.

Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

Sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) use the same process as conventional and extended aeration
activated sludge treatment process, except that the aeration and clarification processes take place in
the same reactor basin. The SBR process has four main steps in the reactor basin: fill, react/aeration,
settle, and decant. Wasting usually occurs during the react/aeration step. With enough air, the
hydraulic and solids residence times can be manipulated in the reactor basin to promote nitrification.

Advantages

The main advantage to the SBR treatment process is the compact size of the treatment system. By
combining the aeration basins and clarifiers into one reactor basin, the footprint required for SBR is
less than required for conventional and extended aeration activated sludge treatment processes.
There are no RAS pumps or separate clarification equipment necessary. Also, by combining the
aeration and clarification steps into one basin, the processes can be manipulated based on the time
allotted for each step to provide the desired treated effluent.

Disadvantages
While the ability to manipulate the treatment process by changing the time allotted for each step can
be a great benefit, it can also lead to difficulties in operating the treatment plant. Unless the
operations personnel are well versed in the operation and maintenance of SBRs, this type of
treatment process may not produce the desired treated effluent quality. Most municipal systems also
require multiple reactor basins and equalization tanks to allow for peak flows into the WWTP.

Fixed Film

BOD removal and biological nitrification can also be accomplished in fixed film treatment process
such as the trickling filter/activated sludge treatment process, rotating biological contactors (RBCs),
or moving bed bioreactors (MBBRs). Instead of the microorganisms that treat the wastewater
suspended in the liquid, the microorganisms are attached to fixed media and treat the wastewater as
it passes through the reactor.

The trickling filter/activated sludge treatment process includes plastic media for the microorganisms
to grow on packed inside a tower where wastewater is applied for treatment. The trickling filter is
followed by a more conventional activated sludge process. Fans, blowers, clarifiers, RAS, and WAS
pumps are required as in the conventional activated sludge treatment process.

RBCs consist of a series of closely packed plastic circular disks that are partially submerged and
rotated through the wastewater to be treated. Microorganisms grow on the disks and aeration is
achieved as the disks are exposed to the air during rotation. RBCs are followed by clarifiers, RAS,
and WAS equipment.

MBBRs include plastic media that is suspended in the wastewater in a separate basin with screens to
keep the media in the basin. MBBRs are typically constructed following conventional aeration
basins for BOD removal and are designed specifically for biological nitrification only. A twist on the
MBBR technology is the integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) treatment process, where the
media is suspended in the aeration basin and BOD removal and biological nitrification occur in the
same basin.

Advantages

The use of the trickling filters/activated sludge treatment process combines the best qualities of both
processes. Trickling filters are more energy efficient and the activated sludge process prevents
sloughing material from creating poor effluent quality. These types of systems can also reduce the
footprint required by conventional activated sludge treatment processes.

Disadvantages

The primary disadvantages to fixed film treatment technologies are relatively high solids retention
time requirements, pumping energy required, sloughing from RBCs, the potential for rotten egg
odors, and the potential for snails and filter flies. The MBBR treatment process also requires higher
levels of dissolved oxygen. MBBR basins are required to have dissolved oxygen levels up to 7
milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

The membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment process consists of three main components: 1) anoxic
basins, 2) pre-aeration basins, and 3) the MBR basins. Raw wastewater must be screened through a
fine screen prior to the anoxic basin. From the anoxic basin, mixed liquor flows into the pre-aeration
basins and then into the MBR basins. The membranes are located in the MBR basins where
wastewater is passed through the membranes and permeate pumps deliver the effluent to the
disinfection process prior to discharge. The membranes remove the need for secondary clarification
required in other treatment processes. RAS and WAS pumping is required as in the more
conventional treatment processes.

Advantages

The MBR treatment process produces a very high effluent quality without the need for additional
clarification or filtration and will not only provide biological nitrification but total nitrogen removal
as well. The MBR process can also typically fit into a much smaller area.

Disadvantages

The MBR treatment process tends to be a much more expensive treatment process to construct and
there are ongoing costs associated with purchasing replacement membranes. The operation and
maintenance costs of the types of systems tend to be higher as well, requiring more power and
operator attention.

