LITTLE MIAMI WWTP SOLIDS PLAN

Transcription

1 Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati LITTLE MIAMI WWTP SOLIDS PLAN Preliminary Engineering Feasibility Analysis Project ID FINAL DRAFT January 15, 2016

2 Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan LITTLE MIAMI WWTP SOLIDS PLAN Final Draft Preliminary Engineering Feasibility Analysis Prepared for: Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati Bradley Olson. PE, BCEE Project Manager Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc Cornell Road Suite 350 Cincinnati, Ohio Tel (513) Fax (513) Our Ref.: Date: January 15, 2016 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx i

3 CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary Introduction Evaluation of Alternatives Total Present Value Summary Recommendation Introduction Project Purpose Project Background Project Functional Requirements Solids Quantities Approach Selection of Alternatives Description of Alternatives & Technologies Alternative No. 0 Haul Dewatered Solids from the Muddy Creek and Little Miami WWTPs to a Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP Alternative No. 1 Rehab Existing Incinerator; Existing Source MACT Compliance Description General Arrangement O&M Discussion Alternative No. 2 Replace Existing Incinerator; Modified (New) Source MACT Compliance Description General Arrangement O&M Discussion Alternative No. 3 Incineration via Janicki Industries Omni Processor Description General Arrangement O&M Discussion Alternative No. 4 Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Quasar Energy Group Options) arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 1

4 3.5.1 Description General Arrangement O&M Discussion Alternative No. 5 Class A Land Application via partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Cambi) Description Alternatives Cost Comparison Alternative Advantages, Disadvantages, Screening And Conclusions General Centralized Solids Handling Incinerator Solutions Developing Technologies Contract Digestion/Land Application Solutions Conclusions Policy Considerations and Path Forward Alternative No. 0: Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP Alternative No. 2: Replace Existing Incinerator; Modified (New) Source MACT Compliance Alternative No. 4C: Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity MSDGC Recommendation Next Steps Preliminary Schedule TABLES Table 1. Alternative No. 0: Advantages and Disadvantages... 6 Table 2. Alternative No. 2: Advantages and Disadvantages... 6 Table 3. Alternative No. 4C: Advantages and Disadvantages... 7 Table 4. Sludge Truck Hauling Data... 9 Table 5. Current Solids Production Table 6. Alternative No. 1A: FBI Existing Source Scope and Equipment Price arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 2

5 Table 7. Alternative No. 1B: FBI Modified Source Scope and Equipment Price Table 8. Alternative No. 2: Modified Source Scope and Equipment Price Table 9. Alternatives Total Present Value Cost Comparison Table 10. Alternative No. 0: Advantages and Disadvantages Table 11. Alternative No. 2: Advantages and Disadvantages Table 12. Alternative No. 4C: Advantages and Disadvantages Table 13. Sludge Truck Hauling Data FIGURES Figure 1. Alternatives Total Present Value Cost Summary... 8 Figure 2. Alternative No. 3: Proposed Omni Processor Site within Little Miami WWTP Site Plan Figure 3. Alternative No. 3: Isometric View of Proposed Omni Processor Installation Figure 4. Alternative No. 3: Solids Receiving Schematic Figure 5. Alternative No. 3: Sludge Dewatering Schematic Figure 6. Alternative No. 3: Central Storage Schematic Figure 7. Alternative No. 3: Belt Press Dewatering Layout (EL ) Figure 8. Alternative No. 3: Belt Press Dewatering Layout (EL ) Figure 9. Alternative No. 3: Central Storage Area Plan Figure 10. Alternative No. 4: Solids Handling Triple Stack Building Plan View (EL ) Figure 11. Alternative No. 4: Solids Handling Triple Stack Building Plan View (EL ) Figure 12. Alternative No. 4: Solids Handling Triple Stack Building Section View Figure 13. Alternative No. 4: Little Miami WWTP Pipeline to Quasar Facility Site Plan Figure 14. Alternatives Total Present Value Cost Makeup Figure 15. Alternatives Screening Figure 16. Alternative No. 0 Sludge Hauling Schematic Figure 17. Revised Alternatives Screening Figure 18. Alternative No. 2 Sludge Hauling Schematic Figure 19. Alternative No. 4C Sludge Hauling Schematic arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 3

6 APPENDICES A... Alternatives Total Net Present Value Cost Tables B... Vendor Proposals C... Full Non-Economic Scoring D... Risk Register E... Schedule arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 4

7 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this evaluation is to prepare a preliminary engineering feasibility analysis that explores alternatives to solids disposal for the Little Miami WWTP. The Little Miami WWTP currently operates a single fluid bed incineration system that is in need of improvements to meet new regulatory emission standards as well as other improvements to make the process viable for the next 20 years. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) was prepared for this and had conducted previous studies that had suggested that it was in the MSDGC s best interest to cease incineration operation at the Little Miami WWTP and haul dewatered solids to a centralized incineration facility at Mill Creek WWTP where capacity is available. However, in the Fall of 2015, there was a change in policy away from centralization of solids handling at Mill Creek WWTP due to public concerns associated with increased trucking and traffic in and around the Mill Creek WWTP campus. Therefore, the need has arisen to revisit the future plan for Little Miami WWTP and the District s Solids Handling Master Plan. 1.2 Evaluation of Alternatives An alternatives analysis workshop was held on October 26, In addition to exploring alternatives to match the existing incineration practice, it was desired to explore a Class A land application alternative. Therefore, it was decided to explore the following alternatives: Alternative 0: Haul dewatered solids from the Muddy Creek and Little Miami WWTPs to a Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP. Alternative 1: Refurbish the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility. Alternative 2: Replace the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility with a new properly sized incinerator facility. Alternative 3: Replace the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility with a new Janicki Bioenergy Omni Processor Sludge Disposal Technology. Alternative 4: Evaluate and explore a partnership between MSDGC and the private entity with a third party solids management company to create a Class A biosolid with land application. Quasar Energy Group (Quasar) was chosen for purposes of the feasibility analysis. Arcadis subcontracted with Quasar to develop a concept design and provide a cost of service estimate. It was expressly conveyed to Quasar and understood that if this alternative was eventually chosen, that MSDGC would seek competitive contract proposals of which Quasar and others could propose. After the alternatives were selected, MSDGC explored options and obtained a preliminary proposal from Cambi. The Cambi process is a sludge conditioning process that precedes anaerobic digesters and produces a Class A Biosolid. The Cambi information is summarized in this report as Alternative 5 and the Cambi proposal is attached as an appendix. However, it must be noted that the schedule for this study did not allow for complete vetting of the Cambi proposal. Arcadis can evaluate this alternative more thoroughly if requested and Cambi would be able to respond to a competitive RFP if one is issued. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 5

8 Alternative 5: Replace the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility with a new Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) Sludge Treatment Technology with Anaerobic Digestion. The alternatives can be arranged into four groups based on their similarity; and as a result, they share many of the same advantages, disadvantages, and risks. The four groups are as follows: Centralized Solids Handling Alternative No. 0. Incineration Solutions Alternatives No. 1A, 1B, and 2. Developing Technologies Alternative No. 3. Contract Digestion/Land Application Solutions Alternatives No. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5. The advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives brought forward for consideration are shown in the tables below. Table 1. Alternative No. 0: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Provides the ability to operate the existing Mill Creek WWTP incineration facility more efficiently Eliminates the need to operate and maintain two incineration facilities Less potential for off-site odors Can operate independently of weather Disadvantages May forfeit the existing Little Miami WWTP air permit Requires hauling dewatered solids from Little Miami WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP Potential negative economic impact to Price Hill community Not as environmentally sustainable as land application of biosolids MSDGC will have complete control Table 2. Alternative No. 2: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Least potential for off-site odors Least amount of noise, odor, and traffic associated with truck hauling No change from current public stakeholder standpoint Disadvantages Not as environmentally sustainable as land application of biosolids Need to operate and maintain two incineration facilities Requires compliance with stricter air emission criteria effective March 2016 Can operate independently of weather MSDGC will have complete control arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 6

9 Table 3. Alternative No. 4C: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Recycle waste/produces renewable energy Regional benefit by including the acceptance of non-sewage sludge waste that is already being hauled out of our region Diversification of sludge disposal options Minimal capital improvements needed at Little Miami WWTP Disadvantages Greater potential for noise, odor, and traffic associated with truck hauling to land application sites Greater potential for odors MSDGC is not in control - potential for less reliable service due to reliance on third party for operation Land application of biosolids can be weather dependent Operational risk effectively transferred to third party More environmentally sustainable than incineration Reduction in hauling with two facilities - one near Muddy Creek WWTP and one near Little Miami WWTP 1.3 Total Present Value Summary Each alternative was broken down into line items corresponding to capital improvement projects that were required to comply with the functional requirements. Each item included the capital cost of the improvement and the annual cost that was associated with that item. Annual costs include electricity, labor, minor maintenance, and consumables (like polymer where applicable). Note, however, that incinerator fuel was included as a separate item and not combined as a consumable with incinerator related annual costs. The detailed summary cost sheets for each alternative are provided in Appendix A. The following figure illustrates the makeup of each alternative s total present value. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 7

10 Figure 1. Alternatives Total Present Value Cost Summary 1.4 Recommendation Based on objectives clearly laid out by the policy makers to reduce truck traffic, ensure some redundancy in operations and options, reduce and limit odors as well as deliver a cost effective solution, MSDGC Management recommends Alternative No. 4C for further development and implementation based on the following: Policy: This alternative is in-line with City and County policy to minimize trucking across the county in general and to Mill Creek WWTP in particular. The following table shows sludge truck hauling data across the alternatives brought forward under this evaluation: arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 8

11 Table 4. Sludge Truck Hauling Data Alternative No. 0 Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 4A Alternative No. 4C Sludge Hauling Route No. of Trucks per Weekday No. of Trucks per Weekday No. of Trucks per Weekday No. of Trucks per Weekday Regional Septage Hauling Taylor Creek WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (30.2 miles round trip) Taylor Creek WWTP to Muddy Creek WWTP (25.6 miles round trip) Indian Creek WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (32.8 miles round trip) Indian Creek WWTP to Muddy Creek WWTP (11.0 miles round trip) Muddy Creek WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (20.8 miles round trip) Muddy Creek WWTP to Little Miami WWTP (44.8 miles round trip) Sycamore Creek WWTP to Little Miami WWTP (52.2 miles round trip) Polk Run WWTP to Little Miami WWTP (50.0 miles round trip) Little Miami WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (17.4 miles round trip) Land Application Hauling from Little Miami WWTP Land Application Hauling from Muddy Creek WWTP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 Total % Hauling Increase Base Line Notes: (1) This table does not account for trucks already hauling food waste in the local area. 6.8% Hauling Increase 4.2% Hauling Increase Capital and Life-Cycle: The unique arrangement with a partnership between MSDGC and the private entity allows MSDGC to minimize capital outlay. As a result Alternative No. 4C has the 2nd lowest capital and life-cycle cost of all the alternatives. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 9

12 Environmental Sustainability: Land application allows for the ultimate nutrient recovery and recycle and minimizes consumption of commercial fertilizers. Furthermore, for poor soils, land application of biosolids is a proven soil reclamation technique to reestablish a normal functioning soil ecosystem. Municipal sludge can accelerate that process by years and even decades. Renewable Energy: The anaerobic digester facility will produce excess renewable energy for use at the Little Miami and Muddy Creek WWTPs. Regulation: Regulations at the federal and state levels are generally more favorable towards land application due to the environmental advantages of nutrient recovery and nutrient recycle. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 10

13 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Project Purpose The purpose of this evaluation is to prepare a preliminary engineering feasibility analysis that explores alternatives to solids disposal for the Little Miami WWTP. The Little Miami WWTP currently operates a single fluid bed incineration system that is in need of improvements to meet new regulatory emission standards as well as other improvements to make the process viable for the next 20 years. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) was prepared for this and had conducted previous studies that had suggested that it was in the MSDGC s best interest to cease incineration operation at the Little Miami WWTP and haul dewatered solids to a centralized incineration facility at Mill Creek WWTP where capacity is available. However, in the Fall of 2015, there was a change in policy away from centralization of solids handling at Mill Creek WWTP due to public concerns associated with increased trucking and traffic in and around the Mill Creek WWTP campus. Therefore, the need has arisen to revisit the future plan for Little Miami WWTP and the District s Solids Handling Master Plan. This document provides a high level screening of alternatives based on economic and non-economic criteria. It is anticipated that upon completion of this study that it will serve as the business case for the new solids management plan for this facility, and the necessary planning/design will be incorporated into MSDGC s Capital Improvement Program for immediate implementation. 2.2 Project Background In March 2016 more stringent sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) pollutant emissions controls limits dictated by the USEPA s SSI Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule standards will take effect. The findings of the recently completed MSDGC Solids Management Study (MSDGC Project No ) concluded that the costs of upgrading and maintaining the aging Little Miami WWTP incinerator to comply with the standards would be significantly higher than those associated with the alternate strategy considered for offsite solids disposal to the Mill Creek WWTP. As a result, MSDGC embarked on a course to decommission the Little Miami WWTP incinerator permanently by March 21, 2016 and direct solids historically processed at this facility to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. However, the decision has been made by MSDGC to not send additional solids to the Mill Creek WWTP and instead to re-evaluate the processes at the Little Miami WWTP and Muddy Creek WWTP. Besides the improvements required to meet the new SSI MACT standards, the Little Miami WWTP incinerator is also in need of reliability and service upgrades as the process is approaching nearly 20 years of service which is the expected useful life for the majority of incineration process equipment. The combination of emission upgrades and reliability and service upgrades will require significant investment. Therefore, MSDGC desires to explore other alternatives in addition to incineration to determine if incineration is still the proper technology or if new technologies or other business relationships exist that would be more advantageous to MSDGC moving forward. 2.3 Project Functional Requirements The Functional Requirements applicable to all solids handling scenarios are summarized as follows: arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 11

14 General Process maximum monthly solids loading. Minimize solids directed to landfill. Provide odor control, monitoring, and mitigation for all storage tanks, silos, and processing areas. Ensure adequate storage volumes that allow for changes in plant operation. Dewatering Process maximum monthly solids loading. For alternatives involving incineration, achieve 28 ± 2% solids to provide optimum use of the incinerator process and minimum auxiliary fuel consumption under this alternatives analysis. For all other alternatives, achieve 22 ± 2% solids. Process maximum monthly solids loading with 1 dewatering unit out of service. Provide firm capacity in auxiliary support systems to ensure dewatering can remain in service while auxiliary systems are undergoing maintenance. Provide adequate dewatered solids storage and feed capability to the greatest extent practical in order to ensure a consistent quality and quantity of dewatered solids material being fed to incineration under this alternatives analysis. 2.4 Solids Quantities The Little Miami WWTP currently processes solids from Little Miami, Polk Run, Sycamore Creek, and Muddy Creek WWTPs. Liquid sludge is hauled from Sycamore Creek and Polk Run WWTPs on a daily basis to Little Miami WWTP. Dewatered Solids is hauled from Muddy Creek WWTP, typically on a Monday thru Friday schedule. The solids quantities were assembled using previous solids handling reports. The following table displays the current production of sludge from the Little Miami WWTP. The Little Miami WWTP is one of three plants that is currently able to dewater sludge. Sludge from all other plants are currently hauled as a liquid sludge to either the Mill Creek WWTP or the Little Miami WWTP for dewatering and incineration. Table 5. Current Solids Production WWTP Average Production (dtpd) Peak Month Production (dtpd) Current Sludge Type Little Miami (incl PR&SC) Dewatered Muddy Creek Dewatered Total ~30 ~40 arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 12

15 2.5 Approach There have been recent solids related studies performed at the Little Miami WWTP. The technical and cost information contained in these reference studies was used in the development of this alternatives analysis. In some instances, Arcadis adjusted the information to ensure a proper comparison of the alternatives could be achieved. If the cost summary tables presented later in this alternatives analysis report, the source of each cost line item was identified. Arcadis developed some necessary capital and operations & maintenance (O&M) costs that were not available in previous reports. Since the studies had cost figures from several different years, the capital and O&M costs were normalized on a Q cost basis. The reference information is as follows: Little Miami WWTP Bundle Business Case Evaluation (Arcadis, September 2014). Little Miami WWTP Bundle Conceptual Design Report (Arcadis, October 2014). Little Miami Bundle Solids Stream Treatment Technical Memorandum (Arcadis, April 2013). Solids Management Study: MSDGC Solids Processing Capacity & Costs Technical Memorandum (Black and Veatch, November 2012). Solids Management Study: MSDGC Solids Handling and Processing Alternatives Analysis (Black and Veatch, March 2013 with addendum January 2014). 2.6 Selection of Alternatives An alternatives analysis workshop was held on October 26, In addition to exploring alternatives to match the existing incineration practice, it was desired to explore a Class A land application alternative. Therefore, it was decided to explore the following alternatives: Alternative 0: Haul dewatered solids from the Muddy Creek and Little Miami WWTPs to a Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP. Alternative 1: Refurbish the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility. Alternative 2: Replace the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility with a new properly sized incinerator facility. Alternative 3: Replace the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility with a new Janicki Bioenergy Omni Process Sludge Disposal Technology. Alternative 4: Evaluate and explore a partnership between MSDGC and the private entity with a third party solids management company to create a Class A biosolid with land application. Quasar Energy Group (Quasar) was chosen for purposes of the feasibility analysis. Arcadis subcontracted with Quasar to develop a concept design and provide a cost of service estimate. It was expressly conveyed to Quasar and understood that if this alternative was eventually chosen, that MSDGC would seek competitive contract proposals of which Quasar and others could propose. After the alternatives were selected, MSDGC explored options and obtained a preliminary proposal from Cambi. The Cambi process is a sludge conditioning process that precedes anaerobic digesters and arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 13

16 produces a Class A Biosolid. The Cambi information is summarized in this report as Alternative 5 and the Cambi proposal is attached as an appendix. However, it must be noted that the schedule for this study did not allow for complete vetting of the Cambi proposal. Arcadis can evaluate this alternative more thoroughly if requested and Cambi would be able to respond to a competitive RFP if one was issued. Alternative 5: Replace the existing Little Miami WWTP Incinerator Facility with a new Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) Sludge Treatment Technology with Anaerobic Digestion. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 14

17 3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES & TECHNOLOGIES This section describes each alternative and sludge disposal/treatment technology, as well as providing a summary of the major components that form the costs and non-economic scoring for each alternative associated with the Little Miami WWTP. The findings of the recently completed MSDGC Solids Management Study (MSDGC Project No ) by Black and Veatch concluded that the costs of upgrading and maintaining the aging Little Miami WWTP incinerator to comply with the standards would be significantly higher than those associated with the alternate strategy considered for offsite solids disposal to the Mill Creek WWTP. As a result, MSDGC embarked on a course to decommission the Little Miami WWTP incinerator permanently by March 21, 2016 and direct solids historically processed at this facility to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. Decommissioning the Little Miami incinerator also has advantages and disadvantages. Decommissioning the Little Miami incinerator will reduce the effort required by MSD to operate and maintain the aging systems. In addition, elimination of incineration at the Little Miami WWTP may forfeit the emission permit. It will be difficult to acquire such a permit in the future if incineration was warranted at the Little Miami WWTP in the future. MSDGC has begun discussions with USEPA and Ohio EPA regarding these issues. However, in the Fall of 2015, there was a change in policy away from the centralization of solids handling at the Mill Creek WWTP due to public concerns associated with increased trucking and traffic in and around the Mill Creek WWTP campus. The decision has been made by MSDGC to not send additional solids to the Mill Creek WWTP and instead to upgrade the processes at the Little Miami WWTP. For the completeness of the analysis, the previously recommended alternative is included in this evaluation under Alternative No. 0. These general advantages and disadvantages are referenced in the specific alternative descriptions below: 3.1 Alternative No. 0 Haul Dewatered Solids from the Muddy Creek and Little Miami WWTPs to a Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP The significant aspects of this alternative are as follows: The Incinerator at the Little Miami WWTP is abandoned. Sludge from the Little Miami WWTP is dewatered onsite and hauled to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. Sludge from the Polk Run and Sycamore Creek WWTPs is hauled as liquid to the Little Miami WWTP for dewatering and subsequent hauling to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. Dewatered solids from the Muddy Creek WWTP are hauled to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 15

18 The following capital improvement projects are required to implement this alternative: Mill Creek WWTP Emissions Upgrade: This project is already underway. It is necessary for compliance with the new MACT emission standards. New Solids Receiving Facility (and Emergency Solids Loadout): This is a new two-bay solids receiving facility as that will be required to accommodate the volume of solids that will be received from other plants. Dewatering Improvements: This project is necessary to provide a higher quality solids for more efficient incineration. Incinerator Solids Storage and Feed Improvements: This project is necessary to provide a wide spot in the solids stream prior to incineration. This will allow the dewatering centrifuges to operate at a rate independent from the incineration, allowing for more efficiency and convenience. Note: The liquid sludge from the Indian Creek and Taylor Creek WWTPs do not constitute a large enough volume to require a liquid receiving project. In this alternative they are assumed to be sent to the head of the plant. Little Miami WWTP Dewatering and Solids Loadout: Also known as the triple stack facility, it is a combination fo dewatering, storage, and offloading. This project is necessary because solids will need to be loaded and hauled offsite. The dewatering improvements will provide higher quality solids for more efficient incineration. Muddy Creek WWTP Centrifuge and Loadout: This project is already underway. It included dewatering improvements to provide a higher quality solids for more efficient incineration and loadout improvements. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 16

19 3.2 Alternative No. 1 Rehab Existing Incinerator; Existing Source MACT Compliance Description The significant aspects of this alternative are as follows: The Incinerator at the Little Miami WWTP is refurbished. Sludge from the Little Miami WWTP is dewatered and subsequently incinerated onsite Sludge from the Polk Run and Sycamore Creek WWTPs is hauled as liquid to the Little Miami WWTP to be dewatered and subsequently incinerated. Dewatered solids from the Muddy Creek WWTP are hauled to the Little Miami WWTP for Incineration. Arcadis subcontracted with Suez, Inc., the original equipment manufacturer of the incinerator to perform a site inspection. The recommendations of this refurbish option are supported by the manufacturer. Under this alternative the existing Fluid Bed Incinerator (FBI) vessel would be retained in its current condition. Upgrades to ancillary equipment would be required due to age and condition of existing equipment and for compliance with new MACT standards. This alternative has two sub-options which is dependent on whether the FBI system qualifies as an existing source or a modified source as defined by the MACT stipulations. A system is considered a modified source if major improvements have been implemented totaling greater than 50% of the original construction cost. This triggers additional emissions treatment under the requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart LLLL. If a system has not been modified in the manner described above it can be considered an existing source and would be subject to less emissions treatment under the requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart MMMM. Based on experience with the current system, Arcadis believes it is likely that the Little Miami WWTP FBI can qualify as an existing source (Alternative 1A). However, since this categorization is not certain, a cost estimate was generated for both the existing source and modified source sub option (Alternative 1B). Suez was contacted to provide budget pricing for refurbishing the existing FBI both as an existing and modified source. An onsite visual assessment of the major equipment and systems associated with the fluidized bed incinerator (FBI) facility was conducted by Arcadis with the incinerator manufacturer, Infilco Degremont, Inc. (subsidiary of Suez Environment) on November 19, The scope items covered under these two sub options and corresponding cost is shown in the following tables. The main changes to scope for providing upgrades to an existing source included eliminating the need for a WESP and eliminating the Demister/GAC Mercury removal system and instead including a SPC Module system. This scope and budget pricing is provided in the table below. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 17

20 Table 6. Alternative No. 1A: FBI Existing Source Scope and Equipment Price Scope Items Replace Primary Heat Exchanger Replace Secondary Heat Exchanger Replace Wet Scrubber with Venturi quench and provide new Caustic Addition system New SPC Module system Replace Fluidizing Air Blower Replace Preheat Burner New CEMS stack monitoring Integrated Controls, Field Instruments and PLC Replace Refractory Lined Ducting and expansion joints from the FBI Vessel to Scrubber Inlet Replace Sand System Lot of spare parts for all equipment provided Budgetary Estimate for Furnishing Equipment: $10,054,000 Estimated amount for MACT Compliance Equipment = 27% of total or $1,841,000 Estimated amount for Incineration Upgrade Equipment = 73% of total or $7,364,000 arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 18

21 Table 7. Alternative No. 1B: FBI Modified Source Scope and Equipment Price Scope Items Replace Primary Heat Exchanger Replace Secondary Heat Exchanger Replace Wet Scrubber with Venturi quench and provide new Caustic Addition system New Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) New Mercury Removal System with Demister and GAC Fixed Bed Polisher Replace Fluidizing Air Blower Replace Preheat Burner New CEMS stack monitoring Integrated Controls, Field Instruments and PLC Replace Refractory Lined Ducting and expansion joints from the FBI Vessel to Scrubber Inlet Replace Sand System Lot of spare parts for all equipment provided Budgetary Estimate for Furnishing Equipment: $13,637,000 Estimated amount for MACT Compliance Equipment = 46% of total or $6,273,000 Estimated amount for Incineration Upgrade Equipment = 54% of total or $7,364,000 In addition to the equipment to be supplied by Suez, additional capital cost items were identified for directly refurbishing the incinerations system and emissions controls. These items were applied to both the existing source and modified source sub options and are described below: Demolition of existing equipment to be replaced. Equipment installation - assumed 25% of quoted budget cost of equipment. New building to enclose the new Sand System to be provided by Suez. Process piping connection and valves. Electrical Work - assumed 12% of installed equipment cost. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 19

22 I&C Work for integrating the new system into plant DCS - assumed 6% of installed equipment cost. These items were added as line items to the cost estimate prior to a percentage escalation for design contingency (30%) and project soft costs (39%). Applying these escalation factors gave the total estimated capital costs for direct incinerator and emissions controls upgrades. There were also additional capital projects identified in the previous planning study that would be required if incineration was to be continued. These projects included: Dewatering Improvements. New Solids Storage and Incinerator Feed Improvements. Replace Ash Slurry and Conveyance System. These projects were previously cost estimated including contingencies and soft costs so they were applied to the total alternative capital expenditure as separate line items General Arrangement The refurbished FBI system will include both in-kind replacement of existing equipment and several new pieces of emissions controls equipment that will be located within the Incinerator Building. It is assumed that equipment being replaced in kind will be located in the same area as existing equipment which will be demolished. The new equipment is expected to be located in the vacant space which previously contained an old multiple hearth. The new pieces of equipment to be located in this area include: New GAC Absorber. New Demister. New WESP. New GAC Recharge Heat Exchanger. The general arrangement of these items will be provided within the space previously occupied by an old multiple hearth. A new Caustic feed system for the Wet Scrubber will also be provided. This system was located in the lower level of the Sludge Disposal Building so that it can be close to the Wet Scrubber. Based on this general arrangement analysis, it appears that all the new equipment should be able to fit in the available space. More specific locations for egress of demolished equipment and ingress of new equipment will need to be examined during a more detailed design phase O&M Discussion Operational and maintenance costs for the existing incineration system and related support systems were previously quantified in the District Wide Solids Planning Study. These cost were used as the estimated O&M cost for continuing to operate the refurbished existing incinerator. These costs include annual labor, materials, and consumables such as energy for each process evaluated. The annual operational cost items included: Dewatering. Solids Storage and Incinerator Feed. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 20

23 Incinerator O&M (including emissions controls). Ash Disposal. Incinerator Fuel Usage. Cost for incinerator fuel usage was assumed to be the same as current cost for fuel usage as the refurbished incinerator should operate approximately equal to current operations. There were also additional major maintenance items that occurred on the order of 5 to 15 year intervals. These major items were included in the 20 year life cycle on the years they were expected to occur as items separate from annual O&M. 3.3 Alternative No. 2 Replace Existing Incinerator; Modified (New) Source MACT Compliance Description The significant aspects of this alternative are as follows: The Incinerator at the Little Miami WWTP is replaced and resized. Sludge from the Little Miami WWTP is dewatered and subsequently incinerated onsite. Sludge from the Polk Run and Sycamore Creek WWTPs is hauled as liquid to the Little Miami WWTP to be dewatered and subsequently incinerated. Dewatered solids from the Muddy Creek WWTP are hauled to the Little Miami WWTP for Incineration. Under this alternative the existing FBI vessel would demolished and replaced by smaller vessel sized for a capacity of 50 dry tons per day. This sizing more closely matches the actual solids loading at the Little Miami WWTP. Upgrades to ancillary equipment and addition of new equipment for compliance with MACT standards as a new source would also be included in this alternative and subject to additional emissions treatment under the requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart LLLL. The existing Incinerator 1 FBI vessel would be demolished and the new FBI vessel installed in its place. Suez was contacted to provide budget pricing for providing a new FBI unit along with ancillary equipment including emission controls to meet MACT standards. The scope items covered under this quote and corresponding cost is given below. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 21

24 Table 8. Alternative No. 2: Modified Source Scope and Equipment Price Scope Items Replace reactor vessel with new 50 dtpd vessel including shell, refractory, tuyeres and sand bed support, and all required connections Installation of new reactor vessel Replace Primary Heat Exchanger Replace Secondary Heat Exchanger Replace Wet Scrubber with Venturi quench and provide new Caustic Addition System Replace air compressor and dryer Replace Sand System Replace Fluidizing Air Blower New Mercury Removal System with Demister and GAC Fixed Bed Polisher New NOx removal system including ammonia injection and storage Replace Preheat Burner Replace fuel train Replace high pressure water pumps for roof spray Replace Ash slurry pumps New CEMS stack monitoring Integrated Controls, Field Instruments and PLC Replace Refractory Lined Ducting and expansion joints from the FBI Vessel to Scrubber Inlet New stack to discharge to the environment Lot of spare parts for all equipment provided Replace support steel and platforms Budgetary Estimate for Furnishing Equipment: $19,521,000 arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 22

25 Adder for WESP (if needed) = $507,000 In addition to the equipment to be supplied by Suez, additional capital cost items were identified for directly refurbishing the incinerations system and emissions controls. These items were applied to both the existing source and modified source sub options and are described below: Existing building modifications Demolition of existing equipment to be replaced Equipment installation (other than reactor vessel) same installation cost as for refurbish as modified source sub-option described in previous section. New building to enclose the new Sand System to be provided by Suez. Process piping connection and valves Electrical Work - assumed 12% of installed equipment cost I&C Work for integrating the new system into plant DCS - assumed 6% of installed equipment cost These items were added as line items to the cost estimate prior to a percentage escalation for design contingency (30%) and project soft costs (39%). Applying these escalation factors gave the total estimated capital costs for direct incinerator and emissions controls upgrades. There were also additional capital projects identified in the previous planning study that would be required if incineration was to be continued. These projects included: Dewatering Improvements New Solids Storage and Incinerator Feed Improvements Replace Ash Slurry and Conveyance System These projects were previously cost estimated including contingencies and soft costs so they were applied to the total alternative capital expenditure as separate line items General Arrangement The new FBI reactor vessel will be located in the space currently occupied by Incinerator 1 which would be demolished. The ancillary equipment including new equipment for emissions controls would be located in the same areas as for the refurbished incinerator options O&M Discussion Operational and maintenance costs for the new incineration system is expected to be similar to the existing system with the main exception being a reduction in incinerator fuel use. The Incineration O&M costs previously quantified in the District Wide Solids Planning Study for the existing system also used for arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 23

26 the alternative of installing a new incinerator. The only change made to the O&M cost was a reduction of incinerator fuel use cost by 80%. The new vessel will be better sized to the actual solids loading for the unit and thus autogenous burn should be achieved a greater percentage of the time. 3.4 Alternative No. 3 Incineration via Janicki Industries Omni Processor Description The significant aspects of this alternative are as follows: The Incinerator at the Little Miami WWTP is removed. The Janicki Omni Processor is a new proprietary technology, being developed as a potential technology for providing wastewater processing, clean drinking water, and electricity in developing nations. In developing nations, fecal waste is typically stored in open latrines; these latrines are pumped out by trucks, which then dump the waste in places like rivers and streams. This dumping often leads to the contamination of drinking water. The Omni Processor is designed to use wet waste as a fuel source for generating electricity. The electricity and waste heat is used to treat the liquid contents of the waste to potable drinking water quality. The Omni Processor takes as input various types of dry waste, as well as raw septic sludge and dewatered sludge. As output, it produces electricity, treated water, ash, and exhaust. The combustion process is controlled in a fluidized sand bed, and downstream the exhaust is treated by absorbents and a bag house. The water treatment system works by distillation, followed by multistage filtering in the vapor phase, condensing, multi stage filtration and aeration in the liquid phase, ozone injection, and light chlorination for storage. This purified drinking water process is unnecessary for an application in conjunction with western style sewage and water treatment, and this portion of the technology can be removed in order to reduce the Omni Processor s capital cost. Additionally, the Omni Processor can be customized to produce more electricity by not treating the water. The Omni Processor can be started with butane or propane, and within 30 minutes it generates more electricity than it uses and thus doesn t require any external power supply. In order to remain selfsustaining, the process must be supplied with at least 14 tons of dry waste per day, including the solids content of fecal sludge and other wet fuel. For wet fuels with solids contents greater than 20%, the Omni Processor can run continually without the help of additional solid waste or another dry fuel source. The Omni Processor is proposed to be placed at the site of the existing incinerator building. A new building will be constructed there specifically for housing the equipment and process. The figures below shows the site of the proposed site for the Omni Processor within the Little Miami WWTP, and an isometric plan of the proposed Janicki installation. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 24

27 Figure 2. Alternative No. 3: Proposed Omni Processor Site within Little Miami WWTP Site Plan arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 25

28 Figure 3. Alternative No. 3: Isometric View of Proposed Omni Processor Installation arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 26

