RAVENSVIEW WPCP

SECONDARY TREATMENT AND CAPACITY UPGRADES

CLASS EA UPDATE

TECHNICAL MEMO NO. 4

REVIEW OF SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

May 14, 2004

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

In association with:

JLR 19469
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2.0 RAVENSVIEW WPCP STATUS...........................................................................................2
2.1 Liquid Process Description And Operation ...............................................................2
2.2 Historical Performance................................................................................................4
2.3 Primary Treatment Capacity .......................................................................................6
3.0 DESIGN BASIS FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT .........................................................6
3.1 Design Flows and Loadings ........................................................................................6
3.2 Effluent Criteria .........................................................................................................10
3.3 Design Considerations.................................................................................................9
3.3.1 Wet Weather Treatment Strategy........................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Integration of Existing Facilities....................................................................... 10
3.1.4 Site Constraints................................................................................................ 13
4.0 REVIEW OF SECONDARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES .....................................15
4.1 Conventional Activated Sludge ................................................................................16
4.1.1 Conventional Activated Sludge Process............................................................ 18
4.1.2 Extended Aeration............................................................................................ 19
4.1.3 High-Rate Activated Sludge............................................................................. 20
4.1.4 Step-Feed Activated Sludge ............................................................................. 21
4.2 Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) ......................................................................22
4.3 Moving Bed Biological Reactor (MBBR)................................................................24
4.4 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR).............................................................................28
4.5 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)...................................................................................31
4.6 Biological Aerated Filter (BAF) ...............................................................................33
4.7 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)........................................................................37
4.8 Summary.....................................................................................................................39
5.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................................41
5.1 Evaluation Criteria .....................................................................................................41
5.2 Results of Screening of Secondary Treatment Technologies .................................42
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................44

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-i May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

TABLES

Table 2.1 Liquid Process Design Data ..............................................................................................3

Table 2.2 Historical Primary Treatment Performance......................................................................5
Table 2.3 Historical Final Effluent Characteristics ..........................................................................5
Table 2.4 Review of Primary Treatment Capacity ...........................................................................6
Table 3.1 Design Flows for the Upgraded Plant...............................................................................6
Table 3.2 Estimated Raw Sewage and Primary Effluent Quality (no Septage)..............................8
Table 3.3 Estimated Raw Sewage and Primary Effluent Quality with 220 m3/d of Septage ...........8
Table 3.4 Secondary Effluent Quality Design Objectives and Non-Compliance Limits...............9
Table 4.1 Estimated Conventional ASP Footprint Requirements .................................................18
Table 4.2 Estimated Extended Aeration ASP Footprint Requirements ........................................19
Table 4.3 Estimated High Rate ASP Footprint Requirements.......................................................20
Table 4.4 Estimated RBC Footprint Requirements........................................................................23
Table 4.5 Estimated Suspended/Attached Growth Footprint Requirements ................................26
Table 4.6 Estimated SBR Footprint Requirements.........................................................................31
Table 4.7 Estimated BAF Footprint Requirements ........................................................................36
Table 4.8 Comparison of Feasible Secondary Treatment Technologies.......................................40
Table 5.1 Process Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................41
Table 5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives Evaluation Results .................................................43

FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Ravensview WPCP Process Layout..................................................................................4
Figure 3.1 Plant Site Constraints.......................................................................................................14
Figure 4.1 Typical Activated Sludge Process Configuration ..........................................................17
Figure 4.2 Typical Rotating Biological Contactor Process Configuration.....................................22
Figure 4.3 Typical Sequencing Batch Reactor Process Configuration...........................................29
Figure 4.4 Typical Membrane Bioreactor Process Configuration ..................................................32
Figure 4.5 Typical BAF Process Schematic .....................................................................................35
Figure 4.6 Typical BNR Process Configurations.............................................................................38

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-ii May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Utilities Kingston proposes to upgrade and increase the capacity of its Ravensview WPCP. The
principal objective of this project is to implement secondary treatment to meet Provincial
Guideline F-5 and expand the plant to meet the anticipated future growth over a 25-year planning
period.

Seven Technical Memoranda were prepared to review key issues as part of the Class
Environmental Assessment Update. Technical Memorandum No. 4 (TM 4) addresses
specifically the Secondary Treatment Alternatives for the upgraded plant.

Raw sewage flows and sewage characteristic were reviewed as part of Technical Memorandum 1
– Future Hydraulic and Organic Influent Loading. The existing plant has an average day flow
and peak day design capacity of 72,800 m³/d and 152,500 m³/d, respectively. Table 3.1 presents
a summary of the design average day, maximum day and peak flows.

Table 3.1 Design Flows For the Upgraded Plant

Parameter Flow
Average Day Flow 95,000 m 3/d
Maximum Day Flow 167,600 m 3/d (>24 h)
Peak Flow 192,400 m 3/d

The potential impact of accepting septage at the Ravensview WPCP on the raw wastewater
quality was estimated. Table 3.3 presents a summary of the estimated raw wastewater loadings
and quality, as well as the primary effluent quality during average and peak flows. The worst-
case septage-loading scenario (Scenario 2 – refer to TM 1 Future Hydraulic and Organic Influent
Loadings) was used in deriving these estimates. The estimated TSS and BOD loadings to the
plant would increase by approximately 20 percent due to septage. The values indicated in
Table 3.3 were used for preliminary design of the secondary treatment process and technologies
evaluation.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-1 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Table 3.3 Estimated Raw Sewage and Primary Effluent Quality with 220 m3/d of Septage

Raw Sewage Avg. Day Flow 95,000 m3/d Peak Flow 192,400 m3/d
Parameter + Septage Raw Primary Raw Primary
Loading Wastewater Effluent (1) Wastewater Effluent
TSS 13,200 kg/d 139 mg/L 83 mg/L 68 mg/L < 50 mg/L
BOD5 8,613 kg/d 91 mg/L 68 mg/L 44 mg/L < 40 mg/L
TKN 1,699 kg/d 17.8 mg/L - 9 mg/L -
TP 243 kg/d 2.6 mg/L - 1.3 mg/L -
Notes:
(1) Estimated based on typical TSS and BOD5 removal in primary treatment without chemical
addition of 40% and 25% respectively.

Table 3.4 presents the secondary effluent quality design objectives and proposed non-compliance
limits. The background and rationale for the proposed effluent limits is discussed in detail in
Technical Memorandum 2 – Effluent Quality Requirements.

Table 3.4 Secondary Effluent Quality Design Objectives and Non-Compliance Limits

Parameter Objectives Non-Compliance

BOD5 15 mg/L 25 mg/L
TSS 15 mg/L 25 mg/L
TP 0.8 mg/L 1.0 mg/L
Total Ammonia Nitrogen:
October to May 12 mg/L 16 mg/L
June, September 7 mg/L 10 mg/L
July, August 5 mg/L 7 mg/L
E-coli (as annual geometric mean) 100 counts/100 mL 200 counts/100 mL

Space limitation is a major design constraint at the Ravensview WPCP. Due to the site
topography and the existing hydraulic gradeline, primary effluent pumping will be required
upstream of the secondary treatment, regardless of which secondary treatment technology is
selected.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-2 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

The following technologies were considered for upgrade of the Ravensview WPCP to full
secondary treatment.

• Activated Sludge Processes (Conventional, Extended Aeration, High-Rate, and Step

Feed).

• Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC).

• Moving Bed Biological Reactor (MBBR).

• Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR).

• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR).

• Biological Aerated Filter (BAF).

• Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR).

Table 4.8 presents a summary of the secondary treatment technologies considered.

All of these secondary treatment technologies would be effective in meeting the proposed
effluent requirements at the Ravensview WPCP, with respect to organic carbon removal and
nitrification performance. Phosphorus removal would be achieved with chemical addition. For
all processes, with the exception of the BAF, chemicals would be added prior to secondary
clarification. With the BAF technology, due to potential for filter plugging, chemicals would be
added upstream of the primary clarifiers. These technologies would have similar sludge
production compared to the conventional activated sludge process. For all options, waste
activated sludge could be co-thickened in the primary clarifiers or thickened separately.
Furthermore, all options are well equipped to deal with wet weather flows. The main differences
between these technologies would be with respect to process footprint and capital and operating
cost.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-3 May 14, 2004
 Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Table 4.8 Comparison of Feasible Secondary Treatment Technologies

Wet Weather Nitrification & Sludge Estimated Estimated

Space Flow Phosphorus Production Capital Electrical &
Technology Requirements Handling Removal & Handling Cost Chemical Cost Other
3
Conventional Bioreactor: Good with step Phosphorus Co-thickening $34.7 M 1.0 – 1.5 c/m Proven technology
Activated 4,500 m2 feed removal by in primary depending on
Sludge (CAS) Secondary configuration chemical addition clarifiers aeration Moderate potential for
efficiency full process automation
With step-feed Clarifier:2 Nitrification
7,000 m achieved by
process control
Moving Bed Bioreactor: Better than Phosphorus Sludge $35.8 M Aeration cost Process resilient against
Biological 1,400 m² CAS due to removal by production higher than CAS shock load and changing
Reactor higher biomass chemical addition same as CAS due to reduced sewage quality & flow
(MBBR) Secondary inventory O2 transfer
Clarifiers same Nitrification can Co-thickening efficiency Pilot experience only in
as CAS be achieved with in primary (coarse bubble Ontario
proper design clarifiers or diffusers) and Perforated pipe diffused
separate higher DO
thickening air system – no
setpoint maintenance
No need for Potential to upgrade
RAS or biological treatment
backwash capacity in future by
pumping addition of media
Biological Bioreactor: Better than Phosphorus Sludge $ 27.4 M Approximately Filters are backwashed
Aerated Filter 1,200 m2 CAS due to removal by production 0.9 ¢/m 3 every 24-48 hours
(BAF) higher biomass chemical addition same as CAS (aeration &
Backwash inventory in primary backwash) Perforated pipe diffused
tanks: 600 m2 clarifiers
Backwash air system – limited
(potential for filter solids settling Significant maintenance
plugging) characteristics potential for
better than aeration cost Potential for full process
Can be configured CAS savings during automation
for nitrification low flow periods
Co-thickening
in primary
clarifiers or
separate
thickening
Sequencing SBR reactors: Wet weather Phosphorus Sludge $ 26.5 M Energy cost Efficient & flexible
Batch Reactor 11,800 m2 flows removal by production lower than CAS operation
(SBR) accommodated chemical addition same as CAS due to no RAS
by reducing pumping Potential for full process
Nitrification Co-thickening automation
cycle time
achieved by in primary
Process resilient against
process control clarifiers
shock load and changing
sewage quality & flow
Limited experience with
large systems in Ontario
Fine bubble aeration
process maintenance

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-4 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

The criteria for evaluation of alternatives were developed by considering issues important in the
selection of a secondary treatment process and assigning a weighting number depending on their
importance. The evaluation parameters, weighting, and rating scale are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Process Evaluation Criteria

Parameter Description Weight Rating Scale
Performance and experience 5 1- Poor performance in similar climates or no experience
in similar climates at similar 3- Adequate performance in similar climates or some
size experience
5- Good to excellent performance in similar climates,
proven technology
Compatibility and impact on 5 1- Extensive impact on process requirements and
existing primary treatment performance
or sludge management 3- Some impacts on process requirements and performance
processes
5- Little or no impact on process requirements and
performance
Simplicity/Operational 5 1- Extensive operator knowledge required
Complexity 3- Moderate operator knowledge required
5- Little operator knowledge required
Operating Requirements 5 1- Limited potential for automation
3- Moderate potential for automation
5- Potential for full automation
Flexibility 5 1- Little flexibility in operation
3- Some flexibility in operation
5- Considerable flexibility in operation
Land area requirements 10 3 - Large area requirements
6 - Medium area requirements
10 - Small area requirements
Capital Costs 15 5 - High capital costs
10 - Medium capital costs
15 - Low capital costs
Operating Costs 15 5 - High operating costs
10 - Medium operating costs
15- Low operating costs
Total 65

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-5 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

For the Ravensview WPCP, the key considerations in selecting a secondary treatment process
are:

• Land requirements and ease of integration within the existing process configuration.