Lagoon Systems

Although lagoon treatment systems are not typically designed to provide more than BOD and total
suspended solids (TSS) removal, biological nitrification can occur given enough hydraulic and
solids residence times, the proper environmental conditions (especially temperature), and enough
oxygen. Hydraulic residence times must be extended to at least five to seven days (or higher) in the
aeration process, higher temperatures must be maintained, and sufficient oxygen must be provided.
A mixed liquor recycle system can also be implemented to maintain a high enough biomass to
promote the growth of nitrifying bacteria.

Advantages

Lagoon treatment systems have the advantage of being relatively inexpensive to construct and are
generally much easier to operate and maintain than mechanical wastewater treatment systems. Since
the basins are constructed by excavation or berming of earth, very little concrete is required. Also,
expensive mechanical equipment such as pumps and clarifier mechanisms are eliminated.

Disadvantages

It is harder to control the parameters that influence effluent quality such as wastewater temperature,
wasting, return rate, and oxygen levels in lagoon treatment systems. Therefore, effluent quality tends
to fluctuate more often, which requires more flexibility in the design and operation of these types of
facilities. Given the land required for lagoon systems, only small systems should consider the use of
this treatment process.

Conclusion

One option is not the best solution for all systems and a good consulting engineer can assist with
evaluating all of the options before recommending the best solution for each system. WW
About the Author:
Joe Nye is president and CEO of St. Joseph's Consulting Engineers in Glenwood Springs, CO. He
has significant experience in planning, designing, constructing, and operating different types of
wastewater treatment systems that provide for biological nitrification.

More WaterWorld Current Issue Articles

More WaterWorld Archives Issue Articles

Evolution of Sequencing Batch Reactor-

Membrane Bioreactor Technology

By Lloyd W. Johnson

Aqua-Aerobic Systems (AAS), in partnership the Colorado School of Mines (CSM), has completed
the successful startup of a sequencing batch reactor-membrane bioreactor (SBR-MBR). The package
system treats domestic wastewater generated by a 400-apartment, student and faculty housing-
complex located on the CSM campus in Golden, CO. This success is rooted in a 15-year
development program that follows an informal Stage-Gate® process.

Depending on the level of formality of a company's development process, each successive stage
requires a review before a “go” or “no-go” decision is made. The time necessary for product
development in the water industry tends to be rather long. A primary reason is an historical aversion
to new equipment and process concepts due to the significant financial investment required by end-
users to incorporate them into existing systems.

Figure 1. SBR-MBR Development Path

Click here to enlarge image
It is also a function of the potential risks associated with adverse environmental impacts and
unfavorable public opinion should the new technologies not perform as designed. To be successful
in the water industry, patience, willingness to invest significant company assets, and nurturing
collaborative partnerships are essential. The development and implementation of this package SBR-
MBR treatment system in Colorado reflect such efforts.

Figure 2. Operating Sequence of a Two-Basin SBR-MBR

Click here to enlarge image

Sequencing batch reactors (SBR) are a common, although not a predominant, technology for
treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater. Bench-scale SBR systems are often employed in
laboratory studies to define kinetic parameters and to determine the overall treatability of various
streams. Over the past 25 years, AAS has designed, manufactured, and sold over 1000 commercial-
scale SBR systems. The existing installation base and market drivers such as high quality effluent,
on-site water reuse, and space limitations in prime real estate areas have all provided the
development initiatives for the SBR-MBR concept.

The first SBR-MBR prototype system developed by AAS was designed to treat 1400 gallons of
influent per day, and was installed at a small municipal wastewater treatment plant in Rockton, IL.
The resulting on-site study lasted 18 months and required the attention of one full-time
researcher/operator.

During the study, the SBR process tank was close-coupled with an external pressure-fed membrane
that was provided by Pall Corp. Due to the basic membrane design and its application in wastewater
treatment, a screening step was required between the bioreactor and the membrane unit. Screening
influent waste streams to a high degree was generally deemed unnecessary by the industry at that
time; however experience in Rockton revealed that this was not the case. Today, effective influent
pre-screening is considered necessary and is typical of MBR designs and operation.

