San Jose City Council
April 25, 2023

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Kerrie Romanow

AND CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: March 27, 2023

Approved Date
4/5/23

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH

BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR THE DIGESTED SLUDGE

DEWATERING FACILITY PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the First Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell to provide engineering services as the owner’s advisor for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility, increasing the amount of compensation by $1,940,000, for a total agreement amount not to exceed $9,640,000; and extending the term of agreement from December 31, 2023, to March 31, 2027.

SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

City Council approval of the First Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement (Agreement) with Brown and Caldwell will provide the City with professional consulting services related to progressive design build for supporting engineering, project management, construction management and post construction services necessary to successfully complete the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project (Project).

BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2016, City Council awarded a master consultant agreement to Brown and Caldwell for a total compensation amount of $7,700,000 for engineering consultant services as owner’s advisor for the Project. Attachment A shows the Project site location. Prior City Council memorandums (Attachments B, C and D) provide significant and detailed information about the Project scope and need along with the recommendations from the Biosolids Transition Strategy.

One of the key recommendations was to proceed with the implementation of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility.

COUNCIL AGENDA: 04/25/23
FILE: 23-582
ITEM: 6.2

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
March 27, 2023
Subject: Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

Staff analyzed various project delivery methods and ultimately selected a progressive design build (DB) method to deliver this Project. It is common and considered an industry “best practice”, under the DB method, to procure an expert owner’s advisor to assist in completing a DB project. The role of the owner’s advisor includes supporting the preparation of procurement documents and developing the procurement process to select a “best value” DB entity, performing technical evaluation of all deliverables from the DB entity, and reviewing the project cost model and ultimate Guaranteed Maximum Price that staff will negotiate with the DB entity.

For these reasons, the services of a professional engineering consultant with specific expertise in dewatering projects and as an owner’s advisor for other municipalities is being utilized for this complex project.

As part of the original Agreement, the consultant provided a broad array of services including:
• Development of project alternatives
• Development of the Basis of Design Report
• Assistance with the procurement and selection of a design builder • Provision of technical support during detailed design development • Preparation of environmental engineering studies required for CEQA clearance and/or for Clean Water State Revolving Fund financing
• Provision of independent reviews of cost estimates
• Assistance with negotiation for a Guaranteed Maximum Price for the Project • Support during the construction period by providing construction management

Prior to procuring an owner’s advisor for this Project, the Capital Improvement Program made a programmatic decision to use consultant project managers for large, complex projects, particularly those being delivered using the DB method, since the City did not have in-house staff with the needed expertise. When the project was initiated in July 2014, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (formerly MWH Americas) provided the project management services. Stantec provided those services through September 2019.

In mid-2019, staff requested a change in project manager, but Stantec was unable to provide one.

Since the City did not have qualified staff with the capacity and technical expertise to fulfill the role, and efforts to recruit up to that point had been unsuccessful, the City looked at the option of using one of its existing agreements. In reviewing the Agreement, staff determined that project management services were within the owner’s advisor scope. This option had the benefit of a consultant team that was imminently familiar with the Project as well as avoiding potential delays to the Project. The latter advantage was critical as the City was about to enter into a contract with the DB entity. The City reached out to Brown and Caldwell, who was able to provide an experienced project manager candidate.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
March 27, 2023
Subject: Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

ANALYSIS

Based on current Project needs, continuing with the current consultant to provide project management services through the Agreement is necessary to ensure continuity with the current project manager without delaying the Project, which is currently in construction. The consultant project manager has over 13 years of experience managing Capital Improvement Program projects and over three years of direct involvement on the Project. Since Fall 2019, the consultant project manager has overseen the DB entity’s preliminary services and assisted with the negotiations of the fixed Guaranteed Maximum Price. The consultant project manager is currently providing technical support during construction, and functions in a “staff augmentation” arrangement, reporting to a City Package Manager in charge of a portfolio of projects, and following all established programmatic processes and procedures. Any decisions for the project related to schedule or budget are made by City staff, in this case the Package Manager.

The original level of effort for this Agreement did not include project management services, thus the available contract capacity for the remaining project management support during construction is not sufficient to complete the Project. This amendment will not add costs to the Project since consultant project management services are already included in the Project’s budget. It should also be noted that the costs for these services would have been paid either under Stantec’s program management agreement or under this Agreement.

The First Amendment will increase the compensation for services by $1,940,000 for a total Agreement amount not to exceed $9,640,000 to provide project management, construction management, and engineering support during construction for this Project. Due to the extended construction duration, there are additional costs associated with construction management services
. The recommended amendment also extends the term of the Agreement to reflect extended construction duration. Construction is currently expected to be completed in 2025, with post-construction services extending through 2026. The new end date for the Agreement is March 31, 2027. Incorporation of these services does not affect the construction cost of the Project.

Policy Alternatives

Alternative #1: Direct City staff to provide the required services with in-house resources.

Pros: Increased work options for City staff.

Cons: City staff does not currently possess the capacity and technical expertise needed for the required scope of services.

Reason for not recommending: The complexity of this Project requires the use of specialized expertise and experience that the City does not currently have.

Alternative #2: Direct City staff to perform the work using other consultant master consultant agreements with budgetary capacity.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
March 27, 2023
Subject: Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

Pros: Consultants have experience and expertise in providing project management services for similar projects.

Cons: There would be a loss of continuity and project history transitioning a new consultant project manager.

Reason for not recommending: Bringing a new consultant to provide project management services would require a transition period and there would be a loss of continuity and project history that the current consultant project manager has already acquired and would be disruptive to the Project.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP

No additional follow-up actions with City Council are expected at this time. Quarterly progress reports of the Regional Wastewater Facility Capital Improvement Program will be submitted to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee and posted on the City’s website.

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS

This Project is consistent with City Council approved budget strategy to focus on rehabilitating the aging Regional Wastewater Facility infrastructure, improving efficiency, and reducing operating costs. This Project is also consistent with budget strategy principle of focusing on protecting our vital core services.

1. TOTAL COST OF AGREEMENT
Agreement Amount $7,700,000
Recommended Amendment (as included in memorandum) $1,940,000 Total Agreement Amount $9,640,000

2. COST ELEMENTS OF AGREEMENT AS RECOMMENDED AS PART OF THE MEMORANDUM:

Original Added Amended
Alternative Analysis, Basis of Design, CEQA,
Permitting and State Revolving Funds Support
$2,655,000 ($687,279) $1,967,721
DB Contractor Procurement, Design Review
and Guaranteed Maximum Price Negotiation
Support
$1,685,000 ($65,222) $1,619,778
Construction Management and Post-
Construction Services
$3,360,000 $567,825 $3,927,825
Project Management $0 $2,124,676 $2,124,676

TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT $7,700,000 $1,940,000 $9,640,000

3. SOURCE OF FUNDING: 512 - San José-Santa Clara Treatment Plant Capital Fund.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
March 27, 2023
Subject: Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

4. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded through the San José-Santa Clara Treatment Plant Capital Fund (Fund 512) and will have no impact on the San José-Santa Clara Treatment Plant Operating Fund (Fund 513).

5. PROJECT COST ALLOCATION: In accordance with the recommendations set forth in Capital Project Cost Allocations Technical Memorandum (Carollo Engineers, March 2016), this project is allocated 40% to Biological Oxygen Demand and 60% to Total Suspended Solids.

BUDGET REFERENCE

The table below identifies the fund and appropriation to fund the contract recommended as part of this memorandum and remaining project costs, including project delivery, construction, and contingency costs. Services performed by Brown and Caldwell under this agreement will be authorized by service orders. While an appropriation is not required for execution for the master consultant agreement, one is required for each service order authorized under this agreement.

Services performed for a specific project will be funded by that project’s appropriation. Future funding is subject to appropriation and, if needed, will be included in the development of future year budgets during the annual budget process.

This increase to the master agreement’s Not To Exceed amount does not require a budget increase to the project. Funds slated to be used by other contracts, for the same services, will instead be authorized to Brown and Caldwell. This effort is already programmed into the budget.

Fund
#
Appn
#
Appn. Name Total
Appn
Amt. for
Contract
2022-2023
Adopted Capital
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Ord. No.)
512 7452 Digested Sludge
Dewatering Facility $3,128,000 $1,940,000 267
10/18/2022
Ord. No.
30833

COORDINATION

This memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, the City Manager’s Budget Office, Finance Department, and the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
March 27, 2023
Subject: Amendment to the Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

PUBLIC OUTREACH

This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the April 25, 2023 City Council meeting.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND INPUT

This item is scheduled to be heard at the April 13, 2023, Treatment Plant Advisory Committee meeting. A supplemental memorandum with the committee’s recommendation will be included in the amended April 25, 2023, City Council meeting agenda.

CEQA

Not a Project, File No. PP17-003, Agreements/Contracts (new or amended) resulting in no physical changes to the environment. Any future activities resulting in a change to the physical environment would require approval of CEQA review.

PUBLIC SUBSIDY REPORTING

This item does not include a public subsidy as defined in section 53083 or 53083.1 of the California Government Code or the City’s Open Government Resolution.

/s/

KERRIE ROMANOW
Director, Environmental Services Department

For questions, please contact Napp Fukuda, Assistant Director, at [email protected] or (408) 793-5353.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Site Plan of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project.

Attachment B: Council Memorandum Award Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for Owner’s Advisor Services
Attachment C: Council Memorandum of Biosolids Transition Strategy Update December 2014 Attachment D: Council Memorandum of Biosolids Transition Strategy Recommendation June 2015

Attachment A
Site Plan of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project. 1 Dewatering Project Extents
New Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility and Project Extents for the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility COUNCIL AGENDA: 10/25/16

CITY OF

SAN IPSE

CAPITAL OP SILICON VALLEY
ITEM:

Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR

AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW
FROM: Kerrie Romanow
Barry Ng
DATE: October 6,2016
Approved Date
/O1/^/j(e>
SUBJECT: MASTER CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH BROWN AND

CALDWELL, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AS OWNER'S ADVISOR
FOR THE 7758- DIGESTED SLUDGE DEWATERING FACILITY

PROJECT AT THE SAN JOSE-SANTA CLARA REGIONAL

WASTEWATER FACILITY

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Master Consultant Agreement with Brown and Caldwell to provide engineering services as owner's advisor for the 7758 - Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project at the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility from the date of execution through December 31, 2023, in a total amount not to exceed $7,700,000, subject to the appropriation of funds.

OUTCOME
Approval of this master consultant agreement with Brown and Caldwell will provide the City with professional engineering and owner's advisor services for implementation of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project (Project) at the San Jose Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility1 (RWF). Approval of this agreement will not result in any physical changes to the environment, as the City Council will need to take additional actions before construction on the Project commences.
1 The legal, official name of the facility remains San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, but beginning in early 2013, the facility was approved to use a new common name, the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.

Attachment B
Attachment B
1 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6,2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The RWF currently uses an open lagoon and drying bed process to stabilize biosolids resulting from the wastewater treatment process. The Plant Master Plan (PMP), adopted by the San Jose City Council in November 2013 and by the Santa Clara City Council in December 2013, recommended a comprehensive biosolids management program including construction of a new mechanical dewatering facility to:
• Reduce potential odors in the community from the current process, • Position the RWF to have multiple and diversified biosolids disposition options, e Reduce the footprint of the lagoons and drying beds area to enable other land uses, and • Create flexibility to respond to future regulations governing the disposal of treated biosolids.

In 2014, a Biosolids Transition Strategy was completed to further develop the implementation plan transitioning out of the open lagoons and drying bed process. The recommendations from this strategy were approved by the City Council on December 2, 2014, and June 2, 2015.

The planning level construction cost estimate for this Project, excluding contingency, is $65,000,000. The Project will be delivered using the progressive design-build delivery method which has multiple benefits as described in an information memo issued to the City Council on January 19, 2016.

Staff is seeking a consultant to provide owner's advisor services for the Project. These specialized engineering services include:
• Development of project alternatives,
• Development of the Basis of Design Report required for the procurement of a Design Build (DB) firm,
• Assistance with the procurement and selection of a design builder, • Provision of technical support during detailed design development, • Preparation of environmental engineering studies required for CEQA clearance and/or for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing,
• Provision of independent reviews of cost estimates, and • Assistance with negotiations for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project. • Support during the construction period by providing construction management and inspection services, and
• Support and performance trouble-shooting after substantial completion.

Staff has completed the evaluation of four consulting firms that responded to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Brown and Caldwell (B&C) was the top ranked consultant and staff has negotiated an agreement with B&C that is being recommended for award. The master consultant agreement will have a total maximum compensation of $7,700,000 and a term that ends December 31, 2023. After execution, B&C would proceed with specified tasks under the master Attachment B
2 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6,2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

consultant agreement upon issuance of service orders by the City. B&C will be compensated based on actual hourly wages times a multiplier.

BACKGROUND
The RWF is an advanced wastewater treatment facility that treats an average of 110 million gallons per day of wastewater collected from eight South Bay cities and four special districts.

Biosolids resulting from the wastewater treatment process are first digested in anaerobic digesters, resulting in approximately 85 dry tons of digested sludge per day, and then transferred to open-air lagoons. The stabilization process in the open air lagoons lasts approximately three-and-a-half years before moving the biosolids to drying beds for another six months, resulting in Class A biosolids that are transported to the adjacent Newby Island landfill for use as an alternative daily cover (ADC) material.

In 2008, the RWF embarked on a master planning process to rehabilitate and upgrade its facilities and to explore potential process changes. The Plant Master Plan (PMP) used an extensive community engagement process to develop overarching environmental, economic, social, and operational goals for the RWF. To support these goals, the PMP recommended a comprehensive Biosolids Management Plan (BMP) that would transition from the current open lagoons and drying bed process to an enclosed, mechanical dewatering and drying facility with the resulting dewatered biosolids hauled off-site. This transition was recommended for the following reasons:
• Reduce potential odors in the community,
• Position the RWF to have multiple and diversified disposition options besides use of biosolids as ADC,
• Reduce the footprint of the lagoons and drying beds area to enable other land uses, and • Create flexibility to respond to future regulations governing the disposal of treated biosolids.

An additional recommendation was to prepare a Biosolids Transition Strategy to further evaluate specific issues regarding implementation of this biosolids transition. The PMP was adopted by the San Jose and Santa Clara City Councils in late 2013.

In 2014, the City completed a Biosolids Transition Strategy. Council approved recommendations from the strategy in December 2014 and June 2015. The staff reports are available online.2 One of the key recommendations was to proceed with implementation of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility.
2 December 2. 2014 Memo: http://sanioseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37716 June 2, 2015 Memo: http://saniose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php7view id=&event id=732&meta id—516437 Attachment B
3 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6, 2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

The Project will construct a new mechanical dewatering facility and associated support facilities to replace the existing lagoons and drying beds. The support facilities may include a transfer sludge pump station, digested sludge storage facilities, sludge cake conveyance facilities, and truck load-out facilities. Mechanical dewatering is an established process for reducing the volume of wastewater biosolids, and is used extensively across the country with multiple installations at publicly owned treatment works in California and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Similar to the RWF, many treatment plants are transitioning to mechanical dewatering to allow flexibility of multiple diversified biosolids disposition options to position for future biosolids regulations.

The City analyzed various project delivery methods and ultimately selected a progressive design- build (DB) method to deliver this project. This method is expected to reduce the City's risk, potentially lower the volume and cost of change orders, decrease construction delays, increase the likelihood of having high-quality specialized equipment installed and to provide more efficient solutions to complex construction sequencing issues. A memorandum informing Council of this decision was issued on January 19, 2016, and can be found at https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/1914/2777394/.

The City requires the services of a professional engineering consultant to serve as an owner's advisor to assist City staff with the procurement and management of a Design-Build entity. The owner's advisor will provide a broad array of services including:
• Development of project alternatives,
• Development of the Basis of Design Report required for the procurement of a Design Build (DB) firm,
• Assistance with the procurement and selection of a design builder, • Provision of technical support during detailed design development, • Preparation of environmental engineering studies required for CEQA clearance and/or for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing,
• Provision of independent reviews of cost estimates, and • Assistance with negotiations for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project. • Support during the construction period by providing construction management and inspection services, and
• Support and performance trouble-shooting after substantial completion.

The planning level construction cost estimate, excluding contingency, for this Project is $65,000,000. The project cost will be further refined as the project definition is advanced and more specific details are known. The Project construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2019 with substantial completion by late 2021.

Attachment B
4 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL •
October 6,2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

ANALYSIS
On March 4, 2016, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking professional services for an owner's advisor for the Project. A non-mandatory pre-proposal conference and site tour was held on March 17, 2016, which was attended by 11 engineering firms. The City received Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from four firms by the April 18, 2016, submittal deadline. The firms included HDR, Inc. (HDR), Hazen and Sawyer (Hazen), Brown and Caldwell (B&C), and GHD, Inc. (GHD).

A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) which consisted of representatives from the Environmental Services Department and Department of Public Works, evaluated and ranked all four SOQs in accordance with the procurement process set forth in the RFQ. Each panel member evaluated the SOQs using a consistent scoring matrix based on the firm's expertise, experience, approach, cost, and Local Business Enterprise (LBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) status.

As a result of the evaluation of the SOQs, the top two proposing consultants were selected for panel interviews. The interviews were conducted on May 25, 2016, by the same evaluation panel that completed the initial score of the SOQs.

Each firm received a total score comprised of their SOQ score, LBE/SBE status, and interview score (if applicable) as follows:

Description Weight
SOQ
Submittal Responsiveness Pass/Fail
Minimum Qualifications Pass/Fail
Expertise 20
Experience 23
Project Approach 10
Cost 10
Local Business Enterprise 5
Small Business Enterprise 5
Interview
Technical Evaluations 27
TOTAL 100
The final ranking and scores for the top two proposing firms were as follows:

Rank Firm Expertise Experience Approach Cost LBE SBE Interview Total 1 B&C 18.1 15.9 8.8 9.3 5.0 0 21.2 78.3
2 HDR 17.3 14.0 7.6 9.8 5.0 0 19.3 73.0
Attachment B
5 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6,2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

In accordance with City policy, 10 percent of the total evaluation points were reserved for local and small business enterprise status. All firms qualified for the LBE status. None of the firms qualified for the SBE status.

Staff recommends awarding a master consultant agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $7,700,000 to the top-ranked firm, Brown and Caldwell. B&C is a nationally recognized environmental engineering and consulting firm, specializing in the design and construction of all components associated with the treatment of wastewater, including all aspects of the biosolids treatment process. B&C is also the biosolids program manager for other large biosolids programs, including the District of Columbia Water Biosolids Program.

The B&C team demonstrated extensive knowledge of design of sludge dewatering facilities, excellent understanding of potential issues associated with the operations and maintenance of such facilities, broad experience in the role of owner's a dvisor for similar type of projects and specifically for design build. The proposed team has strong prior experience in negotiations with design-build entities and comes highly recommended from references provided for previous projects at other publicly owned treatment works. The agreement not-to-exceed (NTE) amount of $7,700,000 represents approximately 11.8 percent of the estimated construction cost $65,000,000. Staff considers this amount appropriate for the work involved, and it is consistent with other CIP projects, as well as the industry standard for owner's advisor preliminary engineering and construction management services that is typically in the range of 5 percent to

12.5 percent of estimated construction cost.

The planning-level construction cost estimate for this Project is $65,000,000. Staff has compared this preliminary estimate with design estimates and contractor bids from other agencies who are in the process of implementing similar projects and/or have constructed similar facilities within the last five years. Agencies surveyed include: Denver Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Orange County Sanitation District, Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, and City of Garland, Texas. On a unit cost basis (i.e., cost to dewater one dry ton of biosolids/day), the preliminary cost for this Project is $0.5 million/dry ton. By comparison, data from the agencies surveyed indicate a cost ranging from $0.4 million/dry ton to $0.6 million/dry ton. It is important to note that variations exist in total dewatering capacity, overall scope, site conditions, market conditions, labor rates, union regulations, construction completion date, and geographical location among projects. The unit cost basis comparison for this Project will need to be updated at final design completion and construction bid award.

Depending on the type of services rendered, B&C will be compensated based on actual hourly wages times a multiplier of 3.16 or 2.88. The 2.88 multiplier will be applied for construction management services and the 3.16 multiplier will be applied for all other services performed by the consultant. The multiplier covers overhead (e.g. fringe benefits, payroll taxes, group insurance, building/rental expenses, etc.), associated project costs (e.g. routine printing and copying, computer equipment use, network and telecommunications expenses, etc.), and profit.

Attachment B
6 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6,2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
All service orders issued under this master consultant agreement will be reported to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) on the monthly summary of procurement and contract activity and the quarterly CIP agreement and service order summary. A progress report on this and other RWF capital projects will be made to the Transportation and Environment Committee (T & E Committee), and the City Council on a semi-annual basis. Monthly progress reports of the RWF Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will also be submitted to TP AC and posted on the City's website.

The current action is for the award of a master consultant agreement for owner's advisor services only. After the procurement process for the selection of the design-build entity, staff will return to the City Council, anticipated in summer 2018, for approval of the final proposer ranking and authorization to negotiate the design-build contract. In fall 2018, staff will return again for approval of the design-build contract and authorization to negotiate and execute contract amendments that include the Guaranteed Maximum Price for the Project and the initiation of the construction portion.

Staff will return to the City Council after completion of the CEQA review process, anticipated in mid-2018, to recommend the adoption of a resolution approving the CEQA findings for this Project. This process will be completed prior to any disturbance to the physical environment conditions and no construction activity will be initiated before approval.

In addition, staff will seek SRF funding for this Project and will return to the City Council for approval of all resolutions required for the application process. If the SRF application is successful, staff anticipates returning to the City Council to seek approval to enter into a financing agreement for the Project.

The anticipated project schedule milestones are outlined below:

Timeline Milestone
Fall 2017 Completion of Basis of Design Report and initiation of Design Build procurement process
Summer 2018 City Council approval of final proposer ranking and authorization to negotiate the design-build contract
Fall 2018 City Council approval of the design-build contract and authorization to negotiate and execute contract amendments that include the Guaranteed Maximum Price
Fall 2019 Completion of 60% design, GMP negotiations, and initiation of construction
Winter 2021 Substantial completion of construction
Attachment B
7 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6,2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative #1: Direct City staff to provide the required services with in-house resources.

Pros: Increased work options for City staff.

Cons: City staff does not currently possess the capacity and technical expertise needed for the anticipated scope of services. This limited resource may cause delays in implementation of the Project.

Reason for not recommending: The challenges of implementing a project of this size and complexity and the use of a DB delivery method would require specialized expertise and experience that the City does not currently have. The City would need to hire new staff with knowledge and expertise in a variety of professional disciplines, which may delay the Project.

Alternative #2: Direct City staff to perform the work using program management consultant.

Pros: Program management consultant has experience and expertise in providing owner's advisor services for similar projects.

Cons: The current program management contract does not include scope and budget for these services. In addition, the contract expires before the Project's completion.

Reason for not recommending: The program management consultant agreement would need an amendment to add scope and budget for owner's advisor services, as well as extend the agreement term, which could delay the Project.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City's website for the October 25, 2016, City Council meeting agenda. This item is scheduled to be heard at the TP AC meeting on October 13, 2016.

COORDINATION
This memorandum has been coordinated with the City Manager's Budget Office, the City Attorney's Office, Finance Department, and the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT
This item is scheduled to be heard at the October 13, 2016, TP AC meeting. A supplemental memo with the committee's recommendation will be included in the amended October 25, 2016, City Council meeting agenda.

Attachment B
8 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6, 2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT
This Project is consistent with the City Council-approved budget strategy to focus on rehabilitating aging RWF infrastructure, improve efficiency, and reduce operating costs. This Project is also consistent with the budget strategy principle of focusing on protecting our vital core services.

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS

1. AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION: $7,700,000

2. COST ELEMENTS OF MASTER AGREEMENT:

Project Management $470,000
Alternatives Analysis $1,540,000
Basis of Design, CEQA, Permitting, and SRF Support $880,000 DB Contractor Procurement $270,000
Design Review and GMP Negotiation Support $1,180,000
Construction Management and Post-Construction Services $3,360,000 TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT $ 7,700,000

3. SOURCE OF FUNDING: 512 - San Jose-Santa Clara Treatment Plant Capital Fund.

4. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded through the San Jose-Santa Clara Treatment Plant Capital Fund and will have no impact on the San Jose-Santa Clara Treatment Plant Operating Fund (Fund 513).

5. PROJECT COST ALLOCATION: In accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Capital Project Cost Allocations Technical Memorandum (Carollo Engineers, March 2016), the cost for this project will be allocated 40 percent to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 60 percent to total suspended solids (TSS).

BUDGET REFERENCE
The following table identifies the fund and appropriation to fund the master consultant agreement recommended as part of this memorandum.

Attachment B
9 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 6, 2016
Subject: Master Consultant Agreement with Brown & Caldwell for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project

Fund
#
Appn.
# Appn. Name Total Appn.
2016-2017
Adopted Capital
Budget Page
Last Budget
Action (Date,
Ord. No.)
512 7452 Digested Sludge
Dewatering Facility $3,192,000 V-162
06/21/2016
Ord. No.
29762
Services performed by B&C under this agreement will be authorized by service orders. An appropriation is not required for execution of the master consultant agreement, but is required for each service order authorized under this agreement. The appropriation listed above is included in the 2016-2017 Adopted Capital Budget and may be used for service orders issued in 2016­ 2017. Future funding is subject to appropriation and, if needed, will be included in the development of future year budgets during the annual budget process.

CEOA
Statutory Exempt, File No. PP16-069, Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies with respect to the scope of work that is limited to this action. Any future activities resulting in a change to the physical environment would require approval of CEQA review. /s/Ashwini Kantak for /s/

KERRIE ROMANOW BARRY NG
Environmental Services Director Director, Public Works
For questions, please contact Ashwini Kantak, Assistant Director, Environmental Services Department, at 408-975-2553.

