Stabilisationpondsimprovement

§ report
Options for Improving

Effluent Quality from Existing
Oxidation Ponds in
Waimakariri District
§ report
Options for Improving
Effluent Quality from Existing
Oxidation Ponds in
Waimakariri District
Prepared for
Waimakariri District Council
By
CH2M Beca Ltd
March 2002
6511287/010 Rev B ¦ R1:27402

Options for Improving Effluent Quality from Existing Oxidation Ponds
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
2 Regulatory Drivers .................................................................................................... 2
3 Options for Improving Effluent Quality of Oxidation Ponds ................................... 5

3.1 General ........................................................................................................5
3.2 Maturation Ponds in Series ......................................................................5
3.3 Surface Flow Wetlands .............................................................................7
3.4 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF).................................................................8
3.5 Chemical Dosing and Clarification .........................................................8
3.6 Enhanced Soakage into the Kaiapoi Infiltration/ Wetlands Area by
Groundwater Extraction ...........................................................................9
3.7 Upgrading of Oxidation Ponds at Rangiora and Woodend..............11
4 Evaluation of Options ............................................................................................. 13
Appendices
Appendix A - Copy of Paper on Upgrading of Seddon and Blenheim Pond Systems
Appendix B - Extracts from USEPA Manual for Constructed Wetlands - Sept 2000
Appendix C – Schematics of Options
Appendix D – Literature Extracts on Infiltration Basins and Renovated Water

Extraction
6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page i

R1:27402-BecaPondsRevB.doc Rev B 11 March 2002
Options for Improving Effluent Quality from Existing Oxidation Ponds in Waimakariri District
1 Introduction
At a special meeting of Waimakariri District Council (WDC) held on 28 February 2002, the
following recommendations were adopted:
“2. Peer reviewer to carry out comprehensive desk top exploration of options for reconfiguration
and/or incorporation of additional features for the existing ponds in order to determine whether
treated effluent from these improved assets will be able to comply with expected discharge
criteria for both short term (up to five years) discharge to Lower Waimakariri River and long
term (beyond five years) to ocean.
3. The peer reviewer to furnish their findings from recommendation 2 [above] and clearly show a
preferred approach (if one can be shown) for improving both the Kaiapoi and Rangiora assets
and for these to be contained within a written report presented to the Sewerage Subcommittee
on or before 8 March 2002.”
This report addresses the above requests and describes the following options for
upgrading of effluent quality from the existing oxidation pond assets in Waimakariri
District.
§ Smaller maturation ponds in series with in-bank rock filters between ponds to improve
solids and microbiological removals.
§ Surface flow wetlands consisting of alternating planted zones and open water areas,
for removal of algae solids and microbiological indicators.
§ Dissolved air flotation and chemical dosing process, to remove algae solids and
phosphorus if required.
§ Removal of algae solids by chemical dosing and settling in a clarifier.
§ Enhanced soakage through the wetlands/infiltration area at Kaiapoi by extracting
groundwater from below the site (as proposed by SKM, December 2001).
These improvements would be located at the Kaiapoi WWTP and would handle the
combined effluent from Kaiapoi, Rangiora and Woodend oxidation ponds before
discharge in the short term to Jockey Baker Creek or the Waimakariri River, or in the long
term, via an ocean outfall. Schematic diagrams of the options are included in Appendix C.
Comments are also made on pond desludging and upgrading at each of the three
localities.
This report is not the Peer Reviewers Report on all the investigations which have been
conducted recently (Project Brief No’s 1 to 6) but is an additional review of options for
improvement of existing Kaiapoi and Rangiora wastewater treatment assets with a focus
on improvement of effluent quality.
6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 1

