Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

Executive Summary

WWTP Energy Efficiency Opportunities As part of the California Local Energy Efficiency Program (CaLEEP), the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) is pursuing avenues for reducing energy use by the Agency. One aspect of the program involved an evaluation of the existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) operated by IEUA for process energy saving opportunities. The potential for increased electricity generation through cogeneration was also investigated. Based on the evaluation, the main conclusions were: 1. The largest opportunities for energy efficiency savings are: a. Process optimization for Activated Sludge at RP-1, RP-5, and CCWRF. b. Equalization at RP-1 and RP-5. 2. Maximizing revenue from the digester/cogeneration systems will require: a. Anaerobic process optimization and improved controls. b. Balancing thermal demands and electrical output. c. Sequencing controls for the engines and boilers.

Process Optimization for Activated Sludge Activated sludge aeration at the treatment plants typically accounts for 30 to 40 percent of total plant electricity. Optimizing the activated sludge process through dissolved oxygen (DO) and solids retention time (SRT) control can reduce energy use by 5 to 30 percent. Software can be added to the plant SCADA systems, to continuously adjust process parameters to maintain optimal process conditions throughout the day as the load changes. Equalization at RP-1 and RP-5 Flow equalization is a common practice for treatment plants, but besides volume, ammonia loads/concentrations also vary throughout the day. Equalizing the ammonia load can contribute greatly to process stability and provide significant energy savings. Ammonia load equalization can also reduce peak aeration power demands exerted by high ammonia loads in the afternoon, potentially reducing peak energy demand by 10 to 35 percent. Ammonia load equalization would benefit both RP-1 and RP-5. Besides the concentration of ammonia normally present in wastewater, these plants treat the solids handling system recycle flows which have high ammonia concentrations. Maximizing Digester/Cogeneration System Output Anaerobic digestion process optimization and control improvements similar to those recommended for the Activated Sludge systems could help increase biogas production and

1 of 2

utilization at RP-1 and RP-2. Software embedded in plant SCADA systems can automate feed control, mixing, and sludge transfers. Operation of the cogeneration system can also be optimized. This would include sizing and operation of engines, boilers, and storage to maximize economic returns. Recommendations Analysis of natural and cogeneration gas use and production data to refine estimation of digester/cogeneration system optimization.

Southern California Gas Company (SCG) funding available to pay for consultant to analyze data.

Southern California Edison (SCE) funding may be available for activated sludge system optimization during future WWTP expansions.

2 of 2

tel: (707) 824-8070 fax: (707) 824-8071 900 Dorthel Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472 RoseEnvEng@sbcglobal.net ______________________________________________________________________________ August 30, 2005 DRAFT #6 POTENTIAL ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES AT IEUA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS RP-1, RP-2, RP-5, AND CCWRF

ROSENBLUM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Table of Contents
1 2 3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................3 COMMON OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................................................4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 DO/SRT OPTIMIZATION ..............................................................................................................................4 AMMONIA MASS LOAD EQUALIZATION ......................................................................................................5 SOLIDS HANDLING AND BIOGAS UTILIZATION ............................................................................................6 DAF THICKENERS .......................................................................................................................................7

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS AT EACH PLANT.........................................................................................7 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3 4.3.1 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 RP-1............................................................................................................................................................7 Improve Utilization of Equalization Lagoon .........................................................................................8 Balance Hydraulics of Secondary Clarifiers .........................................................................................8 Optimize Secondary Treatment Process ................................................................................................8 Increase Biogas Utilization ...................................................................................................................8 RP-2............................................................................................................................................................9 Improve Primary Sludge Gravity Thickener..........................................................................................9 Improve DAF Feed ................................................................................................................................9 Increase Biogas Utilization .................................................................................................................10 RP-5..........................................................................................................................................................10 Remove One Train of Secondary Treatment........................................................................................10 CARBON CANYON WATER RECYCLING FACILITY (CCWRF) ....................................................................12 Improve Secondary Treatment Process ...............................................................................................12 Reduce Number of Effluent Filters in Operation.................................................................................13

RESULTS .........................................................................................................................................................13 5.1 5.2 BASELINE USAGE ......................................................................................................................................13 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................15

6 7

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A: ENERGY BALANCE FOR DIGESTOR/COGENERATION .........................................22 7.1 RP-1..........................................................................................................................................................22 7.1.1 Introduction and Summary ..................................................................................................................22 7.1.2 Cogeneration Fuel and Output Balance..............................................................................................22 7.1.3 Boiler Fuel Use....................................................................................................................................24 7.1.4 Potential Improvements .......................................................................................................................25 7.2 RP-2..........................................................................................................................................................25

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

1/27

DRAFT #6

7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

Introduction and Summary ..................................................................................................................25 Energy Balance Details and Uncertainties .........................................................................................25 Potential Improvements .......................................................................................................................27

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this report is to identify promising energy efficiency measures at IEUAs wastewater treatment plants, and quantify the range of potential reductions in process energy use for a proposal that IEUA is preparing for the Cal-LEEP program. The Cal-LEEP program offers incentives based on the value of avoided generation by electricity suppliers, taking into account local conditions and constraints (e.g. rapidly increasing power demands in the San Bernardino/Santa Ana area). This report is a step towards assessing the value, to the suppliers, of avoided energy use by IEUA. IEUA has made significant investments in digestors and cogeneration, and although evaluation of energy generation is part of a different IEUA effort, energy efficiency and cogeneration are both components of IEUAs ability to reduce demands on local electricity and N.Gas supply systems. To provide a more complete context for process related opportunities, this report estimates energy efficiency reductions and increases in cogeneration. Table ES-1 summarizes the potential savings from energy efficiency reductions and increased cogeneration at the plants reviewed. Efficiency improvements will save somewhat more than increased revenue from cogeneration. A very small surplus of biogas will be produced at RP-1, and a relatively large (1,150 MWhr/yr) surplus of electricity will be generated at RP-2. TABLE ES- 1 Energy Efficiency Savings and Increased Cogeneration Revenue (Annual Averages)
ELECTRICITY N.GAS EFFICIENCY COGENERATION COMBINED PURCHASE DISPLACEMENT PURCHASE REDUCTION INCREASE SAVINGS REDUCTION w/BIOGAS REDUCTION $/yr $/yr $/yr % therms/yr % $343,000 $256,000 $599,000 44% $285,000 100% $88,000 $348,000 $436,000 100% $112,000 88% $385,000 $385,000 35% $140,000 $140,000 21% $956,000 $604,000 $1,560,000 47% $397,000 51%
NOTES: N.Gas rate $0.75/therm Electricity rate: $125/MWhr RP-1: surplus 15,000 therms/yr sold at 50% average N.Gas rate RP-2: surplus 1,150 MWhr/yr sold at 50% average electricity rate.

RP-1 RP-2 RP-5 CCWRF TOTAL

Besides the significant savings potential shown in Table ES-1, the main conclusions and recommendations from this evaluation are: 1. The potential energy reductions are worth including in the Cal-LEEP proposal: a. 7,600 MWhr/yr from energy efficiency. IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY 2/27 DRAFT #6

b. 5,400 MWhr/yr and 521,000 therms/yr from increased cogeneration. 2. The largest opportunities for energy efficiency savings are: a. Process optimization for Activated Sludge at RP-1, RP-5, and CCWRF. b. Equalization at RP-1 and RP-5. c. Single train processing at RP-5. d. Increasing primary and secondary sludge concentrations at RP-5 and CCWRF. e. Improving primary sludge thickening at RP-1 and RP-2. 3. Maximizing revenue from the digestor/cogeneration systems will require: a. Anaerobic process optimization and improved controls. b. Balancing thermal demands and electrical output. c. Sequencing controls for the engines and boilers. 4. As soon as the Cal-LEEP incentive value is known, an economic life-cycle analysis should be performed, combining process improvements for liquid and sludge treatment, biogas utilization, and cogeneration operation. Such an analysis will define the feasibility of plantwide combinations of measures, and help determine implementation priorities for IEUAs participation in the Cal-LEEP program.

