7/25/2011

WELCOMING REMARKS

National Biosolids Partnership – Water Sam Hadeed Environment Research Foundation Biosolids Program Manager Water Environment Federation Webcast National Biosolids Partnership “Terminal Island Renewable Energy – Alexandria, VA (TIRE) WEF Residuals & Biosolids L.A. Biosolids Committee Staff Liaison Slurry & Brine Injection Project” [email protected] July 27, 2011

2

NBP’s Commitment to Excellence in Biosolids Management

NBP is an alliance of the Water Environment ¾ Starting January 2010, NBP began offering a series of ”no Federation and National Association of Clean charge” quarterly webcasts devoted to general biosolids management and technical topics of interest to water quality Water Agencies with advisory support from U.S. and biosolids professionals. EPA • Carbon Footprint Implications from Biosolids Management Practices • Advances i n S olid s R ed ucti on P rocesses • Combined Heat and Power Generation Opportunities at Wastewater Treatment Facilities • Charting the Future of Biosolids Management: Forum Findings on Trends and Drivers • Implementing the New Sewage Sludge Incineration MACT Standard – Issues and Challenges Ahead

1.5 Professional Development Hours for this webcast http://www.wefnet.org/nbp/

NBP EMS Certified Agencies (32) Opening remarks

A key component of the NBP program is the EMS and third-party audit program. These certified agencies that collectively manage nearly 15% of biosolids produced in the U.S. have now achieved the prestigious EMS certification.

Alexandria, VA Sanitation Authority King County, WA Div. WW Treatment City of Santa Rosa, CA Public Utilities Louisville & Jefferson Co. KY Metro Sewer DDististrictrict City of Wyoming, MI Clean Water Plant Madison, WI Metropolitan Sewerage District Glenn Reinhardt Central Davis County, UT Sewer District Metro Denver, CO WW Reclamation District Columbus, GA Water Works Metro Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, Chicago, IL WERF Executive Director DC Wa ter Orange C oun ty, CA San itatioonn Dis tr ict New England Organic Hawk Ridge Composting Facility Orange County, FL Utilities Water Environment Services of Clackamas County, OR Resource Management Inc., NH East Bay Municipal Utility District -Oakland, CA Kent County, DE Regional WTF Butler County, OH DES Encina Wastewater Authority –Carlsba– Carlsbad,d, CA City of Albany, OR Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Raleigh, NC Public Utilities Department City of Chattanooga, TN DPW City of Mankato, MN City of Fort Worth, TX Water Dept City of Los Angeles, CA Dept of Public WorkWorkss City of Grand Rapids, MI City of Lawrence, KS Dept. of UtiliUtilititieses Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission, Canada LewistonLewiston--Auburn,Auburn, ME WPA Camden County, NJ Municipal Utility District City of Richmond, VA Public Utilities Dept.

1 7/25/2011

Agenda WERF’s Targeted Collaborative 1:30-1:40 Opening remarks Research Process (TCR) Glenn Reinhardt, WERF 1:40-2:05 Omar Moghaddam • Funding mechanism to fast track innovative research The City of Los Angeles outside regular funding cycle 2:05-2:30 Michael Bruno • Subscriber-initiated projects GeoEnvironment Technologies. • TCR program designed to offer maximum flexibility and 2:30-3:30 Questions and Answers economic and scientific benefits to subscribers 3:30 Adjourn • Collaborative partnerships managed by WERF

Terminal Island Renewable Energy (TIRE) Terminal Island Renewable Energy (TIRE) Benefits WERF Objectives

• Low Capital Cost • Map High Potential Geological Sites • Low Energy Consumption • Develop Permitting Roadmap • Reduced Biosolids Treatment • Technical Guidance • Low Carbon Footprint • Energy Production Potential • Co-Disposal of Brine Possible

Terminal Island Renewable Energy (TIRE) Our Guest Speakers Express Your Interest

• Critical Mass of Interested Parties • Robust National Research Agenda • Collaborative Funding

Omar Moghaddam Dr. Michael Bruno Division Manager President Regulatory Affairs Division, City of Los Angeles Bureau GeoEnvironment Technologies • Contact Jane Knecht (571-384-2096 or [email protected]) of Sanitation

2 7/25/2011

Terminal Island Renewable Energy - Background TIRE • Over one million tons of treated municipal Sites investigated L.A. Biosolids biosolids are generated each year in Southern Slurry & Brine Injection Project California • Over 1/4 of that is generated by the City by: • Currently, the City’s pathogen-free, Exceptional H. R. Moghaddam City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation Quality Class A biosolids material is spread on and farmland in Kern County for non-food crops, Dr. Mike Bruno GeoEnvironment Technologies composting, and injected in TIRE Project

