A Battle to Be the Best: A Comparison of Two Powerful Sidestream Treatment Technologies: Post Aerobic Digestion and Anammox

Similar documents
THE DEMON ANAMMOX PROCESS: RESOURCE SAVINGS THROUGH SIDE STREAM TREATMENT, AND THE STEPS TOWARDS AN ENERGY NEUTRAL WWTP PRESENTED AT: NC AWWA-WEA 97

Post-Aerobic Digester with Bioaugmentation Pilot Study City of Meridian, ID WWTP PNCWA 2010

Presentation Outline

WWTP Side Stream Treatment of Nutrients Considerations for City of Raleigh s Bioenergy Recovery Project. Erika L. Bailey, PE, City of Raleigh

The following biological nutrient removal processes were evaluated in detail in the 2016 Liquid Processing Facilities Plan:

PLANNING FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL: WHAT STEPS CAN WE BE TAKING NOW?

BEING GOOD STEWARDS: IMPROVING EFFLUENT QUALITY ON A BARRIER ISLAND. 1.0 Executive Summary

Sidestream Treatment Overview. Kam Law, P.E. Beverley Stinson, Ph.D.

Deammonification for Cost-Effective Sidestream Treatment

Review of WEFTEC 2016 Challenge & Overview of 2017 Event. Malcolm Fabiyi, PhD, MBA Spencer Snowling, PhD. P.Eng

Managing the Risk of Embracing Disruptive Technology

A Critical New Look at Nutrient Removal Processes

Filtrate Treatment Facility Update

Energy Efficient Wastewater Treatment. Emily Gonthier & Jennifer Lawrence April 30, 2018

OWEA Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Upgrading WRFs for Biological Nutrient Removal. June 25, 2015

STRUVITE HARVESTING: A UTILITY S PERSPECTIVE

General Operational Considerations in Nutrient and Wet Weather Flow Management for Wastewater Treatment Facilities Part II

Energy Neutral Opportunities

Optimisation of the WWTP performance and design using computer simulation

Side Stream Nutrient Considera6ons and Nutrient Harves6ng

Preparing for Nutrient Removal at Your Treatment Plant

Nutrient Removal Optimization at the Fairview WWTP

Operation and Control of Multiple BNR Processes in One WWTP

2015 Spring Conference

Efficient Design Configurations for Biological Nutrient Removal

Performance Evaluation of the Moores Creek Advanced Water Resource Recovery Facility

NITROGEN REMOVAL GRANT WEAVER, PE & WWTP OPERATOR PRESIDENT THE WATER PLANET COMPANY. Create Optimal Habitats

Defining the Benefits of Harvesting Phosphorus from Dewatering Filtrate

Prepared by the Operation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Task Force of the Water Environment Federation

UDWQ POTW Nutrient Removal Cost Impact Study: Analysis of Tremonton City Wastewater Treatment Plant

AMMONIACAL NITROGEN REMOVAL FROM SLUDGE LIQUORS OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE DEMON PROCESS

Appendix D JWPCP Background and NDN

Altoona Westerly Wastewater Treatment Facility BNR Conversion with Wet Weather Accommodation

WINNIPEG SEWAGE TREATMENT PROGRAM --- SEWPCC --- Process Selection Report presentation

FY17 Technical Survey of Nitrogen Removal Alternatives for the Deer Island Treatment Plant

Design, Construction and Startup of the First Enhanced Nutrient Removal Plant in Maryland Funded by the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund

Technologies for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment. Nitrogen Removal from Sludge Dewatering Liquor

Andrea Nifong, World Water Works (formerly HRSD) Stephanie Klaus, VT & HRSD

AMPC Wastewater Management Fact Sheet Series Page 1

AMPC Wastewater Management Fact Sheet Series Page 1

Masses at Massillon: IFAS for Industrial Loads and Nutrient Removal

RE ENGINEERING O&M PRACTICES TO GET NITROGEN & PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL WITHOUT FACILITY UPGRADES

AquaPASS. Aqua MixAir System. Phase Separator. System Features and Advantages. Anaerobic. Staged Aeration. Pre-Anoxic.

