Post on 24-May-2020
Advancing Resource Recovery from Biosolidsand Biosolids as a Resource
Christine H. Radke, PMPResearch Program Director
Education Seminar - Collaborative Biosolids: Fuel for ThoughtRichmond, VirginiaThursday, May 11, 2017
About WE&RF
Established 1989 Established 1993
Merged July 2016
CORE PROGRAM ELEMENTS• Applied research in water and environment• Accelerating innovation and adoption of technology• Transferring knowledge• Setting an industry research agenda
Providing exceptional water research to advance science and technology
Virginia Utility Subscribers
• Residual and biosolids related research make up almost a third of WE&RF’s overall research portfolio
• Completed research valued over $20 million• Research in biosolids crosses several WE&RF “Issue Areas”
WE&RF’s Biosolids Research
Resource Recovery
Energy Compounds of Emerging Concern /
Trace Organics
www.werf.org/biosolids
What is the nationwide potential to recover energy from the wastewater sector?• There is more energy in wastewater than is needed for treatment –
about 5X more• Total energy potential is 851 trillion BTU/year
Thermal~80%
Chemical~20%
Hydraulic<1%
A decade of energy research for the water industry
Energy Demand
Energy Recovery
Promote greater utilization of
anaerobic digestion and
biogas
Advance low energy treatment
options
Enable energy recovery from
biosolids
WRRF energy balanceBNR with AD-CHP
• 31% of influent chemical energy remains in dewatered biosolids• 33% of influent chemical energy converted to digester gas• Supplemental Carbon for BNR requires significant energy to produce (2.3 times
energy in per COD energy out)
Sankey Diagram from WE&RF ENER1C12 “A Guide to Net-Zero Energy Solutions for Water Resource Recovery
Facilities” (PI – Steve Tarallo, Black & Veatch)
Renewable energy opportunity
With Co-digestionWithout Co-digestion
Food waste – co-digestion feedstock
• USEPA (2015) estimates that 35.2 MM tons of food waste are discarded annually with an energy content of 132 T BTUs
• Source separated organic food waste
• Food industry waste streams (such as yogurt factory waste)
• Grease trap and restaurant / institutional wastes
What are WRRFs co-digesting?High Strength Organic Wastes (HSWs)
Source: WE&RF ENER8R13 “Developing Solutions to Operational Side Effects Associated with Co-Digestion of High Strength Organic Wastes”
(PI – Matthew Van Horne, Hazen & Sawyer)
Average amount – 20 MG/yearGlycerin, Aircraft Deicing Fluid
WE&RF research to advance co-digestion of organic waste with wastewater solids
Complete
TreatabilityGas productionCost and performanceOperational metricsTBL DecisionmakingCase Studies
Ongoing
Understanding Operational Side-effects of Co-digestion- Utility Survey- In-depth Analysis studies- Understanding stochiometric relationships - Business Case Evaluation
Future
Science and Solutions for Moving Co-Digestion into Best Practices- Expert/Practitioner NSF Workshop- Framework of Best Practice
Barriers and drivers influencing biogas use for renewable energy
Convert to Electric Power Upgrade to RNG for Sale or Use
• Barriers to sale to grid as distributed power
• Must use onsite• Conversion loss to electric
power• Electric provider agreements
reduce any cost savings even from use onsite
• RECs available in some states• Must remove contaminants
(water H2S, siloxanes)
• Access/market for biogas as RNG unknown
• Under Renewable Fuel Standard - Cellulosic RINs available when used as vehicle fuels as well as Advanced Biofuel RINs
• RECs available in some states• Must remove contaminants
(water H2S, siloxanes)
Renewable fuel standards (RFS)RIN classification codes
Category Code Description of FuelCellulosic Biofuel D3 Any process that converts cellulosic biomass
to fuel: ethanol, renewable gasoline, biogas-derived CNG and LNG
Biomass- Derived Diesel D4 Biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil
Advanced Biofuels D5 Biodiesel, renewable diesel, sugarcane ethanol, heating oil, waste digester-derived CNG and LNG
Renewable Fuel D6 Corn ethanolCellulosic Diesel D7 Cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, heating oil
March 2016 - WEF Biofuels Task Force
Is the RFS here to stay?
• WRRFs and the Renewable Natural Gas industry need assurances that the RFS will stay.
