PRESENTS

GLOBAL ISSUES

Planning for the Future

A COLLECTION OF PAPERS FROM WEFTEC, THE WORLD'S PREMIER TECHNICAL EXHIBITION AND CONFERENCE

Table of Contents
Right Sizing a Cogeneration System Reducing Operating Costs with Energy Efcient MBR Designs Is Thermal Oxidation of Biosolids with Energy Recovery Sustainable?

3 8 15

WEF2011

RIGHT-SIZING A COGENERATION SYSTEM FOR A MIDDLE SIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Dale Gabel, P.E.1*, Doug Nolkemper, P.E.2, Susan Pekarek, P.E.2, and Katie Chamberlain, P.E.1

ABSTRACT Johnson County Wastewater, Overland Park, Kansas, is expanding its solids processing facilities at the 14.5 million gallon per day (mgd) Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant (Middle Basin WWTP) to match a recent expansion of its liquid stream capacity, accept additional trucked in sludges from other wastewater treatment plants, and provide a readily accessible disposal site for fat, oil, and grease (FOG) wastes in support of the Countys aggressive FOG waste management program in the collection system. The comprehensive cogeneration evaluation conducted during design included a payback analysis that determined the economic viability of cogeneration for the Middle Basin WWTP and the optimum size and operating scenarios for the cogeneration units. The study evaluated three engine sizes in ve engine congurations (with and without standby units), and
1 2

two operating scenarios (with and without supplemental natural gas), for a total of nine different engine/operational alternatives. Engine sizes ranged from 633 kW to 1060 kW and capital construction costs for the nine alternatives ranged from $3.6 to $6.7 million. Electrical power cost savings were determined from projected reductions in facilities charges, summer and winter demand charges, and summer and winter energy charges. The 20-year life cycle analysis included projected engine down times for scheduled and unplanned maintenance and anticipated variability in daily digester gas production. INTRODUCTION Johnson County Wastewater (JCW) is expanding its solids processing facilities at the 14.5 million gallon per day (mgd) Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant (Middle Basin WWTP) to match a recent expansion of its liquid stream capacity, accept additional trucked in

sludges from other wastewater treatment plants, and provide a readily accessible disposal site for fat, oil, and grease (FOG) wastes in support of the Countys aggressive FOG waste management program in the collection system. A key component of the solids processing improvements project was the addition of a combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration system that will provide most of the electricity required by the treatment plant while substantially reducing the treatment plants carbon footprint. The carbon footprint reduction was an important aspect of the project as it will enable JCW to contribute to the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals established by the Johnson County, Kansas Board of County Commissioners in December 2007 that included: Reduction of GHG emissions by one third by 2020

A key component of the solids processing improvements project was the addition of a combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration system

CH2MHILL, INC., Denver, Colorado Johnson County Wastewater, Johnson County, Kansas

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

Reduction of GHG from energy use in County buildings to zero by the year 2030 Reduction of county-wide GHG emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. Both the Middle Basin WWTP and the Blue River Main WWTP are biological nutrient removal (BNR), activated sludge treatment plants. The thickened solids from the Blue River Main WWTP will be trucked to the Middle Basin WWTP for processing prior to disposal via land application. The FOG wastes generated in Johnson County and anticipated to be trucked into the Middle Basin WWTP are primarily from restaurant grease traps that are required by County ordinance to be periodically pumped, and from four food processing industries that produce margarine, salad dressing, mayonnaise, and a number of sauces. The FOG waste will be processed at a new FOG waste

receiving station prior to being fed directly to the anaerobic digesters. The variability of volatile solids loadings to the digesters from the two WWTP solids and the FOG wastes is anticipated to create a signicant range in digester gas production. A comprehensive life-cycle analysis determined the optimal number and size of cogeneration units based on a detailed analysis of digester gas production variability, capital costs, and costs for operations and maintenance of the cogeneration units. METHODOLOGY Anaerobic digester gas production at most WWTPs typically exhibits some variability. The analysis of the daily gas produced by the Middle Basin WWTP digesters during the period of June through November 2007 also displayed signicant variability. During this time

period, the inuent wastewater ow averaged 10.5 mgd and the digesters produced an average 125,200 standard cubic feet per day (scf/day) of total digester gas with a standard deviation of 25,400 scf/day. Reliable gas measurement data outside of this period was not available. A normal distribution of the measured gas production displayed as a cumulative probability plot is shown in Figure 1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids A recent expansion of the liquid treatment processes of the Middle Basin WWTP increased the capacity to 14.5 mgd, which could be operated as a base load due to downstream treatment plants on the same sewer inceptor. The liquid treatment expansion also included BNR capabilities to meet State of Kansas efuent nutrient goals of 8.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total nitrogen and 1.5 mg/L total phosphorus. The

Blue River Main WWTP is also a BNR treatment plant with the capabilities to meet these efuent nutrient goals. Average annual daily ow to the Blue River Main WWTP was estimated to be 5.3 mgd at the start of cogeneration system. The solids loadings to the Middle Basin WWTP anaerobic digesters from these two treatment plants were estimated using CH2MHILLs Pro2D advanced wholeplant computer simulator, which had been calibrated to Middle Basin WWTP data. Average daily digester gas production from the two treatment plants was estimated at 226,000 scf/day using the Pro2D simulator. FOG Wastes FOG wastes from restaurant grease traps and the food processing industries had a signicant impact on the estimated gas production as determined by the Pro2D simulator. Data from the Johnson County

Figure 1. Cumulative Probability Plot of Middle Basin WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Production for the period of June 2007 through November 2007

Figure 2. Cumulative Probability Plots of Middle Basin WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Production with Varying Quantities FOG Waste Generated in Johnson County

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

Environmental Department indicated that approximately 4.3 million gallons of restaurant and industrial FOG is produced annually in the County, but it is unknown how much of this material would actually be delivered to the Middle Basin WWTP. Using the standard deviation characteristics of the measured digester gas production in 2007, a series of cumulative probability plots were determined based on varying the FOG waste quantities from 0 to 100 percent of the week day average quantity. As shown in Figure 2 on page 4, the estimated average digester gas production (50 percent cumulative probability) would vary from approximately 230,000 scf/d for no FOG waste sent to the Middle Basin digesters to 680,000 scf/d if 100 percent of the FOG waste in the County were sent to the digesters. Based on the projected reduction in hauling cost distances for the FOG waste haulers if they utilized the Middle Basin WWTP FOG waste receiving facility, it was assumed that up to 75 percent of the material generated in the County would be delivered to the Middle Basin WWTP, which results in an estimated average digester gas production of 550,000 scf/d. Cogeneration Systems Three internal combustion engine generator sizes in ve congurations (with and without standby units), and two operating scenarios (with and without supplemental
Water Environment Federation

natural gas to maximize electricity production), for a total of nine separate engine/operational alternatives were evaluated. As shown in Table 1, the engine sizes ranged from 633 kW to 1060 kW with capital construction costs for the nine alternatives ranging from $3.6 to $6.7 million. The cogeneration systems selected for this analysis are all GE Jenbacher systems; however, similar results would be expected for other manufacturers of similar cogeneration systems. The operating range of each cogeneration conguration was compared to the cumulative probability plot of digester gas production to determine potential need for supplemental natural gas to maximize electrical output. An example is presented as Figure 3 for the two 1060 kW conguration with both cogenerators as duty units. This conguration provided almost full coverage of the anticipated digester gas production, thus nearly eliminating aring of excess digester gas. A small range was identied between the 10 and 17 percent production probability that the digester gas production was sufcient to operate one cogeneration system, but not sufcient to operate both units. It was assumed that supplemental natural gas would be added to during these periods to operate both units at 50 percent of the rated capacity of the cogeneration systems, which is the recommended minimum.

