mt deq partnering with local communities to avoid or minimize capital improvement projects to help...
TRANSCRIPT
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
(860) 444-0866