Solids Master Plan Briefing June 22, 2017 Meeting Agenda Review of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Solids Master Plan Briefing June 22, 2017

Meeting Agenda  Review of Master Plan Process  Status Update  Technology Selection  Budget & Next Steps  Discussion

Review of Master Plan Process

Master Plan Process - Where Are We Now? Ongoing outreach to stakeholders COMPLETED! COMPLETED! COMPLETED! Condition Final Report Assessment • Fall 2015 • Spring/Summer 2016 • Prioritize needs • Winter 2016 • Fall 2016- • Narrow down Winter 2017 • Look at choices Immediate needs Set and Rank Develop Criteria Alternatives WE ARE HERE Ongoing peer review

Solids Master Plan: Evaluation Process Universe of Technologies Workshop 1 - Kickoff and Project  Objectives Defined Workshop 2 - Define Screening and  Screened Evaluation Criteria Technologies and Process Analysis Workshop 3 - Technology Identification and  Screening Workshop 4 - Process Specific Analysis  Top 4 Selected Alternatives Workshop 5 – Alternative Train  Development and Preliminary Findings : Selection of top 4 alternatives Workshop 6 – Weighted Criteria Ranking of  Alternatives Ranking and Final Evaluation Workshop 7 – Final Plan Recommendations  Recommended Plan

Status Update

We’ve Been Busy!  Fall 2016  Initiated Virginia Tech lab-scale digestion pilot  Toured UOSA (Centreville) to learn more about their Solids Handling process  Winter 2017  Updated DES leadership on the Solids Master Plan process  Met with WSSC (Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties) to learn more about their Master Planning process  Held meetings with WPCP staff on the Solids Master Plan status, and solicited feedback on alternatives

We’ve Been Busy!  Spring 2017  Met with County Manager, Mark Schwartz, on Solids Master Plan  Presented the Solids Master Plan process to industry leaders  Presented to Arlington County community members – CivFed, ACE, E2C2, FAAC, NCAC, AHCA  Optional Meeting with Stakeholders to discuss emissions, regional solutions, and financing

Virginia Tech Study  Arlington County partnered with Virginia Tech to research which anaerobic digester operating conditions and dewatering methods resulted in optimized gas production and reduced odors.

Virginia Tech Study  The results found that Arlington’s raw sludge are within the expected range for gas production and methane content.  Variables such as dewatering method, polymer dose, and storage time all impacted odor production.  The results showed that Arlington’s digestion process would be more stable than industry standards.

Technology Selection

Top Four Alternatives Name Biosolids Major features quality Lime Stabilization Class B What we have now; highest rehab-only amount of biosolids and trucks; no gas production; odorous Anaerobic Digestion Class B Biosolids volume lower; gas (AD) production; fewer odors Thermal Hydrolysis Class A Biosolids volume reduced further; (THP) + Anaerobic more gas production; fewer odors Digestion Anaerobic Digestion + Class A Least amount of biosolids; no net Heat Drying gas production; fewer odors 12

Weighted Criteria Ranking Summary ECONOMIC OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL 40 THP + AD highest on social and environmental 35 4.77 5.56 30 3.04 5.43 9.09 25 7.78 10.14 8.76 20 15 14.07 14.70 Scores are very 11.79 12.07 10 close; do not provide clear 5 8.06 6.71 6.12 5.85 direction on path 0 forward Lime AD THP+AD AD+DRY AD HAS THP+AD IS HIGHEST SECOND 13 OVERALL OVERALL SCORE

Benefits of THP/MAD Compared MAD  Pathogen Reductions: Meets Class A (higher quality) standards  Fewer, smaller digesters: Thermal hydrolysis greatly reduces the volume of the digester tanks – from 3  2  Higher rate of methane production: More energy generation  Increased dewaterability: THP biosolids are easier to dewater and require less polymer  Reduced trucking: THP reduces the quantity of biosolids

Alt 3: Recommendation to County Manager Steam Biogas to Generator Primary Utilization Sludge Screening and Pre-Dewatering Dewatering Anaerobic Digestion THP Reactors Land Cake Storage Cake Holding Application or Holding/ Hopper Tank Distribution Blending/ and Marketing Tank(s) Secondary (Class A) Centrate To CentrateTo Sludge Headworks Headworks

Benefits of Class A Biosolids  Greater public acceptance  More outlets for distribution: land application, soil amendment, revenue stream…  Less land application restrictions than Class B biosolids  Pathogen reduction – over 90% lower than Class B requirements  Rigorous testing to ensure compliance  Reduced hauling costs

Percentage of Class A and Class B DC Metro Region Biosolids Trends Biosolids over time in Mid-Atlantic Region 76.10% 80% 70% 60% 43% 50% 40% 39.80% 30% 20% 10% 12.10% 0% 2010 2016 Class B Class A

County Opportunities  BIOSOLIDS IN OUR COMMUNITY  Class A option can be used as an organic soil amendment – soil blends created now like Milorganite (Milwaukee) or Bloom (DC)  High nutrient content of biosolids means little or no use of chemical fertilizers  ENERGY RECOVERY POSSIBILITIES  Energy Recovery On-Site – Combined Heat and Power (CHP)  Energy Recovery using biogas derived fuels is of interest to County Transit Bureau - ART Bus Fleet runs on compressed natural gas (CNG) – New ART fueling station being constructed across the street from the Plant  Looking at digesting other organic wastes in future – would result in greater gas production

Budget and Next Steps

Utilities Fund is an Enterprise Fund  Enterprise Funds are self-sufficient.  Water-sewer rate set at level which, along with other revenues including excess fund balance, will fully fund activities.  Ensuring that the rate stays at an affordable level is a key goal of managing this fund.  Utilities Fund must balance the needs on the water and wastewater sides  Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process for FY2019-28 will start in the fall and be adopted in July 2018.

Projected Utility Fund Annual Debt Service 45,000,000 FY17-26 CIP w/o Water Project Water & Sewer 40,000,000 Infrastructure Debt Service 35,000,000 30,000,000 Plant Debt Service 25,000,000 (includes Existing VRA Debt Solids Master 20,000,000 Plan THP/AD) 15,000,000 10,000,000 Existing GO Debt 5,000,000 - FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30

Next Steps – Short Term (Next Two Years)  Finalize Master Plan Report  Air Quality Study – Emissions from sources associated with CNG and CHP options  Further Exploration of Regional Solutions  Meetings with DC Water  Determine proposed end use for biogas (CNG or CHP)  Continue Phase 1 SMP Design  Finalize timing of Phases 2 and 3 (depending on Washington Aqueduct decisions)  Hold periodic update meetings with stakeholders

Next Steps – Longer Term (Next 3-5 Years)  Review Solids Master Plan Report  Conduct negotiations with outside entities: DC Water, Washington Gas, and/or ART/WMATA bus facilities  Hire a Design Engineer  Begin Design of Phase 2 and Phase 3 Projects  Hire a Construction Manager  Prepare drawings and specifications for construction  Hold periodic update meetings with stakeholders

DISCUSSION