City of Grand Forks Staff Report Service/Safety Committee May 27, 2014 City Council June 2, 2014

Agenda Item: City Project # 6909 – Management Facility Plan Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps

Submitted by: Todd Feland, City Administrator Melanie Parvey, Water Works Division Director LeahRae Amundson, Public Works Operations Division Director

Staff Recommended Action: (1) Approve and adopt the Grand Forks WWTP Biosolids Management Facilities Plan, with the recommendation to proceed with implementation of Alternative 4 – Dewatering and Extended Air Drying; (2) Approve the professional services agreement with Black and Veatch in the amount of $129,500 in order to proceed with the proposed dewatering and extended air drying pilot study, subject to City Attorney Offices review and approval; and (3) Approve an associated budget amendment from the WWTP Construction Reserve Account, subject to Finance Department review and approval.

Committee Recommended Action: Moved to City Council with recommendation to approve.

Council Action:

BACKGROUND:

Over the course of the past 18 months, the City of Grand Forks (City), along with the consulting team of Black and Veatch (B&V), Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services (AE2S), and Burns and McDonnell, have been working to update the master plan for the City’s proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Biosolids Management Facility. Since the commissioning of the WWTP in 2003, the facility has been operating an interim solids processing strategy with further consideration of a long-term solids handling improvement project. The interim strategy has consisted of diverting solids from the WWTP to the nearby wastewater treatment lagoon network (specifically, cell Primary Cell 2 (PC2)) for interim treatment. Recognizing that current strategy is interim in nature, the City initiated the Biosolids Management Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) to determine the most appropriate way to accomplish long-term dewatering, digestion, drying, and disposal of solids generated at the WWTP. Once implemented, another key benefit of the permanent biosolids management facility is that the City will be one step nearer to its long-term goal of decommissioning a portion of the wastewater lagoon acreage to the benefit operations at the Grand Forks Regional Airport.

Key Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the course of the study, the study team included multiple key external stakeholders to the process. These stakeholders included the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), USEPA Region 8, the Grand Forks Regional Airport, and key industry stakeholders (namely J.R. Simplot Company). A summary of the activities performed/to be performed with these stakeholders is as follows:

• NDDH – both the Divisions of and Water Quality were engaged at various points of the study development process through conference calls and written correspondence. Upon City Council approval, it is intended that the final draft report, along with the intended next steps of the City, will be forwarded to these agencies for formal review and comment. • USEPA Region 8 – similar to NDDH, USEPA Region 8 (who maintains regulatory primacy over biosolids disposal practices) was engaged in the study process to ensure their understanding of the City’s planning efforts for long-term biosolids management. • Grand Forks Regional Airport – considering the proposed facilities proximity to the airport, specific study documentation and Federal Aviation Administration reference information was reviewed and summarized in a technical memorandum for review and comment by airport staff. • J.R. Simplot Company - It is anticipated at the time of startup that Simplot will contribute approximately 41% of the solids loading to the new biosolids facility on a daily basis. In order to ensure that they are fully aware of the City’s intentions for long- term biosolids management, the study team conducted multiple review meetings with local and corporate Simplot staff to review alternatives and costs being developed. Additionally, a detailed Cost of Service Analysis was performed of the preferred alternative for a future test year in order to relay the likely wastewater service cost impacts to Simplot for the construction and operations of the facility.

Biosolids Management Alternatives Evaluated At the onset of the study, four biosolids management alternatives were identified for evaluation in an alternatives selection workshop with City Staff and the consultant team. The alternatives chosen for detailed evaluation are listed in Table 1. The Master Plan provides biosolids management system evaluations for the four treatment and management options selected by City staff, including a Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) for the recommended option. The evaluations include process descriptions, equipment capacity, life-cycle cost opinions, and triple bottom line evaluations. Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis is used to incorporate social and environmental impacts, in addition to cost criteria, to develop recommendations. Table 1 - Shortlisted Biosolids and Dewatering Alternatives DEWATERING ALTERNATIVES BIOSOLIDS PROCESSING ALTERNATIVES Belt filter press Aerobic digestion with land application Centrifuge ATAD with land application Screw press Acid-gas with land application Air drying with use as intermediate/ in

Alternatives Costs Analysis Costs for each of the dewatering options evaluated in detail are listed in Table 2. Due to space constraints associated with the integration of belt filter press technology, the costs in this table include costs for a new dewatering facility for the belt press option (Alt 1); and the other options

