CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY….…….……………………..2

SYSTEMS DIAGRAM………….……………………...3

STORY AND CONTEXT………………………………5

TRENDS OVER TIME………………...………..……..8

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES………………..……………10

SYSTEM VARIABLES…….…………….……………12

STAKEHOLDERS…….…….……………………….13

LEVERAGE POINTS.…..……………………….…..17

CONCLUSION....…………………………………..22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROBLEM STATEMENT With increasing populations, increasing state and federal regulations, increasing hauling and disposal costs and ever diminishing availability of disposal options, how can municipalities, and the people they serve, ensure that human waste is optimally managed and diverted to its proper ecological disposal route?

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES The system boundaries are the start and end points of the biosolids waste management system, starting from the point of entry - indoor drains (including toilets) and outdoor drains (storm drains) - through the process of wastewater treatment and the transfer of biosolids ownership to contractors, and finally to the end point of current biosolids reuse and business opportunities discovered for further refinement of biosolids into value added products.

CONTEXT AND TRENDS The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through the Wastewater Enterprise (WWE) provides wastewater treatment for approximately 75 million gallons per day (MGD) of dry weather flow and up to 500 MGD of wet-weather flow. Operating a combined system that treats both storm water and sanitary sewer water ensures that all water and solids are treated before being discharged to the San Francisco Bay or Pacific Ocean, however it also increases the volume of water requiring treatment as well as allows for potential contamination of water and biosolids quality by means of trash entering storm drains. Two valuable end products result from the wastewater treatment process: treated effluent and biosolids. Effluent is discharged to the San Francisco Bay or Pacific Ocean depending on which treatment facility it comes from. Some effluent is also not discharged to the Bay or Ocean but instead recycled and used for street sweeping, sewer flushing, irrigation and construction wet down. The biosolids produced by San Francisco treatment facilities are categorized as “Class B” biosolids and are also “recycled” in accordance with regional, state and federal regulations. San Francisco produces and recycles approximately 76,000 dry tons of biosolids annually.

San Francisco defines biosolids recycling as the following end uses:

● Soil substitute for landfill operations, alternate daily cover (ADC) ● Soil amendments

● Energy production

Despite many successes and advancements in treatment practices and biosolids management, the SFPUC and wastewater industry as a whole still face an uphill battle when trying to ensure the environmentally, socially, and economically responsible disposition of biosolids. We see an opportunity to address the challenges by creating positive public perception through engagement and education, biosolids reuse market development and business partnerships. Overcoming these two challenges could turn what is currently perceived by the public as an undesirable “waste” into powerful nutrients and fuel for food and energy production systems, respectively. Biosolids could be a critical piece of the solution to the soil degradation crisis, which would also positively impact issues of water scarcity, desertification and climate change.

SYSTEMS DIAGRAM

STORY AND CONTEXT

In large urban areas, such as San Francisco, human waste is collected by a sewer system and is treated in a centralized treatment plant in the form of “wastewater”. In San Francisco, the Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Wastewater Enterprise (WWE) operates and maintains the City and County’s combined sewer system, which collects and treats both sewage and storm water. This system consists of 1,000 miles of pipes, which collect sanitary sewage from homes and businesses, and storm water runoff from streets, and transports it to three wastewater treatment plants within San Francisco. These treatment plants treat and discharge over 80 million gallons of treated water into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean on a non-rainy day. On a rainy day the system collects and treats up to 500 million gallons per day. In addition to the treated water that is discharged daily, the SFPUC also treats and manages approximately 200 tons of biosolids per day, seven days per week. Biosolids are the nutrient rich byproduct resulting from the physical and biological treatment of wastewater in a treatment facility. Although the terms biosolids and sewage sludge are often used interchangeably, biosolids are the stabilized end product after treating sewage sludge with anaerobic digestion and heat (Cal Recycle, 2015). San Francisco biosolids, which amount to approximately 76,000 dry tons per year, are sent for “recycling” outside the city and county boundaries. Recycling of biosolids is nationally defined as “the practices that are best suited to meet the management needs of local communities, whether that use is beneficial recycling through land application, composting, energy generation, product development, landfilling, incineration, or other uses” (Water Environment Federation (WEF) Biosolids Position Statement, 2011). In 2014, the SFPUC land applied approximately 40 percent of their biosolids on farmland in Solano, Sonoma and Merced counties. An additional 55 percent of biosolids were sent to landfill in Solano County and six percent were composted in Merced County. Land-applied biosolids must meet strict Federal (EPA), State, Regional, and County health and safety requirements, as well as local ordinances and permits. Biosolids may only be land applied between the months of April and October so as to prevent erosion or runoff during the rainy season. During the land application season, SFPUC staff performs inspections to ensure full compliance with all legal requirements. When properly applied, biosolids as a soil amendment provides beneficial nutrients to the soil, sequesters atmospheric carbon, and can be an effective alternative to - and reduces the need for - fossil-fuel intensive fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. (SFPUC Resolution No. 13-0195).

