Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7806 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7806 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Ian STATUS REPORT ON SEWER SLUDGE DEWATERING PROJECT The City of Fort Worth is the only one major North Texas wastewater treatment plant permit holder which has successfully implemented a beneficial reuse of sewer sludge program. Historically Fort Worth has utilized a series of drying beds at its treatment facility with limited land application onto publicly owned lands (i .e . airports , parks , medians , etc . ) . Increased treatment demands and several consecutive years of wet weather resulted in the implementation of a "temporary" dewatering facility approximately 2 1/2 years ago, when the City Council awarded a contract to Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc . The dewatering of contemporary sludge and the "mining" of the drying beds sludge has been successfully incorporated into a publicly accepted beneficial use of sludge as an agricultural fertilizer . The 2 1/2 year track record has proven conclusively that this reuse (EPA preferred) can offer an environmentally superior alternative to chemical fertilizer for agribulture benefit if properly managed. It is important to note that Fort Worth has never landfilled sewer sludge as is the practice with some other treatment plants . 00�hl n early spring 1993 the City Council received a briefing from the City staff regarding the need to pursue a mechanical dewatering facility at the sludge- only landfill site immediately north of the current Village Creek Treatment Plant . The proposed project was identified in the 1989 Final Updated 201 Plan . (A permit for the sludge only landfill was approved by the Texas Department of Health on October 28 , 1986 , however , a landfill operation was never begun . ) Following that briefing the then City Council concurred with the staff recommendation to pursue the "permanent" facility. The staff and a variety of nationally recognized experts developed a scope of work for the long-term facility. In an effort to assure the City with maximum flexibility, the specifications for this facility were designed to be performance based , with certain general standards outlined (i .e . equipment , building dimensions , etc . ) . The intended result was to construct a cost effective long-term facility capable of dewatering and producing a class "B" grade of sludge . An alternate for a class "A" grade of sludge was also included again to assure maximum flexibility . (It should be noted that the difference in the A and B classes of sludge is primarily in the levels of treatment . Class "A" requires additional treatment steps which reduces the number of pthogens . The Class "A" sludge has a less restrictive use which might include distribution to retail 011 rustomers . To obtain class "A" several different treatment options can be —s e d including increase chemical stabilization, composting and heat stabilization . The increased treatment options have associated increases in the cost - in some cases dramatic . Class "A" is not necessary for the benefical use for the agricultural application the City has successfully initiated over the 2 1/2 years . ) ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7806 4TM 'TFa To the Mayor and Members of the City Council PAGE 2 >.x,• Subject: 18n STATUS REPORT ON SEWER SLUDGE DEWATERING PROJECT Bids were opened in September 1993 based on these objectives and specifications . Four vendors responded, however , as the bids were being evaluated , two of the bidders raised questions concerning the complexity and some confusion in the performance-based contractural approach. Two specific issues were raised and after reviewing the various options the City staff recommended that all bids be rejected and that each vendor be provided an opportunity to negotiate a proposal which could include a number of options and