Bio-P Removal

BioRemoval-- Principles
p
and examples in MI and
elsewhere
S. Joh Kang, Ph.D., P.E.
Tetra Tech
Tech, Inc
Inc.
Ann Arbor, MI
2010

Presentation Outline

Optimization of Chemicals and Energy

Bio--P Removal - Review
Bio
E
Examples
l MI and
d elsewhere
l
h
Energy : self sufficiency in the U.S.
Summary

Why are we talking

about BioBio-P at MWEA?

25 years track records in MIMI- we

started it in the cold region
S t i bl systemSustainable
system
t - minimal
i i l life
lif cycle
l
costs: energy, chemicals, and sludge
Save jobs

Reality
y CheckCheck- how much
are we spending?

At 5 MGD Plant in MI
Chemicals $70,000
Chemical Sludge disposal $20,000$20,00030,000
,
Electricity $200,000
$200,000-- $250,000
7 8 Cents //KW/KW-Hr,, average
g
Peak demand charge
Your mileage may vary

Phosphorus Removal

Phosphorus removal in a WWTP is

typically
yp
y a combination of BPR and
CPR
The goal is to incorporate influent TP
into cell mass for BPR
The goal is to precipitate residual
soluble P with alum or ferric into a
settleable solids

How Much can we save

from Optimization?

Electrical : 15 to 25% to begin with

Chemicals : Most of them, but it
depends on wastewater characteristics
of your plant
Sl d : ditto
Sludge
ditt

Process Overview
Preliminary
Treatment

Clarifier

Filter

Raw
Influent
Biological
Process
Disinfection
Solids
Handling
Final
Effluent

How do y
you do Remove
P biologically?

Cultivate Phosphorus Accumulating

g
(
)
Organisms(PAO)
Need carbon substratesubstrate- VFA
Time to grow them
No oxygen environment

P can be 4 6 % of cell biomass

compared to 1 to 1.5% by weight

Design
g ConsiderationsConsiderations- wastewater
characteristics

Waste Characteristics : past and future

CBOD5
TSS
TN / TKN
TP
Alkalinity
pH
COD

- VSS
- Ortho
Ortho-- P
- Volatile acids
- readily
dil biodegradable
bi d
d bl COD

To meet 1 mg/l
g/ TP by
y
BPR, we need VFA
parameters

Minimum

COD: TP

40-45

BOD: TP

20

rb COD: TP

10- 16

VFA:TP

4 16
4-16

Volatile Fatty acids

VFA

P Update/VFA COD

% in Wastewater

Acetic Acid

0.37

60

Propionic

0.10

30

Butyric

0.12

isobutyric

0.14

Valeric

0.15

Isovaleric

0.24

10 for the rest

Sources of Volatile Fatty

Acids : we need 1515-20
mg/l
g/

Sewers the longer, the better

In--Plant Recycles :
In
thickeners/anaerobic digesters/holding
tanks
Fermentation of primary sludge or RAS
at the plant in new tanks a 2nd
choice
C
Commercial
i l sourcessources- a 3rd choice
h i

IF y
you do not have
enough VFA, two options

Retrofit existing thickeners or other

tanks
Build a new fermenter

Fermenter for Primary

Sludge
HRT : 6
6-- 12 hours
SRT : 4 8 days

0.3 g VFA/g
/g solids
0.06 1.5 g VFA/total solids on COD

Temperature

Pontiac, MI
Genesee County
County, MI

Secondary ReleaseReleasecauses and their

p
prevention

Low pH
Chemical toxicity
Excess anaerobic respiration/digestion
Long SRT
Nitrate in anaerobic
b zone
Excessive sludge blanket

D.O. Control : manual vs.

automatic control

At Significant energy savings

Aerobic Conditions
2.0 mg/L
as low as 1.0 mg/L at peak conditions

Anoxic Conditions
D.O. No
Nitrates
Yes

Anaerobic Conditions
D.O. No
Nitrates
No

BPR Design

Design to include an anaerobic zone

Design
g HRT for anaerobic zone usuallyy
ranges from 0.5 hours to 1.5 hours
DO and NOx must be exhausted to work
Baffling is a common design technique
Anaerobic zone is almost always
y the first
process basin to maximize VFAs in the raw
influent

Retrofit Examples in MI

Pontiac, MIMI- First Cold Weather

Demonstration in 19841984-6
Genesee County, MI: Best BPR plant
w/o chemical or filter
Kalamazoo, MI : under construction,
2010

A/O
/ Process: Anaerobic &
aerobic zones

1 hr HRT

5 hr HRT

Genesee Co.,, MI,, 20 MGD,, AS/Land

Application of Biosolids
Primary
g
Settling

BPR

Clarifier

Lime
Stabilization
Storage

Biosolids Land
Application

Genesee County
100.0000

Total Ph
hosphorus, mg/L
L

10.0000

1.0000

Raw Influent
mean = 4.45 mg/L
st. dev = 0.66 mg/L
COV = 15%
Primary Effluent
mean = 3.71 mg/L
st. dev = 0.63 mg/L
COV = 17%
Final Effluent
mean = 0.26 mg/L
st. dev = 0.068 mg/L
g
COV = 26%

