wwmt-d1s1-wastewater treatment technologies by cindy wallis-lage

8/3/2019 WWMT-D1S1-Wastewater treatment technologies by Cindy Wallis-Lage

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wwmt-d1s1-wastewater-treatment-technologies-by-cindy-wallis-lage 1/102

OPPORTUNITIES IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT

m b e r 1 1

EXECUTIVE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL SOLUTIONSCINDY WALLIS‐LAGE 1

7 N o v



CORE TECHNOLOGIES

DOMESTIC LIQUID



PRELIMINARY TREATMENT

SCREENING

SEPTAGE PUMPOUTS ACCEPTANCE



SCREENING

T

• Purpose:

Removal of solids, typical 6 – 9 mm but

T M E

,

downstream

• Options:

T

R E Selection depends on need and

hydraulics; often

coarse

followed

by

Bar Screen

I N A R

E L I M

P

Step Screen

Rotary Drum

In‐channel



TStep Screen In‐channel Screen Rotary Screen

T M E

Advantages

Large flow capacity

Advantages

Large flow capacity

Advantages

Large flow capacity

T

R E

ase o nsta at on

maintenance

Low energy

ase o nsta at on

and maintenance

Low energy

Low ea oss

No headroom

I N A R Limitations

Needs headroom

Low headroom

Limitations

More power than

others

E L I M

Possible malodour Possible malodour Requires large

channel/pit

P



DEGRITTINGAerated Grit Tank

T

• urpose:

(1) prevent excessive abrasion of mechanical equipment;

T M E

(2) prevent deposition

of

grit

in

pipes

and

channels;

T

R E

units such as settling basins and digesters.

I N A R

Vortex Grit Removal

‐ Horizontal flow (square or rectangular configuration)

E L I M

‐

‐ Vortex‐type (now becoming most popular)

P



DEGRITTING

T

Aerated Grit Removal

Advantages

Vortex Grit Removal

Advantages

T M E

Popularity

Good at peak flows

Low energy

Compact design

T

R E

oo a mes an

larger grit removal

Adjustment of air

r t remove to

outside unit

Compatible with BNR

I N A R determines grit size

fraction for removalLimitations

• 50 mesh (0.3 mm) 95+%

E L I M Needs space

Needs air supply

remova• 70 mesh (0.24 mm)

85+% removal

P BNR compatibility

Possible malodour

• 100 mesh (0.15 mm)

65+% removal 7



SEPTAGE PUMPOUT ACCEPTANCE

E N T

• Purpose

Most Asian cities have large numbers of septic tanks

E A T M

.

should incorporate

septage receival facilities

R Y

T R • Options

1. Dedicated septage treatment plants

M I N A 2. Septage receiving areas at WWTPs

P R E L I

8



Dedicated Septage Treatment Plants

(design proposed for an Asian city)

Dedicated Septage Treatment Plants

(example of design proposed

for an Asian city)

Solids Loading Area

Treatment/Solids Dewatering Area

Backup Power

Lime Tanks

Weigh Bridge

m n g



Incorporate Septage Acceptance into Inlet Works6000

2500 2800 2000

300

2000

8003mmSTEP

MUNCHER

4‐20 m3 SEPTAGE

PUMPOUT TRUCK

Areas Not to Scale

(ChannelsSimilar Size;

Grit Removal Larger)

H

E N T

4000 COVERED

FLOW CONTROL

STRUCTURE

SCREENS

STAGE 1+2

(Duty)

3mm STEP

SCREENS

STAGE 1+2

(Standby)

H

SewageA B

A

B

GRIT CLASSIFIER

To Primary or

Secondary Treatment

E A T M

2500

4005500

STEP

SCREENS

STAGE 3

ALL

WALLS

GRIT

REMOVAL

STAGE 1+2

(14 MLD)

GRIT REMOVAL

STAGE 3

(NOT SHOWN)

R Y

T R

4000

mm nu

Bar Screen

ELEVATED INLET WORKS (AS REQUIRED)

>3ADWF bypass

to River

Grit Classifier M I N A

300

2060 1060

1000 ‐1760

E

D

M

Elevated Channel (depending on Final Hyd. Profile)A

P R E L I

1000

> A W ypass

to River

10



PRIMARY

TREATMENT

11



• Purpose:

Removal of solids to reduce downstream pollution and

For treatment plants <20 MLD it is often more

economical to not have primary sedimentation.

