PowerPoint - Supecritical Water Oxidation

Download Report

Transcript PowerPoint - Supecritical Water Oxidation

Supercritical Water Oxidation
City Council Workshop
April 25, 2011
17.4 MGD (40)
13.1 MGD (25)
5.1 MGD (7.5)
Iron Bridge
Rulemaking Updates
“The management of residuals, both nationally and
in Florida, has grown increasingly controversial as
development has brought people and residuals
sites closer together. Indeed, several local
governments have recently adopted or are
considering restrictive residuals ordinances.
Concerns with the beneficial use of residuals are
clearly a statewide issue and the Department wants
to review and address these concerns.”
Long Term Planning Considerations
• After excessive rain in 2004, we had difficulty
finding suitable land application sites
• Recognized that proposed rule changes would
make land application difficult if not impossible
• Tasked staff with finding a long term solution
that would eliminate our dependence on land
Long Term Planning Considerations
• In 2005, team of Boyle Engineering and
Black & Veatch evaluated options that
provided an all weather solution and didn’t
rely on landspreading
• Team reviewed available technology and
developed a short list consisting of:
– Pelletization
– Incineration
What is SCWO?
• Supercritical Water Oxidation uses high pressure
and temperature water to treat sludge
• Organic material dissolves in supercritical water. In
the presence of oxygen, organic material will
chemically combust (burn without flame) at SCWO
temperatures and pressures.
• End result is inert ash, metal salts, water, carbon
dioxide and heat
• The heat energy is captured through heat exchangers
and will be used to power a steam turbine
SCWO upsides
•Technology results in complete destruction of
organic material in sludge
•Provides the highest level of treatment
recognized by regulatory agencies
•Produces excess energy and usable byproducts (CO2, phosphorus and hot water)
•Provides all weather solution and is not
dependent on land application
SCWO downsides
•Technology had only been demonstrated on a
small, pilot scale basis
•Had not been tested extensively on
wastewater sludge
•Process would require significant R&D
investment before it could be adapted to
wastewater application
Path forward
•On May 21, 2007, Council approved entering into an
agreement with SuperWater Systems to develop a full size
pilot unit
•City provided operating expertise and R&D funding and
agreed to turn over new IP to SuperWater
•SuperWater provided access to patented technology
•City to receive development royalty of $2.50 per ton of
sludge processed worldwide and SuperWater would
purchase pilot unit at end of testing
History of innovation
•It’s not normal for a municipality to take on R&D of new
•What makes Orlando different?
•Orlando has a history of developing successful,
innovative wastewater projects
•Water Conserv II
•Iron Bridge Wetlands
•Iron Bridge plant rerate
Water Conserv II
City Investment
Engineering Design Fees - $8.4 million
Construction cost - $76.3 Million
Return on Investment
•Project has proven to be a significant
component of Central Florida water supply plan
•RIBs flows were key part of OUC’s
consumptive use permit
•Received numerous awards, from prestigious
Grand Conceptor by American Consulting
Engineers Council to Outstanding Project of the
Year Award by the WateReuse Association.
Iron Bridge Wetlands
City Investment
Engineering Design Fees - $2.1 million
Construction cost - $19.4 Million
Return on Investment
•Has received numerous awards such as
Governor’s Environmental Award and WEF
Outstanding Achievement Award
•Provides great park amenity visited by 15,000
people annually
•Has been rerated from 20 mgd to 32 mgd at no
additional cost to City (savings of $10 million if
new capacity had to be constructed)
•Provides high level of treatment – sufficient to
meet new NNC established by EPA
Iron Bridge rerating
City Investment
Engineering Design Fees - $7.1 million
Construction cost - $32.7 Million
Return on Investment
•Consulting engineer estimates the cost of
constructing equivalent new capacity at
$80 million
•Capital cost savings to City of over $40
•May be rerated to a higher capacity,
increasing the ROI even further
City Investment
Engineering Design Fees - $6.4 million
Construction Cost - $45.6 Million
Return on Investment
•Key part of Central Florida’s alternative water
supply plan – Seminole County, Orange County,
UCF, Oviedo, and OUC
•Instrumental in OUC’s consumptive use permit
•Minimizes/eliminates surface water discharge to
Little Econ (tough rules ahead!)
•Results in annual revenues of $550,000 from
reclaimed water sales
SCWO Project Status
SCWO Project Status
• Initiated design work in 2006 and completed design
concept in late 2007
• Construction initiated early 2008 using combination
of city forces and contractors for fabrication and
installation; completed base unit in early 2009
• Began pilot testing on Jan. 2009 and over the next 18
months, debugged and modified the process
• Conducted sub-critical runs with sludge in late 2010
• Conducted super critical runs of sludge in February
City Investment
Engineering Design Fees - $3.0 million
Construction Cost - $5.5 Million
Return on Investment
• Long term compliance with any possible
regulatory changes
•Provides all-weather solution and eliminates
reliance on land application
•Based on SuperWater business projections,
has the ability to return royalty payments of
$60 million over the next 20 years
Long Term Financial Considerations
Capital Cost at 35
dry tons per day
Operating cost/
operating cost
Land Application
(2190 acres at
Transition plan
Transition plan
•On today’s agenda is an agreement for
SuperWater to lease space at Iron Bridge to
continue process development and testing
•Also working on Amendment 3 to the original
agreement spelling out the transition terms
•Plan to bring Amendment 3 to Council for
approval by May 23
Don Morgan, Chief Executive Officer
SuperWater Solutions, Inc.
Copper Yaw, Chairman
Waterway Finance Limited
Transition plan
Business model options:
•Outright sale
•Lease to own
•Contract operations
•Build/own/operate for tipping fee with
customer option to purchase at any time in
Transition plan
Production schedule assuming order by end of
•Enter into design agreement with an
engineering firm– June 2011
•90% Design completion - Dec 2011
•QA/QC review with City and development of
final drawings – Jan 2012
•Start production of first unit – Feb 2012
•Construction completion - Dec 2012
Transition plan
Production schedule:
•Factory Testing - June through Nov 2012
•Construct site modifications – Summer 2012
•Delivery to City Conserv II plant - Dec 2012
•Start up and testing - Jan 2013
•Fab / Delivery of remaining units - June 2013
Financing Plan