Secondary Treatment Process Control

Integrated Activated Sludge and Biosolids Treatment to Conserve Energy & Waste Solids Disposal

Executive Summary. ES.1 Introduction

Process Monitoring for Biological and Chemical Nutrient Removal

APPENDIX A. 1. Background. 1.1 Existing Facilities. Page 1

Advances in Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal at Low DO Conditions

SECTION 6.0 NEWPCC CENTRATE TREATMENT

20 Years of Nutrient Removal City of Beloit

Mainstream ANITA Mox Pilot Testing at Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. Meg Hollowed Veolia Water Technologies

North Side WRP Master Plan Research and Development Department 2006 Seminar Series October 27, 2006 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT. Bentonville Wastewater Treatment Plant Facts:

Carbon Redirection and its Role in Energy Optimization at Water Resource Recovery Facilities

Meeting SB1 Requirements and TP Removal Fundamentals

Proprietary AquaTron technology incorporates three (3) innovative features that increase its efficiency and reduces cost:

Shortcut Biological Nitrogen Removal for sustainable wastewater treatment and achieving energy neutrality

An Innovative Approach to Retrofitting for Nitrogen Removal

JTAC Presentation May 18, Nutrient Removal Process Fundamentals and Operation

Innovative Phosphorus Control to Turn Struvite Headaches into Increase Revenue. Peter Schauer, Rob Baur, Brett Laney PNCWA 2010

Advances in Point Source Nitrogen Removal Technologies: Transitioning from Version 1.0 to 3.0

Emerging Issues in the Water/Wastewater Industry. Austin s Full-Scale Step-BNR Demonstration

The TRA CRWS Master Plan. Past, Present, & Future of CRWS. Kaylee Dusek, EIT, Garver Matt Jalbert, PE, TRA

City of Loveland Nutrient Removal Evaluation Final Report

NUTRIENT REMOVAL FROM ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SIDE-STREAM AT THE BLUE PLAINS AWTP Overlook Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20032

Aqua MSBR MODIFIED SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR

So You ve Removed Your Phosphorus? Now What? JTAC Luncheon April 9 th, 2014

Nutrient Removal Processes MARK GEHRING TECHNICAL SALES MGR., BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

Applying Extractive Nutrient Recovery for Managing Phosphorus in Sidestreams and Biosolids

Struvite Harvesting: Creating Value From Wastewater?

Appendix A: Case Studies

Global Leaders in Biological Wastewater Treatment

Membrane Thickening Aerobic Digestion Processes

At the Mercy of the Process Impacts of Nitrogen Removal Performance on WWTP Disinfection

OMNIFLO ISBR. The most innovative SBR yet! Water Technologies

A SUBMERGED ATTACHED GROWTH BIOREACTOR FOR DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT

City of Elk River Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements. Achieving Wastewater Treatment Goals

Developments in Mainstream Deammonification and Nitrite Shunt Haydée De Clippeleir

FIRST APPLICATION OF THE BABE PROCESS AT S-HERTOGENBOSCH WWTP. Pettelaarpark 70, PO Box GA, s-hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Developments in Mainstream Deammonification and Nitrite Shunt Haydée De Clippeleir

A Roadmap for Smarter Nutrient Management in a Carbon and Energy Constrained World. Samuel Jeyanayagam, PhD, PE, BCEE

We Know Water. AnoxKaldnes. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) and ANITA Mox Deammonification

Chemically Assisted Primary Sedimentation as a tool to improve energy balance of a large wastewater treatment plant

Holistic Approach to Plant Optimization for Biosolids Management

New Phosphorus Removal Requirement Tips the Scales: Lessons Learned on Biosolids Management and Odor Control at the Southington CT Treatment Plant.

