A STUDY IN ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR MICHIGAN WINERIES. March 4, 2015

Transcription

1 A STUDY IN ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR MICHIGAN WINERIES March 4, 2015

2 STUDY INFORMATION Study focus: 1. Wastewater characterization 2. Effective WW treatment system(s) 3. Permitting Evaluation October 20, 2013 March 31,

3 BACKGROUND Michigan wineries produce various amounts of wastewater (WW) during production and clean-up activities Ultimately discharged to groundwater or surface water Health Department does not / cannot approve process water discharge General confusion regarding onsite treatment and permitting 3

4 WHY DO WE CARE? It s the Right Thing Protect the Environment Process WW can contain various chemical compounds at high concentrations, especially when fruit is involved Unmonitored WW discharge can affect surrounding groundwater quality Facility supply wells Neighboring drinking water wells Follow the Law Any discharge of process WW to waters of the state must obtain a discharge permit Includes groundwater 4

5 STUDY OBJECTIVES 1. Examine and characterize wastewater at Michigan wineries 2. Develop, implement, and monitor one or more onsite treatment systems 3. Determine the success and efficiency of one or more onsite treatment systems for Michigan wineries 4. Provide information on the permitting program to the Michigan Winery Industry 5

6 SET-UP 5 Michigan wineries Various sizes, treatment methods, etc. 3 Treatment systems Surface land application Dry well Subsurface passive aeration Monitoring Points: Wastewater Soil Pore Water, 2 depths (Lysimeters) Groundwater (2 sites) 6

7 TREATMENT SYSTEMS Surface Land Application Floor drains gravity flow to settling tank Pumped to surface discharge system Soil and plant uptake used for final treatment Dry Well Floor drains gravity flow to settling tank 2 chamber settling tank, then perforated/open bottom tank for discharge Subsurface Passive Aeration Floor drains gravity flow to settling tank(s) Connected to subsurface drain field; 10 O.C. with gravel bed Turbine vents allow for aerobic treatment BGS Winery D Winery C Winery A, B, E 7

8 MONITORING POINTS Sites Sampling Frequency Purpose Analyzed for Lysimeters Winery A, B, C, D, E 02/ /2014: Bimonthly 09/ /2015: Monthly Soil pore water samples Effluent/Treate d Wastewater COD, Total Nitrogen, Sodium, Chloride, T. Phos., Iron, Manganese, Arsenic Wastewater Winery A, B, C, D, E 02/ /2014: Bimonthly 09/ /2015: Monthly Influent Wastewater BOD, COD, T. Nitrogen, Sodium, Chloride, T. Phos. ph, D.O. Monitoring Wells Winery A, D Quarterly Groundwater samples Effluent/Treate d Wastewater COD, Total Nitrogen, Sodium, Chloride, T. Phos., Iron, Manganese, Arsenic 8

9 FINDINGS: WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION Constituent (Results in mg/l, unless otherwise noted) Average (All Wineries) STDev (All Wineries) Winery A Winery B Winery C Winery D Winery E BOD 2,046 1,768 2, ,578 3, COD 3,236 3,143 3, ,244 5,722 1,299 Sodium Chloride , Nitrogen (Ammonia) Nitrogen (Nitrite) ND ND Nitrogen (Nitrate) ND TIN (Calculated) Total Phosphorus ph (S.U.)

10 FINDINGS: SURFACE LAND APPLICATION Effective? Yes. High Reduction of COD, Nitrogen 2 and 4 BGS Lysimeters No impact on GW quality Some increased concentrations of key analytes observed late-fall. Lysimeters only. Result of peak discharge. 10

11 FINDINGS: DRY WELL Effective? Short term only. Good Reduction of COD, Nitrogen 2 and 4 BGS Lysimeters Decreased infiltration observed Evidence of clay formations, anaerobic conditions, and odor Not ideal for long term system 11

12 FINDINGS: SUBSURFACE PASSIVE AERATION Effective? Yes. High Reduction of COD, Nitrogen 2 BGS Lysimeter Increased reduction at 4 No evidence of Na/Cl accumulation or metals mobilization No observed impact on GW quality Fresh water dilution created 12

13 THINGS TO CONSIDER No one size fits all solution Design considerations: Aeration BOD/COD Loading [lbs./acre] Nutrient Loading: Sodium, Chloride, etc. [lbs./acre] Hydraulic Loading [inches/acre] Location considerations: Available acreage Pump or gravity feed? Nearby supply wells, neighboring properties, septic drain fields, etc. 13

14 Gallons Per Day (GDP) BOD LOADING: EXAMPLE lbs./ac./day BOD BOD Concentration (mg/l) ,000 2,000 3,000 4, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Assumes ½ acre treatment area 14

15 PERMITTING Several types of Permits Various monitoring and reporting requirements Must understand your water use Monitor water flow/volume entering and/or leaving the facility Flow meter placement is the biggest hurdle Winery only (no sanitary, etc.) WW leaving the facility is ideal Monitor/record daily at start to develop understanding of water use Understand peak vs. non-peak 15

16 PERMITTING: LEI RECOMMENDATIONS Estimate:12-17 gallons of wastewater/case of wine produced (annually) Approximately gallons WW/bottle of wine Annual production < 25,000 cases Permit Annual Production > 25,000 cases Investigation and/or 2210(Y) Permit 2211(d) Additional 16

17 PERMITTING: LEI RECOMMENDATIONS 17

18 CONCLUSIONS Winery WW is considered high strength Off season provides rest to discharge area/treatment system Not one size fits all Effective treatment systems: Surface Land Application and Subsurface, Passive Aeration Showed good reduction of key WW parameters Provided treatment while remaining protective of GW Permitting: LEI Recommendations Required by law for any discharge to waters of the state Annual Production < 25,000 cases: 2211(d) Annual Production > 25,000 cases: Site Investigation or 2210(Y) 18

19 THANK YOU Additional information on this and other LEI studies at: Contact Information Erin R. Gerber Environmental Engineer Project Manager Grand Haven Grand Rapids Muskegon 19