the next generation of aerated static pile biosolids...
TRANSCRIPT
The Next Generation of Aerated Static Pile Biosolids Composting Facilities
by
Todd O. Williams, P.E., BCEECH2M HILL Richmond, Virginia
January 27, 2009
US Composting Council 17th Annual Conference and TradeshowHouston, Texas
2
REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING COMPOSTING
• Increasing Uncertainties in Land Application– Regulations & Land Application Bans– Siting Issues– Legal Issues Regarding Public Health
• Increasing Landfill Tip Fees• Desire to Beneficially Reuse Biosolids• Co-Managing Biosolids and Yard/Wood
Wastes• Favorable Economics to Alternatives
3
BIGGEST REASONS FOR NOTIMPLEMENTING COMPOSTING
• ODORS• ODORS• ODORS• ODORS
4
My First Experience with Compost Odors
Compost Site
My First House (1983)
1.67 Miles
5
COMPOSTING OPTIONS
• Windrow Outside• Aerated Windrow• Aerated Windrow Under Cover• Aerated Static Pile Outside• Aerated Static Pile Under Cover• Hybrid Technologies• Aerated Static Pile Fully Enclosed• Agitated Bed Fully Enclosed
Cost >>
Technology >
6
COMPOSTING OPTIONSDISCUSSED TODAY
• Windrow Outside• Aerated Windrow Outside• Aerated Windrow Under Cove• Membrane Covered Aerated Piles• Aerated Static Pile Outside• Aerated Static Pile Under Cover• Hybrid Technologies• Aerated Static Pile Fully Enclosed• Agitated Bed Fully Enclosed
Cost >>
Technology >
7
NEW GENERATION AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING FACILITIES WITH ODOR CONTROL
• Tremendous Flexibility in Aerated Static Pile Composting Technology
• Design Features Vary Significantly Impacting Process Control, Odor Control and Capital and O&M Costs
• This Presentation Highlights Various Features at Newer Generation Facilities Where A High Degree of Odor Control is Provided
8
NEW GENERATION AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING FACILITIES WITH ODOR CONTROL
• Case Studies of Four Aerated Static Pile Composting Facilities– Davenport, Iowa– IEUA, Rancho Cucamonga, California– Spotsylvania County, Virginia– South Kern Industrial Center, California
9
ASP BASIC PROCESS FLOW
BIOSOLIDS MIXING BULKINGAGENT
COMPOSTING
SCREENING
ODORCONTROL
CURING
STORAGE MARKETING/UTILIZATION
AIR
BULKING AGENTRECYCLING
10
DAVENPORT, IOWAFACILITY OVERVIEW
• Totally Enclosed Aerated Static Pile Composting• Began Full Scale Operations in 1995• Aeration Trench System• Odor Control Biofilter System• Belt Filter Press Dewatering Digested Solids• Average 20% Cake Solids• 140 TPD capacity, 5 days per week• Bulking Agent is Wood Chips and Shredded
Brush/Yard Debris• Capital Cost ~$8.7 Million in 1995
11
MIXING WITH CONTINUOUS FEED MIXERS
12
DAVENPORT AERATION TRENCHES
13
TOTALLY ENCLOSED FACILITY
14
ODOR CONTROL WITH BIOFILTRATION
•210,000 CFM Treated•Odor Removal Efficiency
= 90%
15
PRODUCT MARKETING
16
PRODUCT NAME RECOGNITION
17
DAVENPORT COMPOSTINGKEY FEATURES OF SUCCESS
• Enclosed with Odor Control Biofilters• No Odor Complaints Since Start-Up in 1995• In-floor Aeration System• Ongoing Facility Maintenance/Upgrades• Multiple Compost and Mulch Products• Tip fee for Yard Waste
18
SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA FACILITY OVERVIEW
• Covered Aerated Static Pile Composting• Demonstration Initiated in 2001• Full Scale Implemented in 2003• Currently being Expanded• Belt Filter Dewatered Undigested Solids• Average 16% Cake Solids• Capacity = 38 Tons per Day = 6 DTPD• Ground Brush is Primary Bulking Agent• Capital Cost of Original Facilities ~ $1.8M
19
WWTP RESIDUALS CAKE
20
BULKING AGENT AND STORAGE
21
MIXING WITH MOBILE BATCH MIXER
22
COVERED AERATED STATIC PILE
23
UPGRADED BUILDING
24
AERATION PIPING UPGRADE
25
CURRENT AERATION
• Positive Aeration Only
• Above Ground HDPE Pipe
• Cycling Timers
26
SCREENING WITH TROMMEL
27
COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION
• Currently Process Solids From Massaponax WWTP Only– 220 tons/week
• Still Landfilling Solids From FMC WWTP– 140 tons/week
• Facility Operating at Capacity• Need to Expand to Manage Solids
