Waste Stabilization Pond systems

Dr. Akepati S. Reddy Associate Professor, Thapar University Adjunct Scientist, TCIRD Patiala (PUNJAB) ± 147 004 INDIA

Waste Stabilization Ponds
‡ Shallow, manmade basins comprising of one or more series of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds ‡ Used to treat domestic or municipal wastewater to
± Remove biodegradable organic matter, BOD (by >90%) ± Remove pathogens (bacteria and viruses by 4-6 log units, and protozoan cysts and helminth eggs by upto 100%) ± Remove nutrients (Nitrogen by 70-90% and Phosphorus by 3045%) and sufficiently clarify the wastewater

‡ If properly designed and operated, can give the effluent of
± ± ± ± Filtered BOD <25 mg/L TSS <150 mg/L Nematode eggs <1/L Fecal coliform count <1000/100 mL

Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP)
‡ Represent sustainable natural effluent treatment systems ± Uses solar energy and do not require electricity ± Do not use any electromechanical equipment ‡ Low cost, low energy, and low maintenance systems, and do not require skilled manpower
± Construction involves earth moving, pond lining and pond embankment protection, and pond inlets and outlets and construction of screens and grit chambers ± Operation and maintenance requirements are minimal (repair of embankments, cutting embankment grass, removing scum and vegetation, keeping both inlet and outlet clear, etc.) and requires only unskilled but carefully supervised labour ± When compared with trickling filters, aerated lagoons, oxidation ditches, and ASP, WSP are cheapest and even land cost may not be acting against WSP

Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP)
‡ Can be easily scaled down to small scale applications ‡ Robust systems (withstand organic & hydraulic shocks and copes up well with heavy metals upto < 60 mg/L) ‡ Principal requirements are sufficient land, and soil with low coefficient of permeability (<10-7) ‡ Suited to tropical and sub-tropical countries, like india ± sun light and temp. (high throughout) are favourable
± Inexpensive land, restricted foreign currency availability and shortage of skilled manpower favour the use

‡ Also produce fish

Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP)
Disadvantages ‡ Requires more land (2-5 m2/capita)
± 1-2 day HRT for anaerobic pond and 3-6 day HRT for facultative pond ± Require 25 day HRT in 5 pond WSP in hot climates to produce the quality fit for restricted irrigation ± Require 10 day HRT in 2 pond system for producing the quality fit for restricted irrigation

‡ Potential odour and mosquito nuisance specially from anaerobic ponds ‡ High algal content in the treated effluent ‡ High evaporation losses of water specially in facultative and maturation ponds ‡ Adverse environmental impacts may include ground water pollution

Waste stabilization Ponds (WSP)
‡ Anaerobic ponds represent primary treatment
± sludge stabilization is add on feature ± patogen removal (helminth eggs) is coincidental

‡ Facultative ponds represent secondary treatment
± coincidental removal of nutrients and pathogens

‡ Maturation ponds represent tertiary treatment
± used to remove pathogens (fecal bacteria) ± nutrient removal is coincidental

Preliminary Treatment
Unless very small WSP systems must include both screening and grit removal facilities
± Hygienic disposal of screenings and grit is needed (haulage to sanitary landfills or on-site burial in trenches) ± All wastewater should be pass through screening and degritting

Provisions may be made for flow measurement and recording both upstream & downstream to WSP system Provisions may be made for
± Diverting the flow beyond 6 times to dry weather flow into stormwater and receiving water course ± Allowing a maximum of 3 times to dry weather flow into anaerobic ponds and diverting rest into facultative ponds ± Bypassing the anaerobic pond

Effluent limits to be complied with
EU¶s requirements
‡ Filtered (non-algal) BOD and COD: 25 mg/L and 125 mg/L respectively ‡ Suspended solids: 150 mg/L ‡ Total nitrogen and total phosphorus for avoiding eutrophication: 15 mg/L and 2 mg/L respectively
± If population is >1,00,000 then total-N and total-P should be 10 mg/L and 1 mg/L respectively

Effluent limits to be complied with
Indian limits
± BOD (non-filtered): 30 mg/L ± Suspended solids: 100 mg/L ± Total-N: 100 mg/L ± Total ammonical-N: 50 mg/L ± Free ammonical-N: 5 mg/L ± Sulfide ± 2 mg/L ± pH 5.5 to 9.0

Effluent limits to be complied with
Discharge into surface or ground water! WHO guidelines of 1989 for restricted crop irrigation:
‡ 105 E. coli per 100 ml ‡ Human intestinal nematode eggs e1 per liter ‡ If children under 15 years are exposed (playing or working in the irrigated field) then e0.1 eggs/L

‡ Intestinal nematodes include
‡ Ascaris lubricoides ‡ Trichuris trichiura (human whipworm) ‡ Ancylostoma duodanale and ‡ Necator americanus (hookworms)

