Monitoring the Performance

of Anaerobic Ponds in the

Treatment of Abattoir

Wastewater

Dr Bernadette McCabe

National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, USQ

MINTRAC QLD Environment Network Meeting

14th March, 2012

Presentation Outline

Anaerobic Ponds

Design principals and operation

Churchill Abattoir background

Historical wastewater treatment

Upgrade to covered anaerobic ponds

Overview of monitoring program

Anaerobic Ponds

Used as a secondary treatment of abattoir

wastewater

High BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) and

COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) removal

efficiency ~90%

Low operational costs

ISSUES

Odour emissions

Biogas contains high % CH4

Anaerobic Process

Anaerobic Pond Design

Almost always uses historical organic

loading approaches

Design pond area, A (Ha)

Where Si = influent BOD (mg/L)

Qav= average influent (ML/d)

LBOD=historical BOD loading (kgBOD/ha.day)

Churchill Abattoir: Background

Process from 2500 - 2700 cattle per week

Churchill Abattoir kill cattle for on-site processors

who bone out and value add the beef.

Water usage is about 200 ML per year with nearly the

same volume of recycled water used to wash cattle.

Primary solids separation system removes paunch

from the waste stream. Paunch solids are about 90

cu m per week.

Secondary treatment consists of several anaerobic

lagoons and a 120 x 80 x 2 m aerobic lagoon.

Irrigate crops as the final wastewater disposal

method.

Pond Layout at Churchill Abattoir

Source: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=27.646008,152.739127&z=18&t=h&nmd=20100605

Captured: June 2010

Inflow 1Inflow 2

Breather

I/O

WV

WV

WV

WV

WV

I/OI/O

A

C D E

B

10

Scale: approx.

20

30

40

50 100

ShallowSettlementDrains

Valve

ValveValveValve

ValveValve

ValveValve

Valve

Valve

Valve

Valve

Valve

Reci

rcula

ting R

ubble

Dra

in

Valve

Cover construction and installation

Project Background

Lack of information on how to design

and cover ponds

Lack of historical data

Necessary to determine design criteria

Monitoring CA ponds can be potentially

used to establish optimal design and

operating principles

Anaerobic

pond research

Introduce what you do and why you

needed to implement specific L & T

approaches e.g. are you addressing a

certain need or problem?

Cross reference evidence

to terms/concepts

introduced in ‘why ‘ and

‘how’ sections to help

flow and tighten focus

Format/frame

around

• Well organised

• Consistent

• Clear

Performance

Decomposition

process Biogas production

2. Quality and quantity 1. Water quality

Sludge studies

Project outline Project overview

1. Monitoring Water quality

Pond study: monitoring key

parameters such as

Daily flow

Climate and temp

Inflow and outflow effluent

characteristics

Pond Effluent Start End Parameters

A Inflow & outflow 17/06/2011 26/10/2011

TSS, alkalinity, NH3-N, TKN,

FOG, COD, BOD, VA. pH, EC,

ORP, temperature

B Inflow & Outflow 17/06/2011 26/10/2011

E Outflow 10/08/2011 26/10/2011

Inflow 1Inflow 2

Breather

I/O

WV

WV

WV

WV

WV

I/OI/O

A

C D E

B

10

Scale: approx.

20

30

40

50 100

ShallowSettlementDrains

Valve

ValveValveValve

ValveValve

ValveValve

Valve

Valve

Valve

Valve

Valve

Reci

rcula

ting R

ubble

Dra

in

Valve

Comparison with typical abattoir raw

waste water

Parameter

mg/L

Typical

abattoir raw

waste

water1 (all

meats)

Churchill Abattoir (Beef)

5 month intensive

monitoring

average1

2000-2010

Average

BOD

COD

FOG

TSS

Total N

NH4-N

Total P

VFA

Alkalinity

1600-3000

4200-8500

100-200

1300-3400

114-148

65-87

20-30

175-400

350-800

3338

7247

555

3113

455

161

-

496

1370

2799

-

1242

2473

499

-

79

-

-

Removal efficiencies of the 5-pond

system

Pond A

(uncovered)

Pond B

(covered)

Pond E

(uncovered)