Attachment A: Site Plan of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility Project Attachment B
10 ATTACHMENT A

SITE PLAN
SITE A
Attachment B
11 Attachment C
1 C!TYOF ~

SANJOSE
CAJ>I1J\L OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR

AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: BIOSOLIDS TRANSITION

STRATEGY
Approved~~

RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL AGENDA: 12/2/14
ITEM:

Memorandum
FROM: Kerrie Romanow
DATE: November 5, 2014 ·
Date , /, /d 11/10117
Approve the Biosolids Transition Strategy for the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. ·

OUTCOME
Approval of the recommendation will enable staff to proceed with capital improvements to supp01i the Plant Master Plan (PMP) goals to transition out of the open air lagoons and drying beds and to reduce odors. Establishment of a biosolids management team (BMT) will enable staff to implement the PMP goal of multiple and diversified options and to continue to track and appropriately respond to any future regulatory and market changes through the use of pilot programs and other tools.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most of the infrastructure at the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility is now more than 50 years old and has exceeded its useful life, with repairs needed to every process area. The RWF embarked on a master planning process to rehabilitate and upgrade its facilities and to explore potential process changes. The PMP envisioned a comprehensive Biosolids Management Program (BMP) that would transition from the current process to new processes with multiple and diversified disposition. Some changes have occurred since the technical component of the PMP was completed in 2010. In response to the changed conditions, a number of analyses and market surveys were conducted to evaluate and refine alternative approaches to implementing the biosolids facilities recommended in the PMP. Based on the evaluation results, a biosolids transition strategy for near term transition and long te1m management has been developed.

Attachment C
2 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy
Page2
The near term biosolids transition strategy includes the following:
• Proceed with temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) upgrades. • Proceed with only the new Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility. • Defer thermal and greenhouse drying facilities until regulatory or market conditions require a drier product.
• Further evaluating other alternative sites that are closer to the existing digesters and locating the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility at Site A ifthere is no other suitable site.
• Establish a BMT to begin developing, negotiating and procuring disposition contracts.

The long term biosolids management strategy will focus on tracking biosolids regulatory and market changes and potentially starting small pilots/demonstrations.

BACKGROUND
The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara jointly own the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility 1 (RWF) which serves six other South Bay cities in part, through four special districts. The RWF has been in operation since 1956, at its current location on Zanker Road, just north of Highway 237, in North San Jose. The RWF is the largest advanced wastewater treatment facility in the Western United States and treats an average of 110 million gallons per day of wastewater. About 100 million gallons of the treated wastewater is discharged into the South Bay and approximately 10 million gallons are recycled for use in irrigation, toilets and cooling towers in parts of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Milpitas.

Treating the wastewater also results in approximately 85 dry tons of biosolids per day, which must be disposed of or beneficially reused. The current treatment process stabilizes the solids in anaerobic digesters and transfers the digested sludge to open-air lagoons, for approximately three years, before moving the biosolids to drying beds for another year. This solids stabilization process significantly reduces the amount of volatile material and pathogens in the sludge, and lowers the odor potential in downstream processes. The dried biosolids are then transported to the adjacent Newby Island landfill for use as an alternative daily cover material. The current process creates a "Class A" product which is the highest level of treatment as defined by federal regulators.

Most of the RWF's infrastructure is now more than 50 years old and has exceeded its useful life, with repairs needed to every process area. In 2008, the RWF embarked on a master planning process to rehabilitate and upgrade its facilities and to explore potential process changes. The PMP used an extensive community engagement process to develop overarching environmental, 1 The legal, official name of the facility remains San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, but beginning in early 2013, the facility was approved to use a new common name, the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.

Attachment C
3 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

economic, social, and operational goals for the R WF. To support these goals, the PMP envisioned a comprehensive BMP that would transition from the current process to an enclosed, mechanical treatment system with the resulting dewatered biosolids hauled off-site. The PMP was adopted by the San Jose City Council in November 2013 and by Santa Clara City Council in December 2013.

Subsequent to the PMP adoption, a Biosolids Transition Strategy project was initiated and Brown and Caldwell was retained as the City's consultant to evaluate alternative approaches to implementing the biosolids facilities recommended in.the PMP, develop recommendations on the biosolids transition, and prepare biosolids transition strategy report.

On April 10, 2014, staff presented preliminary information on the Biosolids Transition Strategy to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TP AC) at a Biosolids Study Session. The Study Session also provided an opportunity for TP AC and various stakeholders to provide their perspective and input on the transition strategy. Discussion topics included a summary of the PMP recommendations, an overview ofbiosolids management approaches, a discussion of various disposition options, and potential project and disposition options for the RWF. Staff also outlined steps to solicit interest from the open market and the methodology for conducting business case evaluations in order to bring back recommendations to the City Council in fall 2014. Feedback from TPAC on the Biosolids Transition Strategy included consideration of odor impacts, expandability of the facility in the future, possibility of producing Class A biosolids instead of Class B biosolids, and impact on operation and maintenance costs.

This report provides recommendations on near-term and long-term components of a Biosolids Transition Strategy. Background information on the strategy, including changes since the PMP, and information from a recent market survey, was provided in a November 2014 staff report to the Transportation and Environment (T &E) Committee, which is attached for reference (Attachment 1) and also can be viewed at http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36636.

The staff report also included information on key evaluations conducted by the City's consultant in order to inform the recommendations on the Biosolids Transition Strategy.

ANALYSIS
Development of the Biosolids Transition Strategy involved an in-depth evaluation covering the following five major elements:
• Background Investigations: including information gathering and technical reviews as well as site visits to help assess certain technologies and the practices of other utilities employing biosolids management systems as those recommended by the PMP. • Market Survey: to assess issues such as the demand for Class A and dried biosolids, prices paid by other agencies for off-site processing and disposition, available market interest in providing off-site processing and beneficial reuse service, and interest in participating in the development of on-site facilities.

Attachment C
4 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

• Business Case Evaluations: including development and screening of alternatives as well as Triple Bottom Line Plus and economic evaluation of the "short listed" alternatives. • Alternative Site Evaluations: to determine the preferred location or locations for biosolids facilities recommended in the PMP.
• Project Delivery Evaluation: to evaluate alternate delivery options to accelerate the schedule.

Based.on the market survey and evaluation results, a biosolids transition strategy for the RWF has been developed. The biosolids transition strategy includes a near term biosolids transition strategy and a long term biosolids management strategy as described below.

Near Term Biosolids Transition Strategy:
• Proceed with temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TP AD) upgrades. TP AD provides a cost-effective path to Class A biosolids if needed in the future, improved solids stabilization and biogas (energy) production.
• Proceed with only the new Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility because there is no imminent driver for Class A or thermally dried biosolids. • Defer thermal and greenhouse drying facilities until regulatory or market conditions require a drier biosolids product. This would result in substantial cost saving. • Further evaluate other alternative sites that are closer to the existing digesters to reduce pipeline length. If no other suitable site is identified at that time, locate the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility at Site A.
• Establish a BMT to begin developing, negotiating and procuring a diverse portfolio of disposition contracts.

Long Term Biosolids Management Strategy:
• Implement an adaptive management approach to allow BMT to track changing industry, regulatory, market and land use conditions, and conduct market research to better determine local demand and price for end products.
• Implement any future on-site processing facilities considering conditions at the time including starting small with pilots, demonstrations, and phasing and potentially participating in regional facilities and emei·ging technologies.

The details of the evaluations and biosolids transition strategy are documented in the Biosolids Transition Strategy Report (Report) included in Attachment 2. An overview of the key evaluations performed is provided below.

Business Case Evaluations
Business case evaluations (BCEs) were conducted to explore various project options that would best achieve the goals established in the PMP. Based on the responses from the market survey, all BCEs assume that a dewatering facility will be required. Major components of this project will include dewatering equipment, polymer feeding systems, short-term storage, conveyance, Attachment C
5 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

odor treatment, and truck load-out facilities. Once the dewatering facility is on-line, the decommissioning of the existing lagoons and drying beds will be able to commence.

The BCE's process involves two steps. The first step included a screening of biosolids processing alternatives which was conducted using the Solids-Water-Energy Tool (SWET) Model. The analysis helped screen out less favorable alternatives and provided the foundation for subsequent BCEs. The second step included evaluating three biosolids processing and disposition alternatives and comparing them against the PMP base case. The major elements of the PMP base case are outlined below:
• Mesophilic digestion with digesters operating at 95-degree Fahrenheit and sludge being heated and biologically stabilized in covered tanks.
• Mechanical dewatering of all biosolids to remove a significant portion of the water in the digested sludge to reduce the overall volume of sludge to be hauled offsite. • Thermal drying of 20% biosolids and greenhouse drying of I 0% biosolids to remove most of the water by heating the sludge in an enclosed vessel/greenhouse to produce Class A biosolids.
• Off-site processing or disposal of 70% Class B biosolids produced from mechanical dewatering.

The PMP base case produces a mix of Class A and Class B biosolids. Class A biosolids, with the highest level of treatment, essentially processes sludge to levels that substantially reduce the amount of volatile material and pathogens to very low levels in order to allow for safe land application. Class B biosolids treatment requirements employ treatment processes that significantly reduce the amount of pathogens, but this product has limitations on the end uses of the sludge. A process schematic for the PMP base casds provided in Attachment 3.

Alternative 1 (shown in Attachment 4) includes the same elements as the PMP base case except the digestion element. Instead of mesophilic digestion, TP AD was included as an alternative to enhance solids stabilization and biogas production. In addition, TP AD provides a pathway to Class A biosolids via future addition of batch tanks. TPAD is a two-stage digestion process:
thermophilic digestion with digesters operating at 135-degree Fahrenheit followed by mesophilic digestion with digesters operating at 95-degrees Fahrenheit. Alternative 1 will result in a mix of Class A and Class B biosolids.

Alternative 2 (shown in Attachment 5) is very similar to Alternative 1 including TP AD digestion, mechanical dewatering, thermal drying and greenhouse drying to produce a mix of Class A and Class B biosolids. The difference is that Alternative 2 accelerates the timing for installation of thermal and greenhouse drying facilities in order to take advantage of the relatively inexpensive disposition cost associated with the Newby Island Landfill. In addition, a blending operation is included in Alternative 2 so that dried biosolids can be combined with dewatered biosolids and then transpo1ied to Newby Island Landfill. The thermal dryer in Alternative 2 is slightly smaller compared to the dryer in the PMP base case (18% versus 20%); Attachment C
6 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

this sizing is a function of the amount of limited waste heat generated from the planned co generation facility in the year 2025.

Alternative 3 (shown in Attachment 6) was developed based on the results of the market survey which indicated no imminent need to produce Class A biosolids in northern California at this time. Thermal drying and greenhouse drying facilities could be deferred for future when there is a need due to regulatory and market changes. Alternative 3 includes TP AD, mechanical dewatering of all biosolids and disposal of all Class B biosolids produced from the mechanical dewatering. Alternative 3 results in Class B biosolids in the near term with flexibility to produce all Class A biosolids, with the addition of batch tanks, in the future.

A cost analysis was preformed to provide a comparison of the capital cost, operations and maintenance (O&M) cost and present value life cycle cost between the base case and each alternative. All costs are in 2014 dollars without escalation. The present value life cycle costs were calculated for a period from 2014 through 2040.

In addition to the cost analysis, triple bottom line plus (TBL+) methodology was used to evaluate the alternatives based on not only costs but also non-cost elements including social, economic, environmental, and operational criteria. This methodology included analyzing quantitative and qualitative criteria. Quantitative criteria include capital costs, net present value and schedule.

Qualitative criteria provide the ability to meet underlying goals, ease of maintenance and operations, ease of permitting and project delivery, and flexibility to move disposition options.

Alternative 1 Evaluation Results
The evaluation results for Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 1 below. Also included in Table 1 are the evaluation results of the PMP base case for comparison.

Table 1 - A Comparison of Evaluation Results: PMP Base Case vs. Alternative 1 Present Value Life
Cycle Cost
Ca ital Cost
O&MCost
TBL+ Performance Score
$520M
$298M
$14.5 M

5.3 Alternative 1
Modified Base Case with TP AD
$520M
$306M
$14.1 M

5.4 $OM
$8M
($0.4 M)
Alternative 1 has TBL+ performance score that is comparable to the base case. The present value life cycle costs are also equivalent. These results suggested that TPAD is comparable to mesophilic digestion.

Attachment C
7 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

Alternative 2 Evaluation Results
Table 2 below provides a summary of evaluation results of Alternative 2 in comparison with the PMP base case.

Table 2 - A Comparison of Evaluation Results: PMP Base Case vs. Alternative 2 Present Value Life
Cycle Cost
Ca ital Cost
O&M Cost
TBL+ Performance Score
$520M
$298M
$14.5 M

5.3 Difference
$490M ($30 M)
$270M ($28 M)
$14.1 M ($0.4 M)

6.3 Alternative 2 has higher TBL+ performance score than the base case and results in slight present value life cycle cost savings. However, any potential savings would be highly schedule­ dependent and there was substantial risk that this alternative could not be implemented soon enough to capture all savings.

Alternative 3 Evaluation Results
The comparison of evaluation results between Alternative 3 and the PMP base case is presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3 - A Comparison of Evaluation Results: PMP Base Case vs. Alternative 3 Present Value Life
C cle Cost
Ca ital Cost
O&MCost
TBL+ Performance Score
$520 M
$298 M
$14.5 M

5.3 Alternative 3 Difference
TPAD w/Future Batch Tanks
$380M ($140 M)
$166M ($132 M)
$12.3 M ($2.2 M)

8.5 Alternative 3 shows significantly higher TBL+ performance score compared with the PMP base case, as well as substantial present value life cycle cost savings ($140 M).

Based on the evaluation results, Alternative 3 is recommended due to the following considerations:
• No apparent imminent drivers for Class A biosolids
• Substantial cost savings
• Flexibility to produce Class A biosolids in the future via the installation of batch tanks or drying facilities
Attachment C
8 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

• Potential to develop a future on-site soil manufacturing facility and entail beneficial reuse within the local community
• Diversification through multiple disposition contracts for off-site composting (Class A product), land application, landfill disposal or alternative daily cover at landfill.

The base case, Alternatives 1 and 2 are not recommended because they all involve significant commitment of capital investment in thermal drying and only provide some Class A biosolids.

All alternatives require disposal of the biosolids produced. Multiple disposition contracts need to be developed, negotiated, procured and potentially renewed to meet the PMP multiple and diversification goals. Staff recommends establishing a BMT to prepare and manage the disposition contracts. In addition, BMT will monitor and track future conditions to enable the RWF to appropriately respond to regulatory and market changes and emerging technologies.

The size and make up of this team will be developed in the coming months and the recommendations will be incorporated into the FY 2015-2016 budget process.

Alternative Site Evaluations
As stated in the November 2014 T&E Committee report, environmental findings during the PMP EIR process necessitated evaluation of alternate sites for the biosolids facilities.

Four alternative sites (shown in Attachment 6) have been evaluated to identify a suitable site for the biosolids facilities. Five criteria were used for the site evaluation including available space to accommodate potential new and future biosolids facilities, conflicts with existing facilities and utilities, safe access and truck traffic, environmental and permitting limitations and proximity to · related facilities. A summary of site evaluation results and recommendations is provided below:

Site A is recommended because it has the following advantages:
• Sufficient space for new and future biosolids facilities. • Easiest for permitting biosolids facilities
• Easier truck access
• No biosolids truck traffic through the central area of the existing facilities.

Site B is not recommended due to the following issues:
• Need to demolish and relocate existing facilities prior to the new dewatering facility construction that creates schedule unce1iainty.
• Potential higher construction cost due to restricted construction area • Potential conflict with the existing underground utilities and tunnels which must remain operational.
• Long term traffic conflicts and congestion
• Limited available space for future biosolids facilities.

Attachment C
9 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

Site C is the second prefeITed site because it offers the following benefits:
• Good location for thermal drying facility since it is the closet to the planned cogeneration facility to allow for cost-effectively using the waste heat generated from the cogeneration facility to dry the biosolids at the thermal drying facility. • Long term traffic conflict and congestion.
• Easier truck access
However, Site C would require longer time to s01i through jurisdictional issues that may trigger a lengthy environmental permitting process.

Site Dis not recommended because it requires longer jurisdictional/environmental permitting processes and it is difficult to access.

A preliminary site layout for the preferred site (Site A) is provided in Attachment 7. Although Site A is the prefeITed site over the other three sites considered, it is slightly far from the digesters and a longer pipeline would be required to transfer sludge to the new Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility. Staff recommends further evaluating additional alternative sites other than Sites B, C and D, during the planning phase of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility project, and locating the new Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility at Site A ifthere is no other suitable site that is closer to the digesters can be identified at that time.

Pro;ect Delivery Evaluation
ln May 2011, the City Council directed staff to accelerate the biosolids transition process and cease discharging biosolids to the existing lagoons by 2018, followed by emptying the lagoons and drying beds by 2024 ( http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110524/201 l0524a.pdf).

This direction was predicated on the adoption of the PMP in spring 2013. However, the PMP was actually adopted in December 2013, which caused a delay in the development of the biosolids transition strategy. Another key consideration was the fact that during the Environmental Impact Rep01i process, potential wetlands and aquatic habitat were identified at the site originally identified for the new biosolids faciHties. The permitting process for this site was estimated to take three years; this would have adversely impacted the schedule and thus necessitated and evaluation of alternative sites.

Assuming a project start of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility in December 2014, the preliminary project delivery schedule shows an estimated completion oflate 2019, if delivered as a traditional design-bid-build project. Design-build delivery method was evaluated as an alternative to accelerate the schedule. Design build delivery method is a method of project delivery in which the design and construction phases of a project are combined into one contract.

It offers a potential to complete a project more quickly than a traditional design-bid-build delivery method. The preliminary schedule, using a design-build delivery method shows a completion date of late 2019.

Attachment C
10 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

In an attempt to still try and meet the deadline of ceasing discharge to the lagoons by 2018, as previously directed by Council, , staff evaluated another option as described below:

Mobile Dewatering Alternative - Mobile dewatering equipment could be rented and installed at the RWF as a temporary method to process biosolids until the completion of the new Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility . Installation would likely include site preparation, installation of three trailer mounted dewatering units, power and piping connection. · It appears that the 2018 schedule could be achieved by processing biosolids using mobile dewatering equipment starting in the year 2018 until the completion of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility in late 2019.

The estimated additional annual cost for mobile dewatering is approximately $14,000,000, including equipment rental, O&M costs, and disposition costs. It is important to note, however, that significant staffing resources may have to be diverted from the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility to the mobile dewatering project, which could further delay the permanent facility.

Additionally, the mobile dewatering units will not be equipped with odor control measures, which could result in new odors on the site. Since the intent of the accelerated biosolids transition schedule was to mitigate odors, mobile dewatering would not be an effective solution.

Thus, although the 2018 . schedule can be met through mo bile dewatering alternative, staff does not recommend this alternative due to the following issues:
• It is not cost effective (approximately additional $14,000,000 in cost per year for two years until the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility is completed and· commissioned). • It requires additional staff time to prepare and negotiate the service contract and manage the installation of the mobile dewatering equipment.
• Mobile dewatering equipment is typically not enclosed and may exacerbate odor issue, Instead of the mobile dewatering option, staff recommends further exploring options to meet the . 2024 schedule of emptying the existing lagoons and drying beds. This would better address the intent of the May 2011 Council direction to reduce odors by 2024. In addition to the biosolids, there are other process areas that may also have odor impacts. An overall odor strategy is currently being developed and will be brought forward to Council in late November/early December, followed by a detailed odor-control implementation plan (OIP) in summer 2015. The OIC will better inform Council of all the projects with potential odor impacts and proposed mitigation measures; the timeline for emptying of the lagoons and drying beds can be further evaluated and incorporated into the OIP.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
If the proposed Biosolids Transition Strategy is approved, staff will begin the planning and consultant selection for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility project. The recommendation for award of consultant agreement for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility project will be brought forward to Council for approval.

Staff will also start the planning for establishment of a BMT.

Attachment C
11 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative]: Direct City Staff to proceed with mobile dewatering alternative.

Pros: To meet the goals of ceasing discharging biosolids to existing lagoons by year 2018.

Cons: Additional effort is required to develop, negotiate and procure service contract and installation contract for mobile dewatering equipment, and manage the installation. Odor issue may not be mitigated and odor impacts need to be evaluated. This alternative requires a total of approximately additional $28,000,000 in O&M cost for two years.

Reason for not recommending: It is not cost effective and may exacerbate odor issue.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City's website for the December 9, 2014 Council meeting and will also be presented to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TP AC) at a special meeting on November 20, 2014.

COORDINATION
This memo has been coordinated with the Department of Public Works, City Attorney's Office and the City Manager's Budget Office. ·

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT
The biosolids transition strategy is consistent with the Council Direction and the BMP goals. In addition, the transition strategy is consistent with the following General Budget Principle: "We must focus on protecting our vital core city services for both the short and long-term."

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
The CIP project validation process that was completed in February 2014 identified approximately $397,000,000 in capital costs for the implementation of the biosolids transition.

Projects include Digester and Thickener Facilities Upgrade Project, Additional Digester Facility Upgrades Project, Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility, FOG Receiving Project, Lagoons and Drying Beds Retirement Project, Greenhouse Drying Demonstration Project, and Thermal Drying Facility Project. If the proposed Biosolids Transition Strategy is approved, the Greenhouse Drying Demonstration Project and Thermal Drying Facility Project will be removed from the 10-Year CIP and the capital costs for the biosolids transition will be reduced from $397,000,000 to approximately $254,000,000. Detailed cost estimates will be developed for the individual project components.

Attachment C
12 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 5, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

When the new Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility comes online and while the existing lagoons and drying beds are still being decommissioned, existing O&M costs are anticipated to be increased by about $14,000,000. Once the decommissioning has been completed, the new facilities will still require an additional $8,000,000 in O&M costs in comparison to existing O&M costs.

CEOA
Not a Project, File No. PPl 0-069(a), Staff Reports.

Isl
Kerrie Romanow
Director, Environmental Services
For questions, please contact Ashwini Kantak, Assistant Director (ESD), at 408-975-2553.

Attachments:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
November 2014 T &E Biosolids Transition Strategy Update Memo Biosolids Transition Strategy Report
Figure 1 : Base Case - PMP Recommendation with Mesophilic Digestion Figure 2: Alternative 1 - Modified Base Case with TPAD
Figure 3: Alternative 2 - Base Case with a Blending Option Figure 4: Alternative 3 - TP AD with Future Back Tanks
Figure 5: Alternative Sites Considered
Figure 6: Site A Preliminary Layout
Attachment C
13 CITYOF ~

SANJOSE

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: TRANSPORTATION AND

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: BIOSOLIDS TRANSITION

STRATEGY UPDATE
Approved
RECOMMENDATION:

T&E Committee: 1110312014
Item : (d) (2)
Memorandum
FROM: KeITie Romanow
DATE: October 22, 2014
Date
Accept this staff repo1t that provides an update on the Bioso lids Transition Strategy for the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.

BACKGROUND
The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara jointly own the San Jose-Santa Clara Regiona l Wastewater Facility 1 (RWF) which serves six other South Bay cities in prut, through four special districts. The RWF has been in operation since 1956 at its current location on Zanker Road just north of Highway 237 in No1th San Jose. The RWF is the largest advanced wastewater treatment facility in the Western United States and treats an average of 110 million gallons per day of wastewater. About 100 million gallons of the treated wastewater is discharged into the South Bay and approximately 10 million gallons are recycled for use in irrigation, toilets and cooling towers in parts of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Milpita s.

Treating the wastewater also results in approximate ly 85 dry tons of biosolids per day which must be disposed of or beneficially reused. The current treatment process stabilizes the solids in anaerobic digesters, and then transfers the digested sludge to open -air lagoons for approximate ly three years before moving the biosolids to drying beds for anoth er yeru-. The anaerob ic digesters are a commonl y used solids stabilization process in wastewater treatment, where sludge is heated and biologically stabilized in covered tanks. This solids stabilization process significantl y reduces the amount of volatile material and pathogens in tl1e sludge, and lowers the odor potential in downstream processes. The dried bioso lids are then transported to the adjacent Newby Island landfill for use as an alternative daily cover materia l. The current process creates a "Class A" product which is the highest level of treatment as defined by federa l regu lators. 1 The legal, official name of the facility remains San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, but beginning in early 20 13, the facil ity was approved to use a new common name, the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.

Attachment C
14 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
October 22, 20 14
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy Update

Most of the RWF's infrastructure is now more than 50 years old and has exceeded its useful life, with repairs needed to every process area. In 2008, the RWF embarked on a master planning process to rehabilitate and upgrade its facilities and to explore potential process changes. The Plant Master Plan (PMP) used an extensive community engagement process to develop overarching environmental, economic, social, and operational goals for the RWF. To support these goals, the PMP envisioned a comprehensive Biosolids Management Program (BMP) that would transition from the current process to an enclosed, mechanical treatment system with the resulting dewatered biosolids hauled off-site. The BMP also called for flexibility with multiple and diversified disposition options for the biosolids.

The BMP envisioned a mix of Class A and Class B biosolids products. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) defines the processes and handling requirements of wastewater sludge in terms of "Class A" and "Class B" biosolids products. Class A biosolids, with the highest level of treatment, contain very low levels of volatile material and pathogens and thus lend themselves to safe land application. Class B biosolids, with a lower level of treatment, have a higher level of pathogens than Class A, which places some limitations on the end uses of the sludge. Key BMP goals included minimizing disposal volume and costs, reducing footprint/greenhouse gas emissions and odors, using innovative approaches, maximizing reuse of biosolids in the community, and increasing flexibility and diversity in disposition options. The major project elements recommended for the BMP include:
• Rehabilita~ion of the existing sludge thickening and digester facilities; • Mechanical dewatering for all of the biosolids; with 70% of the biosolids material going to off-site uses and disposal
• Thermal drying for 20% of the biosolids and Greenhouse drying for 10% of the biosolids; • Decommissioning of the existing open sludge lagoons and drying beds; and • Multiple disposition options and contracts for biosolids reuse/disposal.

