WWTFSP App.F12 Solids Drying Feasability Study

Appendix F12: Solids Drying Feasibility Study
Version 2.0
July 2010
Prepared by:
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Registration No. F-882
Dallas Water Utilities
Appendix F12: Solids Drying Feasibility Study Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

1.1 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Summary of Recommendations.................................................................................... 3
2.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................4
2.1 What is Thermal Drying?............................................................................................... 4
2.2 Uses of Dried Biosolids ................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Thermal Drying...................................................... 4
3.0 Existing Solids Handling Facilities.........................................................................5
3.1 Anaerobic Digestion ...................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Dewatering and Land Application ................................................................................. 6
3.3 Cogeneration................................................................................................................. 6
3.4 Co-Digestion.................................................................................................................. 7
4.0 Biosolids Quantities And Quality ...........................................................................8
4.1 Biosolids Production...................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Biosolids Quality............................................................................................................ 9
5.0 Energy Management ..............................................................................................10
5.1 Biogas Production and Consumption.......................................................................... 10
5.2 Cogeneration Heat Generation and Consumption...................................................... 10
6.0 Thermal Dryer Evaluation......................................................................................12
6.1 Process Description .................................................................................................... 12
6.2 Thermal Dryer Selection ............................................................................................. 12
6.3 Ancillary Systems and Safety Considerations ............................................................ 17
6.4 Site Layout .................................................................................................................. 19
6.5 Unit Sizing Criteria....................................................................................................... 21
6.6 Economic Evaluation................................................................................................... 23
6.7 Non-Economic Evaluation........................................................................................... 25
7.0 Summary of Findings and Recommendations ....................................................27
Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................28
Appendix B References..................................................................................................29
Appendix C Detailed Cost Estimates ............................................................................30
Appendix D Manufacturer Information..........................................................................34

D.1. Andritz Belt Drying System DBS ................................................................................. 34
D.2. Kruger Belt Drying System.......................................................................................... 37
D.3. Kruger Drum Drying System ....................................................................................... 42
D.4. Komline-Sanders Paddle Drying System.................................................................... 45
WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 2 of 51

Dallas Water Utilities Section 1.0
Solids Drying Feasibility Study Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) will provide digester gas generated at the Southside Wastewater
Treatment Plant (SWWTP) for a new cogeneration facility operated by Ameresco. The waste heat
generated at the cogeneration facility will be used to supply hot water to SWWTP. The excess heat
generated at the cogeneration facility can also be used to operate a future biosolids thermal drying facility
and produce Class A biosolids.
This report presents the results from a biosolids drying facility feasibility evaluation as part of the
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan (WWTFSP) (Ref. 75). For the purposes of this feasibility
evaluation, the Team analyzed the following options:
 Thermal drying facility with Class A biosolids beneficial use
 Current solids handling operation with Class B biosolids disposal
1.1 Summary of Findings

During the planning period (2010 to 2030), the installation of a thermal drying facility is not economically
feasible compared to the Class B biosolids disposal option due to the availability of the dedicated land
disposal site and the low landfill disposal rates.
Recovered waste heat produced from the cogeneration process could sustain an 18 tons per day (tpd)
thermal drying facility at SWWTP. Belt dryer systems were identified as the technology that better suits
the DWU needs because of the following:
 Use of the exhaust gas from the cogeneration engines as heat supply
 Low potential for dust-associated fire hazards and pathogen cross-contamination
 Numerous worldwide installations in large wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
The drying facility would be able to operate year-round if supplemental fuel is provided to heat the
anaerobic digesters during cold weather periods. Alternatively, the drying facility can be shut down during
the cold weather periods or sized to use 50 percent of the cogeneration engines exhaust heat.
Installing a facility sized for 25 percent of the DWU biosolids production will provide data for a long-term
marketability assessment of this type of soil amendment/fertilizer product with relatively low financial risk.
The installation of a thermal drying facility may also result in favorable public perception associated with
the production of a Class A, exceptional quality (EQ) biosolids product and the beneficial use of waste
heat from the cogeneration facility.
1.2 Summary of Recommendations

The Team recommends that a thermal drying facility be built when the dedicated land disposal site
becomes unavailable due to limited capacity or regulatory changes and the City of Dallas experiences
one of the following:
 A dramatic increase in the municipal landfill disposal rates
 Stricter regulations for Class B biosolids disposal
Because these events would likely occur beyond 2030, the Team recommends allocating land as
planning for the build of a future thermal drying facility. The proposed location for a future thermal drying
facility is in close proximity to the cogeneration facility and the Acid Phase Digestion Complex. The
thermal drying facility should include dedicated dewatering equipment located in the solids drying
building. The Team recommends the installation of a centrifuge to maximize the dryer capacity.
The Team recommends an evaluation of the potential market for a dried Class A or EQ biosolids product
during the preliminary design phase.

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Introduction
2.0 INTRODUCTION
DWU sought to evaluate the potential benefits and the facilities required for the implementation of
biosolids thermal drying at the SWWTP to maximize the use of heat produced at the new cogeneration
facility and add flexibility for future biosolids beneficial use/disposal.
2.1 What is Thermal Drying?

The thermal drying process uses induced heat to evaporate the moisture content of biosolids, reducing
the volume and improving the quality of the biosolids. The dried biosolids are typically in a pelletized or
granular form that meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Part 503 requirements for Class A
or with low metal concentrations, EQ biosolids (Ref. 237). EQ biosolids are approved for unrestricted use
and can be distributed for internal use or packaged for external use and/or sale.
2.2 Uses of Dried Biosolids

The quality and characteristics of thermally dried biosolids makes them suitable for application on land as
soil conditioner, fertilizer, or fertilizer supplement. Typical end-users include agriculture, golf courses,
nurseries, parks, and residential gardens. Revenue from the sale of the heat-dried biosolids can offset a
portion of the operating costs of the thermal drying process.
2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Thermal Drying

The relative advantages and disadvantages of the thermal drying process are as follows:
Advantages
 Reduced volume and weight of biosolids produced at the plant.
 Proven technology with operating installations in both large and small WWTPs.
 Reduced regulatory record keeping and reporting requirements for land application.
 Added use/disposal options for Class A or EQ biosolids.
 Added revenue potential from dried product sales that offset operation costs.
 Better public acceptance than most biosolids products.
Disadvantages
 Potential safety hazards such as fire and dust explosion.
 High capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.
 High complexity of the thermal drying equipment.
 Requires air permitting and air pollution control.
 Requires market development for dried biosolids revenue.

