executive summary 5-9-17

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OCSD PROJECT NO. PS15‐01

Orange County Sanitation District 9 MAY 2017

©Black & Veatch Holding Company 2015. A

ll rights reserved.

In association with

Executive Summary | Orange County Sanitation District

Final ‐ May 9, 2017 ii Biosolids Master Plan

Acronym and Abbreviations List Thefollowingacronymsandabbreviationsareusedinthisdocument.

° degrees% percent503Rule 40CFRPart503,USEPAStandardsfortheUseandDisposalofSewageSludgeAB AssemblyBillADC alternativedailycoverADP AquacritoxDemonstrationProjectAZ ArizonaBAB2E BayAreaBiosolidstoEnergyBFPs beltfilterpressesBMP BiosolidsMasterPlanBV/BC Black&VeatchCorporation/BrownandCaldwellCA CaliforniaCARB CaliforniaAirResourcesBoardCASA CaliforniaAssociationofSanitationAgenciesCDFA CaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgriculture CDP CriteriumDecisionPlusCENGEN CentralPowerGenerationSystemCEPT chemically‐enhancedprimarytreatmentCEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActCFDA CaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgricultureCFR CodeofFederalRegulationsCIP CapitalImprovementsProgramCMAD conventionalmesophilicanaerobicdigestionCO2 carbondioxideconsultantteam BV/BCteamCUP ConditionalUsePermitDAF dissolvedairflotationDAFT dissolvedairflotationthickeningDFF digesterfeedfacilityDistrict OrangeCountySanitationDistrictDT dryton(s)EBMUD EastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrictEIR EnvironmentalImpactReportEMS environmentalmanagementsystemEQ exceptionalquality F FahrenheitFBI fluidizedbedincineratorFMP 2009OCSDFacilitiesMasterPlanFOG fats,oil,andgreaseGHG greenhousegasGWRS GroundwaterReplenishmentSystemHSW high‐strengthorganicwaste

Orange County Sanitation District | Executive Summary

Final ‐ May 9, 2017 iii Biosolids Master Plan

IERCA InlandEmpireRegionalCompostingAuthorityIEUA InlandEmpireUtilitiesAgencyIRWD IrvineRanchWaterDistrictLA CityofLosAngelesLACSD CountySanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCountyLRBMP 2009LongRangeBiosolidsManagementPlanMAD mesophilicanaerobicdigestionmgd milliongallonsperdayNBP NationalBiosolidsManagementProgramNPV netpercentvalueNV NevadaPlantNo.1 OCSDReclamationPlantNo.1PlantNo.2 OCSDTreatmentPlantNo.2O&M operationsandmaintenanceOCSD OrangeCountySanitationDistrictOCWR OrangeCountyWasteandRecyclingPS15‐01 BiosolidsMasterPlanProjectQA/QC qualityassurance/qualitycontrol RWF RegionalWastewaterFacilitySALS SteveAndersonLiftStationSCWO supercriticalwateroxidationSFPUC SanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommissionSIC StandardIndustrialClassificationSRWTP SacramentoRegionalWastewaterTreatmentPlant SSO sourceseparatedorganicsSWEET Solids‐Water‐Energy‐EvaluationToolTAD thermalanaerobicdigestionTAGRO TacomaGrowProgramTHP thermalhydrolysisprocessTM technicalmemorandumTPAD temperaturephasedanaerobicdigestionTS totalsolidsU.S. UnitedStatesUSCC U.S.CompostingCouncilUSEPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyVAR VectorAttractionReductionWAS wasteactivatedsludgeWE&RF WaterEnvironmentandReuseFoundationWET WaterandEnvironmentalTechnologyCenterWhitePaper OCSD2015‐16SolidsLoadingProjectionsWhitePaperWRF regionalwastewaterfacilityWT wetton(s)wtpd wettonsperdayWWTP wastewatertreatmentplantZWE ZeroWasteEnergy


Final ‐ Final ‐ May 9, 2017 ES‐1 Biosolids Master Plan

Executive Summary

OVERVIEW TheOrangeCountySanitationDistrict(District,OCSD)isimplementingProjectNo.PS15‐01,BiosolidsMasterPlan(BMP).ThepurposeoftheprojectistodevelopaBMPthatprovidesaroadmapandframeworkforsustainableandcost‐effectivebiosolidsmanagementoptionsovera20‐yearplanningperiod.Theoptionsmustcomprisefacilitiesimprovementsthatalignwiththeappropriatebiosolidsproduct(s),market(s),andleveloftreatment.OCSDauthorizedBlack&VeatchinassociationwithBrownandCaldwell(BV/BC,consultantteam)todeveloptheBMP.ThechargetotheconsultantteamwastoevaluateexistingOCSDsolidshandlingfacilities,assesssolidstreatmentalternatives,andmakerecommendationsforfuturecapitalfacilitiesimprovements.TasksalsoincludedidentifyingoffsitebiosolidsmanagementalternativesforOCSDtogeneratebiosolidsproductsthatmeetasustainablebiosolidsbeneficialreusemarket,conductingahighstrengthwasteco‐digestionevaluation,developingapublicoutreachprogramtofacilitatepublicinvolvement,andpreparinganEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)andsupportingdocumentsfortheconstructionprojectsrecommendedbytheBMPinordertocomplywiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).ThisBiosolidsMasterPlanReportiscomprisedofthenineTechnicalMemoranda(TMs)listedinTableES‐1.FigureES‐1alsohighlightsthekeyareasofBMPdevelopment,asdescribedinthisExecutiveSummary.

Figure ES‐1. Task Flow for BMP

Table ES‐1. Summary of Biosolids Master Plan Documents

SUMMARY OF BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN

Information Collection and Review

TM‐1 – OCSD Solids Facilities and Design Basis

TM‐2 – Review of OCSD’s Biosolids Program and

Summarize the Current State, Trends, and Outlook for

Biosolids Management

Technologies Assessment and Alternatives

Development and Evaluation

TM‐3 – Offsite Biosolids Management Alternatives

Evaluation

TM‐4 – Sludge Digestion and Post Dewatering

Technologies Evaluation

TM‐5 – High Strength and Organic Waste Co‐digestion

Evaluation

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project

Development

TM‐6 – CIP Project Development for Plant No. 2 Solids

Handling Facilities

TM‐7 – CIP Project Development for Plant No. 1 Solids

Handling Facilities

Biosolids Management Plan

TM‐8 – Biosolids Management Plan

Innovative Technology Review TM‐9 – AquaCritox Report Review


Final ‐ May 9, 2017 ES‐2 Biosolids Master Plan

INFORMATION COLLECTION AND REVIEW OCSD’sReclamationPlantNo.1(PlantNo.1)andTreatmentPlantNo.2(PlantNo.2)providethefacilitiesneededtotreatwastewaterfromOCSD’sservicearea.FigureES‐2showsanaerialphotoofthetwoplants.OneofthefirsttasksoftheconsultantteamwasreviewingandverifyingcompiledinformationforexistingsolidshandlingandgastreatmentfacilitiesatPlantNo.1andPlantNo.2,aswellascurrentandfuturesolidshandlingtrends.AkeysourceofinformationwasplanningdocumentsdevelopedbytheDistrictsuchasthe2009FacilitiesMasterPlan(FMP),the2003Long‐RangeBiosolidsMasterPlan(LRBMP),andthe2015‐16OCSDSolidsLoadingProjectionsWhitePaper(WhitePaper).Theconsultantteamalsoreviewedstudiesrelatedtotherehabilitation,repair,andreplacementofsolidshandlingandgastreatmentfacilitiesatPlantNo.1andPlantNo.2andvisitedbothofthesefacilitiestoreviewthefacilities’functionsanddesignparametersandtotalkwithoperationsstaffaboutcurrentandanticipatedperformance.