When biosolids can not be land applied, they are sent to landfill to be disposed of or reused as alternate daily cover (ADC) or landfill lining. When used as ADC, biosolids must be blended with other green waste due to the high water content of San Francisco, and most municipal, biosolids. Prior to 2001 all of San Francisco’s biosolids were sent to landfill for disposal or reuse. Biosolids composting, similar to land application, must meet strict state regulations. CalRecycle regulates to operation of composting facilities throughout the State of California, including biosolids composting facilities. In addition to setting facility standards, they also require operational permits, which are granted and enforced by local agencies within the jurisdiction of the composting facility. The SFPUC sends biosolids to a composting facility in Merced County, approximately 140 miles from San Francisco. The below table compares the biosolids management practices of the SFPUC to the average practices taking place throughout the State of California.

2014 CALIFORNIA BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL COMPARISON

SF CA

Land Application 40% 54%

Landfilling 55% 18%

Compost 6% 16%

Surface disposal 0% 4%

Incineration or storage 0% 8%

Total 100% 100%

In comparison to the state as a whole, this table highlights that San Francisco relies more heavily on sending biosolids to landfill as a means of “recycling”. In addition, San Francisco does not use incineration, storage or surface disposal as a biosolids management tool. Storage of biosolids is only a temporary management practice involving on-site lagoons where biosolids are dried and further processed while in storage prior to the end-use of the material. Despite the SFPUC’s successes in recycling biosolids, the organization and the wastewater industry as a whole still seems to struggle with: (1) creating a positive brand image and developing a community outreach communications strategy that enhances public awareness and buy-in, and (2) leveraging technology/process innovations to broaden or increase biosolids reuse markets. If the SFPUC can become more successful at intervening, then San Francisco could lead the state and the country in transforming dated systems and mental models into flourishing new opportunities that benefit our economy and our environment.

Figure 1. SFPUC Southeast Plant Biosolids Digester Facilities Timeline, for the Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP)

72,000

73,000

74,000

75,000

76,000

77,000

78,000

79,000

$2,400,000

$2,500,000

$2,600,000

$2,700,000

$2,800,000

$2,900,000

$3,000,000

$3,100,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l An

nu

al T

on

s

Tota

l An

nu

al C

ost

s

Total Cost Total Tons

TRENDS OVER TIME The below charts show the trends over time of biosolids production, cost and management in San Francisco. In Figure 2 volumes of biosolids produced in San Francisco over a five-year period of time are plotted against the cost of disposal over the same five years to show the dependency of the two variables.

Figure 2. Biosolids Production Volumes and Disposal Cost (2009-2014)

The increase in total biosolids management costs in 2009 is attributable to changes in contracts. Total costs are made up of hauling and land application costs – both activities are contracted to private business. In 2009 a new hauling contract was instituted that, while still in accordance with San Francisco’s lowest bid requirements, resulted in an increase in hauling costs. Hauling accounts for over half of the total disposal costs, therefore any increases in hauling will have a larger impact on total costs.

In addition to contracts, and likely more important to the system, is the physical volume of biosolids generated. The largest indicator of biosolids disposal costs is the volume of biosolids generated. The fluctuations in tons, particularly the reduction in volume between 2010 and 2012 could be attributed to the wastewater treatment processes at the wastewater treatment facilities. Dewatering is the process of removing excess water from biosolids. Given San Francisco’s aging wastewater treatment facilities it is likely that the reliability of the dewatering processes has decreased and the one-year instance of reduced volume was just an abnormal reduction in volume. The observed volume reduction between 2013 and 2014 however is directly attributable to water conservation efforts taking place throughout San Francisco as a result of the drought. What is most interesting is the recent divergence between

$2,400,000

$2,500,000

$2,600,000

$2,700,000

$2,800,000

$2,900,000

$3,000,000

$3,100,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l An

nu

al C

ost

Pe

rce

nt

An

nu

al D

ive

rsio

n

Land Application - Various Counties Landfill - Solano County

Compost - Merced County Annual Cost

volume of biosolids and the cost of disposal. This trend is likely due to continue, given the diminishing availability of landfill space and farmland on which to land apply biosolids.

