Biosolids ManagementProgram Update

Briefing for Blue Plains Regional Committee

August 23, 2007

2

AgendaAgenda

• Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan

• Approach to BMP Implementation

• BMP Schedule Update

• Technical Workshop Summary• Alternatives Screened

• Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation

• Preliminary Findings

• Next Steps

• Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan

• Approach to BMP Implementation

• BMP Schedule Update

• Technical Workshop Summary• Alternatives Screened

• Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation

• Preliminary Findings

• Next Steps

3

Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan

4

Montgomery

Loudoun

FairfaxFairfax

Prince George’s

ArlingtonArlington

D.C.

Decision Science was usedto build consensus for Biosolids Master Plan

Decision Science was usedto build consensus for Biosolids Master Plan

Is logical and defensibleIs logical and defensible

Accommodates multiple stakeholders

Considers risks and uncertainties along with cost

Efficiently analyzes information

Fairfax

5

through Bid process5Manage Risk & Evaluate Alternatives

4Collect & Verify Information

3Determine Values & Alternatives

2Frame the Problem

The Decision Science Process

1Leadership & Commitment

Develop Develop Master Plan/ Master Plan/

BriefingBriefing

WORKSHOP 1WORKSHOP 1WORKSHOP 2WORKSHOP 2

WORKSHOP 3WORKSHOP 3WORKSHOP 4WORKSHOP 4

WASA Staff, Blue Plains Regional/Tech. Committees

Board of DirectorsBoard of Directors

Operations CommitteeGM/Chief Engineer

MAR APR JUN JUL

DEC

ISIO

N

DEC

ISIO

N

PRO

CES

S ST

EPS

PRO

CES

S ST

EPS

6

U.S. EPA, VDH, MDE, DC DOH

MAY

WASA Staff

6

Decision Science Participants in 1999

Decision Science Participants in 1999

• Operations Committee (6)

• Blue Plains Regional and Technical Committees (8)

• WASA Management and Technical Staff (9)

• Regulatory (EPA, DC, VA, MD) and Regional Officials (8)

• Program Management Group

• Operations Committee (6)

• Blue Plains Regional and Technical Committees (8)

• WASA Management and Technical Staff (9)

• Regulatory (EPA, DC, VA, MD) and Regional Officials (8)

• Program Management Group

7

Consensus on Key Guiding Principles in development of 1999 BMP

Consensus on Key Guiding Principles in development of 1999 BMP

• The status quo is unacceptable

• WASA must go beyond regulatory compliance to world class operations consistent with the National Biosolids Partnership to ensure long-term program viability

• WASA cannot contract away its responsibility

• Diversity is required through multiple modes of end use and disposal to prepare for changing markets, politics and regulations.

• On-site processing maximizes WASA’s control

• Public and political support is needed for BMP success

8

Top Alternatives centered around Digestion because of risk

avoidance and benefits

Top Alternatives centered around Digestion because of risk

avoidance and benefits

All alternatives considered that land application would

continue as long as it remained viable but recognized

considerable chance it would eventually not be viable

• Full Digestion going to 100% heat drying in the future

• Full Digestion with 1/3 to land application, 1/3 to drying, and 1/3 to co-incineration

• Full digestion with ½ to land application and ½ to heat drying

9

BOD Approved Action Plan – Sept 1999

BOD Approved Action Plan – Sept 1999

• Prepare Facility Plan based on full digestion and future drying

• Continue land application as long as financially advantageous to WASA

• Prepare Project Delivery Plan

• Continue to evaluate alternative technologies

• Revise Facility Plan if other options deemed implementable

• Implement baseline improvements to preserve land application and improve O&M

• Is this plan still applicable?

10

What has changed since 1999?What has changed since 1999?

• WASA has new, very costly programs• Long Term Control Plan (mandated)• Chesapeake Bay Program – ENR (mandated)

• BMP baseline improvements have been implemented:• Additional dewatering (centrifuges) with improved lime mixing• Upgrade of gravity thickener facility• Design of biological sludge thickening facility (90% complete)

• BMP Baseline improvements have resulted in:• Improved lime stabilized product – reduced odors and lime

dosage• EMS certification under the National Biosolids Partnership• EPA first place 2005 award for best biosolids program in the

U.S.• Continued viability of land application at reasonable cost

• WASA has new, very costly programs• Long Term Control Plan (mandated)• Chesapeake Bay Program – ENR (mandated)

• BMP baseline improvements have been implemented:• Additional dewatering (centrifuges) with improved lime mixing• Upgrade of gravity thickener facility• Design of biological sludge thickening facility (90% complete)

• BMP Baseline improvements have resulted in:• Improved lime stabilized product – reduced odors and lime

dosage• EMS certification under the National Biosolids Partnership• EPA first place 2005 award for best biosolids program in the

U.S.• Continued viability of land application at reasonable cost

11

What has changed since 1999?What has changed since 1999?