Wastewater is

screened

and

degritted and

immediately subjected to biological treatment

12



OPTIONS ALSO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF

CHEMICAL COAGULANTS

T• Conventional primary clarifiers remove on average 50 to

T M E

N

the incoming

wastewater

• Use of chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT)

T

R E A minimizes footprint by reducing size of primary clarifiers

and aeration basins.

M A R

It can efficiently remove 60 to 90% of TSS, 40 to 70% of COD or BOD, 70 to 90% of phosphorus, and 80 to 90% of bacteria loadings

P R I

13



OPTIONS INCLUDE VARIOUS

CONFIGURATIONS

AND/OR

THE

ADDITION

T

T M E

N

T

R E A

M A R • Circular, rectangular, stacked, plate

& tube (saves space)

P R I



ENHANCED PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION

T

T M E

N

T

R E A

M A R

P R I

Feadditionat MalabarSTPinSydney(~450MLD)was“moth

balled”asit wastoosuccessfulandSydneyWatercouldnot managea o t eso s…

15



PRIMARY TREATMENT

Circular Rectan ular CEPT Advantages

Relatively trouble free as

Advantages

Larger tanks are

Advantages

Smaller tanks

ear ngs are not un er

water

Can use thinner walls

more e c ent t an

circular

Good with space

Further reduce

downstream

aeration reqmts

More widely used

Plate & tubes can be

constrained sites

Can be stacked

Limitations

Cost / availability of .

Limitations

Requires more yard

Cost

Corrosion of

P is chemically

bound and hard to

piping

Requires more space

internal elements if steel

access y p an sSolids handling

system may be

undersized

16



SECONDARY

TREATMENT

17



• Biological removal of carbon, nutrients, toxicity, some pathogens

R P O S

• Lagoons

• Traditional activated sludge

P U • Aerobic fixed film

• Anaerobic

18



18 November 2011

LAGOONS

Western Treatment Plant in Melbourne, Australia (ca. 3.8m people) treats 52% of Melbourne’s sewage or 485 MLD on 11,000 ha. The WTP provides a haven for tens of thousands of birds and is recognised as one of the World’s most significant wetlands.

S 55E

O

O N 25W

115E

L A

19



Lagoons can offer some advantages for Asian cities just putting in wastewater

S

O

O N

• Effluent BOD < 50 mg/L difficult

• Supplemental disinfection required

• Low capital and operating expenses

• Low labor requirements

L A • Large land requirement

• Odor can be an issue if anaerobic la oons used and overloaded

• Not complex

• Low maintenance

• Slud e mana ement minimized

and/or uncovered

• Large land area preserved for future upgrades

• Anaerobic la oons can be covered to collect biogas

• Potential water foul habitat 20



U D G E

T E D

S L • High Rate: SRT of 1 to 3 days

Small footprint; no nutrient reduction; high sludge

ield; additional solids stabilization.

C

T I V A

• Medium Rate: SRT of ca. 10 days

Medium footprint;

nitrification;

reduced

sludge

O N A L

y e ; a ona so s s a za on

• Extended Aeration (SRT of ca. 20 days)

R A D I T

I

may produce

stable

sludge

that

can

be

directly

dewatered and reused or disposed

T

Options:

Continuous

&

Intermittent

Systems 21



BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL

U D G E

Nitrogen PhosphorusCarbon

Termed BNR

Processes

T E D

S L • Biological

and/or Chemical

• Mostly

Biological

• Mostly

Biological

C

T I V A

• Suspended

growth

Growth or

Suspended

Growth or

Suspended

O N A L • VFA for

biological

•

• Mostly using internal carbon

• Oxidative (e.g. O3 but

R A D I T

I

sources• External carbon

uncommon)• Membrane

T

trimming

• Membrane22



BNR: CONFIGURATION BASIS IS

ANAEROBIC ANOXIC OXIC ZONES

U D G E

Nitrate RecycleCarbon

O tional

T E D

SInfluent

Effluent

FCAX OX

C

T I V

RAS

O N A L

Effluent QualityBiological Phosphorus Removal

A D I T

INH3-N < 1 mg/LTN = 6 - 10 mg/L

–

Carbon in VFA form is required

External carbon may be required

T

TN control is required

Multiple BNR configurations available 23



BNR: UCT AND MODIFIED UCT PROCESS

Primary

Effluent VFA1Q Recycle UCT Process

McDowell Creek MLR

A n o x i c

Oxic

RAS WAS

Features

U D

G E

RAS denite

RAS Nitrate Conc. = 4 to 8

Effluent VFA

i c i c

MLR1Q

rocess

I V A T E D

S L

Influent VFA preserved for

PAOs, but

A n o x

Oxic

RAS WAS

A n o x

I O N A L A C

Low MLSS in Anaerobic zone

– requires larger volume24

Effluent Quality

TP = 0.5 to 1 mg/LTN = 6 to 10 mg/L T R

A D I T



BNR: FIVE STAGE BARDENPHO – PROVIDES LOW N&P LEVELS

U D G E Primary

EffluentVFA

MLR

Methanol (Optional)