Figure 3. Figure 3. Biosolids End-Uses and Cost of Disposal (2009-2014)

The above chart shows San Francisco’s biosolids recycling efforts over the past five years plotted against the same disposal cost variable from the above chart. Costs were lowest in 2009 when end-use diversification was at its lowest, showing that the cheapest alternative doesn’t always result in the most sustainable practice. However when prices went up in 2010, likely due to diminishing capacity of the Solano County landfill, the amount of biosolids sent to the Merced County composting facility increased. It is clear that San Francisco understands the importance of diversification of waste management, both from an environmental and economic perspective, however to make a truly sustainable shift it will be crucial to increase the amount of biosolids being sent to compost beyond a mere six percent.

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

The scope of our system focuses on San Francisco’s sewer system and three wastewater treatment facilities, which are operated and maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Wastewater Enterprise (WWE). The sewer system, by it’s nature as public infrastructure, is bound by the geographic borders of the City and County of San Francisco, however San Francisco’s two solids handling treatment facilities also treat the biosolids for the City of Brisbane, and Northern San Mateo County. San Francisco’s combined sewer system collects and treats both sewage and stormwater through the same system as shown in Figure 4 below. Because of the complexity and multitude of variables in the entire wastewater treatment process, we’ve chosen to focus our system analysis on an opportunity-rich subsystem of it - the biosolids process.

Image Source: http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3971

Figure 4. The SFPUC sewer system is composed of three major treatment facilities: the North Point Wet Weather Facility, the Southeast Treatment Plant, and the Oceanside Treatment Plant all located within the City and County of San Francisco.

San Francisco occupies an area of approximately 30,000 acres and is divided into two major sewersheds: the Bayside and the Westside. The Bayside sewershed represents 64 percent of the total city service area, but is home to 80 percent of San Francisco’s population - and human waste. Wastewater from the Bayside is treated at the Southeast Treatment Plant and drains to the San Francisco Bay. The Westside drains to the Oceanside Treatment Plant where 20 percent of San Francisco’s population lives, and water is discharged to the Pacific Ocean.

San Francisco’s current population, as estimated by 2014 census data, is 852,469. All living within a 46.9 square mile area, San Francisco is the second densest city in the United States, next to New York City, with a population density of 17,867 people per square mile.

Figure 5. The SFPUC Oceanside Treatment Plant Liquid and Solids Treatment Process

SYSTEM VARIABLES

GOVERNMENT POLICY AND REGULATION

● SFPUC current waste treatment policies and operating goals ● Rate of SFPUC compliance with regulatory standards ● Federal, State, Regional and County Regulations for environment, human health & safety ● Regulatory reward systems favoring status quo ● Alternative SFPUC reward systems that reward public and or business behavior change

TECHNOLOGICAL AND PROCESS INNOVATION

● Management and operational capacity within SFPUC Wastewater Enterprise ● Research and development (R&D) investment in anaerobic digestion processing to produce

Class A biosolids ● R&D investment in innovative technologies such as dryers ● Cost of R&D ● Prioritization of R&D

BIOSOLIDS REUSE AND MARKET EXPANSION

● Cost of hauling treated biosolids from three wastewater treatment facilities to point of disposal/reuse

● Cost of land application in Solano, Merced & Sonoma counties for biosolid reuse ● Availability of farm lands in close proximity to SF for land application ● Cost of composting biosolids with other green waste for reuse in agriculture ● Availability of low cost landfill and ADC recycling options ● Uncertainty surrounding new, alternative biosolids reuse markets

ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES

● Demographic changes (population & shift toward greater urbanization) ● Pollutants entering wastewater system (by human behavior) that enter biosolids ● Public awareness and perception of biosolids management and reuse ● Farmer perception and acceptance of biosolids as a soil amendment

STAKEHOLDERS Table 1. Wastewater and Biosolids Management System Stakeholder Analysis

STAKEHOLDER KEY CONCERNS LEVEL OF

INFLUENCE LEVEL OF CONCERN

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

(SFPUC)

