industry update on nitrogen removal programs across the united states: what does it mean for new...
DESCRIPTION
An industry update on nitrogen removal programs across the United States. Presented by Rick Cisterna, Senior Associate with Hazen and Sawyer during the Buzzards Bay Coalition's 2011 Decision Makers Workshop series. Learn more at www.savebuzzardsbay.org/DecisionMakersTRANSCRIPT
11
March 3rd, 2011March 3rd, 2011
Industry Update on Nitrogen RemovalIndustry Update on Nitrogen RemovalPrograms Across the United States:Programs Across the United States:What Does it Mean for New England?What Does it Mean for New England?
Richard H. CisternaRichard H. Cisterna, P.E, P.E..
22
Nitrogen Treatment Technology Overview
Water Industry Sustainability11
22
33
44
OOutlineutline
Conventional and AdvancedCase Studies
55
National Perspective - Nitrogen and Hypoxia
Massachusetts Estuaries
66 Summary and Conclusions
33
Water Industry SustainabilityWater Industry Sustainability
44
Sustainability is inSustainability is in VogueVogue
55
Focus of Sustainability has been on EnergyFocus of Sustainability has been on Energy
● Energy Audits
● Energy Optimization
● Renewable EnergySources
66
Sustainability BalancingSustainability Balancing ActAct
Water SupplyWater Supply //Wastewater EffluentWastewater Effluent
GreenGreen EnergyEnergyCarbon FootprintCarbon Footprint
Nitrogen
77
National Perspective onNational Perspective on
Nitrogen and HypoxiaNitrogen and Hypoxia
88
Nitrogen is an Emerging National ConcernNitrogen is an Emerging National Concern
99
Nitrogen’s Impact on the EcosystemNitrogen’s Impact on the Ecosystem
Source: evworld.com
1010
Chesapeake Bay Oxygen DepletionChesapeake Bay Oxygen Depletion
Source: evworld.com
1111
Long Island Sound Nitrogen Control Program
● In 1998, CT, NY, and EPA agreed to reducehuman sources of N by 58.5% by 2014. ATMDL was developed and approved by EPAin 2001.
1212
Long Island SoundLong Island Sound
Source: CTDEP and Long Island Sound Study
1313
The Mississippi River Carries A lot of NitrogenThe Mississippi River Carries A lot of Nitrogen
1414
And the Gulf of Mexico Pays the Price…And the Gulf of Mexico Pays the Price…
Source: evworld.com
1515
Historical Development of Nitrogen LimitsHistorical Development of Nitrogen Limits
1990 20202000 2010
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TMDL(mg/l)
North Carolina
Chesapeake Bay
Florida
Long Island Sound, CT
Long Island Sound, NYC8 mg/l
5 mg/l
3 mg/l
1.5 mg/l
1616
Massachusetts EstuariesMassachusetts Estuaries
1717
Mass Estuaries also have nitrogen concernsMass Estuaries also have nitrogen concerns
1818
Mass Nitrogen Reduction Program GoalsMass Nitrogen Reduction Program Goals
» Reduce ‘N’ to estuaries
» Consider centralized and decentralizedapproaches
» Highly treat wastewater to newMassachusetts DEP Standards
» Strategically recharge reclaimed water
1919
Western Cape Recharge BasinsWestern Cape Recharge Basins
Source: USGS
2020
Mass. DEP: Groundwater Discharge ProgramMass. DEP: Groundwater Discharge Program(314 CMR 5.00)(314 CMR 5.00)
RequirementsRequirements
All DischargesAll Discharges
Meet secondary treatment effluent limits:
» Nitrate as Nitrogen < 10 mg/L
» Total Nitrogen < 10 mg/L
» Fecal Coliform < 200 colonies per 100 mL
Discharges withinDischarges withinZone II or IWPAZone II or IWPA
Effluent shall be filtered to meet:
» TSS < 10 mg/L
» Turbidity < 5 NTU
» TOC < 3 mg/L
Discharges withinDischarges withinZone II or IWPAZone II or IWPAand 2 year Traveland 2 year TravelTimeTime
oror
Direct InjectionDirect Injection(into saturated(into saturatedzone)zone)
Effluent shall be oxidized, filtered, disinfected and coagulatedto meet:
» TSS < 5 mg/L
» Turbidity < 2 NTU
» BOD < 10 mg/L
» TOC < 1 mg/L
» Fecal Coliform = avg. of zero colonies per 100 mL over a
continuous 7 day sampling period; no single
sample shall exceed 14 colonies per 100 mL
» Virus = 5 Log Inactivation and/or Removal
Disinfection shall not be waived.
