1.  MT DEQ PARTNERING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO HELP MEET NUTRIENT REDUCTION OBJECTIVES

2.  1. Brief primer on MT’s Numeric Nutrient Standards  2. State agency directly helping communities meet new nutrient effluent limits (directed technical assistance)  3. Biological Nutrient Removal is not new  4.Completely shifting the focus from engineering/construction to operations  5. The value of educating operators  Effluent quality  Non-tangible benefits

6. 120 mg Chla/m 2 40 mg Chla/m 2 300 mg Chla/m 2 Attached algae growth commonly quantified as chlorophyll a per square meter of stream bottom

7.  Ecoregion-based  In-Stream Values are Really, Really Low  Total Nitrogen  Western Montana – Approx 0.3 mg/l  Eastern Montana - 0.5 to 1.3 mg/l  Total Phosphorous  Western Montana – 0.025 mg/l  Eastern Montana - 0. 03 to 0.15 mg/l  Larger Rivers and Lakes Forthcoming

8.  General Variance allows for:  Mechanical Plants > 1 MGD: 10 TN and 1 TP  Mechanical Plants < 1 MGD: 15 TN and 2 TP  Lagoons: hold the line  This is a starting point  20-yr Goal: Meet the actual in-stream standards  Optimization Study required  – MCA 75-5-313 (9)(a)

9. MECH PLANTS > 1 MGDMECH PLANTS < 1 MGD  2016: 10 TN 1TP  5 yrs later 8 TN 0.8TP  5 yrs later 8 TN 0.5TP  5 yrs later ????  2016 15 TN 2 TP  5 years 10 TN 1 TP  5 years 8 TN 0.8TP  5 years ?????

10.  Training Engineers on Nutrient Removal Design  6 years of advanced training  World’s leaders in BNR design  Grad school-level crash courses  Free training  Did not address the cost of projects  Significant impact to Montana ratepayers

11.  Can we reduce nutrients without building/ upgrading treatment plants?  What if we focused on operations?  Do we have the expertise in-house?  Is anyone else trying this?

12.  Using existing infrastructure, can we re-engineer our operations to make the facility do things it was not originally designed to do? OR  Can we get better performance from our existing infrastructure, including BNR plants, by operating the facilities differently?  Completely shifting the focus from engineering to operations

13.  Operators are on the front line of environmental protection efforts.  They are the implementers of water pollution control regulations.  The success or failure of a designed system falls on the shoulders of the operator.  The un-sung heroes of our profession.

14. UNDER-APPRECIATED UNDER-UTILIZED UNDER-TRAINED

15.  Design Engineer trains the operator how to run the plant initially – O&M Manual  Operator will pick a couple of parameters  MLSS, DO, wasting rate, etc.  Same approach passed on through the years  Operator lacks necessary detailed knowledge of what is really going on within the plant  Plant cannot be manipulated without this knowledge  We need more and better training

16.  Classroom Training  Very targeted education  Biochemistry of BNR  Operator collaboration on case studies  An Expert operator training operators – key  On-site training  3 – 7 facilities per year  3 visits to each facility over 3 months  Regular Email follow up  It’s Free to the communities

17.  Give the operators knowledge and confidence  Get the operators to understand and identify the specific areas within their facility to create the conditions necessary to achieve nitrification, denitrification and/or phosphorous release and uptake  Get operators to understand how to manipulate the various unit processes to create the desired conditions within the constraints of their existing infrastructure

18.  The trainer’s qualifications and intent are critical to the success of this approach.  No substitute for operational experience  Operators relate to other operators  Typically a microbiologist or biochemist  Engineer????  A motivational person –  May live in a van down by the river  There aren’t many qualified trainers left

19. BEFORE AFTER 6 WEEKS  Manhattan, MT  Biowheel  TN - 10.7 mg/l Chinook, MT Oxidation ditch TN – 25.3 mg/l Conrad, MT Simple CAS System TN - 26.3 mg/l  Manhattan  TN – 7.4 mg/l  31% improvement  Chinook  TN – 13 mg/l  48% improvement  Conrad  TN – < 5 mg/l  80+% improvement

20.  What is important to success?  Existing Infrastructure – what do you have?  Loading - industrial sources?  Capacity – growth?  Public works/City council buy-in  Regulator cooperation/understanding  State/ Federal  Operations staff attitude – most important

21.  Operators have a much better understanding of wastewater treatment  Operators are typically more engaged in the performance of the facility.  Collect meaningful data  Understand why the data is important  Understand how to use data to improve performance  Operators are empowered

32. MECH PLANTS > 1 MGDMECH PLANTS < 1 MGD  2016: 10 TN 1TP  5 yrs later 8 TN 0.8TP  5 yrs later 8 TN 0.5TP  2016 15 TN 2 TP  5 years 10 TN 1 TP  5 years 8 TN 0.8TP

33.  Lagoon-based Nutrient and Ammonia reduction research project  Potential Pilot Study  Lagoon Optimization Contract  Continue with Mech Plant Optimization

34.  Major retrofits or upgrades for nutrient removal can be avoided or minimized in many cases through well thought-out operational strategies – enormous cost savings with relatively immediate results  The trainer/consultant is critical to success  Choose him or her carefully  We’re shifting the focus from engineers to operators – choose them wisely.  The ultimate example of sustainability?

36. Paul LaVigne Water Pollution Control SRF Montana DEQ plavigne@mt.gov (406) 444-5321 Grant Weaver The Water Planet Company g.weaver@cleanwaterops.com www.cleanwaterops.com (860) 444-0866