development of urban wastewater treatment in europe development of urban wastewater treatment in...

Institute for Sanitary Engineering and Waste Management

Development of Urban Wastewater

Treatment in Europe

9th EWA Brussels Conference

"Water - Investing Today for the Future"

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Rosenwinkel

Dr.-Ing. Linda Hinken

Institut für Siedlungswasserwirtschaft und Abfalltechnik

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover

Welfengarten 1

30167 Hannover

2

Presentation Outline

I. Introduction

Requirements and Challenges (Differences in Europe)

II. Full Scale Experiences in Europe and Results

III. New Technologies, Bioaugmentation, Deammonification

IV. Advanced Treatment, Fourth Step of Treatment

V. Necessity and Impacts on Environment, Energy,

Resources

VI. Conclusions

9th EWA Brussels Conference "Water - Investing Today for the Future”

3

I. Introduction – EEC Directive 91/271


CSOs

Regulation?

How to regulate the

fourth step of treatment?

Where is it nesscary?

Sludge

management

Re-use

of treated

waste water

4

I. Introduction – Status of Implementation in the EU


sensitive areas

But:

From 27 EU capitals only 11 claim

full compliance (end 2010)

Investment Support by EU

~ 14.3 Billon EUR (2007-2013)

WWTP Brussels in operation

since 03/2007 for 1.4 Mio. PE www.aquiris.be

(7. Report of Implementation, 07.08.2013 for 27 members; status: end 2009/2010)

5

I. Introduction – Effluent Standards, Requirements


EU Standard

Plant size [PE] NH4-N [mg/L] Ntot* [mg/L] Ptot [mg/L]

10,000-100,000 – 15

(70-80 %)

2

(80 %)

> 100,000 – 10

(70-80 %)

1

(80 %)

Germany

Plant size [PE] NH4-N [mg/L] Ntot,min* [mg/L] Ptot [mg/L]

5,000-10,000 10 –

10,000-100,000 10 18 2

> 100,000 10 13 1

* - “sensitive“ areas Differences in sampling, analysis and voting

Art. 3 and 4 EEC directive, EU UWWD

6

I. Introduction – Performance of German and Austrian plants


Germany Austria

Wastewater treatment plants (No.) [-] 5,917 906

Design [Mio. PE] 142.6 27.3

Energy demand [kWh/(PE∙a)] 34.3 31.4

COD [mg/L] Influent

Effluent

548

27

656

43.8

Ntot [mg/L] Influent

Effluent

51

9.0

43.2

8.9

Ptot [mg/L] Influent

Effluent

7.9

0.72

7.5

0.65

NH4-N [mg/L] Effluent 1.19 1.20

NO3-N [mg/L] Effluent 6.0 5.7

(DWA, 2013; KA 10/13)

7

I. Introduction – Combined Sewage overflows

Collecting Systems

(Council directive 91/271/EWG,

Annex I)

treatment required

design, construction and maintenance BAT, no excessive

costs, prevention of leaks

Aim: Limitation of pollution of receiving waters due to

storm water overflows


Important:

European Court (10/2012) decided against UK and Northern

Ireland due to excessive overflows from combined sewer

systems

Relevant for system design

8

II. Fullscale Experiences – Examples


830,000 PE

Qd 130,000 m3/d

ce,COD 56 mg/L

ce,TN 11.2 mg/L

ce,P 0.4 mg/L

SRT 13-15 d

Vact.sludge 104,500 m3

Spec. Vol. 126 L/PE

One-Step

Predenitrification

Hanse-Wasser, Bremen

WWTP Bremen-

Seehausen,

Germany

9



Population

equivalent [PE]

4.3 Mio. SRT [d] 8-10

Design flow rate

[m3/d]

1,000,000 Design

temp. [oC]

15

Total reaction

volume [m3]

Specific volume

298,140

69 L/PE

ce,TN

[mg/L]

4.2

WWTP Psyttalia, Athens, Greece, Pre-Denitrification

10



Influent

Pump

station

Mechanical

treatment

High loading

stage

(A-Stage)

Intermediate

Sedimentation

Intermediate

Sedimentation

Pump

station

NK 5 - 8

Secondary

sedimentation

Rhein river

NK 1 - 4

Low loading

stage

(B-stage)

Filtration

Low loading

stage

(B-stage)

Influent

Exceed sludge to

sludge treatment

Wastewater

Sludge

(Source: Stadtentwässerungsbetriebe Köln, AöR )