29 The Omni Processor is designed as a complete, self-contained system. Besides installation of the Omni Processor itself, updates will be made to other processes at the plant as well. For this alternative, belt filter presses will be used for dewatering the sludge, which will then be stored temporarily in collection bins. The Little Miami WWTP processes more waste than the Omni Processor can process on a continuously rolling basis. Therefore, the dewatered sludge will have to be stored in silos as it is generated. The Omni Processor will continue to run during plant low flow and shutdown periods in order to meet the full demands of waste processing. Dewatered sludge pumps will move the sludge from the silos to the Omni Processor for processing. Little Miami WWTP also receives sludge from several other MSDGC treatment plants, including thickened sludge from Polk Run WWTP and Sycamore WWTP and dewatered cake from Muddy Creek WWTP. The thickened sludge deliveries are added to the mixed sludge tank and combined with Little Miami sludge prior to dewatering. Dewatered cake from Muddy Creek is delivered to a separate cake receiving station and fed to the incinerator by means of a dewatered cake pump. Upgrades will need to be made to the cake receiving station to continue accepting sludge from Muddy Creek. This alternative incorporates combining the centralized storage for waste received from other plants with that for dewatered sludge from the Little Miami plant. The sludge from dewatering and from receiving will be blended in order to achieve a consistent blend for feed to the Omni Processor. The updates for this alternative combine alternatives R-2B, D-2, and S-1 from the Solids Stream Treatment Technical Memorandum, dated 4/26/2013. These dewatering improvements are also required for the above referenced alternatives No. 1A, 1B, and 2. The existing odor control system will be removed and replaced with new two-stage biological scrubber. For this alternative, the Little Miami WWTP will continue to receive dewatered solids from other plants, and upgrades will be made to the Solids Receiving facilities at the Little Miami plant. This alternative incorporates alternative R-2B from the SSTTM, which involves the following improvements: Expand the footprint of the receiving facility in order to install an additional truck receiving bay. Construct an additional receiving bay with a 12 ft. x 10 ft. x 14 ft. receiving bin. Install a dewatered solids piston pump at the new receiving bin, and retrofit the existing receiving bin with a larger capacity dewatered solids pump. The figure below provides a schematic of the dewatered solids receiving process for this alternative. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 27

30 Figure 4. Alternative No. 3: Solids Receiving Schematic For this alternative, sludge will be dewatered by belt filter presses and conveyed to collection bins by screw conveyors. From the collection bins, the dewatered solids would be pumped to the central storage facility by dewatered solids pumps. These improvements are described as alternative D-2 in the SSTTM, and they are summarized as follows: Provide a sludge feed system featuring a dedicated positive displacement pump for each belt filter press, plus a common standby pump. Install three belt filter presses for dewatering. Install two transfer screw conveyors. Install two solids collection bins, each 12 x 10 x 7. Install a mannich polymer system. Provide a new electrical room for electrical instrumentation, and replace the existing MCC lineup. The figure below provides a schematic of the sludge dewatering process for this alternative. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 28

31 Figure 5. Alternative No. 3: Sludge Dewatering Schematic The dewatered solids from both the Dewatered Solids Receiving facility and the Sludge Dewatering will be pumped to a common central storage area. The facilities in this area will allow the two streams to be blended in order to create a consistent blend, optimized for feeding to the Janicki Omni Processor. This central storage area will be housed in the existing Maintenance Storage Building. These improvements are summarized as follows: Install three centralized storage silos. Install three dewatered solids pumps. The figure below provides a schematic of the sludge dewatering process for this alternative. Figure 6. Alternative No. 3: Central Storage Schematic arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 29

32 The 20 year life cycle cost for this alternative incorporates the following elements: Capital costs for new solids receiving, sludge dewatering, and odor control equipment. Capital cost for both a Janicki Omni Processor unit and a building for housing the unit. Annual O&M costs for repair, equal to 5% of the construction cost. Annual costs for the electricity used or produced for each process. Cost of hauling and of tipping fees for disposing of ash produced by the Omni Processor. Cost of polymer used in the dewatering process. Labor costs associated with operating belt filter press and odor control equipment. Labor costs for three full-time employees dedicated to running the Janicki Omni Processor, based on the size/number of units recommended by Janicki based on the projected volumes. See Appendix A for a cost breakdown by area General Arrangement The figures below show the proposed layouts of the dewatering facility and the proposed Central Storage Area Plan. Figure 7. Alternative No. 3: Belt Press Dewatering Layout (EL ) arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 30

33 Figure 8. Alternative No. 3: Belt Press Dewatering Layout (EL ) Figure 9. Alternative No. 3: Central Storage Area Plan arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 31

34 3.4.3 O&M Discussion The Janicki Process and the upgraded dewatering and solids receiving processes will involve several operations and maintenance practices. Repair and replacement costs are projected at 3% of construction cost per year. The dewatering process will utilize Mannich polymer for coagulation of the solids, and polymer will be a regular operations cost. The Janicki process will generate useable electricity, but other parts of the process are power intensive, particularly the pumping, and the entire process will be a net consumer of electricity. Each process will involve some amount of labor, and the Janicki process itself will involve the most significant amount of labor. The belt filter dewatering process is forecast to require one worker at halftime, and the odor control equipment may require a single worker for a few hours a week. Janicki s resources forecast that the commercially available S200 Omni Processor requires one to two persons fulltime. Because the facility will be running two machines at virtually all times, it is anticipated that three workers will be required to operate the Omni Processors. The process also is likely to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and three workers will be needed for operating the process at all times. Janicki estimates that the Omni Processor for this facility will produce four tons of pathogen free ash per day. This ash will have to be disposed of, which will involve hauling and tipping fees for disposal. 3.5 Alternative No. 4 Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Quasar Energy Group Options) Note: Quasar Energy Group was evaluated in this section for evaluation only and a competitive proposal for all other interested vendors will be entertained if this alternative is selected Description The significant aspects of this alternative are as follows: The Incinerator at the Little Miami WWTP is removed. Anaerobic Digestion is added to produce Class A product for beneficial re-use. Implemented and managed by partnership between MSDGC and the private entity. The following alternatives were developed under this evaluation and are based on the options discussed in the vendor proposal received by Quasar: Alternative No. 4A: Class A Land Application via partnership between MSDGC and the private entity (Quasar Option 1A). Alternative No. 4B: Class A Land Application via partnership between MSDGC and the private entity (Quasar Option 1B). Alternative No. 4C: Class A Land Application via partnership between MSDGC and the private entity (Quasar Option 2A). arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 32

35 Alternative No. 4D: Class A Land Application via partnership between MSDGC and the private entity (Quasar Option 2B). Quasar Liquid Pumping Options Sludge from the Little Miami WWTP will be pumped through a 1500 linear foot (lf) force main to a new anaerobic digestion facility by Quasar or others (Quasar Option 1A). For the consideration of this alternative, Quasar or others would build its facility on City owned land just to the northwest of Little Miami WWTP. A drawing of the proposed pipeline to be constructed from Little Miami WWTP to the new facility is shown in the Figure at the end of the section. The current thickened primary sludge pumps located in the Sludge Chamber are designed at 300 gpm at 81 feet TDH and 280 rpm. These existing pumps are fairly new and have enough head to pump to the new proposed facility. The new 8-inch force main will be constructed of glass lined ductile iron pipe. Conveyance pipelines connecting Little Miami WWTP and the new facility will be below-grade for the entire route. The pipe will be installed using conventional trench excavation. Once the liquid sludge reaches the facility, Quasar or others will anaerobically digest, dewater, and process the sludge into Class A biosolids. Another option presented by Quasar would be to have a second quasar facility located adjacent to Muddy Creek (Quasar Option 2A). This facility accept sludge produced form the Muddy Creek WWTP. Since this treatment plant has a current contract for new centrifuges, it was assumed that dewatered cake would be hauled from Muddy Creek WWTP to the new anaerobic digestion facility. This option would not involve any new capital expenditures at Muddy Creek WWTP beyond what is currently underway. Quasar Hauling Options Dewatered sludge from the Little Miami WWTP will be hauled to a new anaerobic digestion facility (Quasar Option 1B), which Quasar or others plan to construct just north of the Little Miami WWTP. Quasar s anaerobic digestion facility will accept liquid and solid biomasses such as food waste, agricultural waste, and sewage sludge. The biomass will initially be processed in an equalization tank for stabilization purposes. Liquids may be discharged directly into the biomass equalization tank; solids must undergo an initial pass through grinders. The organic slurry is then passed to the digester, where biomass is digested by the microorganisms. Following digestion, the biomass will be pasteurized to further reduce pathogens to obtain Class A Biosolids. Biogas will be collected from the tanks and conveyed to an engine where electricity is produced for onsite and offsite use. In addition to recycling waste and creating renewable energy, residuals from the digestion will be used for fertilizer and soils amendment. Another option presented by Quasar would be to have a second quasar facility located adjacent to Muddy Creek (Quasar Option 2B). This facility accept sludge produced form the Muddy Creek WWTP. Since this treatment plant has a current contract for new centrifuges, it was assumed that dewatered cake would be hauled from Muddy Creek WWTP to the new anaerobic digestion facility. This option would not involve any new capital expenditures at Muddy Creek WWTP beyond what is currently underway. Originally, the solids stream processes at the Little Miami WWTP (Dewatered Solids Receiving and Load out, Thickening, Dewatering, and Incineration) all had their functional requirements focused on Incineration at the plant. The recommendations of MSDGC s 2013 Solids Management Study and MSDGC s subsequent decision to stop incineration as early as 2016 shifted the functional requirements arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 33

36 away from receiving and incineration at Little Miami WWTP and towards hauling and disposal of the plant s dewatered solids. Implementation of Dewatering, Storage, and Load Out contained in new Triple Stack Solids Handling Building located at demolished Incineration Building location will include the following features: Installation of 3 centrifuges on the top floor of the new Solids Handling Building. Installation of 2 screw conveyors to transfer solids to either of 2 storage silos. Installation 2 storage silos. Construction of Triple Stack Solids Handling Building located at the site of the existing Incinerator Building. Load cells mounted on Storage Silos. Installation of screw conveyors to load truck in 15 minutes. Installation of truck scale within Load Out Building or at a separate location. Installation of respective polymer, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and Instrumentation and Controls systems. In triple-stack option, the centrifuges are located above the storage silos and the storage silos are in turn located above the truck loading bay. The centrifuges are located on the top floor of the building, conveyors transfer the solids to either of two silos directly beneath the centrifuges, and another set of conveyors loads the solids from the silos to trucks which are located beneath the silos. Conveyors will be controlled to load the trucks in a 15 minute period. Plans and elevation views of this building are in shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11 at the end of the section. Quasar Experience Quasar Energy Group is an Ohio based waste-to-energy company that designs, builds, owns and operates complete mixing systems that process organic waste to produce clean, renewable energy and valuable byproducts. The company uses anaerobic digestion technology to recycle energy from organic waste. The energy Quasar generates is then used for electricity, natural gas and vehicle fuel (CNG), as well as nutrient-rich soil amendments. Quasar has 14 operational anaerobic digestion facilities throughout the United States, including facilities in Columbus, Wooster, Cleveland, Zanesville and Dayton. In 2013, the company built its first operation that is fully integrated into a wastewater treatment plant at the City of Wooster s Water Pollution Control Plant. Wooster s facility was experiencing operational problems and had accumulated a number of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency violations. Quasar rebuilt and updated the city s aging treatment plant with three new digesters that converts wastewater into electricity and natural gas. Wooster s transformed facility is now completely self-sufficient, using 600kW of electricity the digester produces on the plant s equipment, while Quasar sends the other 500kW of energy into the local utility grid. A cost analysis was conducted for each of the options listed in the above section. The cost includes construction and annual operations and maintenance with a 20 year estimated useful life. The results of each analysis are shown in Appendix A. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 34

37 The subtotal of the construction costs were adjusted for overhead (10%), profit (5%), insurance (1%), bonding (1%), and design contingency (35%). The estimated costs for engineering assumed 10% of construction costs. Operation and maintenance costs include labor, power, raw material, repair and replacement, hauling fees, and Quasar tipping fees. The Quasar hauling options has a high capital cost due to installation of new equipment and construction of the new triple stack structure. The Quasar Pumping Options requires no upgrades to the facility, beyond installing the pipeline that will run all the way to the proposed Quasar facility. Due to lower capital and operating costs, Option 1A Pumping to Quasar is the recommended method to transfer sludge to Quasar facility General Arrangement Figure 10. Alternative No. 4: Solids Handling Triple Stack Building Plan View (EL ) arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 35

38 Figure 11. Alternative No. 4: Solids Handling Triple Stack Building Plan View (EL ) arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 36

39 Figure 12. Alternative No. 4: Solids Handling Triple Stack Building Section View arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 37

40 Figure 13. Alternative No. 4: Little Miami WWTP Pipeline to Quasar Facility Site Plan O&M Discussion Under this alternative, MSDGC, Muddy Creek WWTP or Little Miami WWTP would not be responsible for any of the operations at the Quasar Facility. MSDGC, Muddy Creek WWTP and Little Miami WWTP would only be responsible for delivering the biosolids to the Quasar facility. Under the trucking option, Little Miami would be responsible for operating a dewatering and loadout facility. This would require electricity demand as well as operators time. For the liquid Pumping option, the MSDGC would only be responsible for running a thickening facility and thickened sludge pumps. It would also require electricity arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 38

41 and operators time, although less than the trucked loadout option. The sludge pumping would also require less maintenance than the dewatering facility. The operations and maintenance costs are detailed in the cost section below. Under this alternative, Quasar would be responsible for: Maintaining odor control facilities for the receiving and loading of material. As part of the study, numerous odor control measures have been included in Alternatives 4A 4D. Securing final beneficial use and disposal of the Class A product. 3.6 Alternative No. 5 Class A Land Application via partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Cambi) Description After the alternatives were selected, MSDGC explored options and obtained a preliminary proposal from Cambi. The Cambi process is a sludge conditioning process that precedes anaerobic digesters and produces a Class A Biosolid. The Cambi information is summarized in this report as Alternative 5 and the Cambi proposal is attached in Appendix B. However, it must be noted that the schedule for this study did not allow for complete vetting of the Cambi proposal. Arcadis can evaluate this alternative more thoroughly if requested and Cambi would be able to respond to a competitive Request for Proposal if one is issued. The following is an overview of the CAMBI process of thermohydrolysis and the intergration issues that must be considered if CAMBI were to be implemented in the Little Miami WWTP solids treatment process. CAMBI is a proprietary version of the more general thermohydrolysis technology which uses a combination of high pressure and temperature precondition sludge prior to treatment in an anaerobic digester. The benefits of pretreating sludge with CAMBI include: Lysis of bacterial cells leading to more readily digestable sludge feed to digesters, larger percentage of solids destruction in the digesters, and greater biogas production. Lower viscosity in sludge feed to digesters allowing larger % Total Solids (TS) feed to digesters, which increases solids retention time (SRT) in digester without increasing tank volume. Time and temperature treatment by thermohydrolysis qualifies the final digested sludge product as Class A biosolids allowing for a wider range of end use options. As can be seen from the list above, the benefits of installing a CAMBI system in a wastewater treatment plant are realized exclusively in the processes involving anaerobic digestion and thus would benefit the third party digestion provider in the case of the Little Miami WWTP. Solids feed to the digesters can typically be increased in concentration from 5% TS to 10% which essentially doubles the SRT provided by the digester tank, allowing the third party digester provider to reduce their built volume of tankage in half. Organic loading rates to the digester can also be increased making operations less sensitive to peak loading (and further reducing tank volume requirements). Digester loading with CAMBI sludge been observed to be on average as 0.5 lbs VS/ft3-day, with peak rates as high as 1.0 lbs VS/ft3-day (typical digester organic loading rates are lbs VS/ft3-day). Increased digestibility of the sludge feed to arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 39

42 the digester benefits the third party digester provider by reducing the amount of digested sludge that must be disposed of and by increasing biogas production which has significant value if utilized for energy purposes. CAMBI treated sludge has also shown to dewater very well in Belt Filter Presses (BFPs) in ranges of 30-35% TS leading to less water and ultimately less mass in the final cake product for disposal. Finally, because CAMBI has been approved as a technology that produces a Class A biosolids product the third party digester provider would have a wider range of beneficial reuse options for the final product to be disposed of. Since the vast majority of benefits from CAMBI will be realized by the third party digester provider, the benefit to MSDGC would have to be realized in the form of a reduced unit cost charged by the third party digester provider for accepting solids from the Little Miami WWTP. Instead of MSDGC taking on the responsibility and cost of building and operating a CAMBI system, it would be more practical for the third party digester provider to own and operate the CAMBI systems as part of their side of the system. Aside from the contractual arrangements and the realization of benefits, there appear to be some significant technical and feasibility issues for installing CAMBI at the Little Miami WWTP. Of these issues, the most significant is the need for high pressure steam which is required to drive the thermohydrolysis reaction. CAMBI systems need approximately 1 ton of steam at 175 psig for every dry ton of solids treated. Since Little Miami WWTP does not currently operate a central steam boiler system, there would have to be significant capital cost invested in constructing a high pressure boiler plant. This steam plant would also require 24/7 staffing with specially trained boiler operators and this would also consume significant amount of energy. Some of these steam demand issues can be dealt with by constructing large scale combined heat and power (CHP) systems that utilize biogas for power generation and can recover waste heat to generate steam. However, to generate high pressure steam the quantities needed, a large scale combustion turbine CHP system is required, which is more complex and costly than a more typical reciprocating engine CHP system. There are a number of other considerations and additional cost centers that must be accounted for when implementing CAMBI. These items include: An additional screening process is needed to fine screen sludge prior to feeding to the CAMBI reactor. Sludge must be dewatered before undergoing thermal hydrolysis to 15-20% TS. This dewatering is addition to final dewatering of digested sludge meaning that there must be two different dewatering processes in operation. Sludge exiting the CAMBI reactors is very hot, and must be cooled down prior to being fed to the digesters. This requires extremely large heat exchangers to be built and operated to cool the digester feed sludge with large volumes of cooling water flow. These heat exchangers can use either potable water or plant effluent that has been finely screened to prevent clogging issues. Startup of anaerobic digesters becomes longer, typically 2-3 months, because CAMBI removes all active biology from the incoming sludge feed, including microorganisms necessary for the digestion process. Thermally hydrolyzed sludge releases very high amounts of ammonia leading to concentrations in digesters as high as 3,000 mg/l. Concentrations higher than this will become toxic to the digester so arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 40

43 operators must constantly monitor and manage ammonia concentrations. Process side streams such as BFP filtrate will also be very high in ammonia concentration. Because of the increased digester organic loading rates associated with CAMBI, rapid rise expansion foaming events will be of concern for digester operations. Additional mixing, controls and monitoring will be necessary to protect against rapid rise foam. Thermally hydrolyzed sludge produces extremely strong odors. Redundancy in sealing off the CAMBI reactors and robust odor control is required to prevent odors from spreading. Many of these issues can be overcome with proper system design, properly trained and experienced operational staff, and sufficient capital and O&M budgeting for the project. While many of these issues and requirements relating to digester operations will fall on the side of the third party digester provider, several significant items will likely be the responsibility of MSDGC such as sludge screening, predigestion dewatering, and providing cooling water. All these items must be quantified and considered when deciding on implementation of CAMBI or any other thermohydrolysis system at the Little Miami WWTP. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 41

44 arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 42

45 4 ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISON The following table lists the bottom line total present value for each alternative and the ranking of each where 1 is the lowest cost and 10 is the highest cost. Table 9. Alternatives Total Present Value Cost Comparison Alternative Total Present Value (in $2015) Rank 0 - Haul Dewatered Solids from the Muddy Creek and Little Miami WWTPs to a Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP $ 89 M 4 1A Rehab Existing Incinerator; Existing Source MACT Compliance $ 120 M 8 1B Rehab Existing Incinerator; Modified (New) Source MACT Compliance $ 127 M 10 2 New Incinerator; New Source MACT Compliance $ 121 M 9 3 Incineration via Janicki Industries Omni Processor $ 117 M 7 4A Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Quasar Option 1A) $ 65 M 1 4B Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Quasar Option 1B) $ 101 M 5 4C Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Quasar Option 2A) $ 71 M 2 4D Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Quasar Option 2B) $ 107 M 6 5 Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity (Cambi) $ 88 M 3 Each alternative was broken down into line items corresponding to capital improvement projects that were required to comply with the functional requirements. Each item included the capital cost of the improvement and the annual cost that was associated with that item. Annual costs include electricity, labor, minor maintenance, and consumables (like polymer where applicable). Note, however, that incinerator fuel was included as a separate item and not combined as a consumable with incinerator related annual costs. The detailed summary cost sheets for each alternative are provided in Appendix A. The following figure illustrates the makeup of each alternative s total present value. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 43

46 Figure 14. Alternatives Total Present Value Cost Makeup arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 44

47 5 ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, SCREENING AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 General The ten alternatives can be arranged into four groups based on their similarity; and as a result, they share many of the same advantages, disadvantages, and risks. The four groups are as follows: Centralized Solids Handling Alternative No. 0. Incineration Solutions Alternatives No. 1A, 1B, and 2. Developing Technologies Alternative No. 3. Contract Digestion/Land Application Solutions Alternatives No. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5. The advantages and disadvantages of each group are discussed below. 5.2 Centralized Solids Handling This alternative has liquid sludge from the Polk Run and Sycamore Creek WWTPs hauled first to the Little Miami WWTP for dewatering and subsequent hauling to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. Dewatered solids from the Muddy Creek WWTP would also be hauled to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. Under this alternative, the importance of the solids train at the Mill Creek WWTP needs to be emphasized. Since the Mill Creek WWTP represents roughly about three-quarters of the districts solids handling, reliable operation of the incineration process at this plant is paramount to the success of the proposed centralized solids handling strategy. The Mill Creek WWTP must have the ability to provide a relatively consistent quality and quantity sludge tot the incinerators for proper operation. Achieving consistency in feed to the incinerators has been a challenge in the short operating history of the fluid bed incinerator facility. Close attention is needed to the sequencing and implementation of projects at the Mill Creek WWTP to ensure that operation remains as reliable as possible. Advantages Reduces total number of centrifuges and staffing/maintenance requirements at other plants. Decommissioning the Little Miami WWTP incinerator will reduce the effort required by MSDGC to operate and maintain the aging systems. Centralized incineration uses less auxiliary fuel and in turn reduces air pollution emissions. This was assumed to offset the emissions from the added hauling trucks. This incinerator capacity at the Mill Creek WWTP will be better utilized. Less potential for off-site odors. Can operate independently of weather. MSDGC will have complete control. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 45

48 Disadvantages Increases the risk of equipment failures because more treatment plants are dependent upon the performance of less equipment. The elimination of incineration at the Little Miami WWTP may forfeit the emission permit. It will be difficult to acquire such a permit in the future if incineration was warranted at the Little Miami WWTP in the future. Requires hauling dewatered solids from Little Miami WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP. The increase of trucks hauling dewatered solids will contribute to noise pollution especially in the areas of loading and unloading. The hauling may also contribute to odor emissions. The increase of trucks hauling dewatered solids will increase traffic, especially in the areas of loading and unloading. Centralized incineration will reduce the flexibility of the overall solids strategy. This alternative is limited to the current hauling routes and no other options are readily available in emergencies. Not as environmentally sustainable as land application of biosolids. Negative economic impact to community. Alternative Screening After detailed consideration of the financial criteria, advantages, disadvantages, and risks, MSDGC has chosen to bring Alternative No. 0 forward as the preferred centralized solids handling alternative. For Alternative No. 0, the liquid sludge hauling and dewatering operation would remain similar to current operation. Liquid sludge has been transported to the Little Miami WWTP for over a decade. Therefore, the plant operation and neighborhoods have been used to this arrangement for a very long time. Although there is no enclosed liquid sludge unloading facility at the Little Miami WWTP, odors associated with this operation are reportedly not an issue. The most significant change with this alternative is that the Little Miami WWTP incinerator would be replaced by hauling dewatered solids to the Mill Creek WWTP for incineration. Therefore, the truck traffic between the two plants would be increased by up to 9 truckloads per weekday on a maximum month basis. 5.3 Incinerator Solutions These alternatives represent the incumbent solution with MSDGC having practiced incineration for decades. All of these alternatives require investment in improved dewatering and advanced air pollution control technology. Advantages Most familiar solution having been the primary means of solids handling and disposal for the entire history of the District. Can operate independently of the weather. Least potential for off-site odors. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 46

49 Least amount of noise, odor, and traffic associated with truck hauling. No change from public stakeholder standpoint. Disadvantages Requires compliance with stricter air emission criteria effective in March Starting and stopping of the process becomes more difficult with the advanced air pollution control equipment necessary. Society s attitude is shifting towards more sustainable solutions. Alternative Screening As a result of the December 10, 2015 workshop with representatives from Wastewater Treatment, Engineering Management, Office of the Director, and Arcadis and after detailed consideration of the financial criteria, advantages, disadvantages, and risks included in the analysis, Alternatives No. 1A and No. 1B have been eliminated from further consideration. Alternative No. 2 will be brought forward as the preferred incineration alternative. For basically the same Net Present Value, this alternative provides MSDGC with a complete new system and eliminates the risk of relying on a refurbished incinerator to last another 20 years. In addition, Alternative 2 will provide an incinerator that is right-sized for today s current and predicted needs and will operate more efficiently. 5.4 Developing Technologies The Janicki BioEnergy OmniProcessor, endorsed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has one complete installation in Africa and one functioning installation at their manufacturing facility in Sedro- Wolley, WA. The process is a very efficient incineration process that produces a dry ash. Advantages Funding from the Gates Foundation has allowed very thorough research and development of this technology. Process can run autogenously with higher moisture; therefore, possibly allowing the use of belt filter presses versus centrifuges for dewatering as well as the use of less natural gas for process operation. Modular design allows for assembly and testing at factory followed by shipping and reassembly onsite. Produces excess electricity for use at plant. Can operate independently of the weather. Low amount of truck traffic. Disadvantages Only two installations in the world; one located in Africa and the other a full-scale pilot located at the manufacturing facility. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 47

50 Insufficient information to determine if unit could obtain an air permit or meet the new Sewage Sludge Incinerator MACT standards. Being new, this technology is still in the trial and error phase and MSDGC would share in that experience. May not qualify for low interest state revolving loan funding due to lack of operating history. Alternative Screening As a result of a December 10, 2015 workshop with representatives from Wastewater Treatment, Engineering Management, Office of the Director, and Arcadis and after detailed consideration of the financial criteria, advantages, disadvantages and risks included in this analysis, Alternative 3 has been eliminated from further consideration. Although the Janicki Bioenergy OmniProcessor was interesting to explore and shows promise, the technology is simply too new (only two installations) for consideration at a facility the size of Little Miami WWTP. Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 are proven incineration solutions with basically the same Net Present Value. When adopting a new technology or process, it is often best applied at a smaller scale where there is less capital and less overall risk involved. Therefore, if this technology were to be of further interest, it would be more appropriate to consider a single OmniProcessor at a smaller facility such as Sycamore Creek or Polk Run WWTPs. The overall costs and risks of installing this technology on the scale of Little Miami WWTP are not in the best interests of MSDGC at this time. 5.5 Contract Digestion/Land Application Solutions MSDGC received proposals from Quasar Energy Group and CAMBI, Inc. to provide contract operation services that include conditioning, anaerobic digestion, and land application of Class A biosolids. Advantages The process produces a Class A Biosolid that is land applied thus keeping nutrients necessary for plant growth and development in the soil. When biosolids are disposed of in other ways, the valuable nutrients they contain cannot be recovered. Recycles waste and produces renewable energy. Co-digestion with waste from other regional sources provides a regional benefit to other stakeholders besides MSDGC. Offers opportunity to diversify MSDGCs solids handling and disposal options. Alternatives 4A and 4C require minimal upgrades at the Little Miami WWTP. Alternatives 4C and 4D reduce truck traffic across the county by avoiding hauling sludge from Muddy Creek WWTP to Little Miami WWTP. Due to the lower overall project cost, there is sufficient budget availability to add comprehensive odor control to reduce the likelihood of odors. All process area on-site can be placed inside secondary containment with negative air pressure and treatment of constituents of concern. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 48

51 Disadvantages Biosolids handling would be out of MSDGC control. Requires development of a solids contingency plan to ensure MSDGC can manage solids inventory in the event Quasar is unable to receive sludge. Greatest potential for odors. MSDGC once operated anaerobic digesters at some of their WWTPs and moved away from that technology in part due to neighborhood relation issues related to odors. Even with proper odor containment and odor control, it is possible that odor complaints may persist. Greatest impact of noise, odor, and traffic associated with truck hauling of co-digestion material to facility and digested solids from facility to land application sites. MSDGC would be fully dependent upon a 3 rd party for solids processing and disposal. Contract operators construct facilities with less redundancy which could lead to less reliable service. Land application of biosolids is weather dependent, which can result in logistical issues of temporarily storing product. However, since MSDGC would not be managing the land application program, this risk is effectively transferred to Quasar (or equal). Research regarding emerging contaminants is likely to affect future regulations. Current Class A biosolids requirements may not be sufficient in the future. Alternative Screening As a result of a December 10, 2015 workshop with representatives from Wastewater Treatment, Engineering Management, Office of the Director, and Arcadis and after detailed consideration of the financial criteria, advantages, disadvantages and risks included in this analysis, Alternative 4D have been eliminated from further consideration at this time. Alternative 4C and 4D involve construction of Quasar facilities at both Little Miami WWTP and Muddy Creek WWTP. If a Quasar alternative were to move forward, it would be in the MSDGC s best interest to only have one contract initially and gain some actual experience working with Quasar (or similar). Then, at some future time when appropriate, the contract could be renegotiated to add a 2nd facility at that time when both parties have history working together. Of the remaining Alternatives 4A, 4B, and 4C, Alternative 4B has been eliminated from further consideration. Alternatives 4A and 4C will be brought forward as the preferred Contract Digestion / Land Application alternative. Alternative 4A has the lowest initial capital and reduces MSDGCs operation and maintenance costs associated with full time operation of the Little Miami WWTP dewatering process. Under Alternative 4A, as a contingency plan the Little Miami WWTP dewatering process would undergo basic improvements to ensure the process remains reliable in the event Quasar is unable to accept liquid sludge 5.6 Conclusions The following figure illustrates the alternatives screening process under this analysis. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 49

52 Figure 15. Alternatives Screening Alternatives 0, 2, 4A, and 4C are the only alternatives that will be brought forward for further consideration. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 50

53 6 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND PATH FORWARD 6.1 Alternative No. 0: Centralized Incineration Facility at the Mill Creek WWTP Based on the results of previous planning efforts initiated in 2012, and expensive upgrades needed for the Little Miami WWTP incinerator due to new air emission standards slated to become effective in March 2016, MSDGC pursued a path to decommission the treatment facility s incineration process and redirect its sludge processed there to the Mill Creek WWTP incineration process ( Alternative No. 0 ). In the spring/summer of 2015, MSDGC received an increase in odor complaints from the neighborhoods surrounding the Mill Creek WWTP. MSDGC and City leaders became concerned that additional sludge redirected to the Mill Creek WWTP facility could potentially escalate neighborhood concerns regarding additional odor, as well as those regarding increased truck traffic. Cincinnati s Mayor brought these concerns to the attention of the Hamilton County Commissioners on September 30, Cincinnati s Mayor and the Hamilton County Commissioners agreed that during normal operations MSDGC should avoid directing the sludge from other plants to Mill Creek WWTP. The officials agreed that MSDGC should maintain a solids handling process at the Little Miami WWTP. On October 14, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners ( BOCC ) adopted resolutions that memorialized this discussion and agreement, appropriating $2M for design funding and further directing the creation of a feasibility study for possible alternatives to decommissioning the Little Miami WWTP incinerator. In addition, the BOCC added the estimated $21M incineration project to the MSDGC 2015 Capital Improvement Plan. This policy directive effectively removed Alternative No. 0 from implementation. The figure below shows the proposed sludge hauling schematic under Alternative No. 0. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 51

54 Figure 16. Alternative No. 0 Sludge Hauling Schematic The advantages and disadvantages of Alternative No. 0 are shown in the table below. Table 10. Alternative No. 0: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Provides the ability to operate the existing Mill Creek WWTP incineration facility more efficiently Eliminates the need to operate and maintain two incineration facilities Less potential for off-site odors Can operate independently of weather Disadvantages May forfeit the existing Little Miami WWTP air permit Requires hauling dewatered solids from Little Miami WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP Potential negative economic impact to Price Hill community Not as environmentally sustainable as land application of biosolids MSDGC will have complete control On December 10, 2015, MSDGC held a meeting to review the draft analysis. At that meeting, MSDGC stakeholders, representing a cross-section of operation, maintenance, engineering, and management staff, discussed all alternatives and decided to short-list the alternatives down to Alternative No. 2 and Alternative No. 4A for further consideration. Since that meeting, reconsideration of the alternatives has arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 52

55 led to the decision to drop Alternative No. 4A and replace with Alternative No. 4C. Alternative No. 4C is preferred over No. 4A for the following reasons: Eliminates dewatered solids hauling across the county from Muddy Creek WWTP to Little Miami WWTP. Reduces truck traffic near Mill Creek WWTP and improves flexibility by allowing liquid sludge from Taylor Creek and Indian Creek WWTPs to be redirected to Muddy Creek WWTP. Alternative No. 4C is more in line with the policy direction of reducing truck traffic across the county and in the vicinity of Mill Creek WWTP. A revised alternatives screening figure is depicted as follows: Figure 17. Revised Alternatives Screening Follow up discussions on all of the alternatives and these findings were discussed with Hamilton County s monitor on January 6, A discussion of the remaining alternatives is presented below. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 53