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Existing Solids Handling Facilities
3.0 EXISTING SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES

Solids produced in the CWWTP and SWWTP are stabilized by anaerobic digestion, dewatered through
belt filter presses (BFP), and transported to a dedicated land disposal site. Figure 3-1 presents a
schematic of the solids handling process.
Figure 3-1: Solids Handling Process Schematic
FROM CWWTP
SOLIDS HOLDING METHANE PHASE
TANK DIGESTERS
SUPPLY
WELL GROUP
SWWTP 2
PRIMARY DIGESTERS
(3,4,5,6,7,&8)
SCUM DILUTED GRAVITY THICKENED
ACID PHASE
SCREENS SOLIDS BELT SOLIDS
DIGESTER
WELL THICKENER WELL GROUP
SWWTP 3
PRIMARY DIGESTERS
(9,10,11,12,
SLUDGE &13)
SWWTP
WAS
FILTRATE
INFLUENT
PUMP
STATION C
TREATMENT
PONDS
AERATED
FROM METHANE BLEND
PHASE TANK
DIGESTERS STORAGE FILTRATE STORAGE SIDESTREAM
BELT FILTER LAGOON
LAGOON LAGOON AERATION
PRESS B
A-1 A-3 BASINS
CAKE
AERATED
BLEND
TANK
DLD FIELDS
& SIDESTREAM
MONOFILL CLARIFIERS
WASTE SOLIDS
3.1 Anaerobic Digestion

The SWWTP has 11 anaerobic digesters that receive screened and thickened solids (primary sludge and
waste activated sludge). The digester heating facilities include dual fuel (digester gas or natural gas) hot
water boilers and water-to-sludge heat exchangers. In the future, a cogeneration facility will provide the
hot water supply for digester heating. See Section 3.3 for more information. The anaerobic digestion
facility is operated at mesophilic temperatures and the digested solids consistently meet the requirements
for Class B biosolids. A detailed description of the anaerobic digestion capacity is presented in presented
in WWTFSP, Technical Memorandum (TM) Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141). Table 3-1 presents
a summary of the anaerobic digestion facilities.

Table 3-1: Existing Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Parameter Values
Digesters 3 to 6 Digesters 7 and 8 Digesters 9 to 13
Number of Units 4 2 5
Diameter (ft) 90 90 90
Unit Volume (gal) (1) 1,530,000 1,495,000 1,757,000
Notes:
1
Based on the SWWTP Anaerobic Digestion Operation Manual (Ref. 205)
ft = feet; gal = gallons
3.2 Dewatering and Land Application

The digested solids are temporarily stored in sludge holding tanks and basins and then dewatered using
10 BFPs. A new dewatering facility that includes 12 additional BFP units is currently under construction
and will replace the existing facility. The dewatered solids are hauled to a 500-acre dedicated land
disposal site. A 200-acre monofill is available for disposal of unstabilized solids but is currently not used
because of sufficient capacity in the anaerobic digestion facility. Table 3-2 presents a summary of the
dewatering equipment characteristics.
Table 3-2: Dewatering Equipment

Parameter Value
Technology BFP
Number of Units in New Building (1) 12
Belt Width (m) 2
Hydraulic Capacity per Unit (gpm) 225
Solids Capacity per Unit (lbs/hr) 1,200
Notes:
1
Facility under construction. Old dewatering facility will be decommissioned (Ref. 239).
m = meters; gpm = gallons per minute; lbs = pounds; hr = hours
During wet periods when land application is not possible, the dewatering facilities are shut down and the
digested solids are temporarily stored. When the land application resumes, the dewatering facilities are
typically operated 24 hours per day to catch up with the solids production.
3.3 Cogeneration
A new cogeneration facility is under construction and is anticipated to begin operation in 2011 (Ref. 238).
The cogeneration facility includes three reciprocating engines that will be fueled with digester gas. The
heat from the reciprocating engines will be recovered to supply hot water for digester heating. Table 3-3
presents a summary of the cogeneration facility.

Table 3-3: Cogeneration Equipment

Parameter Value
Technology Reciprocating Engines
Manufacturer/Model Jenbacher J420 GS
Number of Units 3
Nominal Capacity (MMBTU/hr) 12.35
Output Capacity per Engine (kW) 1,415
Recovery Efficiency (Electricity/Heat) (%) 42/42
Notes:
1
Facility under construction. (Ref. 238)
MMBTU/hr = million British thermal units per hour; kW = kilowatt; % = percent
3.4 Co-Digestion
A new co-digestion facility with a capacity of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) of grease (grease trap waste)
will be constructed at SWWTP. The facility is anticipated to begin operation in 2012. The grease will be
hauled to the plant, temporarily stored in tanks, and added to the anaerobic digesters to produce
additional gas for the cogeneration facility. A conceptual layout of the proposed co-digestion facility is
presented in WWTFSP, TM, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141).

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Biosolids Quantities And Quality
4.0 BIOSOLIDS QUANTITIES AND QUALITY

This section provides data and analysis regarding biosolids quantity and quality at the SWWTP.
4.1 Biosolids Production

As part of the WWTFSP, TM, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141) and WWTFSP, TM, SWWTP
Anaerobic Digester Sludge and Gas Characterization (Ref. 207), The Team analyzed the historical
process data, prepared solids mass balance calculations, and projected the 2030 solids production.
Table 4-1 presents a summary of the current and projected solids production.
Table 4-1: Digested Solids Production

Parameter Annual Average Values
2007-2009 2030 Conditions
Thickened Solids (dry tpd) 132.2 165.5
Digester Feed (dry tpd) 114.3 165.5
(1)
Digested Solids (dry tpd) 71.9 90.6
(2)
Dewatered Cake (dry tpd) 68.3 86.1
(3)
Dewatered Cake (dry tpd) 401.8 506.2
Notes:
1
Based on the historical average volatile solids reduction of 58 percent (Ref. 141).
2
Assumes a solids retention efficiency of 95 percent.
3
Based on the average cake solids concentration of 17 percent (Ref. 29).

