1.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Aerobic heterotrophic bacteria play a dominant role in the global carbon cycle by returning CO2 to the atmosphere via decomposition of the organic fixed carbon in plant and animal remains and excretory products, industrial, municipal and agricultural wastes etc. Where oxygen is absent and anaerobic conditions prevail, anaerobic bacteria carry out an alternative degradation process, resulting in the generation of methane (CH4) and CO2, rather than CO2 and H2O, as end-products of anaerobic decomposition. The generation of methane by anaerobic decomposition disturbs the operation of the global carbon cycle since methane, once released to the atmosphere, cannot be reutilised by photosynthetic carbon fixation. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas and its increasing concentration in the atmosphere is a significant contributor to global warming. Anaerobic decomposition processes can, however, be beneficially harnessed for the treatment of point sources of agricultural, municipal and industrial organic wastes. The methane produced represents a renewable source of energy that can be utilised for electricity generation, space heating, steam generation for industry, as a vehicle fuel etc. The process whereby anaerobic bacteria are utilised for organic waste and wastewater treatment and renewable energy generation is referred to as anaerobic digestion. 1.1 The Anaerobic Digestion Process Anaerobic digestion (AD) refers to the microbiological conversion of organic matter to biogas in the absence of oxygen or other alternative inorganic electron acceptors (sulphate, nitrate, etc.). Biogas consists of a mixture of methane (60-80%), CO2 (2040%) and trace amounts of H2S, NH3, N2 and volatile organic compounds. As produced, biogas is also saturated with water vapour. The conversion of diverse organic compounds to biogas is mediated by a consortium of different bacterial trophic groups, acting in a sequential and highly co-operative manner (Fig. 1.1). The microbiology and biochemistry of this complex process is now well understood (Colleran, 1992; Ferry, 1993; Stams, 1994) and will not be reviewed further in this report. Approximately 70-80% of the chemical energy of the waste organic substrates is conserved in the methane (CH4) product. Since anaerobic processes support low levels of biological growth, the biomass produced (0.05-0.15 kg microbial volatile solids (VSS) per kg COD removed) is approximately one-third to one-twentieth of the waste microbial biomass produced during aerobic treatment (van Handel & Lettinga, 1994). Consequently, AD technology can be viewed as an energy recycling process that produces a usable fuel (CH4), while generating low quantities of waste biomass needing subsequent, safe and often costly disposal. Because of the low energy gain to the participant microbial groups, anaerobic digestion takes place at slow rates under ambient temperatures in cold and temperate environments. Consequently, AD reactors are generally heated to either mesophilic (20-40C) or thermophilic (5060C) temperatures.

ACETATE

4a 5

COMPLEX ORGANIC MOLECULES

FERMENTATION INTERMEDIATES

CH4 , CO 2

5 4b
H /CO
2 2

Figure 1.1 Carbon flow in anaerobic digesters: 1 = hydrolytic/fermentative bacteria; 2 = obligate hydrogen producing bacteria; 3 = homoacetogenic bacteria; 4a = acetoclastic methanogens; 4b = hydrogenophilic methanogens; 5 = fatty acid synthesising bacteria. 1.2 Historical application of AD for waste and wastewater treatment

1.2.1 Urban wastewater sludges Anaerobic digestion was first applied at full-scale in the late 1890s for the treatment of domestic wastewater from the city of Exeter in the UK, with the produced biogas being used for street lighting and heating of the treatment works (cited by Callander & Barford, 1983). From the 1920s onwards, AD was widely applied in sewage treatment works for the treatment and stabilisation of sewage sludge (McCarty, 1982). Early digester designs consisted of large, unheated and unmixed tank systems within which solids settlement and floating scum layer formation posed operational problems (Fig. 1.2). By the mid 1950s, heating and mixing of the digester contents had considerably improved the efficiency of the process (Fig. 1.2) and the inclusion of heated, high-rate digesters in large sewage treatment works became the norm in most industrialised countries. The majority of sewage sludge digesters are operated at mesophilic temperatures (25C - 37C) with sewage sludge retention times within the digesters of c. 20-25 days and biogas productivities of c. 0.5 - 1 m3 per m3 digester volume per day. In some countries, thermophilic digestion (52 - 55C) has been favoured in order to reduce sludge retention times and the digester volume required, improve volumetric biogas productivities, and increase pathogen kill. The first sewage sludge digester in Ireland was commissioned at the Tullamore sewage treatment works in 1986 (Killilea et al., 1999). As a result of the implementation of the EU Urban Wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC), four more sewage treatment works have recently installed sewage sludge digesters (Buncrana, Greystones, Clonmel and Tralee); digesters are currently being commissioned or started up at three further sewage treatment works (Dundalk, Drogheda and Roscrea), and the feasibility of including sewage sludge digestion in a number of other existing
5

or new sewage treatment plants is under consideration (Killilea et al., 1999). Plate 1 depicts the digesters installed at Clonmel sewage treatment works. Both digesters (800 m3 each) are operated at mesophilic temperatures (30-38C). The first was commissioned in 1998 and the second a year later. All sewage sludge digesters installed or proposed in Ireland are mesophilic.

BIOGAS

BIOGAS

SCUM SUPERNATANT

ACTIVE ZONE SLUDGE

(A)
BIOGAS

(B)

SLUDGE RECYCLE

(C)

Figure 1.2 Early anaerobic digester designs: (a) unheated, unmixed sewage digester; (b) conventional heated and mixed digester (continuously stirred tank reactors CSTRs); (c) anaerobic contact process.

Plate 1 The two mesophilic sewage sludge digesters at Clonmel sewage treatment works 1.2.2 Agricultural wastes The installation of anaerobic digesters for cattle, pig and poultry manure/slurry treatment at individual farm level dates from the early 1970s. The majority of early on-farm digesters resembled sewage sludge digesters (although at a smaller scale) and were heated, mixed and either intermittently or continuously fed (Fig. 1.2b). Manure retention times varied from 10-30 days with biogas productivities of a maximum of 1 m3 biogas per m3 reactor per day (Colleran, 1992). Plug-flow digesters were also utilised, particularly in Switzerland and Germany (Demuynck et al., 1984). Although a number of pilot trials were carried out, only one full-scale digester was installed in the 1980s in Ireland at farm level (Bandon, Co. Cork). The availability of financial incentives in other EU countries resulted in significant installation of on-farm AD plants in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A 1982 survey within the EU and Switzerland identified a total of 378 full-scale and 42 pilot-scale on-farm plants, of which 144 were treating pig slurry and 134 either dairy or beef cattle manure (Demuynck et al., 1984). In recent years, interest in application of AD technology at farm level has increased in Ireland. Currently, three new on-farm plants have been constructed and a number of others are at the planning stage (Section 3.12.2). 1.2.3 Industrial wastewaters The application of anaerobic digestion to the treatment of industrial wastewaters required the development of different reactor designs which would facilitate shorter retention times, reduction in digester volume, higher loading rates and increased volumetric biogas productivities. This was achieved by maintaining the degradative microbial population within the digester independent of the wastewater flow (Colleran, 1992). In the 1950s, the anaerobic contact process (Fig. 1.2) was developed. This design mimicked the aerobic activated sludge system by settlement of microbial biomass from the digester effluent and its return to the digester to maintain high reactor biomass concentrations. The anaerobic contact process allowed reduction of the wastewater retention time to 6-10 days. Subsequently, digester designs based on biomass retention as a biofilm on inert support materials arranged in
7

random or modular configuration within the digester were developed (Fig. 1.3). Expanded-bed and fluidized bed reactor designs were also developed whereby sand or granular activated carbon particles acted as the support material for biofilm formation and retention (Fig. 1.3). An alternative series of high-rate digester designs were based on the natural tendency of the anaerobic consortium to form dense granules which could be retained for long periods within the digester by the utilisation of efficient gas/solids/liquid separation devices (i.e. the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed digester (UASB))(Fig. 1.3). The retention of high concentrations of active anaerobic biomass in these new digester designs allowed reduction of the wastewater retention time to 1-2 days and, in some cases, to less than 10 hours, resulting in greatly decreased digester volume requirements, lower initial capital costs and increased volumetric biogas productivities of up to more than 30 m3 biogas per m3 reactor per day (Lettinga, 1995). More recent modifications, involving effluent recirculation, higher upflow velocity flow-rates and compartmentalisation within the reactor have resulted in new reactor designs, such as the Internal Circulation (IC) reactor, that allow even higher loading rates and biogas productivities (Habets et al., 1997). Anaerobic digestion of high-strength industrial wastewaters is usually followed by an aerobic polishing stage prior to discharge to receiving waterbodies. This is achieved by installation, on site, of an appropriately sized aerobic activated sludge plant or discharge of the AD effluent to sewer for treatment in an off-site aerobic municipal sewage treatment plant. A 1996 survey (Habets, 1996) of the industrial application of AD worldwide identified a total of 914 full-scale operational plants. As illustrated in Figure 1.4, the majority of these plants were located in Europe (38%) and Asia (36%). Of the plants surveyed, 67% were of the UASB design. Food processing (38%), brewery (25%) and distillery (15%) wastewaters represented 78% of the industrial effluents treated by anaerobic digestion (Fig. 1.5). Four industrial plants in Ireland have installed anaerobic digesters as the first stage of their wastewater treatment processes. Kerry Ingredients (Listowel, Co. Kerry) commissioned a 3,200 m3 downflow, fixed bed digester in the late 1980s for initial treatment of its milk-processing wastewater on a seasonal basis (February to October). The AD plant consistently achieves >75% COD removal efficiency and has recently (1998) been subjected to a comprehensive overhaul and refitting. ADMRingaskiddy (Co. Cork) initially installed a 7,400 m3 upflow, fixed bed digester for treatment of its citric acid production wastewater. An IC reactor was commissioned in early 1999 in order to cater for increased wastewater volumes. Carbery Milk Products (Ballineen, Co. Cork) has also utilised AD for treatment of its industrial ethanol production wastewater since the late 1980s. The reactor design initially installed was converted to a hybrid reactor in the early 1990s. More recently, two IC reactors have been commissioned. The first of these commenced operation in early 1999 and the second has since been commissioned. Plate 2 depicts one of the IC reactors at Carbery Milk Products. The anaerobic digestion system located at the Irish Sugar Plant in Carlow has been operational for the past three years. It consists of a two-phase hydrolysis/acidification CSTR followed by a methanogenic CSTR. At peak capacity, it treats 3,840m3 of wastewater per day, resulting in the generation of c. 20,000m3 of biogas (70% CH4) per day.
8

BIOGAS

BIOGAS

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

INFLUENT

(A)

(B)

INFLUENT

EFFLUENT

EFFLUENT

BIOGAS

BIOGAS

EFFLUENT

EFFLUENT

(C)

BIOGAS

(D)
EFFLUENT

INFLUENT

INFLUENT

(E)

INFLUENT

Figure 1.3 Digester designs based on biomass retention: (a) anaerobic filter/fixed bed reactor; (b) downflow stationary fixed-film reactor; (c) expanded bed/fluidised bed reactor; (d) upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; (e) hybrid sludge bed/fixed bed reactor.

Asia 36% Europe 38%

Africa 2% South America 10%

Australia 1%

North America 13%

Figure 1.4 Distribution of full-scale industrial anaerobic digesters worldwide (Habets, 1996).

Brewery 25% Food 38%

Chemical 6%

Various 7% Pulp & Paper 9% Distillery 15%

(100% = 914 plants until June '96)

Figure 1.5 Sectoral distribution of full-scale industrial anaerobic digesters worldwide (Habets, 1996).

10

Plate 2 One of the two IC reactors installed at Carbery Milk Products (Ballineen, Co. Cork) 1.2.4 The organic fraction of municipal solid waste In many countries, there is an increasing obligatory requirement to recycle/re-use MSW constituents and to reduce dependency on landfill disposal. Source separation of MSW at household level or in a centralised municipal recycling facility (MRF) allows separate treatment of the organic (putrescible) fraction of MSW (OFMSW). A variety of digester designs have been developed specifically for OFMSW digestion in recent years and their installation at full-scale was highlighted in a survey of 23 industrialised countries carried out in 1994 by the International Energy Agency (IEA, 1994). A total of 38 full-scale plants were investigated, with 11 of these at the commissioning or start-up stage. The digester designs utilised range from novel high solids (20-30% VSS) thermophilic reactors to two-stage systems involving high solids acidogenesis in the first reactor, followed by high rate UASB digestion of the acid leachate in the second reactor. Addition of water to the macerated OFMSW fraction in order to allow digestion in continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) is also practiced at full-scale in many countries.

Utilisation of anaerobic digesters in existing Sewage Treatment Works (S.T.W.s) for co-digestion of OFMSW is currently being practiced in many countries. For example, the source-separated fraction of MSW in the Grinsted region of Denmark is delivered to the city STW where it is co-digested with primary and secondary sewage sludge in a 2,800m3 mesophilic anaerobic digester located on site. The biogas produced is used in a CHP plant and the digestate is separated into a solids fraction which is composted and a liquid fraction which is recirculated back to the plant influent point and treated prior to discharge. An aerial view of the Grinsted S.T.W. is illustrated in Plate 3.
11

Plate 3: Aerial view of Grinsted Kommune Sewage Treatment Works

1.3 Application of Centralised Anaerobic Digestion (CAD) technology Until recently, the application of AD technology for treatment of organic wastes and wastewaters was typically an on-site process, dealing with a single waste or wastewater, and with both the design and size of the digester tailored to meet the needs of an individual industry, farm or sewage treatment works. CAD plants differ fundamentally in being centrally-located and in being designed and scaled to allow centralised co-digestion of agricultural and other organic waste arisings from defined geographical areas. The initial objective of CAD plant installation was to centrally treat the animal manure and slurry arisings from adjacent farms, with resultant economy of scale, better process control, and greater operational efficiency. It was subsequently realised that CAD plants could also be used for co-digestion of animal wastes with other organic wastes generated within the immediate region of the CAD plant (sewage sludge, food-processing wastes and wastewaters, OFMSW, industrial organic wastes). Although these wastes may only represent 20-30% of the CAD influent (on a dry volatile solids basis), they significantly increase volumetric biogas productivity and enhance overall commercial viability. Animal manures and slurries continue to be the primary substrates for CAD plants. This reflects the fact that the quantity of animal wastes in the majority of EU countries greatly exceeds that of other organic wastes arisings. The ratio of animal to other organic wastes in CAD plant influents is also dictated by the availability of these co-digestion substrates in areas of intensive livestock production, transport costs, etc. In addition, the majority of industry and sewage treatment works in developed countries have existing on-site systems for treatment of their waste/wastewater arisings and may, consequently, be reluctant to subscribe to centralised AD systems unless there are clear financial benefits for doing so. However, the current restrictions on organic waste disposal in landfill sites is making available a variety of food-processing and food-use wastes that are potential co-digestion substrates for CAD and on-farm AD plants.

12

2.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The primary objective of this project was to evaluate the potential of CAD technology for treatment of organic waste and wastewater arisings in Ireland and for renewable energy generation (methane) on a centralised basis in sensitive catchment areas. Based on experience in other EU countries (Section 1.3), it was assumed that the primary feedstock for proposed CAD plants in Ireland would be animal manures/slurries from intensive livestock production units and over-wintering of cattle, sheep and horses. However, in order to ensure economic viability, it was also assumed that the quantities, availability and transportation requirements of foodprocessing and other organic wastes were critical factors in choosing feasible site(s) for CAD plant location. The main tasks carried out were as follows:2.1 State of technology review The current implementation of CAD technology was reviewed (internationally and nationally). The biological and engineering aspects of the technology were examined and the environmental and cost implications of the use of centralised anaerobic digestion were documented. 2.2 Legislation overview A review of the current National/EU legislation/regulations and guidance documents which may impinge on the application of centralised anaerobic digestion was undertaken. 2.3 Quantification of organic waste arisings in Ireland This aspect of the study involved (i) evaluation of published reports on organic waste arisings in Ireland; (ii) a county-by-county analysis of sources and locations of organic waste arisings, and (iii) identification of the most appropriate potential CAD sites. 2.4 Specific evaluation of the feasibility of installation of a CAD plant in a selected catchment area Based on the data from 2.3, a site was selected for installation of a potential CAD plant. A comprehensive technical assessment was carried out; plant design specifications were developed, and an economic assessment was carried out in order to determine the cost benefits of installation of a CAD plant at the chosen site.

13

3.

STATE OF TECHNOLOGY

Organic wastes, such as animal manures, sewage sludge etc. present two main environmental risks to receiving waterbodies:- (i) an oxygen demand, due to degradable organics, that can result in oxygen depletion and ultimately fish-kills, and (ii) introduction of inorganic nutrients (nitrate, phosphate, etc.) that result in eutrophication of the receiving waterbody. While anaerobic digestion reduces the oxygen demand of organic wastes, it does not reduce the eutrophication potential of the wastes undergoing treatment. In fact, anaerobic digestion renders the nitrogen and phosphorus content of animal manures and sewage sludge more amenable to uptake by growing plants or algae. Consequently, AD treated animal wastes, in particular, represent, on the one hand, a valuable nutritional resource for plant uptake and, on the other hand, a significant eutrophication potential, if leached or run off to receiving water bodies. Subsequent to anaerobic treatment, the digestate from animal manures and sewage sludge is generally landspread on grassland or ploughed-in in tillage crop production areas. Alternatively, the digestate can be further processed by solids/liquid separation to yield (i) a high solids, fibrous fraction that can be composted to produce a peatmoss equivalent of value as a soil conditioner, an horticultural resource or a soil reclamation agent, and (ii) a liquid fraction that can be irrigated to farmland or used as a liquid fertiliser for parkland, golf courses or other amenity areas.
3.1 Development of CAD technology The concept of centralised anaerobic digestion plants developed from the growing need to manage, re-use and recycle animal manure and slurry arisings in an environmentally sustainable manner. As indicated in Section 1.2.2, on-farm AD plants in Europe dated mainly from the energy crisis of the 1970s when many European countries provided financial incentives for renewable energy production and on-farm energy recycling. A 1982 EU-funded survey of AD application identified a total of 546 on-farm and agro-industrial biogas plants in the EU and Switzerland (Demuynck et al., 1984). The total working digester volume involved was 296,000 m3, with a net biogas production of 33,000 tonnes of oil equivalent (TOE). About one third of the on-farm plants were do-it-yourself units and the operational problems identified included pipe blockages, inefficient digester mixing, feedstock pump failure, gas leakage and poor general plant maintenance (Demuynck et al., 1984). Inefficient gas usage also resulted in poor plant economics and was a major factor resulting in the shut-down of many of the early on-farm plants.

