Alternatives Drying Class A Processing Dewatering Centrifuge, BFP Thickened Liquid Sludge Class A Land Application Incineration Pelletization Alkaline.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
INTRODUCTION TO ISO Joan Kithika. OUTLINE DEFINITIONS WHY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT? LEGAL OVERVIEW HOW TO MANAGE THE ENVIRONMENT-AN ENVIRONMENTAL.
Advertisements

CAPACITY LOAD OUTPUT.
The Region of Halton Biosolids Management into the Future Regional Municipality of Halton Ontario, Canada.
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
1 The critical challenge facing banks and regulators under Basel II: improving risk management through implementation of Pillar 2 Simon Topping Hong Kong.
ISO 9001 : 2000.
Basic Assumptions Facilities managing MSW must go through Site Assignment Materials that are pre-sorted are not considered MSW Residuals remaining after.
Biosolids Recycling ACP Compost Solutions Workshop UC Riverside Extension February 28, 2007.
NC AWWA-WEA 93rd Annual Conference November 12, 2013 Tim Woody Resource Recovery Division Director, City of Raleigh Jonathan Treadway P.E, BCEE, CDM Smith.
TRRWA RDP Project The Journey to Exceptional Quality Biosolids.
Insight Conference How to Profit from the Business of Renewable Energy October 20, 2003, Hilton Toronto SMS Energy-Engineering Inc. Safouh Soufi.
Environmental Management Systems An Overview With Practical Applications.
The proposed full-scale design fully complies with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) Title 29: Labor, that mandate specific requirements related to:
1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LEA/CIWMB ANNUAL CONFERENCE AUGUST 1-3, 2006 MONTEREY, CA Diane Gilbert Jones.
Lecture(3) Instructor : Dr. Abed Al-Majed Nassar
Life Cycle Analysis and Resource Management Dr. Forbes McDougall Procter & Gamble UK.
Setting up Enterprise NextEnd. Introduction Setting of an enterprise is a complex process. Various institutions and organizations are providing training.
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS ACPS March 12-13, 2003 Stephen K. Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team Leader CDER/Office of New Drug Chemistry Co-Chair, Comparability.
1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.
TIA Solid Waste Consultants, Inc.1 Presented by Miriam Zimms, Senior Consultant TIA Solid Waste Consultants, Inc. Tampa, Florida Pollution Prevention Conference.
TRP Chapter Chapter 4.2 Waste minimisation.
Economic Analyses of FPL’s New Nuclear Projects: An Overview Dr. Steven Sim Senior Manager, Resource Assessment & Planning Florida Power & Light Company.
Copyright The Solution Foundry. All rights reserved. WELCOME TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 101.
REVISED WASTE CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR SOUTH AFRICA National Waste Classification and Management Regulations & Standards Stakeholder Workshop.
ISO EMS OVERVIEW FOR SUPPLIERS
ISO EMS OVERVIEW May ISO EMS OVERVIEW TRAINING Contents What is an EMS? Why ISO & Certification? EMS Basic Elements Environmental.
Technology Access In Post-Secondary Education Ron Stewart Managing Consultant AltFormat Solutions LLC.
California Air Resources Board December 12, 2002 Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology Review.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM/SIMPLIFICATION JOHN A. PAUL STAPPA/ALAPCO MAY, 2002.
WHAT DRIVES INVESTMENT DECISIONS IN CHOOSING WASTE-TO-ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES John Baker, Alan Environmental George Voss, Sustainability Business.
Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Proposal Regulations for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities April 6, 2011.
EM 4103: Urban Planning II Lecture 10: Plan Evaluation Process I.
Biosolids Management Program Update Briefing for Environmental Quality and Operations Committee July 19, 2007 Briefing for Environmental Quality and Operations.
Our Creeping Progression to Anaerobic Digestion of Multiple Solid and Sludge Wastes How Regulations, Permitting and Policy are Affecting the Emergence.
Flexible Air Permitting Innovation Done Right State-EPA Innovations Symposium Denver, CO January 24, 2006.
Overview of Distributed Generation Applications June 16, 2003 Harrisburg, PA Joel Bluestein Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
Biosolids Management Program Updates: CFT and BMP Blue Plains Regional Committee April 26, 2007.
Governor’s Ethanol Conference The Minnesota Fuel Ethanol Industry: Regulatory and Permitting Perspectives from the Public Sector. James E. Sullivan Kansas.
Status Report: Blue Plains Biosolids Management Plan Report to the Blue Plains Regional Committee by Karl Berger Dec. 20, 2010.
Clean Air Act and New Source Review Permits EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park NC March
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Presentation to MWRA Advisory Board MWRA Residuals Processing & Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of the.
Paul Leinster Director Environmental Protection. Overview Spearheads Regulatory & Charging Strategy Move towards Environmental Risk Based Regulation Integration.
CENE 386 Engineering Design: The Methods. Getting Ready to Get the Job Getting as much information as possible prior to making the proposal –Profile the.
ERT 319 Industrial Waste Treatment Semester /2013 Huzairy Hassan School of Bioprocess Engineering UniMAP.
1 Draft1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY Biosolids Management Program Update May 22, 2008.
Biosolids Management Program Update Briefing for Blue Plains Regional Committee August 23, 2007 Briefing for Blue Plains Regional Committee August 23,
Community Development Department Continuation from May 21, 2008: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: Automotive parts (e.g. accessories and tires) and Automotive, Recreational.
Developing an Investment Governance Framework
Biosolids Planning from an End Use Perspective
Anaerobic Digestion at Wastewater Treatment Plants Regulatory Issues Bureau of Resource Protection April 2011.
Date Planning for Compliance with the Final 316(b) Phase II Regulations For APPA – March 8, 2004 David E. Bailey EPRIsolutions.
Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard For New Power Plants Presented by Kevin Culligan Office of Air Quality Planning And Standards Office of Air and Radiation.
January 12, Fairbanks PM 2.5 SIP Schedule 2 SIP DUE DATE ATTAINMENT DATE CURRENT DATE.
1 DFRC SUAS Program Operations and Risk Management Approach for Small UAS Presented to the Certification Working Group 6/26/2008 Brad Flick/DFRC Chief.
PRE-PLANNING FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. OVERVIEW ASSESSING OWNER CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWING.
1 Energy/Compost Facility Action Plan City Council Meeting July 2, 2012.
2011 DOE Biomass Program Anaerobic Digestion/ Combined Heat & Power Concept Development Project EE DOE February 2, 2011 Frank Hartz, Project Manager.
Proposed Rulemaking: Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO x and VOCs (25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129) Environmental Quality Board November.
Proposed EPA Power Plant Cooling System Regulations.
Southern California Emerging Waste Technologies Forum July 27, 2006 Conversion Technology 101.
Overview Market Opportunities Market Challenges
Fort Stanwix National Monument Energy Audit Contract
Flexible Air Permitting
Recommendations for Finalizing RGGI Model Rule
Setting up Enterprise End Next.
Outsourcing development
STATION 1 Brown and Caldwell.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
PROJECT OVERVIEW Liquids Stream Solids Stream
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Alternatives 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