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Biosolids Quantities And Quality
4.2 Biosolids Quality

The Team reviewed the 2009 Reporting Requirements for Sludge, Soil, and Groundwater Report (Ref.
240) to asses the quality of the biosolids produced at the SWWTP. Table 4-2 presents a summary of the
biosolids quality.
Table 4-2: Biosolids Chemical Characterization

Process Parameter Values
2008-2009 (1) Limit or Typical Range
Nutrients
 Nitrogen (mg/kg) 31,250 30,000 to 80,000
 Phosphorus (mg/kg) 28,867 15,000 to 35,000
 Potassium (mg/kg) 1,453 1,000 to 6,000
Pollutants
 Arsenic (mg/kg) Below Detection 41 (2)
 Cadmium (mg/kg) 3.0 39 (2)
 Chromium (mg/kg) 72.3 -
 Copper (mg/kg) 630 1,500 (2)
 Lead (mg/kg) 53.8 300 (2)
 Mercury (mg/kg) 0.7 17 (2)
 Molybdenum (mg/kg) 40.5 -
 Nickel (mg/kg) 30.7 420 (2)
 Selenium (mg/kg) Below Detection 100 (2)
 Zinc (mg/kg) 832.3 2,800 (2)
1
Based on 2009 Reporting Requirements for Sludge, Soil, and Groundwater (Ref. 240).
2
Based on pollutant concentration limits for exceptional quality biosolids, EPA Section 503.13 (Ref.
241).
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
Based on the chemical characterization of the SWWTP digested solids, the dried biosolids would meet
the EPA EQ requirements and could be distributed for fertilizer use. The high phosphorus and nitrogen
content of the biosolids make it suitable for fertilizer use. The EPA is considering adding limits for
molybdenum which are lower than the original 75 mg/kg. The Team suggests that the city monitor this
closely and consider implementation of source control as appropriate.

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Energy Management
5.0 ENERGY MANAGEMENT

This section provides data and analysis regarding heat generation and consumption from the
Cogeneration Facility.
5.1 Biogas Production and Consumption

Currently, the digester gas produced at SWWTP is used to fuel the hot water boilers for digester heating
and during two-phase digestion operation as supplementary fuel for the acid digester flare. The excess
digester gas is flared. When the new cogeneration facility is brought online, the first priority for digester
gas is to power the cogeneration engines. Table 5-1 presents a summary of the digester gas production
and consumption at SWWTP.
Table 5-1: Digester Gas Production

Parameter Annual Average Values
2007-2009 2012 2030
Digester Gas Production (cfd) 1,184,000 (1) 1,663,000 (2,3) 2,096,000 (2,3)
Digester Gas Production (MMBTU/hr) (4) 28.4 39.8 50.2
Notes:
1
Based on the historical average gas production (Ref. 207).
2
Based on the historical average volatile solids reduction of 58 percent (Ref. 141).
3
Based on 14 cubic feet of digester gas per pound of volatile solids removed. Assumes the completion
of gas metering, sludge thickening, and digester mixing improvements (Ref. 207).
4
Based on an energy content of 575 BTU per cubic feet of digester gas (Ref. 207).
cdf = cubic feet per day; BTU = British thermal unit
The current digester gas production is below the nominal capacity of the reciprocating engines of 12.35
MMBTU/hr per engine (combined capacity of 37 MMBTU/hr). The cogeneration facility should operate at
full capacity when the items listed below are brought online:
 Improvements to the thickening and anaerobic digestion facilities (Ref. 207)
 Implementation of grease co-digestion (Ref. 141)
 Installation of a low British thermal unit (BTU) enclosed-flare burner for the acid digester gas,
resulting in additional gas production (approximately 5 MMBTU/hr)
5.2 Cogeneration Heat Generation and Consumption

The heat from the reciprocating engines at SWWTP will be recovered in heat exchangers and used to
provide hot water supply for digester heating. The reciprocating engines will convert approximately 34
percent of the fuel input energy to electrical output and 42 percent to recoverable heat (roughly 50
percent from the engine cooling water and 50 percent from the exhaust gas). Table 5-2 presents a
summary of the anticipated cogeneration heat generation.

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Energy Management
Table 5-2: Heat Generation

Source Values (1)
2012 2030 (2)
Cooling Water (MMBTU/hr) 7.73 10.31
Exhaust Heat (MMBTU/hr) 7.73 10.31
(3)
Total Heat Generation (MMBTU/hr) 15.45 20.60
Notes:
1
Based on 98 percent of nominal capacity of 12.35 MMBTU/hr per engine and a thermal
energy recovery of 42.6 percent. (Ref. 238).
2
Assumes the installation of a fourth cogeneration engine.
3
Includes pipe heat losses up to custody transfer point.
The digester heating requirements were estimated based on the current and projected solids production
and the historic solids thickening performance. Table 5-3 presents a summary of the digester heating
requirements.
Table 5-3: Digester Heating Requirements

Values
Digester Loading Criteria 2010 2030
Average Max Month Average Max Month
Summer (MMBtu/hr) (1) 5.9 7.1 7.0 8.3
(2)
Spring/Fall (MMBtu/hr) 8.4 9.9 10.4 12.3
Winter (MMBtu/hr)c (3) 12.7 14.7 14.4 16.6
Notes:
1
Based on average temperatures for air and raw sludge of 82 °F and 78 °F, respectively.
2
3
The heat recovered from the reciprocating engines would be sufficient to heat the digestion facility at the
current and projected digester loading conditions. Based on the 2030 projections, the gas production will
be sufficient to fuel the cogeneration engines and the hot water boilers for supplementary heat.