In addition to producing electrical power, the cogeneration units would also produce hot water from the jacket and exhaust cooling systems. The quantity of hot water produced was assumed sufcient to heat the four digesters and the treatment plant buildings connected to the plant-wide heating system. Electrical Power Savings The Middle Basin WWTP is dened as a Large Power Service customer to KCPL, the local electric utility. As a Large Power Service customer, KCPLs monthly bills reect the total of four charges:

The Middle Basin WWTP is defined as a Large Power Service customer to KCPL, the local electric utility. As a Large Power Service customer, KCPLs monthly bills reflect the total of four charges: Customer charge Facilities charge Demand charge Energy charge

Table 1. Cogeneration Engine Congurations and Capital Costs

Figure 3. Comparison of the Operating Range of the Two 1060 kW Conguration to the Cumulative Probability Plot of Digester Gas Production with 75 Percent of the FOG Waste Generated in Johnson County

WEF2011

Table 2. Summary of KCPL Charges and Rates for Large Power Service Customers (2007 Rates)

Customer charge Facilities charge Demand charge Energy charge Table 2 summarizes the charges and rates for each of these four charge categories for the 2007 billing year for a Large Power Service customer such as Middle Basin WWTP. The sum of the customer, facilities, demand, and energy charges represents the total monthly electric bill before taxes. In 2007 the annual electrical service bill for the Middle Basin WWTP was approximately $500,000. For all but one of the cogeneration congurations, the estimated annual savings in electrical utility costs were determined to be greatest for the natural gas operating scenario that included utilization of supplemental natural gas to operate the duty units at full capacity. The savings more than covered the cost of supplemental natural gas. The one unit that was not evaluated at with all duty units at full capacity was the two 1060 kW conguration with both units as duty units. As shown in Figure 3, this conguration provided nearly complete coverage of the estimated digester gas production, so could be operated to match gas production and avoid the need to are unused digester gas. Table 3 summarizes the annual electrical power produced by each cogenerator conguration as well as the annual cost for supplemental natural gas and the net annual savings in electrical utility

costs based on the rate charges provided in Table 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION For each of the nine scenarios, a net present value economic payback analysis was performed based on the following assumptions: 20 year period for economic analysis, starting in 2010 and ending in 2030 Net discount rate of 3% All electric utility rates and charges increase by 5% every year from 2007 until 2030 Natural gas rates increase by 5% every year from 2007 to 2030 Parasitic loads to the cogeneration engine systems, including the gas cleaning system, radiator, etc., have a total power requirement of 35 kW per hour An annual gas cleaning equipment service contract estimated at $40,000 in 2010 An annual cogeneration system maintenance service contract estimated at $0.0140 per maximum annual kW-hours output by the cogeneration units. The life-cycle economic analyses were used to estimate the payback periods presented in Table 4. Each of the nine combinations of engine congurations and operating scenarios provided substantial savings in purchased electrical power. The life-cycle analysis revealed that one duty and one standby
6

Table 3. Summary of Electricity Produced, Supplemental Natural Gas Costs, and Savings in Electricity Costs

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

Table 4. Life-Cycle Economic Payback Periods

1060 kW unit resulted in the shortest payback period of 16.6 years. However, JCW selected the two duty 1060 kW unit conguration with a payback period of 18.2 years to minimize aring of digester gas and maximize reduction in GHG emissions in support of the Countys GHG reduction goals. At the design quantity of FOG waste delivered to the treatment plant, travel distance for waste haulers was estimated to be reduced by annually. The project is estimated to reduce the GHG emissions of the treatment plant by approximately 9,700 metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually. CONCLUSIONS The cogeneration conguration of two duty 1060 kW units was selected for the Middle Basin WWTP based on a detailed life-cycle analysis and the potential to reduce the GHG emissions of the treatment plant by approximately 9,700 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually. Keys to rightsizing the cogeneration system for JCW included: Truck in sludge from other plants Incorporate other highly degradable organic wastes (e.g., FOG wastes) Supplement digester gas with natural gas to keep engines running Minimize facility and demand charges on electrical bill with dual cogeneration units

Accept relatively long payback period Emphasis on reducing carbon footprint The engineering and design for the solids processing improvements project have been completed. The project has been awarded $17.8 million in American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (ARRA) funding as a green project and is currently in construction with startup scheduled for December 2010. BIBLIOGRAPHY D. Gabel, S. Pekarek, D. Nolkemper, M. Kalis. Sustainability Incorporated into the Solids Handling Improvements of the Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant. Presentation at the WEF Residuals Biosolids Specialty Conference, Portland, OR. (May 5, 2009) J. W. Wittwer. Graphing a Normal Distribution in Excel From Vertex42.com, November 1, 2004. http://vertex42.com/ExcelArtic les/mc/NormalDistributionExcel.html

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

Energy Efcient MBR Designs Can Signicantly Reduce Operating Costs

C.L. Wallis-Lage1*, S.D. Levesque2

Abstract The MBR technology is an attractive, exible solution for plant expansion/enhancement as well as for greeneld facilities. While capital costs of MBRs have become fairly competitive with conventional treatment systems, the operating costs, specically energy requirements, require additional focus. In order to provide the most cost effective and energy efcient system, enhancements with design, operations, and equipment selection are required. There are several areas within the design of an MBR plant which provide the opportunity for a cost effective design which balances capital and operating costs. These include use of primary clarication, use of ow equalization, adjusting the balance of the solids between biological treatment and the membrane basins, and pump conguration. Key operational focus areas include membrane scour air operational strategies, use of ux enhancers, optimization of the number of membranes
1 2

in service, and biological operating conditions. Along with the operational strategies to reduce energy, energy efcient equipment must be selected. Keywords MBR, energy, design, operations, equipment, ux enhancers, aeration Introduction The MBR technology has rapidly gained acceptance as an attractive, exible solution to plant expansion/ enhancement as well as for greeneld facilities due the following attributes: a small footprint which can facilitate new and retrot plant objectives, exibility to achieve various levels of nutrient removal, and the exceptional overall organic and solids efuent quality. However, a review of the MBR systems available in the market identies signicant differences both in design and operation. Plant conguration, the range of operating conditions and

equipment design all play heavily on the resulting efuent quality and equally importantly on the operating regime for a given plant. Within the last decade there has been exponential growth in the MBR eld which has sparked an increase in the number of manufacturers. The increased competition has reduced the MBR equipment costs, and the escalating commodity prices favored the small footprint design; hence, the capital costs of an MBR plant became competitive with conventional activated sludge plants. However, a key area of focus within the MBR industry which still needs optimization is energy. Historically, the energy requirement for an MBR typically exceeded that of a conventional activated sludge plant by a factor of 1.5 to 3. In order for MBR technology to reach the next level of technological excellence, energy requirements must be reduced. As illustrated in Figure 1, the primary energy

Within the last decade there has been exponential growth in the MBR field which has sparked an increase in the number of manufacturers. The increased competition has reduced the MBR equipment costs, and the escalating commodity prices favored the small footprint design; hence, the capital costs of an MBR plant became competitive with conventional activated sludge plants.