2 Regulatory Drivers
When evaluating the “potential value” of natural wastewater treatment systems, it is
necessary to recognise the preferential status given to constructed wetlands and passage
of effluent through soil, in the Resource Management Act (RMA) and associated
regulatory documents.
The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 was authorised under the RMA and
states:
“5.1 Maintenance and Enhancement of Water Quality
Policy 5.1.1
Rules should be made as soon as possible with the object of enhancing water quality in the
coastal environment (including aquifers) where that is desirable to assist in achieving the
purpose of the Act, and in particular where:
(a) there is a high public interest in, or use of the water;

(b) there is a particular tangata whenua interest in the water;
(c) there is a particular value to be maintained or enhanced; or
(d) there is a direct discharge containing human sewage.
Policy 5.1.2
Those rules should provide that a discharge of human sewage direct into water, without
passing through land, may occur only where:
(a) it better meets the purpose of the Act than disposal onto land;
(b) there has been consultation with the tangata whenua in accordance with tikanga Maori
and due weight has been given to Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act; and
(c) there has been consultation with the community generally.
Policy 5.1.3
Those rules should also provide that, after reasonable mixing, no discharge (either by itself
or in combination with other discharges) may give rise to any significant adverse effects on
habitats, feeding ground or ecosystems.
and:
5.3 Defining the Specific Circumstances in Which the Minister of Conservation Will
Decide on Resource Consent Applications.
Policy 5.3.1
The types of activities which have or are likely to have a significant or irreversible adverse
effect on the coastal marine area and for which therefore the Minister of Conservation will
decide resource consent applications, are those defined in Schedule 1.

and Schedule S1.10(a) states:
Any discharge of human sewage to the coastal marine area, … which has not passed
through soil or wetland, shall be a restricted coastal activity.”
Treated human sewage discharges both to the tidal portion of the Waimakariri River in the
vicinity of the Kaiapoi WWTP and via an ocean outfall, would be subject to the foregoing
requirements of the NZCPS.
If a treated discharge is passed through soil or wetland, it can be approved as a coastal

discharge permit by Environment Canterbury (ECan), without needing the approval of the
Minister of Conservation. However, the Department of Conservation would most likely,
be actively involved as a submitter to the consent process.
The preferential status of effluent which has passed through soil or constructed wetland is
repeated in the Draft Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) recently published by ECan
in October 2001.
The Draft Natural Resources Regional Plan applies to lowland rivers, upstream of the
Coastal Marine Area, which would include discharges to the Cam River and its tributaries.
Proposed Rule WQL19 regarding the discharge of sewage effluent into surface water
states:
“WQL19.1: The discharge from sewage effluent treatment facilities before January 1, 2010,
of treated or untreated human sewage effluent into surface water, or onto or into land in
circumstances which may result in that sewage (or any other contaminant emanating as a
result of natural processes from that sewage) entering surface water, is a discretionary
activity.
WQL19.2: The discharge, after January 1, 2005, of treated or untreated human sewage
effluent into surface water, or onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that
sewage (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that
sewage) entering surface water without passing through soil or constructed
wetland is a prohibited activity.
Note: Discharge permits granted for this activity before January 1, 2005, will expire on
January 1, 2010.”
The explanation for Rule WQL19 is given as:
“The discharge of sewage effluent directly into surface water results in significant adverse
effects on water quality and on cultural and spiritual values of the water. The purpose of
the rule is to place a time limit on the existing discharges, and to prohibit any new
discharges being established. Under the rule, any existing discharge will be able to be
authorised as a discretionary activity until 2010. However the activity will become a
prohibited activity, for which no resource consent will be issued after January 1, 2005.”
The wording of the proposed Rule WQL19 is similar to that incorporated into the Opihi
River Regional Plan (South Canterbury – the first such Regional Plan to be finalised in

Canterbury) which prohibits all direct discharges of sewage to the river after 31 December
2003, no matter what treatment standard is achieved.
The requirements of the NRRP are similar to the NZCPS but are stricter in terms of total
prohibition after 2005 whereas the NZCPS does allow discharges to coastal water, if it can
be shown that “it better meets the purpose of the Act than disposal to land.”
While the NRRP is not operative, its provisions, if adopted unchanged, would not allow a
consent to be granted for a discharge from the Rangiora Plant after 2005 into the Cam
River, unless the effluent was passed through soil or constructed wetland.
The foregoing extracts illustrate that priority should be given to an effluent discharge
strategy that includes passage through soil or constructed wetlands, both for discharges to
rivers and to the ocean. If a mechanical or in-tank treatment plant was constructed, a
wetland or land infiltration system could be required by the regulatory framework.