COMPARISON OF SBR AND CONTINUOUS FLOW ACTIVATED SLUDGE FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL

Sustainable Approaches to Sidestream Nutrient Removal and Recovery

Refinement of Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

Biological Phosphorous Removal Is Coming! Michigan Water Environment Association Annual Conference, June 23, 2008; Boyne Falls MI

Wastewater Nitrogen Characteristics, Treatment and Removal Options. Bob Smith, Orenco Systems, Inc. GEC 2013

Contents General Information Abbreviations and Acronyms Chapter 1 Wastewater Treatment and the Development of Activated Sludge

Innovations in Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal

Startup and Performance of the World s first Large Scale Primary Dissolved Air Floatation Clarifier ABSTRACT KEYWORDS INTRODUCTION

The Unexpected Consequences of Water Conservation on Water Reuse Facilities

Application of the AGF (Anoxic Gas Flotation) Process

MAINSTREAM DEAMMONIFICATION

Wastewater Nitrogen Removal

Taking the Waste out of WAS: Sludge Pretreatment for Beneficial Uses

Transcription:

A Battle to Be the Best: A Comparison of Two Powerful Treatment Technologies: Post Aerobic Digestion and Anammox David Oerke/CH2M Tom Johnson/CH2M Bruce Johnson/CH2M Heidi Bauer/CH2M Steve Graziano/CH2M 2016 Vail Operator Training Seminar

What are PAD & Anammox? Treatment Technologies Reduction of nitrogen No supplemental carbon or alkalinity WEF Webcast 12/9/2009: Treatment for Nutrient Removal and Recovery

What is Post Aerobic Digestion? Aerobic digestion after anaerobic digestion Advantages: Reduction of N without chems. VSS reduction Odor reduction Struvite stabilization Challenges: Biological heat Foam

Example Full-Scale PAD Facilities Raw Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment Spokane County Regional WRF Denver Metro WRD NTP 11/16 Boulder 75 th Street WWTP -10/16 Step Feed Bioreactor Membranes Solids Reduction & Nitrogen Removal Centrifuge Waste Solids Anaerobic Digesters Aerobic Digester Centrate

What is Anammox Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation Advantages: Reduction of N without chems. Lower energy Challenges: Slow growth Competition with nitrite oxidizing bacteria

Example Full-Scale Anammox Facility Alexandria Renew Enterprises (AlexRenew) Water Resources Recovery Facility (WRRF) Wett, B., Murthy, S., Takacs, I., Hell, M., Bowden, G., Deur, A., Shaughnessy, M. (2007). Key Parameters for Control of DEMON Deammonification Process. Wat. Practice

Comparison of Technologies Post Aerobic Digestion Anammox Target Flow Stream Nitrogen Removal Method Entire anaerobic digestion effluent Nitrification/ Denitrification Dewatering liquors Partial Nitritation/ Deammonification - Carbon Input Degradable material from anaerobic digestion Not needed - Aeration Intermittent Intermittent Biomass Used Conventional Specialized

Methodology Pro2D 2 whole plant simulator: Baseline PAD Anammox CPES cost estimating system Assumptions: 75.7 ML/d (20 mgd) Aeration Basins: 5-stage Bardenpho 8.5 day SRT Biosolids facilities: 24/7 operation Disposal via land application mg/l Influent Effluent Limitation BOD 250 10 TSS 240 10 VSS 192 TKN 39 NH3 30 1 TN 39 5.0 TP 6 1.0

Baseline PFD -No Treatment RAW INFLUENT PUMP STATION SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL PRIMARY CLARIFIERS Anaerobic AERATION BASINS Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic SECONDARY CLARIFIERS FILTRATION PLANT EFFLUENT Recycle RAS Gravity Thickener Supernatant GRAVITY THICKENER GBT FILTRATE GRAVITY BELT THICKENER Thickened WAS Thickened Primary Solids ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Backwash BELT FILTER PRESS BIOSOLIDS Filtrate WAS

Post Aerobic Digestion PFD RAW INFLUENT PUMP STATION SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL PRIMARY CLARIFIERS Anaerobic AERATION BASINS Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic SECONDARY CLARIFIERS FILTRATION PLANT EFFLUENT Recycle RAS Gravity Thickener Supernatant GRAVITY THICKENER GBT FILTRATE GRAVITY BELT THICKENER Thickened WAS Thickened Primary Solids ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Backwash BELT FILTER PRESS BIOSOLIDS Filtrate WAS POST AEROBIC DIGESTION

Anammox PFD RAW INFLUENT PUMP STATION SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL PRIMARY CLARIFIERS Anaerobic AERATION BASINS Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic SECONDARY CLARIFIERS FILTRATION PLANT EFFLUENT Recycle RAS Gravity Thickener Supernatant GRAVITY THICKENER GBT FILTRATE GRAVITY BELT THICKENER Thickened WAS ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Backwash BELT FILTER PRESS Thickened Primary Solids BIOSOLIDS WAS Filtrate WAS Treated Filtrate ANAMMOX

