Biosolids Management and Disposal Trends

Final

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Job No. J-40-7

Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District

December 2003

Prepared by

3 uttonH Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707

In Association with CDM Tetra Tech, Inc.

W052003003SCO TITLEPAGE-CONTENTS.DOC/ 033370021 Contents

Executive Summary

Project Summary

Technical Memorandum 1 – Review of Existing District Documentation and Regulatory Outlook

Technical Memorandum 2 – Viable Biosolids Product Markets

Technical Memorandum 3 – Implementation Plan for Sustainable Product Markets

Technical Memorandum 4 – Ranking Market Alternatives

Technical Memorandum 5 – Viable Product Technologies

Technical Memorandum 6 – Cost Evaluation Model

Technical Memorandum 7 – Implementation Schedule and CIP Outline

Technical Memorandum 8 – Implementation Testing Plan

W052003003SCO TITLEPAGE-CONTENTS.DOC/ 033370021 II FINAL Final Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Executive Summary

The Orange County Sanitation District (the District) currently produces approximately 650 wet tons of digested and dewatered Class B biosolids per day. By the year 2020, biosolids production is projected to increase by about 35 percent. The District relies on land application of its Class B biosolids in Kern and Kings Counties in California, and Class B biosolids land application at the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in California, Nevada, and Arizona. Moreover, the District is committed to environmentally sound biosolids management practices that meet the stringent federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Counties throughout California and Arizona have developed, or are in the process of developing, ordinances that severely restrict or ban the land application of Class B biosolids. Recently Kern and Kings Counties banned land application of Class B biosolids. It has become clear that future requirements for managing biosolids will be more restrictive and costs will increase as current options are eliminated. The dynamic regulatory issues, land application ordinances and bans, and public perception challenges prompted the District to develop this Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The goal was to develop a sustainable, reliable, and economical program for long-range biosolids management. This Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan includes four major elements: 1. Identify long-term potential Southern California Class A biosolids products and product markets. 2. Identify the onsite and offsite facility options for manufacturing marketable products while optimizing the use of the District’s facilities necessary in treating wastewater. 3. Develop a flexible implementation plan for positioning the District to be able participate in multiple markets. 4. Continue to beneficially use biosolids and maintain conformance with the National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) Code of Good Practice. Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Development There is a wide range of products that can be developed from biosolids. The strategy for the District will be to focus its resources on developing an economical product for targeted sustainable markets. To develop and select the most sustainable biosolids management options, the consultant team utilized a business-model assessment. First, the long-term sustainable biosolids product markets were identified. Next, the steps necessary to manufacture suitable biosolids-based products for these markets were evaluated. The relationship between the top five long-term sustainable biosolids markets and products that can be generated for these markets is summarized as follows:

W052003003SCO/ES.DOC/ 033370011 1 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Outlets: Compost, dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products. x Horticulture – Ornamental and Nurseries: Compost, dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products. x Horticulture – District Member Cities and Agencies: Compost, dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products on municipal lands. x Direct Energy Production: Class B biosolids cake and dry pellets. x Silviculture – Shade Tree Programs: Compost or dry pellets and granules, and organo- mineral fertilizer products. Each market consumes several biosolids-based products, and most products can have multiple markets. For example, all five markets accept the dry pellets and granules. Next, the consultant team developed an economic model and also performed an assessment of the product technologies, based on 20 critical implementation factors, including potential odors, traffic impacts, public perception, product sustainability, and ease of implementation/ siting. These two parallel activities allowed for the true cost of each option to be assessed and compared. Based on this evaluation, the most viable biosolids product manufacturing processes are: 1. Composting 2. Heat drying 3. Energy recovery 4. Organo-mineral fertilizer manufacturing This evaluation also determined that diversification of products, product markets, and marketing contracts, as well as the availability of failsafe backup options, are critical elements to protect the District from the effects of weakening markets and failed contracts. These elements are critical because each product market has associated weaknesses, and it will likely take time to develop a product for a new market, contracts with a company within that market, or both. Finally, the District needs to maintain its current land application capacity and options, including the Class A biosolids alkaline stabilization process at its farm in Kings County and other land application sites, for as long as it is feasible and economically sound, while this long-range plan is implemented. Recommendations and Costs The biosolids management program is designed to provide flexibility and allow the District to diversify products and manufacturing through participation in both District-owned and merchant facilities. The consultant team recommends diversification using the following approach, primarily to reduce financial risk: 1. Maintain at least three different product manufacturing options at any given time. 2. Optimize capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs at the District treatment plants as part of implementation of the long-range plan. 3. Limit maximum participation for any market to one-half of the total biosolids production. 4. Limit biosolids management contracts to a maximum of one-third of total biosolids production per merchant facility, and one-half per contractor (for contractors with multiple product manufacturing facilities).

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/ES.DOC/ 033370011 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5. Maximum capacity for each District-owned product manufacturing facility to be one-half of the total biosolids production. 6. Explore funding options for in-county facilities (private capital, District capital, or both). 7. Allocate up to 10 percent of biosolids for participation in emerging markets. 8. Pursue Orange County based product manufacturing facilities and maximize the use of horticultural products within the District service area by member agencies and through developing public-private partnerships. 9. Maintain capacity and options at the District’s Central Valley Ranch. 10. Pursue failsafe backup options (landfilling, alternative daily cover [ADC] for landfills, and dedicated landfilling) to acquire a 100 percent contingency capacity. Table ES-1 presents a summary of the Plant Nos. 1 and 2 onsite improvements, associated capital costs, and the year capacity is needed. With the current biosolids processes, Plant No. 1 dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) capacity will be reached in year 2013, digestion capacity will be reached in year 2013, and dewatering capacity will be reached in year 2007. With implementation of the proposed primary and WAS thickening improvements, the need for additional dewatering and digestion capacity will be postponed to year 2013 and beyond year 2020, respectively. At Plant No. 2, the digestion and dewatering capacity is adequate for 2020 predicted loads. However, it is recommended that the existing belt filter presses be replaced with centrifuge dewatering, due to savings in biosolids management costs with drier cake.

TABLE ES-1 Onsite Biosolids Management Facilities Cost and Implementation Capital Cost, Onsite Biosolids Processing Facilities Year Capacity Needed Million $1 Plant No. 1 Onsite Biosolids Processing Facilities Primary Sludge Thickening (Centrifuge) 2008 31.2 WAS Thickening Expansion (GBT or Centrifuge) 2013 12.9 Digestion Pretreatment (Ultrasound) Note 2 10.1 Dewatering (Centrifuge) 2007 3 53.7 Plant No. 2 Onsite Biosolids Processing Facilities Digestion Pretreatment (Ultrasound) Note 2 7.7 Dewatering (Centrifuge) Note 4 39.8 Notes: 1The capital costs are for onsite process improvements only. The upgrade of existing digestion facilities will be as planned in the capital improvement program (CIP) and is not included here. 2The District is currently evaluating project delivery options for implementing ultrasound. 3With primary thickening, capacity could be expanded to 2013. 4Plant No. 2 has adequate dewatering capacity through the year 2020. However, centrifuge dewatering will result in reduction of biosolids cake volume and beneficial use costs and should be considered for implementation. GBT = gravity belt thickener

W052003003SCO/ES.DOC/ 033370011 3 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To optimize facilities sizing, pilot testing of thickening (primary sludge, WAS, and combined sludge) and dewatering may be conducted. For digesters, the impact of an increase in digester feed solids (due to improved thickening) will be evaluated on the digester mixing systems, heat exchangers, and ammonia concentration in the digesters and dewatering recycles. Because additional dewatering is needed at Plant No. 1 and similar centrifuge equipment is used for the thickening and dewatering, full-scale centrifuges may be considered for testing. Upon completion of the thickening test, the centrifuges would be relocated to the Plant No. 1 dewatering building to provide the needed capacity and allow for evaluating the impact of the dryer biosolids cake on the cake pumping system and product manufacturing technologies. Testing for product manufacturing technologies may be conducted at the District’s Central Valley Ranch and/or existing merchant facilities that use the processes under consideration. Using full-size equipment for thickening and dewatering will also provide sufficient biosolids for testing product-manufacturing technologies. It is anticipated that land application markets will continue to become less reliable due to public perception and political issues and may not be available in 3 to 5 years. The Biosolids Management Program Implementation Plan, therefore, focuses on more reliable Orange County and Southern California beneficial use markets through developing high-value products. As implementation of District-owned in-county composting or heat-drying facilities could take around 8 years, the program includes activities to immediately begin obtaining new merchant facility contracts that would enable the District to participate in more stable biosolids reuse markets. The merchant facilities will bridge the gap between the phase-out of existing reuse contracts and the startup of future District-owned facilities. Core elements of the implementation program include: x Participate in sustainable reuse markets through manufacturing higher-value products such as compost, dry pellets and granules, organo-mineral fertilizers, and energy. x Develop in-county composting (i.e., Central-North County, Joint Composting with South Orange County Wastewater Authority [SOCWA], etc.). x Develop in-county thermal drying facilities (onsite or offsite). x Participate in merchant composting and organo-mineral product manufacturing facilities. x Pursue merchant energy production (co-combustion) to allow participation in non- cropping markets. x Explore benefits and use of emerging biosolids product manufacturing technologies such as drying with hot soil and energy fuels (i.e., char). x Maintain failsafe backup reuse capacity for land application of chemically stabilized biosolids (Tule Ranch) and through reuse of biosolids products as ADC at landfills. x Obtain failsafe backup landfill capacity for biosolids landfilling (Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department [OC IWMD], Holloway Mines, etc.) Although the program has identified the need to add new thickening facilities, the digestion facilities identified in the validated capital improvement program (CIP) were eliminated. The capital cost of the program does not have a significant impact on the CIP resource allocation and provides potential savings of up to $130 million. District-owned heat-drying

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/ES.DOC/ 033370011 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY or composting facilities are not currently in the CIP. Merchant facilities are typically funded through management contract tipping fees. The District should also explore contract terms that provide funding for in-county facilities through private capital, District capital, or both. In the past 3 years, the tipping fees for biosolids land application have risen from $25 per wet ton (pwt) to $35 pwt, representing an increase of 40 percent. In the interim period, the tipping fee is expected to increase to $45 to $50 for Class A biosolids land application. The current biosolids cake solids concentration is in the range of 20 to 22 percent, resulting in a cost of $200 to $250 per dry ton (pdt) for Class A biosolids land application. The cost for manufacturing high-value products for sustainable markets is estimated at $50 to $70 pwt. With the implementation of the proposed onsite improvements, the cake solids concentration is expected to be in the range of 26 to 28 percent, resulting in a cost of $195 to $270 pdt for high-value products. This modest cost increase provides the District with diverse and reliable product markets and product manufacturing options, reduces financial risks, improves program reliability, and minimizes potential for future cost escalations.

W052003003SCO/ES.DOC/ 033370011 5 FINAL Final Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Project Summary

The Orange County Sanitation District’s (District’s) current biosolids management practices are environmentally sound and meet stringent federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. However, due to dynamic regulatory issues, and public perception challenges associated with biosolids management, the District is concerned about the long-term viability of its current program. In order to address these concerns, the District selected the team of CH2M HILL, Camp, Dresser & Mc Kee (CDM), and Tetra Tech, Inc., to prepare this Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan in accordance with the District’s biosolids management goals, which include the following: x Full support for biosolids recycling and producing Class A biosolids-based products for long-term sustainable markets. x Commitment and emphasis on local, Orange County use of these products. x Promoting safe, environmentally beneficial uses that are sensitive to the needs of the community. x Implementing the National Biosolids Partnership’s (NBP’s) Code of Good Practice as the basis for a biosolids Environmental Management System (EMS). x A program that anticipates change, provides flexibility to accommodate change, and includes failsafe backup options. x Maximizing the use, demand, and value for biosolids-based products, driven by product benefits or problem-solving features. x Establishing reliable, long-term product marketing outlets that exceed the District’s capacity to produce products. x A sustainable approach that encompasses the informed use of resources and innovative, appropriate application of technology considering vital issues of environment, economy, and social equity. x Minimizing, mitigating, or eliminating environmental impacts to participating/surrounding communities. x A technically sound plan with reduced financial risk developed through use of decision model, risk analysis, and stakeholder involvement. The approach to evaluation of the biosolids management options was focused on coordinating two key aspects: (1) identifying the viable biosolids markets, and (2) the technologies that can economically manufacture biosolids-based products for these markets.

W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 1 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

A business-type approach was used in developing this biosolids management program. The suitable markets were identified first, and then the steps necessary to produce suitable products for these markets were developed. Therefore, the first step in the program was to identify the potential range of biosolids-based products. Next, an evaluation of the markets for these products was conducted, and a shortlist of viable markets was developed. A detailed evaluation of the product manufacturing technologies also was conducted, and the viable technologies were short-listed for incorporation into a cost model. The cost model evaluated the string of onsite and offsite biosolids processing technologies needed to produce products for the viable markets. This evaluation included upgrading and optimizing the use of existing facilities, new technologies for efficient processing of the biosolids, unique challenges at each plant site, onsite and offsite District-owned and merchant product manufacturing facilities, and potential product revenue or cost. Based on this evaluation and review of the District’s existing biosolids management contracts, new facilities cost, implementation activities and schedule, and pilot testing recommendations were developed.

Existing District Biosolids Management Practices and Regulatory Outlook Currently, the District produces approximately 650 wet tons of digested and dewatered Class B biosolids per day. By the year 2020, biosolids production is projected to increase by 35 percent based on the implementation of full secondary treatment and the increase in plant flows. The District currently has four contracts for biosolids hauling and beneficial use. Approximately 60 percent of the total biosolids produced is currently land-applied in Kern and Kings Counties under the Tule Ranch contract. Approximately 30 percent of the biosolids produced are land-applied on Indian Land and private land in California, Arizona, and Nevada through the Synagro contract. The remainder is hauled to Nevada for land application under the California Soil Products contract. The Yakima Company contract cannot be used at present due to bond issues. Counties throughout California have developed, or are in the process of developing, ordinances that severely restrict or ban the land application of Class B biosolids. Both Kern and Kings Counties banned land application of Class B biosolids in January and February 2003, respectively. These ordinances severely impacted the District’s biosolids management practices. It is clear that future requirements will be more restrictive and biosolids management costs are going to increase. In response to the many issues impacting biosolids management, the District has conducted separate studies that consider various aspects of the biosolids program. This comprehensive, Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan builds on work completed to date and develops a flexible long-term strategy for meeting the District’s needs for the next 5 to 15 years. Based on review of available documents, several guidelines were defined for the evaluation of long-term management solutions. The guidelines fall within the following general categories: x Maximize the reliability of the long-term biosolids management program. x Improve public perception and confidence.

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY x Maximize the value of the work completed to date. x Realize innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally sound ideas. Resolution No. OCSD 02-18 commits the District to full support of biosolids beneficial use and implementation of the NBP’s Code of Good Practice as the basis for an EMS for its biosolids management program. In accordance with the District’s Strategic Plan, the current goals and objectives of the biosolids management program are to provide (1) 100 percent biosolids beneficial use; (2) at least one in-county management option; (3) reliability; (4) low cost; (5) multiple product options; (6) continued use of private sector hauling and land application; (7) diversification of markets; and (8) back-up options.

Identification and Ranking of Product Markets Based on the range of products available from biosolids processing technologies, several biosolids markets were identified. The relationship between the products that can be generated from biosolids and the markets for these products is summarized as follows: x Compost – Utilization of compost over a wide range of horticultural, agricultural, biomass-to-ethanol, and erosion-control applications. x Dry Pellets and Granules – Utilization of dry pellets and granules, either in fortified or unfortified state, over a wide range of horticultural, agricultural, biomass-to-ethanol, erosion-control and energy recovery applications. x Construction Materials – Utilization of dry, soil-like material in the construction industry. x Energy Products – Utilize biosolids directly or a biosolids-based fuel/char product in the energy production or energy recovery sector. x Landfilling and Alternative Cover Products – Utilize compost or dried products in landfills (as a failsafe backup option) or in the landfill operation as an alternate source of daily cover. A total of 19 markets for biosolids products were identified. Consistent with the product characteristics and features, the markets were assigned to two broad categories – cropping and non-cropping markets. These markets were then evaluated based on a number of factors, such as legal restrictions, market risk, public perception, political constraints, etc. The summary of this evaluation is presented in Table PS-1. To assist in the review of the markets, color-coding was used in Table PS-1, with red indicating high-risk aspects of a market, yellow indicating aspects requiring caution, and green representing low risk. Landfilling and ADC markets were not color-coded because these should be considered failsafe or backup options. Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch was not color- coded because this alternative can also be utilized as a failsafe, backup option for the biosolids products. Market categories that are colored in red will not be considered any further. The viable market alternatives (see green sections of Table PS-1) were ranked using the criteria, factors and methodology established during close coordination with District staff,

W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 3 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY and the top five markets were selected. Based on the ranking results, the following marketing program evolved. 1. The District should actively pursue the top five product markets. These markets utilize biosolids products for a wide range of horticulture/silviculture markets or in direct energy production. The top five markets are: x Horticultural – Blending and Bagging for Retail Outlets: Utilizing compost, dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products.

x Horticulture – Ornamental and Nurseries: Utilizing compost, dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products.

x Horticultural – Member Agencies: Utilizing compost, dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products.

x Direct Energy Production: Utilizing biosolids in the energy production or energy recovery sector.

x Silviculture – Shade Trees Programs: Utilizing compost or dry pellets and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizer products. 2. Additionally, the District needs to actively pursue all available backup failsafe options, including landfilling, ADC at landfills, and dedicated landfilling disposal, to acquire at least a 100 percent contingency capacity. 3. The District needs to maintain its current land application capacity and options, including the Central Valley Ranch and other land application sites, for as long as is feasible and economically sound. Identification of Viable Product Technologies In recent years, a great deal of effort has been invested in developing technologies for processing of biosolids, largely due to changes in the beneficial use and disposal options for biosolids management and the associated costs. The changes in beneficial use options have primarily been driven by public concerns, resulting in regulatory changes that impact the biosolids beneficial use options. Traditionally, much of the digested biosolids of Class B quality in Southern California have been applied to agricultural land or disposed of in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. One of the key public concerns has been odor, which has led to questions of public health and issues such as air quality, traffic, and land application practices. In response to these concerns and the changing local regulations, the biosolids management entities have focused on developing high-value biosolids-based products.

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

TABLE PS-1 Biosolids Markets Summary and Evaluation Estimate of Perceived Public Product Market Current Future Legal Market Perception Limits and Political Assessment of History Strength Market Size Markets Competitors Restrictions Risk Issues Preferences Economics Constraints CEQA Implementation Cropping Markets Existing Program Baseline – Non-food-chain Substantial Poor and 31,000 Uncertain Many; over Severe and Very risky Strongly Poor farmer Reasonable Severe and General Infeasible Cropping, Class B and proven failing DTPY1 (85 4,500 WTPD worsening negative acceptance; yet worsening worsening order under DTPD- prefer other litigation 41%); types 205,000 DTPY2 (560 DTPD- 274%) Horticulture – Member Agencies Substantial Good 5,100 10,000 DTPY4 Many; current None Somewhat Good Normal $0 to $30 per Low None Feasible; and proven DTPY3 (14 (28 DTPD- local risky ton revenue demonstrations, DTPD- 7%) 14%) suppliers sales mgt. Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Substantial Good Uncertain 78,000 DTPY Many None Somewhat Good Normal $0 to $88 per Low None Feasible; and proven (214 DTPD- risky ton revenue demonstrations, 104%)5 sales mgt. Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Substantial Good 66,000 86,000 DTPY Many None Somewhat Good Normal $0 to $7 per Low None Feasible; and proven DTPY (181 (236 DTPD- risky ton revenue demonstrations, 6 DTPD-88%) 115%)7 sales mgt. Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Substantial High 0 194 DTPY (0.5 Few None Somewhat Good Normal $55 to $100 Low None Feasible; and proven DTPD-0.3%) risky per tree cost demonstrations, sales mgt. Energy/Silviculture – Biomass Crops Substantial Good 0 453,000 DTPY Few Undeveloped Somewhat Good Normal Uncertain Low None Feasible; highly and proven (1,242 DTPD- risky challenging; need 606%)8 big project partner Citrus, Avocado, Vineyard and Orchard Substantial Poor and Uncertain Uncertain Conventional Severe and Very Risky Strongly Poor farmer $0 to Severe and None Infeasible and proven failing and organic worsening negative acceptance; Uncertain worsening but SE U.S. fertilizers salt sensitive Orange County Vegetable Growers Substantial Poor and 0 Uncertain Conventional Severe and Very risky Strongly Poor farmer $0 to $140 Severe and None Infeasible and proven failing and organic worsening negative acceptance; per ton worsening but MW and fertilizers highly salt revenue SE U.S. sensitive Bulk Agricultural Crop Markets Substantial Poor 0 Very little None None High Strongly Poor farmer Poor Severe and None Infeasible and proven negative acceptance worsening Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley High 0 37,500 DT/Y9 None None Low Negative High farmer Poor Severe and None Feasible Ranch (102.5 DTPD- acceptance worsening 50%) Mexico Export Markets Unproven Poor 0 Very little Conventional Severe Very risky Strongly Poor farmer Poor High Unknown Infeasible fertilizers negative acceptance Non-Cropping Markets Direct Energy Substantial Strong Very large Very large Few Substantial Onsite – Negative Range from Reasonable High Extensive Difficult but and proven permitting low; very dry to achievable but other requirements Offsite – wet cake; parts of U.S. high Normal and Europe Erosion Control Recent in Developing Small Small Many; None Low Good Normal $520 to Low None Difficult; Western U.S. aggressive $555 per ton demonstrations revenue Caltrans

W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 5 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

Direct Landfilling Substantial Strong 150,000 69,000 DTPY Many Somewhat Low Negative Normal | $40 per ton High None Difficult but and proven DTPY (410 (189 DTPD- difficult cost achievable DTPD- 92%)11 200%)10 Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover Substantial Strong 205,000 205,000 DTPY Many; Somewhat High Negative Normal | $40 per ton Low None Feasible but and proven DTPY (560 (560 DTPD- aggressive difficult cost challenging DTPD- 273%) 273%)12 Construction Market Recent and Strong 0 Over 205,000 Many Low Low Good Normal | $35 per ton Low None Feasible but small DTPY (560 cost challenging DTPD-273%) Non-Construction Market Recent and Strong 0 Over 205,000 Many Low Low Negative Normal | $35 per ton Low None Feasible but small DTPY (560 cost challenging DTPD-273%) Dedicated Land Disposal Substantial Variable 0 150,000 DTPY Several County Low Negative Normal | $30 to $55 High None Feasible but and proven (410 DTPD- POTWs Permits per ton cost challenging 200%)13 Fuel usage Recent and Variable Uncertain Limited Several Some Low Negative Normal Expensive; Low None Difficult small POTWs No Revenue *Requires further processing COLOR KEY: Red = Parameter that ranks poor or unacceptable – high risk Yellow = Parameter that ranks fair or is of some concern – requires caution Green = Parameter that ranks good or acceptable – low risk

1Fort Mojave Indian Reservation through Synagro contract 2Arizona land application @ 20 tons per acre over 50,000 permitted acres 369,000 cubic yards per year @ 2.2 CY/T @ 50:50 blend ratio of biosolids compost to admixtures equals 16,000 WT/Y compost product; compost to cake conversion @ 1.58 Tcake/Tcompost yields 24,800 Tcake @ 20.5% TS = 5,100 DT/Y 469,000 cubic yards per year @ 2.2 CY/T @ 100% biosolids compost equals 32,000 WT/Y compost product; compost to cake conversion @ 1.58 Tcake/Tcompost yields 50,000 Tcake @ 20.5% TS = 10,000 DT/Y 5Based on potential California demand for landscaping, delivered topsoil, container nurseries, field nurseries and sod reduced by 50% for Southern California portion of market and using a 40% biosolids compost blend; yields 1,310,000 CY/Y @ 2.2 CY/T @ 40% biosolids compost = 240,000 T/Y biosolids compost; convert to cake @ 1.58 = 380,000 T/Y cake @ 20.5% TS = 78,000 DT/Y 6Based on current Southern California demand for biosolids compost by top five compost producer/retailers @ 204,000 T/Y; convert to cake @ 1.58 = 322,000 T/Y cake @ 20.5% TS = 66,000 DT/Y 7Based on projected Southern California demand for biosolids compost by top five compost producer/retailers @ 266,500 T/Y (year 2004 and increasing @ 2%/Y); convert to cake @ 1.58 = 421,000 T/Y cake @ 20.5% TS = 86,000 DT/Y 8Based on 70,000 Ac property @ 20 T/Ac/Y compost = 1,400,000 T/Y compost; convert to cake @ 1.58 = 2,210,000 T/Y cake @ 20.5% TS = 453,000 DT/Y 9Based on projected capacity of 500 T/D @ 20.5% TS = 102.5 DT/D yields 37,500 DT/Y 10Based on 2,000 T/D cake @ 20.5% TS = 410 DT/D = 74,800 DT/Y 11Based on 920 T/D cake @ 20.5% TS = 189 DT/D = 69,000 DT/Y 12Based on 1,000,000 T/Y cake @ 20.5% TS = 560 DT/D = 205,000 DT/Y 13Based on 2,000 T/D cake @ 20.5% TS = 410 DT/D = 150,000 DT/Y

FINAL 6 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

In order to evaluate the wide range of product technologies and their applicability to Southern California, and to the District in particular, a number of evaluation criteria were developed in a workshop with District staff. Each criterion was assigned a weighting factor to reflect the relative importance of that criterion. The biosolids product technologies were then grouped into 13 broad categories, such as composting and heat drying. An initial screening-level review was conducted to identify any categories that might have “fatal flaws,” such as the inability to meet Exceptional Quality (EQ) product standards; this review resulted in elimination of three categories. A more detailed review was then conducted on various processes available within each of the 10 remaining technology categories. The documentation provided by vendors to the District and the consultant team was reviewed, meetings and telephone discussions with the vendors were conducted, and, where applicable, the existing installations were contacted to obtain operation and performance information. Based on this evaluation the five most viable options for the District are:

1. Aerated pile composting, with an enclosed facility. The enclosed facility, using aerated static pile or agitated bin composting, will provide advantages over an unenclosed facility through location and flexibility to meet changing air regulations. 2. Heat drying. The relative merits of direct and indirect systems will be considered in more detail at a later date. An onsite or local facility is preferred to offsite regional facilities due to provision of an in-county management option, reduced truck hauling volumes and distances, and better management control. 3. Organo-mineral fertilizer process to produce a high-value fertilizer product. In these processes, chemical addition prior to drying provides the advantage of reducing fuel consumption in the drying process. 4. Co-combustion. Uses high temperature processes for energy production, allowing recovery of the fuel value of the biosolids for non-cropping markets. 5. Pyrolysis and indirect heat drying (with soil) for production of fuel products and construction material, respectively. These emerging technologies generate products for non-cropping markets and are expected to be commercially feasible in near future. Cost Model Evaluation of the potential biosolids management technologies was accomplished using a cost model that ties together the mass balances for liquid and solids handling facilities with sizing and costing of a wide range of biosolids processing and product manufacturing options. After development and validation of the model, it was used to evaluate onsite biosolids processing options for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, as well as combined dewatering options and comparisons of product manufacturing technologies and markets. The model was also used to assess the impacts of proposed new biosolids processes on the capacity and performance of existing biosolids treatment facilities and to determine the upgrade needs. Through this evaluation, new biosolids processing facilities and upgrades of existing unit processes that will improve performance and reduce the overall biosolids management costs were identified for Plant Nos. 1 and 2. These facilities and upgrades will be further

W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 7 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY developed and refined in the next phase of this project through pilot testing, evaluation of similar operating installations, and preparation of conceptual sizing and layouts. The proposed facilities and upgrades are as follows: x Add primary sludge thickening at Plant No. 1. x Install new waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening to achieve solids concentration of 6 percent or more at Plant No. 1. x Explore options to prethicken WAS through selector process, secondary clarifier improvements, and/or prethickening x Install ultrasound for digestion pretreatment. x Continue using mesophilic digestion. x Install high solids centrifuge dewatering to produce a drier cake. x Consider combining the dewatering facilities for Plant Nos. 1 and 2 (onsite or offsite). x Develop in-county composting for producing value-added products for viable local markets. x Develop in-county thermal drying and optimize capacity to balance products and costs. x Pursue merchant composting, energy production (co-combustion), and organo-mineral product manufacturing to allow participation in viable markets. x Explore benefits and use of emerging technologies for manufacturing of biosolids products such as drying with hot soil and energy fuels (i.e., char). Table PS-2 presents a summary of the in-plant improvements, associated capital cost, and the year when capacity is needed. With the current biosolids processes, Plant No. 1 dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) capacity will be reached in year 2013, digestion capacity will be reached in year 2008, and dewatering capacity will be reached in year 2007. With implementation of the proposed primary and WAS thickening improvements, the need for additional digestion and dewatering capacity will be postponed to beyond year 2020 and year 2013, respectively. Plant No. 2, has sufficient digestion and dewatering capacity for predicted 2020 loads. However, it is recommended that the District consider converting to centrifuge dewatering to reduce the biosolids cake volume and associated beneficial use costs.

FINAL 8 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

TABLE PS-2 Onsite Biosolids Management Facilities Cost and Implementation Capital Cost, Onsite Biosolids Processing Facilities Year Capacity Needed Million $1 Plant No. 1 Onsite Biosolids Processing Facilities Primary Sludge Thickening (Centrifuge) 2008 31.2 WAS Thickening Expansion (GBT or Centrifuge) 2013 12.9 Digestion Pretreatment (Ultrasound) Note 2 10.1 Dewatering (Centrifuge) 2007 3 53.7 Plant No. 2 Onsite Biosolids Processing Facilities Digestion Pretreatment (Ultrasound) Note 2 7.7 Dewatering (Centrifuge) Note 4 39.8 Notes: 1The capital costs are for onsite process improvements only. The upgrade of existing digestion facilities will be as planned in the capital improvement program (CIP) and is not included here. 2The District is currently evaluating project delivery options for implementing ultrasound. 3With primary thickening, capacity could be expanded to 2013. 4Plant No. 2 has adequate dewatering capacity through the year 2020. However, centrifuge dewatering will result in reduction of biosolids cake volume and beneficial use costs and should be considered for implementation. GBT = gravity belt thickener

Implementation Plan The biosolids management program implementation plan is designed to provide flexibility and allow the District to diversify products and product manufacturing facilities through participation in both District-owned and merchant facilities. This diversification improves program reliability and reduces financial risks. Diversification can be achieved by: 1. Maintain at least three different product-manufacturing options at any given time. 2. Optimize capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs at the District treatment plants as part of implementation of the long-term plan. 3. Limit maximum participation for any market to one-half of the total biosolids production. 4. Limit biosolids management contracts to a maximum of one-third of total biosolids production per merchant facility, and one-half per contractor (for contractors with multiple product-manufacturing facilities). 5. For each District-owned product manufacturing facility, limit the size to one-half of the total biosolids production. 6. Explore funding options for in-county facilities (private capital, District capital, or both). 7. Allocate up to 10 percent of biosolids for participation in emerging markets.

W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 9 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

8. Pursue Orange County based product manufacturing facilities and maximize the use of horticultural products within the District service area by member agencies and through developing public-private partnership. 9. Maintain capacity and options at the District’s Central Valley Ranch. 10. Pursue failsafe backup options (landfilling, alternative daily cover [ADC] for landfills, and dedicated landfilling) to acquire a 100 percent contingency capacity. Figure PS-1 presents the Implementation Plan and depicts the timing for participation in a variety of markets through the implementation of either District-owned or merchant product manufacturing facilities. The Implementation Plan also includes necessary onsite biosolids processing facilities required to accommodate projected increases in biosolids due to growth, and conversion to full secondary treatment at both plants. To provide a framework that enables focus on key issues impacting the implementation of these diverse alternatives, the long-term biosolids management needs were divided into the following major categories: x Existing beneficial use contracts x Potential failsafe beneficial use contracts x Potential merchant facility alternatives, established markets and permitted sites, in-county or out of county x Potential merchant facility alternatives, emerging markets, in-county or out of county x Potential District-owned production facilities, in-county, traditional design/bid/build x Potential District-owned production facilities, in-county, design/build/operate x Potential backup failsafe disposal options x Future in-plant biosolids processing facilities As illustrated in Figure PS-1, though current beneficial use practices are environmentally sound, it is anticipated that land application markets will continue to become less reliable due to public perception and political issues and may not be available in 3 to 5 years. The program anticipates that more reliable beneficial use markets, those that require higher levels of product development, will form the core of the District’s future biosolids program. Current land application options, if they remain available, will eventually become future failsafe beneficial use options. The implementation of District-owned composting or heat-drying facilities could take about 8 years to site, design, and construct. Therefore, the program includes activities to immediately begin the process of obtaining new merchant facility contracts that would enable the District to participate in more stable biosolids beneficial use markets within the next 1 to 3 years, depending on the construction requirements for the merchant facilities. These merchant facilities will bridge the gap between the phase-out of existing beneficial use contracts and the startup of future District-owned facilities. In addition, the program includes existing and potential failsafe landfill disposal options, as well as use of biosolids

FINAL 10 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 Assumptions: Legend: Current (2003) biosolids production = 500 wt/d * = duration includes 4 months for consultant selection. Future (2020) biosolids production = 1,000 wt/d ** = duration includes 6 months for contractor selection. 7 day per week operations = Project Implementation 21.5% dewatered cake solids = Existing Beneficial Use Market = Existing Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Existing Landfill Disposal = Potential Future Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Potential Landfill Disposal

Assumed Assumed Available 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016-2020 Biosolids Management Practices and Projects Duration (months) Capacity (wt/d) J ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASOND Existing Beneficial Use Contracts

1. California Soil Products Class B Land Application 36 125 (25% of current)

2. Synagro Class B Land Application 36 500 (100% of current) Composting 49 500 (100% of current)

3. Tule Ranch Alkaline Stabilized Product (Class A Land Application) 36 500 (100% of current) Class B Land Application 36 500 (100% of current)

4. The Yakima Company Landfill Cover 1 500 (100% of current)

Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Contracts

1. California Soil Products Chemical Stabilization (Class A Land Application) 250 (50% of current)

2. Tule Ranch Alkaline Stabilized Product (Class A Land Application) 500 (100% of current)

3. Alternative Daily Cover 300 - 1000 Total for Project Implementation 20

Potential Merchant Facility Alternatives, Established Markets and Permitted Sites, In-County or Out of County

1. Composting 200-400 (20-40% of 2020) Total for Project Implementation 11-23

Potential Merchant Facility Alternatives, Emerging Markets, In-County or Out of County

1. Energy Market: Direct Energy and Fuel Products 200-400 (20-40% of 2020) Total for Project Implementation 17-35

2. Organo-Mineral Fertilizer 200-400 (20-40% of 2020) Total for Project Implementation 17-35

3. Construction Products 200-400 (20-40% of 2020) Total for Project Implementation 17-35

Figure PS-1 W052003003SCO/PS-FigPS1.xls/ 033370020/Figure PS-1 (Summary) Page 1 of 3 Summary – Long-Range Biosolids Program Implementation Plan LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY

Blank page

FINAL 12 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 Assumptions: Legend: Current (2003) biosolids production = 500 wt/d * = duration includes 4 months for consultant selection. Future (2020) biosolids production = 1,000 wt/d ** = duration includes 6 months for contractor selection. 7 day per week operations = Project Implementation 21.5% dewatered cake solids = Existing Beneficial Use Market = Existing Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Existing Landfill Disposal = Potential Future Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Potential Landfill Disposal

1. Composting Facility 400 Total for Project Implementation 102 1a. Composting Pilot Testing Total for Project Implementation 26

2. Composting Facility with SOCWA at Prima Deshecha Landfill (District Partnership) 50 Total for Project Implementation 82

3. Offsite Heat-Drying Facility 200 Total for Project Implementation 96

4. Onsite Heat-Drying Facility (Plant No. 1 or Plant No. 2) 200 Total for Project Implementation 84

5. Select Product Distributors Total for Project Implementation 17

Potential District-Owned Production Facilities (In-County), Design/Build/Operate (DBO)

1. Composting Facility 400 Total for Project Implementation 88 1a. Composting Pilot Testing Total for Project Implementation 26

2. Offsite Heat-Drying Facility 200 Total for Project Implementation 82

3. Onsite Heat-Drying Facility (Plant No. 1 or Plant No. 2) 200 Total for Project Implementation 70

Figure PS-1 W052003003SCO/PS-FigPS1.xls/ 033370020/Figure PS-1 (Summary) Page 2 of 3 Summary – Long-Range Biosolids Program Implementation Plan LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY blank page

FINAL 14 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 Assumptions: Legend: Current (2003) biosolids production = 500 wt/d * = duration includes 4 months for consultant selection. Future (2020) biosolids production = 1,000 wt/d ** = duration includes 6 months for contractor selection. 7 day per week operations = Project Implementation 21.5% dewatered cake solids = Existing Beneficial Use Market = Existing Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Existing Landfill Disposal = Potential Future Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Potential Landfill Disposal

1. Prima Deshecha 200 Total for Project Implementation 14

2. Holloway Mines 800 - 1,000 Total for Project Implementation 17

3. Other Southern California Landfills 800 - 1,000 Total for Project Implementation 16

Future In-Plant Biosolids Processing Facilities (Assuming Scenario 5)

1. Plant No. 1 1a. Primary Sludge Thickening - Part of Project No. P1-99 On-line by 2009 Total for Project Implementation 87 1b. WAS Thickening - Part of Project No. P1-102 On-line by 11/2012 Total for Project Implementation 127 1c. Dewatering (Centrifuges) - Project No. P1-101 On-line by 2009 Total for Project Implementation 81 2. Plant No. 2 2a. Dewatering (Centrifuges) - Project No. P2-92 Start project development in 2004 Total for Project Implementation 84

Figure PS-1 W052003003SCO/PS-FigPS1.xls/ 033370020/Figure PS-1 (Summary) Page 3 of 3 Summary – Long-Range Biosolids Program Implementation Plan LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY blank page

FINAL 16 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY for failsafe beneficial use as ADC at landfills. Currently, the District does not have the approvals required to landfill its biosolids. The program recommends actions that would strengthen the District’s ability to use landfill purely as a failsafe backup option for at least a portion the biosolids. Figure PS-2 presents the capital costs associated with this program, combined with existing validated capital improvement program (CIP) projects, to assess the relative impact to the existing CIP and estimated increase in required funds per year. Some projects included in the validated CIP were adjusted to accommodate changes identified during the program development process. Although this program identified the need to add new thickening facilities, the digestion facilities identified in the validated CIP were eliminated. In addition, the timing of dewatering facility needs was modified to reflect the recommended program. In summary, the capital cost associated with the program does not have a significant impact on the resource allocation, and provides the potential for savings of up to $130 million. Should the District decide to finance and implement District-owned heat-drying and/or composting facilities, these would need to be added to the CIP.

Test Plan The upgrade and expansion of the onsite biosolids management facilities require thickening primary sludge, improving WAS thickening, and utilizing centrifuges for dewatering. Although additional digesters are not required, the increase in digester feed solids would impact the mixing and heating systems of the digesters and would increase the ammonia concentration in the digester and dewatering recycles. Dryer biosolids cake produced by centrifuges also impacts the performance of the dewatered cake pumping and product manufacturing facilities. Therefore, the testing program was proposed to address the following: x Thickening primary sludge, WAS, and combined sludge as well as thickened sludge pumping x Anaerobic digestion mixing, heating, and ammonia content in digesters x Dewatering performance, cake pumping, and recycles ammonia strength x Product manufacturing processes testing and performance evaluation To obtain representative results for thickening primary sludge and WAS separately as well as thickening the blended sludge, testing with full-scale equipment would be recommended. To assist in selecting the full-scale equipment, thickening should be tested initially on a laboratory-scale to determine appropriate criteria for selection and procurement of full-size units. Because WAS is very dilute, prethickening testing to reduce the size and number of thickening units is also included in the test plan. For anaerobic digestion, with the multiple digesters available, two digesters can be reserved for testing. One digester will serve as a test unit and the other as the control unit. The objectives of digestion testing are to establish (1) digester mixing equipment type and sizing criteria, (2) heat exchanger performance, (3) impact of increased ammonia content on digester performance and dewatering recycles, and (4) best location for ultrasound equipment (i.e., on WAS or digester recycle line). The volume of sludge needed for digester

W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 17 FINAL LONG-RANGE BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY testing will be considered in selection of thickening test equipment. Each test of the digestion system will take approximately 2 months, so the actual test period could last up to 9 months. Dewatering centrifuge testing could be combine with the thickening tests, with the test units sized for both thickening and dewatering. This allows the dewatering testing to be conducted at a minimal expense and without the need for additional full-scale test units. If full-scale test centrifuges are used, upon completion of thickening tests, these units can be relocated to the dewatering building at Plant No. 1. This allows testing the centrifuge dewatering while providing additional dewatering capacity, evaluating the impact of higher feed solids on centrifuge performance, evaluating the existing cake pumping system capabilities and upgrade needs, and having dryer cake for product manufacturing processes. Another component of the test plan is testing and evaluation of product manufacturing processes. Processes to be considered for testing include aerated pile composting (static pile and agitated bin), heat drying, energy recovery (co-combustion), organo-mineral fertilizers, energy fuels (char production), and construction material manufacturing (i.e., hot soil drying). None of these tests will occur onsite, but the District should budget for hauling solids to the District’s Central Valley Ranch and/or existing merchant facilities that use the processes under consideration. Sufficient dewatered biosolids need to be hauled to these facilities for testing. Using full-size equipment for thickening and dewatering will also provide sufficient biosolids for testing product manufacturing technologies; therefore, the District can be confident that the results are representative, the process is viable, and the product quality is suitable for the intended markets.

FINAL 18 W052003003SCO/PROJECTSUMMARY.DOC/ 033370019 325 Validated CIP Modified Validated CIP 300

275

250

225

200

175 Annual Cost ($ Millions)

150

125

100

75 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Fiscal Year

Figure PS-2 FINAL Comparison of Validated CIP and Modified Validated CIP W052003003SCO/PS-FigPS1.xls/033370020/Figure PS-2

FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 1 – Review of Existing District Documentation and Regulatory Outlook

Contents

Summary ...... 2 Introduction...... 3 Regulatory Requirements ...... 5 Federal Regulations...... 5 National Biosolids Partnership’s Environmental Management System Model ...... 10 State Regulations ...... 11 Local Regulations ...... 14 Ongoing Legal Challenges for the District ...... 18 District Resolutions...... 18 Existing Solids Processing Facilities...... 19 Current and Projected Flows...... 26 Current and Projected Biosolids Quantities...... 27 Biosolids Quality...... 28 Current Biosolids Management Practices and Costs ...... 29 Biosolids Management Alternatives...... 29 Back-up Orange County Landfill Disposal Options and Issues...... 31 Current Permits and Contract Requirements...... 32 NPDES Part C Permit Requirements...... 33 Air Quality Permits ...... 34 Biosolids Management Contracts...... 35 Waste Discharge Requirements at the Land Application Sites...... 35 Recent Related Studies...... 36 Pilot Programs and Vendor Proposals...... 36 Pilot Programs...... 36 Vendor Proposals ...... 39 Biosolids Management and Disposal Trends ...... 39 Regulatory Trends...... 39 Legislation ...... 41 Costs ...... 41 Joint Use Projects ...... 41 Facility Siting and Public Perception...... 42 Information Sharing and Self Improvement Within the Industry...... 42

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 1 175817.PE.12 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

General Guidelines for the District’s Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan...... 43 Existing District Biosolids Management Goals and Resolutions ...... 43 Guidelines for Enhanced Reliability...... 44 Guidelines to Improve Public Perception and Confidence...... 45 Maximize Value of Work Completed to Date...... 45 Innovative, Cost-Effective, and Environmentally Sound Ideas ...... 45 Appendix A – Orange County Sanitation District J-40-7 Document List Appendix B – Biosolids Management Alternatives by Technology

Summary The current biosolids management practices of the Orange County Sanitation District (District) are environmentally sound and meet stringent federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. However, due to dynamic regulatory issues, and public perception challenges associated with biosolids management, the District is concerned about the long-term viability of its current program. In order to address these concerns, the District is preparing a Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. This Technical Memorandum (TM) is the first in a series of TMs that will form the basis of the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The purpose of this TM is to summarize existing conditions and future trends that will influence long-term planning decisions. The information included in this document is based upon a review of existing District documents related to biosolids management, as well as other relevant documents and legislation. Currently, the District produces approximately 650 wet tons per day of digested and dewatered Class B biosolids, which is equivalent to 240,000 wet tons per year. By the year 2020, biosolids production is projected to be approximately 325,000 wet tons per year, based on the implementation of full secondary treatment and without improvements to the onsite solids handling processes. Resolution OCSD 02-18 commits the District to the full support for the recycling of biosolids and implementation of the National Biosolids Partnership’s (NBP’s) Code of Good Practice as the basis for an Environmental Management System (EMS) for its biosolids management program. The current goals and objectives of the biosolids management program are to provide: x 100 percent biosolids recycling x At least one in-county management option x Reliability and public acceptance x Low cost x Multiple product options x Continued use of private sector hauling and beneficial end-uses x Diversification of markets x Back-up options The District currently produces Class B biosolids onsite and has four contracts for biosolids hauling and beneficial use. Approximately 45 percent of the total biosolids produced are currently alkaline stabilized to produce Class A biosolids and then land applied in Kern and Kings Counties. A portion of Class B biosolids (15 percent) is land applied in Arizona.

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Approximately 20 percent of the biosolids produced are land applied on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation through the Synagro contract. Approximately 10 percent of the biosolids are composted through the Synagro contract. Approximately 10 percent of the Class B biosolids produced are land applied in Nevada through the contract with California Soil Products. The District also has a contract with The Yakima Company, but currently is not managing biosolids through this contract due to issues with bond requirements. Counties throughout California have developed, or are in the process of developing, ordinances that severely restrict the land application of Class B biosolids. Both Kern and Kings Counties banned land application of Class B biosolids in January and February of 2003, respectively. These ordinances have significantly impacted the District’s current biosolids management practices. It is clear that future requirements will be more restrictive, and biosolids management costs are going to increase. More detailed discussions of regulatory issues and trends are provided in this TM. In response to the many issues impacting biosolids management, the District has conducted separate studies that consider various aspects of the biosolids program. The comprehensive Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan will build upon work completed to date and develop a flexible long-term strategy for meeting the District’s needs for the next 5 to 15 years. Based on review of available documents, several guidelines were defined for the evaluation of long-term management solutions. The guidelines are described at the end of this TM and fall within the following general categories: x Maximize the reliability of the long-term biosolids management program. x Improve public perception and confidence. x Maximize the value of the work completed to date. x Realize innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally sound ideas.

Introduction The District is responsible for collecting and treating wastewater for the majority of Orange County, California. The environmentally sound and cost-effective management of biosolids produced as part of the wastewater treatment process is a critical factor in the District’s ability to meet its mandated responsibilities. As described later in this TM, the District recently completed an EMS for biosolids. The EMS describes the long-term goals and objectives of the District’s Biosolids Management Program. The EMS states that the two mission statements from the 1989 Master Plan best summarize the goals and objectives of the District’s biosolids management plan: x Strive for 100 percent biosolids recycling. x Maintain at least one in-county management option as backup. The District’s biosolids recycling program has consistently met all local, state, and federal regulations through extensive oversight and monitoring. In 1999, the District adopted the Strategic Plan (CDM, 1999), a comprehensive plan to manage peak wastewater flows and protect public health through the year 2020 and up to “buildout” in a technically feasible, economical, and environmentally responsible manner.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

In addition to the goals and objectives identified in the 1989 Master Plan, the Strategic Plan also identified reliability, low cost, and the identification of multiple options as key biosolids program elements. The Strategic Plan determined that the core element to the District’s biosolids management strategy is reliability. A reliable biosolids management strategy must take advantage of environmentally safe and cost-effective beneficial use options, while progressively developing new biosolids management options. In order to achieve reliability, the Strategic Plan recommended a biosolids management strategy with the following expanded goals and objectives: x 100 percent biosolids recycling x Continued use of private sector hauling and beneficial end-uses x Diversification x Development of beneficial use options within Orange County x Acquisition and use of a District-owned land application site Recent events throughout California have resulted in significant concern by the District regarding the long-term stability of its biosolids management program. Since completion of the 1999 Strategic Plan, land application options for biosolids in California have become tenuous. Many of the District’s present management options will no longer be feasible due to new local ordinances. Therefore, new options must be explored, and a new strategy must be developed. As part of the continuous effort to establish reliable long-term biosolids management solutions, the District has initiated Job No. J-40-7, the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan, to develop a strategy for biosolids management for the next 5 to 15 years. This Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan builds upon options discussed in the 1999 Strategic Plan, and wastewater flow and biosolids projections identified in the September 2002 Interim Strategic Plan Update, to provide a more detailed implementation plan. The plan evaluates existing and proposed sludge and solids handling treatment options, as well as biosolids beneficial use and disposal options, to tie viable solids handling treatment plant facilities to marketable biosolids products and beneficial use options. The Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan is being developed as a series of TMs. Based upon review of existing District documents related to biosolids management, the purpose of this first TM (TM 1) is to provide the following: x Summarize the current state of biosolids for the District. x Summarize the projected regulatory outlook and other trends. x Define guidelines to be followed throughout development of the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. A listing of the District documents reviewed during the development of this TM is included in Appendix A.

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Regulatory Requirements Biosolids beneficial use and disposal practices are currently regulated by multiple federal, state, and local agencies. The District’s EMS provides a summary of federal and state legal requirements, as well as a summary of federal and state agencies responsible for enforcing biosolids regulations. The EMS also provides a summary of local county ordinances and their general requirements, management practices, monitoring and record keeping requirements, and other important issues. Due to the many agencies, issues, and perceptions associated with biosolids management, the regulatory environment is very dynamic and proposed modifications are virtually continuous. The following provides a brief description of key regulations impacting biosolids beneficial use and disposal practices and their current status.

Federal Regulations United States Environmental Protection Agency The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for the development and implementation of federal rules and regulations regarding biosolids processing, use, and disposal. Table 1-1 provides a summary of key federal regulations.

TABLE 1-1 Current Federal Biosolids and Sludge Rules and Regulations Key Title Application/Coverage 40 CFR 257 “Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.” Regulates disposal practices of municipal sludge and other materials not specifically covered under Part 503, including incinerator ash, drinking water sludge, and commercial and industrial sludge. 40 CFR 258 “Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Provides regulation of municipal sludge that is disposed with municipal solid waste (MSW). 40 CFR 261 Provides criteria to define whether municipal sludge is hazardous or nonhazardous. 40 CFR 503 Regulates beneficial use of domestic sewage sludge that is land applied, disposed in a surface disposal site, or incinerated in a sewage sludge incinerator. Also covers materials derived from sewage sludge, i.e., compost and domestic septage. 40 CFR 122, 123, “The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,” “State Program and 124 Requirements,” and “Procedures for Decision Making” require municipal disposal to be included in NPDES. Covers permitting requirements for the biosolids disposal/beneficial use practices regulated under Part 503. 40 CFR 403 “General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.” 40 CFR 501 “State Sludge Management Program Guidelines.” Requires states to implement federal regulations concerning some sludges. 40 CFR 761 “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions.” Defines sludges containing more than 50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) PCBs as toxic. Clean Water Act “Clean Water Act.” Provides a list of pollutants that are required to be tested Section 307(a) semiannually. Clean Air Act “Clean Air Act and Amendments.” Requires comprehensive federal regulations of biosolids management, and requires states to implement these regulations.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 5 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

40 CFR 503 (Part 503) The primary federal regulation for biosolids management is 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503. In California, the 503 rule is enforced through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Promulgated in 1993, the regulations under Part 503 apply to land application, surface disposal, and incineration of biosolids. The Part 503 standards include pollutant limits, management practices, and operational criteria, as well as monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for biosolids use and disposal. For land application, the rule establishes metal limits, pathogen reduction requirements and vector attraction reduction requirements. As shown in Table 1-2, Part 503 provides four sets of metal criteria for biosolids use.

TABLE 1-2 40 CFR Part 503 Metal Criteria for Biosolids Land Application Ceiling Cumulative Pollutant Pollutant) Annual Pollutant Concentration1 Loading Rates2 Concentration3 Loading Rates4 Pollutant (mg/dry kg) (CPLR) (kg/ha) (mg/dry kg) (APLR) (kg/ha) Arsenic 75 41 41 2 Cadmium 85 39 39 2 Chromium5 ---- Copper 4,300 1,500 1,500 75 Lead 840 300 300 15 Mercury 57 17 17 1 Molybdenum6 75 - - - Nickel 420 420 420 21 Selenium7 100 100 100 5 Zinc 7,500 2,800 2,800 140 Notes: 1From Table 1, 40 CFR 503.13; applies to all land-applied biosolids. 2From Table 2, 40 CFR 503.13; applies to bulk (nonbagged) biosolids. 3From Table 3, 40 CFR 503.13; applies to bulk and bagged biosolids. 4From Table 3, 40 CFR 503.13; applies to bagged biosolids, i.e., biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container. 5The chromium limit has been eliminated. 6With the exception of the ceiling concentration, the molybdenum limit has been suspended; but may be reinstituted. 7The Table 3 selenium limit was raised to 100 mg/kg from 36 mg/kg. APLR Annual Pollutant Loading Rate CPLR Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate kg/ha kilograms per hectare mg/dry kg milligrams per dry kilogram

The rule also establishes two classes of pathogen reduction, Class A and Class B. Criteria for determination of whether a biosolids product is Class A or Class B are presented in Table 1-3. Due to the higher pathogen content of Class B biosolids, the 503 rule imposes the following use restrictions on these products: x Food crops – no harvesting after sludge application for 14 months to 38 months, depending on type of crop grown and how biosolids are applied. x Feed crops – no harvesting for 30 days after biosolids application.

FINAL 6 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x Pasture – no animal grazing for 30 days after biosolids application. x Public access – restricted access for 30 days after biosolids application in low exposure areas, 1 year in high exposure areas. x Turf – no harvest for 1 year after biosolids application.

TABLE 1-3 Criteria for Meeting Class A and B Requirements Parameter Unit Limit Criteria for Meeting Class A Requirements Fecal Coliform MPN/g TS1 1,000 Salmonella MPN/g TS 3 And one of the following process options: Temp/Time based on % Solids Alkaline Treatment Prior test for Enteric Virus/Viable Post test for Enteric Virus/Viable Helminth Helminth Composting Heat Drying Heat Treatment Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion Beta Ray Irradiation Gamma Ray Irradiation Pasteurization PFRP2 Equivalent Process Criteria for Meeting Class B Requirements Fecal Coliform MPN or CFU/g TS3 2,000,000 Or one of the following process options: Aerobic Digestion Air Drying Anaerobic Digestion Composting Lime Stabilization PSRP4 Equivalent Notes: 1Most probable number per gram dry weight of total solids. 2Process to Further Reduce Pathogens. 3Most probable number or colony-forming units per gram dry weight of total solids. 4Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens.

Vector attraction reduction criteria must be met for all biosolids products. The rule presents 12 options to meet this goal, as shown in Table 1-4. If a biosolids product meets the most restrictive metals criteria (Part 503 “Table 3” Criteria), Class A pathogen reduction requirements, and the vector attraction reduction criteria, it is considered an Exceptional Quality or “EQ” product. Since promulgation, the Part 503 land application requirements have undergone several changes including: x Molybdenum limit was rescinded pending further review. x Chromium limit was eliminated. x Selenium pollutant concentration limit was raised to 100 mg/dry kg.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

TABLE 1-4 Summary of Requirements for Vector Attraction Reduction Options Where/When Requirements Option Requirement Must be Met 1. Volatile Solids(VS) >38% VS reduction during solids treatment Across the process Reduction 2. Anaerobic <17% VS loss, 40 days at 30qC to 37qC (86qF to On anaerobic digested biosolids bench-scale test 99qF) 3. Aerobic bench-scale <15% VS reduction, 30 days at 20qC (68qF) On aerobic stabilized biosolids test 4. Specific Oxygen SOUR at 20qC (68qF) is <1.5 mg oxygen/hr/g On aerobic stabilized biosolids Uptake Rate total solids 5. Aerobic Process >14 days at >40qC (104qF) with an average On composted biosolids >45qC (113qF) 6. pH adjustment >12 measured at 25qC (77qF),* and remain at When produced or bagged pH>12 for 12 hours and >1.5 for 22 more hours 7. Drying without >75% Total Solids (TS) prior to mixing When produced or bagged primary solids 8. Drying with primary >90% TS prior to mixing When produced or bagged solids 9. Soil Injection No significant amount of solids is present on the When applied land surface 1 hour after injection. Class A biosolids must be injected within 8 hours after the pathogen reduction process. 10. Soil Incorporation <6 hours after land application; Class A biosolids After application must be applied on the land within 8 hours after being discharged from the treatment process. 11. Daily cover at field Biosolids placed on a surface disposal site must After placement site be covered with soil or other material at the end of each operating day. 12. pH adjustment of >12 measured at 25qC (77qF),* and remain at Septage septage pH>12 for 30 minutes without addition of more alkaline material.

*Or corrected to 25qC

Part 503 Round 2 Further revisions to the rule have also been proposed. In December 1999, USEPA proposed “Round II” of the rule, which primarily addresses dioxins. Like the existing metal limits in the rule, the proposed dioxin concentration is based on the results of a risk assessment. Unlike existing metal limits, however, only a ceiling concentration is proposed. The currently proposed limit is 300 parts per trillion (ppt) toxic equivalent per dry kilogram (0.0003 mg TEQ/dry kg) of biosolids. Biosolids with a dioxin content over this concentration would not be able to be used beneficially. USEPA released a study indicating that dioxins are very carcinogenic, which sparked concerns that the current proposed limit could be lowered substantially. The draft regulations also include a new dioxin test method. There are several issues surrounding the testing process that must be clarified including the required testing frequency and concerns regarding the interpretation of tests with nondetectable results. The testing costs are between $1,500 and $2,500 per sample. Since

FINAL 8 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK there was a lack of data concerning the concentrations of dioxin that will be reported with the new USEPA test procedure, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) conducted a nationwide dioxin testing program and survey. AMSA collected 199 samples from 171 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) located in 31 states and found dioxin concentrations ranging from 7.1 to 256 ppt-TEQ. On October 17, 2003, USEPA announced that it will not regulate dioxins in land applied biosolids. After studying the issue for 5 years, USEPA determined that dioxins from biosolids do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment.

National Academy of Science Study Since Part 503 was promulgated in 1993, a variety of environmental groups, local governments, and others have expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the Part 503 regulations. Concerns have primarily focused on the land application of Class B biosolids. In response to these concerns, USEPA requested the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science (NAS) to conduct a study to assist USEPA in evaluating regulatory requirements and nonregulatory measures with respect to the land application of biosolids. In July 2002, the NAS completed this 18-month study and issued a report entitled “Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices.” The overarching findings of the NAS report concluded that there is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health, but there is a persistent uncertainty on the potential for adverse health effects. In light of recent scientific advances, the report finds that additional studies should be conducted and risk assessments performed to update the scientific basis for the rule. In late October 2002, USEPA issued their plan to respond to the NAS report, and issued advice to USEPA Regional Administrators regarding biosolids programs as the response plan is developed and implemented. The following summarizes USEPA’s current plans in response to the report: x By April 2003, USEPA intends to formally solicit public comment on a proposed plan of action in response to the NAS report. x Based on public comments and other relevant information, USEPA will publish a final action plan in the Federal Register in January 2004. x Concurrently, relevant research is now underway and additional resources will be dedicated to the action plan prior to January 2004. The intent is to provide an opportunity for public participation while the current research is underway. In light of the NAS report findings, and the questions that have been raised by states, local governments, and concerned citizens since the release of the report, USEPA has issued the following guidance to each USEPA Regional Administrator: x USEPA recommends that biosolids continue to be managed in full compliance with the Part 503 rule. USEPA agrees with the NAS and their conclusions regarding the need for additional studies on the potential effects of biosolids. x USEPA believes that “pursuant to Part 503, it is a matter of local government choice whether their biosolids are land applied, landfilled, or incinerated and that the report does not affect the viability of any of these options.”

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 9 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x USEPA supports the activities of the NBP that are leading to the adoption of voluntary EMS for biosolids. USEPA acknowledged that POTWs with an EMS actively involve the public in setting adequate goals and objectives, and that these will undergo independent third-party audits of their programs after they become established. USEPA indicates that an EMS is not a substitute for oversight and enforcement, but improves biosolids management practices, including the control of odors. x USEPA recommends that biosolids management processes be reviewed during normal state or federal inspections at wastewater treatment facilities; and that violations of the Part 503 rule should be addressed through appropriate administrative enforcement. USEPA issued their response to the NAS report in April 2003. USEPA is currently seeking public comments on their planned strategy to respond to the NRC report. USEPA has a planned 3-year strategy in response to the NRC report that has the following three main objectives: x Update the scientific basis of the rule by conducting research in priority areas. x Strengthen the sewage sludge program by incorporating results of completed, ongoing, and planned research activities both within and outside USEPA. x Continue ongoing efforts to increase partnerships and communication with the public and other stakeholders. USEPA closed its public comment period in July 2003. Also, USEPA has recently reviewed the biosolids regulations to identify additional toxic pollutants in sewage sludge, if any, that need to be regulated. USEPA is required to review the biosolids regulations every 2 years in accordance with the Clean Water Act. USEPA has published their review and solicited public comment on the results. USEPA has not identified any additional pollutants for possible regulatory action and will be conducting further analyses to determine if there are additional toxic pollutants that need to be regulated. USEPA plans to complete this investigation, and incorporate public comments, by January 2004.

National Biosolids Partnership’s Environmental Management System Model The NBP is a nonprofit coalition between USEPA, AMSA, and the Water Environment Federation (WEF). The purpose of the NBP is to promote environmentally sound biosolids management practices. In order to further their objectives, the NBP developed a model EMS. An EMS is a voluntary biosolids management system that goes beyond mandatory regulatory requirements, that incorporates the opinions of stakeholders, and includes third-party verification of the program and its results. In July 2000, the District’s General Manager signed a letter of understanding with the NBP stating that the District would develop an EMS for the District’s biosolids management program. The District is one of the original 27 POTWs in the United States participating in pilot testing an EMS for biosolids. At this time, there are over 45 POTWs participating in the EMS program. The District’s EMS provides a clear understanding of how the entire biosolids program actually works and what changes are needed to make it work better. It clearly defines how the program is impacted, for example, by the control of industrial wastes, by the effectiveness of different unit operations at the treatment plant, by the way

FINAL 10 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK specific unit processes are managed at the plant, by the method of biosolids storage and transportation, and by the chosen beneficial usage alternative for the final biosolids product. Having an EMS improves the District’s biosolids management practices by incorporating a periodic review of each division’s role in the quality of biosolids through clear and attainable goals and objectives. Since it is an open process, the public will tend to support management decisions and support biosolids products and practices. This is a critical asset because without public acceptance, beneficial recycling of biosolids will be more difficult, and ensuring reliable management options will be harder to attain.

State Regulations Under Part 503, state and local agencies are allowed to impose more stringent requirements for the beneficial use and disposal of biosolids than those specified in Part 503. Table 1-5 summarizes key regulations in the State of California.

TABLE 1-5 State of California Sludge and Biosolids Rules and Regulations Key Title Application/Coverage California Hazardous Waste Control Law Provides California criteria to determine whether a (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 22 sludge is hazardous or nonhazardous. Administered Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 11) by the California Department of Health Services (DHS).

Discharges of Waste for Land (CFR or CCR, Governs the disposal of sludges in a landfill or Title 23, Subchapter 15) dedicated land disposal site.

California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act Requires that local government agencies meet of 1989 diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting or a combination of programs.

Compost Regulations (CCR, Title 14, Division 7) Regulates sludge and other types of composting facilities using a tiered approach, wherein the level of regulatory control depends on the type and volume of materials stored and process onsite.

Water Quality Order No. 2000-10 DWQ Prescribes General Waste Discharge Requirements (GWDRs) for use of biosolids as a soil amendment. Gives Regional Board option to issue GWDRs in lieu of site-specific waste discharge requirements (WDRs). Requires that appliers file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and submit pre-application and monitoring reports.

The California Department of Health Services (DHS) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are the primary state agencies responsible for the regulation of biosolids beneficial use and disposal in California. The DHS and SWRCB share overlapping authority. Other state agencies whose regulatory efforts have, or could have, effects on land application of biosolids include the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The following provides a brief discussion of key state agencies.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 11 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

California Department of Health Services (DHS) The DHS administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) and has responsibility for determining whether biosolids are a hazardous or nonhazardous material according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 11.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) The SWRCB relies on nine RWQCBs to administer and enforce regulatory requirements. Through its nine RWQCBs, the SWRCB may issue individual waste discharge requirements (WDRs), or general waste discharge requirements (GWDRs) to regulate the discharge of biosolids to land. A land application permit with individual WDRs involves a more complicated permitting process and includes more stringent conditions. Application forms for individual WDRs are very detailed and are designed to provide the RWQCB staff with in-depth site information. Typical WDRs issued by the RWQCB include provisions from USEPA Part 503 regulations and from the Manual of Good Practice for Landspreading of Biosolids that was published in April 1983 by the DHS. These DHS guidelines were based largely on the pre-Part 503 USEPA guidance on land application. In 1998, the California Water Environment Association (CWEA) published a Manual of Good Practice for Agricultural Land Application of Biosolids. The new manual reflects the Part 503 regulations and updates the guidance from the DHS manual. In order to streamline the permitting process, the SWRCB authorized the RWQCBs to prescribe GWDRs for Class B and Class A biosolids. The GWDRs may be issued for the discharge of biosolids to land for use in agricultural, horticultural, and land reclamation activities. To obtain coverage, the permit applicant for the biosolids and application project must complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) form and submit a filing fee. A pre-application report must be submitted for each field or application area prior to the application of biosolids.

General Waste Discharge Requirements (GWDRs) and the Statewide Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The Central and South Delta Water Agency filed a lawsuit regarding the Central Valley’s WDRs for biosolids land application. The judge in the case accepted the proposal from the SWRCB for development of a statewide Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address GWDRs for the Discharge of Biosolids to Land for Use as a Soil Amendment in Agricultural, Silvicultural, Horticultural, and Land Reclamation Activities. The EIR was completed and a final General Order was adopted. The most significant requirements in the adopted General Order are as follows: x Moisture content must be greater than 50 percent. x Biosolids less than 75 percent moisture shall not be land applied when surface wind speed is greater than 25 miles per hour (mph).

FINAL 12 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x If groundwater is less than 25 feet from the surface, monitoring is required, including molybdenum (Mo), arsenic (As), and selenium (Se). x Perform plant tissue testing for Mo, Se, and copper (Cu). x Residual nitrogen will be determined by annual soil testing at a depth of 18 inches. Lawsuits over the statewide EIR were filed by both the Central and South Delta Water Agency, and Kern County. The two lawsuits were combined and the lawsuits were denied in August 2001. One of the findings of the court was that “there is substantial evidence to support the validity of the findings reached by USEPA in its development of the federal regulations (Title 40, Part 503 of the CFR).” Kern County filed an appeal to the court ruling and subsequently, the Central and South Delta Water Agencies also appealed. The appeal hearing was held in December 2002, and reversed the August 2001 ruling. The case has been remanded back to Superior Court with a finding that the following issues need to be investigated: (1) that biosolids not be land applied to food crops, and (2) that the General Order only allow Class A biosolids to be land applied.

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) The CIWMB has established green waste and biosolids composting regulations. The biosolids regulations were approved by the CIWMB in November 2002. The regulation includes a new concentration limit for selenium of 36 mg/kg. The current Part 503 regulation concentration is 100 mg/kg. The CIWMB received comments on the proposed regulations and is currently determining if their selenium limit will be changed.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) The CDFA initiated a process in 1998 to regulate heavy metals in inorganic fertilizers. Heavy metals in organic fertilizers are expected to be addressed next.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) In October 2001, the DTSC prepared a Draft Mercury Report that raised concerns regarding the problem of mercury contamination in California by the disposal of mercury-containing wastes that are not currently regulated as hazardous waste. In August 2002, DTSC opened for public comment their proposed rule for mercury. DTSC eliminated some earlier options that could have caused biosolids and waste-to-energy ashes to be classified as hazardous. In December 2002, the DTSC issued its final analysis on the rule, which focuses on source control and on mercury recycling.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) The control of airborne particulate matter (PM) is one of the most serious air pollution problems facing California. PM has been linked to a wide range of adverse health outcomes including acute and chronic bronchitis. The CARB regulates fine particulate matter of 10 microns or less, known as PM-10, to protect public health. The CARB conducted a review of the PM-10 standard as a requirement of the Children’s Environmental Protection Act (Senate Bill 25, 1999, Chapter 731). The anticipated tightening of air particulate standards will increase regulatory control of agriculture, particularly the application of biosolids products, such as compost at agricultural sites. Greater regulatory control will increase the

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 13 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK costs of applying biosolids products, especially products that emit dust when spread and incorporated at land application sites. This issue is further discussed in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) discussion in the following Local Regulations section of this TM. Details on SCAQMD Rule 1133 to address PM-10 issues is presented under Local Regulations.

Local Regulations County Ordinances Land application projects must comply with local laws, ordinances, and regulations. Depending on the location of the land application site, local agencies, such as the County Planning Department, County Department of Health Services, or the County Solid Waste Management Department, may act as the local enforcement agency (LEA) or play a role in permitting and environmental compliance certification. The project proponent may have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), building permits, and other local permits. Generally, California counties place CUP requirements on land application sites for biosolids. However, a growing number of counties have recently developed highly restrictive ordinances regarding land application of biosolids, especially Class B biosolids. As the private market for permitting of large land application sites developed in the early to mid-1990s, some counties and their respective farm bureau chapters became concerned. In 1994, Merced County adopted the first California county ordinance that placed restrictions on biosolids land application. There are now many county ordinances that place varying restrictions on land application of biosolids. The county ordinances generally include requirements that are more stringent than required by federal or state regulations, including: x Setback requirements for certain types of uses that greatly increase the land area needed for Class B land application, thereby reducing the feasibility of this practice. x Limits on depth to groundwater to minimize groundwater contamination. x Restrictions on the application of biosolids to irrigated land. x Additional biosolids and soil testing requirements. x Inspection fees. x Bans on Class B and/or Class A biosolids. Tri-TAC is a technical advisory committee made up of representatives from the League of California Cities, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), and CWEA. Over the years, Tri-TAC has been very active in the effort to proactively work with counties throughout California in an attempt to develop reasonable ordinances. The District currently has a representative who serves as Co-Chair of the Tri-TAC Land Committee. The following provides excerpts from a recent Tri-TAC Land Committee issues report describing the history and current status of biosolids management ordinances for Kern, Kings, and Riverside California Counties.

FINAL 14 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Kern County. Kern County developed a County Ordinance that will ban land application of all but EQ biosolids by January 1, 2003. The Southern California Alliance of POTWs (SCAP) and several major POTWs in Southern California tried to work with Kern County to assist with development of the ordinance that addresses the need for local control and oversight of biosolids land application in a logical manner. This effort has been largely unsuccessful. Controversial provisions include: $8,000/year fee, $3.37/ton road impact fee, soil sampling every 40 acres, dioxin concentrations must be below 10 parts per billion (ppb), no Class B application after January 2003, and a 10-mph wind limit for spreading. EQ biosolids products are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. A draft negative declaration (County of Kern [R0027]) for the adoption of the Biosolids Ordinance began circulation on August 13, 1999. The Board of Supervisors met on October 5, 1999, and adopted the Negative Declaration. The Board adopted the ordinance on October 13, 1999, and it became effective on January 1, 2000. The ordinance has onerous requirements for soils background monitoring (which may include every 40 acres for dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], phosphorus, potassium, etc.). Some tests are annual, and some are once every 3 years. The District, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), CASA, and SCAP filed a lawsuit against the new Ordinance on November 8, 1999. On December 7, 1999, a motion was filed to transfer the case out of Kern County. The judge agreed to move the trial to Tulare County. Kern County then filed a lawsuit against the agencies applying biosolids in the county for failing to perform an adequate EIR before application began. Judge Paul Vortmann ruled that Kern County complied with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements during the development of the ordinance. The judge also ruled that the agencies had complied with CEQA. The judge has yet to rule on the other aspects of the case related to the validity of the ordinance. A draft summary judgment and motions were issued in May 2002. The trial was held in June 2002. On November 26, 2002, Judge Vortmann ruled against all three causes of the joint agencies action. The following summarizes the Court’s ruling: x The ordinance does not violate commerce laws since the application of the ordinance is only within unincorporated lands, which reflects the constitutional limits on Kern County’s police powers. Therefore, it is not discriminatory with regards to interstate commerce. x The ordinance does not conflict with state and federal regulations “permitting” application of biosolids since the current regulations expressly authorize the local regulation of biosolids. x The impact fees are valid and enforceable since the county needed only to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between fees to be charged and the estimated cost of the service program. Kern County adopted a new ordinance on November 26, 2002, that went into effect on January 1, 2003. This ordinance regulates Class A, EQ biosolids and continues to ban Class B, and includes provisions for permitting, reporting, testing, and inspection. These

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 15 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK additional requirements will also have an adverse effect on beneficial use fees charged for the agricultural land application throughout California. Kern County is currently studying the issue of groundwater contamination associated with the new biosolids ordinance. It is suspected that Kern County would like to have the new ordinance amended to prohibit the use of Class A biosolids over “useable” water, as defined by total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in the groundwater. Kern County may provide waivers for existing sites if the use of Class A biosolids was prohibited above sensitive groundwater areas. Most likely, applications for new Class A biosolids land application in sensitive areas would not be accepted or would require extensive monitoring.

Kings County. In 2000, Kings County decided to implement local regulation of biosolids. Kings County has 23,000 acres permitted for biosolids land application. The Kings County Agricultural Commissioner initially proposed a form of agreement between his office and land appliers to allow local inspection and record keeping. Kings County only had two permitted biosolids land application sites. Kings County circulated a draft ordinance among staff which allowed land application of Class B biosolids. The Draft Ordinance did restrict biosolids application to sites in only a portion of the county and at least 2 miles away from schools and sensitive receptors. The Kings County Agricultural Commissioner held a meeting with the Kings County Farm Bureau, County Counsel, biosolids appliers, and water interests on September 2000 to discuss the ordinance. The ordinance was drastically changed so that it now bans land application of Class B biosolids starting in February 2003. The current ordinance allows for the use of Class A EQ biosolids until February 2006 and then only composted Class A EQ biosolids will be allowed. This ordinance was adopted pending completion of CEQA documentation. A lawsuit was filed against the ordinance and a hearing was held in November 2001. The court found in favor of the county and the ordinance. The District requested an extended time on their permit, but was denied. The court decision on the adequacy of the CEQA compliance document was appealed. The District filed an appeal on the Board of Supervisors decision to not extend their use of Class B land application, which was denied. The District filed a lawsuit on the ruling on their appeal of the Board decision not to extend their use of Class B biosolids land application and to allow land application of all Class A biosolids after 2006 (not just Class A compost). In March 2002, there was a hearing to have the District litigation moved to a neutral venue and the case has been moved to Tulare County. The ruling on this is pending.

Riverside County. In response to complaints and local demonstrations during biosolids land application at some sites, Riverside County decided to evaluate revisions to their ordinance that would ban Class B biosolids. In March 2001, after almost 3 hours of testimony, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (Board) postponed their vote on two biosolids-related agenda items: the approval of the Riverside County Health Services Agency’s report on the “Health Effects Related to the use of Pesticides and Sewage Sludge” (Report), and the proposed prohibition of land application of biosolids on county-owned land. The Report affirmed that the existing regulations provided adequate health and safety measures to protect the citizens of Riverside County finding that “the minimal risk of disease transmission or causation makes

FINAL 16 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK the adoption of any additional mitigation, up to and including a full ban, a policy decision based on the quality of life issues as opposed to a Public Health necessity.” The Report also determined that the quality of life issues “apply equally to the similar uses of manure.” Subsequent to the Report, Riverside County staff concluded that virtually all complaints attributed to biosolids were the result of manure use. The Board instructed staff to form a “Blue Ribbon Committee” to address the issues surrounding the land application of biosolids. The Committee was limited to eight individuals, formed by the Board, from a pool of representatives of the Riverside County Farm Bureau, scientists from the University of California at Riverside, Riverside County regulators, concerned citizens, and the biosolids industry. The “Blue Ribbon Committee” looked at two issues: a ban on land application of biosolids on publicly owned land and a review of the Health Services Agency. Ultimately, in November 2001, a final ordinance was enacted that effectively implemented a ban on all but 600 acres in the county. Land application in the county has ceased except for some in-county Class A solar dried biosolids. The Class B ban in Riverside County negatively impacted many generators, and resulted in a significant increase in beneficial use costs throughout Southern California. In August 2002, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors decided to continue the ban on Class B biosolids. In 2003, a committee was convened to review the NAS Report and develop recommendations concerning Class A biosolids. The committee developed a Class A ordinance that has a tiered approach. The tiers are based on the nuisance potential of the biosolids, specifically the odors that may be generated from various biosolids products. The ordinance was adopted in May 2003.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1133 The SCAQMD adopted Rule 1133 on January 10, 2003, to control emissions from composting and wood chipping/grinding operations in the basin. The rule was adopted to reduce the emissions of ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are precursors to the formation of PM-10, described earlier. Initially, the rule was going to require that all phases (active, curing, storage) of the composting process be covered and emissions removed and treated prior to release. Rule 1133 has separate requirements for (1) chipping and grinding, and (2) co-composting, which pertains to biosolids composting. Rule 1133 requires that co-composting facilities be enclosed or have a technology that results in 70 percent removal of ammonia and VOCs for existing sites or a technology that results in 80 percent removal of ammonia and VOCs for new sites. The active composting stage needs to be enclosed; the curing stage needs to be under negative pressure, but does not have to be enclosed. All new composting facilities need to comply with Rule 1133. Existing composting operations need to comply with Rule 1133 based on a compliance schedule starting January 1, 2007. In order to assist with the rulemaking, SCAP conducted a study to determine whether the emissions figures the SCAQMD used in their rulemaking process accurately reflected emissions rates from facilities that use negative aeration and venting to a biofilter during the active composting portion of the process. The study found that the SCAQMD figures did accurately represent emissions rates from that portion of the process (primarily ammonia

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 17 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK and VOCs). However, it also found that these emissions can be dramatically reduced depending upon the compost piles geometric shape, the type and moisture content of the carbon matter (i.e., green waste) used, the size of the blowers, and numerous other variables. The SCAP report is currently being finalized.

Ongoing Legal Challenges for the District In summary, the District has three ongoing legal challenges concerning biosolids beneficial use, which include: x Ability to apply Class B biosolids in Kern County, and a challenge to the negative declaration on CEQA compliance. x CEQA compliance in the Class A ordinance. x Extension of Class B land application in Kings County, as well as the ability to land apply all types of Class A sludge after 2006 rather than only Class A compost.

District Resolutions Two important resolutions were adopted by the District Board that must be considered when developing the long-range biosolids management program. The first is Resolution No. OCSD 02-18 in support of biosolids recycling. The second is Resolution No. OCSD 02-14, which established the policy for level of treatment of wastewater discharged to the ocean. Under Resolution No. OCSD 02-18, the District declared the following: x Irrespective of the biosolids management option selected, the District commits to implementing the NBP’s Code of Good Practice as the basis for an EMS for its biosolids management program. x Desire to promote the continuance of the recycling of biosolids to nontable-food crop agricultural land in a manner that is safe, environmentally beneficial, and is sensitive to the needs of the communities involved. x Full support for the recycling of biosolids. x Commitment to use on its site, and encourage its Member Agencies to use at their facilities, compost made using District biosolids. x Support of the proper management and oversight of this practice in accordance with USEPA Part 503 Rule, and the CWEA Manual of Good Practice. Under Resolution No. OCSD 02-14, the following was declared: x The District will treat all wastewater discharges into the ocean to secondary treatment levels. x The District staff were directed to immediately proceed with the planning, design, and implementation of treatment methods that will allow the agency to meet federal Clean Water Act secondary treatment standards.

FINAL 18 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x The District shall prepare and adopt a plan of work for facilities to meet secondary standards. x The District staff were directed to expeditiously negotiate permit terms and conditions that will accomplish the inter-related goals of achieving secondary treatment standards, eliminating the need for a Section 301(h) Clean Water Act permit, and minimizing the risk of enforcement liability during the transition period from the present effluent standards to secondary treatment standards. Resolution No. OCSD 02-14 is very important since the ability to meet the committed level of treatment will require reliable long-term biosolids management alternatives with the capacity to handle increased biosolids production. Existing Solids Processing Facilities The District’s Reclamation Plant No. 1 (Plant No. 1) and Treatment Plant No. 2 (Plant No. 2) provide the facilities needed to treat wastewater from the District’s service area. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 provide flow schematics of Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, respectively. Wastewater solids are separated from the liquid stream by various unit processes, and are thickened prior to treatment. These untreated solids are referred to as wastewater sludge. The sludge is then treated through a digestion process to create a product referred to as biosolids. Following digestion, the biosolids are dewatered and transported to management sites. As shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2, similar solids processing operations are in place at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2. The following provides a brief summary of the existing solids handling and processing approach. Tables 1-6 and 1-7 provide a summary of existing solids handling and processing facilities at Plant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. x Advanced primary sludge is collected from primary sedimentation/clarifier basins and pumped to the digesters. x Waste activated sludge (WAS) from the secondary clarifiers is thickened in Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) thickeners. The thickened WAS is pumped to the digesters. x Each plant digests combined advanced primary sludge and WAS using mesophilic digestion. The digesters at both plants meet USEPA requirements (described under Biosolids Rules and Regulations later in this TM) for Class B land application of biosolids, which include a minimum 15-day detention time, temperature of 95ºF, and 38 percent volatile solids reduction. x Digester gas is collected at each plant in a storage tank, compressed, and discharged into a high-pressure gas line, which connects the two plants. The digester gas is used as fuel in the Central Generation Systems (CENGEN) facilities and heating boilers at both plants; any excess gas is flared. The CENGEN facilities produce electricity that is used in the two plants. After digestion, the stabilized liquid biosolids are transferred to digesters used as holding tanks.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 19 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x From the holding tanks, the biosolids are pumped to belt filter presses (BFPs) for dewatering. x Dewatered biosolids cake is transferred to holding bins using a combination of conveyors and cake pumps at Plant No. 1, and conveyors only at Plant No. 2. x Biosolids cake is transferred to truck loading hoppers prior to truck pickup.

TABLE 1-6 Summary of Existing Solids Processing and Handling Facilities at Plant No. 1 Facilities Number of Units Notes

DAF Thickeners x 6 x 4 units are in service (February 2003 O&M Report) Digesters x 12 total x Digesters meet USEPA requirements for Class B land application of biosolids: x 5 used for stabilization minimum 15-day detention time, (Digester Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) temperature of 95qF, and 38 percent volatile solids reduction x 2 used as holding tanks (Digester Nos. 5 and 6) Belt Filter Presses x 8 x 2-meter units x Average 22.1 percent solids (FY 2001-02) x Operated 7 days/week, 24 hours/day Storage Bins x 4 x Cake pumped from bins to truck loading hopper

Digester Gas Storage x 42-foot-diameter cylindrical x Digester gas used at Plant No. 2 and Compression storage tank CENGEN before Plant No. 1 CENGEN x 3 compressors x Common high pressure gas line connecting Plant Nos. 1 and 2 Central Generation x Three 2,500-kW gas- x Operation of engines restricted by System (CENGEN) fueled engine generators pollutant limitations and gas quantity Digester Gas Flares x 3 x Operation restricted by pollutant limitations and gas quantity, and cannot be operated at same time as engine generators during normal operating conditions Sources: OCSD, Annual O&M Report, FY2000-01 OCSD, February 2003 Monthly O&M Report Strategic Plan, Volume 4, Section 4, CDM, 1999 Dewatering Comparison, Centrifuges vs. Belt Filter Presses, Carollo Engineers, March 2002

FINAL 20 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 Primary Influent Pump Polymer Sedimentation Recirculation Pumps Basins 1-5 Sludge Trickling Filter Holding Secondary Clarifiers Digesters (under construction) No.5&6 Digester Gas Junction Trickling Filters (2) to Engines (under construction) Box Pumps 1 Iron Salt Junction (as required)

Scum Sludge

Sludge Box Digesters Interplant Line 7-16

only) Polymer

(Overflow Belt Headworks No. 1 Filter Presses (8) operates only in Plant No. 2 storm events Box B Grit to Filtrate/Washwater Landfill Waste Sidestream (Closed) Pump Headworks No. 1 Station (WSSPS) 66-inch Pumps (2) 84-inch

Normally Not Used Normally Not Used 120-inch Splitter Effluent Junction Interplant Lines Bar HO22 Box Box No. 1 Screens Bleach (EJB No. 1) (4) Grit Chambers (2) Influent To Plant Water Grit Polymer Pump Station Scum Primary Chambers Effluent Primary OCWD Metering & (5) Primary Distribution Effluent Pump Return Box No. 2 Station Bleach Pump Diversion (M&D) Pumps (5) Clarifier Sludge Pumps Structure Basins 6-31 (PEDB No. 2) (PEPS) (5) Station To OCWD Normally for Reclamation Not Used (3) Plus Screening Headworks No. 2 Sludge Low Flow Aeration Basins (10) Secondary to Landfill Ferric Clarifiers (24) Scum Chloride

Float Grit to Landfill Polymer Waste Sludge Pumps (3) (ThicKened Sludge)

Notes Subnatant 1 Either Ferric Chloride or Ferrous Chloride is used. Bottom Dissolved Air Flotation Sludge (DAF) Thickeners (3)

Storage Bins Legend Synagro: Land Application (25%)* Raw Sewage Plant Discharge Primary Effluent Sludge To Recycle Tule Ranch: Land Application (55%)* Secondary Effluent Biosolids Yakima: Reuse (20%)* Alternate Routing Chemical Addition * Based on 1/02 - 6/02 and 8/02 - 9/02 data

Figure 1-1

i:\ocsd\phase2\Reports\vol4rev\Fig4-2.cdr Process Flow Schematic - Plant No. 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Blank page

FINAL 22 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 Screening to Landfill Raw Sewage Grit to from Plant No. 1 Landfill Polymer Headworks "C"

HO22 Headworks "C" Discharge Dissolved Channel Air Flotation Wetwell Aerated Thickener Influent Grit Chambers (8)

Influent Pumps (8) Collection Bar Channel Screen 2 Waste-Activated Sludge Pump (6) Bottom Headworks "B" Bleach Sludge

Float

Subnatant EegnyOnly) (Emergency Ferric Headworks "B" Chloride Polymer Pumps (4) Discharge Primary Plant Water Channel Clarifier Pump Station Basins A-G Return-Activated Sludge Pump (6) Santa Ana River A Overflow Distribution Structure A Primary Primary Effluent Polymer Clarifier Pump Station J. Basins H-M (PEPS) Box 8 B To Distribution Structure B (4)

Distribution Aeration Basins (8) Secondary Clarifiers Structure B Primary Surge Polymer Clarifier Tower To J. Box 8 (opens on high PEPS wetwell) 1 Basins M-Q Scum No. 2

Sludge Iron C 120-inch Outfall Digester Gas Salt to Engines

Distribution Junction Box No. 1 Ocean Outfall Booster Splitter Structure C (closed during low flows) Station (OOBS) Box 78-inch Outfall Sludge (future) Filtrate/Washwater Digesters Surge Polymer Holding C-H, L-M, Tower Digesters P-T Foster Booster No. 1 A, B, I, Pump Station J, K, N, O Belt Filter Presses (15)

Storage Bins Legend Synagro: Land Application (25%)* Raw Sewage Plant Discharge Notes Tule Ranch: Land Application (55%)* Primary Effluent Sludge To Recycle 1 Either Ferric Chloride or Ferrous Chloride is used. Secondary Effluent Biosolids Yakima: Reuse (20%)* 2 New headworks are currently being designed. Alternate Routing Chemical Addition ol4rev\Fig4-5.cdr * Based on 1/02 - 6/02 and 8/02 - 9/02 data

Figure 1-2

i:\ocsd\phase2\Reports\V Process Flow Schematic - Plant No. 2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Blank page

FINAL 24 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

TABLE 1-7 Summary of Existing Solids Processing and Handling Facilities at Plant No. 2 Facilities Number of Units Notes

DAF Thickeners x 4 x 4 normally in operation (February 2003 O&M Report) Digesters x 18 total x Digesters I, J, K, L, M, N, and O are being rehabilitated, which will take x 11 used for stabilization several years (FY 2000-01 Annual (Digesters C, D, E, F, G, Report) H, P Q, R, S, and T) x Digesters meet USEPA requirements for x Digesters A and B used for Class B land application of biosolids standby overflow x 5 used as holding tanks (Digesters I, J, K, N, and O) Belt Filter Presses x 15 x 2-meter units x 9 required for operation x Moving from operating 5 days/week, 7 days/week, 24 hours/day 24 hours/day to operating 7 day/week, 24 hour/day Storage Bins x 2 x Average 22.1% solids (FY 2001-02) x 450 cubic yards each x Cake conveyed into truck loading hopper x Facility being replaced with new solids storage facility (Job No. P2-60) Digester Gas Storage x 42-foot-diameter cylindrical x Digester gas used at Plant No. 2 and Compression storage tank CENGEN before Plant No. 1 CENGEN x 3 compressors x Common high pressure gas line connecting Plant Nos. 1 and 2 Central Generation x Five 3,000-kW gas-fueled x Only permitted to operate four units at System (CENGEN) engine generators one time (per 99SP, no new permit) x One 1,000-kW steam turbine generator Digester Gas Flares x 3 Sources: OCSD, Annual O&M Report, FY2000-01 OCSD, February 2003 Monthly O&M Report Strategic Plan, Volume 4, Section 4, CDM, 1999 Dewatering Comparison, Centrifuges vs. Belt Filter Presses, Carollo Engineers, March 2002

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 25 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Current and Projected Flows Table 1-8 summarizes current and projected year 2020 flows for Plant Nos. 1 and 2. Current flows are based on recent Operation and Maintenance (O&M) reports. The projected 2020 flows are based on information provided in the September 2002 Interim Strategic Plan Update. Total current flow to Plant Nos. 1 and 2 is 235 million gallons per day (mgd). Projected 2020 total flow is 321 mgd. The 1999 Strategic Plan estimated that at full buildout of the basin, the total ultimate flow will be 471 mgd. Figure 1-3 presents annual flow projections through 2020 based on information included in the Interim Strategic Plan Update.

TABLE 1-8 Current and Projected Year 2020 Flows Current Flow Projected Year 2020 Flow (mgd)* (mgd)** Plant No. 1 83 177 Plant No. 2 152 144 Total 235 321 * From the June 2002 O&M report (average from July 2001 to June 2002) ** From the Interim Strategic Plan Update, CDM 2002

Figure 1-3. Annual Flow Projections Through 2020

350

300

250

200

150

100 Wastewater Flow Projection (mgd)

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Plant No. 2 153 153 153 153 153 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 Plant No. 1 87 92 97 101 106 120 124 128 132 136 140 143 147 151 154 158 162 165 169 173 177 Total 240 245 250 254 259 264 268 272 276 280 284 287 291 295 298 302 306 309 313 317 321 Year

Note: From the Interim Strategic Plan Update, CDM 2002

FINAL 26 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Current and Projected Biosolids Quantities Biosolids production is dependent upon the level of treatment provided at Plant Nos. 1 and 2. The current level of treatment is a blend of 50 percent advanced primary effluent and 50 percent secondary effluent. Table 1-9 provides a summary of current biosolids production values from the District’s FY 2000-01 Annual O&M Report and the June 2002 O&M Report. This information covers a period from July 2000 to June 2002. The total amount of biosolids currently produced annually is approximately 200,000 wet tons per year.

TABLE 1-9 Current Biosolids Quantities Quantity (wet tons/month) Parameter Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Total

FY 2000-01 (7/00-6/01)

Average cake/month (wet tons) 5,864 10,282 16,146

Average solids concentration (%) 22.5 22.05 22.2

Average cake/month (dry tons) 1,319 2,267 3,586

Average truck loads/month 238 409 647

FY 2001-02 (7/01-6/02)

Average cake/month (wet tons) 6,474 10,287 16,761

Average solids concentration (%) 22.1 22.08 22.1

Average cake/month (dry tons) 1,431 2,271 3,702

Average truck loads/month 253 401 654

Sources: OCSD, Annual O&M Report, FY2000-01 OCSD, O&M Department Monthly Report, June 2002

In the near future, the District will be increasing the level of treatment at both plants to full secondary treatment. The additional secondary treatment capacity will increase the amount of WAS produced at the plants. The District is also considering alternative treatment technologies that will deliver the same level of treatment as full secondary. Table 1-10 summarizes projected year 2020 biosolids production assuming full secondary treatment under a traditional activated sludge process. The total annual projection using full secondary treatment is approximately 325,000 wet tons per year, without any solids handling process improvements. This is over 35 percent greater than current biosolids quantities. According to the August 2002 Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) evaluation conducted by Montgomery Watson Harza and W.S. Atkins, biosolids production could potentially be reduced by between 5 and 10 percent based on implementing different ABR process configurations at Plant Nos. 1 and 2.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 27 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

TABLE 1-10 Year 2020 Biosolids Quantity Projections Quantity (wet tons/month) Treatment Option Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Total Full Secondary Average cake/day (wet tons) 507 385 892 Average solids concentration (%) 21.5 21.5 21.5 Average cake/month (dry tons) 109 83 192 Source: Cost Model assuming mesophilic digestion and belt filter press dewatering.

Biosolids Quality Table 1-11 summarizes the current quality of the District’s biosolids. The data in Table 1-11 were obtained from the Summary of Biosolids Constituent Concentrations reports prepared by the District and submitted monthly to Kern County for data from June 2001 through May 2002. The volatile solids reduction information was obtained from the District’s Notice and Necessary Information (NANI) Form as submitted monthly to the USEPA and RWQCB (with the exception of June 2002 data, which is from the June 2002 O&M Monthly Report), and is based on data from July 2001 through June 2002. As shown in Table 1-11, the District’s biosolids currently meet the highest quality standards for metals prescribed in the Part 503 regulations.

TABLE 1-11 Summary of Current Biosolids Constituent Concentrations Average Value Part 503 “Table 3” Constituent Units Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Limits Arsenic mg/kg (dry weight) 5.1 6.6 41 Cadmium mg/kg (dry weight) 14.0 10.4 39 Copper mg/kg (dry weight) 726 697 1,500 Lead mg/kg (dry weight) 50 44 300 Mercury mg/kg (dry weight) 2.1 1.9 17 Molybdenum mg/kg (dry weight) 18 15 - Nickel mg/kg (dry weight) 167 101 420 Selenium mg/kg (dry weight) 9.9 9.1 100 Zinc mg/kg (dry weight) 741 819 2,800 Organic-N mg/kg (dry weight) 20,400 21,300 - Ammonia-N mg/kg (dry weight) 3,100 3,200 - Nitrate-N mg/kg (dry weight) ND ND - Total Solids % 22 22 - Volatile Solids Reduction % 62.6 64.3 - Notes: ND = Not Detected

FINAL 28 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

As described in detail in the EMS document, the District’s Source Control Division 640 serves in a critical role by ensuring that dischargers to the collection system do not contribute constituents that would impair the high quality of District biosolids. Assuming continued proactive source control, it is anticipated that future quality will be similar to existing quality. However, it is anticipated that process changes onsite may alter the future digester volatile solids (VS) destruction and digested cake dryness. For instance, implementation of full secondary treatment will increase the amount of WAS produced. This is not as biodegradable as primary sludge and would lead to reduced VS destruction. However, advanced digestion options, such as the ultrasound treatment that the District plans to install, will assist with VS destruction. The District is also considering dewatering options other than BFPs to produce a drier cake. These options will be considered in subsequent TMs.

Current Biosolids Management Practices and Costs Biosolids Management Alternatives The District currently produces Class B biosolids onsite and has four contracts for biosolids hauling and management. Key aspects of the current biosolids management contracts are summarized in Table 1-12. Biosolids hauling is conducted 6 days per week, although most of the hauling is done Monday through Friday with only 10 to 15 truckloads currently hauled on Saturdays. Approximately 60 percent of the total biosolids produced are currently managed through the Tule Ranch (Shaen Magan) contract. Under this contract, approximately 500 wet tons per day are transported 5 days per week to sites in Kern and Kings Counties. The District owns 1,800 acres in Kings County and the Tule Ranch has 4,000 acres available in Kern County for land application. Based on the recent bans of Class B biosolids land application in Kern and Kings Counties, alkaline stabilization is now used to produce Class A biosolids, which are then land applied. This contract also includes Class B land application on tribal lands in Arizona, California, and Nevada and on private land in Arizona. The contract was executed in January 2000 and had a 3-year duration. A new contract was issued to accommodate alkaline stabilization to produce Class A biosolids for land application, which expires in January 2004 and has four 1-year options to extend the contract. Based on existing ordinances, the alkaline stabilization process to produce Class A biosolids will enable land application of the Class A product for at least 3 more years in Kings County and indefinitely in Kern County. However, it is unknown whether future ordinance changes could prohibit the beneficial use of chemically stabilized biosolids in either county in the long term. Approximately 30 percent of the current biosolids produced are managed through the Synagro contract. Synagro currently transports approximately 260 wet tons per day, 5 days per week, to land application sites on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, located near the intersection of California, Nevada, and Arizona. This contract was initiated in June of 1988 and was amended six times. Amendment No. 6 was executed in July 2002 and expires in July 2005.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 29 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

TABLE 1-12 Current Biosolids Management Contracts Current Available Utilization by Contract Management Cost per Processing Capacity Company District End Date Option Wet Ton Location (% of current (% of total total volume) volume) California 3/2007 Class B land $37.75 Nye County, NV 15 10 Soil Products application Class A $38.62 Los Angeles 0 0 chemical stabilization Synagro 7/2005 Class B land $39.50 Tribal land in AZ, 25 20 with 2, application CA, NV 1-year Class B land $39.50 Private land in AZ 100 0 options application Class A $39.50 Tribal land in AZ, 25 5 compost CA, NV Class A $39.50 Private land in AZ 10 5 compost Tule Ranch 1/2004 Class B land $38.75 Yuma Co., AZ 100 15 (Shaen with 4, application Magan) 1-year Class A alkaline $35.00 Kern County, CA 100 30 options stabilization Class A alkaline $33.00 Kings County, CA 50 15 stabilization The Yakima 1/2012 Landfill cover $35.00 La Paz County, AZ 100 0 Company Sources: Meetings with District staff in April, May, and November 2003. OMTS Committee Agenda Report, 02/05/03.

The District also has contracts with California Soil Products and The Yakima Company. The California Soil Products contract includes production of Class A biosolids and Class B land application. California Soil Products intends to produce Class A biosolids through chemical treatment with a mixture of alkaline chemicals and acid and drying. The operation was planned to be constructed at a facility in Los Angeles, but California Soil Products recently lost the lease for the building. The company is currently searching for a new site and the future start-up date is not known. The California Soil Products Class B land application program in Nevada began accepting the District’s biosolids in 2003 and the District currently manages 10 percent of their biosolids through this contract. The District’s contract with California Soils Products expires in March 2007. Under the Yakima contract, biosolids were hauled to Arizona for use as daily landfill cover following drying at the La Paz Landfill. The contract was initiated in January 2000 and has a 12-year duration (expires January 2012). Yakima’s inability to satisfy La Paz County’s performance bond requirements precludes the District from utilizing Yakima’s services.

FINAL 30 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Back-Up Orange County Landfill Disposal Options and Issues The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) is responsible for the operation of landfills within Orange County. There are three landfills in Orange County: the Olinda Alpha Landfill, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill. Of these three landfills, only Prima Deshecha is currently permitted to accept biosolids. As a back-up to beneficial use, the District has requested the IWMD to approve disposal of approximately 200 tons of biosolids per day at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. This is approximately 15 to 25 percent of the total amount of biosolids produced daily at the District. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is currently permitted to receive 85 tons per day of biosolids and is seeking a revised permit for up to 350 tons per day. The South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) plans to reserve up to 150 tons per day of capacity. In August 2002, the IWMD Waste Management Commission Local Task Force Committee on Biosolids prepared an issues paper describing the constraints that must be addressed prior to allowing landfilling of biosolids in the county landfills. Key biosolids landfill disposal issues identified by the IWMD are as follows: x Available Daily Capacity. Each landfill can accept no more than an explicit amount of waste for burial each day as specified in its operating permit. If a landfill is currently operating at or near its daily permitted capacity, there may not be sufficient daily capacity remaining to accept an additional 100 to 150 tons per day of biosolids, without diverting other waste to a different landfill. x Environmental Protection System. To be permitted to accept biosolids with less than 50 percent solids concentration, a landfill must have a liner in place with a leachate collection and recovery system and a landfill gas collection system installed. x Air Quality Impacts. According to the IWMD, landfills that accept biosolids for burial generally have high hydrogen sulfide concentrations in their landfill gas. The SCAQMD has established limits for sulfur concentrations in landfill gas. The IWMD expects that any landfill accepting biosolids will see some increase in their landfill gas sulfur concentrations. Should those concentrations exceed the SCAQMD limits, violations and possibly fines could result. x Permits, Settlement Agreement. A landfill’s operating permit must specifically allow for accepting biosolids. Including biosolids in the operating permit requires obtaining the approval of the Local Enforcement Agency of the CIWMB and the RWQCB. Additionally, IWMD has a settlement agreement with the City of Irvine that would need to be amended should IWMD commence accepting biosolids at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (located in Irvine). The only Orange County landfill currently permitted to accept biosolids is the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. x Operational Costs. Prima Deshecha Landfill currently accepts approximately 35 tons per day of biosolids from the SOCWA for disposal. Accepting these loads requires special handling on the part of landfill operations staff. While sludge haulers pay a hard-to- handle fee above their regular tipping fee, this hard-to-handle fee does not completely cover the entire cost of these special handling procedures. The additional cost for this special handling is absorbed by the landfill due to the relatively small quantity of biosolids delivered. However, should sludge quantities increase to the magnitude

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 31 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

requested, the landfill system could no longer continue absorbing these additional costs. A new rate for biosolids disposal would be required to secure full cost recovery to the landfill system. x Impact on Importation. For Fiscal Year 2002-2003, IWMD has been requested to provide a minimum of $13,000,000 to the County General Fund for use toward county bankruptcy obligations. In order to generate this much net revenue, IWMD accepts additional out of county municipal waste tonnage from its importation contract haulers over and above their minimum put-or-pay commitment. If IWMD chooses to accept biosolids, there would be diminished daily capacity available to accept additional imported municipal solid waste tonnage. This could create a negative impact on IWMD’s ability to fulfill its $13,000,000 obligation to the General Fund, unless arrangements could be made to enable fees from disposal of biosolids to be used toward the fund. x Acceptance of Biosolids Outside of Wasteshed Area. It is likely that biosolids from one portion of the county would be transported for disposal to a landfill in another portion of the county. Community acceptance of biosolids for disposal from an area outside a region’s wasteshed could become an issue for a landfill host community. Of the three landfills in Orange County, only the Prima Deshecha Landfill is permitted to accept biosolids. The Olinda Alpha Landfill does not have a landfill liner in place and, therefore, does not meet permit requirements to accept the digested cake currently produced by the District. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is currently operating at or near its daily permitting capacity and, therefore, cannot accommodate the additional biosolids capacity without diversion of other wastes to a different landfill. The District has provided a formal proposal to the IWMD that addresses the issues identified above. Prior to approval, the IWMD has indicated that given the potential for costs, a rate analysis would need to be conducted to determine an appropriate fee for disposing the quantities of sludge proposed. The IWMD is also considering a request by SOCWA to build a joint composting facility with the District at the Prima Deshecha Landfill.

Current Permits and Contract Requirements The District’s biosolids management operations are required to meet the following permit and contractual requirements: x NPDES Permit, Part C (Biosolids/Sludge Management) x Air Quality Permits x Biosolids Beneficial Use Contracts x Waste Discharge Requirements at the Land Application Sites Potential changes in the regulations could significantly impact future permitting requirements. An overview of each of these permits and contractual requirements is provided below.

FINAL 32 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

NPDES Part C Permit Requirements Plant Nos. 1 and 2 currently operate under a permit from the RWQCB as established in NPDES Permit No. CA 0110604, Order No. 98-5. The biosolids/sludge management requirements are included in Part C of the permit and are summarized below.

Quality and Disposal Requirements x All sludge and biosolids shall be recycled or disposed of in compliance with 40 CFR 503 for (1) land application, distribution, or marketing; (2) disposal at dedicated biosolids landfill; and (3) incineration in dedicated biosolids incinerators. x 40 CFR 258 for disposal in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. x 40 CFR 257 for all biosolids use not covered in 40 CFR 503 and 258.

Management x Biosolids shall not be allowed to enter wetlands, or to contaminate groundwater. x Treatment, beneficial use, or disposal shall be done in a manner to minimize nuisances, such as odors and flies. x The District shall ensure that haulers transporting biosolids offsite keep the biosolids contained.

Monitoring x Biosolids shall be tested semiannually for pollutants listed under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act. x Biosolids shall be tested once during a permit term for dioxin/dibenzofurans. x Biosolids shall be tested annually, or more frequently as necessary, to determine hazardous nature. x Land Application – Biosolids shall be tested monthly for metals and nitrogen species. Biosolids must be shown to meet Class A or Class B pathogen requirements. The District must keep records of the operational parameters used to achieve vector attraction requirements. x Surface Disposal Site – Biosolids shall be tested monthly for metals and nitrogen species (as for land application). It must be demonstrated that biosolids meet Class B pathogen requirements or it must be ensured that the site is covered at the end of each day. The District must keep records of the operational parameters used to achieve vector attraction requirements. A groundwater scientist must develop a groundwater monitoring program for the site or certify that biosolids will not contaminate an aquifer. x Biosolids disposed of in a landfill must be tested semiannually using the Paint Filter Test.

Reporting x The District shall submit a beneficial use/disposal plan to USEPA.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 33 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x If the District’s biosolids do not meet metals concentration limits, then the District must notify USEPA of any previous site applications of biosolids subject to cumulative loading limitations and the cumulative amounts of pollutants applied to date at the site. x The District shall notify the land applier of the nitrogen and metals content of the biosolids. The District shall require land appliers to certify at the end of 38 months following application of Class B biosolids that harvesting restrictions in effect have been met. x The District must send notice prior to initial shipment of bulk biosolids to permitting authorities in a receiving State/Tribal Land if the District ships biosolids to another State/Tribal Land. x The District shall submit an annual biosolids report to USEPA. In addition, the District shall also require each land applier to submit an annual report to USEPA.

Air Quality Permits Air quality permits associated with the plant operations are issued by the SCAQMD, the air pollution control agency for Orange County. The SCAQMD issues operational permits for all aspects of the plant operation, including plant functions that are not directly related to wastewater treatment or biosolids management. The District’s SCAQMD permits that relate to biosolids management at Plant Nos. 1 and 2 are briefly summarized below. x Sewage Treatment. Each plant has an overall permit for plant operations. Plant No. 1 currently has a permit to construct, based on the 16 new primary sedimentation basins being constructed. Both permits restrict operations as follows:

Headworks, primary treatment, and solids handling processes cannot be operated unless air pollution control systems are in operation.

All digester gas produced at each plant shall be incinerated in flares, engines, or boilers.

There are total dry weather primary influent flow limitations at both plants.

Ferrous and/or ferric chloride addition to the digester influent sludge shall be employed at Plant No. 2 to maintain hydrogen sulfide concentration in the digester gas. x Internal Combustion Engines Operated on Natural and Digester Gas. The District has internal combustion engines at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2 for energy generation, referred to as the CENGEN. There are three engines at Plant No. 1 and five engines at Plant No. 2. Each engine is permitted separately, but the permits restrict the engine operation by both emission limits for each plant and total volume of digester and natural gases that can be used at each plant. x Enclosed Digester Gas Flare. This permit restricts the volume of gas that can be flared at each plant, limits emissions from the flaring operation, and restricts flare operation to times when the CENGEN engines are not operating (unless a special condition occurs).

FINAL 34 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

In addition, only two of the flares included in the permit (three at Plant No. 1 and three at Plant No. 2) can be operated at one time. x Odor Control Scrubbers (Dewatering, Sludge Storage and DAF). Each plant has permits for odor control scrubbers used to treat odorous air from solids processing operations. x Digester Gas Boiler. Operation of digester gas boilers is limited by either restrictions on emissions or restrictions on volume of gas that can be used.

Biosolids Management Contracts As described previously, the District currently relies on hauling and land application contracts for biosolids management. As part of each contract, the District has agreed to provide biosolids that meet the following requirements: x Dewatered to a minimum percent solids (varies by contract). x Meets the nonhazardous material standard according to the California Assessment Code’s procedures and USEPA’s Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedures (TCLP) test. x Meets USEPA’s Alternative Pollutant Limits as established in 40 CFR Part 503. x Meets USEPA’s Class B pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction requirements as stated in 40 CFR Part 503.

Waste Discharge Requirements at the Land Application Sites Each land application site has WDRs for the specific land application procedures. The WDRs generally include the following requirements: x Prohibitions. A list of prohibited actions are included such as discharging any runoff or biosolids to surface waters, land application of any biosolids that do not meet Class A or B criteria, discharge of hazardous biosolids, and discharge of biosolids with concentrations above established ceiling concentrations, in addition to other requirements. x Discharge Specifications. This section includes all restrictions for land application operations, including frequency of land application (e.g., limited to once per year); cumulative loadings of pollutants shall not exceed established cumulative loading rates; minimum distances between application areas and property lines, public roads, surface waters, wells, and occupied dwellings; sampling requirements prior to land application; restrictions on site access; and restrictions for odors. x Groundwater Limitations. The WDRs call for no impact to groundwater. x Provisions. This section outlines the reporting and notification requirements of the discharger.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 35 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Recent Related Studies The District has completed several recent studies that address various issues impacting the District’s biosolids management program. It is intended that the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan should build upon the information developed under these studies. The studies include: x Information to Support a Short-Term Biosolids Management Plan x Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Process Evaluation x Dewatering Comparison: Centrifuges vs. Belt Filter Presses x Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) Evaluation x Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 1-13 provides a summary of the purpose and findings of each study.

Pilot Programs and Vendor Proposals

Pilot Programs In addition to the studies described in Table 1-13, the District has conducted pilot-scale testing of potential technologies to determine their applicability at Plant Nos. 1 and 2. As part of the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan, technologies that have been pilot tested by the District will be compared with other technologies in subsequent TMs. Current, and recently completed, pilot testing that may impact the assessment of biosolids management are listed below: x Primary effluent microfiltration (MF) x ABR technology as primary treatment x ABR technology for MF backwash and MF effluent x Fuzzy filter on primary effluent x Anoxic gas flotation x Biotrickling towers for odor control x Hydrogen sulfide monitoring connection to ferric chloride dose x Microwave ultraviolet (UV) lamp technology for odor control x Dewatering tests, including centrifuges and Fournier press x Ultrasonic sludge treatment

FINAL 36 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

TABLE 1-13 Summary of Recent Related Studies Title Prepared by Date Purpose Findings

Information to Carollo July 2001 To identify and evaluate technologies Eight potential alternatives were identified, and based on Support a Engineers available to the District to process their an initial screening process, five alternatives were Short-Term biosolids to meet Class A EQ quality sludge evaluated. Of these five alternatives, the lowest cost Biosolids (as defined in 40 CFR Part 503). The options were contracting with compost operators and with Management evaluation focused on technologies that California Soil Products for chemical stabilization. Plan could provide installed capacity by January Chemical stabilization was recommended as a short-term 2003, were proven for plants of similar size option with further investigation of composting and to Plant Nos. 1 and 2, were cost-effective, thermal drying to produce Class A biosolids, as well as rail and were compatible with existing solids haul of Class B biosolids for land application in Arizona as processing. a back-up.

Advanced Brown and February 2002 To evaluate advanced digestion processes Both thermophilic-mesophilic digestion and acid/gas Anaerobic Caldwell (Preliminary for potential use at the District, with a focus phased digestion (meso-meso) look favorable at Plant Digestion Report) on processes that increase overall cost- No. 1 compared to a continuation of current single-stage Process effectiveness of the digestion/gas mesophilic digestion. Advanced digestion processes will Evaluation processes, and recommend next steps for not have an overall cost savings at Plant No. 2 due to lack the District in evaluating digestion process of savings in future digester construction. Brown and changes. Caldwell recommended that the District perform a demonstration-scale test of thermophilic-mesophilic digestion to confirm the assumptions made for the analysis.

Dewatering Carollo March 2002 To evaluate the benefits and costs of Five dewatering alternatives were evaluated, which Comparison: Engineers alternative dewatering technologies to the ranged between retrofitting the District’s existing BFPs to Centrifuges vs. District’s existing BFPs that could improve full replacement with centrifuges, including combinations Belt Filter dewatering performance and reduce costs. of retrofitted BFPs and centrifuges. Carollo recommended Presses Improved dewatering would reduce the proceeding with either installing new duty centrifuges with overall quantity of biosolids produced by existing BFPs used as standby dewatering capacity, or full reducing the liquid volume/weight of the replacement with centrifuges. Full replacement with biosolids. centrifuges has a longer payback than only installing new duty centrifuges, but it offers the advantages of having only one dewatering technology onsite and makes building space available for other uses. Carollo also recommended that the District pilot test centrifuges onsite using District-generated biosolids.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 37 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

TABLE 1-13 Summary of Recent Related Studies Title Prepared by Date Purpose Findings

Anaerobic Montgomery August 2002 To further evaluate the applicability of ABR Based on the evaluation of implementing the ABR Baffled Reactor Watson Harza technology at District facilities on the basis process at Plant Nos. 1 and 2, it was determined that the (ABR) (MWH) in of cost and noncost factors. ABR is a multi- ABR process may be feasible for the District. The Evaluation association with stage, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket following benefits of the ABR process were identified: W.S. Atkins process for removal of suspended solids reductions in volatile and total solids loading to digesters, Consultants and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) reduced organic loading to secondary treatment, and the from raw wastewater, which would be used potential to greatly reduce or eliminate future digester as a retrofit in the primary clarifiers. construction at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, rectangular ABRs at Plant No. 1 were determined to have a payback period of 6 years if retrofit costs can be minimized. MWH recommended that the District pilot test the ABR process under the specific conditions of the District’s treatment plants.

Interim CDM September 2002 To evaluate and make relative comparisons On July 17, 2002, the District’s Board of Directors directed Strategic Plan between four different levels of wastewater District staff to proceed with planning, design, and Update treatment. The alternatives differed in the implementation of treatment technologies to meet amount of secondary treatment provided, secondary treatment requirements. Additional secondary and ranged between current permit treatment will increase the quantity of WAS generated at conditions (blend of primary and secondary each plant, which increases the overall quantity of effluents) and traditional secondary biosolids generated by the District. For estimating the treatment requirements. operations cost associated with each wastewater alternative, CDM assumed that biosolids would continue to be treated to Class B standards onsite (using the current treatment train), and hauled offsite by an outside contractor for further treatment to Class A standards and land application. In order to allocate space for biosolids processing on each plant site, the site space needed for heat drying 100 percent of the sludge at each site was estimated.

FINAL 38 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Vendor Proposals Technologies related to biosolids management are constantly evolving. The District frequently receives proposals for biosolids management, treatment, and disposal. A table is provided in Appendix B, summarizing the current proposals on file at the District for biosolids management. The proposals have been separated into general categories including: x Direct land application x Composting x Solar drying x Landfilling x Bactericides x Alkaline admixtures x Fly ash x Drying x Pasteurization x Drying and pasteurization mix x Creation of fuels x Glassification x Pyrolisis x Electrical coagulation x Ultrasonic treatment x Others Though many of the proposals do not offer proven technologies, or do not appear practical for the size of the program required to accommodate the District’s needs, some may warrant additional consideration and possible pilot study. Discussion of the viability of these proposals will be provided in subsequent TMs.

Biosolids Management and Disposal Trends As discussed throughout this TM, there are several issues that may impact the future of a long-range biosolids management program. This section summarizes issues that may impact future biosolids management, including regulatory trends, legislation, costs, joint use projects, facility siting issues, and the trend toward information sharing.

Regulatory Trends Restrictive County Ordinances The most negative trend impacting current biosolids management programs is the imposition of severe restrictions or complete bans on Class B land application by counties throughout California. Even with the technical evidence and support provided by several professional societies, and the support of the SWRCB and USEPA, local government has chosen to fight the hauling and beneficial use of biosolids in their counties. Even the judges in court cases filed by the counties have indicated that “there is substantial evidence to support the validity of the findings reached by USEPA in its development of the federal

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 39 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK regulations (Title 40, Part 503 of the Code of Federal Regulations).” However, to date these judges have also upheld the counties’ right to impose more restrictive regulations, as allowed in the federal regulations. There appears to be a variety of issues that are influencing the counties’ positions. Although there have been several studies supporting the adequacy of current regulations, some local decision-makers are not convinced that the federal and state regulations adequately protect public health and safety. There is concern by some counties that private firms currently managing the application of biosolids on a contract basis with public agencies may not be operating in accordance with the regulations. There is also concern that oversight of the industry is insufficient. Though the overall performance of the private sector has been good, there have unfortunately been some problems with private land appliers that support the arguments of some counties. In certain areas, the counties have been influenced by concerns of local Farm Bureaus. Though the Farm Bureaus may feel confident regarding the safe use of biosolids, they are concerned about the negative stigma that is still attached to biosolids, and the impact it could have on national, as well as world agriculture markets. There is currently packaging that can be found in certain health food stores that showcases the fact that their product was not grown on land amended with biosolids. As the farming industry faces the challenges associated with the management of manure and other organic wastes, opportunities for co-composting facilities may help gain the support of certain Farm Bureaus. In addition, there is also the perception in rural governments that urban areas are using rural areas as disposal sites. Though proper land application of Class B biosolids has been proven safe and beneficial to the environment, it is clear that the trend of prohibiting Class B land application will continue and higher levels of biosolids processing will be required for land application in most California counties in the future. Some counties have indicated that they may consider bans on the land application of Class A biosolids. However, it is anticipated that in the future, some counties will preclude the land application of Class A biosolids in liquid or cake form, but most counties will allow the beneficial use of Class A biosolids products with a higher solids content, such as compost or pellets/granules. Some counties may be more receptive to land application of Class A biosolids cake (or even Class B) if the site was owned by the public agency. Ownership of the site by a public agency, including the holding of applicable permits, may mitigate some of the concerns raised by the performance of private land appliers.

Land Application in Arizona There are numerous Class B land application sites throughout Arizona, surrounding Phoenix, Yuma, and other cities. The State of Arizona revised the rules for land application of biosolids in December 2001. Land application of Class B product is still allowed, and there have been no significant regulatory changes. The state must review all rules every 5 years, and if important issues come up, the rules may be changed more frequently. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) will be monitoring the progress of the biosolids management program in Arizona over the next year or two to determine whether additional regulation is appropriate.

FINAL 40 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

It is conceivable that, as the importation of biosolids from California into Arizona increases, the corresponding level of public opposition would also increase, and more restrictive regulation of biosolids would follow. In 2003, Mojave County, Arizona has adopted a licensing fee for biosolids land application. The fee is substantial and essentially bans land application in that county. Additionally, La Paz County, Arizona requires that all land applied biosolids be Exceptional Quality (EQ). Based on increased public opposition and these additional county requirements, it appears that the long-term viability of Class B land application in Arizona may be limited.

Legislation Though there is no active legislation that would significantly impact the beneficial use of biosolids, the issues that have been raised between the counties, biosolids producers, and land appliers have resulted in the development of a number of proposed bills over the past few years. Some of these proposed bills included provisions that would make land application more difficult. Other proposed bills would have strengthened the ability to land apply. Most of these bills died due to limited political support. As county restrictions on biosolids use continue to grow, it is anticipated that biosolids producers will seek solutions through legislation. Future proposed legislation may involve a 5-year moratorium on future county ordinances, and requirements that local agencies regulate the land use and not the product. The 5-year moratorium would provide time to work out issues between counties and biosolids producers, while enabling the continuation of environmentally sound land application programs. Biosolids producers may also choose to pursue legislation that would pre-empt counties from imposing quality restrictions on biosolids that are greater than established state requirements.

Costs The costs of biosolids management are going up. In 1992, the average cost in California for the hauling and land application of biosolids was approximately $35 to $40 per wet ton. As more contract management options became available, the cost dropped significantly and typical costs held fairly steady at approximately $25 per wet ton from 1996 through 2000. As more stringent ordinances are developed and siting becomes more difficult, the average costs are creeping back up to $35 per ton. Costs are projected to climb higher as Class B land application sites in California become unavailable. This will result in additional transportation and treatment costs. In order to reduce biosolids management costs, one trend in the industry is a focus on improved dewatering capabilities. Many agencies moved from centrifuges to belt dewatering presses in the late 1980s due to energy savings. The current trend is back toward centrifuges, or retrofitting of belt presses, in order to produce a drier biosolids cake. The cost of biosolids management is now outweighing the extra energy costs associated with centrifuges or other alternatives that reduce moisture content.

Joint Use Projects Projects that include the recycling of a variety of organic materials such as biosolids, green waste, and manures are being implemented. Since these projects meet the needs of multiple stakeholders, such as the Farm Bureau when considering manure management, there may be a greater opportunity to obtain local agency support. However, mixed waste recycling facilities pose additional problems that biosolids-only facilities do not have to face. The

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 41 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK addition of green waste introduces potential problems with herbicides such as clopyralid. Traces of clopyralid, which is highly toxic to vegetables, have been found in compost made from recycled grass, straw, and manure in California, Washington State, and New Zealand. The herbicide is widely used on lawns to kill backyard dandelions and field thistles and is found in dozens of products used by crop farmers and commercial lawn-care companies. Clopyralid does not break down like most chemicals during composting. It can remain lethal up to 18 months after spraying. If regulations are developed to limit the concentration of clopyralid in compost, the sales of compost made from biosolids and green waste could be significantly impacted. Cost increases for biosolids beneficial use/disposal would be one likely result.

