Environmental Decision Support System (EDSS) for ...

Environmental Decision Support System (EDSS) for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Plant Design The Business Case J. Porro1, M. Garrido2, J. Comas1, and M. Poch1

1. Universitat de Girona (ESP) 2. University of California Irvine (USA)

TECHNICAL WORKSHOP: NEW SOLUTIONS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Girona, Catalonia, Spain 7th February 2014

Agenda Today’s Challenges in the Water Sector State-of-the-Art for WWT Technology Selection Novedar_EDSS Software Market Potential Case Studies (Italy - USA) Technology Transfer Conclusions Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Engineering

Today’s Challenges in the Water Sector

Source: www.nyc.gov

Fast Growing Urban Environment • Rapid urban development across many parts of the world:

–China, India, and countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America (City Mayors Foundation, 2013). • New wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are needed to keep up with demand and meet the public health and ecological standards that are increasingly being enforced.

Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Engineering


Stricter Water Quality Standards • Where growth is not as fast, like in the U.S. and Europe, new WWTPs are in less demand; however, there is still need to retrofit existing WWTPs to meet more stringent water quality regulations. • Stricter WQ stds drive technology



Credit: REUTERS/Tim Wimborne

Climate Change / Water Scarcity / Technology • Climate Change impacts water and vice versa (ie. Water / Climate / Energy Nexus) • Increasing need for water reuse drives technology



Treatment Technology • Growing number of leading edge technology conventional wastewater treatment • Physical need for technology evaluation based on:

alternatives

to

– Urban Growth: leading edge, conventional – Stricter WQ Stds: leading edge, conventional – Climate Change / Water reuse: leading edge

• Technology selection is important because technology performance (ie. Energy, sludge, chemicals) impacts bottom line


Life Cycle Cost Return on Investment

Capital Costs

Economic

Traditional Criteria New Criteria

Public Perception Noise

Social Political

Employee Health Job Creation

Sustainability

Rate Increases GHG emissions

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Water Quality

7


Today’s Challenges in the Water Sector Why selecting and designing a WWTP is complex? • Rapid urban development • Stricter WQ Stds • Climate Change / Water Scarcity • Many possible combinations of technologies between WWTP lines (ie. water / sludge) • Many different objectives, criteria, and priorities (ie. Environmental vs Economic – Management vs Operators – Space vs Cost) • Need deterministic and heuristic knowledge • Need integrated evaluation of the whole WWTP

Need EDSS to help integrate, process, and interpret data for WWTP selection Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Engineering

The Current Approach (state-of-the-art)

WWTP Simulators For technology performance


Maintaining Excel Cost Spreadsheets Budget Costing for Whole Life Cost Analysis *the following list only includes the plant/equipment that varies between each option, all other equipment is assumed to have the same construction and operating costs and so does not impact whole life cost calculation Replaceme nt of Component Manpower Other Design s eg. (maintenanc Consumabl Life (mecha membranes Depth e / operator es nical (time of Power time) (chemicals equipment interval structur Budget Cost Requiremen (mandays/y etc)($,000/y typically years / Process Unit No. Unit Value e (m) ($,000) t (kWh/d) ear) ear) 15years) $,000) Sludge Treatment Sludge Stabilization Aerobic Tank SQ. 1 1,560 7 civil Meter 60 Aerobic Tank 1 lump 15,250 Mech/process 15 Dewatering Building SQ. Footprint 1 Meter 1,050 60 Sludge 15 Transfer Pump 3 Each Belt Filter Press Machine 2 Each Polymer Makeup System 2 Each Sludge Handling Equipment


Decision CriteriumPlusTM Software For assigning priorities and weightings


LCA Software

For Environmental Impact

40.0 35.0

Impact Score kPt

30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 CBOD MBBR Human health

MLE Circ

MLE Rect

Ecosystem quality

Nit/denit MBBR

Climate change

MBR Resources

Then The Integration Iterative – must do for each scenario LCA + WWTP Simulator Excel Cost Sheets Decision Criterium Scenario

