Greenhouse Gas Action Plan - WSSC Water€¦ · O nitrous oxide . GREENHOUSE GAS ACTIO N PLAN VI WBG121211172019ORL O&M operations and maintenance . PFCs perflourocarbons . PPA power

WBG121211172019ORL I

CCCooonnnttteeennntttsss

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Background .................................................................................................................................................. ES-1 GHG Inventory Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 GHG Emissions Projections .......................................................................................................................... ES-2 Emission Reduction Strategies..................................................................................................................... ES-3 Strategy Evaluation Results ......................................................................................................................... ES-7 Strategy Selection for Implementation ....................................................................................................... ES-7 Impact of Selected Strategies ...................................................................................................................... ES-9

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Background on Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) .................................................................................................. 1-1 GHG Legislation, Regulation and Initiatives .................................................................................................. 1-2 GHG Reduction Goals for WSSC .................................................................................................................... 1-2

2 GHG Inventory ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 GHG Inventory Summary (2005 to 2011) ..................................................................................................... 2-1 Direct Emissions (Scope 1) ............................................................................................................................ 2-3

Stationary Combustion Sources....................................................................................................... 2-3 Mobile Combustion Sources ............................................................................................................ 2-3 Wastewater Treatment Process Emissions ..................................................................................... 2-4 Refrigerant Fugitive Emissions ......................................................................................................... 2-5

Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) ......................................................................................................................... 2-5 Optional Indirect Emissions (Scope 3) .......................................................................................................... 2-6

Employee Commuting and Business Travel ..................................................................................... 2-6 Contracted Services ......................................................................................................................... 2-7 Chemical Use ................................................................................................................................... 2-8

Inventory Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 2-9 GHG Emissions Projections (2012 to 2030) ................................................................................................ 2-10

GHG Emissions Increase due to Population Growth ..................................................................... 2-10 GHG Emissions Increase due to Major Capital Improvement Projects ......................................... 2-11

3 Emission Reduction Strategies ........................................................................................................... 3-1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies ............................................................................................................ 3-1

4 Strategy Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 Evaluation and Ranking Criteria .................................................................................................................... 4-1 Strategy Evaluation Results .......................................................................................................................... 4-1 Strategy Selection for Implementation ........................................................................................................ 4-7

5 Strategy Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................... 5-1 Reduction Strategies ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Office Equipment ............................................................................................................................. 5-2 Reduce Water Pressure ................................................................................................................... 5-3 Patuxent Reclaimed Water Pumps .................................................................................................. 5-4 Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency ................................................................................................ 5-5 Solar Water Heating at RGH ............................................................................................................ 5-6

GREENHOUSE GAS ACTION PLAN

II WBG121211172019ORL

Track Water Distribution System Valves ......................................................................................... 5-7 Rentricity Flow-to-Wire SM ............................................................................................................... 5-8 Replace Mixers at Piscataway WWTP .............................................................................................. 5-9 Business Trip Reductions ............................................................................................................... 5-10 Anacostia Wastewater Pumping Station (WWPS) ......................................................................... 5-11 Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs ....................................................................................................... 5-12 Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW) .......................................................................... 5-13 Additional Solar PV Installation (2 MW) ........................................................................................ 5-14 Potomac High Zone Pumps ............................................................................................................ 5-15 Uniform Recycling Policy ............................................................................................................... 5-16 Telecommuting .............................................................................................................................. 5-17 HVAC/Lighting Upgrades ............................................................................................................... 5-18 Ostara Pearl® Process .................................................................................................................... 5-19 Digestion/CHP ................................................................................................................................ 5-20

Impact of Selected Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 5-22 Future Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 5-22

Future Treatment Requirements ................................................................................................... 5-23 Renewable Sources of Energy ....................................................................................................... 5-23 Future Technological Developments ............................................................................................. 5-23 Reduction in Volume of Water and Wastewater Treated ............................................................. 5-24

Appendixes

A Strategy Development Workshop Materials B Strategy Evaluation Workshop Materials

Tables

ES-1 Proposed GHG Reduction Strategies ........................................................................................................... ES-4

2-1 Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Scope and Calendar Year ............................................................... 2-2 2-2 Stationary Source Fuel Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ........................................................... 2-3 2-3 Mobile Source Fuel Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ................................................................ 2-3 2-4 Annual Wastewater Treatment Process Parameters and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ....................... 2-4 2-5 Refrigerant Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ............................................................................. 2-5 2-6 Purchased Electricity Use and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ................................................................. 2-5 2-7 Employee Travel Mileage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ................................................................. 2-6 2-8 Contractor Transport Annual Mileage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ............................................. 2-7 2-9 Biosolids Reuse and Disposal and Corresponding GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ................................... 2-8 2-10 Chemical Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year ................................................................................ 2-9

3-1 Proposed GHG Reduction Strategies ............................................................................................................ 3-2

4-1 Scoring Criteria Weights ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 4-2 Strategy Rankings under Benefit/Cost and Cost per Tonne CO2e Removed Evaluations............................. 4-7

Figures

ES-1 Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source Category and Calendar Year ............................................. ES-2 ES-2 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth and Current Projects Compared Against GHG Reduction

Goal .............................................................................................................................................................. ES-3 ES-3 Strategy Evaluation Results – Total Benefit Score ....................................................................................... ES-7

CONTENTS

WBG121211172019ORL III

ES-4 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Benefit-Cost Value ....................................................................................................................................... ES-8

ES-5 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Cost per tonne CO2e Reduced ............................................................................................................................. ES-8

ES-6 Projected Future GHG Emissions and Impact of Selected Strategies on Goal Attainment ....................... ES-10

2-1 GHG Emissions – Scopes for Inventory ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2-2 Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source Category and Calendar Year .............................................. 2-2 2-3 Comparison of Average 2005-2011 Electricity Usage by Category .............................................................. 2-6 2-4 Comparison of Average 2005-2011 Gross GHG Emissions by Category ..................................................... 2-10 2-5 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth ................................................................................................ 2-11 2-6 Estimated Net Contribution of Current Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects to

2030 Annual GHG Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 2-12 2-7 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth and Current Capital Improvement Projects .......................... 2-13 2-8 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth and Current Projects Compared Against GHG Reduction

Goal ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-14

3-1 Impact of Proposed Strategies on Future GHG Emissions Projections......................................................... 3-5

4-1 Strategy Evaluation Results – Total Benefit Score ........................................................................................ 4-2 4-2 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Total

Benefit Score ................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 4-3 Strategy Evaluation Results – Strategies Sorted by Benefit-Cost Value ....................................................... 4-4 4-4 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by

Benefit-Cost Value ........................................................................................................................................ 4-5 4-5 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Life-

Cycle Cost per tonne CO2e reduced .............................................................................................................. 4-6

5-1 Projected Future GHG Emissions and Impact of Selected Strategies on Goal Attainment ........................ 5-22

WBG121211172019ORL V

AAAcccrrrooonnnyyymmmsss aaannnddd AAAbbbbbbrrreeevvviiiaaatttiiiooonnnsss

AOP advanced oxidation processes

CHP combined heat and power

CaCO3 lime

CH4 methane

CIP Capital Improvement Program

CH3OH methanol

CO2 carbon dioxide

CRT cathode ray tube

CY calendar year

ENR enhanced nutrient removal

EPC Energy Performance Contract

FO fuel oil

FY fiscal year

GHG(s) greenhouse gas(es)

GWP global warming potential

HFC(s) hydroflourocarbon(s)

HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

HZ high zone

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kWh kilowatt hours

LCD liquid crystal display

MCC(s) motor control center(s)

MG million gallons

MGD million gallons per day

mg/L milligrams/liter

MIEX Mixed Ion Exchange

MLR mixed liquor recycle

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt hours

NG natural gas

ng/L nanograms/L

N2O nitrous oxide


VI WBG121211172019ORL

O&M operations and maintenance

PFCs perflourocarbons

PPA power purchase agreement

PRVs pressure reducing valves

PV photovoltaic

RAS return activated sludge

RECs renewable energy certificates

RFP request for proposal

RGH Richard G. Hocevar Headquarters Building

RPS renewable portfolio standard

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride

SOP standard operating procedure

TCR The Climate Registry

tonnes CO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalents

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UV ultraviolet

VFD(s) variable frequency drive(s)

WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WFP water filtration plant

WRI World Resources Institute

WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

WW wastewater

WWPS wastewater pumping station

WWTP wastewater treatment plant

WBG121211172019ORL ES-1

EEExxxeeecccuuutttiiivvveee SSSuuummmmmmaaarrryyy

Background The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water and wastewater service to an estimated 1.8 million residents in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. WSSC owns and operates two water filtration plants (WFPs), six wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), more than 5,600 miles of fresh water pipeline, and nearly 5,400 miles of sewer pipeline.

The State of Maryland, Montgomery County and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (which includes both Montgomery and Prince George’s counties) have adopted a GHG emission reduction goal to achieve a 10 percent reduction in emissions every 5 years through 2050, for a total reduction of 80 percent below the baseline year of 2005. WSSC has adopted this same goal, in alignment with the jurisdictions it serves.

WSSC has developed inventories of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all Commission operations for the calendar years (CY) 2005 through 2011. The inventories quantify the GHG emissions that result from the energy-intensive processes required to treat and distribute potable water for public use and to collect and treat wastewater before discharge. Based on the inventory results, a 20-yr plan of action was developed which outlines strategies to reduce future GHG emissions at WSSC by 10 percent every 5 years through the year 2030 using demonstrated technologies and practices available at the present time. This report summarizes the findings of the inventory and outlines the proposed GHG emission reduction strategies to meet an initial reduction goal by 2030, and provides future considerations for additional strategies to meet the ultimate goal by 2050. The strategies have been evaluated for their GHG emission reduction potential as well as projected life-cycle costs and relative benefit when scored against criteria that reflect the Commission’s priorities.

GHG Inventory Summary The inventories include emissions from Scope 1, 2, and 3 sources. Scope 1 emissions, or direct emissions, result from sources or processes owned and/or controlled by WSSC; Scope 2, indirect emissions, result from electricity purchases; and Scope 3, other indirect emissions are from relevant outsourced or non-owned/controlled activities (e.g. biosolids hauling, chemical manufacturing, business travel, etc.). A graphical representation of the annual GHG emission totals (including Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions) is presented in Figure ES-1. Note that in 2008 WSSC began a direct purchase of wind-generated electrical power. This resulted in an offset of Scope 2 emissions (resulting from electricity purchases) and a net reduction in GHG emissions in the 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 inventories.