Facility Siting and Public Perception As it has always been, the ability to site and sustain biosolids management facilities is a significant challenge. Without the support of the public, biosolids operations eventually fail. The first challenge is the identification of appropriate locations for the facilities. The current trend in the industry is to involve the public very early in the site identification process. Extensive outreach and education is required to develop a common appreciation of the issues of concern for both the biosolids manager and the effected public. Another trend is to include more improvements that minimize the potential for nuisance impacts to the public. These improvements increase capital costs, but enhance reliability by establishing good neighbor facilities. Public-private partnering is a method that may be used more frequently in the future, as it provides assurance that the public agency will be involved in ensuring regulatory compliance, while reducing the requirement for the agency to expand their operations to offsite facilities.

Information Sharing and Self Improvement Within the Industry A very positive trend in the industry is the desire of biosolids producers, federal and state regulators, and private biosolids recyclers to work together to strengthen the performance and image of the industry. Several joint efforts have been introduced over the past several years that will strengthen public confidence and reduce the potential for problem projects that negatively impact the entire industry. Examples of these joint efforts are provided below: x The National Biosolids Partnership (USEPA, AMSA, and WEF) and the development of EMS for biosolids described earlier in this TM. x SCAP’s Standard Request for Proposals and Contract Provisions that can be used to select reputable biosolids management contractors. x CWEA’s Manual of Good Practice that provides proven guidance for the safe beneficial use of biosolids. x CWEA certification programs for biosolids land appliers that provide indications of an applier’s understanding of the rules, regulations, and management practices required for well-managed facilities.

FINAL 42 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x With the support of all of its member agencies, CASA is currently hiring a Biosolids Program Manager. The Biosolids Program Manager will be responsible for developing CASA’s Statewide Biosolids Program to successfully realize the following mission:

Promote the environmentally sound recycling of biosolids in California.

Foster cooperation among governmental agencies, regulators, private corporations, the agricultural community, and the general public in the management of biosolids.

Develop and maintain a system for sharing information between public and private stakeholders.

Sponsor/support university research to develop knowledgeable stakeholders.

Help avoid county biosolids recycling land application bans, and minimize costs while advocating environmentally sound biosolids management practices that benefit the people of California.

General Guidelines for the District’s Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan As described throughout this TM, an effective biosolids management program must address many diverse technical, economic, social, and political challenges. These challenges are based on a combination of real and perceived issues and concerns. The following summarizes general guidelines that need to be considered in the development of the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan.

Existing District Biosolids Management Goals and Resolutions In accordance with the District’s Strategic Plan, the current goals and objectives of the biosolids management program are to provide: x 100 percent biosolids recycling x At least one in-county management option x Reliability and public acceptance x Low cost x Multiple options x Continued use of private sector hauling and beneficial end-uses x Diversification x Back-up options Per OCSD Resolution No. 02-18, the long-term biosolids management program shall also meet the following commitments: x Irrespective of the biosolids management option selected, the District commits to implementing the NBP’s Code of Good Practice as the basis for an EMS for its biosolids management program. x Commitment to use on its site, and encourage its Member Agencies to use at their facilities, compost made using District biosolids.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 43 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK x Support of the proper management and oversight of biosolids management in accordance with USEPA Part 503 Rule, and the CWEA Manual of Good Practice. Per Resolution No. OCSD 02-14 the long-term biosolids management plan must be able to accommodate increased biosolids production resulting from full secondary treatment.

Guidelines for Enhanced Reliability In consideration of the dynamic regulatory environment, the following guidelines will be followed in order to maximize the reliability of the long-term biosolids management program:

Focus on Markets. The driving factor in process selection will be the determination of the resultant product and the development of a clear answer to the question, “Do we have a long-term, sustainable market for the product?”

Commitment to Class A EQ Products. Commit to development of Class A EQ products. The products could be created onsite or offsite. Due to the desire to generate the maximum amount of digester gas possible to fuel the existing cogeneration system, it should be assumed that the current level of digestion will be maintained and optimized.

Continue to Support Class B Land Application. For planning purposes, it should be assumed that land application of Class B biosolids will not be possible in the long-term due to issues not associated with product quality. However, current practices are environmentally sound and meet all current regulatory requirements. Efforts should be made to enable the land application of Class B biosolids for as long as possible.

Multiple Options. Though options that can handle the total volume of biosolids are desired, limit the maximum amount of biosolids going to one alternative to half of the total biosolids produced. Multiple product specifications should be considered in order to meet the needs of multiple markets.

Diversification. The Master Plan should identify at least one nonagricultural use for the top five alternatives. It is preferred that the nonagricultural use has an energy value or other environmental benefit.

Flexibility. The program must be flexible to accommodate unknown future issues.

Onsite and In-County Options. Onsite and in-county options will provide the maximum flexibility. The Master Plan will strive to identify as many onsite or in-county options as possible.

Long-term Contracts. Private sector alternatives that offer realistic long-term contracts are preferred over short-term contracts.

Land Purchase. The advantages of land ownership must be evaluated in the context of current and projected political and public perception issues.

Failsafe Options. Consider landfilling and land application on Indian lands as failsafe options only.

FINAL 44 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Guidelines to Improve Public Perception and Confidence It is clear that a biosolids management program will only be reliable with the support and confidence of the public. The following basic guidelines will be followed:

Sensitivity to Stakeholder Issues. Each alternative must consider potential nuisances or other impacts to the public. Odor, noise, air quality, and traffic are examples of public concerns. Other issues such as facility height must be considered as both public nuisance items as well as CUP considerations.

Provide Quality Products. Consideration must be given to the quality of the final product and the impression it will leave on the public. Sufficient processing should be provided to ensure that products are not odorous and do not contain plastics or other recognizable materials.

Maximize Value of Work Completed to Date Several reports and pilot studies have been completed by the District. The Master Plan will build upon the information developed to date. Processes to be analyzed should include processes that the District has tested (with favorable results) or plans on testing.

Innovative, Cost-Effective, and Environmentally Sound Ideas The Master Plan will encourage the identification and development of innovative, cost- effective, and environmentally sound long-term solutions. These solutions may include some or all of the following characteristics: x Volume Reduction. Alternatives that reduce the volume of biosolids or biosolids-derived products will be considered. Reduced volume could result in substantially reduced management costs. x Offsetting Costs. Cost assessments must consider issues such as offset costs for chemical fertilizers that would be realized by the use of biosolids. x Market Creation. Innovative approaches such as providing compost product for free and charging for delivery and spreading operations should be considered in order to create markets that may not currently exist. x Product Marketing Costs. The costs associated with marketing the product must be included in the cost evaluations. For options that involve the District managing the final product, there will be a need for account managers and other staff necessary for product marketing. Another approach would be to hire a broker. In either case, additional costs will be incurred. x Future Technologies. The Master Plan should provide for the continuous testing of new technologies concurrent with the implementation of proven current technologies. x Holistic Solutions. Alternative evaluations should tie all elements together (onsite, offsite, hauling, etc.) and consider the overall impact to the environment.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 45 FINAL

Appendix A – OCSD J-40-7 District’s Document List

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 FINAL

Appendix A – Orange County Sanitation District J-40-7 Document List

Technology Reports Brown & Caldwell. 2002. Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Process Evaluation. February. Carollo Engineers. 2002. Dewatering Comparison: Centrifuges vs. Belt Filter Presses. March. Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) in association with W.S. Atkins Consultants. 2002. Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) Evaluation. August. Orange County Sanitation District (Ted Vitko). 2002. Biosolids Management Alternatives by Technologies (Word). September. Atkins, W.S. 2003. Update on Ultrasonic Sludge Treatment Project. May.

Planning Carollo Engineers. 2001. Information to Support a Short-Term Biosolids Management Plan. July. CDM. 1999. Strategic Plan, Orange County Sanitation District, Biosolids Management. CDM. 2002. Interim Strategic Plan Update, Final Report Vol. 1 & 2. September. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2002. Biosolids EMS Manual. Draft. CH2M HILL. 2002. Odor Control Master Plan. July.

Permits/Regulations Legal Requirements, January 2001 (NPDES Permit, General Order, County Ordinances, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Title 23). SCAQMD Active Permits for Orange County Sanitation District Plants No. 1 and 2. Waste Discharge Requirements, CRWQCB WDR, Tule Ranch, Synagro, Yakima Co.

Operations and Facilities Data Orange County Sanitation District. Operations and Maintenance Annual Report, FY 2000-01. Orange County Sanitation District. June 2001 to May 2002. Summary of Biosolids Constituent Concentrations for the Orange County Sanitation District. Submitted monthly to Kern County. Orange County Sanitation District. AB 2588 Air Toxics Emissions Inventory Report 1999 Update – Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 1. Orange County Sanitation District. AB 2588 Air Toxics Emissions Inventory Report 1999 Update – Orange County Sanitation District Plant 2. Orange County Sanitation District. 2003. Draft Biosolids Management Alternatives by Technology. September. Draft.

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 A-1 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 – REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATORY OUTLOOK

Beneficial use/Disposal Inland Composting and Organic Recycling (ICOR) and Orange County Sanitation District Preliminary Information, June 2001. Biosolids Contracts, Tule Ranch, Yakima Company, Synagro, California Soil Products

FINAL A-2 W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 Appendix B – Biosolids Management Alternatives by Technology

W052003003SCO/TM-01.DOC/ 033350009 FINAL

Appendix B – Biosolids Management Alternatives by Technology

Direct Land Application Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Diamond A Ranch Gabbs $0 $47.85 No 2,500 acres available Valley, NV per WT (450 miles) Empire Farms Empire NV $0 $45 No 29,700 acres available (500 miles) per WT Paloma Ranch Gila Bend, $0 $41 No 65,300 acres available AZ per WT (350 miles) Universal Kern, $0 $35.50 No Conglomerate of interests and sites Environmental Kings, and & in those counties Solutions W-AZ $38.75 per WT Solid Solutions AZ $0 U No U Tule Ranch Kern, $0 $25.60 No Currently sending a portion of our Kings $28.97 material there (200 miles) Yakima Co. Kern $0 $33.87 No Currently sending a portion of our (180 miles) material there Synagro Tri-state $0 $39.50 No Currently sending a portion of our Area per WT material there (270 miles)

Composting Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations McCarthy Farms Kings U U Yes 21,900 acres available (220 miles) South Kern Industrial Kern U U Yes 100 acres in heavy industrial area Center (180 miles) Synagro – Lams Beaumont U U Yes Enclosed aerated static pile with Canyon biofilters Sato Environmental TBD U U Yes In-vessel aerobic dehydration and fermentation system ICOR Colton $30 M $22 per Yes Enclosed aerated static piles with WT biofilters Vermitech TBD U $40 per Yes Facility in Australia WT US Filter TBD U U Yes Enclosed agitated bin composting (Colton) with biofilters Westlake Farms Kings $11-22 M U Yes 14,253 acres available (200 miles)

W052003003SCO/TM-01-APP-B.DOC/ 033370010 B-1 FINAL APPENDIX B – BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES BY TECHNOLOGY

Solar Drying Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Parkson Corporation TBD $13.8 M U U Requires 20 acres of solar transparent chambers Yakima Co. – La Paz, AZ $0 $ U Solar drying and mixing with La Paz (270 miles) green waste and use as daily cover

Landfilling Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Waste Markets Simi Valley $0 $32.50 No and Yuma, per WT AZ Holloway Kern (200 No Land reclamation of old gypsum miles) mine Prima Deshecha U $0 $33 per No WT

Bactericides Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Evergreen Organics TBD U U U Add Busan 1236 (Sodium n-methildithiocarbamate to biosolids to kill all organisms

Alkaline Admixtures Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations California Soil Los $0 $32.70 Yes Up to 300 WT/day Material Products Angeles +CP1 neutralized with sulfuric acid N-Viro Cemen TBD $780,000 + $19,50 Yes Heat added Tech improvements 0 per year + 33.75 kWh N-Viro TBD $3.55 M $6 M Yes Includes composting and curing BioDry/BioBlend per year

Bio Set TBD U U Yes Pan American Bio TBD U U Yes Steam treatment and acid Tech. addition RDP Technologies TBD U U Yes Pasteurization with added heat and air mixing

FINAL B-2 W052003003SCO/TM-01-APP-B.DOC/ 033370010 APPENDIX B – BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES BY TECHNOLOGY

Alkaline Admixtures Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations California Soil Los $0 $32.70 Yes Up to 300 WT/day Material Products Angeles +CP neutralized with sulfuric acid N-Viro Cemen Tech TBD $780,000 + $19,500 Yes Heat added improvements per year + 33.75 kWh N-Viro TBD $3.55 M $6 M Yes Includes composting and curing BioDry/BioBlend per year

Bio Set TBD U U Yes Pan American Bio TBD U U Yes Steam treatment and acid Tech. addition

RDP Technologies TBD U U Yes Pasteurization with added heat and air mixing

Fly Ash Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Hondo Chemical TBD $0 $36 Yes Bio-Gyp Tule Ranch Kern or U U Yes Kings

Enzymes & Stimulants Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Bio Stimulants Sewer U U No PX-700 claim to reduce sludge West system mass and odors Duro Enzyme Sewer U U No Claim to reduce sludge mass Product system and odors Ennix Inc. Sewer U U No Claim to reduce sludge mass system and odors Envirotech Sewer U U No Claims to reduce sludge mass system by 50%

National Colloids Sewer U U No Produce #680 to help the system dewatering process and reduce bacteria Bio Magic Biosolids U U Yes Reduces odor problems

W052003003SCO/TM-01-APP-B.DOC/ 033370010 B-3 FINAL APPENDIX B – BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES BY TECHNOLOGY

Drying Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Andritz CDS Plant $11 M $120 – Yes Fluidized bed that operates at 150 per 150 degrees C DT Berlie Technologies Plant $71 M $91 M Yes Swiss Combi operating at 450 degrees C Feeco International Plant U U Yes Rotary dryer with cooler Fenton Plant U U Yes Dehydration of material to 90% Environmental using 91 kWh per DT Technology GRRO Tempest Plant U U U Enzyme-treated biosolids which (ECO Cure) is then dried Komline-Sanderson Plant U U Yes Dual counter-rotating shafts with intermeshing wedge-shaped hollow paddles through which oil or steam flows Planet Earth Plant U U Yes Fermentation, heat-drying, and (Thermo-Tech) pelletizing system US Filter J-Vap Plant U U Yes Dewatering at 100 psi and drying with hot water at 180 degrees C US Filter Dragon Plant $9.6 M $3.3 kWh Yes Indirect heat with thermal oil Dryer per DT + 85 kWh Schwing America Plant U U Yes Fluidized bed with steam or thermal oil operating at 85 degrees C New England Plant $25 M 325 kWh Yes Rotary drum drying and Fertilizer per DT granulation operating at between 700-1000 degrees F Sehgers Plant $87 M $190 per Yes Fluidized bed combustion DT with thermal oil heated to 180 degrees C. Flue gas is destroyed with heat at 850 degrees C

FINAL B-4 W052003003SCO/TM-01-APP-B.DOC/ 033370010 APPENDIX B – BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES BY TECHNOLOGY

Pasteurization Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations RDP Technologies Plant U U Yes Pre-pasteurization by thermal hydrolysis (340 degrees C at 120 psi) and RDP en-vessel post-pasteurization at 100 degrees C Dry Vac Plant U U Yes Recessed plate filter-press and Environmental pasteurization with steam at 100 degrees C. Ashbrook (Eco Plant $3 M 476 kWh Yes Liquid sludge or biosolids (6% Therm) per DT TS) pasteurization process at 70 degrees C for 30 min.

Drying and Pasteurization Mix Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Andritz DDS Plant $31 m U Yes Drying and pasteurization in three concentric cylinders

Fuels Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Enertech Colton U U NA Chemically alters biosolids and creates a high-energy fuel under 1000-1500 psi at 450 degrees F. Environmental U U U NA Organics in dried biosolids are Solutions converted to clean fuels at International 450 degrees C. (Enersludge ThermoEnergy U U U NA Conditioned with alkaline materials, heated to 617 degrees F, allowed to react for 20 min. producing char and oil

Glassification Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Minergy U U U NA Blended with silica and melted to form glass aggregate at 2700-3000 degrees F.

W052003003SCO/TM-01-APP-B.DOC/ 033370010 B-5 FINAL APPENDIX B – BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES BY TECHNOLOGY

Pyrolisis Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations International U U U NA Cyclone-dried, fed into the Environmental system heated to 1200-1800 Solutions degrees F. The exhaust system has a thermal oxidizer heated to 1600-2250 degrees F.

Electrical Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Plasma-Assisted Plant U U NA Completely destroys organic Oxidation matter Powell Plant U U U Direct current to react and Electrocoagulation precipitate or coalesce contaminants Globe Protect USA Plant U U U Alternating mechanical wave and cavitation inactivator. Kills bacteria and improves digestion and dewaterability

Others Capital O&M Class Company Location Cost Cost A Observations Terralog Plant U U NA Injection of slurry in old oil formations and recover the displaced and formed methane KLS/DK Desert U U U Burying biosolids in the desert by inmates Genesyst Plant U U NA Concentric pipes are sunk to International depths of 2,000+ ft. The oxygen-fed combustion reaches 705 degrees F U = Undefined

FINAL B-6 W052003003SCO/TM-01-APP-B.DOC/ 033370010 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 2 – Viable Biosolids Product Markets

Contents

Summary ...... 2 Introduction...... 3 Drivers for New Product Market Options...... 4 Regulations Summary...... 4 Local Ordinances...... 4 The District’s Biosolids Management Goals...... 10 Integration of Biosolids Technologies and Products...... 12 Compost Product Technologies ...... 12 Dry Pellet/Granule Technologies ...... 13 Alkaline-Stabilized Product Technologies...... 13 Chemical Fertilizer Product Technologies...... 13 Fuel Products/Energy Recovery Technologies...... 13 Construction and Non-Construction Material Technologies...... 14 Integration of Biosolids Products and Markets...... 14 Compost Products ...... 14 Alkaline-Stabilized Products ...... 19 Dry Pellets and Granules...... 20 Direct Energy Production...... 21 Construction Material Product...... 21 Future Biosolids Characteristics and Quantities ...... 21 Overall Market Identification...... 22 Preliminary Market Descriptions...... 23 Existing Program Baseline Product Markets: Non-Food-Chain Cropping using Class B Products in Various Locations...... 23 Non-Food-Chain Cropping with Member Agencies, Class A Products ...... 28 Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Crop Production...... 36 Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail (Various Types Including Consideration of Compost, Pellets, Granules) ...... 45 Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Assisting Residential Development...... 59 Energy/Silviculture – Indirect Production through Biomass Crop...... 65 Citrus, Avocado, Vineyard, and Orchard through Pellets or Granules ...... 74 Orange County Vegetable Growers Utilizing Pellets Or Granules...... 78 Ag-Lime Products ...... 81 Mexico Export Product Markets...... 86 Energy – Direct Production...... 92

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 1 175817.PE.12 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Erosion Control Products...... 95 Direct Landfilling...... 99 Landfill Partnering – Alternative Daily Cover ...... 107 Construction Material Markets ...... 110 Non-Construction Material Products...... 113 Dedicated Land Disposal (Holloway Mines)...... 116 Fuel Products (Oil, Char) ...... 118 Summary of Viable Markets...... 121 References...... 127 Appendix A – Summary of Market Research Contacts

Summary In association with the development of biosolids processing technologies, significant effort in recent years, has been placed on the marketability of products that move up the value chain from Class B dewatered biosolids cake to various forms of Class A Exceptional Quality (EQ) products. Evaluating the viability of these products brought into focus four management and marketing principles used in this research: 1. Maximizing the use, demand, and value for biosolids-based products is driven by “benefits or problem solving.” This means it is customer based. 2. Growing reliable and sustained product markets in the face of expanding competition requires “long-term commitments and investments.” 3. Experience dictates that “a range of strong partnerships” throughout product processing, distribution channels, and consumption stages are critical to sustainable and growing markets. 4. Experience dictates that “one or more failsafe backup markets” are important to long- term reliable biosolids management. Responding to these needs, this document is organized into five key parts, including (1) an assessment of the current and anticipated drivers for product marketing options available to the Orange County Sanitation District (the District), (2) the biosolids management goals targeted by the District, (3) a brief overview of the identified markets, (4) a detailed description of the markets, and (5) a summary of the viable markets for inclusion in following stages of the work in this Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. Our approach to completing the work in this TM relied on the following steps: x Conceptualize products and define features closely linked to technology options and various market drivers. x Estimate product applications, features, and benefits. x Research and assess markets. x Research and assess competition, market share, and product positioning.

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Identify market issues and concerns. x Research and assess failsafe backup markets. The markets were grouped into two broad categories: cropping markets and non-cropping markets. Additionally, the products suitable from a range of technologies, such as composting and heat drying, were described. A detailed review was conducted of 19 overall markets. The review was based on research conducted by the project team, documentation provided by vendors, and on meetings and telephone discussions with the vendors and individuals operating in the various market sectors. The results of this market assessment indicate that six cropping markets and five non-cropping markets are viable for the range of biosolids products producible by the District. These viable markets are listed in the table below.

List of Viable Markets Cropping Sector Non-Cropping Sector Horticulture – Member Agencies Direct Energy Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Construction Market Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Direct Landfilling (Failsafe backup) Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover (Failsafe backup) Energy/Silviculture – Biomass Crops Dedicated Land Disposal Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch

Based on this evaluation, the most viable markets for the District’s biosolids products are as follows: Compost – Utilization of compost over a wide range of horticultural, biomass-to-ethanol, and erosion control applications. Dry Pellets and Granules – Utilization of dry pellets and granules, either in fortified or unfortified state, over a wide range of horticultural, biomass-to-ethanol, and erosion control applications. Construction Materials – Utilization of dry, soil-like material in the construction industry. Fuel Energy Product – Utilize a fuel char in the energy production or recovery sector. Landfilling and Alternative Cover Products – Utilize composed or dried products in landfills (as a failsafe backup option) or in the landfill operation as an alternate source of municipal solid waste (MSW) cover. Introduction The District is undertaking the preparation of a Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The goal of this work is to develop a strategy for biosolids management for the next 5 to 15 years that provides the flexibility to meet current and future regulatory changes, tying viable solids handling processes to long-term sustainable biosolids product markets and disposal options.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The objectives and purpose of this Technical Memorandum (TM) are to identify viable biosolids product markets available to the District over the next 5 to 15 years. This TM identifies and describes various product markets including those focusing on cropping and non-cropping situations. The product of this TM (TM 2) will be used in Project Element 3 to estimate the requirements for implementation of the product markets and assess sustainability of these markets. Combining the results of TM 2 and TM 3, the work will be used in Project Element 4 to rank product markets that will be incorporated into the District’s Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. This TM is organized into five key parts, including (1) an assessment of the current and anticipated drivers for product marketing options available to the District, (2) the biosolids management goals targeted by the District, (3) a brief overview of the identified markets, (4) a detailed description of the markets, and (5) a summary of the viable markets for inclusion in following stages of the work in this Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. Our approach to completing the work in this TM relied on the following steps: x Conceptualize products and define features closely linked to technology options and various market drivers. x Estimate product applications, features, and benefits. x Research and assess markets. x Research and assess competition, market share, and product positioning. x Identify market issues and concerns. x Research and assess failsafe backup markets.

Drivers for New Product Market Options

Regulations Summary A complete review of biosolids regulations pertinent to the District’s biosolids management plan was supplied in TM 1. This portion of the regulations analysis focuses on regulatory issues that will impact the District’s ability to market biosolids-derived products that could be generated as a result of implementing this Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan.

Local Ordinances The current and potential future regulations driving new product market options for the District occurs primarily at the local level. In California, and potentially Arizona, county ordinances dominate the regulatory scene. Figure 2-1 summarizes the status of county ordinances throughout California although changes occur regularly. This section supplies information on ordinance developments in Kern, Kings, and Riverside counties.

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 Figure 2-1. Status of County Biosolids Ordinances

W052003003SCO/FIG2-1.DOC/031490010 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Blank page

FINAL 6 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The most recent change, as of November 26, 2002, was by Kern County. The County adopted a new ordinance that continues the ban on Class B biosolids land application and enforces new stringent criteria on Class A biosolids land application that is very similar to the requirements of the Class B land application ordinance. For the time being, compost products are exempted from requirements of the Kern County ordinance. During discussion and debate over the Kern County biosolids ordinance, elected officials have regularly commented that this particular ordinance is considered a stop-gap measure as the County develops the basis for a complete ban on biosolids products of any kind. Beginning in 2000, Kings County undertook a biosolids land application ordinance process. An ordinance was adopted that bans Class B biosolids as of February 2003. The current ordinance allows for the use of Class A EQ biosolids until February 2006 and then only composted Class A EQ biosolids will be allowed. In Riverside County, the Board of Supervisors is considering various options for regulating Class A biosolids land application. Several years ago, a ban on Class B biosolids land application was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. During October 2002, the Supervisors considered a ban on virtually all classes of biosolids except for bagged products sold at retail outlets. This ordinance was held in abeyance pending deliberation by a task force pulled together by the County Public Health Officer. The mission of the Task Force includes reviewing the National Research Council (NRC) report Biosolids Applied to Land, published in July 2002 (NRC, 2002). The Health Officer found concerns in the report that did not address public health issues important to Riverside County. In response to the Riverside County ordinance deliberations, a number of representatives from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) convened a series of meetings and have adopted an action plan. The action plan is summarized as follows: 1. Riverside County POTWs must lead and be in the point of coordination with the County Board of Supervisors. 2. Riverside County POTWs, in close coordination with POTW representatives from adjacent counties, should offer a progressive regional action plan to Riverside County that enhances current regulations to satisfy Riverside County elected officials and citizens that safe biosolids handling and use practices are taking place in Riverside County. The essential points of the suggested plan are as follows (subject to revision and consensus among the POTW community; recognizing this as a first draft, work-in- progress). 3. Continue with the ban on Class B biosolids cake land application per County Ordinance No. 8.129. 4. Consistent with the NRC report, acknowledge that Class A biosolids are safe when applied following the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503. 5. The POTW industry supports additional, continued research as recommended in the NRC report. The POTWs will work with Riverside County staff to ensure, to the extent possible, that Riverside County issues are addressed in continued health risk assessments.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

6. All Class A EQ biosolids produced within Riverside County will be acceptable for any class of land application subject to normal regulatory and Best Management Practices (BMPs) as shown in the California Water Environment Association (CWEA) Biosolids Land Application Training Course. Class A EQ biosolids cake may be subject to significant additional buffer zone constraints, possibly as great as 1/2-mile from property lines. Riverside County POTWs will consider a sunset on all in-county application of ‘non-product’ biosolids after 5 years. 7. Class A EQ biosolids from out-of-county POTWs shall be treated to produce a compost, pellet, or granule-like product prior to land application. Prior to any bulk application of compost or pellet material, the site shall be tested to determine the soil content and appropriateness of using biosolids-based material. 8. POTWs will support a service hotline to assist the county in responding to citizen information needs on biosolids management practices. 9. POTWs will cooperate to create a regional, balanced biosolids land application and use plan that will involve facilities in other counties, in addition to a Riverside compost facility. 10. POTWs will support an in-county biosolids and green waste composting facility. Capacity processing will first go to Riverside County POTWs followed by neighboring counties. Neighboring counties will cooperate to achieve product take-back for use outside of Riverside County. 11. POTWs will work with Dr. Gary Feldman in support of the Health Department Committee evaluating the NRC reports. 12. POTWs will work to improve local education and risk communication about biosolids management with Riverside County citizens and elected officials.

Federal Regulations At the federal level, there have been no formal changes in federal regulations since the promulgation of 40 CFR Part 503 in 1993. Since that time, a variety of environmental groups, local governments, and others have expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the Part 503 regulations. Concerns have focused on the land application of Class B biosolids. In response to these concerns, USEPA requested the NRC of the National Academy of Science (NAS) to conduct a study to assist USEPA in evaluating regulatory requirements and nonregulatory measures with respect to the land application of biosolids. In July 2002, the NRC published a report, Biosolids Applied to Land (NRC, 2002), which focused on potential health effects from chemicals and pathogens in biosolids that are applied to land. The overarching findings of the NAS report concluded that there is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health, but there is a persistent uncertainty regarding the potential for adverse health effects. In light of recent scientific advances, the report finds that additional studies should be conducted and risk assessments performed to update the scientific basis for the rule. The report’s opening statement is very significant. It states, “The committee recognizes that land application of biosolids is a widely used, practical option for managing the large

FINAL 8 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS volume of sewage sludge generated at wastewater treatment plants that otherwise would largely need to be disposed of at landfills or by incineration.” Furthermore, the committee did not find any scientific evidence that the Part 503 regulation has failed to protect public health. The committee did indicate that there were anecdotal allegations of disease to humans and animals (NRC, 2002). However, the committee felt that additional scientific studies were needed to “reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to biosolids.” Current scientific data and risk assessment methods for both chemical and pathogen standards need to be evaluated to assure the public and protect public health. The potential impact of the NRC report on biosolids products that meet USEPA Class A standards could be very positive. Although the report pointed out that there were no documented health cases related to direct land application of biosolids (Class B), it did point out that USEPA failed to update data on chemicals and pathogens or conduct risk assessment for pathogens. These statements suggested to the public that there might be some health risks associated with direct land application of biosolids. The NRC report referred to the USEPA-sponsored Workshop on Emerging Infectious Disease Agents and Issues Associated with Animal Manures, Biosolids, and Other Similar By-Products, which was held in Cincinnati, Ohio in June 2001. This workshop concluded that at present, the use of Salmonella as an indicator of the potential presence of pathogens is still valid even though regrowth of microorganisms can occur. Regrowth can be avoided by ensuring that biosolids products are highly stabilized. Furthermore, time-temperature processes such as composting and heat drying are good ways to disinfect biosolids. The NRC report will most likely reinforce the use of stabilized products that use time- temperature as a means of pathogen destruction and reduce or eliminate potential food sources for pathogens. There has already been an increase in interest by communities in composting and heat drying. Inorganic chemicals are not typically destroyed by composting or heat drying. In composting, some dilution and binding can occur with the use of organic amendments. However, any reduction in inorganic chemicals in biosolids will enhance product quality. The NRC report also recommended an additional survey by USEPA, focusing on organic chemicals in biosolids. Reduction of organic chemicals in biosolids will improve the quality of products derived from biosolids. In late October 2002, USEPA issued their plan to respond to the NRC report, and provide guidance to USEPA Regional Administrators regarding biosolids program implementation while the response plan is developed and implemented. This information was summarized in TM 1 of this study. As noted in TM 1 regarding the issues surrounding the NRC report, several questions remain for consideration by the District, including: 1. Whether airborne pathogens from biosolids are a problem. 2. Whether there should be additional permitting requirements for biosolids. 3. Whether to set national limits for dioxins or focus on the few treatment plants that have problems with dioxins.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 9 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Regarding additional permitting, USEPA will be making a determination within the next 6 months. It is not certain at this time whether the additional permitting will be addressed through existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or a new type of permit. Additionally, USEPA biosolids compliance management officials have indicated that USEPA will be engaged in a new, more intense level of compliance auditing and enforcement. This is consistent with recommendations in the NRC report.

The District’s Biosolids Management Goals Several essential strategic principles guide the process of biosolids market development: x Maximizing the use/demand/value for biosolids-based products is “benefits or problem solving” driven. The District’s products will evolve through the viewpoints of the people accepting and using the products, not through the viewpoints of engineers or managers designing and implementing treatment technologies. These markets include value-added opportunities such as horticulture, silviculture, and agriculture. These markets tend to be the highest risk/highest reward types of markets compared to other biosolids management techniques. However, this situation implies greater vulnerability to competition or marketplace disruption through the tactics of antibiosolids activists. x Growing reliable and sustained product markets in the face of expanding competition requires “long-term commitments and investments.” The District will need to identify market influencers and early adopters that will lead the market place into a sustainable position. Demonstrations of product effectiveness and superiority will be a part of these commitments and investments. The ability to leverage relationships with sister agencies while not scavenging market share will assist in cost-effective investments in demonstrating product suitability. x In the case of biosolids-derived products, experience dictates that “a range of strong partnerships” throughout product processing, distribution channels, and consumption stages is critical to sustainable and growing markets. This principle implies public and private sector partnerships with a number of organizations including the District’s member agencies for access to horticulture products at discounted pricing, partnerships with members of the landscaping industry throughout the processing and distribution channel, and partnerships with individual consumers, perhaps through give-away programs. Providing proof to potential partners, such as member agencies, to entice their participation will require effective economic modeling of the beneficial economic impact of waste diversion/recycling. For example, Goldman and Ogishi (2001) of the University of California at Berkeley, recently reported (2001-The Economic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in California, A Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board [CIWMB]) that the average economic impacts per ton of material diverted/recycled versus landfilled was a net $275 per ton including an additional 2.27 jobs per ton of capacity! x In the case of biosolids-derived products, experience dictates that “one or more failsafe backup markets” are important to long-term reliable biosolids management. A failsafe market could include maximizing energy use within the treatment plant or creating a

FINAL 10 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

link to a land application methodology such as alternative daily cover or landfilling not subject to public market place vagaries. The District adopted two important resolutions guiding the long-term biosolids management program. The first is Resolution No. OCSD 02-18 in support of biosolids recycling. The second is Resolution No. OCSD 02-14, which established the policy for the level of treatment of wastewater discharged to the ocean. Under Resolution No. OCSD 02-18, the District declared the following: x Irrespective of the biosolids management option selected, the District’s commitment to implementing the National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) Code of Good Practice as the basis for an Environmental Management System (EMS) for its biosolids management program. x The District’s desire to promote the continuance of the recycling of biosolids to nontable-food crop agricultural land in a manner that is safe, environmentally beneficial, and sensitive to the needs of the communities involved. x The District’s full support for the recycling of biosolids. x The District’s commitment to use on its site, and encourage its Member Agencies to use at their facilities, compost made using District biosolids. x The District supports the proper management and oversight of this practice in accordance with the USEPA Part 503 Rule, and the CWEA Manual of Good Practice. Under Resolution No. OCSD 02-14, the District declared that it will treat all wastewater discharges into the ocean to secondary treatment levels. This resolution is very important since the ability to meet the secondary level of treatment will require reliable long-term biosolids management alternatives with the capacity to handle increased biosolids production. During discussions regarding this Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan, staff identified additional objectives and success factors pertaining to product marketing, as follows: x Anticipation and flexibility to accommodate change. x Optimization of beneficial use of biosolids within Orange County and the District’s service area and inclusion of failsafe options. x Establishing product marketing outlets for Class A products that exceed the District’s biosolids production. x A sustainable approach that encompasses the informed use of resources and innovative and appropriate application of technology, while considering the vital components including environment, economy, and social equity. x Elimination/mitigation of impacts/nuisances to surrounding community.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 11 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Integration of Biosolids Technologies and Products The technology options considered in the market evaluation were drawn from work completed in TM 5 – Viable Technologies. Table 2-1 shows the products provided by the different technology categories evaluated in TM 5. The following is a brief description of the relationship between the technologies and the products. More detailed product specifications and market descriptions are provided later in this TM; detailed process descriptions are provided in TM 5.

TABLE 2-1 Viable Product Technologies Related to Biosolids Products Products

Alkaline Stabilized Products Fuel Dry Pellets Non- Products/ and pH pH Chemical Construction Construction Energy Technologies Compost Granules >11 § 7 Fertilizer Materials Materials Recovery

Composting X

Heat Drying X (X)* (X)* X

Heat Drying X with Soil

Neat Alkali X

Fly Ash X

Neutralization X

Chemical X Fortification

Pyrolysis X

Super Critical XX Wet Oxidation

Gasification X

Combustion X

Vitrification X X

Deep Well X Injection

*With additional processing or blending

Compost Product Technologies Composting methods such as aerated static pile (ASP), windrow, or in-vessel composting can produce compost products suitable for horticulture, silviculture, and agriculture, with the level of screening being one of the key differences in tailoring the compost product to different markets. Vermiculture, or composting with worms, also produces a compost

FINAL 12 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS product; however, the product comprises primarily worm castings and amendment and contains a lot of fine material that may impact market acceptability of the product.

Dry Pellet/Granule Technologies Heat drying systems are used to produce a pelletized or granular product. The size and form of the pellets or granules will vary with specific systems, and screens are used to provide size control. Incorporation of product recycle into the dryer or a pelletizer downstream of the dryer are used to minimize dust in the final product.

Alkaline-Stabilized Product Technologies Alkaline stabilization processes typically produce a high pH product that is a mixture of biosolids and lime or fly ash, and may have flecks of white due to the lime. The lime or alkaline content varies significantly between processes, from 7 percent to over 50 percent dry weight. The moisture content of the final product depends on whether or not the process includes drying. Processes that do not have a drying step, such as the RDP Technologies Inc. process, will produce a product with a solids content of 35 to 45 percent, depending on the feed solids content and the proportion of lime added. The N-Viro AASSAD process includes a drying step; the final product solids content will be over 50 percent, and the product will have a crumbly, soil-like texture. However, high pH biosolids products are not easily marketed in areas where the soil pH is high. Neutralization processes use the addition of sulfuric acid, along with lime, to provide a final product with a neutral pH. The dryness of the product will vary depending on whether or not drying is included.

Chemical Fertilizer Product Technologies Chemical fortification processes involve the addition of ammonia and acids such as sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid to provide an exothermic reaction that assists in drying the biosolids to produce a final product that is a dry, granular fertilizer. Fertilizer organic content will vary depending on the ratio of biosolids to chemical, ranging from 25 to 75 percent organics with a moisture content of around 2 percent. The nutrient value of the fertilizer is typically expressed in the form N-P-K (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium), with sulfur in brackets if it is present. Products that can be produced include mono ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate.

Fuel Products/Energy Recovery Technologies Pyrolysis processes can be conducted at different temperature and pressures, to provide either a fuel char that has a heating value of 6,500 to 9,000 British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb), or sometimes a low grade oil, similar to a kerosene-type product or a Grade No. 7 oil. Industry experience indicates that the oil product is difficult to market, and many processes avoid producing it. The char solids content may vary from 50 to 95 percent. Local uses for the char are in cement kilns and biomass waste to energy plants. Cement kilns prefer a char with a maximum moisture content of 8 percent for use in the clinker zone. Char used in the pre-calciner zone can have a higher moisture content of up to 50 percent. Gasification processes may produce a char with some heating value, although the value will be lower than with pyrolysis as some of the organics are combusted in the process. Energy

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 13 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS recovery also is usually provided through the biogas produced in the gasification process. However, the gas quality is typically low (< 500 Btu/cubic foot [cf]), and the gas needs to be mixed with other fuel gases to be burnt. Complete combustion processes do not provide a product, rather they can provide a direct source of energy recovery through the combustion process.

Construction and Non-Construction Material Technologies There are different technologies that provide products for use as construction material. One option is the indirect drying of biosolids by mixing with heat-treated soil, as proposed by American Remedial Technology. The product would be a soil with some organic material contributed by the biosolids, and could be used for construction and development applications. Super critical wet oxidation processes produce an inert sandy material that can be used as a construction material such as fill for road construction or cement manufacture, or in non- construction materials such as tiles and bricks. The ash from incineration processes may also be used in cement or brick manufacturing processes. Vitrification processes, such as the Minergy glass aggregate process, mix biosolids with silica to produce a hard, granular, black, glassy product that can be used as a construction material such as road fill, and can be used in the manufacture of tiles, brick, and other products.

Integration of Biosolids Products and Markets The District has the potential to create a wide range of products, and these need to be integrated with the markets available for the different types of products, in order to develop a sustainable biosolids management strategy. Each of these products is characterized according to its important features and the benefits that derive from those features. Future consumers of these products will focus on the benefits of the products as they determine how much, how often, and for what price these products will be acquired. These issues will be one of several important parameters used by the District to rank product markets and select a path for the overall Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The information presented in this section summarizes the product standards that can be generated by the viable biosolids product technologies described above. Table 2-2 shows the suitability of the biosolids products for the different product markets that will be evaluated in this TM.

Compost Products The application and product use will dictate the most desired characteristics. Biosolids compost is a soil conditioner not a fertilizer. It will contain low levels of plant macronutrients such as N-P-K, Calcium (Ca), and Magnesium (Mg) usually in insufficient quantities for the needs of the crop. However, in cases where large quantities of compost are used to ameliorate heavy soils or sandy soils, a sufficient quantity of these nutrients could be provided. Biosolids compost usually provides numerous essential micronutrients such as copper, molybdenum, selenium, and zinc in sufficient quantities for plant growth.

FINAL 14 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-2 Biosolids Products and Available Markets Dry Fuel Pellets Alkaline Non- Products/ Class A/ Compost and Stabilized Chemical Construction Construction Energy Class B Products Granules Products Fertilizer Materials Materials Recovery Cake

Cropping Markets Existing Program Baseline – Non-Food-Chain X Cropping, Class B Non-Food-Chain Cropping, Class A EQ XX X X Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery XX X Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail XX X Silviculture – Shade Tree Program XX X Energy/Silviculture – Biomass Crops XX X X Citrus, Avocado, Vineyard and Orchard XX Orange County Vegetable Growers XX X Ag-Lime Applications X Non-Cropping Markets Direct Energy X X Erosion Control X Direct Landfilling XXXXX Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover X X

Construction Market (X)* X Non-construction Market X Dedicated Land Disposal XXXXX Fuel usage X X *Requires further processing

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/031470004 15 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Horticulture Grade Compost Horticultural products are principally used in establishing flower beds, amending soil for ornamental plantings in landscaping and nursery field production, preparing mixes for container ornamentals and flowers, and improving topsoil for turf and sod production. Soil amendment for use in planting beds is usually used “as is” (i.e., unblended) and is incorporated into the soil. Particle size and soluble salts are the two most important characteristics. The preferred size is <0.5 inch. The product should be stable to highly stable and the resulting salinity level of the bed should not exceed 2.5 deciSiemens per meter (dS m-1). Therefore, the compost should have a salinity level of 5.0 dS m-1 (Fitzpatrick, 1992). A lower salinity in the bed may be needed for salt-sensitive plants such as geraniums. Landscape mulch is used as a decorative material, to prevent erosion, to intercept and adsorb rainfall, and for weed control. The specifications for this product are less than most horticultural applications. Particle size may vary but coarse particles are preferred as they will remain in place. Coarse textured compost adsorbs water better and is more effective in weed control. Nurseries utilize compost in field beds and as a plant growth media in containers. The use of compost for field grown ornamentals depends on the species. Generally compost is used “as is,” and is incorporated into the soil. Digested biosolids compost made with woodchips increased growth of tulip poplar and dogwood (Walker and Gouin, 1977). Stable compost is preferable. A neutral pH is preferred, except for acid-soil-tolerant plants such as azaleas and rhododendrons. A wider range of salinity is acceptable except for salt-sensitive plants such as certain conifers and dogwoods. In order to avoid salinity problems for sensitive plants, a smaller amount is often applied or the depth of incorporation increased. In container production, compost is blended with soil, sand, or other media. Usually 20 to 30 percent biosolids compost is used in container growth media. Higher contents of compost have been reported to be successful for certain crops. The characteristics will vary with the species planted. Soluble salts are often less of an issue since irrigation will leach them out. A stable product is desirable. The preferred particle size is 3/8 inch. Biosolids compost has been used successfully in turf establishment and renovation. In addition to improving the water holding capacity of the soil, compost has been shown to suppress certain diseases on creeping bentgrass and bluegrass turf. Applications of biosolids compost improved the establishment rate from seed and general appearance of turfgrass (Barker, 2001). Sod production has been shown to be one of the best uses for biosolids compost. Research by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has shown that sod grown in soil amended with compost grew faster so that the grower could produce additional crops within a season. Less soil was removed and less topsoil was depleted (Epstein, 1997). Compost has also been used as a medium for sod production on impermeable surfaces such as polyethylene plastic (Barker, 2001). Top dressing applications have been shown to improve the performance of turfgrasses. The principal benefit from the top dressing is the nutrients, and in some cases disease

FINAL 16 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS suppression. Generally, the particle size of the compost should be small, especially for sports turf. General product attributes of the biosolids compost is an organic matter resource and improves the soil physical properties. As a soil conditioner, it enhances the soil media for better plant growth. The organic matter in biosolids compost will increase the soil water retention and thus make more water available to plants. This can reduce irrigation requirements or enhance growth during periods of drought. Soil structure is improved through soil aggregation and porosity. Better pore space improves aeration and thus provides more oxygen to the plant root system. The organic matter also lowers the bulk density so that root growth is enhanced. The better root system is able to better utilize water and nutrients. Compost reduces compaction in fine-textured soils. In addition to the physical properties indicated above, the organic matter resulting from compost application can increase the cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, and exchangeable bases of a soil. This CEC provides for retention of plant nutrients and makes them more available to plants.

Agriculture Grade Compost The use of biosolids compost will be principally in non-food crops such as cotton, hay, corn silage, fruit trees, and silviculture. Biosolids compost in Maryland was allowed without restrictions and approved for home use. Biosolids products for use in agriculture are applied in bulk. The rates vary with the soil conditions. The compost should be stable to highly stable and mature so as not to reduce plant growth. Biosolids compost has been found to be a good amendment for tree nurseries (Walker and Gouin, 1977) and for tree growth (United States Composting Council [USCC], 1996).

Silviculture Grade Compost Compost products for consideration in use with silviculture operations are recommended to be comparable to agriculture-grade products.

Compost Product Characteristics as Related to Use Specific uses often require special characteristics. However, manufacturers of compost products such as potting mixes may have their own specifications. Compost used as a landfill cover does not need the same rigid specifications as compost used for horticultural applications. General guidelines of desired product characteristics are presented in Table 2-3 and discussed below.

Physical Attributes The principal physical attributes of compost products are organic matter content, bulk density, moisture content, physical contaminants, particle size, and color.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 17 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-3 Desired Compost Characteristics as Related to Usage Sod or Potting Erosion Parameter Nursery turf Mulch Mixes Agriculture Silviculture Reclamation* Control

Moisture 35-55% 35-55% 35-55% 35-55% 35-55% 35-55% 35-55% 35-55% content

pH 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8

Soluble salts <3.0 dS <4.0 dS <10 dS <4 dS <6 dS <10 dS <10 dS <10 dS

Particle size 3/8 in. <1/4 in. 1-2.5 in. 3/8 in. 1/4-3/8 in. 3/8 in, 3/8-1 in. 1/2-1 in.

Stability Highly Highly Moderately Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable

Maturity Very Very Moderately Very Very Moderately Moderately Moderately mature mature mature mature mature mature mature mature

*Includes land fill cover Sources: USCC, 1996; Epstein, 1997; Stoffella and Kahn, 2001.

The higher the organic matter content, the more valuable is the compost. The organic matter content affects the bulk density. A moisture content ranging from 35 to 50 percent is most desirable. Below 35 percent, the product is dusty and light colored. Above 50 percent, it is too wet and can agglomerate. Physical contaminants refer to stones, glass, plastics, and other inert materials, and should not be present. Particle size is governed by the composting process and the screen mesh size used at the screening stage of creating final products. Coarse materials are often used as landscaping mulch or for erosion control as they intercept raindrops and reduce their runoff impact. Most consumers prefer a particle size less than 3/8 inch. Often, nurseries prefer 3/8 to 1/2 inch since it provides for better drainage in the containers. Turf and sod growers often prefer finer particles in the range of 1/8 to 1/4 inch.

Chemical and Biological Attributes The chemical characteristics of biosolids compost will vary with inputs to the wastewater treatment plant, especially from commercial and industrial sources. Domestic sources will affect certain elements such as copper. USEPA regulates certain elements (heavy metals) and the levels of pathogens. Presently, there are no regulations for organic compounds. USEPA is proposing a level of 300 parts per trillion (ppt) for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The highest criterion for biosolids compost is the Exceptional Quality (EQ) standard. In order to achieve this standard, the concentration of eight elements and Class A pathogen requirements must be met. The regulated elements are arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), and zinc (Zn). The District has a well-established and progressive industrial pretreatment program and the biosolids presently comply with the EQ requirements for these elements. The District continually monitors and improves the biosolids quality through the EMS program. As a result, the concentration of these constituents are expected to remain in compliance with the EQ requirements. With regard to pathogens in compost, the fecal coliform levels must be less than 1,000 most probable number (MPN) per gram dry weight and Salmonella sp. levels

FINAL 18 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS must be less than 3 MPN per gram dry weight. Other nonregulated chemical and biological characteristics are pH, soluble salts (CEC), stability, and maturity. The desired pH is in the neutral range (around pH 7.0). Compost has the ability to buffer soil pH. The soluble salt content, sodium and boron levels are highly dependent on the use. Some plants are tolerant to salts, sodium, and boron, whereas others are very sensitive. The plant nutrients are of least importance as the compost is primarily used as a soil conditioner. Most users add these as a supplemental fertilizer. Ammonia and nitrates are generally low. The organic matter in compost increases the CEC of soils. Organic matter has a very high CEC as compared to mineral soils. This characteristic binds nutrients in the soil and prevents their leaching, thus making them available to plants. Recently it has been shown that compost can bind pollutants such as lead. This characteristic is being used to bind lead in urban soils, and thus reduce the lead availability to children who ingest soils. Biosolids compost should have a soil-like odor and be free of weed seeds. A stable compost product will not produce malodors nor reheat. A stable product will not deplete soil nitrogen. Maturity refers to the presence of fatty acids and organic compounds that could affect seed germination and plant growth. Therefore, the compost should have a high degree of maturity as measured by seed germination. The activity of soil microorganisms is essential to productive soils. Compost increases and enhances the soil biota consisting of microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes. Several of these microorganisms are important in suppressing plant diseases.

Alkaline-Stabilized Products Product characteristics depend on the alkaline process, characteristics of the biosolids, and the result desired. Processes that add large amounts of alkaline material or include added heat, drying, or curing will produce a drier product. Processes that do not include drying may produce a pasty product. If only a Class B quality is desired for land application or landfill cover, less lime is used, and the product resembles biosolids cake. The higher the percentage of biosolids cake solids, the less lime that is needed to produce a Class A product. Odors associated with alkaline-stabilization products are dependent on the characteristics of the wastewater solids and the process used. There is a potential for odor generation both at the processing site and the end use site. If the material is dry, there is a potential for dust. The product pH is typically maintained above 11, as pathogen regrowth can occur if the pH drops below 9.5 while the material is stored prior to use. Addition of lime or alkaline admixtures reduces the nutrient value of the biosolids through volatilization of ammonia and also dilutes the nutrient value of the biosolids according to the proportion of alkali added. Therefore, the value of the product for cropping applications may be reduced in areas that do not have acidic soils that require balancing. Neutralization processes use alkaline products and sulfuric acid to provide some exothermic reaction and a final product with a neutral pH. The product solids content will depend on whether or not additional drying is provided and may, therefore, range from around 40 to 95 percent. Typically, the lime concentration is lower than in alkaline processes that aim to maintain a high pH, ranging from 7 to 25 percent dry weight. The nutrient value may also be higher than in alkaline-only processes, if the process is designed to prevent the volatilization of ammonia.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 19 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Alkaline-stabilized products are useful in cropping applications. Important product quality parameters include pH, alkaline content, texture, dryness, nutrient content, and odor.

Dry Pellets and Granules Heat-dried products are principally used as a fertilizer in turf, sod production, and fruit trees. Some heat-dried products (e.g., Milorganite®) have been sold for use in lawns and other home applications. Heat drying involves the application of heat to evaporate water. USEPA regulates heat-dried products under 40 CFR Part 503. In addition to meeting the pollutant concentrations as specified in Section 503.13, the product must meet the Class A pathogen requirements. Thermally treated biosolids must be subjected to one of four time- temperature regimes under Alternative 1. Heat-dried biosolids products usually contain 4 to 6 percent nitrogen and are dried to 90 percent or higher solids. They are usually formed into pellets for ease of application. In the United States, the majority of the heat-dried products have been used in the citrus industry in Florida. Their use has been documented in agriculture, homeowners, land reclamation, silviculture, turf maintenance, and turf production (Switzenbaum, et al., 1997a). Heat-dried products may be sold in bulk or bag. They may be blended with other nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium chemicals to produce certified fertilizers. Heat-dried products, if not stored under controlled conditions, can combust during storage and transportation (Long et al., 1998; Moser et al., 2002). The sources of combustion can be the organic matter in dried biosolids and dust during production. To avoid combustion of the organic matter during storage and transportation, there is a need to control the moisture content of the pellets to less than 10 percent. Milorganite® was found to smolder when the temperature reached 140oF. Milorganite® is cooled to about 90°F prior to storing (Moser et al., 2002). Nitrogen can be used in the silos to suppress combustion if needed. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority experienced pellet overheating during shipment (Long et al., 1998). They evaluated various chemical inhibitors to suppress combustion due to biological activity. Increased moisture of the pellets during shipment was identified as the potential cause of increased biological activity. Particle size is also an important parameter for users. The presence of dust in the product is not desired by bulk users. The advantages to heat-dried products are: x Dry material for blending with other materials to be used as a fertilizer. x Compared to compost, has a higher primary nutrient content and therefore is considered a fertilizer. x Longer shelf life suitable for longer distance transport. x Less material to transport. x Fuel energy market option is accessible. The disadvantages to heat-dried products are:

FINAL 20 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Low organic matter content. x May be unstabilized (undigested), and therefore can produce odors on wetting. x Caution in shipping due to potential fires.

Direct Energy Production The direct energy production in products includes fuel char that has a heating value of around 9,000 Btu/lb, and sometimes a low-grade oil similar to a kerosene-type product. Industry experience indicates that the oil product is difficult to market, and many processes avoid producing it. The char solids content may vary from 50 to 95 percent. Local uses for the char are in cement kilns and biomass waste to energy plants. Cement kilns prefer a char with a maximum moisture content of 8 percent for use in the clinker zone. Char used in the pre-calciner zone can have a higher moisture content of up to 50 percent. Gasification processes may produce a char with some heating value, although the value will be lower than with pyrolysis because some of the organics are combusted in the process. Energy recovery is also usually provided through the biogas produced in the gasification process. However, the gas quality is typically low (<500 Btu/cf) and needs to be mixed with other fuel gases for combustion. Complete combustion processes do not provide a product; rather they can provide a direct source of energy recovery through the combustion process.

Construction Material Product Several products are feasible in this category. One product could be a soil with some organic material contributed by the biosolids, which could be used for construction and development applications. Super critical wet oxidation processes produce an inert sandy material that can be used as a construction material for road fill, or in non-construction materials such as tiles and bricks. Vitrification processes such as the Minergy glass aggregate process produce a hard, granular, black, glassy product that can be used as a construction material for road fill, and can be used in the manufacture of tiles, brick, and other products.

Future Biosolids Characteristics and Quantities The projected quantity and quality of biosolids for the District is summarized in Table 2-4. This information compares current levels to projected future levels. The significant conclusions are that biosolids quantities will increase substantially with the advent of full-secondary treatment.

TABLE 2-4 District Future Biosolids Quality Projection for 2020 Parameter Unit Value Cake TS % 20.5 Wet cake tons*/d 1,000 Dry solids tons*/d 205 Organic fraction (VS) % 61 Arsenic mg/kg (dry weight) 6 Cadmium mg/kg (dry weight) 12

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 21 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-4 District Future Biosolids Quality Projection for 2020 Parameter Unit Value Copper mg/kg (dry weight) 708 Lead mg/kg (dry weight) 46 Mercury mg/kg (dry weight) 2 Molybdenum mg/kg (dry weight) 16 Nickel mg/kg (dry weight) 126 Selenium mg/kg (dry weight) 9 Zinc mg/kg (dry weight) 790 Organic-N mg/kg (dry weight) 21,000 Ammonia-N mg/kg (dry weight) 3,200 Nitrate-N mg/kg (dry weight) *ND (Based on installation of conventional secondary treatment and ultrasound for advanced digestion) Overall Market Identification The relationship between biosolids products and markets was indicated in Table 2-2. This section provides a review of the markets available to the District, as listed below in Table 2-5. Consistent with the previous description of product characteristics and features, the markets have been assigned to two broad categories, cropping and non-cropping markets.

TABLE 2-5 Markets Available to the District Cropping Markets 1. Existing Program Baseline – Non-Food-Chain Cropping in various locations, Class B - EQ Products 2. Non-Food-Chain Cropping with Member Agencies, Class A- EQ Products 3. Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Crop Production 4. Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail (various types including consideration of compost, pellets, granules) 5. Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Assisting Residential Development 6. Energy/Silviculture – Indirect Production through Biomass Crops 7. Citrus, Avocado, Vineyard, and Orchard through Pellets or Granules 8. Orange County Vegetable Growers utilizing Pellets or Granules 9. Lime stabilized/Ag – Lime Products Non-Cropping Markets 1. Energy – Direct Production through Gasification or Other 2. Erosion Control Products 3. Direct Landfilling 4. Landfill Partnering – Alternative Daily Cover 5. Construction Material Products 6. Non-Construction Material Products 7. Dedicated Land Disposal 8. Fuel Products (e.g., oil, char)

FINAL 22 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Preliminary Market Descriptions An important step in understanding the marketplace for the potential range of products is to understand the structure of the markets including their relationships. Figure 2-2 shows the current structure of the California organic residuals industry. Overall, there are four major steps in the system starting with the creation of feedstocks. A second step involves processing of feedstocks in order to produce various goods and products including fertilizers, soil amendments, growth media, methane gas electricity, heat, steam, fuel, consumer goods, and wholesale goods available for additional value added remanufacturing, packaging and sales. A third step in the process involves distribution channels by which products find their way to various market outlets. Lastly, there is consumption of the various goods and services generated throughout the chain. This section describes the product markets from information derived from various levels of market research.

Existing Program Baseline Product Markets: Non-Food-Chain Cropping using Class B Products in Various Locations This section describes the existing biosolids land application program practiced by the District. For nearly 20 years, the District has successfully managed its biosolids through land application in non-food-chain cropping uses of its Class B biosolids in various locations throughout Southern California and Arizona.

Brief Description and History The District currently produces Class B biosolids onsite and relies on three contracts for biosolids hauling and beneficial use. Key aspects of the current biosolids management contracts are summarized in Table 2-6. Approximately 55 percent of the total biosolids produced are currently managed through the Tule Ranch contract. Under this contract, approximately 450 wet tons per day are transported 5 days per week to land application sites in Kern and Kings Counties. The District owns 1,800 acres in Kings County and Tule Ranch has 4,000 acres available in Kern County for land application. The contract was executed in January 2003 and has a 3-year duration, with four 1-year options. These operations, however, will be seriously impacted by pending regulatory issues described earlier in this TM. Once the Kern and Kings County bans go into effect in early 2003, the District is establishing the ability to chemically stabilize biosolids to meet Class A requirements at proposed facilities on the Kings County site. Based upon existing ordinances, this would enable the District to beneficially use the Class A product for at least 3 more years in Kings County and indefinitely in Kern County. However, it is unknown whether future ordinance changes could prohibit the beneficial use of chemically stabilized biosolids in either county in the long term.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 23 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-6 Current Contracts for Beneficial Use of Biosolids Average Contract Contractual Daily Volume Expiration Cost Company Type Location Requirements (wet tons)1 Date (per wet ton)

Synagro Hauling Fort Mojave - 180 July 2005 with $39.50 and land Indian option of two application Reservation additional (California 1-year renewals and Arizona)

Tule Hauling Kern and 18% solids or 450 January 2004 $29.00 to Ranch and land Kings greater (3-year $38.75 application County and contract) Arizona

Yakima Hauling Arizona 20% solids or 150 January 2012 $33.87 and greater (12-year beneficial contract) use

California Chemical Los Angeles 0 5 years $38.72 Soil stabilization and Nevada Products and land application

1Based on average monthly sludge production of 16,760 wet tons (7/01-6/02) and hauling 5 days/week.

A seasonally varying quantity of biosolids is managed through the Synagro contact. Synagro currently transports approximately 180 wet tons per day, 5 days per week, to land application sites on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, located near the intersection of California, Nevada, and Arizona and on private land in Arizona. This contract was initiated in June of 1988 and was amended six times. Amendment No. 6 was executed in July 2002. Until recently, approximately 20 percent of the current biosolids produced are managed through the Yakima contract. Under this contract, biosolids are hauled to Arizona for land application as well as use as daily landfill cover following drying at the La Paz Landfill. The contract was initiated in January 2000 and has a 12-year duration.

Current Market Strength The strength of the market for land application of Class B biosolids is mostly characterized by the difficulty sustaining land application programs in the face of restrictive county ordinances. In the six large agricultural counties surrounding the Southern California urban area (Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, Kings, and Tulare), there exist bans or practical bans on land application programs targeting croplands. Recent actions by county supervisors have extended restrictions to certain types of Class A biosolids products. The threats of these actions to land application of Class B biosolids are overwhelming. Within months, all such market area, other than land on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, within a reasonable hauling distance in California will be nonexistent. Additional land application sites exist and are operational in southwestern Arizona. However, Class B biosolids land application bans in Arizona may be imminent.

FINAL 24 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 Consumers & Industry Produce Recyclable Feedstocks Industry Mines or Supplies Virgin Material Feedstocks FEEDSTOCKS FEEDSTOCKS

Manufacturers Agriculture Produce Fertilizers, Soil Amendments, Growth Utilizes Organic Residual Products Media, Methane Gas, Electricity, Heat, Steam, Produces Consumer Food & Fiber & Consumer Goods Produces Manufacturer Feedstocks Produce Recyclable Feedstocks Produces Recyclable Feedstocks

Re-Manufacturers & Packagers Produce Fertilizers, Soil Amendments,

PROCESSING Growth Media, & Consumer Goods Produce Recyclable Feedstocks Horticulture Utilizes Organic Residual Products Wholesalers Produces Consumer Lawn & Garden Distribute Fertilizers, Soil Amendments, Produces Recyclable Feedstocks Growth Media, Methane Gas, Electricity, Heat, Steam, & Consumer Goods Produce Recyclable Feedstocks

Brokers & Dealers Distribute Fertilizers, Soil Amendments, Silviculture Growth Media, Methane Gas, Electricity, Utilizes Organic Residual Products Heat, Steam, & Consumer Goods Produces Consumer Fiber & Construction Produce Recyclable Feedstocks Produces Recyclable Feedstocks

Retailers & Outlets Distribute Fertilizers, Soil Amendments, Growth Media, Methane Gas, Electricity, DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS Heat, Steam, & Consumer Goods Produce Recyclable Feedstocks

Food Fiber Shelter Lawn & Garden

Energy Utilities Recreation & Entertainment CONSUMERS of of CONSUMERS GOODS & SERVICES & SERVICES GOODS

Figure 2-2. Structure of the California Organic Residuals Industry

W052003003SCO/FIG2-1.DOC/031490010 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Blank page

FINAL 26 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Market Size The size of the market in California for Class B biosolids land application is very limited. The size of the market at the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation is adequate for an annual average of about 150,000 tons per year (500 tons per day) of Class B biosolids. The market size in Arizona is estimated to exceed 1,000,000 million tons per year based on over 50,000 acres permitted at an annual application rate of 20 tons per acre.

Estimate of Future Market The future market for Class B biosolids land application in California appears virtually nonexistent. The action by various counties to adopt highly restrictive ordinances ensures that unless a major breakthrough occurs with legislation that would call for state regulation overriding local county ordinances, Class B land application will not survive. The land application of biosolids on Fort Mojave Indian Reservation land is likely to sustain subject to public perception issues and control by the tribal leadership. Experience in other parts of Southern California in these circumstances suggests caution is needed and that long-term, multi-year commitments are not sustainable. The future market in Arizona for land application is also subject to concerns regarding public acceptance and interstate political issues. Experience suggests caution is needed and that long-term, multi-year commitments are not sustainable.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts Most sister POTWs in Southern California practice land application of Class B biosolids in the same vicinities and using the same contractors as the District. All agencies taken together throughout Southern California produce in excess of 4,500 tons per day of biosolids cake, the majority of which is Class B for land application uses. The District’s production is about 12 percent of this quantity and by the year 2020 is projected to grow to as much as 20 percent of the total.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions As noted in TM 1 and earlier parts of this TM, regulatory restrictions are currently severe and are expected to worsen. They are not anticipated to improve with respect to Class B land application technology.

Perceived Market Risk The perceived market risk for Class B biosolids land application is rated as extremely risky.

Public Perception Issues Public perception issues, including public acceptance, regarding Class B biosolids land application to cropland in or near Southern California is very poor. It is this lack of public acceptance that is driving local county regulatory processes that restrict land application.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The quality of the District’s biosolids is technically suitable for land application. However, Class B and Class A biosolids cake are not well received in the farming communities where the material is land applied. Much greater public and farmer acceptance would be obtained

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 27 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS if the District transformed its biosolids into easier to handle and more pathogen-reduced types of products. These products could include compost, dried materials or lime-stabilized types of products.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of Class B land application range between $25.50 per wet ton to $39.50 per wet ton. In early 2003, the lowest cost land application project will be banned and the District will need to utilize higher cost options.

Political Hurdles and Constraints The political constraints on Class B land application are significant. As reported earlier, local county ordinances have been adopted by County Boards of Supervisors that severely restrict Class B biosolids land application. These political constraints are not anticipated to be removed.

CEQA Issues The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a general order for permitting of Class B biosolids land application sites, 2000 – DWQ (SWRCB, 2000). This order was challenged in court regarding adequacy of CEQA. The court has remanded the EIR to the lower court to have the SWRCB examine Class A biosolids as an alternative to Class B biosolids.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The implementability of Class B land application over the period through 2020 is deemed infeasible.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators for continuing the program for Class B EQ biosolids land application include the following: x Elimination or lessening of California county ordinances that ban or restrict biosolids land application. x Reduction, neutralization, or widespread positive public acceptance of biosolids land application. x Increase in permitted acreage and thereby capacity allowing Class B EQ land application.

Non-Food-Chain Cropping with Member Agencies, Class A Products This section of the TM describes the market in Orange County with municipalities that are members of the District. Cities for the survey were defined by the list of participating jurisdictions taken from the District’s website. Each city was contacted and the principal individuals within city staff were identified and asked to participate in the survey. Without exception, each of the city staff were very helpful in trying to define and understand the current and future needs for organics on city soils.

FINAL 28 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Many of the respondents had good insights and suggestions on how to best serve their needs and expand the opportunity for use of compost in their community parks, gardens, open space, and roadways.

Brief Description and History The District and its member cities have a unique opportunity to work together to use biosolids compost and other Class A products in a beneficial manner for overseeding turf areas; for soil amendment in flower and ground cover areas; and for mulch for weed and erosion control, moisture retention, and nondecorative surface areas. Biosolids compost has been used successfully in turf establishment and renovation. In addition to improving the water holding capacity of the soil, compost has been shown to suppress certain diseases on creeping bentgrass and bluegrass turf. Applications of biosolids compost improved the establishment rate from seed and general appearance of turfgrass (Barker, 2001). Sod production has been shown to be one of the best uses for biosolids compost. Research by the USDA has shown that sod growth in soil amended with compost grew faster so that the grower could produce additional crops within a season. Less soil was removed and less topsoil was depleted (Epstein, 1997). Compost has also been used as a medium for sod production on impermeable surfaces such as polyethylene plastic (Barker, 2001). Top dressing applications have been shown to improve the performance of turfgrass. The principal benefit from the top dressing is nutrients, and in some cases disease suppression. Generally, the particle size of the compost should be small, especially for sports turf. Markets for compost products are present today throughout Orange County, and each community within the District boundaries uses compost and mulches. However, the District holds none of this market share. Therefore, current markets must be expanded to allow entry of District compost products. Market development should be in a manner that will grow the demand for compost rather than disrupt or interfere with competition.

Current Market Strength City parks, recreation, street, and landscaping departments are using composts and mulches at this time and are very positive in the use of organics as compared to petrochemical fertilizers or herbicides for management of the growing areas they supervise. Mulches represent the largest segment of organics used based on several factors including the following: x Each city has its own, or contract, crews and chippers that generate good quality woodchips. These are generally used for the following applications: Weed and erosion control Moisture retention Visual enhancement of open areas and street medians x Cost-effective waste diversion and recycling of green waste generated by maintenance of green areas. x Acceptance of the material is high, so long as it is trash free. x Composted mulches would be used interchangeably with the green mulch.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 29 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Compost represents about 30 percent of the organics used by the programs in cities in 2002. Turf and flower beds are the dominant areas that compost is used. Greater use of compost would be embraced by most grounds keepers. Problems associated with compost use include the following: x Application methods are more labor intensive than with chemical fertilizer: Some commercial composters have overcome this by providing spreading services or equipment with the sale of material. x Costs of material are high compared to other fertilizers. x Product quality varies widely and it has been difficult to find a uniform source of product. Opportunities for the expansion and use of compost and composted products are good. These opportunities can be enhanced by the following: x Direction for using compost to expand recycling efforts could come from city officials. x High-quality, uniform composts would be a welcome opportunity for most landscape superintendents. Threats to the product: During the survey, there was one organics vender that was mentioned by several city officials who actively promoted the superior nature of his compost because it contained no biosolids. This is not a new argument, and education will benefit the program.

Market Size Current usage of organics, compost, and mulches by the cities in the District represents about 64,000 cubic yards per year.1 Table 2-7 summarizes the current market size. Mulches are the bulk of this volume and city crews or contract landscape maintenance companies generate a considerable amount of the mulch material within the communities from chipping tree wastes.

Estimated Future Market An accurate estimate of the future market in this sector was not achieved during this initial market research phase. Additional research is required with municipal contacts that provided the initial information. In general, soil scientists agree that a healthy soil has about 5 percent organic matter content. The landscape area in the municipalities over which the District’s products could be utilized could be researched. If the cities within the District were to promote the use of compost over these areas, an estimate could be made of additional tons per year of compost products. Additional market increases could occur through substitution of conventional chemical fertilizers. Given these observations, it is reasonable to estimate that the potential future market for compost utilization in cooperation with the District’s member cities will at least remain at current levels. Additional market research and project demonstration could substantially increase the utilization in this market segment.

1 Apply 31,000 tons per year at bulk density of 900 pounds per cubic yard.

FINAL 30 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-7 Orange County Municipal Compost Market Research Data Annual Use Special Programs, Situations or Volumes Agency/Cities Contact Person Telephone # Types of Uses Consideration (CY) Anaheim Dan Oregel, 714-765-4464 Compost and Mulches, Compost for Top Dressing Park medians under private 10,000 Michael 765-5212 Overseed, Water conservation; Mulches for Park contract, Randy Buckley Lautenbach, 637-1033 Shrubs and Flowerbeds, Road medians (under 714-663-0291 Craig Morrison contract), golf turf under contract. City has own mulch (golf) sources, and contract services for some areas. Golf courses represent major op, Brea Linda Gaas, 714-990-7650 Compost use could be significantly increased Mulches Bill Bollus started 6/02. Limited by 3,000 Bill Bowlus* 990-7694 predominate. Compost use could be significantly budget but wants to develop more increased extensive program. West Coast Arborists are the Contractor Buena Park Rudy Juarez 714-562-3865 City uses a consultant and private contractor, they will be important in developing larger 500 Ron* market. Mulches predominate. Compost use could be significantly increased

Costa Mesa Joe Bogart 714-927-7492 Currently using approximately 500 cubic yard of mulch per year at a cost of approximately 1,000 Jim 714-327-7490 $4,500. The mulch is primarily used as for weed suppression and moisture retention in planters and tree wells throughout the City's parks and parkways, use approximately 200 cubic yards of compost at any annual estimated cost of $2,500, apply approximately 5,000 pounds of chemical fertilizers per year at a cost of approximately $1,500.

Cypress Ron McDonald 714-22-6760 Compost and Mulches, Compost for Top Dressing Overseed, Water conservation; Mulches for Park Shrubs and Flowerbeds, Road medians

Fountain Valley Charlie Walther 714-593-4600 Compost and Mulches, Compost for Top Dressing Overseed, Water conservation; Mulches 1,000 for Park Shrubs and Flowerbeds, Road medians

Fullerton Dan Sereno 714-738-6805 Heavy use of mulches, especially on trails, contractor Contractor West Coast Arborists 5,000 furnishes most of mulches 6,000

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 31 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-7 Orange County Municipal Compost Market Research Data Annual Use Special Programs, Situations or Volumes Agency/Cities Contact Person Telephone # Types of Uses Consideration (CY) Garden Grove Patricia Hays 714-407-3496 Significant use of organics, but large potential for Want to use on vacant lots, using 10,000 Steve Haller 741-5563 increase vol. Compost and Mulches, Compost for Top OC-CCC labor for application (4"). Dressing Overseed, Water conservation; Mulches for Sources - Whittier Fertilizer, Park Shrubs and Flowerbeds, Road medians (under Kellogg’s, Synagro contract), golf turf under contract. City has own mulch sources, and contract services for some areas. Huntington Randy Buckley 714-536-5480 Compost and Mulches, used to limited extent 500 Beach 960-8825

Irvine Tim Kirkum, 949-724-6422 Open to using have a planning ordinance for Planning Web Site with Gardening 10,000 Steve Bourke 724-7609 use of soil amendments Significant use of organics, but /landscape Manuel, Soil testing Tim Paulson 724-6367 large potential for increase vol. Compost and Mulches, important, Greenway environmental Compost for Top Dressing Overseed, Water consultant conservation; Mulches for Park Shrubs and Flowerbeds, Road medians (under contract), golf turf under contract. City has own mulch source. La Habra Tina Truebe, 714-905-0111 Arboretum use includes Compost and Mulches, Compost for Top Dressing Overseed, Water 1,000 Jeff Russell 905-9792 x111 conservation; Mulches for Park Shrubs and Flowerbeds, Road medians

La Palma Dave Daudio 714-690-3312 Compost and Mulches, used and with real interest to 500 use more, if affordable Los Alamitos Gary Salvidar 714-431-3538 limited use, but interest in expanding the uses 200

Newport Beach Randy Kerns 714-644-3055 Compost as topper $4-5K/year, Private contractor used, soil tests taken and the lab makes 1,500 Marium Eldridge recommendations, Soil and plant, Wallace labs. Extensive chemical fertilizer use Dave Kiff* Orange Paul Labatto* 714-744-5551 Large user, with interest in using more. Application is Howard Morris Contract, City pays 10,000 Lisa Mattert the key limiting factor $14/yd to Aguanaga Compost because they have spreading equipment for the parks program 12,000

FINAL 32 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-7 Orange County Municipal Compost Market Research Data Annual Use Special Programs, Situations or Volumes Agency/Cities Contact Person Telephone # Types of Uses Consideration (CY) Placentia Mike McConahay 714-993-8117 Compost and Mulches, used and with real interest to 500 use more Santa Ana Will Hays, 714-647-5086 City has own mulch sources, and contract services for Contracted out to Midori Gardens 800 Kit Ribble 571-4200 some areas.

Seal Beach Bob Eagle 562-431-2527 Compost and Mulches, used and with real interest to 200 x321 use more Stanton Tony Sosa 714-379-9222 Compost use could be significantly increased Mulches predominate. Compost use could be 400 x202 significantly increased Tustin Jim Sulli 714-573-3023 Limited use, but interest in expanding the uses. West Coast Arborists, city 500 Ms. Cory Hays Contractor provides mulches, limited fertilization contractor programs in place Villa Park Nancy 714-998-1500 The Only city that uses no Organics, the reason is there are no Parks, medians or open 0 space in the City. City landscape contractor may use some, Tropical Plaza Nursery

Yorba Linda Brian Waterbury 714-961-7170 Major user with great potential for more. Use on open Open space is the focus 8,000 Jack Becker 961-7173 space in the City 400 acres that need amending each year

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 33 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts All of the major metropolitan POTWs are in the process of developing composting facilities or contractual relationships with private companies generating compost or Class A products. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) owns and manages a co-composting facility and is currently partnering with Los Angeles County to develop an enclosed ASP composting facility with a capacity of 150,000 tons per year of biosolids cake. This facility could produce about 100,000 tons per year of compost product. Additional composting facility proposals that are under consideration include the Los Angeles County Sanitation District proposal for Westlake Farms in Kings County, a 1,000,000-ton-per-year of biosolids open ASP concept. Product would be used on the farm property. The South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) is considering an enclosed composting facility that may be sited at the Prima Deshecha Landfill for processing up to 110 tons per day in cooperation with the District. The quantities of biosolids would be split 50:50 and result in about 65 tons per day of product. The City of Los Angeles is contemplating a composting facility at its Kern County 4,688-acre farm site, Green Acres Bio-Farm. “What will happen when all the compost hits the fan?” This new production capacity could have a chilling effect if there is not significant new demand created at the same time. This will require a marketing and public relations effort that would build on the environmental advantages of compost and create a brand preference for Orange County composts. This underscores the need to have both in-county markets and out-of-county users as a balance for product outlets.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions Areas of regulatory restriction that impact or could impact compost or Class A product distribution include Riverside County, which is considering an ordinance that would prohibit the application of Class A and Class A EQ composts. The progress of this ordinance must be monitored.

Perceived Market Risk A supply of compost or Class A products that is too large, without adequate market development and marketing/sales infrastructure in place to allow for the orderly distribution of the end products could result in a chaotic market situation driving prices downward.

Public Perception Issues Product odor is minimal; however, public perception may limit use in some areas. Additionally, the “safety of biosolids compost” has been focused on to such an extent that the very effort to extol the safety seems to have the opposite affect. Clearly, a central point on compost benefits and value for building healthy soil could be the higher road to take.

FINAL 34 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The research on the Cities in Orange County indicated that there is a need for at least three clearly defined products. Minimum product diversity determined from the research shows the need for: x Topper – 1/4-inch minus for overseeding turf areas x Compost – 1/2-inch minus for soil amendment in flower and ground cover areas x Mulch – 3-inch minus for weed and erosion control, moisture retention and nondecorative surface areas.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The cost of compost and mulches used by the cities currently ranges in price from no charge to $14 per yard2 (delivered and with a spreader provided) in bulk and as much as $30 for bagged products. Bagged material has an advantage in some applications and for storage in smaller quantities. Composting and organic recycling is a somewhat unique industry in that there are two separate income streams associated with the production of the products. The diversion value or tipping fee and the sale of end products. Sale of the annual production of compost will not cover the costs of manufacturing and capital facility costs. It will surpass the costs of marketing, transport, and distribution. The cost of transportation is variable for most compost facilities because the volume of material in each delivery may vary from 5 to 100 yards. In general, a delivery fee, separate from the cost of the compost, is charged based on distance and time. Marketing and sales costs are generally considered a percentage of the sales price of the product.

Political Hurdles and Constraints Each of the contacts at the cities were very upbeat and positive on the use of compost, and the biosolids did not seem to make a significant difference. Compost is politically correct and has few detractors; this "GREEN" cloak needs to be brushed up and put in the best light at every opportunity. The prevailing concern of those polled was the labor-intensive nature of using compost.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the product or product application.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation When it comes to the Cities and jurisdictions in the immediate market area, the products will have immediate acceptance. This does not diminish the requirement for sound management and goals for the sales team that will be responsible for moving the product.

Summary of Key Market Indicators x Total use of compost in the market area including bulk and bagged

2 About $30 per ton @ bulk density of 900 pounds per cubic yard or 2.2 cubic yards per ton.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 35 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Competitive price-cost per yard of compost delivered and/or spread x Use of compost in high profile applications x News coverage and public relations x Order backlogs

Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Crop Production The California horticulture market for biosolids includes compost and dry products where the products achieve a Class A EQ level. These potential users include the nursery industry (wholesale and retail), landscape industry (contractors; soil amendment creators; and public sector parks, public works, and highways), community gardens, and commercial/ institutions with significant landscape. Table 2-8 describes the three major horticultural industries.

TABLE 2-8 Horticulture Market Categories for Biosolids Product Use Ornamentals Industry Landscape Industry Nursery Industry

Greenhouse cut flowers and plants Landscape architects Wholesale and retail

Perennial plants Landscape contractors Container plants

Fruit trees Wholesaler’s soil amendments Soil amendments

Ground covers Retailer’s soil amendments Mulches

Woody ornamentals Producer’s soil amendments

Sod production Public sector users

Parks Departments

Transportation and Highway Departments

Public Works Departments

Brief Description and History Biosolids compost is a soil conditioner, not a fertilizer. It contains low levels of plant macronutrients such as N, P, K, Ca, and Mg, usually in insufficient quantities for the needs of the crop. However, in cases where large quantities of compost are used to ameliorate heavy or sandy soils, a sufficient quantity of these nutrients could be provided. Biosolids compost usually provides numerous essential micronutrients such as copper, molybdenum, selenium, and zinc in sufficient quantities for plant growth. Horticultural products are principally used in establishing flower beds, amending soil for ornamental plantings in landscaping and nursery field production, preparing mixes for container ornamentals and flowers, and improving topsoil for turf and sod production. Soil amendment for use in planting beds is usually used “as is” (i.e., unblended) and is incorporated into the soil. Landscape mulch is used as a decorative material, to prevent erosion, to intercept and adsorb rainfall, and for weed control. The specifications for this product are less than most

FINAL 36 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS horticultural applications. Particle size may vary but coarse particles are preferred because they will remain in place. Coarse textured compost adsorbs water better and is more effective in weed control. Nurseries utilize compost in field beds and as a plant growth media in containers. The use of compost for field grown ornamentals depends on the species. Generally, compost is used “as is” and incorporated into the soil. Digested biosolids compost made with woodchips increased growth of tulip poplar and dogwood (Walker and Gouin, 1977). Stable compost is preferable. A neutral pH is preferred except for acid soil tolerant plants such as azaleas and rhododendrons. A wider range of salinity is acceptable except for salt sensitive plants such as certain conifers and dogwoods. In order to avoid salinity problems for sensitive plants, a smaller amount is often applied or the depth of incorporation increased. In container production, compost is blended with soil, sand, or other media. Usually 20 to 30 percent biosolids compost is used in container growth media. Higher contents of compost have been reported to be successful for certain crops. The characteristics will vary with the species planted. Soluble salts are often less of an issue since irrigation will leach them out. A stable product is desirable. The preferred particle size is 3/8 inch.

Current Market Strength The current market situation in California for horticultural crops including ornamentals and nursery production is quite sound. According to statistics from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for the year 2000 for nursery and floriculture crops (USDA 2001a; USDA 2001b), California leads the nation in the production of nearly all crop categories. In nursery production, California contributed 28 percent of the total $3.3 billion industry. In floriculture crops, California contributed 21.5 percent of the total $4.7 billion industry.

Western States Product Markets In 1992, the U.S. Composting Council evaluated the major potential users and estimated use within each category. Table 2-9 shows the projected use in California. Additionally, other areas in the Western U.S. that currently use and can accept bagged products are also shown.

Market Size For 2001, the gross total value of production in nursery, flowers, and foliage crops grown in Orange County was $218.8 million compared to the 2002 total of $214.9 million. This represents a 1.8 percent decrease. In addition, Orange County contributes 8.9 percent to the state’s total production in this category (CDFA, 2002). The current level of nursery operators in Orange County and vicinity stands at about 70 separate companies with about double that in terms of production facilities as shown in Table 2-10. Overall, these companies contributed about 3 percent of the total U.S. production in nursery, flowers, and foliage crops.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 37 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-9 Summary of Potential Compost Applications within several Western States (cubic yards) Surface Peat/ Potting/ Mines Container Field States Landscape Topsoil Bark Topsoil Landfill Reclamation Nurseries Nurseries Sod Silviculture Agriculture Total

Arizona 51,452 43,672 14,111 83,149 8,175 0 2,613 37,220 152,067 119,416 1,086,000 1,597,875

Colorado 28,936 46,855 15,140 89,210 12,441 2,428 1,263 43,010 515,259 119,220 8,510,000 9,383,762

Idaho 4,028 10,477 3,385 19,948 7,553 0 127 187,470 99,558 602,653 4,328,000 5,263,199

Nevada 10,753 17,530 5,664 33,376 88,860 0 97 4,680 52,399 5,601 1,082,000 1,300,960

New Mexico 6,969 14,310 4,624 27,245 11,552 1,181 1,062 8,560 150,975 109,523 825,000 1,161,001

Utah 5,768 17,224 5,565 32,793 4,443 744 777 2,960 335,464 44,985 1,370,000 1,820,723

California 381,225 469,902 151,837 894,676 29,325 40 417,224 564,970 786,534 5,571,309 21,231,000 30,498,042

Oregon 19,697 33,352 10,777 63,502 8,353 0 103,646 265,280 177,939 4,246,336 5,409,000 10,337,882

Washington 36,357 72,978 23,581 138,947 4,354 43 16,854 268,870 189,510 7,384,883 9,657,000 17,793,377

Total 545,185 726,300 234,684 1,382,846 175,056 4,436 543,663 1,383,020 2,459,705 18,203,926 53,498,000 79,156,821

Source: Slivka et al., 1992

FINAL 38 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-10 List Of Nursery Production Entities In Orange County And Vicinity Nursery City 1. AB Nursery Buena Park 2. AKI Nursery Irvine 3. A-Z Floral & Plantery Santa Ana 4. Anaheim Wholesale Nursery & Landscape Supply Orange 5. Arakawa Nursery Corona 6. B&B Wholesale Nursery Corona 7. Blackburn Nursery Corona 8. Boething Treeland Farms, Inc. Woodland Hills 9. Bolsa Nursery, Inc. Westminster 10. Bordier’s Nursery, Inc. Westminster 11. C L Tree Co. San Juan Capistrano 12. California Flora Dana Point 13. Canyon Nursery Growers Riverside 14. Capistrano Wholesale Nursery San Juan Capistrano 15. Casa de Rosa Domingo Santa Ana 16. Continental Growers, Inc. Corona 17. Corona Wholesale Nursery & Supply Corona 18. D M Color Express, Inc. San Juan Capistrano 19. Doelz Nurseries, Inc. San Juan Capistrano 20. Don’s Nursery Corp. Anaheim 21. Dynasty Growers Riverside 22. E & K Palms San Juan Capistrano 23. El Modeno Gardens, Inc. Irvine 24. Emerald Company Laguna Niguel 25. Exotica Rare Fruit Nursery Vista 26. F S Nursery Anaheim 27. Freeland Growers San Juan Capistrano 28. Golden Hills Nursery Riverside 29. Green Slope Nursery Riverside 30. Green Systems International Santa Ana 31. Hanyak Palms Vista 32. Hines Wholesale Nurseries, Inc. Irvine 33. Jessica Nursery Riverside 34. Las Flores Nursery Orange 35. Lepe’s Nursery Riverside 36. Loma Vista Nursery Yorba Linda

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 39 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-10 List Of Nursery Production Entities In Orange County And Vicinity Nursery City 37. Maddock Nursery Fallbrook 38. Mejia Nursery Mira Loma 39. Milfields Azalea Nursery Riverside 40. Mimosa Nursery Anaheim 41. Monroe Pacific Nursery Huntington Beach 42. Morales Olive & Palm Trees San Juan Capistrano 43. Nakase Brothers Wholesale Nursery Lake Forest 44. Nitao Nursery Orange 45. Norman’s Nursery, Inc. Silverado 46. Olinda Nursery Brea 47. Pacific Coast Foliage Laguna Hills 48. Pacific Coast Nursery, Inc. Irvine 49. Pardee Tree Nursery Bonsall 50. Pepper’s Wholesale Plants Placentia 51. Pineda’s Nursery Stanton 52. Quality Growers Corona 53. Sakioka Wholesale Nursery, Inc. Huntington Beach 54. Seaside Growers San Juan Capistrano 55. Skypark Nursery Anaheim 56. Stanton Tree Farm, Inc. Stanton 57. Sunny Nursery Riverside 58. TR Nursery Corona 59. Takahashi Nursery El Monte 60. Three Star Nursery, Inc. Fountain Valley 61. Tree of Life Nursery San Juan Capistrano 62. Trees Unlimited Riverside 63. Tropical Connection San Marcos 64. Vargas Nursery Orange 65. Vista Hill Nursery Vista 66. Village Nurseries Orange 67. Watanabe Brothers Nursery Moreno Valley 68. Western Plants & Trees Garden Grove

FINAL 40 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Estimate of Future Market The potential use of biosolids compost and dry pellet Class A EQ product in the California horticulture industry can be a large volume of material. Table 2-9 identifies the overall potential for compost in the major market segments across the Western U.S. estimated in 1992. Table 2-10 provides a list of the nurseries in Orange County and neighboring counties. Table 2-11 provides the potential compost demand in California.

TABLE 2-11 Overall California Potential Compost Demand Current U. S. Potential Compost Market Potential Compost Demand Penetration Demand- California Segment (million cu yd) (Percent) (million cu yd) Landscaping 2 <20 .38 Delivered Topsoil 3.7 <5 .47 Bagged/Retail 8 80 1.04 Landfill Final Cover .6 <5 .03 Surface Mine Reclamation .2 <5 0 Container Nurseries .9 <50 .42 Field Nurseries 4.0 <1 .56 Sod Production 20.0 <1 .79 Silviculture 104.0 <1 5.27 Agriculture 895.0 <1 21.23 TOTAL 1,040 <2 30

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts A number of other POTW agencies and companies are entering or have entered the market for ornamental and nursery crop production. At this time, this situation is considered more in a beneficial light rather than seen as a negative for the POTW industry. Two especially important market research reports shed additional information on this market sector. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and Milorganite® dry products market research is summarized below.

Sacramento Markets for Dry Products. During 1995 and 1996, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) researched and evaluated the technology and markets for heat-dried and alkaline-pasteurized biosolids products. This study was a thorough, recent assessment of dry biosolids product markets in the northern half of California. The study represents an excellent comparison to the market opportunities potentially available to RWQCB. The SRCSD estimated that a 60-dry-ton-per-day drying system would cost approximately $155 per dry ton of feed solids to build, install, and operate. SRCSD learned that the market for dry biosolids products in agriculture and horticulture uses is potentially substantial. SRCSD contacted 27 fertilizer blenders and distributors within 200 miles of Sacramento. This included contacts as far south as Tulare and Salinas. The reliable immediate market capacity was estimated at 35,000 dry tons per year. The blenders and distributors were willing to order a standard-grade dry product with a

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 41 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS fertilizer rating of 5-2-0 (N-P-K) at between $40 and $65 per ton delivered in bulk to the blenders and distributors. The standard-grade product is pellets between 1 and 4 millimeters. These values are equal to $8 to $13 per unit of nitrogen per ton of product. SRCSD also learned that a market exists for higher quality dry products known as greens grade. This type of product has a finer texture at 0.5 to 1.0 millimeter, and a higher guaranteed nutrient value. The product would be used on golf course greens as an organic-based fertilizer. Milorganite® is known as greens grade at 6-2-0 plus 4 percent iron. The study did not differentiate the market capacity for the greens-grade products. The study did find that a 5-2-0 greens-grade dry product would achieve a price of $55 to $100 per ton delivered in bulk to the blenders and distributors. SRCSD learned that the blenders and distributors are interested in dry biosolids products for two reasons. The fertilizer market is trending toward use of more blended products resulting in increased demand for suitable bulking agents. A dry biosolids bulking agent offering 5-2-0 nutrients offers significant advantages over inert bulking agents. The use of biosolids dry products may allow the blenders and distributors to reduce their use of higher cost synthetic chemical fertilizers. Several objections to the use of biosolids dry products were encountered during the study. Regulatory discontinuity across California continues as a serious impediment to biosolids product marketing. Significant regulatory variability exists from county to county. Another objection raised was the continuing concerns by food processors and the organic farming community to biosolids and products grown in biosolids-amended fields. The last objection noted was the risk of legal liability to landowners using the biosolids products and the fertilizer blenders and distributors.

Milorganite® Dry Products. Milwaukee, Wisconsin began heat-drying biosolids in the 1920s. The City began producing and marketing Milorganite® in 1925. Milwaukee is presently one of 16 operating heat-drying/product-marketing facilities in the United States; in the industry, their product is considered the premium grade of pellet product. Milwaukee’s production of dry biosolids during 1995 was about 53,000 dry tons and is holding steady at that level. Annual production peaked in 1982 at 70,000 tons per year. Since that time, increasing competition eroded Milorganite’s® market share. Approximately two-thirds of Milorganite® is bagged in 40 or 50 pound weights. The remainder is distributed in bulk either through 22-ton trailer truckloads or 85-ton lots for rail hopper car transport to fertilizer blenders and distributors. These items currently sell at about $140 per ton, FOB Milwaukee. Retail and commercial customers pay up to $450 per ton when buying a 40-pound bag for $9. The difference in price between $140 and $450 per ton is mostly attributable to costs of transportation, packaging, marketing, merchandising, sales, and profit. Milwaukee markets its dry product using its own 7-person staff. Four technical sales representatives work with about 140 fertilizer blenders and distributors across the United States and Canada. Milwaukee practices the four Ps of product marketing – Product, Price, Promotion, and Place. These marketing techniques are common to all other successful dry product marketing efforts. The majority of Milorganite® is used in specialty markets for turf fertilizer and enhancement. Milorganite® has a successful niche in golf course, athletic fields, and homeowner turf management. These markets offer Milorganite® a premium

FINAL 42 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS price for its biosolids dry product. To offset these premium prices, it is estimated that Milwaukee spends about $3 million per year for marketing and distribution of their product. The remainder of Milorganite® is sold into the agricultural fertilizer markets for blending and filler. Increasing competition within the organic recycling industry has reduced the pricing of these types of products as measured by the cost for each percent of nitrogen in the product. During the 1980s, organic and dry biosolids products achieved values of $15 to $20 per ton for each percent of nitrogen. Recent pricing in Florida has seen these values drop to $7 per unit of nitrogen per ton if the product is delivered to the distributor or the use site. The overall United States biosolids dry product generation during 1995 from all facilities was about 750 dry tons per day or 275,000 dry tons per year. The majority of these dry solids were sold in the southwest United States for use in agriculture (citrus and vegetables) and horticulture (turf). Two-thirds of all these dry solids were generated by the four largest facilities, which, in order of highest to lowest, were as follows: New York City (220 dry tons per day at $35 per ton), Milwaukee (144 dry tons per day at $140 per ton), Houston (80 dry tons per day), and Baltimore (55 dry tons per day). Management and operation of all drying operations across the United States except Milwaukee is through privatization of both facilities and marketing of the product. Two-thirds of these facilities use direct drying technology versus indirect drying systems.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions Regulatory restrictions that impact or could impact compost or Class A product distribution include those in Riverside County, which is considering an ordinance that would prohibit the application of Class A and Class A EQ composts. The progress of this ordinance must be monitored. Perceived Market Risk A supply of compost or Class A products that is too large, without adequate market development and marketing/sales infrastructure in place to allow for the orderly distribution of the end products could result in a chaotic market situation driving prices downward. Public Perception Issues Product odor is minimal; however, public perception may limit use in some areas. Additionally, the “safety of biosolids compost” has been focused on to such an extent that the very effort to extol the safety seems to have the opposite affect. Clearly, a central point on compost benefits and value for building healthy soil could be the higher road to take. Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Market research conducted by the City of Palo Alto evaluated the impact of product quality and user perceptions on biosolids compost and dry product market and pricing (Egigian- Nichols, 2000). The product quality assumptions included: x Current product quality levels. x Product quality levels if there was a 75 percent reduction in metals, pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 43 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Is there a product quality level different than the first two (higher or lower) which would cause the user to find the product desirable? Research results found there to be no significant impact on product price related to highly improved product quality. One contact noted that if an industrial pretreatment program were to lower the levels of metals and other constituents in biosolids by 75 percent or more, the value of the biosolids as a soil amendment or fertilizer blend component would be significantly reduced. The contact noted that current biosolids quality at Class A EQ supplies a wide array of essential trace mineral elements resulting in a well-balanced landscape product. Important trace elements include iron, copper, zinc, manganese, and boron. Particle size and soluble salts are the two most important characteristics. The preferable size is >0.5 inch. The product should be stable to highly stable and the resulting salinity level of the bed should not exceed 2.5dS/m-1. Therefore, the compost should have a salinity level of 5.0 dS m-1 (Fitzpatrick, 1992). A lower salinity in the bed may be needed for salt sensitive plants such as geraniums. Biosolids composted with wood chips has been used successfully to replace or partially replace peat and bark in media used to grow a large number of different ornamental plants. Some screening of the product may be necessary to remove large wood particles not suitable for inclusion in growth media. The amount of screening required will depend upon the uniformity of wood chip size used in the compost. Preliminary research has indicated that some composted biosolids may react with manganese, rendering it unavailable for plant uptake. Therefore, manganese deficiencies may appear in sensitive plants (Ingram et al., 1993). Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The results of a 1995 survey of United States compost product sales prices is shown in Table 2-12. The data show prices for bulk compost ranging as high as $40 per cubic yard. The data also show that although the median value is about $20 per cubic yard, the majority of sales price values for bulk compost are in the $2 to $10 per cubic yard range. A typical reasonable value for bulk compost appears to be about $6 per cubic yard. Bagged compost prices ranged considerably higher than bulk compost. Much less data was available from the survey making the results less reliable. The data in Table 2-12 show that bagged compost prices ranged as high as $108 per cubic yard. These prices do not reflect net profit to the compost generator as there exist extensive additional costs of product preparation, bagging, transport, marketing, and distribution over and above the costs experienced by sellers of bulk compost. These additional cost factors appear greatly variable and are not well documented in the literature, because they are usually considered highly proprietary. It is clear that the potential exists for significantly higher prices associated with bagged compost products.

FINAL 44 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-12 Estimated 1995 U.S. Compost Product Sales (Product Sales are $ per cubic yard except as noted) Range for Bulk Compost = $1 $40/CY Number of Facilities

8 $2 $3 7 $3 $4 8 $5 $6 8 $6 $8 9 $8 $10 5 $11 $15 3 $20 2 $30 $40 Range for Bagged Compost = $9 $108/CY $1 $4/ bag* *This value for bagged compost is for 3-cubic-foot containers.

Political Hurdles and Constraints To the degree that local city or county ordinances restricting the utilization of compost or Class A dry products continue to exist or be put in place, these actions will constitute a political hurdle. These actions must be monitored and aggressive actions taken to counteract and inform the decision makers so that markets are stable or expand. CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products or product application. Assessment of Ease of Implementation This is a market requiring considerable effort to penetrate although it is estimated that considerable reward is feasible through capture of this market. Achieving a more significant role for biosolids compost or dry products in this market would likely involve a significant research and demonstration program to document any benefits that differentiate biosolids products from the current propagation media. Pursuing this market would not likely require any significant changes in the composting or dry product process to be used. Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators for this option include the number of nursery production facilities in Orange County and the vicinity. Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail (Various Types Including Consideration of Compost, Pellets, Granules) This section supplies results of work evaluating the market potential for compost and dried products that could be generated from the District’s facilities. The purpose of this work was

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 45 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS to determine the capacity, level of interest, and revenue that could be expected from the products. The benefits of using organic residuals, such as compost and dried products, to amend soils and improve growth of crops are numerous and well documented. Various products are used to produce direct benefits to soils and crops in both horticulture (lawns and gardens) and agriculture (vegetables, fruits, nuts, and hay crops). Numerous direct benefits occur including the most obvious, which is the fertilizer value in the compost. Indirect benefits include improved water quality brought about by reductions in soil erosion and use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides. Water conservation is often realized from use of compost products. This report supplies information on who does business in this industry and how they interact within the marketplace. It considers manufacturers, distributors, brokers, retailers, and consumers. This information is generally known as the market structure and organization. Information is supplied on the competitors including the types of products and pricing. Thirty-six facilities produce over 1.6 million tons per year of compost products throughout Southern California as shown in Table 2-13. These companies take in over 2.5 million tons per year of raw material that is processed into these products.

Brief Description and History Understanding the structure, organization, and segments of the market place for organic residuals and compost is essential to an effective market research study. Figure 2-2 illustrated the structure of the organic residuals and compost industry and the flow of goods and services among the various sectors of the industry. At the heart of the industry are the organic residuals and compost manufacturers, who create the products that are utilized directly or indirectly by the rest of the industry and consumers. Remanufacturers and packagers hold a similar economic role as primary producers. Wholesalers, brokers, dealers, retailers, and service vendors purchase and resell compost and related products and combine them together with their customary services to consumers. These market intermediaries provide services to customers including transportation, packaging, installation, and product use information. Each of these service activities adds value to compost products for final consumers. The organic residuals and compost industry is primarily a locally based industry. Most goods and services are produced and consumed within the state or relatively small geographic regions, and very little is exported to other states or regions. Consequently, the vast majority of value-added services provided by organic residuals and compost-based economic activities occur within the state, and benefit the local regions. This stands in contrast with many other industries that ship raw materials or relatively unrefined products to other regions for further value-added processing. Current Market Strength The range of products and markets served by these facilities is diverse and focuses on the agriculture and horticulture market segments. Tables 2-14 and 2-15 summarize the range of products for both major product segments.

FINAL 46 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-13 Compost Producer Competitors In Southern California Permitted Annual Capacity Production Feedstocks and/or Facility Name Address City Zip tons tons Ingredients Used Primary Business Type San Bernardino County 1,356,450 641,350 1 Kellogg Supply 8605 Schaefer Avenue Ontario 91761 112,500 20,000 Manure (Dairy and Re-Manufacturer, Chicken), Bark, Packager, and Sawdust, Rice Hulls, Wholesaler to home Shavings, Biosolids centers, discount chains, Compost, Sand garden centers, and nurseries 2 Farmer’s Fertilizer 6511A Kimball Avenue Chino 91710 45,000 18,000 Manure (Dairy and Re-Manufacturer, Chicken), Bark, Packager, and Sawdust, Shavings, Wholesaler to home Sand centers, discount chains, garden centers, and nurseries 3 Hyponex Corporation of 15978 El Prado Road Chino 91710 18,000 65,000 Manure (Dairy and Re-Manufacturer, California Chicken), Bark, Packager, and Sawdust, Rice Hulls, Wholesaler to home Shavings, Biosolids centers, discount chains, Compost, Sand garden centers, and nurseries 4 Red Star Ontario 91761 45,000 10,000 Manure Compost Manufacturer and Wholesaler to landscapers 5 Partida Fertilizer Ontario 91761 30,000 30,000 Manure (Dairy, Horse, Re-Manufacturer and and Chicken), Bark, Wholesaler to Sawdust, Shavings, landscapers Sand

6 Mushegain Ontario 91761 19,000 18,000 Manure Manure Stockpiler

7 Wolfinberger Inc 5675 Francis Avenue Chino 91710 3,000 600 Manure Compost Manufacturer

8 California Bio-Mass Inc. 10397 Alder Avenue Bloomington 92244 75,000 75,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost Manufacturer waste, Paper, and and Packager; Direct Food residuals sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 47 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-13 Compost Producer Competitors In Southern California Permitted Annual Capacity Production Feedstocks and/or Facility Name Address City Zip tons tons Ingredients Used Primary Business Type 9 California Bio-Mass Inc. 20755 Shay Road Victorville 92394 214,200 0 Yard trimmings, Paper, Compost Manufacturer, Manure, C&D Wood, Packager; Direct sales Agricultural, Fishery, to agriculture and Drywall, Biosolids, horticulture bulk users Liquids and Food residuals

10 Inland Empire Composting 1951 W. Key Street Colton 92324 182,500 150,000 Yard trimmings, Compost Manufacturer Manure, C&D Wood and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 11 Inland Empire Utilities 8100-100 Chino/Corona Corona 92880 54,750 54,750 Biosolids and Manure Compost Manufacturer Agency- EKO Systems, Road and Wholesaler Inc. 12 Inland Empire Utilities 8100-120 Chino/Corona Corona 92880 401,500 200,000 Manure Compost Manufacturer Agency – Earthwise Road and Wholesaler; Direct Organics sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 13 One Stop Landscape 13024 San Timoteo Redlands 156,000 0 Biosolids, Agricultural, Compost Manufacturer, Supply Center Canyon Road and Wood Waste Packager, Wholesaler, and Retailer Riverside County 332,500 215,000 1 Corona Fertilizer Corona 1,500 Manure 2 California Bio-Mass Inc. 83-109 Avenue 62 Thermal 92274 75,000 50,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost Manufacturer, waste, Paper, and Packager; Direct sales Food residuals to agriculture and horticulture bulk users

3 River Ranch Recycling & 14545 River Road Corona 92880 100,000 50,000 Yard trimmings Wood Mulch Manufacturer and Organics waste Wholesaler to landscapers

FINAL 48 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-13 Compost Producer Competitors In Southern California Permitted Annual Capacity Production Feedstocks and/or Facility Name Address City Zip tons tons Ingredients Used Primary Business Type 4 Synagro Technologies Inc. 10490 Dawson Canyon Corona 91720 156,000 115,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost Manufacturer waste, Paper, and Wholesaler; Direct Biosolids and Manure sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users Orange County 204,500 204,500 1 Aguinaga Fertilizer 7992 Irvine Boulevard Irvine 92618 40,000 40,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost and Mulch Company waste and Manure Manufacturer and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 2 Brea Green Recycling- 1983 Valencia Avenue Brea 92823 60,000 60,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Mulch Manufacturer and USA Biomass waste Wholesaler to landscapers 3 Sierra Soil, Inc. Ortega Highway/La Pata San Juan 9,000 9,000 Manure and Wood Compost and Mulch Road Capistrano Waste Manufacturer and Wholesaler to landscapers

4 Tierra Verde Industries 7982 Irvine Boulevard Irvine 92618 65,000 65,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost and Mulch waste Manufacturer and Wholesaler to landscapers

5 La Pata Road 31748 La Pata Avenue San Juan 92675 30,500 30,500 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost and Mulch Green Waste Facility Capistrano waste Manufacturer and Wholesaler to landscapers

Los Angeles County 33,100 30,000 1 City of Los Angeles Griffith 5400 Griffith Park Drive Los Angeles 90027 3,100 Biosolids, Yard Compost Manufacturer Park Composting Facility trimmings, and and Wholesaler Manure 2 Los Angeles County 30,000 30,000 Yard trimmings Mulch Manufacturer Sanitation Districts

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 49 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-13 Compost Producer Competitors In Southern California Permitted Annual Capacity Production Feedstocks and/or Facility Name Address City Zip tons tons Ingredients Used Primary Business Type 3 Recycled Wood Products 2400 Greenwood Avenue Montebello 91754 0 Wood waste Mulch Manufacturer to landscapers 4 Whittier Fertilizer 9441 Kruse Road Pico Rivera 90660 0 Yard trimmings and Compost and Mulch Manure Manufacturer; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users

San Diego County 205,000 205,000 1 A-1 Soils 10210 Camino Santa Fe San Diego 92121 35,000 35,000 Manure 2 Agriservice 3210 Oceanside Boulevard Oceanside 50,000 50,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Mulch Manufacturer and waste Wholesaler to landscapers 3 California Clean Green 9671 Artesian Road San Diego 92127 50,000 50,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Mulch Manufacturer and waste Wholesaler to landscapers 4 City of San Diego 9601 Ridgehaven Court, San Diego 92123 70,000 70,000 Yard trimmings Mulch Manufacturer and Environmental Services Suite 320 Wholesaler to Dept. landscapers Kern County 341,000 300,000 1 Community Recycling and 1261 N. Wheeler Ridge Lamont 93241 150,000 150,000 Yard trimmings, Compost Manufacturer, Resource Recovery Road Agricultural, Manure Packager, and and Food residuals Wholesaler to home centers, discount chains, garden centers, and nurseries; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 2 San Joaquin Composting 12421 Holloway Road Lost Hills 93249 156,000 115,000 Yard trimmings, Compost Manufacturer Agricultural, and and Wholesaler; Direct Biosolids sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 3 City of Bakersfield Mt. 2601 South Mt. Vernon Bakersfield 93309 35,000 35,000 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost Manufacturer Vernon Recycling Facility Avenue waste and C&D Wood and Wholesaler

FINAL 50 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-13 Compost Producer Competitors In Southern California Permitted Annual Capacity Production Feedstocks and/or Facility Name Address City Zip tons tons Ingredients Used Primary Business Type 4 Superior Compost Bakersfield 0 Manure Compost Manufacturer and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users Ventura County 21,800 0 1 Ojai Valley Sanitary 6363 N. Ventura Avenue Ventura 93001 1,800 0 Manure and Mulch Compost Manufacturer District fines and Wholesaler to landscapers 2 Peach Hills Soils Gabbert Road and Moorpark 93021 20,000 0 Yard trimmings, Wood Compost Manufacturer, Poindexter waste and Manure Packager, Wholesaler to landscapers, and Retailer 35 Total # of Facilities 2,453,350 1,850,595 Source: CIWMB, 2002

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 51 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-14 Southern California Compost-Based Bulk Products List Item # Horticultural Products Agricultural Products 1 Basic top soil blend Raw, dry chicken manure 2 Basic top soil blend with compost plus nutrients Composted chicken manure 3 Basic top soil blend with compost plus nutrients Raw, dry dairy manure plus special chemicals (e.g. gypsum) 4 Basic screened compost @ sizes from 1” to 3/8” Composted dairy manure, unscreened derived from various feedstocks 5 Soil amendments including a range of products Composted dairy manure, screened to _” depending on the content of N-P-K and special chemicals 6 Planting mix, standard Composted dairy manure, screened to 3/8” 7 Container mix, standard Blend composted dairy and chicken manure 8 Pre-Plant blend Composted green material 9 Top dressing and seed cover Composted green material and food residuals blend 10 Mushroom compost based top dressing and seed Composted green material and manure blend cover 11 Canning mix for smaller containers Various compost and special chemical blends requested according to crop type, soil situation, and grower objectives 12 Tree box mix 13 Bare root mix 14 Arid, desert soil mix 15 Special Blend nursery mix according to demand of individual grower; many nursery growers create proprietary blends from basic compost

TABLE 2-15 Southern California Compost-Based Retail Bagged Products List Item No. Retail, Bagged Products: Home and Garden Topsoil, Soil Amendment, Fertilizer 1 Kellogg Nitro humus; N= .5%; $4.29- $4.97/ 1.5 CF; Digested, composted sludge and forest products 2 Kellogg Topper; $3.98/ 1.5 CF 3 Kellogg Topper Bulk Bin; $46.00/ 30 CF 4 Kellogg Amend; $3.98- $4.29/ 1.5 CF; Rice hulls, Nitro humus (Digested, composted sludge and forest products) 5 Kellogg Amend; $1.86/ 0.5 CF 6 Kellogg Amend Plus; $6.99/ 1.5 CF; Composted rice hulls, chicken manure, aged forest compost, kelp meal, worm castings 7 Kellogg GroMulch; $5.99/ 2 CF 8 Kellogg E-Z Green Organic Chicken Fertilizer; 2%N, 5%P, 1%K, 12% Ca, .7% Mg; $5.79/ 40 pound 9 Scott’s Miracle-Gro Garden Soil; 0.1%N, 0.05%P, 0.1%K; Manure, urea, monammonium phosphate, potassium nitrate; $3.98/ 1 CF; 20 pounds 10 Scott’s Miracle-Gro Garden Soil Trees, Shrubs, and Ornamentals; 0.1%N, 0.05%P, 0.1%K; Forest products, peat moss, manure, wetting agent, fertilizer; $3.98/ 1 CF; 20 pounds

FINAL 52 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-15 Southern California Compost-Based Retail Bagged Products List Item No. Retail, Bagged Products: Home and Garden Topsoil, Soil Amendment, Fertilizer 11 Scott’s Miracle-Gro Potting Mix; $8.47/ 2 CF 12 Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro Soil Conditioner Plus Redwood Compost; $5.98/ 3 CF 13 Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro Garden Soil; Compost, forest products, manure; $1.98/ 1 CF 14 Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro Organic Compost Compost, forest products, manure $2.37/ 1 CF 15 Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro All Purpose Potting Soil; $1.98 /20 quarts; Compost, forest products, sand, perlite, wetting agent 16 Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro All Purpose Potting Soil; $3.94 /2 CF 17 Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro Steer Manure; $.66/ 1 CF; Composted steer manure and composted EQ biosolids 18 Scott’s Hyponex Camellia, Rhododendron Planting Soil; 0.05%N, 0.05%P, 0.05%K; $3.98/1.0 CF; Compost, forest products, peat moss, sand 19 Scott’s Hyponex Potting Soil plus Osmocote; 0.07%N, 0.01%P, 0.03%K; $4.73/10 pound (16 dry quarts) Compost, forest products, peat moss, perlite, wetting agent, plant food 20 Scott’s Hyponex Pro-Gro Potting Mix; $4.96/ 25 quarts; Horticulture grade peat moss, composted bark, horticultural vermiculite, wetting agent 21 Scott’s Hyponex Pro-Gro Potting Mix; $7.98/ 50 quarts; Horticulture grade peat moss, composted bark, horticultural vermiculite, wetting agent 22 Scott’s Hyponex 3-In-1 Organic Compost; 0.05%N, 0.05%P, 0.05%K; $3.34/1.5 CF; Compost manure, top soil, forest products 23 Scott’s Hyponex Rich, Dark Top Soil; 1 CF; Compost forest products, ash, manure 24 Supersoil Soil Conditioner Rod McClellan Co. San Mateo, CA; 0..43%N, 0.2%P, 0.15%K; $3.98/1.5 CF 25 Supersoil Soil Conditioner Rod McClellan Co. San Mateo, CA; 0..43%N, 0.2%P, 0.15%K; $4.97/2 CF 26 Supersoil Soil Conditioner Rod McClellan Co. San Mateo, CA; 0..43%N, 0.2%P, 0.15%K; $3.98/1 CF 27 LGM Planting Mix; $6.99/ 2 CF; Composted wood material, ground bark, leaf mulch, peat moss, perlite 28 MNA Nurseryman’s Bumper Crop; $6.49/ 2 CF; Forest humus, chicken manure, worm castings, bat guano, kelp meal, dolomite lime 29 Gardener In Bloom Rose Planting Mix- Cascade Forest Products, Inc. Novato, CA; $5.49/ 1.5 CF; Composted fir bark, fines, forest humus, peat moss, perlite, worm casting, chicken manure, alfalfa meal, bone meal, bat guano, oyster shell, dolomite lime 30 Unigrow Premium Organic Potting Soil- L&L Nursery Supply, Chino, CA; $7.99/ 2 CF; Forest products, peat moss, vermiculite, pumice, bone meal, blood meal, cotton seed meal, earthworm castings 31 Whitney Farms – Garden Grow Co., Independence, OR; $4.99/ 22 l; Composted straw, peat moss, horse manure, chicken manure, cotton seed meal, soybean meal, gypsum, dolomite lime 32 Whitney Farms Chicken Manure; 3%N, 2%P, 2%K; $4.99/ 1 CF; Chicken manure 33 Whitney Farms Uncle Malcolm’s Special Blend Potting Soil; $5.79/ 20 quarts; Aged, processed softwood bark, sawdust, peat moss, perlite, pumice, composted animal manures, bat guano, kelp meal, dolomite lime 34 Whitney Farms Uncle Malcolm’s Special Blend Potting Soil; $7.99/ 1.5 CF 35 Whitney Farms Potting Soil; $2.99/ 8 quarts 36 Whitney Farms Genuine Planting Compost; $4.99/ 1.5 CF; Aged, processed softwood bark, sawdust, rice hulls, aged composted and washed animal manure, dried poultry waste, blood meal, feather meal, bone meal, sunflower hull ash, dolomite lime 37 Whitney Farms Composted Seed Cover; / 1.5 CF; Aged, processed softwood bark, aged composted cow manure 38 Whitney Farms Steer Manure; 0.5%N, 0.5%P, 0.5%K; $0.99/ 1 CF 39 Whitney Farms Top Soil; $2.99/ 1 CF; Composted cow manure, composted fir bark, fines, washed sand

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 53 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-15 Southern California Compost-Based Retail Bagged Products List Item No. Retail, Bagged Products: Home and Garden Topsoil, Soil Amendment, Fertilizer 40 Master Nursery Pay Dirt- Master Nurseryman’s Association, Walnut Creek, CA; $6.49/ 2 CF; Chicken manure, redwood sawdust, mushroom compost (wheat straw, cottonseed hulls, peat moss, cottonseed meal, chicken manure, gypsum) 41 Master Nursery Steer Manure; $3.49/ 2 CF; Aged, composted screened steer manure 42 Gardner’s Gold Potting Soil; $7.99/ 2 CF; Fir bark, worm castings, top soil, redwood, peat moss, perlite, chicken manure, bat guano, kelp 43 Bandini Top Dress; $4.99 / 2 CF; Composted wood products, finely ground fir bark 44 Armstrong Nursery Soil Amendment Chicken Manure; $5.99/ 1 CF

As shown in Table 2-14, in the bulk horticultural sector, 14 products comprise the majority of product options. Product delivery and application defines a series of products sold in bulk by the truckload, usually 23 to 27 tons per load. Additionally, there is a larger, unknown number of proprietary special-blend products unique to individual customers and their circumstances. Because of the proprietary nature of product and competitor information, the research team was not able to determine the particular quantities of material marketed through individual product segments. The range of prices for these products was found to vary from around $10 per cubic yard to as high as $21 per cubic yard. These products typically contain 2 cubic yards per ton, which translates into a range of $5 to $10.50 per ton of product. These product prices were compared to values reported in Composting News, a national monthly newsletter and were found to be in the mid-range of reported prices. The newsletter reported price ranges between $4 and $25 per cubic yard for bulk compost throughout the southwest for November 2000. These prices are FOB at the manufacturing facility and do not include the transportation charges. The costs of transportation are added to these product costs and play a significant role in the overall marketing opportunity for these products. The economics of the composting industry in California dictate that the value inherent in compost products for use in horticulture and agriculture is so low that product transportation beyond 150 miles is unprofitable. Horticultural products have a higher unit value, and it is feasible to transport these products up to 350 miles to markets in Nevada. As shown in Table 2-14, in the bulk agriculture sector, 10 products comprise the bulk of product options. Product delivery and application defines a series of products sold in bulk by the truckload, usually 23 to 27 tons per load. Additionally, there is a larger, unknown number of proprietary product blends where the manufacturer adds special chemicals requested according to crop type, soil situation, and grower objectives. Because of the proprietary nature of product and competitor information, the research team was not able to determine the particular quantities of material marketed through individual product segments. The product line in the bulk agriculture segment is narrowly focused on animal manures and the macronutrients, N-P-K, contained within those products.

FINAL 54 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The products distributed through the retail horticulture sector in the Southern California region were assessed through field site visits to various suppliers of topsoil, soil amendments, and fertilizers, through internet research of suppliers, and direct contacts of product suppliers. Two major types of retailers operate in Southern California, including the big box discount sellers and the smaller, niche specialty home and garden retailers. Table 2-15 summarizes the range of 44 products currently being sold at the retail outlets visited by the research team. In the Southern California marketplace, four suppliers dominate sales at the retail level. Kellogg Garden Products, Scott’s Hyponex, Western Organics, and Whitney Farms control the majority of shelf space. The products are sold in displays featuring the products as topsoil or soil amendments. Research discovered that a total of 11 compost product manufacturers and suppliers operate in the local retail marketplace. Several of these manufacturers supply products to K-Mart, Target, and Wal-Mart for their own in-house promotion and brand. Of these manufacturers, three firms, Kellogg Garden Products, Western Organics, and Scott’s Hyponex, utilize biosolids in their product formulations. The biosolids portion of the Southern California marketplace appears to be dominated by Kellogg Garden Products. Of the eight different products on the shelf by Kellogg, seven contained digested, composted sludge. In the case of Scott’s Hyponex, 15 different products were available and only one product contained digested, composted sludge. A significant portion of the biosolids used by Kellogg and Scott’s Hyponex is obtained from the existing compost manufacturing facility at IEUA’s EKO Systems, Inc. We were not able to determine the relative quantities of biosolids-based compost moving through the distribution chain of these two companies. This remains proprietary information. Relevant to this study, the feedstock most prevalent in these products was some type of animal manure. Seventeen products contained cow or steer manure, twelve products contained chicken manure, and six products contained bat guano. In almost all cases, the products containing chicken manure were priced higher than the cow manure reflecting the higher nutrient content in the chicken manure products. Several products containing cow manure advertised that the manure was composted, washed, and screened. The majority of products are sold in 1-cubic-foot bags weighing about 20 pounds. Fifteen different products are sold in this size category ranging in price as low as $0.66 per bag for Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro Steer Manure to as high as $5.99 per bag for Armstrong Nursery Soil Amendment with Chicken Manure. Most products in this size category are priced at $3.98 per bag or $4.99 per bag. The second price break occurs at around $2 per bag, while the low-end pricing drops to below $1 per bag for strictly manure or manure and biosolids compost.

Market Size The competitors in the Southern California marketplace for organic fertilizers and soil amendments are significant. Table 2-13 supplies summary information on the 35 firms (36 facilities by 35 firms)and facilities permitted and operating in the six county region that encompasses San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura (CIWMB, 2002).

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 55 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Research indicates that the facilities are permitted to process over 2.4 million tons per year of various organic materials. Current available data show that about 1.6 million tons per year of compost products came from these facilities. By applying a typical mass reduction factor of 30 percent for the composting process, it is evident that the amount of compost product from the producers in Southern California is consistent with the values reported. It is also evident that the marketplace for these compost-derived products is sound and well- matched to the production capacity. For the most part, there are no excess inventories of compost products. Seven of these facilities are owned by government agencies while the remaining 29 facilities are owned by privately held firms. The ownership status is important because detailed information on feedstocks, products, and markets is considered proprietary and confidential by the privately held firms, and is therefore generally not available to the project team. The range of feedstock materials used in these operations includes manure (dairy, poultry, bat guano, and horse) bark, sawdust, rice hulls, shavings, biosolids, sand, yard trimmings, paper, construction and demolition wood, agricultural field biomass, fishery processing residuals, drywall, liquids, and food-processing residuals.

