enhanced carbon management for leading edge...
TRANSCRIPT
Jim Fitzpatrick
Enhanced Carbon Management for Leading Edge Utilities
Principal Process Engineer
Agenda
2
Case Studies
How?
Why?
Enhanced Carbon Management
3
Case Studies
How?
Why?
Drivers for Better Wastewater Carbon Management
WWTP Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF)
Energy Efficiency
Nutrient Control
Biocarbon Materials
4
Energy Efficiency1) Enhanced Primary Treatment2) Anaerobic Digestion
+ 3) Combined Heat and PowerKeys to Energy Neutrality with Current State-of-Art
5
Tarallo, S., A. Shaw, E. Zamenski, P. Kohl, R. Eschborn, N. Beecher (2015), WERF/NYSERDA Project ENER1C12.
6
• Carbon quantity and quality drives biological nutrient removal (BNR)• Solution = fermentation (primary sludge, RAS and/or MLSS)• Nexus Problem = anaerobic digester “merry-go-round” of ammonia
nitrogen, orthophosphorus, and counter-ions• Nexus Solution = sidestream nitrogen removal and phosphorus recovery
Nexus with Nutrient Control
• Polyhydroxylalkanoates (PHA)
• Natural polyesters from fermentation
• PHA-based bioplastic• Compostable / biodegradable
• Organic waste is raw material
• Fermentation “upcycling” into virgin PHA
7
Nexus with Biocarbon Materials
PHA Powder
Compostable Bioplastic Products
Organic Waste
Upcycle into PHA
8
Case Studies
How?
Why?
Enhanced Carbon Management
Enhancing Primary Capture of Influent Carbon
CODTSS
VSS
ISSFup
Fus
Fbs
X bi
od. p
artic
ulat
eX
unbi
od. p
art
Fsd
Part
icul
ate
Colloidal
Fac
BOD5
Solu
ble
Part
icul
ate
BO
D =
0.5
8 * C
OD
CO
Dp
= 1.
48 *
VSS
Fus - Non-biodegradable solubleFbs - Rapidly degradable soluble fractionFsd - Slowly degradable fraction
Fac - Fraction of Fbs that is SCVFAFxsd - Fraction of Fsd that is particulateFup - Non-biodegradable particulate fraction
Remove colloidal organic particlesNon-settleable TSS (TSSnon)
9
Black &Veatch
Enhanced Primary Treatment
Clearly more capture of colloidal particles than conventional Primary Settling
• Less effluent energy demand• ↓TSS & BOD = ↓O2
• Smaller particle size = better kinetics
• More carbon recovery• ↑VSS = ↑carbon capture• ↑PS:WAS = easier digestion• More biogas or biocarbon
raw material
10
Ballasted Flocculation
5-µm Media Filtration
Chemically Enhanced
Settling
Conventional Primary Settling
HRT Pilot Study, St. Joseph, Missouri 2009
Clarification Process and Technology Alternatives
11
A lot more choices than ye olde Primary Settling
Enhanced HRT
Primary Removal Equivalent*
High-Rate Treatment (HRT)
*If pre-coagulation/flocculation, HRT EHRT (in some cases)
Settling-Based Filtration-Based Flotation-Based1. Conventional Settling
-Rectangular, Circular, Square- RTB, Vertical Shaft
1. Shallow Granular Media 1. ConventionalFloatables Removal-Skimmers, Scum baffles2. Vortex (Swirl Concentrator) 2. Deep Granular Media
3. Lamella Settler3. Microscreens, Woven Media
-Salsnes Filter, Eco MAT®Filter, Hydrotech Discfilter, SuperDisc™, Forty-X™ Disc, Quantum™ Disk
2. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
4. Chemically Enhanced Settling4. Floating Media
-MetaWater High Speed Filter, BKT BBF-F
a. Conventional Basin
b. Sequencing Batch- e.g. ClearCove Flatline EPT
c. Lamella Settler 5. Pile Cloth Media-AquaPrime™, infini-D™, Five Star™
3. Polymer-aided DAF-Various suppliersd. Solids Contact /
Recirculation- e.g. DensaDeg®, CONTRAFAST®
6. Compressible Media-Fuzzy Filter™, FlexFilter™, FiltraFast™
e. Ballasted Flocculation- Microsand (e.g. ACTIFLO®, RapiSand™,
Densadeg XRC™)- Magnetite (e.g CoMag™)
7. Fixed-Film Contact-Biological Aerated Filter (BAF),
BioFlexFilter™4. Biocontact + DAF
-Captivator®5. Suspended Growth Contact
-BIOACTIFLO™, BioMag™, Bio-CES
HRF
HRC
Different Clarification Processes Require Different Enhancements
12
Gravimetric
Filtration*
* May require particle conditioning, depends upon waste and filter type.