InadditiontoreviewingOCSDoperations,theconsultantteamreviewedbiosolidsmanagementprogramsforselectedagenciesinNorthernandSouthernCalifornia.ProgramsinthePacificNorthwest(includingCanada),Arizona,andNevadawerereviewedaswell.

OCSD Solids Facilities

WastewatersolidsatbothPlantNo.1andPlantNo.2areseparatedfromtheliquidstreambyvariousunitprocessesandarethickenedpriortofurthertreatment.Thesludgeisthenstabilizedthroughadigestionprocesstocreateaproductreferredtoasbiosolids.Followingdigestion,thebiosolidsaredewateredandtransportedtomanagementsites.OCSDcurrentlymaximizesbeneficialreuseofallthebiosolidsproducedinthetreatmentprocess.Thecurrentdailydigestedanddewateredbiosolidsproductionisaround780wettonsperday(wtpd).Biosolidsmanagementoptionsincludecomposting,landapplication,andlandfilling.

PlantNo.1. PlantNo.1islocatedintheCityofFountainValley,California.Theplantreceivesflowprimarilyfromtheeasternandinlandpartsoftheservicearea,whichconsistofresidential,commercial,andindustrialusers.In2015,theaveragePlantNo.1influentflowratewas103milliongallonsperday(mgd). TheprocessesatPlantNo.1includepreliminary,chemically‐enhancedprimarytreatment(CEPT),andsecondarytreatment(activatedsludgeandtricklingfilters)aswellasbiosolidstreatmentanddigestergasrecovery.AportionofthenormalflowtributarytoPlantNo.2canbedivertedtoPlantNo.1usingtheSteveAndersonLiftStation(SALS)locatedatPlantNo.1.

PlantNo.2. PlantNo.2islocatedintheCityofHuntingtonBeach.Theplantreceivesflowprimarilyfromthewesternandcoastalpartsoftheservicearea,whichconsistofresidential,commercial,andindustrialusers.In2015,theaveragePlantNo.2influentflowratewas85mgd.TheprocessesatPlantNo.2includepreliminary,CEPT,andsecondarytreatment(highpurityoxygenwaste‐activatedsludgeandtricklingfilters/solidscontact)aswellasbiosolidstreatmentandgasrecovery.

Similarsolidsprocessingoperationsareinplaceatbothplants(seeFigureES‐3),usingthefollowingsolidshandlingandprocessingapproach:

Primarysludgeiscollectedfromprimarysedimentation/clarifierbasinsandpumpedtothedigesters.AtPlantNo.1,thickeningcentrifugesarecurrentlyunderconstructiontofurtherthickentheprimarysludge.



Wasteactivatedsludge(WAS)fromthesecondaryclarifiersiscurrentlythickenedindissolvedairflotation(DAF)thickeners.AtPlantNo.1,WASthickeningcentrifugesareunderconstructiontoreplacetheDAFthickeners.ThethickenedWASispumpedtothedigesters.

EachplantdigestscombinedprimarysludgeandWASusingmesophilicdigestion.ThedigestersatbothplantsmeetU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA)requirementsforClassBlandapplicationofbiosolids,whichincludeaminimum15‐daydetentiontime,temperatureof95degreesFahrenheit(°F),and38percentvolatilesolidsreduction.

Digestergasiscollectedateachplantinastoragetank,compressed,anddischargedintoahigh‐pressuregasline,whichconnectsthetwoplants.ThedigestergasisusedasfuelintheCentralGenerationSystems(CENGEN)facilitiesandheatingboilersatbothplants;anyexcessgasisflared.TheCENGENfacilitiesproduceelectricitythatisusedinthetwoplants.Afterdigestion,thestabilizedliquidbiosolidsaretransferredtodigestersusedasholdingtanks.

Fromtheholdingtanks,thebiosolidsarecurrentlypumpedtobeltfilterpresses(BFPs)fordewatering.Atbothplants,dewateringcentrifugesareunderconstructiontoreplacetheBFPs.

DewateredbiosolidscakeistransferredtoholdingbinsusingacombinationofconveyorsandcakepumpsatPlantNo.1andcakepumpsatPlantNo.2.

Biosolidscakeistransferredtotruckloadinghopperspriortotruckpickup.

Figure ES‐2. Overview of Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2

OCSDpreparedaWhitePaperin2016toprojectsolidsloadingfromtherawsewageinfluenttotheOCSDPlants,establishmethodstoprojectthesolidsloadingstothemajortreatmentprocesses,andsettheloadingcriteriaforfuturesolidshandlingfacilitiesthatwererecommendedbytheBMP.ThisdocumentwasjointlyreviewedandconfirmedbyOCSDandtheconsultantteam.TheWhitePaperandsolidsmassbalancediagramsensurethataconsistentprocessdesignapproachwillbetakentomultipleOCSDprojectsovertime.



Figure ES‐3. General Existing Treatment Processes at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2

OCSD Biosolids Program

OCSDbeganrecyclingofbiosolidsforbeneficialusein1971.Sincethattime,theDistrict’sbiosolidsprogramhasfocusedoncontinualimprovementandhasevolvedtoincorporateamixofflexibleoptions.Goalsaretoimplementsustainable,cost‐effectivelong‐termoptionsforbeneficialusethroughthediversificationofbiosolidsproducts,contractors,andmarketsanduseofanenvironmentalmanagementsystem(EMS).MaintainingcompliancewithcontinuallyevolvingstateandfederalrequirementsisanotherobjectiveofOCSD’sprogram.ThehistoryofbiosolidsproductionatOCSDisgiveninFigureES‐4.Keyfeaturesoftheexistingbiosolidsmanagementprogramareasfollows,thelatterthreehavingbeendevelopedfromOCSD’sLRBMP:

Regulations,Policies,Guidelines,andDrivers.USEPA’sStandardsfortheUseandDisposalofSewageSludge(503rule)regulatestheuseofbiosolidsinlandapplication,landdisposal,andlandfilldisposalisthekeyregulationgoverningOCSD’sbiosolidsprogram.

AnotherimportantdriverisOCSDBoardResolution13‐03,whichdefinestheDistrict’scommitmenttoimplementingasustainablebiosolidsmanagementprogram.Sinceitsinception,OCSD’sbiosolidsmanagementprogramhasbeeninfullcompliancewiththe503rulerequirements.

DiverseBiosolidsManagementPortfolio.OCSD’sbiosolidsmanagementpracticeshavehistoricallyincludedClassBLandApplicationatTuleRanch’sYuma,Arizona,facility;compostingthroughSynagro’compostingfacilitiesinKernCounty,California(SKCMF)andLaPazCounty,Arizona;compostingthroughacooperativeagreementwithInlandEmpireUtilitiesAgency(IEUA)andtheCountySanitationDistrictsofLosAngelesCounty(LACSD);



compostingatNurseryProducts’Helendalefacility;compostingatLibertyCompostinginLostHillsandlandfillthroughanagreementwithOrangeCountyWasteandRecycling(OCWR).ThecurrentContractorfacilityallocationsareshowninFigureES‐5.

PursuitofInnovativeOptions.OCSDispursuingotherdevelopmentstoimproveitsprogram,suchasexploringpotentialagreementswithOCWRandIrvineRanchWaterDistrict(IRWD),aswellasconductingafeasibilitystudyofAquaCritox,apotentiallypromisingnewtechnology.AnevaluationofanAquaCritoxReportbyavendorrecommendingademonstrationfacilityatOCSDisgiveninTM‐9AquaCritoxReportReview.

BiosolidsManagementCost/Benefits.OCSDbalancescostswithenvironmentalandsocietalconsiderations.OCSDmaximizestheuseoflow‐costoptionssuchaslandapplicationandbalancesthesefinancialconsiderationswiththoseofusingitsbiosolidslocally,reducinghaulingdistancesandincreasingprogramdiversity.

