09 September 2015

Challenge the future

DelftUniversity ofTechnology

Wastewater in the Urban Water CycleApproach and Technologies in the

Dutch Water Sector Prof.Dr.ir. Jules B. van Lier / j.b.vanlier@tudelft.nl

WWTP Harnaschpolder

- Delft

2

Groningen

U Twente

Nijmegen

Wageningen

Utrecht

Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Leiden

Tilburg

TU Eindhoven

Maastricht

Universities in the Netherlands

TU Delft

University Students ()Utrecht University 23.000Universiteit van Amsterdam 22.000University of Groningen 20.000Erasmus University Rotterdam 16.000Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 16.000University of Nijmegen 15.000Leiden University 15.000

Delft University of Technology 13.600Universiteit Maastricht 11.000Tilburg University 10.000Technische Universiteit Eindhoven 8.000University of Twente 8.000Wageningen University 8.000

University of Technology

QS ranking Civil/structural engineering: 13

Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings: 51

20.000

3

Sanitary Engineering: the Urban Water Chain

Fresh

Water

Drinking

waterTreatment

Waste

Treated

Water

Household/

Economic

activitySewerage

4

Online and Campus Education

Massive Open Online Courses

(MOOCs)

Open Course Ware (OCW)

Online Distance

Education

Campus Education

• Free on EdX platform: www.edx.org

• High quality ‘Youtube’ lectures & materials

• Tutorials, homework, exam

• Massive numbers; one way direction

• Bachelors Level

• Certificate of Completion

• Free via TUD website

• Filmed campus lectures + materials

• Big Exposure, Worldwide audience

• Both Bachelor and Master level

• Unknown numbers; one way direction

• No accredited certificate

• Paid enrollment

• Learning Activities & Course Materials

• Enrolled students only, limited numbers

• Master level

• Accredited Certificate equivalent to On Campus

• Full Master Degree

• Paid enrollment

• Classic On-campus Education

• Top-class education and research facilities

• World famous university library

• Active student societies

• Great opportunities to participate in special

student projects

5

Boundary condition drinking water:

water quality

High quality water supply

• No waterborne diseases

• No chlorine

• No pesticides

• No hard water

• No corrosion and metals

• No leakage (2-3% losses)

• No need for home filters

• No need for bottled water

• No wasting of water

6

We drink from the tap…

0

50

100

150

200

lite

r p

er

pe

rso

n p

er

ye

ar

Italy

Franc

e

Bel

gium

Ger

man

y

Swis

s

Irel

and

UK

Net

herla

nds

Consumption mineral water

Bottled drinking water:

• 150 times more expensive

• 30 times higher environmental impact

Price drinking water: 1.50 - 1.70 Euro/m3

Full cost recovery

7

Drinking Water in the

Netherlands:

• Well developed organization

• Large scale infrastructure

• Specialized technologies

Groundwater

Infiltration water

Surface water

Bank filtration

11 drinking water companies

8

High quality effluents:

• Extensive C removal

• Extensive N & P removal

• Effluents for discharge

• Cost-effective management

• Full cost recovery by public taxes

(polluter pays)

• Guaranteed urban drainage

• Minimizing combined sewer overflows

• Effluents for Reuse?

• Resources from sewage?

Boundary conditions wastewater:

Effluent criteria

9Waste water treatment

Since 20th century: Management of water quality control in the Netherlands (major task!)

Who is responsible??

Water Boards /

Water Authorities:- Keeping Holland dry..! since 1200..!

- Preventing inundations

- Strategic defences

1850: 355 Water Boards2015: 22 Water Boards

(and decreasing?)

10

Water Boards very often Launching

Customer for New Developments

“Golden Triangle” research:

Universities Companies / industry

Government / Authorities

11

Regulations on wastewater treatment

• Water pollution <=> Wastewater treatment

• clean water act (1972)

• WVO: law on pollution of surfacewaters (1970): - C-removal- polluter pays!! 40-50 € (+) /p.e./year

(max 3 p.e./ household)

Obligatory sewage treatment for

- municipalities &

- industries!