The mechanical dewatering process will remove a significant po1tion of the water in the digested sludge to reduce the overall volume of sludge to be hauled offsite. The thermal drying process is an additional process to remove most of the water by heating the digested sludge in an enclosed vessel. Similar to thermal d1ying process, the Greenhouse drying process uses the sun to heat and dry the sludge. More detail on the BMP can be found at http ://sjenvironment.org/ArchiveCenterNiewFile/Item/1554 Final Draft of Project Memorandum No. 2 Biosolids Treatment Alternatives dated August 20 11.

The PMP was adopted and the Environmental Impact Report certified by the San Jose City Council in November 2013 and by Santa Clara City Council in December 2013. Subsequent to the PMP adoption, a Biosolids Transition Strategy project was initiated to review the feasibility of diversifying disposition options and to evaluate ways to reduce environmenta l impacts, use modem technologies for the biosolids processing, and evaluate alternate delivery options for the construction of the facilities ( e.g., design-build).

On April 10, 2014, staff presented preliminary information on the Biosolids Transition Strategy to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) at a Biosolids Study Session. The Study Session also provided an opp01tunity for TPAC and various stakeholders to provide their perspectiv~ and input on the transition strategy. Discussion topics included a summary of the Attachment C
15 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
October 22, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy Update

PMP recommendations , an overview of Biosolids management approaches, a discussion of various disposition options, and potential project and disposition options for the RWF. Staff also outlined steps to solicit interest from the open market and the methodology for conducting business case evaluations in order to bring back recommendations to the City Council in fall 2014. Feedback from TPAC on the biosolids transition strategy included consideration of odor impacts , expandability of the facility in the future, possibility of producing Class A biosolids instead of Class B biosolids, and impact on operation and maintenance costs.

ANALYSIS
Although the PMP was officially adopted in 2013, the technical component of the PMP was completed in 2010. During the three-year environmental review process, there were a number of changes in conditions related to the BMP that required staff to reevaluate the assumptions and recommendations in the BMP. Since the TPAC study session in April 2014, staff has made significant progress on the Biosolids Transition Strategy. Key elements of the work include testing the market interest for treatment and disposition options, evaluation of alternate sites for the project elements, and business case evaluations of the various project options that would best achieve the goals established in the BMP. These changes and follow-up are summarized below:

Accelerated Delivery Schedule
In May 2011, in response to community concerns about odors emanating from the lagoons and drying beds, the City Council directed staff to accelerate the biosolids transition process and cease discharging biosolids to the existing lagoons by 2018, followed by emptying the lagoons and drying beds by 2024. The PMP envisioned a three phase approach that would have decommissioned the lagoons and drying beds by 2030.

Biosolids Facility Site
During the PMP EIR process, it was dete1mined that the planned location of the proposed biosolids facilities contained potential wetlands and aquatic habitat. Siting facilities in such a location would likely trigger extensive environmental mitigation and a lengthy permitting process. The resulting schedule delays would push project completion out well beyond the 2018 goal. Therefore, alternative sites needed to be evaluated.

Four alternative sites have been evaluated to identify constraint s including available space, existence of sensitive environmental conditions, presence of existing and planned facilities, and capacity to accommodate potential new and future biosolids facilities. The recommendation of a final site is pending based on additional environmental field work to be done in October 2014.

The alternative sites are shown in Attachment A. A recommendation will be brought forward to Council in December for approval of an alternative site as part of the Biosolids Transition Strategy.

Biosolids Market
In April 2014, TPAC directed staff to evaluate the possibility of producing Class A biosolids instead of Class B biosolids. Evaluation of options for the Digester Rehabilitation project Jed to Attachment C
16 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
October 22, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy Update
Page4
the selection of a Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) process technology to provide the flexibility to produce Class A biosolids as well as further enhance the stabilization of biosolids and increase energy production.

In Jun€ 2014, a "Request for Information (RFI) for the Biosolids Transition Program" was issued to detennine market interest in the processing and/or disposition of the dewatered biosolids product that will be produced from the new Biosolids Dewatering Facility . Eleven responses to the RFI were recejved. The RFI process results have indicated that a wide variety of local biosolids disposition markets are available including composting, land application and landfill to meet the BMP diversification objectives. All respondents expressed interest in accepting either Class A or Class B biosolids, and 70% of them were also intere sted in contracting with the City regarding the final disposition of the dewatering biosolids product or producing diversified end products (Class A biosolids) onsite or offsite to provide flexibility in disposition options . A contract te1m of five years was considered to be acceptab le by most proposers. The RFI response results also show that the hauling and disposition price range provided in the RFI responses is relatively close to a 2013 Bay Area survey that was previously reviewed by staff. The cunent biosolids disposition costs are $22.50 per ton to Newby Island Landfill. The RFI responses indicated disposition costs would range from $20 to $85 per ton. A summary of the responses is included in Attachment B.

Proiect Validation Process
The CIP Program team conducted a detailed project validation process of all the PMP projects in early 2014. This validation effo1i led to a change in assumptio n from a large, covered storage lagoon (sized for 180 days of storage) to a short-te1m enclosed storage facility located at the Biosolids Dewatering Facility , which is more in line with best practices in the wastewater industry and results in a smaller footprint and lower costs.

Business Case Evaluations
During the April TPAC Study Session, staff discussed triple bottom line plus methodology with social, economic, environmenta l, and operational criteria for evaluating various project options.

This methodology included analyzing quantitative and qualitative criteria. Quantitative criteria includes capital costs, net present value and schedule and qualitative criteria includes the ability to meet underlying goals, ease of maintenance and operations, ease of permitting and project delivery, and flexibility to move disposition options.

The first step of the evaluation process includ ed a screening of biosolids processing alternatives which was conducted using the Solids-Water -Energy Tool (SWET) Model. The analys is helped screen out less favorable alterna tives and provided a basis in subsequent business case evaluation s (BCEs). The analysis concluded that producing 100 percent Class A biosolids, either by expanding on-site drying capacity or by sending 100 percent of the dewatered biosolids to an off-site composting facility, would not be cost-effective relative to other alternatives.

The analysis further concluded that TP AD digestion , coupled with batch tanks, appeared to be one of the more cost effective methods for producing Class A biosolids. However , a number of Attachment C
17 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
October 22, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy Update

potential alternatives appeared to be essentially equivalent from a cost perspective and the study recommended that further analysis, which should include non-economic factors, was wmTanted.

A consultant is cU1Tently performing BCEs to enable staff to develop recommendations related to components and timing of new biosolids facilities. The BCE analysis uses a Triple Bottom Line Plus methodology, similar to that used in the PMP, which includes four main evaluation categories: economic, environmental, social, and operational.

The base case PMP recommendation is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Base Case PMP Recommendation with Mesophilic Digestion • •
20% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
10% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
70% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
-
-
Class A
Biosolids
Class A
Biosolids
......__l
- -·~ •• •••••
Soll Amendment
Cement KIin
........ 1
- -·~ •• •••••
Off-site
Composting
(11$Ults lnClus A)
Land Application
ADC
Three alternatives being evaluated and compared against the base case are depicted below. Each alternative provides multiple disposition options; Alternatives 1 and 2 result in a mix of Class A and Class B biosolids while Alternative 3 results in Class B biosolids in the near te1m with the flexibility to produce all Class A biosolids in the future.

Attachment C
18 TRANSPORTATIO N AND ENVIRONME NT COMMITTEE
October 22, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy Update

Figure 2: Alternative 1- Modified Base Case with Thermophilic Digestion ■ Changes relative to Base Case
20% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
10% Dewatered
Class B Biosollds
70% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
-
-
Class A
Biosolids
Class A
Biosolids
Figure 3: Alternative 2 -Base Case with a Blending Option Blosolids
• •
18% • Dew ate red
Class B Biosolids
-
ClassA
' -~ .• , . 35% ..
-
ClassA
Biosolids
'
I : ' •
I · , . .
■ Changes relative to Base Case
10% Dewatered
Class B Biosollds
7% of Dewatered Class B Biosolids
65% Dewatercd
Class B Blosolids
• 18% based on year 2025 llows and loads; percentage thcnnally dried would be 17% in 2030 and 15% In 2040.
••Newby Landfill scheduled to close 2025. After 2025, material from thermal and greenhouse drying would be suitable for Class A soil amendment. ~!ii. •• •••••
Off-site
Composting
Land Application
ADC
Attachment C
19 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONM ENT COMM ITTEE
October 22, 2014
Subject : Biosolids Transition Strategy Upda te

Figure 4: Alternative 3 - Thermophilic Digestion with Future Batch Tanks II
.

I
..... " ..... .
' ' : Batch :
: Tanks :
' ' ............
■ Change from Base Case
: : : Possible future change from Base Case
• With any future change lo producing Class A on-site,
off-site composting could 1>otenllally be ellmfnated.
'
100% Dcwatcred
Class B Bfosofids
: ····················• : Class A Biosolids
' ' : On•site soil
···ci;;;A 01~;;,ict;· ··· · ► manutacturing
Based on the responses from the biosolids market, all BCEs assume that a new biosolids dewatering faci lity will be requir ed. Major component s of this project will include dewater ing equipment , polymer feed ing systems , shor t-term storage , conveyance, odor treatm ent, and truck load-out facilitie s. Once the dewatering facilities are on-line , the decommis sioning of the existing lagoons and drying beds will be able to comm ence.

An evaluation of project deliver y method s (e.g., design-b id-buil d, design-build) is also being prepared. The evaluation will be completed in Octob er 2014 and will inform staff recommendations that will be brought forward to Counci l in December.

Cost Implications
The CIP project validation proce ss that was completed in February 2014 identified approximat ely $397 million in capital costs for the implementation of the biosolids transition.

Projects include Dige ster and Thickener Facilities Upgrad e Project , Additional Dige ster Facility Upgrade s, Digested Sludge Dewaterin g Facility, FOG Receiving , Lagoon s and-Drying Beds Retirement , Green.house Drying Demon stration Project , and Thermal Dryin g Facility. When the new biosolid s faci lities come online and while the existin g lagoons and drying beds are still being decommi ssioned , exist ing O&M costs are anticipated to be increa sed by about $14 million .

Once the decommi ssioning has been complet ed, the new facilities will still requir e an additional $8 million in O&M costs in compari son to existing O&M costs. Additional cost information will be brough t forward to Coun cil as pa1i of the BCE analysis and staff recomm endations.

Furthermor e, detailed cost estimate s will be developed for the individual project component s.

Next Steps
Upcomin g activitie s related to th e Biosolid s Transition Strateg y include:
• C omplete the alternativ e site analysis, business case and project delivery evaluation; Attachment C
20 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
October 22, 2014
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy Update

• Prepare the Biosolids Transition Sh·ategy including recommendations for the near term and longer term Biosolids Management Program;
• Continue with the preliminary design of the sludge thickening and digestion facilities; • Initiate early project planning activitie s for the dewatering facility; and • Bring forward recommendations on the Biosolids Transition .Strategy to TPAC in November and City Council in December.

PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST
This memorandum will be posted on the City's website for the November 3, 2014 Transpmiation and Environmental Committee Agenda , and will be presented to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TP AC) at their November 13, 2014 meeting.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Department of Public Works and the City Attorney's Office.

CEOA
Not a project , File No. PPl0-069 (a) Staff Repo1is.

Isl
Kerrie Romanow
Director, Environm ental Service s
For questions, please contact Ashwini Kantak, Assistant Director (ESD), at 408-975-2553.

Attachments:

A - Alternative Sites Considered for New Biosolids Processing Facilities B - A Summary ofBiosolids Market RFI Responses
Attachment C
21 Attachment A - Alternative Sites Considered for New Biosolids Processing Facilities Altemafive Bioso1ids Proo
~ Biosolids Processing ~ons iaentifi
Attachment C
22 Attachment B ·- A Summary of Biosolids Market RFI Responses Respondent Proposed Technology Status Type of Reuse Acceptable Type of Contract Disposition Cost [ll Technology Biosolids
CH2M Hill Thermal Drying Proven Pelletized Fuel Class A or B N/A N/A Soil Enhancement/Fertilizer
NEFCO Thermal Drying Proven Pelletized Fuel Class A or B Service & Disposition $60-$70 Fertilizer
USG Belt Dryer Proven Alternative Fuel Class A or B Service only $30-$50 - Land Application
Liberty Composting Proven Compost Class A or B Service & Disposition $20-$30 Synagro Land Application Proven Land Application Class A or B Service & Disposition $30-$40 Composting Compost
ADC
Terra Renewal Land Application Proven Land Application Class A or B Service & Disposition $20-$30 Composting ADC
Degremont N/A N/A Class A or B N/A N/A
Lystec Hydrolysis Emerging Liquid Fertilizer for Land Class A or B Service & Disposit ion $50-$60 Land Application Application
VitAg Fertilizer Emerging Class A Fertilizer Class A or B Service & Disposition $20-$60 Biogas Equity 2 Gasification Non-Commercial Syngas Class A or B Service & Disposition N/A Proven
Gate 5 Energy Dryer Non-Commercial Renewable Electricity Class A or B Service & Disposition $40-$85 Combustion Proven
Energy Recovery
Notes:

1. Disposition cost is per wet ton based on 25% solids. Transportation is not included in the dispositio n cost.

November 2014 | CIP Program
Prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Biosolids Transition
Strategy Report
San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
Attachment C
23 I BrownAtl)Caldwell i
100% Environmental I Employee Owned I Offices Nationwide I BrownandCaldwell.com SanJose­
SantaClara
Regional
Wastewater
Facility
November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 1Brown and Caldwell Biosolids Transition Strategy Report
San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
Introduction
Background
The cities of San José and Santa Clara jointly own the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) which serves six other South Bay cities in part, through four special districts. The RWF is the largest advanced wastewater treatment facility in the western United States and treats an average of 110 million gallons of wastewater each day. Having been in operation since 1956, most of the RWF’s infrastructure is now more than 50 years old and has exceeded its useful life, with repairs needed to every process area.

In 2008, San José embarked on a master planning process to provide overall direction for rehabilitating and upgrading its facilities including potential process changes. The Plant Master Plan (PMP) used an extensive community engagement process to develop overarching environmental, economic, social, and operational goals. One area of focus for the master planning process was biosolids management since treating wastewater at the RWF produces about 85 dry tons of solids each day.

Current Biosolids Management at the RWF
The RWF’s current biosolids management practices produce a Class A biosolids product and include:
‡
Mesophilic Digestion -- where solids remaining from the wastewater treatment process are biologically treated or “digested” in enclosed tanks designed to create a moderate temperature, low oxygen environment.
‡ Lagoon Stabilization – where digested solids are stored for about 3 years in open-air lagoons allowing further biological treatment and concentration of the solids.
‡
Drying – where stabilized biosolids are allowed to air dry in a series of drying beds.
‡ 'LVSRVLWLRQDW1HZE\,VODQG/DQGÀOO²where the dried and stabilized ELRVROLGVDUHXVHGDVGDLO\FRYHULQODQGÀOORSHUDWLRQV Existing Biosolids Practices at the RWF
Chronology of Changes
$OWKRXJKWKH303ZDVRIÀFLDOO\DGRSWHGLQ
WKHWHFKQLFDOFRPSRQHQWRIWKH303ZDVFRPSOHWHG
LQ'XULQJWKHWKUHH\HDUHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZ
SURFHVVWKDWRFFXUUHGEHWZHHQDQGWKHUH
ZHUHDQXPEHURIFKDQJHVLQFRQGLWLRQVSRWHQWLDOO\
DIIHFWLQJWKHDVVXPSWLRQVUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDQG
LPSOHPHQWDWLRQVWUDWHJ\UHFRPPHQGHGLQWKH303
7KHVHFKDQJHVLQFOXGHG

In May 2011,LQUHVSRQVHWRFRPPXQLW\FRQFHUQV
DERXWRGRUVHPDQDWLQJIURPWKHODJRRQVDQGGU\LQJ
EHGVWKH6DQ-RVp&LW\&RXQFLOGLUHFWHGDFFHOHUDWLRQ
RIWKHWUDQVLWLRQWRWKHQHZELRVROLGVPDQDJHPHQW
V\VWHPDQGVSHFLÀFDOO\FDOOHGIRUWKH5:)WRFHDVH
GLVFKDUJLQJELRVROLGVWRWKHH[LVWLQJODJRRQVE\ IROORZHGE\HPSW\LQJWKHODJRRQVDQGGU\LQJEHGV
E\7KH303KDGHQYLVLRQHGDWKUHHSKDVH
DSSURDFKWKDWZRXOGKDYHGHFRPPLVVLRQHGWKH
ODJRRQVDQGGU\LQJEHGVE\
During the EIR process for the PMP,
LWZDVGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHSODQQHGORFDWLRQIRU
UHFRPPHQGHGIXWXUHELRVROLGVIDFLOLWLHVFRQWDLQHG
SRWHQWLDOZHWODQGVDQGKDELWDW6LWLQJIDFLOLWLHVLQWKH UHFRPPHQGHGORFDWLRQZRXOGOLNHO\WULJJHUH[WHQVLYH
HQYLURQPHQWDOPLWLJDWLRQDQGDOHQJWK\SHUPLWWLQJ
SURFHVV7KHUHVXOWLQJVFKHGXOHGHOD\VZRXOGSXVK
FRPSOHWLRQRIWKRVHQHZIDFLOLWLHVUHTXLUHGWRFHDVH
GLVFKDUJHWRWKHH[LVWLQJODJRRQVZHOOEH\RQGWKH
WDUJHWGDWHWKHUHIRUHDOWHUQDWLYHVLWHVQHHGHG
WREHHYDOXDWHG
In April 2014, 73$&SURYLGHGIHHGEDFNWRVWDIIWR
HYDOXDWHWKHSRVVLELOLW\RISURGXFLQJ&ODVV$LQVWHDGRI &ODVV%ELRVROLGV
In early 2014,WKH5:)·V&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW
3URJUDPWHDPFRQGXFWHGDGHWDLOHGSURMHFWYDOLGDWLRQ
UHYLHZSURFHVVRIDOOSURMHFWVUHFRPPHQGHGLQ
WKH3037KLVYDOLGDWLRQHIIRUWOHGWRDFKDQJHLQ
DVVXPSWLRQIURPDODUJHRSHQELRVROLGVVWRUDJHDUHD
QHDUWKHODJRRQV
VL]HGIRUGD\VRIVWRUDJH
WRD
PDQDJHGHQFORVHGIRXUGD\VWRUDJHIDFLOLW\ORFDWHGDW WKH%LRVROLGV'HZDWHULQJ)DFLOLW\ZKLFKLVPRUHLQOLQH ZLWKEHVWSUDFWLFHVLQWKHZDVWHZDWHULQGXVWU\
Attachment C
24 Blended Sludge
from Wastwater
Treatment
•
.

I
Digested
Sludge ---.. •.. - --------,..- •::·,
• •• IIIIIWl• •• •••••
To Newby Island Landfill
2 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | November 2014
Class A vs. Class B Biosolids
&ODVV$DQG&ODVV%GHVLJQDWLRQVIRUELRVROLGVUHODWHWRWKHOHYHORISDWKRJHQUHGXFWLRQLQWKHHQGSURGXFW&ODVV%ELRVROLGVDUHFRQVLGHUHGVWDELOL]HG VXIÀFLHQWO\WRUHGXFHRGRUVDQGDWWUDFWLRQRI¶YHFWRUV· ÁLHVELUGVDQGURGHQWV
WKDWFRXOGWUDQVPLWSDWKRJHQVDQGGLVHDVHVUHVXOWLQJIURPFRQWDFWZLWK WKH PDWHULDO
0DQDJHPHQWSUDFWLFHVVXFKDVOLPLWLQJFURSW\SHDQGSUHYHQWLQJLPPHGLDWHSXEOLFDFFHVVWR&ODVV%DSSOLFDWLRQVLWHVDUHFRQVLGHUHGSURWHFWLYHRISXEOLF KHDOWK&ODVV$ELRVROLGVDUHHVVHQWLDOO\SDWKRJHQIUHH5LVNVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKFRQWDFWLQJRUKDQGOLQJ&ODVV$ELRVROLGVDUHFRQVLGHUHGPLQLPDOVRWKHUHDUHIHZHU UHVWULFWLRQVRQSURGXFWXVH
PMP Biosolids Recommendations
This current system is land intensive and has historically been one source of odors in the area. Because of these
issues and because of the planned closure of Newby
,VODQG/DQGÀOOLQWKH303UHFRPPHQGHGDQHZ
Biosolids Management Program involving a variety of
enclosed, odor controlled treatment processes with the
resulting treated biosolids used in a variety of off-site SURFHVVLQJDQGEHQHÀFLDOUHXVHDSSOLFDWLRQV
The PMP envisioned a program that produced a mix
RI&ODVV$DQG&ODVV%ELRVROLGVSURGXFWV6SHFLÀF
PMP recommendations related to the future Biosolids
Management Program included:
‡ Rehabilitation of the existing thickening facilities and mesophilic digesters and an evaluation of whether
or not a different type of digestion process should
be implemented.

Legacy
Lagoons
Active
Lagoons
Adjacent
Development
Development
Restrictions
Dr
ying
Beds
Newby Landfill
Current RWF and Land
Devoted to Biosolids
Management
‡ Mechanical dewatering for all biosolids in an
enclosed, odor-controlled facility to concentrate
digested biosolids which reduces the volume and
weight of material requiring transport to off-site
SURFHVVLQJDQGEHQHÀFLDOUHXVHORFDWLRQV
‡ Drying a portion of the dewatered biosolids using
both thermal drying in an enclosed facility (20% of
the biosolids) utilizing waste heat from a planned
cogeneration facility and solar drying in enclosed
green houses (10% of the biosolids).
‡ Decommissioning the existing open sludge lagoons
and drying beds.
‡ $GGLWLRQDOSURFHVVLQJDQGEHQHÀFLDOUHXVHDW
off-site composting facilities, land application sites
DQGODQGÀOOV
Attachment C
25 November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 3Brown and Caldwell Mesophilic
Sludge
Digestion
20% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
Class A
Biosolids
Class A
BiosolidsClass B Biosolids
Class B Biosolids
10% Dewatered
70% Dewatered
Mechanical
Dewatering
Thermal
Drying
Greenhouse
Drying
Soil Amendment
Cement Kiln
Off-site
Composting
(results in Class A)
Land Application
ADC
Recommended Biosolids Management System: Plant Master Plan (PMP with Mesophilic Digestion) Biosolids Transition Study
This Biosolids Transition Strategy Report addresses
FHUWDLQVSHFLÀFLVVXHVUHJDUGLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI
the transition from the current biosolids management
system to the PMP’s recommended system considering
changes that have occurred since the technical aspects
of the PMP were developed. It includes both near-term
and long-term recommendations for the Biosolids
Transition Strategy, taking into consideration the
JRDOVLGHQWLÀHGLQ303 7KH%LRVROLGV7UDQVLWLRQ6WXG\ focused on answering several key questions related to
the transition including:
‡ Should San José change from its current practice
of mesophilic digestion to a temperature phased
anaerobic digestion (TPAD) process in order
to optimize solids stabilization and increase
biogas production?
‡ Should San José accelerate the on-line date for
planned thermal drying and greenhouse drying
facilities and add a blending facility to take
maximum advantage of low disposition costs at
1HZE\,VODQG/DQGÀOOXQWLOLWFORVHV"
‡ Should San José focus on installing treatment
processes to achieve Class B biosolids at this time
while preserving the ability in the future to achieve
Class A biosolids?
‡ Should San José preserve the potential for
other on-site biosolids processing should it
be warranted by future industry, market, and
regulatory conditions?
‡ What areas should be reserved for biosolids
processing facilities?
‡ Can the 2018 target date for ceasing discharge to
the lagoons be met? And if not, what can be done
about that?
Attachment C
26 4 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | November 2014
Technical Study Summary of Findings
TM # 1 Biosolids
Hauling and Disposition
‡ 8QLWSULFHVIRURIIVLWHGLVSRVLWLRQDUHJHQHUDOO\KLJKHUWKDQWKHFXUUHQW1HZE\,VODQG/)RSWLRQ ‡ /DQGDSSOLFDWLRQDQGODQGÀOOGLVSRVDODUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\WRQ RIIVLWHFRPSRVWLQJLVDSSUR[LPDWHO\WRQ
TM # 2 Solids-Water-
Energy Tool (SWET)
‡ $OWHUQDWLYHVWKDWLQFOXGHWKHUPDOGU\LQJKDYHDKLJKDQQXDOHQHUJ\FRVWVRPHRIZKLFKFDQEHDYRLGHGWKURXJKKHDW UHFRYHU\IURPFRJHQHUDWLRQ
‡ 73$'DQGPHVRSKLOLFGLJHVWLRQZHUHFRPSDUDEOHLQFRVW ‡ 73$'SUHVHUYHVWKHRSWLRQIRU&ODVV$GLJHVWLRQZLWKWKHDGGLWLRQRIEDWFKWDQNV ‡ 2SWLRQVLQYROYLQJWKHUPDOGU\LQJDQGFRPSRVWLQJZHUHQRWUHFRPPHQGHGIRUIXUWKHUHYDOXDWLRQGXHWRFRVW DQGODFNRISURGXFWGLYHUVLÀFDWLRQ
TM # 3 Site Visits
‡ &HQWULIXJHGHZDWHULQJ²PDLQWHQDQFHDQGRSHUDWLRQUHTXLUHVSHFLDOL]HGWUDLQLQJDQGLQLWLDOWHFKVXSSRUW ‡ 7KHUPDOGU\LQJKDVDYHU\KLJKRSHUDWLRQDOFRVW
‡ 'LVSRVLWLRQFRQWUDFWSURFXUHPHQWVKRXOGFRQVLGHUTXDOLÀFDWLRQVLQDGGLWLRQWRSULFH TM # 4 Sidestream
Treatment
‡ 6LGHVWUHDPWUHDWPHQWLVIHDVLEOHDQGZLOOUHTXLUHDERXWVI ‡ 3LORWWHVWLQJDQGDGGLWLRQDOPRGHOLQJDUHUHFRPPHQGHGLILWDSSHDUVWKLVZLOOQHHGWREHLPSOHPHQWHGLQWKHIXWXUH TM # 5 Request for
Expressions of Interest
‡ 1XPHURXVUHVSRQVHVLQGLFDWHDYLDEOHDQGFRPSHWLWLYHPDUNHWIRUFRQWUDFWKDXOLQJDQGGLVSRVLWLRQRIELRVROLGV ‡ 3ULFLQJVXEPLWWHGZDVVRPHZKDWKLJKHUWKDQSUHYLRXVVXUYH\VWKHUHIRUHVHQVLWLYLW\DQDO\VLVIRUGLVSRVLWLRQFRVWVLV UHFRPPHQGHGGXULQJWKH%&(DQDO\VLV
TM # 6 Heat Recovery
‡ +LJKJUDGHZDVWHKHDWFDQEHFRQYH\HGIURPWKHFRJHQHUDWLRQIDFLOLW\WRDWKHUPDOGU\HUXVLQJVWHDP ‡ ,IIHDVLEOHWKHUPDOGU\LQJVKRXOGEHORFDWHGDVFORVHDVSRVVLEOHWRFRJHQHUDWLRQWRIDFLOLWDWHKHDWWUDQVIHU ‡ $SSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWRIELRVROLGVSURGXFWLRQFRXOGEHGULHGZLWKZDVWHKHDW TM # 7 Site Evaluation
‡ 6LWH$LVUHFRPPHQGHGIRUQHDUWHUPDQGORQJHUWHUPELRVROLGVSURFHVVLQJIDFLOLWLHVEHFDXVHLWKDVVXIÀFLHQWVSDFHDQG HQYLURQPHQWDOUHVRXUFHVFDQJHQHUDOO\EHDYRLGHGUHVXOWLQJLQPRUHVWUHDPOLQHG&(4$DQGHQYLURQPHQWDOSHUPLWWLQJ SURFHVVHV
‡ 6LWH&PD\EHSUHIHUDEOHIRUWKHUPDOGU\LQJGXHWRSUR[LPLW\WRWKHSODQQHGFRJHQHUDWLRQIDFLOLW\EXWKDVVLJQLÀFDQW SHUPLWWLQJXQFHUWDLQW\DQGMXULVGLFWLRQLVVXHVWKDWZRXOGQHHGWREHUHVROYHG3HUPLWWLQJDWWKLVVLWHZRXOGUHTXLUH VLJQLÀFDQWWLPH
‡ 6LWH%
ZLWKLQWKH:5)IRRWSULQW
KDVOLPLWHGVSDFH
FRXOGRQO\DFFRPPRGDWHGHZDWHULQJ
DQGZDVQRWUHFRPPHQGHGGXH
WRRWKHUFRQVWUDLQWVVXFKDVWKHQHHGWRGHPROLVKDQGUHORFDWHH[LVWLQJIDFLOLWLHVFRQVWUXFWLRQFRQÁLFWVZLWKRWKHUSODQQHG SURMHFWVDQGORQJWHUPWUDIÀFFRQJHVWLRQ+RZHYHURWKHUSRWHQWLDOVLWHVIRUGHZDWHULQJWKDWDUHFORVHWRWKHGLJHVWHUV VKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGGXULQJGHVLJQGXHWRRSHUDWLRQDOHIÀFLHQF\ ‡ 6LWH'DOVRHQWDLOVVLJQLÀFDQWSHUPLWWLQJDQGMXULVGLFWLRQDOXQFHUWDLQW\