Figure ES‐4. Annual Biosolids Production History from January 1992–December 2015



Figure ES‐5. Contractor Facility Allocations

Other Relevant Programs

TheconsultantteamreviewedthebiosolidsmanagementprogramsofagenciesofsimilarsizeinbothSouthernandNorthernCalifornia.TheteamalsoevaluatedprogramsinWashington,Oregon,Nevada,andArizona,aswellasBritishColumbia,becauseitencompassesalargeareaofthePacificNorthwestregionandiscomprisedofsomeagenciesthathaveoperatedsuccessfulbiosolidsreuseprogramsformorethan20years.TableES‐2summarizesprogramsforotherCaliforniaagencies,andFigureES‐6presentsastatewidecomparisonofbiosolidsmanagementoptionsandOCSD’sendprograms.Ingeneral,OCSDreliesmoreonlandapplicationandcompostingandlessonlandfillingthantypicalCaliforniaagencies.



Table ES‐2. Summary of Biosolids Programs of Selected California Agencies

LOCATION/AGENCIES REVIEWED COMMENTS

Southern California

City of Los Angeles (City of L.A.) Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

(LACSD) City of San Diego Medium‐Sized Agencies (City of

Riverside, Inland Empire Utilities Association, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District, and Eastern Municipal Water District)

Outlets and Technologies/Product Types. Agencies produce a wide range of biosolids that are used in agriculture, landfill daily cover, horticulture and as fertilizer.

Composting. Many utilities generate Class B biosolids of which all or a portion are then further processed in regional compost facilities. The composting infrastructure in Southern California is extensive and can accommodate the majority of the biosolids produced within the region.

Hauling Distances. Hauling distances range from 23 miles to 290 miles with land application averaging the farthest average hauling distances.

Unique Developments and Features. Many activities are underway as agencies seek to improve biosolids management programs and new companies seek to provide better biosolids management options.

Northern California

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)

San Jose‐Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (WRF)

Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP)

Fresno‐Clovis Wastewater Reclamation Facility

Outlets and Technologies/Product Types. The area is dominated by the production of Class B dewatered biosolids generated from anaerobic digestion. There is only one generator of dried granules and two compost facilities, one of which is utility owned and operated. Hauling Distances. Most agencies haul biosolids within a 50‐80 mile radius.

Unique Developments and Features. SFPUC is poised to become the first California installation of the thermal hydrolysis process (THP). In addition, a 19‐agency coalition is working towards advancing biosolids to energy solutions within the San Francisco Bay Area.

Figure ES‐6. 2015 Statewide Overview of Biosolids Management Options Compared to OCSD’s



Biosolids Management Trends and Future Outlook

AspartoftheevaluationofCalifornia’sprogram,severalissueswereidentifiedthatcouldimpactbiosolidsmanagement.Eachoftheseissueswasevaluatedagainstregulatory,environmental,social,andfinancialcriteria.Thecurrentcondition,trend,andoutlookforOCSDweredescribed,andtheoverallimpactwasratedaspositive,negative,orneutral.Theevaluationresultsaresummarizedbelow:

CountyBiosolidsOrdinances.POSITIVEtrend.Morelandapplicationopportunities,closerbiosolidsrecyclingsites,andshortertruckhaulsandlowertransportationcosts.

ArizonaRegulations.POSITIVEtrend.Reliablewatersuppliesandfavorableregulations,whereabout50percentofOCSD’sbiosolidsarerecycled.

AirRegulationsforComposting(CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard[CARB]andlocalairboards).NEGATIVEtrendinSouthernCalifornia,whichcurrentlyhassomeofthemoststringentairqualityregulationsinthecountryandrequiresamorecomplicatedenvironmentalpermittingprocess.HigherpricesforfacilitiesbuiltclosertoOCSD.POSITIVEtrendinMohaveAirDistrictandArizona,whichprovidesbetteropportunities.

HealthSoilsInitiative(CaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgriculture[CDFA]).POSITIVEtrendinthatnewinitiativesprovideopportunitiesforenvironmentalstewardship.

Landfilling(CARB).NEUTRALbecauseCalifornialandfillswillnotbeafutureoptionbutmoreopportunitiesfororganicsrecyclingareemerging.

OrganicsRecycling(CalRecycle).NEGATIVEimpactonbiosolidscompostfacilities/offsitemarket,butPOSITIVEtrendonbiogas–onsitetreatmentplantoptions.

CapandTradeProgram.POSITIVEtrendduetothepotentialincreaseddemandforbiosolidscompostandClassAproductsforlandreclamationprojectsinCalifornia.Additionalfundingpossibleforcodigestionandotherorganicsrecyclingprojects.



TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ThisportionofBMPdevelopmentincludedOffsiteBiosolidsManagementAlternatives,PlantNo.2DigestionandPost‐DewateringAlternatives,andHighStrengthOrganicWasteCo‐DigestionEvaluations.Throughouttheprocess,OCSDstaffandtheconsultantteamworkedcloselytogethertoassureconformancewithOCSDobjectives,policiesandgoals.

Offsite Biosolids Management Alternatives Evaluation Overall Approach

PlanningeffortsundertheBMPbeganwiththebiosolidsenduseinmindtoresearchpotentialmarketsforanyproductgenerated,whetheronoroffsite.Earlyintheprocess,theconsultantteamrecommendedextendingtheevaluationtobiosolidsproductsinadditiontoendusemarkets.Indoingso,onsitemanagementalternatives,suchasthermaldrying,wereincludedintheanalysis.ProductsandmarketswerescreenedusingevaluationcriteriatailoredtoOCSD’sgoals.Thescreenedproductsandmarketswerelaterpairedwithonsiteprocessingtechnologies.TheprocessisillustratedinFigureES‐7.Theconsultantteamidentifiedafullrangeofpotentialproductsthatmaybeofferedtothemarketplaceandpreparedphysicalsamplesofthoseproductsformeetingswithendusers.ThisincludedbothClassAandClassBbiosolidsqualityandthefullrangeofproductsforonsitedigestionandpost‐dewateringtechnologiesthatwereevaluatedlaterinthestudy.

Figure ES‐7. Market‐based Approach for Evaluation of Biosolids End‐use Alternatives



Surveys and Site Visits

Marketresearchontheregionalhorticultural(i.e.,lawn/garden),agricultural,andfertilizerindustrieswascompletedtobetterdefineavailablemarketsforthepotentialbiosolidsproductsand—therefore—processingoptions,aswellasdeterminetheproducts’valueandmarketability(seeFigureES‐8).Demographicdataindicatethatsignificantregionalcapacityexistswithinthesemarkets.Areviewofemergingmarketsforenvironmentallybeneficialapplications(e.g.,dewateredcakeforlandreclamation,compostforerosioncontrol,etc.)wasalsoconducted,althoughthesemarketsareconsideredtobelessdevelopedwithrespecttobiosolidsproducts.Marketsurveyingwasinitiallycompletedviatelephonebystaffexperiencedindatacollectionand/orbiosolidsproductsales.Then,aseriestoface‐to‐facemeetingsoccurred.Generallyspeaking,itwasdeterminedthatexperiencewithbiosolidsproductsintheagriculturalandhorticulturalmarketsisstrongintheregion,whichencompassesSouthernCaliforniaandthewesternmostpartofArizona.Agriculturecanabsorblargevolumesoffertilizer‐typeproducts,whetherthermallydriedbiosolidsorcompost.Useofbiosolidsinagricultureisexpectedtocontinue.Interestinuseofbiosolidsforlandreclamationcanfurtherexpandavailableacreage.MarketingandoutreachbyeitherOCSDoritscontractorswillhelpsupportregionaluseofbiosolidsproducts.

Selected Alternatives

Alternativeswereconsideredbothforendusemarketsandproductmarkets.Twosetsofevaluationcriteriaweredeveloped—onemarket‐basedsetforevaluationoftheproduct/marketpairsandasecondsetforevaluationoftheproductsandassociatedprocessingtechnologies.