• The ability of the entire treatment process to convey and effectively treat wet weather
flows.

• Impact on the capacity or operation of the existing treatment processes, including the
primary treatment, disinfection, and the sludge management.

• Capital and operating costs.

Compatibility with existing treatment processes, including primary treatment and biosolids
management, process flexibility to adjust operating parameters to various loading/flow
conditions, and operating complexity were also incorporated in the evaluation criteria. Staffing
requirements were assessed based on the relative opportunity for process automation and thus
staff reduction.

Since all feasible technologies would be capable of similar level of biological treatment and
would meet the proposed effluent criteria with respect to BOD5, TSS, TP, and ammonia
concentration, and also all options would result in similar biological sludge production, these
parameters were not included in the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, all four of the feasible
options would have similar wet weather flow handling capability, therefore this criteria was also
not included.

The ranks for each of the evaluation parameters outlined in Table 5.1 were assigned to each
technology based on relative comparison of the technologies. The ranks were then summed up,
with the highest score representing the preferred option and being assigned the highest overall
rank. The evaluation results for the secondary treatment upgrade options are presented in
Table 5.2. It should be noted that the comparison of options is somewhat relative, and the final
scores encompass multiple factors. Therefore, technologies that may have scored well in some
areas, but received poor rating in others, may not have resulted in a high overall score.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-6 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Table 5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives Evaluation Results

Evaluation Criteria

Similar Climates at

Impact on Primary

Operating Costs
Performance in

Requirements

Requirements

Capital Costs
Treatment &
Process

Operational
Similar Size

Complexity

Land Area
Simplicity/

Operating
Flexibility
Biosolids

Rank
Total
Weight 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 15 65 --
Conventional
ASP with step- 5 3 3 3 1 3 6 10 34 3
feed
Moving Bed
Biological 2 3 5 1 3 5 5 7 31 4
Reactor
Biological
3 2 1 3 5 10 14 15 53 1
Aerated Filters
Sequencing
4 3 1 5 4 5 15 12 49 2
Batch Reactors

Based on the evaluation criteria, the preferred secondary treatment upgrade option for the
Ravensview WPCP is the biological aerated filter (BAF). The key advantage of the BAF
technology is a small footprint requirement, which makes this option well suited for application
at this plant where there are significant siting constraints. BAF is a relatively simple process to
operate and maintain, with local installations that have over 10 years of operating experience.
There is a considerable opportunity for process automation, thus opportunity for operating cost
savings. The BAF technology offers lower capital cost compared to CAS and other technologies
with similar small footprints and low operating cost.

The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and the conventional activated sludge (CAS) with step feed
capability ranked second and third, respectively. Both of these technologies would provide
operational flexibility to maintain effluent quality during seasonal flow, load, and temperature
variations. These are proven technologies, which are widely used in Ontario. The SBR would
offer significant opportunity for process automation and could be implemented at a capital cost
similar to that of the BAF. The conventional ASP capital cost would be significantly higher.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-7 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

These options, however, have significantly higher footprint requirements, and given the
constraints at the Ravensview WPCP site, these options would limit potential to expand the
capacity of the plant at the existing site in the future. The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
ranked fourth. The MBBR is a flow through process and would offer operating simplicity. This
option would have similar footprint and cost requirements as the conventional ASP, thus would
have limited overall advantages.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. ES-4-8 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Utilities Kingston retained J. L. Richards & Associates Limited (JLR), in association with XCG
Consultants Ltd. (XCG), to complete a Class Environmental Assessment Update (Class EA
Update) for various upgrades proposed at the Ravensview Water Pollution Control Plant
(WPCP).

The principal objective of this project is to implement secondary treatment to meet the Provincial
Guideline F-5 and expand the plant to meet the anticipated future growth. A number of
important issues are being reviewed and addressed through this project. These key issues are
being reviewed through seven separate Technical Memoranda as part of the Class EA Update, as
summarized below:

Technical Memorandum No. 1 Future Hydraulic and Organic Influent Loading.

Technical Memorandum No. 2 Effluent Quality Requirements, Review
Hydraulic Capacity of Outfall.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Headworks.

Technical Memorandum No. 4 Secondary Treatment Processes.

Technical Memorandum No. 5 Biosolids Management Upgrades.

Technical Memorandum No. 6 Disinfection Process.

Technical Memorandum No. 7 Odour Management Strategy.

This Technical Memorandum addresses the secondary treatment upgrade (TM-4). This document
was prepared to review available secondary treatment technologies and select the preferred
alternative for upgrade of the Ravensview WPCP.

The following data sources were reviewed in the preparation of this report:

• Ravensview WPCP monthly average raw sewage flow data and sewage characteristics
from January 2000 to December 2002.

• “City of Kingston and Township of Pittsburgh Wastewater Treatment Environmental

Study Report” Gore & Storrie Ltd. March 1992.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-1 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

2.0 RAVENSVIEW WPCP STATUS

The Ravensview WPCP is a primary treatment facility that provides treatment for municipal
wastewater from the central and east part of the City of Kingston and the Department of National
Defence, Canadian Forces Base – Kingston. The plant has an average day flow and peak day
design capacity of 72,800 m 3/d and 152,500 m 3/d, respectively (design peak factor of 2.1).

The following sections present an overview of existing liquid treatment facilities current status,
historical performance, and capacity. Preliminary treatment (screening, grit removal) was not
included in the review, as it was dealt with separately in Technical Memorandum 3 –
Headworks.

2.1 Liquid Process Description and Operation

The treatment process consists of mechanical screening, aerated grit tanks, chemically enhanced
primary treatment (CEPT), disinfection, and biosolids management. Technical Memoranda
No. 5 and No. 6 deal with upgrades to the biosolids management and disinfection processes,
respectively.

Figure 2.1 presents a layout of the treatment process. Table 2.1 presents the unit process design
data.

The wastewater flow is sampled (24 hour composite) and measured by a Parshall flume installed
upstream of the screens. Raw wastewater is screened by two mechanically cleaned bar screens.
The removed screenings are dewatered by a screw press and collected in a storage bin for off-site
disposal. A third manually cleaned bar screen is available for screening during high flow
conditions. Grit is removed in two enclosed parallel spiral roll aerated grit tanks. The settled
grit is removed by clam-shell bucket and disposed to an off-site landfill. Grit tanks are equipped
with pre-chlorination, coagulant, and polymer addition points. Flow from the grit tanks is
combined and split by a slide plate arrangement to two aerated primary clarifier influent
channels.

There are seven rectangular primary clarifiers, No. 1 to 7. Each clarifier has a surface area of
483 m2 and an effective water depth of 3.7 m. The oldest primary clarifiers, No. 1 and 2, are
covered with a concrete slab and a vegetated surface. The total available clarification area of all

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-2 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

seven clarifiers is 3,380 m2. The clarifiers are equipped with chain and flight longitudinal and
cross collectors. Each clarifier has six inlet ports and six effluent troughs with weirs.

Primary effluent flows to a 1,860 m3 chlorine contact tank. Sodium hypochlorite is dosed
upstream of a vortex mixer. Sodium bisulphite is added for dechlorination at the outlet of the
chlorine contact tank. The effluent is discharged to the St. Lawrence River. Samples of the final
effluent are taken at the outlet of the chlorine contact tank.

Raw sludge and scum from the primary clarifiers are pumped to the anaerobic digestion process.
In-plant recycling streams, including the supernatant from the secondary digester and centrifuge
dewatering centrate, are discharged upstream of the screens. These streams are not included in
the raw sewage sample. There are no plant by-passes.

The physical condition of the existing liquid treatment process components and mechanical
equipment will need to be reviewed. Most of the mechanical equipment was updated/replaced in
1992.

Table 2.1 Liquid Process Design Data

Unit Process Design Parameters
Screens Two (2) mechanically cleaned bar screens (15 mm opening size)
One (1) manually cleaned bar screen (50 mm opening size)
Grit Removal Two (2) aerated grit tanks effective volume of 460 m 3
Primary Seven (7) rectangular clarifiers 31.7 m by 15.25 m, with effective liquid
Clarifiers depth 3.7 m, each equipped with chain and flight longitudinal and cross
collectors
Area (each tank): 483 m 2 Total Area = 3,380 m 2
Length of weir (each tank): 37.5 m
Scum collection: Tank No. 1 to 4 horizontal circular scum troughs, Tank
No. 5 to 7 scum cross collectors
Chemical Ferric chloride: two pumps each 207 L/hr capacity each
Addition for
Polymer: two pumps 4 L/hr capacity each
Phosphorus
Disinfection 1,860 m 3 chlorine contact tank
Sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulphite storage tanks and dosing pumps

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-3 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Figure 2.1 Ravensview WPCP Process Layout

2.2 Historical Performance

Table 2.2 presents a summary of historical flows and raw wastewater BOD5 and TSS
concentrations. The sewage concentrations at Ravensview WPCP are characteristic of dilute
wastewater strength, typical to collection systems with significant inflow/infiltration and/or
combined sewers. The primary clarifiers were designed to operate at peak surface settling rates
of 45 m3/m2/d at the design peak flow of 152,500 m3/d, which is slightly higher than guideline
value of 40 m3/m2/d for chemically enhanced primary treatment (MOE, 1984). Historically
ferric chloride and polymer have been added to the grit tanks at average doses of 5-10 mg Fe/L
and 0.1-0.4 mg/L, respectively, to achieve phosphorus removal and to enhance suspended solids
and organics removal in the primary treatment process. The historical chemical doses are typical
to other chemically enhanced primary treatment plants (WEF, 1992). As indicated in Table 2.2,

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-4 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

the removal efficiency of BOD5 and TSS historically met or exceeded typical removal
efficiencies expected for enhanced primary treatment process of 65 and 85 percent, respectively
(MOE Guidelines, 1984).

Table 2.3 presents a summary of the historical primary effluent quality. The plant consistently
produced good effluent quality. The effluent BOD5 and TSS were typically less than 25 mg/L
and 15 mg/L, respectively, and generally met the current C of A requirements. In the year 2001,
the average annual BOD5 concentration was 34 mg/L, which exceeded the effluent requirement
of 25 mg/L.