56 6.2 Alternative No. 2: Replace Existing Incinerator; Modified (New) Source MACT Compliance Alternative No. 2 represents the preferred incineration alternative. Under this alternative, the dewatered solids receiving, dewatering and incineration processes would receive comprehensive improvements. These processes range in age from 18 to 26 years and each requires significant improvements to be viable for the next 20 years. Technically, this alternative represents the status quo where the Little Miami WWTP would continue to receive sludge from other MSDGC WWTPs and process through the incinerator. The figure below shows the proposed sludge hauling schematic under Alternative No. 2. Figure 18. Alternative No. 2 Sludge Hauling Schematic The advantages and disadvantages of Alternative No. 2 are shown in the table below. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 54

57 Table 11. Alternative No. 2: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Least potential for off-site odors Least amount of noise, odor, and traffic associated with truck hauling No change from current public stakeholder standpoint Disadvantages Not as environmentally sustainable as land application of biosolids Need to operate and maintain two incineration facilities Requires compliance with stricter air emission criteria effective March 2016 Can operate independently of weather MSDGC will have complete control Alternative No. 2 requires the highest capital expenditure. The high capital expenditure is driven by the fact that all three processes, not just incineration, require comprehensive improvements. Although this alternative represents the most familiar approach, MSDGC Management is concerned about the capital expenditure in light of MSDGC s other capital expenditure needs. Incineration is commonly used by highly populated urban areas that are land locked and do not have convenient access to farmland. However, society s priorities are changing towards more sustainable solutions and some communities, including Columbus, Ohio are abandoning their incineration practices in favor of more sustainable alternatives that include nutrient recovery or nutrient recycle. Throughout its capital program, MSDGC is also looking for opportunities for more sustainable practices. The high capital and life-cycle cost of incineration combined with MSDGC s desire to become more sustainable have resulted in MSDGCs decision to move away from incineration and to improve the diversity of its biosolids processing practices at this time. Therefore, MSDGC has decided eliminate Alternative No. 2 from further consideration. 6.3 Alternative No. 4C: Class A Land Application via Partnership Between MSDGC and the Private Entity This alternative would contract for solids processing. MSDGC would solicit responses to a Request for Proposal (RFP) from biosolids management companies to construct, operate, and maintain biosolids processing facilities adjacent to Little Miami and Muddy Creek WWTPs capable of receiving a combination of dewatered and liquid sludge from MSDGC and producing a Class A biosolid that would be land applied. MSDGC would pay a biosolids tipping fee on a unit weight or volume basis and the biosolids management company would be responsible for the remainder of the processing and land application. MSDGC will require the facilities to be constructed, monitored, operated and maintained with state-of-the-art design and engineering controls to capture and treat potential odors at both facilities. The figure below shows the proposed sludge hauling schematic under Alternative No. 4C. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 55

58 Figure 19. Alternative No. 4C Sludge Hauling Schematic The advantages and disadvantages of Alternative No. 4C are shown in the table below. Table 12. Alternative No. 4C: Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Recycle waste/produces renewable energy Regional benefit by including the acceptance of non-sewage sludge waste that is already being hauled out of our region Diversification of sludge disposal options Minimal capital improvements needed at Little Miami WWTP Disadvantages Greater potential for noise, odor, and traffic associated with truck hauling to land application sites Greater potential for odors MSDGC is not in control - potential for less reliable service due to reliance on third party for operation Land application of biosolids can be weather dependent Operational risk effectively transferred to third party More environmentally sustainable than incineration arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 56

59 Reduction in hauling with two facilities - one near Muddy Creek WWTP and one near Little Miami WWTP 6.4 MSDGC Recommendation Based on the objectives clearly laid out by the policy makers to reduce truck traffic, ensure some redundancy in operations, reduce and limit odors as well as deliver cost effective solutions, MSDGC Management recommends Alternative No. 4C for further development and implementation based on the following: Policy: This alternative is in-line with City and County policy to minimize trucking across the county in general and to Mill Creek WWTP in particular. The following table shows sludge truck hauling data across the alternatives brought forward under this evaluation: Table 13. Sludge Truck Hauling Data Alternative No. 0 Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 4A Alternative No. 4C Sludge Hauling Route No. of Trucks per Weekday No. of Trucks per Weekday No. of Trucks per Weekday No. of Trucks per Weekday Regional Septage Hauling Taylor Creek WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (30.2 miles round trip) Taylor Creek WWTP to Muddy Creek WWTP (25.6 miles round trip) Indian Creek WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (32.8 miles round trip) Indian Creek WWTP to Muddy Creek WWTP (11.0 miles round trip) Muddy Creek WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (20.8 miles round trip) Muddy Creek WWTP to Little Miami WWTP (44.8 miles round trip) Sycamore Creek WWTP to Little Miami WWTP (52.2 miles round trip) Polk Run WWTP to Little Miami WWTP (50.0 miles round trip) Little Miami WWTP to Mill Creek WWTP (17.4 miles round trip) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 57

60 Land Application Hauling from Little Miami WWTP Land Application Hauling from Muddy Creek WWTP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 Total % Hauling Increase Base Line Notes: (1) This table does not account for trucks already hauling food waste in the local area. 6.8% Hauling Increase 4.2% Hauling Increase Capital and Life-Cycle: The unique arrangement with a partnership between MSDGC and the private entity allows MSDGC to minimize capital outlay. As a result, Alternative No. 4C has the 2 nd lowest capital and life-cycle cost of all the alternatives. Environmental Sustainability: Land application allows for the ultimate nutrient recovery and recycle and minimizes consumption of commercial fertilizers. Furthermore, for poor soils, land application of biosolids is a proven soil reclamation technique to reestablish a normal functioning soil ecosystem. Municipal sludge can accelerate that process by years and even decades. Renewable Energy: The anaerobic digester facility will produce excess renewable energy for use at the Little Miami and Muddy Creek WWTPs. Regulation: Regulations at the federal and state levels are generally more favorable towards land application due to the environmental advantages of nutrient recovery and nutrient recycle 6.5 Next Steps MSDGC will advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) in 2016 for the construction and operation of biosolids processing facilities at the Little Miami and Muddy Creek WWTPs. MSDGC must first develop the RFP and the contracts to initiate this competitive selection process. Although time is of the essence, this contract would represent a 20-year commitment and needs critical thought and careful consideration of multiple contract terms to facilitate the best outcome for all ratepayer particularly, the community and stakeholders near the Little Miami WWTP. In the meantime, MSDGC is collaborating with USEPA to obtain a compliance schedule to continue operating the existing incinerator for one year and reduce the time during which the dewatered sludge will need to be hauled away. There are some components of the Little Miami WWTP Bundle that would need to be adjusted as a result of the change in solids handling. However, the bundle projects have not advanced into detailed design and the proposed implementation schedule allows adequate time to make the necessary adjustments to the planned bundle projects. On the community front, construction at both facilities will be highly visible. Construction will be taking place outside the footprint of the existing WWTPs and could be perceived as an expansion of the WWTP. It is also reasonable that the communities would raise questions concerning truck traffic and odor concerns. A public engagement plan is under development to seek public input prior to commencing the contract design and construction. The public engagement plan will include the formation of a arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 58

61 community advisory panel for the communities surrounding each of the proposed facilities. This will be an important effort to ensure issues of concern are identified and properly addressed to ensure the most favorable outcome to the operation of a long term solids processing facility for the Little Miami WWTP and MSD ratepayers. The selection of this Alternative No. 4C provides another element to the District-Wide Solids Handling Master Plan that is being prepared for MSDGC s seven WWTPs. The purpose of the master plan is to ensure MSDGC is effectively and efficiently handling all sludge produced within the district and has a plan moving forward in the years to come. 6.6 Preliminary Schedule The preliminary schedule represents the approximate timeline for implementation and is shown in Appendix E. arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 59

62 arcadis.com g:\projects\ \district_wide_solids_plan\task_311_lmwwtp_plan\12 project documents\final draft little miami wwtp solids plan report docx 60

63 APPENDIX A Alternatives Total Net Present Value Cost Tables

64 MSDGC Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan FINAL Preliminary Engineering Feasibility Analysis Opinion of Life Cycle Cost for Alternatives Alternative Number 0 1A 1B 2 3 4A 4B 4C 4D 5 Class A Land Class A Land Class A Land Class A Land Class A Land Application via Application via Application via Application via Application via Rehab Existing Rehab Existing Partnership Between Partnership Between Partnership Between Partnership Between Partnership Between Incinerator; Existing Incinerator; Modified New Incinerator; New Incineration via Janicki MSDGC and the MSDGC and the MSDGC and the MSDGC and the MSDGC and the Haul LM's Dewatered Source MACT (New) Source MACT Source MACT Industries Omni Private Entity Private Entity Private Entity Private Entity Private Entity Name Solids to MC Compliance Compliance Compliance Processor (Quasar Option 1A) (Quasar Option 1B) (Quasar Option 2A) (Quasar Option 2B) (Cambi) Mill Creek Solids Receiving Facility (and Emergency Solids Loadout) $ 15,200,000 LM Dewatering and Solids Loadout "Triple Stack" (ctfgs.) $ 26,200,000 LM Dewatering and Solids Loadout "Triple Stack" (BFPs) $ 24,900,000 $ 24,900,000 LM Dewatering and Storage Improvements (ctfg.) $ 17,000,000 $ 17,000,000 $ 17,000,000 LM Dewatering and Storage Improvements (BFP) $ 16,300,000 LM Solids Receiving and Incinerator Feed Improvements $ 5,030,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 5,030,000 LM Backup Dewatering Improvements $ 6,930,000 $ 6,930,000 Incinerator Refurbishment Costs⁵ $ 30,000,000 $ 38,900,000 New Incinerator⁵ $ 45,200,000 Janicki Omni Processor and Building $ 39,200,000 Sludge Force Main to Digester Complex $ 1,030,000 $ 1,030,000 Electrical Infrastructure Improvements³ $ 1,950,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 Land Acquisition¹ $ 0 ¹ $ 0¹ $ 0 ¹ $ 0 ¹ Flood Protection Levee $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 LM Pre-Dewatering and Storage Improvements $ 15,600,000 Primary Sludge Pumping Improvements (No Grav Thickener) $ 1,950,000 Sludge Screening & Degritting $ 3,900,000 Digester Gas System $ 3,380,000 Total Project Cost ($2015) $ 41,400,000 $ 52,000,000 $ 61,000,000 $ 67,200,000 $ 60,500,000 $ 13,800,000 $ 30,800,000 $ 15,800,000 $ 32,700,000 $ 24,800,000 ² Alternative Number 0 1A 1B 2 3 4A 4B 4C 4D 5 Mill Creek Solids Receiving Facility (and Emergency Solids Loadout) $ 1,220,000 LM Dewatering and Solids Loadout "Triple Stack" (ctfgs.) $ 1,070,000 LM Dewatering and Solids Loadout "Triple Stack" (BFPs) $ 833,000 $ 833,000 LM Dewatering and Storage Improvements (ctfg.) $ 754,000 $ 754,000 $ 754,000 LM Dewatering and Storage Improvements (BFP) $ 646,000 LM Solids Receiving and Incinerator Feed Improvements $ 319,000 $ 319,000 $ 319,000 $ 319,000 LM Backup Dewatering Improvements $ 165,000 $ 165,000 Solids Hauling from MuC to LM⁴ $ 299,000 $ 299,000 $ 299,000 $ 299,000 $ 299,000 $ 299,000 Solids Hauling MuC to MC⁴ $ 200,000 Solids Hauling LM to MC⁴ $ 767,000 Solids Hauling from LM to Quasar⁴ $ 439,000 $ 439,000 Incinerator O&M $ 1,880,000 $ 1,880,000 $ 1,310,000 Janicki Omni Processor and Building $ 1,730,000 Future Incinerator Capital Costs (20-year amortization) $ 414,000 $ 414,000 $ 414,000 $ 339,000 Carbon or SPC Module Replacement (air emission upgrade) $ 200,000 $ 87,800 $ 87,800 Incinerator Ash Disposal $ 36,900 $ 36,900 $ 36,900 $ 43,000 LM Incinerator Fuel Usage $ 205,000 $ 205,000 $ 40,900 $ 20,000 MC Incinerator Fuel Usage Savings by Consolidation⁶ $ (391,300) Sludge Force Main to Digester Complex $ 45,800 $ 45,800 Electrical Infrastructure Improvements³ $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Biosolids Management Fee $ 2,510,000 $ 2,610,000 $ 3,040,000 $ 3,180,000 $ 3,290,000 LM Pre-Dewatering and Storage Improvements $ 500,000 Total Annual Cost ($2015) $ 2,860,000 $ 4,110,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 3,260,000 $ 3,400,000 $ 3,060,000 $ 4,210,000 $ 3,310,000 $ 4,510,000 $ 3,790,000 ² PV of Total Annual Cost ($2015) $ 47,100,000 $ 67,600,000 $ 65,700,000 $ 53,600,000 $ 55,900,000 $ 50,200,000 $ 69,200,000 $ 54,400,000 $ 74,200,000 $ 62,200,000 ² Total Present Value ($2015) $ 89,000,000 $ 120,000,000 $ 127,000,000 $ 121,000,000 $ 117,000,000 $ 65,000,000 $ 101,000,000 $ 71,000,000 $ 107,000,000 $ 88,000,000 ² ¹ Land acquisition is assumed to be made available from the City. ² Due to schedule limitations, Alternative 5 is only partially complete. It is suspected that costs for this alternative would further increase due to addition of odor control and an enclosed final dewatering building. ³ Electrical infrastructure improvements are power distribution improvements to the LMWWTP to provide the ability to distribute and use the renewable energy from the digestion complex. ⁴ The only hauling costs that were included were those that differentiate between alternatives. Hauling from MuC to the Quasar facility near LM is assumed to have the same cost as hauling to LM. ⁵ Both the refurbished incinerator and the new incinerator alternatives assume the existing incinerator building will be reused. ⁶ Gas savings are based on Mill Creek incinerators achieving autogenous combustion 90% of the time. Item Clarifications Item LM Dewatering and Solids Loadout "Triple Stack" (ctfgs.) LM Dewatering and Solids Loadout "Triple Stack" (BFPs) LM Dewatering and Storage Improvements (ctfg.) LM Dewatering and Storage Improvements (BFP) LM Solids Receiving and Incinerator Feed Improvements Description New three-story building at the location of the existing incinerator building with centrifuge dewatering above solids storage, above solids loadout includes odor control. New three-story building at the location of the existing incinerator building with belt filter press dewatering above solids storage, above solids loadout includes odor control. Improvements within existing facility. Install centrifuge dewatering and centralized storage for dewatering process. Firm capacity of storage is combined with solids receiving storage to reduce the total number of tanks. Improvements within existing facility. Replace belt filter dewatering and install centralized storage for dewatering process. Firm capacity of storage is combined with solids receiving storage to reduce the total number of tanks. Replace receiving dewatered solids pump and install centralized storage for solids receiving, firm capacity of storage is combined with dewatering storage to reduce the total number of tanks. 1 of 1

65 APPENDIX B Vendor Proposals

66 8007 Discovery Drive, Richmond, VA P.O. Box 71390, Richmond, VA Tel Fax Dec 4 th, 2015 Mr. Bradley Olson, Arcadis U.S., Inc Cornell Road, Suite 350 Cincinnati, OH Reference: Infilco Proposal No Rev1 Fluid Bed Incineration System Little Miami WWTP, Cincinnati, OH Dear Brad, Suez has done a preliminary budget cost analysis for the refurbishment of the existing Themylis Fluid Bed Incineration System at the Little Miami WWTP. After the refurbishment, the Little Miami unit will meet the MACT emission requirements as a new incineration system. Our budget price and the scope of supplied equipment, on which we have based our budget price, are listed below. BUDGET PRICE One (1) Refurbishing the existing fluid bed incineration system, complete with all associated equipment, wiring, controls, control panels, testing and startup service. Budget Price = $ US 13,637,000* *Price deduction to meet the MACT emission requirements as an existing incineration system. Price Deduction = $ US 3,583,000 Infilco Degremont is now SUEZ

67 SCOPE OF SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) Primary heat exchanger to increase the fluidization air tempertaure to 1200F through capturing waste heat from the flue gas exiting the reactor. Secondary heat exchanger to increase the clean flue gas temperature to 250F to eliminate the visible plume at the stack. Wet scrubber/tray-cooler including a venturi quench and cooling tray section with caustic addition capability. Wet ESP to meet PM, Cadmium and Lead emissions in stack. Fluidizing air blower to supply fluidization air into the reactor windbox. Mercury Removal System including a demister and a fixed carbon bed adsorber. Tertiary heat exchanger to heat up the clean flue gas coming from the demister above the dew point temperature before the clean gas is conveyed into the carbon bed adsorber. Start up heater skid for the Mercury Removal System including a start-up fan and an electric heater to warm up the carbon bed during cold start-ups. Preheat burner upgrade for the automatic control valves. CEM system to monitor the emissions in stack gas. The system will monitor the flue gas emissions to ensure that the incineration system is in compliance with the MACT emission requirements. Integrated control system with microprocessor, with necessary field mounted instruments for process monitoring and control of the incineration system. Lot of interconnection flue gas ductwork with required expansion joints and refractory lining. Ductwork scope of supply will be from reactor exhaust to scrubber inlet. Lot of spare parts for the supplied equipment. Pricing does not include the installation of equipment listed above. General Contractor will be in charge of installing the equipment. Suez s construction supervisor will be on site during the project execution. Delivery of above equipment is approximately 15 months after receipt of approval submittals. Startup is 22 months after receipt of approval submittals. Infilco Degremont is now SUEZ

68 Not Included: 1. Civil engineering. 2. Concrete work of any kind. 3. Equipment installation. 4. Taxes, bonds, air permit. 5. Demolition and disposal of the existing equipment. As part of our scope, we will provide the necessary performance guarantees to meet the MACT emission requirements. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you at this early stage of your project. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let us know. Yours truly, L. Takmaz, Ph.D. Product Manager (Incineration) Infilco Degremont is now SUEZ

69 INFILCO DEGREMONT INC DISCOVERY DRIVE, RICHMOND, VA USA P.O. BOX 71390, RICHMOND, VA USA TEL FAX Sep 14 th, 2015 Mr. Tim Galieti, Arcadis U.S., Inc Cornell Road, Suite 350 Cincinnati, OH Reference: Infilco Proposal No Fluid Bed Incineration System Little Miami WWTP, Cincinnati, OH Dear Tim, Suez has done a preliminary system sizing and budget cost analysis for a new Themylis Fluid Bed Incineration System for the disposal of municipal sludge at the Little Miami WWTP. The following design characteristics listed in the table below were considered: Design Criteria Process Scenario No. 1 Number of Train 1 Capacity (Dry Ton/Day) 50 Feed Rate (lb/hr Dry) 4,167 Feed Sludge Dryness (%) 28 Sludge Volatile Solids (%) 71 High Heat Value (BTU/lb of Volatile) 10,000 Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (BTU/Hr) 0 Please note that for a hot wind-box system operating at 1200ºF, there will be zero auxiliary fuel usage for the complete combustion of sludge at 28% TS and 10,000 btu/lb (vol) heat value. The new Thermylis incineration system will meet the MACT emission requirements applying to a new fluid bed sewage sludge incineration plant. The scope of supplied equipment, on which we have based our budget price, is listed below. Please note that currently we don t have the stack test report to determine if there is a need for a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) to be installed after the scrubber. We are providing a price adder for WESP. When we have the latest stack test report, we will determine if there is a need to install a WESP after the scrubber.

70 THERMYLIS BUDGET PRICE One (1) HTFB system, complete with all associated equipment, pumps, blowers, ducts, piping, wiring, controls, control panels, testing and startup service. *Price adder for WESP: $506,573 Budget Price = $ US 19,520,748* THERMYLIS FLUID BED INCINERATOR SCOPE OF EQUIPMENT Price includes one (1) new Thermylis fluid bed incineration system: One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) Hot windbox incineration "teardrop" reactor including steel shell, internal refractory and insulating material, self-supporting refractory arch to support the sand bed, tuyeres, pressure taps, thermocouples, sight glasses, access manholes in windbox and freeboard, water sprays, denox guns, sludge feed nozzles and preheat burner nozzle in the windbox. Primary heat exchanger to increase the fluidization air tempertaure to 1200F through capturing waste heat from the flue gas exiting the reactor. Plume suppression heat exchanger to increase the clean flue gas temperature to 250F to eliminate the visible plume at the stack. Refractory supplied and installed inside the reactor shell. Wet scrubber/tray-cooler including a venturi quench and cooling tray section with caustic addition capability. Air compressor & dryer to supply instrument quality air for the incineration system. Sand storage silo and sand conveying system including an air compressor to charge sand into the reactor. Fluidizing air blower to supply fluidization air into the windbox. Mercury Removal System including a demister and a fixed carbon bed adsorber. Tertiary heat exchanger to heat up the clean flue gas coming from the demister above the dew point temperature before the clean gas is conveyed into the carbon bed adsorber.

71 One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) Two (2) Two (2) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) One (1) Start up heater skid for the Mercury Removal System including a start up fan and an electric heater to warm up the carbon bed during cold start ups. NOx removal system including ammonia (or urea) injection guns and a storage tank. Preheat burner installed through the windbox wall to preheat the fluidization air during the cold startup. Fuel train to deliver fuel oil to the preheat burner and auxiliary fuel guns. High pressure water pumps for roof sprays (1 operating, 1 stand-by). Ash slurry pumps (1 operating, 1 stand-by). Oxygen analyzer, in situ system, installed downstream of the primary heat exchanger. CEM system to monitor the emissions in the stack gas. The system will monitor the flue gas emissions to ensure that the incineration system is in compliance with the MACT emission requirements. Integrated control system with microprocessor, with necessary field mounted instruments for process monitoring and control of the incineration system. Lot of interconnection air and gas ductwork with required expansion joints and refractory lining. Stack to discharge the clean flue gas into the environment. Lot of interconnecting piping and wiring associated with the proposed fluid bed Incineration system. Lot of spare parts for the fluid bed reactor, fluidizing air blower, scrubber and other pumps and blowers included under Suez s scope. Support steel, platforms, steps, ladders and handrails using standard materials of construction. Pricing does not include the installation of equipment listed above. Only the reactor will be installed by Suez. General Contractor will be in charge of installing the equipment. Suez s construction supervisor will be on site during the project execution. Delivery of above equipment is approximately 15 months after receipt of approval submittals. Startup is 22 months after receipt of approval submittals.

72 Not Included: 1. Civil engineering. 2. Concrete work of any kind. 3. Installation of equipment with the exception of reactor. 4. Building construction and all piping and wiring not associated with the incineration system. 5. Special materials of construction such as stainless steel or aluminum stairs, walkways, etc. 6. Taxes, bonds, air permit. 7. Demolition and disposal of the existing equipment. 8. Sludge dewatering, storage and transfer systems including piston pumps. As part of our scope, we will provide the necessary performance guarantees to meet the MACT emission requirements. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you at this early stage of your project. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let us know. Yours truly, L. Takmaz, Ph.D. Product Manager, Incineration Suez North America (804)

73 December 4, 2015 Matthew W. Spidare, P.E. Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati 1600 Gest Street Cincinnati, OH JANICKI BIOENERGY Metcalf Street Sedro-Woolley, WA USA (360) janickibioenergy.com OMNI Processor ROM Review and Estimated Cost Proposal Dear Matt, Thank you for your interest in Janicki Bioenergy s Omni Processor technology. An Omni Processor is a unique piece of equipment, designed specifically for processing wet waste streams, and producing net energy. In response to your request, we are pleased to furnish this ROM review and cost estimate to you. Following your review, we propose another meeting for a more in-depth discussion about your Little Miami operations and the Omni Processor to more accurately define the scope of work desired for this project. BACKGROUND Currently, MSDGC s Little Miami WWTP processes approximately 45 dry tons/day of biosolids from your wastewater treatment process. The daily volume of biosolids would require a much larger unit than Janicki Bioenergy s commercially available unit, the S200, therefore, Janicki Bioenergy recommends operating a single large scale Omni Processor at the Little Miami site to accommodate the current volume. The purchase and operation of this unit is assumed in our cost estimate. Using components that are well tested and proven, Janicki Bioenergy will scale the current commercial Omni Processor technology to meet your capacity needs. This will provide a better value than simply purchasing multiple Omni Processors, and allows for increased thermodynamic efficiencies, economies of scale, and conservation of real-estate. Janicki Bioenergy will be fully responsible for design, fabrication, shipping, assembly, and commissioning of the machine. Alternatively, Janicki Bioenergy could fabricate, ship and assemble three standard commercial S200 Omni Processors to be run in parallel, if MSDGC is more interested in this option. We have included a cost estimate and information about this option as well. For either option, a full maintenance contract is available that includes 24-hour remote operation by Janicki engineers, support and monitoring, in addition to software upgrades, hardware upgrades, and replacement parts for the life of the machine. Finally, Janicki Bioenergy will provide a performance guarantee to ensure that the total volume of sludge listed in the specifications below is processed, without having to co-fire with auxiliary fuel.

74 OMNI PROCESSOR TECHNOLOGY BENEFITS The proposed Omni Processor configuration with this capacity could permit Little Miami to: 1. Right-size biosolids handling process continuous vs batch process 2. Reduce auxiliary fuel (NG) use volume and cost 3. Meet new EPA imposed Hg limits 4. Eliminate need for landfilling excess biosolids 5. Provide excess electricity. 6. Provide excess heat for heating buildings, or hot water (if desired). 7. Eliminate 503 compliance currently associated with the Little Miami operation. OPTION I SINGLE LARGE SCALE OMNI PROCESSOR Outputs We estimate that the Omni Processor capable of processing approximately 200 wet 22% moisture would produce approximately: 900 kw of electricity (800 kw of excess electricity). 35,000 gallons of distilled water/day 30,000 pounds of thermal energy (steam)/day 4 tons/day of pathogen-free fly ash These estimates are subject to refinement based on detailed analysis of the wastewater treatment process at Little Miami, however, Janicki Bioenergy is reasonably confident in the above. ESTIMATED COST OF OMNI PROCESSOR We are providing a preliminary cost estimate for the installation of one large scale Omni Processor at the Little Miami WWTP. If MSDGC desires to take the next step, Janicki Bioenergy would prepare a scope of work, a quote for the specifications, and timetable for building, delivering and installing the Omni Processor. For the cost estimate below, we assume the following: Omni Process Inputs 1. The processor would consume biosolids at a continuous rate of approximately 45 dry tons per day. 2. The processor would require approximately gallons/minute of makeup water, which would be provided by MSDGC. 3. The processor would require an auxiliary fuel source (such as natural gas) for startup of the unit, which MSDGC would also provide. 4. MSDGC would also be responsible for selling or otherwise disposing of the pathogen-free fly ash. Janicki Bioenergy Deliverables Janicki Bioenergy would be responsible for the following:

75 1. Design and Fabrication. Janicki Bioenergy would modify the design of the current Omni Processor to meet the needs of MSDGC. This would include scaling up several components including the boiler and in-feed system, and building multiple driers to be used in parallel. Due to the size of the proposed system, a steam turbine would be used instead of a steam engine. The system would be designed without the potable water generation capability. 2. Shipping. Janicki Bioenergy would ship the unit from Sedro-Woolley, WA to the designated installation location. 3. Assembly and Commissioning. Janicki Bioenergy would fully assemble and commission the Omni Processor once it had arrived onsite, and ensure it is meeting the performance specifications. 4. Training. Janicki Bioenergy would train MSDGC personnel to operate and maintain the Omni Processor. The training period would be approximately 4-6 weeks and would be conducted onsite at Janicki Bioenergy s facilities prior to shipment. 5. Warranty. The Omni Processor comes standard with a 1 year warranty on parts, and is included in the pricing shown below. 6. Performance Guarantee. Janicki Bioenergy will provide a 10 year performance guarantee to ensure that the technology processes the total volume of sludge listed above without having to co-fire with an auxiliary fuel stream. Any failure to meet this specification will result in a rebate equal to the cost of the additional fuel. This is assuming that the machine is being operated correctly and that the fuel streams are reasonably consistent with what is listed in the specifications. This does not include the auxiliary fuel costs for start-up. 7. Maintenance and Support. Janicki Bioenergy offers an annual maintenance and support contract. The maintenance and support contract includes hardware replacements, as well as 24 hour technical support, software upgrades, remote operation, and monitoring by Janicki Bioenergy engineers. Approximately 5% of the capital cost should be budgeted for annual maintenance which includes replacement costs of major components; however, replacement cost estimates for the major components are included below as requested. Price Estimate The price for an Omni Processor deliverable (items 1 through 6 above) is approximately $16 M, depending on options. The full maintenance contract (item 7) is an added cost; however this could be separated into multiple line items and reduced in scope and cost. *Note: The price for the processor will not exceed $18 M, however, an environmental evaluation will need to be performed in order to determine if additional emission control or monitoring equipment will be required. Estimated replacement costs for major components a. Steam Dryer pair -- $1 M b. Complete boiler assembly -- $3 M i. Major components: 1. Evaporator tubes -- $350k 2. Economizer tubes -- $450k

76 3. Super-heater tubes -- $425k 4. Water wall tubes -- $375k c. Steam turbine -- $2.25 M *Note: Replacement parts are included in the maintenance contract; however the costs for the major components have been included separately per request. MSDGC Responsibilities MSDGC would be responsible for: 1. Site preparation per the following specifications: a. Building Enclosure/Reinforced Concrete Pad approximately 105 x 120 b. Electrical 480 VAC, 3-phase c. Natural Gas input 2 min d. Water < 1 gal/min e. Sewer TBD, if discharged directly to wastewater treatment plant. 2. Consumables for the operations of the Omni Processor. These would include: a. Biosolids b. Start-up fuel (Propane, Natural Gas, etc.) c. Make-up water. The processor would require approximately gallons/minute of makeup water. This water is required to make up for water consumed in the steam generation process. d. Chemical additives. (Daily) e. Sand for the fluidized bed boiler (Periodic) 3. Fly Ash Disposal. MSDGC would be responsible for the disposal of fly ash generated by the Omni Processor. 4. Daily maintenance and mechanical operation a. Onsite mechanics. During normal operation, 1 person per shift will be sufficient in order to run the machine; however additional personal should be available in order to help do regular maintenance and service on the machine. b. Other onsite labor. An additional person may be required to perform daily testing on the machine depending on the local environmental regulations.

77 Schedule Estimate The following is an estimated schedule for the fabrication, shipment, assembly and commissioning/certification of the Omni Processor: Project Activity Month of Project Contract Signed Engineering Site Prep Fabrication Shipment Assembly & Commissioni ng Final Certification *Note: It is possible to expedite this schedule.

78 Drawings Side view ft ft Top level view ft

79 120.0 ft ft Isometric view Front View ft

80 OPTION II THREE STANDARD OMNI PROCESSORS Outputs We estimate that three Omni Processors capable of processing a total of approximately 200 wet 22% moisture would produce approximately: 900 kw of electricity (750 kw of excess electricity). 35,000 gallons of distilled water/day 30,000 pounds of thermal energy (steam)/day 4 tons/day of pathogen-free fly ash These estimates are subject to refinement based on detailed analysis of the wastewater treatment process at Little Miami, however, Janicki Bioenergy is reasonably confident in the above. ESTIMATED COST OF THREE OMNI PROCESSORS We are providing a preliminary cost estimate for the installation of three standard Omni Processors at the Little Miami WWTP. If MSDGC desires to take the next step, Janicki Bioenergy would prepare a scope of work, a quote for the specifications, and timetable for building, delivering and installing 3 Omni Processors. For the cost estimate below, we assume the following: Omni Processor Inputs 1. Each processor would consume biosolids at a continuous rate of approximately 15 dry tons per day. 2. Each processor would require approximately gallons/minute of makeup water, which would be provided by MSDGC. 3. Each processor would require an auxiliary fuel source (such as natural gas) for startup of the unit, which MSDGC would also provide. 4. MSDGC would also be responsible for selling or otherwise disposing of the pathogen-free fly ash. This would consist of roughly 1.25 tons per day from each machine. Janicki Bioenergy Deliverables Janicki Bioenergy would be responsible for the following: 1. Design and Fabrication. Janicki Bioenergy would design and fabricate 3 of the existing Omni Processors without the potable water generation capability. 2. Shipping. Janicki Bioenergy would ship each unit from Sedro-Woolley, WA to the designated installation location. 3. Assembly and Commissioning. Janicki Bioenergy would fully assemble and commission each Omni Processor once they had arrived onsite, and ensure that each unit met the performance specifications. 4. Training. Janicki Bioenergy would train MSDGC personnel to operate and maintain the Omni Processors. The training period would be approximately 4-6 weeks and would be conducted onsite at Janicki Bioenergy s facilities prior to shipment.