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Thermal Dryer Evaluation
6.0 THERMAL DRYER EVALUATION

This section provides an overview of thermal drying technology and the results of Team's evaluation of
three thermal dryer systems. This section provides descriptions, data, and analysis of the following three
systems:
 Rotary Drum Dryers
 Paddle/Screw Dryers
 Belt Dryers
6.1 Process Description

Thermal drying reduces the moisture content of biosolids using direct or indirect auxiliary heat to increase
the evaporation rate. The most common energy sources to provide heat for thermal dryers are natural
gas, digester gas, landfill gas, fuel oil, and waste heat from nearby combustion sources. There are two
general categories for thermal drying: direct and indirect.
Direct drying uses forced convection to transfer heat to biosolids. This process involves circulating
heated air over the biosolids, accelerating the evaporation process, and drying the biosolids. The
exhaust gas is condensed to remove moisture and particulate matter. The resultant gas, along with
odors, is typically combusted in a regenerative thermal oxidizer. Direct dryers are generally used in larger
WWTPs. Direct dryer alternatives include rotary drum, fluidized beds, and belt dryers.
Indirect drying uses conduction to transfer heat to biosolids. This process involves contacting biosolids
directly with a heated surface. Heat mediums, such as oil or steam, are used to heat surfaces that
evaporate moisture from the biosolids. Exhaust vapors are condensed and typically drawn through a
odor control system before direct discharge to atmosphere. Indirect dryers are typically used in smaller
WWTPs. Indirect dryer alternatives include auger drying, disk paddle/screw drying, and multiple-stage
tray drying.
In drying systems that produce pellets, such as rotary drums and multiple stage tray dryers, fines and
oversized particles in the dried biosolids are screened. Fines and crushed oversized particles are
typically recycled back to the dryer as seed material for the agglomeration phase where the particles are
formed before entering the dryer.
Dryer technologies and dried pellet-storage systems have the potential to explode or catch fire.
Manufacturers include safety measures to prevent such events, such as inert purge blankets, pressure
reliefs, and various safety interlocks included with the dryers. Similar precautionary equipment is
available for dried-product storage systems.
6.2 Thermal Dryer Selection

Rotary drum dryers were evaluated because many large municipal WWTPs in the U.S use thermal drying
technology. Paddle dryers and belt dryers were evaluated because of proven success in using
cogeneration engines exhaust gases as heat supply at large municipal WWTPs.
6.2.1 Rotary Drum Dryers

Drum Drying Systems recycle a significant portion of product to mix with the dewatered cake in a mixer.
Dewatered cake coats pellets before being dried in a rotating drum. Heated air comes in contact with the
biosolids and evaporates water, producing a dry hard pellet. The granules or pellets are then graded into
different size categories. Those that do not fit the product specifications are crushed and recycled back
into the dryer system. The pellets that meet the specifications are either recycled as seed material for
pellet formation or cooled and stored prior to distribution. Figure 6-1 presents photographs of a drum
dryer installation and the dried product.

Figure 6-1: Typical Drum Dryer Facility
A Drum Dryer System for DWU would be fueled by digester gas and/or natural gas and the dryer exhaust
heat would be recovered to provide additional hot water supply for SWWTP. The Drum Dryer System
would not use the cogeneration engines exhaust gases as a heat supply because it has oxygen content
above 10 percent. Oxygen levels in the dryer must be maintained below 5 percent to reduce the ignition
potential of the solids. Drum dryers operate at approximately 900 °F and dry the solids to approximately
95 percent solids. Figure 6-2 presents a process schematic of a typical drum dryer system.
Figure 6-2: Drum Dryer Process Schematic
Odor Aspiration
Condenser
Control Unit Filter
Rotary Drum Particle Size Product Dried Product

Natrual Gas Furnace
Dryer Sorting Cooler Storage
or Digester Gas
Wet
Biosolids Mixer Crusher
Sludge Silo
Cake
Solids
Air
Heat Source
Manufacturers of Drum Dryer System include Andritz and Siemens. Table 6-1 shows a partial list of
direct dryer installations in large U.S. WWTPs.

Table 6-1: Drum Dryer Facilities

Biosolids Production
City and/or Agency
(dry tons/day)
Almeda Sims WWTP (Houston, TX) – Under construction 125
Morris Forman WWTP (Louisville, KY) 75
Sacramento Regional WWTP (Sacramento, CA) 70
Metro Water Services (Nashville, TN) 65
Buckman Wastewater Recycling Facility (Jacksonville, FL) 50
South Cross Bayou WRF (Pinellas County, FL) 30
Waco Metropolitan Area Regional Sewerage System (Waco, TX) 20
6.2.2 Belt Dryer Systems

In Belt Dryer Systems, solids are fed continuously to the dryer unit and distributed across the width of a
belt conveyor. As the solids pass through the dryer, hot air flows through the solids and absorbs the
moisture. The dried product is discharged at the end of the belt and cooled before storage. Figure 6-3
presents photographs of a belt dryer installation and the dried product.
Figure 6-3: Typical Belt Dryer Facility
A Belt Dryer System for DWU could use the heat from the exhaust gas of the cogeneration engines. The
installation of a bypass in the engine exhaust system would be required to supply heat to the solids dryer.
Gas to air heat exchangers would be used to recover the heat from the exhaust gas. Belt dryers operate
at 350 °F and dry the solids to approximately 90 percent solids. Figure 6-4 presents a process schematic
of the proposed Drum Dryer System.