UHVHUYLQJWKLVVLWHIRUDQ\IXWXUHVLGHVWUHDP
WUHDWPHQW
ZKLFKLVXQOLNHO\WREHUHTXLUHGLQWKHQHDUWHUP
LVUHFRPPHQGHG
TM # 8 Business Case
Evaluation (BCE)
‡ 73$'DQGPHVRSKLOLFGLJHVWLRQDUHFRPSDUDEOHLQOLIHF\FOHFRVWEXW73$'SURYLGHVDGGLWLRQDOVROLGVVWDELOL]DWLRQ HQKDQFHVJDVSURGXFWLRQDQGSUHVHUYHVWKHRSWLRQWRXSJUDGHWRD&ODVV$SURFHVVLIQHHGHGLQWKHIXWXUH ‡ $OWHUQDWLYHVZLWKDGGLWLRQDOSURFHVVLQJOLNHWKHUPDOGU\LQJDQGVRODUGU\LQJDUHPRUHFRVWO\ ‡ $FFHOHUDWLQJWKHRQOLQHGDWHVRIGU\LQJWHFKQRORJLHVDQGDGGLQJEOHQGLQJWRWDNHPD[LPXPDGYDQWDJHRIORZFRVWVDW 1HZE\,VODQG/DQGÀOOKDVDORZHUOLIHF\FOHFRVWWKDQWKH%DVH&DVH 303
EXWEHQHÀWVDUHKLJKO\VHQVLWLYHWRDQ\GHOD\
‡ )RFXVLQJLQLWLDOSURMHFWVRQ73$'DQGGHZDWHULQJZKLOHGHIHUULQJGU\LQJWHFKQRORJLHVFDQVLJQLÀFDQWO\UHGXFHFRVWVZKLOH DFKLHYLQJJRDOVWRGHFRPPLVVLRQVOXGJHODJRRQVDQGGU\LQJEHGV0DUNHWIHHGEDFNLQGLFDWHVHQGSURGXFWGLYHUVLÀFDWLRQ JRDOVFDQEHPHWWKURXJKPXOWLSOHELRVROLGVGLVSRVLWLRQFRQWUDFWV ‡ Background Investigations including information
gathering and technical reviews as well as site visits
to help assess certain technologies and the practices
of other utilities employing biosolids management
systems like those recommended by the PMP.
‡
Market Investigations to assess issues such as the
demand for Class A and dried biosolids, prices
paid by other agencies for off-site processing and
disposition, available market interest in providing
RIIVLWHSURFHVVLQJDQGEHQHÀFLDOUHXVHVHUYLFH
and interest in participating in the development of
on-site facilities.
‡
Evaluation of Alternatives including development
and screening of alternatives as well as Triple
Bottom Line Plus and economic evaluation of the
“short listed” alternatives.
‡ Site Evaluations to determine the preferred location
or locations for biosolids facilities recommended in
the PMP.
‡ Project Delivery Evaluation primarily focused on the
potential for mobile dewatering or design-build
delivery to accelerate the on-line date for the
dewatering facility.

Evaluation Process
'HYHORSPHQWRIWKH%LRVROLGV7UDQVLWLRQ6WUDWHJ\LQYROYHGDQLQGHSWKHYDOXDWLRQFRYHULQJÀYHRYHUDOOWRSLFV

Attachment C
27 November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 5Brown and Caldwell Sidestream Treatment
Mechanical dewatering results in a high strength
side stream that requires treatment. Preliminary
indications are that the RWF liquid stream treatment
processes will have adequate capacity to handle this.

However, future regulatory limits could make separate
sidestream treatment a necessity. The consultant
team assessed the space requirements for any future
sidestream treatment facility based on the DEMON
process – which is the most commonly used process at
this time. If implemented, capital cost would be in the $35 million range and the system footprint would be
approximately 43,000 square feet. If it begins to appear that sidestream treatment will be required, modifying
existing aeration basins should be evaluated and pilot
testing is recommended.

Waste Heat Recovery
Waste heat recovery from the planned cogeneration
system has long been considered as an energy
source to reduce thermal drying cost at the RWF. The
evaluation (TM#6) determined that high grade heat
from engine exhaust would be best transferred as
steam to a thermal drying system. Either a belt dryer
system (convective heat) or paddle dryer (indirect heat) could be used in conjunction with waste heat recovery.

The amount of recoverable heat was determined to be
LQVXIÀFLHQWIRUGU\LQJRIELRVROLGVSURGXFWLRQ
RQO\
16-18% of annual biosolids production could be dried),
EXWZRXOGFRQWULEXWHVLJQLÀFDQWO\WRUHGXFLQJRSHUDWLQJ costs for alternatives that include thermal drying.

Supplemental heat from natural gas could be used to
make up the difference.

Site Tour: Centrifuges at the San Deigo Metro Biosolids Center Summary of Site Tours
/RFDWLRQ )HDWXUH /HVVRQV
San Diego 7UDQVLWLRQIU RPGU\LQJEHGVWRFHQWULIXJHGHZDWHULQJ 7UDLQLQKR XVHVWDIIUDWKHUWKDQUHO\RQPDQXIDFWXUHUVIRUVHUYLFH $YRLGRUPLQLPL]HFDNHSXPSLQJ
City of
Los Angeles
7KHUPRSKLOLFGLJHVWLRQFHQWULIXJHGHZDWHULQJ
QXWULHQWUHPRYDOSLORW
.HHSLQJELRVROLGVKRWZDVWKHLUNH\WRPDLQWDLQLQJ&ODVV$VWDWXV Orange County
Sanitation
0HVRSKLOLFGLJHVWLRQZLWKFRQWUDFWODQGDSSOLFDWLRQ
RUFRPSRVWLQJ
,VVXH5)3VIRUFRQWUDFWVHUYLFHVUDWKHUWKDQDFFHSWORZELGVWRDYRLG SUREOHPVLQUHXVHSURJUDP
Green Acres Farm DFUHIDUPLQ.HUQ&RXQW\RZQHGE\WKH&LW\RI /RV$QJHOHVIRUELRVROLGVODQGDSSOLFDWLRQ
&LW\RZQHGODQGSURYLGHVDUHOLDEOHODQGDSSOLFDWLRQRSWLRQEXWVXEMHFWWR SROLWLFDODQGOHJDOFKDOOHQJHV
South Kern
Composting
&RQWUDFWRSHUDWHGDHUDWHGSLOHFRPSRVWIDFLOLW\
RSHUDWHGE\6\QDJUR
&RPSRVWLQJLVPRUHH[SHQVLYHWKDQODQGDSSOLFDWLRQGXHWRH[WHQVLYH SURFHVVLQJUHTXLUHGEXWSURGXFHVD&ODVV$SURGXFW
Sacramento
Regional WWTP
7KHUPDOGU\LQJIRUGU\WRQVRIELRVROLGVSHU\HDU

FRQWUDFWRSHUDWHG

2SHUDWLQJFRVWVDUHYHU\KLJKDQGWKHIDFLOLW\ZLOOOLNHO\QRWEHXVHGZKHQ WKHFXUUHQW'%2FRQWUDFWH[SLUHV
Pierce County, WA 7KHUPDOGU\LQJIRUGU\WRQV\HDU RZQHURSHUDWHG
QXWULHQWUHPRYDOV\VWHP
$JHQF\LVEDFNLQJDZD\IURPDUHWDLOSURGXFWPDUNHWLQJHIIRUWE HFDXVHRI DGPLQLVWUDWLYHFRVWV
GU\HU2 0FRVWVDOVRKLJK
City of Tacoma '$)7WKLFNHQLQJ$7$'VRLOPDQXIDFWXULQJ 0DQXIDFWXUHGVRLOLVV XFFHVVIXOO\PDUNHWHGE\&LW\VWDIIDWDQHWFRVW FRPSDUDEOHWRODQGDSSOLFDWLRQ
$YRLGFHQWULIXJHGHZDWHULQJIRUWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQGXHWRSK\VLFDOSURSHUWLHV King County 0HVRSKLOLFGLJHVWLRQFRQWUDFWODQGDSSOLFDWLRQ 2GRUFRQWUROSHUIRUPDQFHLQDOOSURFHVVDUHDVZDVUHPDUNDEO\JRRG Background Investigations
Evaluation activities included facility tours as well as technical investigations of sidestream treatment and waste heat utilization in thermal drying.

Site Tours
Site tours of comparable facilities in the Bay Area,
6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDDQGWKH3DFLÀF1RUWKZHVWRIIHUHG
the opportunity for staff and consultants to see process HTXLSPHQWÀUVWKDQGDQGWRGLVFXVVNH\IHDWXUHV
and issues with facility operators. Facility elements
of particular interest included thermophilic digestion, temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD),
centrifuge dewatering and thermal drying. Details are
provided in TM#3.

Attachment C
28 6 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | November 2014
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
2005 2010 2020
00 2020
4040
6060
8080
100100
Current
$/Wet Ton
California Price Range for Class A/B Cake Trucking
and Use/Disposal
Summary of Biosolids Market RFI Responses
5HVSRQGHQW 3URSRVHG7HFKQRORJ\ 7HFKQRORJ\6WDWXV 7\SHRI5HXVH $FFHSWDEOH %LRVROLGV 7\SHRI&RQWUDFW 'LVSRVLWLRQ&RVW>@
CH2M HILL 7KHUPDO'U\LQJ 3U RYHQ 3HOOHWL]HG)XHO
6RLO(QKDQFHPHQW)HUWLOL]HU &ODVV$RU% 1$ 1$
NEFCO 7KHUPDO'U\LQJ 3URYHQ 3HOOHWL]HG)XHO
)HUWLOL]HU &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ 
USG %HOW'U\HU 3URYHQ $OWHUQDWLYH)XHO
/DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFHRQO\ 
Liberty &RPSRVWLQJ 3URYHQ &RPSRVW &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ  Synagro /DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
&RPSRVWLQJ 3URYHQ
/DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
&RPSRVW
$'&
&ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ 
Terra Renewal /DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
&RPSRVWLQJ 3URYHQ /DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
$'& &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ 
Degremont 1$ 1$ &ODVV$RU% 1$ 1$
Lystec +\GURO\VLV
/DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ (PHUJLQJ /LTXLG)HUWLOL]HUIRU
/DQG$SSOLFDWLRQ &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ  VitAg )HUWLOL]HU (PHUJLQJ &ODVV$)HUWLOL]HU &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSR VLWLRQ  Biogas Equity 2 *DVLÀFDWLRQ 1RQ&RPPHUFLDO
3URYHQ 6\QJDV &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ 1$
Gate 5 Energy 'U\HU&RPEXVWLRQ
(QHUJ\5HFRYHU\
1RQ&RPPHUFLDO
3URYHQ 5HQHZDEOH(OHFWULFLW\ &ODVV$RU% 6HUYLFH 'LVSRVLWLRQ  Notes: 1. Disposition cost is per wet ton based on 25% solids. Transportation is not included in the disposition cost.

Market Investigations
Market investigations included a review of literature
and published surveys related to costs paid by Bay Area agencies for off-site processing and reuse of dewatered and dried biosolids products. A survey of biosolids
disposition alternatives and cost was conducted as
SDUWRIWKHRULJLQDO303HIIRUW
ÀQGLQJVIURPWKH303
review were comparable to a more recent market
survey conducted by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission. Options for biosolids disposition include
land application (Class A or B) on agricultural land,
ODQGÀOOGLVSRVDODQGDOWHUQDWLYHGDLO\FRYHUDQG
contract composting. Past surveys showed that costs
IRUELRVROLGVGLVSRVLWLRQZLOOOLNHO\LQFUHDVHVLJQLÀFDQWO\ IRUWKH5:)1HZE\,VODQG/DQGÀOOFXUUHQWO\FKDUJHV
$23/ wet ton, requires a minimum of 50% dry solids
and may close by 2025. Unit costs for other biosolids
disposition options ranged from $35 to $51/ wet ton.
7KHÀJXUHWRWKHULJKWLOOXVWUDWHVWUHQGVDQGFXUUHQW
costs for biosolids disposition. The red dot shows
WKHFXUUHQWFRVWDW1HZE\,VODQG/DQGÀOOZKLOHWKH
green dot shows the mid-range for other options.

Unit costs and biosolids quantities were an important
consideration for projecting future program
operations costs.

Following this initial literature review, San José
conducted its own market research by issuing a
Request for Expressions of Interest. The Request
asked pot
ential service providers to answer a number
of questions related to the types of off-site processing Attachment C
29 November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 7Brown and Caldwell and re-use services they could provide, the typical
costs for providing such services, the number of
permitted sites available, and the types of contract
terms that they would require. The Request also asked
potential service providers to describe on- and off-site biosolids processing facilities that they would be willing or interested in providing or helping to develop. The
majority of responses were for proven technologies
with useful information about service providers and
potential contract features. Results included:
‡ Multiple providers who were interested in providing
off-site processing and disposition. A 5-year
minimum contract term appeared agreeable to
these providers.
‡ Reported costs for off-site processing and
disposition were somewhat higher than previously
assumed in the PMP and than shown in the SPFUC
survey, although this would ultimately depend on
market conditions and competition. As a result,
it was recommended that the evaluation of
alternatives consider sensitivity cases with higher
disposition costs .
‡ Multiple providers indicated interest in dryer
and dewatering under a design-build-operate
type arrangement.
‡ Some emerging but promising technologies were
LGHQWLÀHGLQWKHUHVSRQVHVLQGLFDWLQJWKDWRSWLRQV
for processing may increase in the future .

Evaluation of Alternatives
The evaluation of alternatives entailed a two-step
process. First, the Solids-Water-Energy Tool (SWET)
model was used to help screen out less favorable
alternatives. For example, based on the SWET analysis,
alternatives involving 100% thermal drying and 100%
composting were eliminated.
$OWHUQDWLYH
0RGLÀHG%DVH&DVHZLWK73$'
20% thermal drying, 10% solar drying and TPAD digestion to improve solids stabilization and increase gas production.

Team workshops were then conducted to select and
UHÀQHWKUHHDOWHUQDWLYHVIRUFRPSDULVRQDJDLQVWWKH
recommendations in the PMP. The alternatives were
developed considering the PMP’s objective of providing
a cost-effective program with diverse outlets for
biosolids and included:

Attachment C
30 · -
.
t • • • :

I
■ Changes relative to Base Case
20% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
10% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
70% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
-
ClassA
Biosolids
-
ClassA
Biosolids
8 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | November 2014
Alternative 2: Base Case with a Blending Option
Accelerated on-line date for drying technologies, smaller thermal dryer, and added blending facility to allow dried ELRVROLGVWREHEOHQGHGZLWKGHZDWHUHGELRVROLGVLQRUGHUWRPD[LPL]HEHQHÀWVRIORZGLVSRVLWLRQFRVWVDW1HZE\,VODQG /DQGÀOOXQWLOLWFORVHVLQ
Alternative 3: TPAD with Future Batch Tanks
/LPLWIDFLOLWLHVWR73$'DQGPHFKDQLFDOGHZDWHULQJZKLOHSURYLGLQJIXWXUHÁH[LELOLW\WRDFKLHYH&ODVV$ELRVROLGVWKURXJK the addition of batch tanks.

Attachment C
31 18% * Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
iosolids
.
· -
-
lassA
.35%
-
. . . . . . . -
■ Changes relative to Base Case
10% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids lass A
Biosolids
7% of Dewatered Class B Biosolids
65% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
* 18% based on year 2025 flows and loads; percentage thermally dried would be 17% in 2030 and 15% in 2040.
**Newby Landfill scheduled to close 2025. After 2025, material from thermal and greenhouse drying would be suitable for Class A soil amendment. •
·----------·
•
I I
Batch 100% Dewatered .

Tanks Class B Biosolids I
·----------·
····················• Class A Biosolids
■ Change from Base Case ·-----------------· I
: : : Possible future change from Base Case
* With any future change to producing Class A on-site,
off-site composting could potentially be eliminated.
: On-site soil :
'··c··1 ···A··8~--- 1:d······· ►: manufacturing : ass I oso I s : :

November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 9Brown and Caldwell 7KHDOWHUQDWLYHVZHUHWKHQUHYLHZHGDQGUHÀQHGLQD
series of comprehensive and interactive workshops
which involved program management, engineering
and O&M staff. Alternatives were evaluated in terms of
economic considerations and a Triple Bottom Line Plus
(TBL+) evaluation that also considered non-economic
factors. Results for each alternative include a TBL+
“Performance Score” and a “Value Score.”
7KHÀQDO%&(UHVXOWVIRUHDFKDOWHUQDWLYHDUH
summarized in the tables below. Details of the
economic and TBL+ evaluations as well as sensitivity
tests are provided in TM 8, which describes the BCE for alternatives developed in this study.

Triple Bottom Line Plus Criteria
&DWHJRU\ &ULWHULD
O&M and Safety
3URFHVV5HOLDELOLW\
)OH[LELOLW\DQG6LPSOLFLW\
6DIHW\
5 HJXODWRU\5LVN$GDSWDELOLW\
Social 9LVXDO1RLVHDQG2GRU,PSDFWV
3XEOLF$FFHSWDELOLW\DQG3ROLF\
Economic
3HUFHQW9DOXH/LIH&\FOH&RVWV
5DWH,PSDFW
&RVW6FKHGXOH8QFHUWDLQW\
Environmental (QYLURQPHQWDO)RRWSULQWDQG6XVWDLQDELOLW\ %HQHÀFLDO8VH
,QSODQW(QHUJ\RU(QG3URGXFWV
$OWHUQDWLYH
0RGLÀHG%DVH&DVHZLWK73$'
had TBL+
Performance and Value Scores that were comparable
to the Base Case. Present Value Life Cycle Costs (PV
LCC) were also equivalent. These results suggested
that TPAD is comparable to mesophilic digestion. TPAD
is recommended because it also provides a pathway to
Class A biosolids via future addition of batch tanks, and because it results in enhanced solids stabilization and biogas production.
3DUDPHWHU
%DVH&DVH

303ZLWK0HVRSKLOLF
'LJHVWLRQ
$OWHUQDWLYH

0RGLÀHG%DVH&DVH
ZLWK73$'
PV Life Cycle Cost 0 0
Capital Cost 
0 0
O&M Cost 
0 0
TBL+ Performance Score  
Value Score  
Alternative 2 (Base Case with a Blending Option) had
a higher TBL+ Performance and Value Scores than
the Base Case and would result in PV LCC savings.

However, any potential savings would be highly
schedule-dependent and there was substantial risk
that this alternative could not be implemented soon
enough to capture all savings.
3DUDPHWHU
%DVH&DVH

303ZLWK0HVRSKLOLF
'LJHVWLRQ
$OWHUQDWLYH

%DVH&DVHZLWKD
%OHQGLQJ2SWLRQ
PV Life Cycle Costs 0 
0
Capital Cost 
0 
0
O&M Cost 0 0
TBL+ Performance Score  
Value Score  
Alternative 3 (TPAD with Future Batch Tanks) showed
VLJQLÀFDQWO\KLJKHU7%/3HUIRUPDQFHDQG9DOXH
Scores compared with the Base Case, as well as
substantial PV LCC savings ($140 M). Product diversity
goals with this alternative would be met through
multiple biosolids disposition contracts including
off-site composting (Class A product), land application, DQGODQGÀOOGLVSRVDORU$'&&KRRVLQJ$OWHUQDWLYH
3 keeps options open for future process additions
including Class A batch tanks, soil blending, partial
thermal drying, and partial solar drying.
3DUDPHWHU
%DVH&DVH

303ZLWK0HVRSKLOLF
'LJHVWLRQ
$OWHUQDWLYH

73$'ZLWK)OH[LELOLW\
IRU)XWXUH%DWFK
7DQNV
PV Life Cycle Costs 0 0
Capital Cost 
0 
0
O&M Cost 0 0
TBL Score  
Value Score  
If batch tanks were installed in the future, PV L
CC
for Alternative 3 would increase by $10 M. If a soil
manufacturing facility was also installed, PV LCC
would be the same as if only batch tanks were
installed. This is because the additional capital costs of soil manufacturing would be off-set by savings in
disposition costs and by the revenue generated from
the sale of manufactured soil. If manufactured soil was “given away” rather than sold, PV LCC for Alternative 3 would increase by $30 million.
3DUDPHWHU
$OWHUQDWLYH
LI%DWFK7DQNV
$GGHGLQ)XWXUH
$OWHUQDWLYH
LI6RLO
0DQXIDFWXULQJ
DOVR$GGHGLQ
)XWXUH
$OWHUQDWLYH
LI6RLO
0DQXIDFWXULQJ
DOVR$GGHGLQ
)XWXUHEXWQR
5HYHQXHIURP
6DOHRI6RLO
PV Life Cycle Cost 
0 
0  0
Capital Cost 0 
0 
0
O&M Cost 
0 0 0
Attachment C
32 10 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | November 2014
Alternative Sites Evaluated as Part of Biosolids Transition Study Based on the comparisons included in the evaluation
of alternatives, proceeding with TPAD and dewatering
is recommended at this time with use of a variety
of disposition contracts to achieve the PMP’s
GLYHUVLÀFDWLRQJRDOV,QVWDOODWLRQRIDGGLWLRQDORQVLWH processing facilities to achieve Class A biosolids should be deferred pending market or regulatory need for
Class A biosolids. Multiple disposition contracts need
to be developed, negotiated, procured and potentially
renewed to meet the PMP multiple end product and
FRQWUDFWGLYHUVLÀFDWLRQJRDOV7KLVZLOOUHTXLUH)7( to develop and procure contracts and to monitor
performance over the long run. Because these
contracts will need to be integrated with other biosolids management facilities, operations, and programs,
we recommend that the City establish a biosolids
management team (BMT) to prepare and manage the
disposition contracts. In addition, the BMT will monitor and track future conditions to enable the RWF to
respond to changing regulatory and market changes
and emerging technologies.

Site Evaluations
The Biosolids Transition Study also included a review of four potential new sites for locating biosolids processing facilities since CEQA review of the locations recommended in the PMP UHYHDOHGVLJQLÀFDQWHQYLURQPHQWDOSHUPLWWLQJFKDOOHQJHVDW those locations.

