Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7 PPP Operations Committee 4-5-17 - BMP Master Plan Info Item Lai 50, AN xi Information Up date Biosolids Master Plan, PS �r What are Biosolids ? INCOMING water water water Residential, Industrial Preliminary Primary Secondary Treatment Treatment Treatment and Commercial , I`,► ---------- �� . i Prima Slud e`. Primary g Z/ Solids Processing Offsite Reuse / Disposal Secondary GWRS Sludge �' or Ocean `- - Biosolids Facilities r Drivers for Biosolids Master Plan • Biosolids require large capital and on-going costs • Condition and seismic issues with Plant 2 digesters • Previous Biosolids Master Plan completed in 2003 • Opportunity for greater resource recovery • State requirement to divert organics in trash from landfills Pill _ � jil 61 J T ✓ ,��, Biosolids Costs • Biosolids reuse / disposal • -$17 million /year • 12% of net operating requirements • Biosolids-related capital projects • >$500 million currently budgeted • 17% of total capital program • 28% of proposed budget update for 2017/18 (Pi-100 Plant 1 Solids Facilities good with completion of current projects P1-101) Jot F M.11.•.- '1.t0... �I t 1 i • J-1 t �11, V/Y i I T I, .!t� ��• RR I I i � s / 1 rPl--_ _ I.'^_' i.' Z:` ■ J41 ■,I l..l O 1 1 I, , I. a I� � �I� — .,'p- ii • 1 UMMM oil , p t- Mtn1 1 ANCI : : L::, .."I L . . . L.. JIa II♦ `N11� • .eMs 4 I z._ Plant 2 re digesters need lacement -it . 44 p 00 , � t �:�� A ��` � is`�1,• _ i Dewatering, Storage, & Loading ' \ \ • • •• . ° Digesters Thickening r g �. Newport-Inglewood Fault Runs Through Plant No . 2/ Liquefaction Hazard Zone n, M , VD V t► t N%"\* 5,W c • e f ,nR, a i�,C� , f �' r u Market Research Santa Nola Sa[rapento n • Agriculture and Horticulture users San Fraancisc0 0 �':,;��,�,, • 83 potential users contacted San Jose 0 • © . • 36 meetings Sarinas Fro Monterey (,A, I F i f-:rJ �� Oea;n Y.i'lev V—=a��a Las oeyas • Samples of potential products Hendervr, •Bake showed to potential users san wn osfield 0byo •v 5an,,,ta,.a • Data collected to determine cost " and capacity for various reuse Santa�a,na,n� • Los Aong0s� • e�•� m91B ,,side ;osnva tree Long Bearho • rvaucnai ran . horticultural end users ' • m°PS�t options • • regional corn ftposters d • dried granule end users Sari go • vor�ma 6 OCSD Treatment Plant locations Tijuana Key Market Findings Bulk products to agriculture key component • California will require Class A for direct land application • Arizona expected continue to accept Class B into future • Class A provides more options, but not a goal by itself Horticulture markets are much smaller, but high quality products would be more valued VIC ��- _ III • 41 O� �€ 46 - ..` zi Alternative Selection ant ioso i s aci sties End-to-End Alternative Combinations Evaluated • 27 combinations of processing and products with end use 1,400 1,200 1,000 c 800 j 600 a z 400 200 0 eQ' yP yP 5 yPP yP yP 5P yO 00 5P yP yP O �� ho ,tih O �a5 rah rah rah �a5 ayyO ay ayyO h 5 5 h O. `�• QO' QO' QO' ��S O" O' O' O' O' O" O' O" O' O' O' O' O' O' O' O" O' O" O' O" ALTP���P`��P��C Screening narrowed to 3 alternatives These alternatives eliminated on non-economic criteria 1200 1000 800 c 0 600 a z • � 400 200 E -CMAD-ND-Class IT-TAD-ND-Class E TPAD ND-Class ET-THP ND Class A ET TAD-PD-Class A ET-CMAD TD ALT Tiebreaker Considerations 1. Diversity for biosolids program • Plant 1 produces Class B biosolids — no plans to change • Providing Class A at Plant 2 diversifies reuse options ➢ Eliminated Baseline Mesophilic Class B Alternative 2. Early mitigation for seismic risk • All alternatives will meet seismic standards • TPAD Class A addresses seismic risk after first project. • Maximizes life of existing digesters • Allows subsequent project to be delayed • Allows keep existing digesters if they can be rehabilitated Layout of P rop osed Facilities Santa Ana River a ° ❑ !% ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ p �f, i ; ° ' o - o _ a s� A r� � oar Bushard Qa TPAD Class A Minimum Initial Project • Initial project includes: _ _ Six 110 ft digesters 30 ft tall - • �^ o f. • . Batch tanks for Class A (N$25 million) _ ""' """' ',• Sludge feed facility • Cooling system Relocation of warehouse, collections • Meets Class A without existing digesters, but with less as production g g p • Construction cost $194 million (2017) y' • Total project cost $419 million • Escalation to mid-point of construction • Non-construction costs ``•,� • Contingency Proposed Plant 2 Biosolids Projects • Preparation Projects • Southwest Perimeter Screening, P2-125 • Warehouse Relocation, P2-126 • Collections Yard Relocation, P2-127 • TPAD Digester Facility at Plant 2, P2-128 • Digester P, Q, R, & S Replacement, P2-129 • Subsequent projects • Replace 3 existing small digesters • Demolish remaining digesters Digester Replacement Construction Schedule O N IEEE = IMMEM Plant No.2 Digester Facilities Rehabilitation Interim Food Waste Receiving Facility Plant 2 Southwest Perimeter Screening Plant 2 Collections Yard Relocation Plant 2 Warehouse Relocation TPAD Digester Facility at Plant 2 Digester P,Q R,and S Replacement Digester I, nd K Replacement Food Waste Receiving Facility at Plant 2 Digester Demolition at Plant 2 46 s w -,� 'r * _ '�I� '`.- ��►S �L,.4 is OPP VAO • I AquaCritox Demonstration Project Evaluation Study, Project No. SP- 125- 17 AquaCritox • Uses high heat and pressure Sub-critical Water • Complex processes and equipment • Solid Liquid �, ISupercritical No existing full scale facilities a (ice) (water) Water • Pilot plant in Valencia, Spain in � 22 I v progress a Saturated Vapor Critical Point Pressure Curve 0.1 Gas (Steam) 6.1 x 10-4 ------------ 0 100 374 Temperature(*Q J AquaCritox Demonstration Project Evaluation Study • Report prepared by vendor (SCFI Group Limited) Y • • Proposed a facility at Plant 2 ..r • Concept layouts, sizing developed ' , • Construction and operating costs estimated Z4 -4 � • Biosolids Master Plan consultant assigned to review report, technology, and economic case for a project ��, d \.w4d5 c t Conclusions from Review of SCFl Report T Underlying technology is proven for other applications - - ; Significant operational concerns ��- Corrosion, scaling, material � - compatibility • Highly specialized equipment • Equipment reliability not known • Pilot plant has not been in continuous and reliable operation • Life cycle costs reviewed J AquaCritox Demonstration Project Economics Expense Biosolids Master Plan Consultant Costs . Corn Construction Cost $26,500,000 $34,500,000 • Ground improvements (unescalated) • Building for process equipment Operations & $19,700,000 $46,600,000 • 24/7 Operator required Maintenance (NPV) Repair and $0 $11,700,000 • 15-year equipment life Replacement (NPV) assumed Power Generated NPV -$6,000,000 -$6,000,000 Total NPV $40,200,000 $86,800,000 NPV Unit Cost, $/ton $505 $1,090 For reference, unit cost for full digester replacement is $540/ton, but at a much larger scale. Recommendations • Do not pursue a Demonstration Project at this time • Visit pilot plant in Spain when SCFI reports consistent and continuous operation • Continue to monitor for key concerns • Staff will seek grant opportunities and operating partners