The latest EPA needs survey indicates public agencies will need to spend $105 billion to meet current secondary and advanced treatment regulations.
	Share this story |

New technologies often bring dramatic cost reductions and performance improvements to wastewater treatment, helping agencies meet onerous regulations without breaking the bank. However, the disproportionate levels of risk can slow and even jeopardize innovation — and that has to change if the water industry is to evolve in the 21st century, Dr. Denny Parker says.

Parker, senior vice president and director of technology for Brown and Caldwell, laid out a roadmap for progress during the keynote AEESP Lecture on Oct. 4 at WEFTEC 2010. He cited multiple examples of how technology has improved treatment results and lowered the price tag of compliance, but noted that widespread implementation of technologies can be painfully slow.

“Solving issues related to technology introduction in wastewater could accelerate adoption and help agencies meet requirements at lower costs,” says Parker, who has received numerous awards and distinctions during his 40 years of process engineering work at Brown and Caldwell.

“Restoring federal funding would take the burden off early adopters and allow a better spread of risk,” he says, thus accelerating the adoption of innovative technologies. “With the very large capital and operating commitments that utilities will face in the future, we need to spread the benefits of innovation more widely and rapidly.

Parker’s lecture, Introduction of New Process Technology into the Wastewater Treatment Sector, shared his insights and expertise on new process technologies, and discussed conditions favorable to their introduction, including the availability of early adopters, risk mitigation, transparent information, developmental expenditures, project opportunities and market forces.

Parker, a pioneer in introducing wastewater treatment technology, has researched the successful introduction of several wastewater treatment technologies: the High Purity Oxygen Activated Sludge process (HPOAS); Flocculator Clarifiers; the Trickling Filter/Solids Contact process (TF/SC); Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR); and Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) technologies, as well as the Membrane Bioreactor process.

His research found that each technology introduction followed a similar pattern of adoption and share common ingredients for success. The results can help utilities define a recipe for success in choosing the right treatment technology — traditional or emerging — and make better bets when designing or upgrading facilities.

“Although innovative wastewater treatment technologies are created to respond to changing regulatory requirements, increase efficiency, enhance sustainability, or reduce capital or operating costs,” Parker says, “the disproportionate levels of risk that adopters assume can slow or jeopardize innovation."

Managing risk while avoiding failure in adopting new technologies like these, he says, involves research on a small scale, then ramping up to learn from the first large-scale applications. “As a result, future applications are optimized before the technology is used more widely,” Parker says.

With the latest EPA needs survey indicating public agencies will need to spend $105 billion to meet current secondary and advanced treatment regulations, the need to leverage technology to cut the cost of compliance has never been more urgent. And that price tag is deemed conservative, as it doesn’t account for pending regulations. For example the EPA’s proposed nutrient removal requirements for Florida are estimated by the Florida Water Environment Association to cost agencies $25 billion to $50 billion.

What technologies are currently on the horizon that might help close the gap between funding and compliance? Several are in the works (see chart), at varying stages of adoption. Three promising solutions currently at the early adopter stage include:

• ANAMMOX: The Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation process, both cost-effective and sustainable, removes ammonium from wastewater and ammonia from waste gas. Operational costs are reduced by up to 90 percent and CO2 emissions are decreased by up to 90 percent. Already used in Asia and Europe, Anammox is seeing its first U.S. installation in Pierce County, Wash., to increase levels of nutrient removal, as well as water reclamation and “zero discharge” efforts. It also will replace large pipes and equipment to maintain the system, which is more than 25 years old in some areas.
• BIOLOGICAL CONTACT: This is a novel, cost-effective wet weather treatment technology that addresses TSS and COD (BOD5) removal during high-flow events. Often, it can be implemented in existing wastewater treatment facilities with few modifications. Unlike physical/chemical treatment alternatives, it can achieve secondary treatment requirements for both BOD5 and SS. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority in Chapel Hill, N.C. has been enjoying these benefits and more since building a plant using biological contact plant in 2006.
• CAMBI: This process typically doubles digester capacity and reduces sludge volume by increasing biogas production and dewaterability, while converting sludge to a low odor soil conditioner. Widely deployed in Europe, Cambi is seeing its first U.S. implementation in Washington, D.C.

Historically, research has been the basis for process innovation; unlike earlier decades, applied research at the pilot scale has been driven either by research foundations or the private sector. Today, Parker says, “vendors, consultants and agency staff are placed in conflicting roles of being the advocates of a new technology, while at the same time being expected to objectively address its effectiveness.”

Parker advocates that WERF and WEFTEC play a continuing role in the independent evaluation of new technologies. The greatest risk of all is that the industry falls further behind the cost/regulation curve. That, according to Parker, is a risk none us can afford.

Brown and Caldwell is at the forefront of new wastewater treatment technology development and implementation, helping wastewater utilities determine the right solution for their treatment needs, understanding the time, cost, risk mitigation and ratepayer benefits of multiple solutions, and helping them consider where each technology is in the introduction process in order to make a better decision.