THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT - CHEMICAL ADDITION,
FILTRATION AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
TREATMENT OF SEPTAGE AND HIGH STRENGTH WASTEWATER
TECHNOLOGY NAME: BIG FISH ENVIRONMENTAL SEPTAGE AND HIGH STRENGTH
WASTEWATER PROCESSING SYSTEM
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
EMAIL:
BIG FISH ENVIRONENTAL, LLC
12640 TAYLOR ROAD
PO BOX 528
CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720
infoi@,bigfishenvironmental.com
PHONE: (231) 547-4429
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance
verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection
by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal
by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups consisting of
buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and the full participation of individual technology developers. The
program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the
needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and
preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance
protocols to ensure that data of known and verifiable quality are generated, and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) operates the ETV Program's Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) under a
cooperative agreement with EPA. The WQPC evaluated the performance of the Big Fish Environmental Septage
and High Strength Wastewater Processing System (System) over a period of more than a year. The Big Fish System
consists of lime treatment followed by solids separation in a heated screw press, with filtrate subsequently
processed in an aerobic biological treatment system. Effluent from the System is discharged to a municipal
wastewater treatment plant. Biosolids are also produced which may be used as fertilizer or soil amendment. This
verification statement provides a summary of the test results for the Big Fish System.
10/37/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2010
i
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is provided by the vendor and does not represent verified information.
The Big Fish System (System) combines solids treatment with aerobic wastewater treatment, processing high
strength wastes to produce Exceptional Quality (EQ) Class A Biosolids (refer to Federal Rule for Class A Biosolids
(40 CFR Part 503)(1) and the EPA document - A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rulem) and
treated filtrate meeting pretreatment standards for discharge to most secondary wastewater treatment plants
(typically 250-300 mg/L BOD5; 300-350 mg/L TSS; 50-70 mg/L NH3; and locally determined restrictions for total
phosphorus). The system uses a combination of elevated pH for vector (rodents, insects, birds, etc.) control and
elevated temperature (time-temperature combination) for pathogen control to meet the Federal Rule for Class A
Biosolids. There is no actual testing for vector control addressed in the Rule, only the specified treatment. The first
requirement is to treat the waste material with lime to raise the pH to a minimum of 12 for 2 hours, and then
maintain a minimum pH of 11.5 after 24 hours without further lime addition. Treatment for pathogen control
requires heating the biosolids to a temperature of 72°C for a period of at least 20 minutes. The term EQ Biosolids is
identified in the Federal Rule to characterize Class A Biosolids that also meet low-pollutant metals concentrations
(see Table 3). If the Class A Biosolids treatment requirements are met and the metal pollutant levels are not
exceeded, they are considered EQ Class A Biosolids and can generally be applied as freely as any other fertilizer or
soil amendment to any type of land.
Truck-delivered wastes pass through an in-line JWC Muffin Monster 0.25 in. screen to remove any large inorganic
particles or debris. A flow meter records the waste volume and an in-line pH meter monitors the waste to confirm
the pH is between 4.0 and 9.0. The screened waste passes through a de-grit chamber, into an 11,000-gallon aerated
receiving/equalization tank, which is directly connected to a second aerated 15,000-gallon equalization tank.
When 15,000 to 20,000 gallons of waste are accumulated, the waste is pumped to one of the two 20,000-gallon lime
treatment tanks. Lime is added to the waste mixture during the transfer to achieve pH 12 for a minimum of 2 hours;
the mixture is then held at minimum pH of 11.5 for at least 22 hours. After lime treatment is complete, the
wastewater and solids are pumped from the lime treatment tank to a flocculation tank, where polymer is added, and
then to a rotary screen thickener prior to entering the screw press. Filtrate extracted by the thickener is discharged
to a blending tank for pH adjustment to approximately pH 7.5 - 8.0. The thickened sludge is processed in a heated
screw press that raises the solids temperature to a minimum of 72° C for at least 20 minutes which increases the
solids content to 40-50%. The combination of the lime treatment and the elevated temperature in the screw press
conforms to the treatment requirements established in 40 CFR Part 503 for producing Class A Biosolids. Solids are
collected in a hopper and the transferred to an outside covered storage area, while the screw press filtrate is
discharged to the blending tank for pH adjustment and subsequent biological treatment.