• Enforcement, starting in 2008, of a more stringent nutrient management program in Virginia to control nitrogen and phosphorus will impact biosolids land application rates

• WASA has contracted up to 200 wt/d of biosolids for processing at offsite composting facility in Virginia for next 5 years

• Class A digestion processes have evolved from prototypes to proven technology at large scale (Issues with React./Regrowth remain)

• Some biosolids technologies (e.g. SlurryCarb) have advanced from “embryonic” to “innovative” as defined by U.S. EPA. Cost at large scale facility not proven, but bears watching.

• Project capital cost escalation for planning and budgeting is no longer as predictable as it was.• Escalation at 3% per annum used to be reliable• Project bids in the past 2 years have been significantly over budget, due in

large part to escalation in construction materials• Projecting rate of cost escalation going forward is not certain

• Enforcement, starting in 2008, of a more stringent nutrient management program in Virginia to control nitrogen and phosphorus will impact biosolids land application rates

• WASA has contracted up to 200 wt/d of biosolids for processing at offsite composting facility in Virginia for next 5 years

• Class A digestion processes have evolved from prototypes to proven technology at large scale (Issues with React./Regrowth remain)

• Some biosolids technologies (e.g. SlurryCarb) have advanced from “embryonic” to “innovative” as defined by U.S. EPA. Cost at large scale facility not proven, but bears watching.

• Project capital cost escalation for planning and budgeting is no longer as predictable as it was.• Escalation at 3% per annum used to be reliable• Project bids in the past 2 years have been significantly over budget, due in

large part to escalation in construction materials• Projecting rate of cost escalation going forward is not certain

12

Approach to BMP Implementation Update

Approach to BMP Implementation Update

• Updating 1999 BMP to reflect advances in biosolids technologies and changes in regulations and market conditions. Process involves two screening steps:• Preliminary screening of process alternatives from thickening to

product end use• In-depth evaluation of screened alternatives

• Monitoring construction market. Presented initial report to EQOC in April 2007

• Conducted 1st screening workshop on June 20-21, 2007 involving expert peer reviews. Screened 16 alternatives; selected 4 for further evaluation

• Developing plans for short-term projects to extend the useful life of existing biosolids facilities until BMP is implemented. Identified CIP budget needs

• Updating 1999 BMP to reflect advances in biosolids technologies and changes in regulations and market conditions. Process involves two screening steps:• Preliminary screening of process alternatives from thickening to

product end use• In-depth evaluation of screened alternatives

• Monitoring construction market. Presented initial report to EQOC in April 2007

• Conducted 1st screening workshop on June 20-21, 2007 involving expert peer reviews. Screened 16 alternatives; selected 4 for further evaluation

• Developing plans for short-term projects to extend the useful life of existing biosolids facilities until BMP is implemented. Identified CIP budget needs

13

•Phase I: Develop and screen preliminary process alternative -

CompleteMeet with BPRC -

08/23/07

•Phase II: Develop alternatives related toprocess, constructability and project delivery - 09/15/07

Present status update to EQOC- 09/20/07Meet with BPRC - 10/25/07

•Phase III: Develop draft BMP - 11/01/07

Present draft to EQOC - 11/15/07

Meet with BPRC - 12/28/07

•Phase IV: Prepare Final BMP - 12/31/07

•Phase I: Develop and screen preliminary process alternative -

CompleteMeet with BPRC -

08/23/07

•Phase II: Develop alternatives related toprocess, constructability and project delivery - 09/15/07

Present status update to EQOC- 09/20/07Meet with BPRC - 10/25/07

•Phase III: Develop draft BMP - 11/01/07

Present draft to EQOC - 11/15/07

Meet with BPRC - 12/28/07

•Phase IV: Prepare Final BMP - 12/31/07

Updated BMP Implementation ScheduleUpdated BMP Implementation Schedule

14

Summary of Technical WorkshopSummary of Technical Workshop

15

Biosolids Team ConsultantsBiosolids Team Consultants

• Terry Logan –Consultant – Land application and lime stabilization

• Tim Shea – CH2M – Digestion• Perry Schafer – B&C – Digestion• Alan Cooper – Parsons – Heat drying• Frank Rogalla – B&V – Cambi

