Packaged Wastewater Gaza Fs

PACKAGED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
August 2012

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II
Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Table of Contents
Feasibility Study

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................1‐1
2.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................2‐1
2.1 Program Description ..........................................................................................................................2‐1
2.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................2‐1
2.2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................2‐3
2.2.2 Scope .........................................................................................................................................2‐3
2.3 Description of Project Area .............................................................................................................2‐4
2.4 Influent Basis of Design ....................................................................................................................2‐5
2.4.1 Estimated Flow Rate ..........................................................................................................2‐5
2.4.2 Loading ....................................................................................................................................2‐6
2.5 Population Ranges ..............................................................................................................................2‐7
2.6 Reference Materials ............................................................................................................................2‐8
3.0 Data Collection ...............................................................................................................................................3‐1
3.1 Site Visits and Observations ...........................................................................................................3‐1
3.1.1 Meetings ..................................................................................................................................3‐1
3.1.2 Community Visits ................................................................................................................3‐2
3.1.3 Information Collected ........................................................................................................3‐5
3.2 Market Research ..................................................................................................................................3‐9
3.2.1 Data Collection Methods ...................................................................................................3‐9
3.2.2 Data Collected .......................................................................................................................3‐9
4.0 Evaluation of Information .........................................................................................................................4‐1
4.1 Introduction to Wastewater Treatment Processes ...............................................................4‐1
4.1.1 Physical Treatment .............................................................................................................4‐1
4.1.2 Biological Treatment ..........................................................................................................4‐2
4.1.3 Chemical Treatment ...........................................................................................................4‐3
4.1.4 Pre‐ and Post‐ Treatment .................................................................................................4‐4
4.2 Evaluation of Packaged WWTP Technologies .........................................................................4‐6
4.2.1 Activated Sludge ..................................................................................................................4‐6
4.2.2 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor ........................................................................................ 4‐17
4.2.3 Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge .................................................................. 4‐20
4.2.4 Membrane Bioreactor ..................................................................................................... 4‐23
4.2.5 Basis of Cost Information .............................................................................................. 4‐26
4.2.6 Packaged WWTP Technologies Evaluation Conclusions ................................. 4‐27
4.3 Evaluation of Potential Communities ...................................................................................... 4‐27
4.3.1 Existing Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 4‐27
4.3.2 Population ........................................................................................................................... 4‐28
4.3.3 Potential Growth ............................................................................................................... 4‐28
4.3.4 Potential for Reuse ........................................................................................................... 4‐28
4.3.5 Community Interest ........................................................................................................ 4‐28
4.3.6 Land Availability ............................................................................................................... 4‐29
4.3.7 Geopolitical Location ...................................................................................................... 4‐29
5.0 Additional Topics ..........................................................................................................................................5‐1
5.1 Collection Systems ..............................................................................................................................5‐1
5.2 Operation and Maintenance of Packaged WWTPs ................................................................5‐2
5.3 Reuse ........................................................................................................................................................5‐4
5.4 Emergency Operations ......................................................................................................................5‐4
5.5 Future Expansion ................................................................................................................................5‐5
5.6 Sludge .......................................................................................................................................................5‐5
5.7 Funding ....................................................................................................................................................5‐6
5.8 Transportation and Import .............................................................................................................5‐7
5.8.1 Transportation .....................................................................................................................5‐7
August 2012

Feasibility Study

5.8.2 Import ......................................................................................................................................5‐8
5.9 Spare Parts .............................................................................................................................................5‐8
5.10 Redundancy ...........................................................................................................................................5‐9
5.11 Environmental Aspects .....................................................................................................................5‐9
5.12 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................5‐9
6.0 Summary of Results .....................................................................................................................................6‐1
6.1 Feasibility of Packaged WWTPs in the West Bank ................................................................6‐1
6.2 Feasible Technologies .......................................................................................................................6‐1
6.3 Feasible Manufacturers ....................................................................................................................6‐1
6.4 Feasible Communities .......................................................................................................................6‐2
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................................7‐1
7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................7‐1
7.2 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................7‐1
8.0 Appendix A: Manufacturer Request for Information ....................................................................8‐1
9.0 Appendix B: Aqua Treat (Extended Aeration) .................................................................................9‐1
10.0 Appendix C: Aqua‐Aerobic Systems (SBR) ..................................................................................... 10‐1
11.0 Appendix D: Delta Process (Extended Aeration) ......................................................................... 11‐1
12.0 Appendix E: Gaylord (Modular Extended Aeration) .................................................................. 12‐1
13.0 Appendix F: GE (MBR) ............................................................................................................................ 13‐1
14.0 Appendix G: Global Water (Extended Aeration) .......................................................................... 14‐1
15.0 Appendix H: ITT / ABJ (SBR) ............................................................................................................... 15‐1
16.0 Appendix I: Newterra (MBR) ............................................................................................................... 16‐1
17.0 Appendix J: Siemens (Extended Aeration) ..................................................................................... 17‐1
18.0 Appendix K: Siemens (Oxidation Ditch) .......................................................................................... 18‐1
19.0 Appendix L: Siemens (SBR) .................................................................................................................. 19‐1
20.0 Appendix M: Siemens (MBR) ............................................................................................................... 20‐1
21.0 Appendix N: Smith & Loveless (Extended Aeration, IFAS, MBR) .......................................... 21‐1
22.0 Appendix O: Tipton (Extended Aeration) ....................................................................................... 22‐1
23.0 Appendix P: Veolia / AnoxKaldnes (MBBR) .................................................................................. 23‐1

Figure 1: Wastewater Discharge in Wadi .......................................................................................................... 2‐1
Figure 2: Examples of Packaged WWTPs .......................................................................................................... 2‐2
Figure 3: West Bank Topography ......................................................................................................................... 2‐4
Figure 4: Visited Communities by Population ................................................................................................. 3‐4
Figure 5: Al‐Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................................ 3‐7
Figure 6: Example of Screening ............................................................................................................................. 4‐1
Figure 7: Typical Chemical Storage Totes ......................................................................................................... 4‐4
Figure 8: Examples of Pre‐Treatment ................................................................................................................. 4‐5
Figure 9: Examples of Post‐Treatment ............................................................................................................... 4‐5
Figure 10: Examples of Extended Aeration Packaged WWTPs ................................................................ 4‐8
Figure 11: Example of Oxidation Ditch WWTP ............................................................................................ 4‐12
Figure 12: Examples of MBBR Media ............................................................................................................... 4‐17
Figure 13: Example of IFAS Fixed Media Units ............................................................................................ 4‐20
Figure 14: Example of IFAS Fluidized Media ................................................................................................ 4‐20
Figure 15: Example of Biocarrier Screens ...................................................................................................... 4‐21
Figure 16: Example of MBR Packaged WWTP .............................................................................................. 4‐23
Figure 17: Raw Wastewater in Wadi al Nar ..................................................................................................... 5‐1
Figure 18: Nahhalin Packaged WWTP ................................................................................................................ 5‐2
Figure 19: Example of Sludge Drying Beds ....................................................................................................... 5‐6
Figure 20: Examples of Packaged WWTPs Ready for Over‐land Transport ....................................... 5‐8

August 2012

Feasibility Study

Table 1: Estimated Wastewater Generation .................................................................................................... 2‐6
Table 2: Estimated Wastewater Unit Loading ................................................................................................. 2‐7
Table 3: Estimated Wastewater Loading ........................................................................................................... 2‐7
Table 4: Wastewater Generation by Population Ranges ............................................................................. 2‐8
Table 5: Communities in West Bank Visited by Expats ............................................................................... 3‐3
Table 6: Effluent Requirements for Key Wastewater Parameters .......................................................... 3‐6
Table 7: Estimated Percent Removal for Key Wastewater Parameters................................................ 3‐6
Table 8: Available Packaged WWTP Technologies ..................................................................................... 3‐10
Table 9: Extended Aeration Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 4‐10
Table 10: Extended Aeration Summary .......................................................................................................... 4‐11
Table 11: Oxidation Ditch Case Studies ........................................................................................................... 4‐13
Table 12: Oxidation Ditch Summary ................................................................................................................. 4‐14
Table 13: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Case Studies ........................................................................ 4‐15
Table 14: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Summary .............................................................................. 4‐16
Table 15: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Case Studies ................................................................ 4‐18
Table 16: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Summary ...................................................................... 4‐19
Table 17: Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Case Studies ............................................ 4‐21
Table 18: Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Summary .................................................. 4‐22
Table 19: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Case Studies ............................................................................... 4‐24
Table 20: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Summary ..................................................................................... 4‐25
August 2012

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants List of Acronyms
Feasibility Study

List of Acronyms

ARIJ Applied Research Institute ‐ mg/L milligrams per liter
Jerusalem MGD Million gallons per day
AS Activated Sludge ML Mixed Liquor
B&V Black & Veatch MoA Ministry of Agriculture
BNR Biological Nutrient Removal MoLG Ministry of Local Government
BOD5 5‐day Biochemical Oxygen MPN Most Probable Number
Demand NIS New Israeli Shekel
CAPEX Capital Expenditure O&M Operation and Maintenance
DO Dissolved Oxygen OD Oxidation Ditch
EIA Environmental Impact OPEX Operational Expenditure
Assessment PA Palestinian Authority
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection PF Peaking Factor
Agency PLC Programmable Logic Controller
ERP Emergency Response Plan PM Preventative Maintenance
EQA Environmental Quality Authority PWA Palestinian Water Authority
(currently MEnA) RAS Return Activated Sludge
FTE Full Time Equivalent RFTOP Request for Task Order Proposal
GIS Geographic Information System SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor
gpcpd grams per capita per day SRT Solids Retention Time
gpd gallons per day TN Total Nitrogen
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time TP Total Phosphorus
IEE Initial Environmental Examination TPAT Technical, Planning, and Advisory
IFAS Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Team
Sludge TSS Total Suspended Solids
INP II Infrastructure Needs Program U.S. United States
Phase II USD United States Dollar
JWC Joint Water Committee UASB Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
JWU Jerusalem Water Undertaking USAID United States Agency for
lpcpd liters per capita per day International Development
m3/day cubic meters per day WAS Waste Activated Sludge
MBBR Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor WBG West Bank/Gaza
MBR Membrane Bioreactor WQ Water Quality
MEnA Ministry of Environmental Affairs WWAC Wastewater Advisory Committee
(formerly EQA) WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
MENA Middle East and North Africa WBWD West Bank Water Department
August 2012

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Acknowledgements
Feasibility Study

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to those individuals who provided assistance
to us during the preparation of this Feasibility Study. Many individuals shared their time,
expertise and information to make the Study successful.

In particular, we would like to thank the staff of the USAID West Bank / Gaza Mission who have
supported this Study and assisted by sharing information and resources. We would also like to
thank the Palestinian Water Authority, West Bank Water Department, Ministry of
Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Local Government for their time
spent meeting with us as well as the information they shared and their input into the direction
of the Study.

Additionally, we appreciate the valuable support provided by the talented local INP II staff both
during our visits to the West Bank and in responding to follow‐up questions and requests for
information. The technical reviews and assistance provided by Black & Veatch staff, particularly
Scott Levesque, were instrumental in performing and completing a thorough Study.

This Study would not have been possible without the participation of the packaged WWTP
manufacturers and representatives. Many of the manufacturers performed preliminary designs
based on the unique characteristics of wastewater in the West Bank, which required a
significant amount of time and effort. They shared their time and experience to make the
information provided in this Study more complete.

Finally, we wish to express our appreciation and gratitude to the many Palestinian people who
so graciously welcomed us on our trips to the West Bank. Their willingness to share
information and answer all of our questions, coupled with the genuine hospitality we were
shown during our visits throughout the West Bank, was nothing short of phenomenal. We hope
that the results of this Study will lead to improvements in public infrastructure and wastewater
services that positively impact many of their lives and help support an independent and viable
Palestinian state.

Greg Kolenovsky, PE, PMP, PgMP
Regina Cassanova, PE
Trigon Associates, LLC
August 2012

August 2012 1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 1.0 Executive Summary
Feasibility Study

1.0 Executive Summary
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) West Bank / Gaza (WBG)
Mission is considering the use of packaged wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) as part of
efforts to support development of needed wastewater treatment infrastructure in the West
Bank. Packaged WWTPs are used successfully around the world as a cost‐effective method of
treating wastewater and as an attractive alternative to traditional, larger‐scale treatment plants
for certain applications.

The USAID WBG Mission authorized the Black & Veatch (B&V) team to perform a Feasibility
Study (Study) under the Infrastructure Needs Program Phase II (INP II) relative to the use of
packaged WWTPs. The purpose of the Study was to evaluate the overall validity and
applicability of utilizing packaged WWTPs in the West Bank.

Data Collection
Data was collected by visiting the West Bank and by evaluating potential treatment
technologies. Regina Cassanova and Greg Kolenovsky of Trigon Associates, LLC (Trigon,
subcontractor to B&V) performed a visit to the West Bank between March 3, 2012 and March
14, 2012 in order to gather information on the feasibility of installation and operation of
packaged WWTPs for West Bank communities. Information was gathered through
conversations with local and USAID staff, visits to a random sampling of over 30 communities
and visits to existing wastewater treatment plants in the West Bank. Meetings were also held
with the local INP II staff as well as local ministries and authorities, which consisted of the
Ministry of Local Government (MoLG), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), the Palestinian Water
Authority (PWA) and the Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) which is now the Ministry of
Environmental Affairs (MEnA).

Market research was conducted on the potential treatment technologies available for use in
packaged WWTPs. Over 10 manufacturers were contacted, and information on their treatment
technologies was requested. Each type of technology was evaluated based on four (4) different
case studies in which theoretical community populations and related average wastewater flows
were defined. This allowed the treatment characteristics, capital costs, operational costs, and
ease of operation to be evaluated between the different technologies.

An additional visit was made to the West Bank between June 23, 2012 and July 13, 2012. The
general purpose of the second visit was to present the Draft Study and solicit comments from
USAID and other stakeholders. The Draft 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 organizations including PWA, MoLG, MoA, MEnA, and the West Bank Water
Department (WBWD). Attendees of the workshop recognized that a large percentage of the
population in the West Bank exists in small communities. Specifically, the fact that forty percent
(40%) of the population live in communities with a population less than 7,500 was a key driver
and allowed the different stakeholders to recognize wastewater treatment in small communities
as a necessary development and the potential role packaged WWTPs could serve. The
stakeholders agreed to set a future meeting at which selection criteria would be developed to
determine potential pilot study communities in which to implement packaged WWTPs.

Evaluation of Information
Treatment technology information was reviewed and correlated into a standard format to allow
for ease of evaluation. Additionally, information on the four (4) case studies was reviewed and,
where necessary, supplemented in order to make the information able to be compared to one
another. A summary of the major details of each technology are presented in Table ES‐1.
August 2012 1‐1

Feasibility Study

Based on the evaluation of the packaged WWTP technologies, following are the general
conclusions associated with each technology:

 Extended Aeration –Lower CAPEX; lower OPEX; larger footprint.
 Oxidation Ditch – Lower CAPEX at higher flows; lower OPEX; larger footprint;
straightforward process.
 Sequencing Batch Reactor – Lower CAPEX; lower OPEX; smaller footprint; PLC control
required; unique operations with single tank adds complexity.
 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor – Higher CAPEX; higher OPEX; Less temperature dependent
than common AS processes; fine screening required.
 Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge – Higher CAPEX; higher OPEX; less temperature
dependent than common AS processes.
 Membrane Bioreactor – Higher CAPEX; higher OPEX; smaller footprint; consistently high
quality effluent; PLC control required; fine screening required; additional chemicals
required for cleaning.

Additional Topics
Additional topics related to WWTPs should be considered in the implementation of packaged
WWTPs to maximize the potential for success by selecting appropriate communities for
implementation. For example, it is recommended that any community evaluated for a packaged
WWTP have a collection system in place by the time a packaged WWTP is installed. Other topics
are necessary for the planning of the design and construction, such as the potential for reuse,
future expansion, funding, transportation and import of the equipment, need for redundancy,
environmental aspects, and sustainability. Many of the other additional topics pertain to
requirements once a WWTP is installed, such as operations and maintenance (O&M), emergency
operations, sludge handling, and spare parts.

Summary of Results
This Study has determined that the use of certain packaged WWTP technologies in the West
Bank is a feasible method for continuing to develop the emerging wastewater sector. Further,
packaged WWTP technologies will be most successful if first implemented in communities that
have certain characteristics.

The packaged WWTP technologies which may have application in the West Bank include:

 Extended Aeration,
 Oxidation Ditch,
 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR),
 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR),
 Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS), and
 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR).

There are many potential manufacturers for the packaged WWTP processes that may be
implemented. Because of the limited history of wastewater treatment in the West Bank, a
particular manufacturer’s lack of history in the West Bank should not necessarily preclude them
from being considered for use. Additionally, the manufacturers that participated in this Study
represent only a small subset of the available manufacturers that can provide packaged WWTP
technologies. These manufacturers should not be considered as an all‐encompassing list.

The selection of communities to receive packaged WWTPs is just as critical to successful
implementation as selection of the treatment technology itself. Packaged WWTPs will likely be
most successful if implemented in communities with the following characteristics:
August 2012 1‐2

Feasibility Study

• population range of less than 7,500 people preferred,
• not anticipated to expand beyond the maximum capacity of the selected technology
during the expected 20‐year design life of the facility,
• located in Area A,
• reliable potable water pipe network installed to each building or planned to be
constructed in the near future,
• collection system in place by the time a packaged WWTP is installed,
• can achieve connection of 80‐100% of the area to a collection system and WWTP(s),
• implementation of a packaged WWTP system has the support of the Local Government
and community members,
• land is available for the construction of a packaged WWTP at an appropriate location
(i.e., downstream of the community and in close proximity to agriculture or a wadi,
depending on the intended use or discharge of the treated wastewater),
• in an area where multiple WWTP sites will be located near one another so that O&M
may be accomplished more efficiently by one group of operators, and
• have agriculture which meets the requirements for reuse and where the community has
a need and interest in reusing the treated wastewater.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The key conclusions from this assessment are:

 Cesspits appear to be prevalent throughout the West Bank and may be contributing to
groundwater contamination and other negative environmental and social issues.
 All of the local authorities with whom meetings were held appear to be in favor of the
use of packaged WWTPs where determined to be feasible. When the Draft Study was
presented to various stakeholder organizations, they all agreed to set a future meeting
at which selection criteria would be developed to determine potential pilot study
communities.
 Influent wastewater is expected to be very highly concentrated relative to typical levels
observed in the U.S. and other parts of the world where packaged WWTPs are widely
used (e.g., 3 to 4 times higher).
 Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse screening at a minimum.
Depending on the wastewater characteristics and technology requirements, other pre‐
treatment may be required, which could include an unloading station, equalization tank,
grease trap, fine screening and/or grit removal.
 Stringent effluent wastewater requirements, coupled with the anticipated highly
concentrated influent, may require tertiary treatment to be included.
 There are many potential manufacturers for the packaged WWTP processes that may be
implemented. While installation history in the West Bank is limited because of the
limited wastewater sector development, all of the large, well‐established manufacturers
that were contacted as a part of this Study have a presence in the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) and expressed an interest in working in the West Bank.
 There are a large number of communities which have a population in a range that may
be serviced by a packaged WWTP (less than 7,500 people preferred). Further,
communities of this size contain 40% of the Palestinian population of the West Bank.
Additionally, certain geopolitical and physical characteristics will provide a better
opportunity for successful implementation and should be taken into account when
selecting potential communities for packaged WWTP implementation.
 Use of chemicals should be carefully considered both in terms of the handling that may
be required as well as the likelihood of getting the chemicals into the West Bank for use.
 Proper O&M is critical to the successful implementation of packaged WWTPs.
August 2012 1‐3

Feasibility Study

 Packaged WWTPs are able to produce reuse‐quality effluent when designed and
operated properly.
 In addition to being a permanent solution for some communities, packaged WWTPs can
also be used as a short‐term solution to “fill the gap” between septic tanks/systems and
large, regional WWTPs.

