1. Biosolids Planning – Core Team Meeting
City of Bellingham
July 18, 2017

2. Agenda Topic Description Leader Introduction (5 mins)
Review agenda and meeting objectives
Tadd
Site Visit Debrief
(15 mins)
Discuss summary of takeaways and need for any additional visits
TBL+ Scoring
(90 minutes)
Overview of TBL+ updates from last workshop
Comparative Construction Costs
Scoring of Financial Criteria
Susanna
Select Preferred Conceptual Alt
(30 mins)
Summary of scoring
Project Phasing
Class A vs. B
Additional information/analysis needed?
Project Cost Discussion (30 mins)
Communication around the scale of the project
Next Steps
(20 mins)
July 31 Public Workshop
Council Briefing
Phase 1 Tech Memo
Brown and Caldwell

3. July 31
Brown and Caldwell

4. Site Visit Debrief
Brown and Caldwell

5. Area Biosolids Programs
Tacoma
Treated as a business $$$
Rely on word of mouth (master gardeners) for marketing
Sumner
“Free” product
No advertising
Pierce County
Class A high-quality product (pellet from dryer) currently being stored
Alderwood
Class A from belt dryer currently disposed at Boulder Park
King County
GroCo compost program (Class A)
95% Class B LOOP program
Lynden/Arlington
Class B with Compost for Class A use around town
Brown and Caldwell

6. TBL+ Scoring
Brown and Caldwell

7. Social, Environmental, and Technical Factor Scoring Changes Since last Core Team Meeting
E1: Adjusted GHG reduction for all alternatives
E3: Adjusted Alt 2 to 50% (2 of 4 resources recovered)
E5: Adjusted Alt 4 to remove site remediation
Social
S3: Adjusted metric to public exposure of sensitive social areas Post Point); comparison against current trips
Technical
T4: updated to include permitting quantity or duration, public acceptance, operations, biosolids market/distribution
Brown and Caldwell

8. Review of Economic Factors in TBL+
F1: Optimizes system value. Provides balanced ROI using TBL+ criteria over 50 year life.
F2: Affordability. Consistent with long-term financial, environmental, and social goals of wastewater utility
F3: Minimizes risk of end use market sensitivity. Limits risk or maximizes benefits from commodity market changes of end use products.
Brown and Caldwell

9. F1: Common Basis for Phase 1 Cost Estimating
Comparative costs based planning level of design (1%-5%)
AACE Cost Estimating Class 4
Typical range: -15% to +50%
Construction costs include 40% contingency, escalation to mid-point (2023), 8.7% sales tax
Project costs include 25% (eng/legal/admin) + land acquisition + 5% change order
Common Elements
Capital costs
Standby generator/ATS
Maintenance building
Influent screening upgrades
Digester gas flares
Cake loadout hopper
O&M costs
+ Minor biosolids end use coordination
+ Digester labor
- Incin O&M
Brown and Caldwell

10. F1: Alt 1 Specific Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs
Mesophilic digester, storage tank, gas cleaning
Cogeneration/boiler
Site remediation
Miscellaneous site, piping, EI&C, general conditions, Contractor OH&P
$66/hr trucking/tipping fee to eastern WA
Truck loading operator coordination (30 min per truck)
Cogeneration maintenance
Power generation credit
Polymer usage
Brown and Caldwell

11. F1: Alt 2 Specific Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs
Mesophilic digester, storage tank, gas cleaning
Dryer and 4 days storage
Site remediation
Miscellaneous site, piping, EI&C, general conditions, Contractor OH&P
Dryer operations – 0.5 FTE
$150/hr trucking/tipping fee within 100 miles to blending facility
Dryer energy use
Polymer usage
3 FTE for sale and admin
Brown and Caldwell

12. F1: Alt 3 Specific Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs
TPAD digesters and blending tanks, storage tank, gas cleaning
Cogeneration/boiler
Site remediation
Miscellaneous site, piping, EI&C, general conditions, Contractor OH&P
Land acquisition for blending facility
Off-site blending facility with small admin bldg., maintenance shop, raw material storage, small rolling stock
$150/hr trucking/tipping fee within 8 miles to City’s blending facility
Labor hours for TPAD digestion
Production labor and diesel
Cogeneration maintenance
Power generation credit
Polymer usage
3 FTE for sale and admin
Brown and Caldwell

13. F1: Alt 4 Specific Costs Capital Costs O&M Costs
Pump stations - energy and labor
Labor hours for TPAD digestion
Production labor and diesel
Cogeneration maintenance
Power generation credit
Polymer usage
3 FTE for sale and admin
On-site pump station
8 mile sludge pump forcemain and 4 mile centrate return pipe
Land acquisition for solids and blending facility
Off-site facilities
TPAD digesters and blending tanks, storage tank, gas cleaning
Cogeneration/boiler
Centrate return pump station
Solids treatment building with relocated GBTs and centrifuges and odor control
Off-site miscellaneous site, piping, EI&C, general conditions, Contractor OH&P
Off-site blending facility with raw material storage, small rolling stock
2,500 sf admin building; 2,500 sf maintenance building
Brown and Caldwell

