Primary Sludge Fermentation for

Reliable Biological Phosphorus

Removal

Li Lei, Barry Rabinowitz, Bill Leaf, Rick Bishop,

Bob Kresge

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 1

9/16/2009
 Outline

• Introduction
• Common Primary Sludge Fermentation
Processes
• Comparisons of Non-economic Factors
• Implemented Fermentation System Examples
• Performance and Key Considerations
• Design Parameters
• Cost Estimates
• Summary and Conclusions

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 2

9/16/2009
 Introduction – West Boise WWTF
North JHB Basin &
Secondary Clarifiers
14 mgd, 200 mg/L
BOD, 7.5 mg/L TP
Primary South JHB Basin &
Raw Sewage Plant Effluent
Clarifiers Secondary Clarifiers

Primary
WAS
Sludge
Thickener
Thickener
(13 mgd
Anaerobic
Lander Street
Digester WWTF)
Anaerobically
Digested Sludge
from other WWTP

Biosolids
Dewatering
to Land Application

• largest facility in ID; sized for 24 mgd; currently ∼14 mgd;

• Biological: can operate in JHB & provide a level of P removal
• Potential more stringent TP limits (1, 0.5, 0.2, 0.07 mg/L)
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 3
9/16/2009
 Introduction - Enhanced Biological
Phosphorus Removal (EBPR)
• Encourages PAOs to grow and incorporate
phosphorus into cell biomass, which subsequently is
removed through sludge wasting
• PAOs have
– higher phosphorus (P) content (0.3 vs. 0.02 g P/VSS)
– a selective advantage in an anaerobic/aerobic
environment
– require VFAs to grow in anaerobic environment
• Sources of VFAs – Key Parameter For EBPR Success
– rbCOD in wastewater → VFAs in anaerobic zones
– external sources, e.g. acetic acid
– generated on-site through PS fermentation (moderate to
cold climate)

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 4

9/16/2009
 Introduction – JHB Process For EBPR

Return Activated Sludge

Anaerobic Nitrate Recycle
Waste Activated
Anoxic Anoxic Aerobic
Sludge
VFA Effluent
Secondary
Influent Mixer
Clarifier
• Anoxic zone for the RAS reduces the amount of nitrate-N
entering the anaerobic zone
• Subsequent anaerobic zones receive the primary effluent,
along with the denitrified RAS stream
• Identified as an important component for TP removal for its
low O&M costs, vs. chemical P removal
• Reliability need to be improved for stricter P limit
• Inadequate influent rbCOD/VFA for full biological N and P
removal; compounded by external P load

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 5

9/16/2009
 Introduction – Primary Sludge Fermentation

• PS Fermentation:
– likely to have lower operational costs than
supplementing external sources
– provides required retention time & mixing for
VFA production not likely in Anaerobic Zones
• Hydrolysis: particulates to soluble monomers
– Lipids → fatty acids
– Carbohydrates → monosaccharides
– Proteins → amino acids
• Fermentation (acidogenesis): hydrolysis
products → mixed VFAs

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 6

9/16/2009
 Common PS Fermentation Processes

• Activated primary clarifier

• Complete-mix fermenter
• Single-stage fermenter/thickener
• Two-stage complete- mix fermenter/thickener
• Unified Fermentation and Thickening (UFAT)

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 7

9/16/2009
 Common Processes - Activated
Primary Clarifier (APC)
Raw Primary Primary
Influent Clarifier Effluent
to Bioreactor

Fermented Sludge
to solids handling
Sludge Recycle

•PSD recycle to 1) inoculate Inf., 2) provide longer SRT

than HRT, 3) elutriate VFAs formed.
•Typical SRT = 2 to 3 days
•SRT control by adjusting sludge wasting
•Sludge blanket monitoring required for determine solids
inventory and solids in PE for accurate SRT calcs
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 8
9/16/2009
 Common Processes - Complete-Mix
Fermenter (CMF)
Fermenter
Raw Primary
Influent Effluent
Primary
Clarifier
Fermented
Sludge

