usepa peak flows management rule - one water ohio · 2020-05-27 · usepa peak flows management...
TRANSCRIPT
USEPA Peak Flows Management Rule:What’s on the Table This Time?
Jim FitzpatrickNational Wet Weather Technology Leader
The Scioto MileCourtesy experiencecolumbus.com
7 March 2019
2003 DRAFT98,000 comments
2005 DRAFTDied at OMB
2019Version 3.0
Third Time’s a Charm?
2
He’s the horse of a different color you’ve heard tell about.
EPA Rulemaking Schedule
Information - https://www.epa.gov/npdes/peak-flows-sewage-treatment-plantsDocket - https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0420
3
15 Oct 2018 Stakeholder Technical Roundtable
Also ~45 observers. Facilitated 6-hr discussion.4
ACWA/States(6)
NACWA/Utilities(7)
Public Health(2)
U.S
. EPA
(4)
WEF/Engineers(5)Ea
ster
n Re
sear
ch G
roup
(3)
CRR(1)
NGOs(6)
Tribes(2)
B&T(1)
WWEMA(1)
38 Participants
Roundtable Participants
5
Participant NotesEPA Chris Kloss and Lisa Biddle are lead staff.
Eastern Research Group EPA consultant. Mark Klingenstein.NGOs • American Rivers most engaged.
• NRDC fairly silent and noncommittal.• Cahaba River Society vocally and emotionally opposed to blending.
Native American Tribes Environmental justiceACWA / States Generally support blending. Need EPA support.NACWA / Utilities 3 of 7 were from EPA Region 7.Public Health Experts USFDA (shellfish), Johns Hopkins…mostly academiaWEF / Engineers Blending / auxiliary treatment is sound and proven.WWEMA Technologies are ready. Just give us targets to hit.CRR / B&T Apply ILOC vs. EPA nationwide. “Guardrails” already exist in NPDES
permitting framework.
Brief Summary from Roundtable• Topic 1: Operational Challenges
• Same/similar as 2010 Listening Sessions & 2014 Experts Forum• Top 4 Messages = One-Size-Does-NOT-Fit-All, Realistic I/I Reduction, Integrated
Planning, Resiliency• Toolbox must include blending and auxiliary treatment options
• Topic 2: Protecting Public Health• Blending/auxiliary treatment is much better than backups, overflows or bypass• Concern = pathogens (bacteria, parasites, viruses)• Viruses in shellfish New designated use and WQBEL?• Quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRA)
• Topic 3: Emerging Technologies and Operational Practices• Peak flow technologies, design standards and practices already established.• What bugs need to be killed and how dead do they need to be?• Biological facility expansions are the wrong answer. Higher cost, higher risk, no
apparent benefit over physical/chemical alternatives.
EPA message = Clarity, Consistency and Transparency 6
Public Input
7
Lessoning Session #1 Listening Session #2 Listening Session #316 Oct 2018 24 Oct 2018 30 Oct 2018
EPA HQ (DC) EPA Region 7 (Lenexa, KS) Webinar
• 4 support blending• 1 promote manhole cover device
Zero oppose blending
• 5 support blending
Zero oppose blending
• 4 support blending• 2 oppose blending
Examples from email campaign:“Don’t allow sewage where we swim”
~290 more like this in the docket
8
Wet-weather blending is not a bypass
• NPDES bypass rule intended for baseflow conditions, not POTW peak flows• If blending and meeting permit limits, don’t call it bypass or diversion 9
Background diagram from:U.S. EPA, Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows Listening Session, June 30, 2010
Background diagram from:U.S. EPA, Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows Listening Session, 2010
Blending TreatmentFlow Path
“Blending” practice is well proven with combined sewers
Separate sewer application has same treatment challenges and effluent concerns. Performance data from combined sewer cases are applicable.
10
Lemay WWTP Bissell WWTP
From: N. Frankenberg, G. Tocou, D. Hickey (2012) Disinfecting >700 mgd of Wet Weather Flow at Two Wastewater Facilities, 5 Cities Plus.
