Dursun, Derya

Dr. Derya Dursun is a Senior Associate leading Hazen and Sawyers Applied research group for Residuals and Biosolids practice. She has over 15 years of experience on biosolids management, including studies, technology evaluations, process assessments and developing master plans. She has involved many research projects in her career and currently involved three projects related with biosolids management. She has also worked as an associate professor for 3 years and thought several classes at San Diego state university.

Titles from this speaker

Description: A New Biosolids Management Trend is Emerging: Biochar Producing Technologies are...

A New Biosolids Management Trend is Emerging: Biochar Producing Technologies are Rising to the Top, Wonder Why?

Abstract

The mounting pressure on land application of biosolids coupled with rising costs of processing, hauling and beneficial use is becoming a burden on utilities. The presence of PFAS and potential regulations for practicing land application require considering emerging technologies with PFAS reduction capabilities. Pyrolysis and gasification are emerging technologies that are gaining interest for biosolids management and in most cases, they are the top alternatives for consideration. This trend is mainly due to significant reduction in mass and volume, thus significant reduction in beneficial use costs making the overall economics favorable when compared to conventional technologies. Pyrolysis and gasification produce biochar that has no detectable PFAS, protecting utilities from any future regulation for biosolids land application. Finally, biochar is considered a carbon sink due to carbon sequestration, thus reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. This paper presents the results from various evaluations for different utility sizes and geography.

This paper presents results from various biosolids management studies for facilities with different sizes and geography. Emerging technologies that convert biosolids to biochar, such as gasification or pyrolysis, are rising to the top, mainly due to reducing overall cost, ability to beneficially use biochar with non-detect PFAS and finally greenhouse gas emission reduction.

SpeakerAbu-Orf, Mohammad

Presentation time

14:00:00

14:25:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionUnderstanding and Addressing PFAS in Biosolids

Session locationRoom N426b - Level 4

TopicMunicipal Wastewater Treatment Design, PFAS

Author(s)

Abu-Orf, Mohammed

Author(s)M. Abu-Orf 1; M. Blate 1 ; D. Dursun 2; P. Knowles 3; M. Abu-Orf 1;

Author affiliation(s)Hazen and Sawyer, New York, NY 1; Hazen and Sawyer, New York, NY 1 ; Hazen and Sawyer, New York, NY 2; Hazen and Sawyer, New York, NY 3; Hazen and Sawyer, New York, NY 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825159012

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count18

Description: Alternate: Demonstration of Supercritical Water Oxidation to Diversify End Products,...

Alternate: Demonstration of Supercritical Water Oxidation to Diversify End Products, Destroy PFAS and Reduce Air Emissions