Production Growth Through 2015– Planned Capacity of 560 tons per week or
29,250 tons biosolids per year
28
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION OVERVIEW
• Expansion to Incorporate Existing Structures and Equipment
• Expansion will Incorporate Significantly Upgraded Process Controls
• Expansion will Include Odor Control• Capacity will be 112.5 TPD of Biosolids, 5
days per week• Capital Cost ~ $14.8M
29
PHASE II COMPOST FACILITY LAYOUT
30
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION ODOR SAMPLING
• Open Hood with Evacuated Chamber Sampler
• Flux Chamber with Sweep Air and Evacuated Chamber Sampler
31
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION ODOR SAMPLING
• Sampled Compost Piles in Positive Aeration Mode– Fans On, Fans Off
• Sampled Compost Piles in Negative Aeration Mode• Sampled Compost Pile Exhaust• Sampled Cure Piles in Positive Aeration Mode
– Fans On, Fans Off• Measured System Airflows• Sampled Mix Building• Calculated System Emission Factors• Developed Odor Model with ISCST3 Using Local
Meteorological Data
32
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION ODOR SAMPLING RESULTS
• Existing Facility Emissions
Positive Aeration Emissions
Negative Aeration Emissions
% Capture Compared to Positive Aeration
ModeOU/Sec % of
TotalCompost 14,386 84 397 13 97
Curing 2,720 16 2,720 87 0
Total 17,106 100 3,118 100 82
33
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION ODOR SAMPLING
• Based on these results, it appears that the facility could be expanded to 5 times the capacity without further odor impact using continuous negative aeration and odor treatment with biofilters
• Modeling was performed to validate this supposition
34
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION ODOR MODELING
• ASP Compost Facility Expansion• Compare Existing Conditions to Future Conditions
– Phase II Expansion to 3X Current Capacity– Phase III Expansion to 6X Current Capacity
• Goal of 7 D/T at Offsite Receptor Locations• Emission Points Included
– Biofilters– Compost & Mixing Building Up Blast Fans– Curing Piles
35
Existing Operation with No Biofilters
PropertyBoundary
Receptor
36
Phase II Expansion with Biofilters
No Impact on Receptors
37
Phase III Expansion with Biofilters
Target Limit = 7 D/T
PropertyBoundary
Receptor Impacted
38
Phase III Expansion with Biofiltersand Enhanced Dispersion
Receptor Not Impacted
39
PHASE II COMPOSTING FACILITY EXPANSION ODOR MODELING RESULTS
• Modeling Confirmed Testing Results/Predictions• Because No Offsite Impact, Enclosure is not needed• Air Handling and Biofilter Size is Only 1/2 of That if Totally
Enclosed Mixing and Composting Areas• Savings of >$1.5M in Capital Due To
– Smaller Biofilter– Smaller Blowers and Duct– Lower Building Cost
• Walls, steel• Insulation• Corrosion Coatings
• AND….Less Offsite Odor Impact Than If Enclosed– Due to Limits of Biofilter Emission Concentration– Smaller Footprint, Lower Biofilter Mass Emission Rate
40
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIAFACILITY OVERVIEW
• Totally Enclosed ASP Composting with 100% Odor Control
• Start-Up 2007• Aeration Floor System• 100% Odor Containment & Biofilter System• Belt Filter Press Dewatering Digested Solids• Average 23% Cake Solids• Design = 575 Tons Biosolids per Day, 5 day basis• Bulking Agent is Shredded and Sized Yard Debris• Capital Cost ~$60M
41
42
43
44
COMPOST HALL
45
3-ACRE BIOFILTER
46
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIAFACILITY OVERVIEW
• Target Odor Concentration at Property Bound was 5 D/T
• No Odor Complaints Since Start-up• Exemplary Odor Control in very difficult Air
Permit District• High Product Quality
47
SKICCOMPOST FACILITY OVERVIEW
• Enclosed Receiving and Batch Mixing with Biofilter• Open Aerated Static Pile Composting with Biofilters
– Primary ASP 20 Days– Secondary ASP 20 Days– Pre-Screen Staging 10 Days– Post Screening Storage 7 Days
• Design Capacity– 500 TPD Biosolids 7 days per week– 583 TPD Biosolids 6 days per week– 700 TPD Biosolids 5 days per week