Estimate of Future Market The future market for these products appears strong. Research was conducted with several of the firms shown in Table 2-16 regarding their interest in partnering with the District through a long-term biosolids product co-marketing contract. Substantial interest was expressed by the firms. According to our latest research, there appears to be a long-term deficit of compost product of approximately 95,000 tons per year from four primary firms. These firms expressed a desire to partner with the District to fill this deficit.

TABLE 2-16 List Of Potential Compost Project Partner Contacts # Name of Firm and Contact Location Telephone Primary Business Line 1. Aguinaga Fertilizer Company; Irvine 949-786-9558 Compost and Mulch Manufacturer Roger Aguinaga, President and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 2. American Ag; Bakersfield 661-635-0778 Fertilizer, Compost, and Soil Gerald Gaskin, Owner Amendments Broker; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 3. California Bio-Mass; Bloomington 909-875-6441 Compost and Mulch Manufacturer Dave Hardy, President and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 4. Earthwise Organics; Corona 909-393-5653 Compost, Soil Amendments and Sam Monaco, President Soil Chemicals Manufacturer and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 5. EPTC; Westlake Village 818-865-2205 Composting Technology Marvin Mears, President Manufacturer and Compost Wholesaler

FINAL 56 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-16 List Of Potential Compost Project Partner Contacts # Name of Firm and Contact Location Telephone Primary Business Line 6. Interwest Commodities; Dana Point 800-200-4051 Fertilizer, Compost, and Soil Steve Stewart, President Amendments Broker; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 7. Kellogg Garden Products; Carson 800-232-2322 Compost and Soil Amendments Alex Murguia, Director of Re-Manufacturer, Packager, and Operations Wholesaler to home centers, discount chains, garden centers, and nurseries 8. Scott’s Company; Chino 909-597-2811 Compost and Soil Amendments Roclund White, Plant Manager Re-Manufacturer, Packager, and Operations Wholesaler to home centers, discount chains, garden centers, and nurseries 9. Superior Compost-Payne Allied; Bakersfield 800-995-8331 Compost, Soil Amendments and Jurgen Lundgren Soil Chemicals Manufacturer and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 10. Synagro, Inc.; Corona 909-232-2127 Compost, Soil Amendments, Tom Kelly, Director of Marketing Mulch and Soil Chemicals Manufacturer and Wholesaler; Direct sales to agriculture and horticulture bulk users 11. Western Organics, Inc.; Tempe, AZ 480-543-3374 Compost and Soil Amendments Dennis Reynolds, Senior Vice Manufacturer, Packager, and President Sales and Marketing Wholesaler to home centers, discount chains, garden centers, and nurseries

Perceived Market Risk Barriers to market development often exist because of a lack of knowledge, especially in areas where compost has not been marketed in large quantities. Therefore, most barriers can be addressed and overcome with the proper effort. During research for the State of Iowa, information was collected (see Table 2-17) that presents market development barriers identified by compost users and producers (Resource Conservation and Development of Northeast Iowa, 1998).

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 57 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-17 Barriers to Compost Market Development Facility Data – Perceived Market Data – Factors to Compost Marketing Barriers Encourage Compost Use

23% Transportation Costs 42% Improved Local Availability

20% Quality of Product 39% Lower Cost

20% Markets Undeveloped 30% Availability of Consistent Products

17% Lack of Marketing Experience/Staff 29% Availability of Higher Quality Product

14% Volume of Marketable Product 27% List of Local Compost Sources

Source: Resource Conservation and Development Northeast Iowa, 1998

Public Perception Issues Public perception issues that could impact this market segment include quality problems with compost products such as odor or inconsistent product features such as contamination from plastic material passing through screens.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Horticultural products are principally used in establishing flower beds, amending soil for ornamental plantings in landscaping, and nursery field productions, preparing mixes for container ornamental and flowers, and improving topsoil for turf and sod production. Soil amendment for use in planting beds is usually used “as is,” meaning unblended, and is incorporated into the soil. Particle size and soluble salts are the two most important characteristics. The preferable size is <0.5 inch. The product should be stable to highly stable and the resulting salinity level of the bed should not exceed 2.5 dS/m. Therefore, the compost should have a salinity level of 5 or less (Fitzpatrick, 1992). A lower salinity in the bed may be needed for salt sensitive plants such as geraniums. Landscape mulch is used as a decorative material, to prevent erosion, to intercept and adsorb rainfall, and to provide weed control. The specifications for this product are less than most horticultural applications. Particle size may vary, but coarse particles are preferred as they will remain in place. Coarse textured compost adsorbs water better and is more effective in weed control. In container production, compost is blended with soil, sand, or other media. Usually 20 to 30 percent biosolids compost is used in container growth media. Higher contents of compost have been reported to be successful for certain crops. The characteristics will vary with the species planted. Soluble salts are often less of an issue since irrigation will leach them out. A stable product is desirable. The preferred particle size is 3/8 inch.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing Determining the value of feedstock manure and biosolids in relation to the product price is useful to assess the probable pricing for compost manufactured by the District. An analysis of the pricing of Earthgro Steer Manure is the simplest and most reliable at determining

FINAL 58 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS market value, as the product contains no other value added components. This analysis shows that at $0.66 per 1-cubic-foot bag, assuming 2 cubic yards per ton, the value is calculated to equal $35.64 per ton of product. Assuming a 50:50 split between the biosolids and manure portion, the value of each component is $17.82 per ton. Tremendous costs and some profit are incurred by partners in the supply chain. The details of these costs and profits were not available to the research team. Experience indicates that retailers usually practice a 100 percent markup that would imply these retailers buy a product such as Earthgro Steer Manure for about $17.82 per ton. Research indicates that bagging costs are about $9 per ton of product in the Southern California region. Transportation, sales commissions, other expenses, and profit must be covered from the remaining funds. It is anticipated that the price for compost as feedstock for these products is very low. Research indicates that many manufacturers sustain their profitability based on the tipping fees they receive for taking in the feedstock material.

Political Hurdles and Constraints The political hurdles and constraints associated with this market are minimal. The firms operating in this retail industry are permitted and licensed by various local jurisdictions. The operations are typically well-run, industrial-type sites that operate with straightforward acceptance by the jurisdictions. Occasionally, nuisances from dust or odor may become an issue on the political front. In these instances, operational corrections are used to mitigate any problems.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products, product applications, or market.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation This is a market requiring considerable effort to penetrate although it is estimated that considerable reward is feasible through capture of this market. Achieving a more significant role for biosolids compost or dry products in this market would likely involve a significant research and demonstration program to document any benefits that differentiate biosolids products from the current propagation media. Pursuing this market would not likely require any significant changes in the composting or dry product process to be used.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators for this option include the following: x The number of compost product vendors in the vicinity x The rate of compost and pellet or granule utilization per household x The number of compost producers and marketers in the vicinity x Continued rate of residential and commercial development in the vicinity x Future regulatory restrictions that may impair product utilization

Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Assisting Residential Development A healthy sustainable urban forest provides many benefits to its community, including:

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 59 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Provides natural urban shading and cooling, which reduce air conditioning and associated costs. x Reduces energy use, thereby lessening air pollution from electricity generation. x Sequesters up to 26 pounds of carbon dioxide per mature tree each year, a key factor in the rate of global warming. x Provides water conservation and reduces stormwater runoff along with associated flooding and pollution (mature trees are able to trap and hold up to 50 gallons of water each). x Creates demand for trees, mulch, compost, and recycled water to grow and maintain the forest. The District would benefit by participating in the existing shade tree programs (i.e., Irvine Shadetree Partnership) and/or by leading the development of a new shade tree program through cooperation with its member cities. The benefits would include: x Positive public relations regarding the recycling of beneficial products. x Community outreach with a number of public and private nonprofit and for-profit partners expanding its base of support in the community. x Leveraging the existing environmental and educational programs within the District’s communities with the overall goal of creating better, healthier communities.

Brief Description and History In considering a shade tree program for the District, several other California-based programs were reviewed. The leading program in the state (and nationally) is Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD’s) Shade Tree Program. Successful programs in Southern California include The Shadetree Partnership in Irvine sponsored by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Cool Schools Program. LADWP is also launching Trees for a Green L.A., which began in 2002 and will plant over 200,000 trees primarily on residential property within their service area. Table 2-18 highlights areas of focus for each program.

TABLE 2-18 California Agency Shade Tree Programs Length of Number of Trees Program Focus Program Planted to date SMUD – Sacramento Shade Private – residential 11 years 300,000

IRWD – Shadetree Partnership Public – schools, 11 years Over 10,000 parks, greenbelts LADWP – Cool Schools Public – schools 4 years 8,200

FINAL 60 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Sacramento Shade Program The Sacramento Shade Program is sponsored by SMUD; they contract with the Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF), a nonprofit organization, to carry out the planting and educational components of the program. The primary goal of the program is to provide residential and small business customers with free shade trees that, when strategically sited and mature, will reduce air conditioning needs. Each tree planted under the Sacramento Shade Tree program costs SMUD approximately $60. Between 1990 and 1995, over 190,000 5-gallon trees (at residences) and 15-gallon trees (in public spaces) were provided to Sacramento residents and business owners in order to reduce their demands for air conditioning. There were no requirements on the types of trees planted or for placing those trees in a beneficial location where shade would impact the buildings. The program was not deemed “successful” by SMUD and was subsequently changed. In 1995, SMUD refocused planting efforts based on planting criteria (size/type of tree and planting location) that will provide measurable energy conservation results. Now they are experiencing a quantifiable, cost-effective reduction in future electricity demand. Funding for the program comes directly from SMUD. The Present Value Benefit (a numeric formula) they associate with each tree planted relates directly to saved future electricity costs. This formula allows them to quantify the true economic benefits of the program. The program currently operates at a break-even level (i.e., no loss to SMUD). Since 1995, SMUD has retained full ownership of the program. STF is a contractor to them, but not a co-sponsor. SMUD receives the credit as well as bears the costs. STF is compensated based on the Present Value Benefit associated with each tree planted. STF supports a paid staff of approximately 30 people; they do pursue other tree planting projects in addition to Sacramento Shade.

Irvine Shadetree Partnership The Shadetree Partnership was formed in Irvine in 1990 to provide public awareness and understanding in the area of urban forestry. It is a hands-on, volunteer-based organization that promotes more livable communities through the planting and stewardship of shade trees (Figure 2-3). Since they began, they have had over 11,000 volunteers plant over 10,000 trees at school and park sites. They are currently planting approximately 1,500 trees per year. The organization is closely aligned with the IRWD; the Board of Directors has eight members, including three IRWD staff. To facilitate planting events, Shadetree Partnership has a fully enclosed, fully equipped trailer that is taken to each planting event. All necessary equipment is on board, ready for volunteer use. This streamlines the set up process and ensures maximum benefit from volunteer hours. The trailer and equipment were donated by IRWD. The Shadetree Partnership Nursery Project supplies the trees for the planting events. Co-sponsored by IRWD, the nursery is located on 5 acres at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). It is staffed by volunteers and grows approximately 10,000 trees up to 15-gallon size. It uses recycled water along with potable water. Cities and community organizations can also obtain trees from the nursery for planting on public property. For the use of the land, UCI receives payment in the form of 300 trees per year, with volunteer labor to plant them.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 61 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

FIGURE 2-3. Irvine Shade Tree Program Volunteers

The nursery management and maintenance of the plants is all done with volunteer labor. Schools often adopt certain beds of plants and provide the labor to maintain them. The irrigation system is maintained by IRWD contractors. Seedlings are obtained with a grant from the National Tree Trust along with soil products and cans. The funding for the program comes from grants and donations, with support from IRWD through in-kind services.

LADWP Cool Schools Program The LADWP is partnering with the Los Angeles Unified School District and five nonprofit groups to provide a citywide, community based tree planting program. The Cool Schools program plants trees around school buildings to create shade and cool the classrooms. The U.S. Forest Service determined that for each dollar spent on the program, $2.37 was returned in the form of reduced energy expenditures and improved air quality, increased property value, and improved human health. The program includes an environmental curriculum, including biology, botany, horticulture, and related topics. Funding for the program comes from LADWP Public Benefits programs.

The District’s Shade Tree Program Trees would be planted on public or quasi-public property, with an emphasis on schools, parks, parkways (residential, commercial, and industrial), and community centers. Future growth of the program may encompass residential tree plantings and planting for new construction. Planting events will be coordinated by a designated program manager; each of

FINAL 62 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS the events will include an appropriate educational message that encourages long-term stewardship of the region’s environment. Volunteers will do the actual planting. The planting program is founded on one basic premise – planting “The Right Tree in the Right Place.” The program manager will proactively coordinate with city and school district staff to determine how the shade tree program can best fit in with current programs, agency planning requirements, and facility plans. The program needs to provide value to the agencies and the property where trees are planted. This program will not override current planning efforts, nor create future problems for agency or District staff through inappropriate tree selection, poor plant quality, or improper planting methods. Ongoing maintenance for the trees is a critical factor. Cities and school districts must have budgets that will allow maintenance of the trees. The program will not have long-term success if volunteers see the trees declining, damaged or dead. In correlation with the shade tree program, the District could partner with a professional grower to use available land and recycled water for a tree nursery that will supply plant material to the program. The nursery will bring added value to the program through trees grown with local cultural materials, and the ability to demonstrate the use of these materials in the landscape. The grower will in turn benefit from reduced land and water costs. There are also opportunities for research in the use of organics in conjunction with a local university. The nursery will provide opportunities for the District to bring assets into the horticultural market.

Current Market Strength The current market strength for a shade tree program appears to be high. In the Southern California region, five programs are active including Irvine, Los Angeles (2), San Diego, and the Inland Empire.

Market Size The current size of the shade tree market in the District area is small. The Irvine Shadetree Partnership has planted about 10,000 trees over 11 years. There is no active shade tree program in the District’s remaining member cities.

Estimate Future of Market The future market for the District’s products through a shade tree program is not large, but could be very important in relation to public perception and acceptance of biosolids compost or dry products. If the District pursued a shade tree program at an aggressive pace similar to the investments made by SMUD, it would average about 40,000 trees per year. Based on 15-gallon containers with a 50 percent biosolids compost mix, the tonnage demand for compost would be about 600 tons per year.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts The other large agencies in the market were summarized in previous sections. They include Irvine, Los Angeles (2), San Diego, and the Inland Empire. None of these programs are seen as competitors to the District launching a similar program. It is likely that the existing programs result in a positive impact on the development of a District shade tree program.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 63 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions There are no known current or future regulatory restrictions that could impair this program.

Perceived Market Risk There is no known market risk for a District shade tree program.

Public Perception Issues The public perception issues associated with a shade tree program sponsored by the District are estimated to be positive. The public benefits could include: x A healthy sustainable urban forest providing many benefits to its community. x Natural urban shading and cooling, reducing air conditioning and associated costs. x Reducing energy use, thereby lessening air pollution from electricity generation. x Sequestering up to 26 pounds of carbon dioxide per mature tree per year, a key factor in the rate of global warming. x Water conservation and reduced stormwater runoff along with associated flooding and pollution (mature trees are able to trap and hold up to 50 gallons of water each).

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The product limits and preferences for the shade tree program are similar to the requirements for nursery production. Nurseries utilize compost in field beds and as a plant growth media in containers. The use of compost for field grown ornamentals depends on the species. Generally, compost is incorporated into the soil. In container production, compost is blended with soil, sand, or other media. Usually 20 to 30 percent biosolids compost is used in container growth media though higher percentages of high quality compost are practical. The characteristics will vary with the species planted. Soluble salts are often less of an issue since irrigation will leach them out. A stable product is desirable. The preferred particle size is 3/8 inch.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics associated with a shade tree program are a function of numerous factors including the level of volunteer input and the level of grant and related support funding from the community. The overall cost of manufacturing and planting trees for utilization in the program can range from $55 per tree to $100 per tree (IEUA, 2002). This range is attributed to economies of scale.

Political Hurdles and Constraints Political constraints associated with a shade tree program include the ability to convince the District member cites and various school districts or other institutional entities to participate in the program.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products or product applications.

FINAL 64 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Assessment of Ease of Implementation Implementation of shade tree programs is typically achieved by relying on a new or local nonprofit organization. The nonprofit organization is responsible for public outreach, volunteer recruitment, educating the public on shade tree benefits and stewardship, and promoting the program in each of the District’s cities. This organization seeks out and pursues opportunities for funding, whether through community donations, grants, or participating in governmental programs. While initial financial support will be provided by the District, other agencies, and developers, the nonprofit must establish a means to become self-supporting as well as expand their efforts. This will come through strong community liaisons, participation in regional planning events, and a commitment to pursue and nurture opportunities.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators include: x The number of volunteers who become involved on an ongoing basis. x The number of volunteer hours put into the program. x The number of trees planted and the number that survive the first year. x The number of cities and schools who participate in first-time plantings and also multiple plantings.

Energy/Silviculture – Indirect Production through Biomass Crop An opportunity exists to land-apply compost, pellets, or other biosolids products to private or publicly owned lands to produce crops that can be used in the production of ethanol as a renewable fuel source or in support of fiber crop production. An option for consideration would be for the District to partner with a private sector farmer with enough land available to consumptively use all, or a substantial portion of, the annual biosolids products for the growing of non-food-chain or renewable energy-type crops. At an agronomic application rate of 20 wet tons per acre per year, this could be accomplished on a farm approximately 12,000 acres3 in size. Practically, a farm would need to be somewhat larger to allow for various farming factors and contingencies including normal crop cycles and rotation.

Brief Description and History Since the earliest days of the automobile, alcohols have been used as motor fuels. The term alcohol has often been used to denote either ethanol or methanol as a fuel. One of the earliest alcohol fuel advocates, Henry Ford, adapted his Model T to run on either gasoline or alcohol and sponsored alcohol fuel conferences. In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell proclaimed the benefits of alcohol fuel in a commencement address published in National Geographic. The great inventor noted the variety of feedstock sources for alcohol production, including “sawdust, a waste product of our mills…corn stalks, and in fact almost any vegetable matter capable of fermentation…growing crops and even weeds…the waste products of our farms…and even the garbage of our cities.” When

3This assumes 365,000 tons per year of biosolids converted into 232,000 tons per year of compost, applied at a conservative rate of 20 wet tons per acre.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 65 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS gasoline became readily available and inexpensive, however, the hopes of such early advocates for achieving significant markets for alcohol fuels were dashed. In the 1930s, the Great Depression brought a new interest in farm products, and ethanol and gasoline were blended for the first time. The American Automobile Association conducted the first testing program in 1933. Also during the 1930s, ethanol fuel gained market shares in other countries such as Germany, Brazil, New Zealand, and France. With the oil crises of the 1970s, ethanol became more established as an alternative fuel. Various countries, including Brazil and the United States, undertook national programs to promote domestically produced ethanol. In addition to the energy rationale, ethanol/gasoline blends in the United States were promoted as an environmentally driven practice‚ first as an octane enhancer to replace lead. More recently, ethanol has been used as an oxygenate in clean-burning gasoline to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions. California’s experience with ethanol fuel production has included a number of project feasibility studies, a few demonstration projects, and several small commercial ventures. Today, one ethanol production facility is operating in the state, a commercial plant with a capacity of 6 million gallons per year (gpy) operated by Parallel Products in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County. This plant, occupying a former winery, uses residues from wine-making and other food and beverage industries as its feedstocks. Two other small, commercial ethanol plants operated by Golden Cheese Company of California (Corona) and Dairyman’s Cooperative Creamery (Tulare), have produced ethanol using cheese whey as feedstock. These plants have a total ethanol capacity of about 3.3 million gpy; however, they are not currently producing ethanol. Both the California Energy Commission and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) have sponsored studies and demonstrations of ethanol production in California. The CIWMB has also looked at ethanol production as part of its overall investigations of beneficial applications of various waste materials in the state. As required by Senate Bill 620 of 1979, the Energy Commission carried out an investigation of alcohol fuels that included both ethanol fuel production feasibility studies and demonstrations, and vehicle fleet demonstrations. Seven potential ethanol production projects were examined as part of this program from 1980 to 1983. Table 2-19 summarizes the projects studied. Most of these prospective projects were judged not viable, based on various economic, technical, and environmental factors. The estimated ethanol production costs for the first six potential projects listed ranged from $1.82 to $2.36 (1982 dollars) per gallon. Even with the federal and state fuel tax incentives then in place, this range of production costs was considered prohibitively expensive, and none of these projects was pursued beyond the feasibility phase. There are two main production processes in the ethanol industry: wet milling and dry milling. Plants that use wet milling have greater production capacities, are more capital intensive, and produce a greater variety of products than dry milling plants. The dry milling process traditionally generates only two products - ethanol and DDG, an animal feed product.

FINAL 66 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-19 Energy Commission Ethanol Production Feasibility Studies (1980 to 1983) Project Name Location Capacity Feedstock(s) Cogeneration Tulare Ethanol Tulare County 3 million Corn, almond Biomass-fired boiler for Production Company GPY hulls, cull fruit process heat City of Tulare Tulare County 250,000 Corn Biomass fired boiler for GPY process heat Adams Alcohol Company Yolo County 10 million Grains Biomass-fired boiler for GPY process heat and electricity Golden By-Products Stanislaus 2.6 million Almond hulls Biomass-fired boiler for County GPY process heat Still Gas, Inc San Joaquin 4.5 million Corn or sweet Biomass-fired boiler for County GPY sorghum process heat Joe Garone Farms Kern County 10 million Grains and Biomass-fired boiler for GPY agricultural wastes process heat and electricity Raven Distillery Fresno County 8 million Cull fruit Natural gas for GPY process heat

The Energy Commission and other state agencies began work on biomass-based ethanol production and its use in transportation nearly two decades ago. Beginning in 1980, several demonstration projects were conducted to investigate the practicality and cost effectiveness of alcohol motor fuels. While this early work showed that ethanol production was potentially viable in the state, it became evident that the economics for in-state production were not competitive with corn-derived ethanol from the Midwest. More recent work at the Energy Commission has identified a wide variety of biomass resources in California that may be suitable feedstocks for ethanol production.

Current Market Strength U.S. ethanol supply, historically mostly from domestic production, has been generally sufficient to satisfy consumption. While consumption increased from about 1,040 million gallons per year (mg/y) in 1994 to about 1,480 mg/y in 2000, domestic production increased from about 1,280 mg/y to about 1,630 mg/y. On average, domestic production exceeded consumption in 5 of the 7 years. Moreover, data on production capacity – the combined quantity of ethanol that all existing U.S. plants would be capable of producing – show that producers could have produced more during that period, if needed. Production capacity exceeded both consumption and production for each of the 7 years from 1994 to 2000. Based on average monthly data from January 1993 through May 1998 (the last year we found data on U.S. ethanol price), the U.S. ethanol price has been generally stable, staying approximately within the range of $1.00 to $1.20 per gallon, except during a period in 1996 when it exceeded this range.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 67 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Market Size As of January 2002, the U.S. ethanol market consisted of the following: x 44 producers, using 58 plants in 19 states, with total existing production capacity of more than 2,311 mg/y. x 16 new producers with new plants under construction, with a total capacity of 427 mg/y, which will slightly lower future market shares of large incumbent firms. Market share of the largest eight ethanol producers is currently 71 percent and is projected to decline to 60 percent as new producers complete new plants under construction.

Estimate Future of Market According to oil industry officials, ethanol, which is primarily produced and used in the Midwest, is expected to become the predominant oxygenate used if the ban on MTBE in California goes into effect. Other areas of the country where methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is currently used may subsequently eliminate MTBE, as recommended by a blue- ribbon panel commissioned by USEPA. In addition to its use as a gasoline oxygenate, other fuel-related uses of ethanol in the United States include use as a gasohol blend, an octane booster, and, to a smaller extent, a straight fuel for ethanol-fueled vehicles. Banning MTBE in California and switching to ethanol by the end of 2002 would result in significant increases of ethanol consumption in California. Based on its projected gasoline consumption, we estimate that California would consume an average of about 880 mg/y of ethanol from 2003 through 2005, as compared with only about 60 mg/y in 2000. Creating a viable in-state ethanol industry to capture these benefits, however, poses major challenges. The cost of producing ethanol remains high, requiring continued government price support to make it a competitive fuel additive. Developing a California ethanol industry will also require a state government role to overcome economic, technical, and institutional barriers and uncertainties. California-produced ethanol fuel will face stiff competition from out-of-state ethanol supplies and in-state petroleum products. Commercializing new technologies for converting biomass to ethanol raises uncertainties and presents challenges that must be overcome to foster and nurture a commercial ethanol industry in California. The lack of commercial experience with biomass-to-ethanol conversion in California and elsewhere suggests that the state would be prudent to co-fund the first several production facilities as part of a near-term demonstration effort. A demonstration would be particularly valuable to gain insight into the actual benefits and drawbacks to siting, building, and operating such facilities in California. In addition, developing a clear biomass-to-ethanol state policy to guide and coordinate actions can help reduce the many challenges that exist to developing this industry. Supporting activities to encourage the production and use of ethanol fuel as a renewable energy source complements California’s ongoing efforts to develop transportation energy alternatives.

FINAL 68 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts At this time, there are no known POTW plans for entering the ethanol production marketplace. Table 2-20 summarizes the ethanol production market structure in the U.S. Factors that may enhance or limit competition in the U.S. ethanol market include the following: x High market power of customers relative to suppliers tends to lower the purchase price. x Frequent orders by customers enable rival suppliers to react faster to each others’ price. x Volatile demand or costs make it difficult for suppliers to detect other suppliers that are offering low prices. x Vertical relationships by suppliers across the different production and distribution levels (e.g., between corn and ethanol productions, ethanol producers and transportation modes, etc.) could make it difficult for smaller firms to compete in the ethanol production market. On the other hand, the vertical relationships could lower costs to buyers. x Import competition from other international ethanol producers is limited.

TABLE 2-20 U.S. Ethanol Market Structure and Conditions that could Conceptually Affect Competition Conceptual Market Structure and Firms’ Existing Market Structure and Firms’ Behavior Behavior Factors and Market Concentration in Ethanol Market

Market Concentration

Pricing coordination is easier if few firms control High industry concentration of production capacity most of the market shares. The Federal Trade based on these standard measures of industry Commission (FTC)/Justice 1992 Horizontal Merger concentration for 2002: Guidelines regard markets with an HHI (Herfindahl- Hirschman Index) above 1800 as “highly – HHI = 1866 concentrated.” – CR4 (Market shares of top 4 firms) = 58%

– CR8 (Market shares of top 8 firms) = 71%

– Largest firm has 41% market share

High concentration would tend to limit competition. Some large producers may have partnered with smaller producers or farm co-ops to market the smaller producer’s supplies of ethanol; thus, the concentration ratio may underestimate the actual market concentration. However, the market share of the large producers is projected to decline.

Product Characteristics

Product substitutability – more available close MTBE and ethanol are the two primary oxygenates; substitutes for product will enhance competition. however, MTBE is being phased out in California. There are other oxygenates, but because of environmental concerns about some of these, the extent to which they can substitute ethanol is not clear.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 69 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Product homogeneity – When products that are Ethanol products are generally homogeneous. From supplied by different competitors are perceived by the customer’s point of view, ethanol produced from customers not to be qualitatively different, different plants is identical. Customers buy the competition will be enhanced. products primarily based on the price.

Switching costs – Low costs of switching to other Some customers we interviewed indicated that suppliers would enhance competition. switching from one ethanol vendor to another was not feasible for them. Other customers typically have contracts with multiple ethanol suppliers (about 2 to 3 suppliers) and do not incur significant costs in switching to other suppliers.

Entry-Related Conditions

Economies of scale or scope could lower per-unit One agricultural economist interviewed stated that costs, potentially lowering prices and discourage dry-mill plants reach economies of scale at about entry by smaller suppliers. 30 to 40 mg/y, while wet-mill plants require about 100 mg/y. Dry-mill plants can be economical at a smaller scale than wet-mill plants. Firms can realize economies of scope from producing fuel-grade, beverage-grade, or industrial-grade ethanol. Production of other corn by-products together can lower per-unit production costs to millers.

Capital Costs: Incumbent firms have a cost advantage over new entrants, because expansion costs substantially less – Expansion vs. new plants – Higher costs of new than a new mill plant. plants as opposed to expansion of existing plants discourage entries by new firms.

– Initial investment costs – A higher initial cost of For a dry-mill plant, the costs are estimated to be investment discourages new entry. between $1.50 to $2.50 per annual gallon. A wet-mill plant can be built for about $3.00 per gallon. According to some experts, the initial capital costs of a dry-mill plant would not be prohibitive. These costs, however, do not include capital costs for distribution infrastructure.

Entry time – Shorter entry time can enhance It takes about 15 to 20 months to build a new dry- competition. According to FTC Merger Guidelines, mill corn ethanol plant. With available financing, the entry time that is less than 2 years would not be a time can be reduced to 1 year. barrier to entry.

Excess capacity – Excess capacity used as a The average capacity utilization rate in this market strategy to deter entry would limit competition. was about 84% over the years 1994 to 2000. According to the California Energy Commission, this spare capacity was concentrated among the largest producers.

Marketing/technological barriers – Incumbents Some large suppliers (e.g., ADM) have strong name marketing or technological advantages could inhibit recognition in the ethanol market. On the other competition. hand, according to ethanol engineering and construction firms, there are no technical and engineering constraints to expanding ethanol construction capacity.

FINAL 70 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Market Rivalries

Uniformity of firm size – Asymmetric/ different sizes Based on capacity, the ethanol market has one of suppliers may encourage aggressive pricing dominant and many smaller or fringe suppliers. behavior by some suppliers; on the other hand, it could promote tacit coordination among suppliers through price leadership.

Contracting – Transaction prices based on private In general, ethanol market prices are based on 4- to contracts could facilitate competitive pricing by 6-month contracts with terms that are not made suppliers. public.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) require that an additive (oxygenate) be added to the gasoline used in areas with excessive carbon monoxide or ozone pollution to help mitigate these conditions. The CAA specifically requires those areas with “severe” ozone pollution to use reformulated gasoline, which contains at least 2 percent oxygen by weight. In California, like most other areas of the country, oil refining companies predominantly use the oxygenate MTBE to meet the CAA requirement. However, because MTBE has been detected in groundwater, the governor of California issued an Executive Order in March 1999 to ban MTBE in the state’s gasoline by the end of 2002. Under the CAA, about 80 percent of the gasoline used in California would require oxygenate by 2003. The California Energy Commission staff’s analysis shows that ethanol fuel produced from waste and residual materials offers potential for meeting the state’s oxygenated gasoline needs. As a renewable fuel, biomass-to-ethanol fuel production offers a number of potential energy, environmental and economic benefits.

Perceived Market Risk A number of risks exist that could impact the development of a biomass-to-ethanol industry in California. The rate at which cellulosic biomass conversion technologies advance will impact ethanol production costs. California-based ethanol project proposers are looking at converting cellulosic feedstocks, using technologies that differ from traditional starch and sugar conversion technologies. Consequently, if cellulosic conversion technologies advance slowly, higher ethanol production costs will likely affect a California biomass ethanol industry adversely. The reverse is also true. Delivered feedstock prices have a significant impact on the cost to produce ethanol. Higher feedstock prices could make California biomass ethanol less competitive with other sources of ethanol (i.e., Midwest corn-based) and restrict the size of a California industry. Regulatory decisions, both by the State of California and the federal government, also will impact the ethanol market. In particular, reconsideration of the current federal mandate for

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 71 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS oxygenates in gasoline will substantially impact the size and duration of a California ethanol market. Without clear evidence of a significant ethanol market, production plant financing will be difficult to obtain.

Public Perception Issues A number of potential public benefits may be derived from a biomass-to-ethanol industry in California. Ethanol is an alternative fuel because it is not derived from petroleum sources. As an alternative fuel, ethanol can help California meet state and federal energy security goals, as outlined in the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. Furthermore, ethanol is a renewable fuel, and offers an effective option for reducing greenhouse gases that may contribute to global climate change. Studies have shown that greenhouse gas reductions are possible with ethanol produced from biomass, as compared to nonrenewable fuels, on a full fuel cycle basis. Based on Argonne National Laboratory analyses, ethanol in the form of E85 (85 percent ethanol blended with 15 percent gasoline) derived from cellulosic biomass (e.g., agricultural residues) can reduce carbon emissions in the range of 80 to 85 percent. In contrast, current corn-derived ethanol, in the form of E85, achieves about a 22 percent reduction in carbon emissions. The traditional means of disposing of large quantities of agricultural and forest wastes has been open-field burning, which impacts air quality. Because of this concern, open-field burning of rice straw is being phased out. The state is seeking alternatives to open-field burning, such as converting the rice straw to ethanol, thereby reducing or eliminating this practice. Similarly, forest residues are being open-field burned. In an effort to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, forests are being mechanically thinned. The conversion of forest residues to ethanol provides a potentially viable alternative to burning. Converting MSW (including paper waste, yard waste, etc.) to ethanol would reduce the volume of waste streams that are now deposited in landfills. In addition to other diversion strategies, such as recycling and composting, waste-to-ethanol may be an attractive option. Another benefit that could arise if a biomass-to-ethanol industry develops in California is the creation of a new industry that could provide jobs and increased tax revenues for the state.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The limits and preferences for compost or dry products associated with biomass production for ethanol are consistent with the agricultural product characteristics defined in this report.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of biomass-to-ethanol projects are difficult to assess completely because biomass-to-ethanol technologies have yet to be demonstrated or commercially applied. High capital costs associated with the noncommercial status of cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol technologies contribute to high risk financing. Feedstock costs represent the largest portion of the total costs, and thus the availability of low cost feedstocks is critical for producing ethanol competitively.

FINAL 72 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Other project economics are subject to many unknowns and will vary with plant size, location, and other variables. A collocated ethanol production facility and biomass power plant offer several economic advantages. Both facilities share the cost of processing feedstocks. The ethanol facility can contract with the biomass power plant to manage feedstock procurement and inventory, which reduces the fixed operating costs for both facilities. The ethanol plant can also process feedstocks that would be burned in the biomass power plant and provide lignin as fuel for the power plant (lignin is a by-product of converting biomass to ethanol). Ethanol production cost savings up to 20 percent are possible with collocation of a biomass power plant and an ethanol facility. Ethanol’s value in the gasoline blending market is determined by the price of competing gasoline (or oxygenates), its octane value, and tax incentives provided at the federal and state levels. Thus, as gasoline prices in each state change, and as tax credits vary, the price of ethanol will also vary.

Political Hurdles and Constraints Siting a biomass-to-ethanol facility in California is a complex process, which can take 12 to 18 months or longer. The location of the site and its size will determine who has jurisdiction and the responsibility as lead agency for preparing an EIR and determining whether the project complies with CEQA.

CEQA Issues The CEQA issues associated with this option are one of siting a biomass-to-ethanol facility rather than issues with the biosolids products used to grow biomass crops.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The technological, economic, and institutional factors that affect the viability of individual biomass-to-ethanol projects and the expansion of the industry are referred to as barriers. Here they are considered simply as constraints and challenges, conditions of the real world that must be understood, evaluated, and adapted to or modified, if California is to realize an economically and environmentally sustainable biomass-to-ethanol industry. Some of these factors are outlined below: x Technological Considerations – feedstock characteristics, seasonal availability, and residue collection; feedstock production, storage, and processing; process scale-up; material erosion and corrosion. x Economic Considerations – production costs, capital costs, enzyme costs, costs of delivered feedstocks, competing markets for residues, and costs of environmental compliance. x Environmental Considerations – effects on the soil, ecological impacts, air emissions, water usage, wastewater treatment, environmental permitting, endangered species, harvesting agricultural residues, ash disposal, truck traffic and related emissions, noise and odor, and energy use.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 73 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Institutional Considerations – incentives to producers and users, permitting requirements, emission offset requirements, availability of residues on a long-term basis, cooperation among agencies, long-term supportive state regulations.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators include the following: x The pace at which MTBE is replace by ethanol. x The ability of various institutions or entities to develop, site, design, finance, and construct an ethanol production facility in the Southern California vicinity. x The competition for the ethanol market from mid-west or other ethanol sources. x Ethanol pricing and demand volatility.

Citrus, Avocado, Vineyard, and Orchard through Pellets or Granules Fruit tree production has developed into a highly specialized and intensive production system that tends to exploit the soils to its maximum productivity. Recently, the limited use of manure and soil organic amendments, lack of crop rotations, the frequent use of clean cultivation, lack of cover crops, little fallow time, increase in traffic of orchard machinery, and intensive inorganic fertilization and herbicide programs have accelerated soil exploitation. These factors have been identified as some of the major constraints of intensive fruit monoculture (Stoffella and Kahn, 2001). To help better this growing environment, the concept of sustainable agriculture, defined as the “long-term use of resources without degradation,” has become a major subject of study. From this research, principals and guidelines have been developed focusing on the preservation and promotion of long-term soil fertility through sustainable agriculture. Proper soil fertility levels help to maintain adequate gas exchange, water retention capacity, organic matter content, biological activity, and a lack of soil compaction. Essential to this task is the establishment of a proper humic balance. Pelletized or granulated biosolids can provide this organic matter.

Brief Description and History Heat-dried biosolids products usually contain 4 to 6 percent nitrogen and are dried to 98 percent solids. They are usually formed into pellets for ease of application. A significant quantity of heat-dried products has been used in the citrus industry in Florida. Its use has been documented in agriculture, homeowners, land reclamation, silviculture, turf maintenance, and turf production. Heat-dried products are sold in bulk or bag. They may be blended and fortified with other macro and micro nutrients including N-P-K chemicals to produce certified fertilizers. The advantages of heat-dried products over composted or traditional material include: x Dry material for blending with other materials to be used as a fertilizer.

FINAL 74 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Compared to compost, has a higher primary nutrient content, and therefore is considered a fertilizer. x Longer shelf life suitable for longer distance transport. The disadvantages to heat-dried products are: x Low organic matter content. x May be unstabilized (undigested), and therefore can produce odors on wetting. x Caution in shipping due to potential fires. Typically, the pelletized biosolids are utilized in orchards in two different ways: as corrective dressing or maintenance dressing. Each requires a different application rate and produces different benefits for the plant.

Corrective Dressing. Corrective dressing in fruit production systems is the application of inorganic fertilizers and soil amendments in quantities to provide enough nutrients and organic matter for several years. At a rate of 50 to 100 tons per hectare, the compost is typically cultivated into the top soil. Corrective dressing is used to restore soil fertility to continuously cultivated land that is being replanted (Stoffella and Kahn, 2001).

Maintenance Dressing. Maintenance dressing is regular application, every 3 to 5 years, of sufficient nutrients to supply the needs of the plant. During the vegetative cycle, the dressing is used to replace nutrients lost to harvested fruit and keep adequate soil organic matter. The pelletized biosolids, manure, and other organic waste is also commonly used, and is generally surface-applied at a rate of 40 to 60 tons per hectare. Research has shown that application of compost to vineyards, citrus trees, and peach trees results in improved nutritional status and fewer physiological disorders than the exclusive use of inorganic fertilizers (Stoffella and Kahn, 2001). When applied properly, biosolids can offer several benefits to citrus and avocado land. Biosolids contain significant amounts of N-P-K. They also can provide plant micronutrients such as Zn. The nature of nutrients in biosolids is different than those found in commercial fertilizers. Stabilization of biosolids during waste treatment produces organic N forms that are not available to plants until they are decomposed by soil microorganisms. When added to soils, microorganisms break down biosolids and release 10 to 50 percent of the + organic N as available N (ammonium, NH4 ) in the first year following application. Soil + - - microorganisms rapidly convert the NH4 to nitrate (NO3 ). Plants quickly absorb NO3 . It also is mobile in soils, irrespective of whether it originates from commercial N fertilizer or - biosolids. The mobility of NO3 increases the potential for groundwater contamination. In essence, biosolids are slow-release N fertilizers that contain low concentrations of plant nutrients (Stoffella and Kahn, 2001). Frequently, biosolids promote physical changes in soil that are more significant than the plant nutrients they supply. Biosolids can serve as a source of organic material that improves soil tilth, water-holding capacity, structure development and stability, and air and water transport, and can ultimately decrease soil erosion potential. Granulated biosolids have been used on orchards in the southeast U.S. Biosolids and poultry manure are readily available in Florida, and are commonly applied to citrus groves.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 75 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

These materials are increasingly being applied to pastures, which are normally under fertilized and require N applications for adequate biomass production and forage quality. For example, the South Dade Soil and Water Conservation District produces about 45,000 tons per year of a cake-like biosolids. This product contains about 5 percent N and 2.5 percent potassium phosphate (P2O5) on a dry weight basis, and nearly all of it is applied to citrus groves at 2 to 6 wet tons per acre. Use of these biosolids is economical for the farmers because the waste producer subsidized the cost of processing and delivery. In a typical case, the material is delivered to a citrus grove at no cost and is spread by a custom applicator for $6 per ton (Muchovej and Obreza, 2001).

Current Market Strength There are a number of dry and liquid formulations of nitrogen available to growers, each containing a different percentage of nitrogen. The grower’s choice commonly is based on the cost per unit of nitrogen and the method and ease of application. No yield differences have been correlated with the different sources of nitrogen. The rate of nitrogen application depends upon tree age, tree size, or yield target. The market for biosolids dry products on citrus, avocado, vineyards, and orchards does not exist in Southern California. Biosolids products would be a substitute for existing fertilization practices.

Market Size The Orange County citrus market has been decreasing in size in relation to suburban expansion. It should be expected that the citrus market in Orange County would continue to shrink. In 1997, 2.6 million acres of California was cultivated in orchards. Of this, 210,000 acres were located in the seven southern counties. The overwhelming majority of this land was in Ventura, San Diego, and Riverside Counties. (USDA, 2001a).

Estimate of Future Market This market is limited by the amount of land in cultivation. In Southern California, 210,000 acres are in orchards of various crop types. It is not known precisely how many of the acres are available for product application. In Orange County in 1997, 2,811 acres of farmland were dedicated to citrus production. This was a nearly 60 percent decrease from 1992 levels. These acres are then divided over 90 separate farms, several of which are quite small, under 10 acres. These numbers indicate that the Orange County citrus industry is in decline. At a typical agronomic application rate for citrus and avocado of 20 tons per acre, the market for dry biosolids products could be as high as 56,000 tons per year. However, much of this orchard land lost from Orange County was made up by gains in orchard land in other Southern California counties. Statewide, the amount of land in orchard cultivation has increased by 300,000 acres. At the orchard area of 210,000 acres of Southern California, the theoretical market capacity would equal about 4.2 million tons per year.

FINAL 76 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts It is unknown whether there are other large players in the Southern California organics market.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions All application of biosolids to cropland will be subject to EPA Rule 503. Class A biosolids products would receive freedom for land application by meeting these criteria. Biosolids products could not legally be applied to certified organic cropland.

Perceived Market Risk This market is especially vulnerable to fertilizer demand and public pressure. This highly seasonal market is only available during spring fertilization season before fruit set. Biosolids demand would also depend on the cost and availability of fertilizer alternatives. If the cost of traditional fertilizer was particularly low, then biosolids would lose much of its appeal. Since farming is such a low-margin industry, it would be unlikely that a farm would use biosolids in the face of any public pressure. Any stigma attached to the farmers food would lower the price they could charge for their produce. For this market to be effective, public protest and perception would have to be controlled.

Public Perception Issues Segments of the public may be particularly unwilling to allow biosolids used in production of their food. They are concerned about any potential contamination or disease spread that could occur through their food.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Heat-dried product, if not stored under controlled conditions, can combust during storage and transportation. The sources of combustion can be the organic matter in dried biosolids and dust during production. To avoid combustion of the organic matter, it is necessary to control the moisture content of the pellets to less than 10 percent. Milorganite® was found to smolder when the temperature reached 140°F. Milorganite® is cooled to about 90°F prior to storing. Increased moisture of the pellets during shipment was identified as the potential cause of increased biological activity.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing Citrus farmers in Florida engage in a biosolids utilization program where they use the biosolids products free of charge. In this situation, the utility was responsible for the delivery of the biosolids while the farmer was responsible for its spreading. Additionally, biosolids granules and pellets are often combined with other dry fertilizer components to achieve guaranteed nutrient levels as both a fertilizer and soil amendment high in organic matter supplied by the biosolids pellets.

Political Hurdles and Constraints The political and popular concerns of land-applying biosolids to agriculture is unknown. It is foreseeable that certain concerns regarding food safety and biosolids transportation could become an issue. There may be issues regarding the biosolids impacts on both surface and

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 77 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS groundwater quality. Traditional fertilizer and mulching companies might become upset by the State’s encroachment on their marketplace.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products or product applications.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The adjustment of farming practices to utilize unfamiliar nutrients is notoriously difficult. If Southern California farmers are already satisfied with their current fertilizer options, significant price advantages would have to be offered to get them to change methods. Farmers may have to purchase additional equipment to spread the biosolids. This would add significant capital cost to the implementation of this program. Significant research and demonstration of the effectiveness of these practices may be required.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators include the following: x The economics of citrus, avocado, vineyard, and orchard fertilizer utilization. x The suburbanization of Orange County that drives citrus, avocado, vineyard, and orchard production further away from the Orange County location. x Public acceptance of biosolids product utilization on these types of crops in California and throughout the U.S.

Orange County Vegetable Growers Utilizing Pellets Or Granules Heat-dried biosolids may be used as a fertilizer in vegetable crop production. Pellets or granules are usually blended or fortified with other fertilizer materials to create a fertilizer with a guaranteed nutrient level. The biosolids portion may provide up to half of the nutrients (usually in a slow-release organic form) and substantial organic matter.

Brief Description and History Heat-dried biosolids may be used as a fertilizer in vegetable crop production. Some heat- dried products (e.g. Milorganite®) have been sold for use in lawns, gardens, and other home applications. Heat-dried biosolids products usually contain 4 to 6 percent nitrogen and are dry to 98 percent solids. They are usually formed into pellets for ease of application. The advantages to heat-dried products over composted or traditional material include: x Dry material for blending with other materials to be used as a fertilizer Compared to compost, has a higher primary nutrient content and therefore is considered a fertilizer x Longer shelf life suitable for longer distance transport The disadvantages to heat-dried products are: x Low organic matter content

FINAL 78 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x May be unstabilized (undigested) and therefore can produce odors on wetting x Caution in shipping due to potential fires

Current Market Strength The market strength for biosolids-based dried products, including pellets and granules, in the vegetable sector is considered very weak. This market is threatened by various California-based vegetable growers that have attacked the safety and efficacy of biosolids land application of any kind.

Market Size Markets in Southern California for agricultural use of biosolids dried products do not exist.

Estimate Future of Market Based on 1998 data, there were 1.8 million acres of California cropland in vegetable crop production. In 1997, Southern California had 190,000 acres of land under vegetable cultivation. At an average market penetration of 10 percent and average application rate of 7 dry tons per acre per year, the Southern California dry pellet market could amount to about 133,000 tons per year. At 25 percent market penetration, the Southern California dry pellet market could amount to about 333,000 tons per year. Within the seven Southern California counties, including Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, and Orange, the farming community generates about $1.2 billion per year in vegetable crop revenue. The leading crops include carrots, celery, strawberries, and potatoes (CDFA, 2002). Many of these crops are suitable for application of Class A EQ biosolids products consistent with the typical application rates shown in Table 2-21.

TABLE 2-21 Potential Use of Compost, Dry Pellets, and Mulch in California Agriculture Based on Crop Acreage Crop Potential Organic Use

Tons of Organic Application Rate Matter/Year @ 10% Acres 1991 (tons/acre/year) Market Penetration

Grapes* 636,000 5 318,000 Nursery Products* 67,000 5 34,000 Tomatoes, processing 312,000 4 125,000 Lettuce 152,000 6 91,000 Almonds 380,000 6 228,000 Strawberries 21,000 4 8,000 Oranges 178,000 20 356,000 Walnuts 181,000 6 109,000 Lemons 47,000 20 94,000 Tomatoes, fresh 40,000 4 16,000 Broccoli 88,000 12 106,000

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 79 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-21 Potential Use of Compost, Dry Pellets, and Mulch in California Agriculture Based on Crop Acreage Crop Potential Organic Use

Tons of Organic Application Rate Matter/Year @ 10% Acres 1991 (tons/acre/year) Market Penetration

Carrots 56,000 6 34,000 Avocados 74,000 20 148,000 Peaches 54,000 4 22,000 Apples 32,000 3 10,000 Prunes 80,000 11 88,000 Potatoes 46,000 6 28,000 Cauliflower 42,000 5 21,000 Celery 21,000 5 10,000 Plums 42,000 4 17,000 Pistachios 52,000 4 21,000 Pears 23,000 4 9,000 Asparagus 34,000 3 10,000 Totals 2,660,000 acres 7.15 tons 1,903,000 tons per year per acre per year

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts At the present, there are no other large POTWs or biosolids vendors selling aggressively in the Southern California vegetable crop market. This is an expression of the difficult marketing situation associated with this marketplace in California.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions All application of biosolids to cropland is subject to EPA Rule 503. Additionally, various county ordinances are in effect or are in development that would restrict or ban biosolids land application to these crop segments. Specifically, San Bernardino, Imperial, and Riverside Counties have practical bans on biosolids land application. These counties account for about 45 percent of the vegetable crop production in Southern California.

Perceived Market Risk This market is especially vulnerable to fertilizer demand and public/political pressure. This is a highly seasonal market as it is only available during winter or spring fertilization time. Since farming is such a low-margin industry, it would be unlikely that a farmer would use biosolids in the face of any public/political pressure. Any stigma attached to the farmers’ products would lower the price they could charge. For this market to be effective, public protest would need to be eliminated.

FINAL 80 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Public Perception Issues Segments of the public may be particularly unwilling to allow biosolids used on their food. They are quite concerned about any potential contamination or disease spread that could occur through their food.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Heat-dried biosolids products usually contain 4 to 6 percent nitrogen and are dry to 90 percent or higher solids. They are usually formed into pellets for ease of application.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing Agricultural utilization of fortified biosolids products could result in products priced as high as $140 per ton of product, FOB the plant site (Hart, 2000).

Political Hurdles and Constraints The political hurdles and constraints for utilization of dried pellets or granules on Orange County vegetable crops are estimated to be high. It could be anticipated that political constraints on biosolids land application in place in surrounding counties would be adopted in Orange County.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products or product applications.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The adjustment of farming practices is notoriously difficult. If Southern California farmers were satisfied with their current fertilizer options, significant price advantages would need to be offered to get them to change methods. Farmers may have to purchase additional equipment to spread the biosolids. This would add significant capital cost to the implementation of this program. If manure spreaders are common on the vegetable farms they may be modified to spread biosolids products.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators include: x The economics of vegetable production fertilizer use. x The suburbanization of Orange County that drives vegetable production further from Orange County. x Public acceptance of biosolids product use on these types of crops in California and throughout the U.S.

Ag-Lime Products Alkaline stabilization refers to the use of lime or other alkaline materials such as lime kiln dust, Portland cement, cement kiln dust, or fly ash to increase pH. Increasing the pH can reduce or destroy pathogens, thereby producing USEPA Class A or Class B products.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 81 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The products can have a wide range of uses in agriculture, forestry, reclamation, landfill cover, and – to a limited extent – horticulture. The greatest potential use for these products would be in areas with acidic soils, where lime is traditionally added to adjust soil pH. Use of these products would not be suitable in areas having alkaline soils. Alkaline-stabilized products may be fortified with other fertilizer chemicals. The main objective in the use of alkaline materials is to disinfect sewage sludge and biosolids. The use of alkaline materials also reduces odors. The use of alkaline materials reacts with the water in sewage sludge to release heat. This exothermic reaction over a period of hours will destroy pathogens. Furthermore, increasing the pH releases ammonia, which acts as a disinfectant. Drying of the alkaline-treated sewage sludge minimizes vector attraction.

Brief Description and History Alkaline stabilization has been used to treat wastewater solids for many years (Counts and Shuckrow, 1975; USEPA, 1979; Berman, 1992). Lime has been used for odor control and as a disinfectant for many years. The ammonia released acts as a disinfectant in addition to the exothermic reaction with temperatures above 55°C (Fitzmorris et al., 2002). The lime reduces biological activity, thus reducing the rate of decomposition, odors, and vector attraction. Lime can be added to wastewater solids before or after dewatering, and the lime-treated sludge can be applied as either liquid or cake (Switzenbaum et al., 1997b). Stabilization using liquid lime or pre-lime involves the addition of lime slurry to liquid sludge in order to achieve Class B stabilization requirements. Stabilization using dry lime or post-lime stabilization involves the addition on dry quicklime to dewatered sludge. This could involve quicklime, hydrated lime or other dry alkaline materials to produce a Class A or Class B product (WEF, 1995). Counts and Shuckrow (1975) showed a 7-log reduction in fecal coliform at a pH of 12.4 in 2 percent solids. With 4.4 percent solids, Salmonella enteritidis. were reduced by 1 to 2 logs. Burnham (1986) showed that cement kiln dust could achieve the Class A regulatory requirements and was effective in reduction and destruction of Salmonella, enteroviruses, and Ascaris eggs. With a normal alkaline stabilization process, long-term storage may yield odors and pathogen regrowth and may attract vectors (Burnham et al., 1990; Burnham et al., 1992). Murthy et al., (2000) indicated that at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Washington D.C., the biosolids product with a 15 percent lime addition produced substantial odors. The 30 percent and 40 percent limed biosolids products were very stable; odors appeared to decrease with increasing storage. They estimate that at least 20 to 25 percent lime may be needed to achieve a stabilized product with low offsite odors. There are several procedures for treating sewage sludge with lime, as discussed in detail in TM 5.

Current Market Strength There has been limited development of the market for alkaline stabilized products in the western United States. Most of the growth has been in the eastern United States, where the soils are acidic and can use lime. Alkaline soils common in southwestern states will not benefit from the addition of a high pH product (USEPA, 2000).

FINAL 82 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Fees associated with proprietary systems also reduce the market potential. The market potential is primarily in agricultural areas. Transportation of alkaline-treated biosolids makes it often expensive for wastewater treatment plants in metropolitan areas remote from land application sites. Therefore, many applications have been in smaller wastewater treatment plants.

Market Size The market size for agriculture in the western United States is limited since many of the soils are already alkaline and further addition of alkaline-stabilized biosolids could impair soil physical properties, especially water relations. In horticulture, most plants prefer slightly acid media or soil amendments near a neutral pH. This also limits the potential market.

Estimate Future of Market The future of alkaline-stabilized products in western and southwestern states is expected to be limited since many of the soils in the region are neutral or alkaline. There may be a limited potential for blended products marketed as soil blends.

Other Large Agencies/Entities In the Market and Potential Impacts The two largest agencies currently using alkaline stabilization directly or through a contractor are Washington D.C., which produces Class B for land application using post- lime stabilization, and Middlesex, New Jersey, which uses the N-Viro AASAD proprietary process. Middlesex uses the product both as landfill cover and as a liming agent for agriculture.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions Alkaline stabilization of biosolids is regulated under USEPA 40 CFR Part 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Class A requirements can be achieved when the pH of the biosolids and alkaline mixture is maintained at or above pH 12 for at least 72 hours, with a temperature of 52°C maintained for at least 12 hours during that time. Alternatively, the process can be manipulated to maintain temperatures at or above 72°C for 30 or more minutes. This can be done by overdosing with lime or by adding supplemental heat. Monitoring for fecal coliforms or Salmonella enteritidis is required prior to release for use. Alkaline stabilization meets the Class B requirements when the pH of the lime and sewage sludge mixture is at 12 or greater for a minimum of 2 hours of contact. Public access, grazing of livestock, and crop harvesting restrictions apply.

Perceived Market Risk The perceived market risk is estimated as moderate to high, providing that a Class A product is produced and the product has a soil-like consistency. Since many alkaline- stabilized biosolids Class A products look like Class B cake, there is the risk that communities will perceive the two materials as similar and would ban their application.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 83 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Public Perception Issues Public perception of biosolids products that have been stabilized and disinfected is usually low. The following may be some issues: x Class A and Class B biosolids look alike and the public is opposed to land application of biosolids. x There is a potential for odor generation at the end use site. Loading and unloading or spreading of the product can cause the release of ammonia or amines. x There is a potential for dust production. x There is the potential for pathogen regrowth if the pH drops below a 9.5 during storage.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Product characteristics depend on the alkaline process, characteristics of the sludge, and the result desired. Processes that add large amounts of alkaline material or include added heat, drying, or curing will produce a drier product. If only a Class B product is desired for land application or landfill cover, less lime is used and the product essentially resembles sludge cake. The higher the percent sludge cake solid, the less lime is needed to produce either a Class A or Class B product. Odors associated with alkaline stabilization products are dependent on the characteristics of the wastewater solids and the process used. There is a potential for odor generation both at the processing site and the end use site. If the material is dry, there is a potential for dust. Pathogen regrowth can occur if the pH drops below 9.5 while the material is stored prior to use. Table 2-22 shows some typical physical and chemical characteristics of alkaline-stabilized materials. Increasing the lime to produce a Class A product lowers the fertilizer value of the sludge. In addition, the organic content is significantly reduced. The resulting product is principally used in agriculture and is especially suited in land application for acidic soils. Alkaline soils typically found in the western parts of United States are not candidates for this product. This is why a majority of the alkaline stabilized facilities are in the Eastern part of United States. In addition to agricultural application, alkaline-stabilized product is used as daily landfill cover and mine reclamation. There has been limited use of Class A alkaline-stabilized biosolids in landscaping and sod growing. Class B alkaline-stabilized biosolids are not suitable for home landscaping. Land application of alkaline-stabilized biosolids can increase the soil pH making many heavy metals insoluble, minimizing plant uptake and movement of metals to groundwater. During alkaline treatment, as the pH is increased, ammonia is released. Thus, the final product has less nitrogen than the original biosolids. Furthermore, plant available phosphorus can be reduced through the formation of calcium phosphate.

FINAL 84 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-22 Typical Physical And Chemical Characteristics Of Alkaline Stabilized Biosolids Alkaline Stabilized Alkaline and Alkaline and Characteristic (Class A) Digested Liquid Digested Cake Total solids (%) 55 4 22 Volatile solids (%) 60 61 60 Bulk density (lb/cf) 65-75 60 55 Organic content 12 60-75 60-78 Nitrogen 1.0 5.3 4.1 Total phosphorus 0.4 2.2 1.9 Potassium 0.3 0.3 0.2 Source: Moss, et al., (2002)

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing As USEPA indicates (USEPA, 2000), it is difficult to provide costs of stabilizing alkaline materials. USEPA indicates the following items need to be considered: x Processing equipment purchase and installation x Product curing and storage facilities x Loading facilities x Transport of product to point of use x Royalty and operating fee for proprietary processes x Equipment maintenance and fuel x Cost of alkaline additive x Labor x Odor control equipment and chemicals x Marketing costs/revenues In a report by the National Lime Association, cost estimates were done for wastewater treatment facilities ranging in size from 1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 60 mgd (RTW, 1996). The City of Orlando, Florida estimated that annual operating costs were $61.47 per dry ton. These costs included hauling and applying the cake (Pelletier et al., 2000). Western Lake Superior Sanitary District in Duluth, Minnesota estimated that for alkaline stabilization, the annualized capital cost per dry ton for a Class B product was $12 and for a Class A product with pasteurization, the cost was $27; annual operating costs were $312 for Class B alkaline stabilization and for Class A was $44. The cost will vary with the sludge solids, cost of lime, and the process involved. These costs also do not include any marketing or utilization related costs. In many cases, there is a cost associated with transportation to farmers’ fields and application at these fields. These costs vary significantly with distance to the application site.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 85 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Political Hurdles and Constraints The political constraints for Class B land application are significant. In some areas, there also may be significant political constraints on Class A products since the public may not perceive differences between the two materials. These constraints will increase in the future.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products or product applications.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The implementation of Class B land application is deemed infeasible. There may be limited use of soil-like products or blended products for use in non-food-chain cropping applications.

Summary of Key Market Indicators The potential use of alkaline-stabilized material for land application in western and southwestern states is limited by political constraints, especially in California where many jurisdictions have banned Class B material. Furthermore, since many of the soils are alkaline and do not typically require additional lime, the availability of land areas for application of alkaline material is limited. There may be potential for the use of these materials in mine reclamation and landfill cover.

Mexico Export Product Markets The export market for organic fertilizers in Mexico has not been tapped by other U.S. firms or organizations. U.S. fertilizer exports to Mexico are substantial, totaling 137,000 tons in 2001. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). Organic fertilizer imports are miniscule and are not recognized by any U.S. federal agency. Therefore, technically, there may be a good future market for exports.

Project Research Methodology Our team performed a preliminary assessment of the Mexican market for the District organic materials. This assessment included the following: x Discussions with the U.S. Commercial Service in Los Angeles, California; Guadalajara, Mexico; and Fresno, California, regarding current fertilizer export conditions, market size, and possibilities. x Discussion with a candidate exporter for the existing Class B Biosolids, and the planned refined fertilizer materials. x Research of U.S.-Mexico environmental exports incentives program of the U.S. Export- Import Bank. x Review of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) documents relative to exports of fertilizer materials. x Review of competing organic fertilizers (Milorganite®), their markets, and any current export program to Mexico.

FINAL 86 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Review of major fertilizer industry organizations, and identification of potential U.S. and Mexican distributors, including those provided by the U.S. Commercial Service. x Market trend research on Mexican economy, and the implications for agriculture, including the fertilizer industry. x Contact with potential advisory/assistance organizations including major law firms with offices in Mexico (Manatt Phelps). x Intra-Tetra Tech contact to identify any border-area agencies that are currently exporting organic materials to Mexico. x Research into key Mexican government agencies that would be involved in U.S. exports of the organic fertilizer.

Current Market Strength There does not appear to be any export of U.S. organic material to Mexico. The U.S. Department of Commerce, whose Guadalajara, Mexico, office produced a comprehensive report on imported fertilizer distributors in Mexico, was unaware of any such imports. Their staff members who organized the U.S. trade booths at major Mexican agricultural shows had not seen any such materials presented, including Milorganite®. They were, however, familiar with the use of composted, tertiary treated material on farms, and said that is used in some areas of Mexico at the present time.

Market Size The total market size for U.S. fertilizer exports to Mexico was $137,782,000 in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. This fertilizer is primarily chemical fertilizer, urea, N-P-K compounds, and ammonium phosphate, in order of volume. Mexico is one of the largest markets for U.S. fertilizer, the third after China ($497 million) and Canada ($148 million). Brazil is also a large importer ($123 million).

Estimate Future of Market The U.S. Department of Commerce in Guadalajara, Mexico, felt that the fertilizer would need to be priced very competitively relative to chemical fertilizers, whether imported or domestic. Pemex, the Mexican national petroleum company, is a major supplier of chemical fertilizers at a very reasonable price. The organic fertilizer would need to compete with theirs. A Mexican distributor should be retained to handle local distribution. A list of such distributors is provided in Appendix A of this TM. feasibility study of fertilizer growth in Mexico may be financed by the U.S. Trade Development Agency through a grant to a Mexican partner of the District. Issues addressed could include supply logistics, pricing, and end user interest in the product. The Guadalajara office recommended research into whether use of the organic fertilizer could allow the produce to be called “organic.” In the northern border areas of Mexico, 80 to 90 percent of the crops are exported to the United States. The Mexican government’s Office of Agricultural Trade is presently developing a new product labeling program in conjunction with the U.S. Government. This may affect how crops grown with organic fertilizers are labeled.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 87 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The Mexican Agricultural Trade Office also holds an annual Agricultural Products Show in Sinaloa. The U.S. Department of Commerce customarily has a booth there. Fertilizer companies from the U.S. and other countries customarily exhibit at this show. In follow-on discussions with a California-based farming expert from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the representative had previously worked in the private sector fertilizer industry in a marketing position. The representative was very familiar with the use of tertiary treated, composted organic fertilizer. He said that this material is also manufactured and used on farms in Mexico at the present time in areas that have tertiary treatment, which are limited in number. Transportation of the material has been a problem. He felt that the import of material from the United States could trigger phytosanitary permitting problems regarding pathogen content unless the product was certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A logical locale for future market research would be in the town of Guasave, in the state of Sinaloa. There, more than 25,000 hectares are under cultivation with row crops such as bell peppers and tomatoes. Sinaloa is a very technologically oriented state, well-financed, with state-of-the-art technology in packaging and refrigeration. Mr. Torres suggested that a feasibility study be performed regarding use and delivery of the fertilizer, whether over the U.S. border, or by ship at one of the Mexican ports.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts This research did not identify any other U.S. border-area agencies that are planning to export this material to Mexico.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions Under NAFTA, exported products will have to undergo a review of their sanitary and phytosanitary conditions. Therefore, there may need to be an FDA certification of the exported materials.

Perceived Market Risk As discussed in the introduction to this report, the primary market risks are as follows: x Currency value fluctuation x Competition from Mexican fertilizer organizations x Phytosanitary regulations x Border closure x Inadequate Mexican fertilizer distribution network x Mexican market unfamiliarity with organic fertilizer

Currency Value Fluctuation. Mexico has worked to stabilize its economy over the last several years. However, the possibility of a devaluation in the Mexican currency must be considered in the decision to export to Mexico. From 1994 to 1995, fertilizer imports were reduced from 652,000 tons per year to 178,000 tons when the peso was devalued. The U.S. government agencies, such as the U.S. Export Import Bank, may provide currency support guarantees or other export incentives to mitigate this risk. The local Export Import Bank representative in Long Beach, California, is Dave Josephson – (562) 980-4585.

FINAL 88 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Competition from Mexican Fertilizer Organizations. Chemical fertilizer produced in Mexico is currently very affordable to the Mexican farmer, according to U.S. Commerce representatives in Guadalajara, Mexico. The largest producer is Mexico’s Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the government oil company, which would be a substantial competitor to the District. In addition, the District may have to compensate the existing Mexican fertilizer companies for potential disruption of their markets if exporting a subsidized product. This is one of the parameters of market protection guidelines under NAFTA. It should be explored as the exact specifications of the end material to be produced are available. For further information, please contact Gerardo Victorica, U.S. Department of Commerce, Guadalajara Trade Office fertilizer export technical expert – (011) 52 33 36151140.

Phytosanitary Regulations. Under NAFTA, there are guidelines on the export of materials with phytosanitary constraints. The material may require FDA certification. However, in Mexico, tertiary treated composted fertilizer from wastewater treatment plants is selectively used for agriculture. Therefore, there is some familiarity in the agricultural community with this product. For further information, please contact Eduardo Torres, U.S. Department of Commerce agricultural exports – (559) 227-6582.

Border Closure. Transportation disruption at the border is also a market risk. The U.S.-Mexico border was closed after September 11, 2001, resulting in considerable disruption of trade. The District will be producing more than 30 truckloads of fertilizer per day, with no capability to inventory product. Therefore, to circumvent border closure risk, border area storage should be identified in the event of such an occurrence.

Inadequate Mexican Fertilizer Distribution Network. FertiMex, Mexico’s largest fertilizer supplier, was restructured during the mid-1990s. The residual FertiMex distribution structure is very inefficient. Therefore, Mexican farmers presently are not receiving the specialty fertilizers they require. Consequently, an alliance with a strong Mexican distributor is a cornerstone of the success of a District export program. A list of such distributors has been provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce. In addition, inquiries made through well-connected business experts may also yield solid relationships with distributors for the District. There may also be the opportunity to co-venture with such a company, or with other suppliers of fertilizer or seed producers, and produce a customized product for the border areas of Mexico. Such a product could be manufactured in the border-area maquiladora zone, with potential export credits under NAFTA.

Mexican Market Unfamiliarity with Organic Fertilizer. There will be an educational approach required to build the confidence of the Mexican farmers, distributors, and other involved parties. One approach to this is to participate in trade missions and demonstration programs orchestrated through the U.S. Department of Commerce. The trade office in Guadalajara will arrange visits with buyers, participation in trade expositions, or demonstrations for farmers in farming centers such as Sinaloa. There may also be funding available for feasibility studies through joint U.S.-Mexico export development programs from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 89 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Public Perception Issues Currently, composted tertiary treated fertilizer is being used in Mexico, although on a very limited basis. Because it is currently being used on U.S. crops as well, the issue of pathogens may not be significant, with the exception of issues from a regulatory standpoint. However, the biggest perception problem may be the belief that the product is not as good as chemical fertilizer. If a farmer commits funds to buying fertilizer, they are taking a risk that it works well. If it does not work well, they may have lost the crop at a substantial financial penalty. Therefore, there is a considerable educational process needed to prove to farmers that this fertilizer is better, safer, and more reliable than the one they already use. Cost is important, but effectiveness is much more so, as the success of the harvest determines the future livelihood of the farmer.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences In terms of quantitative issues, the most important will be the size of the identified market in Mexico. In order to make exporting to Mexico worthwhile, the District must find major end users willing to commit to large volumes of material on a continuous basis. These would most likely be the major distributors, a list of which is provided in Appendix A of this TM. The most qualitative issue will be storage capability. It is likely that the refined product will have the longest shelf life, which will be important in an country with a poor distribution system. The material may sit for long periods of time in warehouses, at border crossings, or on farms. If it degrades in quality, it may not be saleable. This must be addressed by the District in negotiations with potential distributors.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing This research did not identify any economics of manufacturing or marketing these products to Mexico.

Political Hurdles and Constraints The primary political hurdles will be with the entrenched fertilizer industry, including exporters to Mexico, whose market will be disrupted by imports of organic fertilizer. They may use NAFTA against the District, including issues such as the following: x Is price discounting of the fertilizer considered an “export subsidy”? x Does it “disrupt” the market of an importing party? x Are there other subsidized imports of that type into Mexico? x What are appropriate measures to counter the issues of perceived subsidy, including establishment of a cross-border fertilizer industry working group? x What level of duty, if any, will be required for the end fertilizer products? x Can it be taken into a maquiladora and reprocessed, and be exempt from market access provisions under NAFTA Section 302.2?

FINAL 90 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS x Do the parameters of Article 754 of NAFTA regarding the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures apply to this fertilizer? x Are there specific risk assessment procedures that will be applied? x Will there need to be inspection procedures for the material in the U.S. prior to having it trucked to Mexico? Who will do that? What will that cost?

CEQA Issues The CEQA issues related to export of fertilizer to Mexico will primarily be related to trucking the estimated 34 containers of fertilizer from the plant per day.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation As discussed above, the proposed expansion of the District facility should not be sized to meet the potential markets of Mexico. This is a market requiring considerable effort to penetrate, and there are substantial risks in developing the facility strictly for Mexican markets alone. In order to position for the Mexican market, during the design and construction of the District’s chosen facilities, the following steps should be taken: x Continue discussions with potential exporting partners of the Class 2 cake, including those on the distributors list in Appendix A of this TM. x Complete any FDA or other certification steps necessary to meet the sanitary/phytosanitary guidelines of U.S. exports to Mexico. x Develop a Spanish language tutorial on the use of the organic fertilizer. x Work with federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Commerce’s commercial service, the U.S. Export Import Bank, and the government of Mexico’s international trade departments, to position for export markets. x Build relationships with major Western U.S. exporters of agricultural products such as Cargill and ConAgra. Discuss value-added products wherein the District fertilizer could couple with seed products or other additives to create new proprietary agricultural products for export to Mexico and other locations. x Invite Mexican officials and industry leaders to visit the District plant. Develop technology transfer relationships where similar plants could be built in Mexico. This would help to increase the understanding of the technology, products, and environmental benefit of using this type of technology and products. x Given that other countries, including China and Canada, import large amounts of U.S. fertilizer, perhaps exports to them would also be viable. In the case of China, there may be the opportunity to ship fertilizer back in container ships that have delivered consumer goods.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 91 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Summary of Key Market Indicators: Key market indicators include: x Currency value fluctuation x Competition from Mexican fertilizer companies x Phytosanitary regulations x Border closure x Inadequate Mexican fertilizer distribution network x Mexican market unfamiliarity with organic fertilizer

Energy – Direct Production Direct energy production refers to the market for power generated by the exothermic combustion or oxidation of biosolids. Although digested biosolids have a lower calorific value than undigested solids, exothermic oxidation can still be achieved in a well-designed process such as incineration, or, potentially, super critical water oxidation. Power is typically generated through waste heat recovery, although combined heat and power (CHP) systems that are more commonly used in Europe can provide higher efficiency than steam boilers that have been used in the U.S.

Brief Description and History In Southern California, power generation from anaerobic digester gas is widespread; however, this recovers only a portion of the energy value of the biosolids. The focus of biosolids beneficial use has been on recovering the nutrient value of the biosolids through land application, due to ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness. However, in Europe, Canada, and other regions of the U.S. where land application is limited for various reasons, direct energy production through combustion of biosolids has been successfully implemented. Recent changes in land application regulations and in power costs in Southern California have increased the focus on renewable energy sources.

Current Market Strength The general market for power is strong, as development continues in Southern California. Although the disparities in supply and demand that led to rolling blackouts in recent years have been evened out, cost and demand continue to increase. The market for energy production from biosolids, however, is site-specific. If the process was located onsite, the primary market for the power would likely be the District. Power demand at the District is anticipated to increase significantly in the next decade due to installation of full secondary treatment, the potential installation of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, installation of membrane treatment for groundwater recharge, and other new processes. If the process were to be located offsite, the market for the power would be different. Although some agencies such as the City of Corona have their own power grid, most areas of Southern California are served by privatized regional power companies, such as Southern California Edison (SCE). The power would therefore need to be sold to the local power company and the market strength would depend to a large extent on the robustness of the agreement with the power company. However, power generation from renewable energy resources is increasing in importance, and this provides added market strength.

FINAL 92 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Market Size The power industry is a multibillion dollar industry. At present, the renewable energy contribution is not significant, with around 2 percent of the SCE supply being generated from renewable resources; there is, however, a move to increase the contribution of renewable energy sources. The market size relative to the capacity that could be generated from biosolids is very large. For an onsite facility, the market size would be the power requirements to operate the two District wastewater treatment plants. It is anticipated that the District would be able to use most of the power onsite. For comparison, Minneapolis is installing three new incinerators with a total capacity for 315 dry tons per day undigested biosolids, along with power generation capacity for 3 megawatts (MW).

Estimate Future of Market The future market for energy generation is estimated to be solid. This is a market driven by continued growth and development in the economy over the long term. Expectations for the long-term California economy are a robust rate of growth. The future market for power within the District is anticipated to increase significantly over the next decade.

Other Large Agencies/Entities In the Market and Potential Impacts There are very few agencies in the Western U.S. that are generating power as a biosolids product. There is an incinerator currently operating at Palo Alto.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions Combustion or incineration processes are regulated, particularly with regard to air emissions. The regulations have focused on nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfer oxide (SOx), particulates, and dioxins. However, process optimization and air treatment technologies are available to minimize these emissions. Modern incinerators have been permitted in Europe, which has more stringent air regulations for biosolids incineration than Southern California. In the future, regulations may include mercury emissions in the air stream. The new incinerators being designed for the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, will have a mercury removal system installed, although this is not yet regulated.

Perceived Market Risk The power industry has seen a great deal of turmoil in recent years and power prices have seen significant fluctuations. Several biomass to energy plants were constructed in the Lost Hills area of California. However, they have not been operated consistently as the economics of plant operation change with fluctuations in the price of power. Power consumption onsite presents a very low market risk.

Public Perception Issues Power generation from renewable resources as a concept usually receives favorable public support. Public perception, however, will be a key issue with any process that falls under the incineration category. The super critical water oxidation process is very different from incineration and may attract less negative public perception. However, the technology is not

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 93 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS likely to be ready for implementation at the scale required by the District for at least another decade. Any facility with a tall stack is likely to attract negative public perception. Siting will be a critical factor in addressing the public perception issue.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The power generation system will be designed for optimum efficiency at the design operating temperature of the gas or slurry stream from which the waste heat will be recovered. The consistency of the biosolids feed to the combustion or oxidation process will impact the ability to maintain the exit temperatures in the optimum range.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing It is estimated that a direct energy production process would cost $60/wet ton or more. The value of the energy produced would depend on natural gas and electricity purchase prices for the District if the facility was located onsite. For an offsite facility, the value of the energy generated would depend on the rate at which it can be sold. Current electricity purchase prices are around $0.14 per kilowatt hour (kWh).

Political Hurdles and Constraints Although the concept of power generation from renewable energy does not raise political constraints, there would be considerable political hurdles to overcome in locating a incineration facility in Southern California.

CEQA Issues There would likely be an extensive CEQA process for installation of a direct energy incineration facility.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation Implementation of direct energy production through incineration would be difficult to site, and this would impact the ease of implementing the power production. The easiest market to use would be the District’s power demand if a facility could be located onsite. Implementation may require some upgrades to the power supply system at the plants. Implementation of energy production at an offsite facility would likely reduce the ease of implementation as there would need to be extensive discussions and negotiations with the local power company.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators include: x Demand for power at the District plant and in California x Fluctuations in the price of electricity and natural gas x Overall economic conditions throughout Southern California that could slow growth and reduce overall power demand

FINAL 94 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Erosion Control Products Erosion of soil is a common problem associated with any land that has limited vegetative cover whether due to natural causes or human activity. Erosion can be driven by wind or rainfall runoff. Agriculture, arid land, cleared and undeveloped land and steep slopes have historically experienced significant problems with erosion of topsoil and sub-soils. Practice and research have focused on a wide range of methods for erosion control which focus on two primary strategies: x Modifying runoff by diverting runoff away from erosion hazard areas or controlling runoff patterns to minimize erosion. x Using various techniques to physically support the soil particles so that they remain in place. Erosion control is a factor in several other compost markets, including agriculture, landfill cover, disturbed site reclamation and urban landscaping. This assessment does not include these markets. The use of compost products in roadway construction and maintenance and to minimize erosion from construction activity are included in this assessment.

Brief Description and History The objectives of using compost products for erosion control are twofold: x To provide physical containment of soil particles. A coarse wood mulch provides a structure against the soil that protects soil particles from the impact of falling rain and the resulting runoff along the soil surface. x Plant growth nutrients that assist the development of healthy plants and root systems, which provide long-term protection and containment of soil. In general the steeper the slope the greater the erosion potential from runoff. For wind erosions, the wind velocity and exposure to the wind are critical factors. The type of soil and extent of vegetation will also have a significant impact for either runoff or wind erosion. The target market for roadway uses are primarily state and local governmental agencies. For construction projects both private developers and public agencies would be the target markets. Local permitting agencies and the landscaping and construction industries would be a focus for any marketing effort. Primary efforts to use compost for erosion control have occurred in Oregon, Washington, Texas and California. The Washington Department of Transportation used approximately 800,000 cubic yards of compost for roadway construction and maintenance in 2001 (Mauer, 2002). Compost is a primary tool to be used by the California Department of Transportation (Haynes, 2002). The Compost Council has developed guidelines for the use of compost for erosion control. The States of Washington and Minnesota have developed standard specifications for use of compost for erosion control in highway construction projects. California has developed draft specifications.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 95 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Most compost usage for erosion control is for mulch (Sinclair, 2002; Gage, 2002). The coarse wood fraction commonly associated with yard debris compost is a desirable component of a compost mulch product. GroCo, a mix of biosolids and sawdust, is not used for highway projects in Washington because of the small particle size, but has been used for restoration of logging roads in the Cascade Mountains (Winebrenner, 2002). A 1-inch minus particle size yard debris compost is recommended for erosion control by a supplier in Washington (Sinclair, 2002). Tackifying agents are commonly added to compost products to improve performance (CIWMB, 2000; Hoeck, 2002). A general observation is that the primary supplier of compost for erosion control will likely be yard waste compost operations. This is because the large woody fraction that can be provided with this compost is preferred as a mulch. Co-composting of biosolids and yard debris may also provide a suitable product. Biosolids-only composts typically do not satisfy the specifications because the coarse fraction is screened out and recycled for economic reasons. These products may have a market where the organic matter and plant nutrient content is desired to establish a vegetative cover rather than a mulch.

Current Market Strength The market for compost and mulch products is developing in Southern California. Primary development work is being done by the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego. The market is much more developed in Washington State.

Market Size The size of the market has not been defined in Southern California but is expected to be large for a mulch product that will also support development of a vegetative cover. Note that the Washington DOT used 800,000 cubic yards of compost in 2001.

Estimate Future of Market The future market for highway maintenance projects in the Orange County area is considered to be significant for yard debris compost and co-compost with biosolids that have a significant coarse fraction. The market for biosolids-only compost is not expected to be great. The market for use of compost products in construction is not known. The land use development and permitting requirements would need to require erosion control protection and allow the use of compost for that purpose before a market would become active.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts The greatest competition for this market will be with established yard debris only composting operations. Synagro, the largest producer of biosolids compost in Southern California did not meet the draft DOT specification (Haynes, 2002).

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions No known regulatory requirements that differ form 40 CFR Part 503.

FINAL 96 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Perceived Market Risk The risk of this market being diminished by future regulation or public opposition is no greater than any other and may be less due to reduced potential for public contact.

Public Perception Issues No public perception issues have been identified that may affect this market.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Coarse materials are preferred for maximum benefit. This is an excellent market for yard debris compost or biosolids and yard debris co-compost screened to a larger size than is typical (3/4 to 1 inch rather than 3/8 to 1/2 inch). This is likely a very limited market for a biosolids compost in which most of the woody fraction is screened out and recycled for bulking. Mixing biosolids compost with a ground wood waste or land clearing debris may provide a suitable product for erosion control. The Washington State Standard Specs for Compost for transportation projects includes: 1. Contents – composted plant material derived from aerobic decomposition of recycled plant waste 2. Moisture content – no visible free water or dust produced when handling material 3. Appearance – uniform dark, soil-like appearance 4. Regulatory compliance – comply with Interim Guidelines for Compost Quality #94-38 published by Washington DOE 5. Physical criteria

Size – 100 percent of Type 1 Compost shall pass through 5/8-inch sieve and 90 percent of Type 2 Compost shall be larger than 3/8 inch and smaller than 1 inch (AASHTO Test Method T87 and T88)

pH – between 5.5 and 8.5 (WSDOT Test Method 417)

Contamination – less than 1 percent inert material on a dry weight or volume basis

Organic matter content – 30 percent dry weight basis (LOI Test)

Soluble salt – less than 4.0 mmhos/cm for areas that receive less than 20 inches of precipitation per year and 6.0 mmhos/cm for areas that receive more than 20 inches of precipitation per year

Maturity – Type 1 should score 6 or above and Type 2 should score 5 or above on Solvita Compost Maturity Test The draft State of California Department of Transport compost specs include: 1. Derived from green material consisting of chipped, shredded, or ground vegetation; clean, processed, recycled wood products; Class A, exceptional quality biosolids (40 CFR Part 503); or combination of green material and biosolids compost

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 97 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

2. Processed to reduce weed seeds, pathogens and deleterious material 3. Shall not contain paint, petroleum products, herbicides, fungicides, or other chemical residues harmful to plant or animal life 4. Shall not contain more than .1 percent by weight or volume of other deleterious material, plastic, glass, metal or rocks 5. Compost process – minimum internal temp of 57°C maintained for 15 continuous days with minimum of five turnings 6. Curing period – minimum of 90 days after the 15-day thermophilic composting process 7. Screened through max of 6-mm screen 8. Moisture content shall not exceed 35 percent (CA Test 226) 9. Maturity and stability – minimum of 6 using the Solvita test A custom erosion control product using biosolids compost could be developed by either not screening the bulking material from the product or by mixing the compost with a ground wood waste material. The economics of this approach would need to be evaluated considering specific costs of available coarse woody materials.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing Bid Los Angeles Basin prices paid by Caltrans during 2001 ranged from $520 to $555 per ton of compost in place (CDOT, 2002). Even with the cost of transportation and blower truck application, the revenue potential for this use appears to be considerable.

Political Hurdles and Constraints Caltrans has a program that supports the use of compost for erosion control. Since compost is a Class A product, there should not be any local restrictions on its use in most local jurisdictions. Use of compost for preventing erosion during and following construction would require action by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and/or the local development permitting agencies in order for a market to develop.

CEQA Issues Runoff quality, odors during application, dust, ammonia release during application and potential for public contact issues may be raised during an environmental review.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation Involvement in the market for highway use is developing and would require little additional development activity. However, justifying a more significant role for biosolids- only compost in this market would likely involve a significant research and demonstration program to document any benefits that differentiate biosolids compost from yard debris compost.

FINAL 98 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Consideration for targeting this market would require an economic comparison in which the costs of screening and bulking material acquisition are compared to potential revenues from this market. Pursuing this market is not likely to require any significant changes in the composting process used.

Summary of Key Market Indicators The following key market indicators have been identified: 1. Roadway Erosion This is primarily a market of yard debris compost or biosolids derived composts with a high content of coarse woody material.

Biosolids-only composts will only have a small niche in this market without further development and demonstration work. The potential for successfully capturing a major portion of this market from yard waste composting industry is not great.

The California Department of Transportation is the driving force behind this market. 2. Land Development This market is not well understood and would require additional research to define the potential.

Direct Landfilling The District requested failsafe back-up disposal capabilities at the Prima Deshecha and/or Bowerman Landfills, in the event composting capacity and other waste management measures fall short of the District’s immediate needs. Other landfills throughout the Southwest may be available for direct landfilling of biosolids material.

Brief Description and History Landfilling of biosolids is potentially viable at two landfills in Orange County and 16 other landfills in the Southwest. Two possible Orange County sites are the Prima Deshecha Landfill, located in San Juan Capistrano and Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. The South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) presently disposes of approximately 35 tons per day of its biosolids at Prima Deshecha Landfill. Under the current permit, Prima Deshecha Landfill may accept up to 85 tons of biosolids per day. Landfill operating criteria require a ratio of ten parts solid waste to one part of biosolids on a weight basis. Rainy wet conditions at the landfill may limit the delivery of biosolids.

Current Market Strength Biosolids disposal at the Prima Deshecha Landfill is conducted in a routine manner. Biosolids disposal into the Orange County landfills may be in conflict with revenue goals of the County in its bankruptcy recovery process.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 99 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Market Size Currently, SOCWA disposes of 35 tons of its biosolids at Prima Deshecha Landfill daily. From time to time, SOCWA supplies more than the daily average tonnage as its other biosolids management options experience difficulties. A total of 17 landfills, out of 102 landfills researched in the area, are permitted to receive biosolids throughout Southern California. The list of landfills and related information is shown in Table 2-23. Research was conducted to determine which of the existing landfills are permitted to take biosolids. Table 2-23 lists the names of the landfills that have remaining capacity, which types of waste the landfills accept, the permitted capacity of the landfill and the actual remaining capacity of the landfill.

Estimate of Future Market The pending permit at Prima Deshecha Landfill will allow the landfill to accept 350 tons of biosolids per day, as adjusted by site operating conditions. SOCWA anticipates its biosolids quantities may grow to as much as 150 tons per day of cake and will reserve that capacity for its system. The remaining permitted capacity of 200 tons per day could be available for utilization by the District. As was noted previously, the theoretical biosolids capacity for the Southern California landfills is about 16.6 million cubic yards (7.5 million wet tons). This is not the realistic operating capacity. The operating capacity reflects the daily allowable throughput at the landfill. Additionally, the operating capacity was reduced to reflect only those landfills with sufficient remaining capacity (typically in excess of 1 million cubic yards) that would make the contracting effort worthwhile. Applying these criteria reduced the number of landfills to seven and the throughput capacity to about 9,200 tons per day. Following the 10:1 ratio, at these landfills the capacity is estimated to equal 920 tons per day of biosolids.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts SOCWA is the only agency presently disposing of biosolids at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. In order to generate revenue for the County General Fund, the IWMD accepts additional municipal waste from its importation contract haulers over and above their minimum put or pay commitment. Should IWMD accept biosolids from the District, there could be a new rate for disposal imposed on the District to compensate for potential negative market impacts to the IWMD. Numerous other POTWs are contracted to or are delivering biosolids to most of the landfills in Southern California. This arrangement poses a significant vulnerability to the District in that it could require up to 1,000 tons per day of landfill capacity.

FINAL 100 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-23 List Of Landfills Throughout Southern California (those that accept biosolids are highlighted) Permitted Permitted Remaining Throughput Capacity Capacity Name and Location Waste Types (T/D) (CY) (CY) Imperial County Imperial Solid Waste Site Construction/demolition; dead animals; mixed 130 1,936,000 292,814 Worthington and New River 92251 municipal. Calexico Solid Waste Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 63 850,000 1,961,536 New River and Hwy 98 92231 municipal; other designated. Ocotillo Solid Waste Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal. 9 516,267 14,134 Shell Canyon; 3 Mi NW of Ocotillo 92259 Holtville Solid Waste Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal; other 20 654,800 39,773 Whitlock Road; 8 miles NE of Holtville 92250 designated. Palo Verde Cut and Fill Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal. 1 516,000 96,162 Hwy 78; 3 miles west of Palo Verde 92266 Brawley Cut and Fill Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal; other 75 2,044,000 644,879 Hovely Road and the New River 92227 designated. Niland Solid Waste Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal. 55 131,000 103,554 Cuff Road; 4 miles NE of Niland 92257 Hot Spa Solid Waste Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal. 10 516,266 78,605 East of Hot Spa Road 92257 Salton City Solid Waste Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal. 10 2,581,300 115,305 7 miles West Hwy 86; south of Salton City 92275 Picacho Cut and Fill Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal; other 15 645,333 105,845 Picacho Road between Winterhaven/Picacho Park 92283 designated; tires. Allied Imperial Landfill Agricultural; ash; construction/demolition; 441 4,324,200 3,706,958 104 East Robinson Road 92251 industrial; mixed municipal; tires. Monofill Facility Industrial. 500 514,000 201,339 3301 West Highway 86 92227 Newmont Gold Co. – Mesquite Mine Agricultural; ash; construction/demolition; 701 5,992,700 5,000,898 6502 Hwy 78, 6 miles NE of Glamis 92227-9306 industrial; mixed municipal. Los Angeles County Antelope Valley Public Landfill I Construction/demolition; industrial; inert; mixed 1,400 6,480,000 2,978,143 1200 West City Ranch Road 93551 municipal.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 101 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Scholl Canyon Sanitary Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial; inert; manure; 3,400 69,200,000 18,229,167 3001 Scholl Canyon Road 91206 mixed municipal; tires. Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill (Unit 01) Asbestos; asbestos, friable; inert; tires. 6,500 66,670,000 34,100,000 1211 W. Gladstone Street 91720 Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 Construction/demolition; industrial; inert; mixed 240 8,200,000 5,048,000 1600 Lockheed View Drive 91504 municipal. Lancaster Landfill & Recycling Center Agricultural; asbestos; construction/demolition; 1,700 22,645,000 22,645,000 600 East Avenue “F” 93535 contaminated soil; green materials; industrial; inert; mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill Construction/demolition; green materials; 6,000 45,889,550 26,024,360 29201 Henry Mayo Drive 91384 industrial; inert; mixed municipal. Puente Hills Landfill #6 Agricultural; ash; construction/demolition; 13,200 106,400,000 20,200,000 2800 South Workman Mill Road 90601 industrial; mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires. Calabasas Sanitary Landfill Construction/demolition; green materials; 3,500 69,700,000 27,977,778 5300 Lost Hills Road 91301 industrial; mixed municipal; tires. San Clemente Island Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial; inert; mixed 82 235,459 209,816 San Clemente Island 92674 municipal. Peck Road Gravel Pit Inert 1,210 3,400,000 3,400,000 128 E. Live Oak Avenue 91016 Nu-way Live Oak Reclamation Facility Inert 6,000 14,000,000 13620 Live Oak Lane 91706 Sunshine Canyon SLF County Extension Construction/demolition; green materials; 6,600 23,720,000 16,000,000 14747 San Fernando Road 91342 industrial; inert; mixed municipal. Savage Canyon Landfill Construction/demolition; green materials; 350 20,500,000 8,345,437 13919 East Penn Street 90602 industrial; inert; mixed municipal. Bradley Landfill West and West Extension Construction/demolition; contaminated soils; 10,000 14,629,100 4,881,010 9227 Tujunga Avenue, Sun Valley 91352 industrial; mixed municipal.

FINAL 102 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-23 List Of Landfills Throughout Southern California (those that accept biosolids are highlighted) Permitted Permitted Remaining Throughput Capacity Capacity Name and Location Waste Types (T/D) (CY) (CY) Orange County Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 4,000 81,000,000 89,400,000 Orange Co. municipal; biosolids. 32250 La Pata Avenue San Juan Capistrano 92675 Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 8,000 74,900,000 50,242,370 1942 N. Valencia Avenue 92823 mixed municipal; tires; wood waste. Riverside County Badlands Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 4,000 27,959,140 15,036,809 31125 Ironwood Ave mixed municipal; tires. Moreno Valley 92373 Lamb Canyon Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 1,900 18,496,797 9,179,274 Lamb Canyon Rd; 3 mi. S. of Beaumont mixed municipal; other designated; tires. Beaumont 92223 Edom Hill Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 2,651 10,038,052 1,587,085 70-100 Edom Hill Road 92234 mixed municipal; tires. Oasis Sanitary Landfill Agricultural; contaminated soils; 41 870,00 151,372 84-505 84th Street, Oasis 92274 construction/demolition; mixed municipal. Desert Center Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 60 117,032 36,522 17991 Kaiser Road, Desert Center 92239 municipal; tires. Blythe Sanitary Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 400 6,123,000 2,746,023 1000 Midland Road, Blythe 92225 mixed municipal; tires. Mecca Landfill II Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 400 372,480 30,407 Box Canyon Road and Garfield Street, Mecca 92254 municipal. El Sobrante Landfill Construction/demolition; mixed municipal; tires. 10,000 184,930,000 3,674,267 10910 Dawson Canyon Road Corona 91719 San Bernardino County California Street Landfill Construction/demolition. 350 4,000,000 473,888 1950 Nevada Street Redlands 92373

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 103 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Victorville Refuse Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 1,600 7,700,000 721,913 18600 Stoddard Wells Road 92307 mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids) Barstow Refuse Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 525 3,580,000 218,492 Barstow Road 3 Mi. S. of Barstow 92311 mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids) Colton Refuse Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 3,100 13,297,000 380,716 850 Tropica Rancho Road, Colton 92324, mixed municipal; other designated; sludge (biosolids); tires; wood waste. Fontana Refuse Disposal Site Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 7,500 62,000,000 694,058 2390 N. Alder Avenue, Rialto 92377 municipal; tires. Landers Disposal Site Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 381 3,080,000 463,785 Winters Road East of S. Avalon Avenue municipal; other designated; sludge (biosolids); Landers 92284 tires. Holliday Inert Landfill Construction/demolition; inert; tires. 2,000,000 2,000,000 249 East Santa Ana Avenue Rialto 92316 USMC – 29 Palms Disposal Site Construction/demolition; mixed municipal; tires. 57 2,195,000 435,387 USMC Base – Landfill Road 2001 Twentynine Palms 92278 Fort Irwin Sanitary Landfill Contaminated soil; mixed municipal; sludge 100 19,000,000 14,738,590 Fort Irwin Reserve Component Training Center (biosolids). 2001 Fort Irwin (Mil Res) 92310 Mitsubishi Cement Plant Cushenbury L.F. Industrial. 40 520,400 227,000 5808 State Highway 18, Lucerne Valley 92356 Pennsylvania St Inert Mine Landfill Construction/demolition. 300 5,000,000 1,000,000 S. of Baseline and W. of Pennsylvania Avenue San Bernardino 99999 San Diego County Ramona Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 295 2,200,000 440,830 20630 Pamo Road, Ramona 92065 municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires; wood waste. Borrego Springs Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 50 706,745 426,000 2449 Palm Canyon Road, Borrego Springs 92004 municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires; wood waste.

FINAL 104 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Otay Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; green 5,000 59,857,199 41,152,377 1700 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista 91911 materials; mixed municipal; other designated; sludge (biosolids); tires. West Miramar Sanitary Landfill Construction/demolition; mixed municipal; tires. 8,000 35,200,000 23,194,883 5180 Convoy Street, San Diego 92111 Sycamore Sanitary Landfill Agricultural; asbestos; contaminated soils; 3,300 27,947,234 23,769,035 8514 Mast Boulevard, San Diego 92071 Dead animals; mixed municipal; other designated; sludge (biosolids); tires, shreds; wood waste. San Onofre Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial ; mixed 50 1,920,00 1,407,000 2.7 Mi. W. Basilone Gate municipal; sludge (biosolids). Camp Pendleton (Mil res) 92672 Las Pulgas Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial ; mixed 270 10,680,000 9,150,000 1 Mi. N. Camp Pulgas Off Basilone Road municipal; sludge (biosolids). Camp Pendleton (Mil Res) 92055 Ventura County Toland Road Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 1,500 30,000,000 20,796,998 3500 North Toland Road, Santa Paula 93060 mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids). Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 3,000 23,700,000 9,473,131 2801 Madera Road, Simi Valley 93065 municipal; sludge (biosolids).

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 105 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions Operations at the Prima Deshecha Landfill allow for the acceptance of biosolids at the permitted rate. No additional regulatory issues or restrictions are anticipated. Regulatory constraints associated with biosolids disposal at the Bowerman Landfill are potentially significant. A three party agreement that was created during the 1980s is associated with the original permitting for the landfill. The parties include the City of Irvine, the IWMD, and the District. The agreement calls for the City of Irvine to be the lead agency in completing any CEQA process associated with permit changes requesting utilization of the landfill for biosolids disposal. This agreement was reached as a compromise in lieu of permitting the landfill for biosolids disposal. The compromise was driven by citizens of the Northwood community that opposed biosolids disposal in the landfill. It is estimated that attempting to complete the permitting and CEQA process as a part of the agreement will be very difficult. Perceived Market Risk Since the pending permit increase at Prima Deshecha will allow for a total of 350 tons per day of biosolids disposal and this disposal will function only as a failsafe back-up, there appears to be virtually no market risk.

Public Perception Issues Community acceptance of biosolids for disposal from an area outside a region’s wasteshed could become an issue for the landfill’s host community.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences No particular qualitative limits were identified beyond meeting the requirements in 40 CFR Part 503. For the purposes of gaining landfill equipment operator acceptance, it is strongly recommended that biosolids be as dry as possible. Dryness prevents caking of biosolids on the undercarriage of landfill equipment.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of landfill disposal at Prima Deshecha would consist of the regular tipping fee at $27 per ton, a special waste handling fee (to be negotiated but probably $2 to $3 per ton), transportation costs estimated at less than $10 per ton, and a possible fee associated with the County bond bankruptcy process that uses fees from out-of-county solid waste to help pay down the bankruptcy debt. The economics at other landfills is anticipated to be similar except for the added cost of transportation over further distances. On May 2, 1995, the IWMD announced the department's intent to move forward on two major policy issues: importation of non-Orange County solid waste and increasing landfill gate fees. Since Orange County's declaration of bankruptcy, IWMD has been considered one of the major factors in the County's plan to recover from the financial crisis. IWMD is one of the County's largest assets, as well as one of the County's biggest revenue generating mechanisms, as it owns and operates the only disposal facilities in Orange County. For this reason, the District would be required to negotiate a higher disposal fee.

FINAL 106 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Political Hurdles and Constraints There is political pressure to restrict additional traffic on Ortega Highway. Consequently, an alternate hauling route was identified utilizing San Antonio Parkway. The option is to proceed south on Interstate 405 to the newly opened transportation corridors. From I-405 the 133 Eastern Transportation Corridor may be accessed. This corridor connects to the 241 Foothill Transportation Corridor, which ends at San Antonio Parkway and leads directly to La Pata Avenue and Prima Deshecha Landfill. Other alternative routes are available.

CEQA Issues No significant CEQA issues are presented by biosolids landfilling at Prima Deshecha Landfill, because the landfill is currently permitted for biosolids disposal. CEQA requirements were fulfilled for the pending permit modification at the Prima Deshecha Landfill.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The ease of implementation of the Prima Deshecha Landfill alternative is considered challenging but achievable. The County Waste Management Commission and its Committee on Biosolids must offer a recommendation to the IWMD. A successful recommendation for failsafe landfilling is likely tied closely with the District’s commitment to participate with SOCWA in a joint composting program at the landfill. Assuming a successful recommendation by the Commission, the District would need to negotiate separate agreements with IWMD and SOCWA and invest in the development of the composting facility at the landfill.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators for this option include the following: x The amount of non-Orange County waste available for disposal at Prima Deshecha Landfill that would be displaced as a result of the District biosolids disposal would impact the District’s cost of disposal

Landfill Partnering – Alternative Daily Cover Although there are several markets for compost manufactured at Prima Deshecha Landfill, alternative daily cover (ADC) has been identified as a failsafe back-up market. Under current regulations, owners or operators of all municipal solid waste landfill units must cover disposed solid waste with a minimum of 6 inches of compacted earthen material or alternative material at the end of each operating day, or at more frequent intervals if necessary, to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging.

Brief Description and History Compost, co-compost, and chemically fixed sewage sludge, that meet the performance standards for cover material, can be utilized as ADC and shall be limited to up to 25 percent of landfill cover materials or landfill cover extenders as required under Public Resources Code (PRC) 42245. The 25 percent limit applies on a quarterly basis to the total daily and

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 107 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS intermediate cover or cover extender use. Landfill cover means compost, co-compost, or chemically fixed sewage sludge blended or mixed with soil.

Current Market Strength The strength of the current market for ADC is high in most parts of California. At the Prima Deshecha Landfill the County maintains a surplus of dirt and does not require ADC. ADC is used occasionally to help achieve diversion targets. Alternative sources of ADC are regularly supplied to Bowerman and Brea-Olinda Landfills. Substantial competition exists for this marketplace, including the following materials: x Ash and cement kiln dust x Treated auto shredder waste x Construction and demolition waste x Compost x Green material x Contaminated sediment x Biosolids x Shredded tires The most prevalent material in competition with compost is green material. For example, at the Puente Hills Landfill, about 1,000 tons per day of green material are received with a large portion of the material blended onsite with soil for ADC. The remaining material is removed under contract and exported to various landfills including Brea-Olinda Landfill for ADC.

Market Size The current market size for ADC in California, as reported by the CIWMB, was 2.3 million cubic yards. Very little of the portion for ADC was composted material. Table 2-24 summarizes the sale of organic products by major market segment.

TABLE 2-24 California Year 2000 Sales of Organic Products Volume of Organic Products (Cubic Yards) Market Segment

4.5 million Agriculture 3.8 million Horticulture 500,000 Municipal 250,000 Caltrans 3.2 million Biomass-to-energy 2.3 million Landfill cover

Estimate Future of Market The overall ADC market is expected to remain strong as a significant element in the State’s drive to achieve its diversion of 50 percent of wastes from landfills. The remaining useful

FINAL 108 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS life of the Prima Deshecha Landfill is estimated at about 70 years, although the IWMD is not predicting any need for ADC as the landfill operates with a soil excess.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts Numerous other products and waste management utilities operate in the ADC market. The products include: ash and cement kiln dust, treated auto shredder waste, construction and demolition waste, compost, green material, contaminated sediment, sludge, and shredded tires. Many tons of these products compete for landfill access on a regular basis. The result tends to be a glut of ADC material that drives down the price of what the landfill operator is willing to pay.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions The CIWMB and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have extensive regulations regarding the acceptability and use of compost products as ADC. These regulations are achievable by the District for its compost products.

Perceived Market Risk The market risk for compost as ADC is high. Orange County landfills either have an excess of soil at their sites or other economical sources of ADC. It does not appear cost-effective to compete with other entities for ADC markets outside of Orange County.

Public Perception Issues Landfills and other waste units pose human health threats by contaminating underlying groundwater, causing adverse health effects via dermal contact, and producing gases. Much of the public would prefer soil cover. Overall, public perception is not expected to be a problem for compost utilization as a failsafe backup as ADC.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The performance standards required by the CIWMB include the following: x Compost materials shall be restricted to a minimum compacted thickness of 6 inches and average compacted thickness of less than or equal to 12 inches. Compost materials shall comply with a grain size specification by volume of 95 percent less than 6 inches. These standards pose no difficulty on the part of the District to produce in a composting facility.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of utilizing District compost as ADC at landfills in the area are not favorable.

Political Hurdles and Constraints There do not appear to be any political hurdles limiting the utilization of compost as ADC.

CEQA Issues No CEQA issues were evident regarding the utilization of compost as ADC.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 109 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Assessment of Ease of Implementation Ease of implementation of this option is estimated to be difficult. Numerous competitive products and entities will be difficult to displace. Additionally, there is virtually no demand for ADC at the Prima Deshecha Landfill, as the landfill operates with a soil surplus.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators could include competition from alternate ADC sources.

Construction Material Markets There are a number of different types of construction material products than can be generated from biosolids. These range from dried biosolids and soil mixtures, to glass aggregate, and inert, sandy materials. The primary markets available for these products are as construction fill, road fill and for use in the manufacture of cement. This review will provide an overview of the construction material market, rather than going into detail on specific markets. Minergy is a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy Corporation. Minergy has successfully commercialized technologies for recycling industrial wastes including municipal sludge, fly ash, and paper sludge into high value products such as glass and other lightweight aggregates. Currently Minergy operates one glass aggregate plant known as the Fox Valley Glass Aggregate Plant in Neenah, Wisconsin, and has one plant under development in Detroit, Michigan. With the facility, Minergy recycles over 350,000 tons of biosolids yearly into glass. Minergy owns patents on aspects of their technology, and offers a licensing service.

Brief Description and History The construction industry market has not been widely used as a potential market for biosolids, largely due to the relatively low number of facilities that produce biosolids products that would be suitable for this market. In Southern California there has not been much attention given to the construction industry as a market for biosolids products. However, discussions with American Remedial Technologies and TPS Technologies, companies that are involved in the recycle of non-hazardous, contaminated soils, indicate that there is a large market for soil type materials for use as fill in construction and development projects. Minergy Corporation has developed a process for converting waste materials, including biosolids, into a glass aggregate product that is marketed to the construction industry. The product from a mixed waste process is a light weight glass aggregate that may be used in the manufacture of lightweight structural concrete, lightweight concrete masonry, insulating concrete, as a lightweight and fire resistant mineral filler, or as landscaping ground cover. Glass aggregate from a biosolids-only process is most likely to be marketed as pavement and construction fill material. Other construction and non-construction material markets could be developed, including floor tiles, abrasives, roofing shingles and decorative landscaping, but would require a higher level of marketing effort in California, according to Terrence Carroll, a regional manager with Minergy.

FINAL 110 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The inert ash or sandy material from incineration or super critical water oxidation process can also be used in the construction industry. These materials typically pass the EPA leach test and are therefore not considered hazardous. The Minneapolis, Minnesota, biosolids incineration ash has been used for cement manufacture and building product manufacture over the last 9 years. The most viable market has been as an admixture in cement kilns, where there is some evidence that the metals in the ash act as a catalyst.

Current Market Strength The current market for glass aggregate products appears solid. These products are linked to a range of markets including construction, construction materials, and landscaping markets. Discussions with Minergy indicate that in California the easiest market sector to penetrate with glass aggregate type products would be the road and construction fill markets. For inert sandy materials produced through combustion of biosolids, there could be a potential market in Southern California as an admixture in the manufacture of cement. There are a number of cement kilns in the Inland Empire region that could serve as a potential customer base.

Market Size The overall aggregate market exceeds 3 billion tons per year in the United States. At an average product price of $4.83 per ton the market size exceeds $14 billion per year (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). The recycled aggregate portion of the market was less than 1 percent of these totals during the late 1990s (Wilburn, 1998). The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the recycled aggregate market sector is growing rapidly and will continue to do so.

Estimate Future of Market The future of the recycled aggregate markets appears to be sound. As the U.S. economy continues to expand, demand for aggregate and recycled aggregate will keep pace. In Southern California, few cities have reached their build out capacities, and as development continues, the need for construction materials will continue. Recycled materials are forecast to expand participation in this market (Wilburn, 1998).

Other Large Agencies/Entities In the Market and Potential Impacts At this time there are more than 1,550 active operations or yards producing aggregate across the U.S. (Tepordei, 2001). In California, there exist about 33 crushed aggregate operations. At this time, there are no other Southern California POTW organizations that are producing materials suitable for the construction markets.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions The use of biosolids products in the construction industry has not attracted any specific regulatory attention due to the limited use of biosolids in this market. However, glass aggregate and ash products would need to be able to pass the California leach test to be classed as non-hazardous, before they could be used in construction products. Products used in cement kilns should not have an adverse impact on the air emissions from the

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 111 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS facilities if they are to be marketed successfully. Considering that these products have been completely combusted, there are not likely to be any adverse impacts. Use of biosolids blended with soil as construction fill or landscaping material will need to be appropriately managed to prevent contamination of groundwater with nitrates etc., particularly if no vegetation will be grown over the soil. However, since most construction fill applications are one-time only applications, it is not anticipated that such practices will have adverse impacts on the groundwater.

Perceived Market Risk The perceived market risk for the construction fill products is estimated to be low. Once a product is accepted for a particular market application, the size of the market and continued development provide a low market risk.

Public Perception Issue Public perception is not anticipated to be an issue in much of the construction industry applications, unless biosolids products, such as blended soil or glass aggregate, are used in residential developments in a manner that could be used to draw public attention to the fact. The use of ash products in cement kilns may meet an initially low acceptance level, however, installations such as Minneapolis and the catalytic properties of the product could be used to encourage acceptance by the cement manufacturers.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The product specification and limitations would depend on the application. Most road fill and construction fill requirements are provided on a project-by-project basis to the suppliers. Blending of biosolids with treated soils may provide advantages in moisture and organic content. The glass aggregate process typically includes sizing and grinding and crushing equipment to provide flexibility in meeting different product size specifications. Product specifications for cement manufacture will include particle size, and inorganic and mineral analyses.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The construction materials industry is not a lucrative sector, and profits typically depend more on volume than value. Discussions with American Remedial Technologies indicate that they anticipate selling their product at the profit of around $2 to $5 per ton, after transportation costs have been accounted for. Their charge to the District for biosolids handling is expected to be in the mid-$30 range. The economics of manufacturing and marketing Minergy products in Southern California is unknown. The process has been evaluated for other agencies in the U.S. and indications are that the economics are rarely favorable. Apart from the Fox Valley, Wisconsin facility installed by Minergy Corporation’s parent company Wisconsin Energy Corporation, Detroit is the only public agency that plans to install a facility due to site-specific factors. It is estimated that this type of facility and product marketing program would rely on a biosolids tipping fee in excess of $60 per wet ton of biosolids cake. Discussions with Minergy indicate that the value of the aggregate as a pavement or construction fill would be

FINAL 112 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS in the range of $2 to $5 per dry ton. The product could also be used in the manufacture of cement, which would have a value of $10 to $25 per dry ton. The costs of manufacturing inert sandy material for use in cement manufacturing would be over $60 per wet ton of biosolids cake. The potential value of the product for cement manufacturing could be in the range of $10 to $25 per dry ton.

Political Hurdles and Constraints There do not appear to be any political constraints to the utilization of biosolids construction products, as long as fill and landscaping products are not used for developments such as school sites and residential developments.

CEQA Issues There do not appear to be any CEQA issues associated with utilization of construction products derived from biosolids.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation Implementation of biosolids derived materials in the construction industry is supported by the large market size and by the increased use of recycled materials, which will improve acceptability of such products within the industry. As this is a market that has not been widely used, particularly in Southern California, there will be a need to develop the market and develop appropriate management practices. One approach would be to contract with suppliers that are familiar with the market, such as American Remedial Technologies or TPS Technologies. The fill material market may be easier to penetrate than the cement manufacturing industry, based on discussion with Minergy. Management of fill materials will be of importance to prevent contamination of ground water with nitrates and to avoid the use of biosolids products on sensitive developments, such as schools.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators could include: x Continued development and construction in Southern California. x Continued growth in demand for recycled construction materials. x Cost-effectiveness of the manufacturing processes and economic comparison with other alternatives.

Non-Construction Material Products Several products are feasible in this category. Combustion and super critical wet oxidation processes produce an inert sandy material that can be used as non-construction material in the manufacture of products such as tiles and bricks. Vitrification processes, such as the Minergy glass aggregate process, produce a hard, granular, black, glassy product that can be used in the manufacture of tiles, bricks, roofing shingles and other products. This is a more lucrative market than the non-construction materials market. However, it will be a more difficult market to penetrate as many of the materials will be used in residential

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 113 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS structures and in forms with which people will be in close contact. The potential for negative public perception may restrict this market to a few industrial uses or roofing products.

Brief Description and History This is not a market that has been widely considered for biosolids products. Minergy claims that their glass aggregate products from the biosolids or mixed waste vitrification processes may be used in non-construction material manufacturing. However, in discussions with Minergy, it appeared that their first target market in California would be the construction material market as the product would be more acceptable. In Japan processes similar to Minergy were developed by Tsukishima Kikai (TSK) Corporation. TSK supplies thermal treatment processes and incineration facilities for treatment of wastes and has developed a process for biosolids vitrification or melting. TSK formed the molten biosolids into brick and artificial stone. However, lack of acceptance of the product and process economics have led to TSK removing the process from their list of supplied technologies. Although a number of biosolids aggregate or inert ash products could feasibly be used as non-construction materials, acceptance has been a primary drawback to exploiting this market.

Current Market Strength The general market for non-construction material products is strong, as it follows the construction material markets. However, the market for biosolids products as a non- construction product material is likely to be considerably smaller than for construction materials, due to the lower acceptance of biosolids products for such applications. If biosolids could be sold into these markets, the product value would be in the range of $15 to $25, according to Minergy.

Market Size As noted previously, the overall aggregate market exceeds 3 billion tons per year in the United States. The value of materials going to the non-construction market is considerably higher than the construction industry, and is therefore a more lucrative market. For biosolids, which would be generated in small volumes compared with the overall demand, it would be financially more rewarding if the non-construction material market could be penetrated. The recycled aggregate portion of the market was less than 1 percent of these totals during the late 1990s (Wilburn, 1998). The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the recycled aggregate market sector is growing rapidly and will continue to do so. These materials are a small niche with in this larger aggregate market.

Estimate Future of Market The future of the non-construction material markets appears to be sound. As the U.S. economy continues to expand, demand for aggregate and recycled aggregate will keep pace. Recycled aggregate is forecasted to expand its participation in this market (Wilburn, 1998).

FINAL 114 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Other Large Agencies/Entities In the Market and Potential Impacts At this time there are more than 1,550 active operations or yards producing aggregate across the U.S. (Tepordei, 2001). In California, there are about 33 crushed aggregate operations. At this time, there are no other Southern California POTW organizations that produce a biosolids product suitable for the non-construction materials industry.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions As with the construction materials market, there are no specific regulations to date that would impact the use of biosolids products in these markets. In order to be classed as nonhazardous, the biosolids product would need to pass the California leach test. If the use of biosolids products for the manufacture of non-construction products such as tiles was to become widespread, regulations may develop in response to negative public perception and potential health and safety concerns. It is not anticipated that the use of biosolids products as non-construction materials would have negative environmental impacts that would require legislation.

Perceived Market Risk The perceived market risk for these types of products is estimated to be higher than for construction material markets, due to concerns over acceptance by manufacturers and potential negative public perception. Non-construction material products are more visible to the public than construction products.

Public Perception Issues Potential public perception issues with these types of products are estimated to be higher than with construction material products. There could potentially be concern from the public over use of biosolids in their bathroom tiles, for instance, even though the product is entirely inert.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The types of biosolids products provided by vitrification, combustion, or water oxidation processes would be suitable for various applications in the non-construction materials industry. Additional processing for meeting sizing specifications could likely be accommodated as the sale value of the biosolids product would be higher.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of manufacturing these types of products is similar to the construction products, and would likely cost over $60 per wet ton. The value of the products, if accepted by the industry, would be relatively high, in the range of $15 to $25 per dry ton.

Political Hurdles and Constraints There are no current political constraints on the use of biosolids non-construction material products. However, if the use of these products in items such as tiles or in structures such as residential or educational buildings gains negative public attention, it is likely that political restrictions will follow.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 115 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

CEQA Issues There do not appear to be any CEQA issues associated with utilization of these types of products derived from biosolids.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation Although the market size for non-construction materials and the increased use of recycled materials are positive indicators for this market, the question of acceptability of biosolids derived materials still remains. This may be a longer-term marketing effort, which could be developed once biosolids products have gained acceptance in the construction market. It is anticipated that the biosolids derived materials will need to be restricted to products with which people do not regularly come into direct contact, such as roof shingles.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators could include: x Continued development and construction in Southern California. x Continued growth in demand for recycled non-construction materials. x Cost-effectiveness of the manufacturing processes and economic comparison with other alternatives.

Dedicated Land Disposal (Holloway Mines) Since 1931 the Holloway Company has been mining gypsum from property near the intersection of Interstate 5 and State Highway 46 in Kern County, California. These operations have left many hundreds of acres of open pits over 55 feet deep. It has been proposed by GeoManagement LLC, pending approval by the Kern County Board of Supervisors and Kern County Planning Committee, to allow the filling of these pits with 2,000 wet tons of biosolids per day. The property, about 200 miles north of Fountain Valley, has enough capacity to accept biosolids at this rate for over 40 years (Arca, 2002).

Brief Description and History The Holloway Company provided gypsum to San Joaquin farmers for over 70 years. Consistent with the National Mine Reclamation Act, GeoManagement LLC is planning to fill these pits with biosolids from waste treatment facilities and ash from local cogeneration facilities. Upon delivery, the biosolids will be combined with ash and local material in large mixers, already onsite from the mining operation. This mixture will be landfilled over a 48-hour cover cycle. GeoManagement LLC has received permits for landfilling at the facility, except for Kern County Planning Committee and Kern County Board of Supervisors approval. These approvals are expected during the spring of 2003. The permit calls for up to 2,000 wet tons per day of biosolids to be disposed of at the site. The site received a negative declaration for CEQA compliance. The facility is an unlined landfill. It sits atop a layer of 120 feet of impermeable clay which again sits upon a very small and poor quality water table. A leachate collection system will be required. It is expected that all potential contaminants would be contained by this clay layer.

FINAL 116 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

The mine is organized so that the addition of biosolids handling and mixing in the operation would not require any extra personnel or material purchasing. Furthermore, GeoManagement LLC believes the operation will last another 50 years, and the landfilling operation will be a reliable and stable disposal source.

Current Market Strength The strength of this market is dependent on how much demand there is for biosolids disposal at the mine. As long as GeoManagement LLC has enough capacity to dispose of the biosolids, this market will exist for the District. GeoManagement LLC is hoping to draw on treatment plants from all over Southern California to fill this quota. GeoManagement LLC is extremely interested in Orange County’s biosolids production for their landfill. However, if GeoManagement LLC is unable to find enough biosolids for their facility it can operate at smaller loading rates.

Market Size This market will have a capacity of up to 2,000 wet tons of waste per day, at 20 percent solids content.

Estimate Future of Market GeoManagement LLC believes that the facility will be able to accept biosolids at the maximum loading rate for at least 40 years. The first open pit to be filled is 150 acres in surface area and has an average depth of 55 feet. This pit will take over 15 years to fill.

Other Large Agencies/Entities In the Market and Potential Impacts There may be competition for the 2,000 wet tons per day loading limit being utilized by other treatment plants.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions GeoManagement LLC does not expect any future regulatory restrictions. The site is a permitted landfill and the Regional Water Quality Control Board considers it an ideal site for the landfilling of biosolids due to its distance from residential neighborhoods and its impermeable clay bottom.

Perceived Market Risk Risks appear to be minimal with this facility.

Public Perception Issues This project is a disposal option and does not meet the District’s criteria for biosolids recycling.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences Biosolids with a solids content of greater than 20 percent are desired by GeoManagement LLC.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 117 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of disposal at the facility are composed of a tipping fee and transportation cost. The tipping fee is estimated to range from $10 to $35 per wet ton plus line haul transportation of up to $20 per ton4.

Political Hurdles and Constraints As stated, several major permitting obstacles have been overcome. Once the planning committee and the Board of Supervisors approve the project, it can start.

CEQA Issues This project falls under the CEQA permit of the Holloway Mining operation.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation This project would be relatively easy to implement. The District would need to implement a typical biosolids contract with GeoManagement LLC.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators could include: x GeoManagement LLC is a relatively new and unknown corporate entity requiring additional research to verify capabilities. x Permits must be obtained from Kern County. x As a disposal technique, the option does not meet the District’s criteria for biosolids recycling. x A tipping and transportation fee could range from $30 to $55 per ton. Precise values are unknown at this time. x Competition from alternate POTWs interested in the failsafe landfilling option.

Fuel Products (Oil, Char) Fuel products are produced in three forms: a solid fuel char, an oil, and as a combustible gas. The total heating value of the products cannot be greater than the calorific value of the feed solids. The feed biosolids calorific value is typically around 6,500 Btu/lb dry solids for digested biosolids and 9,000 Btu/lb dry solids for undigested biosolids. The fuel products are produced by pyrolysis and gasification processes and the form of the fuel products and the heating value of each product will vary depending on the process. The products may be combusted on site to provide energy for the process, as is usually the case with the combustible gases, or they may be marketed, as is often attempted with the char and oil products. In addition, thermally dried biosolids may be combusted as a fuel product, and would have a calorific value of around 6,500 Btu/lb if digested biosolids were used. Through the rest of this discussion, the term char will be deemed to include heat-dried biosolids granules.

4 For a haul distance of 200 miles one way at $2.50 per mile (one way distance) the cost per load equals $500. At 25 tons per load the unit cost of transportation equals $20 per ton.