81 5. Warranty. Each Omni Processor comes standard with a 1 year warranty on parts, and is included in the pricing shown below. 6. Performance Guarantee. Janicki Bioenergy will provide a 10 year performance guarantee to ensure that the technology processes the total volume of sludge listed above without having to co-fire with an auxiliary fuel stream. Any failure to meet this specification will result in a rebate equal to the cost of the additional fuel. This is assuming that the machine is being operated correctly and that the fuel streams are reasonably consistent with what is listed in the specifications. This does not include the auxiliary fuel costs for start-up. 7. Maintenance and Support. Janicki Bioenergy offers an annual maintenance and support contract. The maintenance and support contract includes hardware replacements, as well as 24 hour technical support, software upgrades, remote operation, and monitoring by Janicki Bioenergy engineers. Approximately 5% of the capital cost should be budgeted for annual maintenance which includes replacement costs of major components; however, replacement cost estimates for the major components are included below as requested. Price Estimate The price for each Omni Processor deliverable (items 1 through 6 above) is approximately $6 M, for total of $18 M for all three units. The full maintenance contract (item 7) is an added cost; however this could be separated into multiple line items reduced in scope and cost. Estimated replacement costs for major components a. Steam Dryer pair -- $1 M b. Complete boiler assembly -- $2 M i. Major components: 1. Evaporator tubes -- $200k 2. Economizer tubes -- $225k 3. Super-heater tubes -- $250k 4. Water wall tubes -- $175k c. Steam engine and gen set -- $200k *Note: Replacement parts are included in the maintenance contract; however the costs for the major components have been included separately per request. MSDGC Responsibilities MSDGC would be responsible for: 1. Site preparation per the following specifications: a. Building Enclosure/Reinforced Concrete Pad approximately 105 x 120 b. Electrical 480 VAC, 3-phase c. Natural Gas input 2 min d. Water < 1 gal/min

82 e. Sewer TBD, if discharged directly to wastewater treatment plant. 2. Consumables for the operations of the Omni Processor. These would include: f. Biosolids g. Start-up fuel (Propane, Natural Gas, etc.) h. Make-up water. Each processor would require approximately gallons/minute of makeup water. This water is required to make up for water consumed in the steam generation process. i. Chemical additives. (Daily) j. Sand for the fluidized bed boiler (Periodic) 3. Fly Ash Disposal. MSDGC would be responsible for the disposal of fly ash generated by the Omni Processor. 4. Daily maintenance and mechanical operation c. Onsite mechanics. During normal operation, 1 person per, shift per machine will be sufficient in order to run the machine; however additional personal should be available in order to help do regular maintenance and service on the machine. d. Other onsite labor. An additional person may be required to perform daily testing on the machine depending on the local environmental regulations.

83 Schedule Estimate The following is an estimated schedule for the fabrication, shipment, assembly and commissioning/certification of the three Omni Processors: Project Activity Month of Project Contract Signed Engineering Site Prep Fabrication of unit 1 Shipment of unit 1 Assembly and commissioni ng of unit 1 Fabrication of unit 2 Shipment of unit 2 Assembly and commissioni ng of unit 2 Fabrication of unit 3 Shipment of unit 3 Assembly and commissioni ng of unit 3 Final Certification *Note: It is possible to expedite this schedule.

84 Drawings Isometric Level ft ft Isometric ft Top level view ft

85 Front view ft

86 JANICKI BIOENERGY RECOMMENDATION Janicki Bioenergy recommends Option I; the single larger processor. Purchasing a single larger processor will not only provide capital cost savings of $2M, but will also provide significant operation and maintenance savings over time because operating a single unit is much simpler than operating three units in parallel. Additionally, due to increased efficiency due to scaling the technology, the single larger system will be able to output more electricity than three identical smaller units in parallel. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide you with this proposal. We are available to discuss the above information in more detail at your convenience. Sincerely, Sara VanTassel President Direct [email protected]

87 quasar Response to MSDGC Follow Up Questions Re: Odor Control January 13 th, 2016 Odor Control: quasar understands the importance of MSDGC maintaining its good neighbor status and ensuring that the proposed digester project will not impact its relationship with the surrounding community. We understand that the primary goal of all odor control measures is to minimize off-site odors. Therefore at this early stage we have incorporated the following odor control elements into our plant design: Enclosed Receiving and Solids Load Out quasar has conceptually designed the facility to allow fully enclosed receiving and solids load out with bold buildings under negative aeration. As cake solids loads from Muddy Creek and any solid food waste arrives at the receiving building the facility doors will be shut. At that point the door over the solids receiving hoppers will open and remain open only for the minimal time it takes for the dump trailer to deposit material into the hopper. At that point the hopper doors will close immediately and the main truck bay doors will not open until the hopper doors are fully closed. We believe that this design will minimize odors within the truck bays so that odors do not escape the building while the truck doors are open. The receiving building will be equipped with two fully enclosed solids receiving hoppers All hoses from tanker trucks disposing of liquids inside the building to the underground liquids pits will be connected via camlock fittings to minimize odors. Access to the liquids pits will remain closed via manhole covers during all non-receiving times. We believe that the odors from the liquid tanker trucks will be far less given the material is gravity fed directly to the covered underground tanks and not exposed to the air. The solids hoppers and liquid receiving pits will remain under constant negative pressure throughout the process. Solids load out will be housed in a separate building and doors will only be opened to allow trucks to enter and exit the building. The doors will be closed during loading of the trailers. The building will be designed to allow adequate space for mobile dewatering equipment to be housed indoors in the unlikely circumstance that the centrifuge is down for a longer period of time than the liquid storage capacity allows. quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road, Suite 320, Cleveland, OH (216)

88 Odor Control Technology A robust two-step system is proposed including a wet scrubber and a final activated carbon polishing tank. Via the introduction of a scrubbing agent such as sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide compounds will be removed with high efficiency. Air will then pass through activated carbon media to absorb and remove residual VOCs as a final polishing step. Other biological media can also be considered, such as what is in place at existing quasar facilities. quasar anticipated in its original design capturing all point sources in the anaerobic digestion process including solids receiving, liquids receiving, feedstock storage tanks, gravity belt thickening, dewatering, and solids load out. quasar understands that MSDGC has experienced odor issues in the truck bays at its septage receiving facility at Mill Creek. In its preliminary design quasar believes that its odor capture and enclosed solids receiving design will minimize odor within the truck bays. Overall, we are more than willing to work collaboratively with MSDGC to adjust the design and/or add capital to arrive at a satisfactory odor control system. Page 2

89 MSD Cincinnati Little Miami and Muddy Creek WWTPs Anaerobic Digestion Analysis December For ARCADIS/MSD Cincinnati quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road, Suite 320 Cleveland, OH

90 Page 2 of 18 quasar energy group Contents Contact Information... 3 SECTION I: Executive Summary... 4 SECTION II: Public Private Partnership (PPP) Structure... 5 SECTION III: Anaerobic Digestion System Design Considerations... 7 SECTION IV: Capital Costs & Biosolids Management Fees SECTION V: APPENDIX APPENDIX EXHIBIT A: Sample Ohio Biomass Acceptance Protocol APPENDIX EXHIBIT B: Mass Balances & Process Flow APPENDIX EXHIBIT C: Site Diagrams Business Sensitive Proprietary Commercial Information quasar considers the information included in this study as proprietary commercial information and not for distribution beyond ARCADIS & MSD Cincinnati. All intentions to share any material included in this proposal with other parties requires written consent of quasar energy group and the opportunity to retract business sensitive information. CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

91 Page 3 of 18 Contact Information Project Development & Management Office: Alan Johnson, PE, Vice President M (440) E [email protected] Dave Baran, Project Coordinator M (216) E [email protected] CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

92 Page 4 of 18 SECTION I: Executive Summary Project Background: MSD Cincinnati is interested in investigating the prospects of installing anaerobic digestion at its Little Miami WWTP and/or Muddy Creek WWTP as a viable alternative to biosolids management via incineration. As part of its scope of work in evaluating multiple alternatives for MSD, ARCADIS subcontracted with quasar energy group, an industry leader in anaerobic digestion with experience in designing, building, owning and operating facilities to provide further information. The following report includes initial design considerations for multiple facilities, capital cost estimates and a proposed biosolids management fee for projects delivered under a privately financed, public private partnership (PPP) model. Anaerobic Digestion Alternatives/Options quasar was asked to consider various configurations of an anaerobic digestion facility at multiple wastewater treatment plants. The options analyzed are as follows: Option Description One (1) quasar facility in the vicinity of Little Miami WWTP that receives dewatered cake from Muddy Creek and liquid (thickened) sludge from Polk Run, Sycamore Option 1A Creek, and Little Miami. Polk Run and Sycamore Creek will continue to be hauled to Little Miami via a tanker truck with all liquid (thickened) sludge conveyed to the quasar facility via force main. One (1) quasar facility in the vicinity of Little Miami WWTP that receives dewatered Option 1B cake from Muddy Creek and dewatered cake from Little Miami (including Polk Run and Sycamore Creek). Two (2) quasar facilities with one in the vicinity of Muddy Creek WWTP that receives dewatered cake from Muddy Creek and one facility in the vicinity of Little Miami Option 2A WWTP that receives liquid (thickened) sludge from Polk Run, Sycamore Creek, and Little Miami. All liquid (thickened) sludge will be conveyed to the quasar facility via force main from the Little Miami WWTP. Two (2) quasar facilities with one in the vicinity of Muddy Creek WWTP that receives dewatered cake from Muddy Creek and one facility in the vicinity of Little Miami Option 2B WWTP that receives dewatered cake from Little Miami (including Polk Run and Sycamore Creek). CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

93 Page 5 of 18 SECTION II: Public Private Partnership (PPP) Structure There are multiple viable options for delivery and ownership of the potential anaerobic digestion facilities. quasar is open to a traditional publically owned facility procured via design/build. However, for this analysis quasar was directed to focus mainly on a privately financed, public private partnership model which aims to maximize each party s experience and contributions to the project. Design/Build/Finance: quasar and its partners would be responsible for engineering, procurement, and construction of the proposed anaerobic digestion project(s). Project financing would be born by the quasar team. Options exist for Cincinnati to contribute towards the capital cost in the form of a prepayment on the long term biosolids management contract for the benefit of a reduced fee. See Section IV for more detail. Buy Out Option: MSD Cincinnati would have the ability to buy the facility and assume operational responsibility at various points during the contract at an agreed upon pre determined value clearly stated in the contract language. Plant Operations & Maintenance: all operational costs associated with the anaerobic digestion facility including labor, consumables, utilities, contracted maintenance labor, and insurance would be the responsibility of quasar. Additional Biomass Sourcing/Co Digestion Considerations: quasar, potentially in collaboration with Hamilton County, would source additional organic material for the digester in the form of food waste and fats, oils and grease (FOG). quasar would retain 100% of tip fee associated with the organics material but would also be responsible for the costs associated with processing the additional material. The added benefits include increased biogas yields, an additional revenue stream for the project which results in a lower overall tip fee to MSD (see Section IV), and the availability of an organics disposal facility that the greater Cincinnati region is currently lacking. A strict biomass protocol would be CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

94 Page 6 of 18 enforced to ensure that materials accepted meet regulatory standards and will not harm the digester operations (see Appendix Exhibit A). Furthemore, quasar is willing to collaborate with MSD to ensure that it does not compete with existing MSD industrial discharge customers. Residual Class A Cake Solids Beneficial Reuse: quasar would be responsible for management of all Class A residual solids including associated costs. quasar has been in discussions with multiple potential partners for beneficially reusing the material through a variety of uses including composting, agriculture, and land reclamation. Energy Generation: While there are multiple options for energy production including renewable natural gas (RNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG), quasar limited its initial analysis to installing combined heat and power (CHP) units to produce electricity and heat. quasar will consume some electricity and heat to cover the parasitic load of the anaerobic digestion facility, however the remainder would be available for sale to Little Miami WWTP and/or Muddy Creek WWTP. This transaction would likely be realized via a net metering arrangement with MSD s current utility providers. quasar understands that MSD s rates are variable given its purchasing on the PJM market. The contract would have clear terms for establishing that quasar s electric prices to not exceed the MSD s average PJM rate and likely would have a provision for reconciling rates at the end of an agreed upon term such as month, quarter or year. In quasar s experience the value of the electric provided by the digester should be discounted from the all in retail rate to account for demand charges that will still be incurred during planned maintenance periods for the CHP(s). In its financial modeling, quasar discounted by 25% resulting in an average sale price of $.049/kWh at Little Miami WWTP and $.041/kWh at Muddy Creek WWTP, however final pricing is dependent on further analysis of electric costs. quasar would retain 100% of the renewable energy credits (RECs) associated with the energy generation. Land Use/Lease: Little Miami For all options considered, the City of Cincinnati would provide quasar with a long term lease at a nominal cost for the property contingent to Little Miami WWTP. This property will need flood protection improvements. After further research, quasar has determined it is in the best interest of the City to assume the costs associated with the flood protection so that there is a clear path of ownership and all liabilities associated with the property. These costs have been estimated and are detailed in Section IV. This was the initial suggested location by ARCADIS/MSD and in the time constraints for the project the only site considered near Little Miami WWTP. quasar is open to the alternative of locating at another site near the plant for consideration as well. Ideally this site would not require the additional cost of flood protection. Muddy Creek quasar would acquire a currently vacant parcel of land to the east of the Muddy Creek WWTP for the project. quasar would be responsible for all associated costs and as the land owner, and would finance and construct the necessary flood protection improvements. CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

95 Page 7 of 18 Centrate Discharge/Industrial Waste Surcharge: Given the expected characterization of the centrate returned to Little Miami and Muddy Creek, ARCADIS and MSD believe both plants have capacity to accept the additional nutrient loads. At the direction of MSD, quasar has assumed that it will be responsible for the industrial waste surcharges associated with these flows. This represents a large operational cost to the project and results in a substantial impact to the biosolids management fees required to provide a return on the private capital investment. These costs and potential options to improve the project economics are detailed in Section IV. Options to Improve Project Economics: quasar believes there are several options that could significantly improve the project economics and result in a lower fee required of MSD for biosoilds processing. These include the generation of pipeline quality renewable natural gas (RNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) with the addition of equipment to upgrade the biogas. Given the limited time and resources available for this analysis, quasar was unable to further analyze and quantify these benefits but is able to provide this upon further engagement. Truck Traffic: For all scenarios, there will be a net increase in truck traffic at the facilities due to the incorporation of co digestion and the haul out of Class A solids for beneficial re use. However, all of the planned food waste and FOG is currently already on the roads as it goes to alternative disposal locations such as a landfill and the hauling of Class A material is not anticipated to be a political concern. In scenarios 2A and 2B, where there is an anaerobic digestion facility built adjacent to the Muddy Creek WWTP, there will be an annual reduction of 1,216 trucks carrying non stabilized sludge on the roads which quasar had understood to be the major concern; this equates to average of 3 4 trucks per day 1. SECTION III: Anaerobic Digestion System Design Considerations General Technology Description In all four options, there are consistent technology elements at each facility. The major components that are included in each option include: Solids receiving modules(s) Liquids receiving tank(s) Biomass equalization tank(s) Anaerobic digestion tank(s) Class A PFRP process equipment Class A effluent storage gallon tank Centrifuges for dewatering CHP(s) SCADA controls system Robust odor control system 1 Based on Muddy Creek producing 40 wet tons per day of cake solids and an average truck capacity of 12 wet tons considering the roll off constraint. CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

96 Page 8 of 18 Major Technology Components Solids Receiving Module Biomass in the form of dewatered cake biosolids and solid food waste will be dumped into the solids receiving module. The hopper lies in an enclosed in ground concrete pit. The solids receiving modules include integrated maceration; as solids are received, the grinder/macerator reduces the particle size to less than ¼ to create a pumpable slurry. The solids receiving module is covered to reduce odors and provide weather protection when not in use. Additionally, the module is constantly under negative process with all process air routed through the odor control system. From the solids receiving module material is pumped to the EQ tank to be mixed with other feedstocks and stored prior to digestion. Liquids Receiving Pit Low total solids content biomass will be discharged into 12,000 gallon in ground concrete receiving tanks. Liquids receiving tanks are capable of processing biomass such as liquefied food waste and fats, oils and greases (FOG). In quasar s experience, this provides additional protection for loads with suspected inerts contamination such as rags and plastic which settle to the bottom of the tank and are periodically removed via a vac truck. Material will be pumped from the liquids receiving tank to the biomass equalization tank. Biomass Equalization Tank The EQ tank provides a hydraulic storage buffer prior to the digester tanks. quasar typically sizes the equalization tank to provide approximately 3 to 5 days of storage; this allows for dips and peaks in feedstock receiving. The EQ tank additionally provides space to mix high COD material to ensure a consistent lend to the main digester tank. Biomass is dosed from the EQ tank to the digester tank. The EQ tank is an insulated, bolted, steel tank. The tank has a sideentry mechanical mixer to prevent the stratification of material and ensure a consistent mix for digester dosing. The roof is a steel dome supported with external rafters and a fusion bond. The tank has removable panels for easy access for periodic cleanouts of accumulated grit and settled solids. Blended feedstock is automatically dosed to the digester tanks in set intervals. The volume to be sent is contingent upon the volume in the digester, the measured volatile fatty acid levels of the digestate, and CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

97 Page 9 of 18 the COD measurements of the feedstock. The plant operator determines the amount of material dosed from the EQ tank to the digester. Digester Tank The digester tank will be a heated, insulated, bolted steel tank. A top entry propeller mixer prevents layer formation of material, ensuring a healthy digester with a consistent mix of feedstock and bacteria in the tank. Conditioned biomass from the EQ tank is fed to the digester tank at a turbulence zone, created by a mixer to minimize the time required to obtain a complete mix. The digester tank provides the ideal environment to allow methanogenic bacteria to convert organic biomass into biogas. Some of the waste heat from the CHP engine will be used to maintain the digestate temperature in the tank. The digestate will be held at approximately 100ᵒF via a sludge to water heat exchanger. Class A Process/PRFP Tank Digestate is removed from the digester tank and pumped to the PFRP/Heat Treat tank. A specialized heat exchanger circulates the digestate and heats it to the required pasteurization temperature of 162ᵒ F. After this temperature is achieved, the effluent is held at temperature for twenty (20) minutes. Once treated, the effluent is stored in a steel bolted storage tank. After cooling, the treated effluent will be dewatered via a centrifuge. Liquid filtrate will be either recycled to the feedstock tank for dilution or discharged to the WWTP(s) and solid residuals are designated for beneficial reuse. Centrifuge After the Class A/PFRP process, effluent will be dewatered in a centrifuge. Centrifugal dewatering is a high speed process that uses force from rapid rotation of a cylindrical bowl to separate solid biomass from liquid. Solids are removed by a scroll conveyor and liquids are discharged in a separate channel. Gas Conditioning Equipment Biogas is passed through a desulphurization reactor filled with media impregnated ferrous sulfate. The hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) reacts with the ferrous sulfate, which effectively removes the H 2 S from the biogas stream. Gas dew point is lowered via a gas chiller, reducing the moisture content in the biogas. CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

98 Page 10 of 18 CHP System Biogas will be used as fuel in a CHP to produce electricity. Electric energy will be used to support the plant s parasitic load; energy in excess of the parasitic load will be supplied to Cincinnati MSD at a rate consistent with the PJM market. Heat from the water jacket and exhaust will be used to maintain the temperature in the digester. Through electrical generation and thermal recovery, the anticipated efficiency is approximately 80%. A typical CHP design is pictured on the right. CHP units include integrated utility paralleling switchgear that complies with IEEE 1547 requirements. SCADA Controls System The ADS control system allows the plant to be monitored from both the control building and remote locations. The SCADA system operates through an internet portal and provides real time data to the plant operator. From SCADA, an operator can monitor and control a) process control parameters, b) equipment like pumps, mixers, and the CHP unit, and process data (i.e. gas quantity and quality, digester temperature, and material flow). Operators can remotely access the entire SCADA system via internet or smartphone twenty four (24) hours a day. Odor Control Given the importance of maintaing good neighbor status and controlling odors in an urban environment, quasar anticipates that the digester facility will have an advanced design for odor control. A robust twostep system is proposed including a wet scrubber and a final activated carbon polishing tank. Via the introduction of a scrubbing agent such as sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide compounds will be removed with 99+% efficiency. Air will then pass through activated carbon media to absorb and remove residual VOCs as a final polishing step. The solution will be designed for sufficient capacity and an adequate number of air exchanges/hour to account for all point sources in the anaerobic digestion process including liquids receiving, feedstock storage tanks, gravity belt thickening and centrifuges. CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

99 Page 11 of 18 Equipment Comparison by Option The below tables show a side by side comparison of the equipment configurations associated with each option and each site. A mass balance and process flow diagram for each option can be found in the Appendix. Little Miami Site Options 1A 1B 2A 2B Sludge Delivery Little Miami WWTP Pumped Trucked Pumped Trucked Muddy Creek WWTP Trucked Trucked N/A N/A Gravity Belt Thickener Solids Receiving 2 Hoppers 2 Hoppers 1 Hopper 2 Hoppers Liquids Receiving 24,000 gal 24,000 gal 24,000 gal 24,000 gal EQ Tank 230,000 gal 230,000 gal 230,000 gal 230,000 gal Anaerobic Digestion Tank 2 x 1.1M gal 2 x 1.1M gal 2 x 1.1M gal 2 x 1.1M gal Class A/PFRP Process Class A Storage Tank 550,000 gal 550,000 gal 550,000 gal 550,000 gal Centrifuge Min. 100,000 gal/day Min. 100,000 gal/day Min. 100,000 gal/day Min. 100,000 gal/day Gas Conditioning CHP 2 MW 2MW 2MW 2MW SCADA Odor Control System Muddy Creek Site Options 1A 1B 2A & 2B Sludge Delivery Trucked to Little Miami Trucked to Little Miami Trucked Gravity Belt Thickener N/A N/A N/A Solids Receiving N/A N/A 2 Hoppers Liquids Receiving N/A N/A 24,000 gal EQ Tank N/A N/A 230,000 gal Anaerobic Digestion Tank N/A N/A 1 x 1.1M gal Class A/PFRP Process N/A N/A Class A Storage Tank N/A N/A 230,000 gal Centrifuge N/A N/A Min 50,000 gal/day Gas Upgrade N/A N/A CHP N/A N/A 1MW SCADA N/A N/A CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

100 Page 12 of 18 Site Layouts Little Miami Facility CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

101 Page 13 of 18 Levee Considerations: Little Miami Levee to north/northwest will be extended to protect site to 100 year flood levels A flood gate will be installed for site access via Route 52 Duplicative portion of the levee can be eliminated as well as the current vehicle ramp over the levee; so that all ground within the levee may be made level to maximize available space Potential to re use soil from existing levee, ramp for new portions of the levee Additional soil sources identified in the near vicinity Given that the land is owned by the City, legal counsel has recommended that the City/MSD finance and own the flood improvements to avoid complication of liabilities associated with flood protection and potential lease of the land CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

102 Page 14 of 18 Muddy Creek Facility CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

103 Page 15 of 18 Levee Considerations: Vacant land (28 acres) to the east of WWTP is available for an asking price of $1.25M from Dwyer Real Estate; quasar believes a 3 5 acre parcel can be acquired for an estimated $200K Extend existing Muddy Creek Levee to east to protect digester site Install a second flood gate for site access via River Road Eliminate duplicative portion of the Levee; potential to re use soil from existing levee; additional soil sources identified in the near vicinity Given private ownership of land, flood improvements would be financed and constructed by quasar CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

104 Page 16 of 18 SECTION IV: Capital Costs & Biosolids Management Fees For all options, quasar approximated the capital costs associated with each facility as well as the associated biosolids management fee (if delivered under a privately financed public private partnership) and associated net present value (NPV) for the 20 year lifecycle cost. Option CAPEX Year 1 Biosolids Fee $/Wet Ton Total Annual Cost Year 1 NPV (MSD) Option 1A $15,197,672 $52.00 $2,467,400 $23,791,794 Option 1B $14,836,272 $54.00 $2,562,300 $25,126,859 Option 2A $29,219,413 $63.50 $3,013,075 $26,915,562 Option 2B $28,858,013 $66.00 $3,131,700 $28,584,393 Key Drivers to Biosolids Management Fee 1.) Industrial Waste Surcharge MSD directed quasar to include standard surcharge rates and costs in its operational expenses for all discharged centrate from the dewatering process. This represents a significant annual expense to the project: $776K in Option 1A and 1B and $1.1M in Option 2A and 2B. In order to cover this added operational expense, the biosolids management fee was required to move much higher than originally anticipated. If the anaerobic digestion project was not charged an industrial surcharge the biosolids management cost would be much lower. See below for an illustration. Option Impact to Year 1 Fee Revised Fee $/Wet ($/Wet Ton) if No Surcharge Ton w/o Surcharge Option 1A $16.36 $35.64 Option 1B $16.36 $37.64 Option 2A $23.18 $40.32 Option 2B $23.18 $42.82 However, if MSD is not able to alter its industrial surcharge policy for this project we would advocate that the added revenue to MSD be counted as a benefit to the overall project (see Net Present Value discussion below). In MSD s current operations, particularly in Option 1A and Option 2A it is currently incurring a majority of the treatment costs associated with this nutrient load at Little Miami as the filtrate from the dewatering process is discharged to the headworks and no surcharge is collected. If MSD does prefers to continue to surcharge the project s centrate and does not recognize it as a revenue stream quasar would advocate to install additional pre treatment technology to reduce the nutrient load and the resulting surcharge. This will result in additional capital and operational costs and reduced surcharge revenue to MSD but it will also result in a lower overall biosolids management fee than currently anticipated with the high surcharge costs. CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

105 Page 17 of 18 Overall, we believe this is an important component of the project that requires further discussion to arrive at the most beneficial arrangement for both parties. 2.) Co Digestion Increased Biogas Potential The addition of outside organic waste material significantly improves the project economics from a result of incoming tip fees and electric potential associated with the material. Additional Electric Potential from Organic Waste Substrates by Option Option 1A Option 1B Option 2A Option 2B MSD Electric Potential (kw) Additional Organics Electric Potential (kw) Total Electric Potential (kw) These added revenue streams from outside sources help to offset the costs needed from MSD s biosolids management fee to recover the capital costs and achieve a return on investment. This is particularly important for the options that include multiple facilities, as the outside revenue sources are critical to offsetting the higher capital costs associated with building two plants. The table below shows the avoided tip fee cost as a result of incorporating co digestion in each option. Option Value of Co Digestion on an MSD Revised Fee $/Wet Ton Year 1 if $/Wet Ton Basis Year 1 Co Digestion is Not Permitted Option 1A $8.53 $60.53 Option 1B $8.41 $62.41 Option 2A $30.42 $93.92 Option 2B $29.63 $95.63 Should MSD prefer to not to include co digestion at quasar facilities the aforementioned biosolids management fees would increase by the numbers reflected in the chart directly above. 3.) MSD Pre Payment on Biosolids Management Fee As asked by MSD, quasar is open to MSD contributing an upfront pre payment for the 20 year biosolids management fee in exchange for a reduced fee per unit of biosolids. quasar executed a similar structure with the City of Wooster in its standing public private partnership. quasar would credit MSD for its contribution by valuing it consistent with its expected cost of financing and reduce the annual tip fee. The benefit would be an additional 23% savings on the NPV for every pre payment dollar as follows for the biosolids management fee: CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

106 Page 18 of 18 Option 20% Pre Payment Discount to Year 1 Revised Fee Fee ($/Wet Ton) ($/Wet Ton) Impact to NPV Revised NPV Option 1A $3,039,534 $5.58 $46.42 $3,728,061 $20,063,733 Option 1B $2,967,254 $5.45 $48.55 $3,639,408 $21,487,452 Option 2A $5,843,883 $10.74 $52.76 $7,167,660 $19,747,902 Option 2B $5,771,603 $10.60 $55.40 $7,079,007 $21,505,387 Key Assumptions: CAPEX: Options 1A & 1B do not include the associated flood protection costs associated with the adjacent Little Miami site. quasar believes it is more appropriate for MSD Cincinnati to finance these costs (preliminarily estimated at $1.7M) and own the improvements to clearly establish ownership and liabilities for flood protection on publically owned land. If the site were to shift to a non public piece of land quasar would assume all costs and ideally achieve savings on avoided flood protection costs. quasar is responsible for all costs at the Muddy Creek site. Final cost of capital is to be determined but quasar anticipates that project will be funded with a combination of equity and debt with senior debt at an interest rate between 5% and 7%. Biosolids Fee ($/Wet Ton): The numbers provided above are shown uniformly in $/wet ton basis for ease of comparison. (Assumed 32,850 annual wet tons at 22%TS for Little Miami and 14,600 wet tons at 27% TS for Muddy Creek). quasar is willing to adjust these numbers to a $/gallon or $/dry ton basis to allow for more accurate accounting and tracing of material. The biosolids fee, along with all of quasar s operational costs escalates at an annual rate of 1.5% to maintain pace with inflation. Net Present Value: Calculated from a combination of biosolids tip fees and new Industrial Waste Surcharge revenue charged to the project. An illustration of the first year total expenses are shown below; these numbers are then grown at inflation and discounted over a 20 year period at a discount rate of 5% to arrive at the 20 year NPV of the lifecycle costs associated with the digester alternatives. Option 1A Option 1B Option 2A Option 2B Total Biosolids Fee $ (2,467,400) $ (2,562,300) $ (3,013,075) $ (3,131,700) Surcharge Revenue $ 776,216 $ 776,216 $ 1,099,845 $ 1,099,845 Total Yearly Expense $ (1,691,184) $ (1,786,084) $ (1,913,230) $ (2,031,855) Transportation Costs: Transportation services and associated costs associated with trucking material from Muddy Creek to Little Miami in Option 1A and Option 1B are not included in the biosolids management fee, nor the net present value. quasar did not know how MSD wished to procure these services and what allocation to use, however this can be included with further guidance from MSD. SECTION V: APPENDIX CONFIDENTIAL quasar energy group

107 6/2/15 OHIO ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY BIOMASS ACCEPTANCE PROTOCOL 1. Only pre-approved materials from approved sources are accepted at this facility. No hazardous waste is accepted at this facility. 2. Truck drivers may be required to be pre-approved thorough background check and present picture ID with deliveries. 3. Inflow for all biomass, including biosolids (sewage sludge), must be below ceiling limits for Cu, Cd, Ni, Zn, Pb, As, Se, Mo, Hg, and PCB (and for out-of -state generators, dioxins/dibenzofurans) as required in 40 CFR 503 and OAC The goal of the Anaerobic Digestion Facility (ADF) is to produce Exceptional Quality (EQ) products, so we will limit intake of biomass with metals in biomass that exceed the EQ limits by more than 25%. Pollutant Ceiling Concentration in PPM Clean Biosolids Limits in PPM Arsenic Cadmium Copper 4,300 1,500 Lead Mercury Molybdenum 75 NA Nickel Selenium Zinc 7,500 2,800 PCB <1 NA 4. Biosolids generators must provide their historical and quarterly NPDES permit limits and analytical data to QEG for prior approval. The EPA is aware of pollutants in specific wastewater treatment plants that may be of concern in addition to the Federal rules and regulations. 5. This facility will not accept loads with plastic bed liners or chemical treatments to keep loads from freezing or sticking to the truck bed. 6. A Manifest will be required in addition to a weight slip. 7. See below for detailed requirements and restrictions. quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road, Suite 320, Cleveland, OH (216)

108 BIOMASS QUALITIES & PRICING BASIS Price for use of the ADF is based upon several factors which affect management of the facility in terms of total loading rates, volatile solids loadings rates, nutrient management, C:N ratio balance, digested product output, and effluent generation and management. Loads will be visually inspected on a daily basis. Out of spec loads will be rejected. The following are acceptable operational ranges for acceptance of biomass and surcharges for exceeding of the limits: (A) Variance from the following limits will result in additional cost for disposal and/or rejection of the biomass from the facility. See Surcharges below. (B) Inert Materials Loads must not contain visible inert materials such as plastic, trash, or other solid wastes. Contaminated loads will be rejected. (C) % Total Solids Biomass received must be pumpable. The normal range for this is liquid (<1% to 12%) to semi-solid sludge (<30% total solids). Once an expected % Total Solids for the incoming biomass is established, then the acceptable range is established at 5% above that % Total Solids. The expected range of % Total Solids is 9 to 19%. (D) COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) This is the relative strength of the biomass. The ADF can only process a set dry tonnage of COD/day. Once an expected COD for the incoming biomass is established, then the acceptable range is established at 5% above that % Volatile Solids. The expected average mg/l of COD is 200,000 or less. The maximum acceptable is 300,000 mg/l. (E) Nitrogen Content of the ADF must be limited to prevent ammonia toxicity. Once an expected Nitrogen Content (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen on dry weight basis) for the incoming biomass is established, then the acceptable range is established at 5% above that % Nitrogen Content. The expected range is 10 to 20% nitrogen (TKN). (F) ph Once an expected ph for the incoming biomass is established, then the acceptable range is established at 2 S.U. above or below that ph. Maximum and minimum ph values are <12.5 and >5.0, respectively. (G) Sulfur Sulfur in the feedstocks converts to very odorous and corrosive H 2 S during digestion. The incoming feedstock has to have a COD:SO 4 ratio of 10 or greater. (H) Septic or Soured Wastes May not be acceptable to this facility because of potential for digester upsets. Each will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Surcharges Recycling requires source separation from contamination. It is understood that contamination (inorganic material such as plastic, wood, metal and foreign objects such as locks, tools, etc.) will do damage and /or reduce the efficiency of the anaerobic digestion process and contaminate the end product from the digester. Every reasonable effort to prevent contaminants from being disposed of at quasar will be made. The generator is responsible for damages caused by contamination and will pay for damages to equipment and/or cost to remove and dispose of contamination. Page 2

109 Manifest #: Delivery Manifest Form quasar Facility: Biomass Cust.: Receiving Date: Pick Up Time: IN: OUT: quasar Operator: Demurrage: HRS: MIN: Unloading Time: IN: OUT: Load Description: Hauler Information Hauling Company Name: Truck Driver Name: Truck # / ID #: Driver Phone Number: Gross Weight (tare + product): Tare Weight: Product Weight: Gallons / Tons: I certify that the biomass in this load was generated by this facility, is not hazardous and that it does not contain pollutants of regulatory concern in excess of 40 CFR 503, OAC , other applicable rules, or the facility NPDES permit. I further certify that while under my control, the load has not been altered or added to with any other materials. Truck Driver / Hauler: Print: Signature: quasar Operator: Print: Signature: Biomass Customer: Print: Signature: Facility Rules 1. Only approved materials from approved sources are accepted at this facility. 2. Inflow materials must be non-hazardous and below ceiling limits for Cu, Cd, Ni, Zn, Pb, As, Se, Mo, Hg, and PCB in 40 CFR 503 and OAC Generators must provide their historical and quarterly NPDES permit limits and analytical data to QEG for prior approval. The EPA is aware of pollutants in specific treatment plants that may be of concern in addition to the Federal rules and regulations. 4. This facility will not accept loads with disposable plastic bed liners or chemical treatments to keep loads from freezing or sticking to the truck bed. 5. Site hours are 7 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday through Friday, 7 AM to 11 AM on Saturday. quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road, Suite 320, Cleveland, Ohio (216) [email protected] Revised: November 2014

