MT DEQ PARTNERING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO HELP MEET NUTRIENT REDUCTION OBJECTIVES.

MT DEQ PARTNERING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO HELP MEET NUTRIENT REDUCTION OBJECTIVES

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

120 mg Chl120 mg Chlaa/m/m2240 mg Chl40 mg Chlaa/m/m22 300 mg Chl300 mg Chlaa/m/m22

Attached algae growth commonly quantified as Attached algae growth commonly quantified as chlorophyll chlorophyll aa per square meter of stream bottom per square meter of stream bottom

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

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)

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 ?????

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

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?

Using existing infrastructure, can we re-engineer our operations to 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

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.

• UNDER-APPRECIATED

• UNDER-UTILIZED

• UNDER-TRAINED

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

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

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

The trainer’s qualifications and intent are 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

BEFORE AFTER 6 WEEKS

Manhattan, MT Biowheel TN - 10.7 mg/l

Chinook, MTOxidation ditch

TN – 25.3 mg/l

Conrad, MTSimple 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

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

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

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

Lagoon-based Nutrient and Ammonia reduction research project Potential Pilot Study

Lagoon Optimization Contract Continue with Mech Plant

Optimization

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?

Paul LaVigneWater Pollution Control SRF

Montana [email protected](406) 444-5321

Grant WeaverThe Water Planet Company

[email protected]

(860) 444-0866