Biosolids Management Program Update

Planning Committee

April 14, 2015

• Background

• Biosolids Management Alternatives

• Biosolids Handling Contracts

• 2014 Program Audit Results

• Next Steps

Agenda

Background Biosolids Production and Use

• Approximately 200 wet tons per day (8 truckloads) are produced at the MWWTP

– 74,000 wet tons in 2014

• The District utilizes two beneficial end uses:

– Land application in Merced Co.

– Landfill alternative daily cover at nearby landfills

Solids Digestion

On-site Power

Generation

Biosolids Reuse

Primary Treatment

Solids

Secondary Treatment

Solids Trucked Wastes

Biogas

Solids Dewatering

Digested Solids

Land Application

Landfill Alternative Daily Cover

48% 52%

Biosolids End Use Increasing Land Application Use

• District continues to shift biosolids end use

– 2012: 70% ADC/30% land app

– 2014: 52% ADC/48% land app

• Relatively stable biosolids volume production trend

– Increase due to trucked waste deliveries

– Decrease due to higher cake dryness with addition of new centrifuges

(projected)

Historical Biosolids Management Costs

Relatively stable costs: $2.0-2.4 million/yr Land application is more cost effective

Biosolids Management Alternatives Background

• Land Application – Currently utilize for ~50% ($30/wet ton) – Limited from December through March

• Landfill Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) – Currently utilize for ~50% ($36/wet ton) – Future limitations for digested food waste residuals (“digestate”)

• Composting – Limited capacity in Bay Area, higher costs ($50-60+/wet ton)

• Emerging Technologies – Energy, fuel, fertilizer alternatives – Regional facilities under development ($70-$100+/wet ton)

Biosolids Management Alternatives Key Considerations

• StopWaste Ordinance requires organics generated in Alameda County to be “recycled”

• Landfill ADC may no longer qualify as beneficial reuse in order to meet State recycling goals (similar to green waste)

• Continuing pressures on land application via local regulations/prohibitions

• District interest in maintaining long-term, cost-effective, reliable options

Biosolids Management Alternatives Near-term Approach

• Consider key challenges, issues, and technologies as part of Biosolids Master Plan Update

• District intends to issue a Request for Proposals for handling contracts (early 2016)

• Oakland Food Waste: District may not send food waste digestate to landfill ADC (July 1, 2016)

– Secure near-term, non-landfill alternative for all biosolids

– Proceed with dedicated digestion/dewatering capital improvements; evaluate market for valuable fertilizer product

• Evaluate regional alternatives and new technologies

– Continuing to monitor Bay Area Biosolids-to-Energy Project

• Since 2006, the District has operated its program under the NBP Environmental Management System (EMS) framework

• In October 2014, the District successfully conducted an internal interim audit and maintained program certification by NBP

– One minor program nonconformance was identified (related to investigation following a digester gas release)

National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) Biosolids Management Program

2014 Program Audit Findings Key Strengths and Outcomes

• Effective tracking of pretreatment permits

• High level of cross-training among pretreatment inspectors

• Strong link between daily activities and strategic planning

• Improved awareness of biosolids management through the EMS program

Next Steps

• Update the Biosolids Master Plan

• Implement alternatives to ADC by July 1, 2016

• Continue to investigate new technologies, while maintaining cost-effective biosolids management practices

• Continue to manage biosolids operations under the NBP EMS framework

Food Waste Update

Planning Committee

April 14, 2015

Outline

• Background

• City of Oakland

• Preprocessing

•Next Steps

2

Background

• Began piloting food waste acceptance over 10 years ago

• Currently accept 7-10 tons per day from Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority

• More food waste to become available in the near future – 30% of what is currently landfilled in CA is

compostable, 15% is food (6M+ tons per year)

– AB 1826 requires businesses to separate and recycle organic waste

• Composting capacity is limited, and District will have early market advantage for digestion

• Oakland food scraps creates base load for project 3

City of Oakland Food Waste

• In September 2014, Oakland City Council awarded its Mixed Materials and Organics (MMO) franchise to Waste Management (WM) and directed commercial organics to the District – District will be a subcontractor to WM

– District will be contractually responsible for commercial food scraps beginning July 1, 2015 • For a 1-year start-up period, District will divert

material to compost operation(s)