Coagulation may be waived if meet turbidity requirement withfiltration alone.
2121
Treatment Approaches?Treatment Approaches?
● Decentralized Advanced Septic Systems
● Biological Treatment
● Centralized MF/RO, (AOP?) – Concentrate Issue
● MF, GAC, (AOP?)
2222
Regulations for Indirect Potable ReuseRegulations for Indirect Potable Reuse
Florida Mass. California Arizona Australia
Nitrogen 10 ppm* 10 ppm* 5 ppm 10 ppm 1 ppm
TOC 3 ppm3 ppm1 ppm
0.5 ppm --- 1 ppm
EmergingContaminants
No/Yes No? Yes No/Yes Yes
* Local requirements can be more stringent
2323
Nitrogen TreatmentNitrogen Treatment
2424
Nitrification /Nitrification / DenitrificationDenitrification ActivatedActivatedSludgeSludge ProcessProcess -- MLEMLE
● Solids in primary sludge (5 - 10 %)● Biosynthesis in WAS (10 - 20 %)● Denitrification (40 - 60 %)
SecondaryClarifiers
PrimaryClarifiers
Air Blowers
Aeration Tanks
AerobicAnoxic
Return Sludge
SecondaryEffluent
Waste ActivatedSludge
PrimarySludge
PretreatedWastewater
N&P Removal
TKN = 30 mg/LTP = 7 mg/L
NH3-N < 2 mg/LNO3-N < 5 mg/LTN = 8 mg/LTP = 5 mg/L
TN ~ 8 to 10 mg/L
3Q
2525
BNR Step Feed ConfigurationBNR Step Feed Configuration
TWO-STEP FEED PROCESS
FOUR - STEP FEED PROCESS
SecondaryClarifiers
Anoxic AnoxicAerobic Aerobic
Step Feed
RAS
SecondaryEffluent
Waste ActivatedSludge
PretreatedWastewater
SecondaryClarifiers
AnoxicAnoxic AnoxicAnoxic AerobicAerobic AerobicAerobic
RAS
SecondaryEffluent
Waste ActivatedSludge
PretreatedWastewater
TN ~ 6 to 9 mg/L
TN ~ 4 to 6 mg/L
2626
SecondaryEffluentWastewater
WAS
BNRAeration Tank
SecondaryClarifier
PrimaryAnoxic
SecondaryAnoxic
Aerobic Re-aeration
Anaerobic
Typical 5-stage BNR Process – Lower TN limit
BNR Process ConfigurationsBNR Process Configurations –– 55--stagestage
Carbon
TN ~ 3 to 4 mg/L
2727
3+ Stage with Denitrification Filters3+ Stage with Denitrification Filters
SecondaryEffluentWastewater
WAS
MethanolAcetate
BNRAeration Tank
SecondaryClarifier
GranularMediaFilter
Anoxic AerobicAnaerobic
TN < 3 mg/L
2828
Denitrification FiltersDenitrification Filters
● Nitrified secondary effluent sent to filtration
● Filter media used to grow an attached biomass thatwill denitrify the secondary effluent
● Supplemental carbon addition
● Good solids removal + denite – 2 gpm/ft2
2929
Typical MBR Process
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
3030
Integrated Fixed Film Activated SludgeIntegrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge(IFAS)(IFAS)
● Media held in Aeration Basins to provideattached growth for Nitrifying biomass
● Typical Floating and Fixed IFAS Media
» Kaldnes (plastic)
» Linpor (sponge)
» Ringlace (cord)
30
3131
IFAS in Nutrient RemovalIFAS in Nutrient Removal
ANA ANOX AEROBIC ANOX
•Higher capacity in samevolume•“Modular” phasing•Improved wet weatherstability
3232
TZ Osborne WRFTZ Osborne WRF –– Pilot LayoutPilot Layout
IFASCell 1
IFASCell 2
IFASCell 3
PrimaryEffluent
RASTo FinalClarifier No. 7
~ 35% fill (AK-K3)
3 distinct zones
Screens for each cell
Isolation / throttle airvalve for each cell
3333
IFAS Pilot Results / Lessons LearnedIFAS Pilot Results / Lessons Learned
● Effective nitrification inapproximately half theaerobic volume
● Dynamic microbialpopulation
