WWTFSP App.F11 Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Appendix F11: Co-Digestion Feasibility Study
Version 4.0
December 2010
Prepared by:
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Registration No. F-882
Dallas Water Utilities

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Executive Summary .................................................................................................4

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.0
Introduction to Co-Digestion ..................................................................................6

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4
Historical Digester Performance ................................................................................... 4
City of Dallas Grease Hauler Volumes ......................................................................... 4
Digester Capacity .......................................................................................................... 4
Public Access versus Limited Access Co-Digestion Facility......................................... 5
Financial Considerations............................................................................................... 5
What is Co-Digestion? .................................................................................................. 6

Cost Comparison for Yellow Grease............................................................................. 7
Co-Digestion at Other Facilities .................................................................................... 7
Co-Digestion Case Studies ........................................................................................... 9
Benefits of Adding Grease to Digesters...................................................................... 10
Digester System Historical Data Evaluation........................................................11

3.1
3.2
3.3
Existing Anaerobic Digestion Facilities ....................................................................... 11

Historical Digester Performance ................................................................................. 12
Summary of Recommended Testing........................................................................... 17
4.0
Planning Criteria ....................................................................................................18
5.0
Digester Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................19
6.0
City of Dallas Grease Data Analysis.....................................................................22

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7.0
Co-Digestion Facility Design Considerations .....................................................28

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
8.0
City of Dallas Grease Hauling Volumes...................................................................... 22

Location of Haulers ..................................................................................................... 24
Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 24
Grease in the DFW Metroplex..................................................................................... 26
Conclusions................................................................................................................. 27
Sizing of the Co-Digestion Facility .............................................................................. 28

Capacity of Existing Facilities for Future Loadings ..................................................... 30
Conceptual Layout ...................................................................................................... 32
Storage Capacity......................................................................................................... 35
Pumps and Appurtenances......................................................................................... 35
Solids Management .................................................................................................... 36
Control Strategy .......................................................................................................... 36
Challenges of Co-Digestion ..................................................................................38

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Operational Considerations......................................................................................... 38
Receiving Unwanted Wastes ...................................................................................... 38
Maintenance Costs ..................................................................................................... 39
Truck Traffic ................................................................................................................ 39
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 2 of 59

9.0
Project Delivery and Operating Alternatives .......................................................41

9.1
9.2
10.0
Table of Contents
Open-Access versus Limited-Access Co-Digestion Facility ....................................... 41

Potential Revenue Streams ........................................................................................ 43
Financial Considerations ......................................................................................46

10.1
10.2
Capital Cost Construction Estimate ............................................................................ 46

Potential Facility Payback ........................................................................................... 46
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................49
Appendix B
References..................................................................................................51
Appendix C
Historical Solids Handling Process Data.................................................52
Appendix D
Detailed Cost Estimate ..............................................................................58
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 3 of 59
Section 1.0
Executive Summary
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
Introduction
The Team performed a feasibility study to determine if co-digestion at Dallas Water Utilities (DWU)
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWTP) would be beneficial and cost effective. The purpose of
the study was to determine if an alternative energy source introduced to the digesters at SWWTP would
increase digester gas production. Grease was determined to be the most viable energy source readily
available for co-digestion.
1.2
Historical Digester Performance
Research was conducted to determine how the digesters performed from 2007 through 2009. During that
time, the Anaerobic Digestion Facility showed a decreasing trend in digester gas production. Solids
loading to the digesters has decreased over the same period, probably due to the decrease in plant
influent flow. While the volatile solids reduction has been at acceptable levels, the specific gas production
has decreased. This decrease could be the result of low chemical oxygen demand (COD), high levels of
non-biodegradable organics, high sulfate levels, high iron levels, gas leaks, or instrumentation calibration
issues. Adding an alternative energy source, such as grease, to the digesters would offset this recent
reduction in gas production, thus providing more digester gas for cogeneration.
1.3
City of Dallas Grease Hauler Volumes
Recent data on grease haulers was collected through the DWU grease abatement program, which
records all trips taken by registered grease haulers within the City of Dallas. The data showed the
average daily hauling volume to be 31,500 gallons, with a peak day of 85,000 gallons. One standard
deviation either side of the average equates to a range of 12,300 gallons to 50,600 gallons. Extrapolating
the historical grease hauler data to the population of the entire Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Metroplex gives
an approximate estimate of 155,000 gallons per day (gpd) of available grease.
1.4
Digester Capacity
A capacity analysis of the digesters determined that ample residual capacity is available within the
digesters to introduce alternative energy streams. The residual capacity is the active volume within the
methane phase digesters not used by municipal wastes digestion.
1.4.1
Current and Future Digester Capacity
Table 1-1 shows the residual capacity identified for two configurations.
Table 1-1: Current and Future Residual Capacity

Residual Capacity
Digesters in Service
Current
Future (2030)
Average
Max Month
Average
Max Month
All Methane Phase

In Service (Gallons)
420,000
265,000
380,000
180,000
One Methane Phase

Out of Service (Gallons)
315,000
160,000
275,000
80,000
For the worst-case scenario, with one digester out of service in the year 2030 with maximum month
conditions, the residual capacity is 80,000 gpd. Under this scenario, the existing digesters could handle a
feed of 80,000 gpd of additional grease for 30 days in a row. On any given day, a higher feed volume
could be accepted, as long as the average for the month was not greater than 80,000 gpd. Under current
conditions for maximum month solids loading, the residual capacity is 160,000 gpd.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 4 of 59
Section 1.0
1.4.2
Executive Summary
Digester Capacity with Addition of Grease Collected within City Limits
The conceptual Co-Digestion Receiving Facility is designed for 100,000 gpd capacity, which
encompasses the needed volume to maximize the DWU cogeneration contract. The digesters have
ample residual capacity in all configurations for this quantity except for maximum month 2030 conditions
with one digester out of service. Additional digester capacity would be needed to handle a feed of
100,000 gpd under the 2030 maximum month conditions with one digester out of service. It is
recommended that the facility grows in 25,000 gallon increments.
1.5
Public Access versus Limited Access Co-Digestion Facility
The Team identified the advantages and disadvantages of a limited access and a public access facility.
Table 1-2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Access/Limited Access Facility

Advantages
Public
Access
Facility
Limited
Access
Facility
Disadvantages
Consistent with the charter and goals

of a public entity
Allows for the potential of larger

quantities of grease
Ensures DWU is not dependent on

one sole source
Gives DWU full control over the

facility
Allows for the potential collection of

tipping fees
Reduces DWUs liability that could

result under a contract with a private
hauler
Potential for greater knowledge of

grease quantities and qualities
Potential to mitigate truck traffic

concerns
Potential capital cost funding sources
Potential to share in maintenance and

upkeep of the facility
1.6
Financial Considerations
1.6.1
Cost Estimate
A greater potential for unwanted wastes
Unknown quantities of grease
Potential concerns with security
Dependence on one source for grease
Negative public perception of an

advantaged relationship
Potential for legal challenge
Potential reduction in tipping fee

revenue streams
Potential for smaller quantities of grease
A cost estimate for a conceptual co-digestion receiving station as shown in this report is $3,300,000.
1.6.2
Potential Payback
The revenue streams generated by tipping fees and increased digester gas production results in a facility
payback period of 1.8 to 4.3 years, depending on the amount of grease fed.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 5 of 59
Section 2.0
Introduction to Co-Digestion
2.0
INTRODUCTION TO CO-DIGESTION
2.1
What is Co-Digestion?
Co-digestion is the process in which alternative energy sources are fed into an anaerobic digester treating
municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) primary sludge and/or waste activated sludge. These
alternative energy streams are digested along with the municipal waste. The alternative energy sources
increase the digester gas production.
Several wastes that are readily available qualify for co-digestion. Identifying the appropriate energy
streams and their impacts on the facility are critical components of a co-digestion study. The addition of
brown grease, food waste, and/or industrial wastes to the municipal digesters can benefit the overall
treatment performance. A characterization of high strength wastes is critical to determine what energy
source is the most compatible with the digestion process. Figure 2-1 depicts the relative methane yield
among differing energy sources.
Figure 2-1: Raw WWTP Solids

Grease Traps
Residual Fats
Floated Fats
Commercial Kitchen
Restaurant Waste
Food Discards
Cafeteria Waste
Food Waste
Soup Processing
Corn Silage
Grass Silage
Raw Sludge
Brewer's Grain
Green Waste
Sugar Beet Silage
Vinasse
Beets
Fooder Beet
Whey
Poultry
Raw WWTP Sludge
Swine Manure
Cattle Manure
Increasing Methane Yield
Grease has the most energy content per pound of solids among most readily available organic waste
streams. Other high strength wastes, such as industrial food plant by-products, are available and
beneficial as well, although grease is easier to transport and collect due to the existing grease collection
infrastructure. High protein wastes, such as blood and animal processing wastes, are readily available
but not as desirable because protein-based products generate additional ammonia and have a low rate of
methane generation compared to fat or sugar based products.
There are two types of readily available grease waste, yellow grease and brown grease. Brown grease is
collected in sewer grease traps of restaurants and other establishments and is contaminated with
microorganisms, while yellow grease is not. Yellow grease is typically recycled into bio-diesel, but the
high fatty acids concentration of brown grease makes it unsuitable for bio-diesel. Table 2-1 presents the
characteristics of brown grease that make it the most desirable co-digestion additive.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 6 of 59
Section 2.0
Table 2-1: Typical Characteristics of Brown Grease

Parameter
Typical Range
Total Solids
5 to 15 Percent
BOD, mg/L
10,000 to 130,000
pH
Acidic (4 to 5)
Volatile Content
90% to 97%
VS Reduction
80% to 90%
Free Fatty Acids
50% to 100%
Carbon to Nitrogen (C/N) Ratio
High (Low ammonia)
One of the benefits of using grease rather than other high strength wastes is that brown grease, due to a
high C/N ratio, will not cause ammonia spikes in the digesters. Another benefit of grease co-digestion is
the increased methane content of the biogas due to the chemical composition of fat, as shown in Table
2-2. The quantities identified in Table 2-2 were determined from testing of biogas at other facilities.
Table 2-2: Methane Gas Comparison