WWTP Cologne-Stammheim,

Germany, Two-Stage A-B

Stage A: V = 12.000 m³

Stage B: V = 124.000 m³

Total volume 136,000 m3

Specific volume 85 L/PE

Design data

Capacity: 1.6 Mio. PE

Qd 290,000 m3/d

Effluent data (average values in 2005)

ce,COD 24.2 mg/L

ce,NH4-N 0.73 mg/L

ce,TN 10 mg/L

ce,P 0.3 mg/L

11



Vienna's Main Wastewater Treatment Plant, Austria

The hybrid process 4,000,000 PE

sludge treatment

sludge

thickening

return activated sludge

bypass of activated sludge

return activated sludge

Danube Canal

aeration intermediate sedimentation primary sedimentation

sewer system

step 1

recirculation

of effluent

secondary

sedimentation

aeration

step 2

bypass

(Source: EbS - Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH)

ce,BOD5 5 mg/L TN 84.7 % elimination

ce,COD 33 mg/L ce,NH4-N 1.01 mg/L

ce,TOC 10 mg/L ce,P 0.86 mg/L

Effluent data

Total volume 213,000 m3

Specific volume 53 L/PE (EbS , 2013)

12

II. Fullscale Experiences – Comparison


WWTP Process Vtot PE HRT Vspec

[m3] [Mio. PE] [h] [L/PE]

Bremen Pre-Deni. 104,500 0.83 19.2 126

Athen Pre-Deni. 298,140 4.3 7.2 69

Vienna Hybrid 213,000 4.0 8.5 53

Cologne A-B 136,000 1.6 11.3 85

SN,peakSN,average

= 1.8 T = 12°C

13

III. New Technologies – Bioaugmentation


(Berends et. al., 2005)

Simulation results for WWTP Houtrust, NL

Population equivalent [PE] 1.1 Mio.

Average influent flow [m³/d] 240,000

Reaction volume [m³] 19,800

SRT [d] 3-4

HRT [h] 2

Specific reactor volume [L/PE] 18

Enrichment of slow growing bacteria

(nitrifier) by seeding, Babe-Process

Reduction of volume, space &

resource demand

Real enlargement conventional

Babe Technology

Additionally: Granular Activated Sludge

allows higher loading rates

14

III. New Technologies – Deammonification


Conditions:

concentration < 50 mg N/L

CSB/N < 8-10

Temperature 10-20 ºC

C-elimination

digester dewatering

PS, ÜSS, FS,

Co-Substrat

nitritation

N-elimination

deammonification rest

N-elimination

ggf. activated sludge

bioaugmentation

Deammonification in Sidestream

Final

clarifier

digester

aeration tank

CHP

≈ 3.7 N

BOD5

+ 15 kWhel

PE ∙ a

20 kWhel

PE ∙ a

preliminary

clarifier

HRT

2.0 h

CH4 2 kWhel

PE ∙ a

Sidestream

treatment

primary clarifier > 2 h

Deammonification

in Mainstream

Energy demand of

biological stages:

Conventional: 25 - 11 = 14 kWh/(PE∙a)

New Techn.: 22 - 15 = 7 kWh/(PE∙a)

15

IV. Advanced Treatment – Suspensa Elimination


(Source: Erftverband, Bergheim, Germany)

Capacity 80,000 PE

Qd 8,700 m3/d

Qm 1,024 m3/h

Bd,COD 9,600 kg/d

Grit

chamber

Screen

5mm

RS

Permeate

Sludge storage Sludge dewatering

Sieve

drum

0,5 mm

MF DN N DN/N

Membran

Bioreactor (MBR)

Exceed

Sludge

28 Bio-Membrane plants in Europe, most in Germany

Spec. Vol. 115 L/PE

WWTP Nordkanal, Germany, Pre-Deni-Membrane

Effluent

ce,COD 15 mg/L (LOT)

ce,NH4-N 0.5 mg/L

ce,NO3 7 mg/L

cP 1 mg/L

Bd,N 897 kg/d

Bd,P 5,700 kg/d

Vreaction, tot 9,200 m3

SRT 25 d

16

IV. Advanced Treatment – Micropollutants Combination of ozone and activated carbon


Dynamic

Recirculation

Downstream Ozonization

Downstream PAC-Dosage

WWTP Schwerte (Grünebaum and Thöle, 2013)

17

IV. Advanced Treatment – Micropollutants Combination of ozone and activated carbon

Most efficient:

Dynamic recirculation and O3 + PAC

Dosing: 2 mg O3/L and 10 mg PAC/L

Results of ozone and PAC dosing on pharmaceutical products (effluent concentrations)

Normal Dosage Mean Dosage

Basic Dosage Without Dosage


(Grünebaum et al., 2013)

* x-ray-contrast-substance

** anti-corrosion agent

*** pharmaceutical product

18

Phage balance of an activated sludge system for cold and warm

season (comparable with virus elimination rate) Hannover WWTP

0

2

4

6

8

10

Vorklärung Belebung Nachklärung

Wintersaison Sommersaison

tTS =12 d

Inactivation in

activated sludge

Remaining phage

load in effluent

Remaining phage

load in excess sluge

Cold season 85 % 1 % 14 %

Warm Season 95 % 0.5 % 4.5 %

Elimination of phages

Winter: 1.95 log PFU/L

Sommer: 2.78 log PFU/L

(not direct comparable to

E.coli)