3 Options for Improving Effluent Quality

of Oxidation Ponds
3.1 General
Oxidation ponds have been a widely used method of wastewater treatment in New
Zealand. Single and double ponds in series were commonly installed from the 1960’s to
1980’s. These ponds have low capital and operating costs. They produced a reasonable
effluent quality on average, characterised by the green algae colour, but there were
variations in effluent quality due to short circuiting, algae blooms and adverse weather
conditions (little sunshine or wind mixing).
The variations in effluent quality can be reduced and the overall effluent quality and
clarity improved, by adding one, or a combination of, the following enhancements:
§ Smaller maturation ponds in series with in-bank rock filters between ponds to improve
solids and microbiological removals.
§ Surface flow wetlands consisting of alternating planted zones and open water areas,
for removal of algae solids and microbiological indicators.
§ Dissolved air flotation and chemical dosing process to remove algae solids and
phosphorus if required.
§ Removal of algae solids by chemical dosing and settling in a clarifier.
§ Enhanced soakage through the wetlands/infiltration area at Kaiapoi by extracting
groundwater from below the site (as proposed by SKM, December 2001).
3.2 Maturation Ponds in Series

Through the 1990’s, more advanced pond systems were installed or upgraded at Oamaru,
Seddon, Blenheim, Geraldine and other locations. These systems comprised four to six
maturation ponds in series with the later installations featuring rock filters in the banks
between the maturation cells. The extra treatment stages in series greatly reduce short
circuiting.
The concept is illustrated by the Blenheim Pond Upgrading as described in Appendix 1.

The improved performance with more recent updates is shown in Table 1, particularly for
removals of faecal coliform and enterococci. The Blenheim effluent medians meet the
current contact recreation water quality guideline (marine) for enterococci of 35 cfu/100
ml and the former equivalent for faecal coliform of 200 cfu/100 ml. This is achieved
without artificial UV disinfection and the Blenheim ponds attract a normal number of
ducks, geese and black swans which also contribute to these faecal indicators. The records
from June 2001 to February 2002, cover a period of unfavourable climatic conditions of
cloud, reduced sunshine hours, higher rainfall and cooler temperatures.

The in-bank rock filters appear to have an extra benefit in improving the removal of faecal
coliform and enterococci compared to just ponds in series. This is probably due to the
removal of some of the algae in the rock filters allowing greater sunlight penetration.
Residual algae in the final effluent gives a lighter green colour.
Ammonia and total nitrogen removals in summer are equivalent to that achieved by an in-
tank BNR plant. It will be necessary to observe performance over winter when lower
temperatures could restrict the amount of ammonia removed.
Table 1
Effluent Quality Data for Blenheim STP
Final Pond Effluent

Faecal Presumptive Suspended Ammonia Total
Date Coliform Enterococci Solids Nitrogen Nitrogen
cfu/100 ml cfu/100 ml g/m 3 g/m3 g/m3
Geometric Mean
prior to upgrade 150,000 10,000 59 18 32
1996-2000 incl
After upgrade
16 Jun 01 - - 40 20 30
05 Jul 01 - - 40 21 32
16 Aug 01 180 80 - - -
21 Aug 01 400 <200 38 - -
12 Sep 01 20 20 70 - -
13 Sep 01 40 <20 - - -
25 Oct 01 280 <20 28 12 20
26 Oct 01 20 20 - - -
28 Nov 01 300 <20 - - -
12 Dec 01 500 40 50 - -
18 Dec 01 400 20 52 - -
15 Jan 02 - - - 0.025 14
23 Jan 02 180 40 - 0.045 11
30 Jan 02 - - - 0.38 10
Median Jun 01 to 180 20 40 0.38 14
Feb 02
A maturation pond system at Kaiapoi treating the combined flow would consist of:
Retention Area
Days ha
First Maturation Pond 4 3.0
Second Maturation Pond 2 1.5
Third Maturation Pond 1 0.75
Totals 7 5.25