The aerobic treatment system consists of a series of aerated tanks, followed by a 2,000-gallon quiescent settling
tank, a 2,000-gallon re-aeration tank, and two 2,000-gallon discharge tanks. The combined volume of the aerobic
treatment tanks is 27,000 gallons. The suspended growth aerated tanks have one or more White Knight™ microbial
generators suspended in the tanks to provide a source of supplemental microorganisms to the naturally occurring
microorganisms. A hatchery at the facility is also maintained as an additional source of microorganisms if needed.
The large capacity of the aeration tanks is designed to provide time for biological treatment to reduce the very high
organic loadings that normally remain in septage type wastes after solids removal. Liquid discharged to the aerated
tanks from the screw press and thickener causes water to flow through the system tanks. A float switch in the
discharge tank triggers an effluent discharge by pump from the treatment system to the City of Charlevoix, MI
municipal sewer system. Solids that accumulate in the settling tank are periodically pumped to the receiving tank
for processing through the treatment system. All treatment processes, including truck unloading, occur inside a
building equipped with a biofilter to reduce odors.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The verification test was performed at the Big Fish facility in Charlevoix, Michigan, a full-scale System operating
under a permit issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE), and in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Charlevoix. Scherger Associates was the lead for the Testing
10/37/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2010
ii
-------
Organization (TO) for this verification and provided technical oversight during the test. The facility has been in
operation for over three years, with effluent discharge to the City of Charlevoix municipal WWTP. The System
receives septage waste from several septic tank cleanout companies, secondary sludge from the City of Charlevoix
WWTP, commercial grease interceptor waste containing fats, oils and grease (FOG) from local businesses, portable
toilet waste and fruit processing waste.
Methods and Procedures
Testing was completed in accordance with the approved test plan'-2'1 for the System. The verification test was
conducted from September 2008 through October 2009 and included thirteen sampling and analysis events over the
14-month test. Monthly sampling events included a 5-day period with two batches of waste being processed, except
in March 2009 when only one batch was processed and April 2009 when there was no sampling. Sampling
locations included the untreated waste material and the treated effluent. Untreated waste samples were grab samples
from the aerated equalization tank. Effluent samples were both composite and grab samples collected during
discharge periods. Grab samples were collected each sample day for pH, FOG, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.
The composite discharge samples and untreated waste grab samples were collected each sampling day and analyzed
for total suspended solids (TSS), five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
and alkalinity. Weekly composite samples were made of the untreated waste grab samples and the composite
discharge samples. This was done by combining aliquots of several individual daily samples to form batch
composite samples, which were analyzed for total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia, nitrite plus nitrate, and total
phosphorus (TP). Samples of the biosolids material were collected twice during the verification test and analyzed
for percent solids and regulated (40 CFR Part 503) metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn). The pH of the lime
treated waste material was measured and recorded in the System operating record; the temperature of the biosolids
in the screw press was recorded continuously.
The approved test plan included monitoring system performance during startup. From January 2 to January 4, 2009,
Big Fish personnel emptied and cleaned the System tanks and restarted the System. The tanks were filled with
processed wastewater from the screw process and microorganisms were seeded to the aerated tanks by adding 1,500
gallons of material from the hatchery tank. The White Knight™ microbial generators were hung in place in
accordance with standard operating practice. The normal January 2009 verification sampling was performed three
weeks after startup and showed the System was producing an effluent comparable to the four months (September
2008 through December 2008) prior to the cleaning and startup demonstration.
All analyses were completed in accordance with USEPA approved methods or Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition. An established quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
program was used to monitor sampling and laboratory procedures. Details on all analytical methods and QA/QC
procedures are provided in the full verification report.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
Verification Test Results and Discussion
There were three sampling events during the verification testing that are not included in the data summaries
presented in Tables 1 and 2, but are discussed in detail in the Verification Report. In March 2009, the reported
effluent BOD5 data was not consistent with the other reported data for the sampling event (particularly the effluent
COD) so none of the day's data were included in the averages for the verification. The other two events occurred in
May 2009 when the System received highly concentrated wastes, believed to be fruit waste, increasing the influent
holding tank BOD5 and COD concentrations to 21,000 mg/L and 31,000 mg/L, respectively (the BOD5 being seven
(7) times the mean influent concentrations over the course of the verification). The effluent BOD5 and COD
concentrations increased in the two treated batches following receipt of the waste to a BOD5 of 5,500 mg/L and
5,700 mg/L, and a COD of 11,000 mg/L and 8,600 mg/L, respectively. The data for these two sampling events were
determined to have resulted from System upset (defined in the Protocol for the Verification of Wastewater
Treatment Technologies, April 20011-3-1), so the data were not included in the averages for the verification testing
indicated in Table 1.