Effluent limits to be complied with
WHO guidelines of 1989 for unrestricted crop irrigation:
‡ 1000 E.coli per 100 ml ‡ human intestinal nematode eggs e1 per liter ± if children are eating the food crops uncooked then e0.1 eggs/L

Restricted irrigation: irrigation of all crops except salads and vegetables eaten uncooked WHO guidelines of 1989 for aquacultural use of effluent
± 104 E.coli per 100 ml in the fish pond water ± µ0¶/L of detectable human trematode eggs in the effluent

Human trematodes include
± Schistosoma sp. ± Clonorchis sinensis ± Fasciolopsis buski

What is required for complying with the requirements?
‡ For fish (Carp and Tilapia)/aquatic vegetable culturing effluent from facultative ponds can be used ‡ For restricted irrigation systems with only anaerobic and facultative ponds can be sufficient ‡ Maturation ponds are required for producing the effluent suitable for unrestricted irrigation or for effluent discharge into bathing water ‡ Fish ponds can be loaded on the basis of nitrogen load (4 kg-N/ha.day)
‡ Free NH3 in ponds > 0.5 mg/L can prove toxic

Anaerobic Ponds
Smallest unmixed basins of the WSP system Similar to an uncovered septic tank functioning to enhance settling and biodegradation of particulate organic matter Very effective in removing heavy metals and in degrading organic compounds like phenols Mainly due to odour problems, often not included in the WSP system
± primary facultative ponds are used in plce ± but introduction reduces land requirements

Often aerated lagoon or UASB are preferred in place of anaerobic pond
± UASB can achieve70% BOD removal at 8 hour HRT for municipal sewage but costlier ± Aerated lagoon removes BOD by 70-85% efficiency but at 2-6 day HRT and enery costs are high

Anaerobic ponds
‡ Depth is 2-5 m (3 m typical) ± ground conditions and local excavation costs influence depth ‡ Has sludge deposited at the bottom and scum layer at the top (scum layer can increase fly breeding!) ‡ Wastewater after preliminary treatment (coarse screening and grit removal) is loaded to it ‡ Single anaerobic pond is sufficient for wastewater with BOD5 <1000 mg/L
± higher BOD5 requires a second pond in series

‡ Typical TSS and BOD removals for domestic wastewater are 50-70% and 30-75% respectively

Anaerobic ponds
Release biogas (methane and CO2) and even ammonia Biogas can be recovered from covered anaerobic ponds ± Floating plastic membrane of three layers is usually used
‡ Top high tensile UV-resistant geomembrane ‡ Middle layer 12.5 mm thick polyfoam insulation and flotation ‡ Base layer of high density polyethylene welded to the base

Biogas recovery is especially feasible if high rate anaerobic ponds or anaerobic baffled reactors are used Intensity of anaerobic digestion is significant above 15C and methane production increases 7 fold with every 5C increase in temperature

Anaerobic stabilization process
Involves
± Hydrolysis of particulate organic matter ± Fermentative conversion of organic matter into VFA ± Decomposition of VFA into acetic acid and H2 ± Methanogenesis - very sensetive to VFA accumulation and associated pH drop
If sulfates & nitrates are present sulfate reduction and denitrification rather than methanogenesis will occur

Can be shown by
a b 3d ¸ ¨ ¨ n a b 3d ¸ ¨ n a b 3d ¸ Cn H a Ob N d  © n    ¹ H 2O p ©    ¹CH 4  ©    ¹CO2  dNH 3 4 2 4 º ª ª2 8 4 8 º ª2 8 4 8 º

High strength, rapid VFA production and accumulation, and insufficient buffering capacity can prove problematic to the stabilization process Municipal sewage has high buffering capacity

Anaerobic stabilization process
Stabilization process in anaerobic ponds is influenced by ‡ Temperature
± W orks well in warmer climate (20-45rC range)

± Within the range methane production increases by 7 fold with temp. increase by 5rC

‡ HRT
± Typical is 1 day and may depend on wastewater strength ± Anaerobic baffled reactor can reduce the HRT

‡ BOD loading rate
± Volumetric loading is used as basis for design ± 350 g/m3.day is taken as upper limit

‡ Type of substrate

Anaerobic stabilization process
Other factors influencing the process are
‡ pH:
± Optimal range is 6-8 (optimal pH is 7) ± Adequate buffering capacity is very important ± Anaerobic digestion is very sensitive to pH <6.8

‡ Sulfide:
± Stabilization process produces sulfide from sulfate ± Responsible for odour problems (sulfate levels <500 mg/L will cause no odour problems if the pond is properly designed ± Small amount of sulfide is beneficial ±react with heavy metals and removes as metal sulfide precipitates ± 50150 mg/L of H2S can be inhibitory to methanogens ± Small concentrationof sulfide (10-12 mg/L) is lethal to vibrio cholerae