Considering that it has been determined feasible to utilize packaged WWTPs in the West Bank,
and given the many benefits for Palestinians that would result, it is strongly encouraged to
proceed with implementing collection systems and packaged WWTPs in appropriate
communities. The following recommendations are made to further develop this concept into
constructible projects:

1. B&V/Trigon will work with USAID, PWA and other stakeholder agencies to develop
specific criteria to identify actual communities appropriate for utilizing a packaged
WWTP successfully. Based on the results, USAID / PWA should select one (1) or two (2)
communities to receive pilot packaged WWTPs and move into the planning phase.
2. Perform Planning Phase that includes determining influent water quality and effluent
water requirements, appropriate treatment technologies, sludge handling requirements,
and potential sites.
3. Perform a Preliminary Design Phase that includes determining the design requirements
such as the pre‐treatment and treatment technology to be used, site location, Initial
Environmental Examination, obtain survey data of the site and collection system
locations, perform a preliminary design of the packaged WWTP and provide an Opinion
of Probable Construction Cost.
4. Perform a Final Design Phase that includes designing of the packaged WWTP and
associated collection systems, performing an Environmental Impact Assessment if
necessary, identification of any dual‐use materials and coordination with USAID to
determine approval for import, development of RFTOP, and development of a draft
Emergency Response Plan.

In addition to this suggested phased process for implementing packaged WWTPs and associated
collection systems, there are several items which were beyond the scope of this Study that
should be addressed at a high‐level because they will have an impact on the successful
implementation of this work. Addressing these items will likely involve a number of entities,
such as USAID, the Palestinian Authority (PA) (including multiple Ministries, Authorities and
Departments), and support from the INP II staff. Additionally, there are other related entities,
such as the Technical, Planning, and Advisory Team (TPAT) and the Wastewater Advisory
Committee (WWAC) which are working to advance the wastewater sector in the West Bank and
with whom discussion on these items should be coordinated. All of these items could be
considered part of establishing the overall governmental/regulatory framework under which
the packaged WWTPs and collection systems would be designed, built, operated and
maintained.

1. Determine who will own the WWTPs and/or collection systems (e.g., local municipality,
MoLG, PWA, etc.).
2. Determine who will be responsible for O&M of the WWTPs and/or collection systems
(e.g., local municipality, MoLG, PWA, private contractor, etc.).
3. Determine how the capital expenses and ongoing O&M expenses will be funded (e.g.,
donor agencies, user fees, etc.).
August 2012 1‐4

Feasibility Study

Table ES‐1: Packaged WWTP Technology Evaluation Summary
EXTENDED AERATION OXIDATION DITCH SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR MOVING BED BIOFILM INTEGRATED FIXED‐FILM MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR
REACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
GENERAL
Aqua Treat, Delta Process,
Aqua‐Aerobic Systems, ITT (ABJ), GE, Newterra, Siemens, Smith &
Manufacturers (partial list) Gaylord, Global Water, Siemens Siemens (Orbal) Veolia (AnoxKaldnes) Smith & Loveless, Veolia
Siemens Loveless, Veolia
(Davco), Smith & Loveless, Tipton
Long, successful history. Long history. Multiple Technology was developed in Technology was developed in Membrane technology more
Commonly used in U.S. for Used in U.S. for packaged WWTPs. manufacturers which promotes 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, recently developed. Membrane
Technology History
packaged WWTPs. Equipment is Equipment is not proprietary. competitive pricing. SBR such as the biocarriers, may be such as the biocarriers, may be equipment and membranes are
not proprietary. equipment is not proprietary. proprietary. proprietary. proprietary.
PROCESS INFORMATION
6 – 190 m3/day (1,500 – 50,000
130 – 1,900 m3/day (35,000 – 75 – over 1,200 m3/day (20,000 8 – 1,200 m3/day (2,000 – 317,000 2 – 3,800 m3/day (500 gpd – 1
Range of Flows gpd). Up to 3,800 m3/day (1 Up to 570 m3/day (150,000 gpd)
500,000 gpd) gpd – over 317,000 gpd) gpd) MGD)
MGD) with modular
Handle High Loading (Yes/No) Yes, if designed to handle high Yes, if designed to handle high Yes, if designed to handle high Yes, if designed to handle high Yes, if designed to handle high Yes, if designed to handle high
loading loading loading loading loading loading
Sludge Yield Low due to extended solids Low due to extended solids Medium to low, dependent on Low due to extended solids Medium to low dependent on Low due to extended solids
retention time retention time cycle times retention time solids retention time design values retention time
used
Yes, if designed to nitrify. Yes, if designed to nitrify. Yes, if designed to nitrify. Yes, if designed to nitrify. Yes, if designed to nitrify. Yes, if designed to nitrify.
Achieve Nitrification Complete nitrification required to Complete nitrification required to Complete nitrification required to Complete nitrification required to Complete nitrification required to Complete nitrification required to
achieve 10 mg/L TN. achieve 10 mg/L TN. achieve 10 mg/L TN. achieve 10 mg/L TN. achieve 10 mg/L TN. achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Yes, if designed to denitrify. Yes, if designed to denitrify. Yes, if designed to denitrify. Yes, if designed to denitrify. Yes, if designed to denitrify. Yes, if designed to denitrify.
Achieve Denitrification Complete denitrification required Complete denitrification required Complete denitrification required Complete denitrification required Complete denitrification required Complete denitrification required
to achieve 10 mg/L TN. to achieve 10 mg/L TN. to achieve 10 mg/L TN. to achieve 10 mg/L TN. to achieve 10 mg/L TN. to achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Yes, if designed for P removal Yes, if designed for P removal Yes, if designed for P removal Yes, if designed for P removal Yes, if designed for P removal Yes, if design for P removal
Achieve Phosphorus Removal
(chemical addition) (chemical addition) (chemical addition) (chemical addition) (chemical addition) (chemical addition)
Meet Effluent WQ
With tertiary filter With tertiary filter With tertiary filter With tertiary filter With tertiary filter Yes
Requirements
Handle Hydraulic Overloading No, may wash out microorganisms. Yes, because of relative high tank Yes, because fill cycle provides No, washout may lose biocarriers No, washout may lose biocarriers No, membrane flux defines maximum
(beyond Peak) volumes. Microorganisms can be equalization flow that can pass through membrane
“washed out”.
Handle Organic Overloading No, will not achieve desired level of No, microorganisms adversely Yes, because fill cycle provides Yes, biofilm provides protection Yes, biofilm provides protection Yes, will cause more frequent
(beyond designed loading) treatment. Long time for affected by shock loads. Will not equalization against initial harmful effects of against initial harmful effects of backwashing of membrane
microorganism population to recover. achieve desired level of treatment shocking. shocking.
Upstream pump station, aeration flow
Upstream pump station, Rotation
Upstream pump station, Aeration, Upstream pump station, PLC, rate (which controls degree of air and Upstream pump station, Filtrate
speed and submergence of aerator Upstream pump station, Aeration,
Process Control Denitrification, Frequency of Sludge Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of mixing in tank), Denitrification, RAS pump, Aeration, Denitrification, RAS
rotor, Denitrification, RAS Flow Rate Denitrification
Wasting, RAS Flow Rate Control sludge wasting flow rate control, frequency of sludge Flow Rate Control
Control, Frequency of Sludge Wasting
wasting
Equal. Tank, Grease removal if > 100 Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > Equalization Tank, Grease removal if >
mg/L, Coarse Screening (minimum), 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (min.), Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse 50 mg/L, Fine Screen (6mm max), Grit 50 mg/L, Coarse Screening (min), Grit 50 mg/L, Fine Screening (2mm), Grit
Pre‐treatment Requirements
Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day Screening (minimum), Grit removal removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day
(100,000 gpd) (100,000 gpd) (100,000 gpd) (100,000 gpd) (100,000 gpd)
o
10 ‐30 C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less 10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less
Temperature and pH temperature dependency than temperature dependency than
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
Requirements comparable suspended growth AS comparable suspended growth AS
process process
Requires PLC (Yes / No) No No Yes No No Yes
WWTP Profile (i.e. typical tank 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)
height above natural ground)
Main Treat. Process Footprint 140 – 530 m2 300 – 710 m2 80 – 380 m2 190 – 400 m2 180 – 420 m2 100 – 490 m2
(1)
(1,500 – 5,700 ft2) (3,200 – 7,600 ft2) (800 – 4,000 ft2) (2,000 – 4,200 ft2) (1,900 – 4,500 ft2) (1,000 – 5,200 ft2)
August 2012 1‐5

Feasibility Study

EXTENDED AERATION OXIDATION DITCH SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR MOVING BED BIOFILM INTEGRATED FIXED‐FILM MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR
REACTOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
COST INFORMATION
3
US$3,500 – 5,000/m /d US$4,000 – 10,500/m3/d US$3,500 – 8,000/m3/day US$5,500 – 17,500/m3/d US$ 18,500 – 23,500/m3/d US$5,500 – 10,500/m3/day
Capital Expense (1)
(US$13 ‐ 19/gpd) (US$15 ‐ 40/gpd) (US$13 – 30/gpd) (US$21 – 66/gpd) (US$70 – 89/gpd) (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)
0.25 FTE 0.25 FTE 0.25 FTE 0.25 FTE 0.25 FTE 0.5 FTE
Manpower
(2 hrs per day, 5 days per week) (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week) (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week) (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week) (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week) (4 hrs per day, 5 days per week)
Generally low. Will require Generally low. Will require Generally low. Will require Generally low. Will require Generally low. Will require
Required for cleaning (sodium
supplemental alkalinity (lime or supplemental alkalinity (lime or supplemental alkalinity (lime or supplemental alkalinity (lime or supplemental alkalinity (lime or
hypochlorite, citric acid). P
Chemicals caustic) and metal salts for P caustic) and metal salts for P caustic) and metal salts for P caustic) and metal salts for P caustic) and metal salts for P
removal. Sodium hydroxide for
removal. Disinfection (if removal. Disinfection (if removal. Disinfection (if removal. Disinfection (if removal. Disinfection (if
pH control.
installed). installed). installed). installed). installed).
Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled Medium to low quantity, hauled Medium to low quantity, hauled Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled
Sludge Hauling Low quantity, hauled periodically
periodically periodically periodically periodically periodically
CONSTRUCTION
Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 –
6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months
Construction Time
Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12
months months months months months months
Concrete work, steel welding, Concrete work, steel welding, Concrete work, steel welding, Concrete work, steel welding, Concrete work, steel welding, Concrete work, steel welding,
Construction Skills
piping, electrical piping, electrical piping, electrical piping, electrical piping, electrical piping, electrical
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Once PLC is set up (typically by
Daily operations are more
manufacturer) operation is
Daily operations are straight Daily operations are straight Daily operations are straight Daily operations are straight automated and require more
relatively straight forward. PLC
forward, typical for AS processes. forward, typical for AS processes. forward, typical for AS processes. forward, typical for AS processes. operator skill for troubleshooting
Ease of O&M maintenance may require internet
Will require attention to achieve Will require attention to achieve Will require attention to achieve Will require attention to achieve than other technologies. Will
connection to manufacturer. Will
low TN. low TN. low TN. low TN. require attention to achieve low
require attention to achieve low
TN.
TN.
Odor‐free (except raw wastewater Raw WW treatment component. Odor‐free (except raw wastewater Odor‐free (except raw wastewater Odor‐free (except raw wastewater Odor‐free (except raw wastewater
Odors
treatment component) Issues if not operated correctly. treatment component) treatment component) treatment component) treatment component)
Mech. aerators produce noise.
Aeration equipment produces Aeration equipment produces Aeration equipment produces Aeration equipment produces Aeration equipment produces
Interaction of blades at ML
Noise noise (can equip w/ noise control noise (can equip w/ noise control noise (can equip w/ noise control noise (can equip w/ noise control noise (can equip w/ noise control
surface can generate loud
enclosures) enclosures) enclosures) enclosures) enclosures)
continuous splashing noise
Standard wastewater operator
skills required plus special
Standard wastewater operator Standard wastewater operator Standard WW operator skills Standard wastewater operator
Operator Skill Required maintenance skills required for High
skills required skills required required skills required
some equipment (automatic
valves, aeration blowers, etc.)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Dependable process. Not Large footprint for complete Treatment phases are time‐, not Coarse bubble aeration system Coarse bubble aeration system Typically higher operational costs
adaptable to shock loading. process (OD and Clarifier). Can be volume‐, dependent. Influent may be more expensive to may be more expensive to than suspended growth AS
Microorganisms can be washed constructed into ground to lower distributed throughout entire operate than a fine bubble system operate than a fine bubble system processes due to higher process
out during high flow. profile. Area around aerators or reactor; therefore, settling occurs in a comparable AS WWTP. in a comparable AS WWTP. aeration requirement because of
mixers can become a house‐ without short‐circuiting, flow Capacity may be expanded by Capacity may be expanded by lower oxygen transfer efficiency at
keeping challenge due to spray of turbulence or mechanical adding biocarriers. No RAS stream adding biocarriers. high MLSS concentration and air
ML. DO levels in ditch are critical. turbulence. needed. scour blowers. Chemical costs are
DO control can be difficult in also higher.
shallow ditches.
(1) Based on Case Study flow rates.
August 2012 1‐6

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 2.0 Introduction
Feasibility Study

2.0 Introduction
2.1 Program Description

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), through its West Bank/Gaza
(WBG) Mission, has hired Black & Veatch (B&V) for multi‐discipline engineering, construction
management, capacity development and overall program management services in support of
the implementation of the Infrastructure Needs Program Phase II (INP II). The primary goal of
the INP II is to provide increased access for Palestinians to improved public infrastructure,
thereby providing a critical foundation to support an independent and viable Palestinian state.

Though other project types may be included, INP II efforts are currently focused primarily on
projects within the West Bank related to water supply, wastewater collection and
treatment/sanitation, and road rehabilitation and construction.
2.2 Project Overview

There is currently a very limited amount of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure
throughout the West Bank. There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, the existence of
wastewater collection systems and some form of downstream treatment is limited to the larger
cities in the West Bank. Most of the smaller villages and towns have no wastewater collection
systems or treatment facilities. Wastewater tends to be collected into small cesspits near the
source (e.g., residences or businesses). Individual users are generally responsible for having the
cesspits cleaned out occasionally via the use of vacuum trucks, which then dispose of the waste,
typically by direct discharge to a wadi.

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 treatment
infrastructure. Packaged WWTPs are used successfully around the world as a cost‐effective
method of treating wastewater and as an attractive alternative to traditional, larger‐scale
treatment plants for certain applications.

Packaged WWTPs can be viewed as “filling the gap” between septic tanks/systems and large,
regional WWTPs. In the U.S., packaged WWTPs are often used as a short‐term or interim
solution during the development of communities/subdivisions. The packaged WWTPs may
later be decommissioned and/or moved to other locations or the sites converted to pump
stations as part of a regionalization process. The packaged WWTPs allow for the collection
systems to be installed/developed for users and proper wastewater treatment to occur until the
regionalized treatment strategies can be fully implemented.

August 2012 2‐1

Feasibility Study

For the purpose of this feasibility study (Study), a packaged WWTP is defined as one in which a
manufacturer provides a pre‐designed and/or pre‐manufactured WWTP which is fabricated and
packaged in a manner that allows for ease of shipping/transport and minimizes site work at the
WWTP site. A packaged WWTP may be comprised of one or multiple steel tanks, one or
multiple containerized units, or field‐erected tanks into which pre‐packaged equipment is
installed. When multiple steel tanks are provided, they may be arranged in parallel as separate
trains, or in series where each tank is dedicated to a different process step (known as a modular
WWTP). Concrete slabs and possibly concrete tanks may be necessary depending on the size of
the WWTP and the particular process/manufacturer.

Figure 2: Examples of Packaged WWTPs

August 2012 2‐2

Feasibility Study

2.2.1 Purpose
The USAID WBG Mission authorized the B&V team to perform a Study relative to the use of
packaged WWTPs. The purpose of the Study was to evaluate the overall validity and
applicability of utilizing packaged WWTPs in the West Bank. The Study did not include final
selection of particular communities to receive packaged WWTPs nor did it include performing a
preliminary or detailed design for a specific location.

2.2.2 Scope
The scope of the Study was 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. A
summary of the Tasks and Subtasks, as well as excerpts from the Scope of Services, included in
the Study follows:

TASK 1. DATA COLLECTION

Subtask 1.1 – Initial Visit by Expatriate Staff
“An initial visit to the West Bank will be performed by two (2) expatriate staff experienced
in wastewater treatment and the use of Packaged WWTPs. The purpose of the visit is to
gather information on the feasibility of installation and operation of Packaged WWTPs for
West Bank communities through conversations with local and Mission staff; acquainting
themselves with the local influent and effluent characteristics and constraints; site visits to
existing Packaged WWTPs, if available; and conducting a market research to check the
local availability of adequate Packaged WWTPs. Additionally, information on the local
physical and environmental conditions and constraints under which the Packaged WWTPs
would be installed and operated will be collected. This information will be incorporated
into the overall feasibility study.”

Subtask 1.2 – Market Research
“Upon completion of, and considering the information collected during Subtask 1.1,
perform market research of Packaged WWTPs and their use and applicability for the West
Bank. Identify and document the various technologies that appear to be available and
appropriate. Summarize both the positive and negative attributes of each of the identified
technologies.”

TASK 2. FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

Subtask 2.1 – Report Preparation
“Based on the efforts completed during Task 1, prepare a report that presents the results of
the feasibility study.”

Subtask 2.2 – Presentation of Report
“Following submittal of the draft report to the Mission, a formal presentation shall be
developed to present the findings of the study to the Mission, the PWA and local
governments as deemed necessary by the Mission. It is anticipated that the two (2)
expatriate staff involved in Subtask 1.1 will participate in this presentation.”

The Study was led by Greg Kolenovsky and Regina Cassanova of Trigon Associates, LLC
(Trigon), subcontractor to B&V under the INP II. Technical review and support was provided by
B&V and other Trigon staff.

August 2012 2‐3

Feasibility Study

2.3 Description of Project Area
The Study generally includes all of the West Bank. A map of the West Bank is included in
Section 3.1.2 of this study (Figure 4). Gaza has not been considered in the Study due to current
political conditions.

The West Bank is an area of approximately 5,680 square kilometers and generally consists of
rugged mountainous terrain through the center from north to south and barren desert‐like
terrain in the east/southeast. Elevations range from a low of approximately ‐408 meters at the
shoreline of the Dead Sea to the highest point of approximately 1,016 meters in the Ramallah
and Al Bireh Governorate. See Figure 3 for a map of the West Bank topography.

The climate is generally characterized as subtropical with rainfall typically limited to the winter
months. The West Bank has hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters.

Figure 3: West Bank Topography
August 2012 2‐4

Feasibility Study

2.4 Influent Basis of Design
The evaluation of the applicability of a wastewater treatment process begins with an
understanding of the quantity and quality of the raw wastewater that will be treated. In the
West Bank, most areas do not have wastewater collection systems and or treatment plants.
Therefore, it is difficult to quantitatively determine the quantity and quality of raw wastewater
throughout the West Bank.

For the purposes of this Study, the quantity and quality of raw wastewater have been
researched, and assumptions made, which are discussed in the following subsections. If a
preliminary design is performed for an actual community, it is recommended that water quality
and quantity data be collected for that community to the extent possible. This process may be
difficult since no collection system may exist and, further, household water practices may
change once a collection system and treatment plant are installed.

2.4.1 Estimated Flow Rate
The estimated wastewater flow rate for a certain treatment facility is based on the assumed
wastewater generation per person and the population of the area for which the treatment
facility will handle. Wastewater generation is defined as the volume of wastewater generated
per person (also referenced as “per capita”) per day in units of liters per capita per day (lpcpd).

In areas of the world where collection systems exist, it is common practice to measure the flow
of wastewater at certain points in the system at which the contributing population (or
households) is known. The wastewater generation rate can then be calculated for that
community. Then, based on population extrapolation, an estimate of the future flow rate can be
calculated. Wastewater generation rates vary among different communities depending on
factors such as the reliability of the water source; water use and reuse by the residents; climate;
and the percentage of wastewater contributed by residential, commercial and industrial users.
Typically, not all potable water consumption results in wastewater generation. (For example,
landscape irrigation does not produce wastewater.) On the other hand, infiltration and inflow to
the wastewater collection system contribute to the wastewater flow arriving at a treatment
plant. In the West Bank, these factors are expected to offset one another, such that per capita
potable water consumption (all uses) and per capita wastewater generation (arriving at the
plant) are similar.

Within the West Bank, wastewater generation rates will vary in different communities
depending on the existence of a water system, wastewater collection system, and the reliability
of each. In general, citizens in the West Bank are water‐frugal and employ wastewater reuse
within and near the home. Additionally, communities located in more arid areas may have
different wastewater generation rates. For the purposes of this Study where the use of
packaged WWTPs is being evaluated across the West Bank as a whole, no actual flow
measurements were taken since the data will vary across the area. The wastewater generation
rate has been assumed based on published information cited below.

