WWTFSP - App.F14 - Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Appendix F14: Sludge and Biogas
Characterization
Version 2.0
July 2010
Prepared by:
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Registration No. F-882
Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

1.1
1.2
2.0
Introduction ..............................................................................................................5
2.1
3.0
Gas Sample Collection.................................................................................................. 6

Gas Characterization .................................................................................................... 6
Digester Solids Analysis .........................................................................................7

4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
Co-Digestion Feasibility Study ...................................................................................... 5
Digester Gas Analysis .............................................................................................6

3.1
3.2
4.0
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 3

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 4
Sludge Sample Collection ............................................................................................. 7

Sludge Characterization................................................................................................ 7
Biodegradability Tests................................................................................................... 9
Mass Balance .........................................................................................................12

5.1
5.2
Total Solids and COD ................................................................................................. 12

Estimated Gas Production .......................................................................................... 13
6.0
Digester Configuration ..........................................................................................15
7.0
Findings and Recommendations..........................................................................16

7.1
7.2
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 16

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................18
Appendix B
References..................................................................................................20
Appendix C
Southern Petroleum Laboratories Report ...............................................21
Appendix D
Sludge Characterization Results ..............................................................29
Appendix E
Georgia Institute of Technology Report...................................................33
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 2 of 48
Section 1.0
1.0
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) agreed to provide digester gas for a new cogeneration facility operated by
Ameresco. A recent decrease in gas production at the Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWTP)
anaerobic digestion facility prompted DWU to retain Carollo Engineers to investigate the possible causes
for the low digester gas production and evaluate the feasibility of increasing gas production through codigestion of grease.
This report presents the results from the sludge and gas characterization, biodegradability testing, and
mass balance calculations presented as part of the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan
(WWTFSP), Technical Memorandum (TM), Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141).
1.1
Summary of Findings
The results from the analysis of the samples collected at the SWWTP indicate that the anaerobic
digestion process is achieving adequate levels of stabilization, as indicated by volatile solids reduction
(VSR) and conversion of organic material to methane (CH4).
Based on the sludge characterization, mass balances around the digesters, and biodegradability tests,
the following findings are presented:
Low hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations in the gas provide no evidence of inhibition of CH4 forming
organisms or potential H2S toxicity.
The Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWWTP) solids have a lower CH4 generation potential
than the SWWTP solids. This is due in part to the fermentation of primary sludge as it is co-settled
with waste activated sludge (WAS).
Approximately 31 percent of the organic material in the dilute sludge does not reach the digesters,
decreasing the digester gas production of the facility.
A decrease in the total phosphorus between the thickened sludge well and the decant well indicates
phosphorus accumulation inside the digesters, possibly in the form of vivianite.
Low H2S levels in the digester gas and low orthophosphate levels in the sludge were attributed to the
addition of iron in the collection system and the liquid treatment train.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 3 of 48
Section 1.0
1.2
Executive Summary
Recommendations
A preliminary list of modifications is presented for consideration: A detailed review and further analysis
are required to determine the feasibility of the recommendations:
Minimize degradation prior to anaerobic digestion by:
Modifying or decommissioning the existing thickened-sludge well.
Changing operational procedures at the CWWTP to increase the chemical oxygen demand
(COD) content of the transferred solids.
Monitor routinely the COD levels in the digester feed and the digested sludge.
Verify the gas instrumentation accuracy.
Install a custody transfer certified gas meter at a location to identify 100 percent of the gas
production.
Implement operation of the solids facility with the two-phase digestion mode to maintain high
digestion performance.
Install an enclosed burner to combust the acid-phase digester low British thermal unit (BTU) gas to
prevent using good quality digester gas as supplemental fuel for the burner.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 4 of 48
Section 2.0
2.0
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The DWU entered a contractual agreement with Ameresco to provide 283,240 million British thermal units
(MMBTU) per year, approximately 1,350,000 cubic feet per day (cfd) of digester gas to fuel a new
cogeneration facility (Ref. 199). Due to a recent decrease in gas production at the SWWTP anaerobic
digestion facility, DWU retained Carollo to evaluate the feasibility of increasing gas production through codigestion of grease and to investigate the causes for the low digester gas production.
2.1
Co-Digestion Feasibility Study
As part of the WWTFSP TM, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141), Carollo analyzed the historical
process and operating data to develop a performance baseline. The digester gas production and the
digester feed loading showed a decreasing trend that was attributed in part to a decrease in raw influent
flow to the SWWTP and CWWTP. Although the VSR was high, the specific gas production was below the
typical range for anaerobic digesters. Carollo recommended laboratory analyses of digester gas and
sludge to investigate the causes for the low gas production at SWWTP that included the following:
H2S levels in the digester gas and sulfate in the digester feed
Individual volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the digesters
COD concentration in the sludge
Anaerobic biodegradability tests
This report presents the results from the sludge and gas characterization, biodegradability testing, and
mass balance calculations. A detailed description of the digestion facilities and the historic process and
operating data is presented in the WWTFSP TM, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141).
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 5 of 48
Section 3.0
3.0
Digester Gas Analysis
DIGESTER GAS ANALYSIS
Gas samples were collected and analyzed to evaluate the anaerobic process performance at the
SWWTP digesters. Poor gas quality indicated by low CH4 and/or high H2S is a common indicator of
anaerobic process inhibition.
3.1
Gas Sample Collection
On November 19, 2009, Southern Petroleum Laboratories (SPL) staff collected and analyzed gas
samples from digesters no. 3 to 8 and digesters no. 9 to 13. On December 16, 2009, a second gas
sample from digesters no. 3 to 8 was collected and analyzed due to air contamination (high oxygen
content) in the first sample.
3.2
Gas Characterization
The gas analysis results agreed with previous reports (Ref. 199) and indicated that the SWWTP digesters
produce gas with good quality; the CH4 concentration was within the operating range of well performing
anaerobic digesters. The H2S concentration was below the levels observed in well-performing anaerobic
digesters. Based on the high CH4 and low H2S levels, Carollo found no evidence of inhibition of CH4
forming organisms or potential H2S toxicity. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the results from the
digester gas characterization. Appendix C contains the complete SPL laboratory report,
Table 3-1: Digester Gas Characterization