alternatives which could be appropriately evaluated by the City staff and Council . On January 28 , 1994 the staff invited the four vendors to a briefing and answered the two concerns raised by the two bidders . ( 1) a final State permit to allow the construction of the facility was presented . (This permit amendment was in process during the bidding period , however , due to a legal challenge by the City of Arlington to the permit amendment it was delayed . This issue is now finally resolved to allow the construction and operation of this facility on this site . ) k2) a definition of "like new" condition on the equipment at the end of the first five-year period was made to permit factory warranted reconditioned equipment to comply with the requirement . Each vendor was then invited to meet in confidential negotiations with the City ' s negotiating team of Mike Groomer , Richard Sawey and Robert McMillon . (BFI chose not to participate . ) The first vendor Bio--Gro met with the City ' s representatives beginning February 9 through 11 , followed by Oscar Renda Construction, February 16 through 18 and finally P .S .G . February 21 through 23 . Each vendor was permitted to take exception to the original specification if desired as well as to present other alternatives during these meetings . DUE TO THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS THE ORIGINAL FACILITY CONCEPT DESIGN WAS TO BE CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE, HOWEVER, CONFIGURATION, OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES, ALTERNATE EQUIPMENT ETC. COULD BE SUBMITTED. The result of these negotiations is detailed in the body of this report , however, a cost summary for the facility capable of Class "B" production is as follows : Bio-Gro Original September Bid Negotiated Cost $33,493 , 750 $33 ,497 , 750 ; $168 . 72 per ton $168 . 74 per ton ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH,TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No, 7806 ,►FtTE 4�cd t r To the Mayor and Members of the City Council PAGE 3 i'+rx►"L Subject: 'on STATUS REPORT ON SEWER SLUDGE DEWATERTNG PROJECT Oscar Renda Original September bid Negotiated Cost $30,442 ,000 $25 , 332 , 000 $152 .00 per ton $124 .00 per ton P .S .G . Original September bid Negotiated Cost $26 ,417 , 875 $26 ,417 , 875 $129 . 95 per ton $129 . 95 per ton Each alternate proposal is detailed in the body of the report along with the major conditions which impact the proposals . Generally the following Class "A" alternates and the associated cost were submitted. Bio-Gro Alkaline Stabilization $34 ,853 , 725 No Proposal $176 . 13 Composting Facility* (Based on 20 year contract - 5 yr . cost projection . ) Oscar Renda Alkaline Stabilization $31 , 172 , 000 Composting Facility* $156 . 00 No Proposal . S .G . Alkaline Stabilization $37 , 977 ,425 (Based on 5 year contract) $193 . 29 Alkaline Stabilization $32 ,660 , 200 (Based on 10 year contract , 5 year cost projection) $178 . 96 Composting Facility* $44 , 779 , 200 (Based on 5 year contract) $230 . 56 (Based on 10 year contract $41 , 119 , 575 5 year cost projection) $211 . 11 Composting Facility will require additional permitting and the existing ludge only landfill site is probably not suitable due to regulatory onstraint:s . '00.._ ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH,TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO Cn-V^:)UNCIL MEMBERS No. 780E �+r° To the Mayor and Members of the City Council = PAGE 4 w *exSubject: "" STATUS REPORT ON SEWER SLUDGE DEWATERING PROJECT The City Council has expressed an interest in opening the deliberation on this important issue to a public hearing format . Three public hearings are being scheduled beginning on Tuesday March 15 , 1994 at 6 p .m. in the Pre-Council Chambers (or Council Chambers if needed) . Each vendor will be allowed to present their respective proposals in a 20 minute presentation. Order of presentation will be determined by the cast of lots . Question and answers of each vendor can then be made . (This session will be video-taped. ) The second and third hearings are scheduled for March 22 and March 29 respectively, at the same location and time . The final staff recommendation will be presented to the City Council for possible action at the April 8 , 1994 City Council meeting . Please feel free to contact Mike Groomer (871-6140) , Richard Sawey (871-8207) or Robert McMillon (277-7591) if you have any question regarding this report or the planned hearing process . 