1. 1 Draft1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY Biosolids Management Program Update May 22, 2008

2. 2 Draft2 Agenda  BMP Status Update  Process Alternatives  Comparison of Alternatives  Risk Management Strategy  Energy and GHG Emission Considerations  Implementation Schedule

3. 3 Draft3 BMP Status Update

4. 4 Draft4 Introduction  WASA has been updating the BMP to: Determine available technologies for Blue Plains Define projects that can be implemented within the budget, but also identify projects that provide significant O&M cost advantages Define projects that significantly reduce continued use of lime stabilization and provide for beneficial use of final product (i.e., digester gas and biosolids)

5. 5 Draft5 Introduction  WASA has determined that: Digestion remains the cornerstone of the BMP WASA should continue moving toward processes that result in Class A biosolids for program sustainability Thermal Hydrolysis by Cambi is proven to be an effective biosolids treatment technology Use of Cambi process can reduce needed digester volume by 50% Diversity of final product is an important risk management strategy

6. 6 Draft6 BMP Status  WASA conducted three expert panel workshops resulting in a recommended combined option including TH, digestion, and drying Waste activated (hard to digest sludge) to Cambi, and Primary (easy to digest sludge) to digestion/drying Reduces risk from processing all sludge using only one technology Generates diverse final biosolids products Allows WASA to gain experience with both technologies and decide which technology to proceed with in the future

7. 7 Draft7 BMP Status (Cont’d)  Identified process alternatives that would maximize use of existing facilities  Identified scaled-back facilities that fit within available budget  Performed value engineering with independent team on alternatives to identify construction cost savings  Performed independent cost analyses to validate cost assumptions and factors used to prepare construction and O&M cost estimates

8. 8 Draft8 BMP Status (Cont’d)  Validated feasibility and constructability concepts using independent construction and geotechnical experts  Identified risks related to construction and means to mitigate them (construction cost market continues to escalate at a rapid rate)  Estimated energy production and carbon offsets for each alternative

9. 9 Draft9 BMP Status (Cont’d)  Reviewed latest population projection for Blue Plains service area and impact on solids loading and biosolids management costs  DCWASA personnel visited TH (Cambi) installations in Ireland and the United Kingdom April 29 – May 2, 2008 to: Inspect operating and partially constructed TH plants Discuss procurement, construction and operating issues with owners Familiarize WASA staff with process operability and maintainability requirements Found Cambi to be an acceptable technology for Blue Plains

10. 10 Draft10 Process Technologies Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis (TH)  TH precedes anaerobic digestion  TH uses high temp and pressure to break down sludge for faster digestion and destroys all pathogens  TH produces Class A biosolids product  TH reduces the required digester volume by half  TH can provide diversity of biosolids product with the addition of drying Thickening Dewatering Cambi Meso Digestion Dewatering Beneficial Use (Class A)

11. 11 Draft11 Digestion/Drying Provides heat dryers for digested sludge to yield Class A pellets Reduces biosolids volume by 90% Class A pellets can be land applied or used for fertilizer or fuel Process Technologies Thickening Meso Digestion Dewatering Drying Beneficial Use (Class A)

12. 12 Draft12 Thickening Dewatering Cambi Meso Digestion Dewatering Beneficial Use (Class A) Thickening Meso Digestion Dewatering Drying Beneficial Use (Class A) Primary Solids and WAS Combined (Cambi/digestion/drying) Provides heat dryers for non-Cambi digested sludge to yield Class A pellets Provides two different types of Class A products Process Technologies

13. 13 Draft13 Available Project Construction Budget  Current Available CIP Funds = $ 308 MM  Pre-construction Cost Allowances at 26% of Construction Cost = $ 64 MM  Available Construction Budget = $ 244 MM

14. 14 Draft14 Process Alternatives – Major Equipment Alt. Cambi Trains DigestersDryers Additional Centrifuges Location 16505 Digester site 24403 32205SPB 42202 Digester site 52733 62317SPB 71523Digester site 81313 91313SPB 100856Digester site 110431SPB 120006SPB SPB = Sludge Processing Building

15. 15 Draft15 Biosolids Loadings and Construction Cost for Alternatives Alt. No. Loading (dtpd) Construction Cost ($ Million) To TreatmentTo Lime Stabilization Annual AverageMax 3-D/ Annual Average 13700 / 0375 2370162 / 0311 3220409 / 150214 4220409 / 150220 537080 / 0370 6261352 / 109300

16. 16 Draft16 Biosolids Loadings and Construction Cost for Alternatives Alt. No. Loading (dtpd) Construction Cost ($ Million) To TreatmentTo Lime Stabilization Annual AverageMax 3-D/ Annual Average 7292286 / 78355 8202408 / 168258 9202408 / 168237 10370126 / 0413 11200392 / 170232 120657 / 370137

17. 17 Draft17 Construction and O&M Costs of Alternatives Alt. No. DescriptionConstruction ($M) 1 st Yr. O&M ($M) 16 Cambi (Digester site) + 5 MAD (Full)37534.4 24 Cambi (Digester Site) + 4 MAD + LS31124.6 32 Cambi (SPB) + 2 MAD + LS214 *34.3 42 Cambi (Digester Site) + 2 MAD + LS22034.3 52 Cambi (Digester Site) + 7 MAD +3 Dryers (Full)37024.9 62 Cambi (SPB) +3 MAD + 1 Dryer + LS300 *34.3 71 Cambi (Digester Site) + 5 MAD + 2 Dryers + LS35528.8 81 Cambi (Digester Site) + 3 MAD + 1 Dryer + LS25839.8 MAD = Mesophylic Anaerobic Digesters LS = Lime Stabilization

18. 18 Draft18 Construction and O&M Costs of Alternatives Alt. No. DescriptionConstruction ($M) 1 st Yr. O&M ($M) 91 Cambi (SPB) + 3 MAD + 1 Dryers + LS237 *39.8 10Acid Hydrolysis + 8 MAD + 5 Dryers (Full)41315.0 114 MAD + 3 Dryers (SPB) + LS232 *28.2 12Lime Stabilization (LS) (Full)13742.2 * The estimated cost does not account for additional costs that may be incurred when major equipment is installed in an existing building designed for other uses.