Not ye oldeblending
If auxiliary treatment, don’t call it bypass or blending… especially if EHRT technology
11
Background diagram from: U.S. EPA, Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows Listening Session, June 30, 2010
Auxiliary
Added value• Significant additional
infrastructure investment• Auxiliary facilities
increase resiliency and redundancy
• EHRT effluent quality equivalent to secondary effluent
Auxiliary TreatmentFlow Path
Site-specific Technology Evaluation
12
Clar
ifica
tion
Alte
rnat
ives
Settling-Based Filtration-Based Flotation-Based1. Conventional Settling
-Rectangular, Circular, Square, RTB, Shaft 1. Shallow Granular Media 1. ConventionalFloatables Removal-Skimmers, Scum baffles2. Vortex (Swirl Concentrator) 2. Deep Granular Media
3. Lamella Settler3. Microscreens, Woven Media
-Salsnes Filter, Eco MAT®Filter, Hydrotech Discfilter, SuperDisc™, Forty-X™ Disc, Quantum™ Disk
2. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)4. Chemically Enhanced Settling
4. Floating Media-MetaWater High Speed Filter, BKT BBF-F
a. Conventional Basin
b. Sequencing Batch- e.g. ClearCove Flatline EPT
c. Lamella Settler 5. Pile Cloth Media-AquaPrime™, infini-D™ 3. Polymer-aided DAF
-Various suppliersd. Solids Contact / Recirculation- e.g. DensaDeg®, CONTRAFAST®
6. Compressible Media-Fuzzy Filter™, FlexFilter™, FiltraFast™
e. Ballasted Flocculation- Microsand (e.g. ACTIFLO®, RapiSand™,
Densadeg XRC™)- Magnetite (e.g CoMag™)
7. Fixed-Film Contact-Biological Aerated Filter (BAF),
BioFlexFilter™4. Biocontact + DAF
-Captivator®5. Suspended Growth Contact
-BIOACTIFLO™, BioMag™, Bio-CES
Enhanced HRTHigh-Rate Treatment (HRT)Primary Removal Equivalent *
* If coagulation/flocculation provided, HRT EHRT (in some cases)
HRCHRF
Why EHRT?
• Better disinfection• Removes colloidal TSS, turbidity and
associated organics and other pollutants• Lower disinfectant dose required
• Equivalent to secondary effluent quality at lower cost
• “Non-biological peak flow secondary treatment processes” per 8th Circuit Court (Iowa League of Cities v. EPA)
• Considered BADCT by some regulators
Minimize pathogen risks. Small footprint. Lower cost than biological expansion. 13
Other Pilot and Full-Scale Auxiliary EHRT References
Auxiliary EHRT technologies are more established than you might think14
(pilot)
Full-Scale Auxiliary EHRT Facilities Operating in the U.S.
EPA Region State1 Massachusetts, New Hampshire
2 New York
3 DC, Maryland
4 Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,Tennessee
5 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin
6 Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas
7 Kansas
9 California
10 Oregon, Washington
• 30+ operating in U.S. since ~1995• 60+ operating worldwide
High-rate filters (HRF) offer same TSS removal as HRC…
…typically without chemicals15
Compressible Media Pile Cloth Media
AquaDiamond®
AquaPrime™
Cour
tesy
Aqu
a-Ae
robi
c Sys
tem
s. In
c.