INTRODUCTION

This report is based on a 2-day visit to IEUAs wastewater treatment plants RP-1, RP-2, RP-5, and CCWRF, and a follow-up evaluation of monthly energy data. The objective is to identify promising energy efficiency measures and quantify the range of potential reductions in process energy use for a proposal that IEUA is preparing for the Cal-LEEP program. The Cal-LEEP program offers incentives based on the value of avoided generation by electricity suppliers, taking into account local conditions and constraints (e.g. peak power demands in the San Bernardino/Santa Ana area). This report is a step towards assessing the value, to the suppliers, of avoided energy use by IEUA and as such, does not include an estimate of implementation costs. Economic feasibility for IEUA will be evaluated as soon as the proposal is accepted by Cal-LEEP and incentives are known; in other words, estimating how much IEUA can implement cost-effectively with Cal-LEEP incentives. IEUA has made a significant investment in digestors and cogeneration with biogas and natural gas. RP-1 has one of the most advanced anaerobic digestor systems in the USA, and has pioneered co-processing with cow manure and food service wastes. Evaluation of energy generation is part of a different IEUA effort, and was not included in the scope of work for this energy efficiency report. However, energy efficiency and cogeneration are both components of IEUAs process-related ability to reduce demands on local electricity and N.Gas supply systems. To provide a more complete context for process related opportunities, this report estimates energy efficiency reductions and increases in cogeneration. The primary focus of the visit and evaluation was to identify process control and equipment improvements that could reduce energy costs, while improving (or at least maintaining) effluent quality and regulatory compliance. Particular attention was paid to the interaction between primary clarification, flow/load equalization, secondary process aeration and microbiological control, and disinfection. For sludge, the focus was on the interaction between primary and

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

3/27

DRAFT #6

secondary clarifier performance, Activated Sludge wasting, sludge thickening, and biogas utilization. The 2-day visit and review of monthly data allowed identification of promising opportunities based on experience at other plants, but was not enough to validate feasibility. Validation and detailed specification of projects will require the following steps: Review and analyze laboratory data. Review and analyze SCADA data. Measure and analyze electrical power demand by specific equipment. Quantify current performance profile and limitations. Identify feasible improvements, estimate operational savings and implementation costs. Besides individual projects, analyzing the combination of process improvements for liquid and sludge treatment, biogas utilization, and cogeneration operation will identify larger plant-wide improvements. The visit confirmed that nearly all of the required data for such combined analyses is readily available from IEUAs w/w plant SCADA systems, lab reports, and energy billings. An economic life-cycle analysis can be performed using this data and the value of the Cal-LEEP incentive to define the feasibility of plant-wide combinations, and to determine implementation priorities. As in most other w/w plants, staff is preoccupied with day-to-day operations and regulatory compliance, and does not have time to collect and develop the details needed to specify energy efficiency projects. The engineering support required to determine cost-effectiveness, develop project specifications, and prioritize implementation should therefore be included as the first step the Cal-LEEP project.

3 3.1

COMMON OPPORTUNITIES DO/SRT Optimization

All the IEUA treatment plants visited use an Activated Sludge biological nutrient removal process1 requiring relatively intense energy for aeration and internal recycling (Activated Sludge uses 30-40% of total plant electricity). Mitigating this energy demand, all plants already have high-efficiency blowers that are controlled by DO signals from the aeration basins. The plants have fine-bubble diffusers in deep aeration tanks that provide a basis for high oxygen transfer efficiency. The operators pay attention to diffuser maintenance and replacement projects are under way at RP-1 and planned for CCWRF. The plants also have motorized valves at the drop legs into each aeration zone, with controls that balance airflow and header pressure. Based on the installed aeration equipment, the main opportunity for significant energy savings is to optimize the biological process, and embed software optimization modules in the plant SCADA systems. Process optimization begins by establishing performance limits for carbonaceous load removal, nitrification/denitrification, and secondary settling. Considerable experimentation has occurred at plants, especially over the last two years, providing ample data from which to identify initial correlations and performance limits.
1

RP-4 is an advanced oxidation ditch and was not visited because a major upgrade was already underway.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

4/27

DRAFT #6

The key operational parameters that can be manipulated to optimize performance are: Microbiological mass (e.g. MLVSS, WAS, SRT) Recycle flows (RAS and internal). Air supply (mainly flowrate and DO, but also ammonia and nitrate). Software can be added to the plant SCADA systems, to continuously adjust process parameters to maintain optimal process conditions throughout the day as the load changes. Existing blower and air valve controls will be adapted2 and integrated into the embedded software to increase energy efficiency. The main parameters that are visibly tracked and controlled through the SCADA system are DO and SRT, thus the term DO/SRT optimization. Polymer dosing systems can be added to control Nocardia foam. The cost of the optimization controls system and additional polymer will be offset by energy savings. Based on experience in San Jose3 and Oxnard4, modeling results5, and estimates from basic engineering principles6, it is likely that aeration energy can be reduced 5-30% by DO/SRT optimization. In addition to the direct energy savings, optimizing the process will reduce ammonia and nitrite bleed-through into the disinfection system, which in turn will reduce dosages of chlorine and sulfur dioxide. Process optimization will also improve secondary settling which could have two indirect savings (a) less backwashing energy in effluent filters (pumping for mixed-media filters, and compressed air for continuous backwashing filters), and (b) less volumetric load on the DAF thickeners, allowing lower recycle flowrates and lower polymer dosages. 3.2 Ammonia Mass Load Equalization

Flow equalization is a common practice for w/w plants, but besides volume, ammonia loads/concentrations also vary throughout the day. Equalizing the ammonia load can contribute greatly to process stability and provide significant energy savings. Ammonia load equalization can also reduce peak aeration power demands exerted by high ammonia loads in the afternoon. Equalization basins, even for primary effluent, can turn septic in the high daytime temperatures in San Bernardino County. IEUAs good neighbor policy of avoiding odors has lead to the phasing out of equalization basins. Several odor prevention measures are possible and can be tested at RP-1: Automatic high-pressure cleaning at the end of each daily cycle (at dawn). Surface aerators. Dosing with oxidizing chemicals. IEUAs Direct Access status has no time-of-day rates, so the peak demand/energy savings possible from equalization are not currently relevant. On the other hand, peak demands are a critical factor in electricity supply, and will impact IEUAs rates and supply contracts in the near future. Besides peak reductions, equalization reduces overall energy use by stabilizing the treatment process.
2

An important adaptation is to convert valve controls from very small and unstable pressure differences directly to DO/airflow. 3 City of San Jose 1998 4 Ekster, 2005 5 Ekster 2004 6 Metcalf & Eddy 2001

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

5/27

DRAFT #6

Load equalization will probably have the largest impact at RP-1, especially when combined with DO/SRT optimization. It may potentially reduce peak energy demand by 10%-35% (Anon1998). It may also reduce overall aeration energy demand by 3% -15% by operating aeration panels at higher efficiency because of lower airflow rates. Equalizing nitrogen loads in the return stream from RP-2 could improve process and energy efficiency at RP-5. 3.3 Solids Handling and Biogas Utilization

IEUA has made a significant investment in digestors and cogeneration with biogas and natural gas. RP-1 has one of the most advanced anaerobic digestor systems in the USA, and has pioneered co-processing with cow manure and food service wastes. The evaluation of energy generation is part of a different IEUA effort, and was not included in the scope of work for this energy efficiency report. However, the review of solids handling operations inevitably drew attention to biogas utilization. The issue is whether measures to increase mass loading and reduce volumetric loading of the digestors can actually increase cogeneration output at RP-1 and RP-2. Currently, the most relevant limitations7 are (a) low quality biogas8 that cannot be used in the cogeneration engines, and (b) biogas utilization bottlenecks9 that trigger frequent flaring. To address these limitations, IEUA is already making critical piping modifications, installing additional sulfur scrubbers, and converting dewatering from belt-presses to centrifuges. After resolving the immediate problems of biogas utilization, anaerobic digestion process optimization and control improvements similar to those recommended for the Activated Sludge systems could help increase biogas production and utilization at RP-1 and RP-2. Software embedded in plant SCADA systems can automate feed control, mixing, and sludge transfers. The value of such optimization could be quantified through analysis of lab and SCADA data. IEUA staff already has exceptional process experience that can be used as a starting point for this work. Besides optimizing the anaerobic process, operation of the cogeneration system can also be optimized. This would include sizing and operation of engines, boilers, and storage10 to maximize economic returns. A very common example is balancing the need to heat the digestor in early morning hours when electricity demand is lowest, with the desire to maximize electricity generation during peak hours when thermal demand is lowest. The value of such optimization could be quantified through analysis of boiler and cogeneration operation data, and billings for N.Gas and electricity. For solids handling, the focus of the evaluation was on the following benefits: Improving primary settling to: reduce load on secondary treatment and aeration energy demand reduce primary sludge volume and pumping energy increase biogas production as more primary solids are fed to the digestors
7