Figure 3. SBR-MBR Decentralized Installation at Colorado School of Mines

Click here to enlarge image
Although the process worked well and the membrane produced the desired water quality, researchers
were unable to substantially distinguish this technology combination from existing flow-through
MBR systems in terms of higher flux capability and lower operational costs. A “no-go” decision was
therefore made and the SBR-MBR development project was temporarily suspended, but on-going
technology reviews continued through various avenues that included market investigations, plant
visits, and collaborations with business partners that had been developed throughout the prototype
study.

Figure 4. SBR System MLSS Values from Early February through mid-April, 2009
Click here to enlarge image

As noted, collaborative partnerships are key elements to success, and it was one such partnership
that revitalized the SBR-MBR project. When Koch Membrane Systems (KMS) contacted AAS and
provided access to Koch-PURON? technology, AAS staff realized that they were in a position to
combine two unique technologies that offered a combined technical and competitive solution to
address existing market needs. A second prototype system was then designed, and a subsequent
study was initiated. The program was further enhanced by a perceived market driver for
decentralized package treatment systems in water reuse applications.

Figure 5. Removal Rate of Constituents from Early February through Mid-April, 2009
Click here to enlarge image

In addition to other resources and services, the WateReuse Association (WRA) and the Water
Environment Federation (WEF) provide excellent networking opportunities. It was through
membership in these professional organizations that AAS met CSM professors Drs. Jorg Drewes and
Tzahi Cath. Both CSM and AAS expressed mutual interest in, and recognized the potential long-
term benefits of, a collaborative study with CSM Advanced Water Technology Center (AQWATEC)
and Mines' Small Flows Program. A study plan was developed and approved, and the Golden, CO,
test site was identified.

Figure 6. Transmembrane Pressure for Each Module During Startup

Click here to enlarge image

During the design phase of the SBR-MBR development, AAS worked closely with CSM to prepare
the site. This included adding a by-pass connection to the sewer line, installing an in-ground
receiving/pre-settling tank, and providing utility connections. This level of site preparation is not
normally required since test locations are often at existing wastewater treatment facilities. The
package prototype treatment plant was shipped to Golden in September 2008, and after four months
of operational checks and running on clean water, it was seeded with activated sludge collected from
a local SBR plant.

Initial goals for the study are to maintain continuous stable unit operation and to establish a baseline
system performance by monitoring such parameters as influent and effluent organics, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and turbidity values. Reactor mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) values, transmembrane pressure (TMP), chemical cleaning
requirements, and flux stability are also being evaluated.

The current SBR-MBR plant is equipped with a full complement of instrumentation coupled with a
SCADA system for on-line monitoring and control. Each reactor has TSS, DO, and level probes as
well as a vacant slot for an additional probe. Each membrane tank is equipped with a level probe,
and the common MLSS return trough boasts pH, TSS, and DO/temperature probes in addition to an
unoccupied slot for a future probe if required. Pneumatically actuated valves control both the liquid
and air flow in the system. The influent feed, MLSS membrane feed, and membrane permeate
pumps are all VFD-controlled.

Basin 1 receives flow for one hour while Basin 2 discharges. Each basin is equipped with a set of
timers to create the desired aerated and non-aerated events. Hydraulic mixing is provided by a
submerged pump fitted with two directional nozzles. An inherent advantage of the time-based SBR
operation is the ability to relax the membranes for permeate withdrawal if the influent flow is less
than design. In addition, the SBR basin can be sized to provide some equalization for flow events in
excess of design average; the membrane flux rate is automatically adjusted for permeate peak flow if
the influent flow is higher than the design average.

The plant was seeded with SBR activated sludge on February 9, 2009, and the initial MLSS
concentration in each basin was approximately 1000 mg/l. The system achieved a steady-state 8000
mg/l design MLSS concentration on April 1, 2009. Figure 4 illustrates the steady increase in system
MLSS values from early February through mid April.

Immediate elimination of carbonaceous and nitrogenous components was achieved and removals
exceeding 80% occurred within the first 12 days. By March 13, carbon removal measured as DOC
approached 90% with a typical permeate concentration of 7.2 mg/l. Similarly, total nitrogen
removals reached 95% with permeate concentrations ranging from 3 to 0.2 mg/l. Ammonia removal
was nearly complete. Biological phosphorus removal started very slowly in the range of 30 to 50 %
and progressed to 90% as the system reached steady state operation. Total phosphorus permeate
concentrations have approached values of 0.4 mg/l. Research staff anticipate similar removal
efficiencies in the future now that the system has reached a steady-state condition.

