WRF Webcast Integrated Treatment Process Management for Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Operations

Transcription

1 No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission. WRF Webcast Integrated Treatment Process Management for Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Operations June 1, 2017

2 Housekeeping Items Download the slides Q&A Post-event Survey Webcast On-Demand

3 Today s Schedule WRF s One Water Mission What Is ITPM? What Might ITPM Look Like? Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Research Development Workshop and Outcomes Conclusions Q&A

4 Moderator Leanne Miller, P.E. Water Research Foundation

5

6

7

8 WRF s One Water Strategy One Water Research Agenda will fund research to support the drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater industries.

9 Erin Mackey, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Investigator Brown and Caldwell Wendy Broley, P.E. Co-Principal Investigator Brown and Caldwell Peter Bong Water/Wastewater Superintendent Centennial Water and Sanitation District

10 Erin Mackey Ph.D., P.E. Brown and Caldwell

11 1What Is ITPM? No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

12 Integrated Treatment Process Management (ITPM) is a holistic approach to water management through which water management agencies work collaboratively to develop practices that achieve treatment objectives in a way that minimizes overall cost and maximizes environmental, water body, and watershed quality benefits, while protecting public health.

13 What is ITPM? 01 ITPM Takes One Water to the Next Level

14 What Is ITPM? 01 Benefits of Integrating Water and Wastewater Treatment Processes Goals and efficiencies of looking at water and wastewater systems operation together Energy savings Fewer waste-processing systems Better management of variable flows Cost savings and/or improved operations by optimizing chemical selection and dosing hydxl/shutterstock 7

15 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Over 50% of Respondents Report Practice of ITPM 03 44% 56% Discussions are underway between our water and wastewater utility on how to share assets and infrastructure so that we can become more efficient and cost-effective to our customer base. [Our utility] sends our WTP residuals to the WWTP. It is dewatered together, and is land applied. Practices ITPM Does not practice ITPM Over 50% of Respondents Plan to Implement More ITPM in the Future

16 No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission. Investigation of 2ITPM Practices

17 What Might ITPM Look Like? 02 Opportunities to Integrate Treatment Processes Although there are examples of ITPM occurring at select utilities across the country, ITPM research is still an emerging field, most notably showing potential benefits in three areas. 1 Integrating 2 3 the processing of water treatment plant residuals and wastewater sludge Selecting chemical treatment practices that optimize water and wastewater operations and costs Water treatment plant RO concentrate and filter backwash management to minimize impacts on wastewater treatment processes 4

18 What Might ITPM Look Like? 02 Co-processing May Enhance Treatment Efficiency and Reduce Processing Costs ~15% of U.S. municipalities co-manage water and wastewater solids including: San Francisco Chicago Indianapolis Milwaukee Philadelphia Nashville Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Betasso WTP Centennial Water and Sanitation District 6

19 What Might ITPM Look Like? 02 Effects of Co-processing on Biological Activity Potential impacts of co-processing Iron toxicity in activated sludge Precipitation of phosphorus Prevention of oxygen transfer in biofilms Case study: 75 th Street WWTP in Boulder, CO Issues led to setting a maximum acceptable iron concentration in WTR 14

20 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Most Respondents Identified Co-processing of WTP Residuals and WWTP Sludge as an Area of Interest 03 Over 50% expressed interest in pursuing co-processing 89% of respondents noted co-processing needs more research including: Regulatory implications Implementation barriers RotaryKilnChina

21 What Might ITPM Look Like? 02 Effects of Co-land Application of WTR and Biosolids Co-land application as an alternative to co-processing Limits on heavy metals and nutrients content Improved phosphorous absorption of the soil Reduction in phosphorous in runoff and leachate 16

22 What Might ITPM Look Like? 02 Chemical Treatment Optimization Anticorrosion and scaleforming chemical additions Chemical additions at desalination facilities Alkalinity and ph-adjusting chemical additions Water treatment coagulant additions 22

23 What Might ITPM Look Like? 02 WTP Concentrate and Filter Backwash Management BMPs vary by water quality and location characteristics Sewer disposal options depend on downstream capacity 29

24 Peter Bong Centennial Water and Sanitation District

25 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Case Study // Centennial Water Overview of CWSD and Sanitation District Community of 100k people near Denver, CO Provide Water and Wastewater service 30 MGD Surface Water Plant 9 MGD Ground Water Plants 8.5 MGD Wastewater Plant Source: Google Earth

26 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Case Study // Centennial Water and Sanitation District 03 WTP residuals sent to the WWTP Ferric Sulfate and PAC Sludge Sent by gravity via SS Becomes part of the biosolids that are land applied 20 Wet Tons of Biosolids per day Winter 30 Wet Tons of Biosolids per day Summer