Substrate
Chemical Composition
Methane - Percent of Total Gas
C15H31COOH
72%
Protein
C4H6ON
63%
Sugars
C6H12O6
50%
Fat
2.2
Cost Comparison for Yellow Grease
Yellow grease is primarily used in the generation of bio-diesel. Yellow grease is collected inside
restaurants and consists of uncontaminated fryer grease; yellow grease is also produced from tallow and
renderings of industrial processing. Due to the contamination of brown grease by microorganisms, it is
unsuitable for bio-diesel. Yellow grease is suitable for co-digestion, but it has a much higher market value
then brown grease because of its use in bio-diesel. The cost per gallon to transport and use yellow
grease makes its use cost prohibitive for the co-digestion process; therefore, only brown grease is
considered.
2.3
Co-Digestion at Other Facilities
Several large facilities around the United States have implemented and benefited from co-digestion.
Table 2-3 presents successful co-digestion operations and there associated plant size.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 7 of 59
Section 2.0
Table 2-3: Successful Co-Digestion in Other WWTPs

City and/or Agency
Permitted Plant
Flow (mgd)
Utility Owned
and Operated
Grease Source
Los Angeles County Dept of Public Works,

CA
440
Yes
Public
Denver Metro Wastewater Reclamation

District, CO
136
Yes
Public
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,

WI
100
Yes
Public
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, WI
80
Yes
Public
City of Riverside, CA
43
Yes
Single Source (1)
Truckee Meadows Water Authority, NV
40
Yes
Single Source (1)

Food Waste
City of Colorado Springs, CO
40
Yes
Public
Waco Metropolitan Area Regional Sewage

System, TX
38
Yes
Public
East Bay Municipal Utilities District, CA
168
Yes
Public
Pinellas County Utilities, FL
33
Yes
Public
City of Turlock, CA
20
Yes
Public
Millbrae, CA
<2
Paid for by
Chevron
Public
Oceanside, CA (San Francisco)
65
Yes
(Grants)
Public
Watsonville, CA
12
Yes
Public
Note:
1
The City of Riverside receives grease from multiple haulers but it is trucked to one facility and arrives
at the WWTP by one single hauler.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 8 of 59
Section 2.0
Table 2-4 identifies the grease loading rates in anaerobic digesters at other wastewater treatment plants.
Up to 30 percent by weight grease to WWTP solids ratio is being practiced at these other facilities.
Table 2-4: Grease Loading Rates in Anaerobic Digesters

Facility and/or City
High Strength Wastes,

Percent by weight
Waste Type
Pinellas County Utilities, FL
30%
Grease, other
East Bay Municipal Utilities District, CA
18%
Grease, food, other
City of Riverside, CA
12%
Grease
Waco Metropolitan Area Regional Sewage

System, TX
10%
Grease, blood, peanut oil
2%
Grease, ice cream waste
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, WI
The facilities identified in Table 2-4 uses waste streams from different sources for co-digestion, but all of
them use brown grease. All these utilities are similar to DWU in receiving streams in the following ways:
They have industrial bases within the service area.
They land apply the biosolids.
2.4
Co-Digestion Case Studies
Two separate case studies of co-digestion at anaerobic digestion facilities are identified in the following
sections.
2.4.1
Waco Metropolitan Area Regional Sewer System, Waco, Texas
The City of Waco has seen several benefits of co-digestion at the Waco Metropolitan Area Regional
Sewer System (WMARSS) Facility. The WMARSS Facility averages 61,000 pounds per day of solids to
the digesters, with 6,000 pounds per day of high strength waste. The addition of high strength wastes
results in approximately 33 percent more digester gas than with WWTP solids alone.
The 33 percent increase of biogas is based on the addition of high strength wastes at a rate of 10 percent
of the solids feed by mass. The City of Waco does not actively advertise for haulers to dispose of high
strength wastes at the WMARSS Facility; it is only through word of mouth. Since opening, the hauling of
wastes to the facility increased, and it is expected that this trend will continue. This trend demonstrates
that it is a better financial alternative for haulers to dispose of grease at this facility than elsewhere. It has
been reported that haulers drive over 100 miles to take advantage of the facility, despite the tipping fee.
The acceptance of high strength wastes at the Waco Facility has multiple benefits beyond increased
biogas production. There appears to be a reduction in waste discharged to sewers and hence a reduced
aeration demand in the aeration basins with associated reduction in electrical consumption for the facility.
The co-digestion process also provides additional fuel for the heat dryer and for the cogeneration
engines.
2.4.2
City of Riverside, California
The City of Riverside, California adds 25,000 gpd of grease to their conventional 10,000 gpd of sludge
produced at the facility. Restaurant grease trap waste is fed directly into one of the digesters. Since
applying grease, an increase in biogas production has been recorded. Also, Riverside notes increased
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 9 of 59
Section 2.0
destruction of solids, most likely due to the greater level of biological activity within the digesting mass
and the improved C/N ratio with grease. The Riverside Facility realized the following benefits because of
co-digestion:
An annual savings of approximately $3.1 million dollars due to reduced consumption of electricity and
natural gas.
Reduced solids hauling costs.
Additional revenue due to the tipping fee structure.
2.4.3
Conclusion
Co-digestion is a proven process that has shown success at several installations around the United
States. Adding high strength wastes at these facilities has proven to increase biogas production
significantly, provide alternative revenue streams, and meet other objectives pertinent to each installation.
2.5
Benefits of Adding Grease to Digesters
Adding waste brown grease to digesters yields multiple benefits, including the following:
Increase in biogas production.
Potential for reduced energy costs through using biogas for heating and/or production of energy.
Potential for reduced energy costs by reduction of aeration needs due to the diversion of high
strength wastes out of the sewer.
Potential to attain renewable energy credits.
Potential for additional revenue through the collection of tipping fees.
Potential increase in solids destruction resulting in higher degradation of organics than sludge
digestion alone.
Increased stability of the digestion process.
No noticeable change to the dewaterablility of the digested sludge.
Only slight increase in the return load of nitrogen (TKN) by recycling sludge liquors from the
dewatering process to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). TKN will increase by 2-3 percent of
the total load on the plant.
Support of the Green Dallas Initiative. The co-digestion of high strength wastes reduces green house
gases and landfill usage. For each ton of high strength waste diverted from the landfill, 23 tons of
green house gases can be mitigated. The one ton of high strength wastes diverted to a Co-Digestion
and Cogeneration Facility can produce up to one megawatt of electricity while releasing only 0.8 tons
of green houses gases.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 10 of 59
Section 3.0
3.0
Digester System Historical Data Evaluation
DIGESTER SYSTEM HISTORICAL DATA EVALUATION
The Team performed an evaluation of the current and historical process of the existing digestion facilities
along with the operating data for the SWWTP Anaerobic Digestion Facility. The evaluation included the
following:
An assessment of the residual capacity in the digesters for grease co-digestion.
An estimation of the increase in digester gas production that would result from adding grease to the
digesters.
3.1
Existing Anaerobic Digestion Facilities
The SWWTP Solids Handling Facility has thirteen anaerobic digesters and two digested solids holding
tanks. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the anaerobic digester characteristics. The Anaerobic Digestion
Facility is configured as a two-phase (acid-gas) digestion facility with mesophilic-mesophilic mode of
operation. The digestion facility operates with one acid phase digester (digester no. 12 or digester no.
10) and ten methane phase digesters. Digester no. 10 and digester no. 12 can serve as acid phase or
methane phase digesters. Digesters no. 1 and 2 have been decommissioned and are not considered as
part of this study.
Table 3-1: Existing Anaerobic Digesters

Digesters
1 and 2 (1)
Digesters
3 to 6
Digesters
7 and 8
Digesters
9 and 10
Digesters
11 to 13
Number of Units
Diameter (ft)
65
90
90
90
90
27.6
32.2
31.4
36.9
36.9
Unit Volume (gal)
685,000
1,530,000
1,495,000
1,757,000
1,757,000
Cover Type
Floating
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Mixing System
Pump
Pump
Impeller
Pump
Pump
Heat Exchanger Type (2)
Spiral
Tube-in-Tube
Tube-in-Tube
Tube-in-Tube
Tube-in-Tube
Side Water Depth (ft)
Notes:
1
Decommissioned units
Raw sludge preheated using direct steam injection (during acid phase operation)
The digester feed consists of primary sludge and waste activated sludge (WAS) from the SWWTP and
transferred solids (primary sludge and WAS) from the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWWTP).
Primary sludge, scum, and CWWTP solids are screened prior to thickening using gravity belt thickeners
(GBT). There are also four thickening centrifuges that are currently out of service. The thickened sludge
flows by gravity to a thickened sludge holding tank and pumped to the acid phase digester. The sludge
from the acid phase digester is pumped to the methane phase digesters. The digested solids are
transferred to solids holding tanks/basins and dewatered using belt filter presses (BFP). The dewatered
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 11 of 59
Section 3.0
cake is sent to a dedicated land disposal site. Table 3-2 presents a summary of the thickening and
dewatering equipment characteristics.
Table 3-2: Existing Thickening and Dewatering Units

Gravity Belt
Thickeners
Centrifuges (1)
Belt Filter
Presses
Number of Units
10
Belt Width (m)
750
500
225
Solids Capacity per Unit (lbs/hr)
3,750
1,200
Average Solids Loading (ppd) (2)
264,300
N/A
138,800
5.9
N/A
17.1
Hydraulic Capacity per Unit (gpm)
Average Total Solids Output (%) (2)

Notes:
1
Units out of service
Based on historical process and operating data (2007-2009)
3.2
Historical Digester Performance
The Team analyzed the SWWTP historical process and operating data from January 2007 to December
2009 to develop a performance baseline for the co-digestion feasibility study. Typical parameters that are
used to determine digester performance include volatile solids reduction (VSR) and specific gas
production (gas production per pound of VSR). During the period of analysis, the digestion facility
operated in two phase digestion mode from January 2007 to June 2007 and from September 2008 to July
2009. The facility was operated in conventional digestion mode from June 2007 to September 2008.
Table 3-3 presents a summary of the digester performance. A graphical representation of the data is
presented in Appendix B.
Table 3-3: Annual Average Digester Performance