12

BOD removal& nitrification

BOD removal & nitrification: Trickling

filters

13

BOD removal & nitrification: activated sludge

14

Regulations on wastewater treatment

• International:Northsea & Rhine agreement on nutrientremoval (1990)

=> nitrogen (N): 10 mg/L=> phosphorus (P): 1 mg/L

• Low loaded activated sludge systems- extended aeration- oxidation ditches- carroussels

15

Biological process

Screen Grit

removal

Primary

settling Selector

Anaerobic

tank

Anoxic

tank

Aerobic

tank Final

clarifier

Influent Effluent

Return sludge Secondary

or Waste sludge

Optional post

Treatment

Primary

sludge

Thickener

Sludge

DigesterBiogas

Dewatering

Rejection water

treatment

Sludge treatment

WWTP Harnaschpolder

- Delft

Removes:

‘C’: BOD < 20 mg/l

‘N’: < 10 mg/l

‘P’: < 1 mg/l

Current standard

Basic WWTP process:

activated sludge &

biological nutrient

removal (BNR)

16

Regulations on wastewater treatment

• European Water Framework Directive (EWFD) (2010)Pollution load approach!

- More ‘relaxed’ in rural ‘insensitive’ areas- More stringent in congested areas

- very stringent N, P restrictions in NL- down to 2.2 mg/L N- down to 0.1 mg/L P

Need for advanced nutrients (N/P) removal in NL

- post denitrification

- sludge reject water treatment

- chemical P removal in addition to ‘bio-P’

17

Optimised N/P removal in BNR plant

Biological process

Screen Grit

removal

Primary

settling Selector

Anaerobic

tank

Anoxic

tank

Aerobic

tank Final

clarifier

Influent Effluent

Return sludge Secondary

or Waste sludge

Optional post

Treatment

Primary

sludge

Thickener

Sludge

DigesterBiogas

Dewatering

Rejection water

treatment

Sludge treatment

Babe,

Anammox

Denitrifying sand filters

Chemical P removal

18Sectie Gezondheidstechniek

Upcoming concerns in wastewater treatment

Carbon (soluble

and solids)

Increased nutrients

removal

Pathogenic organisms ?

Micro-pollutants (incl. heavy metals)

Prevention of pollution(ecosystem approach)

EWFD / KRW

N: 10/15 → 5 → 2.2

P: 1/2 → 0.3 → 0.1

19

Final effluent polishing?

Polishing effluents with membranes?

MF/PAC – aeration

Advanced oxidation of effluents?

BIO AOP

Techniques, eg.:

- O3

- H2O2 (/UV: radicals)

- Fenton Fe3+/Fe2+ catalysis

- TiO2 with UV light

..€€€€..

UF post treatment

Increased attention for micro-pollutants, pathogens, antibiotics resistance

20

MBR applications for high quality

effluents? MBR Ootmarsum

MBR Varsseveld

MBR Terneuzen

MBR Heenvliet

www.waterforum.net

www.grontmij.nl

www.mbrvarsseveld.nl

www.scheldestromen.nl

Energy costs 3-4 x more expensive!

TUD research

21

Current challenges of STPs in NL:

- More stringent discharge criteria (EWFD)

- Energy efficiency / less fossil fuel consumption

- Recovery of resources

- Reduction green house gas emissions (CH4, N2O, etc.)

- Less micro-pollutants in effluent

- No (antibiotic) resistant bacteria / pathogens in effluent

- Etc.

Current and upcoming effluent restrictions set the boundary

conditions for new developments (like resource recovery)

22

Fossil fuel concern / carbon foot print: increasing the energy efficiency

increasing sustainability

July 1, 2008: CovenantDutch Union of Water Boards & Ministry of Economic Affairs

2%/year energy eff. increaseor 30% less energy in 2020!

Where / how

to ‘extract’ the

energy out of the water??

23

Reducing the Operational Energy at

Conventional Sewage Treatment plants

Energy efficient aeration:

• fine bubble replacing surface aeration

• optimised aeration control

• compressor type/capacity

Energy efficient sludge dewatering:

• dewatering type (energy/chemicals)

• dewatering result

Miscellaneous:

• mixing and pumping requirements/design

• optimal operation (control of STP’s)

• energy efficient techniques

Measures targeting energy saving

24

Conventional STP with Anammox in

sludge reject water line:

Aeration

tank

Bar

screen

Sand

trap

Sedim.

TankSedim.

Tank

Sludge

treatment

INFLUENT

EFFLUENT

Sludge

digestion

Thickeners

3 x less energy for N removal!

air / energy

N2

AnammoxNH4

+ + NO2- →

N2 + 2H2OCHP

More COD to digestion!

25

• Tekst (Verdana 20)

• Tekst (Verdana 20)

– Tekst (Verdana 18)

• Tekst (Verdana 16)

Anammox® Reactor

Granular Biomass

* About 20 full-scale references* 70 ton N /day removed

26

Sedim.