13 14

CITY’S BIOSOLIDS PROCESS

STABILIZATIONDEWATERING TRUCK TRANSPORT

BIOSOLIDS SPREADING & INCORPORATION FIELD OF WHEAT HARVESTING CROP

3 7/25/2011

What is T.I.R.E? Geothermal Treatment Technology :

• Nation's first full-scale application of deep well injection 1. Inject biosolids into deep (hot) technology geologic formation • Uses proven technology widely used in the petroleum 2. Allow material to undergo natural process of high-temperature industry anaerobic biodegradation, instantly (within 24 hrs) pasteurizing the • Converts biosolids to bio-methane through deep subsurface material and over time (30-60 days) pltthltttdbiddtihillacement, thermal treatment and biodegradation while starting conversion to methane and sequencing GHGs carbon dioxide • Uses the generated methane in fuel cell units to produce 3. Design process to capture and sequester generated C02 in green power formation water

• Offers a long-term solution with superior economics 4. Store or recover high purity • Environmentally sound with renewable energy benefits methane for beneficial use

21

Project History Environmental Advantages

¾July 1999: GeoEnvironment Technologies responded to City’s RFP for 1. Reduced trucking and associated emissions alt tech on biosolids 2. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 credits) ¾Jan 2001: Began negotiating with TTI ¾June 2001:Filed for a UIC permit with EPA Region 9 3. Reduced energy consumption ¾2001-2004: Bench scale testing, geotech evaluations, etc. ¾2001-2005: extensive public outreach 4. Enhanced treatment (higher temp for longer time) ¾2005-2006: outreach to NGOs and enviro’s 5. Managing biosolids locally within urban areas ¾2006: obtained tentative approvals from coastal, POLA, AQMD, BLM ¾Nov 2006: EPA issued UIC Class V Experimental permit ¾2007: CEQA, Coastal permit, etc. ¾April 2007: Groundbreaking Economic Advantages ¾May 2007: began the construction of surface and subsurface (2 wells) ¾July 2008: began the start-up of the bio-slurry injection facility 1. Significantly lower capital costs compared to drying, ¾May 2011: completed well #3 incineration, or gasification facilities ¾June 2011: submitted permit application for another 5 years, requested ~$10MM for 300 ton/day facility, compared to > $100MM the 4th well (for a 2 operational systems) and deeper formations 2. Operating costs lower than most alternatives ~ $50 per wet ton or less for optimized system 23

4 7/25/2011

Inspection of the 350 Wells on Chaffee Island

Regional Oil Fields Why Terminal Island? San Vicente Salt Lake Los Angeles Beverly Hills Sawtelle Montebello Cheviot Hills Las Cienegas L.A. Basin Proposed OFWD Whittier Inglewood Sansinena • Within the City and treatment facility boundaries Potrero Bandini Playa Del Rey Brea Olinda Rosecrans Santa Fe Springs Coyote • In an Industrial area El Segundo Yorba Linda Dominguez OFWD Kraemer 1997 Richfield • Ideal geology Torrance Long Beach Oil Field

Pacific Ocean Proposed Seal Beach Oil Field • Use tertiary effluent or BRINE currently OFWD N discharged into Harbor Wilmington Oil Field Belmont Offshore Newport Huntington Beach Oilfield waste disposal 0 4812 (since Scale in Miles 1994) LB DOP