Parameter Units

Inflow Outflow %

Redn

Inflow Outflow %

Redn

Outflow % Redn

Daily flow m3/d 646.13 - - 875.56 - - 1521.69 -

HRT Days 3.44 - - 2.79 - - 1.45 -

Temperature °C 31.82 28.1 - 27.51 25.85 - 24.78 -

pH pH units 7.44 7.21 - 7.37 7.24 - 6.94 -

ORP mV 2.38 -198.91 - 11.66 -98.85 - -206.78 -

EC µS 3056.38 4068.45 - 3472.64 3969.91 - 4192.30 -

COD mg/L 7442 2885.30 61.23 7051.48 2696.30 61.76 1155.20 83.62

COD loading kg

COD/m3/d

2.23 - - 2.69 - - 0.80 -

BOD mg/d 3402 1318.39 61.25 3273.04 852.26 73.96 188.80 94.23

BOD loading kg

BOD/m3/d

1.02 - - 1.53 - - 0.61 -

TSS mg/L 3235 1496 53.76 2990.63 1196.15 60.00 704.10 76.46

Alkalinity mg/L NR* 1379.09 - NR* 1360.74 - 1435.90 -

NH3-N mg/L 142.12 275.61 - 164.16 274.24 - 320.20 -

TKN mg/L 450.12 387.83 - 459.52 375.96 - 364.10 -

FOG mg/L 491.87 111.30 77.37 618.74 95.85 84.51 29.40 95.25

VFA (as

acetic acid)

mg/L NR* 515.14 - NR* 476.74 - 128.10 -

Changes in BOD, COD, TSS and FOG loads in

the influent and effluent of uncovered pond A

Changes in BOD, COD, TSS and FOG loads in

the influent and effluent of covered pond B

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul2011

Jul2011

Jul2011

Aug2011

Aug2011

Aug2011

Aug2011

Aug2011

Sep2011

Sep2011

Sep2011

Sep2011

Oct2011

Oct2011

Oct2011

Oct2011

Ave

reag

e f

low

rat

e (

m3 /

h)

Date

Pond B flow rates and temperature

Flow rate Influent temperature Effluent temperature

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

°C)

Organic loading rates of ponds A and B

based on pond volume

Pond A (uncovered) Pond B (covered)

Month Flow rate

(KL/d)

HRT (d) OLR

(kgCOD/

m3/d)

Flow rate

(KL/d)

HRT (d) OLR

(kgCOD/

m3/d)

July 640.65 3.47 1.99 877.66 2.86 2.64

August 640.65 3.47 1.98 913.13 2.46 3.60

September 684.48 3.28 2.64 813.60 2.81 2.67

October 640.65 3.47 2.49 877.66 2.86 3.51

2. Biogas quality

Measure biogas quantity and quality from the covered ponds

operating at above minimum performance: CH4, CO2, H2S, &

NH3-N

Assess the potential use of biogas as bioenergy fuel

Average organic

loading rate

(kgCOD/m3/day)

O2(%)

CO2(%)

CH4(%)

H2S (ppm)

2.69 6.15 25.92 62.07 925.45

Average onsite biogas composition from covered pond B

Biogas composition from Covered Pond B

Current status of ponds

Source: http://www.nearmap.com/?q=@-27.644987,152.738038&ll=-27.644987,152.738038&z=18&t=h&nmd=20110723

Captured: July 2011

Plant initiative – installation of DAF to

remove FOGs

Important to get this component in place

prior to covered pond design

Dissolved air floatation system

Removes oil and grease and suspended

solids

Will improve final effluent quality

Reduces likelihood of damage to cover of

covered anaerobic pond

Reduces the need for desludging

Current monitoring : Pre DAF vs. Post

DAF installation

Monitoring data of waste water without

DAF treatment has provided baseline

data

C/f this data against DAF treated waste

water can be used to assess the

efficiency of the system in breaking

down organic matter and generating

methane when FOGs are removed

Acknowledgements

Financial support from Meat and Livestock

Australia (MLA) and Australian Meat

Processor Corporation (AMPC)

Mike Spence, Company Engineer CA

NCEA Project team members: Pam

Pittaway, Talal Yusaf, Craig Baillie & Peter

Harris

Input from other NCEA staff: Steve Rees,

Rick Cameron, Victor Skowronski and Phil

Szabo