(Alt 2 and 3) are based on use of a re-purposed existing maintenance building at the WWTP for dewatering. As shown in Table 2, costs for the centrifuge and screw press dewatering are lower than the belt press dewatering alternative studied. Table 2 - Opinion of Present Worth Costs of Dewatering Alternatives ITEM ALT 1: ALT 2: ALT 3: BELT FILTER CENTRIFUGE SCREW PRESS PRESS

Capital costs $8.72M $5.58M $7.42M Salvage value ($0.28M) 0 0 PW of capital costs $8.44M $5.58M $7.42M PW of O&M costs $5.30M $6.10M $4.16M Total present worth $13.73M $11.67M $11.58M Annualized PW costs $1.10M $0.94M $0.93M Annualized unit cost $211 $179 $178 ($/dry ton)

Costs associated with each evaluated biosolids management option are listed in Table 3. The costs in this table include screw press dewatering for each option (based on three screw presses installed within the existing WWTP maintenance facility) and dewatered cake storage for land application options (Alternative 1, 1a, 2, and 3). Costs for the air drying facility are included in Alternative 4. As shown, air drying with beneficial use at the landfill was determined to be the lowest cost option.

Table 3 - Opinion of Present Worth Costs of Biosolids Processing Alternatives ITEM ALT 1: ALT 1A: ALT 2: ALT 3: ALT 4: 60 DAY 15 DAY ATAD ANAEROBIC AIR AEROBIC AEROBIC DIGESTION DRYING DIGESTION DIGESTION

Capital costs $63.02M $33.16M $38.50M $41.11M $16.07M PW of salvage value ($3.63M) ($1.41M) ($1.75M) ($2.08M) ($0.27M) PW of capital costs $59.39M $30.76M $36.75M $39.03M $15.80M PW of O&M costs $27.48M $20.55M $17.57M $15.71M $63.56M Total present worth $86.87M $51.31M $54.33M $54.75M $22.16M Annualized PW costs $6.97M $4.11M $4.36M $4.39M $1.78M Annualized unit cost $1,336 $789 $835 $842 $341 ($/dry ton)

To include non-cost considerations in the overall evaluation criteria for the selection of a preferred alternative for the Biosolids Management Facilities, a TBL evaluation was performed on the evaluated alternatives. The results of the TBL evaluation are shown in Figure 1. As shown in the figure, Alternative 4, Air Drying, had the highest TBL score, largely driven by its relatively low costs as compared to the other alternatives considered.

Figure 1 - TBL Evaluation Results

Recommended Alternative Based on the economic and non-economic evaluation results, the City staff is recommending long-term biosolids management approach for the City is to dewater and air dry undigested waste solids for beneficial use at the City’s (MSW) landfill facility. Alternatively, biosolids land application will continue to be reviewed as an alternative. It was determined through the evaluation of this alternative by the study team that utilizing biosolids in the City’s MSW Landfill facility can provide two key benefits for the future. First, dried biosolids can be used in lieu of soil (as an alternative cover material), which will assist the City in overcoming a projected future soil deficit at the MSW Landfill. Second, the biosolids can also be used as an amendment to soil for final cover. In addition, biosolids can be land applied as part of a separate land application program

For this recommended alternative, one key consideration is the ultimate water content and digestion level of the dried biosolids prior to being utilized in the MSW landfill process. The conceptual design of the air drying facility was based on experience at the Owatonna Wastewater Treatment Facility in Southern Minnesota. City staff toured this facility to better understand the effectiveness of the process and key operational considerations. It was noted that this facility achieves greater than 50 percent total solids (TS) content after 9 to 12 months of air drying. This is dryer than what would typically be expected through evaporative drying alone; consequently, the additional benefits of the freeze-thaw cycle and heat generated by biological degradation within the biosolids piles are believed to improve drying at the Owatonna facility. While similar performance would be expected at the WWTP, pilot testing and/or staged installation of the air drying facility is recommended to confirm performance expectations prior to full-scale implementation.