Table 2.2 Historical Primary Treatment Performance

BOD5 Raw TSS
Average Raw Wastewater Removal Wastewater Removal
Day Flow BOD5 Conc. Efficiency TSS Conc. Efficiency
Year (m3/d) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (%)
2000 66,819 84 71.7 No data No data
2001 61,834 119 63.9 128 89.4
2002 73,040 52 67.3 83 88.8
Average 67,231 85 67.7 106 89.1
MOE Guidelines
- 170 65.0 200 85.0
(1984)

Table 2.3 Historical Final Effluent Characteristics

BOD5 TSS TKN Ammonia as TP

Year (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) N (mg/L) (mg/L) pH
2000 18.9 No data 11.82 No data 0.71 7.25
2001 34.0 13.1 16.99 5.31 0.65 7.01
2002 17.1 8.2 16.27 11.28 0.30 6.76
Average 23.3 10.7 15.0 8.3 0.56 7.00
C of A
25 25 - - 1.0 -
Requirements

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-5 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

2.3 Primary Treatment Capacity

The capacity of the existing primary treatment process was reviewed based on the process design
data and the MOE Guidelines (1984) for various primary/secondary treatment operating
strategies. Table 2.4 presents a summary of that information.

With an upgrade to secondary treatment, the existing primary treatment process has a potential
peak flow capacity of up to 200,000 m3/d, if operated with waste activated sludge co-thickening,
and up to 400,000 m 3/d, if operated without co-thickening and without chemical addition.

Table 2.4 Review of Primary Treatment Capacity

MOE Design Criteria - Peak Flow Capacity of

Treatment Type Surface Settling Rate Existing Primary Clarifiers
Primary Treatment 40 m3/m2/d w/ P removal 135,000 m 3/d
70 m3/m2/d w/o P removal 236,000 m 3/d
Secondary Treatment Plant
with Co-thickening (no P 50 – 60 m3/m2/d 170,000 – 200,000 m 3/d
removal)
Secondary Treatment Plant
without Co-thickening (no P 80 – 120 m 3/m2/d 270,000 – 405,000 m 3/d
removal)

3.0 DESIGN BASIS FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT

3.1 Design Flows and Loadings

Raw sewage flows and sewage characteristic were reviewed as part of Technical Memorandum 1
– Future Hydraulic and Organic Influent Loading. Table 3.1 presents a summary of the design
average day, maximum day, and peak flows.

Table 3.1 Design Flows

Parameter Flow
Average Day Flow 95,000 m 3/d
Maximum Day Flow 167,600 m 3/d (>24 h)
Peak Flow 192,400 m 3/d

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-6 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

The design peak flow is based on the design capacity of the contributing pumping stations, which
represent over 95 percent of the design peak flow to the plant. A portion of the City of Kingston
wastewater collection system is designed to convey both sanitary wastewater and stormwater
runoff through a single-pipe system. As such, the collection system is classified as a combined
sewer system. The City of Kingston CSO management strategy includes an in-system storage
capacity for combined sewer flows and provisions to pump out storage to the treatment plant
over a period of 24 to 72 hours. As a result, the design maximum day flows to the Ravensview
WPCP are anticipated to be sustained for more than 24 hours during and after the occurrence of
wet weather events.

The estimated peak flow factor is 2.14, and the maximum day flow peak factor is 1.86. The
difference between the estimated maximum day and peak flows is small, equivalent to
approximately 25,000 m3/d, or 15 percent of the design maximum day flow. From our
experience, combined sewer systems that are not equipped with in-system storage experience
peak flows due to wet weather in the order of 5 to 10 times the average day flow. At the
Ravensview WPCP, however, the CSO management strategy results in reduced peak flow to the
plant and an extended wet weather flow duration.

Table 3.2 presents a summary of the estimated raw wastewater loadings to the Ravensview
WPCP and the estimated quality of the raw wastewater and primary effluent during average and
peak flows that will need to be treated in the secondary biological treatment process. The raw
wastewater is anticipated to be dilute and of quality similar to typical primary effluent. With the
implementation of secondary treatment it is anticipated that the primary treatment process would
likely be operated with lower than historical chemical doses or without chemical addition for
phosphorus removal. This is because phosphorus removal could be achieved with lower
chemical doses in the downstream processes, for example downstream of aeration in a
conventional activated sludge system. The primary effluent BOD5 and TSS concentration were
estimated based on removal efficiency of 25 and 40 percent, respectively, which is somewhat
lower than typical MOE Guidelines (1984) removal efficiencies without chemical addition of 35
and 65 percent. During wet weather flows, the quality of raw sewage would be further diluted,
but lower removal efficiencies would be expected.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-7 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Table 3.2 Estimated Raw Sewage and Primary Effluent Quality (no Septage)
Avg. Day Flow 95,000 m3/d Peak Flow 192,400 m3/d
Raw
Sewage Raw Primary Raw Primary
Parameter Loading Wastewater Effluent (1) Wastewater Effluent
TSS 9,900 kg/d 104 mg/L 62 mg/L 51 mg/L < 50 mg/L
BOD5 7,073 kg/d 74 mg/L 55 mg/L 37 mg/L < 40 mg/L
TKN 1,550 kg/d 16.3 mg/L - 8 mg/L -
TP 190 kg/d 2.0 mg/L - 1.0 mg/L -
Notes:
(1) Estimated based on typical TSS and BOD5 removal in primary treatment without chemical
addition of 40% and 25%, respectively.

The potential impact of accepting septage at the Ravensview WPCP on the raw wastewater
quality was estimated. Table 3.3 presents a summary of the estimated raw wastewater loadings
and quality, as well as the primary effluent quality during average and peak flows. The worst
case septage-loading scenario (Scenario 2 – refer to TM 1 – Future Hydraulic and Organic
Influent Loadings) was used in deriving these estimates. The estimated TSS and BOD loadings
to the plant would increase by approximately 20 percent due to septage. The values indicated in
Table 3.3 were used for preliminary design of the secondary treatment process and technologies
evaluation.

Table 3.3 Estimated Raw Sewage and Primary Effluent Quality with 220 m3/d of Septage

Raw Sewage Avg. Day Flow 95,000 m3/d Peak Flow 192,400 m3/d
+ Septage Raw Primary Raw Primary
Parameter Loading Wastewater Effluent (1) Wastewater Effluent
TSS 13,200 kg/d 139 mg/L 83 mg/L 68 mg/L < 50 mg/L
BOD5 8,613 kg/d 91 mg/L 68 mg/L 44 mg/L < 40 mg/L
TKN 1,699 kg/d 17.8 mg/L - 9 mg/L -
TP 243 kg/d 2.6 mg/L - 1.3 mg/L -
Notes:
(1) Estimated based on typical TSS and BOD5 removal in primary treatment without chemical
addition of 40% and 25% respectively.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-8 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

3.2 Effluent Criteria

Table 3.4 presents the secondary effluent quality design objectives and proposed non-compliance
limits. The background and rationale for the proposed effluent limits is discussed in detail in
Technical Memorandum 2 – Effluent Quality Requirements. To meet these effluent limits, some
removal of ammonia nitrogen would be required in the summer months. Ammonia removal
would likely not be needed during winter. The proposed effluent ammonia compliance limits
will result in end-of-pipe un-ionized ammonia concentrations at compliance levels that do not
exceed the 0.1 mg/L non-toxic levels in all months. The proposed treatment objectives were
used to develop conceptual level design and to evaluate the secondary treatment technologies
that could be applied at the Ravensview WPCP.

Table 3.4 Secondary Effluent Quality Design Objectives and Non-Compliance Limits

Parameter Objectives Non-Compliance

BOD5 15 mg/L 25 mg/L
TSS 15 mg/L 25 mg/L
TP 0.8 mg/L 1.0 mg/L
Total Ammonia Nitrogen:
October to May 12 mg/L 16 mg/L
June, September 7 mg/L 10 mg/L
July, August 5 mg/L 7 mg/L
E-coli (as annual geometric mean) 100 counts/100 mL 200 counts/100 mL

3.3 Design Considerations

3.3.1 Wet Weather Treatment Strategy
The MOE Policy F5-5 “Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private
Combined and Partially Separated Sewer Systems” makes provisions for treatment requirements
for systems serviced by combined sewers. The policy indicates that for systems where wet
weather flows from combined sewers have been contained, during wet weather the minimum
treatment for flows above the dry weather flow is primary treatment, with an efficiency
requirement of 30 percent for BOD5 removal and 50 percent for TSS removal. This provides
flexibility to consider secondary treatment design based on a maximum day flow design criteria
with a primary effluent by-pass for peak flows. However, the exception from providing

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-9 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

secondary level of treatment for all flows could only be considered if it is “impractical or
uneconomical” to provide such treatment (MOE Policy F5-1). The implications of this policy on
the secondary treatment process design at Ravensview WPCP were reviewed.

Based on the design maximum day and peak flows (Table 3.1) and the anticipated duration of the
maximum day flow, it is anticipated that at the Ravensview WPCP by-pass of secondary
treatment for flows of less than 167,600 m3/d would likely not be allowed, as it would result in
by-pass events potentially lasting longer than 24 hours. The difference between the estimated
maximum day and peak flows is equivalent to approximately 25,000 m3/d, or 15 percent of the
design maximum day flow. This difference is small when compared to typical combined sewer
systems that are not equipped with in-system storage, which experience peak flows due to wet
weather in the order of 5 to 10 times the average day flow. For the Ravensview WPCP, it was
estimated that the incremental capital cost of providing secondary treatment up to the peak flow
of 192,400 m3/d would be in the order of approximately $2 to $3 million(1), inclusive of
installation, engineering, and contingencies. This represents a relatively small cost savings based
on the total project budget and would not likely be considered “impractical or uneconomical”
under the provisions of MOE Policy F5-1. Furthermore, the City has and continues to invest
considerable resources to implement infrastructure to collect the combined sewer flows, reduce
CSO discharges to the St. Lawrence River, and convey these flows to Ravensview WPCP.
Treating all flow would reduce the total pollutant loadings to the St. Lawrence River. It would
also improve the public perception of the City’s CSO management program. Based on this, the
secondary treatment technologies reviewed in this document were evaluated based on the full
secondary treatment for design peak flow of 192,400 m 3/d.

3.3.2 Integration of Existing Facilities

The existing primary treatment is in reasonably good condition and could be incorporated in the
secondary treatment process upgrade. The oldest primary clarifiers, 1 and 2, have been covered
with a concrete slab with a vegetated surface due to odour concerns. Maintenance of these
clarifiers requires confined space entry procedures, and according to the operating staff, is
difficult. Odours from the remaining five primary clarifiers, which are uncovered, are not a
concern; therefore, consideration could be given to uncovering Primary Clarifiers 1 and 2, if

1
Incremental cost estimated based on the need for two 25 m diameter secondary clarifiers to treat peak flow
increment from 167,600 m3/d to 192,400 m3/d.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-10 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

these are to remain in operation, to improve process operation, equipment servicing, and
maintenance.

The existing primary tanks could remain and provide primary treatment upstream of the new
secondary treatment process. As indicated in Table 2.4, the existing primary treatment has
adequate capacity to operate in a co-thickening mode and provide thickening for the waste
activated sludge (WAS) up to peak flow of approximately 200,000 m3/d, which is slightly higher
than the expanded plant peak design flow of 192,400 m3/d. In the future, if there is a need to
further expand the plant capacity, the primary clarifiers have a peak flow design capacity of up to
400,000 m 3/d, without chemical addition or co-thickening.