FINAL 118 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Brief Description and History Pyrolysis and gasification processes typically produce a fuel char that has a heating value in the range of 4,500 Btu/lb to 9,000 Btu/lb, depending on whether other fuel products are formed and the calorific value of the feed. Some processes produce a low grade oil, similar to a kerosene type product, or a No. 7 oil. Industry experience indicates that the oil product is difficult to market and many processes avoid producing it. The char solids content may vary from 50 to 95 percent. Local uses for the char are in cement kilns and biomass waste to energy plants. Cement kilns prefer a char with maximum moisture content of 8 percent for use in the clinker zone. Char used in the pre-calciner zone can have higher moisture content of up to 50 percent. Utilization of alternative fuel sources in cement kilns or other energy facilities has been practiced for decades. A cement kiln is the world’s largest moving manufacturing machine. Cement kilns are enormous cylindrical ovens, some as long as 1,000 feet and as much as 24 feet in diameter. They rotate from 20 to 80 times an hour. The kilns are mounted at a slight incline (about 1/2 inch per foot). The inside is lined with fire resistant brick. The kiln is fueled by powdered coal, oil, gas, or liquid waste-derived fuel in the burner end and solid waste-derived fuel in the center of calcining zone via Cadence’s patented process. Preheater and precalciner kilns are shorter than a long cement kiln and contain tall preheater towers that use the heat produced by the kiln to preheat the raw materials as they move through the various stages of the tower. These kilns reflect the latest in cement kiln design technology. Presently, about 25 percent of the kilns in the United States are either preheaters or precalciners. They are more fuel efficient than long kilns, using up to 50 percent less energy. Waste-derived fuels can be introduced at either the burner end or through a special port at the rear with other raw materials to further increase fuel efficiency (Temarry website, 2003).

Current Market Strength The current market strength for products such as fuel char is good. Fuel char, at 6,500 to 9,000 Btu/lb is a low to mid-range energy value product compared to tires that contain 12,000 to 16,000 Btu/lb. In comparison, bituminous coal has energy values ranging from 11,000 to 13,000 Btu/lb., fuel oil (No. 6) has 18,000 to 18,500 Btu/lb, wet wood (hogged fuel) has 4,000 to 5,000 Btu/lb, and agricultural waste has 5,000 to 8,500 Btu/lb (CIWMB, 1992). Tire burning in cement kilns is an attractive alternative that shows a payback of 1 to 2 years for the kiln operator (Lindert, 1993). Fuel char has a Btu content about 35 to 50 percent less than tires and is likely to have a good market position overall, if the economics are positive. Market for the oil is not as promising. The oil is typically a dirty, low grade oil that may be contaminated with particulates and organics from the biosolids treatment process. Tests have been done by General Atomic in Canada for use of the oil in setting tar on asphalt pavements. However, the results were not as encouraging as had been anticipated and the product has not been able to penetrate this application. The gas produced in gasification processes typically has a low heating value of 350 to 450 Btu per cubic feet per minute (Btu/cfm) and needs to be combined with natural gas or biogas before it can be used in engines for power generation. This is typically done on site and the gas is not marketed.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 119 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Market Size The current market size for fuel char appears to be sizable. The Riverside Cement company operates the Riverside Cement-Oro Grande facility north of Victorville. This facility, launched in 1995, has a capacity of 1,200,000 tons per year distributed among seven kilns. Additionally, TXI, the parent company of Riverside Cement, operates Riverside Cement- Crestmore, which is the largest production site of bagged cement in the United States (TXI website, 2003). The market for the oil product is not expected to be significant, even if it is given away at no cost.

Estimate Future of Market The future market for fuel char products is estimated to be solid. This is a market driven by continued growth and development in the economy over the long-term. Expectations for the long-term California economy are a robust rate of growth. Unless an economical use for the oil can be found, it is not anticipated that the future market for the oil product will improve.

Other Large Agencies/Entities in the Market and Potential Impacts Several other POTWs supply biosolids cake to the Riverside Cement-Oro Grande facility. Fuel char contains a higher fuel value and would likely be able to effectively substitute for the biosolids cake.

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions There are no foreseeable regulatory issues or restrictions with the products or product applications. The volume of char products to the total mass combusted in cement kilns will be small enough not to have any impacts on the efficiency of the process. Tests conducted by EnerTech indicate that burning the fuel char in a cement kiln will not have negative impacts on the air emissions. Using char as a fuel source may require permit modifications if the cement kiln’s existing permit does not provide for the use of such energy products.

Perceived Market Risk The market risk associated with this product appears to be from a combination of economic factors such as a slowdown in the growth and development of the economy followed by pricing pressure from alternative fuel sources. Mitigating against the pricing pressure is the upside risk that fuel oil and natural gas prices may rise as oil production turmoil continues around the world.

Public Perception Issues Public perception issues surrounding this option relate to potential emissions from burning the char in a kiln facility. Well organized and aggressive opponents exist for virtually every operating kiln and any proposed facilities.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The char solids content may vary from 50 to 95 percent. Local uses for the char are in cement kilns and biomass waste to energy plants. Cement kilns prefer a char with a maximum moisture content of 8 percent for use in the clinker zone. Char used in the pre-calciner zone can have a higher moisture content of up to 50 percent. The higher the calorific value of the char, the more incentive for the cement kiln to use the product.

FINAL 120 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing Costs for most pyrolysis and gasification processes would be in the range of $60 to $120 per wet ton of biosolids processed, while for heat drying it is likely to be in the range of $55 to $70 per wet ton. It is not anticipated that the fuel char will have a significant marketable value as the product will need to compete with other waste materials such as tires. The oil products have been found to be more of a burden than a marketable product.

Political Hurdles and Constraints This research did not identify any political hurdles or constraints to the marketing and utilization of these products to the kiln industry.

CEQA Issues There are no foreseeable CEQA issues with the products or product applications.

Assessment of Ease of Implementation The implementability of this product alternative is estimated to be relatively simple. Arrangements would rely on a typical biosolids vendor contract.

Summary of Key Market Indicators Key market indicators include: x Quality of fuel char as measured by Btu per pound x Competition from alternative fuel sources x Overall economic conditions throughout Southern California that could impair operational capacity of cement kilns or other similar facilities.

Summary of Viable Markets The viable product markets assessment was completed and documented in this TM. To evaluate the wide range of product markets for their applicability in Southern California and to the District, a number of evaluation criteria were established in cooperation with the District staff. These criteria were used to assess the viability of the full range of market categories. The markets were grouped into two broad categories – cropping markets and non-cropping markets. Additionally, the products suitable from a range of technologies, such as composting and heat drying, were described. A detailed review was conducted of 19 overall markets. The review was based on research conducted by the project team, documentation provided by vendors, and on meetings and telephone discussions with the vendors and individuals operating in the various market sectors.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 121 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Based on this market assessment, Table 2-25 Biosolids Markets Summary and Evaluation, was created. This table summarizes the market research information for each market sector and each evaluation criteria. Additionally, color (green, yellow, and red) was applied to individual cells in Table 2-25 to indicate a range of assessments from good or positive to strongly negative or very risky. The results of this market assessment and a review of Table 2-25 indicate that six cropping markets and five non-cropping markets are viable for the range of biosolids products producible by the District. These viable markets are listed below in Table 2-26. Based on this evaluation, the most viable markets for the District biosolids products are as follows: 1. Compost – Utilization of compost over a wide range of horticultural, biomass-to- ethanol, and erosion control applications. 2. Dry Pellets and Granules – Utilization of dry pellets and granules, either in fortified or unfortified state, over a wide range of horticultural, biomass-to-ethanol, and erosion control applications. 3. Construction Materials – Utilization of dry, soil-like material in the construction industry. 4. Fuel Energy Product – Utilization of a fuel char in the energy production or recovery sectors. 5. Landfilling and Alternative Cover Products – Utilization of composted or dried products in landfills (as a failsafe backup option) or in the landfill operation as an alternate source of MSW cover.

FINAL 122 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-25 Biosolids Markets Summary and Evaluation Estimate of Perceived Public Product Market Current Future Legal Market Perception Limits and Political Assessment of History Strength Market Size Markets Competitors Restrictions Risk Issues Preferences Economics Constraints CEQA Implementation Cropping Markets Existing Program Baseline – Non-food-chain Substantial Poor and 31,000 Uncertain Many; over Severe and Very risky Strongly Poor farmer Reasonable Severe and General Infeasible Cropping, Class B and proven failing DTPY1 (85 4,500 WTPD worsening negative acceptance; yet worsening worsening order under DTPD- prefer other litigation 41%); types 205,000 DTPY2 (560 DTPD- 274%) Horticulture – Member Agencies Substantial Good 5,100 10,000 DTPY4 Many; current None Somewhat Good Normal $0 to $30 per Low None Feasible; and proven DTPY3 (14 (28 DTPD- local risky ton revenue demonstrations, DTPD- 7%) 14%) suppliers sales mgt. Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Substantial Good Uncertain 78,000 DTPY Many None Somewhat Good Normal $0 to $88 per Low None Feasible; and proven (214 DTPD- risky ton revenue demonstrations, 104%)5 sales mgt. Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Substantial Good 66,000 86,000 DTPY Many None Somewhat Good Normal $0 to $7 per Low None Feasible; and proven DTPY (181 (236 DTPD- risky ton revenue demonstrations, 6 DTPD-88%) 115%)7 sales mgt. Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Substantial High 0 194 DTPY (0.5 Few None Somewhat Good Normal $55 to $100 Low None Feasible; and proven DTPD-0.3%) risky per tree cost demonstrations, sales mgt. Energy/Silviculture – Biomass Crops Substantial Good 0 453,000 DTPY Few Undeveloped Somewhat Good Normal Uncertain Low None Feasible; highly and proven (1,242 DTPD- risky challenging; need 606%)8 big project partner Citrus, Avocado, Vineyard and Orchard Substantial Poor and Uncertain Uncertain Conventional Severe and Very Risky Strongly Poor farmer $0 to Severe and None Infeasible and proven failing and organic worsening negative acceptance; Uncertain worsening but SE U.S. fertilizers salt sensitive Orange County Vegetable Growers Substantial Poor and 0 Uncertain Conventional Severe and Very risky Strongly Poor farmer $0 to $140 Severe and None Infeasible and proven failing and organic worsening negative acceptance; per ton worsening but MW and fertilizers highly salt revenue SE U.S. sensitive Bulk Agricultural Crop Markets Substantial Poor 0 Very little None None High Strongly Poor farmer Poor Severe and None Infeasible and proven negative acceptance worsening Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley High 0 37,500 DT/Y9 None None Low Negative High farmer Poor Severe and None Feasible Ranch (102.5 DTPD- acceptance worsening 50%) Mexico Export Markets Unproven Poor 0 Very little Conventional Severe Very risky Strongly Poor farmer Poor High Unknown Infeasible fertilizers negative acceptance Non-Cropping Markets Direct Energy Substantial Strong Very large Very large Few Substantial Onsite – Negative Range from Reasonable High Extensive Difficult but and proven permitting low; very dry to achievable but other requirements Offsite – wet cake; parts of U.S. high Normal and Europe Erosion Control Recent in Developing Small Small Many; None Low Good Normal $520 to Low None Difficult; Western U.S. aggressive $555 per ton demonstrations revenue Caltrans

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 123 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Blank page

FINAL 124 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 125 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Blank page

FINAL 126 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 2-26 List of Viable Markets Cropping Sector Non-Cropping Sector

Horticulture – Member Agencies Direct Energy

Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Construction Market

Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Direct Landfilling (Failsafe backup)

Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover (Failsafe backup)

Energy/Silviculture – Biomass Crops Dedicated Land Disposal

Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch

References Alexander, R., 2000, Field Guide to Compost Use. U.S. Composting Council, Hauppauge, NY. Arca, T., 2002. Personal Communication, President GeoManagement LLC. Barker, A. V. 2001. Compost utilization in sod production and turf management. In Compost Utilization in Horticultural Cropping Systems. P. J. Stoffella and B. A. Kahn, eds. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Berman, S. 1992. Innovative technology in sludge processing-lime stabilization/ pasteurization versus traditional methods. ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1135. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. Blackburn, B., MacDonald, T., McCormack, M., Perez, P., Scharff, M., Unnasch, S., 1999. Evaluation Of Biomass To Ethanol Fuel Potential In California, A Report To The Governor And The Agency Secretary, California Environmental Protection as directed by Executive Order D-5-99. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Bolin, K., 2002. Personal Communication, EnerTech Environmental, Inc. Atlanta, GA (404) 355-3390. Burnham, J. C. 1986. The effect of kiln dust and lime on microbial survival in Toledo municipal wastewater sludges. Toledo, Ohio: Medical College of Ohio. Burnham, J. C., Hatfield, N., Bennett, G. F., and Logan, T. J. 1990. Use of kiln dust with quicklime for effective municipal sludge pasteurization and stabilization with the N-Viro soil process. American Society of Testing Materials. San Francisco, California. Burnham, J. C., Hatfield, N., Bennett, G. F., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Use of kiln dust with quicklime for effective municipal sludge pasteurization and stabilization with the N-Viro soil process. Technical Publication 1135. Philadelphia, PA: American Society of Testing Materials.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 127 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

California Integrated Waste Management Board- Compost and Mulch Sources List – 2002. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/SupplierList/ California Integrated Waste Management Board, 1992. Tires as a Fuel Supplement: Feasibility Study. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), Resource Directory 2002, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/card/card_new02.htm Cascadia Consulting Group, White, D. and Marx, J., 2000. Landscaper Focus Group Findings- Current Practices and Attitudes About Compost Use in King County. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Claassen V., 2000. Compost Demonstration Project, Placer County: Use of Compost and Co-Compost as a Primary Erosion Control Material, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA. Counts, C. A., and Shuckrow, A. J. 1975. Lime stabilized sludge; Its stability and effect on agricultural land. EPA-670/2-75-012. USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. Egigian-Nichols, C., 2000. Detailed Analysis of the Economics of Biosolids Products. City of Palo Alto Public Works, Palo Alto, CA. Epstein, E. (1997). “The Science of Composting,” Technomic Publishing. Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA. Fitzmorris, K. B., Reimers, R. S., Little, M. D., and Bowman, D. D. 2002. Advances in alkaline stabilization/disinfection of municipal biosolids. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference, Austin, TX. Fitzpatrick, G. E. (1992). Compost utilization in ornamentals and nursery crop production. In Compost Utilization in Horticultural Cropping Systems (P. J. Stoffella and B. A. Kahn, eds.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Gage, J., 2002. Personal Communication, Washington Organics Recycling Council/Compost Design Services – 360.556.0948. Goldman, G. and Ogishi, A., 2001-The Economic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in California, A Report to the CIWMB. University of California- Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Greeley, S., 2002. Personal Communication, City of San Diego – 858.573.1275. Hart, O., 2000. AC Enterprises Limited- Executive Summary. Haynes, J., 2002. Personal Communication, California Department of Transportation – 916.653.8077. Hoeck, J., 2002. Personal Communication, Rexius – 541.342.1835. Imperial Bioresources LLC, 2002. Energy Solutions from Renewable Resources – Imperial Valley Sugar/Ethanol Project, Press Release, Brawley, CA.

FINAL 128 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Ingram, D. L., Henley, R. W., and Yeager, T. H., 1993. Growth Media for Container Grown Ornamental Plants, Bulletin 241, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2002. Chino basin Shade Tree Program Plan. Fontana, CA. Lindert, L., 1993. Market Development Status Report: Tires. CIWMB, Sacramento, CA. Long, S. C., Seavey, D. L., Switzenbaum, M. S., and Bailey, N. O. 1998. Chemical inhibitors for biosolids pellets to promote stability during transport and storage.. Water Environ. Res. 70(3):261-267. MacDonald, T., McCormack, M., Perez, P., Peterson, T., and Tiangco, V., 2001. Costs and Benefits of a Biomass to Ethanol Production Industry in California. California Energy Commission, P500-01-002, Sacramento, CA. Maurer, M., 2002. Personal Communication, Washington State Department of Transportation – 360.705.7242. Moser, J. H., Schlecht, P. L., Munsey, F. D., and Carnahan, P. W. 2002. Challenges of heat drying biosolids. In WEFTEC 2002. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, Chicago, IL. Moss, L. H., Epstein, E., and Logan, T. 2002. Evaluating risks and benefits of soil amendments used in agriculture. Rep. No. 99-PUM-1RD. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. Muchovej, R. M., and Obreza, T. A., 2001. Utilization of Organic Wastes in Florida Agriculture. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Murthy, S., Strawn, M., Peot, C., Tolbert, D., Bailey, W., and McGrath, M. 2000. Mitigation of odors from lime stabilized biosolids. Paper presented at the WEFTEC 2000, Anaheim, California. National Research Council, 2002. Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices. National Academies Press, Committee on Toxicants and Pathogens in Biosolids Applied to Land, Washington, D.C. NEFCO, 2003. http://www.nefcobiosolids.com/ Pelletier, R. A., Sloan, D. S., and Lothrop, T. L. 2000. To lime or not to lime... That is the question. Paper presented at the WEFTEC 2000, Anaheim, CA. Resource Conservation and Development of Northeast Iowa, Inc., 1998. Iowa Statewide Compost Market Assessment, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA. RTW. 1996. Biosolids stabilization. Which “Class A” stabilization is most economical? Lime stabilization, composting, thermal drying. Bulletin No. 334. National Lime Association. Arlington, VA. Sinclair, J., 2002 Personal Communication, Soos Creek Organics – 253.639.0055.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 129 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Slivka, D. C., McClure, T. A., Buhr, A. R., and Albrecht, R. (1992). Compost: United States supply and demand potential. Biomass and Bioenergy 3 (3-4): 281-299. State of California Department of Transportation, Contract Item Cost Data, 1/2/02. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2000. General Waste Discharge Requirements for the Discharge of Biosolids to Land for Use as a Soil Amendment in Agricultural, Silvicultural, Horticultural, and Land Reclamation Activities (General Order). Sacramento, CA. Stoffella, P. J., and Kahn, B. A., eds. (2001). Compost Utilization in Horticultural Cropping Systems. pp. 1-414. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Switzenbaum, M. S., Moss, L. H., Epstein, E., Pincince, A. B., and Donovan, J. F. 1997a. Defining biosolids, stability: A basis for public and regulatory acceptance. Project 94-REM-1. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. Switzenbaum, M. S., Moss, L. H., Epstein, E., Pincince, A. B., and Donovan, J. F. 1997b. Defining biosolids stability. J. Environ. Eng. 123(12):1178-1184. Synagro Technologies, Inc., 2003. www.synagro.com/drying/drying. Houston, TX. Tepordei, V. V., 2001, Directory Of Principal Aggregates Producers In The Conterminous United States In 2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Industry Surveys, Reston, VA. Tyler, Rodney W. 1996. Winning the Organics Game, ASHA Press, Alexandra, VA. U. S. Composting Council, Field Guide to Compost Use. Holbrook, NY,1996. USDA, 2001a. Nursery Crops 2000 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service; http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/zfc-bb/nurser01.txt USDA, 2001b. Nursery Crops 2000 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service; http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/zfc-bb/floran02.txt U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Los Angeles Trade Office, 2002. Personal Communication – Bobby Hines – (213) 894-4231, Los Angeles, CA. USEPA. 1979. Process design manual: Sludge treatment and disposal. EPA 625/1-79-011. USEPA, Washington, DC. USEPA. 2000. Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Alkaline Stabilization of Biosolids. USEPA 832-F-00-052. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. U.S. Geological Survey, 2001. Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel in the First Quarter of 2002. Minerals Information Data. Walker, J.M. and Gouin, F.R. 1977. Deciduous Tree Seedling Response To Nursery Soil Amended With Composted Sewage Sludge. Horticultural Science12; 45-47. WEF. 1995. Wastewater Residuals Stabilization, manual of Practice FD-9. Alexandria, VA. Well, J., 2002. U.S. Ethanol Market: MTBE Ban in California- Briefing for Senator Feinstein’s Office. U.S. General Administrative Office, Washington, D.C.

FINAL 130 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Wescott, H., 1994. Interim Guidelines for Compost Quality. Washington Department of Ecology, #94-38, Olympia, WA. Wilburn D. R. and Goonan T. G., 1998. Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources Economic Assessments for Construction Applications—A Materials Flow Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1176, Denver, Colorado. Winebrenner, C., 2002. Personal Communication, GroCo – 206.622.5141. www.enertech.com, 2002. www.minergy.com, 2002. www.nebiosolids.org/how, 2002. www.swrcb.ca.gov/resdec/resltn/2000/rs2000-068.doc, 2002. http:/txi/smithmicro.com/default_3.tpl www.temarry.com/Cement%20Kilns/Cement_Kiln2.htm

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 131 FINAL

Appendix A – Summary of Market Research Contacts

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT, U.S. AND FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2000. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES SUMMARY: The information below contains fertilizer contacts: distributors, retailers and manufacturers. This contact list was prepared in support of AFIA-AGRO de las Americas 2000, which is held annually in March at Expo Guadalajara and is the largest international exhibition for agribusiness equipment , products and services in all of Latin America. End of summary. I. FERTILIZER DISTRIBUTORS Agricola Innovacion, S.A. de C.V. Paseo del Pedregal No. 790 Col. Pedregal de San Angel 01900 Mexico, D.F. Tel: 011 (523) 568-8700 Fax: 011 (525)568-1640 Contact: Sr. Francisco Ortiz Malcer, General Manager Distribute fertilizers throughout Mexico; are beginning to import. Agroinsumos Cajeme, S.A. de C.V. Sufragio Efectivo 430 Nte. Int. A Col Centro 85000 Cd. Obregon, Sonora Tel: 011 (52 64) 14-33-92 Fax: 011 (52 64) 14-14-46 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Ing. Alejandro Elías Calles, General Manager Distributor of liquid and solid fertilizers. Agros de Sinaloa, S.A. de C.V. Independencia No. 1956 Sur 80129 Culiacán, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 67) 17-57-10 Fax: 011 (52 67) 17-62-90 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Sr. Jose Guadalupe Valenzuela Díaz, General Manager Distributor of fertilizers, fertilizer mixtures, and equipment for the application of fertilizers.

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 A-1 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Comercializadora Dofer, S.A. de C.V. Mariano Otero No. 34129 6o Piso Int. 3 Col. Verde Valle 44550 Guadalajara, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 121-9000 Fax: 011 (523) 121-7403 E-mail: dofer@prodigy.net.mx Contact: Sr. Juan Pablo Domínguez Fernández, General Manager Distributor of aminoacids for Degussa. Also sell animal feed, lactose and milk suet for livestock in the central part of Mexico. Fertilizantes Acidos Formula, S.A. de C.V. Carretera Nacional Mexico-Laredo Km. 556.5 89800 Cd. Mante, Tamaulipas Tel: 011 (52 123) 2-78-02 Fax: 011 (52 123) 2-78-06 Contact: Lic. Jaime Humphrey, General Manager Distributor of urea and phosphoric acid for the making of fertilizers. Fertilizantes Anaya Carretera Nacional No. 152 49400 Tizapán el Alto, Jalisco Tel: 011 (52 376) 8-08-50 Fax: 011 (52 376) 8-08-50 Contact: Sr. Francisco Javier Anaya B., General Manager Distributor of fertilizers in the state of Jalisco. Fertilizantes e Insecticidas Cobanaro, S.A. de C.V. Blvd. Juan de Dios Batiz 634 Oriente Local 2 Fracc.. El Parque 81259 Los Mochis, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 68) 18-02-86 Fax: 011 (52 68) 18-02-86 Contact: Lic. Ma. Concepción Acosta, General Manager Distributor of anhydrous in the state of Sinaloa. Fertilizantes Jimenez, S.A. San Francisco No. 325 Col. San Juan de Ocotán 45019 Zapopan, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 110-1515 Fax: 011 (523) 110-1515 Contact: Sr. Jose de Jesus Jimenez Gonzalez, General Manager Distributor of Agrofermex, Tepeyac, and Pacifex fertilizers which they sell throughout Mexico. Fertilizantes Tecnificados de Zapopan, S.A. de C.V. Melchor Ocampo No. 558 Col. Centro

FINAL A-2 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF MARKET RESEARCH CONTACTS

444100 Zapopan, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 636-9135 Fax: 011 (523) 636-9263 Contact: Lic. Ana Rosa Jimenez Gonzalez, General Manager Distributor of fertilizers throughout Mexico (some are imported from the U.S.) Fertilizantes y Mejoradores, S.A. de C.V. Madero Centro 309 Col Centro 59600 Zamora, Michoacan Tel: 011 (52 351) 7-48-50 Fax: 011 (52 351) 7-59-40 Contact: Ing. Edna Lorena Ayala Rodríguez, General Manager Distributor of Nu-foll fertilizers. Sell locally. Ferti-USA, S.A. de C.V. Av. Aztlan No. 2855 Col. Industrial El Palmito 80160 Culiacan, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 67) 17-40-35 Fax: 011 (52 67) 17-40-34 Contact: Ing. Jorge Camberos Sanchez, General Manager Distributor of GBM fertilizers. Import from the U.S. and sell in the state of Sinaloa. Fertizona de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Km. 271-6 La Victoria 83000 Hermosillo, Sonora Tel: 011 (62) 80-01-21 Fax: 011 (62) 80-01-29 Contact: Mr. Bill Jarman, General Manager Distribute fertilizers, some of which they import from the U.S. They sell in the states of Sonora, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua. Finagro de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. Blvd. E. Zapata No. 4896 Col. San Rafael 80150 Culiacán, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 67) 61-01-53 Fax: 011 (52 67) 61-01-54 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Ing. Pablo Islas Contreras, General Manager Distribute granulated fertilizers in the state of Sinaloa. Finagro de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. Norman E. Borlaug y Calle 300 85080 Cd. Obregón, Sonora Tel: 011 (52 64) 12-29-01 Fax: 011 (52 64) 12-29-02

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 A-3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Sr. Roberto Acosta Russo, General Manager Distribute fertilizers and insecticides in the state of Sonora. Valagro Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. Francisco Javier Gamboa No. 248-3 Col. Arcos Sur 44500 Guadalajara, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 630-2956 Fax: 011 (523) 630-1841 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Ing. Fernando de la Cruz Montemayor, General Manager Distribute natural fertilizers that contain no chemicals which are used as vitamin complements for horticulture. They import from Italy and sell throughout Mexico. II. RETAILERS Agricola del Valle del Grullo Morelos No. 58 Col. Centro 48740 El Grullo, Jalisco Tel: 011 (52 338) 7-20-77 Fax: 011 (52 338) 7-33-06 Contact: Ing. Sixto Javier Figueroa Michel, General Manager Retailer of fertilizers and agricultural chemicals. Sell only in the state of Jalisco. Agricola El Puma de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. Nance No. 1532 Col. Del Fresno 44900 Guadalajara, Jalisco Tel: 011 (52 3) 810-0989 Fax: 011 (52 3) 810-0989 Contact: Sr. Gustavo Lopez Delgado, General Manager Retailer of different brands of fertilizers. They sell throughout Mexico. Agricola Innovacion, S.A. de C.V. Paseo del Pedfregal No,. 790 Col. Pedregal de San Angel 01900 Mexico, D.F. Tel: 011 (525) 568-8700 Fax: 011 (525) 658-1640 Contact: Sr. Francisco Ortiz Malcher, General Manager Distribute fertilizers. They sell throughout Mexico. Agroacapulco 18 de Marzo No. 16 Colonia Progreso Acapulco, Guerrero Tel: 011 (527) 468-0790

FINAL A-4 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF MARKET RESEARCH CONTACTS

Fax: 011 (527) 486-8997 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Sr. Luis Baena Pineda, General Manager Retailer of fertilizers. Sell in the state of Guerrero. Agroproductos Corey, S.A. de C.V. Vallarta No. 6503, Zona I Local 12-B Plaza Concentro 45010 Zapopan, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 110-1070 Fax: 011 (523) 110-1838 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Ing. Luis Arturo Rodriguez Ordorica, General Manager Distributor of fertilizers for Dupont. This is a very large company that sells throughout Mexico. Agros de Sinaloa, S.A. de C.V. Independencia No. 1956 Sur 80129 Culiacan, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 67) 17-57-10 Fax: 011 (52 67)17-62-90 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Sr. Jose Guadalupe Valenzuela Diaz, General Manager Sell fertilizers, agrochemicals, and equipment for the application of fertilizers in the state of Sinaloa. Agroservicios del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. Norman E. Sourlaug No. 3333-A 85000 Cd. Obregon, Sonora Tel: 011 (52 64) 17-47-77 No fax Contact: Sr. Norberto Reaharo, General Manager Retailer of insecticides and fertilizers. Agroservicios Nacionales, S.A. de C.V. Nance No. 1545 Col. Del Fresno 44100 Guadalajara, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 811-3203 Fax: 011(523) 810-3596 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Ing. Sergio Quinones Rey, General Manager They sell fertilizers (some are imported) in the states of Jalisco, Nayarit, Guanajuato, and Colima. Comercial e Industrial La Aurora, S.A. de C.V. Gobernador Curiel No. 1743 Col. Morelos 44440 Guadalajara, Jalisco

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 A-5 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Tel: 011 (523) 811-4700 Fax: 011 (523) 811-4561 Contact: Lic. Jose Manuel Zuloaga, General Manager Retailer of fertilizers, carbon, and sulphuric acid. Sell only in the state of Jalisco. Fertilizantes del Plan, S.A. de C.V. Km 2 Carretera a Atotonilco-La Barca 47750 Atotonilco El Alto, Jalisco Tel: 011 (52 391) 7-25-38 Fax: 011 (52 391) 7-24-38 Contact: Ing. Armando de Alba Muniz, General Manager Sell fertilizers locally. Fertilizantes Liquidos del Noroeste S.A. de C.V. Internacional y Carretera a la Cienega s/n Col. Zona Industrial 81427 Guamuchil, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (673) 2-16-55 Fax: 011 (673) 2-09-43 Contact: Sr. Rodolfo Pérez Rodriguez, General Manager Sell liquid fertilizers in the state of Sinaloa. Fertilizantes Liquidos del Noroeste S.A. de C.V. Carretra a Navolato Km. 5.5 Col. Las Flores 80150 Culiacan, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 67) 17-51-17 Fax: 011 (52 67) 17-40-14 Contact: Lic. Fausto Adolfo Aguilar Aviles, General Manager Retailer of liquid fertilizers. They sell in the state of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Fertilizantes Para el Hombre de Campo, S.A. de C.V. Av. de los Insurgentes 2091 Col. Ignacio Allende 36568 Irapuato, Guanajuato Tel: 011 (52 462) 7-16-11 Fax: 011 (52 462) 7-16-11 Contact: Ing. Luis Manuel Cayón Villanueva, General Manager Sell fertilizers locally. Fertilizantes Sierra y Asociados S.A. de C.V. Guadalupe Victoria y V. Guerrero s/n Ejido Bachoco 81119 Guasave, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 689) 8-01-35 Fax: 011 (52 689) 8-00-05 Contact: Sr. J. Salud Sierra R., General Manager Retailer of anhydrous ammoniac. They sell locally.

FINAL A-6 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF MARKET RESEARCH CONTACTS

Fertilizantes y Agroinsumos de Caimanero, S.A. de C.V. Domicilio Conocido 80940 Mocorito, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 672) 1-50-28 Fax: 011 (52 672) 1-50-28 Contact: Ing. Sixto Aurelio Espinoza Andrade, General Manager Retailer of fertilizers. They sell locally. Fertilizantes y Semillas del Valle Km 5 carretera a A. Obregon Col. Campo 2-A 32220 Cuauhtemoc, Chihuahua Tel: 011 (52 158) 2-39-75 Fax: 011 (52 158) 1-02-80 Contact: Sr. Juan Reimber, General Manager Retailer of fertilizers and seeds. They sell locally. La Casa del Agricultor Lazaro Cardenas Km. 4.5 Col. Jose Lopez Portillo Acapulco, Guerero Tel: 011 (52 74) 86-98-35 No fax Contact: Martha Patricia Campa Palestino, General Manager Sell fertilizers and insecticides locally. Química Agrícola Industrial del Noroeste, S.A. Calzada Aeropuerto No. 1305 Zona Industrial El Palmito Predio Las Flores Culiacán, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 67) 14-49-93 Fax: 011 (52 67) 14-46-04 Contact: Sr. Angel Felipe Varela S., General Manager Retailer of liquid fertilizers. Sell in the state of Sinaloa. Seferssa, S.A. de C.V. Carretera a Bahía Kino Km. 6.5 83210 Hermosillo, Sonora Tel: 011 (52 62) 16-39-26 Fax: 011 (52 62) 16-39-26 Contact: Ing. Humberto Dávila Fuentes, General Manager They sell fertilizers that they import from the U.S. They sell in the state of Sonora. Semillas y Procesos del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. Norman E. Borlaug No. 333-B Sur 85000 Cd. Obregon, Sonora Tel: 011 (52 64) 12-09-10 Fax: 011 (52 64) 12-09-10

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 A-7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Contact: Ing. Carlos Andrade Perez, General Manager Sell seeds, fertilizers, and grain dryers in northwestern Mexico.

III. MANUFACTURERS Fertilizacion Integrada de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Vallarta No. 6503 Local G-10 Concentro 45010 Zapopan, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 110-0647 Fax: 011 (523) 110-1294 Contact: Sr. Jorge Avelar Morales, General Manager Produce granular fertilizer under the brand name Fimix, which they sell throughout Mexico. Fertilizantes Acidos, S.A. de C.V. J.F.Brittingham No. 196 Col. Ciudad Industrial 27090 Torreon, Coahuila Tel: 011 (52 17) 50-64-64 Fax: 011 (52 17) 50-59-92 Contact: Ing. Gilberto Antonio Zesati, General Manager Producer and formulator of fertilizers which they sell in the state of Coahuila. Fertilizantes Ecologicos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Adolfo Lopez Mateos y Fuente de Marte s/n Col. Las Fuentes 81223 Los Mochis, Sinaloa Tel: 011 (52 68) 18-09-89 Fax: 011 (52 68) 18-09-89 Contact: Sr. Agustin Fierro, General Manager Producer of organic fertilizers. They sell throughout Mexico. Finagro de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. San UrielNo. 690- Int. 4 Col. Chapalita 45040 Zapopan, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 121-0529 Fax: 011 (523) 122-4784 E-mail: [email protected] Contact: Ing. Jose Vazquez Abaunza, General Manager Produce Fertinal fertilizers. Import and sell urea and potassium chloride. Their plant is in Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan, and they sell throughout Mexico. FMC Agroquimica de México, S.de R.L. de C.V. Lopez Mateos Sur No. 1480 4to Piso Col. Chapalita 45040 Zapopan, Jalisco Tel: 011 (523) 121-4414

FINAL A-8 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF MARKET RESEARCH CONTACTS

Fax: 011 (523) 647-9692 Contact: Ing. Antonio Zem Bueno, General Manager Produce insecticides and chemicals. They sell throughout Mexico. Soluciones Quimicas para el Campo y la Industria, S.A. de C.V. Carretera Panamericana Km 1504 Col. Predio el Palomar 33730 Cd. Camargo, Chihuahua The Commercial Service in Guadalajara, which produced this report, would be pleased to assist U.S. companies expand their business in Mexico and would also appreciate being advised of any business relationships or sales that develop as a result of information we provided. Please contact us at: The Commercial Service U.S. Consulate General Guadalajara P.O. Box 3088 Laredo, TX 78044-3088 Tel: (011-523) 827-0258 (direct); 825-2700 (switchboard) Fax: (011-523) 826-3576

W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 A-9 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 – VIABLE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCT MARKETS

Blank Page

FINAL A-10 W052003003SCO/TM-02.DOC/ 033280001 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 3 – Implementation Plan for Sustainable Product Markets

Contents

Summary ...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Target Markets ...... 3 Marketing Implementation Plan...... 5 Overall Goals and Objectives...... 6 Horticulture Markets ...... 10 Horticulture with Member Agencies, Class A Products...... 10 Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Crop Production...... 12 Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail (Various Types Including Consideration of Compost, Pellets, Granules) ...... 14 Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Assisting Residential Development...... 25 Energy/Ethanol – Indirect Production through Biomass Crop...... 26 Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch ...... 28 Energy – Direct Production...... 30 Construction Material Markets...... 31 Direct Landfilling ...... 33 Landfill Partnering – Alternative Daily Cover...... 37 Energy – Fuel Char Products ...... 38 Implementation Plan Metrics...... 39 References...... 45 Appendix A – Additional Market Research

Summary This Technical Memorandum (TM) describes the implementation plan for sustainable product markets for the 11 target markets brought forward from TM 2 – Viable Product Markets. This TM includes a brief summary of the target markets, the recommended implementation plan, and recommended marketing plan metrics. Additional focused market research is supplied in Appendix A to this TM. The implementation plan for the various markets describes eight major components including the following: x Goals and Objectives

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 1 175817.PE.12 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Products and Markets x Overall Plan Concepts x Communications Strategies

Public relations, promotions, advertising, trade shows x Product Launch Strategies x Co-Marketing Plan Strategies x Sustainability Program

Research and development (R&D), product development, market research, market monitoring, co-marketing partnerships x Revenue and Economic Assessment The key plan concepts rely on five major components of marketing and management activity. These include: 1. Contracting and Management 2. Land Acquisition and Facility Manufacturing Development (either independently or in partnerships) 3. Market Research, Development, Maintenance, and Monitoring 4. Product Development and Demonstration 5. Promotion and Public Relations (branding) Marketing metrics includes the assessment of return on investment for the marketing and sales effort. The two fundamental themes in marketing are repetition and measurement. A marketing program will be ineffective if it does not provide sufficient repetition and exposure to the target customers. Additionally, the program will be ineffective unless it can provide a quantifiable response. Both provide the foundation with which to build an effective marketing campaign. Overall performance measurements were found to fit into four separate performance categories and parameters were established in each category. These categories are: 1. Operational Market Process Focus 2. Customer Focus 3. District, Employee, and Marketing Partner Focus 4. Financial Focus

Introduction The Orange County Sanitation District (District) is undertaking the preparation of a Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The goal of this work is to develop a strategy for

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS biosolids management for the next 5 to 15 years, which provides flexibility to meet current and future regulatory changes, tying viable biosolids handling processes to long-term sustainable biosolids product markets and disposal options. The objectives and purpose of this Technical Memorandum (TM 3) is to estimate the implementation and sustainability steps for the selected markets. Based in part on the information in this TM and other evaluations, the product markets will be ranked in TM 4.

Target Markets The District has the potential to create a wide range of products, targeted at a series of markets, in order to assist in developing a sustainable biosolids management strategy. Each of these markets is characterized as to its important features and the benefits that derive from those features. Future consumers of these products will focus on the benefits of the products as they determine how much, how often, and for what price these products will be acquired. These issues will be one of several important parameters used by the District to rank product markets and select a path for the overall Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The information presented in this section summarizes the target markets. The viable product markets assessment was completed and documented in TM 2. The markets were grouped into two broad categories – Cropping Markets and Non-Cropping Markets. Additionally, the products suitable from a range of technologies, such as composting and heat drying, were described. A detailed review was conducted of 19 overall markets. The review was based on research conducted by the project team, documentation provided by vendors, and on meetings and telephone discussions with the vendors and individuals operating in the various market sectors. The results of this market assessment indicate that six cropping markets and five non- cropping markets are viable for the range of biosolids products producible by the District. These viable markets are shown in Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1 List of Viable Target Markets Cropping Sector Non-Cropping Sector Horticulture – Member Agencies Direct Energy Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Construction Market Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Direct Landfilling (Failsafe backup) Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover (Failsafe backup) Energy/Silviculture – biomass crops Fuel Products Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch

Based on this evaluation, in support of these most viable markets, the related biosolids products are: 1. Compost – Utilization of compost over a wide range of horticultural, silviculture, energy biomass crops, and District Central Valley Ranch agricultural applications.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

2. Dry Pellets and Granules – Utilization of dry pellets and granules, either in fortified or unfortified state, over a wide range of horticultural, silviculture, energy biomass crops, and District Central Valley Ranch agricultural applications. 3. Chemically Fortified – Utilization of fertilizer-like products for horticultural, silviculture, energy biomass crops, and District Central Valley Ranch agricultural applications. 4. Construction Materials – Utilization of dry, soil-like material in the construction industry. 5. Fuel Energy Product – Utilize biosolids through incineration or pyrolysis as fuel in the energy production or heat recovery sectors. 6. Landfilling and Alternative Cover Products – Utilize composted or dried products in landfills (as a failsafe backup option) or in the landfill operation as an alternate source of municipal solid waste (MSW) cover. Each of these markets and their marketing implementation requirements are summarized in the following sections. Additional market research was conducted on several of the product markets and is summarized here. More detailed market research information is supplied in Appendix A. Regarding the ornamental and nursery markets, more research was conducted to determine the retail and wholesale nursery market situation in Orange County. At this time there are about 130 retail stores in Orange County selling garden products and green goods. The top five in store count are Target, Home Depot, Armstrong Nurseries, Wal-Mart, and Lowe’s. The wholesale nursery industry is substantial in Orange County, although trends indicate that the industry is under tremendous development pressure to relocate. Most of the larger nursery operations are in the midst of relocation plans or projects. These plans are expected to be completed over the next 5 years. Recent data show that the acreage dedicated to wholesale nursery production has dropped about 2.4 percent over the past year, while total sales have increased about 4 percent. This information indicates that the ornamental and nursery market in Southern California and Orange County is a vibrant marketplace that should present an important opportunity for the District’s products. Additional market research was conducted regarding the Southern California lawn and garden retail market sector for blended and bagged products. Parallel to the ornamental and nursery markets, as would be expected, the retail blended and bagged products segment is vibrant and growing. Local growth rates in product sales continue steadily in the 3.5 to 4.5 percent per year range. The west region marketplace was reported to show an above- average tendency to use compost-like products as compared to all other parts of the country. Demographic data favoring the purchase of compost supplies shows a tendency to older, professional, high-income households. These characteristics appear to favor the Orange County marketplace. The information also provides criteria for targeting portions of the marketing implementation plan. Establishing a marketing implementation plan requires a foundation including guiding principles. From work completed in TM 2, the following guiding principles were established:

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Maximizing the use/demand/value for biosolids based products is “benefits or problem solving” driven. The District’s products will evolve through the viewpoints of the people accepting and using the products, not through the viewpoints of engineers or managers designing and implementing treatment technologies. These markets include value-added opportunities such as horticulture, silviculture, and agriculture. These markets tend to be the highest risk/highest reward types of markets compared to other biosolids management techniques. However, this situation implies greater vulnerability to competition or marketplace disruption through the tactics of anti-biosolids activists. x Growing reliable and sustained product markets in the face of expanding competition requires “long-term commitments and investments.” The District will need to identify market influencers and early adopters that will lead the market place into a sustainable position. Demonstrations of product effectiveness and superiority will be a part of these commitments and investments. The ability to leverage relationships with sister agencies while not scavenging market share will assist in cost-effective investments in demonstrating product suitability. x In the case of biosolids-derived products, experience dictates that “a range of strong partnerships” throughout product processing, distribution channels, and consumption stages are critical to sustainable and growing markets. This principle implies public and private sector partnerships with a number of organizations including the District’s member agencies for access to horticulture products at discounted pricing, partnerships with members of the landscaping industry throughout the processing and distribution channel, and partnerships with individual consumers, perhaps through give-away programs. Providing proof to potential partners, such as member agencies, to entice their participation will require effective economic modeling of the beneficial economic impact of waste diversion/recycling. For example, Goldman and Ogishi of University of California at Berkeley recently reported (The Economic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in California [CIWMB, 2001]) that the average economic impacts per ton of material diverted/recycled versus landfilled was a net $275 per ton including an additional 2.27 jobs per ton of capacity! x In the case of biosolids-derived products, experience dictates that “one or more failsafe backup markets” are important to long-term, reliable biosolids management. A failsafe market could include maximizing energy use within the treatment plant or creating a link to a land application methodology such as alternative daily cover or landfilling not subject to public market place vagaries.

Marketing Implementation Plan In order to assess the product markets and guide implementation into the product markets, an implementation plan that would be required to initiate, access, or sustain the various target markets was evaluated. This section describes the implementation plan requirements for the various target markets. For each viable markets, the following items are discussed in this section: x Goals and Objectives

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 5 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Products and Markets x Overall Plan Concepts x Communications Strategies

Public relations, promotions, advertising, trade shows x Product Launch Strategies x Co-Marketing Plan Strategies x Sustainability Program

R&D, product development, market research, market monitoring, co-marketing partnerships x Revenue and Economic Assessment

Overall Goals and Objectives The District’s goals and objectives for its marketing program are numerous and diverse. To present the overall plan concepts in a succinct manner, Table 3-2 summarizes District’s proposed marketing plan goals and objectives, the target markets and products, and the plan concepts that correspond. The key plan concepts rely on five major components of marketing and management activity. These include: 1. Contracting and Management 2. Land Acquisition and Facility Manufacturing Development (either independently or in partnerships) 3. Market Research, Development, Maintenance, and Monitoring 4. Product Development and Demonstration 5. Promotion and Public Relations (branding) The District currently relies on contractors’ marketing efforts, on the basis that product marketing and sales is not the District’s core competency. Additionally, the District expects that implementing the marketing plan will rely on various contractors that are specialists qualified in the District’s market and product segments. The District’s role focuses on a portion of the marketing, including co-marketing with various contractors, while the contractor’s role is to receive the District’s products, remanufacture as necessary to meet customer requirements, and complete the sale. This division of responsibilities works well to the strengths of each party in that marketing in general deals with the overall product process including development, positioning, branding, public relations and in general creating interest so that sales can occur. The contractor’s role is to focus on co-marketing with the District and all of the work to complete the sale of the products.

FINAL 6 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-2 Summary of Implementation Plan Concepts Proposed District’s Marketing Target Market Goals and Objectives and Product Plan Concept 1. Irrespective of the biosolids technology option All target markets, marketing activities and biosolids Operate in full conformity with the EMS and NBP selected, the District commits to implementing products Code of Good Practice. the NBP’s Code of Good Practice as the basis for an EMS for its biosolids management program.1 2. Promote the continuance of the recycling of Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch 1. Support agricultural land application at site biosolids to non-table-food crop agricultural using Class A chemically fortified materials. land in a manner that is safe, environmentally beneficial, and sensitive to the needs of the 2. Continue to seek and expand other diverse communities involved. agricultural markets. 3. Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners. 3. Full support for the recycling of biosolids. Agriculture, Horticulture, Silviculture, Energy 1. Implement diverse range of contracts. Recovery, Construction; Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover 2. Continue to seek and expand other diverse agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, energy- ethanol, and construction material markets. 3. Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners. 4. Commitment to use on its site, and encourage Horticulture – member agencies 1. Work closely with all member municipalities and its Member Agencies to use at their facilities, agencies meeting their specific product needs. compost made using District biosolids. 2. Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners. 5. Support the proper management and oversight All target markets, marketing activities and biosolids Operate in full conformity with the requirements of of this practice in accordance with USEPA products meeting these criteria USEPA Part 503 Rule, and the CWEA Manual of Part 503 Rule, and the CWEA Manual of Good Good Practice. Practice. 6. Anticipation and flexibility to accommodate Agriculture, Horticulture, Silviculture, Energy 1. Implement diverse range of contracts. change. Recovery, Construction; Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover 2. Continue to seek and expand other diverse agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, energy- ethanol, and construction material markets. 3. Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-2 Summary of Implementation Plan Concepts Proposed District’s Marketing Target Market Goals and Objectives and Product Plan Concept 7. Optimization of beneficial use of biosolids within Horticulture – member agencies; Horticulture – 1. Work closely with all member municipalities and Orange County and District’s Service area and ornamental and nursery; Silviculture – Shade Tree agencies meeting their specific product needs. inclusion of fail-safe options. Program; Horticulture – blending and bagging for retail; Direct Energy; Construction Market; Direct 2. Cooperate in market and product R&D with Landfilling (Failsafe backup); Landfill Partnering – academia and co-marketing partners. Daily Cover (Failsafe backup) 8. Establishing product marketing outlets for Horticulture – member agencies; Horticulture – 1. Implement diverse range of contracts; obtain Class A products that exceed the District’s ornamental and nursery; Silviculture – Shade Tree contract commitments for 150 percent of biosolids production. Program; Horticulture – blending and bagging for District’s production. retail; Energy/Ethanol – biomass crops; Direct Energy; Construction Market 2. Continue to seek and expand other diverse agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, energy- ethanol, and construction material markets. 3. Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners. 9. Sustainable approach that encompasses the All target markets, marketing activities and biosolids 1. Implement diverse range of contracts; obtain informed use of resources and innovative and products meeting these criteria contract commitments for 150 percent of appropriate application of technology, while District’s production. considering the vital components including environment, economy, and social equity. 2. Continue to seek and expand other diverse agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, energy- ethanol, and construction material markets. 3. Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners. 10. Elimination/mitigation of impacts/nuisances to Horticulture – member agencies; Horticulture – Create products that do not generate nuisances; surrounding community. ornamental and nursery; Silviculture – Shade Tree constantly assess product manufacturing quality Program; Horticulture – blending and bagging for control to match customer needs and guarantee retail; Energy/Ethanol – biomass crops; Direct customer satisfaction. Energy; Construction Market Notes: 1 A Biosolids EMS helps facilities to meet existing regulatory obligations more effectively, address stakeholder concerns, and protect the environment. It also should lead to greater efficiency and cost reduction in biosolids handling (OCSD, 2002). CWEA California Water Environment Association EMS Environmental Management System NBP National Biosolids Partnership

FINAL 8 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Contracting and Management – The objective of the contracting and management activity is to complete appropriate contracts with a range of contractors/vendors/co-marketing partners who will receive the District’s products and move the products through various channels to appropriate wholesale or retail outlets. These contracts may or may not include remanufacturing by the contractors. Land Acquisition and Facility Manufacturing Development (either independently or in partnerships) – The objective of the land acquisition and facility manufacturing development activity is to secure the land and facilities that are projected for use by the District and/or product contractors. The recommended strategy associated with additional facility siting is a two-part process. The first part requires the District to obtain control of parcels of land for future utilization by product contractors. The second part requires the development of the land to a condition suitable to the needs of the product contractors, which is closely linked to the overall contracting process. Market Research, Development, Maintenance, and Monitoring – The objective of the market research, development, maintenance, and monitoring activity is to work closely with the selected co-marketing partners to create an integrated marketing program. An integrated marketing program will leverage the resources of all parties, while giving the District a more involved awareness of its market return on investment. This program will include a variety of activities such as: x Work closely with selected contract partners to review their marketing and sales plans; develop detailed co-marketing plan consistent with contract established with each contractor. x Work closely with Association of Compost Producers (ACP) and/or other appropriate industry groups, on the regional goal of market expansion. x Expand, revise, and update Market Development portion of plan, as appropriate. x Annually research, evaluate, and monitor compost, dry pellets, fortified soils, and construction material products, markets, and competitors noting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Product Development and Demonstration – The objective of the product development and demonstration activity is to work closely with the selected co-marketing partners to create a robust product development program that will assist in long-term market stability. This program will include a variety of activities such as: x Working closely with selected contract partners, create a detailed product development and demonstration plan consistent with the co-marketing plan and the contract with each contractor. x Design and operate needed pilot plants to generate various products. x Research, identify, and contract new market opportunities in agriculture, horticulture, silviculture, and energy biomass crops throughout Southern California; identify early adopters and arrange demonstrations at their facilities.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 9 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Implement product demonstrations at selected sites in close cooperation with contractors, site owners, and related parties (e.g., cooperative extension agents). Promotion and Public Relations (branding) – The objective of the promotion and public relations activity is to work closely with the selected co-marketing partners to advance and increase the value of the District’s brand for various products. Promotion, often defined to include advertising, is what we say about ourselves, while public relations is what we get others to say about us. In general, public relations is information about the District that is not a direct sales message and is not usually purchased. This program will include a variety of activities such as: x Working closely with selected contract partners, develop a detailed promotion and public relations plan consistent with the co-marketing plan and the contract with each contractor. x Components are expected to include:

Print advertising including trade publications Trade shows Direct mail Sales promotions including discounts, special offers, and incentives Sales and merchandising support materials Internet tools and site Event participation and sponsorship Public relations

Horticulture Markets The District has the opportunity to participate in a number of horticulture markets. These markets, as shown in Table 3-1, include: x Horticulture with Member Agencies, Class A Products x Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Crop Production x Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail (Various Types Including Consideration of Compost, Pellets, Granules) A brief summary of these horticulture markets is presented in the following sections, followed by a detailed discussion of the implementation requirements for these markets. The implementation plan for each of these horticulture markets is very similar and includes significant overlap. To simplify the presentation, the detailed implementation plan is described under the heading Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail.

Horticulture with Member Agencies, Class A Products This market in Orange County with municipalities that are members of the District is projected to be strong. The 21 municipalities currently utilize approximately 69,000 cubic yards per year of compost or mulch products. At the current ratio of biosolids compost to blended amendments, this quantity amounts to about 5,100 dry tons per year of biosolids (14 dry tons per day or about 7 percent of the District’s projected biosolids production).

FINAL 10 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Over time, these quantities are expected to increase to about 10,000 dry tons per year of biosolids (28 dry tons per day or about 14 percent of the District’s projected biosolids production). City park, recreation, street, and landscaping departments are using composts and mulches at this time and are positive in the use of organics as compared to petrochemical fertilizers or herbicides for management of the growing areas they supervise. Mulches have the largest segment of organics used based on several factors: x Each city has its own, or contract, crews and chippers that generate good quality woodchips. These are generally used for the following applications:

Weed and erosion control Moisture retention Visual enhancement of open areas and street medians x Mulches offer cost-effective waste diversion and recycling of green waste generated by maintenance of green areas. x Acceptance of the material is high, so long as it is trash free. x Composted mulches would be used interchangeably with the green mulch. Compost represents about 30 percent of the organics used by the cities’ programs in 2002. Turf and flower beds are the dominant areas where compost is used. Greater use of compost would be embraced by most grounds keepers. Problems associated with compost use include: x Application methods are more labor intensive than with chemical fertilizer. This has been overcome by some commercial composters by providing spreading services or equipment with the sale of material. x Costs of material are high compared to other fertilizers. x Product quality varies widely, and it has been difficult to find a uniform source of product. Opportunities for the expansion and use of compost and composted products are good. These opportunities can be enhanced by: x Direction for compost use to expand recycling efforts could come from city officials. x High quality, uniform composts would be a welcome opportunity for most landscape superintendents. The research of the cities in Orange County indicated that there is a need for at least three clearly defined products. Minimum product diversity determined from the research shows the need for: x Topper, a 1/4-inch minus for over-seeding turf areas. x Compost, 1/2-inch minus for soil amendment in flower and ground cover areas.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 11 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Mulch, 3-inch minus for weed and erosion control, moisture retention and nondecorative surface areas. Marketing partnerships with member cities can take a number of forms. Examples include: x Utilization of compost or dried products for new municipal projects requiring landscaping, such as public buildings, schools, and athletic facilities. x Incorporation of compost or dried products into existing beautification programs involving flower beds and landscaping. x Utilization at parks, athletic facilities, and along roadways. x Developing demonstration projects at existing or new facilities. x Setting up bulk storage and distribution centers for use by the city, and for sale to the public. x Marketing material bagged by the District at various city venues. x Specifying compost or dried products use by contractors performing construction projects. x Developing education programs, co-sponsored by the District and individual cities. Presentation (or workshops) can be made to schools, garden clubs, etc. Public usage can be fostered through demonstration projects, which both inform and instruct on compost or dried products application methods. Public works demonstration sites include treatment plants, along rights-of-way, and at public works buildings. These and other facilities are logical places to use and publicize use of the compost or dried products. Fees should be charged to avoid the impression that the products have no value. Implementation of this market is considered highly important to the long-term sustainability of Class A product recycling. Implementing this program allows the District to recycle biosolids products within its own county and jurisdiction. This action may mitigate political constraints experienced by the agency when recycling its biosolids materials in other counties around the state. Implementation of access to the municipal market is recommended through the utilization of one or more vendors described in detail under the section on blending and bagging for retail. The municipal customers may buy in bulk quantities, but their criteria are nearly identical to the retail customer. Detailed implementation tactics are described in the section on blending and bagging for retail.

Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery Crop Production The California horticulture market for biosolids includes compost and dry products where the products achieve Class A-Exceptional Quality. These potential users include the nursery industry (wholesale and retail), landscape industry (contractors, soil amendment creators, and public sector – parks, public works, highways), community gardens, and commercial/institutions with significant landscape. Table 3-3 describes the three major horticultural industries. The overall nursery and ornamental market is expected to be very

FINAL 12 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS strong with the potential to exceed the District’s annual production of biosolids compost products. The long-term projected market size is estimated to exceed 78,000 dry tons per year of biosolids (214 dry tons per day or about 104 percent of the District’s projected biosolids production). There is substantial competition within this market and some additional market research is warranted to clarify the market capacity and District’s ability to capture market share.

TABLE 3-3 Horticulture Market Categories for Biosolids Product Use Ornamentals Industry Landscape Industry Nursery Industry

Greenhouse cut flowers and Landscape architects Wholesale and Retail plants

Perennial plants Landscape contractors Container plants

Fruit trees Wholesaler’s soil amendments Soil amendments

Ground covers Retailer’s soil amendments Mulches

Woody ornamentals Producer’s soil amendments

Sod production Public sector users

Parks Departments

Transportation and Highway Departments

Public Works Departments

Horticultural products are principally used in establishing flower beds, amending soil for ornamental plantings in landscaping and nursery field production, preparing mixes for container ornamentals and flowers, and improving topsoil for turf and sod production. Soil amendment for use in planting beds is usually used “as is,” i.e., unblended and is incorporated into the soil. Landscape mulch is used as a decorative material, to prevent erosion, to intercept and adsorb rainfall, and for weed control. The specifications for this product are less than most horticultural applications. Particle size may vary, but coarse particles are preferred as they will remain in place. Coarse-textured compost adsorbs water better and is more effective in weed control. Nurseries utilize compost in field beds and as a plant growth media in containers. The use of compost for field-grown ornamentals depends on the species. Generally, compost is used “as is” and incorporated into the soil. Digested biosolids compost made with woodchips increased the growth of tulip poplar and dogwood (Walker and Gouin, 1977). Stable compost is preferable. A neutral pH is preferred except for acid soil tolerant plants such as azaleas and rhododendrons. A wider range of salinity is acceptable except for salt sensitive plants such as certain conifers and dogwoods. In order to avoid salinity problems for sensitive plants, a smaller amount is often applied or the depth of incorporation increased.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 13 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

In container production, compost is blended with soil, sand, or other media. Usually 20 to 30 percent biosolids compost is used in container growth media. Higher contents of compost have been reported to be successful for certain crops. The characteristics will vary with the species planted. Soluble salts are often less of an issue since irrigation will leach them out. A stable product is desirable. The preferred particle size is 3/8 inch. Implementation of this market is considered highly important to the long-term sustainability of Class A product recycling. As is the case with targeting the local municipal market, implementing this program allows the District to recycle biosolids products within its own county and jurisdiction. This action may mitigate political constraints experienced by the agency when recycling its biosolids materials in other counties around the state. Implementation of access to the ornamental and nursery crop market is recommended through the utilization of one or more vendors described in detail under the section on blending and bagging for retail. These customers buy in bulk quantities, but their criteria are nearly identical to the retail customer. Detailed implementation tactics are described in the section on blending and bagging for retail.

Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail (Various Types Including Consideration of Compost, Pellets, Granules) The implementation plan for each of the three horticulture markets is very similar and includes significant overlap. To simplify the presentation, the detailed implementation plan encompassing each of the three market segments is described under this section. The market potential for compost and dried products that could be generated from District’s facilities is considered to be strong. At the present time, 36 facilities produce over 1.6 million tons per year of compost products throughout Southern California. These companies take in over 2.5 million tons per year of raw material that is processed into compost and/or mulch products. The range of products and markets served by these facilities is diverse and focuses on the agriculture and horticulture market segments. Tables 3-4 summarize the range of products for both major product segments.

TABLE 3-4 Southern California Compost-Based Bulk Products List Item # Horticultural Products Agricultural Products

1. Basic top soil blend Raw, dry chicken manure

2. Basic top soil blend with compost plus nutrients Composted chicken manure

3. Basic top soil blend with compost plus nutrients Raw, dry dairy manure plus special chemicals (e.g., gypsum)

4. Basic screened compost at sizes from 1-inch to Composted dairy manure, unscreened 3/8-inch derived from various feedstocks

5. Soil amendments including a range of products Composted dairy manure, screened to 1-inch depending on the content of N-P-K and special minus chemicals

6. Planting mix, standard Composted dairy manure, screened to 3/8-inch

FINAL 14 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-4 Southern California Compost-Based Bulk Products List Item # Horticultural Products Agricultural Products

7. Container mix, standard Blend composted dairy and chicken manure

8. Pre-Plant blend Composted green material

9. Top dressing and seed cover Composted green material and food residuals blend

10. Mushroom compost based top dressing and seed Composted green material and manure blend cover

11. Canning mix for smaller containers Various compost and special chemical blends requested according to crop type, soil situation, and grower objectives

12. Tree box mix

13. Bare root mix

14. Arid, desert soil mix

15. Special blend nursery mix according to demand of individual grower; many nursery growers create proprietary blends from basic compost

Note: N-P-K nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium

As shown in Table 3-4, in the bulk horticultural sector, 14 products comprise the majority of product options. Product delivery and application define a series of products sold in bulk by the truckload, usually 23 to 27 tons per load. Additionally, there are a larger, unknown number of proprietary special-blend products unique to individual customers and their circumstances. Because of the proprietary nature of product and competitor information, the research team was not able to determine the particular quantities of material marketed through individual product segments. The products distributed through the retail horticulture sector in the Southern California region were assessed through field site visits to various suppliers of topsoil, soil amendments, and fertilizers, through internet research of suppliers, and direct contacts of product suppliers. Two major types of retailers operate in Southern California, including the big box discount sellers and the smaller, niche specialty home and garden retailers. Market research indicates there is a range of least 44 products currently being sold at the retail outlets visited by the research team. In the Southern California marketplace, four suppliers dominate sales at the retail level. Kellogg Garden Products, Scott’s Hyponex, Western Organics, and Whitney Farms control much of the shelf space. The products are sold in displays featuring the products as topsoil or soil amendments. Research discovered that a total of 11 compost product manufacturers and suppliers operate in the local retail marketplace. Several of these manufacturers supply products to K-Mart, Target, and Wal-Mart for their own in-house promotion and brand. Of these manufacturers, three firms, Kellogg Garden Products, Western Organics, and Scott’s Hyponex, utilize biosolids in their product formulations.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 15 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

The biosolids portion of the Southern California marketplace appears to be dominated by Kellogg Garden Products. Of the eight different products on the shelf by Kellogg, seven contained digested, composted sludge. In the case of Scott’s Hyponex, 15 different products were available and only one product contained digested, composted sludge. A significant portion of the biosolids used by Kellogg and Scott’s Hyponex is obtained from the Inland Empire Utility Agency’s (IEUA’s) existing compost manufacturing facility. We were not able to determine the relative quantities of biosolids-based compost moving through the distribution chain of these two companies. This remains proprietary information. The majority of products are sold in 1 cubic foot bags weighing about 20 pounds. Fifteen different products are sold in this size category ranging in price as low as $0.66 per bag for Scott’s Hyponex Earthgro Steer Manure to as high as $5.99 per bag for Armstrong Nursery Soil Amendment with Chicken Manure. Most products in this size category are priced at $3.98 per bag or $4.99 per bag. The second price break occurs at around $2 per bag, while the low end pricing drops to below $1 per bag for strictly manure or manure and biosolids compost.

Overall Plan Concepts The overall plan concepts for implementing and sustaining access to the blending and bagging for retail (and closely related) markets relies on several essential components summarized below. x Implement a diverse range of contracts; obtain contract commitments for 150 percent of District’s production. x Continue to seek and expand other diverse horticultural markets. x Cooperate in market and product R&D with academia and co-marketing partners. x Create products that do not generate nuisances; constantly assess product manufacturing quality control to match customer needs and guarantee customer satisfaction. x Operate in full conformity with the EMS, the NBP Code of Good Practice and the requirements of USEPA Part 503 Rule, and the CWEA Manual of Good Practice.

Contracting and Management. The objective of the contracting and management activity is to complete appropriate contracts with a range of contractors/vendors/co-marketing partners who will receive the District’s products and move the products through various channels to appropriate wholesale or retail outlets. These contracts may or may not include remanufacturing by the contractors. Market research indicates that there are four prime vendors experienced with biosolids-based products with whom the District should initiate contracting discussions. This plan recommends a strategy that the District form strategic alliances with up to four product contractors including Kellogg Garden Products, Scotts Corporation, Synagro Technologies, Inc., and Western Organics, Inc. Other local vendors should be contacted and their interest solicited. Local vendors may have access to specific niche markets that could prove valuable to the District.

FINAL 16 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Striking strategic alliances will include a strong sense of partnership between the District and each contractor. It is anticipated that these partnerships with established companies will provide the District with credible market presence, and most importantly, reliable outlets for its products without the investment needed to overcome existing competition and build its own marketing and sales force. The implementation of these marketing activities is expected to be a steady work in progress. It is recommended that the District incorporate a co-marketing section in each of its contracts with the product contractors. The contract forms the basis for the strategic marketing alliance and will allow the District to understand its marketing responsibilities including budgets and personnel. A typical list of contents for a co-marketing agreement is shown in Table 3-5.

TABLE 3-5 Typical Co-Marketing Agreement Contents 1. Territory 13. Referrals and Presentations 2. Products x Customer leads 3. Potential Target Customers x Joint demonstrations and customer visits Presentations and proposals 4. Joint Cooperation and Coordination x 5. Marketing 14. Customer Service x Market segments 15. Collateral Materials x Planning to meet future market needs 16. Consideration 6. Branding x For promoting, marketing, and selling the District's products under this agreement, the 7. Additional Co-Marketing District will either: x e.g., Wal-Mart and sell-through programs (1) Pay to Co-Marketer the fees listed and 8. Public Relations Strategies set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, or 9. New Product Research and Development (2) Sell to the Co-Marketer the Products at 10. New Product Roll-Outs the discounts and under the terms 11. Promotion discussed in Exhibit A. x Joint seminars 17. Non-Disclosure of Proprietary Information x Open houses 18. Non-Proprietary Information Public relations events x 19. Term andTermination x Press releases 20. Trademarks and Trade Names x Testimonials x Demonstrations 21. Labels and Packaging x Trade shows, conventions, and 22. Modifications in Products conferences 23. Warranties 12. Training 24. No Joint Venture

Land Acquisition and Facility Manufacturing Development (either independently or in partnerships). The objective of the land acquisition and facility manufacturing development activity is to secure the land and develop facilities that are projected for use by the District and the product contractors. The recommended strategy associated with additional facility siting is a two-part process. The first part requires the District to obtain control of parcels of land for product manufacturing and potential future utilization by product contractors. The second part requires the development of the land and facilities to a condition suitable to the manufacturing needs of the District and the product contractors. The implementation plan discussed below assumes that the District will construct and own its own composting or pelletizing facilities. For merchant facilities, the contractor typically is responsible for product marketing.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 17 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Co-Marketing Plan Strategies As discussed earlier, the District’s goals include expanding markets for product buyers without scavenging from existing trade or outlets, and maximizing the net revenue from these products. This can best be accomplished by building a framework of cooperation and market growth between the District and its contractors. A comprehensive marketing, promotion, and training program is the cornerstone of such a program. Further, it is recognized that marketing is not a core competency of the District and that accomplishing a successful marketing plan requires close cooperation between the District and it contractors. Elements of this comprehensive marketing, promotion, and training program include the following: x Program Startup x Potential Target Customers x Marketing Communications Strategies x Market Segments and Territories x Referrals and Presentations x Public Relations x Branding x Customer Service and Training

Program Startup. In overseeing this program, it is recommended that the District utilize one staff person, preferably a marketing specialist, who is responsible for maintaining, negotiating, and monitoring the contractual relationship with the various product contractors, and has responsibility for the overall District marketing program. The responsibilities of this marketing person could include: x Maintenance of relationships with the contractors. x Assistance in marketing to contractor clients, including proposals and presentations. x Market research, including pricing and program effectiveness, market information maintenance and distribution, and focus group assessments. x Liaison with the media, public agencies, and the direct clients of the District. x Oversight of R&D activities, and issues related to intellectual property jointly developed by the District itself, or with one or more contractors. A dedicated internet-based project management site needs to be established by the District as the communications artery for operation of the comprehensive marketing, promotion, and training program.

Potential Target Customers. The District has a number of potential target customers locally and dispersed out of the county. These target customers vary according to the product type and market segment. Examples of key target customers are described below.

Major Retailers. The District recognizes and expects that the contractor(s) will have relationships with the local major retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowe’s, and various nursery outlets. The District Marketing Representative must establish a protocol to

FINAL 18 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

work with each contractor on co-marketing strategies for the District, while also building cooperation between the contractors for joint targeted marketing programs. The District Marketing Representative must be able to work in a confidential manner to protect the proprietary information of various contractors. Therefore, the District dedicated marketing person will work closely with selected contract partners in the following activities (not necessarily the full list):

x Review their marketing and sales plans.

x Develop detailed co-marketing plans consistent with the contract established for each contractor.

x Work closely with the ACP and/or other industry groups or partners on the regional goal of market development.

x Expand, revise, and update the market development portion of the plan, as appropriate.

x Annually research, evaluate, and monitor various products, markets, and competitors noting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Innovator and Early Adopter Support Program. Innovators and early adopters are critical to the success of launching new products or accessing new markets. These two categories of potential customers tend to be younger, well-educated, mobile, and creative individuals. They tend to be risk-takers that rely on scientific or technical information to make decisions. They often take leadership positions and influence others in the marketplace. The District Marketing Representative should develop a “new applications, products, and technologies forum,” to which innovators and early adopters are invited. This forum could be held on a quarterly or regular basis, and could include new contractors showcasing their existing, newly introduced, and planned products. As the early adopters identify desirable products or methodologies, the District and their contractors will support follow-on market research and development to support the early adopters and their market growth. This activity may evolve into a focus group program or format.

Product Launch Strategies. Product launch strategies are critical to the long-term success of product sales. A typical product launch checklist is shown in Table 3-6. The work may begin 10 to 12 months prior to product rollout and continues for some period after launch.

TABLE 3-6 Typical Product Launch Checklist Public and Press Month Planning Relations Advertising Direct Mail Promotions -10 Conduct market Set key reseller research; write deals; assess marketing plan channel needs -9 Draft overall Prepare market communications development plan cooperative agreements

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 19 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-6 Typical Product Launch Checklist Public and Press Month Planning Relations Advertising Direct Mail Promotions -8 Conduct final Set strategic positioning alliances research -7 Finalize Draft and test key Set packaging positioning and messages and concepts communications creative platform plan -6 Plan press coverage; Conduct media Develop channel Prepare article research; develop marketing literature outlines ad concepts -5 Create press kits Test ad concepts; Develop mail Finalize intro and (background, release, finalize media plan package concepts; cooperative Q&A) research lists agreement kit plans -4 Send review copies Develop ad Negotiate/order Plan road show; and draft articles; copy/layout/ photos; lists; set copy/ select cities/book demo to media set media schedule layout/photos facilities -3 Set agenda for press Product ads Set promo strategy tour; finish articles for road show and photos -2 Conduct Press/analyst tour; Place insert orders Production printing Sign dealers for benchmark follow-up calls; mail to for monthlies and road show; create research monthlies send film work product dealer kits -1 Mail to weeklies Place insert orders Set mailing service Deliver dealer kits for weeklies and send film work Launch Editorial coverage Ad campaign Prospects/installed Road show appears begins base receives promotion begins mailing +1 Reviews and leads; Calls/lead/inquiry Calls reply cards Road show and fulfill inquiries; get fulfillment come back, we follow-up testimonials fulfill inquiries +2 Place testimonials Continue drops Second mailing Analyze sell advertising through; adjust communication Source: JIAN Handbook of Marketing, V. 2.0, 1998.

The Marketing Representative should work closely with contractors to identify potential market dislocations resulting in excess supply of composted material or dried products. The communications system established between the District and contractors will be the principal marketing, monitoring, and notification vehicle.

Communications Strategies Marketing communication is an essential tool for successful and prolonged product marketing and sales. Most important in establishing the tactics to implement the strategy is defining the targets followed by establishing the marketing objectives for those targets. In the situation facing the District, the investments by the District need to be matched by the District’s co-marketing partners, and should be on par with spending by the competition.

FINAL 20 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

The marketing communication tools will reflect the full range of communications tools available. These will be organized in detail with the co-marketing partners but will likely include the following: x Sales promotion including samples, demonstrations, endorsements, contests, trials, premiums, coupons, etc. x Sales packaging x Sales literature including data sheets, brochures, catalogues, rate cards, product literature, frequently asked questions (FAQs), application recommendations, worksheets, how-to’s, technical tips, newsletters x Advertising including media kits, media management, television, radio, print, testing x Direct mail programs x Trade shows x Customer service programs x Internet marketing tools

Market Segments and Territories. The District marketing representative should coordinate between the contractors to ensure maximum cooperation in targeting end users of the composted materials. This will include tracking sell-through numbers tied to specific sales promotions to determine effectiveness of increased sales. At the outset of the program, the Marketing Representative should meet with each of the Contractors to inventory their customer base relative to the marketing of the District’s products. Information acquired will be used to build a marketing baseline (Marketing Baseline Review) from which future sales and marketing programs, and market penetration by each contractor, can be assessed. The Marketing Representative should also establish a program to track sell-through numbers tied to specific sales promotions to determine effectiveness of increased sales.

Referrals and Presentations. Based on the Marketing Baseline Review above, the District’s Marketing Representative can best determine how to assist each contractor in expanding their market.

Customer Leads. These leads will be actively solicited from representatives of the District, and those with whom they interface. These can include public agency and elected officials, private citizens, and business leaders. In each case, a District Referral Form will be produced and distributed to all the contractors. This will ensure that all contractors receive the same marketing information from the District.

Customer Visits. The District Marketing Representative, and other members of the District, will be available to visit contractor customers. All the District representatives have a responsibility to support the growth of contractor markets. The Marketing Representative will coordinate the availability of these District representatives to the contractors and their customers.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 21 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Proposal Support. As proposals for product sales are requested by contractor clients, the Marketing Representative will assist in their preparation. This support will primarily be in the review of the proposals and assisting in defining ways in which District products can be best incorporated into the end product requirements. If requested, the District will assist with graphics for proposals that depict the optimum applications of the District composted materials or dry products.

Client Presentations. The District Marketing Representative will be available to attend and support Contractor presentations to potential and existing Contractor clients. In addition, the Marketing Representative will make available District-produced promotional materials that address the newest information and qualities of the District products.

Market Research. The District must monitor compost and dried product markets for competitive issues including new product developments, new customer categories, product pricing and overall market share. Elements of this involvement related to market research include the following: x The District will actively and closely work with its product contractors in market expansion, new product R&D, product promotions, and advertising. x The District must develop a good working relationship through the sales channel to understand, guide, and influence the investment of its marketing promotion dollars by its marketing co-partners. To support these programs, the District Marketing Representative will oversee the development of a web-enabled Market Information Library. This will be accessible by the contractors, early adopters, and other involved entities. It will also be the primary communications tool between the District and its contractors, operating through secure, access-controlled protocols. It will include: x Current compost purchase statistics for each contractor (by secure access) x Calendar of meetings and promotions (both by individual contractor and for the industry and public at large) x R&D programs underway (by contractor and requiring secure access)

Public Relations. The primary objective of the District’s program is to build a positive image of biosolids, and its potential as a beneficial contributor to the environments in which it is utilized. Certain key precepts must be the cornerstones of a District public relations program including: x Profile early adopters; be diligent and document success stories. x Reverse negative perception of biosolids. x Create products and facilities that never smell.

FINAL 22 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Treat everyone who uses the product like customers, even in failsafe markets. x Understand the message you send when you give this valuable product away. x Develop regional advocacy, vision, and product standards related to compost and dried products.

Public Relations Programs. The Marketing Representative will oversee an active public relations program, including graphics design of image-building product supply systems. These pubic relations elements include the following: x Joint seminars x Open houses x Public relations events x Press releases x Testimonials x Demonstrations x Trade shows, conventions, and conferences x New product roll-outs x Collateral materials x Labels and packaging

Branding. The Marketing Representative will lead an effort to build a District “brand” identification. This will be emphasized in relationships with contractors, their markets, and all other markets that the District pursues. The concept of “branding” the compost and dried products from the District facility has several considerations. Its emphasis must be: x That the District products can solve problems for their customers. x That the District’s staff, production standards, and operations are of the highest quality. x That the District is a leader in innovation, and regional vision for the composted materials and dried product market. Logos or other “brand identification” techniques will be developed by the Marketing Representative similar to the “Intel Inside” approach with computer systems.

Customer Service and Training. In the case of the District, the “Customer” includes the contractor(s) to the District, and all direct purchasers from any market segment, public agency and failsafe users. Each of these entities requires rapid response to product or delivery inquiries, or other communications. The District Marketing Representative will establish a system to record these communications, and to direct them to the correct responding party. Training. The Marketing Representative will oversee and participate in a regimen of training for all staff who are involved in the marketing program or deal with contractors. This will include: x Customer service x Contractor needs and requirements

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 23 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS x Present and future markets x Production, cost and pricing

Sustainability Program A program for sustaining the District’s program will include activities such as R&D of new products, ongoing market research, and maintenance of the co-marketing partnerships.

Research and Development. A District goal is to maintain an active product R&D program to assist in the expansion of product markets. In that regard, the District needs to protect the contractor’s technical solutions, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise a contractor’s unique intellectual property to another contractor.

New Product Development Issues. Compost and dry product formulations should reflect the problems the District believes it is solving, as addressed in current market research. For example, do pricing structures support market development? What is the value to the farmer of exchanging the need for chemical fertilizers with the District’s products? Why specifically is controlling erosion valuable? These issues need to be constantly researched and updated from existing customers and through outreach such as focus groups.

Product Research and Development Process. The District’s new product development process should include: x Working closely with selected contract partners, create a detailed product development and demonstration plan consistent with the co-marketing plan and the contract with each contractor. x Design and operate needed pilot plants to generate various products. x Research, identify, and contract new market opportunities in agriculture, horticulture, silviculture and energy biomass crops throughout Southern California; identify early adopters and arrange demonstrations at their facilities. x Implement product demonstrations at selected sites in close cooperation with contractors, site owners, and related parties (e.g., cooperative extension agents).

Revenue and Economic Assessment The revenue that may be generated from this portion of the marketing program was estimated at between zero and $7 per ton of product, either compost or dried pellets or granules. At this stage in the planning process, it is not realistic to provide reliable revenue forecasts because the District has not committed to creating any particular product and therefore the marketplace is unable to supply a reliable revenue estimate. A reliable estimate would be possible when the District has committed to a program direction and is able to supply samples from its pilot facilities. At that time, the marketplace will be able to determine the value of the product and a pricing strategy can be created.

FINAL 24 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Assisting Residential Development Goals and Objectives The market for compost type products utilizing a silviculture shade tree program is projected to be small but significant from a public relations viewpoint. The long-term projected market size is estimated to be about 200 dry tons per year of biosolids (0.5 dry tons per day or about 0.3 percent of the District’s projected biosolids production).

Products and Markets Trees would be planted on public or quasi-public property, with an emphasis on schools, parks, parkways (residential, commercial and industrial), and community centers. Future growth of the program may encompass residential tree plantings and planting for new construction. Planting events will be coordinated by a designated program manager; each of the events will include an appropriate educational message that encourages long-term stewardship of the region’s environment. Volunteers will do the actual planting. No special product launch strategy is recommended associated with the Shadetree Program.

Overall Plan Concepts The District would benefit by participating in the existing shade tree programs (i.e., Irvine Shadetree Partnership) and/or by leading the development of a new shade tree program through cooperation with its member cities. The benefits would include: x Positive public relations regarding the recycling of beneficial products. x Community outreach with a number of public and private nonprofit and for-profit partners expanding its base of support in the community. x Leveraging the existing environmental and educational programs within the District’s communities with the overall goal of creating better, healthier communities. Additionally, the District could partner with a professional grower to use available land and recycled water for a tree nursery that will supply plant material to the program. The nursery will bring added value to the program through trees grown with local cultural materials, and the ability to demonstrate the use of these materials in the landscape. The grower will in turn benefit from reduced land and water costs. There are also opportunities for research in the use of organics in conjunction with a local university. The nursery will provide opportunities for the District to bring assets into the horticultural market.

Co-Marketing Plan Strategies Implementation of access to the shade tree program market is recommended through the utilization of one or more vendors in close cooperation with the District. The vendor process is described in detail under the section on Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail. These customers buy in bulk quantities but their criteria are nearly identical to the retail customer. Detailed implementation tactics are described in the section on Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail, Contracting and Management subsection.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 25 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Communications Strategies At the outset of the program, the marketing representative should meet with representatives from the Irvine Shadetree Program and each of the contractors to establish a joint working relationship and process. The District Marketing Representative should coordinate between the contractors to ensure maximum cooperation in meeting the needs of the Shadetree Program. The Marketing Representative will oversee an active public relations program closely coordinated with the Shadetree Program. These pubic relations elements include the following: x Joint seminars x Open houses x Public relations events x Press releases x Testimonials x Demonstrations x Collateral materials x Labels and packaging

Sustainability Program A program for sustaining the District’s Shadetree Program will include maintenance and expansion of the co-marketing partnerships and relationship with the Irvine Shadetree Program. The District’s Marketing Representative will need to meet with a range of public entity representatives to expand the reach of the program. These contacts need to be accomplished in close coordination with the District’s co-marketing partners.

Revenue and Economic Assessment The revenue that may be generated from this portion of the marketing program was estimated to be a cost rather than a net benefit. The overall cost of manufacturing and planting trees for utilization in the program can range from $55 to $100 per tree. These costs would be considered a portion of the District’s marketing and biosolids public relations budget.

Energy/Ethanol – Indirect Production through Biomass Crop Goals and Objectives An opportunity exists to apply compost, pellets, or other biosolids products to private or publicly owned lands to produce crops that can be used in the production of ethanol as a renewable fuel source or in support of fiber crop production.

Products and Markets The long-term projected market size is estimated to exceed 453,0001 dry tons per year of biosolids (1,242 dry tons per day or about 606 percent of the District’s projected biosolids

1 Based on 70,000-acre property at 20 tons per acre year compost = 1,400,000 tons per year compost; convert to cake at 1.58 = 2,210,000 tons per year cake at 20.5 percent total solids = 453,000 dry tons per year.

FINAL 26 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS production). The drivers for this market include a renewable energy rationale and ethanol/gasoline blends as an environmentally driven practice‚ first as an octane enhancer to replace lead. More recently, ethanol has been used as an oxygenate in clean-burning gasoline as a replacement for MTBE and to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions. California is expected to ban the use of MTBE as an oxygenate in the near future. The technological, economic, and institutional factors that affect the viability of individual biomass-to-ethanol projects and the expansion of the industry are referred to as barriers. Here they are considered simply as constraints and challenges, conditions of the real world that must be understood, evaluated, and adapted to or modified, if California is to realize an economically and environmentally sustainable biomass-to-ethanol industry. Some of these factors are outlined below: x Technological Considerations – feedstock characteristics, seasonal availability, residue collection; feedstock production, storage, and processing; process scale-up; material erosion and corrosion. x Economic Considerations – production costs, capital costs, enzyme costs, costs of delivered feedstocks, competing markets for residues, and costs of environmental compliance. x Environmental Considerations – effects on the soil, ecological impacts, air emissions, water usage, wastewater treatment, environmental permitting, endangered species, harvesting agricultural residues, ash disposal, truck traffic and related emissions, noise and odor, and energy use. x Institutional Considerations – incentives to producers and users, permitting requirements, emission offset requirements, availability of residues on a long-term basis, cooperation among agencies, long-term supportive state regulations. Overall Plan Concepts The implementation of this market requires production of suitable biosolids products and partnering with a private sector farmer with enough land available to consumptively use all, or a substantial portion of, the District’s products for the growing of renewable energy-type crops. At an agronomic application rate of 20 wet tons per acre per year, this could be accomplished on a farm approximately 12,000 acres.2 Practically, a farm would need to be somewhat larger to allow for various farming factors and contingencies, including normal crop cycles and rotation. The overall concept for implementation of this portion of the market is to work closely with private contractors planning to install facilities for production of products that can be used for growing energy crops. These crops, then, can be used in the facilities proposed for production of ethanol fuel. One facility, proposed by Arkel Sugar Inc./Imperial Valley Fuels will produce about 80 million gallons per year of ethanol and 40 megawatts (MW) of net exportable green power. The facility requires approximately 10,000 tons per year of sugar and/or sweet sorghum cane daily. This level of manufacturing will require about

2 This assumes 365,000 tons per year of biosolids converted into 232,000 tons per year of compost, applied at a conservative rate of 20 wet tons per acre.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 27 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

40,000 acres of sugar cane and 35,000 acres of sorghum cane. This level of cropping will require over two times the quantity of fertilizer that can be produced from District biosolids. Communications Strategies The District’s public relations and promotions strategy associated with this market segment reflects a need to closely coordinate with the project principals. The project principals are the private contractors/merchant facilities and organizations that hold the project development risk and implementation program. The District should follow the lead of the these principals and assist as requested. Product Launch Strategies Product launch strategies associated with this market segment need to be closely coordinated with private contractors/merchant facilities and private sector farmers to match the product requirements for sugar and/or sweet sorghum cane cropping. The District should ensure that the private contractors/merchant facilities working with the District are meeting product requirements through its contract terms and conditions. Co-Marketing Plan Strategies Implementation of access to the biomass-crop-to-ethanol program market is recommended through the utilization of one or more vendors in close cooperation with the District. It is recommended that the District work closely with the private contractors and merchant facilities in association with farmers and ethanol producers to implement this marketing program. Sustainability Program The District needs to continue its market development process in partnership with private contractors and merchant facilities that process biosolids to generate products and soil amendments for the biomass-to-ethanol crops. It is recommended that the District’s contract with the private contractors/merchant facilities include terms providing for R&D, product development, market research, and market monitoring. Revenue and Economic Assessment At this stage in the planning process it is not realistic to provide reliable revenue forecasts because the commercial biomass-to-ethanol projects are in early developmental stages and their plans and financials are incomplete. A reliable estimate would be possible when these projects are further along and their plans and financials are better defined. At that time, the marketplace will be able to determine the value of the product, and a pricing strategy can be created. Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives for the agricultural sector of the biosolids long-term plan are to make certain that a presence is maintained in this market segment. Agriculture is the largest land-based cropping activity in California, and it is important for the District to maintain and expand opportunities in this market.

FINAL 28 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Products and Markets As discussed previously, the District will continue developing the agricultural market sector. This should include visits by the Marketing Representative to key agricultural trade shows, presentations in industry forums, and arrangement of site visits to the District’s facilities by agricultural industry representatives. As with other product and market sectors, co-marketing activities should be a primary focus.

Overall Plan Concepts An opportunity exists to land apply Class A, Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids after further processing including alkaline addition and storage to achieve compliance with EPA 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 requirements. The Tule Ranch operator is installing a chemical addition facility patterned after the City of Fort Worth Texas biosolids facility. A source of chemical to accomplish the stabilization has been identified and secured. The property and facility are expected to have a capacity of 37,5003 dry tons per year of biosolids (102.5 dry tons per day or about 50 percent of the District’s projected biosolids production). The market for products grown at the ranch is estimated to be strong.

Communications Strategies Communications associated with maintaining and expanding the agricultural segment of the market require a sensitive approach that is informed by the recent history of opposition to biosolids utilization in this market segment. The District needs to carefully develop public relations and be involved with trade shows in a manner that quietly develops the case for successful biosolids recycling. This process needs to be accomplished with the assistance of expert public relations consultation from firms experienced in working with and for the agricultural sector and the process of recycling materials into the cropping system.

Product Launch Strategies At this time, there are no expectations or needs for new products associated with this market segment. As the marketing relationship and opportunities grow, launch strategies may need to be developed.

Co-Marketing Plan Strategies The District needs to maintain its relationship with Tule Ranch for product utilization at the ranch site. The District needs to evaluate the opportunities for additional marketing relationships with firms other than Tule Ranch or sites in addition to Tule Ranch.

Sustainability Program Implementation of access to the agriculture market at the Central Valley Ranch is recommended and requires a continuation of the contract with Shaen Magan at the Tule Ranch. It is recommended that the District expand its contract with Tule Ranch to include a more comprehensive program of R&D, product development, market research, and market monitoring.

3 Based on projected capacity of 500 tons per day at 20.5 percent total solids = 102.5 dry tons per day yields 37,500 dry tons per year.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 29 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Revenue and Economic Assessment The revenue associated with this market segment continues to be a cost rather than a revenue.

Energy – Direct Production Goals and Objectives The direct energy production market refers to the market for power generated by the exothermic combustion or oxidation of biosolids. Although digested biosolids have a lower calorific value than undigested solids, exothermic oxidation can still be achieved in a well- designed process such as incineration, or, potentially, super critical water oxidation. Power is typically generated through waste heat recovery, although combined heat and power (CHP) systems that are more commonly used in Europe can provide higher efficiency than steam boilers that have been used in the U.S.

Products and Markets The general market for energy and power is strong, as development continues in Southern California. Although the disparities in supply and demand that led to rolling blackouts in recent years have been evened out, cost and demand continue to increase. The market for energy production from biosolids, however, is site-specific. If the process was located onsite, the primary market for the energy would likely be power generation and heat recovery for operation of the District’s facilities. Power demand at the District is anticipated to increase significantly in the next decade due to installation of full secondary treatment, the potential installation of ultraviolet disinfection, installation of membrane treatment for groundwater recharge, and other new processes. If the process were to be located offsite, the market for the power generation would be different. Although some agencies such as the Cities of Riverside and Anaheim have their own power grid, most areas of Southern California are served by privatized regional power companies, such as Southern California Edison (SCE). The power would therefore need to be sold to the local power company and the market strength would depend to a large extent on the robustness of the agreement with the power company. However, power generation from renewable energy resources is increasing in importance and this provides added market strength. The future market for energy generation is estimated to be solid. This is a market driven by continued growth and development in the economy over the long term. Expectations for the long-term California economy are a robust rate of growth. The future market for power in Southern California is anticipated to increase significantly over the next decade. Offsite opportunities have been identified, including the upgrade and conversion of the existing biomass power plant in Imperial County to utilize biosolids as fuel.

Overall Plan Concepts Implementation of access to the energy market may not be necessary, since a scenario for implementation is to develop an energy facility at a District plant. In that case, the customer is the District.

FINAL 30 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

In the situation associated with offsite merchant facilities, the recommended plan is to closely monitor the technology and market contract developments by and when these facilities are operational. The District could then entertain a proposal for partnering with these facilities.

Communications Strategies The District’s public relations and promotions strategy associated with this market segment reflects a need to closely coordinate with the project principals. The private developers/ merchant facilities are the principals that hold the project development risk and implementation program. The District should follow the lead of the these principals.

Co-Marketing Plan Strategies The District needs to closely monitor the project development status in this area. Prior to completing a co-marketing agreement, the District should receive and evaluate project development status reports and project business plans. These documents should provide information on the project technology, site, operating and marketing agreements with the project partners, environmental studies, other biomass materials, project and business organization and structure, project implementation program, and financial analyses.

Sustainability Program The program for sustaining this market segment includes a steady process, of product R&D, product development, market research, market monitoring, and co-marketing partnerships.

Revenue and Economic Assessment At this stage in the planning process, it is not realistic to provide reliable revenue forecasts because the proposed projects are in early stages of development, and the project plans and financials are incomplete. The overall project feasibility appears valid. A reliable estimate would be possible when the project plans and financials are complete. At that time it will be possible to determine the value of the product, and a pricing strategy can be created.

Construction Material Markets Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives for the construction material market sector of the biosolids long- term plan are to develop this market segment as a new alternative to be added to the District’s overall available markets. Construction materials represent a large activity in California and over the long term, it could be important for the District to open and expand opportunities in this market.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 31 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Products and Markets There are a number of different types of construction material products that can be generated from biosolids. These range from dried biosolids and soil mixtures, to glass aggregate, and inert, sandy materials. The primary markets available for these products are as construction fill, road fill and for use in the manufacture of cement. The current market for glass and aggregate products appears solid. The long-term projected market size is estimated to exceed 205,0004 dry tons per year of biosolids (560 dry tons per day or about 273 percent of the District’s projected biosolids production). These products are linked to a range of markets including construction, construction materials, and landscaping markets. The overall aggregate market exceeds 3 billion tons per year in the United States. At an average product price of $4.83 per ton, the market size exceeds $14 billion per year (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). The recycled aggregate portion of the market was less than 1 percent of these totals during the latter 1990s (Wilburn, 1998). The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the recycled aggregate market sector is growing rapidly and will continue to do so.

Overall Plan Concepts The plan concept for access to the construction materials market relies on completing arrangements with various vendors or brokers that will lead the development of the market segment. At present, the biosolids product portion of this market segment is very small as is the overall recycled aggregate market sector. The District’s plan needs to reflect several concepts including market and product R&D with co-marketing partners and academia and seeking a diverse range of market products. It may be feasible to leverage relationships with existing horticulture market vendors/brokers that have or desire to expand product lines into these types of niche markets. For example, Western Organics, in its relationship with Wal-Mart, provides a variety of seasonal aggregate products. There may be opportunities to tap into this type of market situation.

Communications Strategies Communications associated with developing and expanding the construction materials market segment requires a sensitive approach that is closely coordinated with co-marketing partners and linked to specific market niches. Communication strategies would typically be a significant part of the co-marketing plan and contract.

Product Launch Strategies At this time, it is premature to establish a product launch strategy for construction materials. Specific launch strategies need to be developed in close cooperation with co-marketing partners and linked to specific market niches. Launch strategies would typically be a significant part of the co-marketing plan and contract.

Co-Marketing Plan Strategies The District needs to evaluate the opportunities for marketing relationships with a range of firms including Minergy and Western Organics. Minergy appears reluctant to expand

4 Based on over 1,000,000 tons per year cake at 20.5 percent total solids = 560 dry tons per day = 205,000 dry tons per year.

FINAL 32 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS beyond its current market base in the upper mid-west. Western Organics expressed strong interest in developing new product lines and market segments to match.

Sustainability Program Implementation of access to the construction materials market is recommended through the utilization of one or more vendor/broker in close cooperation with the District. The vendor process is described in detail under the section on Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail. It is recommended that the District include in its contract with the vendor/broker a comprehensive program of R&D, product development, market research, and market monitoring.

Revenue and Economic Assessment The revenue associated with this market segment could not be determined. At this stage in the planning process, it is not realistic to provide reliable revenue forecasts because the proposed product markets are in early stages of development, and plans and financials are incomplete. The overall market feasibility appears valid. A reliable estimate would be possible when the market plans and financials are more complete. At that time it will be possible to determine the value of the product, and a pricing strategy can be created.

Direct Landfilling Goals and Objectives The goal of this alternative is to secure failsafe backup landfilling capacity for the District’s biosolids products.

Products and Markets This market provides a failsafe backup landfilling outlet for the District’s biosolids products in case problems or difficulties occur with other market segments. The District requested failsafe backup disposal capabilities at the Prima Deshecha and/or Bowerman Landfills, in the event composting capacity and other waste management measures fall short of the District’s immediate needs. Other landfills throughout the Southwest may be available for direct landfilling of biosolids material. Landfilling of biosolids is potentially viable at two landfills in Orange County and 15 other landfills in the southwest. The number of landfills suitable to receive biosolids cake is seven and the throughput capacity is about 9,200 tons per day. Following the 10:1 ratio of solid waste to biosolids cake, at these landfills the capacity is estimated to equal 920 tons per day of biosolids.

Overall Plan Concepts The concept for this alternative requires petitioning the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department for the authority to utilize either the Prima Deshecha or Bowerman Landfills for failsafe backup disposal of biosolids cake. Additionally, it is recommended that the District’s biosolids management team work with the representatives of the 15 alternative landfills throughout Southern California authorized to accept biosolids to negotiate terms for biosolids backup landfilling. These landfills include those shown in Table 3-7.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 33 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Communications Strategies Communication strategies associated with this alternative include direct contact and negotiations with the representatives from all of the various landfills. The District’s biosolids management staff need to open communications with each of these landfill operators to assess the feasibility of arranging contracts for the purposes of backup failsafe biosolids disposal. In the case of Orange County landfills, the District has launched a separate task and campaign to establish backup failsafe landfill capacity at Prima Deshecha and Bowerman landfills.

Product Launch Strategies This alternative does not require or generate new products. All products expected to be generated by the District, from Class B biosolids cake to various compost or dried pellet materials should be found acceptable by the landfill operators.

Co-Marketing Plan Strategies This alternative does not require co-marketing plans. This alternative does incorporate contract terms and conditions for the flow of waste into the landfill. Depending on the landfill organization, these contracts may range from letters of understanding to more formal contracts.

Sustainability Program The program to sustain this market segment involves implementation of access to the landfilling market beginning with exploring contract arrangements with Orange County landfills, including Prima Deshecha and Bowerman landfills owned and operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OC IWMD). The District is in the midst of an approval process with OC IWMD to obtain policy approval for utilization of Orange County landfill space as a backup failsafe measure. Prima Deshecha Landfill is currently permitted to receive 85 tons per day of biosolids and is seeking a revised permit to allow up to 350 tons per day. The South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) plans to reserve capacity for up to 150 tons per day of biosolids. The remaining 200 tons per day of capacity is sought by the District through a proposal being submitted to the OC IWMD and its policy advisory commission, the Local Waste Management Commission. The current schedule calls for reaching a conclusion on the policy recommendation before mid-year, 2003. At the same time, the District is evaluating the feasibility of biosolids landfilling at the Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. This facility is not permitted to receive biosolids and requires extensive local coordination and policy development after the OC IWMD reaches a decision. The schedule for the policy recommendation is prior to mid-year, 2003.

Revenue and Economic Assessment The revenue associated with this market segment is a cost (tipping fee) rather than revenue.

FINAL 34 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-7 List of Landfills Throughout Southern California Permitted to Accept Biosolids Permitted Permitted Remaining Throughput Capacity Capacity Name and Location Waste Types (T/D) (CY) (CY)

Los Angeles County

Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center Agricultural; asbestos; construction/demolition; 1,700 22,645,000 22,645,000 600 East Avenue “F” contaminated soil; green materials; industrial; 93535 inert; mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires

Puente Hills Landfill #6 Agricultural; ash; construction/demolition; 13,200 106,400,000 20,200,000 2800 South Workman Mill Road industrial; mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids); 90601 tires

Orange County

Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 4,000 81,000,000 89,400,000 32250 La Pata Avenue municipal; biosolids Orange County San Juan Capistrano 92675

San Bernardino County

Victorville Refuse Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 1,600 7,700,000 721,913 18600 Stoddard Wells Road mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids) 92307

Barstow Refuse Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 525 3,580,000 218,492 Barstow Road 3 Mi. S. of mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids) Barstow 92311

Colton Refuse Disposal Site Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 3,100 13,297,000 380,716 850 Tropica Rancho Road mixed municipal; other designated; sludge Colton 92324 (biosolids); tires; wood waste

Landers Disposal Site Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 381 3,080,000 463,785 Winters Road East of S. Avalon Avenue municipal; other designated; sludge (biosolids); Landers 92284 tires

Fort Irwin Sanitary Landfill Contaminated soil; mixed municipal; sludge 100 19,000,000 14,738,590 Fort Irwin Reserve Component Training Center (biosolids) 2001 Fort Irwin (Mil Res) 92310

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 35 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-7 List of Landfills Throughout Southern California Permitted to Accept Biosolids Permitted Permitted Remaining Throughput Capacity Capacity Name and Location Waste Types (T/D) (CY) (CY)

San Diego County

Ramona Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 295 2,200,000 440,830 20630 Pamo Road municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires; wood waste Ramona 92065

Borrego Springs Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; mixed 50 706,745 426,000 2449 Palm Canyon Road municipal; sludge (biosolids); tires; wood waste Borrego Springs 92004

Otay Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; green 5,000 59,857,199 41,152,377 1700 Maxwell Road materials; mixed municipal; other designated; Chula Vista 91911 sludge (biosolids); tires

Sycamore Sanitary Landfill Agricultural; asbestos; contaminated soils; dead 3,300 27,947,234 23,769,035 8514 Mast Boulevard animals; mixed municipal; other designated; San Diego 92071 sludge (biosolids); tires, shreds; wood waste

San Onofre Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial ; mixed 50 1,920,00 1,407,000 2.7 Mi. W. Basilone Gate municipal; sludge (biosolids) Camp Pendleton (Mil res) 92672

Las Pulgas Landfill Construction/demolition; industrial ; mixed 270 10,680,000 9,150,000 1 Mi. N. Camp Pulgas Off Basilone Road municipal; sludge (biosolids) Camp Pendleton (Mil Res) 92055

Ventura County

Toland Road Landfill Agricultural; construction/demolition; industrial; 1,500 30,000,000 20,796,998 3500 North Toland Road mixed municipal; sludge (biosolids) Santa Paula 93060

Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center Construction/demolition; industrial; mixed 3,000 23,700,000 9,473,131 2801 Madera Road municipal; sludge (biosolids) Simi Valley 93065

FINAL 36 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Landfill Partnering – Alternative Daily Cover Goals and Objectives The goal of this alternative is to secure failsafe backup capacity for the District’s biosolids products through utilization of the District’s products as alternative daily cover at the landfill. Select materials have been approved for use as landfill waste cover as an alternative to dirt. In many cases, landfills do not have sufficient dirt to complete the daily covering of waste as is required by law. Products and Markets Under current regulations, owners or operators of all municipal solid waste landfill units must cover disposed solid waste with a minimum of 6 inches of compacted earthen material or alternative material at the end of each operating day, or at more frequent intervals if necessary, to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. This market provides a failsafe backup landfilling outlet for the District’s biosolids products in case there occurs problems or difficulties with other market segments. The District requested these capabilities at the Prima Deshecha and/or Bowerman landfills, in the event composting capacity and other waste management measures fall short of the District’s immediate needs. Other landfills throughout the southwest may be available for alternative daily cover (ADC) of biosolids material. ADC of biosolids is potentially viable at two landfills in Orange County and 15 other landfills in the southwest.

Overall Plan Concepts The strength of the current market for ADC (but not necessarily biosolids-derived products) is high in most parts of California. At the Prima Deshecha Landfill, operations are such that the county maintains a surplus of dirt and does not require ADC. ADC is used occasionally to help achieve diversion targets. Ease of implementation of this option is estimated to be difficult. Numerous competitive products and entities will be difficult to displace. Additionally, there is virtually no demand for ADC at the Prima Deshecha Landfill, as the landfill operates with a soil surplus.

Product Launch Strategies This alternative does not require or generate new products. All Class A products expected to be generated by the District, including various compost or dried pellet materials should be found acceptable by the landfill operators.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 37 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Sustainability Program Implementation of access to the ADC market starts with exploring contract arrangements with the 16 landfills throughout Southern California capable of receiving biosolids-based products. The District’s biosolids management staff need to open communications with each of these landfill operators to assess the feasibility of arranging contracts for the purposes of backup failsafe biosolids ADC utilization. The District needs to maintain market research and market monitoring so that it is aware of the status of ADC utilization throughout Southern California. Additionally, the District needs to monitor legislative and regulatory developments associated with ADC at the State government level, ADC utilization is somewhat fluid due to competing political interests.

Revenue and Economic Assessment The revenue associated with this market segment is a cost (tipping fee) rather than revenue.

Energy – Fuel Char Products Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives for the fuel char product market sector of the biosolids long-term plan are to develop this market segment as a new alternative to be added to the District’s overall available markets. Fuel char products augment construction materials production as well as biomass types for power generating plants. These are large activities in California, and over the long term it could be important for the District to open and expand opportunities in these markets.

Products and Markets Pyrolysis processes can be conducted at various temperatures and pressures, to provide a fuel char that has a heating value of 6,500 to 9,000 British thermal units per pound (BTU/lb). The char solids content may vary from 50 to 95 percent. Local uses for the char are in cement kilns and biomass waste to energy plants. Cement kilns prefer a char with a maximum moisture content of 8 percent for use in the clinker zone. Char used in the pre-calciner zone can have a higher moisture content of up to 50 percent. The current market size for fuel char appears to be sizable. The future market for fuel char products is estimated to be solid. This is a market driven by continued growth and development in the economy over the long term. Expectations for the long-term California economy are a robust rate of growth. The future market for energy generation is estimated to be solid. This is a market driven by continued growth and development in the economy over the long term. Expectations for the long-term California economy are a robust rate of growth. The future market for power in Southern California is anticipated to increase significantly over the next decade.

FINAL 38 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

Overall Plan Concepts Implementation of access to the fuel char market is to closely monitor the technology and market developments by various firms; when the firms have achieved critical mass with respect to projects, the District would entertain a proposal for co-marketing partner.

Sustainability Program The program for sustaining this market segment includes a steady process of product R&D, product development, market research, market monitoring, and co-marketing partnerships.

Revenue and Economic Assessment At this stage in the planning process, it is not realistic to provide reliable revenue forecasts because the proposed projects and markets are in early stages of development, and the project plans and financials are incomplete. The overall project feasibility appears valid. A reliable estimate would be possible when the project plans and financials are complete. At that time, it will be possible to determine the value of the fuel char product, and a pricing strategy can be created.

Implementation Plan Metrics Implementation plan metrics is the term for the District’s ability to measure and quantify the success or problems implementing the marketing plan. Values and performance measures need to be available and are desirable for the District’s customers, co-marketing partners, and the District itself. These measures in part stem from the key market indicators developed during the completion of TM 2 (OCSD, 2003). Marketing metrics include the assessment of return on investment for the marketing and sales effort. The two fundamental themes in marketing are repetition and measurement. A

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 39 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS marketing program will be ineffective if it does not provide sufficient repetition and exposure to the target customers. In addition, the program will be ineffective unless it can provide a quantifiable response. Both provide the foundation with which to build an effective marketing campaign (Niehus, 2003). Furthermore, overall performance measurements are found to fit into four separate performance categories: 1. Operational Market Process Focus 2. Customer Focus 3. District, Employee and Marketing Partner Focus 4. Financial Focus In products marketing, a widely used approach is to specify metrics for different stages of the customer and product lifecycle and then improve effectiveness by minimizing the dropouts from each. For example, the key concepts include: x Reach (increasing the number of customers or referrals) x Acquire (minimizing leakage) x Convert (minimizing abandonment) x Retain (minimizing attrition) Additionally, to define exactly how to measure the results of a specific marketing program, the message of the campaign must be evaluated. The District must determine exactly what is going to close the customer, and if anything in the message can be echoed back in a quantifiable form. Many times, an offer, coupon, or discount can be included in the advertisement which can be documented at the time of sale. This provides an easy metric for tracing the effectiveness of an advertisement. If a traceable coupon or discount is not available, we may need to rely on measurements of increased sales and statistical analysis to quantify the results of the program. Much of this work will be accomplished by the District’s co-marketing partner, but will be regularly reviewed by the District and the vendor for adherence to goals. Overall, the District needs to establish marketing and business performance metrics for its customers, its co-marketing partners, and itself. Table 3-8 displays a list of measurement criteria that could be used to monitor the District’s marketing program. Each market segment shows a list of items utilizing the four criteria performance categories noted above. These criteria would be combined into a marketing monitoring program that would continuously track progress in the implementation of the marketing plan. An initial process step would be to establish various benchmarks followed by regular assessment of the range of criteria.

FINAL 40 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE 3-8 Viable Markets and Related Measurement Criteria Market Segment: Operational Market District, Employee and Cropping Sector Process Criteria Customer Criteria Marketing Partner Criteria Financial Criteria

1. Horticulture – x Consumption of Product x Media and Public Relations x Customer Satisfaction, x Competition’s Price ($) Member Agencies (tons/year) Status (media hits) Complaints (#) x District’s Price (co- x Order Backlog (tons) x Seasonal Product x Marketing Partner marketing partner’s) ($) Requirements (tons/quarter) Satisfaction, Complaints x Time to Fill Backlog (weeks) x Product Market Profitability (#) x Public Perception of Brand (%;$/year) x Market Share (%) (brand equity, brand x Ability to Achieve x Account Payment Status x Promotion Effectiveness attributes, favorability, District’s Goals and (days) (referrals and new accounts) preference, loyalty) Objectives (#) x Returns (#) x Trade Show Effectiveness x Resolution Customer x District/Employee (referrals and new accounts) Complaints (unit time) Workload (time vs. x Promotion Investments ($) baseline) x Reorder Status (tons/year) x Customer Retention (%) 2. Horticulture – x Number local nursery and x Media and Public Relations x Customer Satisfaction, x Competition’s Price ($) Ornamental and wholesale outlets Status (media hits) Complaints (#) x District’s Price (co- Nursery x Consumption of Product x Seasonal Product x Marketing Partner marketing partner’s) ($) (tons/year) Requirements (tons/quarter) Satisfaction, Complaints x Product Market Profitability (#) x Order Backlog (tons) x Public Perception of Brand (%;$/year) (brand equity, brand x Ability to Achieve x Time to Fill Backlog (weeks) x Account Payment Status attributes, favorability, District’s Goals and (days) x Market Share (%) preference, loyalty) Objectives (#) x Returns (#) x Promotion Effectiveness x Resolution Customer x District/Employee (referrals and new accounts) Complaints (unit time) Workload (time vs. x Promotion Investments ($) baseline) x Trade Show Effectiveness x Reorder Status (tons/year) (referrals and new accounts) x Customer Retention (%)

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 41 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

3. Horticulture – x Number local retail outlets x Media and Public Relations x Customer Satisfaction, x Competition’s Price ($) Blending and Status (media hits) Complaints (#) x Consumption of Product x District’s Price (co- Bagging for Retail (tons/year) x Seasonal Product x Marketing Partner marketing partner’s) ($) Requirements (tons/quarter) Satisfaction, Complaints x Order Backlog (tons) x Product Market Profitability (#) x Public Perception of Brand (%;$/year) x Time to Fill Backlog (weeks) (brand equity, brand x Ability to Achieve x Account Payment Status x Market Share (%) attributes, favorability, District’s Goals and (days) x Promotion Effectiveness preference, loyalty) Objectives (#) x Returns (#) (referrals and new accounts) x Resolution Customer x District/Employee x Promotion Investments ($) x Trade Show Effectiveness Complaints (unit time) Workload (time vs. baseline) (referrals and new accounts) x Reorder Status (tons/year) x Customer Retention (%) 4. Silviculture – Shade x Number trees planted per x Media and Public Relations x Customer Satisfaction, x Competition’s Price ($) Tree Program year Status (media hits) Complaints (#) x District’s Price (co- x Number volunteers and x Seasonal Product x Marketing Partner marketing partner’s) ($) partners Requirements (tons/quarter) Satisfaction, Complaints x Product Market Profitability (#) x Consumption of Product x Public Perception of Brand (%;$/year) (tons/year) (brand equity, brand x Ability to Achieve x Account Payment Status attributes, favorability, District’s Goals and x Order Backlog (tons) (days) preference, loyalty) Objectives (#) x Time to Fill Backlog (weeks) x Returns (#) x Resolution Customer x District/Employee x Market Share (%) Complaints (unit time) Workload (time vs. x Promotion Investments ($) baseline) x Promotion Effectiveness x Reorder Status (tons/year) (referrals and new accounts) x Customer Retention (%) x Trade Show Effectiveness (referrals and new accounts)

FINAL 42 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

5. Energy/Ethanol – x MTBE rate replacement by x Media and Public Relations x Customer Satisfaction, x Ethanol pricing and biomass crops ethanol (%) Status (media hits) Complaints (#) volatility ($/gallon) (criteria listed under x Local ethanol production x Seasonal Product x Marketing Partner x Competition’s Price ($) #1 apply in addition facility capacity Requirements (tons/quarter) Satisfaction, Complaints to items shown in x District’s Price (co- (gallons/year) (#) this list) x Public Perception of Brand marketing partner’s) ($) x Local biomass acreage (brand equity, brand x Ability to Achieve x Product Market Profitability (acres) attributes, favorability, District’s Goals and (%;$/year) preference, loyalty) Objectives (#) x Consumption of Product x Account Payment Status (tons/year) Resolution Customer District/Employee x x (days) Complaints (unit time) Workload (time vs. x Order Backlog (tons) baseline) x Returns (#) x Reorder Status (tons/year) x Time to Fill Backlog (weeks) x Promotion Investments ($) x Customer Retention (%) x Market Share (%) x Promotion Effectiveness (referrals and new accounts) x Trade Show Effectiveness (referrals and new accounts) 6. Agriculture at the x Local cropping acreage x Media and Public Relations x Customer Satisfaction, x Competition’s Price ($) District’s Central (acres) Status (media hits) Complaints (#) x District’s Price (co- Valley Ranch x Consumption of Product x Seasonal Product x Marketing Partner marketing partner’s) ($) (criteria listed under (tons/year) Requirements (tons/quarter) Satisfaction, Complaints #1 apply in addition x Product Market Profitability (#) to items shown in x Order Backlog (tons) x Public Perception of Brand (%;$/year) this list) (brand equity, brand x Ability to Achieve x Time to Fill Backlog (weeks) x Account Payment Status attributes, favorability, District’s Goals and (days) x Market Share (%) preference, loyalty) Objectives (#) x Returns (#) x Promotion Effectiveness x Resolution Customer x District/Employee (referrals and new accounts) Complaints (unit time) Workload (time vs. x Promotion Investments ($) baseline) x Trade Show Effectiveness x Reorder Status (tons/year) (referrals and new accounts) x Customer Retention (%)

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 43 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

7. Direct Energy x Energy power demand x Power pricing and volatility (kWh) ($/kWh) x Regional economic growth rate (%) 8. Construction Market x Regional economic growth x Construction materials rate (%) pricing and volatility ($/unit) 9. Direct Landfilling x Permitted landfilling capacity x Landfill tip pricing and (Failsafe backup) for biosolids material (tons) volatility ($/ton) 10. Landfill Partnering – x Permitted landfilling capacity x Landfill tip pricing and Daily Cover (Failsafe for ADC biosolids material volatility ($/ton) backup) (tons)

FINAL 44 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

References Arkel Sugar, Inc., 2002. Imperial Valley Fuels – A Renewable Energy Project – Project Development Status Report. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Cappello, David, 1999. The U.S. Lawn and Garden Market, Kalorama Information, New York, New York. Goldman, G. and Ogishi, A. 2001. The Economic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in California. A Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. University of California, Berkeley; Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

JIAN Tools for Sales, Inc. 1998. JIAN Handbook of Marketing. V.2.0. Mountain View, CA. Niehus, Barrett, 2003. Repetition & Marketing Metrics, Are You Measuring Up? http://www.businessknowhow.com/marketing/markmetrics.htm

Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2002. Environmental Management System for Biosolids. Fountain Valley, CA. December. Orange County Sanitation District, 2003. Technical Memorandum 2 for Viable Biosolids Product Markets. Fountain Valley, CA. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel in the First Quarter of 2002. Minerals Information Data. Walker, J.M. and Gouin, F.R. 1977. Deciduous Tree Seedling Response To Nursery Soil Amended With Composted Sewage Sludge. Horticultural Science12; 45-47. Wilburn D.R. and Goonan T.G. 1998. Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources, Economic Assessments for Construction Applications – A Materials Flow Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1176. Denver, Colorado.

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 45 FINAL

Appendix A – Additional Market Research

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003

Appendix A – Additional Market Research Additional market research was conducted for the identified viable markets. The following information is organized by the specific product market.

Horticulture – Ornamental and Nursery. Additional market research was conducted to more thoroughly determine the retail and wholesale nursery market situation in Orange County. At this time there are about 130 retail stores in Orange County selling garden products and green goods. The top five in store count are Target, Home Depot, Armstrong Nurseries, Wal-Mart, and Lowe’s. Table A-1 summarizes this list by retailer and the number of stores. Access to sales at these stores is accomplished through several channels including direct sales to the smaller outlets, regional wholesalers to the mid-sized outlets, and specialty product marketing firms (e.g., Kellogg Garden Products) to the large outlets. Additionally, secondary sales can be achieved through sale of product to the wholesale nursery industry that will package the District’s products with the nursery products supplied to the retailers. The wholesale nursery industry is substantial in Orange County, although trends indicate that the industry is under tremendous development pressure to relocate. Table A-2 shows the list, location, acreage, and sales of the Orange County nursery industry. Most of the larger nursery operations are in the midst of relocation plans or projects. These plans are expected to be completed over the next 5 years. Recent data shows that the acreage dedicated to wholesale nursery production has dropped about 2.4 percent over the past year, while total sales have increased about 4 percent. Insufficient data is available to determine the precise structural basis for these trends. It is speculated that the increased sales are due in part to several factors including price inflation and increased productivity at the nurseries.

TABLE A-1 Summary List Orange County Nursery Product Retailers Retailer Type # Stores A B Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Ace Hardware Hardware and Garden 3 Aki Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 American Landscape Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery and 1 Landscaping Anaheim Wholesale Nursery Retail, Wholesale and Landscaping 1 Armstrong Garden Centers Specialty Retail Nursery 10 Batavia Gardens Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Blue Ribbon Nursery & Landscape Specialty Retail Nursery and 1 Landscaping Capistrano Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Cash Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Dana Point Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Euclid Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Flowerdale Nurseries Specialty Retail Nursery 2 Fred’s Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Garden Grove Nursery & Flower Shop Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Green Thumb/Arrow Nurseries Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Hollywood Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 A-1 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT MARKETS

TABLE A-1 Summary List Orange County Nursery Product Retailers Retailer Type # Stores Home Depot Home Improvement Center 18 Huntington Garden Center Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Ito Nursery, Inc. Retail and Wholesale 1 Kitano’s Garden Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Laguna Gardens Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Laguna Hills Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Lakewood Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Las Palmas Tropical Nursery Retail and Wholesale 1 Loma Vista Nursery Retail and Wholesale 1 Lowe’s Home Improvement Center 5 Lucky’s Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 M & M Nursery Retail and Wholesale 1 Maehara Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Magnolia Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Master Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Milo’s Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Miramar Wholesale Nursery Retail and Wholesale 2 Monroe Pacific Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Mystic Gardens Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Nieuport Gardens Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Nitao Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Norman’s Nursery Retail and Wholesale 1 Olinda Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Orchard Supply Hardware Hardware and Garden 4 Plant Depot Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Roger’s Gardens Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Scala Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Seiko Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Shore Garden Specialty Retail Nursery and 1 Landscaping Sun-Land Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Tanaka Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Target Stores General Merchandise 28 Three Star Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Tree of Life Nursery Retail and Wholesale 1 Tropical Plaza Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Tustin Meadows Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Upland Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Vargas Nursery Specialty Retail Nursery 1 Village Nurseries Retail and Wholesale 3 Wal-Mart General Merchandise 8 130

FINAL A-2 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL MARKET RESEARCH

TABLE A-2 List of Orange County Wholesale Nursery and Production Data O.C. Annual Sales O.C. Total Volume Wholesale Nursery Location Acres ($) Other Locations Anaheim Wholesale Orange 16 $ 2,000,000.00 Bolsa Nursery Westminster 4 750,000.00 Bordiers Nursery Irvine 230 25,000,000.00 Escondido, Somis, and Moorpark, CA Cambridge Pines Orange 12 1,250,000.00 Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. San Juan Capistrano 200 16,000,000.00 Carson, Fallbrook, Lodi, CA; and San Antonio, TX Don's Nursery Anaheim 32 4,000,000.00 El Modeno Gardens, Inc. Irvine 100 16,000,000.00 Perris and Valley Center, CA GroWest Nurseries, Inc. Brea 90 14,000,000.00 Riverside, CA Hines Nurseries, Inc. Irvine 400 40,000,000.00 Fresno, Vacaville, CA; Portland, OR; and Houston, TX Kuragami Nursery Buena Park 8 1,000,000.00 Las Flores Nursery Orange 7 1,000,000.00 Riverside, CA Loma Vista Nursery Yorba Linda 5 800,000.00 Perris and Fallbrook, CA Miramar Wholesale Nursery Lake Forest 65 10,000,000.00 San Diego, CA Miramar Wholesale Nursery San Juan Capistrano 26 3,000,000.00 Nakase Brother's Nursery, Inc. El Toro 170 22,000,000.00 Huntington Beach, CA, and Laveen, AZ Osumi Nursery Villa Park 5 750,000.00 Pacific Coast Nursery Irvine 60 9,000,000.00 Pacific Paradise Nursery Anaheim 11 2,500,000.00 Escondido and Oceanside, CA Pineda's Nursery Stanton 9 2,000,000.00 Sakaida Nursery Trabuco Canyon 80 12,000,000.00 Sakioka Nursery Midway City 15 1,000,000.00 Sunny Slope Trees Orange 30 4,000,000.00 T Y Nursery Trabuco Canyon 85 15,000,000.00 Pauma Valley, CA Tree of Life Nursery San Juan Capistrano 40 3,000,000.00 Village Nurseries Orange 175 21,000,000.00 Buena Park, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Brea, Stanton, Perris, and Pauma Valley, CA

1,888 acres $227,050,000.00

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 A-3 FINAL APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL MARKET RESEARCH

Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail. Additional market research was conducted to assess the level of interest by firms conducting sales of blended and bagged biosolids-derived products. Four firms supplied additional information including Kellogg Garden Products, Synagro, Western Ag Service, and Western Organics. Additional research of the overall lawn and garden (L&G) market was conducted. The most recent, comprehensive market research into the L&G market was reported by Packaged Facts in February 1999 (Cappello, 1999). The research estimated that the total U.S. L&G market (including equipment, supplies, and services) reached sales of just over $25 billion in 1998. In contrast to the early and mid-1990s, when annual growth rates were limited to 4 percent, a stronger growth pattern began emerging in 1997, when the L&G market rose by 4.4 percent. In 1998, the market grew even faster, at a 5.1 percent rate. The general outlook for the L&G market appears bright over the next few years. A convergence of strong positive trends in the demographic (aging baby boom), socioeconomic (increases in homeownership), technological (improved products), and cultural (greater popularity of gardening) realms will likely work to drive sales upward. Nevertheless, one important structural factor, discount pricing pressures, will probably limit the rate of growth. The L&G market is divided into three broad product categories: equipment, supplies, and services (Cappello, 1999). x The equipment category consists of engine-powered outdoor power equipment (OPE), hand-powered tools and implements, and watering/ spraying equipment designed for outdoor lawn and garden use. x The supplies category includes two segments: fertilizers/growth media, and pest control products (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides). x The services category is limited to professional lawncare services specializing in supplies application. The focus of the work relevant to the District is on the supplies portion of the three categories and in particular the fertilizers/growth media portion. Not included within the scope of the study were products and services sold to commercial/professional, horticultural/agricultural, and institutional/recreational markets. Also excluded from the study were the actual “elements” of lawns and gardens – i.e., seeds, bulbs, plants, grasses, trees, and other “live goods” (Cappello, 1999). Two fundamental factors—the economy and the weather—present major market uncertainties. If either turns for the worse, the prospects for L&G growth could be clouded. On the other hand, given the strong underlying trends favoring the market, it is easy to conceive that negative events could be relatively easily transformed into positive growth opportunities (Cappello, 1999). Taking the various factors into account, Packaged Facts takes a moderately positive view of future L&G growth. We project that the market will rise to near $32 billion by 2003—a gain of just over 20 percent during the 1999-2003 period. Growth rates are expected to moderate gradually from 5 percent to 4.5 percent over the period due to general downward price pressures (Cappello, 1999).

