City of Bellingham Biosolids Planning Core Team Meeting

City of Bellingham Biosolids Planning – Core Team Meeting October 19, 2017

Health and Safety Minute Brown and Caldwell 2

House Fires Tips to follow to prevent fire hazards at home

Subtitle is Arial Major Causes of • Subtitle is Arial House Fires • • Cooking Fires Careless Smoking Heating Equipment Electrical Equipment/Failures Inadequate Wiring Candle Fires Children Playing with Fire

Tips for Preventing Major House Fire Hazards • • Inspect Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarms per manufacturer’s recommendations (minimum once a year) Cooking Fires • Stay in kitchen while cooking • Avoid distractions while cooking • Keep combustibles away from heat sources (dish towels, paper towels)

Additional Tips • • Careless Smoking – avoid smoking indoors Heating Equipment • • • Have furnaces/heaters inspected as directed by manufacturer Have fireplace cleaned and inspected annually Keep portable heaters away from anything that can burn (at least 3 feet)

Additional Tips • Electrical Equipment • • • Ensure this equipment doesn’t have loose or frayed cords/outlets Don’t overload outlets Don’t run electrical wires under rugs or heavy equipment Don’t overuse extension cords Beware of do-it-yourself electrical projects (use licensed electrician)

Subtitle is Arial Additional Tips • Subtitle is Arial • Inadequate Wiring • • Might exist in older homes and apartments Warning Signs: • • • You have to disconnect one appliance to plug in another Fuses blow or circuit breakers trip frequently Lights dim when you use another appliance Refer to National Fire Protection Association for further information/tips (http: //www. nfpa. org/item. Detail. asp? category. ID=953&item. ID=23071&URL=Research/Fire%20 statistics/The%20 U. S. %20 fire%20 problem)

Agenda Topic Description Leader Introduction (5 mins) Review agenda and meeting objectives Tadd Phase 2 Overview (15 mins) • Review work approach and key meetings • Objectives for Phase 2 Tadd Phase 2 Process Trains (45 minutes) • Summary of Phase 1 conclusions • Summary of technologies • Proposed process trains for consideration Steve Krugel Market Assessment (45 • Determine next steps Steve Wilson mins) • Local/regional market demand? • Privatization potential? • Regionalization potential? • Supplemental feedstocks (FOG, food waste)? Flow and Loading Projections (45 mins) Next Steps (10 mins) Brown and Caldwell • Reminder of major assumptions • Range of possible outcomes • Next steps to confirm basis of analysis/design Susanna/ Anne Tadd 9

Phase 2 Overview Brown and Caldwell 10

Phase 1 Decisions Market Assessment

Phase 2 Work Plan Market Assessment $ Cost Estimate

Phase 3 – Implementation Plan Activities Market Assessment

Phase 2 Process Trains Brown and Caldwell 14

Conclusions from Phase 1 • Stabilization – anaerobic digestion • Biosolids end use – class A product for local distribution • Offsite component – soil blending or composting process • Biogas end use – to be determined (assumed CHP)

Pathways to a Class A Product Class B Digestion Mesophilic Thermophilic (w/o batch tanks) Temp Phased (w/o batch tanks) Meso + Post-Aerobic Digestion Class A Composting Class A Product Class A Digestion Thermophilic (w/ batch tanks) Temp Phased (w/ batch tanks) Acid/Gas (w/ batch tanks) Aerobic + Anaerobic Top Soil Blending Brown and Caldwell 16

Pathways to a Class A Product Class B Digestion Mesophilic Thermophilic (w/o batch tanks) Temp Phased (w/o batch tanks) Meso + Post-Aerobic Digestion Class A Composting Class A Product Class A Digestion Thermophilic (w/ batch tanks) Temp Phased (w/ batch tanks) Acid/Gas (w/ batch tanks) Aerobic + Anaerobic Top Soil Blending Brown and Caldwell 17

Rationale for Recommended Digestion Processes • Thermophilic alone poses little advantage over temperature phased • Acid/gas is less proven, offers no significant benefit over temperature phased, and has higher risk of nuisance odors. • Post-aerobic provides little additional value at increased operating/energy cost Brown and Caldwell 18

Feasible End Use - Biogas • Heating • Electrical power generation • Pipeline injection of upgraded biogas • Direct sale to natural gas utility (sale of energy value only) • Third party vehicle fuel use (sale of energy value and RINs) Combined Heat and Power • Direct vehicle fueling of upgraded biogas Pipeline Brown and Caldwell Vehicle Fueling 19