The proposed maturation ponds could handle the 2006 design flows and extra ponds
would be added in series or parallel to accommodate future increases up to the 2030
design flows. Maturation ponds should not be oversized initially, because the longer
retention times can allow algae to multiply excessively. If retention times are less than 2
days, most algae types cannot reproduce quickly enough but will be transferred to the next
cell to provide oxygenation capability.
The rock sizes used in the rock filters are between 65 and 100 mm (similar to traditional
rock trickling filters) and head loss and clogging are not issues in the short term. If the
filters do clog in the long term, maintenance will be relatively low cost and could be done
by lifting the rock with an excavator, washing and replacing.
3.3 Surface Flow Wetlands

During the 1980’s and 1990’s, most design guidelines for constructed treatment wetlands,
favoured fully planted surface flow or subsurface flow gravel bed wetlands. However, the
Manual for Constructed Wetlands published by the USEPA in September 2000, is strongly
critical of fully planted wetlands after reviewing the operating performance of many
installations in the USA mainly because of a lack of oxygenation capacity – refer to extracts
in Appendix B. This Manual recommends wetlands as an appropriate method of
improving the effluent quality from oxidation ponds.
The concept now recommended by the EPA consists of three zones in series, a shallow
(0.7 m) inlet zone which is fully planted, then an open water pond area (with a depth
≥ 1.2 m, similar to a maturation pond for re-oxygenation) and a final planted outlet zone
similar to the inlet zone. A system located at Kaiapoi handling the combined 2006 design
flows and designed to the USEPA guidelines, would comprise:
Retention Depth Area

Days m ha
Inlet Planted Zone 3.33 0.8 3.75
Open Water Pond 2.50 1.4 1.60
Outlet Plant Zone 3.33 0.8 3.75
Totals 9.16 9.10
Because wetlands need to be drained for maintenance of the plantings, two parallel trains
would be initially provided for the 2006 design flows with a third train added as
population increases towards the 2030 projections.
The performance of the three cell wetland concept treating oxidation pond effluent at
Arcata, California, is shown in Figures 3-2 and 4-12 in Appendix A. The “whisker plots”
show that the wide range in both BOD and SS parameters in the oxidation pond effluent, is
greatly reduced and that there is a progressive reduction through the wetlands down to a
median of about 15:15 effluent quality after 6 days. The plots show a significant
improvement after 2 days travel path through the wetlands, but a 2 day retention wetland

at Oamaru did not achieve the BOD and SS removals quoted for the Arcata wetlands after
2 days. SKM has suggested a 2 day retention wetland at Kaiapoi (in the draft Joint
Operations Study, February 2001) but proven experience under South Island conditions
would be needed before a 2 day retention wetland could be supported.
Costs for establishing and maintaining wetland plants are significant and should not be
underestimated. Prolific growth plants which produce excessive litter, such as Raupo
(bulrush), should be avoided.
3.4 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