19. 19 Draft19 Preliminary Comparison of Alternatives  Alternatives sized to handle all peaks and eliminate lime stabilization and cost >$370 Million (construction cost)  Cambi requests outdoor location for their process. Fitting Cambi into existing building could require modifications to their standard design which increases risk  Four digestion alternatives are within capital budget

20. 20 Draft20 Preliminary Comparison of Alternatives (Cont’d)  Four digestion alternatives are above capital budget, but reduced O&M cost warrants further consideration  For each of the above, the best Cambi and combined alternatives were selected resulting in four alternatives to be compared with the base case full lime stabilization alternative

21. 21 Draft21 Recommended Alternatives for Consideration Alt. 2:Cambi – 4 trains/4 digesters (w/LS for peaks and Cambi down time) Alt. 4: Cambi – 2 trains/2 digesters (w/LS) Alt. 7: Combined – 1 Cambi /5 digesters/ 2 dryers (w/LS for peaks and Cambi down time) Alt. 9:Combined – 1 Cambi/3 digesters/ 1 dryer (w/LS) Alt 12:Lime stabilization only (base case)

22. 22 Draft22 Risk Management Strategy  Cambi Alternatives with Lime Stabilization (Alt. 2 & 4) Phased implementation allows confirmation of technology and later expansion based on plant operating data and a better definition of peak loads Use of conventional digester construction increases contractor competition Lime stabilization manages peak solids loadings and provides backup to mitigate potential risks Modular Cambi construction reduces initial installation costs

23. 23 Draft23 Risk Management Strategy  Combined Alternatives with Lime Stabilization (Alt. 7 & 9) Phased implementation allows confirmation of technology and later expansion of either Cambi or drying Diversity of Class A biosolids products (Cambi cake and heat-dried biosolids) increases marketability Use of conventional digester construction increases contractor competition

24. 24 Draft24 Risk Management Strategy (Cont’d) Lime stabilization manages peak solids loadings and provides backup to mitigate potential risks Combined alternatives mitigate commercial risks and allow leveraging competition

25. 25 Draft25  Digester gas is used to generate electricity from a co-gen facility  Waste heat from power generation is used to provide energy for Cambi, drying and to heat digesters  CO2 emissions were generated from: Net heat consumed by the process Net electricity consumed by the process Transportation fuel for land application of cake solids Lime usage  Reduction of CO2 emissions are a result of: Electricity and heat generated from the biogas Land application of cake Combustion of pellets in a cement kiln plant  CO2 benefits related to land application of stabilized biosolids are based on carbon sequestration and offsetting the use of chemical fertilizer Comparative Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Based on CO2

26. 26 Draft26 CO2 Emission in thousand tons/yr for the selected alternatives  Red numbers in parenthesis represent negative CO2 emission or CO2 credit  The higher the numbers in ( ) the better the process in terms of GHG emission, considered as CO2 benefit. Processes only Processes and Product Use

27. 27 Draft27 Electricity Production for Selected Alternatives

28. 28 Draft28 Basis for Selection of Recommended Alternative  Costs / Available budget  Diversity of Product  Complexity of Construction  Complexity of O&M  Carbon Offsets  Energy Production  Risks

29. 29 Draft29 Project Implementation Schedule ActivityDurationCompletion Concept Development Report4 monthsSep 30, 2008 Design procurement6 monthsJan 2, 2009 Design12 monthsJan 8, 2010 Bidding6 monthsJul 9, 2010 Construction29 monthsDec 31, 2012 Startup6 monthsMar 29, 2013 Note: Some activities run concurrently

30. 30 Draft30 Population Projection and Impacts Current budget based on 2000 population projections and 330 dt/d solids production New projections based on 2008 projections and 370 dt/d solids production

31. 31 Draft31 Next Steps  Provide construction cost, schedule, May 27, 2008 and annual O&M costs to CFO  Technical Workshop June 4, 2008  Len Benson meeting with CFO and GM~ June 9, 2008  EQ & Operations Committee meetingJune 19, 2008  Full Board meeting (assumed)July 3, 2008  Draft and Final Report (Conceptual Development level)September 2008

32. 32 Draft32 THE END

33. 33 Draft33 Schematics and Site Layouts of Alternatives

34. 34 Draft34 Cambi and Digestion Alternatives Lime Stabilization (Existing)

35. 35 Draft35 Cambi and Digestion Alternatives

36. 36 Draft36 Cambi/Digestion Alternative #2

37. 37 Draft37 Cambi/Digestion Alternative #4

38. 38 Draft38 Cambi/ Digestion / Drying Lime Stabilization (Existing)

39. 39 Draft39 Insert Layout for Alternative 7 Cambi/Digestion/Drying Alternative #7

40. 40 Draft40 Cambi/Digestion/Drying Alternative #9 Insert Layout for Alternative 8

41. 41 Draft41 Lime Stabilization

42. 42 Draft42 Lime Stabilization Alternative 12 Insert Layout for Alternative 12