Parameter
Values
Previous Study (1) Digesters 9-13 (2) Digesters 3-8 (3)
Typical (4)
Methane (%)
61 - 68
66.7
63.6
Carbon Dioxide (%)
26 - 38
31.1
34.3
1-4
1.5
1.7
25 - 50
16.7
38.6
200 - 500
542 - 604
594
566
550 - 650
Nitrogen (%)
Hydrogen Sulfide (ppm)
3 (5)
Net BTU content (BTU/ft )
50 - 65
Notes:
1
Based on 2002-2005 reports for digesters no. 3 (Ref. 199)
Sample collected on 11/19/2009
Sample collected on 12/16/2009
Typical range for well performing digesters
Reported on a wet basis
ppm = parts per million; BTU/ft3 = British thermal unit per cubic feet
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 6 of 48
Section 4.0
4.0
Digester Solids Analysis
DIGESTER SOLIDS ANALYSIS
Sludge samples from different locations in the solids handling process were collected and analyzed to
evaluate the treatment performance of the SWWTP digesters. In addition, biodegradability tests and
mass balances were performed. The potential gas production at the SWWTP digesters was estimated
and compared to the reported (instrument-based) gas production data.
4.1
Sludge Sample Collection
From November 16 to 20, 2009, DWU staff collected sludge samples from the following locations:
Transferred sludge well CWWTP co-settled primary sludge and WAS
Dilute sludge well Blended CWWTP and SWWTP unthickened solids
Thickened sludge well (pump discharge) Digester feed sludge
Decant well (pumps discharge) Digested sludge
Figure 4-1 presents a schematic of the sampling locations. These sampling locations provide an
adequate representation of the solids handling process and allow the identification of major changes in
the sludge characteristics that occur throughout the treatment process. The samples were transported on
ice to the Ana-Lab Corp (ALC) laboratory for analysis. An additional set of samples that was collected on
November 19, 2009 shipped to the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) for carbohydrate, protein, and
lipid (CPL) analysis and biodegradability testing.
Figure 4-1: Sludge Sampling Locations

Sample 1
CWWTP
Solids
Tank
Transferred
Solids Well
SSWWTP
Clarifiers
Screens
4.2
Sample 2
Sample 3
GBT
Filtrate
Dilute
Sludge Well
Thickening
Sample 4
Gas
Thickened
Sludge Well
Anaerobic
Digesters
Decant
Well
Sludge Characterization
The total solids (TS) and volatile solids (VS) results agreed with the values reported by the DWU
laboratory for the week of November 16th and indicated that the samples were representative of the
SWWTP solids handling operation. The sludge analysis results indicate that the digesters operate with
good treatment performance with a VSR of 46 percent and a COD removal of 43 percent. In addition, the
high ammonia concentrations in the digested sludge are an indicator of high solids degradation in the
digesters. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the sludge characterization results. The complete ALC
laboratory results are included in Appendix D.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 7 of 48
Section 4.0
Table 4-1: Sludge Characterization

