Excellence in Engineering Since 1946 - WWOA.org · Control Parameters That Impact Performance ... P ratio 1.7 2.7 3.7 6.1 4.4 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 ... pH PO4-P Emerging Chemical ...

Excel lence in Engineering Since 1946

Today’s Seminar Outline

• Control Parameters That Impact Performance

• Jar Testing that Simulates Process Needs

• Full Scale Testing

• Automation and In-line Monitoring

Presentation Will Not Focus on

Emerging Technologies

Parkson Pilot - Manitowoc

CoMag Pilot – Fond du Lac

Presentation Will Focus on Optimizing

Current Technologies

Phosphorus Removal Basics

Methods of Phosphorus Removal

• Chemical Phosphorus Removal

- Add lime, iron, or aluminum salt

- Precipitation/adsorption of soluble phosphorus

- Relatively simple process

- Higher sludge production

• Biological Phosphorus Removal

- Facilitate growth of Phosphorus Accumulating Organisms (PAOs)

- More complex/higher risk

- Lower sludge production than with chemical addition

Chemical P Removal - Principles

Jar Testing Should Provide Lab

Scale Simulations of Full Scale

Considerations

• Strengths of jar testing

include:

• Low cost

• Easy comparison of

many conditions

• Provides proof of

concept

• Allows communication

and training

• Limitations of jar testing

include:

• Jar tests do not always

scale-up

• Long term operation

not always reflected

• Full scale conditions

can not always be

mimicked

Jar Testing in Proper Context

Provides Value

Bench Scale Testing for CPR

Determines Key Parameters

• Precipitation/Adsorption Reactions

• Dose Rates and Costs

• Side Effects

• pH Depression

• Alkalinity Loss

Jar Testing Allows Low Cost

Comparisons

Left to Right – Ferric Chloride, Alum, SorbX

Aluminum Byproduct

Jar Testing Provides Visual

Comparisons

Impacts on Sludge Production

Jar Testing Provides Visual

Comparisons

Impacts on Clarity

Jar Testing Provides Visual

Comparisons

Jar 4

Jar 1 Jar 2 Jar 3

Jar 5

Jar Testing Provides Visual

Comparisons

0 50 100 150 250

Phosphorus 4.35 1.40 0.46 0.18 0.12

Target 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Me:P ratio 1.7 2.7 3.7 6.1

4.4

1.4

0.5

0.2 0.1

1.7

2.7

3.7

6.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Fe:P

Rati

o

Ph

osp

ho

rus C

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/L

)

Dose Rate (gallons of ferric chloride per million gallons of wastewater)

Ferric Jar Testing Results

Phosphorus Target Me:P ratio

Typical Jar Test Result

High pH Results in High Chemical

Needs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ferric Chloride Alum SorbX

pH

PO4-P

Emerging Chemical Performance

Suggests Future Consideration

Warranted

Results Illustrate pH impacts and phosphorus results for comparing three

chemicals at the same volumetric dose rate. SorbX removed the most

phosphorus and had the lowest impact on pH

• Samples Filtered

• Lowest P level achievable

8.1

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

To

tal P

ho

sp

ho

rus C

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/L

)

Total Phosphorus - Bench Scale Stress Test

TP

Effluent P with BPR and 100 ppmv alum Dose Typically ~ 0.8

mg/L P

Jar Stress Tests Can Isolate

Performance

Proper Phosphorus Characterization

Provides Targeted Actions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

WW

Particulate

DNP

Ortho

Ortho P = Create Particulate

P (BPR or CPR)

Particulate P = TSS Removal

Dissolved Non-reactive P =

Source Control

Evaluation of Industrial Byproduct

Develops a Cost/Benefit

Understanding

• Characterizations

• Metals

• Organics

• pH

• Other

• Negatives

• Settles

• Inconsistent

• Positives

• Provides some P

removal

Evaluation of Industrial Byproduct

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Mo

lar

Rati

o

TP

Co

ncen

trati

on

(m

g/L

)

Dose (ppmV)

Primary Influent - Aluminum Byproduct

Total Phosphorus

Future WQBEL (6-monthaverage)

Molar Ratio

• Multiple Application Points

• Reduce loses to competing reactions

• Potentially develop residual value in multiple systems

• Inherent redundancy

CPR Pilot – Multiple Application Points

Each Facility Offers Unique

Opportunities

Phosphorus is removed where solids are removed, such as:

1. Primary clarifiers

2. Secondary clarifiers

3. Tertiary clarifiers

4. Filters

1

2

3 4

Baseline Data

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Sep-11 Dec-11 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 May-13 Aug-13 Nov-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Sep-14 Dec-14 Apr-15

TP C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L)

Effluent TP Concentration Effluent TP Concentration

Multiple Application Points Result in

Multiple P Removal Mechanisms

Primary

Application

Point

Primary

Application

Point

Residual

Primary

Application

Point

Residual

Secondary

Application

Point

Secondary

Application

Point

Residual

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Influent PRE Sec. Eff. Coag Eff. Effluent

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

mg

/L)

Phosphorus Concentration

2013 2014 (thru June)

Second

Application

Point

Increased

Dose and

Second

Application

Point

Understanding Removal Mechanisms

Improves Process Understanding

Con

ce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/L

)

Ferric

Pump Fail

– Filter

Serves as

Barrier

Initiation of

Stress

Testing

BPR Pilot Tests Can Focus on Full

Scale Trials With Little Capital

Expenditure

Phosphorus cycle involves release in anaerobic zone,“luxury” uptake in aerobic zone

TIME

AEROBICANAEROBIC

Soluble BOD

Soluble Phosphorus(Normal w/BPR)