End‐usemarketswerescoredinaccordancewiththefollowingcriteriadevelopedbytheconsultantteam:

Realistic,provenmarket:Themarketforagivenbiosolidsproductiswellestablishedandunderstoodwithintheregion.

Marketsize:ThemarkethascapacitytoabsorbbiosolidsvolumesonthescaleofOCSD’sproduction.

Provenvalue:Thealternativeshaveacostassociatedwithmanagingagivenbiosolidsproductandavaryingendusewillingnesstopayforthebiosloidsproductandtransportation.

Futuremarketcapacity:Themarketispredictedtobestableorexpandingoverthelifeoftheproject.

Resiliencytoregulatorychange:Themarketisexpectedtoprovideflexibilityforbeneficialreuseoverthelifeoftheproject,basedoncurrentregulatorytrendsintheregion.

Year‐rounddependability:Themarketprovidesareliable,year‐roundoutletforOCSD’sbiosolids.

SURVEYS AND SITE VISITS PERFORMED

42 LANDSCAPE SUPPLY/RESELLERS/TOPSOIL

COMPANIES (WITH 21 FACE‐TO‐FACE MEETINGS)

21 FERTILIZER COMPANIES (WITH 4 FACE‐TO‐FACE

MEETINGS)

16 COMPOSTERS (WITH 11 FACE‐TO‐FACE MEETINGS)

LOCAL SOLID WASTE ENTITY (ORANGE COUNTY

WASTE AND RECYCLING)

Figure ES‐8. Surveys and Site Visits Performed



OCSDstaffandtheconsultantteamjointlydevelopedthefollowingtriple‐bottom‐linecriteriatohelpassesspotentialbiosolidsproducts:

Minimizelife‐cyclemanagementcosts:ThiscriterionrepresentedametricofOCSD’slife‐cyclebiosolidsmanagementcostsincludingfactorssuchashaulingcost,costtoprocess/manufacture,marketingfees,andrevenues,whereapplicable.

Providebroadmarketability:Thiscriterionaddressedthemarketversatilityassociatedwithagivenproduct.AproductwithaccesstomultiplemarketshelpssupportanumberofOCSD’sprogrammaticgoals,includingdiversification.

Provideproven,safe,andreliabletechnology:OCSDmustimplementbiosolids‐processingtechnologiesthataredependable.Somenewerprocessesemployfeaturessuchashighpressure,hightemperature,orchemicalsthatmaybeofconcernwithrespecttoworkersafetyandprocessreliability.Thereliabilityofsomebiosolids‐processingtechnologiesiswell‐establishedbydecadesofexperience,whileothershavebeenexecutedonlyatapilotordemonstrationscale.

SupportOCSD’sbiosolidsmanagementgoals,policy,andoperations:TheproductshouldsupportOCSD’sgoalsandpoliciesincludingresourcerecovery(whichinitselfincludesbeneficialuseofbiosolids),applicationofbiosolidsin‐region,andbalancedtriple‐bottom‐lineconcerns.

Provideregulatoryresilience:DrawingfromthefindingsofTM‐2,thiscriterionassesseswhetherthegenerationoruseoftheproductwilltriggersignificantregulatoryrequirements.

Minimizenetcarbonfootprint:Thiscriterionrepresentedaqualitativemetricofthelife‐cyclegreenhousegas(GHG)impactsresultingfromtheproductgenerationandenduse.

Minimizeimpactsfromnegativesidestreamsandemissions:Thegenerationofwastewatersidestreamsoremissionsthataredifficulttotreatcancreateahostofissuesincludingincreasedregulatoryoversight,operationalrestrictions,andpublicopposition.

Enhancecommunityrelationships:Generationoftheproductanditsenduseminimizesnuisanceimpactssuchasdust,odors,vectors,aesthetics,noise,andtraffic.Considerationwasgivenforfeaturesthataretypicallymitigated(e.g.,featuresassociatedwithtypicallocations/installations).

Theconsultantteamevaluatedtheproduct/marketpairsbasedonthemarketresearchconducted.Then,OCSDstaffcollaboratedwiththeconsultantteamonanevaluationoftheproductsandtheirassociatedprocesses.Productsandmarketswereassignedascoreforeachcriterionfrom1.0to5.0.Productsreceivingascorebelow3.0wereeliminatedfromfurtherconsideration.Productsreceivingascoreof3.0orhigherwerepairedwiththeirmostpromisingmarkets(i.e.,thosereceivingascoreof3.5orhigher).Itshouldbenotedthatothermarketscouldbedevelopedwithappropriatemarketing,education,andoutreach;however,forthepurposesoffurtheranalysis,onlythemostlikelymarketswereselected.TheresultingscoreswerepresentedandrefinedinaworkshopheldonMay17,2016,atOCSD’sPlant1.Thehighestscoringproduct/marketpairsselectedforfurtherevaluationarepresentedinTableES‐3.Itshouldbenotedthatallofthe



availablemarketsfortheselectedonsiteprocessingalternativewererevisitedinTask8;thus,someoftheendusemarketsdiscussedlaterinthisreportmaynotappearinTableES‐3.

Table ES‐3. Final Selected Products and Best Ranked Markets

PRODUCT SOIL BLENDING

BULK

AGRICULTURE,

CALIFO

RNIA

BULK

AGRICULTURE,

ARIZONA

BULK

HORTICULTURE,

LANDSCAPING

DISTR

IBUTION OF

BASSED

PRODUCT

GOLF COURSE AND

OTH

ER SPEC

IALTY

LAND

REC

LCMATION

FERTILIZER

BLENDING

Class A Compost √ √ √ √ √ √

Class B Cake √

Class A Cake √ √ √

Class A THP Soil Blend

√

Class A THP Cake √ √ √

Class A Soil Blend √

Class A High Quality Granule

√ √ √ √ √

Class B Partially Dried Cake

√

Class A Partially Dried Cake

√ √

Class A THP Partially Dried Product

√ √ √ √ √

Note: THP = thermal hydrolysis process



Plant No. 2 Digestion and Post‐Dewatering Alternative Evaluation

The OCSD BMP encompasses both Plant No. 1 and Plant No.2. However, due to structural integrity issues with existing anaerobic digesters at Plant No. 2, there is a need to replace these structures over time. Since Plant No. 1 anaerobic digesters do not have structural integrity issues that require replacement, no new digestion alternatives were evaluated at that plant, and the digestion and post-dewatering alternatives evaluation focused on identifying the new preferred digestion and/or post-dewatering facilities to be recommended for Plant No. 2. StructuredDecision‐MakingProcess. Themostviableproductandmarketpairingsestablishedinthetechnologiesassessmentwerecoupledwithpreferredonsitetreatmenttechnologiesforthecreationof“end‐to‐endalternatives.”Themethodologyforevaluationoffuturealternativesincludedbothcostandnon‐costcomparison.Initially,thealterativewerescreenedtoselectthemostfeasibletechnologyforOCSDgivenanumberofrelatedcriteria.Theremainingalternativeswerethenevaluatedonalife‐cyclecostbasisSolids‐Water‐Energy‐EvaluationTool(SWEETTool),andthemostcosteffectivealternativeswerefurtherevaluatedfollowedbyatriple‐bottom‐lineanalysisofasmallersubsetofnon‐costalternativesCriteriumDecisionPlus(CDPTool).Theoutcomeofthismulti‐stepmethodologywastoselectthebestendtoendalternativeforOCSDPlantNo.2,meetingbothtechnicalconsiderationsandnon‐costcriteria.ThisprocessisdepictedinFigureES-9.

Figure ES‐9. Structured Decision Making Process



IdentificationofOnsiteProcessingTechnologies.Constructingalternativesforonsiteprocessingtechnologiesbeganwithidentifyingthegeneralprocessingoptionscapableofproducingbiosolidsproductsrecommendedinthetechnologiesassessmentevaluation.TableES‐4liststhetechnologiesthatwerepresentedinaMay24,2016,workshopheldwithOCSD.ThesewereusedasthestartingpointforidentifyingspecifictechnologiesthatcouldbeimplementedatPlantNo.2.