Pilot Testing of Recommended Alternative As the next step in the City’s planning for Biosolids Management, the City staff is interested in conducting a Biosolids Pilot study to answer several important questions regarding solids dewatering, drying, and final end use:

• Dewatering – The pilot will test centrifuge and screw press technologies to determine which is more effective for dewatering Grand Forks solids. The pilot will also allow for the determination of key performance parameters such as percent solids in the dewatered sludge, electricity used, and polymer consumed which will assist in final design of a dewatering system. • Drying – The solids produced by the pilot will be air dried on a covered storage pad to determine how much moisture can be driven off by natural means (evaporation, freeze/thaw cycles). • Final End Use – Dried biosolids are proposed to be beneficially incorporated into the City’s MSW Landfill and/or land application. Compaction of the dried biosolids, along with potential odor during application of the biosolids, are two issues of further study. This study will evaluate the significance of these issues.

In order to complete the pilot testing, the City has preliminarily begun work with the consultant team to outline the requirements for the Study. There are a number of items that need to be considered in the execution of the pilot and, accordingly, a protocol must be developed to outline the specific activities and division of responsibilities in order to ensure all of the appropriate information is gathered through the course of the study.

In order to replicate the extended air drying alternative, the proposed timeframe for the pilot study is June 2014 through May 2015. Specifically, the production of biosolids cake material to be spread in the pilot scale air drying beds is to occur in two separate two-week intervals. This activity is proposed to occur in June and August of 2014. The material generate will then be allowed to sit for an extended timeframe to replicate the proposed full-scale process.

Regarding costs for the pilot study, the consulting team of B&V and AE2S working in concert with City staff has developed a draft agreement with an associated scope and fee outline that is attached to this staff report. The total proposed fee for this work is $129,500. In addition to the professional services included, the fee amount proposed is inclusive of dewatering equipment rentals, odor evaluation equipment needs, and other miscellaneous reimbursables that will be required to complete the work. In addition to costs of the professional services agreement, it is also expected that additional costs of approximately $25,000 dollars will be incurred directly by the City in laboratory costs and for the improvement of the proposed pilot study drying area at the WWTP. City staff recommends that these costs be paid out of the WWTP Construction Reserve Account.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION MOVING FORWARD:

• City Council approves and adopts the Grand Forks WWTP Biosolids Management Facilities Plan, with the recommendation to proceed with implementation of Alternative 4 – Dewatering and Extended Air Drying.

• City Council approves the professional services agreement with Black and Veatch in the amount of $129,500 in order to proceed with the proposed dewatering and drying pilot.

• Upon completion of the pilot study, City Staff will report back to the City Council on the results of the study and a refined course of action (if necessary) based on information gleaned from the study.

ATTACHED SUPPORT MATERIALS: • Draft Professional Services Agreement with Black and Veatch

• Overview Presentation to be provided at Service/Safety (Provided at the Service/Safety Committee on May 27, 2014)

Attachment A

30 May 2014 FACILITIES PLAN SHAWN GADDIE – SCOTT FRONEK BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT –

BLACK &VEATCH

AE2S

AGENDA Project Drivers Solids Quantities Biosolids - Stabilization Biosolids - Dewatering Biosolids - End Uses Alternative Evaluations Next Steps

2 PROJECT DRIVERS

3 PROJECT DRIVERS • • • • DRIVERS PROJECT strategy decommissioning lagoon for on course City sets long Implementing PC2 nearing its solids storage capacity treatment for (PC2) system to solids lagoondiverts strategy Interim facility management solids longof a is absentWWTP Current - term solids treatment treatment solids term

- term

4

PROJECT DRIVERS

PC2 Biosolids Accumulation

Lagoon Decommissioning

5 PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

• NDDH • Water Quality Division – WWTP Effluent Discharge • Waste Management Division – Landfill Storage, Soil Amendment, Beneficial Use • EPA Region 8 • Maintains regulatory primacy over biosolids disposal practices for ND • Grand Forks International Airport • Ongoing discussion/interface due to proximity to the airport • J.R. Simplot Company • Contributes 40% of biosolids to the WWTP

6 PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS 2014 2012 2003 HISTORY PROJECT • • • • • • • completed to Update permit Landfill began to Update permit landfill and concurrently to for City Desire update biosolids plan renewal for up permit Landfill treatment for PC2 lagoon storage to biosolids divert to plan adopted Interim ManagementFacilitiesPlan Biosolids of Completion

