Biosolids Management Program Update Briefing for Blue Plains Regional Committee August 23, 2007 Briefing for Blue Plains Regional Committee August 23, 2007

2 Agenda Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan Approach to BMP Implementation BMP Schedule Update Technical Workshop Summary Alternatives Screened Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation Preliminary Findings Next Steps Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan Approach to BMP Implementation BMP Schedule Update Technical Workshop Summary Alternatives Screened Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation Preliminary Findings Next Steps

3 Review of Approved 1999 Biosolids Management Plan

4 Montgomery Loudoun Fairfax Prince George’s Arlington D.C. Decision Science was used to build consensus for Biosolids Master Plan Is logical and defensible Accommodates multiple stakeholders Considers risks and uncertainties along with cost Efficiently analyzes information Fairfax

5 through Bid process 5 Manage Risk & Evaluate Alternatives 4 Collect & Verify Information 3 Determine Values & Alternatives 2 Frame the Problem The Decision Science Process 1 Leadership & Commitment Develop Master Plan/ Briefing WORKSHOP 1 WORKSHOP 2 WORKSHOP 3 WORKSHOP 4 WASA Staff, Blue Plains Regional/Tech. Committees Board of Directors Operations Committee GM/Chief Engineer MAR APR JUN JUL DECISION PROCESS STEPS 6 U.S. EPA, VDH, MDE, DC DOH MAY WASA Staff

6 Decision Science Participants in 1999 Operations Committee (6) Blue Plains Regional and Technical Committees (8) WASA Management and Technical Staff (9) Regulatory (EPA, DC, VA, MD) and Regional Officials (8) Program Management Group Operations Committee (6) Blue Plains Regional and Technical Committees (8) WASA Management and Technical Staff (9) Regulatory (EPA, DC, VA, MD) and Regional Officials (8) Program Management Group

7 Consensus on Key Guiding Principles in development of 1999 BMP The status quo is unacceptable WASA must go beyond regulatory compliance to world class operations consistent with the National Biosolids Partnership to ensure long-term program viability WASA cannot contract away its responsibility Diversity is required through multiple modes of end use and disposal to prepare for changing markets, politics and regulations. On-site processing maximizes WASA’s control Public and political support is needed for BMP success

8 Top Alternatives centered around Digestion because of risk avoidance and benefits All alternatives considered that land application would continue as long as it remained viable but recognized considerable chance it would eventually not be viable Full Digestion going to 100% heat drying in the future Full Digestion with 1/3 to land application, 1/3 to drying, and 1/3 to co-incineration Full digestion with ½ to land application and ½ to heat drying

9 BOD Approved Action Plan – Sept 1999 Prepare Facility Plan based on full digestion and future drying Continue land application as long as financially advantageous to WASA Prepare Project Delivery Plan Continue to evaluate alternative technologies Revise Facility Plan if other options deemed implementable Implement baseline improvements to preserve land application and improve O&M Is this plan still applicable?

10 What has changed since 1999? WASA has new, very costly programs Long Term Control Plan (mandated) Chesapeake Bay Program – ENR (mandated) BMP baseline improvements have been implemented: Additional dewatering (centrifuges) with improved lime mixing Upgrade of gravity thickener facility Design of biological sludge thickening facility (90% complete) BMP Baseline improvements have resulted in: Improved lime stabilized product – reduced odors and lime dosage EMS certification under the National Biosolids Partnership EPA first place 2005 award for best biosolids program in the U.S. Continued viability of land application at reasonable cost WASA has new, very costly programs Long Term Control Plan (mandated) Chesapeake Bay Program – ENR (mandated) BMP baseline improvements have been implemented: Additional dewatering (centrifuges) with improved lime mixing Upgrade of gravity thickener facility Design of biological sludge thickening facility (90% complete) BMP Baseline improvements have resulted in: Improved lime stabilized product – reduced odors and lime dosage EMS certification under the National Biosolids Partnership EPA first place 2005 award for best biosolids program in the U.S. Continued viability of land application at reasonable cost