The practice of co-thickening WAS is a cost effective thickening approach that could be used in
lieu of separate WAS thickening. Co-thickening would avoid the high capital and operating cost
of a separate WAS thickening process. Co-thickening would also improve the settling
characteristics of the dilute raw sewage at this plant. Co-thickening in primary clarifiers will
produce sludge with total solids (TS) concentration in the range of 3 to 4 percent, and in some
cases up to 5 percent. This is approximately 1 to 2 percent lower TS concentration, when
compared to raw primary sludge without the added WAS. In Ontario, the majority of activated
sludge treatment plants, which are equipped with primary clarification, operate WAS co-
thickening (Canviro, 1989).

Separate biological sludge thickening is often more cost effective for larger facilities. It can
offer the advantage of producing a higher concentration of sludge to feed the downstream sludge
stabilization or dewatering processes, eliminate the recycling of BOD5 or suspended solids from
the primary clarifier into the secondary process, and minimize the re-innoculation of the
secondary plant with filamentous organisms. Separate sludge thickening process would produce
thickened biological sludge concentration in the range of 2 to 5 percent, depending on the
thickening technology. Using mechanical thickening technologies, for example drum thickener,
gravity belt thickener, or centrifuge, could potentially reduce the total sludge volume from the
plant by 30 percent. If a separate thickening process were implemented, only approximately 50
to 75 percent of the available primary clarification capacity would be required for primary
treatment at the proposed expanded plant design flow. The remaining capacity could be
decommissioned or incorporated in the secondary treatment process design.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-11 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

For secondary treatment technologies that may not require an upstream primary treatment, for
example sequencing batch reactor (SBR) or extended aeration (EA), all of the existing primary
tanks could either be decommissioned or incorporated into the secondary treatment process
design. With appropriate modifications (i.e. raising the wall height), the tanks could be
converted to rectangular secondary clarifiers, aeration basins, or flow equalization. Without
primary clarifiers, the solids and organic loadings to the secondary treatment process would
increase, potentially requiring larger biological reactors and having higher operating
requirements due to increased oxygen demand. The total sludge production would also be higher
compared to sludge produced from a combination of a primary and a biological treatment
process. Furthermore, by eliminating the primary clarification process, the plant would no
longer produce raw sludge, and the biological sludge from the secondary treatment process
would not be well suited for anaerobic digestion. Therefore, if the primary clarifiers are
decommissioned, means of sludge stabilization other than anaerobic digestion would need to be
considered.

Utilizing the existing primary clarifiers for WAS co-thickening would be the preferred approach.
This would maximize the use of the existing infrastructure and reduce new construction
requirements and capital and operating costs.

If anaerobic digestion, followed by dewatering, continues to be used for biosolids stabilization

and management, secondary digester supernatant and dewatering centrate will continue to be
diverted to the head of the plant. Both of these streams would contribute relatively insignificant
flows when compared to the total plant flow, however, the loading of ammonia, and to a lesser
degree TSS and BOD5, need to be considered. The concentration of these constituents in the
digester supernatant and dewatering centrate will depend on the operation and performance of
these processes. Typically the ammonia nitrogen recycled back to the head of the plant
represents approximately 10 to 15 percent of the total influent nitrogen load. At the Ravensview
WPCP, due to the dilute sewage quality, the additional nitrogen, TSS, and BOD5 load from the
recycle streams is expected to have no significant impact on the design of the biological
treatment process.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-12 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

3.3.4 Site Constraints

Space limitation is a major design constraint at the Ravensview WPCP. Figure 3.1 presents the
outline of the various setbacks that will need to be considered in the secondary treatment process
design.

The Zoning By-law for the treatment plant includes setbacks of 122 m from Hwy. 2, 46 m from
the eastern property boundary, 69 m from the western property boundary, and 30 m from other
zoning areas, including the St. Lawrence River. Based on these setbacks, the available area is
approximately 73,000 m 2, including the existing treatment facilities.

Furthermore, the MOE Guidelines (1984) recommend a minimum of 150 m setback distance
from noise and odour producing sources (aeration) to the nearest receptors. Based on these
limitations, an area of approximately only 7,000 m2 located to the north of the existing digesters
would be available for new works at the Ravensview WPCP. Exceptions to the MOE Guideline
requirements may be made when non-residential use of the adjacent properties is assured through
official plan designations and zoning, or if mitigating measures are implemented.

Due to the site topography and the existing hydraulic gradeline, primary effluent pumping will
be required upstream of the secondary treatment, regardless of which secondary treatment
technology is selected. The issues related to the hydraulic gradeline are discussed in more detail
in Technical Memorandum 3 – Headworks.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-13 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Figure 3.1 Plant Site Constraints

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-14 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

4.0 REVIEW OF SECONDARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

The existing chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) provides an equivalent of

secondary treatment in terms of conventional contaminants such as BOD5, TSS, and TP. To
meet the new treatment objectives (Table 3.4), the existing treatment would need to be upgraded
to secondary treatment with partial nitrification capability.

The following technologies were considered for upgrade of the Ravensview WPCP to full
secondary treatment.

• Activated Sludge Processes (Conventional, Extended Aeration, High-Rate, and Step

Feed).

• Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC).

• Moving Bed Biological Reactor (MBBR).

• Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR).

• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR).

• Biological Aerated Filter (BAF).

• Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR).

Technologies that were excluded from the comparison include the upflow sludge blanket reactor
(USBR). The USBR technology was not considered in this comparison, because although
successful in treating municipal wastewater, there are currently no large-scale applications of this
technology, greater than 1,000 m 3/d capacity, operating in North America.

Air stripping of ammonia and other physiochemical methods of removing ammonia from
municipal wastewater were also excluded from this comparison. Removal of ammonia by air
stripping was considered on a pilot/experimental scale in the 1970s and 80s, but has been largely
abandoned. We are not aware of any full-scale applications of these technologies in North
America for municipal wastewater treatment. Biological removal is the currently accepted
mechanism for the removal of ammonia.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-15 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Each of the seven secondary treatment alternatives listed above are reviewed in the following
sections and semi-qualitatively evaluated against a number of evaluation criteria. The evaluation
criteria and the developed weighting scheme are presented in Section 5.0.

Capital cost estimates presented in the review of the secondary treatment technologies represent
estimates obtained from previous project experience, as well as discussions with equipment
manufacturers. The cost estimates are Class “C” (order of magnitude) as defined by the
American Association of Cost Engineers and are based on a conceptual level of design only.
These estimates are considered suitable for decision making to assist in short-listing technically
feasible alternatives for more detailed analysis. The expected level of accuracy for a Class “C”
estimate is –30 to +50 percent of the actual construction cost. Actual costs will depend on site
conditions, the design approach selected, the site location selected for construction, and the state
of the construction industry at the time of tendering.

Operating cost estimates presented in this document represent only the additional estimated
chemical and electrical energy costs associated with implementing the corresponding secondary
treatment upgrade option. The estimated operating costs do not include an allowance for
increases in the solids management operating requirements. Labour and maintenance costs for
the different secondary technologies were assessed based on the opportunity for process
automation.

4.1 Conventional Activated Sludge

The activated sludge process (ASP) is one of the most widely used secondary treatment
processes. There are many modifications of the activated sludge process but all consist
essentially of an aerated biological reactor followed by a secondary clarifier. In the biological
reactor, suspended biomass degrades the influent organic material. The biomass is subsequently
separated from the wastewater in a secondary clarifier. Thickened biomass from the clarifier
underflow is recycled to the aeration tank to maintain a desired biomass concentration. A
generic activated sludge process configuration is presented in Figure 4.1.

The activated sludge process is a robust, well-proven process for treating wastewater under
widely varying environmental conditions due to its operational flexibility.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-16 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Figure 4.1 Typical Activated Sludge Process Configuration

Primary Effluent Secondary Effluent

from Primary to Disinfection
Clarifiers Secondary
Aeration
Tanks Clarifiers

Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Waste Activated

Sludge (WAS)

Operators can optimize the process for a given set of environmental conditions (i.e. temperature
and loading variations) by varying the biomass inventory and sludge age.

Biological ammonia oxidation, a process called nitrification in which ammonia is converted to

nitrate within the secondary treatment process, can be accomplished by operating the process at
solids retention time (SRT) of 10 days or more while supplying adequate oxygen. Phosphorus
removal can be accomplished through chemical addition before, during, or immediately
following the aeration tank. The most common addition point is immediately following the
aeration tank. Addition of chemical following aeration is typically more efficient than pre-
precipitation (addition to primary), and thus chemical cost savings can be achieved and sludge
production reduced.

With the implementation of an ASP, it would be necessary to co-thicken the waste activated
sludge (WAS) in the primary clarifiers, or to thicken the WAS separately, and then blend it with
primary sludge (PS) upstream of digestion. Co-thickening the WAS would reduce the process
capacity of the primary clarifiers.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-17 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

4.1.1 Conventional Activated Sludge Process

The conventional activated sludge process (ASP) typically uses long rectangular plug-flow
aeration basins, with influent and return activated sludge (RAS) introduced at one end of the
basin and effluent removed at the other. Aeration is typically supplied through air diffusers or
mechanical aerators. The mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration in the aeration
tanks of a conventional ASP is typically within a range of 1,500 mg/L to 3,000 mg/L.

The conventional ASP is well suited for treating low strength domestic waste. Selection of
process operating parameters is dependent on environmental factors and the desired effluent
quality. The conventional ASP typically removes 90 to 95 percent of the raw sewage BOD5, and
could be designed to nitrify year round, provided adequate oxygen transfer, aeration tank, and
secondary clarifier capacity is provided. The MOE Guidelines (1984) identify that effluent
quality from a conventional ASP is typically 15 mg/L for BOD5 and 15 mg/L for TSS. The
effluent ammonia concentration in a conventional ASP with nitrification typically ranges from 1
to 5 mg/L. With chemical addition, total phosphorus effluent levels less than 1 mg/L are readily
attained using the conventional ASP. The effluent quality would meet the anticipated secondary
treatment design objectives at the Ravensview WPCP.

Table 4.1 presents estimated footprint requirements for a conventional ASP at the Ravensview
WPCP, which were estimated based on the MOE Guidelines (1984). Considering the space
limitations at the existing site, the ASP configuration would likely be implemented in a stacked
mode, with aeration on top of secondary clarification tanks.

Table 4.1 Estimated Conventional ASP Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Bioreactor (aeration) 4,500 m 2 (5 m tank depth) (1)
Secondary Clarification 7,000 m 2 (2)

Notes:
(1) Based on hydraulic design criteria of 6 hour retention time and 5 m tank depth (MOE Guidelines,
1984).
(2) Based on hydraulic and solids loading design criteria and MLSS concentration of 3,000 mg/L
(MOE Guidelines, 1984).

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-18 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

The capital cost of a conventional ASP is estimated at $ 34.7 million. This is based on a stacked
configuration. Increased electrical energy costs from the conventional ASP were estimated to be
1.0 – 1.5 ¢/m3 of sewage treated (based on $0.08/kWh), depending on the aeration process
efficiency, based on data obtained from similar conventional activated sludge treatment facilities.