0.1000

0.0100

0.05

1 2

10

20 30

50

70 80

90

95

Percent Less Than or Equal To

Raw Influent

Primary Effluent

Final Effluent

98

99.5

99.95

10

Total P
Phosphorus, mg/L
L

9
7
6

1
4

5
2
8
10
0.1

0.01
0.05

0.1

0.5

10

20

30

40 50 60 70

80

90

95

98 99 99.5

99.9 99.95

Percent Less Than or Equal To

1 - Step Feed w/ Fermenter-Piscataway, MD
2 - EBPR w/ VFA Addn + Filters-Kalispell, MT
3 - Five-stage Bardenpho-Marshall St., Clearwater, FL
4 - A2O with VFA, chemical, and filter-Durham, OR
5 - Westbank--Kelowna, BC

6- Five-stage Bardenpho-Northeast, Clearwater, FL

7 - Denitrification Filters + Chem Addn-Johnston Co., NC
8 - A/O--Genesee Co., MI
9 - Phased Isolation Ditch-North Cary, NC
10 - Triple sludges---Western Branch, MD.

Medium-Level Phosphorous Removal Plants

10

Total Phos
sphorus, mg/L

1
6
5
0.1
7
2

4
3

0.01

0.001
0.05

0.1

0.5

10

20

30

40 50 60 70

80

90

95

98 99 99.5

Percent Less Than or Equal To

1 - Chem Addn + Tert Clarifiers + Land Application-Brighton, MI
2 - Biofor, DensaDeg, and MBR-Breckenridge, CO (only Ann. Ave. and Max Month available)
3 - MBR-Lone Treek Creek, CO
4 - 5 Stage Bardenpho w chemical and filter, Pinery, CO
5 - Tert Clarifier + Chem Addn + Filter-McMinnville, OR
6 - MBR + Chem Addn-Hyrum, UT
7-Denite filter Lee County, FL

Low Level Phosphorus Removal Plants

99.9 99.95

Brighton,
g
, MI,, 1.3 MGD,, OD/Filter/Land
Application

FeCl3
FeCl3

Slow
Sand
Filt
Filter

Land
Application

Oxidation
Ditch
Clarifier

Claricone

Finall
Fi
Effluent

Typical
yp
Energy
gy Usage
g in
U.S. WWTPs
Average

Plant : 1500 KWh/Million Gallons

(MG) treated for secondary treatment
Advanced Treatment Plant: 2000 3000
/ G
KWh/MG

Where do we use
electricity?

Is Energy
gy SelfSelf-Sufficiency
y
Feasible in the U.S.?

Proven in concept and practice in

Strass, Austria, a 10 MGD plant

Strass, Austria WWTP

3500000

Power Generated > Power Used

3000000

2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0

19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05

kW-hr/y
year

2500000

Power Used

Power Generated

Wett, Buchauer, and Fimml, Asian Water Conference, 2007

Technical Features at
Strass

Two-stage biological process to

Twotransfer maximum amount of organic
g
matter from liquid phase to solid
p
phase
On--line control of aeration
On
New CHP equipment: 38% efficiency
in power generation
Sid -stream
SideSide
t
ttreatment
t
t

Comparison
p
of U.S. to
Strass: Usage

Per-person water usage is twice in the U.S.

PerPer--person energy usage is higher than that of
Per
St
Strass
d to:
due
t
Traditional U.S. practices in design and operation
g power
p
needs
Increased mixing
Increased pumping power needs

Strass is more aggressive at optimization than

t i l US practice
typical
ti

Roadmap
p to SelfSelfSufficiency
100
BNR-optimization
Side-Stream Treatment
Automatic Controls and HVAC
On-Line Sensors
50

Min
Ratio
3:1

Swing Zones
Turndown Capabilities
Anaerobic Digestion/Co-Digestion

Commitment, Regulations,
g
Incentives and Training
g
0
Feasibility Study and Technology Innovation and Demonstration

Bio--gas Facts
Bio
Average

PE generates wastewater at

gp
100 gpd
Approx. 1 cubic foot of digester
gas/d/PE via anaerobic digestion
600 BTU/c.f.
100kW off electricity
l t i it from
f
4.5
4 5 MGD
plant

Optimization
p
at y
your
plant?

Feasibility study
Monitoring of wastewater influent
and inin-plant recycles
Energy analysis and contracts w/utility
Development of alternatives : Energy,
Ch i l Sludge
Chemical,
Sl d
Funding Local or Pay as you go from
savings
Implementation

Pilot Demonstration?

Take one train and test

Convert a thickener on site
Other tanks

Summary (1)

Bio Phosphorus removal is proven,

reliable,, and efficient with fermenter.
fermenter.
VFA is neeed from the wastewater or
fermenter
PAO has specific needs to grow
e e te des
design
g has
as improved
p o ed
Fermenter

Energy Optimization is a way to keep

the funds at the city

Summary(2)

BPR - meet the permit

Saves chemical
chemical, energy and sludge
management costs
Environmentally sustainable operation
Quality of Life is enhanced
Saves jobs