Each membrane tank is fitted with one 30 m2 hollow-fiber membrane module. The membrane is of
a single header design, consisting of a self-supporting mounting frame, side baffles and permeate
and air scour headers. At this point in the study, two maintenance cleaning events have been
performed, one at the end of March and the second in early April. MBR 1 membrane recovery
occurred during both events while MBR 2's membrane responded to the second. Nearly full
recovery of both was achieved.

The CSM test site provides the necessary real life conditions for decentralized treatment. The system
has reached a steady state condition; however, it will soon be challenged with the campus' summer
break. During the break, researchers expect that the flow and load to the system will decrease
substantially; this will require operational adjustments to maintain a healthy system. With the two
basin SBR configuration, researchers have the flexibility to consider a smaller batch volume or
practice single tank operation for extended low flow and lower loading events. Based on the success
of the present operation, coupled with confidence in the flexible design features, AAS has proceeded
with commercializing of the SBR-MBR product.

Future testing will include constituent profiling of the biological process with time, adjusting
process settings to find operating limits, evaluating the process for removal of micro-constituents,
and evaluating different operating strategies to improve membrane performance and longevity. --m

About the Author:

Lloyd W. Johnson, P.E., is vice president of Research & Development at Aqua-Aerobic Systems.
Johnson holds a BS in Civil Engineering degree from the University of Hawaii and MS Product
Development degree from Northwestern University. He has had experience in the wastewater
treatment industry since 1975 related to process engineering and equipment manufacturing. He may
be contacted via e-mail at ljohnson@aqua-aerobic.com.

Wastewater treatment providers announce

performance partnership in U.S.
Sept. 20, 2010 -- Atlas Copco and ITT have formed a partnership to provide wastewater treatment
customers with a comprehensive package that is designed to reduce operational costs through
improved energy savings. The partnership pairs two industry-leading technologies: Atlas Copco's
new range of low pressure ZS screw blowers and ITT's Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs) and
Sanitaire Diffused Aeration Systems. The announcement of this partnership in the United States
follows on the global strategic alliance formed between Atlas Copco Airpower n.v. and ITT Water &
Wastewater AB in April 2009.

The two companies will also showcase the benefits of these technologies in a joint effort at the 2010
Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC), the wastewater
industry's flagship tradeshow, Oct. 2-6 in New Orleans. Product information and supporting staff
will be available in both the Atlas Copco and the ITT booths.

"We are excited to be working with such a like-minded company," said John Conover, business
development manager for the Atlas Copco range of low pressure solutions. "Forming this
partnership enables customers to get the most energy-efficient package from one team of suppliers."

Atlas Copco's energy-efficient ZS screw blower range for aeration applications has proven to be on
average 30 percent more energy efficient than conventional blower technology. The introduction of
the ZS range, using internal compression instead of external compression, sets a new standard for
energy-efficiency in the industry.

ITT's range of sequencing batch reactors are complete wastewater treatment systems that are
operated on the fill and draw principle and are used in both municipal and industrial applications.
SBRs offer advantages in reduced tankage, mechanical systems and automatic operation, but the
Sanitaire ICEAS variation to traditional systems expands the benefits to include continuous inflow,
reduced footprint, peak load handling capability, biological nutrient removal, expandability and
energy efficiency using Sanitaire fine bubble membrane diffusers.

"There has never been a greater emphasis on increasing energy efficiency," said Ron Port, managing
director of ITT in the U.S. "Today's market demands new and innovative ways to couple maximum
productivity with optimal efficiency. We responded to this need by pairing Atlas Copco's full range
of ZS screw blowers with our SBR systems to offer our customers industry-leading technology for a
wide range of treatment solutions."

One of the partnership's first projects is at the ITT Sanitaire Performance Test Center in Brown Deer,
Wisconsin. The Brown Deer facility, including an accompanying laboratory and state-of-the-art data
measurement and control systems, is home to one of the largest clean water test tanks in the world.
To measure the energy savings and performance of the Atlas Copco ZS blower, a ZS blower is in
operation at the facility beside a rotary lobe displacement blower, and the results are being
compared. Initial results from the testing will be available at WEFTEC.