4.1.2 Extended Aeration

The extended aeration (EA), a variation of the activated sludge process in which there is no
primary clarification, uses longer hydraulic retention time (15 hours) in the aeration step
compared to conventional ASP. Longer HRT provides greater process resilience to shock
loading and ability to treat high flows. This process is preferred for treatment of high strength
wastewater and is typically implemented following preliminary treatment (screening out grit
removal). The process is designed to operate at solids retention time of 15 days or more and
would achieve complete nitrification year round.

Table 4.2 presents conceptual design requirements for a conventional ASP at the Ravensview
WPCP, which were estimated based on the MOE Guidelines (1984). Due to the longer HRT, the
aeration tank volume for the EA process would be more than double the volume of a
conventional ASP. The secondary clarification capacity for the EA process would be similar to
the conventional ASP.

Table 4.2 Estimated Extended Aeration ASP Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Bioreactor (aeration) 11,250 m 2 (5 m tank depth) (1)
Secondary Clarification 7,000 m 2 (2)

Notes:
(1) Based on hydraulic design criteria of 15 hour retention time (MOE Guidelines 1984).
(2) Based on hydraulic and solids loading design criteria and MLSS concentration of 3,000 mg/L
(MOE Guidelines 1984).

The EA option would have higher capital costs associated with the higher aeration volume
requirement and higher power costs due to the higher oxygen demand. Considering that
Ravensview WPCP is already equipped with primary clarifiers, the EA process would not be
best suited for this application, unless the existing primary clarifiers could be retrofitted to

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-19 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

operate as secondary clarifiers. This would require major changes to clarifier structure (inlets,
outlets, collectors) and construction of new RAS pumping. This would result in less than ideal
secondary clarifiers at a significant cost. On this basis, this ASP configuration was not
considered further.

4.1.3 High-Rate Activated Sludge

The high-rate activated sludge process uses a completely mixed aeration tank operated at a short
HRT of approximately 4 hours, high sludge recycle, and high organic loading rate. The MLSS
concentration in a high-rate ASP typically ranges from 4,000 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L. Mechanical
turbine aerators are typically used to transfer oxygen and control biomass floc size at the higher
MLSS concentrations.

This process would offer a one-third reduction in the surface area requirements of the aeration
tanks, compared to a conventional ASP. However, due to the higher mixed liquor
concentrations, the secondary clarifier surface area requirements for this process would be two to
four times greater than those for the conventional ASP. Table 4.3 presents footprint
requirements for a high rate ASP at the Ravensview WPCP, which were estimated based on the
MOE Guidelines (1984).

Table 4.3 Estimated High Rate ASP Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Bioreactor (aeration) 3,000 m 2 (5 m tank depth) (1)
Secondary Clarification 14,000 – 21,000 m 2 (2)

Notes:
(1) Based on hydraulic design criteria of 4 hour retention time and 5 m tank depth (MOE Guidelines
1984).
(2) Based on hydraulic and solids loading design criteria, MLSS concentration of 7,000 mg/L and
RAS flow rate of 100% to 300% of average day flow (MOE Guidelines 1984).

High-rate ASPs can achieve 75 to 90 percent BOD removal, but more operational attention is
required as these processes are sensitive to the high RAS rates (100% to 500%) that result in a
high solids loading rate (SLR) to the final clarifiers. This process is especially prone to effluent
TSS excursions during wet weather flow periods, due to the high operating MLSS concentrations
and the small aeration tanks. As such, this process has less operational flexibility than the

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-20 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

conventional ASP and the effluent BOD and TSS levels from a high-rate ASP are typically
slightly higher than that from a conventional ASP, on average. The year round nitrification
performance of a high-rate ASP is also typically poorer than that of a conventional ASP due to
the smaller aeration tank capacity. Adequate nitrification performance can be achieved provided
that the secondary clarifiers are designed to handle higher SLRs during cold weather periods.
With chemical addition, total phosphorus effluent levels similar to the conventional ASP are
achievable.

The capital costs for a high-rate ASP are anticipated to be higher when compared to the
conventional ASP, due to higher tankage requirements for secondary clarification. Power costs
would be similar to the conventional ASP.

Considering the operating requirements and higher capital cost, this option would not provide
additional benefits compared to conventional ASP. On this basis, this ASP configuration was
not considered further.

4.1.4 Step-Feed Activated Sludge

The step-feed activated sludge process is a modification to the conventional ASP in which the
wastewater feed enters at two or more points along the length of the aeration tank. This allows
the operator to maintain more constant oxygen requirements along the length of the aeration
basin. Some researchers report better sludge settleability in step-feed operation than
conventional ASP operation (Grady & Lim, 1980). This mode can also be beneficial in reducing
effluent TSS concentrations during storm flow periods. By feeding the wastewater towards the
end of the aeration basin, a higher MLSS inventory is maintained in the front end of the basin,
reducing the solids loading rate to the secondary clarifiers.

Design of the step-feed ASP is identical to the conventional ASP. Operating parameters, BOD
removal rates, total phosphorus removal rates, and nitrification is generally poorer during step-
feed operations, since some wastewater has reduced HRT in the aeration basin and nitrification
performance are essentially the same. The primary difference is that the step-feed configuration
allows operational flexibility in the control of organic loading rates at various points along the
aeration tank and improves wet weather flow performance, particularly in collection systems that
are subject to high extraneous flows. The capital cost for this option would be slightly higher
than ASP due to additional piping and controls required.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-21 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

If conventional ASP is selected as the preferred secondary treatment technology for the
Ravensview WPCP upgrade, capability to operate the process in a step-feed mode should be
incorporated into the process design.

4.2 Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)

The rotating biological contactor (RBC) process consists of an RBC reactor and a secondary
clarifier. A schematic of a typical RBC configuration is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Typical Rotating Biological Contactor Process Configuration

Rotating Biological
Effluent from Contactors
Primary Secondary Effluent
Clarifiers to Disinfection
Secondary
Clarifiers

Waste Activated Sludge

The RBC is an attached growth process where biomass grows on the surface of a rotating disc,
about 40 percent of which is submerged in the wastewater. The rotation of the media carries a
film of wastewater that contacts with air, supplying the oxygen for biological growth and
contaminant (BOD5 and NH3-N) oxidation on the media surface. As the thickness of the
biomass layer increases, it is sheared from the media and flows with the wastewater to the
secondary clarifier. The RBC process is resilient to shock hydraulic and organic loads.
However, since the process relies on spontaneous biomass shearing, there is no effective way to
control its operation and performance (final effluent quality), which in a conventional activated
sludge process is accomplished by regulating the biomass inventory. Therefore, RBCs offer

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-22 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

fewer opportunities for optimization or fine-tuning of the process and, as a result, for energy
savings. Effluent quality from an RBC is typically 7-15 mg/L for BOD5. Effluent ammonia
concentration of less than 2 mg/L can be achieved in a combined BOD removal and nitrification
process (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The biomass from RBC process can have poor settling
characteristics, potentially requiring a secondary clarifier surface area larger than for ASP.

An RBC plant usually involves a number of parallel trains of RBC reactors (typically 4 to 7 RBC
shafts per train). Each shaft typically contains one media disc pack 8.2 m (27 ft.) in length by
3.7 m (12 ft.) in diameter (WEF, 1992). The shaft is either electrically or air driven. RBCs are
usually indoors or covered with fibreglass enclosures in colder climates, to help minimize heat
loss.

Table 4.4 presents footprint requirements for an RBC at the Ravensview WPCP, which were
estimated for a combined BOD and nitrification, based on published design data (WEF, 1992;
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The footprint requirements would be similar to those of the ASP and
likely could be configured in a stacked configuration with the RBCs above the secondary
clarifiers.

Table 4.4 Estimated RBC Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Bioreactor (RBC) 100 to 130 RBC Shafts
3,000 - 4,500 m 2 (1)
Secondary Clarification 7,000 m 2 (2)

Notes:
(1) Estimated based on single stage BOD removal and nitrification process configuration; and typical
organic loading limits to the first stage (3.1 kg BOD5/100 m2/d) and total organic loading limits
(0.5-0.7 kg BOD5/100 m2/d) (WEF, 1992). Typical media surface areas per shaft of 13,000 m2.
(2) Assuming the same clarification area as ASP (Table 4.1).

One of the most important considerations in design of RBCs is the first stage organic loading rate
and the overall organic loading rate. At higher first stage loadings, performance can deteriorate
as a heavy biomass film forms. Heavy biomass growth can result in excessively high torque
required to rotate the shaft, which can lead to premature shaft, motor, and bearing failures.
Odour problems have also been reported with overloaded first stage processes. Step feeding

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-23 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

could be used to reduce the load on the first stage. Air driven RBCs are less prone to biomass
build-up on the first stage due to the scouring action provided by the diffused air in the
wastewater. Early RBC plants were prone to shaft and media failures. Design modifications to
more recent plants have mitigated many of these issues.

Similar to the ASP, chemicals can be added before the secondary clarifier for precipitation of
phosphorus. This would also offer more efficient phosphorus removal and may help enhance
biosolids flocculation and settleability. The waste solids from an RBC process would need to be
either co-thickened in the primary clarifiers prior digestion or thickened separately.

In Ontario, RBCs are operated at the Guelph WPCP and Niagara Falls Stamford WPCP, which
have approximately 50,000 m3/d capacity. In 1989, the RBCs at the Niagara Falls Stamford
WPCP produced average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations of 15 mg/L and 18 mg/L,
respectively. The RBCs at the Guelph WPCP are designed to provide nitrification of the effluent
produced by an upstream ASP.

This technology has a history of problems, including shaft failure and odours, and would not
offer significant operating advantages or cost savings when compared to the conventional ASP.
On this basis, the RBC was not considered further.

4.3 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)

The hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor process (MBBR) is an example of the integrated fixed
film activated sludge (IFAS) process. The process is based on the biofilm principle and is
essentially a hybrid between a suspended growth (ASP) and a fixed film system. The MBBR
consists of an aeration basin filled with suspended media and a secondary clarifier. A schematic
of the MBBR process would be the same as that of the ASP, shown in Figure 4.3.

The core of the process is the suspended media, or biofilm carrier elements, designed to provide
a large protected surface area for biofilm growth, which enables considerably higher biomass
inventories to be carried in a given tankage volume compared with a conventional ASP. This
can result in a reduction in the required footprint of the facility relative to a conventional ASP.
The biofilm carrier elements are kept suspended in the water by air from the diffusers in aerobic
reactors and by means of mixers in anaerobic and/or anoxic reactors. Sieves or fine screens are
used to retain the biofilm carrier elements in the reactor. There are a number of media suppliers.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-24 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

This evaluation was based on the Kaldnes media, which is currently most commonly used in
municipal applications.