● Higher air usage
● Screen headloss higher thanexpected
● Foam handling a must
● Influent screening must besized correctly (i.e. openingsize)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
04/01/08 06/13/08 08/25/08 11/06/08 01/18/09 04/01/09
Bio
ma
ss
on
Me
dia
(gT
SS
/m2
of
me
dia
su
rfa
ce
)
Date
Cell D Biomass Cell E Biomass Cell F Biomass
3434
BioMagBioMag
From CWT Website -http://cambridgewatertech.com/technology/biomag
3535
Typical Process Treatment Train for UltraTypical Process Treatment Train for Ultra--LowLowNutrient StandardsNutrient Standards
3636
Cost vs. Nitrogen RemovalCost vs. Nitrogen Removal
Nitrogen Removal (mg/L)
Cost ($)
3737
Nitrogen Removal Option Summary*Nitrogen Removal Option Summary*
CriteriaCriteria22--StageStage
BNRBNR
4/54/5--StageStageBNRBNR
+ Carbon+ CarbonFeedFeed
4/54/5--StageStageBNRBNR
++ DeniteDeniteFiltersFilters
4/54/5--StageStageBNRBNR
+ MBR w/+ MBR w/CarbonCarbon FeedFeed
4/54/5--StageStageBNRBNR
+ UF + NF or+ UF + NF orRORO
TN effluentAchievable
8 - 12 mg/L 3 - 6 mg/L 3 - 4 mg/L 2 - 3 mg/L < 1.5 mg/L
Capital Costper GPD
$0.25 - $1.25 $0.50 - $2.00 $1.25 - $2.50 $2.50 - $3.00 $3.00 - $4.00
EnergyUsage perMGD
40 kW 50 kW 55 kW 100 kW 125 kW
Annual O&MCost perMGD
$21k - $28k $30k - $40k $35k - $47k $121k - $161k $261k - $348k
*Relative cost for additional treatment only. Total cost will depend on the available plant infrastructure.
3838
Supplemental CarbonSupplemental Carbon
3939
Available Supplemental Carbon SourcesAvailable Supplemental Carbon Sources
● Methanol
● Ethanol
● Acetic acid
● Corn syrup/sugar
● Glycerin
● MicroC™
● Primary fermentate
4040
Methanol ConsiderationsMethanol Considerations
● Benefits
» Low cost (relative to alternatives)
» Low yield (low solids production)
» Proven technology
● Drawbacks
» Requires specialist population
■ Slow growing
» Volatile price
» Slower kinetics
» Flammable
Recent Methanol Accident Site atBethune Point WWTP
4141
Methanol CostsMethanol Costs –– 2001 to 20092001 to 2009(Expect Price Fluctuations)(Expect Price Fluctuations)
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Ap
r-0
1
Oct-
01
Ap
r-0
2
Oct-
02
Ap
r-0
3
Oct-
03
Ap
r-0
4
Se
p-0
4
Ma
r-0
5
Se
p-0
5
Ma
r-0
6
Se
p-0
6
Ma
r-0
7
Se
p-0
7
Ma
r-0
8
Se
p-0
8
Ma
r-0
9
Me
tha
no
lP
ric
e($
/Ga
llo
n)
www.methanex.com
4242
GlycerinGlycerin
● Typically byproduct ofbiodiesel production
● Benefits
» Faster kinetics
» Specialist population notrequired
● Drawbacks
» Potential for productinconsistencies withwaste products
» Viscous in cold weather
● Products
» Brenntag
» Unicarb-DN
» BioCarb DN (Denite-1)
» MicroC-Glycerin
» Waste products
4343
Alternative Carbon TestingAlternative Carbon Testing
Parameter NRWWTP HCWRF PWWTP SDWRF NDWRF
Size (mgd) 75 75 7.5 20 20
Feed point Second anoxic zone
Basins fedcarbon
One All All One 4 out of 5
Control(ifapplicable)
One parallelbasin thatwas fed
methanol
Full-scaleevaluation,therefore no
control
Full-scaleevaluation,therefore no
control
One parallelbasin that
was not fedcarbon
One parallelbasin that
was not fedcarbon
Substrate Glycerin Sugar waterand glycerin
Glycerin Glycerin Glycerin
4444
Parkway WWTPParkway WWTP
INFLUENT PUMPSTATION
SECONDARYCLARIFIERS