DWU Values (1)
Parameter
CWWTP
Solids
Dilute
Sludge
Thickened
Sludge
Digested
Sludge
Total Solids (%)
0.9
1.1
5.7
3.7
Volatile Solids (%)
76.7
74.1
73.5
60.6
Total COD grams per liter (g/L)
11.3
19.5
69.0
38.0
Soluble COD (g/L)
1.00
0.68
3.71
0.69
COD/VS
1.65
2.26
1.64
1.68
ND (2)
ND (2)
991
110
(2)
(2)
313
ND (2)
Volatile Acids
Acetate (mg/L)
Propionate (mg/L)
ND
Butyrate (mg/L)
ND (2)
ND (2)
232
ND (2)
Ammonia (mg/L)
57
65
339
1,483
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
129
217
986
910
Orthophosphate (mg/L)
21
23
29
21
Total Sulfur (mg/L)
111
153
672
638
17
38
14
Sulfate (mg/L)
Volatile Solids Composition
ND
(3,4)
Carbohydrates (mg/g TCOD) (5)
NA
154
89
54
Proteins (mg/g TCOD)
NA
308
212
276
Lipids (mg/g TCOD)
NA
73
93
74
Notes:
1
Values represent mean of three to five samples collected from November 16-20, 2009.
ND = Not detected (below detection limit)
Sample collected on November 19, 2009.
Results from carbohydrate, protein, and lipids analysis at GIT. (Ref. 216)
mg/g = milligram per gram; TCOD = total chemical oxygen demand
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 8 of 48
Section 4.0
In addition to evaluating the digester performance, the following findings were derived from the analysis of
the sludge characterization results:
The COD to VS ratio of the transferred solids was lower than the dilute sludge, indicating that the
CWWTP solids have a lower CH4 generation potential than the SWWTP solids. The difference may
be attributed in part to significant biological activity in the CWWTP primary clarifiers due to the cosettling of primary sludge and WAS.
Ammonia is an indicator of protein degradation; therefore, the ammonia levels observed in the
digested sludge indicated adequate protein degradation in the digesters. These levels corresponded
to the expected concentration in a well performing digester receiving sludge with a total solids
concentration of six percent.
Relatively high soluble COD, volatile acids, and ammonia levels in the thickened sludge well indicated
that significant biological activity (e.g., fermentation, denitrification, sulfate reduction) takes place in
the thickened sludge well.
The low volatile acid levels in the digested sludge indicate good digestion performance. These results
were considerably lower than the volatile acid levels reported by the DWU laboratory. The difference
can attributed to volatile acid degradation in the samples during transport and/or the presence of
other chemical compounds that were not determined as part of this study. Additional evaluation is
recommended to determine the correct process performance and validation of the procedures used at
the DWU laboratory.
A decrease in the total phosphorus concentration between the thickened sludge and the digested
sludge indicates phosphorus accumulation inside the anaerobic digesters, possibly in the form of
vivianite. The orthophosphate levels in the digested sludge were considerably low and can be
attributed to the addition of iron in the collection system and the liquid treatment facilities. A detailed
evaluation of vivianite accumulation is presented in the WWTFSP TM, SWWTP Vivianite Detection
and Mitigation (Ref. 194).
The sulfate levels in the thickened and digested sludge samples were low (less than two percent of
the total sulfur), possibly due to the addition of iron in the collection system and liquid treatment
facilities. The low sulfate levels in the digester feed could possibly the explain the low H2S levels
observed in the gas characterization results.
4.3
Biodegradability Tests
Anaerobic biodegradability tests were completed in dilute sludge well, thickened sludge well, and decant
well samples that were shipped to GIT. The test results showed that the CH4 production after 15 and 30
days was roughly 80 percent and 90 percent, respectively, of the ultimate CH4 production after 65 days.
Based on 2007-2009 data and assuming the largest unit out-of-service, the digesters operate with an
average hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 18 to 32 days. The test results indicated that the digester HRT
is adequate for conventional digestion and that operating at higher HRT would result in minor increases in
gas production. The gas quality in all the tests was very good with CH4 concentration of 68 percent to 70
percent and H2S levels below the detection limit. Figure 4-2 shows the CH4 production results for the
biodegradability tests. Appendix E contains the complete GIT laboratory report, Ultimate Anaerobic
Biodegradability Test of Municipal Sludge Blends. (Ref. 216) The report includes methodology and a
detailed description of the results.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 9 of 48
Section 4.0
Figure 4-2: Methane Production in Biodegradability Tests

150
Dilute Sludge
Thickened Sludge
125
Methane Production, mL
Digested Sludge
100
75
50
25
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time in Days
The test results showed that the biodegradability (COD removal and CH4 production) was the highest for
the dilute sludge sample. These results indicated that a considerable amount of organic material is
degraded in the thickened sludge well, thus supporting our hypothesis of significant biological activity in
the thickened sludge well. The sludge characterization results performed at GIT agree with the results
from the analyses at ALC. Based on the gas production, VSR, and COD removal, there was no evidence
of inhibition in the biodegradability tests. A summary of the biodegradability test results is presented in
Table 4-2.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 10 of 48
Section 4.0
Table 4-2: Biodegradability Test Results

Values (1,2)
Parameter
Dilute Sludge
Thickened Sludge
Digested Sludge
1,870
3,000
3,000
59
51
15
2,650
6,370
6,650
COD Removal (%)
65
48
16
Carbohydrate Degradation (%)
78
68
17
Protein Degradation (%)
43
37
15
Lipid Degradation (%)
63
88
39
CH4 Production (mL)
80
123
44
CH4 COD/Initial COD
63
41
14
Initial Volatile Solids (mg/L)