Even with enhanced treatment in wetlands or maturation cells with rock filters, some algae
or humic colour can remain which could be an issue for a short term discharge to Jockey
Baker Creek. The removal of solids is also necessary for UV disinfection to be fully
effective.
Algae are difficult to separate by sedimentation even under quiescent conditions and
remain suspended in the water column. Dissolved air flotation is a process commonly
used to separate oil and grease solids from wastewater and it also has been used to remove
algae from oxidation pond effluents in the USA and Australia. Successful pilot trials have
been undertaken in New Zealand at the Waihi oxidation pond.
The process works by creating fine air bubbles which attach to algae and other suspended
solids bringing them to the surface as froth or float sludge. Skimming devices then
remove the froth from the surface. The froth can be tankered off site or dewatered by a
belt press or recycled to the oxidation ponds.
Various forms of the DAF concept are available as proprietary processes. Submissions
from four firms were requested and three preliminary proposals were received. An
effluent SS of < 10 g/m3 can be achieved with good clarity (NTU 2). Phosphorus can also
be removed if Ferric chloride (or similar) chemical is dosed.
Indicative capital cost for a plant capable of handling the combined flow, would be
$800,000. Operating costs would be $300,000 per year with chemical purchase costs being
the major share. Thus DAF may not be an economic long term option for effluent
improvement, but could be considered for a short term discharge to Jockey Baker Creek.
The DAF tankage has a small footprint and could be re-sold at the end of a 3 to 5 year
period.
3.5 Chemical Dosing and Clarification

Algae can also be removed from pond or wetlands effluents, by pre-coagulation and
settling in a clarifier. Either alum or lime can be used as the coagulant at dose rates in the
200 to 400 g/m3 range which results in a relatively high chemical usage – much higher
than for DAF. Lime dosing would also remove phosphorus as an insoluble precipitate.

Results were reported in the USEPA Design Manual for Municipal Wastewater
Stabilisation Ponds (1983) and effluent SS in the range 8 to 23 g/m3 were achieved. This
performance is not as good as DAF systems which are now generally favoured for this
application.
A single clarifier about 24 m diameter would be required which is a substantial concrete

structure and would have a capital cost about $800,000. Annual costs for chemicals and
operation, would be about $500,000.
3.6 Enhanced Soakage into the Kaiapoi Infiltration/

Wetlands Area by Groundwater Extraction
MWH and SKM have previously reported on the characteristics of the infiltration/wetland
area at Kaiapoi. During low rainfall periods, all the treated effluent from Kaiapoi soaks
into the infiltration/wetland area but during rainfall or when groundwater levels are
higher, the wetlands overflow to Jockey Baker Creek.
The preliminary draft report by SKM (February 2001) on the Groundwater Pumping Trial
indicates that infiltration rates were increased significantly and that development of the
concept with additional wells, appears to be feasible.
It is common for mounding of groundwater to restrict the capacity of infiltration basins

and also for this limitation to be reduced by installing underdrains or wells, to remove
“renovated water” at depth – refer USEPA Design Manual - Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater (1981), Section 5.7.2 – extracts in Appendix D. Some infiltration basin systems
in the USA have been operating for over 90 years.
The SKM December 2001 concept design, caters for only Kaiapoi flow and would need to
be re-analysed for the addition of Rangiora and Woodend flows. However, the infiltration
area is relatively large and loading rates, with the combined flow from the three localities,
would not be high in comparison with infiltration schemes elsewhere in New Zealand and
the USA, as follows:
Hydraulic Loading on
Infiltration Area (a)
metres/year
Normal Range for Infiltration Basins (b) 6 to 100
Kaiapoi Only (current flows) 5
Combined Kaiapoi, Rangiora and Woodend – 2006 11
Future Combined – 2030 16
Notes:
(a) Based on a minimum infiltration area of 30 ha as stipulated in Condition 1 of Discharge Permit
to Land – CRC 941505.
(b) From Table 13.7 in Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 1999, WEF MOP
8/ASCE Report Nº 76 – extracts in Appendix D.