ES-2 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE ES-1 Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source Category and Calendar Year

GHG Emissions Projections The next step in the process of generating the action plan was to determine how the GHG emissions would change in the future and how the projected future emissions compared to the stated GHG reduction goal by 2030. The inventory results were used as the baseline from which the future GHG emissions could be projected. Future GHG emissions at WSSC will be mainly affected by the following factors:

1. Population growth in the service area that will increase the demand for potable water and the resulting wastewater flows.

2. Regulatory drivers that require process upgrades in order to meet more advanced levels of treatment.

3. Implementation of renewable energy programs such as wind, solar and biogas (anaerobic digestion/combined heat and power [CHP]).

Figure ES-2 illustrates how the projected growth of GHG emissions compares to the goal. The projection includes the effect of wind-generated electricity through 2018, which is when the current contract will expire and the impact of projects currently under implementation. The red line represents a reduction of ten percent every five years based on the 2005 GHG emissions. The projection indicates that by 2030 WSSC would need to reduce annual emissions by 95,600 tonnes CO2e, or 59 percent of the projected 2030 annual emissions, in order to meet the goal.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tonn

es C

O2e

Total Optional Emissions (Scope 3)

Total Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)

Total Direct Emissions (Scope 1)

Direct Emissions- Stationary Combustion- Mobile Combustion- Process Emissions (Wastewater Treatment Operations)- Fugitive Emissions (Cooling Systems)

Indirect Emissions- Electricity Usage

Optional Emissions- Employee Commuting- Employee Business Travel- Treatment Plant Chemical Production- Contracted Services- Mixed Solid Wastes Disposal (in an off-site landfill)

- White Paper Recycling- Treatment Plant Solids and

Mixed Solid Waste Hauling

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WBG121211172019ORL ES-3

FIGURE ES-2 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth and Current Projects Compared Against GHG Reduction Goal

Emission Reduction Strategies The GHG inventory results and the future emissions projections were used to identify the largest emission sources, calculate potential future reductions, and measure the effectiveness of meeting reduction goals. In the next phase of the project, strategies were developed to reduce the GHG emissions and meet the reduction goal.

The following are the main focus areas of the GHG reduction strategies:

1. Optimizing the efficiency of the water distribution system 2. Improving equipment efficiency for water and wastewater 3. Reducing residuals and optimizing processes 4. Reducing GHGs associated with vehicles and transportation 5. Optimizing building services (lighting/heating, ventilating, and air conditioning [HVAC]) 6. Implementing renewable energy

Table ES-1 summarizes the strategies developed, the projected GHG emissions reduction impact, and the estimated capital, annual, and life-cycle costs

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 - 2030)Growth and Current Capital Improvement Projects vs. Goal

Growth Net Impact of Current Projects Reduction due to Wind Net With Growth, Projects and Wind Goal

95,600 tonnes


ES-4 WBG121211172019ORL

TABLE ES-1 Proposed GHG Reduction Strategies

No. Strategy Name Description 2030 GHG Reduction

(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.

Capital Cost Annual Cost (+) or

Savings (-)

Life-Cycle Cost1 (through

2030)

Group 1 - System Efficiency

1.1 Bowie Pump Station Remove this pump station and flow by gravity instead -633 2014 $6,000,000 -$129,600 $4,372,000

1.2 Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency

Use DercetoTM to further optimize the efficiency of the drinking water pumping system. Assume it can be improved by an additional 5%. -2,250 2013 $0 -440,000 -5,793,000

1.3 Reduce Water Pressure Reduce the operating pressure of the water distribution system by 5 psi -1,699 2013 $0 -$339,000 -$4,660,000

1.4 Track Water Dist. System Valves

Institute a system for tracking the position of major valves in the water distribution system to prevent pumping against closed valves or pumping in a loop. Assume efficiency will improve by 5%.

-816 2015 $500,000 -$196,000 -$1,837,000

1.5 Rentricity Flow-to-Wire Implement Rentricity's Flow-to-WireSM system. This system installs a turbine to replace major pressure reducing valves (PRVs) in the system and converts the pressure loss into electricity. Assume 2 installations. Kilowatt hours (kWh) produced are accounted as renewable.

-4,888 2014 $2,000,000 -$631,000 -5,928,000

Group 2 - Equipment Efficiency

2.1 Patuxent Reclaim Pumps Increase the efficiency of the pumps located in the reclaimed water ponds by installing VFDs or trimming the impellers (to 11-inches) -153 2012 $10,000 -$31,000 -414,000

2.2 Optimize Parkway Pumps Optimize the pumping conditions of the mixed liquor recycle (MLR), RAS and raw sewage pumps at Parkway. Assume electricity use reduced 10% -122 2015 $1,000,000 -$25,000 $698,000

2.3 Replace Mixers at Piscataway

Replace existing propeller-type submersible mixers with fewer, more efficient mixers such as the hyperboloid-type. -621 2013 $1,400,000 -$149,000 -$651,000

2.4 Anacostia Wastewater (WW) Pumps

Replace VFDs on (2) 1,000 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%) -196 2013 $400,000 -$39,000 -$140,000

2.5 Potomac high zone (HZ) Pumps

Replace VFDs on (2) 2,500 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%) -293 2013 $700,000 -$59,000 -$109,000

2.6 Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs

Evaluate the aeration systems at all WWTPs and install high efficiency turbo blowers as needed to improve capacity range and efficiency. Assume 10% improvement in efficiency for all WWTPs.

-2,659 2015 $4,800,000 -$550,000 -$1,763,000

2.7 Optimize WW Pumping Efficiency

Evaluate all wastewater pump stations and optimize the performance by adjusting operational wetwell levels, pump efficiency and VFDs. Assume a 5% gain in efficiency can be achieved.

-470 2015 $2,200,000 -$97,000 $1,040,000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WBG121211172019ORL ES-5



(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.


Savings (-)


2030)

Group 3 - Residuals/Process

3.1 Potomac Intake Relocate the intake location at the Potomac WFP 500 ft further out into the Potomac. This will reduce the amount of solids drawn into the plant and the GHGs associated with trucking the solids.

-75 2018 $22,400,000 -$745,000 $15,000,000

3.2 Digestion/combined heat power (CHP) at Piscataway

Implement thermal hydrolysis followed by anaerobic digestion at Piscataway to also treat sludge from other WSSC facilities except Western Branch. Use the methane produced in a CHP unit. This strategy will also reduce GHGs due to reduced biosolids trucking and reduced lime use.

-12,800 2018 $67,000,000 -$3,700,000 $30,170,000

3.3 Ostara Pearl ProcessTM at Piscataway

Implement the Ostara Pearl Process to recover phosphate in the digested sludge dewatering centrate flow stream. The process converts the phosphate to a commercial-grade fertilizer which then provides WSSC with GHG credits because it offsets GHGs produced in industrial fertilizer manufacture.

-12,000 2020 $6,000,000 -$50,000 $5,573,000

3.4 Green Carbon Sources for Denite

Replace methanol at all WWTPs with “green” sources of carbon such as glycerin or MicroCg for the denitrification process. This saves GHGs in the production of methanol (Scope 3) and in the consumption of methanol in the process (Scope 1).

-2,895 2015 $0 $1,175,000 $14,032,000

3.5 Recycling Uniform recycling strategy (paper, cans, bottles, light bulbs). Assume a 10% reduction in GHGs associated with garbage landfilling -32 2013 $0 $0 $0

Group 4 - Transportation

4.1 Hybrid/Alt Fuel Replacement of a portion of the fleet with hybrid and/or alternative fuel (e.g. ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.) vehicles. Assumes that the replacement will result in 10% reduction in gasoline and diesel usage over a 5 year period (2% per year)

-1,488 2013 $6,700,000 $27,000 $7,000,000

4.2 Telecommuting Implementation of a telecommuting strategy that reduces employee commuting miles. Assumes 5% reduction annually in miles traveled by employees to/from work.

-431 2012 $0 $0 $0


ES-6 WBG121211172019ORL



(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.


Savings (-)


2030)

4.3 Business Trip Reductions Reduce employee business travel. Assume 5% reduction annually in miles traveled by employees on business due to increased use of tele-conferencing/net meeting/trip reductions, etc.

-14 2012 $0 -$3,000 -$39,000

Group 5 - Lighting/HVAC

5.1 Piscataway Heating FO to NG

Replace heating units at Piscataway that use Fuel Oil (FO) with units that use Natural Gas (NG). -21 2018 $5,000,000 -$16,500 $4,800,000

5.2 Heating/Cooling using Plant Effluent

Use plant effluent as a heat source/sink to heat and cool plant buildings. Assume this could be implemented at Western Branch and at Piscataway.

-264 2018 $10,000,000 -$83,000 $9,173,000

5.3 Solar Water Heating at RGH Replace electric water heaters with solar water heaters -59 2014 $24,000 -$14,000 -$145,000

5.4 HVAC/Lighting Upgrades Conduct audit of HVAC systems at all major facilities (plants, pump stations and buildings). Lighting: replace all bulbs and ballasts with more efficient equipment and implement more in-depth lighting upgrades (motion sensors, timers)

-1,200 2015 $4,000,000 -$300,000 $419,000

5.5 Office Equipment Reduce power usage of office equipment: computers, copiers, etc. Institute policy to turn off equipment at night. Upgrade cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors with liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Upgrade servers to more efficient units. Assume 30% of RGH energy use is due to computers and servers and it can be cut by a third.

-508 2013 $0 -$122,000 -$1,600,000

5.6 Green Roof Install extensive green roofs over the lower part of RGH and the maintenance depots (Gaithersburg, Temple Hill, Anacostia, Lyttonsville, and Laurel Service Center). Assume 5% savings in AC at RGH and 20% at the depots.

-131 2014 $2,000,000 -$32,000 $1,600,000

Group 6 - Renewable Resources

6.1 Solar photovoltaic (PV) at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW)

Install solar panels at Seneca and Western Branch per the current request for proposal (RFP). Assume 4 megawatt [MW] of power generated.

-5,013 2013 $0 -$192,000 -$3,046,000

6.2 Additional Solar Installation (2 MW)

Install additional solar panels. Assume 2 MW of power generated. Location to be determined. -2,557 2015 $0 -$98,400 -$1,473,000

6.3 Wind Energy Award new wind power purchase agreement (PPA) contract beyond 2018 and develop new electricity supply contract beyond 2019. -55,700 2018 $0 -$0 -$0

1 Life-Cycle Cost calculated using a discount rate of 3%


WBG121211172019ORL ES-7

Strategy Evaluation Results The proposed strategies were evaluated using a prioritization tool in order to select the top strategies for reducing GHG emissions. The goal was to find the highest-value reduction projects so that execution of the action plan could be prioritized. The strategies were evaluated in a workshop setting with team members from WSSC and a score value was assigned for each criterion. The score value for each criterion was then multiplied by the criterion weight, and a total benefit value was calculated for each strategy by adding the weighted criteria scores.