The process uses a coarse bubble diffused air system (tube), which has lower oxygen transfer
efficiency relative to the fine bubble diffuser systems commonly used at state-of-the-art
conventional ASPs. Furthermore, the manufacturer recommends a minimum dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentration of 3 to 4 mg/L to ensure that the biofilm is maintained under aerobic
conditions, which is higher than the DO of 2 mg/L typically used for conventional ASP. As
such, considerably higher air flows would be required, which increases the capital and energy
costs associated with the blower systems. However, the higher blower costs can be partially
mitigated by specifying deeper reactors to improve transfer efficiency. Also, the aeration energy
cost would be offset by eliminating the need for return activated sludge pumping and reduced
aeration system maintenance cost (no need to replace diffusers as is required in some fine pore
systems).

The MBBR process does not require backwashing. The excess biomass is sloughed from the
carrier elements and is transported in the aeration tank effluent to the secondary clarifiers. The
concentration of the aeration tank effluent is typically in the order of 300 mg/L, which is
considerably less than a conventional ASP. This results in a considerably lower solids loading
rate on the secondary clarifiers relative to suspended growth systems. The settleability of the
solids from the suspended/attached growth process is typically poorer than a conventional ASP.
As such, the sizes of the secondary clarifiers for a MBBR process are typically similar to those at
a conventional ASP.

The biomass in a suspended/attached growth process is resilient against factors such as

temporary nutrient limitations, toxic slug loads, pH changes, and temperature changes. Since the
biomass is attached to media, which is kept in the reactor using a sieve, the suspended/attached
growth process is also less susceptible to solids washout during peak wet weather flows than
conventional ASPs.

The suspended/attached growth process could be used as a retrofit in existing conventional

activated sludge plants or in new facilities. To achieve BOD reduction and nitrification using the
suspended/attached growth process at the Ravensview WPCP, a likely configuration would be
two biofilm reactors placed in series prior to the secondary clarifiers. One of the disadvantages

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-25 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

of all flow through IFAS systems is that there is little control over the mass of organisms in the
reactor, and thus there is no effective way of controlling effluent quality under varying
environmental conditions. The BOD5 and TSS removal efficiencies of the suspended/attached
growth process would be similar to those achieved at a conventional ASP. Chemicals could be
added before the secondary clarifier for precipitation of phosphorus. The process can be
configured to meet strict nitrification requirements by adding additional media to the reactors or
providing larger reactors.

Table 4.5 presents footprint requirements for a MBBR process at the Ravensview WPCP, which
was estimated for a combined BOD and partial nitrification, based on information from a media
supplier (Kaldnes, H2Flow Equipment Inc.). At the Ravensview WPCP, using a MBBR could
result in reduction of the aeration tank volume by approximately 60 percent compared to the
conventional ASP. The secondary clarifier size would be similar to that for a conventional ASP.
The total reduction in the secondary treatment area requirements would be approximately
30 percent. In this configuration, the process would offer significant space savings compared to
the ASP.

At the Ravensview WPCP, sludge from the MBBR process would need to be either co-thickened
in the primary clarifiers or thickened separately prior digestion.

Table 4.5 Estimated Suspended/Attached Growth Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Bioreactor 1,400 m 2 (1)

Secondary Clarification 7,000 m 2 (2)

Notes:
(1) Assuming 5 m tank depth.
(2) Same clarification area as ASP (Table 4.1).

The MBBR process has been extensively tested under different conditions in pilot and full-scale
plants since 1989. The process has demonstrated its ability to achieve good removal of BOD and
nitrification even under the extreme winter climate. Currently, a full-scale pilot study is being
conducted by the City of Toronto, at the Highland Creek TP, to evaluate the suspended/attached
growth process. A successful test was also conducted at the Waterdown STP (Jones et. al, 1999).

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-26 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

The MBBR technology has unique features that allow considerable flexibility of implementation
and potential for further footprint reduction. Based on existing MBBR configurations currently
operating in Europe, it may be feasible to install the MBBR process without primary treatment
and with a dissolved air flotation (DAF) high rate solids/liquid separation technology instead of
secondary clarifiers.

Implementation of the MBBR without primary treatment would offer significant opportunities
for footprint reduction at the Ravensview WPCP, especially if the biological reactors were
configured within the existing primary clarifier tankage. Based on preliminary estimates, four of
the seven existing primary clarifiers would need to be converted to MBBR reactors. This would
require installation of air supply piping and screening. This type of retrofit would eliminate the
need for siting and building of additional tankage for the biological treatment process. However,
with this retrofit, constructability while maintaining plant operations would create difficult
challenges. In addition, very fine screens (3 mm) would need to be installed downstream of the
existing screens and aerated grit tanks, which would have a significant impact on the existing
hydraulic gradeline. Based on preliminary estimates, the plant hydraulics would be marginal,
necessitating additional changes or intermediate pumping. In addition, the plant would only
produce waste activated sludge, since primary clarification would be eliminated. This would
have a significant impact on the existing sludge stabilization process. Anaerobic digestion of
aerobic biological sludge is not a common practice because of generally poorer digestion
efficiency and poorer dewatering characteristics of the final product. This would result in higher
chemical use for dewatering and lower cake solids concentration. Based on this, eliminating
primary treatment would result in a significant impact on the plant hydraulics and digestion,
offsetting the potential capital cost and footprint savings; therefore, this configuration was not
considered further.

Using dissolved air flotation (DAF) technology instead of conventional secondary clarifiers
would reduce the footprint requirements for solids/liquid separation by approximately
80 percent. DAF uses compressed air dissolved under high pressure into the water stream to
create air bubbles that attach to flocculated particles in the water and float these particles to the
surface. The solids are skimmed from the surface, and the clarified effluent is discharged from
the bottom. The key advantage of this process is a small footprint and no need for additional
biological sludge thickening, as sludge with 2 to 3 percent solids concentration, or higher, could
be achieved. The efficiency of this process depends on the particle characteristics and air to

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-27 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

solids ratio. This technology was historically used for industrial applications, and specifically
for processes with relatively consistent flow and characteristics. Treating waste streams with
highly variable flows and characteristics, such as municipal wastewater, with a DAF would
require frequent adjustment of polymer dose and air supply and could result in inconsistent
performance. DAF is a mechanically complex process with significant power requirements,
estimated at approximately 300 to 400 hp for this application. This power demand is higher than
the estimated power requirements for primary effluent pumping thereby eliminating potential
operating cost savings. A number of DAFs have been installed in municipal wastewater
treatment applications in Europe; however, these are typically in combination with upstream
primary and/or secondary sedimentation. There are no municipal installations in North America.
This technology does not have a proven track record in this specific application and was not
considered further.

The capital costs for the suspended/attached growth process were estimated based on continuing
to use the primary treatment at Ravensview WPCP and construction of new MBBR reactors and
conventional secondary clarifiers in a stacked configuration, with the biological reactors above
the clarifiers (Table 4.5). The capital cost for this option was estimated at $ 35.8 million. These
costs are comparable to the conventional ASP, despite the 30 percent reduction in the total
footprint size. There will be an operating cost savings associated with the elimination of RAS
recycle. However, the overall power costs are anticipated to be higher than for a conventional
ASP due to the reduced oxygen transfer efficiency achieved by coarse bubble aeration systems
and the higher DO operating set point.

4.4 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a “fill-and-draw” activated sludge treatment system, where
aeration and secondary clarification processes are carried out sequentially in the same tank. A
schematic of the SBR process is shown in Figure 4.3.

Unlike conventional activated sludge systems in which flow moves continuously along a series
of tanks, the SBR is a time-oriented, batch system, which can satisfy different treatment
objectives by simply modifying the application and duration of mixing and aeration in a single
tank, making the SBR process very flexible. A typical operating sequence for a SBR is
composed of the following five stages: fill, react (aeration), settle (mixing/aeration off to allow

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-28 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

clarification), draw (decant), and idle. Sludge wasting is generally conducted during the settle or
idle phases but can occur in the other phases, depending on the mode of operation.

Figure 4.3 Typical Sequencing Batch Reactor Process Configuration

Effluent from
Primary Clarifier Secondary Effluent
Sequencing to Disinfection
or Raw Sewage
Batch Reactor

Waste Activated
Sludge

The main advantages of the SBR system over a conventional ASP are that it has a compact
footprint and requires fewer civil and mechanical works since there are no secondary clarifiers.
The process incorporates more controls and significant automation compared to conventional
ASP; therefore, can be more complex to operate, especially for larger systems.

The SBR tank serves as an equalization basin during the fill stage. Hence, it is able to handle
unsteady conditions, such as peak flows and shock loads, without significant degradation in
effluent quality and without the need for additional tanks.

The BOD5, TSS, and ammonia removal performance efficiency of the SBR process is expected
to be similar to that achieved in conventional ASPs. Chemical phosphorus removal can be
achieved in an SBR by adding chemicals to the SBR feed. Alternatively, phosphorus removal
could be achieved using specially designed SBRs equipped with BNR technology. The SBR
process is suited to producing the cyclically alternating aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic conditions

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-29 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

required to achieve BNR. An SBR designed for biological phosphorus removal can achieve
about 1 mg/L TP in the effluent. Chemicals can be added to the SBR influent to promote
additional removal of TP.

The clarification process in an SBR is normally much more efficient than in conventional ASP
plants because the reactor contents are under nearly quiescent conditions during the settle mode.
Biological sludge production rate from the BNR process is anticipated to be similar to that of the
conventional ASP. The WAS would need to be either co-thickened in the primary clarifiers or
thickened separately prior to digestion. If the SBRs are to be operated in a BNR mode, then co-
thickening of WAS is not recommended since the septic conditions in the primary clarifiers
would promote the release of phosphorus.

Many of the disadvantages of the SBR process are related to the lack of experience with large,
full-scale SBR systems. There are limited design data available, and design standards are not
widely accepted or known. Equipment limitations have also been a major source of concern with
SBR processes. The effluent quality depends upon a reliable decanting system, and some of the
difficulties experienced at existing facilities have been related to the decanting equipment.
Plugging of air piping and diffusers may also occur during settle, draw, and idle periods. The
designer should ensure that diffusers that are resistant to fouling are specified for SBR
applications. Another significant disadvantage with the SBR process is that as the system gets
larger, the sophistication of the control systems (timing units and level sensors) increases.
Consequently, the SBR has been primarily used for relatively lower capacity systems. Many of
these disadvantages have been resolved with recent innovations in process control equipment,
such as PLCs.

Many small SBR installations exist throughout Ontario. The largest existing SBR plant, located
in Asia, has a design flow capacity of about 380,000 m3/d. SBR technology was selected for this
application due to severe space limitations and the ability to stack the SBR reactors on top of
each other.

Average design HRTs for SBR systems range from 12 hours, where the objective is to meet
organic and suspended solids reduction, to 24 hours, where flow rates are highly variable and
nitrification, denitrification, and/or biological phosphorus removal is also required. Table 4.6
presents footprint requirements for an SBR at the Ravensview WPCP, which were estimated for

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-30 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

a combined BOD and nitrification in the summer, based on supplier information (Aqua
Technical Sales Inc.). Considering the space limitations at the existing site, the SBR technology
would likely be implemented in a stacked configuration.

Table 4.6 Estimated SBR Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Combined Bioreactor & Clarification 8 reactors; 11,250 m 2(1)
Notes:
(1) Estimated based on single stage BOD removal and nitrification process configuration and 5.0 m
tank depth.

