WERF’s OWSO
Research Challenge
Optimization of Wastewater
& Solids Operations (a.k.a. OWSO)
WEF / WERF Workshop 103
WEFTEC 2007, San Diego, CA
October 13, 2007
Optimization of Wastewater and
Solids Operations (OWSO)
Energy Management
Process
Optimization
Resource
Recovery
Solids
Volume
Reduction
Background to Challenges
 “Energy

Develop strategies, methods, processes, and
tools for cost-effective management of energy
used in wastewater operations
 “Solids

Management”
Volume Reduction”
Cost-effective methods to minimize the volume
and quantity of wastewater treatment solids
generated, without sacrificing product value
and quality
 “Resource

Recovery”
Identify new resource recovery opportunities for
wastewater solids, including biosolids
Why combine the challenges?





Energy use accounts for about 35% of
WWTF’s total cost to provide wastewater
service – 2nd only to labor costs
Solids treatment operations and sludge
handling, transport, and disposal account for
a significant portion of energy use at these
facilities
Disposal of biosolids offsite require
transportation and land availability
Each one impacts or influences the others
Common element – energy and costs
“OWSO” Goal
To develop and demonstrate economical
and environmentally responsible
processes that improve wastewater and
solids treatment operations efficiencies
and costs by at least 20%
Focus Areas & Desired
Outcomes – Short Term

Encourage collaboration and knowledge
exchange with other organizations
 Leverage related existing research
 Analyze the economics of facility performance
 Provide benchmarking measures of facility
performance
Focus Areas & Desired
Outcomes – Long Term

Reduce environmental footprint of WWTFs and solids
management practices
 Facilitate RD&D and breakthroughs of innovative and
emerging technologies
 Explore innovative uses for solids
 Improve resource recovery across entire facility
 Minimize and conserve energy use
 Reduce solids volume
OWSO Agency Liaisons





WERF’s “sister organizations” that share mutual
goals and objectives related to OWSO initiative
Potential partners/collaborators/co-funders
Help leverage resources and avoid duplication
Help ensure “knowledge exchange”
Includes:
-AwwaRF
-GWRC
-NYSERDA
-CEE
-NACWA
-USEPA
-CEC
-WEF
-Global Energy Partners
-ENERGY STAR
IAT (Issue Area Team) members
Municipal Utilities
 Shabir Choudhary, PWD, PA
 David Cooley, HRSD, VA
 Hsiao-Ting Ong & David Tucker, City of
San Jose, CA
 Ali Oskouie, MWRDG Chicago, IL
 Steve Rogowski*, Metro Denver, CO
 Dariush Vosooghi, City of Los Angeles, CA
Academic
 William Boyle*, University of Wisconsin
Industry / Equipment
 Steve Constable & Melanie Masek, DuPont
 John Barber & Art Meyers, Eastman
Chemical
 Robert Kelly, Infilco Degremont, Inc.
Regulatory
 Jim Wheeler, US EPA
Consulting
 Glen Daigger*, CH2M-Hill
 Rob Simm, Stantec Consulting
 John Willis, Brown and Caldwell
 Milind Wable, CDM
Agency Liaisons
 Bob Bastian, US EPA OWM
 Bob Dominak, NACWA (and NEORSD, OH)
 Katy Hatcher, EPA Energy Star
 Ted Jones, CEE
 Kathleen O’Connor, NYSERDA
 Linda Reekie, AwwaRF
 Peter Brady, WEF RBC
WERF staff
 Lauren Fillmore, IAT Chair
 Amit Pramanik, Alan Hais, Roy Ramani
State Agency
 Shahid Chaudhry, CEC, CA
* WERF Research Council liaisons
OWSO Long Term Program
 Four
Key Cross Cutting Functions

Knowledge Exchange

Research

Demonstrations

Tools & Products
Where are we now?

RFPP released in January 2007



18 respondents
7 short-listed (3 for Core team, 4 on specific research
opportunities)
3 selected, one for core team, and 2 more

Core team: led by George Crawford, CH2M-Hill, and
various other agencies, individuals
 Second team led by David Parry, CDM + others –
focus on Co-Digestion
 Third team led by SAIC (includes NYSERDA funding)
 Others: pursuing “low-hanging fruit” opportunities



Additional beta testing of LCAMER tool
State of science report on Resource recovery with GWRC
Continue to work with other agencies (WEF, EPA,
NYSERDA, CEE, CEC, etc.) on collaborative efforts
OWSO
How can You become
involved?
George Crawford, P.E.
CH2M HILL
Our Organization is Dynamic –
because Research Needs will Evolve
Our Work Plan is also Dynamic –
Research will be Prioritized Annually
 16
Immediate
Action Plan
Suggestions
(Templates, Initial
Workshop)
 17 Research
Task Item
Suggestions

