monitoring the performance of anaerobic ponds in …churchill abattoir: background process from 2500...
TRANSCRIPT
Monitoring the Performance
of Anaerobic Ponds in the
Treatment of Abattoir
Wastewater
Dr Bernadette McCabe
National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, USQ
MINTRAC QLD Environment Network Meeting
14th March, 2012
Presentation Outline
Anaerobic Ponds
Design principals and operation
Churchill Abattoir background
Historical wastewater treatment
Upgrade to covered anaerobic ponds
Overview of monitoring program
Anaerobic Ponds
Used as a secondary treatment of abattoir
wastewater
High BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) and
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) removal
efficiency ~90%
Low operational costs
ISSUES
Odour emissions
Biogas contains high % CH4
Anaerobic Process
Anaerobic Pond Design
Almost always uses historical organic
loading approaches
Design pond area, A (Ha)
Where Si = influent BOD (mg/L)
Qav= average influent (ML/d)
LBOD=historical BOD loading (kgBOD/ha.day)
Churchill Abattoir: Background
Process from 2500 - 2700 cattle per week
Churchill Abattoir kill cattle for on-site processors
who bone out and value add the beef.
Water usage is about 200 ML per year with nearly the
same volume of recycled water used to wash cattle.
Primary solids separation system removes paunch
from the waste stream. Paunch solids are about 90
cu m per week.
Secondary treatment consists of several anaerobic
lagoons and a 120 x 80 x 2 m aerobic lagoon.
Irrigate crops as the final wastewater disposal
method.
Pond Layout at Churchill Abattoir
Source: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=27.646008,152.739127&z=18&t=h&nmd=20100605
Captured: June 2010
Inflow 1Inflow 2
Breather
I/O
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
I/OI/O
A
C D E
B
10
Scale: approx.
20
30
40
50 100
ShallowSettlementDrains
Valve
ValveValveValve
ValveValve
ValveValve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Reci
rcula
ting R
ubble
Dra
in
Valve
Cover construction and installation
Project Background
Lack of information on how to design
and cover ponds
Lack of historical data
Necessary to determine design criteria
Monitoring CA ponds can be potentially
used to establish optimal design and
operating principles
Anaerobic
pond research
Introduce what you do and why you
needed to implement specific L & T
approaches e.g. are you addressing a
certain need or problem?
Cross reference evidence
to terms/concepts
introduced in ‘why ‘ and
‘how’ sections to help
flow and tighten focus
Format/frame
around
• Well organised
• Consistent
• Clear
Performance
Decomposition
process Biogas production
2. Quality and quantity 1. Water quality
Sludge studies
Project outline Project overview
1. Monitoring Water quality
Pond study: monitoring key
parameters such as
Daily flow
Climate and temp
Inflow and outflow effluent
characteristics
Pond Effluent Start End Parameters
A Inflow & outflow 17/06/2011 26/10/2011
TSS, alkalinity, NH3-N, TKN,
FOG, COD, BOD, VA. pH, EC,
ORP, temperature
B Inflow & Outflow 17/06/2011 26/10/2011
E Outflow 10/08/2011 26/10/2011
Inflow 1Inflow 2
Breather
I/O
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
I/OI/O
A
C D E
B
10
Scale: approx.
