Solids Master Plan Briefing October 27, 2016

Transcription

1 Solids Master Plan Briefing October 27, 2016

2 Meeting Agenda Review of Project/Stakeholder Meeting Role Update on Master Plan: Evaluating Technologies Financial Planning/Budgeting Process Next Steps Questions and Answers

3 Review of Project/Stakeholder Role

4 Stakeholder Group Role To engage in the master plan process by meeting quarterly with staff to understand the need for the plan, the approach, decisions made/how/why, and impacts to Arlington community. To report to representative groups what is learned, and relay questions and concerns back to staff so they may be adequately be addressed in a timely fashion. To provide input throughout the process for better decision making by the staff, so that solutions are understood and generally supported by stakeholders.

5 Update of Master Plan

6 Status of Project Study Phase Where Are We Now? Ongoing outreach to stakeholders COMPLETED! COMPLETED! COMPLETED! Fall 2015 Prioritize needs Narrow down choices Set and Rank Criteria Condition Assessment Winter 2016 Look at Immediate needs Spring/Summer 2016 Develop Alternatives Final Report Fall Winter 2017 WE ARE HERE Ongoing peer review

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

8 Selected Long-Term Alternatives for Further Evaluation Alt. 1. Lime Stabilization with Improvements (Lime) Class B bulk land application, no biogas production Alt. 2. Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD) Class B bulk land application, or other third-party product mgmt., biogas production Alt. 3. Thermal Hydrolysis Pretreatment with MAD (THP/MAD) Class A bulk land application or other third-party product mgmt., biogas production Alt. 4. MAD with Thermal Drying (MAD/DRY) Class A product, biogas production All alternatives, except Alt. 1, include Anaerobic Digestion

9 Anaerobic Digestion Key Points Reduction of volatile solids Biogas production Nutrient release Biogas production Energy for process heating needs Opportunity for utilization Nutrient release Sidestream treatment and nutrient recovery considerations

10 Biogas Utilization/Sidestream Management

11 Anaerobic Digestion Energy Recovery Digester Feedstock/ Biosolids Volatile Solids to BioGas Anaerobic Digestion Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Energy Losses To Flare Gas Purificatio n BioMethane to Pipeline Recovered Heat Biosolids Electrical Power BioCNG

12 Biogas Composition and Emissions Raw Biogas CH 4 CO 2 (H 2 S, NH 3, VOCs) Other Combustion is considered GHG neutral since biogas is renewable Energy recovery may result in GHG offsets - power, heat, etc. Emissions function of combustion source and biogas quality Combustion of Biogas CO 2 H 2 O Other (CO, NOx, SOx) Flaring is a required safety feature Biogas typically utilized as fuel first Equipment specified to meet air quality standards

13 Sidestreams from Digestion (THP example) Primary Sludge Screening and Pre- Dewatering Steam Generator Anaerobic Digestion Biogas to Utilization Dewatering WAS Holding/ Blending/ Tank(s) Filtrate or Centrate THP Reactors Cake Hopper Holding Tank Filtrate or Centrate Cake Storage Land Application or Distribution and Marketing (Class A)

14 Marketing Assessment Summary

15 Market Assessment Product Review BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT TYPES Dewatered Cake Class A Class B Class A Dryer Product Pellet Non-Pellet Nutrient Enhanced Pellet Class A Compost Soil Blend Product ENERGY AND OTHER PRODUCT TYPES Ash Electricity Steam Biogas for Vehicle Fuel or Natural Gas Pipeline Recovered P Fertilizer

16 Biosolids: Mid-Atlantic Market 2010 Based On 1.28 M WT Class A, 11.8% Landfill/Inciner ation, 12.1% Class B Land App, 76.1% 2016 Based on M WT Class B Land App, 43.0% Class A, 39.8% Landfill/Incin eration, 17.2%

17 Class A Biosolids Distribution Based on 360,000 WT Pellets 31% Cake Land App 58% Compost 11%

18 Summary: County Opportunities BIOSOLIDS AND NON-BIOSOLIDS PRODUCTS Need for organic soil amendment soil blends created now Little use of fertilizers Currently engaged with community to produce and utilize compost materials (leaf compost) Looking at separating and digesting food waste in future Interested in urban soil amendments ENERGY Energy Recovery On-Site 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