Volatile Solids Reduction (%)
Initial Total COD (mg/L)
Notes:
1
Values represent mean of triplicate tests
Samples collected on November 18, 2009
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 11 of 48
Section 5.0
5.0
Mass Balance
MASS BALANCE
A mass balance of the digesters was performed using the digester feed flows reported by SWWTP and
the laboratory results from the present study. SWWTP staff provided digester process and operating data
for November 16-20, 2009 (Ref. 29).
5.1
Total Solids and COD
Table 5-1 presents a summary of the solids and COD balances for the SWWTP digesters. The COD
balance indicates that approximately 31 percent of the organic material in the dilute sludge is not reaching
the digesters. This significant decrease in COD that occurs between the dilute sludge well and the
thickened sludge well (discharge of transfer pumps) is most likely the result of biological activity in the
dilute sludge well and/or thickened sludge well, resulting in a decrease in the amount of energy reaching
the digesters. Approximately two thirds of the organic material that is lost to degradation upstream of the
digesters (20 percent of the dilute sludge organic loading) could be recovered through improvements to
the solids handling facilities.
Table 5-1: Digester Mass Balance

Parameter
DWU Values
GBT Feed
(1)
Digester Feed (2)
Digested Sludge (2)
Total Solids (ppd) (3)
269,500
260,100
169,400
Volatile Solids Feed (ppd)
199,200
191,400
102,500
Total COD (ppd)
460,500
316,400
174,700
Carbohydrates (ppd)
70,900
28,200
9,400
Proteins (ppd)
141,800
67,100
48,200
Lipids (ppd)
33,600
29,400
12,900
Notes:
1
Based on an average GBT feed flow of 2.83 million gallons per day (mgd)
Based on the average digester feed flow of 550,000 gallons per day (gpd)
ppd = pounds per day
These results agree with the biodegradability tests (Section 4.3) where the dilute sludge tests showed
higher CH4 production per mass of feed solids than the thickened sludge tests. A considerable amount of
biological activity could take place in the thickened sludge well due to the large tank volume and mixing
limitations. The thickened sludge well has a maximum volume of 0.8 million gallons (MG) and normally
operates with a capacity of 0.3 to 0.6 MG (HRT of 13 to 26 hrs at 550,000 gpd). Carollo recommends
modification or decommission of the thickened sludge well (physical facilities or mode of operation) to
reduce the residence time of the thickened sludge in the well and consequently decrease the biological
activity.
This pre-digestion COD removal decreases the digester gas production and underestimates the solids
stabilization performance of the facility (i.e., the reported VSR does not take into account the reduction
occurring in the thickened sludge well). Fermentation occurring in the dilute sludge well would increase
the organic load recycled to the plant as the likely exit of the soluble organic products is the belt wash
water and thickening filtrate. The fermentation products in the recycle stream may also be increasing the
phosphorus uptake in the aeration basins and therefore contributing to the vivianite scaling currently
impacting the solids handling operation. Figure 5-1 presents schematics for the proposed digester
feeding configurations.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 12 of 48
Section 5.0
Mass Balance
Figure 5-1: Proposed Solids Handling Configurations

(A) Existing Configuration
CWWTP
Solids
SSWWTP
WAS
Screens
GBT
Filtrate
Dilute
Sludge
Well
Thickening
Digester
Gas
Thickened
Sludge
Well
Anaerobic
Digesters
Digested
Solids
SSWWTP
PS/Scum
(B) Proposed Configuration

CWWTP
Solids
SWWTP
WAS
Screens
GBT
Filtrate
Dilute
Sludge
Well
Digester
Gas
Thickening
Decommission
Thickened
Sludge Well
Anaerobic
Digesters
Digested
Solids
SWWTP
PS/Scum
5.2
Estimated Gas Production
Based on the COD removal and the measured CH4 concentration of 65 percent, a digester gas
production of approximately 1,370,000 cfd (15 cfd per lbs VSR) would be expected. This gas production
estimate is approximately 20 percent higher than the measured digester gas production of 1,150,000 cfd
(13 cfd per lbs VSR). Improvements to the solids handling facilities could result in a gas production
increase of up to 20 percent. Figure 5-2 shows 30-day rolling averages of the measured and estimated
(COD-based with and without improvements to decrease COD depletion prior to digestion) digester gas
production at SWWTP.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 13 of 48
Section 5.0
Mass Balance
Figure 5-2: 2009 Digester Gas Production