Table ES‐4. Processes to Produce End‐use Product Alternatives

TASK 3 PRODUCT ALTERNATIVES TASK 4 PROCESS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Class A Compost (current product) Class A or B digestion + composting

Class B Cake (current product) Class B digestion

Class A Cake Class A digestion

Class A THP Soil Blend THP/digestion + soil blending

Class A THP Cake THP/digestion

Class A Soil Blend Class A digestion + soil blending

Class A Dried Granule Class A or B digestion + drying

Partially Dried Class B Cake Class B digestion + partial drying

Partially Dried Class A Cake Class A digestion + partial drying

Partially Dried Class A THP Cake THP/digestion + partial drying

InitialScreeningofTechnologies.AlistofeightpreliminaryscreeningcriteriawasdevelopedandpresentedduringtheMay2016Workshop.Thecriteriawere:endusemarketcompatibility,proventechnologyperformance,minimizationoflifecyclecosts,energy/resourcerecovery,operationsandmaintenance(O&M)impacts,environmentalimpacts,communityimpacts,andprojectsitecompatibility.Thefollowingtechnologieswereselectedforfurtherevaluation:

Thickeningtechnologies:

• Primaryclarifierthickening(forprimarysludgeonly)

• DAFthickening(forsecondarysludgeonly)

• Centrifugethickening(combinedsludge)

Digestiontechnologies:

• ClassBConventionalmesophilicanaerobicdigestion(CMAD)

• ClassBStagedMAD(SMAD)

• ClassAorBthermophilicanaerobicdigestion(TAD)



• ClassAorBtemperaturephasedanaerobicdigestion(TPAD)

• ClassATHP

Post‐dewateringtechnologies:

• Thermaldrying–RotarydrumdryingwithhighqualityClassAgranules

• Partialdrying–PaddleorbeltdryerwithcakeblendingtoyieldpartiallydriedClassAorBproduct

Thesetechnologieswerethencombinedintocompleteend‐to‐endalternativesforconceptdesigndevelopmentinordertodefinecapitalandoperatingcosts,feasibilitytofitontheplantsite,processflowconfiguration,equipment,andmassbalanceinformation.Thedevelopedalternativeswerethenpairedwiththeirappropriateproductsandmarkets,asdeterminedunderthetechnologiesassessmenttask.Theseend‐to‐endalternativeswerethenevaluatedonanetpresentvalue(NPV)basisusingbothcapitalandoperationalcostsusingamodelofPlantNo.2.

ThemajorityoftheNPVresultsfromthealternativesconsideredinthisstudyweresimilar.Inordertobetterassesstheresults,theNPVfromvariousend‐to‐endalternativeswasisolatedtodeterminetheimpactofchangestothickeninganduseofdryingfollowingdewatering.Basedonthatanalysis,itwasconcludedthatcentrifugethickeningdoesnotprovideanysignificantlyeconomicpaybackrelativetocontinuedoperationoftheexistingDAFthickeners(DAFT).Inaddition,alternativeswithcentrifugethickeningrepresentahigherinitialcapitalprojectandwouldrequireabandoningtheexisting,newlyretrofittedDAFTs.

CDPEvaluation.SeveraldryingalternativeswereidentifiedashavinghigherNPVrelativetootheralternatives.However,theywerecarriedforwardforatriple‐bottom‐lineevaluationusingCDPduetotheuniquemarketopportunitiesassociatedwiththehighqualityproduct.ThealternativescarriedforwardareshowninFigureES‐10.TheCDPtoolforthisprojectusedasuiteofevaluationcriteriawhichwerescoredinaworkshoponOctober4,2016withOCSD.TheevaluationcriteriausedalsoareshowninFigureES‐10.



Figure ES‐10. CDP Model Scoring Breakdown

Asdepictedonthefigure,mesophilicdigestion,TAD,andTPADincludedhighscoresrelatedtooperability,maintainability,andreliabilityandsafety.ClassAtechnologies,especiallythermaldrying,providedhighscoresrelatedtoendusemarketdiversityandresiliency.Whenconsideringnon‐costscoring,mesophilicdigestion,TAD,andTPADareverysimilar.However,thescoringforthermaldryingalternativeswasconsideredsignificantlylowerthantheotheralternatives.BasedontheCDPevaluation,itwasdecidedthatthethermaldryingalternatives,bothpartialdryingandthermaldrying,wouldberemovedfromfurtherconsideration.TheCDPresultswerenotsufficientlydifferentfortheremainingalternativestoenablerecommendationofapreferredprocessselection.Thus,atiebreakercategoryofcriteriaspecifictoPlantNo.2wasdevelopedtocomparethetechnologytofacilitateadecisiononapreferreddigestiontechnology.Criteriaincluded:seismicriskmitigation,diversityforthebiosolidsprogram,maximizeduseofexistinginfrastructure,minimizedodorimpactstoneighborsandendusesitesandlowinitialcapitalcost.

Basedonthiscomparison,TPADprovidedaclearadvantagerelativetotheotheralternativesandwasselectedforimplementation;however,thedigestionprocessmaybedesignedtoaccommodateoperationineithermesophilicorTPADmode,withtheunderstandingthattheseprocessesgeneratedifferentbiosolidsquality.TheTPADdigestionprocesswouldincludesixnewthermophilicdigestersandbatchtanksfortheproductionofClassAbiosolids.Thisapproachprovidesthegreatestdegreeofreliabilityandflexibility.Shouldprocessdriverschangeinthefuture,thesixnewdigesterscouldbeeasilyretrofittedtoadoptotherprocesstechnologies.



High Strength Organic Waste Co‐Digestion Evaluation

Thehighstrengthorganicwasteco‐digestionevaluatedassessedthefeasibilityandeconomicjustificationforfoodwasteco‐digestionatoneorbothofOCSD’splants.TPADwasassumedastheco‐digestionprocess.Regulationsandothermarketdriverswerereviewed,andsourcesandcharacteristicsforfoodwastewereidentified.Earlyintheevaluation,itwasdeterminedthatPlantNo.1doesnothaveexcessdigestioncapacityforco‐digestion,andthefocusturnedtoPlantNo.2.

ASignificantOpportunity.AsignificantchangeintheregulatorylandscapeinCaliforniahasoccurredaroundthediversionoforganicsfromlandfills.Currently,muchofthestate’sdivertedorganicsarebeingcompostedorusedasalternativedailycover(ADC)onlandfills.Withthephase‐outoforganicsasADC,theregulatoryshiftaroundorganicsshouldgenerallybenefitthewastewatersectorbymakingorganicfeedstocksavailableforco‐digestion,aswellasgeneratingfundingopportunitiesforwastewatertreatmentplants(WWTPs)throughcapandtradeandotherprograms.ExistingWWTPsareuniquelypositionedtoplayaroleintheneworganicsmarketplace.ManyWWTPsarealreadyusingavailabledigestionandenergycapacityforco‐digestionoffats,oilandgrease(FOG)andliquidhighstrengthorganicwaste(HSW)fromindustry.Tippingfeesforwasteacceptanceandincreaseddigestergasproductionforenergygenerationmakeco‐digestioneconomicallyviableandpotentiallyattractive.Acceptanceoforganicsdivertedfromlandfillwouldfollowthesamemodel,butperhapswithimprovedeconomiesofscaleduetothelargeandsteadydemandcreatedbythelandfill/organicsregulations.ForthepurposesoftheBMPevaluation,highstrengthorganicwastereceivedatOCSD’splantswasassumedtolargelycomprisepre‐processedcommercialand/orresidentialsourceseparatedorganics(SSO).