• There have been several unsuccessful attempts to repeal the RFS. These are ongoing and may be successful under the new administration.
• Speak up to retain the RFS and thwart any repeal efforts for the benefit of biogas to RNG projects at WRRFs.
“The oil industry has made a concerted, organized, and well financed attack on the RFS. A lot of focus has been on EPA…, but the oil industry has gone to court to limit the impact of the RFS …and to Capital Hill to curtail or restrict the RFS.”- Tom Vilsack, former US Agriculture Secretary
Research needs
• Cheaper and better biogas cleanup technologies• Siloxanes particularly challenging
• Lack of easy quantification methods• Switch to better adsorbents – such as silica gels• New innovative technologies for siloxane removal
Pilot testing silica gel adsorbents for better siloxaneremoval
Resource recovery research area
OBJECTIVE: Transition the wastewater treatment industry to one focused on resource recovery (starting with nutrients) with the vision that most, if not all, materials in wastewater can be commoditized.
Phosphorus recovery• Quantify incentives and barriers to adopt phosphorus recovery
technologies.• Provide decision making guidance to apply and/or implement
phosphorus recovery technologies.• Research phosphorus recovery technologies at pilot or bench-scale to
determine viability for commercial development.
COMPLETE: NTRY1R12 “Towards a Renewable Future: Assessing
Resource Recovery as a Viable Treatment Alternative” (PI – Ron Latimer, Hazen & Sawyer)
Nitrogen recovery• Quantify incentives and barriers to adopt nitrogen recovery
technologies. Note that technologies which recover nitrogen and nitrogen-based products are the primary consideration.
• Provide guidance for application of nitrogen recovery technologies by different size wastewater utilities.
• Research nitrogen recovery technologies at pilot or bench-scale to determine viability for commercial development.
ONGOING: STAR_N1R14 “Nutrient Recovery Through Urine Separation”
(PI – Krista Wigginton, University of Michigan)
Optimization of resource recovery• Determine the trade-offs involved in choosing one resource
recovery path over another so utilities can make better informed decisions when altering/investing in infrastructure and operational changes to improve and optimize resource recovery (in conjunction/coordination with two other WERF challenges – Energy and Water Reuse).
ONGOING: NTRY9T15 “Sustainable Struvite Control Using Residual Gas from Digester Gas Cleaning Process”
(PI – Jeff Prevatt, Pima County, AZ) NTRY12R16 “Unintended Consequences of Resource Recovery on Overall Plant Performance:
Solving the Impacts on Dewaterability Properties” (PI – Matt Higgins, Bucknell University) NTRY13R16 “Understanding the Impacts of Low-Energy and Low-Carbon Nitrogen Removal
Technologies on Bio-P and Nutrient Recovery Processes” (PI – George Wells, Northwestern University)
UPCOMING: Literature review of resource recovery from sidestream of co-digestion focused on ammonia recovery
Organics, microconstituents, and other commodities• Determine state-of-the-science for recovery of organics, micro-
nutrients, and other commodities.• Research recovery technologies for commodities such as carbon-based
organic compounds (e.g., fermentation products, methanol, esters, other alcohols, hydrogen peroxide, caustics, thermoplastics from biophosphate polymers, etc.) at the pilot or bench-scale to determine viability.
COMPLETE: NTRY3R13 “Beyond Nutrients: Recovering Carbon and Other Commodity Products from
Wastewater” (PI – Wendell Khunjar, Hazen & Sawyer) NTRY5R14 “Producing Value-Added Biopolymer from Methane Gas Generated by Water
Resource Recovery Facilities” (PI – Molly Morse, Mango Materials)ONGOING: NTRY4R14 “A Multi-Platform Approach to Recovering High Value Carbon Products from
Wastestreams” (PI – Kam Law, Greeley & Hansen; Chris Wilson, HRSD) NTRY6R14 “Production of Bioisoprene from Wastewater” (PI – Nicole Buan, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln) NTRY8R15 “Plasmids and Rare Earth Elements from Wastewater” (PI – Kevin Gilmore,
Bucknell University)
High quality biosolids
• Define the standards and specifications needed for WRRFs to cost-effectively produce and more successfully market high quality, safe, and stable biosolids in areas across the country, with identified benefits for both the generator (WRRF) and the end user.