The site evaluation considered a number of factors including the ability of sites to accommodate various biosolids
SURFHVVLQJIDFLOLWLHVHIÀFLHQF\RIRSHUDWLRQVDVLQGLFDWHGE\ SUR[LPLW\WRUHODWHGIDFLOLWLHVFRQÁLFWVZLWKH[LVWLQJIDFLOLWLHV DQGXWLOLWLHVDFFHVVDQGWUDIÀFLVVXHVDQGHQYLURQPHQWDO permitting limitations.
7KHHYDOXDWLRQLGHQWLÀHGSite A as the preferred site to be reserved for near-term and potential future biosolids SURFHVVLQJIDFLOLWLHVEHFDXVHLWKDVVXIÀFLHQWVSDFHDQG environmental resources can generally be avoided at
this location.

Site C ZDVLGHQWLÀHGDVDSRWHQWLDOO\SUHIHUUHGORFDWLRQIRU any future thermal drying facility due to its relative proximity to the planned cogeneration facility, unless future design.

Attachment C
33 EJ Biosolids Processing locations iden 1
November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 11Brown and Caldwell Site A: Preferred Location for Future Biosolids Processing Facilities Site Evaluation Criteria
ZRUNFRQFOXGHVWKDWWKHUHZRXOGEHVXIÀFLHQWVSDFH
immediately adjacent to cogeneration. However, there is considerable uncertainty at Site C with respect to permitting jurisdiction and wetlands. These issues would need to be UHVROYHGEHIRUHWKLVVLWHFRXOGEHGHÀQLWLYHO\VHOHFWHGZKLFK would take considerable time. Therefore, we recommend
LQLWLDWLQJDFWLRQVWRUHVROYHWKHVHLVVXHVZHOOEHIRUHÀQDOVLWH selection for thermal drying.

Site D has similar issues to Site C; therefore Site D is recommended for future sidestream treatment since that
facility, if ever needed, would be required over a much longer time frame.

Site B ZRXOGRQO\KDYHVXIÀFLHQWVSDFHIRUGHZDWHULQJDQG was not recommended due to other constraints such as the need to demolish and relocate existing facilities, construction FRQÁLFWVZLWKRWKHUSODQQHGSURMHFWVDQGORQJWHUPWUDIÀF congestion. However, other potential sites for dewatering that are close to the digesters, if available, should be considered during design due to the potential to enhance operational HIÀFLHQF\UHGXFHSLSHOLQHOHQJWKDQGPLWLJDWHGHSRVLWLRQRI struvite within the pipeline.

Attachment C
34 •
.

PER FER RED
SITE{S)
Environmental
Permitting
Limitations
NOTES

1. POTENTIAL FEATURES ARE DESCRIBED BY ICF
INTERNATIONAL (MAY 15, 2014) AS FOLLOWS:
c:::::J RIPARIAN HABITAT

2. WETLAND DELINEATED BY ESA
c:::::J ISOLATED SEASONAL WETLAND

RIPARIAN BUFFER
12 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | November 2014
The current program schedule shows dewatering expected
to be on-line in 2019, resulting in a delay for ceasing discharge to the lagoons. Mobile dewatering could be used prior to the on-line date for a permanent dewatering facility.

Preliminary discussions with potential vendors indicate such a system could be mobilized within 3 to 6 months following procurement and selection, but the overall time required could be 2 to 3 years including procurement, contract
negotiation, mobilization, and installation of temporary piping and power. Further, mobile dewatering would be expensive (approximately $14M per year). It would involve vendor costs, costs for support facilities, and increased disposition costs because dewatered material would not meet the minimum
UHTXLUHPHQWVIRUXVHRI1HZE\,VODQG/DQGÀOO,QDGGLWLRQ mobile dewatering would not be equipped with odor control and may be subject to some of the same environmental
permitting challenges affecting permanent facilities.
$OWHUQDWLYHSURMHFWGHOLYHU\PHWKRGV
VSHFLÀFDOO\À[HG
price and progressive Design-Build) were also evaluated in terms of their ability to accelerate the project
VFKHGXOHDQGSURYLGHRWKHUEHQHÀWV
However, based on currently available schedule
information developed by the program, Design-Build
appears unlikely to accelerate the on-line date for
Design-Bid-Build vs. Design-Build Schedules
DSHUPDQHQWGHZDWHULQJIDFLOLW\:KLOHDÀQDOGHFLVLRQ on project delivery method will occur during conceptual design of the dewatering facility, further schedule
analysis should consider the potential to select a
Design-Build contractor at an earlier stage. Early
procurement of equipment and paralleling design and
construction potentially could also help accelerate
the schedule.

Implementation and Project Delivery
3RWHQWLDO%HQHÀWVRI'%'HOLYHU\
Attachment C
35 ··;;;;.;;;;:~,,; ... -···l····' .... .......... '·········· .......... 1 .... 1 .... .... '····I·········· .... 1···· 1····1···· .... '····I·········· .... ' .... 1 .......... ····-··········' .... .... 1 .......... ' .... ·········· I····: .... .... 1 ····1···· I····· ~ CEQ~ and Env.
c Permits
.................................................. . ......................

Design, Bid and
- Procurement - Design, Bid and Award
- CEQA and Env. Permitting - Construction, Startup and Commissioning Source : Dewatering Facility Program Schedules ,
October 17 and October 20, 2014
November 2014 | Biosolids Transition Strategy | 13Brown and Caldwell Summary of Conclusions for
Biosolids Transition Study
‡ There is no immediate driver f or Class A or thermally dried biosolids.
‡ Deferring thermal drying results in substantial PV
LCC savings.
‡ TPAD provides a future cost effective path to Class
$ELRVROLGVYLDEDWFKWDQNV
GLYHUVLÀFDWLRQFDQEH
achieved through service contracts.
‡ 6LWH$SURYLGHVVXIÀFLHQWVSDFHIRUGHZDWHULQJDQG
future biosolids processing facilities; Site C would be a candidate for future thermal drying due to proximity
to cogeneration unless it can be demonstrated during
GHVLJQWKDWWKHUHZDVVXIÀFLHQWVSDFHDGMDFHQWWRWKH
cogeneration facility.
‡ Based on the current program schedule, permanent
dewatering appears unlikely to be on line by 2018
regardless of delivery method. To meet the target
date of 2018, one of the options that could be
considered would be mobile dewatering; however,
this option is expensive, may not mitigate odor issues, and may be subject to permitting uncertainties.
‡ 5),UHVSRQVHVFRQÀUPELRVROLGVGLVSRVLWLRQ
availability in the Bay Area, with interest in short-term as well as long-term contracts.
‡ 6LGHVWUHDPWUHDWPHQWLVIHDVLEOHDQGFDQÀWZLWKLQ
the footprint of Site D.
‡ Waste heat recovery from the cogen facility is suitable for drying between 16 and 18 percent of the facility’s
annual biosolids production. A belt dryer or indirect
dryer (such as a paddle dryer) would be required
for practical use of waste heat for thermal drying.

Locating the thermal dryer as close as possible to the
cogen facility is recommended to reduce the risks
associated with conveying high grade heat.

Biosolids Transition Strategy:

Near-Term Recommendations
‡ Proceed with TPAD digestion followed by mechanical
dew
atering (Alternative 3) at this time and defer a
decision on the best way to achieve Class A biosolids
to a later date since there is no imminent need for
Class A biosolids at this time.
‡ Defer thermal drying and greenhouse drying at this
time for substantial cost savings.
‡ Further evaluate the potential for DB delivery to
DFFHOHUDWHWKHGHZDWHULQJRQOLQHGDWHVSHFLÀFDOO\
considering the potential to select the DB contractor
at an earlier date, procure equipment earlier, and
parallel design and construction activities.
‡ Consider provisions for 1-year O&M training and
support for the biosolids dewatering facility.
‡ Locate dewatering facility at Site A unless further
HYDOXDWLRQGXULQJFRQFHSWXDOGHVLJQLGHQWLÀHVD
suitable location within the plant fence line.
‡ Reserve Site A for future biosolids
processing facilities.
‡ Provide a safe means for O&M staff to access the
a mobile dewatering facility at Site A if a suitable
VLWHZLWKLQWKHIHQFHOLQHLVQRWLGHQWLÀHGGXULQJ
conceptual design.
‡ Reserve Site C for any future thermal
drying facility.
‡ Initiate resolution of jurisdictional issues at Site C. ‡ Investigate environmental and permitting issues
associated with support facilities for mobile
dewatering so that it can be used as a backup
VWUDWHJ\LQWKHHYHQWRIVLJQLÀFDQWGHOD\VLQEULQJLQJ a permanent dewatering facility on-line.
‡ Establish a biosolids management team (BMT) to
begin developing and negotiating a diverse portfolio
of disposition contracts in terms of end uses,
TXDOLÀHGVHUYLFHSURYLGHUVFRQWUDFWWHUPVDQG
procurement, and to monitor market, and technology
developments. The BMT should consist of one FTE
dedicated to the development and management of
disposition contracts as well as other participants
including the overall biosolids program manager and
representatives from operations and maintenance.

Biosolids Transition Strategy:

Long-Term Recommendations
‡ Implement an adaptive management approach with
the BMT:
‡ T
racking changing industry, regulatory, market
and land use conditions, and conducts
market research.
‡ Conducting market research to better determine
local demand and price for end products such as
manufactured soil and dried biosolids.
‡ Implement additional future on-site processing
facilities considering conditions at the time.
‡ Start small with pilots, demonstrations,
and phasing.
‡ Potentially participate in regional facilities and
emerging technologies.
‡ Through the BMT or designated biosolids contract
manager, proactively oversee contract operations to
ensure regulatory and contract compliance.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Attachment C
36 Attachment 3
Figure 1: PMP Base Case with Mesophilic Digestion
Attachment C
37 · -
. . . . . :

I
20% Dewatered
Class B Blosollds
10% Dewatered
Class B Blosollds
70% Dewatered
Class B Blosollds
ClassA
Blosollds
- ClassA
~ losolld
Attachment 4
Figure 2: Alternative 1 – Modified PMP Base Case with TPAD 
Attachment C
38 • •
. . . . . :

I
■ Chanps relatlve to Base Case
20% Dewatered
Class B Blosollds
10% Dewatered
Class B Blosollds
70% Dewatomd
Class B Blosollds
Attachment 5
Figure 3: Alternative 2 – PMP Base Case with a Blending Option 
Attachment C
39 18% * Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
• •
■35%
. .

I . . . . .
■ Changes relative to Base Case
10% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
7% of Dewatered Class B Biosolids
65% Dewatered
Class B Biosolids
* 18% based on year 2025 flows and loads; percentage thermally dried would be 17% in 2030 and 15% in 2040.
•*Newby Landfill scheduled to close 2025. After 2025, material from thermal and greenhouse drying would be suitable for Class A soil amendment. t
Attachment 6
Figure 4: Alternative 3 – TPAD with Future Batch Tanks 






Attachment C
40 •..........• : : : latch I
I ~ ks I
: .an :

I I •..........•
-
.
■ Change from Base case
i: i Poss Ible future change from Base Case
• With any future change to producing Class A on-site,
off-sits composting could potentially be allmlnatad.
100% Dewatered
: Class B Blosollds
I
I I
I
=····················• : Class A Blosollds
I
I
I
: :·················· I I :
: : On-site sall •
... ci;~·Aei;;1i.;;····· ►; manutactu,1n1 :

I I
. ................. .

Attachment 7
Figure 5: PMP Biosolids Facility Locations and Alternative Sites Attachment C
41 D Alternative Biosolids Processin Sites :e < : 6
lil Biosolids Process1111 locations identifiedin PMl>uietiiianert 1iia1ities) ... lllllllllr
EFT
1111111
Attachment 8
Figure 6: Preliminary Biosolids Processing Facility Layout at Site A Attachment C
42 (Future)
Thermal Drying
(Future)
Solar Drying
33 NOTES

1. POTENTIAL WETLANDS AND STREAM FEATURES

ARE DESCRIBED BY ICF INTERNATIONAL(MAY
15, 2014) AS FOLLOWS:
c:::J POlENTIAL DEPRESSIONALSEASONALWETLAND AREAS
c:::J RIPARIANHABITAT

2. WETLAND DELINEATED BYESA
Attachment D
1 CITYOF ~

SANJOSE

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR

AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: BIOSOLIDS TRANSITION

STRATEGY
Approved ::t> ...

RECOMMENDATION
_...

COUNCIL AGENDA: 6/2/15
ITEM:

Memorandum
FROM: Kerrie Romanow
DATE: May 1, 2015
Date
Accept the following staff recommendations on the Biosolids Transition Strategy for the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility:
a. Near-term recommendations:

1. Proceed with implementation of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility and the Lagoon and Drying Bed Retirement projects as shown in the 2015-2016 Proposed Capital Budget and 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program.

2. Locate the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility at Site A.

3. Direct staff to bring back recommendations on the size and makeup of the Biosolids Management Team (BMT) for City Council consideration as part of the annual budget process for 2016-2017.
b. Long-term recommendations:

1. Implement any future on-site processing facilities considering conditions at the time including starting small with pilots, demonstrations, and phasing and potentially participating in regional facilities and emerging technologies.

OUTCOME
Approval of the staff recommendations will enable staff to proceed with capital improvements to support the Plant Master Plan (PMP) goals, including Milpitas Guiding Principles No. 4, to transition out of the open air lagoons and drying beds, to reduce odors and to also achieve the approved odor goals for the wastewater facility. Establishment of a BMT will enable staff to implement the PMP goal of multiple and diversified options, and to continue to track and appropriately respond to any future regulatory and market changes through the use of pilot programs and other tools.

Attachment D
2 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most of the infrastructure at the San Jose -Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility 1 (RWF) is more than 50 years old and has exceeded its useful life, with repairs needed to upgrade every p1'ocess area. In 2008, the RWF embarked on a master plam1ing process to rehabilitate and upgrade its facilities and to explore potential process changes. The PMP envisioned a comprehensive Biosolids Management Program (BMP) that would transition from the cuTI'ent lagoons and drying bed process to new biosolids treatment processes. This transition was recommended for the following reasons:

I. Reducing odors in the community;

2. Positioning the R WF to have multiple and diversified disposition options with the anticipated closure of Newby Island Sanitary Landfill and Recyclery (Newby Island Landfill) by 2025;

3. Reducing the footprint of the biosolids processing area from 750 acres to about 160 acres and enabling other land uses; and

4. Creating flexibility to respond to future regulatory changes governing the disposal of treated biosolids at landfills as well _as changing market conditions related to beneficial reuse of treated biosolids.

There have been extensive discussions and policy direction on the Biosolids Transition Strategy.

See Attachment A for a detailed chronology of the key meetings and policy direction. Most recently, staff presented recommendations on the Biosolids Transition Strategy to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) in November 2014 and the City Council in December 2014.

The City Council approved two of seven recommendations including proceeding with temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) upgrades, and defening thermal and greenhouse drying facilities. The City Council directed staff to bring back the remaining recommendations in spring 2015 once odor modeling and cost information related to the biosolids transition was available. In November and December 2014 respectively, TPAC and Council also approved an odor strategy for the R WF which outlined specific odor goals. TP AC directed staff to look at other options besides dewatering to meet the approved R WF odor goals. Staff and the technical consultant completed a preliminary evaluation of 14 different technology and process options, three of these options were evaluated in more detail and compared against the cunent operations and the recommended option. The results of this evaluation are summarized in Attachment B.

Based on TP AC and Council direction in late 2014, a lagoon and drying bed odor evaluation has been performed (See Attachment C). Attachment C also describes the odor impacts of various technology and process options. As discussed in November/December 2014, staff performed additional evaluation of site alternatives for the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility (Dewatering Facility). Potential sites evaluated are shown in Attachment D. Staff also analyzed the impact of the timing of the closure of Newby Island Landfill on the Biosolids Transition Strategy.
1 The legal, official name of the facility remains San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, but beginning in early 20 I 3, the facility was approyed to use a new common name, the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility.

Attachment D
3 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

All of the work done since December 2014 validates proceeding with the new Dewatering Facility at the site previously proposed in November/December 2014 and supports the previous staff recommendations on the Biosolids Transition Strategy. Although there was prior discussion about accelerating the timeline for the biosolids transition, subsequent direction and actions have resulted in a timeline that is more in alignment with what was originally proposed in the PMP.

In fact, the recommended option envisions decommissioning the lagoons and drying beds in 2027, which is two years later than the date in the PMP.

Staff recommends approval of the remaining recommendations on the Biosolids Transition Strategy as summarized below:

Near-term recommendations

1. Proceed with implementation of the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility and the Lagoon and Drying Bed Retirement projects as shown in the 2015-2016 Proposed Capital Budget and 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program.

2. Locate the Digested Sludge Dewatering Facility at Site A.

3. Direct staff to bring back recommendations on the size and makeup of the Biosolids Management Team (BMT) for City Council consideration as paii of the annual budget process for 2016-2017.

Long-term recommendations

1. Implement any future on-site processing facilities considering conditions at the time including starting small with pilots, demonstrations, and phasing and potentially participating in regional facilities and emerging technologies.

This memorandum provides information on the pros and cons of technology and process options based on prior policy direction from TP AC and Council. If Council were to reconsider prior policy directions, staff could further evaluate the options to align with any modified or additional policy considerations.

BACKGROUND
Facility Description
The San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility is a regional advanced wastewater treatment plant that serves eight South Bay cities and four special districts through the following • agencies:
• City of San Jose
• City of Santa Clara
• City of Milpitas
• Cupertino Sanitary District
• County Sanitation District 2-3
• Burbank Sanitary District
• West Valley Sanitation District
(Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
and Saratoga)
Attachment D
4 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May!, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

The RWF is jointly owned by the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), and the City of San Jose operates the facility as the administering agency of the JP A. The total service area population is about 1.4 million, including a diverse commercial artd business sector with more than 17,000 sewer main connections.

The RWF is situated on a nearly 2,600 acre site with the main operational area encompassing approximately 180 acres, a biosolids processing area of about 7 50 acres, a former salt pond of about approximately 860 acres, and buffer lands of about 790 acres. The buffer lands are located · primarily to the south of the main operational area and serve to limit odor exposure to the community.

The current wastewater treatment process includes screening and grit removal, primary sedimentation, secondary treatment by the activated sludge process, secondary clarification, filtration, disinfection, and dechlorination. Treatment of the wastewater results in approximately 85 dry tons of biosolids per day (or the equivalent to J 06 wet tons of biosolids per day) which must be further treated and disposed of and/or beneficially reused. Biosolids are classified per EPA Title 40 of the California Federal Regulations Part 503; the classification is based on the level of pathogen reduction in the biosolids. Class A biosolids, with the highest level of treatment, are essentially pathogen free and thus have few restrictions on end use. Class B biosolids have a lesser level of treatment and a higher level of pathogens than Class A. This places some limitations on the end use with regards to public access and use in certain agricultural applications. The cmTent solids treatment process includes anaerobic digestion under mesophilic conditions followed by open-air lagoon stabilization and solar drying. The lagoon stabilization and solar drying process is time-intensive and takes three to four years to complete from start to finish. The dried Class A biosolids are then transported to the adjacent Newby Island Landfill for reuse as Alternate Daily Cover (ADC).

Description of Current Solids Treatment Process and Biosolids Management Practices The current solids treatment process and biosolids management practices include:
• Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion - solids are biologically treated or "digested" in enclosed tanks at 95-105 degree Fahrenheit temperature and a low oxygen environment.

This digestion process typically takes between 15 to 21 days and results in a Class B biosolids that is at about 2 percent total solids.
• Lagoon Stabilization - about one million gallon per day (mgd) of the digested sludge is pumped into unlined, open-air lagoons and stored from 2.5 to 3.5 years to allow for further stabilization and concentration of the solids. There are 28 active lagoons divided into four quadrants. Within any 12-month period, one quadrant receives the digested solids (Year 1 lagoon filling), two quadrants of lagoons are inactive to allow the biosolids to further stabilize (Year 2 and 3 lagoons), and the last quadrant (Year 4 lagoon) is dredged and the biosolids are pumped to the unlined, open-air drying beds.

Attachment D
5 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May I, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

• Solar Drying - there are 20 active drying beds, each about 4 acres in size and filled to a depth of about 3 feet. The solar drying process takes about six months from staii to finish and results in a Class A biosolids that is at about 80 percent total solids. • Odor Control - the very large surface area of the lagoons and drying beds makes engineered odor control impractical and expensive. A 12 to 14 inch water cap is maintained over the lagoons to help minimize the release of odors into the air. In addition, buffer lands provide for physical separation between the operational area and the community. Sampling data indicates that the Year 1 lagoon block, which receives digested biosolids pumped directly from the digesters, is more odorous than the Year 2, 3 and 4 lagoon blocks where the biosolids are more stabilized. See Attachment C for further detail on lagoon and drying bed sampling.
• Disposition and Reuse - at the end of the 4-year lagoon and drying cycle, the dried biosolids are hauled off to the adjacent Newby Island Landfill for use as ADC. This is done through the City's service contract with International Disposal Corporation (IDC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. The contract also allows for the disposal of grit, screenings and grease from R WF operations. The current contract with IDC expires on December 31, 2020.

Tlte Plant Master Plan and Biosolids Transition Strategy - 2008 to Present Between 2008 and 2013, extensive work and significant resources were invested into the development and adoption of the PMP, a comprehensive planning document to guide infrastructure improvements and land use decisions at the R WF. The PMP provides a roadmap for rehabilitating and upgrading the wastewater treatment facility through 2040, taking into consideration existing and future flows and loads, existing and future regulatory requirements, advances in wastewater treatment technologies, community concerns regarding odors, noise, and traffic, and various other environmental, social, and economic factors.

One of the most significant recommendations from the PMP is the BMP, which includes a phased transitioning out of the open-air biosolids lagoons and drying beds to enclosed dewatering and drying facilities. This transition was recommended for the following reasons:

1. Reducing odors in the community;

2. Positioning the R WF to have multiple and diversified disposition options with the potential closure of Newby Island Landfill by 2025;

3. Reducing the footprint of the biosolids processing area from 750 acres to about 160 acres and enabling other land uses; and

4. Creating flexibility to respond to future regulatory changes governing the disposal of treated biosolids at landfills as well as changing market conditions related to beneficial reuse of treated biosolids
The PMP envisioned a phased transition to handle the near· term and long term projected volume of biosolids. The first phase of the dewatering facility was intended to be completed by 2023 and the decommissioning of the lagoons and drying beds was planned to be completed by 2025, to align with the potential closure of the Newby Island Landfill. The second phase of the Attachment D
6 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

dewatering facility, to treat a projected future increase in the volume of biosolids, was planned to be completed by 2033.

Significant discussions have occurred with regards to the biosolids transition through various ccimmunity meetings, Council Committee meetings, TP AC meetings, and City Council meetings.

Attachment A provides a summary of prior work and key meetings and direction related to the biosolids transition.

As evidenced by the info1mation in Attachment A, there has been overarching support and acknowledgement from TPAC and Council for the need to transition out of the open-air lagoons and drying beds largely in response to community concerns over odors, the potential closure of Newby Island Landfill in 2025, and the need to provide the RWF with multiple and diversified biosolids disposition options.

Both TP AC and Council have previously given direction to staff to look for opportunities to accelerate the timing of the biosolids transition including supporting the formation of a Regional Odor Assessment Program (ROAP), use of alternative project delivery methods, and perfmming an evaluation of market interest for dewatered biosolids at the quantity and quality produced by the RWF, and most recently, approving an Odor Control Strategy which established an odor fence line and odor goals for the RWF.

At the October 22, 2014 Transportation and Environment (T&E) Committee meeting, November 20, 2014 Special TPAC meeting, and December 2, 2014 Council meeting, staff presented a Biosolids Transition Strategy that took into account the outcome of the PMP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process with regards to the originally proposed siting location for the new dewatering and drying facilities, the program validation efforts, the outcome of the market analysis, and efforts to evaluation options for producing Class A biosolids instead of Class B biosolids. Staff also requested approval of seven recommendations in connection with the Biosolids Transition Strategy.

At the November 20, 2014 TPAC Special Meeting, members endorsed and recommended approval of two of seven recommendations:

1. Proceed with temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) upgrades; and

2. Defer thermal and greenhouse drying facilities.

TP AC wanted to better understand the odor impacts from the current lagoon and drying bed operations and recommended delaying the decision on the new Dewatering Facility to fall 2015.

Staff was asked to evaluate potential options, if any, that would retain the use of the current lagoon and drying bed process and still meet the desired odor goals. TP AC also wanted to understand the implications, if any, of the pending action by the San Jose Planning Commission to allow the Newby Island Landfill to continue operating beyond 2025 to 2041. Staff had also indicated its desire to perform additional analysis on other potential siting locations for the new Dewatering Facility within the RWF's main operational footprint.

Attachment D
7 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May I, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

At the December 2, 2014 Council meeting, the two recommendations supported by TPAC were approved. Council also reconfirmed the importance of the long term goal of transitioning out of the current open air lagoons and drying beds, and recognized the extensive work that has already been done as part of the PMP process and thereafter to plan for this transition. Furthermore, the Clty Council expressed concern about delaying the decision on the new Dewatering Facility to fall 2015, as recommended by TPAC. Since TPAC members were specifically looking for modeling and cost information related to the lagoons and drying ~eds to help inform their decision making, staff proposed completing that work ahead of the comprehensive odor study and bringing back an update on the Biosolids Transition Strategy in spring 2015 to minimize the delay on the implementation of the biosolids transition.

Staff was directed to perform the additional analysis requested by TP AC and to bring back the remaining recommendations in spring 2015. These recommendations included implementing a new Dewatering Facility at Site A, decommissioning the existing lagoons and drying beds, and establishing a BMT to enable effective near-term and long-term disposition of biosolids.