Atlas Copco is an industrial group with world-leading positions in compressors, construction and
mining equipment, power tools and assembly systems. The Group delivers sustainable solutions for
increased customer productivity through innovative products and services. Founded 1873, the
company is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and has a global reach spanning more than 170 countries.
In 2009, Atlas Copco had about 30 000 employees and revenues of BSEK 64 (BEUR 6.0). Learn
more at www.atlascopco.com.
Framework equipment contracts avoid
competitive tendering problems

Equipment suppliers contend that framework contracts resolve costly mechanical plant problems,
build client trust and ensure repeat business.

Framework contracts can resolve problems caused by competitive tendering for mechanical
engineering equipment in the water industry, such as unnecessary and cumulative price increases,
distrust between supplier and purchaser, and less-than-optimum equipment design.

A completed rotor, manufactured by Copa Ltd for use in wastewater treatment plants.
Click here to enlarge image

Historically, purchasers invited competitive tenders from a maximum of six suppliers to get the most
value for their money, but purchasers and mechanical contractors are discovering the advantages of
employing framework contracts.

Competitive tenders clearly define the nature of the works and compel suppliers to look very
carefully at their submission to ensure it is cost-effective. Generally, tender documents give little
opportunity for the contractor to influence or change the design. If the tender specification is not
carefully prepared, experienced contractors have the opportunity to increase final accounts through
variations and claims.

The engineer has to some extent controlled this practice and contractors have had to modify their
approach by becoming less aggressive or risk losing tendering opportunities, but claims are still the
norm.
Incredibly, mechanical contractors have not been subjected to the same degree of scrutiny,
particularly in an industry so dependent on mechanical plant. The engineer simply procures plant
and suppliers tender against known competitors, leaving open the opportunity for unscrupulous
mechanical contractors for contractors to reduce the size of components.

Regardless of the specification, clause 31(xii) of the General Conditions for Water Industry Plant
Contracts-Form G / 90 assists contractors who wish to design for a lesser life than specified. The
contractor's liability is limited to three years from the date of take over. Any defects after the three-
year period are the responsibility of the purchaser. This policy holds true in regards to all mechanical
plant but is particularly relevant to rotating biological contactors (RBCs), commonly used in small
wastewater treatment facilities.

No sensible contractor would wish to rigidly adhere to a three-year design policy since they would
inevitably find their commercial opportunities restricted. In many cases, however, operators may
feel eight to ten years is acceptable. A small additional increase in the capital cost could provide a
much longer life with significant financial advantages but invariably this bid will be rejected.

Any supplier submitting a tender document is aware that the engineer is likely to accept the lowest
capital price, so any statement that the additional cost will increase the life of the plant would have
to be well justified. Not all suppliers choose to market high quality and robust plant, such as the
Cranfield University-accredited RBC design. Some suppliers prefer to offer cheaper capital cost
options relying on the engineer and purchaser's lack of knowledge when selecting mechanical plant.
This practise will continue until such time as contracts are correctly awarded on a true whole life
cost basis.

Suppliers are usually viewed as having a beneficial interest and being not trustworthy, although
suppliers may have more information on equipment than the engineer. Unfortunately that cynicism
has been responsible for many unnecessary increases in costs and could have been easily resolved if
the engineer had better understood the supplier's design to the same level as his own or had a
relationship of trust with his supplier.

Suppliers are not blameless for this lack of trust. Until recently, suppliers refused to disclose their
design details to customers claiming commercial sensitivity. In certain instances this may be a valid
reason, however design copy write and patent provisions equally protect their interests.

On various occasions, the UK company Copa Ltd has advised clients that the specification was not
appropriate in certain areas of design, but rarely is the specification revised. Suppliers obtain a
wealth of knowledge by installing and commissioning plant, which is invaluable to the industry, but
rarely is their opinion sought. Copa manufactures a range of sewage treatment equipment including
rotating biological contactors used in wastewater treatment plants.