Figure 6-4: Belt Dryer Process Schematic
Odor Control
Condenser
Unit
Engine Heat Dried Product

Belt Dryer
Exhaust Gas Exchanger Storage
Wet Sludge
Biosolids Mixer
Silo
Cake
Solids
Air
Heat Source
Manufacturers of Belt Dryer Systems include Andritz, Kruger, and Siemens. Although there are few
installations in large WWTPs in the U.S., Belt Drying Systems are common in Europe. Table 6-2 shows a
partial list of belt dryers in medium and large WWTPs throughout the world.
Table 6-2: Belt Dryer Facilities

City and/or Agency
(dry tons/day)
Heggenstaller (Lauterbach, Germany) 190
City of Strassbourg (Strassbourg, France) 60
NUFRI S.A. (Mollerusa, Spain) 25
Pomarzany, Poland 20
City of Shelton (Shelton, WA) – Under Construction 9
City of Camas (Camas, WA) 4
City of Buffalo (Buffalo, MN) 4
6.2.3 Paddle Dryer System

In Paddle Dryer Systems, solids are fed continuously to the dryer unit and distributed across the width of
a belt conveyor. As biosolids are added to the dryer, they are assimilated into the bed by the mixing
action of the dual-shaft paddle agitators. Biosolids are conveyed through the disk paddle dryer by
displacement. The energy required for evaporation is supplied by hot thermal fluid flowing through the
hollow paddles of the system. The fluid is heated in a thermal fluid heater. The large heat transfer area
to volume ratio is achieved by the use of wedge shaped hollow paddles and a jacketed vessel, through
which the heating medium flows. The movement of the biosolids between the slanting surfaces of the
revolving wedge-shaped paddles generates shearing forces which clean the paddle surfaces and
maximize conductivity. The counter-rotating shafts move the material away from the walls of the jacketed
vessel, cleaning the walls by means of a tab located on the trailing edge of each paddle and optimizing

heat transfer. The dried product is cooled and stored prior to distribution. Figure 6-5 presents
photographs of a belt dryer installation and the dried product.
Figure 6-5: Typical Paddle Dryer Facility
A Paddle Dryer System for DWU could use the heat from the exhaust gas of the cogeneration engines.
The installation of a bypass in the engine exhaust system would be required to supply heat to the solids
dryer. A thermal fluid heater would be used to recover the heat from the exhaust gas. Paddle dryers
operate at 400 °F and dry the solids to approximately 90 to 95 percent solids. Paddle dryer systems have
a higher evaporation efficiency than drum dryers and belt dryers. Figure 6-6 presents a process
schematic of the proposed Paddle Dryer System.
Figure 6-6: Paddle Dryer Process Schematic
Condenser Odor Control

Unit
Engine Thermal Product

Paddle Dryer
Exhaust Gas Fluid Heater Cooler
Wet Sludge Dried Product

Biosolids
Silo Storage
Cake
Solids
Air
Heat Source
Manufacturers of Paddle Dryer Systems include Komline-Sanderson and Thermaflite. Komline-

Sanderson installations include the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority where the dryer is heated using
the exhaust heat from cogeneration engines. Table 6-3 shows a partial list of paddle dryers in the U.S.

Table 6-3: Paddle Dryer Facilities

City and/or Agency
(dry tons/day)
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority (Rahway, NJ) 116
Bondi Island WWTP (Springfield, MA) 99
Mason, OH 19
Paragould, AR 1
6.2.4 System Selection

Figure 6-4 shows a comparison of drum, belt, and paddle drying technologies.
Table 6-4: Dryer Technology Comparison

Parameter Drum Belt Paddle
Large U.S. Installations 10+ 0 2
Large Worldwide Installations 10+ 10+ 2
Cogeneration Heat Utilization No Yes Yes
(1)
Mechanical Complexity High Medium Medium
Fire Hazard from Heat and Dusty Conditions Medium Low Low
(2)
Product Quality Control Excellent Good Fair to Good
(3)
Potential Cross-Contamination No No Yes
Product Marketability High Limited Limited
Notes:
1
Mechanical complexity associated with product conveyance and separation.
2
Consistent dried product characteristics such as particle size distribution.
3
Pathogen contamination of final product from contact with wet biosolids.
Drum Dryer and Belt Dryer Systems were selected for further evaluation based on the following reasons:
 Drum Dryer Systems have more U.S. installations and produce a more marketable product than the
other dryer systems.
 Belt Dryer Systems can be heated using the exhaust gas from the cogeneration engines.
 Belt Dryer Systems and Drum Dryer Systems have a lower potential for dust-associated fire hazards
and pathogen cross-contamination than Paddle Dryer Systems.
6.3 Ancillary Systems and Safety Considerations

This section describes the support systems and safety considerations for the operation of a thermal dryer.
6.3.1 Dewatering
The Team recommends the installation of a centrifuge to maximize the dryer capacity. A centrifuge will
significantly reduce the volume of water that must be removed in the drying process. During the
preliminary design phase, the possibility of relocating and using the existing centrifuges should be

evaluated. Figure 6-5 presents the relationship between the cake solids content and the energy required
to dry the solids.
Figure 6-7: Energy Required for Solids Drying
6.3.2 Odor Control

Odor control systems are required to deodorize the final exhaust gas. Odor control technologies typically
used in solids drying facilities include thermal oxidizers, wet scrubbers, and biofilters.
6.3.3 Supplemental Fuels

Supplemental heat for thermal dryers can be provided from burning organic material such as woody
mulch and dried biosolids in a gasification system. The City of Dallas McCommas Landfill receives
approximately 370 tpd of woody biomass that is reprocessed into woody mulch. The Team does not
recommend burning wood chips or dried biosolids to provide supplemental heat to the thermal dryer
facility for the following reasons:
 Higher capital costs associated with the gasification system.
 Higher operating costs associated with the disposal of the woody mulch ashes.
 Increased truck traffic associated with the transport of woody mulch to the drying facility.
 Greater public acceptance of the beneficial use of dried biosolids. Gasification is often considered to
be the same as incineration, which has a lower public acceptance.
 Loss of potential revenue from burning the dried product.