2007
2008
2009
Digester Gas Production (cfd)
1,400,000
1,120,000
1,040,000
Total Solids Loading (ppd) (1)
275,500
239,100
277,900
Volatile Solids Loading (ppd) (1)
209,300
186,300
212,000
Digester Feed Flow (gpd)
574,700
514,100
517,600
Volatile Solids Reduction (%) (2)
60.0
56.0
58.5
Specific Gas Production ( ft3/lbs VSR)
11.2
10.5
8.5
Notes:
1
Based on historical thickened sludge loadings
Based on historical thickened and digested solids loadings
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 12 of 59
Section 3.0
The digester gas production and the digester feed loading show a decreasing trend over the last three
years. Based on historical process and operating data, this decrease can be attributed in part to a
decrease in raw influent flow to the SWWTP and CWWTP and consequently lower solids production at
these facilities. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 present the SWWTP historical digester gas production and
thickened sludge loading, respectively. The drop in average solids loading in 2008 may explain the drop
in gas production; nevertheless, low gas production continued through 2009 despite a substantial
increase in the solids loading.
Figure 3-1: Historical Digester Gas Production

3.0
Biogas Production, cfd x 1,000,000
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Jan-10
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Note: The graphic uses a gray diamond () to indicate an individual data point.
The black line (____) indicates a rolling 30-day average.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 13 of 59
Section 3.0
Figure 3-2: Historical Thickened Sludge Loading

600
500
Total Solids Loading, 1000 x ppd
2007 Average= 275
2008 Average= 240
2009 Average= 278
400
300
200
100
Jan-10
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
The SWWTP Digestion Facility showed a good VSR that falls within the reported range for other twophase digestion facilities (typically 55 to 65 percent). The specific gas production was below the typical
range for anaerobic digesters receiving primary sludge and WAS (typically 12 to 18 ft3/lbs VSR). Table
3-4 summarizes the common reasons for low specific gas production.
Table 3-4: Reasons for Low Specific Gas Production

Feed Quality
Operational
Low COD
Low Hydraulic Retention Time

(HRT)
High Levels of NonBiodegradable Organics
Low Volatile Solids Reduction

(VSR)
High Sulfate Levels
Low Temperature
High Ferric Iron (FE3+ )Levels
Gas Leaks
Instrumentation
Miscalibrated
instruments
Based on the historical digester data, the following operational causes for low specific gas production
have proven to not be an issue at SWWTP: low HRT, low VSR, and low temperature. Therefore, the
other reasons listed, such as feed quality issues, need to be investigated further.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 14 of 59
Section 3.0
Typical parameters monitored as indicators of potential digestion upsets include HRT, volatile solids
loading (VSL), volatile fatty acids (VFA), alkalinity, and pH. Table 3-5 presents a summary of the
SWWTP digester operating conditions.
Table 3-5: Annual Average Digestion Operating Conditions

2007 (1)
2008 (1)
2009 (1)
Total Solids (%)
5.7
5.6
6.5
Volatile Solids (%)
76.3
78.1
76.5
Total Solids (%)
4.8
5.6
5.1
Volatile Solids (%)
75.2
75.7
77.0
Volatile Fatty Acids (mg/L)
4,200
4,700
5,700
Alkalinity (mg/L)
2,100
2,300
2,800
5.1
5.1
5.2
Total Solids (%)
3.0
3.1
3.3
Volatile Solids (%)
58.7
61.6
61.9
Volatile Fatty Acids (mg/L)
270
380
700
3,900
4,400
4,900
7.2
7.3
7.2
Thickened Sludge (1)
Acid Phase Digester Sludge (2)
pH
Digester Sludge
Alkalinity (mg/L)
pH
Notes:
1
Based on historical thickened sludge data.
Annual average values only include data from two-phase digestion and do not include data from the
period of operation in conventional digestion mode (04/2008 to 09/2008).
The operating data in Table 3-5 looks normal except for a dramatic increase in volatile fatty acids (VFAs)
and alkalinity. Figure 3-3 shows the VFAs over the past three years. In 2007, the majority of the tests
showed VFA concentration below 200 mg/L; whereas in 2009, virtually all the VFA test results have been
over 200 mg/L.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 15 of 59
Section 3.0
Figure 3-3: Historical Volatile Fatty Acids Concentrations

1,800
1,600
1,400
2009 Average= 762
Volatile Acids, mg/L
1,200
1,000
2007 Average= 280
2008 Average= 430
800
600
400
200
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
VFAs are intermediate products of anaerobic digestion, so elevated levels in the digesters indicate
process inhibition. In mid-2008, DWU stopped dosing ferric chloride to the digesters for hydrogen sulfide
mitigation. The Team recommends DWU test for hydrogen sulfide in the digester gas as well as test for
individual VFAs (acetate, propionate, butyrate, etc.) in the methane phase digesters. This testing will help
identify the specific cause of inhibition. The elevated VFA levels alone cannot explain the low specific
gas production because the specific gas production was low throughout the period of analysis.
High concentrations of ferric iron and/or sulfate can result in lower gas production because organisms
that reduce iron and sulfate compete with methane producing organisms for VFA. Sulfate is normally
found in wastewater, but elevated levels can originate from sources such as odor control chemicals in
collection systems (ferrous sulfate), water treatment plant sedimentation basin solids (aluminum sulfate),
and industrial processes. Elevated ferric iron levels are typically associated with direct addition of ferric
chloride to the digesters. The Team recommends that DWU use ferrous chloride for hydrogen sulfide
mitigation instead of ferric chloride. Monitoring sulfate concentrations in the raw influent and digester
feed and hydrogen sulfide concentrations in the digester gas is also recommended.
Another possible cause for a low specific gas production may be low COD content in the digester feed.
WAS is co-settled with primary sludge at CWWTP, which generates more than 60 percent of the digester
feed. This mode of operation results in a high sludge age. A substantial amount of biological activity and
degradation occurs at the bottom of the primary clarifiers, reducing the COD content of the sludge. In
addition, the CWWTP solids contain high VFA levels, which do not reach the SWWTP digesters because
they remain with the filtrate after the thickening process. Anaerobic biodegradability testing on CWWTP
and SWWTP sludge is recommended.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 16 of 59
Section 3.0
3.3
Summary of Recommended Testing
Several questions developed as the result of the evaluation of the existing digester operating data, and
The Team made recommendations for testing in order to answer the questions. The following questions
will help identify feed quality issues related to low specific gas production. These recommendations are
summarized in the following list:
Monitor hydrogen sulfide concentrations in the digester gas.
Monitor volatile fatty acids (acetate, propionate, butyrate, etc.) in the methane phase digesters.
Monitor sulfate concentrations in the raw influent.
Monitor sulfate concentrations in the digesters feed.
Study the combined use of iron salts in the collection system and the facility for hydrogen sulfide
mitigation.
Perform anaerobic biodegradability testing on the CWWTP and SWWTP sludge.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 17 of 59
Section 4.0
4.0
Planning Criteria
PLANNING CRITERIA
Table 4-1 presents the recommended hydraulic retention time (HRT) and volatile solids loading rate
(VSLR) criteria.
Table 4-1: Design Criteria for Two Phase Digestion

Phase
Acid-Phase Digester
(mesophilic)
Methane Phase
Digesters (mesophilic)
Design Criteria
Condition
VSLR = 1 to 2.5 lbs VS/cfd
Maximum Month Loading
HRT = 1.5 to 3 days
HRT 13 days (1)
HRT 20 days (2)
Annual average loading with largest unit out

of service
Notes:
1
Based on a combined acid phase and methane phase HRT of 15 days. (TCEQ requirement)
Based on DWU staff preferred operating conditions.
To meet Class B biosolids requirements with anaerobic digestion at 35 Celsius (C), the HRT should be
greater than 15 days. In two-phase digestion, the fifteen-day requirement can be met with the combined
HRT of acid phase and methane phase digesters.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 18 of 59
Section 5.0
5.0
Digester Capacity Analysis
DIGESTER CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The digestion capacity of the SWWTP existing facilities was evaluated for the projected flows and solids
loadings for both annual average and maximum month conditions. Table 5-1 presents the estimated
VSLR and HRT based on the current and projected solids loading.
Table 5-1: Capacity Evaluation

Process Parameter
Average
Maximum
Month
Average
Maximum
Month
185
278
190
285
Combined Raw Influent Flow (mgd) (2)

TS Load to Digestion (ppd)
2030 Conditions (1)
2007-2009
262,600
340,000
203,500
261,800
307,200
384,000
TS Concentration (%)
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.0
Solids Flow to Digestion (mgd)
0.54
0.70
0.80
1.00
Active Digester Volume (MG) (5, 6)
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.58
VS Loading Rate (lbs VS/cfd)
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
Hydraulic Retention Time (days)
2.9
2.3
2.0
1.6
Active Digester Volume (MG) (6, 7, 8)
14.53
14.53
17.69 (9)
17.69 (9)
26.8
20.7
22.2
17.7
0.43
0.27
0.38
0.18
Active Digester Volume (MG) (5, 7)
12.88
12.88
16.11 (9)
16.11 (9)
23.9
18.4
20.2
16.2
0.32
0.16
0.27
0.08
VS Load to Digestion (ppd)
(4)
399,000
(3)
498,800
Acid Phase
Methane Phase (All in Service)
Residual Capacity (mgd)
(10)
Methane Phase (1 Out of Service)
Residual Capacity (mgd)
(10)
Notes:
1
Assumes the decommissioning of the CWWTP trickling filters and the construction of two new
digesters at SWWTP (Ref. 142).
CWWTP and SWWTP combined raw influent flow. Flow based on Wastewater Facilities Strategic
Plan (WWTFSP) Technical Memorandum (TM), Wastewater Flow Projections (Ref. 135). Final flow
projects will be presented in the Wastewater Facilities Strategic Plan (Ref. 75).
Based on projected solids production per raw influent flow of 2,100 ppd/mgd after the
decommissioning of the CWWTP trickling filters.
Based on 2007-2009 historical GBT feed volatile solids fraction of 77 percent.
Assumes 90 percent active volume (Ref. 205).
Existing 1.76 MG acid phase digester (no. 12).
(Continued on next page)
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 19 of 59
Section 5.0
Process Parameter
2030 Conditions (1)
2007-2009
Average
Maximum
Month
Average
Maximum
Month
Existing 1.53 MG digesters (no. 3 to 6), existing 1.49 MG digesters (no. 7 and 8), and existing 1.76
MG digesters (no. 9, 11, and 13).
Existing 1.76 MG digester (no. 10).
Future 1.76 MG digesters (no. 14 and no. 15).
10
Based on a minimum HRT of 15 days in the methane phase digesters.
The residual capacity in the digesters is defined as the available active volume in the methane phase
digesters not currently used for digestion. Assuming an average thickened sludge concentration of six
percent solids, the SWWTP digestion facility has residual capacity in the year 2030 of 270,000 to 80,000
gpd annual average/maximum month with the largest methane phase digester out of service.
Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 present the projected HRT at annual average and maximum month conditions
without any co-digestion of grease. The minimum HRT of 15 days does not include acid phase HRT and
represents the DWU preferred operating condition. Additional capacity is available if the HRT is reduced
to the TCEQ requirements of 13 days in the methane phase digestion of municipal solids.
To maintain the listed capacities, it is recommended that the DWU develop a regular schedule for
cleaning and repairing digesters in order to maintain the residual capacities.
Figure 5-1: Projected Digester Capacity without Grease Addition at