Black & Veatch, Black & Veatch,

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

requirements are related to aeration (76%) with pumping a far second (14%). To that end, the key opportunities for energy reduction center on aeration; however, all energy related elements should be considered. In order to provide the most cost effective and energy efcient system, it is important to look at opportunities related to design, operations, and equipment. Design Elements to Reduce Energy There are several areas within the design of an MBR plant which provide the opportunity for a cost effective design which balances capital and operating costs. These include use of primary clarication ahead of the MBR, use of ow equalization, adjusting the balance of the solids between the aeration basin and the membrane basins, and pump conguration. Primary Clarication With increasingly large MBRs, the natural engineering

tendency is to consider the addition of primary clariers to reduce the load to the MBR similar to the benets when designing large conventional activated sludge treatment plants. However, it is important to completely evaluate the impact of adding primary clariers. Traditionally, the principal driver for using a primary clarier has been load reduction in order to: (1) reduce the power requirements associated with aeration, and (2) reduce the biological tank volume. For an MBR, the aeration power requirements are a combination of process air and membrane scour air, with the volume of scour air approximately equal to the process air requirement. With a reduction in organic load, process aeration requirements would reduce; however, the scour air requirements would not change. Consequently, the actual power reduction would only be associated with the process air and would be a much smaller fraction of the

overall aeration power compared to a conventional plant. However, there are other energy/O&M related benets to reducing the organic load to the MBR. Decreasing the organic loading on the MBR process means that for a given ow rate, the MBR process can operate at lower MLSS concentration which may decrease membrane fouling tendency and lead to longer cleaning intervals and longer membrane life. The reduced organic load can lead to increased oxygen transfer efciency and, consequently, lower aeration blower power consumption. The use of primary clariers also adds some additional treatment consideration with respect to the overall energy balance at a treatment plant. Inclusion of a primary clarier results in a two sludge system which makes anaerobic digestion attractive. The energy associated with the gas production from anaerobic digestion may be benecial in

the bigger picture and, therefore, outweigh the marginal reduction in energy savings associated with the MBR. From a design standpoint, the use of primary clariers impacts other process elements. There is an opportunity to locate the ne screens downstream of the primary clariers which would signicantly reduce screenings production and, therefore, screenings handling. Use of primary clariers may increase the plant footprint, and the large surface area of primary clariers generates signicant odors which must be controlled. All of these issues should be considered in combination with the discussion above in the nal decision to use primary clarication. Flow Equalization The use of the MBR technology has rapidly advanced in recent years from small, satellite (or scalping) plants to large scale, end-ofthe-line facilities. As a result, this newer generation of MBR plants must accommodate ow uctuations from both diurnal variation and storm events. Because membrane sizing is hydraulically driven, alternatives to increasing the number of membranes should be considered if the peak ow is more than twice the average ow, as the economical upper ow limit for membranes in most MBRs is approximately 1.5 to 2 times the average ow rate. Designing membranes to accommodate higher peak ows typically results in uxes at the average ow which are
9

Figure 1. Energy requirements for an MBR. (Hribljan, June 2007)

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

Table 1. Energy and footprint impact based on equalization.*

Figure 2. External and internal ow equalization optimizes membrane design.

below the optimized point and signicantly increases equipment cost. In addition to cost, there are operational benets associated with a constant and reasonable ux, e.g., reduced fouling rates hence less frequent intensive cleaning and the opportunity to operate with lower air scour rates. The combination of a reduction in the membrane surface area and operating with a lower air scour rate provides the opportunity for a signicant energy reduction. An example of the benecial impact of equalization and adjusted air scour rates is provided in Table 1 based on using hollow ber membranes. There are two options for equalization: external and internal. External equalization consists of separate tankage ahead of the biological process tankage. External equalization easily satises design requirements, but if the driver behind the selection of an MBR is footprint, an additional facility may be difcult to incorporate on spaceconstrained sites. External equalization can be used intermittently as an off-line
Water Environment Federation

basin to handle storm ows or as an in-line basin to dampen daily ows as well as handle peak day ows. Internal equalization, i.e., sidewater depth variation within the biological process tankage, can be used if the ow variation is not too large. Most plants will be limited to approximately 0.5 1.0 m of sidewater depth variation before the aeration blowers are signicantly impacted, unless less efcient positive displacement blowers are used. Typically, internal equalization is best suited for dampening the diurnal pattern because the level variation required to manage storm ows effectively tends to be signicant and could adversely impact the blower design. For some facilities, a combination of both external and internal ow equalization (see Figure 2) provides a cost effective solution, with the external equalization basin used for offline storage of storm ows and internal equalization used to handle the daily diurnal variation. Balance of Solids Traditionally, MBR systems have been designed to operate at similar MLSS concen-

trations in both the aeration basins and the membrane tank. The end result is a very high solids recirculation rate, e.g., 4 5 times the inuent ow. MBR systems also tend to be designed using smaller process volumes and higher MLSS concentrations than conventional biological processes. The result is suppression of aeration alpha, leading to increased air ow requirements. While it isnt feasible in all MBR designs, under certain circumstances, e.g., the use of primary clariers, there is an opportunity to operate with lower MLSS concentrations, hence less mass, in the aeration basins. This mode of operation could reduce the solids recycle ow rate by 50%. The energy reduction is two-fold: (1) reduction in pumping and (2) depending on the true impact of MLSS on alpha, a potential increase in alpha which improves oxygen transfer efciency. Pump Congurations The three key pumping requirements for an MBR are as follows: solids return, nutrient recycles, and permeate. As noted above, the

recycle volume ranges from three to ve times the inuent ow rate depending on the overall MBR design conguration. The pumping conguration can either be forward pumping (i.e., pumping mixed liquor from the aeration basins to the membrane tanks) or return pumping (i.e., pumping mixed liquor from the membranes to the aeration basins). The preferred conguration is a function of the membrane manufacturer and the membrane tank layout and location, for example, whether new membrane tanks will be constructed or membranes will be retrotted into existing tanks. Up to two nutrient recycle pumping steps may be required depending on the nutrient reduction requirements. Because membrane air scour results in elevated dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the solids recycle, an independent recycle is typically required to return nitrates from the aerobic portion of the activated sludge basins to the anoxic zone when denitrication is required. An alternative strategy is to provide a deoxygenation zone
10

WEF2011

to reduce the DO of the solids prior to returning them to the upstream biological basins. Should enhanced biological phosphorus removal be employed, a separate recycle is needed to return solids from the anoxic zone to the anaerobic zone to eliminate DO and nitrate inhibition in the anaerobic zone. Innovative plant congurations using in-wall pumps or low head submersible pumps can minimize the energy requirements for the nutrient recycle pumps. Permeate from the membranes may be pumped or ow by gravity depending on the membrane conguration and hydraulic constraints. The optimum conguration to minimize energy is to ow by gravity. This conguration would require sufcient water depth above the membranes to offset the headloss associated with ux variation, fouling of the membranes, and any downstream processes prior to

discharge. If pumping is ultimately required to reach the discharge point, permeate pumps may be the most cost effective selection. The potential reduction in pumping energy by implementing the design strategies discussed above is signicant. For example, at a project in southern which will retrot the MBR technology into existing conventional activated sludge basins, the pumping requirement will be reduced from a traditionally based MBR design pumping rate of 9Q down to 4Q. Key design features include the use of a deoxygenation zone which will allow the return of the solids from the membrane tank directly to the anoxic zone, hence, serving as a portion the nitried mixed liquor recycle. The existing nitried mixed liquor recycle return capacity is 2Q which was left in operation. To minimize the solids return capacity, a higher MLSS

concentration was allowed in the membrane tank compared to the biological basins. Insufcient carbon in combination with excess tank capacity resulted in the use of a 4-stage Bardenpho process to reach the TIN goal of 10 mg/L. Implementing gravity ow in lieu of pumping permeate could have provided a further pumping reduction of 1Q. Operational Elements to Reduce Energy Hand in hand with the design elements discussed above, are the various operational elements that inuence the overall energy efciency of the MBR design. Currently the single largest energy cost is aeration both for the biology and for the maintenance of the membranes. Hence, opportunities to reduce aeration have the potential to reduce the overall energy requirements signicantly. Membrane Air Scour A key factor in the

performance of the membranes in an MBR process is the daily maintenance provided by scour air. Air scour can be one of, if not the single largest, energy use in the process. In the last few years, the dominant membrane suppliers have decreased air scour energy requirements, and further improvement is anticipated. This has been one of the factors making MBR processes increasingly competitive with conventional activated sludge processes. Specically, various membrane suppliers have used the following techniques to minimize energy consumption: Intermittent air scour Lower air scour ow rates at lower ux One membrane supplier, ZENON, holds patents for cyclic air scour, but other suppliers have found that reducing airow to all modules also is effective. ZENON cut scour air requirements by 50% many years ago when they implemented their patented cyclic air scour which cycled air on and off in 10 second intervals. The change in scour air operation signicantly reduced their energy requirements in the membrane tank. Their most recent development saves additional energy by allowing even longer rest periods between aeration period when the ux is below the average design condition. The system uses 10/10 air scour at high ux and 10/30 air scour at
11

Figure 3. MBR design signicantly impacts pumping requirements.