EPA P rocess/Technology Classification Embryonic:  Technologies that are in the development stage and/or have been tested at laboratory or bench scale;  New technologies that have reached the demonstration stage overseas, but not yet considered to be established there or in North America Innovative: Technologies that meet one of the following criteria:  Have been tested as a full-scale demonstration;  Have been implemented in the U.S. for less than five years;  Have some degree of initial use (i.e. implemented in < 25 plants in the U.S.  Established technologies from overseas. Established:  Processes that are used at >25 full-scale facilities in North America;  Technologies that are widely used but introduced only recently in North America.  An established technology (e.g., Anaerobic Digestion) that may have been modified or adapted resulting in a new, innovative technology such as Thermally Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) Embryonic:  Technologies that are in the development stage and/or have been tested at laboratory or bench scale;  New technologies that have reached the demonstration stage overseas, but not yet considered to be established there or in North America Innovative: Technologies that meet one of the following criteria:  Have been tested as a full-scale demonstration;  Have been implemented in the U.S. for less than five years;  Have some degree of initial use (i.e. implemented in < 25 plants in the U.S.  Established technologies from overseas. Established:  Processes that are used at >25 full-scale facilities in North America;  Technologies that are widely used but introduced only recently in North America.  An established technology (e.g., Anaerobic Digestion) that may have been modified or adapted resulting in a new, innovative technology such as Thermally Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD)