Annual Average Conditions
40
Historical HRT
35
Projected HRT
Without Grease
Hydraulic Retention Time, days
30
25
20
Minimum HRT = 15 Days
15
10
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
Page 20 of 59
Section 5.0
Figure 5-2: Projected Digester Capacity without Grease Addition at

Maximum Month Conditions
40
Historical HRT
35
Projected HRT
Without Grease
30
25
20
Minimum HRT = 15 Days
15
10
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Page 21 of 59
Section 6.0
City of Dallas Grease Data Analysis
6.0
CITY OF DALLAS GREASE DATA ANALYSIS
6.1
City of Dallas Grease Hauling Volumes
The Pretreatment and Laboratory Services (PALS) Division of the City of Dallas collects data on all liquid
waste haulers within the boundaries of Dallas. The Team received and analyzed the data. The data set
is a collection of trip records from all haulers who hauled brown grease from one location to another. The
data set includes the location the grease was hauled from, the amount of grease hauled in gallons, the
address where the grease was offloaded, the company that operated the truck, and the date and time of
the occurrence. Analyzing this data, The Team was able to discern the companies that were the largest
haulers in the region. This data provides a snapshot of the quantity of grease available to determine the
feasibility of operating a co-digestion receiving station.
The data set included all records collected for the calendar year of 2008. Analyzing this data further, The
Team determined the major grease haulers in the area:
Liquid Environmental Solutions
Dal-Worth Industries Inc.
PSC Recovery Systems
Southwaste
Sand Trap Service Inc.
Trimble Grease Trap Service, Delmar Disposal
Can Do Grease Trap Service Inc.
Environmental Plumbing Solutions
The total volume of grease hauled for the 2008 calendar year is approximately 11.2 million gallons. This
amount of grease includes only the City of Dallas and only the data acquired by the grease abatement
program. Using this data, The Team identified the top haulers in the area that haul more than a quarter
million gallons per year. Of the 21 registered haulers within the City of Dallas, all of them dispose of their
grease at four facilities. The existing disposal facilities receive grease and process, stabilize, and dispose
of it in sanitary landfills or monofills.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 22 of 59
Section 6.0
The data in Table 6-1 shows the total volume hauled during the calendar year 2008 from each hauler to
each disposal facility.
Table 6-1: Grease Hauled from the City of Dallas 2008

Haulers
(Gallons Hauled)
Grease Disposal Facilities (Gallons Received)

Liquid
Environmental
Solutions
Liquid Environmental
Solutions
4,239,150
Dal-Worth Industries
1,643,040
PSC Recovery Systems
PSC Recovery
Systems
4,800
424,775
120
Cold Springs
Processing
18,150
7,000
1,518,350
1,184,482
Southwaste
Sand Trap Service, Inc,
ALCO
Environmental
1,025
450,655
Trimble Grease Trap Service

Delmar Disposal
111,854
Can Do Grease Trap Service
268,175
259,955
136,700
50
205,411
40
266,050
Env. Plumbing Solutions

Other
411,725
9,515
34,565
64,762
Totals
6,675,089
2,144,827
1,564,755
875,678
According to the data in Table 6-1, Liquid Environmental Services is the largest hauler and also operates
the largest disposal facility in the DFW Metroplex. The second largest disposal facility, ALCO
Environmental, has a relationship with the fourth largest hauler, Southwaste. The third largest disposal
facility, PSC Recovery Systems, is operated by the third largest grease hauler of the same name. The
data in Table 6-1 and the data presented below in Figure 6-1 show that three of the major haulers own
and/or operate or have a relationship with the major disposal facilities. The location of the largest haulers
and largest disposal facilities are shown in Figure 6-1.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 23 of 59
Section 6.0
Figure 6-1: Grease Hauled
6.2
Location of Haulers
SWWTP is not located near any hauler's headquarters, as shown in Figure 6-1. Currently, this is not a
disadvantage as there are no other locations accepting grease at this time. Currently, the DFW market is
not saturated with disposal facilities; therefore, there is no direct competition for grease at this time.
However, Fort Worths Village Creek is currently planning a grease receiving facility.
6.3
Evaluation
The Team evaluated the grease data to determine the usable quantity of grease available for co-digestion
purposes. The evaluation considers only the six top haulers as presented in Table 6-1. While there are
more haulers in Dallas than those listed in Figure 6-1, the rest of the haulers account for a fraction of the
remaining grease quantity hauled. As a conservative approach, The Team focused on these top haulers
based on quantity. The advantage of this approach is the data is more consistent; the haulers method of
operation and timing is more consistent as well.
The data set identified above has the statistical parameters that are shown in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2: Data Set Statistical Parameters

Parameter
Value (Gallons per Day)
Average Day (365 days per year)
31,500
Maximum Day
83,800
Minimum Day
30
Median
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
33,700
December 2010
Page 24 of 59
Section 6.0
Parameter
Value (Gallons per Day)
Mode
4,000
Range of One Standard Deviation
12,300 to 50,600
The data set identifies that a standard average day is 31,500 gallons of grease. Based on one standard
deviation from the mean, a co-digestion facility based on City of Dallas volumes, will have 12,300 to
50,600 gallons of grease discharged 70 percent of the time.
Figure 6-2 depicts a frequency distribution of the hauling volume in gallons per day over the calendar year
of 2008. Hauling volumes vary from day to day, although a normal bell curve is present in the data. The
graph depicts that for 82 days of the year, less than 10,000 gallons of grease are disposed of per day.
The high variability in grease hauled could be due to holidays and days off of work. The day volume with
the largest frequency is 40,000 to 50,000 gpd hauled.
Figure 6-2: 2008 Dallas Grease Hauling Volumes per Day
Frequency
120
Frequency
Cumulative %
80%
100
67
60
46
40
40%
42
31
20
0
60%
77
75
80
Cumulative Percent
100%
140
20%
14
10,000
20,000
30,000 40,000
50,000 60,000 70,000
80,000
0%
More
Gallons per day
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 25 of 59
Section 6.0
Figure 6-3: 2008 Dallas Hauling Volumes Frequency per Day

90000
80000
Hauling Volume, gpd
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
D
ec
-0
8
N
ov
-0
8
O
ct
-0
8
Se
p08
Au
g08
Ju
l-0
8
Ju
n08
M
ay
-0
8
Ap
r-0
8
M
ar
-0
8
Fe
b08
Ja
n08
Figure 6-3 identifies the 30-day moving average of grease hauled in 2008. The 30 day moving average
peaks around 38,500 gallons per day. The chart also depicts the occurrence of maximum days. In 2008,
there were three days of the year that the grease load hauled was over 80,000 gallons in one day. These
high grease volumes can be attributed to extended holidays and city events.
6.4
Grease in the DFW Metroplex
The Team analyzed data for the City of Dallas as presented in Section 6.1, but did not analyze all the
grease hauled within the DFW Metroplex. For planning purposes and conceptual design, an approximate
amount of grease hauled within the DFW Metroplex can be extrapolated. Based on 2008 population data
from the North Central Texas Council of Governments, the anticipated grease load per day for the entire
Metroplex is estimated to be approximately 155,000 gallons. This is extrapolated from the data presented
in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3: DFW Metroplex Grease Quantities

Area
Population
Grease Quantity (gpd)
Dallas
1,300,350
31,500
Metroplex
6,538,850
155,000
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 26 of 59
Section 6.0
6.5
Conclusions
Based on the data presented, a large supply of grease is available within the City of Dallas that could
benefit co-digestion. The available grease is less than the capacity available in the digesters. Therefore,
DWU could accept all of the grease hauled within the City of Dallas at the SWWTP. More grease is
available within the Metroplex for co-digestion if needed.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 27 of 59
Section 7.0
7.0
Co-Digestion Facility Design Considerations
CO-DIGESTION FACILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A well planned and designed Co-Digestion Facility is crucial to a low maintenance operation. The CoDigestion Facility will consist of a truck receiving station, storage tanks, and multiple pumps. A
conceptual Co-Digestion Facility at SWWTP is presented in the following text and graphics.
7.1
Sizing of the Co-Digestion Facility
7.1.1
City of Dallas Available Grease Loads
Table 7-1 summarizes the design basis for a Co-Digestion Facility. The peak day grease haulage
establishes the size of the needed receiving station, grease storage tanks, and pumps. The larger the
peak day volume, the larger the size of the receiving station and tanks needed to handle the grease. The
peak day grease haulage does not directly affect the digester capacity because the digesters can absorb
short-term loading spikes. The digester capacity is determined from the maximum month digester feed
flow (Total of plant sludge and grease) and the annual average feed flow.
Table 7-1: Summary of Design Parameters

Parameter
Plant Sludge
Grease Haulage
(City of Dallas Limits)
(2007-2009)
Feed Flow
(gpd)
Solids
Loading (1)
(ppd)
1,170,000
540,000
85,000
42,000
1,255,000
582,000
Maximum Month (4)
700,000
340,000
38,500
19,000
738,500
359,000
Annual Average (5)
540,000
262,600
31,500
16,000
571,500
278,600
Peak Day (3)
Feed
Flow
(gpd)
Solids
Loading (2)
(ppd)
Total Digester Feed