110 PROHIBITED DISCHARGES No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, directly or indirectly, any substance which causes an interference or pass through of the ADF (Anaerobic Digestion Facility), or which disrupts or inhibits the ADF, its treatment processes, operations, or its sludge processes, use, or disposal. No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, directly or indirectly, any substance which constitutes a slug. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged, directly or indirectly, any of the following described substances into the sewer system: (A) Any solid or viscous substance capable of causing obstruction to the flow in the sewers, or other interference with the proper operation of the sewer system, for example, but not limited to: construction materials, ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, wood, plastic, fur, and/or wax. (B) Any flammable or explosive substances, such as gasoline, kerosene, benzene, naphtha, or other substances having a flash point equal to or less than one hundred forty (140) degrees Fahrenheit as determined by closed cup method in accordance with approved analytical procedures. (C) Any discharge that will cause the sewage temperature in the inflow to be above one hundred twenty (150) degrees Fahrenheit (66 0 C). (D) Any discharge having corrosive properties capable of causing damage, corrosive structural damage, or hazard to the ADF, appurtenant devices, treatment process, health and safety of facility employees, or which will impede the use and/or disposal of residual sludges or cause damage to the receiving water or the environment. (E) Any discharge having a ph above 12.5 S.U. or a ph below 5.0 S.U. at any time. (F) Any discharge containing toxic or poisonous substances in sufficient quantities to constitute a hazard to human beings or animals, or to create any hazard in the receiving waters. (G) Any discharge which, by itself or in conjunction with others, results in toxic or noxious gases, vapors or fumes within the ADF or any point of the system in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems. (H) Any discharge which contains an objectionable color not removed by the ADF such as, but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions. (I) Any discharge containing radioactive waste except: (1) When the user is authorized to use radioactive materials by the State Department of Health or other governmental agency empowered to regulate the use of radioactive materials; and (2) When the waste is discharged in strict conformity with current regulations of the Applicable Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations and recommendations for safe disposal; and (3) When the user is in compliance with all rules and regulations of this chapter and all other applicable regulatory agencies; and Page 4

111 (4) When there is no harmful effect on city personnel, sewer system, sludges, or receiving stream. (J) Any used fossil fuel oil or petroleum based materials. (K) Any discharge that result in exceedances of ten (10) percent of the lower explosive limit in the air at any point within the ADF. (L) Any discharge of silver-rich solutions from a photographic processing facility, unless such silver-rich solution is managed by a photographic processing facility in accordance with the Silver CMP prior to its discharge. REGULATORY FOOTNOTE: 1. In Ohio the ADS are permitted through the OEPA PTI and NPDES water programs. 2. OEPA Division of Surface Water limits metals for land application of biosolids (sewage sludge) and non-biosolids feedstocks to OAC and 40 CFR 503 ceiling limits. 3. It is our Corporate goal to stay at or below clean sludge or exceptional quality sludge numbers. If these are exceeded then cumbersome CPLR (cumulative pollutant loading rates) must be calculated for dosing each field. 4. If metals limits are exceeded then different regulatory limits and programs activate. Materials above sludge ceiling limits activate solid waste (RCRA) rules and programs and will require that our facilities have different permits in place and beneficial use of residuals (effluent) is no longer an option. 5. In no case is the solution to pollution dilution. BB inerts update Page 5

112 6/2/15 OHIO ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY BIOMASS ACCEPTANCE PROTOCOL 1. Only pre-approved materials from approved sources are accepted at this facility. No hazardous waste is accepted at this facility. 2. Truck drivers may be required to be pre-approved thorough background check and present picture ID with deliveries. 3. Inflow for all biomass, including biosolids (sewage sludge), must be below ceiling limits for Cu, Cd, Ni, Zn, Pb, As, Se, Mo, Hg, and PCB (and for out-of -state generators, dioxins/dibenzofurans) as required in 40 CFR 503 and OAC The goal of the Anaerobic Digestion Facility (ADF) is to produce Exceptional Quality (EQ) products, so we will limit intake of biomass with metals in biomass that exceed the EQ limits by more than 25%. Pollutant Ceiling Concentration in PPM Clean Biosolids Limits in PPM Arsenic Cadmium Copper 4,300 1,500 Lead Mercury Molybdenum 75 NA Nickel Selenium Zinc 7,500 2,800 PCB <1 NA 4. Biosolids generators must provide their historical and quarterly NPDES permit limits and analytical data to QEG for prior approval. The EPA is aware of pollutants in specific wastewater treatment plants that may be of concern in addition to the Federal rules and regulations. 5. This facility will not accept loads with plastic bed liners or chemical treatments to keep loads from freezing or sticking to the truck bed. 6. A Manifest will be required in addition to a weight slip. 7. See below for detailed requirements and restrictions. quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road, Suite 320, Cleveland, OH (216)

113 Exhibit B Option 1A: INFLUENT LOAD All biosolids processed at Little Miami w/ liquid sludge hand off Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) Customer / Biomass Inputs Little Miami Gravity Thickened Muddy Creek Dewatered Foodwaste/FOG Total Blended Biomass Per Year Basis Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons VS % 27.0% 12.0% 69.7% 67.9% 90.0% ,539 9,604 17, ,270 14,600 26, % 73.7% , ,150 Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons VS % 22.0% <1% 49.5% 49.5% 49.5% ,918 21,201 48, BOD 3, , ,395 1,220 TSS 3, , ,395 1,220 TN 3, , ,395 1,220 Gal Tons VS 7,227 3,942 3,154 17,351,741 3,505,402 6,309,724 5,037 2,677 2,838 14,323 27,166,867 10,552 Wet Tons Dry Tons PLANT OUTPUTS Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) RESULTANT EFFLUENT Effluent out of Digester [E] Before Dewatering Solids out of Centrifuge [S] Liquid out of Centrifuge [L] NUTRIENT LOADING mg/l lbs/l Discharged Filtrate/Centrate (GPD) Discharged Filtrate/Centrate (LPD) Lbs per Day Food Waste/FOG (12% TS) 72 WT/Day Little Miami Liquid Sludge (3.5% TS) 110,000 GPD Gravity Belt Thickener (10% TS) ENERGY MSD Biogas Potential (kw) Organics Biogas Potential (kw) Total Biogas Potential (kw) Parasitic Load (kw) Net Potential (kw) CHP Uptime Wet Tons Dry Tons 106,291 32,230 74,061 2x Solids Receiving Hopper Digester 2x1,100,000 gallon AD Class A/PFRP Process 7,464 7, Gal Tons VS 25,520,084 7,738,254 17,781,830 3,693 3, , , ,464 90% Liquids Receiving (24,000 gallons) 230,000 gallon EQ Tank Mudy Creek Cake Solids (27% TS) 40WT/Day P , , Per Year Basis 550,000 gallon Class A storage tank New Dewatering (100,000 GPD Design) Class A Solids Beneficial Reuse Filtrate to Little Miami Headworks Digester Biogas EFFLUENT Gas Conditioning (H2S, Siloxanes) CHP (2MW) or Gas Upgrade

114 Option 1B: INFLUENT LOAD All biosolids processed at Little Miami w/ little miami cake solids delivery via truck Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) Per Year Basis Customer / Biomass Inputs Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Little Miami Dewatered % 69.7% , ,850 7,227 7,887,155 5,037 Muddy Creek Dewatered % 67.9% , ,600 3,942 3,505,402 2,677 Filtrate Recycle for Dilution % 47.0% , , ,392, Foodwaste/FOG % 90.0% , ,280 3,154 6,309,724 2,838 Total Blended Biomass % 73.2% , ,180 14,560 29,094,838 10,664 PLANT OUTPUTS RESULTANT EFFLUENT Per Day Basis Per Year Basis EFFLUENT Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Effluent out of Digester [E] Before Dewatering % 48.9% , ,249 7,629 27,430,653 3,732 Solids out of Centrifuge [S] % 48.9% , ,941 7,247 7,909,084 3,546 Liquid out of Centrifuge [L] <1% 48.9% , , ,521, ENERGY MSD Biogas Potential (kw) 1,039 Organics Biogas Potential (kw) 625 Total Biogas Potential (kw) 1,664 Parasitic Load (kw) 200 Net Potential (kw) 1,464 CHP Uptime 90% *Effects of centrate recycle for feedstock dilution on final effluent nutrient loading requires further testing. At this stage, quasar has assumed a worse case scenario for conservatism that all of the nutrients in the recycle will pass through the system and bear the same surcharges. Therefore we are deferring to the non-recycle expected nutrient loads exhibited in other scenarios. Muddy Creek Cake Solids (27% TS) 40WT/Day Little Miami Cake Solids (22% TS) 90WT/Day Food Waste/FOG (12% TS) 72 WT/Day 2x Solids Receiving Hopper Liquids Receiving (24,000 gallons) 230,000 gallon EQ Tank Digester 2x1,100,000 gallon AD Digester Biogas Class A/PFRP Process 550,000 gallon Class A storage tank New Dewatering (100,000 GPD Design) Class A Solids Beneficial Reuse Filtrate to Little Miami Headworks Recycle Filtrate to Liquids Receiving Tank Gas Conditioning (H 2 S, Siloxanes) CHP (2MW) or Gas Upgrade

115 Option 2A: Little Miami Facility LITTLE MIAMI: INFLUENT LOAD Separate Plants w/ liquid sludge hand off Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) Per Year Basis Customer / Biomass Inputs Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Little Miami Gravity Thickened % 69.7% , ,270 7,227 17,351,741 5,037 Foodwaste/FOG % 90.0% , ,560 6,307 12,619,448 5,676 Total Blended Biomass % 79.2% , ,830 13,534 29,971,188 10,714 LITTLE MIAMI: PLANT OUTPUTS RESULTANT EFFLUENT Per Day Basis Per Year Basis EFFLUENT Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Effluent out of Digester [E] Before Dewatering % 57.1% , ,866 6,570 28,299,183 3,750 Solids out of Centrifuge [S] % 57.1% , ,372 6,242 6,811,940 3,562 Liquid out of Centrifuge [L] % 57.1% , , ,487, NUTRIENT LOADING BOD TSS TN P ENERGY mg/l 3,000 3,000 3, MSD Biogas Potential (kw) 678 lbs/l Organics Biogas Potential (kw) 1,251 Discharged Filtrate/Centrate (GPD) 58,869 58,869 58,869 58,869 Total Biogas Potential (kw) 1,929 Discharged Filtrate/Centrate (LPD) 129, , , ,512 Parasitic Load (kw) 200 Lbs per Day Net Potential (kw) 1,729 CHP Uptime 90% Little Miami Liquid Sludge (3.5% TS) 110,000 GPD Food Waste/FOG (12% TS) 72 WT/Day Gravity Belt Thickener (10% TS) Liquids Receiving (24,000 gallons) 1x Solids Receiving Hopper 230,000 gallon EQ Tank Digester 2x1,100,000 gallon AD Digester Biogas Class A/PFRP Process Gas Conditioning (H 2 S, Siloxanes) CHP (2MW) or Gas Upgrade 550,000 gallon Class A storage tank New Dewatering (100,000 GPD Design) Class A Solids Beneficial Reuse Filtrate to Little Miami Headworks

116 Option 2A: Muddy Creek Facility MUDDY CREEK: INFLUENT LOAD Separate Plants w/ delivery of cake solids via truck Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) Per Year Basis Customer / Biomass Inputs Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Muddy Creek Dewatered % 67.9% , ,600 3,942 3,505,402 2,677 Foodwaste/FOG % 90.0% , ,280 3,154 6,309,724 2,838 Filtrate Recycle for Dilution % 47.0% , , ,557, Total Blended Biomass % 77.3% , ,860 7,191 14,372,149 5,559 Gallons needed for 25 HRT 984,394 MUDDY CREEK: PLANT OUTPUTS RESULTANT EFFLUENT Per Day Basis Per Year Basis EFFLUENT Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Effluent out of Digester [E] Before Dewatering % 54.4% , ,246 3,577 13,504,526 1,946 Solids out of Centrifuge [S] % 54.4% , ,445 3,398 3,708,401 1,849 Liquid out of Centrifuge [L] % 54.4% , , ,796, ENERGY MSD Biogas Potential (kw) 360 Organics Biogas Potential (kw) 626 Biogas Potential (kw) 986 Parasitic Load (kw) 200 Net Potential (kw) 786 CHP Uptime 90% *Effects of centrate recycle for feedstock dilution on final effluent nutrient loading requires further testing. At this stage, quasar has assumed a worse case scenario for conservatism that all of the nutrients in the recycle will pass through the system and bear the same surcharges. Therefore we are deferring to the non-recycle expected nutrient loads exhibited in other scenarios. Muddy Creek Cake Solids (27% TS) 40WT/Day Food Waste/FOG (12% TS) 72 WT/Day 2x Solids Receiving Hopper Liquids Receiving (24,000 gallons) 230,000 gallon EQ Tank Digester 1x1,100,000 gallon AD Class A/PFRP Process 230,000 gallon Class A storage tank New Dewatering (50,000 GPD Design) Class A Solids Beneficial Reuse Filtrate to Muddy Creek Headworks Recycle Filtrate to Liquids Receiving Tank Digester Biogas Gas Conditioning (H 2 S, Siloxanes) CHP (1MW) or Gas Upgrade

117 Option 2B: Little Miami Facility LITTLE MIAMI: INFLUENT LOAD Separate Plants w/ delivery of cake solids via truck Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) Per Year Basis Customer / Biomass Inputs Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Little Miami Dewatered % 69.7% , ,850 7,227 7,887,155 5,037 Foodwaste/FOG % 90.0% , ,560 6,307 12,619,448 5,676 Filtrate Recycle for Dilution % 47.0% , ,000 2 Total Blended Biomass % 78.8% 38 76, ,410 13,534 20,506,603 10,714 LITTLE MIAMI: PLANT OUTPUTS RESULTANT EFFLUENT Per Day Basis Per Year Basis EFFLUENT Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Effluent out of Digester [E] Before Dewatering % 56.5% , ,424 6,678 26,272,198 3,775 Solids out of Centrifuge [S] % 56.5% , ,837 6,344 6,923,637 3,587 Liquid out of Centrifuge [L] % 56.5% , , ,348, NUTRIENT LOADING BOD TSS TN P ENERGY mg/l 3,000 3,000 3, MSD Biogas Potential (kw) 678 lbs/l Organics Biogas Potential (kw) 1,251 Discharged Filtrate/Centrate (GPD) 32,602 32,602 32,602 32,602 Total Biogas Potential (kw) 1,929 Discharged Filtrate/Centrate (LPD) 71,724 71,724 71,724 71,724 Parasitic Load (kw) 200 Lbs per Day Net Potential (kw) 1,729 CHP Uptime 90% Food Waste/FOG (12% TS) 144 WT/Day Little Miami Cake Solids (22% TS) 90WT/Day Liquids Receiving (24,000 gallons) 2x Solids Receiving Hopper 230,000 gallon EQ Tank Digester 2x1,100,000 gallon AD Digester Biogas Class A/PFRP Process Gas Conditioning (H 2 S, Siloxanes) 550,000 gallon Class A storage tank CHP or Gas Upgrade New Dewatering (100,000 GPD Design) Class A Solids Beneficial Reuse (90 WT/Day) Filtrate to Little Miami Headworks

118 Option 2B: Muddy Creek Facility MUDDY CREEK: INFLUENT LOAD Separate Plants w/ delivery of cake solids via truck Per Day Basis (based on 7 day/wk digester feeding) Per Year Basis Customer / Biomass Inputs Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Muddy Creek Dewatered % 67.9% , ,600 3,942 3,505,402 2,677 Foodwaste/FOG % 90.0% , ,280 3,154 6,309,724 2,838 Filtrate Recycle for Dilution % 47.0% , , ,557, Total Blended Biomass % 77.3% , ,860 7,191 14,372,149 5,559 Gallons needed for 25 HRT 984,394 MUDDY CREEK: PLANT OUTPUTS RESULTANT EFFLUENT Per Day Basis Per Year Basis EFFLUENT Wet Tons %TS %VS Dry Tons Gal Tons Tons Wet Tons Dry Tons Gal VS VS Effluent out of Digester [E] Before Dewatering % 54.4% , ,246 3,577 13,504,526 1,946 Solids out of Centrifuge [S] % 54.4% , ,445 3,398 3,708,401 1,849 Liquid out of Centrifuge [L] % 54.4% , , ,796, ENERGY MSD Biogas Potential (kw) 360 Organics Biogas Potential (kw) 626 Biogas Potential (kw) 986 Parasitic Load (kw) 200 Net Potential (kw) 786 CHP Uptime 90% *Effects of centrate recycle for feedstock dilution on final effluent nutrient loading requires further testing. At this stage, quasar has assumed a worse case scenario for conservatism that all of the nutrients in the recycle will pass through the system and bear the same surcharges. Therefore we are deferring to the non-recycle expected nutrient loads exhibited in other scenarios. Muddy Creek Cake Solids (27% TS) 40WT/Day Food Waste/FOG (12% TS) 72 WT/Day 2x Solids Receiving Hopper Liquids Receiving (24,000 gallons) 230,000 gallon EQ Tank Digester 1x1,100,000 gallon AD Class A/PFRP Process 230,000 gallon Class A storage tank New Dewatering (50,000 GPD Design) Class A Solids Beneficial Reuse Filtrate to Muddy Creek Headworks Recycle Filtrate to Liquids Receiving Tank Digester Biogas Gas Conditioning (H 2 S, Siloxanes) CHP (1MW) or Gas Upgrade

119 Exhibit C quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road Suite 320 Cleveland OH Phone: Stamp: N Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" This drawing contains valuable confidential and proprietary information that belongs to quasar energy group, llc ("quasar"), and is subject to a separate Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement. quasar is the author and owner of this drawing, and retains all common law, statutory and other rights and privileges with respect hereto, including copyrights. The information contained herein may not at any time be used for any unauthorized purpose, nor reproduced by or provided to any third party, without the prior written consent of quasar. Y DIGESTER 1,100,000 gal. AR FLARE PR EL IM IN PFRP/HEAT TREATED STORAGE TANK 550K FEEDSTOCK EQUALIZATION TANK 230,000 GALLON DIGESTER 1,100,000 gal. SOLIDS PIT BIOFILTER CHP UNIT EA ITC DEWATERING PFRP BATCH TANK 2 TRUCK LOADOUT 1 GRAVITY BELT THINCKENER _ 0 / / DATE REVISION # Drawing Name: LITTLE MIAMI SITE LAYOUT PROPOSAL Project Name and Address: 225 Wilmer Ave. Cincinnati, OH Area: Sheet Number: S Author: CCD Calculated: Checked: 1 C:\Users\Chris Doherty\Desktop\Jobs\SBE Projects\2015 Proposed Projects\ Little Miami\Cincinnati Site Layouts.dwg R HG SW 12/3/2015 2:51 PM R ME OR SF AN TR LIQUID RECEIVING TANKS 12K EACH

120 quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road Suite 320 Cleveland OH Phone: Stamp: N Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" This drawing contains valuable confidential and proprietary information that belongs to quasar energy group, llc ("quasar"), and is subject to a separate Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement. quasar is the author and owner of this drawing, and retains all common law, statutory and other rights and privileges with respect hereto, including copyrights. The information contained herein may not at any time be used for any unauthorized purpose, nor reproduced by or provided to any third party, without the prior written consent of quasar. PFRP/HEAT TREATED STORAGE TANK 550K DIGESTER 1,100,000 gal. DIGESTER 1,100,000 gal. FLARE FEEDSTOCK EQUALIZATION TANK 230,000 GALLON PRELIMINARY SOLIDS PIT BIOFILTER CHP UNIT LIQUID RECEIVING TANKS 12K EACH SWITCHGEAR TRANSFORMER PFRP BATCH TANK TRUCK LOADOUT DEWATERING GRAVITY BELT THINCKENER / / # REVISION DATE Drawing Name: Project Name and Address: Area: Author: CCD Calculated: LITTLE MIAMI SITE LAYOUT PROPOSAL 225 Wilmer Ave. Cincinnati, OH Checked: Sheet Number: 2014, Quasar Energy Group, LLC. All rights reserved. S 1 C:\Users\Chris Doherty\Desktop\Jobs\SBE Projects\2015 Proposed Projects\ Little Miami\Cincinnati Site Layouts.dwg 12/3/2015 2:45 PM

121 quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road Suite 320 Cleveland OH Phone: Stamp: N Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" This drawing contains valuable confidential and proprietary information that belongs to quasar energy group, llc ("quasar"), and is subject to a separate Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement. quasar is the author and owner of this drawing, and retains all common law, statutory and other rights and privileges with respect hereto, including copyrights. The information contained herein may not at any time be used for any unauthorized purpose, nor reproduced by or provided to any third party, without the prior written consent of quasar. BIOFILTER LIQUID RECEIVING TANKS 12K EACH FEEDSTOCK EQUALIZATION TANK 230,000 GALLON SOLIDS PIT GRAVITY BELT THINCKENER TRUCK LOADOUT PRELIMINARY DEWATERING PFRP BATCH TANK TRANSFORMER SWITCHGEAR PFRP/HEAT TREATED STORAGE TANK 230K CHP UNIT DIGESTER 1,100,000 gal. FLARE / / # REVISION DATE Drawing Name: Project Name and Address: Area: Author: CCD Calculated: MUDDY CREEK SITE LAYOUT PROPOSAL 6125 River Road Cincinnati, OH Checked: Sheet Number: 2014, Quasar Energy Group, LLC. All rights reserved. S 2 C:\Users\Chris Doherty\Desktop\Jobs\SBE Projects\2015 Proposed Projects\ Little Miami\Cincinnati Site Layouts.dwg 12/3/2015 2:52 PM

122 quasar energy group 5755 Granger Road Suite 320 Cleveland OH Phone: Stamp: N Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" This drawing contains valuable confidential and proprietary information that belongs to quasar energy group, llc ("quasar"), and is subject to a separate Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement. quasar is the author and owner of this drawing, and retains all common law, statutory and other rights and privileges with respect hereto, including copyrights. The information contained herein may not at any time be used for any unauthorized purpose, nor reproduced by or provided to any third party, without the prior written consent of quasar. BIOFILTER LIQUID RECEIVING TANKS 12K EACH FEEDSTOCK EQUALIZATION TANK 230,000 GALLON SOLIDS PIT GRAVITY BELT THINCKENER TRUCK LOADOUT PRELIMINARY DEWATERING PFRP BATCH TANK TRANSFORMER SWITCHGEAR PFRP/HEAT TREATED STORAGE TANK 230K CHP UNIT DIGESTER 1,100,000 gal. FLARE / / # REVISION DATE Drawing Name: Project Name and Address: Area: Author: CCD Calculated: MUDDY CREEK SITE LAYOUT PROPOSAL 6125 River Road Cincinnati, OH Checked: Sheet Number: 2014, Quasar Energy Group, LLC. All rights reserved. S 2 C:\Users\Chris Doherty\Desktop\Jobs\SBE Projects\2015 Proposed Projects\ Little Miami\Cincinnati Site Layouts.dwg 12/3/2015 2:49 PM

123 Little Miami Treatment Plant Biosolids Management Proposal Provided By: Thomas Bintz. Cambi Inc. 1

124 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...3 Section 1 OVERVIEW Section 2 DETAILED SCOPE OF SUPPLY Section 3 MASS AND ENEGRY BALANCE...36 Section 4 O&M...41 Section 5 PLC AND SCADA INTERFACE...57 Section 6 REFERENCE PLANTS...60 Section 7 CLASS A CERTIFICATIONS...65 Section 8 LAYOUTS...68 Section 9 PRICING

125 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cambi, Inc is pleased to provide the Little Miami Treatment Plant ( LMTP ) with an alternative solution for managing their sludge. Cambi, Inc. ( Cambi ) is the leading provider of Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) offering superior turnkey digestion solutions for WWTP s. Cambi s proven proprietary technology and solutions provide reduced infrastructure costs, reduced operating costs and many other benefits over traditional digestion. Cambi has over 40 successful installations using its design in Europe and is the technology of choice at the Washington DC wastewater treatment plant that is processing over 149,000 metric dry tons a year and produces 14MW of electricity for the City. We understand the project is urgent and its success is a top priority for LMTP. In order to provide a sustainable organics program, with the least amount of risk and shortest implementation period (approximately 12 months), we are proposing a Design, Build, Own, Operate and Transfer solution. This shifts 100% of the risk to Cambi while providing LMPT the opportunity to purchase and operate the program on its own after 5 years. We have also designed the system to be mobile providing LMPT the ability to redesign the plant once the incineration building is removed and LMTP moves forward with upgrading dewatering. The estimated risk free cost is approximately 300/DT, which is approximately what LMCP currently pays to operate its incineration process. This provides LMCP a sustainable solution with no increase in operating costs, no capital outlays and no financial or operating risk. We are proposing a proven anaerobic digestion system using a patented Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) that produces an Exception Quality Class A product and maximizes energy production while using 60% less digester capacity then traditional anaerobic digestion. We will convert 2 of your sludge thickening tanks and 1 spare tank into digesters by adding covers and mixers. The remaining blend tank will remain for storage of primary and secondary sludge. This will provide 1.5 million gallons of digester capacity, capable of handling 44/DT day of sludge with redundancy The Cambi THP technology super heats the sludge with stream and pressurizes the superheated sludge. Then it quickly releases the pressure resulting in cellular wall destruction. Those two steps render the sludge nonpathogenic and increase the effectiveness of the microorganisms in the digester thereby increasing gas production. It also produces a final Class A digestate that dewaters better, producing a safe, stackable and stable product. We are confident that our proven patented process will meet the LMPT s current and future needs. While renewable energy may not be the driver behind the project, the Cambi process will generate significant gas. An energy island could move LMTP close to Energy independence 3

126 generating approximate 1MWe of uninterrupted electricity. Based on the current cost of power, we will not be providing power. However, should power rates increase or the LMTP elect s to improve its green footprint, they will have that ability. It is estimated the cost of power would be approximately $.06 per KWH including capital and operating costs. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Process Functionality Current design capacities with base design handling up to 44 DT/Day with redundancy Proven Technology with average uptime exceeding 95%. Meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements and provides a Class A exceptional quality product Process Economics Least Capital Cost requiring no additional digestion capacity, and no additional storage. Lowest Operating Cost- fewer digesters, significantly lower disposal costs Maximizes current infrastructure Maintenance Lower maintenance- significantly less digesters Simple maintenance Operability No specialized skills needed Process monitoring needed Training and support provided No additional staffing needed Sustainability Net energy generation Greatest gas production to produce electric power Class A Product Reduced Odor Ability to handle additions liquid or solid sludge from other City Plants Stakeholders Less odors Less Trucking Greatest reduction of GHG Maximizes energy production. It is the commitment of Cambi to work with the LMPT to provide a long term sustainable organic s program that produces the highest quality end products and maximizes energy 4

127 production from all organics provided by LMTP in the most environmentally friendly and cost effective way. 5

128 Section 1 OVERVIEW 1.1. Introduction The Cambi proposal provides a long term sustainable organic s solution for the Little Miami Treatment Plant ( LMTP ). Our approach can be implemented in less than 12 months and provides a low risk, low cost Class A solution that extracts the greatest amount of energy utilizing state of the art proven digester technology. We are the only digestion technology that produces Exceptional Quality Class A digestate with the highest level of dewaterability, lowest odor profile and down- stream benefits. Everything we do is focused on the most environmentally friendly and cost effective solutions. Our model is driven off the Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Process for digestion and then we add additional best in Class technologies and service that take advantage of the Cambi technology benefits Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Process Cambi- Thermal Hydrolysis Process ( THP ) THP is a high- pressure steam pretreatment for anaerobic digestion of municipal and industrial sludge and bio- waste. It is a proven and reliable technology that has been used around the world since 1995 in existing and green field projects. The process disintegrates cell structure/organic materials and dissolves naturally occurring cell polymers (exo- polymeric substances- EPS), a form of protein, into an easily digestible feed for anaerobic digestion. The resulting less viscous (more fluid) sludge results in: More than doubled digester loading eliminating the need to add digester capacity now and into the foreseeable future. Increased biogas production (on average 30% increase) Pathogen- free and stabilized end product (Class A) with increased cake dewaterability, leading to significant savings in transportation and beneficial use. The reduced volume and increased dewaterability of the final end product saves on post dewatering, energy costs and produces a post dewatered end product that can be applied directly as an exceptional quality Class A biosolid to agricultural land. In addition to optimizing energy efficiency and lowering operating costs, THP also reduces odor problems associated with the treatment of organic materials. Sustainability Index Social Less odor in Community Better Quality end Product Environmental Captures more gasses for green energy Meets regulatory requirement for Class A Less Odor emissions 6 Economic Additional gas production increasing energy production Reduced Dewatering, Trucking and disposal costs Lower Capital Costs

129 Section 1 OVERVIEW Green Energy The proposed Cambi Digestion process generates significant amounts of biogas. The biogas is considered a green or renewable resource and can be converted to electricity using a combined heat and power system ( CHP ). This involves capturing the raw biogas and cleaning it just enough to allow for use in a reciprocating engine. Moisture, siloxane and hydrogen sulfate are removed, but the CO2 is not. The cleaned gas is then combusted in a reciprocating engine to produce electrical power. If the Cambi digestion process was optimized for power LMTP could generate approximately 1 MWe of electricity. Since energy rates are currently low, we have elected not to install power. However, this does provide an energy hedge should prices increase in the future. The cost of power including capital and maintenance would be approximately.06/kwh, should LMTP elect to generate energy in the future. Land Application/Soil Blending We will produce an exceptional quality Class A product suitable for use by farmers in the Cincinnati area. Cambi THP process exceeds the time and temperature requirements described in 40 CFR (a)(3). This means that the process would be considered to meet Class A, Alternative 1 with respect to pathogen reduction. Ultimate approval of the product as Class A will be determined state by state but we do not perceive that as an issue based upon our process and history. The material is very storable with no nuisance odor. Due to the high temperature treatment there is no regrowth issues. In addition the soils market, can be developed blending the material with other products to create high quality soil products. We do not perceive beneficial use of the product will be an issue Sustainable Reuse The Cambi Solution goes beyond creating a Class A soil that can be used as an amendment for blending or direct application on farm land. The solution we provide significantly reduces greenhouse gasses, provides higher volatile solids reduction, green generation of power and less end hauling. (Less material, higher solids content of end product). The carbon footprint of LMTP will improve significantly. 7

130 Section 1 OVERVIEW 1.2 Cambi Plan Overview Cambi would like to Design, Build, Operate and Transfer a THP digestion system for the LMTP. This provides LMTP with a de- risked project that can be implemented in the shortest period of time. (less than 1 year from time of contract) providing: Processing capacity up to 50 Dry tonnes a days and Maximum Digestion capacity of approximately 44 dry tonnes a day with redundancy and 62 dry tonnes a without. Increased Gas Production with future potential of 1MWe if justified Increased dewaterability (greater than 30%) Class A product with 100% pathogen kill that is safe, stable and stackable with no sludge odour. Ability to accept additional undigested liquid and cake sludge. Our proposal starts by leveraging the infrastructure at the LMTP enabling the plant to handle its anticipated volumes as well as producing an exceptional Quality Class A soil that can be land applied at local farms. We will convert the 4 of the old digester currently used as follows: Current Use 2 Thickening Tanks 1 Unused Tank 1 Blend Tank Proposed Used 2 Digesters 1 Digester Primary/Secondary Storage Digester Capacity 1 Million Gallons Total 500 Thousand Gallons By installing a Cambi THP system LMTP will only need approximately 1.0 million gallons of digester capacity to meet its current needs which can be handled by two digesters. However we will add a third digester to allow for additional imports and the ability to provide redundancy. The feed rate to the digesters will between 10%- 12% with a maximum retention time of 15 days obtaining the greatest level of gas production. Converting the current tanks to digesters is simplified because no boiler system is needed to heat the digester as the Cambi THP system controls digester temperature. We will simply add mixing and new covers to the tanks. Under the Cambi THP system design LMTP s digester capacity will actually be able to handle up to 44DT/day average (with redundancy) and 62DT/Day peak with the proposed THP system being to process over 50 DT/day. The Cambi THP pre- digestion system is fed at 15% TO 18% solids requiring pre- dewatering as well as post dewatering. In this case for ease of implementation and redundancy, LMTP will continue to dewater undigested sludge and Cambi will provide post dewatering and truck loading. 8