Other limitations include air emissions, particularly from internal combustion engines, and the low sales rate for self-generated electricity (at least until net metering pricing is passed by the CPUC). 8 Mainly moisture and sulfur. 9 Bottlenecks include small diameter/high friction biogas piping, gas compressors, and dewatering equipment breakdowns (backing up biogas storage in the digestors). 10 For example, biogas storage in the digestor, high pressure storage of treated biogas, and steam accumulators.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

6/27

DRAFT #6

Improving secondary settling to: reduce RAS/WAS volume and pumping energy reduce loading on effluent filters and backwashing energy reduce disinfection chemical dosing (chlorination/dechlorination) increase biogas production as more secondary solids are fed to the digestors reduce DAF recycle pumping energy, if adjustable Improving sludge thickening reduces volumetric loading and increases residence time in the digestors to: increase biogas production reduce dewatering energy use and polymer dosing with residual volatile solids in the digested sludge. equalizing return streams from sludge thickening and dewatering to reduce shock/peak loading of solids and nitrogen.

Improvements in sludge handling can reduce 1-10% of pumping energy use, while indirectly helping to produce more gas and cogenerate a much larger amount of electricity. For example, improving gravity thickening at RP-2 might reduce electricity use for thickened sludge pumping by 10 MWhr/yr while increasing cogeneration by 90 MWhr/yr. But sludge handling is only part of a much larger opportunity to increase biogas utilization and optimize cogeneration output. The combined effect of optimization and advanced automation of sludge handling, anaerobic and cogeneration processes could reduce total plant electricity demand by 5-30%. 3.4 DAF Thickeners

Although DAF thickeners are relatively small energy users, and were not reviewed in detail during the visit, they are approaching capacity limits at some of the plants. Energy efficiency improvements, especially in the recycle loop, could defer the need to purchase additional (or replacement) units. The main opportunities for improvements are: Lower, continuous sludge feed flowrate (e.g. slower, more frequent WAS pumping with balance tank/sump). More efficient air entrainment, allowing much lower recycle flowrates. Automation of polymer dosage controls based on feed and/or thickened sludge solids concentration. Experience at other plants is that DAF energy use can be reduced by 10-50% with these improvements11.

4 4.1

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS AT EACH PLANT RP-1

RP-1 is the largest plant in the IEUA system, with a capacity of 44 MGD. The plant produces Title 22 reclaimed wastewater but is currently limited by its ability to remove nutrients12. The

11 12

Rosenblum 2004 The TIN (Total Inorganic Nitrogen, the sum of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia) limit for all IEUAs w/w plants allows IEUA to offset excess nitrogen discharges at RP-1 with an equivalent reduction from other plants.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

7/27

DRAFT #6

most promising opportunities are highlighted below, and Table 2 lists the details of all opportunities, benefits, and implementation steps. 4.1.1 Improve Utilization of Equalization Lagoon

The equalization basin is slated for phase-out to reduce odor complaints from the neighbors (the Police Department), so before any improvements in utilization can be considered, odor prevention measures listed in section 2.2 must be tested. Automatic high-pressure cleaning will remove a time consuming burden from the operators. Modifications to allow equalizing ammonia loading on the secondary treatment process could help stabilize the process, eliminate Nocardia foam, eliminate ammonia bleeds to the effluent, and reduce effluent TIN, especially when implemented along with DO/SRT optimization. Aeration energy savings and peak power reductions will follow the process improvements. 4.1.2 Balance Hydraulics of Secondary Clarifiers

The secondary clarifiers seem to be hydraulically imbalanced, and are not operating effectively. Correcting the hydraulic imbalance may also reduce the volume of secondary sludge, leading to energy and polymer savings at the DAF thickener. Better secondary clarification will also reduce the load on the final filters, reducing the frequency of backwashing and energy use by the backwash pumps. 4.1.3 Optimize Secondary Treatment Process

After correcting the secondary clarifier hydraulics, DO/SRT optimization will help stabilize the process, eliminate Nocardia foam, eliminate ammonia bleeds to the effluent, and reduce effluent TIN, especially when implemented along with load equalization. Plant operators have recently tested performance limits, and have experience changing several key operating characteristics; the accumulated data and experience should enable rapid DO/SRT optimization. Diffusers are being replaced in the basins, and most open valve controls already exist, along with high-efficiency Turblex blowers. Pumps, piping, isolation gates and baffles are already installed to allow internal recycling if needed as part of the process optimization. Given the current process imbalance, very large aeration energy savings and peak power reductions can be expected from the process improvements, along with significant chemical savings for disinfection. Up to 25% reduction from current aeration energy use is a reasonable estimate. 4.1.4 Increase Biogas Utilization Improving thickening to increase sludge concentration can reduce pumping costs by 10-20%. It will also reduce volumetric loading on the digestors and might increase biogas production by 15%. Substituting the additional biogas for N.Gas is worth far more than the reduction in electricity use by the sludge thickening pumps.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

8/27

DRAFT #6

The savings from improving sludge thickening are very small compared to the much larger potential savings from digestor improvements13 to increase biogas quantity and quality. The energy balance in Appendix A reveals that all N.Gas purchases for existing cogeneration and boilers could be eliminated, and there would be enough biogas to fuel the eight 30 KW microturbines if they are returned to service. A rough estimate from the energy balance indicates that N.Gas use could be reduced by 372,000 therms/yr, and electrical output could be increased by 2,000 MWhr/yr. 4.2 RP-2

RP-2 processes sludge from CCWRF and from RP-5, and returns effluent to the headworks of RP-5. Operations are impacted by the effectiveness of primary and secondary clarification in CCWRF and RP-5, and in turn, the effectiveness of sludge thickening and dewatering at RP-2 impacts RP-5. The most promising opportunities are highlighted below, and Table 2 lists the details of all opportunities, benefits, and implementation steps. 4.2.1 Improve Primary Sludge Gravity Thickener

The plant has already made improvements to prevent wash-outs, but additional automation to control the sludge blanket and sludge pumping could result in thicker sludge, which could help increase residence time in the digestors. Increasing sludge concentration can reduce pumping energy by 10-20%. Optimizing and automatically controlling sludge blanket depth in sludge gravity thickener could increase biogas production by at least 2-5%. In addition, automation at the gravity filter will improve odor control and reduce the operators workload. Since the existing cogeneration system is only 39% utilized for various operational reasons (see Appendix A), the additional biogas could either displace supplemental N.Gas or increase electrical output. Either way, increasing biogas production is worth far more than the reduction in electricity use for sludge pumping. Controlling and reducing primary sludge flowrates from RP-5 and from CCWRF, while increasing solids concentration could result in a significant improvement in thickener performance, even before automation. With reduced primary sludge influent flows, return supernatant pumping energy could also be reduced. As a very rough estimate, the combined effect of thickening improvements and measures at RP-5 and CCWRF could reduce thickened sludge and return pumping energy by 20-30%, and increase biogas production by 5-10%. 4.2.2 Improve DAF Feed

The primary operational issue is very large spikes in feed rate, from (a) scum pumping at RP-5 and CCWRF, (b) centrate/filtrate from dewatering. Both could be remedied with right-sized sumps and smaller pumps. Eliminating the spikes will allow implementation of automatic controls, resulting in energy and polymer savings. It may also be possible to operate only one of the two DAF units. Controlling and reducing WAS flowrates from RP-5 and CCWRF, while increasing solids concentration could result in continuous savings throughout the day for the DAF units at RP-2.
13

April 2005 Parsons report; June 2005 CH2MHill report.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

9/27

DRAFT #6

Increasing solids concentration would be one of the objectives of DO/SRT optimization at RP-5 and CCWRF. It is difficult to estimate energy savings from this measure, but a combination of this measure with other DAF optimization measures listed in section 3.4 can reduce energy use by DAF by as much as 50%. Return pumping of supernatant could probably be reduced by 20-30% with improvements at RP-5 and CCWRF. 4.2.3 Increase Biogas Utilization