Figure ES-3 shows the strategies sorted by the total benefit score received. Each strategy’s score bar is further divided to indicate the relative weighted scores for each criterion.

FIGURE ES-3 Strategy Evaluation Results – Total Benefit Score

Strategy Selection for Implementation The next step in the evaluation was to select the strategies recommended for implementation in order to meet the GHG emissions reduction goal. The selection was made by comparing how the strategies ranked in the benefit-cost evaluation versus the cost per tonne CO2e reduced and identifying those strategies that ranked at the top of both lists. The team selected the 20 strategies under the Life Cycle Cost per Tonne CO2e. Figures ES-4 and ES-5 illustrate the strategy rankings under both evaluations.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Tota

l Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

WSSC GHG Action PlanProposed Strategies Sorted by Total Benefit Score

GHG Reduction Potential Community/Customers O&M Efficiency Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement Effort to Implement


ES-8 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE ES-4 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Benefit-Cost Value

FIGURE ES-5 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Cost per tonne CO2e Reduced

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Cum

ulat

ive

Annu

al G

HG E

miss

ion

Redu

ctio

n by

203

0 (t

onne

s CO

2e)

WSSC GHG Action PlanCumulative GHG Reduction of Proposed Strategies

(Sorted by Benefit Score/Normalized Life Cycle Cost)

Reduction Needed to Meet Goal by 2030:39,900 tonnes of CO2e (Combined with Wind)

$5,560,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Cum

ulat

ive

Annu

al G

HG E

miss

ion

Redu

ctio

n by

203

0 (t

onne

s CO

2e)

WSSC GHG Action PlanProposed Strategies Sorted by Life Cycle Cost per tonne CO2e Reduced

Positive LCC

Negative LCC


$9,571,000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WBG121211172019ORL ES-9

The 20 selected strategies that will be needed (arranged by cost per tonne CO2e removed rank), in addition to the implementation of a new wind energy contract in order to meet the 2030 GHG reduction goal are:

1. Office Equipment 2. Reduce Water Pressure 3. Patuxent Reclaim Pumps 4. Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency 5. Solar Water Heating at RGH 6. Track Water Distribution System Valves 7. RentricitySM Flow-to-Wire 8. Replace Mixers at Piscataway 9. Business Trip Reductions 10. Anacostia Wastewater Pumps 11. Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs 12. Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW) 13. Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) 14. Potomac High Zone Pumps 15. Recycling 16. Telecommuting 17. HVAC/Lighting Upgrades 18. Ostara Pearl Process™ 19. Optimize Wastewater Pumping Efficiency 20. Digestion/CHP

Impact of Selected Strategies The strategies selected, in conjunction with the renewed wind contract, will reduce an estimated 104,400 tonnes of CO2e in annual GHG emissions by the year 2030. This represents about 109 percent of the reduction needed to meet the stated goal of ten percent reduction every five years over the 2005 inventory. Implementing the proposed strategies will have an estimated total life-cycle cost of $9.6 million by 2030. Figure ES-6 shows the GHG projections with the proposed strategy reductions. Figure ES-6 identifies in different categories the impact of the renewed wind contract, the solar PV projects (strategies 12 and 13 listed above) and digestion/CHP (strategy 20 listed above). All the other strategies combined are shown under the “Other Selected Strategies” category.


ES-10 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE ES-6 Projected Future GHG Emissions and Impact of Selected Strategies on Goal Attainment

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 - 2030)Impact of Selected Strategies

Growth Current Projects Wind Solar Digestion/CHP Other Selected Strategies Net Goal

WBG121211172019ORL 1‐1

SSSEEECCCTTTIIIOOONNN 111

Introduction

Project Background The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water and wastewater service to an estimated 1.8 million residents in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. WSSC owns and operates two water filtration plants (WFPs), six wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), more than 5,600 miles of fresh water pipeline and nearly 5,400 miles of sewer pipeline.

In 2008 WSSC began the process of developing an entity‐wide inventory of the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated during normal facility operations. The inventory has been completed for the years 2005 through 2011. Based on the inventory results, a plan of action was developed which outlines strategies to reduce future GHG emissions at WSSC.

This report summarizes the findings of the inventory and outlines the proposed GHG emission reduction strategies. The strategies have been evaluated for their GHG emission reduction potential as well as projected life‐cycle costs and relative benefit when scored against criteria that reflect the Commission’s priorities.

Background on Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called GHGs. Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other GHGs (for example, fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): CO2 enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (for example, the manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane (CH4): CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock emissions and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills or digesters. CH4 has 21 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2 because the warming effect of this gas on the atmosphere has been estimated as being 21 times that of a comparable amount of CO2.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. N2O has 310 times the GWP of CO2.

Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are synthetic, powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are used as refrigerants and they have been used as substitutes for ozone‐depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons. Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities than other GHGs, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (High GWP gases).

GHG quantities are usually expressed in metric tons (mt or tonnes). Also, GHGs other than CO2 are converted to CO2‐equivalent units by multiplying the tonnes of a particular gas by the GWP multiplier. This results in a measure of all GHG emissions in tonnes of CO2 equivalents, or tonnes CO2e for short.


1-2 WBG121211172019ORL

GHGs are believed to be the underlying force behind climate change. The increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere enhances the absorption and emission of infrared radiation, trapping heat and consequently heating the earth’s surface.

In February 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is significantly affecting the planet and that if annual GHG emissions remain at current levels, CO2 concentrations will double by 2050. The effect of this high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is projected to cause severe impacts to the earth’s temperature and climate. Reduction of GHG emissions was the impetus behind the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by 191 countries. The protocol seeks to reduce the emissions of six target gases— CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in order prevent a detrimental impact to the climate system.

GHG Legislation, Regulation and Initiatives In September 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, which requires entities that emit 25,000 tonnes CO2e per year from stationary combustion sources (such as boilers, heaters, incinerators, or non-emergency electricity generation equipment) and specified industrial processes to report these emissions annually starting in 2011. Currently, WSSC is exempt from this reporting because WSSC’s general stationary fuel combustion source emissions are lower than the reporting threshold.

Although water/wastewater utilities are not currently required to report GHG emissions at the federal level, some states have set GHG goals and targets as well as reporting requirements. In May 2009, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009, which contains a GHG emission reduction target for the State of Maryland. The legislation sets the reduction target at 25 percent below a 2006 baseline by 2020 and requires that a task force create and submit a plan for achieving this target; the plan is to be adopted by December 2012. As a whole, emission reduction measures in the plan must provide a net economic benefit to the state and a net increase in jobs. The State seeks to reduce emissions by ten percent every five years through 2050, for a total reduction of 80 percent below 2006 levels.

In addition, the State of Maryland has a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. The RPS requires that 20 percent of the State’s electricity supply come from renewable sources by 2022. In addition, two percent of electricity must come from solar power. Sources of energy that count toward the standard include wind, qualifying biomass, CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in a landfill or wastewater treatment plant, geothermal, the ocean (including energy from waves, tides, currents, and thermal differences), a fuel cell that produces electricity from qualifying biomass or CH4, and small hydroelectric power plants. Electric utilities not meeting the standard have the option of purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs) from entities producing renewable energy from the above sources.

GHG Reduction Goals for WSSC In April 2008 Montgomery County, Maryland adopted Bill 32-07, which codified the County’s GHG reduction goals. Montgomery County’s goal is to achieve a 10 percent reduction in county-wide GHG emissions every five years through 2050, for a total reduction of 80 percent below 2005 levels. This goal is in alignment with the State of Maryland goal. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which includes both Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, made a commitment to meet the same goal in their Climate Change Report which was adopted in November 2008.

Because WSSC’s service area includes Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, the commission has also adopted a goal to achieve a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions every five years through 2050, for a total reduction of 80 percent below 2005 levels. WSSC’s endorsed goal is in alignment with state and local government emission reduction targets.

This report outlines a 20-year plan of action to meet an initial GHG emission reduction goal by 2030 using demonstrated technologies and practices available at the present time. The report also provides future considerations for additional strategies to meet the ultimate goal by 2050.

WBG121211172019ORL 2‐1


GHG Inventory

WSSC has developed annual GHG inventories for all commission operations for the calendar years 2005 through 2011. The inventories quantify the GHG emissions that result from the energy‐intensive processes required to treat and distribute potable water for public use and to collect and treat wastewater before discharge.

All six of the Kyoto GHGs – CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 ‐ were considered for inclusion in the WSSC emissions inventory. Of the six GHGs, WSSC’s operations generate emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from stationary and mobile combustion of fossil fuels, purchased electricity usage, and the wastewater treatment plant operations. Refrigerant‐based fugitive emissions of HFCs are generated through WSSC operation of chillers and air conditioning units. There are no sources of SF6 or PFCs at the WSSC facilities.

The World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) GHG Protocol, The Climate Registry (TCR) General Reporting Protocol and Local Government Operations Protocol, along with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, were used as the guidance to complete the inventories. The inventory included emissions from Scope 1, 2, and 3 sources as identified in the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol. Scope 1 emissions, or direct emissions, result from sources or processes owned and/or controlled by WSSC; Scope 2, indirect emissions, result from electricity purchases; and Scope 3, other indirect emissions, are from relevant outsourced or non‐owned/controlled activities (e.g. biosolids hauling, chemical manufacturing, business travel, etc.). Figure 2‐1 illustrates the Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions that can be included in a GHG inventory.

FIGURE 2-1 GHG Emissions – Scopes for Inventory

Source: World Resources Institute (WRI)/ World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol

GHG Inventory Summary (2005 to 2011) For the baseline year, 2005, WSSC operations produced a total of 134,683 tonnes CO2e in GHG emissions. Subsequent years (2006 through 2011) have seen a small increase in the GHG emissions resulting from normal operations at WSSC. However, in 2008 WSSC began a direct purchase of wind‐generated electrical power. This


2-2 WBG121211172019ORL

resulted in an offset and a net reduction in GHG emissions in the 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 inventories. A graphical representation of the annual GHG emission totals (including Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions) is presented in Figure 2-2. Table 2-1 summarizes the emissions totals by scope.