Thus the future hydraulic loading rates on the Kaiapoi infiltration area will still be at the
lower end of the 6 to 100 metres/year range normally used for infiltration basins. Good
treatment performance can be anticipated because of the lower hydraulic loading rate.
The sub-strata is described in the SKM February 2001 report as “moderately sorted, clean, fine
to coarse-grained sands with occasional traces of clay or silt .… The shell fragments become
gradationally more prolific with depth to approximately 16 m below ground level, where a
significant gravel layer of at least 2.5 m was encountered. This gravel comprises well-rounded
pebbles and granules ranging in grain size from 2 to 32 mm. Minor gravels were also noted at
depths of between 9.6 and 12.5 m in SKM 5.”
This description potentially indicates a favourable sub-strata for enhanced infiltration with
an appreciable depth of sands to act as a filter, underlain by a more permeable gravel layer
which could allow significant horizontal movement of water to extraction wells.
The extracted groundwater parameters are presented in Table 3.2 of the SKM Report and
the key contaminants are summarised below:
Ammoniacal-N 0.22 g/m3

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N 0.002 g/m3
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.1 g/m3
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus 0.097 g/m3
E.coli < 2 cfu/100 ml
Faecal Coliforms < 2 cfu/100 ml
At these low contaminant concentrations, the public health and other water quality criteria
for a discharge to Jockey Baker Creek and the Waimakariri River could be comfortably
met. It should be noted that the good groundwater quality is achieved at present even
though effluent from a single cell oxidation pond is discharged to the infiltration/wetland.
A much improved effluent quality could be fed to the infiltration area if three maturation
cells in series with rock filters, are installed.
Thus the concept of enhanced infiltration by using groundwater extraction wells, appears
to warrant more detailed consideration in terms of capital and operating costs. A similar
proposal was found to be feasible at Leeston and ECan officers have supported the concept
from technical and regulatory viewpoints.
If full scale development of enhanced infiltration is feasible, it may be preferable to divide

the area into six or eight basins so that dosing can be cycled over a week or fortnight
period. The low bunds would not be costly and would allow a basin to be spelled and
sludge deposits removed, should this be needed in the long term. The existing 600 mm
diam. distribution piping would allow for this subdivision readily and has ample capacity
because it was originally designed for a border-dyke irrigation system at high
instantaneous flow rates.

This is a provisional assessment based on the preliminary information available to date.

Inputs from the specialist peer reviewer (Pattle Delamore Partners) and the final report
from SKM will be needed before further confirmation can be made.
From the regulatory viewpoint, the effluent will have passed through soil and the
individual contaminant parameters are likely to meet the water quality criteria. Therefore,
the discharge of extracted groundwater will not be a Restricted Coastal Activity and can be
assessed by ECan as a Coastal Permit. This would apply to a discharge either to the tidal
portion of the Waimakariri River or to the ocean.
A further advantage of the concept, is that the renovated water wells could be installed
with the shortest lead time of all options and produce a good quality discharge to the
Waimakariri River within days of start-up.
3.7 Upgrading of Oxidation Ponds at Rangiora and

Woodend
In the draft Joint Operations Study, February 2001, SKM recommend that aeration ponds
be formed at the inlet end of the Rangiora and Woodend Ponds. This is a standard
method of increasing the capacity of pond systems, but it has been found at Oamaru and
Blenheim that 1 to 1.5 day retention aeration lagoons can emit “raw sewage” odours which
are more noticeable than the musty, non-offensive odour from a primary oxidation pond
which is not overloaded.
The Kaiapoi aeration lagoon has a 5 day retention and appears to operate without
noticeable odours. Thus the longer retention Kaiapoi example should be followed rather
than the nominal 1 day retention lagoon which is often recommended in the literature.
Alternatively, it has been found more cost effective elsewhere, to increase the primary
pond area to cater for increasing loads, if land is available. The capital cost of extra pond
area is offset by reduced energy and maintenance consumed by mechanical aerators. A
moderate amount of mechanical aeration in a primary pond can allow a pond to function
reliably at or above the standard BOD loading guideline of 84 to 100 kg/ha/day, e.g.
Blenheim and Oamaru. Such aeration would not be as intensive as that recently used at
Rangiora in Ponds 1 and 2.
So that mechanical aeration costs are reduced, it is suggested that Ponds 3 and 4 at
Rangiora are brought back into service if the joint operation concept proceeds. These
ponds will also provide more flow buffering and microbiological reduction. Before
refilling of Ponds 3 and 4, the sludge deposits would be solar/air dried and taken to a
landfill or spread in a plantation (with suitable consents). When Ponds 3 and 4 are
returned to service, Ponds 1 and 2 could then be drained and desludged with temporary
mechanical aeration of Pond 3.
The cost allowance for desludging in Table 9-1 of the SKM Joint Operation Study, of
$2.2 million for Rangiora and Woodend, seems to be based on sludge removal by suction
dredge and dewatering by centrifuge (or equivalent) with chemical dosing. In