Although the number of on-farm EU plants constructed in the late 1980s and early 1990s were relatively few, they were generally of better design, with consequently improved operational performance and reduced maintenance costs. These more efficient on-farm digesters were typically mono-substrate (treating only the animal manure/slurry arisings generated on site); were operated at mesophilic temperatures and were of CSTR or plug-flow design, with hydraulic retention times of 20-30 days. The majority of these on-farm plants used the biogas produced for space-heating (domestic, piggeries, greenhouse) or for combined heat and power (CHP) production, with sale of the electricity produced to the national or local grid. In virtually all cases, the treated slurry was disposed of by landspreading (Warburton, 1997; AD-Nett Conference, 1999).

14

Centralised AD (CAD) plants for animal waste treatment were initiated in Denmark in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The primary objective was to ensure sustainable management and recycle of animal waste arisings on a centralised basis in defined geographical areas. CAD plants are generally operated by a local farmers cooperative or by a private energy utility. The CAD plants accept animal manures from a defined geographical area, together with other waste arisings from local foodprocessing plants, abattoirs, breweries, distilleries etc. Sewage sludge and the source separated organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) is increasingly also used as an additional organic substrate for CAD plants. CAD plants are operated at either mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures and at solids/liquid retention times of 12-20 days. Multiple digesters of circa 2-4,000m3 size are generally utilised. A pre- or post-pasteurisation/hygienisation stage is usually included to prevent faecal pathogen carryover in the treated waste. The biogas produced is used to provide district heating with, or without, electricity generation in CHP plants, or to generate steam or electricity for local industry. The treated waste is either landspread directly or separated into a liquid and solid fraction. The solid fraction is usually composted prior to sale as a soil conditioner or horticultural product (Tipping, 1996; AD-Nett Conference, 1999). Farmers subsequently became aware of the economic potential of co-digestion at individual farm level. The majority of on-farm digesters constructed in EU countries over the past ten years resemble CAD plants in treating animal manures/slurries as the primary organic substrate, while accepting other agricultural/industrial/municipal organic wastes as co-digestion substrates. These new on-farm plants differ from CAD plants in that they are owned and operated by an individual farmer, rather than by a cooperative or public utility, and are typically of much smaller size than CAD plants. The treated waste is disposed of by landspreading on the farmers land or on adjacent farmlands, by agreement. In some of these on-farm co-digestion plants, the digestate is separated into a solids and liquid fraction. The latter is recycled to farmland using irrigation techniques, with the former composted for sale for soil-conditioning and horticultural purposes. The biogas is used in CHP plants to provide electricity, which is sold to the national or local grid, and heat which is used for on-farm applications (AD-Nett Conference, 1999).
3.2 Benefits and potential problems of CAD

3.2.1 Benefits Better manure management: Farmers who are members of CAD co-operatives benefit from improved storage facilities for raw animal wastes and CAD digestate, have better management regimes, and can optimise landspreading of the digestate.

Improved utilisation of the fertiliser value of organic wastes: The mixing of different animal wastes in CAD plants provides a digestate with a more balanced NPK content and with improved fertiliser potential (i.e. mixtures of cattle manures rich in potassium; pig slurries with high phosphorus content, etc.). The fertiliser value of CAD digestate is more nutritionally defined than raw manures or slurries. Consequently, livestock and tillage farmers can maximise landspreading of the digestate, with substantial reduction in synthetic fertiliser use.
15

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Methane is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect when it escapes to the atmosphere. Current disposal practices for slurry and food residues cause methane to be released through natural processes. Anaerobic digestion exploits this process so that the gas can be used as a fuel. Reduction of fossil fuel usage: Energy generated from anaerobic digestion can reduce the demand for fossil fuels. For example, the digestion of one tonne of cattle manure can generate sufficient methane to produce 1.7 kW of electricity (Warburton, 1997). The use of the digestate as a contribution to fertiliser regimes can in turn reduce fossil fuel consumption and emissions associated with the production of synthetic fertilisers. Cost effective and environmentally-sustainable waste recycling: When co-digesting organic wastes with animal manures, it is possible to achieve environmentally attractive recycling of a number of suitable wastes. The environmental benefits include the sanitising effect of pretreatment and digestion, which achieve significant pathogen reduction at 55C and pathogen kill at 70C, weed seed destruction, as well as efficient fertiliser utilisation of the effluent. In doing so, the CAD plants can provide farms, industries and municipal authorities with a lasting and relatively cheap solution to their organic waste disposal problems. Reduction of odour nuisances: Landspreading of raw animal manures and slurries is associated with significant odour nuisance. Anaerobic digestion can reduce odour nuisance during landspreading by up to 80%. Public and animal health benefits: Anaerobic digestion (mesophilic or thermophilic) results in significant die-off of the bacterial, viral and protozoan pathogens present in animal manures. The inclusion of a hygienisation step, as is commonly practiced in CAD plants, further reduces the pathogen load in the digestate. Generation of electricity from renewable sources (biomass/waste): AD plants can provide an on-site energy source, displacing existing bought-in electricity. Due to Government policies promoting energy from renewable sources and the de-regulation of the electricity sector, the market for electricity from renewable sources, such as AD, is likely to grow significantly, and opportunities for AD operators to sell their energy will, therefore, be increased. Tried and tested technology: The CAD concept has an established track record in several European countries, such as Denmark, Germany, Austria and Sweden.

16

3.2.2 Potential problems Economic viability: CAD plants have high capital and operating costs. Their installation, for renewable energy generation alone, is not financially viable. Consequently, the other benefits of CAD technology must be maximised and must ensure either cost-savings or additional income:- i.e. improved organic waste management; optimal inorganic nutrient recycle; savings on synthetic fertiliser use; sale of liquid fertiliser and compost.

Potential emissions: During anaerobic digestion and subsequent landspreading of the digestate, various emissions to air, soil, ground and surface waters may occur that are potentially damaging to human health and to the environment. For example, the production of low levels of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) during digestion may give rise to potential odour problems and also result in the generation of sulphur dioxide (acid rain constituent) during subsequent burning of the biogas. The increase in ammonia concentration during digestion of organic-N-containing wastes (e.g. animal manures, sewage sludge) may result in increased volatilisation of ammonia during landspreading of the digestate. Ammonia is a very significant contributor to acid rain in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands). However, it should be emphasised that landspreading of raw animal manures and slurries results in more damaging emissions to air, soil, ground and surface waters. Traffic movements: All waste management systems create traffic movements but, although overall quantities of vehicle movements may not be a major issue, the traffic may be concentrated in a small area, especially where a CAD plant is established. All CAD developments should aim to minimise traffic movements in order to reduce inconvenience to other road users and to minimise pollution problems. This should also serve to reduce transport costs and improve plant viability. Noise: CAD plants can generate noise. Consideration needs to be given to minimisation of potential noise from deliveries, pumps, compressors, the power plant, etc. Visual Impact: Large CAD plants may have visual impact because of the scale of the overall development and the size of the individual digester tanks. The latter may be ameliorated to some extent by partial sinking below ground. This has the added advantage of making the digesters easier to load. Screening with trees also reduces the visual impact of CAD plants.
3.3 Organic wastes (feedstocks) suitable for AD Feedstocks for CAD plants are derived from agriculture, industry and municipal wastes and wastewaters. The primary ingredients of these wastes/wastewaters are carbohydrates, proteins, fats and long-chain organic acids (Table 3.1). Although the majority of these organic compounds are readily degradable by anaerobic bacteria, the presence of sand, grit, inorganic additives, heavy metals and non-biodegradable plastics may pose problems during the anaerobic degradation process (Table 3.1).
17

Table 3.1: Sources, composition and biodegradability of anaerobic feedstocks (Steffen et al., 1998). Examples excellent excellent foaming pH decrease2 Anaerobic biodegradability Disturbing effects Inhibitory effects

Compounds

Sources

Carbohydrates Sugars Starch Cellulose

beet, corn potatoes, maize, etc. straw, grass, wood

Proteins excellent1 excellent1

poor - good excellent

lignin encrustation foaming

Fats

Long chain fatty acids

breweries, distilleries, sugar beet processing, milk processing, chip & starch processing, farmyard manure, harvest remains milk processing, pharmaceutical industry slaughterhouses, rendering plants rendering plants, oil mills

Trace organic compounds Inorganic material

pH decrease2 ammonia increase3 scum layers, poor VFA increase3 pH decrease2 water solubility poor water solubility specific inhibition of fats and oils of different bacterial groups foaming antibiotic reactions

Sand, Grit

animals & animal products animals & animal products fats, grease, oils, evaporation condensates pesticides, antibiotics, detergents salts, food additives, silica gel (filtration) stable walls and floors pharmaceutical industry, poor manure slaughterhouses, manure, non-biodgradable food & pharm. industry manure precipitation4 sludge formation precipitation blocking blocking, precipitation flotation

Metals

Plastic Heavy metals

packaging material, OFMSW, industry process remains packaging material OFMSW, industry metal refining, batteries OFMSW, industry

toxic reactions

1: necessity for long retention times; 2: depending on bulk capacity; 3: inhibition depending on pH value; 4: can have a positive effect by elimination of sulphide

18

Lignocellulosic components of animal manures and municipal wastes require long retention times and digestion is usually incomplete. However, the stabilised, incompletely-digested fraction is of value as a soil conditioner and as a horticultural resource. Although animal manures/slurries continue to represent the primary substrates for CAD plants, the range of other organic waste substrates is increasingly varied. Table 3.2 summarises the chemical characteristics, potential biogas yields, and operational problems associated with co-digestion of some common CAD substrates. The agricultural and food-processing wastes commonly used in AD plants include: (i) cattle and pig manures/slurries, (ii) poultry manure (with or without litter); (iii) abattoir wastes; (iv) vegetable processing residues (e.g. from potatoes, sugar beet etc.); (v) silage effluent; (vi) dairy processing residues (e.g. cheese and yoghurt processing); (vii) brewery residues; (viii) fish oil and fish processing wastes and (ix) canning wastes and wastewaters. Feedstocks for CAD plants may also include sewage sludge and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Toxic substances that may inhibit the AD process or cause die-off of the participant microbes should be precluded, in as far as possible, from AD feedstocks. With respect to animal manures and agricultural and food processing residues, these substances include: Toxic materials that inhibit digestion (e.g. high ammonia levels, pesticide residues, sheep dip, heavy metals, oil). Bioagents (aflatoxins and antibiotics). Disinfectants (e.g. cresol, phenol, arsenic, etc.). Long straw and non-biodegradable materials should be avoided as they cause blockages in the system (Warburton, 1997). Pre-treatment may be required, prior to digestion, for some agricultural wastes. Examples of pre-treatment include: Screening for foreign matter (e.g. sand, grit and long straw). Addition or removal of H2O. In general, it is not advisable to add water as the more water there is in the feedstock, the more energy is needed to heat the digester influent. However, for some wastes (i.e. poultry litter), addition of water may be necessary to ensure the correct consistency. Reduction of the water content of some animal slurries (i.e. pig slurry) is best achieved by changes in farm practices - e.g. diversion of run-off from roofs, yards etc. Maceration: For animal manures containing bedding, maceration is a necessary pre-treatment. This may also be required for other agricultural residues, such as fruit and vegetable wastes (Steffen et al., 1998). Since anaerobic digestion proceeds satisfactorily only within a narrow pH range (6.88.0) (Steffen et al., 1998), feedstocks should ideally be within this range. Because acidification of carbohydrate-rich wastes can proceed rapidly at ambient temperatures, feedstocks should be fed to the digester as soon as possible. This will prevent souring and also maximise the biogas yield. The risk of souring is greatest with feedstocks of low alkalinity (i.e. silage effluent). Animal slurries have a high buffering capacity which reduces the risk of souring when different materials are codigested.

19

Table 3.2: Characteristics and operational parameters of agricultural waste digesters (Steffen et al., 1998)

Feedstock C : N ratio CH4 content (%) 70-80

Antibiotics, disinfectants

Total solids TS (%) Unwanted substances Inhibiting substances 3-10 Biogas yield3 (m3/kg1VS) 0.25-0.50 Retention time (d) 20-40

Potential problems Scum layers, sediments

Pig slurry

3-84

Volatile solids (% of TS) 70-80

Cow slurry 3-10 0.35-0.60 >30 60-80

5-124 0.20-0.30 20-30 55-75

75-85

6-201

Chicken slurry n.a. 4-10 30-80 511 90 100-150 0.20-0.50 8-30 0.35-0.455 10-505 0.10-0.302 n.a. 8-20 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.35-0.55 3-10 55-75 0.80-0.95 3-10 60-80

10-304

70-80

Wood shavings, bristles, H2O, sand, cord, straw Straw, soil, H2O, NH4+ NH4+, grit, feathers

Antibiotics, disinfectants Antibiotics, disinfectants

Whey

1-5

80-95

Scum layers, poor biogas NH4+ inhibition scum layers pH reduction High scid concentration Pesticides

1-5

80-95

Fermentative slops Leaves Wood shavings Straw

80 80

90 95

70

90

Transporation, Impurities Undegradable fruit remains Soil Unwanted material Sand, grit Soil, cellulosic components

Garden waste

60-70

90

Pesticides

Food remains

10

80

n.a.

0.50-0.60

10-20

70-80

Bones, plastic

Disinfectants

Mechanical problems Poor digestion Poor degradation cellulose Sediments

Depending on: 1straw addition; 2dry weight; 3retention time; 4dilution; 5particle size; n.a. = not available

20

There are several advantages of co-digestion of food-processing and other organic wastes with animal manures and slurries:

The primary advantage is the enhancement of the biogas yield per m3 of reactor, with consequent financial benefit to the plant operator. Co-digestion results in more efficient digestion of some biomass materials. This may be due to co-metabolic or other synergistic effects of the mixed digestion process. Solid wastes are converted into pumpable slurries when mixed with liquid manure. This can result in easier handling, both in the digestion process and afterwards. When organic wastes are accepted for co-digestion in CAD plants, the cooperative that owns the plant takes responsibility for end-use of the digestate. Controlled landspreading, irrigation of the liquid fraction or composting of the solid fraction ensures relatively inexpensive and environmentally sustainable recycling of these organic wastes (Kuhn, 1995).

The main disadvantage is the dependency of large CAD plants on the availability of organic wastes fom the food-processing and other sectors for financial viability (i.e. income from gate charges and from enhanced biogas generation). The growth in the number of CAD plants in Denmark, for example, means that individual plants are now competing with each other for access to high biogas-potential, off-farm organic wastes. However, the growing restriction, within the EU, of landfill disposal of organic wastes means that the availability of off-farm organic wastes for co-digestion is likely to increase, rather than decrease.
3.4 Reactor design The main requirements for optimal design of CAD plants include:

minimisation of mechanical and electrical equipment requirements; effective insulation and use of corrosion resistant materials; simple design and automatic operation; equipment fail safe devices throughout; environmental controls (Warburton, 1997).

There are also some essential functions that must be realised in the digester. These include: (i) the continuous provision of nutrients to the bacteria and the removal of metabolic products from the viable biomass, (ii) adequate retention times for the feedstock organic matter and (iii) prevention of uncontrolled accumulation of solids in the digester and of blockages in the material flow through the digester (Baader, 1981). Traditionally, both plug-flow and completely mixed systems, such as the continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR), have been used for anaerobic treatment of animal manures and have been adapted for the co-digestion of animal manures and foodprocessing wastes (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The principle of the plug-flow design is a one-step, once-through biomethanation system with a predominantly horizontal flow, which may be mechanically assisted. While plug-flow digesters are commonly located at smaller scale on-farm plants, completely mixed systems (CSTR) are the design of choice for larger CAD plants. Other CAD digester designs include: (i) serial/contact (ii) two-phase and (iii) upflow
21

anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) digesters. The CSTR is the preferred option as it is simple in design and, as such, is one of the least costly digester designs on the market (Prisum and Norgaard, 1992). Anaerobic digestion tanks are either cylindrical, rectangular or egg-shaped. The most common design is a low, vertical cylinder (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Cylindrical digesters have no dead corners, where biomass can accumulate, provided an appropriate mixing system is installed (Prisum and Norgaard, 1992). In general, anaerobic digestion plants are provided as prefabricated, modular turnkey packages. At both CAD and on-farm level, prefabricated section tanks are increasingly the norm. An insulation layer is provided to prevent heat loss. On-farm plug-flow systems are usually of concrete construction but concrete CSTRs are now rarely used in CAD and on-farm plants due to their more expensive construction costs. Although the main process stage is the anaerobic digestion tank, there are a range of preliminary and post-digester units and a range of structures which are necessary for CAD plants. These include: (i) appropriate waste reception, loading facilities and influent holding tanks, (ii) hygienisation tanks, (iii) mixing devices, (iv) gas holder, (v) gas handling equipment, including pipework, valves, flare stack/heat dump, (vi) electricity generating equipment, powered by ignition engines converted to run on methane, gas turbines and electricity generators, (vii) boilers and heat exchangers to provide heat for the digester, (viii) appropriate storage for digestate and fibre, (ix) control and monitoring equipment and (x) odour control equipment (Warburton, 1997). Increasing legislative requirements and the increasing use of CHP plants at farm level means that this range of ancillary unit processes is also required at on-farm sites. The main characteristics of CSTR systems are that they are operated on a continuous basis and are completely mixed. Several methods of mixing are commonly used, including: (i) gas mixing where biogas is collected, compressed and injected back into the digester, usually through lances, promoting mixing from the gas bubbles. Gas mixing can also be used in plug flow reactors; (ii) internal mechanical mixing using propeller mixers within the digester. Such mixers were widely used in early completely mixed reactors, but their maintenance requires emptying the reactor and they are now rarely installed in new plants; (iii) external mechanical slow speed mixers using an external motor and gearbox. The mixing device may be a paddle arrangement or a single large blade propeller. Such systems are frequently used in completely mixed reactors; (iv) recycling of the sludge or slurries. Efficient mixing is important to ensure complete digestion; to prevent short circuiting; to maximise pathogen removal; to ensure uniform heat transfer and to prevent sedimentation of silt and other nodular formations in the reactor (Kiely, 1997). In CAD designs, the primary aim is to treat the combined wastes as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible. Therefore, a digester design which incorporates an internal gas circulation system for mixing is more favourable than the more expensive option of a mechanical stirrer (van Handel and Lettinga, 1994). In gas circulation systems, the pipework should be suitably designed to prevent leakage and include
22