FIGURE 2-2 Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source Category and Calendar Year

TABLE 2-1 Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Scope and Calendar Year

Source 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Direct Emissions – Scope 1 (tonnes CO2e)

15,887 15,501 15,692 16,915 15,695 14,606 16,508

Indirect Emissions – Scope 2 (tonnes CO2e)

102,828 103,440 101,969 102,490 110,066 106,311 111,561

Optional Emissions – Scope 3 (tonnes CO2e)

17,506 17,536 17,763 18,370 21,140 19,618 21,876

Offsets (tonnes CO2e) 1 (1,538) (1,499) (1,476) (20,273) (42,172) (56,988) (56,352)

Total Net Entity-Wide GHG Emissions (tonnes CO2e)

134,683 134,978 133,948 117,502 104,729 83,547 93,593

Increase/Decrease from the Baseline (2005)

-- 0.2% -0.5% -12.8% -22.2% -38.0% -30.5%

1 Offsets include inorganic fertilizer avoidance due to land application of biosolids (Scope 3) and wind-generated electricity (Scope 2)

The annual results of each emissions category are detailed in the sections that follow.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tonn

es C

O2e

Total Optional Emissions (Scope 3)

Total Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)

Total Direct Emissions (Scope 1)



Optional Emissions- Employee Commuting- Employee Business Travel- Treatment Plant Chemical Production- Contracted Services- Mixed Solid Wastes Disposal (in an off-site landfill)

- White Paper Recycling- Treatment Plant Solids and

Mixed Solid Waste Hauling

SECTION 2– GHG INVENTORY

WBG121211172019ORL 2-3

Direct Emissions (Scope 1) Scope 1 emissions, or direct emissions, result from sources, processes, or facilities owned and/or controlled by WSSC. The WSSC GHG inventory contains the following source categories for direct emissions: stationary combustion, mobile combustion, process-related, and fugitive (refrigerant usage).

Stationary Combustion Sources Stationary source emissions result from combustion of fossil fuels in equipment such as boilers, heaters, generators, pumps, and incinerators in a fixed location. Natural gas is used for heating in most WSSC facilities and, together with dewatered sludge, is used as a fuel source for the two incinerators that operate at the Western Branch wastewater treatment plant. Diesel fuel combustion powers generators used to provide emergency electricity. Other auxiliary equipment units use propane and fuel oil as their energy source. Table 2-2 summarizes the annual use of each fuel by type and the corresponding GHG emissions.

TABLE 2-2 Stationary Source Fuel Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Fuel Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Natural Gas (therms) 742,413 649,134 626,239 743,542 637,409 468,682 560,746

Propane (gal) 4,670 4,609 8,802 9,526 9,199 7,623 3,960

Fuel Oil (gal) 23,133 34,779 43,742 39,316 27,362 16,640 22,570

Diesel (gal) 15,847 6,897 8,158 9,763 14,466 12,323 40,053

WWTP Sludge (dry tons) 4,520 5,005 4,251 3,967 3,692 4,869 4,303

Total Stationary Source Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 6,168 5,855 5,682 6,097 5,342 4,709 5,350

The highest amount of GHGs was emitted in CY2005 with a total of 6,168 tonnes CO2e due to the high amounts of natural gas, fuel oil, and diesel used in that year. Fuel oil and diesel have high emission rates for GHGs. Due to upgrades completed on the Western Branch wastewater treatment plant incinerators, CY2010 had the least amount of stationary combustion related GHGs released, 4,709 tonnes CO2e. The upgrades resulted in steep declines in natural gas usage and allowed for an increased use of dewatered sludge as a fuel source. CY2011 saw a sharp increase in diesel fuel use due to hurricane Irene which interrupted power to many facilities and required the use of emergency generators. Overall there has been a 13.3 percent decline in GHG emissions from stationary combustion sources between the baseline year of CY2005 and CY2011.

Mobile Combustion Sources Mobile source emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels in on- and off-road vehicles. For WSSC, these sources include owned fleet passenger cars and trucks, utility vehicles, heavy equipment, construction and maintenance vehicles, and other handling equipment. A summary of annual fuel usage and the related GHG emissions are shown in Table 2-3.

TABLE 2-3 Mobile Source Fuel Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Fuel Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Diesel (gal) 262,035 288,973 223,708 248,622 272,719 287,848 281,596

Gasoline (gal) 377,680 383,724 437,959 459,028 391,837 397,958 421,825

Total Mobile Source Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 6,082 6,001 6,220 6,791 6,274 6,487 6,618


2-4 WBG121211172019ORL

The highest amount of total fuel used, 707,650 gallons of diesel and gasoline, and hence the most GHGs emitted was in CY2008. However, the most diesel fuel was combusted in CY2006, just slightly higher than CY2011. Increased diesel fuel usage is directly related to the high number of call-outs that are responded to due to malfunctions or repairs needed on deteriorating infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, water mains, pump stations, etc.) or weather events (storms and hurricanes). The use of motor gasoline was the highest in CY2008. Gasoline usage declined in CY2009 and CY2010 due to fleet optimization efforts. However, by CY2011, the GHG emissions generated by mobile combustion sources increased by 9% over the baseline year of 2005.

Wastewater Treatment Process Emissions Process emissions result from physical or chemical processes and refer to emissions other than those resulting from fuel combustion. WSSC owns and operates seven wastewater treatment plants and two water treatment plants. There are no GHG emissions generated as part of the purification operations at the water treatment plants. However, the wastewater treatment plants emit GHGs generated from the organic matter and nutrients being processed through the plant and in the resulting sludge (biosolids). The CO2 emissions resulting from the decomposition of organic matter in the wastewater treatment process are considered biogenic emissions and are not included in the inventory or process emissions total. Biogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are those releases of CO2 that are non-man-made/produced and are not included in the inventory total.

N2O is also released in the nutrient removal process and upon discharge of plant effluent to a surface water body. There are also emissions of CO2 that result from the chemical reaction caused by adding methanol to enhance the nitrogen-removal process, which is currently done at WSSC’s Western Branch WWTP. These CO2 emissions are not biogenic and are included in the inventory total. The sum of these emissions make up the process emissions category of the GHG emissions inventory expressed as CO2e. Table 2-4 summarizes the process parameters for each wastewater treatment plant and the overall process-related GHG emissions for each calendar year.

TABLE 2-4 Annual Wastewater Treatment Process Parameters and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Facility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Annual Average Daily Flow Treated (MGD)

Western Branch 19.02 19.30 19.48 20.50 20.03 20.21 20.31

Piscataway 21.66 21.51 19.3 21.88 22.43 21.90 22.79

Parkway 5.9 5.69 5.57 5.74 6.25 6.91 6.65

Seneca 14.34 15.26 16.32 15.18 15.58 16.06 15.68

Damascus 0.82 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.88 0.84 0.87

Marlboro Meadows 0 0 0 0.27 0.293 0.314 0.329

Hyattstown .0042 .0044 .0043 .0043 0.0044 0.0039 0.0038

Total AADF Treated (MGD) 62 63 61 64 65 66 67

Average Effluent TN Conc. for all Facilities (mg/L) 3.33 2.90 3.06 4.16 4.31 3.75 3.87

Total Methanol Use (gal) 404,732 425,388 457,146 447,583 448,008 312,038 571,301

Total Wastewater Process Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 3,637 3,639 3,790 4,025 4,077 3,408 4,512

Table 2-4 shows that while the total annual average daily flow rate treated in WSSC wastewater facilities has increased by seven percent from 62 million gallons per day (MGD) to 66 MGD from 2005 to 2010, the total process-related GHG emissions have decreased by six percent from 3,637 to 3,408 tonnes CO2e over the same period. This decrease is mainly due to a 23 percent reduction in methanol use at Western Branch WWTP from 404,732 gallons in 2005 to 312,038 gallons in 2010. This reduction was achieved through process optimization


WBG121211172019ORL 2-5

efforts at the facility. In 2011 there was a large increase in methanol use at Western Branch (83 percent over 2010 usage) which accounted for the sharp increase in process emissions that year.

Refrigerant Fugitive Emissions Fugitive emissions result from unintentional leaks or releases from processes, storage devices, systems, etc. For WSSC, fugitive emission sources include HFCs used within cooling systems (refrigerators and ice machines) and transport vehicles.

Table 2-5 summarizes the total pounds (lbs) of refrigerant used per calendar year and the corresponding GHG emissions. Table 2-5 shows that WSSC used low amounts of refrigerants during the years 2005 – 2011 and refrigerant emissions for all years were less than one percent of the total direct emissions category.

TABLE 2-5 Refrigerant Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Material Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

R-134A (lbs) 0 0 1 3 3 0 3

R-404A (lbs) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

R-410A (lbs) 0 0 0 0 0 2 34

Total Fugitive Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 0 5.9 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 28.4

Indirect Emissions (Scope 2) Scope 2 emissions, or indirect emissions, result from activities owned and/or controlled by another entity that are being completed on behalf of the reporting entity. For this category, only emissions resulting from the use of purchased electricity, steam, and/or hot/chilled water are included. For the WSSC inventory, only indirect emissions from purchased electricity are included because the Commission does not purchase steam or hot/chilled water. In 2008, WSSC began purchasing electricity generated by wind turbines located in southwestern Pennsylvania. This renewable energy source provides a net offset in the amount of fossil-fuel generated power that is utilized by WSSC operations. A summary of annual electricity usage for all facilities within the WSSC operations and the associated GHG emissions are shown in Table 2-6.

TABLE 2-6 Purchased Electricity Use and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Entity-Wide Electricity Use megawatt hours [MWh]) 205,645 206,868 203,927 204,968 220,121 212,611 223,110

Wind Energy Offsets (MWh) 0 0 0 (20,133) (43,614) (59,637) (58,615)

Net Total Electricity Use (MWh) 205,645 206,868 203,927 184,835 176,507 152,974 164,495

Total Indirect Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 102,828 103,440 101,969 83,772 69,517 50,866 57,066

Total entity-wide electricity use from 2005 to 2008 was relatively stable with no more than 1% change from the baseline year of 2005. Electricity use in 2009, 2010 and 2011 saw an increase, mainly due to higher electricity use for water and wastewater treatment and conveyance. Wastewater flows have increased by approximately eight percent as noted earlier in Table 2-4 and account for some of the increase in electricity use. Drinking water flows have remained relatively stable over the six year period (less than two percent variance) but a large component of electricity use is raw water pumping and this can be affected by water levels at the source. Figure 2-3 shows the relative use of electricity use for water treatment, wastewater treatment, conveyance (both water and wastewater) and facility operations at WSSC. Buildings and Facilities includes the Richard G. Hocevar (RGH) headquarters building, the Consolidated Laboratory and several garages and depots.


2-6 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE 2-3 Comparison of Average 2005-2011 Electricity Usage by Category

Optional Indirect Emissions (Scope 3) Scope 3 emissions, or other indirect emissions, are those generated by activities over which WSSC has influence and that occur within WSSC boundaries, but are not owned or controlled by WSSC. The major sources of Scope 3 emissions are contracted services (such as treatment plant solids transport, mixed solid wastes transport and disposal), chemical manufacture and employee travel. Mobile source emissions would be generated from equipment and vehicles operated by contracted businesses performing services and from employee commuting and conducting business travel in personal vehicles. Fugitive emissions from landfill disposal of solid waste and the land application of biosolids are also included as part of this scope.