11 What has changed since 1999? Enforcement, starting in 2008, of a more stringent nutrient management program in Virginia to control nitrogen and phosphorus will impact biosolids land application rates WASA has contracted up to 200 wt/d of biosolids for processing at offsite composting facility in Virginia for next 5 years Class A digestion processes have evolved from prototypes to proven technology at large scale (Issues with React./Regrowth remain) Some biosolids technologies (e.g. SlurryCarb) have advanced from “embryonic” to “innovative” as defined by U.S. EPA. Cost at large scale facility not proven, but bears watching. Project capital cost escalation for planning and budgeting is no longer as predictable as it was. Escalation at 3% per annum used to be reliable Project bids in the past 2 years have been significantly over budget, due in large part to escalation in construction materials Projecting rate of cost escalation going forward is not certain Enforcement, starting in 2008, of a more stringent nutrient management program in Virginia to control nitrogen and phosphorus will impact biosolids land application rates WASA has contracted up to 200 wt/d of biosolids for processing at offsite composting facility in Virginia for next 5 years Class A digestion processes have evolved from prototypes to proven technology at large scale (Issues with React./Regrowth remain) Some biosolids technologies (e.g. SlurryCarb) have advanced from “embryonic” to “innovative” as defined by U.S. EPA. Cost at large scale facility not proven, but bears watching. Project capital cost escalation for planning and budgeting is no longer as predictable as it was. Escalation at 3% per annum used to be reliable Project bids in the past 2 years have been significantly over budget, due in large part to escalation in construction materials Projecting rate of cost escalation going forward is not certain

12 Approach to BMP Implementation Update Updating 1999 BMP to reflect advances in biosolids technologies and changes in regulations and market conditions. Process involves two screening steps: Preliminary screening of process alternatives from thickening to product end use In-depth evaluation of screened alternatives Monitoring construction market. Presented initial report to EQOC in April 2007 Conducted 1 st screening workshop on June 20-21, 2007 involving expert peer reviews. Screened 16 alternatives; selected 4 for further evaluation Developing plans for short-term projects to extend the useful life of existing biosolids facilities until BMP is implemented. Identified CIP budget needs Updating 1999 BMP to reflect advances in biosolids technologies and changes in regulations and market conditions. Process involves two screening steps: Preliminary screening of process alternatives from thickening to product end use In-depth evaluation of screened alternatives Monitoring construction market. Presented initial report to EQOC in April 2007 Conducted 1 st screening workshop on June 20-21, 2007 involving expert peer reviews. Screened 16 alternatives; selected 4 for further evaluation Developing plans for short-term projects to extend the useful life of existing biosolids facilities until BMP is implemented. Identified CIP budget needs

13 Phase I: Develop and screen preliminary process alternative - Complete Meet with BPRC - 08/23/07 Phase II: Develop alternatives related to process, constructability and project delivery - 09/15/07 Present status update to EQOC- 09/20/07 Meet with BPRC - 10/25/07 Phase III: Develop draft BMP - 11/01/07 Present draft to EQOC - 11/15/07 Meet with BPRC - 12/28/07 Phase IV: Prepare Final BMP - 12/31/07 Phase I: Develop and screen preliminary process alternative - Complete Meet with BPRC - 08/23/07 Phase II: Develop alternatives related to process, constructability and project delivery - 09/15/07 Present status update to EQOC- 09/20/07 Meet with BPRC - 10/25/07 Phase III: Develop draft BMP - 11/01/07 Present draft to EQOC - 11/15/07 Meet with BPRC - 12/28/07 Phase IV: Prepare Final BMP - 12/31/07 Updated BMP Implementation Schedule

14 Summary of Technical Workshop

15 Biosolids Team Consultants Terry Logan –Consultant – Land application and lime stabilization Tim Shea – CH2M – Digestion Perry Schafer – B&C – Digestion Alan Cooper – Parsons – Heat drying Frank Rogalla – B&V – Cambi Terry Logan –Consultant – Land application and lime stabilization Tim Shea – CH2M – Digestion Perry Schafer – B&C – Digestion Alan Cooper – Parsons – Heat drying Frank Rogalla – B&V – Cambi

16 Alternatives Considered Drying Class A Processing Dewatering Centrifuge, BFP Thickened Liquid Sludge Class A Land Application Incineration Pelletization Alkaline Stabilization Class A or B Class B Land Fill Digestion (MAD, TPAD, AGPD) Cambi EH Pasteurizations Ash into bricks Gasification Ash EnerTech, E- fuel Fertilizer Ash Composting Minergy, Aggregates

17 Alternative Process Trains Screened at Workshop

18 Screening Criteria Capital and O&M Cost Present Worth – Equivalent Annual Cost Non-Economic Criteria Process  Proven technology  Reliability – consistency of product  Ease of Operations  Ease of Maintenance Implementation  Ease of Construction/Duration  Project Delivery Options – need for DBO  Air Quality Impacts  Ease of Implementation (site constraints)  Assurability of Permitting (NCPC, CFA, CAA, FAA, DCRA)  Compatibility with Existing Facilities  Public Perception/Acceptance  Overall Implementability End Product  Marketability/Acceptability  Sustainability/Regulatory Changes/Risk  Diversity (Class A) Capital and O&M Cost Present Worth – Equivalent Annual Cost Non-Economic Criteria Process  Proven technology  Reliability – consistency of product  Ease of Operations  Ease of Maintenance Implementation  Ease of Construction/Duration  Project Delivery Options – need for DBO  Air Quality Impacts  Ease of Implementation (site constraints)  Assurability of Permitting (NCPC, CFA, CAA, FAA, DCRA)  Compatibility with Existing Facilities  Public Perception/Acceptance  Overall Implementability End Product  Marketability/Acceptability  Sustainability/Regulatory Changes/Risk  Diversity (Class A)

