TMDL W k h    

                         

TMDL Workshop February 17, 2011

S. Joh Kang, Ph.D., P.E. and K. Olmstead, Ph.D., P.E. Tetra Tech Inc. Ann Arbor, MI

o us Reduct o

      

                                                   

             

Outline of Presentation y Long term strategies y Introduction of Nutrient Removal technologies Manual EPA 2008 and a new study by WEF/WERF Manual, EPA, 2008 and a new study by WEF/WERF y Nitrogen Reduction y Phosphorus Reductionosp y Costs‐ capital, O&M and energy y Costs of Nutrient Trading y Future: Emerging Technologies y Future: TMDL Considerations Sy Summary

         

                                             

                

                                   

                

Long term strategies for nutrientLong term strategies for nutrient reduction y IJC – Great Lakes on P : 80 %, 1 mg/l, at 1 MGD or +

y Chesapeake Bay : 40% for N and P, more now

y TMDLs y Reduction y of nutrients into sewer system‐ low p detergent, low nutrient fertilizer, etc. yy Reduction of overflows during wet weather periods viaReduction of overflows during wet weather periods via green infrastructures

y Recoveryy of nutrients, P and N as fertilizers

                        

            

                 

Goals of the EPA Manual, 2008 y A planning reference for permit writers and permittees y Current nutrient reduction technologies and their

li bilireliability

y Costs of technologies F f d i d iy Factors for design and operation

            

           

The Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference Document is available on the EPA web site at: htt // / / tb/i d hthttp://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/index.htm

       

                            

Highlights of EPA ReferenceHighlights of EPA Reference Document(2008) y 30 plants volunteered to participate

y Provided 12 months data

y Provided capital and O&M costs y In‐depth case studies at 9 plants

               

WEF/WERF Cooperative StudyWEF/WERF Cooperative Study of Nutrient Removal Plants:

Statistics for Low Effluent Limits Achievable Technology Performance Achievable Technology Performance

         

                                                

                    

Overall Highlights of The TwoOverall Highlights of The Two References y 47 well‐operating plants participated

y All regions of the U.S. and Canada represented

y No attempts were made to optimize operation

y A few plants were operated at design flow; most were d d d i floperated under design flow

y Permit limits varied at most facilities

  

  

Nitrogen Species y Ammonia‐‐‐NH3 or NH4

+

y Organic Nitrogen

y Nitrite ‐‐‐NO2 ‐

y Nitrate ‐‐‐NO3 ‐

         

                             

     

               

Nitrogen Cycle y Ammonia N‐‐‐Nitrification to NO3

‐

y Increase aeration

y Organic N y If available, oxidation/nitrification to NO3

‐

If t il bl d l d fi iti d t ly If not available, develop definition and protocol y NO2

‐ ‐‐‐nitrification to NO3 ‐

y Increase aerationy Increase aeration

y NO3 ‐ ‐‐‐denitrification to N2

y Set up anoxic conditionsSet up anoxic conditions

 

 

 

 

Best  Performing  NitNitrogen  RRemovall  Pl Plants  (WERF) t (WERF)

CARBOCARBOCARBONNNALUMDENITRIFICATION IN LOW DO ZONES

FiFiestta VillageFiFiestta Vill VillageVill

CACACARRRBBBOOONNNCACACARRRBBBOOONNN

River OaksRiver Oaks

ALUMCACACARRRBBBOOONNN

WesternWestern BranchBranch

TruckeeTruckee MeadowsMeadowsMeadows

PHPHOOSSTTRRIPIP CARCARCARBOBOBONNN

1 Log‐Normal  Probability

1

Lg/

m

COV = stdev (ln(x)) mean (ln(x)) m,

usph

or

0.1

osh

mean (ln(x))

1 S.D. Mean h

PlaTo

t 50 - 84%

0.01 0.05 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99.5 99.95

Percent Less Than or Equal To

1 84 92

/L

gg, m

ussp

hor

0.1

soh Plat

To

3 84 3.84

0.01

0.05 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99.5 99.95 Percent Less Than or Equal To

84 92

Comparison  of  Percentiles 50 95 98 99

 N technologiesN technologies

Exemplary   N  Technologies

10

g ro

gen,

mti

N

1

0.1

100

Denitrification Filter--Central Johnston Co, NC Five-Stage Bardenpho--Marshall St/Clearwater, FLDenitrification Filter--Lee Co., FL Biological Filter--Cheshire, CTPhased Isolation Ditch--North Cary, NC

/L

g

y

0.05 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99.5 99.95

Percent Less Than or Equal To

  

     

          

   

     

     

 

      

     

          

Nitrogen  Removal  Technology  Selection MenuSelection Menu

Permit Condition Target Concentration Technologies

Annual Average 8 mg/L (TN) All*

(50th Percentile) 5 mg/L Phased Isolation Ditch, MLE, Westbank, others

3 mg/L Denitrification Filter, 4‐Stage Bardenpho

Maximum Month 8 mg/L MLE, Westbank

Maximum Day 8 mg/L MLE Westbank

g ,

5 mg/L Phased Isolation Ditch

3 mg/L AVAILABLE?