3.0
EstimatedMaximumGas
Production
CODBased Estimate+20%
EstimatedGasProductionBased
on
CODBased Estimate
CODBalance
Measured
Measured GasProduction
GasProduction,Millioncfd
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Jan09
Mar09
May09
Jul09
Sep09
Nov09
The discrepancy between the metered and estimated gas production was attributed to gas
instrumentation because there were no apparent problems with the digester performance, the gas quality,
and the digester feed biodegradability. The DWU staff inspected the gas handling system and discarded
gas leaks as a potential reason for the low gas production. During a DWU/Carollo site visit, the accuracy
of several gas meters was questioned due to their proximity to flow obstructions. In addition, some gas
meters were found to be reporting values that did not match the consumption by the boilers or the
expected gas production from the process data. Carollo recommends the relocation of the existing gas
meters and the installation of a custody transfer certified gas meter. In addition to providing accurate
measurements, a custody transfer meter would provide DWU with the ability to verify the readings of the
new cogeneration facility.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 14 of 48
Section 6.0
6.0
Digester Configuration
DIGESTER CONFIGURATION
The SWWTP digestion facility is alternates the mode of operation between conventional digestion and
two-phase digestion. The two-phase digestion mode of operation is preferred because it results in higher
performance (VSR, gas production, and gas quality) than conventional digestion. In addition, to
increased performance, two-phase digestion can provide the following benefits to the SWWTP:
Two-phase digestion is the recommended configuration for co-digestion because it provides a single
point of grease addition (Ref. 141).
Two-phase digestion is the recommended configuration for vivianite mitigation because of a

considerable decrease in the heating requirements of the methane digesters (Ref. 194). The
methane digesters receive sludge at mesophilic temperatures from the acid digester. In addition, the
SWWTP digestion facility is configured to preheat the acid digester feed; a feature that can mitigate
vivianite formation in the acid digester.
Historically, the SWWTP has switched back and forth between conventional and two-phase digestion
operation due to frequent ragging in the acid digester pumps. The new primary sludge screening facility
at CWWTP will help alleviate the ragging problem in the acid digesters. Improvements to mitigate COD
depletion in the thickened sludge will result in an increased two-phase digestion process stability and
treatment performance. Under the current two-phase digestion configuration at SWWTP, a dedicated
candlestick flare is used to combust the acid digester gas, which is mixed with methane digester gas
because of the low flammability of the acid digester gas. To maximize the gas available for cogeneration,
Carollo recommends the replacement of the existing acid digester gas flare with an enclosed-flare burner.
Details for the proposed enclosed-flare burner are presented in the WWTFSP Memorandum, EnclosedFlare Burner for Acid Digester Gas (Ref. 218).
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 15 of 48
Section 7.0
7.0
Findings and Recommendations
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section contains a summary of findings from the SWWTP digester sludge and gas
characterization analysis and list of recommendations to solve the seemingly low gas production at the
SWWTP digesters.
7.1
Summary of Findings
The results from the recent testing of the samples collected at the SWWTP indicate that the anaerobic
digestion process is achieving adequate levels of stabilization (VSR, conversion of organic material to
CH4, and digested sludge ammonia levels). Based on the sludge characterization, mass balances around
the digesters, and biodegradability tests, the following conclusions were drawn:
The primary reason for the apparent low gas production at SWWTP may be explained as a gas
instrumentation issue and pre-digestion COD
Carollo found no evidence of inhibition of CH4 forming organisms or potential H2S toxicity
The CWWTP solids have a lower CH4 generation potential than the SWWTP solids. The difference
may be attributed in part to significant biological activity in the CWWTP primary clarifiers due to the
co-settling of primary sludge and WAS.
Approximately 31 percent of the organic material in the dilute sludge is not reaching the digesters.
This pre-digestion COD removal decreases the digester gas production and underestimates the
solids stabilization performance of the facility (i.e., reported VSR does not take into account the
reduction occurring in the thickened sludge well).
A decrease in the total phosphorus concentration between the thickened sludge and the digested
sludge indicates phosphorus accumulation inside the anaerobic digesters, possibly in the form of
vivianite.
The orthophosphate levels in the digested sludge were lower than the levels observed in other
digestion facilities and can be attributed to the formation of iron phosphate minerals due to the
addition of iron in the collection system and the liquid treatment train.
High ammonia, volatile acids, and soluble COD levels in the digester feed indicate that there is
significant biological activity taking place in the thickened sludge well, possibly due to a large volume
and consequently a long detention time.
7.2
Recommendations
The following is a list of recommendations to solve the seemingly low gas production:
Minimize degradation prior to anaerobic digestion
Modify/decommission the existing thickened sludge well to decrease the residence time of the
thickened sludge in the well and consequently decrease the biological activity
Implement operational changes at the CWWTP to increase the COD to VS ratio of the CWWTP
solids, such as avoiding co-settling of primary sludge and WAS and minimizing the HRT at the
CWWTP solids holding tank. The DWU staff is working to implement these modifications in the
CWWTP solids handling operation.
Verify the gas instrumentation accuracy
Install a custody transfer certified gas meter at a location that maximizes the accuracy. This gas
meter would also provide DWU with the ability to verify the accuracy of the third-partys gas meter at
the new cogeneration facility.
Relocate the existing gas meters
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 16 of 48
Section 7.0
Findings and Recommendations
Implement co-digestion of brown grease at the SWWTP digestion facility
Operate the digester facility under the two-phase digestion mode.
Install an enclosed burner for the acid-phase digester gas. Enclosed burners can work with low BTU
gases (25-30 percent CH4) without the use of supplementary gas such as natural gas and digester
gas.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 17 of 48
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym or Term
ALC
Definition
Ana-Lab Corporation
BTU
British Thermal Unit