appropriate safety measures, such as water traps, flame arrestors and burner interlocks. If mechanical mixing is used, slow speed mixers are the favoured option as they use less energy and the external motor and gearbox are accessible for maintenance. Single large mixing blades, or top and bottom paddle designs are less susceptible to fouling by fibrous materials (Warburton, 1997). The biogas production rate remains more or less constant for CSTR digesters operating under steady state conditions. A mean average production rate of 1m3 of biogas per m3 working volume of digester per day is usually obtained with mesophilic digesters treating animal manure (Demuynck et al., 1984). However, the biogas production can be significantly higher under thermophilic conditions or where mesophilic co-digestion with food processing wastes is practised. The collection of biogas is carried out by using either floating or fixed covers (Prisum and Norgaard, 1992). The floating covers fit on the surface of the digester contents and allow the volume of the digester to change without allowing air to enter the digester (if gas and air are mixed, an explosive mixture can result). Fixed covers provide a free space between the roof of the digester and the liquid surface. Gas storage must be provided so that (i) when the liquid volume is changed, gas, not air, will be drawn into the digester, and (ii) gas will not be lost by displacement (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). CAD plants are operated at either mesophilic (30-40C) or thermophilic (50-60C) temperatures. For hygienisation purposes (pathogen reduction), a pre- or postsanitisation treatment (60-70C for one or more hours) may be required for mesophilic CAD plants. Pre- or post-sanitisation is not usually required for thermophilic plants because of the operational temperature and the long retention time of the feedstock within the digester. Pre- or post-sanitisation is capital expensive because of the requirement for additional tanks, pumps and other ancillary equipment. However, thermophilic plants are more difficult to operate and are more sensitive to abrupt changes in operating temperature and influent supply than mesophilic plants (Prisum and Norgaard, 1992). The heat requirements of digesters consist of the amount needed (i) to raise the incoming wastewater to digestion tank temperatures, (ii) to compensate for heat losses through the walls, floor and roof of the digester, and (iii) to make up for losses that might occur in the piping between the source of heat and the tank. Such heat may be provided by external or internal plate exchangers (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). When external heat exchangers are installed, preheating of the wastewater occurs before it enters the digester. The wastewater is pumped at high velocity through connecting tubes, while water circulates at high velocity around the outside of the tubes. The circulation promotes high turbulence on both sides of the heat transfer surface and results in higher heat transfer coefficients and better heat transfer (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). An advantage of external heat exchangers is that the untreated wastewater on its way to the digester can also be warmed by heat exchange with the digested material. Heat recovery from the digested material is beneficial to the energy balance of the plant although the efficiency of the liquid/liquid heat exchange is generally low due to problems of ragging and blockage of tubes or deposition of struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate) (Tipping, 1996). A sufficient heat transfer area should be provided to minimise high temperature differences and prevent local high hot water temperatures leading to fouling of exchange surfaces and more frequent maintenance (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Alternatively, steam heating (the injection of steam directly into the incoming feed line) is used in some Danish digesters (e.g. Ribe) eliminating the requirement for digester heat exchangers (Christensen, 1995).
23

In digesters with internal heating systems, the cold wastewater is pumped directly into the digester tank and the temperature is regulated by either wall-embedded piping or mixing tubes equipped with hot water jackets. Because of the inherent operational and maintenance problems associated with this type of heating system, internal heating is not frequently used (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). For all anaerobic systems, digester capacity is directly related to the design retention time, the operating temperature and the quantity of material processed. Longer retention times within the reactor releases more biogas and cuts down post digestion methane release. However, excessive retention times are not economic. Therefore, installed capacity becomes an economic balance between the capacity cost and the biogas production. In general, thermophilic reactors are smaller than mesophilic reactors for a given quantity of influent material. A suitable monitoring system, both manual and instrumental, is essential to ensure stable reactor operation (especially for thermophilic plants) and to minimise operational difficulties, such as foaming, which may lead to odour and aesthetic problems. Additionally, excess foam in the sludge makes dewatering very difficult. The number of reactors employed for a given capacity is also important in aesthetic, economic and operational terms. In most cases, completely mixed reactors are built as above ground structures and therefore have the maximum aesthetic impact. Plug-flow reactors may be totally or partially buried in the ground resulting in less aesthetic interference. Also, the ground provides added insulation for the reactor which in turn minimises overall energy consumption (Tipping, 1996). In large scale CAD plants, reactors should be multiple units to (i) ensure continuity of treatment if a reactor malfunction occurs or maintenance is required, and (ii) reduce the visual impact of the plant by the use of smaller reactors. The number of reactors for a given capacity will depend on the optimum financial solution, local planning restrictions and operational factors (Warburton, 1997).
3.5 Products of anaerobic digestion

3.5.1 Biogas The biogas produced during AD of agricultural and food processing wastes consists primarily of a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide with some trace contaminants, including sulphur compounds, nitrogen, hydrogen, volatile organic compounds and ammonia. The typical composition of biogas is shown below:-

Methane Carbon dioxide Nitrogen Hydrogen Sulphide Volatile Compounds

60-80% 20-40% 0-5% 0-3% traces

One m3 of biogas with a methane content of 70% (20 MJ/m3) is equivalent to: 0.61 litres of petrol 0.58 litres of alcohol 0.90 kg of charcoal 1.70 kWh of electricity (assuming a conversion efficiency of 30%)
24

2.50 kWh of heat only (assuming a conversion efficiency of 70%) 1.70 kWh of electricity and 2.5 kWh heat in a CHP system. Table 3.3 summarises the biogas production and energy output potential from various types of animal manures/slurries. Many food processing wastes (e.g. fish oils, fats, blood, distillery slops etc.) yield considerably greater quantities of biogas per unit volatile solids.
Table 3.3: Biogas production and energy output potential from 1 tonne of various fresh animal waste feedstocks1

Feedstock Cattle slurry2 Pig slurry Laying hen litter Broiler manure3

No. of animals to produce 1 tonne/day 20-40 250-300 8,000-9,000

Dry matter content (%) 12 9 30

Biogas yield (m3/tonne feedstock) 25 26 90-150

Energy value (MJ/m3 biogas) 23-25 21-25 23-27

10,000-15,000

60

50-100

21-23

1: Figures should be regarded as indicative values only; 2: Cattle slurry refers to both dairy and beef cattle; 3: Because of the susceptibility of poultry manure to acidification, fresh manure should be digested as soon as possible.

Up to one third of the biogas energy may be needed to heat the influent and maintain the digester temperature, although the average value is closer to 10% (Warburton, 1997). The surplus biogas can be burned to generate heat, either on site or piped elsewhere. Depending on the local heat requirement, it may be possible to export excess heat to industrial processes or to provide district heating to the local community. If a combined heat and power (CHP) plant is used, all of the biogas produced is generally consumed to provide both heat and electricity. High quality biogas can be exported to the distribution network to replace natural gas. However, a gas cleaning process is first required to remove carbon dioxide and trace contaminants. Purified biogas can achieve a methane content of 95% which compares favourably to the typical natural gas methane content of around 85%. It is also possible to use the purified methane to run motor vehicle engines which need prior conversion to gas use. This is currently carried out successfully in Sweden for city bus services. The co-digestion of manure with different kinds of organic wastes containing easily digestible organic matter results in an increase in the volume of gas produced. The yield of gas per tonne of biomass feedstock is a significant economic indicator, since costs of operation are closely related to the amount of biomass materials processed, while income is primarily tied to gas production. The Danish Energy Agency issued a report on CAD plants in 1995 (Christensen, 1995). As part of the study, gas production improvement, regulation, handling and purification were examined in 10 CAD plants. Part of the improvement in gas
25

production was shown to originate from continued biogas production in the digestate storage tanks. All plants originally used one step continuous digestion in fully mixed digesters at either mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures. Experience showed, however, that a considerable amount of biogas was subsequently produced in the digestate storage tanks. Therefore, for economic and environmental reasons, all Danish CAD plants have now been equipped with systems for collecting this gas. This means that the original one step has turned into a two step process, the second step being lower temperature post digestion with one or a few weeks retention time. Additional gas production of 10-15% or more has been gained from this second gas collection stage. Biogas production can be deliberately controlled to a considerable extent by regulating the organic loading rate. The dry matter content of the feedstock can be increased by adding solid wastes. The loading can also be changed to some extent by changing the hydraulic retention time. In some cases, industrial wastes with very high contents of digestible organic matter, such as sludge from fish oil production, are used to regulate gas production through a separate loading system. Some of the plants use these regulating possibilities to produce more gas during the winter than in summer. The plant in Hashj (Denmark) attempts to optimise gas production in the daytime (from approx. 6am to 9pm) by loading the digester only during these hours. There is an incentive to do so since the gas can be burned in a CHP plant during this daytime period. In Denmark, sales prices for electricity are considerably higher during these peak usage hours (Christensen, 1995).
3.5.1.1

Biogas handling and purification

The H2S content of biogas used in internal combustion engines for combined heat and power production should preferably not exceed 700-1500 ppm. Danish CAD plants constructed in the late 1980s were generally able to meet these conditions without special purification due to the presence of iron in the feedstock, e.g. from sludge flocculated with ferric chloride. This led, mistakenly, to the establishment of new plants without any H2S purification included. Since many of the newer plants used a more diverse feedstock range and a greater percentage of non-manure feedstocks, biogas H2S levels were found, in many instances, to exceed these levels. Initially, addition of ferric chloride to the feedstock was used to minimise H2S levels. This method of biogas purification was, however, quite expensive. Consequently, aerobic biological removal of H2S from the produced gas was tested at full-scale in the Fangel plant in 1993. The procedure involves addition of approximately 5% air to the gas as it enters a separate purification vessel. The filter vessel is filled with plastic carriers and a liquid made up from the gas condensate and the liquid fraction of digestate separation is continuously recirculated over the filter. The temperature is maintained at c. 35C. In this way, the H2S is biologically converted to sulphur or sulphate which is retained in the liquid in the filter. Surplus liquid is returned to the digestate storage tanks, resulting in the eventual return of the sulphur or sulphate to the fields as fertiliser. H2S purification with air addition is now being implemented at all new CAD plants in Denmark and in many modern on-farm plants in Germany.
3.5.2 Digestate use The digestate from manure-based CAD plants must be considered to be only partially treated and should be stored appropriately until ready for application to farm land. In many countries, long term storage capacity (up to 9 months) may be required if the digestate cannot be applied to the land outside the growing season (Tipping, 1996).
26

Although there is no specific EU or National legislation covering spreading of treated or untreated animal manures and slurries on land, most countries have developed agricultural codes of practice. For example, in the UK slurry spreading is carried out according to the MAFF Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water. More specific guidelines apply to nitrate sensitive areas or nitrate vulnerable zones. Where sewage sludge is used as a co-digestion substrate, tighter regulations apply and the digestate must be landspread in conformity with the EU Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278 EEC). The recycling of livestock waste to land is environmentally appropriate and constitutes a valuable source of macro- and micro-nutrients. Since livestock wastes constitute the primary feedstock in CAD plants, and the only or main feedstock in onfarm plants, the macro and micro nutrient content of the digestate largely resembles that of untreated manures/slurries. Although AD treatment does not significantly reduce the NPK content of livestock wastes, it does affect the chemical form of nitrogen, in particular. The content of ammonium-N (NH4+-N) is generally 20% higher in digested than in untreated cattle slurry (Holm-Nielson et al., 1997). By contrast, the ammonium-N content of AD-treated and untreated pig slurry is almost the same. Anaerobic digestion may also result in some conversion of organic to inorganic phosphate. However, digestion has a minimal impact on either the availability or the overall content of P and K in manure-based digestates. Table 3.4 illustrates the results of nutrient analysis of digestate from the Ribe Biogas plant, in Denmark, over the 1991-1996 period of operation. The feedstock to the plant consisted of 84% manure and 16% industrial organic waste. For comparative purposes, the nutrient content of untreated cattle manure and pig slurry are also included in Table 3.4. Since the Ribe plant treats a range of different livestock and food-processing wastes, the NPK ratio in the digestate is quite different from that of the individual animal waste components. Mixing of different livestock wastes during digestion results in the production of a digestate that has a better NPK ratio and, as a result, is a more valid alternative to artificial fertilisers (Table 3.4). Digested slurry has a lower dry matter content than untreated slurry since approximately 50% of the dry matter content is converted to CH4 and CO2 during digestion (Nielson et al., 1997). This facilitates more efficient landspreading and better uptake of nutrients. The advantages of CAD operation with respect to subsequent digestate nutrient use were clearly demonstrated by this detailed study of the Ribe CAD plant (HolmNielson et al., 1997). In 1992, feedstock to the digester was contributed by 71 farms and 6 industrial plants (Table 3.5). The quantity of feedstock delivered to the plant in 1992 was approximately 140,000 tonnes. Approximately 14% of the nitrogen content was contributed by food-processing waste intake (primarily abattoir wastes). The livestock wastes were contributed by 56 dairy farms, 7 pig farms, 3 mixed dairy/pig farms and 5 mink or poultry farms. The digestate was returned to 68 of the 71 manure-producing farms (3 of the mink farms had no land availability for spreading) and to 41 tillage farms that had not contributed livestock wastes to the CAD plant. In nitrogen terms, the 41 tillage farms accepted 19% of the CAD plant digestate N content (Table 3.5). Payment for the digestate was calculated on the basis of kg nutrient (NPK) delivered from the CAD plant to private or centralised storage tanks. The analysis illustrated the potential role of CAD plants in ensuring redistribution of digestate NPK from livestock farms with surplus manure production to tillage farms requiring high levels of nutrient application. The co-operative system utilised in Denmark for CAD plant operation clearly facilitates optimal use of the NPK content
27

of CAD digestates. Co-digestion of livestock and food-processing wastes also ensures that the NPK content of food-processing wastes/wastewaters is also returned to the land, thereby maximising nutrient recycle and obviating the need for nutrient removal in food-processing wastewater treatment plants.
Table 3.4: Average nutrient and metal content of digestate and influent manures at the Ribe Biogas Plant between 1991-1996 (adapted from Holm-Nielson et al., 1997)

Year1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Cattle slurry3 Pig slurry3
1

%DM2 5.6 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.0

N-total kg/t 4.7 4.6 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.3

NH4-N kg/t 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.7 3.7

P-total kg/t 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.5

K-total kg/t 3.7 3.5 4.1 3.3 2.9 3.2 4.4 2.3

MgCu- total total kg/t g/t 0.5 9.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 12.8 2.7 11.6 11.8 10.8

Ca- total kg/t 1.9 1.5 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.5

Average yearly values for the plant digestate; 2: % dry matter; 3: influent cattle and pig slurries

Table 3.5: Nutrient circulation during operation of the Ribe Biogas Plant in 1992 (adapted from Holm-Nielson et al., 1997)

Slurry (T) To the plant: From farms From industries Total From the plant: To suppliers To buyers Total 117,530 21,916 139,446