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

lower ux. The 10/30 air scour works as follows: for 10 seconds, half of the modules in a given cassette receive air scour. For the next 10 seconds this cassette does not receive air scour, but air scour is being used in other cassettes. For the next 10 seconds, the other half of the modules in the original cassette receives air scour. For the last 10 seconds of the cycle, the original cassette does not receive air scour. So, a given cassette receives air the time, and a given module receives air of the time. The air scour blowers meanwhile produce air at a constant ow rate. When operating in the 10/30 mode of operation, the energy requirement associated with the scouring air is reduced to 0.16 m3/m2/hr (airow per membrane surface area). Another membrane supplier, Kubota, uses continuous aeration but graduates the volume of air based on the ux, e.g., lower air scour rates are used with lower ux. Depending on the specic membrane design, the air scour can be as low as 0.16 m3/m2/hr. With the most recent Siemens system, a pulsed discharge of air is used to scour the membranes. This design has reduced their air scour requirements to as low as 0.11 m3/m2/hr depending on the overall system design. With the Huber system, intermittent aeration occurs based on the rotation of the membrane panels through the aerated portion of the membrane tank, which reduces air scour requirements. The end result is that the membrane air scour
Water Environment Federation

requirement can vary between 0.11 and 0.73 m3/m2/hr which results in a signicant variation in the energy demand associated with membrane maintenance. Flux Enhancers Intermittent use of membrane performance enhancers, specically a polymer based product called MPE 50 supplied by Nalco, can be used to reduce the overall membrane footprint and, therefore, air scour. The addition of ux enhancers allows a wider ux operating range and has been used to demonstrate performance benets both in pilot scale and full scale plants. There are two operating extremes which appear to benet from the addition of the polymer based ux enhancer. If the membrane quantity is driven by peak ow, the ux enhancer allows operation at a higher peak ux than traditionally accepted, without excessive or rapid fouling, which results in both an initial cost reduction based on the quantity of membranes installed as well as an energy savings based on the reduction in overall air scour requirements. Extensive testing was completed with in to demonstrate that the Kubota membrane could operate without rapid fouling at approximately 1.5 times their typical peak ux (Enviroquip, 2007). If the membrane quantity is based on minimum temperature which reduces the design ux, full scale testing in with the Kubota membranes indicated that the addition of the

polymer based ux enhancer supported operation at a more aggressive ux at a lower temperature without adverse impact on the membrane performance. By operating at a higher ux, the membrane quantity and the associated energy requirements can be reduced. Flux enhancing polymer can also be a means of increasing the short-term capacity of the membrane system which could impact redundancy requirements. Optimize Membranes in Service Matching the number of membrane trains in service with the plant ow is an operating strategy that can reduce energy, as the membranes which are not in service do not require the same degree of air scour as those in service. Consequently, taking membrane tanks out of service for portions of the day when ow is low provides the opportunity to reduce the air scour requirements during the rest period. This mode of operation also enhances membrane performance due to a more consistent ux. Varying the number of basins on line is primarily an opportunity for plants where equalization is not provided. Optimize DO within the Bio Process In all wastewater treatment plants which use aerobic treatment, the biological aeration demand is a signicant contributor to the plant energy requirements. With an MBR there are two opportunities to reduce the

Matching the number of membrane trains in service with the plant flow is an operating strategy that can reduce energy, as the membranes which are not in service do not require the same degree of air scour as those in service.

12

WEF2011

total aeration demand in the biological aeration basins: (1) operate at the minimum DO required to achieve complete treatment, and (2) return the solids from the membrane tank to the oxic portion of the biological basins to utilize the elevated DO which can occur within the membrane tank from the air scour. Historically, the aerobic portion of the biological basins has been operated with a target DO of 2 mg/L in order to consistently achieve performance goals and to minimize the potential for lamentous growth. By using membranes for solids separation in lieu of gravity settling systems, the adverse impact of laments is signicantly reduced. Consequently, aerobic basins could be operated with a residual DO of 1 mg/L, or potentially less, in order to reduce aeration airow requirements. However, it is critical to have sufcient sludge age and hydraulic residence time to achieve the required performance, especially with a reduced concentration of DO. With respect to the solids recycle line, returning the solids from the membrane tank to the anoxic zone (if part of the biological basins) could be detrimental to denitrication due to the elevated DO. Depending on the membrane manufacturer, the DO in the membrane tank can vary between 2 mg/L and 6 mg/L. By returning the solids to the oxic zone, there is an opportunity to utilize the DO to offset a portion of the aeration demands.
Water Environment Federation

Figure 4. Oxygen transfer efciency for ne bubble diffusers.

Equipment Elements to Reduce Energy The highest power consumption at a wastewater treatment plant is tied to the aeration system; consequently, optimizing oxygen requirements in addition to operating efcient equipment are important elements in keeping operating costs down. Ancillary equipment such as mixers for anaerobic and anoxic basins in BNR plants should also be closely scrutinized to keep energy requirements low. Diffused Aeration Fine bubble diffusers provide efcient oxygen transfer and have been proven to be durable for wastewater treatment plant applications, thus they are the predominant aeration device used today. There are many types of ne

pore diffused aeration systems in the marketplace. In general these aeration systems are grouped into porous ceramics, porous plastics and perforated membranes. The perforated membranes include traditional disk and tube membranes as well as panel and strip membrane units, which have higher oxygen transfer efciency. The size of the aeration system in an MBR is signicantly impacted by the oxygen demand, diffuser depth, and alpha. The oxygen transfer efciency of a variety of ne bubble diffused aeration devices is illustrated in Figure 4. Blowers For purposes of energy efciency, multi-stage, integrally-geared single-stage and gearless single-stage (turbo) centrifugal blowers could be used. For a given

capacity, single-stage blowers tend to be more expensive than multi-stage blowers. However, single-stage blowers tend to have greater turndown capability, which could allow fewer, larger blowers to be used for a given situation. The net effect could be a reduction in capital cost. Another advantage of single-stage blowers is that they tend to be more efcient than multi-stage blowers, reducing electrical power consumption. Many multi-stage blower systems achieve capacity turndown using inlet throttling, which reduces the mass airow at the blower inlet while keeping volumetric airow the same. At least one single-stage blower manufacturer uses variable inlet guide vanes and variable outlet diffuser vanes, both under control of a local PLC,
13

WEF2011

Table 2. Blower efciency and turndown capacity.