Effluent Quality

TP = 0.5 to 1 m L

T E D

S

n o x i c

Oxic

d ‐

A n o x i c

‐ a e r a t i o n

TN = 2 to 3 mg/L

C

T I V RAS WAS

2 n

R e

O N A L

Features

Low Effluent and RAS

Nitrate = 1 to 1.5 m /L

A D I T

I

Very little VFA lost to

RAS Denitrification ‐ no

T

25Bayou Marcus

WRFPensacola, FL



D G E

E D S

L Disadvantages

• Biological process

Advantages

• Operate w/ or w/o

C T

I V A • Multiple tanks

• Required solids • Manage flow and load

variation to some

N A L A

• Requires solids stabilization

degree

• Continuous process

A D I T I • Energy consumption

large due to aerobic operate

• Good nutrient reduction

T

• Peak

wet

weather

flows

can be challenging

• Simplified overall

treatment train 26



INTERMITTENTLY AERATED PROCESSES: SBR –CASS™ ‐ IDAL PROCESSES

U D G E

T E D

S L

C

T I V A

O N A L

Ottawa County, Ohio

R A D I T

I ‐

T

Thesecan

also

be

configured

in

BNR

processes 27



–

D G E

CASS™ ‐ IDAL PROCESSES

E D S

L Disadvantages

• Settling characteristics

Advantages

• No clarifier (smaller

C T

I V A

settling MLSS problematic

• Nitrification /

Denitrification

N A L A • High instrumentation

• Can impact downstream

automatic during settling/decanting

•

A D I T I

discharge

• Larger blowers

configured for BNR optimization

T • Good operator skills

necessary 28



Advantages:

F I L

• Compact

• Ease of operation

F

I X E

,

• Can add filters for nitrogen

removal as it becomes

R O B I

• Low to medium capex,depending on filter material

Disadvantages:

• Requires primary treatment

A E

• Odour control may be required

• Further sludge treatment required

29

• to remova , ow remova



ROTATING BIOLOGICAL FILTERS

v :• Low operating costs

F I L

media

• Supplemental air not

F I X E


(automated) Disadvantages:

R O B I • Small footprint

• Can add filters for N and dNremoval as it becomes

• Primary Treatment required

• Designs most for smaller plants (<15 MLD

A E

necessary• Good effluent quality

• Maintenance higher as equipment is rotating (lots of moving elements)

to number of treatment

trains 30

• urt er s u ge treatment requ re

• Multiple train

designs

are

needed

for

larger flows



M E N T (UASB) REACTORS

T R E

A T

construct (“Upthane” from Biothane design shown in lower right); UASB reactor design

O N D A R typ ca y capa e o 60‐80 remova o

organic load (at ca. 30 C) with biogas

roduction.

B I C S E C

N A E R O

31



UASB REACTORS

M E N T

• No moving parts

• Net ener roducer

T R E

A T

• Small footprint• No need for primary

O N D A R

rea men or s u ge ges er

• Low capital cost

• Low solids roduction

• Long startup times

• ~

B I C S E C

• Removes 70 to 80% of influent BOD & TSS

treatment potentially

• Will not remove N & P

N A E R O • ec no ogy or sewage as

advanced since 1980s; now

over 70 systems

• Corrosion & toxicity

can

be

problematic

• Skilled operators required

• ma er systems or available

32

• Best for higher strength wastes

• Odor control imperative

11/18/2011



11/18/2011

E N T Large Land Areas in many cities are not available…

The UASB reactor can reduce land requirements

T R E

A T

CambuiWWTP

O N D A R

Campo

Largo,

B I C

S E C ,

N A E R

O

CylindricalUASB

reactors 33



.