Employee Commuting and Business Travel While WSSC has no control over how far employees commute to work, what type of vehicles they drive, or the type of fuel the vehicles use, it was important to determine the impact of WSSC employees on the total carbon footprint of the entity. In the future, this source category may be an area for carpooling incentives, the use of compressed work weeks, or evaluating telecommuting options. WSSC also wanted to assess the amount of business travel employees were completing in personal vehicles. Table 2-7 lists the total mileage used by employees to commute to work and to complete business travel in personal vehicles.

TABLE 2-7 Employee Travel Mileage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Number of Employees 1396 1450 1443 1470 1511* 1511* 1555

Employee Commuting (million miles) 14.50 15.24 15.37 15.60 19.20 19.20 20.57

Employee Business Travel (million miles) 0.130 0.116 0.122 0.106 0.113 0.095 0.129

Total Travel (million miles) 14.63 15.35 15.49 15.70 19.31 19.29 20.70

Total Optional Mobile Source Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 6,755 7,088 7,153 7,257 8,915 8,907 9,556

(*) Based upon fiscal year (FY) 2010 data

Wastewater Treatment

31%

Water Treatment

47%

Conveyance15%

Buildings/Facilities

7%


WBG121211172019ORL 2-7

Employee travel miles have been increasing from year-to year with a significant increase in CYs 2009-2011 due to a steady increase in the total number of employees traveling to and from WSSC operations from a geographical area spanning two counties and in some instances several states.

Contracted Services Biosolids and Solid Waste Hauling Mobile emissions associated with contracted services include the use of contractor-owned trucks for transporting biosolids from the treatment plants to a landfill or agricultural land application area and transporting mixed solid wastes to a landfill. Vehicles owned by WSSC and by contractors are used to complete these activities. The emissions from the use of WSSC vehicles are included in Scope 1, direct, mobile combustion source emissions. Mobile combustion source emissions from contractor-owned vehicles are included in Scope 3.

Table 2-8 details the total miles traveled for the transportation of biosolids and mixed solid wastes to their final disposal destination and the corresponding GHG emissions.

TABLE 2-8 Contractor Transport Annual Mileage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Originating Facility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Damascus (miles) 7,800 6,049 5,920 3,366 5,871 4,400 9,535

Parkway (miles) 149,656 80,299 124,257 149,656 107,966 132,620 138,797

Piscataway (miles) 180,271 240,168 232,808 253,532 260,207 246,570 318,419

Seneca (miles) 32,860 44,884 48,124 58,171 32,788 35,688 39,019

Potomac (miles) 168,873 141,533 162,626 160,145 172,083 123,695 142,816

Mixed Solid Waste (miles)* 51,972 51,972 51,972 51,972 51,972 51,972 51,972

Total Transport (miles) 591,431 564,904 625,707 676,842 630,887 594,945 700,558

Total Optional Mobile Source Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 1,262 1,217 1,343 1,412 1,319 1,246 1,395

(*) based upon contracted annual number of total pick-ups

The total miles traveled by WSSC contractors to transport biosolids and mixed solid wastes have varied from year-to-year. The miles traveled by contractors are dependent upon the destination of the biosolids (accepting landfill or land application facility) and is determined based upon purchasing contracts. Solid Waste Management WSSC facilities generate mixed solid wastes (including trash and other disposables), which are collected and disposed of in a landfill. The emissions resulting from the solid waste disposal methods are included as other indirect emissions within the WSSC GHG inventory. For the GHG inventory, purchasing contracts were used to estimate the amount of solid waste generated by WSSC across all operations. This method resulted in an estimated 343 tons of mixed solid wastes which would generate 323 tonnes CO2e when disposed of in a landfill. These GHG emissions estimates were carried across each year’s inventory until a better method for calculating actual amounts is determined.

Biosolids Management The biosolids resulting from the wastewater treatment processes are either incinerated, applied on agricultural lands, or transported to a landfill. The GHG emissions produced in the incineration process are considered direct (Scope 1) and are included in the stationary combustion sources. Land application of biosolids results in GHG emissions due to the release of N2O into the environment. Carbon dioxide, CO2, is also sequestered in the soil during the land application of biosolids. This CO2 is considered biogenic. Land application of biosolids for agricultural use provides an offset of CO2 emissions that would have resulted from the use of inorganic fertilizer. This offset is included in the inventory in the indirect emissions category, as these reductions occur outside of the


2-8 WBG121211172019ORL

WSSC organizational boundary. Landfill disposal of mixed solid wastes also result in GHG emissions due to methane gas released at the landfill.

Table 2-9 summarizes the amount of biosolids that are land-applied and the corresponding GHG emissions (i.e. biogenic, non-biogenic, and avoided) released and/or sequestered as a result of the disposal method (e.g. landfill, land application, etc.)

TABLE 2-9 Biosolids Reuse and Disposal and Corresponding GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Facility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Western Branch (wet tons to landfill) 1,684 4,220 3,756 3,334 6,537 3,643 7,994

Piscataway (wet tons) 28,020 27,217 26,414 25,875 30,903 31,333 31,503

Parkway (wet tons) 15,542 14,601 14,625 14,842 13,853 10,853 15,649

Seneca (wet tons) 22,921 22,848 22,778 23,945 23,751 21,974 23,030

Damascus (wet tons) 1,344 1,451 1,292 1,499 1,329 1,508 1,423

Marlboro Meadows (wet tons) 0 0 0 2,465 1,755 2,402 2,340

Total Wet Tons 69,511 70,337 68,867 71,960 78,130 71,714 81,938

Total Biosolids Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 4,165 4,420 4,350 4,363 5,004 4,298 4,761

Biogenic CO2 Sequestered (tonnes CO2e) (2,873) (2,761) (2,764) (2,824) (2,971) (2,739) (3,403)

Inorganic Fertilizer Use Offset (tonnes CO2e) (1,538) (1,499) (1,476) (1,556) (1,623) (1,543) (1,858)

Table 2-9 indicates that biosolids production at WSSC and the GHG emissions associated with the reuse and disposal of the biosolids has remained relatively stable from 2005 through 2010, staying within five percent of the baseline. The exception was in CY2009 and CY2011 which saw sharp increases in the sludge production at Piscataway and Western Branch. Also in CY2011 Parkway started using their own solids handling facility after having used contracted biosolids dewatering in 2010.

Chemical Use WSSC’s seven wastewater treatment plants and two water treatment plants use different types of chemicals in the treatment process. GHGs may be emitted during the manufacture and/or use of these chemicals. The treatment chemicals (e.g. polymer, alum, caustic, acid, chlorine, methanol, etc.) used at the plants were reviewed to determine if they contained HFCs or PFCs or emitted any of the six GHGs when used within the treatment operations. Of the chemicals evaluated, none of the chemicals contained HFCs or PFCs. However, methanol (CH3OH) releases process-related emissions of CO2 when manufactured and when added to the treatment process. WSSC uses methanol to facilitate nitrogen removal from the wastewater during treatment. The emissions associated with the manufacture of methanol are included as Scope 3 emissions while emissions resulting from use in the process are included in the Scope 1, direct process emissions, category as previously presented. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), also known as lime, also released process-related emissions of CO2 when manufactured. The emissions associated with the manufacture of the total amount of lime used by WSSC operations are also included as Scope 3 emissions within the inventory. Table 2-10 summarizes lime usage by plant and methanol usage at the Western Branch WWTP each year and the corresponding GHG emissions.


WBG121211172019ORL 2-9

TABLE 2-10 Chemical Usage and GHG Emissions by Calendar Year

Facility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Western Branch (tons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Piscataway (tons) 2,032 1,877 1870 1,559 2,381 2,750 2,333

Parkway (tons) 1,003 736 649 688 971 745 1,005

Seneca (tons) 1,408 1,151 1250 1,622 1,441 792 1,264

Damascus (tons) 23 25 22 52 50 50 56

Marlboro Meadows (tons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hyattstown (tons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Patuxent (tons) 543 526 439 516 485 469 501

Potomac (tons) 1,127 1,005 1,152 1,592 1,528 1,378 1,713

Total Lime Usage (tons) 6,136 5,320 5,382 6,029 6,856 6,184 6,872

Methanol Use at Western Branch (gal) 404,732 425,388 457,146 447,583 448,008 312,038 571,301

Total Chemical Usage Emissions (tonnes CO2e) 5,000 4,487 4,594 5,015 5,578 4,844 5,840

Table 2-10 indicates that lime use is directly proportional to the amount of biosolids generated at the wastewater treatment plants. CY2011 saw a big increase in lime use and methanol use at Western Branch. Overall, the GHG emissions related to chemical use have decreased by 17% compared to CY2005 levels.

Inventory Conclusions The GHG emissions inventory shows that overall, the total gross emissions (which include Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions with no offsets) have been rising from the period of 2005 to 2011 when they totaled 136,221 and 149,945 tonnes CO2e, respectively. This represents an increase of ten percent over the six year period. This same period saw an eight percent increase in the wastewater flows treated and pumped. Figure 2-4 illustrates the impact of the various operations conducted at WSSC on the average total entity-wide GHG emissions from 2005 to 2011. The areas shaded in blue represent Scope 1 GHG Emissions; the areas shaded in orange represent Scope 2 and the areas shaded in green represent Scope 3.


2-10 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE 2-4 Comparison of Average 2005-2011 Gross GHG Emissions by Category

GHG Emissions Projections (2012 to 2030) The next step in the process of generating the action plan was to determine how the GHG emissions would change in the future and how the projected future emissions compared to the stated GHG reduction goal by 2030. The inventory results were used as the baseline from which the future GHG emissions could be projected. Future GHG emissions at WSSC will be mainly affected by the following factors:

1. Population growth in the service area that will increase the demand for potable water and the resulting wastewater flows.

2. Regulatory drivers that require process upgrades in order to meet more advanced levels of treatment.

3. Implementation of renewable energy programs such as wind, solar and biogas (anaerobic digestion/CHP).

Data were collected from current planning, design, and construction documents to estimate the impact of these factors on future GHG emissions.

GHG Emissions Increase due to Population Growth The first step in determining future GHG emissions at WSSC was to use the latest water and wastewater flow projections in order to assess the impact of population growth on future energy use and water and wastewater treatment plant throughput. Data from the 2006 Water Production Projections report were used to develop the projections. This report predicts a one percent annual increase in water production between 2005 and 2030. Because the goal of the inventory and action plan is to generate strategies to reduce GHGs on a 20-year horizon, the year 2030 was selected as the evaluation year for projecting the impact of future growth.