• Terry Logan –Consultant – Land application and lime stabilization

• Tim Shea – CH2M – Digestion• Perry Schafer – B&C – Digestion• Alan Cooper – Parsons – Heat drying• Frank Rogalla – B&V – Cambi

16

Alternatives ConsideredAlternatives Considered

Drying

Class A Processing

Dewatering Centrifuge, BFP

Thickened Liquid Sludge

Class A

LandApplication

Incineration

Pelletization

Alkaline StabilizationClass A or B

Class B

LandFill

Digestion(MAD, TPAD, AGPD)

CambiEH

Pasteurizations

Ash into bricks

Gasification

Ash

EnerTech, E-fuel

Fertilizer

Ash

Composting

Minergy, Aggregates

17

Process Train

A.1

A.2

A.3

A.4

A.5

A.6

A.7

B.1

B.2

B.3

B.4

B.5

B.6

B.7

B.8

TABLE 4 - SOLIDS PROCESSING ALTERNATIVES RANKING

ID

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering Incineration

Centrifuge Dew atering

Thickened Sludge

Drying

Ash to bricks

Enzymatic Hydrolysis

Mesophilic Anaer Dig

To Land Application

Centrifuge Dew atering

Lime Stabilization

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

Thickened Sludge

Acid-Gas CentrifugeDew atering

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

Drying Vitrif icationGlass

Aggregate

Auto Thermal Aerobic Dig

Temp Phased Anaer Dig

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

To Land Application

Centrifuge Dew atering

Composting To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

To Landfill

Thickened Sludge SlurryCarb

Centrifuge Dew atering

Fuel

Temp Phased Anaer Dig (Eggs)

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

Temp Phased Anaer Dig (Pancakes)

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

Thickened Sludge

Mesophilic Anaer Dig (Primary)

Centrifuge Dew atering

Drying To Land Application

Thermophilic Anaer Dig

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

Mesophilic Anaer Dig

To Land Application

Thickened Sludge

Centrifuge Dew atering

Anaerobic Digestion

Alternative Process Trains Screened at

Workshop

18

Screening CriteriaScreening Criteria

• Capital and O&M Cost• Present Worth – Equivalent Annual Cost

• Non-Economic Criteria• Process

Proven technology Reliability – consistency of product Ease of Operations Ease of Maintenance

• Implementation Ease of Construction/Duration Project Delivery Options – need for DBO Air Quality Impacts Ease of Implementation (site constraints) Assurability of Permitting (NCPC, CFA, CAA, FAA, DCRA) Compatibility with Existing Facilities Public Perception/Acceptance Overall Implementability

• End Product Marketability/Acceptability Sustainability/Regulatory Changes/Risk Diversity (Class A)

• Capital and O&M Cost• Present Worth – Equivalent Annual Cost

• Non-Economic Criteria• Process

Proven technology Reliability – consistency of product Ease of Operations Ease of Maintenance

• Implementation Ease of Construction/Duration Project Delivery Options – need for DBO Air Quality Impacts Ease of Implementation (site constraints) Assurability of Permitting (NCPC, CFA, CAA, FAA, DCRA) Compatibility with Existing Facilities Public Perception/Acceptance Overall Implementability

• End Product Marketability/Acceptability Sustainability/Regulatory Changes/Risk Diversity (Class A)

19

Alternatives that Remain for Further Evaluation

Alternatives that Remain for Further Evaluation

Mainstream Alternatives (Digestion–based) :1. Thickening Acid Gas/TPAD Centrifuge Land App2. Thickening Acid Gas/Meso dig. Centrifuge Drying Land App3. Thickening Centrifuge Cambi Meso dig. BFP Land App4. Thickening ATAD TPAD Centrifuge Land App

Notes: All alternatives are sized for maximum month (433 dt/d) loading. TN treatment will be assessed for each. Options 1&4 may require BFP for dewatering.

