Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent … Jim Fitzpatrick Mark Steichen, Anjana Kadava, Kelly Martin Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent Phosphorus Limits ANNUAL

Jan

uar

y 2

5, 2

01

6

Jim Fitzpatrick Mark Steichen, Anjana Kadava, Kelly Martin

Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent Phosphorus Limits

ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBIT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS JANUARY 24-27, 2016

AGENDA

• Optimizing conventional processes

• Tertiary alternatives

• Concluding thoughts

If we need to go lower than conventional primary and secondary…

January 25, 2016

3

NEWEA | Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent Phosphorus Limits |

Exceptions to above rules of thumb. Case-specific alternative evaluations recommended.

0.01

0.1

1

10

A -

Ch

em

ical

Re

liab

le A

l, F

e o

r C

a

B -

Bio

chem

ical

lyR

elia

ble

VFA

A a

nd

/or

B+

Filt

rati

on

Tert

iary

Sys

tem

An

nu

al A

vera

ge E

fflu

en

t TP

(m

g/L

)

Several alternatives. • Al, Fe or Ca hydroxyl floc

adsorption + separation • Adsorption media. • Reverse osmosis.

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5

Re

lati

ve

Lif

e C

yc

le C

os

t

Effluent TP in mg/L

Chemical Addition

Conversion

to EBPR

1. Boost VFAs to boost EBPR

• If anaerobic digesters, then struvite recovery

2. Multi-point chemical addition

• Enhance flocculation

• Hydroxyl floc adsorption

3. Improve clarification

• Upgrade clarifier internals

• Tertiary clarification or filtration

Optimize conventional biological and chemical P removal

January 25, 2016

4


Removal limited by soluble non-reactive fraction (sNRP)

Site-specific speciation is recommended

January 25, 2016

5


OP or PO4-P

ORG-P

Total Phosphorus

(TP)

Reactive Phosphorus

sNRP

TP

Soluble

Acid Hydrolysable

OP

Complex Phosphates

Organic

Particulate

Knowing BOD, TSS and TP alone isn’t enough.

• Readily biodegradable carbon (rbCOD)

COD fractionation = key to EBPR

January 25, 2016

6


CODTSS

VS

S

ISSFup

Fus

Fbs

X b

iod

. p

art

icu

late

X u

nb

iod

. p

art

Fsd

Pa

rtic

ula

te

Colloidal

Fac

BOD5

So

lub

leP

art

icu

late

BO

D =

0.5

8 *

CO

D

CO

Dp =

1.4

8 *

VS

S

Fus - Non-biodegradable soluble

Fbs - Rapidly degradable soluble fraction

Fsd - Slowly degradable fraction

Fac - Fraction of Fbs that is SCVFA

Fxsd - Fraction of Fsd that is particulate

Fup - Non-biodegradable particulate fraction

• Volatile fatty acids (VFA)

• Volatile fatty acids (VFA) drive first step of luxury uptake process

• Mixture required for PAOs to outcompete GAOs

VFA = key to reliable EBPR

January 25, 2016

7


Acetic

47%

Propionic

40%

Butyric

8%Isobutyric

2%

2-Methylbutyric

1% Isovaleric

1% Valeric

1%

Results from Fermentation Study

Oxic(Aerobic)

Anaerobic

VFA

Phosphate accumulating organisms (PAO) (Fuhs & Chen, 1975)

Alternatives

• Collection system • Odor and corrosion

• Anaerobic zone

• Primary sludge fermenter

• Mixed liquor fermenter

• Acid-phase digester

Fermentation = key to VFA supply

8

January 25, 2016 NEWEA | Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent Phosphorus Limits |

MLSS Fermenter with 5-stage Bardenpho Facility

Primary Sludge Fermenter with 3-stage Bardenpho Facility

Anaerobic (Fermentation) Zone of Phoredox Processes

Struvite recovery mitigates unintended consequences from EBPR

CAUSES

• (PO4)3-, Mg2+ and K+ quickly released by PAOs in WAS. NH4

+ released later during digestion.

CONSEQUENCES

• Nutrient recycle

• Nuisance struvite formation

• Decreased biosolids dewaterability

Making EBPR work with anaerobic digestion

January 25, 2016

9


From Shimp, G.F.; Barnard, J.L.; Bott, C.B. It’s always something. Water Environment & Technology, June 2014, 26(6), 42-47.