MLR PUMPSTATION
BNR BASIN #2(RB2)
SOLIDS HANDLING
RASPUMPSTATION
PRIMARYCLARIFIERS
GRITREMOVAL
BNR BASIN #1(RB1)
CHLORINECONTACTBASINS
4545
Parkway FullParkway Full--Scale Pilot DataScale Pilot Data
Full Scale Pilot Data
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10/2
7/2
007
11/3
/2007
11/1
0/2
007
11/1
7/2
007
11/2
4/2
007
12/1
/2007
12/8
/2007
12/1
5/2
007
12/2
2/2
007
12/2
9/2
007
1/5
/2008
1/1
2/2
008
1/1
9/2
008
1/2
6/2
008
Co
ncen
trati
on
(mg
/L)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Carb
on
do
se,g
al/d
ay
Effluent NOx Effluent TN Brenntag Glycerin 7 per. Mov. Avg. (Effluent NOx) 7 per. Mov. Avg. (Effluent TN)
■ No Acclimation Period Required
4646
BNR Tank 8
NRCY
NRCY
NRCY
NRCY
BNR Tank 7
BNR Tank 6
BNR Tank 5 ToSecondary
ClarifierNo. 8
ToSecondary
ClarifierNo. 7
3848-047
Cell1
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS/WASPump Station
RA
SPip
eline
PE
Dis
trib
ution
Channel
ML
Dis
trib
ution
Channel
ML Distribution Channel
RA
S
Ferm
enta
tion
Anaero
bic
Zone
Prim
ary
Anoxic
/
Anaero
bic
Zone
Re-
Aera
tion
ZonePrimary
Anoxic/Aerobic Zone
SecondaryAnoxic/
Aerobic ZoneAerobic Zone
Cell 2 Cell 3Cell 5 Cell 8 Cell 11
Cell 4Cell 7 Cell 10 Cell 13Cell 6 Cell 9 Cell 12
Henrico VAHenrico VA
4747
Henrico County WRF Plant Effluent NitrogenHenrico County WRF Plant Effluent NitrogenProfile vs. Substrate Feed RateProfile vs. Substrate Feed Rate
● Sugar water and glycerin both effective.
4848
North Carolina “Conventional”North Carolina “Conventional”
Case StudiesCase Studies
4949
Neuse River WWTP, Raleigh, NCNeuse River WWTP, Raleigh, NC
● 60 mgd Advanced WWTP
» Primary Clarifiers
» 4-stage BNR w/ methanoladdition
» Denitrification Filters w/methanol addition
● Largest Plant in Eastern U.S.Achieving LOT for TN UtilizingConventional Suspended GrowthBNR Process
● Upcoming Expansion to 75 mgd
» TN = 2.7 mg/L, TP = 1 mg/L
● Calibrated BioWin Model Used to
Evaluate/ Optimize Expansion
5050
Typical Operating Parameters
Neuse RiverNeuse River ––44--stage w/stage w/ denitrificationdenitrification filtersfilters
5151
● Most TN Removal in BNR Basins
● Filters “Trimming” ± 1 mg/L (~ 5 mg/L Methanol Dose)
● Annual Average Effluent TN = 2.4 mg/L (2004 - 2008)
● 2007 Annual Average Effluent TN = 1.96 mg/L
Neuse RiverNeuse River -- Operation and PerformanceOperation and Performance
S E a n d F in a l E f f lu e n t N i t r o g e n C o n c e n t r a t io n s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ja
n-0
4
Ma
r-0
4
Ma
y-0
4
Ju
l-0
4
Se
p-0
4
No
v-0
4
Ja
n-0
5
Ma
r-0
5
Ma
y-0
5
Ju
l-0
5
Se
p-0
5
No
v-0
5
Ja
n-0
6
Ma
r-0
6
Ma
y-0
6
Ju
l-0
6
Se
p-0
6
No
v-0
6
Ja
n-0
7
Ma
r-0
7
Ma
y-0
7
Ju
l-0
7
Se
p-0
7
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(mg
/L)
E F F T N S E T N 3 0 p e r . M o v . A v g . (E F F T N ) 3 0 p e r . M o v . A v g . ( S E T N )
5252
High Point, NCHigh Point, NC –– 2626 mgdmgd, 5, 5--stage processstage process
5353
High Point PerformanceHigh Point Performance
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
9/1
/200
2
11/3
0/2
00
2
2/2
8/2
003
5/2
9/2
003
8/2
7/2
003
11/2
5/2
00
3
2/2
3/2
004
5/2
3/2
004
8/2
1/2
004
11/1
9/2
00
4
2/1
7/2
005
5/1
8/2
005
8/1
6/2
005
11/1
4/2
00
5
2/1