Biogas Commentary • Flares are mandatory as an emergency backup • Heating in some form is mandatory. All options will include a gas-fired boiler as at least a backup. • Electricity generation is only possible with a CHP system. At this level, engine-generators are assumed. • Biogas upgrading technology assumed to be membranes for now. • Pipeline injection with sale to a third party offers the best flexibility and economics of biomethane end uses Brown and Caldwell 20

Alternative 1 –Class B Digestion and Composting or pipeline injection Class A Composting Mesophilic (Class B) Brown and Caldwell 21

Alternative 2 – Enhanced Class B Digestion and Composting or pipeline injection Temperature Phased Class A Composting (no batch tanks, Class B) Brown and Caldwell 22

Alternative 3 – Class A Digestion and Soil Blending or pipeline injection Temperature Phased (w/ batch tanks, Class A) Brown and Caldwell 23

Alternative 4 – Aerobic/Anaerobic Class A Digestion and Soil Blending (backup) O 2 pipeline injection Temperature Phased Autothermal Aerobic Digestion (ATAD) Class A Brown and Caldwell 24

Market Assessment Brown and Caldwell 25

Where’s it going to go? Basic Questions: 1. How are biosolids currently being handled in the area and where could biosolids potentially be taken? 2. How does the current market volume compare to what Bellingham would potentially contribute? 3. What’s the market’s general interest in a Bellingham Class A product? 4. How to effectively market the product? Class A Product ?

Steps to Develop a Biosolids Market 1. How are biosolids currently being handled in the region and where could biosolids potentially be taken? 2. How does the current market volume compare to what Bellingham would potentially contribute? 3. What’s the area market’s general interest in a Bellingham Class A product? 4. How to effectively market the product? Step 1 Quantify current practices and area potential Step 2 Personal contact and interviews (parallel with offsite location search) Step 3 Implement product marketing plan

Step 1. Current Practices and Area Potential • Inventory agricultural land in the area and define specific crop acreages. • Identify commercial compost and top soil facilities within 100 miles • Identify potential internal (e. g. , City) and other uses (WSDOT, WWU, etc) • Contact representative municipalities in NW WA and define current practices • Identify contract hauling and land application options and planning level cost • Identify landfill options (emergency backup) and cost

Step 2. Assess Class A Product Markets • Identify commercial facilities, determine interest in Class A cake as a feedstock for current operation (potentially avoids offsite operation) • Connect with Whatcom County Extension to identify outlets for a blended soil or compost biosolids product • Develop a strategy for marketing the final product including publicity, demonstration gardens, and public outreach • Identify opportunities for product use in public works projects (reclamation, storm water treatment, parks and rec)

Step 3. Product Marketing Implementation • Complete decision making process for offsite operations (commercial feedstock or City-operated) • Establish demonstration gardens (using product from similar facilities) at the WWTP, offsite process location, and or other community locations • Develop pricing and promotional literature • Attend local events (e. g. County fair, garden club meetings, etc. ) with product samples and show plant response

Flows and Loads Projections Brown and Caldwell 31

Three primary factors affect Phase 1 solids projection 1. Population growth planning beyond: • 2016 -2036 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan • 2012 -2032 LWWSD Sewer Comprehensive Plan 2. Assumed percentage of sewered population within City/UGA 3. Historical solids loading measured at Post Point WWTP

Basis of the Phase 1 Solids Loading Projection 1. Population growth: Straight line growth extrapolation between end of planning period to 2045 2. Assumed sewer fraction: 100% sewered population within City and UGA 3. Historical solids loading: Based on influent samples

Sewered Population

Sewered Population

Sewered Population

1+2. Combined Impact to Solids Loading Projection is ~20% decrease 45, 000 ~4, 700 pp Average Annual TSS Load, ppd 40, 000 35, 000 ~4, 700 pp 30, 000 25, 000 20, 000 15, 000 Phase 1 projection 10, 000 2036 = buildout 5, 000 0 1996 Constant unsewered fraction, 2036 = buildout 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

3. Solids are measured in the following locations 1 2 influent sampling 3 4 To Disposal # Solids sampling

3. Influent loading has consistently been higher than solids loading by ~4, 000 lbs/day since ~2012 30, 000 25, 000 ~4, 000 ppd # AA Solids 20, 000 15, 000 10, 000 Measured Incinerator Feed Measured Influent TSS 5, 000 0 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

TSS per capita influent loads on high side of normal range Facility Name State Date BOD Load, ppcd TSS load, ppcd Bellingham WA 2014 - 2016 0. 24 Bainbridge Island WA 2010 - 2012 0. 25 0. 22 West County CA 0. 22 Rock Creek OR 2008 - 2010 0. 23* 0. 21 Caldwell ID 0. 15 0. 21 San Mateo CA 0. 21* 0. 21 Richmond CA 2013 - 2015 0. 17 0. 21 Palo Alto CA 0. 2 0. 19 Sunnyvale CA 2011 - 2012 0. 22* 0. 19 San Jose CA 0. 21 0. 19 Oak Harbor WA 2009 - 2011 0. 23* 0. 17 Central Contra Costa Sanitation District CA 2010 - 2012 4 th Ed 0. 19 0. 17 0. 19 0. 21 Metcalf and Eddy Textbook Avg Notes: * Measured as CBOD. Converted to BOD assuming CBOD/BOD = 1. 17