N (kg) 549,082 92,082 641,709

P (kg) 104,869 20,683 125,552

K (kg) 470,912 17,345 488,257

Number 71 6 77

113,498 26,004 139,502

522,091 119,618 641,709

102,148 23,404 125,552

397,243 91,014 488,257

68 41 109

3.5.3 Solid/liquid separation of digestates In CAD plants, the digestate is often separated into solid (fibre) and liquid fractions. A variety of fibre separator systems are used: (i) rotary screens, (ii) flat belt separators, (iii) roller presses, (iv) vibrating screens, (v) centrifuges and (vi) screw or ram presses. Separation performance depends on the characteristics of the feedstocks being processed and the separator type/screen size. Generally, increasing the feed dry solids content produces a higher separated fibre dry solids content. For 10% dry solids content materials (not digested), vibrating screens are not suitable. Roller presses and
28

rotary screens produce up to 20% dry solids fibre and belt presses can achieve 25% dry solids fibre (Pain et al., 1978). Rotating sieves produce between 10.4 and 20.6% dry solids content from a variety of input slurries. A discostrainer can produce up to 16.6% dry solids fibre and a continuous screw sieve up to 38.4% dry solids fibre (Chiumenti et al., 1991). Energy use is between 0.01 and 0.6 kWh/m3. Screw and ram presses may be able to produce up to 60% dry solids material which is suitable for combustion (i.e. in the wood chip CHP units used in Denmark). In the majority of CAD plants practising digestate separation, the fibre fraction is aerobically composted to provide a stable and marketable peat moss substitute. Open air composting in windrows or aerated heaps results in uncontrolled ammonia losses to the environment, odour release and aerosol formation. Composting under controlled conditions (static piles) with application of forced aeration in ventilated sheds enables emissions to air to be controlled and treated using biofilters prior to release. When composting is carried out under enclosed conditions, negative pressure is maintained by ventilation fans which extract the air and either recirculate it through the compost piles or pass it to biofilters for treatment. An electrical consumption of c. 30 kWh/tonne is typical for composting systems (Novem, Holland - personal communication). After composting, the treated fibrous material can be stored with minimal air emissions, although cover is required to minimise rainfall uptake. The fibre can be utilised locally or packaged and sold as a peat moss substitute. Alternatively, the separated fibrous fraction can be returned, without composting, to land in the biogas plant catchment area. Spreading fibre requires much less power than conventional digestate land-spreading and can be carried out using a small tractor rather than specialised equipment. It is also less offensive to neighbours, having significantly less odour after digestion. Return of the fibrous fraction can play an important soil-conditioning role, particularly in regions where the soil organic content is low. The Filskov Biogas Plant in Denmark is located in a sandy soil region specialising in potato poduction. The potato producers willingly pay for the fibre fraction of the CAD plant digestate in order to maintain the organic content of the potato production lands. In CAD plants that do not utilise composting techniques, storage facilities for the separated fibrous fraction are required. Since subsequent slow aerobic and anaerobic decomposition may occur, resulting in emissions of ammonia and other volatile compounds, storage under cover is required. Covered storage is also essential in order to prevent rainwater dilution. In some Danish CAD plants, the separated fibrous fraction (without composting) is used as a fuel, either alone or in combination with wood chips, MSW or sewage sludge, in CHP plants dedicated to the provision of electricity and district heating. The liquid fraction of digestate, after solid/liquid separation in CAD plants, is either locally landspread or marketed as a liquid fertiliser for amenity areas, such as golf courses. The dry solids content of separated liquor increases with the dry solids content of the feedstock, irrespective of the separator type used (not including screw presses or centrifuges). For a 10% dry solids feed, a separated liquid dry solids content of 4 to 5% would be expected (Pain et al., 1978). The liquor from AD processes has a low, but diverse range of nutrients. It can be used as a liquid fertiliser in a planned fertiliser regime. As it has a high water content, the liquid also has irrigation benefits, so it can be used for 'fertigation' on agricultural land. Other
29

advantages of the separated liquor are reduced odour and material homogeneity improving ease and accuracy of distribution. However, as it contains particles, it should not be used for fertigation in greenhouses because it can block feeder pipes if not separated effectively. It is extremely important that the liquor be used or disposed of in a way which prevents run-off to surface waters. As indicated above, the use of fibre and liquor from centralised biogas plants has led to improved fertiliser utilisation and therefore less chemical fertiliser consumption. This is an aspect of increasing environmental importance as can be seen from the increasingly stringent regulations which are laid down in order to protect surface and groundwaters from nutrient enrichment. However, a risk of increased loss of ammonia as a consequence of digestion must be taken into account. Digested livestock manures have a higher ammonia content and a higher pH value than fresh manure. Therefore, ammonia release from digested material during open storage or landspreading is almost inevitable unless the digestate pH is lowered. The surface area available for volatilisation of stored digestate is reduced by covering or introducing a flotation layer or if return of the digestate to land is by irrigation rather than by landspreading, thereby reducing atmospheric emissions (Nielson, 1997). Since the ratio of organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen (mainly ammonium-N) in digested livestock waste is lower than in raw manures/slurries, plant nitrogen uptake from digestate (complete digestate or separated liquor) is greater than from raw manure (Klinger, 1998a). Consequently, the replacement of synthetic fertiliser by landspreading of digestate or separated liquor maximises plant N uptake and minimises the risk of nitrate leaching to ground or surface waters. The P/K content of digestate or separated liquor may not be in balance with simultaneous nitrogen requirements or may be excessive to plant requirements (i.e. on pastureland). Consequently, the amount of digestate that is landspread or injected should be tailored to the P/K needs and additional N can be added via synthetic fertiliser application.
3.5.3.1

Safeguards against pathogens

Manure from domestic animals may contain a wide variety of pathogenic bacteria, animal viruses and parasites (Bendixen, 1994). These pathogens may be shed from sick animals and also from apparently healthy carriers. Thus, handling of manure involves the risk of spreading infections. In centralised biogas plants, where manure is collected from a large number of herds and returned for spreading on different farms after digestion, this risk must be counteracted by the use of hygienic measures for the collection, transportation and handling of untreated and treated manure (Bendixen, 1994). Industrial wastes from animal and fish-processing plants (i.e. abattoir wastes) may also contribute pathogens to co-digestion feedstocks. Vegetable wastes may contribute plant pathogens. In general, the long retention times and elevated temperatures used in anaerobic digesters result in considerable pathogen destruction. For on-farm digesters treating manures generated on the farm and spread on the farmland after treatment, further hygienisation steps are not considered necessary. However, for centralised biogas plants receiving manures from a variety of sources and where the treated manure is landspread on a number of farms, it is recommended that the manures be subjected to
30

thermophilic temperatures at some point during the overall treatment process. At least 50C for a minimum of several hours is recommended (Bendixen, 1994). Sewage sludge or the organic fraction of MSW may contain a wide range of human as well as animal pathogens. In the UK, the pathogenic risk of spreading sewage sludge on land has been recognised and a code of practice has been introduced which requires sewage sludge to be stabilised, prior to surface spreading, by approved methods, including mesophilic digestion and storage. Approved stabilisation processes reduce infection risks to acceptable limits for most of the recognised pathogens present. In addition, a time period prohibiting grazing after spreading is specified. In Denmark, CAD plants that co-digest sewage sludge or household waste must incorporate a pre- or post-hygienisation treatment at 70C for at least 1 hour. It is furthermore recommended that the hygienic standard of the digested product should be controlled by official supervision of the plants and by checking the sanitation effect at regular intervals. A microbiological indicator test (the faecal streptococcal (FS) test) has been developed for this purpose (APHA, 1985). Since not all of the feedstocks used in CAD plants require such elevated temperature treatment, different feedstocks are subjected to different hygienisation regimes to reduce the energy costs involved (see Section 4.1.11).
3.6 Storage of feedstocks and products For large CAD plants, storage facilities for incoming raw feedstocks are required. Feedstocks from different sources are usually segregated allowing blending of materials prior to digestion to achieve requisite influent mixtures (Tipping, 1996). The feedstocks may be stored near the digester or elsewhere, although the need to minimise transport movements will affect the decision on siting storage.

Feedstock storage facilities must be planned in accordance with environmental, health and safety issues and regulations. It may be necessary to balance the planning requirements (such as for feedstock to be stored in a totally enclosed space with tank covers to reduce the escape of odours), with health and safety regulations (to ensure that there is no exposure to substances hazardous to health) (Warburton, 1997). After the specified retention time within the reactor, digested material is usually displaced into a holding/storage tank. The digested material at this stage is warm and actively producing biogas. Accelerated ammonia release can also be expected under open, warm storage conditions. Heat exchangers may be used to recover energy from the digested material to heat the incoming feed steam. Removing heat from newly displaced reactor contents can reduce subsequent, residual biogas production. The importance of collecting biogas from storage tanks has recently been widely recognised. Short-term impoundment of the digestate in enclosed storage tanks and recovery of evolved gases is now a common feature of Danish plants. Some 10 to 15% of the total biogas production may be recovered from the post reactor storage tanks (Christensen, 1995). In some of the new German on-farm digesters, treated slurry from plug-flow digesters is passed to a large covered circular tank which serves both as a second ambient temperature digester and a gas storage tank. Additional biogas produced during 10-12 days storage is obtained in this way and the covered gas storage system allows simultaneous biological H2S oxidation by oxygen injection.
31

At the Ribe Biogas plant in Denmark, local farmers interested in being connected to the plant experienced difficulties re the location of storage facilities, since their land holdings were split into two sections, some close to the farm and the remainder situated further away. In order to reduce the transportation of digestate as much as possible, a network of 26 local storage tanks for digested slurry was built by the biogas plant. It is now common practice for new CAD plants to provide a network of strategically located digestate storage tanks within their catchment regions (HolmNielson et al., 1997).
3.7 Transportation In any centralised operation, waste materials must be collected from source and products delivered to their destination (Tipping, 1996). The primary means of transport are heavy goods vehicles, usually diesel powered, and sized to meet the compromise between economies of scale in using large articulated vehicles, and the practicality of accessing farms served by narrow rural roads. The impact of transport movements needs to be minimised through logistics and use of alternative methods of transport (such as rail), as well as careful design of the location of storage tanks so that distances travelled between the site of feedstock production, the storage tanks and the digester are minimised. The possibility of piping pig slurry and other liquid wastes has been investigated in some CAD plants. Optimum siting of the digester between adjacent piggeries has facilitated piping of pig slurry in a number of plants in Denmark and Italy, with consequent decreased transport costs (AD-Nett Conference, 1999).

As mentioned in Section 3.6, construction of a network of digestate storage tanks for CAD plants facilitates landspreading by participant livestock and tillage farmers. In addition to benefiting those farmers who produce slurry in excess of their landspreading needs, the provision of a network of large storage tanks can decrease individual farm storage requirements, reduce overall transport costs and appropriate siting can facilitate delivery and turning facilities for large tanker vehicles (HolmNielson et al., 1997). Reduction of the H2O content of animal slurries may also reduce transport costs. The higher the water content of the waste, the greater the volume that has to be transported to sustain the digester loadings at efficient levels. Moving excessively dilute waste materials around the countryside increases environmental impacts and decreases profitability.
3.7.1 Vehicle emissions Organic wastes, including industrial waste, animal slurries and manures, typically contain odorous substances and pathogenic microorganisms. Transport of liquid and semi-solid materials in enclosed tankers of appropriate design should ensure little or no odour or pathogen release to the environment, although road accidents and human error cannot be discounted. Solid wastes, such as cattle manure, chicken litter or industrial waste are generally transported in tipper vehicles where there may be a need for covering to minimise odour release and fugitive dust (Tipping, 1996).

A further practical transport difficulty is contamination of digested material with pathogenic microorganisms from vehicles which have carried unprocessed materials. Vehicles transporting unprocessed, raw wastes need to be thoroughly washed (and even disinfected) prior to carrying digested material. If separate vehicles are used to
32

transport raw and digested materials, this doubles the number of journeys necessary, and therefore doubles the transport costs. The whole project can become uneconomic unless transport movements are minimised (Warburton, 1997).
3.8 Odour Odour release from organic material processing is a key issue for planning authorities and local residents. Good operational practice and the inclusion of appropriate odour removal technologies in the plant design are essential requirements for successful siting of industrial scale digestion plants in urban or semi-urban locations (Warburton, 1997).

Anaerobic or septic conditions at waste treatment plants may result in the presence of hydrogen sulphide and a range of other malodorous compounds which singularly, or in combination, contribute to odour nuisance. Malodorous compounds tend to be volatile, sparingly soluble materials with a low odour threshold value to the human nose. The main components of odour nuisance from digestion plants are typically sulphides, mercaptans, ammonia and volatile fatty acids. There are several odour point sources in a typical anaerobic digestion plant and the degree of nuisance involved varies according to the type of storage, waste type and age, and efficiency of abatement measures installed. In addition, there may be diffuse area sources emitting odour at a low rate, such as quiescent storage tanks or from occasional ground spillages (Demuynck et al., 1984). Odour release is most intense from putrescible organic materials prior to anaerobic digestion, especially when the untreated material is agitated, for example during unloading, tank filling or mixing operations. Odour release is also significant in offgases from heat treatment and is commonly prevented by collection and treatment of the odorous air before release to the environment. Historically, unloading of tanker vehicles has been a major odour releasing activity at sewage treatment works. Air displaced from the storage tank or reception pit during filling typically contains organic malodours and reduced sulphur compounds, causing severe odour nuisance if uncontrolled. Unloading of solid materials such as chicken litter, manure or industrial waste is known to be a highly odorous activity. Tipping material into hoppers or bunkers inevitably releases odour, dust or aerosols, and may constitute a health hazard to workers. In addition, ammonia may be released to air (Tipping, 1996). Poultry litter combustion plants and recently constructed CAD plants receive waste consignments in enclosed buildings maintained under negative air pressure to prevent dust or odour release during unloading or handling operations. The buildings are designed to accommodate the maximum size of vehicle such that the access doors can be closed prior to unloading. Odorous air is extracted and used as excess combustion air (Tipping, 1996). Unloading of tanker vehicles may be acceptable in open air situations if waste reception tanks are air tight and ingress and egress of air is through filters capable of removing odorous substances to acceptable levels. In most cases, the best available technique (BAT) for reception of organic materials is a dedicated building (or discrete area within a building) which is maintained under negative pressure to prevent
33

external release of odour, dust, aerosol or ammonia. The ventilated air must be treated to remove odorous compounds and to reduce potential pathogen transfer. Liquid and semi-solid materials may be stored in above or below-ground tanks. Solid materials may be stored in bunkers or silos and moved by mechanical handling. Storage tanks should be enclosed and should either be gas tight with air venting through suitable scrubbers or filters, or maintained under negative pressure by air extraction. Typical odour releases from quiescent open slurry storage tanks are compared to background odour concentrations in Table 3.6 (De Bode, 1991).
Table 3.6: Average Odour Release during Slurry Storage (adapted from De Bode, 1999)

Odour Concentration (o.u./m3)1

Summer

Winter

Pig Slurry Cattle Slurry Background

1

200 110 20

120 60 10-20

o.u./m3 refers to odour units per m3, as defined in De Bode (1991)

Post digestion activities may also release odour, but to a lesser extent than during unprocessed material handling. The major concerns with digestate material handling and storage are biogas and ammonia release. Digested material has a recognisable odour associated with reduced sulphur compounds and other volatile species. The odour intensity is, however, much reduced compared to untreated materials since volatile acids are removed during digestion (Tipping, 1996).
3.8.1 Odour removal Good process design can minimise or eliminate odour generation in some cases, but odorous air from point sources needs to be collected and treated. A variety of methods can be applied depending on the digestion plant design, e.g. combustion, physicochemical or biological treatment.

In treatment plants involving combustion processes, odorous air is often collected and used as excess combustion air for boilers or engines. This results in total removal of odorous compounds, such as sulphide and ammonia, and of methane, but sulphur dioxide levels in flue gas emissions from the boilers may consequently be elevated. Collection and combustion probably represents BAT at most sites, although the volume of malodorous air which can be burnt is related to the combustion plant type and size (Warburton, 1997). Biofilters, such as peat bed filters, have proved successful in removing many odorous compounds from contaminated air, but removal may not be complete for some insoluble malodorous species, resulting in perceptible outlet odour. Off-gases may be particularly difficult to treat biologically due to the inlet gas temperature. Physicochemical treatments including activated carbon adsorption, ultraviolet light
34

and chemical scrubbing are successful for the removal of specific categories of odorous compounds. A condensation stage may be necessary to remove water from saturated air before chemical or activated carbon treatment (Warburton, 1997). Hydrogen sulphide may be removed from biogas by wet or dry scrubbing procedures. Water scrubbing involves the use of alkaline reagents and a packed tower. Wet scrubbers or packed bed biofilters continually recirculate water which needs intermittent blowdown to maintain acceptable ionic concentration. Dry chemical scrubbers are of various designs and require frequent reagent replacement, with the result that chemical costs can be considerable. As indicated earlier, iron salts are often added to sewage sludge digesters in the UK and Denmark in order to minimise the level of H2S in the produced biogas. This practice is expensive and is not advised for centralised co-digestion plants. It is now generally accepted that the least expensive method of removing H2S from biogas is by biological conversion to sulphur or sulphate which is removed in the circulating liquor or condensate in separate biological treatment units. Alternatively, storage of gas above the digestate may provide an opportunity for biological H2S oxidation with removal of the produced sulphur/sulphate in the digestate.
3.9 Nutrient removal As indicated earlier, the digestates from on-farm or CAD plants treating animal manures as the primary feedstock have a significant fertiliser value. For environmental and economic considerations, the logical use of this material is to landspread it or inject it into grassland or soils used for grazing, silage production or for tillage purposes. In Denmark, one of the declared objectives of the Centralised Biogas Programme is to maximise the utilisation of the fertiliser value of animal manures and other food processing wastes in order to reduce the usage of synthetic fertiliser and to decrease farmers costs. A further bonus of digestate rather than artificial fertiliser use is the soil-conditioning achieved by return of the digested fibrous fraction of the treated waste.

In areas where manure production is in excess of the quantities required by surrounding farmers or where groundwater nitrate levels are already high (e.g. in the Po Valley in Italy), some form of post-treatment may be required. Reverse osmosis is a process by which water is separated from dissolved solutes by filtration through a semi-permeable membrane at a pressure greater than the osmotic pressure caused by the solutes in the wastewater. An applied pressure gradient ensures flow of water from the more concentrated to the less concentrated solution. Reverse osmosis trials were carried out in Denmark at the Lintrup Biogas Plant with the objective of reducing the water content of the liquid fraction of separated digestate by 75%. The intention was to produce a concentrate with high fertiliser value which could be marketed or transported to a wider spreading area with minimised transport costs. Although the trials at the Lintrup plant were not successful due to blocking and clogging of the membrane, the Danish company, Bioscan A/S, is now marketing a number of post-treatment options, including reverse osmosis. To date, there is no published information on the type of membranes used, nor on the efficiency or operational cost of the process (S. Tafdrup, Danish Energy Agency, personal communication). Removal of nutrients from the treated digestate can be achieved using the same chemical or biological methods used for industrial wastewaters. In Italy, one centralised plant has been equipped with full post-treatment because of the already
35

serious nitrate contamination of groundwater in the region. The very high costs involved are justified in order to maintain the pig-farming population in this region and to reduce potable water production costs (AD-Nett Conference, 1999).
3.9.1 Chemical nutrient removal methods Nitrogen removal: (i) Breakpoint chlorination is a process which involves the addition of chlorine to treated wastewater to oxidise the ammonium nitrogen in solution to nitrogen gas and other stable compounds. (ii) Ion exchange is a unit process in which ions (in this case ammonium, NH4+) are removed from the waste stream and exchanged with ions from an ion exchange resin.

Phosphorus removal: The addition of certain chemicals to wastewater produces insoluble or low-solubility salts when combined with phosphate. The principal chemicals used for this purpose are aluminium sulphate, ferric chloride and lime. The chemical sludge produced requires safe disposal under licenced conditions.
3.9.2 Biological nutrient removal methods Nitrification: Nitrification of ammonium is a two-step process involving two genera of microorganisms, Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, where ammonium is first converted to nitrite and subsequently to nitrate, in the presence of oxygen.