Courtesy Nexom
Infini-D™
FiltraFast™ (Courtesy of Suez)
Applied R&D of HRF Technologies
16
A Soggy Day at the Pilot Plant
Typical Wet-Weather Samples
Influent EffluentCMF PilotSpringfield, OHOct 2010 – Jun 2011
Compressible Media Filter Test Unit
UntreatedTreatedHRT PilotsSt. Joseph, MOSpring 2009
CMF PilotSpringfield, MO
2014
HRF PilotsNelson ComplexJohnson County, KSSpring 2008
Advanced Demonstration FacilityColumbus, GA1990’s
HRF PilotsLittle Rock, AR
2016
HRT PilotsKing County, WA2002
Compressible Media Filter from Concept to 100-mgd Reality
• $33.5MM $0.34/gpd (2011; Springfield, OH) • 320 ft x 120 ft footprint• 3-MG built-in storage, self-cleaning• No added staff, SCADA-controlled operation
Cost-effective CSO treatment and disinfection17
100-mgd Compressible Media FilterSpringfield, Ohio
Efflu
ent A
vera
ge * TSS 14 mg/L
CBOD5 20 mg/LNH3-N 2.3 mg/LTP 0.4 mg/LE. Coli ** 56 #/100 mL* 63 events Mar 2015 – May 2017** NaOCl avg dose = 4 mg/L
Advances in Pile Cloth Media Filter
• Larger disk and unit capacity• 10 to 24 mgd per cell, depends on TSS loading• Similar footprint as ballasted flocculation
• Deeper basin for better solids handling• Heavy solids drop to grit/sludge hoppers• Floatables stay above filter• Filters in optimal zone for small particles
• 5-micron polyester microfiber media• Effluent equivalent to compressible media• Better wear than previous generation nylon
Adapted for primary and auxiliary wet-weather applications 18Images courtesy Aqua-Aerobic Systems
AquaPrime™
Influ
ent C
hann
elEfflu
ent
Chan
nel Scum
Trough
BackwashCollectors
Reference Dual-Use EHRT in Illinois
Reference list continues to grow…
Pile cloth filters• Dual-use since 2012
(tertiary/CSO PCE)• Traveling bridge• 84/168-mgd (avg/pk)
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District• 72-mgd design average daily flow• 144-mgd peak daily flow
19
Phot
o co
urte
sy A
qua-
Aero
bic S
yste
ms
Other Reference Applications• Widespread use in tertiary applications
• Same mechanical design and equipment as primary/CSO/SSO applications
• California Energy Commission primary filter study• 2017-Present: Linda County WWTP, full-scale side-by-side vs. primary
clarifiers
20
Location Application Peak Flow (mgd) Startup
Ope
ratin
g Fox Metro, IL Tertiary/CSO 168 2005
Wood Dale, IL Tertiary/SSO 14 2014
Linda County, CA Primary Influent 2.5 July 2017
Rushville, IN Tertiary/CSO 12.6 Aug 2017D
esig
n /
Cons
truc
tion
Sand Island, HI Primary Effluent 1 Dec 2018
Oak Hill, WV Primary Influent 2.6 Jan 2019
Youngstown, OH CSO 40 Jun 2019
Little Rock, AR Tertiary/Primary Effluent 58 Jun 2020
Johnson County, KS Tertiary/Primary Influent 115 Sep 2020
From: Caliskaner, O., G. Tchobanoglous, Z. Wu, R. Young, C. Paez, B. Davis, B. Mansell, P. Ackman, T. Reid, J. Dyson (2018) Performance of Full Scale and Demonstration-Scale Primary Filtration Projects, WEFTEC.