3
BTU/ft
British Thermal Unit per Cubic Feet
cfd
Cubic Feet Per Day
CH4
Methane
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
CPL
Carbohydrate, Protein, and Lipids
CWWTP
Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
DWU
g/L
Grams per Liter
GBT
Gravity Belt Thickeners
GIT
Georgia Institute of Technology
gpd
Gallons per Day
H2S
Hydrogen Sulfide
HRT
Hydraulic Retention Time
lb (s)
Pound/Pounds
MG
Million Gallons
mg/g
Milligram per Gram
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
mgd
Million Gallons per Day
mg/kg
Milligram per Kilogram
mL
Milliliter
MMBTU
Million British Thermal Units
ND
Not Detected or Below Detection Level
NH3-N
Ammonia-nitrogen
no.
Number
pH
Potential of Hydrogen (Measure of Acidity)
ppd
Pounds per Day
ppm
Parts per Million
SPL
Southern Petroleum Laboratories
SWWTP
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant
SCOD
Soluble Contact On Demand
TCOD
Total Chemical Oxygen Demand
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 18 of 48
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Acronym or Term
Definition
TM
Technical Memorandum
TP
Total Phosphorus
TS
Total Solids
VFA
Volatile Fatty Acids
VS
Volatile Solids
VSR
Volatile Solids Reduction
WAS
Waste Activated Sludge
WWTFSP
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 19 of 48
Appendix B
References
Appendix B References
Reference
Number
Reference Information
29
Dallas Water Utilities. DWU Historical Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant Data 19802008. Dallas, 2008.
141
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical

Memorandum, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study. Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
194
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical

Memorandum, SWWTP Vivianite Detection and Mitigation. Dallas: Carollo Engineers,
Inc., July 2010.
199
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc (CDM). Dallas, CDM Inc., 2006.
213
Southern Petroleum Laboratories, Inc. (SPL). Houston Laboratories. Certificate of

Analysis Number: 2009120282-001A.pdf. Sample ID Phase 3, Dallas Water Utilities
Southside. (CAR25-C1). Report Date: December 17, 2009. Southern Petroleum
Laboratories Report 2009120282-001A.pdf.
214
Southern Petroleum Laboratories, Inc. (SPL). Houston Laboratories. Certificate of

Analysis Number: Certificate Of Analysis Number: 2009110524-001B. Sample ID Phase
3, Dallas Water Utilities Southside Report Date: December 04, 2009.
215
Ana-Lab Corp. P.O. Box 9000 Kilgore, TX 75663. Report Date: December 10, 2009.
Project 46483.
216
Madan Tandukar, Ph.D. and Spyros G. Pavlostathis, Ph.D., BCEE. Georgia Technical
Institute (GTI), Ultimate Anaerobic Biodegradability Test Of Municipal Sludge Blends
Dallas, TX Utilities Final Report. Atlanta, GA: School of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, February 2010.
218
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Memorandum,

Enclosed-Flare Burner for Acid Digester Gas. Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., February
2010.
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 20 of 48
Appendix C
Southern Petroleum Laboratories Report
Appendix C Southern Petroleum Laboratories Report
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 21 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 22 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 23 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 24 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 25 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 26 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 27 of 48
Appendix C
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 28 of 48
Appendix D
Sludge Characterization Results
Appendix D Sludge Characterization Results

Table D-1: Transferred Sludge Characterization
Values (1)
Parameter
Nov 16 (2)
Nov 17 (2)
Nov 18 (2)
Nov 19 (2)
Nov 19 (3)
Nov 20 (2)
Total Solids, %
0.88
1.18
1.00
0.61
NA
0.84
0.90
Volatile Solids,%
77.5
75.8
78.7
74.3
NA
77.1
76.7
COD/VS
1.30
1.35
2.16
1.72
NA
1.70
1.65
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.6
NA
6.7
6.5
NH3-N, mg/kg
3,650
5,760
6,310
9,920
NA
7,190
6,566
TCOD, mg/kg
1,010,000
1,020,000
1,700,000
1,280,000
NA
1,310,000
1,264,000
SCOD, mg/kg
159,000
17,800
140,000
262,000
NA
46,400
125,040
Sulfur, mg/kg
13,800
12,500
12,400
11,800
NA
10,800
12,260
Sulfate, mg/kg
1,100
1,390
1,900
3,380
NA
2,280
2,010
12,500
13,800
13,300
15,600
NA
11,900
13,420
2,180
1,720
1,790
2,890
NA
2,310
2,178
NH3-N, mg/L
32.2
68.0
63.0
60.5
NA
60.5
56.8
TCOD, mg/L
8,898
12,036
16,966
7,808
NA
11,017
11,345
SCOD, mg/L
1,400.8
210.0
1,397.2
1,598.2
NA
390.2
999.3
121.6
147.5
123.8
72.0
NA
90.8
111.1
9.7
16.4
19.0
20.6
NA
19.2
17.0
110.1
162.8
132.7
137.4
NA
100.1
128.6
19.2
20.3
17.9
25.5
NA
19.4
20.5
pH
Avg. (4)
Dry Weight Basis
TP, mg/kg
Ortho P, mg/kg
Wet Weight Basis
Sulfur, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
TP, mg/L
Ortho P, mg/L
Notes:
1
Grab samples collected from the transferred sludge well
Laboratory results from samples analyzed at ALC (Ref. 215)
Laboratory results from samples analyzed at GIT (Ref. 216)
Weighted average
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 29 of 48
Appendix D
Table D-2: Dilute Sludge Characterization