Ostara Pearl®, MHI Multiform™, CNP AirPrex®, Aquatec Crystalactor®, KEMA Phred™

• Minimize nuisance deposits

• Reduce P & N recycle loads

• Reduce P content of biosolids

• Improved biosolids dewaterability

• Beneficial recovery of nutrients

Struvite recovery gaining traction

January 25, 2016

10


Impact from effluent solids

January 25, 2016

11


From Schauer, P. and deBarbadillo, C. (2009) Pushing the Envelope with Low Phosphorus Limits, PNCWA

Don’t forget to optimize clarification

January 25, 2016

12


Critical part of any activated sludge process

Stick around Wednesday for more on clarifiers

McDowell Creek WWTP EBPR + filters

January 25, 2016

13



Northwest Cobb WRF Chemical P removal + filters

January 25, 2016

14



Tertiary P removal strategies

January 25, 2016

15


Also dissolved air flotation (DAF), low-pressure membrane filters (MBR or tertiary) and reverse osmosis alternatives

A

Chemically

Enhanced

Clarification

and Polishing

Filters

B

Chemically

Enhanced

Two-Stage

Filters

C

Filtration and

Adsorption

Media with P

Recovery

A

Chemically

Enhanced

Clarification

(CEC) and

Polishing

Filters

16

CEC generally involves 3 or 4 steps

1. Coagulant Addition. Rapid mix. Add metal salt and/or cationic polymer to “break” colloids (de-emulsify)

3. Flocculation. Medium to low turbulence. Build floc and “sweep” small particles into floc. Enhance floc settling.

4. Clarification. Non-turbulent. Separate solids from liquids.

2. Flocculant Addition. Rapid mix. Add anionic or nonionic polymer. Optional if steps 1 and 3 are ideal.

Turbulence


Jar tests to evaluate and guide full-scale optimization

• Coagulation

• Al3+/Fe3+/Ca2+ dose

• Alkalinity/pH

• Rapid mixing criteria

• Flocculation

• Polymer type and dose

• Rapid mixing criteria

• Slow mixing criteria

• Sludge recirculation

Steps 1-3 determine P removal success

17


• Coagulant dose higher than PO4 precipitation alone

• Metal hydroxyl floc formation

• pH/alkalinity

• Deflocculation from monovalent cations

18

Clarification mechanisms

Gravimetric

Filtration*

* Generally requires particle conditioning, depends upon waste and filter type.

Flotation

Settling Surface Charge Neutralization

Coagulation Co-precipitation

Flocculation Adsorption

Particle Conditioning

Sieving (Surface) Adsorption (Depth)


Tertiary CEC + filters at Durham AWTF (Tigard, OR)

January 25, 2016

19


Conventional drinking water technologies

Tertiary clarifier with paddle flocculator

Dual media granular filters

Full-scale examples of tertiary CEC + filters

January 25, 2016

20


Facility Capacity

(mgd) Technology

Average

Effluent TP

(mg/L)

Farmers Korner WWTF

(Breckenridge, CO) 3

EBPR, alum, tube settlers,

mixed media filters 0.002 - 0.04

Snake River WWTP

(Summit County, CO) 2.6

Alum, plate settlers, mixed

media filters <0.01 – 0.04

Rock Creek AWTF

(Hillsboro, OR) 39

EBPR, alum, tertiary clarifiers,

granular media filters 0.04 – 0.09

Durham AWTF (Tigard, OR) 24 EBPR, alum, tertiary clarifiers,

granular media filters 0.05 – 0.1

F. Wayne Hill WRC

(Gwinnett County, GA) 60

EBPR, lime, tertiary clarifiers,

filters, membranes <0.08

Alexandria AWWTP

(Alexandria, VA) 54

EBPR, ferric, alum, plate

settlers, dual media filters 0.04 – 0.1

Upper Occoquan WRP

(Centreville, VA) 42

High lime clarification,

multimedia granular filters 0.02 – 0.1

Noman Cole WPCP

(Fairfax County, VA) 67

EBPR, ferric, tertiary clarifiers,

dual/mono media filters 0.02 – 0.13

From USEPA (2007) Advanced Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus, EPA 910-R-07-002 and Schauer, P. and deBarbadillo, C. (2009) Pushing the Envelope with Low Phosphorus Limits, PNCWA