Mobile Combustion4%

Stationary Combustion4% Refrigerants

0%

Wastewater Treatment Process

3%

Electricity Use by Wastewater Treatment

23%

Electricity Use by Water Treatment

36%

Electricity Use by Conveyance

11%

Electricity Use by Buildings

5%

Employee Commute/Travel

6%

Chemicals4%

Solids Hauling/Disposal

1% Biosolids Land Application

3%

Scope 1 Emissions = 15,826 tonnes CO2e

Scope 2 Emissions =105,524 tonnes CO2e

Scope 3 Emissions =19,115 tonnes CO2e

Total Average 2005-2011 Annual Emissions = 140,465 tonnes CO2e


WBG121211172019ORL 2-11

For the purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that, if all water and wastewater treatment facilities were to operate in the future as they do today, the annual increase in GHG emissions would be directly proportional to the increase in water treated. This assumes that the annual increase in wastewater generated is proportional to the annual increase in drinking water demand. The evaluation also assumed that all other aspects of WSSC operations (personnel, fleet vehicles, etc.) would increase in the same proportion. Therefore, one percent per year was used as the overall rate of increase in entity-wide GHG emissions due to population growth in the service area.

Figure 2-5 shows the projected future GHG emissions associated with the estimated GHG emissions increases due to population growth and the corresponding water demand. Assuming that no changes are made to water and wastewater operations other than increasing production, the evaluation indicates that by 2030, the annual GHG emissions will grow by 33,200 tonnes CO2e over 2005 levels, which represents a 22 percent increase. Figure 2-5 also shows the net GHG inventory for WSSC including the effect of wind-generated electricity through 2018, which is when the current contract will expire.

FIGURE 2-5 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth

GHG Emissions Increase due to Major Capital Improvement Projects The next step in developing a projection of future GHG emissions at WSSC was to estimate the impact of current major capital improvement projects on GHG emissions. WSSC is currently in the process of upgrading and/or expanding several of the water and wastewater treatment facilities to meet future demand and treatment requirements. Specific information was collected about each major project, and future energy use was estimated. Figure 2-6 illustrates the relative contributions of the major projects currently underway to the projected 2020 annual GHG emissions. The projects account for a total reduction of 4,900 tonnes CO2e from the 2030 annual GHG emissions.

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Emissions (2005 - 2030)Projected Future Emissions Due to Growth

Actual GHG Emissions Projected Future Emissions Reduction due to Wind Net with Growth and Wind


2-12 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE 2-6 Estimated Net Contribution of Current Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects to 2030 Annual GHG Emissions

As Figure 2-6 illustrates, the main sources of increases to the GHG emissions are:

1. Process upgrades at WWTPs for enhanced nutrient removal (ENR): New regulations require lower concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the effluent that is released to the environment. All WWTPs are currently being upgraded to comply with the new regulations. Three of the four major WSSC WWTPs (Parkway, Piscataway and Seneca) are expected to increase their GHG emissions once the ENR process is implemented. The analysis included new equipment being added and estimated an increase in electric power use on an annual average basis. Meeting the new nitrogen treatment limits will also require the addition of a supplemental carbon source, such as methanol, which is not currently the practice at these facilities. This chemical releases CO2 into the atmosphere when metabolized in the wastewater treatment process which is a source of Scope 1 emissions, as well as in the manufacturing process, which is a source of Scope 3 emissions. The analysis estimated the amount of methanol that would be needed to meet the new permit limits and the associated GHG emissions. The analysis also took a credit for reduced N2O emissions to the environment due to lower total nitrogen levels in the treated effluent. The fourth facility, Western Branch, currently uses methanol for denitrification. The ENR upgrade will optimize the use of the chemical and therefore a net reduction in methanol usage, and therefore Scope 1 and 3 emissions, is expected at this facility. This facility will also have new highly efficient aeration equipment installed to replace existing equipment so it was assumed that no net increase in energy use (and Scope 2 emissions) would result from the upgrade.

2. Process upgrades at WFPs to implement ultraviolet (UV) disinfection: Both the Potomac and Patuxent WFPs will be starting up new UV systems for disinfection in the near future. This treatment process is energy intensive and therefore will increase the net use of electricity at these facilities per million gallons (MG) of water treated. This will in turn increase the indirect Scope 2 emissions due to purchased electricity.

The main sources of GHG emission reductions are:

1. Implementation of separate solids treatment facilities for the Parkway WWTP and Patuxent WFP: Currently the Patuxent WFP discharges the solids generated during the water treatment process to the Parkway WWTP.

-6,000

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

Parkway ENR

Piscataway ENR

Seneca ENR

Western Branch ENR

Elimination of M

arlboro Meadow

WW

TP

Parkway Biosolids

Patuxent Solids

Patuxent UV

Increased Patuxent Production (20 MGD)

Rocky Gorge Pump Station

Rocky Gorge Turbines

Potomac Raw

Water PS Upgrade

Potomac UV

Net

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

Estimated Net Contribution of Current Projects to Year 2030 GHG Emissions


WBG121211172019ORL 2-13

The solids are treated at the Parkway WWTP using a combination of gravity belt thickeners and dewatering centrifuges. The centrifuges have large motors (400 HP) and are large electricity consumers. Two projects are currently underway to design and build new, separate solids treatment facilities at each of these plants. For the Patuxent WFP the project will result in an increase GHG emissions at this facility due to electricity use (Scope 2) and solids hauling (Scope 3). However, at the Parkway WWTP, the project will result in a decrease in GHG emissions, mainly because the new facility will use a combination gravity-belt-thickener and press that will significantly reduce the amount of electricity used per ton of biosolids processed and therefore reduce electricity use (Scope 2 emissions). The net balance for the overall project is a reduction in GHG emissions.

2. Increased water production at Patuxent WFP: The Patuxent WFP is currently being expanded to increase the annual average capacity by 20 MGD to 80 MGD. Production of water at the Patuxent WFP is more energy efficient than at the Potomac WTP because of lower pumping costs when delivering water to the eastern portions of the service area. Therefore WSSC will shift production of 20 MGD from Potomac WFP to Patuxent WFP and realize energy savings. This project will result in reduced Scope 2 emissions.

3. Rocky Gorge Turbines: A project is currently underway to rehabilitate three turbines on the Rocky Gorge reservoir that generate approximately 2,000 MWh per year. This project will result in an offset and a reduction of electrical consumption and in reduced Scope 2 emissions.

4. Potomac WFP Raw and Main Zone Pump Station upgrade: This project will upgrade five raw water pumps used to withdraw water from the Potomac River, and one main zone pump used to distribute finished water to the WSSC system. The project is expected to increase the efficiency of the pump station and reduce electricity use. Indirect (Scope 2) GHG emissions will also be reduced.

Figure 2-7 shows the cumulative effect of growth and the projects currently underway. This figure shows that by 2030 the GHG emissions will have grown by 21 percent over 2005 levels.

FIGURE 2-7 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth and Current Capital Improvement Projects

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 - 2030)Growth and Current Capital Improvement Projects

Growth Net Impact of Current Projects Reduction due to Wind Net With Growth, Projects and Wind


2-14 WBG121211172019ORL

WSSC’s goal is to reduce GHGs by ten percent every five years. Figure 2-8 illustrates how the projected growth of GHG emissions compares to the goal. The red line shown on Figure 2-8 represents a reduction of ten percent every five years based on the 2005 GHG emissions. The projection indicates that by 2030 WSSC would need to reduce annual emissions by 95,600 tonnes CO2e, or 59 percent of the projected 2030 annual emissions, in order to meet the goal.

FIGURE 2-8 Projected Future Emissions due to Growth and Current Projects Compared Against GHG Reduction Goal

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 - 2030)Growth and Current Capital Improvement Projects vs. Goal

Growth Net Impact of Current Projects Reduction due to Wind Net With Growth, Projects and Wind Goal

95,600 tonnes

WBG121211172019ORL 3‐1


Emission Reduction Strategies

The GHG inventory results and the future emissions projections were used to identify the largest emission sources, calculate potential future reductions, and measure the effectiveness of meeting reduction goals. In the next phase of the project, strategies were developed to reduce the GHG emissions and meet the reduction goal.

Methodology Site visits were conducted to each of the major WFPs and WWTPs where interviews were conducted with plant staff. The goal was to collect information on higher level operational issues, identify inefficient equipment or systems, and discuss current efforts to save energy and to brainstorm possible improvements that could be implemented.

Preliminary strategies for GHG reduction were developed based on the information gathered during the site visits. The preliminary strategies were then discussed in a workshop setting. The workshop discussion included refinements to the estimates and assumptions made regarding the GHG impact of current projects and of the potential strategies. The workshop discussion also included vetting strategies that were not considered feasible, practical, or applicable to WSSC operations. The workshop summary and presentation materials are provided in Appendix A.

GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies Table 3‐1 summarizes the strategies developed, the projected GHG emissions reduction impact, and the estimated capital, annual and life‐cycle costs. The strategies were grouped in six categories for evaluation:

1. Strategies that would optimize the efficiency of the water distribution system 2. Strategies that would improve equipment efficiency for water and wastewater 3. Strategies that would reduce residuals and optimize processes 4. Strategies that would reduce GHGs associated with vehicles and transportation 5. Strategies that would optimize building services (lighting/HVAC) 6. Strategies that would implement renewable energy sources


3-2 WBG121211172019ORL

TABLE 3-1 Proposed GHG Reduction Strategies


(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl. Capital Cost Annual Cost (+) or

Savings (-)


2030)


1.1 Bowie Pump Station Remove this pump station and flow by gravity instead -633 2014 $6,000,000 -$129,600 $4,372,000


Use DercetoTM to further optimize the efficiency of the drinking water pumping system. Assume it can be improved by an additional 5%. -2,250 2013 $0 -440,000 -5,793,000

1.3 Reduce Water Pressure Reduce the operating pressure of the drinking water distribution system by 5 psi -1,699 2013 $0 -$339,000 -$4,660,000



-816 2015 $500,000 -$196,000 -$1,837,000

1.5 Rentricity Flow-to-Wire Implement Rentricity's Flow-to-WireSM system. This system installs a turbine to replace major PRVs in the system and converts the pressure loss into electricity. Assume 2 installations. KWh produced are accounted as renewable.

-4,888 2014 $2,000,000 -$631,000 -5,928,000


2.1 Patuxent Reclaim Pumps

Increase the efficiency of the pumps located in the reclaimed water ponds by installing VFDs or trimming the impellers (to 11-inches) -153 2012 $10,000 -$31,000 -414,000

2.2 Optimize Parkway Pumps

Optimize the pumping conditions of the MLR, return activated sludge (RAS) and raw sewage pumps at Parkway. Assume 10% reduction in electricity usage.