The capital costs of SBRs are estimated at $ 26.5. SBRs do not require sludge recycling (RAS)
between tanks, and this eliminates the operating costs associated with RAS pumping. As such,
the operating costs associated with the SBR process would be somewhat lower than for a
conventional ASP system.

4.5 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Membrane bioreactors (MBR) for municipal wastewater treatment, such as Zenon’s proprietary
ZenoGem process, consist of a suspended growth biological reactor integrated with a
microfiltration membrane system. A schematic of a typical MBR process configuration is shown
in Figure 4.4.

The microfiltration membranes, which are submerged in the aeration tanks and are in direct
contact with the mixed liquor, effectively replace the solids separation function of the secondary
clarifiers. Vacuum is applied to a header pipe connected to the membranes by a pump. This
vacuum draws the treated effluent through the hollow fibre membranes (0.1 micron pore size)
and into the pump, which transfers the treated effluent to disinfection. The external surface of
the hollow fibres is continuously scoured using airflow introduced at the bottom of the
membrane module. The airflow also provides a portion of the biological process oxygen
requirements. A diffused air system is used to provide the remainder of the biological oxygen
requirements. Excess biological sludge is pumped directly from the process tank.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-31 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Figure 4.4 Typical Membrane Bioreactor Process Configuration

Membrane Bioreactor
Primary Effluent from Secondary Effluent
Primary Clarifiers to Disinfection
or Raw Sewage

Waste Activated
Sludge

The membrane bioreactor process is not limited by the sludge settling characteristics, as with
conventional ASPs. As such, a typical MBR plant can be operated at considerably higher mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations than conventional ASPs (i.e. in the range of
10,000 to 20,000 mg/L). The elevated biomass concentrations provide high removal efficiencies
of soluble and particulate biodegradable material in the waste stream. As such, significantly
lower hydraulic residence times are required for a membrane bioreactor relative to a
conventional ASP plant to achieve the same F/M (food to microorganisms) ratio. It also allows
the biological process to be operated at extended solids retention times (SRTs), ensuring
complete nitrification even under extreme cold weather conditions. Many MBR systems are
operated with SRTs exceeding 30 days. The sludge yields at extended SRTs can be considerably
less than conventional ASPs due to endogenous decay of biomass in the reactor. The WAS from
the MBR process would have a concentration of about 1 to 2 percent. It would be necessary to
either co-thicken the WAS in the primary clarifiers or thicken it separately prior to digestion.

A typical MBR process achieves effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations of 5 and 2 mg/L,
respectively, or less; and less than 2 mg/L ammonia during cold winter conditions. Phosphorus
concentrations of less than 0.1 mg/L are readily achieved with chemical precipitation.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-32 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

The key disadvantages of this process are that the submerged membranes may fail while inside
the reaction vessel and draw mixed liquor into the treated effluent. The operators must identify
and replace the broken membrane as soon as possible by removing and inspecting each
membrane module. This is an operator intensive procedure. Membrane failures could be
detected by continuously monitoring the MBR effluent turbidity or monitoring the differential
pressure across each membrane module.

This technology is considered to be less proven and more operationally complex than a
conventional ASP in municipal applications. A full-scale demonstration of the ZenoGem
MBR was performed at the WWTP in Milton, Ontario, for treatment of primary treated effluent
(Thompson, 1999). There are some small MBRs in operation in Canada. The largest facility is
located in Port McNicoll, with a design ADF capacity of 1,900 m3/d. One of the largest MBRs
in operation is located in Arapahoe County, Colorado, with a design ADF capacity of
6,000 m3/d. There are no facilities as large as the Ravensview WPCP in operation.

The main factor limiting the use of this technology at larger facilities has been the high capital
and operating costs. There will be an operating cost savings associated with the slightly reduced
sludge production from a MBR plant relative to a conventional ASP system. However, the
electrical costs will be significantly higher than those of the conventional ASP system due to the
operation of coarse bubble and fine bubble aeration and operation of the membrane suction
pumps. There will also be additional operating costs associated with membrane replacement,
which have an anticipated life about 5 to 10 years.

This technology has typically been found to be feasible where there are site constraints and strict
effluent discharge requirements, especially for TP and TSS. Although at Ravensview WPCP site
constraint is a concern, this technology would provide a much higher than required level of
treatment at a significantly higher cost compared to other secondary treatment options. On this
basis, membrane biological reactor was not considered further.

4.6 Biological Aerated Filter (BAF)

Biological aerated filters (BAF) are high-rate biological processes that utilize the features of
attached growth biological filters and the efficient oxygen transfer capabilities of diffused
aeration systems. The process consists of a biological reactor filled with 3 to 5 m media bed,
which serves as both a filter and a surface for biological activity. The wastewater is fed from the

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-33 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

top or bottom of the reactor, depending on the configuration, and process air is supplied from the
bottom. The influent solids and biomass produced in a BAF accumulate in the filters and are
removed by periodic backwashing using secondary effluent stored in a tank. Backwashing
normally occurs once every 24 to 48 hours and uses approximately 5 to 10 percent of the treated
water. Backwashing can be controlled based on elapsed time or accumulated headloss across the
filter bed. BAF processes eliminate the need for secondary clarifiers. Some additional area
requirements exist for treated effluent storage and backwash water storage tanks. In general, the
total footprint size of a BAF secondary treatment process is equivalent to approximately one
third of a conventional ASP. BAF processes have a compact design that can be fully automated,
reducing maintenance and operational requirements. This technology offers operational
flexibility during flow and load variations, including the option to shutdown filters or operate in
standby mode during low flows and improved treatment of dilute and cold wastewater. These
processes can be configured for carbon removal, nitrification, and denitrification. The modular
design provides an advantage for future capacity upgrades. A schematic of a typical BAF
process is shown in Figure 4.5.

There are various proprietary suppliers of the BAF technology. US Filter/Kruger developed the
BIOCARBONE downflow filtration system with air introduced at the bottom of the filter. There
are six BIOCARBONE facilities in Canada. This technology has experienced some odour
problems and other limitations and has been replaced by the USFilter/John Meunier Inc.
BIOSTYR upflow filtration system, where the influent wastewater and process air are applied to
the bottom of the reactor. There is also the Ondeo Degremont BIOFOR filtration system, which
uses a similar upflow configuration. Overall, the BAF process has been implemented at over
100 locations throughout Europe and several locations in the United States.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-34 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Figure 4.5 Typical BAF Process Schematic

Solids Laden
Backwash Backwash Secondary
Water Water Tank Effluent
Storage to Disinfection

to Biosolids Thickening

Process Air/ Biological Support

Backwash Air Media

Effluent from
Primary Clarifiers
Backwash Water

In Canada, there is one BIOFOR facility in Chateauguay, Quebec, and one in Alberta. The
Thunder Bay WPCP and Windsor WPCP are currently in the process of implementing the
BIOFOR process. The largest BAF facility in operation in Canada is located in Sherbrooke,
Quebec; the process is designed to treat 80,000 m3/d and meet effluent BOD5, TSS, and TP
requirements of 20 mg/L, 20 mg/L, and 0.8 mg/L, respectively. The BAF units at this facility are
located in a building, and each unit is covered by individual fibreglass domes to protect the
building interior from corrosion. Many other facilities in Quebec, including the installation in
Chateauguay, operate well without covers. There are no odour problems with the open concept
BAF units, because the treated effluent collected on top of the filter is exposed. Loss of media
during backwash, estimated at approximately 3 percent per year, was noted to occur. Media can
be topped up on an annual basis, or this issue can be addressed through process design.

Process suppliers indicated that they have experience operating the process at wastewater
temperatures of around 8°C with no adverse effects on effluent quality. Effluent with TSS and
BOD5 concentration of less than 10 mg/L can be consistently produced. Effluent ammonia
concentration of less than 1.0 mg/L can be achieved in a combined BOD removal and
nitrification process. Chemicals for phosphorus removal should be added in the upstream

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-35 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

treatment processes (primary clarifiers). Coagulant could be added immediately prior to the
BAF units; however, there is potential for plugging of the filters and reduced filter run lengths
with this configuration.

The solids yield from a BAF operation would be similar to conventional ASP. The backwash
water TSS is in the range of 500 mg/L. The backwash solids typically have good settling
characteristics. The backwash water is stored in a separate equalization tank and pumped at a
slower rate to co-thicken with raw wastewater in the primary clarifiers or separate thickening.

Table 4.7 presents footprint requirements for a BAF at the Ravensview WPCP, which were
estimated for a combined BOD and nitrification, based on equipment supplier information (John
Meunier/US Filter).

Table 4.7 Estimated BAF Footprint Requirements

Process Footprint Requirements

Bioreactor: Aerated Filter (8 cells) 1,200 m 2 (1)

Filtered Water/Dirty Backwash Water 600 m 2

Storage
Notes:
(1) Estimated based on single stage BOD removal and nitrification process configuration, assuming
3.0 m media depth.

The estimated site area requirement of a BAF system for the Ravensview WPCP for BOD5
removal and nitrification, assuming that phosphorus removal is practiced in the primary
clarifiers, is estimated at 1,200 m2 at the design flow of 95,000 m3/d. This assumes a media
depth of about 3.0 m. Additional site area of about 600 m 2 may be required for treated water and
dirty backwash water storage tanks, depending on the configuration.

BAF would have lower aeration requirements compared to conventional activated sludge process
due to improved oxygen transfer efficiency in the filter media. Additional energy would be
needed for backwash, but there would be no need for sludge recycle pumping.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-36 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Capital cost for the BAF upgrade option is estimated at $27.4 million. This cost is based on the
open cell BAF configuration. The electrical energy operating costs are estimated at
approximately 0.90 ¢/m3 sewage treated based on information provide by equipment suppliers
and $0.08/kWh. This operating cost includes aeration and backwash energy requirements.

4.7 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)

The biological nutrient removal (BNR) process is an activated sludge process whereby nutrients
(i.e. phosphorus and nitrogen) that can detrimentally impact receiving water quality are removed
from wastewater without the assistance of chemicals. The process operation is similar to a
conventional ASP, in that it consists of biological treatment followed by a secondary clarifier.
There are many different BNR system configurations, each with a few common elements.
Different performance objectives, including nitrification, denitrification, and/or phosphorus
removal, can be achieved in BNR systems through use of alternating aerobic, anoxic, and
anaerobic conditions in the process train. Schematics of some typical BNR process
configurations are shown in Figure 4.6.

The BOD5 removal and nitrification performance of the BNR process would be similar to the
conventional ASP. Effluent TSS concentrations would also be equivalent to or better than
conventional ASPs, as alternating anaerobic and/or anoxic cycles tend to enhance sludge
settleability. TP concentrations of 1 mg/L are achievable at BNR plants, but care must be taken
to ensure that proper environmental conditions are attained in the process tanks, especially where
nitrification is practiced. It may be necessary to occasionally add a metal salt (iron or alum)
upstream of the secondary clarifiers to achieve consistently low phosphorus levels in the treated
effluent of a BNR plant.

