eco/Tech Sludge Recycling System (SRS) - NEIWPCC · e c o / T e c h S R S e c o / T e c h S R S The...

eco/Tech Sludge Recycling System (SRS)

NEIWPCC – FOG ConferenceConcord, NH & Sturbridge, MA

February 15-16, 2005

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S The eco/Tech Sludge Recycling System: A Local FOG Disposal Alternative

♦Introduction♦Sludge Recycling System (SRS)

Operations and Maintenance♦Air Emission Test Results♦Market Conditions and Challenges♦Design Enhancements♦Summary

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Introduction

♦Biosolids and FOG♦SRS Development♦SRS Modules

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Biosolids and FOG

♦Definitions♦U.S.Generation♦Disposal Methods♦An Opportunity

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Definition

♦“Biosolids, historically known as sewer sludge, are the solid organic matter produced from private or community waste water treatment processes….”

US EPA, September 1999

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Definition

♦Fats, Oils and Grease -Commonly knows as FOG, is the by-product of cooking. Domestic and commercial sources are: meat fats, lard, cooking oil, shortening, butter, food scraps, sauces and dairy products. Industrial sources include the manufacturing of ice cream, soy products, food flavorings and food processing.

WEF Publication “Fat Free Sewers”

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S U.S. Generation

♦8 million dry tons of biosolids

♦Restaurant yellow and brown grease– 25 pounds/person/year

in metropolitan areas♦Other sources♦Growing faster than

population

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Sludge and FOG Disposal Methods

♦Land Application♦Compost♦Landfill Cover♦Burned♦Burial in Land Fill♦Surface Disposal♦Rendered♦Conversion to Bio-Fuel

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S An Opportunity

♦A New Disposal Option♦Producer Benefits♦SRS Owner Benefits

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S SRS Development

♦Heat Balance of Combustion System♦R&D at eco’s Pittsfield RRF

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S SRS Development (Cont’d.)

♦Installed at eco’s Agawam, Massachusetts Facility

♦Start-up was April 2002

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S SRS Modules

♦Transportation♦Receiving & Mixing♦Injection ♦Controls

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Transportation Module

♦High Solids Tanker♦Commercial Tanker

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Receiving & Mixing Module

♦Unloading Area

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Receiving & Mixing Module (Cont’d.)

♦Preparation Equipment

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Receiving & Mixing Module (Cont’d.)

♦Storage

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Receiving & Mixing Module (Cont’d.)

♦Odor Control

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Basketball Hall of Fame

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Injection Module

♦Injection Pump♦Rack♦Injector

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Controls

♦Integrated into Distributed Control System

♦User Friendly

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S SRS Operations History

♦Volume Combusted

♦Sludge Types

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Volume Combusted

♦Over 12,000,000 gallons♦Over 2,800 dry tons♦Trend: Higher solids – Less water♦More volatile content

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Sludge Types

Sludge Type Percent Solids BTU/Lb (dry)

W aste Activat ed (W AS) 2- 10% 8,400W AS with Pr imary Skimmings 3% 9,500Digested Sludge 19% 4,500

FOG (ice cream) 13 - 30% 13,700FOG (soy) 4% 8,000Paper M ill 10% 6,500

Textile Mill 7% 10,000

C oal Pile S lurry 20% 14,300Food Flavors 8% 7,000

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S SRS Maintenance History

♦Reliability vs. Expectations

♦Cost per Ton

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Reliability vs. Expectations

♦Pumping Equipment♦Tanks – Level Detectors

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Reliability vs. Expectations (Cont’d.)

♦Carbon System Limitations♦Rack Components

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Reliability vs. Expectations (Cont’d.)

♦Nozzle♦Balance of Plant

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S O&M Cost per Dry Ton

2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Actual

Labor $39,900 $49,400 $46,900

Contracted Lab Fees $8,700 $6,400 $7,300

Parts $22,100 $23,700 $30,900

Dry Tons Processed 1,149 1,158 1,714

Cost/Dry Ton w/o Labor $27 $26 $22

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Air Emissions

♦Pioneer Valley RRF Air Pollution Control

♦21H Tests♦Results – Excellent!

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Results – Excellent!

♦PM10 down 80%♦NOx down 10%♦SOx no change♦Multiple Metals &

Dioxins -insignificant changes

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Market Conditions and Challenges

♦Solids Level– WAS

♦Industrial FOGs♦Yellow & Brown Grease

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Design Enhancements

♦Nozzle and Retractor♦Next Generation Odor Control♦Level Sensors♦Equipment for Unloading and Storing

Grease Waste♦Controls♦Next Site…

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Design Enhancements (cont’d.)

Pittsfield Resource Recovery Facility

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

S Summary

♦Co-Combustion Commercially Proven♦Documented NOx and PM10 Reduction♦Local, Competitive Cost Disposal for

Non-hazardous Liquid Wastes♦Protective of Employees Health &

Safety

eco/

Tech

SR

Sec

o/Te

ch S

RS

eco/

Tech

SR

SPresented by: Edward P. Champagne

Project Manager

eco/Technologies, LLC

An Company

(518) 434-1227

echampagne@energyanswers.com

DLM