19 Alternatives that Remain for Further Evaluation Mainstream Alternatives (Digestion–based) : 1.Thickening  Acid Gas/TPAD  Centrifuge  Land App 2.Thickening  Acid Gas/Meso dig.  Centrifuge  Drying  Land App 3.Thickening  Centrifuge  Cambi  Meso dig.  BFP  Land App 4.Thickening  ATAD  TPAD  Centrifuge  Land App Notes: All alternatives are sized for maximum month (433 dt/d) loading. TN treatment will be assessed for each. Options 1&4 may require BFP for dewatering. These alternatives met preliminary screening criteria (proven technology, cost, product, implementability) Peak Shaving Options: 1.Thickening  Centrifuge  Lime Stab (upgraded)  Land App 2.Thickening  Centrifuge  Composting  Land App 3.Thickening  Centrifuge  Landfill Note: These are options that are currently usable Mainstream Alternatives (Digestion–based) : 1.Thickening  Acid Gas/TPAD  Centrifuge  Land App 2.Thickening  Acid Gas/Meso dig.  Centrifuge  Drying  Land App 3.Thickening  Centrifuge  Cambi  Meso dig.  BFP  Land App 4.Thickening  ATAD  TPAD  Centrifuge  Land App Notes: All alternatives are sized for maximum month (433 dt/d) loading. TN treatment will be assessed for each. Options 1&4 may require BFP for dewatering. These alternatives met preliminary screening criteria (proven technology, cost, product, implementability) Peak Shaving Options: 1.Thickening  Centrifuge  Lime Stab (upgraded)  Land App 2.Thickening  Centrifuge  Composting  Land App 3.Thickening  Centrifuge  Landfill Note: These are options that are currently usable

20 Preliminary Findings - Alternatives Loading rates: 330 dt/d – Average day 433 dt/d – Maximum month  Use for digester sizing 530 dt/d – Maximum week 630 dt/d – Maximum 3-day Use lime stab/composting/landfill for peak shaving loads > 433 dt/d Digestion is a component of each alternative Remains the foundation for the BMP Digestion sized to minimize capital cost Digestion is a pre-requisite to heat drying To control odors and increase product market options To reduce capital cost of drying facility To provide fuel for drying Heat drying is a component of 1 alternative Can be add-on to other alternatives One of few technologies that can assure multiple outlets for product and thus can be sustainable for 25 years Constructability and implementability must be addressed now Loading rates: 330 dt/d – Average day 433 dt/d – Maximum month  Use for digester sizing 530 dt/d – Maximum week 630 dt/d – Maximum 3-day Use lime stab/composting/landfill for peak shaving loads > 433 dt/d Digestion is a component of each alternative Remains the foundation for the BMP Digestion sized to minimize capital cost Digestion is a pre-requisite to heat drying To control odors and increase product market options To reduce capital cost of drying facility To provide fuel for drying Heat drying is a component of 1 alternative Can be add-on to other alternatives One of few technologies that can assure multiple outlets for product and thus can be sustainable for 25 years Constructability and implementability must be addressed now

21 Preliminary Findings - How to reduce digester costs Size digester facility for max. month design loading (433 dt/d); use peak shaving Do NOT provide standby unit Simplify digester construction through use of silo/cylindrical shaped vessels, pre-cast side panels, and waffle bottoms Can approximate egg digester performance and advantages Simplifies foundation design  lower capital cost Reduces construction complexity  lower capital cost Increases contractor competition  lower capital cost Reduces construction schedule length  lower capital cost Silo shaped digesters approx. dimensions Wall height - 60 ft. Diameter ft. Silo shaped digesters have been built Vancouver, BC (3.2 MG each) Sacramento, CA (3.7 MG each) Western Lake Superior Sanitation District Wichita, KS Re-thicken sludge to >5% to reduce digester volume. Each ½% saves about 2-3 MG volume. Pilot testing needed to confirm feasibility Size digester facility for max. month design loading (433 dt/d); use peak shaving Do NOT provide standby unit Simplify digester construction through use of silo/cylindrical shaped vessels, pre-cast side panels, and waffle bottoms Can approximate egg digester performance and advantages Simplifies foundation design  lower capital cost Reduces construction complexity  lower capital cost Increases contractor competition  lower capital cost Reduces construction schedule length  lower capital cost Silo shaped digesters approx. dimensions Wall height - 60 ft. Diameter ft. Silo shaped digesters have been built Vancouver, BC (3.2 MG each) Sacramento, CA (3.7 MG each) Western Lake Superior Sanitation District Wichita, KS Re-thicken sludge to >5% to reduce digester volume. Each ½% saves about 2-3 MG volume. Pilot testing needed to confirm feasibility

