1. Biosolids Planning – Core Team Meeting
City of Bellingham
April 3, 2017

2. Agenda Topic Description Leader Introductions (5 mins)
Review agenda and meeting objectives
Status update
Get input and confirmation on recommendations
Identify areas that need additional follow-up
Giesbrecht
Schedule Overview (5 mins)
Overview of schedule and work sequence status
Preliminary BCE (30 mins)
Overview of alternatives
Inputs and assumptions
Benefits and risks
Discussion: Confirm what’s needed for getting to a decision.
Stephens
Infiltration (20 mins)
Status update of field investigations work
Overview of next steps and how information will be used
Turk
WWTP Impacts (20 mins)
Overview of disinfection/treatment considerations
Overview of site layout considerations
Discussion: Confirm recommendations
Tam or Stephens?
Bureau of Reclamation Site Visit (3/13) Prep (10 mins)
Discuss materials needed and logistics for the site visit.
Zaroff
Stakeholder Meeting (6/7)
(15 mins)
Confirm purpose and messaging:
Next Steps
Brown and Caldwell

3. Brown and Caldwell

4. Overview of changes to Pass/Fail
Brown and Caldwell

5. Pass/Fail Criteria Updates From Last Workshop
Brown and Caldwell

6. Pass/Fail Criteria Updates From Last Workshop
Brown and Caldwell

7. Pass/Fail Criteria Updates From Last Workshop
Brown and Caldwell

8. Conceptual Alternatives – focus now on post-digestion options and end use
Brown and Caldwell

9. Revised Financial criteria TBL+ process
TBL+ Criteria
Revised Financial criteria
TBL+ process
Brown and Caldwell

10. Updated Financial Criteria
Parameter
Examples of Metric
F1. Optimizes system value
Provides balanced ROI using TBL+ criteria over 50 year life
Compare the life-cycle cost of alternatives (e.g., cost of construction, land, mitigation, ongoing O&M expenses) with the monetized value of key benefits (e.g., reduced carbon emissions, soil tilth)
F2. Affordability
Consistent with long term financial, environmental and social goals of Wastewater utility
Illustrate how the ability to achieve desired environmental and social benefits is linked to the anticipated rate impacts for each alternative
F3. Minimizes risk of end use market sensitivity
Limits risk or maximizes benefits from commodity market changes of end use products
Brown and Caldwell

11. TBL+ Comparison of Alternatives8 E2
Global Impact 7 E1
Local Impact 6 S2
Assets E2
Global Impact 5 S1
Health
& Safety S1
Health
& Safety
Number of Objectives Met 4 F2
Life Cycle $ F2
Life Cycle $ E2
Global Impact 3 F1
Capital $ F1
Capital $ E1
Local Impact E1
Local Impact E1
Local Impact 2 T2
Efficiency T2
Efficiency S2
Assets S2
Assets S2
Assets 1 T1
Reliability/ Performance T1
Reliability/ Performance S1
Health
& Safety T1
Reliability/ Performance
Ideal
Alternative
Alt. 1
Alt. 3
Alt. 4

12. Key Differentiators Identified in Detailed Analyses

13. Design Year Flows/Loads Basis
Brown and Caldwell

14. Current Population Projection Range

15. Key Load Projection Assumptions
Land capacity analysis (LCA) represents land use buildout of City and UGA. Changes to zoning would be required to continue growth
Industrial loading (SIUs) is approximately 10% of total BOD/TSS load. Industrial load will increase based on employment growth through 2036
City/UGA will be 100% sewered by 2036
LWWSD growth projection consistent with 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Per capita loads
0.20 ppcd BOD, 0.24 ppcd TSS

16. Preliminary Influent BOD Projection
Land Capacity Analysis

17. Preliminary Influent TSS Projection
Land Capacity Analysis

18. Confirmation of Key Assumptions to finalize flows and loads
Land capacity analysis (LCA) represents current land use of City and UGA. Zoning would change to continue same rate growth beyond 2036
Industrial loading (SIUs) is approximately 10% of total BOD/TSS load. Industrial load will increase based on employment growth through 2036 (7%)
City/UGA will be 100% sewered by 2036
Linear LWWSD growth projection consistent with 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
North Shore (+100 households by 2026)
South Shore (+1650 households by 2026)

19. Team Discussion
What is design year/load for Biosolids planning?

20. Incinerator Capacity Preliminary Peak 3-Day Loading Projection
Begin 24/7 operation
Combined incinerator capacity
Land Capacity Analysis

21. Proposed Layout/Design Criteria
Brown and Caldwell

22. General Redundancy Criteria
Mechanical Equipment
One redundant unit above peak loading condition (thickening, dewatering, process pumps, compressors, gas flares, etc.)
Process Units
No redundant unit – size based on service condition of one unit off line during max month condition (digesters)
No redundant unit – size based on 2 units at 60% peak day load each (driers)
No redundant unit – size based on optimized capacity (cogeneration, gas upgrading where flare backup is available)
Brown and Caldwell

23. Solids Sizing Criteria
Process
Sizing Criteria
Thickening
Assume reusing existing GBTs and co-thickening
Sized for peak day load with one unit out of service
Digestion
Assume TPAD for Class A option (including batch tanks)
4 digesters sized for:
- Peak 2-week with all tanks available
- Peak month with one tank out of service
Digested Sludge Storage
One tank sized for 1 day of storage (at peak day), assuming 24/7 operation of dewatering process
Dewatering
Assume reusing existing centrifuges
Cake Storage
Sized based on end use (land application = 3 days, dried product = 1 day, soil blending = 0-1 day depending on location of digestion)
Dryer
Assume 2 dryers, each sized for 60% of peak day load
Product storage
Storage for 120 days of product (except land application which is covered by cake storage above)
Brown and Caldwell

24. Biogas Sizing Criteria
Process
Sizing Criteria
Boilers
2 boilers sized to handle % of peak 2-week load
Redundant unit or cogeneration serves as redundancy
Redundant pump (peak day) for main heat loop
CHP Engines
1 or 2 engines sized to handle max month
No redundant unit
Biogas Upgrading
Sized for peak 2-week
No redundant units
Flares
2 flares sized to handle 50%+ each with 2x safety factor

25. Offsite Assessment
Brown and Caldwell

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

27. Documentation Goals
Brown and Caldwell

28. Who’s the Audience?
Brown and Caldwell

29. Public Outreach
Brown and Caldwell

30. April 10th Council Meeting
Overview of TBL+ criteria proposed for assessing alternatives
Demonstrate link to City Legacy Statements and Strategic Commitments
Brown and Caldwell

31. April 19th MNAC – Draft Fact Sheet
Brown and Caldwell

32. Status on other Public Outreach Activities
Official project name
Website
Other?
Brown and Caldwell

33. Next Steps Action Items Site visits? TBL+ development
Tacoma CTP (Digesters and TAGRO)
CCWWTP (Digester and Dryer)
TBL+ development
Brown and Caldwell