to achieve turndown and maximize operating efciency. Either alone or together with these approaches, a blower system can use variable speed drives (VSDs). A summary of blower efciency and turndown capacity is provided in Table 2. Turbo blowers are a newer type of single-stage blower that operate at very high speed. These blowers have a number of advantages, including excellent energy efciency; however, they currently are offered only in relatively small capacity. Mixing For the un-aerated portions of the activated sludge basins (i.e., anoxic and anaerobic zones), high efciency mechanical mixing equipment should be used. The most popular choices include submersible propeller blade type pumps by Flygt, EMU and Landia, and top entering, high efciency mixers which operate with a very low rpm manufactured by Chemineer, Lightnin and Philadelphia Mixer. Recent additions to the mixing marketplace include the INVENT mixer
Water Environment Federation

and the EnerSave mixer, which use signicantly less energy yet appear to produce similar mixing and performance results. CONCLUSION The MBR technology has rapidly gained acceptance as an attractive and exible solution to plant expansion/enhancement as well as for greeneld facilities. While capital costs of MBRs have become fairly competitive with conventional treatment systems, the operating costs, specically as related to energy requirements, require additional focus. In order to provide the most cost effective and energy efcient system, it is important to explore opportunities related to design, operations, and equipment. There are several areas within the design of an MBR plant which provide the opportunity for a cost effective design which balances CAPEX and OPEX. These include use of primary clarication ahead of the MBR, use of ow equalization, adjusting the balance of the solids between the aeration basin and the

membrane basins, and pump conguration. Hand in hand with the design elements, are the various operational elements that inuence the overall energy efciency of the MBR design. Currently the single largest energy cost is aeration both for the biology and for the maintenance of the membranes. Hence, opportunities to reduce aeration have the potential to reduce the overall energy requirements signicantly. Key areas of focus with respect to operational energy reduction include membrane scour air operational strategies, the use of ux enhancers to allow a wider ux operating range, optimization of the number membranes in service and the oxic operating conditions within the biological basins. Along with the operational strategies to reduce energy, energy efcient equipment, specically the aeration equipment, the blowers and the mixers must be selected.

Documentation via personal communication Hribljan, Michael J., WEF Webcast Large MBR Design and Residuals Handling, June 12, 2007

REFERENCES Enviroquip 2007, Flux

14

WEF2011

Energy Recovery from Thermal Treatment: TO DIGEST OR NOT TO DIGEST Is this Sustainable?
Peter Burrowes, CH2MHILL, Tim Constantine, CH2MHILL, Jeremy Kraemer, CH2MHILL, Ky Dangtran, Inlco Degremont

ABSTRACT Many wastewater utilities are developing or have recently developed biosolids management plans (BMP) that provide a strategy for 20 to 25 years into the future. In developing BMPs, wastewater utilities are faced with many challenges, such as satisfying the customer base, satisfying internal and external stakeholders and developing a BMP that is affordable, sustainable for the future and meets regulations. Traditionally, small, medium and some large-sized wastewater utilities have land applied anaerobically digested Class B biosolids either as liquid or dewatered cake, while several of the larger wastewater utilities have thermally oxidized their biosolids. With growing public pressure to reduce or cease land application, there has been renewed interest in thermal oxidation as a management strategy, often

raising the question: is it sustainable? If the wastewater utility has existing digestion, is thermal oxidation compatible with digestion or should digestion be stopped? This paper presents a comparison of six different thermal oxidation process schemes with respect to their economic, energy and carbon footprints for undigested and digested solids. The results of the comparison provide wastewater utility staff and engineers with the positive answer to the question Is thermal oxidation of biosolids with energy recovery sustainable? INTRODUCTION Many wastewater utilities are developing or have recently developed biosolids management plans (BMP) that provide a strategy for 20 to 25 years into the future. For a biosolids management plan to be effective, it should be

updated every 5 years or so to review the progress of implementation and to re-plan as necessary. In some cases, it is appropriate to review technologies that may have been emerging at the time that the BMP was completed, but have subsequently been commercialized with demonstrated municipal wastewater experience and to determine whether to include as part of the implementation. In developing BMPs, wastewater utilities are faced with many challenges, such as satisfying the customer base, satisfying internal and external stakeholders and developing a BMP that is affordable, sustainable for the future and meets regulations. Traditionally, small, medium and some large-sized wastewater utilities have land applied anaerobically digested biosolids either as liquid or dewatered cake, while several of the larger wastewater

utilities have thermally oxidized their biosolids. With growing public pressure to reduce or cease land application, there has been renewed interest in thermal oxidation as a management strategy, often raising the question: is it sustainable? [For this paper, sustainability is measured by economic parameters, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.] BACKGROUND Thermal oxidation has been practiced in since the 1930s. Early facilities employed multiple hearth furnaces, which required generous amounts of fuel for normal operation. In the early 1970s, uid bed combustors (FBC) in the cold windbox conguration began to be used. These also required generous amounts of fuel. Following the rst oil crisis in 1973, furnace manufacturers developed the hot windbox

* CH2MHILL, 300 72 Victoria Street, South, Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y9

Water Environment Federation

15

WEF2011

Figure 1 - Conventional Fluidized Bed Thermal Oxidation System

Figure 2 Conventional Fluidized Bed Thermal Oxidation System with Waste Heat Recovery

FBC that recovered energy from the oxidation process to reduce the use of fuel (WEF, 2009). Together with improvements to dewatering technology (e.g. high solids centrifuges), FBCs have, for a couple of decades, been capable of operating without the requirement for fuel during normal operation when using undigested solids. However, there are few examples of thermal oxidation facilities that recover and utilize energy in excess of that needed to operate the thermal oxidation process. This practice of utilizing thermal oxidation as a disposal option has been perpetuated by consultants and manufacturers trying to develop thermal oxidation systems to compete nancially with other methods of biosolids management, as well as the lack of regulatory or other drivers with respect to climate change and looming energy shortages. This is in contrast to European practices that decades ago began to require thermal oxidation
Water Environment Federation

facilities to be equipped with energy recovery. More recently, these facilities have been eligible for and have received carbon credits. With the recent awareness of global climate change in North America, it will become important for wastewater utilities that are considering thermal oxidation to seriously look into incorporating energy recovery. Fluid Bed Thermal Oxidation Variants The majority of uid bed thermal oxidation systems in North America are congured specically for volume reduction/solids disposal as shown in Figure 1. In this conguration, the process train consists of a hot windbox uidized bed reactor, a primary (uidizing air/hot gas) heat exchanger (HtX), and the air pollution control train. Fluidizing air is provided by a uidizing air blower which provides sufcient pressure to move all the incinerator gases through the train to the stack. This is commonly referred to as a

forced draft or push system. The air pollution control train shown in Figure 1 consists of a wet venturi/impingement scrubber and a mercury adsorber, which is required in some states and would likely be required under proposed MACT rules. The rst mercury adsorber in this conguration installed at a municipal sludge incineration plant in North America was the one installed at Ypsilanti, MI waste water treatment plant (Dangtran, 2007). The venturi scrubber could be a conventional high energy venturi followed by an impingement tray or packed scrubber with a demister or it could consist of a quench section followed by an impingement scrubber, with an integral multiple venturi section and a demister. The hot windbox conguration utilizes heat in the exhaust gas to reduce or eliminate the need for auxiliary fuel. However, there is still a signicant quantity of heat in the exhaust gas that is wasted. Examples include: Ypsilanti,

MI and Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico (Mercado, 2010). The less common conguration in North America includes energy recovery as shown in Figure 2. In this conguration a waste heat boiler follows the primary HtX to recover energy, usually as steam. Steam can be used to drive a steam turbine, which in turn could drive a generator to produce electricity or a uidizing air blower. For larger and high pressure systems, water tube boilers are used and these require an induced draft (ID) fan so that the boiler operates under a slight vacuum to prevent leakage of gas. This type of system is commonly referred to as a balanced draft or pushpull system. For smaller or lower pressure systems, a re tube style of boiler is used and the ID fan is not required. Energy can also be recovered using thermal oil in the boiler, although there are no current applications in North
16