(Plant Sludge + Grease)
Feed
Flow
(gpd)
Solids
Loading
(ppd)
Notes:
1
Historical average total solids concentration of digester feed is 5.9%.
Assumes total solids concentration of 6% and average density of 8.4 lb/gal.
Peak day plant sludge flow use to:
Size the sludge holding and transfer facilities
Size the thickening facilities
Peak day grease haulage used to :
Size the receiving station
Size the grease storage tanks
Size the grease transfer pumps
Total peak day digester feed was calculated as peak day plant sludge feed plus maximum month
grease haulage, since it is highly unlikely that the peak day plant sludge flow and peak day grease
haulage would occur on the same day.
4
Maximum month flow use to:
Calculate the hydraulic retention time
Calculate the volatile solids loading
Calculate the digester capacity
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 28 of 59
Section 7.0
Parameter
Plant Sludge
Grease Haulage
(City of Dallas Limits)
(2007-2009)
Feed Flow
(gpd)
Solids
Loading (1)
(ppd)
Feed
Flow
(gpd)
Assess the impact on cogeneration capacity
Assess the impact on solids handling capacity
Solids
Loading (2)
(ppd)
Total Digester Feed

(Plant Sludge + Grease)
Feed
Flow
(gpd)
Solids
Loading
(ppd)
Annual average flow used to:
Calculate average operating costs
Assess increase in cogeneration
Assess financial feasibility
Table 7-1 shows the historical digester loading (peak day, maximum monthly and annual average) and
the potential grease loading based on PALS data for grease hauling within the City of Dallas limits. The
future digester feed for design of the co-digestion facilities is equal to the historical plant sludge feed flows
plus the potential grease haulage that could be delivered to the SWWTP Facility. Figure 7-1 shows the
solids loadings in graphical form. This figure illustrates that the additional loading from grease amounts to
less then 10 percent increase in the digester loading.
Figure 7-1: Digester Loading

600,000
Plant Sludge (Avg. for 2007 to 2009)
Grease Haulage (Total within City of Dallas limits)
Solids Loading (ppd)
500,000
Total Digester Feed with Grease Co-digestion
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Annual Average
7.1.2
Maximum Month
Peak Day
Quantity of Grease Needed for Cogeneration
DWU is under contract with Ameresco to provide digester gas with an energy value of 283,240
MMBTU/yr. This number is a combination of quantity (cf/yr) and quality (BTU/cf). The existing digester
system is not producing enough digester gas/energy value to meet this demand. Meeting this demand
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 29 of 59
Section 7.0
will require an additional 49,000 to 68,300 gpd of grease, depending on energy value of the solids in the
municipal waste stream. This is presented in Table 7-2. The following calculations assume delivered
grease averages five percent concentration and an energy value of 600 BTUs.
Table 7-2: Quantity of Grease Needed for Cogeneration

Parameter
Values
500 BTU/cf
Average Digester Gas Production (cfd)
600 BTU/cf
1,013,760
Digester Gas Energy Value (BTU/cf)
500
600
Energy Value Produced (MMBTU/yr)
185,011
228,850
Ameresco Contract Requirement (MMBTU/yr)

Additional MMBTU/yr needed
283,240
98,229
Grease Energy Value (BTU/cf)
54,390
600
Gas Needed to Meet Requirement at 600 BTU/cf (cfd)
448,534
Gas per lb of VSR (grease) (cf/lbs)
248,360
19.5
Quantity of Grease Needed (gpd)
68,300
39,900
The conceptual layout will be designed based on the data presented in Table 7-1. The facility can be
started at a size of 25,000 gpd and grow to the size presented (100,000 gpd).
The information presented in Table 7-2 identifies the size of the facility needs to be in order to optimize
the Cogeneration Facility. The conceptual Co-Digestion Facility presented encompasses all these design
parameters.
7.2
Capacity of Existing Facilities for Future Loadings
As shown previously, there is ample capacity for grease co-digestion under current conditions. Figure 7-2
and Figure 7-3 show the capacity of the SWWTP digesters with the addition of grease (City of Dallas
annual average daily hauling volumes) and future plant sludge loadings.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 30 of 59
Section 7.0
Figure 7-2: Projected Digester Capacity with Grease Addition at

Annual Average Conditions
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
Page 31 of 59
Section 7.0
Figure 7-3: Projected Digester Capacity with Grease Addition at

Maximum Month Conditions
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
Based on the projected annual average solids flows and loads, the SWWTP Digestion Facility can receive
up to 180,000 gpd of brown grease and can operate with a minimum methane phase HRT of 15 days with
the largest methane phase digester out of service. During maximum month conditions, the Digestion
Facility, with one digester out of service, has a capacity for 80,000 gpd.
7.3
Conceptual Layout
Figure 7-4 shows where the access road should be paved.

Figure 7-5 identifies a conceptual layout of the facility.
Figure 7-6 shows a cross-section through the Digestion Facility.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 32 of 59
Section 7.0
Figure 7-4: Conceptual Layout SWWTP Co-Digestion Facility
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 33 of 59
Section 7.0
Figure 7-5: Conceptual Layout SWWTP Close-up View
Figure 7-6: Co-Digestion Facility Receiving Station
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 34 of 59
Section 7.0
7.4
Storage Capacity
In order to meet the size considerations discussed previously, the facility shall be capable of storing
100,000 gallons of grease. The grease will be fed to the digesters on a consistent around-the-clock
basis. It is important a facility can accept the maximum day grease load to maintain the partnership with
the grease haulers. The grease haulers will need an assurance that the grease can and will be accepted.
The storage capacity also depends on the digester feed rate; as shown previously, the digesters have
residual storage capacity. The feed rate to the digesters will depend on the storage capacity at which the
digesters are operated and how many digesters are out of service.
Multiple storage tanks are suggested to provide the ability to take one out of service for cleaning and to
give redundancy to the pumps and receiving equipment. With the quantity of grease available, a
minimum of two to four stations are suggested. A station would consist of the storage tank and
associated pumps. Multiple stations also allow multiple trucks to dispose of grease at the same time,
thus alleviating on-site traffic and congestion concerns. Typical storage tanks at other receiving stations
average about 10,000 gallons. Four tanks of 25,000 gallons are suggested. The receiving station could
be constructed in stages and begin with less storage tanks until DWU is comfortable with the process and
chooses to construct more. The storage design will account for cycling of the grease to ensure that
grease is not stored for over 24 hours.
7.5
Pumps and Appurtenances
A receiving station will have three styles of pumps; a grinding or macerating pump, a mixing pump, and a
feed pump. Grease hauled from various locations can contain a myriad of other unwanted products such
as trash, plastics, and inorganic materials. A grinder pump is important to shear larger diameter
unwanted products and grease into smaller diameter pump-friendly sizes.
7.5.1
Inlet Grinder Pumps
A receiving facility typically includes a truck-unloading pad adjacent to the storage tanks. An inlet feed
pump may be necessary, depending on the hydraulic conditions and the final elevation of the storage
tanks in relation to the elevation of the trucks. To protect downstream equipment, an inlet grinder should
be provided to macerate debris in the grease. The inlet grinder pump flow rate will be designed to unload
a typical grease truck (2,500 gallons) in 15 minutes. A benefit of using an inlet feed pump is that the flow
rate for all other ancillary equipment is set based on the feed pump; this alleviates operational issues of
mismatched equipment.
7.5.2
Mixing Pumps
The storage tank should be continuously mixed to keep the grease suspended and moving. The mixing
pump suction piping pulls from the bottom of the receiving tank and discharge back into the tank; the
intent is to prevent settling and stratification of the waste. This arrangement would look very similar to a
sludge holding tank. The mixing pump can also operate as the grinder pump. A chopper pump can
perform both duties of mixing and grinding, with the main disadvantage being the lower operating
efficiency. If a chopper pump is selected, the flow rate through the pump needs optimization with the
expected retention time in the tank. This optimization ensures that every gallon of grease discharged into
the tank makes at least one pass through the mixing pump so that the material has been macerated
before being fed into a digester.
7.5.3
Feed Pumps
The feed pump will pull grease from the sludge receiving tank and discharge it into the sludge
recirculation line. A typical pump used in this application is a positive displacement pump with high head
capabilities. A rotor/stator positive displacement pump is best suited for this job because of the
potentially high concentration of solids.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 35 of 59
Section 7.0
7.5.4
Odor Control
To manage potential odors from the grease storage tanks, the installation of a positive suction odorhandling system is recommended. Typically, the odor-handling system consists of large fan that draws
air from the top of the tank and pushes the foul air through an odor control system. A biological odor
control system is best suited for the type of odors generated from grease storage tanks.
7.6
Solids Management
Co-digestion will increase the solids requiring processing and disposal. Table 7-3 identifies the
characteristics of grease and total solids requiring disposal.
Table 7-3: Solids Produced from Grease