CAS

Solids kg/d

Energy

O&M

WQ

Investment

Environmental / Non-economic

Novedar_EDSS Software (Molinos-Senante et al., 2012; Garrido-Baserba et al., 2012)

a research consortium of nine Spanish universities, and two Dutch universities

Innovative Tool pushing the State-of-the-art NOVEDAR_Tool does what is already being done, BUT ALSO: • Streamlines technology evaluations by integrating technology performance, cost, and environmental impact data all into one platform

TIME

$

Business Case

• Includes Cost Benefit Analysis with Environmental Externalities – Through partnership with University of Valencia, Novedar_EDSS tool adds Shadow Pricing for better WQ, reuse, etc., whereas the State-of-the-art tools do not


Input Data Can define the following for any given scenario: • Influent Data • Effluent Requirements • Priorities • Cost Benefit Data • LCA Emission Factors • Sludge Management Options • Pathogens and Target Compounds


Start Engine


Output / Selection


Summary


Robust Decision Support EDSS provides scoring of viable secondary treatment alternatives based on any combination and weigthing of the following categories: •Economic • O&M • Investment •Non-Economic • Environmental • Aesthetic Impacts • Operational


Market Potential

Market Potential

Key attraction is Eco / Sustainability feature, which people are wanting more and more

Technical, Environmental & Economic Challenges


Market Potential

State-of-the-Art Tool



Case Studies

Case Study (USA)

City of Fort Meyers, FL (Steichen et al., 2009) • 45,000 M3/day (12 mgd) • Phase 1 - 30,000 M3/day (8 mgd) • Effluent disposal – Reclaimed water for irrigation, and – Deep well injection during rainy season

• Short list of process alternatives: – – – – –

Alt. 1 - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Alt. 2a - MLE circular basins Alt. 2b - MLE rectangular basins Alt. 3a – MBBR/DAF Nit/Denit Alt. 3b – MBBR/DAF CBOD removal


Case Study (USA) - Effluent Requirements

• Secondary treatment – CBOD5 < 20 mg/L – TSS < 20 mg/L)

• Nutrients – NO3-N < 10 mg/L – No ammonia, TN or TP limits

• High level disinfection – TSS < 5 mg/L – Fecal Coliform • < 25 per 100 mL, single sample • 75% of samples below detection

– 1.0 mg/L chlorine residual Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Engineering

Case Study (USA) - Criteria Weighting (Traditional Approach)

Criteria Weighting Category Sub-criteria Reliability 20% 40% Proven performance 20% Operational flexibility 40% Ease of operations Total (100) 100% Impacts on Neighbors 35% 35% Reduces odor potential 10% Minimizes truck traffic 20% Aesthetics 35% Public safety and acceptance Total (100) 100% Implementation and O&M 20% 50% Ease of permitting 25% O&M Requirements 25% Constructability / Schedule Total (100) 100% Sustainability 20% 20% Flexibility to accommodate future treatment requirements 25% Hydraulics, flow control, and yard piping 30% Effluent water quality 25% Equipment has good safety record Total (100) 100% Infrastructure Factors 5% 30% Land use 50% Hydraulics, flow control, and yard piping 20% Green technology Total (100) 100% 100% Total Weighting (100%)


Case Study (USA) - Criteria Weighting (NOVEDAR)


Case Study (USA) - Economic Results

MBR

MLE

MBR:MLE

NOV

SOA

NOV

SOA

NOV

SOA

O&M M$

2.20

3.80

2.10

3.00

1.05

1.27

Investment M$

82.13

108.00

57.07

82.00

1.44

1.32

Total Equiv M$

114.14

168.00

88.79

126.00

1.29

1.33


Case Study (USA) - Non-Economic Results

Non-economic scoring – Traditional Methodology

3.93

3.81

NOVEDAR Scores

4.25


Case Study (USA) - Recommendation

Recommended MBBR as the Most Sustainable Treatment Solution • Economics – Competitive capital cost – Lowest O&M costs

