Post on 21-Feb-2023
Innovative Long-Term Regional Biosolids Management Study in Eastern Ventura County
California
Priya DhanapalKennedy/Jenks ConsultantsOctober 26, 2010PNCWA 2010Building Professional Excellence in Water QualityTM
Ventura County WaterWorks District No.1 & Other POTWs (Partners in Study)
Thousand OaksCamrosa
Moorpark (VCWWD No.1)
Simi valley
Camarillo
Source: Ventura County General Plan
Overview
▼
E. Ventura County – Wastewater Treatment Facilities
l
Background
l
Existing Solids Treatment and Disposal Methods
▼
Issues and Concerns
l
Disposal Constraints
▼
Goals
▼
Biosolids Management Approach
l
Alternatives Selection Process
l
Evaluation Criteria
l
Alternatives Description and Analysis
l
Findings
Regional Biosolids Quantification Questionnaire
1. Current Conditions
Classification (please circle) Class A Class B Sub-Class B
Annual wet tons tons/year
Annual Dry tons tons/year
Percent solids (%) %
Pathogen reduction processes (please identify)
Vector attraction reduction processes (please identify)
2. Design Capacity Conditions
Annual wet tons tons/year
Annual Dry tons tons/year
Percent solids (%) %
Annual tons VSS tons/year
3. Current Means of Disposal or Beneficial Use
Location of disposal or beneficial use
Transportation costs $/ton
Distance from POTW miles
Tipping fee costs $/ton
Length of disposal or beneficial use contract years
Regional Biosolids Questionnaire – Current Capacity & Treatment Processes
units Camrosa Camarillo Thousand Oaks Moorpark Simi Valley
Average Plant Flow MGD 1.5 3.8 9.7 2.4 9.6
Annual wet tons tons/yr 1,500 1,500 9,800 6,000 8,800
Annual dry tons tons/yr 750 1,060 1,550 780 5,300
Percent solids % 50% 73% 14-16% (50%) 13% 60%
Solids Treatment
Practices
No Digestion,
Thickening
& Air Drying
Aerobic Digestion,
Sludge Drying Beds
Anaerobic Digestion,
Belt Filter Press,
Sludge Drying Beds
Lime Stabilization,
Belt Filter Press,
Sludge Drying Beds
Anaerobic Digestion,
Belt Filter Press,
Sludge Drying Beds
Regional Biosolids Questionnaire - Current Disposal Methods
units Camrosa Camarillo Thousand Oaks Moorpark Simi ValleyLocation(s) of disposal or beneficial reuse
Liberty Composting (Kern County)
McCarthy Farms (Kern County) Toland Road Landfill Kern County Simi Valley Landfill
Transportation Costs $/ton $22 $48 $26 $41 $43
Distance from POTW miles 180 250 30 143 1.3
Tipping fee costs $/ton $25 NA $12 N/A NA
Approximate Disposal Cost
$/year
$/ ton
$71,000
$47
$ 69,000
$48
$368,000
$38 ($52*)
$242,000
$41
$376,000
$43
Current total solids = 27,300 wet tons/yr @ 35% combined solids content
Total Disposal Costs = $1,100,000/year
*Likely future cost based on addn. drying at Landfill
Disposal Issues and Concerns
Hauling & Tipping Fee costs range from $38 - $48 per wet ton
Camrosa and Camarillo: Liberty Composting & McCarthy Farms (Kern County)
• Contract renewals within 1 year
Thousand Oaks: Toland Road Landfill
• Addn. costs when solids are further dried at landfill
• Diminishing capacity
• May close in 10-15 years
Simi Valley: Simi Valley Landfill
• Diminishing capacity
• Contract until 20 years only
DEAD END?
Disposal Issues and Concerns (contd..)
(Source: OCSD)
▼
Land Application bans in several southern CA counties (Local Ordinance / Public Perception)
▼
Exporting biosolids
to other counties poses difficulties (Public Perception Issues, ↑
Trucking Costs, NIMBY)
▼
Kern County’s Land Application Ban –
Ongoing Challenge since 2006!
▼
Affected Facilities: Camrosa, Camarillo, and Moorpark
▼
Future of Land Application (in CA) = ??!!
Land Application Bans
Restricted Use –
Class A
None
BanPractical Ban
Reasonable
(Source: CA EPA, 2009)
Eastern Ventura County: Regional Biosolids Management Goals
Goals: “Long-Term” Regional Solution / Reduce Biosolids Handling Costs
Minimize Amount of Wet Solids hauled for disposal
Explore “Other” End-use Options (cement aggregate, energy recovery, electricity, methane recovery, e-fuel, etc)
Proposed Approaches:
Drying to > 70%-90%
Thermal Conversion and Other Technologies
Additional Goals: Investigate Embryonic/Innovative Technologies in addition to Established Technologies
Biosolids Management Alternatives Analysis
•
Alternatives Selection Process
•
Evaluation Criteria
•
Technology Description
•
Analysis
Biosolids Management - Alternatives Selection Process
Biosolids Management Technology Categories
Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale facilities in US
Tested as a full-scale demonstration in US
Technologies in development stage
Available/implemented in U.S.A for < 5 yrs
Have been tested at lab/bench scale
‘Established’
technologies from overseas
‘Innovative’
technologies from overseas
Source: EPA - Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management (2006)
Biosolids Management Technology Categories
Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale facilities in US
Tested as a full-scale demonstration in U.S.A.