2/2
006
5/1
3/2
006
8/1
1/2
006
11/9
/2006
2/7
/200
7
5/8
/200
7
8/6
/200
7
11/4
/2007
2/2
/200
8
5/2
/200
8
7/3
1/2
008
10/2
9/2
00
8
EF
FT
ota
lN
itro
gen
(mg
/L)
EFF TN 30 per. Mov. Avg. (EFF TN)
Average Eff TN 1/07 to 12/08 = 3.3 mg/L
Avg TP = 0.18 mg/L Biologically
No supplementalcarbon
No alum or ferric
5454
Major Recycle ImpactsMajor Recycle Impacts
● Solids handling recycle streams
» Filtrate, centrate, gravity thickeneroverflow
● Frequency of return
ParametersPlant Influent Loads
(lbs/day)Plant Recycle Loads
(lbs/day)
Contribution FromPlant Recycles
(%)
BOD 43,600 2,830 6.5
TSS 39,300 6,590 17
TKN 5,700 1,620 29
TP 1,280 680 53
5555
Florida “Advanced”Florida “Advanced”
Case StudiesCase Studies
5656
Florida vs. Mass Estuary Nitrogen ChallengeFlorida vs. Mass Estuary Nitrogen Challenge
● FL - Existing Ocean Outfalls and Septic Tanks
● Cape – Mostly Septic Tanks
● Both – High Level Nitrogen Treatment / Recharge
5757
Class IDeep Injection Wells
EffluentReuse
Two Key issues for FDEP:
● Alternate Water SupplyResource
● Environmentalenhancement (Nitrogen)
Historically, South Florida’s sole source supplyHistorically, South Florida’s sole source supply(the Biscayne Aquifer), was fiercely protected(the Biscayne Aquifer), was fiercely protected
5858
Existing Supply Limited for UtilitiesExisting Supply Limited for Utilities
C.E.R.P
No New Waterfor the Public
5959
Recent LegislationRecent Legislation –– Ocean Outfall BanOcean Outfall Ban
● Outfall shut down due to nitrogen – Coral Reefs
● Achieve significant TN & TP reductions by 2018
● “Reuse” 60% of outfall flow by 2025
● After 2025, outfall for wet weather back-up, w/nutrient reductions
6060
South Central Regional
Boca Raton
Broward Co. North
Hollywood
Miami-Dade Central District
Miami-Dade North
LakeOkeechobee
7.7 MGD
6.2 MGD
22.4 MGD
24.1 MGD
48.6 MGD
68.9 MGD
Total = 178 MGD
Legislated Water Reuse RequirementsLegislated Water Reuse Requirements
6161
County /County / Local IssuesLocal Issues
Recharging Groundwater is Essentially a SurfaceRecharging Groundwater is Essentially a SurfaceWater DischargeWater Discharge –– nitrogen concernsnitrogen concerns
6262
Miami Dade CountyMiami Dade County
6363
Miami South DistrictMiami South DistrictWater Reclamation PlantWater Reclamation Plant
● 1st indirect potable reuse project in Florida
● Recharge drinking water aquifer with 23 mgd ofhighly treated wastewater
● Addressing pharmaceuticals and pathogens withregulators and public
● MF, RO, UV-AOP
● Ultra-pure drinkingwater quality
6464
Emerging ContaminantsEmerging Contaminants
PharmaceuticalsPharmaceuticals
PersonalPersonalCare ProductsCare Products
EndocrineEndocrineDisrupting CompoundsDisrupting Compounds
6565
Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs)Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs)
High dosage UV w/ H2O2
UV ~ 500 mj/cm2
H2O2 ~ 1-3 ppm
UV – TiO2
Ozone
6666
OXIDIZING SPECIESRELATIVE OXIDATION
POTENTIAL (V)
Hydroxyl Radical 2.05
Ozone 1.52
Hydrogen Peroxide 1.31
Permanganate 1.24
Chlorine Dioxide 1.15
Chlorine 1.00
IncreasingIncreasingability toability todegradedegradepollutantspollutants
Data from Metcalf & Eddy, 2003
Hydroxyl Radical (OH°) is a very strong oxidant!
