Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Wineries and Vineyards Robert S. Chrobak

Transcription

1 Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Wineries and Vineyards Robert S. Chrobak Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

2 Key Points Wastewater sources Wastewater characteristics Regulatory review Treatment considerations & practices

3 BOD, mg/l Typical Wastewater Organic Concentrations 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Average Maximum 10,000 5,000 0 Stillage Raisin Tomato Pistachio Carrot Citrus

4 Seasonal Wastewater Sources Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

5

6 Wastewater Discharge and Permits Surface water NPDES permit POTW pretreatment permit Land application WDR Stormwater discharge permits

7 Current Regulatory Environment Increased scrutiny of food processors land application Increased enforcement capability Increased groundwater quality monitoring to assure no degradation Constituents (e.g., NO 3, TDS, Cl, SO 4, ph) are not statistically different due to operations

8 Central Valley RWQCB Has Concluded: 95% of dischargers with groundwater monitoring show degradation Nuisance conditions not uncommon Most operations not following guidelines Monitoring of compliance poor

9 Land Application of Wastewater WDRs implement: California Water Code Basin Plans Board policies and guidelines incl Antidegradation Policy No degradation of any groundwater quality constituent is now permitted!

10 Requirements for Permit: Land Application Facility description (focus on process) Waste characteristics Process flow diagram Water balance Source water Chemical usage Site & vicinity maps Soil types Groundwater characteristics Surface drainage and surface water bodies Wastewater mgmt plan Operations monitoring Groundwater monitoring Treatment & holding ponds

11 Treatment Considerations Type of permit Limits Available land Setting Skilled resources Reuse Disposal Neighbors Climate/rainfall Surface water Regulatory climate Wine industry use Technically proven Costs

12 Common Waste Treatment Practices in Wine Industry 1. Field irrigation 2. Vineyard & landscape irrigation 3. Aerobic facultative lagoons 4. Septic tanks leachfields 5. Wetlands 6. Land spreading 7. Anaerobic pre- & aerobic posttreatment 8. Activated sludge SBR and MBR 9. Fixed film bioreactors 10.Moving bed bioreactors

13 Waste Minimization Techniques Options Source Reduction Recycling (Onsite and Offsite) Product Changes Source Control Use and Reuse Reclamation Input Material Changes Technology Changes Good Operating Practices Source: EPA, 1988

14 Aerobic Purification Purified Water Winemaking Effluents Biomass Aeration Deposits Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

15 Spreading Basins

16 Land Application of Wastewater Crops take up Nitrogen Wastewater Application Rates ( lb / acre / day ) By Products of Biological Degradation: N 2 and CO 2 Insoluble BOD stays on surface 100 SOLUBLE BOD / ORGANIC NITROGEN SOIL TREATMENT ZONE 300 UNSATURATED ZONE 600 GROUNDWATER

17 Crop Irrigation

18 Drainfield System

19 Aerated Lagoon Treatment Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

20 Aerators

21 Aerobic Oxidation Pond - Advantages Highly flexible for highly variable flow, ph, temperature, organics, disinfectant and nutrient concentrations Can provide >99% BOD and 75% nutrient removal Non-odorous if aeration is maintained Provides stabilized wastewater suitable for vineyard irrigation Lower land use requirements than land spreading Very economical to construct and operate

22 Aerobic Oxidation Pond Advantages (cont) Very low sludge solids accumulation and removal costs Lower energy requirement than many aerobic treatment processes by intermittent aerator operation Minimizes salts and nutrient discharge to groundwater by low permeability of pond bottom and sides

23 Constructed Wetlands

24 Wetlands Reed Bed Treatment Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

25 Conventional Activated Sludge Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

26 Aerated Storage Phases 3 to 8 weeks 1 st phase: Aeration A few days 2 nd phase: Sedimentation Gradual discharge 3 rd phase: Draining Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

27 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) 1 st phase: Filling 2 nd phase: Aeration 3 rd phase: Partial draining 24 hour cycle Entrance of air Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

28 Membrane Bioreactors High levels of MLVSS (12,000-15,000 mg/l) Footprints up to four times smaller Membrane is physical barrier Longer solids retention times Handles variable strength wastewater impact Reduces sludge volumes Modular and easily expandable High quality effluent suitable for reuse