TankSedim.

Tank

Sludge

treatment

INFLUENT

EFFLUENT

Sludge

digestion

Thickeners

Conventional Activated Sludge: Energy

Recovery via Sludge Digestion

Energy recovery !(covers 40% of current fossil use)

Energy recovery ??

Chemical energy in organic matter (= COD)

1 kg COD

13.5 MJ

3.8* kWh

5-6 times energy requirement…

Aeration tank

FossilEnergy

0.5-1.0 kWh/kg COD rem.

1 kg sludge 1.5-2.0 kg COD

6.7* kWhtheor

2.3 kWh electric (35% eff.)

27

Producing Energy at the STP ?

• Less flaring of biogas

• More efficient CHP/gasmotors

• Better operation existing sludge digesters

• New and better sludge digesters: more CH4 per ton sludge!

• Pre-treatment of sludges: Cambi, Sustech (TPH)

• More “sludge-energy” to anaerobic digesters

Increase primary sludge production

External sludge: co-digestion?

Sludge drying: dried sludge (90% DS): 10-

16 MJ/kg (lignite: 10-20; petrol: 40)

Others?

- Total sewage sludge Netherlands: 1,500,000 ton excess sludge/y (22-23% dry weight)

- Incineration costs: 500-600 € / ton DS ( 175-200 x 106 €/y)

Water Board initiative!

28

Aeration

tank

Bar

screen

Sand

trap

Sedim.

TankSedim.

Tank

Sludge

treatment

INFLUENTEFFLUENT

Sludge

digestion

Thickeners

air / energy

N2

Anammox CHP

Enhanced Primary Sludge Production

Poly electrolytes

FeCL3

Problem:Insufficient COD left for conventional N removal!

29

‘cold’

Anammox

Bar

screen

Sand

trap

Sedim.

TankSedim.

Tank

Sludge

treatment

INFLUENTEFFLUENT

Sludge

digestion

Thickeners

air / energy

N2

Anammox CHP

Poly electrolytes

FeCL3

A stage

aeration

A-B system with Anammox as B stage

Pilot reactor STP

Dokhaven, Rotterdam

30

More efficient WWTP: Delft/TUD!NEREDA: First full scale May 2012

Van Loosdrecht / De Kreuk

Granular Aerobic Sludge

Government

31

Former situation:

Activated sludge

30,000 p.e., 1,000 m3/h

Partial N-removal

Chemical P-removal

Present situation:

Granular sludge

53,000 p.e., 1,500 m3/h

N = 8 mg/l

P = 0.3 mg/l (biological)

Advantages:

35% reduction energy consumption!

75% reduction space requirement!

Decreased investment and operational costs

Highly efficient for BOD, N, P

Produced sludge mass contains bio-plastics

City of Epe: First full scale

May 2012

32

NEREDA: Application in Garmerwolde (NL)

Recent results (2015):

Original AB system (CAS) treating 60% 45% of flow

New Nereda system treating 40 55% of flow• 50-60% less energy

requirement• TN < 7 mg/L• TP < 1 mg/L

33

WWTP Harnaschpolder

- Delft

NEREDA: Advantages & potentials

Less space,Less Capex

34

Resources from Sewage Treatment Plants:The “Green Deal” between Ministry & Water Authorities

Bound N

(NH4+)

Phosphate

Plastics

Energy

Proteins / biopolymersFibres

Water

?Check sustainability…!!

35

Multiple use of urban water:

Novel driver for collection & treatment:?!

36

WWTP effluent use in industrialised

countries

• Growing interest in reuse of water for high quality purposes

• Secondary effluent as secure water flow

• Potential water source for agriculture, industry, households (?)

37

DOW: STP effluent upgrading

to ultra pure water

Secondary effluent Evides: Reverse Osmosis plant

to produce demiwater from City

effluent

38

The Urban Water Chain

Fresh

Water

Drinking

waterTreatment

Waste

Treated

Water

Household/

Economic

activity

Waste

water ‘well’

Cycle

‘Resource

Factory’

Energy

Nutrients

Stabilised

org.

Other?

39

Delft Urban Water

• Multi-facetted Urban Water

• Sustainability and (re-)cycling

• Synergy by interdisciplinary cooperation

• Linking ‘piped’ and ‘non-piped’ water

• Adaptive and flexible planning and implementation

www.delfturbanwater.nl

Research Platform