Denitrification: Nitrate formed from the nitrification process is converted to nitrogen gas by a variety of denitrifying bacteria under anoxic conditions. For this to occur, sufficient organic carbon is needed to provide the energy source for the conversion of nitrate by the bacteria. This may be provided by residual wastewater organics or by the introduction of precise amounts of a readily utilisable carbon source (e.g. methanol). Combined nitrification-denitrification systems: In these systems, low molecular weight organics (e.g. volatile fatty acids) present in the wastewater are used as the organic carbon source for denitrification. Ammonium N is oxidised by nitrifying bacteria in the presence of oxygen to nitrate N during the nitrification step, while denitrifying bacteria convert nitrate N to nitrogen gas (N2) in the absence of oxygen. Processes used include (1) the Bardenpho process and (2) the oxidation ditch (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Biological phosphorus removal: Biological phosphorus removal processes are based on sequential use of anaerobic and aerobic conditions in a single reactor or cycling of the wastewater through separate anarobic and aerobic tanks, followed by sludge settlement and return (the A/O process). Under anaerobic conditions, volatile fatty acids and other low molecular weight organics in the wastewater are taken up and stored by the microbial biomass. The ATP energy needed for organic compound uptake is provided by the hydrolysis of intracellular polyphosphate. Consequently, operation of the anaerobic stage is associated with phosphate release to the wastewater. Subsequently, under aerobic conditions, the stored organic compounds are metabolised fully to CO2 and H2O, releasing a large amount of energy that is used for bacterial growth but also for uptake of phosphate and re-synthesis of intracellular polyphosphate. The amount of
36

phosphate taken up in the aerobic zone/tank greatly exceeds that released under anaerobic conditions, with the bacteria involved (e.g. Acinetobacter sp.) accumulating phosphate in amounts that are excessive to their growth requirements. This phenomenon has been referred to as "luxury phosphate uptake". An alternative biological P-removal system is referred to as the PhoStrip process. This results in removal of the P, not in sludge form, but as a phosphorus-rich supernatant which can be later chemically precipitated with lime or another coagulant (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Combined biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal: A number of biological processes have been developed for the combined removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. Many of these use a type of activated sludge process that employs combinations of anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic zones or compartments to accomplish nitrogen and phosphorus removal. The most commonly used processes are (1) the A2/O process, (2) the five-stage Bardenpho process, (3) the UCT process and (4) the VIP process (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
3.10 Economics

3.10.1 Financing Centralised biogas plants are characterised by investments of long duration and a relatively low current income compared to the invested capital. This calls for types of financing that provide low average mortgage payments and long repayment periods. Traditional investors do not recognise the environmental benefits and sustainability of CAD and view it in the same way as other high risk commercial projects, demanding high security and high returns on invested capital, leaving less for other investors and shareholders. Ethical or 'green' bank funding is, however, beginning to be provided in some countries. These lending institutions take a more sympathetic view of renewable energy in general and seem willing to invest on less onerous terms (Warburton, 1997).

In Denmark, all of the centralised plants received investment grants from the Danish Energy Agency for the "energy" part of the plant (Table 3.7). In the 1980s, these grants amounted to 30-40% of this part of the investment. The grants given in the 1990s were approximately 20% and further reductions are expected (Christensen, 1995). For all projects involving district heating, a special financing scheme with indexed loans was established in 1987. This type of loan, where remaining debts and mortgage repayments are significantly lower, result in average yearly payments that are less than traditional mortgage loans. Most of the newer district heating projects and almost all of the centralised biogas plants are primarily financed by indexed loans (Christensen, 1995).
3.10.2 Costs The main financial costs of establishing a CAD project include capital, project development, operational and training costs.

Capital costs: The equipment has to be manufactured to a high standard to prevent corrosion, and the resulting high capital costs may only be justified if the equipment has a long active life. Construction of the plant and associated site works, including any landscaping required under planning permission, will also incur costs. A CAD plant of 1MW capacity (requiring a digester with a capacity of 10,000 m3) is likely to require an initial capital investment of 3 to 4 million sterling (Warburton, 1997).
37

Table 3.7: Invested capital and financing costs (IR x 1000) for two Danish biogas plants (adapted from Christensen, 1995)

Ribe Start-up year Invested Capital Biogas plant Equipment for slurry transport Slurry storage Effluent separation Total Financing Public investment grant Grant, % of total investment Indexed mortgage loan Bank loan Own capital Total 1989 3063 392 1333 4788 1873 39% 2619 296 4788

Lemvig 1991 4586 377 878 5841 1502 26% 3704 635 5841

Project development costs: These can be very significant and include (i) technical, legal and planning consultants' fees, (ii) costs of arranging finance, (iii) electrical connection costs and (iv) licence costs. Operational costs: These vary enormously depending on size, technical construction, plant age and plant management and include staff, insurance, consumable and transport costs. Biomass transportation accounts for 35% to 50% of the total operating costs at centralised biogas plants in Denmark. Transportation costs for solid manure are approximately double those of slurries. Reduction of transport costs can only be achieved by siting new CAD plants in such a way as to minimise transport costs, by reduction in the water content of slurries and optimised siting of digestate storage tanks (Christensen, 1995). Training costs: CAD plant operators need to be fully trained in the safety, financial and environmental implications of the project. These skills need to be updated as technology and safety considerations develop.
3.10.3 Income The largest revenue streams from CAD plants are likely to be from the sale of energy, in the form of electricity (primarily) and heat (Table 3.8). Other income streams are likely to include treated fibre and liquor sales and gate fees (Table 3.8). Gate fees come from the receipt of organic wastes, primarily from food processing industries and municipal authorities (sewage sludge and OFMSW). These fees are increasing as charges for alternative waste management methods, such as landfill taxes, also increase (Warburton, 1997). In Denmark, biogas energy sales are favoured as (1) the electricity produced can be sold directly to the national grid at competitive prices (2) there is a tax on fossil fuels used for heat production for domestic purposes, (3)
38

electricity for domestic use is also taxed and (4) to promote renewable energy, a part of the tax is refunded to producers of renewable-energy-based electricity (Christensen, 1995). In Ireland, markets for all of the products will need to be developed and realistically priced in order for a CAD project to be economically viable. The operation of centralised biogas plants also results in several socioeconomic advantages, such as improved fertilisation efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, cheap and environmentally sound waste recycling, and reduced nuisances from odours and flies. The economic implications of these are beyond the scope of this report. In Table 3.8, the economic results are expressed per m3 of feedstock treated. The analysis is based on the realised sale revenues and the current running costs according to the accounts of the plants. The capital costs are calculated on the basis of initial investments and the expected lifetime of various plant components. Initially, the plants received a grant amounting to 39% of the investments at Ribe and 26% at Lemvig (Table 3.8).
Table 3.8: Sales and costs analysis for the Ribe and Lemvig CAD plants between 1994 to 19961

1994 Feedstock, m3 per day Biogas production, m3 per day m3 of biogas/m3 of feedstock Sales (IR/m3 of feedstock): Gas Gate fees Storage rental fee Total Costs (IR/m3 of feedstock): Production of biogas Transport of biomass Storage of biomass Total Costs breakdown: (IR/m3 of feedstock) Operating costs Capital costs2
Profit/loss (IR/m3 of feedstock)
1 2

Ribe 1995

1996

1994

Lemvig 1995 369 14003 38

1996 394 13512 34

401 391 403 413 11784 11759 11811 14797 29 39 29 36

3.72 0.70 0.50 4.92

4.02 1.00 0.50 5.52

4.02 1.00 0.50 5.52

5.94 0.91 0.00 6.85

6.33 1.31 0.10 7.74

6.03 1.00 0.10 7.13

3.12 2.01 0.81 5.94

3.42 2.11 0.70 6.23

3.52 1.91 0.70 6.13

4.83 2.11 0.10 7.04

4.93 2.31 0.10 7.34

5.23 2.11 0.10 7.44

2.92 3.02
-1.02

3.21 3.02
-0.71

3.32 2.82
-0.61

4.23 2.82
-0.19

4.23 3.12
0.40

4.43 3.02
-0.31

Adapted from the follow-up progamme for biogas plants carried out by the Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics. Capital costs do not include investment subsidies

It appears that the operating costs for both plants exceeded sales revenue during the 3year study period, except in 1995 when the Lemvig plant showed a profit (Table 3.8).
39

In practice, the losses are covered by the initial grant which, as previously mentioned, is not included in the analysis. The general conclusion from the assessment of the results obtained for these two Danish centralised plants is that it is possible, under favourable conditions, to achieve a balance in the company economy without grants for initial investments. However, the risk is still too big to justify the removal of the investment grants completely (Christensen, 1997). It must be emphasised, when comparing Ireland with our European neighbours, that biogas plants in countries such as Denmark, Germany and Austria, for example, are favoured with respect to energy prices, energy sales options, financing possibilities and investment grants.
3.11 Renewable source of energy The biogas produced from large CAD plants is a significant source of renewable energy. In Denmark, renewable energy sources are exempt from Danish state taxes. It is clearly a pre-condition for the viability of CAD biogas plants that this exemption is maintained. The selling of electricity produced from biogas to the National Grid is commonplace in Denmark and, even though variations in electricity prices can be considerable (in the range of 10-20%), the tax exemption secures a net energy production value corresponding to 0.94 - 1.00 DK per kWh (1DK equals 0.10) (Christensen, 1995). In Germany, electricity prices range between 15-18 Pfennig/KWh (6-7.2p/kWh).

Western and Southern Europe have lagged behind their northern European counterparts in development and implementation of renewable energy sources. However, in the past decade, initiatives have been put in place to improve this situation. In the United Kingdom, the Electricity Act of 1989 made provisions for the Secretary of State to place an obligation on the Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) to purchase at premium prices power produced from non-fossil fuel sources. This obligation is known as the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and has given rise to a process whereby developers can bid for NFFO contracts to supply non-fossil or renewable electricity. The premium price paid for non-fossil power is a form of subsidy and the extra money required to pay for this is raised by a "Non-Fossil Fuel Levy" placed on all the electricity suppliers and passed through to customers (Tipping, 1996). Under the NFFO4 scheme, 195 renewable schemes were contracted, and of these, 6 schemes come under the technology band of 'Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Wastes'. The highest price contracted from this source was 5.2p/kWh. However, under the NFFO5 scheme, anaerobic digestion of agricultural wastes is not a specific technology band and instead comes under the bands 'Energy from Waste' and 'Energy from Waste using CHP' where the highest prices contracted are 2.49p/kWh and 2.9p/kWh, respectively (I. Higham, ETSU, personal communication, 2000). In Ireland, the first Alternative Energy Requirement (AER 1) programme was initiated in 1994 in order to fulfil Irelands obligation under the EU ALTENER programme which aims to triple electricity production from renewable sources in the EU as a whole, during the period 1991-2005. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications initiated a competition aimed at securing additional electricity generation capacity from wind energy, hydro energy, biomass and/or waste to energy systems. The Electricity Supply Board's Power Procurer agreed to offer successful
40

bidders a 15 year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the purchase of their net electricity output. The AER I programme resulted in PPAs being awarded to a range of alternative energy sources with 12 MW awarded to landfill gas and waste to energy projects. To encourage this area of renewable energy, a second AER competition (AER II - 1995) was initiated which resulted in the offer of a contract for the construction and operation of a 30 MW waste to electricity generating facility. Unfortunately, the most recent AER competition (AER III - 1997) has only set a target of 7 MW for Biomass/Waste to Energy for the period 2000-2010. Although the price cap for bidders was 3.9p/kWh, the unit price is expected to be lower.
3.12 Status of anaerobic digestion of agricultural wastes in the UK and Ireland

3.12.1 UK About 45 farm-scale digesters have been installed in the UK since 1975. Many of these digesters were installed with the aid of a capital grant which is no longer available. Typically, the digesters were sized between 50 and 1000 m3 and generated gas for on-farm heating only, utilising mainly cattle, pig and poultry manure as feedstocks, either alone or in combination. A few digesters were fitted with small combined heat and power (CHP) engines. Many of the farmers also sold some of the digestate to local householders for use as a fertiliser and soil conditioner (AD-Nett Conference, 1999).

Of the 45 units installed, only about 25 are currently operating. The primary reasons for closure of on-farm plants were poor initial design and lack of operator training. Operational problems included pipe blockages, equipment failure, inability to maintain mesophilic temperatures during winter months, digester pH instability and difficulties in maintaining constant organic and hydraulic loading rates. Although the majority of these operational problems are easy to rectify, given improved on-farm digester designs, the UK history of poor performance has left the technology with a bad reputation among the farming community. It should be noted that most of those farmers who continue to operate digesters now possess a good knowledge of digester operation, resulting in efficient operation. Very few farm-scale digesters have been installed in the last few years since the removal of grant funding and unless there is compelling legislation the situation will remain so (Warburton, 1997). Recent interest in the UK has focused on larger CAD schemes due to the financial support available under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) programme. To date, seven centralised anaerobic digesters have received NFFO contracts, one under NFFO3 in 1995 and six under NFFO4 in 1997, as shown in Table 3.9. These NFFO projects are mainly based on chicken litter but there is some use of pig slurry, cow manure and turkey litter. The NFFO rules allow intake of up to 20% (on a dry weight basis) of food processing waste and it is expected that most projects will take advantage of this. Although the NFFO contracts are for electricity only, it is likely that the projects will utilise CHP plants where an appropriate heat use can be identified.

41

Table 3.9: NFFO contracts for anaerobic digestion1

Developer

Capacity (MWe)

Attwell Farms Ltd LRZ Ltd Agtec Ltd Agtec Ltd Agtec Ltd Agtec Ltd North Tamar Business LTD
1

0.30 1.05 1.00 2.00 0.50 0.60 1.43

Adapted from AD-NETT Conference (1999)

3.12.2 Ireland Application of anaerobic digestion at single farm or centralised level in Ireland lags far behind that of our European neighbours. One of the early on-farm plants in Ireland was commissioned in the late 1980s at Bethlehem Abbey, Portglenone, Co. Antrim. The plug-flow digester installed treats a mixture of cattle manure, poultry litter and silage effluent. The produced biogas is used to heat the monastery and for grain-drying in season. The digestate is separated to yield a solids fraction which is composted and marketed as a peat-moss substitute. The liquid fraction of the digestate is used to provide nutrients for the farm tillage fields and is also sold for golf-course and municipal parkland application.

On-farm interest in AD application in Ireland is currently increasing. Three on-farm plants have been recently installed (Patrick Berridge, Co. Wexford; Vicky Heslop, Co. Waterford and Camphill Community, Co. Kilkenny). Off-farm organic wastes are accepted by these plants, with or without gate charges, and the biogas produced is utilised in CHP plants for electricity and heat generation.
3.13 Status of anaerobic digestion of agricultural wastes in other European countries Localised production of significant point sources of animal manures from intensive pig, cattle and poultry production units has led to the development of centralised (CAD) and commercial on-farm AD-based treatment plants in a number of European countries. Table 3.10 summarises the current application of AD at centralised and onfarm level in Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Italy, Germany, the U.K. and Ireland. 3.13.1 CAD plants The concept of centralised biogas plants has been developed in Denmark since 1987. Currently, there are >20 operational plants with capacities ranging from 50 to 500 tonnes biomass feedstock per day. Approximately 80% manure, mainly as slurry, is co-digested with 20% of organic wastes of primarily plant residue and agro-industrial origin. A few plants co-digest small quantities of sewage sludge or the source separated organic fraction of MSW. The resulting biogas is mainly used for combined heat and electricity generation, with the heat generated being used locally for district heating. The digested biomass is redistributed to a wide range of livestock and tillage
42

farms as nutritionally defined fertiliser. All of the plants received investment grants, ranging from 30-40% in the late 1980s to 20% today. The focus is now on further economic improvements that will enable new plants to be built without public investments.
Table 3.10: Distribution of centralised and commercial on-farm biogas plants in selected European countries1

Country

No. of CAD biogas plants2

No. of on-farm biogas plants 19 >25 5 50 3 25 >1,600 C. 100

Denmark Austria Sweden Italy Ireland U.K. Germany Switzerland

1

20 0 8 5 0 7 3 -

Adapted from AD-NETT Conference, 1999 2 These plants do not include the large number of centralised plants that have been installed to treat the organic fraction of MSW only or MSW plus sewage sludge. 3 Data from German Biogas Association Website (www.biogas.org).

Plates 4 and 5 illustrate two of the Danish CAD plants. The Ribe plant (Plate 4) was commissioned in 1990 and consists of three thermophilic digesters, each of 1,750 m3 volume, with associated influent and effluent storage tanks, reception area, etc. The Filskov plant (Plate 5) was started up in mid-1995 and consists of a power plant dedicated to the generation of electricity and district heating for the village of Filskov. The plant consists of two 500 m3 thermophilic digesters and associated storage facilities for influent wastes/wastewaters, digestate and biogas. It is of interest to note that the power plant (which can utilise wood chips as well as biogas) and the district heating grid were installed first (1992/1993) with the biogas plant being commissioned subsequently in August 1994, only after a guaranteed use of the produced biogas had been put in place. The power station and biogas plant are owned and operated by Filskov Energy Company (a non-profit cooperative consisting of the farmers who supply the manure and the consumers who are connected to the district heating grid and/or who utilise the produced electricity). Sweden (Table 3.10) has also opted for agricultural waste-based CAD plants. Four of the existing eight CAD plants purify the produced biogas and use it as a vehicle fuel. There is also growing interest in using the residue from anaerobic digestion for soil improvement. This requires that digested material must fulfill strict environmental demands, such as sanitation, and must be free of hazardous residues (Nordberg, ADNett Conference, 1999). The installation of manure-based CAD plants is also growing in importance in Italy (Table 3.10). The CAD plant at Perugia is unique in that manure/slurry is pumped to the plant through a collection pipe network some 56 kilometres in total length. The Italian plants generally practice digestate solids/liquid separation with compost
43

production from the separated solids fraction. Because of the current high levels of nitrate pollution of groundwater in the Po Valley, further treatment (nitrification/denitrification) of the liquid digestate fraction is required in some of the Italian CAD plants prior to its irrigation to land or its discharge to receiving waterbodies.