Dual-use Auxiliary Facilities
Capital investment also improves performance during dry weather instead of just infrequent wet weather 21
Cleaner Effluent Lower Energy Usage
Case Study – Little Rock, Arkansas
• Finite volume
• Post-event cleaning
• Odor control
• Large footprint
Parallel treatment alternative deemed more resilient and cost-effective than original plan which relied solely on doubling EQ volume
22
Scott Hamilton Drive Peak Flow Facility30-MG Collection System EQ
36-mgd Adams Field WRF13-MG EQ
Dual-Use Filter for Adams Field
• (A) Treat wet-weather flows 5% of time (B) Improve UV disinfection 100% of time
• Compared to EQ basin expansion:o More resiliency, not limited by finite volumeo Much smaller site, no additional odor controlo Dry-weather water quality benefito Lower life-cycle cost
• Dec 2015 – NPDES permit from ADEQ, no USEPA comments
• 2016 – Onsite pilot, TBL technology evaluation, reference facility tours, pile cloth filter recommended:o Simple O&Mo No chemicalso No alkalinity or effluent foaming issueso Lowest life-cycle costo Non-potable reuse potential
23
Triple Bottom Line EvaluationEHRT Process EHRT Technology
CES with Ballasted Flocculation
ACTIFLO® (Veolia/Kruger)
CoMag® (Evoqua)
Compressible Media Filtration
FlexFilter™ (WesTech/WWETCO)
Fuzzy Filter™ (Schreiber)
Pile Cloth Media Filtration MegaDisk® (Aqua-Aerobics)
Little Rock 2016 pilot with new pile cloth media performed better than in 2008 side-by-side trials with previous generation media in Johnson County, Kansas. 24
Dual-Use EHRT Under Construction
Four bids on 100% design• $23.9MM for 58-mgd EHRT $0.41/gpd (2018; Little Rock, AR)
• Dual-Use Filter, UV, Effluent Pump Station• 2020 startup 25
Other Relevant Points
• Nutrient Removal• Additional P removal with dual-use HRF• HRF compatible with bio- or chem-P without more
chemical usage
• Wet Weather Regulatory Issues• USEPA CSO Control Policy - EHRT technologies clearly
allowed• USEPA SSO/Peak Flow Policy - Still under development
o 8th Circuit – EHRT allowed thanks to Iowa League of Cities v. EPA.
o Outside 8th Circuit - Case-by-case. Precedents include KS, MA, NH, NY, NJ, OH, OR, TX, WI.o CRR v. EPA – Motion filed Jan 3 to restart
litigation. CRR claims EPA “fraud on the court”o New USEPA rulemaking
26
Circuits for U.S. Court of Appeals
Regions for U.S. EPA
Enhance Clarification to Enhance Either Bio-P or Chem-P Removal
27
From Schauer, P. and deBarbadillo, C. (2009) Pushing the Envelope with Low Phosphorus Limits, PNCWA
Lower TP…
…requires lower TSS
Enhanced P removal and wet-weather treatment
• SSO control outside 8th Circuit• Expand 7-mgd WWTP to 19-mgd ADF and
upgrade to TP<0.5 mg/L, TN<10 mg/L• 115-mgd HRF + Disinfection = $23MM
$0.20/gpd (2018; Johnson County, KS)• 2020 startup with CMAR design-build
28
Tomahawk Creek WWTF
Take Home Messages
• Peak Flows Rule needs to provide clarity, consistency, and transparency
• Apply ILOC v. EPA decision nationwide
• Blending is not a bypass. Peak flow management instead of blending.
• Permit “guardrails” = TBEL and WQBEL procedures already exist in NPDES. Tweak inputs and monitoring for wet weather realities.
• We have the technologies. 100% biological treatment not recommended.
• Tons of supporting data already reported to EPA from decades of operation under the CSO Control Policy + two decades of operation of EHRT facilities.
29
Words matter for peak flow management success
If treating adequately, don’t imply lack of treatment. Use accurate language to describe design and operation. Avoid connotations and misinterpretations.
30
Instead of: Consider:Blending Peak flow managementBypass Flow split, control, or regulateDivert Intercept or regulate
Diversion Structure Interceptor or regulator structureExcess flow Peak flow
Primary treatmentSecondary treatment
SettlingBiological treatmentAuxiliary treatment
Secondary treatment train Biological treatment trainActivated sludge train
Jim FitzpatrickPrincipal Process Engineer+1 [email protected]
Bob O’BryanProject Manager+1 [email protected]
Sid SenguptaProject Director+1 [email protected]
Five Rivers Fountain and RiverscapeCourtesy discoverdayton.org
Bullpen
32
Auxiliary Treatment Strategy
33
• Optimize for intermittent wet-weather flows• Complement inherent limitations of storage and biological treatment• Decades of success• Auxiliary facilities instead of bypass per 40 CFR 122.41(m)
Biological Treatment Facilities
Rece
ivin
g St
ream
Qpeak
(1.5 to 3) x Qavg
Qaux
Auxiliary Treatment FacilitiesFlow Control (Gravity vs. INF or EFF Pumping)
Screening
Grit Removal (Optional)
Clarification
Effluent Disinfection