Abstract

Utilities have been investigating new technologies to diversify their end products from water reclamation facilities (WRRFs) due to strict regulations around land application of biosolids and recent concerns on presence and accumulation of poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids. Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) is a promising technology that converts organic material (biosolids) to inert gases, minerals and water and transforms materials into elemental forms. The technology is also identified by Environmental Protection Agency as an innovative technology to destruct PFAS. The SCWO process provides rapid destruction of a wide variety of organic species normally considered to be refractory or difficult to breakdown under conventional means such as incineration. Water above 374 °C and 22.1 MPa becomes supercritical, a special state where organic solubility increases, and oxidation processes are accelerated. Most hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons are converted to CO2 and H2O. Nitrogen in the feed is mainly converted to N2. SCWO has been recently shown to destroy hazardous substances such as halogenated compounds including PFAS. Studies showed a greater than 99% reduction of the total PFAS identified in a targeted compound analysis, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (Krause et al, 2022). As a destructive technology, SCWO is proposed as an alternative to incineration and other combustion processes and could be a permanent solution for PFAS-laden biosolids or solid matrices. However, reliability and operability and performance at commercial scale has not been proven yet. Also, additional investigation of reaction byproducts: water, solids and air emissions need to be conducted for a complete assessment of SCWO's potential as a safe and effective technology. This project aims to provide information for adapting the technology at full scale for public utilities and the engineering community and better understanding to the quality of byproducts. Figure 1 shows the process flow diagram for the technology, and process outputs. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSan) teamed with 374Water, Hazen and Sawyer, and Merrell Brothers to demonstrate the first commercial unit AirSCWO-6 at their Plant 1 for processing six (6) wet metric tons per day. OC San currently produces 250,000 wet tons of biosolids annually that must be treated, stored, and transported to appropriate beneficial use locations. The commercial unit was developed based on a Research and Development (R&D) prototype unit installed at Duke University which has a capacity of one (1) wet tons per day. This first unit was funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The commercial unit is manufactured by Merrell Brothers based on 374Water Inc. design, and ready to be installed. SCWO aims to eliminate the combustion products and therefore reduce the air emissions. Still, OC San is in South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and an air permit (research permit) is required to install this unit and conduct the project. To characterize SCWO air quality impacts and to obtain necessary data for a research permit from SCAQMD, the research team, including OC San (Utility), 374Water (a private firm-technology provider), Hazen and Sawyer (a consulting firm), Yorke Engineering (permitting support), Alliance Testing (a source testing firm) worked together to develop a rigorous test plan. Since the prototype unit at Duke University is the only one in operation, air sampling was conducted at Duke by Alliance Testing. There are some differences between prototype and commercial unit, and questions were raised whether emission data between the two units will be comparable. The main difference between these two units was identified as the capacity rather than the process, inputs or operations. Hence, the results from prototype unit were considered as being representative. Table 1 presents the parameters included in the test plan. SCWO aims to eliminate the combustion products and therefore reduce the air emissions. Still, OC San is in South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and an air permit (research permit) is required to install this unit and conduct the project. To characterize SCWO air quality impacts and to obtain necessary data for a research permit from SCAQMD, the research team, including OC San (Utility), 374Water (a private firm-technology provider), Hazen and Sawyer (a consulting firm), Yorke Engineering (permitting support), Alliance Testing (a source testing firm) worked together to develop a rigorous test plan. Since the prototype unit at Duke University is the only one in operation, air sampling was conducted at Duke by Alliance Testing. There are some differences between prototype and commercial unit, and questions were raised whether emission data between the two units will be comparable. The main difference between these two units was identified as the capacity rather than the process, inputs or operations. Hence, the results from ptototype unit were considered as being representative. Table 1 presents the parameters included in the test plan. Testing was performed with biosolids transported from OCSan over the three phases of the unit operation, including start-up phase (when the system warms up and when organics are fed to the system), the initial warmup phase(when co-fuel is being pumped into the unit, and the temperature increases) and the steady state phase(when biosolids were fed to the system and were treated at a steady state). The results were gathered for all the parameters listed in Table 1. Emission calculations were conducted for criteria pollutants, toxic contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions. The results indicated that the air emissions from the demonstration unit will not exceed the threshold values and therefore vented gas from SCWO unit will not pose any health risk. The design for integrating the commercial unit with the plant for this project was completed by Hazen and evaluation of construction bids is underway. Figure 2 shows a process flow diagram of the facility once installed at Plant 1 of OCSan, including controlled screening and dewatering skid for consistent 12-15% TS feed to the AirSCWO-6 commercial unit. Our full paper and presentation will provide detailed information on SCWO process, pretreatment requirements, process inputs and outputs. The air emission results from vented gas will be presented in detail along with further information on process efficiency for organics destruction. The information will benefit utilities that seeks sustainable solution for their biosolids management considering recent concerns on PFAS compounds.

This paper was presented at the WEF/IWA Residuals and Biosolids Conference, May 16-19, 2023.