Anaerobic stabilization process
Other factors influencing the process are
‡ Ammonia:
± Toxic to the process ± 50% growth inhibition at 25-30 mg/L level and very strong inhibition at >80 mg/L ± Free ammonia (which occurs at higher pH) is more toxic than ammonium ions

‡ Toxic compounds:

± Heavy metals and chloro-organics are also inhibitory ± Oxygen is also potentially toxic ± Both sulfide and ammonia can be inhibitory to algal growth in facultative ponds
‡ Nutrients: ‡ Degree of mixing:

Anaerobic ponds: Odour problem
‡ Main cause is H2S (product of sulfate reduction during anaerobic digestion) ‡ The H2S is present in the pond contents as H2S gas, as bisulfide ion or sulfide ions ± relative concentrations are governed by pH ± at 7.5 pH the H2S is mostly present as nonodourous bisulfide ± odur is caused by H2S gas released into the atmosphere ‡ Odour problem can be reduced by
± Raising pH to around 8 by adding lime ± Recirculating maturation pond effluent forms aerobic top layer (oxidizes odorous sulfide into sulfate) ± Stimulating scum layer development (spread thin layer of straw) ± Reducing organic loading rates (or increasing depth!) ± Preventing short circuiting and avoiding dead zones

‡ For properly designed pond, odour (due to H2S!) is not a problem if the sulfate in wastewater is <500 mg/L

Facultative Ponds
2 types: primary and secondary
± Primary ponds received screened & degritted wastewater ± Secondary ponds receive effluent from anaerobic ponds

Typical depth is 1 ± 2 m and HRT is 5 to 30 days Properly designed facultative pond has ‡ Aerobic top layer all through the day and night
± Diurnal variation in DO concentration is experienced ± oxypause (depth beyond which DO is zero) show vertical movement ± Presence of aerobic layer reduces methane and H2S emissions ± remove odours

‡ Anaerobic bottom layer never in direct contact with atmosphere

Facultative Ponds
Filtered effluent BOD is 20 to 60 mg/L (TSS level in the effluent is 30 to 150 mg/L)
‡ Algae also contributes both BOD (80% of the algae is biodegradable) and TSS
± Effluent take off or removal from top 50 cm layer can result in large fluctuations in effluent quality

‡ Algae mostly settles to bottom and anaerobically biooxidized

Facultative Ponds
Ponds look dark green in colour due to algae
± Healthy ponds have 500-2000 g/L of chlorophyll-a ± Can also look red or pink due to the presence of anaerobic purple sulfide oxidizing photosynthetic bacteria (slight BOD5 overloading can cause it)

Diurnal variations of DO & pH can be high due to high photosynthetic activity
± DO as high as 20 mg/L and pH >9.4 are possible ± High DO and pH are important for fecal bacteria and viruses removal

BOD5 removal in primary facultative ponds is about 70% on unfiltered basis and 90% on filtered basis
± Filtering removes algae and hence higher efficiency ± In Europian Union the WSP effluent should achieve 25 mg/L of BOD5 in the filtered effluent

Facultative Ponds: Oxygen Balance
Can be shown by
V dC ! Q Cin  C  A K C sat  C  photo  rres  rdod  a N Q C N  C N in  aB Q C BODin  C BOD r dt

?

A

1. Q(Cin-Cout): Net oxygen entry with the wastewater 2. AK(Csat-C): Reaeration at the pond surface 3.

r

photo 

rres  rdod : Net photosynthetic contribution:

photosynthetic O2 generation ± DO consumption in algal respiration and in algal biomass decomposition 4. a N Q C N  C N in : Nitrification demand of oxygen (Ammonical-N to Nitrate-N) - aN can be taken as 4.5 5. aB Q BOD  C BOD : DO consumption for the bCOD C removal - aB can be taken as 1.5
in

Facultative Ponds: Surface Reaeration
Surface reaeration occurs by the combined effect of molecular diffusion and vertical mixing of pond by wind
± rain fall also increases mixing plus it carries DO

Mass transfer coefficient K for zero wind conditions can be estimated by
K! DU h
h is water depth U is water speed ± may be 3-40 m/day

D is molecular diffusivity of oxygen in water

At 20rC temp. & 0 mg/L DO, reaeration is 0.13 to 0.62 g/m2.day For every 3 m/s raise in wind speed the reaeration rate increases by a multiplying factor of 2.5

Facultative Ponds: Algal Growth and Photosynthetic O2 Production
Algal growth (biomass yield Y) can be estimated by
Y is net algal biomass yield

