Reclamation Facility Biosolids Treatment Alternatives for the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

reclamation facility
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Reclamation Facility Biosolids Treatment Alternatives for the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kinston Regional Water Reclamation Facility Biosolids Treatment Alternatives for the Future By Chuck Cauley, Project Supervisor Solids Handling History Prior to 1994, solids were either sent to a sludge holding lagoon or were placed on


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Kinston Regional Water Reclamation Facility

Biosolids Treatment Alternatives for the Future By Chuck Cauley, Project Supervisor

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Solids Handling History

  • Prior to 1994, solids were either sent to a

sludge holding lagoon or were placed on drying beds and landfilled.

  • From 1994 to 2002, solids were digested to

meet Class B standards and was land applied as a liquid.

  • In 2002 to present, Two Ashbrook Filter

Presses were installed and caked solids were continued to be land applied.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Why the Desire to Change?

  • Under current conditions we have about 3

months storage capacity.

  • Due to other obligations and weather

conditions, moving material is proving to be more difficult.

  • Animal waste is competing for land use.
  • Disposal cost continue to increase.
  • Dried solids mostly eliminate these issues

depending on end use of product.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Problems with Class B Materials

  • Mother Nature
  • Contractor Issues
  • Land Use Restrictions
  • Limited Participation from Farmers
  • Can Only be Land Applied or Land Filled
  • Cost of Disposal
slide-5
SLIDE 5

More Problems with Class B Materials

  • The National Research Commission (NRC) is an

independent research group that worked with the USEPA in developing the Federal 503 regulations.

  • Based on scientific data of the time, the NRC

concluded that sludge treated to meet Class B standards was safe and not an issue to public health as long as their protocols and recommendations were met.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Class B Continued

  • The NRC did not complete their study as it left
  • ut direct exposure effects to workers handling

this materials.

  • New concerns to public health as a result of new

and emerging antibiotic bacteria have been steadily increasing over the last ten years.

  • To date, there is no scientifically documented

evidence to support public health concerns associated with Class B materials.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Class B Continued

  • However, due to the lack of knowledge and
  • utdated operational criteria, allows room for

doubt and concerns for the safety of public health.

  • Since the rise of the “Super Bug”, more

concerns have been raised associated with runoff from land applied areas for water quality of downstream users.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Why Class A?

  • More Options for Disposal
  • Less Scrutiny by Regulators and the General

Public.

  • More Accepted by Public
  • More uses for Dried Biosolids
  • Potential for cost reduction for Biosolids

Treatment.

  • Not at the Mercy of Mother Nature and the

Contractors.

  • Mitigates public concerns of harmful bacteria.
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Aerated Static Piled Composting

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Composting

  • Composting is a means to naturally breakdown

the organics in solids to produce a stable and safe means for recycling biosolids for beneficial use.

  • Composting is an environmentally friendly way to

recycle nutrients.

  • The are different methods of composting but the

Aerated Static Pile was the most used in my surveys.

  • For the exception of one case, composting has

not been a very successful means of disposal.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Raw Materials

At this site, wood chips are stored in piled rows on the left side of the photo and leafy materials are on the right. Approximately two acres were set aside for raw material storage. This facility used a mix ratio of 1 part biosolids, 1 part chip wood, and, two parts of leaves.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Compost Curing Piles

Note the drainage of water from the pile. Curing pile more under the shelter

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Temperature Monitoring Temps @ 140 degree F.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Equipment

Blender used to mix raw material and biosolids Screener to separate the larger particles

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Finished Compost

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Chip Wood Storage

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Mixing Area

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Curing Area

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Screenings

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Finished Product

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Storm/Wastewater Retention and Weighing Station

Wastewater Retention Storm water Retention

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Composting Summary

  • Equipment
  • Labor
  • Fuel Cost for Loaders
  • Land
  • Virtually no electrical cost
  • Low demand for final product
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Thermal Dryers

Drum Dryers Belt Dryers

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Thermal Dryers

Rotating Disc Batch Dryers

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Thermal Drying

  • Thermal Drying is another means to drive off

moisture and kill off pathogenic bacteria.

  • This method is widely accepted by general

public.

  • Low odor emissions.
  • High demand for final product.
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Continued Thermal Drying

  • All units produced a great product.
  • There were no issues with disposal.
  • Depending on the unit, they had high

maintenance issues, more some than others.

  • There are fire issues with some systems but

not all.

  • Fuel consumption was a major factor in

making our choice.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Thermal Drying Concerns Drum Dryers

  • Very high maintenance systems
  • Fire prevention / extinguisher measures

required.

  • Dusty conditions
  • Equipment repairs
  • Personnel issues
  • High fuel consumption
  • High heat requirements
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Maintenance Issues

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Maintenance

Fire Suppression Red Hoses for Nitrogen Gas

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Finished Hopper

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Maintenance

SCADA System Duel Gas Feed System

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Thermally Dried Solids Compared to Composting

  • Compost – 29 pounds / cubic foot
  • Thermal – 44 pounds / cubic foot
  • Compost - $288 / Dry Ton to produce
  • Thermal - $189 / Dry Ton to produce
  • Compost Sales - $15,000 / Year
  • Thermal Sales - $24,500 / Year
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Summary

  • Based of our research, we decided that

thermal drying was our best option.

  • We decided that a batch fed process would be

a better fit for our operation.

  • It has low heat/low fuel consumption
  • Very flexible to our needs
  • Produces a great product.
slide-34
SLIDE 34

What Led to Kinston’s Decision

  • We asked for proposals /presentations from various companies
  • We ran pilot studies on the top two proposals
  • Drum dryer and a belt dryer
  • Performed cost analysis for each unit and decided on the belt dryer from

SUEZ

  • 10 dry ton unit (Plant’s Capacity)
  • Current Production is approximately 5 dry tons per day
  • This allows for outside users
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Brief Cost Analysis Report

Capital Cost: $2.9 Million Operating Cost: $90,600 Beginning Revenue: $12,000 Current Disposal Cost: $175,000 Annual Disposal Savings: $90,600

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Dryer Componets

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Belt Dryer

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Boiler and Other Pics

slide-39
SLIDE 39
slide-40
SLIDE 40
slide-41
SLIDE 41
slide-42
SLIDE 42
slide-43
SLIDE 43
slide-44
SLIDE 44
slide-45
SLIDE 45
slide-46
SLIDE 46

Questions?