montgomery county prince george`s county 1 4 3 5 2 6

download report

Transcript montgomery county prince george`s county 1 4 3 5 2 6

FATS, OILS & GREASE (FOG)
ABATEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE
June 28, 2010
WSSC FOG PROGRAM HISTORY

1990’s - 2005
 WSSC had an active FOG Program with various procedures

2005 Consent Decree, Article 3 – FOG Program Milestones
 June 2006


Established and submitted database of all FSEs in the sanitary District
Prepared and submitted a Modified FOG Program Plan for EPA approval
 September 2006

Prepared and submitted Draft FSE Wastewater Discharge Permit
 May 2007


Received EPA approvals and began formal permitting and initial inspections of FSEs
Update database with new or out of business FSEs
 2007 – 2009



Proposed and adopted WSSC Code changes to better define formal FOG Program basics
Completed 100 inspections per month, majority of systems in non-compliance with permit/Code
Scheduling and witnessing pump-downs at flow-based units
WSSC FOG ABATEMENT PROGRAM

Enhancements to FOG Abatement Program as
part of SSO Consent Decree
 Plumbing & Fuel Gas (P&FG) Code
 Waste Haulers are required to obtain Permits
 Applicable Food Service Establishments (FSEs) are required to
obtain Discharge Permit
 Applicable FSEs are required to install Grease Abatement Systems
 Increased cleaning and inspection requirements
WASTE HAULER DISCHARGE PERMITS

Types of Permits
 Waste Hauler Discharge Permit

Discharge Permit required for each truck discharging at disposal sites designated
by the Commission
 Zero Discharge Permit


Required for trucks cleaning grease interceptors within WSSC service area,
but disposing outside Commission’s service area
Fees
 WSSC Permit Fee
Annual fee based on vehicle capacity
 Allows unlimited dumping during permitted hours

 County Health Department Permit Fee
FSE DISCHARGE PERMITS

Section 818 of WSSC P&FG Code
 Applies to all establishments (FSEs) where food is served to the
public with or without charge including, but not limited to:






Restaurants
Cafeterias
Hotel kitchens
Church kitchens
Hospital cafeterias
Bars
 All FSEs must apply for Permit
 FSE Discharge Permit Contains:
Best Management Practices for controlling FOG
 On-site Recordkeeping Requirements
 Grease Abatement System Installation and O&M Standards, if applicable
 Other general conditions or procedures

FSE GREASE ABATEMENT SYSTEMS

Installation Requirements
 Section 302 of WSSC P&FG Code provides:
 Design, location, sizing, and piping installation requirements for



Flow-Based Grease Interceptors
Volume-Based Grease Interceptors
Maintenance Requirements
 Section 818 of WSSC P&FG Code requires:
 Maintenance of efficient operations by owner/operator at their expense
 25% Rule

Owner/operator shall ensure accumulation of FOG/solids does not exceed 25% of
liquid retention capacity
 Maintenance Interval


Volume Based Grease Interceptors – Monthly, Quarterly or by the “25% Rule”
Flow Based Grease Interceptors – Manufacturer’s recommendations (weekly or bi-weekly)
or by the “25% Rule”
WSSC FOG HANDLING

Impacts of FOG Abatement Program Enhancements
 Increased discharge volume to grease receiving station

Muddy Branch Wastewater Pump Station
 No pretreatment of waste stream
 Discharges to Blue Plains AWWTP
 Removed in screenings or primary clarifier scum, and landfilled
 No sample collection or volume measurement features

July 1, 2010 – WSSC initiating Manifest System at Muddy Branch Site
 Site cannot accommodate anticipated upgrades
CURRENT FOG HANDLING PRACTICES
Muddy Branch Disposal Site
WSSC FOG RECEIVING &TREATMENT

Septage/FOG Study Schedule
 March 29, 2007

Study Kick-off
 March 14, 2008

Presentation of Recommendations Stakeholder Workshop
 November 26, 2008

Study Expanded to Include Evaluation of FOG Handling and Treatment Processes
 November 2, 2009


Study Expanded to Address Montgomery County Concerns
Completion of FOG Study – To be determined
WSSC FOG RECEIVING &TREATMENT

Evaluation of FOG Receiving/Treatment Approach
 Grease Interceptor Waste Volume Estimates
 Characterization of Grease Interceptor Waste
 Grease Receiving/Treatment Process Alternatives
 Grease Receiving/Treatment Site Alternatives
GREASE INTERCEPTOR WASTE
VOLUME ESTIMATES