LS Y ! 1.3 h

S is average visible radiation
L is light conversion efficiency

h is specific chemical energy of algal biomass ± in tropical areas under clear skies 172 cal/m2.day

Algal concentration depends on organic loading and temperature and may range between 500-2000 g/L as chlorophyll-A Photosynthetic oxygen production can be stoichiometrically related to algal growth by
3 106CO2  90 H 2O  16 NO3  PO4   Light p C106 H 180 O45 N16 P 

Oxygen production occurs mostly in the top 50 cm of water - In the absence wind mixing concentrated band of algae moves up and down through the top 50 cm

309 O2 2

Maturation Ponds
Used to polish or upgrade facultative pond effluent
‡ Designed for pathogen removal
± 3 to 4 log units removal rates of Fecal coliform & virus are achieved

‡ Contribute significantly to N and P removal ‡ BOD5 removal achieved is very limited
± Do not show much correlation with temperature and HRT ± High algal biomass contribute BOD in the treated effluent Floating macrophytes in the last pond can reduce the algal TSS

Can be combined with aquaculture - can be designed to optimize algal protein production (high rate algal ponds)
‡ 15-30 cm deep ponds are used ‡ Produce effluent with high TSS

Maturation ponds
A series ponds with total HRT in the range of 10 to 25 days are used ‡ Number and size of ponds depend on the required biological quality (fecal coliform number) of the treated effluent ‡ HRT of individual ponds is >3 days ‡ Water depth is 1-1.5 m (1 m is typical and optimal)
± <1m depth can encourage rooted macrophyte growth and mosquito breeding

Well oxygenated throughout the depth It has relatively less vertical biological biological and physicochemical stratification Active and relatively diverse algal biomass is maintained throughout the depth Around 70-90% of the BOD of the effluent is due to algae

Treatment Mechanisms:Pathogen destruction/ removal
Fecal coliform removal
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Natural decay or disinfection occurs by a combination of processes via complex interaction of various adverse environmental factors aquatic environment Algal activity and photo-oxidation Adsorption to particles and subsequent sedimentation and grazing by protozoa etc. also contributes but very little

‡ In anaerobic ponds sedimentation of solids is the major contributor ‡ In facultative ponds and maturation ponds the removal is influenced by
± Time and temperature ± High pH (>9.0) ± High light intensity and high DO

Treatment Mechanisms:Pathogen destruction/ removal
‡ Algal growth and photosynthesis
± Bactericidal effect - excretion of anti-bacterial substances ± High DO enhances the photo-oxidation process ‡ Raising pH above a critical level (>9.5) - Carbonate and bicarbonate ions provide CO2 to algae and leave hydroxide ions raising pH to >9.0

‡ Photo-oxidation by incident solar radiation through sensitizer molecules, like, singlet oxygen, superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, etc.
± Solar radiation, pH and DO have synergistic effect

Treatment Mechanisms:Pathogen destruction/ removal
DNA damage by UV radiation (UV-B: 290-320 nm)
± UV radiation attenuates with depth (16 to 46 attenuations per meter) and becomes ineffective beyond the upper few cm ± at higher pH (>8.5) even longer wavelengths are effective

‡ Vertical mixing (increases the decay) ‡ Starvation due to lack of nutrients or carbon source Viruses
± Apparently removed by adsorption on to settlable solids and consequent sedimentation

Helminth eggs & protozoan cysts
± Removed by sedimentation ± Most removal takes place anaerobic and facultative ponds

Treatment Mechanisms: nutrient removal
Nitrogen removal
‡ In anaerobic ponds
± organic-N is hydrolyzed into Ammonical-N

‡ In facultative and maturation ponds
± Maturation ponds contribute significantly to nutrient removal ± Ammonical-N is incorporated into new algal biomass ± about 20% of algal biomass is non-biodegradable and hence nitrogen in it gets immobilized ± At higher pH sum of the ammonical-N is volatilized and lost from the pond

‡ Nitrification and denitrification may not occur in WSP systems
± low population of nitrifying bacteria and algal inhibition of nitrifiers must be responsible

Phosphorus removal
‡ Occurs due to sedimentation as both organic and inorganic (hydroxyapatite precipitation at >9.5 pH) phosphorus
± if BOD removal is 90% then phosphorus removal would be 45%

Treatment Mechanisms: organic matter removal
In anaerobic ponds BOD removal occurs by sedimentation of settleable solids and subsequent anaerobic digestion
± 25-50% of the applied BOD is released as methane from anaerobic ponds

In facultative ponds BOD removal occurs through ‡ Aerobic biooxidation by bacteria in the aerobic zone
± Oxygen input by photosynthetic algae and by surface reaeration satisfies the oxygen demand ± For satisfying macronutrient requirements of algal growth BOD/N/P ratio should be 100/5/1

‡ Anaerobic stabilization of organic matter in the anaerobic and facultative zones

Design of stabilization pond system
Designed for the removal of BOD, pathogens (fecal coliform and helminth eggs) and nutrients (nitrogen)
‡ Anaerobic & facultative ponds - designed for BOD removal (nutrients and pathogens!) ‡ Maturation ponds - designed for pathogen removal (nutrients!)