20
30
40
50 100
ShallowSettlementDrains
Valve
ValveValveValve
ValveValve
ValveValve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Reci
rcula
ting R
ubble
Dra
in
Valve
Comparison with typical abattoir raw
waste water
Parameter
mg/L
Typical
abattoir raw
waste
water1 (all
meats)
Churchill Abattoir (Beef)
5 month intensive
monitoring
average1
2000-2010
Average
BOD
COD
FOG
TSS
Total N
NH4-N
Total P
VFA
Alkalinity
1600-3000
4200-8500
100-200
1300-3400
114-148
65-87
20-30
175-400
350-800
3338
7247
555
3113
455
161
-
496
1370
2799
-
1242
2473
499
-
79
-
-
Removal efficiencies of the 5-pond
system
Pond A
(uncovered)
Pond B
(covered)
Pond E
(uncovered)
Parameter Units
Inflow Outflow %
Redn
Inflow Outflow %
Redn
Outflow % Redn
Daily flow m3/d 646.13 - - 875.56 - - 1521.69 -
HRT Days 3.44 - - 2.79 - - 1.45 -
Temperature °C 31.82 28.1 - 27.51 25.85 - 24.78 -
pH pH units 7.44 7.21 - 7.37 7.24 - 6.94 -
ORP mV 2.38 -198.91 - 11.66 -98.85 - -206.78 -
EC µS 3056.38 4068.45 - 3472.64 3969.91 - 4192.30 -
COD mg/L 7442 2885.30 61.23 7051.48 2696.30 61.76 1155.20 83.62
COD loading kg
COD/m3/d
2.23 - - 2.69 - - 0.80 -
BOD mg/d 3402 1318.39 61.25 3273.04 852.26 73.96 188.80 94.23
BOD loading kg
BOD/m3/d
1.02 - - 1.53 - - 0.61 -
TSS mg/L 3235 1496 53.76 2990.63 1196.15 60.00 704.10 76.46
Alkalinity mg/L NR* 1379.09 - NR* 1360.74 - 1435.90 -
NH3-N mg/L 142.12 275.61 - 164.16 274.24 - 320.20 -
TKN mg/L 450.12 387.83 - 459.52 375.96 - 364.10 -
FOG mg/L 491.87 111.30 77.37 618.74 95.85 84.51 29.40 95.25
VFA (as
acetic acid)
mg/L NR* 515.14 - NR* 476.74 - 128.10 -
Changes in BOD, COD, TSS and FOG loads in
the influent and effluent of uncovered pond A
Changes in BOD, COD, TSS and FOG loads in
the influent and effluent of covered pond B
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul2011
Jul2011
Jul2011
Aug2011
Aug2011
Aug2011
Aug2011
Aug2011
Sep2011
Sep2011
Sep2011
Sep2011
Oct2011
Oct2011
Oct2011
Oct2011
Ave
reag
e f
low
rat
e (
m3 /
h)
Date
Pond B flow rates and temperature
Flow rate Influent temperature Effluent temperature
Tem
pe
ratu
re (
°C)
Organic loading rates of ponds A and B
based on pond volume
Pond A (uncovered) Pond B (covered)
Month Flow rate
(KL/d)
HRT (d) OLR
(kgCOD/
m3/d)
Flow rate
(KL/d)
HRT (d) OLR
(kgCOD/
m3/d)
July 640.65 3.47 1.99 877.66 2.86 2.64
August 640.65 3.47 1.98 913.13 2.46 3.60
September 684.48 3.28 2.64 813.60 2.81 2.67
October 640.65 3.47 2.49 877.66 2.86 3.51
2. Biogas quality
Measure biogas quantity and quality from the covered ponds
operating at above minimum performance: CH4, CO2, H2S, &
NH3-N
Assess the potential use of biogas as bioenergy fuel
Average organic
loading rate
(kgCOD/m3/day)
O2(%)
CO2(%)
CH4(%)
H2S (ppm)
2.69 6.15 25.92 62.07 925.45
Average onsite biogas composition from covered pond B
Biogas composition from Covered Pond B
Current status of ponds
Source: http://www.nearmap.com/[email protected],152.738038&ll=-27.644987,152.738038&z=18&t=h&nmd=20110723
Captured: July 2011
Plant initiative – installation of DAF to
remove FOGs
Important to get this component in place
prior to covered pond design
Dissolved air floatation system
Removes oil and grease and suspended
solids
Will improve final effluent quality
Reduces likelihood of damage to cover of
covered anaerobic pond
Reduces the need for desludging
Current monitoring : Pre DAF vs. Post
DAF installation
Monitoring data of waste water without
DAF treatment has provided baseline
data
C/f this data against DAF treated waste
water can be used to assess the
efficiency of the system in breaking
down organic matter and generating
methane when FOGs are removed
Acknowledgements
Financial support from Meat and Livestock
Australia (MLA) and Australian Meat
Processor Corporation (AMPC)
Mike Spence, Company Engineer CA
NCEA Project team members: Pam
Pittaway, Talal Yusaf, Craig Baillie & Peter
Harris
Input from other NCEA staff: Steve Rees,
Rick Cameron, Victor Skowronski and Phil
Szabo