CapacityandConstraints.Availablecapacitytoreceivepre‐processedSSOatPlantNo.1and/orPlantNo.2wasexamined.Animportantfactorwastoensurethatthereceiptofpre‐processedSSOwouldnotcompromisetheabilityofthedigestionsystemtoachievepathogenreductionoranyothermetricsofqualityforbeneficialuseofbiosolids.Inaddition,thesystemshouldnotgeneratemorebiogasthanwhattheonsitecombinedheatandpowersystemcanmanage.Asmentionedabove,thecapacityanalysisforPlantNo.1indicatedthataco‐digestionprogramisnotfeasiblethere.AtPlantNo.2,however,firmcapacityexiststodaytoaccommodatepre‐processedSSO.Thus,OCSDcouldopttobuildatemporarySSOreceivingstationimmediatelyandthenconstructamorepermanentfacilityinthefuture,inconjunctionwiththelargerdigesterproject.

PotentialTeamingPartners.AsshowninFigureES‐11,severallargemunicipalsolidwastehaulerswithinOrangeCountyhavetheabilitytoprovideSSOtoOCSD.OCSDhasmetwiththesehaulerstodiscusspotentialpartnerships.RepublicServicesandWasteManagement,twoofthelargestentities,haveexpressedawillingnesstopartnerwithOCSD.AnotherimportantpartnerisOCWR.AlthoughOCWRdoesnotdirectlycollectorhaulwaste,itdoesserveastheintermediarybetweenthewastehaulersandthecounty‐ownedlandfills.Inaddition,OCWRisintheprocessofexploringthedevelopmentofacompostsitewithinOrangeCounty.



Figure ES‐11. Waste Haulers Serving Orange County and Their Approximate Service Areas

EconomicAnalysis.Theconsultantteamtookapreliminarylookatthefeasibilityofconstructingbothaninterim(temporary)andultimate(permanent)receivingstationforpre‐processedSSO.BasedontheanalysisandafterdiscussionswithOCSDstaff,theconsultantteamrecommendedaninterimSSOreceivingfacilitycapacityof250wtpdandanultimateSSOreceivingfacilitycapacityof500wtpd.TheinterimfacilitywillallowOCSDtoenterthefoodwastemarketquicklytomeettheurgentneedsofwastehaulerthatisdrivenbypendingregulatoryrequirementoverthenextfewyears.Theultimatefacilitywillbefullyintegratedwiththeplannednewdigesterfacilities.

Whileco‐digestionprojectscarrythebenefitofadditionalgasproduction,thisisanancillarybenefitthatisoffsetbygeneratorO&Mcosts.Typically,suchprojectsarejustifiedthroughtheinclusionoftippingfeeswhichhelptorecover,inpartorinwhole,theprojectcosts.Theconsultantteamexaminedasimple,preliminarytippingfeestructureforOCSDbasedontheamountoffoodwasteimportedandtheestimatedcapitalandO&Mcostsforreceivingfacilities.TheresultsoftheanalysisarepresentedinFiguresES‐10andES‐11,respectively.Thefigureshighlighttheestimatedtippingfeesversusfoodwastereceivedinwettonstoobtainapaybackperiodof5,10,and20years.TableES‐5summarizesthetippingfeestoachievethesamepaybackperiods.FortheInterimFoodWasteFacilityatippingfeeofapproximately$40perwettonisprojectedtoresultinafiveyearpaybackforOCSDat150wettonsperday.FortheUltimateFoodWasteFacilitytheprojectedtippingfeetoachieveafiveyearpaybackisapproximately$38perwettonat$300wettonsperday.Thesetippingfeesarewithincurrentindustryvalues.Implementingfoodwastereceivinghasmanyenvironmentalbenefitsandiscosteffective.



Figure ES‐12. Interim Pre‐processed SSO Receiving Facility Tipping Fee Summary

Figure ES‐13. Permanent Pre‐processed SSO Tipping Fee and Resultant Return on Investment Summary

Estimated Simple Pay Back Period



Table ES‐5. Tipping Fee Required for Given Payback Period

PAYBACK PERIOD

INTERIM FACILITY PERMANENT FACILITY

Years 100 wet tons

150 wet tons

250 wet tons

100 wet tons

300 wet tons

500 wet tons

5 $52 $41 $32 $80 $38 $30

10 $42 $35 $28 $58 $31 $25

20 $38 $31 $26 $46 $27 $23

AconsultantteamanalysisindicatedthatthereissubstantialPlantNo.2digestercapacitytoaddpre‐processedSSOforco‐digestionuponcompletionofP1‐101andtheendofprimarysludgediversionstoPlantNo.2in2018.AninterimSSOreceivingfacilitycapacityof250wtpdwasrecommendedthrough2028(equivalenttoapproximatelyeleven(11)trucksperday).SuchaprojectwouldallowOCSDtobuildpartnershipsandgainfamiliaritywithfoodwastereceivingandtheco‐digestionprocessataninterimlocationontheplantsite.

OCSDstaffandtheconsultantexaminedthePlantNo.2siteforthepurposeofidentifyingpotentiallocationsfortheInterimFoodWasteReceivingFacility.Fourpotentialsiteswereidentifiedandsubsequentlyevaluated,andtwoofthesiteswereselectedforfurtherevaluation.AsiteadjacenttoDigesterSappearstooffergreaterspaceandalargercapacityfortheinterimfacilityandisrecommended.

NextSteps.Anexpeditedprojectdeliveryofaninterimfoodwastereceivingfacilitywasrecommended.ThisinterimfacilityshouldtargetoperationalcompletioninJanuary2019tocoincidewithasignificantincreaseinstateregulatoryrequirements.Withtheinterimfacilityreceivingapproximately150‐250wtpdofpre‐processedSSO,itwillgreatlyhelpintheorganicsfromlandfilldiversioneffort.Thistemporaryfacilitywouldoperateuntiltheultimatefacilityisoperational(estimatedtobe2028).Theincreaseinpre‐processedSSOto300‐500wtpdforthepermanentfacilitywouldsignificantlyaidOCSD’spartnersinmeetingregulatoryrequirements.



CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IdentificationofCIPprojectsforPlantNo.1andPlantNo.2builtoninformationcollectionandreviewandtechnologiesassessment/alternativesdevelopment;andevaluationactivitiesperformedaspartofBMPdevelopment.

Plant No. 2

ThepurposeofPS15‐01istoevaluateandselectthefuturedigestionprocessandassociatednewinfrastructuretomitigatetheseismicriskthroughaholistic,end‐to‐endevaluationapproach.ThedataassessmentandalternativesevaluationsconductedfortheBMPledtotheselectionofco‐digestionprojectstobeincludedintheCIP.

OverallApproach.Initialtasksinvestigatedthebiosolidsmanagementopportunitiesanddefinedthefinancialandoperationalconsiderationsrelatedtodifferentendusealternatives.Subsequenttasksinvolvedevaluation,definition,andselectionofthemajorsolidshandlingprocessesforPlantNo.2incombinationwithassociatedenduseopportunities,aswellasaseparateassessmentofthefeasibilityofco‐digestionfacilitiesatPlantNo.2.ThesefacilitiesweredevelopedintodiscreteprojectsforinclusionundertheCIP.

CIPFacilities.TableES‐6summarizestheprojectstobeconstructedundertheCIP.TheseprojectsarealsodepictedgraphicallyonFigureES‐14asasiteplan.

NewFacilities.SevennewprojectswereidentifiedasnecessarytoupgradethePlantNo.2solidshandlingfacilitiesinalignmentwithOSD’sgoalsandobjectives:P2‐501throughP2‐504C.

OtherProjectsIntegraltoImplementationoftheFullProgram.ThreeoftheseprojectswerepreviouslyidentifiedbyOCSD:P2‐500InterimDigesterRepairs(formerlyP2‐91‐1),rehabilitationofthesludgedewateringtruckloadout,andJ‐124DigesterGasHandlingFacilities.Inordertomaintaintheintegrityoftheexistingsolidshandlingfacilitiesduringplanning,design,andconstructionofthesolidshandlingfacilitiesupgrades,OCSDhasaroutinemaintenanceprogram.Toensurethatthisprogramisfundedtosupportactivitiesassociatedwithdigestermaintenance,includingcleaning,atPlantNo.2,theconsultantteamidentifiedthisasP2‐500forcapitalplanningpurposes.ProjectX‐032istheprojectdevelopedbyOCSDPlanningStafftoimprovetheconditionofthesludgedewateringtruckloadouttoaddressagingequipment.J‐124wasanexistingprojectforOCSD,butwillrequireamodificationinscopefollowingtheselectionofTPADandfoodwastedigestion.