Similarly, where RBCs are tendered, the specification frequently omits any reference to key
parameters determining life and whole life costs. True tender evaluation is absolutely impossible
when these parameters are absent and choices include a wide range of mechanical plant with
different working life spans.
 A rotor is being loaded onto a truck.
Click here to enlarge image

Competitive tendering for mechanical engineering equipment in the water industry not only risks the
provision of equipment, which may prove unsatisfactory to the operator, the process risks
unnecessary and cumulative cost increases. Framework contracts have solved some of these
problems; therefore providing a better system of procuring equipment and services than competitive
tendering for the UK water industry.

Framework contracts first started to appear in the UK in 1999. They benefit the purchaser by
reducing cost, building trust between parties and providing an opportunity to educate. Their
objective is to build a long-term working relationship based on trust, open and honest dealing and a
commitment to work with the client in a co-operative manner in order to improve quality, reduce
costs and achieve continuous improvement without compromising health and safety.

To achieve these objectives, the supplier must effectively behave as if he was the water industry's
direct labour contractor, albeit privately owned, and therefore financially independent of the water
company. The supplier must be totally dedicated to achieving the objectives of his framework
partner. By developing a culture based on teamwork and trust, then he can reasonably be assured
that future work will follow, provided his client is completely satisfied with the end product and
overall service.

Clear lines of communication are essential with constructive criticism and praise being an important
part of teamwork.

The client must be more than just a silent partner. He must be keen to work with the supplier,
learning, innovating and providing a regular and constant flow of work. His role must be one of
friendship and openness, sharing wherever possible information regarding his plans for future
expenditure.

These commitments enable the supplier to produce a quality product with zero defects and to earn a
reasonable profit for his endeavours. It enables a full understanding of the supplier's design and the
client's needs.
The engineer should fully understand the design, but he must observe normal contractual good
practise since the supplier's knowledge base is likely to be greater and his understanding of
mechanical philosophy better.

Framework contracts avoid the need to tender each individual contract, thereby saving money for
the purchaser and supplier. For example, in the case of combined sewer overflow (CSO) screens,
there are significant advantages to considering the whole catchment and not merely the localised
problem, and to work with the client's consulting engineer to reduce costs, and educate him on
layout, machinery design and selection.

Similarly, costs for RBCs are commonly higher than necessary due to elaborate process designs and
site layout considerations fuelled by lack of understanding.

A rotor section of a rotating biological contactor is being installed.

Click here to enlarge image

Severn Trent Water Ltd developed a number of innovative techniques to substantially reduce costs
and improve quality, which are available to all Copa's RBC clients. Occasionally an engineer or
operator believes his process knowledge is better and rejects the STW philosophy; however where
there is a framework, or just trust, advice is accepted, repeat business is assured, and efficiencies are
achieved.

Grouping schemes together is advantageous. The supplier can achieve significant savings not only
within his own factory but also throughout the supply chain by adopting a "flow process" approach
to production methods. Savings can be passed on to the purchaser in target cost contracts that are
linked to framework contracts.

Copa Ltd reduced the number of suppliers from more than 300 to less than 100, preferring to enter
into long-term framework arrangements with key suppliers, some of which are open book, target
cost agreements. In this way, Copa benefits from a fully committed and flexible supply chain
focussed on delivering first class service and products. All the benefits of the supply chain are
passed on to clients.

Some water companies choose to have a minimum of two suppliers, thereby seeking security should
one contractor fail to deliver. Others elect to place their works with the most cost-effective
contractor, whom they trust.

Regardless of the adopted method, the supplier must ensure that the client obtains value for money
and that prices are robust and sustainable. The supplier must also ensure that the framework client
obtains preferential treatment, which may result in selective tendering of competitive bids when a
framework is not in place.

The correct supplier must be chosen to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. There can be no greater
disadvantage to a purchaser than to embark upon a framework agreement only to find that the
resultant plant or service does not meet expectations. This may occur after several plants have been
installed and are not working satisfactory. If this happens, the only option is to rethink the policy or
to default to a secondary supplier and obtain a replacement often with unnecessary cost implications.

Adopting a framework approach can only serve to resolve such difficulties, encouraging the industry
to raise the quality of design and seriously consider the old adage that "the good engineer is the
gentlemen who can do for a penny what a fool can do for a pound!"