Various resources were evaluated during the desktop study in order to confirm the wastewater
generation rate to be assumed for the purposes of this Study, as listed in Subsection 2.6. The
Village Wastewater System Feasibility Report for the West Hebron and South Nablus Clusters
(2002) assumed a domestic wastewater flow rate of 72 lpcpd. Sewage Characterisation as a Tool
for the Application of Anaerobic Treatment in Palestine (2002) cited water usage according to the
records of JWU (2000; the water supply company) as “…103 l/d for the total area. The
consumption for the two cities Ramallah and Al‐Bireh is higher amounting to 137 [lpcpd], while
Al‐Jalazoon, this is only 51 [lpcpd].” Further, Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse
August 2012 2‐5

Feasibility Study

(2003) indicates that the per capita water consumption in the Eastern Mediterranean is in the
range of 40 – 85 lpcpd. The Al Yamoun Wastewater System Basis of Design Report, Revision 2
(2011) provides detailed discussion of the correlation of water consumption with wastewater
generation. Additionally, the Al Yamoun Basis of Design Report states that the wastewater
generation rate assumed for the initial design of the Al Yamoun WWTP was 80 lpcpd and the
ultimate design was 120 lpcpd. Further, a peaking factor of 2.5 was assumed to estimate peak
hourly flow. The wastewater generation values assumed in the Al Yamoun Wastewater System
Basis of Design Report, Revision 2 (2011) are applicable for use in this Study and summarized in
Table 1.

Table 1: Estimated Wastewater Generation
PARAMETER VALUE UNITS
Initial Design 80 lpcpd
Ultimate Design 120 lpcpd
Peaking Factor 2.5 N/A
Source: Al Yamoun Wastewater System Basis of Design Report, Rev 2 (2011)

The increase in wastewater generation from the initial design to ultimate design represents an
anticipated increase in water usage and wastewater generation that will occur over time.
Consistent water supply and knowledge that wastewater is being reliably taken away from
homes and treated in an appropriate manner would tend to increase the wastewater flow per
capita.

Considering that peaking factors (PF) are dependent on collection system size and higher PFs
are associated with smaller collection systems, the PF used during detailed design of a potential
Packaged WWTP should be evaluated based on the size of the actual collection system it will
serve.
2.4.2 Loading
The quality of raw wastewater is determined by the amount of biological and contaminant
loading that is present. Many different water quality parameters are able to be monitored in
raw wastewater and throughout the treatment processes. There are a few parameters that tend
to be the most important and relevant for determining the feasibility of a treatment process;
these parameters are 5‐day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), and Fecal Coliform.

Wastewater loading is determined by the unit loading and the wastewater generation rate. The
unit loading is measured in grams per capita per day (gpcpd). Wastewater loading is measured
in milligrams per liter (mg/L) and is calculated by dividing the unit loading by the wastewater
generation rate and converting to the appropriate units, as shown in the following equation.
Additionally, when water quality analyses are performed in a laboratory, the results are often
reported in mg/L.

1000

1

Published information on the wastewater unit loading in the West Bank was reviewed,
including Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse (2003), Sewage Characterisation as a
Tool for the Application of Anaerobic Treatment in Palestine (2002), and the Al Yamoun
Wastewater System Basis of Design Report, Revision 2 (2011). It was determined that the
wastewater unit loadings assumed in the Al Yamoun Wastewater System Basis of Design Report,
Revision 2 (2011) and shown in Table 2 were applicable for use in this Study.
August 2012 2‐6

Feasibility Study

Table 2: Estimated Wastewater Unit Loading
BOD5 65 gpcpd
TSS 75 gpcpd
TN 13 gpcpd
TP 2.0 gpcpd
Source: Al Yamoun Wastewater System Basis of Design Report, Rev 2 (2011)

According to Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse (2003), the wastewater unit
loading in the West Bank is less than that in the United States (U.S.), which tends to have the
highest unit loading across the world. However, because the volume of wastewater generated
per person per day in the West Bank is much less than that seen in the U.S. (on the order of one‐
fourth to one‐third the per capita flow), a particular volume of wastewater in the West Bank will
have a much higher overall loading than what is typically seen in the U.S.

As discussed in an earlier section, it is anticipated that the amount of wastewater generated per
person will increase over time. As the amount of wastewater generated increases, it is assumed
that the unit loading would remain steady; as a result, the wastewater loading concentration
would decrease as the same amount of loading would be diluted in a larger volume of
wastewater. For the purposes of this Study, the estimated wastewater loading was assumed as
shown in Table 3, which is based on 80 lpcpd and is conservatively on the higher end of the
expected loading range.

Table 3: Estimated Wastewater Loading
BOD5 815 mg/L
TSS 940 mg/L
TN 165 mg/L
TP 25 mg/L

2.5 Population Ranges

The use of packaged WWTPs is optimized at certain flow rates and loadings. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the EPA Wastewater Technology Fact
Sheet – Package Plants (2000), which states that packaged WWTPs “commonly treat flows
between 0.01 and 0.25 MGD”. This corresponds to flows between 40 cubic meters per day
(m3/day) to 950 m3/day (10,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 250,000 gpd). Additionally, multiple
units may be installed in parallel in order to achieve higher flow rates. However, these flow
ranges correspond to wastewater with a biological loading consistent with that seen in the U.S.,
which is less concentrated than that seen in the West Bank. Considering that the sizing of a
biological process is more dependent on biological loading than flow, a packaged WWTP sized
to handle 950 m3/day (250,000 gpd) of U.S. wastewater may only handle about one‐third of that
flow of wastewater with typical West Bank loading.

Table 4 shows certain population ranges and, based on the Estimated Wastewater Generation,
the corresponding initial and ultimate wastewater flows.

August 2012 2‐7

Feasibility Study

Table 4: Wastewater Generation by Population Ranges
2012 INITIAL FLOW ULTIMATE FLOW NO. OF % OF
POPULATION (1) (based on 80 lpcpd) (based on 120 lpcpd) COMMUNITIES (2) POP.
m3/day gpd m3/day gpd
1000 80 21,000 120 32,000 163
12%
28%
2,500 200 53,000 300 79,000 127
40%
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.)

For the purposes of this Study, the feasibility of different technologies were evaluated at certain
population increments in the form of case studies. Greater than 85% of the communities in the
West Bank have a 2012 population less than or equal to 7,500 people. Further, those
communities contain 40% of the population of the West Bank. Therefore, the four (4) case
studies target the following population ranges: up to 1,000 people; between 1,001 and 2,500
people; between 2,501 and 5,000 people; and between 5,001 and 7,500 people. Implementation
of packaged WWTPs is generally preferred for communities with populations less than 7,500
people.

There may be potential for the use of packaged WWTPs in slightly larger communities. As the
required design flow increases, the implementation of a packaged WWTP would change from
single packaged units to those that would incorporate multiple trains. Additionally, the use of
modular packaged WWTPs or field‐erected structures could also be necessary. The actual
implementation of a packaged WWTP at larger design flows would depend on the technology
selected and the manufacturer’s capabilities.

2.6 Reference Materials

A significant number of previous studies, reports, regulations and standards/guidelines were
obtained and reviewed during the course of the Study. Many of these were utilized in
developing the wastewater characteristics for the Study due to the limited amount of actual
wastewater collection system infrastructure in the West Bank, which makes sampling and
testing for a study such as this difficult and impractical.

The Study utilized data and information from, but not limited to, the following sources:

 Village Wastewater System Feasibility Report for the West Hebron and South Nablus
Clusters Final Report, Environmental Health Project, Prepared for USAID, 2002.
 Sewage Characterisation as a Tool for the Application of Anaerobic Treatment in Palestine,
Mahmoud, et al, 2002.
 Wastewater Characteristics in Palestine, Nashashibi, M. and van Dujii, L.A., Water Science
& Technology, Vol 32, 1995.
August 2012 2‐8

Feasibility Study

 Implementation of the Sewerage Project Nablus West, Lahmeyer International, 2007.
 Tulkarem and Wadi Zeimar Wastewater Quality and Quantity Measurements, Birzeit
University Civil Engineering Department, 2010.
 Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse, 4th Edition, Tchobanoglous, et al, 2003.
 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) for Municipal Wastewater Treatment—An Australian
Perspective, Chapman, S., et al.
 A Packaged Plant Approach to Decentralized Wastewater Treatment, Antonneau, N., et al,
2010.
 Memorandum of Understanding on Guidelines and Technical Criteria for Sewerage
Projects, Israeli‐Palestinian Joint Water Committee, 2003.
 Palestinian Standards, PS 742‐2003, Treated Wastewater.
 TR 34‐2012, Palestinian Authority Technical Regulations for Water Treatment for
Agricultural Irrigation, 2012.
 Israeli Effluent Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Rules, 2010.
 Assessment of Potential West Bank Wastewater Projects for USAID Funding, Draft Report,
MWH, 2010.
 Al Yamoun Wastewater System Basis of Design Report, Revision 2, Black & Veatch, 2011.
 Draft Process Selection Report; Ten Wastewater Systems, Black & Veatch, 2011.
 Agriculture Census 2010, Press Conference on the Final Results, Ramallah, Palestine,
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011.
 Waste‐Water Treatment Technologies: A General Review, Economic and Social
Commission for Western Asia, United Nations, 2003.
 EPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Package Plants, EPA 832‐F‐00‐016 (September
2000).
 EPA Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs Fact Sheet, EPA 823‐R‐07‐002 (June
2007).
 Effluent Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Rules, Israeli Public Health
Regulations, 2010.
 A sustainable approach for reusing treated wastewater in agricultural irrigation in the
West Bank – Palestine, McNeill, L.S., et al, 2008.
 Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, United Nations
Environment Programme, 2002.
 Al Quds University – Wastewater Treatment Plant, <http://www.alquds.edu>.
 Birzeit University – Campus, Sewage Treatment Plant, <http://www.birzeit.edu>.
 Prospects of Efficient Wastewater Management and Water Reuse in Palestine – Country
Study, prepared within the Framework of the EMWater Project, Birzeit University
Institute for Water Studies, 2004/2005.

August 2012 2‐9

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 3.0 Data Collection
Feasibility Study

3.0 Data Collection
3.1 Site Visits and Observations

In fulfillment of Subtask 1.1 – Initial Visit by Expatriate Staff of the Scope of Services, Regina
Cassanova and Greg Kolenovsky (herein referred to as “expats”) of Trigon Associates, LLC
(Trigon, subcontractor to B&V) performed a visit to the West Bank between March 3, 2012 and
March 14, 2012. The general purpose of the visit by the expats was to gather information on the
feasibility of installation and operation of packaged WWTPs for West Bank communities
through conversations with local and USAID staff, acquaint themselves with the local influent
and effluent wastewater characteristics and constraints, perform site visits to various
communities throughout the West Bank, and visit existing wastewater treatment plants in the
West Bank, if possible.

In preparation for the visit, the expats and other Trigon Home Office staff performed
preliminary research to identify and review previous reports and studies conducted within the
West Bank and obtain useful information for the Study. An example of information obtained
included previous estimates of wastewater generation rates and characteristics (e.g., BOD, TSS,
TN and TP concentrations, etc.) in the West Bank.

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 estimated
population and the governorate in which they are located. This information was imported into
a geographic information system (GIS), and a map was created to show the location of each
authority, color‐coded based on the estimated population. Besides helping to prepare and
orient the expats for their trip, the map was later used in planning for site visits to various
communities throughout the West Bank, as described in Subsection 3.1.2.

In fulfillment of Subtask 2.2 – Presentation of Report of the Scope of Services, the expats
performed a second visit to the West Bank between June 23, 2012 and July 13, 2012. The
general purpose of the second visit by the expats was to present the Draft Study (delivered on
June 19, 2012) and solicit comments from USAID and other stakeholders.

3.1.1 Meetings
The first few days of the expats’ visit in March 2012 mainly involved meeting with the local INP
II staff as well as local ministries and authorities, which consisted of the MoLG, the Ministry of
Agriculture (MoA), the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the Environmental Quality
Authority (EQA – now the Ministry of Environmental Affairs [MEnA]). Generally speaking,
everyone the expats met with appeared to be in favor of the use of packaged WWTPs should
their use be determined feasible. Each entity does have their own preferences they would
desire to be incorporated into future plans for packaged WWTPs, which could be addressed
during the location selection and design of specific WWTPs.

The MoA is primarily focused on the reuse of wastewater effluent for irrigation purposes. The
MoA is mostly concerned with the levels of certain effluent wastewater characteristic such as
nitrogen, sodium and chlorides because of their potential impact on crops. The MoA also has a
preference for larger wastewater treatment plants versus smaller plants because of the
potential for irrigating larger amounts of agricultural land through effluent reuse. The expats
obtained a copy of the Agriculture Census 2010, Press Conference on the Final Results from the
MoA.

August 2012 3‐1

Feasibility Study

The MoLG provided an explanation of the different governance structures for West Bank
communities (e.g., Municipality A, B, C, D; Village Council; Project Committee) and expressed a
willingness to support the Study in any way possible, including sharing information on
communities throughout the West Bank that might be necessary. As stated previously, the
MoLG provided a listing of all villages, towns and cities in the West Bank along with the
estimated population and the governorate in which they are located.

The PWA also views the use of packaged WWTPs favorably where their use is applicable. In
fact, they have approved the use of packaged WWTPs for multiple locations (such as Al‐Reehan,
Al‐Tireh and the Bethlehem Industrial Zone), which will apparently include membrane
treatment. The PWA also expressed the view that a wastewater collection system is needed
along with a treatment plant to truly be effective. During the meeting, a representative of
ORGUT introduced the purpose of the Technical, Planning, and Advisory Team (TPAT) to the
meeting attendees.

The MEnA also agrees with the concept of utilizing packaged WWTPs and see their applicability
in certain situations. The primary concern expressed by the MEnA is that packaged WWTPs
should not be viewed as a total replacement of larger regional WWTPs where that type of plant
may be more applicable and feasible to construct. MEnA stated that the typical environmental
review process would need to be followed to locate and permit a packaged WWTP during the
design.

Meetings were also held in June/July 2012 during the expat’s return visit to the West Bank. The
Draft 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 organizations
including PWA, MoLG, MoA, MENA, and the West Bank Water Department (WBWD). Attendees
of the workshop recognized that a large percentage of the population in the West Bank exists in
small communities. Specifically, the fact that forty percent (40%) of the population live in
communities with a population less than 7,500 was a key driver and allowed the different
stakeholders to recognize wastewater treatment in small communities as a necessary
development and the potential role packaged WWTPs could serve. The stakeholders agreed to
set a future meeting at which selection criteria would be developed to determine potential pilot
study communities in which to implement packaged WWTPs.

3.1.2 Community Visits
Over the course of several days in March 2012, the expats performed visits to numerous
communities throughout the West Bank, ranging from small villages and towns with
populations under 1,000 to larger cities with populations greater than 40,000. The main
purpose of these visits was to perform a random sampling of communities and get a feel for the
terrain, environmental conditions, and other factors that could impact the applicability of
packaged WWTPs within the West Bank.

The first day focused on locations within the central portion of the West Bank (Ramallah and Al‐
Bireh, Jericho and Jerusalem Governorates). The second day focused on the southern portions of
the West Bank (Bethlehem and Hebron Governorates). The third day focused on the northern
West Bank (Salfit, Qalqilya, Nablus, Tulkarem, Tubas and Jenin Governorates). At least one (1)
community was visited within each of the 11 governorates.

Table 5 lists the communities that were visited by the expats, and Figure 4 provides a map
showing the location of each community, color‐coded by population.

August 2012 3‐2

Feasibility Study

Table 5: Communities in West Bank Visited by Expats
Approx. Approx.
Community Governorate Population Community Governorate 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: Data based on list provided by the MoLG

August 2012 3‐3

Feasibility Study

Figure 4: Visited Communities by Population

August 2012 3‐4

Feasibility Study

3.1.3 Information Collected
The information gathered by the expats during the visit to the West Bank in March 2012 and
used in the Study is described within this section.

3.1.3.1 Influent Characteristics
As stated in Section 2.4 Influent Basis of Design, the evaluation of the applicability of a
wastewater treatment process begins with an understanding of the quantity and quality of the
raw wastewater that will be treated. Evaluation of published literature before the site visit
indicated that, in general, collection systems rarely exist in the West Bank. Further, wastewater
in the West Bank has a very high loading rate, as compared to the U.S., based largely on low per
capita water usage. It was determined that it would be difficult to collect representative
wastewater samples for analysis, and most importantly, that the data from samples collected
from cesspits would not be representative of wastewater that would travel through a collection
system to a WWTP. Therefore, wastewater samples were not collected as part of this Study.
The influent characteristics were determined by assumptions based on the review of existing
information, as detailed in Section 2.4 Influent Basis of Design.
3.1.3.2 Effluent Requirements
One characteristic by which wastewater treatment technologies were evaluated is whether or
not they will produce treated wastewater that meets the effluent requirements. In the U.S.,
WWTPs are permitted based on the effluent requirements. Standard effluent requirements in
the U.S. are 30 mg/L BOD5 and 30 mg/L TSS. Treated wastewater to be used for reuse may be
permitted for 10 mg/L BOD5 and 10 mg/L TSS. Depending on local requirements, additional
parameters such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus may be included in the permit requirements.

For the West Bank, effluent requirements for WWTPs are currently set by the Joint Water
Committee which has members from both Palestine and Israel. The West Nablus WWTP has
been recently used as a precedent for setting effluent requirements of 20mg/L BOD5, 30 mg/L
TSS, 50 mg/L TN, no limit for TP, and 1000 MPN/100mL fecal coliform. Additionally, the
Memorandum of Understanding on Guidelines and Technical Criteria for Sewerage Projects, (MOU,
2003) states certain requirements for WWTPs.

For reuse, the MoA regulates use of treated wastewater for irrigation of agriculture. The MoA
has defined different qualities of treated wastewater depending on the type of agriculture to
which the treated wastewater is being applied (Class A, B, C, D). In addition to these potential
effluent requirements, the Israeli Government has indicated that the Israeli Public Health
Regulations are to be met when treated wastewater is discharged into wadis. Table 6 presents
a summary of certain key parameters and the effluent required by each potential regulation.

August 2012 3‐5

Feasibility Study

Table 6: Effluent Requirements for Key Wastewater Parameters
WEST MOU ISRAEL PUBLIC
PARAMETER NABLUS 2003 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE HEALTH
WWTP Ph 2 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
30 30 30 30
as P)
Fecal Coliform
1000 200 200 1000 1000 1000 200
(colonies/100 ml)
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 a
packaged 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 would
require a very high percentage of removal for the major parameters as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Estimated Percent Removal for Key Wastewater Parameters
ASSUMED MoA CLASS D ISRAEL
PARAMETER INFLUENT EFFLUENT & EFFLUENT &
VALUE % REMOVAL % 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%)

For this Study, it was decided that packaged WWTP technologies would be evaluated against the
most strict effluent requirements. Therefore, a technology determined to be capable of
handling the most stringent effluent requirements for discharge to a wadi would also be capable
of handling the more relaxed requirements for reuse. The actual basis of design of a packaged
WWTP will be dependent on current regulations and applicability of the MOU 2003 and
agreement of the Joint Water Committee.

Treatment to the most strict requirements requires very robust treatment processes. Achieving
10 mg/L TSS will require filtration, such as tertiary cloth disk filters, tertiary granular media
filters, or membranes (tertiary or MBR). Achieving 10 mg/L BOD5 will require a conservatively
sized biological treatment process. Even given these two design criteria, nitrogen removal is the
limiting factor. For the wastewater strength in the West Bank, achieving 10 mg/L TN will
require essentially complete nitrification and denitrification. The biological process must be
conservatively sized and would likely include a pre‐anoxic zone, aerobic zone, post‐anoxic zone
and a re‐aeration zone (e.g., 4‐stage Bardenpho process). An external carbon source such as
methanol may be necessary. Achieving 1 mg/L TP will require feeding a metal salt such as alum
or ferric chloride to precipitate phosphorus.

August 2012 3‐6

Feasibility Study

3.1.3.3 Community Characteristics
A wide variety of communities were visited during the site visits to gather general information
on the existing infrastructure and community needs with respect to wastewater. Communities
ranged in size from approximately 750 to 175,000 people. The existence of wastewater
collection systems and some form of downstream treatment appears to be limited to the larger
cities in the West Bank. Most of the smaller villages and towns have no wastewater collection
systems or treatment facilities. Additionally, most of the smaller villages do not have a reliable
water source. In some areas, citizens stated that wastewater had contaminated natural spring
water. In other areas, the odor of raw wastewater was apparent near the wadi.