comparison, 30 years accumulated sludge from the Blenheim Pond (from a current
population equivalent of 30,000) was removed after solar/air drying, for $0.25 million.
This cost was for sludge landfilling on site and if carted to a remote landfill, would have
increased to $0.5 million. Thus draining of ponds and solar/air drying of sludge has the
potential to save significant sums and, if required, to justify extra ponds so that one can be
taken out of service for desludging. However, temporary mechanical aeration would
maintain adequate functioning of the remaining ponds.
Oxidation ponds at Christchurch (Bromley) have been drained and sludge air/solar dried
on four occasions without causing an odour nuisance. This same experience applied at
Blenheim and Pleasant Point recently.
With the recent addition of the aeration lagoon at the Kaiapoi Plant, the existing oxidation
ponds appear to be functioning well and do not need major work other than the
installation of one or two aerators to provide mixing under calm conditions.
The concrete wave bands at Rangiora and Kaiapoi appear to be in good condition and the
ponds have adequate depth. Thus from an overall perspective, the existing oxidation
ponds are in good condition and are likely to have extended service lives without major
maintenance work.

4 Evaluation of Options
The options for improving oxidation pond effluent quality described in Section 3 are
summarised in Table 2 and shown as schematic diagrams in Appendix C. These are first
order cost estimates for a joint operation at Kaiapoi and would have a ± 25% margin.
Table 2
Summary Comparison of Options
Option Capital Cost Annual Operating Comment

x $1,000 Cost $1,000/yr
Maturation cells 1,200 5 Good microbiological
with rock filters – reductions but colour/clarity
5.25 ha could be marginal. Minimal UV
required.
Surface flow 2,100 40 Good microbiological
wetlands – 9.10 ha reductions and solids should be
removed to provide adequate
clarity. Minimal UV required.
Dissolved air 800 300 Very good algae reduction and
flotation clarity improvement. Operating
costs are dominated by chemical
costs. UV disinfection required
to reduce microbiological
indicators. Can be resold.
Clarification 800 500 Algae removal performance not
as good as DAF and greater
chemical costs.
Renovated water To be determined To be determined Renovated water extracted from
extraction wells by others by others the wells would have the lowest
from Kaiapoi contaminant concentrations.
Infiltration Area
While the costs for an expanded groundwater extraction system are yet to be determined,
the capital cost is unlikely to exceed those for other options. Operating costs would be
mainly from power consumed by pumps which could be possibly reduced by mainly
pumping at off peak periods. The “renovated water” concept would have regulatory and
cultural advantages of “passage through soil”.
While the performance of these natural pond/infiltration systems can vary due to climatic
and other factors, the extent of the variations can be damped by providing multiple
treatment stages in series. Each stage provides a “public health protection barrier” by
reducing the chances of a short circuit path through the system. If primary and secondary
ponds are retained or created at each locality and there are three maturation cells in series
installed at Kaiapoi, the total sequence including the infiltration through sand, would have
six stages in series. UV disinfection may not be required but could be retained as a back-
up option.