-122 2015 $1,000,000 -$25,000 $698,000


Replace existing propeller-type submersible mixers with fewer, more efficient mixers such as the hyperboloid-type. -621 2013 $1,400,000 -$149,000 -$651,000

2.4 Anacostia WW Pumps Replace VFDs on (2) 1,000 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%) -196 2013 $400,000 -$39,000 -$140,000

2.5 Potomac HZ Pumps Replace VFDs on (2) 2,500 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%) -293 2013 $700,000 -$59,000 -$109,000



-2,659 2015 $4,800,000 -$550,000 -$1,763,000



-470 2015 $2,200,000 -$97,000 $1,040,000

SECTION 3– EMMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES

WBG121211172019ORL 3-3



(tonnes CO2e/yr)


Savings (-)


2030)


3.1 Potomac Intake Relocate the intake location at the Potomac WFP 500 ft further out into the Potomac. This will reduce the amount of solids drawn into the plant and the GHGs associated with trucking the solids.

-75 2018 $22,400,000 -$745,000 $15,000,000

3.2 Digestion/CHP at Piscataway

Implement thermal hydrolysis followed by anaerobic digestion at Piscataway to also treat sludge from other WSSC facilities except Western Branch. Use the methane produced in a combined heat and power (CHP) unit. This strategy will also reduce GHGs due to reduced biosolids trucking and reduced lime use.

-12,800 2018 $67,000,000 -$3,700,000 $30,170,000

3.3 Ostara Pearl ProcessTM

at Piscataway Implement the Ostara Pearl Process to recover phosphate in the digested sludge dewatering centrate flow stream. The process converts the phosphate to a commercial-grade fertilizer which then provides WSSC with GHG credits because it offsets GHGs produced in industrial fertilizer manufacture.

-12,000 2020 $6,000,000 -$50,000 $5,573,000


Replace methanol at all WWTPs with “green” sources of carbon such as glycerin or MicroCg for the denitrification process. This saves GHGs in the production of methanol (Scope 3) and in the consumption of methanol in the process (Scope 1)

-2,895 2015 $0 $1,175,000 $14,032,000

3.5 Recycling Uniform recycling strategy (paper, cans, bottles, light bulbs). Assume a 10% reduction in GHGs associated with garbage landfilling -32 2013 $0 $0 $0



-1,488 2013 $6,700,000 $27,000 $7,000,000


-431 2012 $0 $0 $0

4.3 Business Trip Reductions

Reduce employee business travel. Assume 5% reduction annually in miles traveled by employees on business due to increased use of tele-conferencing/net meeting/trip reductions, etc.

-14 2012 $0 -$3,000 -$39,000


3-4 WBG121211172019ORL



(tonnes CO2e/yr)


Savings (-)


2030)



Replace heating units at Piscataway that use Fuel Oil with units that use Natural Gas. -21 2018 $5,000,000 -$16,500 $4,800,000



-264 2018 $10,000,000 -$83,000 $9,173,000

5.3 Solar Water Heating at RGH

Replace electric water heaters with solar water heaters -59 2014 $24,000 -$14,000 -$145,000

5.4 HVAC/Lighting Upgrades

Conduct audit of HVAC systems at all major facilities (plants, pump stations and buildings). Lighting: replace all bulbs and ballasts with more efficient equipment and implement more in-depth lighting upgrades (motion sensors, timers)

-1,200 2015 $4,000,000 -$300,000 $419,000

5.5 Office Equipment Reduce power usage of office equipment: computers, copiers, etc. Institute policy to turn off equipment at night. Upgrade CRT monitors with LCDs. Upgrade servers to more efficient units. Assume 30% of RGH energy use is due to computers and servers. Assume that this energy use can be cut by a third.

-508 2013 $0 -$122,000 -$1,600,000

5.6 Green Roof Install extensive green roofs over the lower part of RGH and the maintenance depots (Gaithersburg, Temple Hill, Anacostia, Lyttonsville, and Laurel Service Center). Assume 5% savings in AC at RGH and 20% at the depots.

-131 2014 $2,000,000 -$32,000 $1,600,000


6.1 Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW)

Install solar panels at Seneca and Western Branch per the current RFP. Assume 4 MW of power generated. -5,013 2013 $0 -$192,000 -$3,046,000


Install additional solar panels. Assume 2 MW of power generated. Location TBD. -2,557 2015 $0 -$98,400 -$1,473,000

6.3 Wind Energy Award new wind power PPA contract beyond 2018 and develop new electricity supply contract beyond 2019. -55,700 2018 $0 -$0 -$0

1 Life-Cycle Cost calculated using a discount rate of 3%

SECTION 3– EMMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES

WBG121211172019ORL 3-5

The strategies developed, if combined and implemented, could reduce annual GHG emissions by approximately 110,100 tonnes of CO2e by 2030, or about 68 percent of the projected 2030 annual GHG emissions. Figure 3-1 illustrates the impact of the proposed strategies on the GHG emissions projections. If all strategies are implemented by 2030, WSSC would meet and exceed the GHG reduction goal. The largest component of the GHG reduction total is the implementation of a renewed wind contract, which at 55,800 tonnes CO2e per year is 50 percent of the total proposed reduction. The preliminary conclusion is that procuring a renewed wind contract should be a priority for WSSC if the GHG emission reduction goal is to be met. If the wind contract is renewed, WSSC will need to reduce GHG emissions by an additional 39,900 tonnes CO2e per year to meet the goal.

FIGURE 3-1 Impact of Proposed Strategies on Future GHG Emissions Projections

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 - 2030)Impact of All Proposed Strategies

Growth Current Projects Wind SolarDigestion/CHP Proposed Strategies Net Goal

WBG121211172019ORL 4‐1


Strategy Evaluation

The proposed strategies outlined in Section 3 were evaluated using a prioritization tool in order to select the top strategies for reducing GHG emissions. The goal was to find the highest‐value reduction projects so that execution of the action plan could be prioritized.

Evaluation and Ranking Criteria The first step was to establish the parameters for evaluating the GHG emission reduction strategies. The prioritization criteria were based on WSSC’s financial, technical, and environmental objectives listed in Table 4‐1. Weights were assigned to each of the evaluation criteria in order to assess the relative importance of the various criteria.

TABLE 4-1 Scoring Criteria Weights

Criteria Weight

GHG Reduction Potential 35

Community/Customers 10

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Efficiency 20

Alignment with Capital Improvement Program (CIP)/Initiatives 10

Outside Funding Opportunities 10

Time to Implement 5

Effort to Implement 10

The strategies were evaluated in a workshop setting with team members from WSSC, and a score value was assigned for each criterion. The score value for each criterion was then multiplied by the criterion weight, and a total benefit value was calculated for each strategy by adding the weighted criteria scores. The meeting minutes from the evaluation workshop, including the scoring scales used for assigning a score value to each criterion and the tables with each strategy’s scores are provided in Appendix B.

Strategy Evaluation Results The strategy evaluation workshop provided a valuable forum in which each strategy was discussed by the group and value scores were assigned to each category. This process increased the understanding of each category and allowed the group to reach agreement on the advantages and disadvantages of each proposed strategy and also to identify factors for successful implementation.

Figure 4‐1 shows the strategies sorted by the total benefit score received. Each strategy’s score bar is further divided to indicate the relative weighted scores for each criterion.


4-2 WBG121211172019ORL

FIGURE 4-1 Strategy Evaluation Results – Total Benefit Score

The benefit score evaluation yielded a few high scoring strategies with over 700 points: Aeration efficiency improvement at the WWTPs, Digestion/CHP and Solar PVs. These strategies scored high mainly because of their GHG reduction potential. The Ostara Pearl ProcessTM would need to be implemented together with Digestion/CHP and also received a high score because of its high GHG reduction potential. The next five strategies scored around 630 points and involved mainly projects that would have a positive impact on the O&M efficiency of the facilities AND had the possibility of outside funding.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Tota

l Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore


GHG Reduction Potential Community/Customers O&M Efficiency Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement Effort to Implement

SECTION 4– STRATEGY EVALUATION

WBG121211172019ORL 4-3

Figure 4-2 shows the cumulative GHG emissions reduction of the strategies if they were to be implemented in order of their benefit score. In order to meet the 2030 goal, a total of 39,900 tonnes CO2e need to be reduced (in combination with the renewal of the wind contract) which could be achieved if the top 14 strategies were implemented. The cumulative life-cycle cost of these 14 strategies is $25,396,000 by 2030.

FIGURE 4-2 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Total Benefit Score

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Cum

ulat

ive

Annu

al G

HG E

miss

ion

Redu

ctio

n by

203

0 (t

onne

s CO

2e)



$25,396,000


4-4 WBG121211172019ORL

A benefit-cost analysis of the proposed strategies was performed that combined the total benefit value assigned in the evaluation and normalized it on life-cycle cost by 2030. To perform the benefit-cost analysis, the life cycle costs of all the strategies were normalized. This step had to be taken because some of the strategies have “negative” life-cycle costs and others have “positive” life-cycle costs. Figure 4-3 illustrates the results of the benefit-cost evaluation.

FIGURE 4-3 Strategy Evaluation Results – Strategies Sorted by Benefit-Cost Value

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00

Tota

l Ben

efit

Scor

e /N

orm

alize

d Li

fe C

ycle

Cos

t

WSSC GHG Action PlanProposed Strategies Sorted by Benefit Score / Normalized Life Cycle Cost


WBG121211172019ORL 4-5

Figure 4-4 shows the cumulative GHG emissions reduction of the strategies if they were to be implemented in the order of their benefit-cost value. In order to meet the 2030 goal, a total of 39,900 tonnes CO2e need to be reduced (in combination with the renewal of the wind contract) which could be achieved if the top 23 strategies were implemented. The cumulative life-cycle cost of these 23 strategies is $5.56 million by 2030.

FIGURE 4-4 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Benefit-Cost Value

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Cum

ulat

ive

Annu

al G

HG E

miss

ion

Redu

ctio

n by

203

0 (t

onne

s CO

2e)

WSSC GHG Action PlanCumulative GHG Reduction of Proposed Strategies

(Sorted by Benefit Score/Normalized Life Cycle Cost)


$5,560,000


4-6 WBG121211172019ORL

The strategy evaluation also sought to capture the relative efficiency of each strategy in terms of life- cycle cost per tonne of CO2e reduced as a measure of pure cost efficiency in reducing emissions. Figure 4-5 illustrates the cumulative annual GHG reduction that would be achieved if the strategies are sorted from the lowest life-cycle cost per tonne CO2e reduced to the largest. The bars in blue represent a “negative” life-cycle cost, meaning that by 2030 the strategy’s annual cost savings have offset any initial capital cost and represent a net savings to WSSC. The bars in red represent a “positive” life-cycle cost, meaning that by 2030 the strategy’s annual savings will not have offset the initial capital cost and therefore represent a net cost to WSSC. In order to meet the 2030 goal, a total of 39,900 tonnes CO2e need to be reduced (in combination with the renewal of the wind contract) which could be achieved if the top 20 strategies were implemented. The cumulative life-cycle cost of these 20 strategies is $9.57 million by 2030.