Minimum Quantity for
Cogeneration
(40,000 gpd Grease)
Facility Max
(75,000 gpd Grease)
Total Solids (5%) (lbs)
16,800
31,500
Volatile Solids (95%) (lbs)
15,960
29,925
Volatile Solids Reduction (85%) (lbs)
13,566
25,436
Solids Produced (lbs)
3,234
6,064
Table 7-3 indicates that on an average day of 40,000 gallons of grease received, the facility will produce
3,234 lbs of additional solids. Max day represents 6,064 lbs of additional solids. The increase in solids is
negligible in relation to the overall operation of the solids handling facilities; nevertheless, there will be an
increase in solids requiring processing and disposal.
7.7
Control Strategy
The Co-Digestion Facility's design will include the automatic introduction of grease into the digesters.
The preferred method for the injection into the digesters is to pipe the recirculation line from the digesters
near the receiving station. The grease feed pumps will discharge grease from the receiving station
directly into the recirculation line. The recirculation line will be heated to approximately 95 Fahrenheit
(F), to mitigate grease clogging during transport to the digesters. Figure 7-7 depicts a pipe clogged with
grease at normal temperatures. Figure 7-8 depicts a heated pipeline that carries grease but has no
clogging, due to feeding into the heated recirculation line.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 36 of 59
Section 7.0
Figure 7-7: Grease Matting in Unheated Pipeline
Figure 7-8: Heated Grease Pipeline Reduces Matting
Co-digestion of grease is more beneficial in a two-phase (acid/gas) digestion system than a conventional
digester system. The two-phase digestion relies on the separation of the biological processes that occur
in anaerobic digestion. In the acid digester, a relatively low HRT maintains high levels of acid forming
organisms and negligible levels of methane producing organisms, which results in low pH conditions.
These acidic conditions improve the degradation rate of proteins and lipids. The benefit is that two-phase
digestion allows feeding of the grease to a single central location, avoiding the long piping runs necessary
to feed each individual conventional digester. This mitigates pipe clogging as well.
The grease can feed continuously to the digester system by feeding into the acid-phase digester. Grease
degradation occurs rapidly when added at ratios of up to 50 percent. Typical grease degradation can
occur within five to six days. Because the acid digester allows for variable level operation, the target
operational parameters and HRT of the acid digester does not change when integrating co-digestion. A
minimum HRT of 15 days is required to maintain a Class B biosolids, and allow for residual capacity for
co-digestion.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 37 of 59
Section 8.0
8.0
Challenges of Co-Digestion
CHALLENGES OF CO-DIGESTION
The benefits of co-digestion are not without a few potential consequences. The possible challenges of
adding grease to digesters are outlined in the following text, with actions that could mitigate undesirable
effects.
8.1
Operational Considerations
8.1.1
Foaming
Adding grease to the digesters may increase gas production and may create more foaming. If the
existing digesters have a foaming problem, the foaming issue may be augmented with the addition of
brown grease. To mitigate foaming issues with the addition of grease, the following can be done:
Implement adequate feeding cycles.
Ensure efficient mixing.
Minimize filamentous organisms in the activated sludge.
Apply anti-foaming agents to the digesters.
8.1.2
Grease Matting and Pipe Clogging
The introduction of grease into the wastewater treatment process has the potential for grease matting in
structures and clogging pipes. The design of the Receiving Facility will need to include the following to
limit the ability of the grease to mat or clog.
Reduce retention time in the pipes through the facility's layout.
Reduce storage time.
Ensure the feed piping is the shortest length possible.
Feed the grease into heated recirculation lines. The heat decreases the grease viscosity and
reduces the possibility of clogging in pipelines.
Ensure the digesters are maintained and have fully functional mixing systems to mitigate matting
within the digesters. Over-mixing can aggravate foaming issues; adequate mixing reduces matting
while limiting the amount of foam produced.
8.1.3
Additional Considerations
Ammonia should not be a concern with grease co-digestion. Because of the high fat content, ammonia
should not increase over time as it may with high protein energy sources, such as blood.
Grease of varying quality will affect the operation of the digesters differently. The time frame for grease
degradation in digesters, the impact on dewatering, and the impact on disposal options will need to be
evaluated closely during design. Because the greases hydrophobic nature limits the availability for biodegradation, there is potential for unwanted floating in anaerobic systems as well.
8.2
Receiving Unwanted Wastes
The concern of receiving unwanted waste products at the receiving station is valid. The possibility exists
that a waste hauler could dispose of an unwanted load of waste, such as septage or a load containing
toxic waste. To mitigate this possibility, random sampling of the hauled material is suggested to keep
haulers alert and honest about the loads. A sample containing unwanted wastes would warrant a ban on
specific haulers from disposing of any wastes at the receiving station again. Using a tipping fee structure
that dissuades the dumping of septage wastes will also discourage haulers from discharging unwanted
wastes. An educational program to familiarize operators with identifying different waste streams is also a
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 38 of 59
Section 8.0
helpful tool in mitigating unwanted discharges. Finally, familiarizing large volume haulers with the facility
will result in a successful partnership that can result in the reduction of unwanted wastes.
The owners and operators of a high-strength wastes receiving station have the authority and ability to
restrict and limit access. Operation of a disposal location is a mutually beneficial relationship for both
parties.
8.3
Maintenance Costs
While adding co-digestion to SWWTP would not require a full time operator, it will require an increase in
operation and maintenance costs. With the addition of a receiving station, the possibility exists to add up
to four feed pumps and four grinder pumps. Choosing the appropriate quality of materials for the job can
greatly reduce operation and maintenance costs. The pumping and piping system will require special
attention to mitigate a cause-and-effect chain that can increase the receiving station maintenance. With
several different users of the receiving station coming and going every day, the wear and tear on the
connection hoses may be high. The tipping fee structure is recommended to offset the cost of additional
wear and tear to the facility.
Extra budget should be allowed for the administration cost associated with operating a receiving station.
These unforeseen expenses include the following:
Receiving trip tickets or setting up a card scan system.

On entering the gates, haulers should submit a trip ticket indicating the quantity of wastes, type of
wastes, and origin of wastes. Determining how the tickets will be collected and were they will be
stored is important. It may not be feasible at SWWTP for a hauler to drive to the administration
building to log a trip ticket. If the trip tickets are collected at the receiving station or at the front gate of
the plant, there is a cost associated with the human power and record keeping.
Compiling and logging the trip tickets into a data set.
Storing, archiving and tracking the data from these records.
Mitigation of potential challenges (e.g., digester foaming).
8.4
Truck Traffic
As seen previously at SWWTP, with the ability to offload grease at an alternative disposal station, grease
haulers from outside DWU service area may line up at the plant gates. In the 1980s when grease trap
waste was accepted at the facility, trucks lined up outside the gate waiting for the plant to open. With the
cost of disposing of grease escalating monthly, a heavy truck load is expected at the facility. In the
conceptual layout, a separate truck hauling road is suggested to alleviate congestion and deterioration on
the main road through the facility. A paved road will mitigate dust pollution and allow access during rain
events. Some areas of the facility need to be widened, particularly near the receiving station, so that two
trucks may pass each other. In addition, a queue area should be identified and constructed that allows
trucks to wait for an opening at the receiving station without impeding traffic around the plant site.
Nevertheless, high truck traffic should be expected going to and from the facility, thus increasing the
potential for onsite accidents and the creation of unexpected delays for vehicles trying to access the site.
This issue could be compounded if the truck traffic inhibited the response of emergency vehicles to the
facility.
The truck traffic will also affect plant security. Multiple trucks lined up at the entrance to the facility can be
a logistical concern for the security team to clear for entrance into the plant. A separate queue area
outside of the facility should be considered under future expanded operations to alleviate traffic and
safety concerns at the entrance to the plant.
A site access and control system may need to be considered to help alleviate plant security concerns.
The system would consist of a card reader or RFID sending station that can record a truck's entrance and
exit times. The record keeping of specific truck access events may help mitigate security issues at the
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 39 of 59
Section 8.0
facility. DWU may also consider installing security cameras to monitor truck discharge events from a
remote location.
The increase in truck traffic is a concern not only within SWWTP fences, but also on the adjacent roads
leading to the facility. The neighbors and adjacent businesses can view the increased truck traffic as a
nuisance. The roads leading to the facility could possibly deteriorate at a faster rate as well. From a
political standpoint, DWU will need to address neighbors concerns and determine an acceptable schedule
for which truck traffic is allowed at the facility.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 40 of 59
Section 9.0
9.0
Project Delivery and Operating Alternatives
PROJECT DELIVERY AND OPERATING ALTERNATIVES
A Co-Digestion Facility can receive high strength wastes from multiple sources with a myriad of
operations possibilities. As outlined in this report, The Team suggests using brown grease as the
preferred energy source. Other high strength wastes can be considered as energy sources in the future
when operation stability has been achieved. Even with limiting potential waste haulers to one type of
energy source, several methods for operating the new receiving station are available.
One method of operation is to allow any hauler that wishes to dispose of grease to enter the facility during
normal business hours. This approach would be considered an "open-access" policy; the facility is open
to anybody that wishes to dispose of a load of grease. The alternative would be to restrict access to
selected grease haulers and limit their access accordingly. This method of operation would be
considered "limited-access" policy; where facility would allow Hauler A, but not allow Hauler B. There are
disadvantages and advantages to either operation method, which will be presented.
9.1
Open-Access versus Limited-Access Co-Digestion Facility
An open-access facility, true to its name, would allow any registered grease hauler to dispose of as much
grease as they wish at any time that the facility is open. Operating the co-digestion facility as a limitedaccess facility could include DWU entering into a contract with a specific hauler to receive grease from
only that hauler. In this relationship, DWU would guarantee a place to continuously dispose of grease,
while the hauler would guarantee the quantity.
9.1.1
Open-Access Policy
Advantages of an Open Access Policy

An open-access facility has several benefits over a limited-access facility as shown in the following list:
Consistent with the goals and charter of a municipal entity.
Greater opportunity for a larger quantity of grease. With a facility open to all registered haulers, the
total available quantity of grease is larger than limiting to just a specific hauler. If capacity is not an
issue in the digesters, there is no reason to limit the overall quantity of grease received. For example,
in regards to the City of Dallas grease data, the largest hauler accounts for 60 percent of the total
grease. An open-access facility would allow greater opportunity to receive a larger share of the
available grease.
Not dependent on a single grease hauler. With multiple companies providing grease services, DWU
does not have to be concerned about grease haulers going out of business or having financial
trouble.
Flexibility to increase number of haulers. With the possibility to expand the digester facilities and the
ability to take on larger quantities of grease, an open-access facility will allow DWU the flexibility to
advertise the availability of the facility to haulers outside of the immediate service area.
Not bound by a contract. Because DWU will not be under any contract with a hauler, it can cease
operations of the facility without issue or conditions. An open-access facility reduces DWU liability
under a contract.
Total control of the facility's operation.
Free to determine and collect tipping fees as DWU sees fit. An appropriate tipping structure could
result in a short payback period for the facility and provide a potentially large revenue stream for
DWU.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 41 of 59
Section 9.0
Disadvantages of an Open-Access Policy

An open-access facility has the following disadvantages:
Potential for unwanted types of wastes. Any registered hauler could potentially dump an unwanted
load of wastes. These loads could potentially be of poor quality or even toxic; a toxic load is difficult
to mitigate. Toxic loads are less likely to happen in a limited-access facility where the hauler would
have sole source responsibility for quality. In an open-access facility, accountability of waste loads
can be problematic. The collecting and filing trip tickets is an additional cost.
Uncertainty regarding the quantity of grease coming to DWU. The amount of grease is an estimate
and is largely unknown. With no guarantees on the minimum quantity to be received, the facility
could sit idle and result in no-co-digestion with potential consequences if digester gas production is
not met. Alternately, the facility could receive too many trucks within one day and not have sufficient
storage capacity to contain all the volume. Turning away grease haulers on a full load day is not
beneficial to the partnership. If SWWTP makes the decision to accept grease, it is possible that a few
of the existing disposal facilities will be closed, as disposal there may be cost-prohibitive. Haulers
could become dependent on the SWWTP Co-Digestion Facility, and turning away haulers may not be
acceptable in the mutual partnership. With nowhere to dispose of grease, illegal dumping could be
an issue.
Security concerns. An open-access facility is potentially less secure than a limited-access facility.
With an open-access facility, familiarization with the individual truck operators is less likely to occur
than with a limited-access facility. The security issue can be mitigated through licensing checks and
updated security records, but nonetheless, opening a facility to the public is a security concern.
DWU will be completely responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the facility.
Loss of PALS pre-treatment fees.
9.1.2
Limited-Access Policy
Advantages of a Limited Access Policy