Values (1)
Parameter
Nov 16 (2)
Nov 17 (2)
Nov 18 (2)
Nov 19 (2)
Nov 19 (3)
Nov 20 (2)
Avg. (4)
Total Solids, %
1.01
1.35
1.67
0.85
0.86
0.83
1.14
Volatile Solids,%
73.3
73.8
73.4
74.0
75.0
75.4
74.1
COD/VS
2.25
1.61
3.05
1.55
1.41
2.89
2.26
7.6
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.1
6.6
6.7
NH3-N, mg/kg
2,940
4,220
7,160
8,400
3,977
5,850
5,272
TCOD, mg/kg
1,649,250(5)
1,190,000
2,240,000
1,150,000
1,058,140
2,180,000
1,672,664
SCOD, mg/kg
37,600
23,700
101,000
28,400
127,907
43,600
56,811
Sulfur, mg/kg
13,000
10,900
17,500
11,400
NA
12,100
12,980
Sulfate, mg/kg
1,360
1,500
5,730
3,850
3,279
3,490
3,129
18,700
15,000
23,100
18,300
NA
15,100
18,040
1,590
1,130
2,310
2,360
NA
2,310
1,940
NH3-N, mg/L
29.7
57.0
119.6
71.0
34.2
48.3
61.4
TCOD, mg/L
16,657(5)
16,065
37,408
9,718
9,100
18,007
19,509
SCOD, mg/L
379.8
320.0
1,686.7
240.0
1,100.0
360.1
683.3
Sulfur, mg/L
131.3
147.2
292.3
96.3
NA
99.9
153.4
Sulfate, mg/L
13.7
20.3
95.7
32.5
28.2
28.8
37.8
188.9
202.5
385.8
184.8
NA
124.7
217.3
16.1
15.3
38.6
23.8
NA
19.1
22.6
pH
Dry Weight Basis
TP, mg/kg
Ortho P, mg/kg
Wet Weight Basis
TP, mg/L
Ortho P, mg/L
Notes:
1
Laboratory results from samples analyzed at GIT (Ref. 216
Weighted average
Assumed value based on the average COD to VS ratio in remaining samples because the value
reported by ALC (139,000 mg/kg) was considered an extreme outlier (Ref. 215)
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 30 of 48
Appendix D
Table D-3: Thickened Sludge Characterization

Values (1)
Parameter
Nov 16 (2)
Nov 17 (2)
Nov 18 (2)
Nov 19 (2)
Nov 19 (3)
Nov 20 (2)
Total Solids, %
4.98
5.31
5.54
6.32
6.67
6.03
5.67
Volatile Solids,%
73.2
72.3
72.8
73.7
75.0
74.9
73.5
COD/VS
1.58
1.54
1.63
1.63
2.12
1.58
1.64
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.9
NH3-N, mg/kg
5,000
6,740
5,320
8,720
2,999
3,750
5,334
TCOD, mg/kg
1,160,000
1,110,000
1,190,000
1,200,000
1,593,703
1,180,000
1,207,370
SCOD, mg/kg
84,300
69,700
57,800
61,700
32,984
73,000
66,428
Sulfur, mg/kg
11,600
11,500
12,600
13,200
NA
10,600
11,900
337
292
147
228
219
222
20,300
18,800
19,900
18,700
NA
14,700
18,480
422
290
836
434
NA
687
534
NH3-N, mg/L
249.0
357.9
294.7
551.1
200.0
226.1
300.7
TCOD, mg/L
57,768
58,941
65,926
75,840
106,300
71,154
68,972
SCOD, mg/L
4,198.1
3,701.1
3,202.1
3,899.4
2,200
4,401.9
3,710.6
Sulfur, mg/L
577.7
610.7
698.0
834.2
NA
639.2
672.0
Sulfate, mg/L
16.8
15.5
8.1
14.4
13.2
12.2
1,010.9
998.3
1,102.5
931.3
NA
886.4
985.9
21.0
15.4
46.3
21.6
NA
41.4
29.2
pH
Avg. (4)
Dry Weight Basis
Sulfate, mg/kg
TP, mg/kg
Ortho P, mg/kg
Wet Weight Basis
TP, mg/L
Ortho P, mg/L
Notes:
1
Laboratory results from samples analyzed at GIT
Weighted average
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 31 of 48
Appendix D
Table D-4: Digested Sludge Characterization