6767
MiamiMiami--Dade CountyDade County
Miami Dade South District WRPMiami Dade South District WRP
6868
Example of the complexitiesExample of the complexities
Moat
Note: Locations are conceptual. Intended for discussion purposes only
ProposedBiscayne Wells
Regional Canal
Drainage Canal
6969
BiscayneBiscayne National ParkNational Park is Environmentallyis EnvironmentallySensitiveSensitive
7070
Groundwater Recharge CriteriaGroundwater Recharge Criteria
ParameterParameterMiami DadeMiami Dade
CountyCounty
FloridaFloridaStateState
StandardStandard
TOC -- 3 mg/l
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) -- 5 mg/l
Total Nitrogen (TN) -- 10 mg/L
Ammonia 2.8 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
--
Total Phosphorus (TP) .003 mg/l --
Emerging Contaminants Yes No
7171
Precedent Setting Treatment LevelsPrecedent Setting Treatment Levels
7272
Plantation, FL Pilot StudyPlantation, FL Pilot Study
7373
WWTP Located Near Canal That CouldWWTP Located Near Canal That CouldRecharge the Biscayne AquiferRecharge the Biscayne Aquifer
East HollowayCanal
EastWellfields
CentralWellfields
PlantationWWTF
7474
Pilot GoalsPilot Goals
● Demonstrate technologycan meet water quality
» TN
» TP
● Unregulated Parameters
» Microconstituents
» Toxicity
» Algal growth potential
» Hormonal impacts
7575
Things to considerThings to consider
7676
Nutrient ControlNutrient Control
● What is thetechnologynecessary to meetthe stringent TN &TP limits?
● Biological vsChemical nutrientremoval
● Are ROmembranesnecessary?
7777
Aquatic Organism ImpactAquatic Organism Impact
● Whole effluenttoxicity (WET)tests
● Is the ROpermeate toxic?
● Will the effluentcause anyhormonalimpacts?
7878
MicroconstituentsMicroconstituents
● Whichmicroconstituents arein your wastewater?
● What technology willmost effectivelyremove them?
● Aremicroconstituentsreally a concern atthese concentrations(ng/L)?
7979
Recharge ModelingRecharge Modeling
● Does yourpoint ofdischarge “off-set” yourwithdrawalimpacts?
● Can you get a1/1 credit?
● What happensduring the wetseason?
8080
SustainabilitySustainability
● Is this reallysustainable?
● Water Supplyvs CarbonFootprint?
8181
Public OutreachPublic Outreach
● How do youchange the “Sewerto Tap” mentality?
● How do youinvolve the publicearly in theproject?
8282
CostsCosts
● Capital cost
● Energy costs
8383
Plantation PilotPlantation Pilot
8484
Broward CountyBroward CountyCanal Recharge Effluent LimitsCanal Recharge Effluent Limits
ParameterParameter Effluent LimitEffluent Limit
TN < 1.5 mg/L
TP < 0.02 mg/L
Nitrate < 10 mg/L
Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L
TSS < 5.0 mg/L
CBOD5 < 10.0 mg/L
BOD < 5.0 mg/L
8585
MBR SchemeMBR Scheme
8686
Conventional Treatment SchemeConventional Treatment Scheme
8787
MBR Scheme DataMBR Scheme Data
8888
Plantation AWT MBR SchemePlantation AWT MBR Scheme
RO/UVPilot TrailerMBR Pilot
8989
Total nitrogen removal ofTotal nitrogen removal ofMBR and RO Pilot UnitsMBR and RO Pilot Units
9090
Total phosphorus removal ofTotal phosphorus removal ofMBR and RO Pilot UnitsMBR and RO Pilot Units
9191
Conventional Treatment DataConventional Treatment Data
9292
Plantation AWT ConventionalPlantation AWT ConventionalTreatment SchemeTreatment Scheme
UF/RO/UVPilot Trailer
DenitrificationFilter Pilot
9393
Total nitrogen removal ofTotal nitrogen removal ofDeep Bed Filter and RO Pilot UnitsDeep Bed Filter and RO Pilot Units
9494
Total phosphorus removal ofTotal phosphorus removal ofDeep Bed Filter and RO Pilot UnitsDeep Bed Filter and RO Pilot Units
9595
ConclusionsConclusions –– Nutrient RemovalNutrient Removal
● Both pilots met stringent TN & TP limits
● RO membranes are necessary to meet TP limit
● Membranes alone (UF/RO) with no chemicaladdition met TN & TP limits
9696
MicroconstituentsMicroconstituents
9797
What are Microconstituents?What are Microconstituents?