A limited-access facility can provide some advantages that public open-access facility cannot:
Quantity of grease controlled. When DWU enters into a contract with a hauler or group of haulers,
the minimum and maximum quantity of grease received can be contracted. The knowledge of
receiving a specific range of grease allows DWU a larger operational cushion compared to a public
facility. Having the knowledge of the amount of grease to be delivered mitigates operational
problems and overloading of the facilities. The known quantity also allows for the appropriate
planning in the design phase of the facility to accommodate tank sizing.
Consistency in quality. Having one specific hauler responsible for the grease delivered allows for the
possibility to achieve an even consistency in quality due to the sole source responsibility.
Controlled trucking traffic. Challenges with truck traffic will be minimized as DWU will better be able
to predict truck traffic and hauling volumes. A contract could specify the hauling times and density of
hauling trucks. This minimizes upsets and avoids the consequences that come with crowding at the
SWWTP.
Stronger contract position. Having more knowledge on quantity and quality of grease disposed at
SWWTP allows DWU to have a stronger position when entering into contracts for cogeneration.
Reduced capital costs. A limited-access facility could possibly be funded by private businesses,
therefore reducing DWU financial burden for capital cost.
Reduced maintenance costs. A limited-access facility contract could include a provision for the
contracted hauler to share in the maintenance cost associated with the operation of the facility.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 42 of 59
Section 9.0
Disadvantages of a Limited Access Policy

A limited-access facility has the following disadvantages:
Dependence on one source of grease. This dependence could be an issue if that source has
financial or mechanical issues that keep them from performing their duties.
Potential for turning away haulers can produce a negative public image resulting in a negative
political outfall.
Potential legal issues. Investigation is needed into the legal ramifications of a public entity entering
into a contract to provide a service for a private entity.
Potential to mitigate a negative public perception. Public perception of an advantaged relationship

between a private and public entity.
Potential for reduced revenues. The contracted hauler may have a voice in the collection of tipping
fees, reducing the potential revenue collected by DWU, and a reduction of potential revenue streams.
Potential for diminished quantity of grease when a sole provider is contracted. If the contracted
hauler cannot supply the total volume of grease that the digesters can handle, the facility is limiting
the biogas production based only on the supplier.
Loss of PALS pretreatment fee.
9.2
Potential Revenue Streams
Tipping fees should be collected to help offset the expense of operating the facility. The haulers
traditionally pay a tipping fee at existing disposal sites, and are probably comfortable with the practice of
paying to dispose of the wastes at a facility. There is not any data to support a claim that a moderate
tipping fee would turn away potential haulers.
The Team completed a survey of tipping fees across the United States. The survey identified several
disposal facilities, including standard grease disposal facilities and wastewater treatment plants that use
co-digestion. All facilities surveyed are shown in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1: Tipping Fees Charged by Disposal Sites

$ Price Per Gallon
Year
Destination
0.04
2010
WWTP
Watsonville, CA
0.11
1998
Grease
Boston, MA
0.75
2002
Grease
Kentucky
0.37
2008
Grease
Oahu, HI
0.05
2005
WWTF
Riverside, CA
0.37
2006
Grease
Maui, HI
0.08
2005
Grease
Yellowknife, Canada
0.41
1997
Grease
Burlington, VT
0.10
2008
Food Waste
0.15
2010
WWTP
Waco, TX
0.33
2005
Grease
Turnbridge, VT
0.10
2009
WWTP
Chatsworth, GA
0.03
2009
WWTP
Axton, VA
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Location
California / Food Wastes
Page 43 of 59
Section 9.0
$ Price Per Gallon
Year
Destination
Location
0.12
2010
Grease
Dallas, TX (1)
0.16
2010
Grease
Dallas, TX (2)
0.13
2010
WWTP
Pinellas County, FL
0,11
2010
WWTP
Oakland, CA
A breakdown of this chart into specific disposal facilities determines an average tipping fee for a standard
grease hauling facility versus a wastewater treatment plant. The grease disposal facilities charge an
average of 0.27 cents a gallon of grease as shown in Table 9-2.
Table 9-2: Examples of Disposal Fees at Grease-Only Processing Facilities

$ Price Per Gallon
Destination
Location
0.11
Grease
Boston, MA
0.75
Grease
Kentucky
0.37
Grease
Oahu, HI
0.08
Grease
Yellowknife, Canada
0.33
Grease
Turnbridge, VT
0.12
Grease
Dallas, TX (1)
0.16
Grease
Dallas, TX (2)
0.27 Average
A detailed look at the wastewater treatment plants that accept grease is shown in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3: Examples of Grease Disposal Fees at Open-Access WWTPs

$ Price Per Gallon
Destination
Location
0.04
WWTF
Watsonville, CA
0.05
WWTF
Riverside, CA
0.10
WWTP
Chatsworth, GA
0.03
WWTP
Axton, VA
0.15
WWTP
Waco, TX
0.06
WWTP
Millbrae, CA
0.13
WWTP
Pinellas County, FL
0.11
WWTP
Oakland, CA
0.08 Average
On average, the wastewater treatment facilities that accept grease charge 0.08 cents per gallon. This is
a difference of 0.19 cents per gallon.
The data indicates that an average WWTP charges 0.08 cents per gallon up to a maximum of 0.15 cents
while traditionally grease disposal sites charge more.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 44 of 59
Section 9.0
DWU could implement a tipping fee in the range of 0.03 cents per gallon up to 0.15 cents per gallon.
Collection of a tipping fee can result in a potential revenue stream as identified in Table 9-4.
Table 9-4: Potential Revenue Streams

Fee Per Gallon ($)
City of Dallas Average Grease

Haulage (31,500 gpd)
Facility Max
(75,000 gal)
$0.03
$945 per Day
$2,250 per Day
$0.08
$2,520 per Day
$6,000 per day
$0.15
$4,725 per Day
$11,250 per day
Table 9-4 indicates that with a tipping fee to match the quantity of grease available within the City of
Dallas, the Co-Digestion Facility could generate approximately $4,725 per day or $1,724,625 per year.
The conceptual facility can handle a load of 75,000 gallons per day. At $0.15 per gallon, that would
generate $4,106,250 per year. With no competition currently, the facility could potentially generate a
larger revenue stream by increasing the tipping fee to what the market can withstand.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 45 of 59
Section 10.0
10.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

10.1
Capital Cost Construction Estimate
A probable opinion of construction costs was developed based on the conceptual layout presented in
Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5. The cost estimate assumes the following:
A $250,000 allowance for the relocation of potential existing utilities in the area of the proposed
receiving station
A $50,000 allowance for trenching
A concrete containment area for the tanks
Four 25,000 gallon holding tanks
Four sludge mixing pumps
Four digester feed pumps
Two grinder pumps
Ability to offload two trucks at once
A 32,000 square foot truck offloading and queue area
12 inch slabs
Asphalt paving all gravel roads from Log Cabin Road to the digesters
30 percent contingency
15 percent contractor overhead and profit
With the assumptions listed above, the open-access co-digestion receiving station cost estimate is
$2,900,000. The cost of a limited-access facilities receiving station may vary from this depending on the
particular specifications adopted for the private hauler. The cost estimate is found in Appendix D..
10.2
Potential Facility Payback
The facility has a potential payback between 1.1 and 3.6 years. The payback varies based on the grease
quantity received. The potential payback is presented in Table 10-1.
The average digested sludge gas production per day was calculated using the total solids from the sludge
fed into the digester in pounds per day. Solids reduction is calculated knowing that 75 percent of the
digester feed solids are volatile and there is on average a 55 percent volatile solids reduction in the DWU
digesters. Assuming there is 12 cubic feet of gas produced per pound of solids reduced, the gas
production for municipal solids was calculated. The grease addition per day is divided into three
categories. The annual average Dallas hauling is based on the average grease hauled within the city
limits of Dallas. The quantity needed for cogeneration is calculated by subtracting the amount of energy
value currently being produced with sludge digestion from the amount of energy required to meet the
cogeneration contract; the difference determines the energy value needed from the grease. Assuming a
range between 500 to 575 BTUs per cubic foot of gas produced by sludge and 600 BTUs per cubic foot of
gas produced by grease, the amount of gallons of grease per day needed for cogeneration is produced
by grease, the amount of gallons of grease per day needed for cogeneration is determined. The potential
month is an assumed maximum amount of grease that could be processed by the facility. In order to
determine the gas production from the grease, it is assumed that it has 95 percent volatile solids and 85
percent of those volatile solids are reduced in the digestion process to produce gas.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 46 of 59
Section 10.0
Table 10-1: Potential Payback

Description
Annual
Average
Dallas Hauling
Quantity
Needed for
Cogeneration
Potential
Month
Gas Production
Average Digested Sludge Gas Production (cf/day)
1,167,210
1,167,210
1,167,210
Grease Addition Per Day (gpd)
31,500
37,725
100,000
Grease Addition, lbs/day
13,136
15,731
41,700
Volatile Solids Percent of Grease (95%) (lbs/day)
12,479
14,945
39,615
Volatile Solids Reduced (85%) (lbs/day)
10,607
12,703
33,673
19.50
19.50
19.50
206,835
247,708
656,619
600
600
600
124,100,920
148,624,625
393,971,175
80
80
80
Increase in Recoverable Energy (BTU/day)
99,280,736
118,899,700
315,176,940
Increase in Recoverable Energy (kWh/day)
29,089
34,800
92,300
44
44
44
4,645,000
5,557,000
14,739,000
0.5
0.6
1.7
Power Rate paid to Oncor Corp.($/kWh)
$0.090
$0.090
$0.090
Power Rate paid to Ameresco ($/kWh)
$0.060
$0.060
$0.060
$319,000
$381,000
$1,011,000
Additional Annual Renewable Energy Credits (per 1,000kWh)
4,645
5,557
14,739
Estimated Value of Renewable Energy Credit
$0.50
$0.50
$0.50
$2,000
$3,000
$7,000
Tipping Fee Minimum ($/gallon)
0.08
0.08
0.08
Tipping Fee Collected (per day)
$2,520
$3,018
$8,000
Tipping Fee Collected (per year)
$919,800
$1,101,563
$2,920,000
$1,240,800
$1,485,563
$3,938,000
Investigation and Preliminary Engineering
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
Detailed Design and Construction Services
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$600,000
$600,000
$600,000
Receiving Station for Grease
$2,900,000
$2,900,000
$2,900,000
Digester Rehabilitation (3 to 13)
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Gas Per Pound of VSR (cf/lbs)