Values (1)
Parameter
Nov 16 (2)
Nov 17 (2)
Nov 18 (2)
Nov 19 (2)
Nov 19 (3)
Nov 20 (2)
Total Solids, %
3.71
3.77
3.62
3.76
3.76
3.60
3.69
Volatile Solids,%
60.9
60.8
60.1
60.5
61.0
60.3
60.6
COD/VS
1.24
1.53
1.24
2.35
1.70
2.35
1.68
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.4
8.0
7.7
NH3-N, mg/kg
39,400
34,700
40,300
39,500
30,742
47,200
39,344
TCOD, mg/kg
755,000
928,000
746,000
1,250,000
1,359,043
1,420,000
1,030,704
SCOD, mg/kg
30,900 (5)
12,200
19,600
5,990
18,617
30,600
21,121
17,700
18,100
17,000
15,600
NA
18,000
17,280
130
265
207
325
85
149
25,600
23,400
26,600
25,300
NA
24,400
25,060
720
189
641
779
NA
656
597
NH3-N, mg/L
1,461.7
1,308.2
1,458.9
1,485.2
1,106.7
1,699.2
1,444.8
TCOD, mg/L
28,011
34,986
27,005
47,000
51,100
51,120
38,034
SCOD, mg/L
698.2 (5)
459.9
709.5
225.2
700.0
1,101.6
686.4
656.7
682.4
615.4
586.6
NA
648.0
637.8
4.8
10.0
0.0
7.8
1.2
3.1
4.5
949.8
882.2
962.9
878.4
NA
878.4
910.3
26.7
7.1
23.2
23.6
NA
23.6
20.9
pH
Avg. (4)
Dry Weight Basis
Sulfur, mg/kg
Sulfate, mg/kg
TP, mg/kg
Ortho P, mg/kg
Wet Weight Basis
Sulfur, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
TP, mg/L
Ortho P, mg/L
Notes:
1
Laboratory results from samples analyzed at GIT (Ref. 216
Weighted average
Assumed value based on the average SCOD to VS ratio in remaining samples because the value
reported by ALC (127,000 mg/kg) was considered an extreme outlier (Ref. 215)
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 32 of 48
Appendix E
Georgia Institute of Technology Report
Appendix E Georgia Institute of Technology Report
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 33 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 34 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 35 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 36 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 37 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 38 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 39 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 40 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 41 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 42 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 43 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 44 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 45 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 46 of 48
Appendix E
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 47 of 48

Record of Change
Record of Change
Version 1.0
Date: March 2010
Location in Document
Description of Change
Interim Document
Version 2.0
Location in Document
Date: July 2010

Description of Change
Document Name Change
From SWWTP Anaerobic Digester Sludge and Gas

Characterization to Sludge and Biogas Characterization
Global Change
SSWWTP to SWWTP
Global Change
Removed "Interim" from TM's name and removed internal

numbering
Global Change
Removed internal document numbers
WWTFSP_App.F14-2.0
July 2010
Page 48 of 48

WWTFSP - App.F14 - Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WWTFSP - App.F14 - Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appendix F14: Sludge and Biogas

Dallas Water Utilities

Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

Gas Sample Collection.................................................................................................. 6

Digester Solids Analysis .........................................................................................7

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study ...................................................................................... 5

Digester Gas Analysis .............................................................................................6

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 3

Sludge Sample Collection ............................................................................................. 7

Mass Balance .........................................................................................................12

Total Solids and COD ................................................................................................. 12

Digester Configuration ..........................................................................................15

Findings and Recommendations..........................................................................16

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 16

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................18

Southern Petroleum Laboratories Report ...............................................21

Sludge Characterization Results ..............................................................29

Georgia Institute of Technology Report...................................................33

Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Minimize degradation prior to anaerobic digestion by:

Modifying or decommissioning the existing thickened-sludge well.

Verify the gas instrumentation accuracy.

Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Co-Digestion Feasibility Study

Individual volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the digesters

COD concentration in the sludge

Anaerobic biodegradability tests

Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Digester Gas Analysis

DIGESTER GAS ANALYSIS

Gas Sample Collection

Table 3-1: Digester Gas Characterization

Carbon Dioxide (%)

Net BTU content (BTU/ft )

Based on 2002-2005 reports for digesters no. 3 (Ref. 199)

Sample collected on 11/19/2009

Sample collected on 12/16/2009

Typical range for well performing digesters

Reported on a wet basis

Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Digester Solids Analysis

DIGESTER SOLIDS ANALYSIS

Sludge Sample Collection

Transferred sludge well CWWTP co-settled primary sludge and WAS

Dilute sludge well Blended CWWTP and SWWTP unthickened solids

Thickened sludge well (pump discharge) Digester feed sludge

Decant well (pumps discharge) Digested sludge

Figure 4-1: Sludge Sampling Locations

Dallas Water Utilities

Sludge and Biogas Characterization

Digester Solids Analysis

Table 4-1: Sludge Characterization

Total Solids (%)

Volatile Solids (%)

Total COD grams per liter (g/L)

Soluble COD (g/L)