FINAL A-4 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL MARKET RESEARCH

Research estimated that between 1,500 and 2,000 companies are involved in the L&G market. As a rough breakdown by category, we estimate that approximately 300 to 400 market consumer L&G equipment, about 500 market supplies, and upwards of 1,000 market professional lawncare services (Cappello, 1999). In terms of L&G equipment ownership, over half of U.S. adults— 58 percent, or 111 million—currently own outdoor power equipment and L&G hand tools/implements. In terms of what consumers purchased over 1998, Simmons Market Research Bureau found the following patterns (Cappello, 1999): x One in seven adults purchased fertilizers or pest control supplies (27 million, or 14 percent). x One in eight adults bought outdoor power equipment (24 million, or 12.5 percent). x One in 12 adults purchased L&G hand tools (14 million, or 7.5 percent). Specific to the fertilizer/growth media/pest control market category, retail sales of supplies were estimated at $4.5 billion in 1998, up 3.8 percent over 1997. Over the 1994 to 1998 period, sales grew at modest but respectable rates, with a slight acceleration detectable since 1997. Total growth during the period was nearly 16 percent. The fertilizer/growth media portion of the market was estimated at $2.69 billion in 1998, up 4.5 percent over 1997. Table A-3 summarizes this sales information (Cappello, 1999).

TABLE A-3 Retail Sales of Lawn and Garden Supplies by Product Segment, 1994–1998 (in millions of dollars) Fertilizers/Growth Media Pesticides Total

Year $ Sales % Chg $ Sales % Chg $ Sales % Chg

1998 $2,690 4.5% $1,815 2.8% $4,505 3.8%

1997 2,575 4.5 1,765 2.9 4,340 3.8

1996 2,465 4.0 1,715 3.0 4,180 3.6

1995 2,370 3.9 1,665 3.1 4,035 3.6

1994 2,280 1,615 3,895

Source: Simmons Market Research Bureau, Spring 1998 Study of Media and Markets; Packaged Facts

Fertilizers/growth media account for the dominant share of supplies sales, with 60 percent in 1998, while pesticides account for 40 percent. The research found that roughly 60 percent of supplies are sold through mass retail outlets—primarily home centers and discount chains. The other 40 percent of sales is accounted for by L&G specialty outlets—primarily garden centers and nurseries (Cappello, 1999). Simmons research on consumer use of fertilizers/growth media and pesticides indicates a bias favoring use in the West, an above-average tendency to use selected products in the Midwest, an average tendency to use in the South, and a bias against use in the Northeast. Consumers living in the West most strongly favor use of organic insecticides and compost, but also favor use of lawn fertilizers, flower fertilizers, and synthetic insecticides. People

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 A-5 FINAL APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL MARKET RESEARCH living in the Midwest favor use of “weed-and-feed” combinations and synthetic herbicides (Cappello, 1999). The retail factor in future supplies growth presents a mixed picture. On the positive side, home centers and discounters continue to expand both in store counts and in their commitments to “green goods” and plant-enhancing supplies. As these chains continue to expand, greater numbers of shoppers will be exposed to parking lot and greenhouse displays of plants and supplies, as well as to large in-store merchandising displays devoted to supplies. This will likely stimulate sales. On the other hand, even though unit volume sales of supplies will likely rise through increased exposure, dollar sales gains may be only marginal. This is because greater volume purchasing is taking place in a retail context that stresses bargain prices and slim margins (Cappello, 1999). Future growth of these products is estimated at an average 3.5 percent per year that will yield sales of supplies of $5.2 billion by 2003. Favorable demographics will continue to push up sales in fertilizers and growth media, though low commodity prices will continue to dampen rates of growth (Cappello, 1999). This growth is driven by the consumers. In the U.S., based on Simmons data, “weed and feed” combination products are the most popular type of supplies, purchased by nearly 27 million adults (14 percent). Closely following in popularity are lawn fertilizers and flower garden fertilizers, both purchased by about 25 million adults (13 percent). Other types of supplies with over 20 million purchasers are insecticides (synthetic) and house plant and vegetable garden fertilizers. The least popular types of supplies are organic insecticides and synthetic herbicides purchased by just 3 percent and 5 percent of adults, respectively. Compost products are purchased by about 6 percent. Table A-4 summarizes this consumer data (Cappello, 1999).

TABLE A-4 Number of Purchasers of Lawn and Garden Supplies by Product Type, 1998 (U.S. adults) Total Owners Type of Product (in millions) % of Population Weed and Feed 26.7 13.9% Flower Garden Fertilizer 25.1 13.1 Lawn Fertilizer 25.0 13.0 Insecticide (synthetic) 23.9 12.4 House Plant Fertilizer 23.1 12.0 Vegetable Garden Fertilizer 21.5 11.2 Compost 12.3 6.4 Herbicide (synthetic) 9.5 4.9 Insecticide (organic) 5.7 3.0 Source: Simmons Market Research Bureau, Spring 1998 Study of Media and Markets; Packaged Facts

FINAL A-6 W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL MARKET RESEARCH

The demographic characteristics of these consumers were reported and are summarized in Table A-5.

TABLE A-5 Demographic Characteristics Favoring Purchasing of Compost Supplies: 1998 (U.S. adults) Factor Compost

Age 65-74

Race NS

Marital Status Married

Household Income (000) $50

Education Attended grad school

Employment Status NS

Occupation Prof/mgr

Household Size (No. of Persons) 2

Region West

Locality NS

Notes: Prof/mgr = Professional/managerial NS means factor is not significant Source: Simmons Market Research Bureau, Spring 1998 Study of Media and Markets; Packaged Facts

W052003003SCO/TM-03.DOC/ 033290003 A-7 FINAL

FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 4 – Ranking Market Alternatives

Contents

Summary ...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Target Products and Markets ...... 3 Noneconomic Factors and Ranking Methodology...... 4 Overview ...... 4 Ranking Factors ...... 5 Ranking of Market Alternatives ...... 9 Summary and Recommendations ...... 15

Summary The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) was to rank the product markets using a number criteria system. An assessment of viable product markets was completed in TM 2. Nineteen potential markets were reduced to 11 viable markets for additional consideration. Six markets were in the cropping sector while five markets were in the noncropping sector. The team determined that three alternatives were not suitable to include in the ranking matrix due to their unique nonmarket status. The three alternatives not ranked in this process were as follows: 1. Agriculture at the Orange County Sanitation District’s (the District’s) Central Valley Ranch 2. Direct landfilling as a failsafe back-up alternative 3. Alternative daily cover at landfills as a failsafe back-up alternative The remaining eight viable market alternatives were evaluated using the criteria, factors, and methodology established during close coordination with District staff. Table 4-1 presents the ranking results of the alternatives. Alternative 3, horticultural uses via blending and bagging for retail outlets, was ranked number 1 with a score of 274 from a maximum possible score of 380. Alternative 2 (horticulture uses for ornamental and nursery production) with a score of 266, ranked number 2. Alternatives 1 and 6, horticultural uses with member agencies and production of energy from biosolids material, respectively, were tied for the third rank with a score of 264. Alternative 4, production of trees for local shade tree programs, ranked fourth overall with a score of 252. These top five alternatives with scores ranging from 274 to 252 are considered the first tier of market options that the District needs to actively pursue.

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 1 175817.PE.12 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 4-1 Ranking Market Alternatives Rank Market Alternative Score 1 Alternative 3 – Horticultural Uses via Blending and Bagging for Retail 274 Outlets 2 Alternative 2 – Horticultural Uses for Ornamental and Nursery 266 Production 3 Alternative 1 – Horticultural Uses with Member Agencies 264 Alternative 6 – Direct Energy

4 Alternative 4 – Trees for Local Shade Tree Programs 252 5 Alternative 5 – Biomass Crops (Corn, Sugar Beets) for Ethanol 217 Production 6 Alternative 7 – Construction Materials Market 210 Alternative 8 – Fuel Char Products to Kilns

Based on the ranking results, the team reached the following recommendations: 1. The team recommends active pursuit of the top five product markets as their scores were substantially greater than the bottom tier three markets, 252 or higher versus 217 or lower. These markets utilize compost, dried products, or soil-like products for a wide range of horticultural uses or in direct energy production. 2. Additionally, the District needs to actively pursue all available failsafe back-up options, including landfilling, alternative daily cover at landfills, and dedicated landfilling, to acquire at least a 100 percent contingency capacity. 3. The District needs to maintain its current land application capacity and options, including the District’s Central Valley Ranch and other land application sites, for as long as is feasible and economically sound.

Introduction The District is undertaking the preparation of a Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The goal of this work is to develop a strategy for biosolids management for the next 5 to 15 years that provides flexibility to meet current and future regulatory changes, tying viable solids handling processes to long-term sustainable biosolids product markets and disposal options. The purpose of TM 4 is to rank the product markets using a number of criteria. Each criterion is scored on a scale from 1 to 5, and each criterion is weighted as to its overall significance, also on a scale from 1 to 5. By multiplying the score by the weight and adding up the score, a total is obtained for each alternative. These total values are then compared to generate a ranking. This TM brings together information describing markets from TM 2 and the implementation assessment from TM 3. This TM briefly summarizes the viable target markets, describes the noneconomic criteria and methodology for ranking the markets, reports the results for the alternatives ranking, and wraps up with a summary and recommendations.

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

The ranking of product markets is combined with technical and economic analysis focused on manufacturing technologies. The product and market information forms an integral component of the District’s overall biosolids long-range plan. As discussed in previous work, TM 2 and TM 3, several guiding principles and District goals are applied to the process of ranking product markets. These are briefly summarized as follows: A. Strategic Guiding Principles 1. Maximizing the use, demand, and value for biosolids-based product is desirable and driven by product benefits or problem-solving features. 2. Growing reliable and sustained product markets in the face of expanding competition requires long-term commitments and investments. 3. Having a variety of strong partnerships throughout the value chain including manufacturing and distribution is critically important. 4. Having one or more failsafe back-up alternatives is important to long-term reliable biosolids management. B. District’s Biosolids Management Goals 1. Providing full support for biosolids recycling 2. Committing and emphasizing local, Orange County use of these products 3. Promoting safe, environmentally beneficial uses that are sensitive to the needs of the community 4. Implementing the National Biosolids Partnerships (NBP) Code of Good Practice as the basis for a biosolids Environmental Management System C. Additional BiosolidsManagement Objectives 1. Developing programs that anticipate change and provide flexibility to accommodate change 2. Defining and developing markets that exceed the District’s capacity to produce products 3. Developing a sustainable approach that encompasses the informed use of resources and innovative, appropriate application of technology considering vital issues of environment, economy, and social equity 4. Developing programs that minimize, mitigate, or eliminate environmental impacts to participating communities

Target Products and Markets The District has the potential to create a wide range of products, targeted at a series of markets, to assist in developing a sustainable biosolids management strategy. Each of these

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES markets was characterized as to its important features and the benefits that derive from those features. Future consumers of these products will focus on the benefits of the products as they determine how much, how often, and for what price these products will be acquired. These issues were considered by the District to rank product markets and select a path for the overall Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan. The information presented in this section briefly summarizes the target markets. The viable product markets assessment was completed and documented in TM 2. The markets were grouped into two broad categories: Cropping Markets and Noncropping Markets. Additionally, the products suitable from a range of technologies, such as composting and heat drying, were described. A detailed review was conducted of 19 overall markets. The review was based on research conducted by the project team, documentation provided by vendors, and on meetings and telephone discussions with the vendors and individuals operating in the various market sectors. The results of this market assessment indicate that six cropping markets and five noncropping markets are viable for the range of biosolids products from the District. These viable markets are shown in Table 4-2.

TABLE 4-2 Listing of Viable Markets and Related Products Viable Markets Cropping Sector Products Correlated to Markets Horticulture – member agencies Compost; Chemically Fortified Pellets, Granules, or Soils; Dry Pellets and Granules Horticulture – ornamental and nursery production Compost; Chemically Fortified Pellets, Granules, or Soils; Dry Pellets and Granules Horticulture – blending and bagging for retail Compost; Chemically Fortified Pellets, Granules, or Soils; Dry Pellets and Granules Silviculture – Shade Tree Program Compost; Dry Pellets and Granules Energy/Ethanol – biomass crops Compost; Chemically Fortified Pellets, Granules, or Soils; Dry Pellets and Granules Agriculture at the District’s Central Valley Ranch Compost; Chemically Fortified Pellets, Granules, or Soils; Dry Pellets and Granules Noncropping Sector Direct Energy Fuel Energy Product Indirect Energy Fuel Carbon Char Product Construction Market Construction Materials Direct Landfilling (Failsafe back-up) Landfilling and Alternative Cover Products Landfill Partnering – Daily Cover (Failsafe back-up) Landfilling and Alternative Cover Products

Noneconomic Factors and Ranking Methodology

Overview To evaluate the targeted markets, an approach was developed to allow ranking of the 11 market alternatives by a range of criteria that reflects key issues of concern to the District

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES and biosolids management in Southern California. The criteria are in keeping with the District’s management goals and the Biosolids Environmental Management System (EMS) developed by the District. The criteria were developed during the initial project scoping and updated and expanded through staff meetings and collaboration incorporating the results of viable market assessment. The ranking methodology employs a spreadsheet matrix that combines a weighting factor signifying the relative importance of each criteria with the base scoring of each factor. By adding up the points for an alternative, the team established a total point value for each alternative that leads to the overall market ranking. The ranking process was completed by District staff and the consulting team. This portion of the report identifies the ranking factors and methodology employed to complete the ranking process.

Ranking Factors Table 4-3 lists the criteria and associated factors and weights. Each criterion was assigned an importance weighting factor, so that issues of greater concern were given higher priority in the evaluation. Each market alternative was assigned a score between one and five to reflect its performance for each criterion. A score of 1 indicates a low performance and reflects negatively on that market. A score of 5 reflects a high score and reflects positively on that market. The score for a particular criterion was multiplied by the importance weighting for that criterion and the sum of all the results for the market used to rank it in comparison to the other markets. The criteria and importance weighting were decided upon in a workshop with District staff and the consultant team, and they reflect local biosolids issues and District concerns regarding biosolids management markets. Brief descriptions of the criteria are provided below.

Perceived Benefits to District/County Benefits to the District and Orange County result from the utilization of products within the County. Additionally, these benefits are a summary of environmental, economic, resource conservation, and beneficial use advantages. This criterion is weighted high at 5.

Market Size The size of the current market is an indicator of the ability of the market to absorb products. The market size can be compared to the quantity of product from the District creating an assessment of market share. The criterion is weighted important at 4.

Estimate of Future Market The estimate of the size of the future market is a projection of the size of the market over the next 15 years. This criterion indicates if the market is growing, stagnating, or decreasing. This criterion is weighted high at 5.

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 5 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 4-3 Product Market Noneconomic Factors Importance Score 1 – low or unfavorable No. Issues and Measures 1 – ; 5 + 5 – high or favorable

1. Perceived benefits to District/county 1 – low; 5 – high 5

2. Market Size 1 – small; 5 – large 4

3. Estimate of Future Market 1 – small; 5 – large 5

4. Competitors In the Market and Potential 1 – many; 5 – none 4 Impacts

5. Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 4

6. Perceived Market Risk 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 5

7. Public Perception of Product/Brand 1 – negative; 5 – high 5

8. Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 1 and Preferences

9. Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing 1 – low net; 5 – high net 2

10. Political Hurdles and Constraints 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 3

11. Ease of Implementation 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 3

12. History of Product Applications to this Market 1 – few years; 3 5 – many years

13. Geographic Range of Markets 1 – small; 5 – large 3

14. Long-Term Sustainability 1 – low; 5 – high 4

15. Meeting District’s Biosolids Policies 1 – low; 5 – high 5

16. Influence Over Critical Control Points 1 – low; 5 – high 2

17. Traffic and Delivery 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 4

18. Market Site Location 1 – concentrated; 4 5 – diverse

19. Potential for Nuisances including Noise and 1 – high; 5 – low 5 Dust

20. Potential for Odor 1 – high; 5 – low 5

Competitors in the Market and Potential Impacts The competitors in the market place and their potential impacts to the District are important to the ability to capture market share and/or work together as co-marketing partners. Indirect marketing is not considered a District core attribute. The District is likely to rely on competitors as partners to complement its product marketing diagram. This criterion is weighted important at 4.

FINAL 6 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions The current and future regulatory restrictions that may affect product markets are a constant issue. Biosolids products have a history of being severely impacted by regulatory constraints. This criterion is weighted important at 4.

Perceived Market Risk The perceived market risk is a summary of the business and environmental risks that are identifiable for the products and markets. Identifying risks allows for devising ways to minimize their impacts, while uncertain circumstances as determining that the risks may be too great or unworthy of the investment. This criterion is weighted high at 5.

Public Perception of Product/Brand The public perception about the District’s products and its brand addresses the factors that influence buyers of the District’s products. Clearly understanding the needs of the customer and how the District is perceived by that customer allows an understanding of product positioning, pricing, life cycle, public relations, advertising, and overall marketing plan. This criterion is weighted high at 5.

Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences The product limits and preferences within the market define the essential product attributes or features required to service a particular customer. If the District is unable to meet these features, it would be unable to sell products to the customer. The criterion is weighted low at 1.

Economics of Manufacturing and Marketing The economics of manufacturing and marketing the products expressed the result of net dollar return to the District for sale of its products. Because the District is a nonprofit organization, its primary goal is protection of public health and the environment at a reasonable cost. This criterion is weighted of modest value at 2.

Political Hurdles and Constraints The political hurdles and constraints associated with biosolids products throughout California are notorious for constantly narrowing or limiting market options. Identifying these constraints will allow an assessment of their mitigation or determination of their significance. This criterion is weighted valuable at 3.

Ease of Implementation The ease of implementation by the District in accessing or acquiring market presence and market share is important to the overall success of the program. More complex or longer duration of implementation requirements could increase cost while adding to the possibility of failure. This criterion is weighted valuable at 3.

History of Product Applications to This Market The history of the use of these types of products in this market is important to providing the market, establishing confidence in market projections, and predicting product life cycle.

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

This criterion will indicate needs for product research and demonstration. This criterion is weighted valuable at 3.

Geographic Range of Markets The geographic range of markets expresses the locations that present market opportunities. This criterion supports many issues including market size, economics (transportation costs), political constraints, and overall market risk. This criterion is weighted valuable at 3.

Potential for Odor The potential for odor from products and their use in this market is critical to customer acceptance and overall market risk. If a product had a high potential to emit offensive odors as a part of its use cycle, the product will be quickly defeated in that and perhaps other related market segments. This criterion is weighted high at 5.

Long-Term Sustainability Long-term sustainability indicates the projected ability of a market to maintain and grow over a substantial period of time. The District’s goals and objectives require a market duration of at least 10 years with the preference that the market sustain up to 50+ years. This criterion is weighted valuable at 3.

Meeting District’s Biosolids Policies This criterion involves the ability of an alternative to meet the full range of District biosolids policies. It is weighted high at 5. The four essential biosolids management polices are as follows: 1. Fully supporting biosolids recycling 2. Committing and emphasizing local, Orange County use of these products 3. Promoting safe, environmentally beneficial uses that are sensitive to the needs of the community 4. Implementing the NBP Code of Good Practice and biosolids EMS

Influence Over Critical Control Points A marketing alternative may have a range of control options from a high degree of District control to very little control by the District. Additionally, the control may be measured through the compliance features contained in contract terms and conditions where the District may enforce control measures. This District’s ability to influence these critical control points is the measure of this criterion. This criterion is weighted low at 2.

Traffic and Delivery The transportation requirements of an alternative are an important consideration. Truck and rail requirements are identified. The proximity of and requirements for access to major roads and rail spurs of an alternative are considered. Additionally, this factor considers the local land use and its compatibility with these traffic requirements. This criterion is weighted important at 4.

FINAL 8 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

Market Site Location The compatibility of markets with local land uses considers the differences between a highly concentrated market (e.g., a 70,000-acre biomass to ethanol crop ranch in Riverside County) versus a widely dispersed market (e.g., bagged product sold throughout the U.S.). This criterion is weighted important at 4.

Potential for Nuisances Including Noise and Dust To the degree that a market alternative has the potential to generate dust, noise, or other potential nuisances, the success of the market will be affected. An alternative including totally enclosed manufacturing facilities that support bagging of product for retail sales would likely have a very low potential for nuisance. By comparison, a market requiring a product that is blended with potentially offensive materials (e.g., unprocessed manure) could result in products with a potential for dust or flies. This criterion excludes the potential for odor that was defined under a separate criterion. This criterion is weighted high at 5.

Ranking of Market Alternatives While applying the ranking process to the 11 viable markets, it was noted that several alternatives do not reflect typical or normal market behavior in the sense of providing a product or service to a range of potential buyers from which revenue is generated. In conducting the ranking process, this situation caused an unreasonably low skewing of the numerical ranking for three alternatives. These alternatives included agricultural uses at the District’s Central Valley Ranch, direct landfilling as a failsafe back-up alternative, and alternative daily cover at landfills as a failsafe back-up alternative. Additionally, it was noted that these alternatives constituted the key options available to the District as a part of its failsafe back-up plan. Needing to have a failsafe back-up plan for its biosolids material production denotes a significant difference in the business approach between the municipal utility sector and how the private sector is able to operate. These issues are distilled down to a matter of choice: when it comes to biosolids management, the municipal utility sector does not have a choice about turning off the production; biosolids never stop. In the private sector, choice is a reality as the business operator adjusts production up or down according to the demands of the market place. In conclusion, the team determined that these three alternatives should not be included in the ranking matrix due to their unique nonmarket behavior and the District’s need to maintain these outlets as a failsafe back-up. The remaining eight viable market alternatives were evaluated using the criteria, factors and methodology established during close coordination with District staff. Table 4-4 shows the ranking worksheet for the eight product markets and the results of the ranking process. The maximum score that could be achieved for any alternative was 380. Table 4-5 lists the alternatives from top to bottom with the highest to lowest score, respectively. Alternative 3, horticultural uses via blending and bagging for retail outlets, was ranked number 1 with a score of 274. Alternative 2 was ranked second with a score of 266, only about 3 percent less than Alternative 3. Alternatives 1 and 6, horticultural uses with member agencies and production of energy from biosolids material, were tied for the

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 9 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES third rank with a score of 264. These values were about 3.6 percent less than the top-ranked alternative. Alternative 4, production of trees for local shade tree programs, ranked fifth overall with a score of 252, about 8 percent less than the top-ranked alternative. The first six ranked alternatives with scores ranging from 274 to 252 are considered a first tier of market options that the District needs to actively pursue. Development of this range of markets will contribute to the District’s goals of diversity in the biosolids management program. Considerations in establishing these rankings are further described below. Rank 1. Score 274: Alternative 3 – Horticultural Uses Via Blending and Bagging for Retail Outlets. This alternative ranked highest in a number of categories including benefits to Orange County, a high degree of meeting the District’s biosolids policies, a long history of successful product uses, and the broad geographic range of markets served. Additionally, this alternative ranked high in several other important categories including a positive public perception of the product and current brands; a lack of political hurdles and constraints associated with implementing the alternative; the overall ease of implementation for access to the market through contracts with existing vendors/retailers; the low potential for odor, dust, or nuisance with these products; long-term sustainability of the market; and the District’s ability to successfully influence critical control points in the market. The alternative ranked lower than average in the case of competitors in the marketplace, current and future regulatory restrictions, and overall perceived market risk. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality. Rank 2. Score 266: Alternative 2 – Horticultural Uses for Ornamental and Nursery Production. This alternative ranked highest in three categories including meeting the District’s biosolids policies, a long history of successful product uses, and the broad range of geographic range of markets served. Additionally, this alternative ranked high in several other important categories including benefits to Orange County; the overall ease of implementation for access to the market through contracts with existing vendors/retailers; the low potential for odor, dust, or nuisance with these products; long-term sustainability of the market; and the District’s ability to successfully influence critical control points in the market. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of market size because the local nursery production facilities market is under increasing pressure from urbanization and growing grounds are lessening in availability. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality.

FINAL 10 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TABLE 4-4 Revised 4/21/03 Orange County Sanitation District Biosolids Long-Term Plan – Product Markets Ranking Worksheet Results from Workshop of 4/16/03 April 2003

Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Horticulture Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 7 Rating Criteria: Horticulture w/ for Horticulture for Silviculture for Energy and Construction 1= Unfavorable Score Weight Member Ornamentals Blending and Local Shade Ethanol Via Alternative 6 Products Alternative 8 5= Favorable 1 – ; 5 + Factor Agencies and Nurseries Bagging Tree Program Biomass Crops Direct Energy Market Fuel Products Perceived Benefits to the District/county 1 – low; 5 – high 5525 4 20 5 25 5 25 4 20 4 20 4 20 3 15 Market Size 1 – small; 5 – large 414 1 4 3 12 1 4 1 4 3 12 3 12 1 4 Estimate of Future Market 1 – small; 5 – large 5315 3 15 3 15 1 5 5 25 4 20 3 15 2 10 Competitors in the Market and Potential Impacts 1 – many; 5 – none 4312 3 12 2 8 4 16 4 16 3 12 2 8 3 12 Current and Future Regulatory Restrictions 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 4312 3 12 2 8 2 8 2 8 4 16 2 8 4 16 Perceived Market Risk 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 5420 3 15 2 10 4 20 2 10 4 20 1 5 3 15 Public Perception of Product/Brand 1 – negative; 5 – high 5315 3 15 4 20 5 25 3 15 3 15 1 5 3 15 Product Quantitative and Qualitative Limits and Preferences 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 133 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 3 3 2 2 Economics of Marketing 1 – low net; 5 – high net 236 3 6 3 6 1 2 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 Political Hurdles and Constraints 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 339 3 9 4 12 3 9 2 6 1 3 2 6 3 9 Ease of Implementation 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 339 4 12 4 12 3 9 1 3 4 12 3 9 1 3 History of Product Applications to this Market 1 – few years; 5 – many years 3412 5 15 5 15 4 12 1 3 2 6 1 3 3 9 Geographic Range of Markets 1 – small; 5 – large 339 5 15 5 15 3 9 2 6 5 15 4 12 2 6 Potential for Odor 1 – high; 5 – low 5420 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 Long-Term Sustainability 1 – low; 5 – high 4416 4 16 4 16 2 8 4 16 5 20 3 12 5 20

Meeting District’s Biosolids Policies Beneficial Reuse In-county Emphasis Safe, environmentally sound practices Implement NBP EMS 1 – low; 5 – high 5525 5 25 5 25 5 25 3 15 3 15 4 20 3 15 Influence Over Critical Control Points 1 – low; 5 – high 248 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 6 4 8 3 6 3 6 Traffic and Delivery 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 4312 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 5 20 3 12 2 8 Market Site Location 1 – concentrated; 5 – diverse 4312 3 12 3 12 3 12 1 4 1 4 2 8 1 4 Potential for Nuisances including Flies and Dust 1 – high; 5 – low 5420 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 3 15 4 20 3 15

TOTAL Maximum Score = 380 264 266 274 252 217 264 210 210

RANK 3 214536 6

Summary Description of Alternatives Alternative 1 – Horticulture with Member Agencies: Use of compost, dried pellets, or soil-like products for turf establishment, renovation, and over-seeding turf areas, soil amendment in flower and ground cover areas, for mulch for weed and erosion control, moisture retention and nondecorative surface areas Alternative 2 – Horticulture for Ornamental and Nursery Production: Use of compost, dried pellets, or soil-like products for soil mixes at nursery and plant production growing grounds Alternative 3 – Horticulture for Blending and Bagging to Retail: Use of compost, dried pellets, or soil-like products for soil mixes into bagged products retailed at nurseries and big-box retail and discount merchants Alternative 4 – Silviculture for Local Shade Tree Program: Use of compost, dried pellets, or soil-like products for soil mixes at tree production nurseries creating shade trees for volunteer Shade Tree Programs Alternative 5 – Biomass Production to Serve Ethanol Energy: Use of compost, dried pellets, or soil-like products for growing corn and/or sugar beets to supply ethanol production plant Alternative 6 – Direct Energy: Dried pellets to burn in incinerator for energy recovery Alternative 7 – Construction Materials: Dried pellets, granules, or ash-like materials to create construction materials including road base or blocks Alternative 8 – Indirect Energy through Fuel Products: Biosolids cake or dried pellets used in technologies to generate char or fuel oil-like material that can be burned for energy recovery

W052003003SCO/Table4-4.xls/031480006/Tbl 4-4 Team Ranking 11 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 4-5 Ranking Market Alternatives Rank Market Alternative Score

1 Alternative 3 – Horticultural Uses Via Blending and Bagging for Retail 274 Outlets

2 Alternative 2 – Horticultural Uses for Ornamental and Nursery 266 Production

3 Alternative 1 – Horticultural Uses with Member Agencies 264 Alternative 6 – Direct Energy

4 Alternative 4 – Trees for Local Shade Tree Programs 252

5 Alternative 5 – Biomass Crops (Corn, Sugar Beets) for Ethanol 217 Production

6 Alternative 7 – Construction Materials Market 210 Alternative 8 – Fuel Char Products to Kilns

Rank 3. Score 264: Alternative 1 – Horticultural Uses with Member Agencies. This alternative tied with Alternative 6 – Direct Energy. This alternative ranked highest in two categories including benefits to Orange County and a high degree of meeting the District’s biosolids policies. Additionally, this alternative ranked high in several other important categories including relatively easy issues with market risk; a long history of successful product uses; low potential for odor, dust, or nuisance with these products; long-term sustainability of the market; and the District’s ability to successfully influence critical control points in the market. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of market size as the local use of these types of products is relatively small compared to the District’s overall production capacity. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality. Rank 4. Score 264: Alternative 6 – Direct Energy. This alternative tied with Alternative 1 – Horticultural Uses with Member Agencies. This alternative ranked highest in four categories with relatively low weighting including the economics of marketing energy, the broad range of energy markets available to the alternative, the long-term sustainability of the market, and the ease of delivering products to this marketplace. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of potentially difficult political hurdles of an incineration type of facility and the relatively poor history of energy recovery from these types of facilities. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality. Rank 5. Score 252: Alternative 4 – Trees for Local Shade Tree Programs. This alternative ranked highest in three categories including benefits to Orange County, a positive public perception of the product and current brands, and meeting the District’s biosolids policies. Additionally, this alternative ranked high in

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 13 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

several other important categories including very little competition in this market; a long history of successful utilization of these products in the market; an overall low perceived market risk; low potential for odor, dust, or nuisance with these products; long-term sustainability of the market; and the District’s ability to successfully influence critical control points in the market. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of a very small market size and poor market economics. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality. Rank 6. Score 217: Alternative 5 – Biomass Crops (Corn, Sugar Beets) for Ethanol Production. This alternative ranked highest in one category for the very large potential future market and somewhat high in the case of benefits to Orange County; the relatively few competitors in the marketplace; the ease of supplying the kinds of products needed by this market; the relatively good market economics; low potential for odor, dust, or nuisance with these products; and the long-term sustainability of the market. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of a very small current market size, potentially difficult implementation, relatively little history or experience for the local growers utilizing these types of biosolids products, and the market site location concentrated in either Riverside or Imperial Counties. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality. Rank 7. Score 210: Alternative 7 – Construction Materials Market. This alternative tied with Alternative 8 – Fuel Char Products to Kilns. This alternative ranked higher than average for benefits to Orange County; the broad range of markets available to the alternative; low potential for odor, dust, or nuisance with these products; and meeting the District’s biosolids policies. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of perceived market risk, the public’s perception of the product brand for direct use construction materials, and the minimal history of product applications. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality. Rank 8. Score 210: Alternative 8 – Fuel Char Products to Kilns. This alternative tied with Alternative 7 – Construction Materials Market. This alternative ranked highest in one category for the long-term sustainability of the energy marketplace. This alternative ranked higher than average for relatively little interference from current or future regulations and the low potential for odor from these products. The alternative ranked substantially lower than average in the case of a very small market size, difficulty in implementing these types of projects, and their potential vulnerability to local siting issues or concerns. For the other categories, the alternative ranked average or in the middle of the range indicating neutrality.

FINAL 14 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

Summary and Recommendations The purpose of this TM was to rank the product markets using a number criteria system. This TM brings together information from TM 2 describing the viable markets and TM 3 describing the implementation assessment. The ranking methodology uses 20 noneconomic criteria to compare alternatives. The ranking process was conducted by the consulting and District’s planning and biosolids team. The maximum score that could be attained for any alternative was 380. Alternative 3, horticultural uses via blending and bagging for retail outlets, was ranked number 1 with a score of 274. Alternative 2 was ranked second with a score of 266, only about 3 percent less than Alternative 3. Alternatives 1 and 6, horticultural uses with member agencies and production of energy from biosolids material, were tied for the third rank with a score of 264. These values were about 3.6 percent less than the top-ranked alternative. Alternative 4, production of trees for local shade tree programs, ranked fifth overall with a score of 252, about 8 percent less than the top-ranked alternative. Alternative 7, construction material markets, and Alternative 8, fuel char products, were tied and ranked seventh with a score of 210. The team reached the following recommendations: 1. The team recommends active pursuit of the top five product markets as their scores were substantially greater than the bottom-tier three markets, 252 or higher versus 217 or lower. This is a difference of 15 percent or greater from the low range to the high range. These markets utilize compost, dried products, or soil-like products for a wide range of horticultural uses or in direct energy production. 2. Additionally, the District needs to actively pursue all available failsafe back-up options, including landfilling, alternative daily cover at landfills, and dedicated landfilling, to acquire at least a 100 percent contingency capacity. 3. The District needs to maintain its current land application capacity and options, including the District’s Central Valley Ranch and other land application sites, for as long as is feasible and economically sound.

W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 15 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

Blank page

FINAL 12 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 – RANKING MARKET ALTERNATIVES

Blank page

FINAL 16 W052003003SCO/TM-04.DOC/ 033290001 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 5 – Viable Product Technologies

Contents

Summary ...... 2 Introduction...... 3 Drivers for New Technology Options...... 4 Regulations...... 4 Public Perception...... 5 Product Market Options...... 6 Biosolids Management Goals ...... 6 Projected Biosolids Quantity and Quality...... 6 Technology Ranking Criteria...... 7 Industry Experience ...... 9 Process Reliability...... 9 Owner/Operator Options...... 9 Management Control ...... 9 Public Perception of the Facility...... 9 Ease of Implementation/Siting in Southern California ...... 9 Cost to the District...... 10 Facility Risk ...... 10 District Investment Risk ...... 10 Location...... 10 Compatibility with Existing Facilities ...... 10 Net Energy Benefits...... 11 Production of Difficult Waste Streams...... 11 Traffic ...... 11 Potential for Odor...... 11 Air Quality Impacts...... 11 Product Compatibility with Markets...... 11 Product Acceptability ...... 11 Product Sustainability (Risk) ...... 12 Perceived Benefits to District/County ...... 12 Viable Product Technologies Selection ...... 12 Composting ...... 12 Heat Drying...... 14 Solar Drying ...... 14 Bactericides...... 15 Chemical Stabilization ...... 16 Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing...... 16

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 1 175817.PE.15 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Pyrolysis ...... 16 Super Critical Water Oxidation/Combustion ...... 17 Gasification/Starved Air Combustion...... 17 Complete Combustion ...... 17 Vitrification ...... 18 Deep Well Injection...... 18 Blending of Class A Cake with Inert Material ...... 18 Summary ...... 18 Description of Viable Technologies...... 20 Composting...... 20 Heat Drying ...... 25 Chemical Stabilization...... 33 Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing ...... 43 Pyrolysis ...... 44 Super Critical Water Oxidation...... 52 Gasification/Starved Air Combustion...... 55 Combustion...... 55 Plasma-Assisted Oxidation...... 57 Vitrification ...... 58 Deep Well Injection...... 61 Summary and Recommendations...... 65 Appendix A – District On-File Biosolids Treatment Proposals...... 68 Appendix B – Viable Technology Ranking Criteria Evaluation Tables ...... 69

Summary In recent years, there has been a great deal of effort invested in developing technologies for processing of biosolids, largely due to changes in the beneficial use and disposal options for biosolids management and the associated costs. The changes in beneficial use options have primarily been driven by public concerns that have forced changes in local regulations and impacted beneficial use options. Traditionally, much of the digested biosolids of Class B quality in Southern California have been applied to agricultural land or disposed of in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. One of the key public concerns has been odor, which has led to questions of public health and issues such as air quality, traffic, and land application practices. In response to these concerns and the changing local regulations, a focus on improved biosolids products has emerged. This Technical Memorandum (TM) focuses on the viable technologies for providing biosolids products that can be marketed and beneficially used in a sustainable manner in Southern California. In order to evaluate the wide range of product technologies for applicability in Southern California and to Orange County Sanitation District (the District) in particular, a number of evaluation criteria were developed in a workshop with District staff. Each criterion was assigned a weighting factor to reflect the relative importance of that criterion. The biosolids product technologies were grouped into 13 broad categories such as composting and heat drying. An initial screening level review was conducted to identify any categories that might have “fatal flaws,” such as the inability to meet Class A Exceptional Quality (EQ)

FINAL 2 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES product standards. A more detailed review was then conducted on various processes available within each of the ten selected technology categories. The review was based on documentation provided by vendors to the District and to the consultant team, and on meetings and telephone discussions with the vendors. Based on this evaluation, the most viable five options for the District are as follows: 1. Aerated pile (static pile or agitated bin) composting, with an enclosed facility. The enclosed facility will provide advantages over an unenclosed facility through location and flexibility to meet changing air regulations. 2. Heat drying. The relative merits of direct and indirect systems will be considered in more detail at a later date. An onsite facility is preferred to offsite regional facilities due to provision of an in-county management option, reduced truck hauling volumes and distances, and better management control. 3. Organo-mineral fertilizer process to produce a high-value fertilizer product. In these processes, chemical addition prior to drying provides the advantage of reducing fuel consumption in the drying process. 4. Co-combustion. Uses high temperature processes for energy production allows recovering the fuel value of the biosolids for non-cropping markets. 5. Pyrolysis and indirect heat drying (with soil) for production of fuel products and construction material, respectively. These are emerging technologies that generate products for non-cropping markets that could be commercially feasible in the near future.

Introduction In recent years, there has been a great deal of effort invested in developing technologies for processing of biosolids, largely due to changes in the beneficial use and disposal options for biosolids management and the associated costs. The changes in beneficial use options have primarily been driven by public concerns that have forced changes in local regulations and impacted beneficial use options. Traditionally, much of the stabilized biosolids of Class B quality in Southern California have been applied to agricultural land or disposed of in MSW landfills. One of the key public concerns has been odor, which has led to public health questions and issues such as air quality, traffic, and land application practices. In response to these concerns and the changing local regulations, a focus on improved biosolids products has emerged. This has resulted in newer processing technologies that can improve biosolids quality and reduce the biosolids volume. There are now a wide range of biosolids processing options available, albeit at various stages of development and with different applications for biosolids product beneficial use. There are technologies that seek to improve the digestion process – i.e., to improve the biodegradation of the solids, thereby reducing the final volume for beneficial use; and to improve pathogen kill to achieve Class A standards. Other technologies focus on improved dewatering of the biosolids, which reduces the wet volume of biosolids for beneficial use or disposal. Additional technologies aim to provide a high-quality biosolids “product” in a form providing added value and greater public acceptance. This review focuses on the biosolids product technologies for

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES which the District has received proposals, as well as other potentially viable product technologies. Considering the wide range of biosolids product technologies available, it is important that these technologies be evaluated for their applicability to the District. The evaluation of technologies must be based on factors specific to the District and the Southern California area, such as compatibility with the long-term regulatory outlook, the public health and environmental benefits, the reliability of the technologies to provide sustainable biosolids management, compatibility of the product with markets, the cost-effectiveness of the technology, and the compatibility of the technologies with existing facilities. The goal of the evaluation is to identify viable biosolids processing technologies for further consideration by the District in development of a long-range biosolids management plan. The objectives of this evaluation are to: x Identify the technologies that are currently available commercially or that are close to commercialization and assess their application for the District biosolids processing. x Provide a summary of the technologies and the key issues associated with implementation, specific to the District and Southern California. x Evaluate the technologies based on specific criteria and identify “fatal flaws.” x Provide recommended technologies for further evaluation.

Drivers for New Technology Options There are three key drivers that have been stimulating the development of new biosolids processing technologies, which need to be considered in the technology evaluation: x Regulations x Public perception x Product market options The three drivers are interrelated, because public perception is often a catalyst for regulation, particularly at the local level, and local regulations can impact the biosolids beneficial use market options.

Regulations The regulations that impact biosolids were discussed earlier in TM 1. The main regulation that governs the treatment and beneficial use of biosolids is the federal regulation, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 (Part 503 regulations). This is currently being reassessed with regard to radioactivity levels in biosolids. The radioactive concentrations in District biosolids are below levels that would be impacted by these regulations. The EPA has recently ruled that dioxins do not need to be included in the Part 503 regulations due to the low levels present in biosolids. A potential impact is any change in treatment, compliance, and monitoring requirements that may emerge based on the response to the recently completed National Academy of Science (NAS) report, which indicated that the scientific basis for the Part 503 regulations

FINAL 4 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES must be updated. In addition, the recommendation by the NAS report to update the basis of the Part 503 regulations has not improved public perception of land application of biosolids and has, in the case of Riverside County, increased the pressure for restrictions on land application of biosolids. As is typical with most federal regulations, the Part 503 regulations allow local jurisdictions to implement more stringent requirements. Although the State of California uses the Part 503 regulations as its foundation for the state regulations, counties are allowed to impose more restrictions on biosolids beneficial use than provided in the federal or state regulations. A large number of counties in California have done so using several methods, such as: x Banning land application of biosolids x Imposing severe restrictions on the quality of biosolids x Limiting the area that can be used for land application x Levying local charges such as road use fees This trend makes land application of biosolids increasingly tenuous. Although legislation may be formulated to pre-empt the implementation of more restrictive regulations, this would take years to promulgate, and in the meantime, the options for land application of biosolids will, most likely, be restricted further. Air quality is a key concern in Southern California and is regulated accordingly. Any biosolids processing technologies installed at the District’s wastewater treatment plants will need to maintain emissions below the levels currently allowed in the District air quality permits and maintain a good neighbor odor policy. Any offsite installations, whether owned by a private entity or a public agency, will need to obtain air quality permits. In January 2003, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted Rule 1133 for control of emissions from compost facilities. Rule 1133 is emissions based rather than control-technology based. These are the key regulatory issues that need to be considered when evaluating the applicability of biosolids processing technologies for the District and Southern California. As newer biosolids technologies become more commonly used, it is possible that new regulations may be developed in response to new issues that arise. Therefore, the technology evaluation must consider aspects that may be a trigger for additional legislation, such as odors, metal concentrations, and air emissions.

Public Perception Public perception is important when evaluating biosolids processing technologies, as it can be a catalyst for regulation, particularly at the local level. It can also raise opposition to an individual facility and tarnish the image of an agency or private entity. Issues that impact public perception of a facility include odor, traffic, and visual appearance of the facility, in addition to previous negative attitudes to any project which may be considered disposal (Not in My Back Yard [NIMBY]). Much of the drive behind implementation of restrictive county land application ordinances has been public perception. Odor and aesthetics of the biosolids have been key issues influencing public perception and may lead to questions about the health impacts and pathogen levels in the biosolids. Therefore, a goal is to identify

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 5 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES technologies that provide a product that is more likely to be sustainable over the long term. The resulting product should have the following attributes: x An odor-free biosolids product x An aesthetically pleasing biosolids product that does not resemble traditional land- applied dewatered cake x A product amenable to alternative beneficial use options

Product Market Options Biosolids beneficial use in Southern California has largely been limited to land application of Class B biosolids and some biosolids compost. Recent restrictive legislation by counties has reduced the availability of Class B land application sites throughout California. Although there are opportunities for Class B land application in other states such as Arizona and Nevada, increased land application in these states may result in public opposition and legislation similar to what has occurred in California. Composting facilities have also experienced public opposition, primarily due to odors. In addition, more stringent air quality legislation is emerging to control volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia from composting operations. These changes indicate that the biosolids processing technologies must be compatible with the market options and that new markets must be identified to provide a diverse range of beneficial use options for sustainable biosolids management. Technologies providing products with a long-term market demand and multiple market options will be considered preferable.

Biosolids Management Goals In accordance with the District’s Strategic Plan, the current goals and objectives of viable technology evaluation are to provide: x 100 percent biosolids beneficial use x At least one in-county management option x Maximize the reliability of the long-term biosolids management program x Improve public perception and confidence x Realize innovative, cost-effective and environmentally sound ideas x Low cost x Multiple processing options x Continued use of private sector hauling and land application x Diversification of markets x Back-up options

Projected Biosolids Quantity and Quality The projected future (year 2020) biosolids quantity and quality are shown in Table 5-1. The biosolids quantity data was based on primary and secondary mass balance values derived from the Interim Strategic Plan Update, 2001, according to the conventional full secondary treatment scenario. The solids destruction was based on conventional mesophilic digestion, and ultrasound pretreatment of the waste activated sludge (WAS), with an estimated

FINAL 6 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES volatile solids destruction of 60 percent, followed by belt filter press (BFP) dewatering. The biosolids quality data was derived from the District monthly constituent concentration data, averaged between May 2000 and July 2003.

TABLE 5-1 District Future Biosolids Quality Parameter Unit Value Cake total solids concentration % 20.5 Wet cake production tons*/d 1,000 Dry solids production tons*/d 205 Organic fraction (volatile solids/ %59 total solids) Arsenic mg/kg (dry weight) 6 Cadmium mg/kg (dry weight) 10 Copper mg/kg (dry weight) 695 Lead mg/kg (dry weight) 40 Mercury mg/kg (dry weight) 2 Molybdenum mg/kg (dry weight) 17 Nickel mg/kg (dry weight) 116 Selenium mg/kg (dry weight) 8 Zinc mg/kg (dry weight) 750 Organic-N mg/kg (dry weight) 22,600 Ammonia-N mg/kg (dry weight) 3,000 Nitrate-N mg/kg (dry weight) *ND Based on installation of conventional secondary treatment and belt press dewatering, as well as recent biosolids quality data mg/kg milligrams per kilogram ND not detected

Technology Ranking Criteria In order to evaluate the wide range of available biosolids product technologies, an approach was developed to allow ranking by certain criteria that reflect key issues of concern to the District and biosolids management in Southern California. The criteria were developed in keeping with the management goals identified above and in the Environmental Management System (EMS) developed by the District. Each criterion was assigned an importance weighting factor, so that issues of greater concern were given higher priority in the evaluation. Each technology was assigned a score between 1 and 5 to reflect its performance for the criteria. A score of 1 indicated a low performance and reflected negatively on that technology. A score of 5 was the highest score and reflected positively on that technology. The technology score for a particular criterion will be multiplied by the importance weighting for that criterion and the sum of all the results for a technology will be used to rank it in comparison to the other technologies. Any biosolids product technology that does not provide a product equivalent to an EQ biosolids standard will be

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES considered to have a fatal flaw and will not be further evaluated. As defined by USEPA, EQ biosolids meet all of the following criteria, which refer to the Part 503 regulations: x Be below the maximum pollutant levels in Table 1 x Be equal to or below the average pollutant levels in Table 3 x Meet Class A pathogen density levels x Satisfy one of the first eight vector attraction reduction (VAR) requirements Table 5-2 provides the criteria that will be used in the evaluation, along with the importance weighting score. The criteria and importance weighting were decided in a workshop with District staff and the consultant team, and reflect local biosolids issues and District concerns regarding biosolids management technologies. Brief descriptions of the criteria are provided below.

TABLE 5-2 Technology Ranking System Score Importance No. Criteria 1 – low; 5 – high 1 – low; 5 – high Results* 1. Industry experience 1 – none; 5 – similar size 2 2. Process reliability 1 – questionable; 5 – reliable 4 3. Owner/operator options 1 – contractor; 5 – flexible 1 4. Management control 1 – low; 5 – high 1 5. Public perception of facility 1 – negative; 5 – acceptable 5 6. Ease of implementation/siting in 1 – difficult; 5 – easier 5 Southern California 7. Cost to the District 1 – high; 5 – low 3 8. Facility risk 1 – high; 5 – low 4 9. District investment risk 1 – high; 5 – low 4 10. Location 1 – distant; 5 – in county 4 11. Compatibility with existing 1 – low; 5 – v. compatible 4 facilities 12. Net energy benefits 1 – low; 5 – high 3 13. Production of difficult waste 1 – strong; 5 – none 4 streams 14. Traffic 1 – high; 5 – low 5 15. Potential for odor 1 – high; 5 – low 5 16. Air quality impacts 1 – high; 5 – low emissions 5 17. Product compatibility with 1 – not; 5 – v. compatible 5 markets 18. Product acceptability 1 – low; 5 – high 5 19. Product sustainability (risk) 1 – questionable; 5 – long term 5 20. Perceived benefits to 1 – low; 5 – high 5 District/County *Results for each technology = score x importance. See Table 5-6 for a summary of results and Appendix B for individual technology ranking.

FINAL 8 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Industry Experience Industry experience refers to the level of development and the number of successful, currently operational installations, with the highest score being given to technologies that have installations similar in size to the District. The importance weighting for this criterion is low, as a long-term master plan should not discount heavily against promising emerging technologies and technologies that could be tested by the District.

Process Reliability Process reliability refers to operational experience with the technology at past or present installations. For technologies that do not have full-scale installations, a technical evaluation of the process and the equipment will be conducted to rank the anticipated process reliability of the technology. Process reliability has a high importance weighting as an unreliable process not only causes operational problems, but also has impacts on other factors such as reliable beneficial use of the product, prevention of biosolids being stockpiled, public perception, and regulatory compliance.

Owner/Operator Options Technologies that are flexible from an owner and operational perspective are preferable in terms of providing options for the District. For example, a composting facility could be owned and operated by the District, it could be owned by the District and operated by a contractor, or the District could contract with a privately owned composting facility for a per ton fee. The District could also participate in a regional facility. However, the importance weighting for this is not considered to be high, as there may be viable technologies that do not have a wide range of owner/operator options and relative to other ranking criteria, this is not considered to be an issue of high importance.

Management Control Management control is a reflection of the degree of management control the District will have over the facility and the treatment of the biosolids. Onsite management by the District will provide the highest level of management control, and therefore will be an option that carries less risk than a facility operated by a private company that may, for example, accept different types of wastes and may choose to discontinue treating District biosolids in favor of more lucrative waste streams.

Public Perception of the Facility Public perception is a key issue in Southern California and is also a factor in siting and implementation of a facility. Technologies such as incineration, or facilities that have a tall stack, may have negative public perception due to aesthetics and health concerns about stack emissions. This issue is considered critical, as public perception is key to the successful siting and implementation of a facility.

Ease of Implementation/Siting in Southern California Ease of implementation and siting ties in a number of factors that will affect the ability of a facility to be located in Southern California, including public perception, regulations, permitting and land requirements. Facilities that would be difficult to site in Southern

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 9 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

California reduce the probability of implementation and continuing operation, and could attract negative publicity for the District. Therefore, this is considered a key issue in evaluating the technology options and is appropriately heavily weighted.

Cost to the District The District has already received specific proposals from private contractors for processing and beneficial use/disposal of biosolids. The proposal price will be considered and an estimate on the reliability of the cost will be determined. For technology options that do not have a specific price, an estimate of the life cycle costs will be made for comparison with the specific costs from private vendor proposals. Cost is not as critical an issue as ensuring that the technology provides a reliable management option.

Facility Risk Facility risk is an evaluation of the risks associated with a facility and its continued operation. Risks include aspects such as financing of private facilities, management commitment to maintaining a high-quality facility that complies with the District’s EMS, continued regulatory compliance, odor, and product quality. The ability of a facility to continue operation successfully and with the high standards necessary to minimize any negative public perception, is necessary for reliable biosolids management. However, as this is an anticipated risk, based on deductions from the review of the process and financial setup, it has been assigned a weighting score of 4 rather than 5.

District Investment Risk Investment risk is a reflection of the level of risk that the District takes when investing in a technology option; it will consider the level of investment in conjunction with the risk associated with that investment. Although investment risk is an important factor, because it is an anticipated future level of risk and based on technical judgment, this criteria has been assigned a weighting score of 4.

Location The District has stated a preference for in-county biosolids management options, and therefore a facility that could be located within the county will score higher on this criterion than more distant locations outside of the county. The closer the facility location to the two wastewater treatment plants, the less the impact on truck traffic and the lower the air emissions from transportation, which are key considerations of location.

Compatibility with Existing Facilities Technologies that are not compatible with the existing facilities need to be ranked lower in the evaluation. The District is committed to maintaining anaerobic digestion and maximizing biogas recovery to reduce onsite electrical costs. Any technologies that have an adverse impact on the existing facilities, through recycle streams, footprint requirements or feed biosolids requirements will be assigned a lower score. This is an important issue in terms of site complexity, operations, and land use; however, it is not as critical as other factors that can make or break an option, and is therefore assigned a weight of 4.

FINAL 10 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Net Energy Benefits Technologies that are energy intensive would likely be difficult to install at the District’s wastewater treatment plants without considerable upgrades to the electricity supply system. Even for offsite options, the environmental impact of energy intensive processes must be considered. However, as some options will preserve the use of biosolids in the nutrient form rather than in the energy form, a weighting of 3 has been assigned to this criteria.

Production of Difficult Waste Streams Processes that produce waste streams that are difficult to treat would score low on this criterion. Examples of difficult waste streams include: x High nutrient loads such as ammonia and phosphorus x High strength loads such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), or total suspended solids (TSS) x Ash that may be classed as hazardous x Air emissions that would require extensive treatment for compounds such as dioxins or mercury The impact of these waste streams may increase treatment costs and could result in the facility being difficult to site. This is considered to be of high importance, with a weighting factor of 4.

Traffic Traffic is a critical issue for environmental impacts and public acceptance of a new facility. Processes that reduce the traffic impacts will score higher on this criterion, so this has the highest importance weighting of 5.

Potential for Odor Odor is another critical issue for public acceptance and the long-term sustainability of a facility, so this has the highest importance weighting of 5.

Air Quality Impacts Air quality is very important for environmental impacts, regulatory compliance, and permitting; therefore, this has the highest importance weighting of 5.

Product Compatibility with Markets Any process technology must provide a product that is compatible with a reliable market and the product must meet standards required by that market. This is considered a critical issue and has an importance weighting score of 5.

Product Acceptability The smell, aesthetics, and physical characteristics of the product must be acceptable to the market and to the general public that may become aware of the use of a product in their

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 11 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES neighborhood. This is considered a critical issue and has an importance weighting score of 5.

Product Sustainability (Risk) Because this is a long-term plan for the next 20 years, it is important that any of the recommended technologies produce a product that is likely to remain useable for the foreseeable future, without threat from regulations and public perception issues. Therefore, this criterion is weighted as 5.

Perceived Benefits to District/County Perceived benefits are a summary of environmental, economic, resource conservation, and beneficial use benefits to the District and Orange County through implementation of a particular technology for biosolids management, and therefore is weighted high at 5.

Viable Product Technologies Selection There are a wide range of technologies available for biosolids treatment and manufacture of a biosolids product. The District has received a number of proposals from vendors of different product technologies, which have been included in the following product technology evaluation. The consultant team also added appropriate technologies for which the District has not received proposals, but which may be feasible. The product technologies were assigned to broad categories and subcategories. A summary list of the product technologies and vendors reviewed in this evaluation is provided in Table 5-3, followed by a brief description of the different categories and preliminary screening to identify any fatal flaws. The list of vendors represents either vendors that have submitted proposals to the District or have approached the consultant team. The vendors who submitted proposals to the District are identified by “Y”; technologies added by the consultant team are identified by “N” in the “District Proposal” column. The list of technologies provided in Table 5-3 was initially reviewed to identify any fatal flaws, such as processes that are not identified in the Part 503 regulations as meeting the pathogen equivalent of Class A. Any process that cannot meet Class A pathogen density criteria except under Alternatives 3 or 4 (by testing for pathogens in the product) will be discounted from detailed evaluation because there have been indications that these may be deleted from the regulations in the future. In addition, any processes that do not provide a stable product without offensive odor will also be considered to have a fatal flaw. The process categories identified in Table 5-3 are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.

Composting Composting refers to the biological, aerobic stabilization of biosolids with an amendment to improve texture. The process is autothermal and generates sufficient heat to maintain temperatures over 50qC for at least 3 consecutive days, thereby producing a Class A product. There are a number of different composting processes. For this evaluation, the subcategories that will be considered are: x Vermicomposting – composting using worms.

FINAL 12 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE 5-3 List of On-file Product Technology Vendors No. Process Vendors Evaluated District Proposal 1 Composting Vermiculture VermiTech Y Aerated pile In-county Proposals Y South Kern Industrial Center N IPS Y Deep-vessel American Biotech Y Windrow San Joaquin Composting Y 2 Heat Drying Direct Numerous – including Andritz, Sernagiotto Y Indirect Numerous – including Andritz, Komline Y 3 Solar Drying Greenhouse Parkson Y Open air Yakima Company Y 4 Bactericides Ever Green Organics Y 5 Chemical Stabilization Neat Alkali RDP Technologies Y Bioset Inc. Y Tule Ranch Y Cemen Tech Y Fly ash N-Viro Y Neutralization California Soil Products Y Hondo Chemical Y Pan American Biotechnologies Y 6 Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing High fortification Wilrey Trust N Unified Water N Medium fortification Wilrey Trust N Milorganite N Low fortification Wilrey Trust N 7 Pyrolysis Low temperature EnerTech Y Thermo Energy Y Mid temperature Enersludge Y High temperature International Environmental Solutions Y 8 Super Critical Water Oxidation Above Ground HydroProcessing N Chematur Engineering AB N Below Ground Genesyst Y 9 Gasification Number of European & Asian vendors N 10 Combustion Incineration Number of vendors N Plasma-assisted oxidation HydroQuebec/Fabgroups Technologies Y 11 Vitrification Glassification Minergy Y 12 Deep well injection Terralog Y 13 Blending of Class A cake with inert material None N Y = vendor submitted proposal N = vendor did not submit proposal; consultant team added to list

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 13 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES x Aerated pile – composting in piles that have mechanical aeration, including static pile or agitated bin composting. x Deep-vessel composting – this requires the construction of deep silos in which the composting takes place. The depth of the beds may be as much as 24 feet, depending on the specific process. Windrow composting is not considered to be sustainable long term due to the air and particulate emission issues with this method, the difficulty of process control, and the draft Rule 1133 regulations that will effectively eliminate this as an option for processing biosolids in parts of Southern California.

Heat Drying The heat drying process uses an external heat source to evaporate the water from the solids, with the typical moisture content of the final product less than 15 percent. There are a number of different dryer designs, such as paddle dryers, fluidized beds, rotary drums, etc. Provided the biosolids reach a sufficient temperature and final product dryness, the technology will produce a product meeting Class A pathogen levels and VAR criteria. The broad subcategories are: x Direct Drying – where the biosolids come in direct contact with the heating medium, which is usually air, but could be steam. x Indirect Drying – the solids do not come in contact with the heating medium, which is usually oil, hot water, or steam, that flows through heating coils, paddles, or screws and evaporates the water from the solids.

Solar Drying There are two subcategories under solar drying: x Green house solar drying x Open air solar drying Either process can use liquid or dewatered solids. The land requirements for liquid application, as proposed for greenhouse drying, will be significantly higher than for dewatered cake. However, pathogen kill from solar drying biosolids cake may be more uncertain as the cake may have a tendency to clump and particles will not get even treatment. These technologies do not appear to be suitable for processing of a biosolids product for the District; however, they may be suitable as a failsafe option, for drying dewatered cake for use as alternative daily cover (ADC).

Greenhouse Drying Enclosed green house solar drying uses solar energy, enhanced through green house construction and air circulation control, to provide faster and less odorous drying than conventional solar drying beds. It is claimed by the manufacturer that the process produces Class A pathogen levels, but it does not fit any of the Part 503 regulations alternatives for Processes for Further Reduction of Pathogens (PFRPs). An estimate provided by Parkson Corporation for a solar drying system required 20 acres to treat 188,000 wet tons per year of digested biosolids. At future solids production of around 1,000 wet tons per day (full

FINAL 14 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES secondary, ultrasound, anaerobic digestion, and BFP dewatering), the footprint required would be around 40 acres. This option is considered to have a fatal flaw for the following reasons: x Large footprint and number of modules required x Currently meets Class A pathogen requirements only under Part 503 Alternative 3 or 4

Open Air Drying The Yakima Company has proposed open air solar drying of the biosolids cake at the La Paz Landfill in Arizona, with the biosolids cake dried to approximately 90 percent over a 4-week period and used as ADC for the landfill, or for composting. Although the site at present is considered sufficiently remote to not raise objections to odors or flies, this alternative will not be considered further for the following reasons: x Out of state, therefore no say in future regulations. x May meet Class A by Alternative 3, but not under as a PFRP and reliability of the pathogen kill is questionable. x Environmental impacts and emissions from long hauling distance and no process emission control. x Odors and flies may eventually raise objections from locals or from landfill workers. x Management of the environmental impacts, nuisance, and containment of leachate does not appear to be adequate. In addition, the company has recently ceased operation at the La Paz site, due to their inability to obtain the required insurance.

Bactericides Treatment with bactericides requires the addition of toxic chemicals in sufficient quantity to the biosolids to effect the pathogen kill required. The dose can be controlled to provide Class A or Class B level of pathogen kill. This does not fit any of the Part 503 alternatives for PFRPs and would need to be routinely tested for Class A compliance under Alternative 4. Information provided to the District by Evergreen Organics regarding their use of the bactericide Busan 1236 (sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate) and technical experience gained in tests done by Atkins in the U.K. using borates for pathogen kill in digested biosolids were used to review this option. A dosing requirement stated in the information provided by Evergreen Organics was 0.5 percent metam sodium and 1 percent potassium hydroxide per wet ton of biosolids. At the anticipated future biosolids quantity of 1,000 wet tons per day (full secondary, ultrasound, anaerobic digestion and BFP dewatering), this would require a chemical consumption of 5 tons per day metam sodium and 10 tons per day potassium hydroxide, which is a considerable amount. Based on the review of available material, this option is considered to have a fatal flaw for the following reasons: x Can only qualify for Class A pathogen standards under Part 503 Alternative 3 or 4.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 15 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES x Does not meet the Class A requirement for VAR to be conducted simultaneously to or after the pathogen reduction step.1 x The bactericides are extremely toxic and require special training and personal protective equipment (PPE) for handling. Permitting of such chemicals at the District’s wastewater plants would be extremely difficult, particularly given the amount that would be required. x Improper dosing would result in a negative impact on the land to which the biosolids are applied. To meet Class A pathogen levels, given the variability in feed pathogen concentrations, it would be difficult to maintain the correct dose. The process would be more suitable for Class B pathogen requirements. x Addition of bactericides does not improve the long-term stability, since the cake would need to be stored until the bactericide concentrations are below the toxic limit, there is the potential for odor generation from the stored biosolids.

Chemical Stabilization There are a wide range of alkaline treatment processes available and the three subcategories reflect the key process differences: x Neat alkali (quick lime) processes – these require the addition of a high-quality lime product such as quick lime. x Fly ash and waste alkali processes – these processes use lower quality, but potentially cheaper, alkaline waste products such as fly ash from cement kilns. x Neutralization processes – these processes use an alkali with sulfuric acid to provide a product with a neutral pH. Some of the alkaline stabilization processes also include a drying step, which may be optional, to produce a drier, potentially better-quality product.

Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing Organo-mineral fertilizer processes include the addition of chemicals to the biosolids, to produce a high end fertilizer with specific properties that can be sold to the retail agricultural or consumer market. Typically, a base such as anhydrous ammonia and acids such as sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid are used, producing an exothermic reaction. The level of fortification may be low, medium, or high, depending on the local market requirements and process economics.

Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is the conversion or cracking of biosolids at high temperatures, in the absence of oxygen. As most organics are thermally unstable, they are split by a combination of thermal cracking and condensation reactions into gaseous, liquid, and solid fractions. The process is

1 Documentation from Evergreen Organics stated that the process meets VAR since the final moisture content is less than 25 percent after blending with bulking agents and has a specific oxygen uptake rate (SOUR) that meets VAR requirements. However, the vendor has misinterpreted the VAR requirements, as the 40 CFR 503 VAR Option 4 on SOUR is only permitted for sludges from aerobic treatment processes and Option 7 requires a dryness of 75 percent before blending with other materials.

FINAL 16 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES highly endothermic, but usually produces a char and sometimes an oil that have heating value. The products depend on the temperature at which the process is conducted. Pressures are typically in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi). x Low-temperature pyrolysis – takes place at temperatures <600qF, and typically does not produce an oil stream. x Mid-temperature pyrolysis – takes place at temperatures in the range of 800 to 1,000qF, and typically does produce an oil stream, as well as a char with fuel value. x High-temperature pyrolysis – takes place at temperatures in the range of 1,200 to 1,800qF and typically produces an ash rather than a solid fuel.

Super Critical Water Oxidation/Combustion Super critical water oxidation (SCWO), also known as wet oxidation or wet combustion, is the oxidation of organics at super critical pressure and temperature in a liquid state (for water, critical temperature = 705qF, critical pressure = 3,200 psi), with the addition of compressed air or oxygen into the pressure vessel. The process is highly exothermic. The degree of oxidation is dependent on the temperature and pressure. Subcritical wet oxidation, such as the Zimpro process, does not fully oxidize the organics and produces difficult to treat waste streams. Therefore, subcritical wet oxidation will not be considered in this evaluation. For SCWO, temperatures are typically in the range of 700 to 1,100qF, and pressures are in the range of 3,200 to 4,000 psi.

Gasification/Starved Air Combustion Gasification is a combination of complete combustion and pyrolysis, with better control of air emissions and lower particulates than complete combustion. However, it is not yet well understood, particularly for feed substrates such as biosolids, and the yields of off-gases and residues must be determined by pilot testing. The products are combustible gases, which usually have a fairly low heating value; tars; oils; and a char with a heating value. This process has been conducted in multiple hearth furnaces with sewage solids to produce a gas that is subsequently combusted in the afterburner to provide the needed temperature to lower hydrocarbon emissions. Air or steam can be injected into the lower hearths to completely oxidize any tars or char.

Complete Combustion Complete combustion is the oxidation of organics in the presence of sufficient oxygen for complete combustion. The net fuel production depends on the heating value and the moisture content of the feed substrate. Complete combustion can be divided into three subcategories: x Incineration – for combustion of biosolids the flue gas temperature must be raised to a minimum of 1,400qF for complete oxidation and operating temperatures inside the reaction chambers are usually considerably higher. Afterburners in California normally must be operated at 2,000qF for 2 seconds to reduce total hydrocarbons. To be autogenous (no addition of supplemental fuel) using undigested sewage solids, cake solids concentrations must be greater than 30 percent.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 17 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES x Co-combustion – as used in biomass power plants is similar to incineration, but consists of a mixed feed, such as woodwaste, to provide a feed with a higher calorific value. Co-combustion therefore would have a higher energy production than combustion of biosolids by itself. x Plasma-assisted oxidation – uses a plasma arc to sustain the oxidation process by generating ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ionic radicals, which catalyze the oxidation and cracking reactions at lower temperatures of 1,100qF, with feed organic concentrations as low as 20 percent. Raw primary solids have the highest heating value. The use of chemically enhanced primary treatment and digestion reduces the British thermal unit (Btu) value of the biosolids. Supplemental heat may be required in either case, depending on the feed moisture content.

Vitrification Vitrification, or the melting of biosolids, is conducted at high temperatures in the range of 2,600 to 2,900qF at atmospheric pressure, in the presence of oxygen. The inorganic fraction melts, while the organic fraction burns to produce heat. The molten solids are then cooled to form a hard glass aggregate or granular product.

Deep Well Injection Deep well injection is the injection of liquid biosolids through deep wells that connect with depleted oil and gas reservoirs at depths of 5,000 feet or more, using a technique know as slurry fracture injection (SFI). The process manufacturer claims that biosolids can be used for enhanced oil and gas recovery and will also continue anaerobic biodegradation. It is anticipated that the carbon dioxide produced will preferentially dissolve in the formation waters at the high pressure, while high-quality (90 percent), high-pressure methane can be recovered from gas wells. Deep well injection is used for disposal of oil field brine and slurries. Currently, there are no deep well injection facilities using biosolids.

Blending of Class A Cake with Inert Material This option is strictly a blending process, to mix digested Class A cake with inert material such as sand or soil, to make a product with a more preferable texture and appearance than dewatered cake. It is considered to have a fatal flaw for the following reason: x The blended product will not be fully stabilized and will have a tendency to degrade if stored, which creates the potential for odors.

Summary The results of the initial fatal flaw screening step are provided in Table 5-4. The results show that of the 13 broad categories of product technologies, 3 have been considered to have fatal flaws, while 10 categories will be carried forward for more detailed evaluation of the viable technologies.

FINAL 18 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE 5-4 Summary of Initial Screening of Biosolids Product Technologies Fatal Flaw for Product No. Product Technology Category Manufacturing 1 Composting N 2 Heat Drying N 3 Solar Drying Fatal Flaw* 4 Bactericides Fatal Flaw* 5 Chemical Stabilization N 6 Organo Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing N 7 Pyrolysis N 8 Super Critical Water Oxidation N 9 Gasification N 10 Combustion N 11 Vitrification N 12 Deep Well Injection N 13 Blending of Class A Cake with Inert Material Fatal Flaw* *For processes identified to have fatal flaws, details were provided in the text above N = not identified

Table 5-5 identifies the products from the viable technologies selected in Table 5-4. These products were used in conducting the market assessment, as described in TMs 2 through 4.

TABLE 5-5 Viable Product Technologies and Associated Products Alkaline Stabilized Dry Products Fuel Pellets Non- Products/ and pH pH Chemical Construction Construction Energy Compost Granules >11 § 7 Fertilizer Materials Materials Recovery Composting X Heat Drying X X Heat Drying X with Soil Neat Alkali X Fly Ash X Neutralization X Chemical X Fortification Pyrolysis X Super Critical XXX Wet Oxidation Gasification X Combustion X Vitrification X X X Deep Well X Injection

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 19 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Description of Viable Technologies The product technology options that are not considered to have fatal flaws will be further evaluated in this section. Generic process descriptions will be used along with some specific process descriptions that are particularly relevant for the District and for biosolids management in Southern California.

Composting There are several acceptable methods for composting, and those applicable to the District or for which the District has received proposals will be discussed below.

Vermiculture Vermiculture is aerobic composting with the addition of worms to assist in breakdown of organic matter and to provide aeration. The biosolids are mixed with an amendment and proprietary deodorizing agents and spread over stainless steel cages that are about 11 feet wide, with a working depth of around 3 to 4 feet. Fresh material is added daily on top and processed material is removed from the bottom, with a total treatment time of around 5 weeks. Further drying is conducted if required. The beds are frequently rewetted to maintain optimal conditions. The beds are open to the atmosphere, sheltered by a roof structure. For larger facilities, the beds can be stacked, although feeding and harvesting logistics are more difficult under such an arrangement. The key advantage of this process is the low energy requirement, as there is no external aeration source. The vendor claims that the product would likely have a similar value to compost. The initial worm culture that would be required to seed a facility the size of the District would be very large and expensive. The footprint required is also very large, given that the working depth is only 3.6 feet, and bulking agents are added to the biosolids. Without stacking, the footprint required would be around three times that required for an aerated static pile (ASP) composting facility of similar capacity. The stacking of beds is possible but does pose operational problems and has not been conducted at a large scale. There are some economies of scale, limited by the practical length of the worm beds at around 250 feet. However, beyond this basic level, there are no significant economies of scale as the process is essentially modular. There is concern over the emissions since the process does not have any emissions control. Although the texture of the final product depends on the type of amendment used and the screening, the final compost is primarily worm casings and amendment. Samples appear to have considerable fine material. Data from existing facilities support the claim that the product meets Class A pathogen levels for fecal coliforms. Helminth ova tests were conducted using laboratory grown samples, which are known to provide unreliable data as cultured strains are not as robust as naturally occurring organisms. VermiTech, a New Zealand based company that is the leader in this field, has applied for USEPA Class A approval. The technology could be implemented in Southern California; however, the facility would likely need to be enclosed to meet air emissions requirements and to ensure that odors do not cause any offsite problems. This would substantially increase the cost, as ventilation and air treatment of the large building area entail large volumes of air, and would increase the

FINAL 20 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES footprint requirement for any control equipment such as a biofilter. Due to the footprint requirements, the facility would be difficult to locate in Orange County. VermiTech has a number of contract options, including design-build-own-operate, design- build-operate, joint ownership, and licensing of the process to an agency to build, own, and operate. As with all cropping products, the less treatment there is upstream of the process, the greater the nutrient value of the final product. In addition, dewatering options that produce a drier cake will be preferable, because the amount of bulking agent required would be decreased.

Aerated Pile Composting Aerated pile (AP) composting includes static pile and agitated bin composing. Figure 5-1 shows a typical aerated static pile system, which is a simple approach to composting that does not require a high degree of mechanization. AP composting provides better process and emissions control than the commonly practiced windrow composting. Due to SCAQMD regulations, such as the SCAQMD Rule 1133, and public perception of odor, the design and operation of composting facilities, particularly those in the vicinity of residential areas, should be enclosed and provided with emissions control through biofilters and other emissions controls such as negative aeration systems. AP composting typically consists of an active composting phase, which occurs over a period of 21 days, followed by a curing phase that typically occurs over 28 days, with further aging provided for 60 to 90 days. Pile heights are in the range of 8 to 12 feet and are operated as a batch process. The aerated static pile process is autothermal and with proper process control can maintain temperatures over 55°C for 3 consecutive days to meet PFRP requirements.

FIGURE 5-1 Aerated Static Pile Composting

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 21 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

The compost product, if it is well stabilized, screened and does not contain plastics and sharp objects, has a number of well established markets. Of importance with respect to the District’s goal to maximize use of biosolids products within the county, compost has good potential for enabling this, as it could be used by the District’s member cities on parks, highway median strips, schools, and development projects. Since there is a well established market that is currently supplied by other compost products, including green wastes diverted from landfills, there will also be more competition in the market and incentives may be required to encourage member agencies and other customers to move to a different product. The Kings County biosolids ordinance currently restricts land application of any type of biosolids other than compost after February 2006. AP composting requires forced aeration, which has a significant energy demand. Air emissions and odor have also increasingly become of concern and have affected the operations of open air facilities such as the Synagro facility in the City of Corona. These issues, particularly odor, result in negative public perception. Facilities in the vicinity of residential developments should be enclosed and remote facilities should use negative aeration to reduce the air emissions. Aerated pile is a proven technology and is widely used for composting biosolids. Some proprietary systems have been developed. The in-vessel composting systems such as those manufactured by IPS and Longwood (presented in Figure 5-2) are mechanized, with a rotary tiller that moves the feedstock along a bed with concrete walls. This system requires strict control on the size and quality of amendment used. The process has proven to be expensive due to higher capital costs, energy requirements, and amendment costs. Another similar proprietary system that the District has on file is from Sato, a Japanese company.

FIGURE 5-2 In-Vessel Composting System (IPS and Longwood)

FINAL 22 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

There are a number of composting options available to the District, including evaluation of sites for an in-county facility, and contractor-owned operations in neighboring counties and on Indian Lands at Fort Mojave. Some of the facilities for which the District has received proposals are no longer available, such as the ICOR facility, which was closed down, and the West Lake Farms proposal, where the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) is pursuing a facility. In addition, Synagro is seeking to relocate the Temescal Canyon open composting facility to Lambs Canyon area, and has been working with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to encourage the establishment of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to provide financing for the new facility. One of the more significant private composting options available for consideration by the District is described below.

South Kern Industrial Center. The South Kern Industrial Center (SKIC) was purchased for heavy industrial development by Baker-Hughes. However, the development has not occurred and Baker-Hughes has decided to obtain permits for an aerated static pile composting facility to be located on a 100-acre area of the 700-acre property. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was recently approved, and the Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit and the air quality permits are underway. The CUP allows for mixed feed stream, including biosolids and other organics such as manure up to a capacity of 400,00 wet tons per year, with bulking agent up to 270,000 tons per year and a final product volume of 550,000 cubic yards per year. The solids receiving station will be enclosed, however the processing stage will be located out doors, using the aerated static pile process with negative aeration. This may not meet the requirements of the proposed Rule 1133, although at present Kern County does not intend to implement an air emissions rule similar to Rule 1133. Baker Hughes does not intend to develop the composting facility once the permits are obtained and is looking for someone to buy the site or to build and operate the facility. Synagro is considering purchase of the site and construction of the compost facility, but has not yet decided whether financing would be entirely through the private sector, or whether the public sector and agencies should be requested to become equity partners. Agencies that are interested in the site include the District and LACSD, potentially through a contract with an external operations firm, such as Synagro. Advantages of the site are its remote location, a flat grade, location close to the Interstate Highway 5 and State Highway 99, and minimal comments during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. The SKIC organics facility plans are comprehensive and provide sufficient retention time for the active composting, curing, and short-term product storage, making the facility a suitable composting option.

Windrow Composting Windrow composting is conducted in open air facilities with the compost piles being turned on a regular basis, typically by heavy equipment such as front end loaders. The process does not provide forced aeration and, therefore, tends to be slower; in addition, control of process parameters such as temperature and moisture is difficult. Windrow facilities do not have any emissions control and are often a source of dust and odor nuisance. However, due to the relatively low capital and operational costs, windrow composting has been used for biosolids processing.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 23 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

San Joaquin Composting Center. This is a composting facility located in the San Joaquin Valley, in northern Kern County; it is operated by McCarthy Farms. The facility has a total capacity of 786,000 tons per year. Currently, the facility uses the windrow composting method. This is not considered sustainable for biosolids processing, due to increasing awareness of air quality issues as evidenced by the SCAQMD’s Rule 1133 on air emissions. The facility currently accepts biosolids, chicken blood and wastes, curbside green waste, and other green and organic wastes. Biosolids is the preferred feedstock as the tipping fee charged is more economical. The site is located on farmland, and there are no residential developments nearby. Although a new operator has been recently hired to improve the facility, there remain a number of operational concerns with this facility, including the following: x The facility is operating using a windrow method, which is not sustainable. The facility has not considered the requirements to change to ASP and has not developed a plan to address this. x The proposed cost to the District would definitely increase if the facility changed to an AP system. x Use of curbside green waste has a higher contamination level of plastics and sharps that degrade the quality of the compost product and cause operational problems. x Biosolids prior to composting can be stored onsite, up to 6 months or 186,000 wet tons. This is considered to cause health and environmental concerns, and creates a source of nuisance from flies and odors; this is not in keeping with the District’s biosolids management goals and objectives. x If sufficient biosolids were available, the facility would substitute all the green waste currently received with biosolids. This does not produce an aesthetically pleasing product with a good texture that is stabilized and that would be acceptable as an alternative to other forms of compost. x The McCarthy Farms do not have a clear marketing strategy, and the compost sales to other customers have fallen from 130,000 to 30,000 tons per year, divided between approximately 30 contracts.

Deep-Vessel Composting Deep-vessel composting systems consist of defined cells or silos, within which the composting is conducted as a continuous process, with the feed being added at one end and the finished product being removed at the other end. The loading rates and cell size determine the processing time, which should be 21 to 28 days for the active composting stage. Deep-vessel composting systems typically have a bed depth of around 24 feet. Deeper beds can cause problems with air distribution and headloss using the conventional floor- mounted horizontal aeration systems. Therefore, the deep-bed system manufacturers have developed air distribution systems that enter the bed to enable air distribution throughout the bed. The deep-bed composting system would have an advantage for the District when looking at an in-county facility where land is at a premium. For sites where land availability and cost are not critical, the higher capital cost of building the deep cells and installing the

FINAL 24 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES mechanized equipment and air distribution system is not likely to be economical. The process requires a high quality, fine, sawdust type of amendment, which would increase operating costs and could cause operational problems for dust mitigation and fires. Deep vessel systems have typically been designed for a composting time of 13 days, a curing time of 13 days, and an additional 2 days in conditioning cells. This is not considered to be sufficient processing to achieve a stable product, as discovered at sites in Florida and Virginia where the system was installed but then shut down. There have also been reported problems with breakage of the air lances and poor air distribution. A total of four sites have installed deep vessel composting, of which only one is still operational. Based on the inadequate process design and the reports of operational problems, it is not recommended that such a system be considered for the size of facility required by the District, and where product quality is so important.

General Overview In summary, composting is a viable option for the District, and opportunities for an in- county facility and in-county use of the product are in keeping with the biosolids management objectives. Vermicomposting and deep-vessel composting do not appear as feasible as aerated pile composting for the size of facility required by the District and for implementation in Southern California, where air emissions and product quality are key issues. However, aerated pile composting with increased pile heights of 12 to 14 feet could be tested as a modification to the conventional static pile process and could have benefits for in-county opportunities where land is at a premium. Proprietary processes such as IPS may also have some benefits for an in-county system. The South Kern Industrial Center facility appears to be promising and the design indicates that the operation should be successful if it is well managed. Synagro has a long history of composting operations in Southern California and would be well-placed to operate the facility. There are also a number of contract-owned composting facilities in Southern California, some of which still use windrow composting. The San Joaquin Composting Facility is still operated in the windrow method, which is not considered a sustainable approach. There are a number of operational issues with the facility and overall, the facility does not meet the standards set in the Biosolids Master Plan objectives, or in the District’s EMS. As with all cropping products, the less treatment upstream of the composting process, the greater the nutrient value of the final product. In addition, dewatering options that produce a drier cake are preferable, as the amount of bulking agent to be added would be reduced. The composting process is compatible with the existing processes used by the District, but the footprint requires an offsite facility.

Heat Drying There are a wide range of heat drying systems available on the market, including rotary drum driers, paddle dryers, fluidized bed dryers, etc. For this evaluation, a generic approach will be used for the two broad classes of heat drying equipment – direct drying and indirect drying.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 25 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Direct Drying With direct drying systems, the biosolids come into direct contact with the heating medium, air. Typical types of direct dryers are rotary drum dryers and fluidized bed dryers. As the heating medium is in direct contact with the biosolids, the operating temperatures are generally lower than indirect dryers, with the air stream typically running at temperatures around 600°F. In order to create a pelletized product and to maintain the necessary solids handling characteristics, most systems recycle a portion of the end product back to the feed solids. Product size control is maintained by screening granules that are too large or too small and recycling these back into the process. A schematic diagram of rotary drum direct heat drying is presented in Figure 5-3. A picture of direct heat drying system is presented in Figure 5-4. To reduce air emissions and the volume of exhaust gas, direct drying systems are generally designed to recycle exhaust gas to the burner, with 10 to 20 percent of the volume vented to allow for the addition of makeup air to maintain the correct proportion of oxygen into the burner. The dryer temperature will volatilize organics in the biosolids; therefore, emissions control for VOCs, as well as NOX and SOX will be necessary in Southern California, requiring installation of an afterburner or regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). Particulate control is typically achieved through installation of a condenser and bag houses. Although there have been operational problems with dryers in the past, including fires, improvements have been made to process instrumentation and operations making this a competitive and viable process. Increased automation means that many systems can be operated overnight with minimal staffing. Different vendors often claim to have the best efficiency in the drying process. However, the heat input required to evaporate a given amount of water remains the same, and any efficiencies that exist are due to small adjustments to the process, through heat recovery and exposure of the particles to the hot air stream. Cost, operational experience, and product quality are more likely to be differentiating factors when considering different vendors. The heat-drying option is suitable for both onsite and offsite application, although advantages of an onsite facility include reduced truck hauling, better management control, and the fact that it is in keeping with the District’s management goal of in-county biosolids processing and beneficial use.

Inirec d t Drying Indirect drying processes separate the heating medium, usually oil, hot water, or steam, from the biosolids, which requires the heating medium to be operated at a higher temperature, usually around 1,200°F. Due to the higher operational temperatures and the inefficiencies with heating across a heat exchanger, the heat input required for indirect dryers is typically greater than for direct dryers. Fires have been experienced in indirect dryers due to the high operational temperatures of the heating medium. However, one advantage over direct drying that is particularly relevant in Southern California is that the air emissions are generally lower, as air is not used in the drying process. A schematic diagram of indirect heat drying system is presented in Figure 5-5.

FINAL 26 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 28 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

FIGURE 5-4 Direct Drying System

Indirect Drying with Soil American Remedial Technologies. American Remedial Technologies (ART) is a soil recycling facility located in an industrial zone in the City of Lynwood, southeast of the City of Los Angeles, with a fixed rotary kiln dryer that treats nonhazardous hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. The lease on the company’s fixed facility is due to expire at the end of 2003; the company intends to purchase a permanent site and move to the new location toward the end of the year. The new location is not in the vicinity of any residential housing. The company also owns three mobile units. ART has considered mixing the biosolids with the hot, treated soil, at temperatures in excess of 600qF as one method of treatment to meet the Part 503 regulations Alternative 1 pathogen kill requirements. The biosolids would be added to the hot soil just after the rotary dryer, before the soil is discharged into the cooling piles, in an enclosed section of pipe. Alternatively, they have also considered installation of a second dryer unit to produce a pelletized product, with product recycle into the dryer to ensure a good quality product. Air emissions control would include a thermal oxidizer, a baghouse, and a wet scrubbing system. ART anticipates that permit modifications and process modifications would take 9 to 12 months to complete. The addition of the biosolids to the soil, which is marketed as topsoil and construction fill to developers, Caltrans, and other agencies, would improve the value of the soil through the addition of organic matter. The company had been receiving biosolids in the mid 1990s.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 29 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Key issues that would need to be addressed are reliability of operation and how scheduled maintenance or unscheduled downtime of the dryer would impact biosolids handling, ensuring that appropriate quality controls and documentation on all incoming and outgoing material are maintained. It is not clear whether the blending of biosolids with the hot soil would meet the Class A VAR requirements. The blending of the biosolids with the hot soil appears to be the most attractive option, as it provides the savings on natural gas usage to evaporate the water from the biosolids, while adding necessary moisture to the dried soil. The retention time of the biosolids in the enclosed mixing section of pipe should provide sufficient retention time to vaporize any VOCs so that they can be treated in the thermal oxidizer, and prevent emissions from the piles, which do not have emissions control. The appropriate mixing ratio of biosolids to soil would also need to be determined.

TPS Technologies Inc. TPS Technologies is a subsidiary of Thermo Processing Systems, which has nine soil recycling facilities in the U.S., including the contaminated soil thermal processing plant and green waste composting facility located at Adelanto, near Mojave, California. This thermal processing facility has one rotary drum dryer unit, and the proposal is to mix the biosolids with the soil prior to treatment. The dryer operates at a temperature of 650qF to 750qF, and the dried product that exits the dryer is stockpiled, where it maintains a temperature over 200qF for 3 hours or more. If the dryer is out of service for maintenance, the biosolids could be diverted to the composting facility; there is also considerable onsite storage for up to 35,000 tons. The facility is located in an industrial area in the desert, with only the storage area enclosed in a building. Odors and other perception issues are considered to be mitigated by the location. Emissions control is provided by a cyclone, thermal oxidizer, cool air heat exchanger and baghouse. TPS markets products under a subsidiary “TPS Nursery Product” and sends material to farm land, golf courses, orchards, and composting. Concerns with the operation include system reliability, odor control, and safety issues due to stockpiling biosolids at high temperatures, as well as the fact that soil recycling will take precedence over biosolids treatment. The fact that the biosolids could be diverted to a composting facility could be of benefit, although there is a concern that if the facility is operating at capacity as it is at present, most of the biosolids would be sent to the composting operation rather than dried. The composting facility is a green waste, open air windrow operation and the addition of biosolids to the feedstock would require significant permit modifications and a process change to AP with negative aeration, should air emissions be regulated as has been done by the SCAQMD. This could substantially increase the vendor’s proposed fee, which has not been updated since early 2001, and the costs and effort may dissuade TPS from providing composting as an alternative.

General Overview Heat drying has improved significantly since the early 1980s when it started to be considered as a viable option. The process control requirements are understood much better now, and the current system design and engineering reflects this. Thermal drying has become widely used in Europe, where land application of biosolids is limited by land availability and stringent regulations. The advantage of heat drying is that it produces a dry product, which reduces the product volume by four to five times. Not only does this result in less biosolids to be used, it also reduces traffic impacts. In the case of landfilling as a failsafe backup, the product volumes are greatly reduced compared to most other processes

FINAL 30 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 32 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES and the product could be used directly as ADC, depending on the particle size distribution. For digested biosolids, the end product is stable and has little odor; it can be stored, bagged, or sold for bulk applications on land, horticulture, land reclamation, etc. However, in Southern California, the product market has not been developed and a certain effort would be required to create a market for the product. Another advantage of thermal drying is the small footprint required, which means that the facility could be located at one of the District’s wastewater treatment plants, or within an industrial area in the Orange County vicinity. Existing thermal drying facilities also provide an interesting alternative and one of the ART mobile units could potentially be used for pilot testing. For offsite options, the indirect drying with soil, one of the options proposed by ART, appears to be the most cost-effective due to the savings on fuel for vaporization of the water. Conventional thermal drying at offsite locations is not likely to provide advantages over an onsite facility due to the additional cost and environmental impacts of trucking the digested cake to the facility, unless the facility is located at a site to which digested sludge could be pumped, with dewatering and drying done at that location. The heat drying process is less odorous and produces a more stable product when the feed is digested biosolids. It is completely compatible with the District’s existing treatment processes and with the installation of advanced digestion technologies such as ultrasound. However, heat drying may be more expensive than mechanical dewatering and, therefore, the size and costs of a facility may be reduced with installation of a dewatering system that produces a drier cake, depending on the power requirement of the dewatering process.

Chemical Stabilization Chemical stabilization is another category where there are a range of vendors and processes available. The processes can be broadly classified according to what type of alkali is used – neat alkali or quick lime, waste lime product such as fly ash – and whether acid is used in the process to neutralize the mixture. This evaluation will consider all three types, but will focus on the facilities that have been proposed for installation in Southern California, and therefore are most likely to be available to the District as a biosolids processing option.

Neat Alkali Processes These processes are based on the use of industrial grade quick lime or a similar product such as rice lime. The lime is mixed directly with the biosolids to raise the pH of the mixture to around 12, and the exothermic reaction produces heat that is often supplemented with external heat to provide a pasteurization step, maintaining a temperature of 70°C for 30 minutes. If pathogen kill is not affected by heat pasteurization (Part 503 regulations, Alternative 1), the process must meet Class A criteria under Alternative 2, which requires the pH to be maintained at 12 for 72 hours, temperature to be over 52qC for 12 hours, and then drying to 50 percent. The VAR is typically met under Option 8, which requires the pH to remain at 12 for 2 hours after processing and at 11.5 for an additional 22 hours.

RDP Technologies. One of larger vendors of a neat alkali process, RDP Technologies, uses lime and external electric heat to provide pasteurization temperatures. The mixing and heating is conducted in a Thermo Blend™ chamber with a heated auger to raise the temperature to 70qC, and a 30-minute retention time is provided in a pasteurization chamber through which the material is conveyed on a belt at a slow speed. However, their

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 33 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES system and cost proposals do not include any drying of the mixture and also typically do not include the storage requirements and monitoring to meet the VAR standards under Option 6, pH control. The final product has a high pH about 11.5 and is usually approximately 35 percent dry, depending on the feed solids concentration and the amount of lime required to increase the pH to 12. The schematic diagram of the RDP lime stabilization process is presented in Figure 5-6. With the RDP Thermoblender, startup and shutdown of the system is problematic, as the auger takes time to reach operational temperatures (around 450°F), and any biosolids that remain in contact with the auger during startup or shutdown have a tendency to burn, producing a very strong and unpleasant odor. The system size is limited by the heat transfer from the auger to the biosolids mixture and multiple units would be required for a facility the size required by the District. Similar size facilities have been provided for utilities around the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand.

Bioset, Inc. The Bioset process is more complex than the typical alkaline stabilization process as it combines high pH (with oxidizing alkalis such as calcium oxide, potassium oxide or potassium hydroxide) with exothermic heat from the addition of sulfamic acid to provide operating temperatures around 250qF, and a pressures of around 15 psi. The mixture is then flashed across a pressure-reducing orifice, which allows the ammonia, volatiles, and steam to evaporate from the solids. The process meets Class A pathogen kill under the Part 503 regulations Alternative 1, time temperature; in addition, the manufacturer claims it meets the VAR requirement under Option 1, volatile solids destruction. As the ratio of calcium oxide to acid is 100:1, the final product has a pH greater than 12, the outlet temperature is around 160qF and solids concentration is around 40 percent. Volatile solids destruction is around 66 percent, due to volatilization and stripping of organics in the process. The vapor stream is condensed and forms a liquid stream that is high in ammonia and other organics. The vendor claims that this could be used as a liquid fertilizer. In discussions with other vendors that also produce high ammonia liquid waste streams, these vendors have admitted that the quantities produced are not likely to be sufficient to make marketing this a viable venture; in addition, the waste stream is contaminated with other organics and has a high BOD, which does not enhance the marketability of this stream. Bioset claims that an alternative is to return the liquid waste stream to the headworks of the plant. If this facility were to be located at one of the treatment plants, or in the District service area, the impact of this highly concentrated nutrient load on the treatment plants and toxicity of the plant effluent would be considerable.

Tule Ranch. The District has a contract with Tule Ranch for land application of approximately 50 percent of its current biosolids production. As the Kern and Kings County Class B land application restrictions came into effect in early 2003, Tule Ranch has installed a lime stabilization process on their farm site. The process is based on one that has been installed by an independent local contractor at Fort Worth, Texas, and has received Class A approval. The Texas installation has approval only by the State of Texas, not nationally, and it requires monitoring of fecal coliform, helminth ova and enteric virus, making it approvable under Part 503 regulations Alternative 3 or 4.

FINAL 34 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 36 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

The Fort Worth facility includes equipment from RDP Technologies, but is not an RDP site. The Tule Ranch facility is an open air installation, and does use additional heat for pasteurization. The mixing and processing is done with augers and screw conveyors. The final product will be around 35 percent dry and will have a pH around 11.5. Kern County has recently permitted another open air alkali stabilization process designed to use front end loaders for mixing. It is, therefore, not expected that the permit for the Tule Ranch facility will be delayed. The quick lime is dusty and not easy to handle; actual ratios of lime to biosolids may differ from the standard used by the vendor, depending on the particular characteristics and buffering capacity of the biosolids. As with most high pH systems, odor is a major issue due to volatilization of ammonia, mercaptans, and other odorous compounds. Many facilities have had to upgrade the ventilation and emissions control equipment. The contractor that installed and operates the Fort Worth facility has been sued for patent infringement and the current status of the case is not known.

Cemen Tech. This is a classic, straight-forward lime stabilization process that uses addition of calcium oxide to raise the pH of the biosolids mixture to a pH of 12 for 2 hours and maintain a pH over 11.5 for the following 22 hours. The vendor also claims that the temperature is raised to 70qC for 30 minutes; however, considering that there is no supplemental heat and that the recommended dose of calcium oxide is 18 percent by wet weight and the process equipment list does not appear to include an insulated pasteurization chamber, this claim can be considered questionable. This process as described in the literature provided to the District and in the cost proposal does not meet Class A pathogen kill requirements and, therefore, is considered to have a fatal flaw and will not be evaluated further.

Fly Ash Processes N-Viro. The N-Viro process is one of the most widely known fly ash processes and was used as the basis for the Part 503 regulations Class A Alternative 2. This is also termed the AASSAD Process. The process uses what is termed “alkaline admixtures” composed of locally available alkaline waste products such as cement kiln and lime kiln fly ash. Quick lime may also be used, depending on what is available. Since the lime content of the admixture is not as high as in neat quick lime, the volume of alkali that must be added to achieve a pH of 12 is generally greater than for the neat alkali processes. The N-Viro process typically takes place in large concrete cells, with the mixing done by front end loaders. The pH is maintained above 12 for over 72 hours, during which time the temperature must be kept above 52qC (126qF) for at least 12 hours. Following lime treatment, the mixture is typically dried in a direct heat rotary drum dryer, to produce a final product with a high pH around 11.5 and a dryness of 50 percent or more. Figure 5-7 presents the schematic diagram for the N-Viro Process. The use of waste lime products may reduce the operational costs of the process; however, admixture quality control and process control become more critical, and the volume of alkali added is higher, thereby increasing the volume of the final product. In Southern California, the facility would need to be enclosed and ventilated with significant emissions controls to reduce the ammonia from the lime stabilization process and VOCs from the drying process. The alkaline admixtures and the bulk mixing processes are also sources of

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 37 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES dust and odors, and steam produced by the exothermic reaction of lime with biosolids would make the working conditions inside the building difficult without well designed ventilation. Also, since the N-Viro process achieves Class A pathogen kill under Alternative 2, which requires the biosolids to be stored for 72 hours prior to the drying step, the footprint for this is considerably larger than one that achieves Class A under Alternative 1 and VAR under Option 6 (pH control for 24 hours) or under Option 7, drying to 75 percent. An evaluation and subsequent bid for Class A pathogen reduction processes for the Minneapolis–St. Paul area showed heat drying to be more cost-effective than the AASSAD process.

Neutralization Processes These processes have been developed largely in answer to the two key issues associated with high pH stabilization processes: 1. Volatilization of ammonia, which causes odors and reduces the fertilizer value of the final product. 2. High pH products are difficult to market in regions where soils already have a high pH. This process typically involves the addition of an alkali and a neutralizing acid such as sulfuric acid, which creates an exothermic reaction, but maintains a neutral pH. These processes are not well established and do not have as much industry experience as the high pH lime stabilization processes described above. The District has been approached by two private contractors that have or are constructing facilities in Southern California. These will be discussed in more detail below.

California Soil Products. This venture is California-based, and is actively seeking a site for their processing plant. The initial capacity proposed is up to 250 wet tons per day of biosolids and green waste, with future expansion to 400 wet tons per day. The company had proposed a treatment process similar to one that had been operational in Riverside County until the early 1990s, but was closed when the price for biosolids treatment dropped as land application became more widespread. However, that original process was deemed not to meet the Part 503 VAR requirements because it did not have a significant drying component, and the final product had a moisture content of 50 percent. The process has now been redesigned to meet the VAR requirement, with the addition of a large dryer to provide a final product with 15 percent moisture. The process involves the addition of an alkaline admixture (7 percent by weight) and industrial grade sulfuric acid (4 percent by weight) to the biosolids. Green waste can also be added to the biosolids as an additional organic waste stream. The exothermic reaction provides heat for stabilizing the product, with process temperatures reaching up to 70°C. In order to meet the Part 503 Class A VAR, the chemical processing stage is followed by thermal drying, using a proprietary rotary drum dryer, which will be designed and built by California Soil Products. The original plan included a biofilter for emissions control. Due to the increase in air ventilation volumes with the larger dryer system, the biofilter was removed from the plans. The emissions control has, therefore, been redesigned with ventilation air being used as combustion air in the burner of the dryer; it is claimed that this will avoid emissions and enable the facility to obtain the required SCAQMD permit.

FINAL 38 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 40 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

At present, the marketing approach for the product is heavily focused on one market, although some interest has been received from bulk suppliers of compost and fertilizers. Although California Soil Products has drawn up a marketing plan, until the product has been produced it is not likely that any firm marketing contracts will be signed. The financing of the facility is dependent on the ability of California Soil Products to secure a suitable site as well as contracts for sufficient biosolids to keep the facility operational.

Hondo Chemical. The Hondo Chemical facility is based in the Lost Hills area of Kern County, in an area where there has been extensive gypsum mining. The process uses gypsum as the alkali and sulfuric acid as the neutralizing agent. The company intended to identify sources of spent acid and waste gypsum to use in the process, although this does not appear to have been successful to date, and the proposal to the District is based on the use of industrial grade inputs. The proposal also does not include any marketing support and states that if the District required Hondo to market the product, there would be an additional cost. The company claims that the market must be developed, and that eventually the product could be sold at prices similar to neat gypsum. There are concerns over the company’s commitment to contracts as they have not performed on past contracts with the District. The lack of marketing involvement does not suggest a true commitment to developing the product and raises questions on the validity of the market demand claims. The management of this facility and the ease of product marketing is, therefore, considered questionable.

Pan American Biotechnologies. This process is, in reality, a hybrid between the high pH and neutralization process. The biosolids are first mixed with lime and acid to provide an exothermic reaction, with additional heat provided as needed. The operating temperature in the reaction chamber is 170qF to 200qF. The combined high temperature and pH cause ammonia to flash and vaporize. The product meets Class A pathogen kill requirements under Part 503 Alternative 1, time-temperature; in addition, it is expected that VAR is achieved by volatile solids reduction through volatilization at the operating temperatures. The final product has a high pH and the vendor literature claims that the fast reaction rates of the hydrated lime in the product will result in soil pH adjustment within 50 to 80 days. As this is not a strong selling point for land application of the product in California, the vendor mentioned that alternative markets that could be considered include landfill ADC, mixing with coal dust to make briquettes and use as an amendment of composting. The suitability for of the product for the latter two markets is questionable, particularly if the product will be composted. It seems to be more straightforward to compost the biosolids directly, without the addition of lime. The vendor claims that for an input solids concentration of 18 percent and lime addition of 12 percent by weight, the product immediately after processing has a solids concentration of 36 percent, and over a period of 1 day, the concentration increases to 45 percent. The vendor does not include storage for cooling of the product in the cost price, and stated that the product can be transported immediately and allowed to cool during transportation. This is not considered acceptable, as a steaming biosolids product is not likely to generate a positive response from customers. The nutrient value of the product is reduced as the ammonia is stripped out and ends up in the condensate from the process. This effluent stream is high in ammonia and organics; the vendor admits that there is minimal marketable fertilizer value in the liquid and that the effluent will need to be recycled back to the headworks or discharged to the sewer. There is

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 41 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES one 30-wet-ton-per-day plant in operation in Pensacola, Florida. The vendor stated that a 200-wet-ton-per-day facility would require a footprint of 90 feet by 25 feet, with a height of 22 feet. This does not include any lime storage; nor does it include the height of the lime storage silo or any additional support facilities and boilers.

General Overview High pH processes are known to be odorous; the lime is dusty and the product may become biologically unstable if the pH drops during storage. The quantity of lime required to attain the required pH is often higher than stated by process vendors and is dependent on the biosolids characteristics and moisture content. The product is best suited for land application immediately following processing. However, the high pH product may cause handling issues, and the product may still be odorous at the time of land application, particularly if it has not been heat dried. Facilities that are in the vicinity of residential areas will need to be enclosed and the ventilation and emissions controls for such a facility are significant. Remote facilities currently may not need to be enclosed for odor control purposes. However, if facilities are installed in Southern California, they may attract the attention of the SCAQMD and emissions controls may be legislated, as is currently occurring with composting facilities. The ammonia emissions from high pH processing of biosolids is generally higher than from composting facilities due to the pH difference between the two processes. The difficulty with most of these processes is that they do not include drying, which results in solids content that is typically below 40 percent. This makes marketing to the public unacceptable and product handling difficult. The application of high pH products on high pH soils such as those common in Southern California is not likely to be favorable to marketing the product. There is a demand for calcium addition to marginal land with sodic soils; however, where the soil pH is already high, the preferred method of treatment is with gypsum, which contains calcium but does not raise the pH. Therefore, there may be a market for neutralized biosolids that contain calcium, such as from the California Soil Products process or from the Hondo Chemical process. Discussions with a soil scientist from CH2M HILL who is assisting the City of Los Angeles with biosolids land application at the Green Acres Farm, which has high pH, sodic soils, indicates that remediation of marginal land generally requires very heavy dosing with gypsum in a single application, followed by leaching of the salts from the ground. This type of treatment may not be a good application for a calcium enriched biosolids product, since the calcium is diluted and the nutrients in the biosolids may be leached out with the salts. Advanced digestion processes are less compatible with the high pH alkaline processes since the ammonia concentrations are higher, leading to higher ammonia emissions from the process and more odor, as well as reducing the nutrient value of the final product. For processes that neutralize the alkali, this is less of an issue (except for the Pan American Biotechnologies process that flashes off the ammonia). For all these options, the drier the feed solids, the better the consistency of the final product and the lower the chemical addition required. However, very high cake concentrations (over 40 percent solids) may be problematic from a materials handling standpoint if the system is not designed for drier feed mixtures.

FINAL 42 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing Organo-mineral fertilizer manufacturing is the processing of biosolids with chemical addition to provide a product that meets specific chemical concentrations and can be sold as a fertilizer product with added value compared to other biosolids processing options. The most well known process is Milorganite®, but there are other processes at different stages of development that are likely to be more feasible for the District. Milorganite® only accepts undigested WAS, which is not compatible with the objective of maximizing energy production onsite at the District wastewater treatment plants and, therefore, will not be considered further. Other options that are available include the process being used by Unified Water to treat biosolids from New York City; this is a South African process through the Wilrey Trust that uses different levels of chemical fortification according to the market and treatment demands. FEECO is another company that has organo-mineral fertilizer installations in the U.S. and has supplied equipment to other vendors. The Wilrey Trust and FEECO processes are different from Milorganite® in that digested biosolids can be used, and the chemicals are added prior to drying; this enables the use of exothermic chemical reactions to provide some of the heat for drying, with feed biosolids of around 25 percent solids. The chemicals used in the process can be varied according to the product market demands, but typically require the use of anhydrous ammonia as the base and acids such as sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid. Different levels of fortification (chemical dose) can be used, according to the product values, energy costs, and chemical availability. A well-fortified fertilizer product may be sold for between $50 and $140 per ton depending on the level of fortification.

High Fortification This process uses around 75 percent chemicals on a dry weight basis and the exothermic reaction provides most of the heat to evaporate the moisture from biosolids with a solids concentration of 25 percent. A typical product would be a granular fertilizer of ammonium sulfate with 16 percent nitrogen and 15 percent sulfur. The organic content would be 22 percent, with 3 percent moisture contribution from the biosolids. High fortification would, therefore, require around 3 tons of chemicals for every dry ton of biosolids treated. The yield of product is 1 wet ton of biosolids at 25 percent solids concentration that provides 1 ton of fertilizer, with the moisture content being replaced by the chemicals. High solids fortification requires a large materials handling system and is, therefore, usually done offsite, preferably in proximity to a rail transport system for chemical delivery.

Medium Fortification This process uses less ammonia and sulfuric acid, with the chemical usage typically 50 percent by dry weight. Therefore, supplemental heat will be required for drying the product after the addition of the chemicals. A typical product would have a nitrogen content of 10 percent, a sulfur content of 8 percent, and an organics content close to 50 percent. Another product could be ammonium phosphate sulfate (APS), with 10 percent nitrogen, 10 percent phosphate, and 5 percent sulfur; this is particularly useful in sandy, high-pH soils such as those found in Southern California. Medium fortification requires the use of approximately 1 ton of chemicals per dry ton of biosolids.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 43 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Low Fortification In this process, the chemical usage is typically less than 30 percent by dry weight and the exothermic reaction is not sufficient to contribute much to drying the product. A product could be mono ammonium phosphate (MAP) with a nitrogen content of 5 percent, a phosphate concentration of 10 percent, and approximately 70 percent organics, with anhydrous ammonia and phosphoric acid being the primary chemicals used in the process. Every dry ton of biosolids requires 0.3 ton of chemicals. Due to the lower fertilizer value, the products are more likely to be sold as specialty brands to golf courses and horticultural markets. This process is generally considered to be more economical for smaller plants less than 50 dry tons per day, and can be located on the wastewater treatment plant site.

Pyrolysis This is the breakdown of organic matter at high temperature and pressure in the absence of oxygen; it typically results in the production of a char and in some cases, an oil with heating value. Pyrolysis technologies have not yet been widely used for biosolids management, largely because the technologies have not been proven on a large scale, the costs in the past have been considerably higher than direct land application options, and the process is seen as “high tech,” complex, and not well understood by biosolids managers. However, with the increasing restrictions on land application, and improvements in the technical development of the process, there is growing interest in the high temperature fuel-based beneficial use options.

Low-Temperature Pyrolysis Low-temperature pyrolysis takes place at temperatures below 600qF, and produces a char with a heating value, an effluent stream from the post pyrolysis dewatering that is high in ammonia and organics, and air emissions that consist primarily of carbon dioxide with some VOCs and other compounds. There are two vendors that have been promoting this technology in the U.S.A. One, EnerTech, is working to secure a site and build a regional facility by the Rialto wastewater treatment plant in the Inland Empire area. The other, ThermoEnergy Corporation, installed a demonstration facility at the Colton wastewater treatment plant. Each of these vendors is described in more detail below.

EnerTech. The process developed by EnerTech has been tested with feed biosolids concentrations up to 20 percent. The biosolids are diluted if the solids concentration is above 20 percent and then macerated to ensure particle size is less than 1/2 inch. The slurry is then pumped up to the required pressure setpoint (1,000 to 1,500 psi) and passed through heat exchangers to raise the temperature to 400qF to 450qF. During the pyrolysis reaction, the organics in the biosolids are broken down and carbon dioxide gas is separated from the solids. At the same time, any chlorine in the biosolids is converted to hydrochloric acid, which is neutralized by an alkali added to the biosolids prior to the heat treatment. Chlorine is a precursor to dioxins, and this process enables the chlorine to be washed out of the treated solids in the form of aqueous salts. The treated biosolids are passed through recovery heat exchangers used to heat the feed cake; they are then washed and dewatered in a screw press to a solids concentration between 40 to 70 percent, depending on the beneficial use options for the final product. Due to the chemical changes that occur in the pyrolysis reaction, the viscosity of the treated biosolids is reduced and the dewaterability is increased. The product can be further dried to 95 percent solids concentration if required by the

FINAL 44 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES beneficial use options. The char or solids have a heating value of around 4,500 Btu at a solids concentration of 50 percent and 9,000 Btu at a concentration of 95 percent if undigested sludge is used. The calorific value will be lower for digested sludge, with typical values of around 6,500 Btu/lb dry solids. For the proposed facility in Rialto, EnerTech has identified that the key beneficial use market is for use as a fuel to be added in the clinker zone of cement kilns, and this market requires a solids dryness of 95 percent. The only local cement kiln that would use this low-calorie feed is Mitsubishi Cement, as most others use high grade coal in the range of 11,500 Btu/lb. The process does produce an effluent waste stream that is high in ammonia and organics; however, the process includes a membrane filtration process to treat the effluent prior to returning the stream to the headworks of the Rialto wastewater treatment plant. The vent air from the process will be returned to the process heater, which operates at a temperature of 1,800qF and will oxidize any VOCs in the air stream. The vendor has discussed the air emissions with the SCAQMD, and will submit the air permit in parallel with the EIR. EnerTech has operated one similar plant that was installed in Japan (Figure 5-8), although that plant was only operated on slurried organic solid waste and had a capacity of 22 dry tons per day. A demonstration-scale facility has been operated in Atlanta, Georgia, using biosolids from a number of different wastewater treatment plants. The plant is skid-mounted and could be brought to Southern California for testing purposes. EnerTech also is pursuing construction of a full-scale biosolids treatment facility with a capacity of around 70 dry tons per day in New Jersey. The site plans and zoning for this facility have been approved, the permitting process in underway, and EnerTech has received commitments for 60 percent of the facility capacity.

FIGURE 5-8 EnerTech Pyrolysis Facility in Japan

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 45 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

In Southern California, EnerTech is developing a regional facility with a capacity of 250 dry tons per day, and has signed an agreement with the City of Rialto for a 30-year lease on a site adjacent to the Rialto wastewater treatment plant. The footprint of the processing unit will be 100 feet by 100 feet, although the total area used will be close to 2 acres. The site is in a heavily industrialized area, and is approximately 60 feet below grade, which is ideal because the facility will not be visible. EnerTech is in the process of securing partners for engineering and operational services. The vendor states that the process is a net producer of power, generating an excess of 1.25 to 1.5 times the energy requirement, although the understanding is that this is based on the use of undigested sludge. Feed solids concentration is limited by the ability to pump the biosolids cake prior to heat treatment, and the vendor is currently working with pump manufacturers to obtain a pump that will be able to handle drier biosolids cake. There are a number of cement kilns within a 50-mile radius of the proposed site in Rialto that have expressed interest in the fuel product. EnerTech is in dialogue with Mitsubishi Cement regarding a strategic partnership. Tests done by General Electric show that the NOX emissions from the char are similar to coal, and that SOX and other emissions are lower, providing a cleaner burning fuel over all. The ash from burning the fuel is used in manufacturing cement, and therefore does not require disposal. The feed stream needs to be pressurized to 1,500 psi, which requires specialty pumping equipment as well as high pressure/high temperature vessels and heat exchangers. Currently, there is no operating facility of similar size to that proposed in Southern California. Therefore, further investigation of existing demonstration facilities must be conducted to ascertain reliability of pumping systems, high-pressure/high-temperature equipment, and heat exchangers. The pumping system currently limits the feed solids content to less than 20 percent. The organic waste facility in Japan had to be shut down due to problems with plastics reformulating after processing during the three-stage pressure release system. The vendor claims that the process has been modified with a single-stage pressure let down step, although the plant in Japan has not yet been retrofitted with this modification. The demonstration unit in Atlanta has this new feature, but this facility is not operated on a continuous basis; therefore, true operational and maintenance requirements and process reliability of long-term continuous operation with biosolids is not known. While the energy requirements are lower than for high-temperature processes that evaporate the water from the biosolids, the high operating pressures necessitate high pumping energy. Testing of the product needs to be conducted to establish the metal content and options for recycling or disposal of the product. Odor release is a concern and requires further investigation.

Thermo Energy. The ThermoEnergy process is similar to the EnerTech process, although some of the equipment is different (ThermoEnergy uses a piston pressurization system and steam injection rather than pumps and heat exchangers) and the operational temperature and pressure is higher at 600qF and 2,000 psi, respectively. The process design also includes addition of an alkali. The feed solids concentration should be in the range of 15 to 30 percent, and the process is a batch process, although two parallel pressurization pistons and reaction chambers are installed that provide continuous processing of the incoming biosolids. The reaction time at temperature and pressure is 20 minutes. The treated slurry is passed through a pressure-relief system and dewatered by centrifuge to around 50 percent dryness. This process produces a char with heating value similar to the EnerTech product,

FINAL 46 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES and there is no oil production. Tests were conducted at temperatures in the range of 527qF to 617qF at the Colton demonstration facility (5 dry tons per day) during May and June 2001. It was observed that at the lower end of that temperature range, the cellulose in bathroom tissue was not completely degraded and the final product was speckled with white material. The product had a smell of burnt coffee, but it was not strong or pungent. The centrifuge filtrate is high in ammonia and organics. During the testing at Colton, the COD varied between 3,000 and 14,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). ThermoEnergy has developed an ammonia-recovery process that uses a resin to absorb the ammonia, which is removed during media recovery with sulfuric acid to form high-quality ammonium sulfate crystals that could be marketed as a fertilizer. At the Colton facility, the air was not treated in the boiler, but was passed through a condenser, granular-activated carbon (GAC), and chemical scrubber. VOC concentrations after the GAC were below 1,000 parts per million (ppm). It is anticipated that the level of emissions control installed at the demonstration facility would not suffice at a full-scale facility, and that the process emissions would need to be treated in the boiler, with an after burner or an RTO. It is estimated that a 100-dry-ton-per-day plant would require a processing footprint of approximately 100 feet by 300 feet, including the emissions-control and ammonia-recovery process. The facility resembles a chemical processing plant and is not odorous; therefore, it could probably be sited in an industrial area without attracting negative public perception. ThermoEnergy has submitted proposals to the major agencies in Southern California, including the District, the City of Los Angeles, and San Diego. However, they are not actively pursuing a facility in the region because EnerTech is. The feed stream needs to be pressurized to 2,000 psi, which requires specialty pumping equipment as well as high-pressure/high-temperature vessels and heat exchangers, although the system uses piston pumps rather than the conventional pumps used by the EnerTech process, which may be a more reliable feature. Currently, there is no operating facility of similar size to that required for the District. Therefore, further investigation of existing demonstration facilities must be conducted to ascertain reliability of pumping systems, high-pressure/high-temperature equipment and heat exchangers. The facility in Colton, California, has not been operated on a continuous basis; therefore, true operational and maintenance requirements and process reliability of long-term, continuous operations with biosolids is not known. While the energy requirements are lower than for high-temperature processes that evaporate the water from the biosolids, the high operating pressure necessitates high pumping energy. Testing of the product needs to be conducted to establish the metal content and options for recycling or disposal of the product. Odor release from the facility is a concern and requires further investigation.

Mid-Temperature Pyrolysis Mid-temperature pyrolysis processes are conducted at temperatures of 800qF to 1,000qF, and typically produce an oil as well as a char. The following evaluation is based on material provided to the District and the consultant team from an Australian-based company, Enersludge.

Enersludge. Environmental Solutions International Ltd. (ESI), an Australia-based company owns the Enersludge process. The first step requires the biosolids to be thermally dried to 90 percent. The biosolids are then passed into the conversion reactor where they are

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 47 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES maintained at a temperature of 850qF for 30 minutes. The process is not pressurized, unlike the low-temperature pyrolysis processes, since dried biosolids rather than slurried biosolids are used. Four by-products are formed by this process – oil, reaction water (condensate from the vapor stream), biogas (noncondensed gases), and a solid char material. In a process that uses anaerobically digested biosolids, the product yields are typically 20 percent oil, 60 percent char, 10 percent biogas, and 10 percent reaction water. The oil stream, once separated from the condensate stream, can be sold for heating and electricity generation. The char and the biogas are used for energy generation in a hot gas generator that is supplied as part of the package. The reaction water is also used in the hot gas generator. Figure 5-9 presents the schematic diagram of the Enersludge process. The hot gas generator is similar to a fluidized bed incinerator and provides more heat than required by the thermal drying process (based on a feed cake solids concentration of 26 percent), although additional heat is required for the pyrolysis step and is provided through a natural gas burner. The ash produced from combustion of the char and biogas in the hot gas generator needs to be sent to a landfill, or can be sold as a construction material. The metals are bound in the ash in the form of nonleachable silicates and oxides, and can therefore be classified as nonhazardous. A fifth by-product of the process is a mercury sulfide scum that requires disposal as a hazardous waste. Enersludge has one full-scale biosolids facility located at the Subiaco wastewater treatment plant, Perth, Australia, treating undigested sludge. The facility has a capacity of 25 dry tons per day and was fully operational in early 2001. The footprint for the dryer and hot gas generator buildings was 82 feet by 100 feet by 53 feet; for the thermal conversion process building it was 33 feet by 40 feet by 46 feet. For comparison, the projected 2020 biosolids production for the District is 215 dry tons per day. Concerns with the process include air emissions; the ease of permitting the hot gas generator, which is essentially an incinerator, in Southern California; and the disposal of the hazardous mercury sulfide scum. The bio-oil from the process is a low grade oil and for the quantities produced, the effort required to market and sell the oil may not be cost-effective. A 215-dry-ton-per-day plant (projected District biosolids production, 2020) would produce around 10,000 gallons of oil, or two tankers, per day with a heating value of 0.13 MBtu per gallon, that would need to be sold. The biogas would have a heating value around 490 Btu/cf, which is lower than digester gas. The process is not a net energy producer as the low-temperature pyrolysis processes are, and the value of a process that includes thermal drying, pyrolysis, and incineration is questionable. The efficiency of the process is reduced when digested sludge is used, compared with undigested sludge used by the Perth facility. However, the District is committed to maximizing gas production from the anaerobic digestion process for onsite use, and the footprint and air emissions from the Enersludge process do not make it compatible with installation at either of the District wastewater treatment plants. Since the process includes heat drying, the higher the cake solids concentration into the process, the better. The Perth facility includes centrifuges that provide a cake concentration of 26 percent.

FINAL 48 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 50 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

High-Temperature Pyrolysis This technology uses temperatures similar to incineration, but occurs in the absence of oxygen. International Environmental Solutions (IES), a company in partnership with Neoteric Environmental Technologies, is in the process of setting up a facility at Romoland, Riverside, California, and will be used as the basis for the evaluation of this technology.