Gas Production From Grease (cf/day)
Energy Content
Calorific Content of Digester Gas (BTU/cf)
Increase in Energy, (BTU/day)
Recoverable Fraction of Energy (%)
Recovered Energy Available as Electrical (%)

Increase in Recoverable Electrical Energy (kWh/yr)
Increase in Recoverable Electrical Energy (MW)
Value of Energy Increase
Savings to DWU Due to Additional Biogas ($/yr)
Additional Annual Value of Renewable Energy Credits ($/yr)
Total Value to DWU Due to Grease (per year)

Cost of Implementation
Subtotal Engineering Services
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 47 of 59
Section 10.0
Description
Annual
Average
Dallas Hauling
Quantity
Needed for
Cogeneration
Potential
Month
Estimated Total Project Cost
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
10 Year Revenue Stream*
$12,408,000
$14,855,620
$39,380,000
Calculated Project Payback* (Yrs)
3.6
3.0
1.1
Project Payback
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 48 of 59
Appendix A
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Acronym or Term
Definition
BFP
Belt Filter Press
BTU
British Thermal Unit
Celsius
C/N Ratio
Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio
cf
Cubic Feet
cfd
Cubic Feet Per Day
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
CWWTP
Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
DFW
Dallas-Fort Worth
DWU
Fahrenheit
Fe
Iron
FT3
Cubic Feet
GBT
Gravity Belt Thickener
gpd
Gallons per Day
hr
hour
HRT
Hydraulic Retention Time
lbs
Pounds
MG
Millions of Gallons
mgd
Millions Gallons per Day
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
mgd
Million Gallons per Day
MMBTU/yr
Million British Thermal Units per Year
N/A
Not Applicable
no.
Number
PALS
Pretreatment and Laboratory Services
ppd
Pounds per Day
SWWTP
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Team
The Team includes Carollo Engineers, Dallas Water Utilities

personnel, and various consultants.
TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
VFA
Volatile Fatty Acids
VS
Volatile Solids
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 49 of 59
Appendix A
Acronym or Term
Definition
VSL
Volatile Solids Loading
VSLR
Volatile Solids Loading Rate
VSR
Volatile Solids Reduction
WAS
Waste Activated Sludge (or solids)
WMARSS
Waco Metropolitan Area Regional Sewer System
WWTP/F
Wastewater Treatment Plant/Facility
yr (s)
Year/Years
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 50 of 59
Appendix B
References
Appendix B
Reference
Number
References
Reference Information
75
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Draft Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan.

(WWTFSP). Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
135
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical

Memorandum, Wastewater Flow Projections. Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
142
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical

Memorandum, CWWTP Liquid Treatment Recommendations. Dallas: Carollo Engineers,
Inc., July 2010.
205
CH2M Hill. SWWTP Anaerobic Digestion Operations Manual. Dallas: CH2MHill Inc.,
2006.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 51 of 59
Appendix C
Appendix C
Historical Solids Handling Process Data
Figure C-1: CWWTP and SWWTP Combined Raw Influent Flow

500
450
400
2009 Average = 182
2007 Average = 206

350
2008 Average = 169
Flow, mgd
300
250
200
150
100
50
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Page 52 of 59
Appendix C
Figure C-2: Thickening Performance

500
450
400
350
2007 Average = 5.7
2008 Average = 5.6
2009 Average = 6.4
300
Flow, mgd
250
200
150
100
50
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Note: The graphics on this page use a gray diamond () to indicate an individual data point.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 53 of 59
Appendix C
Figure C-3: Volatile Solids Concentration in Thickened Sludge

100
90
2007 Average = 76
2009 Average = 77
2008 Average = 78
80
70
Volatile Solids, %
60
50
40
30
20
10
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Page 54 of 59
Appendix C
Figure C-4: Digester Feed Flow Rate

1.4
1.2
1.0
Digester Feed Flow Rate, mgd
2007 Average = 0.57
2008 Average = 0.51
2009 Average = 0.52
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Note: The graphics on this page use a gray diamond () to indicate an individual data point.
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 55 of 59
Appendix C
Figure C-5: Thickened Sludge Volatile Solids Loading

400
350
Volatile Solids Loading, 1000 x ppd
2007 Average = 210

300
2008 Average = 186
2009 Average = 212
250
200
150
100
50
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Page 56 of 59
Appendix C
Figure C-6: Digester Gas Production per Pound of VSR

20
Specific Gas Production, ft3/lbs VSR
18
16
2007 Average = 11.2
2008 Average = 10.5
14
2009 Average = 8.5
12
10
Missing Data
Missing Data
6
4
2
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Jan-09
Nov-08
Sep-08
Jul-08
May-08
Mar-08
Jan-08
Nov-07
Sep-07
Jul-07
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 57 of 59
Appendix D
Appendix D
Detailed Cost Estimate
Detailed Cost Estimate
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
Co-Digestion Facility and Grease Receiving Station

Major Site Work
Existing Utilities Relocation Allowance
4 Inch Ac Paving on 8 Inch ABC
LS
$250,000
$250,000
300,000
SF
$2
$600,000
Subtotal Major Site Work
$850,000
Structure(s)
Sump Pit Allowance
12 Inch Flat Non-Formed S.O.G.
12 Inch Straight Wall, To 8 Inch High
Metal Allowance
Aluminum OSHA Handrail
LS
$2,000
$8,000
250
CY
$221
$55,250
36
CY
$707
$25,452
LS
$10,000
$10,000
400
LF
$25
$10,000
Subtotal Structure(s)
$108,702
Major Equipment & Piping

Rotamix Pumping System
EA
$30,000
$120,000
Digester Feed Pumps
EA
$25,000
$100,000
Sludge Grinder, 6 Inch
EA
$10,000
$20,000
Tank Accessories
LS
$5,000
$20,000
Miscellaneous Metal
LS
$2,500
$10,000
Odor Control System
LS
$150,000
$150,000
25,000 Gal. FRP Aboveground Storage Tank
EA
$40,000
$160,000
350
LF
$150
$52,500
6 Inch Flg Cldi Pipe in Open Trench
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
Subtotal Major Equipment & Piping
$632,500
Subtotal All Major Cost
$1,591,202
Other Misc. Yard Piping and Utilities (5%)
$79,560
Other Site Work (5%)
$29,560
Other Electrical and Instrumentation (5%)
$79,560
Subtotal Direct Cost
$1,830,000
Total Direct Cost
$1,800,000
Contingencies (25%)
$500,000
Total Direct Cost + Contingencies
$2,300,000
General Conditions (15%)
$300,000
Contractor OH & P (15%)
$300,000
Total Construction Cost
$2,900,000
Engineering (15%)
$400,000
Total Project Cost
$3,300,000
December 2010
Page 58 of 59

Record of Change
Record of Change
Version 1.0
Date: September 2009
Location in Document
Description of Change
First Interim Release
Version 2.0
Date: November 2009
Second Interim Release

Version 3.0
Date: July 2010
Global Changes
Updated text and tables with editorial/formatting changes for

document consistency
Figures
Updated figures to reflect most current data
Appendix B
Added Appendix B and new references
Appendix D
Added Appendix D, containing the detailed cost estimates
Tables
Updated tables with current data
Footers
Updated footers with new date and version

Version 4.0
Date: December 2010
Table 2-3
Updated with more current data values
Table 2-4
Table 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, and 9-4
Section 10.2
Added more information
Table 10-1
WWTFSP_App.F11-4.0
December 2010
Page 59 of 59

WWTFSP App.F11 Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WWTFSP App.F11 Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Appendix F11: Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Dallas Water Utilities

Executive Summary .................................................................................................4

Introduction to Co-Digestion ..................................................................................6

What is Co-Digestion? .................................................................................................. 6

Digester System Historical Data Evaluation........................................................11

Existing Anaerobic Digestion Facilities ....................................................................... 11

Planning Criteria ....................................................................................................18

Digester Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................19

City of Dallas Grease Data Analysis.....................................................................22

Co-Digestion Facility Design Considerations .....................................................28

City of Dallas Grease Hauling Volumes...................................................................... 22

Sizing of the Co-Digestion Facility .............................................................................. 28

Challenges of Co-Digestion ..................................................................................38

Dallas Water Utilities

Project Delivery and Operating Alternatives .......................................................41

Open-Access versus Limited-Access Co-Digestion Facility ....................................... 41

Financial Considerations ......................................................................................46

Capital Cost Construction Estimate ............................................................................ 46

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................49

Historical Solids Handling Process Data.................................................52

Detailed Cost Estimate ..............................................................................58

Dallas Water Utilities

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Historical Digester Performance

City of Dallas Grease Hauler Volumes

Current and Future Digester Capacity

Table 1-1: Current and Future Residual Capacity

All Methane Phase

One Methane Phase

Dallas Water Utilities

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Digester Capacity with Addition of Grease Collected within City Limits

Public Access versus Limited Access Co-Digestion Facility

Table 1-2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Access/Limited Access Facility

Consistent with the charter and goals

Allows for the potential of larger

Ensures DWU is not dependent on

Gives DWU full control over the

Allows for the potential collection of

Reduces DWUs liability that could

Potential for greater knowledge of

Potential to mitigate truck traffic

Potential capital cost funding sources

Potential to share in maintenance and

A greater potential for unwanted wastes

Unknown quantities of grease

Potential concerns with security

Dependence on one source for grease

Negative public perception of an

Potential for legal challenge

Potential reduction in tipping fee

Potential for smaller quantities of grease

Dallas Water Utilities

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Figure 2-1: Raw WWTP Solids

Raw WWTP Sludge

Dallas Water Utilities

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Table 2-1: Typical Characteristics of Brown Grease

Free Fatty Acids

Carbon to Nitrogen (C/N) Ratio

High (Low ammonia)

Table 2-2: Methane Gas Comparison