SpeakerDursun, Derya

Presentation time

8:30:00

11:15:00

Session time

8:30:00

11:15:00

SessionSession 21: Advances and Innovations in Thermal Processes II

Session number21

Session locationCharlotte Convention Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

TopicResearch & Innovations

Author(s)

D. Dursun

Author(s)D. Dursun1, M. Abu-Orf2, L. Grijalva3, B. Copp4,

Author affiliation(s)Hazen and Sawyer1; 374Water Inc.2

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date May 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825158781

Volume / Issue

Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids

Word count17

Cost of Removing PFAS from WRRF Effluent and Biosolids

Abstract

This study developed capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates and curves to remove and destroy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from municipal water resource recovery facility (WRRF) effluent and biosolids. Class 5 cost estimates (-30%/+50%) for the assumed design bases were estimated based on vendor quotes and standard design practices for combinations of technologies pre-screened to be both commercially applied and effective at PFAS separation and/or destruction. Three treatment alternatives were developed for 0.1 to 10 MGD of tertiary treated WRRF effluent and two treatment alternatives were developed for 1.0 to 10 dry tons per day (dtpd) of dewatered WRRF biosolids. Estimated costs for a 10 MGD facility producing 10 dptd biosolids are approximately $79 to $250 million in capital costs and $50 to $20 million in annual operating costs, including consideration of all alternatives developed. Cost per mass of targeted PFAS removed (7 compounds for WRRF effluent and 9 compounds for WRRF biosolids) ranged from $370,000 per pound of PFAS removed from a 50 dptd WRRF biosolids treatment facility to $8 million per pound of PFAS removed from a 0.1 MGD WRRF effluent treatment facility. These costs do not include any retrofits needed to add tertiary treatment upstream of PFAS separation processes for WRRF effluent or to achieve 15%-25% solids content prior to PFAS destruction processes for WRRF biosolids.

This study developed capital and O&M cost estimates to remove and destroy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from municipal water resource recovery facility (WRRF) tertiary effluent and dewatered biosolids. Estimated costs for a 10 MGD/10 dtpd facility are approximately $79 to $250 million in capital costs and $50 to $20 million in annual operating costs. 20-year costs per mass of PFAS removed ranged from $370,000 per pound to $8 million per pound of PFAS removed.

SpeakerLing, Alison

Presentation time

16:30:00

17:00:00

Session time

15:30:00

17:00:00

SessionPFAS Impacted WRFs: Knowledge Update

Session locationRoom S401d - Level 4

TopicDisinfection and Public Health, Intermediate Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation, Utility Management and Leadership

Author(s)

Ling, Alison

Author(s)A. Ling 1; B. Vermace 2 ; A. McCabe 3; K. Wolohan 4; D. Dursun 5; M. Blate 6; M. Abu-Orf 6; S. Kyser 7; A. Ling 1;

Author affiliation(s)Department of Civil Engineering, University of St. Thomas 1; Barr Engineering Company 2 ; Barr Engineering Company 3; Barr Engineering Company 4; Hazen and Sawyer 5; Hazen and Sawyer 6; Hazen and Sawyer 6; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7; Department of Civil Engineering, University of St. Thomas 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825159129

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count10

Description: Extracting value beyond meeting regulatory requirements: assessment of green house...

Extracting value beyond meeting regulatory requirements: assessment of green house gas emissions for environmental and economical sustainability of water resource recovery plants

Abstract

Goleta Sanitary District (GSD) a small sized utility located in California has collaborated with Hazen on the development of the Biosolids and Energy Strategic Plan to identify opportunities for codigestion, beneficial use of digester gas and biosolids, and reduced energy consumption and GHG emissions within the WRRP and the Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). Results showed that it would be possible to generate additional revenue from various sources in the future from plant improvements that are necessary to meet regulatory requirements. GSD is an excellent example of a public utility that looks for opportunities to leverage and communicate environmental and economic value from plant improvements needed to meet future regulations.

SpeakerDursun, Derya

Presentation time

10:30:00

10:50:00

Session time

10:30:00

11:10:00

SessionGreenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainability, and Neutrality

Session number516

TopicEnergy Production, Conservation, and Management, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design, Odors and Air Quality

Author(s)

D. Dursun

Author(s)D. Dursun1;