ANALYSIS
Odor Control Goals for the RWF
In December 2014, the City Council approved the Odor Control Strategy including the odor goal and odor fence line. An odor goal of 5 Dilution to Threshold (D/T) at the fence line was adopted for the RWF, which is consistent with the original PMP recommendations and similar to what other wastewatei· treatment plants in the Bay Area establish as their odor goal. An odor frequency criterion of 99 percent was also selected as the odor frequency goal based on common industry practice. This means that the odor goal may be exceeded no more than one percent of the 8760 hours in a year, or no more than 88 hours in a given year. In addition, a one hour duration goal was selected because, based on industry standards, an odor event lasting one hour or more is typically considered a nuisance and unacceptable to the average person. The PMP indicated that about $70 million in odor control improvements would be needed to meet the odor goal of 5 D/T.

Odor Impacts from Current Lagoon and D,ying Bed Operations CH2M Hill, Inc., a firm that is internationally recognized for its odor expertise, was engaged to prepare an Odor and Corrosion Control Study for the RWF. As part of this study, samples were collected and dispersion modeling was performed to estimate the off site odor impacts from the current lagoons and drying beds operation. The results indicate that the lagoons and drying beds, as operated today, do not meet odor goals established for the RWF and contribute to significant offsite impacts (see Attachment C for further detail).

To understand what portion of the existing lagoons and drying beds couldyotentially remain in service and still achieve the fence line odor goal if no modifications were made to the current operations, the dispersion model was rnn assuming 25%, 50%, and 75% of the lagoons and Attachment D
8 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May I, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

drying beds would be taken out of service. The modeling results showed that less than 25% of the lagoons and drying beds' current footprint could remain in service if operated as-is today in order to achieve the desired odor goal. The analysis also assumed that all lagoons and drying beds would be loaded at existing solids loading rates; therefore, 75 percent more of the current bibsolids produced (and any future increases to future solids loading) would need to be processed elsewhere.

Of the various operational process areas measured and modeled, the dispersion model showed that the lagoons and drying beds have the biggest offsite odor impacts. If the lagoons and drying beds continue to be operated as-is, it will not be possible to achieve the odor goal set for the RWF as part of the Odor Control Strategy which both TPAC and Council approved in November and December 2014, respectively.

Potential Options to Retain the Use of the Existing Lagoons and Drying Beds To respond to the request received at the November 20, 2014 TPAC Special Meeting, CH2M Hill was requested to evaluate potential options to retain use of the existing lagoons and drying beds with or without modifications. A total of 14 potential options were initially identified; they included the use of oxygenated water caps, covers, chemical treatment, and reduction of the current footprint of lagoons and drying beds. Based on discussions with engineering and O&M staff about operational and technology considerations, as well as the ability to meet the RWF odor goals, 11 of the 14 potential options were eliminated from further evaluation.

Program management consultant staff, along with City staff, then proceeded to prepare a detailed evaluation of three potential options utilizing a Triple Bottom Line Plus (TBL+) methodology alongside comparison of Net Present Value (NPV) costs. The three potential options were compared against the base case (i.e., current lagoon and drying bed configuration and operations) and the recommended 100% Dewatering Facility.

A brief description of each is provided below and the outcome of the NPV analysis is depicted in Attachment B. These options were developed and analyzed to meet the prior policy direction from TP AC and Council. Further evaluation would be required to reflect additional or modified policy considerations.
• Base Case - Current Operations
Pros: lowestNPV costs
Cons: does not achieve the approved RWF odor goals. This option does not meet the goals and objectives of the PMP, and does not provide for multiple and diversified disposition options. Retaining the current operations would render the $70 million worth of investments into other odor control improvements ineffective in helping the RWF meet its odor goals.

Attachment D
9 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

• Option A: 100% Lagoons/Drying Beds with Chemical Pretreatment - retain the cmrent footprint of the lagoons and drying beds and construct a new chemical addition station to pre-treat 100% digested biosolids prior to pumping the digested biosolids into the existing lagoons and drying beds for processing.

Pros: second lowest NPV costs and may reduce certain odors compared to current operations
Cons: this option is highly unlikely to meet the approved RWF odor goals. A one-year full-scale piloting effort (approximately $1.2 million in capital cost and $3 million in additional annual O&M costs) and additional odor sampling and modeling would be needed to confirm the expected odor reduction. This option would have high ongoing O&M costs. This option also does not suppmi the goals and objectives of the PMP, and does not provide flexibility for multiple and diversified disposition options. • Option B: 75% Lagoons/Drying Beds+ 25% Mechanical Dewatering- retain the current footprint of the lagoons and drying beds and implement both physical and operational modifications, i.e., increase the water cap to 3 to 6 feet and install surface aeration systems in the lagoons. This option requires operational changes since the quantity of biosolids sent to the lagoons for processing would need to be reduced by about 25 percent to enable sufficient depth for an effective water cap. This option would also require construction of a new smaller scale dewatering facility for processing about 25 percent of current solids loading and all future increased solids flow due to reduced treatment capacity of the lagoons and drying beds.

Pros: has the third lowest NPV costs, with moderate O&M costs; may reduce certain odors compared to current operations.

Cons: this option is highly unlikely to meet the approved R WF odor goals. This option is more energy intensive and adds operational and maintenance inefficiencies due to the need for two separate biosolids management systems, introduces complexity during the annual dredging operations, and is unproven at a facility of this scale. A three-year full­ scale piloting effort (approximately $44 million in capital cost and $2.1 million in additional O&M costs per year for three years.) and additional sampling and modeling would be needed to confirm actual performance at the R WF. Similar to Option A, this option does not support the goals and objectives of the PMP, and does not provide flexibility for multiple and diversified disposition options. • Option C: 25% Lagoons/Drying Beds+ 75% Mechanical Dewatering- reduce the cUITent footprint of the lagoons and drying beds to about 25 percent of their cunent configuration and construct a new dewatering facility for processing about 75 percent or more of the current biosolids produced from the digestion process.

Pros: this option has a high likelihood of achieving the RWF odor goals. This option provides for multiple and diversified disposition options. This option offers a savings of $33 million over a 30 year period, when compared to the recommended option.

Attachment D
10 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

Cons: this option has the second highest NPV costs and high O&M costs. This option adds operational and maintenance inefficiencies due to the need to operate and maintain two separate biosolids management systems. A more detailed operational analysis may demonstrate the need for additional staff with different skill sets, which will reduce the anticipated cost savings from this option. Although this option has a high likelihood of meeting the R WP odor goals and the PMP goals based on the odor sampling and modeling, there is still a possibility that the partial open air process may result in some offsite odor impacts.
• Recommended Option: 100% Dewatering Facility and Lagoon/Drying Bed Decommissioning - construct a new dewatering facility for processing 100% of the digested sludge and decommission the lagoons and drying beds.

Pros: this recommended option incorporates proven technology for achieving the approved RWF odor goals. This option meets the goals and objectives of the PMP, and provides flexibility for multiple and diversified disposition options. It prepares the RWF to respond to potential changes governing the disposal and/or beneficial reuse of treated biosolids at landfills, and maximizes opportunities for beneficial reuse ofbiosolids.

Cons: has the highest NPV costs and high O&M costs.

Other Considerations
• Newby Island Landfill
The Newby Island Landfill is located at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in San Jose and has three distinct operations: 1) solid waste and non-hazardous municipal solid waste acceptance facility, 2) materials recovery recyclery facility, and 3) green waste, food waste, and wood waste composting facility. Newby Island Landfill has applied for a permit that, if approved by Planning Commission, would extend the life of the landfill from 2025 through 2041.

The City's contract with Newby Island Landfill enables the hauling and transportation of the biosolids to be used as ADC. Under the terms of the contract, the biosolids average 75 percent solids and, at a minimum, must meet the Class B biosolids designation. The contract also allows for the disposal of grit, screenings and grease from RWF operations.

After December 2020, the City may extend the term with Newby Island Landfill for as long as it continues to accept municipal solid waste.

Comparative costs for hauling the biosolids to the Newby Island Landfill and to alternate locations are shown in Attachment B. At an incremental annual cost of $300,000, the cost differential is not significant. If the landfill were to remain in operation for a longer period of time than envisioned in the PMP, it would be slightly more cost effective in the near term. However, staff does not recommend delaying the biosolids transition based on the future of the Newby Island Landfill because continuing with the current disposition practice does not support the recently approved R WP odor goals, nor does it meet the Attachment D
11 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

PMP goals and objectives with regards to reducing odors and the RWF operational footprint, maximizing beneficial reuse and increasing flexibility in disposition options, and preparing for potential future changes to regulations that may impact the ability to dispose of and/or reuse biosolids as ADC at landfills.
• Implementation Timeline for a New Dewatering Facility If Council approves starting implementation of the new full scale Dewatering Facility and planning for retiring the lagoons and drying beds in July 2015 as included in the 2015- 2016 Proposed Budget and 2026-2020 Proposed Capital Improvement Program, the anticipated implementation schedule is as shown in the table below. The implementation schedule is based on a design-bid-build project delivery approach. During the project scoping phases, an evaluation of the delivery method will be undertaken and if design build is selected as the appropriate delivery method, the project schedule will be modified as needed.

Implementation Schedule for the Proposed Biosolids Transition Milestone Date
Dewatering Facility Completion June 2022
• Consultant Selection Council A ward August 2016
• Conceptual Design Completion August 2017
• Detailed Design Completion April 2019
• Bid & Award August 2019
• Beneficial Use December 2021
• Construction Final Acceptance June 2022
Decommissioning of Lagoons and Drying Beds June 2027
The magnitude and complexity of transitioning to a new biosolids process for a facility that treats wastewater for approximately 1.4 million people and 17,000 businesses makes this project one of the largest and complex wastewater treatment projects in the country.

This type of project requires significant time to allow for the proper planning, environmental clearance, permitting, procurement, design, construction, and start-up, testing, and commissioning. Although prior TP AC and Council direction to accelerate this transition was referenced earlier, the subsequent discussions and actions have now resulted in a proposed timeline that would decommission the existing lagoons and drying beds two years later than previously envisioned in the PMP. · • Additional Analysis for Alternative Site Location for the New Dewatering Facility After conducting additional analysis to determine whether it would be possible to locate the new Dewatering Facility inside of the main operational footprint, staff concluded that the preferred location for the new Dewatering Facility is the previously presented Site A.

Site A is located on the east side of Zanker Road and provides the greatest flexibility for Attachment D
12 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 1, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

future expansion. It is also located within the expansion area identified in the PMP with limited utility conflicts and no identified environmental impacts. Its location outside of the central process area helps minimize truck traffic and impact on the day-to-day RWF operations (See Attachment D).

Conclusions
Based on the additional analysis, staff recommends proceeding with the recommended option of constructing a new Dewatering Facility and decommissioning the lagoons and drying beds. Staff also recommends proceeding with locating the new Dewatering Facility at Site A, and starting the process for the formation of a BMT (to be included as part of the 2016-2017 budget process).

The BMT would develop, negotiate, and procure a diverse portfolio of disposition contracts and continue to track changing industry, regulatory, market and land use conditions, and conduct market research to better determine local demand and price for dewatered end products. The team would also be involved with regional efforts, demonstration and pilot projects, and evaluation of emerging technologies.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
If the proposed recommendations on the Biosolids Transition Strategy are approved, staff will begin the planning and consultant selection for the new Dewatering Facility and for retiring of the lagoons and drying beds. The recommendation for award of consultant agreement for the Dewatering Facility project will be brought forward to Council for approval. Additionally, staff will start the planning for establishment of a BMT and will bring forward recommendations during the 2016-2017 budget process. Progress updates on the project will also be provided through the monthly progress reports to TPAC and semi-annual CIP reports to the Transp01iation and Environment Committee and the Council.

POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Direct staff to proceed with 25% Lagoons/Drying Beds+ 75% Mecltaniml Dewatering
Pros: This option is expected to achieve the odor goals established for the RWF and provides for multiple and diversified disposition options. The Net Present Value is about $33 million less than the recommended option.

Cons: This option requires operating and maintaining two completely different and separate biosolids management systems, which results in operational inefficiency and complexity. The cost savings of approximately $1 million annually over a 30 year period are not significant enough to offset these operational considerations. The two different treatment processes may also result in the need for additional staffing levels with different skill sets and fmiher decrease the cost savings; this will need to be further analyzed through a more detailed operational analysis. Additionally, although this option has a high likelihood of meeting the RWF odor goals and the PMP goals based on the odor sampling and modeling, there is still a possibility that the pmiial open air process may result in some offsite odor impacts.

Attachment D
13 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May I, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

Reason for not recommending:

Since this option retains 25% of the current footprint and current biosolids management operations, the City would be required to explore disposal options and manage contracts for two different types of biosolids. The savings from this option are not significant enough to offset the operational inefficiency of having two separate biosolids treatment and management operations.

Additionally, a more detailed analysis of operations may result in the need for additional staffing with different skill sets; this would further reduce the anticipated savings from this option. This option does not offer the highest probability of meeting the RWF odor goals and PMP goals and objectives.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City's website for the June 2, 2015 Council meeting.

Staff will also present this memorandum to the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TP AC) on May 14, 2015.

COORDINATION
This memo has been coordinated with the Depaiiment of Public Works, City Attorney's Office and City Manager's Budget Office.

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT
The Biosolids Transition Strategy is aligned with the Envision 2040 General Plan. In addition, the transition strategy is consistent with the following General Budget Principle: "We must focus on protecting our vital core city services for both the shmi and long-term."

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
The PMP had identified approximately $512 million in capital costs for the implementation of a comprehensive biosolids transition including improvements to the digesters, a new dewatering facility, partial thermal and greenhouse drying, a FOG (fats, oils, and grease) receiving facility, covered biosolids storage, and decommissioning of the existing lagoons and drying beds. The CIP project validation process that was completed in February 2014 made some adjustments to this comprehensive biosolids transition and identified approximately $397 million in capital costs for the implementation of the biosolids transition. Since a substantial portion of these costs are for improvements, such as the digesters, which would need to be made regardless of the treatment of the biosolids, it is impmiant to also look at specific costs associated with transitioning out of the open air lagoons and drying beds. The costs for just the dewatering facility, the decommissioning of the drying beds and lagoons, and the thermal and greenhouse drying facilities were identified as approximately $243 million.

Attachment D
14 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May I, 2015
Subject: Biosolids Transition Strategy

In December 2014, City Council approved staff recommendations to defer the thermal and greenhouse drying projects to a future unspecified time when regulatory or market conditions would necessitate the implementation of these projects. The.deferral of these projects results in a decrease of approximately $143 million in the ten year CIP. It is important to note that since these projects may be needed in the future, these costs have not been eliminated but rather deferred to a future time outside of the next ten year window.

The capital costs for the new Dewatering Facility and Lagoon & Drying Bed Retirement projects are estimated at approximately $115 million (stated in 2015 dollars). The proposed Dewatering Facility will require an annual O&M budget of approximately $7.4 million (stated in 2015 dollars and based on current biosolids production). This annual O&M cost escalates up to $19.6 million in the year 2045, which includes a cost of $12.1 M for sludge disposition.

When the new Dewatering Facility comes online and while the existing lagoons and drying beds are being decommissioned, existing O&M costs are anticipated to be increased to approximately $10.8 minion (stated in 2015 dollars and based on current biosolids production) annually for a period of approximately four years.

The capital costs for the proposed projects have been included in the ten year funding strategy for the RWF and can be financed through a combination of short and long-term debt. Staff will be pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans to the maximum extent possible to fund the proposed projects, as well as the rest of the projects in the program. The associated O&M costs cannot be financed and will need to be cash-funded.

The cost impact for establishing the BMT is not yet known. Staff will return with more information, as part of the next budget cycle, if the recommendation is approved.

CEQA
Not a Project, File No. PP10-069(a), Staff Reports.
/s/
Kerrie Romanow
Director, Environmental Services
For questions, please contact Ashwini Kantak, Assistant Director (BSD), at 408-975-2553.

Attachments:

Attachment A - Chronology of Key Meetings and Discussions on Biosolids Transition and Odor Attachment B - Biosolids Transition Strategy - Odor Control Options and Lifecycle Costs Attachment C - Odor and Corrosion Control Study: Technical Memorandum - Lagoons and Drying Beds Odor Evaluation
Attachment D - Map of Proposed Sites for New Dewatering Facility



ATTACHMENT A

CHRONOLOGY OF KEY MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

ON BIOSOLIDS TRANSITION AND ODOR

October 20, 2010 Rules Committee - the City of Milpitas requested consideration of the Milpitas Guiding Principles in connection with development of the PMP goals, more specifically:

Milpitas Principle 4: The outdated infrastructure and open air drying systems for the biosolids are public nuisances inappropriate to an urban area. These outdated systems should be replaced or retrofitted to incorporate the most currently available technologies, to significantly reduce or eliminate environmental impacts such as odor, visual, and energy consumption within the first phases of the Master Plan.

December 9, 2010 TPAC and December 14, 2010 Council meetings - staff was directed to consider the Milpitas Guiding Principles in the final development of the Preferred Alternative for the Plant Master Plan.

December 6, 2010 T&E Committee meeting
– staff presented an analysis of a temporary contract
dewatering option to eliminate the need for the lagoons and drying beds 12 years sooner while constructing the permanent dewatering and drying facilities by 2025. The analysis indicated that this option would increase expenditures by $178 million to 2025.

December 14, 2010 Council meeting - staff was directed by Council to prioritize the identification of sources and potential solutions for elimination of odors coming from the RWF operations and present options for the elimination of odors, including timelines and cost estimates to do so.

April 4, 2011 T&E Committee, April 7, 2011 TPAC and April 19, 2011 Council meetings - the Preferred Alternative for the Plant Master Plan was presented and staff was directed to proceed with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and development of the final documents for the Plant Master Plan Preferred Alternative. The Final Preferred Alternative for the Plant Master Plan included recommendations for a phased approach for transitioning to mechanical dewatering, thermal drying, greenhouse drying, new cake storage and covered lagoons by 2025, including retirement of the existing lagoons and drying beds. It also included a recommendation to create a Regional Odor Assessment Program (ROAP) to undertake a comprehensive data collection effort and modeling of current and future odor impacts, along with specific odor control projects for the various treatment process areas, representing a $70 million estimated capital investments not including the lagoons and drying beds transition project which was estimated at $230 million.

Attachment D
15


Staff was directed to return to Council in May 2011 with additional information on reducing odors and an analysis of the “feasibility of implementing odor mitigation work in three to seven years” (April 19, 2011 memo from Mayor Reed, Vice Mayor Nguyen, and Council members Chu, Rocha, and Liccardo).

May 14, 2011 TPAC and May 24, 2011 Council meetings – staff presented preliminary information regarding odors and a planned regional odor assessment study that would include the RWF as well as other potential odor sources in the region. The regional study would assess other nearby facilities with odor potential including: Republic Services facilities at Newby Island, the Zanker Landfill and Zanker Material Processing Facility, the Milpitas Raw Sewage Pump Station, and the San Jose sanitary sewer collection system. The staff report indicated that the study could cost up to $1 million, would take up to one year to complete, and that all organizations involved in managing these potential odor sources had agreed in principle to be part of a regional study. Staff also presented analysis on the feasibility of accelerating the biosolids transition that considered ceasing the discharge of biosolids to the existing lagoons by 2018, followed by the emptying and clean up of the lagoons and drying beds by 2024. This project, estimated at $230 million, was anticipated to reduce the RWF’s potential contribution to offsite odor impacts.

Staff presented its analysis of the feasibility of implementing odor mitigation in relation to the lagoons and drying beds in 3 to 7 years. Staff identified key opportunities and risks if the biosolids transition was to be accelerated including the need to:
o Obtain environmental clearance for the project which was incorporated to be evaluated as part of the PMP EIR
o Evaluate and prepare the legacy biosolids site to serve as the new location for the biosolids transition facilities
o Continue operating the lagoons and drying beds for up to three years after the new dewatering and drying facility comes on line to allow for final emptying and clean up of the lagoons
o Consider utilizing alternative project delivery methods to possibly accelerate the project schedule
o Consider cost and risks associated with foregoing the PMP recommended phased implementation approach which included pilot testing given the magnitude and complexity of the project
Attachment D
16


o Consider cost and rate impacts to come forward sooner than envisioned due to the acceleration of the biosolids transition, particularly due to additional energy and chemical consumption cost by up to $10 million annually o Identify unique expertise and dedicated staff for implementing this complex project including the need to explore potential disposition options for the dewatered cake (a different end-product than the dried biosolids generated from the current lagoon and drying bed operations), and for negotiating and managing long term contracts for hauling and disposal
o Consider the significant project delivery staffing and other resource supports that would be need to implement the biosolids transition project, roughly estimated at $300 million at the time
Staff was directed by TPAC and Council to continue to work with its consultant team, other City departments, and the neighboring stakeholders, namely the City of Milpitas and the McCarthy Ranch representatives, to develop a regional odor assessment study and to continue to analyze the implementation timeline for the biosolids transition after completion of the PMP EIR.

June 21, 2011 Supplemental Memo to Council
- staff provided an update on the status of
working with stakeholders in response to TPAC direction from the May 4, 2011 meeting. Staff had been directed to meet with City of Milpitas and McCarthy Ranch technical consultants to discuss the timeline for the new biosolids process. The City of Milpitas staff representative proposed that the meeting not be rushed to meet the June TPAC schedule, but instead be set at mutually acceptable date to allow parties sufficient time to coordinate, prepare, discuss and review the findings. As a result, staff indicated that it would report back in August 2011.

August 3, 2011 Information Memo to TPAC and September 13, 2011 Supplemental Memo to Council – Following direction given at the May 14 and May 24 TPAC and Council meetings, staff provided an update on the outcome of a meeting between City staff, Milpitas staff, and McCarthy Ranch representatives to discuss the implementation timeline for the biosolids transition project and efforts to form a ROAP. The main outcome was that the timeline proposed by the McCarthy Ranch representatives showed the biosolids transition completing about one year sooner than the City’s proposed 2018 timeline for ceasing discharge of biosolids. All parties agreed to continue refining the body of work and to return with additional updates at the end of 2011.

December 5, 2011 T&E Committee meeting and December 8, 2011 TPAC meeting – staff provided a progress update on efforts to complete a regional odor assessment study including retaining the services of CH2M Hill, Inc., a firm that is internationally recognized for its odor expertise and develop comprehensive scope of work and approach for the study, including coordinating the effort with the neighboring stakeholders. The staff report also indicated that Republic Services had agreed to participate and contribute financially to the regional odor Attachment D
17


assessment study and that staff would finalize the study logistics and funding plan, and engage other stakeholders such as the City of Milpitas.

February 2, 2012 T&E Committee, February 9, 2012 TPAC, and February 14, 2012 Council meetings – staff provided a “Packaged Delivery” approach for the CIP, including proposed timeline and alternative project delivery options for the biosolids transition. The packaged approach for delivering the CIP considered the challenges with implementing a large, complex program inside the footprint of an active 365-day, 24/7 operating plant, the unprecedented decline in staffing levels that engineering and O&M groups were experiencing, and the financial impacts for implementing the PMP-recommended projects including the acceleration of the biosolids transition. Staff requested direction to proceed with a Request for Information solicitation to determine market interest in Design Build, Design Build Operate, and Design Build Operate Own project delivery options for capital improvements using new technology (i.e., Package 2 Projects included the New Dewatering and Drying Facilities, Cogeneration Facility, Lagoons and Drying Bed Retirement, and the New Filter Building.) Staff indicated that it would report back in fall 2012 if the RFI were to proceed. In May 2012, Carollo Engineers completed an analysis of alternate project delivery options for the biosolids transition. The report confirmed that the progressive D/B or DBO option would allow the transition out of the lagoons and drying bed operations by the end of 2018 (cease discharge of biosolids to the lagoons) and complete the lagoon and drying bed clean up by 2021.

October 1, 2012 T&E Committee meeting
– staff updated the committee on the efforts to form a
ROAP including completed sampling efforts done by CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. and development of a preliminary odor model. Staff also informed the committee that other participants from the ROAP withdrew from the effort and the ROAP was not completed.

December 3, 2012 T&E Committee, December 13, 2012 TPAC meetings – staff provided an update on the “packaged delivery” approach, stating that the City would be soliciting an Owner’s Engineer for the Cogeneration Facility and Biosolids Transition Program to finalize the project delivery approach, define project performance criteria, and develop bid documents to procure a design-build entity for the projects.

November 19, 2013 Council meeting – the San Jose City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Plant Master Plan, formally adopted the Final Draft Plant Master Plan, and approved a General Plan Amendment to change the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of 308-acre portion of the Water Pollution Control Plant. The Santa Clara City Council followed with adoption of the Final Draft Plant Master Plan in December 2013.

February 2014 - the RWF’s Capital Improvement Program team completed a detailed project validation review process of all projects recommended in the PMP. This validation effort led to a change in assumption from large, open biosolids storage area near the lagoons (sized for 180 days of storage) to a managed, enclosed four-day storage facility.

Attachment D
18


April 24, 2014 TPAC meeting – staff presented preliminary information on the Biosolids Transition Strategy, including discussions of various disposition option, including potential options specific to the RWF. Staff also outlined steps to solicit interest from the open market and methodology for conducting business case evaluations in order to bring back recommendations to the City Council in fall 2014. Feedback from TPAC on the biosolids transition included consideration of odor impacts, expandability of the facility in the future, the possibility of producing Class A biosolids instead of Class B biosolids, and impact on operations and maintenance cost.

October 22, 2014 T&E, November 13, 2014 TPAC, November 20, 2014 Special TPAC, December 2, 2014 Council meetings – following on the April 24 TPAC meeting, staff returned to present an updated Biosolids Transition Strategy that took into account the outcome of the PMP EIR process with regards to the PMP-proposed location for the new dewatering and drying facilities, the program validation efforts, the outcome of the market analysis, and evaluation of options for producing Class A biosolids instead of Class B biosolids.