During the plant visit biogas was being flared, which is apparently a frequent occurrence because of limitations on low-pressure storage, unreliable compressors for high-pressure fuel supply and storage14, and inoperable cogeneration engines (annual utilization is only 39%). Biogas quality is frequently too low for utilization in the cogeneration engines and boilers, and must be flared15. The plant has already converted from belt presses to centrifuges to reduce frequent dewatering stoppages. Improving sludge thickening and the other measures listed in section 3.3 and previous IEUA reports could increase biogas quantity and improve quality at RP-2. A rough estimate from the energy balance in Appendix A indicates that N.Gas use could be reduced by 149,000 therms/yr, and electrical output could be increased by 3,300 MWhr/yr. 4.3 RP-5

RP-5 is IEUAs most recently built w/w plant, and is currently operating far below its design capacity. IEUA is planning to construct a pipeline to divert influent away from overloaded RP-1 to under loaded RP-5. Until this happens, and maybe even after, there is a potential for large energy savings from operating only one of two secondary treatment trains. To allow operation with a single train, careful attention must be paid to (a) the solids and nitrogen load from RP-2, (b) equalization of primary effluent/secondary influent, and (c) secondary treatment process efficiency. Reducing flow and increasing solids concentrations of primary and secondary sludge from RP-5 will help improve operations, reduce energy use, and increase cogeneration at RP-2. The most promising opportunities are highlighted below, and Table 2 lists the details of all opportunities, benefits, and implementation steps. 4.3.1 Remove One Train of Secondary Treatment

Removing one of the Activated Sludge trains could reduce aeration and RAS pumping energy use by as much as 30%. Several measures need to be combined to assure the success of operating with a single train, in particular, load equalization, process optimization, and modification of the RAS pumps.

14

The cogeneration engines and boilers are supplied at 50 psig. The June 2005 CH2MHill report identifies the several causes and recommends solutions. 15 October 2004 Kema-Xenergy report; June 2005 CH2MHill report.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

10/27

DRAFT #6

4.3.1.1 Equalize Nitrogen Load and Flow Sludge thickening effluent from RP-2 is returned to RP-5. In the past, some of the return flow was also sent to CCWRF, but this was terminated to allow that plant to meet TIN limits. Equalizing this high and variable nitrogen load from RP-2 could make it possible to operate RP5 with a single Activated Sludge train. Modifications expected by 2007 to the inlet weir at CCWRF will allow a constant flow of 11.4 MGD16 through the plant, sending all excess flows to RP-5. Elimination of peak flows will help reduce energy use at CCWRF, but will make equalization even more important at RP-5. The emergency storage ponds at RP-5 could be utilized for daily equalization, if regulatory permission was granted, and if odor prevention measures are implemented as described in section 3.2. Although it does not seem that a large enough storage facility can be located at RP2, return flows from RP-2 and storage requirements at RP-5 could be reduced by (a) reducing primary and WAS flows from RP-5 and CCWRF, and (b) extending the dewatering schedule at RP-217. 4.3.1.2 Optimize Secondary Treatment Process DO/SRT optimization will help stabilize the process and prevent overloading a single train, especially when implemented along with load equalization. The plant already has highefficiency Turblex blowers and most open valve controls. Pumps, piping, isolation gates, and baffles are already installed to modify internal recycling if needed. 4.3.1.3 Modify RAS Pumps and Secondary Clarifier Sludge Blanket The existing RAS pumps are too large, and even when set at minimum motor speed they prevent formation of a sludge blanket in the secondary clarifiers. To operate with a single train, the pumps must be modified (e.g. smaller impellers) or replaced. Smaller pumps will also provide more flexibility for process optimization by allowing a broader range of operating speeds and flowrates. Operating with a sludge blanket and variable flowrate will enable higher solids concentration and lower flowrates which will (a) reduce RAS pumping energy use, (b) reduce energy use in WAS pumping to RP-2, and (c) help improve operations and energy use at RP-2. Given the over sizing of the RAS pumps, energy use might be reduced by as much as 50%. The WAS pumps are much smaller, and operate intermittently, so only a 10-20% reduction can be expected for WAS pumping energy. 4.3.1.4 Develop Control Algorithm for Sequencing Filter Operation The DynaSand effluent filters are designed for full capacity, but the discharge permit requires that all units be in operation. Title 22 reclamation requirements allows for more flexible operation as long as performance can be validated under all flow conditions. During the plant

16

Based on the permitted capacity of 2 out of 3 final filters, with storage on site or at RP-5 (CCWRF Title 22 Engineering Report, DDB Engineering, Inc. chapter 4). 17 Same return volume over a longer daily duration.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

11/27

DRAFT #6

visit, influent turbidity was 0.9 NTU and the effluent was barely lower, at 0.8 NTU, while the most stringent requirement in the permit is 2 NTU. Operating all the units means that all the air compressors are needed at full power. The reduction in air compressor energy is directly proportional to the number of units in operation, and less than half are likely to be needed after implementation of a control algorithm (including fail-safe provisions). A reasonable expectation is a 50-66% reduction in compressor energy. 4.4 Carbon Canyon Water Recycling Facility (CCWRF)

CCWRF sends primary sludge and WAS to RP-2 for processing. Reducing flow and increasing solids concentrations of primary and secondary sludge from CCWRF will help improve operations, reduce energy use, and increase cogeneration at RP-2. Since return flows from RP-2 end up at RP-5, this also implies that sludge improvements at CCWRF can indirectly help reduce energy use at RP-5. The inlet weir at CCWRF diverts currently diverts some raw influent to RP-5. Modifications anticipated by 2007 to this weir will allow a constant flow through the plant, sending all excess/peak flows to RP-5. Elimination of peak flows will help reduce energy use at CCWRF, but will make equalization even more important at RP-5. The most promising opportunities are highlighted below, and Table 2 lists the details of all opportunities, benefits, and implementation steps. 4.4.1 Improve Secondary Treatment Process

A combination of potential improvements could provide a wider margin of safety for effluent TIN while reducing energy use. The improvements include repairing diffuser leaks, balancing the air distribution system, replacing mismatched blowers, and optimizing the treatment process. Overall, the reduction in aeration energy use could be as high as 50%. 4.4.1.1 Repairing Diffuser Leaks and Balancing Air Distribution During the plant visit, several aeration zones were observed with unbalanced air distribution; a plant-wide replacement of diffusers is already being planned. This will certainly reduce aeration energy use, but the choice of diffusers, and their density, is mutually related to balancing the air distribution system. Air valves on almost all the drop legs into the aeration tanks were less than half open (i.e. partially closed) to help balance airflow distribution. This is probably causing a much higher than necessary back-pressure on the blowers, which significantly increases energy use. A careful review of process demands for air, diffuser performance, and distribution system curves (pressure vs. airflow) could lead to combinations that result in 3-20% reductions in energy use. 4.4.1.2 Replace Mismatched Blowers Although the lead blower is a high-efficiency Turblex blower, the other rotary-lobe blowers are needed to accommodate peaks. The mismatch in blower curves probably prevents optimal operation, and drives the combination towards higher than necessary airflows and outlet pressures. This is could be another major reason for the half-open drop-leg valves. The mismatch can also cause discontinuities in the airflow/pressure range, making it impossible to DRAFT #6

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

12/27

provide effective continuous control. A centrifugal blower operating in parallel to a positive displacement blower could be driven towards surge limits, causing frequent wasteful blow-off through safety valves. A careful review of process demands for air, system curves (pressure vs. airflow), and blower curves (pressure, power, efficiency vs. airflow) could identify a replacement blower to reduce energy use as much as 30%18. 4.4.1.3 Optimizing the Secondary Treatment Process DO/SRT optimization can proceed after replacing leaking diffusers, balancing airflow distribution, and matching the blowers. Another two issues need to be addressed before large energy reductions can be predicted. First is to ascertain how much beneficial, but uncontrolled denitrification is currently occurring in the deep sludge blanket in the secondary clarifiers. Second is to evaluate the need for internal recycling, and whether pumps, piping, isolation gates and baffles must be installed. Given the current diffuser leaks and airflow imbalance, at least a 20% reduction can be expected from current aeration energy use. 4.4.2 Reduce Number of Effluent Filters in Operation At CCWRF, the effluent filters currently limit permitted capacity19, and the plant is already considering adding more filters. On the other hand, adding more filters will increase air compressor energy use, which could be avoided by utilizing several methods to prevent overloading the filters, including 9 MG of on-site storage and the ability to divert flows to RP-5. Testing and verification of performance along with installation of fail-safe controls might be the basis for negotiating new permit conditions to increase filter loading. The reduction in air compressor energy is directly proportional to the number of units in operation, and most of the time, not all units are needed. A 10-30% reduction in compressor energy is a reasonable expectation.

