jennifer callahan trudy johnston - material matters · water treatment plants • filter sediments...

Jennifer CallahanTrudy Johnston

Material Matters, Inc.




















http://materialmatters.com

BackgroundProject ApproachFindings

• Preferred End Use• Demonstrations Bench Scale Full Scale

• Permitting• Contractual Agreement• Cost Analysis

Conclusions






















Water Treatment Plants• Filter sediments from drinking water WTR - 2 million tons DAILY (U.S.)

• Beneficial Use or Disposal?Reading Area Water Authority (RAWA)

• Lake Ontelaunee (Maiden Creek)• Al coagulant for settling, sand filters, clarifier,

centrifuge 25% TS WTR• 4,500 WT/year…Disposal cells…

Why not beneficial use???






















Why not beneficial use?






















Sediments (clay, silt, sand, humic)

16% C, 18% OM, Sandy Loam

Coagulants (Al-oxides)

Low conc. of pollutants






















• No on-site storage• Daily and peak production• Client provides transportation

WTP/ Client

• Characterization – visual, physical, handling• Laboratory analysisWTR

• Identify potential facilities for beneficial use• Interviews• Informational brochure / fact sheet

End Users

Factors to consider in marketing WTR






















• Bench Scale• Full Scale• Client-led study (time, effort, $)

Demo

• Approvals• Laboratory analyses• General Permit (GP) modification

Permits

• Agreement/contract• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)• Cost analysis

Contract / $$

After identifying preferred end uses…






















Agriculture1-0-0

Good C, but…Store, spread

Soil Blending/ CompostingSandy LoamBulking agentDarkens blend

Identify the Preferred End Use






















Soil Blenders Local

Interviews Product Sample

Demo

Market to Preferred End Users






















Primary Purpose: Ensure the product meets end user’s specifications

Ulterior Motive: Protect integrity of product by limiting susceptibility to incorrect or erroneous estimations of product effectiveness

Ultimately, use the results to demonstrate product effectiveness and value

Show the end user that the handling, mixing and end use value is worth the effort!

Well-controlled and well-designed product trials are a necessity!!!






















Goal: Evaluate constituent proportions• Subsoil• Spent Mushroom Substrate

(SMS)• WTR

Identify preferred blend• Visual observation• Handling/consistency

Write the “Recipes” for Manufactured Topsoil






















Present findings to soil blender for consideration






















GOAL: Allow blender to evaluate WTR• Handle with equipment• Manage wetness/dryness of

WTR• Verify appropriate

blend/ratio

Samples – laboratory analysis• < general permit limits






















Arsenic limit for manuf. soil = 12 mg/kgSoil blend = 11.8 mg/kg arsenic

(equal parts subsoil, SMS, and WTR)

The soil blender originally blamed WTR for the high arsenic content!

Noteworthy observation from our full-scale demo…

As (mg/kg)Spent Mushroom Substrate (SMS) 2.9Water Treatment Residual (WTR) 13.2Subsoil 28.8






















PADEP General Permit for manuf. topsoil• WMGR-103• Dredged material, SMS, leaf waste, foundry sand, etc.

Permit modification• Added WTR to list of approved wastes • Increased arsenic limit 12 mg/kg to 29 mg/kg

• …AND… PADEP also included radiochemistry analytical testing

requirements – Thorium, Uranium and a radiation survey

General permit authorizes processing of residual wastes






















Contractual Agreement• Terms of use• Length of contract (5 yr)• Financial arrangements

Soil Blender• Up-front $$$ / capital improvements• Analytical fees• Annual minimum fee, regardless of loads delivered

RAWA• Pro-rated up-front repayment required if breach• 5 yr contract, termination clause ensures 3 yr• No minimum volume guarantee • Pay O&M at end of year – not per truckload






















Soil blender ultimately responsible for WTR under WMGR-103• RAWA wants to ensure appropriate use of WTR • SOP ensures regulatory requirements are met

Soil blender responsibilities• Register under and adhere to GP• Suitable storage of WTR, collection of samples

RAWA responsibilities• Financial support, delivery of suitable batches of

WTR, sampling WTR for analysis, general program oversight






















Disposal cells• $500,000 ($42/WT over 3 yr)

Soil blender• Estimated costs for WTR beneficial use

Total Cost Cost/WTAnnual operating cost (1-yr) $15,000 $3.75Analytical fees $2,000 $0.50Annual Operating Costs $17,000 $4.25Permitting cost $2,000 $0.50R&D/capital cost $25,000 $1.25RAWA Total Cost (over 5 years) $112,000 $5.60






















Agricultural utilization• Estimated costs for WTR beneficial use

Total Cost Cost/WTAnnual spreading (1-yr) $24,000 $6.00Transportation (1-yr) $1,500 $0.38Annual Operating Costs $25,500 $6.38Locate, qualify site (1 time) $10,000 $0.50Locate/construct storage area (2 time) $8,000 $1.00R&D/capital cost $16,000 $0.80RAWA Total Cost (over 5 years) $169,500 $8.48






















Beneficial use of WTR is feasible option• $6 < $9 < $42 (per WT)

Soil blending preferred alternative• Keep disposal cells as backup alternative

RAWA is forward thinking… Improvements, storage, production

• Low cost, sustainable end uses are crucial






















Simplicity• Disposal is easy• Disposal offers low risk to WTP• Limited beneficial use general permits

Beneficial use doesn’t have to be complicatedRisk can be minimized via contractual

agreementsPermits can be modified

Disposal is expensive and wasteful – Beneficial use can be cheaper and sustainable!






















Reading Area Water Authority (RAWA)• Dean Miller, Executive Director






















jennifer callahan trudy johnston - material matters · water treatment plants • filter sediments...

Documents