ONGOING: NTRY7R15 “High Quality Biosolids from Wastewater”
(PI – Trudy Johnston, Material Matters) NTRY11T15 “High-Tech Analysis of Low-Tech Methods
for Sustainable Class A Biosolids Production” (PI – Jennifer Becker, Michigan Technological University)
High quality biosolids from wastewater (WE&RF Project NTRY7R15)
Principal Investigator:
Trudy Johnston
Co-Principal Investigator:Chris Peot
Project Goal: To significantly expand biosolids use by helping define the standards and specifications for WRRFs to cost-effectively produce and more successfully market higher quality, safe, and stable biosolidsin areas across the country, with identified benefits for both the generator and the end user
Project Team
Project background• National priorities shifting from treatment to
resource recovery• 40 CFR Part 503 Standards
• What it does do:Protects public and human healthPromotes distribution to areas with low public access
• What it does not do:Define stabilityDefine ability to store productMeet customer requirementsPromote distribution in high public access areas
Task 1 – Assessment of HQB derived products• Utility partners will provide “customer
ready” biosolids products to assess for quality characteristics
• Biosolids odor potential will be assessed using a human odor panel employing internationally accepted procedures
• Potential odor-related parameters to be evaluated include pH, TVS, VAR (SOUR, SRT, etc.); as well as proteins, and "new" respiratory techniques.
• Attractiveness to house flies will also be included in the assessment of biosolids
Treatment technologies and biosolids products represented
13
2 3
Anaerobic Aerobic Undigested
Digestion Method
5
10
3
Belt/Screw Press Centrifuge Thermal drying
Dewatering/Drying Method
11
4 3
Cake Products(<45%)
Blended Products(<45-70%)
Thermally dried(>90%)
“Customer Ready” Biosolids Form (% solids)
• Advanced digestion technologies represented:• ATAD• Cambi• Flow-through thermophilic (CBFT)• Pasteurization• Chemical Oxidation
• 18 utilities from USA, Canada, and Australia (1)• Class A/EQ designation for 17 of 18 products
Interesting findings to date…• Samples selected revealed a wide range of mean odor
concentrations represented by range:• Low odor – 8%• Medium odor – 45%• High odor – 47%
• Lowest odor products were blended products
• Compare the attributes of newly developed EQ and HQB products specially tailored for urban soil use with existing products for the purpose of identifying critical characteristics necessary to guide by-product and recipe development
• Determine, demonstrate, and promote the benefits of high quality biosolids-based products to improve disturbed urban soils and to enhance the establishment and growth of vegetation under environmentally stressful conditions
Task 2 – Demonstrate use of HQB
Interesting findings to date…
• Blended productswere successful in germination studies
• Biosolids products were not successful when representing the entire root zone media
• Estimate of PAN was accurate
• Identify key factors of HQB programs by surveying utilities (marketing tools, product sales and distribution) and customers (products used, important characteristics and influencing factors to buy product
• Develop guidance tool by comparing utilities’ and customers’ responses and identifying the commonalities
• Test the template by using products identified in Task 2 in the DC, MD, VA market
Task 3 – Develop a template for the use of HQB products
Interesting findings to date…
28 utilities participated in survey Average daily flows ranged from 0.033 MGD to 300 MGD (median – 42.2 MGD) Majority of respondents use mesophilic anaerobic digestion with no pretreatment
(17)
Task 4 – Communication and social media• Communicate the results of the HQB
research• Create a community of partners in the HQB
research• “Tell the story” to a broader audience
Want to get involved with theHQB research project?
Join High Quality Biosolids Group on LinkedIn –https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8234452/profile
Like the High Quality Biosolids Facebook Page –www.facebook.com/highqualitybiosolids
Follow on Twitter –https://twitter.com/HQBiosolids
Visit http://www.highqualitybiosolids.com/
High-tech analysis of low-tech methods for sustainable Class A biosolidsproduction (WERF Project NTRY11T15)
Principal Investigator:Jennifer G. Becker,
Ph.D.
Co-Principal Investigator:Eric A. Seagren, Ph.D.