6.3.4 Safety Considerations

Safety issues of thermal drying facilities include potential fires and dust explosions. These issues have
been addressed by manufacturers and design engineers as follows:
 The potential for fires in the dryer has been reduced by maintaining an oxygen-deficient atmosphere
in the dryer and providing quench sprays. The lower operating temperatures of indirect dryers reduce
the risk for potential fires.
 The potential for dust explosion in the process components containing dried material has been almost
eliminated by maintaining an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. In addition, the solids recycle bin can be
provided with nitrogen blanketing.
 The potential for fires in the product storage silo from auto-oxidation of the dried material has been
addressed by using nitrogen blanketing systems to maintain an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. In
addition, cooling of the product prior to storage retards the auto-oxidation of the material. Storage
silos are typically equipped with thermal sensors to detect any rise in temperature and carbon
monoxide monitors to detect the initiation of combustion reactions.
 The potential for fires in the product storage silo has also been addressed by maintaining low
humidity in the dried product storage facilities. Smolder fires can occur when the dried material
absorbs moisture out of the air.
6.4 Site Layout

The proposed location for the Solids Drying Facility is south of the Cogeneration Facility and west of the
Acid Phase Digestion Complex. This location is accessible to haulers and minimizes the length of the
heating loop and the sludge feed piping. Gas-to-air heat exchangers and gas piping provide a heating
loop from the Cogeneration Facility to the Solids Drying Building. New piping carries digested sludge
from the decant well to the Solids Drying Building. The Team recommends the installation of dewatering
equipment in the Solids Drying Building because of the long distance between the proposed location of
the Solids Drying Building to the existing Dewatering Facility. Figure 6-6 presents the proposed location
for the Solids Drying Facility.

Figure 6-8: Preliminary Site Layout

6.5 Unit Sizing Criteria

The unit sizing criteria are based on the exhaust heat available for a Belt Drying System because a major
driver for the solids drying evaluation is the beneficial use of the cogeneration heat. Listed below are the
evaluated alternatives that differed on the availability of exhaust heat:
 Alternative A
This alternative uses 100 percent of the cogeneration facility exhaust gas to provide heat for a belt
dryer and is based on year-round operation. Supplementary digester heating is provided by gas-
fueled hot water boilers during cold weather and/or high digester loading events.
 Alternative B
dryer and is based on limited operation. The drying facility is shut-down during cold weather and/or
high digester loading events. No supplementary digester heating is required.
 Alternative C
dryer and is based on year-round operation. No supplementary digester heating is required.
 Alternative D
This alternative uses natural gas to fuel a drum dryer and is based on year-round operation. No
supplementary digester heating is required.
 Alternative E
This alternative does not include a thermal dryer. (Class B biosolids beneficial use/disposal)
The Team recommends the installation of a single drying train. When the drying facilities are out of
service, 100 percent of the solids would be dewatered and sent to the dedicated land disposal. Table 6-5
presents a summary of the unit sizing criteria.

Table 6-5: Solids Dryer Sizing Criteria

Alternative Annual Solids Disposal (tpd) (2)
Name Drying Capacity (tpd) (1) Class A Class B
(3,4)
A 18 6,750 0
(4,5)
B 18 4,927 1,643
(6)
C 9 3,285 3,285
(7)
D 18 6,750 0
(8)
E 0 0 6,750
Notes:
1
Assumes a dryer feed solids concentration of 25 percent and continuous (24/7) drying operation.
2
Based on the Alternative A drying capacity of 18 tpd.
3
Requires supplemental fuel for digester heating during three months per year.
4
Based on the utilization of 100 percent of cogeneration engines exhaust heat (7.70 MMBTU/hr).
5
Drying operation limited to nine months per year.
6
Based on the utilization of 50 percent of cogeneration engines exhaust heat (3.35 MMBTU/hr).
7
Based on the use of natural gas to fuel a drum dryer.
8
No solids drying facility. Baseline alternative.

6.6 Economic Evaluation

The following section presents the economic evaluation of the thermal drying alternatives.
6.6.1 Criteria and Assumptions

Table 6-6 shows the assumptions used for the economic analysis.
Table 6-6: Criteria and Financial Assumptions

Element Value
Present Worth Year 2010
First Year of Evaluation 2012
Period of Analysis (Years) 30
Inflation (Capital and O&M Costs) (1) 3.0%
Electricity Cost ($/kWh) 0.10
Natural Gas Cost ($/MMBTU) 5.30
Polymer Cost ($/lbs) 1.55
Labor Cost ($/hr) 42
Landfill Disposal Cost ($/ton) 21.0
Product Marketing 0 (2)
Product Revenue ($/ton) 0 (2)
Notes:
1
Inflation percentages are based on national average inflation rates.
2
Assumes any product revenue is offset by marketing costs.
6.6.2 Dried Pellets Revenue Potential

The commercial value of thermally dried biosolids in the U.S. varies between $0 and $40 dollars per ton
of dry material and depends on local market conditions, nutrient content, and the physical characteristics
of the product. Current prices are typically around $10 per ton of material per percent nitrogen. Based on
the nitrogen content of the SWWTP biosolids, the commercial value of the dried solids would be
approximately $30 per ton, which is consistent with the revenue obtained by the City of Waco. The
potential revenue from the sale of the dried product was not included in the economic evaluation because
the income from the product is directly related to the marketing effort put into selling it, and the market
has to be developed over time. The Team recommends an evaluation of the potential market for a dried
Class A or EQ biosolids product during the preliminary design phase.
6.6.3 Life Cycle Cost

To evaluate the benefits and costs of these alternatives, both the projected capital costs of the installation
and the yearly O&M costs were calculated. The alternatives were compared to scenarios where the
dedicated land disposal is not available due to capacity or regulatory changes. The method selected for
this analysis was to determine the total present worth of the project. Table 6-7 provides the economical
comparison of each alternative.

Table 6-7: Life Cycle Cost Summary

Alternative Present Worth Cost ($ Million)
Capital (1) O&M (2,3) Total
A $29.6 $21.5 $51.1
E $27.7 $27.7 $51.3
Class B to Land Disposal
B $29.6 $17.7 $47.3
C $21.8 $23.0 $44.8
D - $11.4 $11.4
(3)
Class B to Landfill
B $29.6 $21.6 $51.2
C $21.8 $30.8 $52.6
D - $27.3 $27.3
Notes:
1
Includes centrifuges and thermal drying system.
2
Based on the disposal of 18 dry tons per day. Includes sludge dewatering.
3
Assumes loss of dedicated land disposal option. Based on current landfill disposal rate of $21
per dry ton of solids.
Based on the life-cycle analysis, the installation of a Solids Drying Facility at SWWTP and the commercial
distribution of the dried product are not economically feasible compared with the disposal of Class B
biosolids in the dedicated land disposal site or the local landfill. Figure 6-9 presents the payback period
for a Solids Drying Facility assuming the loss of the dedicated land disposal option.