Plate 4. Aerial view of the Ribe CAD plant in Denmark

Plate 5. The Filskov CAD plant and associated power plant in Denmark

44

3.13.2 On-farm commercial AD plants As illustrated in Table 3.10, Germany is the leading European nation with respect to construction of on-farm biogas plants. Figure 3.11 illustrates the growth of on-farm AD plants in Germany between 1992 and 2001. By the end of 2001, there were more than 1,600 on-farm plants in operation in Germany and the German Farm Biogas Association suggests that current agricultural waste arisings could potentially support in the region of 220,000 on-farm plants (AD-Nett Conference, 1999). Plates 6 and 7 illustrate two examples of on-farm biogas plants in Germany. The Pellmeyer digester (Plate 6) is located on a dairy farm and co-digests food-processing wastes generated locally. The Beer plant (Plate 7) co-digests pig slurry, grass clippings, vegetable wastes and other local food waste arisings.

1.65 1.50 1.35 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00

1992 1993 19941995 1996 19971998 1999 20002001 Year

Figure 3.11. On-farm biogas plants in Germany (1992-2001).

Plate 6. The biogas plant on the Pellmayer dairy farm in Bavaria, Germany
45

Plate 7. The biogas plant on the Beer pig fattening farm in Bavaria, Germany Two of the main factors leading to the installation of on-farm digesters in Germany have been the development of proven, low-cost digester designs and the availability of technical advice from the German Farm Biogas Association. Installation of onfarm plants is actively promoted by the Association and case-histories and site visits are made available to interested farmers. In the majority of cases, on-farm digesters accept a variety of non-manure wastes, including distillery slops, food production and processing residues, grass clippings and, in some instances, sewage sludge and the organic fraction of MSW. Sale of the electricity generated by CHP plants is widely practised and the electricity produced is sold at peak times in order to maximise the financial return. The heat generated is used to heat the digester and for other on-farm uses. The digestate is rarely separated into fibrous and liquid fractions and is landspread on the farm or, by arrangement, on adjoining farms. Gate fees for off-farm feedstocks supplement the income to the farmer. However, recently published regulations, stringent approval conditions, decreased subsidies and the constant uncertainty with the law of supplying renewable energy to the grid (Stromeinspeisegesetz) makes further sustained development of new on-farm plants uncertain and endangers the current viable operation of existing German plants (ADNett Conference, 1999). Information on the German on-farm plants can be accessed from the German Farm Biogas Association website (www.biogas.org). In Austria, more than 25 farm-scale biogas plants are operating, most of them having CHP-production but with none of them connected to the gas grid. The biogas sector is growing since 10 of these farm-scale biogas were built in 1997. At present, codigestion of manure with other wastes does not take place (AD-Nett Conference, 1999). There are 19 operational on-farm digesters in Denmark, with the majority codigesting animal manures and small amounts of off-farm organic waste (AD-Nett Conference, 1999). Interest in farm-scale plants in Denmark has been growing from 1995, with particular emphasis on large pig farms which have a high consumption of heat and power. The anaerobic digestion of animal manures has flourished in
46

Denmark primarily due to investment grants and subsidies and also because biogas, as a renewable energy source is exempt from Danish state taxes, whereas taxes must be paid for fossil-derived energy (AD-Nett Conference, 1999). In Italy, installation of commercial on-farm digesters has also developed in recent years (Table 3.10), with the majority of plants being sited in pig and poultry production facilities. In some plants, advantage is taken of the generally high ambient temperatures and heating of the influent is not practiced. Novel plug-flow digester designs, with gas storage on top, have been developed in order to minimise initial construction costs. There are approximately 100 on-farm digesters in Switzerland treating liquid manure. Sixty of these are equipped with CHP plants for electricity and heat generation (Wellinger, AD-Nett Conference, 1999). The three on-farm plants in Ireland (Table 3.10) are located on beef cattle or dairy cattle farms and all either currently accept or will, in the future, accept off-farm foodprocessing wastes for co-digestion. The current restrictions on landfill disposal of organic wastes in Ireland is ensuring that co-digestion substrates are available and that gate charges will enhance the financial viability of these on-farm plants. Plate 8 depicts the on-farm co-digestion plant located at the Camphill Community farm in Co. Tipperary.

Plate 8. The on-farm digester at the Camphill Community farm in Co. Tipperary.

47

4.

LEGISLATION REVIEW

The current legislative framework within the EU clearly favours the re-use and recycle of organic waste, while restricting landfill disposal and prohibiting marine dumping. At the same time, the requirement to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol is focussing attention on the development of renewable energies, resulting, in many countries, in the provision of financial incentives for energy from biomass projects. The development of renewable energy resources in Ireland, over the past five years, has focussed almost exclusively on wind-to-energy projects. It is evident that biomass/waste-to-energy projects must be encouraged and supported to a greater extent if Ireland is to meet the renewable energy targets set out in the Green Paper on Sustainable Energy and fulfil the legally binding commitments of the Kyoto Protocol. In other EU countries, the need to develop biomass/waste-to-energy technologies has resulted in a renewed interest in anaerobic digestion and in the installation of an increasing number of large CAD plants by individual member states. Given our very sizeable quantities of animal waste arisings, CAD presents a proven technology that could significantly contribute to the required increase in energy generation from renewable resources in Ireland. Given the mixture of organic feedstocks likely to undergo digestion in CAD plants and the need to return the digestate to land in order to maximise inorganic nutrient recycle and enhance soil conditioning, there is an evident need to develop agreed standards that can be used in the licencing of CAD plants. These standards should include limits for heavy metals in the digestate; sanitation requirements for individual feedstocks and for the final digestate; recommended digestate application rates in order to optimise NPK uptake and prevent over-spreading; hygiene requirements for compost generated from the solids fraction of the digestate; appropriate safety standards for CAD plant operation, etc. Both national and international standards should take into account the balance required to ensure sustainable management and environmentally-acceptable recycling of organic wastes, without entailing excessive costs.
4.1 National and EU Legislation and Policies that may impact on CAD plant installation and operation

4.1.1 Planning control Given the potential size and scale of CAD plants, planning permission for their location and construction will be required under the Local Government (Planning Development) Acts of 1963 to 1993 (and subsequent amendments thereof). 4.1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Because of their potential environmental impact, it is likely that CAD plants may come under the remit of the EU Environmental Impact Directives (85/337/EEC and 93/99/EEC) which require assessment of the effects of public and private projects on the environment. Waste management facilities dealing with wastes of >1000 Population Equivalents (P.E.) are likely to be subjected to Environmental Impact Assessment.

48

4.1.3 Waste Licensing Licensing of waste activities by the EPA under the Waste Management Act, 1996, commenced in May 1997. As with IPC licences, waste licences are granted by the EPA on an integrated basis, with each licence dealing with all environmental emissions, in addition to regulating the overall environmental management of the facility. By the end of December, 2001, 187 applications for waste licences had been received by the EPA and 101 licences had been granted (Personal Communication; EPA).

CAD plants in Ireland are likely to require a Waste Licence rather than an IPC licence from the EPA. Waste licences, in addition to requiring compliance with strict emission limits, are required to establish and implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) and to prepare an Annual Environmental Report (AER). Waste licences for CAD plants are likely to specify acreage requirements for landspreading of the digestate and set limits for the amounts landspread in line with the following Codes of Practice:- (i) Control of Farm Pollution (Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 1992) and (ii) Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates (Dept. of the Environment and Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 1996); and in accordance with national regulations, such as the Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture (S.I. No. 148 of 1998). Small onfarm or off-farm AD or composting plants are unlikely to require an EPA Waste Licence but will be subject to Local Authority permitting.
4.1.4 The Nitrate from Agricultural Sources Directive (91/676/EEC) Nitrate is a highly toxic substance, whose presence in surface and groundwater potable water sources presents a public health risk, requiring costly treatment of the source water to meet EU Drinking Water Standards. Landspreading, irrigation and injection of animal manures may result in increased nitrate levels in surface and groundwaters. The Nitrate Directive requires member states to specify Codes of Good Agricultural Practice for management and landspreading of animal manures and slurries. These codes are required to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis and must specify restrictions on ways and amounts of manures and chemical fertilisers to be landspread (Scannell, 1995). Member States are also required to designate zones vulnerable to water pollution and to draw up action plans to reduce nitrogen leaching. Limits must be placed on the amounts of livestock manures that may be spread in vulnerable zones (Scannell, 1995).

In order to assist the statutory authorities to meet their responsibility to protect groundwater, a methodology for the preparation of groundwater protection schemes has been jointly published by the EPA, the Dept. of the Environment and Local Government and the Geological Survey of Ireland (Groundwater Protection Schemes, 1999). These schemes will require land surface zoning and groundwater protection responses. The conditions set for CAD plant siting and operation will be determined by these guidelines. Where groundwater is sourced for potable water production, it may also be necessary to take Directive 80/68/EEC into account (Protection of Groundwaters against Certain Dangerous Substances). In addition to potentially toxic or environmentally polluting chemicals (phosphorus, copper, etc.), animal manures and other organic wastes (e.g. wastes from slaughtering and rendering plants) are likely to contain a wide variety of animal and human pathogens - bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminthic parasites (see section 2.12). Bacterial pathogens and parasites that are infective at very low
49

dose levels are of particular concern. These include E. coli 0157 (infective dose of 10-50 viable cells) and Cryptosporidium which may cause gastroenteritis at levels as low as <10 viable oocytes (Ball, 1997). Viral pathogens are also of particular concern since they may survive for longer periods in soil and groundwater than bacteria and their presence in potable water sources may not be detected by standard faecal indicator bacterial test methods (Berg & Metcalf, 1978; Macler, 1995).
4.1.5 EU Directive on Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture (86/278/EEC) The first sewage sludge directive (86/278/EEC) regulated the spreading or injection of sewage sludge on pasture or tillage lands and was incorporated into Irish Legislation by the European Communities (Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture) Regulation, 1991 (S.I. No. 183 of 1991). The most recent relevant Irish Regulation is the Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture, (S.I. No. 148 of 1998). Since sewage sludge is a cosubstrate in a number of existing CAD plants, the provisions of this Directive are of relevance to the landspreading of CAD plant digestate. 4.1.6

EU Directives governing bathing water quality and freshwater, brackish or coastal waters supporting freshwater salmonid and cyprinid species and marine shellfish species Licensing of landspreading of CAD digestate will have to take the above Directives into account, particularly in areas where a risk to bathing waters or finfish/shellfish habitats may exist. The EU Bathing Waters Directive (76/160/EEC) has been implemented in Ireland by the European Communities (Quality of Bathing Waters) Regulations 1992-1994. This directive defines imperative and guide values for microbiological, physicochemical and other substances in bathing waters. The Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) was implemented in Ireland via the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1977/1990 and the European Communities (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations, 1988. The purpose of this directive is to ensure maintenance of the freshwater quality necessary to support either salmonid or cyprinid fish. More stringent imperative and guide values are defined for 14 physical and chemical parameters for salmonid than for cyprinid waterbodies. Orthophosphate is not included in the chemical parameters specified by Directive 78/659/EEC. The Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC) was implemented in Ireland via the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1977/1990; the Fisheries Acts 1979/1990, and the Quality of Shellfish Waters Regulations 1994. Imperative and guide values for 12 physicochemical and microbiological parameters are defined in the Directive.

EU and national legislation on orthophosphate levels in discharged wastewaters and in surface freshwater bodies As indicated in Section 4.1.6, the Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) did not set guideline or imperative values for orthophosphate levels in salmonid or cyprinid waters. Guideline levels for phosphorus were, however, set by the Surface Water Directive (75/440/EEC) for surface waters intended for abstraction for potable water supply purposes. The Surface Water Directive defined three categories of source water (A1, A2, A3) based on raw water quality using 46 physical and chemical parameters. The Directive guideline values for orthophosphate for water categories A1, A2, A3 were, respectively, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.7 mg phosphate (as P2O5) per litre.
4.1.7
50

The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) set guideline (G) and maximum admissable concentrations (MAC) for orthophosphate in potable water - i.e. 400 g/l and 5000 g/l (as P2O5), respectively. However, the new EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EEC) does not specify either G or MAC values for orthophosphate in potable water. The EU Urban Wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC) specifies maximum total phosphorus concentrations in treated domestic wastewaters discharged to receiving waterbodies that are considered to be sensitive (i.e. at risk from eutrophication). The maximum discharge concentrations specified in the Directive are 1 and 2 mgP/litre, respectively, from sewage treatment works serving population equivalents of 10,000 100,000 and > 100,000. The Directive was implemented in Ireland by S.I. No. 254 of 2001 (Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations). Stringent standards for phosphorus concentrations in surface waters in Ireland were set by S.I. No. 258 of 1998 (Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1997 (Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus) Regulations, 1998). S.I. 258/1998 requires that existing surface water quality be either maintained or improved over a ten-year period until December 31st, 2007. The existing biological quality rating of rivers and the trophic status of lakes are defined in S.I. 258/1998 and are based on monitoring data collected between the 1st of January, 1995 and the 31st of December, 1997. Target values range from 5 gP/litre for ultra-oligotrophic to >20 - 50 gP/litre for eutrophic lakes. For rivers, the target values range from 15 to 70 gP/litre based on the quality class and quality rating (Q index) determined over the 1995-1997 monitoring period. The number and frequency of sampling are also specified in S.I. 258/1998. Implementation of S.I. 258/1998 can only be achieved by the imposition of strict maximum phosphorus discharge levels for industrial and domestic wastewater treatment plants; by control of landspreading of animal manures and sewage sludge in order to prevent run-off; by reduction in fertiliser application where soil P levels are already high, and by enforcement of conditions relating to operation of septic tanks and other small-scale domestic or commercial wastewater treatment systems. S.I. 258/1998 will impact on the operation of proposed CAD plants since it will be required to demonstrate that landspreading of the digestate (with or without solids separation) does not result in phosphorus run-off or leaching to surface waters.
4.1.8

EU Directives and national legislation governing quality standards in the air environment Atmospheric pollution legislation may be of relevance to the operation of CAD plants because of (i) potential odour release during transport and holding of organic wastes (manures, sewage sludge, etc.); (ii) the possible presence of H2S (hydrogen sulphide) in the biogas produced during digestion; (iii) the release of sulphur dioxide (a causative agent of acid rain) during burning of the biogas for electricity generation or space heating, and (iv) potential release to the atmosphere of H2S, ammonia or other odorous compounds (e.g. butyric acid) from digestate holding tanks or during subsequent landspreading. Legislation relating to air pollution in Ireland has been reformed and updated by the Air Pollution Act of 1987 (Scannell, 1995). Throughout the European Union, national ambient air and emission standards generally rely on the German TA Luft, USEPA and WHO Air Quality
51

Guidelines/Standards (Kiely, 1997). A variety of EU Directives (the most recent being 99/30/EEC) have set limit values for ambient air and emissions standards .
4.1.9 EU Directives relating to the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystems Both the location of CAD plants, and the landspreading of CAD digestate within protected areas, will require environmental assessment in the context of a number of EU Directives governing biodiversity, protection of endangered species and habitat conservation.

EU Directives 79/409/EEC, 85/441/EEC and 91/224/EEC on the conservation of wild birds have resulted in the designation of twenty Irish Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the European Communities Act 1972-1992 (Scannell, 1995). At least 10 further SPAs are currently being designated, with possibly more to follow. Many of these SPAs had previously been afforded protection as Nature Reserves or refuges under the 1976 Wildlife Act. Should CAD plants be in receipt of EU grants, appropriate steps must be taken in order to protect the birdlife in SPAs against potentially damaging effects of the proposed development. The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) provides for the protection of natural and seminatural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (Scannell, 1995; Scannell et al., 1999). The purpose of this directive is to establish a comprehensive network of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) of European significance for rare, endangered and vulnerable species and habitats throughout the EU. The network will be known as Natura 2000 and will consist of sites of international importance. The process of designating Irish SACs is currently in train. CAD plants located in, or impacting on, SACs will be subjected to the EIA process. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000) sets conditions for development control in National Heritage Areas (NHAs). NHAs were previously defined as Areas of Scientific Interest by an Foras Forbartha in 1981 and include outstanding landscape areas (Inventory of Outstanding Landscapes: an Foras Forbartha, 1977) and exceptional peatland sites (Peatland Sites of Scientific Interest in Ireland; Wildlife Advisory Council, 1980). The location of CAD plants, or the landspreading of CAD digestate, within NHAs is likely to require special evaluation and control under the amended Wildlife Act.
4.1.10 The Rural Environment Protection Scheme The preference of the European Community to ensure protection of natural habitats by agreement with landowners, rather than by resorting to legal regulation, resulted in the adoption of EU Regulation 2078/92/EEC (Agricultural Production Methods compatible with requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside). Implementation of Regulation 2078/92/EEC in Ireland is via the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), administered by the Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The primary aim of this EU Regulation is to provide an aid scheme for farmers in order to encourage the introduction of farming practices and production methods which reflect increasing concern for the conservation of wildlife habitats, conservation of endangered species of flora and fauna, and protection of the landscape (Hickie, 1997; Scannell et al., 1999).

The agri-environment plans drawn up by approved REPS planners must take a number of compulsory measures into account, including retention of wildlife habitats, protection and maintenance of waterbodies, development of grassland management
52

plans, adoption of waste management, liming and fertilisation plans (Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry handbook "Rural Environment Protection Scheme: Agri-Environmental Specifications). The REPS plans may impose limits on the spreading of CAD plant digestate on farmlands owned by farmers who are participating in the scheme. These restrictions will have to be taken into account when granting planning permission for CAD plants in environmentally sensitive areas.
4.1.11

National legislation on sanitation requirements for CAD plant operation in different EU countries The mixing of animal and human wastes as feedstocks for CAD plants, together with the potential return of the digestate for landspreading on pasture and tillage lands, raises the question of risk to public and animal health. Animal manures, sewage sludge and the organic fraction of MSW may contain a wide variety of pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites. The transport of these feedstocks to CAD plants, their mixing during digestion, and the return of the mixed CAD digestate for landspreading on farmland creates new potential pathways for pathogen dissemination by direct contamination or through the animal and human foodchains.