27 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Case Study // Centennial Water and Sanitation District Positives of co-processing One location for dewatering and hauling Lower disposal costs Improved primary clarifier removal efficiency 69% TSS removal without residuals 31% BOD removal without residuals 83% TSS removal with residuals 47% BOD removal with residuals 03

28 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Case Study // Centennial Water and Sanitation District 03 Positives of co-processing (continued) Reduced BOD load results in less air demand in the activated sludge basins Improved copper removal Improved primary sludge density Improved odor at the Primary Clarifiers

29 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Case Study // Centennial Water and Sanitation District Positives of co-processing (continued) Increased methane production due to BOD/carbon capture and diversion to digesters. 10 to 20 % increase, still monitoring Foaming in anaerobic digester reduction Initial testing shows a increase in ph when the residuals are present. Possibly due to PAC limiting the volatile acid formation. Struvite formation in the digesters/centrate is minimized 03

30 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Case Study // Centennial Water and Sanitation District 03 Negatives of co-processing Supplemental carbon may be needed in the summer for biological nutrient removal Variable BOD removal. May need to change to Chemical Enhanced Primary Clarification Iron can be a large percentage of the TSS leaving the facility, so effluent TSS must be kept low. TENORM may become an issue in the future Selenium levels increased when WTP are present

31 Opinions and Experiences with ITPM Next Steps: Case Study // Centennial Water Continue to monitor digester foaming to determine control mechanism Continue to monitor selenium levels Construct CEPC chemical tanks and Sanitation District 03

32 Wendy Broley, P.E. Brown and Caldwell

33 No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission. Research Development 4Workshop and Outcomes

34 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes WRF Project 4677 Developed a Research Roadmap for ITPM 04 Explored what s out there in ITPM research and utility practices Held a utility workshop to develop concepts for how ITPM research could move forward 6

35 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes A Collaborative Workshop Identified ITPM Research Priorities 04 Water professionals from across the country Global research themes identified Developed draft list of project ideas for the research themes Project problem statements crafted and refined Ranked top research priorities Determined top five recommended project ideas and objectives for further consideration by the RAC 8

36 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes Four ITPM Research Areas Were Identified Co-processing of water treatment residuals and wastewater sludge Chemical optimization between WTPs and WWTPs Beneficial combined solids reclamation (BCSR) Concentrate and backwash solids management 10

37 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes Identified Research Concepts 04 Area 1 Co-processing of WTR and wastewater sludge 1. Costs and Opportunities Associated with Coprocessing 2. Impacts of Co-processing on Wastewater Processes 3. Co-processing Guidance Document 4. Fate-and-transport evaluation of key constituents resulting from the introduction of WTRs at WWTPs 5. Beneficial synergies of co-locating water and wastewater treatment/water reclamation facilities 6. Impacts of conveying WTRs to collection systems 16

38 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes Identified Research Concepts 04 Area 2 Chemical 1 Optimization Between 2WTPs and WWTPs 3 1. Inventory of Chemicals Used in WTPs and Their Potential Impacts on WWTPs 2. Tools for Technical and Economic Analysis of System-Wide Chemical Treatment Optimization 3. Inventory of Chemicals Used in WWTPs and AWPFs and Their Potential Impacts on Water Treatment 16

39 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes Identified Research Concepts 04 Area 3 1 Beneficial Combined 2 Solids Reclamation 3 1. Potential beneficial uses and markets for BCSR 2. P- and nitrogen (N) fixation during land application for biosolids alone, coprocessed solids, and comingled solids 3. Impacts on soil microbial composition and activity from co-land application of biosolids alone, co-processed solids, and comingled solids 4. Impacts on greenhouse gases from beneficial use of biosolids alone, coprocessed solids, and comingled solids Ehrman Photographic/Shutterstock 16

40 Research Development Workshop and Outcomes Identified Research Concepts 04 Area 4 Concentrate 1 and Backwash 2 Management 1. Decision tool for managing WTP waste streams 2. Impact of periodic release of concentrate and backwash from WTPs on wastewater processes, hydraulic loads, and filter-to-waste 16

41 Closing No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

42 Conclusions ITPM is a largely unexplored area of One Water We could go in many directions Best options appear to involve: Co-processing of solids Co-ordinating chemical use Local regulations and institutional arrangements are important factors

43 Acknowledgements This work was made possible through financial support of WRF, BC, and in-kind donations from the following utilities: American Water Centennial Water and Sanitation District City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities City of San Diego Columbia University DC Water Denver Water Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Padre Dam Municipal Water District Water Environment & Reuse Foundation Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 40

44 Q&A Submit questions through the Question Box

45 Thank You Comments or Questions More Information