– District to begin processing food scraps on site by July 1, 2016

4

Status of WM Subcontract Negotiations

• 3 negotiation meetings held since MMO signed

• Exchanged markups of draft subcontract

• Key Issues

– 15-Mile Limitation

– Quantity and Quality

– Disposal

5

Status of WM Negotiations

15-Mile Limitation

•Draft WM subcontract requires Alternate Facilities (for first year or back-up) to be within 15 air miles of District facility

• “15 Mile Rule” stems from StopWaste policy to reduce GHGs associated with landfill

– Applies to garbage transported to landfill, not recycling organics

•District needs flexibility to have back-ups outside 15-mile radius

6

Status of WM Negotiations

Quantity and Quality

•Near the end of negotiations, WM added language to MMO stating:

“To the extent that greater than 50 Tons of Commercial Organic Materials are Collected by CONTRACTOR or Civicorps on any day, CONTRACTOR may deliver excess Tons to the EBMUD Facility as either unprocessed or pre-processed Commercial Organic Materials.”

7

Status of WM Negotiations

Quantity and Quality

• Preprocessing generally consists of

– Size reduction

– Contaminant removal

8

Status of WM Negotiations

Quantity and Quality

• This language leads to several challenges:

– Quality of preprocessed material

•Draft subcontract does not address levels of contamination

– Increased costs of preprocessing

•Draft subcontract allows WM to “cherry-pick” the cleanest routes to preprocess, resulting in increased contamination in material to District

9

Status of WM Negotiations

Disposal

•WM contends that residuals from preprocessing must be collected by WM and disposed of at their landfill at Altamont

•District position, supported by City staff comments, is that there is no such requirement

• Implications for cost of disposal

10

Food Waste Project Overview

11

Food Scraps from Routes

Pre-processing Digestion

Slurry

Dewatering/Drying

Organic Compost Biogas

Digestate

Renewable CNG

Preprocessing

• Given the upcoming deadline to preprocess Oakland’s food waste at the WWTP, District released an RFP on Feb 20 – Minimum scope – lease and preprocessing

services

– Companies were invited to propose additional sources of organics for the facility

– Additional “value added” services include •Dedicated digestion and dewatering to produce a

higher value end product

•Renewable energy recovery (electricity or vehicle fuel)

12

Preprocessing

• Two proposals received in response to RFP – Proposers would bring additional sources of food

waste to the project

– Also offered value-added services including dewatering and CNG

• Based on recommendation of selection committee, staff is beginning negotiations with both proposers on project elements

• In parallel with RFP process, continuing to evaluate option for District to implement project

• Staff will provide an update to the Board as negotiations progress

13

Next Steps

• Continue negotiations with WM and engagement with City

– City Council will hear updates on Zero Waste contracts at April 21 meeting

– District staff will provide a Fact Sheet for Board use

• Begin negotiations with preprocessing contractors

• Staff will provide further updates to Board as negotiations progress

14

Physical Security Vulnerability Assessment Update

Planning Committee

April 14, 2015

Presentation Overview

• Background and Overview of District’s Vulnerability Assessment

• Industry Standards and Requirements

•District’s Proposed Approach

• Long-Term Plan

•Next steps

Background and Overview

• Bioterrorism Act of 2002

•Original Security Vulnerability Assessment conducted in 2003

• Used to establish the original security program and help guide investments in physical security

• Approach based on risk assessment for federal facilities

Standards and Approach

• ANSI/ASME – ITI/American Water Works Association J100 Standard (2010)

• Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Asset Protection (RAMCAPTM)

• Common risk assessment framework for water sector

• Risk-based vulnerability analyses

Why Update the VA Now?

• Standards set vulnerability assessment

• Tools now available to apply standards

– RAMCAPTM process

• AWWA Standard G430 Standard

– Update VA at least every 5 years

Project Approach

• Use consultant with expertise to evaluate 7 representative water system facilities

•Develop template for facility inspections

•Develop executable tool to evaluate additional facilities and hazards

• Use District staff for on-going assessments

Long Term Plan

• Prioritize mitigation

• Include mitigation in capital projects

• Review every 5 years

Schedule

• Initial Meetings and Facility Inspections – May/June 2015

• Analysis and Evaluation – September 2015

• Final Report and Deliverables – November 2015

Next Steps

• Award contract at Regular Board Meeting this afternoon

• Execute contract

• Initiate kickoff meeting