Plan Facilities Management Biosolids Biosolids has been renewed been has

Management Facilities

Plan BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 7

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

• • • • PLAN FACILITIES PURPOSE disposal current and future regulatoryrequirementsfuture and current meet to management strategies and processing Serve aroadmapas for future decision making Provide cost environmental impact reduce and principles acceptable sustainability Incorporate and socially Identify

and develop OF THE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT BIOSOLIDS THE OF - efficientbiosolids technologies for

long - term biosolids BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 8

SOLIDS QUANTITIES

9 SOLIDS QUANTITIES • • WAS Production WAS Production PARAMETER WAS Flow WAS TS WAS VS removal Phosphorus future includes planning Solids users. other industry, for allowance plus people of 11,000 increase on population based quantities solids Future QUANTITIES SOLIDS

UNITS dtpd %VS %TS ppd gpd

AVERAGE ANNUAL

92,500 27,000 44.6% 2013 3.5% 13.5

AVERAGE ANNUAL 98,000 28,600 44.6% 2025 3.5% 14.3

AVERAGE ANNUAL 103,500 30,200 44.6% 2035 3.5% 15.1

BlackVeatch &

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM 169,600 MONTH 49,600 38.9% 2035 3.5% 24.8

30 May 2014 May 30

10 BIOSOLIDS – A TYPICAL FACILITY • Stabilization • Reduces pathogens • Dewatering • Removes water; most biosolids are generated in liquid form • End Use • What options exist for final use and disposal?

11 BIOSOLIDS - STABILIZATION

12 STABILIZATION Autothermal ThermophilicAerobic Enhanced • CONSIDERED OPTIONS Lime/Alkaline stabilization Alternatives Evaluation CLASS A OPTIONS Digestion Thermal Drying Thermal Composting digestion (TPAD,digestion THP)

(ATAD)

Conventional Lime/Alkaline stabilization /gasification Lagoon stabilization OPTIONS B CLASS solar or Air Aerobic digestion

anaerobic digestion drying BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30

13 STABILIZATION Autothermal ThermophilicAerobic Enhanced • • • • EVALUATED OPTIONS Alternatives Screening Alternatives Lime/Alkaline stabilization Use Landfill with Drying Air Application Land with Digestion Anaerobic Application Land with ATAD with Digestion Land Application Aerobic • • • • Class B Class B Class A Class B CLASS A OPTIONS Digestion Thermal Drying Thermal Composting digestion (TPAD,digestion THP)

(ATAD)

Conventional Lime/Alkaline stabilization Incineration/gasification Lagoon stabilization OPTIONS B CLASS solar or Air Aerobic digestion

anaerobic digestion drying BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30

14 BIOSOLIDS - DEWATERING

15 Black & Veatch 30 May 2014 BIOSOLIDS - DEWATERING

• Increases solids contents of sludge by removing water • Solid content increased from 3-4% to 17-20% • Three technologies evaluated • Centrifuge • Screw Press • Belt Press • Not economically viable

Source: merrellbros.com DEWATERING

16 DEWATERING CENTRIFUGE • • Highenergy use RPM) (~3000 rate high a at sludge byspinningRemoves water

• • • More complexMore maintenance efficiencies capture greater or 95% Closed design limits odors

BlackVeatch & Source: alfalaval.com

30 May 2014 May 30

17 DEWATERING PRESS SCREW • • Lowuse energy screw againstscreens with alarge forcingRemoves water sludge

• • Simplified maintenance Simplified Closed design limits odors Source: Schwing Bioset Schwing Source: BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30

18 BIOSOLIDS - END USES

19 END USES • evaluated Options • • • • • BIOSOLIDS FOR USES END dried pellets, ) pellets, dried Distribution Distribution cake) (ClassClass or Bdewatered A Agricultural dedicated biosolidslandfill) Monofill landfill (Class B dewatered cake) Intermediate cake) dewatered stabilized disposal Landfill disposal application land and Marketing and or finalcover (unstabilized or (unstabilized

(disposalin a

in in (heat (heat

BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 20 END USES • • STUDY FURTHER FOR ALTERNATIVES SELECTED Balefill Cover Balefill Land Application • • • maintenance/final closure activities long for Provide and/or final cover in the balefill facility, potentially for intermediate Dried solids would beused to replace soil as cover use beneficial Solids applied directly to agricultural fields for