Following the upset, the System was operated in normal aeration recycle mode, without additional waste loading or
effluent discharge. After 10 days operation in this mode, a batch of wastes from the holding tank was processed.
10/37/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2010
iii
-------
The effluent BOD5 (810 mg/L - facility-generated data) indicated the System was recovering, but not yet back to
typical discharge concentrations. The System continued to operate with the aeration tanks in normal recycling mode
for another ten days, when another batch of waste material was processed and the effluent BOD5 concentration was
found to be 110 mg/L. A subsequent batch of waste was processed and it was confirmed that the system had
returned to normal operating conditions (effluent BOD5 of 96 mg/L). The ETV verification testing for June was
performed the week of June 22 and the data showed the System had recovered.
Table 1 presents the results for BOD5, COD and TSS. The influent concentrations are typical of a septage/high
strength wastewater mixture. The treated effluent had a mean reduction of 97.7% (median 97.3%) for BOD5. The
mean and median COD removal was 98.4% and the mean and median TSS removal was 99.6%. The mean influent
FOG concentration was 370 mg /L (median 140 mg/L). The effluent mean FOG concentrations was 5.1 mg/L
(median 3.0 mg/L), resulting in a mean removal of 98.6% (median 97.5%). Fourteen of the 22 effluent samples
showed an FOG concentration of <3 mg/L.
Table 2 presents the results for TKN, NH3-N, NO2+NO3, and TP. Total nitrogen (TN) was determined by adding
the concentrations of the TKN (organic plus ammonia nitrogen), and NO2 plus NO3 in the effluent. The overall
system removal efficiency for TN was 80% (mean and median). Mean TP removal was 95.3% (median 97.3%).
Table 1. BOD5, COD and TSS Data Summary
BODS (mg/L) COD (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
3,300
15,000
27
2,900
75
190
7
44
17,500
31,000
3,700
8,000
270
400
25
96
13,700
28,000
3,700
6,500
55
170
10
42
Note: Data in Table 1 are based on 22 samples of influent and 22 samples of effluent and do not include the results for the
upset period that occurred in May 2009. During the upset, BOD5 removal was reduced to 43 - 74% and COD to 57 -
64%; TSS removal remained at 90 - 99% during the upset.
Table 2. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Data Summary 1>2
TKN (mg/L) Ammonia (mg/L) Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
440
550
170
100
83
170
42
35
93
160
8
48
60
120
14
30
3.2
15
0.05
5.3
3.8
13
0.05
3.7
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
440
550
170
100
85
170
49
34
128
280
2.6
90
3.3
7.1
O.05
1.8
1 Data in Table 2 are based on 12 samples of influent and 12 samples of effluent and do not include the results for the upset
period that occurred in May 2009.
2 Nitrogen data reported in mg/L as N; phosphorus data reported as mg/L as P.
The nitrogen data indicate that a large percentage of the total nitrogen was organic nitrogen. A comparison of the
mean influent TKN (440 mg/L) with the mean influent ammonia concentration (93 mg/L) shows that organic
nitrogen represented approximately 79% of the nitrogen in the wastes received at the facility (nitrite-nitrate was low
at 3.2 mg/L). Based on review of the ammonia and nitrite-nitrate data, it appears that the biosolids produced by the
10/37/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
iv
August 2010
-------
screw press contained a large amount of the organic nitrogen removed by the System. If appreciable organic
nitrogen reduction were occurring in the biological system aeration tanks, the ammonia and/or nitrite-nitrate
concentrations in the effluent would increase significantly (which they did not). The reduction in ammonia could
be attributed to association with the biosolids or possibly volatilization from aeration in the System.
The pH ranged from 12.1 to 12.9 during the initial 2-hour period after lime addition to the treatment tanks and after
24 hours the pH ranged from 11.6 to 12.8. The programmable logic controller records show that the proper screw
press rate (38% motor speed) was maintained at all times ensuring the minimum contact time in the screw press at
elevated temperature was achieved. The screw-press temperature ranged from 90°C to 100° C, well above the
minimum requirement of 72°C for a 20 minute contact time. Samples of the biosolids were collected and analyzed
for regulated metals as part of this verification. These data are shown in Table 3. Based on the data collected during
the verification test, all batches of biosolids produced met the requirements to be classified as EQ Class A
Biosolids.