Baseline: Design Criteria Average of 778 kg/d (1,715 lb/d) of carbon 3.66 m (12 ft) dia. tank for 30-day max month storage PAD: Aerobic digester volume of 4,656 m 3 (1.23 MG) Anammox: Based on DEMON process with an estimated total reactor volume of 1,079 m 3 (0.285 MG) Two SBR basins with an equally sized basin for Equalization

Cost Assumptions Life Cycle Assumptions: Life of Study 20 years Discount Rate 5.0 % Inflation Rate 3.0 % Capital Cost Assumptions: Start of Construction 2015 Construction Duration 2 years Markup Factor 2.38 Annual Cost Assumptions: Electricity Cost $0.0768/kWh Maintenance and Repair Cost 3.0%/year of equipment cost Biosolids Hauling Cost $20.58/wet metric ton ($18.67/wet U.S. ton) Biosolids Disposal Cost $33.07/wet metric ton ($30.00/wet U.S. ton) Trash Hauling and Disposal Cost $78.33/m 3 ($59.89/yd 3 ) Revenue $0/year Contingency 20% of annual costs

Mass Balance: Results Treatment Filtrate Quality Plant Effluent Biosolids Costs: Annual Capital Life Cycle

Results-Mass Balance -Mass Removed from

Results-Mass Balance -Filtrate Quality Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment with Anammox mg/l (kg/d) mg/l (kg/d) % Change from Baseline mg/l (kg/d) % Change from Baseline NH3 440 (390) 4.5 (4.0) 99% 43 (37) 90% TKN 490 (430) 45 (40) 91% 59 (51) 88% TIN 440 (390) 25 (23) 94% 93 (80) 79% TN 490 (430) 66 (59) 86% 110 (94) 78% Both sidestream treatment technologies remove significant amounts of nitrogen from the filtrate compared to the baseline.

Results-Mass Balance -Plant Effluent Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment with Anammox Flow, m 3 /d (mgd) 76,000 (20.0) 76,000 (20.0) 76,000 (20.0) BOD, mg/l (kg/d) 1.7 (130) 1.7 (130) 1.7 (130) TSS, mg/l (kg/d) 3.1 (240) 3.1 (240) 3.1 (240) VSS, mg/l (kg/d) 2.1 (160) 2.0 (150) 2.0 (160) NH3, mg-n/l (kg-n/d) 0.4 (30) 0.4 (31) 0.3 (19) TKN, mg-n/l (kg-n/d) 1.8 (140) 1.8 (140) 1.7 (130) NO3, mg-n/l (kg-n/d) 2.6 (200) 2.1 (160) 2.2 (170) TP, mg/l (kg/d) 0.4 (34) 0.5 (37) 0.5 (34) No significant differences between the two sidestream treatment technologies compared to each other or to the baseline.

Results-Mass Balance -Biosolids

Results-Annual Costs -Energy Use Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment with Anammox Treatment, kw - 83 42 Methanol Feed, kw 5 - - Aeration Basins, kw 594 551 552 Anaerobic Digestion, kw 182 182 182 Anaerobic Digestion Energy Generation, kw (462) (452) (457) Net Energy, kw 320 365 318 Annual Energy Consumption, kwh/yr 2,800,000 3,190,000 2,790,000 Annual Energy Cost, $/yr $215,000 $245,000 $214,000 Energy Cost Compared to Baseline, $/yr $30,000 -$1,000 Energy Cost Compared to Baseline, % 14.0% -0.5%

Results-Annual Costs -Chemical Use Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment with Anammox Methanol Consumption, kg/d (lb/d) 778 (1,715) - - Methanol Consumption, MG/yr (dry tons/yr) 284 (313) - - Annual Methanol Cost, $/yr $139,000 - -