These alternatives met preliminary screening criteria (proven technology, cost, product, implementability)

Peak Shaving Options:1. Thickening Centrifuge Lime Stab (upgraded) Land App2. Thickening Centrifuge Composting Land App3. Thickening Centrifuge Landfill

Note: These are options that are currently usable

Mainstream Alternatives (Digestion–based) :1. Thickening Acid Gas/TPAD Centrifuge Land App2. Thickening Acid Gas/Meso dig. Centrifuge Drying Land App3. Thickening Centrifuge Cambi Meso dig. BFP Land App4. Thickening ATAD TPAD Centrifuge Land App

Notes: All alternatives are sized for maximum month (433 dt/d) loading. TN treatment will be assessed for each. Options 1&4 may require BFP for dewatering.

These alternatives met preliminary screening criteria (proven technology, cost, product, implementability)

Peak Shaving Options:1. Thickening Centrifuge Lime Stab (upgraded) Land App2. Thickening Centrifuge Composting Land App3. Thickening Centrifuge Landfill

Note: These are options that are currently usable

20

Preliminary Findings -Alternatives

Preliminary Findings -Alternatives

• Loading rates:• 330 dt/d – Average day

• 433 dt/d – Maximum month Use for digester sizing

• 530 dt/d – Maximum week

• 630 dt/d – Maximum 3-day

• Use lime stab/composting/landfill for peak shaving loads > 433 dt/d

• Digestion is a component of each alternative• Remains the foundation for the BMP

• Digestion sized to minimize capital cost

• Digestion is a pre-requisite to heat drying• To control odors and increase product market options

• To reduce capital cost of drying facility

• To provide fuel for drying

• Heat drying is a component of 1 alternative• Can be add-on to other alternatives

• One of few technologies that can assure multiple outlets for product and thus can be sustainable for 25 years

• Constructability and implementability must be addressed now

• Loading rates:• 330 dt/d – Average day

• 433 dt/d – Maximum month Use for digester sizing

• 530 dt/d – Maximum week

• 630 dt/d – Maximum 3-day

• Use lime stab/composting/landfill for peak shaving loads > 433 dt/d

• Digestion is a component of each alternative• Remains the foundation for the BMP

• Digestion sized to minimize capital cost

• Digestion is a pre-requisite to heat drying• To control odors and increase product market options

• To reduce capital cost of drying facility

• To provide fuel for drying

• Heat drying is a component of 1 alternative• Can be add-on to other alternatives

• One of few technologies that can assure multiple outlets for product and thus can be sustainable for 25 years

• Constructability and implementability must be addressed now

21

Preliminary Findings -How to reduce digester costs

Preliminary Findings -How to reduce digester costs

• Size digester facility for max. month design loading (433 dt/d); use peak shaving

• Do NOT provide standby unit

• Simplify digester construction through use of silo/cylindrical shaped vessels, pre-cast side panels, and waffle bottoms

• Can approximate egg digester performance and advantages

• Simplifies foundation design lower capital cost

• Reduces construction complexity lower capital cost

• Increases contractor competition lower capital cost

• Reduces construction schedule length lower capital cost

• Silo shaped digesters approx. dimensions• Wall height - 60 ft.

• Diameter - 100-125 ft.

• Silo shaped digesters have been built• Vancouver, BC (3.2 MG each)

• Sacramento, CA (3.7 MG each)

• Western Lake Superior Sanitation District

• Wichita, KS

• Re-thicken sludge to >5% to reduce digester volume. Each ½% saves about 2-3 MG volume. Pilot testing needed to confirm feasibility

• Size digester facility for max. month design loading (433 dt/d); use peak shaving

• Do NOT provide standby unit

• Simplify digester construction through use of silo/cylindrical shaped vessels, pre-cast side panels, and waffle bottoms

• Can approximate egg digester performance and advantages

• Simplifies foundation design lower capital cost

• Reduces construction complexity lower capital cost

• Increases contractor competition lower capital cost

• Reduces construction schedule length lower capital cost

• Silo shaped digesters approx. dimensions• Wall height - 60 ft.

• Diameter - 100-125 ft.