Table 3. Biosolids Metals Concentration
Analyte
Units
3/13/2009
Pollutant Concentration
6/18/2009 Limits for EQ Class A
Biosolids
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Total Solids
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
3.5
2.4
18
430
21
0.33
12
5.9
1,300
50
4.4
2.2
19
260
23
0.22
12
2.6
990
60
41
39
1,200
No standard
300
17
420
36
7,500
NA
Operation and Maintenance Results
Lime, used to raise the pH to meet the requirements for vector reduction in the biosolids and to aid in the
dewatering processes, can also enhance phosphorus removal. The mean quantity of lime used was 11 Ibs of lime
per 1000 treated gallons. Polymer was added to the lime treated waste material as it was pumped from the holding
tank to the thickener. A cationic polymer, Aquaben HF 748E, was used from September 2008 through July 2009 at
mean addition rate of 0.63 gallons of concentrated polymer (as purchased) per 1000 treated gallons. A different
cationic polymer, ERC Associates ERC840HX was used from August through October 2009 at a mean addition
rate of 1.15 gallons of concentrated polymer (as purchased) per 1000 treated gallons. The concentrated polymer is
diluted in the injection system used to feed the polymer. Muriatic acid was used to neutralize the filtrate extracted
in the rotary screen thickener, which is discharged to a blending tank ahead of the aerobic processing tanks. The
acid was fed from the containers received from the supplier without intermediate dilution. The mean muriatic acid
use was 0.55 gallons per 1000 treated gallons.
The electric power and natural gas use during the verification test was monitored using the facility electric and gas
meters. These meters measured total use for the facility. Electrical use averaged 671 kWh per day based on 5-day
operating periods treating two batches per week. Steam for heating the biosolids in the screw press was generated
on-site with a gas fired boiler. Natural gas use averaged 25 cubic feet per day based on the 5-day operating periods
treating two batches per week during the verification test.
There were no major mechanical component failures or major downtime periods during the verification test.
Operation and maintenance of the System was observed by the testing organization representatives who were on-
site for several days each month to collect samples and review operating records. These observations provided
10/37/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
August 2010
-------
information on System operability, complexity, and degree of maintenance required. The Big Fish System was
found to be easily operated, requiring only routine maintenance, and was reliable during the verification period.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Prior to the start of the verification test, NSF completed a QA/QC audit of the RTI Laboratories (RTI). These audits
included: (a) a technical systems audit to assure the testing was in compliance with the test plan, (b) a performance
evaluation audit to assure that the measurement systems employed at the test site and by RTI were adequate to
produce reliable data, and (c) a data quality audit of at least 10 % of the test data to assure that the reported data
represented the data generated during the testing. During testing, NSF conducted a QA/QC audit of the Big Fish
Environmental test site. EPA QA personnel also conducted a quality systems audit of NSF's QA Management
Program.
Original signed by Original signed by
Sally Gutierrez October 26, 2010 Robert Ferguson November 2, 2010
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Programs
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria
and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the
performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is
solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of
corporate names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report in no way constitutes an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Supporting Documents
Referenced DocumentsAQ CFR Part 503, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, Subchapter O,
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr503_main_02.tpl
1) A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule, https://www.epa.gov/OW-
OWM.html/mtb/biosolids/503pe/index.htm
2) Test Plan for Big Fish Environmental, LLC Big Fish Environmental Septage Processing System, dated July 2008;
https://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/04_vp_wastewater.pdf
3) The Protocol for Verification ofWastewater Treatment Technologies, dated April 2001 (see below for availability).
EPA's Office ofWastewater Management has published a number of documents relevant to this verification, including:
Handbook for Management ofOnsite and Clustered Decentralized Waste-water Treatment Systems, https://www.epa.gov/owm/onsite
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, https://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/decent/toolbox.htm
Source of Verification Information:
Copies of, Test Plan for Big Fish Environmental, LLC Big Fish Environmental Septage Processing System, dated July 2008, the
Verification Statement, and the Verification Report are available from: ETV Water Quality Protection Center Manager (order hard
copy), NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140 (http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy); or
https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)). Appendices are not included in the Verification Report, but are available from NSF upon
request.
10/37/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2010
vi
------- |