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Scheme and Weighting Factors Score Weight Capital and O&M Cost  Present Worth – Equivalent Annual Cost 0 – 5 40 Process  Reliability 0 – 5 10  Ease of Operations 0 – 5 5  Ease of Maintenance 0 – 5 10 Implementation  Construction Duration 0 – 5 5  Air Quality Impacts 0 – 5 2  Ease of Implementation 0 – 5 2  Ease of Permitting 0 – 5 2  Compatibility with Existing Facilities 0 – 5 2  Public Perception 0 – 5 2 End Product  Acceptability/Marketability 0 – 5 8  Sustainability/Risk 0 – 5 8  Diversification (Class A) 0 – 5 4 Score Weight Capital and O&M Cost  Present Worth – Equivalent Annual Cost 0 – 5 40 Process  Reliability 0 – 5 10  Ease of Operations 0 – 5 5  Ease of Maintenance 0 – 5 10 Implementation  Construction Duration 0 – 5 5  Air Quality Impacts 0 – 5 2  Ease of Implementation 0 – 5 2  Ease of Permitting 0 – 5 2  Compatibility with Existing Facilities 0 – 5 2  Public Perception 0 – 5 2 End Product  Acceptability/Marketability 0 – 5 8  Sustainability/Risk 0 – 5 8  Diversification (Class A) 0 – 5 4

Criteria Definition II: Process Process Reliability: Existing operational experience at past or present installations for producing the desired output from the technology as designed and when being operated within the specified conditions. Ease of Operation: Level of skill that Blue Plains operations staff is required to have in order operate the technology effectively Ease of Maintenance: Level of skill that existing Blue Plains staff is required to have in order to maintain the process systems and equipment Process Reliability: Existing operational experience at past or present installations for producing the desired output from the technology as designed and when being operated within the specified conditions. Ease of Operation: Level of skill that Blue Plains operations staff is required to have in order operate the technology effectively Ease of Maintenance: Level of skill that existing Blue Plains staff is required to have in order to maintain the process systems and equipment

Criteria Definition III: Implementation Construction Timeframe: The time required to construct the process or install the technology and associated appurtenances, including testing and acceptance for full service operation. Air Quality Impacts: The impacts of air emissions released from the process to the atmosphere (after application of appropriate air pollution control technologies), that might adversely impact air quality and affect the ability of the plant to comply with its Title V air permit limits. Ease of Implementation: The time and effort required to fully implement the process at Blue Plains including project delivery options (DB, DBO), space limitations and site constraints Construction Timeframe: The time required to construct the process or install the technology and associated appurtenances, including testing and acceptance for full service operation. Air Quality Impacts: The impacts of air emissions released from the process to the atmosphere (after application of appropriate air pollution control technologies), that might adversely impact air quality and affect the ability of the plant to comply with its Title V air permit limits. Ease of Implementation: The time and effort required to fully implement the process at Blue Plains including project delivery options (DB, DBO), space limitations and site constraints

Criteria Definition III: Implementation Ease of Permitting: The ease of compliance with permitting requirements, the complexity of the permitting process, and the level of effort and time required to obtain all required regulatory permits and approvals Compatibility with Blue Plains: The ease with which the process can be integrated with the existing onsite processes and technologies with minimal short- term and long-term impacts on existing operations. This includes operation and maintenance requirements, special staff skills, and training needs. Public Perception: The public’s perception of the process in terms of overall aesthetics; potential for odor, noise, and traffic impacts; potential for beneficial reuse, energy production, and eco-friendliness. Ease of Permitting: The ease of compliance with permitting requirements, the complexity of the permitting process, and the level of effort and time required to obtain all required regulatory permits and approvals Compatibility with Blue Plains: The ease with which the process can be integrated with the existing onsite processes and technologies with minimal short- term and long-term impacts on existing operations. This includes operation and maintenance requirements, special staff skills, and training needs. Public Perception: The public’s perception of the process in terms of overall aesthetics; potential for odor, noise, and traffic impacts; potential for beneficial reuse, energy production, and eco-friendliness.

Criteria Definition IV: End Product Product Marketability/Acceptability: Marketability: The potential to give away or derive revenue through sales, marketing and distribution of the end product. Acceptability: The public’s level of acceptance of the product including odor potential. Ease of Diversification: The ease with which the product can be managed through multiple outlets to minimize risk to WASA. Risk/Sustainability: The potential risks associated with future federal, state or local regulations that might restrict or ban the use of the product. Product Marketability/Acceptability: Marketability: The potential to give away or derive revenue through sales, marketing and distribution of the end product. Acceptability: The public’s level of acceptance of the product including odor potential. Ease of Diversification: The ease with which the product can be managed through multiple outlets to minimize risk to WASA. Risk/Sustainability: The potential risks associated with future federal, state or local regulations that might restrict or ban the use of the product.