Innovative Long-Term Regional Biosolids ... - PNCWA

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’


Source: EPA - Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management (2006)


Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale facilities in US

Tested as a full-scale demonstration in U.S.A.




‘Established’

tech. from overseas

‘Innovative’


Source: EPA - Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management



Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale

facilities in USATested as a full-scale demonstration in US


Available/implemented in US for < 5 yrs


‘Established’

tech. from overseas

‘Innovative’





Established Innovative Embryonic> 25 full scale

facilities in USATested as a full-scale

demonstration in U.S.A.Technologies in

development stage



‘Established’

tech. from overseas

‘Innovative’




* Not included in EPA‘s Emerging Technologies for Biosolids Management Manual

Deep Well Injection *


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 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 [email protected]

Team: Mark Cullington, Kennedy/Jenks ConsultantsReddy Pakkala, VCWWD No.1Satya Karra, VCWWD No.1

mailto:[email protected]

Innovative Long-Term Regional Biosolids ... - PNCWA

Documents

Transcript of Innovative Long-Term Regional Biosolids ... - PNCWA