Overall Research Goal: To study the impacts of environmental factors and biosolids properties on PIO inactivation in low-cost, low-tech methods for sustainable Class A biosolids production
Portage Lake Water & Sewage Authority
Gogebic-Iron Wastewater Authority
Project Team and Partners
Project Background
• USEPA’s approved methods for Class A biosolids production, including Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRPs), are generally energy intensive
• Low-cost, low-tech treatment methods applied at ambient conditions could be more appropriate to reach Class A status
• Lack of information on the inactivation of pathogen and indicator organisms (PIOs) under ambient conditions
Phase 1 - complete
• Provides a guide to design and construct a pilot-scale test bed
• Methods are provided for monitoring pilot test environmental conditions (e.g. ambient temperature, solar radiation, precipitation), physical/chemical properties of biosolids over time (e.g. in situ temperature, TS, VS, pH, VFAs, NH3 content), and PIO densities (i.e. fecal coliforms, coliphage, enteric viruses, helminth ova)
• Starts the development of an experimental approach to provide data to verify adequate PIO reduction is achieved
CECs/Trace OrganicsResearch
WE&RF Program LeadLola Olabodelolabode@werf.org
OBJECTIVE: To provide the frameworks, tools, and data that utility and industry managers need to:1. determine wastewater treatment
effectiveness to optimize removal; 2. evaluate potential public health and
ecological impacts; 3. support facility design; and4. enhance effective risk
communications and risk management decisions by wastewater utilities, land appliers, manufacturers, and regulatory agencies regarding trace organics in treated effluents, receiving waters, in water for reuse, and biosolids-amended soils.
Compounds of Emerging Concern (CECs)/Trace Organics
Developing exposure and toxicity data for priority trace organics in biosolids (WE&RF Project TOBI2R15)
Project Goal: to gather data for conducting biosolidsamended-soil risk assessments for three high-priority trace organic compounds: polybromiated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), azithromycin, and ciprofloxacin.
Key outcomes
• Risk assessments for human health and the environment from exposure to the target trace organics as a result of land application of biosolids.
• Benchmarks for human and ecological health
• Enhanced and effective communication by stakeholders.
• Measures to assure the safety of biosolids land application practices about trace organics.
STATUS
Completed literature search identifying data for risk assessment.
Developing human health benchmarks of the target compounds.
Conducting soil and biosolids sorption studies.
Developing analytical methods.
Project meeting June 14, 2017 during the W3170 Annual Conference - Los Angeles Environmental Learning Center Hyperion, California
WE&RF opportunities
Request Due Date WE&RF Contact
Subscriber Priority Research Program• 4-5 projects with
maximum funding level for any single project of $50,000
Pre-proposal due Thursday, June 1, 2017
Stefani McGregorsmgregor@werf.org571-699-0026
Unsolicited Research Program• $304,748 split among
3-4 projects
Pre-proposals due Thursday, July 13, 2017*Approx RFP release date for pre-proposals Monday, May 15, 2017
Lola Olabodelolabode@werf.org571-384-2109
Paul L. Busch Award• $100,000 grant
Nominations due Thursday, June 1, 2017
WE&RF Research Staff Contacts
Jeff MosherChief Research Officerjmosher@werf.org
Lauren Fillmore, M.S.Senior Program Director (Energy)lfillmore@werf.org
Walter GrafProgram Director (Intelligent Water Systems and Asset Management)wgraf@werf.org
Julie MintonProgram Director (Water Reuse and Desalination)jminton@werf.org
Lola Olabode, M.P.H.Program Director (Trace Organics/Compounds of Emerging Concern and Linkages in Water Quality)lolabode@werf.org
Christine Radke, PMPProgram Director (Resource Recovery and Nutrients)cradke@werf.org
Harry Zhang, Ph.D., P.E.Program Director (Integrated Water and Stormwater)hzhang@werf.org
WE&RF Staff Contacts
Development & Subscriber ServicesAmit Pramanik, Ph.D., BCEEMChief Innovation & Development Officerapramanik@werf.org
Dorn SandersBusiness Development Managerdsanders@werf.org
Allison DeinesDirector of Special Projectsadeines@werf.org
LIFTJeff Moeller, P.E.Director of Water Technologiesjmoeller@werf.org
Aaron Fisher, Ph.D.Technology & Innovation Managerafisher@werf.org
Fidan Karimova, M.S.Water Technology Collaboration Managerfkarimova@werf.org