1 / 13

Surahammar influent BOD load

Surahammar influent BOD load. Biochemical oxygen demand a big part of treatment load. Surahammar influent nitrogen load. Total nitrogen another part of treatment load. Surahammar biogas. Surahammar influent monitoring data. Compares 0% FWD with 50% FWD. Sewers. Both conveyance

ria-pickett
Download Presentation

Surahammar influent BOD load

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. Surahammar influent BOD load Biochemical oxygen demand a big part of treatment load

  2. Surahammar influent nitrogen load Total nitrogen another part of treatment load

  3. Surahammar biogas

  4. Surahammar influent monitoring data Compares 0% FWD with 50% FWD

  5. Sewers Both conveyance system and ecosystemtreatment starts in sewers Sewer “dry” biofilm Sewer atmosphere “intertidal” biofilm Bulk water/wastewater Sewer “wet” biofilm Aerobic e.g. Nitrosomonas NH4+→ NO2- + H+ Anaerobic e.g. anammox NO2- + NH4+→ N2

  6. FOG (fat oil and grease) • Great biogas potential • Saponification in sewer converts to blockage • elevated pH implicated; • strength related to calcium; • forms 100-200m downstream of FSE; • No evidence of FWD output in FOG samples around USA

  7. Northumbrian Water world class AD • Teesside and Tyneside • 4.7 MW electricity each • Renewable baseload • 100% of NW sludge treated by Cambi AD • Biosolids recycled to agriculture • Completing nutrient cycles and conserving soil organic matter • Reduces NW’s CO2e by 50,000 t/year

  8. Sewage sludge The use of Sewage sludge on land according to the Sludge (use in agriculture) Regulations Extensive scientific literature Concentrations Fate and transport Agronomy Sophisticated controls and monitoring system >35 years’ operational experience Hazardous substances legislation has banned the most dangerous Metals Dioxins and furans

  9. Conclusions • “one size” will not fit all; • home composting fits some, kerbside collection fits others and FWD fit others, especially (but not exclusively) people in flatted properties. • Exclusive emphasis on kerbside collection of source segregated biowaste has been mistaken. • FWD do not stress infrastructure or increase water company costs • AD, biogas, CHP and electricity export at WwTW are well established • Use of biosolids to conserve soil organic matter and complete nutrient cycles is ‘safe’ • The evidence all shows use of FWD is a good option

  10. CIWEM P.P.S. February 2011 “One size most definitely does not fit all……exclusive emphasis on segregating and collecting biodegradable waste from households has been a mistake.” CIWEM 18 Feb. 2011 • Policies and strategies should be evidence based. • Diversity of options for the disposal of food make recycling valuable waste easier . • FWDs could provide an opportunity for cost saving to society as a whole. www.ciwem.org/policy-and-international/policy-position-statements/food-waste-disposers.aspx

  11. Next steps? We would like to work with each of you: • Understand your challenges • Increase your knowledge of our technology • Secure your endorsement Some of our ideas are: • Briefings like this one • Study tours • Pilot projects We’d like to hear yours ............ More information: www.food-waste-disposer.org.uk More information: www.food-waste-disposer.org.uk

  12. Nilsson, P.; Lilja, G.; Hallin, P.-O.; Petersson, B. A.; Johansson, J.; Pettersson, J.; Karlen, L. (1990) Waste management at the source utilizing food waste disposers in the home; a case study in the town of Staffanstorp. Dept. Environmental Engineering, University of Lund.Diggelmann, Carol and Ham, Robert K. (1998) “Life-Cycle Comparison of Five Engineered Systems for Managing Food Waste.” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin. January 1998. Kegebein, Jörg; Hoffmann, Erhard; and Hahn, Herman H. (2001) Co-Transport and Co-Reuse. An Alternative to Separate Bio-Waste Collection? Wasser-Abwasser GWF 142 (2001) Nr. 6 429-434Parfitt, J. (2002) Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste increases. WRAPReport on Social Experiment of Garbage Grinder Introduction. Technical note of National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Japan. No. 226 March 2005Evans, T.D. (2007) Environmental Impact Study of Food Waste Disposers: a report for The County Surveyors’ Society & Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council, published by Worcestershire County Council.Battistoni, P.; Fatone, F.; Passacantando, D.; Bolzonella, D. (2007) Application of food waste disposers and alternate cycles process in small-decentralized towns: A case study. Water Research 41 893 – 903Evans, T.D.: Andersson, P.: Wievegg, A.: Carlsson, I. (2010) Surahammar – a case study of the impacts of installing food waste disposers in fifty percent of households. Water Environ. J. 24:309-319CIWEM (2010) Wastewater Biosolids - Treatment and Use - policy position statement. Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental ManagementCIWEM (2011) Food waste disposers – policy position statement. CIWEM (2012) Phosphorus: wastewater's role in stewardship of a vital resource - policy position statement.Evans, T. D. (2012) Domestic food waste, the options compared (particularly food waste disposers) and their carbon and financial costs. Municipal Engineer 165 3-10Available from: http://www.food-waste-disposer.org.uk/the-science www.timevansenvironment.com http://www.ciwem.org/policy-and-international/policy-position-statements.aspx References

More Related