Solids Master Plan Briefing March 16, 2016 Solids Master Plan Team - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
solids master plan briefing
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Solids Master Plan Briefing March 16, 2016 Solids Master Plan Team - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 19, 2023 119 likes •414 views

Solids Master Plan Briefing March 16, 2016 Solids Master Plan Team Jessica Patti Psaris, Tom Mary Samantha Baxter, Engineering Broderick, Strawn, Villegas, Comms. Consultant Bureau Engineering External Manager Chief Program

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Solids Master Plan Briefing

March 16, 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Solids Master Plan – Team

Tom Broderick, Bureau Chief Mary Strawn, Engineering Program Coordinator Patti Psaris, Engineering Consultant CDM Smith Engineers Jessica Baxter, Comms. Manager Samantha Villegas, External Affairs Consultant SaVi PR samantha@ savipr.com

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Solids Master Plan – Review of Desired Outcomes

Replacement of aging infrastructure Make better use of valuable resources Project phasing to maintain reasonable utility rates

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Solids Master Plan – Timeline Review

4

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Immediate Needs (Phase I) Short term improve- ments (Phase II) Long-term improve- ments (Phase III) Design and construction Design and construction Design and construction Study

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Solids Master Plan – Project Milestones

  • Fall 2015
  • Prioritize needs
  • Narrow down

choices

Set and Rank Criteria

  • Winter 2016
  • Look at

Immediate needs

Condition Assessment

  • Spring 2016

Develop Alternatives

  • Fall 2016-

Winter 2017

Final Report

Ongoing outreach to stakeholders Ongoing peer review

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Today’s Meeting Agenda

6

  • WPCP Capacity and Solids Loading
  • Plan to Address Immediate Needs
  • Regulatory Review of Biosolids
  • Communication Update
  • Discussion
  • Paired Comparison Analysis - Exercise
slide-7
SLIDE 7

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Jan-90 Jan-95 Jan-00 Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15 Running 12 month Prec. (in) WPCP Flow (MGD) Date

Running 12 month WPCP Flows

Running Average Annual Flow Running 12 month Precipitation (AVG = about 39.0)

Plant Capacity--History

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Plant Capacity

 Based on Water Master Plan and Council of Governments population

projections

 Includes usage change in Crystal City, reasonable rate of Inflow and

Infiltration

 Should have adequate capacity beyond 2040  Master Plans are done every 10-20 years—will target 2030 for the next one

Year

Sanitary Flow Increase From 2010 (mgd) Average Annual Plant Flow (mgd)

2010

26.0 (actual)

2015

2.09 28.1

2020

3.82 29.8

2025

4.97 30.9

2030

5.79 31.8

2035

6.37 32.3

2040

6.72 32.7

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Plant Capacity

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Solids Side Loading

 Solids side loading projections based on

concentration of pollutants in influent

 Design of new solids processes will be based on

current concentrations and projected flows

 Mass balance being performed on alternative

technologies

 (Mass balance: loadings into a process must equal

loadings out)

lbs = X lbs = Y lbs = X - Y

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Solids Side Loading

Year Projected Annual Average Flow (mgd) Influent BOD (lb/day) Influent TSS (lb/day) Annual Average Maximum Month Annual Average Maximum Month 2015 28.1 78,300 111,700 59,800 95,500 2020 29.8 83,000 118,400 63,400 101,200 2040 32.7 91,100 130,000 69,500 111,000 Design Capacity 40 111,400 159,000 85,100 135,900

  • Influent loadings of readily biodegradable carbon

(BOD) and suspended solids are used as basis for sizing

  • Generally using max month value for design
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Plan to Address Immediate Needs

12

 Five Immediate Needs projects identified:

  • Gravity Thickeners
  • Bar Screens
  • Primary Scum Collection
  • Motor Control Center in Preliminary Treatment Building
  • Scum Concentrator

 Equipment is old and condition is fair to poor; failure

could have consequences beyond the process itself

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Plan to Address Immediate Needs

13

 Condition assessment; alternatives analysis complete  Draft business cases have been developed  Conceptual design is next step  Design engineer procurement has not yet started

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Biosolids Regulations

 USEPA 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the use and disposal of

sewage sludge (1993)

  • Pollutants
  • Pathogens
  • Nutrients

 VA Biosolids Use Regulations

  • VA Dept of Health -1993
  • VA Dept of Environmental Quality (DEQ) -2008

 Local Governments

  • Ordinances
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Types of Biosolids

 Class A – Exceptional Quality treated to levels that

virtually eliminates disease-causing

  • rganisms/pathogens, low in heavy metals, and no

distribution restrictions

 Class B – Less restrictive standards for content of

metals and disease causing organisms and require more limitations/restrictions on use and distribution