● Ensure public safety ● Meet regulatory

requirements ● Keep costs low

High Moderate

Wastewater Enterprise (WWE)

● Maintain and operate system

Moderate High

Biosolids Management System (BMS)

● Maximize stakeholder compliance

● Monitor New Regulations Low High

PUBLIC

SF Citizens ● Price of disposal Low High

Merced/Sonoma/Solano Counties

● Environmental Safety ● Public Health ● Odor

High High

Farmers ● Safety ● Price of biosolids

High Moderate

BUSINESS

Haulers

● Price of Gas and Transportation

● Available Space at Landfills ● Wet/Dry Season

Low Low

REGULATORY

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies

● Advocacy for Publicly Owned Utilities

Moderate High

(NACWA) ● Environmental stewardship ● Innovative technologies

CalRecycle ● Meeting State diversion

goals ● Enforcement, compliance

Moderate Moderate

California Energy Commission (CEC)

● Reducing Energy Use ● Regulatory compliance

Low Low

Bay Area Clean Water Act (BACWA)

● Communicates key issues affecting the municipal wastewater community

● Promote regional collaborations and partnerships

Moderate High

CONCERNS AND BEHAVIORS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS

WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE (WWE) One of three Enterprises of the SFPUC, the Wastewater Enterprise is responsible for the collection and treatment of all wastewater in the City and County of San Francisco.

The WWE is managed by an Assistant General Manager (AGM), who is a member of the seven-person executive management team operating within the SFPUC. The chief concerns and mission of the WWE are to safely and cost-effectively manage the City of San Francisco’s sewage, storm water, and biosolids thereby protecting both public health and the environment. (WWE Strategic Business Plan). This includes a seven billion dollar long-term capital improvement project through the Sewer System Improvement Plan (SSIP).

BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Biosolids Management Program is concerned with minimizing negative environmental impacts associated with biosolid activities and make sure that the WWE is meeting policy requirements of the National Biosolids Partnership. They are responsible for the biosolids tracking, inspections, hauling, and recycling in compliance with state and federal regulatory requirements. They are the administrative lynchpin facilitating optimization of biosolid recycling in San Francisco; they are often faced with constrained financial and human resources to accomplish their goals.

CALRECYCLE This is the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery within California; they are a department of the State’s EPA. They oversee the entire State’s waste handling programs and they are responsible for training local enforcement agencies. As such, they care about State and Federal Regulations and their compliance to ensure sure Bio-Solids are being handled safely for people and the environment. They get no funding from the State’s general fund and award grants to support the development of waste reduction initiatives.

SAN FRANCISCO RATEPAYERS

San Francisco’s sewer system is ratepayer financed, in that all revenues to the SFPUC and the Wastewater Enterprise are derived from the sewer rates that customers pay on their utility bill. See Figure 2 below for an example of a residential utility bill and associated costs.

The ratepayer’s main concern is to keep their homes healthy and free of human waste. This includes the odors associated with human wastes. In addition, ratepayers are highly sensitive to rate increases. All rate increases need to be approved by voters.

SONOMA, SOLANO AND MERCED COUNTY RESIDENTS AND OFFICIALS

Counties in which land application takes place have significant influence over San Francisco biosolid recycling options. Each county has its respective governing board of officials who oversee land application and require and enforce hauling permits. These counties also have the ability to pressure San Francisco, and other municipalities that land apply biosolids to their farmland, to reform current practices and conduct research on improved biosolids management practices other than land application.

Many counties have gone so far so to issue complete bans of biosolids land application on farmlands within their jurisdiction. Others only allow for Class A application, as opposed to Class B. Each county’s requirements are unique and must be studied carefully before deciding to engage in biosolids management discussions. Table 2. Local Regulation of Biosolids Land Application in Northern California (San Francisco 2030 Sewer System Master Plan)

County CUP Required Ban Class A Only Class B Allowed

Alameda X

Merced

X

Sacramento X

San Joaquin

X

Solano

X

Sonoma X

Stanislaus

X

Yolo

X

FARMERS

Farmers, unlike the residents who live in proximity to the farms, are often strongly in favor of the land application of biosolids to their farms. They are concerned about the health of their soil in the short and long term and often want to maximize biosolid application as it improves soil tilth, reduces the potential for soil erosion, reduces reliance on commercial fertilizers and maintains or improves crop yields for farmers. In addition, as biosolids are mostly made of water, the farmers enjoy an added benefit of water retention in the soil during times of drought. Applying Class A biosolids with appropriate odor control is their best alternative.