• Environment – Favorable LCA results

• Social – Small physical footprint – Simplistic operations – Neighbor friendly facility

General Conclusions Consistent with NOVEDAR_EDSS


Case Study (Italy) ALTO TREVIGIANO SERVIZI

 Upgrading/Retrofitting 3 existing WWTPs: Asolo, Sernaglia, Castelfranco Veneto: 3 x Modified Ludzack- Ettinger + Phosphorous Removal Versus  Constructing one large centralized WWTP: Step-Feed + Nitrogen and Phosphorous Removal (Deammonification sidestream treatement) + Biogas


Case Study (Italy) Scenario

Costs

Scores Cost Benefit Analyis Sludge Energy

O&M (M€/yr) investiment (M€) total equivalent costs (M€) reactants (M€/yr) total economic environmental operational total equivalent costs (M€) Accumulate benefit (M€) net profit value (M€) Biogas Production Sludge Production Electricity consumption rate (kWh/m3)

Individual WWTPs WWTPs 1 - 3 Centralized WWTP 1 2 3 1+2+3 4 All Lines Secondary All Lines Secondary All Lines Secondary All Lines Secondary All Lines Secondary 0.27 0.1 0.57 0.17 2.12 0.39 2.96 0.66 5.15 0.47 3.75 2.48 6.39 4.49 18.55 11.02 28.69 17.99 58.59 13.39 7.02 3.64 16.79 7.57 57.38 18.2 81.19 29.41 152.88 22.01 0.62 0 1.07 0 3.24 0 4.93 0 2.79 0 4.46 4.94 4.33 4.45 6.74 1.10 1.28 1.50 1.43 1.53 1.61 1.90 1.08 1.27 2.58 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.62 7.02 16.79 57.38 81.19 152.88 0 0 0.97 0.97 22.7 -8.07 -18.79 -56.41 -83.27 -130.18 0 0 96.2 96.20 127.75 1271.97 2921.98 13807.87 18001.82 16375.71 0.884

0.884

0.894

0.894

0.894

Case Study (Italy)

Scenario

O&M (M€/yr) investiment (M€) Costs total equivalent costs (M€) reactants (M€/yr) total economic Scores environmental operational total equivalent costs (M€) Cost Benefit Accumulate benefit (M€) Analyis net profit value (M€)

WWTPs 1 - 3 1+2+3 Secondary All Lines 2.96 0.66 17.99 28.69 81.19 29.41 0 4.93 4.45 1.43 1.27 1.75 81.19 0.97 -83.27

Centralized WWTP 4 All Lines Secondary 0.47 5.15 58.59 13.39 152.88 22.01 2.79 0 6.74 1.53 2.58 2.62 152.88 22.70 -130.18

Highlights reality that theoretical best configuration cannot always be selected in practice especially when retrofitting. Best practical retrofit selected.

Technology Transfer

Source: Center for Technology Transfer, University of Belgrade

Novedar_EDSS Technology Transfer Process

Commercialization Demo Research


Novedar_EDSS Technology Transfer / Business Case Model

Public

Benefits

Reduced Cost

Water Authority / Utility

Research

Business Opportunities

Commercialization

Consultancy More Competitive More Projects

- Physical Drivers - Tool Limitations

Novedar_EDSS Licensing

Sales

Business Opportunities Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Engineering

Conclusions

• Novedar_EDSS research fills real gap in Water Sector • Strong Market Potential • Final step is always human decision but Novedar_EDSS software tool demonstrates strong potential in decision support for real applications as seen in USA and Italy Case Studies • Software still under development/validation for commercialization • Novedar_EDSS story provides effective Technology Transfer Model


Acknowledgements: University of Valencia Francesco Fatone (U. Verona) Daniele Renze (ATS) Aqualogy A. Shaw, M. Steichen (B&V) E. Becker (ARCADIS)

Conceiving Wastewater Treatment in 2020 Energetic, environmental and economic challenges (Water_2020) Sonia Suárez Martínez Group of Environmental Engineering & Processes University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain) START date: 21/11/2012 END date: 20/11/2016

Conventional WWTP

Conventional WWTP CO2 COD, N, P Solids

Treated water Sewage Treatment Plant: Activated Sludge Process

Energy

Sludge

Current situation (Problems)  Contribution of WWT to climate change (7 and 10 Mt CO2-eq emissions of CH4 and N2O in 2009, EU GHG inventory)

 Water scarcity and drought problems (17% Europe territory affected in 2007, COM/2007/0414)

 Energy consumption related to WWTPs is important (1% of electricity consumption, 40% of operational costs)

 Need of Odour management due to environmental legislation and social concerns  WWT implies environmental, social and economical concerns at a worldwide level

Objective The aim of the Action is to face innovation in wastewater treatment from a holistic point of view, in which technological, environmental, energetic, economic and social factors are included.

WHY COST ACTION? • Funds European, bottom-up networks of scientists and researchers across all science and technology fields. • Does not fund research itself, but provides support for networking activities. • Active through a range of networking tools, such as meetings, workshops, conferences, training schools, short-term scientific missions (STSMs) and dissemination. • Open to researchers from universities, public and private research institutions, NGOs and industry.

Change of Paradigm

Water_2020 CO2 COD, N, P, Solids Micropollutants

GHG

VOCs High quality water (reuse)

Sewage Treatment Plant: Innovative Technologies

Energy

Biosolids Recovery products

Key words of Water_2020  Based on Innovative Technologies  Integration: holistic approach of the plant (balance between water, sludge, energy and gases)  Multi- disciplinarity: technical, environmental,

energetic, social and economical aspects  Flexibility: WWTP adapted to the specific needs of each country (size, location, point of discharge, etc.)  Equilibrium: countries, gender, methodologies, senior/young, innovation/application

WHY Water_2020?  Effective cooperation between experts from different fields,

stakeholders and countries  Creation of strong European network on sustainable WWT  Reduce fragmentation and topic specific works  Promote and share experiences in Innovation  Promote the role of ESR in the networking activities (STSM, training schools)  Excellence training opportunities for ESR during the  Horizon 2020 (EU FP 2014-2020): excellent science, active involvement of industry, facing current societal needs (ESR)

Objectives and Impacts

Scientific and Technological challenges  Energetic self-sufficient WWTP (improved energy

balance, more efficient control and operation)  Resource recovery and water reuse (energy, nutrients, bioplastics, etc.)  Minimisation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) footprint  Minimising environmental impact (odours, organic and inorganic micropollutants)

Impacts  Scientific and Technological o Development of new technologies for water, sludge and odour treatment o Technological thresholds integrated with economical, environmental and social implications  Economic o WWTPs as reliable and feasible installations aimed at reducing pollution and recovery resources

Impacts  Economic o Strong collaboration University-Industry to foster innovation and competitiveness of European water sector  Societal o Generation of high quality and safe waters (conventional pollutants, emerging contaminants, ecotoxicity) o Training and promotion of ESR

Scientific Programme

Scientific Structure Implementation of sustainable processes

Environmental and Economic impact assessment

New Technologies: - Energy efficient - Resource recovery

WG1. Efficient technologies Treatment of sludge • Pretreatment technologies for enhanced biogas production • Alternative sludge management technologies Treatment of water • Energy efficient nutrient removal • Membrane bioreactors • Micropollutants and recalcitrants • Anaerobic treatment of wastewater • Two-phase bioreactors • Aerobic granular bioreactors Production of energy • Bioelectrochemical systems • Hydrogen

WG2. Resource recovery tech.

Treatment of water • Aerobic granular sludge for alginate recovery • (Bio) Electrochemical systems for recovery of metals, organics, chemicals • Storage polymer production by mixed culture (bioplastics) Bioplastics • Phosphorous and nitrogen compounds • Cellulose Key-points • Economic viability (costs of operating WWTP; value of the product) • Market size (competition with other existing products) • Technical feasibility • Risk associated with end use of product • Social acceptance and regulation

Struvite

WG3. Ass. Environmental & Economic impacts Assessment of environmental impacts • Micropollutants • Greenhouse Gas and Odour Emission • Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Social perception • Recycle water perception • Differences in approaches over WWT for countries under economic crises Assessment of economic impacts • Economics of efficient technologies (WG1) • Economic viability of resource recovery (WG2)

WG4. Process Integration • Decision Support System (DSS): Integration of models, databases, knowledge and other decision aids within a structured easy-tounderstand platform to make consistent and high quality decisions • A Benchmark Simulation Protocol to compare control / operational strategies in wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). • Plant-wide modelling: Development and validation of a library of compatible models for all Unit-Processes in advanced WWTP • Plant-wide control: Development and validation of supervisory control strategies for optimising plant operation

• New paradigm: integration of concepts

• Cost analysis: efficiency of different WWTP in EU • Overall Environmental Impact (LCA, Carbon Footprinting, etc.) • Social Acceptance: Users willingness to use and pay for recovered resources

WG Interactions Guidelines to optimize processes

WG1: Energy efficient technologies

WG2: Resource recovery technologies

WG4: Process Integration

WG3: Environmental & Economic Impact

• System-wide modelling • Optimisation of WWTP Sustainable technologies

WG4: Development of unit process models

Design & Operation parameters

• Decision Support System

Water_2020

Structure & Organisation

Proposed Consortium •28 Countries • 60 Universities & Research Centres •15 Companies

Networking activities Annual General meetings (2-3 days) o Management Committee meeting o Individual sessions of WGs to follow achievement of

objectives o Joint Workshop to exchange results and plan interactions technology developers ↔ impact assessment specialists

23 - 25 June 2014 Verona, Italy

Networking activities 

Semi- Annual meetings of WGs o Monitoring scientific progress o Elaborating position papers o Preparing annual meeting



Training Schools (ESR) o Topic: Resource recovery o Location: Istambul, Turkey o Date: 10-12 September 2014

Expected deliverable from 4 TS Master Program between 3-4 Universities

Networking activities  International IWA Congresses ecoSTP 2014

Ecotechnologies for Wastewater Treatment. Technical, Environmental & Economic Challenges.  2nd edition Verona, Italy, 23-25 June 2014 

 Short-term Scientific Missions  Share

knowledge and equipment  Avoid duplicity  Open call until 28 February

Deliverables  Website: www.water2020.eu  Guidance for Water_2020 (conception, design,

upgrading, operation)

o Book (International publisher and/or sponsored by

COST) o Decision Support System

 Master Program between 3-4 Universities

Dissemination

Who?  Scientific community. Innovative and optimized

technologies for sustainable WWT  Water industry. Business opportunity to solve a current problem outlined by international Water Authorities  Society. Citizens are aware of water scarcity and safety; Opportunity of career development for ESR  Economy. Operational costs savings and resource recovery as alternatives to improve water pricing  Policy makers. Water quality required is stricter

How?  A web site will be launched and kept up-dated, which

will incorporate a discussion platform for partners  Publication of scientific results in well known scientific papers and congresses  Publications in technical engineering journals and websites to reach water industry  Congresses, open to the scientific and industrial community

How?  On-site visits to show successful innovation projects

carried out by Action partners  Leaflets, press releases, social networking services, videos and news flashes will be provided to reach society  Policy recommendations will be elaborated based on emissions vs. ecotoxicity data  Book and DSS as the main deliverable with clear guidance for Water_2020 conception, design, upgrading and operation

Conventional WWTP

WWTP in 2020 ?

Conceiving Wastewater Treatment in 2020 Energetic, environmental and economic challenges (Water_2020) Sonia Suárez Martínez Group of Environmental Engineering & Processes University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)