Large Land Areas in Most Cities are not available…

The UASB can reduce land requirements

UASB followed b La oons Alternative 3(42 MLD)

34



ANAEROBIC FILTERS

M E N T

T R E

A T

O N D A R

B I C S E C Effluent of Tibagi Plant,

Parana,Brazil

N A E R O

COD:40

to

100

mg/L

TSS:4to10mg/L

35



•Use as retreatment before aerobic la oons or other

COVERED ANAEROBIC LAGOONS

M E N T

aerobic treatment

• 60 to 80% carbon removal

T R E

A T • ogas capture

O N D A R

B I C S E C

N A E R O

36



COMPARISON OF PURE AEROBIC VERSES

+

N T

• Take a basis of 1000 kg BOD in tropical environment

A T M

EActivated Sludge >40% ends up as waste biomass Primary sedimentation required

Y

T R E

1,200 kg O2 (@3 kWh/kgO2 = 3600 kWh) Sludge digester required Biogas produced

N D A

Land take 100% UASB+Activated Sludge 25% ends u as waste slud e

S E C

Primary sedimentation NOT required 450 kg O2 (@3 kWh/kgO2 = 1350 kWh) Sludge digester NOT required

Biogas produced Land tank <67% 37



TERTIARY

Removal and/or inactivation of pathogenic organisms

Disfinection

38



DISINFECTION OPTIONS

• Gaseous chlorine still widely used in Asia

• Some Australian and US municipalities have replaced Cl2 with

M E N

T

• ClO2 is a stronger disinfectant but not widely applied (chlorate issues one problem). It can be generated on site

T R E A T • New UV systems have been developed, particularly for smaller

systems

• Emerging strategies include peracetic acid C2H4O3, made with

E R T I A R H2O2 + CH2COOH. Formerly used mostly in the food industry

but is a power disinfectant, stronger than Cl2 or ClO2. Good for biofilms

• Ferrate (FeO4

2‐), iron (VI) is more powerful than O3. It is the

most powerful for water and wastewater. Ferrate is synthesized at the point of use using caustic, sodium or

produced.

39



RECENT TECHNOLOGY

FOR UPGRADING TREATING A

DOMESTIC LIQUID WASTE STREAM

40



• Tightening Discharge Standards

• Land Restrictions

• Resource Recovery

• Reuse to offset potable usages: agriculture, industry,

IPR

• Energy: enhancements to increase energy

• Solids: agricultural, fuel,

41

REGULATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE



REGULATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE REQUIRE HIGHER DEGREE OF TREATMENT

A R D S • Whole

Effluent

S T A

N Toxicity

• Receiving

C

H A R G Stream

Water

I N G

D I

• Reuse Increasin

I G H T E

Ammonia\

Nitrogen&

Phosphorus 42



SMALL FOOTPRINT

• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

• Biological Aerated Filters (BAF)

• Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

MBBR• Integrated Fixed‐Film Activated

u ge

43



TECHNOLOGY

I N T

F

O O T P

S M A L L

Zenon

44

MBR



MBR

• High effluent quality

• Smallest aerobic footprint

Siemans

I N T

• Stable process

• W/ or W/O PC Zenon

F

O O T P • Install membranes as

needed

• Neighbor Friendly

S M A L L

• Retrofit options

Disadvantages:

• High operating cost: pumping and aeration

45

Kubota

MBR AND BNR



MBR AND BNR

O O T P R I N T

Anoxic Recycle-

S M A

L L F

Solids Recycle(solids, high DO)

(high NO3-N, lower DO)

, 3

EffluentInfluent

WAS

Anaerobic(for bio-P)

(CBOD5 and NH3-Nremoval)

(for NO3-Nremoval)

Membranes

46



,

,

49,000 M3/D AA, 96,000 M3/D PEAKMEMBRANE BIOREACTOR

PEORIA SITE PLAN



PEORIA SITE PLAN49,000 M3/D ON 4.9 – 6 HA

I N T Aeration Basins

F

O O T P

Membranes

S M A L L

Solids DewateringHeadworks

Operations

48



JURONG WRP, SINGAPORE: 68,000



JU O G , S G O : 68,000m3/d RETROFIT MBR

E N T

S

Q

U I R E

A N D

R E

Flexiblenutrient removaloperatingstrategy

Complicateddesign

due

to

industrial

component

50



Advantages:

F I

L• Modern TF

• Uses mineral or structured media with high O2 uptake

F I X E • Ease of operation

(automated) Disadvantages:

R O B I

• Neighbor friendly

• C, N or DN filters

• Primary Treatment required

• Supplemental air required

A

E• Good effluent quality

• Medium to high capex,

• ac was ng requ re

• Thin sludge concentration

•

51

• High level of instrumentation

• Designs are proprietary



I N T

F

O O T P

More BAF S M A L L

Details…

01/17/03‐ 53

R k VA BIOFOR C N



Roanoke, VA : BIOFOR C + N

Degremont

159 MLD

SUBMERGED AERATED



SUBMERGED AERATED FILTERS SAF

Advantages:

• Typically uses mineral or

plastic structured media• Ease of operation N

T

(automated)

• No backwashing required Disadvantages:

O

O T P R I

removal as it becomes necessary

• r mary rea men requ re

• Supplemental air required

• Further slud e treatment re uired M A L L

• Medium to high capex,depending on filter material

• Media can block and with it deteriorated performance

54

• Requ res so s separat on step

STATIC MEDIA PROVIDERS



STATIC MEDIA PROVIDERS

I N T

AccuWeb

F

O O T P WesTech STM

S M A L L

Ringlace

Others - SAF, SBC, FAST

55

IFAS / MBBR



/

• Can be used to upgrade existing tank

I N T

• Small footprint

• Uses plastic media

F

O O T P • C & N oxidation in same

reactor


Sieves used to contain

free‐floating media

S M A L L

• Coarse bubble diffusers

• Anoxic & anaerobic Disadvantages:

• Good effluent quality

• O&M similar to traditional

• creen ng own to mm pre erre

• Supplemental screens within AB required

AS

• Medium capex 56

• Further sludge treatment required

• Foaming potential



IFAS – RAS return

InfluentClarifier

Anoxic Aerobic AerobicWAS

F I L

RAS

F I X E

Clarifier

– no re urn

R O B I

In uent

A

E

WAS57

IFAS FOR BIOLOGICAL N&P REMOVAL –BROOMFIELD CO



BROOMFIELD, COMixed Liquor Recycle

PrimaryEffluent

I N T

Mixed Liquor Recycle

RAS from

To SecondaryClarifiers

FEQReturn

F

O O T P

Clarifiers

Flow Junction/Splitter Box

Anaerobic andAnoxic Basins

(mixed liquor only)

IFAS Aeration Basins(media and

mixed liquor)

Broomfield, CO – IFAS Basins

S M A L L

Process Schematic ofBroomfield BNR/IFAS Facilities

Final Effluent P

Broomfield, CO

8

9

/ L )

3

4

56

e n t r a t i o n

( m

0

1

2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

C o n

58

MBBR/DAF PROCESS FOR NIT/DENIT(MOVE TO SMALL FOOTPRINT)



(MOVE TO SMALL FOOTPRINT)

SludgeIR Pumping

I N T Disk

ewa er ng

Dissolved

Air Flotation

Influent

F

O O T P

MBBR Basin

S M A L L Me a Retent on S eves

MBBR Media

59

POST MBBR SOLIDS SEPARATION 75 000 3 D



75 000 m3 D

DAF – ACTIFLO VERSES CONVENITIONAL

I N T

F

O O T P

90ft.Sand

RecirculationPump Section

Saturator and

Recycle Pumps

Flotation Flotation FlotationFlotation

100 ft Dia. 100 ft Dia

S M A L L 80ft.

59ft.

47ft.

60ft.

Flocculation FlocculationMaturationMaturation

90ft

80ft.

Flocculation Flocculation

21ft.

x

.

AquaDAF - 16 gpm/sq ft Actiflo – 50 gpm/sq ft

100 ft Dia 100 ft DiaActifloAquaDAF

Footprint of Conventional Clarification

60

PARADIGM CHANGE: RAW WASTEWATER IS A WASTE



RAW WASTEWATER IS A WASTE

E Non‐Renewable

Y : R

E U Energy

E

C O V E

EffluentTreatment

Plant

U R C E

Influent Organic

= Energy

R E

S Waste Material

61

PARADIGM CHANGE:



RAW WASTEWATER IS A VALUABLE

E

RESOURCE!

Renewable Renewable

Y : R

E U EnergyEnergy

E

C O V E

ResourceResource

PlantPlant

ReuseReuse

U R C E

Influent Organic Influent Organic

= Energy= Energy

R E

S Beneficial WasteBeneficial Waste

SolidsSolids

NutrientsNutrients

Drivers:•Water scarcity

• –

62

•Nutrient recovery

•Asset recovery

REUSE CAN DRIVE HIGHER LEVELS OF TREATMENT



TREATMENT

E

• Purpose: The use of treated wastewater to offset potable water usage. Becoming particularly

Y : R

E U important in these times of decreasing water

supplies.•

E

C O V E

standards that require removal of specific virsus. Victoria in Australia is one such state. Every new

U R C E

.

