EDITOR’S PICKS
Onsite biological treatment will enhance river quality
Technology fromWCS Environmental Engineering has been selected by United Utilities to deliver biological treatment at a new wastewater treatment works.
The UK utility is investing £8.2million in the new facility in the village of Chipping in the Ribble Valley, Lancashire, a capital project designed tomanage the area’s recent and future population growth. Due to complete in summer 2024, the new works will also improve water quality in Chipping Brook, a tributary of the River Ribble, which flows through the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
WCSEE has provided eight Hybrid-SAF™ - submerged aerated filter – units to serve as secondary treatment for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia removal. The units were installed in spring 2023 and configured in four streams to best fit the footprint of the site, which will serve a population equivalent of 2,000.
Once live, the units will be able to treat amaximumflow of 25 l/s, whilemaintaining compliance with environmental permit requirements of 8mg/l ammonia and 45mg/l BOD.
WCSEE utilitymanager Andrew Haywood said, “We are incredibly proud our Hybrid-SAFs have been chosen to provide an important stage of biological treatment at the new site in Chipping.
“The tried and tested technology is already successfully delivering robust biological treatment at other United Utilities
sites.Modular in design and built offsite, the units can be used in works of any size, including where space and access is an issue.
“This was a key benefit at Chipping, where eight units were able to be configured in four streams,making best use of limited
32 | July 2023 |
www.draintraderltd.com
space.We look forward to the technology being commissioned next year.”
Modular in design, with a 30%smaller footprint than comparable technologies,WCSEE’s Hybrid-SAFs are built offsite and can be transported easily. The patented process technology employs a submergedmoving-bed, fixed-filmreactor, proven to treat wastewater with greater energy efficiency compared to traditional submerged SAFs.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
