1. Biosolids Management Program Update Briefing for Environmental Quality and Operations Committee July 19, 2007 Briefing for Environmental Quality and Operations Committee July 19, 2007

2. 2 Agenda Review of 1999 BMP Decision Science Process Approach to BMP Implementation Update BMP Schedule Update Review of 1999 BMP Decision Science Process Approach to BMP Implementation Update BMP Schedule Update

3. 3 Review of 1999 Biosolids Management Plan Decision Science Process Review of 1999 Biosolids Management Plan Decision Science Process

4. 4 Montgomery Loudoun Fairfax Prince George’s Arlington D.C. 1999 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 Arlington

5. 5 1999 Decision Science Process What was it? A structured process for problem solving and effective decision making that involved use of: a set of analytical tools to sort out complex issues, frame problem, clarify facts and uncertainties, enhance creativity and identify critical information needs appropriate decision models based on consensus, uncertainty, prioritization, and optimization techniques for identifying implementation barriers, linking activities to meet specific program goals, and increase the likelihood of successful implementation benefit/cost analyses A structured process for problem solving and effective decision making that involved use of: a set of analytical tools to sort out complex issues, frame problem, clarify facts and uncertainties, enhance creativity and identify critical information needs appropriate decision models based on consensus, uncertainty, prioritization, and optimization techniques for identifying implementation barriers, linking activities to meet specific program goals, and increase the likelihood of successful implementation benefit/cost analyses

6. 6 through Bid process 5 Manage Risk & Evaluate Alternatives 4 Collect & Verify Information 3 Determine Values & Alternatives 2 Frame the Problem The 1999 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

7. 7 1999 Decision Science A Six-Step Approach Establish leadership and commitment Frame the problem Determine values and alternatives Collect and verify information Manage risks and evaluate alternatives Develop Master Plan Establish leadership and commitment Frame the problem Determine values and alternatives Collect and verify information Manage risks and evaluate alternatives Develop Master Plan

8. 8 1999 Decision Science Workshop Participants A series of 4 stakeholder workshops was conducted from March through July 1999 Workshop participants: 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 A series of 4 stakeholder workshops was conducted from March through July 1999 Workshop participants: 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

9. 9 Consensus on Key Guiding Principles in development of 1999 BMP The status quo (1999) unacceptable for long term program 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

10. 10 1999 Decision Science Methodology Developed alternatives - 15 alternatives were developed, screened and 7 selected for further evaluation Developed capital, O&M and net present worth costs for each alternative Developed criteria/values and measures Quantified benefits associated with each alternative using: Net present worth analysis Expected net present value analysis Community value definition Non-monetary benefits Scored alternatives using a scoring system of 1-10 with 10 being the best Determined maximum benefit score for each alternative by summing comparative scores for each benefit Determined benefit to expected net present value ratio Developed alternatives - 15 alternatives were developed, screened and 7 selected for further evaluation Developed capital, O&M and net present worth costs for each alternative Developed criteria/values and measures Quantified benefits associated with each alternative using: Net present worth analysis Expected net present value analysis Community value definition Non-monetary benefits Scored alternatives using a scoring system of 1-10 with 10 being the best Determined maximum benefit score for each alternative by summing comparative scores for each benefit Determined benefit to expected net present value ratio

11. 11 1999 Decision Science Methodology (Cont’d) Identified potential risks and uncertainties Determined cost impacts of risks and uncertainties and probability of occurrence for each alternative Determined probable uncertainty cost (uncertainty cost multiplied by probability) for each alternative Determined expected net present value (NPW + probable uncertainty cost) for each alternative Performed sensitivity analysis to determine which uncertainties had the greatest influence on expected net present value Determined benefit to NPV ratio to select viable alternatives Identified potential risks and uncertainties Determined cost impacts of risks and uncertainties and probability of occurrence for each alternative Determined probable uncertainty cost (uncertainty cost multiplied by probability) for each alternative Determined expected net present value (NPW + probable uncertainty cost) for each alternative Performed sensitivity analysis to determine which uncertainties had the greatest influence on expected net present value Determined benefit to NPV ratio to select viable alternatives

12. 12 Values and Risks/Probabilities Identified by 1999 Decision Science Stakeholders Values Reliability Environmentally sound Product marketability Minimum permitting and contracting issues Flexibility Implementability Public acceptability Risks/Uncertainties Requirement for Class A product Potential revenue from sale of product More stringent agronomic limits Local bans and restrictions Statewide MD or VA ban Public opposition Host fees Contractor default Energy (fuel) cost increase Implementation delays due to EIS/permitting Values Reliability Environmentally sound Product marketability Minimum permitting and contracting issues Flexibility Implementability Public acceptability Risks/Uncertainties Requirement for Class A product Potential revenue from sale of product More stringent agronomic limits Local bans and restrictions Statewide MD or VA ban Public opposition Host fees Contractor default Energy (fuel) cost increase Implementation delays due to EIS/permitting

13. 13 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 no longer 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

14. 14 WASA Board of Directors 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 new options become preferable Implement baseline improvements to preserve land application and improve O&M

15. 15 2007 BMP Implementation Update

16. 16 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 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 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

17. 17 Phase I: Develop and screen preliminary process alternatives - Complete Meet with Blue Plains Regional Committee - 08/26/07 Phase II: Develop alternatives related to process, constructability and project delivery - 09/15/07 Present status update to EQOC - 09/20/07 Phase III: Develop draft BMP - 11/01/07 Present draft to EQOC - 11/15/07 Phase IV: Prepare Final BMP - 12/31/07 Phase I: Develop and screen preliminary process alternatives - Complete Meet with Blue Plains Regional Committee - 08/26/07 Phase II: Develop alternatives related to process, constructability and project delivery - 09/15/07 Present status update to EQOC - 09/20/07 Phase III: Develop draft BMP - 11/01/07 Present draft to EQOC - 11/15/07 Phase IV: Prepare Final BMP - 12/31/07 Updated BMP Implementation Schedule

18. 18 The End