28
Technische Universität Berlin Engineering Wastewater disposal in rural areas - An overview of options- Prof. Dr.-Ing. M. Barjenbruch TU Berlin, Department of Urban Water Management Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, D - 13355 Berlin Phone: +49 / (0) 30 / 314 72246; Fax: +49 / (0) 30 / 314 72248 e-mail: [email protected]

Technische Universität Berlin - swim-sustain-water.eu

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Technische Universität Berlin

Engineering

Wastewater disposal in rural areas - An overview of options-

Prof. Dr.-Ing. M. Barjenbruch

TU Berlin, Department of Urban Water Management Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, D - 13355 Berlin

Phone: +49 / (0) 30 / 314 72246; Fax: +49 / (0) 30 / 314 72248 e-mail: [email protected]

Technische Universität Berlin

The TU Berlin runs the Campus El Gouna

academically like a faculty in Berlin

30 International students per course

registered as students of the TU Berlin

4-semester master course German Master’s Degree

Teaching language: English

Studential fees, but scholarships

are offered

Interdisciplinary approach

Laboratories, experimental hall and lecture

rooms are designed according highest

standards

Page 2 Three Master’s degree programs at campus El Gouna

Technische Universität Berlin

Page 3 3. Master’s degree programs at campus El Gouna

Content

Technische Universität Berlin

Page 4 3. Examples of equipment at Campus El Gouna

Wastewater situation in Germany

Informations in a nutshell

Situation Wastewater

Wastewater amount 10 Billion m3/a; 115 l/(Ca·d)

Sewage fee: 2.6 €/m³; 115.6 €/(Ca·a)

Connection to the central treatment 96 %; 3,3 mio. need people

decentralized treatment

Public sewer system: Lenght: 540,723 km; 6,57 m/E;

about 1 mio.km private sewer

78,433 stormwater tanks with 658 l/Ca

9,632 central wastewater treatment plants

COD: In 548 mg/l Out 27 mg/l Nitrogen: In 51 mg/l Out 9,0 mg/l Phosphorus In 8 mg/l Out 0,72 mg/l

Characterizations of rural areas Requirements for wastewater disposal

Small, sometimes widely separated villages and districts; with

low population density, down to 20 P/ha of urban area

Large land areas, open spaces, individual farms, scattered

settlements; small percentage covered surfaces (about 20%)

Small connection ratios, possibly incomplete sewer networks;

Little existing drainage installations,

many small wastewater treatment plants

Often agricultural structure with generally little industry and

commerce

Mainly dominated by diffuse discharges into surface water

Often recreational facilities with widely fluctuating seasonal

wastewater

The main question

Decentralized or centralized connection According to ATV DVWK A 200

Decision-making process

in wastewater disposal (Stakeholder)

Decision

centrally,

semi-centralized

decentralized

Environment Citizens acceptance,

aesthetic

Manufactures

and supplies

Politics

Water

authorities

Health

care

Costs

and Fees Process engineering

Laws and

engineering

standards

Municipality

Involved actors

Free of deliverers, manufacturers and operators interests

Wastewater discharge systems Gravity Sewer

Separate System or combined System

Pressure drainage

A lot of small pumping station for all buildings

Vacuum drainage system

Collection in shafts and sucking to central vacuum station

Flat-System (Transport without solids)

Modern sanitary concepts (separation of urine and faeces

Options for wastewater discharge

and treatment

Wastewater Treatment Centralized or decentralised on-site treatment

Suspended solids (activated sludge system)

Biofilm

Main Priority: collecting and discharge the wastewater (Disease protection)!

Rainwater discharge in dependence of the pollution

Non-polluted rainwater can be percolated into the soil or drained off on the shortest way

Rain water harvesting

PK II

Todenhäger Strasse

To

de

nh

äg

er S

trasse

Centralized or decentralized Treatment Example of a small village 120 E

Central WTP

Centralized Treatment

Each house has connection to a main sewer

Wastewater-Treatment in a central plant

Discharge into rivers Irrigation

Saving potential of gravity sewers In rural area

Reduction of the nominal pipe sizes DN 150 for the usual slope 1/DN Theoretical connection of about 1,600 PE possible

Enlarging the manhole distances to about 100 to 150 (250) m TV inspection unproblematic, proven, medium cost saving potential

Laying the pipes in the land offsite the road on public (mainly) or private property

Reducing the installation depth e.g. from 1.70 m to 1.30 m Possibly individual lifting installations in the basement is required

large savings; additional costs for private lifting installations possible

Use of trench-digging machines Very high savings, proven in open space, environmentally friendly