In those areas where wastewater collection systems are not available, wastewater tends to be
collected into individual cesspits near the source (e.g., residences or businesses). Individual
users are generally responsible for having their cesspits cleaned out occasionally via the use of
vacuum trucks, which then dispose of the waste, typically by direct discharge to a wadi.

Throughout the West Bank, new homes and businesses were actively being constructed. It
appears that growth of businesses and families is continuing at a high rate.

3.1.3.4 Existing WWTPs Operating in the West Bank
Research of the existing WWTPs operating in the West Bank has identified the following:

 A WWTP exists in Al‐Bireh which treats approximately 5,750 m3/day (1,500,000 gpd).
This is a regionalized WWTP that, per A sustainable approach for reusing treated
wastewater in agricultural irrigation in the West Bank – Palestine (L.S. McNeill, 2008),
uses activated sludge. Per previous B&V site visits, the WWTP is known to have
concrete oxidation ditches with surface aerators and belt filter press dewatering of the
sludge.

Figure 5: Al‐Bireh Wastewater Treatment Plant

 Birzeit University has a WWTP that treats a peak flow of 600 m3/day (160,000 gpd) per
the university website. L.S. McNeill states that the WWTP employs a contact
stabilization treatment system. Per previous B&V site visits, the WWTP consists of a
circular steel tank with concentric clarifier.

 An aerated lagoon WWTP is located in Jenin. As of 1993, the capacity was 760 m3/day
(200,000 gpd) per the United Nations Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied
August 2012 3‐7

Feasibility Study

Palestinian Territories. Expats visited this WWTP, which was being rehabilitated and
expanded, during the site visit in March 2012.

 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 treated
wastewater receives additional treatment through ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
membranes.

 Per USAID, a WWTP exists in Irtas Village which treats 10 m3/day (2,500 gpd).

 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 pilot
study that is no longer in operation.

During the site visits, an existing packaged WWTP was visited in the village of Nahhalin. The
construction had been funded by The Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem (ARIJ). From
information obtained by the expats, the packaged WWTP was designed for an average daily flow
of 50 m3/day (13,000 gpd), and the main plant tank was approximately 12500 mm (40 feet)
long by 3280 mm (11 feet) wide by 3280 mm (11 feet) high. The entire site was approximately
12 times the size of the main plant tank. This packaged WWTP was full of wastewater but was
not in operation. In general, it appeared that the technologies present in the WWTP were
appropriate; however, based on information collected there appeared to be multiple modes of
failure for this specific situation, including the following:

 No collection system exists for the village. Wastewater was intended to be trucked to
the packaged WWTP. This would not allow for consistent flow to the WWTP.
 No training on operation of the facility was apparently provided to the Local
Government. The Local Government is responsible for operation of the facility but does
not know what is “wrong” with the plant.
 The WWTP site was located in the community and not near the wadi. The WWTP was
not constructed with a method to discharge treated wastewater to the wadi (such as a
force main) except by discharging it a long distance over farmland that was actively
being used. The negative public perception of this prevented the Local Government
from doing so.
 Additionally, the Local Government had acquired a lease on the land on which the
WWTP is located from a local farmer. Even though the packaged WWTP is not in use,
the Local Government is still paying their lease for the use of the land.

3.1.3.5 Summary of Findings and Challenges
Based on the results of the expat’s visit in March 2012 and information collected, the following
are a few of the primary findings, assumptions and challenges that were considered in the
Study:

• All of the local authorities with whom meetings were held appear to be in favor of the
use of packaged WWTPs if their use is determined to be appropriate.
• Influent wastewater is expected to be very highly concentrated relative to typical levels
used (e.g., 3 to 4 times higher). This may limit the types of treatment processes that
would work satisfactorily, increase WWTP footprints and require supplemental
alkalinity.
August 2012 3‐8

Feasibility Study

• Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse screening at a minimum.
treatment may be required.
• Stringent effluent wastewater requirements, coupled with the anticipated highly
concentrated influent, may require tertiary treatment/polishing processes to be
included.
• Reliability of power supplies and water supplies should be considered for the potential
impact on packaged WWTPs.
• Cesspits appear to be prevalent throughout the West Bank and may be contributing to
• Many communities throughout the West Bank do not have existing wastewater
collection systems. This would pose a significant challenge for wastewater treatment if
a collection system were not installed along with a treatment plant.
• Use of chemicals should be carefully considered both in terms of the handling that may
For example, while visiting the Hebron area, the expats were informed that a certain
small industrial WWTP could not be operated because the process is based primarily on
the use of sulfuric acid, and this chemical was not allowed to be imported into the West
Bank. Additional discussion of dual‐use items which would be difficult to import into
the West Bank is provided in Section 5.
• Sustainability of treatment plants is of critical importance. Mechanisms must be put in
place to ensure successful operation and maintenance of treatment plants.

3.2 Market Research

3.2.1 Data Collection Methods
In order to evaluate the feasibility of different treatment technologies, information was needed
on the capabilities of the different technologies and a method for comparison had to be
determined. A list of the major industry‐proven packaged WWTP technologies was created.
Then, a list of potential manufacturers was generated. A request for information was sent to the
manufacturers to obtain information and is provided in Appendix A. The request included a
summary of the purpose of this Study, the assumed influent water quality, required effluent
water quality, and a request for information about the potential technologies offered by each
manufacturer. Additionally, a list of questions was sent to get detailed information about the
manufacturing, shipping, construction and operation of each technology. Finally, four (4) case
studies were defined in which four different theoretical design flow rates were given and
preliminary design information and capital cost was requested. The purpose of the four case
studies was to be able to compare the effectiveness of a certain technology at different flow
rates and also to compare different technologies to one another at the same flow rate.

The manufacturers that were contacted included both large and small organizations, and both
U.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 of
communications, although some phone conversations did occur where clarifications were
needed. Additionally, a site visit was held at one manufacturer’s facility to view examples of the
manufacturing process and equipment installations.

3.2.2 Data Collected
The request for information was created in a manner that was intended to collect similar
information 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
August 2012 3‐9

Feasibility Study

manufacturers provided differed greatly. Since the influent loading is much higher than that
typically seen in most other locations, the manufacturers were generally not able to use their
standard designs. Some of the manufacturers performed preliminary design calculations and
put together very detailed proposals of what they would offer for the four case studies.
However, some other manufacturers were not as motivated to provide information other than
their standard products. While an attempt was made to motivate the manufacturers to provide
realistic information for this Study, not all provided information that was as useful as others.
The information submitted by the manufacturers (emails, answers to questions, case studies,
proposals, cut sheets, references, etc.) is provided in the Appendices. The submitted
information has been reviewed and, where necessary, supplemented in order to make the
values able to be compared to one another. Discussion of each technology and the findings are
presented in Section 4.

3.2.2.1 Available Packaged WWTP Technologies
The list of available packaged WWTP technologies and a list of some industry manufacturers
which provide that type of technology are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Available Packaged WWTP Technologies
TECHNOLOGY POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS
Activated Sludge
Aqua Treat (based in Jordan), Delta Process,
Extended Aeration 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
GE, Newterra, Siemens, Smith & Loveless,
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
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
Based on the existing WWTPs located in the West Bank, it appears that overall there are very
few opportunities for wastewater treatment technologies to have a history in the West Bank.
The few existing older regionalized WWTPs appear to use a lagoon method for treatment, which
is generally very easy to operate and maintain but would not meet the strict effluent
requirements that are currently being targeted. During the site visit and based on
conversations with USAID, it is apparent that packaged WWTPs are currently being
implemented in the West Bank at a slow pace. Additionally, the PWA indicated that they are
moving forward on both regional and packaged WWTPs utilizing the advanced technology of
membranes. Therefore, this Study will not give priority to a technology because of its prior use
in the West Bank.

Similarly, the low number of existing WWTPs in the West Bank precludes many potential
manufacturers from having existing installations in the West Bank. However, all of the large,
well‐established manufacturers that were contacted as a part of this Study have a presence in
the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and expressed an interest in working in the West
Bank.

August 2012 3‐10

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 4.0 Evaluation of Information
Feasibility Study

4.0 Evaluation of Information
This section provides a general introduction to wastewater treatment processes, a summary of

the evaluation of the packaged WWTP technologies included in the Study, and a description of
factors to be considered when evaluating communities to receive a packaged WWTP.

4.1 Introduction to Wastewater Treatment Processes

Wastewater treatment involves the combination of different processes by which wastewater is
cleaned. Individual processes may be physical, biological or chemical in nature. Physical
processes employ an actual physical device or concept to remove contaminants from
wastewater, such as a bar screen. A biological process utilizes microorganisms to consume
certain components in the wastewater. The addition of a chemical to change the makeup of
certain components, such as adding a flocculant to enhance solids settling, is a chemical process.

The goal of each of these types of processes is to remove or change the makeup of contaminants
in the wastewater to improve treatment. A treatment plant may implement multiple individual
processes in order to remove different types of contaminants, prepare the water for the next
step of treatment, and to ultimately produce treated wastewater of an appropriate quality. In
general, most packaged WWTPs will employ biological treatment as the main form of treatment,
and chemical and physical processes enhance the overall performance of the WWTP.

The evaluation of different packaged WWTP technologies included a full range of the available
processes. These processes are discussed and evaluated within this section.

4.1.1 Physical Treatment

Physical treatment utilizes an actual physical device or concept for the processing of
wastewater. Examples of physical treatment include the following:

• wastewater detained in a compartment for a certain amount of time to stabilize the flow
(flow equalization),
• solid particles removed from wastewater (screening, grit removal),
• wastewater velocity slowed so that flocculated microorganisms and other particles
settle to the bottom of a tank via gravity (settling tank / clarifier),
• wastewater pumped or pulled through a barrier that prevents the passing of certain
small constituents (membranes).

These examples of physical treatment processes are not all encompassing but give an idea of
how physical processes work and why they are critical to the success of a WWTP.

Figure 6: Example of Screening

August 2012 4‐1

Feasibility Study

4.1.2 Biological Treatment
In biological treatment of wastewater, microorganisms are employed to consume certain
components in the wastewater. In general, microorganisms can be freely distributed in the
wastewater (Suspended Growth) or they can be contained within a biological growth attached
to a fixed surface within the wastewater stream (Attached Growth). There are also
combinations of suspended and attached growth processes. In suspended growth processes,
microorganisms form particles called floc, which can be separated from treated wastewater by
settling, flotation, or filtration. In attached growth processes, microorganisms are retained in
the process via association with media. The separated microorganisms may either be wasted or
returned to the wastewater stream to supplement the food to microorganism ratio.

Biological treatment is also classified as either aerobic or anaerobic. Aerobic treatment involves
an oxygen‐rich environment which is provided using diffusers, mechanical aerators, or jet
nozzles. Atmospheric air is commonly used and pure oxygen may also be used. Anaerobic
treatment is accomplished in an oxygen‐starved environment and can be used to target the
removal of certain parameters. Aerobic processes are the predominant processes employed
today. The combination of aerobic and anaerobic processes within a single WWTP can achieve a
very effective level of wastewater treatment.

4.1.2.1 Suspended Growth Processes
Suspended growth is a type of biological treatment in which microorganisms are mixed with
raw wastewater to create a mixed liquor in order to break down contaminants. Subsequent
separation of the microorganisms from the mixed liquor occurs in a separation tank / clarifier.
The separated, or clarified, water is discharged from the treatment process. The
microorganisms (biomass) are returned to the aeration basin where they are mixed with
incoming raw wastewater and the process begins again. Excess biomass is removed from the
process periodically.

Suspended growth processes can be configured for continuous or batch treatment. In a
continuous treatment process, wastewater flows through one or more basins / environments
and then to a clarifier (or membranes) for solids separation. Sequencing batch reactors perform
the same process but in a different configuration. Instead of the wastewater flowing by gravity
through different basins, the wastewater is held in one basin in which all the different steps
(including settling) take place over a certain time schedule. While one (or more) batch reactor
is processing wastewater, another reactor is receiving the influent wastewater until it is full.
The reactors cycle through fill‐react‐settle‐decant phases.

4.1.2.2 Attached Growth Processes
An attached growth process is similar in concept to a suspended growth process, except that
some form of media is introduced to the process on which the microorganisms grow. Examples
of attached growth treatment include trickling filters, rotating biological contactors and moving
bed biofilm reactors (MBBR). While the first two types of treatment are not usually found as
part of a packaged WWTP, MBBR are used in packaged WWTPs. MBBR is a type of technology in
which small media are introduced into an aeration tank and are mobilized by the aeration
occurring in the basin.

4.1.2.3 Variations of Biological Treatment
One variation on the suspended and attached growth treatment processes includes a
combination of the two. This variation introduces attached growth media into suspended
August 2012 4‐2

Feasibility Study

growth basins. Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) includes both fixed and fluidized
media. The increase in surface area created by the media in the basin allows for a greater
biomass inventory, and therefore the treated water quality is able to be achieved in a smaller
footprint than with either suspended growth or attached growth alone.

Advanced treatment methods include membrane bioreactors (MBR) in which low‐pressure
membranes (microfiltration or ultrafiltration) are used for solids separation. Membranes may
be immersed in mixed liquor within tanks or encased in pressure vessels mounted on racks.
Water is filtered through the membrane, which provides a physical barrier that rejects many
contaminants including the accumulated biomass, bacteria and some viruses.

4.1.2.4 Anaerobic Processes
There are also anaerobic biological processes which are available in both the suspended and
attached growth methods. In general, anaerobic treatment can be utilized to target certain
constituents for removal and may be used in conjunction with aerobic treatment to achieve
certain treatment results. Anaerobic digestion produces methane gas which may be harnessed
for power generation; however, it is an explosive gas and must be handled appropriately.
Anaerobic digestion also produces unpleasant odors. Odor control processes may be
implemented to capture the air and scrub or burn it to reduce the odor.

One anaerobic process is an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB). The wastewater is
introduced into the anaerobic chamber from below and flows up through a developed sludge
bed. This technology may have good potential for use in developing countries due to the
relatively low cost and energy consumption. A detailed study was conducted specifically to
evaluate the applicability of UASB for the West Bank by Mahmoud (2002). This study concluded
that “application of a one‐stage UASB reactor in Palestine is only possible if designed at prolonged
[Hydraulic Retention Time] HRT due to low solids hydrolysis during wintertime.” The process
produces methane which must be captured and handled appropriately and can be a potential
energy source. There are concerns regarding the lack of established manufacturers for this type
of equipment, which did not allow a detailed evaluation of this process within this Study.
Considering these items, there is reasonable potential for the successful use of UASB in the West
Bank in the warmer areas (such as Jericho). A packaged WWTP may be the most appropriate
scale to evaluate a pilot test of this technology. However, it is recommended that
implementation of packaged WWTPs related to this Study begin with those technologies that
have established manufacturers to assist in a successful implementation.

4.1.3 Chemical Treatment
The addition of a chemical to change the makeup of certain components is a chemical process.
Chemical processes are usually employed to enhance the performance or efficiencies of other
processes. For example, phosphorus removal may be targeted by the addition of a chemical that
causes the formation of certain phosphorous compounds which are more likely to settle by
gravity in a clarifier. To achieve an effluent Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L, wastewater with West
Bank strength characteristics would require the addition of a metal salt. The decision of which
metal salt to use is usually determined through jar‐testing in which samples of the actual
wastewater are dosed with different chemicals and/or different dosages in order to determine
the most efficient chemical and dose rate.

In cases where nitrification of the wastewater is necessary in order to achieve the required
Nitrogen removal, alkalinity will need to be added to the wastewater. Alkalinity is the buffering
capacity of water and can be added chemically. Larger WWTPs commonly use hydrated lime,
which can be cumbersome to store and difficult to feed; smaller WWTPs commonly use sodium
August 2012 4‐3

Feasibility Study

hydroxide (caustic), which is easier than lime to store and feed but is more expensive per unit
volume.

Figure 7: Typical Chemical Storage Totes

4.1.4 Pre‐ and Post‐ Treatment
There are additional processes which may be included before and after the biological process to
optimize the overall treatment efficiencies and/or protect equipment within the WWTP.

4.1.4.1 Pre‐Treatment
Primary treatment processes, sometimes referred to as pre‐treatment, include the following:

• Unloading Station – If the entire community is not connected to the collection system, it
may be necessary to include an unloading station so that tanker trucks may unload raw
sewage collected from septic tanks/cesspits. This is not common in the U.S. but may be
necessary in the West Bank. An influent pump station, if required, may also serve as an
unloading station.
• Equalization Tank – Depending on the treatment processes and anticipated flow rates,
an equalization tank may be included to balance out peak and average flows and also
provide normalization of water quality changes. The wet well of an influent pump
station, if required, may serve as an equalization tank.
• Grease Trap – Depending on the sensitivity of the treatment processes to grease fouling,
and the amount of grease anticipated, a grease trap may be included to collect grease
upstream of the WWTP.
• Screening – Screening is required to prevent damage to downstream equipment such as
pumps or membranes. Depending on the treatment process, the screening may include
coarse or fine screening. Grinders may be used to chop up solids into smaller particles
in lieu of screening, but it is not recommended for most applications where screening
can readily be accomplished.
• Grit Removal – Removal of grit (inorganic solids) is accomplished by a grit chamber. In
small packaged WWTPs, a grit chamber is usually not included and the grit is removed
along with the organic solids that have settled out. However, due to the high anticipated
solids loading in the West Bank, grit removal may be necessary, or at least considered, at
most plants. If a grit chamber is not included, grit will accumulate within the WWTP,
and the WWTP will need to be periodically taken offline in order to remove the grit. An
allowance for storage, hauling or overflow to a wadi of the raw wastewater would need
to be provided.

August 2012 4‐4

Feasibility Study

Figure 8: Examples of Pre‐Treatment

4.1.4.2 Post‐Treatment
Tertiary treatment processes, sometimes referred to as post‐treatment, include the following:

• Filters – Filters may be used to further reduce the amount of suspended solids in the
wastewater. In packaged WWTPs in the U.S., sand filters are commonly used after a
conventional biological treatment process to achieve more strict treated water
requirements associated with reuse. Other examples include cloth disk filters and
membranes.
• Disinfection – Disinfection of treated wastewater inactivates disease‐causing organisms.
Types of disinfection include the injection of a chemical into the treated wastewater
stream 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 and
mixed into a carrier water stream for injection (e.g. chlorine gas), or stored and injected
as a gas (e.g. ozone). The type and degree of disinfection needed is determined by the
intended use of the treated wastewater and Owner preferences for type of chemical
storage, volume of chemical storage required, frequency of chemical deliveries, and
safety requirements.

Figure 9: Examples of Post‐Treatment
August 2012 4‐5

Feasibility Study

4.2 Evaluation of Packaged WWTP Technologies
The different packaged WWTP technologies evaluated as a part of this Study are presented in
the following subsections. The information is presented in a consistent manner for each
technology to allow for easier comparisons to be made by the reader between the technologies.
In general, a discussion of the technology is followed by information regarding the return to
operation after a power outage, construction, and preventative maintenance. Then, a table
presenting the required footprint, capital expense and power requirements for each of the four
(4) case studies is shown.

 The footprint information shown represents the footprint required for the main
treatment process, not the entire WWTP site that would be required. It is intended to
allow for comparison of required land across the different flows and technologies but is
not appropriate for determining the total land needed for a WWTP site. This assumes
that the footprint required for any pre‐ or post‐treatment required would be relatively
similar across the technologies.
 The capital expense information shown represents an estimate of the design and
construction value of a packaged WWTP. Section 4.2.5 provides additional information
on the basis for the cost information provided herein.
 The connected power information shown represents an estimate of the connected
power that will be required by the equipment for the packaged WWTP. It does not
represent the operating power, which will be less than the connected power. As with
the footprint information, it is intended to allow for comparison of the energy
requirements across different flows and technologies but does not represent the actual
amount of electricity that a particular packaged WWTP will consume.