5 5.1

RESULTS Baseline Usage

Table 1 and Fig.1 show current electricity use and self-generation output at IEUAs wastewater plants RP-1, RP-2, RP-4, RP-5, and CCWRF. There is a wide variation in unit electricity use between plants that can be attributed mainly to their different functions. Some of the main differences are: RP-1 is by far the largest plant, but does not meet all nitrogen removal requirements. RP-2 processes only sludge, from RP-5 and CCWRF. RP-4 oxidizes sludge in the aeration basins, and is being upgraded to improve performance.
18 19

Rosenblum 2004 and 2005 The filtration rate is restricted to no more than 2 gpm/ft2 with one filter out of service, so that the turbidity of the filtered wastewater does not exceed (a) an average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period, (b) 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period, and (c) 10 NTU at any time.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

13/27

DRAFT #6

RP-5 operates far below design capacity, does not treat sludge, but treats returns from RP-2. CCWRF is at capacity, but does not treat sludge.

Rather than focus on comparisons between plants, the purpose of this evaluation is to identify promising measures at each plant to reduce total electricity use. TABLE 1 Electricity Use and Self-Generation for 2003/2004
AVERAGE PURCHASED BIOGAS+N.GAS N.GAS TOTAL UNIT INFLUENT ELECTRICITY COGENERATION GENERATION ELECTRICITY ELEC.USE MGD MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/MG 34.0 10,800 15,300 26,100 2.10 2.8 2,910 2,070 4,980 4.87 4.6 3,850 3,130 6,980 4.16 5.6 8,750 8,750 4.28 9.8 5,430 3,780 9,210 2.57 57 31,800 17,400 6,910 56,000 2.69

RP-1 RP-2 RP-4 RP-5 CCWRF TOTAL

Table 2 shows biogas production and N.Gas purchases for each plant. The large difference in unit biogas production at RP-1 and RP-2 is mostly a reflection of the very advanced anaerobic process at RP-1, and operational/capacity problems at RP-2. As explained in Appendix A, the biogas and N.Gas values for RP-1 and RP-2 had to be modified from data in IEUA records to (a) match billing data, and (b) close energy balances around the digestor/cogeneration systems. The energy balance was performed to compare the promising electricity efficiency improvements with very large improvements to digestor/cogeneration systems identified in other reports. Table 3 shows the average and full connected power for the main component systems and processes at each plant. Energy reductions are calculated assuming (a) average power demand 8,760 hrs/yr, and (b) an estimated reduction for the most promising opportunities. The Balance of plant category was created to balance the total annual electricity use in Table 1 with the annual energy use calculated from the list of components. At RP-1 and RP-2 this category is insignificant, at RP-5 it is still relatively small compared to the total, and at CCWRF it is large and probably represents energy consumed by the effluent/reclamation pumps. Data was not analyzed for RP-4 since it is being upgraded and was not included in this evaluation.

FIGURE 1

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

14/27

DRAFT #6

ELECTRICITY PURCHASES AND SELF-GENERATION


30,000

COGENERATION (BIOGAS + N.GAS) GENERATION (N.GAS ONLY)


25,000

PURCHASED Electrical Energy MWhr/yr

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

RP-1

RP-2

RP-4

RP-5

CCWRF

TABLE 2 Biogas production and N.Gas Purchases for 2003/2004

RP-1 RP-2 RP-4 RP-5 CCWRF TOTAL

BIOGAS N.GAS UNIT SELF PRODUCTION PURCHASED BIOGAS GENERATION therms/yr therms/MG EFFICIENCY therms/yr 1,530,000 372,000 123 27% 174,000 169,000 31 21% 0 469,000 23% 0 0 0 472,000 27% 1,700,000 1,480,000 95 26%
NOTES: BIOGAS from energy balance in Appendix A N.GAS: from billing records UNIT BIOGAS : per unit raw influent (RP-5+CCWRF for RP-2) SELF GEN. EFF: electrical output divided by fuel input (biogas+N.Gas)

5.2

Energy Efficiency Improvements

Table B-1 in Appendix B provides all the details of feasible electrical efficiency measures, and the most promising are then summarized in Table 4.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

15/27

DRAFT #6

Table 5 provides the estimated range of reductions for the measures in Table 4. The largest opportunities for energy efficiency savings are: Process optimization for Activated Sludge at RP-1, RP-5, and CCWRF. Equalization at RP-1 and RP-5. Single train processing at RP-5. The combination of sludge-related measures for RP-2: Improving gravity thickening at RP-2. Improving DAF thickening at RP-2. Increasing primary and secondary sludge concentrations at RP-5 and CCWRF. Improving primary sludge thickening at RP-1. Fig.2 shows the range of reductions by measure, and clearly illustrates that DO/SRT optimization and control improvements will provide the largest potential for electricity reductions. The wide range indicates that after initial installation, there will be room for improvements once the operators have the tools to make continuous changes, and validate results. All the other measures should be seen as enabling and supporting process optimization without them there would be no basis for process changes. Fig.3 shows the efficiency improvements by plant, including N.Gas displacements at RP-1 and RP-2. RP-1 and RP-5 seem to have the largest potential for electricity reductions, but it must be remembered that these estimates are based on a two-day visit, and review of a limited set of monthly records for electricity and N.Gas use. It is very likely that careful analysis of the ample data available from plant SCADA systems and lab records will reveal much larger savings. Table 6 and Fig.4 show the combined effect of efficiency reductions (average) and cogeneration improvements at RP-1 and RP-2 (based on energy balances derived in Appendix A). Several evaluations have revealed that cogeneration improvements can be large, especially if the advanced anaerobic digestion process at RP-1 is implemented at RP-2. IEUA has already embarked on critical piping modifications and additional gas-conditioning improvements at both plants. Besides energy reduction, there are several efficiency measures that can help reduce peak power demand. In particular, improved utilization of equalization could potentially reduce peak power for secondary treatment by 10-30%. At RP-1 for example, this would be 150-450 KW. After efficiency improvements it is likely that the plants will have a much lower peak demand, especially after process optimization. Finally, using average annual rates for purchased electricity (12.5/KWhr) and N.Gas (75/therm), Table 7 shows potential savings for each plant.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

16/27

DRAFT #6

TABLE 3 Power Demand for the Main Plant Components


AVG CONNECTED POWER POWER KW KW 40 40 50 80 20 20 240 240 20 30 680 880 250 300 180 180 800 960 80 80 100 100 530 600 2,980 3,500 85% 100 180 260 50 10 1 600 160 280 260 90 20 2 800 75% 320 130 70 450 120 210 1300 77% 90 20 1 90 420 530 140 600 1890 56%

PLANT RP-1

SYSTEM Headworks Primary clarifiers Primary sludge pumps Equalization pumps Secondary clarifiers Aeration blowers RAS/WAS pumps DAFs Digesters/biogas Belt presses Balance of main plant Reclaim plant sub-total Load Factor Return pumps Digesters Centrifuge DAFs Gravity Thickener Balance of plant sub-total Load Factor Headworks Primary Clarifiers Secondary Clarifiers Aeration Basins Filters Balance of plant sub-total Load Factor Headworks/Clarifiers Primary sludge pumps Secondary Clarifiers RAS/WAS pumps Blowers AS basin mixers Filters Balance of plant sub-total Load Factor (not visited; upgrading) sub-total Load Factor TOTAL

RP-2

RP-5

250 100 50 350 90 160 1000

CCWRF

90 20 1 30 210 250 120 330 1050

RP-4

710

760 93% 8,250

6,340

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

17/27

DRAFT #6

TABLE 4 Most Promising Electrical Efficiency Measures


OPTIMIZATION MEASURE 1. Optimization and automation of dissolved oxygen and solids retention time control in the activated sludge system at all plants 2. Equalization of influent flow at RP-1 POTENTIAL REDUCTION 5%-30% of secondary treatment energy REFERENCES Ekster (2002), Ekster (2004), Ekster (2005), engineering principles (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)) OTHER BENEFITS Improvements of water quality and thickening operation, reduction of workload

10-30% reduction of peak flow, 3-15% reduction of aeration energy use from lower airflow during peak time and better air diffuser efficiency 3. Balance hydraulics of 1%-5% reduction of secondary clarifiers at RP-1 secondary treatment energy use 4. Dissolved air floatation 10%-35% of DAF energy unit optimization and automation at all plants

Mass balance calculations, Improvements of effluent air diffuser manufacturers water quality brochures, City of San Jose (1998).