29 Membrane Technologies Conventional Biological Process Bio-Reactor clarifier RAS WAS RO Membrane Biological Reactor - MBR Membranes Bio-Reactor RAS WAS RO

30 Fixed Film Reactor Biological Disks Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

31 Treatment by Evaporation Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

32 Combined Aerobic Wastewater Treatment In the period of vintage Outside vintage period Storage basin Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

33 Anaerobic Purification Effluents Complex oxidizable materials Hydrolysis Simple oxidizable materials (small sugars, peptides.) Acidogenesis CH 4 + CO 2 Purified water Acetogenesis Volatile fatty acids Deposits Source: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Scientific and Technical Notebook: Management of Winery and Distillery Effluents, December 1999, Paris, France.

34 Anaerobic Technologies Anaerobic Treatment Suspended Microorganism Technologies Biofilm Technologies Continuous stirred tank reactors Anaerobic sludge beds Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Hybrid Digester Anaerobic Lagoons Anaerobic Filters Fluidized Beds Anaerobic Beds Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactors

35 Anaerobic Biotechnology - Advantages Provides process stability Reduces waste biomass disposal costs Reduces nitrogen and phosphorus supplementation Reduces ph neutralization salts Reduces space requirements Conserves energy Produces burnable gas for recovery Minimizes operational requirements

36 Anaerobic Biotechnology - Advantages Eliminates off-gas emissions Avoids foaming when surfactants present Biodegrades some compounds not degraded aerobically Provides seasonal treatment

37 Anaerobic Biotechnology - Polishing Treatment Anaerobic biotechnology effluent quality insufficient for reuse options Potential for sulfide and odor generation if high sulfate levels present

38 Odor Control Measures Keep wastewater aerobic (DO >2 mg/l) Anaerobic processes should be covered and off gases scrubbed Keep ph elevated >7.5 in waste treatment processes, etc. Provide shallow <4-inch depths for land spreading and intermittent application

39 Odor Control Measures Minimize spraying and odor stripping from wastewater to air Have odor neutralizing chemicals available Magnesium hydroxide to elevate ph Ferric chloride to precipitate sulfide Calcium nitrate to elevate ORP, enhance biological denitrification and prevent sulfate reduction Utilize more ozone rather than sulfites as a disinfectant

40 Salts and Nutrient Reduction Methods to Reduce Impact on Groundwater Where possible, utilize a low TDS water supply Soften water by membrane nanofiltration rather than ion exchange Utilize ozone wherever possible to reduce hypochlorite and sulfite disinfectants

41 Salts and Nutrient Reduction Methods to Reduce Impact on Groundwater Substitute membrane filtration for ion exchange winery processing Provide separation of ion exchange wastes and treat by membrane and/or evaporation/ crystallization processes

42 Salts and Nutrient Reduction Methods to Reduce Impact on Groundwater Configure and operate wastewater treatment and disposal system for biological nitrogen removal Utilize bicarbonate produced by biological carbon removal to neutralize low ph wastewater rather than a mineral caustic salt

43 Summary Wastewater sources Wastewater characteristics Regulatory review Treatment considerations & practices

44

45 Process Advantages Drawbacks Anaerobic digestion Aerobic processes AOPs Constructed wetlands Physicochemical treatments COD/N/P ratio appropriate for anaerobic bacteria, low sludge production, possible biogas recovery High COD and BOD removal efficiency, short retention time No ph adjustments required, decolorization of the effluent, biodegradability improvement toxicity reduction, possibility of high efficiency Low energy consumption and costs, capacity to treat record high organic load, high rate of treatment in relativity short adaption time Color removal ph influence, colored effluent, investment and management costs, formation of melanoidins, costs ph influence, floc disintegration, bulking, high operation costs, inhibition of biomass due to polyphenolic compounds, nutrient addition required Inorganic sludge production (Fenton & photo-fenton), ph sequential cycles to obtain high COD removal (ozonation), technology complexity High retention time, large area, ph influence, odor problem, feasible only in low density of population areas Sludge production, low efficiency