Finally, a one‐page table describing a summary of different aspects of each technology is
presented. It includes topics such as process information, cost information, construction,
operation & maintenance and additional comments. Most topics are self‐explanatory. However,
a few of the topics are introduced below:

 Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond Peak) – This topic addresses how the technology
will handle flows greater than the peak design flow. It is intended to provide
information on how the technology would operate during a non‐design situation.
 Handle Organic Overloading (beyond designed loading) – This topic discusses how the
technology will handle organic loading greater than the design values. It is intended to
provide information on how the technology would operate during a non‐design
situation.
 Operational Expenses – An operational expense is provided based on assumptions
detailed in Section 4.2.5. Information is also provided on those items which make up
the majority of operational expenditures: energy usage, manpower, chemicals, and
sludge hauling. This information is presented so that comparisons may be made
between the different technologies to gauge the differences in the primary items that
impact operational expenditures.

4.2.1 Activated Sludge
Activated sludge (AS) is the most common suspended growth biological wastewater treatment
process in use today. While there are many variations of the activated sludge process, all of the
processes share the following key components:

 Mixing of influent with microorganisms in a tank (or reactor) to create a Mixed Liquor of
wastewater and microorganisms;
August 2012 4‐6

Feasibility Study

 Subsequent separation of the microorganisms from the Mixed Liquor to produce a
clarified water;
 Discharge of the clarified water from the treatment cycle;
 Return of the settled microorganism mass (Return Activated Sludge or RAS) to the tank
(or reactor) where the original mixing of microorganisms and influent occurs; and
 Removal of excess biomass (Waste Activated Sludge or WAS) from the treatment
process cycle at select, controlled intervals.

The activated sludge technology has been adapted in several ways for use in packaged WWTPs.
This includes modifications to the technical parameters or the construction requirements.
Examples of these processes include:

 Extended Aeration,
 Oxidation Ditch, and
 Sequencing Batch Reactor.

August 2012 4‐7

Feasibility Study

4.2.1.1 Extended Aeration
Extended aeration is a type of activated sludge process that uses long (20 to 30 days) solids
retention time (SRT) to ensure process stability, complete nitrification, and low sludge
production. These systems can be adapted to a wide variety of influent flows, biological loading
and operating conditions. In the U.S., extended aeration packaged WWTPs are commonly
designed with a 24‐hour hydraulic retention time (HRT) in the aeration basin. For the loading
anticipated in the West Bank, manufacturers have indicated that the HRT would need to be
increased beyond 24 hours in order to adequately treat the wastewater. This would cause an
increase in the footprint of the packaged WWTP beyond what would normally be seen in the
U.S. for a similar flow rate.

The manufacturers of extended aeration packaged WWTPs that were contacted for this Study
had concerns regarding the use of this technology to treat the high loading anticipated in the
West Bank. One manufacturer (Delta Process) did not feel they could offer a product that would
be cost‐effective because of the required footprint and decided not to participate further in the
Study. Another manufacturer (Davco, a Siemens division) also elected to not participate
because of uncertainty and concerns about being involved in an international project such as
this.

A third manufacturer (Global Water) did provide detailed information on their technology;
however, the product has multiple add‐ons in addition to extended aeration which are intended
to produce a potable water quality effluent. When asked whether their product could be
modified by removing certain add‐ons since they were not necessary, the response was that
they do not recommend removing the add‐ons.

Finally, a fourth manufacturer (Smith & Loveless) evaluated the situation and recommended
that their factory‐built extended aeration units would not be appropriate for this application.
Specifically, they indicated that extended aeration would not be cost‐effective at the two smaller
case study flow rates because of the large footprint that would be required. Smith & Loveless
did propose their field‐erected extended aeration units for the two larger case studies. The
field‐erected extended aeration unit is a circular packaged plant erected at the WWTP site
which has different compartments customized to the treatment required to meet the effluent
requirements.

Figure 10: Examples of Extended Aeration Packaged WWTPs

August 2012 4‐8

Feasibility Study

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 the
extended aeration process. If wastewater continues to enter the packaged WWTP, it will
continue to push wastewater through the process. Aeration would not occur during a power
outage because the blowers would not operate, and therefore treatment would not be as robust.

If a power outage occurred that was greater than a few hours, the wastewater may go septic,
and the microorganisms needed for treatment may die. At the point when plant operation
returns to normal, it may take days or weeks for the biological process to redevelop and
produce treated wastewater of the required characteristics.

The time needed for initial start‐up of the biological process (or regrowth if needed) can be
reduced by “seeding” the WWTP. This can be performed by transferring RAS from an operating
WWTP to the one that is starting up. Another option is to purchase commercially‐available
biological start‐up seed. In some situations, using existing RAS as the biological start‐up seed is
the preferred method for two reasons. First, using existing RAS may be less expensive than
purchasing commercially‐available biological start‐up seed. Second, if the WWTP from which
RAS is being taken is receiving sewage with similar characteristics, the existing RAS may contain
a microorganism population that has already developed to treat the expected incoming sewage.
Commercially‐available biological start‐up seed is a product offered by some manufacturers
August 2012 4‐9

Feasibility Study

(such as Global Water) and is a consumable that would need to be replaced regularly if desired
by the operator, which would impact ongoing operational expenses.

Construction of extended aeration systems can occur in multiple approaches. These approaches
include:
 Pre‐manufactured metal tanks/containers delivered to the site. Site work includes
construction of concrete pad(s), placement of the tank(s), pipe work and electrical.
 Pre‐manufactured steel components delivered to the site and field‐erected into tanks.
Site work includes those items mentioned above and also steel welding.
 Reinforced concrete tanks constructed onsite and field‐installation of pre‐packaged
equipment. Site work includes construction of concrete tanks, installation of
equipment, pipe work and electrical.

Modular extended aeration systems may be an option to meet larger flows. Modular systems in
such an application may consist of steel tanks provided for each of the process steps. They are
connected to one another to create the entire WWTP at the desired treatment capacity.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for extended
aeration are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Extended Aeration Case Studies
Population Capita 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500
m3/day 80 200 400 600
Average Flow
gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000
m2 140 250 400 530
Footprint 2
ft 1,500 2,600 4,200 5,700
3
$US/m /d $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3, 500
Capital Expense
$US/gpd $19 $17 $15 $13
Power kW 15 30 60 90
(Connected) hp 20 40 80 120

August 2012 4‐10

Feasibility Study

Table 10: Extended Aeration Summary
GENERAL
Aqua Treat, Delta Process, Gaylord, Global Water, Siemens
Manufacturers (partial list)
(Davco), Smith & Loveless, Tipton
Long, successful history. Commonly used in U.S. for packaged
Technology History
WWTPs. Equipment is not proprietary.
PROCESS INFORMATION
6 – 190 m3/day (1,500 – 50,000 gpd). Up to 3,800 m3/day (1
Range of Flows
MGD) with modular
Handle High Loading (Yes/No) Yes, if designed to handle high loading
Sludge Yield Low due to extended solids retention time
Yes, if designed to nitrify. Complete nitrification required to
Achieve Nitrification
achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Yes, if designed to denitrify. Complete denitrification required
Achieve Denitrification
to achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Achieve Phosphorus Removal Yes, if designed for P removal (chemical addition)
Meet Effluent WQ Requirements With tertiary filter
Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond No, may wash out microorganisms.
Peak)
Handle Organic Overloading (beyond No, will not achieve desired level of treatment. Long time for
designed loading) microorganism population to recover.
Upstream pump station, Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of
Process Control
Sludge Wasting, RAS Flow Rate Control
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
WWTP Profile (i.e. typical tank height 3.0 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet)
above natural ground)
Main Treat. Process Footprint (1) 140 – 530 m2 (1,500 – 5,700 ft2)
COST INFORMATION
Capital Expense (1) US$3,500 – 5,000/m3/d (US$13 ‐ 19/gpd)
Power (Connected) (1) 15 ‐ 90 kW (20 ‐ 120 hp)
Manpower 0.25 FTE (2 hrs per day, 5 days per week)
Generally low. Will require supplemental alkalinity (lime or
Chemicals
caustic) and metal salts for P removal. Disinfection (if installed).
Sludge Hauling Low quantity, wasted daily, hauled periodically
CONSTRUCTION
Pre‐manufactured steel tanks: 4 – 6 months
Construction Time
Reinforced concrete tanks: 6 – 12 months
Construction Skills Concrete work, steel welding, piping, electrical
Daily operations are straight forward, typical for AS processes.
Ease of O&M
Will require attention to achieve low TN.
Odors Odor‐free (except raw wastewater treatment component)
Aeration equipment produces noise (can equip w/ noise control
Noise
enclosures)
Operator Skill Required Standard wastewater operator skills required
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Dependable process. Not adaptable to shock loading. Microorganisms can be washed out during high flow.
August 2012 4‐11

Feasibility Study

4.2.1.2 Oxidation Ditch
An oxidation ditch is a type of activated sludge process in which the wastewater flows in a
continuous flow cycle. A typical oxidation ditch layout is an oval path around a center wall or
“island”. Other oxidation ditch configurations fold the flow path within itself creating a “U”
configuration when viewed from above.

Movement of the wastewater around the ditch is typically induced by mechanical aerators
which have three purposes: oxygen transfer, mixing of influent with mixed liquor, and
recirculation of the mixed liquor around the ditch. Mixed liquor recirculation can be used to
deliver nitrified mixed liquor to an anoxic zone for denitrification. In the U.S., oxidation ditches
are not commonly used in packaged WWTP applications because of the large footprint that is
required. However, they have relatively low operating costs and are relatively simple to
operate. Therefore, they are included in this Study.

Figure 11: Example of Oxidation Ditch WWTP

Short duration power outages (i.e., a few hours) will not have a significant effect on the process.
If wastewater continues to enter the oxidation ditch, it will push wastewater through the
process. Solids may settle in the oxidation ditch. Aeration would not occur during a power
outage because the aerators would not operate, and therefore treatment would not be as robust.

If a power outage occurred that was greater than a few hours, the wastewater may go septic and
the microorganisms needed for treatment may die. At the point when operation returns to
normal, it may take days or weeks for the biological process to redevelop and produce treated
wastewater of the required characteristics.

Construction of an oxidation ditch packaged WWTP may consist of field‐erected steel tanks or
construction of concrete tanks and the installation of the necessary equipment provided by the
manufacturer.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for an
oxidation ditch are shown in Table 11.

August 2012 4‐12

Feasibility Study

Table 11: Oxidation Ditch Case Studies
m3/day 80 200 400 600
Average Flow
gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000
m2 300 580 690 710
Footprint
ft2 3,200 6,200 7,400 7,600
$US/m3/d $10,500 $7,000 $5,500 $4,000
Capital Expense
$US/gpd $40 $26 $21 $15
Power kW 10 25 45 65

August 2012 4‐13

Feasibility Study

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, if designed to nitrify. Complete nitrification required to achieve 10
mg/L TN.
Yes, if designed to denitrify. Complete denitrification required to
achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond Yes, because of relative high tank volumes. Microorganisms can be
Peak) “washed out”.
Handle Organic Overloading (beyond No, microorganisms adversely affected by shock loads. Will not
designed loading) achieve desired level of treatment
Upstream pump station, Rotation speed and submergence of aerator
Process Control rotor, Denitrification, RAS Flow Rate Control, Frequency of Sludge
Wasting
Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening
(min.), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)
COST INFORMATION
Capital Expense (1) US$4,000 – 10,500/m3/d (US$15 ‐ 40/gpd)
Generally low. Will require supplemental alkalinity (lime or caustic)
Chemicals
and metal salts for P removal. Disinfection (if installed).
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Time
Daily operations are straight forward, typical for AS processes. Will
Ease of O&M
require attention to achieve low TN.
Odors Raw WW treatment component. Issues if not operated correctly.
Mech. aerators produce noise. Interaction of blades at ML surface can
Noise
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 4‐14

Feasibility Study

4.2.1.3 Sequencing Batch Reactor
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) systems are a simple, yet sophisticated, variation of the
activated sludge process. Instead of wastewater flowing by gravity through different zones, the
wastewater is held in one basin in which the different treatment phases occur in sequence over
a controlled time schedule for each phase. SBR operation incorporates aeration and
clarification in a single tank. Multiple reactors and/or equalization tanks are used to
accommodate continuous influent flow. For example, while one basin is in the treatment
(aeration) phase, another basin will be in the clarification phase. Thus, while one (or more)
batch reactor(s) is processing wastewater, another reactor is receiving the influent wastewater
until it is full and is able to begin its reaction phase.

Control of the sequencing of the treatment phases requires a Programmable Logic Controller
(PLC). The PLC controls the sequence and timing of the treatment phases based on
predetermined treatment process set points. Typical SBR programming provides for automatic
adjustment of these set points to handle high (peak) flow events.

Power outages will stop the SBR process at the current treatment phase. SBR basins are often
constructed with an overflow structure or fitting to allow wastewater entering the reactor to
continue to move through the system and not completely overflow the basin. The other option
is to allow the upstream system to surcharge. The approach between these two options is
determined during final design based on the specific situation and Owner/Operator
preferences.

When power is restored, the PLC will return operation to the current treatment phase. As with
the other activated sludge processes, if the wastewater becomes septic and the microorganisms
needed for treatment die, it will take some time for the biological process to return to normal.

Construction of an SBR packaged WWTP would probably require the construction of reinforced
concrete tanks and the installation of the necessary equipment provided by the manufacturer.
While steel tanks can be used for SBR reactors, the nature of the required equipment and the
typical treatment volumes favor reinforced concrete tank construction.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for an SBR are
shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Case Studies
m3/day 80 200 400 600
Average Flow
gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000
2
m 80 150 260 380
Footprint
ft2 800 1,600 2,700 4,000
$US/m3/d $8,000 $5, 500 $4,000 $3,500
Capital Expense
$US/gpd $30 $21 $15 $13
Power kW 15 30 55 85

August 2012 4‐15

Feasibility Study

Table 14: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Summary
GENERAL
Manufacturers (partial list) Aqua‐Aerobic Systems, ITT (ABJ), Siemens
Long history. Multiple manufacturers which promotes competitive
Technology History
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
mg/L TN.
achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond Yes, because fill cycle provides equalization
Peak)
Handle Organic Overloading (beyond Yes, because fill cycle provides equalization
designed loading)
Upstream pump station, PLC, Aeration, Denitrification, Frequency of
Process Control
sludge wasting
Grease removal if > 100 mg/L, Coarse Screening (minimum), Grit
removal
Requires PLC (Yes / No) Yes
Main Treat. Process Footprint (1) 80 – 380 m2 (800 – 4,000 ft2)
COST INFORMATION
(1)
Capital Expense US$3,500 – 8,000/m3/day (US$13 – 30/gpd)
Chemicals
Sludge Hauling Medium to low quantity, hauled periodically
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Time
Once PLC is set up (typically by manufacturer) operation is relatively
Ease of O&M straight forward. PLC maintenance may require internet connection to
manufacturer. Will require attention to achieve low TN.
Noise
enclosures)
Standard wastewater operator skills required plus special maintenance
Operator Skill Required 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 4‐16

Feasibility Study

4.2.2 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
A moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) is an attached growth process. Small media (biocarriers)
on which the microorganisms live in a biofilm are introduced into a tank, either aerobic or
anoxic in nature. The biocarriers are mixed throughout the tank by the air provided by the
aeration system in the basin.

In MBBR systems, solids retention time in the aeration basin is much greater than in a
comparable activated sludge system. An MBBR system does not return sludge settled in the
separation process to the reactor, but instead wastes it directly to the sludge system. No RAS
pumping is required.

The media, generally made of plastic, are designed to provide high surface areas on which the
biofilm containing the microorganisms (biomass) can grow. This enables the MBBR process to
provide a denser microorganism population per unit volume than a suspended growth activated
sludge treatment process.

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

WWTPs utilizing this type of media require the wastewater to leave the aeration basin through
screens or sieves which ensure that the biofilm carriers do not leave the basin. Key elements in
an MBBR process are:

 Biocarriers – provide surface area for microbial film growth
 Aeration – provides both oxygen for microorganisms and mixing
 Screens – retain biocarriers in reactors.

The MBBR and Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) processes share many of the same
attached growth advantages and disadvantages. IFAS is discussed in the following section.

The most significant apparent advantage of an MBBR process over an IFAS process is the MBBR
does not require a RAS stream. However, an additional MBBR reactor may be required to
achieve the same level of treatment as provided by an IFAS system. The selection of which
process is more appropriate for a given situation is dependent on influent characteristics,
desired level of treatment, desired type of sludge treatment, as well as operator preference.

The major disadvantage shared by both an MBBR process and IFAS process is that they use
coarse bubble diffusers and operate at high DO concentrations in order to achieve appropriate
August 2012 4‐17

Feasibility Study

DO at the center of the media. This leads to greater energy consumption than a comparable
suspended growth activated sludge process.

If wastewater continues to enter the packaged WWTP, it will push wastewater through the
process. Aeration would not occur during a power outage because the blowers would not
operate, and therefore treatment would not be as robust. Solids may temporarily settle in the
packaged WWTP. The biocarriers will float to the water surface and collect in a mass that is
clearly visible.

If a power outage occurred that was greater than a few hours, wastewater may go septic and the
microorganisms needed for treatment may die. As with the other processes, returning the
operation to normal will include redeveloping the biological process.

During flow events which exceed the peak flow design, the biocarriers may be washed out of the
basin. They would be collected downstream, washed to remove attached dirt and debris, and
returned to the aeration basin. Washout can be prevented by certain allowances in the design
such as screens or sieves.

Construction of an MBBR system can occur in multiple ways. They may be provided in factory‐
built steel tanks/containers or field‐erected concrete tanks, depending on the design flow.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for an MBBR
are shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Case Studies
3
m /day 80 200 400 600
Average Flow
gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000
m2 190 240 340 400
Footprint 2
ft 2,000 2,500 3,600 4,200
$US/m3/d $17,500 $9,500 $7,000 $5,500
Capital Expense
$US/gpd $66 $36 $26 $21
Power kW 15 40 80 125
(Connected) hp 20 55 110 165
August 2012 4‐18

Feasibility Study

Table 16: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Summary
GENERAL
Manufacturers (partial list) Veolia (AnoxKaldnes)
Technology was developed in 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects,
Technology History
such as the biocarriers, may be proprietary.
PROCESS INFORMATION
Range of Flows Up to 570 m3/day (150,000 gpd)
Yes, if designed to nitrify. Complete nitrification required to
achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Yes, if designed to denitrify. Complete denitrification required
to achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond No, washout may lose biocarriers
Peak)
Handle Organic Overloading (beyond Yes, biofilm provides protection against initial harmful effects of
designed loading) shocking.
Process Control Upstream pump station, Aeration, Denitrification
Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Fine Screen
(6mm max), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)
10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less temperature dependency
Temperature and pH Requirements
than comparable suspended growth AS process
COST INFORMATION
Capital Expense (1) US$5,500 – 17,500/m3/d (US$21 – 66/gpd)
Generally low. Will require supplemental alkalinity (lime or
Chemicals
caustic) and metal salts for P removal. Disinfection (if installed).
Sludge Hauling Low quantity, hauled periodically
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Time
Daily operations are straight forward, typical for AS processes.
Ease of O&M
Will require attention to achieve low TN.
Noise
enclosures)
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 4‐19

Feasibility Study

4.2.3 Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge
Integrated fixed‐film activated sludge (IFAS) is a combination of attached growth and
suspended growth technologies into a single biological process. An IFAS system installs a fixed‐
film media (biocarriers) into the activated sludge reactor. The microorganisms grow on that
media in a biofilm. As with the MBBR process, the IFAS biofilm provides an overall higher
density of biomass available to incoming wastewater than is possible with a similar‐sized
suspended growth treatment process.

Available IFAS systems come in two forms, fixed media and fluidized bed media. The fixed
media form can be a hexagonal nylon type mesh stretched across a metal frame or a plastic
“hexagonal‐honey comb” tube material. The fluidized bed media are individual loose geometric
shaped plastic carriers placed in the activated sludge mixed liquor. The features of attached
growth growing on biocarriers are the same with IFAS processes as they are with the MBBR
processes discussed in the previous section.

Figure 13: Example of IFAS Fixed Media Units

Figure 14: Example of IFAS Fluidized Media

The IFAS process resembles a suspended growth activated sludge process (i.e., aeration basin,
clarifier, and RAS system). The key difference is that a comparable capacity IFAS WWTP will
have smaller aeration basins than a conventional suspended growth activated sludge WWTP. A
smaller basin volume is possible because the microorganism treatment population in an IFAS
WWTP has a higher density (mass per unit volume) than in a corresponding suspended growth
activated sludge process.