In countries where CAD plants are already operational, this risk has been addressed by recent national legislation or codes of practice. Indicator organisms, as in public health legislation for potable water supplies, have been used to monitor the hygiene and sanitation standards of CAD plants. E. coli is the faecal indicator of choice in public health monitoring of potential contamination of water supplies, bathing water, shellfish production waters etc. However, faecal streptococci (FS) are present in higher numbers in animal than in human faeces and they also display longer survival times in holding tanks and greater thermostability during anaerobic digestion than the majority of other bacteria, viruses and parasites tested to date (Bendixen, 1994, 1999). Standardised test procedures have been developed in Denmark, using FS as the indicator organism, in order to monitor the Pathogen Reducing Effect (PRE) achieved during CAD plant operation. The PRE effect is defined as the reduction in log10 units of FS numbers/g of waste during feedstock holding, exposure of influent to presanitation temperatures, anaerobic digestion, post-sanitation procedures etc. (Bendixen, 1999). The data obtained in these studies led to a Danish Ministerial Order (1989) requiring pre-sanitation of high-risk feedstocks prior to treatment in a CAD plant. Pre-sanitation was preferred to post-sanitation, with respect to cost and energy usage considerations, since only the high-risk feedstocks were deemed to require special sanitation processing. The Danish Order specifies a controlled pre-sanitation period of one hour at 70C for sewage sludge and the organic fraction of MSW. For other feedstocks (animal manures, food processing wastes, etc.) a range of alternative operational conditions (Table 4.1) which would achieve the required sanitation, are defined by the Ministerial Order (Bendixen, 1999). These conditions include minimal guaranteed retention times for the feedstocks within mesophilic and thermophilic digesters or in pre-sanitation tanks at temperatures ranging from 52C to 65C (Table 4.1). Regular analysis of FS levels in incoming feedstocks, holding tanks, sanitation tanks and in digesters is required in order to monitor hygienic and sanitation standards and to detect operational problems, such as short-circuiting of raw wastes during plant operation.
53

Table 4.1: Sanitation equivalent to one hour at 70C as required by Danish Notification No. 823 (Ministry for Energy and Environmental Protection)1

Temperature

MGRT2 in a thermophilic digestion tank3

MGRT in a separate sanitation tank

Before or after digestion in a thermophilic digestion tank3

Before or after digestion in a mesophilic digestion tank4

52.0C 53.5C 55.0C 60.0C 65.0C

1. 2

10 h 8h 6h -

5.5 h 2.5 h 1.0 h

7.5 h 3.5 h 1.5 h

Adapted from Bendixen (1999) MGRT is the minimum guaranteed retention time of feedstock in the digestion tank. 3 Thermophilic digestion is defined as 52C or greater. The HRT must be at least 7 days 4 Mesophilic digestion between 20C and 52C. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) must be at least 14 days.

The Danish Order, in addition to requiring an FS log10 reduction of 4 units for biogas plants co-digesting high risk wastes, specifies that the final digestate must contain less than 100 FS per gram and that Salmonella species must be absent from a specified number of routinely tested 25 g samples (Bendixen, 1999). In Germany and Austria, a pre-sanitation treatment at 70C for one hour for mesophilic AD plants or for 0.5 h for thermophilic plants is recommended (Table 4.2). In Germany, validation procedures, developed initially for composted organic wastes, have been adopted in the recent "Biowastes Ordinance". These procedures involve the use of Salmonella senftenberg W775 (H2S negative) as test organism in specially-designed test carrier systems. The standards required for AD plants treating high risk feedstocks are:- (i) absence of Salmonella sp. in 50 g samples, and (ii) less than two germinative tomato seeds and reproducible plant parts in one litre of digestate (Bohm et al., 1999; Amon & Boxberger, 1999). Although other countries within the EU have not, so far, set hygiene or sanitation requirements for CAD plant digestates, the increasing application of CAD for organic waste management, re-use and recycle will undoubtedly lead to further national and EU legislative control with respect to animal and human health.

54

Table 4.2: Sanitation requirements for risk substances in biogas plants in Austria1

Heating before anaerobic digestion Digester Type Temperature (C) Time (h)

Sanitation during anaerobic digestion Temperature (C) Time (h)

Mesophilic biogas plants 20 - 40C Thermophilic biogas plants 52C or greater

1

70

70

0.5

55C

24

Adapted from Amon & Boxberger (1999)

4.1.12 Proposed EU Legislation on biological treatment of Biowaste. The EC working document on Biological Treatment of Biowaste (2nd draft; Feb. 2001; DG ENV.A.2/LM/biowaste) defines biowaste as any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, paper and paperboard. Proposed standards are indicated in the working document for home, community and collective composting and for anerobic digestion of separated biowaste. These standards include sanitation requirements (chosen indicator organism is Salmonella senftenberg W775 (H2S negative)) and also specify heavy metal limits. With respect to anaerobic digestion, it is recommended that a minimum temperature of 55C is maintained in thermophilic digestors over a period of 24 hours and that the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of the waste in the reactor is at least 20 days. For digesters operated under mesophilic conditions or at shorter HRTs, it is recommended that the influent biowaste be pre-treated, or the digestate post-treated, at 70C for one hour.

The working document proposes that the compost and anaerobic digestate are deemed to be adequately sanitised only if they comply with the following suggested standards:*Salmonella spp. absent in 50g of compost/digestate *Clostridium perfringens absent in 1 g of compost/digestate [* - Under Review]
4.1.13 The EU Directive on the Landfill of Waste (99/31/EEC) The EU directive on the landfill of waste sets targets for reduction of the biodegradable fraction of MSW going to landfill (i.e. a reduction, within 15 years, to 35% of the total amount, by weight, of biodegradable MSW produced in 1995). Member States are obliged to prepare national strategies to implement this reduction, including measures to achieve the specified targets by means of recycling, composting, biogas production or materials/energy recovery.

A number of Member States have set limits on the use of landfills for organic waste disposal. In Sweden, the disposal of nutrient-rich, wet organic waste in landfills is
55

subject to a special tax from 2000 onwards and a total ban on landfilling of organic waste will be introduced in 2005. Austria has recently prohibited the landfilling of organic waste above 5% of the total waste landfilled (Amon & Boxberger, 1999). In Ireland, the Department of the Environment and Local Government policy statement of 1998 Waste Management: Changing our Ways set targets for reduction on reliance on landfill. While emphasising the preferred options of waste minimisation and re-use, the Policy Statement specifies (i) a diversion of 50% of overall household wastes from landfill; (ii) a minimum of 65% reduction in biodegradable waste (biowaste) consigned to landfill. The proposed targets were given a fifteen year timescale from 1998.
4.1.14 Proposed EU Legislation on Animal By-products In the area of Food Safety and Health, one particular European Community initiative has especial relevance to the biological treatment of biodegradable waste. This is the Proposed EU Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. The Proposed Regulation is presently under negotiation and the current text seeks to include stringent controls on the management of animal by-products that is destined for beneficial re-use within its scope. The scope of animal by-products currently includes catering waste, the definition of which effectively includes all food waste originating from household and commercial kitchens. The full text of the Common Position on the Proposed Animal By-products Regulation as adopted by the Council on 20th November 2001 can be downloaded from website address: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st10/10408-rlen1.pdf. 4.2 Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Promotion of Renewable Energies The requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is one of the primary factors underlying the recent upsurge of interest in anaerobic digestion technology in EU Member States. Since combustion of fossil fuels represents the greatest source of CO2 emissions, strategies to counteract global warming must promote development of renewable energies (biomass, wind, wave, solar, hydro, etc.). Anaerobic digestion of single or combined organic waste feedstocks provides a mechanism for the production of methane from biomass (organic waste or purpose-grown biomass), thereby generating a renewable form of energy and resulting in a net decrease in CO2 emissions.

Ireland is a signatory to a variety of international agreements designed to offset climate change and promote sustainability. These include the Montreal Protocol (1987, revised in 1990), the Rio Declaration (1992) and the associated Agenda 21, and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). Ireland's committment to the development of renewable energy resources and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has been highlighted in national policy documents, such as "Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland", published in April, 1997; the "Statement of Strategy" published by the Department of Public Enterprise in April 1998, and the "Green Paper on Sustainable Energy" published by the Department of Public Enterprise (September, 1999). The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) set a primary objective of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This Convention took into account the requirements of under-developed countries by demanding greater reductions in CO2 emissions from developed
56

countries. Ireland, as a cohesion country, was expected to contribute less to CO2 emission reductions than the majority of the then EU Member States. The target set for Ireland was to limit its CO2 emissions in the year 2000 to 20% above the emission rate of 1990. The Gothenburg Protocol sets emission ceilings for 2010 for four pollutants including ammonia. The ceilings were negotiated on the basis of scientific assessments of pollution effects and abatement options and once the Protocol is fully implemented, Europes ammonia emissions should be cut by 17% compared to 1990 levels. Farmers will have to take specific measures to control ammonia emissions. It has been estimated that once the Protocol is implemented, the area in Europe with excessive levels of acidification will shrink from 93 million hectares in 1990 to 15 million hectares in 2010 while those with excessive levels of eutrophication will fall from 165 million hectares in 1990 to 108 million hectares in 2010. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC set legally binding targets for developed countries for the period (2008-2012). The Kyoto Protocol includes commitments to a reduction in hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), perfluorocarbon (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) gases, in addition to the three gases covered by the 1992 UNFCCC agreement (i.e. CO2, CH4 and N2O). Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU agreed to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 8% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012 (for the three new gases, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, the reference year is 1995). As part of the internal EU burden-sharing arrangements under the joint fulfillment provisions of the Protocol, Ireland agreed to limit its increase in emissions of the six greenhouse gases to 13% above 1990 (CO2, CH4, N2O) and 1995 (HFCs, PFCs, SF6) levels by the same period (2008-2012). Within the EU as a whole, energy use and production is by far the most important source of greenhouse gas emissions, representing 80% of total 1990 emissions (Green Paper on Sustainable Energy, 1999). Table 4.3 summarises the actual and projected Irish greenhouse gas emissions for selected years between 1990 and 2010. The limit emissions set for Ireland for the period 2008 - 2012 has, in fact, been reached in the year 2000. Unless significant interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are put in train (i.e. if we continue on a business as usual basis), Ireland will exceed its 1990 emission levels by 25% by the year 2010 (compared to an agreed increase limit of 13% under the EU burden-sharing agreement). The projected emissions of CFCs, PFCs and SF6 in the year 2010 also show a more than 3-fold increase over 1995 emission levels (Table 4.3).

57

Table 4.3: Actual and Projected Irish Greenhouse Gas Emissions (1990-2010)

Emissions (x Million Tonnes of CO2 Equivalents) Year CO2 19901 19951 19981 20002 20052 20102
1

CH4

N2O

HFCs, PFCs & SF6 0.046 0.256 0.685 0.971 1.125 1.279

Total3

30.719 34.116 39.107 41.439 45.581 49.350

17.038 17.099 16.398 17.425 17.516 17.594

9.105 8.110 7.981 8.227 7.728 7.638

56.907 58.511 62.519 65.642 68.481 71.331

Actual emissions; 2projected emissions; 3total values with forestry CO2 sinks taken into account (Adapted from the 1999 Green Paper on Sustainable Energy).

Energy-related CO2 emissions account for the bulk of the projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions. By the year 2010, it is projected that the production, transmission, supply and end-use of energy will contribute 18.2 million tonnes more of CO2 to annual greenhouse gas emissions by comparison with the 1990 CO2 emission levels (i.e. a 62.7% increase in energy-related CO2 emissions). The projected data also indicate that energy-related CO2 emissions will account for 66% of the 2010 emissions compared to 51% in 1990. It is evident, therefore, that the Kyoto Protocol imposes extremely challenging targets for greenhouse gas emission abatement on Ireland by the target period of 2008-2012, particularly in the context of a period of extremely rapid economic growth rate. Based on advice presented in reports commissioned by the Government (i.e. the ERM Report (1998), the London School of Economics Report (1999) and the 1992 ESRI Report), the Green Paper on Sustainable Energy (1999) sets out a framework of policies and measures designed to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions in the context of an overall National Abatement Strategy. Overall abatement strategies include energy consumption reduction; switching fuels for electricity generation, especially from coal and peat to natural gas; implementation of new standards of insulation, heating, ventilation and lighting systems in new buildings and encouragement of improved systems in existing building stock; promotion of renewable energies; imposition of carbon taxes; implementation of vehicle efficiency standards and promotion of cheap public transport, etc. - in addition to proposed EU burden-sharing agreements. It has been projected that Ireland can expect a massive bill of up to 0.5 billion dollars by the year 2012 for the purchase of carbon dioxide credits (Kiely, 1997).

58

Positive relevant measures taken by Ireland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to promote renewable energies include the following:(i) The establishment of the Irish Energy Centre (IEC), a joint initiative of the Dept. of Public Enterprise and Enterprise Ireland. The priorities of the IEC include (a) support for energy auditing; (b) support for investment in energy efficient technology and systems; (c) technical advice in relation to energy supply and use, and (d) information campaigns and back-up measures. (ii) The launching of the Alternative Energy Requirement (AER) scheme in 1995 and its subsequent renewal. (iii) Irish participation in EU energy programmes, such as JOULE, THERMIE, SAVE and ALTENER. In 1995, renewable energy represented 5.7% of total electricity generation capacity in Ireland (representing only 1.7% of Total Primary Energy Requirement (TPER) in that year). Assuming a "business as usual" scenario, renewable energy would only account for 2% of TPER in Ireland by the year 2010. This contrasts with the target of 12% of TPER and 23.5% of electricity generation from renewable sources proposed in the European Commission's White Paper, "Energy for the future: Renewable sources of energy". Within the European Union as a whole, electricity generation from large hydro-power plants is projected to provide greater than 50% of the electricity generated from renewable sources by the year 2010. However, since the potential for new large hydro-power plants in Ireland is limited, no significant increase in electricity generation from this source can be expected. Consequently, increased use of renewable energy in Ireland must focus on wind, wave and biomass resources. This is reflected in the targets set in the AER competitions, as illustrated in Table 4.4. The target set by the four AER competitions was an additional 190 MW by the end of 1999, of which 63% and 27%, respectively, were to be sourced from wind and biomass/waste. To date, twenty-two AER projects have been completed with a total installed capacity of 73.4 MW and the winning projects in AER III and IV are at various stages of completion. The Green Paper on Sustainable Energy (1999) proposes a target of installed electricity generating capacity of 500 MWe from renewable sources in the period 2000-2005.It is proposed to achieve this target by a combination of AER support, direct sales and successful EU Fifth Framework projects. However, it is evident that a greater focus on biomass/waste will be required in order to meet the targets set for the contribution of renewable energy resources to Ireland's energy requirements in 2008-2012. Throughout the EU, renewable energy development is being promoted by a variety of positive measures, including ecotaxes on fossil fuel usage; subsidies and tax exemptions for "green" electricity and combined heat and power (CHP) projects, and decentralisation and privatisation of national electricity and gas supply systems. A number of Member States have given a particular focus to anaerobic digestion. An Energy Action Plan, "Energy 21" was developed in Denmark in 1996, with medium and long-term scenarios to 2005, 2020 and 2030 (Tafdrup, 1997). This plan anticipates a doubling of biogas production between 1996 and the year 2000 and a further doubling again by the year 2005. It is anticipated that the bulk of the biogas
59

produced will be used for electricity generation in CHP plants because of the very favourable subsidy paid for electricity generated from renewable energy (0.26 kroner/kWh).
Table 4.4: Targets set for renewable energies and CHP installations in AER Competitions in Ireland (1995-1999)1

Target MWe (Installed Capacity) Category AER I AER II AER III AER IV Total

Biomass/Waste Hydro Wind Wave

Total R.E.

15 10 30 0
55

30 0 0 0
30

7 3 90 5
105

0 0 0 0
0

52 13 120 5
190

CHP
Total
1

20
75

0
30

0
105

35
35

55
245

Adapted from the 1999 Green Paper on Sustainable Energy.

In Sweden, the use of biogas as a vehicle fuel is being promoted in order to reduce transport emissions of carbon dioxide and sulphur- and nitrogen-oxides. The focus on utilising biogas as a vehicle fuel entails the construction of large CAD plants since the cost of upgrading biogas to vehicle standards would be too expensive for small onfarm or sewage treatment works. In the UK, the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) programme provides the main impetus for renewable energy projects. NFFO is a competitive process with successful projects being awarded a contract to supply electricity on favourable terms for a fixed period of 15 years. The most recent NFFO contracts for biogas plants guarantee a price of 5p/kWh for 15 years (increasing with inflation). This compares very favourably with an annual average price of 2.4p/kWh for electricity sold to the UK national grid.

60

5.

QUANTIFICATION OF ORGANIC WASTE ARISINGS IN IRELAND AND SUITABILITY OF DIFFERENT CATCHMENT AREAS FOR CAD PLANT LOCATION

5.1 Quantities of organic waste arisings annually in Ireland. Total annual organic waste arisings suitable for anerobic digestion were derived from a variety of national reports, such as the 1998 National Waste Database Report (EPA, 2000); the State of the Environment Report (EPA, 1996); Ireland's Environment: a Millennium Report (EPA, 2000); the Fehily, Timoney Inventory of Non-Hazardous Sludges in Ireland (1998), and the Strategy Study on Options for the Treatment and Disposal of Sewage Sludge in Ireland (Weston-FTA Ltd., 1993). 5.1.1 Agricultural wastes Animal manures and slurries (Table 5.1) present major point sources of organic waste in many countries due to changes in animal husbandry and intensification of cattle, pig and poultry production (Colleran, 1992). The total amount of animal manure and slurry arisings from intensive livestock production units and from over-wintering of cattle, sheep and horses in Ireland in 1998 was estimated to be 43.28 million tonnes wet weight (1998 National Waste Database Report, EPA 2000). The estimate of total annual arisings was based on 1998 livestock numbers (CSO, 1998) and on average winter housing periods of 20, 6 and 26 weeks, respectively, for cattle, sheep and horses. For pigs and poultry, it was assumed that all of the slurry and litter produced is from intensive units, thereby requiring appropriate management. Manure from the overwintering of cattle accounted for 86% of the manure and slurry arisings. As indicated in Table 5.1, silage effluent and dirty water from dairy farms contribute significantly to the total annual agricultural waste arisings. Silage effluent presents a potential seasonal feedstock for CAD plants. Dirty water is not regarded as a viable substrate for CAD plants because of its low BOD/COD content, its large volume, problems of collection and prohibitive transport costs. 5.1.2 Urban wastewater sludges The total urban wastewater sludge arisings in 1998 from agglomerations with population equivalents of greater than, or equal to, 1000 were estimated to be approximately 493,011 tonnes wet weight, corresponding to approximately 37,577 tonnes dry solids (National Waste Database: Report 1998). Significant amounts of sewage sludge are also generated from small-scale sewage treatment plants and from septic tanks. The annual contribution of sewage sludge from the small-scale sector was estimated by Fehily, Timony (1998) to be approximately 12,675 tonnes wet weight (507 tonnes dry solids). Consequently, the total estimated sewage sludge generation in Ireland in 1998 was approximately 505,686 tonnes wet weight. This is equivalent to only 1.2% (on a wet weight basis) of the estimated animal waste arisings in 1998 from intensive livestock production and over-wintering. 5.1.3

Biological sludge arisings from food and other industrial wastewater treatment plants. Industries that biologically treat their wastewater on-site generate sizeable quantities of waste sludge. Table 5.2 summarises the quantity of sludge arisings (tonnes dry solids) reported in the Inventory of Non-Hazardous Sludges in Ireland (Fehily, Timony Report, 1998). The 1998 National Waste Database Report quantified these sludge arisings in wet weight terms (Table 5.1). The percentage dry solids of these sludges is extremely variable due to different degrees of dewatering on-site.
61

Consequently, it is not possible to make valid comparisons between the Fehily, Timony and EPA data (Tables 5.2 and 5.3).
Table 5.1. Total estimated agricultural waste arisings in Ireland in 19981

Waste category Cattle manure and slurry Sheep manure Horse manure Pig manure and slurry Poultry manure Silage effluent Dirty water (dairy only) Total
1 2.