HAULERS

Haulers are contractors responsible for transporting biosolids from San Francisco to the chosen landfill, farm, or composting facility. These facilities are often as far as 150 miles from the point of pickup (Southeast Treatment Plant or Oceanside Treatment Plant). Haulers are responsible for obtaining appropriate permits, record keeping, sampling and monitoring. They are concerned with increasing profits, maintaining their fleet, fuel prices and meeting regulatory and corporate requirements. San Francisco’s hauling contractor is S+S Trucking. Depending on the location of an additional biosolids recycling management practice, haulers may or may not be in favor. In an ideal system, any additional biosolids recycling facility would be located closer than the existing facilities - such as the Merced composting facility - which would therefore lower their trucking distances and likely lower their profits.

LAND APPLIERS The land appliers are contractors responsible for coordinating with farmers to land apply biosolids. San Francisco’s current contractor is Synagro Technologies. They are primarily concerned with maintaining up to date permitting in different counties, as well as generating a profit.

LANDFILL SITES

At the landfill, the use of biosolids eliminates the need for the operator to import soil to the site, saving operational costs. However there is a limited availability of landfill space within 200 miles of San Francisco (Jones and Schepis, 2006). Landfill sites must also have the proper permitting to accept Class A and Class B biosolids, which can be a barrier to optimization.

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES (NACWA) NACWA works on behalf of all publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to represent their interests in a legislative and regulatory capacity to Congress and the EPA. NACWA is viewed as a key stakeholder and has built credible, collaborative relationships with members of Congress, Presidential administrations and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They exist to enhance the development and implementation of scientifically based, technically sound and cost-effective environmental programs and are a dynamic national organization whose primary concern involves all facets of water quality protection.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC) The California Energy Commission is California’s primary energy policy and planning agency. The Commission, as related to biosolids, has responsibility for activities that include forecasting future energy needs, and supporting renewable energy technologies for decision makers and the public. In their assessments of California’s Energy needs they consider economic, public health, safety, and

environmental goals. They help monitor and guide SFPUC to meet California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.

BAY AREA CLEAN WATER AGENCY (BACWA) The Bay Area Clean Water Agency is a joint powers agency, formed under the California Government Code by the five largest wastewater treatment agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1984. Their members include the many municipalities and special districts that provide sanitary sewer services to more than 6.5 million people. Their primary mission is working with their members, state and federal regulatory agencies, and non-governmental organizations to improve and enhance the San Francisco Bay environment. They provide technical expertise, financial support, and a public utility perspective to ensure that regulations affecting their members are well informed, thoughtful and effective.

LEVERAGE POINTS

1. ADJUST THE SYSTEM GOAL TO INCREASE BIOSOLIDS COMPOSTING

Unlike land application, which is only a biosolids management tool between April and October, biosolids can be composted all year round. This all weather recycling option is one of the true opportunities municipalities have to recycle biosolids - as it is actually recycled back to soil. In addition, both Class A and Class B biosolids can be composted in licensed biosolids composting facilities, thereby reducing the need for municipalities to upgrade existing infrastructure to produce Class A biosolids. Currently, only six percent (compared to the state-wide average of 16%) of San Francisco biosolids are composted. During the months of November through March the remaining 94% of biosolids are diverted to be used or disposed of at landfills. However, according to individuals in the Wastewater industry there is a looming organics ban for landfills in California. The US Department of Agriculture is responsible for developing and executing any federal government policy on farming. At the state level, the land application of organic material by food processors is generally regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which impose site-specific permit conditions to ensure that land application will not result in degradation of groundwater or generate any nuisance conditions. When all regulations are met, the final decision is then taken by each respective county. While biosolids are not categorized as “organics” according to state policy, they are blended with other organic wastes such as yard debris when used at landfills. If the organic wastes that the biosolids are blended with are banned from landfills this will result in a “practical” ban for biosolids as well. Moreover, market considerations are an important aspect of biosolids’ composting since in the absence of an end market, composted materials would, by necessity, have to be landfilled. In order to have a stable demand and market, there needs to be approval on composting and landfill policies.