The major advantage of the BNR process is the savings associated with reduced chemical
demands, sludge management costs, and reduced aeration cost, as part of the BOD is consumed
in the anoxic and anaerobic zones. Chemical costs will be significantly lower, as phosphorus
normally removed chemically can be removed biologically; however, some BNR plants add
small coagulant doses to ensure compliance. Chemical sludge from a conventional ASP
typically accounts for about 15 percent of the total sludge production, indicating that the BNR
process configuration may be expected to reduce sludge production by a similar percentage.
Furthermore, there is more biologically available phosphorus in the biosolids from a BNR plant,
which increases the fertilizer value of the sludge, compared to the sludge from a chemical

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-37 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

phosphorus removal process, which contains stable phosphorus complexes that are not readily
available for plant and microbial uptake.

Figure 4.6 Typical BNR Process Configurations

Modified Johannesburg Process

Effluent from
Secondary Effluent
Primary to Disinfection
Clarifier Anoxic Anaerobic Aerobic Secondary
Zone Zone Zone Clarifiers

Return Activated Sludge Waste Activated

Sludge

UCT/VIP Configuration
Secondary Effluent
Effluent from to Disinfection
Primary Anaerobic Anoxic Aerobic Secondary
Clarifier Zone Zone Zone Clarifiers

Return Activated Sludge Waste Activated

Sludge

Due to the septic conditions in the primary clarifier, the co-thickening of WAS in the primary
clarifiers would potentially result in a phosphorus release and could not be practiced. Therefore,
for this option, the WAS would need to be thickened separately and then blended with primary
sludge upstream of digestion.

The design of a BNR process will vary depending on the selected configuration and the specific
design objectives. Typical total system HRTs for year round nitrification are about 10 hours
(WEF, 1992), resulting in biological reactor requirements approximately 60 percent higher than a
conventional ASP. Secondary clarifier sizing would be similar to that in the conventional ASP.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-38 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Currently, there are several large-scale BNR facilities operating in Western Canada and the
United States under similar climatic conditions and flows as the Ravensview WPCP. There are a
few small BNR plants operating in Ontario, and BNR has been evaluated for several facilities.

When compared to ASP, the application of BNR process at the Ravensview WPCP would
require more biological reactor tankage and sludge transfer; this would have a higher capital
cost. The process would also be more complex to operate more tanks and recycle streams.
Operating cost savings could be achieved due to lower chemical costs and sludge management
costs; however, these benefits would be marginal. Therefore, for application at Ravensview
WPCP, the BNR option would not provide significant cost benefit when compared to the
conventional ASP. On this basis, the biological nutrient removal activated sludge process was
rejected from further consideration.

4.8 Summary

Table 4.8 presents a summary of the reviewed secondary treatment options that were considered
to be best suited for implementation at the Ravensview WPCP. These include the conventional
activated sludge process with step-feed option, moving bed biological reactor (MBBR),
biological aerated filter (BAF), and sequencing batch reactor (SBR).

All of these secondary treatment technologies would be effective in meeting the proposed
effluent requirements at the Ravensview WPCP, with respect to organic carbon removal and
nitrification performance. Phosphorus removal would be achieved with chemical addition. For
all processes, with the exception of the BAF, chemicals would be added prior to secondary
clarification. With the BAF technology, due to potential for filter plugging, chemicals would be
added upstream of the primary clarifiers. These technologies would have similar sludge
production compared to the conventional activated sludge process. For all options, waste
activated sludge could be co-thickened in the primary clarifiers or thickened separately.
Furthermore, all options are well equipped to deal with wet weather flows. The main differences
between these technologies would be with respect to process footprint and capital and operating
cost.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-39 May 14, 2004
 Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Table 4.8 Comparison of Feasible Secondary Treatment Technologies

Wet Weather Nitrification & Sludge Estimated Estimated

Space Flow Phosphorus Production Capital Electrical &
Technology Requirements Handling Removal & Handling Cost Chemical Cost Other
3
Conventional Bioreactor: Good with step Phosphorus Co-thickening $34.7 M 1.0 – 1.5 c/m Proven technology
Activated 4,500 m2 feed removal by in primary depending on
Sludge (CAS) Secondary configuration chemical addition clarifiers aeration Moderate potential for
efficiency full process automation
With step-feed Clarifier:2 Nitrification
7,000 m achieved by
process control
Moving Bed Bioreactor: Better than Phosphorus Sludge $35.8 M Aeration cost Process resilient against
Biological 1,400 m² CAS due to removal by production higher than CAS shock load and changing
Reactor higher biomass chemical addition same as CAS due to reduced sewage quality & flow
(MBBR) Secondary inventory O2 transfer
Clarifiers same Nitrification can Co-thickening efficiency Pilot experience only in
as CAS be achieved with in primary (coarse bubble Ontario
proper design clarifiers or
diffusers) and Perforated pipe diffused
separate higher DO
thickening air system – no
setpoint maintenance
No need for Potential to upgrade
RAS or biological treatment
backwash capacity in future by
pumping addition of media
Biological Bioreactor: Better than Phosphorus Sludge $ 27.4 M Approximately Filters are backwashed
Aerated Filter 1,200 m2 CAS due to removal by production 0.9 ¢/m 3 every 24-48 hours
(BAF) higher biomass chemical addition same as CAS (aeration &
Backwash Perforated pipe diffused
inventory in primary backwash)
tanks: 600 m2 clarifiers Backwash air system – limited
Significant
(potential for filter solids settling maintenance
plugging) characteristics potential for
Potential for full process
better than aeration cost
Can be configured CAS savings during automation
for nitrification low flow periods
Co-thickening
in primary
clarifiers or
separate
thickening
Sequencing SBR reactors: Wet weather Phosphorus Sludge $ 26.5 M Energy cost Efficient & flexible
Batch Reactor 11,800 m2 flows removal by production lower than CAS operation
(SBR) accommodated chemical addition same as CAS due to no RAS
by reducing pumping Potential for full process
cycle time Nitrification Co-thickening automation
achieved by in primary
process control clarifiers Process resilient against
shock load and changing
sewage quality & flow
Limited experience with
large systems in Ontario
Fine bubble aeration
process maintenance

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-40 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

5.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

The criteria for evaluation of alternatives were developed by considering issues important in the
selection of a secondary treatment process and assigning a weighting number depending on their
importance. The evaluation parameters, weighting, and rating scale are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Process Evaluation Criteria

Parameter Description Weight Rating Scale
Performance and experience 5 1- Poor performance in similar climates or no experience
in similar climates at similar 3- Adequate performance in similar climates or some
size experience
5- Good to excellent performance in similar climates,
proven technology
Compatibility and impact on 5 1- Extensive impact on process requirements and
existing primary treatment performance
or sludge management 3- Some impacts on process requirements and performance
processes
5- Little or no impact on process requirements and
performance
Simplicity/Operational 5 1- Extensive operator knowledge required
Complexity 3- Moderate operator knowledge required
5- Little operator knowledge required
Operating Requirements 5 1- Limited potential for automation
3- Moderate potential for automation
5- Potential for full automation
Flexibility 5 1- Little flexibility in operation
3- Some flexibility in operation
5- Considerable flexibility in operation
Land area requirements 10 3- Large area requirements
6 - Medium area requirements
10 - Small area requirements
Capital Costs 15 5 - High capital costs
10 - Medium capital costs
15 - Low capital costs
Operating Costs 15 5 - High operating costs
10 - Medium operating costs
15- Low operating costs
Total 65

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-41 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

For the Ravensview WPCP, the key considerations in selecting a secondary treatment process
are:

• Land requirements and ease of integration within the existing process configuration.

• The ability of the entire treatment process to convey and effectively treat wet weather
flows.

• Impact on the capacity or operation of the existing treatment processes, including the
primary treatment, disinfection, and the sludge management.

• Capital and operating costs.

Compatibility with existing treatment processes, including primary treatment and biosolids
management, process flexibility to adjust operating parameters to various loading/flow
conditions, and operating complexity were also incorporated in the evaluation criteria. Staffing
requirements were assessed based on the relative opportunity for process automation, and thus
staff reduction.

Since all feasible technologies would be capable of similar level of biological treatment and
would meet the proposed effluent criteria with respect to BOD5, TSS, TP, and ammonia
concentration, and also all options would result in similar biological sludge production, these
parameters were not included in the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, all four of the feasible
options would have similar wet weather flow handling capability, therefore this criteria was also
not included.

5.2 Results of Screening of Secondary Treatment Technologies

The ranks for each of the evaluation parameters outlined in Table 5.1 were assigned to each
technology based on relative comparison of the technologies. The ranks were then summed up,
with the highest score representing the preferred option and being assigned the highest overall
rank. The evaluation results for the secondary treatment upgrade options are presented in
Table 5.2. It should be noted that the comparison of options is somewhat relative, and the final
scores encompass multiple factors. Therefore, technologies that may have scored well in some
areas, but received poor rating in others, may not have resulted in a high overall score.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-42 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Table 5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives Evaluation Results

Evaluation Criteria

Similar Climates at

Impact on Primary

Operating Costs
Performance in

Requirements

Requirements

Capital Costs
Treatment &
Process

Operational
Similar Size

Complexity

Land Area
Simplicity/

Operating
Flexibility
Biosolids

Rank
Total
Weight 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 15 65 --
Conventional
ASP with step- 5 3 3 3 1 3 6 10 34 3
feed
Moving Bed
Biological 2 3 5 1 3 5 5 7 31 4
Reactor
Biological
3 2 1 3 5 10 14 15 53 1
Aerated Filters
Sequencing
4 3 1 5 4 5 15 12 49 2
Batch Reactors

Based on the evaluation criteria, the preferred secondary treatment upgrade option for the
Ravensview WPCP is the biological aerated filter (BAF). The key advantage of the BAF
technology is a small footprint requirement, which makes this option well suited for application
at this plant where there are significant siting constraints. BAF is a relatively simple process to
operate and maintain, with local installations that have over 10 years of operating experience.
There is a considerable opportunity for process automation, thus opportunity for operating cost
savings. The BAF technology offers lower capital cost compared to CAS and other technologies
with similar small footprints and low operating cost.

The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and the conventional activated sludge (CAS) with step feed
capability, ranked second and third, respectively. Both of these technologies would provide
operational flexibility to maintain effluent quality during seasonal flow, load, and temperature
variations. These are proven technologies, which are widely used in Ontario. The SBR would
offer significant opportunity for process automation and could be implemented at a capital cost
similar to that of the BAF. The conventional ASP capital cost would be significantly higher.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-43 May 14, 2004
Ravensview WPCP Class EA Update
Technical Memo No. 4 – Review of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

These options, however, have significantly higher footprint requirements, and given the
constraints at the Ravensview WPCP site, these options would limit potential to expand the
capacity of the plant at the existing site in the future. The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
ranked fourth. The MBBR is a flow through process and would offer operating simplicity. This
option would have similar footprint and cost requirements as the conventional ASP, thus would
have limited overall advantages.

6.0 REFERENCES

WEF (1991) “Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.” Manual of Practice No. 8.
Second Edition. Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers. Book
Press, Inc. Brattleboro, VA.

“MOE (1984) Guidelines for the Design of Sewage Treatment Works.” Ministry of
Environment of Ontario. July 1984.

Metcalf and Eddy (1991) “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse.” Third
Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Toronto, Ontario.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 19469

XCG Consultants Ltd. 4-44 May 14, 2004