Engineering principles (Metcalf & Eddy (2003))

Improvements of effluent water quality Reduction of chemical usage, reduction of workload Improvements in VSS destruction and dewatering

5. Optimization and automation of sludge blanket control in the gravity thickeners at RP-2.

6. Automate centrifuge operation at RP-2 7. Replace periodic feed of DAF with continuous feed at RP-2

8. Operate one activated sludge train instead of two at RP-5

9. Reduce RAS pump size at RP-5 10. Develop control algorithm for sequencing filter operation at RP-5 11. Equalization of dewatered return flow from RP-5

12. Repair diffuser leaks at Carbon Canyon 13. Optimize blower operation, or replace mismatched blowers at Carbon Canyon

IEUA experience, Rosenblum (2004), engineering principles (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)) Reduce thickened sludge Engineering principles (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)), pumping and return supernatant pumping by 20- and graph in Grady (1999) 30%. Increase methane production by 5-10% by increasing sludge feed concentration and digestor residence time Reduce energy used by Based on manufacturers centrifuge by 5%-20% data In combination with other IEUA experience, and measures, can reduce DAF calculations based on DAF recycle pumping energy by manufacturers data 25-50%, and reduce return supernatant pumping by 2030%. In combination with other IEUA experience, and measures, may further engineering principles decrease secondary (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)) treatment energy by 5%30% May reduce energy usage Engineering principles by RAS pumps by as much (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)) as 50% May reduce energy usage Engineering principles by filter compressors by as (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)), much as 60% and regulatory permission 10-30% reduction of peak Mass balance calculations, energy use, 3-15% air diffuser manufacturers brochures, City of San Jose reduction of aeration (1998) energy use from lower airflow during peak time and better air diffuser efficiency May reduce aeration energy Engineering principles use by 3-20% (Metcalf & Eddy (2003)) May reduce aeration energy Rosenblum (2004), by 5-25% engineering principles (Metcalf & Eddy (2003))

Reduction of chemical usage Reduction of chemicals used for thickening

Reduction of workload

Improvements in thickening and clarification Reduce workload

Improvements of effluent water quality

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

18/27

DRAFT #6

TABLE 5 Range of Electricity Reductions for Measures in Table 4


RP-1 RP-2 RP-5 CCWRF TOTAL ELECTRICAL MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG EFFICIENCY MEASURE MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr MWhr/yr 300 1,790 1,040 150 920 540 90 550 320 540 3,260 1,900 DO/SRT optimization 350 1,770 1,060 350 1,770 1,060 Equalization at RP-1 100 490 290 100 490 290 Secondary clarifier at RP-1 160 550 350 80 280 180 240 830 530 DAF recycle 100 140 120 100 140 120 Gravity thickener at RP-2 50 190 120 50 190 120 Centrifuge at RP-2 200 350 270 200 350 270 DAF feed at RP-2 390 2,370 1,380 390 2,370 1,380 Single AS train at RP-5 40 220 130 40 220 130 RAS pump at RP-5 160 470 320 160 470 320 Effluent filters at RP-5 240 1,180 710 110 530 320 350 1,710 1,030 Equalization at RP-5 60 370 210 60 370 210 Diffusers at CCWRF 90 460 280 90 460 280 Blowers at CCWRF TOTAL 910 4,600 2,740 430 960 690 980 5,160 3,080 350 1,910 1,130 2,670 12,630 7,640

FIGURE 2
RANGE OF ELECTRICITY REDUCTIONS BY CATEGORY
3,500

(FROM EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN TABLE 4)

TOTAL: 2,700 to 12,700 MWhr/yr


3,000

Reductions MWhr/yr

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
op tim Eq iz at ua io liz n Se at io co n nd at ar R y Pcl 1 ar ifi er at R P1 D G A ra F vi re ty cy th cl ic e ke ne ra tR C en P2 tr ifu ge at R D PA 2 F fe ed Si ng at le R PA 2 S tr ai n at R R A PS 5 pu m p Ef at flu R en Ptf 5 ilt er s at Eq R ua Pliz 5 at io n at D iff R Pus 5 er s at C C B W lo R w F er s at C C W R F

D O

/S R

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

19/27

DRAFT #6

FIGURE 3
RANGE OF ELECTRICITY REDUCTIONS BY PLANT
(FROM EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN TABLE 4)
6,000

N.Gas displacement: 45,900 therms/yr


5,000

5,160

4,600

Reduction MWh/yr

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,920 N.Gas displacement: 13,900 therms/yr 990

1,000

910 430
0

980 340

RP-1

RP-2

RP-5

CCWRF

TABLE 6 Combined Effect of Efficiency and Cogeneration Improvements (Annual Averages)


ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY COGENERATION PURCHASE REDUCTION INCREASE REDUCTION MWhr/yr MWhr/yr % 2,740 2,050 44% 700 3,360 100% 3,080 35% 1,120 21% 7,640 5,410 47%
NOTES: RP-1: 15,000 therms/yr (0.7%) more biogas than needed on-site. RP-2: 1,150 MWhr/yr (21%) more cogeneration output than needed on-site.

RP-1 RP-2 RP-5 CCWRF TOTAL

BIOGAS INCREASE therms/yr 642,000 407,000 1,049,000

N.GAS REDUCTION therms/yr 372,000 149,000 521,000

N.GAS PURCHASE REDUCTION % 100% 88% 51%

FIGURE 4

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

20/27

DRAFT #6

EFFICIENCY REDUCTIONS AND COGENERATION INCREASES


6,000

COGENERATION EFFICIENCY
5,000

Reduction MWhr/yr

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

RP-1

RP-2

RP-5

CCWRF

RP-1 RP-2 RP-5 CCWRF TOTAL

TABLE 7 Savings from Efficiency and Cogeneration Improvements (Annual Averages) ELECTRICITY N.GAS EFFICIENCY COGENERATION COMBINED DISPLACEMENT REDUCTION INCREASE SAVINGS w/BIOGAS $/yr $/yr $/yr therms/yr $343,000 $256,000 $599,000 $285,000 $88,000 $348,000 $436,000 $112,000 $385,000 $385,000 $140,000 $140,000 $956,000 $604,000 $1,560,000 $397,000
NOTES: N.Gas rate $0.75/therm Electricity rate: $125/MWhr RP-1: surplus 15,000 therms/yr sold at 50% average N.Gas rate RP-2: surplus 1,150 MWhr/yr sold at 50% average electricity rate.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

21/27

DRAFT #6

REFERENCES

City of San Jose (1998). Process Optimization and Copper removal at the 167 MGD San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, Final Report. Grady et al. (1999). Biological Wastewater Treatment. 2nd edition, Marcel Decker. Ekster, A. (2002). Finding the Right Balance. Water Environment and Technology, October 2002, pp.65-68. Ekster, A. (2004). Golden Age. Water Environment and Technology, June 2004, pp.62-64. Ekster, A. (2005). Reliable DO Control is Available. Water Environment and Technology, February 2005, pp.41-43. Rosenblum, J. (2004). Sanitary District #5 of Marin County, Tiburon Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Audit and Recommendations from Site Visit 8/20/2004. Rosenblum, J. (2005). Sanitary District #5 of Marin County, Tiburon Wastewater Treatment Plant Aeration Blower Energy Efficiency Improvements. Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, 4th edition, McGrawHill, New York, NY.