ProjectsInvolvingDigesters.Theconsultantteamalsoidentifiedthreeprojectsimpactingexistingdigesters:P2‐505,P2‐507,andP2‐508.

CIPImplementationSchedule.InordertoensurecontinuedoperationofallofOCSD’smajorfacilities,theconsultantteamprovidedinformationregardinglogicalconstructionsequencingoftheprojectsassociatedwiththePlantNo.2CIP.FigureES‐15presentstheoverallschedule,alongwithcriticalpathitemsandsequencingofmajorconstruction.



Table ES‐6. CIP Development for New Digestion and Food Waste Facilities

PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

P2‐500 Digester Repairs Support for activities associated with digester maintenance

$ 32,700,000

P2‐501 Perimeter Screening

A visual buffer to provide perimeter screening of new facilities from Brookhurst Street and Talbert March

$ 1,300,000

P2‐502 Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility

An interim facility with up to 100 wtpd capacity to allow OCSD to assess food waste market and process impacts

$ 2,600,000

P2‐503 Relocate and Demo Warehouse and Collections Parking Area

Facilities demolition to free up site for construction staging and laydown area for TPAD project (P2‐504)

$ 5,200,000

J‐124 Digester Gas Handling Facilities

New digester gas vents, compressors, dryer, treatment, and flare facilities

$ 23,500,000

X‐032 Dewatered Sludge Storage and Truck Loading

Rehabilitation of the sludge cake silos and truck loading facility (capacity is adequate)

$ 2,500,000

P2‐504 TPAD Project

Construction of six 110‐ft diameter digesters to operate in either mesophilic or thermophilic operation

$ 154,100,000

P2‐504A Class A Batch Tanks

Addition of batch tanks to allow OCSD to produce Class A biosolids

$ 26,300,000

P2‐504B Thickened Sludge Feed Facility (Digester Feed Facility DFF)

Replace existing SBF with new facility to allow blending of PS and TWAS for continuous feed to digester

$ 12,600,000

P2‐504C Ferric Chloride Facility

Relocate existing facility to free up space allocated for other treatment processes

$ 1,400,000

P2‐505 Replace Digesters P, Q, R, S

Replace four aging digesters in need of extensive modifications and ground improvements to mitigate seismic risks

$ 56,800,000

P2‐506 Ultimate Food Waste Receiving Facility

Replace interim facility that can receive a greater capacity of pre‐processed SSO

$ 5,900,000

P2‐507 Replace Digesters I, J, K (Relocate Digester Holders)

Demolition of seven existing digesters and rebuilding three existing digester to function as either digesters or digested sludge holders

$ 39,300,000

P2‐508 Digester Demolition

Demolish six existing digesters $ 7,400,000

TOTAL CIP = $ 371,600,000

Note:ConstructioncostestimatesareAACEClass4whichmayvaryfromshown(low=‐30%,high=+50%).EstimateforJ‐124isbasedonFebruary2015dollars.EstimateforX‐032isbasedonFebruary2016dollars.AllotherestimatesarebasedonDecember2016dollars.



Figure ES‐14. Site Layout



Figure ES‐15. Plant No. 2 CIP Implementation Schedule



Plant No. 1

Basedonevaluationsconductedbytheconsultantteam,nochangestothecurrentdigestiontechnologyarerecommended.Also,basedonthecurrentcapacityofthedigesters,noHSWreceivingfacilitiesarerecommended.Theconsultantteamdidevaluatepotentialpost‐dewateringfacilitiesatPlantNo.1.

PlantNo.1CapacityAnalysis.AmajorrehabilitationofdigestersatPlantNo.1wascompletedin2016underprojectP1‐100.Theprojectimprovedreliabilityandincreasedexistingtreatmentcapacity,butfacilitiesatPlantNo.1willbeatorclosetodesignloadingratesafter2018.Thus,excesscapacitywillnotbeavailableforSSOalternatives.Anevaluationoftheexistingcakestoragecapacitywasalsoconducted.Theconsultantteamconcludedthatthereissufficientstoragecapacityforoperations,bothnowandthroughouttheplanningperiod.

PlantNo.1Post‐DewateringFacilitiesEvaluation.ForpurposesoftheBMP,apost‐dewateringfacilitiesanalysiswasperformedatPlantNo.1.ThePlantNo.1dryersystemdesigncriteriacapitalandoperatingcostswereinputintotheSWEETmodeltodeterminetheNPVforathermaldryingoptionandanodryingoption.TheresultsoftheSWEETmodeloutputareshowninFigureES‐16.

Figure ES‐16. Plant No. 1 Drying NPV Cost Evaluation



TheSWEETevaluationofpost‐dewateringalternativesforPlantNo.1waspresentedtoOCSDataworkshoponDecember20,2016.Asshowninthefigure,theNVPfortheThermalDryingOptionisapproximately$14.2MhigherthantheNPVfortheNoDryingOption.WhilethermaldryinghasalowerO&Mcostduetoreducedhauling,thecapitalcostofthefacilitiesincreasestheNPVabovethatoftheNoDryingOption.Althoughthermaldryingwouldincreaseproductdiversity,thereareseveralnon‐economicdisadvantagesassociatedwiththermaldryingsuchasincreasedmaintenance,equipmentcomplexity,andsafetyconcerns,whichmakethisoptionlessdesirable.

Finally,itischallengingtofindsufficientsiteareaincloseproximitytotheexistingsolidsdewateringfacilities,andthenewbuildingwouldeliminatevaluablespaceforpotentialfuturefacilities.Sincetherewasnotaneconomicincentiveandthereareseveralnon‐economicdisadvantages,thermaldryingwasnotrecommendedbytheconsultantteamforPlantNo.1,andOCSDconcurredwiththisrecommendation.

CIPImplementationSchedule.PotentialPlantNo.1solidshandlingfacilitiesevaluationswereidentifiedanddevelopedindiscussionswithOCSDstaff.ThesearelistedinTableES‐7.ItisrecommendedthattheevaluationsbeperformedtodetermineiffuturePlantNo.1CIPprojectsarewarranted.Theevaluationsmaybeimplementedbasedonpriorityandanypredecessoractivities.Theevaluationswiththehighestprioritythatcanbestartedimmediatelyshouldtakeprecedence.

Table ES‐7. Implementation Schedule and Sequencing

EVALUATION PREDECESSOR ACTIVITIES EARLY START

PRIORITY

Digester Solids Screening

None Immediately High

Digester Capacity Completion of P1‐100 and P1‐101 projects and 1 year of operational data

JAN 2020 High

Sludge Diversion to Plant No. 2

None Immediately Medium

Existing Drying Bed Modifications

Identifying a project that would require removal of existing drying beds

Unknown Low



BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN TherecommendedBMPforOCSD’sbiosolidsendusepostfoliocorrespondstoplannedcapitalimprovementsatPlantNo.1andPlantNo.2.Indevelopingtherecommendedbiosolidsprogram,theconsultantteamworkedwithOCSDstafftoestablishthebiosolidsmanagementframeworkincludingfuturebiosolidsproducts,potentialenduses,andotherprogramelementssuchasresearchandparticipationintradeorganizations.Coreelementsofthefutureprogramweredefined,andanimplementationplanwasdeveloped.