Authors' Note
D A Scale is the director of Copa Ltd, and Professor G Eric Findlay is the RBC of Copa Ltd, based
in West Bromwich, United Kingdom.

Properly designed RBCs solve mechanical

issues

By G. Eric Findley

A new rotating biological contactor (RBC) design by the Cranfield University School of Mechanical
Engineering and Copa Ltd. for Severn Trent Water Ltd resolved mechanical reliability issues of
RBCs in sewage treatment plants. Consequently, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (UK)
recognised Copa Ltd as a finalist for its Manufacturing Excellence Awards in July 2003.

Since 1989, the UK water company Severn Trent Water recognised the process and economic
advantages of RBCs and adopted the technology as the main process in their small sewage treatment
plants. Properly designed, the process produces a well-nitrified effluent, is environmentally friendly
and inexpensive to operate. Installing several plants in parallel can treat populations up to 3,000. The
advantage of such an arrangement is that the cost of the civil works is less than if a typical
percolating filter flow sheet is adopted. Sludge is removed every 90 days and screenings and detritus
are contained within the plant.
 Completed rotor. Photo by Copa Limited
Click here to enlarge image

Mechanical engineering problems, however, became apparent in RBC operations, so Severn Trent
Water commissioned Cranfield University to investigate the reasons for RBC failure and to
recommend improvements to Severn Trent specifications.

Severn Trent Water Ltd sponsored a doctoral student to investigate more than 300 operational units
in the Midlands region of England, which are owned and operated by Severn Trent Water. The
researcher examined and reviewed every aspect of the mechanical plant, and senior staff specialising
in rotating machinery undertook calculations based on Finite Element and traditional analyses and
supervised the project whilst liasing closely with Severn Trent Water.

Severn Trent requested that Cranfield's design ensure the rotating metal assembly to remain defect-
free for a minimum of 20 years at the specified conditions of 5 mm biomass thickness on the coarse
disc packs and 3 mm on the fine packs. This means that maintenance is now restricted to lubricating
bearings and the gearbox, and removing sludge produced by the process. This design change has
altered the RBC process, which was considered unreliable, to being one of the most robust small
mechanical sewage treatment plants. This, however, applies to those plants validated by Cranfield
and Copa Ltd.

Cranfield identified several factors that led to design changes. Researchers found that RBCs fail
primarily from fatigue rather than corrosion; however other factors play a significant role in
mechanical failure, such as biomass thickness, environment; rotation speed and quality of
manufacture and assembly.

Biomass thickness

An RBC frame is no more than a rotating portal structure. Consequently, the biomass load is the
uniformly distributed load acting on "the beam." The bending moment and stresses are a function of
the biomass thickness; therefore it is extremely important in any design to specify thickness. A plant
experiencing a load of five mm is likely to fail quite rapidly if it has been designed to accept only
two. Since the stress is proportional to the thickness to the power of three, this has quite a major
effect.
 RBC being assembled on site. Photo by Severn
Trent Water
Click here to enlarge image

A detailed measurement of biomass thickness on several hundred RBCs in Severn Trent Water Ltd
concluded that the specified thickness on the initial (coarse) packs should be not less than 5 mm and
on the final (fine) packs 3 mm.

Plant life span is related to biomass thickness. Plant life will be longer when thickness is less than
specified. Conversely, the life span will be shorter when the thickness is greater than specified.

Copa rotor installed in a new GRP tank in Scotland.

Photo by Scottish Water
Click here to enlarge image

Sewage treatment is a continuous function. Incoming sewage must still be treated even if a plant
fails. Temporary facilities are an unnecessary and costly expense; consequently the operating
company benefits from longer plant life and lower maintenance costs. The author will demonstrate
this point in his paper "Resolving the reliability issues of Rotating Biological Contractors" at the
Water Environment Federation Conference (WEFTEC) that will be held in Los Angeles, California,
USA from 12 - 15 October 2003. The author contends in this presentation that a 10-year-life plant
that costs US$ 90,000 can be 200% more expensive than a 20-year-plant that costs US$ 10,000
more.