TPAC and Council approved 2 of 7 recommendations (i.e., proceed with the thermophilic phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) and deferring the thermal dryer and greenhouse drying facilities), and requested staff to return with additional odor and cost information related to transitioning out of the lagoons and drying beds to help inform decision making on both the incremental cost benefit for various alternatives and the timing of the biosolids transition, particularly with regards to the Newby Island landfill closure. Staff was also asked to bring back potential alternatives, if any, that would retain the use of the current lagoon and drying bed process and still meet the desired odor goals.

Attachment D
19


Odor Control Options

1. Base Case - Current Operations: This is the current biosolids processing practiced at the RWF Residual Solids Management (RSM) area. This is not a viable odor control option, but is used in this comparison as a base case.

2. Option A - 100% Lagoons/Drying Beds with Chemical Pretreatment: This option requires constructing a new chemical feed station and pre-treating 100% digested sludge with chemical prior to conveying the digested sludge to existing lagoons and drying beds for processing.

3. Option B - 75% Lagoons/Drying Beds + 25% Mechanical Dewatering: This option requires increasing the water cap in the lagoons to 3 to 6 feet, modifying existing lagoons with surface aeration systems, constructing a new small dewatering facility that can process about 25% digested sludge, conveying about 75% digested sludge to the modified lagoons and drying beds for processing, and sending the remaining 25% digested sludge to the new dewatering facility for separate processing.

4. Option C - 25% Lagoons/Drying Beds + 75% Mechanical Dewatering: This option requires constructing a large dewatering facility that can handle about 75% digested sludge, conveying about 25% digested sludge to existing lagoons and drying beds for process, and sending the remaining 75% digested sludge to the new dewatering facility for separate processing. This option does not require any modifications to the existing lagoons. This option also involves decommissioning of 75% of existing lagoons and drying beds.

5. Recommended Option - 100% Dewatering Facility and Lagoon/Drying Bed Decommissioning: This option is the previous PMP and Biosolids Management Program recommendation of installing a new mechanical dewatering facility to process 100% of RWF digested sludge volume. This option also requires decommissioning of all existing lagoons and drying beds.

Table 1: Qualitative Comparison of Options
Consideration Option A Option B Option C Recommended Option Proven track
record in
processing
biosolids and
controlling
odors
x Does not address
ammonia-based odors
x Does not have proven
track record at this scale.
x Would need full-scale
pilot testing for at least
one year and subsequent
sampling and modeling
x May not address all odors as
aeration process is inefficient
x Has limited track record at
this scale
x Would require pilot testing
for at least three years and
subsequent sampling and
modeling
x Modeling indicates this
option meets RWF odor
goal
x Dewatering Faciliy with
dedicated odor control
system are proven
technologies
x No pilot testing required
x Proven technology for
biosolids processing
and controlling odors
Ease of
construction,
operation and
maintenance,
and
minimizing
process
complexity
x Easier to operate as
similar to current RSM
operation
x Requires operation of two
parallel biosolids trains that
increase O&M complexity
x Difficult constructability as
requires installing surface
aerators and power feed
under narrow RSM levee
roads that may not be suitable
for heavy machinery
x Requires operation of
two parallel biosolids
trains that increase
O&M complexity
x Single biosolids
processing train
x New treatment
process would require
staff training
Risk of not
meeting Odor
goals
x Has high uncertainty in
meeting RWF odor goal
x Has high uncertainty in
meeting RWF odor goal
x Modeling indicates this
option meets RWF odor
goal
x Would be designed
with dedicated odor
control technology to
meet RWF odor goal
x This is the lowest risk
option
Lifecycle Costs x Lowest lifecycle costs x Second lowest lifecycle cost x Second highest lifecycle cost
x Highest lifecycle cost
TBL+ score 5.0 4.0 4.9 5.9
Attachment B - Biosolids Transition Strategy - Odor Control Options and Lifecycle Costs Attachment D
20


Table 2: Comparison of Lifecycle Cost over 30 years (Year 2016 – 2045) Cost Component Base Case Option A Option B Option C Recommended Option Electricity $0 $102,633 $9,212,926 $2,614,713 $3,486,284 Labor and Chemicals $33,378,042 $91,233,642 $45,883,586 $59,616,504 $58,223,152 Disposition Cost $47,329,628 $51,148,896 $59,135,455 $82,747,110 $94,552,937 Total O&M $80,707,670 $142,485,171 $114,231,967 $144,978,327 $156,262,373 Capital Repayment $0 $7,743,841 $46,044,460 $101,507,105 $120,343,475 Replacements $4,210,683 $4,960,436 $7,042,884 $12,707,285 $15,539,486 Salvage Value $(23,138) $(23,138) $(578,444) $(1,735,331) $(2,313,774) Total NPV (assuming Newby
Landfill closes in 2025, rounded
to nearest million) $85,000,000 $155,000,000 $167,000,000 $257,000,000 $290,000,000 Notes:

1. AACE International Class 5 level estimate with accuracy of +100% and -50%.

2. NPV was calculated for a period of 30 years from 2016 – 2045.

3. Total O&M costs include sludge disposition, chemical, labor, power, and other consumables.

4. Sludge Disposition Assumptions:
a. Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) fee for Newby Is land Landfill is approximately $23 per wet ton. b. The off-site disposition costs were assumed to range from $35 to $51 per wet ton, depending on disposition type and location (assumes 1/3 of sludge to land application, 1/3 to landfill as ADC, and 1/3 to composting). c. Recommended Option biosolids dispositio n does not utilize Newby Island Landfill.

5. This analysis uses solids loadings as provided by Biosolids Transition Strategy Report (Brown & Caldwell, December 2014).

6. This analysis assumes Newby Island Landfill closure in Y ear 2025. If Newby Landfill remains open throughout the analysis period (2016-2045), the Lifecycle costs for Base Case, and Options A, B, and C will decrease to $77 M, $146 M, $160 M, and $255 M respectively. Recommended Option biosolids disposition is at alternate locations from Day 1, and NPV for recommended option is independent of Newby Island Landfill closure.

7. Capital costs for Recommended Option and Option C include costs to decommission existing lagoons and drying beds by 100% and 75% capacity respectively. These decommissioning capital costs do not include backfilling of the lagoons to prevent habitat formation, decontamination of the legacy lagoons, or any civil improvements to make the land available for other beneficial uses.

Attachment D
21 $350
$300
$250
"' C:
0 $200
~
$150
$100
$50
$-
Base Case
Life Cycle Costs Breakdown
Option A Option B Option C Recommended
Opt ion
E3 Replacemen ts
■ Capital Repayment
rn Electr icit y
~ Disposit ion Cost
IIIl Labor and Chemicals


Table 3: Conclusion Summary for Options
Project Probability
of meeting
approved
RWF odor
goals
Supports
PMP
goals
and
MGP 4
Provides
flexibility
for
diversified
disposition
options
Life
Cycle
Cost
(NPV)
1,2, 5
Capital
Cost1,5
Annual O&M
Cost1,6 with
disposition at:

Average
Annual
O&M
Cost
(over a
30-year
period)1,3
Anticipate
d timeline
to achieve
approved
RWF odor
goals
Newby
Landfill
Other
options
Base Case None No No $85 M $ 0 $3.4 M $4.0 M $ 5.9 M Never Option A Low No No $155 M $7.4 M $6.4 M $7.0 M $10.6 M Unknown Option B Low No No $167 M $44 M $5.5 M $5.9 M $8.7 M Unknown Option C High Yes Yes $257 M $97 M $6.8 M $6.9 M $11.2 M 2027 Recommended
Option 100% Yes Yes $290 M $115 M $7.4 M $7.4 M $12.1 M 2027 Notes:

1. All costs in 2015 dollars. AACE International Class 5 level estimate with accuracy of +100% and -50%.

2. NPV was calculated for a period of 30 years from 2016 – 20 45, assuming Newby Island Landfill closure in Year 2025.

3. Escalated annual O&M costs averaged over a period of 30 y ears from 2016 – 2045. These include costs for sludge disposition, chemical, labor, power, and other consumables. Sludge disposition costs are for alternate disposition options assuming Newby Island Landfill closes in 2025.

4. Milpitas Guiding Principles.

5. Recommended Option and Option C include ca pital costs to decommission existing lagoons and drying beds by 100% and 75% capacity respectively. These decommissioning capital costs do not include backfilling of the lagoons to prevent habitat formation, decontamination of the legacy lagoons, or any civil improvements to make the land available for other beneficial uses.

6. Costs in 2015 dollars and for 2015 sludge quantities. Annual O&M costs include sludge disposition, chemical, labor, power, and other consumables. This analysis assumes Newby Island Landfill closure in Year 2025. The off-site disposition costs were assumed to range from $35 to $51 per wet ton, depending on disposition type and location (assumes 1/3 of sludge to land application, 1/3 to landfill as Alternative Daily Cover, and 1/3 to composting). Proposed Facility biosolids disposition does not utilize Newby Island Landfill.

Attachment D
22 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 1 of 29 CIP Program
Odor and Corrosion Control Study
Technical Memorandum - Lagoons and Drying
Beds Odor Evaluation
Prepared for City of San Jose
Prepared by: Susan Dennis/CH2M HILL
Aidan Shaughnessy/CH2M HILL
Date: April 30, 2015
Reviewed by: Jay Witherspoon/CH2M HILL
Attachment C - Odor and Corrosion Control Study - Technical Memorandum - Lagoons and Drying Beds Odor Evaluation Attachment D
23 SanJ , . ose,Santa Cl Regional W ara astewater Fa ·1· Cl 1ty 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 2 of 29 This page intentionally left blank
Attachment D
24 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 3 of 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6

2.0 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................. 6

3.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Existing Residuals Solids Management ......................................................... 7

3.2 RWF Odor Goal .............................................................................................. 9

4.0 ODOR CONTOURS FOR THE LAGOONS AND DRYING BEDS ........................... 11

4.1 Existing Lagoon and Drying Bed Operation ................................................. 11

4.2 Lagoon and Drying Bed Decommissioning .................................................. 12

5.0 ESTIMATED COST OF ODOR CONTROL FOR THE DEWATERING AND TRUCK LOADOUT FACILITY ........................................................................................................... 14

6.0 ODOR CONTOURS FOR THE DIGESTERS AND DAFT ....................................... 14

6.1 Existing Digester and DAFT Operation ........................................................ 15

6.2 Future Digester and DAFT Operation........................................................... 15

7.0 FEASIBILITY TO RETAIN USE OF LAGOONS AND DRYING BEDS AND COMPLY WITH RWF ODOR GOAL .................................................................................................... 16

7.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Required Odor Reduction to Achieve Fence Line Odor Goal 16

7.2 Alternatives to Reduce Lagoon and Drying Bed Odors ................................ 21

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 29

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 Lagoon and Drying Bed Decommissioning Worst Case Odor Assumptions .. 13 Table 7-1 Oxygenated Water Cap Alternatives .............................................................. 22 Table 7-2 Covering Alternatives ...................................................................................... 24 Table 7-3  Reduce Odor of Biosolids Upstream of Lagoons ............................................ 27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Existing RWF Lagoons and Drying Beds .......................................................... 8 Figure 3-2 RWF Odor Fence Line .................................................................................... 11 Figure 4-1 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances—Lagoons plus Drying Beds .......................... 12  Figure 4-2  Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Lagoons plus Drying Beds Worst Case Decommissioning plus Dewatering and Loadout Facility with Odor Control ................ 14 Figure 6-1 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Digesters and DAFT Baseline Condition ... 15 Figure 7-1 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Lagoons Baseline Condition ........................ 17 Attachment D
25 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 4 of 29 Figure 7-2 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Drying Beds Baseline Condition .................. 17 Figure 7-3 5 D/T Exceedances with All Lagoons and Drying Beds in Service; Year 1 Lagoon D/T = Year 2 D/T; Existing Solids Loading .................................................................. 19 Figure 7-4 5 D/T exceedances versus Percentage of Lagoons and Drying Beds in Service 20 Attachment D
26 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 5 of 29 Technical Memorandum

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADC alternative daily cover
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CIP Capital Improvement Program
D/T dilution to threshold
DAFT dissolved air flotation thickening
DO dissolved oxygen
DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District
mg/L milligrams per liter
NPV net present value
PMP Plant Master Plan
PVRV pressure vacuum reducing valve
RSM residual solids management
RWF Regional Wastewater Facility
SRCSD Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
TBL+ Triple Bottom Line Plus
TPAC Treatment Plant Advisory Committee
TPAD temperature phased anaerobic digestion
TS total solids
WAS waste activated sludge
Attachment D
27 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 6 of 29 Technical Memorandum

LAGOONS AND DRYING BEDS ODOR EVALUATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Currently, solids stabilization processes at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) include mesophilic anaerobic digestion followed by lagoon stabilization and solar drying utilizing open air drying beds. The RWF Plant Master Plan (PMP) 1 defines a biosolids
strategy to transition from use of the lagoons and drying beds to mechanical dewatering and potentially other processes to produce alternative end-use products. The primary goal of this transition strategy is to address community odor concerns associated with the lagoons and drying beds.

The biosolids transition strategy presented in the PMP was been refined as part of PMP validation for the RWF Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The refined biosolids strategy would implement a mechanical dewatering facility sized for 100 percent of the planning period digested sludge quantity in combination with potential thermal drying, solar greenhouses, soil blending, or other unit processes to produce a biosolids product for multiple potential end uses.

Implementation of mechanical dewatering was planned year 2018, which would enable phased decommissioning of the lagoons and drying beds (including removal of all biosolids) by year 2024.

City staff presented the refined biosolids transition strategy to the RWF Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) in November 2014 and the San José City Council in December 2014, and requested approval to proceed with implementation of the mechanical dewatering facility to enable decommissioning of the lagoons and drying beds by 2024. Although TPAC was supportive of the long-term goal of transitioning out of the current open air process, it wanted additional information about odor impacts from the existing lagoons and drying beds as well as the cost of odor control improvements associated with any new biosolids drying process. TPAC also asked staff to bring back potential alternatives, if any, that would retain the current lagoon and drying bed process and still meet the desired odor goals. San José City Council supported TPAC’s recommendations; however, they asked staff to return in spring instead of fall 2015, as recommended by TPAC.

2.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to present the evaluations and conclusions prepared by the Odor and Corrosion Control Study (odor study) team to assist staff members with their response to TPAC and City Council’s request. As requested by RWF staff, this information is organized as follows:

1 Plant Master Plan, San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, prepared by Carollo Engineers in Association with Brown and Caldwell and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, November 2013.

Attachment D
28 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 7 of 29 x Odor contours for the lagoons and drying beds for:
– Existing conditions
– Interim condition (during decommissioning)
– Future condition of empty beds and lagoons
x Estimated odor control costs to achieve the RWF 5 dilution to threshold (D/T) odor goal for the dewatering and truck loadout facility as defined in the refined biosolids transition strategy.
x Odor contours for the existing digesters and dissolved air flotation thickening (DAFT) facilities, and for the future temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) process with cothickening DAFT.
x Options, if any, to achieve the 5 D/T goal using the lagoons and drying beds to process 100 percent of the RWF biosolids and, if this is not feasible, options to continue use of the lagoons and drying beds to the greatest extent in combination with other biosolids processing options (such as mechanical dewatering).

The findings and conclusions presented in this TM are based on the input provided by RWF staff and experience readily accessible within CH2M HILL given the time frame and budget assigned to this work. Limited research of technical publications and online media was conducted. Solids loadings and estimated costs for mechanical dewatering were provided by the RWF staff. Limited information from equipment vendors was obtained to aid in developing and evaluating alternatives.

3.0 BACKGROUND
This section presents background information on the current lagoon and drying bed configuration and operation, and an overview of the RWF odor goals to aid in understanding of the evaluations and conclusions presented in this TM.

3.1 Existing Residuals Solids Management
Anaerobically digested biosolids are pumped to the residual solids management (RSM) facility to be further stabilized and dewatered. The RSM facility includes 29 sludge lagoons and 20 drying beds, Figure 3-1. The lagoons are operated on a 4-year cycle to provide additional pathogenic inactivation, and using the drying beds to produce a Class A air-dried biosolids of approximately 80-85 percent total solids (TS). The lagoons are operated in four zones, each with seven or eight individual lagoons. Within any 12-month period, one zone receives anaerobically digested sludge (Year 1 filling lagoons) that is pumped from the digesters, two zones of lagoons are inactive to allow the biosolids to further stabilize (Year 2 and 3 lagoons), and one block (Year 4 lagoon) is dredged and the biosolids are pumped to the drying beds over a 6-month period. The biosolids are evenly distributed in the drying beds and are air dried and Attachment D
29 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 8 of 29 turned periodically using a Scat. Annually in September, the drying bed biosolids are stockpiled for haul out to the adjacent Newby Island Landfill and utilized for alternative daily cover (ADC).

Figure 3-1 Existing RWF Lagoons and Drying Beds
Attachment D
30 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 9 of 29

3.2 RWF Odor Goal
An odor goal and odor fence line was established as part of the odor study to guide planning for odor reduction at the RWF. An odor goal was selected so that at worst case odor emission levels, public nuisance triggers are not exceeded to result in complaints or a confirmed regulatory odor violation. In selecting the odor goal for the RWF, compliance with BAAQMD regulations, input from the community surrounding the RWF, and cost of odor reduction were considered. Odor goals at similar wastewater treatment facilities in the San Francisco bay area and nationally were also reviewed to understand regional and national odor goal trends.

The RWF is currently in compliance with the BAAQMD odor-related regulations and has not received a confirmed BAAQMD Odor Violation. However, more stringent community- based odor goals and criteria were considered for the RWF given the significant number of “unconfirmed” odor complaints from the community surrounding the facility.

In general, a more stringent offsite goal will require greater odor controls and associated costs while a less stringent offsite goal can result in a greater risk of offsite odor complaints. As a result, a balance between available funding and risk of odor complaints was used to determine an appropriate odor goal for the RWF. An odor goal typically comprises three criteria: odor concentration, odor duration, and odor frequency.

3.2.1 RWF Odor Concentration Criterion
The odor concentration criterion is the detection threshold, in D/T, that is selected to be achieved at the odor fence line. An odor concentration criterion of 5 D/T was selected for the RWF. The 5 D/T criterion corresponds with the lower range at which most people can detect the presence of an odor above background distractions.

City adopted the 5 D/T odor goal for RWF in its Odor Control Strategy approved by Council in December 2014, which was consistent with the 5 D/T criterion established in the PMP and the EIR adopted by City of San Jose City Council on November 19, 2013, and the aforementioned regulatory standard set by the BAAQMD. The 5 D/T criterion is also consistent with odor planning goals currently established by other wastewater treatment plants in similar settings in the San Francisco bay area.

3.2.2 RWF Odor Duration Criterion
Odor duration refers to the amount of time an odor event exceeding the selected concentration criterion occurs. Longer duration odor events are more likely to pose a nuisance than shorter events, other factors being equal. When odor impacts are evaluated using dispersion models, the averaging period over which the input meteorological data are gathered should correspond to the duration criterion.

For the RWF, 1 hour is the shortest averaging period available. A duration of 1 hour represents a reasonable duration criterion because an odor event lasting 1 hour is likely to pose a Attachment D
31 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 10 of 29 nuisance. Additionally, the 1-hour duration criterion is a common industry practice representing an acceptable level of conservativism. For these reasons, the RWF selected a 1-hour odor duration goal.

3.2.3 RWF Odor Frequency Criterion
The odor frequency criterion corresponds to the number of annual occurrences that the odor concentration criterion is exceeded beyond the odor fence line. Because the odor duration criterion and the meteorological data averaging period is 1 hour, the frequency criterion is stated in terms of the number of hours per year during which the concentration criterion is exceeded offsite. For example, an odor frequency goal of 100 percent corresponds to no allowable hours of annual exceedance.

The RWF selected 99 percent as the odor frequency goal based on common industry practice and an acceptable level of conservativism. This means that the odor goal may be exceeded beyond the odor fence line location no more than 1 percent of the hours in a year, or no more than 88 hours.

3.2.4 Peaking Factor Criterion
Peaking factors are used to augment concentration and duration goals in recognition of the variation in odor concentration over the course of any selected interval. Peaking factors are commonly used in dispersion modeling to compensate for meteorological data that are not available with averaging periods shorter than 1 hour. Peaking factors may also be applied to modeling results to offset the inability of dispersion models to capture calm and very low wind speed conditions. The San Jose airport meterological data are limited by the airport wind speed meter which only records wind speeds 1 meter per second or higher (even though the AERMOD dispersion model can handle wind speeds down to 0.5 meter per second). That has resulted in 800 calm hours that cannot be modeled per year—a significant portion of time when impacts are likely but not counted by the model. Three-minute peaking factors are recommended as a means to add conservatism and offset the inability to model calms. Three minutes is recommended because it is considered the shortest duration of an odor event that would be noticeable by most people.

Based on experience at other similar facilities, the combination of 5 D/T concentration, 1 hour averaging with 3-minute peaking and 99 percent frequency criteria is expected to result in a successful level of odor control.

3.2.5 RWF Fence Line
The odor fence line is the location at which the 5 D/T odor goal will be met following completion of odor abatement projects. Odors that emanate beyond this fence line will be less than the 5 D/T odor goal and are expected to be acceptable to the surrounding community and stakeholders.

Attachment D
32 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 11 of 29 The City adopted for the RWF, in its Odor Control Strategy approved by City Council in December 2014, the odor fence line shown in Figure 3-2. The RWF odor fence line was selected to generally coincide with the RWF property boundary with the primary except being in the southern portion of the property where the odor fence line is set-back from the southproperty line to exclude the RWF buffer lands . The south set-back is compatible with future land use as defined in the PMP. Figure 3-2 also shows potential modifications to the odor fence line that can be considered in the future once the selected RWF odor goal is achieved.

Figure 3-2 RWF Odor Fence Line

4.0 ODOR CONTOURS FOR THE LAGOONS AND DRYING BEDS
Dispersion modeling was performed to estimate the offsite odor impacts of the current lagoon and drying bed operations, and during and at the conclusion of decommissioning.

4.1 Existing Lagoon and Drying Bed Operation
Figure 4-1 shows the baseline odor impacts of all lagoons plus drying beds as operated today.

This corresponds to the baseline condition modeled as part of the odor study. The figure shows that the lagoons and drying beds do not comply with the RWF odor goal: the RWF odor goal, Attachment D
33 LEGEND
---
RWF property boundary
RWF odor fence line
Potential future modifications to fence line following completion of odor abatement projects and dependent on future land use 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 12 of 29 represented by the contour labelled 88 hours (exceedances of the 5 D/T, 1 hour, 99 percent compliance goal) reaches beyond the RWF odor fence line (shown in orange).

Figure 4-1 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances—Lagoons plus Drying Beds

4.2 Lagoon and Drying Bed Decommissioning
A decommissioning strategy for the lagoons and drying beds following implementation of mechanical dewatering has not been developed by the CIP biosolids team. To estimate potential odor impacts during decommissioning, a simplified decommissioning approach was assumed as follows:
x Discharge of digested biosolids to the lagoons would cease once mechanical dewatering (or another means to process biosolids for reuse) is in service. x During this first year of decommissioning, the drying bed biosolids would be stockpiled and hauled away in September. The Year 4 lagoon biosolids would be dredged and pumped to the drying beds the following spring, air-dried, and removed the following September.
x Once the Year 4 lagoons are dredged in the spring, they would be decommissioned as follows:
– Each lagoon would be dewatered—any standing water would be pumped and returned to the RWF for treatment..
– Any residual biosolids would be allowed to dry in the open-air.

Attachment D
34 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 13 of 29 – The residual lagoon material would be removed in September and October, before the rainy season. Since the bottoms of the lagoons are not graded to enable runoff of leachate and may not be suitable to operate a Scat for periodic turning, the residual biosolids may be wetter than that produced in the drying bed. However, it is assumed the stockpiling and hauling would be as for the drying beds. x The following spring, the next oldest lagoons (now Year 4 lagoons ) would be dredged and pumped to the drying beds, air-dried, and removed the following September, and the lagoon emptying and dewatering would commence. This process would be repeated for each of the next 2 years until all lagoons are emptied of biosolids and decommissioned. x Following the final hauling of biosolids from the drying beds, any residual biosolids would be scraped from the beds and hauled away. This would constitute drying bed decommissioning.

4.2.1 Odors during Decommissioning
Odors from the lagoons containing 2, 3, and 4 year old biosolids and from the drying beds would be similar to existing odors. Since the RSM team has no experience dewatering a lagoon and CH2M HILL staff has no representative experience, it is assumed that the worst case condition during lagoon decommissioning will follow dredging and removal of any standing water, when residual biosolids at the bottom of a lagoon are exposed. It is assumed that the dewatered lagoon odor concentration will be comparable to that of the drying beds and that all lagoon residuals in a zone will be exposed at the same time.

The worst case odor assumptions during each year of this decommissioning scheme are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Lagoon and Drying Bed Decommissioning Worst Case Odor Assumptions Decommissioning Year Lagoon D/T Drying Bed D/T
1—cease pumping digested biosolids to
lagoons, dredge Year 4 lagoons to drying
beds; dewater Year 4 lagoons
1 block = Year 1 D/T
1 block = Year 2 D/T
1 block = Year 3 D/T
1 block = drying bed D/T
Same as baseline
2—dredge year 4 lagoon and pump to
drying bed; dewater Year 4 lagoons; 1
zone of lagoons decommissioned
1 block = Year 2 D/T
1 block = Year 3 D/T
1 block = drying bed D/T
Same as baseline
3—dredge Year 4 lagoon and pump to
drying bed; dewater Year 4 lagoon; 2
zones of lagoons decommissioned
1 block = Year 3 D/T
1 block = drying bed D/T
Same as baseline
4—dredge Year 4 lagoon and pump to
drying bed; dewater Year 4 lagoon; 3
zones of lagoons decommissioned
1 block = drying bed D/T Same as baseline
5—all lagoons and drying beds
decommissioned
No odor No odor
Attachment D
35 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 14 of 29 Based on the above assumptions, the greatest odor generation would occur during the first year of decommissioning. This condition was modeled to determine whether offsite odors during decommissioning would be the same, less than, or greater than current impacts from the lagoon and drying bed operations. Note that in addition to the lagoons and drying beds, emissions from the mechanical dewatering facility (or other biosolids processing) odor control system would also impact offsite odors. Figure 4-2 shows the estimated offsite odor impacts from the assumed Year 1 decommissioning plus the controlled mechanical dewatering and truck loadout facility.