Maximum Day 8 mg/L MLE, Westbank

5 mg/L Phased Isolation Ditch

3 mg/L NOT AVAILABLE *EPA Manual, Chapter 5 (2008)

   

 

     

Fraction  of  Organic  N  vs.  Total r  N  (WERF)action of Organic N vs. Total N (WERF)  F

0 9

1.0

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.5

0.6

of ON

to TN

0.3

0.4

Ratio

o

0.1

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

50th Percentile Daily TN, mg/L

            

      

    

    

         

                                   

Comparison of Plants with Lowest Effluent Ammonia (WERF)

Plant Maximum Day, in Record, mg/L

Daily, 99 percentile, mg/L

Annual, 50 percentile, mg/L

Utoy Creek 2.20 0.50 0.057 Kelowna 2.74 1.68 0.39 Fiesta Village 3.11 1.68 0.042 Tahoe Truckee 2 53 0 83 0 28 Tahoe Truckee 2.53 0.83 0.28

Best out of 13 Plants Surveyed

MI permits : daily limit : 2.0 mg/l in May‐October 30 day average : 0.5 mg/l

‐

 

        

      

Phosphorus Species

y Solid‐phase P

y Di l d P y Dissolved P – y orthophosphate‐ PO4

3‐

y Non‐reactive P y Non reactive P

   

                                        

                                

     

Available Technologies:Available Technologies: Physical/Chemical � High dose Al, Fe or Ca for precipitation ‐ Cp = f(Metal dose, P concentration, pH, Ca2+, HCO3

‐) ‐ Si l T A li ti P i Single vs. Two Application Pointts ‐ the solubility limit

� Filtration : granular media, cloth media, & MembraneFiltration : granular media, cloth media, & Membrane

� Soil Ion Exchange/Infiltration Bed

        

                               

             

                        

BPR Organisms y Phosphate Accumulating Organisms(PAO) – Natural in Wastewater

PAO b i h iy PAOs consume carbon source without oxygen or nitrate by generating energy from stored polyphosphate and glycogeng y g

y PAOs take up phosphate under aerobic conditions y PAOs accumulate P up to 4 ‐6% by weight

                       

 

Daily Technology Performance Statistics (mg/L) for Best Performing PhosphorusBest Performing Phosphorus Removal Plants (WERF and EPA)

Plant 3.84% (14d) 50% 95% 3.84%/50% 95%/50%

Iowa Hill WRF, CO 0.004 0.012 0.045 0.33 3.8 Pinery, CO 0.014 0.023 0.045 0.58 2.0 F. Wayne Hill, GA 0.020 0.040 0.110 0.50 2.8y ASA, VA 0.025 0.050 0.120 0.50 2.4

Brighton, MI 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.00 1.0

-

   

Selected P Technologies To

talP

hosp

horu

s, m

g/L

10

Chem Addn+Clarifiers+Land Application--Brighton, MI MBR+Chem Addn--Hyrum UT MBR+Chem Addn- Hyrum, UT A/O--Genesee Co.,MI EBPR w/ VFA Addn & Filters--Kalispell, MT 1

Genesee Co. 0.1

Kalispell

Hyrum

Brighton, MI 0.01

0.001 0.05 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99.5 99.95

Percent Less Than or Equal To

 P technologiesP technologies

e ce t e 0.5

a de o O

    

 

   

 

        

                   

        

   

        

 

          

Bio‐Phosphorus Technology Bio Phosphorus Technology Selection Menu

Permit Condition Target Concentration Technologies

Annual Average 1 mg/L All*

(50th Percentile) 0.5 mg/L All*(50 ) g/

0.2 mg/L Step Feed with fermenter and filter

Maximum Month 1 mg/L Step Feed 5‐Stage Maximum Month 1 mg/L Step Feed, 5 Stage Bardenpho, A2O

0.5 mg/L Step Feed, 5‐Stage Bardenpho, A2Op ,

0.2 mg/L NOT AVAILABLE

Maximum Day 1 mg/L Step Feed, 5‐Stage Bardenpho, A2Op ,

0.5 mg/L NOT AVAILABLE

0.2 mg/L NOT AVAILABLE *EPA Manual, Chapter 5 (2008)

e ce t e 0.5 C e ca dd t o

      

 

     

 

     

     

          

 

     

     

   

      

   

Chemical Phosphorus TechnologyChemical Phosphorus Technology Selection Menu

Permit Condition Target Concentration Technologies

Annual Average 1 mg/L Chemical Addition

(50th Percentile) 0.5 mg/L Chemical Addition

M i M h /L Ch i l Addi i

(50 ) g/

0.1 mg/L Chemical with Filter

0.05 mg/L Chemical w/ Special Process

Maximum Month 1 mg/L Chemical Addition

0.5 mg/L Chemical Addition

0.1 mg/L Chemical with Filter

0.05 mg/L Chemical w/ Special Process

Maximum Day 1 mg/L Chemical Addition

0 5 mg/L Chemical with Filter 0.5 mg/L Chemical with Filter

0.1 mg/L NOT AVAILABLE

      