Flotation
SedimentationSurface ChargeNeutralization
CoagulationCo-precipitation
FlocculationAdsorption
Particle Conditioning
Sieving (Surface) Adsorption (Depth)
Chemically Enhanced Settling (CES)
13
Steps 1, 2 and 3 are keys to how fast Step 4 will work
1. Coagulant Addition. Rapid mix. Add multivalent metal salt (Ca2+, Fe3+ or Al3+)
Jar test to optimize chemicals and design of Steps 1, 2 and 3
3. Flocculation. Low turbulence. Build and “sweep” floc. Solids contact and ballasting options (HRC).
4. Settling. Non-turbulent quiescent zone. Separate solids. Lamella options (HRC).
Turbulence
2. Flocculant Addition. Rapid mix. Add anionic polymer. If Step 1 & 3 are ideal, then optional (rare in municipal wastewater).
1500 BCChemical coagulation
by Egyptians
1740 ADParis sewage
treatment
TodayDrinking water, stormwater, dilute
wastewaters, increase biocarbon capture
Some High-Rate Filters (HRF) offer similar TSS removal as CES and High-Rate Clarifiers (HRC) . . .
14
. . . typically without chemicals.
Compressible Media
Pile Cloth Media
AquaDiamond®
AquaPrime™
Cour
tesy
Aqu
a-Ae
robi
c Sys
tem
s. In
c.
Applied Research & Development of HRF
15
1990’sAdvanced Demonstration FacilityColumbus, GA
2002HRT Pilots
King County, WA
2008HRF PilotsNelson ComplexJohnson County, KS
2010-2011CMF PilotSpringfield, OH
2014CMF Pilot
Springfield, MO
2016HRF PilotsLittle Rock, AR
Compressible Media Filter Test Unit
UntreatedTreated
2009HRT Pilots
St. Joseph, MO
A Soggy Day at the Pilot Plant
Typical Wet-Weather Samples
Influent Effluent
Other HRF Technologies Emerging for Primary and Wet Weather Applications
16No full-scale installations to date in primary/wet-weather application
Compressible Media
FiltraFast™(Courtesy of Suez)
Pile Cloth MediaSilicon Carbide
Ceramic Membrane
Courtesy Nexom
Infini-D™
Courtesy Five Star Filtration
Five Star™ SiC-FSM FilterCourtesy Ovivo
• Requires coagulant• Ovivo/B&V pilot in
Austin, TX for reuse/Title 22
• CSO pilot in King County, Washington
Dual-Use Facilities
Same HRC/HRF technologies can be used for tertiary applications or peak wet-weather flows
17
Improve Effluent QualityTSS, Phosphorus, Pathogens
UV Disinfection
Improve Carbon CaptureLower Process Air Demand
Higher Carbon RecoveryOR
Energy Efficiency
Nutrient Control
Biocarbon Materials
Wet Weather
18
Case Studies
How?
Why?
Enhanced Carbon Management
19
• Compressible Media (WWETCO FlexFilter) • Pile Cloth (Parkson DynaDisc)• Woven Cloth (NOVA Ultrascreen)
Johnson County 2008 Side-by-Side HRF Pilot
Johnson County 2008 Side-by-Side HRF Pilot
20
HRF Technology Average Effluent TSS (mg/L)
Sensitivity to Solids Loading Rate (SLR)
Compressible Media 30 Low
Pile Cloth Media 40 Medium
Woven Cloth (Microscreen) 45* High*
* Blinded by primary influent solids (FOG). Results only from filtering primary effluent.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Even
t Com
posi
te T
SS (m
g/L)
Percentage of Measurements at or Below Value
Dynamic Tangential Filter EffluentCloth Disc Filter EffluentCompressible Media Filter Effluent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Solids Loading Rate (kg/d/m2)
Even
t Com
posi
te T
SS (m
g/L)
Solids Loading Rate (ppd/ft2)
Dynamic Tangential Filter EffluentCloth Disc Filter EffluentCompressible Media Filter Effluent
Linear (Dynamic Tangential Filter Effluent)Linear (Cloth Disc Filter Effluent)Linear (Compressible Media Filter Effluent)
21
Compressible Media Filter – Springfield, Ohio
• Eliminate CSO-001• Add 140-mgd Interceptor
• Regulate Q≤40 mgd to existing TF/AS facilities
• Q>40 mgd screens and weir overflow to HRT
• Add 100-mgd HRT facility with effluent disinfection and pumping
100-mgd HRT FacilityCompressible Media Filter, High-Rate NaOCl/NaHSO3, Effluent Pumping
InterceptorChannel & Rock Box, Flow Splitting, Horizontal Bar Screens
CSO-001
22
Compressible Media Filter - FlexFilter™
Graphics & photos courtesy WesTech/WWETCO
Flexible Sidewall Bladder
Lower Perforated Plate
Upper Perforated Plate
Backwash Troughs
23
Compressible Media Filter – Performance Results
Effluent Average*
TSS mg/L 14
CBOD5 mg/L 20
NH3-N mg/L 2.3
TP mg/L 0.4
DO mg/L 8.7
TRC** mg/L 0.02
E. Coli #/100 mL 56