WEF2011

America. Examples include: Metropolitan WWTP, (Burrowes, 2007a) and Cleveland Southerly, Cayuga, OH (Welp et al., 2010), which is under construction. The third variation uses the European approach as shown in Figure 3.v In this conguration, dewatered solids are thermally dewatered (scalped) in a steam-heated scalping dryer to raise the dry solids content sufciently to allow autogenous operation. The process train uses a cold or warm windbox uid bed reactor, a waste heat boiler and the same air pollution control system as the previous two congurations (European systems usually use dry air pollution control systems). As for the previous conguration, a push system or a push-pull

system is used depending on the boiler type. Some of the steam generated in the waste heat boiler is required for the scalping dryer. The remainder can be used to generate electricity or drive a uidizing air blower. In Europe, water tube boilers are arranged so that one of the sections includes a low temperature air heater for preheating uidizing air to improve energy efciency. This conguration has not been utilized in North America to date, although cold windbox or warm windbox uid bed reactors were used on systems processing thermally conditioned solids. Examples include: Beckton, UK; Crossness, UK and Hamburg, Germany. Air Emissions Air emissions from uid bed thermal oxidation systems are

regulated in various ways around the world. In the United States, thermal oxidation is regulated by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Air Act, New Source Performance Standards and Prevention of Signicant Deterioration must be complied with, as well as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and state air regulations. Pending regulations under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 could add emission limits for nine additional air contaminants. The European Union Directive 2000/76/EC on waste incineration provides emission limits for all types of incinerators in Europe and is the standard that is used in most of the European countries that practice thermal oxidation, including the

Figure 3 - European Style of Fluidized Bed Thermal Oxidation System with Waste Heat Recovery

United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands. In Ontario, one of the two provinces in Canada that practices thermal oxidation of biosolids, thermal oxidation is regulated by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) through Regulation 419. Recent Certicates of Approval for uid bed thermal oxidation systems contain conditions which include specic stack emission limits. In addition, emissions must meet point of impingement concentrations that are determined through air dispersion modelling. There are no specic guidelines for emissions from uid bed thermal oxidation systems. However MOE Guideline A-7 Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for new Municipal Waste Incinerators provides air emission limits, as well as establishes requirements for control monitoring and testing. Although this guideline exempts incinerators processing wastewater solids, it can provide a good means of comparing emissions from uid bed thermal oxidation systems. Similarly, European Union Directive 2000/76/EC on waste incineration can also provide a good comparison of emissions performance of uid bed thermal oxidation systems. A recent comparison of emissions measured during stack tests at the uid bed thermal oxidation system at the Dufn Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario, Canada) indicate the emissions are below those specied in Ontario MOE
17

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

Guideline A-7 and European Union Directive 2000/76/EC (Burrowes, 2009). The Issue One of the questions wastewater utilities that practice anaerobic digestion and are considering thermal oxidation are faced with is: should they continue digestion if they adopt thermal

oxidation? Another question is, given there is an additional cost to install and operate, should they include energy recovery with thermal oxidation? METHODOLOGY The analysis which follows below assumes thermal oxidation is applied to a wastewater treatment plant

that already processes their solids through anaerobic digestion and dewatering to determine whether it would be preferable to continue digestion after thermal oxidation is added or discontinue thermal oxidation and process all untreated solids through thermal oxidation. As this scenario is only likely for larger plants, a

hypothetical wastewater treatment plant with a future wastewater ow of 450 MLD is evaluated. The assumed solids productions through dewatering for both digested and undigested solids for this analysis are presented in Table 1, and are typical of WWTPs treating primarily municipal wastewater. Approximately 85,000 kg/d of combined primary and waste activated solids with a concentration of about 4.2% and a volatile solids content of about 77% will be processed either through digestion, dewatering and thermal oxidation or through dewatering and thermal oxidation without digestion. In the case of the undigested solids, approximately 83,600 kg/d of dewatered solids with a solids content of 28.5% and a volatile solids content of 77% are to be thermally oxidized. In the case of the dewatered digested solids, approximately 54,750 kg/d of dewatered solids with a solids content of 25% and a volatile solids concentration of 65% are to be thermally oxidized. The digestion process generates approximately 34,430 m3/d of biogas. In a second digestion scenario, the solids will be thermally hydrolyzed (assumed to be Cambi THP for illustrative purposes) prior to digestion. Approximately 40,660 kg/d of dewatered digested solids with a solids content of 35% and a volatile solids concentration of 55% are to be thermally oxidized. In this scenario, approximately 36,860 m3/d of biogas will be generated.
18

Table 1 - Solids Production Summary

Water Environment Federation

WEF2011

The thermal oxidation variants presented earlier were evaluated for the undigested and digested solids cases, as follows: The following are the steps performed in the analysis: Mass and energy balances were developed for each alternative to determine process parameters, quantities and equipment sizing requirements. Equipment quantity and sizes were selected and construction costs developed for each alternative.
Table A

Annual quantities of materials, resources and utilities were developed and costs associated with these were developed into annual operating and maintenance costs. Annualized costs were developed, as well as unit costs based on annual dry tonnes processed. Carbon footprints were determined for each alternative. Mass and Energy Balances The solids production and digestion operation values presented in Table 1 were

developed using CH2MHILLs process design model Pro2D. In addition to the solids numbers presented in Table 1, peak week and peak day quantities were also developed by the Pro2D model. Peak month quantities are typically used for sizing solids processing equipment. In its simplest form, the combustion of wastewater solids can be represented by the equation in Table B: The rst two terms in the equation represent the organics and water in the dewatered cake. The third and

Alternative

Description

Undigested 1: (Undig1) Conventional third bed thermal oxidation system, using undigested solids Undigested 2: (Undig2) Conventional uid bed thermal oxidation system with waste heat recovery and electricity generation, using undigested solids Digested 1: (Dig 1) Digested 2: (Dig 2) Conventional uid bed thermal oxidation system, using digested solids Conventional uid bed thermal oxidation system with waste heat recovery and electricity generation, using digested solids European style of thermal oxidation system with waste heat reecovery and electriciy generation, using digested solids Conventional uild bed thermal oxidation system with heat recovery and electricity generation, using digested solids, with raw solids pre-treated by thermal hydrolysis

Digested 3: (Dig 3)

Digested 4: (Dig 4)

Mass and energy balances were developed for each alternative to determine process parameters, quantities and equipment sizing requirements.

Table B

C12H10O2SsludgeFuel + 43H2Osludge + 21O2Air + 45N2Air + Inerts

12CO2 + 6H2OFuel + SO2 + 43H2Osludge + 6O2Excess + 45N2Air+ Inerts

Water Environment Federation

19

WEF2011

fourth terms represent the air required for combustion plus 40% excess air. The last term represents the inerts, which after combustion, become ash. The right hand side of the equation represents the products of combustion, together with the water from the dewatered cake, ash and excess air components. This equation is the basis of the mass balance for the thermal oxidation system. The energy balance is based on the concept that the energy or heat entering a component is equal to the heat exiting the component. The equation shown in Table C represents the energy balance for the thermal oxidation system: The mass and energy balances for the thermal oxidation systems were developed using CH2MHILL heat and mass balance model for uid bed thermal oxidation systems (HAM). The model calculates the quantities of all solids, liquid and gaseous quantities at each of the main items of equipment in the processing train and carries out an energy balance at each of these nodes. Figure 4 presents an example of the energy balance expressed as kWh/dt for alternative Undigested 2. For each of the alternatives, two model runs were performed: for annual average solids produced and peak month solids. The annual average values were utilized in determining annual quantities and peak month values were used for equipment sizing.
Water Environment Federation

Table C

energy released by organics + sensible heat in uidizing air + energy released by auxiliary fuel

sensible heat in exhaust gases + latent heat in exhaust gases+ sensible heat in inerts + heat losses

Figure 4 - Example of Energy Balance for Alternative Undigested 2

Sizing and Other Considerations The following assumptions about existing equipment in the wastewater plant are: The existing digesters have adequate capacity for projected solids quantities, but some will require upgrading The existing cogeneration system has reached its capacity and will be expanded The existing centrifuge dewatering system has adequate capacity for dewatering digested solids, but not sufcient capacity for the undigested solids.