As mentioned for the MBBR, the IFAS process has greater energy consumption than comparable
suspended growth activated sludge processes because of the use of coarse bubble diffusers and
high DO concentrations.
August 2012 4‐20

Feasibility Study

If wastewater continues to enter the packaged WWTP, it will push wastewater through the
process. Aeration would not occur during a power outage because the blowers would not
operate, and therefore treatment would not be as robust. Solids may temporarily settle in the
packaged WWTP. In a fluidized bed version, the biocarriers will float to the water surface and
collect in a mass that is clearly visible.

If a power outage occurred that was greater than a few hours, wastewater may go septic and the
microorganisms needed for treatment may die. As with the other processes, returning the
operation to normal will include redeveloping the biological process.

As with the MBBR process, during flow events which exceed the peak flow design, the
biocarriers may be washed out of the basin. They would be collected downstream, washed to
remove attached dirt and debris, and returned to the aeration basin. Washout can be
prevented by certain allowances in the design such as screens or sieves.

Figure 15: Example of Biocarrier Screens

Construction of an IFAS system can occur in multiple manners. For smaller flows, IFAS
packaged WWTPs may be provided in factory‐built steel tanks. Higher flows may require
construction of concrete tanks at the site, with the necessary equipment provided by a
manufacturer.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for an IFAS
system are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Case Studies
3
m /day 80 200 400 600
Average Flow
gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000
m2 180 260 340 420
Footprint 2
ft 1,900 2,800 3,700 4,500
$US/m3/d $23,500 $22,500 $21,500 $18,500
Capital Expense
$US/gpd $89 $85 $81 $70
Power kW 20 45 90 130
(Connected) hp 25 60 115 175
August 2012 4‐21

Feasibility Study

Table 18: Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Summary
GENERAL
Manufacturers (partial list) Smith & Loveless, Veolia
Technology was developed in 1980s and 1990s. Some aspects, such as
Technology History
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
mg/L TN.
achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond No, washout may lose biocarriers
Peak)
Handle Organic Overloading (beyond Yes, biofilm provides protection against initial harmful effects of
designed loading) shocking.
Upstream pump station, aeration flow rate (which controls degree of
Process Control air and mixing in tank), Denitrification, RAS flow rate control, frequency
of sludge wasting
Equalization Tank, Grease removal if > 50 mg/L, Coarse Screening
(min), Grit removal for flows ≥ 380 m3/day (100,000 gpd)
10 ‐30o C; 6.0 ‐ 8.0 pH – typical; Less temperature dependency than
Temperature and pH Requirements
comparable suspended growth AS process
WWTP Profile (i.e. typical tank height 3.5 – 5.0 meters (10 – 16 feet )
COST INFORMATION
(1)
Capital Expense US$ 18,500 – 23,500/m3/d (US$70 – 89/gpd)
Chemicals
Sludge Hauling Medium to low quantity, hauled periodically
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Time
Daily operations are straight forward, typical for AS processes. Will
Ease of O&M
require attention to achieve low TN.
Noise
enclosures)
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 4‐22

Feasibility Study

4.2.4 Membrane Bioreactor
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) combine biological treatment with physical separation. Typically,
the biological process is suspended growth (activated sludge), but IFAS also has been used. The
membrane allows water to pass through very small pores while rejecting microorganisms and
other solids suspended in the water. A typical MBR process uses multiple compartments, the
last of which contains immersed membranes for solids separation. Therefore, a clarifier is not
used. In the second photograph shown in Figure 16, the membrane assembly can be seen
against the far wall of the aeration basin.

Figure 16: Example of MBR Packaged WWTP

Three types of membranes are commonly available for MBR processes: flat plate, hollow fiber,
and tubular. Flat plate and hollow fiber membranes are used in immersed configurations, while
hollow fiber and tubular membranes are used in encased configurations. Each manufacturer has
designed their equipment around a specific membrane. Therefore, each MBR may be slightly
different and have different operating procedures.

Filtrate pumps are used to pump or pull treated wastewater through the membrane. In general,
membrane treatment requires the use of a filtrate pump to control flow. One manufacturer
indicated that their design uses gravity (i.e., pressure head of water above the membrane) in
lieu of a filtrate pump. The flow through the membrane is termed “Flux”. Flux is a limiting
factor in MBR design as it controls the size of the membrane zone, operating pressure, and
expected membrane cleaning frequency. As flux through a membrane increases, more
contaminants are collected on the membrane surface. Over time, membrane pores become
blocked (referred to as fouling), and flow through the membrane can become restricted.

Maintenance will include extending the service cycle of the membrane through air scouring and
back‐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 the
membrane assembly from the basin, or the reactor must be taken off line and drained to allow
maintenance action to be accomplished inside the reactor.

One manufacturer has indicated that chemical cleaning can be performed with the membrane
assembly in place and without draining the reactor. Chemical cleaning may involve the use of
sodium hypochlorite for organic fouling or a mild acid such as citric acid for inorganic fouling.

When operating properly, membranes produce water very low in solids. With the appropriate
biological processes to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, the effluent will be very high quality
treated wastewater. Specifically, MBRs will meet the most strict effluent requirements without
August 2012 4‐23

Feasibility Study

the need for additional equipment. Variations in the influent water quality, including spikes in
solids beyond the designed loading, are able to be processed by the membranes and consistent
effluent water quality produced. Spikes in the amount of dissolved constituents will need to be
handled by the biological treatment first in order for the membranes to be able to remove those
parameters. More frequent backwashing would be required during an organic overloading due
to increased fouling.

During any power outage, it is critical that the membranes remain submerged to prevent
damage. Once power returns, the system should go through a cleaning process to reverse any
fouling on the membranes. In addition to a power outage, MBR manufacturers noted that
certain chemicals or high levels of grease could permanently damage the membranes if allowed
into the packaged WWTP.

Construction of an MBR system can occur in multiple manners. For smaller flows, MBR
packaged WWTPs may be provided in factory‐built steel tanks/containers. Higher flows may
require field‐erected units, with the necessary equipment provided by a manufacturer.

Information on the estimated footprint, capital expense and power requirements for an MBR
are shown in Table 19.

Table 19: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Case Studies
3
m /day 80 200 400 600
Average Flow
gal/day 21,000 53,000 105,000 158,000
m2 100 300 400 490
Footprint 2
ft 1,000 3,200 4,200 5,200
$US/m3/d $10,500 $7,000 $6,000 $5,500
Capital Expense
$US/gpd $40 $26 $23 $21
Power kW 30 75 150 220
(Connected) hp 40 100 200 300
August 2012 4‐24

Feasibility Study

Table 20: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Summary
GENERAL
Manufacturers (partial list) GE, Newterra, Siemens, Smith & Loveless, Veolia
Membrane technology more recently developed. Membrane
Technology History
equipment and membranes are proprietary.
PROCESS INFORMATION
Range of Flows 2 – 3,800 m3/day (500 gpd – 1 MGD)
mg/L TN.
achieve 10 mg/L TN.
Achieve Phosphorus Removal Yes, if design for P removal (chemical addition)
Meet Effluent WQ Requirements Yes
Handle Hydraulic Overloading (beyond No, membrane flux defines maximum flow that can pass through
Peak) membrane
Handle Organic Overloading (beyond Yes, will cause more frequent backwashing of membrane
designed loading)
Upstream pump station, Filtrate pump, Aeration, Denitrification, RAS
Process Control
Flow Rate Control
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
COST INFORMATION
(1)
Capital Expense US$5,500 – 10,500/m3/day (US$21 – 40/gpd)
Power (Connected) (1) 30 ‐ 220 kW (40 – 300 hp)
Required for cleaning (sodium hypochlorite, citric acid). P removal.
Chemicals
Sodium hydroxide for pH control.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Time
Daily operations are more automated and require more operator skill
Ease of O&M for troubleshooting than other technologies. Will require attention to
achieve low TN.
Noise
enclosures)
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 4‐25

Feasibility Study

4.2.5 Basis of Cost Information
4.2.5.1 Capital Expenditures
Capital expense information provided herein is based upon information from manufacturers,
wastewater treatment projects recently tendered in the West Bank, and industry information.

As mentioned earlier, information provided from the manufacturers varied. The submitted
information was reviewed and, where necessary, supplemented in order to make the values
able to be compared to one another. Where cost was not included in the proposals, the
following assumptions were made:
 US$530/m3/day (US$2/gpd) for tankage where on‐site tanks must be constructed,
 US$265 – 1,320/m3/day (US $1 ‐ 5/gpd) for site work (depending on amount of field
erection),
 US$130 – 265/m3/day (US $0.50 ‐ $1.00/gpd) for shipping (depending on whether steel
tanks to be shipped or concrete tanks to be built on site),
 US$265 – 790/m3/day (US $1 ‐ $3/gpd) for electrical and instrumentation (depending
on sophistication),
 US$130/m3/day (US $0.50/gpd) for filtration, and
 US$130/m3/day (US $0.50/gpd) for chemical/disinfection systems.

The unit capital expense is provided on a U.S. Dollar per cubic meter per day (and per gallon per
day) basis. As the design flow of a treatment plant increases, the unit capital expense becomes
less because of the economies of scale. For example, extended aeration packaged WWTPs were
estimated to have a unit capital expense ranging from US$3,500 – 5,000/m3/d (US$13 ‐
19/gpd). The lower unit cost is associated with higher flow rates and the higher unit cost is
associated with the lower flow rates. See the examples below:

 80 m3/day (eq. pop. of 1,000) * US$5,000/m3/day = US$400,000 Capital Expense
 200 m3/day (eq. pop. of 2,500) * US$4,500/m3/day = US$900,000 Capital Expense
 400 m3/day (eq. pop. of 5,000) * US$4,000/m3/day = US$1,600,000 Capital Expense
 600 m3/day (eq. pop. of 7,500) * US$3,500/m3/day = US$2,100,000 Capital Expense

During the expat’s trip in June/July 2012, discussions were held with PWA staff on the Al‐Tireh
project and the engineers for the Al‐Reehan development to obtain cost information on WWTP
projects that have recently been tendered. The tendered costs for these projects ranged from
$4,000 ‐ $7,500 / m3. Note that both the Al‐Tireh and Al‐Reehan tenders considered a lower
influent quality and lesser effluent requirements than what is assumed in this Study, and they
were also larger plants utilizing membrane technology.

The capital expense information is based on the anticipated high influent loading and strict
effluent requirements as discussed in Section 3.1.3.2. Once a potential location for a packaged
WWTP is selected, any reduction in the actual design influent loading or effluent requirements
should result in a reduced unit capital expense.

4.2.5.2 Operating Expenditures
Operating expense information provided herein is based upon information on the manpower,
power and chemical consumption, maintenance and solids handling costs. The cost
information was based upon manufacturer‐data and industry information.

This information is provided as a basis of comparison of the technologies and has a general level
of accuracy that is appropriate for a feasibility study of wastewater treatment in a location
August 2012 4‐26

Feasibility Study

where no historical operational data exists on which to base assumptions. Additionally, it is
difficult to accurately predict the operational expenses because of the unknown locations and
operational strategy. Where required, the following assumptions were made:
 US$40,000/year salary for the operational staff,
 Operating power is 50% of the connected power.
 Power cost of 0.6 NIS/kWhr and a conversion of 3.8 NIS/USD.
 Chemical cost of US$0.10/m3 for all technologies except MBR. Assumed a chemical cost
of US$0.15/m3 for MBR to account for chemical cleanings.
 Maintenance cost of US$0.05/m3 for all technologies.
 Solids handling cost of US$0.05/m3 for all technologies.

4.2.6 Packaged WWTP Technologies Evaluation Conclusions
Based on the evaluation of the packaged WWTP technologies, following are the general
conclusions associated with each technology:

 Extended Aeration –Lower CAPEX; lower OPEX; larger footprint.
 Oxidation Ditch – Lower CAPEX at higher flows; lower OPEX; larger footprint;
straightforward process.
 Sequencing Batch Reactor – Lower CAPEX; lower OPEX; smaller footprint; PLC control
required; unique operations with single tank adds complexity.
 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor – Higher CAPEX; higher OPEX; Less temperature dependent
than common AS processes; fine screening required.
 Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge – Higher CAPEX; higher OPEX; less temperature
dependent than common AS processes.
 Membrane Bioreactor – Higher CAPEX; higher OPEX; smaller footprint; consistently high
quality effluent; PLC control required; fine screening required; additional chemicals
required for cleaning.

Note that a reduction in the effluent water quality requirements from those used in the case
studies (such as being able to use low quality reuse for certain agriculture) will result in smaller
CAPEX, OPEX and footprint than what was presented in the case studies.

4.3 Evaluation of Potential Communities

The selection of the communities in which packaged WWTPs may be installed is just as critical
to the success of the implementation as the selection of the treatment technology itself. There
are multiple factors which will make certain communities more appealing and appropriate for
the use of packaged WWTPs. Though the identification and selection of specific communities to
receive packaged WWTPs was not within the scope of this Study, the authors feel it is important
to keep these factors in mind during any future selection process. Some of the key factors are
discussed herein.

4.3.1 Existing Infrastructure
Most types of wastewater treatment require a relatively steady flow of wastewater into the
treatment plant to keep the process biologically active and the water fresh and generally
operate more efficiently. Citizens in communities which do not have a reliable potable water
supply and pipe network are more water‐frugal and therefore produce a lower amount and less
consistent flow of wastewater. Those communities which have a reliable water supply and an
existing potable water pipe network are more likely to have a steady flow of wastewater
available for treatment. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of successful treatment, it is
August 2012 4‐27

Feasibility Study

advised that communities which presently have a reliable potable water pipe network installed
to each building are given priority with respect to receiving a packaged WWTP. If a water
system is planned for a community in the near future, the community may also be given priority
at a lesser degree.

Similarly, it is critical that a community to receive a packaged WWTP have a wastewater
collection system to take wastewater from the source and deliver it directly to the treatment
plant. See Section 5.1 for a more detailed discussion of wastewater collection systems.

4.3.2 Population
Packaged WWTPs are optimized when operating at certain flow ranges and biological loading.
Each type of technology, and potentially each manufacturer’s model, may have a different flow
range at which it operates at optimum efficiencies. Based on the information provided by the
manufacturers with respect to appropriate flow ranges and loading, it is noted that packaged
WWTPs in the West Bank appear to be most appropriate for communities with less than 7,500
people. As the required design flow increases, the implementation of a packaged WWTP may
change from single packaged units to those that would incorporate multiple trains/units.
Additionally, the use of modular packaged WWTPs or field‐erected structures could also be
necessary at higher flows. The actual implementation of a packaged WWTP at any design flow
would depend on the technology selected, manufacturer’s capabilities and the community
geography.

4.3.3 Potential Growth
Many West Bank communities are expected to have growth in population over time. A suitable
community for a packaged WWTP is one that is not anticipated to grow beyond that which
would result in a flow beyond the capacity of the WWTP during the expected design life of the
facility. This limitation is recommended so that any future expansion needed during the design
life of a facility would be within the flows able to be reasonably treated by a packaged WWTP.

4.3.4 Potential for Reuse
Use of the treated wastewater will be determined by the agricultural water needs of the land in
the immediate vicinity of the community at which a packaged WWTP is located. The MoA has
defined the acceptable uses for treated wastewater and the water quality requirements which
must be met in Palestinian National Authority TR 34‐2012. Areas with agriculture that is
appropriate for reuse, such as olives, dates, and almonds, will allow for the treated wastewater
to be reused locally, offsetting the demand for potable water normally required by agriculture.
Treated wastewater in communities that do not have agriculture appropriate for reuse would
likely be disposed of in the nearest wadi unless another option for reuse is identified. The
intended use or disposal method for the treated wastewater should be determined during the
design phase, since it could impact the required effluent quality, and the location of the
packaged WWTP determined based on this information. It is recommended that priority is
given to those communities that have agriculture in close proximity which meets the
requirements for reuse, and where the community has a need and interest in reusing the treated
wastewater.

4.3.5 Community Interest
The success of the implementation of a packaged WWTP being installed and operated within a
community will be heavily dependent on the community’s interest and support. The Local
Government would need to be involved in the coordination of many critical issues with respect
August 2012 4‐28

Feasibility Study

to the needs of their constituents, requirements for the construction of the packaged WWTP,
and communication with all parties during operation of the packaged WWTP. Additionally, the
Local Government will be critical in communicating between their constituents and USAID to
provide a packaged WWTP that has the best chances for success over its life. Therefore, it is
imperative that the implementation of a packaged WWTP system has the support of the Local
Government and the community members.

4.3.6 Land Availability
In general, the anticipated footprint of a packaged WWTP for small communities is relatively
small as compared to a larger regional‐type WWTP. Packaged WWTPs have differing land
requirements depending on the technology utilized. The anticipated footprints are presented in
Subsection 4.2. Land will be required for the packaged WWTP and ancillary equipment. The
location of the land should be based on the geography of the collection basin and the intended
use of the treated wastewater. In general, treatment plants should be located downstream of
the community it serves to take advantage of gravity in the collection system to minimize
pumping. If the treated wastewater will be reused, the proximity to the agricultural area shall
also be taken into consideration. If the treated wastewater is to be discharged, the packaged
WWTP should be located near the wadi, in an area above the flood level.

A feasible community will be one which has land available for the construction of a packaged
WWTP at an appropriate location.

4.3.7 Geopolitical Location
Areas within the West Bank are described as A, B or C depending on how much authority and
control the Palestinian Authority (PA) has. Those areas classified as Area A are theoretically
under total PA control. As such, projects within Area A should have minimal Israeli influence,
except as related to Joint Water Committee approval for the project and the import of materials
to the West Bank. It is recommended that communities for which a collection system, packaged
WWTP and any associated infrastructure are wholly located in Area A are given priority for
selection to receive a packaged WWTP.
August 2012 4‐29

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 5.0 Additional Topics
Feasibility Study

5.0 Additional Topics
This section provides some general discussion of various topics that are related to WWTPs and
were considered to some extent during this Study.
5.1 Collection Systems

Wastewater collection systems are pipe networks that collect raw wastewater from sources
such as houses, schools, businesses and industrial locations and transport it to a location for
treatment and/or disposal. In developed countries, it is the industry‐standard to transport raw
wastewater to a treatment plant before the treated wastewater is discharged or reused.

Collection systems in the West Bank predominantly exist in major cities and some medium‐
sized cities. In general, collection systems discharge untreated wastewater to the local wadi.
For example, approximately half of the raw wastewater generated in the city of Jerusalem is
discharged to Wadi al Nar (see Figure 17), which flows to the Dead Sea and passes many
communities along the way.

Figure 17: Raw Wastewater in Wadi al Nar

In the majority of West Bank communities, no collection system exists. Septic tanks, which
operate more like cesspits, are used at each building. No leach field is associated with the
cesspits. Each owner of a cesspit is responsible to have their tank cleaned (typically by a
vacuum truck) in order to remove solids and liquid from the tank and prevent overflows from
occurring.

In general, wastewater treatment processes require a relatively consistent flow of raw
wastewater into the WWTP. For biological processes, this is necessary in order to keep the
biology fresh and water moving through the system. It would not be ideal to only collect raw
wastewater from cesspits and truck the wastewater to a WWTP because this would not provide
a consistent flow of wastewater to the plant.

As described in Subsection 3.1.3.4 Existing WWTPs Operating in the West Bank, there is a
packaged WWTP installed in Nahhalin (funded by ARIJ) which was not successful (see Figure
18). One of the modes of failure was that no collection system exists or was constructed for the
village, and wastewater was trucked to the packaged WWTP resulting in very inconsistent flow
through the packaged WWTP. This type of scenario should not be repeated in the future.

August 2012 5‐1

Feasibility Study

Figure 18: Nahhalin Packaged WWTP

Therefore, it is recommended that any community evaluated for a packaged WWTP either
already have a collection system installed, will have a collection system in place by the time a
packaged WWTP is installed, or a collection system is designed and constructed along with the
packaged WWTP design and construction.

Based on information from the PWA, it appears that it is a goal of the PWA for collection systems
to be installed in locations where they will serve at least 80% of the potential users. This can
prove challenging for some communities due to the mountainous terrain. Through the use of
packaged WWTPs and strategic site locations, it may be possible to serve 100% of a community
with a collection system. Therefore, it is recommended that selection of feasible packaged
WWTP sites include an evaluation of the potential collection system layout, and those
communities which can achieve 100% of the area serviced (potentially by more than one
packaged WWTP) be given priority.