3. In a primary clarifier, influent solids should be equal to solids leaving in the effluent + sludge primary effluent primary influent primary sludge

1/ 98 1/ 19 1/ 99 1/ 20 1/ 00 1/ 20 1/ 01 1/ 20 1/ 02 1/ 20 1/ 03 1/ 20 1/ 04 1/ 20 1/ 05 1/ 20 1/ 06 1/ 20 1/ 07 1/ 20 1/ 08 1/ 20 1/ 09 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ 20 1/ 11 1/ 20 1/ 12 1/ 20 1/ 13 1/ 20 1/ 14 1/ 20 1/ 15 1/ 20 16 /1 9 1/ 1 TSS Load, ppd 3. Mass balance around the primary clarifiers doesn’t match up 10, 000 lb/d solids unaccounted fo 30, 000 25, 000 PS Load PE Load Influent Load 20, 000 15, 000 10, 000 5, 000 0

3. But, the 4 solids measurements show similar lb/day results 1 + 2 ~3 ~ 4 1 2 influent sampling 3 # 4 To Disposal Solids sampling

Three factors combined could account for up to 40% variability 60, 000 Incinerator Loading AA ppd 50, 000 ~21, 000 pp 40, 000 30, 000 20, 000 Measured aa Data Projection Based on modeling Projections starting at 2017, constant sewered fraction, 2036 = buildout 10/16 - 4/17 2036 = buildout 10, 000 0 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

Recommended Path Forward • Continue using Phase 1 assumptions for Phase 2 work • Evaluate the impact of assumptions on phasing options near the close of Phase 2 • Develop a game plan to identify and resolve the discrepancy to the starting point for solids loading by the close of Phase 2

NEXT STEPS Brown and Caldwell 46

Next Steps 1. Wrapping up Tech Memo 1 2. Public Involvement Plan Update with Enviro. Issues 3. Confirm approach/extent of Step 1 of Market Assessment

NOT USED Brown and Caldwell 48

Conceptual Alternatives Brown and Caldwell 49

Offsite Assessment Brown and Caldwell 50

Offsite Assessment Objective • Determine if an offsite alternative is viable for consideration • Evaluated parcels within and near Bellingham for viability either as a soil blending site or as a remote solids processing facility • Assumed trucking dewatered cake to an off-site facility (aka, Alternative 3) would need to be limited to within 25 miles of Post Point • Assumed pumping undigested sludge to an offsite facility (aka Alternative 4) would need to be limited to within 10 miles of Post Point Brown and Caldwell 51

Offsite Considerations • Advantages • Easier implementation of co-digestion • Reduces trucking and neighborhood impacts to Fairhaven • Economy of scale/regional option • Could preserve future capacity for Post Point Liquids treatment • Could open door to privatization options Brown and Caldwell • Disadvantages • Land purchase • Permitting • Conveyance from Post Point • Operations staff at 2 locations 52

Confirmed: Offsite Areas Available Brown and Caldwell 53

Biosolids Composting in Washington • Cheney – Class A compost from yard waste and wood chips feed stock; Marketed as “Eco Green” with bulk sale to public ($14/cu. /yd. ) • Everett – 200 to 5 oo cu. /yds per year produced from wood waste, turf grass, thatch, etc. Aerated static pile. Used on City properties. • Granite Falls – Class A compost from sawdust and wood waste. Public available • La Conner – Class A from yard waste and wood chips. Available for public sale; $30, 000 revenue/year • Langley – Class A compost from ground yard waste. In operation since 2007. Available to public (sale? ) Brown and Caldwell • Lynden – Aerated static pile. 8000 t/year. ECS designed system. Not sure about public availability. • Monroe – Approx. 200 t/year to Corrections Honor Farm. Private vendor – Qualco. Available to farmers? • Port Townsend – Class A compost with yard waste. Available to public ($12/cu/yard). Static pile with screening • Spokane Co. – Class A with variety of feed stocks. Private vendor – Barr Tech. Available to public for sale. • Richland – Class A with yard waste. 650 dry t/year. Located at landfill site. Available to public for sale. • West Port – ECS design. In vessel composting with wood chips. 2500 t/year. Unclear if available to public. 54

Agenda Market Assessment