131 Section 1 OVERVIEW The Thermal Hydrolysis Process consists of: One pulper Pulper circulation and reactor feed pump(s) 4 reactors in parallel One flash tank Digester feed pump(s) Process gas coolers Access platform and necessary pipes, valves, instruments Process control system Thermal Hydrolysis of sludge takes place between pre- dewatering of raw sludge and the Digesters. The Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Process for sludge treatment is designed to achieve the following benefits: Secure pathogen free sludge (Grade A, Class A). Minimize necessary digester volume, due to faster conversion rates and higher dry solids concentration. Enhance the conversion rate of organic material into biogas and green energy. Increase the dewaterability of sludge after digestion Reduce the quantity of stabilized sludge for disposal, and produce a product suitable for beneficial use. Pre- heating in Pulper: Upstream the THP, the raw sludge is dewatered to ~15-18%DS. Dewatered sludge is continuously fed from sludge silos (by others) to the pulper/preheater of each stream. In the pulper, the sludge is pre heated by the injection of recycled steam from the flash tank. The sludge is heated to about C ( F), depending on the DS%, and the temperature of the incoming sludge and the operational parameters of the THP plant. The pulper provides the necessary thermal buffer capacity for recovery of energy. The sludge in the pulper is homogenized using circulation via variable speed pump. Pre- heated sludge is pumped into the reactor by the reactor feed pump. When filled, the reactor proceeds to the steam filling batch stage, after which hydrolysis at high pressure and temperature takes place, the pulper is a pressure vessel designed to handle and control odor, and enhance energy transfer requirements. Thermal Hydrolysis in Reactor: From the pulper the pre- heated sludge is pumped into the reactor. Filling of the reactor is stopped when the pre- set volume has been reached. Steam is then injected directly into the reactor until the required operating pressure and temperature is reached. The reactors are designed for a max operating pressure of 9 bar (130 PSI) which means a maximum operation 9

132 Section 1 OVERVIEW temperature of 180 C (356 F). Normal operation conditions are 165 C and 6 bar, (329 F, 87PSI). The reactor system is a batch process comprising 4 main stages: Sludge fill- Sludge is pumped into the reactor. Steam fill- Steam is introduced to increase pressure and temperature within the reactor. Holding time- Reactor pressure is maintained for a set time. Flashing- The outlet valve located at the bottom of the reactor is opened and the sludge. Content is transferred to the flash tank driven by the steam pressure in the reactor vessel. The standard cycle time for the Thermal Hydrolysis Process in one reactor with a process set point temperature of C ( F) is minutes. The reactor cycles are operated as a batch process. The total time for one reactor cycle will be optimized during start- up with respect to energy balance, steam consumption, boiler loading and system throughput. Multiple reactors operate on a staggered basis and the buffer volume in pulper and flash- tank enables a continuous flow of hydrolyzed sludge to the anaerobic digestion system. Flash tank and Post- treatment: After hydrolysis, sludge is passed into the flash tank the pressure and temperature of the hydrolyzed sludge is decreased by flashing steam back to the pulper. The flash tank provides the necessary thermal buffer capacity to release the excess energy contained in the sludge before entering the downstream pump(s). The main purpose of the flash tank is to release and recover the steam contained in the sludge. When the main outlet valve in the bottom of the reactor is opened and the sludge is flashed to the flash tank, a large volume of steam is released by the pressure reduction. This steam is recovered and sent back to the pulper to pre- heat incoming the sludge. The sludge has a temperature of approx C ( F) after de- pressurizing, depending on the operating pressure in the flash tank. Between the flash tank and the digesters the sludge will have to be diluted from 14-15% dry solids down to 8-13% dry solids. Dilution is required for several reasons: To decrease the temperature of the sludge in order to protect the digester feed pump stators To decrease the viscosity of the sludge To avoid high concentrations of ammonium in the digesters The sludge is pumped from the flash tank to the digesters by the digester feed pump(s). The sludge may then be cooled, to minimum 70 C (158 F), in a pre- cooler before it is mixed with digested sludge in the recirculation circuit of the digesters. The mixed sludge then goes through a tube in tube sludge cooler to trim the outgoing sludge temperature to C ( F) before it is fed to the digesters. 10

133 Section 1 OVERVIEW Once the material is processed through Cambi THP it is then feed into digesters. Cambi THP has a significantly higher loading rates (approximately 8% to12% solids) and lower retention time (approximately Days) since the hydrolysis part of digestion was done through Cambi THP. Due the higher loading rate and lower retention time the digestion capacity needed is approximately 40% of conventional digestion. Capacity needed to handle LMTP s expected volume is approximately 3,600 M3 of average digester capacity. LMTP will not be required to add digester capacity now or likely ever. The Cambi THP digestion process has the highest VS destruction of any digestion technology in the market. Based upon estimated volatile solids of the sludge of approximately 75% and a 60% VS destruction rate for Cambi, approximately 45% of solids will be destroyed reducing volume and generating biogas at a rate of 200 CFM capable of generating the steam needed for the Cambi system and still having 140 CFM available to generate green energy in the form of electricity. 11

134 Section 1 OVERVIEW Process Flow We have attached the following flow diagrams for you to depict the current and proposed process flow: Current Process Flow Aeration DAF Belt Dewatering Incineration Ash removal Stack Blend Tank Gravity Thickening 12

135 Section 1 OVERVIEW Proposed Process Flow Aeration Blend Tank DAF Digestion Belt Dewatering Gas Trucking Cambi THP CHP (Future Option) Class A Land Ap 13

136 Section 1 OVERVIEW Summary Estimated Flows DT Before Digestion % Solids to Digester Retention Time (days) Digester Capacity needed VS Destruction rate DT to Dewatering WT Ton after Dewatering % Solids Sludge Quality 2015 Est Average Volumes 29DT/Day Landfill Conventional /Offsite Digestion 10,722 10, % 25 4,293,000 50% 10,722 7,103 46,299 33,740 22% 20% None Class B Cambi Digestion 10,722 11% ,000 60% ,929 30% Class A Before Digestion DT % Solids to Digester Retention Time (days) Digester Capacity needed VS Destruction rate DT to Dewatering WT Ton after Dewatering % Solids Sludge Quality Design Capacity 44DT/Day Landfill Conventional /Offsite Digestion 16,079 16, % 25 6,437,000 50% 16,079 10,652 69,432 50,599 22% 20% None Class B 14 Cambi Digestion 16,079 11% 15 1,439,630 60% 8,964 28,386 30% Class A

137 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.1 INTRODUCTION Cambi s proposal is centered on our B- 2 skid mounted thermal hydrolysis system. One B- 2 system will process up to 25 Dry tons a day. We have proposed two (2) B2 system s that would maximize current digester capacity allowing for acceptance of additional liquid or dewatered sludge from other city plants. Our proposal includes the Thermal Hydrolysis system, boiler, digester feed & cooling system, conversion of tanks to digesters, post- dewatering, truck loading along with a single PLC to control all of the furnished equipment. The Thermal Hydrolysis System is our B2 x 4 reactor skid mounted system. The entire system will be pre- wired with the Functional Testing specified completed in our factory prior to shipment. Cambi B-2 system, awaiting shipment from our manufacturing facility in Manchester, UK. B-2 systems receive a full functional test prior to shipment. The B-2 system will meet all US requirements for pressure vessels (ASME) and wiring. The B- 2 system will be provided with a Process Gas Skid which will take the odorous compounds from the inside of the hydrolysis vessels, and inject the gases and condensed liquid into the digester feed pipeline. 15

138 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply The hydrolyzed solids will be pumped to the digesters, via a cooler. The system will cool the sludge and control the temperature of the digester. Pumps will be provided to recirculate the digester liquid which will be mixed with the hydrolyzed solids. The system utilizes our proven design in service feeding over a 150 digesters every day. Digester feed coolers can be mounted on the floor or wall of a structure or outside. Location of the digester feed cooler will be determined during the final design phase. The coolers are manufactured in our Manchester facility to ASME code. 16 Cooler shown is installed in Naestved, Denmark and has been in continuous service since 2000.

139 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply The steam is generated using a Superior or like model 2,000 Kg/Hr (128 HP) Three Pass Firetube Boiler. The system can be operated using digester gas or natural gas. Packaged boilers are trimmed with necessary safeties and code piping and inspected by authorized, independent code inspectors 17 Factory fire tested to check electrical components for proper operation and ensure smooth ignition and quicker field startups Tube sheets exceed the ASME code thickness

140 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.2 DESIGN BASIS The following basis of design has been used to establish Cambi THP package unit and the additional scope of supply proposed in this quotation. THP B2 Design values Unit Design Basis Average dry solids% of feed into B2 units %DS 29.6 Maximum dry solids% of feed into B2 units %DS 50 Retention time in reactors at hydrolysis temperature - at average capacity Minutes 30 Retention time in reactors at hydrolysis temperature - at maximum capacity Minutes 20 Average temperature of incoming feed C [ F] 15 [59] Hydrolysis temperature C [ F] ~165 [~329] mg/l 400 Max. Chloride content in feed to THP Nominal COD/VS content 1.51 Nominal VS Content Minimum feed pressure to pulper % 75% brag 2 All Cambi THP units must be fed in accordance with Cambi General THP Feed Specification, which is attached. General data Plant design life: Minimum 20 years* Indoor/Outdoor installation: Outdoor/Containerized Maximum earthquake load, g (peak ground acceleration) 3g Maximum wind-load NA Maximum snow-load NA Noise level Noise shall not exceed 80 db(a) at 1 m from source when measured according to BS4142 * This life expectancy is based on the chloride concentration in the sludge not exceeding 400 mg/l under normal operational conditions. 18

141 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.3 SCOPE OF SUPPLY 19

142 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.4 LIST OF DELIVERABLES AND OVERALL SCOPE Qty. Equipment / Service Included 2 Cambi THP B2 standard package unit, incl. Process Gas Unit X 1 Steam Boiler System X 1 Water cooled (tube in tube) sludge coolers X 1 Digester circulation pump X 1 Stand-by pump for each type of pump furnished X Option Performance guarantees: 1 - Hydraulic throughput - Steam consumption guarantee - VSR (VSD) guarantee Sludge cooling performance guarantee X 3 Tanks converted to digesters X 1 Mobile Centrifuge X 1 Truck conveyance and loading X 1 Service contract covering operation, maintenance and sludge disposal X 2.5 SLUDGE COOLER Hydrolysed sludge is warm and will be cooled in a sludge cooler located in a digester circulation circuit common for both digesters. The sludge cooler is a tube- in- tube cooler. It will cool a mix of hydrolysed and digested, circulated sludge. Cooling medium shall be treated effluent water. The cooler will be supplied on a skid as a complete unit, with instrumentation and valves. 20

143 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.6 STEAM BOILER SYSTEM 2,000 Kg/Hr (128 HP) Three Pass Firetube Boiler We will provide One (1) Superior Boiler Works model X S200- WBCF- DG/NG Three Pass, Wetback, Super Seminole Series firetube boiler. The boiler will have a design pressure of 200 PSIG steam, and a maximum output rating of 4410 Lbs/Hr of steam (From and at 212 Degrees F), or 128 boiler horsepower. The boiler will be completely packaged with a forced draft, Combination Fuel burner capable of firing Digester Gas and Natural Gas. The packaged boiler will be provided with all standard features necessary for safe operation and as follows: Designed, Constructed, and Stamped for Section I of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Minimum Heating Surface of Five (5) Square Feet per Boiler HP (625 Total) McDonnell & Miller 194 Controller providing Low Water Cutoff, Alarm Contacts, Water Level Gauge Glass, Try Cocks and Blowdown Valve Siemens RWF40 Level Control System with Loop Controller, Differential Pressure Transmitter, and combustion Control Interface Siemens 599 Series Feedwater Control Valve Warrick 26MB1AOF Probe Type Auxiliary Low Water Cut Off with a Manual Reset Fully Modulating Combination Natural and Digester Gas Burner as described below Honeywell L4079B High Limit Pressure Control ( PSIG) Siemens Pressure Sensor to Control Burner Operation and Modulation 2 Thick Mineral Fiber Insulation 22 Gauge Galvanized Steel Jacket Safety Valves (shipped loose) Surface Blowdown Coupling with Dip Tube Automatic Surface Blowdown System, Conductivity Based with Controller & Valve Stainless Steel Sample Cooler (Factory Mounted) 6 Steam Pressure Gauge, PSIG Range 5 Stack Thermometer Factory Low Fire and Electrical Test 6 x 3 ASME Code Spool Reducing Piece to Place Between The Boiler Connection and N.R.V. 3 Non Return Valve (Stop & Check), 250 PSIG Flanged, Cast Iron, Angle Type 3 x 3 ASME Code Straight Spool Piece with Drain Connection per ASME Code Requirements 3 OS&Y Gate Valve, 300 PSIG Flanged, Cast Steel, Straight Pattern One (1) 1 Feedwater Globe and Check Valve (Factory Mounted) Blowdown Valves 1., Two (2) Quick and One (1) Slow Opening (Factory Mounted) Shrink Wrap Packaging 21

144 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply Burner Detail The above- described boiler will be completely factory packaged with a Webster model JB2G (DG)- 50- LMV51- M.30/.40 forced draft Combination Fuel Burner. The burner will be provided as follows: Essential Ordering Information and Data Fuel: Digester Gas & Natural Gas Pilot Fuel: Natural or LP Gas Electrical Supply: 460/3/60 Control Voltage: 120/1/60 Fuel Input: 5376 MBH Operation: Full Modulation Blower Motor HP: 5 Altitude: <1000 Feet Above Sea Level Combustion Control: Parallel Positioning - Linkageless Turndown (Natural Gas): 12:1 Turndown (Digester Gas): 4:1 Codes: UL Requirements (No Label), NEMA #1 NOx Guarantee: Uncontrolled Specific Level Not Requested Burner Configuration: Standard Panel Location: Burner Back Mount The burner will be provided with the following Trim Items: 3/8 LP Gas Pilot Train with Maxitrol Series Pilot Regulator 3 Natural Gas Train per UL Requirements 4 Digester Gas Train per UL Requirements Dual Manifold Combustion Head with Orifices Specific to Each Fuel High Turndown Package for 12:1 Performance on Natural Gas.50 KVA Control Circuit Transformer Siemens LMV Combustion Control and Flame Safeguard 5 HP Blower Motor in ODP Enclosure Automatic Fuel Changeover from Digester Gas to Natural Gas or Vice Versa (Based on Pressure Supply) Standard Indicating Light Package (Power, Call for Heat, Fuel On, Alarm) 5,000 Lb/Hr Duplex Spray Deaerator We will provide one (1) 10,000 PPH Capacity, Duplex Spray Deaerator as manufactured by Lockwood Products, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The Unit will be provided as follows: Deaerator 22

145 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply A 5,000#/hr.005 Spray Type Deaerator Tank. Design is a two stage, spray scrubber with counter flow type steam flow. Horizontal storage section will be 2-6 x 4 0 shell length. Storage capacity to overflow is 100 gallons of deaerated water (10 minutes). Vessel designed and built in accordance with the ASME code for degrees F. with a 1/16" corrosion allowance. Guarantees: Oxygen removal to.005 cc/ltr. (7 PPB). To deaerate at all loads from 3% to 100% of rated outlet capacity. To eliminate titratable free carbon dioxide to 0. To heat water to the corresponding temperature of the saturated steam contained within the vessel. Boiler Feed Pumps Two (2) Grundfos CR3-21K centrifugal boiler feed pumps equipped with high temperature mechanical seals. Each pump has a capacity of TDH of 227 degree f. water. Each pump will be driven by a 5 HP, 460v, 60/3/3500 RPM, TEFC motor. Pumps will be piped to individual pump suction connections with: ( 2 ) Shutoff valves ( 2 ) Strainers Pump discharge piping is not included; however Two (2) Recirculation Orifices will be included. Trim Modulating Water Inlet Control Valve & Three Valve Bypass Level Controller Set Safety Type Water Glass Gauges Water Inlet Pressure Gauge Steam Section Pressure Gauge Storage Section Thermometer Sampling Valve Sentinel Relief Valve 15 PSIG Vacuum Breaker Chemical Feed quill Manual Vent Valve High Level Alarm Switch Low Level Alarm Switch & Pump Cutoff Overflow Trap ( shipped loose ) Steam Pressure Reducing Valve ( shipped Loose ) Full Capacity (of steam pressure reducing valve ) Relief Valve ( shipped loose ) 23

146 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply System Control Panel 2 Starters 2 Pump Running Lights Main Disconnect Switch Hand/Off/Auto Selector Switches Control Circuit Transformer Power On/Off Switch and Light High / Low Level Alarm System Low Water Pump Cutoff Relay Above mounted in a NEMA #12 UL Labeled enclosure with wiring to motors. Wiring of water inlet valve, level controller, and alarm switches is by others in the field. Tank will be removed from 6-0 ' high steel support frame to facilitate shipping. All piped trim will be removed with match marked unions to protect from damage in transit. 2.7 DIGESTER CIRCULATION PUMP A digester re- circulation pump of the centrifugal chopper pump type has been selected for this requirement. The pump will take suction from either digester, and circulate digested sludge through the proposed cooler (and return sludge to same digester). The pump will be delivered as Loose Item. The system includes: 1 Centrifugal chopper pump 2.8 Steel Work B- 2 Steel structures and support systems are manufactured from carbon steel and galvanized, all walkways have imbedded gratings. The steel work consists of both welded and bolted arrangements. Design, layout and sectional choice is to relevant and applicable standards. Stainless steel pipes have welded flanges in SS and have SS bolts and nuts. 2.9 Pipework All B2 Pipework is made of 316 grade stainless steel with flanges of either welded configuration or of a loose galvanised spinning flange type. Pipework is manufactured to the relevant design and pressure codes and is pressure tested as an entire pipework assembly during manufacture of the B2 product. 24

147 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.10 B- 2 Components data Pulper vessel Reactor Vessel: SS316 material SS316 material 12barg pressure rated 12barg pressure rated Rated for full vacuum Rated for full vacuum 4.05m3 volume 2.0m3 volume Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Inspection hatches 2 off Inspection hatches 2 off Typical working pressure 0.2 to 0.4barg Typical working pressure 6barg Flash Tank Vessel: SS316 material Reactor Feed Pump and Digester Feed Pump: progressive cavity type 12barg pressure rated 12barg pressure rated Rated for full vacuum 4kW Motor (690 VAC) 4.05m3 volume Heaters and thermistors fitted Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Local emergency stop fitted Inspection hatches 2 off Flow rate 10.2m3/hour Typical working pressure 0.4 to 1.2barg Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Smart stator type Typical working pressure 2barg Jog facility at motor control centre Hardwired pressure interlock Manual ball valves: Lever type with lockable handle Manual knife valves: Hand wheel rising stem type 16barg pressure rated 16/40barg pressure rated Stainless steel 316 Stainless steel 316 wetted parts Flanged and threaded types Cast body flanged type Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Actuated ball valves: Pneumatically actuated Actuated Knife valves: Pneumatically actuated Remote pilot valve Remote pilot valve 16barg pressure rated 16/40barg pressure rated Stainless steel 316 Stainless steel 316 wetted parts Flanged type Cast iron body flanged type Open and closed limit feedback Open and closed limit feedback 25

148 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Pressure relief valves: Cast iron body flanged type Insulation and Cladding: Rockwool Insulation 16barg pressure rated Aluzinc cladding Set pressure 12barg Stainless steel 316 wetted parts Manufactured to the relevant pressure directive Instruments are of the 4-20ma communication type from the Siemens range Instrument types: Pressure Motor Control Centre: Model Form4 Integral ICA section 480 VAC 100Amp 3PN supply Level (differential pressure) Temperature Stainless steel construction Flow (mag3100) HMI to panel front Level (conductivity probe) Building services feeder Fault and interface signals Volt Free Contacts Instrument air system feeder Signal exchange via BUS preferably (Profibus) Process gas cooling system feeder Process gas compression unit feeder Reactor feed pump starter Digester feed pump starter Manufactured to the relevant standards SWA Field cables on return flanged tray 2.11 Digester Conversion Digester Covers We will provide 3 fixed covers for the current tanks. Digester covers are used over the anaerobic digester concrete tank to seal the digested material and contain gaseous by- products. Fixed covers are anchored to the top of the digester tank, and normally there is a static or constant sludge level. Thus the rim plate only need be as deep as the tank freeboard plus the tank operating pressure and an appropriate seal depth to contain the gas. A typical rim plate depth might be approximately 2'6" with 1'0" freeboard. A fixed cover has only one steel membrane over its structural framework. 26

149 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply Common Features The following features are used with this type of cover: A gas dome located at the center of the cover provides a gas reservoir from which gas can be withdrawn without also removing entrained liquid, scum, foam, etc. Sampling wells, usually one near the center, one at about 1/2 radius. These wells have quickopening hatches, with seal pipe extending below liquid, so that samples can be withdrawn without losing gas. Pressure relief and vacuum-breaker valve, mounted atop the gas dome for the purpose of relieving gas upon over-pressurization, and allowing atmospheric air to enter if vacuum exists when cover on corbels. Basically, this is a safety device, protecting the structure. Mixing We will provide three (3) Jet Mix systems- A jet mixing system works on the principle of one fluid contacting another fluid or gas through a series of jet nozzles. Intense mixing and contacting occurs in a common mixing chamber between concentric inner and outer nozzles. The inner nozzle takes recirculation liquid from the tank and creates a stream of liquid traveling at thirty feet per second (twenty miles per hour). Air is introduced into the outer nozzle, causing intense mixing of the air and liquid in the space between the inner and outer nozzle. The outer nozzle shoots the gas/liquid mixture into the surrounding tank liquid, producing a plume of fine bubbles. The plumes travel horizontally and spread throughout the tank before rising to the surface. The expanding jet plumes keep the tank liquid in continual motion and result in excellent mixing Post Dewatering Mobile Centrifuge We will provide one (1) CS26-4 HC 2PH or like mobile centrifuge as follows: 1 Centrifuge: CS26-4 HC 2PH! Centrifuge Specification " " " " Inside Bowl Diameter: Bowl Length: Max. bowl speed: Acceleration: /660mm 117 /2960mm 2850rpm 3000 x G Force

150 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply " " Ratio of bowl length and diameter: 4.3:1 Lubrication: Air / Oil! Material of Construction " " " " " Bowl Material: Scroll Hub: Scroll Flights: Housing Material: Parts not in contact with process material: Duplex 2205/1.4470/62 Duplex 2205/1.4470/62 AISI 316/304 AISI 316/304 Carbon steel powder coated! Wear Protection " Scroll: Feed Chamber: Lined with Tungsten Carbide (TC) or Ceramic. Flight Face: TC Tiles from the feed chamber to solid discharge. Flame sprayed TC Powder from the feed chamber to the liquid discharge. Feed Ports: 28 Replaceable Tungsten Carbide (TC) bushings.

151 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply " Bowl: Solids discharged ports. Field Replaceable Tungsten Carbide. Bowl protected with longitudinal place wear strips which are field replaceable. To reduce the wear caused by erosion opening on feed nozzles are 3 x s the capacity of other designs and as a result the wear is minimized. Field Replaceable Tungsten Carbide pictures 1.2.3! Seals " " " Scroll Bearings: Main Bearings: Housing: Mechanical seals Labyrinth seals Labyrinth seals! Housing and Frames Top and bottom casing are fabricated from 316/304 stainless steel. Cake discharge area is protected by replaceable wear liners. Frame is sandblasted and powder coated. Supported with vibration isolators. Safety guards: Stainless steel ! Main Drive: Runs the rotating assembly; used to accelerate the bowl and the product to operating speed. Explosion proof motors are available. 29

152 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply " " " " Installed power: Rotation speed: Voltage: Type of protection: 125HP 1800rpm 480/230V (60Hz) TEFC! Scroll Drive: 1.3 The Rotodiff hydraulic scroll drive system is a radial piston motor that is flanged to the bowl and a driveshaft is connected to the scroll. The motor has a fixed displacement and is powered by an electronically controlled hydraulic pump unit. Precisely measured amounts of oil are pumped to the Rotodiff and allow for an extremely precise control of differential speed based on torque/solids loading. This allows for maximum efficiency of the centrifuge through unmatched process control. The Rotodiff provides the highest torque in a very compact and energy efficient package " Hydraulic Motor: The 2 components that create the Centrisys Scroll Drive System. The Centrisys drive system is based on Rotodiff Technology; the most efficient in the industry. Our drive is powerful and precise, achieving the highest torque to weight ratio with the best process control. The design is simple, compact and lightweight-reducing the number of moving parts and wear components. The Centrisys scroll drive system uses only the energy needed to drive the scroll; it is independent from the main drive no energy from the main drive is wasted. Our system delivers unmatched reliability and lowers operating costs a direct benefit to our customers. Type: 2081D Torque: 24,000 Nm " Hydraulic Pump The system comprises an oil conditioning unit including a pump with constant volumetric displacement. The necessary variation of the volumetric displacement with respect to the hydraulic motor and accordingly its rpm speed regulation is ensured by the adjustment of the pump's rpm speed. The rpm speed is obtained by means of a suitable frequency converter. Because the differential speed is proportional to the pumped oil, automatic regulation and control is ensured without any 30

153 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply problems. Installed power: " " " Rotation speed: Voltage: Type of protection: 40HP 1800rpm 480/230V (60Hz) TEFC! Lubrication: 1.4 " " Air/Oil Lubrication System: N/A Controls: All drives in compliance with the specified requirements: Power characteristics: 480 V; 60 Hz; 3 Ph Class of protection: NEMA 4X 2.1! Instrumentation: " " " " 2.2 Vibration sensor. Main bearing temperature sensor type PT 100 on each bearing. Low lube flow sensor. Low lube level sensor.! Centrisys decanter control panel: The control panel is supplied separately. Control panel protection class: Nema 4X Air Conditioning unit will control temperature of panel. The control panel is equipped with AB compact logic and potential-free contacts for customer interface. All interlock like temp, vibration switch; rpm and oil flow are checked and controlled. We will supply a NEMA 4X control panel for all the equipment supplied with the VFD installed inside and all the interlocks needed for the operation. Included with the control panel are all the starters for the hydraulics, all the interlocks for the system, AllenBradley PLC and the Microprocessor for the back drive system. The control panel can also be equipped with an AB Panel view touchscreen for Operator control and system operation. All set points and operating Parameters will be accessible from the touchscreen. The Panel will be equipped for water cooling. 31

154 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply PLC controlled operation set up One button start and stop AB main drive and back drive Automatic back drive controls based of internal loading 3 Sludge Feed Pump: Positive displacement progressive cavity type sludge feed pump manufactured by Netzsch. The progressing-cavity pump can be used successfully, particularly on concentrated sludge. Progressive cavity pumps are designed to handle a wide variety of' materials from liquids to the most viscous substances, including media with large particles, shear sensitive tendencies and abrasives. Their progressive cavity design means low shear rates and non-pulsating metered flow, with volume that is virtually unaffected by either, pressure change or varying solids content. 4 Polymer System: Polymer preparation system manufactured by Centrisys for the preparation of emulsion polymer. The emulsion polymerization process has several advantages. It is normally used under mild reaction conditions that are tolerant to water and requires only the absence of oxygen. The process is relatively robust to impurities and amenable to using a range of functionalized and nonfunctionalized monomers. Additional benefits include the fact that emulsion polymerization gives high solids contents with low reaction viscosity and is a cost-effective process. The physical state of the emulsion (colloidal) system makes it easy to control the process. Thermal and viscosity problems are much less significant than in bulk polymerization. Typical applications for the Polymer System includes coagulation, flocculation, sludge dewatering, sludge thickening, filtration, and clarification. 5 Flow Meter: Centrisys offers Mag and Coriolis measurement technologies for the objective selection of the most beneficial flow instrument for your application. " Mag Flow Meter: Is designed specifically to target the diverse applications found in the supply and treatment of both potable and waste water, Mag Flow Meter sets new levels of accuracy and reliability. When a conductive liquid flows through the magnetic field, a small voltage (u) is induced. This voltage is proportional to the velocity of the flow and is accurately measured by two stainless steel electrodes mounted opposite each other inside the metering pipe. The two electrodes are connected to an advanced electronic input circuitry 32

155 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply which processes the signal and in turn feeds it to a microprocessor inside the electronics module. The microprocessor then calculates the volumetric flow and controls the various outputs on the terminal board. 6 Gear Pump for the Oil Phase: N/A 7 Centrifugal Pump for the Water Phase: N/A 8 Oil / Water Tank: N/A Cake Transportation System:! Primary Conveyor: The primary conveyor is stationary to the skid, the stationary conveyor is equipped with a drain to reroute the water during start up and shut down. 9.2! Secondary Conveyor: A secondary swing cake conveyor is pivotal and adjustable in height and in range. The overall length of 16 is supported from the skid. The screw conveyor or cake pump is used for transportation of the centrifuge cake from the skid into the desired hopper. 9.3! Cake Pump: The Cake Pump is designed with a large auger inlet and screw conveyor. The screw conveyor extends to the compression area to help push the sludge cake into the cavities of the rotor and stator and provide consistent pumping. Typical application for a cake pump are; Thickened sludge cake, dewatered sludge, sludge blending, including lime powder dosing and lime slurry dosing in conjunction with barrier layer injection Operations, Maintenance and Disposal The offered package includes management, supervision, operation, servicing and maintenance for: Thermal hydrolysis system equipment (Cambi THP) Steam boiler Cooling water system Digester Supply pumps, circulation lines and associated equipment Digesters and associated equipment excluding tanks 33

156 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply Centrifuge dewatering equipment Beneficial use and disposal of biosolids Cambi will provide 3 full time employees to provide 24/hr operation of the sludge train (from digestion feed to sludge disposal) the City will be responsible for oversight only during off- peak hours. 34

157 Section 2 Detailed Scope of Supply 2.17 THP SLUDGE FEED SPECIFICATION Cambi Requirements: Operation Accepted feed-streams Feed-stream mixture Dry solids concentration to pulper; Dry solids variation to pulper; Feed stream temperature Chloride content: Abrasive material limitation Sludge quality: Feed stream pre-treatment in addition to DS adjustment Continuous Primary sludge Secondary / Waste Activated sludge Fat-Oil-Grease (from waste-water inlet separation/treatment) Pre-treated septic The different feed-streams shall be fed to the THP at a constant mixture relation (recipe). Relative variation on any fraction shall not be more than 20% on a daily basis. Maximum 18.5%DS. Design should be maximum 16.5%DS to allow for unintended variations. Lower dry solids concentrations will increase specific steam consumption (t steam/t dry solids). Dry solids concentrations below ~2%DS will cause increased vibrations and wear on equipment. An hourly variation of +/- 2% point is acceptable Minimum 5 C Maximum 30 C <400 mg/l Abrasive materials defined by ash particles >150 micron Max 100 kg/day >150 micron with a particle size distribution (by mass): Max 50% more than 200 micron max 5% more than 700 micron The sludge shall be screened to remove rags. Any other industrial effluents coming into the plant shall also be pre-treated in order not to cause operational problems in the water treatment and the sludge treatment as per EU Waste-water Directive. Feed-stream Recommended treatment and requirement Primary sludge None, assuming 6 mm screens on inlet to WWTP Secondary / WAS None FOG None Imported sludge Screened to max. 6 mm Pre-treated septic Screened to max.. 6 mm as well as an efficient sand and grit removal system included. 35

158 Section 3 Mass and Energy Balances Included in this section are two sets of Mass and Energy Balances. In addition we have included a summary table for each scenario. Please note that the Mass & Energy Balances are in metric units. For convenience, major process values listed in the summary tables have been converted to Imperial units. We have also included comparable data points for convention digestion for ease of comparison purposes. 36

159 Table&3(1:&Summary&Data&2015&Expected&Conditions&29&DT/Day&(Power&Optimized) Project&:& AD&model&(&A08 Date&:& 1/0/00 Client&:& 0 Cambi&responsible&:& 0 Consultant&:& 0 Country&: 0 Preheating External&biogas/landfill&gas external(steam 0 Nm³/h(at 50.0% CH 4 0 kw 0 kg/h thickened&sludge Foul&gas External&fuel m³/day 11.1(kg/h((dry) 15 C excess(steam 0 kw 26.6 tonds/day kw kg/h steam(from(chp 89.0% 0.0% CHP(Unit( gas(upgrading( 0(Nm³/year 5.0 %DS 550 kw 2,446(kW bio(lng&or&bio(cng 15 C Pre(dewatering Fat(Oil(&(Grease 972 kwe 1110 kgds/h 0 TDS/day steam(from(boiler External&fuel 1,064 kg/h 0 kw 823 kw Polymer&addition 24.2(kW 11.0% Biogas Boiler( 67 m³/day Pre(dewatered&sludge 304(kW 10,515 Nm³(biogas/day 0.2% active(poly t/day 6,624 Nm³(CH4/day Steam&input&(average) 2200 kg/h(peak(capacity(at(20(minutes(reactor(hrt Polymer&addition 26.6 tonds/day 1,064 kg/h 2,749 kwlhv 0.2% Sludge&silo 59 m³/day active(poly 16.5 %DS kg/ton 54 m³ digester&cooler ( 15 C kg/tonds kw FeCl3/Ca(OH)2&addition 0 kg(ca(oh)2/day Pre(dewatering&reject Pre(cooler 40.0( C 0 kgfecl3/day ( 438 m³/day 0.0 kw 7.4%(DS 50.5(m³/h 0 %w/w 0 %w/w ( 0.0 tonds/day Final&dewatering Digester( 0.0 kgds/m³ Dewatered&(external)&sludge 86.4 C 86.4 C 49.1( C Sludge&cake 0 m³/day (%DS Digested&sludge 619 kgds/h Ton/day 0 tonds/day THP&feed 86.4( C 14.9 tds/day 95 %(capture 17,172 Ton/year %DS % DS 30.0 DS% ( t/day Cambi&THP 40(m³/h C 26.6 tonds/day B2 55.2% VS 15 2&line %DS t/day Digesters 15 C 3,634 m³ d(hrt Sludge&Heat&Dilution 0.0 TonDS/day Sludge&bypass& 0.0 TonDS/day t/h 0.0 t/h 59.0 %(VSR m³/day Reject&water Y C 0 %DS 0 %DS 5.5 kgvs/m³/day 243 m³/day 15 C 15 C 583 kgnh4yn/day 0.0 kw 2,399 mg(nh4yn/l 55.2 t/day 0.0 t/day Dilution&water 20 C 20 C 20 C SLUDGE WATER BIOGAS FUEL STEAM FOUL(GAS Summary&of&design&data Sludge&Production Hydrolysis Digestion Energy&production Dewatering Primary 13.3 tds/day sludge(to(hydrolysis 26.6 tds/day Total(DS(to(digester 26.6 tds/day Biogas(production 10,515 Nm³/day Dry(solids(to(dewatering 14.9 tds/day Secondary 13.3 tds/day sludge(bypassed 0 tds/day Total(VS(to(digester 20.0 tvs/day Biogas(produced 3,837,995 Nm³/year capture(rate 95 % Other 0.0 tds/day Hydrolysis(feed(DS 16.5 %DS digester(feed(ds 11.0% DS energy(produced 24,083 MWhlhv/year dewatering(capacity 619 kgds/h Total 26.6 tds/day wet(flow(to(hydrolysis t/day digester(dry(solids 6.4% DS Electrical(power 972 kwe dry(solids(after(dewatering 30.0 %DS 9,726.7 tds/year #(THP(lines 2 digester(feed(flow t/day electricity(produced 8,512 MWh/year sludge(cake(produced 47.0 Ton/day selected(thp(system digester(volume 3,634 m³ Biogas(bypassed(to(boiler 11.0% of(total(flow sludge(cake 17,172 Ton/year B2 nr(of(reactors(per(line Digester(loading 5.5 kgvs/m³/day External(fuel(need 0 kw Reject(water(flow 243 m³/day 4 average(steam(cons kg/h HRT days External(fuel 0 MWhlhv/year Ammonia(load 583 kgnh4yn/day VSR 59.0 % 37

