USEPA Peak Flows Management Rule:What’s on the Table This Time?

Jim FitzpatrickNational Wet Weather Technology Leader

The Scioto MileCourtesy experiencecolumbus.com

7 March 2019

2003 DRAFT98,000 comments

2005 DRAFTDied at OMB

2019Version 3.0

Third Time’s a Charm?

2

He’s the horse of a different color you’ve heard tell about.

EPA Rulemaking Schedule

Information - https://www.epa.gov/npdes/peak-flows-sewage-treatment-plantsDocket - https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0420

3

15 Oct 2018 Stakeholder Technical Roundtable

Also ~45 observers. Facilitated 6-hr discussion.4

ACWA/States(6)

NACWA/Utilities(7)

Public Health(2)

U.S

. EPA

(4)

WEF/Engineers(5)Ea

ster

n Re

sear

ch G

roup

(3)

CRR(1)

NGOs(6)

Tribes(2)

B&T(1)

WWEMA(1)

38 Participants

Roundtable Participants

5

Participant NotesEPA Chris Kloss and Lisa Biddle are lead staff.

Eastern Research Group EPA consultant. Mark Klingenstein.NGOs • American Rivers most engaged.

• NRDC fairly silent and noncommittal.• Cahaba River Society vocally and emotionally opposed to blending.

Native American Tribes Environmental justiceACWA / States Generally support blending. Need EPA support.NACWA / Utilities 3 of 7 were from EPA Region 7.Public Health Experts USFDA (shellfish), Johns Hopkins…mostly academiaWEF / Engineers Blending / auxiliary treatment is sound and proven.WWEMA Technologies are ready. Just give us targets to hit.CRR / B&T Apply ILOC vs. EPA nationwide. “Guardrails” already exist in NPDES

permitting framework.

Brief Summary from Roundtable• Topic 1: Operational Challenges

• Same/similar as 2010 Listening Sessions & 2014 Experts Forum• Top 4 Messages = One-Size-Does-NOT-Fit-All, Realistic I/I Reduction, Integrated

Planning, Resiliency• Toolbox must include blending and auxiliary treatment options

• Topic 2: Protecting Public Health• Blending/auxiliary treatment is much better than backups, overflows or bypass• Concern = pathogens (bacteria, parasites, viruses)• Viruses in shellfish New designated use and WQBEL?• Quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRA)

• Topic 3: Emerging Technologies and Operational Practices• Peak flow technologies, design standards and practices already established.• What bugs need to be killed and how dead do they need to be?• Biological facility expansions are the wrong answer. Higher cost, higher risk, no

apparent benefit over physical/chemical alternatives.

EPA message = Clarity, Consistency and Transparency 6

Public Input

7

Lessoning Session #1 Listening Session #2 Listening Session #316 Oct 2018 24 Oct 2018 30 Oct 2018

EPA HQ (DC) EPA Region 7 (Lenexa, KS) Webinar

• 4 support blending• 1 promote manhole cover device

Zero oppose blending

• 5 support blending

Zero oppose blending

• 4 support blending• 2 oppose blending

Examples from email campaign:“Don’t allow sewage where we swim”

~290 more like this in the docket

8

Wet-weather blending is not a bypass

• NPDES bypass rule intended for baseflow conditions, not POTW peak flows• If blending and meeting permit limits, don’t call it bypass or diversion 9

Background diagram from:U.S. EPA, Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows Listening Session, June 30, 2010

Background diagram from:U.S. EPA, Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows Listening Session, 2010

Blending TreatmentFlow Path

“Blending” practice is well proven with combined sewers

Separate sewer application has same treatment challenges and effluent concerns. Performance data from combined sewer cases are applicable.

10

Lemay WWTP Bissell WWTP

From: N. Frankenberg, G. Tocou, D. Hickey (2012) Disinfecting >700 mgd of Wet Weather Flow at Two Wastewater Facilities, 5 Cities Plus.

Not ye oldeblending

If auxiliary treatment, don’t call it bypass or blending… especially if EHRT technology

11

Background diagram from: U.S. EPA, Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Peak Flows Listening Session, June 30, 2010

Auxiliary

Added value• Significant additional

infrastructure investment• Auxiliary facilities

increase resiliency and redundancy

• EHRT effluent quality equivalent to secondary effluent

Auxiliary TreatmentFlow Path

Site-specific Technology Evaluation

12

Clar

ifica

tion

Alte

rnat

ives

Settling-Based Filtration-Based Flotation-Based1. Conventional Settling

-Rectangular, Circular, Square, RTB, Shaft 1. Shallow Granular Media 1. ConventionalFloatables Removal-Skimmers, Scum baffles2. Vortex (Swirl Concentrator) 2. Deep Granular Media

3. Lamella Settler3. Microscreens, Woven Media

-Salsnes Filter, Eco MAT®Filter, Hydrotech Discfilter, SuperDisc™, Forty-X™ Disc, Quantum™ Disk

2. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)4. Chemically Enhanced Settling

4. Floating Media-MetaWater High Speed Filter, BKT BBF-F

a. Conventional Basin

b. Sequencing Batch- e.g. ClearCove Flatline EPT

c. Lamella Settler 5. Pile Cloth Media-AquaPrime™, infini-D™ 3. Polymer-aided DAF

-Various suppliersd. Solids Contact / Recirculation- e.g. DensaDeg®, CONTRAFAST®

6. Compressible Media-Fuzzy Filter™, FlexFilter™, FiltraFast™

e. Ballasted Flocculation- Microsand (e.g. ACTIFLO®, RapiSand™,

Densadeg XRC™)- Magnetite (e.g CoMag™)

7. Fixed-Film Contact-Biological Aerated Filter (BAF),

BioFlexFilter™4. Biocontact + DAF

-Captivator®5. Suspended Growth Contact

-BIOACTIFLO™, BioMag™, Bio-CES

Enhanced HRTHigh-Rate Treatment (HRT)Primary Removal Equivalent *

* If coagulation/flocculation provided, HRT EHRT (in some cases)

HRCHRF

Why EHRT?

• Better disinfection• Removes colloidal TSS, turbidity and

associated organics and other pollutants• Lower disinfectant dose required

• Equivalent to secondary effluent quality at lower cost

• “Non-biological peak flow secondary treatment processes” per 8th Circuit Court (Iowa League of Cities v. EPA)

• Considered BADCT by some regulators

Minimize pathogen risks. Small footprint. Lower cost than biological expansion. 13

Other Pilot and Full-Scale Auxiliary EHRT References

Auxiliary EHRT technologies are more established than you might think14

(pilot)

Full-Scale Auxiliary EHRT Facilities Operating in the U.S.

EPA Region State1 Massachusetts, New Hampshire

2 New York

3 DC, Maryland

4 Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,Tennessee

5 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin

6 Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas

7 Kansas

9 California

10 Oregon, Washington

• 30+ operating in U.S. since ~1995• 60+ operating worldwide

High-rate filters (HRF) offer same TSS removal as HRC…

…typically without chemicals15

Compressible Media Pile Cloth Media

AquaDiamond®

AquaPrime™

Cour

tesy

Aqu

a-Ae

robi

c Sys

tem

s. In

c.

Courtesy Nexom

Infini-D™

FiltraFast™ (Courtesy of Suez)

Applied R&D of HRF Technologies

16

A Soggy Day at the Pilot Plant

Typical Wet-Weather Samples

Influent EffluentCMF PilotSpringfield, OHOct 2010 – Jun 2011

Compressible Media Filter Test Unit

UntreatedTreatedHRT PilotsSt. Joseph, MOSpring 2009

CMF PilotSpringfield, MO

2014

HRF PilotsNelson ComplexJohnson County, KSSpring 2008

Advanced Demonstration FacilityColumbus, GA1990’s

HRF PilotsLittle Rock, AR

2016

HRT PilotsKing County, WA2002

Compressible Media Filter from Concept to 100-mgd Reality

• $33.5MM $0.34/gpd (2011; Springfield, OH) • 320 ft x 120 ft footprint• 3-MG built-in storage, self-cleaning• No added staff, SCADA-controlled operation

Cost-effective CSO treatment and disinfection17

100-mgd Compressible Media FilterSpringfield, Ohio

Efflu

ent A

vera

ge * TSS 14 mg/L

CBOD5 20 mg/LNH3-N 2.3 mg/LTP 0.4 mg/LE. Coli ** 56 #/100 mL* 63 events Mar 2015 – May 2017** NaOCl avg dose = 4 mg/L

Advances in Pile Cloth Media Filter

• Larger disk and unit capacity• 10 to 24 mgd per cell, depends on TSS loading• Similar footprint as ballasted flocculation

• Deeper basin for better solids handling• Heavy solids drop to grit/sludge hoppers• Floatables stay above filter• Filters in optimal zone for small particles

• 5-micron polyester microfiber media• Effluent equivalent to compressible media• Better wear than previous generation nylon

Adapted for primary and auxiliary wet-weather applications 18Images courtesy Aqua-Aerobic Systems

AquaPrime™

Influ

ent C

hann

elEfflu

ent

Chan

nel Scum

Trough

BackwashCollectors

Reference Dual-Use EHRT in Illinois

Reference list continues to grow…

Pile cloth filters• Dual-use since 2012

(tertiary/CSO PCE)• Traveling bridge• 84/168-mgd (avg/pk)

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District• 72-mgd design average daily flow• 144-mgd peak daily flow

19

Phot

o co

urte

sy A

qua-

Aero

bic S

yste

ms

Other Reference Applications• Widespread use in tertiary applications

• Same mechanical design and equipment as primary/CSO/SSO applications

• California Energy Commission primary filter study• 2017-Present: Linda County WWTP, full-scale side-by-side vs. primary

clarifiers

20

Location Application Peak Flow (mgd) Startup

Ope

ratin

g Fox Metro, IL Tertiary/CSO 168 2005

Wood Dale, IL Tertiary/SSO 14 2014

Linda County, CA Primary Influent 2.5 July 2017

Rushville, IN Tertiary/CSO 12.6 Aug 2017D

esig

n /

Cons

truc

tion

Sand Island, HI Primary Effluent 1 Dec 2018

Oak Hill, WV Primary Influent 2.6 Jan 2019

Youngstown, OH CSO 40 Jun 2019

Little Rock, AR Tertiary/Primary Effluent 58 Jun 2020

Johnson County, KS Tertiary/Primary Influent 115 Sep 2020

From: Caliskaner, O., G. Tchobanoglous, Z. Wu, R. Young, C. Paez, B. Davis, B. Mansell, P. Ackman, T. Reid, J. Dyson (2018) Performance of Full Scale and Demonstration-Scale Primary Filtration Projects, WEFTEC.

Dual-use Auxiliary Facilities

Capital investment also improves performance during dry weather instead of just infrequent wet weather 21

Cleaner Effluent Lower Energy Usage

Case Study – Little Rock, Arkansas

• Finite volume

• Post-event cleaning

• Odor control

• Large footprint

Parallel treatment alternative deemed more resilient and cost-effective than original plan which relied solely on doubling EQ volume

22

Scott Hamilton Drive Peak Flow Facility30-MG Collection System EQ

36-mgd Adams Field WRF13-MG EQ

Dual-Use Filter for Adams Field

• (A) Treat wet-weather flows 5% of time (B) Improve UV disinfection 100% of time

• Compared to EQ basin expansion:o More resiliency, not limited by finite volumeo Much smaller site, no additional odor controlo Dry-weather water quality benefito Lower life-cycle cost

• Dec 2015 – NPDES permit from ADEQ, no USEPA comments

• 2016 – Onsite pilot, TBL technology evaluation, reference facility tours, pile cloth filter recommended:o Simple O&Mo No chemicalso No alkalinity or effluent foaming issueso Lowest life-cycle costo Non-potable reuse potential

23

Triple Bottom Line EvaluationEHRT Process EHRT Technology

CES with Ballasted Flocculation

ACTIFLO® (Veolia/Kruger)

CoMag® (Evoqua)

Compressible Media Filtration

FlexFilter™ (WesTech/WWETCO)

Fuzzy Filter™ (Schreiber)

Pile Cloth Media Filtration MegaDisk® (Aqua-Aerobics)

Little Rock 2016 pilot with new pile cloth media performed better than in 2008 side-by-side trials with previous generation media in Johnson County, Kansas. 24

Dual-Use EHRT Under Construction

Four bids on 100% design• $23.9MM for 58-mgd EHRT $0.41/gpd (2018; Little Rock, AR)

• Dual-Use Filter, UV, Effluent Pump Station• 2020 startup 25

Other Relevant Points

• Nutrient Removal• Additional P removal with dual-use HRF• HRF compatible with bio- or chem-P without more

chemical usage

• Wet Weather Regulatory Issues• USEPA CSO Control Policy - EHRT technologies clearly

allowed• USEPA SSO/Peak Flow Policy - Still under development

o 8th Circuit – EHRT allowed thanks to Iowa League of Cities v. EPA.

o Outside 8th Circuit - Case-by-case. Precedents include KS, MA, NH, NY, NJ, OH, OR, TX, WI.o CRR v. EPA – Motion filed Jan 3 to restart

litigation. CRR claims EPA “fraud on the court”o New USEPA rulemaking

26

Circuits for U.S. Court of Appeals

Regions for U.S. EPA

Enhance Clarification to Enhance Either Bio-P or Chem-P Removal

27

From Schauer, P. and deBarbadillo, C. (2009) Pushing the Envelope with Low Phosphorus Limits, PNCWA

Lower TP…

…requires lower TSS

Enhanced P removal and wet-weather treatment

• SSO control outside 8th Circuit• Expand 7-mgd WWTP to 19-mgd ADF and

upgrade to TP<0.5 mg/L, TN<10 mg/L• 115-mgd HRF + Disinfection = $23MM

$0.20/gpd (2018; Johnson County, KS)• 2020 startup with CMAR design-build

28

Tomahawk Creek WWTF

Take Home Messages

• Peak Flows Rule needs to provide clarity, consistency, and transparency

• Apply ILOC v. EPA decision nationwide

• Blending is not a bypass. Peak flow management instead of blending.

• Permit “guardrails” = TBEL and WQBEL procedures already exist in NPDES. Tweak inputs and monitoring for wet weather realities.

• We have the technologies. 100% biological treatment not recommended.

• Tons of supporting data already reported to EPA from decades of operation under the CSO Control Policy + two decades of operation of EHRT facilities.

29

Words matter for peak flow management success

If treating adequately, don’t imply lack of treatment. Use accurate language to describe design and operation. Avoid connotations and misinterpretations.

30

Instead of: Consider:Blending Peak flow managementBypass Flow split, control, or regulateDivert Intercept or regulate

Diversion Structure Interceptor or regulator structureExcess flow Peak flow

Primary treatmentSecondary treatment

SettlingBiological treatmentAuxiliary treatment

Secondary treatment train Biological treatment trainActivated sludge train

Jim FitzpatrickPrincipal Process Engineer+1 913-458-3695FitzpatrickJD@bv.com

Bob O’BryanProject Manager+1 614-454-4397OBryanBR@bv.com

Sid SenguptaProject Director+1 513-936-5121SenguptaS@bv.com

Five Rivers Fountain and RiverscapeCourtesy discoverdayton.org

Bullpen

32

Auxiliary Treatment Strategy

33

• Optimize for intermittent wet-weather flows• Complement inherent limitations of storage and biological treatment• Decades of success• Auxiliary facilities instead of bypass per 40 CFR 122.41(m)

Biological Treatment Facilities

Rece

ivin

g St

ream

Qpeak

(1.5 to 3) x Qavg

Qaux

Auxiliary Treatment FacilitiesFlow Control (Gravity vs. INF or EFF Pumping)

Screening

Grit Removal (Optional)

Clarification

Effluent Disinfection