Quantities arising tonnes/annum2 % 37,098,470 57.4 338,063 0.5 365,310 0.6 2,623,350 4.1 1,847,531 2.9 2,684,500 4.2 19,578,724 30.4 64,578,724 100.0

Adapted from 1998 National Waste Database Report (EPA, 2000) Tonnes wet weight

Table 5.2 Summary of reported annual biological sludge arisings from industrial sources in Ireland1

Sludge type Industrial biological wastewater sludges Food industry sludges Abattoir sludges (excluding offal) Total
1

Tonnes (Dry Weight) 57,446 88,851 19,369 165,666

Inventory of Non-Hazardous Sludges in Ireland (Fehily, Timony, 1998)

According to the 1998 National Waste Database, the food and beverage sector contributed 94% of the total industrial biological treatment sludge arisings (wet weight basis) in Ireland in 1998 (Table 5.3). The chemical/pharmaceutical sector contributed 3%, with other industrial treatment plants making up the balance of 3%. Table 5.3 also summarises the current disposal/recycle routes for industrial biological treatment sludges.
Table 5.3 EPA estimate of biological sludge arisings from industrial wastewater treatment (tonnes wet weight) and sludge disposal/recovery routes1

Industry
Food and beverages

Total 668,485

Landfill disposal 7,948

Landspreading 614,334

Other/ unspecified 46,013

20,036
Chemical, pharmaceutical

13,441

5,056

1,539

19,549
Other industries

10,699 32,088

8,772 628,162

78 47,630

708,070
Total
1

1998 National Waste Database Report (EPA, 2000) 62

5.1.4

High strength organic wastes and wastewaters from the food processing, beverage and other industrial sectors Section 5.1.3 summarises the organic sludge arisings from on-site treatment of industrial wastewaters. This section does not include data on raw organic waste and wastewater arisings in the industrial and food-processing sector. Currently, there is little published information on the quantities and geographical location of these waste and wastewater arisings in Ireland. In countries practising CAD technology, foodprocessing wastes and wastewaters from abattoirs, canneries, breweries, fishprocessing and edible oil production plants are regarded as valuable co-digestion substrates because of their high biogas production potential. The availability of these raw wastes/wastewaters can greatly boost the daily CAD plant biogas productivity, resulting in increased heat/electricity generation, with consequent improvement in economic viability.

5.1.5 The organic fraction of MSW The source-separated organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW) is currently co-digested with animal manures in a number of EU CAD plants. Although Ireland lags far behind many of its partner EU countries with respect to source separation of MSW, the potential for co-digestion of source-separated OFMSW in CAD plants is significant for the future. The 1998 National Waste Database Report (EPA, 2000) estimated that 1,220,856 tonnes of household waste, 754,797 tonnes of commercial waste and 80,999 tonnes of street cleaning waste were generated in Ireland in 1998. Analysis of the composition of household and commercial waste arisings by local authorities indicated an organic content of 32.9% and 15.1%, respectively. Consequently, the organic fraction of household and commercial waste in Ireland in 1998 amounted, respectively, to approximately 0.4 million and 114,005 tonnes in 1998. The 1998 National Waste Database report also highlighted the fact that some commercial sectors were not represented in the local authority surveys. Most notable of these omissions is the hotel and catering sector, which tends to produce wastes with a high content of digestible organic matter. Despite the deficiencies in data collection, it is evident that source separation of household and commercial wastes in Ireland could generate considerably more than 0.4 million tonnes of putrescible organic waste per annum in Ireland. The local availability of this highly-digestible waste would provide a valuable co-substrate for CAD plants, resulting in their improved commercial viability in defined urban and rural geographical areas. 5.2 County by county analysis of organic waste arisings and identification of potentially suitable catchment areas for CAD plant location Databases of national organic waste arisings quantify the total potential substrates suitable for anaerobic digestion. However, such databases give little information on the geographical location of waste arisings with respect to catchment areas that might be suitable for CAD plant location. Consequently, a county by county survey was carried out in order to pinpoint suitable catchment areas. This was primarily based on written enquiries to local authorities, followed by visits by the project team. Information was also obtained from a variety of other sources:-

EPA Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) applications and reports from foodprocessing industries, large dairy plants, slaughterhouse and meat-rendering companies, breweries, etc. Department of Agriculture information on farm type, size, density and location.
63

Teagasc reports, such as the Teagasc Manure Guidelines with Special Reference to Intensive Agricultural Enterprises Ordinance Survey of Ireland Geological Survey of Ireland reports, including Groundwater Protection in Ireland: A Scheme for the Future, 1995 and Landspreading of Organic Wastes and Groundwater Protection, 1998. Central Statistics Office reports including Farm Structures Survey, June 1995 and Crops and Livestock Survey, June 1997. The Irish Farmers Association

The purpose in carrying out the county by county survey was to identify:1. The type and quantity of waste arisings within each county. 2. The presence of large point sources of suitable wastes, such as the arisings from pig and poultry production plants. 3. The location of sensitive catchments. 4. The average county farm size and density. 5. The availability of spreadlands for treated wastes. 6. The interest of local authorities in centralised anaerobic digestion as determined by response and feedback from questionnaires and visits.
5.3 Weighting system for catchment selection The criteria and weighting system applied in the survey was adapted from The New Rational Manager (Kepner and Tregoe, 1981), which details a system known as Decision Analysis. The purpose of Decision Analysis is to identify what needs to be done, develop the specific criteria for its accomplishment, evaluate the available alternatives relative to those criteria, and identify the risks involved.

The objectives required from the first phase of the project were defined and weighted according to their importance for the successful selection of suitable sites for CAD. The level of interest and feedback gained from individual local authorities was deemed to be a significant factor, as full cooperation was required for the successful completion of phase 2 of the project. The quantities of biosolids available for CAD were calculated from the total arisings on a county by county basis (Fehily, Timony Report, 1998). The location of sensitive catchments and the availability of spreadlands (taking into account REPS uptake, NHA, SAC designations etc.) within each county were also estimated. Other factors which were regarded as significant were the farm size distribution and the track record of the particular local authority in the application of anaerobic digestion technology.
Weighting Criteria

Interest/Feedback: The level of interest or feedback shown by the local authorities was ranked on the basis of information received on sludge arisings and expressed interest in anaerobic digestion technology. Available Biosolids: The quantities of agricultural wastes and industrial (primarily food processing and slaughterhouse) wastes within each county were obtained from the Fehily, Timony Report (1998) and ranked according to total amounts.

64

Number of potential sites: This refers to the number of prime sites within each county, (20km X 20km area) where there are substantial quantities of both agricultural and industrial wastes. Sensitive catchments: The sensitivity of a catchment site was based on EPA reports on the quality of rivers and lakes in Ireland and also on GSI reports on the level of pollution of groundwater. The presence of NHAs and SACs in certain areas was also used as an index of the sensitivity of a catchment area. Availability of spreadlands: The availability of land for the spreading of digestate from the CAD plant was analysed. The presence of tillage farms within the locality was an added bonus, as crop production requires larger quantities of manure by comparison with the dairying and beef farming sectors. The level of uptake of the REPS scheme within each county was seen as a negative factor for available spreadlands due to restrictions on nitrogen and phosphorus application levels. Farm Sizes: The density of larger farms to smaller farms within a county was investigated and the presence of large-scale pig and poultry farms was favoured. Track Record: If a particular county or local authority already had experience with anaerobic digestion technology, whether it be for sewage sludge treatment or for any other area of waste management, this was taken as being a positive factor and given a higher score.

5.4 Results of National Survey Table 5.4 summarises the data obtained from the survey and illustrates the weighting grade scores of individual local authority areas. The grades illustrated in Table 5.4 and in Figure 5.2 are as follows:- A = >700; B = 600-700; C = 500-600; D = 400500, and E = <400. As indicated earlier, the weightings were based on the Decision Analysis system developed by Kepner and Tregoe (1981).

A more detailed breakdown of the quantity and type of organic waste arisings on a county by county basis is presented in Table 5.5. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 geographically illustrate the total quantities of biosolids and the weighting scores for each county, respectively.
5.5 Catchment selection - analysis of potential CAD plant locations in six selected counties On the basis of data obtained from the county by county survey and from other sources, six counties were selected for further study. The survey weightings for the selected counties were as follows:- 785 (Cork); 725 (Limerick); 700 (Monaghan); 685 (Kilkenny); 640 (Meath) and 630 (Cavan).

The six counties selected were further analysed using the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. Nature and location of waste arisings Infrastructure Sensitive catchments Interest/alternatives

65

Table 5.4: Summary of evaluation of potential sites for CAD on a national basis.

County Track record poor poor fair good poor good fair good fair good poor poor fair poor good poor poor poor good poor poor good good fair poor good good Farm size Weighting grade** v. large E small B medium C large A large E small C small C medium B v. large E v. large B large E small E medium A medium C medium C v. small D large B v.small A large E small C small D large E large E v. large C medium C v. large E v. large E

Interest/ Available Potential Sensitive Availability of Feedback Biosolids (tdsa)* sites areas spreadlands Carlow none 103119 low low good Cavan v. good 147995 medium high low Clare fair 159919 low high low Cork excellent 629440 high medium good Dublin fair 48452 low low low Donegal good 100062 medium medium medium Galway fair 228531 low high low Kerry good 200689 medium high low Kildare none 86109 low low high Kilkenny excellent 184986 low low high Laois none 116197 low low medium Leitrim none 45368 low high low Limerick excellent 223567 medium high medium Longford good 64902 low low medium Louth good 54083 low low high Mayo fair 161944 low high low Meath good 177814 medium medium high Monaghan excellent 167315 medium high low Offaly none 113697 low low medium Roscommon good 125499 medium low low Sligo fair 66507 low high medium Tipperary (N) none 165932 medium medium medium Tipperary (S) none 181407 medium medium medium Waterford fair 142231 medium low high Westmeath good 108122 low high low Wexford none 148565 medium low high Wicklow none 68192 low low high *tdsa - tonnes dry solids per annum; ** See section 5.3 for explanation of Weighting System.

66

Table 5.5: National biosolids arisings summarised on a county by county basis (Tonnes Dry Solids per annum- tdsa).

County Food industry 46080 1032 0 15903 26 0 50 1750 312 14125 0 0 1336 0 4566 0 0 788 0 0 2 25123 90 1 0 277 0 Slaughtering waste 5804 155 0 18898 3802 7528 0 1581 7396 8656 2822 0 3824 0 0 0 8139 3416 752 16601 0 19387 5176 4977 0 4253 180 Cattle manure 49027 114488 156299 507093 90478 23850 224733 190012 74186 154683 106122 41528 202016 58011 44998 155054 159056 91629 102813 106793 65263 138437 164042 119791 98633 134503 62838 Pig slurry 735 24549 1190 23932 2832 939 1193 6199 3309 6185 5980 1446 2217 5787 2010 2499 5607 4526 7544 1500 913 4641 10987 8538 8277 6211 1682 Poultry (Litter) 147 6899 138 3184 162 331 1237 350 54 122 57 294 11765 478 427 3110 2793 51321 86 43 32 55 190 8348 59 411 1163 Poultry (Slurry) 429 1119 183 6192 658 243 1119 482 1100 282 501 60 1879 77 2088 441 1020 15094 1905 227 113 189 132 455 157 1388 1320

Biol. Ind.

Total 103119 147995 160064 630644 100147 48452 229133 200942 88298 184986 116197 45368 223916 64902 54430 161944 177814 167539 113914 125499 66507 166081 181474 142231 108122 148715 68296

Carlow Cavan Clare Cork Donegal Dublin Galway Kerry Kildare Kilkenny Laois Leitrim Limerick Longford Louth Mayo Meath Monaghan Offaly Roscommon Sligo Tipperary (N) Tipperary (S) Waterford Westmeath Wexford Wicklow

0 13 380 53432 0 27 0 200 10 84 0 1823 0 240 0 0 0 162 0 0 0 80 459 0 0 20 514

Sewage sludge 897 859 1874 2010 2189 15561 801 368 1931 849 715 217 879 309 341 840 1199 603 814 335 184 779 398 121 966 1652 599

67

Figure 5.1 :

Total Quantities of Biosolids Arisings in Ireland in Tonnes Dry Solids per Annum (Based on Inventory of Non-hazardous Sludges in Ireland, Fehily, Timoney Report, 1998).

68

Figure 5.2 : GIS Representation of the weighting of counties for potential sites for CAD.

69

The aim of this stage of the study was to attempt, on a preliminary basis, to locate potential sites within these counties (of about 20km2 or 12.5 miles2) where a CAD plant could be located. The primary parameter of importance at this stage was the location of large point sources of waste arisings, such as pig or poultry production, food processing plants, slaughterhouses etc. within the six counties selected. The proximity of these sources to each other was of particular importance due to the requirement to minimise influent and effluent transportation costs in order to ensure the energy and financial sustainability of any proposed CAD plant. The likelihood of local large waste production units to function as end users of the generated biogas for heat, steam or heat/power generation was also a factor taken into consideration. Data on the intensity and type of farm activity (CSO, 1995, 1997; Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 1998) within the counties was collected, as was information on the infrastructure in terms of road networks and the potential availability of spreadlands (Dept. of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, 1997; Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 1998 and Nugent, 1999). All selected counties have varying levels of cattle slurry arisings which are potentially available as feedstock for proposed CAD plants. Data from surveys on national water quality (EPA, 1996a, b; 1997, 1999b) and sewage outflow locations were used to identify sensitive catchments in each of the six counties. The locations chosen for more detailed study in each of the six counties are presented below:Limerick 1. Pallasgreen/Dromkeen/Doon (East Limerick): The location has three poultry producers and one food processing plant in Dromkeen in very close proximity to each other. The road network is good.

2. Patrickswell/New Kildimo (West Limerick): There are two poultry producers in close proximity. The area has a good road network. There is an AIBP beef slaughtering plant in Rathkeale.
Monaghan 1. Monaghan/Emyvale (North Monaghan): There is a large scale duck production facility (Silverhill Foods Ltd.) and a slaughtering plant in the area. This is a sensitive catchment area.

2. Clones/Smithboro: (West Monaghan): There are several small poultry production units in the Smithboro area and an AIBP plant for beef slaughtering in Clones. This is a sensitive catchment area. 3. Lough Egish/Castleblayney/Carrickmacross (South Monaghan): There is a large dairy plant (Lakeland Dairy) as well as a number of food processing industries located close to Lough Egish. The area has a large number of dairy farms. Lough Egish is extremely sensitive due to its hypertrophic nature (EPA, Water Quality Report, 1995-1997).

70

Cork 1. Ballineen/Bandon/Clonakility (South Cork): The area has some small pig and poultry production units. There are poultry slaughtering plants in Ballineen and Clonakilty and an AIBP beef slaughtering plant in Bandon. The area has significant levels of tillage farming (Carton and Magette, 1998).

2. Kildorrey/Mitchelstown/Charleville (North Cork): There are large scale food processing plants in Mitchelstown and an animal slaughtering plant in Charleville. The area has significant levels of tillage farming (Carton and Magette, 1998).
Meath 1. Kells/Summerhill (West Meath): The area has some poultry production units and a good infrastructure. However, point sources of suitable wastes are scattered, which has implications for transportation costs. Kilkenny 1. Ballyragget (North Kilkenny): There is a large scale dairy/food processing industry (Glanbia) in this location. Other significant waste arisings derive mainly from large local dairy farms. The dependence on a single food-processing industry for additional feedstocks could affect the long-term viability of a CAD plant in this area.

2. Granagh (South Kilkenny): There are two animal slaughtering plants and a number of large pig production units in this area. There is a significant level of tillage farming (Carton & Magette, 1998). However, the road network is poor.
Cavan 1. Shercock/Cootehill/Ballyjamesduff/Baillieborough (East Cavan): There are a number of large-scale poultry and pig production units in east Cavan. Other potentially available organic wastes include abbatoir wastes (offal, paunch contents, etc.) and dairy processing wastes from Baillieborough. 5.6 Choice of location for more detailed study Based on the data obtained in the more detailed analysis of potential CAD plants in the selected counties (Section 5.5), six locations were identified on the basis of quantity and proximity of waste arisings, potential end-users of the produced biogas, and infrastructure. These were North, West and South Monaghan, East Cavan, East Limerick and South Cork.

In the context of the assured co-operation of Monaghan Local Authority, the potential for at least three CAD plants in the county, and the sensitivity of the catchment area (EPA, 1996a, 1996b), it was decided to choose Co. Monaghan for detailed study in Phase 2 of the project.

71