Reno-Stead Water Reclamation Facility
Reno, Nevada
The objective of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of an advanced treatment
process not utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) for removal of hormones, pharmaceuticals, and flame
retardants (collectively termed microconstituents or chemicals of emerging concern [CECs])
from municipal effluent. The advanced treatment process consisted of (in the order of use):
membrane filtration (MF), ozonation (O3), and biological activated carbon (BAC). The 15-
month, continuous flow, 10.7 gpm, MF-O3-BAC demonstration study was conducted in two
phases at the Reno-Stead Water Reclamation Facility (RSWRF): Phase 1 focused on ozone
process optimization and bromate mitigation; Phase 2 was a 10-month steady-state
demonstration of process performance. For RSWRF effluent, an ozone dosage of at least 5 mg/L
was needed for desired CEC removals. Peroxide (year-round) and ammonia (seasonal) were
added to mitigate bromate formation during ozonation. BAC removed flame retardants, and
ozonation byproducts including NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine), aldehydes, and
biodegradable organic carbon. Findings of this study imply that MF-O3-BAC treatment is
equally effective as RO-based treatment for CEC removals, but with substantially less energy
utilization.
Metric Used:
Posted: May 20th, 2011 | Filed under: Stormwater, Waste Water Treatment, Water Treatment | Tags: Advanced Treatment Alternative, Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) Removal, Cost Effective Treatment Process, Energy Savings, Environmental Impact, Improved Health | No Comments »
This paper provides an evaluation of the need and advantages of regionalization in a biosolids
dryer system that will operate with renewable energy sources and attain a beneficial use Class A
(referred to as Class AA in Florida) biosolid product to solve a looming regulatory issue. This
dryer system affords a unique and cost-effective solution for a region that has eight cities and a
county and solves the pending regulatory issue for all of these entities. This study will discuss
the measures that these nine entities, operating 16 wastewater treatment plants, have applied to
go forward in this regional system. The study will discuss how these entities are partnering
together with a private company to share the energy source to run the regional dryer. The
regional drying system will be operated based on the innovative use of landfill methane gas or
turbine generator waste heat from a private company as the energy source. In addition, the study
will provide the capital cost estimate and the results of the present worth analysis for these nine
entities in the regional system versus the current wastewater biosolids management practice of
each community providing their own separate solution for this regulatory issue. This paper is
prepared with local government utilities in mind that are currently attempting to work through
the cost dilemma of solving a regulatory issue and using an informal partnering process to unify
in a regional system versus attempting to provide a solution as a single entity.
This study indicates that the small community biosolid utility managers should strongly consider
partnering in the biosolids treatment and disposition practices through the regional facility. In
this study the regional drying facility, treating to Class A levels, is a good long term and costeffective
solution. The biosolid regulatory issue at federal, state, and county levels is a trend of
necessitating the higher level of treatment. For this regional facility, the costs for the Class A
biosolid product is comparable to the majority of the contributors current Class B practices. The
marketability of the Class A biosolid product opens many doors for the regional facility,
including use by the general public. In conclusion, the regional drying facility solution produces
a marketable beneficial use Class A product, solves the uncertainty of the current regulatory
issue for biosolids, and using renewable energy results in a more cost-effective option than each
entity attempting to provide their own biosolid management practice solution.
Metric Used:
Posted: May 3rd, 2011 | Filed under: Waste Water Treatment | Tags: Biosolids Management, Cost Effective Treatment Process, Cost Savings, Environmental Impact, Plant Optimization, Plant Sustainability, Reduced Carbon Footprint, Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions | No Comments »
The NEWater production in Singapore generates a reverse osmosis (RO) brine with more than 20% of the feed flow, which is a potential untapped source of water. A Capacitive Deionization (CDI) and an integrated pre-treatment process comprised of biological activated carbon (BAC) with an optional second step of ultrafiltration (UF) used in this study were able to provide 80% water recovery from the RO brine. Integrating the RO brine recovery to the NEWater production could potentially achieve more than 95% total water recovery for the NEWater factory. The fouling rate on CDI was relatively lower using UF effluent as compared with BAC-UF effluent. The combined BAC-UF-CDI process was able to provide more than 85% TDS removal. The total organic carbon (TOC) concentration was comparable to the RO feed water while lower cationic and anionic concentrations were achieved. The RO brine treatment process power consumption is estimated at 0.85 kWh/m3. Source: WEFTEC 2009 Proceedings
Metric Used:
Posted: August 27th, 2010 | Filed under: Waste Water Treatment | Tags: Cost Effective Treatment Process, Environmental Impact, Increased TDS Removal, Increased Water Recovery | No Comments »
Concentrate minimization is critical to future success and development of desalination technology for both wastewater reuse and drinking water applications. The overall objective of this work was to advance desalination by developing an innovative approach for concentrate minimization. The approach comprises a dual membrane system constituting a primary desalting step with reverse osmosis (RO), intermediate chemical precipitation of RO concentrate, and subsequent treatment with electrodialysis (ED) and/or electrodialysis reversal (EDR) stages. Results indicate that chemical precipitation can reduce sparingly soluble ions of concern in RO concentrate such that subsequent ED/EDR can recover approximately an additional 80 percent of water. For a RO system operating at a recovery of about 80 percent, this would result in an overall recovery of about 95 percent. Conceptual cost estimates indicate that the innovative configuration is cost-competitive, and has likely cost advantages compared to alternative concentrate minimization schemes including brine concentrator or zero-liquid-discharge. Depending on the source water quality, the innovative hybrid concentrate minimization approach developed in this work is estimated to achieve a 10 percent to 20 percent recovery enhancement compared to the conventional RO configuration. It is noted that if easy access to sewer or surface water disposal were available, the total cost of conventional RO would most likely be lower than for the innovative hybrid approach; however, other, non-economic drivers (e.g. regulatory requirements, water resource limitations, wastewater plant capacity limitations for concentrate disposal, public perception, etc.) could still dictate that an approach including concentrate minimization be considered. Source: WEFTEC 2009 Proceedings
Metric Used:
Posted: August 27th, 2010 | Filed under: Waste Water Treatment | Tags: Concentrate Volume Minimization, Cost Effective Treatment Process, Environmental Impact, Increased Water Recovery | No Comments »
Membranes, which provide a number of significant benefits, have become cost-effective for many water, wastewater, and desalination treatment applications. They are rapidly replacing conventional and traditional processes, providing benefits for new construction, upgrades, and retrofits of existing facilities. Every type of conventional water, wastewater, desalination, and water reuse treatment has a membrane alternative. Membranes have become a commodity in water treatment, as more and more applications are found to replace conventional technologies. When used in combination with different technologies, membranes may address removal of mineral and organic compounds in the water, including volatile-type compounds such as the 42 endocrine disruptors (EDCs) found in the U.S.A., pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs), and personal care products (PCPs). Membrane treatment offers a number of advantages, including higher effluent water quality, a more compact foot-print, and often times simpler operations as compared to conventional treatment. With the industry’s acceptance of membrane technologies and the rapid growth in the number of operating facilities, the costs of membrane systems are now approaching those of conventional systems. Sooner or later, membranes are likely to be in your future, either for upgrading existing facilities or considered as the preferred choice for new water reuse needs. Source: WEFTEC 2009 Proceedings
Metric Used:
Posted: August 27th, 2010 | Filed under: Waste Water Treatment | Tags: Cost Effective Treatment Process, Higher Effluent Water Quality, Increased Removal, Reduced Carbon Footprint | No Comments »