Author affiliation(s)Hazen and Sawyer, CA1

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2020

DOI10.2175/193864718825157528

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count23

Getting Ready for Chemical Interruptions at WRRFs

Abstract

Introduction: The water and wastewater industry is facing new challenges in the chemical supply chain due to recent pandemic conditions, hurricanes, and wildfires. As a result, Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) are looking ways to improve the chemical resiliency of their facilities during chemical shortages, emergencies, or any disruption in chemical supply chain. The main objective of this paper is to assess the risk from chemical shortages, and present strategies to WRRF's to mitigate risk through consequence and vulnerability reduction. Background: Recently, Hazen has teamed with Orange County Sanitation District (OCSan) to conduct the Chemical Resilience Study for their Plant 1 and Plant 2. The approach to quantitatively assessing and managing risk is based on the ANSI/AWWA J100 Standard: Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems. The J100 standard provides the framework for assessing baseline conditions as well as improvements following the implementation of risk mitigation. Risk is defined as follows: RISK = Consequence X Vulnerability X Likelihood Table 1 summarizes the approach to reduce consequence and vulnerability for OCSan. This approach will allow to assess baseline risk for WRRFS, as well as provides clear path to reduce the risk, either by reducing the consequences of supply disruption or improving system resilience (i.e., reducing vulnerability). Table 1: Approach Adopted to Reduce Risk for OCSan Methodology: The following methodology was developed to reduce the risk of WRRFs to chemical shortages and disruptions - Chemical Risk Analysis: Estimating the likelihood of chemical shortage requires understanding the chemical supply chain and availability of substitutes. Industry trade groups and chemical suppliers were contacted to understand manufacturing locations and the sources of raw materials. - Vendor Alternatives. Alternative vendors were identified using information from industry trade groups, as well as reviewing chemical bids from OCSan and similar utilities. The use of chemicals in other industries which might be supplied by alternate vendors was also reviewed. - Delivery Alternatives. Alternative forms of deliveries including bulk liquid, totes, and dry chemical delivery with onsite dilution were also investigated - Chemical Alternatives. Alternative chemicals were identified to existing chemicals Findings The chemicals evaluated in OC San Chemical Resilience Study are grouped under four main categories and listed in Table 2. These chemicals are used in the following plant process areas: preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, odor control, effluent disposal, solids handling, and power generation. Table 2: Chemicals Evaluated at OCSan Chemical Resilience Study Chemical interruption to facilities could result from the following conditions: - Lack of delivery access due to a natural disaster - Interruptions from manufacturers and/or vendors - Chemical shortages - Increased cost of chemicals - Increased demand in other industries - Delays in deliveries - Regulatory changes Evaluation of the baseline conditions for OCSan's chemicals identified that most chemicals used have over two weeks of storage available in the event of interruption. The only chemical with less than a week of storage capacity was ferric chloride at Plant 1. Ferric chloride is the mostly used and frequently delivered chemical at Plant 1 and Plant 2 with less than 3 days between deliveries. Bleach was also identified as a chemical with frequent deliveries at Plant 1. Both ferric chloride and bleach are critical chemicals in order for OC San to meet permit requirements in their air quality and discharge permits. Table 3 was developed for OCSan to highlight the criticality (based on consequence score), average chemical use, and consequences of chemical interruption for chemicals used at Plant 2. Table 3: Summary of Chemicals Used at Plant 2 Figure 1 shows the overall risk score calculated for the chemicals used at OCSan. The score brings together the consequence, vulnerability and likelihood assessments. As can be seen in Figure 1, Bleach and Ferric chloride have the highest risk for chemical disruptions. Our full paper will include more details about the consequence, vulnerability and likelihood assessments and will provide a list of alternative chemicals that could be used to replace existing chemicals. Figure 1: Risk score for chemicals used at OCSan

This paper was presented at the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference in Columbus, Ohio, May 24-27, 2022.

SpeakerDursun, Derya

Presentation time

10:45:00

11:15:00

Session time

10:45:00

11:45:00

Session number11

Session locationGreater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, Ohio

TopicChemical, Supply chain distruptions

Author(s)

D. Dursun

Author(s)R. Sobhani1; D. Dursun2; A. Gorzalski3; B. Danker4; S. Rossouw5; F. Gerringer6; M. Chebeir7

Author affiliation(s)OCSD; 1Hazen and Sawyer; 2Residuals and Biosolids Speaker; 3CH2M; 4Residuals and Biosolids Speaker; 5Hazen; 6Hazen and Sawyer; 7

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date May 2022

DOI10.2175/193864718825158410

Volume / Issue

Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids

Word count8

Description: Technologies and Processes for Pretreatment and Management of Source Separated...