1 r Bob Terrell , City Manager EOFFICIALRECORD ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH,TEXAS SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS 1 . Sludge Disposal Methods - Metroplex Wastewater Plants 2. Sludge Classification Class "A" Class "B" 3 . Figure 1 - Original Bid 4. Figure 2 - Original Negotiated 5 . Figure 3 - Original w/Exceptions 6 . Figure 3a - With Conditions 7 . Figure 4 - Alkaline Stabilization Class "A" per Negotiation 8 . Figure 5 - Class "A" Composting per Negotiation 9 . Figure 5a - Class "A" Compost w/Condition f SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS FOR METROPLEX WASTEWATER PLANTS FACILITY DISPOSAL METHOD DALLAS Central Transferred to Dallas Southside Plant Southside Dedicated land disposal/monofill DENTON Pecan Creek Landfilled off-site TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY Central Landfilled on-site Ten Mile Creek Lagoons on-site Denton Creek Landfilled off-site Red Oak Creek Landfilled on-site rIARLAND Duck Creek Transferred to Rowlett Plant Rowlett Landfilled off-site NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT South Mesquite Creek Co-disposal in landfill Wilson Creek Co-disposal in landfill Rowlett Creek Landfilled off-site FORT WORTH Village Creek Beneficial Use 00� BACKGROUND INFORMATION The project includes the construction of a dewatering facility at the Sludge Only Landfill (SOL) located to the north of the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City's wastewater treatment plant allows the SOL to be used for sludge dewatering and processing of sludge by chemical and heat stabilization. These processes are not allowed to occupy more than five (5) acres of the site. The area requirement precludes large scale composting activities. The remainder of the site is dedicated to landfilling of sludge. Any changes to these provisions would require a new permit which in turn would require public hearings. Sewage sludge is a solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of municipal sewage in treatment works. The disposal of sludge is governed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 CFR Part 503 Regulations and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Chapter 312. Sludge is classified into two types: Class B Sludge is sludge that has been treated by Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP). Such processes include: • Aerobic Digestion Air Drying Anaerobic Digestion (used by Fort Worth) • Composting • Lime Stabilization (used by Fort Worth) Class A Sludge is sludge that has been treated by Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP). Such processes include: • Composting • Heat Drying • Heat Treatment • Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion • Irradiation • Pasteurization Since it is more processed, Class A sludge contains fewer pathogenic (disease carrying) organisms. For this reason there are fewer restrictions on the land application of Class A sludge and therefore more disposal options. However, with proper land application practices, Class B sludge provides the same level of protection to the environment and public. Fort Worth has been beneficially reusing sludge by land application to City properties and agricultural lands since 1991. Most sludge that is land applied is Class B sludge. While both Class A and Class B sludge can be land applied, .the site restrictions for Class B are more stringent. Class A sludge may also be bagged for sale or free distribution. v1 z U) H O a W W C) >-+ N _Pr4 H rn o �n U Ca i� • W {Y1 {YI tYi z tr1 M O C4 H z z z C4 H th t/} z ► z ► 0 C7r- 0 H C!1 © t!1 � U � rn WU O A O W H .14 dP W H H H H • a; (n �i A✓ • CQ CQ (� W Z N ri cr ai W z O O O {3 i M H Q). v} N pa U) H z z z Q H p PQ H H z H .