Primary
Sludge Sludge Recycle

•CMF in side-stream
•A portion of the fermenter mixed liquor is returned to PC
•The VFAs formed is elutriated in primary effluent to bioreactors
•Independent HRT & SRT; HRT: PS Volume; SRT: Fermented
sludge waste
•No thickening→ higher recycle and wasting flows

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 9

9/16/2009
 Common Processes - Single-Stage
Fermenter/Thickener

Primary
Supernatant
Raw Primary Clarifier Effluent Fermenter/Thickener
Influent

Primary Fermented
Sludge Sludge

•Static fermenter for fermentation and thickening

•No sludge recycle; independent PCs and
fermenter/thickener
•SRT: target sludge blanket height and sludge
inventory + accounting for solids in supernatant
•Frequent measurements of the sludge blanket depth
and solids concentrations.
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 10
9/16/2009
 Common Processes - Two-Stage
Fermenter/Thickener
Fermenter
Primary Fermenter/Thicken Supernatant
Raw Primary Effluent er
Influent Clarifier
Waste
Primary Sludge Sludge
Sludge Recycle

•Complete-mix fermenter + gravity thickener

•Thickened sludge is recycled back to fermenter
•Excess sludge is wasted
•Independent PC and fermentation; no recycle to pcs
•SRT: control sludge wasting; easier determination of
solids inventory
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 11
9/16/2009
 Common Processes - Unified Fermentation
And Thickening (UFAT) Process
Fermenter/Thickener Fermenter/Thickener
Raw Primary
Influent Clarifier

Waste
Primary Sludge Sludge

•Static fermenter/thickener + gravity thickener

•Similar to single-stage, with an additional thickener/fermenter
•underflow and overflow of 1st fermenter/thicener are remixed to
help elutriate the VFAs
•Higher sludge blanket could be kept in 1st tank to achieve SRT
•Independent PCs and fermentation; no recycle to PCs
•Difficult to control SRT, similar to single-stage system

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 12

9/16/2009
 Comparisons of Non-economic Factors (1)
Advantages Disadvantages

APC •Lower capital cost •Difficult to control SRT

•Lower space •Requires deep primary
requirements clarifiers (10 ft SWD
available)
•Mixed successes
CMF •Simplest in operations •Higher sludge wasting
and controls and recycle flows
•Independent HRT & •Higher hydraulic
SRT for fermentation loading to solids
handling units
•Higher hydraulic &
solids loading to PCs
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 13
9/16/2009
 Comparisons of Non-economic Factors (2)
Advantages
1-Stage •Independent PCs &
fermenter/thickener
2-Stage •Independent PCs &
no recycle to PCs
•Simple control of
fermentation process
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID
9/16/2009
disadvantages
•Difficult to control SRT
accurately
•Relies on frequently
measuring sludge blanket
depth and solids
concentrations
•Requires more tanks and
associated equipment.
14
 Comparisons of Non-economic Factors (3)

Advantages disadvantages

UFAT •Independent PCs & •Difficult to control SRT

no recycle to PCs accurately
•Easy to retrofit into •Relies on frequently
existing gravity measuring sludge blanket
thickeners, potentially depth and solids
reducing cost concentrations
• Stratification of sludge and
VFAs occurs in fermenters;
more prone to inhibition
caused by pH and localized
high VFA concentrations

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 15

9/16/2009
 Implemented Examples (1)
1-Stage 2-Stage UFAT
Facilities Kelowna, BC Kalispell, MT Durham, OR

Capacity, mgd 10.6 3.1 25

EBPR Process A2O Modified UCT A2O

Eff. TP, mg/L 0.11 0.4 <0.07

Fermenters •150-250 mg/L •200 – 500 mg/L •0.081 lb VFA/lb

VFA in VFA in VSS with 47%
supernatant, ∼ 17 supernatant @ 5 elutriation
mg/L increase to day SRT •Ave. 2.8 d-SRT
influent •1% PS; 1.2% @ 19 °C; 1 – 3
•3.6 to 5.9 ft solids in d-SRT @ 14 to
sludge blanket in fermenters; 2% 24 °C
a 10.7 SWD in sludge recycle