 Both Class A and Class B – Protect human health and

the environment

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Biosolids Treatment

 Prevents Risk of Disease Infection  Treatment includes high temp, pressure and pH to kill

  • Bacteria
  • Viruses
  • Parasites

 Processes include

  • Digestion
  • Lime Stabilization
  • Composting
  • Heat Treatment
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Risk Based Regulation of Pollutants

 Clean Water Act, Section 405 mandated risk-based limits

for pollutants “which may adversely affect public health and the environment”

 EPA Part 503 Regulations established Mean Trace Element

Concentrations

 Biosolids well below regulated Pollutant Concentration

Limit

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Biosolids Metal Concentrations (ppm)

ELEMENT CEILING CONC LIMIT POLLUTANT CONC LIMIT (Class A Limit) ARLINGTON BIOSOLIDS CONC - ANNUAL AVE (2015) Arsenic 75 41 3 Cadmium 85 39 2 Copper 4300 1500 137 Lead 840 300 19 Mercury 57 17 0.5 Molybdenum 75

  • 16 (MAX)

Nickel 420 420 9 Selenium 100 100 5 Zinc 7500 2800 363

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Nutrient Management Plans

 Biosolids applied to land must also comply with all

regulatory agronomic requirements such as Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs)

 NMPs regulated at State level – Virginia Department of

Conservation and Recreation (DCR)

 Marketed Products/Brands require registration with

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Biosolids Regulations: What’s Changing?

 No Changes to Federal Regulations expected  Changes to State Regulations with respect to nutrient

management are already taking place

 It is likely that additional nutrient reduction strategies

may be incorporated as promotion of complete restoration

  • f the Chesapeake Bay by 2025 takes hold

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Biosolids Regulations: What’s Changing?

 The seasonal window to land apply biosolids is shrinking  On-site land application and management costs are on the

rise

 Nutrient and energy recovery could help reduce quantities

  • f solids applied to land and reduce nutrients of concern

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Communications update

 Website is up:

http://projects.arlingtonva.us/projects/water-pollution- control-plant-solids-master-plan/

 Feedback: what’s working? What additional resources do

we need?

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Discussion

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Evaluation Criteria: Exercise

 Evaluation Criteria Goal

Ensures alternative selected best reflects Arlington County’s priorities

 Paired Metric Comparison

Simple Decision Tool to define the relative importance of a number of different options

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Evaluation Criteria: Exercise

 Today’s Objectives:

  • Perform Paired Metric Comparison for External

Stakeholder Community

  • Integrate Results to reflect Civic Associations and

Commissions Input

  • Incorporate Overall input into SMP and discuss any

impacts that result

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Evaluation Criteria –Grouping Reflects “Quadruple Bottom Line” Approach

  • Odor Generation

Potential/ Reduction

  • Acceptability
  • Hauling
  • Resource recovery

potential

  • Energy Intensity
  • Carbon Footprint
  • Regulatory Permits
  • Gas and Product

Quality

  • Flexibility
  • Operability and Safety
  • Constructability
  • MOPO/Impacts on

Plant

  • Proven

System/Technology

  • Reliability
  • Capital Cost
  • Annual O&M Cost
  • Life Cycle Cost
  • Financial

Options/Risk

  • End Use Control

Economic Operational Social

Environmental

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Paired Metric Comparison

Capital Cost Total Annual Cost Life Cycle Cost Cost Risk/Liability End Use Control Flexibility Ease of O&M Proven System/Technology in the US Reliability Ability to Construct Impacts on Plant Processes and Facilities Product Use/Recycle Potential Water Impact Air Impact Regulatory Permits Gas and Product Quality Odor Generation Potential/Reduction Acceptability Hauling A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S Capital Cost A Total Annual Cost B Life Cycle Cost C Cost Risk/Liability D End Use Control E Flexibility F Ease of O&M G Proven System/Technology in the US H Reliability I Ability to Construct J Impacts on Plant Processes and Facilities K Product Use/Recycle Potential L Water Impact M Air Impact N Regulatory Permits O Gas and Product Quality P Odor Generation Potential/Reduction Q Acceptability R Hauling S

Rating Scale: 1 - The listed objective is slightly higher in priority. 2 - The listed objective is higher in priority. 3 - The listed objective is significantly higher in priority.

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Paired Metric Comparison Example

 Capital cost is slightly higher in priority than operating cost.  Capital cost is significantly higher in priority that ease of

  • perations and maintenance

 Operating cost is higher in priority than ease of operations and

maintenance.

28