In the U.S., the majority of collection systems involve a combination of gravity sewers and force
mains. Gravity sewers are a network of pipes and manholes in which the raw wastewater flows
by gravity to the end location. Force mains are pressurized pipes in which raw wastewater is
pumped from a pump station to the end location. Another feature that can be implemented to
maximize the use of gravity sewers is a lift station. Lift stations are pump stations that “lift”
wastewater from the low elevation at the end of one gravity system to a high elevation at the
start of another gravity system. During design of a collection system, it is ideal to maximize the
use of gravity sewers because of the power consumption and operational and maintenance
needs associated with pump stations. Gravity sewers may require periodic cleaning to reduce
solids deposition, grease accumulation and the potential for clogging of the pipes.

5.2 Operation and Maintenance of Packaged WWTPs

Operation and maintenance (O&M) of WWTPs is critical to achieving the desired level of
treatment and longevity of the facility, and this is especially true for packaged WWTPs. O&M
will include tasks that should occur at regular intervals (preventative) as well as urgent items
that are not expected (emergency). O&M is commonly referred to as one item, but they are
actually two unique, but related, topics.

 Operation of a WWTP includes monitoring and changing the treatment process so that it
is in a state that will produce the desired quality of treated wastewater and work as
efficiently as possible. Operation includes both general housekeeping and process‐
control tasks. Operators will need to adjust the treatment process in order to optimize
August 2012 5‐2

Feasibility Study

treatment. The EPA “Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs” Fact Sheet states
that “…[Biological Nutrient Removal] BNR processes are very sensitive to influent
conditions which are influenced by weather events, sludge processing, and other
treatment processes (e.g., recycling after filter backwashing).” Examples of operational
tasks include adjusting the amount of aeration, wasting activated sludge, or adjusting a
chemical feed rate.
 Maintenance includes both preventative maintenance (i.e., planned maintenance) and
maintenance of items that need attention. Examples of maintenance tasks include
listening to the sounds of a piece of equipment in operation to determine if anything has
changed, repacking pump seals after a certain number of hours of operation, or fixing
damaged/inoperable equipment.

Preventative maintenance (PM) performed on packaged WWTP equipment will extend the life
of the equipment and maximize the cost benefit of the overall project. Each type of technology
has certain key components which need PM to prevent costly emergency repairs or
replacements, such as:

 Extended aeration ‐ blowers and RAS pumps,
 Oxidation ditch – aerators and RAS pumps,
 SBR – aeration equipment, PLC, automated valves and decanters,
 MBBR – blowers and waste pumps,
 IFAS – blowers and RAS pumps, and
 MBR – membranes, filtrate pumps, PLC.

In almost every instance of WWTP ownership and operation, PM is more cost‐effective than
operating equipment until failure, forcing new equipment acquisition and often requiring
emergency measures.

Providing the appropriate number and type of personnel to operate and maintain WWTPs is a
key part of a successful WWTP O&M program. Too few personnel will result in actions either
not being accomplished, or the operators may be rushed to completion resulting in poor work
quality. On the other side of the staffing challenge, an over‐staffed WWTP program will have
higher than necessary labor costs. Thus, matching operations and maintenance personnel
staffing to the work task requirements is essential not only for financial reasons but also for the
overall health of the WWTP work force. To assist WWTP owners/managers in managing their
work forces, the amount of work that must be performed is often quantified into an industry
accepted unit – the Full Time Equivalent.

A full time equivalent (FTE) is the theoretical number of full‐time employees required to
perform the work during a fixed time period, such as one week, one month, or one year. FTE
simplifies work measurement by converting work load hours into the number of people
required to complete that work. For packaged WWTPs, it is anticipated that one packaged
WWTP will require less than one FTE. Therefore, it will be most effective to have an O&M staff
that handles multiple packaged WWTPs in an area that can be traveled to daily. Operators
would be assigned to monitor multiple packaged WWTPs, which would likely include visiting
each one daily. Operator responsibilities should incorporate the geopolitical restrictions on
travel within the West Bank. For the purposes of this Study, it was assumed that one FTE would
work eight (8) hours per day for five (5) days per week.

In addition to determining the number of operators necessary to staff potential packaged
WWTPs, it is also necessary to determine the organizational structure under which the
operators will be employed. During the expats’ visits, it was understood that the government
August 2012 5‐3

Feasibility Study

structures that currently exist have limitations on the pay scales that could be offered to this
type of employee. Further, it was indicated that individuals that receive training on operator
skills may become motivated to seek work elsewhere to access higher pay, as people are
generally more willing to travel for well‐paid employment. This situation may lead to a
situation in which staff is not able to be retained.

In the U.S. and other countries with mature wastewater sectors, many WWTPs are operated by
private companies. Operating companies are contracted by the WWTP owners to perform the
O&M on the WWTP. These companies provide training to their employees and the support
necessary to grow a skilled operator work‐force. At this time, it is recommended that USAID
and PWA continue to evaluate the organizational structure under which WWTP operators
would be employed and consider the potential for a private company to take on that
responsibility.

5.3 Reuse
In many water‐scarce locations around the world, wastewater is treated to standards that allow
it to be reused as an alternate water source. The standards which govern the level to which
wastewater is treated must be carefully defined in order to protect the environment and the
health and wellness of citizens. In the West Bank, extremely arid areas such as the Jericho
Governorate may be motivated to implement reuse because of the lack of water resources.
Other areas may be interested in reuse to offset the use of water for agricultural needs or for
other environmental goals. The MoA has defined the requirements surrounding the reuse of
treated wastewater in Palestinian National Authority TR 34‐2012. This document defines four
(4) different categories of effluent requirements to which wastewater must be treated in order
to be reused, each of which is appropriate for application with certain types of agriculture and
irrigation methods.

When it is determined that a specific packaged WWTP will be implemented, it is recommended
that the likely location of the packaged WWTP is determined in the planning phase, prior to the
design. Additionally, the types of agriculture available and the desire for reuse by the local
government should be determined during the planning phase. This will define the effluent
requirements for each particular location and the potential types of technology that may
effectively meet those effluent requirements. During the preliminary engineering phase of
design, the process selection can be made based on the appropriate effluent requirements.

5.4 Emergency Operations

Operation of a packaged WWTP during an emergency is something that should be evaluated
beforehand and planned for, to the extent possible. Development of an Emergency Response
Plan (ERP) is an industry best practice that should be undertaken with participation from the
Owner, design engineer, manufacturer and operator. An ERP will outline potential
classifications of emergencies and the appropriate actions to be taken during a specific
emergency. It will also define how to return to normal operation once the emergency has
ended. Information such as personnel phone numbers, medical resources, material safety data
sheets, etc. are included in the ERP. Emergencies that affect operation may result from natural
events (excessive rainfall), onsite accidents (personnel injury, chemical spill), offsite events
(short‐term or long‐term electrical source failure, blocked access to WWTP site, loss of
communications, personnel absence), and WWTP events (process failure, equipment failure,
effluent requirements not met, WWTP overloading).

August 2012 5‐4

Feasibility Study

When evaluating different potential treatment technologies for the purpose of this Study, it is
important to understand how each technology would likely respond during different types of
emergencies. Also, it is necessary to understand how the technology will recover after an
incident has occurred. For instance, a power outage may cause a certain technology to shut
down, but the wastewater will continue to flow by gravity through the process. When power is
returned, the technology will return to processing the wastewater. A different type of
technology may overflow onto the facility site during a power outage or have more difficulty
returning to “normal” operation. The manufacturers were asked to identify potential critical
emergency scenarios that would cause a significant disruption to the WWTPs. The scenarios
that were identified included a long‐term power outage and lack of O&M. A discussion of how
each technology would handle a long‐term power outage is presented in Subsection 4.2.

5.5 Future Expansion

Where it is anticipated that the population of a certain community could grow beyond the
design capacity of a packaged WWTP, allowances should be made during design to expand the
facility relatively easily to accommodate the additional flow. Some of the allowances made
during design could include allocation of land for additional equipment, piping in a manner that
will allow future expansion, and sizing the electrical supply to allow for the expansion. At the
time when a specific community is identified for a packaged WWTP, it should be determined
whether the design should include allowances for future expansion.

Packaged WWTPs can also be used as a short‐term or interim solution in advance of longer‐
term regionalization plans. For instance, in the U.S. packaged WWTPs are often installed along
with associated collection systems during the development of new communities/subdivisions.
This allows residences and businesses in the development to receive sewage collection and
treatment services quickly. Over time, as a city/community develops further, a larger WWTP
may be constructed to handle a larger population from a more regional area. At this point,
packaged WWTPs may be decommissioned or the sites converted to pump stations to send flow
to the regional WWTP. Depending on the exact type and configuration of plant, it may be
possible for smaller packaged WWTPs to be relocated and used at other locations fairly easily.
This could be an appropriate application in the West Bank, considering that there are long‐term
plans to build a number of regional WWTPs. Packaged WWTPs could be installed relatively
quickly to provide service for communities that are within the boundaries of planned regional
WWTPs, and once the regionalization process occurs at some point in the future and the
necessary infrastructure is put in place, the packaged WWTPs can be decommissioned or
relocated.

5.6 Sludge
Sludge is made up of the residual solids that are removed from wastewater. Packaged WWTPs
usually include a tank in which the sludge that is removed from the process is stored until the
operator is ready to dispose of it. Packaged WWTPs usually do not include an onsite sludge
processing facility because the land and/or equipment requirements do not have an economical
cost/benefit ratio for the amount of sludge produced.

Sludge must be removed from the process for treatment to be optimized. Some technologies
allow for periodic removal of the sludge, while some technologies require regular removal of
sludge. Sludge must be handled and disposed of properly, according to local regulations. Sludge
leaving a packaged WWTP will typically have a solids content of approximately one percent
(1%), which is still handled as a liquid and would need to be transported with a tanker truck.
The sludge would need to be further processed with a method such as drying beds or belt filter
August 2012 5‐5

Feasibility Study

presses. Research indicates that drying beds are currently in use at WWTPs in the West Bank.
Additionally, one of the expats observed belt filter presses in use to handle waste from stone‐
cutting facilities in Hebron, and belt filter presses were also in use at the Al‐Bireh WWTP during
a previous B&V site visit.

In the U.S., it is common practice for the sludge from packaged WWTPs to be transported via
tanker truck to a regional WWTP which has a sludge processing facility. For potential packaged
WWTPs in the West Bank, the process for sludge handling will need to be determined during the
planning phase. This may include identifying a regional WWTP which is willing to accept sludge
for processing, or it may involve construction of a sludge processing facility specifically for
processing of sludge from multiple packaged WWTPs. As indicated earlier, the cost/benefit
ratio for a sludge processing facility will become more reasonable for the treatment of larger
quantities of sludge than just that from one packaged WWTP. For some locations in the West
Bank, it may be necessary to include drying beds at the site of the packaged WWTP, depending
on the likelihood of sludge‐hauling and identification of an appropriate processing facility.

Figure 19: Example of Sludge Drying Beds

Research has indicated that dried sludge may be disposed of in landfills in the West Bank.
During the design phase, it would be critical to identify the landfill that would be appropriate for
sludge 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 when
appropriate environmental regulations are defined.

5.7 Funding
Funding for wastewater infrastructure improvements is critical for both the capital and
operational expenditures. In general, capital expenditures (CAPEX) include the amount
required to design and construct a WWTP and collection system. Once a WWTP is handed over
to the Owner, the operational expenses begin and continue throughout the life of the WWTP.
Operational expenditures (OPEX) include items such as energy usage, manpower, chemicals and
sludge hauling. A steady stream of income to the Owner organization is required in order to
fund the OPEX.

The determination of whether to build a WWTP and collection system should be based on a
cost/benefit analysis. For the wastewater sector in the West Bank, there appears to be a
substantial environmental and social benefit that would result from these improvements. The
consideration of whether packaged WWTPs or regionalized WWTPs is appropriate would
include an evaluation of the economies of scale and also the additional communities that would
benefit from wastewater treatment. Regarding the economies of scale, packaged WWTPs are
smaller and generally serve a smaller population than conventional regionalized plants.
August 2012 5‐6

Feasibility Study

Therefore, it is expected that packaged WWTPs do not benefit from economies of scale and will
be more expensive than regionalized WWTPs when viewed on a U.S. Dollar per cubic meter per
day basis. If the evaluation includes the costs associated with developing the related collection
systems, the cost per volume may become more in line with one another. Even considering a
potentially higher unit cost, the most beneficial aspect of the scale of a packaged WWTP is that it
will allow for communities that may not be planned for connection to regionalized WWTPs to
receive service. As stated in Subsection 2.5, greater than 85% of communities in the West Bank
have a 2012 population less than 7,500 people, and these communities contain 40% of the
population of the West Bank. Additionally, packaged WWTPs provide an opportunity to begin
developing the wastewater sector by creating a collection system and implementing treatment
until such a time that the community is connected to a regionalized WWTP.

OPEX associated with a packaged WWTP will be the responsibility of the organization to which
ownership of the infrastructure is transferred. As with the water systems, a method for
collecting user fees will need to be established. At this time, individual users are generally
responsible 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 to
allocating a monthly payment for wastewater service and therefore would likely be willing to
redirect their expenses to a wastewater utility/user fee. Educating users on the need for
wastewater collection systems and treatment will assist in gaining support of the wastewater
fees and the potential increase that a household may see in the amount of money they allocate
towards wastewater.

5.8 Transportation and Import

For the purposes of any project which may be constructed through USAID, the manufacturer
would need to meet the “Buy American” requirements. Therefore, it appears that the majority
of manufacturers would ship pre‐packaged tanks and/or containers from their factory located
somewhere in the U.S. This would likely require over‐land shipping to the appropriate U.S. port,
over‐sea shipping to a nearby port (e.g., Ashdod, Ashkelon, Hadera or Haifa), and over‐land
shipping to the packaged WWTP site. The tanks/containers will go through Israeli customs and
may travel through multiple Israeli‐controlled check‐points in the West Bank.

5.8.1 Transportation
The pre‐packaged tanks and containers will be, at a maximum, the standard shipping size. This
will 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 be
shipped as‐is and also potentially use the space inside of the tanks for shipping of ancillary
equipment. Where a manufacturer is shipping pre‐fabricated steel and other equipment to be
field‐erected/installed, it will be placed in a standard container for shipping. Packaged WWTPs
that are factory‐built will require more shipping since the components are mostly assembled;
however, the site work will be minimized. Packaged WWTPs that are field‐erected will require
less shipping since the components will not be assembled and potentially able to be packaged in
a more efficient manner; however, more site work will be necessary to install the WWTP.

Over‐land shipping through the West Bank will likely require the approved use of Israeli‐
controlled roads. Some Palestinian roads are excessively narrow and winding and will prevent
safe transport of the WWTP.

August 2012 5‐7

Feasibility Study

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

5.8.2 Import
Based on information received from USAID, Israel has adopted the Wassenaar Arrangement via
their Control on Military Exports (Controlled Dual Use Equipment) Order 2008. The Wassenaar
Arrangement is an international agreement on the control and import/export of certain items.
There are approximately 50 countries which are participating in this arrangement (including
the U.S., but Israel is not a participating state). In addition to the regulations stipulated by the
Wassenaar Arrangement, Israel has also indicated that an additional 54 products are controlled.

In general, dual‐use equipment is defined as equipment which can be used for both peaceful and
military purposes. Review of the Wassenaar Arrangement and the additional products
controlled by Israel indicate that there are a few items related to wastewater treatment which
may receive additional scrutiny during import and possible rejection.

 Sulfuric Acid,
 Hydrogen Peroxide,
 Potassium Permanganate,
 Metal pipes of 50 – 200 mm (2 – 8 inch) radius, and
 Roller bearings of 6 mm (0.25 inch) diameter.

It is possible that there are additional items which are also regulated by these restrictions. To
minimize the potential for packaged WWTP equipment to be rejected by Israeli customs, it is
critical that the list of restricted items is communicated with any potential manufacturers, and
the use of any of these items is identified during design. Additionally, it is recommended that
USAID determine whether items that are regulated and are required for the construction of a
WWTP or collection system would be prohibited or if exceptions are able to be arranged.

5.9 Spare Parts

Spare parts are those items kept on hand, in addition to the equipment actually in operation, for
use if and when an item needs maintenance or replacement. This may include certain types of
equipment, certain parts of equipment and any special tools required to work on the equipment.
Manufacturers commonly recommend the spare parts to be kept on hand for their equipment.
When a manufacturer or operator of a WWTP determines the spare parts that are needed, they
generally consider the following categories:

 equipment or components which requires frequent maintenance,
 equipment or components which would be needed immediately if maintenance was
required in order to continue treatment, or
August 2012 5‐8

Feasibility Study

 equipment or components which would take a very long time to acquire.

For packaged WWTPs in the West Bank, it is necessary to consider the spare parts that are
available within the region and those that are not commonly available. Additionally, it may
prove cost‐effective to keep one group of spare parts centrally located for a group of similarly‐
equipped WWTPs. For instance, three (3) MBR WWTPs located within a reasonable distance
from one another may share spare parts.

The manufacturers were requested to provide a list of their recommended spare parts and this
information is included in the Appendices.

5.10 Redundancy
Depending on Owner‐requirements, location and treatment goals, WWTPs may be designed to
provide redundancy in the treatment process. Redundancy within a WWTP refers to the ability
of treatment to continue while certain pieces of equipment are out of service. In certain critical
facilities, a very high redundancy rate is required, and all equipment is installed in duplicate.
However, most WWTPs do not require this type of redundancy. Another way to provide
redundancy is to install multiple parallel trains of equipment so that one may be taken offline
and allow some level of treatment to continue. For instance, the headworks of a large WWTP
may include a channel in which a mechanical bar screen operates and a bypass channel which
allows flow to go through a manual bar screen during times when the mechanical bar screen
needs service. Designing for redundancy is common in larger WWTPs.

For packaged WWTPs, designing for redundancy is not as common and may be more difficult to
implement considering that the processes come as a package. For potential locations for
implementation of packaged WWTPs, it should be determined whether it would be acceptable
for the entire packaged WWTP to be bypassed during times when the WWTP is offline (such as
for maintenance), and raw wastewater is diverted to a wadi or other disposal location. If this is
not acceptable, the types of redundancy required will need to be determined during the design.

5.11 Environmental Aspects

It is anticipated that an environmental review will be required by USAID and MEnA for any
potential packaged WWTP locations. Additionally, if the land is not designated for municipal
waste, the site selection would likely need permitting approval through the Joint Water
Committee.

An environmental review may include an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and/or an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Per USAID and MEnA, an IEE shall be performed on
“projects where significant environmental impacts are uncertain, or where compliance with
environmental regulations must be ensured.” Also per USAID and MEnA, an EIA shall be
performed on “projects which are likely to have significant environmental impacts. An EIA may
be carried out as a result of an IEE.” Therefore, it is recommended that an IEE is performed as a
part of the Preliminary Design Phase for the selected site of a packaged WWTP.

5.12 Sustainability
Sustainability of a WWTP is an important concept to be considered during the design of a
facility. A WWTP should be designed to provide a treatment plant that is able to operate
throughout the intended design‐life in a manner that maximizes sustainability and therefore
maximizes the benefit to the Owner. Sustainability may be evaluated on different aspects of a
August 2012 5‐9

Feasibility Study

WWTP and the operational expenditures. There are two (2) potential methods to minimize
OPEX and therefore make a WWTP more sustainable for the Owner. The first method involves
methods to minimize the OPEX and the second method involves methods to offset the OPEX.

Minimizing the OPEX is a goal of all Owners and is affected by decisions made during design as
well as during operation.
 During design, the selection of treatment processes may be made to minimize the use of
consumables such as electricity and / or chemicals.
 The use of spare parts can be made more sustainable by selecting treatment processes
and the equipment with common spare parts and possibly are common to multiple
WWTPs located in a certain area. This will reduce the amount of spare parts that need
to be kept on hand.
 The selection of equipment can give preference to those types that have spare parts
readily available in the West Bank or surrounding areas in order to minimize the time
and transport necessary.
 Treatment processes may be selected which minimize the operator attention required
and therefore reduce the manpower needed.

Offsetting the OPEX involves the installation of equipment which can take advantage of on‐site
renewable energy sources which will offset the use of consumables, specifically electricity. The
most likely candidates for on‐site renewable energy sources for WWTP locations in the West
Bank include solar energy, wind energy and conversion of methane gas to energy. Solar panels
are currently utilized in the West Bank as a common practice. However, they are generally used
in small applications such as for heating residential water. The land that would be required to
power a WWTP by either solar or wind energy would be much more significant. Large‐scale
power generation by photovoltaic cells or wind farms is not commonly practiced in the West
Bank and would be a new concept to be explored. The applicability of these technologies at a
WWTP site would need to be determined once a specific site is selected and the land availability
is determined.