New 3.7 MG Digester – Mid 1990s Sacramento, CA Pre-cast panels and pre-cast roof beams/panels significantly reduce cost and construction schedule

23 Preliminary Findings – Biosolids Markets WASA’s biosolids land application program is viable and cost effective – But long-term viability may be impacted by: Public sentiment – political reaction Regulations, including nutrient management (P limits) Competition from animal waste WASA may be well served with a Class A product as a hedge against future land application changes Provides a better quality product Provides greater opportunities for distribution and marketing Heat dried product offers multiple markets Fuel Land application Horticulture Fertilizer Markets and reuse/disposal outlets for biosolids products should drive the final alternatives evaluation and selection process WASA’s biosolids land application program is viable and cost effective – But long-term viability may be impacted by: Public sentiment – political reaction Regulations, including nutrient management (P limits) Competition from animal waste WASA may be well served with a Class A product as a hedge against future land application changes Provides a better quality product Provides greater opportunities for distribution and marketing Heat dried product offers multiple markets Fuel Land application Horticulture Fertilizer Markets and reuse/disposal outlets for biosolids products should drive the final alternatives evaluation and selection process

24 Issues Impacting Financial Viability Available CIP budget for biosolids Portion expected to be used for near term SPB improvements May be adequate for new digester concept Construction cost indices continue to increase from 3% to 8% per year Public works construction market projected to remain robust, partly driven by Chesapeake Bay Program Transfer of management of Virginia biosolids land application to DEQ will increase cost Predictability of rate of cost escalation Available CIP budget for biosolids Portion expected to be used for near term SPB improvements May be adequate for new digester concept Construction cost indices continue to increase from 3% to 8% per year Public works construction market projected to remain robust, partly driven by Chesapeake Bay Program Transfer of management of Virginia biosolids land application to DEQ will increase cost Predictability of rate of cost escalation

25 BOD Approved Action Plan Sept still applicable? Prepare Facility Plan based on full digestion and future drying - Implement digestion of base load and future drying if regional land application dictates Continue land application as long as financially advantageous to WASA - Yes Prepare Project Delivery Plan – Update for new digester approach Continue to evaluate alternative technologies - Yes Revise Facility Plan if other process or beneficial reuse options deemed implementable - yes Implement baseline improvements to preserve land application and improve O&M – Mostly done - additional improvements now needed Analysis indicates no reason to change BOD Approved BMP No need to repeat Decision Science process New updated implementation plan Prepare Facility Plan based on full digestion and future drying - Implement digestion of base load and future drying if regional land application dictates Continue land application as long as financially advantageous to WASA - Yes Prepare Project Delivery Plan – Update for new digester approach Continue to evaluate alternative technologies - Yes Revise Facility Plan if other process or beneficial reuse options deemed implementable - yes Implement baseline improvements to preserve land application and improve O&M – Mostly done - additional improvements now needed Analysis indicates no reason to change BOD Approved BMP No need to repeat Decision Science process New updated implementation plan

26 Possible Implementation Schedule ActivityDurationComplete Preliminary design8 mo.Feb 28, 2008 Design procurement6 mo.Mar 31, 2008 Design12 mo.Mar 31, 2009 Bidding6 mo.Sep 30, 2010 Construction3 yearsSep 30, 2012 Startup6 mo.Dec 31, 2012 Note: Some activities run concurrently

27 Next Steps Develop details for alternatives Digester process and TN treatment options Mass and energy balances Digester shapes that approximate eggs Digestion facility layout and sizing Capital costs and life cycle costs Constructability and project delivery Regulatory issues Market details Make periodic updates to EQOC (Sep/Nov) and BOD (Oct/Jan) Make presentations to Blue Plains Regional Committee (Aug/Oct/Dec) Develop details for alternatives Digester process and TN treatment options Mass and energy balances Digester shapes that approximate eggs Digestion facility layout and sizing Capital costs and life cycle costs Constructability and project delivery Regulatory issues Market details Make periodic updates to EQOC (Sep/Nov) and BOD (Oct/Jan) Make presentations to Blue Plains Regional Committee (Aug/Oct/Dec)