* 63 events Mar 2015 – May 2017** NaOCl dose < 4 mg/L (avg)
24
Springfield, Ohio – Project Successes
• Eliminated CSO-001 overflows• $33.5M (2011) $0.34/gpd• 320’ x 120’ footprint
• No added staff – SCADA controlled
• Dual-use design• Tertiary for future TP limits• Primary clarifier backup
Pile Cloth Disk Filter
25
Adapted for enhanced primary and auxiliary wet-weather applications
Images courtesy Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Settled solids removed intermittently from tank bottom hoppers
• Backwash shoes vacuum pile cloth
• Drive gear turns the disks during backwash
• Filtration continues during backwash
• Gravity filter through pile cloth disks
• Removable segments for ease of maintenance
Drive Gear
PLC PanelBackwash / Solids Pump
Effluent Weir
Influent Weir
Scum Trough
Collection Manifold
26
1. Larger disk and unit capacity (MegaDisk)• 10 to 24 mgd per cell, depending on TSS loading• Smallest footprint
2. Deeper basin for better solids handling• Heavy solids drop to grit/sludge hoppers• Floatables stay above filter• Filters in optimal zone for small particles
3. 5-µm polyester microfiber media• Effluent equivalent to compressible media• Better wear than previous generation nylon
Not all cloth disk filters are equalMegaDisk® tailored for ≥15 mgd
Key Advances for Enhanced Primary Applications
Images courtesy Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Influ
ent C
hann
elEfflu
ent
Chan
nel Scum
Trough
BackwashCollectors
AquaPrime™AquaStorm™
Pile Cloth - Enhanced Primary Facilities
Equipment design proven in thousands of tertiary applications using same mechanical, electrical and I&C details
27
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Tota
l Ope
ratin
g Ca
paci
ty in
U.S
. (m
gd)
Commissioning Year
Linda, CA(2.5-mgd, Primary)
Little Rock, AR(58-mgd, Tertiary/SSO)
+ Seven (7) More in Design
Fox Metro, IL(168-mgd, Tertiary/CSO)
Johnson County, KS(115-mgd, Tertiary/SSO)
Rock River WRD, IL(30-mgd, Primary)
Particle removal with new 5-µm pile cloth media equals compressible media
28Better than 10-µm pile cloth piloted in 2008 Johnson County side-by-side trials
29
Four bids on 100% design• $23.9MM (2018) for 58-mgd $0.41/gpd
• High-Rate Filter, UV, Effluent Pump Station• On track for September 2020 startup
Adams Field WRF
January 2020 ProgressFilter Upper Operating Floor
FLT-2 & 3 Basins
30
• Expand 7-mgd avg to 19-mgd avg / 172-mgd peak• Upgrade TF to BNR for TP<0.5 mg/L, TN<10 mg/L• 115-mgd HRF + Disinfection = $23MM (2018)
$0.20/gpd • CMAR project delivery
Tomahawk Creek WWTF
Tomahawk Creek WWTF – Filter Facility Plan View
31
Very small footprint
190 ft (58 m)
60 ft
(18.
3 m
)
BNR EffluentUp to 57 mgd(216 ML/d)
Peak Wet-Weather Screened InfluentUp to 115 mgd (435 ML/d)
Backwash andSolids Pump Room
(Typical of 4)
Pile ClothFilter Cell
(Typical of 8)
Tomahawk Creek WWTF – Filter Facility 3-D Sections
32
Relatively Shallow Excavation
18 ftSWD
MegaDisk Filter Cell Backwash and Solids Pump Room
Tomahawk Creek WWTF Construction
33
$335M CMAR project on track for 2021/22 startup SE Walls Dec 2019
NE Walls Jan 2020
EPT Performance with Pile Cloth Media Filters
34Repeatable results from onsite piloting across the U.S.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Re
mov
alTSS Removal BOD Removal COD Removal
Data courtesy Aqua-Aerobic Systems
Enhanced Primary Treatment for Rock River WRD
35
Repurpose existing Primary Clarifier 3 and 4 for primary filtration
Preliminary Design for EPT at Rock River WRD
36
Plan
Section
15-mgd Filters 15-mgd Influent Pumps
Backwash Pumps
Sludge Pumps
Preliminary Design for EPT at Rock River WRD
37
Startup anticipated mid 2022RepurposedPrimary Tank
New Primary Filter Superstructure
15-mgd Primary Filters
15-mgd Influent Pumps
Closing Thoughts & Open Discussion • Growing reasons to improve
management of influent carbon• Multiple technologies to enhance
capture of influent carbon• New advances in primary filtration
alternatives
38
Energy Efficiency
Nutrient Control
Biocarbon Materials
Wet Weather
Thank You!
Jim Fitzpatrick+1 [email protected]
Leon Downing+1 [email protected]
Sandeep Sathyamoorthy+1 [email protected]