Water Treatment Services by WaterSolve, Grand Rapids MI

Back to 2009 Events 2007 Archived Events »

March 2-5, 2008 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » GeoAmericas Cancun, Mexico
March 30 - April 02, 2008 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » WEF Biosolids and Residuals Conference Philadelphia, PA
April 2-3, 2008 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » WEDA Annual Midwest Chapter Meeting Milwaukee, WI
June 8-11, 2008 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » WEDA XXVIII / 39th TAMU DREDGING SEMINAR St. Louis, MO
November 5-7, 2008 WEDA Pacific Chapter Meeting Seattle, WA
December 11, 2008 Presenter \| Read Presentation Abstract » Ohio WEA Biosolids Specialty Conference Columbus, OH

Presentation Title: Use of Geotube® Dewatering Containers in Environmental Dredging by Gregg E. Lebster of WaterSolve, LLC (Grand Rapids, MI) & J.R. Salley of Kentucky Dredging (Hazard, KY)
Abstract Confined Placement Areas (CPAs) are not always a viable containment and processing option for fine grain residuals produced during environmental and maintenance dredging. The objective of this study was to evaluate Geotube containers as a dewatering option for two environmental dredging projects including cost effectiveness, ease of operation, solids and contaminent retention, solids handling time, flow and volume rates, and seasonality. Geotube containers, 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. 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, containment, contaminent retention, solids handling. storage lagoons, retention basins, waterways, fine grain residuals, dewatering polymers, dewatering methodology, dewatering techniques.

Presentation Title: Is Geotube® Technology a Good Fit for Residuals Management at your Facility? by Gregg E. Lebster of WaterSolve, LLC (Grand Rapids, MI); Glenn M. Lundin and Vicki S. Ginter of TenCate Geotube

The Problem Municipalities across the Midwest typically operate at greater than 80% capacity and run out of biosolids and back-filter (lime and alum) residual 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. The objective of this study was to evaluate Geotube® containers as a residuals dewatering option for a municipal wastewater treatment facility (WWTP) and a water filtration plant (WTP) including cost effectiveness, ease of operation, solids retention, handling time, flow and volume rates, and seasonality. Geotube® Container Sizing The WWTP produces approximately 500,000 gallons (2,475 yd3) of biosolids contaminated with molybdenum per year at 5-6 percent dry weight solids. It was calculated that 130 linear feet (lf) of 60’ circumference Geotube® container would be needed to dewater and contain this annual volume to 20 percent 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 percent solids would be 562 yd3 and 472 tons, respectively. The WTP produces approximately 1.19 million gallons (5,874 yd3) of back-filter residual per year at 1.0 percent dry weight solids. It was calculated that 96 lf of 45’ circumference Geotube® container would be needed to dewater and contain this annual volume to 20 percent 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 percent solids would be 345 yd3 and 248 tons, respectively. Chemical Conditioning WaterSolve performed bench-top dewatering trials for biosolids and back-filter residual 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 flocculent 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 back-filter residuals. Bench-scale Evaluation Water release rates during pumping to a Geotube® container were evaluated by adding 150-mL flocculated residual samples to a filter apparatus with a GT500 Geotube® filter. Water release rate and volume were measured with a 500-mL graduated cylinder over 12 hours. Remaining solids were collected and measured for percent dry solids by U.S. EPA Method 160.3. 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 back-filter residual, 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 percent solids, solids dried sufficiently for hauling and disposal (18 to 40 percent 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.

Presentation Title: Dewatering of Contaminated Dredge Residuals by Gregg E. Lebster and Mike Broering WaterSolve, LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan
Abstract Technological advances in the use and application of polymers and other chemical conditioning agents for the expedient separation of contaminated solids from water have facilitated the use of geotextile tubes for containment, dewatering, and consolidation of hydraulically excavated materials. This new and innovative technology has been successfully used to dewater fine-grained, contaminated material that contained dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, metals (with a lithic biogeochemical cycle), and other hydrophobic materials. The objective of these dewatering performance trials was to develop a site-specific chemical conditioning program for each potential Geotube dewatering application. Polymers were evaluated based on water release rate, water clarity, flocculent appearance, and water volume after passing through a Geotube geotextile filter. In addition, dosing rate(s) were determined during these bench-top dewatering experiments and recommendations were provided as a part of these trials. Geotube hanging bag performance evaluations were also performed with the recommended chemical conditioning program to evaluate filtrate quality and time to attain desired cake solids within the Geotube container. Once a recommended chemical conditioning program was identified, other chemical application variables were evaluated for potential full-scale operations including: 1) Use of more than one chemistry as sediment character changes with depth, debris, organic matter, and density; 2) Simultaneous or sequential application of more than one chemistry; 3) Application of an inorganic chemistry in combination with an organic chemistry; 4) Effects of mixing energy and shear energy during introduction of flocculating chemistry inline; and 5) Use of pre- and post-dilution. Overall, containment and dewatering of solids with Geotube containers (including dewatering polymer and feed equipment) costs less than $0.02 per gal (greater than 1,250 cubic yards in situ), requires minimal technical assistance to install and operate, retained greater than 95-percent solids, solids were only handled once they were dried sufficiently for hauling and disposal (18 to 80-percent cake solids), did not interfere with site and facility operations, and the lay-down area for containment of 1,000 cubic yards of solids production was 672 square yards (6,050 square ft). Keywords Dewatering, Geotube® container, contaminated dredge residuals, polymers, environmental dredging.

Presentation Title: Dewatering of Oil-Contaminated Dredge Residuals by Gregg E. Lebster WaterSolve, LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan
Abstract Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) and in situ technologies (e.g., capping) are typically not viable risk mitigating options for oil-contaminated residuals generated during environmental dredging due to potentially toxic constituents. Under normal CDF operations, water is discharged over a weir structure or allowed to migrate through the dike walls while contaminated solids are retained within the CDF. However, oil constituents (e.g., PAHs and metals) may be lost via effluent during filling operations, surface runoff, seepage through the bottom and dike walls, volatilization, and uptake by plants and animals. Containment and dewatering technology is typically used to condition contaminated sediments such that they meet the requirements of subsequent treatment and/or disposal components of the remedial alternative as well as decrease the volume and mass of sediments that require transport, treatment, or restricted disposal. 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 and resource intensive for facilities and contractors that operate on competitive budgets. The objective of this study was to evaluate Geotube® containers as a dewatering option for oil-contaminated residuals generated during hydraulic dredging of a historic shipping channel and storage lagoon of a former and active petroleum refinery, respectively. Potential dewatering alternatives were evaluated by cost effectiveness, ease of operation, solids and contaminant retention, solids handling time, residual flow rates, footprint requirements, and seasonality. After inline flocculation with dewatering polymers, the permeable geotextile that forms the Geotube® container allows efficient dewatering while containing the fine grain solids. For containment and dewatering of oil-contaminated dredging residuals, use of Geotubes® (including dewatering polymer and feed equipment) cost less than $4.85/cy, required minimal technical assistance to install and operate, retained >99% solids (including contaminants), solids were only handled once they were dried sufficiently for hauling and disposal (20 to 60% cake solids), and did not interfere with facility operations. 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 alternative mechanical dewatering techniques. Keywords Dewatering, Geotube® container, oil-contaminated residuals, polymers, environmental dredging.
2007 Archived Events »