International Environmental Solutions. IES has a patented high-temperature pyrolysis system, Advanced Pyrolytic Systems. This process has an operating temperature of 1,200qF to 1,800qF and was designed primarily as a waste-to-energy system using municipal solid waste. The system can also be used to treat a wide range of wastes including tires, oil wastes, medical waste, and hazardous waste; it also can be used to reactivate carbon. The facility in Romoland, Riverside, will have a number of units to treat different waste streams. Initially, a 50-dry-ton-per-day unit has been installed, and is currently being tested with biosolids and other wastes. It is expected that the facility will be operational in early 2004. A 250-dry-ton-per-day unit may be installed toward the end of 2004 that would be operated primarily on biosolids. The biosolids treatment process will involve heat drying to around 90 percent prior to being fed in to the pyrolytic converter. The converter is designed to use indirect heat from a natural gas burner for startup, and then to be self-sufficient in energy from the feed waste, which is why the biosolids are dried prior to pyrolysis. The process produces a carbon char that has some heating value and can be used as fuel source or sold as a construction material for use as a road base or building material. IES is developing the means to use the char onsite as an additional fuel source so that the process will be completely self-sufficient of all fossil fuel requirements, including startup natural gas. It is estimated that 100 dry tons per day of biosolids will produce 8 dry tons per day of char. The vapor stream is separated from the solids, and passed through a thermal oxidizer to destroy any contaminants. The thermal oxidizer operating temperature is around 2,250qF. The hot vapor stream is then sent to a waste heat steam boiler, and the steam can be used for drying the incoming biosolids, heating, or it can be used in steam turbines for power generation. Off-gases are treated by a wet scrubber and condenser, and the final emissions are primarily carbon dioxide. The vendor is developing a carbon dioxide removal system (green house) to provide a zero emissions process at the Romoland site. IES claims that the high-temperature process and the lack of oxygen destroys contaminants that would otherwise be emitted in low-temperature or incineration processes. The site in Romoland will have a 250-gallon per minute (gpm) industrial wastewater treatment facility that will also treat the condensate from the pyrolysis vapor stream and from the biosolids thermal dryer. The effluent from the wastewater treatment plant will be used for steam generation. The process is expected to be a net producer of energy, with the excess power generation dependent on the types of waste treated. At the proposed scale of 250-dry tons per day biosolids processing with thermal drying, IES claims that the facility will be able to generate around 5 megawatts (MW) of power over the thermal drying requirements. In comparison, a similar capacity municipal solid waste facility would generate 7.2 MW, and would not require thermal drying. IES has been in discussions with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), primarily, and has tested biosolids from EMWD and LACSD at a 5-dry-ton-per-day demonstration facility that had been operational in Long Beach, California. IES does not currently have any confirmed contracts for biosolids and apart from the Romoland facility, does not intend to

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 51 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES operate as a design-build-own-operate (DBOO) company. Once they have demonstrated the performance of the process at Romoland, they envision that decentralized facilities located at wastewater treatment plants and owned by the agencies will be the means of implementation. A 250- dry-ton-per-day system including the drying, pyrolysis converter, thermal oxidizer, waste heat boiler, turbines, and generators for power generation would have a footprint of approximately 24,000 square feet. The power substation and cooling towers would be additional. The maximum facility height would be 32 feet.

Super Critical Water Oxidation Super critical water oxidation (SCWO) is the oxidation of organics at super critical pressure and temperature in a liquid or cake form, such that it prevents the vaporization of the liquid. Compressed air or oxygen is fed into the pressure vessel and the reaction is exothermic. The degree of oxidation depends on the temperature and detention time and the rate of oxidation is a function of temperature. This is the key difference between subcritical processes such as Zimpro, which do not fully oxidize the organics and produce effluent streams that are difficult to treat. There are two main categories of SCWO – aboveground systems and underground systems. Both systems produce an inert, silty solid that settles out of the liquid stream. The volume of solids is significantly reduced as the organics are destroyed in the process and can be used in construction applications or for use in manufacture of building materials, as the metals are bound in a nonleachable form that passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) of the USEPA. Air emissions are anticipated to be primarily carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen , with no NOX, SOX, or VOCs and minimal odor. At super critical conditions, organics, including oil or coal, and gases such as oxygen are highly soluble in water, enabling much faster and more complete oxidation reactions, and the water in the feed assists through the formation of free radicals. At super critical conditions, oxidation reactions occur in 20 seconds to 5 minutes, compared with subcritical conditions, which require 20 to 60 minutes. For dilute streams (less than 200 Btu/lb) an efficient heat exchange system is required to make the process self-sufficient, since the heat of vaporization is conserved due to the high-pressure conditions.

Above Ground Super Critical Water Oxidation There are aboveground SCWO systems being developed in the U.S. and in Europe. The following are descriptions of the U.S.-based HydroProcessing System and the Swedish- based process developed by Chematur Engineering AB.

HydroProcessing. HydroProcessing is a Texas-based company that has developed a super critical water oxidation system, with a 9.8-dry-ton-per-day facility that was installed at Harlingen Wastewater Treatment Plant in Texas. The system processed undigested primary and secondary sludge at a solids content of 6 to 8 percent. The process steps included pressurization up to 3,450 to 3,700 psi, preheating of the feed sludge through heat recovery exchangers, heating up to 1,100qF using a gas fired heater, reaction (around 60 seconds), liquid/solids separation in a hydrocyclone, cooling through heat recovery, and depressurization. Oxygen was added to the reaction process for the combustion reaction. The solids were a silty material that passed the USEPA TCLP test. The liquid effluent stream had low COD, although the process had to be optimized to provide complete oxidation of ammonia to nitrogen gas. The air emissions consisted of 75 percent carbon dioxide, which at the Harlingen plant was used to replace sulfuric acid for pH adjustment at the adjacent

FINAL 52 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES reverse osmosis plant. Other gases included oxygen and nitrogen. The vendor also claims that the facility was a net producer of energy, stating that the energy captured was 2 to 3 times the total energy input as electricity, natural gas, and oxygen, producing 5.3 pounds of high-quality steam for 1 dry ton of solids treated. However, digested solids would not have such a positive energy balance. The facility did have some startup problems, primarily related to grit particles in excess of 500 to 2,000 microns that caused pumping problems. A grit removal cyclone was installed on the sludge feed to the gravity belt thickeners (GBTs). Modifications also were made to the heat exchangers to increase the run time between acid cleaning, so that the up time would be around 95 percent. The feed stream needed to be pressurized to 3,500 psi, which required specialty pumping equipment as well as high-pressure/high-temperature aboveground vessels. While the energy requirements for oxidation process are low as the process is exothermic, the high operating pressure necessitates high pumping energy. The facility was turned over to the Harlingen wastewater treatment plant staff, but has since been shut down due to lack of funds to make the modifications necessary to handle grit. Based on this facility, HydroProcessing estimates the life cycle treatment costs to be close to $200/dry ton, without energy credits or carbon dioxide reuse credits. Scale-up of the facility to the size that would be required by the District would be challenging, as the size and numbers of heat exchangers, the size of pumps required to maintain the high pressure, and the maintenance on a large facility would be more complex. Currently, there is no operating facility of similar size to that required for the District and operating issues experienced at the Harlingen plant would need to be proven to be reliably resolved. Testing of the product would need to be conducted to establish the metal content and options for recycling or disposal of the product.

Chematur Engineering AB. One demonstration facility has been installed in Sweden, developed by Chematur Engineering AB. The process can be operated at temperatures between 700qF to 1,000qF and pressures approximately 3,500 psi. Feeding is continuous and the retention time at temperature and pressure is around 1 minute. The feed stream needs to be pressurized to 3,500 psi, which requires specialty pumping equipment as well as high-pressure/high-temperature aboveground vessels. While the energy requirements for the oxidation process are low as the process is exothermic at feed solids concentrations of 15 to 20 percent, the high operating pressure necessitates high pumping energy. The process also requires supplemental heating, which is provided by a direct steam injection system. The final products are an inert silty solids material. Testing of the product needs to be conducted to establish the metal content and options for recycling or disposal of the product. The liquid stream is expected to be a low strength effluent stream, as the process provides for complete degradation of organics. The air emissions are primarily carbon dioxide, with negligible NOX and SOX. Odor release is a concern and requires further investigation. Currently, there is no operating facility of similar size to that required for the District. Therefore, further investigation of existing demonstration facilities must be conducted to ascertain reliability of pumping systems, high-pressure/high-temperature equipment, and heat exchangers. After oxidation, the biosolids stream needs to be cooled prior to further processing. The footprint and potential for inert products and low air emissions are the potential benefits of this technology.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 53 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Below Ground Super Critical Water Oxidation. The District has received a proposal from GeneSyst International Inc., for their super critical Gravity Pressure Vessel (GPV), which consists of a vessel that is built down to a depth of 6,000 to 8,000 feet into the ground. GeneSyst bought out Oxidyne and their GPV technology in 1996. Operating conditions are typically a maximum pressure of 3,200 psi and a temperature of 705qF. The vessel has concentric tubes, the raw sludge at solids concentrations up to 10 percent is pumped down the outer tube, and rises through an inner tube. Oxygen is introduced through the innermost tube, to the bottom of the reactor. As the slurry travels down the vessel, it picks up heat and the pressure increases due to depth. When it reaches the maximum pressure, oxygen is introduced into the slurry. The slurry cools on its way up the inner tube, and the concentric design of the tubes also acts as a heat exchanger between the cold sludge moving down and the warmer sludge moving up. The size of the vessel depends on the reaction rate of the sludge with the oxygen. An 11-3/4-inch vessel could process approximately 100 dry tons per day. The vessel has no moving parts and the system is designed to operate with low pumping heads, due to the density difference between the cooler downdrafting slurry and the warmer updrafting slurry. It is claimed that the SCWO process does not produce air emissions apart from carbon dioxide. System design allows for variations in slurry concentrations and flow rates. The GPV cannot be located across an earthquake fault or in a salt dome. For location of the system at a District site, a careful geologic analysis would need to be conducted to assess the risk of installation of the vessel. GeneSyst estimates the life of the system to be 20 years, although the company only offers 5-year warranties. The system life is based on a subcritical reactor that was installed at Longmont, Colorado, and operated between 1984 and 1985, after which time the vessel was dismantled and the corrosion examined. Monitoring and maintenance of below ground systems will be considerably more difficult than for aboveground systems. However, the vendor does claim that the advantages of below ground systems are that the earth contributes heat to the process (1qF to 2qF per 100 feet depth in the U.S.) and the earth provides insulation. The design of the vessel does not require the use of high-pressure, maintenance-intensive pumping or heat exchangers such as those used in the Zimpro process and aboveground super critical oxidation. However, fouling of the tubes could occur over time. A sub-critical GPV has been operating in Apeldoorn, Holland, since 1992. The system has had buildup of gypsum in the reactor. The system operates with a run time of 120 hours, of which 90 hours is used in processing sludge and 30 hours is used for cooling, descaling, and reheating. The literature provided to the District dated to the 1980s and no clear indications were provided on how the process had improved and how the issues of concern such as maintenance requirements have been addressed. Information provided to the District indicates that the footprint for one 80-dry-ton-per-day unit is estimated at 1.5 acres. As the process uses thickened sludge, the facility needs to be located either onsite or close to the District wastewater treatment plant so that sludge could be pumped to the vessel. The raw or digested sludge could be thickened up to around 10 percent prior to pumping to the system. The existing dewatering equipment could potentially be used to dewater the product after oxidation and cooling.

FINAL 54 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Gasification/Starved Air Combustion Gasification is a cross between pyrolysis and incineration, with insufficient oxygen to allow complete combustion. There are many variations in the process operating temperatures and pressures that will impact the by-products, which may be in the form of a biogas, char, slag, oils and reaction water. Operating temperatures may be in the range of 1,500qF to 3,300qF and pressures may be up to 400 psi. The process dynamics and products vary considerably depending on the type of feed; pilot testing is usually required to determine the yields of the off-gases and residues. With biosolids, the process has proven to be expensive and typically the economics of energy recovery are not positive with biosolids cake due to the low calorific value and high moisture content. The biogas produced generally has a low heating value and needs to be combined with other higher quality fuels such as natural gas before it can be used. The char and oils produced will have less heating value than those produced in a pyrolysis system, due to partial combustion of the organics in the gasification process. The District has not received any gasification proposals, and there are no vendors currently considering location of a facility in Southern California to treat biosolids. Gasification systems have been used more widely in Europe and Asia, using high calorific value feedstocks such as wood wastes. Advantages over incineration include the ability to control air emissions to a higher standard through the process; also, due to the production of products with energy value, the process is seen as an energy recovery technology, whereas incineration is often considered a disposal or destructive technology. In addition, gasification has not received the negative public perception that incineration has. However, due to the lack of successful operation of gasification processes with biosolids and the poor gas quality produced, it is not expected that gasification will be a viable option for biosolids processing in the near future.

Combustion Combustion is the oxidation or burning of material in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The most commonly used method is incineration, which is becoming more widely used in Europe and in the eastern U.S., where land application may not be available or may be severely restricted. A new method that has been developed is Plasma Assisted Oxidation, which uses a plasma arc to catalyze the combustion reaction.

Incineration Incineration has a long history of application for combustion of many different types of wastes. There are different types of incinerators, including multiple hearth furnaces (Figure 5-10) and fluidized beds. The latter are more commonly used in modern incinerators. Sizing, heat balance, and emissions will vary depending on the waste. Biosolids incineration can be designed to operate without the requirement of additional heat, depending on the calorific value of the biosolids and the moisture content. Digested biosolids have less organic matter than undigested biosolids; therefore, the calorific value is lower and the proportion of inert solids is higher. With digested biosolids, the incineration process can typically be autothermal if the feed solids concentration is greater than 45 percent. For example, three 80-dry-ton-per-day units receiving biosolids at 45 percent solids concentration would have the capacity to treat all District biosolids, based on year 2020 projections, and provide some measure of redundancy. With a fluidized bed incinerator, the installed power for process equipment would be around 1.64 MW, with

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 55 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

FIGURE 5-10 Multiple-Hearth Furnace operating costs around 1.1 MW. The ash from an incinerator typically needs to be disposed in a landfill. The volume of ash depends on the amount of inert material in the feed. For digested biosolids, the ash generated is typically 25 to 35 percent of the feed solids. Incineration emissions and public perception issues are the key factors to be considered under this technology option. Of the thermal treatment processes, incineration will typically have the worst emissions, including particulates, NOX, SOX, dioxins, and metals. Siting of an incinerator in Southern California may be difficult due to public perception issues. In addition, the air emissions control would be extensive and would likely increase the cost significantly compared to facilities in other locations. Incineration of biosolids cake from belt press or centrifuge dewatering (i.e., solids content of less than 30 percent) requires supplemental heating energy.

Co-Combustion There are a number of biomass power plants in California that were constructed during the 1980s and 1990s. Many of these were shut down during the late 1990s when the price of renewable energy dropped. There is the potential to operate some of these plants with a combined feed of biosolids and other organic wastes, such as wood waste, or other high calorie biomass feeds. The value of renewable energy and the “fee” for biosolids processing may make these options economically viable. This also provides for participation in a non- cropping market. Key regulatory issues are whether biosolids can be classified as a fuel under the biosolids derived fuel (BDF) definition. If biosolids fall under the definition of

FINAL 56 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES waste, rather than a fuel, this impacts whether or not a facility would fall under the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) regulations. There also may be questions over whether biosolids fall under the “renewable” energy definition. Two local options are currently available for consideration. One may require the District to take the lead to initiate the potential project to generate power at the Colton Cement Plant, and the other is a private venture.

California Portland Cement Power Plant, Colton. California Portland Cement Company (CPCC) has a cement plant in Colton, producing 1 million tons per year. The plant has a 15-MW recirculating fluidized bed power plant onsite and a 3-4 MW waste heat recovery system with two turbines each capable of generating 20 MW. The power plant started operation in 1985, but was shut down a few years later as it was not economic in comparison with purchased power prices. In response to the power crisis in California, the power plant was renovated at a cost of $5 million and was operated for a short while until power prices dropped. CPCC currently pays around $0.08/kWh to purchase electricity, including transmission and fees. The company is willing to consider an arrangement for biosolids combustion in the power plant if economically viable. Considering that costs for alternative biosolids processing and beneficial use options are currently $40 or more and likely to increase, it is very likely that such a project could provide benefits to both the District and CPCC. The hauling distance from the District to Colton is also less than to many other alternatives available in Southern California. One advantage of utilizing a power plant located on a cement plant site is that the ash can be used in the cement process and may even be advantageous, acting as a catalyst in the process. This provides complete beneficial use of the biosolids.

Liberty Power Plants, McCarthy Farms, Imperial County. McCarthy Farms has evaluated the purchase and upgrade of two biomass-to-energy plants in Imperial County, California. The plants are located in an industrial area with no nearby residential developments. One plant is a multiple hearth that was used to process manure; it is permitted to produce 15.5-MW electricity, and could process 1,350 wet tons per day of biosolids. The other is an adjacent traveling grate plant that is permitted to process wood waste; it can produce up to 15.5-MW electricity, and could process 900 wet tons per day of biosolids. The plan is to process a mixture of wood waste and biosolids at the latter plant (Liberty 1). The wood waste improves the energy balance, while the biosolids tipping fee provides a revenue source that makes the project economically feasible. The electricity will be sold back to the grid at the renewable energy rate, or could be returned to participating agencies through energy wheeling. Permit modifications would be required for the plant. The ash could be landfilled, or could potentially be used as an admixture in cement manufacturing. Addition of biosolids to the wood waste will improve the characteristics of the ash as wood waste typically has a high lead content that is diluted by the biosolids. Initial discussions with the Imperial County Board of Supervisors indicates that the project would be politically acceptable. Outstanding issues relate to the classification of the facility and of the biosolids as a fuel or a waste.

Plasma-Assisted Oxidation This process is similar to incineration, but claims that the use of a plasma arc provides a catalyst for the combustion process, and accelerates oxidation reactions so that the

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 57 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES combustion process occurs at lower temperatures. The plasma arc generates ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ionic radicals that catalyze the oxidation and cracking reactions at temperatures of 1,100qF, and feed organic concentrations as low as 20 percent. The process requires a minimum feed calorific value of 20,000 MJ/dt to be autothermal at that low organic concentration. Typical digested biosolids have a calorific value of 13,700 MJ/dt, and would therefore need to be dewatered or dried to a higher solids concentration for the process to be autothermal. The inert material remains as an ash that needs to be disposed of, and the condensate from the vapor stream will need to be returned to the sewer or treated. The process has been pilot tested on various waste streams, including paper and pulp solids and manure. Although the process involves complex multiphase thermodynamics, the vendor is confident that their computer modeling will allow successful scale-up from the pilot-scale to a full-scale facility. There are no full-scale operating facilities treating biosolids. It is expected that the issues with siting a facility in Southern California would be similar to a conventional incineration facility, while the process itself is unproven and it is not possible to verify the vendor’s claims that the process will be economical treating biosolids at solids concentrations as low as 20 percent.

Vitrification Vitrification, or the melting of biosolids, can be conducted to provide materials for building and construction, such as glass aggregate or building bricks. In the U.S., Minergy Corporation, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy Corporation, has one glass aggregate plant that treats biosolids. The District has received a proposal from Minergy for commitment of a portion of their biosolids to a regional facility, and therefore the evaluation of vitrification will focus on this particular vendor. Vitrification has also been developed in Japan, where land is at a premium.

Minergy The Minergy vitrification process is based on their patented “GlassPak” system. The vitrification or melting process requires the biosolids to be predried to a minimum of 90 percent solids, and can be conducted using waste heat recovery from the vitrification process. The vitrification process uses synthetic air enriched in oxygen, to reduce the volume of air emissions, and is conducted at temperatures of 2,600qF to 2,900qF. The organics in the biosolids are combusted to provide the primary source of heat to melt the inorganic, mineral fraction (ash). The melted solids are cooled to form an inert glass aggregate product, which is a black, angular glassy product with most of the metals encapsulated in a nonleachable form inside the glass. The product yield is around 25 percent on a dry basis, so a 100-dry-ton-per-day plant would provide 25 dry ton per day of glass product at <2 percent moisture. The air emissions are reduced by the closed loop system and the addition of oxygen into the air stream. The emissions control equipment includes a condenser and a fixed carbon bed to remove mercury, as well as particulate, NOX , and SOX control equipment. The condensate from the dryer and the vitrification process would need to be discharged to the sewer. According to the vendor, the process can produce sufficient heat for the drying and vitrification process, provided the calorific value of the dried biosolids is 6,000 to 8,000 Btu/lb. Digestion reduces the calorific value of the biosolids. Air emissions depend on the composition of the biosolids. A schematic diagram of the Minergy vitrification process is presented in Figure 5-11.

FINAL 58 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 60 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

The glass aggregate product can be used in a number of applications in construction and nonconstruction industries. The vendor states that the construction industry has a demand of over one billion tons per year, including pavement and construction fill for which the glass aggregate could be sold for $2 to $5 per ton. The glass aggregate can also be sold into more lucrative markets for manufacture of cement or ceramic tiles, at a value of $10 to $25 per ton. Vitrification does have a significant economy of scale. The existing facility in Fox Valley, Wisconsin, has a capacity of around 1,200 wet tons per day, and a facility has been proposed for the City of Detroit, with a capacity of 2,000 wet tons per day. Minergy has also developed a smaller, modular system termed the “GlassPack” plant, with a 12-dry-ton-per- day demonstration facility operating at Winnecone, Wisconsin. Minergy had been seeking to construct a 2,000-wet-ton-per-day regional facility in the City of Vernon, California, which is a heavily industrialized area and had provided proposals to a number of agencies in Southern California. The most recent price proposal on record (September 2001) at the District was for $55 per wet ton, including drying but not including transportation for treatment at a regional facility. The final price would depend on the size of the facility installed. However, due to a lack of commitment of biosolids from major agencies, Minergy is not currently pursuing location of a facility in Vernon. It is anticipated that due to the economies of scale for this process and the need to secure significant biosolids commitments from local agencies, construction of a regional facility by Minergy is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future. The District could purchase modular GlassPack units to install onsite, and Minergy has proposed two 60-dry-ton-per-day units for an equipment price of $30 million. The final cost would likely be significantly higher, including the thermal dryer and the added air emissions control equipment that would likely be required by the SCAQMD. In addition, the facility would require a tall stack, that would likely provoke opposition from local residents.

Deep Well Injection Deep well injection requires pumping of liquid biosolids at solids concentrations of 3 to 5 percent at pressures of 3,000 psi through a well, into depleted oil field reservoirs at depths of 4,000 to 6,000 feet. Deep well injection is not a new process; it has been conducted in Southern California for over 50 years as a means of disposal for oil field brines, slurries, and other wastes, including at the West Newport Oil Field, located around District Plant No. 2. The company that has proposed to develop this technique in Southern California for biosolids injection is Terralog Technologies USA, Inc.

Terralog Technologies Terralog Technologies, Inc., is a company that supplies services in the oil and gas sector and has been involved in deep well injection projects for disposal of oil contaminated soils and drilling slurries. The proposed method of injection is known as Slurry Fracture Injection, and has been conducted at a Chevron site in the Los Angeles area for a number of years, as a disposal method for slurry and as a method of enhancing oil and gas recovery using injection of water/steam and carbon dioxide gas. Applicability of deep well injection requires geological analysis, core analysis, and reservoir computational modeling. The process is expected to work best in unconsolidated sand formations, and a number of potential locations have been identified, including wells at the Aliso Canyon oil and gas

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 61 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES field and the Los Angeles Harbor area. According to Terralog, a preliminary review of the geology of the West Newport Oil Field adjacent to Plant No. 2 has shown potential for a number of injection zones. The plan would be to inject the biosolids slurry into the formation, displacing oil and gas that still remains in the formation. The oil could then be recovered from a second well. The suitability of existing wells for SFI would need to be determined because some older or lower class wells may not be able to withstand the high pressures. Figure 5-12 presents the schematic flow diagram for the deep well injection process. The biosolids are expected to continue degradation in the oil reservoir and the carbon dioxide gas produced is expected to dissolve in the formation brine waters due to the high pressure in the formation. The containment of carbon dioxide could provide carbon sequestration credits. The methane gas will be less soluble, and it is anticipated that this could be extracted from gas recovery wells, although substantial methane recovery may take over a year to occur. At the depth of the oil fields, the biosolids will reach a temperature of around 140qF. Pathogen kill will be achieved by temperature and pressure. The life of any injection well will depend on the constraints of the formation and the rate of biosolids injection. A well will have a minimum and a maximum flow rate required to provide sufficient fracturing. There is also the potential for brine water streams to be used to clean out the well between injection cycles, providing an alternative disposal/treatment method for this problematic waste stream. Deep well injection occurs in formations many thousands of feet below drinking water aquifers. The distance and the presence of clay layers in between make the potential for contamination minimal. Of more concern is the potential for cross-contamination from the well itself. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) has been reviewing the process, and its key concerns have been with regard to ensuring the integrity of the injection wells and ensuring that the SFI process does not damage the well or any other wells in the oilfield. Resistance to earthquakes must be engineered into the design. The monitoring equipment needs to be robust to provide clear indication of fractures, while being able to distinguish from background noise and vibrations. The potential generation of hydrogen sulfide has not been discussed in any of the literature provided to the District. The basis for the methane generation rates and capture rates appear to be primarily theoretical assumptions, and it remains to be seen how realistic these numbers really are. The potential for and the value of enhanced oil recovery in already depleted reservoirs also has not been adequately addressed. The USEPA Regional Groundwater Office is currently reviewing an application by Terralog Technologies for a permit to test a Class V well injection system. The testing will answer some of the questions on safety, injection design parameters, and the true potential for enhanced oil recovery; however, data on methane recovery may take a number of years to obtain.

FINAL 62 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Blank Page

FINAL 64 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Summary and Recommendations Table 5-6 summarizes the scoring results of the technology evaluation; detailed evaluation tables are provided in Appendix B.

TABLE 5-6 List of On-file Product Technology Vendors No. Process Vendors Evaluated Score Results* 1 Composting Vermiculture VermiTech 217 Aerated pile Enclosed facility 273 Unenclosed facility 262 Deep-vessel American Biotech 206 Windrow San Joaquin Composting 196 2 Heat Drying Direct Numerous – including Andritz, Sernagiotto 291 Indirect Numerous – including Andritz, Komline 287 Indirect with Soil American Remedial/TPS 268 Offsite Regional Facility Synagro 254 5 Chemical Stabilization Neat Alkali RDP Technologies; Bioset Inc.; 197 Tule Ranch; Cemen Tech Fly ash N-Viro 184 Neutralization California Soil Products; Hondo Chemical; 250 Pan American Biotechnologies 6 Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing High fortification Wilrey Trust 249 Unified Water Medium fortification Wilrey Trust 261 Low fortification Wilrey Trust 260 7 Pyrolysis Low-temperature EnerTech; Thermo Energy 242 Mid-temperature Enersludge 169 High-temperature International Environmental Solutions 257 8 Super Critical Water Oxidation Below Ground Genesyst 242 Above Ground HydroProcessing 247 Chematur Engineering AB 9 Gasification Number of European & Asian vendors 202 10 Combustion Incineration Number of vendors 243 Co-combustion Existing power plants 269 Plasma-assisted oxidation HydroQuebec/Fabgroups Technologies 228 11 Vitrification Glassification Minergy 239 12 Deep well injection Terralog 199 *High score is good.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 65 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

Based on this evaluation the most viable options for product technologies that are developed and could be implemented at a scale suitable for the District are as follows: 1. Composting by the aerated pile (static pile or agitated bin) method is a viable product technology as the market for the product is established, and there is potential for in- county use through the District’s member agencies. An enclosed facility scores higher as there is the potential for location in-county, which is in keeping with the District’s management goals. An unenclosed facility would need to be located at a more remote site, which increases the hauling distance and truck mileage. Although not all the Southern California air districts will be implementing a compost facility air emissions control rule such as Rule 1133, an unenclosed facility will be more susceptible to changes in air emissions regulations than an enclosed facility. 2. Heat drying – The relative merits of direct and indirect systems can be considered in more detail at a later date, although most large facilities tend to install direct heat drying systems since the footprint is lower and the temperature of the heating medium is lower. An onsite facility has advantages in significantly reducing truck traffic and providing an in-county processing option that would be under District management, fulfilling the goal of in-county biosolids management. An offsite regional facility would require continued hauling of the biosolids cake, and management would be under a private or regional joint powers authority. Although the market for dry pelletized or granular biosolids is not as well developed on the West Coast of the U.S. as the compost market is, there is the potential to use pellets for alternative markets, including energy recovery through combustion, construction material through blending with soil, or fertilizer applications through addition of chemicals. 3. Organo-mineral fertilizer manufacturing provides the opportunity for producing a high-value product that can be marketed in a wide range of cropping markets, in a form that does not resemble biosolids. However, due to the large chemical requirements for high and medium fortification, location would likely need to be close to a rail spur. Low fortification may provide some advantages for siting and material handling, although the product value may be lower than for higher fortification products. Advantages of a process such as the Wilrey Trust or FEECO process over Milorganite® is that the chemical reaction takes place prior to the drying step, allowing the exothermic reaction of the chemicals to provide some of the heat for vaporizing the moisture from the biosolids. 4. Co-combustion with other higher calorie wastes such as wood wastes provides an alternative to land application markets, with electricity generation from the biosolids providing a renewable source of energy. Combustion technology is well developed and widely used with biomass and biosolids feedstocks. There are potential options for co-combustion at existing power plants in Southern California, with the facility in Colton located within a reasonable hauling distance. The cost for processing at a regional merchant facility would be around $45 per wet ton including hauling. With the increasing restrictions on land application of biosolids, it is important to diversify into alternate beneficial use options.

FINAL 66 SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 – VIABLE PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES

In addition, there are emerging technologies that are being developed in Southern California that the District may choose to support through provision of biosolids for testing and evaluation: 1. Indirect heat drying with soil provides some advantages in that the heat of the soil, rather than a fossil fuel, is used to evaporate the moisture from the biosolids. In addition, this option provides access to the large construction material markets, which provides diversification from cropping markets. Although other high-temperature processes, such as vitrification and SCWO, provide products that can be used in construction and nonconstruction applications, most of these biosolids products have to date been used in construction applications such as road fill and have not been successful in gaining acceptance in nonconstruction industries for products such as tiles. It is difficult to justify the higher processing and use of fossil fuels to provide a more highly processed product, when the final application is similar and the revenue from the product will be similar. 2. Pyrolysis, particularly the high-temperature process similar to that developed by IES, may have some merit. The advantage of the high-temperature process over the low-temperature process is that the cake does not need to be pumped to high pressure and the system reliability will likely be better. Although the high-temperature process requires the biosolids to be dried, the heat for the drying process is provided by the pyrolysis step, which reduces the operational costs for drying compared to a stand-alone dryer. Actual energy balances for digested biosolids will need to be verified. Emissions from pyrolysis processes are typically lower than from incineration processes. The low temperature system may be viable in the future, if reliability of the process and equipment can be shown. The advantages of the low-temperature process, if reliable, include the better energy balance as the moisture is not vaporized, and the removal of chlorine that is a dioxin precursor, reducing the dioxin air emissions when the char is combusted. The mid-temperature process does not appear to be viable due to the production of hazardous mercury sulfide scum that requires disposal; in addition, the oil produced is not easy to market, and the process includes an incineration step, which adds the complexity of combustion equipment and air permitting. One of the main disadvantages of most mid- or low-temperature pyrolysis processes is the incomplete degradation of organics, which leads to a high strength recycle stream. These viable technologies will be considered in more detail and budget cost estimates will be provided in the following Technical Memorandum (TM 6). Other technologies that may become viable in the future, if regulations reduce the cropping market options to a minimum, include vitrification and super critical water oxidation (SCWO). At present, the main reasons that vitrification will not be considered further are the economy of scale and the ability to produce materials for similar markets by more straight-forward processes. SCWO may also become viable, if the process reliability and scale-up is demonstrated. Potential advantages are the low strength recycle streams, low emissions, and inert solids material that could be used in the construction and nonconstruction markets. Incineration may also be an option to be considered if cropping markets are restricted. However, the air emissions and public perception issues are likely to make siting and permitting difficult, and the air emissions control equipment will increase the costs.

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 67 FINAL Appendix A – District On-File Biosolids Treatment Proposals

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 FINAL Biosolids Management Alternatives by Technology Direct Land Application Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Diamond A Ranch Gary Armstrong - Owner Gabbs $0 $47.85 Now No 2,500 acres available Ph: (702) 285-4007 Valley, NV per WT Fax: (310) 476-0446 (450 miles) Empire Farms Michael Stewart Empire, NV $0 $45 per Now No 29,700 acres available Ph: (775) 746-1345 (500 miles) WT Paloma Ranch Southwest Asset Gila Bend, $0 $41 per Now No 65,300 acres available Solutions, Inc. AZ WT Ph: (602) 224-0001 (350 miles) Fax: (602) 224-1371 sasi@swassetsolutions. com Universal Environmental Ronald Bryce Kern, $0 $35.50 & Now No Conglomerate of interests Solutions Ph: (520) 428-6450 Kings, and $38.75 and sites in those counties Fax: (520) 428-6460 W-AZ per WT Solid Solutions ? AZ $0 ? TBD No ?

Tule Ranch Shaen Magan Kern, Kings $0 $25.60 Now No Currently sending a portion Ph: (559) 970-9432 (200 miles) $28.97 of our material there Fax: (661) 725-1023 Yakima Co. Jim Willett Kern $0 $33.87 Now No Currently sending a portion Ph: (206) 972-1612 (180 miles) of our material there Fax: 425) 712-8257 Synagro Brent McManigal Tri-state $0 $39.50 Now No Currently sending a portion Cell (909) 538-2026 area per WT of our material there (270 miles)

Composting Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A McCarthy Farms Pat McCarthy Kings ? ? Now Yes 21,900 acres available Ph: (559) 359-0307 (220 miles) Fax: (559) 391-5844 South Kern Industrial Stephen Haupt Kern ? ? ? Yes 100 acres in heavy Center Ph: (661) 631-3812 (180 miles) industrial area Fax: (661) 631-3829 [email protected]

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p1 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Synagro – Lams Canyon Beaumont ? ? TBD Yes Enclosed aerated static pile with biofilters

Sato Environmental Takero Sato TBD ? ? TBD Yes? In-vessel aerobic Ph: (714) 393-0000 dehydration and Fax: (714) 994-2448 fermentation system [email protected] ICOR Jim Sullivan Colton $30 M $22 per ? Yes Enclosed aerated static Ph: (909) 684-7336 WT piles with biofilters Fax: (909) 684-1635 [email protected] Vermitech John Fox TBD ? $40 per ? Yes Facility in Australia Ph: (02) 9261-4045 WT Fax: (02) 9264-9435 [email protected] US Filter Barbara Petroff TBD ? ? TBD Yes Enclosed agitated bin Ph: (508) 347-4540 (Colton?) composting with biofilters Fax: (508) 347-7049 [email protected] Westlake Farms Ceil Howe Kings $11-22 M ? TBD Yes 14,253 acres available Ph: (559) 947-3328 (200 miles) Cell: (559) 707-8717

Solar Drying Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Parkson Corporation Stephan Notarp TBD $13.8 M ? ? ? Requires 20 acres of solar Ph: (954) 974-6610 transparent chambers Fax: (954) 974-6182 Yakima Co. – La Paz Jim Willett La Paz, AZ $0 $ Now ? Solar drying and mixing Ph: (206) 972-1612 (270 miles) with green waste and use Fax: 425) 712-8257 as daily cover

Landfilling Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Waste Markets Dave Long Simi Valley $0 $32.50 Now No Ph: (714) 578-0412 and Yuma, per WT AZ

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p2 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Holloway Terry Arca Kern ? No Land reclamation of old Ph: (805) 653-1471 (200 miles) gypsum mine [email protected] Prima Deshecha ? Orange $0 $33 per Now No County WT

Bactericides Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Evergreen Organics Ron Richardson TBD ? ? ? ? Add Busan 1236 (Sodium Ph: (714) 272-6086 n-methildithiocarbamate to Fax: (209) 538-7157 biosolids to kill all [email protected] organisms.

Alkaline Admixtures Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A California Soil Products Dale Harris Los $0 $32.70 + TBD Yes Up to 300 WT/day Material Ph: (714) 223-7638 Angeles CPI neutralized with sulfuric Fax: (714) 854-7904 acid N-Viro Cemen Tech Chuck Tighe TBD $780,000 $19,500 TBD Yes Heat added Ph: (515) 961-7407 + per year Fax: (515) 961-7409 improve- + 33.75 [email protected] ments kwh N-Viro BioDry/BioBlend TBD $3.55 M $6 M per TBD Yes Includes composting and year curing Bio Set TBD ? ? ? Yes Pan American Bio Tech. Stephen Sawdon TBD ? ? ? Yes Steam treatment and acid Ph: (714) 258-7920 addition Fax: (949) 458-9196 RDP Technologies Robert Christy TBD ? ? ? Yes Pasteurization with added Ph: (610) 650-9900 xt. heat and air mixing 111 Fax: (610) 650-9070 [email protected]

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p3 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Fly Ash Capital O&M Class Company Source/Contact Location Cost Cost Availability A Observations Hondo Chemical Bruce Baker TBD $0 $36 ? Yes Bio-Gyp Ph: (661) 589-1042 Fax: (661) 589-1122 Tule Ranch Shaen Magan Kern or ? ? TBD Yes Ph: (559) 970-9432 Kings Fax: (661) 725-1023

Enzymes & Stimulants Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Bio Stimulants West Dick Ritz Sewer ? ? Now No PX-700 claim to reduce Ph: (909) 676-2029 system sludge mass and odors Fax: (909) 676-6686 Duro Enzyme Product Tedd Smith Sewer ? ? Now No Claim to reduce sludge Ph: (604) 828-5865 system mass and odors Fax: (604) 888-0796 Ennix Inc. Sandra Pariser Sewer ? ? Now No Claim to reduce sludge Ph: (909) 878-3388 system mass and odors Fax: (909) 878-3389 Envirotech Charles Livingston Sludge ? ? Now No Claims to reduce sludge Ph: (770) 449-8571 system mass by 50% [email protected] National Colloids Alex Alexander Sewer ? ? Now No Product #680 to help the Ph: (949) 361-1337 system dewatering process and reduce bacteria Bio Magic Paul Alfrey Biosolids ? ? Now No Reduces odor problems Ph: (949) 631-8845 Fax: (949) 631-9090 [email protected]

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p4 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Drying Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Andritz CDS Peter Commerford Plant $11 M $120 – ? Yes Fluidized bed that operates Ph: (817) 946-0587 150 per at 150 degrees C Fax: (817) 419-1904 DT petercommerford@andritz -arl.com Berlie Technologies Daniel Boulanger Plant $71 M $91 M ? Yes Swiss Combi operating at Ph: (450) 659-1986 450 degrees C Fax: (450) 659-7916 danboulanger@berlie- tech.com Feeco International Ph: (920) 468-1000 Plant ? ? ? Yes Rotary dryer with cooler Fax: (920) 469-5110 [email protected] Fenton Environmental Neil Campbell Plant ? ? ? Yes Dehydration of material to Technology Ph: (210) 602-5815 90% using 91 kwh per DT Fax: (210) 497-1944 GRRO Tempest (ECO William Donofrio Plant ? ? ? ? Enzyme-treated biosolids Cure) Ph: (412) 673-2710 which is then dried Fax: (412) 673-9311 Komline-Sanderson Ph: (800) 225-5457 Plant ? ? ? Yes Dual counter-rotating Fax: (800) 329-7457 shafts with intermeshing [email protected] wedge-shaped hollow paddles through which oil or steam flows Planet Earth (Thermo- Ph: (604) 514-8390 Plant ? ? ? Yes Fermentation, heat-drying, Tech) Fax: (604) 514-8690 and pelletizing system US Filter J-Vap Plant ? ? ? Yes Dewatering at 100 psi and drying with hot water at 180 degrees C US Filter Dragon Dryer Joey Herndon Plant $9.6 M $3.3 kwh Yes Yes Indirect heat with thermal Ph: (229) 227-8727 per DT + oil Fax: (229) 228-0312 85 kwh [email protected] Schwing America Thomas Lyons Plant ? ? ? Yes Fluidized bed with steam Ph: (203) 744-2100 or thermal oil operating at Fax: (203) 744-2837 85 degrees C.

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p5 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A New England Fertilizer Ginny Grace Plant $25 M 325 kwh ? Yes Rotary drum drying and Ph: (617) 773-31-31 per DT granulation operating at Fax: (617) 773-3122 between 700-1000 degrees F. Sehgers Dirk Eeraerts Plant $87 M $190 per ? Yes Fluidized bed combustion Ph: (770) 421-1181 DT with thermal oil heated to Fax: (770) 421-8611 280 degrees C. Flue gas Dirk_Eeraerts@bettertech is destroyed with heat at nology.com 850 degrees C

Pasteurization Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A RDP Technologies Robert Christy Plant ? ? ? Yes Pre-pasteurization by Ph: (610) 650-9900 xt. 111 thermal hydrolysis (340 Fax: (610) 650-9070 degrees C at 120 psi) and [email protected] RDP en-vessel post- pasteurization at 100 degrees C. Dry Vac Environmental Mark Chaddick Plant ? ? ? Yes Recessed plate filter-press Ph: (707) 374-7500 and pasteurization with Fax: (707) 374-7505 steam at 100 degrees C. Ashbrook (Eco Therm) Plant $3 M 476 kwh ? Yes Liquid sludge or biosolids per DT (6%TS) pasteurization process at 70 degrees C for 30 min.

Drying and Pasteurization Mix Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Andritz DDS Plant $31 M ? ? Yes Drying and pasteurization in three concentric cylinders.

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p6 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Fuels Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Enertech Charles Carter Colton ? ? ? NA Chemically alters biosolids Ph: (215) 841-2036 and creates a high-energy Fax: (215) 841-2040 fuel under 1000-1500 psi [email protected] at 450 degrees F. Environmental Solutions Peter Ashford ? ? ? ? NA Organics in dried biosolids International (Enersludge) Ph: (61) 8 9470-4004 are converted to clean Fax: (61) 8 9355-0450 fuels at 450 degrees C. [email protected] ThermoEnergy Alex Fassbender ? ? ? ? NA Conditioned with alkaline Ph: (509) 375-0847 materials, heated to 617 degrees F, allowed to react for 20 min. producing char and oil.

Glassification Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Minergy Amy Flom ? ? ? ? NA Blended with silica and Ph: (414) 225-6165 melted to form glass Fax: (414) 225-6166 aggregate at 2700-3000 [email protected] degrees F

Pyrolysis Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A International Karen Burtrum ? ? ? ? NA Cyclone-dried, fed into the Environmental Solutions Ph: (714) 309-8453 system heated to 1200- Fax: (909) 928-5672 1800 degrees F. The ienvirosolutions@netscape exhaust system has a .net thermal oxidizer heated to 1600-2250 degrees F.

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p7 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Electrical Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Plasma-Assisted Ted Mulhern Plant ? 100 kwh ? NA Completely destroys Oxidation Ph: (514) 331-3712 per WT organic matter. Fax: (514) 331-5656 Powell Electrocoagulation Scott Powell Plant ? ? ? ? Direct current to react and Ph: (805) 962-9953 precipitate or coalesce contaminants.

Ultrasonic Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Globe Protect USA Plant ? ? ? ? Alternating mechanical wave and cavitation inactivator. Kills bacteria and improves digestion and dewaterability

Others Company Source/Contact LocationCapital O&M Availability Class Observations Cost Cost A Terralog Plant ? ? ? NA Injection of slurry in old oil formations and recover the displaced and formed methane. KLS/DK Neil Prescott Desert ? ? ? ? Burying biosolids in the Ph: (559) 291-0427 desert by inmates. Fax: (559) 291-7627 Genesyst International James Titmas Plant ? ? ? NA Concentric pipes are sunk Ph: (330) 655-2699 to depths of 2,000+ ft. The Fax: (330) 650-2624 oxygen-fed combustion [email protected] reaches 705 degrees F

W052003003SCO TM-05-App-A.doc/031690010-p8 Last printed 12/03/2003 6:59 PM Appendix B – Viable Technology Ranking Criteria Evaluation Tables

SCO/TM-05.DOC/033280002 FINAL TABLE 5B Viable Technology Ranking Criteria Composting – Composting – Enclosed Composting – Unenclosed Composting – Composting – Heat Drying – Heat Drying – Heat Drying - Aerated Pile Vermiculture Aerated Pile Deep-Vessel Windrow Direct Indirect Indirect with Soil No Criteria Importance Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result 1 Industry experience 2 5 10 2 4 5 10 2 4 3 6 4 8 3 6 1 2 2 Process reliability 4 4 16 3 12 4 16 1 4 2 8 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 Owner/operator options 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 4 Management control 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 Public perception of facility 5 3 15 3 15 3 15 2 10 1 5 3 15 3 15 3 15 6 Ease of implementation/siting in S. CA 5 2 10 2 10 3 15 4 20 1 5 3 15 3 15 4 20 7 Cost to OCSD 3 2 6 3 9 3 9 2 6 3 9 2 6 2 6 4 12 8 Facility risk 4 2 8 3 12 3 12 1 4 1 4 4 16 4 16 3 12 9 OCSD investment risk 4 1 4 2 8 4 16 1 4 5 20 1 4 1 4 5 20 10 Location 4 4 16 1 4 3 12 4 16 2 8 5 20 4 16 4 16 11 Compatibility with existing facilities 4 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 12 Net energy benefits 3 1 3 4 12 2 6 1 3 3 9 2 6 1 3 4 12 13 Production of difficult waste streams 4 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 14 Traffic 5 3 15 1 5 2 10 1 5 1 5 5 25 5 25 3 15 15 Potential for odor 5 4 20 2 10 2 10 1 5 1 5 5 25 5 25 2 10 16 Air quality impacts 5 4 20 3 15 3 15 3 15 1 5 3 15 4 20 2 10 17 Product compatibility with markets 5 4 20 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 3 15 3 15 4 20 18 Product acceptability 5 4 20 3 15 4 20 2 10 4 20 3 15 3 15 3 15 19 Product sustainability (risk) 5 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 4 20 20 Perceived benefits to OCSD/county 5 5 25 2 10 3 15 3 15 2 10 5 25 5 25 3 15 TOTAL 273 217 262 206 196 291 287 268

W052003003SCO/TM-05-Table5B.xls/033360003 1 of 3 TABLE 5B Viable Technology Ranking Criteria Heat Drying - Chemical Chemical Chemical Organo-Mineral Organo-Mineral Organo-Mineral Offsite Regional Stabilization - Stabilization - Stabilization - Fertilizers - Fertilizers - Fertilizers - Low Pyrolysis - Low Pyrolysis - Mid Facility Neat Alkali Fly Ash Neutralization High Level Mid Level Level Temperature Temperature No Criteria Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result 1 Industry experience 4 8 3 6 4 8 2 4 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 Process reliability 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 1 4 2 8 3 Owner/operator options 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 4 Management control 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 Public perception of facility 4 20 3 15 3 15 3 15 2 10 3 15 3 15 3 15 2 10 6 Ease of implementation/siting in S. CA 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10 2 10 3 15 3 15 2 10 7 Cost to OCSD 1 3 3 9 3 9 4 12 2 6 3 9 3 9 2 6 2 6 8 Facility risk 4 16 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 9 OCSD investment risk 4 16 4 16 4 16 5 20 5 20 4 16 3 12 4 16 5 20 10 Location 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 2 8 11 Compatibility with existing facilities 4 16 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 12 Net energy benefits 1 3 2 6 1 3 2 6 3 9 3 9 2 6 4 12 3 9 13 Production of difficult waste streams 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 2 8 1 4 14 Traffic 3 15 2 10 1 5 2 10 1 5 2 10 2 10 3 15 3 15 15 Potential for odor 4 20 1 5 1 5 2 10 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 16 Air quality impacts 2 10 2 10 1 5 2 10 2 10 3 15 2 10 2 10 1 5 17 Product compatibility with markets 3 15 1 5 1 5 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 1 5 18 Product acceptability 3 15 1 5 1 5 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 1 5 19 Product sustainability (risk) 3 15 1 5 1 5 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 1 5 20 Perceived benefits to OCSD/county 3 15 1 5 1 5 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 1 5 TOTAL 254 197 184 250 249 261 260 242 169

W052003003SCO/TM-05-Table5B.xls/033360003 2 of 3 TABLE 5B Viable Technology Ranking Criteria Super Critical Super Critical Co-combustion - Pyrolysis - High Wet Oxidation - Wet Oxidation - Existing Power Plasma Assisted Vitrification - Temperature Below Ground Above Ground Gasification Incineration PlantsOxidation Glassification Deep Well Injection No Criteria Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result Score Result 1 Industry experience 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 5 10 5 10 1 2 4 8 1 2 2 Process reliability 2 8 2 8 1 4 1 4 4 16 4 16 2 8 4 16 1 4 3 Owner/operator options 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 Management control 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 Public perception of facility 3 15 2 10 3 15 3 15 1 5 3 15 2 10 2 10 2 10 6 Ease of implementation/siting in S. CA 3 15 2 10 4 20 3 15 2 10 4 20 2 10 2 10 2 10 7 Cost to OCSD 3 9 2 6 2 6 1 3 2 6 3 9 1 3 2 6 4 12 8 Facility risk 3 12 2 8 2 8 1 4 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 1 4 9 OCSD investment risk 5 20 2 8 1 4 5 20 4 16 3 12 4 16 3 12 4 16 10 Location 3 12 4 16 4 16 2 8 2 8 3 12 2 8 2 8 4 16 11 Compatibility with existing facilities 5 20 5 20 5 20 1 4 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 5 20 12 Net energy benefits 4 12 4 12 3 9 2 6 3 9 5 15 3 9 1 3 1 3 13 Production of difficult waste streams 2 8 4 16 4 16 3 12 5 20 5 20 5 20 3 12 5 20 14 Traffic 3 15 4 20 4 20 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 5 25 15 Potential for odor 4 20 3 15 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 16 Air quality impacts 2 10 3 15 3 15 3 15 1 5 1 5 2 10 1 5 3 15 17 Product compatibility with markets 4 20 4 20 4 20 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 5 25 1 5 18 Product acceptability 4 20 3 15 3 15 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 5 25 1 5 19 Product sustainability (risk) 4 20 4 20 4 20 3 15 4 20 4 20 4 20 5 25 1 5 20 Perceived benefits to OCSD/county 3 15 3 15 3 15 2 10 3 15 2 10 3 15 3 15 1 5 TOTAL 257 242 247 202 243 269 228 239 199

W052003003SCO/TM-05-Table5B.xls/033360003 3 of 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 6 – Cost Evaluation Model

Contents

Summary ...... 2 Introduction...... 3 Objectives and Purpose ...... 4 Summary of Biosolids Projections...... 4 Summary of Existing Facilities ...... 5 Impact of Regulations ...... 6 Summary of Markets...... 7 Summary of Product Technologies...... 7 Modeling Options ...... 8 Liquid Treatment Options and Mass Balance ...... 8 Solids Handling Options ...... 23 Sludge Thickening...... 23 Digester Add-On Technologies ...... 31 Digestion Processes...... 31 Dewatering Technologies...... 43 Product Technologies...... 48 Transport Options ...... 56 Biosolids Markets ...... 56 Design Criteria...... 59 Cost Basis ...... 59 Capital Costs ...... 59 Operation and Maintenance Costs...... 59 Merchant Facility Costs ...... 60 Product Costs and Revenues ...... 80 Model Description ...... 81 Summary File (Cost Model District Summary.xls)...... 82 Plant No. 1 File (Cost Model District P1.xls) ...... 82 User Guide...... 83 Evaluation of Process Chain Options ...... 85 Summary and Recommendations ...... 96 References...... 97 Appendix A – Data Summary and Recommended Assumptions Appendix B – Plant No. 1, Model Run 1A (Baseline Alternative) Appendix C – Plant No. 2, Model Run 1A (Baseline Alternative) Appendix D – Plant No. 1, Model Run 6A (Recommend. Alternative) Appendix E – Plant No. 2, Model Run 6A (Recommend. Alternative)

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 1 175817.PE.12 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Summary This Technical Memorandum (TM) documents the development and the results of the cost model for Orange County Sanitation District’s (District) biosolids management facilities. The cost model ties together mass balances with sizing and costing of different biosolids processing and product manufacturing options. The cost model was designed to be flexible and to allow the selection of plant influent flows and loadings, different liquid treatment processes, and solids handling processes. The liquid treatment options were not costed in the model. They simply provide the solids mass balance needed for costing the solids handling facilities. Solids treatment process options ranging from thickening of primary and secondary sludges, through digester pre-treatment, advanced digestion, and dewatering options may be selected for each plant. The model calculates the mass balances and costs for the capital, operation and maintenance (O&M) and the 20-year present-worth cost for the entire chain of process options. Single site dewatering was also included. Biosolids product technologies and potential market revenues have been built into the model, so that a complete solids handling plan can be evaluated. The cost model was constructed using Microsoft Excel software and consists of four separate electronic files: x Cost Model Summary File – liquid train selection, solids handling selection, summary of costs, and facilities. x Plant No. 1 detailed mass balance, design and sizing sheets (sludge thickening through dewatering options). x Plant No. 2 detailed mass balance, design and sizing sheets (sludge thickening through dewatering options). x Combined sheet (combined dewatering, product technologies, and markets). The top summary file will allow access to a broad group of users. The other three files are detailed process and cost files. The access to these files should be restricted to users that are versed in the necessary process information and that have been trained to use the model. After the model was developed and validated it was used to evaluate in-plant solids handling options for Plant Nos. 1 and 2, evaluate combined dewatering options, and compare costs of product technologies and markets. The model was also used to determine the capacities of existing equipment under different process configuration scenarios. The cost evaluation indicates that the following options would improve the cost- effectiveness of the overall biosolids management program. These options should be further evaluated through sensitivity analysis using the cost model, pilot testing, site visits to similar facilities, review of existing facilities performance data, and conceptual sizing and layouts. The proposed facilities and upgrades are: x Add primary sludge thickening at Plant No. 1. x Install new waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening to achieve solid concentration of 6 percent or more at Plant No. 1. x Explore options to pre-thicken WAS through selector process, secondary clarifier improvements, and/or pre-thickening.

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL x Install ultrasound for digester pre-treatment. x Continue using mesophilic digestion. x Install high solids centrifuge dewatering to produce a drier cake. x Consider combining dewatering for Plant Nos. 1 and 2 (onsite or offsite). x Develop in-county composting for producing value-added products for viable markets. x Develop in-county thermal drying and optimize capacity to balance products and costs. x Pursue merchant composting, energy production (co-combustion), and organo-mineral product to allow participation in sustainable markets.

Introduction This TM provides an overview of the cost evaluation that was conducted to assess the biosolids processing and product manufacturing options for the District. The cost evaluation was conducted using a Microsoft Excel-based cost model that estimates the capital, O&M, and present-worth costs for the options considered. The present-worth costs were calculated using a 5 percent interest rate over 20 years. The flow rates for the year 2020 were used and the costs were developed assuming that full secondary treatment was in place. The first step in developing the cost model was the construction of mass balance models for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 liquid trains to provide the primary and secondary sludge mass and volumes for sizing of the biosolids handling facilities. The liquid trains consist of a number of treatment options that can be selected to assess their impact on solids production. The liquid treatment process costs were not included in the cost evaluation. The next step was the construction of a suite of solids handling processes that could be selected to form an entire solids handling train. These include options for primary sludge thickening, WAS thickening, digestion pre-treatment, digestion, dewatering, product technologies, and markets. This allows the selection of different process combinations, to assess their impacts on cost. One of the unique aspects of the model is that it takes into account biosolids marketing options and revenues. Detailed design, performance, and sizing criteria were developed for each process option. Mass balance calculations were formulated using the predicted liquid train solids production values from the first step. The detailed sizing and mass balance information is provided for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, and an option for combined dewatering of digested solids from both plants is also provided. The dewatered biosolids can then be processed to produce biosolids-based products at a number of District-owned or merchant facilities. Products from District-owned facilities can then be divided between various markets. For merchant-owned facilities, it is assumed that marketing and beneficial use costs are the responsibility of the facility owners and that the costs are included in the biosolids processing fee. The use of failsafe backup options is also available in the cost evaluation. A summary of costs and sizings for a selected chain of solids handling options are provided and total capital, O&M, and present-worth costs over 20 years are provided. These include

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 3 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL facilities for onsite treatment at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, combined dewatering facilities, product processing options, and market revenues from District-owned facilities. These add up to provide the total program costs. The cost model consists of four separate electronic files. The first file is a summary file that would allow access to a broad group of users. The other three files are detailed process and cost files, which will have access restricted to users that are versed with biosolids management facility design and with the model. The four files are: x Cost Model Summary File – liquid train selection, solids handling selection, summary of costs, and facilities. x Plant No. 1 detailed mass balance, design and sizing sheets (sludge thickening through dewatering options). x Plant No. 2 detailed mass balance, design and sizing sheets (sludge thickening through dewatering options). x Combined sheet (combined dewatering, product technologies, and markets).

Objectives and Purpose The objectives of the cost evaluation model were to develop a flexible tool to: x Evaluate the life-cycle costs of entire biosolids management chains, from sludge thickening to product markets. x Incorporate the impact of liquid treatment options on solids production and management costs. The evaluation was conducted in a number of steps, as described below: x The life-cycle costs of different in-plant solids processing options were evaluated for Plant No. 1 and then for Plant No. 2. The different runs are described later in this TM. For these runs it was assumed that dewatered cake was further processed at a set cost of $45 per wet ton. For all the runs, the secondary treatment was set in accordance with the present Capital Implementation Plan (CIP). x The life-cycle costs were then evaluated for centralized dewatering options, with the facility located offsite, or at one of the plants. x Product technologies and markets were reviewed, with the cost of District-owned facilities being compared with proposals and quotes from merchant facilities.

Summary of Biosolids Projections Biosolids projections are dependent on a number of variables, including influent flow and loading projections, liquid treatment options, and solids handling options. Table 6-1 provides a summary of dewatered solids projections under different scenarios.

FINAL 4 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

TABLE 6-1 Biosolids Projections with Different Scenarios Dewatered Biosolids Dewatered Biosolids Total Solids wet tons per day dry tons per day (TS) Scenario (wtpd) (dtpd) %

Interim Strategic Plan Update 550 110.2 19.0% (ISPU)1

Baseline Operation Mode2 894 192.2 21.5%

Baseline with Ultrasound3 801.3 177.2 23.5%

Recommended4 664 176.8 28.0%

Notes: 1ISPU assumed existing Volatile Solids (VS) destruction even at full secondary 2Assumes no primary sludge thickening, WAS thickening with Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners (DAFTs), mesophilic digestion, and belt press dewatering 3As (2), with ultrasound pretreatment and higher VS destruction 4Primary sludge thickening, expand WAS thickening with new technology, ultrasound, mesophilic digestion, and centrifuge dewatering

The ISPU projections were based on a liquid train of activated sludge plant expansion at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 for all future flows. It was also assumed that VS destruction in the digesters would remain at the historic levels (63 percent) achieved with partial secondary treatment. This could be considered unrealistic under full secondary treatment. The other three projections were conducted using the cost model mass balance and assumptions. These projections assumed secondary treatment at Plant No. 1 to consist of 30-million gallons per day (mgd) trickling filters (existing) and the use of activated sludge for the rest. The secondary treatment at Plant No. 2 was assumed to consist of the existing 80 mgd of pure oxygen-activated sludge, augmented by trickling filters. Table 6-1 shows the impact of digester pretreatment and better dewatering on the volume of biosolids generated. This reduction in the amount of biosolids for further processing and beneficial use following dewatering has significant cost savings, as will be discussed later in the detailed cost evaluation.

Summary of Existing Facilities For the liquid treatment facilities it was assumed that adequate primary treatment facilities exist and that chemical dosing for advanced primary treatment will be conducted 24 hours per day. Chemical dosing 24 hours a day has recently been implemented at both plants. For Plant No. 1, it was assumed that the trickling filters, when re-built, will continue to be operated, with the waste solids returned to the primary clarifiers for co-settling. The existing activated sludge plant will be expanded and will likely be operated in nitrification mode. It was anticipated that the existing high purity oxygen system at Plant No. 2 will continue, with the ability to treat up to 80 mgd. Additional capacity would be provided with trickling filters. Table 6-2 provides a summary of the existing facilities.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 5 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

TABLE 6-2 Existing Facilities Process Dimensions/Flow No. Existing

Plant No. 1

Primary Treatment 100% NA

Trickling filters 30 mgd NA

Activated Sludge 80 mgd NA

Primary Sludge Thickening 0 0

WAS Thickening (DAFTs) 40 ft dia 6

Digesters 90’ dia, 29’ depth 2 100’ dia, 30’ depth 8

Sludge Holding Tanks 90’ dia, 30’ depth 2

Dewatering Belt Presses 2 m 8

Cake Storage Hoppers 450 cy 4

Plant No. 2

Primary Treatment 100% NA

Activated Sludge (HiPO) 80 mgd NA

Primary Sludge Thickening 0 0

WAS Thickening (DAFTs) 55 ft dia 4

Digesters 90’ dia, 30’ depth 2 80’ dia, 32’ depth 6 80’ dia, 33’ depth 3 105’ dia, 30’ depth 4

Sludge Holding Tanks 80’ dia, 33’ depth 5

Dewatering Belt Presses 2 m 15

Cake Storage Hoppers 900 cy 2

Impact of Regulations As discussed in earlier TMs, public-perception-driven regulations and ordinances have been dictating the options for biosolids beneficial use. This is evidenced by the recent move of some counties in Arizona to ban the land application of Class B biosolids, following the high level of activity in California. This trend supports the need for producing high quality biosolids products that have a sustainable market. Diversification of biosolids products and markets also prevents any one market from becoming overloaded, and reduces the risk to the District, should any one product or market fall under new regulation. This cost evaluation therefore includes a range of biosolids processing options and also incorporates the biosolids markets, to provide a holistic approach to biosolids management.

FINAL 6 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

In addition, air quality regulations in Southern California are among the strictest. These regulations impact biosolids processing facilities such as composting, thermal drying and combustion. The need for strict emissions control adds to the cost of such facilities, and these costs must be adequately factored into the cost evaluation.

Summary of Markets A detailed market assessment was conducted as part of this biosolids master plan, to ensure that the biosolids products under consideration had sustainable markets. The market assessment and ranking is described in TMs 2 through 4. The top five markets and the types of products suitable for those markets are summarized below: x Horticulture – Blending and Bagging for Retail Outlets: Compost, dry pellets and granulars, and organo-mineral fertilizer products. x Horticulture – Ornamental and Nurseries: Compost, dry pellets and granulars, and organo-mineral fertilizer products. x Horticulture – District Member Cities and Agencies: Compost, dry pellets and granulars, and organo-mineral fertilizer products on municipal lands. x Direct Energy Production: Dry pellets and granulars, and Class B biosolids cake. x Silviculture – Shade Trees Programs: Compost or dry pellets and granulars, and organo-mineral fertilizer products. Each market can use several biosolids-based products, and most products can have multiple markets. For example, all five markets accept the dry pellets and granulars. These markets for biosolids products were factored into the evaluation of the biosolids product manufacturing technologies.

Summary of Product Technologies The evaluation of product technologies is documented in TM 5. The biosolids product technologies were grouped into 13 broad categories such as composting and heat drying. An initial screening level review was conducted to identify any categories that might have ‘fatal flaws,’ such as the inability to meet Class A exceptional quality product standards. A more detailed review was then conducted on various processes available within each of the ten selected technology categories. The review was based on documentation provided by vendors to the District and consultant team, meetings with the vendors, and telephone discussions with the vendors. Based on this evaluation the most viable five options for the District are: 1. Aerated Pile Composting, (static pile or agitated bin) with an enclosed facility providing advantages over an unenclosed facility through location and flexibility to meet changing air regulations. 2. Heat Drying, the relative merits of direct and indirect systems will be considered in more detail at a later date. An onsite or local facility is preferred to offsite regional facilities due to provision of an in-county management option, reduced truck hauling volumes and distances, and better management control.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 7 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

3. Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Process, to produce a high value fertilizer product. In these processes chemical addition prior to drying provides the advantage of reducing fuel consumption in the drying process. 4. Co-Combustion, using high temperature processes for energy production allows recovering the fuel value of the biosolids for non-cropping markets. Pyrolysis and indirect heat drying (with soil) for production of fuel products and construction material, respectively, are emerging technologies. These emerging technologies generate products for non-cropping markets and could be commercially feasible in the near future. Modeling Options

Liquid Treatment Options and Mass Balance Different primary and secondary treatment options were provided in the mass balance calculations for the two plants, as shown in Figure 6-1. Descriptions of the liquid treatment processes are provided below. The summary of the data used in developing the assumptions for the liquid treatment options is provided in Appendix A.

Influent Wastewater The mass balance was originally based on the same projected year 2020 influent wastewater flows that were developed for the ISPU. However, the influent quality assumptions were changed in the validated CIP. The values currently assumed in the cost model are provided in Table 6-3 below. Appendix A Table 1 compares the assumptions used in various planning documents, reports and historical data. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) values in the cost model are slightly higher than the 1999 Strategic Plan and the ISPU. Plant wastewater quality data from July 2001 to June 2002 at Plant No. 2 was lower than the strategic planning assumption.

TABLE 6-3 Year 2020 Influent Wastewater Flow and Quality Assumptions Parameter Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Flow, mgd 177 144 BOD, mg/L 270 250 TSS, mg/L 260 240 Impact of Activate Sludge Process Effluent Quality on Solids Production

In order to determine the impact of activated sludge effluent quality on solids production, separate mass balances were run for two potential effluent quality assumptions. Figures 6-2 through 6-5 present two mass balances for Plant Nos. 1 and 2. Figures 6-2 and 6-3 provide mass balances for Plant Nos. 1 and 2 assuming a 20 mg/L BOD and 20 mg/L TSS effluent from the activated sludge process. Figures 6-4 and 6-5 provide mass balances for Plant Nos. 1 and 2 assuming an 8 mg/L BOD and an 8 mg/L TSS effluent from the activated sludge process.

FINAL 8 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

FIGURE 6-1 Cost Model Liquid Treatment Options

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 9 FINAL

FIGURE 6-2 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN Plant No. 1 with 20/20 Activated Sludge Effluent FINAL

OCSD Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Plant No. 1 - Simplified Mass Balance Notes: Legend: 1. Spreadsheet incorporates a circular reference (TF Sludge return to primary clarifiers). Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions To allow spreadsheet to calculate circular reference make sure iterations are allowed. Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters From "Tools" menu, select "Options", then "Calculations", and make sure "Iterations" is checked. BOD = 20 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) 2. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). TSS = 20 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters Influent Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 15.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 29.2 mgd Year 2020 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100% 29.2 mgd BOD removed = 26,800 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Flow = 177 mgd BOD removal = 25% Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L BOD = 270 mg/L TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 TSS = 260 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L and/or PEF = Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 94.9 mgd w/ Chemical Addition VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 BOD = 20 mg/L BOD = 20 mg/L TF Sludge 100% BOD removal = 50% TSS = 20 mg/L TSS = 20 mg/L 188.5 mgd TSS removal = 75% Activated Sludge MF Backwash Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Performance based on 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L hours of Chemical Addition Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 20 mg/L BOD removal = 50% % Total Flow = 0% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 TSS removal = 75% Flow = 0.0 mgd and/or PEF = Influent w/TF Sludge Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Microfiltration and MF Backwash TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters MF Backwash Influent Flow = 93.6 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd BOD removal in PE = 16% Nitrifying Activated Sludge Returned to Recovery = 88.0% BOD = 258 mg/L TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 159.3 mgd Primary Clarifiers Backwash flow = 11.2 mgd TSS = 265 mg/L ABRs Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 159.3 mgd BOD removed = 146,100 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Backwash BOD = 73 mg/L Historical Primary Clarifier Performance Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 20 mg/L Backwash TSS = 167 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 BOD removal = 48% and/or PEF = TSS removal = 75% VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Reverse Osmosis Additional Removal with ABR Influent Flow = 82.4 mgd 0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Membrane Bioreactor Recovery = 85% 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Concentrate flow= 12.4 mgd Overall ABR Performance 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 10 mg/L BOD removal = 57% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 0 mg/L Assumed to be 1/2 of AS/NAS Effluent BOD TSS removal = 84% Trickling Filter Sludge VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary GWR System Product 0.87 Primary Sludge Primary sludge reduction = 30% TF Sludge Parameter TF Units and/or PEF = Flow = 70 mgd Thickening Return Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 Returned to Mass VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 0.000 mgd Primary Clarifiers TS 17,400 lb/d BOD = NA mg/L Concentration TSS = 0 mg/L TS 8,000 mg/L BOD 100 mg/L Primary Sludge Production % solids Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Parameter Primary ABR PEF Total Units TS 0.80% % Parameter WAS N-WAS MBR Total Units Parameter Primary Secondary Total Units Mass Flow 0.261 mgd Mass Mass TS 312,500 0 0 312,500 lb/d 156.25 TS 0 103,700 0 103,700 lb/d 51.85 TS 312,500 103,700 416,200 lb/d VS 243,800 0 0 243,800 lb/d VS 0 90,200 0 90,200 lb/d VS 243,800 90,200 334,000 lb/d Concentration Concentration Concentration TS 48,000 0 0 48,000 mg/L TS 0 6,000 0 6,000 mg/L TS 48,000 6,000 17,500 mg/L VS 37,440 0 0 37,000 mg/L VS 0 5,200 0 5,200 mg/L VS 37,000 5,200 13,900 mg/L % solids % solids % solids TS 4.80% 0.00% 0.00% 4.80% % TS 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.60% %TS4.80% 0.60% 1.75% % VS 3.74% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% % VS 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.52% %VS3.70% 0.52% 1.39% % Flow 0.781 0.000 0.000 0.781 mgd Flow 0 2.072 0 2.072 mgd Flow 0.781 2.072 2.853 mgd

TM 6 Figures for new PDF.xls; 033370005/ Fig 6-2 1 12/08/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 12 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-3 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN Plant No. 2 with 20/20 Activated Sludge Effluent FINAL

OCSD Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Plant No. 2 - Simplified Mass Balance

Legend: Note: Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters BOD = 20 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed TSS = 20 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100.0% BOD removal = 25% Flow = 144.5 mgd Flow = 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L Trickling Filters Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L 41.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 60 mgd w/ Chemical Addition 60 mgd BOD removed = 55,000 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L 100.0% BOD removal = 48% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 76% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 % Total Flow = 0.0% and/or PEF = Influent Performance based on Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 Year 2020 hours of Chemical Addition BOD = 130 mg/L Flow = 144 mgd BOD removal = 48% TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters Activated Sludge BOD = 250 mg/L TSS removal = 76% BOD removal in PE = 16% 58.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 84.5 mgd TSS = 240 mg/L 288230.4 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5 mgd BOD removed = 77,500 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Flow = 144.5 mgd Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 20 mg/L BOD = 20 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary TSS = 20 mg/L 0.87 Influent with Recycles and/or PEF = Year 2020 ABRs VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 144.5 mgd Historical Primary Clarifier Performance BOD = 250 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) Nitrifying Activated Sludge TSS = 269 mg/L 324179.97 BOD removal = 48% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0 mgd 323992.32 TSS removal = 75% 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Additional Removal with ABR % Total Flow = 0.0% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 20 mg/L 0.0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% BOD = 130 mg/L Primary Effluent and/or PEF = Overall ABR Performance TSS = 65 mg/L Microfiltration VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 BOD removal = 57% BOD removal in PE = 50% TF Sludge TSS removal = 84% TSS removal in PE = 100% Flow = 0 mgd Primary sludge reduction = 30% Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 BOD = 65 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Trickling Filter Sludge Thickening Return Parameter TF Units Flow = 0.000 mgd TF Sludge Mass BOD = NA mg/L Returned to TS 35,750 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Production Primary Clarifiers VS lb/d Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Parameter Primary ABR PEF* MF* Total Units Concentration Parameter WAS N-WAS Total Units Parameter Primary Secondary Total Units Mass TS 8,000 mg/L Mass Mass TS 246,400 0 0 0 246,400 lb/d 123.2 BOD 100 mg/L TS 62,000 0 62,000 lb/d 31 TS 246,400 62,000 308,400 lb/d VS 184,800 0 0 0 184,800 lb/d % solids VS 53,900 0 53,900 lb/d VS 184,800 53,900 238,700 lb/d TS 0.80% Concentration VS % Concentration Concentration TS 50,000 00050,000 mg/L Flow 0.54 mgd TS 2,800 0 2,800 mg/L TS 50,000 2,800 11,400 mg/L VS 37,500 0 0 0 37,500 mg/L VS 2,400 0 2,400 mg/L VS 37,500 2,400 8,800 mg/L % solids 35762 % solids % solids TS 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% % TS 0.28% 0.00% 0.28% %TS5.00% 0.28% 1.14% % VS 3.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.75% % VS 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% %VS3.75% 0.24% 0.88% % Flow 0.591 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.591 mgd Flow 2.655 0 2.655 mgd Flow 0.591 2.655 3.246 mgd

*Assume PEF & MF backwash returned to primary clarifiers, therefore will be 5% solids.

TM 6 Figures for new PDF.xls; 033370005/ Fig 6-3 1 12/08/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 14 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-4 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN Plant No. 1 with 8/8 Activated Sludge Effluent FINAL

OCSD Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Plant No. 1 - Simplified Mass Balance Notes: Legend: 1. Spreadsheet incorporates a circular reference (TF Sludge return to primary clarifiers). Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions To allow spreadsheet to calculate circular reference make sure iterations are allowed. Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters From "Tools" menu, select "Options", then "Calculations", and make sure "Iterations" is checked. BOD = 8 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) 2. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). TSS = 8 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters Influent Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 15.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 29.2 mgd Year 2020 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100% 29.2 mgd BOD removed = 26,800 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Flow = 177 mgd BOD removal = 25% Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L BOD = 270 mg/L TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 TSS = 260 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L and/or PEF = Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 94.9 mgd w/ Chemical Addition VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 BOD = 8 mg/L BOD = 8 mg/L TF Sludge 100% BOD removal = 49% TSS = 10 mg/L TSS = 10 mg/L 188.5 mgd TSS removal = 75% Activated Sludge MF Backwash Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Performance based on 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 6 mg/L hours of Chemical Addition Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 8 mg/L BOD removal = 49% % Total Flow = 0% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 TSS removal = 75% Flow = 0.0 mgd and/or PEF = Influent w/TF Sludge Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Microfiltration and MF Backwash TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters MF Backwash Influent Flow = 93.6 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd BOD removal in PE = 16% Nitrifying Activated Sludge Returned to Recovery = 88.0% BOD = 255 mg/L TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5% BOD removed = 124 mg/L Flow = 159.3 mgd Primary Clarifiers Backwash flow = 11.2 mgd TSS = 260 mg/L ABRs Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 159.3 mgd BOD removed = 164,700 lb/d BOD = 6 mg/L Backwash BOD = 29 mg/L Historical Primary Clarifier Performance Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 8 mg/L Backwash TSS = 83 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 BOD removal = 48% and/or PEF = TSS removal = 75% VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Reverse Osmosis Additional Removal with ABR Influent Flow = 82.4 mgd 0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Membrane Bioreactor Recovery = 85% 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Concentrate flow= 12.4 mgd Overall ABR Performance 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 4 mg/L BOD removal = 57% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 0 mg/L Assumed to be 1/2 of AS/NAS Effluent BOD TSS removal = 84% Trickling Filter Sludge VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary GWR System Product 0.87 Primary Sludge Primary sludge reduction = 30% TF Sludge Parameter TF Units and/or PEF = Flow = 70 mgd Thickening Return Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 Returned to Mass VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 0.000 mgd Primary Clarifiers TS 17,400 lb/d BOD = NA mg/L Concentration TSS = 0 mg/L TS 8,000 mg/L BOD 100 mg/L Primary Sludge Production % solids Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Parameter Primary ABR PEF Total Units TS 0.80% % Parameter WAS N-WAS MBR Total Units Parameter Primary Secondary Total Units Mass Flow 0.261 mgd Mass Mass TS 306,600 0 0 306,600 lb/d 153.3 TS 0 116,900 0 116,900 lb/d 58.45 TS 306,600 116,900 423,500 lb/d VS 239,100 0 0 239,100 lb/d VS 0 101,700 0 101,700 lb/d VS 239,100 101,700 340,800 lb/d Concentration Concentration Concentration TS 48,000 0 0 48,000 mg/L TS 0 6,000 0 6,000 mg/L TS 48,000 6,000 16,400 mg/L VS 37,440 0 0 37,000 mg/L VS 0 5,200 0 5,200 mg/L VS 37,000 5,200 13,100 mg/L % solids % solids % solids TS 4.80% 0.00% 0.00% 4.80% % TS 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.60% %TS4.80% 0.60% 1.64% % VS 3.74% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% % VS 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.52% %VS3.70% 0.52% 1.31% % Flow 0.766 0.000 0.000 0.766 mgd Flow 0 2.336 0 2.336 mgd Flow 0.766 2.336 3.102 mgd

TM 6 Figures for new PDF.xls; 033370005/ Fig 6-4 1 12/08/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 16 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-5 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN Plant No. 2 with 8/8 Activated Sludge Effluent FINAL

OCSD Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Plant No. 2 - Simplified Mass Balance

Legend: Note: Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters BOD = 8 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed TSS = 8 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100.0% BOD removal = 25% Flow = 144.5 mgd Flow = 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L Trickling Filters Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L 41.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 60 mgd w/ Chemical Addition 60 mgd BOD removed = 55,000 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L 100.0% BOD removal = 48% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 76% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 % Total Flow = 0.0% and/or PEF = Influent Performance based on Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 Year 2020 hours of Chemical Addition BOD = 130 mg/L Flow = 144 mgd BOD removal = 48% TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters Activated Sludge BOD = 250 mg/L TSS removal = 76% BOD removal in PE = 16% 58.5% BOD removed = 122 mg/L Flow = 84.5 mgd TSS = 240 mg/L 288230.4 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5 mgd BOD removed = 86,000 lb/d BOD = 8 mg/L Flow = 144.5 mgd Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 8 mg/L BOD = 13 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary TSS = 13 mg/L 0.87 Influent with Recycles and/or PEF = Year 2020 ABRs VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 144.5 mgd Historical Primary Clarifier Performance BOD = 250 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) Nitrifying Activated Sludge TSS = 269 mg/L 324179.97 BOD removal = 48% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0 mgd 323992.32 TSS removal = 75% 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 8 mg/L Additional Removal with ABR % Total Flow = 0.0% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 8 mg/L 0.0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% BOD = 130 mg/L Primary Effluent and/or PEF = Overall ABR Performance TSS = 65 mg/L Microfiltration VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 BOD removal = 57% BOD removal in PE = 50% TF Sludge TSS removal = 84% TSS removal in PE = 100% Flow = 0 mgd Primary sludge reduction = 30% Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 BOD = 65 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Trickling Filter Sludge Thickening Return Parameter TF Units Flow = 0.000 mgd TF Sludge Mass BOD = NA mg/L Returned to TS 35,750 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Production Primary Clarifiers VS lb/d Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Parameter Primary ABR PEF* MF* Total Units Concentration Parameter WAS N-WAS Total Units Parameter Primary Secondary Total Units Mass TS 8,000 mg/L Mass Mass TS 246,400 0 0 0 246,400 lb/d 123.2 BOD 100 mg/L TS 68,800 0 68,800 lb/d 34.4 TS 246,400 68,800 315,200 lb/d VS 184,800 0 0 0 184,800 lb/d % solids VS 59,900 0 59,900 lb/d VS 184,800 59,900 244,700 lb/d TS 0.80% Concentration VS % Concentration Concentration TS 50,000 00050,000 mg/L Flow 0.54 mgd TS 2,800 0 2,800 mg/L TS 50,000 2,800 10,700 mg/L VS 37,500 0 0 0 37,500 mg/L VS 2,400 0 2,400 mg/L VS 37,500 2,400 8,300 mg/L % solids 35762 % solids % solids TS 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% % TS 0.28% 0.00% 0.28% %TS5.00% 0.28% 1.07% % VS 3.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.75% % VS 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% %VS3.75% 0.24% 0.83% % Flow 0.591 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.591 mgd Flow 2.946 0 2.946 mgd Flow 0.591 2.946 3.537 mgd

*Assume PEF & MF backwash returned to primary clarifiers, therefore will be 5% solids.

TM 6 Figures for new PDF.xls; 033370005/ Fig 6-5 1 12/08/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 18 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

All other “basic” operating conditions and performance parameters included in the figures are the same for each respective plant. The mass balances shown were based on all primary treatment with 24-hour chemical addition and a combination of trickling filters and nitrifying activated sludge process at Plant No. 1 and non-nitrifying activated sludge process at Plant No. 2. The two effluent qualities assumed for the mass balance runs and the purpose of selecting each are summarized below. 20/20 Effluent. Though the ocean discharge requirements for secondary effluent are 30 mg/L BOD and 30 mg/L TSS, a 20 mg/L BOD and 20 mg/L TSS activated sludge effluent were conservatively assumed based on the anticipated effluent quality that can be sent to the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System. The agreement between the District and Orange County Water District (OCWD) does not include specific BOD or TSS limits. The agreement is based on delivering secondary effluent with an average turbidity of 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) and peak instantaneous turbidity of 10 NTU. Based on the April 1998 memorandum regarding secondary effluent needs for the GWR System project (OCWD, 1998), the lowest secondary effluent quality that can be received by the GWR System is 25 mg/L BOD and 20 mg/L TSS. The memo indicated that the preferred best available quality ranged from 5 to 15 mg/L BOD and TSS. In consideration of these requirements, it was assumed for this solids production evaluation that the District would need to produce at least a 20/20 effluent. 8/8 Effluent. An 8 mg/L BOD and 8 mg/L TSS activated sludge effluent were assumed to represent the District’s current operations, and highest case solids production volume. The District’s operational data between July 2001 and June 2002 shows secondary effluent quality in the range of 9.5 to 11.5 mg/L BOD and 8.5 to 3.0 mg/L TSS from the two plants. The biosolids production for these two effluent quality conditions is summarized in Table 6-4. As shown on Table 6-4, under the highest effluent quality assumption the solids quantity would be approximately 2 percent higher than estimated lower effluent quality assumption. Note that Plant No. 1 has a lower primary sludge production with 8/8 activated sludge effluent because fewer solids are returned to primary treatment in the microfiltration backwash from the GWR System. It is recommended that the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan assume the 8/8 scenario in order to provide a slightly more conservative estimate of solids production.

TABLE 6-4 Mass Balance Results for Various Effluent Qualities Biosolids Production (lb/d) Parameter 20/20 Effluent 8/8 Effluent Plant No. 1 Primary Sludge 312,500 306,600 Secondary Sludge 103,700 116,900 Subtotal 416,200 423,500 Plant No. 2 Primary Sludge 246,400 246,400 Secondary Sludge 62,000 68,800 Subtotal 308,400 315,200 Total for Plant Nos. 1 and 2 724,600 738,700 Additional Sludge 2%

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 19 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Primary Treatment without Chemical Addition Primary treatment without chemical addition was not evaluated in the Strategic Plan. In the absence of Strategic Plan data, removal rates of 25 percent for BOD and 67 percent for TSS were assumed. These rates are presented in the paper, Advanced Primary Treatment Optimization and Cost Benefit Documented at Orange County Sanitation District (Hetherington, 1999). Note that the percent BOD removal (25 percent) is at the low end of the range for typical percent removal. This will result in higher WAS production, which will be conservative for biosolids planning. It should be noted that typical design removal rates for BOD and TSS are 25 to 40 percent and 50 to 70 percent, respectively. The VSS:TSS ratio was assumed to be 0.75, based on typical primary sludge characteristics.

Primary Treatment with Chemical Addition (Advanced Primary Treatment) The Advanced Primary Treatment Optimization and Cost Benefit Documented at Orange County Sanitation District document indicated that performance from advance primary treatment could be expected to reach 56 percent removal for BOD and 85 percent for TSS. The District has been implementing 24 hour chemical treatment, and a review of the primary effluent quality for both Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 indicated that the primary settling process was not being operated to achieve these high removal rates. Discussions with District staff indicate that the primary basins are operated to achieve a particular effluent quality, rather than maximizing the removal rates. Therefore, as in the 1999 Strategic Plan and ISPU, advanced primary treatment removal rates were based on a primary effluent quality of 130 mg/L BOD and 65 mg/L TSS.

Anaerobic Baffled Reactor Reductions in BOD and TSS with an Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) were estimated using the ABR Evaluation Final Report (ABR Report, MWH, 2002). The design team calculated the weighted average of the reductions presented in the report for the different primary clarifiers at each plant. The analysis resulted in an average BOD reduction of 9 percent and an average TSS reduction of 9 percent. These removal percentages are in addition to the BOD and TSS removed by primary treatment. The ABR report was based on July 2000 to June 2001 data, and during this time period the District was using 14-hour chemical addition. Though current operations are based on 24-hour chemical addition, the values in the report were considered reasonable for planning. The resulting VSS:TSS ratio in the ABR sludge was calculated to be 0.65. The estimate for the sludge production assumes 40 percent VS destruction in the ABR, which is less than the value of 45 percent in the ABR Report. The assumed VS destruction reduces the sludge produced in primary treatment by 30 percent, which is also lower than the value of 40 percent presented in the ABR Report. The more conservative numbers in the estimate reflect the uncertainty due to the shorter hydraulic retention times (HRT) in the District primary tanks. Current ABR experiences in Europe use HRTs near 8 or 9 hours. At the District, the HRT would be around 2.5 to 3.0 hours. In the absence of actual test data, the more conservative numbers are currently included in the spreadsheet.

FINAL 20 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Primary Effluent Filtration A summary of primary effluent filtration technologies was included in the 1999 Strategic Plan, and HydroClear filters were selected for planning purposes based on its conservative footprint requirements. Since the completion of the Strategic Plan, the District has completed onsite pilot testing of the Fuzzy Filter. Fuzzy Filter removal rates from primary effluent of 16 percent BOD and 50 percent TSS (from the 1999 Strategic Plan) were incorporated into the spreadsheet. The VSS:TSS ratio of the solids removed by primary effluent filtration is assumed to be 0.75, which is the assumed VSS:TSS ratio of the primary effluent flow. The backwash from the primary filters will have a low solids concentration and will require a treatment system. This analysis assumes that the backwash is returned to the primary clarifiers where the solids will settle out. The resulting solids concentration is assumed to be approximately 5 percent, which is included in the spreadsheet. The hydraulic loading on the primaries will increase by about 4 to 6 percent, depending on the backwash frequency and rates. The analysis also assumes that this increase in the hydraulic loading on the primary clarifiers will not significantly affect their performance.

Primary Effluent Microfiltration Microfiltration for treatment of primary effluent is included in the Plant No. 2 mass balance. The District is investigating the potential use of primary effluent microfiltration as an alternative to activated sludge or trickling filters to meet secondary treatment standards. This process is only considered viable at Plant No. 2 since Plant No. 1 must produce an oxidized effluent to feed the GWR System. Primary effluent microfiltration was investigated as part of Alternative D in the ISPU. Based on the information used in the ISPU, it is assumed that 50 percent of BOD and 100 percent of TSS is removed by microfiltration. The VSS:TSS ratio of the solids removed by primary effluent microfiltration is assumed to be 0.75, which is the assumed VSS:TSS ratio of the primary effluent flow. As with the primary effluent filtration, it is assumed that the microfiltration backwash would be routed back to the primary clarifiers, rather than a dedicated thickening process. The resulting solids concentration is assumed to be approximately 5 percent, which is included in the spreadsheet. The filtrate from the primary effluent microfiltration process would be combined with secondary effluent and discharged to the ocean outfall.

Trickling Filters As part of Project P1-76, the Plant No. 1 trickling filters will be replaced with new trickling filters. The new trickling filters are expected to provide better treatment than the existing units. Based on the Project P1-76 design, the trickling filter yield is assumed to be 0.65 lb/lb BOD removed, trickling filter sludge is assumed to be 0.8 percent solids, the VSS:TSS ratio is assumed to be 0.80, and the effluent quality is assumed to be 20 mg/L BOD and 20 mg/L TSS. These performance parameters were included in the mass balances. Note that these values are higher than the performance projections in the 1999 Strategic Plan. After completion of the trickling filter upgrades, the trickling filter sludge will be routed to the primary clarifiers for co-thickening with primary sludge. Therefore, in the spreadsheet

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 21 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL the trickling filter sludge is added to the influent wastewater. The BOD concentration of the trickling filter sludge was assumed to be 100 mg/L, which was used in the 1999 Strategic Plan. The VS of the trickling filter sludge are not factored into the primary sludge VSS concentration because the trickling filter sludge flow is minor compared to the plant influent flow. The VSS:TSS ratio of the trickling filter sludge when ABR is used was assumed to be 0.75, which is 5 percent less than without the ABR. This is based on the data presented in the ABR Report.

Activated Sludge The spreadsheet includes the activated sludge yield (0.80 lb/lb BOD removed), VSS:TSS ratio (0.87) from the Strategic Plan. WAS concentration of 2,000 mg/L were assumed for Plant No. 1 and 2,800 mg/l for Plant No. 2. These values are similar to recent operating data. The VSS:TSS ratio for WAS when ABR is used was assumed to be 0.82, which is 5 percent less than without ABR and was based on data presented in the ABR Report.

Nitrifying Activated Sludge Nitrifying activated sludge operational parameters were developed for the ISPU, which is included in the spreadsheet. The operational parameters included a sludge yield of 0.71 lb/lb BOD removed, VSS:TSS ratio of 0.87, and a WAS concentration of 8,000 mg/L. As for activated sludge, the VSS:TSS ratio of WAS from nitrifying activated sludge was also assumed to be 0.82.

Membrane Bioreactor A Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) is included in the Plant No. 1 mass balance as a fourth option for secondary treatment. An MBR may be considered at Plant No. 1 since it combines secondary treatment and microfiltration, which is the first stage of the GWR System treatment process. At this time, this process is not considered for Plant No. 2 since water reclamation activities are planned for implementation only at Plant No. 1. For the mass balance, the MBR was assumed to have the same operational parameters as the activated sludge process. The effluent BOD is assumed to be one-half of the effluent BOD assumed for the activated sludge and nitrifying activated sludge processes (i.e., if activated sludge effluent BOD is assumed to be 8 mg/L, then the MBR effluent BOD is assumed to be 4 mg/L). The effluent TSS is assumed to be 0 mg/L since the microfiltration is anticipated to remove all of the TSS. These assumptions are consistent with the assumptions for primary effluent microfiltration. Since a clarifier is not used in an MBR system, the MBR can be operated at a much higher mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) than a traditional activated sludge system. An MLSS in the range of 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L is typically used for MBRs. For planning purposes, an average MLSS of 10,000 mg/L is assumed. Since sludge would be wasted directly from the MBR process tank, the MBR WAS is assumed to have a solids concentration equal to the MLSS (10,000 mg/L).

FINAL 22 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Groundwater Replenishment System The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWR) System was included in the Plant No. 1 mass balance. Microfiltration backwash was assumed to be returned to the primary clarifiers, therefore, in the spreadsheet, the microfiltration backwash was added to the influent wastewater. Based on the GWR System design criteria, microfiltration will have a recovery of approximately 88 percent, reverse osmosis will have a recovery of 85 percent, and the GWR System Phase I product water flow will be 70 mgd. This results in a microfiltration backwash flow of 11.2 mgd. The concentration of BOD and TSS in the microfiltration backwash was calculated based on the secondary effluent quality assuming that all of the TSS will be removed and 44 percent of the BOD will be removed by microfiltration. The reject stream from reverse osmosis (reverse osmosis concentrate) flow is also shown on the Plant No. 1 mass balance. This flow is for information only and does not impact the solids production or quality.

Solids Handling Options The solids handling options are shown in Figure 6-6. The options include in-plant solids handling processes, the option for a centralized dewatering facility, product technology options, and marketing options. The in-county product technology options include composting and thermal drying. In the cost model it was assumed that these in-county options would be owned by the District, and therefore, detailed cost sheets were developed. All the other product technology options were considered to be out of county and, therefore, were treated as merchant facilities, with the District contracting with the vendor for a specified processing fee, expressed in dollars per wet ton. The marketing options were only considered to be relevant to District-owned facilities, with the merchant facilities including any anticipated marketing costs or revenue in their processing fee. The markets that the District could participate in with compost or dried pellets/granules can be selected by opting to send a percentage of the product to that option. Therefore, the amount of solids in the different marketing options should be equivalent to the in-county solids product technology options. However, all the potential product markets have been listed, to provide flexibility for future planning, should the District decide to implement any other technologies in-county. The costs or revenues for these markets are model inputs.

Sludge Thickening Thickening of sludge prior to digestion was considered for primary sludge and for WAS. The advantage of thickening is that it reduces the volume for digestion, thereby reducing digester capacity requirements. It also reduces the hydraulic load on the dewatering system. Since thickening recycle streams do not contain ammonia, the recycle can be returned to the liquid treatment train. A number of technologies are available for thickening, including DAFTs, gravity belt thickeners (GBT), centrifuges, gravity thickeners, and rotary drum thickeners. For this cost model, the first three were selected, as the District already uses DAFTs for thickening WAS, the gravity belts are a similar technology to the dewatering belt presses currently used by the District, and the thickening centrifuges are similar to the dewatering centrifuges that the District are considering for dewatering. The GBT and centrifuge technologies can also produce a high solids sludge (over 6 percent), which

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 23 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL typically cannot be achieved in DAFTs or gravity thickeners. Gravity thickeners were not considered as their performance is typically not any better than DAFT thickeners, and would not likely better the 5 percent sludge currently produced by the primary clarifiers. Gravity thickeners also have a much larger footprint than the other technologies. Rotary drum thickeners were not considered for thickening as only small units are available, they have a high poyme consumption, and this technology did not fit with other technologies being used or considered.

Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners The District has six 40-foot-diameter DAFTs at Plant No. 1 (five duty, one standby) and four 55-foot-diameter units at Plant No. 2, with a performance of around 4 percent solids in the float. Figure 6-7 shows a schematic of the DAFT process and components. This technology was not considered for primary sludge thickening or co-thickening, as the primary sludge at the plants is typically 5 percent solids, and would therefore not benefit from DAF thickening. Under the option for DAF thickening, it was assumed that additional DAFTs would be constructed as necessary. No costs were allocated for upgrades of the existing DAFTs. DAFTs are a relatively simple technology. However, their thickened sludge solids concentrations is well below those achieved by GBTs and centrifuges. They also typically require more footprint.

Gravity Belt Thickeners Gravity belt thickeners may be used for thickening WAS, primary sludge or combined sludge, and can achieve solids concentrations of 6 to 9 percent. Figure 6-8 shows a schematic of the gravity belt thickening process and components. For large facilities similar to the District’s, 3-meter gravity belts are typically used. Gravity belts are similar in operation to the top deck of the dewatering belt presses currently used by the District. They have lower power requirements than centrifuges. As gravity belts are not enclosed, additional ventilation is required. In the cost model, a higher ventilation rate was provided for primary sludge thickening compared to WAS thickening. A continuous supply of wash water is also required, similar to belt presses. This increases the recycle flow from these units, compared with centrifuges. A 3-meter gravity belt typically has similar hydraulic loading rates, but lower solids loading rates compared to a mid-size centrifuge. The number of units and footprint required as compared with centrifuges will therefore vary depending on whether the solids loading rate or hydraulic loading rate is constraining.

Thickening Centrifuges Thickening centrifuges are similar to dewatering centrifuges, operated at different loading rates and weir levels. Figure 6-8 shows a schematic of the centrifuge thickening process and components. Centrifuges may be used for thickening WAS and primary sludge, producing sludge with thickness ranging from 6 to 12 percent. Centrifuges are enclosed and therefore require less ventilation for odor control. They also require less wash water than GBTs. However, they do have higher power requirements. Although centrifuge operation may be automated more easily than GBTs, requiring less operator attention during operation, the maintenance requirements on centrifuges are typically higher, due to high rotational speed and sophistication of the equipment.

FINAL 24 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

FIGURE 6-6 Cost Model Solids Handling Options

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 25 FINAL Blank page

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 26 FINAL FIGURE 6-7 WAS Thickening with Dissolved Air Flotation

Biotowers

Odor Control

MECHANICAL THICKENING Waste Activated • DAFT To Ultrasound Sludge Pump or Digesters

Filtrate to Polymer Support Primary System Facilities Treatment

Building

DAFT = Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Support Facilities = Controls, Booster Pumps, Pipelines, Etc.

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-7.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 28 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-8 WAS Thickening with Gravity Belt or Centrifuge

Biotowers

Odor Control

MECHANICAL THICKENING Waste Activated • Gravity Belt To Ultrasound Sludge • Centrifuge Pump or Digesters

Filtrate to Polymer Support Primary System Facilities Treatment

Building

Support Facilities = Controls, Booster Pumps, Pipelines, Etc.

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-8.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

blank page

FINAL 30 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Digester Add-On Technologies Digester add-on technologies are focused on methods of improving digestion. Since hydrolysis, or the breakdown of cells, is generally the rate-limiting step in digestion, most digester add-on technologies seek to improve digestion through cell lysis. As most biological cell matter is contained in the secondary sludge, add-on technologies are most cost-effective when installed on the WAS stream. Hydrolysis can be achieved by the breakdown of cell walls through the following methods: x High temperature and pressure (thermal hydrolysis) x Mechanical disintegration (ultrasound, ball mixers, homogenizers) x Chemical lysis at high or low pH Thermal hydrolysis was not included in the cost model, as this option had already been evaluated in a previous study, documented in the report Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (Brown and Caldwell, 2002), and had not been found to be cost-effective. Chemical hydrolysis requires the addition of an acidic or alkaline chemical to change the pH. In order to allow digestion to occur, the pH then needs to be returned to neutral. Chemical lysis has not been demonstrated at large scales such as would be required by the District, chemical use is costly and presents a number of health and safety issues. Addition of sufficient chemicals to change the pH also adds to the volume of feed to the digesters. Mechanical hydrolysis with homogenizers and ball mixing type equipment has been tested, although there is no information available on full-scale installation. Mechanical hydrolysis has been tested at the District recently using an ultrasound system (Sonix) now marketed by Sonico LTD. The equipment was installed on the thickened WAS feed line to a digester. Although there are other manufacturers with installations of ultrasound for enhanced digestion, data specific to the District was only available for the Sonix ultrasound system. Therefore, Sonix ultrasound date was used in the cost model. Figure 6-9 shows a schematic of the ultrasound process and components.

Digestion Processes As mentioned above, a study was conducted to evaluate advanced digestion options for the District, as documented in the Advanced Anaerobic Digestion report. This report evaluated digestion options as a stand-alone process. Therefore, the most favorable advanced digestion options considered in the report were incorporated into the cost model, so that potential impacts could be assessed as part of the entire biosolids handling chain. The report found mesophilic digestion in parallel to be the most cost-effective digestion process for Plant No. 2 and found two-stage thermophilic/mesophilic to be favorable at Plant No. 1 due to reduction in the number of new digesters. Other options that were evaluated in the report included staged mesophilic digestion, staged thermophilic digestion, acid/gas digestion, three phase digestion, thermal hydrolysis, and recuperative thickening. These were found to be less cost-effective than parallel mesophilic digestion and two-staged thermophilic/mesophilic digestion. The following options were evaluated in this cost model: x Mesophilic digestion (in parallel), as is currently practiced x Mesophilic digestion with recuperative thickening

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 31 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL x Two-stage thermophilic/mesophilic digestion x Two-stage thermophilic/mesophilic digestion with recuperative thickening

Mesophilic Digestion At present, the District digests primary and WAS solids using mesophilic digestion, where the digesters are all operated in parallel (i.e., single-stage digesters). The digesters are conventional concrete cone-bottomed structures. Primary sludge and thickened WAS are fed independently to each digester. High rate mixing with choppers pumps has been installed on many of the operational digesters. The digesters are also provided with sludge pumps and sludge is regularly withdrawn from the bottom of the digester cones to reduce the buildup of heavy solids. Figure 6-10 shows a schematic of the mesophilic digestion process and components. A five-year cleaning cycle has recently been implemented for the digesters. Although not all the digesters at the two plants are currently operational, rehabilitation projects have been included in the validated CIP to bring all existing digesters into service. The digested sludge is allowed to flow by gravity to sludge holding tanks prior to dewatering. Up to three days of holding volume is provided. Sludge is pumped from the holding tanks to dewatering. VS destruction has typically been around 63 percent, with the plants operating at 50 percent secondary treatment or less. As the proportion of secondary treatment is increased, it is anticipated that the VS destruction will decrease. In the cost model it was assumed that primary sludge will have a VS destruction of 63 percent and that WAS will have a VS destruction of 40 percent. This is line with the VS destruction of primary sludge and TWAS documented in the Advanced Primary Treatment Optimization and Cost Benefit Documented at Orange County Sanitation District report. The average destruction is, therefore, calculated using the proportion of VS destroyed in each stream. As mentioned earlier, with the installation of ultrasound on the thickened WAS stream, a 50 percent increase in VS destruction can be expected for the TWAS, which equates to a VS destruction of about 60 percent for TWAS. Digester gas is collected and used in the internal combustion engines at the central generation facilities at both plants. The electricity produced is almost sufficient to supply the electricity requirements for the two plants. Based on data from the Advanced Anaerobic Digestion report, 5.28 Million British Thermal Units (MMBTU) was assumed to be available for waste heat recovery from the central generation facilities. The digesters are heated to approximately 98 degrees Fahrenheit (qF) using a hot water heating loop, heated with the waste heat recovery. The digesters are provided with spiral heat exchangers.

Mesophilic Digestion with Recuperative Thickening Recuperative thickening consists of taking partially digested sludge from the digester and passing it through a thickening process to remove some of the liquid. This thicker sludge is returned to the digester for continued digestion. Figure 6-11 shows a schematic of digestion with recuperative thickening process and components. The primary advantage claimed with recuperative thickening is that it allows the HRT to be separated from the solids retention time (SRT). Typical digester HRTs vary from 20 to 30 days. Recuperative thickening allows the SRT to be maintained three to four times longer than the HRT, providing additional time

FINAL 32 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-9 Ultrasound Pre-Treatment WAS

Building

Ultrasound Units Control Panels

To Digesters

WAS Pump Thickening Holding Pump Tank

TWAS = Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Support Facilities = Controls, Booster Pumps, Pipelines, Etc.

SCO/175817.pe.12 Fig6-9.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 34 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-10 Mesophilic Digestion

Digested Sludge To Dewatering Holding TWAS Tanks Primary Sludge Digester Heat Exchanger

High Rate External Support Mixing Facilities

Building

Dewatering Bottom Sludge Pump

Building

TWAS = Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Support Facilities = Controls, Booster Pumps, Pipelines, Etc.

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-10.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 36 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-11 Digestion with Recuperative Thickening

Digested Sludge To Dewatering Holding Tanks TWAS Primary Sludge Recycle Solids Digester High Rate Heat External Exchanger Mixing

Support Facilities

Building

Dewatering Bottom Sludge Pump

Building Biotowers

Odor Control

RECUPERATIVE THICKENING • AGF • Gravity Belt To Recycle Treatment • Centrifuge

Polymer Support System Facilities

Building

AGF = Anoxic Gas Flotation TWAS = Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Support Facilities = Controls, Booster Pumps, Pipelines, Etc.

NOTE: For temperature staged digestion, recuperative thickening would be done around the thermophilic digester.

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-11.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 38 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL for the solids to be degraded, resulting in improved VS destruction and gas production. For the cost model, the minimum HRT at maximum 2-week loading condition for all digestion options was set at 15 days, as this is the minimum allowed for Class B digestion in the Part 503 regulations. This provides an average HRT of 22.6 days at Plant No. 1 and 19.6 days at Plant No. 2. With recuperative thickening, the digested sludge is thicker, which reduces the hydraulic load to the dewatering facilities and results in savings if the dewatering facilities are hydraulically limited. Various methods of thickening may be utilized. The District has recently commenced testing of an innovative recuperative thickening method, called anoxic gas flotation (AGF). The AGF system uses compressed digester gas to float solids to the top of a tank, similar to a DAFT. However, operating data from the pilot test is not yet available. Therefore, the design information required for the cost model cannot be input, but a sheet has been provided so that this could be done at a later date. Instead, the cost model provided cost estimates for recuperative thickening options with GBTs and centrifuges. The loading rates used for the GBT and centrifuge are similar to those used for thickening undigested sludge. Since the recycle from recuperative thickening will contain ammonia, it was assumed that separate side-stream treatment would be provided, with the solids returning to digestion. The heat requirements were calculated assuming that the filtrate from the thickening process would not be heated. Recuperative thickening tests were conducted at the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington, with 25 percent of the solids being sent to recuperative thickening. The tests indicated lower capture rates than raw sludge thickening. The reduction in capture rate was incorporated in the cost model, with a drop in capture rate from 95 percent to 92 percent with partially digested sludge recuperative thickening mode. During the Spokane tests, the polymer usage was higher for recuperative thickening, although dewatering polymer demands decreased, and overall polymer use at the plant was reduced. These factors were incorporated into this cost model, with centrifuge recuperative thickening polymer use at 8 pounds per ton (lb per ton) solids, double that of raw sludge thickening, while the dewatering polymer dose was halved from 26 lbs per ton for centrifuge dewatering of conventional mesophilic sludge. The cost model evaluation was based on a dedicated recuperative thickening, as the AGF concept is based on dedicated recuperative thickening. In addition, to provide a significant increase in SRT over HRT a thickening facility able to handle large flows was required. Obtaining SRTs three to four times the HRT requires large thickening facilities with a high recycle rate of digested sludge through the thickening facility. It was found that SRTs twice the HRT were more feasible. Primary sludge is generally easily biodegradable, and longer SRTs would not have much impact on primary sludge solids destruction. WAS is more difficult to degrade and, without data from the District trial, a 20 percent increase in VS destruction was provided over conventional mesophilic digestion. However, with ultrasound providing rapid hydrolysis and significant increase in VS destruction, it was not expected that much additional benefit would be achieved with combining it with recuperative thickening. An allowance was also made for additional VS destruction in the solids returned to digestion from treatment of the recuperative thickening recycle stream. Since these solids are essentially partially digested and treated, it was assumed that the VS destruction would be similar to WAS in conventional digestion, at 43 percent. This provides an overall increase in VS destruction. It is acknowledged that these assumptions are little

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 39 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL more than an educated guess, since a substantial pilot test for similar sludge quality or with similar process options is not available. It is anticipated that the cost model will be updated when data from the District trial is available.

Two-Stage Thermophilic/Mesophilic Digestion Two-stage thermophilic/mesophilic digestion was also evaluated in the Advanced Anaerobic Digestion report. Although it did not appear cost-effective at Plant No. 2 when considered in isolation from other solids handling processes, it was decided that it should be included in the cost model for evaluation as part of the solids handling chain, as the report suggested some advantages for Plant No. 1. Figure 6-12 shows a schematic of the temperature-staged digestion process and components. The two-stage system does not attempt to split the digestion process between acid and gas phases. Therefore gas production occurs in both stages. Staged digestion typically allows around 5 days for thermophilic digestion at 130qF, followed by 10 days or more for mesophilic digestion at 98qF. Without a batch holding system the two-stage process cannot meet the Alternative 1 Class A requirements of the Part 503 regulations. There is the potential for thermophilic digestion to provide Class A equivalent pathogen levels under the testing alternatives, Alternatives 3 and 4. Thermophilic digestion has other potential advantages, such as increased VS destruction and gas production. In the cost model it was assumed that for WAS a 25 percent increase in VS destruction could be obtained. However, with ultrasound installed on the thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS), the increase in VS destruction was assumed to be 5 percent compared with sonicated TWAS mesophilic digestion. As primary sludge is easily biodegradable, a 1 percent increase in VS destruction was allowed. Gas production therefore increased, as a factor of the VS destruction. Two-stage thermophilic/mesophilic digestion has some advantages over single-stage thermophilic digestion, with the mesophilic stage reducing the odor that has been associated with thermophilic digestion at some plants. In addition, the heat requirements are lower as there is less heat loss with the thermophilic temperatures being maintained for a shorter period of time. In the cost model no allowance was made for heat recovery between the two stages, similar to the Advanced Anaerobic Digestion report. To prevent temperature shock in the thermophilic stage and reduce the size of the thermophilic heat exchangers, pre-heat tanks were included. It was also anticipated that the existing heat exchangers would need to be replaced on the thermophilic digesters, and that cooling heat exchangers would need to be installed on the second stage mesophilic digesters.

Two-Stage Thermophilic/Mesophilic Digestion with Recuperative Thickening In the cost model an option was also added to allow a combination of two-stage thermophilic/mesophilic digestion and recuperative thickening. The recuperative thickening was set around the first stage, thermophilic digester. Recuperative thickening around both stages would result in mesophilic microbes being sent to the thermophilic stage, which could impact performance of the system. With recuperative thickening being operated around the first stage, it was assumed that the recycle stream from the

FINAL 40 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-12 Temperature Staged Digestion

Digested Sludge To Dewatering Holding Tanks

TWAS Pre-Heat Mesophilic Primary Heat Sludge Blending Thermophilic Digester Tank Digester Heat High Rate Exchanger High Rate Exchanger External (Cooling) Heat External Mixing Exchanger Mixing Support Support Facilities Facilities Support Facilities Building Building Building

Dewatering Dewatering Bottom Bottom Sludge Sludge Pump Pump

Building Building

TWAS = Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Support Facilities = Controls, Booster Pumps, Pipelines, Etc.

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-12.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 42 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL recuperative thickening process would not require heating, thus improving the heat balance for thermophilic digestion. As liquid is removed during thickening, the volume of sludge sent to the second stage is less, reducing the required digester volume. It was assumed that the addition of recuperative thickening to the thermophilic stage would provide a 5 percent increase in VS destruction of WAS compared with the two-stage process alone, as the HRT and SRT in the first stage is short, even with recuperative thickening. It was anticipated that there would be negligible increase in the VS destruction of sonicated WAS and primary sludge. As with recuperative thickening on mesophilic digestion, it was assumed that the recycle stream from recuperative thickening would be sent for sidestream treatment and that the solids returned to digestion would have a VS destruction of 43 percent, providing an overall increase in VS destruction.

Dewatering Technologies Dewatering is a physical process used to reduce the moisture content of biosolids. Dewatering reduces the volume of biosolids, which reduces the cost of hauling and/or additional processing. All of the biosolids product technologies being considered require dewatered biosolids cake. The cost model provides the option of dewatering at both plants, as is currently practiced, as well as combined dewatering at a single site. This site may be one of the existing plants, or an offsite location receiving digested sludge from both plants. Currently the District uses belt filter presses at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2 to dewater digested biosolids. Dewatered biosolids are transferred to storage hoppers prior to hauling offsite for land application. In the future, depending on the selected product technology, dewatered biosolids may be conveyed onsite for final processing or hauled offsite for further treatment. For the purpose of cost modeling, it was determined that four dewatering technologies should be carried through the process in order to provide a representative cross section of dewatering performance, as well as capital and O&M costs. Figure 6-13 shows a schematic of the dewatering process and components for the four selected options. Eight potential technologies were identified for consideration. The eight technologies included belt filter press, high solids centrifuge, rotary press, screw press, electrodewatering, recessed chamber filter press, thermal plate press, and thermal centrifuge. It was determined that the belt filter press, high solids centrifuge, rotary press, and electrodewatering would be carried through the cost modeling process. These alternative technologies will deliver a wide range of cake solids (between 21 and 30 percent) depending on the treatment of the biosolids prior to dewatering and the type of technology selected. Additional reasons for carrying these technologies through the cost modeling process include: x Belt filter presses and centrifuges are the most proven technologies x The District currently uses belt filter presses and has extensive operating experience with this equipment x Though there are limited installations, the rotary press appears to be a relatively simple, low energy alternative that could produce relatively high solids content x The District may pilot test centrifuges and rotary presses in the future

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 43 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL x Though not fully proven, electrodewatering is a variation on the current belt filter press technology that may significantly increase solids content The screw press was not selected since it did not appear to provide any significant advantages over high solids centrifuges or other technologies that were carried forward. Though the recessed chamber filter press, thermal plate press, and thermal centrifuge options may deliver higher solids concentrations, it was determined that the four alternatives selected provided the ranges of performance needed to establish planning level costs for a variety of biosolids treatment trains serving multiple product markets.

Belt Filter Press The District currently uses belt filter presses for dewatering at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2. At both plants, the presses are used to dewater digested primary and waste activated sludges. Based on July 2002 through June 2003 data, Plant Nos. 1 and 2 both produced a dewatered cake with an average solids content of 21.6 percent using the existing belt filter presses. There are eight 2-meter Ashbrook Winklepress belt filter presses in operation at Plant No. 1. The units are located in two buildings, each housing four units. Dewatering Building M was placed in service in 1983, and Dewatering Building C was placed in service in 1988. Five of the units were recently rehabilitated, and the remaining three units are scheduled for rehabilitation in the next 1 to 2 years. The District is currently rehabilitating the presses at the rate of two to three presses per year at each plant. At Plant No. 2, there are fifteen 2-meter Ashbrook Winklepress belt filter presses located in the Dewatering Building. Six of the presses were recently rehabilitated, and the remaining presses are scheduled for rehabilitation over the next several years. Both plants operate on a 7-day-a-week, 24-hours-a-day operating schedule. At both plants, polymer is added to the influent biosolids to enhance the dewatering process and increase the solids content of the dewatered cake. Once the rehabilitation efforts have been completed, the District has estimated that the belt filter presses will have a remaining useful life of up to approximately 15 years, assuming the current operating schedule. In order to compare the cost of belt filter press dewatering with the other dewatering technologies in the cost model, it was assumed that new belt filter presses would be installed as part of this dewatering alternative. In addition the cost model has a planning horizon of the year 2020, by which time it is likely that the existing belt presses would need to be replaced.

Centrifuge Centrifuges are a dewatering technology that may produce a drier cake than belt filter presses. Centrifugal dewatering uses the force developed by the rotational movement of a bowl to separate the solids from the liquids. Biosolids are pumped through a central pipe into a rotating solid wall bowl. The solids remain on the inside walls of the bowl due to the centrifugal force. The heavier particles move to the outside, while the lighter liquid remains pooled in the center of the bowl. A screw conveyor inside the centrifuge moves the dewatered cake out of the unit.

FINAL 44 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-13 Solids Dewatering (Post-Stabilization)

Biotowers

Odor Control

MECHANICAL DEWATERING Dewatered Biosolids Digested • Belt Filter Press Bin Solids • Centrifuge • Rotary Press Biosolids • Electro Dewatering Storage Conveyor and Truck Polymer Support Loading System Facilities

Building

Support Facilities = Controls, Pipelines, Etc. To Further Processing

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-13.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 46 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Centrifuges may offer certain benefits over belt filter presses. Centrifuges typically produce a drier cake than belt presses. They also have higher capacities than belt filter presses, so fewer units would be required. Unlike belt filter presses, centrifuges do not require continuous belt washing. A small amount of wash water is required during shutdown operations each day, as well as a small water flow added to the centrate to prevent potential struvite formation. The reduced washwater requirements result in less sidestream flow when compared with belt filter presses. Additionally, centrifuges are enclosed, which reduces odor control needs. Centrifuges have higher energy requirements than belt filter presses. As with other dewatering technologies, polymer addition to the digested biosolids prior to dewatering is required. Typically more polymer is required on a dry ton basis for centrifuges than for belt filter presses. Also, building retrofits may be required in order to install centrifuges in the existing dewatering buildings to accommodate centrifuge configuration and vibration.

Rotary Press The rotary press technology was developed in Canada for the asbestos mining industry. Starting in the 1990s, the technology has been used for municipal wastewater biosolids dewatering. The presses are manufactured in Canada by Fournier Industries Inc. and marketed in the United States by Schwing America Inc. There are over 20 rotary press installations for municipal biosolids. However, there are no installations at facilities similar in size to the District and there are no existing installations for digested primary and waste activated sludges. The rotary press uses two dewatering zones: filtration, where the free water is eliminated, and pressure, where the biosolids is compressed to reduce moisture content. Solids are moved through the unit by a wheel, which generates pressure through friction with the channel walls. The wheel rotates at a maximum speed of three rotations per minute (rpm). Two circular screens on either side of the unit screen the filtrate from the dewatered biosolids, with an average capture of 95 percent. At the outlet, there is a back pressure plate that can be adjusted to provide the desired percent solids. Typically feed pressure is between 1 to 8 pounds per square inch (psi), and discharge pressure is up to 70 psi. The rotary press is available in one, two, four, and six channel units. Fournier has recommended that the District use six channel units. The units are sized based on dry solids, as opposed to flow rate. Potential advantages of the rotary press are the low power requirements compared with centrifuges. The process is enclosed, which provides advantages over belt presses for odor control. Wash water requirements are also low, with the unit being washed only when operation stops. As with other dewatering technologies, polymer needs to be added to the influent biosolids. Based on information from the manufacturer, less polymer is needed per dry ton than for belt filter press dewatering. Based on bench-scale testing completed by Fournier on District-generated biosolids, Fournier predicts the District would achieve a solids concentration of 29 percent with the rotary press. However, recent testing on digested sludge at other plants has shown performance to be less than with a centrifuge. When considering the rotary press for the District, it must be noted that there are no installations of similar size, and the press has not been used for dewatering digested sludges. In addition, the maximum diameter of the Fournier Press is 4 feet, which means that a large number of six-channel units would be

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 47 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL required. The practicality of this configuration for a large facility such as the District’s facility may be questionable. The rotary press has several wear parts that need to be replaced, which include the filter screens, stainless steel scrapers, and seals.

Electrodewatering Electrodewatering is a variation of belt filter press dewatering which involves the application of an electric field to the filter cake during pressure filtration. The electric field increases the final solids content of the dewatered cake. CSIRO Energy Technology and CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control, located in North Ryde and Kensington, Australia, respectively, have performed pilot testing on this technology as an improvement to existing belt filter presses. Application of the electric current appears to enhance dewatering by heating the biosolids, which reduces the viscosity of the water and increases dewaterability; aids with movement of the solids within the biosolids; and aids with movement of the liquid in the biosolids through the pores of the filter cake. Future pilot testing and technology development will be conducted by CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control. CSIRO and CRC have completed bench-scale, pilot-scale, and prototype testing of the technology. Results of testing to date are summarized in the CSIRO/CRC-authored paper “Development of Electrodewatering.” Prototype testing was conducted on a continuous feed unit with a single dewatering roll that simulated the first of five rolls on a conventional belt filter press. Multiple passes through the unit were performed to simulate several rolls on a belt filter press. Testing was done at electric fields of both 50 volts and 250 volts to determine if electrodewatering would be successful at lower voltages. At 50 volts cake solids averaged 36.7 percent with an average power consumption of approximately 1,400 kilowatt-hours per ton dry solids (kWh/TDS). One conclusion from the testing was that power consumption and solids content can be “balanced” for specific applications. For the purposes of this plan, a dewatered solids content of 26 percent was selected in order to compare this technology as a means to make a belt filter press comparable to a centrifuge. Based on the data presented in the CSIRO paper, a power consumption of 450 kWh/TDS was assumed to achieve a solids content of 26 percent. Electrodewatering involves retrofits to a standard belt filter press. For this evaluation, the same sizing criteria for a belt filter press was assumed, but with a higher energy consumption and higher electrical facilities capital cost. The electrical facilities capital cost was estimated based on the ratio of the assumed electrical facilities capital costs for belt filter presses and centrifuges as presented in the SCIRO/CRC report.

Product Technologies A detailed review of biosolids product technologies was conducted in TM 5, and the conclusions were summarized earlier in this TM. Based on this review, a number of options were included in the cost model, allowing a combination of District-owned facilities and merchant facilities. Options for emerging biosolids product technologies, being developed by private contractors, were also included. Some of these technologies may prove to be viable and cost-effective for managing biosolids.

FINAL 48 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

It was assumed that the District would own the in-county composting or thermal drying facilities and that all out-of-county facilities would be merchant owned. For in-county options, the costs were developed on the basis of the traditional District approach, with standard engineering and contractor markups included. An alternative approach would be a design-build-operate (DBO) approach, which would likely have a lower cost and shorter implementation schedule than a standard District facility. The detailed cost sheets would need to be adjusted if a DBO approach was selected.

Composting – In-County Composting was considered for an in-county facility as the product can be used locally and is well accepted. The technology for composting is well tested, and therefore the risk for the District investing in this option is lower than for emerging technologies. For the cost model, the in-county facility was based on an enclosed aerated static pile process, with ventilation to a biofilter to mitigate any potential odors. Figure 6-14 shows a schematic of the composting process and components.

Thermal Drying – In-County Thermal drying was also included as a potential in-county option, as the footprint required is small, and a heat drying system could possibly be installed at one of the plants, or at a site nearby. Figure 6-15 shows a schematic of the process and components of thermal drying. Drying significantly reduces the volume of biosolids for hauling. Thermal drying is becoming increasingly popular, with a number of installations in the United States and Europe. The dried products, in the form of pellets or granules, have a wide range of market applications, although the market for the product has not been developed yet in Southern California. It is anticipated the product could be easily marketed within Orange County.

Composting – Out-of-County Cost model data for the out-of-county option were based on the proposed Synagro facility at the South Kern Industrial Center (SKIC). The product technology evaluation identified aerated pile composting (static pile or agitated bin), as more sustainable than windrow or deep vessel composting in terms of regulations, product quality, and process reliability. At present, the SKIC facility appears to be the most feasible aerated pile composting facility in Southern California, as the environmental impact assessment (EIR) has been conducted and approved and the conditional use permit (CUP) has been obtained. Initial cost estimates for processing of District biosolids have been provided by Synagro and have been incorporated into the cost model. Alternative composting proposals can easily be included in the future, by changing the facility reference and cost information in the cost assumptions sheet of the cost model summary file.

Thermal Drying – Out-of-County An option was also included for an out-of-county regional thermal drying facility. Although it appears that at present there are no such facilities being actively pursued, Synagro has been considering installation of a regional dryer in the Inland Empire area. Preliminary cost estimates provided by Synagro were used in the cost model. The cost for a merchant thermal drying facility can be easily changed if a firm proposal is received. The primary disadvantage of an out-of-county thermal drying facility compared with one located within Orange County is that the hauling volume and distance are greater.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 49 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Chemical Stabilization Chemical stabilization is the addition of alkaline products and/or acids to biosolids to change the pH sufficiently to provide stabilization and pathogen kill. The final product pH will depend on the chemicals used. Typically, the products used do not increase the fertilizer value of the biosolids as they do not contain nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium. As the District has a contract with California Soil Products (CSP) for processing of biosolids through chemical stabilization, this option was included in the cost model. The facility is not operational, therefore the quality of the product cannot yet be determined. CSP requested an increase in the contract fee for biosolids processing, which was approved by the District Board in December 2002, and this revised cost was used in the cost model. The District also has a contract with Tule Ranch for chemical stabilization with lime and land application of the high pH product. As high pH biosolids products are not considered to have a sustainable market in Southern California due to the alkaline soils in the region, this option is not included under the product technology options, but is included as a failsafe backup option that may be continued at Tule Ranch (Kern County) and the District’s Central Valley Ranch (Kings County) as long as allowed by regulations in those counties.

Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing Organo-mineral fertilizer manufacturing consists of the addition of chemicals such as ammonia, sulfuric acid, and phosphoric acid to biosolids to produce a product that meets a specified fertilizer value. Products may include mono ammonium phosphate or ammonium phosphate sulfate. The product is typically a dried, granular product that may have a market value as high as $120 per ton. The ratio of biosolids to chemicals may vary from around 75 percent (low fortification) to over 25 percent (high fortification), depending on what final product is desired. The higher the level of fortification, the greater the amount of chemicals used. For medium- and high-fortification processes, it is more cost-effective for the facility to be located at a rail spur so that the chemicals may be purchased in bulk. There may also be advantages in locating the facility adjacent to an existing fertilizer or ammonia manufacturing plant as the chemicals will be readily available. This product technology was included in the cost model as it provides an option for entering into the high end of the horticulture market. Due to the large chemical handling requirements, it was anticipated that the District would not own and operate their own facility. In addition, the location requirements suggest that such a facility would most likely be sited out of the county. There are no facilities currently operating in California. United Water is considering constructing a high-fortification organo-mineral fertilizer plant near Fresno. Unified Water currently operates a facility in Arizona that processes biosolids from New York. The Wilrey Trust, which prefers to use a medium-fortification plant, is also considering the potential for siting a facility in Southern California, but this is in the very early stages of project development. The costs used in the cost model were more a placeholder value than a true cost, based on discussions with the Wilrey Trust and need to be revised as better cost data becomes available. For this process to be cost-effective, the market value of the fertilizer needs to justify the cost of chemical addition.

FINAL 50 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-14 Composting - In County

MATERIAL FEED STOCK ACTIVE STORAGE/ ODOR RECEIVING PREPARATION COMPOSTING CURINGSCREENINGS LOADING CONTROL

Organics Receiving

Pugmill Biosolids Receiving Mixers Biofilter System

Product to Storage

Corrective Amendment

Amendment Hoppers Truck Loading

Amendment Receiving Type A

Amendment Receiving Screenings Type B Recycle

Building

SCO/175817.pe.12 Fig6-14.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 52 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 FIGURE 6-15 Thermal Drying - In County

Vent

Biosolids Cake (Offsite) Venturi After Burner Condensor (RTO)

Biosolids Cake (Onsite)

Screw Conveyor Cake Hot Air Bin Screw Conveyor Belt Conveyor Dryer

Air Agglomerator Solids Air/Solids Separator Conveyor Screen

Overs Diverter Fines Grinder Valve

Screw Conveyor

Building Pellet Storage and Truck Loading

SCO/175817.pe.12 F ig6-15.ai TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 54 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Construction Material This option was added as it was identified as an emerging product technology that may be cost-effective for the District in the future. The cost for this option was based on a proposal provided by American Remediation Technologies for thermal drying of biosolids with heated soil. This has the advantage of using waste heat from heat treated soil to dry the biosolids, saving on the use of fossil fuels for drying. The addition of biosolids also improves the value of the soil for use in construction and development sites. High-end construction materials, such as glass aggregate, may also be produced by technologies such as the Minergy vitrification (melting) process. The review in TM 5 found that this technology may be cost-effective only if a large regional facility is constructed. Minergy had considered locating a facility in Southern California, but did not receive sufficient interest to continue pursuing a regional facility. Should such a facility ever materialize, the costs could be easily added to the summary file of the cost model.

Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is another emerging technology in Southern California and provides the opportunity to participate in non-cropping markets. Although this technology is not proven for processing of biosolids, the option has been included in the cost model so that local merchant facilities may be evaluated. One facility that will soon be on line in Riverside County is the International Environmental Solutions (IES) high-temperature pyrolysis facility. This facility has been used as the cost basis for pyrolysis in the cost model, based on processing estimates provided by IES in a telephone conversation held in December 2002. A 50-dtpd facility is currently being started up and will soon be available for testing with biosolids. IES intends to construct a 250-dtpd biosolids processing facility at the same location, with construction expected to commence in the later part of 2004. IES intend to use waste heat recovery for generation of electricity at their facility. The char produced from the biosolids may be used as a fuel in cement kilns, although IES intends eventually to be self- sufficient and use the char onsite for generation of power. Another pyrolysis process that has been proposed in Southern California is the EnerTech low-temperature, high-pressure process. EnerTech have signed an agreement with the Rialto wastewater treatment plant for lease of land. However, the financing for the facility has not yet been secured and the permitting for the facility has not been started. The costs provided by EnerTech are sensitive to economies of scale. Although EnerTech had proposed to install a facility with a total treatment capacity of 300 dtpd, it is considered unlikely that that volume of biosolids will be available, and therefore the costs for processing at a 100-dtpd facility have been used for the cost model. The costs can easily be updated in the summary file of the cost model.

Co-Combustion Co-combustion using existing biomass power plants in Southern California provides an opportunity to diversify out of crop-based markets, into the renewable energy market. The two potential opportunities that could be implemented for biosolids management in the near future are with the California Portland Cement Company (CPCC) in Colton, and with the Liberty power plants in Imperial County. The CPCC power plant has recently been upgraded. The Colton plant is within a reasonable hauling distance from the District plants, with a power generation capacity of 15 Megawatts (MW). Without further evaluation, the

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 55 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL cost of processing at this facility is not known, however, given the proposed costs for other energy production options, it is anticipated that $40 per wet ton including hauling would not be unreasonable. The Liberty power plants are being developed by McCarthy Farms, for co-combustion of woodwaste and biosolids. Two adjacent biomass plants have been considered, although it appears likely that one will be developed initially and the second may be brought on line at a later date, depending on the cost of upgrades and the available volumes of biosolids. The vendor has estimated the cost of hauling and processing of biosolids at this facility to be around $40 per wet ton. Since this is a preliminary estimate and the actual upgrade requirements are not entirely defined, a cost of $45 per wet ton has been used in the cost model.

Transport Options Biosolids hauling is one of the major costs associated with management of biosolids. Therefore technologies that reduce the volume of biosolids to be hauled offsite can provide significant cost savings. For the purposes of the cost model, biosolids transport was assumed to consist of: x Pipeline for liquid biosolids x Truck hauling of dewatered or dried biosolids The pipeline and pumping costs were included in the costs for a single site combined dewatering facility, and include capital and O&M costs for the pipeline and pumping. Truck hauling costs were included in the in-county options for composting and for thermal drying. The hauling costs were based on information provided by two local contractors, with an allowance to reflect recent increases in fuel prices. In the cost assumptions sheet of the cost model summary file, a hauling cost of $1.50 per truck mile was used. It is assumed that each truck would contain 25 wet tons of biosolids. Transport by rail was also considered, but was not included in the cost model. The District has in the past considered rail haul, however, it was determined that the biosolids would need to be hauled by trucks to Terminal Island in Los Angeles to connect with the rail lines. As a rule-of-thumb, it is anticipated that the hauling distance needs to be greater than 200 miles for rail haul to be cost-effective. The volume for shipment also impacts the cost. The true costs of rail hauling would be difficult to determine without significant effort. In addition there were no immediate opportunities for rail hauling, particularly with one of the objectives of the Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan being to pursue in-county biosolids beneficial use options. Therefore, it was decided that rail haul did not merit cost evaluation at this time.

Biosolids Markets The products from the biosolids manufacturing technologies mentioned above are suitable for a wide range of markets, as documented in TMs 2 through 4 and summarized earlier in this memorandum. All the potential markets were identified in the cost model, however, costs and revenues were only input for products from District-owned facilities. Merchant facilities are responsible for their own product marketing and the costs or revenues for their product markets are reflected in the processing fee charged to the District. These costs and

FINAL 56 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL revenues therefore do not need to be separately identified. The three broad categories of markets will be briefly described below.

Cropping Markets The cropping markets cover all markets where biosolids products are sold for application on plants. This market benefits from the nutrient and soil conditioning properties of biosolids products. The selected biosolids product technologies provide three types of products that are suitable for cropping markets – compost, dried pellet and granules, and organo-mineral fertilizers. The cropping markets include the District’s member agencies and cities, which can use the products on parks, golf courses, medians, and other public land. The same products can also be used by the ornamental and nursery sector in and around Orange County, or can be bagged and sold in retail outlets. Shade Tree Programs, such as the one conducted by the City of Irvine, may be used as an outlet for biosolids products. However, this is anticipated to be a very small market, and would be at a cost to the District, as the trees would need to be purchased for the program. This market could be considered primarily a public service program. Biomass crops for ethanol production could be considered an emerging market. Regulations have been proposed to ban the use of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as a fuel oxygenate in gasoline. An alternative would be the use of ethanol, which can be produced from corn or sugarcane. There are plans to commence large-scale production of sugarcane for ethanol production in Southern California. At present the main ethanol producing factories being planned are located in Imperial County, and the sugarcane will need to be grown in close proximity (50 to 100 miles) to the plant. Land application of biosolids is not viewed favorably by Imperial County, therefore, the market for biosolids products would depend on biomass crops grown outside of counties that do not allow biosolids land application. It is anticipated that satellite ethanol plants will be constructed in Riverside and other counties. The potential acreage for this market could be significant. Therefore, this market should be followed up as an emerging market, particularly as some of this acreage could be on marginal land that could benefit from application of biosolids products. However, until this market is further developed, the true value of biosolids products in this market is uncertain.

Energy Markets In order to diversify and access non-cropping markets, it is recommended that opportunities for the use of biosolids in the energy markets be seriously considered. The energy markets potentially available in Southern California are for renewable energy (electricity) and for fuel products such as char, oil, or gas. These are two different categories of markets, as one is valued at dollars per kWh and the other would be valued for the British thermal units (BTU) or heating value of the product. Direct energy from renewable sources is valued at $0.053 to $0.057 per kWh on the wholesale market. The lower value was used in the cost model to provide a more conservative estimate. If the electricity is sold to a private facility, the value could be higher. For example, CPCC in Colton pays a total of around $0.08 per kWh for electricity (includes reduction and transmission). Many wastewater treatment plants, such as the District, pay $0.10 to $0.14 per kWh for purchased electricity.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 57 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

The value of fuel products is uncertain, as this market has not been developed, and the value will depend on the quality of the product. High quality coal with a heating value of 11,500 BTU, sourced in Wisconsin, has a value of around $40 to $45 per ton, according to information provided by CPCC staff. Fuel char products from pyrolysis processes have a lower calorific value than coal, which may limit the market demand and the market value of the product. EnerTech anticipates that Mitsubishi Cement will use the char in their cement kiln. Considering that the plant is approximately 60 miles from the proposed EnerTech site in Rialto, the hauling costs may also reduce the product revenue. A value based on the BTU value of the char has been used in the cost evaluation model. This value may be easily updated in future in the cost assumptions sheet of the summary file. Pellets or granules from a thermal drying process may also be used as a fuel source, in a similar manner to char products. The calorific value of the pellets would need to be determined before the market value of the product can be determined. If the District were to participate in this market, this value would need to be better determined. Some pyrolysis process produce oil and a combustible gas. None of the pyrolysis facilities currently proposed in Southern California produce these products. During the review of product technologies, it appeared the oil produced from pyrolysis processes was of a very low grade and it would be difficult to secure a market revenue for it. Therefore, this product was not included in the cost model. The value for a combustible gas product was estimated based on the ratio of the heating value of the gas to the heating value of natural gas, valued at $6 per MMBTU. The heating value of gas from pyrolysis and gasification processes is typically quite low, around 450 BTU per standard cubic feet per minute (scfm), compared with natural gas at 900 BTU per scfm.

Failsafe Backup Markets The biosolids management plan includes the identification of failsafe backup markets for biosolids products or cake. These would be used in case a market for product from a District-owned facility was adversely impacted, or if a product manufacturing process (District-owned or merchant facility) was unable to handle the required volume of biosolids. Failsafe markets that can accept either a biosolids product, such as compost or pellets, or biosolids cake directly from the dewatering step, therefore need to be identified. These markets would not be a source of revenue, rather, they would entail the cost for hauling and any tipping fees or processing fees. The District farm provides a failsafe backup for both biosolids products and for biosolids cake. Products such as compost or pellets may be land applied, and since they meet Exceptional Quality (EQ) standards, it is anticipated that land application of these products should be sustainable in Southern California. It must be noted that at present the Kings County biosolids ordinance will ban land application of all biosolids products, except for compost, in February 2006. Whether the county would allow land application of dried pellets is presently uncertain. The Tule Ranch lime stabilization process could also be used as a failsafe backup option for Class B dewatered cake. It appears that Kern County may allow the land application of lime stabilized biosolids, although whether Kings County will permit this is not known. Biosolids products may also be used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at landfills. Many landfills have prerequisites that must be met, such as moisture content. It is expected the

FINAL 58 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL compost and pellet products would meet these requirements. Biosolids cake may, as a last resort, be sent to landfill or dedicated land disposal, such as the proposed Holloway Mines site. Since this method does not recover the value of biosolids, except through some contribution to landfill gas, landfilling is only included as the last option for use of biosolids.

Design Criteria Tables 6-5 through 6-16 present specific design criteria used in the cost model. The major process design, capital cost, and O&M cost items are included for reference. General cost information can be found in the cost basis section.

Cost Basis Cost opinions were developed to aid in comparing all of the alternative biosolids management programs. The cost opinions are based upon cost assumptions that were taken from previous studies, historical data, or manufacturer data. The cost assumptions and basis for selection are presented in Table 6-17. These cost factors include factors for construction costs, O&M costs, present-worth costs, and annualized costs. All alternatives use these factors.

Capital Costs Capital costs consist of construction cost opinions and include overall cost for constructing the selected alternative. Factors were included for project development, preliminary and final design, construction management, commissioning, and close-out costs. The construction cost estimates include a 30-percent contingency to account for elements that have not yet been defined in detail. A 30-percent contingency is standard practice for estimating costs at this level of planning. The costs incurred by District personnel for engineering, construction management, legal counsel, and administration are included in professional services costs which are part of the capital costs. The unit costs for capital items and basis for selecting those unit costs are listed in Table 6-17. Cost factors for electrical and instrumentation; site, civil, and utilities; and project level allowance are also included in the model. The range for cost factors used are presented in the assumptions table. Cost factors were evaluated and adjusted as needed to reflect the level of complexity and scope of the project being considered. No costs were included for land purchases because land is considered an asset for the district and handled separately. Beneficial use of existing facilities was considered in cost development, where practical. The construction costs used in this evaluation are for comparative purposes only. These costs are based on construction of projects that meet the District’s year 2020 loads. Project phasing is not included for the recommended alternative, and the costs are based on construction of the complete facility.

Operation and Maintenance Costs O&M costs were developed for each alternative. Unit costs for purchased consumable materials such as electricity, natural gas, or chemicals are provided in Table 6-18. The costs

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 59 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL were based upon current District costs, market research, or historical data from existing facilities.

Merchant Facility Costs Costs for potential product manufacturing merchant facilities were included in the cost assumptions sheet of the cost model summary file. Some of these costs are based on actual contracts, such as with CSP. However, a majority of them are based on proposed costs. Depending on the level of development of the project, a few of the costs were input at higher costs than quoted in the proposals. Cost estimates for other facilities may be easily added to the cost model, and updates to the ones included may be incorporated as well. The cost model allows hauling and processing costs to be identified separately, although most proposals received from merchant facilities to date provided a single cost that included hauling and processing. A list of merchant facilities and the cost basis is provided below.

Composting Out of County – The cost of hauling and processing was based on cost estimates provided to the consultant team in February 2003 by Synagro for the proposed SKIC facility. Since this is a well-understood technology, to be implemented on a site that already has a CUP and EIR conducted, the estimated cost was considered to be relatively well defined. No other cost estimates have been provided to the District or the consultant team for a regional, merchant-owned facility using aerated pile composting. As windrow and deep vessel composting processes were not recommended in the technology evaluation, proposals for these types of facilities were not included.

Chemical Stabilization – The District in December 2002 approved an increase to the contract fee amount for California Soil Products. Although this facility is not yet operational, it is unlikely that the vendor will seek another change in price with the District, and therefore this estimate is considered valid for the duration of the contract. Depending on the cost of chemicals, energy, the ability of the vendor to secure a site, and the ability to secure additional sources of biosolids or green waste, the future costs beyond the current contract duration are likely to increase.

Organo-Mineral Fertilizers – The costs are very preliminary, as no site investigation, financing, or sizing has been done for such a facility in Southern California. The costs were based on discussions with the Wilrey Trust, one of the potential vendors, and from information from other installations. Product manufacturing costs of $90 per ton were quoted for the Taos, New Mexico facility, which is a small 1-mgd plant. The Unified Environmental facility in Arizona has similar processing costs, although that includes hauling biosolids by rail from New York. Product values of around $120 per ton were quoted by the Taos plant and for Milorganite products. Therefore, a net processing fee of $50 per wet ton were used in the cost model, pending further project development. If the market revenue is not sufficient to maintain costs in this range, it may be difficult for a private contractor to develop such a project.

FINAL 60 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-5 Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening Design Criteria

Parameter Unit Plant 1 Value Plant 2 Value Source Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 2.0 2.0 Manufacturer recommendation Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 1.1 1.4 Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 20 20 Max month = 18lb/d/sf in 1989 Master Plan Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 11.8 14.0 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 10 10 Odorous air Per unit cfm/DAFT 10,000 19,000 Calculated based on 8 cfm per ft surface area, cross-checked with Odor Control MP Sweep air cfm/DAFT 0 0 Total cfm/DAFT 10,000 19,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on conventional biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotower % 25% 25% Solids Capture Rate % of feed TS 98% 98% Float TSS % 4% 4% New DAFT Diameter ft 40 55 Match Existing Redundancy % 20 20 CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs DAFT System (40ft dia) P1 + 55 ft dia P2 each $190,000 $265,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 18% 18% Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 10% 10% Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 60% 60% New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% 5% Existing Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% 5%

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/DAFT 6-5 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-6 Gravity Belt Thickening Design Criteria

Parameter Unit Plant 1 Value Plant 2 Value Sources Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 OCSD Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 7 OCSD Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/meter 300 250 Manufacturer calculated Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/meter 166 169 Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/meter 700 (1,500 1) 700 (1,500 1) Manufacturer calculated Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/meter 414 (888 1 ) 489 (1049 1) Calculated Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 6 6 Odorous Air Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) per unit cfm/GBT 3,000 3,000 Calculated based on 12 ac/hr area/unit and 30 foot building height sweep air cfm/GBT 4,800 4,800 Total cfm/GBT 7,800 7,800 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on conventional biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotower % 25% 25% Solids Capture Rate % of feed TS 95% 95% Assumed Thickened TSS % 6.0% 6% Manufacturer data Each Unit Width meters 3 3 Manufacturer CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs GBT System, 3m units each $180,000 $180,000 Pumps (Filtrate to Recycle) each, 75 hp $80,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 18% 18% Assumed Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 10% 10% Assumed Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% Assumed Allowance for Class 1 Div 1 reqmts 25% 15% Assumed ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 25% 25% Historical data/manufacturer New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Manufacturer 1 Value for primary sludge

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/GBT 6-6 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-7 Centrifuge Thickening Design Criteria

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Sources Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 OCSD Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 7 OCSD Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 700 700 Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 388 475 Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/unit 6500 6500 Manufacturer calculated Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/unit 3847 4546 Calculated Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 4 4 Odorous Air Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) per unit cfm/centrifuge 200 200 Calculated based on 12 ac/hr area/unit and 30 foot building height sweep air* cfm/centrifuge 2,400 2,400 Total* cfm/centrifuge 2,600 2,600 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on conventional biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotower % 25% 25% Solids Capture Rate % of feed TS 95% 95% Assumed Thickened TSS % 6.0% 6.0% Manufacturer data Redundancy # 20.0% 20.0% Manufacturer CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs Centrifuge System each $560,000 $560,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 37% 37% Assumed Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 10% 10% Assumed Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% Assumed Odor Control Installed per Biotower $772,000 $766,000 Allowance for Class 1 Div 1 reqmts 25% 15% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 25% 25% New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Manufacturer * For thickening OF primary sludge and recuperative thickening a value of 3,000 cfm/centrifuge was used for sweep air

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/Cent Th 6-7 1 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-8 Ultrasound for Advanced Digestion Design Criteria (Based on the Sonico Ultrasound Unit - Sonix V5)

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 OCSD Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 7 OCSD Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/stack 13 13 Manufacturer Ave Day HLR or HRT mgd/stack 0.0096 0.0096 Calculated Ultrasound Unit (V5) stacks/unit 5 5 Manufacturer Ultrasound Power kW/stack 6 6 Manufacturer Uptime hrs/yr 98% 98% Manufacturer Increase in VS Reduction of WAS % of VS 50% 50% Conventional WAS VS Reduction % of VS 40% 40% Sonix WAS VS Reduction % of VS 60% 60% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 Digester Gas Calorific Value BTU/scfm 600 600 Actual Length per V5 Unit ft 3 3 CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs Sonix Equipment each stack $60,000 $60,000 Sound Proofing each V5 $10,000 $10,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 18% 18% Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 10% 10% Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit Costs Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/V5 Duty Unit 30% 30% New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0%

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/Ultrasound 6-8 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-9 Single Stage Mesophilic Digestion Design Criteria

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Sources Max 2-Week HLR or HRT days 15 15 ( 1989 Master Plan = 25 D Max Month) Ave Day HLR or HRT days 22.6 19.6 (ISPU = 20d) Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate* lb/cf/d 0.3 0.3 Ave Day Solids Loading Rate** lb VS/cf/d 0.21 0.23 As per ISPU Feed Sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.5 76.5 Digester Operating Temperature F 98 98 Cellular Nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% Digester Working Capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% VS Reduction (VSR)*** % of VS 62% 62% Digester Gas Production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 Digester Gas Calorific Value BTU/scfm 600 600 Boiler Efficiency (average) % 78% 78% New Units New Digester Diameter ft 110 110 New Digester Depth ft 30 30 New Digester Working Volume cf 256,590 256,590 Digester Working Capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% CAPITAL COSTS Description Units P1 Unit Costs P2 Unit Costs Rotamix each $155,000 $155,000 Heat Exchanger with Pump each $185,000 $185,000 Boiler each, 9 MBTU $250,000 $250,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 15% 15% Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 8% 8% Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Units P1 Unit Costs P2 Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 20% 20% New Equipment Maintenance hr 5.0% 5.0% Existing Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Annualized Digester Cleaning % of equip $60,000.00 $60,000.00 * Used 0.3 for thicken WAS with ultrasound treatment and primary sludge, 0.2 for WAS without ultrasound ** For thicken WAS without ultrasound treatment used 0.14 at P1 and 0.16 at P2 *** Used 60% for thicken WAS with ultrasound treatment and primary sludge and 63% for primary sludge

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/Meso Dig 6-9 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-10 Single Stage Mesophilic Digestion + Recuperative Thickening

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Sources Max 2-Week HLR or HRT 15 15 ( 1989 Master Plan = 25 D Max Month) Ave Day HLR or HRT days 22.6 19.6 (ISPU = 20d) Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate 0.3 0.3 Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.21 0.23 Feed Sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.5 76.5 Digester Operating Temperature F 98 98 Cellular Nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% Digester Working Capacity % 93% 93% Target Digester Solids Concentration % 4.5% 4.5% Assumed Recup Thickg VS Reduction* % of VS 65.2% 65.4% Digester Gas Production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 Digester Gas Calorific Value BTU/scfm 600 600 Recycled Sludge Concentration % 6.00% 6.00% Boiler Efficiency(Average) % 78% 78% Manufacturer New Digester Diameter ft 110 110 New Digester Depth ft 30 30 New Digester Working Volume cf 256,590 256,590 Digester Working Capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% CAPITAL COSTS Description Units Unit Costs Unit Costs Rotamix each $155,000 $155,000 Heat Exchanger with Pump each $185,000 $185,000 Bottom Sludge Pump each, 30 hp $65,000 $65,000 Recuperative Thickening Pump each, 15 hp $50,000 $50,000 Boiler each, 9 MBTU $250,000 $75,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 20% 22% Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 14% 14% Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Units Unit Costs Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 30% 30% New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Existing Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Annualized Rehab per digester $60,000.00 $60,000.00 * Depends on operational SRT

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/Meso Dig Recup 6-10 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-11 Two Stage Digestion Design Criteria

Boiler Efficiency(Average) % 78% 78% New Digester Diameter ft 110 110 New Digester Depth ft 30 30 New Digester Working Volume cf 256,590 256,590 Digester Working Capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% CAPITAL COSTS Description Units Unit Costs P2 Unit Costs Blending & Preheat Tanks w/ Mixing Pumps each $186,000 $186,000 Blending Tank Preheat Heat Exchangers each $90,000 $90,000 Blend Tank to Stage 1 Pump each, 25 hp $60,000 $60,000 Rotamix each $155,000 $155,000 Existing Digester Modifications each $500,000 $500,000 Stage 1 to Stage 2 Pump each, 15 hp $50,000 Thermophilic Heat Exchanger w/ Pump each $225,000 $225,000 Mesophilic Cooling Heat Exchanger w/ Pump each $185,000 $185,000 Bottom Sludge Pump each, 30 hp $65,000 Boiler each, 9 MBTU $250,000 $75,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 22% 18% Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 14% 12% Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Units Unit Costs P2 Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 50% 50% New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Existing Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Annualized Rehab per digester $60,000.00 $60,000.00 * Used 0.3 lb us/cf/d for TWAS with ultrasound and primary sludge, 0.2 for TWAS without ultrasound

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/2 Stg Th.Mes 6-11 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-12 Two Stage Digestion + Recuperative Thickening Design Criteria

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Max 2-Week HLR or HRT days 15 15 Stage 1 Max 2-Week HRT days 5 5 Stage 2 Max 2-Week HRT days 10 10 Ave Day HLR or HRT days 22.6 19.6 Stage 1 Ave Day HRT days 7.5 6.5 Stage 2 Ave Day HRT days 15.1 13.1 Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.2 0.2* Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.14 0.16 Feed sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.50 76.50 Digester Operating Temperature F 130 130 Stage 2 Temperature F 98 98 Cellular Nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% Digester Working Capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% Target Digester Solids Concentration % 5.6% 5.6% VS Reduction (VSR) % of VS 70.8% 70.1% Digester Gas Production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 Digester Gas Calorific Value BTU/scfm 600 600 Recycled Sludge Concentration % 6.00% 6.00% Boiler Efficiency(Average) % 78% 78% New Digester Diameter ft 110 110 New Digester Depth ft 30 30 New Digester Working Volume cf 256,590 256,590 Digester Working Capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% CAPITAL COSTS Description Units P1 Unit Costs P2 Unit Costs Blending & Preheat Tanks w/ Mixing Pumps Blending Tank Preheat Heat Exchangers each $186,000 $186,000 Blend Tank to Stage 1 Pump each $90,000 $90,000 Rotamix each, 25 hp $60,000 $60,000 Existing Digester Modifications each $155,000 $155,000 Thermophilic Heat Exchanger w/ Pump each $500,000 $500,000 Mesophilic Cooling Heat Exchanger w/ Pump each $225,000 $225,000 Bottom Sludge Pump each $185,000 $185,000 Boiler each, 30 hp $65,000 $75,000 Recup Thickening Recycle Treatment each, 9 MBTU $250,000 $75,000 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. of Construction 24% 24% Site, Civil, and Utilities of Construction 16% 16% Project Level Allowance of Construction 5% 5% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Units P1 Unit Costs P2 Unit Costs Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 60% 60% New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Existing Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5.0% 5.0% Annualized Rehab per digester $60,000.00 $60,000.00 * Used 0.3 lb vs/cf/d for TWAS with ultrasound and primary sludge

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/2 Stg Th.Mes Recup 6-12 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-13 Belt Filter Press Dewatering Design Criteria

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 77 Max 2-Week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 110 110 1999 SP Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 73 75 Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 1,000 1,000 Ruth Roxburgh, CH2M HILL, email dated 3/12/03 Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 689 699 Polymer Feed Rate* lb/ton solids 21.5 17 Carollo report Solids Load Ave Day lb/unit/d 33,072 33,552 Ammonia-N in Biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% Odorous Air Per unit cfm/BFP 3,000 3,000** Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) Sweep air cfm/BFP 6,000 6,000*** Calculated based on area/unit and 30 foot building height Total cfm/BFP 9,000 9,000 Cake storage & loading cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 Odor control Master Plan P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted for 10s detention time Dry Solids % 21.5% 21.5% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 23.5% 23.5% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Capture % 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater flow gpm/unit 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below Redundancy (BFP) % 20% 20% Assumptions worksheet Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 35 35 Estimated from Carollo report Width/unit ft 25 25 Estimated from Carollo report Area/unit sq ft 875 875 Maximum in existing buildings # 8 15 Existing conditions (4 per building) Conveyor Length/Unit ft 50 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Dewatering Equipment each, 2m width $260,000 $260,000 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 450 cy/900 cy $550,000 $962,500 Filtrate Pumps 50 hp $75,000 $75,000 Electrical & I&C of Construction 18.0% 18.0% Site, Civil, & Utilities of Construction 10.0% 10.0% Odor Control (installed) per biotower $772,000 $766,000 ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Energy per gpm kW/gpm 0.1 0.1 Carollo report per unit kW/unit 7.3 7.5 Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 75% 75% Based on Carollo report: 6 operators/8 units/24 hour operation New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% 5% Supplies & Materials per year/BFP $10,800.00 $10,800.00 Rehabilitation per year/BFP $2,100 $2,100 * Polymer feed rate varied for the different digestion options as shown in Carollo's report for stage and recuperative options ** Used 4,500 cfm/bfp for staged digestion options *** Used 9000 cfm/bfp for staged digestion options

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/BFP P1 6-13 FINAL 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-14 Centrifugal Dewatering Design Criteria

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 77 Max 2-Week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 250 250 Carollo report Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 166 170 Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr 3,000 3,000 For equivalent Alfa-Laval unit Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr* 2066 2098 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 26 23 Carollo report Solids Load Ave Day lb/unit/d 49,584 50,352 Ammonia-N in Biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% Odorous Air Per unit cfm/unit** 200 200 Assumed based on similar CDM project Sweep air cfm/unit 3,000 3,000 Assume 1/2 of P1 BFP sweep air Total cfm/unit 3,200 3,200 Odor control Master Plan Cake storage & loading cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted for 10s detention time Redundancy % 25% 25% Based on P1-73 Dry Solids % 26.0% 26.0% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 28.0% 28.0% Capture % 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater Flow gpm/unit 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below Redundancy (Centrifuge) % 33% 33% Assumptions worksheet Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 35 35 Estimated from Carollo report Width/unit ft 25 25 Estimated from Carollo report Area/unit sq ft 875 875 Maximum in existing bu # 8 15 Existing conditions (4 per building), one centrifuge will fit in space of one BFP Building C floor area sq ft 3,200 17,300 ISPU site plans Building M floor area sq ft 6,800 - ISPU site plans Conveyor Length/Unit ft 50 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Dewatering Equipment each $625,000 625,000 Carollo report Cake Storage & Truck Loading 450 cy/900 cy $550,000 $962,500 Electrical & I&C of Construction 37.0% 37.0% Carollo report Site, Civil, & Utilities of Construction 10.0% 10.0% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Energy per gpm kW/gpm 0.66 0.62 Carollo report per unit kW/unit 109.6 105.4 Labor Requirement FTE/Duty Unit 50% 50% Based on Carollo report: 1.5 operators/3 units/24 hour operation New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% 5% Carollo report: 4% for total maintenance Supplies & Materials per yr/ Centrifuge $1,000 $1,000 Rehabilitation per yr/ Centrifuge $20,000 $20,000 * Polymer feed rate varied for the different digestion options as shown in Carollo's report for stage and recuperative options ** Used 300 cfm/unit for staged digestion options *** Used 4,500 cfm/unit staged digestion options

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/CENT P1 6-14 FINAL 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-15 Rotary Press Dewatering Design Criteria

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 77 Max 2-Week HLR or HRT 250 Ave Day HLR or HRT 170 Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate dry lbs/channel/hr 250 3,000 Schwing Ave Day Solids Loading Rate dry lbs/unit/d 24,794 2,098 Polymer Feed Rate* lb/ton solids 12 12 Schwing bench scale testing Ammonia-N in Biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% Equipment Configuration channels/unit 6 6 Schwing Solids Load Peak 2 Weeks dry lbs/unit/d 36,000 36,000 Odorous Air Per unit** cfm/RP 200 200 Assume same as centrifuge (centrifuge based on similar CDM project) Sweep air*** cfm/RP 3,000 3,000 Assume same as centrifuge (centrifuge assumed to be 1/2 of P1 BFP sweep air) Total cfm/RP 3,200 3,200 Cake storage & loading cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 Odor control Master Plan P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted for 10s detention time Redundancy % 25% 25% Based on P1-73 Dry Solids % 24.0% 26.0% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 26.0% 28.0% Capture % 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater Flow gpm/unit 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below Redundancy % 20% 33% Assumptions worksheet, assume same as BFP Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 25 25 Estimated from catalog cuts, assume 5' open space around unit Width/unit ft 30 30 Estimated from catalog cuts, assume 5' open space around unit Area/unit sq ft 750 750 Maximum in existing bu #815 Existing conditions (4 per building), one RP will fit in space of one BFP Conveyor Length/Unit ft 50 50 Assumed based on unit length and standby conveyor CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Dewatering Equipment each, per RP $350,000 $625,000 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 450 cy/900 cy $550,000 $962,500 Filtrate Pumps 50 hp $75,000 $75,000 Electrical & I&C of Construction 15.0% 37.00% Site, Civil, & Utilities of Construction 10.0% 10.00% ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Energy hP/unit 20 20 kW/unit 14.9 14.9 Labor Requirements operators/duty unit 50% 50% Assume same as centrifuge New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% 5% Supplies & Materials $/channel $5,300 $1,000 Rehabilitation % of equipment $3,150 $20,000 * Varies based on bench scale testing, ranges from 6 to 23 ** Used 300 cfm/unit for staged digestion options *** Used 4,500 cfm/unit staged digestion options

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/RP P1 6-15 FINAL 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-16 Electro Dewatering Design Criteria General Note: Design & performance criteria based on BFP, with exception of %solids and electrical requirement.

Parameter Unit P1 Value P2 Value Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 77 Max 2-Week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 110 110 1999 SP Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 73 75 Max 2-Week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 1,000 1,000 Ruth Roxburgh, CH2M HILL, email dated 3/12/03 Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 689 699 Polymer Feed Rate* lb/ton solids 21.5 17 Carollo report SolidsLload Ave Day lb/unit/d 33,072 33,552 Ammonia-N in Biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% Odorous Air Per unit** cfm/BFP 3,000 3,000 Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) Sweep air*** cfm/BFP 6,000 6,000 Calculated based on area/unit and 30 foot building height Total cfm/BFP 9,000 9,000 Cake storage & loading cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted for 10s detention time Redundancy % 25% 25% Based on P1-73 Dry Solids % 26.0% 26.0% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 28.0% 28.0% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Capture % 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater Flow gpm/unit 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below Redundancy % 20% 20% Assumptions worksheet Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 35 35 Estimated from Carollo report Width/unit ft 25 25 Estimated from Carollo report Area/unit sq ft 875 875 Maximum in existing buildings # 8 15 Existing conditions (4 per building) Conveyor Length/Unit ft 50 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor CAPITAL COSTS Description Unit P1 Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Dewatering Equipment each, 2m width $260,000 $260,000 Chemical Feed System per BFP $50,000 $50,000 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 450 cy/900 cy $550,000 $962,500 Filtrate Pumps 50 hp $75,000 $75,000 Electrical & I&C of Construction 100.0% 200.0% Site, Civil, & Utilities of Construction 10.0% 10.0% Odor Control per biotower $772,000 $766,000 ANNUAL O&M COSTS Description Unit Unit $ or % P2 Unit $ or % Energy kWhr/tDS 450 450 Based on electrodewatering paper Labor Requirements FTE/duty unit 0.75 0.75 Based on Carollo report: 6 operators/8 units/24 hour operation New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% 5% Supplies & Materials % of equipment $13,500.00 $13,500.00 Rehabilitation % of equipment $3,150.00 $3,150.00 * Varies based on Carollo report ** Used 300 cfm/unit for staged digestion options *** Used 4,500 cfm/unit staged digestion options

W052003003SCO Tables6-5and6-16.xls/033360004/ED P1 6-16 FINAL 12/03/2003 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-17 Capital Cost Assumptions Unit Value Basis 1. COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS Parameter Construction Costs Base Year: 2003 Capital Period (years) 20 Variable based on OCSD Needs Interest Rate: 5.0% Provided by OCSD Equipment installation cost* % of equipment 50% Engineering Judgment Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. % of capital 18.0% Engineering Judgment Site, Civil, and Utilities % of capital 10% Engineering Judgment Project Level Allowance % of capital 5% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Contractor Markups Mobilization & Insurance % of subtotal 9% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 G/C % of subtotal 10% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Profit % of subtotal 7% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Bond % of subtotal 2% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Professional Services Costs Large Projects (> $40 mill) Project Development % of construction 0.5% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Preliminary Design % of construction 1.5% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Design % of construction 14% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Construction/Installation % of construction 11% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Commission % of construction 1% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Close-out % of construction 0.25% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Small Projects (< $40 mill) Project Development % of construction 2% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Preliminary Design % of construction 3% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Design % of construction 18% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Construction/Installation % of construction 16% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Commission % of construction 2% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Close-out % of construction 0.5% As per the IPMC standards, 2003 Contingency % of construction 30% As per the IPMC standards, 2003

4. UNIT CAPITAL COSTS Parameter Unit Value Basis Ammonia Treatment Facilities gal $2.00 Prethickening Recycle Treatment gpd $0.00 Building - On-site Type 1, light constru sf $100.00 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy const sf $150.00 Building - Off-site Type 1, light constru sf $80.00 Comparable to IPMC construction cost in Project No. FP1-X Building - Off-site Type 2, heavy const sf $120.00 Pile Construction for Both Plants sf $100.00 Comparable to IPMC construction cost in Project No. FP1-X

5. MAJOR EQUIPMENT REDUNDANCY Equipment % of capacity Basis Thickening DAFT/AGF 20% (Currently Plant 1 = 5 duty, 1 standby, Plant 2 = 3 duty, 1 standby) GBT 20% As per BFPs Thickening Centrifuges 20% As per GBTs Digestion Ultrasound (no. stacks) 0 Digesters 10% As per 1989 Master Plan (ISPU used 1 standby per 6 duty) Dewatering Belt Filter Presses at 24/7 20% (ISPU used 1 standby per 4 duty at Plant 1, and 1 standby per 5 duty at Plant 2, based on 4 day operation, Carollo Dewatering determined 8 duty per plant w/ 2 standby) Centrifuges 33% Maintain higher redundancy as critical process (Carollo report = 1 machine, up to 3 duty) Rotary Press 20% Electrodewatering 20% As per BFPs Product Technologies Thermal drying 1 One spare train (ISPU assumed 15% capacity standby) In-county Composting Pumps Sludge transfer pumps 25% As per 1989 Master Plan

W052003003SCO/Tables6-17and6-18.xls/ 033360008/Capital 6-17 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-18 O&M Cost Assumptions

2. O&M UNIT COSTS Parameter Unit Value High Power Use as operative cost, assumes after full secondary, Purchased Electricity kWh $0.14 Historical Data from OCSD plants will require purchased power On-Site Electricity kWh $0.06 Historical Data from OCSD Natural Gas MBTU $6.00 Historical Data from OCSD Chemicals/Materials Polymer - Thickening lb $1.30 Historical Data from OCSD Polymer - Dewatering lb $1.30 Historical Data from OCSD Ferric Chloride dry ton $430.00 Historical Data from OCSD Compost Amendment cy $10.00 Historical Data from OCSD Labor Average Unburdened Labor hr $28.00 Average indirect labor costs % 136% OCSD labor cost based on 2001-02 figures Average Burdened Labor hr $66.08 Maintenance New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% Typical, or based on manufacturer data (includes OCSD labor) Transport Transport - Truck $/truck mile $1.50 Local Hauler Information Transport - Pumped hp - Cost of electricity for pumping, and 50% allowance for additional O&M costs Sidestream Treatment Odor Control scfm $3.00 From OCSD - Foam Biotowers Ammonia load lb/d $0.20 Prethickening Recycle Treatment lb/d $0.04

3.1 O&M UNIT CREDITS Parameter Unit Value Basis On-Site Electricity kWh $0.140 Assumes after full secondary, plants will require purchased power Off-Site Electricity Sale - Non-Renewable kWh $0.033 Wholesale price for non-renewable electricity to Edison or equivalent Off-Site Electricity Sale - Renewable kWh $0.053 Wholesale price for renewable electricity to Edison or equivalent Natural Gas Offset (Biogas) MBTU $6.00 Heat Recovery MBTU $6.00 Allow stack temperature min. 250F, 7 85% recovery of remaining heat as hot water.

W052003003SCO/Tables6-17and6-18.xls/ 033360008/O&M 6-18 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Regional Thermal Drying – Synagro had developed preliminary cost estimates for a regional thermal drying facility, as San Bernardino had expressed an interest in an onsite or regional facility. Preliminary cost estimates for hauling and processing District biosolids provided by Synagro at meetings held with the District and the consultant team in December 2002 were $65 per wet ton. No other regional thermal drying facilities have been proposed recently and therefore these costs were used in the cost model.

Construction Material – American Remedial Technologies (ART) was used as the basis for this option, as the facility is located within the Los Angeles Basin, and it appears the most feasible. ART provided proposals to the City of Los Angeles in 2001, with a cost estimate of $23 per wet ton for heat drying with soil. In the cost model a cost of $35 per wet ton was used, based on the range suggested by ART on the site visit to the facility that was attended by the District and the consultant team. This value would cover the extra hauling distance from the District. As no fuel is used in the process, the cost of this option would be expected to be lower than other more energy intensive processes. Another potential facility in Southern California is TPS Technologies, that has a soil treatment plant in Adelanto, near Mojave. However, that facility does not have available capacity for handling biosolids. The longer hauling distance also makes that facility less attractive. The cost for production of construction materials such as glass aggregate from the Minergy vitrification process was not included since Minergy is not pursuing a regional facility in Southern California. As the costs for such a facility are very dependent on economies of scale, a cost estimate cannot be included without an actual project being developed.

Pyrolysis – the cost model includes cost estimated from IES and from EnerTech. The IES cost for processing was based on a telephone conversation held by the consultant team with IES in December 2002. The cost of hauling to the facility was based on the roundtrip truck hauling cost assumed in the cost model, at $1.50 per truck mile. As a 50-dtpd treatment train has been constructed and a 250-dtpd train is planned for construction in late 2004, the cost estimate can be considered to be fairly well defined. However, since biosolids have not been tested at the full scale facility, there may be some additional costs associated with biosolids handling that have not been identified. These costs could be better ascertained through testing. Economies of scale and the ability to operate the larger 250-dtpd facility on a continuous basis may also impact the cost of processing at this facility. However, as the facility intends to treat other waste streams, including treatment trains dedicated to medical wastes and regeneration of spent granular activated carbon, the operational costs of this facility may be lower than for a similar facility dedicated to treating biosolids. Since EnerTech proposed a pyrolysis facility and signed a lease agreement with the City of Rialto, cost estimates provided for this facility were included. These cost estimates are considered very preliminary, as the permitting, EIR, financing, and potential biosolids contract volumes have not been defined. Although the vendor had initially proposed a 300-dtpd facility, it is unlikely that sufficient biosolids volumes will be secured by the vendor to support financing of a facility that size. As the process is sensitive to economies of scale, costs provided by EnerTech for processing District biosolids (26 percent dry cake) at a 100-dtpd facility were included in the cost model. Co-Combustion – Currently there are two potential opportunities that the District could participate in. McCarthy Farms is conducting due diligence on the potential to upgrade two biomass power plants in Imperial County for co-combustion of biosolids and woodwaste. Cost estimates provided to the District and the consultants in December 2002

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 79 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL and confirmed by telephone conversations with the consultant team in February 2003 were $40 per wet ton for hauling and processing biosolids cake at 22 percent dryness. Almost half this cost is for hauling the biosolids to the power plants. Since this project is still being developed, and the success of the planned power plant upgrades is uncertain, a cost of $45 per wet ton was used in the cost model. The other potential opportunity is for the use of the CPCC power plant. As this project is in the very early stages of development, a cost estimate of $40 per wet ton was used in the cost model, for lack of a more defined estimate. Since the hauling distance is considerably shorter than the plants in Imperial County, and since the power plant is in much better condition, this estimate is considered to be conservative and the true cost could be lower. Product Costs and Revenues Product costs and revenues were developed for products from District-owned facilities – compost and thermally dried pellets and granules, and for failsafe options for biosolids cake. All other product values are placeholder values, based on discussions with potential merchant facilities and vendors.

Product Market Costs Some biosolids markets represent a cost rather than a revenue to the District. These are primarily the failsafe markets and the Shade Tree Program. The cost of using the District farm as a failsafe market was based on current land application costs. For products such as compost or pellets, a cost of $25 per wet ton was used to cover the cost of hauling and spreading. For Class B biosolids cake the cost of lime stabilization was included, providing a total cost of $35 per wet ton. The cost of a Shade Tree Program was based on a cost of $55 per tree, assuming 15 gallons soil mix per tree, and with the soil mix containing 25 percent biosolids compost. This equates to a cost of $5,430 per wet ton of biosolids compost. The cost of landfill partnering for ADC was based on current market conditions established by Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) for Puente Hills ADC at an average of $12.50 per ton paid by LACSD to contractors who remove the ADC and deliver to various landfill sites throughout Southern California. LACSD utilizes several contractors at rates up to 400 tons per day. In this case, an additional transportation fee of $8.00 per ton was assumed to supply the material to landfill sites. This value provides for up to 60 miles of transportation each way based on hauling costs of $1.50 per mile each way or $3.00 per mile round trip basis and 23 tons per load. Sixty miles allows distances to the north as far as Santa Clarita or Victorville, to the east as far as Banning, and to the south as far as Oceanside. The cost of direct landfilling was based on current market conditions established by OC IWMD for Prima Deshecha Landfill. Gate fees were estimated at $32.00 per ton and include a $5.00 per ton hard-to-handle fee. An additional transportation fee of $3.30 per ton was assumed to supply the material to the landfill site. This value provides for 27.5 miles of transportation each way based on hauling costs of $1.50 per mile each way or $3.00 per mile round trip basis and 25` tons per load.

FINAL 80 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Product Market Revenues Product revenues for compost and dried pellets were developed, as these are the products from potential District-owned facilities. Costs were based on discussions with local distributors. In the bulk horticulture market, compost is typically valued at $8 per cubic yard (cy). This value was therefore used for the ornamental and nursery market, and was discounted to $4 per cy for District member agencies and cities. Retail blending and bagging values will depend on whether the bagging is done by the District, or by a private distributor. If the District does the bagging, revenues would be around $20 per cy, based on retail price of $30 per cy, with an allowance for additional handling costs. Otherwise a wholesale value of $5 per cy should be used as the distributor that takes the bulk compost for blending will have a lower quality requirement than other compost markets. The biomass crop market will also be a bulk market, but due to the greater hauling distances, it is anticipated that revenues will be lower. As this is an emerging market, the value of biosolids products is uncertain. Dried pellets and granule costs were based on a 5 percent nitrogen content per wet ton, valued at $5 per percent nitrogen in the bulk market. This equates to a value of $25 per wet ton. A discounted revenue of $20 per ton was used for the District member agencies. Biomass crops for pellets are emerging markets and the value of the product in these markets is uncertain. If pellets are bagged, the product could reach a higher market value, estimated at a net revenue of $30 per ton. Sale of pellets to an intermediary distributor for bagging would provide similar revenue to the bulk market, at $25 per ton. The value of pellets as a fuel product was based on the assumption that the heating value would be 7,000 BTU/lb. Assuming a unit heating value similar to coal, at $1.60 per MMBTU, this equates to a fuel value of $22.4 per ton of pellets. However, in the cost table hauling costs for a 70 mile round trip were included, bringing the net revenue for this product to $14 per ton. Values for the use of biosolids products in the construction market were included, based on information provided by ART for typical construction soil material, and by Minergy for glass aggregate products. ART’s net revenue for construction soil ranges around $2 to $6 per ton. An average of $3 per ton was included in the cost model. Minergy claim that their glass aggregate product would have a market value around $10 per ton. Model Description The cost model was designed to use flow rate inputs and anticipated solids loads to provide a capital cost opinion and O&M cost for a 20-year life cycle. The alternatives are compared on capital cost, annual O&M, and present-worth for a 20-year life cycle. Separate flow sheets and mass balances of the solids handling processes for the two existing plants were provided to ensure that proper sludge production is estimated based on process performance of the existing systems or manufacturers’ best available data for new equipment or previous pilot studies. User inputs control the process selection, end use, and the assumptions used in the calculations. The spreadsheet based cost model consists of four separate spreadsheets with links between them. A brief explanation of the contents of each sheet is provided. The sheets were set up to automatically update when information is changed in any one of the sheets. However, this

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 81 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL can cause problems if the sheets are copied or saved in different locations. This will be discussed in more detail in the user guide. Summary File (Cost Model District Summary.xls) The summary file provides all the user controlled inputs to the cost models and a summary of the model output. The file contains five different worksheets. Two worksheets, “Input – Liquid” and “Input – Solids”, are process flow diagrams of the liquid and solids handling processes for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. The flow rate, BOD, and TSS can be changed to reflect the latest information regarding future flows. The processes are selected by typing a “1” or a “0” to turn a process on or off. In the case where only a portion of the entire flow stream is treated by a single process input of percentages are used to split the flow to the various treatment processes. Yellow highlighted check boxes are provided to ensure the user selected input provide a realistic treatment and disposal alternative. The “Asmptns” worksheet is a partial list of assumptions used in the equipment selection and cost calculations. The assumptions are linked to the calculation so changes made in this sheet will be automatically reflected in the output. This allows for updating cost as more reliable information is available and also sensitivity analysis can be done to see the potential effects of changes in O&M costs. The “Output Pages” worksheet provides a quick, easy to read summary of the model results. The output prints out on four separate pages. Two printed pages show the process influent flow, solids loading, outlet solids concentrations, outlet solids volume, capital cost, annual O&M cost, and present-worth for the given alternative for each process for each plant. The costs are totalled to provide an estimated cost per plant. The third printed page provides similar information for the combined dewatering cost if applicable, product technologies, and product markets. The fourth page provides the total cost for each component Plant No. 1, Plant No. 2, product technologies, and product markets as well as the total cost for the entire system. The “Equipment List” worksheet summarizes the number of units for for the major existing and new facilities and any associated capital costs. Plant No. 1 File (Cost Model District P1.xls) The Plant No. 1 file calculates the capital, O&M, present-worth, and annualized costs for Plant No. 1 for a 20-year life cycle. The cost for each individual process is calculated separately and the overall cost for an alternative is obtained by taking the sum of the individual costs. There is no sequencing of the capital costs. This means in essence that all the improvement would be made at the beginning of the 20-year period. The capital cost and the present-worth of the capital costs are the same number for the purposes of this cost model. There are a total of sixteen worksheets in the Plant No. 1 cost model file. Each will be described briefly. The “Asmptns” worksheet has all the same assumptions listed in the summary file and is linked direct to the summary file. However, it has some additional assumptions for contractor mark ups and professional services costs. No changes should be made to this worksheet. The “Plant No. 1 MB” worksheet uses inputs from the summary sheet and an iterative calculation to determine the solids mass balance for Plant No. 1. It outputs the mass, concentration, and flow of solids going into the solids handling facilities from both the primary and secondary treatment processes. The removal rates for BOD and TSS can be

FINAL 82 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL changed to reflect the best available information on the performance of the various processes. However, changing these values are not recommended unless actual field data supports a change in these removal efficiencies. The “Flow Sheet” worksheet uses the solids production number from the mass balance to calculate the flow and solids concentration to the various solids handling processes, and should not be changed. This information is combined with inputs from the summary sheet to determines which cost calculations are completed with the rest of the process costs going to zero. When an input is changed in the summary sheet, the calculations are automatically updated. The remaining 13 worksheets are separate worksheets for each equipment option. They were developed to calculate the number of units, capital, O&M, and present-worth costs. Table 6-19 is a list of the worksheet name, process, and brief description. Links to the summary file and other worksheets provide the inputs to the calculations. The capital and O&M costs for intermediate processes such as storage bins, pumps, or piping were included with main processes cost. Each worksheet includes seven tables. Table 1 “Design Criteria” provides the equipment design assumptions used such as solids or hydraulic loading rates. Table 2 “Performance Criteria” lists the assumed performance such as solids capture rates, VS reduction percentage, or effluent solids concentration. Table 3 “Mass Balance” calculates the process output in flow, mass, concentration, and percent solids using the listed performance criteria. Table 4 “Process Design and Sizing” determines the number of units required to treat the given influent flow, the number of redundant units on standby to meet District standards for redundancy, and the electrical power consumption on an annual basis. Table 5 calculates the capital cost for procurement and installation of the equipment including contractor markups, contingency, and professional services. Table 6 “Annual O&M Costs All Units” calculates the cost to operate and maintain the equipment on an annual basis. Using this information Table 7 “Amortized Costs” presents the capital cost, present-worth of the O&M costs, present-worth of the project based on a user selected life-cycle length, and annualized project costs. User Guide The cost model was designed to be interactive allowing the end user to quickly and easily review the cost estimate of a large number of alternatives. This is accomplished by linking the calculations to user-defined inputs. For the general user, only the inputs in the summary sheet should be changed. These instructions are aimed at the general user. Editing of worksheets in the other three files will be discussed but it should be pointed out that changes made in the other sheet could corrupt the integrity of the calculations if not done correctly. The user may perform four primary actions in the cost model - changing plant flows and loads, changing process sequences, changing assumptions, and changing or updating process design criteria. The first two are changed in the summary file. Some assumptions can be changed in the summary file but others need to be changed in the plant and combined files. Changing or updating process design criteria is done in the plant or combined files.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 83 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-19 Cost Model Worksheets

Worksheet Name Process Brief Description Asmptns Contains the general assumption used in the cost opinion development Plant 1 MB The mass balance calculations Flow Sheet The process flow sheet showing what equipment, processes, and market are being included in the estimate DAFT Thickening Use of Dissolved Air Flotation for thickening GBT Thickening Use of a Gravity Belt for thickening Cent Th Thickening Use of a Centrifuge for thickening Ultrasound Ultrasound Use of sonic treatment of WAS to increase VS removal Meso Dig Digestion Mesophillic Digestion Meso Dig Recup Digestion Mesophillic Digestion with recuperative thickening 2 Stg Th.Mes Digestion Thermophillic Mesophillic Digestion 2 Stg Th.Mes Recup Digestion Thermophillic Mesophillic Digestion with recuperative thickening BFP P1 Dewatering Use of a Belt Filter Press for dewatering digested sludge CENT P1 Dewatering Use of a Centrifuge for dewatering digested sludge RP P1 Dewatering Use of a Rotary Press for dewatering digested sludge ED P1 Dewatering Use of a Electro Dewatering process for digested sludge

W052003003SCO/Table6-19.xls/031500007/Table 6-19 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

In the summary file, the cells in the worksheets are color coded to distinguish the function of a given cell. Blue text in a cell indicates the cell requires user input. Purple text in a cell indicates the cell contains a calculation. Cells with a yellow background and black text indicate the equation is checking for an input error. All yellow cells need to say “OK” for a result in the output worksheet to be valid. There are three process variables - flow, BOD, and TSS - that can be changed in the summary file for each plant. These variables are used in the mass balance calculations in the P1 and P2 files to determine the sludge production for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. These inputs are shown in blue on the “Input-Liquid” worksheet. The year is shown in the summary sheet for reference only but does not affect the calculations. The liquid and solid treatment processes are selected by either inputting a percentage where multiple process run in parallel or by putting in a “1” or “0” (“1” being on and “0” being off) for process where it was determined during model development that only one of several treatment option would be utilized in all possible alternatives. Yellow highlighted check equations are provided to ensure that only appropriate alternatives are used. For example, if new dewatering equipment is purchased only for one type of equipment, the one with the best overall advantage to the District would be installed. Therefore, only one type of dewatering equipment can be used for a given alternative. The liquid train is on the “Input- Liquid” worksheet and includes primary clarification, ABR, primary effluent filtration, microfiltration, trickling filters, activated sludge, nitrifying activated sludge, and membrane bioreactor. The solids handling processes are on the “Input-Solids” worksheet and include thickening, ultrasound, digestion, dewatering, product technology, and product markets. The “asmptns” worksheet, as discussed and presented previously, contains most of the assumptions used in the cost model. Simply writing over the existing assumptions will change the output. Do not cut and paste numbers into these boxes or potentially the linked equations could become referenced to the wrong cell. Only the average unit cost is used in the cost model calculation. Any highs or lows listed are for reference. The assumptions not found in the summary sheet include equipment installation cost; allowances for site civil, electrical, IBC, and project allowances; contractor mark ups mobilization and insurance, G/C, profit, and bond; and professional services costs. These assumptions can only be effectively changed on the “asmptns” worksheet of P1, P2, and combined files. However, the allowances site civil, electrical, instrumentation and control (I&C), and project are unique to each worksheet and can be changed by writing over the percentage in the capital cost table. In the future additional worksheets could be added to the cost model to determine the cost for a new technology. This would require copying an existing worksheet on to a newly created worksheet in the file. The appropriate links to the summary worksheets, inlet process flow stream, and output streams would need to be made. If the new process operates in parallel or in place of an existing process edits to the mass balance and plant flow sheet would be required. Any changes to these worksheets would also have to be reflected on the summary sheets. Evaluation of Process Chain Options The evaluation of the process chain options was conducted in a series of steps, evaluating the Plant No. 1 in-plant solids handling facilities, the Plant No. 2 solids in-plant solids handling facilities, the combined single site dewatering options and the product technology

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 85 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL and market options. All the evaluations were conducted with the liquid treatment train as per the validated CIP recommendations. This consisted of: x Plant No. 1: Primary sludge treatment with 24-hour chemical addition; 30-mgd trickling filters, rest nitrifying activated sludge. x Plant No. 2: Primary sludge treatment with 24-hour chemical addition; 80-mgd activated sludge, rest trickling filters. As this cost model does not include the cost of liquid treatment facilities, such runs will not indicate whether changes in the liquid treatment will be more or less cost-effective overall. Onsite Processes As the first step in the evaluation of biosolids process chains, the baseline in-plant solids handling options were evaluated for each plant individually. Appendices B and C include printouts of the entire cost model for the baseline alternatives for Plant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The capital, O&M, treatment/beneficial use, and present-worth cost opinions for the preliminary set of runs for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are provided in Table 6-20 and Table 6-21 respectively, and document the decisions that were made at each step of the evaluation. The approach taken was to cost the baseline first, that is, with the existing process options and with the cost of further treatment of dewatered cake set at $45 per wet ton. Next, the ultrasound was evaluated, as that is one change that has been included in the current CIP. Since the plants have WAS thickening facilities in place, the benefits of expanding the existing facilities or replacing them with different technologies was then evaluated. Primary sludge thickening, which the District does not currently use, was then evaluated. The most cost-effective combination of ultrasound and thickening options was then used as the basis for evaluating the different digester options. Finally, the most cost- effective thickening and digestion option was used for evaluating the different dewatering options. The onsite cost evaluation for both plants indicated that the most cost-effective onsite process options were: x Primary sludge thickening – reduces digester needs at Plant No. 1. Plant No. 2 has sufficient digester capacity. x Improved WAS thickening – reduces digester needs at Plant No. 1. Plant No. 2 has sufficient digester capacity. x Ultrasound – installation of ultrasound on the thickened WAS line provides savings by producing more digester gas and reducing the biosolids beneficial use costs. x Mesophilic digestion – Thickening primary sludge and WAS eliminates digester expansion needs at Plant No. 1. Plant No. 2 has sufficient digester capacity. The costs of alternative digestion options (i.e., stage digestion, recuperative thickening) outweigh any savings. x Dewatering with centrifuges reduces biosolids processing costs. Rotary presses may have a similar cost advantage to centrifuges, if the unit can produce a cake comparable with centrifuges. Testing rotary presses is necessary since limited performance data on digested biosolids is available for these units. Appendices D and E include a printout of the entire cost model for the recommended alternatives for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, respectively.

FINAL 86 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-20 Summary of Model Runs for Plant 1 Onsite Solids Handling Options Costs over 20 yrs Feed Thickening Pre-treatment Digestion Dewatering Treatment/reuse P1 Capital P1 O&M PW Treatment/Reuse Present Worth $ RUN 1A - BASELINE, CURRENT No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFTo N Sonix Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $203,823,000126,540,000 $ 167,469,000 $ $497,832,000 RUN 1 B - BASELINE W/ SONIX No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $209,908,000124,740,000 $ 148,285,000 $ $482,933,000 RUN 1 C - BASELINE W/ SONIX No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT Sonix - Peak Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $210,798,000125,330,000 $ 148,285,000 $ $484,413,000 DECISION 1 - SONIX: No Yes - Av Yes -Peak $482,933,000 RUN 1 B - WAS THICKENING W/ DAFT No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $209,908,000124,740,000 $ 148,285,000 $ $482,933,000 RUN 2A - WAS THICKENING W/ GBT No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $163,365,00095,910,000 $ 147,661,000 $ $406,936,000 RUN 2B - WAS THICKENING W/ CENTRIFUGE No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - Centrifuge Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $169,975,000107,360,000 $ 147,661,000 $ $424,996,000 DECISION 2 - WAS THICKENING: DAFT GBT CENTRIFUGE $406,936,000 RUN 2A - NO PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENING No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $163,365,00095,910,000 $ 147,661,000 $ $406,936,000 RUN 3A - PRIMARY SLUDGE THICK. W/ GBT Primary Sludge Thick. - BTG WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $112,915,00088,540,000 $ 146,511,000 $ $347,966,000 RUN 3B - PRIMARY SLUDGE THICK. W/ CENTRIFUGE Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $105,467,00086,540,000 $ 147,267,000 $ $339,274,000 DECISION 3 - PRI. SLUDGE THICKENING: NONE GBT CENTRIFUGE $$ $339,274,000 RUN 3B - MESOPHILIC DIGESTION Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $105,467,00086,540,000 $ 147,267,000 $ $339,274,000 RUN 4A - MESO DIGESTION W/ RECUP. THICK. Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge GBT $160,848,000107,297,000 $ 138,397,000 $ $407,215,000 WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Meso Dig. w/ Recup Th. Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton Cent141,058,000 $ 100,270,000 $ 138,397,000 $ $379,725,000 RUN 4B - TEMPERATURE STAGED DIGESTION Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Temp. Staged Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $136,615,00096,040,000 $ 138,890,000 $ $371,545,000 RUN 4C - TEMP. STAGED DIGESTION W/ RECUP. THICK. Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge GBT $208,857,000148,400,000 $ 95,889,000 $ $453,146,000 WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Temp. Staged Dig. w/ Recu pBelt Filter Press45/wet $ ton Cent165,607,000 $ 132,490,000 $ 95,889,000 $ $393,986,000 DECISION 4 - DIGESTION: MESO MESO W/ RECUP TEMP. STAGED TEMP. STAGED W/ RECUP $339,274,000 $$$ RUN 3B - BFP DEWATERING Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press45/wet $ ton $105,467,00086,540,000 $ 147,267,000 $ $339,274,000 RUN 5A - CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Centrifuge45/wet $ ton $110,985,00094,530,000 $ 122,399,000 $ $327,914,000 RUN 5B - ROTARY PRESS DEWATERING Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Rotary Press45/wet $ ton $110,489,00083,240,000 $ 132,320,000 $ $326,049,000 RUN 5C - ELECTRO-DEWATERING Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Electro-dewatering45/wet $ ton $116,852,000114,940,000 $ 122,399,000 $ $353,792,000 DECISION 5 - DEWATERING: BFP CENTRIFUGE ROTARY PRESS ELECTRO-DEWATERING $ $327,914,000 $ $ SUMMARY Primary sludge WAS Pretreatment Digestion Dewatering RUN 5A Centrifuge GBT Ultrasound Mesophilic Centrifuge110,985,000 $ 94,530,000 $ 122,399,000 $ $327,914,000 RUN 6A Centrifuge DAFT +GBT (60:40)ltrasound U Mesophilic Centrifuge107,874,000 $ 106,530,000 $ 122,662,000 $ $337,066,000 RUN 6B Centrifuge DAFT +Centr (60:40)ltrasound U Mesophilic Centrifuge112,364,000 $ 113,050,000 $ 122,662,000 $ $348,076,000

W052003003SCO/Tables6-20and6-21.xls/ 033360010/Model Runs P1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 88 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 –COST EVALUATION MODEL FINAL

TABLE 6-21 Summary of Model Runs for Plant 2 Onsite Solids Handling Option s Costs over 20 yrs Feed Thickening Pre-treatment Digestion Dewatering Treatment/reuse P2 Capital P2 O&M PW Treatment/Reuse Present Worth $ RUN 1A - BASELINE, CURRENT No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT No Sonix Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $52,696,000 $97,230,000 $126,210,000 $276,136,000 RUN 1 B - BASELINE W/ SONIX No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $56,128,000 $97,430,000 $114,942,000 $268,034,000 RUN 1 C - BASELINE W/ SONIX No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT Sonix - Peak Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $59,982,000 $97,940,000 $114,942,000 $272,864,000 DECISION 1 - SONIX: No Yes - Av Yes -Peak $ $268,034,000 $ RUN 1 B - WAS THICKENING W/ DAFT No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - DAFT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $56,128,000 $97,430,000 $114,942,000 $268,034,000 RUN 2A - WAS THICKENING W/ GBT No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $71,204,000 $78,650,000 $113,990,000 $263,844,000 RUN 2B - WAS THICKENING W/ CENTRIFUGE No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - Centrifuge Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $79,434,000 $92,590,000 $113,990,000 $286,014,000 DECISION 2 - WAS THICKENING: DAFT GBT CENTRIFUGE $ $263,844,000 $ RUN 2A - NO PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENING No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $71,204,000 $78,650,000 $113,990,000 $263,844,000 RUN 3A - PRIMARY SLUDGE THICK. W/ GBT Primary Sludge Thick. - GBT WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $98,095,000 $89,430,000 $114,351,000 $301,876,000 RUN 3B - PRIMARY SLUDGE THICK. W/ CENTRIFUGE Primary Sludge Thick. - Centrifuge WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $88,065,000 $89,200,000 $113,990,000 $291,255,000 DECISION 3 - PRI. SLUDGE THICKENING: NONE GBT CENTRIFUGE $263,844,000 $$ RUN 2A - MESOPHILIC DIGESTION No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $71,204,000 $78,650,000 $113,990,000 $263,844,000 RUN 4A - MESO DIGESTION W/ RECUP. THICK. No Primary Sludge Thickening GBT $133,690,000 $129,810,000 $91,684,000 $355,184,000 WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Meso Dig. w/ Recup Th. Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton Cent $146,910,000 $116,330,000 $91,684,000 $354,924,000 RUN 4B - TEMPERATURE STAGED DIGESTION No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Temp. Staged Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $102,676,000 $109,110,000 $107,485,000 $319,271,000 RUN 4C - TEMP. STAGED DIGESTION W/ RECUP. THICK. No Primary Sludge Thickening GBT $161,199,000 $166,970,000 $62,415,000 $390,586,000 WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Temp. Staged Dig. w/ Recu pBelt Filter Press $45/wet ton Cent $123,849,000 $143,630,000 $62,415,000 $329,894,000 DECISION 4 - DIGESTION: MESO MESO W/ RECUP TEMP. STAGED TEMP. STAGED W/ RECUP $263,844,000 $$$ RUN 2A - BFP DEWATERING No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Belt Filter Press $45/wet ton $71,204,000 $78,650,000 $113,990,000 $263,844,000 RUN 5A - CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Centrifuge $45/wet ton $67,500,000 $82,010,000 $94,707,000 $244,217,000 RUN 5B - ROTARY PRESS DEWATERING No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Rotary Press $45/wet ton $72,101,000 $75,590,000 $102,393,000 $250,084,000 RUN 5C - ELECTRO-DEWATERING No Primary Sludge Thickening WAS - GBT Sonix - Av. Mesophilic Digestion Electro-dewatering $45/wet ton $96,236,000 $99,730,000 $94,707,000 $290,673,000 DECISION 5 - DEWATERING: BFP CENTRIFUGE ROTARY PRESS ELECTRO-DEWATERING $ $244,217,000 $ $ SUMMARY Primary sludge WAS Pretreatment Digestion Dewatering RUN 5A No Thickening GBT Ultrasound Mesophilic Centrifuge $67,500,000 $82,010,000 $94,707,000 $244,217,000 RUN 6A No Thickening DAFTs Ultrasound Mesophilic Centrifuge $47,399,000 $98,580,000 $95,462,000 $241,441,000

W052003003SCO/Tables6-20and6-21.xls /033360010/Model Runs P2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL blank page

FINAL 90 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

A number of scenarios were evaluated to assess the impact of different thickening options on the capacities of existing facilities at the two plants. The scenarios are summarized in Table 6-22 for Plant No. 1 and Table 6-23 for Plant No. 2. This evaluation was based on full secondary treatment, and therefore the dates at which full secondary treatment reaches the capacity of existing facility has been noted in the summaries. These scenarios show that thickening before digestion can extend the capacities of the digestion and dewatering facilities. Without thickening, Plant No. 1 would need new dewatering facilities on line no later than 2007 and new digesters by 2013. At the present WAS solids concentration, the WAS thickening would need to be expanded by 2013. Although Plant No. 2 does not require new digesters for 2020, should additional digester capacity by required at this plant in the future, pre-thickening will be able to provide added capacity. With expansion of Plant No. 2 with trickling filters and return of the filter sludge to the headworks, the existing DAFTs have sufficient capacity beyond 2020.

TABLE 6-22 Plant No. 1 Existing Equipment Capacity Projections SCENARIO 1 - BASELINE W/FULL SECONDARY Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type None DAFT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - 108 mgd 128 mgd1 102 mgd Year - 2013 2008 1 2007 SCENARIO 2 - REPLACE DAFTS W/ GBT OR CENTRIFUGE Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type None GBT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - - 145 mgd 114 mgd Year - - 2013 2007 SCENARIO 3 - ADD PRIMARY THICKENING, KEEP DAFTS Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type Centrifuge DAFT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - 108 mgd 177 mgd 147 mgd2 Year - 2013 2020 2013 2 SCENARIO 4 - ADD PRIMARY THICKENING, ADD GBT TO DAFTS Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type Centrfuge DAFT + GBT Mesophilic BFP Capacity Centrifuge - 178 mgd 157 mgd Year - - 2020 2013 (Note: WAS thickening, 60% to DAFTs, 40% to GBT) SCENARIO 5 - ADD PRIMARY THICKENING, REPLACE DAFT W/ GBT Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type Centrifuge GBT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - - 179 mgd3 158 mgd Year - - > 2020 2013 Thickening Assumptions: DAFT thickens to 4% GBT/centrifuge thickening of WAS to 6% Centrifuge thickening of Primary to 8.5% Notes: 1. At 30 mgd TF, 80 mgd NAS, capacity = 142 mgd, reached in 2008. With full secondary, capacity is 128 mgd. 2. At 30 mgd TF, 80 mgd NAS, capacity > 165 mgd, fine till 2013 full secondary. 3. Solids loading limited (av. 0.27lb/cf/d). At 0.3lb/cf/d, capacity is 222 mgd.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 91 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

TABLE 6-23 Plant No. 2 Existing Equipment Capacity Projections SCENARIO 1 - BASELINE W/FULL SECONDARY Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type None DAFT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - 208 mgd 153 mgd 235 mgd Year - > 2020 > 2020 >2020 SCENARIO 2 - REPLACE DAFTS W/ GBT OR CENTRIFUGE Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type None GBT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - - 170 mgd 262 mgd Year - - > 2020 >2020 SCENARIO 3 - ADD PRIMARY THICKENING, KEEP DAFTS Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type Centrifuge DAFT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - 208 mgd 211 mgd 338 mgd Year - > 2020 >2020 >2020 SCENARIO 4 - ADD PRIMARY THICKENING, REPLACE DAFT W/ GBT Process Primary Thickening WAS Thickening Digestion Dewatering Type Centrifuge GBT Mesophilic BFP Capacity - - 212 mgd 341 mgd Year - - > 2020 > 2020 Thickening Assumptions: DAFT thickens to 3.8% Alternate WAS thickening to 6% Primary Sludge thickening to 8.5%

Combined Dewatering Options Having identified the cost impacts of the various in-plant solids handling options, the options for combined dewatering were evaluated. Four scenarios were run with the cost model, using centrifuge dewatering equipment. These scenarios included offsite dewatering, with digested sludge from both plants pumped to the site; single site dewatering at Plant No. 1 and single site dewatering at Plant No. 2. For the offsite dewatering, a pumping distance of 5 miles from Plant No. 1 and 6 miles from Plant No. 2 was used. For single-site dewatering at Plants 1 or 2, 4-mile long, interplant pipeline was assumed. All these runs were conducted with the pre-dewatering options the same, namely, primary sludge thickening, WAS thickening, and mesophilic digestion. Table 6-24 provides the summary costs for these runs. The costs for this set of runs for the dewatering scenarios were developed using the same size units for dewatering at each plant and for single-site dewatering. The cost model can be further refined to reflect use of larger units for combined dewatering options. The cost evaluation for the dewatering options indicates that combined-site dewatering could provide cost savings for the District. Dewatering at one of the plants will be the least cost, but even construction of a new offsite facility may provide benefits. The offsite facility costs do not include lease or purchase of land. Typically the cost of land purchase is not included in cost evaluations as the land remains an asset, although money would need to be allocated for purchase of such a site.

FINAL 92 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

TABLE 6-24 Summary of Model Runs for Dewatering at Both Plants and Combined Dewatering Primary WAS Digestion Dewatering Plant Total Combined Combined Thickening Thickening Dewatering Total Centrifuge DAFT+GBT Meso Centrifuge Centrifuge Digestion RUN 1A - DEWATERING AT EACH PLANT Plant 4 6+3 10 7 - No. 1 Capital $25,740,000 $12,850,000 $0 $55,565,000 $94,155,000 - $133,856,000 O&M $26,120,000 $20,880,000 $14,240,000 $49,960,000 $111,200,000 - $209,750,000 PW $51,860,000 $33,730,000 $14,240,000 $105,525,00 $205,355,000 - $343,606,000 0 Plant 04156 - No. 2 Capital $0 $0 $0 $39,701,000 $39,701,000 - O&M $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 $35,650,000 $98,550,000 - PW $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 $75,351,000 $138,251,000 - RUN 1 B - COMBINED SITE DEWATERING - OFFSITE Plant 4 6+3 10 - No. 1 Capital $25,740,000 $12,850,000 $0 - $38,590,000 O&M $26,120,000 $20,880,000 $14,240,000 - $61,240,000 PW $51,860,000 $33,730,000 $14,240,000 - $99,830,000 11 Plant 0 4 15 - $66,070,000 $190,210,000 No. 2 Capital $0 $0 $0 - $0 $153,614,000 $316,344,000 O&M $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 - $62,900,000 PW $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 - $62,900,000 RUN 1 C - COMBINED SITE DEWATERING - AT PLANT NO. 1 Plant 4 6+3 10 - 11 No. 1 Capital $25,740,000 $12,850,000 $0 - $38,590,000 $71,871,000 $110,461,000 O&M $26,120,000 $20,880,000 $14,240,000 - $61,240,000 $62,780,000 $186,920,000 PW $51,860,000 $33,730,000 $14,240,000 - $99,830,000 $134,651,000 $297,381,000 Plant 0415- No. 2 Capital $0 $0 $0 - $0 O&M $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 - $62,900,000 PW $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 - $62,900,000

RUN 1 D - COMBINED SITE DEWATERING - AT PLANT NO. 2 Plant 4 6+3 10 - No. 1 Capital $25,740,000 $12,850,000 $0 - $38,590,000 O&M $26,120,000 $20,880,000 $14,240,000 - $61,240,000 PW $51,860,000 $33,730,000 $14,240,000 - $99,830,000 Plant 0415- 11 No. 2 Capital $0 $0 $0 - $0 $76,656,000 $115,246,000 O&M $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 - $62,900,000 $63,100,000 $187,240,000 PW $0 $14,450,000 $48,450,000 - $62,900,000 $139,756,000 $302,486,000

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 93 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

Product Technologies Product technologies are differentiated in the cost model between District-owned, in-county facilities, and merchant facilities. Detailed cost sheets were developed for the District-owned options, namely composting and thermal drying. These costs include all the standard District markups. Since these options have detailed cost sheets, the model can be used to evaluate economies of scale and the impact of market revenue on the net cost of the facility. Table 6-25 shows the economies of scale for thermal drying and composting. It is evident that thermal drying is much more impacted by economies of scale than composting. To optimize the thermal drying facility, the feed volume needs to closely match the available capacity of the dryer. The dryer was sized to be able to handle the peak month biosolids load, with one standby train. These design factors increase the cost of the facility compared with most merchant facilities, that typically do not have an entire redundant train. Therefore, if these facilities are constructed under DBO or by a private contractor as a merchant-owned facility, the total biosolids processing cost could be lower.

TABLE 6-25 Economies of Scale for District-Owned Composting and Thermal Drying Facilities Composting – In County Thermal Drying – In County

Roofed Biofilter Unit Size Biosolids % of Area Area Cost2 Max. kg/hr Unit Equipment Cost2 Quantity Total sf sf ($/wt) Evaporation No.1 Utilization ($/wt)

166 wtpd 25% 172,900 50,000 $49.26 7,000 1+1 73.2% $78.95 44 dtpd

199 wtpd 30% 206,900 60,000 $49.41 7,000 1+1 87.9% $68.32 53 dtpd

232 wtpd 35% 236,900 69,000 $49.25 10,000 1+1 71.0% $68.59 62 dtpd

265 wtpd 40% 270,900 80,000 $49.44 10,000 1+1 81.2% $61.77 71 dtpd

332 wtpd 50% 330,800 97,000 $48.72 7,000 2+1 73.2% $61.39 88 dtpd

398 wtpd 60% 393800 116,000 $46.38 7,000 2+1 87.9% $53.71 106 dtpd

Notes: 1 Duty + standby 2 Present-worth cost over 20 years, includes product revenues

The above estimates include the product revenues. Tables 6-26 and 6-27 show the list of potential product markets and the product markets that were used when generating the costs provided above in Table 6-25. The revenues shown in the tables below are for 398 wtpd facilities. Changing to higher revenue markets can have a significant impact on the net life-cycle cost of a facility. For example, with the largest size compost facility of 398 wtpd, changing from sale of compost to an intermediary distributor for blending and bagging to a District blending and bagging facility, could result in an increase of $15 per cy of compost sold to this market, with a $5 per wet ton reduction in the net cost of processing biosolids. The revenue value of pellet products is less variable than the revenue value of compost products and therefore changing the selected market will not have as much impact.

FINAL 94 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL

TABLE 6-26 Compost Product Market Values % of Product Compost Compost Unit Annual Total Present-worth to Market or volume weight Value, Value Value Market Failsafe cy/day WT/day Units $/unit $ $ Costs District Farm Failsafe Backup 0.0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton $25 $0 $0 Silviculture Shade Tree 0.0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton $5,430 $0 $0 Program ADC Failsafe Backup 0.0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton $21 $0 $0 Subtotal 0.0% 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 Revenues Horticulture Member 34.0% 215 123 cy ($4) ($313,000) ($3,900,000) Agencies Horticulture Ornamental 33.0% 208 120 cy ($8) ($608,000) ($7,580,000) and Nursery Horticulture Retail Blending/ 33.0% 208 120 cy ($5)1 ($379,000) ($4,720,000) Bagging Biomass Crops 0.0% 0.0 0.0 cy $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 100.0% 631 363 ($1,300,000) ($16,200,000) TOTAL 100.00% 631 363 ($1,300,000) ($16,200,000) 1$20 per cy if District owns bagging facility, otherwise $5 per cy

TABLE 6-27 Dried Pellets and Granules Product Market Values % of Product Pellets Pellets Unit Annual Total Present-worth to Market or volume weight Value, Value Value Market Failsafe cy/day wt/day Units $/unit $ $ Costs District Farm Failsafe Backup 0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton $25 $0 $0 Silviculture Shade Tree 0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton $0 $0 Program ADC Failsafe Backup 0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton $21 $0 $0 Subtotal 0% 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 Revenues Horticulture Member 34% 65.2 39 wet ton ($20) ($173,000) ($2,160,000) Agencies Horticulture Ornamental 33% 63.3 38 wet ton ($25) ($433,000) ($5,400,000) and Nursery Horticulture Retail Blending/ 33% 63.3 38 wet ton ($25)1 ($217,000) ($2,700,000) Bagging Biomass Crops 0% 0 0 wet ton $0 $0 $0 Fuel Products 0% 0.0 0.0 wet ton ($14) $0 $0 Subtotal 100% 191.8 115 ($980,000) ($12,200,000) TOTAL 100% 191.8 115 ($980,000) ($12,200,000) 1$35 per wt if District owns bagging, otherwise $25 per wt

The biosolids processing cost estimates used for merchant facilities are provided below in Table 6-28. As can be seen, the in-county composting cost is comparable with the range of values proposed by merchant facilities for handling District biosolids. The saving in cost of

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 95 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL hauling out of the county can be seen by comparing the in-county facility costs with that of Synagro’s SKIC. The SKIC facility is an open facility, compared with the in-county facility, which would be fully enclosed, with a high level of odor control. The in-county thermal drying costs shown in Table 6-25 are toward the higher end of the range of merchant facility costs. Depending on the size of the thermal dryer, the cost would be lower than, or comparable with the option of sending biosolids to a regional dryer. The regional dryer cost includes the cost of transporting biosolids cake to the Inland Empire area, which contributes around $8 to the cost of this option. Due to the economies of scale with thermal drying, it may be cost-effective to build a larger unit and send less biosolids to other options, rather than build a small unit and send biosolids to other options, even if the cost for those individual options is less.

TABLE 6-28 Estimated Merchant Facility Costs Product Technology Facility Name Total $/wt

Composting – Out of County Synagro – South Kern Industrial Center $47.00

Chemical Stabilization California Soil Products $38.62

Organo-Mineral Fertilizers Wilrey Trust $50.00

Heat Drying – Out of County Synagro – Regional Dryer $65.00

Construction Material American Remediation Technologies $35.00

Pyrolysis International Environmental Solutions $43.40

EnerTech $66.00

Co-Combustion Liberty $45.00

California Portland Cement, Colton $40.00

Summary and Recommendations The cost evaluation indicates that there are options that may improve the cost-effectiveness of the overall biosolids life-cycle costs. These options should be further evaluated through sensitivity analysis using the cost model, pilot testing, visits to facilities that use these technologies, and feasibility studies for key options. The options that should be considered further are: x Primary sludge thickening to around 8.5 percent at Plant No. 1 x WAS thickening to 6 percent or more at Plant No. 1 x Ultrasound for digester pre-treatment, with mesophilic digestion x High solids dewatering to produce a drier cake x Combined single site dewatering for Plant Nos. 1 and 2 (onsite or offsite) x In-county composting – optimize proposed capacity to balance products and costs, and maximize product value

FINAL 96 W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 – COST EVALUATION MODEL x In-county thermal drying, and optimize proposed capacity to balance products and costs x Energy production technologies, many of which may be cost-effective and also allow participation in non-cropping markets x Other emerging options for manufacturing of biosolids products, which include drying with hot soil (may prove to a cost-effective method of drying), and organo-mineral fertilizer manufacturing (may allow entry into the high end fertilizer market).

References OCWD, 1998. Tama Snow and Tom Dawes. Technical Memorandum regarding secondary effluent needs for the GWR System. Orange County Water District. April 1998. Hetherington, 1999. Michelle Hetherington. Advanced Primary Treatment Optimization and Cost Benefit Documented at Orange County Sanitation District. Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. Printed at WEF, 1999. MWH, 2002. ABR Evaluation Final Report. Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. August 2002. Brown and Caldwell, 2002. Advanced Anaerobic Digestion. Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. February, 2002. CSIRO and CRC, 2000. S Miller, A Murphy, C Veal and M Young. Development of Electrodewatering. 3rd Korea-Australia Joint Symposium on Innovative Water and Wastewater Treatment.

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001 97 FINAL

Appendix A – Data Summary and Recommended Assumptions

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001

Table 1 OCSD Long-Term Biosolids Master Plan Data Summary and Recommended Assumptions

Interim Strategic Plan July 2001-June 2002 Design Team 1999 Strategic Plan OCSD ABR Report Parameter Update Average TF Design Recommendation Paper Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Plant No. 1 Plant No. 2 Influent Wastewater Flow, mgd 208 144 177 144 250 83 152 87 159 177 144 BOD, mg/L 250 250 250 250 240 270 200 260 200 270 250 TSS, mg/L 240 240 240 240 240 259 215 241 215 260 240 Primary Treatment w/o Chemical Addition Primary Effluent BOD, mg/L ----180------Primary Effluent TSS, mg/L ----80------BOD Removal, % ----25% - - - - 25% 25% TSS Removal, % ----67% - - - - 67% 67% VSS:TSS Ratio ------0.75 0.75 Primary Sludge Concentration, mg/L ------50,000 50,000 w/Chemical Addition Primary Effluent BOD, mg/L 130 130 130 130 105 152 111 154 118 130 130 Primary Effluent TSS, mg/L 65 65 65 65 35 59 63 64 100 65 65 BOD Removal, % 44% 48% 48% 48% 56% 44% 45% 41% 41% -- TSS Removal, % 76% 75% 75% 74% 85% 77% 71% 73% 53% -- VSS:TSS Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.78 Primary Sludge Concentration, mg/L 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 48,200 61,900 50,000 42,500 48,000 50,000 ABR Additional BOD removal (after Primary), % ------9%9%9%9% Additional TSS removal (after Primary), % ------9%9%9%9% Primary Sludge Mass Reduction, % ------40%40%30%30% VSS:TSS Ratio ------0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Primary Effluent Filtration BOD Removal, % 20% 20% 20% 20% - - - - - 20% 20% TSS Removal, % 53% 53% 53% 53% - - - - - 53% 53% Sludge Concentration, mg/L ------50,000 50,000 Primary Effluent Microfiltration BOD Removal, % - - 50% 50% ------50%50% TSS Removal, % ------100% 100% Effluent TSS, mg/L - - <2 <2 ------Sludge Concentration, mg/L ------50,000 50,001 Trickling Filters Effluent BOD, mg/L 40 - 20 - - 52 - 20 54 - 20 20 Effluent TSS, mg/L 50 - 20 - - 66 - 20 66 - 20 20 Trickling Filter Sludge Concentration, mg/L 5,000 - 5,000 ----8,000 5,000 - 8,000 8,000 TF Sludge BOD Concentration, mg/L 100 - 100 ------100- VSS:TSS Ratio w/o ABR ------0.80 - - 0.80 0.80 VSS:TSS Ration w/ABR ------0.75 - - 0.75 0.75 Yield (lbs TS/lb BOD) ------0.65 0.23 - 0.65 0.65 Activated Sludge Secondary Effluent BOD, mg/L 20 20 20 20 8 11.4 9.5 16 9 - - Secondary Effluent TSS, mg/L 20 20 20 20 8 8.4 12.9 11 14.5 - - Yield (lbs TS/lb BOD) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 VSS:TSS Ratio w/o ABR 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.9 0.90 0.86 0.8 0.8 0.87 0.87 VSS:TSS Ratio w/ABR ------approx. 0.05

TM-06-App-A.xls/ 033350005/ Table 1 Sheet 1 of 1 Appendix B – Plant No. 1, Model Run 1A (Baseline Alternative)

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001

Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 1A Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 7:51:51 PM M o d e l I n p u t - L i q u i d T r a i n

Input for Plant No. 1 (Liquid Process) Legend

Data Required is in BLUE Primary Clarifier Trickling 100% 100% Filters Calculation Cells in PURPLE Plant No. 1 Chemical Addition (hrs/d) 15.5% Influent 24 Check Cells are in YELLOW Year 2020 Primary Effluent Activated Flow = 177.0 mgd Filters Sludge BOD = 270 mg/L 0% 0.0% TSS = 260 mg/L ABR Nitrifying 0% Activated Sludge GWR System Product 84.5% 70 mgd

Membrane Bioreactor 0.0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Input for Plant No. 2 (Liquid Process) To Ocean Outfall

Primary Clarifier Trickling 100% 100% Filters Plant No. 2 Chemical Addition (hrs/d) 41.5% Influent 24 Year 2020 Primary Effluent Activated Flow = 144.0 mgd Filters Sludge BOD = 250 mg/L 0% 58.5% TSS = 240 mg/L ABR Nitrifying 0% Activated Sludge 0.0%

Micro Filtration 0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Revision 1

SCO/033370006/OCSD/Model Data Sheets.xls|Input Page 1 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 1A Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 7:51 PM M o d e l I n p u t - S o l i d s H a n d l i n g

Input for Plant No. 1 (Solids Process) Legend

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Data Required is in BLUE 0% Belt Filter Presses 1 1 Calculation Cells in PURPLE Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0% Mesophilic Digestion Check Cells are in YELLOW with Recuperative Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges None 0 0 100.0% AGF Thickening 0 Gravity Belt Thickeners Rotary Press MARKET CHECKS: Percent Primary Sludge 0 0 OK Centrifuge Thickening Compost OK 0 Pellets ERROR Electro Dewatering Temperature Phase Digestion 0 Market Selection for OCSD Controlled Facilities (Merchant facilities' market selection is up to them) Product Selection Ultrasound 0 0% Horticulture Compost 34.0% percent of in-county compost Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion Member Agencies Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 100% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Pump to Composting - In County #DIV/0! Fertilizer Daily Average Flow 0 Single Site 0% Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening 0 0% 0 Distance (miles) Horticulture Compost 33.0% percent of in-county compost Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Composting - Out of County Ornamental & Nursery Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying Centrifugal Thickening 100.0% 0 0% #DIV/0! Fertilizer 0% Centrifuge Thickening 0 Chemical Stabilization Horticulture Compost 32.9% percent of in-county compost 0% Retail Blending/Bagging Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type #DIV/0! Fertilizer OK OK OK OK OK Organo-Mineral Fertilizers Select One Recuperative Thickening Type 0% Silviculture Compost 0.1% percent of in-county compost OK Shade Tree Program Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying #DIV/0! Fertiliszer Input for Plant No. 2 (Solids Process)

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Heat Drying - In County Biomass Crops Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost 0% Pump to 0% (Energy/Ethanol) Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0 Single Site #DIV/0! Fertilizer Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0 0% Mesophilic Digestion Distance (miles) Heat Drying - Out of County with Recuperative Thickening 0 0% OCSD Farm Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost No Thickening 0 Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0.0% AGF Thickening Belt Filter Presses #DIV/0! 0 0 Percent Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners OK 0 Landfill Partnering (ADC) Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost Centrifuge Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0 0 #DIV/0!

Temperature Phase Digestion Rotary Press Construction Market Soil mix Ultrasound 0 0 Construction Material Aggregate 0% 0% 0% Ash-cement Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion 0% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Electro Dewatering Daily Average Flow 0 0 Fuel Products Char Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening (Char/oil) Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0% 0 Pyrolysis 0.0% Gravity Belt Thickeners 0% Centrifugal Thickening 100.0% 0 0% Centrifuge Thickening Direct Energy Renewable 0 Co-combustion (Electricity) Non-renewable Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type 0% 0% OK OK ERROR OK ERROR

Select Mix of Product Technology ERROR must be 100% Input for Single Site Dewatering (Solids Process)

Belt Filter Presses Land Application High pH 0.0% 0 OCSD Farm 0.0%

High Solids Centrifuges 0 Direct Landfilling Cake 0.0% Failsafe Backup 0.0% CHECK OK Rotary Press 0 Select Mix of Product Markets #DIV/0! Electro Dewatering 0

Select One Dewatering Type OK

SCO/033370006/OCSD/Model Data Sheets|Input Page 1 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 1A Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 7:51 PM M o d e l I n p u t - C o s t A s s u m p t i o n s

1. COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS Parameter Unit Range Value Construction Costs Base Year: 2003 Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

2.1 O&M UNIT COSTS - ONSITE COSTS Parameter Unit Low Av High Power Purchased Electricity kWh $0.14 Use as operative cost, assumes after full secondary, plants will require purchased power On-site electricity kWh $0.06 Natural Gas MBTU $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 900 btu/scfm Chemicals/Materials Polymer - Thickening lb $1.30 Polymer - Dewatering lb $1.30 Ferric chloride dry ton $430.00 At 44% ferric chloride, specific gravity 1.4 to 1.42 Compost Amendment cy $10.00 Labor Average unburdened labor hr $28.00 Based on Average indirect labor costs % 136% Average indirect cost for OCSD labor, based on 2001-2002 figures Average burdened labor hr $66.08 Maintenance New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% Or as specificied by equipment manufacturer includes OCSD labor Transport Transport - Truck $/truck mile $1.50 25 wet tons per truck Transport - pumped hp - Cost of electricity for pumping, and 50% allowance for additional O&M costs Sidestream Treatment Odor control scfm $3.00 Based on convetional biotowers, Odor Control Master Plan, CH2M HILL, 2001 Ammonia load lb/d $0.20 Prethickening Recycle Treatment lb/d $0.04

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Asmptns 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

2.2 O&M COSTS - MERCHANT PRODUCT FACILITY Product Technology Facility Name Miles 1-way Units Mileage $/wt Processing $/WT Total $/wt Mileage $ Processing $ Total $ Mileage $ Processing $ Total $ Composting - Out of County SKIC - $/wet ton - - $47.00 SKIC Chemical Stabilization CSP - $/wet ton - - $38.62 CSP Organo-Mineral Fertilizers Wilrey - $/wet ton - - $50.00 Wilrey Heat Drying - Out of County Synagro - $/wet ton - - $65.00 Synagro Construction Material ART - $/wet ton - - $35.00 ART Pyrolysis IES 70 $/wet ton $8.40 $35.00 $43.40 IES $8.40 $35.00 $43.40 Enertech $8 $58 $66.00 Co-combustion Liberty - $/wet ton - - $45.00 Liberty $45.00 CCP $40.00

2.3 O&M COSTS - PRODUCT MARKET COSTS Market Product Unit Cost Biosolids Ratio Biosolids Worth $/unit product dry ton/product unit $/dry ton OCSD Farm Compost wet ton $25.00 Failsafe Backup Pellets wet ton $25.00 High pH wet ton $35.00 Silviculture Compost wet ton $5,430.00 Shade Tree Program Pellets wet ton Fertilizer wet ton Landfill Partnering (ADC) Compost wet ton $20.50 Failsafe Backup Pellets wet ton $20.50 High pH wet ton $20.50 Direct Landfilling Cake wet ton $32.50 Failsafe Backup

3.1 O&M UNIT CREDITS - ON SITE Parameter Unit Low Av High Energy Recovery On-site electricity kWh $0.140 Assumes after full secondary, plants will require purchased power Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable kWh $0.033 Wholesale price for non-renewable electricity to Edison or equivalent Off-site electricity sale - renewable kWh $0.053 $0.057 Wholesale price for renewable electricity to Edison or equivalent Natural gas offset (biogas) MBTU $6.00 Heat recovery MBTU $6.00 Allow stack temperature min. 250F, 7 85% recovery of remaining heat as hot water.

3.2 O&M UNIT CREDITS - PRODUCT MARKET REVENUES Market Product Unit Revenue Biosolids Ratio Biosolids Worth $/unit product dry ton/product unit $/dry ton Member Agencies Compost cy $4.00 Pellets wet ton $20.00 Fertilizer wet ton $80.00 Ornamental & Nursery Compost cy $8.00 Pellets wet ton $25.00 Fertilizer wet ton $100.00 Retail Blending/Bagging Compost cy $5.00 $20 if OCSD does bagging, otherwise use $5/CY Pellets wet ton $25.00 $30 if OCSD does bagging, otherwise use $25/ton Fertilizer wet ton $125.00 Biomass Crops Compost cy $0.00 emerging market - revenue unknown Pellets wet ton $0.00 emerging market - revenue unknown Fertilizer wet ton $0.00 emerging market - revenue unknown Direct Energy Renewable kWh $0.53 Non-renewable kWh $0.80 Construction Market Soil mix wet ton $3.00 Aggregate wet ton $10.00 Ash-cement wet ton $0.00 Fuel Products Char wet ton $14.00 CPCC - coal is $1.6/MBTU. Char @7,000 BTU/lb, hauling cost at $10 Pellets wet ton $14.00 CPCC - coal is $1.6/MBTU. Char @7,000 BTU/lb, hauling cost at $10 Gas MBTU $3.00 based on typical gas of 450 BTU, ratio of natural gas at 900 BTU/scfm)

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Asmptns 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. UNIT CAPITAL COSTS Parameter Unit Low Av High Ammonia treatment facilities gal $2.00 Prethickening Recycle Treatment gpd $0.00 Building - On-site Type 1, light construction sf $100.00 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construction sf $150.00 Comparable to IPMC construction cost in Project No. FP1-X Building - Off-site Type 1, light construction sf $80.00 Building - Off-site Type 2, heavy construction sf $120.00 Pile construction for both plants sf $100.00 Comparable to IPMC construction cost in Project No. FP1-X

5. MAJOR EQUIPMENT REDUNDANCY Equipment # standby # Duty % of capacity Thickening DAFT/AGF 1 5 20% (Currently Plant 1 = 5 duty, 1 standby, Plant 2 = 3 duty, 1 standby) GBT 1 5 20% As per BFPs Thickening Centrifuges 1 5 20% As per GBTs Digestion Ultrasound (no. stacks) 0- 0# stacks on standby Digesters 1 10 10% As per 1989 Master Plan (ISPU used 1 standby per 6 duty) Dewatering Belt Filter Presses at 24/7 1 5 20% (ISPU used 1 standby per 4 duty at Plant 1, and 1 standby per 5 duty at Plant 2, Centrifuges 1 3 33% Maintain higher redundancy as critical process (Carollo report = 1 machine, up to 3 duty) Rotary Press 1 5 20% Electrodewatering 1 5 20% As per BFPs Product Technologies Thermal drying 1- One spare train (ISPU assumed 15% capacity standby)

In-county Composting Pumps Sludge transfer pumps 1 4 25% As per 1989 Master Plan

6. FLOW & LOAD PEAKING FACTORS

Plant 1 Thickened Solids Flow TS Annual Average 1 1 Peak Month 1.21 1.21 Based on B&C Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Report Peak 2-week 1.51 1.45 Average of peak month and peak day Peak Day 1.80 1.69 Based on B&C Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Report Ammonia-N in biomass (VS) 6% Digester working capacity of total 93%

Plant 2 Thickened Solids Flow TS Annual Average 1 1 Peak Month 1.14 1.13 Based on B&C Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Report Peak 2-week 1.31 1.28 Average of peak month and peak day Peak Day 1.47 1.43 Based on B&C Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Report

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Asmptns 3 12/08/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 1A Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 7:51 PM Model Output

Process Solids Outlet ON or Outlet Solids Distance PW Annual Unit Process Influent Loading, Solids Capital Cost Present Worth OFF wtpd (miles) O&M Cost Flow, mgd dT/Day Conc., % Plant No. 1 Plant Influent Flow 177 Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener off 0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener off 0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 No Thickening ON Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON 1.752 58.5 4.00% $27,780,000 $23,510,000 $51,290,000 Gravity Belt Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 1.110 210.6 2.50% $105,320,000 $53,300,000 $158,620,000 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temperature Phased off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Pumping to Single Site off 0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press ON 1.11 115.4 21.50% 509.8 $70,723,000 $49,730,000 $120,453,000 High-Solids Centrifuge off 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 Rotary Press off 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 Electro Dewatering off 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0

Total for Plant No. 1 177 115 21.5% 509.8 0 $203,823,000 $126,540,000 $330,363,000 Beneficial use cost 45 ton $167,469,300

033370006/ DRD225.xls 1 of 1 12/08/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 1A Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 7:51 PM Equipment List

Number of Number of New Process Capital Unit Process ON or OFF Existing New Units Building, sf Cost Units Plant No. 1 Plant Influent Flow 177 mgd Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 No Thickening ON Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON 6 4 2,000 $27,780,000 Gravity Belt Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound off $0 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 10 6 12,000 $105,320,000 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th off $0 AGF Thickener off GBT Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 Temperature Phased off $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. off $0 AGF Thickener off GBT Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press ON NA 13 8,750 $70,723,000 High-Solids Centrifuge off $0 Rotary Press off $0 Electro Dewatering off $0

Total for Plant No. 1 22,750 $203,823,000

DRD225.xls/ 033370006/ Equipment List OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD Long-Term Biosolids Master Plan Plant No. 1 - Simplified Mass Balance Notes: Legend: 1. Spreadsheet incorporates a circular reference (TF Sludge return to primary clarifiers). Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions To allow spreadsheet to calculate circular reference make sure iterations are allowed. Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters From "Tools" menu, select "Options", then "Calculations", and make sure "Iterations" is checked. BOD = 8 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) 2. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). TSS = 8 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters Influent Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 15.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 29.2 mgd Yea r 2020 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100% 29.2 mgd BOD removed = 26,800 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Flow = 177 mgd BOD removal = 25% Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L BOD = 270 mg/L TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 TSS = 260 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L and/or PEF = Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 94.9 mgd w/ Chemical Addition VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 BOD = 8 mg/L BOD = 8 mg/L TF Sludge 100% BOD removal = 49% TSS = 10 mg/L TSS = 10 mg/L 188.5 mgd TSS removal = 75% Activated Sludge MF Backwash Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Performance based on 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 6 mg/L hours of Chemical Addition Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 8 mg/L BOD removal = 49% % Total Flow = 0% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 TSS removal = 75% Flow = 0.0 mgd and/or PEF = Influent w/TF Sludge Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Microfiltration and MF Backwash TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters MF Backwash Influent Flow = 93.6 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd BOD removal in PE = 16% Nitrifying Activated Sludge Returned to Recovery = 88.0% BOD = 255 mg/L TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5% BOD removed = 124 mg/L Flow = 159.3 mgd Primary Clarifiers Backwash flow = 11.2 mgd TSS = 260 mg/L ABRs Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 159.3 mgd BOD removed = 164,700 lb/d BOD = 6 mg/L Backwash BOD = 29 mg/L Historical Primary Clarifier Performance Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 8 mg/L Backwash TSS = 83 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 BOD removal = 48% and/or PEF = TSS removal = 75% VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Reverse Osmosis Additional Removal with ABR Influent Flow = 82.4 mgd 0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Membrane Bioreactor Recovery = 85% 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Concentrate flow= 12.4 mgd Overall ABR Performance 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 4 mg/L BOD removal = 57% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 0 mg/L Assumed to be 1/2 of AS/NAS Effluent BOD TSS removal = 84% Trickling Filter Sludge VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary GWR System Product 0.87 Primary Sludge Primary sludge reduction = 30% TF Sludge Parameter TF Units and/or PEF = Flow = 70 mgd Thickening Return Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 Returned to Mass VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 0.000 mgd Primary Clarifiers TS 17,400 lb/d BOD = NA mg/L Concentration TSS = 0 mg/L TS 8,000 mg/L BOD 100 mg/L Primary Sludge Production % solids Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Parameter Primary ABR PEF Total Units TS 0.80% % Parameter WAS N-WAS MBR Total Units Parameter Primary Secondary Total Units Mass Flow 0.261 mgd Mass Mass TS 306,600 0 0 306,600 lb/d 153.3 TS 0 116,900 0 116,900 lb/d 58.45 TS 306,600 116,900 423,500 lb/d VS 239,100 0 0 239,100 lb/d VS 0 101,700 0 101,700 lb/d VS 239,100 101,700 340,800 lb/d Concentration Concentration Concentration TS 48,000 0 0 48,000 mg/L TS 0 8,000 0 8,000 mg/L TS 48,000 8,000 20,200 mg/L VS 37,440 0 0 37,000 mg/L VS 0 7,000 0 7,000 mg/L VS 37,000 7,000 16,100 mg/L % solids % solids % solids TS 4.80% 0.00% 0.00% 4.80% % TS 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.80% %TS4.80% 0.80% 2.02% % VS 3.74% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% % VS 0.00% 0.70% 0.00% 0.70% %VS3.70% 0.70% 1.61% % Flow 0.766 0.000 0.000 0.766 mgd Flow 0 1.752 0 1.752 mgd Flow 0.766 1.752 2.518 mgd

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Plant 1 MB 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD Plant No. 1 SOLIDS HANDLING FLOW SHEET PRIMARY/SECONDARY SLUDGE PRODUCTION THICKENING OPTIONS ADD-ON TECHNOLOGIES

Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Primary Sludge Production 100.00% 0.344 mgd Parameter Total Units 1.752 mgd Mass 0.00% Ultrasound To digestion below TS 306,600 lb/d 0.000 mgd 0.344 mgd 1.110 mgd VS 239,100 lb/d Concentration TS 48,000 mg/L 0.766 mgd VS 37,000 mg/L 0.00% Gravity Belt 0.000 mgd 100.00% % solids 0.000 mgd Thickener 0.344 mgd TS 4.80% % 0.00% 0.000 mgd VS 3.70% % 0.000 mgd Check: OK Flow 0.766 mgd

Secondary Sludge Production 0.00% Centrifuge 0.000 mgd Parameter Total WAS Total 0.000 mgd Thickener Mass 0.00% 0.000 mgd TS 116,900 lb/d 0.000 mgd VS 101,700 lb/d Concentration TS 8,000 mg/L 1.752 mgd VS 7,000 mg/L % solids 100.00% None 0.766 mgd 100.00% TS 0.80% % 0.766 mgd 0.766 mgd VS 0.70% % Flow 1.752 mgd Check: PS OK Check:SS OK

DIGESTION DEWATERING

Tie to input sheet Single Stage 1 Mesophilic 1.110 mgd 1.110 mgd From Tie to Input sheet Pretreatment Belt Filter Above 1.110 mgd 1 Press 509.8 wtpd 1.110 mgd 109.6 dtpd SS Meso Dig w / 0 Recuperative 0.000 mgd High Speed 0.000 mgd Thickening 0 Centrifuge 0.0 wtpd 1.110 mgd 1 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd To Transport and AGF Thickening 509.8 wtpd Product Technologies 0 Check: ERR Rotary 109.6 dtpd File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Press 0.0 wtpd 0 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd Centrifuge Thickening 0 Electro Two-stage 0 Dewatering 0.0 wtpd 0 Thermo/Meso 0.000 mgd 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd 0.000 mgd To Combined Dewatering Pump to Transport and Single Site Product Technologies 0 Distance File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Therm/Meso Dig 0.000 mgd Miles w Recuperative 0.000 mgd 0 0 Thickening Select One Dewatering Type 0.000 mgd Check: OK AGF Thickening 0 Select One Digestion Type Gravity Belt Thickeners Check: OK 0 Centrifuge Thickening 0

Checks: OK ERR

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Flow Sheet 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD Plant No. 1 - DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENING Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit WAS Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 2.0 Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 1.1 max. month = 1.6 gpm/sf/d in 1989 Master Plan; IPMC 0.24 gpm/sf/hr Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 20 Max month = 18lb/d/sf in 1989 Master Plan Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 11.8 ISPU 11lb/sf/d (av) at P1 and 10 lb/sf/d at P2; IPMC 1 lb/hr/sf Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 10 Temperature Odorous air per unit cfm/DAFT 10,000 Calculated based on 8 cfm per ft surface area, cross-checked with Odor Control MP sweep air cfm/DAFT 0 Total cfm/DAFT 10,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotowe % 25%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Flow or % mgd or % 100.00% Parameter Unit WAS

Solids capture rate % of feed TS 98% Float TSS % 4.0% Thickener underflow mgd

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ DAFT 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 1.752 Mass TS lb/d 116,900 VS lb/d 101,700 Concentration TS mg/l 8,000 VS mg/l 7,000 % Solids TS % 0.80% VS % 0.70%

B. Output Solids Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 0.344 Mass TS lb/d 114,600 VS lb/d 99,700 Concentration TS mg/l 40,000 VS mg/l 34,800 % Solids TS % 4.00% VS % 3.48%

C. Underflow Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 1.408 Mass TS lb/d 2,300 VS lb/d 2,000 Concentration TS mg/l 196 VS mg/l 170 % Solids TS % 0.0% VS % 0.0%

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ DAFT 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit WAS Total Requirements Total area required - Av solids sf 9,876 Total area required - Av. hydraul sf 1,096 Actual Total area required sf 9,876 Each unit diameter ft 40 Each unit area sf 1,257 Required no. operational units # 8 Redundancy # 2 Total no. units # 10 Footprint sf Existing Units No. Operational # 5 No. Standby # 1 Diameter ft 40 Total area sf 6,283 New Units Additional area required sf 3,593 Diameter ft 40 Area each sf 1,257 No. Operational # 3 No. Standby # 1 Total new units # 4 Note: ISPU estimate for WAS thickening- 2 new units, Unit Cost (w/ odor control) $4,700,000 + VOC control cost $800,000, Total Budget Cost $10,2 Operations Actual HLR gpm/sf 0.12 Actual SLR lb/sf/d 11.63

Operational Data Operating Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pressurization Pump 5 8 168 per week 52 8,736 330,033 40 psi Reciprocating Air Compressor 15 8 84 per week 52 4,368 524,160 Pump Float to Digestion 4 8 168 per week 52 8,736 279,552 Pump Recycle to Headworks 1 8 168 per week 52 8,736 69,888 DAFT drives 2 8 168 per week 52 8,736 139,776 Polymer feed system 7.5 8 168 per week 52 8,736 524,160 Plant effluent to pressurization pump 13 3 84 per week 52 4,368 165,016 at 40 psi Total Hp-hours this option 2,032,585

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ DAFT 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 DAFT system (40ft dia) $190,000 each 50% $95,000 4 $1,140,000 2 Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 84,600 $676,800 3 Pumps (Float @ TDH 40') $50,000 each, 15 hp 50% $25,000 4 $300,000 4 Pumps (Underflow to Recycle) $80,000 each, 75 hp 50% $40,000 4 $480,000 5 Polymer Feed System $40,000 each, 7.5 hp 50% $20,000 4 $240,000 6 Recycle treatment $0.00 gpd NA 0 $0 Assumes existing secondary has capacity to treat 110 mgd worth 7 Plant effluent to pressurization pump $75,000.00 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 4 $450,000 Equipment Sub-Total $3,286,800 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constructio $150 $/sf NA 2000 $300,000 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 5000 $500,000 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $800,000 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $735,600 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $408,700 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $204,300 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 9 $6,948,000 Assumes new biotowers for all operational units, new & existing 5 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $8,296,600 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $1,114,500 2G/C 10% $1,349,800 3 Profit 7% $1,039,300 4 Bond 2% $317,700

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $3,821,300 Total Construction Cost $16,200,000

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 2.0% $324,000 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $486,000 3 Design 18.0% $2,916,000 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $2,592,000 5 Commission 2.0% $324,000 6 Close-out 0.5% $81,000 7 Contingency 30.0% $4,860,000 Professional Services Sub-total $11,583,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $27,780,000

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ DAFT 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit WAS Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 2,725,000 $382,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 213,489 $277,500 5 Polymer - Dewatering 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66 hr 8,832 $584,000 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $1,243,500 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $164,300 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $205,400 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $369,700 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 80,000 $240,000 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Recycle Treatment $0.04 lb/d 839,500 $33,580 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $273,580 TOTAL O&M COST $1,886,780 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $27,780,000

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $23,510,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $51,290,000

Annualized Cost This Option $4,061,896

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ DAFT 5 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT 1 - SINGLE STAGE MESOPHILIC DIGESTION Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk Max 2-week HLR or HRT days 15 15 15 15 ( 1989 Master Plan = 25 D Max Month) Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT days 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 (ISPU = 20d) Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/cf/d 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.27 Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 As per ISPU Polymer Feed Rate Feed sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 Digester Operating Temperature F 98 98 98 98

Cellular nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% 93% 93%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Previous Processes TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge ? Recup Thick Flow % % 100.00% 0.0% 100.0% Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total

VS reduction (VSR) % of VS 40% 60% 63% 56.2% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 15 15 Digester gas calorific value BTU/scfm 600 600 600 600

Boiler efficiency (average) % 78% 78% 78% 78%

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Meso Dig 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.344 0.000 0.766 1.110

Mass TS lb/d 114,600 0 306,600 421,200 VS lb/d 99,700 0 239,100 338,800 Concentration TS mg/l 40000 0 48,000 45,600 VS mg/l 34799 0 37,500 36,700 % Solids TS % 4.00% 0.00% 4.80% 4.56% VS % 3.48% 0.00% 3.75% 3.67%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.344 0.000 0.766 1.110 Mass TS lb/d 74,720 0 156,000 230,720 VS lb/d 59,820 0 88,500 148,320 Concentration TS mg/l 26,080 0 24,500 25,000 VS mg/l 20,880 0 13,900 16,100 % Solids TS % 2.61% 0.00% 2.45% 2.50% VS % 2.09% 0.00% 1.39% 1.61%

C. Other Outputs Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Biogas Volume - daily av. scfm 598,200 0 2,259,100 2,857,300 Volume - annual av. mscf/yr 218 0 825 1,043 Calorific Value MBTU/d 359 0 1,355 1,714 Ammonia Ammonia - N lb/d 2,393 0 9,036 11,429

Others calculation

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Meso Dig 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING

Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Total Requirements Total working volume - av HRT cf 1,037,826 0 2,314,506 3,352,332 Total working volume - av VS load cf 723,793 0 1,157,198 2,459,590 Actual working volume required cf 1,037,826 0 2,314,506 3,352,332 Existing Units - Working Vol. Existing operational digesters 90' dia, 29' deep 2 - - - 343,151 171,576 110' dia, 30' deep 8 - - - 2,121,141 Total working volum 10 - - - 2,464,292 Existing standby digesters --- 90' dia, 29' deep 0 --- 0 110' dia, 30' deep 0 --- 0 Total working volum 0- - - 0 New Units New digester diameter ft 110 New digester depth ft 30 New digester working volume cf 265,143 No. New Duty units # 4 Total Operational Units # 14 Total Standby Units # 2 No. new Standby units # 2 Total no. new units # 6 Actual Av. HRT days 24.3 Peak 2-week HRT days 16.1 Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% Digester Heating Heat Loss from Each Digester SheBTUH/# 250,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report Sludge Heating Demand BTUH/gpm 10,759 Total Heat Demand average BTU/H 11,785,071 Total Heat Demand peak day BTU/H 18,434,753 Existing Boilers (Output 9 MBTU E 1 9,000,000 General Plant Information, Jan 1995, asumed same size as P2 boilers CenGen waste heat recovery BTU/H 5,280,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report New Boiler (output 9 MBTU eac # 1 Digested Sludge Holding Tanks Existing 90' dia, 30' deep 2 2,855,142 General Plant Information, Jan 1995 Vol. Required for 3 days storage gall 3,328,912 3 d storage used in ISPU New holding tanks 1

Operational Data Motor Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pump to Dewatering 6 3 56 per week 52 2,912 52,416 Rotamix Pumps 100 14 126 per week 52 6,552 9,172,800 Sludge Heat Recirculation Pumps 30 14 168 per week 52 8,736 3,669,120 Hot Water Circulation Pumps 7.5 14 168 per week 52 8,736 917,280 Bottom sludge pumps 30 7 8 per week 52 416 87,360 Grinders 5 14 168 per week 52 8,736 611,520 Boiler system pumps 18.0 1 93 per week 52 4,826 86,861 Digested Sludge Holding Tank Mixer 50 3 168 per week 52 8,736 1,310,400

Total Hp-hours this option 15,907,757

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Meso Dig 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Rotamix $155,000 each 50% $77,500 12 $2,790,000 100% redundancy per digester 2 Digester Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 12,795,267 $25,590,534 3 Pump to Dewatering $50,000 each, 15 hp 50% $25,000 4 $300,000 4 Heat Exchanger with pump $185,000 each 50% $92,500 6 $1,665,000 5 Bottom Sludge Pump $65,000 each, 30 hp NA 3 $195,000 6 Digested Sludge Holding Tank $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 7 Holding Tank Mixing Pump $75,000 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 1 $112,500

8 Boiler $250,000 each, 9 MBTU 50% 125000 1 $375,000

Equipment Sub-Total $31,028,034 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construc $150 $/sf NA 12000 $1,800,000 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 69020 $6,901,991 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $8,701,991 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 15% of Construction $5,959,500 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 8% of Construction $3,178,400 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $1,986,500 4 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $11,124,400 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $4,576,900 2G/C 10% $5,543,100 3 Profit 7% $4,268,200 4 Bond 2% $1,304,900

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $15,693,100 Total Construction Cost $66,550,000

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 0.5% $332,800 2 Preliminary Design 1.5% $998,300 3 Design 14.0% $9,317,000 4 Construction/Installation 11.0% $7,320,500 5 Commission 1.0% $665,500 6 Close-out 0.3% $166,400 7 Contingency 30.0% $19,965,000 Professional Services Sub-total $38,765,500 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $105,320,000

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Meso Dig 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 21,324,000 $2,985,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 73,057 $438,342 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 5,888 $389,000 9

10 Operations Sub-Total $3,812,342 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $1,551,400 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $2,500,000 Assume $5 mill/digester 3 Annualized Digester Cleaning $60,000.00 per digester 2.8 $168,000 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $4,219,400 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 625,749 $3,754,500 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $3,754,500 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 2 3 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 TOTAL O&M COST $4,277,242 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $105,320,000

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $53,300,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $158,620,000

Annualized Cost This Option $12,561,862

DRD225.xls; 033370006/ Meso Dig 5 12/08/2003 OCSD Plant No. 1 - BELT FILTER PRESS DEWATERING

1. DESIGN CRITERIA Legend: Parameter Unit Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 77 7 Blue = assumed operating conditions Max Day HLR or HRT Red = assumed performance parameters Max 2-week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 110 110 110 110 1999 SP Purple = calculated (these formulas sho Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 73 73 73 73 Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Ruth Roxburgh, CH2M HILL, email dated 3/12/03 Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 689 689 689 689 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 21.5 10.75 21.5 21.5 Carollo report Temperature Solids load Ave day lb/unit/d 33,072 33,072 33,072 33,072 Ammonia-N in biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% Odorous air per unit cfm/BFP 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,500 Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) sweep air cfm/BFP 6,000 6,000 9,000 9,000 Calculated based on area/unit and 30 foot building height Total cfm/BFP 9,000 9,000 13,500 13,500 Cake storage & load cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Odor control Master Plan P1 biotower capacitycfm 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted fo Based on P1-73

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Digestion Alternative Parameter Unit Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Dry solids % 21.5% 23.5% 23.5% 24.5% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 23.5% 24.5% 24.5% 25.5% Capture % 95% 95% 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater flow gpm/unit 80 80 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below

DRD225.xls, 033370006/ BFP P1 FINAL 12/08/2003 3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative TOTAL Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Flow mgd mgd 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 Mass TS lb/d 230,720 0 0 0 230,720 VS lb/d 148,320 0 0 0 148,320 Concentration TS mg/l 25,000 0 0 0 24,931 VS mg/l 16,100 0 0 0 16,027 % Solids TS % 2.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.49% VS % 1.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative TOTAL Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Mass TS lb/d 219,200 0 0 0 219,200 VS lb/d 140,900 0 0 0 140,900 Concentration TS mg/l 215,000 0 0 0 215,000 VS mg/l 138,200 0 0 0 138,200 % Solids TS % 21.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 21.50% VS % 13.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.82% Quantity wet tons per day 509.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 509.8

C. Other Outputs Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Sidestream Water in w/sludge mgd 1.08 0 0 0 Water out w/sludge mgd 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Filtrate mgd 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 Washwater mgd 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Recycle Flow mgd 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mass TS lb/d 11,500 0 0 0 VS lb/d 7,400 0 0 0 Concentration TS mg/L 600 0 0 0 VS mg/L 400 0 0 0 Ammonia Ammonia-N in sludg lb/d 11,429 0 0 0 % water in filtrate % 91% 0% 0% 0% Ammonia-N in Recyclb/d 10,400 0 0 0 Ammonia-N in Recycmg/L 555 0 0 0 Others

DRD225.xls, 033370006/ BFP P1 FINAL 12/08/2003 4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Required No. Operational Units Hydraulic loading # 11 0 0 0 Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Solids loading # 7000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Required Units # 11 0 0 0 Redundancy # 2000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Total no. units # 13 0 0 0 Units in existing bldg(s) # 8000 Units in new bldg # 5000 New building area required (2 storiesq ft 8,750 0 0 0 Any new buildings assumed to be 2-story Biotowers Total Air Flow (duty) cfm 123,000 0 0 0 Required No. Operational Biotow # 11 0 0 0 Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Redundant Biotowers # 3000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Total Biotowers # 14 0 0 0 Redundancy (Biotowers) % 25% Redundancy (BFP) % 20% Assumptions worksheet

Operational Data Description Units Value Commments Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 35 Estimated from Carollo report Width/unit ft 25 Estimated from Carollo report Area/unit sq ft 875 Maximum in existing # 8 Existing conditions (4 per building) Conveyor length/unit ft 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor Energy per gpm kW/gpm 0.1 Carollo report per unit kW/unit 7.3 Labor requirements operators/duty unit 0.75 Based on Carollo report: 6 operators/8 units/24 hour operation

DRD225.xls, 033370006/ BFP P1 FINAL 12/08/2003 5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Unit Unit $ Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated or % Factor Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Dewatering equipment each, 2m width $260,000 1.5 13 $5,070,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Carollo repo 2 Conveyance ft $4,000 1.4 650 $3,640,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assumed b 3 Chemical feed system per BFP $50,000 1.5 13 $975,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 450 cy $550,000 1.5 2 $1,650,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 5 Filtrate pumps 50 hp $75,000 1.5 6 $675,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Equipment Cost Sub-Total $12,010,000 $0 $0 $0 Electrical & I&C 18.0% $2,162,000 $0 $0 $0 Site, Civil, & Utilities 10.0% $1,201,000 $0 $0 $0 Odor control (installed) per biotower $772,000 1 14 $10,808,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 OCMP Tab Total Equipment Sub-Total $26,181,000 $0 $0 $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construcsf $150 1 8,750 $1,313,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Area reflect 2 Pile construction for both plants sf $100 1 4,375 $438,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Pile cost ba 3 Building retrofits lump sum $100,000 1 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assumed (C Building Cost Sub-Total $1,851,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Other 1 Sidestream treatment per gpd $2 1 2,247,200 $4,494,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Construction Other Sub-Total $4,494,000 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $32,526,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Cost Factors Subtotal $32,526,000 $0 $0 $0 1 Project Level Allowance 5% $1,626,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $34,152,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $3,074,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $37,226,000 $0 $0 $0 3 G/C 10% $3,723,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $40,949,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Profit 7% $2,866,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $43,815,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Bond 2% $876,000 $0 $0 $0 CONTRACTOR'S TOTAL $44,691,000 $0 $0 $0 Professional Services Cost Factors 1 Project Development 0.5% $223,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Preliminary Design 1.5% $670,000 $0 $0 $0 3 Design 14.0% $6,257,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Construction/Installation 11.0% $4,916,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Commission 1.0% $447,000 $0 $0 $0 6 Close-out 0.3% $112,000 $0 $0 $0 7 Contingency 30% $13,407,000 $0 $0 $0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUBTOTAL $26,032,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $70,723,000 $0 $0 $0

DRD225.xls, 033370006/ BFP P1 FINAL 12/08/2003 6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS No. Description Unit Unit $ Annual Cost Per Qty. Treated or % Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.06 2 Purchased Electricity kWh $0.14 703,428 $98,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Natural Gas MBTU $6.00 4 Polymer - Thickening lb $1.30 5 Polymer - Dewatering lb $1.30 905,300 $1,177,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Ferric chloride dry ton $430.00 9 Average burdened labor hr $66.08 15,180 $1,003,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10 Compost Amendment cy $10.00 Operations Sub-Total $2,278,000 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% $254,000 $0 $0 $0 Carollo report: 8% for total m 2 Supplies & materials per year/BFP $10,800.00 13 $140,400 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Rehabilitation per year/BFP $2,100 13 $27,300 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Other Maintenance Sub-Total $421,700 $0 $0 $0 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $/truck mile $1.50 2 Transport - pumped hp - Transport Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.14 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable kWh $0.03 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable kWh $0.05 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) MBTU $6.00 5 Heat recovery MBTU $6.00 Credits Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control scfm $3.00 123,000 $369,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Ammonia load lb/d $0.20 4,609,429 $921,886 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $1,290,886 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $3,990,586 $0 $0 $0 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Preliminary Design 20 Design 5.0% Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Construction Costs $70,723,000 $0 $0 $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $49,730,000 $0 $0 $0

Total Present Worth for this Option $120,453,000 $0 $0 $0

Annualized Cost This Option $9,539,238 $0 $0 $0

DRD225.xls, 033370006/ BFP P1 FINAL 12/08/2003 Appendix C – Plant No. 2, Model Run 1A (Baseline Alternative)

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001

Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 1a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:10:35 PM M o d e l I n p u t - L i q u i d T r a i n

Input for Plant No. 1 (Liquid Process) Legend

Membrane Bioreactor 0.0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Input for Plant No. 2 (Liquid Process) To Ocean Outfall

Micro Filtration 0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Revision 1

SCO/033370007/OCSD/Model Data Sheets.xls|Input Page 1 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 1a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:10 PM M o d e l I n p u t - S o l i d s H a n d l i n g

Input for Plant No. 1 (Solids Process) Legend

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Data Required is in BLUE 0% Belt Filter Presses 0 0 Calculation Cells in PURPLE Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0% Mesophilic Digestion Check Cells are in YELLOW with Recuperative Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges None 0 0 0.0% AGF Thickening 0 Gravity Belt Thickeners Rotary Press MARKET CHECKS: Percent Primary Sludge 0 0 OK Centrifuge Thickening Compost OK 0 Pellets ERROR Electro Dewatering Temperature Phase Digestion 0 Market Selection for OCSD Controlled Facilities (Merchant facilities' market selection is up to them) Product Selection Ultrasound 0 0% Horticulture Compost 34.0% percent of in-county compost Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion Member Agencies Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Pump to Composting - In County 34.0% Fertilizer Daily Average Flow 0 Single Site 80% Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening 0 0% 0 Distance (miles) Horticulture Compost 33.0% percent of in-county compost Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Composting - Out of County Ornamental & Nursery Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying Centrifugal Thickening 100.0% 0 0% 33.0% Fertilizer 0% Centrifuge Thickening 0 Chemical Stabilization Horticulture Compost 32.9% percent of in-county compost 0% Retail Blending/Bagging Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type 32.9% Fertilizer OK OK ERROR OK ERROR Organo-Mineral Fertilizers Select One Recuperative Thickening Type 0% Silviculture Compost 0.1% percent of in-county compost OK Shade Tree Program Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0.1% Fertiliszer Input for Plant No. 2 (Solids Process)

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Heat Drying - In County Biomass Crops Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost 0% Pump to 0% (Energy/Ethanol) Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 1 Single Site 0.0% Fertilizer Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0 0% Mesophilic Digestion Distance (miles) Heat Drying - Out of County with Recuperative Thickening 0 0% OCSD Farm Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost No Thickening 0 Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 100.0% AGF Thickening Belt Filter Presses 0.0% 0 1 Percent Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners OK 0 Landfill Partnering (ADC) Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost Centrifuge Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0 0 0.0%

Temperature Phase Digestion Rotary Press Construction Market Soil mix Ultrasound 0 0 Construction Material Aggregate 0% 0% 0% Ash-cement Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion 100% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Electro Dewatering Daily Average Flow 0 0 Fuel Products Char Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening (Char/oil) Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0% 0 Pyrolysis 0.0% Gravity Belt Thickeners 0% Centrifugal Thickening 100.0% 0 0% Centrifuge Thickening Direct Energy Renewable 0 Co-combustion (Electricity) Non-renewable Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type 20% 0% OK OK OK OK OK

Select Mix of Product Technology OK Input for Single Site Dewatering (Solids Process)

Belt Filter Presses Land Application High pH 0.0% 0 OCSD Farm 0.0%

High Solids Centrifuges 0 Direct Landfilling Cake 0.0% Failsafe Backup 0.0% CHECK OK Rotary Press 0 Select Mix of Product Markets OK Electro Dewatering 0

Select One Dewatering Type OK

SCO/033370007/OCSD/Model Data Sheets|Input Page 1 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 1a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:10 PM M o d e l I n p u t - C o s t A s s u m p t i o n s

1. COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS Parameter Unit Range Value Construction Costs Base Year: 2003 Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

DRD226.xls; 033370007 Asmptns 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

DRD226.xls; 033370007 Asmptns 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

In-county Composting Pumps Sludge transfer pumps 1 4 25% As per 1989 Master Plan

6. FLOW & LOAD PEAKING FACTORS

DRD226.xls; 033370007 Asmptns 3 12/08/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 1a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:10 PM Model Output

Process Solids Outlet Outlet ON or Distance Annual O&M Unit Process Influent Loading, Solids Solids Capital Cost Present Worth OFF (miles) Cost Flow, mgd dT/Day Conc., % wtpd Plant No. 2 Plant Influent Flow 144 Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 No Thickening ON Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON 2.946 34.4 3.80% $0 $14,450,000 $14,450,000 Gravity Belt Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 0.804 156.9 2.60% $0 $48,450,000 $48,450,000 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temperature Phased OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Pumping to Single Site OFF 0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press ON 0.80 87.0 21.50% 384.2 $52,696,000 $34,330,000 $87,026,000 High-Solids Centrifuge OFF 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 Rotary Press OFF 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 Electro Dewatering OFF 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0

Total for Plant No. 2 144 86.96 384.2 0 $52,696,000 $97,230,000 $149,926,000 Beneficial use cost 45 ton $126,210,000 $276,136,000

033370007/ DRD226.xls 1 of 1 12/08/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 1a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:10 PM Equipment List

Number of Number of New Process Capital Unit Process ON or OFF Existing New Units Building, sf Cost Units Plant No. 2 Plant Influent Flow 144 mgd Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 No Thickening ON Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON400$0 Gravity Belt Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound OFF $0 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 15 0 0 $0 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th OFF $0 AGF Thickener OFF GBT Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 Temperature Phased OFF $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. OFF $0 AGF Thickener OFF $0 GBT Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press ON NA 10 0 $52,696,000 High-Solids Centrifuge OFF $0 Rotary Press OFF $0 Electro Dewatering OFF $0

Total for Plant No. 2 144 0 $52,696,000

DRD226.xls/ 033370007/ Equipment List OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD Long-Term Biosolids Master Plan Plant No. 2 - Simplified Mass Balance

Legend: Note: Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters BOD = 8 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed TSS = 8 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100.0% BOD removal = 25% Flow = 144.5 mgd Flow = 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L Trickling Filters Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L 41.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 60 mgd w/ Chemical Addition 60 mgd BOD removed = 55,000 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L 100.0% BOD removal = 48% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 76% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 % Total Flow = 0.0% and/or PEF = Influent Performance based on Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 Yea r 2020 hours of Chemical Addition BOD = 130 mg/L Flow = 144 mgd BOD removal = 48% TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters Activated Sludge BOD = 250 mg/L TSS removal = 76% BOD removal in PE = 16% 58.5% BOD removed = 122 mg/L Flow = 84.5 mgd TSS = 240 mg/L 288230.4 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5 mgd BOD removed = 86,000 lb/d BOD = 8 mg/L Flow = 144.5 mgd Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 8 mg/L BOD = 13 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary TSS = 13 mg/L 0.87 Influent with Recycles and/or PEF = Yea r 2020 ABRs VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 144.5 mgd Historical Primary Clarifier Performance BOD = 250 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) Nitrifying Activated Sludge TSS = 269 mg/L 324179.97 BOD removal = 48% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0 mgd 323992.32 TSS removal = 75% 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 8 mg/L Additional Removal with ABR % Total Flow = 0.0% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 8 mg/L 0.0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% BOD = 130 mg/L Primary Effluent and/or PEF = Overall ABR Performance TSS = 65 mg/L Microfiltration VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 BOD removal = 57% BOD removal in PE = 50% TF Sludge TSS removal = 84% TSS removal in PE = 100% Flow = 0 mgd Primary sludge reduction = 30% Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 BOD = 65 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Trickling Filter Sludge Thickening Return Parameter TF Units Flow = 0.000 mgd TF Sludge Mass BOD = NA mg/L Returned to TS 35,750 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Production Primary Clarifiers VS lb/d Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Prim Parameter Primary ABR PEF* MF* Total Units Parameter WAS N-WAS Total Units Parameter Secondary Total Units Concentration ary Mass TS 8,000 mg/L Mass Mass TS 246,400 0 0 0 246,400 lb/d 123.2 BOD 100 mg/L TS 68,800 0 68,800 lb/d 34.4 TS ##### 68,800 315,200 lb/d VS 184,800 0 0 0 184,800 lb/d % solids VS 59,900 0 59,900 lb/d VS ##### 59,900 244,700 lb/d TS 0.80% Concentration VS % Concentration Concentration TS 50,000 00050,000 mg/L Flow 0.54 mgd TS 2,800 0 2,800 mg/L TS ##### 2,800 10,700 mg/L VS 37,500 0 0 0 37,500 mg/L VS 2,400 0 2,400 mg/L VS ##### 2,400 8,300 mg/L % solids 35762 % solids % solids TS 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% % TS 0.28% 0.00% 0.28% %TS5.00% 0.28% 1.07% % VS 3.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.75% % VS 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% %VS3.75% 0.24% 0.83% % Flow 0.591 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.591 mgd Flow 2.946 0 2.946 mgd Flow 0.591 2.946 3.537 mgd

*Assume PEF & MF backwash returned to primary clarifiers, therefore will be 5% solids.