Equipment is sized based on peak month solids production. For redundancy, one spare centrifuge is provided at peak month solids production. Thermal oxidation capacity is provided for processing peak month solids production with all units operating. Redundancy is provided by bypassing and hauling dewatered cake to landll. Ash is hauled to landll. Process sizing and selection of equipment, capital costs and operating and maintenance costs were developed using CH2M HILLs solids process sizing and cost model, Technomic.

Table 2 on page 21 provides a summary of process operating factors and cost factors that were used in developing annual quantities and annual costs. Carbon Footprints Carbon footprints were estimated using procedures developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006). The methodology consists of multiplying activity data for each of the greenhouse gas components by the appropriate emission factor and the global warming potential (Burrowes, 2007). Appropriate emission factors
20

WEF2011

were selected from various sources (IPCC, 2006; EC, 2008; WRI, 2005). RESULTS Table 3 presents a summary of digested and undigested solids produced annually, the quantity processed through thermal oxidation, bypassed during maintenance, together with ash trucked to landll. Approximately 85% of the solids produced are thermally oxidized and 15% landlled due to maintenance activities. Table 4 presents a summary of thermal oxidation equipment capacity, sizes, number of units and performance for each of the alternatives. For the undigested solids alternatives, a single uidized bed reactor is required sized for peak month solids production at 4.4 dt/h. For Undig 1 and 2, the reactor freeboard diameter is 10,500 mm diameter. Approximately 9,000 kg/h of steam is produced from Undig 2 and it is used to produce 1,850 kW of electricity. For the digested alternatives, a single uidized bed reactor is required, each sized for peak month solids production at 2.9 dt/h (Dig 1 and 2) and 2.3 dt/h (Dig 3). For Dig 1 and 2, each reactor freeboard diameter is 8,400 mm diameter and 7,600 diameter respectively. For Dig 3, the reactor freeboard diameter is 6,200 mm diameter. For Dig 3, the scalping dryer has an evaporation rate of 2,840 kg/h of steam. Dig 2, 3 and 4 alternatives produce 4,800, 7,150 and 3,500 kg/h steam
Water Environment Federation

respectively. Some of the steam from Dig 3 is used for thermal dewatering, the remainder for generating electricity. Electricity production for Dig 2, 3 and 4 is 980, 990 and 880 kW respectively. It should be noted that the cogeneration system for the digestion alternatives produces about 2,600 kW of electricity (Dig2 and 3) and 3,300 kW for Dig 4. Table 5 presents the estimated capital costs for each of the alternatives. The undigested solids alternatives vary in cost from about $87.5 million to about $122 million. The digested solids alternatives vary in cost from about $98.5

million to about $152 million. For the undigested solids alternatives, costs include additional centrifuges and thermal oxidation equipment. For the digested solids alternatives, these costs include upgrades to digesters, biogas treatment and new cogeneration equipment and thermal oxidation systems with energy recovery and electricity generation. Table 6 presents the estimated annual owning, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for each of the alternatives. For the undigested solids alternatives, the total annual costs vary from about $15 million to $18 million.

Including the electricity offsets due to electricity generation from thermal oxidation for Undig 2, these costs are reduced to about $17m. For the digested solids alternatives, the total annual costs vary from about $15 million to $20 million. Including the electricity offsets due to electricity generation from cogeneration with digester gas and thermal oxidation, these costs are marginally reduced to about $12.5 million to $17 million. For all alternatives, O&M costs include for all processing including thermal hydrolysis pretreatment, digestion, cogeneration, dewatering and thermal oxidation, as appropriate.

Table 2 - Summary of Process and Cost Factors

21

WEF2011

Figure 5 - Summary of Unit Cost for Owning, Operating and Maintaining

Figure 6

Figure 5 shows the unit operating and maintenance (O&M) cost, the unit owning cost and the total unit cost with and without off-set credits for electricity generation for each alternative. Unit costs are based on combined solids quantities prior to processing. For the undigested alternatives, O&M costs range between $256/dt and $277/dt, annual owning costs vary between $216/dt and $302/dt. For the digested alternatives, O&M costs range between $239/dt and $260/dt, with annual owning costs varying between $243/dt and $376/dt. Figure 6 presents the net annual energy consumption, normalized to equivalent natural gas. The net annual energy consumption comprises energy consumption less energy off-sets. The components that contribute to energy consumption are natural gas usage for process heating (digesters, thermal
Water Environment Federation

hydrolysis and thermal oxidation both start-up fuel and auxiliary fuel for some of the digested alternatives). The components that contribute to energy off-sets are electricity generated from cogeneration using biogas and electricity generated from the energy recovered from thermal oxidation. Electrical energy was normalized to equivalent natural gas using average heat rates for prime movers and energy sources (EIA, 2008). For all alternatives, the equivalent energy consumption is between about 50 GWh/year and 100 GWh/year. For the undigested alternatives, the net energy consumption varies between about 11 and 50 GWh/year. For the digested alternatives, the net energy consumption varies between about -10 GWh/year and -38 GWh/year. Figure 7 presents a summary of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and off-sets (credits) that make

up the carbon footprint of each alternative, expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (tCO2e/year). The components that make up the carbon footprint include emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from xed carbon in the solids (anthropogenic), methane (CH4) process and comfort heating, CO2e from diesel fuel used in the transportation of solids and ash to landll and CO2e from electricity used in the processing of the solids. The carbon footprint also includes the CO2e offset credits due to generation of electricity from biogas cogeneration and from thermal oxidation energy recovery. For all alternatives, CO2e emissions are between about 9,000 and 11,000 tCO2e/year. However, when including offset credits, the net carbon footprint for the undigested alternatives ranges between about 9,000 tCO2e/year to about 11,000 tCO2e/year. For the digested alternatives, the

net carbon footprint ranges between about 3,000 tCO2e/year to about 6,300 tCO2e/year. DISCUSSION The foregoing analysis compared the addition of thermal oxidation to an existing wastewater treatment plant that anaerobically digests wastewater solids and cogenerates the biogas versus mothballing anaerobic digestion and replacing it with thermal oxidation of raw (undigested) solids. For the undigested solids, one scenario included a conventional thermal oxidation system with no energy recovery (Undig 1), while the other included energy recovery with electricity production (Undig 2). For the digested solids, all scenarios include utilizing the biogas for cogeneration. The cogeneration system produces electricity and heat for heating the digesters. Treatment of the biogas to remove H2S and siloxanes is assumed. The rst
22