• Start-Up January, 2007• Digested Dewatered Biosolids• Range 15-30%TS, Average 23%TS• Ground Brush is Primary Bulking Agent• Capital Cost ~ $30 Million• Design Build by CH2M HILL/TILDEN COIL• Owned and Operated by Synagro
48
SKIC FACILITY SITE PLAN
Primary ASPZones (10)
Primary ASPBiofilters (2)
Secondary ASPZones (10)
Secondary ASP Biofilters (2)
Screening
Pre-ScreenStorage
ReceivingMix Bldg
ReceivingMix BldgBiofilter
49
RECEIVING/MIXING BUILDING
- 28 Trucks Per Day- Two 35 CY Knight Batch Mixers- Mix 2 Shifts, 6 Days per week
50
AMENDMENT STORAGE/FEED
Amendment Feed Hopper and Conveyor
51
MIX TRANSPORTMix BuildingMix Conveyor Discharge
Mix Transport Truck
Mix Building Biofilter
52
PRIMARY AERATED STATIC PILEAERATION FLOOR
53
PRIMARY ASP AERATIONDilution Air Fan
Compost Fan with 5 Zones
Humidification System and Chamber
54
BIOFILTER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION
- HDPE Pipe with Hole Pattern- 6’ Media Loaded Directly on Top
Inlet Headers18” Distribution Laterals
55
BIOFILTER SYSTEM IN PLACE
- Coarse Ground Wood Media- Loading Rate = 5 CFM/SF
Inlet HeadersSurface Irrigation
56
SECONDARY AERATED STATIC PILEAERATION FLOOR
North Aeration South Aeration
57
SCREENING WITH TROMMELS
58
SKIC COMPOST FACILITYEMISSIONS TESTING
• Extensive Preparation and Planning• Third Party Testing by Environmental
Management Consulting (Tom Card & Chuck Schmidt)
• Odor Samples Analyzed Using ASTM E-679-04 at 3 liters per minute presentation rate (OS&E)
• Odor Modeling Performed Using ISCST3 by CH2M HILL
59
SKIC EMISSIONS SAMPLING AND TESTING PRE-SCREENING
60
SAMPLING GEAR
61
SKIC COMPOST FACILITYEMMISSIONS TESTING
• Biofilters– Absolutely critical that inlet
temperatures controlled below 40°C (104°F)
– Humidity controlled with automated air atomization system and surface irrigation
– Extensive surface monitoring of flows, NH3 and VOC’s
62
SKIC COMPOST FACILITYEMMISSIONS TESTING
• Biofilter Inlets
»Biofilter Outlets
63
SKIC EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE SAMPLING AND TESTING
• Sampled Airflows, Ammonia, VOC’s and Odor from:
• Compost Piles• Biofilters• Mix Building Exhaust• Calculated Biofilter Emission Reduction for VOC’s
and Ammonia• Estimated Facility-Wide Emissions for VOC’s,
Ammonia and Odors• Developed Odor Model with ISCST3 Using Local
Meteorological Data
64
EXCEPTIONAL EMISSIONS MASS CAPTURE PERFORMANCE
VOC% Capture
NH3% Capture
Primary ASP 99.9 99.8
Secondary ASP
99.8 99.6
65
EXCELLENT BIOFILTER PERFORMANCE
> 80% Removal Required
VOC% Removal
NH3% Removal
Receiving/Mix Building
81.2 92.1
Primary ASP 95.2 97.7
Secondary ASP
96.3 97.5
66
ODOR MODELING PERFORMANCE Biofilter Plume Rise Is Significant
Plume Height
67
EMISSIONS TEST RESULTSWho Says our Biofilters Don’t Smell Nice?
One HappyCustomer
68
ASP ODOR CONTROL CONCLUSIONS
• Compost Exhaust Biofilter Removal Performance for Ammonia and VOC Removal is very good, >95%
• Compost Exhaust Biofilter Removal Performance for Odor is very good, >90%
• Compost Pile Emissions Capture Using Continuous Negative Ventilation is excellent, >95%
• Operating Biofilters at high inlet temperatures creates a significant plume rise which enhances dispersion of residual odors
69
ASP ODOR CONTROL CONCLUSIONS
• Total Enclosure is Not Always Needed for ASP Odor Control• Total Enclosure Can Result in Greater Odorous Emissions
Than a Covered Facility Due to Larger Biofilters and a Larger Emission Rate
• Covered Areas Minimize Weather Impacts but allow for Dilution with Outside Air in Worker Environment and Dispersion of Fugitive Emissions
• Emissions Modeling is Still Needed to Verify Expected Impacts
• This Proactive Design Approach Will Save Capital, Save Space and More Effectively Achieve Offsite Odor Impact Goals Than if Totally Enclosed
The Next Generation of Aerated Static Pile Biosolids Composting Facilities
Todd O. Williams, P.E., BCEE
[email protected] 27, 2009
US Composting Council 17th Annual Conference and TradeshowHouston, Texas
QUESTIONS?