- term supplemental soilin

BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 21 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

22 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION • • • • EVALUATED OPTIONS Use Landfill with Drying Air Application Land with Digestion Anaerobic Application Land with ATAD with Digestion Land Application Aerobic • • • • Class B Class B Class A Class B

BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 23 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION EVALUATED OPTIONS Digestion Aerobic 1 Alternative ATAD 2 Alternative BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30

24 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Digestion Anaerobic 3 Alternative ATAD 4 Alternative BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30

25 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION (Loader, Spreader) (Loader, Equipment Heavy Administration & Engineering, Legal Contingencies Subtotal Construction Requirements General Sitework Subtotal Instrumentation Electrical & Cost Capital Total Drying Storage Pador Air Dewatering Digestion ITEM Total Project Project Total

COSTS OF SUMMARY

($)

Cost

LAND APPLICATION DIGESTION WITH 60 DAY AEROBIC $63.01M $34.47M $33.19M $24.54M $10.45M $12.06M $5.10 $2.07M $1.28M $3.55M $40.2M $3.65M $0.3M ALT 1: ALT 2 M

LAND APPLICATION DIGESTION WITH 15 DAY AEROBIC $32.16M $20.42M $17.51M $16.55M $5.10 $7.89M $5.31M $6.12M $1.05M $0.96M $3.55M $1.85M ALT 1A: $0.3M 2 M

ATAD WITH LAND LAND ATAD WITH $38.49M APPLICATION $12.18M $24.48M $20.08M $4.34 $0.30M $6.36M $7.34M $1.26M $0.91M $3.55M $2.22M ALT 2: ALT $21M 2 M

LAND APPLICATION DIGESTION WITH $41.11M ANAEROBIC ANAEROBIC $15.78M $26.16M $24.68M $24.16M $4.82 $0.30M $7.84M $0.53M $0.52M $3.55M $0.94M $6.8M ALT 3: ALT 2 M

$16.07M WITH LANDFILL AIR DRYING AIR DRYING $4.36 $2.55M $2.95M $0.50M $0.52M $3.55M $9.84M $0.89M $8.43M $7.91M BlackVeatch & $.72M ALT 4: USE $0 1 3

M

30 May 2014 May 30 26 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION • RECOMMENDATION Use Landfill with Drying 4: Air Alternative • • • • than less is $16M cost Can backup a is Land application City’s balefill facility Produces Class City of MN Owatonna, of City Air DryingFacility be installed be installed

B biosolids for

in phases phases in

current CIP CIP current to reduce initial costs beneficial use at the the at use beneficial budget of $18M budget of BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30

27 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION

BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 28 NEXT STEPS

29 NEXT STEPS • STUDY PILOT Further evaluate and demonstrate: evaluateFurther • • • requirements. sustain complianceNDDH landfillpermit with ongoing operational planning, approval, and beneficial andensure landfill, the use at biosolids/soil mixtures.forapproval Seek stabilization in additionstrategic to and dewatering methods for appropriate End Uses Dewatering stabilizing biosolids via air drying in Grand Forks Stabilization Pilot, evaluate, adjust, and utilize andutilize adjust, evaluate, – Pilot,

–

validate the effectiveness the – validate of compare two technologiescompare two

BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 30 NEXT STEPS • • • • STUDY PILOT Odor Testing balefill UsesEnd Stabilization Dewatering • • • • During each pilot phase, above pilot each During 2015 May 2015 April June 2014 through 2014 July June &

– biosolids pilot incorporation into

–

–

produce dewateredbiosolids biosolids drying BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 31 NEXT STEPS PILOT STUDY 4. 3. 2. 1. Steps: Study Pilot Odor TestingOdor Simulated Disposal/ Landfill Drying Simulated Extended Air Dewatering Skids Processed through Sludge Boxes fromPumped SolidsWWTP

- BlackVeatch &

30 May 2014 May 30 32 NEXT STEPS Weather) (Cold Drying (Warm Weather) Drying Dewatering PILOT STUDY COMMISSIONING CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISING AND BIDDING Final Preliminary DESIGN TASK NAME PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT

J

F

M

A

M

2014 J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

2015 J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

2016 J

J

BlackVeatch & A

S

O

N D

J

30 May 2014 May 30 F

2017 M

A

M

33 J www.bv.com