These six “barriers” are more robust and effective than can be achieved by a mechanical
(in-tank) type treatment plant which has retention times of hours and a contact time with
UV disinfection of seconds, compared with ponds/infiltration basins which have
combined retention times of at least 4 weeks.
It can be concluded that the options evaluated, do have the potential to markedly improve
the effluent quality from oxidation pond systems.
Subject to the final SKM reports and specialist peer review comments from Pattle
Delamore and Partners, it appears that enhancement of the Kaiapoi infiltration area by the
installation of wells and extraction of renovated water, has the greatest potential to
produce a very good renovated water quality for discharge to the Waimakariri River in the
short term.
If the groundwater extraction proposal does not prove to be feasible for technical or cost
reasons, then Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) could be used to improve effluent colour and
clarity from a maturation pond or wetlands sequence thus enabling UV disinfection to be
more effective.
It is an inherent feature of natural treatment systems, particularly passage through soil,

that the local site conditions are pivotal. The feasibility of the infiltration basin concept
requires detailed site investigations such as the groundwater pumping trial and modelling
of the groundwater characteristics. Continuation of the concept development can be
justified both by the potential advantages in terms of renovated water quality output, and
the fact that “passage through land options” must be shown to be not feasible before
consents can be granted to alternative mechanical type treatment plants which discharge
direct to water.
Report Prepared By: Humphrey Archer Signed ………………………………………..
Report Reviewed By: Bob Blyth Signed ………………………………………..

§ Appendix A
Copy of Paper on
Upgrading of Seddon
and Blenheim Pond
Systems
§ Appendix B
Extracts from USEPA
Manual for Constructed
Wetlands - Sept 2000
§ Appendix C
Schematics of Options
§ Appendix D
Literature Extracts on
Infiltration Basins and
Renovated Water
Extraction

Stabilisationpondsimprovement

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Stabilisationpondsimprovement

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

§ report

Options for Improving

6511287/010 Rev B ¦ R1:27402

2 Regulatory Drivers .................................................................................................... 2

3 Options for Improving Effluent Quality of Oxidation Ponds ................................... 5

4 Evaluation of Options ............................................................................................. 13

Appendix A - Copy of Paper on Upgrading of Seddon and Blenheim Pond Systems

Appendix C – Schematics of Options

Appendix D – Literature Extracts on Infiltration Basins and Renovated Water

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page i

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 1

“5.1 Maintenance and Enhancement of Water Quality

(a) there is a high public interest in, or use of the water;

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 2

and Schedule S1.10(a) states:

If a treated discharge is passed through soil or wetland, it can be approved as a coastal

The explanation for Rule WQL19 is given as:

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 3

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 4

3 Options for Improving Effluent Quality

3.2 Maturation Ponds in Series

The concept is illustrated by the Blenheim Pond Upgrading as described in Appendix 1.

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 5

Effluent Quality Data for Blenheim STP

Final Pond Effluent

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 6

3.3 Surface Flow Wetlands

Retention Depth Area

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 7

3.4 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

3.5 Chemical Dosing and Clarification

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 8

A single clarifier about 24 m diameter would be required which is a substantial concrete

3.6 Enhanced Soakage into the Kaiapoi Infiltration/

It is common for mounding of groundwater to restrict the capacity of infiltration basins

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 9

Ammoniacal-N 0.22 g/m3

If full scale development of enhanced infiltration is feasible, it may be preferable to divide

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 10

This is a provisional assessment based on the preliminary information available to date.

3.7 Upgrading of Oxidation Ponds at Rangiora and

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 11

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 12

Summary Comparison of Options

Option Capital Cost Annual Operating Comment

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 13

It is an inherent feature of natural treatment systems, particularly passage through soil,

Report Prepared By: Humphrey Archer Signed ………………………………………..

Report Reviewed By: Bob Blyth Signed ………………………………………..

6511287/010 CH2M Beca Ltd Page 14

Anda mungkin juga menyukai