Results of WSSC initial inspections of FSEs to date (June 2010)
 Estimated # of FSEs requiring grease abatement

Total for Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties = 4,600
 Breakdown of Grease Interceptors



20% (900 -950) have volume-based (outside) interceptors serviced by a contractor
40% (1800-1900) have flow-based (inside) interceptors serviced by a contractor
40% (1800-1900) have flow-based (inside) interceptors serviced by owner, have a non-working
interceptor, or have no interceptor
Type of Interceptor
Number of
Interceptors
Average Interceptor Volume
(gallons)
Pumping Frequency
(times/year)
Estimated Total Volume
(gallons/year)
Outside Volume Based
900 – 950
1,250
4
4,500,000 – 4,750,000
1,800 – 1,900
35
12
750,000 – 800,000
Inside Flow Based
Total Estimated Grease Interceptor Waste Volume =
*Estimate from known FSEs in Montgomery and PG Counties.
5,250,000 – 5,550,000*
Does not include grease from outside jurisdictions.
GREASE INTERCEPTOR WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLING AT MUDDY BRANCH DISPOSAL SITE
TSS
(mg/L)
%VSS
2,700
21,600
90
2
5,400
79,500
80
3
4,300
82,400
98
4
400
4,010
99
5
5,200
24,400
94
Sample
Oil and Grease (mg/L)
1
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Ammonia
(mg/L)
COD
(mg/L)
Ortho-P
(mg/L)
Total P
(mg/L)
VFA
(mg/L)
6
328
6.5
24,360
N/A
26.9
5,520
97
N/A
7
856
109.2
2,880
2.0
6.1
300
77
N/A
8
910
83.8
3,620
9.1
19.2
400
85
1,500
9
430
7.2
21,670
28.1
34.9
14,817
97
1,800
10
370
9.9
10,120
4.4
6.0
3,480
96
460
11
368
9.9
9,560
6.0
7.7
4,933
91
550
12
3,420
N/A
34,000
N/A
N/A
74,150
98
7,200
13
720
44.9
475,000
69.5
50.2
227,317
99
4,700
14
440
14.6
38,000
16.0
23.0
36,834
100
1,800
871
35.8
68,800
21.9
21.8
41,400
93
2,570
Average
3,600
GOALS FOR GREASE
RECEIVING/TREATMENT FACILITY

Primary Goals






Prevent accumulation of grease in collection system and reduce SSOs
Optimize WSSC’s capital investment
Address operations and maintenance challenges
Provide safe, secure system for haulers that protects the environment
Provide system that considers impact on neighborhoods and citizens
Secondary Goals
 Minimize operation costs
 Provide a source of revenue
 Focus on sustainability – greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, sustainable
design
 Provide local system that allows haulers to provide cost competitive services
GREASE RECEIVING/TREATMENT
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Benchmarking of FOG Facilities
 City of Baltimore, MD – Direct Discharge/Anaerobic Digestion
 Derry Township Municipal Authority, PA – Aerobic Digestion
 Kline’s Services, Salunga, PA – Fuel Oil Production
 EcoSolve, Charlotte, NC – Dewatering Technology
 Valley Proteins, Baltimore, MD – Fuel Oil Production
GREASE RECEIVING/TREATMENT
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Pretreatment Process Alternatives
 Screening

SV-2 System


Removes trash and debris using steam to heat grease flow
Standard Wastewater Influent Screen


Screen and washing compactor
Requires larger bar spacing and high temperature pressure washer
SV-2 Unit Screenings
 Grease Concentration

Fractionation Tank (with or without heat)


Batch separation process with multiple withdrawal ports
for debris, aqueous layer and grease
Scum Concentrator

Continuous flow separation process with mechanical
removal of grease from surface
Fractionation Tank
GREASE RECEIVING/TREATMENT
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Primary Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
 Municipal Solid Waste

Mix with screenings and dispose at landfill
 Mixing with Dewatered Solids

Mix with sludge, lime stabilize and land apply
 Incineration

Mix with sludge and incinerate at Western Branch WWTP
 Land Treatment

Direct application of grease interceptor waste to farmland
 Aerobic Digestion

Aerobic digestion of grease and dewatering
GREASE RECEIVING/TREATMENT
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Primary Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
 Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion and production of methane gas
 Biodiesel Production

Conversion of grease interceptor waste to biodiesel with intermediate processing
 Fuel Oil Production