Figure 4-2 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Lagoons plus Drying Beds Worst Case Decommissioning plus Dewateri
ng and Loadout Facility with Odor Control

5.0 ESTIMATED COST OF ODOR CONTROL FOR THE DEWATERING

AND TRUCK LOADOUT FACILITY
Alternatives for odor control for the dewatering and truck loadout facility are being evaluated as part of the odor study. At this time, the placeholder technology is a covered biofilter with a stack.

The CIP Triple Bottom Line Plus (TBL+) evaluation of technology alternatives and development of estimated costs is ongoing and will be included in the Odor and Corrosion Study Report.

6.0 ODOR CONTOURS FOR THE DIGESTERS AND DAFT
This section presents dispersion modeling results for the digesters and DAFT for the baseline condition and for the future digester and DAFT configuration.

Attachment D
36 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 15 of 29

6.1 Existing Digester and DAFT Operation
Figure 6-1 shows the baseline odor impacts of the digesters and DAFT as currently operated.

The odor contributions from these facilities include: one digester pressure vacuum reducing valve (PVRV) release and surface emissions from the DAFT operation for waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening. These facilities do not individually or together result in offsite odor impacts.

Figure 6-1 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Digesters and DAFT Baseline Condition

6.2 Future Digester and DAFT Operation
Rehabilitation of the RWF digesters is scheduled for completion by year 2023 and will include installation of new fixed covers and conversion to the TPAD process. Operation to produce Class A TPAD biosolids will transition over several years. As part of this project, the DAFT will be converted to cothicken primary sludge and WAS. Odor control will be included in the DAFT conversion. In addition, a new biogas storage tank is currently under construction.

In the future it is assumed that the new PVRVs installed on the rehabilitated digester will operate infrequently; thus, no odor contribution is assumed from the digesters or the biogas storage tank. The odor control design assumptions for the cothickening DAFT were modeled based on design criteria provided by the designer. The highest max hour concentration for the Attachment D
37 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 16 of 29 future DAFT odor control system is predicted to be less than 1 D/T; no contour exists. These facilities do not individually or together result in offsite odor impacts.

7.0 FEASIBILITY TO RETAIN USE OF LAGOONS AND DRYING BEDS

AND COMPLY WITH RWF ODOR GOAL
This section presents the evaluation of alternatives to retain use of the lagoon and drying bed operation for biosolids processing and comply with the RWF fence line odor goal. This work was conducted with two parallel activities:
x A sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the odor reduction that would be necessary to meet the RWF fence line odor goal using the lagoons and drying beds. x Alternatives were evaluated to modify the lagoon and drying bed operation to potentially achieve the fence line odor goal.

The RWF AERMOD baseline odor dispersion model was utilized to determine the odor reduction that would be required for the lagoons and drying beds to achieve the fence line odor goal.

7.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Required Odor Reduction to Achieve Fence Line Odor Goal
It is important to understand the current impact that the lagoons and drying beds have on offsite odors as a starting point. As was presented in Figure 4-1, the lagoons and drying beds together significantly impact offsite odors. The odor impact of the lagoons and drying beds individually are shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2. The lagoons and drying beds together and individually exceed the fence line odor goal.

Attachment D
38 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 17 of 29 Figure 7-1 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Lagoons Baseline Condition Figure 7-2 Number of 5 D/T Exceedances: Drying Beds Baseline Condition Attachment D
39 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 18 of 29 It is also important to understand the relative odor of the four lagoon blocks before exploring the potential to reduce the lagoon odors and achieve the fence goal. Results of the sampling data obtained in four sampling events at the RWF during 2011, 2012, and 2014 show that the Year 1 lagoon block, which receive digested biosolids pumped directly from the digesters, are more odorous than the Year 2, 3, and 4 lagoon blocks where the biosolids is more stabilized. For comparison, the odor concentration selected to model the Year 1 lagoon block is 840 D/T. The Year 2, 3, and 4 lagoon blocks were modeled based on 360 D/T, 180 D/T, and 230 D/T respectively.

7.1.1 Reducing D/T to Achieve Fence Line Odor Goal: All Lagoons and Drying Beds in Service
The D/T levels of all lagoons are relatively low as compared with many wastewater treatment plant odors. For example, the primary clarifier quiescent surface is modeled with a baseline odor of 24,000 D/T and the primary effluent equalization basin is modeled with a baseline odor of 2,100 D/T. However, the acreage over which lagoon odors are emitted is tremendous. Thus, even relatively low odors can result in an offsite impact. This is the also the case with the drying beds, which are modeled with a baseline odor of 400 D/T.

Of the four lagoon blocks, the D/T of the Year 2, 3, and 4 lagoons is already quite low— comparatively on the order of the discharge from a well performing odor control biofilter. Thus, it is unlikely to expect to reduce the Year 2, 3, and 4 lagoon odors significantly. It may be possible to reduce the D/T of the Year 1 lagoons to that of the Year 2 lagoon D/T; this condition was modeled and is presented in Figure 7-3. The modeling assumed that all lagoons and drying beds would be in service and process existing biosolids quantities, and be operated as today with the exception of any modifications required to reduce the D/T of the Year 1 lagoons. Note that as biosolids quantities increase in the future, the additional solids would need to be processed elsewhere to not impact odors from the lagoons and drying beds; processing of additional solids in the lagoons and drying beds would likely increase odors.

Based on the modeling results, it’s concluded that reducing the Year 1 lagoons D/T to that of the Year 2 lagoons will not achieve the fence line goal.

Attachment D
40 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 19 of 29 Figure 7-3 5 D/T Exceedances with All Lagoons and Drying Beds in Service; Year 1 Lagoon D/T = Year 2 D/T; Existing Solids Loading

7.1.2 Reduce Acreage of Lagoons and Drying Beds to Achieve Fence Line Odor Goal To understand what portion of the RSM system could remain in service and achieve the fence line odor goal if no modifications were made to current operations, the dispersion model was run assuming 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent of the lagoons and drying beds would be taken out of service. The modeling assumed that an equal percentage of each individual lagoon and drying bed would be taken out of service for each scenario, rather than selecting an entire block to be taken out of service (such as removing all Year 4 lagoons to result in 75 percent of the total in service). It is recognized that this is not how RSM would be modified if this were implemented, but was assumed to simplify the modeling.

The modeling results, presented in Figure 7-4, show that less than 25 percent of the lagoons and drying beds could remain in service if operated as today and still achieve the fence line odor goal. For this analysis, it is assumed that all lagoons and drying beds would be loaded at existing solids loading rates; therefore, more than 75 percent of the current biosolids produced would need to be processed elsewhere as well as additional future biosolids elsewhere.

Attachment D
41 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 20 of 29 Figure 7-4 5 D/T exceedances versus Percentage of Lagoons and Drying Beds in Service

7.1.3 Impact of TPAD on Future Biosolids Quantity and Odor The above sensitivity analysis was based existing biosolids quantities. However, changes in future biosolids quantities and their odor characteristics following conversion to the TPAD process were considered.

TPAD is expected to result in approximately 5 percent greater volatile solids destruction, which will result in less biosolids on a dry ton basis. However, the digested biosolids quantities produced by TPAD on a flow basis will not change significantly. RSM staff report that the lagoon capacity is limited on a flow basis, not solids loading, and that they are operating at capacity.

Any biosolids volume reduction resulting fromthe TPAD operation is not expected to create significant additional lagoon capacity.

Available data on TPAD sludge odors are inconclusive as to whether there is a significant difference in odor concentration as compared with mesophilic anaerobic digestion sludge. The data indicate that when TPAD sludge is stored, it may take longer for it to reach peak odor releases as compared with mesophilic anaerobic digestion sludge. However, the relevance of this was not considered significant for RSM lagoon operations as the digested solids are discharged directly into the lagoons and comingled with other biosolids.

Some plants operating TPAD experience increased ammonia odors. Therefore, it is concluded that the conversion to TPAD will not improve available lagoon capacity or reduce odors in the Attachment D
42 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 21 of 29 lagoons. The potential for greater odors resulting from ammonia should be considered if continued use of the lagoons with TPAD operation is considered.

7.2 Alternatives to Reduce Lagoon and Drying Bed Odors
Alternatives to modify the lagoon and drying bed operation to potentially meet the fence line odor goal were identified collaboratively by the CIP biosolids transition team, RSM operations staff, and odor study team. The alternatives identified fell into the following categories:
x Oxygenated water cap: create a functional oxygenated water cap on top of the lagoons to inhibit the release of odors
x Covers: cover the lagoon or drying bed surface to prevent the release of odors x Reduce footprint: reduce the surface area of the lagoons and drying beds for odor emissions
x Reduce the odor of the biosolids before discharge to the lagoons x Other modifications
Each of the alternatives was screened to assess the feasibility to implement at the RWF.

Combinations of alternatives were not considered at this level of evaluation, e.g., reducing the lagoon footprint in combination with reducing odor of the biosolids before discharge was not considered. Each of the alternatives is briefly described below along with conclusions regarding their feasibility to achieve the fence line odor goal.

7.2.1 Oxygenated Water Cap
A water cap is a depth of water on top of the lagoon solids, typically 3 to 6 feet deep. The water cap provides a region of low BOD where sufficient dissolved oxygen (DO) can be established to oxidize odor compounds from the underlying biosolids before they are released to the atmosphere, including ammonia, sulfide, and organics. This mechanism is limited by the rate DO enters the water cap from the atmosphere. To function, natural reaeration must be faster than the flux of odorants from the underlying sludge. The DO is generated by algae during daylight hours so the water cap must be able to generate enough residual DO to last during the night. To maintain effective DO, surface aeration may be required.

The lagoons currently operate with a 12- to 14-inch deep water cap. This depth is not sufficient to inhibit release of odors from the lagoons. Table 7-1 summarizes the alternatives that were identified to establish an oxygenated water cap on the lagoons.

Attachment D
43 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 22 of 29 Table 7-1 Oxygenated Water Cap Alternatives
Alternative
Percent of
Existing
Lagoons/Drying
Beds Retained
Impact to
RSM
Operations
Potential to
Achieve
Odor Goal
Feasibility of
Implementation
Oxygenated Water Cap
Objective: Provide an oxygenated barrier to reduce odorous emissions from lagoons.

Establish Water Cap
Increase height of
existing berms
around each cell by
3 to 6 feet using
soil
Lagoons: 100%,
though increasing
height of sloped
berms would
reduce capacity of
lagoons
Drying Beds: 100%
Impacts to
existing dredge
operations
would need to
be resolved.

Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option
Geotechnical
and structural
feasibility
unknown
Increase height of
existing berms
around each cell by
3 to 6 feet to using
vertical walls (sheet
pile or other
construction)
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds: 100%
Impacts to
existing dredge
operations
would need to
be resolved.

Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option
Geotechnical
and structural
feasibility
unknown
Maintain existing
lagoon geometry
and reduce quantity
of biosolids
processed to
enable capacity for
3 to 6 feet water
cap
Lagoons: 100%,
though reduced
capacity.

Drying Beds: 100%
Maximum 75%
of existing
biosolids
quantities can
be processed
in lagoons
Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option
Feasible, but
requires
alternate
biosolids
processing for
more than 25%
of existing
biosolids
Oxygenate Water Cap
Install surface
brush aerators
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds: 100 %
Could be
implemented
without
impacting
lagoon
dredging
Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option
Feasible;
precedence well
established.

Attachment D
44 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 23 of 29 Table 7-1 Oxygenated Water Cap Alternatives
Alternative
Percent of
Existing
Lagoons/Drying
Beds Retained
Impact to
RSM
Operations
Potential to
Achieve
Odor Goal
Feasibility of
Implementation
Install fine bubble
diffusers; requires
diffuser header,
diffusers, and
blower.

Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds: 100%
Impacts to
existing dredge
operations
would need to
be resolved.

Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option
Not feasible:
mechanically
complex to
operate and
maintain; fouling
of diffusers a key
concern; no
precedence of
use identified.

7.2.1.1 Application at RWF
Of the alternatives considered, the most feasible combination to establish and oxygenate a water cap is to: maintain existing lagoon geometry and reduce quantity of biosolids processed to enable capacity for 3- to 6-foot water cap and install surface brush aerators As discussed in Section 7.1.1, it is not expected that the odors from the Year 2, 3, and 4 lagoons can be reduced significantly. Therefore use of an oxygenated water cap to reduce lagoon odors would be focused on the Year 1 lagoons. Since the feed zone rotates annually, a 3- to 6-foot deep water cap would need to be established at all lagoons. At current solids loads, the quantity of biosolids processed by the lagoons would need to be reduced by about 25 percent to enable sufficient depth for an effective water cap. This biosolids quantity (25 percent of current solids loading and all future increased solids flow) would need to be diverted to an alternative dewatering facility for processing.

Brush aerators would be utilized in conjunction with the increased water cap to oxygenate the lagoon surface and would be installed in the feed lagoons in each of the fourblocks . A minimum of 0.10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) DO is recommended for an effective water cap. The specific DO required for the RWF will depend on BOD of the biosolids and its settleability. The brush aerators will float on the surface of the lagoons and use a spinning, horizontal rotor assembly that shears and mixes the water cap. During dredging, the brush aerators can be moved clear of the dredges by detaching them from their anchorages on the shore and floated to the edge of the lagoons. The aerators would be sized to agitate only the water cap. However, the sludge solids are “fluffy” and may be entrained in the water cap in the vicinity of the aerator. Any sludge solids that migrate into the water cap would increase the BOD in the water cap and impact its intended performance. Any water odorants within the water cap could be stripped out during aeration, if DO levels are less than 0.1 mg/L.

Attachment D
45 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 24 of 29

7.2.1.2 Precedence at Other Facilities
There is precedence of successfully managing odor emissions from sludge lagoons with a water cap from our work locally with Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), and with Melbourne Water in Australia. However, the performance of a water cap for odor control is highly specific to the site and sludge and the facility’s odor goal. SRCSD has a comparable sludge lagoon footprint to RWF, but the lagoons are in the middle of a large facility with no close neighbors. On a much smaller scale, DSRSD successfully operates sludge lagoons to meet a 4 D/T goal. DSRSD operates their sludge lagoons per seasonal set points and use brush aeration during transitional periods.

7.2.1.3 Conclusion
An oxygenated water cap would not achieve the RWF odor goal. Given the large surface area at the RWF and the 5 D/T fence line goal, even relatively low D/T emissions could result in offsite impacts. This was demonstrated by the sensitivity modeling discussed in Section 7.1.

7.2.2 Covers on Lagoons and Drying Beds
Alternatives considered to cover the lagoons and drying beds to contain odors, some in combination with odor control, are presented in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2 Covering Alternatives
Alternative
Percent of
Existing
Lagoons/Drying
Beds Retained
Impact to RSM
Operations
Potential to
Achieve Odor
Goal
Feasibility of
Implementation
Lagoon and Drying Bed Covers
Objective: Contain odors to prevent release to atmosphere, or contain and treat with odor control.

Floating
cover on
surface of
lagoon (not
feasible for
drying bed)
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds: 100%
Cover would need
to be removed for
dredge operations;
alternatively,
submerged
dredge system
may be possible.

Highly effective
when in place;
odors could be
greater when
removed for
dredging and
cover
maintenance.

Requires
modeling.

Complex and costly to
engineer, install, and
maintain; could be same
order of magnitude as
mechanical dewatering.

Fixed cover
on lagoons
with odor
control
system
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds: 100%
Covers would
need to be tall
enough to
accommodate
dredge, or be
removed for
May be possible
to achieve odor
goal if removal
for dredging not
required; requires
Complex and costly to
engineer, install, and
maintain; could be same
order of magnitude as
mechanical dewatering.

Attachment D
46 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 25 of 29 Table 7-2 Covering Alternatives
Alternative
Percent of
Existing
Lagoons/Drying
Beds Retained
Impact to RSM
Operations
Potential to
Achieve Odor
Goal
Feasibility of
Implementation
dredging; consider
alternative dredge
system.
modeling. Footprint may not be
available for large biofilter
or other odor control
system.

Fixed cover
on drying
beds with
odor control
system
Drying Beds: 100% Impact to drying
performance
unknown.

Covers would
need to be
removed to
accommodate
stockpiling and
hauling (covers
that are tall
enough to
accommodate
stockpiling would
be a building).

Would not
achieve odor goal
during annual
stockpiling and
hauling.

Complex and costly to
engineer, install, and
maintain; could be same
order of magnitude as
mechanical dewatering.

Footprint may not be
available for large biofilter
or other odor control
system.

7.2.2.1 Application at RWF
Compatibility of any type of cover with the lagoon dredging operations appears to be the fundamental operational issue with this approach. RSM operates four floating lagoon dredges which operate on cables that run longitudinally in each lagoon. The dredges are moved between lagoons as each is cleared of solids during dredging season. The covers would either need to be removable or be constructed tall enough to accommodate the dredge.

Odor reduction could be highly effective and possibly achieve the fence line odor goal when the covers are in place. However when removed, floating covers may increase odors above baseline levels and exceed the odor goal. With structural covers, a ventilation system would evacuate odorous air from the head space for treatment with odor control. A large biofilter, or multiple biofilters, would be appropriate for this application. Structural covers for the drying beds are most compatible with the drying operation, but may lengthen the time required for drying or achieve a wetter cake. To accommodate the Scat and loadout equipment, a building would be required. Given the size of building required, other methods of dewatering appear more practical.

Attachment D
47 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 26 of 29

7.2.2.2 Conclusion
Covering alternatives are considered not feasible due to the complexity of installing and maintaining covers to be compatible with RSM operations. Costs for covers were not estimated; however, it is expected that they would be significant and may be of similar magnitude as mechanical dewatering or other biosolids processing systems.

7.2.3 Reduce Footprint
The feasibility of reducing the footprint of the lagoons and drying beds to achieve the odor goal was evaluated in the sensitivity analysis presented in Section 7.1.2. To achieve the fence line odor goal, less than 25 percent of the existing lagoons and drying beds can remain in service.

7.2.3.1 Application at RWF
To implement this alternative at the RWF, the lagoons and drying beds would need to be reconfigured to enable operating four lagoon blocks within less than 25 percent of the lagoon area. Preferably the reconfigured lagoons would be furthest from the RWF east property line (and offsite odor receptors). Reconfiguring the drying beds would be relatively simple if left in their existing location, selecting less than 25 percent of the drying beds nearest Zanker Road.

A mechanical dewatering and truck loadout facility would be required to process 75 percent of existing biosolids plus the additional solids projected for the CIP planning period.

7.2.3.2 Conclusion
This option is feasible; however, it retains use of less than 25 percent of the lagoon and drying beds. The cost to construct a smaller dewatering and loadout facility and reconfigure RSM must be compared against the cost of a standalone dewatering and loadout facility recommended in the CIP validation. In addition to capital, O&M, and NPV costs, this decision should weigh the risk of continuing to operate lagoons and drying beds. Continuing to operate a portion of RSM may also preclude the other uses of RWF lands as was planned for in the PMP.

7.2.4 Reduce Odor of Biosolids Upstream of Lagoons
The potential to reduce the odor of the biosolids before discharge to the lagoons and the resultant ability to achieve the fence line odor goal was considered. Table 7-3 presents the alternatives that were considered. Post-digestion chemical addition was considered feasible to implement at the RWF; however, it alone would not achieve the odor goal.

Attachment D
48 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 27 of 29 Table 7-3 Reduce Odor of Biosolids Upstream of Lagoons Alternative
Percent of
Existing
Lagoons/Drying
Beds Retained
Impact to
RSM
Operations
Potential to
Achieve
Odor Goal
Feasibility of
Implementation
Reduce Odor of Biosolids Upstream of Lagoons
Objective: Contain odors to prevent release to atmosphere Chemical addition
pre-digestion to
reduce the odor of
the sludge
discharged to the
lagoons
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds:
100%
Potentially
none.

Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option.

Chemical addition
could be
implemented.

Chemical addition
post-digestion to
reduce the odor of
the sludge
discharged to the
lagoons
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds:
100%
Potentially
none.

Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option.

Would impact
ongoing digester
design; no
precedence in this
application.

Oxidation ditch
upstream of
lagoons to reduce
the odor in the
sludge discharged
to the lagoons
Lagoons: 100%
Drying Beds:
100%
Could require
additional
staffing to
operate.

Will not
achieve odor
goal as a
standalone
option.

Oxidation
ditch may
also require
odor control.

No available land at
RSM.

Changes RWF
treatment process
(adds another
activated sludge
process, can be
energy intensive).

7.2.4.1 Application at RWF
This alternative involves chemical addition post-digestion to reduce the odor in the sludge that is discharged to the lagoons. In a WERF study (WERF 03-CTS-9T Phase 3 Odor Study), alum was proven to be effective at managing biosolids odor. H2S and ammonia are both important odor contributors based on sampling results at the RWF. Ammonia was measured at much higher mass concentrations, but H
2S has a much lower detection limit. Both odorants must be addressed to resolve the overall odor problem. Although alum targets sulfide in the sludge, total odors (including any contribution from ammonia) were shown to be reduced by reaction and binding mechanisms from the addition of alum in WERF studies. Following treatment of the sulfide odors with alum addition, the next predominant odor to be controlled is expected to be ammonia. Ammonia can be bound by the type of chemical used and/or in some cases treated with a side stream scrubber. Some chemicals strip or bind the ammonia up or move it into the liquid phase. The following is expected from liquid phase chemicals:

Attachment D
49 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 28 of 29 x An oxidant chemical will help with both ammonia and sulfide, but there will be interference from all the organics.
x A pH adjustor will help one to the detriment of the other and is not being considered. x A sulfide precipitate will remove sulfide and have no effect on ammonia. x Nitrate salts will probably not affect ammonia but will decrease sulfide.

However, it takes ambient levels of ammonia greater than 10 parts per million to be a potential odor nuisance. For comparison, hydrogen sulfide can be a nuisance at 8 parts per billion.

The data from WERF showed that an alum dose of 3 to 5 percent is effective at reducing total odors. To put this in perspective for the RWF, 12,000 gallons per day alum (as Al2 (SO4)4-14 H2O, 49 percent active fraction) would be required for a 4 percent dose at current solids loadings. The alum would be dosed via chemical metering pumps to the digested sludge pipeline, with an in-line static mixer downstream of the application point. Multiple chemical storage tanks with containment would be required for alum storage. In addition to the capital and operating costs associated with this new chemical feed system, the alum addition will also increase the quanity of the biosolids for processing and disposal.

7.2.4.2 Conclusion
Chemical addition alone would not achieve the odor goal. Given the large surface area of the lagoons and the 5 D/T fence line goal, even relatively low D/T emissions can result in offsite impacts. This was demonstrated by the sensitivity modeling discussed in Section 7.2. However, the biosolids loading to the lagoon would have lower odors than untreated biosolids, but piloting would be required to confirm the expected odor reduction.

7.2.5 Other Modifications
Other modifications were considered that could potentially achieve the odor goal, fully or in part.

None were considered feasible to implement or to significantly reduce odors at RSM.

Alternatives considered include:
x Modify RSM operations. Continuously dredging or shortening the dredging time were considered. Because the lagoons and drying beds are currently operated at capacity, RSM staff saw no opportunities to change operations without the ability to store significant quantities of sludge elsewhere.
x Concrete lining of the drying beds to shorten the time for dewatering. The drying beds are clay lined and are graded before receiving sludge to enable supernatant to collect on one side of the drying beds where it is pumped back to the supernatant collection channel and conveyed to the headworks. Concrete lining was not expectedto improve drying time.

One benefit of concrete-lined drying beds would be to avoid odors resulting from damp Attachment D
50 5/5/2015 TECH MEMO | Lagoon_Dryingbeds_Odor_Eval_TM_05-05.Doc 29 of 29 odorous soil under the stockpiles as they are removed. This alternative was eliminated as not being a benefit to odor reduction.
x Installation of aerosol odorant at the lagoon and drying bed perimeters to neutralize or mask odors. Effective contact of any aerosol with odorous air would be difficult given the large surface area of the lagoons and drying beds, particularly under moderate and high wind conditions. Use of aerosols also poses the potential for causing nuisance odors by introducing new smells that may be deemed offensive by RWF neighbors or perceived as harmful (chemicals).

8.0 CONCLUSIONS
No alternatives were identified that will retain full use of the lagoons and drying beds to process 100 percent of the existing RWF biosolids quantities and also achieve the fence line odor goal.

Continued use of the lagoons and drying beds can achieve the fence line odor goal if less than 25 percent of the current acreage remains in service. An alternate means of processing the remaining biosolids would be required, such as a mechanical dewatering and loadout facility provided with odor control.

If continued use of the lagoons and drying beds is to be considered, processing 25 percent or more of existing biosolids may be possible by also utilizing one or more of the alternatives considered in this TM, such as:
x Oxygenated water cap (recognizing that creating depth for an effective water cap would increase the acreage of lagoons required so optimizatingthe benefits of an effective water cap verses additional acreage would need to be evaluated). x Reducing the odor of the biosolids before discharge to the lagoons using chemical addition.
x Fixed or floating covers.

The cost of implementation of any lagoon and drying been modifications must be carefully evaluated. Pilot testing and dispersion modeling is recommended for both the oxygenated water cap and chemical feed options to confirm performance. In the case of the water cap, piloting can determine needed DO and oxidation reduction potential levels and provide data to establish appropriate standard operating procedures to manage odors.

Attachment D
51 






Attachment D - Map of Proposed Sites for New Dewatering Facility Attachment D
52