Technologies in development stage
Available/implemented in U.S.A for < 5 yrs
Have been tested at lab/bench scale
‘Established’
tech. from overseas
‘Innovative’
technologies from overseas
Source: EPA - Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management
Biosolids Management - Alternatives Selection Process
Biosolids Management Technology Categories
Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale
facilities in USATested as a full-scale demonstration in US
Technologies in development stage
Available/implemented in US for < 5 yrs
Have been tested at lab/bench scale
‘Established’
tech. from overseas
‘Innovative’
technologies from overseas
Source: EPA - Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management
Biosolids Management - Alternatives Selection Process
Biosolids Management Technology Categories
Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale
facilities in USATested as a full-scale
demonstration in U.S.A.Technologies in
development stage
Available/implemented in U.S.A for < 5 yrs
Have been tested at lab/bench scale
‘Established’
tech. from overseas
‘Innovative’
technologies from overseas
Source: EPA - Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management
Biosolids Management - Alternatives Selection Process
* Not included in EPA‘s Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management Manual
Deep Well Injection *
Biosolids Management - Alternatives Selection Process
Solar Drying *
Drying / Thermal Conversion Technologies
Established Innovative EmbryonicFluidized Bed Incineration
Belt Drying Gasification
Indirect Drying Minergy’s
Vitrification SlurryCarb
Deep Well Injection Plasma Assisted Sludge Oxidation
Solar Drying
Biosolids Management Technology Categories:
Recommendations
Biosolids Management Evaluation Criteria:
State of development
Number of Installations
Discharge solids concentration
Energy efficiency
Space requirements
Constructability (including site location)
Ease of operation and maintenance
Manufacturer support
Life cycle costs
Regulatory Approval
Useful by-products
Established Technology
Manufacturers: Andritz,
Fenton, etc Mechanism: Indirect thermal heating
Output > 90% solids
Class A Biosolids
Biosolids Management Technologies - Indirect Drying
Source: Fenton
Innovative TechnologyManufacturer: Kruger, Huber Technology, Euroby, etcFeed forced through extruder to form ‘spaghetti’ on belt(s)Slow moving belt(s) in series with pre-heated air blowingInput Solids: 24% - 28% range; Output > 90% solidsClass A Biosolids
Biosolids Management Technologies - Belt Dryer
Sources: Euroby & Huber
Embryonic TechnologyManufacturers: US centrifuge, Kopf AG (Germany), Waste to Energy (UK), Nexterra (Canada), MaxWest (USA)Mechanism: Pyrolysis and Partial CombustionProduces gas that is used generate electricityOutput solids: Char (land filling / potential for cement aggregate)Needs 90% dried solids as input
Biosolids Management Technologies - Gasification
Source: Waste to Energy (UK)
Gasification of Biosolids: Installations
Manufacturer # of Installations* Examples of Biosolids Gasification Facility**
Kopf AG 1 Balingen Sewerage Works (150 kg/h; 120 KWH)
MaxWest Environmental Systems
1 City of Sanford, Florida (50,000 tpy - stall waste; 50,000 tpy of wood and organic waste; 10.5 MW of renewable energy)
Nexterra Systems Corp 2 (US), 4 (outside US)
Tolko – Heffley Creek Kamloops, BC (12,000 tpy)
US Centrifuge > 4 Clyde, Ohio and Reynolds, Indiana
Waste to Energy 2 (outside US) Anglian Water (1100 dry tons/yr)
Others* Includes Facilities that gasify biomass other than biosolids (example: wood chips, paper mill residue, etc.)
** Selected Biosolids Gasification Facilities
Demonstration project in LA (2.5 years) under Class V experimental permit
Vendor: Terralog Technologies, Inc (Canada)
Mechanism: Sludge injected >5000 ft below earth’s surface;Biogenesis (thermal + biodegradation): Sludge Methane, Oil, and CO2
Ground Water Quality Impact (Example: Florida)Protected by multiple concrete/steel casings & impermeable natural barriers
Continuous Monitoring
Source: Terralog / City of LA
Biosolids Management Technologies - Deep Well Injection
Implemented in Rialto, CA
Capacity: 900 wet tons/day
VCWWD = 75 wet ton/day currently May not be cost effective!Potential to pursue more local material
Embryonic Technology
Manufacturer: EnerTech, Inc.
