Arlington County Solids Master Plan

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?

•Fall 2015

•Prioritize needs

•Narrow down choices

Set and Rank Criteria

•Winter 2016

•Look at Immediate needs

Condition Assessment •Spring/Summer

2016

Develop Alternatives

•Fall 2016-Winter 2017

Final Report

Ongoing outreach to stakeholders

Ongoing peer review

COMPLETED! COMPLETED!

WE ARE HERE

COMPLETED!

SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN: EVALUATION PROCESS

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

Universe of Technologies

Screened Technologies and Process Analysis

Top 4 Selected Alternatives

Ranking and Final Evaluation

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

Anaerobic

Digestion

Digester

Feedstock/

Biosolids

Biosolids

Volatile

Solids to

BioGas Combined

Heat and

Power

(CHP)

Recovered

Heat

Electrical

Power

Energy

Losses

Gas

Purificatio

n BioMethane

to Pipeline

BioCNG

To

Flare

Biogas – Composition and Emissions

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

Flaring is a required safety feature

Biogas typically utilized as fuel first

Equipment specified to meet air quality standards

Raw Biogas

Combustion

of Biogas

CH4 CO2

Other (H2S, NH3, VOCs)

CO2 H2O Other

(CO, NOx, SOx)

Sidestreams from Digestion (THP example)

Primary

Sludge

WAS

Holding/

Blending/

Tank(s)

Screening and

Pre-

Dewatering Anaerobic

Digestion Dewatering

Land

Application or

Distribution

and Marketing

(Class A)

Biogas to

Utilization

Filtrate or

Centrate Filtrate or

Centrate

Cake

Hopper

Holding

Tank

Cake Storage THP Reactors

Steam Generator

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

Class A , 11.8%

Landfill/Incineration, 12.1%

Class B Land App, 76.1%

Class A , 39.8%

Landfill/Incineration, 17.2%

Class B Land App, 43.0%

2010 – Based On 1.28 M WT

2016 – Based on 0.904 M WT

Class A – Biosolids Distribution

Pellets 31%

Compost 11%

Cake Land App 58%

Based on 360,000 WT

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

5.85 8.06 6.71 6.12

14.70 14.07

11.79 12.07

7.78 9.09

10.14 8.76

3.04

4.77 5.56

5.43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lime MAD THP/MAD MAD/DRY

PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED CRITERIA RANKING SUMMARY

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

Operating Cost Comparison – Year 1

-2,000,000

-1,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1-Lime 2-MAD 3-THP/MAD 4-MAD/Dry

An

nu

al C

ost

s an

d R

eve

nu

es

O&M Labor Hauling Power Natural Gas Chemicals

Operating Cost Comparison – w/CNG – Year 1

-2,000,000

-1,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1-Lime 2-MAD 3-THP/MAD 4-MAD/Dry

An

nu

al C

ost

s an

d R

eve

nu

es

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

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

Alt 1 Lime

Alt 2 MAD

Alt 3 THP/MAD

Alt 4- MAD/DRY

Operational Criteria Chart

Flexibility Operability and Safety Proven System/Technology Reliability Constructability Impacts on Plant Processes

PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED OPERATIONAL CRITERIA RANKING

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

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

1- Lime

2 - MAD

3 - THP/MESO

4 - MAD/DRY

Wet Solids Hauled (lb/day)

Class A

Class B

Carbon Intensity

Difference in estimated GHG emissions

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Alt 1 Lime

Alt 2 MAD

Alt 3 THP/MAD

Alt 4- MAD/DRY

Environmental Criteria Chart

Resource Recovery Potential Energy Intensity Carbon Footprint Regulatory Permits Gas and Product Quality

PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA RANKING

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

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Alt 1 Lime

Alt 2 MAD

Alt 3 THP/MAD

Alt 4- MAD/DRY

Social Criteria Chart

Odor Generation Potential/Reduction Acceptability Hauling

PRELIMINARY WEIGHTED SOCIAL CRITERIA RANKING

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

[CATEGORY

NAME], $15.9

[CATEGORY

NAME], $24.2

[CATEGORY

NAME], $218.3

Water/ Sewer Maint.

Capital, $162.1

[CATEGORY NAME],

$59.7

[CATEGORY

NAME], $146.2

[CATEGORY NAME], $137.9

[CATEGORY NAME],

$39.0

[CATEGORY NAME],

$37.7

$420.5 over 10 years

10-Year Total –

Programs ($M)

10-Year Total –

Funding Sources ($M)

WPCP CIP FY2017-2026

Source: Arlington County, adopted

C apital C os t S c hedule 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 - T rans 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

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30

Projected Utility Fund Annual Debt Service

Existing VRA Debt

Existing GO Debt

FY17-26 CIP

Plant

Debt

Service

FY17-26 CIP

Water & Sewer

Infrastructure

Debt Service

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 (2nd 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