Figure 6-9: Dryer Payback Period without Dedicated Land Disposal
50
45
40
35
Payback (Years)
30
9 tpd Facility
25
20
18 tpd Facility
15
10
0
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
Landfill Hauling Cost ($/ton)
6.7 Non-Economic Evaluation

It is difficult to put a price tag on the reliability provided by having multiple independent options for
biosolids disposal. On the other hand, when the solids processing dictates how the treatment plant is to
be operated, this affects the ability to comply with discharge requirements. Table 6-8 presents the
advantages and disadvantages of implementing thermal drying at the SWWTP.

Table 6-8: Non-Economic Evaluation of Thermal Drying
Advantages Disadvantages
 Adds disposal flexibility with production of  Requires a new multiple-story building

Class A biosolids
 Requires additional operators
 Multiple use/disposal options provide options
 Requires training of the DWU staff because
for regulation changes to ensure that solids
unfamiliar with thermal drying technology
processing does not dictate plant operation.
 Is more mechanically complex than the
 Adds flexibility to the solids handling operation
current solids disposal operation
and prolongs the life of the dedicated land
disposal site  Requires additional equipment to provide a
dried product
 Higher public acceptance than dedicated land
disposal and other Class B biosolids disposal  Requires marketing staff or contract to market
alternatives product
 Beneficial use of waste heat from
cogeneration facility
 Reduces hauling costs

Solids Drying Feasibility Study Summary of Findings and Recommendations
7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During the planning period (2010 to 2030), the installation of a thermal drying facility is not economically
feasible compared to the Class B biosolids disposal option due to the availability of the dedicated land
disposal site and the low landfill disposal rates.
An 18 tpd thermal drying facility at SWWTP could be completely sustained by the recovered waste heat
produced from the cogeneration process, which uses the gas from the digestion process. Belt dryer
systems were identified as the technology that better suits the DWU needs because of the following:
 Use of the exhaust gas from the cogeneration engines as heat supply.
 Low potential for dust-associated fire hazards and pathogen cross-contamination.
 Numerous worldwide installations in large WWTPs.
Installing facility sized to dry 25 percent of the DWU biosolids production will allow the opportunity to
determine the long-term marketability of this type of soil amendment/fertilizer product with relatively low
financial risk. The installation of a thermal drying facility may result in favorable public perception
associated with the production of a Class A, EQ biosolids product and the sustainable practices from the
use of waste heat from the cogeneration facility. However, the installation of a thermal drying facility is
not the least costly option due to the availability of the dedicated land disposal site and the low landfill
disposal rates
The Team recommends allocating land for a thermal drying facility that would be installed in the future
when the capacity of the dedicated land disposal is reached and the City of Dallas experiences a
dramatic increase in the landfill disposal rates or biosolids disposal regulations result stricter regulations
for Class B biosolids disposal.
The proposed location for a future thermal drying facility is in close proximity to the cogeneration facility
and the Acid Phase Digestion Complex. The thermal drying facility should include dedicated dewatering
equipment located in the solids drying building. The Team recommends the installation of a centrifuge to
maximize the dryer capacity. The Team recommends an evaluation of the potential market for a dried
Class A or EQ biosolids product during the preliminary design phase.

Dallas Water Utilities Appendix A
Solids Drying Feasibility Study Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym or Term Definition
% Percent
°F Degree Fahrenheit
BFP Belt Filter Presses
CWWTP Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
DWU Dallas Water Utilities
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EQ Exceptional Quality
gpd Gallons per Day
gpm Gallons per Minute
hr Hours
kW Kilowatt
lbs Pounds
m Meter
mg/kg Milligram per Kilogram
MMBTU/hr Million British Thermal Units per Hour
O&M Operations and Maintenance
Ref. Reference
SWWTP Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant
The team includes Carollo Engineers, Dallas Water Utilities personnel,
The Team
and various consultants.
tpd Tons per Day
TM Technical Memorandum
U.S. United States
WWTPs Wastewater Treatment Plants
WWTFSP Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan

Dallas Water Utilities Appendix B
Solids Drying Feasibility Study References
Appendix B References
Reference
Reference Information
Number
Dallas Water Utilities. DWU Historical Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant Data
29
1980-2008. Dallas: 2008.
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan. (WWTFSP).
75
Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical
141 Memorandum, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study. Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July
2010.
CH2M Hill. SWWTP Anaerobic Digestion Operations Manual. Dallas: CH2MHill
205
Inc., 2006.
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical
207 Memorandum, SWWTP Anaerobic Digester Sludge and Gas Characterization.
Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in
237
Sewage Sludge. 40 CFR 503, July 2003.
238 Ameresco. Water Utilities Department Renewable Energy Leasing Project. 2009.
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant Dewatering Facility
239
Project. Dallas: Malcolm Pirnie Inc., 2008.
Dallas Water Utilities. Annual Report. Reporting Requirements for Sludge, Soil, and
240
Groundwater Report. Dallas: September 2009.
Environmental Protection Agency. Standards For The Use Or Disposal Of Sewage
241
Sludge. 40 CFR 503, February 1993.