• Suspended solids: For reuse schemes, filtration is now becoming required because of the disinfection

R E

S and delivery requirements.

• Additional nutrient removal: Driven by reuse

• TDS: Some reuse schemes implement RO to reduce TDS.

63

BUNDAMBA ADVANCED WATER



BUNDAMBA ADVANCED WATER

TREATMENT PLANT

Disinfection (NH4 + NaOCl)

Secondary

EQ/storage

MFMF RORO

Pre‐TreatmentFerric

UV/H2O2UV/H2O2

Effluent

ROC

Polymer

Storage

Gravity

Thickener

ower ants

Wivenhoe Dam

Micro‐constituents

Nutr ents

REUSE OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD MAXIMIZE SYNERGY WITH INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

Oct. 2011



SYNERGY WITH INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

E

Y : R

E U .

E

C O V E

U R C E

R E

S

Membrane FiltrationReverse Osmosis

65

FOR SOLIDS THE GOAL IS TO…



S Increase Recovery!

Y : S

O L I

E

C O V E R

U R C E R

R E S

66

CONVERT PHOSPHORUS WASTE TO A PHOSPHORUS COMMODITY



A PHOSPHORUS COMMODITY

N T S

N U T R I er zer ro uc ee s oa s

Reduced chemical

requirements

O

V E R Y :

Reduced energy requirements

Reduced waste

R C E R E Sustainable method to reduce

effluent phosphorus

R E S O

U

Operational benefitsStruvite control

67Courtesy of OSTARA

Nutrient control of

sidestreams

OSTARA PROCESS



N T S

• Creation of a struvite in

N U T R I a con ro e manner o

produce a sellable product.

O

V E R Y :

• Struvite – Magnesium

Ammonium Phosphate

Hexahydrate

R C E R E • Slow‐release 5‐28‐0

(nitrogen, phosphorus,

R E S O

U

10% magnesium fertilizer

.

68

STRUVITE RECOVERY IN RETURN STREAMS USING OSTARA



Primary Treatment(Sludge Settles to Bottom)

Secondary Treatment(Bacteria Break Down Organics)

N T S

N U T R I

ThickenerThickenerFermentorFermentorThickening

O V E R Y :

Anaerobic DigestionAnaerobic Digestion Chemical Sludge

R C E R E

Dewatering Centrifuge

Solids to Land Application

90% Phosphate Removed

20% Ammonia Removed

Ostara Reactor

R E S O

U

Crystal GreenR

Slow Release Struvite

Fertilizer Pellets5‐28 ‐0 10%MG 69

INSTALLATION AT DURHAM AWWTF



N T S

N U T

R I E

V E R Y :

R C E R E

R E S O

70



–

Y

KNOW WHERE TO FOCUSGravity Thickening1% Return Sludge

: E N

E R

Aeration 60%

Chlorination 1%

Belt Press 3%

11%Pump ng 1

E

O V E R

Wastewater

Pumping 12%

Buildings 6%

U R C E

Grit 1%

Screens 1%

R E

S Clarifiers 3%

Typ ca E ectr ca Energy Requ rements or Act vate u ge

Treatment71

DESIGN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND



G Y

: E N E R Process Selection

• Biggest opportunity

for

C O V E R

Equipment Selection

• Oversized

=

inefficient

U R C E R

Peak Flow/Load Management

R E S O • e uce pea eman s

start/stops

72

PUMP EFFICIENCY



Y

PROVIDE (DESIGN) & USE (OPERATE):

: E N

E R • Duty for Efficiency

• Two Smaller vs One

E C O V E

• Variable Speed Drives

U R C E R

R E

S

73

AERATION SYSTEM ENERGY OPTIMIZATION



G Y

Blowers+Piping/Diffusers+Controls=ONE

SYSTEMNeed all components to

: E N E R • High‐efficiency diffusers

Fine bubble; Ultra‐fine bubble

wor toget er or overall system energy

efficiency

C O V E R Understand effects of fouling

• High‐efficiency blowers

U R C E R Single‐stage, integrally‐geared centrifugal

High‐speed turbo gearless centrifugal

R E S O

• Automatic DO/advanced control systemsMost Open Valve; SRT/DO; BNR

simulation

Instrument selection/maintenance7474



G Y

Invent Mixer for Anoxic ZonesHydro‐disk Mixer for Digesters

: E N E R

C O V E R

U R C E R

R E S O

75Massart et al 2008



LIFE CYCLE

CONSIDERATIONS

76

PARTIAL LIST OF SUSTAINABILITY/LCM



Risk Analysis/Management

Decision Support Tools/Systems

Material Flow Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis

Analysis

Design for Environment Total Economic Value Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Ecological Footprint Full Cost Accounting Multi-Criteria Decision

Analysis

Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Cost Analysis Social LCA

B&V ‐ 77

February 17, 2010B&V ‐ 78



• 30 MLD average design capacity

• Rec aime water or irrigation ‐ eep well injection during rainy season.