160 Section 3 Mass and Energy Balances Table 3-2: Summary Data 2015 Expected Conditions 29 DT/Day 38

161 Table&3(3:&Mass&and&Energy&Balance&Design&Capacity&44&DT&Day&(Power&Optimized) Project(:( AD(model(/(A08 Date(:( 1/0/00 Client(:( 0 Cambi(responsible(:( 0 Consultant(:( 0 Country(: 0 Preheating External(biogas/landfill(gas Nm³/h&at 50.0% 0 kw external&steam 0 CH 4 0 kg/h thickened(sludge Foul(gas External(fuel m³/day 16.7&kg/h&(dry) 15 C excess&steam 0 kw 40.0 tonds/day kw kg/h steam&from&chp 89.2% 0.0% CHP&Unit& gas&upgrading& 0&Nm³/year 5.0 %DS 826 kw 3,679&kW bio/lng(or(bio/cng 15 C Pre/dewatering Fat&Oil&&&Grease 1,462 kwe 1665 kgds/h 0 TDS/day steam&from&boiler External(fuel 1,585 kg/h 0 kw 1,226 kw Polymer(addition 36.3&kW 10.8% Biogas Boiler& 100 m³/day Pre/dewatered(sludge 444&kW 15,769 Nm³&biogas/day 0.2% active&poly t/day 9,934 Nm³&CH4/day Steam(input((average) 2200 kg/h&peak&capacity&at&20&minutes&reactor&hrt Polymer(addition 40.0 tonds/day 1,585 kg/h 4,123 kwlhv 0.2% Sludge(silo 89 m³/day active&poly 16.5 %DS kg/ton 81 m³ digester(cooler & 15 C kg/tonds kw FeCl3/Ca(OH)2(addition 0 kg&ca(oh)2/day Pre/dewatering(reject Pre/cooler 40.0& C 0 kgfecl3/day & 657 m³/day 0.0 kw 7.4%&DS 75.7&m³/h 0 %w/w 0 %w/w & 0.0 tonds/day Final(dewatering Digester& 0.0 kgds/m³ Dewatered((external)(sludge 86.3 C 86.3 C 49.0& C Sludge(cake 0 m³/day &%DS Digested(sludge 928 kgds/h Ton/day 0 tonds/day THP(feed 86.3& C 22.3 tds/day 95 %&capture 25,752 Ton/year %DS % DS 30.0 DS% / t/day Cambi(THP 61&m³/h C 40.0 tonds/day B2 55.2% VS 15 2(line %DS t/day Digesters 15 C 5,450 m³ d&hrt Sludge(Heat(Dilution 0.0 TonDS/day Sludge(bypass( 0.0 TonDS/day t/h 0.0 t/h 59.0 %&VSR m³/day Reject(water ( C 0 %DS 0 %DS 5.5 kgvs/m³/day 364 m³/day 15 C 15 C 874 kgnh4(n/day 0.0 kw 2,399 mg&nh4(n/l 83.1 t/day 0.0 t/day Dilution(water 20 C 20 C 20 C SLUDGE WATER BIOGAS FUEL STEAM FOUL&GAS Summary(of(design(data Sludge(Production Hydrolysis Digestion Energy(production Dewatering Primary 20.0 tds/day sludge&to&hydrolysis 40.0 tds/day Total&DS&to&digester 40.0 tds/day Biogas&production 15,769 Nm³/day Dry&solids&to&dewatering 22.3 tds/day Secondary 20.0 tds/day sludge&bypassed 0 tds/day Total&VS&to&digester 30.0 tvs/day Biogas&produced 5,755,684 Nm³/year capture&rate 95 % Other 0.0 tds/day Hydrolysis&feed&DS 16.5 %DS digester&feed&ds 11.0% DS energy&produced 36,116 MWhlhv/year dewatering&capacity 928 kgds/h Total 40.0 tds/day wet&flow&to&hydrolysis t/day digester&dry&solids 6.4% DS Electrical&power 1,462 kwe dry&solids&after&dewatering 30.0 %DS 14,586.7 tds/year #&THP&lines 2 digester&feed&flow t/day electricity&produced 12,804 MWh/year sludge&cake&produced 70.6 Ton/day selected&thp&system digester&volume 5,450 m³ Biogas&bypassed&to&boiler 10.8% of&total&flow sludge&cake 25,752 Ton/year B2 nr&of&reactors&per&line Digester&loading 5.5 kgvs/m³/day External&fuel&need 0 kw Reject&water&flow 364 m³/day 4 average&steam&cons kg/h HRT days External&fuel 0 MWhlhv/year Ammonia&load 874 kgnh4(n/day VSR 59.0 % 39

162 Section 3 Mass and Energy Balances Table 3-4: Summary Data Design Capacity 44 DT Day 40

163 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 4.1 Unit Cost and Annual Replacement Items: The cost to operate a Cambi THP system includes manpower to oversee operations, maintenance, and power. There are no chemicals or consumable materials required. The Cambi THP system is fully automatic. The system will adjust to changes in the digester feed rate (the only actively adjusted setting) and automatically speed up processing, or decrease, depending on the change in the digester feed. Most plants make very little adjustments in digester feed rates as digesters work best with as few changes as possible. Therefore, the operator attention and time is just maintenance. The Cambi THP sits between sludge pre-dewatering and the digester(s). One operator is normally assigned the task of overseeing the operation of the pre-dewatering, Cambi, digestion and the post digestion dewatering. There is not one Cambi installation where a person is assigned to operate just the Cambi THP. This is even true on large plants like Daveyhulme, which treat 350 dry tons per day of solids. Weekly maintenance for a B-2 system is approximately 5 hours per week. Power cost will be equivalent to 24 horsepower. Replacement costs consist of wear items such as pump stators, knife gate valves and instruments. Table 4-1 is a listing for parts anticipated along with the estimated cost of the parts predicted to need replacement in a 5 year window of operations. It is important to note that total quantity and cost is based on a 5 year window as many of the wear items will last several years. The total cost over 5 years is shown along with the average cost per year. Maintenance parts are estimated to be $41,550 average per year. 41

164 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance Table 4-1: Replacement Parts Cost Number of Reactors installed - 4 Operational period (years) - 5 Part Number Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average Warranty consumable life given (years) Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Pressure related equipment TBA Pulper steam lance set 1 1 Y 2 1yr 3 off 9 off $ $ 4, TBA Reactor steam lance set (common to all reactors) 1 1 Y 2 1yr 8 off 24 off $ $ 10, TBA Pulper Bursting disc 3 3 N None 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Reactor Bursting disc (common to all reactors) 3 3 N None 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA FlashTank Bursting disc 3 3 N None 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Pulper manway gasket 4 4 Y 1 1yr 2 off 10 off $ $ TBA Reactor manway gasket 4 4 Y 1 1yr 8 off 40 off $ $ 1, TBA FlashTank manway gasket 4 4 Y 1 1yr 2 off 10 off $ $ TBA FlashTank wear nozzle 5 5 Y 1 None 1 off 5 off $ 2, $ 10, TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 25 PN 10/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 50 PN10/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 80 PN10/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 100 PN10/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 100 PN25/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 150 PN10/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 150 PN25/ Y 5 1yr 10 off 10 off $ $ TBA Spiral Wound Gasket DN 125 PN Y 5 1yr 5 off 5 off $ $ Unit price Line Total Total:- $ 28, Part Number Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average Warranty consumable life given (years) Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Pump related equipment TBA Complete Pump unit (common) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 13, $ - TBA Stator (common) 3 3 Y 1 1yr 3 off 15 off $ 7, $ 118, TBA Rotor (common) 3 3 Y 3 none 3 off 6 off $ 1, $ 8, TBA Rotor side coupling kit (common) 3 3 Y 2 none 1 off 3 off $ $ 1, TBA Shaft side coupling kit (common) 3 3 Y 2 none 1 off 3 off $ $ 1, TBA Drive shaft and pin kit (common) 3 3 Y 3 1yr 1 off 2 off $ $ 1, TBA Mechanical seal kit (common) 5 5 Y 2 none 1 off 3 off $ $ TBA Replacement gear box oil (common) 3 3 Y 1 1yr 1 off 5 off $ $ TBA Replacement drive shaft oil (common) 3 3 Y 1 1yr 1 off 5 off $ $ TBA Gear box complete unit (common) 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 4, $ - TBA Drive motor (common) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - Unit price Line Total Total:- $ 132, Part Number Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average Warranty consumable life given (years) Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Instrument related equipment TBA Siemens Pressure Transmitter (Common to all) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 2, $ - TBA Siemens Level Transmitter (Pulper & FlashTank) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 2, $ - TBA Siemens Temperature Transmitter (Common to all) 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Siemens Flow Transmitter (Pulper & FlashTank) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 2, $ - TBA Siemens Dilution Flow Transmitter 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 1, $ - TBA Siemens Pump Pressure Switch (Common) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 1, $ - TBA Siemens Hi/Hi Level Switch (Pulper & FlashTank) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 2, $ - Unit price Line Total Total:- $ - 42

165 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance Table 4-1: Replacement Parts Cost (cont d) ` Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average consumable life (years) Valve related equipment TBA Steam inlet valve 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 6, $ - TBA Steam inlet valve repair kit 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Positioner for control valves 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 2, $ - TBA Knife gate Spare KGV Seals 80mm (KV7) 2 2 Y 2 none 8 off 24 off $ $ 1, TBA Knife gate Spare KGV Seals 100mm (KV7) 2 2 Y 2 none 2 off 6 off $ $ TBA Knife gate Spare KGV Seals 150mm (KV7) 2 2 Y 2 none 2 off 6 off $ $ TBA Knife gate Gland Packing KGV 100mm (KV7) 2 2 Y 2 none 2 off 6 off $ $ TBA Knife gate Gland Packing KGV 150mm (KV7) 2 2 Y 2 none 2 off 6 off $ $ TBA 80mm isolation knife gate valve 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 1, $ - TBA 100mm isolation knife gate valve 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 1, $ - TBA 150mm isolation knife gate valve 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 1, $ - TBA PRV valve 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 3, $ - TBA Repair Kits 50mm Bac 1 1 Y 5 1yr 1 off 1 off $ $ TBA Repair Kits 80mm Bac 1 1 Y 5 1yr 1 off 1 off $ $ TBA Dilution Control Valve 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 5, $ - TBA 80mm NiHard knife gate valve 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 4, $ - TBA Gestra 25mm RK86 Viton (vacuum break valve) 2 2 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Gestra 25mm RK86 EPDM (vacuum break valve) 2 2 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Gestra 50mm RK86 EPDM (vacuum break valve) 2 2 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Gestra 50mm RK86 Viton (vacuum break valve) 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Limit switch for pneumatic valves 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA 80mm pneumatic ball valve 5 5 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 2, $ - Warranty given Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Unit price Line Total Total:- $ 3, Part Number Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average consumable life (years) Compressor related equipment TBA Replacement oil 4 4 Y 0.25 none 1 off 20 off $ $ 1, TBA Replacement oil-filter 4 4 Y 0.25 none 1 off 20 off $ $ 1, TBA Replacement separator filter 1 1 Y 1 none 1 off 5 off $ $ TBA Replacement Air filter Kit 1 1 Y 0.5 none 1 off 10 off $ $ TBA Replacement filter cartridge micro filter (common) 1 1 Y 1 none 2 off 10 off $ $ Warranty given Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Unit price Line Total Total:- $ 3,

166 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance Table 4-1: Replacement Parts Cost (cont d) Part Number Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average consumable life (years) Electrical related equipment TBA Power Supply 24V 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Motor invertor unit 4 4 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 4, $ - TBA Digital Input card 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Digital Output card 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Output relay 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Analogue input card (4-20mA) 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Analogue output card (4-20mA) 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA HMI unit 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 9, $ - TBA PLC CPU 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ 3, $ - $ - Warranty given Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Unit price Line Total Total:- $ - Part Number Description Critical dependency 5=highest, 1=lowest Critical score Wear part (Y), spare part (N) Average consumable life (years) Off Gas cooler related equipment TBA Water Circulation pump 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Flow Switch 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - TBA Fan Motor 3 3 N 1yr 0 off 0 off $ $ - Warranty given Number required per line item Total Number required for the given period Unit price Line Total Total:- $ - 5 Year Total:- $ 168, Year Avg Total:- $ 33,

167 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 4.2 Approximate Labor Requirements for replacing and maintaining components: Table 4-2 is a maintenance summary schedule. The schedule shows daily. weekly, monthly, etc. tasks Our documentation package provided with all systems includes a complete list of labor requirements for both maintenance and also replacement. The entire list is approximately 60 pages. Therefore we have included a summary of major tasks. The B-2 system is compact and easy to service. Anticipated average weekly maintenance is 5 man hours per week. Maintenance summary schedules are included in this section. 45

168 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance Cambi THP 46

169 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 47

170 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 48

171 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance Post Dewatering Centrifuges A. Maintenance Summary Maintenance & Inspection Information 1. For maximum performance and increased life span of the centrifuge and associated equipment, it is important that the centrifuge and associated equipment be properly maintained. The following schedule is to be followed to insure optimum performance of the centrifuge. B. Daily Maintenance 1. Monitor main bearing temperatures for excessive high temperature rise via remote readout. Temperature should not exceed 220ºF. 2. Check lubrication levels and if necessary, when manually greasing main bearing pump 6-8 shots with hand pump into each main bearing every 6-8 hours. 3. Monitor vibration level for excessive vibration. If increased vibration is noticed, flush the centrifuge to clear any solids build-up that may be causing noted imbalance. 4. Check hydraulic backdrive pump unit for oil leaks, oil level, and excessive temperature. Temperature should not exceed 120ºF. C. Weekly Maintenance 1. Check V-belts for stretch or excessive deflection. Re-tighten or replace as necessary. 2. Grease and purge scroll bearings as necessary. Remove opposite fitting or plug on internal bearings and pump until clean grease emerges. When no opposite fitting or plug is present, grease with 10 shots of hand pump minimum. 3. Inspect solids discharge and remove any accumulated solids. D. Monthly Maintenance 1. Check scroll conveyor for excessive wear on front of flight. This may be checked throughout the solids discharge ports by removing the solids upper housing. If wear exceeds 4mm (.156 ), notify Centrisys Corporation to arrange for a centrifuge overhaul. Quite possibly, a worn scroll may be causing imbalance which may cause expensive bearing failure. E. Semi-Annual Maintenance 1. Perform function check of all system controls and interlocks. 2. Change the oil in the hydraulic pump unit as well as the oil filter elements. Clean the suction strainer. F. Service Notes 49

172 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 1. When the unit is plugged or a CIP was performed, the internal bearings need to be purged. 2. When the bearing is purged and the excessive contamination is noticed, please contact our service department. G. Inspection and Dismantling 1. All inspection, disassembly and re-assembly are to be done only when the centrifuge is not rotating and main power disconnect is in the off position. H. V-Belt Tightening or Changing 1. Remove belt guard. 2. Loosen four motor mount bracket bolts. 3. To remove belts, turn tensioning shaft to tension clockwise until belts can be walked off the sheaves. 4. To replace belts, walk belts onto sheaves to proper location, then turn tensioning shaft clockwise to tighten belts. NOTE: Replace belts only in sets. Do not over tighten as this may cause serious bearing and rotor damage. 5. Re-tighten four motor mount bracket bolts. I. Hydraulic Backdrive 1. Remove backdrive, safety guard and frame end plate. 2. Remove oil supply and return lines making sure to plug off both hoses and backdrive connections to prevent oil loss or contamination. 3. Loosen, do not remove, the backdrive mounting bolts, remove two bolts and use as jacking screws to press backdrive out of backdrive carrier. Once the backdrive is pressed out of the carrier, sling the backdrive for transport and remove the remaining mounting bolts taking care not to drop the unit during transportation. 4. Reassemble in reverse order as above. J. Rotating Assembly 1. Remove feed connections and feed pipe, all safety guards and covers, including upper housings. 2. Assuming that the drive belts and backdrive have been removed at this point following the steps above, loosen and remove the eight main bearing mounting bolts and four taper pins. 3. Locating center of gravity on the rotating assembly, use a crane to remove the rotating assembly and securely mount on a suitable skid for storage or shipment. 4. Reassemble in reverse order as above. K. Scroll Conveyor 50

173 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 1. Once the rotating assembly had been stabilized the solids end headwall may now be removed. This is the headwall at the conical end of the rotating assembly. To remove this headwall, remove all cap screws and use four of the cap screws as jacking bolts to press the headwall off of the conical section. 2. Now that the solids end headwall has been removed, this liquid end headwall may now be removed in much the same way as the solids end headwall. However, the scroll conveyor must now be supported at the solids end while the liquid end headwall is backed off of the cylindrical section of the bowl. Continue backing the liquid end headwall with the scroll still attached, until the scroll conveyor is completely extracted from the bowl. 3. Once the scroll conveyor and liquid end headwall are out of the bowl, remove the cap screws holding the scroll to the headwall which are located at the back of the scroll between the scroll and the headwall. To remove these screws, align the inboard holes in the cap screws and remove the cap screws through these holes. Once the cap screws are removed, use two of the cap screws as jacking bolts to press the headwall off of the scroll. L. Main Bearing Removal & Replacement Both main bearings may be removed and replaced in the same way as follows: 1. Remove the carriers by removing the six cap screws in the carrier retaining plate using two of the cap screws as jacking bolts to remove the retaining plate. 2. With a rubber mallet, gently strike the carrier from the back side to drive the carrier off the headwall shaft. Once the carriers have been removed, both cover plates on the bearing housings may now be removed, allowing the bearing housing to slide off of the main bearing. In the case of the floating bearing, take care when sliding the housing off of the bearing as the outer race may remain in the housing, which will then have to be removed separately. 3. Bearings are then removed with a bearing puller and replaced by heating the new or reconditioned bearings inner race to the proper temperature and then sliding back onto the headwall shaft. Be sure the inboard cover plate for the bearing housing is replaced before installing the new or reconditioned bearing. 4. Reassembled in reverse order as above. All bearings should be pre-packed with adequate grease before assembly and fully purged after final assembly. Re-grease once again after approximately one hour to fill any air pockets produced during assembly. 51

174 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 4.3 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs from and operating facility Cambi has operated our system installed at the Chertsey WWTP (Thames Water) since The Chertsey plant, plus imported sludge averages in excess of 24 (22 metric tons) of dry solids per day. Our scope of operations and service includes; Septage and liquid sludge receiving Pre- Cambi dewatering of imported liquids and sludge from the treatment plant using (2) 2 meter Belt Filter Presses 60 ton Cake Storage Hopper (same size as proposed hopper) Cambi B12 x 2 reactor system Digester feed, cooling and temperature control. The attached maintenance cost does not include the operating cost for the two belt filter presses. 52

175 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance Table 4.3 Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Chertsey WWTP Chertsey operation and maintence costs t/year Qty Power consumption in kwh duty number Installed load factor Est.Hrs/d Hours/year Total Liquid reception, storage and dewatering of indigenous and imports 12,600 dry tonnes Equipment Cake reception hopper cake pump system (with in line dilution) sludge storage silo Silo Silo horizontal auger Silo vertical auger % % 40% % % 70% % % % % 40% % Thermal Hydrolysis Plant Pulper feed pump Pulper Pulper mix pump Reactor feed pump Reactors Flashtank Pulper pressure control system THP actuated valves THP instruments Vessel inspection Digester feed and temp control system Digester feed pump 2 Heat exchanger 1 Digester recirculation pumps 2 THP actuated valves 12 THP instruments 10 Digester trim cooler 0 Boiler water feed pumps break tank pumps Blow down vessel Boiler chemical system Biogas booster Duel fuel boiler Break tank Hot Well tank Water softener Oil tank boiler water pre-heat system inspection potable water Digestion, biogas Biogas systems CHP 1 MW Jenbacher Waste heat recovery Compressed air system Compressor receiver dryer % % % Comments kg/tds Electrical Lubrucants ,881 $0.06 per kwh consumables consumables Total in kg for maintenance per unit total 0 0 3, ,000 1, , ,500 3, , , , , , ,000 1,000 2,000 6,500 3,250 1,000 1,800 2, ,400 1,000 1,800 1, ,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 10,000 25, Total Polymer Chemicals 4,000 1,000 15,593 12,000 21,000 36,800 73,393 Operating costs for 10,000 dry ton/year Cambi plant based on Chertsey STW operating data 26 kwh/tds 53 Chemicals Consumables refurb fund Sub Total Labour Total cost per tds 21,000 36,800 7,360 65,160 $ $ $ $ 33, , , , ,000 $ 248,160 $ $ 292, ,

176 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance 4.4 Plan to Provide Operation and Maintenance Support In order to describe the plan to support the City with the operation and maintenance of the Cambi THP, we need to first walk thru the steps that will occur prior to optimization. These steps are important, as it sets the framework for the continued operation and safety of the system Typical Operation of a Cambi THP plant The staffing requirement for a Cambi THP system is surprising low. There is not one installation, that has one person dedicated to just the operation of the Cambi system. In most cases, facilities will assign one person to operate the pre- Cambi dewatering, sludge hopper, Cambi THP, post dewatering and the boiler. The operation of the Cambi system is fully automated. The automation works in a pull technology mode, based on the digester feed rate. The feed rate to the digester is set and the processing rate thru Cambi adjusts automatically to keep a reservoir (in the Flash tank) of hydrolyzed sludge ready to be pumped to the digester. If the feed rate to the digester is increased, the cycling of the sequential batch operation will occur more quickly in order to keep the level in the Flash tank constant. Conversely, if the feed rate to the digester is decreased, then the cycle of the reactors will slow down to match. While the Cambi THP is automatically adjusting to the digester feed, the Flash Tank and Pulper are buffering any changes. In addition, the pre- Cambi sludge hopper is also providing even more flexibility by buffering the sludge from pre- dewatering. The plant operators will be monitoring all of the rates, so slight adjustments are made to the belt presses or to the digester feed to keep operations smooth. In between the belt presses and digesters, the Cambi THP will just adjust automatically, without any operator requirements Staffing Levels at Existing Cambi Installations We wanted to discuss the staffing levels at a few of our installations, in order to give you a feel for the level of operations and automation of the Cambi system. It s important to note that European boiler code allows unattended operation of steam boilers for up to 72 hours as long as the boiler is certified for 72 unattended operations. While ASME allows for unattended boiler operation (CSD- 1), currently Ohio does not permit this. We also understand that the plant is currently staffed 24/7. Nasetved, DK - Lindum Norway, and HIAS Norway: These plants are similar in size to the Franklin WRF. All three plants are staffed with multiple operators 5 days/week for 8 hours. Maintenance is done at this time. All three plants run at night completely unattended. The plants also run weekends, also unattended. The Cambi THP system runs 24/7. Larger plant such as Dublin, which has a capacity of 110 TDS/day run at night with one operator overseeing the pre- dewatering, Cambi and digester feed. It s important to realize that the Cambi system is a process that bridges from pre- dewatering to digester feed in a fully automated mode. There is no need for an operator to change any settings on the Cambi 54

177 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance system. Once the equipment is delivered there are a series of steps which occur. We invite and encourage the plant staff to participate, be involved and ask any questions as we transition to operations Installation of a B- 2 System (5-10 days) The B- 2 system proposed will arrive on- site as a single skid that is pre- piped and pre- wired. The piping and vessels will have been certified by an ASME inspector. The system will have already been through the Functional Test described in the RFP documents. Installation will simple require anchoring and connecting the electric feed and several pipes for sludge, steam and service water Commissioning on Steam and Water (3-5 days) A major milestone for Cambi is the commissioning of the system on steam and water. Once this is complete, the system will be ready to receive sludge thru to feeding of sludge to the digester. Before operating anything, the system controls will be rechecked and given a second Functional Test. The water will be added followed by connecting steam. The system will then be run on water and steam, including the digester feed components. At the completion of this stage, we know everything from the sludge hoppers to the digester feed are ready to operate. Then we wait for sludge to be available. Usually there is at least a couple of weeks wait for sludge and frequently it is months. For example, on the DC water project, functional testing was completed in June. Sludge was just received around October Commissioning on Sludge (5 days) Once we have sludge to process the main focus of the effort is the interface of the Cambi THP system with the surrounding systems. We setup and tune the sludge feed pumps from the sludge hopper to the Pulper. There is an automatic solids control system, which adds dilution water to trim the solids concentration being fed to the B- 2 skid. Steam demand is monitored and adjustments made to smooth out the steam load. The sludge coolers and digester feed is monitored for proper operation Digester ramp up (60 days) Shadowing begins Once we start feeding the digester, we will begin the shadowing phase of the project. An anaerobic digester is essentially a living organism made up of billions of microorganisms. We will be starting with digester full of water and no anaerobic organisms. A truckload of seed sludge will be brought in from another Cambi plant. The microorganisms in a THP digester are not the same as a conventional digester, primarily due to the level of ammonia in the sludge. The digester must be slowly brought up to full loading over a course of about 30 to 60 days. This allows the biomass to develop and adapt to the digester conditions. This also allows the plant staff to slowly buildup the capacity in all of the upstream processes, leading to the digester. During this phase, we would typically expect to be on- site for 12 hour per day. Someone will always be on call- out in case of an alarm if they are not on- site. (We can and will staff the plant 24/7 if requested by the customer) 55

178 Section 4 Operations & Maintenance For example, in week 4 of digester ramp up on the DC Water project (450 dry tons per day). We were staffing the facility from 6 AM to 10 PM, 7 days per week. The system was running during the night shift unattended except for the first night. We started feeding 8 tons on the first day to just one digester. As of October 1 we were feeding 11 tons to each of two digesters per day. DC water increased the feed rate by 3% cumulatively every day. We normally increase the feed by 5% per day. The DC Water installation has 4 x 4 million gallon digesters and 4 Cambi THP trains System Optimization and Continued Support Once the digester is being fed at the plants daily capacity, the ramp up phase is complete. There are only two variables that can be adjusted, which are the hydrolysis temperature setting and the length of hold time in the reactors The minimum hold time is 20 minutes as required by EPA to meet Class A pathogen reduction. This can be increased. Adjusting g hold time can have a small impact on the VS destruction in the digester. Hydrolysis temperature is set between 160 to 170 degrees C ( degrees F). Adjusting the temperature can also impact VS destruction slightly. This also may have an impact on the quality of the filtrate from final dewatering. Changing either of the two variables is done with an input to thru the HMI/SCADA. Once changed, it will take approximately 2 digester turn overs to assess the impact. At the specified 15 day HRT, this will be 30 days. For the first year, we schedule regular inspections of the system. Initially this is recommended to be once per month. After 6 to 9 months, the schedule can be adjusted to less frequent intervals. The purpose of the inspection is to audit the maintenance and condition of the system and review the performance. Pressure vessels require annual inspection under most State codes and also by insurance companies. Cambi will work closely with the City to schedule the inspection. While this is a simple exercise, there are critical steps required to keep the inspection to a minimum of down- time and make it a successful event. 4.5 Disposal Land Applying/Soil Blending We will produce an exceptional quality Class A product suitable for soil blending and direct land application in the Cincinnati area. The material is very storable with little odor. Due to the high temperature treatment there is no regrowth issues. We will develop the soils marketing plan that maximizes the benefits to LMTP. We do not perceive beneficial use of the product will be an issue 56

179 Section 5 PLC Control and SCADA Interface CONTROL SYSTEM: The control system for the proposed B2 product consist of a PLC, HMI Graphic interface using a 19 display and interface components listed below. Allen Bradley PLC 1769 Compact Logix Allen Bradley HMI 19 Panel PC Ethernet/IP communication Interface signals via potential free (isolated) contacts All Cambi THP s are equally configured by use of standard industrial control system equipment, available world- wide. All software design in Cambi is based on ISA S88 standard. Modules like pulper, valves, pumps etc. use the same programming structure (objects) on all Cambi platforms. Configuration can be slightly different, depending on site specific requirements and type of system (B2, B6 or B12). There are also different configurations depending on system revisions. All software in the central processing unit (PLC) are considered Intellectual Property (IP), and normally locked for editing. This is due to product certifications, version control, safety reasons and upgrade services. In addition to a central processing unit, a standard operator interface unit is delivered. Cambi requires a VPN connection installed by the client for follow- up services and remote monitoring. Figure 5.1 illustrates the network diagram and shows how the Cambi system would integrate with the WRF SCADA system. Figure 5.1: Typical Network Diagram PLC in the Local Cabinet 57

180 Section 5 PLC Control and SCADA Interface This is the heart of the system. All relevant information gathered from the Cambi system is processed in this PLC, and all outgoing commands set on the HMI go from this PLC to the equipment. All instruments, automated valves, frequency converter and electric motor starters are connected to this PLC. Standard PLC system: Allen Bradley Compact Logix PLC. HMI at the Local Cabinet The THP system may be operated from this local control station. Motor Control Center and Power Distribution The MCC is a combined unit incorporating the control system PLC all starters and VFD s, along with power feed to the air compressor and any other 120 volt power requirement. The MCC is watertight NEMA4x stainless steel and is suitable for outdoor installation. There is no local operation of individual equipment in the process area. B2 system controls: Stainless motor control center (left) with air compressor, air dryer and pre- piped air solenoid stainless panel to control all actuated valves... Remote access The control system is equipped with a remote access system (password protected) enabling Cambi to monitor the performance and operation of the plant. The client is responsible for providing the required remote access connection securing Cambi efficient access to the client s control system during a minimum period equal to the duration of the mechanical warranty. Interfaces with Control System upstream/downstream THP and utilities (RIOP) 58

181 Section 5 PLC Control and SCADA Interface In order to secure safe, efficient and flexible operation, some information must be exchanged between the THP control system and the control system for equipment upstream/downstream THP and utilities. All necessary signal interfaces from THP for direct process control upstream/downstream will be made accessible via potential free signals located in RIOP cabinet. The ROIP is shown in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: Cambi controls with RIOP Panel Signals necessary will be specified in Control Philosophy document. All status parameters in the THP PLC is accessible via Ethernet/IP for plant overall control system. 59

182 Section 5 Installation List 6.1 Cambi Installations: Our first installation, located in Hamar, Norway will celebrate its 20th birthday in Placed into operation in 1995, the original pressure vessels are still in operation. Since 1995 we have signed contracts for 48 additional plants. Today Cambi treats solids from 38,000,000 people every day. As shown below, Cambi currently processes over 90% of the thermal hydrolysis sludge in the world. 60

183 Section 5 Installation List Since 1995, with our first installation, Cambi has developed a flawless track record of successful THP installations. There is not one Cambi system that has been decommissioned due to problems. No other THP supplier has the flawless track record of Cambi or the length of time and number of installations. Approximately 10% of our installations, have ordered upgrades to increase the capacity of their original system (Dublin, Ireland is just one example) As a result of our flawless record, the popularity of Cambi THP is demonstrated in the below figure. Our yearly new capacity and cumulative capacities highlight our growth. Today, we routinely commission at least one Cambi system per month. 61