Biosolids Management Framework Core Elements of the Future Plan

ThedevelopmentofacapitalimprovementplanforPlantNo.2willresultinamajorchangetoOCSD’sbiosolidsprogram,namely,thegenerationofClassAbiosolidsbeginningin2030.Currently,OCSD’sbiosolidsprogramisshapedbythreemajorfactors:1)federal,stateandlocalregulations,2)OCSD’sbiosolidspolicy,and3)guidingprinciplessetforthintheLRBMP.Thisframeworkhasledtodiversebiosolidsmanagementasdescribedpreviously.

WhilePlantNo.1willcontinuetoproduceClassBbiosolids,PlantNo.2willbeginproducingClassAbiosolidsin2030.TheenduseportfolioforPlantNo.1isexpectedtoremainmuchasitistoday,withthemajorityoftheannualproductiongoingtocontractcompostingandasmallpercentagegoingtoClassBlandapplicationinArizona.WiththeproposedchangesatPlantNo.2,newmarketsforOCSDwouldbeClassAlandapplicationinCaliforniaandsoilblendingwithintheregion.

Core Elements of the Future Plan

OCSD’sbiosolidsmanagementwillbecomprisedofindividualenduses,aswellasmarketdevelopment,research,advocacy,andmonitoring.ThesecoreelementsaresummarizedinTableES‐8.Asshowninthetable,soilblendingrepresentsamarketsectorthatcanbedevelopedonceClassAbiosolidsareproduced.Soilblendingisalow‐technology,lowcapitalendusethatallowsgenerationofaproductthatisdesirableinurbanandsuburbanmarkets,particularlylandscaping.Amorein‐depthmarketanalysisofuseofClassAcakeinthesoilblendingmarketwasperformedpriortoincludingthisrecommendationintheoverallmanagementplan.BlenderswereshownrepresentativeTPADcakeandseveralexpressedinterestinworkingwiththematerialeitherintheirexistingblendoperationoratanewsitedevelopedforthatpurpose.

AtaworkshoponJanuary24,2017,OCSDevaluatedoptionsforimplementation,agreeingthatsmallscaleimplementationwouldallowOCSDtoevaluateapreviouslyuntestedmarket.SuchsmallscaleimplementationwouldlikelyconsistofOCSDshippingitsClassAbiosolidstoexistingsoilblendingsites.Ifsuccessful,OCSDcouldthenpursueothermethodsofexpandingitssoilblendingoperation.ThemostlikelyscenarioforsuchanexpansionwasdeterminedtobepartneringwithanexistingsoilblendertodevelopanewsiteforblendingandmarketingOCSD’sbiosolids‐basedsoilblend.LandapplicationisstillexpectedtoplayasignificantroleinOCSD’sbiosolidsprograminthefuture.Twoadditionalemergingmarketsofinterestarebiosolidstoenergyandlandreclamation.OCSDwillmonitorandparticipateinthesemarketsastheydevelop.

Guiding Principles

OCSD’scurrentbiosolidsprogramisguidedbyregulatoryrequirements,OCSD’sbiosolidspolicy,andguidingprinciplessetforthintheLRBMP.DuringaworkshopwithOCSD,theBV/BCTeam



reviewedthoseguidingprinciplesandestablishedthosethatwerestillvalid,determinedthosethatcouldbeeliminated(e.g.,becauseofchangesinregulations,markets,orcontractors),andidentifiedseveralnewormodifiedprinciplesforinclusion.TheguidingprinciplesareintendedtosupportOCSD’sbiosolidspolicybyminimizingriskwithinthebeneficialuseofbiosolids.The10tenetsofOCSD’sbiosolidsmanagementplanareasfollows:

1. Allocateupto50percentofbiosolidsperbiosolidscontractor.2. Allocateupto50percentofbiosolidspergeographicend‐usemarket.3. Maintainatleastthreedifferentbiosolidsmanagementfacilitiesatanytime.4. Maintainatleasttwodifferentbiosolidsmanagementpracticesatanytime.5. Maintainatleasttwodifferenthaulingcompanieswithinthebiosolidsmanagement

portfolio.6. Maintainatleast100%percentcontingencycapacityinatleasttwodifferentoff‐site

managementoptions.7. Maintain20percentfailsafehaulingcapacity.8. Trackandencouragedevelopmentofemergingmarketsand/orendusesforbiosolids,

especiallyforlocalend‐useoptions.9. Allocateupto10percentoftotalbiosolidsproductionforparticipationinemerging

markets,includingparticipationinpilotordemonstrationprojects.10. ExplorepartnershipswithareasoilblenderstoallowincorporationofOCSD’sClassA

productintolocalmarkets.

Implementation Schedule

ThenewguidingprinciplesforOCSD’sbiosolidsmanagementplanwereestablishedintheJanuary2017workshopandfinalizedatameetingonFebruary14,2017.TheseprinciplessupportOCSD’sexistingbiosolidsframeworkandhelpdeterminethedirectionforthefutureprogram.Thisincludesshapingaroadmapforthefutureprogram,forwhichspecifictriggerswereestablishedthatcouldcauseOCSDtochangethedirectionofitsenduseprogram.TheroadmapispresentedinFigureES‐17.



Table ES‐8. Core Elements of the Future Program

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Land Application

It is expected that biosolids generated by OCSD, including Plant No. 2, will continue to go to Arizona land application. If California markets open, OCSD could leverage lessons learned in Arizona and through historic land application practices here.

Soil Blending Soil blending represents a new end use for OCSD. Very little new infrastructure would be required. Information from successful applications in Washington State and British Columbia provides valuable production and market/sales data. The regional market within a 100‐mile radius of OCSD is strong, representing a large potential market, but also competition from other products.

Emerging Markets

Emerging market projects that coincide with OCSD’s guiding principles may be considered for inclusion in the future programs. Two emerging markets with great potential are biosolids to energy (OCSD has already begun investigating AquaCritox supercritical water oxidation) and land reclamation, where Southern California opportunities include fire ravaged lands, overgrazed rangelands, abandoned mine sites, and brownfields. A number of grants are available for brownfield assessment, clean‐up, and planning.

Market Development

Because of the potential for soil blending in the region, many operational options are possible: (1) OCSD operating at an OCSD‐owned site, (2) a private company operating at a jointly‐developed site, and (3) companies accepting biosolids at their sites. The most promising option that allows management of a large portion of OCSD’s biosolids appears to be partnership with an area soil blender to develop a new site (Option 2).

Research and Trade Organizations

Supplementary aspects of the biosolids management program include partnering with research institutions and participating in relevant trade organizations. A number of research partners are available including the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), the Water Environment and Research Foundation (WE&RF), the University of California (Riverside, Irvine, and/or Davis programs), Pacific Northwest Universities (Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State), the ReNUWit Research Center at Stanford University, the Water and Environmental Technology Center (WET) at the University of Arizona. Participation and/or relationship building with relevant trade and other organizations will also support biosolids program goals and activities.

Regulatory Considerations

Management of OCSD’s biosolids requires compliance with regulations at the federal, state, and local level. This may include engagement with new regulatory entities, such as the CDFA.

AQUACRITOX REPORT REVIEW OCSDisconsideringimplementationofademonstrationscalesupercriticalwateroxidation(SCWO)plantfortreatmentofwastewaterbiosolidsatoneoftheirexistingwastewatertreatmentfacilities.AreviewwasconductedofaspecificproposalbySCFIforanAquaCritoxA30SCWOdemonstrationfacilityandincludedaliteraturereview,technologyevaluation,operationalreview,andanetpresentvalue(NPV)costassessment.ItwasintendedtovisitanoperatingSCFIAquCritoxpilotplantfacilityinValencia,Spain;however,thatfacilitywasnotoperatingasintendedandthesitevisitwasthereforecancelled.ProceedingwithademonstrationscaleprojectisnotrecommendeduntilOCSDareabletowitnessreal,longtermoperatingdataofapilotfacilitysuccessfullyoperatingonwastewatersludge.



IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Figure ES‐17. OCSD’s End Use Roadmap for Plant No. 2