• Silo shaped digesters have been built• Vancouver, BC (3.2 MG each)

• Sacramento, CA (3.7 MG each)

• Western Lake Superior Sanitation District

• Wichita, KS

• Re-thicken sludge to >5% to reduce digester volume. Each ½% saves about 2-3 MG volume. Pilot testing needed to confirm feasibility

New 3.7 MG Digester – Mid 1990s Sacramento, CA

Pre-cast panels and pre-cast roof beams/panels significantly reduce cost and construction schedule

23

Preliminary Findings – Biosolids Markets

Preliminary Findings – Biosolids Markets

• WASA’s biosolids land application program is viable and cost effective – But long-term viability may be impacted by: • Public sentiment – political reaction• Regulations, including nutrient management (P limits)• Competition from animal waste

• WASA may be well served with a Class A product as a hedge against future land application changes• Provides a better quality product• Provides greater opportunities for distribution and marketing

• Heat dried product offers multiple markets• Fuel• Land application• Horticulture• Fertilizer

• Markets and reuse/disposal outlets for biosolids products should drive the final alternatives evaluation and selection process

• WASA’s biosolids land application program is viable and cost effective – But long-term viability may be impacted by: • Public sentiment – political reaction• Regulations, including nutrient management (P limits)• Competition from animal waste

• WASA may be well served with a Class A product as a hedge against future land application changes• Provides a better quality product• Provides greater opportunities for distribution and marketing

• Heat dried product offers multiple markets• Fuel• Land application• Horticulture• Fertilizer

• Markets and reuse/disposal outlets for biosolids products should drive the final alternatives evaluation and selection process

24

Issues Impacting Financial ViabilityIssues Impacting Financial Viability

• Available CIP budget for biosolids• Portion expected to be used for near term SPB improvements• May be adequate for new digester concept

• Construction cost indices continue to increase from 3% to 8% per year

• Public works construction market projected to remain robust, partly driven by Chesapeake Bay Program

• Transfer of management of Virginia biosolids land application to DEQ will increase cost

• Predictability of rate of cost escalation

• Available CIP budget for biosolids• Portion expected to be used for near term SPB improvements• May be adequate for new digester concept

• Construction cost indices continue to increase from 3% to 8% per year

• Public works construction market projected to remain robust, partly driven by Chesapeake Bay Program

• Transfer of management of Virginia biosolids land application to DEQ will increase cost

• Predictability of rate of cost escalation

25

BOD Approved Action Plan Sept 1999 - still applicable?

BOD Approved Action Plan Sept 1999 - still applicable?

• Prepare Facility Plan based on full digestion and future drying - Implement digestion of base load and future drying if regional land application dictates

• Continue land application as long as financially advantageous to WASA - Yes

• Prepare Project Delivery Plan – Update for new digester approach

• Continue to evaluate alternative technologies - Yes• Revise Facility Plan if other process or beneficial reuse

options deemed implementable - yes• Implement baseline improvements to preserve land

application and improve O&M – Mostly done - additional improvements now needed

• Analysis indicates no reason to change BOD Approved BMP• No need to repeat Decision Science process• New updated implementation plan

• Prepare Facility Plan based on full digestion and future drying - Implement digestion of base load and future drying if regional land application dictates

• Continue land application as long as financially advantageous to WASA - Yes

• Prepare Project Delivery Plan – Update for new digester approach

• Continue to evaluate alternative technologies - Yes• Revise Facility Plan if other process or beneficial reuse

options deemed implementable - yes• Implement baseline improvements to preserve land

application and improve O&M – Mostly done - additional improvements now needed

• Analysis indicates no reason to change BOD Approved BMP• No need to repeat Decision Science process• New updated implementation plan

26

Possible Implementation Schedule

Possible Implementation Schedule

Activity Duration Complete

Preliminary design 8 mo. Feb 28, 2008

Design procurement 6 mo. Mar 31, 2008

Design 12 mo. Mar 31, 2009

Bidding 6 mo. Sep 30, 2010

Construction 3 years Sep 30, 2012

Startup 6 mo. Dec 31, 2012

Note: Some activities run concurrentlyNote: Some activities run concurrently

27

Next StepsNext Steps

• Develop details for alternatives• Digester process and TN treatment options• Mass and energy balances• Digester shapes that approximate eggs• Digestion facility layout and sizing• Capital costs and life cycle costs• Constructability and project delivery• Regulatory issues• Market details

• Make periodic updates to EQOC (Sep/Nov) and BOD (Oct/Jan)

• Make presentations to Blue Plains Regional Committee (Aug/Oct/Dec)

• Develop details for alternatives• Digester process and TN treatment options• Mass and energy balances• Digester shapes that approximate eggs• Digestion facility layout and sizing• Capital costs and life cycle costs• Constructability and project delivery• Regulatory issues• Market details

• Make periodic updates to EQOC (Sep/Nov) and BOD (Oct/Jan)

• Make presentations to Blue Plains Regional Committee (Aug/Oct/Dec)