Technologies and Processes for Pretreatment and Management of Source Separated Organics

Abstract

Introduction: Source Separated Organics (SSO) co-digestion with wastewater solids at Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) offers promise to advance sustainability through beneficial reuse of the organic fraction of pre- and post-consumer waste streams (source separated organics), which would typically otherwise be disposed in landfills. Currently, several states have started implementing regulations restricting organics disposal to landfills to reduce green house gas emissions. A major outlet for SSO's has identified as anaerobic digesters already built-in water resource recovery facilities however most of the time SSO's cannot be accepted as they generated and requires pretreatment. The pretreatment could be conducted on-site at WRRFs, in centralized facilities and in some cases at decentralized sites. Objectives: This paper will present the findings from a recent project funded by the Water Research Foundation. The objective of this presentation is to comprehensively evaluate SSO pretreatment technologies and existing operational facilities and produce information that utilities with interest in SSO pre-treatment can use as guidance. The utilities could use the findings from this research for several important purposes: - successfully building or enhancing existing SSO pretreatment and co-digestion programs, - addressing challenges and opportunities involved with SSO pretreatment, - identifying SSO pretreatment requirements based on SSO feedstock quality and quantity, - and determining capital and O&M costs and potential impacts on WRRFs. Methodology: A systematic approach was developed for conducting global literature review and also to gather information from existing facilities and case studies. This approach was successfully used to draw the borders of the research and stay focused on the main objectives of the project. Fact sheets were developed for each case study to provide detailed information. Finally, all the results were transferred into Microsoft Power BI platform to visualize the results and generate dash boards. This presentation will provide an overview of the project, goals and anticipated outcome of the project, and an update on progress made to date. Findings: The literature review showed that the physical SSO pretreatment technologies are preferred around the globe in full scale applications. Considering high variable nature of SSO, the pretreatment processes are found to be mostly site specific. However, in majority of the facilities SSO pretreatment starts with initial Unit Operating Processes (UOP's), that generally includes separation technologies such as trommel screens, magnetic belts, and rock traps. After an initial process the core of the process includes pulping/mixing/blending technologies. Hydropulper, depacking equipment, extrusion units are generally used as the core of the pretreatment process to generate homogenized slurry. As a last polishing step, mixers, blending/mixing tanks and also separation technologies are also included in the process. Our results indicated that the SSO pretreatment can be performed on-site at the WRRFs or off site as a stand alone facility. Several facilities were selected around the globe to evaluate. Figure 1 shows the different type of SSO Pretreatment/Processing applied in facilities and also lists the Utilities that adopted these management strategies. Figure 1. Four Types of SSO Pre-treatment/ Processing by Utility A fact sheet was prepared for each facility listed in Figure 1 and the type of SSO pretreatment and processes were evaluated in detail. The fact sheets include information on type of SSO received, types of processes and technologies applied along with key O&M lessons learned. Furthermore, seven case studies (selected WRRFs have successfully implemented SSO feedstock pretreatment systems) were included to include more detailed information especially on costs and maintenance requirements.

This paper was presented at the WEF Residuals and Biosolids Conference in Columbus, Ohio, May 24-27, 2022.

SpeakerDursun, Derya

Presentation time

10:15:00

10:45:00

Session time

10:15:00

11:15:00

Session number20

Session locationGreater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, Ohio

TopicCo-Digestion With Other Organic Sources, food waste, Sustainability

Author(s)

D. Dursun

Author(s)D. Dursun1; M. Blate2; K. Landry3; M. Abu-Orf4; R. Sharp5; N. Kaiser6

Author affiliation(s)Hazen and Sawyer; 1Residuals and Biosolids Speaker; 2Hazen and Sawyer; 3AECOM; 4Manhattan College; 5Residuals and Biosolids Speaker; 6

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date May 2022

DOI10.2175/193864718825158406

Volume / Issue

Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids

Word count12