   

COSTS y existing facilities y permit limits y available site

y wet weather flows

ta Costs e o a   

D D

DD

tal)

dies

MGD

MG MG

CT (Incre

menta

Case S

tudie PDET @

10MG

APET @

5 MG

APET @

1 MG

MD/CT

CAPD

CAP

CAP

Capital Costs—TN RemovalCap

$3 50 $4.00

paci

ty

$2 00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50

$/gp

d C

ap

$0 50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00

ial C

ost $

$0.00 $0.50

Cap

iti

   

MD/

emen

tal)

e Studies

@10

MGD

@5 M

GD

@1 MGD

CT (Incre

m

Case S

CAPDET @1

CAPDET @

CAPDET @ O&M C TN R lO&M Costs—TN Removal

$3.50$3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0 00 $0.00

O&

MM C

ostss

$/lb

TNN

rem

ovved

            

                                

Energy Usage in Wastewater gy g Treatment Plants in U.S.

y Average Plant : 1500 KWh/Million Gallons (MG) d f dtreated for secondary treatment

y Advanced Treatment Plant: 2000 – 3000 KWh/MG

e c e Cost ea do

$

     

D R E k S

Denite

Filter

PID

SBR ag

e Bard

enph

o

MLE

Wes

tbank

Step

Feed/A

S ag

e Bard

enph

o

4 Stag

S

5 Stag

N Life‐Cycle Cost BreakdownCy

$3.50

Capital ESTIMATED Labor Chemical Energy

$2.50

$3.00

mov

ed

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$/lb

TN

rem

$0.00

$0.50

e c e Cost ea do     

S D k R

St tepFee

d/AS

age B

arden

pho

PID

Wes

tbank

SBR wi h

out C

hem P

/O

with C

hem

P

5 Stag

A/Owi

A/O

P Life‐Cycle Cost BreakdownCy

$30.00

Capital ESTIMATED Labor Chemical Energy

$20.00

$25.00

oved

$10.00

$15.00

$/lb

P re

mo

$0.00

$5.00

                          

              

           

Costs for Nutrient Trading: Costs for Nutrient Trading: “Market Rates” y Nitrogen: $2.00/lb for trading (CT and VA) y Phosphorus: $4.00/lb for trading (VA) y Intended to covers only parts of O&M costs

y Market rates will vary in the future

ec o o es               

                    

          

       

Emerging Technologiese g g g � Phosphorus : target at 0.05 mg/l � Filtration : Membrane � Densadeg® � Co‐Mag® � Ballllastedd Flloccullation/ActiFllo® � Soil Ion Exchange/Infiltration Bed

� Nitrogen : below 3 mg/lNitrogen : below 3 mg/l � Membranes (MF/UF or Reverse Osmosis) � Biological Aerated/Anoxic Filter

� Both � Automatic Controls with on‐line sensors

f

      

                                      

                                       

                            

            

Future Considerations for TMDL: P i W iPermit Writers

y Specify the limits for critical periods to protect water quality : annual average, max month, max week , or max daymax day y The worst day in the river is usually the best day at the pplant((a low flow & at high temp)g p)

y TIN (vs. TN) should be considered where appropriate

y Account for developpment time for new technologgies to meet future needs y Continued Support for technology development, $$$

     

           

                                                     

Future Considerations for TMDL: Permitees

y Match the permit with right technologies(no over‐design) y M kMake nutriient removal sustai bl inable with respect to l i h energy, greenhouse gases, and new sludge production

y Encourage nutrient recovery where feasible y Encourage nutrient recovery, where feasible

                  

                                              

                                

                          

S N lSummary – N removal y Practical limit is Annual average at 3 mg/l. y 4 or 5‐stage Bardenpho plants come close to meeting the TN of 3 mg/l, 95 percent of the time; 10 Florida plants show a capability of 3 5 mg/Lcapability of 3.5 mg/L. y More sustainable technologies are feasible for higher target limits y Organic Nitrogen is a critical variable

y Costs depend on existing facilities and target limit

 

                                                     

             

                             

                                       

S P lSummary ‐ P removal

y Practical limits are Annual Average of 0.2 mg/L by biological process and 0.1 mg/L by chemical addition with biological process, and 0 1 mg/L by chemical addition with filter. y Lower targget limits reqquire site‐sppecific advanced technologies y Soil ion exchange is possible if sufficient land is available

l bly Non‐reactive P is a critical variable

y Costs depend on existing facilities and target limit yy Recovery of P is encouraged for sustainable futureRecovery of P is encouraged for sustainable future

 Thank You!