Key design parameters:
‡ Temperature (Mean air temp. of coolest month) ‡ Evaporation and seepage losses
± Evaporation during design temperature month is important ± Evaporation is not important for anaerobic pond (low HRT and top scum layer responsible) ± Facultative and maturation ponds are designed for the mean of inflow and outflow

Wastewater needs pre-treatment (screens & grit chambers) Both process design and physical design are important

Design of anaerobic ponds
Sized on the basis of volumetric organic loading ± Depending on temp. it may be 100-350 g/m3.day (typical BOD production rate is 40 g/PE.day) ± For <10rC 100 g/m3.day and 350 g/m3.day at •25rC ± Upper limit to the volumetric BOD loading is determined by odour emissions and minimum pH threshold value ± optimum pH for methanogenesis is 6-8 ± Mean temp. of coldest month is considered as design temperature Loading should be >100 g/m3 for maintaining anaerobic conditions

Design of anaerobic ponds
Properly designed anaerobic ponds achieve 40% BOD removal at <10rC and >70% at •25rC HRT is 1 day for wastewater with <300 mg/L BOD5 at >20rC ± minimum HRT for anaerobic ponds is 1 day ± For municipal sewage it is 1 to 3 days and for industrial wastewater it can be as high as 20 days
Temp. T ( oC) <10 10-20 20-25 >25 Volumetric Loading (g/m3 d) 100 20T ± 100 10T + 100 350 BOD removal (%) 40 2T + 20 2T + 20 70

Design of anaerobic ponds
Sludge accumulation occurs (in case of municipal wastewater at the rate of 0.04 m3/capita.yr)
± Accumulated sludge decreases HRT and necessitates timely desludging) ± When sludge occupies 1/3rd volume of the pond then desludging is usually required

Frequency of desludging can be estimated by

Van 1 n! 3 PE v S R

n is desludging interval in years Van is volume of anaerobic pond PE is population equivalents SAR is per capita sludge accumulation rate

Design of anaerobic ponds
‡ Removal of fecal coliforms can be estimated by N an !

1

N rw
B (T ) an

U

1 K B (T ) ! 2.6 .19

T  20

U is HRT of anaerobic pond

‡ Helminth eggs removal is fairly effective (upto 90%) ± the removal is by plain sedimentation
R ! 1  0.41 exp  0.49U  0.0085U

2

U is HRT of anaerobic pond R is removal efficinecy

Design of anaerobic ponds
Nutrient removal
‡ Nitrogen removal
± Most of the incoming TKN is supposedly converted into ammonical-N ± Small fraction of it may be used in the anaerobic biosynthesis ± Some may be lost into atmosphere as free ammonia (depends on pH!) ± Treated effluent may contain mostly the ammonical-N and small portion could be organic-N of the bacterial biomass leaving the pond as TSS

‡ Phosphorus removal
± Difficult to predict the removal ± Some may be lost as insoluble P into the settled sludge ± may also be released from the settled sludge ± A small fraction may be used in the anaerobic biosynthesis

Design of anaerobic ponds
Fate of suspended solids
‡ TSS of the influent settles and becomes settled sludge
± Biodegradable fraction of the settled sludge may be hydrolysed and removed ± Anaerobic biosynthesis adds TSS which may partly settles and partly remains suspended

‡ Suspended solids are lost from the anaerobic pond in the treated effluent ‡ Effluent TSS
± Difficult to estimate ± May depend on the outlet design, effluent turbulence level at the outlet zone, HRT, etc. ± Suitably assumed in the light of the out let design, HRT and the local turbulence level

Facultative Ponds: Design
Surface organic loading is used as the basis
± 80-400 kg/hec.day of BOD5 is typical

Design loading rate depends on
± Average ambient air temperature during the coldest month of the year ± Solar irradiance (in cal/cm2.day) ± Latitude of the site

Can be obtained by using one of the equations proposed Loading rate should not affect active algal population development Depth is 1-2 m with 1.5 m as typical and common Typical HRT is 4 days (minimum of 5 days for <20C and 4 days for >20C)

Facultative Ponds: Surface Loading Rates
Here T is temperature in rC So is solar irradiance in T  20 «..2 cal/cm2.day Ps ! 357 v .085 1 L is latitude of the site T  25 Ps ! 350 .107  0 .002 T ««3 1 PS is removal rate of organic matter (in kg/ha.day of BOD) ««4 Ps ! 10T Equation -3 is considered as universal ««5 Ps ! 20T  90 Equation -1 is used for ««6 Ps ! 20T  60 Temperature >20rC Equation -4 is used for ««7 Ps ! 1.07 v S o temperatures 10 to 20rC Equation -8 is used for latitudes ««8 Ps ! 375  6.25 L 8 to 36rN
Ps ! 50 .072 1
T