WEF2011

Figure 7 - Carbon Footprint Summary

scenario (Dig 1) includes thermal oxidation of dewatered solids without energy recovery and electricity generation. The second scenario (Dig 2) includes thermal oxidation of dewatered solids with energy recovery and electricity generation, while the third scenario (Dig 3) utilizes thermal dewatering (scalping) of the dewatered solids to achieve autogenous operation with energy recovery. Some of the steam produced in a waste heat boiler is used for the thermal dewatering, the remainder is used to generate electricity in a steam turbine generator set. The fourth scenario (Dig 4) incorporates thermal hydrolysis (THP) ahead of digestion. Undigested solids are dewatered to about 18% dry solids prior to the THP. Steam required for THP is generated by the cogeneration system and a steam boiler. Energy recovered during thermal oxidation is
Water Environment Federation

used to generate electricity. Table 4 summarizes the number of equipment trains, capacity and performance for each of the alternatives. For the undigested solids alternatives, larger diameter reactor freeboards are required than for the digested alternatives. The freeboard diameters for the digested solids decrease in size based on additional dewatering (scalping) of the dewatered solids or with thermal hydrolysis, which reduces the total solids to half that of the undigested alternatives. It can be seen that while the digested alternatives generate less solids for thermal oxidation, the lower heating value does impact operations. The use of auxiliary fuel in the uidized bed is required for Dig 1 and Dig 2. For Dig 3, the lower heating value is compensated for by the thermal dewatering, which makes the operation

autogenous. For Dig 4, the digested solids, following THP and dewatering, are autogenous due to higher dewaterability. However, some auxiliary fuel is used in a steam boiler for THP. Electricity generated through thermal oxidation is less for the digested scenarios. However, this is balanced by the electricity generated through biogas cogeneration. When electricity consumption is combined with electricity production, the digestion alternatives clearly have an advantage, due to the electricity from biogas cogeneration. If there is no cogeneration, the undigested alternatives have an advantage from an overall energy perspective, including auxiliary fuel. Table 5 summarizes the capital costs of each alternative. The digestion alternatives have a lower cost than the undigested alternatives for the thermal oxidation systems, reecting the smaller equipment due to fewer solids or dryer solids to be processed. However, the overall capital cost is higher due to the digester upgrades, biogas treatment, cogeneration equipment and in the case of Dig 3 and 4, for the THP and thermal dewatering equipment. The alternatives that do not include thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation (Undig 1 and Dig 1) have the lowest capital costs, reecting the additional costs required to provide energy recovery and electricity generation for thermal oxidation.

Table 6 and Figure 5 summarize the annual costs for each alternative. Table 6 provides the annual costs and Figure 5 presents the costs per dry tonnes processed. The annual O&M costs for the digested alternatives are about the same or less than the corresponding undigested alternatives, reecting that the digestion alternatives include O&M costs for digestion and cogeneration, as well as dewatering and thermal oxidation, as in the undigested alternatives. When the owning costs are combined with the O&M costs, the digested alternatives have a higher annual cost. But, the digested alternatives have a lower net annual cost with the addition of the off-set credits due to energy recovery. It should be noted that if the digesters did not already exist, the cost to provide these would substantially increase the cost of the digested alternatives. In summary, Dig 1 has the lowest net annual cost. However, of the digested alternatives that include thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation, Dig 4 has a net annual cost of about 6% more, which at the level of detail used in the analysis is about the same. The other digested alternatives have net annual costs of about 30% and 35% more than Dig 1. The two undigested alternatives have net annual costs of about 18% and 35% more than Dig 1. Figure 6 summarizes the annual energy consumption of each alternative. Normalizing
23

WEF2011

to equivalent natural gas provides a basis for comparing fossil fuel consumption. Undig 1 has the highest energy consumption of about 100 GWh/year of equivalent natural gas. The other alternatives require about 50 GWh/year each. When off-set credits from electricity generated from biogas and thermal oxidation are included, the digested alternatives have signicantly less energy consumption than the undigested alternatives. When compared to Dig 1, the other digested alternatives that include thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation have 3 4 times lower net annual energy consumption. The undigested alternatives have 2 6 times higher net annual energy consumption than Dig 1. Figure 7 summarizes the carbon footprint for each alternative. The gross GHG emissions are similar for all of the alternatives, with the digested alternatives slightly lower. However, the net GHG emissions for the digested alternatives are much lower than the undigested alternatives. Using Dig 1 as a basis for comparison, net GHG emissions from the other digested alternatives are about 80%, 50% and 65% of Dig 1, respectively. The two undigested alternatives are about 70% and 45% more than Dig 1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The analysis clearly indicates that, given an existing WWTP with digestion and cogeneration, it is more cost
Water Environment Federation

effective to continue digestion and add thermal oxidation for the digested biosolids than to discontinue the digestion and cogeneration process and instead thermally oxidize all of the solids. However, if digestion did not exist, it would be more costly to install digestion, dewatering and thermal oxidation than to install dewatering and thermal oxidation for raw solids alone. When considering whether to include thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation with existing digestion, the analysis indicates that net annual costs may increase from about 6% to 34% depending on what type of process scheme is chosen. Installing THP to improve digestion and increase biosolids dewaterability provides the most cost effective thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation scenario. While the costs of thermal oxidation have not been compared to other management practices here, other studies have shown that thermal oxidation is cost effective compared to other practices. From an energy perspective, thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation combined with existing digestion provides the most benets. From an environmental perspective, carbon footprints are similar. However, the benets from the GHG offsets due to biogas cogeneration are greater, with the greatest benets realized from

alternatives that include thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation. Thermal oxidation with energy recovery and electricity generation when coupled with existing digestion and biogas cogeneration is a sustainable practice for larger municipalities and should be considered when municipalities are determining their long-term strategies for biosolids management. BIBLIOGRAPHY Burrowes, P., Bauer, T. (2004), Energy Considerations with Thermal Processing of Biosolids, Presented at the Bioenergy Workshop Permitting, Safety, Plant Operations, Unit Process Optimization, Energy Recovery and Product Development, Water Environment Federation, Cincinnati, OH August 11 and 12, 2004 Burrowes, P., Borghesi, J., Quast, D. (2007a) The Twin Cities Sludge-to-Energy (StE) Plant Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Presented at the 80th Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference, Water Environment Federation, San Diego, CA October 2007 Burrowes, P. (2007b) Thermal Oxidation for Electricity Production, Presented in Workshop A: Energy Balancing in Bioenergy Utilization Systems, Residuals and Biosolids Conference 2007 Innovation and Sustainability, Water

Environment Federation, Dallas TX, April 2007 Burrowes, P. (2009) Personal communications with , Region of Durham with respect to emissions performance of the Dufn Creek Thermal Oxidation Systems compared to the proposed operating limits for the new Region of Durham energy from waste facility. Dangtran et al. (2007), Replacement of a Multiple Hearth By a Fluid Bed Incinerator The Ypsilanti Sludge Disposal Case History. Presented at WECTEC, San Diego, October 2007. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2008), Electric Power Annual 2008 [DOE/EIA-0348(2008)], U.S. Energy Information Administration Ofce of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 Environment Canada (EC, 2008), National Inventory Report 1990 - 2006, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, the Canadian Governments Submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 2008 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001), Climate Change 2001: The Scientic Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton,
24

WEF2011

J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan. Mercado, A. (2010), Incinerator De Lecho Fluidizado Pas Puerto Nuevo. Presented at the Water & Environment Association Annual Conference 2010. WEF Manual of Practice No. 30 (WEF, 2009), Wastewater Solids Incineration Systems, Water Environment Federation, Mc Graw Hill, 2009. Welp, J., Mault, L., Rowan, J., Wilson, M., Stone, L. and Dominak, R. (2010), NEORSD Experiences the Power of Renewable Energy. Residuals and Biosolids 2010. World Resources Institute (WRI, 2005) GHG Protocol Guide (03/21/05) ver. v1.3

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Water Environment Federation

25