Unintended Consequences While not necessarily a negative consequence, increasing biosolids composting would create a larger market for composting facilities, therefore requiring additional composting facilities to come online in California. While these facilities are currently difficult to permit, due to stringent state regulation, if there was a clear demand for facilities and if there was a guaranteed stock of biosolids from nearly 250

treatment plants and collection systems throughout California this could result in statewide economic growth.

2. CHANGE THE SYSTEM RULES TO ALLOW LAND APPLICATION DURING DROUGHT CONDITIONS

San Francisco’s land application program for biosolids began in 2001. Prior to that, biosolids were recycled or disposed of at area landfills year-round. Due to state and local regulations, land application can only take place from April through October. The rest of the year it has to be landfilled or composted. The regulatory driver behind constraining land application to April through October is rain and the resultant biosolids leachate runoff. While these are important concerns to be aware of, it’s also important to recognize that in this time of drought the rains do not always fall from November through March as they once did. As a result, farmers are being doubly impacted as they must suffer through the severe drought, while also being kept from the valuable water contained in the biosolids (as they are only 20% solid and %80 water). In addition to containing valuable water content, Class B biosolids improve soil tilth, reduce the potential for soil erosion, reduce reliance on commercial fertilizers, and maintain or improve crop yields for farmers. As such, we propose that modified regulations be written and instituted during drought emergencies, such as what we’re in now, allowing the flexibility for land application during “winter months” that do not actually have rain.

Unintended Consequences Allowing extended land application, while in our opinion a better alternative than sending biosolids to landfill, may allow regulatory and public agencies to remain complacent and not innovate towards higher and better uses for biosolids such as biosolids composting.

3. RESTRUCTURE INFORMATION FLOWS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF

BIOSOLIDS REUSE The SFPUC needs to initiate a strong community outreach communications campaign to educate communities in counties where biosolids are applied and shift their existing perception. This information feedback flow is basically altogether missing in the current system. One previous SFPUC communications failure years ago has discouraged further efforts on this front. But we feel the time is ripe to try again. Current heightened public awareness and concern around climate change and water scarcity (i.e. current extreme drought conditions) issues can be leveraged to open conversations about the case for using biosolids as a solution and reversing self-destructive system trends in climate change, soil degradation and water scarcity.

We recommend SFPUC engages a reputable Public Relations or Community Engagement consultant to create a comprehensive community outreach communications program around biosolids’ value of reuse to the health and wellbeing of our societies. The primary audience of the recommended communications program would be the citizens of the Merced, Solano and Sonoma counties where biosolids are land applied. The SFPUC should focus communications efforts with these residents on facts that help them understand how much their community farmers desperately want and need this soil restoration for the benefit of sustaining our food supply they work to generate and for the benefit of improving groundwater issues which helps alleviate both water scarcity and climate change issues residents are concerned about. The SFPUC should proactively address concerns of pathogens, odor and public health. The comprehensive communications program should be synchronized and integrated, delivering appropriate information and education and engaging dialogue via a variety of communication mediums, including:

Education stands at Farmers Markets

County Hall Meetings; other local events

Local newspapers

Next-door Neighborhood websites

Other community events We recommend that strategically allocated resources for outside consultants would increase the probability of developing the most effective communications program possible to shift the counties’ awareness and perception in the right direction in terms of recognizing the value of biosolids reuse. Successfully implementing such a program would better enable these communities to make more educated and informed decisions and perhaps even reduce some of the repulsion factor associated with the topic of biosolids, thus keeping the conversation of innovation evolving. ‘Reusing’ and ‘Recycling’ were once “icky” concepts too, but increased communication highlighting the need and benefits for both has transformed it into a common practice today.

Unintended Consequences As with any other medium of communication, too much of it could result in an adverse reaction. People generally don't like to be told what to do when what is being done affects them directly. Hearing and listening to something you dislike might generate an even more negative view towards the subject. On the flip side, if the communication is well designed and perhaps even delivered in the authentic words of the farmers with an education as to how valuable biosolids are in combatting the effects of drought and creating nutrient-rich soil for orchards, vineyards, ranch lands to flourish, it may grow public awareness of how agriculture impacts climate change and how they can help support practices to reverse it.