Highlights of the EPA Permit • Class V, Experimental Governing Regulations

• Up to 5 years, in two phases: • Part 124, Procedures for Decisionmaking Covers • Part 148, Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions public notices, public hearings, etc. – Subpart A - General • Part 144, Underground Injection Control Program – Subpart B - Prohibition on Injection – Subpart A - General Provisions – Subpart C - Petition Standards and Procedures • Phase I: 6 months start up (~120 tpd) – Subpart B - General Program Requirements • Part 260, Hazardous Waste Management System: – Subpart C - Authorization of Underground Injection General by Rule – Subpart A - General – Subpart D - Authorization by Permit – Subpart B - Definitions • Phase II: 4.5 years operation (up to 200 tpd) – Subpart E - Permit Conditions – Subpart C - Rulemaking Petitions – Subpart F - Financial Responsibility: Class I • Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Hazardous Waste Injection Wells Waste – Subpart G - Requirements for Owners and Operators – Subpart A - General of Class V Injection Wells • Three formation zones – Subpart B - Criteria for Identifying the • Part 145, State UIC Program Requirements. This Characteristics of Hazardous Waste and for Listing section covers requirements for states to obtain Hazardous Waste primacy for the UIC program. – Subpart C - Characteristics of Hazardous Waste • Injection Rate: 10bpm avg., 15bpm max • Part 146, Underground Injection Control Program: – Subpart D - Lists of Hazardous Wastes Criteria and Standards • Part 264, Standards for Owners and Operators of – Subpart A - General Provisions Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal – Subpart B - Criteria and Standards Applicable to Facilities Class I Wells • Part 265, Interim Status Standards for Owners and • Daily injection period: Up to 16 hrs – Subpart C - Criteria and Standards Applicable to Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage Class II Wells and Disposal Facilities – Subpart D - Criteria and Standards Applicable to Class III Wells • Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions – Subpart E - Criteria and Standards Applicable to – Subpart A - General • Biosolids: 120 to 400 wt per day Class IV Wells (Reserved) – Subpart B - Schedule for Land Disposal Prohibition – Subpart F - Criteria and Standards Applicable to and Establishment of Treatment Standards Class V Wells – Subpart C - Prohibitions on Land Disposal – Subpart G - Criteria and Standards Applicable to – Subpart D - Treatment Standards • Liquids: up to 400,000 gallons per day Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells • Subpart E - Prohibitions on Storage • Part 147, State Underground Injection Control Programs 29 – Subpart F - California

5 7/25/2011

UIC Regulatory Project Features • A 5-year demonstration project The five well classes are based on similarity in the fluids injected, activities, construction, injection depth, design, and operating techniques to ensure that • Uses a multiple casing, heavily protected these wells meet appropriate performance criteria for protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDW). delivery well for the placement of biosolids

Class 1 - Inject hazardous wastes, industrial non-hazardous liquids, or municipal wastewater beneath the lowermost USDW. (500 wells). Approximately 30 percent of Class I wells are • Natural heat deep in the earth biodegrades municipal wastewater disposal wells. the material to methane and carbon-dioxide Class 2 - Inject brines and other fluids associated with oil and gas production, and hydrocarbons for storage. They inject beneath the lowermost USDW. (140,000 wells) • Placement zone is protected by at least a Class 3 - wells are used to mine uranium, salt, copper, and sulfur. (18,500 wells) dozen impermeable confining layers and

Class 4 - wells are shallow wells used to inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above a major fault lines: Isolation, Protection, and geologic formation that contains a USDW. Banned In 1984 by EPA now these wells may only be Confinement operated as part of an EPA- or state-authorized ground water clean-up action. (32 waste clean- up sites with Class IV wells in the United States)

Class 5 - All injection wells not included in Classes I-IV. In general, Class V wells inject non- hazardous fluids into or above USDWs and are typically shallow, on-site disposal systems. However, there are some deep Class V wells that inject below USDWs. (600,000 wells) 32

Project Features • 1 injection well and 2 monitoring wells • Wells are being monitored by a series of state of the art technologies, including: ¾Geophones, gamma ray, density meters, pressure, temperature, micro-seismograms, etc. • Extensive lab analysis: gas, formation fluid, pathogens, etc. • Depressurization period (8-10 hours) • Phased approach in increasing the process capacity, up to 200 tons and 200,000+ gallons per day

33 34 Kenai Rig#38

36

6 7/25/2011

40

Geology Slurry Injection Process

• Injection target: 3,800 to 5,300 ft • 56 ft-thick sand found at 5,150 ft •Injjpyection zone porosity: 22.0% • Permeability: 280-900 mD • Formation Capacity: 1 million barrels in 5 years (a) (b) (c) Parting during Parting during fluid Closure after fluid injection & slurry injection shut-in and fluid leak-off Sidewall Core Sample at 5,165 ft.

