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