Results-Annual Costs -Biosolids Production Baseline (No Treatment Treatment with Treatment) with PAD Anammox Biosolids Production, kg/d (lb/d) 7,982 (17,598) 6,965 (15,354) 7,878 (17,368) Biosolids Production, dry metric tons/day 8.0 7.0 7.9 Biosolids Production, wet metric tons/day 33.3 29.0 32.8 Biosolids Production, wet metric tons/yr 12,100 10,600 12,000 Annual Disposal Cost, $/yr $651,000 $568,000 $643,000 Disposal Cost Compared to Baseline, $/yr -$83,000 -$8,000 Disposal Cost Compared to Baseline, % -12.7% -1.2%

Results-Annual Costs -Total Energy, Chemical, & Biosolids Baseline (No Treatment Treatment with Treatment) with PAD Anammox Energy Use, $/yr $215,000 $245,000 $214,000 Chemical Use, $/yr $139,000 - - Biosolids Production, $/yr $651,000 $568,000 $643,000 Total Annual Costs for Energy, Methanol, & Biosolids Disposal, $/yr $1,005,000 $813,000 $857,000 Total Cost Compared to Baseline, $/yr -$192,000 -$148,000 Total Cost Compared to Baseline, % -19.1% -14.7%

Costs in Million Dollars Results-Capital Costs Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment with Anammox Aeration Basins $19.4 $19.1 $19.1 Aeration Basin Blowers $4.4 $4.2 $4.3 Carbon Feed and Storage Facility $1.5 - - Anammox Facility - - $3.8 Post Aerobic Digestion - $5.3 - Other 11 Facilities $81.6 $81.6 $81.6 Additional Project Costs $15.6 $16.1 $15.9 Total Construction Cost $122.5 $126.3 $124.7 Percent Increase from Lowest Construction Cost - 3.1% 1.8%

Results-Total Annual Costs Costs in Million Dollars Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment w/ Anammox Aeration Basins $0.24 $0.23 $0.23 Aeration Basin Blowers $0.39 $0.35 $0.36 Carbon Feed and Storage Facility $0.24 - - Anammox Facility - - $0.05 Post Aerobic Digestion - $0.10 - Biosolids Hauling and Disposal $1.40 $1.20 $1.40 Other 11 Facilities $1.96 $1.96 $1.96 Misc. Annual Costs & Contingency $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 Total Annual Cost $4.43 $4.04 $4.20 NPV of Annual Costs $55.1 $50.7 $52.2 Percent Increase from Lowest Annual Cost 9.7% - 4.0%

Results-Life Cycle Costs Costs in Million dollars Baseline (No Treatment) Treatment with PAD Treatment with Anammox Aeration Basins $22.3 $22.1 $22.1 Aeration Basin Blowers $9.3 $8.6 $8.7 Carbon Feed and Storage Facility $4.5 - - Anammox Facility - - $4.5 Post Aerobic Digestion - $6.5 - Biosolids Hauling and Disposal $17.7 $15.4 $17.4 Other 11 Facilities $105.8 $105.8 $105.8 Standard Items $18.0 $18.6 $18.4 Total Net Present Value $177.6 $177.0 $176.9 Percent Increase from Lowest Life Cycle Cost 0.40% 0.06% -

Conclusions-1 Post Aerobic Digestion and Anammox Similarities: Excellent option for reduction of nitrogen recycled back to the liquid stream Supplemental chemicals not typically required Similar effluent quality achieved Significant removal of constituents in filtrate Less energy required for nutrient removal in aeration basins

Conclusions-2 Post Aerobic Digestion and Anammox Differences: Different sidestream flow streams targeted PAD removes more BOD, VSS, and Nitrogen Greater net annual cost savings for PAD Greater net energy savings for Anammox

Costs: Conclusions-3 Baseline (No Treatment) offers lowest capital cost Treatment with PAD offers the lowest annual cost Equivalent life cycle costs for Baseline, PAD, and Anammox: Consider PAD when N removal without chems. desired in addition to additional VSR. Consider Anammox when N removal without chems. desired in addition to energy minimization, or if future phosphorus recovery is desired.

A Battle to Be the Best: A Comparison of Two Powerful Treatment Technologies: Post Aerobic Digestion and Anammox QUESTIONS? David Oerke/CH2M (David.Oerke@ch2m.com) Tom Johnson/CH2M Bruce Johnson/CH2M Heidi Bauer/CH2M Steve Graziano/CH2M