41

7 7/25/2011

Truck Loading Driveway

Oct 27, 2008 Oct 28, 2008 Oct 29, 2008 Oct 30, 2008 Oct 31, 2008 Inj. Time = 10:24 hrs Inj. Time = 10:32 hrs Inj. Time = 10:25 hrs Inj. Time = 09:30 hrs Inj. Time = 09:30 hrs 6,000 Rate = 5.95 bpm Rate = 5.96 bpm Rate = 5.96 bpm Rate = 5.96 bpm Rate = 5.96 bpm HPE = 6,615 gal HPE = 7,832 gal HPE = 6,477 gal HPE = 7,972 gal HPE = 7,932 gal 10.00 Sludge = 127,243 gal. Sludge = 120,368 gal. Sludge = 117,012 gal. Sludge =112,894 gal. Sludge = 114,091 gal. HPE = 12,022 gal HPE = 18,740 gal HPE = 18,250 gal HPE = 11,820 gal HPE = 12,009 gal Wetcake = 44 tons Wetcake = 44 tons NWetcake=40 Wetcake = 44 tons Wetcake = 44 tons. 5,000 8.00 BHP ~ 4,250 psi

4,000

6.00

3,000 CAS / WHP WHP / (psi) CAS Rate (bpm) P

BHP / 4.00 SImin ~ 2,374 psi 2,000

2.00 1,000

WHP ~ 110 psi

0 0.00 Oct 26 00:00 Oct 27 00:00 Oct 28 00:00 Oct 29 00:00 Oct 30 00:00 Oct 31 00:00 Nov 1 00:00 Nov 2 00:00 Date Time

BHP (psi) WHP (psi) PCAS (psi) Rate (bpm)

8 7/25/2011

Monitoring Objectives:

1. Verify containment of injected material for environmental protection. 2. Demonstrate deep biodegradation and

treatment Offset monitor/sample slurry analysis well BHP 3. Attempt to quantify methane generation and TTI p CO2 sequestration 4. Comply with regulatory requirements

Pressure and Temp Pressure and Temp measurements measurements Multiple Technologies to be Applied: 1. Pressure monitoring and analysis

2. Temperature monitoring FLUIDS SOLIDS Injection well 3. Fluid and gas sampling 4. Geophysical monitoring

Pressure and temperature monitoring at injection and offset monitoring wells confirm no pressure buildup in injection zone and overlying zones

Pulse transmission indicates preferred directionality towards well #3

9 7/25/2011

Injected fluids are cooler than formation. Break in temperature gradient versus depth, and constant temperature, identifies fluid placement location

Injection Zone

Temperature profile for SFI#01, Monday 13th of June 2011 at 1:30

Fluids placement and location has remained constant for past two years

Microseismic (noise) monitoring used as additional tool to track fluid placement and migration

MICROSEISMIC EVENTS

0

5000

(ft) 10000

Depth 15000 ary n

Prelimi 20000

25000

30000 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 Oct‐ ov‐ Jan‐ ar‐ pr‐ Jun‐ ug‐ ep‐ ov‐ 9‐ 28‐N 17‐ 8‐M 27‐A 16‐ 5‐A 24‐S 13‐N

Date of Microseismic Event

59 60

10 7/25/2011

Microseismic locations consistent with cooling zone indicated by fiber optic temperature. Events declined and ceased after 6 months injection.

4000 4100 4200 4300 Model Area 4400 4500 4600 Cooling Zone from Fiber Optic Data

(ft) 4700

4800 4900 Depth 5000

nary 5100 i 5200 5300 Prelim 5400 5500 5600 5700 5800 5900 6000 1‐Nov‐08 11‐Nov‐08 21‐Nov‐08 1‐Dec‐08 11‐Dec‐08 21‐Dec‐08 31‐Dec‐08

Date of Microseismic Event

9,000 250

8,000

200 7,000

6,000 150 5,000 n rate (m³/day) ivalent (UStons) ivalent u o

4,000 100 3,000

2,000 Eq Wetcake Daily

Biogas generati 50

1,000

0 0 6/1/2008 9/9/2008 12/18/2008 3/28/2009 7/6/2009 10/14/2009 1/22/2010 5/2/2010 8/10/2010 11/18/2010 Figure 24: Salt mass fraction in water after 84 days Date & Time

11 7/25/2011

Gas saturation after 542 days of CH4 generation Gas saturation after 750 days of CH4 generation and water injection simulation and water injection simulation

GAS ANALYSES

Parameter Prod MDL RDL Unit Value Report Value Analysis Date SFI Well #02: Methane Concentration Sep. 21, 2010- May 9, 2011 THC Fixed Gases - Fid 0.00020 0.00010 %v 47.8 47.8 10/01/2010

100.0 O2/AR Fixed Gases - TCD 0.10 1.0 %v 1.11 1.11 10/01/2010

90.0 Hydrogen Sulfide Sulfur Compounds 0.080 0.50 ppmv 0.090 DNQ 10/01/2010

80.0 CH4 Fixed Gases - Fid 0.00020 0.00010 %v 45.9 45.9 10/01/2010

70.0 Carbonyl Sulfide Sulfur Compounds 0.11 0.50 ppmv 0.28 DNQ 10/01/2010

N2 Fixed Gases - TCD 0.20 1.0 %v 46.3 46.3 10/01/2010 60.0

e (%volume) CO2 Fixed Gases - TCD 0.020 0.10 %v <0.020 ND 10/01/2010 n 50. 0

CH4 (%v)