• Sustainabilit assessment with carbon AX

PS

AX

AX

AX

AX

AX

MLR

footprinting carried out to support process selection:

•‐

MLR

• Alt. 2a ‐ MLE circular basins

• Alt. 2b ‐ MLE rectangular basins

`

Mixed LiquorRecycle Pump

An o x i c Z o n e

Clarifier

110'40'

" '

• Alt. 3a – MBBR DAF Nite Denite

• Alt. 3b

– MBBR/DAF

CBOD

removal

only

Plan

Influent

RAS

cae: =

More details, Technical Session 82 WEFTEC 2010

A New Paradigm: Carbon Footprint and Sustainability Assessment for Process Selection

M. Steichen, A. Kadava, A. Shaw, T. Scanlan, M. Martin, S. Kazemi

EMBODIED VS. OPERATIONAL CO2




7.5 %

.

96.4%

CUMULATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT




400,000,000

450,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

( k g )

.

200,000,000

250,000,000

t i v e C O 2 e

100,000,000

150,000,000 C u m u l

50,000,000

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058

Years of Operation

LCA OF CONSTRUCTION + EQUIPMENT + O&M



S$80

n s

R A T I O

$60

$70

M i l l i o

O N S I D

$30

$40

$50

N P V C o s t

O&M

Construction

Equipment

C Y C L E

$10

$20

L I

F E

$0

Conventional IFAS Step-Feed MBR BAF

Process Option

81+0.85 +0

(added to existing)

+0.6 +0.24 +0.45Area, ha:




FOOTPRINT

• Reduce Power Use – Energy Efficiency (Save $$$)

• Use anaerobic

processes

•

• Biosolids for Power → Incineration

2

• Sewer Emissions (not yet accounted for properly)?



PROJECT & EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT

ENCOURAGE

83



S To drive innovation ‐

A T E G I E • Performance based bidding vs prescriptive bidding

• Risk sharing

E N T S T To deliver innovation ‐

• Traditional EPC

•

C U R E M

• Alliance

• DBO

P

R • BOT

• BOOT

Preference? Client/project specific 84

WHAT INHIBITS IMPLEMENTATION?



• RISK!

• Funding

• Regulatory

requirements

for “ roven”

COMPARISON OF EPC & EPCM APPROACHES (BRIEFLY)



S

A T E G I E

E N T S T

C U R E M

P

R

86



COMMUNITY SYSTEMS DECENTRALISED

87

18 November 2011



SYSTEMS

Y S T

E M S

L I Z E D

S

C E N T R A

D E

“A Guide to Decision Making: Technology Options for Urban Sanitation in India”,Water & Sanitation Program (WSP), Government of India (Sept. 2008).

On‐sitefacilitiesmayprovidemoreappropriate,cost effectivetechnologyand,insomecases,an

inexpensiveoption…

88



• Sanimas: “sanitation by communities” in Bahasa

(Indonesian)

• Urine Separation

• Use of plants

• Anaerobic

• Solar, co‐gen, etc.

89

SANIMAS

D fi iti f ilit t

d



• Definition: facilitate andassist poor urban communities to plan

Y S T

E M S

sanitation systems of their

choice• ‐

L I Z E D

S

source

• Components: toilet,

C E N T R A , disposal

• Purpose: Society Slide from H.B. Legowo from 5th Meeting of Kitakyushu Initiative Network, 10‐11 Feb

D E ,

of health and improvement of environmental degradation, in an affordable

, a yus u, apan

manner, or t ose areas are poorly served by public infrastructure 90

SANIMAS TREATMENTS

• I l l t i f th t li d t



• Involve lower cost versions of the centralised systems

Y S T

E M S

L I Z E D

S

C E N T R A

D E

91Slide from H.B. Legowo from 5th Meeting of Kitakyushu Initiative Network, 10‐11 Feb 2010, Kitakyushu, Japan

COMMUNAL SEPTIC TANKS

• Multi chambers increase



• Multi‐chambers increase effectiveness

Y S T

E M S

L I Z E D

S

http://www.ferrocement.com/casa ‐ca8/ch8.en‐ferroHouse‐web.html

C E N T R A

• D E

Q

<

500

m3/d

Dewats handbook

(1998)