4. REVERSE FAULTY PRICING SIGNALS EMBEDDED IN THE SYSTEM

The system’s pricing indicators shown below set biosolids up as a burden that must be removed through the expense of outsourced hauling and disposal costs paid by the SFPUC to business contractors. This faulty mental model of biosolids as a waste and an expense vs. a resource and potential income stream has embedded perverse pricing signals that are driving a negatively reinforcing loop that continues to escalate costs and limit biosolids optimization options. This is completely upside down thinking. In fact, biosolids, have very real environmental and economic value that, in their reuse, also create a social benefit as lower-income communities are no longer treated as waste dumping grounds. Biosolids are a valuable, renewable resource that can be effectively refined and used for much needed soil restoration and alternative renewable energy sources in the form of biogas and biofuel, thus satisfying society’s ever-growing power needs. The SFPUC Oceanside Plant is already leveraging this value as they’re capturing the biogas byproduct of their waste treatment process to generate 42% of the power needed to run the plant’s operations. Because SFPUC understands the value of biosolids better than anyone else, the onus is on them to pursue new private business stakeholders to partner with in shifting the system paradigm from one of viewing and handling biosolids as an end-of-life product disposal problem to a product refinement and new finished goods business opportunity.

One such new business partner could be AG

Specialties, an Oregon-based company already well established as a wholesaler and retailer of fertilizers and farm chemicals with a specialty niche in fertilizer blending. Such a business partner is well positioned to benefit from purchase of SFPUC’s biosolids for integration into their existing products. Furthermore, this company also owns AKA Transport, a trucking company, which addresses SFPUC’s challenge of neutralizing if not reversing current biosolids hauling costs which comprise about 55% of the overall disposal costs. This new breed of business partner sees the value of biosolids as a resource or raw material and is willing to pay for it in order to productize and sell it to its existing farm customers in the form of new or better finished products for soil amendment. Perhaps SFPUC can also forge a business partner relationship with a company like Clean World out of Sacramento that’s using anaerobic digestion to convert food waste into biofuel for use in powering cars and is testing other biogas-energy conversion technologies as well.

Unintended Consequences Whether SFPUC partners with new agriculture or energy businesses or both, clearly they’ll displace the current “haulers” and “disposers” whose business models won’t work when the SFPUC reverses its pricing signals. However, two very positive unintended consequences are likely as well. First, the SFPUC and all public urban wastewater treatment systems would have the potential to become self-funding public services. The income stream generated by the sale of biosolids, an infinite natural resource, would create the funding needed for technological innovation necessary to constantly evolve our vision of biosolids treatment and best reuse optimization options. Second, with enhanced awareness of the value of biosolids as a natural resource for addressing soil degradation in our ranch lands, wineries, orchards, forests, parklands, etc., a new positively reinforcing loop is created related to the larger global issues of climate change, water scarcity and desertification. As more biosolids are used to replenish our soils, soil quality improves thereby decreasing desertification and water scarcity as nutrient-rich soil is better able to hold water content and draw more carbon out of the atmosphere which then reduces the issues of climate change.

5. REBUILD THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO REDUCE BIOSOLIDS VOLUME

Heat drying is a process that involves using active or passive dryers to remove water from biosolids. Heat drying is different from solar drying in that it’s done in a drying machine as opposed to on open beds that take advantage of passive solar. In addition, heat drying takes up much less space than solar drying. Drying is used to destroy pathogens and eliminate most of the biosolids water content, which in San Francisco can be as high as 85%. Removing the water greatly reduces the volume of biosolids - sometimes by up to 70%. Simply reducing the volume of biosolids is a big leap in a positive direction.

Given that the SFPUC currently trucks approximately 76,000 dry tons of biosolids outs of the San Francisco every year paying roughly $3,000,000 to do so, they could instead only have to manage 23,000 dry tons per year at a fraction of the cost. The potential for significant transportation cost reductions makes investing in drying technology very attractive for a city like San Francisco with little land available for land application or solar drying beds. Thus, heat drying and pelletizing might be processes of choice for urban communities where distances to agricultural land can be substantial or are facing