7 7.1

APPENDIX A: ENERGY BALANCE FOR DIGESTOR/COGENERATION RP-1 Introduction and Summary

7.1.1

It was not possible to close an energy balance directly from data available in RP-1 operating records and recent evaluation reports. After evaluating the causes of uncertainty in the data, adjustments were made to several parameters, to reach a 99% closure on the annual energy balance for 2003/2004. The original and adjusted values are shown in Table A-1, and explained in the following sections. A rough estimate indicates that 372,000 therms/yr of current N.Gas use could be displaced, and electrical output could increase by 2,050 MWhr/yr if the existing microturbines are returned to service. 7.1.2 Cogeneration Fuel and Output Balance

IEUA records for 2003/2004 show that 244,400,000 ft3/yr of biogas was used for cogeneration. Metering was volumetric, and based on a lab analysis showing a fuel value of 580 Btu/ft3, biogas energy input for cogeneration was 1,420,000 therms/yr. Not all the biogas produced in the digestors could be used for cogeneration, and was flared before metering for a variety of reasons described in section 3.3. Besides losses to flaring (for which improvements have been recommended1), volatile solids reduction in the digestors was low in 2003/20042, so there is a high potential for increasing biogas production and utilization3.

June 2005 CH2MHill.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

22/27

DRAFT #6

TABLE A-8 Energy Balance for RP-1 Digestor and Cogeneration System
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED DATA DATA COMMENTS 244,000,000 244,000,000 measured; no change 580 630 changed for compression 1,420,000 1,530,000 recalculated 28% 28% no change 34% 34% no change 40,000 40,000 billed; no change 900 1,000 changed for compression 49,500,000 49,500,000 measured; no change 60% 67% recalculated 540 670 recalculated 332,000 changed to match billing records (24%) 267,000 15,300 15,300 measured; no change 1.8 1.8 no change 97% 97% no change 2,200 2,700 recalculated 13,100 12,600 recalculated 272,000,000 244,000,000 recalculated 0 0 not in measured volume; no change 0 0 not used in boiler; no change 111% 100% adjustment target 627,000 633,000 recalculated 6.0% 5.9% recalculated

Biogas volume( ft3/yr) Biogas fuel value (Btu/ft3) Net on-site biogas use (therms/yr) Cogeneration fuel to electricity conversion Cogeneration fuel to heat recovery Supplementary N.Gas for boiler (therms/yr) N.Gas fuel value (Btu/ft3) Cogeneration air/N.Gas mixture volume (ft3/yr) N.Gas dilution in cogeneration air/N.GAS mixture Cogeneration air/N.Gas mixture fuel value (Btu/ft3) Cogeneration N.Gas usage (therms/yr) Cogeneration electrical output (MWhr/yr) Cogeneration electrical power (MW) Cogeneration utilization factor N.Gas cogeneration (MWhr/yr) Biogas cogeneration (MWhr/yr) Biogas required for cogeneration (ft3/yr) Biogas flared (ft3/yr) Biogas used in boiler (ft3/yr) Biogas closure Cogeneration exhaust heat recovery (therms/yr) N.Gas fraction of thermal utilization

IEUA records for 2003/2004 show that cogeneration electrical output was 15,280 MWhr/y, which is 97% of the maximum 15,770 MWhr/yr4 output. At an average fuel to electricity conversion efficiency of 28%5, biogas accounts for 11,740 MWhr/yr of cogen output. The remaining 3,540 MWhr/yr requires 426,800 therms/yr of supplemental N.Gas IEUA records for 2003/2004 show that only 267,000 therms/yr of supplemental N.Gas were used for cogeneration 37% less than estimated from cogeneration output and engine conversion efficiency. The plant records are based on volumetric metering of the N.Gas/air mixture fed to the cogeneration engines, which creates several sources of uncertainty: Volumetric measurements are heavily influenced by temperature and pressure, and to a lesser extent by humidity6, while fuel value is based on mass. Unless the meter measures temperature and pressure, and converts volumetric flow to standard conditions, fuel value will change throughout the day, by season, with supply pressure, and according to the type
April 2005 Parsons report. In the winter of 2003/2004 digestor #5 was not operating and volatile solids destruction in digestor #4 was low. 3 Table 2.10 of the April 2005 Parsons report shows that 450.3 million ft3/yr of biogas can be produced at an average 44 MGD influent flow, or 36,300 ft3/MG. Biogas production in 2003/2004 was only 19,700 ft3/MG, which implies a potential improvement of 42%. 4 To comply with air emissions limits, the total output of IC engines at RP-1 was derated from 2.6 MW to1.8 MW. 5 October 2004 Kema-Xenergy report lists the conversion efficiencies as 11,041 Btu/KWhr and 13,100 Btu/KWhr. 6 The largest difference in humidity is probably between the biogas and the N.Gas, and between seasons.
2

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

23/27

DRAFT #6

of fuel. Using a constant fuel value to calculate the therms of biogas and N.Gas could easily create the 37% difference. N.Gas is diluted to 60% with air before metering, to obtain a 540 Btu/ft3 fuel value (close to the 580 Btu/ft3 for biogas). Besides the influences on volumetric metering, the dilution ratio depends on ambient air conditions and compressor performance7. IEUA staff experience is that N.Gas is supplied with a fuel value of 900 Btu/ft3, which is significantly lower than claimed by SoCalGas (under standard conditions, the lower fuel value of methane is 950 Btu/ft38).

For 9 months where corresponding data was available in 2003/2004, billings from Coral/SoCalGas were for 25% more therms than recorded by the plant. There was no consistent pattern in the difference, except that billings were always larger, and there was a very large variability, ranging from 1% to 88%. The remaining 12% difference can be easily covered by variability in biogas fuel value (550-650 Btu/hr) and cogeneration conversion efficiency (2631%), which could increase biogas cogeneration output while reducing the need for supplemental N.Gas. 7.1.3 Boiler Fuel Use

According to the April 2005 Parsons report, biogas quality is currently not compatible with boiler requirements, and even if it were, not enough biogas was available in 2003/2004 for use in both the cogeneration system and the boiler. The quantity issue could be resolved by maintaining volatile solids reduction in the digestors above 60%9 (70% has already been sustained for long periods, but not in 2003/2004). Recommendations to resolve the quality issue have already been made for RP-1 (and RP-2)10. IEUAs billing records from Coral/SoCalGas differentiate between N.Gas purchases for cogeneration and for the boilers. From the 9 months of available records in 2003/2004, boiler use is estimated as 38,000-44,000 therms/yr. The April 2005 Parsons report describes the thermal balance in detail, and implies that N.Gas usage in the boilers was 59,000 therms/yr11. Given the uncertainties, the best estimate of N.Gas use in the boilers is 40,000 therms/yr. By comparison, exhaust heat recovery from cogeneration was estimated as 573,000-627,000 therms/yr12, which means that supplementary N.Gas provides only 6% of heat needed for the digestors. Even though biogas production could easily be increased 3% to displace the supplementary N.Gas, it might not meet quality requirements for use in the boiler. On the other hand, much larger increases in biogas production are expected3 and will displace much more N.Gas use in the cogeneration system.

For example, compressing the air/N.Gas mixture from 100F/5psig to 300F/50psig changes its fuel value from 680 Btu/ft3 to 1,650 Btu/ft3. 8 The lower fuel value accounts for heat needed to evaporate water generated by combustion; standard conditions are sea-level atmospheric pressure and 20C. 9 Assuming that only 1.8 MW will be generated from existing IC engines. 10 June 2005 CH2MHill. 11 Based on 4.7 MBtu/hr boiler fuel demand to supplement cogeneration exhaust heat, for 12 hrs/day, 105 days/yr. 12 Based on 28% fuel to electricity conversion, and 34% fuel input recovery in the exhaust. The low value was derived from IEUA record of biogas (1,420,000 therms/yr) and N.Gas (267,000 therms/yr) supplied to the cogen system. The high value was derived from IEUA record of cogeneration electrical output (15,280 MWhr/yr).