Todenhäger Strasse

To

de

nh

äg

er S

trasse

Centralized or decentralized Treatment Example of a small village 120 E

Decentralized Treatment

Each house (site) has its own small treatment plant (on-site)

Building of groups is possible

Receiving water or re-use for all plants required Decentral WTP

Discharge into rivers Irrigation, Re-Use

On-site Treatment Small Sewage Treatment Plants SWTP

Plant for wastewater treatment of 8 m3/d or 50 PE (150 l/(PE·d) EN 1085

Septic Tank Biological Stage

(Ex: Trickling filter)

SWTP offer a relevant solution specially in rural context

Influent Effluent

Estimated about 1,85 mio. of SWTP are in operation in Germany

No rainwater must be treated!

Pressure drainage

Pressure collection pipe

Gravity pipeline

Druckrohr-

spülstation

Pressure

flush

station

Schematic diagram of vacuum drainage

FLAT - main components

Collection chamber with special connector assembly

Gravity sewer of plastic pressure pipe

typical house connection with FLAT-system

Laying beside

the roads Depth only

1,2 to 2,0 m

Low Diameter and low depth

while using settlers Use of

existing pits

Removal of sludge

depending on climate

No

pumps

required

No problem

crossing inserted

siphon

http://www.mtmdrains.co.uk/tankempty.html

Centralized wastewater treatment plant (WTP) Differentiation according the process

Natural methods:

Reed beds (vertical or horizontal flow)

Settling ponds (only mechanical effect)

unaerated wastewater lagoons

aerated wastewater lagoons

Technical wastewater treatment method

Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant (compact design)

Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant in separate design

– Activation methods (SBR plants, oxidation ditches, compact plants, membrane

bioreactors)

– Biofilm technologies (Trickling filters, Rotating disc, submerged bed, fluidized bed)

– Tow stage treatment (anaerobic (UASB) + aerobic)

Reed beds Recommended range : 4 - 50 PE [Otto 2000]

Vorklärung

Pumpenschacht

Bodenfilter

Ablauf

Reed bed (horizontal flow)

effluent gravel

effluent

Inlet

Inlet

Septic tank

Septic tank

Pump with

shaft

Reed bed (vertical flow)

Compact-System

SBR-Technology (Sequencing Batch Reactor)

Excess-

sludge

Decantation

min. level

effluent

Reaction (circulation)

max. level

Influent

Charging

Reaction (aeration)

Sedimentation

Break

SBR-Technology (Sequencing Batch Reactor)

WWTP Lalendorf

2.500 PE

aeration-phase

side view

Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)

Definition: Primary treated wastewater is

put in contact with discs colonized with

microorganisms

Rotation of discs provides aeration

Disc material: polythene, PVC, polystyrene

< 5,000 – 10,000 PE

Low Energy demand

Stable operation easy maintenance

A secondary settler is necessary

Shaft bearings and mechanical drive units

require frequent maintenance

Phosphorus elimination only with

chemicals

Source: Naylson M. Maciel, 2009

Example of efficiency comparison

Process stability (plants up to 5,000 PE;) COD-Elimination

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

COD-Effluent [mg/l]

Sta

y-b

elo

w-p

rob

ab

ilit

y [

%]

Sequencing-Batch-Reactor

Oxidation ditch

Classical activated sludge

Compact activated sludge

Trickling filter

(Adapted from US EPA)

Cost Comparison Investment

Source: Naylson M. Maciel, 2009

* Stabilisation (Halbach 2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Artificial Lagoon Trickling Filter Rotating Biological

Contactor

Constructed

Wetlands

Activated sludge*

Inv

es

tme

nt

[€/E

]

Summary and recommendations

Decision of drainage system

Central or decentralized treatment

Criteria: length of necessary sewer (< 12…15 m/PE)

Choice of treatment system

Natural-treatment system

Technical treatment system

Criteria

–Investment cost

–Operational costs

–Space requirements

–Knowledge and education of operators

Examples of No-Mixtoilettes Ecosan-Principle

Faeces

biogas

Urine

fertilizer

Water systems - Lübeck-Flintenbreite

Oldenburg 2004

Membrane Bioreactor

Zulauf

Permeat

Überschuss-schlamm

Belebungsbecken getauchteMembran

Activated Sludge reactor Submerged

Membrane

Excess

sludge

Inflow

Advantages

high content of biomass

high purification efficiency

Desinfection

Zenon ZeeWeed