resistance from citizens, just like San Francisco is with Sonoma, Solano and Merced counties. Compared to other stabilizations processes like composting, alkaline stabilization and air- drying, heat drying has a relatively smaller footprint. These heat-dryers can be designed to accept a variety of feed material types and consistencies. Besides lowering transportation costs significantly, heat drying reduces the number of trucks/additives/amendments coming in and out of the facility. The pellets have a high content of phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, which make them good candidates to be directly sold as fertilizers. The end result is a ready-to-market product. The pellets can be used as fertilizers for homes, golf courses, and parks and also can be used as bi fuel. This biofuel can in turn provide energy to homes and businesses. An Example close to home is Encina, the second-largest wastewater facility in San Diego County sold their biosolid pellets to Cemex, a cement company but now markets it as fertilizer and sends a large percentage to nurseries, golf courses and soil blenders resulting in savings of 2 million dollars annually. If the SFPUC used heat drying to make biosolid pellets, transportation costs and energy would go down and a new business opportunity of selling the pellets would be generated. Instead of paying to get rid of biosolids, the SFPUC would make biosolid a revenue generating function. In regards to the impact of these technologies on the feedback loops, the number of trucks to and from the facility will reduce so transportation costs will go down, the land required for heat-drying is relatively small and so required land amount, will go down, the heat-dryers require operational and maintenance staff so the number of skilled labor required increases.

Unintended Consequences An unintended consequence of pelletizing is that the end product pellets might occasionally have slight offensive odors, which affect the community acceptance of pellets to be used as fertilizers. In addition, if the pellets get wet during condensation or other mechanisms or are formed with too much water content, it may produce odors, which will affect community acceptance. The Heat-drying process, if not managed properly, can generate dust that has the potential to affect plant workers and the local community. Similar to other dusts, this dust could cause adverse health effects such as asthma. Lastly, if the demand for biosolids increases with improved public perception and understanding of the benefits of biosolids, then drying and pelletizing would reduce the volume and potential cause a biosolids shortage.

CONCLUSION The road to biosolids optimization is not a clear one and there are likely many public sector and private sector obstacles to overcome. However, given the potential benefits of this untapped resource we are certain that there are equally as many business and environmental opportunities ahead. As mentioned earlier, to enhance the system there must be a change in the way biosolids are perceived. Shifting the

mental models away from disgust and towards the understanding of the economic and environmental benefits biosolids contain. The taboo nature and ick factor of discussing human waste, and therefore biosolids, makes it all the more challenging to find creative solutions for optimum waste recycling. Some stakeholders have more influence than others in the matter and the burden (or benefit) will be on them to align policies and create the necessary investments and market conditions to promote biosolids. Innovation and research must be a driver and it is only through the replacement of outdated technology and mental models that we will be able to meet future challenges. Increasing environmental and operational costs in the industry can only be dealt with by diversification of current biosolids recycling options. Another major concern is the availability and proximity of agricultural land to large urban centers. More importantly, it will be fundamental that the counties and residents of these agricultural lands feel as driven, if not more driven to find optimal biosolids recycling solutions. Counties care about the health of their community and unfortunately, due to the odor of biosolids, they are often associated with unhealthy conditions. Educating individuals with unbiased and scientifically based data will help overcome these stereotypes and help shed light on the benefits of this untapped waste stream. The use of biosolids can help solve many of the issues our planet and societies are facing; all that is needed is to keep an open mind.

REFERENCES

Center for Urban Horticulture, University of Washington. (2002). Using biosolids for reclamation and remediation of disturbed. Retrieved from U.S. Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency website. San Francisco Water Power Sewer. (2014). SFPUC - Development and Evaluation of Biosolids Processing Alternatives [Manual]. Retrieved from SFPUC website: www.sfwater.org/ San Francisco Public Utility Commission. (2011). SFPUC - Strategic sustainability plan [Manual]. Retrieved from SFPUC website: www.sfwater.org/sustainability San Francisco Public Utility Commission. (2015). SFPUC - biosolids management manual [Manual]. Retrieved from SFPUC website: http://sfwater.org/ Mitchell, D. (2009). Bay area bio-solids management. Challenges, Opportunities, and Outcomes. Retrieved from Bay Area Clean Water Agencies website bayareabiosolids.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/BACWA_BABiosolidsMgmnt.333130706.pdf California Government. (2011). “About CalRecycle”. What we do. Retrieved from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/AboutUs/WhatWeDo/default.htm Biosolids Digester Facilities Consulting Team. (2014). Development and evaluation of biosolids processing alternatives. [Sewer System Improvement Plan] Retrieved from San Francisco Public Utility Commission website: http://www.sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=579. San Francisco Public Utility Commission. (2012) Oceanside treatment plant. Tour brochure and map. [Brochure] San Francisco Water. Power. Sewer. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF). (2012) The water resources utility of the future: A blueprint for action [Road Map].