Mechanism: Pressure + Heat
Centrifuge : 50% solids content
Dryer: 90% solids content
Output solids: E-fuel (fuel for cement kilns)
Biosolids Management Technologies - SlurryCarb Process
Embryonic Technology
Manufacturers: Fabgroups (Canada)
Mechanism: Plasma oxidation
in a Rotary Kiln (700oC)
Input solids: > 20% solids, FOG,
food scraps, yard waste
Output solids: Ash (fertilizer, composting additive, cement aggregate)
No pilot / full scale installations in US
Biosolids Management Technologies - Plasma Assisted Sludge Oxidation (PASO)
Biosolids Management Technologies - Fluidized Bed Incineration
Established TechnologyManufacturers: SiemensMechanism: Combustion Output solids: AshPotential for energy recovery Air permitting / public perception
Biosolids Management Technologies - Minergy’s GlassPack
Innovative Technology
Manufacturers: Minergy Corp.
Mechanism: Vitrification
(melting at 30000C,
quickly followed by cooling)
Output solids used as glass
aggregate
Installation: 1 plant in Wisconsin
Needs 90% solids
Business is no longer in existence
Solar Drying Beds:Innovative TechnologyVendor: Parkson Corporation, Veolia Water, IST, etcGreenhouse over existing SDBsSaves capital cost!Controlled consistent Drying (winter + summer)Output Solids Conc: 50-90%Automated Sludge TurnoverSaves O&M cost! (manhour
reduction)
Energy Efficient, Regional advantage (solar)
Biosolids Management Drying Technologies:
Veolia’s Soliamax
Evaluation Criteria Summary
Evaluation Criteria Indirect Dryers (Class A) Belt-Drying (Class A) Deep Well Injection
State of development Established Innovative Embryonic/Innovative
Number of Installations Many > 3 atleast LA project > 1.5 years (demons permit)
Discharge solids concentration 90% 90% N/A (there is no discharge solids)
Energy efficiency Low Low Low (pumping involved?!!)
Space requirements 8000 SF 6000 SFapprox 20000 SF (ini. for drilling equipment)
and then, 2500 SFEase of operation and
maintenance more complicated equipment more complicated equipment Very Difficult
Manufacturer support Good Moderate Good: (US based –
Office in LA)
Regulatory Approval Easy (allowed practice,
readily permittable) Moderate
Difficult: (Operational Challenges with Environmental
Protection)
Useful by-products Energy Recovery Energy Recovery Methane Recovery
Evaluation Criteria Summary (Contd..)
Evaluation Criteria Incineration Slurry-Carb process Gasification Plasma Assisted
Sludge Oxidation Solar Drying
State of development Established Embryonic Embryonic Embryonic Innovative
Number of Installations
Many 1 (CA), 2P (GA), and 3p (Japan).
1 GE nuclear plant in N.Carolina, 2 or 3 in clyde,
Ohio, 1 in Reynolds,
Indiana
1 montreal
(2% WAS -
> rotary press (30%) -
> PASA)
8 (US) + 52 (Outside US)
Discharge solids concentration Ash 90% Ash Ash 50%-90%
Energy efficiency Low Low Low Moderate High
Space requirementsEquip ~ 200 SF
(50 ft high)approx 18000 SF 4000 SF 6000 SF Large
Ease of operation and maintenance
more complicated equipment
more complicated equipment
more complicated equipment
more complicated equipment Simple equipment.
Manufacturer support Good Moderate Moderate Difficult Good
Regulatory Approval Difficult Moderate Difficult Difficult Moderate
Useful by-products Energy Recovery e-fuel
Energy recovery/
electricity production/ potential cement aggregate
energy recovery, co-gen possible, use as fertilizer,
cement aggregate, compost additive
N/A
Quantitative Analysis*
Indirect Dryer
$12 M
Incineration
$36 M
Belt Dryer
N/A**
Gasification
$31 M
Deep Well Injection
N/A**Minergy
N/A*** Planning Level Budgetary Cost Estimates are for quantities based on current solids production* Costs Include: capital cost only** Not included in Quantitative Analysis based on Qualitative Analysis Results
PASO
N/A**
Solar Drying
$20 M
SlurryCarb
N/A**
Biosolids Management Alternative Analysis: Findings
Recommendation: Indirect DryingLeast Cost Alternative
Able to accept a wide range of solids concentration as input
Multiple Vendors provide for competitive bidding
Established Technology; Relatively Easy Regulatory Approval;
Several Options for Short-term and Long-term End-use:
Class A Biosolids for Beneficial Use
Landfill disposal (significant reduction in disposal costs)
Feedstock for Thermal Conversion Technologies•
Potential for Future Addition of Technologies like Gasification
•
Significant reduction in Disposal Costs (Output = Ash)
•
Potential for heat and electricity production to meet in-plant needs Reliable/Local Potential Long Term Solution
Questions?
Priya Dhanapalpriyad@kennedyjenks.com503.295.4911
Team: Mark Cullington, Kennedy/Jenks ConsultantsReddy Pakkala, VCWWD No.1Satya Karra, VCWWD No.1