««1

Facultative Ponds: BOD Removal
In case of primary pond about 30% is lost as methane In primary ponds the removal is 70-80% for unfiltered samples and >90% for filtered samples For secondary ponds the removal efficiency is relatively lower Algal cells contribute BOD to treated effluent Removal is closely related to the design surface loading rate and can be obtained by using one of the following:

Pr ! 0.725Ps  10.75 Pr ! 0.79Ps  2

««9 ««10 ««11 ««12
PS is surface loading rate in kg/ha.day of BOD Pr is removal rate of organic matter in kg/ha.day of BOD

Pr ! 0.83679Ps  4.86
Pr ! 0.956Ps  1.31

Facultative Ponds: Pathogen Removal
Nematode eggs removal
‡ Protozoan cysts and helminth eggs are removed by sedimentation ‡ Fraction of human intestinal nematodes eggs removed (R) in a single pond is given by

R ! 1  0.41 exp  0.49  0.0085U 2

Here U is retention time of the pond in days ‡ Egg number in the effluent of facultative pond can be obtained from E facl ! Erw  Ran  R facl 1 1 ‡ If Efacl is >1.0, treatment in maturation ponds is needed

Facultative Ponds: Pathogen Removal
Fecal coliform removal
‡ High HRT, high temp., high pH, high light intensity and high DO contribute to kills ‡ Photosynthetic activity, due to CO2 utilization, raises pH to >9 and helps in killing fecal coliforms ‡ Removal in anaerobic and facultative ponds is
N facl ! N rw  K B (T )U an  K B (T )U facl 1 1

1 K B (T ) ! 2 .6 .19

T  20

KB(T) is first order rate constant for E. coli removal at TrC/day ‡ If Nfacl is >105 then maturation ponds are required

Facultative Ponds: Nutrient Removal
Nitrogen removal ‡ Total nitrogen removal in WSP can reach 80% while ammonical nitrogen removal can be as high as 95%
± Allow 20-30% of the effluent ammonical-N is lost into the air

Phosphorus removal ‡ Mostly by sedimentation (mostly as organic-P)
± Beyond 9.5 pH precipitation of inorganic phosphorus is also expected

‡ Removal for a properly functioning 2 pond system can be upto 70%

Facultative ponds: Nutrient Removal
Pano and Middle brooks equation for ammonical-N removal at <20rC for a facultative or a maturation pond
Ce ! Ci

» «A a 1  ¬ 0.0038  0.000134T exp_1.041  0.044T pH  6.6 ¼ ½ ­Q » « 3 A a 1  ¬5.035 v10 exp_ .54 pH  6.6 ¼ 1 Q ½ ­
i

Equation for ammonical-N removal at >20rC Ci pH ! 7.3 exp 0.0005 Ce !
Ai is influent alkalinity in mg/L as CaCO3

Ci and Ce are influent and effluent ammonical-N concentration

Reed¶s equation for total-N removal for a facultative or a maturation pond U Ce ! Ci exp  0.0064 v 1.039T  20 _  60.6 pH  6.6 a

?

A

U is HRT in days

Design of Maturation Ponds
Limited to finding number of ponds in the series and HRT per pond to give smallest total pond surface area Depth and length to width ratio are assumed usually as 1.0 - 1.5 m and 3 ± 10 respectively Additional design guidelines followed include
± Equal HRT for all the ponds ± minimum HRT of 3 days per pond ± organic surface loading of the first maturation pond <75% of the preceding facultative pond ± HRT of the first pond less than that of the preceding facultative pond

Usually designed for a total HRT of 10-20 days

Design of maturation ponds
The design uses the equation given below:
Ne 1 ! n Ni U ¸ ¨ © 1  k d (T ) ¹ nº ª
Ni and Ne are influent and effluent coliform numbers Kd is temperature dependent coliform decay coefficient
U is total HRT of maturation ponds

n is the number of maturation ponds in series

Kd is taken as 2.6/day at 20rC and temperature correction of Kd is done by

k d ( T ) ! 2 . 6 . 19 1

T  20

T is average ambient temperature of the coldest month of the year

The design method fails to take pond depth (or solar radiation intensity) into consideration
± Pond depth has pronownced effect on kd