21

ACTIFLO® Turbo

1 3 42

High-rate CEC = smaller footprint

DensaDeg®Clarifier / Thickener

Reactor Turbine DriveTurbine

Draft Tube

FlowSplitter

Polymer

Sludge Recirculation Sludge

Blowdown

Settling Tube

Assembly

LaunderAssembly

Recirculation ConeLifting Assembly

Settling Tube Support

Sludge Recycle Pump

Coagulant

Rapid Mix

Reactor

Clarifier / Thickener

Reactor Turbine DriveTurbine

Draft Tube

FlowSplitter

Polymer

Sludge Recirculation Sludge

Blowdown

Settling Tube

Assembly

LaunderAssembly

Recirculation ConeLifting Assembly

Settling Tube Support

Sludge Recycle Pump

Coagulant

Rapid Mix

Reactor

1 3 42

RAPISAND™

1 3 42

CoMagTM

CoMagTM

Magnetic Filter

(Optional)

1 3 42


Full-scale examples with high-rate CEC

About another 27 DensaDegs, 171 ACTIFLOs, 12 BioMags and 8 CoMags treating wastewater since 1989

Facility Capacity

(mgd) Technology

Average

Effluent TP

(mg/L)

Iowa Hill WWTF

(Breckenridge, CO) 1.5

Alum, DensaDeg,

DynaSand filter 0.017 - 0.13

Flat Creek WRF

(Gainesville, GA) 20 EBPR, alum, DensaDeg <0.13

South Lyon CWP (South

Lyon, MI) 4 Alum, Actiflo <0.07

Metro Syracuse WWTP

(Onandaga County, NY) 126 PACl / ferric, Actiflo 0.05 – 0.09

Sturbridge WPCF

(Sturbridge, MA) 1.6

BioMag BNR, alum,

CoMag 0.039

Billerica WWTP

(Billerica, MA) 5.5 Alum, CoMag 0.036

22


From USEPA (2007) Advanced Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus, EPA 910-R-07-002 and case study material from Degremont (2008), Kruger (2012), and Evoqua (2015).


January 25, 2016

23



A

Chemically

Enhanced

Clarification

and Polishing

Filters

B

Chemically

Enhanced

Two-Stage

Filters

C

Filtration and

Adsorption

Media with P

Recovery

B

Chemically

Enhanced

Two-Stage

Filters

Blue PRO® uses ferric oxide coated sand for P adsorption on filter media

24

Potential PROS

• Continuous backwash and sand regeneration

• 30% less chemical than other technologies

• Hydrous ferric oxide return

• Small footprint

Potential CONS

• Higher headloss than settling alternatives

Fe3+

final effluent

secondary effluent

mixer Continuous backwash sand filter

reject

Fe3+

mixer

reject

Continuous backwash sand filter


adapted from Benish et al. (2007)

https://www.bluewater-technologies.com/index.html

DynaSand® D2 also relies on P co-precipitation and adsorption onto media

January 25, 2016

25


Similar pros and cons as Blue PRO®

Al3+

final effluent

secondary effluent

mixer DynaSand Deep Bed

DynaSand Standard

Bed

reject

AL3+

mixer

adapted from Benish et al. (2007)

Full-scale examples with chemically enhanced two-stage filters


Facility Capacity

(mgd) Technology

Average

Effluent TP

(mg/L)

Hayden Regional WWTP (Hayden, ID)

0.25 Ferric, Blue PRO 0.009 – 0.036

Stamford WWTP (Stamford, NY)

0.5 Poly-aluminum-silicate-sulfate (PASS), DynaSand D2

0.005 – 0.06

Walton WWTP (Walton, NY)

1.55 PACl, DynaSand D2 0.005 – 0.06

Manotick WWTP (Ontario, Canada)

0.04 DynaSand D2 <0.03

January 25, 2016

26

From USEPA (2007) Advanced Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus, EPA 910-R-07-002 and Schauer, P. and deBarbadillo, C. (2009) Pushing the Envelope with Low Phosphorus Limits, PNCWA

DynaSand® D2 dual sand filtration Actiflo® + sand filters

ZeeweedTM tertiary ultrafiltration membranes

Side-by-side piloting at Lakeshore WPCP (Innisfil, Ontario)


Blue PRO® dual reactive sand filtration

January 25, 2016

https://www.bluewater-technologies.com/index.html

Ultra low P effluent from all technologies during steady-state and diurnal phases

January 25, 2016

28


Similar results from comparative piloting including Westborough, MA (Hart et al., 2009); Coeur d’Alene, ID (Benisch et al. ,2007); Spokane, WA (Esvelt et al., 2010)

From deBarbadillo et al. (2009) Lakeshore Water Pollution Control Plant Phosphorus Removal Pilot Testing


January 25, 2016

29



A

Chemically

Enhanced

Clarification

and Polishing

Filters

B

Chemically

Enhanced

Two-Stage

Filters

C

Filtration and

Adsorption

Media with P

Recovery

C

Filtration and

Adsorption

Media with P

Recovery

• Granulated ferric oxides

• Activated aluminum oxides

• New polymeric metal oxide • High selectivity for phosphate over competing anions