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

24/27

DRAFT #6

Since the existing IC engines are already operating 97% of the time, exhaust heat recovery cannot increase to completely displace the need for N.Gas in the boiler. Complete displacement would require increasing cogeneration by 975 MWhr/yr, which is just under the output of the eight inoperable 30 KW microturbines13. If biogas quality can be improved, the microturbines could be fueled by an 8% increase in biogas production, which is well within feasible expectations3. 7.1.4 Potential Improvements

The April 2005 Parsons report indicates digestor improvements could potentially increase biogas production to 347 million ft3/yr3. This would be a 42% increase from 244 million ft3/yr of usable biogas measured in 2003/2004. Applying the 42% increase to the energy balance in Table A-1 allows complete elimination of N.Gas use in the boiler and cogeneration system, even after returning the eight microturbines to service (assumes that biogas quality will be high enough to use in the boiler and microturbines). In total, 372,000 therms/yr of N.Gas use could be displaced14, and electrical output would increase by 2,050 MWhr/yr. There will also be a biogas surplus of 2.4 million ft3/yr (0.7% of the total), enough to generate 123 MWhr/yr of electricity. 7.2 7.2.1 RP-2 Introduction and Summary

It was not possible to close an energy balance directly from data available in RP-2 operating records for 2003/2004. Even after evaluating possible causes of uncertainty in the data, and making the adjustments applied to RP-1, too many discrepancies remain to make firm estimates of savings without active engagement of plant operators, especially for additional monitoring. Since the plant is still undergoing extensive modifications, requiring continuous attention from the operators, the best recommendation is to include the energy balance as the first step in the Cal-LEEP project. Even without a complete energy balance, it seems quite likely that electrical output could increase by 3,360 MWhr/yr, and that 149,000 therms/yr of N.Gas could be displaced. The original and adjusted values, with unverified assumptions required to close a very large discrepancy in N.Gas purchases for cogeneration, are shown in Table A-1, and explained in the following sections. 7.2.2 Energy Balance Details and Uncertainties

The primary cause of uncertainty in the energy balance for RP-2 is a very large and highly variable monthly difference between billings and IEUA operating records. For 8 months where corresponding data was available in 2003/2004, billings from Coral/SoCalGas were for 265% more therms than recorded by the plant. There was no consistent pattern in the difference,

13

Mostly because of electrical/mechanical failures and some damage from low quality biogas, according to the October 204 Kema-Xenergy report. 14 Accounting for 1% loss of biogas to flaring, and slightly more than 1% biogas use in the boilers when cogeneration is down for maintenance.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

25/27

DRAFT #6

except that billings were always larger, and there was a very large variability, ranging from 151% to 888%. TABLE A-2 Energy Balance and Discrepancies for RP-2 Digestor and Cogeneration System
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED DATA DATA COMMENTS 29,600,000 29,600,000 measured; no change 10,400,000 1,740,000 changed to balance on-site biogas use 0 8,640,000 changed to maintain total export (10,380,000 ft3/yr) 580 630 changed for compression 111,300 174,100 recalculated 28% 28% no change 34% 34% no change 9,100 86,100 billed for boiler + surplus cogen N.Gas 900 1,000 changed for compression 12,280,000 12,280,000 measured; no change 60% 67% recalculated 540 670 recalculated 66,300 82,500 recalculated 2,070 2,070 from records; no change 0.610 0.610 nameplate; no change 39% 39% no change 550 680 recalculated 1,520 1,390 recalculated 184,000 168,000 recalculated 31,700,000 26,800,000 recalculated 0 3,100 changed to balance on-site biogas use 0 500,000 assumed (1.2% of total biogas) 0 3,128 no change; ample N.Gas and exhaust heat 0 500,000 assumed (1.2% of total biogas) 85,100 85,100 no change 10% 49% no change 142% 100% adjustment target #1 66,300 140,500 recalculated (x2) 218,000 218,000 recalculated 30% 100% adjustment target #2

Biogas volume( ft3/yr) Biogas volume exported to Desalter (ft3/yr) air/N.Gas exported to Desalter (ft3/yr) Biogas fuel value (Btu/ft3) Net on-site biogas use (therms/yr) Cogeneration fuel to electricity conversion Cogeneration fuel to heat recovery Supplementary N.Gas for boiler (therms/yr) N.Gas fuel value (Btu/ft3) Cogeneration air/N.Gas mixture volume (ft3/yr) N.Gas dilution in cogeneration air/N.GAS mixture Cogeneration air/N.Gas mixture fuel value (Btu/ft3) Cogeneration N.Gas usage (therms/yr) Cogeneration electrical output (MWhr/yr) Cogeneration electrical power (MW) Cogeneration utilization factor N.Gas cogeneration (MWhr/yr) Biogas cogeneration (MWhr/yr) Biogas required for cogeneration (therms/yr) Biogas required for cogeneration (ft3/yr) Biogas flared (therms/yr) Biogas flared (ft3/yr) Biogas used in boiler (therms/yr) Biogas used in boiler (ft3/yr) Cogeneration exhaust heat recovery (therms/yr) N.Gas fraction of thermal utilization Biogas closure Accounted air/N.Gas (therms/yr) Purchased cogeneration N.Gas (therms/yr) Cogeneration N.Gas closure (surplus to boiler)

As shown in Table A-2, it is possible to close the energy balance by making several very likely, but unverified, assumptions: Biogas and N.Gas fuel values are increased to the same values applied in RP-1. Most of the 10,400,000 ft3/yr of fuel exported to the Desalter is actually air/N.Gas mixture diverted away from RP-2 cogeneration15. This assumption is based on the observation that cogeneration utilization is only 39%, indicating problems that could easily account for unplanned diversions, especially since the 58,000 therms/yr export represents only 14% of the un-utilized cogeneration capacity16. The 77,100 therms/yr (35%) surplus N.Gas purchased for cogeneration is used in the boiler. This assumption is based on a comparison with RP-1 where thermal demand is 54 therms
15

The total export to the Desalter could generate 800 MWhr/yr, representing 5% of the output from the 1.8 MW at the Desalter. 16 The 58,000 therms/yr of exported N.Gas could generate 480 MWhr/yr. This is 14% of the 3,260 MWhr (61%) of un-utilized cogeneration output.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

26/27

DRAFT #6

per million gallons of influent while only 17 therms/MG is available at RP-2 from N.Gas billed for the boiler, exhaust heat recovery, and biogas applied to the boiler. Adding the surplus cogeneration N.Gas raises available heat to 31 therms/MG. Flaring accounts for 500,000 ft3/yr (1.2%) of biogas (the maximum feasible while still balancing measured biogas production is 2,740,000 ft3/yr). This assumption can combined with assumptions about biogas use in the boiler, for a net on-site demand. Boiler use accounts for 500,000 ft3/yr (1.2%) of biogas. If this assumption is incorrect, biogas usage in the boiler and flare can be combined into a net on-site demand (up to a maximum feasible volume of 2,740,000 ft3/yr).

Other factors that can improve the balance are inclusion of data from all N.Gas and biogas meters at the plant, and a clear understanding of the impact of plant modifications (including start-up of RP-5) during 2003/2004. 7.2.3 Potential Improvements

Estimating potential improvements requires a comparison of biogas production between RP-1 and RP-2. The comparison must be based on the combined influent to RP-5 and CCWRF, since RP-2 treats sludge from both plants. Current unit biogas production at RP-1 is 19,700 ft3/MG, but only 5,260 ft3/MG at RP-2. This difference is mostly a reflection of the very advanced anaerobic process at RP-117, and operational/capacity problems at RP-218. Considering that biogas production is expected to increase 42% at RP-13, and that recommendations have been made to overcome the operational problems at RP-2, it would be reasonable to expect that biogas production could be increased 2-3 times without new digestors, and 3-5 times with additional digestors. The upgrade assessment for RP-2 projects that biogas production will increase 3.2 times19. Applying the 3.2 fold increase to the energy balance in Table A-2 allows complete elimination of N.Gas use in the boiler, and a slight reduction of N.Gas use in the cogeneration system, even after increasing utilization to 97% and returning the second 30 KW microturbine to service (assumes that biogas quality will be high enough to use in the boiler and microturbines). The energy balance indicates that there is not enough biogas to export to the Desalter under the new conditions. The 58,000 therms/yr of air/N.Gas exported in the current energy balance are also eliminated (if needed, they should be included in the energy balance for the Desalter). The new balance also includes 1% loss of biogas to flaring, and slightly more than 1% biogas use in the boilers when cogeneration is down for maintenance. In total, cogeneration output can be increased by 3,360 MWhr/yr and 149,000 therms/yr of N.Gas purchases can be displaced.

17 18

April 2005 Parsons report. June 2005 CH2MHill report. 19 Table PS-4 in the June 2005 CH2MHill report.

IEUA W/W PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

27/27

DRAFT #6