` H H 54 %r H O M H x U clq o CG-�+ Pr4 UU� RC lw IC o T u (%4 �C H H H F � L �r ix L4 t�1 CC1 c`n0 ° mo o 0 0 O O O ° O v v} v} m H O U z z z 0 ► ► O O H H H H � � a u ul r- Q M c� A C�.7 dam° dP rH da • CO m . t71 m CA H r} yr M KQ H v} Q)- m O O C4 p; H U F H H pp O M O E-4 N U O o z p Ll O z cc H a A W 04 U as z W F • � Oz o Q CA C+ `n ri 01 GYi t�'i N r-I CX1 z z z H H O „ Hz ° a C) dp HE-4 `. N N O M TU a�R'ii M O N LO N dP " O U N a a u} cn � acn H z Ur O CD H O a a CI) h !a Q C- C) CC Q M %0 dP H M +-1 rn CR cry vs M z O H a a H � H O H U U UO a a E H w v F A z 0 E-i cap M Ln 0 H U) C) M W W U (Y) z M 00 04 z 0 E-1 C) 1.0 0 1.0 C� H , M -cr M U C) C%4 C,4 CN a) Ln dP CN .04 00 04 En H U)'I -, I " ► z 0 E-i cn 04 0 E-i r- Q C) Ln Ln U) CN dp E-1 aWx (14 r-q 00 W 104 P4 HW W z PR U 0 E-4 C:) 0 Gal dP -W N 0 CY) C) w C) q*4 CN dP C14 r-q CN jT 0 U H V)- V.1- CY) 0 • E-i U) C%4 0 r--i Co cn Co Ln U; 0 f1l U') 04 dP N r-q Ln (n fi). V). cn z 0 F-I E-i E-1 0 U) U) E-1 U 0 F-I C.) U E-i E-1 F-I 0 R E-i Q P-4 um 44 (d wama0mro9 • O ri o r-t 0)r{ 0 to a +) trai m 0 O +1 rnO N R O Ln a r♦ U .r♦•r •14 U 0 m m O%D h a 41'� O -0 4+'H U•` O 00 a o a H •a r(•ri r-i ro >4 a.a, H - •.a a o= O ro Ln•ra a o = x1 m in W rt H :3 16 1404 Qro%Dm 0 p 'i-.4 o 0t- M _. .-i m co U 04. 3 ed vt w U a= U U U v> P-1 Ln dp WW PW � h m r1 00 �u N O m RC C► 4J m H 0.,A U 1-4 0 0 4J •ri r1 Q)U U O`' Mi N � (avo Cnar9 . N o a o, .r dF <* H co iH H Ci7_ V 0 E z O m o ro� a N �04 H a)dP 4J m�d P4 ti• a+ �° (d'r4 o o P a 4H 9 �a M , ru'i 0 V 044� 14 Ln • d ��yQjry� to P4 R� Ln c,4 dP t!} S? *-i N N O rq U ri Id Rt iJ to 9 Ln O U •4 a) 4) W U- z o O h O � to 4) --1 ;*1 0 A 4-3-14 m TI Q) a) W V r7 U U 9 Act C7 D+ ai ro o m U Li 3 tU-H ro a1 N o a 4) tdh0-- • O +)HWii �l Ury o A w a, w m m ro-. y,nd I 0 4J E - `• U W -m aro O U= � 3 U i~ O U v N 6 AOm•riOQ) NOA;•r4w0N 00 m a o o Hwcr}A+)•ga4 = U•044U� Uro Gt v O I cr N O O cw M N ri N O U u. �. •-+ cw ri�r m U � , z ,qq m w ro F► O 9 +� 44 u CD m A to z -4 V r-i m ko H a) to N 0 o (d Q)w r'i a„) to m 4J ro N .0 H GQ y+ tU +3O LN O 41 q ri i~-r•i•ri 9 m ai iU ua Ln pi •ri U V rt q m o'er ro ro ••ri � U H q � p) N a +� at m r-i o 4 m Ln to m N a) CJ p a M ko A •ri r.•ri id 4J U 0 r-i 0 W M a) 9� N•ri 0 r-, ul ro Ln mr-� O o 4 o rose•ri O CO i.) 0 1 i m a (/)- P 44 U v.r. ri z a Ua U tr N ui O in N dv H N r•I Ln t/. <* rl N m sr to t0 m zO H a o o w Fi U H �H E-1 U H U pp, U H x cWn 0 E-+ Ox 0 h C) r• N {� t m � M M r-i co P4 +J} V} N z r 00 U H 0 bb E-4 a '[efix °o a H H O A dP PG U M d+ W w cn 0 M ri (N H OU +h I v)- M bb H +aC H � rn t!1 W aaH zz z z 0 H a H O (n H H H O O U a O © H l U Ei 0 A z 0 E-1 c4 tn OBE Ln C) 04 —4 N 44 —4 -1 dp qqr CN 00 P4 rn H v). <* C,4 % z 0 0 r-I 0 P c,4 A M W 0)� 110 O r, Ln P4 u C)m dp H V)- C,4 zo H W z E-4 0 P4 Ln 04 KC x P4 0 zH u CQ PQ m 04 99 0 rn 0 L) 0 0 z z z z 0 E-4 U) LO cl, tn co 0 .9v r- CP H m 1.1 CN Pa 07- v} m z 0 F-I F-I E-1 u 0 ul E-i u 0 0 %b z 0 P 4; tn 0 Ln H M 011 r-i C� 0 N vA U u dp Z --t C,4 - co P4 rn H vj- v). —4 CN z OE-1 4-) 0 OOH C14 W U r- Ln Ln U W H r- DR > C; lciq CN 00 CN E-1 0 u z E-4 0 kn P4 0 9Q o8 8 0 °z 0 z z I z zi U2 44 u u to 4a) U) rn %..w (0 (a Q) 41 0 4-) H EQ 44 a) (a rt1 0 0 to Q) z a) r-i 4-) r-i P p P4 0 0 U () 0 9 (1) p a 00 ) 9 -P 0 $4 Q) r. 4-) ui I -,i -.Ln -,i o 41 -H -i •,i 1•4 CN (1) Co 4-1 (a w S-1 a) r-I En 9 Q) 'gr $4 -j-,—I t31 > •,I • 0 4J • (0 '0 C) t3l (a u O cn m 0 ca co cu "0 Ln a) 0 p (a Ln 00 -i C,4 Q)- >14 V)- P Z 044 0 0 as CN V)- V). ­4 CN CY) -:r ul cn z 0 H P 4 P4 E-4 En u En E-A z H 0 En 0 E-1 U 0 H U E-4 H P4 E-1 0 0 E-4