1 / 36

Maximizing Nutrient Removal Efficiency through Operational Re-engineering

Learn about Montana's Numeric Nutrient Standards, innovative approaches to meet effluent limits, and the value of shifting focus from engineering to operations for optimal nutrient removal in secondary WWTPs.

ferrero
Download Presentation

Maximizing Nutrient Removal Efficiency through Operational Re-engineering

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RE-ENGINEERING OPERATIONS FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL IN SECONDARY WWTPS • MT DEQ PARTNERING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO HELP MEET NUTRIENT REDUCTION OBJECTIVES

  2. Key Concepts • 1. Brief primer on MT’s Numeric Nutrient Standards • 2. State agency directly helping communities meet new nutrient effluent limits (directed technical assistance) • 3. Biological Nutrient Removal is not new • 4.Completely shifting the focus from engineering/construction to operations • 5. The value of educating operators • Effluent quality • Non-tangible benefits

  3. Why Nutrients?

  4. Attached algae growth commonly quantified as chlorophyll a per square meter of stream bottom 120 mg Chla/m2 300 mg Chla/m2 40 mg Chla/m2

  5. Montana’s Nutrient Standards for Wadeable Streams • Ecoregion-based • In-Stream Values are Really, Really Low • Total Nitrogen • Western Montana – Approx 0.3 mg/l • Eastern Montana - 0.5 to 1.3 mg/l • Total Phosphorous • Western Montana – 0.025 mg/l • Eastern Montana - 0. 03 to 0.15 mg/l • Larger Rivers and Lakes Forthcoming

  6. Numeric Nutrient StandardsIn Montana • General Variance allows for: • Mechanical Plants > 1 MGD: 10 TN and 1 TP • Mechanical Plants < 1 MGD: 15 TN and 2 TP • Lagoons: hold the line • This is a starting point • 20-yr Goal: Meet the actual in-stream standards • Optimization Study required • – MCA 75-5-313 (9)(a)

  7. Stepped Approach to Nutrient Effluent Limits Mech Plants > 1 MGD Mech Plants < 1 MGD • 2016: 10 TN 1TP • 5 yrs later 8 TN 0.8TP • 5 yrs later 8 TN 0.5TP • 5 yrs later ???? • 2016 15 TN 2 TP • 5 years 10 TN 1 TP • 5 years 8 TN 0.8TP • 5 years ?????

  8. DEQ’s Efforts to Help • Training Engineers on Nutrient Removal Design • 6 years of advanced training • World’s leaders in BNR design • Grad school-level crash courses • Free training • Did not address the cost of projects • Significant impact to Montana ratepayers

  9. So, we needed to try something else. • Can we reduce nutrients without building/ upgrading treatment plants? • What if we focused on operations? • Do we have the expertise in-house? • Is anyone else trying this?

  10. More Specifically, …. • Using existing infrastructure, can we re-engineer our operationsto make the facility do things it was not originally designed to do? OR • Can we get better performance from our existing infrastructure, including BNR plants, by operating the facilities differently? • Completely shifting the focus from engineering to operations

  11. A RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OPERATORS • Operators are on the front line of environmental protection efforts. • They are the implementers of water pollution control regulations. • The success or failure of a designed system falls on the shoulders of the operator. • The un-sung heroes of our profession.

  12. The Problem with Operators • UNDER-APPRECIATED • UNDER-UTILIZED • UNDER-TRAINED

  13. Under-Training: A Fundamental Problem? • Design Engineer trains the operator how to run the plant initially – O&M Manual • Operator will pick a couple of parameters • MLSS, DO, wasting rate, etc. • Same approach passed on through the years • Operator lacks necessary detailed knowledge of what is really going on within the plant • Plant cannot be manipulated without this knowledge • We need more and better training

  14. Specific, Advanced Operator Training • Classroom Training • Very targeted education • Biochemistry of BNR • Operator collaboration on case studies • An Expert operator training operators – key • On-site training • 3 – 7 facilities per year • 3 visits to each facility over 3 months • Regular Email follow up • It’s Free to the communities

  15. Ultimate Goal of the Training • Give the operators knowledge and confidence • Get the operators to understand and identify the specific areas within their facility to create the conditions necessary to achieve nitrification, denitrification and/or phosphorous release and uptake • Get operators to understand how to manipulate the various unit processes to create the desired conditions within the constraints of their existing infrastructure

  16. The Trainer • The trainer’s qualifications and intentare critical to the success of this approach. • No substitute for operational experience • Operators relate to other operators • Typically a microbiologist or biochemist • Engineer???? • A motivational person – • May live in a van down by the river • There aren’t many qualified trainers left

  17. With Classroom Training Alone Before After 6 weeks • Manhattan, MT • Biowheel • TN - 10.7 mg/l Chinook, MT Oxidation ditch TN – 25.3 mg/l Conrad, MT Simple CAS System TN - 26.3 mg/l • Manhattan • TN – 7.4 mg/l • 31% improvement • Chinook • TN – 13 mg/l • 48% improvement • Conrad • TN – < 5 mg/l • 80+% improvement

  18. The Facility • What is important to success? • Existing Infrastructure – what do you have? • Loading - industrial sources? • Capacity – growth? • Public works/City council buy-in • Regulator cooperation/understanding • State/ Federal • Operations staff attitude – most important

  19. What Happens After the Trainer Leaves?? • Operators have a much better understanding of wastewater treatment • Operators are typically more engaged in the performance of the facility. • Collect meaningful data • Understand why the data is important • Understand how to use data to improve performance • Operators are empowered

  20. Chinook, MT TN Reduction

  21. Conrad MT TN Reduction

  22. Conrad TP Reduction

  23. Conrad, MT Ortho P

  24. Bozeman TN 5-Stage Bardenpho

  25. Bozeman TP5-Stage Bardenpho

  26. Missoula TNModified Johannesburg Process

  27. Missoula TPModified Johannesburg

  28. Helena TNNitrogen Removal Plant

  29. Helena TPNitrogen Removal Plant

  30. Phased Approach to Nutrient Effluent Limits Mech Plants > 1 MGD Mech Plants < 1 MGD • 2016: 10 TN 1TP • 5 yrs later 8 TN 0.8TP • 5 yrs later 8 TN 0.5TP • 2016 15 TN 2 TP • 5 years 10 TN 1 TP • 5 years 8 TN 0.8TP

  31. MT DEQ’s Future Efforts • Lagoon-based Nutrient and Ammonia reduction research project • Potential Pilot Study • Lagoon Optimization Contract • Continue with Mech Plant Optimization

  32. Summary • Major retrofits or upgrades for nutrient removal can be avoided or minimized in many cases through well thought-out operational strategies –enormous cost savings with relatively immediate results • The trainer/consultant is critical to success • Choose him or her carefully • We’re shifting the focus from engineers to operators – choose them wisely. • The ultimate example of sustainability?

  33. Operators Are Important

  34. Contact Information Paul LaVigne Water Pollution Control SRF Montana DEQ plavigne@mt.gov (406) 444-5321 Grant Weaver The Water Planet Company g.weaver@cleanwaterops.com www.cleanwaterops.com (860) 444-0866

More Related