supercritical water oxidation update
DESCRIPTION
Supercritical Water Oxidation Update. City Council Workshop April 25, 2011. 17.4 MGD (40). 5.1 MGD (7.5). 13.1 MGD (25). Iron Bridge. Rulemaking Updates. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Supercritical Water Oxidation Update
City Council WorkshopApril 25, 2011
17.4 MGD (40)
13.1 MGD (25)5.1 MGD (7.5)
Iron Bridge
Rulemaking Updates
“The management of residuals, both nationally and in Florida, has grown increasingly controversial as development has brought people and residuals sites closer together. Indeed, several local governments have recently adopted or are considering restrictive residuals ordinances. Concerns with the beneficial use of residuals are clearly a statewide issue and the Department wants to review and address these concerns.”
Long Term Planning Considerations
• After excessive rain in 2004, we had difficulty finding suitable land application sites
• Recognized that proposed rule changes would make land application difficult if not impossible
• Tasked staff with finding a long term solution that would eliminate our dependence on land application
Long Term Planning Considerations
• In 2005, team of Boyle Engineering and Black & Veatch evaluated options that provided an all weather solution and didn’t rely on landspreading
• Team reviewed available technology and developed a short list consisting of:–Pelletization– Incineration–SCWO
Incineration
Pelletization
SCWO
What is SCWO?• Supercritical Water Oxidation uses high pressure and
temperature water to treat sludge• Organic material dissolves in supercritical water. In
the presence of oxygen, organic material will chemically combust (burn without flame) at SCWO temperatures and pressures.
• End result is inert ash, metal salts, water, carbon dioxide and heat
• The heat energy is captured through heat exchangers and will be used to power a steam turbine
•Technology results in complete destruction of organic material in sludge• Provides the highest level of treatment
recognized by regulatory agencies• Produces excess energy and usable by-
products (CO2, phosphorus and hot water)• Provides all weather solution and is not
dependent on land application
SCWO upsides
•Technology had only been demonstrated on a small, pilot scale basis•Had not been tested extensively on
wastewater sludge• Process would require significant R&D
investment before it could be adapted to wastewater application
SCWO downsides
• On May 21, 2007, Council approved entering into an agreement with SuperWater Systems to develop a full size pilot unit• City provided operating expertise and R&D funding and
agreed to turn over new IP to SuperWater• SuperWater provided access to patented technology
elements • City to receive development royalty of $2.50 per ton of
sludge processed worldwide and SuperWater would purchase pilot unit at end of testing
Path forward
• It’s not normal for a municipality to take on R&D of new technology• What makes Orlando different?• Orlando has a history of developing successful,
innovative wastewater projects• Water Conserv II• Iron Bridge Wetlands• Iron Bridge plant rerate• ERRWDS
History of innovation
Water Conserv II
Engineering Design Fees - $8.4 million
Construction cost - $76.3 Million
City Investment
• Project has proven to be a significant component of Central Florida water supply plan•RIBs flows were key part of OUC’s
consumptive use permit•Received numerous awards, from prestigious
Grand Conceptor by American Consulting Engineers Council to Outstanding Project of the Year Award by the WateReuse Association.
Return on Investment
Iron Bridge Wetlands
Engineering Design Fees - $2.1 million
Construction cost - $19.4 Million
City Investment
• Has received numerous awards such as Governor’s Environmental Award and WEF Outstanding Achievement Award• Provides great park amenity visited by 15,000
people annually • Has been rerated from 20 mgd to 32 mgd at no
additional cost to City (savings of $10 million if new capacity had to be constructed)• Provides high level of treatment – sufficient to
meet new NNC established by EPA
Return on Investment
Iron Bridge rerating
Engineering Design Fees - $7.1 million
Construction cost - $32.7 Million
City Investment
•Consulting engineer estimates the cost of constructing equivalent new capacity at $80 million•Capital cost savings to City of over $40
million•May be rerated to a higher capacity,
increasing the ROI even further
Return on Investment
ERRWDS
Engineering Design Fees - $6.4 million
Construction Cost - $45.6 Million
City Investment
• Key part of Central Florida’s alternative water supply plan – Seminole County, Orange County, UCF, Oviedo, and OUC• Instrumental in OUC’s consumptive use permit
negotiations• Minimizes/eliminates surface water discharge to
Little Econ (tough rules ahead!)• Results in annual revenues of $550,000 from
reclaimed water sales
Return on Investment
SCWO Project Status
SCWO Project Status• Initiated design work in 2006 and completed design
concept in late 2007• Construction initiated early 2008 using combination
of city forces and contractors for fabrication and installation; completed base unit in early 2009
• Began pilot testing on Jan. 2009 and over the next 18 months, debugged and modified the process
• Conducted sub-critical runs with sludge in late 2010• Conducted super critical runs of sludge in February
2011
Engineering Design Fees - $3.0 million
Construction Cost - $5.5 Million
City Investment
• Long term compliance with any possible regulatory changes• Provides all-weather solution and eliminates
reliance on land application•Based on SuperWater business projections,
has the ability to return royalty payments of $60 million over the next 20 years
Return on Investment
Long Term Financial ConsiderationsCapital Cost at 35 dry tons per day
Operating cost/ D.T.
Annual operating cost
Land Application $32,850,000 (2190 acres at
$15,000)
$257 $3,283,175
SCWO $33,698,000 $268 $3,423,700
Gasification $38,682,000 $286 $3,653,650
Pelletization $30,381,000 $429 $5,480,475
Incinerator $53,496,000 $647 $8,265,425
Transition plan
•On today’s agenda is an agreement for SuperWater to lease space at Iron Bridge to continue process development and testing•Also working on Amendment 3 to the original
agreement spelling out the transition terms• Plan to bring Amendment 3 to Council for
approval by May 23
Transition plan
Don Morgan, Chief Executive OfficerSuperWater Solutions, Inc.
Copper Yaw, ChairmanWaterway Finance Limited
Business model options:•Outright sale•Lease to own•Contract operations•Build/own/operate for tipping fee with
customer option to purchase at any time in future
Transition plan
Production schedule assuming order by end of May:•Enter into design agreement with an
engineering firm– June 2011• 90% Design completion - Dec 2011•QA/QC review with City and development of
final drawings – Jan 2012• Start production of first unit – Feb 2012•Construction completion - Dec 2012
Transition plan
Production schedule:• Factory Testing - June through Nov 2012 •Construct site modifications – Summer 2012•Delivery to City Conserv II plant - Dec 2012• Start up and testing - Jan 2013• Fab / Delivery of remaining units - June 2013
Transition plan
Financing Plan
Questions?