19 Review Scoring Framework

20

21 Final Criteria Weighting

22 Scoring Process Apply a score 1 5 for each alternative Highest score is most preferred Weighting was applied so each alternative received a weighted score for ranking

23 40 PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED CRITERIA RANKING SUMMARY Lime MAD THP/MAD MAD/DRY ECONOMIC OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL

24 Economic Performance Measures Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Life Cycle Cost Financial Options and Risk End Use Management and Control Outlet availability Ability to control/mitigate off-site problems

25 Life Cycle Cost Impacts of Biogas Utilization Biogas utilization has potential to generate revenue streams CHP revenues Off-set electrical consumption at WPCP CNG revenues Sale of biomethane as fuel Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for biofuel $0.65 / therm Energy Policy Act 2005 EPA moderated transaction system

26 Annual Costs and Revenues Operating Cost Comparison Year 1 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, ,000,000-2,000,000 1-Lime 2-MAD 3-THP/MAD 4-MAD/Dry O&M Labor Hauling Power Natural Gas Chemicals

27 Annual Costs and Revenues Operating Cost Comparison w/cng Year 1 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, ,000,000-2,000,000 1-Lime 2-MAD 3-THP/MAD 4-MAD/Dry O&M Labor Hauling Power Natural Gas Chemicals Net Revenues

28 PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED ECONOMIC CRITERIA RANKING

29 Operational Evaluation Criteria Flexibility Construction Phasing Expansion Potential Diversification of Product Operability and Safety Operability for Existing Staff Number of new staff Plant Safety Proven System/ Technology Reliability Ability to monitor asset and deploy maintenance strategy Constructability Physical limitations for on-site construction Impacts on Plant Processes Outages for construction Impacts of new facilities/ ease of integration

30 PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED OPERATIONAL CRITERIA RANKING Operational Criteria Chart Alt 4- MAD/DRY Alt 3 THP/MAD Alt 2 MAD Alt 1 Lime Flexibility Operability and Safety Proven System/Technology Reliability Constructability Impacts on Plant Processes

31 Environmental Criteria Resource Recovery Potential Focused on energy, nutrients, organic products Energy Intensity Amount of purchased energy (power, fuel) Carbon Footprint Relative change in GHG emissions compared to baseline Regulatory Permits Ease of permitting (air quality, process, and final product use) Gas and Biosolids Product Quality Ability of products to meet end- use requirements

32 Biosolids Quantities/Type Wet Solids Hauled (lb/day) 4 - MAD/DRY Class A 3 - THP/MESO 2 - MAD Class B 1- Lime 0 50, , , , , ,000

33 Carbon Intensity Difference in estimated GHG emissions

34 PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA RANKING Environmental Criteria Chart Alt 4- MAD/DRY Alt 3 THP/MAD Alt 2 MAD Alt 1 Lime Resource Recovery Potential Energy Intensity Carbon Footprint Regulatory Permits Gas and Product Quality

35 Social Evaluation Criteria Acceptability Community impacts process and product Visual Odor (covered in Other Criteria) Emissions Noise Product Use Potential (covered in Env. Criteria) Odor Generation Potential/ Reduction Impact of process odor Impact of product odor Hauling Traffic volume

36 PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED SOCIAL CRITERIA RANKING Social Criteria Chart Alt 4- MAD/DRY Alt 3 THP/MAD Alt 2 MAD Alt 1 Lime Odor Generation Potential/Reduction Acceptability Hauling

37 Budgeting/Financial Process

38 Utilities Fund is an Enterprise Fund Enterprise funds are self-sufficient. Revenues generated within fund must sustain all activities (operations and capital) of the fund, while maintaining 3 months of operating reserves and debt coverage ratio of Water-sewer rate set at level which, along with other revenues including excess fund balance, will fully fund activities.