14. F1: Summary of Costs Comparative costs. Not for budgeting purposes.
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Capital (in 2023$)
Construction
Project
$85 mil
$111 mil
$92 mil
$119 mil
$98 mil
$129 mil
$152 mil
$198 mil
Annual O&M
$875k
$1.4 mil
$1.5 mil
20-year NPW of Project Costs (in 2017$)
$72.5 mil
$83.5 mil
$79.3 mil
$116.6 mil
Project Cost relative to highest score
100%
85%
91%
39%
Comparative costs. Not for budgeting purposes.
Brown and Caldwell

15. F2: Affordability ROM impact range estimate $2/month/$10M in capital
$0.25/month/$100k of on-going O&M
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Capital (in 2023$)
Construction
Project
$85 mil
$111 mil
$92 mil
$119 mil
$98 mil
$129 mil
$152 mil
$198 mil
Annual O&M
$875k
$1.4 mil
$1.5 mil
Rate Range for Project Costs
$24.40/mo
$27.40/mo
$29.50/mo
$43.10/mo
Project impact relative to highest score
100%
85%
91%
39%
Comparative costs in $2023. Not for budgeting purposes.
Brown and Caldwell

16. F3: Minimizes risk of end use market sensitivity
Revision to sensitivity of O&M costs to energy purchase price
Energy purchase price is approximately 30% of annual O&M costs
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Net energy credit is approximately 20% of annual O&M costs with cogeneration
Energy purchase price is approximately 30% of annual O&M costs
Risk impact relative to highest score
100%
75%
Brown and Caldwell

17. Draft Scoring Summary with Financial criteria
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
F1: Optimizes system value
100%
86%
89%
35%
F2: Affordability
85%
91%
39%
F3: Minimizes risk of end use market sensitivity
75%
Brown and Caldwell

18. Select Preferred Conceptual Alternative
Brown and Caldwell

19. In a nutshell…
Alternative 1
Class B on-site, land app
Alternative 2
Class B and Dryer on-site
Alternative 3
Class A on-site, “Tagro” off-site
Alternative 4
Class A and “Tagro” off-site
Environmental
21.1
10.5
All recovered energy is being used by the dryer (high GHG emissions)
25.0
Lowest GHG emissions and energy usage
22.1
Social
21.9
21.7
20.9
21.5
Economic
Least costly to only produce Class B
20.4
23.4
14.9
Significantly higher costs associated with a full solids plant off-site
Technical/ Functional
20.8
No off-site implementation complexity
16.0
Uses the majority of the remaining footprint at Post Point
17.1
18.3
Saves space at Post Point for liquids upgrades/ Avoids potential future satellite WWTP
Total
88.8
Lowest cost and least complex to implement (no Class A available locally)
68.9
Worst environmental, limits future expansion at Post Point
86.1
Best environmental and “competitive” in all other criteria.
76.2
Most expensive, but best option for “regional” and preserving space at Post Point
Brown and Caldwell

20. If Class A desired by the community as a local option
Alt 1A – Class B on-site, Compost off-site Class A
(land application backup)
Brown and Caldwell

21. Phasing in a Local Product
Brown and Caldwell

22. Phasing in a Local Product
Brown and Caldwell

23. Phasing in a Local Product
Brown and Caldwell

24. Phasing in a Local Product
Brown and Caldwell

25. Conceptual Alternatives
Brown and Caldwell

26. Project Cost Discussion
Brown and Caldwell

27. Scale of the Project – How to Manage Moving Ahead?
For Talking Purposes…
Overall Scale of the Project
Construction
Project
Planning Level Cost Estimate
$85-$150M
$111-$198M
Planning Level Rate Impact
$15-$30/month
$20-$38/month
Potential implications and considerations…
Phase 2 will develop a Project cost for the selected alternative
Interest in alternative/really innovative technologies (i.e., revised pass/fail criteria) perceived to be less expensive
New incineration would likely within these ranges based on 2012 study information (to be confirmed)
“Do nothing” represents risk ($) and significant OM ($) (and major capital project in near future anyway)
Peer review to validate direction
Brown and Caldwell

28. Next Steps
Brown and Caldwell

29. Next Steps July 31 – Public Workshop Council briefing
Summarize public feedback and how it was used
Summarize TBL+ results and selected alternative
Next Steps (Phase 2)
Council briefing
Brown and Caldwell