Solids Master Plan Briefing October 27, 2016
Meeting Agenda Review of Project/Stakeholder Meeting Role Update on Master Plan: Evaluating Technologies Financial Planning/Budgeting Process Next Steps Questions and Answers
Review of Project/Stakeholder Role
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.
Update of Master Plan
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 2016- Winter 2017 WE ARE HERE Ongoing peer review
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
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
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
Biogas Utilization/Sidestream Management
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
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
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)
Marketing Assessment Summary
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
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 0.904 M WT Class B Land App, 43.0% Class A, 39.8% Landfill/Incin eration, 17.2%
Class A Biosolids Distribution Based on 360,000 WT Pellets 31% Cake Land App 58% Compost 11%
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
Review Scoring Framework
Final Criteria Weighting
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
40 PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED CRITERIA RANKING SUMMARY 35 30 25 20 3.04 7.78 4.77 9.09 5.56 10.14 5.43 8.76 15 10 14.70 14.07 11.79 12.07 5 0 5.85 8.06 6.71 6.12 Lime MAD THP/MAD MAD/DRY ECONOMIC OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
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
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
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 0-1,000,000-2,000,000 1-Lime 2-MAD 3-THP/MAD 4-MAD/Dry O&M Labor Hauling Power Natural Gas Chemicals
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 0-1,000,000-2,000,000 1-Lime 2-MAD 3-THP/MAD 4-MAD/Dry O&M Labor Hauling Power Natural Gas Chemicals Net Revenues
PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED ECONOMIC CRITERIA RANKING
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
PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED OPERATIONAL CRITERIA RANKING Operational Criteria Chart Alt 4- MAD/DRY Alt 3 THP/MAD Alt 2 MAD Alt 1 Lime 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 Flexibility Operability and Safety Proven System/Technology Reliability Constructability Impacts on Plant Processes
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
Biosolids Quantities/Type Wet Solids Hauled (lb/day) 4 - MAD/DRY Class A 3 - THP/MESO 2 - MAD Class B 1- Lime 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Carbon Intensity Difference in estimated GHG emissions
PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA RANKING Environmental Criteria Chart Alt 4- MAD/DRY Alt 3 THP/MAD Alt 2 MAD Alt 1 Lime 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 Resource Recovery Potential Energy Intensity Carbon Footprint Regulatory Permits Gas and Product Quality
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
PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED SOCIAL CRITERIA RANKING Social Criteria Chart Alt 4- MAD/DRY Alt 3 THP/MAD Alt 2 MAD Alt 1 Lime 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Odor Generation Potential/Reduction Acceptability Hauling
Budgeting/Financial Process
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 1.25. Water-sewer rate set at level which, along with other revenues including excess fund balance, will fully fund activities.
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
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],
WPCP CIP FY2017-2026 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 974 630 526 233 165 119 164 185 250 250 3,496 Improvements to E ads S t P roperty 100 103 106 109 113 116 119 123 127 130 1,146 O C B HVAC Upgrades 3,500 - - - - - - - - - 3,500 S econdary C larifiers 860 3,866 6,551 6,577 - - - - - - 17,854 S olids Mas ter P lan - P has e 1- B ios olids 1,620 6,880 4,010 1,552 - - - - - - 14,062 S olids Mas ter P lan - P has e 2-1,030 2,652 1,639 - - - - - - 5,321 S olids Mas ter P lan - P has e 3 - - - 500 1,000 8,250 23,250 25,000 46,000 46,000 150,000 T otal 9,054 14,569 15,967 12,796 3,529 10,803 25,921 27,768 48,911 48,990 218,308 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 38,180 128,296 O ther F unding - Trans it 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 22 22 196 O ther F unding - IJ P artners 1,370 2,366 2,624 3,262 569 1,812 4,375 4,685 8,268 8,282 37,613 Authoriz ed but Unis s ued B onds - 4,100 - - - - - - - - 4,100 Is s ued but Uns pent B onds 8,733 - - - - - - - - - 8,733 O ther P revious ly Approved F unds 11,874 - - - - - - - - - 11,874 T otal 25,718 10,203 9,029 7,436 3,529 10,803 25,921 27,768 48,911 48,990 218,308 Source: Arlington County, adopted
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
FY 2017-2026 CIP Process Schedule Summer 2015 Winter 2016 Update & revise prior CIP to create proposed FY 2017 2026 CIP Spring 2016 FY 2017-2026 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
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
Next Steps
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
DISCUSSION