Environment

Research by Cranfield on fatigue failure of oil rigs in the North Sea and similar work on ships
suggest that the environment strongly affects the relationship between cycles and fatigue stress,
commonly referred to as S/N curves. These change for different types of metals and situations. For
example, when mild steel is rotated in air, the tendency after many cycles is for the life to tend
towards infinity once a finite level of stress has been reached. When rotating in liquid, the S/N curve
tends toward zero stress after a finite number of cycles usually after 20 years.
Speed of rotation

Bending a paper clip backward and forward until it breaks simulates RBC fatigue failure. This
occurs when the optimum number of cycles on the S/N curve coincides with fatigue stress. The time
to reach failure depends on the speed at which the paper clip is bent. Bending at one cycle per
second will take half as long to reach failure as bending at twice that speed. For example, if an RBC
is designed to rotate at 0.5 revolutions per minute, it will fail in half that time if it is rotated at one
rpm.

Copa rotor ready for transport. Photo by

Copa Ltd.
Click here to enlarge image

In theory, it may seem that less metal is required to produce a robust design than if designed for a
higher speed of rotation, but other factors must be considered.

Beggiatoa is a nuisance bacteria that inhibits the biological process. It is invariably attributed to high
organic or hydraulic loads; however since the speed of rotation determines the amount of
oxygenation, it also plays a major role. Beggiatoa is acidic, filamentous and heavier than
conventional biomass in a healthy RBC, which increases stress and reduces the operating life of the
RBC assembly.

The slow rotation of the RBC encourages tension cracks to open for a much longer period of time as
they pass through the settled sewage, which encourages corrosion. The slow rotation increases the
acidification of the crack tip and hydrogen ions migrate to the tip of the crack. At high speeds of
rotation, these ions dissipate, reducing the speed of crack propagation. In sewage plants with
Beggiatoa, the acidic nature of the bacteria exposes the RBC to higher levels of hydrogen, which
increases the occurrence of cracks. Experience within Severn Trent Water Ltd. suggests that the
optimum speed of rotation should be no less than one revolution per minute; therefore all Copa
designs are based on this speed. Speed of rotation and environment in which the RBC rotates are of
fundamental importance to the life of the plant.

Quality of manufacture and assembly

Stresses induced in manufacture and assembly can be either fundamental to the process or induced
unnecessarily. Stresses, which are fundamental and therefore unavoidable are caused by galvanising
or metalworking and must be taken into consideration when sizing component parts. Some stresses
can clearly be avoided, such as reducing the number of bolts to a minimum or avoiding radially
welding the shaft.

In general, the whole life costs for RBCs are low because motor sizes are invariably smaller than in
other types of process. Failure of component RBC parts, however, affect treatment costs
significantly.
Companies award tenders based on the lowest capital cost without much regard to operation and
maintenance process costs. Such a selection fails to consider the life cycle costs of the process and
can result in high operational and maintenance costs in the long term. Without a doubt, short life
failure can result in significantly higher whole life costs!

RBC plant life now reaches 20 years

Based upon the Cranfield research results, Severn Trent Water took the necessary steps to ensure
that all existing defective plants were replaced at the suppliers' cost and that future RBCs should be
capable of lasting a minimum of 20 years at a specified biomass thickness, speed of rotation and
fatigue stress.

Only those suppliers who could meet specified conditions, set by Cranfield University, were allowed
to tender. Suppliers were asked to tender their original design to see if this could be brought up to
the Cranfield standard. No one could meet that completely but the best job was done at suggesting
modifications to existing plants upon which Severn Trent insisted. However, the only plant which
meets the Severn Trent / Cranfield Standard is manufactured by Copa, which is based on the plant
designed by Cranfield. The RBC manufacturer Copa Ltd, whose RBCs are used extensively by
water companies in the UK, acquired the newly designed rotor. Copa frames and shafts can be in
either a glass reinforced plastic (GRP) or a more expensive reinforced concrete structure.

Author's Note
Professor G. Eric Findlay, the RBC Manager at Copa Ltd. (UK) is based in Birmingham, England.
Specialising in CSO technology and process technology for municipal wastewater treatment, Copa
Ltd. was acquired by CDS Technologies of Melbourne, Australia. For more information, visit the
website: http://www.copa.co.uk)