Design of maturation ponds
Ne ! Ni 1  a 2 exp a 

2 d   a exp a 2 d 1
2

4 a exp 1

2d

a ! 1  k b T U d
D d ! uL
0 D ! 1 . 01 vN R .875

W . Depth u! Q

1 k d ( T ) ! 2 .6 . 19

T  20

Ne coliform count in effluent Ni coliform count in influent Kb(T) coliform kill rate constant (/day) hydraulic retention time d dispersion factor D coefficient of dispersion v kinematic viscosity NR reynolds number (4VR/v) R is hydraulic radius u fluid flow velocity W width of the pond Q flow rate

Maturation ponds: Removal of helminth eggs and protozoan cysts
Removal is mainly by sedimentation Since mostly removed in the anaerobic and facultative ponds their removal in maturation ponds not much needed Removal can be estimated by

R ! 1  0.41 exp  .49 HRT  0.0085 HRT 2

± This equation represents the lower 95% confidence limit of the following equation

R ! 1  0.14 exp  0.38 HRT
± This equation is applicable to all the ponds (anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds)

Maturation ponds: Removal of Nutrients
Pano and Middle brooks equation for ammonical-N removal at <20rC for a maturation pond
Ce ! Ci

» «A 1  ¬ 0.0038  0.000134T exp_1.041  0.044T pH  6.6 ¼ a ½ ­Q » « 3 A a 1  ¬5.035 v10 exp_ .54 pH  6.6 ¼ 1 Q ½ ­

Equation for ammonical-N removal at >20rC Ci pH ! 7.3 exp 0.0005 Ai Ce !
Ai is influent alkalinity in mg/L as CaCO3

Ci and Ce are influent and effluent ammonical-N concentration

Reed¶s equation for total-N removal for a maturation pond

a Ce ! Ci exp  0.0064 v 1.039T  20 _  60.6 pH  6.6 U
U is HRT in days

?

A

Physical design of WSP
Pond location ‡ Should be at least 200 m downwind from the community and from the likely areas of future expansion
± To discourage people from visiting the site ± To give assurance to public against the unlikely (for well designed and properly maintained system, anaerobic pond) odour problem

‡ Should not be located within 2 km of airports (birds attracted to the ponds can constitute risk to air traffic) ‡ There should be vehicular access to the ponds ‡ Flat or gently sloping site can minimise earthworks

Physical design of WSP
Geotechnical investigations needed
‡ Principal objectives of geotechnical investigation
± to ensure correct embankment design ± to determine whether the soil is sufficiently permeable to require lining of the pond

‡ Geotechnical investigations should include
± Determination of maximum height of the groundwater table ± Collecting >4/hec. soil samples representing the soil profile to a depth 1.0 m greater than the envisaged pond depth ± Measurement of the following for the soil samples collected: Particle size distribution; Coefficient of permeability Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (by modified Proctor test); Atterberg limits; organic content

Physical design of WSP
Embankments
‡ In pond construction, balance sbould be there between cut and fill (if proves cheep, can be constructed completely in cut) ‡ Embankment design should allow for vehicle access to facilitate maintenance ‡ Embankment slopes provided are 1 to 3 internally and 1 to 1.5-2 externally ‡ Ideally, soil excavated from the site should be used in the embankments construction
± Organic soils (peat and plastic soils) and medium to coarse sands are not suitable

‡ The soil used should be compacted in 150-250 mm layers to 90% of its maximum dry density
± coefficient of permeability of compacted soil should be <10-7 m/s

Physical design of WSP
Embankments
‡ Slope stability should be ascertained according to standard soil mechanics procedures for small earth dams
± For increasing stability, slow-growing rhizomatous grass species may be planted

‡ External embankments should be protected from stormwater erosion
± Provide adequate drainage

‡ Internal embankments require protection against erosion by wave action
± Use precast concrete slabs or stone rip-rap at top water level (TWL)

Physical Design of WSP
Hydraulic balance and pond lining
‡ Inflow of wastewater should always be greater than the sum of evaporation and seepage losses ‡ Seepage can be related to Coefficient of Permeability (k) as
k is coefficient of permeability (m/sec.) Qs is seepage loss (m3/day)

QS (l k! 86400. A (h

A is pond area (m2) l is depth of soil above the aquifer (or more permeable stratum) in meters h is l plus pond water depth in meters

‡ When in situ k is >10-6 m/sec. then lining of ponds is needed
± K <10-9 m/sec. indicates that the ponds seal naturally ± K <10-9 m/sec. indicates no risk of ground water contamination

‡ Portland cement (8 kg/m2) or plastic membranes or 150-300 mm layer of low permeability soil can be the pond lining

Physical Design of WSP
Pond geometry
‡ Usually rectangular with variable length to breadth ratio (L to B ratio) ± can be gently curved if desired for aesthetic reasons
± L to B ratio for anaerobic ponds and primary facultative ponds should be 2-3 to 1 ± breadth is kept <24 m (imposed by excavators and desludging machinery ± For secondary facultative ponds and maturation ponds it can be upto 10 to 1