Dallas Water Utilities Appendix C
Solids Drying Feasibility Study Detailed Cost Estimates
Appendix C Detailed Cost Estimates

Table C-1: Solids Drying Alternative A
Solids Drying Alternative A
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Total
A. Solids Drying (18 Dry tbd with Natural Gas)
No Major Site Work
Subtotal Major Site Work $0
Structures
Building Structure 24,375 SF $200 $4,875,000
Structures Subtotal $4,875,000
Major Equipment and Piping
Belt Dryer Equipment Package 1 EA $4,700,000 $4,700,000
Centrifuge (120 HP) 2 EA $375,000 $750,000
Biofilter 1 EA $800,000 $800,000
Screw Centrifugal Pumps 2 EA $20,000 $40,000
Sludge Piping 1 LS $121,500 $121,500
Relocation & Replacement of Discharge Nozzles 2 LS $50,000 $100,000
8 in. Flg Cldi Pipe In Open Trench 1,500 LF $76 $114,000
6 in. 40S 316L Flanged Sst Pipe In A Bldg 500 LF $203 $101,500
Chemical Feed Pumps (15 gph) 2 EA $20,000 $40,000
Chemical Storage Tanks (10,000 gal) 1 EA $23,000 $23,000
Process Piping and Valve Allowance 20% LS $1,302,300 $1,302,300
Major Equipment and Piping Subtotal $6,511,500
Subtotal All Major Costs $11,386,500
Other Misc. Yard Piping, Sitework, and Utilities (10%) $1,138,650
Other Site Work (10%) $1,138,650
Other Electrical & Instrumentation (20%) $2,277,300
Subtotal Direct Costs $17,522,000
Total Direct Costs $17,500,000
Contingencies (30%) $5,300,000
Total Direct Cost + Contingencies $22,800,000
General Conditions (15%) $3,400,000
Contractor OH & P (15%) $3,400,000
Total Construction Cost $29,600,000
Engineering (15%) $4,400,000
Total Project Cost $34,000,000

Table C-2: Solids Drying Alternative B

Solids Drying Alternative B
B. Solids Drying (18 Dry tbd with Cogeneration)
No Major Site Work
Structures
Centrifuge (120 HP) 2 EA $375,000 $750,000
Biofilter 1 EA $800,000 $800,000
Sludge Piping 1 LS $121,500 $121,500
Relocation & Replacement of Discharge Nozzles 2 LS $50,000 $100,000
Contractor OH & P (15%) $3,400,000
Engineering (15%) $4,400,000

Table C-3: Solids Drying Alternative C

Solids Drying Alternative C
C. Solids Drying (9 Dry tbd with Cogeneration)
No Major Site Work
Structures
Centrifuge (120 HP) 2 EA $375,000 $750,000
Biofilter 1 EA $800,000 $800,000
Sludge Piping 1 LS $121,500 $121,500
Process Piping and Valve Allowance 20% LS $932,300 $932,300
Other Misc. Yard Piping, Sitework, and Utilities (10%) $831,770
Other Site Work (10%) $831,770
Contractor OH & P (15%) $2,500,000
Engineering (15%) $3,300,000

Table C-4: Solids Drying Alternative D

Solids Drying Alternative D
D. Solids Drying (18 Dry tpd with Natural Gas)
No Major Site Work
Structures
Centrifuge (120 HP) 2 EA $375,000 $750,000
Sludge Piping 1 LS $121,500 $121,500
Relocation & Replacement of Discharge 2 LS $50,000 $100,000
Nozzles
Contractor OH & P (15%) $3,200,000
Engineering (15%) $4,200,000

Dallas Water Utilities Appendix D
Solids Drying Feasibility Study Manufacturer Information
Appendix D Manufacturer Information

Sections D1 through D4 provide manufacturer information from their brochures.
D.1. Andritz Belt Drying System DBS



D.2. Kruger Belt Drying System





D.3. Kruger Drum Drying System



D.4. Komline-Sanders Paddle Drying System






Dallas Water Utilities
Appendix F12: Solids Drying Feasibility Study Record of Change
Record of Change
Version 1.0 Date: June 2010
Location in Document Description of Change
Interim Technical Memorandum
Version 2.0 Date: July 2010
Global Changes Changed the footers to match WWTFSP
Appendix B Updated/corrected references

WWTFSP App.F12 Solids Drying Feasability Study

Încărcat de

Informații document

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.F12 Solids Drying Feasability Study

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appendix F12: Solids Drying Feasibility Study

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

Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................28

Appendix C Detailed Cost Estimates ............................................................................30

Appendix D Manufacturer Information..........................................................................34

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 2 of 51

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Summary of Findings

1.2 Summary of Recommendations

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 3 of 51

2.1 What is Thermal Drying?

2.2 Uses of Dried Biosolids

2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Thermal Drying

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 4 of 51

3.0 EXISTING SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES

Figure 3-1: Solids Handling Process Schematic

3.1 Anaerobic Digestion

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 5 of 51

Table 3-1: Existing Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Unit Volume (gal) (1) 1,530,000 1,495,000 1,757,000

3.2 Dewatering and Land Application

Table 3-2: Dewatering Equipment

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 6 of 51

Table 3-3: Cogeneration Equipment

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 7 of 51

4.0 BIOSOLIDS QUANTITIES AND QUALITY

4.1 Biosolids Production

Table 4-1: Digested Solids Production

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 8 of 51

4.2 Biosolids Quality

Table 4-2: Biosolids Chemical Characterization

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 9 of 51

5.0 ENERGY MANAGEMENT

5.1 Biogas Production and Consumption

Table 5-1: Digester Gas Production

5.2 Cogeneration Heat Generation and Consumption

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 10 of 51

Table 5-2: Heat Generation

Table 5-3: Digester Heating Requirements

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 11 of 51

6.0 THERMAL DRYER EVALUATION

6.1 Process Description

6.2 Thermal Dryer Selection

6.2.1 Rotary Drum Dryers

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 12 of 51

Figure 6-1: Typical Drum Dryer Facility

Figure 6-2: Drum Dryer Process Schematic

Rotary Drum Particle Size Product Dried Product

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 13 of 51

Table 6-1: Drum Dryer Facilities

6.2.2 Belt Dryer Systems

Figure 6-3: Typical Belt Dryer Facility

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 14 of 51

Figure 6-4: Belt Dryer Process Schematic

Engine Heat Dried Product

Table 6-2: Belt Dryer Facilities

6.2.3 Paddle Dryer System

WWTFSP_App.F12-2.0 July 2010 Page 15 of 51

Figure 6-5: Typical Paddle Dryer Facility

Figure 6-6: Paddle Dryer Process Schematic

Condenser Odor Control

Engine Thermal Product

Wet Sludge Dried Product

Manufacturers of Paddle Dryer Systems include Komline-Sanderson and Thermaflite. Komline-