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 16

9/16/2009
 Implemented Examples (2)
1-Stage 2-Stage UFAT

Facilities Kelowna, BC Kalispell, MT Durham, OR

Thickening •6% Solids 2% TPS 1 d-SRT

•TPS + WAS
→ 20% solids
dewatered
sludge
Special •Automatically •Mechanical •Floating scum
Issues/features reversing rake mixer + scum and grease layer
in fermenters buster external due to reduced
•Scrubber/biofil pumping in primary capacity
ter for odor fermeters •upset due to
Control •corrosion to methane
concrete: production @ 5.5
plastic SRT @ 22 °C
coating/S.S.
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 17
9/16/2009
 Performance and Key Considerations (1)

• Performance in VFA Augmentation

– production: 0.1 to 0.2 g VFA/g VSS applied
– recovery/ elutriation:
• 20% to 50% for static fermentaer
• up to 90% for complete-mix
– VFA Increase in the influent: 10 to 20 mg/L
• SRT
– ≥ SRTmin to prevent fermenting
microorganisms being washed out
– ≤ SRTmax to prevent methanogenic activity
– 3 to 5 days generally
– 2 to 3 days for T≥ 20 °C

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 18

9/16/2009
 Performance and Key Considerations (2)
• Temperature
– Tanks usually not heated → varying temp.
– Higher T increases fermentation rate
– Critical to maintain a proper SRT at higher
temperatures
• pH: VFA production lowers pH
– Acidogen/acetogen (ADM1, IWA)
• not inhibited at pH ≥ 5.5
• completely inhibited at pH ≤4
• significant inhibition at 5 ≤ pH ≤ 5.5
(Veeken, et. al.)
– ensure sufficient alkalinity and prevent high
sludge concentrations

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 19

9/16/2009
 Performance and Key Considerations (1)
• Mixing
– increases the VFA yield
– help elutriate the generated VFA into the
fermenter overflows
– Prevent localized high VFA concentrations and
potential pH inhibition
– increase odor generation
• Sludge characteristics
– COD fractionation, seasonal variation
– Fermentation in upstream system
• Degree depending on retention time,
temperature, and aeration
• lowers the VFA yield in the fermentation system

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 20

9/16/2009
 Design Parameters
Performance •0.1 g VFA/g VSS applied
•10 mg/L VFA Increase to the influent
•25% Primary sludge VSS reduction
SRT & Temp. •5-day SRT at 12ºC to size various fermentation
systems
•3.5-day SRT at 18ºC to optimize cost for warmer
temperature
Temperature Higher T increases fermentation rate; Critical to
maintain a proper SRT at higher temperatures
Mixing Mechanical mixing for the complete mix
fermenter
Static fermenter 20 to 30 lb/day/sf; 400 to 800 gpd/sf
/thickener Dilution water: elutriation; aerobic cleansing
Odor Control Yes. Likely more intensive odor than GTs
Longer SRT, higher turbulence
Biofilter recommended; likely taping into existing
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 21
9/16/2009
 Cost Estimates - Basis
• Order-of-magnitude, Class 5 (AACE)
• Accuracy: +100% to -50%
• January 2008 Dollars
• Cost estimates are based on
– equipment vendor supplied budgetary quotes
– bid costs for comparable projects
– 29% for demo., sitework, SCADA, yard piping
& elec.
– contractor mark ups
• 30% contingency
• 20% overhead, profit, mobilization,
demobilization, bonds, and insurance
– 23% non-construction costs (permitting,
engineering, SDC, commissioning/start up)