184 Section 5 Installation List 6.2: Current List of Projects: Customer/project Design capacity (TDS/year) 3,600 tonnes 9,600 tonnes 4,000 tonnes 1,600 tonnes 16,500 tonnes 4,600 tonnes 36,000 tonnes 8,000 tonnes 1,200 tonnes 8,000 tonnes Included in (2) Included in (1) 12,900 tonnes 20,000 tonnes 2,000 tonnes 20,000 tonnes 8,000 tonnes 19,000 tonnes 14,000 tonnes 4,000 tonnes 37,000 tonnes 2,000 tonnes 20,000 tonnes 30,000 tonnes 20,000 tonnes 40,000 tonnes 23,000 tonnes 25,000 tonnes 6,000 tonnes 91,000 tonnes 40,000 tonnes 15,000 tonnes THP Completed reactors Location Country HIAS (1) Thames Water (2) Borregaard Industries The Municipality of Næstved Nigg Bay Mjosanlegget, Biowaste Plant*** Ringsend Sewage Treatment Works The Municipality of Fredericia Kobelco Eco-Solutions Spolka Wodna Kapusciska Thames Water HIAS, additional digester Oxley Creek Bruxelles Nord HIAS- Expansion Cotton Valley (Anglian Water) Ecopro, multi-waste** plant Whitlingham WWTW (Anglian Water) Biovakka Oy Nigg Bay, upgrade Bran Sands (Aker-Kværner/NWL) Amperverband, Cambi THP-C* Ringsend STW (New THP line) Cardiff, Welsh Water (Imtech) Afan, Welsh Water (Imtech) Riverside, Thames W (Interserve) Vilniaus Vandenys/ Vilnius Water Co. Mapocho WWTP (Degremont)* Lindum, Cambi Compact Davyhulme, UU (B&V) Howdon (Imtech/NWL) Oslo EGE*** Hamar Chertsey Sarspborg Næstved Aberdeen Lillehammer Dublin Fredericia Niigata Bydgoszcz Chertsey Hamar Brisbane Bruxelles Hamar Milton Keynes Verdal Norwich Åbo/Turku Aberdeen Tees Valley Geiselbullach Dublin Wales Wales London Vilnius Santiago Drammen Manchester Newcastle Oslo Norway UK Norway Denmark UK Norway Ireland Denmark Japan Poland UK Norway Australia Belgium Norway UK Norway UK Finland UK UK Germany Ireland UK UK UK Lithuania Chile Norway UK UK Norway Crawley STW upgrade (GBM 1) West Sussex UK 11,300 tonnes London UK 36,500 tonnes Crossness, Thames Water DC Water Washington DC USA 130,000 tonnes Heijmans, STC Tilburg Tilburg Netherlands 29,000 tonnes Beckton, Thames Water London UK 36,500 tonnes Sundet WWTP, Växjö Municipality** Växjö Sweden 8,600 tonnes Vigo WWTP (UTE EDAR Lagares) Vigo Spain 22,000 tonnes Stavanger Norway 11,800 tonnes IVAR biogas plant** Seafield STW, MWH (Stirling Water) Long Reach, Aecom (T. Water)* Burgos WWTP (Degremont) Ourense WWTP (Degremont) Mjosanlegget*** New Plant Bakdal WWTP* Edinburgh Scotland 27,000 tonnes 6 Kent, London UK 13,000 tonnes Burgos, Castile Spain 13,000 tonnes Ourense, Galicia Spain 7,000 tonnes Lillehammer Norway 4,800 tonnes Anyang S. Korea 27,700 tonnes Psyttalia WWTP* Athens Greece 15,500 tonnes 4 Hengelo* Hengelo Netherlands 11,100 tonnes Beijing China Total: 99,100 tonnes 1,045,900 tonnes Gaobeidian WWTP TDS = Total dry solids (1000 kg = 1 tonne) 62

185 Section 5 Installation List 6.3 Operating Data: We could bury you with data and contacts; however we have limited the references and data to plants that are similar to Franklin. These plants, like Franklin do not produce any primary sludge or have small amounts of primary solids. Primary sludge dewaters and anaerobically digests easily, the waste activated solids are the most difficult material to hydrolyze and anaerobically digest. All of the data listed below comes from our customers and has been published in the public domain. This will provide you assurance, that he numbers are real, independent and verifiable. Facility Naestved, DK Brisbane, AU Cardiff, Wales HIAS (Hamar, Norway) % DS Feed Capacity TDS/day WAS/Primary Ratio 100% WAS 100% WAS 85-90% WAS 80-20% VSD > 50%i 45 50%ii 63%iii 50 55%iv Year Commissioned Copies of all data and reference documents are available on our website or we will be pleased to provide copies if requested. i MEETING INCREASED DEMANDS ON SLUDGE QUALITY EXPERIENCE WITH FULL SCALE PLANT FOR THERMAL DISINTEGRATION (2002) Ursula Kepp and Odd Egil Solheim ii A REVIEW OF THE OXLEY CREEK STP CENTRALISED BIOSOLIDS HANDLING FACILITY AFTER FOUR YEARS OF OPERATION Daniel Starrenburg 1, Damien Batstone 2 David Fligelman3 1. Queensland Urban Utilities, Brisbane, QLD 2. University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 3, Tyr Group, Brisbane, Qld iii Operational experience with Thermal Advanced Digestion in Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Wilson, S.1, Brown, R.¹, Oliver, B.2, Merry, J². 1Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, 2 Imtech iv Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Combined With Thermophilic / Mesophilic Digestion - From Pilot To Full Scale Application At Hamar Wwtp Fjaergard, T.1, Sorensen, G.1, Solheim, O.E.2, and Seyffarth,T.2 1Hamar WWTP, 2Cambi AS 6.4 References: HIAS, Norway - Hamar, Norway Tor Fjærgård [email protected] Næstved Kommune Jens Wett Frederiksen Jwe- forsyning.dk Brisbane Water Robin Lewis [email protected]

186 Section 5 Installation List Cardiff STW Paul Buttle Planning & Maintenance Manager - Advanced Digestion DwrCymru - WelshWater Tel : Mob : E- mail : [email protected] 64

187 Section 7 Certification of Class A The EPA Part 503 Regulations define the requirements for Class A pathogen reduction. The part 503 rule lists six alternatives for treating biosolids so they can be classified Class A with respect to pathogens. Any one of six alternatives may be met for the biosolids to be deemed Class A Alternative 1 for Meeting Class A: Thermally Treated Biosolids This alternative applies when specific thermal heating procedures are used to reduce pathogens. Equations are used to determine the length of heating time at a given temperature needed to obtain Class A pathogen reduction. It is important to note that it is mandatory for all sewage sludge particles to meet the time- temperature regime (emphasis by EPA). The time- temperature requirements apply to every particle of sewage sludge processed. Time at desired temperature is readily determined for batch or plug flow operations or even laminar flow in pipes However, there are concerns that that flow- through systems may permit some sludge to pass through without adequate treatment. Figure 11-1 indicates when application for equivalency may be appropriate USEPA Guide to the Part 503 Rules, page 111 USEPA Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge, pages 30 and 91 65

188 Section 7 Certification of Class A 7.2 Cambi Class A Approval: Prior to signing a contract for the DC Water project, we submitted documents to the EPA Pathogen Equivalency Committee. Based on the continuous sequential batch order of our process, EPA confirmed that our process met Alternative 1 Thermally Treated Biosolids which eliminates the requirement for equivalency. (copy of the letter is attached) 66

189 Section 7 Certification of Class A EPA advised the conditions used during operation of the Cambi THP process exceeds the time and temperature requirements described in 40 CFR (a)(3). This means that the process would be considered to meet Class A, Alternative 1 with respect to pathogen reduction. 3 Therefore, all solids processed using Cambi THP, by the City of Franklin WRF, will be classified as meeting Class A requirements from Day 1. Of course, the time- temperature regime will need to be operated such that the solids are heated above 72 degrees C and held for a minimum of 20 minutes. The Cambi process will actually heat the solids to degrees C, in order to hydrolyze the solids. The Cambi temperature far exceeds the mandated temperature of the 503 rules. The control system included with our proposal will document the temperature and time for every batch processed. The controls are set such that the process will alarm and stop in the event a batch does not meet the time/temperature regime. Ultimate approval of the product as Class A will be determined state by state but we do not perceive that as an issue based upon our process and history. 3 USEPA letter dated June 22,

190 Section 8 Layouts 8.1. Cambi THP Sample Layout We have prepared the following layout for review. Because of time constraints we provided one of may options and will work with staff to develop a more formal presentation at a later time. We believe this option will provide the least amount of plant interruption and be the easiest to implement. 1 68

191 Section 9 Pricing 9.1 Pricing We understand the project is urgent and its success is a top priority for LMTP. In order to provide a sustainable organics program, with the least amount of risk and shortest implementation period (approximately 12 months) we are proposing a Design, Build, Own, Operate and Transfer solution ( DBOOT ). This shifts 100% of the risk to Cambi while providing the opportunity for LMPT to purchase and operate the program on its own after 5 years at a predetermined price. The estimated cost for the DBOOT option is as follows: $300/DT We have also designed the system to be mobile providing LMPT the ability to redesign the plant once the incineration building is removed and LMTP moves forward with upgrading it s dewatering facility. You can be assured Cambi is committed to work with the LMPT to provide a long term sustainable organic s program that produces the highest quality end products and maximizes energy production from all organics provided by LMTP in the most environmentally friendly and cost effective way. 69

192 APPENDIX C Non-Economic Scoring

193 ALTERNATIVES NON-ECONOMIC QUALITATIVE COMPARISON The following non-economic evaluation was performed by MSDGC/City staff only. It represents an evaluation of many of the social and environmental issues that have been discussed with the Community Advisory Panel and elected officials at the City and County. However, due to the time constraints, this non-economic evaluation did not include direct public stakeholder input or participation. The non-economic qualitative comparison is broken into three overall categories: Environmental, Social, and FLAMROC, which stands for Flexibility, Land Availability, Adaptability, Maintainability, Reliability, Operability, and Constructability. These criteria deal with the effects that the alternative will have that cannot be quantified and that cannot be converted into costs to factor into the economic comparison. The social and environmental categories deal with the effects this project will have that are external to MSDGC, such as pollution or land value. The FLAMROC criteria, focus on the viability of the alternative with respect to the operations of MSDGC. Each criterion is scored as positive, neutral, or negative based on the impact the alternative will have on that particular non-economic issue. Each criterion is given a weight which represents the relative importance of the issue. If the criterion has a weight of ten the score will either be -10, 0, or +10. The Environmental and Social categories are weighted on a percent basis whereas the FLAMROC category is not. To combine the two weighting styles together the Environmental and Social scores that can range from -100% to +100% are converted into a range from 0 to 20 using the table below. These are then added to the FLAMROC total to make the overall non-economic score. Environmental and Social Score Conversion Raw Env. & Soc. Score Converted Score Raw Env. & Soc. Score Converted Score Raw Env. & Soc. Score Converted Score -100 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to The Environmental category is broken into five subcategories, each containing one criterion except for Water Resources which is broken into two. The table below lists the criteria and their respective weights.

194 Environmental Criteria Subcategory Criterion Weight Air Resources Pollutants 30% Hazardous Materials and Waste Hazardous Materials 5% People Health & Safety 30% Land Resources Land Use 10% Water Resources Surface Water Quality 20% Groundwater Quality 5% The Social category is broken into three subcategories: Socioeconomics, Aesthetic Resources, and Utilities and Infrastructure. Each of these is further divided into three or four criterions. The table below lists the criteria and their respective weights. Social Criteria Subcategory Criterion Weight Employment and Income 10% Socioeconomics Housing and Property Value 10% Construction 10% Environmental Justice 10% Visual Aesthetic 5% Aesthetic Resources Noise 5% Odor 20% Utilities 5% Utilities and Infrastructure Solid Waste 5% Transportation 20%

195 The FLAMROC category is broken into the seven criteria that form the acronym. The table below lists the criteria and their respective weights. FLAMROC Criteria Criterion Weight Flexibility 10 Land Availability 5 Adaptability 10 Maintainability 10 Reliability 10 Operability 10 Constructability 5 The following table summarizes the non-economic scoring and also incorporates the costs to provide the triple bottom line scoring. To do so the costs are normalized by dividing the cost of each alternative by the lowest cost. The non-economic score is then divided by the normalized cost to produce the benefitcost ratio. A higher the benefit-cost ratio represents a more desirable alternative. A full breakdown of the scoring for each alternative is provided in this Appendix.

196 Triple Bottom Line Scoring Alternative No. 0 Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 4A Alternative No. 4C Environmental Subtotal Social Subtotal FLAMROC Subtotal Raw Benefits Total Total Net Present Value $89,000,000 $121,000,000 $65,000,000 $71,000,000 Normalized Cost Benefit-Cost Ratio Rank

197 TBL Evaluation - Alt 0 Resource/Attribute Potential Issues / Considerations Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Environmental Issues % Total = 100% Air Resources 14.00% Pollutants Air Pollution Emissions FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Heat Island Effect Heat Island Effect FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Biological Resources 24.00% Terrestrial Animals and Plants Plant Creation/Restoration, Species Disturbance, Population Dynamics, Biodiversity, Exotic Species Introduction, Habitat Creation/ Advancement, Nutrient Cycling FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Habitat Aquatic Plant Beds, Aquatic Population, Stream Erosion Control, Habitat Elevation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Wetlands Impact on Wetlands FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Hazardous Materials and Waste 4.00% Hazardous Materials Reduction in Use of Hazardous Materials and Waste FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% People 10.00% Health & Safety Reduction in exposure to New/Existing H&S Hazards, Effects on People, Flood Control, Bacteria FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Land Resources 24.00% Land Use Conflicts With Land Use Plans/Policies/Controls, Change in Land Use, Land Use Compatibility, Urban Sprawl FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Land Cover Change in Land Cover, Impervious Area FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Soils Soil Erosion, Soil Compaction FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Preservation of Hillsides Change in Topography, Drainage, Vegetation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Resources 24.00% Water Quality: Surface Pollutant Contamination, Sedimentation, Thermal Discharge FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Quality: Groundwater Ground Water Recharge, Pollutant Contamination FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Social Issues % Total = 100% Socioeconomics 39.00% Employment and Income Employment/Income Generation (Short/Long Term) TRUE FALSE FALSE % -3.00% Housing and Property Value Increase Demand for Housing, Housing Construction, Property Value TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Community Services and Infrastructure Demand for Community Services and Infrastructure FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Construction Phase Impacts and Developmental Growth TRUE FALSE FALSE % -8.00% Environmental Justice Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Aesthetic Resources 40.00% Visual Aesthetic Promotion of Horticulture and Landscaping, Therapeutic View, Urban Agriculture FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Noise Annoyance, Disturbance, Agitation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Odor Odor Emissions TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Utilities and Infrastructure 18.00% Utilities Avoid Additional Infrastructure Construction FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Solid Waste Generation of solid wastes TRUE FALSE FALSE % -5.00% Transportation Traffic/ Congestion, Speeding, Traffic Control TRUE FALSE FALSE % -3.00% Cultural Resources 3.00% Historic Sites Preservation of Historical Buildings or Structures, Alteration to Setting FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Total Score Environmental 0 0 Total Score Social

198 TBL Evaluation - Alt 2 Resource/Attribute Potential Issues / Considerations Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Environmental Issues % Total = 100% Air Resources 14.00% Pollutants Air Pollution Emissions TRUE FALSE FALSE % -9.00% Heat Island Effect Heat Island Effect FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Biological Resources 24.00% Terrestrial Animals and Plants Plant Creation/Restoration, Species Disturbance, Population Dynamics, Biodiversity, Exotic Species Introduction, Habitat Creation/ Advancement, Nutrient Cycling FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Habitat Aquatic Plant Beds, Aquatic Population, Stream Erosion Control, Habitat Elevation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Wetlands Impact on Wetlands FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Hazardous Materials and Waste 4.00% Hazardous Materials Reduction in Use of Hazardous Materials and Waste FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% People 10.00% Health & Safety Reduction in exposure to New/Existing H&S Hazards, Effects on People, Flood Control, Bacteria FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Land Resources 24.00% Land Use Conflicts With Land Use Plans/Policies/Controls, Change in Land Use, Land Use Compatibility, Urban Sprawl FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Land Cover Change in Land Cover, Impervious Area FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Soils Soil Erosion, Soil Compaction FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Preservation of Hillsides Change in Topography, Drainage, Vegetation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Resources 24.00% Water Quality: Surface Pollutant Contamination, Sedimentation, Thermal Discharge FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Quality: Groundwater Ground Water Recharge, Pollutant Contamination FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Social Issues % Total = 100% Socioeconomics 39.00% Employment and Income Employment/Income Generation (Short/Long Term) FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Housing and Property Value Increase Demand for Housing, Housing Construction, Property Value FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Community Services and Infrastructure Demand for Community Services and Infrastructure FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Construction Phase Impacts and Developmental Growth FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Environmental Justice Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Aesthetic Resources 40.00% Visual Aesthetic Promotion of Horticulture and Landscaping, Therapeutic View, Urban Agriculture FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Noise Annoyance, Disturbance, Agitation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Odor Odor Emissions FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Utilities and Infrastructure 18.00% Utilities Avoid Additional Infrastructure Construction FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Solid Waste Generation of solid wastes TRUE FALSE FALSE % -5.00% Transportation Traffic/ Congestion, Speeding, Traffic Control FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Cultural Resources 3.00% Historic Sites Preservation of Historical Buildings or Structures, Alteration to Setting FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Total Score Environmental Total Score Social

199 TBL Evaluation - Alt 4a Resource/Attribute Potential Issues / Considerations Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Environmental Issues % Total = 100% Air Resources 14.00% Pollutants Air Pollution Emissions FALSE FALSE TRUE % 9.00% Heat Island Effect Heat Island Effect FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Biological Resources 24.00% Terrestrial Animals and Plants Plant Creation/Restoration, Species Disturbance, Population Dynamics, Biodiversity, Exotic Species Introduction, Habitat Creation/ Advancement, Nutrient Cycling FALSE FALSE TRUE % 8.00% Water Habitat Aquatic Plant Beds, Aquatic Population, Stream Erosion Control, Habitat Elevation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Wetlands Impact on Wetlands FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Hazardous Materials and Waste 4.00% Hazardous Materials Reduction in Use of Hazardous Materials and Waste FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% People 10.00% Health & Safety Reduction in exposure to New/Existing H&S Hazards, Effects on People, Flood Control, Bacteria FALSE FALSE TRUE % 10.00% Land Resources 24.00% Land Use Conflicts With Land Use Plans/Policies/Controls, Change in Land Use, Land Use Compatibility, Urban Sprawl FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Land Cover Change in Land Cover, Impervious Area FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Soils Soil Erosion, Soil Compaction FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Preservation of Hillsides Change in Topography, Drainage, Vegetation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Resources 24.00% Water Quality: Surface Pollutant Contamination, Sedimentation, Thermal Discharge TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Water Quality: Groundwater Ground Water Recharge, Pollutant Contamination FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Social Issues % Total = 100% Socioeconomics 39.00% Employment and Income Employment/Income Generation (Short/Long Term) FALSE FALSE TRUE % 3.00% Housing and Property Value Increase Demand for Housing, Housing Construction, Property Value FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Community Services and Infrastructure Demand for Community Services and Infrastructure FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Construction Phase Impacts and Developmental Growth FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Environmental Justice Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Aesthetic Resources 40.00% Visual Aesthetic Promotion of Horticulture and Landscaping, Therapeutic View, Urban Agriculture FALSE FALSE TRUE % 15.00% Noise Annoyance, Disturbance, Agitation TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Odor Odor Emissions FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Utilities and Infrastructure 18.00% Utilities Avoid Additional Infrastructure Construction FALSE FALSE TRUE % 10.00% Solid Waste Generation of solid wastes FALSE FALSE TRUE % 5.00% Transportation Traffic/ Congestion, Speeding, Traffic Control TRUE FALSE FALSE % -3.00% Cultural Resources 3.00% Historic Sites Preservation of Historical Buildings or Structures, Alteration to Setting FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Total Score Environmental Total Score Social

200 TBL Evaluation - Alt 4c Resource/Attribute Potential Issues / Considerations Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Environmental Issues % Total = 100% Air Resources 14.00% Pollutants Air Pollution Emissions FALSE FALSE TRUE % 9.00% Heat Island Effect Heat Island Effect FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Biological Resources 24.00% Terrestrial Animals and Plants Plant Creation/Restoration, Species Disturbance, Population Dynamics, Biodiversity, Exotic Species Introduction, Habitat Creation/ Advancement, Nutrient Cycling FALSE FALSE TRUE % 8.00% Water Habitat Aquatic Plant Beds, Aquatic Population, Stream Erosion Control, Habitat Elevation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Wetlands Impact on Wetlands FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Hazardous Materials and Waste 4.00% Hazardous Materials Reduction in Use of Hazardous Materials and Waste FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% People 10.00% Health & Safety Reduction in exposure to New/Existing H&S Hazards, Effects on People, Flood Control, Bacteria FALSE FALSE TRUE % 10.00% Land Resources 24.00% Land Use Conflicts With Land Use Plans/Policies/Controls, Change in Land Use, Land Use Compatibility, Urban Sprawl FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Land Cover Change in Land Cover, Impervious Area FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Soils Soil Erosion, Soil Compaction FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Preservation of Hillsides Change in Topography, Drainage, Vegetation FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Water Resources 24.00% Water Quality: Surface Pollutant Contamination, Sedimentation, Thermal Discharge TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Water Quality: Groundwater Ground Water Recharge, Pollutant Contamination FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Social Issues % Total = 100% Socioeconomics 39.00% Employment and Income Employment/Income Generation (Short/Long Term) FALSE FALSE TRUE % 3.00% Housing and Property Value Increase Demand for Housing, Housing Construction, Property Value FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Community Services and Infrastructure Demand for Community Services and Infrastructure FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Construction Phase Impacts and Developmental Growth FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Environmental Justice Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Aesthetic Resources 40.00% Visual Aesthetic Promotion of Horticulture and Landscaping, Therapeutic View, Urban Agriculture FALSE FALSE TRUE % 15.00% Noise Annoyance, Disturbance, Agitation TRUE FALSE FALSE % % Odor Odor Emissions FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Utilities and Infrastructure 18.00% Utilities Avoid Additional Infrastructure Construction FALSE FALSE TRUE % 10.00% Solid Waste Generation of solid wastes FALSE FALSE TRUE % 5.00% Transportation Traffic/ Congestion, Speeding, Traffic Control FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Cultural Resources 3.00% Historic Sites Preservation of Historical Buildings or Structures, Alteration to Setting FALSE TRUE FALSE % 0.00% Total Score Environmental Total Score Social

201 FLAMROC Evaluation - Alt 0 Criteria Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Flexibility TRUE FALSE FALSE Land Availability FALSE TRUE FALSE Adaptability FALSE TRUE FALSE Maintainability FALSE TRUE FALSE Reliability TRUE FALSE FALSE Operability FALSE FALSE TRUE Constructability FALSE TRUE FALSE 0 5 0

202 FLAMROC Evaluation - Alt 2 Criteria Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Flexibility FALSE FALSE TRUE Land Availability FALSE TRUE FALSE Adaptability FALSE TRUE FALSE Maintainability TRUE FALSE FALSE Reliability FALSE FALSE TRUE Operability FALSE TRUE FALSE Constructability FALSE TRUE FALSE 0 5 0

203 FLAMROC Evaluation - Alt 4a Criteria Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Flexibility FALSE FALSE TRUE Land Availability FALSE TRUE FALSE Adaptability FALSE TRUE FALSE Maintainability FALSE FALSE TRUE Reliability FALSE FALSE TRUE Operability FALSE FALSE TRUE Constructability FALSE FALSE TRUE 1 5 5

204 FLAMROC Evaluation - Alt 4c Criteria Impact Total (-) 0 (+) Weight Flexibility FALSE FALSE TRUE Land Availability FALSE TRUE FALSE Adaptability FALSE TRUE FALSE Maintainability FALSE FALSE TRUE Reliability FALSE FALSE TRUE Operability FALSE FALSE TRUE Constructability FALSE FALSE TRUE 1 5 5

205 APPENDIX D Risk Register

206 PROJECT-LEVEL RISK REGISTER - Alternative 1A/1B PROJECT NAME:Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan PROJECT ID: UPDATED BY:MWS LAST UPDATED:1/14/16 IDENTIFICATION ASSESSMENT RESPONSE REPORTING ID RISK CAUSE OF RISK CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCE RATING LIKELIKOOD OF OCCURRENCE RATING RISK SCORE RISK CLASS RISK RESPONSE PLAN Assigned To (Risk Responder) Due Date Resolved On Status ACTIONS TAKEN Not achieveing autogenous burn Non-compliance with air permit Additional landfill hauling and disposal 4 Vessel failure size and quality of material feeding incinerator Future Air Emission Regulations Technical Design Continued need for auxiliary fuel High Technical Design Additional air emissions upgrades or shut down Low Longer schedule Management Schedule Additional trucks on the road Medium Rehabilitate the existing incinerator, but the aging vessel fails Technical Commissioning, Operation & Maintenance Immediate shut down and lengthy replacement needed High Work with incinerator manufacturer and design engineer to develop realistic calcuations for MSDGC's specific scenario Continual coordination with USEPA and Ohio EPA Aggressive, design-build schedule to minimize landfill hauling period Have the vessel fully inspected during design. However, this is one of the risks that caused these alternatives to be screened out. TBD Active Form # PD-QA Page 1 of 1 June 17, 2011

207 PROJECT-LEVEL RISK REGISTER - Alternative 2 PROJECT NAME:Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan PROJECT ID: UPDATED BY:MWS LAST UPDATED:1/14/16 IDENTIFICATION ASSESSMENT RESPONSE REPORTING ID RISK CAUSE OF RISK CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCE RATING LIKELIKOOD OF OCCURRENCE RATING RISK SCORE RISK CLASS RISK RESPONSE PLAN Assigned To (Risk Responder) Due Date Resolved On Status ACTIONS TAKEN Not achieving autogenous burn Non-compliance with air permit Additional landfill hauling and disposal size and quality of material feeding incinerator Future air emission regulations Technical Design Continued need for auxiliary fuel Medium Technical Design Additional air emissions upgrades or shut down Low Longer schedule Management Schedule Additional trucks on the road Medium Work with incinerator manufacturer and design engineer to develop realistic calculations for MSDGC's specific scenario Continual coordination with USEPA and Ohio EPA Aggressive, design-build schedule to minimize landfill hauling period TBD Active Form # PD-QA Page 1 of 1 June 17, 2011

208 PROJECT-LEVEL RISK REGISTER - Alternative 2 PROJECT NAME:Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan PROJECT ID: UPDATED BY:MWS LAST UPDATED:1/14/16 IDENTIFICATION ASSESSMENT RESPONSE REPORTING ID RISK CAUSE OF RISK CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCE RATING LIKELIKOOD OF OCCURRENCE RATING RISK SCORE RISK CLASS RISK RESPONSE PLAN Assigned To (Risk Responder) Due Date Resolved On Status ACTIONS TAKEN 1 Lack of Operational History 2 Non-compliance with Air Permit New company/equipment. Only two installations in the world. Insufficient information related to air emissions compliance Technical Technical Design Design The technology is still in the trial and error phase. Kinks have not been worked out. Operational problems may not have ben identified yet. Unit won't meet the air emission guidelines that will be enforced starting in March High Medium Since the technology is too new, has very limited operational history, and none at the scale needed at LMWWTP, MSDGC has chosen to eliminate Alternative 3 from further consideration. Continual coordination with USEPA and Ohio EPA TBD Active Form # PD-QA Page 1 of 1 June 17, 2011

209 PROJECT-LEVEL RISK REGISTER - Alternative 4A/4B PROJECT NAME:Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan PROJECT ID: UPDATED BY:MWS LAST UPDATED:1/14/16 IDENTIFICATION ASSESSMENT RESPONSE REPORTING ID RISK CAUSE OF RISK CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCE RATING LIKELIKOOD OF OCCURRENCE RATING RISK SCORE RISK CLASS RISK RESPONSE PLAN Assigned To (Risk Responder) Due Date Resolved On Status ACTIONS TAKEN 1 Potential for Odors Digestion of organic waste, loading and unloading operations Technical Storage/Treatment Complaints from the surrounding community Very High Implement appropriate and robust odor control measures TBD Active 2 Unreliable Service Contract operators construct less redundancy Technical Commissioning, Operation & Maintenance Less reliable service for MSDGC and ratepayers Low Prepare a contingency plan, including level of redundant dewatering that MSDGC controls. Although MSDGC is not in control, the vendor assumes all risk associated with the facility 3 Contract Cancellation 4 Community surrounding proposed anaerobic digestion facility is unhappy 5 Labor union Issues Vendor goes out of business, unfavorable terms of contract The community does not want the potential for odor, the aesthetics, or the non- MSD waste entering the community Part of treatment process is provided to private company and non-union staff. Legal Management Contracts Public Communications Primary sludge disposal method for LMWWTP isn't available The community raises concerns to elected officials and project schedule is impacted Low Medium Management Management Capability Lawsuit by Union Medium Discuss and document contingency plan during contract negotiations Engage and educate community, form Community Advisory Panel, Proactive communication with the applicable labor unions. Ensure and reiterate that layoffs will not occur Form # PD-QA Page 1 of 1 June 17, 2011

210 PROJECT-LEVEL RISK REGISTER - Alternative 4C/4D PROJECT NAME:Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan PROJECT ID: UPDATED BY:MWS LAST UPDATED:1/14/16 IDENTIFICATION ASSESSMENT RESPONSE REPORTING ID RISK CAUSE OF RISK CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCE RATING LIKELIKOOD OF OCCURRENCE RATING RISK SCORE RISK CLASS RISK RESPONSE PLAN Assigned To (Risk Responder) Due Date Resolved On Status ACTIONS TAKEN 1 Potential for Odors Digestion of organic waste, loading and unloading operations Technical Storage/Treatment Complaints from the surrounding community Very High Implement appropriate and robust odor control measures TBD Active 2 Unreliable Service Contract operators construct less redundancy Technical Commissioning, Operation & Maintenance Less reliable service for MSDGC and ratepayers Low Prepare a contingency plan, including level of redundant dewatering that MSDGC controls. Although MSDGC is not in control, the vendor assumes all risk associated with the facility 3 Contract Cancellation 4 5 Property adjacent to Muddy Creek WWTP unavailable Community surrounding proposed anaerobic digestion facility(ies) is unhappy 6 Labor union Issues Vendor goes out of business, unfavorable terms of contract Legal Contracts Property has been sold Fiscal Budget The community does not want the potential for odor, the aesthetics, or the non- MSD waste entering the community Part of treatment process is provided to private company and non-union staff. Management Public Communications Primary sludge disposal method for LMWWTP and MuCWWTP isn't available Need to identify property farther away from Muddy Creek WWTP The community raises concerns to elected officials and project schedule is impacted Low Medium Medium Management Management Capability Lawsuit by Union Medium Discuss and document contingency plan during contract negotiations Secure an option to purchase the property Engage and educate community, form Community Advisory Panel, Proactive communication with the applicable labor unions. Ensure and reiterate that layoffs will not occur Form # PD-QA Page 1 of 1 June 17, 2011

211 PROJECT-LEVEL RISK REGISTER - Alternative 5 PROJECT NAME:Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan PROJECT ID: UPDATED BY:MWS LAST UPDATED:1/14/16 IDENTIFICATION ASSESSMENT RESPONSE REPORTING ID RISK CAUSE OF RISK CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCE RATING LIKELIKOOD OF OCCURRENCE RATING RISK SCORE RISK CLASS RISK RESPONSE PLAN Assigned To (Risk Responder) Due Date Resolved On Status ACTIONS TAKEN 1 Potential for Odors Digestion of organic waste, loading and unloading operations Technical Storage/Treatment Complaints from the surrounding community Very High Implement appropriate and robust odor control measures TBD Active 2 Unreliable Service Contract operators construct less redundancy Technical Commissioning, Operation & Maintenance Less reliable service for MSDGC and ratepayers Low Prepare a contingency plan, including level of redundant dewatering that MSDGC controls. Although MSDGC is not in control, the vendor assumes all risk associated with the facility 3 Contract Cancellation 4 Community surrounding proposed anaerobic digestion facility is unhappy 5 Labor union Issues Vendor goes out of business, unfavorable terms of contract The community does not want the potential for odor, the aesthetics, or the non- MSD waste entering the community Part of treatment process is provided to private company and non-union staff. Legal Management Contracts Public Communications Primary sludge disposal method for LMWWTP isn't available The community raises concerns to elected officials and project schedule is impacted Low Medium Management Management Capability Lawsuit by Union Medium Discuss and document contingency plan during contract negotiations Engage and educate community, form Community Advisory Panel, Proactive communication with the applicable labor unions. Ensure and reiterate that layoffs will not occur Form # PD-QA Page 1 of 1 June 17, 2011

212 APPENDIX E Schedule

213 Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan: Alternative No. 4C Schedule Dayton - WBS Print View 15-Jan-16 16:03 Activity ID Activity Name Start Finish Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan: Alternative No. 4C Schedule 01-Feb-16 A 18-Jan-19 Task Feb Jul Project Start 01-Feb Form an Evaluation Committee 01-Feb Feb Prepare Evaluation Criteria 08-Feb Feb Prepare RFP (Design Engineer) 15-Feb Apr Advertisment 18-Apr May Pre-Proposal Meeting 27-Apr-16 A Review of Proposals 16-May May Selection 31-May-16* 31-May Negotiate Contract 01-Jun Jul Notice to Proceed 04-Jul Jul-16 Task Jul-16 A 16-Jan Form an Evaluation Committee 06-Jul Jul Prepare Evaluation Criteria 11-Jul Jul Prepare RFP (AD Vendor) 18-Jul Sep Advertisment 03-Oct Oct Pre-Proposal Meeting 18-Oct-16 A Review of Proposals 31-Oct Nov Selection 07-Nov Nov Negotiate Contract 08-Nov Jan Notice to Proceed 16-Jan Jan-17 Task Jan Jan AD Design / Construction (LMWWTP) 17-Jan Jul AD Design / Construction (MuCWWTP) 17-Jan Jan-19 Task Jan Dec MSD Design 17-Jan Oct Permitting 19-Jun Oct-17 A Legislation, Bid, and Award 09-Oct-17 A 02-Feb Construction 05-Feb Dec D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F M Apr M J Jul A S Oct N D Jan F M Apr M J Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 18-Jan-19, Little Miami WWTP Solids Plan: Altern 05-Jul-16, Task 101 Project Start Form an Evaluation Committee Prepare Evaluation Criteria Prepare RFP (Design Engineer) Advertisment Pre-Proposal Meeting Review of Proposals Selection Negotiate Contract Notice to Proceed 16-Jan-17, Task 102 Form an Evaluation Committee Prepare Evaluation Criteria Prepare RFP (AD Vendor) Advertisment Pre-Proposal Meeting Review of Proposals Selection Negotiate Contract Notice to Proceed 18-Jan-19, Task 103 AD Design / Construction (LMWWTP) AD Design / Construction (MuCWWTP) 07-Dec-18, Task 104 MSD Design Permitting Legislation, Bid, and Award Construction Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 1 of 1 TASK filter: All Activities Primavera Systems, Inc.

214