Some examples:
Example A
Energy Management: Strass WWTP
Benchmark Plant Demonstration
250.000
3.250.000
3.000.000
2.877.427
3.082.216
3.223.514
3.080.841
3.052.723
2.889.701
3.003.670
3.113.518
2.873.476
2.682.322
2.200.510
1.730.790
1.571.795
1.571.385
1.628.185
500.000
818.712
750.000
1.402.264
1.250.000
2.006.305
1.500.000
1.000.000
3.500.000
2.750.000
2.500.000
2.250.000
2.000.000
2.486.470
1.750.000
2.437.779
2.000.000
E-Energie Verbra uch /Eigenerzeugung
2.770.170
2.250.000
2.278.812
2.500.000
2.684.464
2.750.000
2.598.855
3.000.000
2.717.025
3.250.000
2.854.465
Gesamtverbrauch ARA
Generator
Polynomisch (Generator)
Polynomisch (Verbrauch)
3.500.000
1.750.000
1.500.000
1.250.000
1.000.000
750.000
500.000
250.000
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
0
1994
0
1993

2.137.292

669.032

100% energy selfsufficient
Key European benchmark
Modeling to show carbon
and energy relationship
Lead researchers: Dimitri
Katehis (CH2M HILL);
Mark Van Loosdrecht
(Delft University) );
Bernhard Wett/ Conrad
Buchaer (ARA
Consultants)
1992

Example B
Energy Management Research
Approach
feedback
Review Energy
Literature and
Related Research
Projects
Research Gap
Workshop
Review
Recommendations
feedback
Improve Energy
Toolkit
Develop Energy
Management
Framework
Pilot and Bench
Scale
Demonstration
Projects
Update Toolkit
and Final Report
Draft Energy
Toolkit
Framework
Tool
Pilot Results
Final
Deliverables
Communicate Results
Example B
Improve Energy Toolkit
• Objective – Develop Comprehensive Toolkit to
Evaluate Plants, Processes, Equipment, and
Operational Strategies
Related Programs:
- Energy Index developed by AWWARF/CEC
- Life Cycle Analysis Model for Energy
Recover developed by WERF
Benefits: Tool to Evaluate Alternatives and
Progress at a Facility
Example B
Energy Management
Framework
• Objective – Develop Comprehensive Framework of
an Energy Audit Using the Toolkit and Best
Practices
Related Tasks:
- Research Gap Workshop
- Energy Toolkit
- Best Energy Management Practices
Benefits: A Process to Evaluate Alternatives
and Progress at a Facility
Example C
Scope of LCAMER Tool
Current WERF Study 01-CTS-18- UR addresses
anaerobic digestion and energy recovery processes
Some form of energy is required for the operation
The LCAMER model is limited in scope, and does not
address all energy management issues
Electrical
Energy
Recovery
Anaer.
Dig’n
Thermal
Mechanical
Natural
Gas
Example C
ECEP
Biosolids
Disposal
Air
1o
Total Facility Energy Management!
2o
aeration
Filter
Disinfect
RAS
Thicken
Electrical
Energy
Recovery
Dewater
Anaer.
Dig’n
Thermal
Mechanical
Natural
Gas
Example C
Energy Consumption Evaluation
and Planning Tool (ECEP)

Development of an energy management model
that will:





Provide an inventory all major energy consuming
devices at POTW
Estimate energy consumption through all stages of
liquid and solids processing
Integrate energy demand with on-site energy
production
Permit allocation of purchased energy in optimum
manner
Estimate onsite emissions of air contaminant and
greenhouse gas reductions
Example D
05-CTS3 Evaluation of Processes to Reduce
Activated Sludge Generation and Disposal




Develop evaluation
methodology for WAS
reduction technologies.
Project awarded to
CH2M HILL-led team. Dr.
Julian Sandino, principal
investigator
2-year assignment,
started Spring 2007
Included under OWSO
“umbrella”
Example E
Energy and Resource
Recovery
Example E
Effect of Sludge Contaminant Levels on
Energy/Resource Recovery Options

ISSUE: Contaminant levels may limit non-agricultural
use of biosolids for energy or resource recovery
 OBJECTIVE: identify limits of trace substances that
restrict uses of biosolids; identify research
opportunities to reduce contaminant levels for wider
opportunities
 BENEFIT: greater choice for recovering value from
residual solids; improved economics of operation
 FOCUS AREAS: Solids Reduction; Resource
Recovery
Example F
An Integrated Approach to Solids Volume Reduction
Novak, Higgins & Murthy
Specific objectives of this research are to determine:
I. The impacts of influent wastewater characteristics and metal additions within
a plant on:
A. solids quantities and characteristics;
B. downstream solids digestion;
C. dewatering and cake quality.
II. The impact of upstream process type and operation on:
A. solids quantities and characteristics;
B. downstream solids digestion;
C. dewatering and cake quality.
III. How conditioning and dewatering can be optimized by utilities to minimize
solids volume.
Lab digestion processes
at Virginia Tech
Example F
Centrifuge Testing
at Bucknell University
Our Organization is Dynamic – Your
Involvement is Welcome!
For additional information, please contact:
Lauren Fillmore, P.E.
Conveyance Systems
lfillmore@werf.org
Amit Pramanik, Ph.D.
Wastewater Treatment & Reuse
apramanik@werf.org
Phone: (703) 684-2470
Fax: (703) 299-0742
635 Slaters Lane
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
www.werf.org
George Crawford, P.E., BCEE
CH2M-Hill
George.Crawford@ch2m.com