● Pharmaceutically Active Compounds (PhAC)
» Ethynyl Estradiol
» Sulfamethaxazole
● Personal Care Products (PCP)
» Triclosan
» Toiletries, cosmetics, fragrances
● Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC)
» Bisphenol-a
» Atrazine
» DEET
Triclosan
DEET
Ethynyl Estradiol
9898
Co
ncen
trati
on
(ng
/l)
MicroconstituentsMicroconstituents ––RO Influent ConcentrationsRO Influent Concentrations
9999
Co
ncen
trati
on
(ng
/l)
MicroconstituentsMicroconstituents –– Most wereMost wereremoved by RO membranesremoved by RO membranes
100100
Aquatic Organism Toxicity TestingAquatic Organism Toxicity Testing
101101
Is the RO permeate toxic?Is the RO permeate toxic?
● RO permeate is too clean
» RO re-stabilization/re-mineralization
» Added salts and minerals
● How would this work full scale?
» Dilution
» Mixing zone
102102
Does RO PreDoes RO Pre--treatmenttreatmentaffect toxicity?affect toxicity?
● RO Pre-treatment
» Antiscalant
» Chloramines
● Pilot Results
Water Flea
Fatheaded Minnow
103103
SummarySummary
● The pilot demonstrated to meet stringent nutrientlimits at different test conditions.
● RO membranes are necessary for surface waterdischarge due to stringent TP limits.
● Almost all microconstituents were removed byRO system.
● RO permeate could be toxic re-stabilization/re-mineralization is necessary.
● The observed toxicity to aquatic organisms waslikely caused by chloramines. Other forms of ROpretreatment should be evaluated.
104104
University of ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut
Advanced Reuse ProjectAdvanced Reuse Project
105105
University of Connecticut Reuse ProjectUniversity of Connecticut Reuse Project
106106
This is a Spotlight Project
107107
Potential Uses of Reclaimed Wastewater
ReuseReuseFacilityFacility ►►
▼▼WWTPWWTP
◄◄ Power PlantPower Plant
◄◄ Irrigation SitesIrrigation Sites ►►
108108
Process Flow DiagramProcess Flow Diagram
109109
UCONNUCONN Reclaimed Water FacilityReclaimed Water Facility
University of Connecticut– Reclaimed Water Facility
Location Storrs, CT
Capacity 1.0 mgd
Technology Microfiltration +UV Disinfection +Chloramination
Application • Cooling TowerMake-Up Water
• Boiler Feed Water(post RO treatment)
• Irrigation
UniqueChallenges
• Corrosion &Scaling Control forCooling Towers
110110
MF System Design CriteriaMF System Design Criteria
Parameter Value
Type Pressurized
System Rated Capacity 1 mgd
No. of MF Units 3
No. of Membrane Modules per Unit 32
Membrane Type 0.1 micron PVDF
Specific Design Flux 39 gfd
Minimum Recovery Percent 91%
111111
UV System Design CriteriaUV System Design Criteria
Parameter Value
Type LPHO
System Rated Capacity 1 mgd
No. of UV Systems 2 + 1
UV Design Dose 80 mJ/cm2
UV Transmittance ≥ 65% at 254 nm
Effluent Turbidity ≤ 0.2 NTU (95% of the time)
Effluent Total Coliform Max. 2.2/100 mL (7 day geometric mean)
Suspended Solids Max. 5 mg/L
112112
Sustainability FeaturesSustainability Features
● Replaces as much as40% of water supply attimes
● Reclaimed waterreservoir used as aheating source
● Stormwater capture andblending with wastewater
● Solar electricity
113113
Constructed New Facility?Constructed New Facility?
114114
Summary and ConclusionsSummary and Conclusions
115115
Summary and ConclusionsSummary and Conclusions
● Nitrogen control programs are growing
● Very low nitrogen requires significant energy and $
● Range of treatment options
● Good experiences and resources in other states todraw upon