92



• Vigorously promoted by the Stockholm

Environmental InstituteUrine separation devices

[Right photo

from

WHO

with

permission

(2006);

left

from Kvarnstrom et al., 2006]

• Urine contains 70 of nitrogen and 65% phosphorus from human and animal waste

• Urine is mostly sterile and when standing for a month or two kills all bacteria and viruses

• z u

half the world population•

long way to solve hunger

BACKYARD GARDEN – KAMPALA



94

USE OF PLANTS

18 November 2011

• “Low tech” solution



• Low tech solution• Still require regular

Y S T

E M S

• Dimensioning

based

on O2 demand

L I Z E D

S

wetland – better for warmer climates..

Figure from Hoffman, H., C. Platzer, M. Winker and E. von Muench. “Technology Review of Constructed

Wetland: Subsurface flow constructed wetlands for greywater and domestic wastewater treatment”,

Deutsche Gesellschaft f ür, Internationale Zusammenarbeit GIZ GmbH, ublishers Feb. 2011 .

Wetland in Dubai for WWT;

reeds reached 6m in height

C E N T R A

• TSS and organic matter removal is

D E

90 to 99%

• Almost complete

95

n r ca on a

ANAEROBIC SYSTEMS



• Imhoff tanks – still used

for smaller communities.

Y S T

E M S

• Construction costs ‐ are slightly higher than the costs

for a septic tank (SANIMAS 2005).

L I Z E D

S• Costs for desludging ‐

motorised or manual must be considered.

C E N T R A

• Im o is a pre‐treatment facility and in many cases connected to further treatment installations such

D E

, , horizontal flow, vertical flow

or free‐surface constructed wetlands, lagoons or other. Open Imhoff tank in Las Vegas, Honduras. Source: MIKELONIS (2008

96

ANAEROBIC SYSTEMS



• Integrated anaerobic – aerobic treatment – still used for smaller communities.

Y S T

E M S

• Model used in Brazil.

L I Z E D

S

C E N T R A

D E

97

ANAEROBIC SYSTEMS

• Integrated anaerobic –



Integrated anaerobic DHS (downflow hanging

Y S T

E M S

Purported to be low cost and

easy maintenance

L I Z E D

S

and minimal withdrawal of excess sludge

HRT of ca. 8.3 hours (7 hrs in

C E N T R A UASB),

81

‐84%

COD

removal,

73‐78% nitrification, 94‐97%

unfiltered BOD removal in

550 d test*

D E

98

Kobayashi, T. (ed.). Recent Progress of Biochemical and Biomedical Engineering in

Japan, Vol 90 (2004)

ANAEROBIC SYSTEMS

• Integrated anaerobic – DHS (downflow hanging sponge



Integrated anaerobic DHS (downflow hanging spongecubes):

Y S T

E M S

L I Z E D

S

C E N T R A

D E

99

Harada, H. “India‐Japan International Collaboration for an Innovative Sewage Treatment Technology with Cost‐

effective and Minimum Energy Requirement” Asian Science & Tech. Seminar, Thailand (9March2008).

CO‐GENERATION

‐

big way in Australia to offset carbon



g

y

510 kWh/h 200 kWh/h

Y S T

E M S

other)

operation)

L I Z E D

S

2081

kWh/h

(biogas to

engines)

710 kWh/h

(electricity

to grid)

C E N T R A

661

kWh/h

(water)

D E

247

kWh/h

(used)

414

kWh/h

(lost)

100

Jor o, E.P. Cogenerat on o e ectr ca an t erma energy rom ogas n wastewater treatment p ants: t e case

for Brazil, Conference in Venice (2010).

CO‐GENERATION

• Smaller scale



Y S T

E M S

L I Z E D

S

Plants are for providing household gas

C E N T R A Sometimes also used for lighting

Tropical to subtropical temperatures better (otherwise too big)

D E

It is estimated that there are 50,000 anaerobic digesters in Nepal and >8m in China

101

Bisschops, I, E. Schuman, K. Kujawa and H. Spanjers. “Technical background on small scale anaerobic digestion

of food waste”. http://www.slideshare.net/RembrandtK/technical‐background‐small‐scale‐biogas‐

production *One piece moulding with no leaks

*Above or below ground installation

*UV stabilized plastic



102

wwmt-d1s1-wastewater treatment technologies by cindy wallis-lage

Documents