0.5 to 2 hrs 2 to 10 hrs

BPR Encourages Luxury P Uptake

EFFLUENT

PRE-ANOXIC ANAEROBIC AEROBIC

FINALCLARIFIER

AERATION TANKS

RAS WAS

PRIMARYEFFLUENT

Typical BPR Process Schematic

Pilot Considerations

• Cost Considerations

• Consumables such as

chemical

• Engineering

• Lab

• Manpower

• Utilities

• Capitol Improvements

• Repeatability and/or

Isolation

• Full Scale or Full Time

Implementation

• Effluent Quality

• Reliability

• Termination Planning

Full Scale Testing

Full Scale BPR Testing in Conventional AS Plants

• Install cloth, wood, or block baffle walls and submersible

mixers for ~2 zones; turn off air to zones

• Install temporary or permanent gates/piping as needed to

route PRE/RAS where needed

• Measure SBOD, PO4, nitrate, and DO at various locations

• Monitor changes in sludge production and

settleability/dewaterability

Pilot Provides Long Term Treatment

Benefits

Pilots Can Illustrate Ancillary Benefits

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cau

sti

c (

Gallo

ns)

Alk

alin

ity

Alkalinity

Weekly Alkalinity Inf Weekly Eff Caustic gpd

Target Key Process Mechanisms by

Piloting Operational Adjustments

BPR Requires Proper Substrate to

Support a Specific “Habitat”

Oxygen Demand

COD

Biological

BOD

Readily Available

SBOD, rbsCOD

VFAs

Organic Load Impacts Process Reliability

Oxygen Demand

COD

Biological

BOD

Readily Available

SBOD, rbsCOD

VFAs

TBOD:TP > 20 COD:TP > 45

Oxygen Demand

COD

Biological

BOD

Readily Available

SBOD, rbsCOD

VFAs

Because of the

preference of the

substrate VFA

concentrations

ultimately determine

potential success.

7 to 9 mg of VFA

required to remove

each mg P.(1)

VFA losses to competing

reactions need to be

considered.

(1) Barnard

Aera

tio

n

Load

Treatment Objectives Define Balance for

Each Facility

BNR Requires BOD Load Nitrification Likes it Lighter

BPR Requires P Removal

Nitrification Requires Aging

Denitrification Requires No O2

Nitrification Requires Oxygen

BPR Requires No NO3 or O2

BPR Prefers Low RAS rates

BNR Prefers High RAS rates

Mixer On

Anaerobic Zone

In a complete

mix tank the SRT

and HRT are

approximately

the same.

Therefore, VFA

formation will be

limited to HRT.

BPR Pilot Element – Mixer Cycling

Mixer Off

Anaerobic Zone

If cycling the

mixer solids will

tend to settle

and remain in

tank making SRT

> HRT.

Therefore, VFA

formation can

extended

regardless of

HRT.

BPR Pilot Element – RAS Rate Control

Case Study – Fond du Lac: Ongoing

Goal – Identify if the anoxic zones can be operated

differently promoting anaerobic conditions resulting in

BPR.

Step 1 Develop Plan

Identify,

isolate,

and

prioritize

test

activities

Determine additional

monitoring and indices.

Organize all

information.

Industrial Loadings Provide Promise of

BPR

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

BO

D:P

Rati

o

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

SBOD:SP PRE Ratio BOD:P PRE Ratio

AM-40-03

M-40-04 Tank

No. 2

NRP-40-02

Stopped

Full Scale Example AO Process Initiated (BPR)

Early Efforts Were Impacted By Wet

Weather

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

Flo

w (

mg

d)

Influent and RAS Flow

Inf mgd RAS mgd

Currently Nitrate Interference is Being

Addressed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Influent Primary Effluent Anaerobic Zone - In Anaerobic Zone -Out

Aerobic Zone Effluent Ch

em

ical

Oxyg

en

Dem

an

d C

on

cen

trati

on

s (

mg

/)

Ph

osp

hate

an

d N

itra

te C

on

cen

trati

on

s (

mg

/L)

Train 1 - BPR Profile

P mg/L Train 1 Nitrate mg/L Train 1 COD mg/L

ORP Provides a Spectrum of Biological

Activity

- ORP Range from Negative to Positive +

Anaerobic Activity

Anoxic Activity

Aerobic Activity

Nitrification

Aerobic Oxidation

Denitrification

P Release

Others:

Acid Formation

Sulfur Reduction

Methanogenisis

Capacity Impacts Environments

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300O

RP

(m

V)

Oxidation Reduction Potential

Min Average Max

3 Tanks in

Service

Average ORP

-24 mV

2 Tanks in Service

Average ORP

-113 mV

3 Tanks in

Service

Average ORP

-39 mV

Fond du Lac Interim Understanding

• Industrial loads provide unique dichotomy

• Heavy BOD could drive process

• Tendency to slug loads limits aeration tank configurations

• Other processes can be upset if optimum BPR tankage

were implemented

• Cleaning chemical changes from phosphorus based

chemicals to nitric acid based chemicals may have created

too much nitrate

• Wet weather impacts add to the difficulty

• Attempts to create an environment to support BPR have not been

successful

• Efforts to better understand the system have been successful

• Piloting operational changes can provide greater

understanding of facility and improved performance.

• Jar scale testing can aid in training and proof of concept

analysis.

• Impending phosphorus limits has contributed to improvements

and increased knowledge base…

• …you wont know if you don’t try.

• Fond du Lac

• Jeremy Cramer

• Dave Carlson

• Autumn Fisher

• Waukesha

• Randy Thater

• Jeff Harenda

• Nate Tillis

• Tim Young

• Brooklyn

• Leif Spilde

• Marathon City

• Ken Bloom

• Merrill

• Terry Vanden Heuvel

• Strand

• Jane Carlson

• Rachel Lee

• Jeremy Bril

Excel lence in Engineering Since 1946