Conversion of grease interceptor waste to fuel oil
 Dewatering

Screw press cake product to be incinerated, land applied or landfilled
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

Fuel Oil Production – Burt Waste System
Facility Requirements












(2) SV-2 Separation Units
(2) Separation Tanks
(1) Cook Tank
Finished Oil Tank
Fuel Oil Tank
Boiler - Fuel Oil
Process Piping
Building
Odor Control System
Video Monitoring System
Fence/Gate Access System
Auto Sampler
Cook Tank
165 oF
Separation Tank
90 to 100 oF
Unload at 175 gpm,
10-15 min/truck
SELECTED ALTERNATIVES

Financial Considerations
 Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate for Facility

$2,200,000 to $2,800,000 per site
 Planning Level O&M Cost Estimate for Facility

$300,000 annually (includes staff, power, equipment maintenance/replacement, etc.)
 Value of Product






Potentially 5,250,000 – 5,550,000* gallons of grease interceptor waste generated from
known FSEs annually
111,000 gallons of product annually (20 gallons of product per 1,000 gallons of interceptor waste)
Process Requirements (16 to 20 gallons of product per hour) = 37,500 gallons annually
Residual of 73,500 gallons annually = 607,000 lbs annually
At $0.15/lb, revenue = $91,000
Reduction in collection system maintenance costs by keeping FOG out of system
*Estimate from known FSEs in Montgomery and PG Counties.
Does not include grease from outside jurisdictions.
GREASE RECEIVING/TREATMENT
SITE ALTERNATIVES

Site Selection Evaluation Criteria
 System Reliability
 Hauler Impacts
 Constructability
 Ease of Operation
 Public Acceptance
 Community/Environmental Impacts
 Construction Cost
 Operations and Maintenance Cost
GREASE RECEIVING/TREATMENT SITE

Alternative Sites Considered
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
1 – Crystal Rock PS
2 – Clopper Road PS
3 – Seneca WWTP
4 – Seneca I&II PS
5 – Rock Creek WWTP
6 – Muddy Branch Disposal Site
1
2
34
1 – Parkway WWTP
2 – Tanglewood PS
3 – Anacostia I&II PS
4 – Ritchie Road PS
5 – Western Branch WWTP
6 – Piscataway WWTP
1
2
3
4
6
5
5
6
Food Service Establishment
Current Waste Discharge Sites
PRELIMINARY SITE RECOMMENDATION
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

Anacostia I&II PS
 Advantages



Located in the commercial corridor of Prince George’s County
Space on site for construction of new facilities
Surrounded by wooded area and other industrial facilities
PRELIMINARY SITE RECOMMENDATION
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Abandoned Rock Creek WWTP
 Advantages




Centrally located to FSEs in Montgomery County
Existing facilities on-site could possibly be utilized (building, fencing)
Surrounded by wooded area and other industrial facilities
Access to site is convenient for haulers
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION & COMBINED
HEAT & POWER STUDY

Scope


Goal


Reduce fossil fuel derived energy use, biosolids volume and land application disposal
costs
Impact


Evaluate feasibility of viable economic alternatives for adding anaerobic digestion and
combined heat and power and/or biosolids gasification and drying facilities for the
biosolids generated at the Seneca and Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plants
Fuel oil product could be utilized as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion
Schedule


Kick-off Meeting: July 2010
Project Duration: 10 months
SUMMARY






Enhancements to FOG Abatement Program via Updates to the WSSC P&FG Code
Current FOG handling facility at Muddy Branch is inadequate and will be abandoned
P&FG updates could result in an estimated 5,250,000 – 5,550,000 gallons* of
grease interceptor waste from Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties
Grease interceptor waste has high solids, BOD and COD content and is highly variable
SV-2 screening with Fuel Oil Production Process is the recommended approach for
grease receiving/treatment
Preliminary Receiving/Processing Site Recommendations



Prince George’s County – Anacostia I&II Pump Station
Montgomery County – Rock Creek WWTP
Modify hauler tipping fee program
*Estimate from known FSEs in Montgomery and PG Counties.
Does not include grease from outside jurisdictions.
WSSC FOG PROGRAM SCHEDULE

December 2010 (Consent Decree Deadline)
 All known “qualifying” FSEs must be permitted
 Updated and detailed list of permitted FSEs

December 2011 (Internal WSSC Deadline)
 Complete initial inspections of all known FSEs
 Basis for the Consent Decree Report

May 2012 (Consent Decree Deadline)
Complete initial inspections of all known FSEs
 Submit updated and detailed Report