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Plant 2 MB 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 SOLIDS HANDLING FLOW SHEET PRIMARY/SECONDARY SLUDGE PRODUCTION THICKENING OPTIONS ADD-ON TECHNOLOGIES

Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Primary Sludge Production 100.00% 0.213 mgd Parameter Total Units 2.946 mgd Mass 0.00% Ultrasound To digestion below TS 246,400 lb/d 0.000 mgd 0.213 mgd 0.804 mgd VS 184,800 lb/d Concentration TS 50,000 mg/L 0.591 mgd VS 37,500 mg/L 0.00% Gravity Belt 0.000 mgd 100.00% % solids 0.000 mgd Thickener 0.213 mgd TS 5.00% % 0.00% 0.000 mgd VS 3.75% % 0.000 mgd Check: OK Flow 0.591 mgd

Secondary Sludge Production 0.00% Centrifuge 0.000 mgd Parameter Total WAS 0 0.000 mgd Thickener Mass 0.00% 0.000 mgd TS 68,800 lb/d 0.000 mgd VS 59,900 lb/d Concentration TS 2,800 mg/L 2.946 mgd VS 2,400 mg/L % solids 100.00% None 0.591 mgd 100.00% TS 0.28% % 0.591 mgd 0.591 mgd VS 0.24% % Flow 2.946 mgd Check: PS OK Check:SS OK

DIGESTION DEWATERING

Tie to input sheet Single Stage 1 Mesophilic 0.804 mgd 0.804 mgd From Tie to Input sheet Pretreatment Belt Filter Above 0.804 mgd 1 Press 384.2 wtpd 0.804 mgd 82.6 dtpd SS Meso Dig w / 0 Recuperative 0.000 mgd High Speed 0.000 mgd Thickening 0 Centrifuge 0.0 wtpd 0.804 mgd 1 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd To Transport and AGF Thickening 384.2 wtpd Product Technologies 0 Check: ERR Rotary 82.6 dtpd File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Press 0.0 wtpd 0 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd Centrifuge Thickening 0 Electro Two-stage 0 Dewatering 0.0 wtpd 0 Thermo/Meso 0.000 mgd 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd 0.000 mgd To Combined Dewatering Pump to Transport and Single Site Product Technologies 0 Distance File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Therm/Meso Dig 0.000 mgd Miles w Recuperative 0.000 mgd 0 0 Thickening Select One Dewatering Type 0.000 mgd Check: OK AGF Thickening 0 Select One Digestion Type Gravity Belt Thickeners Check: OK 0 Centrifuge Thickening 0

Checks: OK ERR

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Flow Sheet 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 - DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENING Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit WAS Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 2.0 Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 1.4 max. month = 1.6 gpm/sf/d in 1989 Master Plan; IPMC 0.24 gpm/sf/hr Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 20 Max month = 18lb/d/sf in 1989 Master Plan Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 14.0 ISPU 11lb/sf/d (av) at P1 and 10 lb/sf/d at P2; IPMC 1 lb/hr/sf Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 0 Temperature Odorous air per unit cfm/DAFT 19,000 Calculated based on 8 cfm per ft surface area, cross-checked with Odor Control MP sweep air cfm/DAFT 0 Total cfm/DAFT 19,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotowe % 25%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Flow or % mgd or % 100.00% Parameter Unit WAS

Solids capture rate % of feed TS 98% Float TSS % 3.8% Thickener underflow mgd

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ DAFT 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 2.946 Mass TS lb/d 68,800 VS lb/d 59,900 Concentration TS mg/l 2,800 VS mg/l 2,400 % Solids TS % 0.28% VS % 0.24%

B. Output Solids Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 0.213 Mass TS lb/d 67,400 VS lb/d 58,700 Concentration TS mg/l 38,000 VS mg/l 33,100 % Solids TS % 3.80% VS % 3.31%

C. Underflow Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 2.733 Mass TS lb/d 1,400 VS lb/d 1,200 Concentration TS mg/l 61 VS mg/l 53 % Solids TS % 0.0% VS % 0.0%

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ DAFT 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit WAS Total Requirements Total area required - Av solids sf 4,918 Total area required - Av. hydraul sf 1,506 Actual Total area required sf 4,918 Each unit diameter ft 55 Each unit area sf 2,376 Required no. operational units # 3 Redundancy # 1 Total no. units # 4 Footprint sf Existing Units No. Operational # 3 No. Standby # 1 Diameter ft 55 Total area sf 7,127 New Units Additional area required sf 0 Diameter ft 55 Area each sf 2,376 No. Operational # 0 No. Standby # 0 Total new units # 0 Operations Actual HLR gpm/sf 0.29 Actual SLR lb/sf/d 9.65 Note: ISPU estimate for WAS thickening- 2 new units, Unit Cost (w/ odor control) $4,700,000 + VOC control cost $800,000, Total Budget Cost $10,200,000

Operational Data Operating Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pressurization Pump 26 3 168 per week 52 8,736 693,691 40 psi Reciprocating Air Compressor 20 3 84 per week 52 4,368 262,080 Pump Float to Digestion 30 3 168 per week 52 8,736 786,240 Pump Recycle to Headworks 20 3 168 per week 52 8,736 524,160 DAFT drives 5 3 168 per week 52 8,736 131,040 Polymer feed system 7.5 3 168 per week 52 8,736 196,560 Plant effluent to pressurization pump 21 3 84 per week 52 4,368 277,476 at 40 psi Total Hp-hours this option 2,871,247

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ DAFT 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 DAFT system (55ft dia) $265,000 each 50% $132,500 0 $0 2 Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 3 Pumps (Float @ TDH 40') $50,000 each, 15 hp 50% $25,000 0 $0 4 Pumps (Underflow to Recycle) $80,000 each, 75 hp 50% $40,000 0 $0 5 Polymer Feed System $40,000 each 50% $20,000 0 $0 6 Recycle treatment $0.00 gpd NA 0 $0 7 Plant effluent to pressurization pump $75,000.00 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 0 $0 Equipment Sub-Total $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constructio $150 $/sf NA 0 $0 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 0 $0 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $0 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $0 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $0 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $0 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 0 $0 Assumes new biotowers for all operational units, new & existing 5 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $0 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $0 2G/C 10% $0 3 Profit 7% $0 4 Bond 2% $0

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 Total Construction Cost $0

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 2.0% $0 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $0 3 Design 18.0% $0 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $0 5 Commission 2.0% $0 6 Close-out 0.5% $0 7 Contingency 30.0% $0 Professional Services Sub-total $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $0

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ DAFT 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit WAS Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 3,849,000 $539,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 0 $0 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66 hr 3,312 $219,000 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $758,000 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $210,000 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $210,000 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 57,000 $171,000 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Recycle Treatment $0.04 lb/d 511,000 $20,440 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $191,440 TOTAL O&M COST $1,159,440 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $14,450,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $14,450,000

Annualized Cost This Option $1,144,363

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ DAFT 5 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 - SINGLE STAGE MESOPHILIC DIGESTION Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk Max 2-week HLR or HRT days 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 ( 1989 Master Plan = 25 D Max Month) Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT days 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 (ISPU = 20d) Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/cf/d 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.28 Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.16 As per ISPU Polymer Feed Rate Feed sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 Digester Operating Temperature F 98 98 98 98

Cellular nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% hh Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% 93% 93%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Previous Processes TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge ? Recup Thick Flow % % 100.00% 0.0% 100.0% Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total

VS reduction (VSR) % of VS 40% 60% 63% 57.5% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 15 15 Digester gas calorific value BTU/scfm 600 600 600 600

Boiler efficiency (average) % 78% 78% 78% 78%

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Meso Dig 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.213 0.000 0.591 0.804

Mass TS lb/d 67,400 0 246,400 313,800 VS lb/d 58,700 0 184,800 243,500 Concentration TS mg/l 38000 0 50,000 46,900 VS mg/l 33095 0 37,500 36,400 % Solids TS % 3.80% 0.00% 5.00% 4.69% VS % 3.31% 0.00% 3.75% 3.64%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Ultrasound impact on Ash content Flow WAS Total mgd mgd 0.213 0.000 0.591 0.804 Mass TS lb/d 43,920 0 130,000 173,920 00 VS lb/d 35,220 0 68,400 103,620 00 Concentration TS mg/l 24,762 0 26,400 26,000 00 VS mg/l 19,857 0 13,900 15,500 00 % Solids TS % 2.48% 0.00% 2.64% 2.60% 0.00% 0.00% VS % 1.99% 0.00% 1.39% 1.55% 0.00% 0.00% 40.4% 0.00% C. Other Outputs 0.00% Dewatering improvement Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Biogas Volume - daily av. scfm 352,200 0 1,746,100 2,098,300 Volume - annual av. mscf/yr 129 0 637 766 Calorific Value MBTU/d 211 0 1,048 1,259 Ammonia Ammonia - N lb/d 1,409 0 6,984 8,393

Others calculation

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Meso Dig 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING

Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Total Requirements Total working volume - av HRT cf 568,575 0 1,580,328 2,148,903 Total working volume - av VS load cf 375,557 0 788,221 1,557,888 Actual working volume required cf 568,575 0 1,580,328 2,148,903 Existing Units - Working Vol. Digester Selection Existing digesters (duty & standby) Unit Vol. CF Duty Existing No. Required Total Duty Vol 90' dia, 30' deep 2 - - - 354,984 177,492 2 2 354,984 80' dia, 32' deep 6 - - - 897,540 149,590 6 6 897,540 80' dia, 33' deep 3 462,794 154,265 2 2 308,530 105' dia, 30' deep 4 966,346 241,587 3 3 724,760 Total working volume 15 - - - 2,681,665 Total 13 13 2,285,814 Existing standby digesters --- 80' diam 33'deep 1 - - - 154,265 105' dia, 30' deep 1 - - - 241,587 Total working volume 2 - - - 395,851 New Units New digester diameter ft 110 New digester depth ft 30 New digester working volume cf 265,143 No. New Duty units # 0 No. new Standby units # 0 Total no. new units # 0 Actual Av. HRT days 21.3 Peak 2-week HRT days 16.3 Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% Digester Heating Heat Loss from Each Digester Shell BTUH/# 250,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report Sludge Heating Demand BTUH/gpm 10,759 Total Heat Demand average BTU/H 9,751,428 Total Heat Demand peak day BTU/H 14,568,234 Existing Boilers (Output 9 MBTU Ea.) 1 9,000,000 General Plant Information, Jan 1995, asumed same size as P2 boilers CenGen waste heat recovery BTU/H 5,280,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report New Boiler (output 9 MBTU each) # 1 Digested Sludge Holding Tanks Existing 80' dia, 33' deep 5 6,203,766 General Plant Information, Jan 1995 Vol. Required for 3 days storage gal 2,411,352 3 d storage used in ISPU New holding tanks -4

Operational Data Motor Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pump to Dewatering 4 1 168 per week 52 8,736 34,944 Rotamix Pumps 100 13 126 per week 52 6,552 8,517,600 Sludge Heat Recirculation Pumps 30 13 168 per week 52 8,736 3,407,040 Hot Water Circulation Pumps 7.5 13 168 per week 52 8,736 851,760 Bottom sludge pumps 30 6.5 8 per week 52 416 81,120 Grinders 5 13 168 per week 52 8,736 567,840 Boiler system pumps 18.0 1 77 per week 52 4,009 72,166 Digested Sludge Holding Tank Mixer 50 1 168 per week 52 8,736 436,800

Total Hp-hours this option 13,969,270

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Meso Dig 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Rotamix $155,000 each 50% $77,500 0 $0 100% redundancy per digester 2 Digester Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 3 Pump to Dewatering $50,000 each, 15 hp 50% $25,000 0 $0 4 Heat Exchanger with pump $185,000 each 50% $92,500 0 $0 5 Bottom Sludge Pump $65,000 each, 30 hp NA 0 $0 6 Digested Sludge Holding Tank $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 7 Holding Tank Mixing Pump $75,000 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 0 $0

8 Boiler $250,000 each, 9 MBTU 50% $125,000 0 $0

Equipment Sub-Total $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constructio $150 $/sf NA 0 $0 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 0 $0 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $0 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 15% of Construction $0 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 8% of Construction $0 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $0 4 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $0 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $0 2 G/C 10% $0 3 Profit 7% $0 4 Bond 2% $0

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 Total Construction Cost $0

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Meso Dig 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 18,726,000 $2,622,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 50,218 $301,305 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 4,784 $316,000 9

10 Operations Sub-Total $3,239,305 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $3,250,000 Assume $5 mill/digester 3 Annualized Digester Cleaning $60,000.00 per digester 2.6 $156,000 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $3,406,000 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 459,528 $2,757,200 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $2,757,200 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 TOTAL O&M COST $3,888,105 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $48,450,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $48,450,000

Annualized Cost This Option $3,836,983

DRD226.xls; 033370007/ Meso Dig 5 12/08/2003 OCSD PLANT NO. 2 -BELT FILTER PRESS EWDATERING

1. DESIGN CRITERI A Legend: Parameterni U t Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 77 7 Blue = assumed operating conditio Max Day HLR or HRT Red = assumed performance param Max 2-week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 110 110 110 110 1999 SP Purple = calculated (these formula Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 75 75 75 75 Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Ruth Roxburgh, CH2M HILL, email dated 3/12/03 Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/m 699 699 699 699 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 17 8.5 17 17 Carollo report Temperature Solids load Ave day lb/unit/d 33,552 33,552 33,552 33,552 Ammonia-N in biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% Odorous air per unit cfm/BFP 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,500 Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) sweep air cfm/BFP 6,000 6,000 9,000 9,000 Calculated based on area/unit and 30 foot building height Total cfm/BFP 9,000 9,000 13,500 13,500 Cake storage & load cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 P1 biotower capacitycfm 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjus Based on P1-73

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERI A

Digestion Alternative Parameterni U t Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Dry solids % 21.5% 22.0% 22.5% 23.0% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (pe Dry Solids w/ Sonics % NA 22.5% 23.0% 23.5% Capture % 95% 95% 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater flow gpm/unit 80 80 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below

DRD226.xls, 033370007/ BFP P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 3. MASS BALANC E A. Feed Stream Parameter Uni t Digestion Alternative TOTAL Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Flow mgd mgd 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 Mass TS lb/d 173,920 0 0 0 173,920 VS lb/d 103,620 0 0 0 103,620 Concentration TS mg/l 26,000 0 0 0 25,944 VS mg/l 15,500 0 0 0 15,457 % Solids TS % 2.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.59% VS % 1.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.55%

B. Output Stream Parameter Uni t Digestion Alternative TOTAL Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Mass TS lb/d 165,200 0 0 0 165,200 VS lb/d 98,400 0 0 0 98,400 Concentration TS mg/l 215,000 0 0 0 215,000 VS mg/l 128,100 0 0 0 128,100 % Solids TS % 21.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 21.50% VS % 12.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.81% Quantity wet tons per day 384.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 384.2

C. Other Outputs Parameter Uni t Digestion Alternative Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Sidestream Water in w/sludge mgd 0.78 0 0 0 Water out w/sludge mgd 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Filtrate mgd 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 Washwater mgd 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Recycle Flow mgd 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mass TS lb/d 8,700 0 0 0 VS lb/d 5,200 0 0 0 Concentration TS mg/L 600 0 0 0 VS mg/L 400 0 0 0 Ammonia Ammonia-N in sludg lb/d 8,393 0 0 0 % water in filtrate % 91% 0% 0% 0% Ammonia-N in Recyclb/d 7,600 0 0 0 Ammonia-N in Recycmg/L 559 0 0 0 Others

DRD226.xls, 033370007/ BFP P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 4. PROCESS ESIGD N & SIZING Parameter Uni t Digestion Alternative Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Required No. Operational nitU s Hydraulic loading # 8000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Solids loading # 5000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Required Units # 8000 Redundancy # 2000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Total no. units # 10 0 0 0 Units in existing bldg(s) # 10 0 0 0 Units in new bldg # 0000 New building area required (2 storiesq ft 0000Any new buildings assumed to be 2-story Biotowers Total Air Flow (duty) cfm 84,000 0 0 0 Required No. Operational Biotow # 7000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Redundant Biotowers # 2000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Total Biotowers # 9000 Redundancy (Biotowers) % 25% Redundancy (BFP) % 20% Assumptions worksheet

Operational atD a Descriptionnits U Value Commments Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 35 Estimated from Carollo report Width/unit ft 25 Estimated from Carollo report Area/unit sq ft 875 Maximum in existing # 15 Existing conditions Conveyor length/unit ft 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor Energy per gpm kW/gpm 0.1 Carollo report per unit kW/unit 7.5 Labor requirements operators/duty unit 0.75 Based on Carollo report: 6 operators/8 units/24 hour operation

DRD226.xls, 033370007/ BFP P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 5. CAPITAL COSTS No.escription D ni U t Unit $ Installatio n Installed Cost Per ty.Q Treated or % Factor Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ty. Q Cost $ty. Q Cost $ty. Q Cost $ Equipment Cost s 1 Dewatering equipment each, 2m width $260,000 1.5 10 $3,900,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Conveyance ft $4,000 1.4 500 $2,800,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Chemical feed system per BFP $50,000 1.5 10 $750,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 900 cy $962,500 1.5 1 $1,444,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 5 Filtrate pumps 50 hp $75,000 1.5 5 $563,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Equipment Cost Sub-Total $9,457,000 $0 $0 $0 Electrical & I&C 18.0% $1,702,000 $0 $0 $0 Site, Civil, & Utilities 10.0% $946,000 $0 $0 $0 Odor control (installed) per biotower $766,000 1 9 $6,894,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total Equipment Sub-Total $18,999,000 $0 $0 $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construcsf $150 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Pile construction for both plants sf $100 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Building retrofits lump sum $100,000 1 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Building Cost Sub-Tota l $100,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Other 1 Sidestream treatment per gpd $2 1 1,631,600 $3,263,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Construction Other Sub-Total $3,263,000 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $22,362,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Cost Factors Subtotal $22,362,000 $0 $0 $0 1 Project Level Allowance 5% $1,118,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $23,480,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $2,113,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $25,593,000 $0 $0 $0 3 G/C 10% $2,559,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $28,152,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Profit 7% $1,971,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $30,123,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Bond 2% $602,000 $0 $0 $0 CONTRACTOR'S TOTAL $30,725,000 $0 $0 $0 Professional Services Cost Factor s 1 Project Development 2.0% $615,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $922,000 $0 $0 $0 3 Design 18.0% $5,531,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $4,916,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Commission 2.0% $615,000 $0 $0 $0 6 Close-out 0.5% $154,000 $0 $0 $0 7 Contingency 30% $9,218,000 $0 $0 $0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUBTOTA L $21,971,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $52,696,0000$ $ 0$0

DRD226.xls, 033370007/ BFP P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 6. ANNUAL O&M COST S No.escription D ni U t Unit $ Annual Cost Per ty.Q Treated or % Mesoeso M w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ty. Q Cost $ty. Q Cost $ty. Q Cost $ Operations 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.06 2 Purchased Electricity kWh $0.14 525,600 $74,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Natural Gas MBTU $6.00 4 Polymer - Thickening lb $1.30 5 Polymer - Dewatering lb $1.30 539,600 $701,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Ferric chloride dry ton $430.00 9 Average burdened labor hr $66.08 11,040 $730,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10 Compost Amendment cy $10.00 Operations Sub-Total $1,505,000 $0 $0 $0 Maintenanc e 1 New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% $195,000 $0 $0 $0 Carollo report: 8% f 2 Supplies & materials per year/BFP $10,800.00 10 $108,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Rehabilitation per year/BFP $2,100 10 $21,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Other Maintenance Sub-Total $324,000 $0 $0 $0 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $/truck mile $1.50 2 Transport - pumped hp - Transport Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.14 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable kWh $0.03 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable kWh $0.05 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) MBTU $6.00 5 Heat recovery MBTU $6.00 Credits Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Sidestream &Complianc e 1 Odor control scfm $3.00 84,000 $252,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Ammonia load lb/d $0.20 3,368,429 $673,686 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $925,686 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COS T $2,754,686 $0 $0 $0 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Preliminary Design 20 Design 5.0% Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Construction Costs $52,696,000 $0 $0 $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $34,330,000 $0 $0 $0

Total Present Worth for this Option $87,026,000 $0 $0 $0

Annualized Cost This Option $6,891,997 $0 $0 $0

DRD226.xls, 033370007/ BFP P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 Appendix D – Plant No. 1, Model Run 6A (Recommend. Alternative)

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001

Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/09/2003 Time: 12:38:29 PM M o d e l I n p u t - L i q u i d T r a i n

Input for Plant No. 1 (Liquid Process) Legend

Membrane Bioreactor 0.0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Input for Plant No. 2 (Liquid Process) To Ocean Outfall

Micro Filtration 0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Revision 1

SCO/033370008/OCSD/Model Data Sheets.xls|Input Page 1 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/09/2003 Time: 12:38 PM M o d e l I n p u t - S o l i d s H a n d l i n g

Input for Plant No. 1 (Solids Process) Legend

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Data Required is in BLUE 0% Belt Filter Presses 1 0 Calculation Cells in PURPLE Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 100% Mesophilic Digestion Check Cells are in YELLOW with Recuperative Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges None 0 1 0.0% AGF Thickening 0 Gravity Belt Thickeners Rotary Press MARKET CHECKS: Percent Primary Sludge 0 0 OK Centrifuge Thickening Compost OK 0 Pellets ERROR Electro Dewatering Temperature Phase Digestion 0 Market Selection for OCSD Controlled Facilities (Merchant facilities' market selection is up to them) Product Selection Ultrasound 0 100% Horticulture Compost 34.0% percent of in-county compost Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion Member Agencies Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 60% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Pump to Composting - In County 34.0% Fertilizer Daily Average Flow 0 Single Site 80% Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening 0 40% 0 Distance (miles) Horticulture Compost 33.0% percent of in-county compost Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Composting - Out of County Ornamental & Nursery Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying Centrifugal Thickening 0.0% 0 0% 33.0% Fertilizer 0% Centrifuge Thickening 0 Chemical Stabilization Horticulture Compost 32.9% percent of in-county compost 0% Retail Blending/Bagging Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type 32.9% Fertilizer OK OK OK OK OK Organo-Mineral Fertilizers Select One Recuperative Thickening Type 0% Silviculture Compost 0.1% percent of in-county compost OK Shade Tree Program Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0.1% Fertiliszer Input for Plant No. 2 (Solids Process)

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Heat Drying - In County Biomass Crops Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost 0% Pump to 0% (Energy/Ethanol) Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0 Single Site 0.0% Fertilizer Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0 0% Mesophilic Digestion Distance (miles) Heat Drying - Out of County with Recuperative Thickening 0 0% OCSD Farm Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost No Thickening 0 Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0.0% AGF Thickening Belt Filter Presses 0.0% 0 0 Percent Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners OK 0 Landfill Partnering (ADC) Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost Centrifuge Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0 0 0.0%

Select Mix of Product Technology OK Input for Single Site Dewatering (Solids Process)

Belt Filter Presses Land Application High pH 0.0% 0 OCSD Farm 0.0%

High Solids Centrifuges 0 Direct Landfilling Cake 0.0% Failsafe Backup 0.0% CHECK OK Rotary Press 0 Select Mix of Product Markets OK Electro Dewatering 0

Select One Dewatering Type OK

SCO/033370008/OCSD/Model Data Sheets|Input Page 1 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/09/2003 Time: 12:38 PM M o d e l I n p u t - C o s t A s s u m p t i o n s

1. COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS Parameter Unit Range Value Construction Costs Base Year: 2003 Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Asmptns 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Asmptns 2 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

In-county Composting Pumps Sludge transfer pumps 1 4 25% As per 1989 Master Plan

6. FLOW & LOAD PEAKING FACTORS

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Asmptns 3 12/09/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run y:B RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/02/2003 Time: 1:03 PM Model Output

Process Solids Outlet ON or Outlet Solids Distance PW Annual Unit Process Influent Loading, Solids Capital Cost Present Worth OFF wtpd (miles) O&M Cost Flow, mgd dT/Day Conc., % Plant No. 1 Plant Influent Flow 177 Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener off 0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener ON 0.806 161.3 8.50% $31,200,000 $26,120,000 $57,320,000 No Thickening off Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON 1.051 35.1 4.00% $0 $16,070,000 $16,070,000 Gravity Belt Thickener ON 0.701 23.4 6.00% $12,850,000 $4,710,000 $17,560,000 Centrifuge Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound ON 0.295 56.6 4.60% $10,080,000 $3,540,000 $13,620,000 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 0.727 209.8 3.47% $0 $6,980,000 $6,980,000 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temperature Phased off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener off 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Pumping to Single Site off 0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press off 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 High-Solids Centrifuge ON 0.73 105.0 26.71% 373.4 $53,744,000 $49,110,000 $102,854,000 Rotary Press off 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 Electro Dewatering off 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0

Total orf Plant No. 1 177 105 26.7% 373.4 0 $107,874,000 $106,530,000 $214,404,000 Beneficial use cost 45 ton $122,662,000 $337,066,000

033370008/ DRD227.xls 1 of 1 12/09/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P1 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/02/2003 Time: 1:03 PM Equipment List

Number of Number of New Process Capital Unit Process ON or OFF Existing New Units Building, sf Cost Units Plant No. 1 Plant Influent Flow 177 mgd Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener ON NA 5 3,850 $31,200,000 No Thickening off Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON600$0 Gravity Belt Thickener ON NA 3 4,000 $12,850,000 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound ON NA 35 1,714 $10,080,000 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 10 0 0 $0 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th off $0 AGF Thickener off GBT Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 Temperature Phased off $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. off $0 AGF Thickener off GBT Thickener off $0 Centrifuge Thickener off $0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press off $0 High-Solids Centrifuge ON NA 7 0 $53,744,000 Rotary Press off $0 Electro Dewatering off $0

Total for Plant No. 1 9,564 $107,874,000

DRD227.xls/ 033370008/ Equipment List OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Plant No. 1 - Simplified Mass Balance Notes: Legend: 1. Spreadsheet incorporates a circular reference (TF Sludge return to primary clarifiers). Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions To allow spreadsheet to calculate circular reference make sure iterations are allowed. Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters From "Tools" menu, select "Options", then "Calculations", and make sure "Iterations" is checked. BOD = 8 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) 2. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). TSS = 8 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters Influent Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 15.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 29.2 mgd Yea r 2020 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100% 29.2 mgd BOD removed = 26,800 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L Flow = 177 mgd BOD removal = 25% Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L BOD = 270 mg/L TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 TSS = 260 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L and/or PEF = Flow = 188.5 mgd Flow = 94.9 mgd w/ Chemical Addition VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 BOD = 8 mg/L BOD = 8 mg/L TF Sludge 100% BOD removal = 49% TSS = 10 mg/L TSS = 10 mg/L 188.5 mgd TSS removal = 76% Activated Sludge MF Backwash Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Performance based on 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 6 mg/L hours of Chemical Addition Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 8 mg/L BOD removal = 49% % Total Flow = 0% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 TSS removal = 76% Flow = 0.0 mgd and/or PEF = Influent w/TF Sludge Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.78 BOD = 130 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Microfiltration and MF Backwash TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters MF Backwash Influent Flow = 93.6 mgd Flow = 188.5 mgd BOD removal in PE = 16% Nitrifying Activated Sludge Returned to Recovery = 88.0% BOD = 255 mg/L TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5% BOD removed = 124 mg/L Flow = 159.3 mgd Primary Clarifiers Backwash flow = 11.2 mgd TSS = 270 mg/L ABRs Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 159.3 mgd BOD removed = 164,700 lb/d BOD = 6 mg/L Backwash BOD = 29 mg/L Historical Primary Clarifier Performance Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 8 mg/L Backwash TSS = 83 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 BOD removal = 48% and/or PEF = TSS removal = 75% VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Reverse Osmosis Additional Removal with ABR Influent Flow = 82.4 mgd 0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Membrane Bioreactor Recovery = 85% 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0.0 mgd Concentrate flow= 12.4 mgd Overall ABR Performance 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 4 mg/L BOD removal = 57% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 0 mg/L Assumed to be 1/2 of AS/NAS Effluent BOD TSS removal = 84% Trickling Filter Sludge VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary GWR System Product 0.87 Primary Sludge Primary sludge reduction = 30% TF Sludge Parameter TF Units and/or PEF = Flow = 70 mgd Thickening Return Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 Returned to Mass VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 0.374 mgd Primary Clarifiers TS 17,400 lb/d BOD = NA mg/L Concentration TSS = 5,176 mg/L TS 8,000 mg/L BOD 100 mg/L Primary Sludge Production % solids Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Parameter Primary ABR PEF Total Units TS 0.80% % Parameter WAS N-WAS MBR Total Units Parameter Primary Secondary Total Units Mass Flow 0.261 mgd Mass Mass TS 322,600 0 0 322,600 lb/d 161.3 TS 0 116,900 0 116,900 lb/d 58.45 TS 322,600 116,900 439,500 lb/d VS 251,600 0 0 251,600 lb/d VS 0 101,700 0 101,700 lb/d VS 251,600 101,700 353,300 lb/d Concentration Concentration Concentration TS 48,000 0 0 48,000 mg/L TS 0 8,000 0 8,000 mg/L TS 48,000 8,000 20,600 mg/L VS 37,440 0 0 37,000 mg/L VS 0 7,000 0 7,000 mg/L VS 37,000 7,000 16,500 mg/L % solids % solids % solids TS 4.80% 0.00% 0.00% 4.80% % TS 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.80% %TS4.80% 0.80% 2.06% % VS 3.74% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% % VS 0.00% 0.70% 0.00% 0.70% %VS3.70% 0.70% 1.65% % Flow 0.806 0.000 0.000 0.806 mgd Flow 0 1.752 0 1.752 mgd Flow 0.806 1.752 2.558 mgd

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Plant 1 MB 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 1 SOLIDS HANDLING FLOW SHEET PRIMARY/SECONDARY SLUDGE PRODUCTION THICKENING OPTIONS ADD-ON TECHNOLOGIES

Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Primary Sludge Production 60.00% 0.206 mgd Parameter Total Units 1.051 mgd Mass 100.00% Ultrasound To digestion below TS 322,600 lb/d 0.295 mgd 0.295 mgd 0.727 mgd VS 251,600 lb/d Concentration TS 48,000 mg/L 0.806 mgd VS 37,000 mg/L 0.00% Gravity Belt 0.000 mgd 0.00% % solids 0.000 mgd Thickener 0.000 mgd TS 4.80% % 40.00% 0.089 mgd VS 3.70% % 0.701 mgd Check: OK Flow 0.806 mgd

Secondary Sludge Production 100.00% Centrifuge 0.432 mgd Parameter Total WAS Total 0.806 mgd Thickener Mass 0.00% 0.000 mgd TS 116,900 lb/d 0.000 mgd VS 101,700 lb/d Concentration TS 8,000 mg/L 1.752 mgd VS 7,000 mg/L % solids 0.00% None 0 mgd 100.00% TS 0.80% % 0 mgd 0.432 mgd VS 0.70% % Flow 1.752 mgd Check: PS OK Check:SS OK

DIGESTION DEWATERING

Tie to input sheet Single Stage 1 Mesophilic 0.727 mgd 0.727 mgd From Tie to Input sheet Pretreatment Belt Filter Above 0.727 mgd 0 Press 0.0 wtpd 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd SS Meso Dig w / 0 Recuperative 0.000 mgd High Speed 0.000 mgd Thickening 1 Centrifuge 373.4 wtpd 0.727 mgd 1 0.727 mgd 99.75 dtpd To Transport and AGF Thickening 373.4 wtpd Product Technologies 0 Check: ERR Rotary 99.75 dtpd File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Press 0.0 wtpd 0 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd Centrifuge Thickening 0 Electro Two-stage 0 Dewatering 0.0 wtpd 0 Thermo/Meso 0.000 mgd 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd 0.000 mgd To Combined Dewatering Pump to Transport and Single Site Product Technologies 0 Distance File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Therm/Meso Dig 0.000 mgd Miles w Recuperative 0.000 mgd 0 0 Thickening Select One Dewatering Type 0.000 mgd Check: OK AGF Thickening 0 Select One Digestion Type Gravity Belt Thickeners Check: OK 0 Centrifuge Thickening 0

Checks: OK ERR

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Flow Sheet 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 1 - DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENING Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit WAS Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 2.0 Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 1.1 max. month = 1.6 gpm/sf/d in 1989 Master Plan; IPMC 0.24 gpm/sf/hr Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 20 Max month = 18lb/d/sf in 1989 Master Plan Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 11.8 ISPU 11lb/sf/d (av) at P1 and 10 lb/sf/d at P2; IPMC 1 lb/hr/sf Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 10 Temperature Odorous air per unit cfm/DAFT 10,000 Calculated based on 8 cfm per ft surface area, cross-checked with Odor Control MP sweep air cfm/DAFT 0 Total cfm/DAFT 10,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotowe % 25%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Flow or % mgd or % 60.00% Parameter Unit WAS

Solids capture rate % of feed TS 98% 94% at P2 Float TSS % 4.0% 3.8% at P2 Thickener underflow mgd

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ DAFT 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 1.051 Mass TS lb/d 70,140 VS lb/d 61,020 Concentration TS mg/l 8,000 VS mg/l 7,000 % Solids TS % 0.80% VS % 0.70%

B. Output Solids Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 0.206 Mass TS lb/d 68,700 VS lb/d 59,800 Concentration TS mg/l 40,000 VS mg/l 34,800 % Solids TS % 4.00% VS % 3.48%

C. Underflow Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 0.845 Mass TS lb/d 1,440 VS lb/d 1,220 Concentration TS mg/l 204 VS mg/l 173 % Solids TS % 0.0% VS % 0.0%

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ DAFT 2 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit WAS Total Requirements Total area required - Av solids sf 5,926 Total area required - Av. hydraul sf 658 Actual Total area required sf 5,926 Each unit diameter ft 40 Each unit area sf 1,257 Required no. operational units # 5 Redundancy # 1 Total no. units # 6 Footprint sf Existing Units No. Operational # 5 No. Standby # 1 Diameter ft 40 Total area sf 6,283 New Units Additional area required sf 0 Diameter ft 40 Area each sf 1,257 No. Operational # 0 No. Standby # 0 Total new units # 0 Note: ISPU estimate for WAS thickening- 2 new units, Unit Cost (w/ odor control) $4,700,000 + VOC control cost $800,000, Total Budget Cost $10,2 Operations Actual HLR gpm/sf 0.12 Actual SLR lb/sf/d 11.16

Operational Data Operating Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pressurization Pump 5 5 168 per week 52 8,736 198,020 40 psi Reciprocating Air Compressor 15 5 84 per week 52 4,368 327,600 Pump Float to Digestion 1 5 168 per week 52 8,736 43,680 Pump Recycle to Headworks 1 5 168 per week 52 8,736 43,680 DAFT drives 2 5 168 per week 52 8,736 87,360 Polymer feed system 7.5 5 168 per week 52 8,736 327,600 Plant effluent to pressurization pump 8 3 84 per week 52 4,368 99,010 at 40 psi Total Hp-hours this option 1,126,950

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ DAFT 3 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 DAFT system (40ft dia) $190,000 each 50% $95,000 0 $0 2 Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 3 Pumps (Float @ TDH 40') $10,000 each, 15 hp 50% $5,000 0 $0 4 Pumps (Underflow to Recycle) $80,000 each, 75 hp 50% $40,000 0 $0 5 Polymer Feed System $40,000 each, 7.5 hp 50% $20,000 0 $0 6 Recycle treatment $0.00 gpd NA 0 $0 Assumes existing secondary has capacity to treat 110 mgd worth 7 Plant effluent to pressurization pump $75,000.00 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 0 $0 Equipment Sub-Total $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constructio $150 $/sf NA 0 $0 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 0 $0 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $0 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $0 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $0 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $0 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 0 $0 Assumes new biotowers for all operational units, new & existing 5 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $0 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $0 2G/C 10% $0 3 Profit 7% $0 4 Bond 2% $0

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 Total Construction Cost $0

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ DAFT 4 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit WAS Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 1,511,000 $212,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 128,093 $166,500 5 Polymer - Dewatering 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66 hr 5,520 $365,000 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $743,500 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $375,000 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $375,000 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 50,000 $150,000 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Recycle Treatment $0.04 lb/d 525,600 $21,024 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $171,024 TOTAL O&M COST $1,289,524 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $16,070,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $16,070,000

Annualized Cost This Option $1,272,659

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ DAFT 5 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 1 - GRAVITY BELT THICKENING Legend:

1. DESIGN CRITERIA Parameter Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total Blue = assumed operating conditions Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Red = assumed performance parameters Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 777Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/meter 300 300 300 300 Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/meter 166 166 166 166 Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/meter 700 1,500 700 700 Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/meter 414 888 414 414 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 6 612 Temperature Odorous air Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) per unit cfm/GBT 3,000 6000 6,000 Calculated based on area/unit and 30 foot building height sweep air cfm/GBT 4,800 6000 6,000 Total cfm/GBT 7,800 12000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 12,000 12,000 Redundancy Biotower % 25% 25% 25%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Flow % % 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% link to Flow sheet Parameter Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total

Solids capture rate % of feed TS 95% 95% 92% Thickened TSS % 6.0% 6.5% 6.0% Washwater flow gpm/unit 60 60 60

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ GBT 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS PS Recup Thick Total Flow mgd mgd 0.701 0.000 0.000 0.701 Mass TS lb/d 46,760 0 0 46,760 VS lb/d 40,680 0 0 40,680 0.4 Concentration 26.64 TS mg/l 8,000 0 0 7,999 VS mg/l 7,000 0 0 6,959 % Solids TS % 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.80% VS % 0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.70%

B. Output Solids Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS PS Recup Thick Total Flow mgd mgd 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.089 Mass TS lb/d 44,422 0 0 44,422 VS lb/d 38,646 0 0 38,646 Concentration TS mg/l 60,000 0 0 59,932 VS mg/l 52,198 0 0 52,140 % Solids TS % 6.0% 0.00% 0.00% 6.00% VS % 5.2% 0.00% 0.00% 5.21%

C. Underflow Parameter Unit Stream WAS PS Recup Thick Total Flow mgd mgd 0.785 0.000 0.000 0.785 includes washwater Mass TS lb/d 2,338 0 0 2,338 VS lb/d 2,034 0 0 2,034 Concentration TS mg/l 357 0 0 357 VS mg/l 311 0 0 311 % Solids TS % 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% 0.0% VS % 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% 0.0%

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ GBT 2 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total Total Requirements Width required (hydraulic) meters 3 0 0 3 Width required (solids) meters 50 05 Total width required meters 50 05 Each unit width meters 3 3 3 3 Required no. operational units # 20 02 Redundancy # 10 01 Total no. units # 30 03 Footprint sf

Biotowers Total Air Flow (duty) cfm 15,600 0 0 15,600 Required No. Operational Biotow# 20 02 Redundant Biotowers # 10 01 Total Biotowers # 30 03 Redundancy (Biotowers) % 25% 25% 25% 25%

Operational Data Operating Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Hp-hour Description Hp Hours Units for Annual of Operation WAS PS Recup Gravity Belt Thickener 5 168 per week 52 8,736 87,360 0 0

Thickened Sludge to Digestion 1 168 per week 52 8,736 17,472 0 0 Pump Recycle to Headworks 6 168 per week 52 8,736 104,832 0 0 Washwater pumps 4 168 per week 52 8,736 65,144 0 0 Polymer feed system 3 168 per week 52 8,736 52,416 0 0 Total Hp-hours 327,224 0 0

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ GBT 3 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ WAS PS Recup Thick Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 GBT system, 3m units $180,000 each 50% $90,000 3 $810,000 0 $0 0 $0 $810,000 2 Polymer Feed System $40,000 each 50% $20,000 3 $180,000 0 $0 0 $0 $180,000 3 Pumps (Thickened Sludge @ TDH 30') $40,000 each, 10 hp 50% $20,000 3 $180,000 0 $0 0 $0 $180,000 4 Pumps (Filtrate to Recycle) $80,000 each, 75 hp 50% $40,000 3 $360,000 0 $0 0 $0 $360,000 5 Recycle treatment $0.00 gpd NA 0 $0 0 $0 - - $0 6 Washwater pumps $7,000.00 each, 7.5 hp 50% $3,500 3 $31,500 0 $0 0 $0 $31,500

Equipment Sub-Total $1,561,500 $0 $0 $1,561,500 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constructio $150 $/sf NA 4000 $600,000 0 $0 0 $0 $600,000 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 4000 $400,000 0 $0 0 $0 $400,000 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $461,100 $0 $0 $461,100 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $256,200 $0 $0 $256,200 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $128,100 $0 $0 $128,100 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 3 $2,316,000 0 $0 0 $0 $2,316,000 5 Allowance for Class 1 Div 1 reqmts 25% $0 Construction Other Sub-Total $3,161,400 $0 $0 $3,161,400 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $515,100 $0 $0 $515,100 2 G/C 10% $623,800 $0 $0 $623,800 3 Profit 7% $480,300 $0 $0 $480,300 4 Bond 2% $146,800 $0 $0 $146,800

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $1,766,000 $0 $0 $1,766,000 Total Construction Cost $7,490,000 $0 $0 $7,490,000

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 2.0% $149,800 $0 $0 $149,800 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $224,700 $0 $0 $224,700 3 Design 18.0% $1,348,200 $0 $0 $1,348,200 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $1,198,400 $0 $0 $1,198,400 5 Commission 2.0% $149,800 $0 $0 $149,800 6 Close-out 0.5% $37,500 $0 $0 $37,500 7 Contingency 30.0% $2,247,000 $0 $0 $2,247,000 Professional Services Sub-total $5,355,400 $0 $0 $5,355,400 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $12,850,000 $0 $0 $12,850,000

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ GBT 4 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 439,000 $61,000 0 $0 0 $0 $61,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 51,237 $66,608 0 $0 0 $0 $66,608 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 1,380 $91,000 0 $0 0 $0 $91,000 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $218,600 $0 $0 $218,600 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $78,100 $0 $0 $78,100 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $78,100 $0 $0 $78,100 Transport To Processing Site 1 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 2 Chemicals/Materials $0.00 0 Transport Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 15,600 $46,800 0 $0 0 $0 15,600 $46,800 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Recycle treatment $0.04 lb/d 853,370 $34,100 0 $0 - - 853,370 $34,100 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $80,900 $0 $0 $80,900 TOTAL O&M COST $377,600 $0 $0 $377,600 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0% WAS PS Recup Thick Total Construction Costs $12,850,000 $0 $0 $12,850,000

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $4,710,000 $0 $0 $4,710,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $17,560,000 $0 $0 $17,560,000

Annualized Cost This Option $1,390,659 $0 $0 $1,390,659

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ GBT 5 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 1 - CENTRIFUGE THICKENING Legend:

1. DESIGN CRITERIA Parameter Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Blue = assumed operating conditions Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 777Red = assumed performance parameters Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 700 700 700 700 Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 388 388 388 388 Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/unit 6500 6500 6500 6500 Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr/unit 3847 3847 3847 3847 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 44 8 Temperature Odorous air Current point source ventilation rate for BFPs (per Ed Torres, 3/17/03) per unit cfm/centrifuge 200 200 200 Calculated based on area/unit and 30 foot building height sweep air cfm/centrifuge 2,400 3000 3000 Total cfm/centrifuge 2,600 3,200 3,200 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP P1 biotower capacitycfm 12,000 12,000 12,000 Redundancy Biotow % 25% 25% 25%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Flow % % 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% link to Flow sheet Parameter Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total

Solids capture rate % of feed TS 95% 95% 92% Thickened TSS % 6.0% 8.5% 6.0% Thickener centrate mgd

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Cent Th 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS PS Recup Thick Total Flow mgd mgd 0.000 0.806 0.000 0.806 Mass TS lb/d 0 322,600 0 322,600 VS lb/d 0 251,600 0 251,600 Concentration TS mg/l 0 48,000 0 47,985 VS mg/l 0 37,000 0 37,424 % Solids TS % 0.00% 4.80% 0.00% 4.80% VS % 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 3.74%

B. Output Solids Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS PS Recup Thick Total Flow mgd mgd 0.000 0.432 0.000 0.432 Mass TS lb/d 0 306,470 0 306,470 153.2350001 VS lb/d 0 239,020 0 239,020 Concentration TS mg/l 0 85,000 0 84,980 VS mg/l 0 66,293 0 66,277 % Solids TS % 0.00% 8.50% 0.00% 8.50% VS % 0.00% 6.63% 0.00% 6.63%

C. Underflow Parameter Unit Stream WAS PS Recup Thick Total Flow mgd mgd 0.000 0.374 0.000 0.374 Mass TS lb/d 0 16,130 0 16,130 VS lb/d 0 12,580 0 12,580 Concentration TS mg/l 0 5,176 0 5,176 VS mg/l 0 4,037 0 4,037 % Solids TS % 0.0% 0.5% 0.00% 0.5% VS % 0.0% 0.4% 0.00% 0.4%

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Cent Th 2 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total Total Requirements Total hydraulic loading gpm 0 559 0 Total solids loading lb/d 0 322,600 0 Required no. operational units # 04 0 Redundancy # 01 0 Total no. units # 05 0 Footprint sf

Biotowers Total Air Flow (duty) cfm 0 16,000 0 Required No. Operational Biotow# 02 0 Redundant Biotowers # 01 0 Total Biotowers # 03 0 Redundancy (Biotowers) % 25%

Operational Data Motor Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Hp-hour Description Hp Hours Units for Annual of Operation WAS PS Recup Centrifuge Thickener 146 168 per week 52 8,736 0 5,110,560 0

Thickened Sludge to Digestion 5 168 per week 52 8,736 0 174,720 0 Pump Recycle to Headworks 3 168 per week 52 8,736 0 104,832 0

Polymer feed system 6 168 per week 52 8,736 0 209,664 Total Hp-hours 0 5,599,776 0

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Cent Th 3 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ WAS PS Recup Thick Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Centrifuge system $560,000 each 50% $280,000 0 $0 5 $5,460,000 0 $0 $5,460,000 2 Polymer Feed System $40,000 each 50% $20,000 0 $0 5 $300,000 0 $0 $300,000 3 Pumps (Thickened Sludge @ TDH 30') $40,000 each, 10 hp 50% $20,000 0 $0 5 $300,000 0 $0 $300,000 4 Pumps (Centrate to Recycle) $80,000 each, 75 hp 50% $40,000 0 $0 5 $600,000 0 $0 $600,000 5 Recycle treatment $0.00 gpd NA 0 $0 373,682 $0 - - 373,682 $0

Equipment Sub-Total $0 $6,660,000 $0 $6,660,000 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constr $150 $/sf NA 0 $0 3,850 $577,500 0 $0 $577,500 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 0 $0 3,850 $385,000 0 $0 $385,000 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $0 $962,500 $0 $962,500 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 37% of Construction $0 $2,820,300 $0 $2,820,300 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $0 $762,300 $0 $762,300 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $0 $381,100 $0 $381,100 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 0 $0 3 $2,316,000 0 $0 $2,316,000 5 Allowance for Class 1 Div 1 reqmts 25% $0 Construction Other Sub-Total $0 $6,279,700 $0 $6,279,700 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $0 $1,251,200 $0 $1,251,200 2 G/C 10% $0 $1,515,300 $0 $1,515,300 3 Profit 7% $0 $1,166,800 $0 $1,166,800 4 Bond 2% $0 $356,700 $0 $356,700

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 $4,290,000 $0 $4,290,000 Total Construction Cost $0 $18,190,000 $0 $18,190,000

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 2.0% $0 $363,800 $0 $363,800 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $0 $545,700 $0 $545,700 3 Design 18.0% $0 $3,274,200 $0 $3,274,200 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $0 $2,910,400 $0 $2,910,400 5 Commission 2.0% $0 $363,800 $0 $363,800 6 Close-out 0.5% $0 $91,000 $0 $91,000 7 Contingency 30.0% $0 $5,457,000 $0 $5,457,000 Professional Services Sub-total $0 $13,005,900 $0 $13,005,900 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $0 $31,200,000 $0 $31,200,000

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Cent Th 4 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity TreateO&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit WAS PS Recup Thick Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 0 $0 7,506,000 $1,051,000 0 $0 $0 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 0 $0 235,659 $306,357 0 $0 $0 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 0 $0 2,000 $132,000 0 $0 $0 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $0 $1,489,357 $0 $0 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 $333,000 $0 $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $0 $333,000 $0 $0 Transport To Processing Site 1 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 2 Chemicals/Materials $0.00 0 Transport Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 0 $0 12,800 $38,400 0 0 12,800 $38,400 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Recycle treatment $0.04 lb/d 0 $0 5,887,450 $235,500 - - 5,887,450 $235,500 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 $273,900 $0 $273,900 TOTAL O&M COST $0 $2,096,257 $0 $273,900 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0% WAS PS Recup Thick Construction Costs $0 $31,200,000 $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $0 $26,120,000 $0

Total Present Worth for this Option $0 $57,320,000 $0

Annualized Cost This Option $0 $4,539,440 $0

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Cent Th 5 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 1 - ULTRASOUND FOR ADVANCED DIGESTION Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions (BASED ON THE SONICO ULTRASOUND UNIT - SONIX V5) Red = assumed performance parameters Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Parameter Unit DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Choose sizing criteria Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 77 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/stack 13 13 13 13 N (if N, sizes based on av. flow, if Y, sizes based on peak flow fromTWAS pump) Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT mgd/stack 0.0096 0.0096 0.0096 0.0096 Y (If N, sizes based on peak flow from TWAS pump, if Y, sizes based on av. flow ) Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate

No. of duty TWAS pumps # 322 Flow rate each TWAS pump gpm 200 200 200 Max TWAS flow rate gpm 600 400 0 1,000 OK Check pump flow greater than daily TWAS flow

Ultrasound unit (V5) stacks/unit 5 55 5 Ultrasound power kW/stack 6 66 6

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Thickening Flow % % 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% Parameter Unit DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Uptime hrs/yr 98% 98% 98% 98% Increase in VS reduction of WAS % of VS 50% 50% 50% Conventional WAS VS reduction % of VS 40% 40% 40% Cross-checked with 'Advanced Primary Treatment Optimization & Cost Benefit Documented at OCSD Sonix WAS VS reduction % of VS 60% 60% 60% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 15 Digester gas calorific value BTU/scfm 600 600 600

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Ultrasound 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.206 0.089 0.000 0.295 Mass TS lb/d 68,700 44,422 0 113,122 VS lb/d 59,800 38,646 0 98,446 Concentration TS mg/l 40,000 60,000 0 46,024 VS mg/l 34,800 52,198 0 40,053 % Solids TS % 4.0% 6.0% 0.0% 4.6% VS % 3.5% 0.5% 0.0% 4.0%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Stream DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.206 0.089 0.000 0.295 Mass TS lb/d 68,700 44,422 0 113,122 VS lb/d 59,800 38,646 0 98,446 Concentration TS mg/l 40,000 60,000 0 46,024 VS mg/l 34,800 52,198 0 40,100 % Solids TS % 4.00% 6.0% 0.0% 4.60% VS % 3.48% 0.5% 0.0% 4.01%

C. Other Outputs Parameter Unit Stream DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Biogas Volume scfm Calorific Value BTU/d Ammonia Ammonia - N lb/d

Others

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Ultrasound 2 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING

Parameter Unit DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Average TWAS flow mgd 0.206 0.089 0.000 0.295 Av. duty no. horns required # 22 10 0 31 Peak TWAS flow gpm 600 400 0 1000 Peak duty no. horns required # 46 31 0 76 Selected no. duty horns # 22 10 0 31 Redundancy # 040 4 Total no. units # 22 14 0 35 Actual length per V5 unit ft 3 33 3 Working length per unit ft 10 10 10 10 Total length of units ft 44 28 0 70 Length of Bypass pipe ft 62 39 0 98 Footprint per V5 unit sf 200 200 200 200 Holding tank capacity hrs, av holding tim 3 33 3 Volume gall 28,059 12,095 0 40,154 Diameter ft 20 20 20 20 Height ft 12 5 0 17 No.duty transfer pumps # 212 No. total transfer pumps 320 5

Operational Data Generator Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total kWh Description kW Hours Units for Annual of Operation TOTAL Connected load per stack (For Peak Demand Calc) 6 165 per week 52 8,561 1,592,398 Operational load per stack 2 165 per week 52 8,561 477,719 Support facilities operational load per stack 1 168 per week 52 8,736 270,816 Transfer pump 3 168 per week 52 8,736 26,208 Total annual kWh this option 774,743

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Ultrasound 3 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Sonix equipment $50,000 each stack 30% $15,000 35 $2,275,000 2 Sound proofing $10,000 each V5 20% $2,000 7 $84,000 3 Transfer pump $70,000 each, 30 hp 50% $35,000 5 $525,000 4 Holding tank $2.75 $/gal NA 40,154 $110,423 5

Equipment Sub-Total $2,994,423 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constru $150 $/sf NA 1400 $210,000 2 Site-specific building costs $100 $/sf NA 1,714 171,416 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $381,416 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $607,700 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $337,600 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $168,800 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 5 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $1,114,100 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $404,100 2G/C 10% $489,400 3 Profit 7% $376,800 4 Bond 2% $115,200

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $1,385,500 Total Construction Cost $5,880,000

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 2.0% $117,600 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $176,400 3 Design 18.0% $1,058,400 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $940,800 5 Commission 2.0% $117,600 6 Close-out 0.5% $29,400 7 Contingency 30.0% $1,764,000 Professional Services Sub-total $4,204,200 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $10,080,000

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Ultrasound 4 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 774,743 $108,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 386 $26,000 3% FTE per V5 unit 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $134,000 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $149,700 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $149,700 Transport To Processing Site 1 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 2 Chemicals/Materials $0.00 0 Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 2 3 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 TOTAL O&M COST $283,700 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $10,080,000

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $3,540,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $13,620,000

Annualized Cost This Option $1,078,632

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Ultrasound 5 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 1 - SINGLE STAGE MESOPHILIC DIGESTION Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk Max 2-week HLR or HRT days 15 15 15 15 ( 1989 Master Plan = 25 D Max Month) Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT days 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 (ISPU = 20d) Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/cf/d 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.30 Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.21 As per ISPU Polymer Feed Rate Feed sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 Digester Operating Temperature F 98 98 98 98

Cellular nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% 93% 93%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Previous Processes TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge ? Recup Thick Flow % % 0.00% 100.0% 100.0% Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total

VS reduction (VSR) % of VS 40% 60% 63% 62.1% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 15 15 Digester gas calorific value BTU/scfm 600 600 600 600

Boiler efficiency (average) % 78% 78% 78% 78%

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Meso Dig 1 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.000 0.295 0.432 0.727

Mass TS lb/d 0 113,122 306,470 419,592 VS lb/d 0 98,446 239,020 337,466 Concentration TS mg/l 0 46,024 85,000 69,200 VS mg/l 0 40,100 66,300 55,700 % Solids TS % 0.00% 4.60% 8.50% 6.92% VS % 0.00% 4.01% 6.63% 5.57%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Ultrasound impact on Ash content Flow WAS Total mgd mgd 0.000 0.295 0.432 0.727 Mass TS lb/d 0 54,076 155,950 210,026 73743.6 229693.6 VS lb/d 0 39,400 88,500 127,900 59067.6 147567.6 Concentration TS mg/l 0 22,100 43,300 34,700 30,003 37900 VS mg/l 0 16,100 24,600 21,100 24,032 24400 % Solids TS % 0.00% 2.21% 4.33% 3.47% 3.00% 3.79% VS % 0.00% 1.61% 2.46% 2.11% 2.40% 2.44% Ash content 39.2% 35.62% C. Other Outputs 0.71% Dewatering improvement Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Biogas Volume - daily av. scfm 0 885,700 2,257,900 3,143,600 Volume - annual av. mscf/yr 0 323 824 1,147 Calorific Value MBTU/d 0 531 1,355 1,886 Ammonia Ammonia - N lb/d 0 3,543 9,031 12,574

Others calculation

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Meso Dig 2 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING

Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Total Requirements Total working volume - av HRT cf 0 890,345 1,306,380 2,196,725 Total working volume - av VS load cf 0 476,460 1,156,810 1,633,270 Actual working volume required cf 0 890,345 1,306,380 2,196,725 Existing Units - Working Vol. Existing operational digesters 90' dia, 29' deep 2 - - - 343,151 171,576 110' dia, 30' deep 8 - - - 2,121,141 Total working volum 10 - - - 2,464,292 Existing standby digesters --- 90' dia, 29' deep 0 --- 0 110' dia, 30' deep 0 --- 0 Total working volum 0- - - 0 New Units New digester diameter ft 110 New digester depth ft 30 New digester working volume cf 0 No. New Duty units # 0 Total Operational Units # 8 Total Standby Units # 1 No. new Standby units # 0 Total no. new units # 0 Actual Av. HRT days 25.4 Peak 2-week HRT days 16.8 Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% Digester Heating Heat Loss from Each Digester SheBTUH/# 250,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report Sludge Heating Demand BTUH/gpm 10,759 Total Heat Demand average BTU/H 7,929,063 Total Heat Demand peak day BTU/H 12,286,483 Existing Boilers (Output 9 MBTU E 1 9,000,000 General Plant Information, Jan 1995, asumed same size as P2 boilers CenGen waste heat recovery BTU/H 5,280,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report New Boiler (output 9 MBTU eac # 0 Digested Sludge Holding Tanks Existing 90' dia, 30' deep 2 2,855,142 General Plant Information, Jan 1995 Vol. Required for 3 days storage gall 2,181,378 3 d storage used in ISPU New holding tanks -1

Operational Data Motor Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pump to Dewatering 4 1 168 per week 52 8,736 34,944 Rotamix Pumps 100 8 126 per week 52 6,552 5,241,600 Sludge Heat Recirculation Pumps 30 8 168 per week 52 8,736 2,096,640 Hot Water Circulation Pumps 7.5 8 168 per week 52 8,736 524,160 Bottom sludge pumps 30 4 8 per week 52 416 49,920 Grinders 5 8 168 per week 52 8,736 349,440 Boiler system pumps 18.0 1 56 per week 52 2,922 52,603 Digested Sludge Holding Tank Mixer 50 1 168 per week 52 8,736 436,800

Total Hp-hours this option 8,786,107

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Meso Dig 3 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Rotamix $155,000 each 50% $77,500 0 $0 100% redundancy per digester 2 Digester Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 3 Pump to Dewatering $50,000 each, 15 hp 50% $25,000 0 $0 4 Heat Exchanger with pump $185,000 each 50% $92,500 0 $0 5 Bottom Sludge Pump $65,000 each, 30 hp NA 0 $0 6 Digested Sludge Holding Tank $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 7 Holding Tank Mixing Pump $75,000 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 0 $0

8 Boiler $250,000 each, 9 MBTU 50% 125000 0 $0

Equipment Sub-Total $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construc $150 $/sf NA 0 $0 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 0 $0 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $0 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 15% of Construction $0 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 8% of Construction $0 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $0 4 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $0 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $0 2G/C 10% $0 3 Profit 7% $0 4 Bond 2% $0

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 Total Construction Cost $0

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Meso Dig 4 12/09/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 11,778,000 $1,649,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 29,751 $178,506 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 3,680 $243,000 9

10 Operations Sub-Total $2,070,506 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $2,500,000 Assume $5 mill/digester 3 Annualized Digester Cleaning $60,000.00 per digester 2 $120,000 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $2,620,000 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 688,448 $4,130,700 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $4,130,700 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 2 3 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 TOTAL O&M COST $559,806 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $6,980,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $6,980,000

Annualized Cost This Option $552,779

DRD227.xls; 033370008/ Meso Dig 5 12/09/2003 OCSD PLANT NO. 1 - CENTRIFUGAL DEWATERING

1. DESIGN CRITERIA Legend: Parameter Unit Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 77 7 Blue = assumed operating conditions Max Day HLR or HRT Red = assumed performance parameters Max 2-week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 250 250 250 250 Carollo report Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 166 166 166 166 Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 For equivalent Alfa-Laval unit Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr 2,066 2,066 2,066 2,066 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 26 13 26 19.5 Carollo report Temperature Solids load Ave day lb/unit/d 49,584 49,584 49,584 49,584 Ammonia-N in biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% Odorous air per unit cfm/unit 200 200 300 300 Assumed based on similar CDM project sweep air cfm/unit 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,500 Assume 1/2 of P1 BFP sweep air Total cfm/unit 3,200 3,200 4,800 4,800 Cake storage & loadcfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 Odor control Master Plan P1 biotower capacitycfm 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted for 10s detention time Redundancy % 25% 25% 25% 25% Based on P1-73

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Digestion Alternative Parameter Unit Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Dry solids % 26.0% 26.5% 27.0% 27.5% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Meso & Sonics and Staged will increase by 2% and Staged & Sonics will increase by 4% (per R. Roxburgh, phone call 3/12/03) Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 26.7% 27.0% 27.5% 28.0% Capture % 95% 95% 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater flow gpm/unit 80 80 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below

DRD227.xls, 033370008/ CENT P1 FINAL 12/09/2003 3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative TOTAL Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Flow mgd mgd 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 505 gpm Mass TS lb/d 210,026 0 0 0 210,026 VS lb/d 127,900 0 0 0 127,900 Concentration TS mg/l 34,700 0 0 0 34,629 VS mg/l 21,100 0 0 0 21,088 % Solids TS % 3.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.46% VS % 2.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.11%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative TOTAL Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Mass TS lb/d 199,500 0 0 0 199,500 VS lb/d 121,500 0 0 0 121,500 Concentration TS mg/l 267,146 0 0 0 267,146 VS mg/l 162,700 0 0 0 162,700 % Solids TS % 26.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26.71% VS % 16.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.27% Quantity wet tons per day 373.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 373.4

C. Other Outputs Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Sidestream Water in w/sludge mgd 0.7 0 0 0 Water out w/sludge mgd 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Filtrate mgd 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 Washwater mgd 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Recycle Flow mgd 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mass TS lb/d 10,500 0 0 0 VS lb/d 6,400 0 0 0 Concentration TS mg/L 1,000 0 0 0 VS mg/L 600 0 0 0 Ammonia Ammonia-N in sludg lb/d 12,574 00 0 % water in filtrate % 90% 0% 0% 0% Ammonia-N in Recy lb/d 11,300 0 0 0 Ammonia-N in Recy mg/L 1,123 0 0 0 Others

DRD227.xls, 033370008/ CENT P1 FINAL 12/09/2003 4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING ParameterUnit Digestion Alternative Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Required No. Operational Units Hydraulic loading # 3000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 unit Solids loading # 5000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 unit Required Units # 5000 Redundancy # 2000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Total no. units # 7000 Units in existing bldg(s) # 7000 Buildings to be reused # 2011 Units in new bldg # 0000 New building area required (2 storiesq ft 0000Any new buildings assumed to be 2-story Biotowers Total Air Flow (duty) cfm 64,000 0 0 0 Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Required No. Operational Biotow # 6000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Redundant Biotowers # 2000 Total Biotowers # 8000 Redundancy (Biotowers) % 25% 25% 25% 25% Redundancy (Centriufuge % 33% Assumptions worksheet

Operational Data Description Units Value Commments Size/Footprint Length/unit ft 35 Estimated from Carollo report Width/unit ft 25 Estimated from Carollo report Area/unit sq ft 875 Maximum in existing# 8 Existing conditions (4 per building), one centrifuge will fit in space of one BFP Building C floor areasq ft 3,200 ISPU site plans Building M floor areasq ft 6,800 ISPU site plans Conveyor length/unit ft 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor Energy per gpm kW/gpm 0.66 Carollo report per unit kW/unit 109.6 Labor requirements operators/duty unit 0.50 Based on Carollo report: 1.5 operators/3 units/24 hour operation

DRD227.xls, 033370008/ CENT P1 FINAL 12/09/2003 5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Unit Unit $ Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated or % Factor Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Dewatering equipment each $625,000 1.5 7 $6,563,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Carollo report 2 Conveyance ft $4,000 1.4 350 $1,960,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assumed based on recent CDM project 3 Chemical feed system per centrifuge $50,000 1.5 7 $525,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 450 cy $550,000 1.5 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 5 Filtrate pumps 50 hp $75,000 1.5 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $9,048,000 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Cost Sub-Total $9,048,000 $0 $0 $0 Electrical & I&C 37.0% $3,348,000 $0 $0 $0 Carollo report Site, Civil, & Utilities 10.0% $905,000 $0 $0 $0 Odor control per biotower $772,000 1 8 $6,176,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 OCMP Tables 30 & 31 Total Equipment Sub-Tota $19,477,000 $0 $0 $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constru sf $150 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Area reflects 2 story building 2 Pile construction for both plants sf $100 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Pile cost based on sqft of one story 3 Building retrofits sf $150 1 6,125 $919,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assumed Building Cost Sub-Tota $919,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Other 1 Sidestream treatment per gpd $2 1 1,206,000 $2,412,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Construction Other Sub-Tota $2,412,000 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $22,808,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Cost Factors Subtotal $22,808,000 $0 $0 $0 1 Project Level Allowance 5% $1,140,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $23,948,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $2,155,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $26,103,000 $0 $0 $0 3 G/C 10% $2,610,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $28,713,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Profit 7% $2,010,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $30,723,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Bond 2% $614,000 $0 $0 $0 Do not Delete CONTRACTOR'S TOTAL $31,337,000 $0 $0 $0 $31,337,000 Professional Services Cost Factors 1 Project Development 2.0% $627,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $940,000 $0 $0 $0 3 Design 18.0% $5,641,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $5,014,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Commission 2.0% $627,000 $0 $0 $0 6 Close-out 0.5% $157,000 $0 $0 $0 7 Contingency 30% $9,401,000 $0 $0 $0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUBTOTAL $22,407,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $53,744,000 $0 $0 $0

DRD227.xls, 033370008/ CENT P1 FINAL 12/09/2003 6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS No. Description Unit Unit $ Annual Cost Per Qty. Treated or % Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.06 2 Purchased Electricity kWh $0.14 4,798,728 $672,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Natural Gas MBTU $6.00 4 Polymer - Thickening lb $1.30 5 Polymer - Dewatering lb $1.30 996,600 $1,296,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Ferric chloride dry ton $430.00 9 Average burdened labor hr $66.08 4,600 $304,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10 Compost Amendment cy $10.00 Operations Sub-Total $2,272,000 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% $328,000 $0 $0 $0 Carollo report: 4% for total maintenance 2 Supplies & materials per yr/ Centrifuge $1,000 7 $7,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Rehabilitation per yr/ Centrifuge $20,000 7 $140,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Other Maintenance Sub-Tota $475,000 $0 $0 $0 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $/truck mile $1.50 2 Transport - pumped hp - Transport Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.14 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable kWh $0.03 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable kWh $0.05 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) MBTU $6.00 5 Heat recovery MBTU $6.00 Credits Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control scfm $3.00 64,000 $192,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Ammonia load lb/d $0.20 5,008,321 $1,001,664 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Tota $1,193,664 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $3,940,664 $0 $0 $0 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Preliminary Design 20 Design 5.0% Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Construction Costs $53,744,000 $0 $0 $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $49,110,000 $0 $0 $0

Total Present Worth for this Option $102,854,000 $0 $0 $0

Annualized Cost This Option $8,145,491 $0 $0 $0

DRD227.xls, 033370008/ CENT P1 FINAL 12/09/2003 Appendix E – Plant No. 2, Model Run 6A (Recommend. Alternative)

W052003003SCO/TM-06.DOC/ 033360001

Orange County Sanitation istricD t Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids anagementM Plan Run No: P2 Run 6a Job No. -40-J 7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:22:27 PM M o d e l I n p u t - L i q u i d T r a i n

Input for Plant No. 1 (Liquid Process) Legend

Membrane Bioreactor 0.0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Input for Plant No. 2 (Liquid Process) To Ocean Outfall

Micro Filtration 0%

Percent of Influent Flow Percent of Primary Clarifier Flow Percent of Primary Effluent Flow OK OK OK OK

Revision 1

SCO/033370009/OCSD/Model Data Sheets.xls|Input Page 1 Orange County Sanitation istrictD Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids anagementM Plan Run No: P2 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:22 PM M o d e l I n p u t - S o l i d s H a n d l i n g

Input for Plant No. 1 (Solids Process) Legend

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Data Required is in BLUE 0% Belt Filter Presses 0 0 Calculation Cells in PURPLE Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0% Mesophilic Digestion Check Cells are in YELLO W with Recuperative Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges None 0 0 0.0% AGF Thickening 0 Gravity Belt Thickeners Rotary Press MARKET CHECKS: Percent Primary Sludge 0 0 OK Centrifuge Thickening Compost OK 0 Pellets ERROR Electro Dewatering Temperature Phase Digestion 0 Market Selection for OCSD Controlled Facilities (Merchant facilities' market selection is up to them) Product Selection Ultrasound 0 0% Horticulture #REF! 34.0% percent of in-county compost Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion Member Agencies #REF! 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Pump to Composting - In County 34.0% #REF! Daily Average Flow 0 Single Site 80% Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening 0 0% 0 Distance (miles) Horticulture #REF! 33.0% percent of in-county compost Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Composting - Out of County Ornamental & Nursery #REF! 0.0% percent of in-county drying Centrifugal Thickening 100.0% 0 0% 33.0% #REF! 0% Centrifuge Thickening 0 Chemical Stabilization Horticulture #REF! 32.9% percent of in-county compost 0% Retail Blending/Bagging #REF! 0.0% percent of in-county drying Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type 32.9% #REF! OK OK ERROR OK ERROR Organo-Mineral Fertilizers Select One Recuperative Thickening Type 0% Silviculture Compost 0.1% percent of in-county compost OK Shade Tree Program Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0.1% Fertiliszer Input for Plant No. 2 (Solids Process)

Gravity Belt Thickeners Mesophilic Digestion Heat Drying - In County Biomass Crops #REF! 0.0% percent of in-county compost 0% Pump to 0% (Energy/Ethanol) #REF! 0.0% percent of in-county drying 1 Single Site 0.0% #REF! Primary Sludge Centrifugal Thickeners 0 0% Mesophilic Digestion Distance (miles) Heat Drying - Out of County with Recuperative Thickening 0 0% OCSD Farm Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost No Thickening 0 Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 100.0% AGF Thickening Belt Filter Presses 0.0% 0 0 Percent Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners OK 0 Landfill Partnering (ADC) Compost 0.0% percent of in-county compost Centrifuge Thickening 1 High Solids Centrifuges Failsafe Backup Pellets 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0 1 0.0%

Temperature Phase Digestion Rotary Press Construction Market #REF! Ultrasound 0 0 Construction Material #REF! 100% 0% 0% #REF! Dissolved Air Flotation Peak Pump Flow Temperature Phase Digestion 100% 0 with Recuperative Thickening Electro Dewatering Daily Average Flow 0 0 Fuel Products #REF! Waste Activated Sludge Gravity Belt Thickeners 1 AGF Thickening (Char/oil) #REF! 0.0% percent of in-county drying 0% 0 Pyrolysis 0.0% Gravity Belt Thickeners 0% Centrifugal Thickening 0.0% 0 0% Centrifuge Thickening Direct Energy Renewable 0 Co-combustion (Electricity) Non-renewable Percent WAS Percent Ultrasound Select One Digestion Type Select One Select One Dewatering Type 20% 0% OK OK OK OK OK

Select Mix of Product Technology OK Input for Single Site Dewatering (Solids Process)

Belt Filter Presses Land Application High pH 0.0% 0 OCSD Farm 0.0%

High Solids Centrifuges 0 Direct Landfilling Cake 0.0% Failsafe Backup 0.0% CHECK O K Rotary Press 0 Select Mix of Product Markets OK Electro Dewatering 0

Select One Dewatering Type OK

SCO/033370009/OCSD/Model Data Sheets|Input Page 1 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 6a Job No. -40-J 7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:22 PM Model Output

Process Solids Outlet Outlet ON or Distance Annual O&M Unit Process Influent Loading, Solids Solids Capital Cost Present Worth OFF (miles) Cost Flow, mgd dT/Day Conc., % wtpd Plant No. 2 Plant Influent Flow 144 Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 No Thickening ON Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON 2.946 34.4 3.80% $0 $14,450,000 $14,450,000 Gravity Belt Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Anaerobic igestionD Ultrasound ON 0.213 33.7 3.80% $7,650,000 $2,700,000 $10,350,000 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 0.804 156.9 2.42% $0 $45,580,000 $45,580,000 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temperature Phased OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 AGF Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% GBT Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF 0.000 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Pumping to Single Site OFF 0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press OFF 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 High-Solids Centrifuge ON 0.80 81.1 26.52% 290.6 $39,749,000 $35,850,000 $75,599,000 Rotary Press OFF 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0 Electro Dewatering OFF 0.00 0.0 0.00% 0 $0 $0 $0

Total for Plant No. 2 144 81.1 290.6 0 $47,399,000 $98,580,000 $145,979,000 Beneficial use cost 45 ton $95,462,000 $241,441,000

033370009/ DRD228.xls 1 of 1 12/08/2003 Orange County Sanitation District Run By: RR

Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan Run No: P2 Run 6a Job No. J-40-7 Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 8:22 PM Equipment List

Number of Number of New Process Capital Unit Process ON or OFF Existing New Units Building, sf Cost Units Plant No. 2 Plant Influent Flow 144 mgd Thickening Primary Sludge Gravity Belt Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 No Thickening ON Waste Activated Sludge Dissolved Air Flotation ON400$0 Gravity Belt Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 Anaerobic Digestion Ultrasound ON NA 27 1,514 $7,650,000 Single Stage Mesophilic ON 15 0 0 $0 SS Meso w/ Recup. Th OFF $0 AGF Thickener OFF GBT Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 Temperature Phased OFF $0 Temp. Staged w/ Recup. Th. OFF $0 AGF Thickener OFF $0 GBT Thickener OFF $0 Centrifuge Thickener OFF $0 Dewatering Belt Filter Press OFF $0 High-Solids Centrifuge ON NA 6 #REF! $39,749,000 Rotary Press OFF $0 Electro Dewatering OFF $0

Total for Plant No. 2 144 #REF! $47,399,000

DRD228.xls/ 033370009/ Equipment List OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD Long-Term Biosolids Master Plan Plant No. 2 - Simplified Mass Balance

Legend: Note: Assumed AS/NAS Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. Enter all percentages as a decimal (e.g., enter 100% as 1). Effluent Quality Red = assumed performance parameters BOD = 8 mg/L Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed TSS = 8 mg/L

Primary Clarifiers Chemical Addition (hours) = 24 w/o Chemical Addition % Total Flow = 100.0% BOD removal = 25% Flow = 144.5 mgd Flow = 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 67% BOD = 130 mg/L BOD = 130 mg/L Trickling Filters Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS = 65 mg/L TSS = 65 mg/L 41.5% BOD removed = 110 mg/L Flow = 60 mgd w/ Chemical Addition 60 mgd BOD removed = 55,000 lb/d BOD = 20 mg/L 100.0% BOD removal = 48% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.65 TSS = 20 mg/L 144.5 mgd TSS removal = 76% VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.8 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 % Total Flow = 0.0% and/or PEF = Influent Performance based on Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.75 Yea r 2020 hours of Chemical Addition BOD = 130 mg/L Flow = 144 mgd BOD removal = 48% TSS = 65 mg/L Primary Effluent Filters Activated Sludge BOD = 250 mg/L TSS removal = 76% BOD removal in PE = 16% 58.5% BOD removed = 122 mg/L Flow = 84.5 mgd TSS = 240 mg/L 288230.4 Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 TSS removal in PE = 50% 84.5 mgd BOD removed = 86,000 lb/d BOD = 8 mg/L Flow = 144.5 mgd Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.80 TSS = 8 mg/L BOD = 13 mg/L VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary TSS = 13 mg/L 0.87 Influent with Recycles and/or PEF = Yea r 2020 ABRs VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 Flow = 144.5 mgd Historical Primary Clarifier Performance BOD = 250 mg/L w/Chemical Addition (14h/d) Nitrifying Activated Sludge TSS = 269 mg/L 324179.97 BOD removal = 48% 0.0% BOD removed = 0 mg/L Flow = 0 mgd 323992.32 TSS removal = 75% 0 mgd BOD removed = 0 lb/d BOD = 8 mg/L Additional Removal with ABR % Total Flow = 0.0% Yield (lb TSS/lb BOD) = 0.71 TSS = 8 mg/L 0.0% Add. BOD removal = 9% Flow = 0 mgd VSS/TSS ratio w/Primary 0.87 0.0 mgd Add. TSS removal = 9% BOD = 130 mg/L Primary Effluent and/or PEF = Overall ABR Performance TSS = 65 mg/L Microfiltration VSS/TSS ratio w/ABR = 0.82 BOD removal = 57% BOD removal in PE = 50% TF Sludge TSS removal = 84% TSS removal in PE = 100% Flow = 0 mgd Primary sludge reduction = 30% Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.75 BOD = 65 mg/L Sludge VSS/TSS ratio = 0.65 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Trickling Filter Sludge Thickening Return Parameter TF Units Flow = 0.000 mgd TF Sludge Mass BOD = NA mg/L Returned to TS 35,750 TSS = 0 mg/L Primary Sludge Production Primary Clarifiers VS lb/d Secondary Sludge Production Total Sludge Production Prim Parameter Primary ABR PEF* MF* Total Units Parameter WAS N-WAS Total Units Parameter Secondary Total Units Concentration ary Mass TS 8,000 mg/L Mass Mass TS 246,400 0 0 0 246,400 lb/d 123.2 BOD 100 mg/L TS 68,800 0 68,800 lb/d 34.4 TS ##### 68,800 315,200 lb/d VS 184,800 0 0 0 184,800 lb/d % solids VS 59,900 0 59,900 lb/d VS ##### 59,900 244,700 lb/d TS 0.80% Concentration VS % Concentration Concentration TS 50,000 00050,000 mg/L Flow 0.54 mgd TS 2,800 0 2,800 mg/L TS ##### 2,800 10,700 mg/L VS 37,500 0 0 0 37,500 mg/L VS 2,400 0 2,400 mg/L VS ##### 2,400 8,300 mg/L % solids 35762 % solids % solids TS 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% % TS 0.28% 0.00% 0.28% %TS5.00% 0.28% 1.07% % VS 3.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.75% % VS 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% %VS3.75% 0.24% 0.83% % Flow 0.591 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.591 mgd Flow 2.946 0 2.946 mgd Flow 0.591 2.946 3.537 mgd

*Assume PEF & MF backwash returned to primary clarifiers, therefore will be 5% solids.

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Plant 2 MB 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN DRAFT

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 SOLIDS HANDLING FLOW SHEET PRIMARY/SECONDARY SLUDGE PRODUCTION THICKENING OPTIONS ADD-ON TECHNOLOGIES

Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Primary Sludge Production 100.00% 0.213 mgd Parameter Total Units 2.946 mgd Mass 100.00% Ultrasound To digestion below TS 246,400 lb/d 0.213 mgd 0.213 mgd 0.804 mgd VS 184,800 lb/d Concentration TS 50,000 mg/L 0.591 mgd VS 37,500 mg/L 0.00% Gravity Belt 0.000 mgd 0.00% % solids 0.000 mgd Thickener 0.000 mgd TS 5.00% % 0.00% 0.000 mgd VS 3.75% % 0.000 mgd Check: OK Flow 0.591 mgd

Secondary Sludge Production 0.00% Centrifuge 0.000 mgd Parameter Total WAS #REF! 0.000 mgd Thickener Mass 0.00% 0.000 mgd TS 68,800 lb/d 0.000 mgd VS 59,900 lb/d Concentration TS 2,800 mg/L 2.946 mgd VS 2,400 mg/L % solids 100.00% None 0.591 mgd 100.00% TS 0.28% % 0.591 mgd 0.591 mgd VS 0.24% % Flow 2.946 mgd Check: PS OK Check:SS OK

DIGESTION DEWATERING

Tie to input sheet Single Stage 1 Mesophilic 0.804 mgd 0.804 mgd From Tie to Input sheet Pretreatment Belt Filter Above 0.804 mgd 0 Press 0.0 wtpd 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd SS Meso Dig w / 0 Recuperative 0.000 mgd High Speed 0.000 mgd Thickening 1 Centrifuge 290.6 wtpd 0.804 mgd 1 0.804 mgd 77.05 dtpd To Transport and AGF Thickening 290.6 wtpd Product Technologies 0 Check: ERR Rotary 77.05 dtpd File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Gravity Belt Thickeners 0 Press 0.0 wtpd 0 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd Centrifuge Thickening 0 Electro Two-stage 0 Dewatering 0.0 wtpd 0 Thermo/Meso 0.000 mgd 0.000 mgd 0 dtpd 0.000 mgd To Combined Dewatering Pump to Transport and Single Site Product Technologies 0 Distance File: Cost Model OCSD Comb.xls Therm/Meso Dig 0.000 mgd Miles w Recuperative 0.000 mgd 0 0 Thickening Select One Dewatering Type 0.000 mgd Check: OK AGF Thickening 0 Select One Digestion Type Gravity Belt Thickeners Check: OK 0 Centrifuge Thickening 0

Checks: OK ERR

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Flow Sheet 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 - DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENING Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit WAS, no polymer Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 2.0 Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/sf 1.4 max. month = 1.6 gpm/sf/d in 1989 Master Plan; IPMC 0.24 gpm/sf/hr Max Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 20 Max month = 18lb/d/sf in 1989 Master Plan Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/sf/d 14.0 ISPU 11lb/sf/d (av) at P1 and 10 lb/sf/d at P2; IPMC 1 lb/hr/sf Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 0 Temperature Odorous air per unit cfm/DAFT 19,000 Calculated based on 8 cfm per ft surface area, cross-checked with Odor Control MP sweep air cfm/DAFT 0 Total cfm/DAFT 19,000 P1 biotower capacity cfm 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP Redundancy Biotower% 25%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Flow or % mgd or % 100.00% Parameter Unit WAS, no polymer

Solids capture rate % of feed TS 98% Float TSS % 3.8% Thickener underflow mgd

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ DAFT 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 2.946 Mass TS lb/d 68,800 VS lb/d 59,900 Concentration TS mg/l 2,800 VS mg/l 2,400 % Solids TS % 0.28% VS % 0.24%

B. Output Solids Stream Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 0.213 Mass TS lb/d 67,400 VS lb/d 58,700 Concentration TS mg/l 38,000 VS mg/l 33,100 % Solids TS % 3.80% VS % 3.31%

C. Underflow Parameter Unit Stream WAS Flow mgd mgd 2.733 Mass TS lb/d 1,400 VS lb/d 1,200 Concentration TS mg/l 61 VS mg/l 53 % Solids TS % 0.0% VS % 0.0%

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ DAFT 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING Parameter Unit WAS Total Requirements Total area required - Av solids sf 4,918 Total area required - Av. hydrauli sf 1,506 Actual Total area required sf 4,918 Each unit diameter ft 55 Each unit area sf 2,376 Required no. operational units # 3 Redundancy # 1 Total no. units # 4 Footprint sf Existing Units No. Operational # 3 No. Standby # 1 Diameter ft 55 Total area sf 7,127 New Units Additional area required sf 0 Diameter ft 55 Area each sf 2,376 No. Operational # 0 No. Standby # 0 Total new units # 0 Operations Actual HLR gpm/sf 0.29 Actual SLR lb/sf/d 9.65 Note: ISPU estimate for WAS thickening- 2 new units, Unit Cost (w/ odor control) $4,700,000 + VOC control cost $800,000, Total Budget Cost $10,200,000

Operational Data Operating Number Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total Description Hp of Units Hours Units for Annual of Operation Hp-hour Pressurization Pump 26 3 168 per week 52 8,736 693,691 40 psi Reciprocating Air Compressor 20 3 84 per week 52 4,368 262,080 Pump Float to Digestion 30 3 168 per week 52 8,736 786,240 Pump Recycle to Headworks 20 3 168 per week 52 8,736 524,160 DAFT drives 5 3 168 per week 52 8,736 131,040 Polymer feed system 7.5 3 168 per week 52 8,736 196,560 Plant effluent to pressurization pump #REF! #REF! 84 per week 52 4,368 #REF! at 40 psi Total Hp-hours this option #REF!

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ DAFT 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 DAFT system (55ft dia) $265,000 each 50% $132,500 0 $0 2 Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 3 Pumps (Float @ TDH 40') $10,000 each, 15 hp 50% $5,000 0 $0 4 Pumps (Underflow to Recycle) $80,000 each, 75 hp 50% $40,000 0 $0 5 Polymer Feed System $40,000 each 50% $20,000 0 $0 6 Recycle treatment $0.00 gpd NA 0 $0 7 Plant effluent to pressurization pump $75,000.00 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 0 $0 Equipment Sub-Total $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construction $150 $/sf NA 0 $0 2 Site-specific building costs (Piles) $100 sf NA 0 $0 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $0 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $0 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $0 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $0 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 0 $0 Assumes new biotowers for all operational units, new & existing 5 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $0 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $0 2 G/C 10% $0 3 Profit 7% $0 4 Bond 2% $0

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 Total Construction Cost $0

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ DAFT 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit WAS Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh #REF! #REF! 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 0 $0 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66 hr 3,312 $219,000 9 10 Operations Sub-Total #REF! Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $210,000 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $210,000 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 57,000 $171,000 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Recycle Treatment $0.04 lb/d 511,000 $20,440 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $191,440 TOTAL O&M COST #REF! * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs #REF!

Total Present Worth for this Option #REF!

Annualized Cost This Option #REF!

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ DAFT 5 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 - ULTRASOUND FOR ADVANCED DIGESTION Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions (BASED ON THE SONICO ULTRASOUND UNIT - SONIX V5) Red = assumed performance parameters Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Parameter Unit DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Choose sizing criteria Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 77 7 Max Day HLR or HRT gpm/stack 13 13 13 13 N (if N, sizes based on av. flow, if Y, sizes based on peak flow fromTWAS pump) Max 2-week HLR or HRT Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT mgd/stack 0.0096 0.0096 0.0096 0.0096 Y (If N, sizes based on peak flow from TWAS pump, if Y, sizes based on av. flow ) Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate

No. of duty TWAS pumps # 333 3 Flow rate each TWAS pump gpm 200 200 200 Max TWAS flow rate gpm 600 0 0 600 OK Check pump flow greater than daily TWAS flow

Ultrasound unit (V5) stacks/unit 5 55 5 Ultrasound power kW/stack 6 66 6

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Previous Processes Thickening Flow % % 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Parameter Unit DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Uptime hrs/yr 98% 98% 98% 98% Increase in VS reduction of WAS % of VS 50% 50% 50% Conventional WAS VS reduction % of VS 40% 40% 40% Cross-checked with 'Advanced Primary Treatment Optimization & Cost Benefit Documented at OCSD Sonix WAS VS reduction % of VS 60% 60% 60% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 15 Digester gas calorific value BTU/scfm 600 600 600

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Ultrasound 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.213 Mass TS lb/d 67,400 0 0 67,400 VS lb/d 58,700 0 0 58,700 Concentration TS mg/l 38,000 0 0 38,000 VS mg/l 33,100 0 0 33,095 % Solids TS % 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% VS % 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Stream DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.213 Mass TS lb/d 67,400 0 0 67,400 VS lb/d 58,700 0 0 58,700 Concentration TS mg/l 38,000 0 0 38,000 VS mg/l 33,100 0 0 33,100 % Solids TS % 3.80% 0.0% 0.0% 3.80% VS % 3.31% 0.0% 0.0% 3.31%

C. Other Outputs Parameter Unit Stream DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Biogas Volume scfm Calorific Value BTU/d Ammonia Ammonia - N lb/d

Others

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Ultrasound 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING

Parameter Unit DAFT GBT Centrifuge Total Average TWAS flow mgd 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.213 Av. duty no. horns required # 23 0 0 23 Peak TWAS flow gpm 600 0 0 600 Peak duty no. horns required # 46 0 0 46 Selected no. duty horns # 23 0 0 23 Redundancy # 400 4 Total no. units # 27 0 0 27 Actual length per V5 unit ft 3 33 3 Working length per unit ft 10 10 10 10 Total length of units ft 54 0 0 54 Length of Bypass pipe ft 76 0 0 76 Footprint per V5 unit sf 200 200 200 200 Holding tank capacity hrs, av holding tim 3 33 3 Volume gall 28,977 0 0 28,977 Diameter ft 20 20 20 20 Height ft 12 0 0 12 No.duty transfer pumps # 2 22 2 No. total transfer pumps 300 3

Operational Data Generator Operating Multiplier Annual Hrs Total kWh Description kW Hours Units for Annual of Operation TOTAL Connected load for V5 unit (For Peak Demand Calc) 6 165 per week 52 8,561 1,181,457 Operational load for V5 unit 2 165 per week 52 8,561 354,437 Support facilities operational load per V5 1 168 per week 52 8,736 200,928 Transfer pump 2 168 per week 52 8,736 52,416 Total annual kWh this option 607,781

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Ultrasound 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Sonix equipment $50,000 each stack 30% $15,000 27 $1,755,000 2 Sound proofing $10,000 each V5 50% $5,000 5 $81,000 3 Transfer pump $70,000 each, 30 hp 50% $35,000 3 $315,000 4 Holding tank $2.75 $/gal NA 28,977 $79,686 5

Equipment Sub-Total $2,230,686 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy constru $150 $/sf NA 1200 $180,000 2 Site-specific building costs $100 $/sf NA 1,514 151,416 3 Building Cost Sub-Total $331,416 Construction Other 1 Electrical and Instrumentation Allow. 18% of Construction $461,200 2 Site, Civil, and Utilities 10% of Construction $256,200 3 Project Level Allowance 5% of Construction $128,100 4 Odor Control Installed $772,000 per Biotower 5 Other Construction Other Sub-Total $845,500 Contractor Markups 1 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $306,700 2G/C 10% $371,400 3 Profit 7% $286,000 4 Bond 2% $87,400

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $1,051,500 Total Construction Cost $4,460,000

Professional Services Costs 1 Project Development 2.0% $89,200 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $133,800 3 Design 18.0% $802,800 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $713,600 5 Commission 2.0% $89,200 6 Close-out 0.5% $22,300 7 Contingency 30.0% $1,338,000 Professional Services Sub-total $3,188,900 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ - $7,650,000

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Ultrasound 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS ALL UNITS No. Description O&M Cost Per Quantity Treated Unit Total Costs Units Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 Purchased Electricity $0.14 kWh 607,781 $85,000 2 On-site electricity $0.06 kWh 3 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 4 Polymer - Thickening $1.30 lb 5 Polymer - Dewatering $1.30 lb 6 Ferric chloride $430.00 dry ton 7 Compost Amendment $10.00 cy 8 Average burdened labor $66.08 hr 298 $20,000 3% FTE per V5 unit 9 10 Operations Sub-Total $105,000 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $111,500 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 3 Annualized Rehab 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $111,500 Transport To Processing Site 1 Natural Gas $6.00 MBTU 2 Chemicals/Materials #REF! #REF! Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 TOTAL O&M COST $216,500 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $7,650,000

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $2,700,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $10,350,000

Annualized Cost This Option $819,665

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Ultrasound 5 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

OCSD PLANT NO. 2 - SINGLE STAGE MESOPHILIC DIGESTION Legend: Blue = assumed operating conditions 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Red = assumed performance parameters Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk Max 2-week HLR or HRT days 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 ( 1989 Master Plan = 25 D Max Month) Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT days 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 (ISPU = 20d) Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/cf/d 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.30 Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb VS/cf/d 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.23 As per ISPU Polymer Feed Rate Feed sludge Av. Annual temp. F 76.5 76.5 76.5 76.5 Digester Operating Temperature F 98 98 98 98

Cellular nitrogen % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% hh Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% 93% 93% 93%

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Previous Processes TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge ? Recup Thick Flow % % 0.00% 100.0% 100.0% Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total

VS reduction (VSR) % of VS 40% 60% 63% 62.3% Digester gas production scfm/lb VSR 15 15 15 15 Digester gas calorific value BTU/scfm 600 600 600 600

Boiler efficiency (average) % 78% 78% 78% 78%

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Meso Dig 1 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Flow mgd mgd 0.000 0.213 0.591 0.804

Mass TS lb/d 0 67,400 246,400 313,800 VS lb/d 0 58,700 184,800 243,500 Concentration TS mg/l 0 38,000 50,000 46,900 VS mg/l 0 33,100 37,500 36,400 % Solids TS % 0.00% 3.80% 5.00% 4.69% VS % 0.00% 3.31% 3.75% 3.64%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Ultrasound impact on Ash content Flow WAS Total mgd mgd 0.000 0.213 0.591 0.804 Mass TS lb/d 0 32,200 130,000 162,200 43920 173920 VS lb/d 0 23,500 68,400 91,900 35220 103620 Concentration TS mg/l 0 18,200 26,400 24,200 24,762 26000 VS mg/l 0 13,300 13,900 13,800 19,857 15500 % Solids TS % 0.00% 1.82% 2.64% 2.42% 2.48% 2.60% VS % 0.00% 1.33% 1.39% 1.38% 1.99% 1.55% 43.0% 40.38% C. Other Outputs 0.52% Dewatering improvement Parameter Unit Stream TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Biogas Volume - daily av. scfm 0 528,000 1,746,100 2,274,100 Volume - annual av. mscf/yr 0 193 637 830 Calorific Value MBTU/d 0 317 1,048 1,364 Ammonia Ammonia - N lb/d 0 2,112 6,984 9,096

Others calculation

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Meso Dig 2 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING

Parameter Unit TWAS w/o Sonix TWAS w Sonix Primary Sludge Total Total Requirements Total working volume - av HRT cf 0 568,575 1,580,328 2,148,903 Total working volume - av VS load cf 0 250,371 788,221 1,038,592 Actual working volume required cf 0 568,575 1,580,328 2,148,903 Existing Units - Working Vol. Digester Selection Existing digesters (duty & standby) Unit Vol. CF Duty Existing No. Required Total Duty Vol 90' dia, 30' deep 2 - - - 354,984 177,492 2 2 354,984 80' dia, 32' deep 6 - - - 897,540 149,590 6 6 897,540 80' dia, 33' deep 3 462,794 154,265 2 2 308,530 105' dia, 30' deep 4 966,346 241,587 3 3 724,760 Total working volume 15 - - - 2,681,665 Total 13 13 2,285,814 Existing standby digesters --- 80' diam 33'deep 1 - - - 154,265 105' dia, 30' deep 1 - - - 241,587 Total working volume 2 - - - 395,851 New Units New digester diameter ft 110 New digester depth ft 30 New digester working volume cf 265,143 No. New Duty units # 0 No. new Standby units # 0 Total no. new units # 0 Actual Av. HRT days 21.3 Peak 2-week HRT days 16.3 Digester working capacity % of total capacity 93% Digester Heating Heat Loss from Each Digester Shell BTUH/# 250,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report Sludge Heating Demand BTUH/gpm 10,759 Total Heat Demand average BTU/H 9,751,428 Total Heat Demand peak day BTU/H 14,568,234 Existing Boilers (Output 9 MBTU Ea.) 1 9,000,000 General Plant Information, Jan 1995, asumed same size as P2 boilers CenGen waste heat recovery BTU/H 5,280,000 From B&C Advanced Digestion Report New Boiler (output 9 MBTU each) # 1 Digested Sludge Holding Tanks Existing 80' dia, 33' deep 5 6,203,766 General Plant Information, Jan 1995 Vol. Required for 3 days storage gal 2,411,352 3 d storage used in ISPU New holding tanks -4

Total Hp-hours this option 13,969,270

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Meso Dig 3 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Installation Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated Unit Cost Cost $ Total Costs Units Factor each Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Rotamix $155,000 each 50% $77,500 0 $0 100% redundancy per digester 2 Digester Tank Volume, gal $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 3 Pump to Dewatering $50,000 each, 15 hp 50% $25,000 0 $0 4 Heat Exchanger with pump $185,000 each 50% $92,500 0 $0 5 Bottom Sludge Pump $65,000 each, 30 hp NA 0 $0 6 Digested Sludge Holding Tank $2.00 $/gal NA 0 $0 7 Holding Tank Mixing Pump $75,000 each, 50 hp 50% $37,500 0 $0

8 Boiler $250,000 each, 9 MBTU 50% $125,000 0 $0

Contractor Mark-ups Sub-Total $0 Total Construction Cost $0

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Meso Dig 4 12/08/2003 OCSD BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN FINAL

10 Operations Sub-Total $3,239,305 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $0 2 Existing Equipment Maintenance 5.0% % of equip $3,250,000 Assume $5 mill/digester 3 Annualized Digester Cleaning $60,000.00 per digester 2.6 $156,000 4 Maintenance Sub-Total $3,406,000 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $1.50 $/truck mile 2 Transport - pumped - hp Transport Sub-Total $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity $0.14 kWh 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable $0.03 kWh 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable $0.05 kWh 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) $6.00 MBTU 498,028 $2,988,200 5 Heat recovery $6.00 MBTU Credits Sub-Total $2,988,200 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control $3.00 scfm 2 Ammonia load lb/d 3 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $0 TOTAL O&M COST $3,657,105 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Capital Period (years) 20 Interest Rate: 5.0%

Construction Costs $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $45,580,000

Total Present Worth for this Option $45,580,000

Annualized Cost This Option $3,609,694

DRD228.xls; 033370009/ Meso Dig 5 12/08/2003 OCSD PLANT NO. 2 - CENTRIFUGAL DEWATERING Legend: 1. DESIGN CRITERIA Blue = assumed operating conditions Parameter Unit Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Red = assumed performance parameters Daily Operation Schedule hrs/day 24 24 24 24 Purple = calculated (these formulas should not be changed) Weekly Operation Schedule days/wk 7 77 7 Max Day HLR or HRT =Needs to be linked Max 2-week HLR or HRT gpm/unit 250 250 250 250 Carollo report =Needs to be defined Max Month HLR or HRT Ave Day HLR or HRT gpm/unit 170 170 170 170 Max Day Solids Loading Rate Max 2-week Solids Loading Rate lb/hr 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 For equivalent Alfa-Laval unit Max Month Solids Loading Rate Ave Day Solids Loading Rate lb/hr 2098 2098 2098 2098 Polymer Feed Rate lb/ton solids 23 11.5 23 17.25 Carollo report Temperature Solids load Ave day lb/unit/d 50,352 50,352 50,352 50,352 Ammonia-N in biomass (VS) % of VS 6% 6% 6% 6% Odorous air per unit cfm/unit 200 200 300 300 Assumed based on similar CDM project sweep air cfm/unit 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,500 Assume 1/2 of P1 BFP sweep air Total cfm/BFP 3,200 3,200 4,800 4,800 Cake storage & load cfm/hopper 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 P1 biotower capacitycfm 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Based on Conventional Biotowers in OCMP 7,475 P1-73 unit size of 37,375 cfm (2s detention time) adjusted for 10s detention time Redundancy % 25% 25% 25% 25% Based on P1-73

2. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Digestion Alternative Parameter Unit Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Dry solids % 26.0% 26.5% 27.0% 27.5% Meso based on Carollo report, Alt 3; Dry Solids w/ Sonics % 26.5% 27.0% 27.5% 28.0% Capture % 95% 95% 95% 95% Carollo report Washwater flow gpm/unit 80 80 80 80 Washwater, assumed per equipment manufacturer; water from sludge calculated below

DRD228.xls, 033370009/ CENT P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 3. MASS BALANCE A. Feed Stream Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative TOTAL Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Flow mgd mgd 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 Mass TS lb/d 162,200 0 0 0 162,200 VS lb/d 91,900 0 0 0 91,900 Concentration TS mg/l 24,200 0 0 0 24,196 VS mg/l 13,800 0 0 0 13,709 % Solids TS % 2.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.42% VS % 1.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.37%

B. Output Stream Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative TOTAL Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Mass TS lb/d 154,100 0 0 0 154,100 VS lb/d 87,300 0 0 0 87,300 Concentration TS mg/l 265,181 0 0 0 265,181 VS mg/l 150,200 0 0 0 150,200 % Solids TS % 26.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26.52% VS % 15.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.02% Quantity wet tons per day 290.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 290.6

C. Other Outputs Parameter Unit Digestion Alternative Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Sidestream Water in w/sludge mgd 0.78 0 0 0 Water out w/sludge mgd 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Filtrate mgd 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 Washwater mgd 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Recycle Flow mgd 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mass TS lb/d 8,100 0 0 0 VS lb/d 4,600 0 0 0 Concentration TS mg/L 800 0 0 0 VS mg/L 500 0 0 0 Ammonia Ammonia-N in sludg lb/d 9,096 0 0 0 % water in filtrate % 94% 0% 0% 0% Ammonia-N in Recyclb/d 8,600 0 0 0 Ammonia-N in Recycmg/L 866 0 0 0 Others

DRD228.xls, 033370009/ CENT P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 4. PROCESS DESIGN & SIZING ParameterUnit Digestion Alternative Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Required No. Operational Units Hydraulic loading # 4000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Solids loading # 4000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Required Units # 4000 Redundancy # 2000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Total no. units # 6000 Units in existing bldg(s) # 6000 Buildings to be reused # 1111 Units in new bldg # 0000 New building area required (2 storiesq ft 0000Any new buildings assumed to be 2-story Biotowers Total Air Flow (duty) cfm 20,800 0 0 0 Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Required No. Operational Biotow # 2000Rounded up if >0.2 units, rounded down if <0.19 units Redundant Biotowers # 1000 Total Biotowers # 3000 Redundancy (Biotowers) % 25% 25% 25% 25% Redundancy (Centriufuge) % 33% Assumptions worksheet

Conveyor length/unit ft 50 Assumed based on unit width and standby conveyor Energy per gpm kW/gpm 0.62 Carollo report per unit kW/unit 105.4 Labor requirements operators/duty unit 0.50 Based on Carollo report: 1.5 operators/3 units/24 hour operation

DRD228.xls, 033370009/ CENT P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 5. CAPITAL COSTS No. Description Unit Unit $ Installation Installed Cost Per Qty. Treated or % Factor Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Equipment Costs 1 Dewatering equipment each $625,000 1.5 6 $5,625,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Carollo report 2 Conveyance ft $4,000 1.4 300 $1,680,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assumed based on recent CDM project 3 Chemical feed system per centrifuge $50,000 1.5 6 $450,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Cake Storage & Truck Loading 900 cy $962,500 1.5 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 5 Filtrate pumps 50 hp $75,000 1.5 3 $225,000 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! $7,980,000 #REF! #REF! #REF! Equipment Cost Sub-Total $7,755,000 $0 $0 $0 Electrical & I&C 37.0% $2,869,000 $0 $0 $0 Carollo report Site, Civil, & Utilities 10.0% $776,000 $0 $0 $0 Odor control per biotower $766,000 1 3 $2,298,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 OCMP Tables 30 & 31 Total Equipment Sub-Total $13,698,000 $0 $0 $0 Building Costs 1 Building - On-site Type 2, heavy construcsf $150 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Area reflects 2 story building 2 Pile construction for both plants sf $100 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Pile cost based on sqft of one story 3 Building retrofits sf $150 1 5,250 $788,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assumed Building Cost Sub-Total $788,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Other 1 Sidestream treatment per gpd $2 1 1,190,800 $2,382,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Construction Other Sub-Total $2,382,000 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $16,868,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction Cost Factors Subtotal $16,868,000 $0 $0 $0 1 Project Level Allowance 5% $843,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $17,711,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Mobilization & Insurance 9% $1,594,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $19,305,000 $0 $0 $0 3 G/C 10% $1,931,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $21,236,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Profit 7% $1,487,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $22,723,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Bond 2% $454,000 $0 $0 $0 Do not Delete CONTRACTOR'S TOTAL $23,177,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,177,000 Professional Services Cost Factors 1 Project Development 2.0% $464,000 $0 $0 $0 2 Preliminary Design 3.0% $695,000 $0 $0 $0 3 Design 18.0% $4,172,000 $0 $0 $0 4 Construction/Installation 16.0% $3,708,000 $0 $0 $0 5 Commission 2.0% $464,000 $0 $0 $0 6 Close-out 0.5% $116,000 $0 $0 $0 7 Contingency 30% $6,953,000 $0 $0 $0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUBTOTAL $16,572,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $39,749,000 $0 $0 $0

DRD228.xls, 033370009/ CENT P2 FINAL 12/08/2003 6. ANNUAL O&M COSTS No. Description Unit Unit $ Annual Cost Per Qty. Treated or % Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Qty. Cost $ Operations 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.06 2 Purchased Electricity kWh $0.14 3,693,216 $517,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Natural Gas MBTU $6.00 4 Polymer - Thickening lb $1.30 5 Polymer - Dewatering lb $1.30 680,800 $885,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 Ferric chloride dry ton $430.00 9 Average burdened labor hr $66.08 3,680 $243,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10 Compost Amendment cy $10.00 Operations Sub-Total $1,645,000 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance 1 New Equipment Maintenance % of equip 5% $281,000 $0 $0 $0 Carollo report: 4% for total maintenance 2 Supplies & materials per yr/ Centrifuge $1,000 6 $6,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 Rehabilitation per yr/ Centrifuge $20,000 6 $120,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 Other Maintenance Sub-Total $407,000 $0 $0 $0 Transport To Processing Site 1 Transport - Truck $/truck mile $1.50 2 Transport - pumped hp - Transport Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits 1 On-site electricity kWh $0.14 2 Off-site electricity sale - non-renewable kWh $0.03 3 Off-site electricity sale - renewable kWh $0.05 4 Natural gas offset (biogas) MBTU $6.00 5 Heat recovery MBTU $6.00 Credits Sub-Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance 1 Odor control scfm $3.00 20,800 $62,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 Ammonia load lb/d $0.20 3,811,643 $762,329 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sidestream & Compliance Sub-Total $824,329 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $2,876,329 $0 $0 $0 * Use manufacturer recommended percentages or values if available. Otherwise use typical engineering estimates.

7. AMMORTIZED COSTS Preliminary Design 20 Design 5.0% Meso Meso w/ Recup Staged Staged w/ Recup Construction Costs $39,749,000 $0 $0 $0

Present Worth-Operation & Maintenance Costs $35,850,000 $0 $0 $0

Total Present Worth for this Option $75,599,000 $0 $0 $0

Annualized Cost This Option $5,987,039 $0 $0 $0

DRD228.xls, 033370009/ CENT P2 FINAL 12/08/2003

FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Technical Memorandum 7 – Implementation Schedule and CIP Outline

Contents

Summary ...... 1 Introduction...... 10 Recommended Long-Range Biosolids Management Program ...... 11 Existing Beneficial Use Contracts...... 25 Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Contracts...... 27 Potential Merchant Facility Alternatives, In-County or Out of County...... 28 Potential Merchant Facilities with Established Markets and Permitted Sites ...... 30 Potential Merchant Facilities in Emerging Markets ...... 30 Potential District-owned Production Facilities (In-County)...... 31 Potential Backup Failsafe Disposal Options...... 35 Future In-Plant Biosolids Processing Facilities ...... 37 Schedule for Required Solids Processing Capacity ...... 38 Coordination and Integration with the District’s CIP...... 45 Appendix A – Project Summary Sheets

Summary This technical memorandum (TM) presents the implementation plan for the recommended practices and projects, and summarizes the major capital improvements required to implement the program. A schedule is also provided for the implementation of associated capital improvement projects. Earlier TMs evaluated a broad range of beneficial use markets and corresponding product technologies. The apparent most viable markets and product technologies were selected based on detailed matrix analyses described in TM 4 and TM 5. The selected markets and product technologies are summarized later in this TM. The program reflects the diverse nature of existing and potential markets, product technologies, and implementation approaches that could be followed to participate in these markets. To provide a framework that enables focus on key issues impacting the implementation of these diverse alternatives, the program separates the apparent most viable management practices into the following major categories: x Existing beneficial use contracts x Potential failsafe beneficial use contracts x Potential merchant facility alternatives, established markets and permitted sites, in-county or out of county

W052003003SCO/TM-07.RTF/ 033370012 1 175817.PE.12 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 7 – IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND CIP OUTLINE x Potential merchant facility alternatives, emerging markets, in-county or out of county x Potential Orange County Sanitation District (District)-owned production facilities, in-county, traditional design/bid/build x Potential District-owned production facilities, in-county, design/build/operate x Potential back-up failsafe disposal options x Future in-plant biosolids processing facilities Figure 7-1 presents a summary of the Program Implementation Plan that graphically depicts the timing required to participate in a variety of markets through the implementation of either District-owned, or Merchant-owned, biosolids-based production facilities. The Program Implementation Plan also includes necessary in-plant biosolids processing facilities required to accommodate projected increases in biosolids volumes due to population growth and enhanced levels of treatment at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2. The analysis of the existing facilities indicated that the inclusion of additional solids thickening facilities at Plant No. 1 will enable the existing digesters to process projected solids loadings through 2020. Plant No. 2 has sufficient digester capacity through 2020 without additional solids thickening. As illustrated in Figure 7-1, it is anticipated that the existing contract beneficial use options may not be available beyond 3 to 5 years. Though current beneficial use practices are environmentally sound, it is anticipated that land application markets will continue to become less reliable due to urbanization, public perception, regulatory, and political issues. The program anticipates that more reliable beneficial use markets, which require higher levels of product development, will form the core of the District’s future biosolids program. As shown in Figure 7-1, if they remain available, current land application options will eventually become future failsafe beneficial use options. The implementation of District-owned composting or heat-drying facilities could take up to 8 years to site, design, and construct. Therefore, the program includes activities that would immediately begin the process of obtaining new merchant facility contracts that would enable the District to begin participation in more stable biosolids beneficial use markets within the next 1 to 3 years, depending on associated permitting and merchant facility construction requirements. It is anticipated that new contracts with merchant facilities, with guaranteed tonnage and contract durations, will bridge the gap between the phase-out of existing beneficial use contracts and the startup of future District-owned facilities.

FINAL 2 W052003003SCO/TM-07.RTF/ 033370012 Assumptions: Legend: Current (2003) biosolids production = 500 wt/d * = duration includes 4 months for consultant selection. Future (2020) biosolids production = 1,000 wt/d ** = duration includes 6 months for contractor selection. 7 day per week operations = Project Implementation 21.5% dewatered cake solids = Existing Beneficial Use Market = Existing Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Existing Landfill Disposal = Potential Future Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market = Potential Failsafe Beneficial Use Market, Lower Confidence Zone = Potential Landfill Disposal

Assumed Assumed Available 2003 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016-2020 Biosolids Management Practices and Projects Duration (months) Capacity (wt/d) J ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASOND Existing Beneficial Use Contracts