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 22

9/16/2009
 Cost Estimates - 5-d SRT (1)
Fermentation Systems Single Stage Two-Stage UFAT
Fermenters Number of units - 2 (new) 2 (new)

Type - Complete-Mix fermenters Static fermenters in series

in series

Dimensions, ea - 60' (L) x 43' (W) x 18' (D), 40’ diameter, 20’ deep
350,000 gallons each

Thickeners Number of units 2 (existing)

Type Static, fermenter/thickener

Dimensions, ea 30’ diameter, 10’ deep

Number of units 2 (new) 1 (new) 1 (new)

Type Static, fermenter/thickener

Dimensions, ea 65’ dia, 16’ deep 40’ dia, 16’ deep 40’ dia, 16’ deep

Total Project Cost $9,010,000 $9,010,000 $8,540,000

New Biofilter Cost $550,000 $560,000 $440,000
Total Project Cost (less New $8,460,000 $8,450,000 $8,100,000
Biofilter)

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 23

9/16/2009
 Cost Estimates - 5-d SRT (2)
• $ 8.1 M to $ 8.5 M depending on configuration
• Odor control with a new biofilter: ∼ $ 0.5 M
• The costs of three fermentation systems are
estimated approximately the same and are
within about 6% of each other
• UFAT process has the lowest overall cost, but
the difference in cost is not significant
• Based on non-economic and economic
analyses, 2-stage fermentation system offers
simpler and more effective SRT control
without incurring significantly higher cost

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 24

9/16/2009
 PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 25
9/16/2009
 Cost Estimates – 3.5-d SRT (1)
• Objectives
– further optimize and explore possible cost
reduction
– 2-stage fermentation was selected for the
optimization
• Approaches
– Reducing SRT for fermentation in warmer, P
removal season only
– In winter, operate with reduced VFA or as
regular thickener to save operational cost
– Different PS solids concentrations
• 1% PS as currently allowable by PS degritting
• 1.5% PS if new grit removal in liquids stream
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 26
9/16/2009
 Cost Estimates – 3.5-d SRT (2)
Fermentation Systems 1% PS 1.5% PS
Fermenters Number of units 2 (new) 2 (new)

Type Complete-Mix Tanks in Complete-Mix Tanks in

series series

Dimensions, each 60' (L) x 28' (W) x 18' (D), 60' (L) x 28' (W) x 18' (D),
225,000 gallons each 225,000 gallons each

Thickeners Number of units 2 (existing)

Type Static, fermenter/thickener

Dimensions, each 30’ diameter, 10’ deep

Number of units 1 (new)

Type Static, fermenter/thickener

Dimensions, each 35’ dia, 16’ deep 30’ dia, 16’ deep

Total Project Cost $7,720,000 $7,510,000

New Biofilter Cost $470,000 $470,000

Total Project Cost (less New $7,250,000 $7,040,000

Biofilter)

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 27

9/16/2009
 Cost Estimates – 3.5-d SRT (3)

• Approximately 14% or $1.3 M cost saving

would be realized by reducing SRT
• $ 7.5 M for 1.5% PSD and $ 7.7 M for 1%
PSD, including about $0.5 M for a new
biofilter
• Feeding thicker primary sludge to the
fermentation system would achieve about $
0.2 M additional cost saving, which is unlikely
to cover the cost for the new grit removal
system

PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 28

9/16/2009
 Summary and Conclusions
• Primary sludge fermentation is proven to improve
EBPR reliability by VFA supplementation
• 2-stage fermentation system
– offers simpler and more effective SRT control without
incurring significantly higher cost
– cost estimate for warmer season fermentation ≈ $7.3 M
• UFAT process offers a good compromise between the
single-stage and two-stage systems in terms of
performance, costs and operability
• Odor control using biofilters is recommended for the
fermentation system due to its high potential for odor
generation. A new biofilter will cost ∼$0.5M. But
potential exists to tap into existing under-loaded
biofilters.
PNCWA 2009 – Boise, ID 29
9/16/2009