39 Overall Considerations Balancing of priorities in Utilities Fund Internal: Water Distribution Sanitary Sewer Collection Sanitary Sewer Treatment Billing Office/ Customer Service External: Washington Aqueduct drinking water provider Blue Plains sanitary sewer treatment provider Inter-jurisdictional (IJ) Partners sanitary sewer treatment provided to Fairfax County, Alexandria, and Falls Church

40 Water/Sewer Programs & Funding Sources $420.5 over 10 years 10-Year Total Programs ($M) 10-Year Total Funding Sources ($M) [CATEGO RY NAME], $218.3 Water/ Sewer Maint. Capital, $162.1 [CATEGOR Y NAME], $137.9 [CATEGO RY NAME], $146.2 [CATEGOR Y NAME], $39.0 [CATEGOR Y NAME], $37.7 [CATEGOR Y NAME], $59.7 [CATEGO RY NAME], [CATEGO RY NAME],

41 WPCP CIP FY C apital C os t S chedule F Y 17 F Y 18 F Y 19 F Y 20 F Y 21 F Y 22 F Y 23 F Y 24 F Y 25 F Y 26 T otal WP C P Maintenance C apital 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,186 2,251 2,318 2,388 2,460 2,534 2,610 22,929 B lue P lains C apital Improvements ,496 Improvements to E ads S t P roperty ,146 O C B HVAC Upgrades 3, ,500 S econdary C larifiers 860 3,866 6,551 6, ,854 S olids Mas ter P lan - P has e 1- B ios olids 1,620 6,880 4,010 1, ,062 S olids Mas ter P lan - P has e 2-1,030 2,652 1, ,321 S olids Mas ter P lan - P has e ,000 8,250 23,250 25,000 46,000 46, ,000 T otal 9,054 14,569 15,967 12,796 3,529 10,803 25,921 27,768 48,911 48, ,308 F unding S chedule F Y 17 F Y 18 F Y 19 F Y 20 F Y 21 F Y 22 F Y 23 F Y 24 F Y 25 F Y 26 T otal P AYG 3,724 3,719 2,827 2,675 2,941 2,123 2,228 2,312 2,441 2,506 27,496 New B ond Is s ue - - 3,560 1,480-6,848 19,298 20,750 38,180 38, ,296 O ther F unding - Trans it O ther F unding - IJ P artners 1,370 2,366 2,624 3, ,812 4,375 4,685 8,268 8,282 37,613 Authoriz ed but Unis s ued B onds - 4, ,100 Is s ued but Uns pent B onds 8, ,733 O ther P revious ly Approved F unds 11, ,874 T otal 25,718 10,203 9,029 7,436 3,529 10,803 25,921 27,768 48,911 48, ,308 Source: Arlington County, adopted

42 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 Projected Utility Fund Annual Debt Service FY17-26 CIP Water & Sewer Infrastructure Debt Service 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 Existing VRA Debt FY17-26 CIP Plant Debt Service 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Existing GO Debt - FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30

43 FY CIP Process Schedule Summer 2015 Winter 2016 Update & revise prior CIP to create proposed FY CIP Spring 2016 FY CIP plan proposed by County Manager May - July: Public Work Session with County Board June 22: Public Hearing on CIP Summer 2016 Written Comments Until July 19 County Board adopts CIP July 19 FY 2017 Departments execute the first year of the 10- year CIP

44 FY 2018 Process Schedule Fall 2016 Department formulates FY 2018 operating budget plan, including FY 2018 CIP information (2 nd year of CIP) in proposed budget February 2017 FY 2018 operating budget proposed by County Manager Spring 2017 Worksession with County Board Tax Rate & Budget Hearing in March, including Water- Sewer Rate County Board adopts operating budget in April FY 2018 Departments execute the FY 2018 proposed budget & second year of the 10-year CIP Summer 2017-Spring 2018: Departments will update their 10 year CIP will be adopted July 2018

45 Next Steps

46 Next Steps Further work is needed to finalize preliminary ranking Risk/sensitivity analyses Virginia Tech studies Site visits Discussions with stakeholders and leadership Finalize ranking Finalize Master Plan report

47 DISCUSSION