‡ To facilitate mixing pond¶s longest dimension should be in the direction of prevailing wind specially of hottest season
± Flow in the pond should be in the direction opposite to the wind direction (minimize short-circuiting)

Physical Design of WSP
Pond geometry
‡ Pond areas are estimated for mid water depth - constructor needs both pond bottom and top dimensions and depth ‡ In case of anaerobic ponds pond volume can be related to TWL dimensions by D Va ! ?LW  L  2 sD  2 sD  4 L  sD  sD A .W .W 6
Va is liquid volume of the pond L and W are top water level length and width D is depth and S is internal horizontal slope of embankment

‡ Pond liquid depth can be 2-5 m for anaerobic ponds, 1-2 m for facultative ponds and 1-1.5 m for maturation ponds
± Depth can not be <1.0 m (vegetation growth from pond base and hazard of musquito and snail breeding)

Physical Design of WSP
Pond geometry
‡ All ponds should be provided with freeboard to prevent wind induced waves overtopping the embankment
± Freeboard depends on the pond area ± 0.5 m for ponds of <1 hectare area ± 0.5 to 1.0 m for ponds of 1-3 hectares area ± For ponds of >3 hectares area freeboard is calculated by

F ! log10 A  1
1 2

F is freeboard in meters A is pond area at TWL in m2

‡ Larger systems (serving >10,000 population) or available site topography may demand two or more parallel systems
± Multiple systems need splitting of preliminary treated wastewater into equal parts (weir penstocks are provided)

Physical Design of WSP
Inlet and outlet structures
‡ Relative position of inlet and outlet matters in minimizing hydraulic short-circuiting
± Single inlet and single outlet are usually sufficient ± Locate them just away from the base of the embankment and in the diagonally opposite corners of the pond

‡ Should be simple and inexpensive and should permit collection of the pond samples with ease ‡ Inlets should discharge well below the liquid level - minimizes hydraulic short-circuiting and reduces scum quantity
± In secondary facultative ponds and maturation ponds the discharge can be at the mid depth

‡ Scum box may be provided at the inlet

Physical Design of WSP
Outlets should be protected against scum discharge provide scum guard
‡ Scum guard depth determines effluent take off level ± variable height scum guard permits setting the take off at desired level
± Facultative ponds - scum guard depth should extend just below the maximum depth of the algal band ± recommended is 0.6 m ± Anaerobic ponds - effluent take off should be below the surface crust and above the bottom sludge ± recommended is 0.3 m ± Maturation ponds - the effluent take off can be nearer to the surface ± recommended is 50 mm

Depth of flow over the outlet overflow weir is related to the weir loading by

q ! 0.0567 h

3

2

q is weir loading rate in L/m.sec. h is depth of flow in mm

Physical Design of WSP
Baffles Consider baffles to avoid short-circuiting For low strength wastewater a baffled vertical inlet may be considered Influent should be mixed into the main body of the pond to avoid localized overloading Location of the baffles should be to avoid too high BOD loading in the inlet zone and the consequent odour problem Ponds with baffles of 70% of width are better than the baffles of 50% or 90% width Horizontal baffles are superior to vertical baffles Locating horizontal baffles close to horizontal inlets proves more effective A minimum of two baffles in a pond are recommended ± more than 4 baffles are not recommeded Baffles shielding the outlet are beneficial

Physical Design of WSP
Bypass to anaerobic ponds is needed
± To allow commissioning of facultative ponds ahead of anaerobic ponds ± To facilitate desludging of anaerobic ponds

Provisions for recirculating and mixing the final effluent with the influent after preliminary treatment
± Needed to achieve odour control when the influent is septic (upto 50% of the final effluent may be recirculated)

Surround the ponds by a chain link fence and provide padlocked gates

Physical Design of WSP
Post warning notices indicating the hazards associated with WSP system
± Children may be tempted to ponds for swimming and bird wachers and hunters may be attracted by the system

Tree belt of 40-60 m width on the upwind side (for preventing wind blown sand and for aesthetic reasons) - comprised of
± 1-2 rows of mixed shrubs of height <5 m (not edible to cattle) ± 1-2 rows of 5-15 m height trees ± 1 row of taller trees of >15 height

Physical design of WSP
Operator facilities needed at the site
‡ Screen rakes and other tools; grass cutting and scum removal equipment; sampling boat, sample bottles, etc. ‡ First aid kit, lifebuoys (strategically placed), protective clothing, life jackets, etc. ‡ A simple building with adequate vehicle parking space and with wash basin and toilet facilities
± To house an office with telephone facility ± To house laboratory facilities (refrigerator for sample storage!) ± To provide storage space for various tools and equipment

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful