Water Treatment Services by WaterSolve, Grand Rapids MI

« Back to 2008 Events 2006 Archived Events »

February 6-7, 2007 Exhibitor Joint Michigan AWWA/WEA Exposition Lansing, MI
April 13-15, 2007 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » WEDA Annual Midwest Chapter Meeting Louisville, KY
May 27 - June 1, 2007 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » WODCON XVIII - Global Dredging Congress Lake Buena Vista, FL
November 13 - 17, 2007 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » WEFTEC - 80th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference San Diego, CA


Presentation Title: Geotube® Dewatering Containers in Environmental Dredging 101 by Brian J. Mastin, PhD and Gregg E. Lebster WaterSolve, LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan
Abstract Confined Placement Areas (CPAs) are not always a viable containment and processing option for fine grain residuals produced during environmental rehabilitation and maintenance dredging. A suitable upland or underwater placement area may not be economically or operationally available, an operations timeline for solids removal prompts onsite dewatering, and residuals may be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals (e.g., Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn, etc.), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nutrients, and pesticides. Several mechanical dewatering options (e.g., belt filter press, centrifuge, etc.) are available as short-term or long-term remedies for onsite dewatering but are capital intensive for facilities and contractors that already operate on competitive budgets. Geotube® containers, typically with the aid of dewatering polymers, were recommended to and implemented by several project engineers into which materials were dredged and pumped directly from storage lagoons, retention basins, and waterways. After inline flocculation, the permeable geotextile that forms the Geotube® container allows efficient dewatering while containing the fine grain solids. For containment and dewatering of dredging residuals, use of Geotubes® (including dewatering polymer and feed equipment) cost less than $3.65/cy, required minimal technical assistance to install and operate, retained >95% solids (including contaminants), solids were only handled once they were dried sufficiently for hauling and disposal (20 to 80% cake solids), and did not interfere with facility operations. In addition, mobilization, additional onsite facility infrastructure, energy consumption, and restrictive production rates prohibited the use of mechanical dewatering on a variety of project sites. Overall, this dewatering methodology greatly reduced the volume and mass of residual solids and costs associated with hauling and disposal while allowing continual operation of facility lagoons and waterways. If time and space are available for Geotube® operations, Geotube® applications are 80 to 90% less capital intensive compared to these alternative onsite dewatering techniques. Keywords Geotube®, environmental dredging, dewatering, polymers, belt filter press, centrifuge, confined placement area.

Presentation Title: Use of Geotube® Dewatering Containers in Environmental Dreding by B.J. Mastin, PhD and Gregg E. Lebster WaterSolve, LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan
Abstract Confined Placement Areas (CPAs) are not always a viable containment and processing option for fine grain residuals produced during environmental rehabilitation and maintenance dredging. A suitable upland or underwater placement area may not be economically or operationally available, an operations timeline for solids removal prompts onsite dewatering, and residuals may be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals (e.g., Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn, etc.), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nutrients, and pesticides. Several mechanical dewatering options (e.g., belt filter press, centrifuge, etc.) are available as short-term or long-term remedies for onsite dewatering but are capital intensive for facilities and contractors that already operate on competitive budgets. The objective of this study was to evaluate Geotube® containers as a dewatering option for several environmental dredging projects including cost effectiveness, ease of operation, solids and contaminant retention, solids handling time, flow and volume rates, and seasonality. Geotube® containers, typically with the aid of dewatering polymers, were recommended to and implemented by several project engineers into which materials were dredged and pumped directly from storage lagoons, retention basins, and waterways. After inline flocculation, the permeable geotextile that forms the Geotube® container allows efficient dewatering while containing the fine grain solids. For containment and dewatering of dredging residuals, use of Geotubes® (including dewatering polymer and feed equipment) cost less than $3.65/cy, required minimal technical assistance to install and operate, retained >95% solids (including contaminants), solids were only handled once they were dried sufficiently for hauling and disposal (20 to 80% cake solids), and did not interfere with facility operations. In addition, mobilization, additional onsite facility infrastructure, energy consumption, and restrictive production rates prohibited the use of mechanical dewatering on a variety of project sites. Overall, this dewatering methodology greatly reduced the volume and mass of residual solids and costs associated with hauling and disposal while allowing continual operation of facility lagoons and waterways. If time and space are available for Geotube® operations, Geotube® applications are 80 to 90% less capital intensive compared to these alternative onsite dewatering techniques. Keywords Geotube®, environmental dredging, dewatering, polymers, belt filter press, centrifuge, confined placement area.

Presentation Title: Is Geotube® Technology a Good Fit for Your Facility's Residuals and Biosolids Management? by B.J. Mastin, PhD and Gregg E. Lebster WaterSolve, LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan
The Problem Municipalities across the Midwest typically operate at greater than 80% capacity and run out of biosolids and backfilter (lime and alum) sludge storage capacity when land application contractors (if applicable), drying beds, and storage lagoons are unable to keep up with volume demands. Land application may not be economically or operationally available, an operations timeline for solids removal prompts onsite dewatering, and residuals may be contaminated with metals (e.g., Cu, Fe, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, Zn, etc.), oil and grease (O&G), nutrients, pathogens, or pesticides. Several mechanical dewatering options (e.g., belt filter press, centrifuge, etc.) are available as short-term or long-term remedies for onsite dewatering but are capital intensive for municipalities and contractors that already operate on competitive budgets. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate Geotube® containers as a biosolids and sludge dewatering option for a municipal wastewater treatment facility (WWTP) and a water filtration plant (WTP) including cost effectiveness, ease of operation, solids retention, solids handling time, flow and volume rates, and seasonality. Geotube® container sizing The WWTP produces approximately 500,000 gallons (2,475 cy) of biosolids per year at 5-6% dry wt solids. It was calculated that 130 linear feet of 60’ circumference Geotube® container would be needed to dewater and contain this annual volume to 20% solids, sufficiently dry to pass a paint filter test and haul off site to an appropriate landfill. The resulting volume and mass of residuals at 20% solids would be 562 cy and 472 tons, respectively. The WTP produces approximately 1.19 MG (5,874 cy) of backfilter sludge per year at 1.0% dry wt solids. It was calculated that 96 linear feet of 45’ circumference Geotube® container would be needed to dewater and contain this annual volume to 20% solids, sufficiently dry to pass a paint filter test and haul off site to an appropriate landfill. The resulting volume and mass of residuals at 20% solids would be 345 cy and 248 tons, respectively. Chemical Conditioning WaterSolve performed bench-top dewatering trials for biosolids and backfilter sludge samples (two-gallons) collected from the WWTP’s liquids storage tank and WTP’s equalization basin, respectively. Dewatering polymers were evaluated based on water release rate, water clarity, and flocculant appearance. In addition, dosing rate(s) were determined during these bench-top dewatering experiments and recommendations provided to the facilities during this phase of the program. Polymer was added to a sludge sample (150 mL) with a 10-mL plastic syringe and moderately tumbled five to ten times. We recommended using Solve 214 D at a dose rate of 300 ppm (2.4 lb/wet ton) for dewatering the WWTP’s biosolids and Solve 152 at a dose rate of 100 ppm (0.13 lb/wet ton) for dewatering the WTP’s backfilter sludge. Bench-scale Evaluation Water release rates during pumping to a Geotube® container were evaluated by adding 150-mL flocculated sludge samples to a filter apparatus with a Geotube® geotextile filter. Water release rate and volume were measured with a 500-mL graduated cylinder over 12 h. Remaining solids were collected and measured for percent dry solids by U.S. EPA Method 160.3 by e-lab Analytical, Inc (Holland, MI). The Solution Geotube® containers, with the aid of dewatering polymers, were recommended to and implemented by a water filtration plant and a wastewater treatment facility into which solids were pumped directly from an equalization basin and above ground storage tank, respectively. After inline flocculation, the permeable textile that forms the Geotube® container allows efficient dewatering while containing the fine grain solids and the filtrate water returns to the head-works of the facility. Overall, this dewatering methodology greatly reduced the volume and mass of residual solids and costs associated with hauling and disposal while allowing continual operation of the facilities. For containment and dewatering of biosolids and backfilter sludge, Geotube® dewatering (including polymer and feed equipment) cost less than $0.03/gallon, required minimal technical assistance to install and operate, retained greater than 95% solids, solids dried sufficiently for hauling and disposal (18 to 40% cake solids), and did not interfere with plant operations. Compared to the previous management techniques (i.e., belt filter press or hauling to a landfill), these Geotube® projects saved both facilities nearly $25,000 after the first year of operations.
« Back to 2008 Events 2006 Archived Events »