Another renewable energy source that is available at a WWTP is the conversion of methane gas
into energy. Methane gas is created during anaerobic digestion and can be reused as an
alternative energy source. See Section 4.1.2.4 Anaerobic Processes for discussion of an
anaerobic treatment process.

August 2012 5‐10

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 6.0 Summary of Results
Feasibility Study

6.0 Summary of Results
6.1 Feasibility of Packaged WWTPs in the West Bank

This Study has determined that the use of certain packaged WWTP technologies in the West
Bank is a feasible method for continuing to develop the emerging wastewater sector. Further,
packaged WWTP technologies will be most successful if first implemented in communities that
have a certain geopolitical and physical environment.

In addition to packaged WWTP equipment, a successful packaged WWTP may incorporate
different treatment steps to optimize treatment, including pre‐treatment, chemical addition,
filtration and/or disinfection. Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse
screening at a minimum. Depending on the wastewater characteristics and technology
requirements, other pre‐treatment may be required, which could include an unloading station,
equalization tank, grease trap, fine screening and/or grit removal. Chemical addition may be
required to optimize phosphorus removal, pH control, or cleaning of membranes. Also, filters
and disinfection may be required to meet certain effluent requirements.

6.2 Feasible Technologies

Packaged WWTPs may be implemented with various different technologies. This Study
evaluated a full range of the available processes. One of the technologies does not appear to be
feasible for implementation as a packaged WWTP in the West Bank at this time for the following
reason:

 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket – UASB is not appropriate for implementation in the
West Bank at this time because of the lack of established manufacturers for this type of
equipment. There is reasonable potential for the successful use of UASB in the West
Bank in the warmer areas (such as Jericho). However, it is recommended that
implementation of packaged WWTPs related to this Study begin with those technologies
that have established manufacturers to assist in a successful implementation.

Multiple packaged WWTP technologies appear to be feasible when evaluated against general
West Bank requirements. However, each of these technologies is not necessarily feasible or
appropriate at all locations throughout the West Bank; it will be necessary to select specific
potential communities for implementation and then determine the technology(ies) that are
most appropriate for that location. The packaged WWTP technologies which may have
application in the West Bank include:

1. Extended Aeration,
2. Oxidation Ditch,
3. Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR),
4. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR),
5. Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated Sludge (IFAS), and
6. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR).

6.3 Feasible Manufacturers

There are many potential manufacturers for the packaged WWTP processes that may be
implemented. For the purposes of any project which may be constructed through USAID, the
manufacturer would need to meet the “Buy American” requirements. Additionally,
manufacturers should be established and able to provide installation histories that demonstrate
August 2012 6‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 6.0 Summary of Results
Feasibility Study

their ability to successfully provide the equipment. The manufacturer’s installation history
should be given additional attention if the equipment is proprietary in order to confirm that the
technology will meet the long‐term goals of the project. However, because of the limited history
of wastewater treatment in the West Bank, a particular manufacturer’s lack of history in the
West Bank should not necessarily preclude them from being considered for use.

The manufacturers that participated in this Study represent only a small subset of the available
manufacturers that can provide packaged WWTP technologies. These manufacturers should
not be considered as an all‐encompassing list.

6.4 Feasible Communities

The selection of communities to receive packaged WWTPs is just as critical to successful
implementation as selection of the treatment technology itself. Packaged WWTPs will likely be
most successful if implemented in communities with the following characteristics:

 population range of less than 7,500 people preferred,
 not anticipated to expand beyond the maximum capacity of the selected technology
during the expected 20‐year design life of the facility,
 located in Area A,
 reliable potable water pipe network installed to each building or planned to be
constructed in the near future,
 collection system installed to each building, planned to be constructed by the time a
packaged WWTP is installed, or a collection system is designed and constructed along
with the packaged WWTP,
 can achieve connection of 80 ‐ 100% of the area to a collection system and WWTP
(potentially by more than one packaged WWTP),
 implementation of a packaged WWTP system has the support of the Local Government
and community members,
 land is available for the construction of a packaged WWTP at an appropriate location
(i.e., downstream of the community and in close proximity to agriculture or a wadi,
depending on the intended use or discharge of the treated wastewater),
 in an area where multiple WWTP sites will be located near one another so that O&M
may be accomplished more efficiently by one group of operators, and
 have agriculture which meets the requirements for reuse and where the community has
a need and interest in reusing the treated wastewater.

August 2012 6‐2

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Feasibility Study

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
The key conclusions from this assessment are:

1. Cesspits appear to be prevalent throughout the West Bank and may be contributing to
2. All of the local authorities with whom meetings were held appear to be in favor of the
use of packaged WWTPs where determined to be feasible. When the Draft Study was
presented to the various stakeholder organizations, they all agreed to set a future
meeting at which selection criteria would be developed to determine potential pilot
study communities in which to implement packaged WWTPs.
3. Influent wastewater is expected to be very highly concentrated relative to typical levels
used (e.g., 3 to 4 times higher).
4. Pre‐treatment at any packaged WWTP will include coarse screening at a minimum.
treatment may be required, which could include an unloading station, equalization tank,
grease trap, fine screening and/or grit removal.
5. Stringent effluent wastewater requirements, coupled with the anticipated highly
concentrated influent, may require tertiary treatment to be included.
6. Multiple packaged WWTP technologies appear to be feasible when evaluated against
general West Bank requirements, including extended aeration systems, oxidation
ditches, sequencing batch reactors, moving bed biofilm reactors, integrated fixed‐film
activated sludge systems, and membrane bioreactors.
7. There are many potential manufacturers for the packaged WWTP processes that may be
implemented. While installation history in the West Bank is limited because of the
limited wastewater sector development, all of the large, well‐established manufacturers
that were contacted as a part of this Study have a presence in the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) and expressed an interest in working in the West Bank.
8. There are a large number of communities which have a population in a range that may
be serviced by a packaged WWTP (less than 7,500 people preferred). Communities of
this size contain 40% of the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Additionally,
certain geopolitical and physical characteristics will provide a better opportunity for
successful implementation and should be taken into account when selecting potential
communities for packaged WWTP implementation.
9. The existence of a wastewater collection system is a critical component for a WWTP to
operate successfully.
10. Use of chemicals should be carefully considered both in terms of the handling that may
11. Proper O&M is critical to the successful implementation of packaged WWTPs.
12. Packaged WWTPs are able to produce reuse‐quality effluent when designed and
operated properly.
13. In addition to being a permanent solution for some communities, packaged WWTPs can
also be used as a short‐term solution to “fill the gap” between septic tanks/systems and
large, regional WWTPs.

7.2 Recommendations
Considering that it has been determined feasible to utilize packaged WWTPs in the West Bank,
and given the many benefits for Palestinians that would result, it is strongly encouraged to
proceed with implementing collection systems and packaged WWTPs in appropriate
August 2012 7‐1

Feasibility Study

communities. The following recommendations are made to further develop this concept into
constructible projects:

1. B&V/Trigon will work with USAID, PWA and other stakeholder agencies to develop
specific criteria to identify actual communities appropriate for utilizing a packaged
WWTP successfully. Based on the results, USAID / PWA should select one (1) or two (2)
communities to receive pilot packaged WWTPs and move into the planning phase.

2. Perform Planning Phase that includes the following:
o determine the design flow for the packaged WWTPs,
o perform sampling to identify influent water quality at each of the communities if
possible. Otherwise use estimates from this Study,
o determine whether each community has an opportunity for reuse based on local
agriculture. If so, identify the preferred mode of reuse,
o determine the effluent requirements,
o determine which technologies are appropriate for specific locations and water
quality requirements,
o identify whether there is a regional WWTP within an appropriate distance that is
willing to accept sludge for processing,
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
WWTP site will be necessary,
o identify landfills for sludge disposal and begin identifying any permitting
requirements,
o identify potential sites for packaged WWTPs,
o if a collection system does not exist, perform a conceptual design to estimate
requirements,
o determine the peaking factor to be utilized in design based on the population to
be served and the collection system size.

3. Perform a Preliminary Design Phase that includes the following:
o determine whether the WWTP would likely require expansion over the design
life,
o determine which specific technology/process type will be used for each
community,
o determine what types of pre‐treatment are necessary depending on the influent
characteristics and the specific technology/process requirements,
o determine whether it would be acceptable to overflow to a wadi during periods
when the WWTP is offline (such as for maintenance) or if the WWTP needs to be
designed with redundancy,
o determine specific site and confirm land availability,
o perform an Initial Environmental Examination of the selected site,
o obtain survey data of communities,
o perform preliminary design and determine an opinion of probable construction
cost and land requirements,
o further refine design of collection system.

4. Perform a Final Design Phase that includes the following:
o design of packaged WWTPs,
o design of associated collection system,
o perform an Environmental Impact Assessment, if required,
August 2012 7‐2

Feasibility Study

o identification of any dual‐use materials and coordination with USAID to
determine approval for import,
o development of RFTOP, and
o development of draft Emergency Response Plan to be finalized by operator once
packaged WWTP is in operation.

In addition to this suggested phased process for implementing packaged WWTPs and associated
collection systems, there are several items which were beyond the scope of this Study that
should be addressed at a high‐level because they will have an impact on the successful
implementation of this work. Addressing these items will likely involve a number of entities,
such as USAID, the PA (including multiple Ministries, Authorities and Departments), and
support from the INP II staff. Additionally, there are other related entities, such as the
Technical, Planning, and Advisory Team (TPAT) and the Wastewater Advisory Committee
(WWAC) which are working to advance the wastewater sector in the West Bank and with whom
discussion on these items should be coordinated. All of these items could be considered part of
establishing the overall governmental/regulatory framework under which the packaged
WWTPs and collection systems would be designed, built, operated and maintained.

1. Determine who will own the WWTPs and/or collection systems (e.g., local municipality,
MoLG, PWA, etc.).
2. Determine who will be responsible for O&M of the WWTPs and/or collection systems
(e.g., local municipality, MoLG, PWA, private contractor, etc.).
3. Determine how the capital expenses and ongoing O&M expenses will be funded (e.g.,
donor agencies, user fees, etc.).

August 2012 7‐3

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II 8.0 Appendix A: Manufacturer Request for
Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Information
Feasibility Study

8.0 Appendix A: Manufacturer Request for Information

A request for information was sent via email to the manufacturers to obtain information. The
request included a summary of the purpose of this Study, the assumed influent water quality,
required effluent water quality, and a request for information about the potential technologies
offered by each manufacturer. Additionally, a list of questions was sent to get detailed
information about the manufacturing, shipping, construction and operation of each technology.
Finally, four (4) case studies were defined in which four different theoretical design flow rates
were given and preliminary design information and capital cost was requested. The purpose of
the four case studies is to be able to compare the effectiveness of a certain technology at
different flow rates and also to compare different technologies to one another at the same flow
rate. The request for information is provided below.

Trigon is partnered with Black and Veatch on a Program in the West Bank 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 Greg and 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 the West
Bank 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
BOD5 815 mg/L
TSS 940 mg/L
TN 165 mg/L
TP 25 mg/L

The following effluent water quality requirements can be considered as a target. We are interested
in understanding the effluent quality to which your equipment can treat. There are a few levels of
effluent water quality, which are slightly less strict than these values, which may be suitable for
certain areas depending on the land and crops available for irrigation.

August 2012 8‐1

Feasibility Study

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

Population of 1,000 = ADF 21,000 gpd

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
1. Does this manufacturer meet the Buy American requirements?
2. Please provide dimensional drawings, including the footprint of the models offered.
3. What are the different models available and the flow ranges for each?
4. What is the expected useful life span for this equipment?
5. What is the longest that one of these units has been installed and operational?
6. Provide a list of references of actual installations / clients. I understand that some clients
may be confidential. Please provide what information you can.

PROCESS INFORMATION
1. What waste / sludge is generated by this process? Are inorganics handled differently than
organics?
2. How are inorganics removed from the system?
3. Are there any other waste products generated?
4. What equipment needs power? What is the horsepower of each piece of equipment? Can it
handle 50 HZ power?
5. Is there a certain temperature range at which this equipment is intended to operate?
6. Do you have any requirements or recommendations for screening (i.e. coarse, fine)?
7. Do you have any requirements for any other types of pretreatment? (grease, eq tank, etc.)
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?

COST INFORMATION
1. Estimated cost for shipping?
2. What is the capital cost for this unit? If possible, please give this information for the
different model sizes that are offered.
3. What is the cost to install this unit?
4. Please share examples of operational costs for actual installations.

CONSTRUCTION
1. Where are the units assembled?
2. How would shipping take place?
August 2012 8‐2

Feasibility Study

3. Will the items fit in standard shipping containers?
4. Any foreseeable issues with import through Israel?
5. Is the entire unit skid‐mounted? Containerized?
6. What field assembly is required?
7. What duration should be expected for construction of the plant site and installation of the
equipment?
8. What occurs during startup of the facility?
9. What facilities are required at the plant site? I.e. power, potable water, cover for the
equipment, etc.
10. What constructability issues have been encountered with this technology that should be
accounted for during design?

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?
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?
3. What are the recommended spare parts to be kept on hand? Are these items readily
available in the West Bank?
4. Are any chemicals required for the process or for cleaning of the equipment?
5. What are the regular maintenance items to be performed?
6. What operational issues or challenges have been encountered with this technology that
should be accounted for?

August 2012 8‐3

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 9.0 Appendix B: Aqua Treat (Extended Aeration)
Feasibility Study

9.0 Appendix B: Aqua Treat (Extended Aeration)

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

August 2012 9‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 10.0 Appendix C: Aqua‐Aerobic Systems (SBR)
Feasibility Study

10.0 Appendix C: Aqua‐Aerobic Systems (SBR)

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

August 2012 10‐1

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II 11.0 Appendix D: Delta Process (Extended
Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Aeration)
Feasibility Study

11.0 Appendix D: Delta Process (Extended Aeration)

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

August 2012 11‐1

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II 12.0 Appendix E: Gaylord (Modular Extended
Feasibility Study

12.0 Appendix E: Gaylord (Modular Extended Aeration)

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

August 2012 12‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 13.0 Appendix F: GE (MBR)
Feasibility Study

13.0 Appendix F: GE (MBR)

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

August 2012 13‐1

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II 14.0 Appendix G: Global Water (Extended
Feasibility Study

14.0 Appendix G: Global Water (Extended Aeration)

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

August 2012 14‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 15.0 Appendix H: ITT / ABJ (SBR)
Feasibility Study

15.0 Appendix H: ITT / ABJ (SBR)

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

August 2012 15‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 16.0 Appendix I: Newterra (MBR)
Feasibility Study

16.0 Appendix I: Newterra (MBR)

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

August 2012 16‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 17.0 Appendix J: Siemens (Extended Aeration)
Feasibility Study

17.0 Appendix J: Siemens (Extended Aeration)

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

August 2012 17‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 18.0 Appendix K: Siemens (Oxidation Ditch)
Feasibility Study

18.0 Appendix K: Siemens (Oxidation Ditch)

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

August 2012 18‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 19.0 Appendix L: Siemens (SBR)
Feasibility Study

19.0 Appendix L: Siemens (SBR)

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

August 2012 19‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 20.0 Appendix M: Siemens (MBR)
Feasibility Study

20.0 Appendix M: Siemens (MBR)

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

August 2012 20‐1

USAID Infrastructure Needs Program II 21.0 Appendix N: Smith & Loveless (Extended
Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants Aeration, IFAS, MBR)
Feasibility Study

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

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

August 2012 21‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 22.0 Appendix O: Tipton (Extended Aeration)
Feasibility Study

22.0 Appendix O: Tipton (Extended Aeration)

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

August 2012 22‐1

Packaged Wastewater Treatment Plants 23.0 Appendix P: Veolia / AnoxKaldnes (MBBR)
Feasibility Study

23.0 Appendix P: Veolia / AnoxKaldnes (MBBR)

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

August 2012 23‐1

Regina Cassanova
From: Yara Shahrouri <yks@aqua-treat.com>

Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:35 AM
To: Regina Cassanova; 'Rula Thawabeh'
Cc: Greg Kolenovsky
Subject: 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:RCassanova@TrigonAssociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:34 AM
To: Rula Thawabeh; Yara Shahrouri
Cc: Greg Kolenovsky
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:rht@aqua-treat.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 6:03 AM
To: Regina Cassanova; 'Yara Shahrouri'
Cc: Greg Kolenovsky
Dear Regina,

1
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 : rht@aqua-treat.com
Gmail: rulace@gmail.com
www.aqua-treat.com

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" <yks@aqua-treat.com> wrote:
Dear Regina
Below please find a quick summary of your requirements:
No. of
Plant Capacity Capacity Packaged
No. (GPD) (m3/day) 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
2
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

Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 02:12 PM
To: Yara Shahrouri
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'
3
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.
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:yks@aqua-treat.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:12 AM
To: Regina Cassanova
Dear Regina,
4
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
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
5
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
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
6
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
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
7
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
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
8
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:39 AM
To: Yara Shahrouri
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.
9
BOD5 815 mg/L
TSS 940 mg/L
TN 165 mg/L
TP 25 mg/L
BOD 10 mg/L
TSS 10 mg/L
TP 1 mg/L for discharge to rivers
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
10
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
organics?
10. How are inorganics removed from the system?
11. Are there any other waste products generated?
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.
11
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?
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.
accounted for during design?
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?
12
Thank you,
<image001.gif>

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:18 AM
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
13
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
14
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:56 AM
To: yks@aqua-treat.com
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>

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:45 PM
To: 'Yara Shahrouri'
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.
15
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.
BOD 700 - 1200 mg/L
TSS 700 - 1200 mg/L
TN 150 – 200 mg/L
TP 15 – 30 mg/L
BOD 10 mg/L
TSS 10 mg/L
16
Thank you,
<image001.gif>

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:33 AM
Hi again
I am sorry but my mobile is : 00962 777 805552
I missed a 5 !
Thanks
Yara Shahrouri

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 09:30 AM
To: 'Regina Cassanova'
Cc: 'GKolenovsky@TrigonAssociates.com'
Dear Ms. Regina
17
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

Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 02:01 PM
To: yks@aqua-treat.com
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.
18
Thank you,
<image001.gif>

Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:51 AM
To: 'tad@aqua-treat.com'; 'eas@aqua-treat.com'; 'zri@aqua-treat.com'
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>
19

Packaged Wastewater Gaza Fs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Packaged Wastewater Gaza Fs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.1 Program Description

2.2 Project Overview

2.5 Population Ranges

2.6 Reference Materials

3.1 Site Visits and Observations

3.2 Market Research

This section provides a general introduction to wastewater treatment processes, a summary of

4.1 Introduction to Wastewater Treatment Processes

4.1.1 Physical Treatment

4.3 Evaluation of Potential Communities

5.1 Collection Systems

5.2 Operation and Maintenance of Packaged WWTPs

5.4 Emergency Operations

5.5 Future Expansion

5.8 Transportation and Import

5.9 Spare Parts

5.11 Environmental Aspects

6.1 Feasibility of Packaged WWTPs in the West Bank

6.2 Feasible Technologies

6.3 Feasible Manufacturers

6.4 Feasible Communities

From: Yara Shahrouri <yks@aqua-treat.com>

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:55 PM, "Yara Shahrouri" <yks@aqua-treat.com> wrote:

Below please find a quick summary of your requirements:

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

From: Regina Cassanova [mailto:RCassanova@TrigonAssociates.com]

From: Regina Cassanova

Peaking factor of 2.5

Population of 1,000 = ADF 21,000 gpd

Population of 2,500 = ADF 53,000 gpd

Population of 5,000 = ADF 105,000 gpd

Population of 7,500 = ADF 158,000 gpd

From: Yara Shahrouri [mailto:yks@aqua-treat.com]

Item Plant Size KW/H

3 400 m3/day 31.5

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

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

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Hope I’ve been able to help

As I mentioned, we are evaluating a broad range of potential packaged treatment technologies –

INFLUENT WATER QUALITY

TSS 940 mg/L

EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY

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

Population of 1,000 = ADF 21,000 gpd

Population of 2,500 = ADF 53,000 gpd

Population of 5,000 = ADF 105,000 gpd

Population of 7,500 = ADF 158,000 gpd

10. How are inorganics removed from the system?

11. Are there any other waste products generated?

5. Estimated cost for shipping?

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

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?