Metha 40.0 Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Compounds 0.30 1.0 ppmv <0.30 ND 10/01/2010

30.0 Methyl Mercaptan Sulfur Compounds 0.080 0.50 ppmv <0.080 ND 10/01/2010

20.0 Ethyl Mercaptan Sulfur Compounds 0.10 0.50 ppmv <0.10 ND 10/01/2010

10.0 Dimethyl Sulfide Sulfur Compounds 0.080 0.50 ppmv <0.080 ND 10/01/2010

0.0 2-propanethiol Sulfur Compounds 0.15 1.0 ppmv <0.15 ND 10/01/2010 8/10/2010 9/29/2010 11/18/2010 1/7/2011 2/26/2011 4/17/2011 6/6/2011 Sample Date 1-propanethiol Sulfur Compounds 0.30 1.5 ppmv <0.30 ND 10/01/2010

Carbon Disulfide Sulfur Compounds 0.15 1.0 ppmv <0.15 ND 10/01/2010

Dimethyl Disulfide Sulfur Compounds 0.15 0.50 ppmv <0.15 ND 10/01/2010

Client ID: TITP-TIRE

Site: TITP

Collect Date: 05/09/2011

Parameter Prod MDL RDL Unit Value Report Val Analysis Date Research and Regulatory Objectives Being Met: Hydrogen Sulfide SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.080 0.50 ppmv 0.090 DNQ 05/10/2011 O2/AR FIXED GASES - TCD 0.10 1.0 %v 0.79 DNQ 05/10/2011 1.Demonstrate that injected material remains within THC FIXED GASES - FID 0.00020 0.00010 %v 59.4 59.4 05/10/2011 permitted interval (below about 3000ft) Carbonyl Sulfide SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.11 0.50 ppmv 0.20 DNQ 05/10/2011 2.Evaluate use of geophysical monitoring, fiber optic N2 FIXED GASES - TCD 0.20 1.0 %v 35.6 35.6 05/10/2011 temppg,erature monitoring, in addition to standard CH4 FIXED GASES - FID 0.00020 0.00010 %v 58.3 58.3 05/10/2011 pressure monitoring and analysis Sulfur Dioxide SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.30 1.0 ppmv <0.30 ND 05/10/2011

CO2 FIXED GASES - TCD 0.020 0.10 %v <0.020 ND 05/10/2011 3.Maintain and update process simulation model

Methyl Mercaptan SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.080 0.50 ppmv <0.080 ND 05/10/2011 4.Sample and analyze fluids and gases for constituents

Ethyl Mercaptan SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.10 0.50 ppmv <0.10 ND 05/10/2011

Dimethyl Sulfide SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.080 0.50 ppmv <0.080 ND 05/10/2011

2-propanethiol SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.15 1.0 ppmv <0.15 ND 05/10/2011

1-propanethiol SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.30 1.5 ppmv <0.30 ND 05/10/2011

Carbon Disulfide SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.15 1.0 ppmv <0.15 ND 05/10/2011

Dimethyl Disulfide SULFUR COMPOUNDS 0.15 0.50 ppmv <0.15 ND 05/10/2011

12 7/25/2011

Proposed Permit Renewal and Project Expansion in 2011

1.Renew Class V Demonstration Permit for 5 years 2.Add additional monitoring well (SFI 4), with DOE funding support 3.Alternat e i ijnjecti on i itnto t wo well ll(SFI1s (SFI 1 and dSFI2)t SFI 2) to achi eve original 400 tons/day goal for increased mass and gas generation

BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COSTS Economic Advantages for Deep Well Injection

$12,000,000.00 1. Significantly lower capital costs compared to drying, incineration, or gasification facilities

$10,000,000.00 ~$10MM for 300 ton/day facility, compared to > $100MM

$8,000,000.00 S 2. Operating costs lower than most alternatives $6,000,000.00 ~ $50 per wet ton or less for optimized system COSTS IN MILLION IN COSTS $4,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$0.00 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YEAR

Our Website Address:

http://www.lacity.org/SAN/biosolidsems/TIRE.htm/

77 78

13 7/25/2011

Q & A Session

14