Influent Effluent

IV. Advanced Treatment – Virus Elimination

Primary

clarifier secondary

clarifier

cold season warm season (Ullbricht et al., 2013)

sludge

rector

SRT = 12 d

To

tal s

om

ati

c c

oli

ph

ag

e

co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

lo

gP

FU

/L

19

IV. Advanced Treatment – Pathogenic Organism


Study for Wilhelmshaven (2009)

E.coli Concentration in cfu/100ml: Raw wastewater 1,000,000

CSO (roughly) 230,000

Effluent, WWTP 90,000

Actual (WEB): 75 % due to WWTP

25 % due discharge*

Wastewater collecting system Germany: total 440.000 km

CSOs: ca. 21.000

Wastewater and combined water: Biological treated: 10 billion m³/a

Nonbiological treated: 2.7 billion m³/a

(Pabst und Rosenwinkel, 2009)

*peak load ! Result: Increasing Flow WWTP!!

20

IV. Advanced Treatment – Legionella


Legionella found in the wastewater treatment plant Warstein

in 08/09 2013 Infection 165 persons, 3 death

Cooling water from Wäster downstream WWTP

Several years ago in Norway and South France:

Connection between legionella disease

and industrial WWTP was found.

Measures in Warstein:

pure oxygen, shutdown of trickling filter

disinfection of effluent using UF, UV-radiation and formic acid

Tests: Ultrasonic, Ag, O3, H2O2, pH, SRT, T

Is the EU bathing-water directive sufficient? - Not for Legionella!

Wikipedia.de

21

IV. Advanced Treatment – LOT Limit of Technology


Which parameters influence LOT, where do we need LOT?

technology itself

carbon source

dilution

ability for precipitation and degradation

depending on Effluent [mg/L]

SS -- ~ 0

COD specific q 15 - 25

DON specific q 0,5 - 2

NH4-N SRT < 0,5

NO3-N readily degradable COD < 0,5 - 5

Ptot q, phosphonic acid 0,1 - 0,5

PO4-P precipitation < 0,05

Micropollutants different < 0,005

Virus -- ~ 0

Erftverband

22

V. Future Challenges – Addtional Costs and Energy (4th treatment step)


Additional costs incl. CAPEX: Energy, personal, chemicals (construction and operation)

Additional Technologies Additional Demand

Cost [€/m³] Energy [kWh/m³]

Sandfiltration (without flocculation) 0.05 - 0.15 0.1 - 0.2

Cloth filtration 0.02 - 0.037 0.002 - 0.007

Micro-/Ultrafiltration after WWTP 0.07 - 0.10 0.12 - 0.15

PAC (activ. carbon) 0.05 - 0.07 0.05

Ozonization 0.01 - 0.18 0.1 - 0.3

Nanofiltration 0.15 - (0.8) 0.5 - (3.0)

UV-Treatment 0.02 - 0.06 0.03

Dynamic Reci, O3, PAC 0.134 ca. 0.04

Range (wastewater) 0.05 - 0.18 ca. 0.1 - 0.3

Range (freshwater) 0.07 - 0.30 ca. 0.15 - 0.5

23

V. Future Challenges


Regulation

Conform regulation and compliance,

Point sources: WWTPs, CSOs

diffuse sources, agriculture (nutr. and

pesticides)

Micropollutants and hazardous

substances, detected, relevant?

pharmaceuticals, x-ray-contrast-agents,

endocrine disrupters, fluorosurfactants,

polychlorinated and polycylic compounds

Virus, pathogens

noro and adeno virus, salmonella, legionella?

Carbamazepin

rotavirus

Wik

iped

ia

What do we need in Europe?

24

V. Future Challenges


Protection of sensitive waterbodies by elimination of:

Micropollutants, industrial chemicals, pesticides

Pathogenous organism (virus, legionella?)

LOT instead of BAT (EQS*) EU Directiv 2013/39/EG, App. X

Elimination technologies available

degradation, sorption, oxidation, ultrafiltration

Resource management

Recycling of water, depending from water balances

Recycling of phosphorous (and nitrogen) in general

Minimizing energy demand in general

Environmental impact

Reducing emissions CO2, CH4, N2O

What do we need in Europe?

* environmental quality standard

Kubota

Zenon

25

V. Conclusions


Fulfillment of EU requirements different in member states

Processes available to met the requirements

Various spec.volumes(0.05 to 0.14 m3/PE), f (T,Tech,Contr.)

Advanced technologies (Bioaugmentation,

Deammonification, Granularsludge) for better performance

Further treatment (4th step) is regional needed (disinfection,

micro-pollutants-reduction, P-recovery, EQS), advanced

technologies are available, but costs and energy increase

Decisions have to consider whole influences on waterquality

incl. diffuse sources and on the environment

26


development of urban wastewater treatment in europe development of urban wastewater treatment in...

Documents