PO43- >> F- > SO4

2- > Br- , Cl-, NO2- , NO3

-

• High breakthrough capacity even at high flow rate

• Repeatable adsorption/desorption cycle

Adsorption media alternatives

January 25, 2016

30


Average diameter 0.55 mm

True density of raw material 28 lbs/gal

Bulk density of beads 2.9 lbs/gal

Porosity 85%

Adsorption capacity 15 g-P/L-R

Resistance to acid & alkali pH 2 to 14

Removal and recovery process

In situ media regeneration. Phosphorus recovery.


Secondary

Effluent Filter Treated

Water

Solid/liquid

separation

pHControl

Tank

ＡＣ

Precipitation

Reactor

DesorptionTank

LimeTank

ＢAcidTank

CausticTank

Adsorption

Towers

Adsorption

Desorption

Recovery

Neutralization

Carrousel Operation

Two columns in series

Third column stand-by

Waste

Phosphorus-LadenSolids

31

U.S. pilot confirmed long-term piloting in Japan

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of measurements at or below value

(Phase 1A, 1B, 2, & 3)

Fin

al E

fflu

en

t P

Sp

ecie

s (

mg

/L)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Fin

al E

fflu

en

t T

SS

(m

g/L

) an

d

Tu

rbid

ity (

NT

U)

OP (Hourly Online Data)

OP (Daily Composite Lab Data)

TP (Daily Composite Lab Data)

Dissolved TP (Grab)

Soluble Non-reactive P (Grab)

Turbidity (Daily Composite)

TSS (Daily Composite)

32

Parameter

Final Effluent Concentration

10th

Percentile

50th

Percentile

90th

Percentile

OP (Hourly online), mg/L 0.0044 0.0065 0.0091

OP (Daily composite), mg/L 0.005 0.006 0.010

TP (Daily composite), mg/L 0.037 0.051 0.100

TSS (Daily composite), mg/L 2* 2* 3

Turbidity (Daily composite), NTU 0.96 1.65 3.28 * Reporting limit (RL) or Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)


From Fitzpatrick et al. (2010) First U.S. Pilot of a New Media for Phosphorus Removal and Recovery, WEFTEC

Status of adsorption technology

• Polymeric metal oxide media developed by Asahi

• In-situ regeneration with NaOH

• Long-term pilots successful in U.S. and Japan


Cross sectionExterior Surface Internal Structure

Fibril

Cavities

Cross sectionExterior Surface Internal Structure

Fibril

Cavities

Exterior Surface Cross Section Internal Structure

• 0.13-mgd demonstration at Kasumigaura Lake WWTP (near Tokyo) averaged TP < 0.03 mg/L during first year

• 10-mgd facility designed, pending ultralow permit limits 33

Concept for ultralow P removal and recovery without Fe, Al or Ca


Sludge

Anaerobic Digestion

Dewatering Centrifuge

Biosolids

Primary Clarifiers Activated Sludge EBPR

Thickening Centrifuge

Fermenter & Thickener

Struvite Fertilizer

VFA Effluent Filter

Anaerobic Release Tank

Struvite Reactor

Mg2+

(PO4)3-

Mg2+

K+

NH4+

Phosphorus Adsorption

Media

Desorption Fluid

(PO4)3-, OH-

OH-

WASSTRIP® and Struvite Recovery

ASAHI

H+

K+

MgNH4(PO4)·6H2O 34

• Site-specific optimization

• Speciation sampling study

• Fermentation to boost VFA and EBPR

• Chemical enhancements (hydroxyl floc adsorption)

• Clarification / filtration upgrades

• Struvite recovery for EBPR + anaerobic digestion

• If TP limit <0.1 mg/L, evaluate tertiary alternatives

• Conventional and small footprint options

• Emerging phosphorus adsorption and recovery option

Conclusions and continued research

January 25, 2016

35


Additional information:

January 25, 2016

36


Chuck Pike | Engineering Manager 781.565.5818 | [email protected]

Mario Francucci | Project Manager 781.565.5811 | [email protected]

Jim Fitzpatrick | Senior Process Engineer 913.458.3695 | [email protected]

ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBIT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

JANUARY 24-27, 2016

Documents

Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent … Jim Fitzpatrick Mark Steichen, Anjana Kadava, Kelly Martin Proven and Emerging Alternatives for Stringent Phosphorus Limits ANNUAL