FIGURE 4-5 Strategy Evaluation Results – Cumulative GHG Emissions Reduction of Strategies Sorted by Life-Cycle Cost per tonne CO2e Reduced

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Cum

ulat

ive

Annu

al G

HG E

miss

ion

Redu

ctio

n by

203

0 (t

onne

s CO

2e)

WSSC GHG Action PlanProposed Strategies Sorted by Life Cycle Cost per tonne CO2e Reduced

Positive LCC

Negative LCC


$9,571,000


WBG121211172019ORL 4-7

Strategy Selection for Implementation The next step in the evaluation was to select the strategies recommended for implementation in order to meet the GHG emissions reduction goal. The selection was made by comparing how the strategies ranked in the benefit-cost evaluation versus the cost per tonne CO2e reduced and identifying those strategies that ranked at the top of both lists. Table 4-2 lists the strategies in the order they ranked under each of the two evaluations.

TABLE 4-2 Strategy Rankings under Benefit/Cost and Cost per Tonne CO2e Removed Evaluations

Rank Benefit/Cost Evaluation Life Cycle Cost per Tonne CO2e Reduced

1 Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency Office Equipment

2 Rentricity Flow-to-Wire Reduce Water Pressure

3 Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW) Patuxent Reclaim Pumps

4 Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency

5 Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) Solar Water Heating at RGH

6 Replace Mixers at Piscataway Track Water Distribution System Valves

7 Office Equipment Rentricity Flow-to-Wire

8 Solar Water Heating at RGH Replace Mixers at Piscataway

9 Anacostia WW Pumps Business Trip Reductions

10 Potomac HZ Pumps Anacostia WW Pumps

11 Reduce Water System Pressure Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs

12 HVAC/Lighting Upgrades Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW)

13 Patuxent Reclaim Pumps Additional Solar Installation (2 MW)

14 Track Water Distribution System Valves Potomac HZ Pumps

15 Optimize Parkway Pumps Recycling

16 Ostara Pearl ProcessTM Telecommuting

17 Optimize WW Pumping Efficiency HVAC/Lighting Upgrades

18 Bowie Pump Station Ostara Pearl ProcessTM

19 Recycling Optimize WW Pumping Efficiency Digestion/CHP

20 Telecommuting Digestion/CHP

21 Business Trip Reductions Hybrid/Alt Fuel

22 Hybrid/Alt Fuel Green Carbon Sources for Denite

23 Green Carbon Sources for Denite Optimize Parkway Pumps

24 Green Roof Bowie Pump Station

25 Piscataway Heating FO to NG Green Roof

26 Potomac Intake Heating/Cooling Using Plant Effluent

27 Digestion/CHP Potomac Intake

28 Heating/Cooling Using Plant Effluent Piscataway Heating FO to NG


4-8 WBG121211172019ORL

As Figures 4-4 and 4-5 illustrate, the top 23 strategies under the Benefit/Cost Evaluation or the top 20 strategies under the Life Cycle Cost per Tonne CO2e Removed evaluation would need to be implemented in order to meet the GHG emissions goal by 2030. These strategies are shown in boxed cells on Table 4-2. The two lists match, for the most part, except for a few strategies that are included in one list but not in the other. These are shown in bold lettering on Table 4-2. The team selected the 20 strategies under the Life Cycle Cost per Tonne CO2e.

WBG121211172019ORL 5‐1


Strategy Implementation Plan

The evaluation of the future GHG emissions and the proposed strategies resulted in a list of 20 selected strategies that will be needed, in addition to the implementation of a new wind energy contract, in order to meet the 2030 GHG reduction goal. While all strategies should be considered by WSSC, the strategies contained herein combine the best benefit scores with the best value for the investment.

Reduction Strategies An implementation plan for each of the 20 strategies is included in this section. The 20 selected strategies that will be needed (arranged by cost per tonne CO2e removed rank), in addition to the implementation of a new wind energy contract in order to meet the 2030 GHG reduction goal are:

1. Office Equipment 2. Reduce Water Pressure 3. Patuxent Reclaim Pumps 4. Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency 5. Solar Water Heating at RGH 6. Track Water Distribution System Valves 7. RentricitySM Flow‐to‐Wire 8. Replace Mixers at Piscataway 9. Business Trip Reductions 10. Anacostia Wastewater Pumps 11. Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs 12. Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW) 13. Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) 14. Potomac High Zone Pumps 15. Recycling 16. Telecommuting 17. HVAC/Lighting Upgrades 18. Ostara Pearl Process™ 19. Optimize Wastewater Pumping Efficiency 20. Digestion/CHP


5-2 WBG121211172019ORL

Office Equipment Strategy Description Office equipment such as computers, monitors, servers and copiers can constitute a

significant energy demand in office buildings. It is estimated that approximately 30 percent of the energy use in office buildings, such as WSSC’s RGH building, is attributable to office equipment.

This strategy would seek to reduce the GHG emissions associated with office equipment at RGH by implementing a number of energy-saving measures. These measures would include developing and implementing a policy to turn off equipment at night, upgrading cathode ray tube monitors with LCDs and upgrading servers and desktop units to more energy efficient units as they reach the end of their useful life. The Acquisition Office will need to incorporate language into purchasing or leasing agreements for office equipment that would require suppliers to provide EnergyStar® qualified equipment.

GHG Reduction Benefit For the purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that the energy use at RGH associated with office equipment could be reduced by approximately a third if the measures outlined above are adopted. This would in turn reduce WSSC’s Scope 2 emissions by 508 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $ 0 – The equipment will be upgraded as the existing units reach the end of their lease and/or their useful life and therefore no additional replacement costs would be incurred beyond typical in-kind replacement.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy would result in reduced energy usage at RGH and annual savings of approximately $122,000. From 2013 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $1.6 million.

Implementation Steps and Schedule

Activities Timeframe

• Develop policy to turn off equipment at night. Develop and implement employee training and communications program

2012

• Work with Acquisition Office to include language on energy efficiency in procurement contracts

2012

Keys to Success • Endorsement and buy-in from management • Educating employees on how much energy is consumed by office equipment and

incentivizing them to meet target goals • Monitoring reductions achieved and comparing against target goals

Performance Indicators

• Reduction in energy use at RGH attributable to office equipment • Percentage of computers and printers turned off or hibernating overnight • Percentage of equipment units that are EnergyStar® rated, where applicable

SECTION 5– STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

WBG121211172019ORL 5-3

Reduce Water Pressure Strategy Description WSSC’s water distribution system currently operates at 60-80 psi. Several pump

stations operate to maintain this pressure in the pumped areas of the system.

This strategy would reduce the pressure in the water distribution system by five psi and thereby reduce the pumping needed to maintain this pressure. The pressure reduction may only be implementable in pressure areas that do not include fire service.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that reducing the system pressure by 5 psi could reduce energy consumption by about five percent for a total reduction of Scope 2 emissions of approximately 1,699 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $ 0 – this evaluation assumed that this strategy could be implemented with minimal capital investment.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced electricity usage and annual savings of approximately $339,000. From 2013 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $4.7 million.



• Engage water production staff to develop a plan of action to determine which booster stations could be adjusted to reduce pressure without sacrificing other operational parameters (fire flow, water quality)

2012

• Use system model in conjunction with Derceto® to more accurately assess feasibility of strategy and potential energy savings

2012

• Adjust and monitor pressure settings in selected areas 2013

Keys to Success • Endorsement and buy-in from water production staff and management • Identify and mitigate potential risks such as inadequate fire service pressure or

degradation of water quality


• kWh per MG delivered (by pump station)


5-4 WBG121211172019ORL

Patuxent Reclaimed Water Pumps Strategy Description The Patuxent WFP has two solids retention lagoons that are used to hold the filter

backwash waste water. The lagoons also hold the contents of the sedimentation basins when these are drained about once per week. The solids are allowed to settle in the lagoons and the supernatant is “reclaimed” and pumped back to the head of the plant to go through the treatment process again. The pumps used to reclaim the water are three dry pit vertical open shaft centrifugal pumps. The pumps currently operate with a throttled discharge which increases the pressure to about 60 psi in order to stay on their curves and avoid cavitation.

This strategy would replace the existing 13-inch impeller on the pumps with a smaller 11-inch impeller. By properly sizing the impeller for the application, this strategy would increase the energy efficiency of the pumps.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of these pumps could result in a reduction of Scope 2 emissions of approximately 153 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $10,000 – the estimated cost of three impellers at $2,000 each plus installation costs.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced electricity usage and annual savings of approximately $31,000. From 2013 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $414,000.



• Contact local representative and obtain a quote for new impellers including installation

2nd Quarter 2012

• Decide on best method to procure and install the new impellers: direct purchase by the plant or incorporate work into one of the current plant upgrade designs

2nd Quarter 2012

• Install new impellers. Gather motor current draw data before and after installation to measure savings

4th Quarter 2012

Keys to Success • Endorsement and buy-in from plant staff • Availability of an implementation method for procurement and installation of new

impellers • Ability to measure and monitor energy draw from the pumps to estimate energy

savings


• Reduction in pump discharge pressure (psi) • Energy saved (kWh per MG pumped)


WBG121211172019ORL 5-5

Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency Strategy Description The water distribution system at WSSC currently operates to maintain system pressure

and supply with a network of pipes and pumps. The WSSC water distribution system consists of over 5,300 miles of water mains across a 1,000 square mile distribution area. Approximately 70 percent of the energy used in the WFPs and the pump stations is used for pumping. WSSC is currently using Derceto®’s Aquadapt™ software which automates the daily production and pump schedules. The Aquadapt™ software integrates with WSSC’s entire system to find the most cost effective method of pumping water.

This strategy would use the Aquadapt™ software to further optimize the efficiency of the water pumping system. Per Derceto®’s literature, the software has reduced the energy used to deliver drinking water by 8.3 percent since it came on line. This strategy assumes that an additional five percent reduction can be realized by further optimizing the system. This would require a more rigorous use of the software.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of the water distribution system would reduce the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 2,250 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $0 - The evaluation assumed that no initial capital costs would be needed but it assumed that an annual investment of $100,000 would be needed to contract with Derceto® and/or other consultants to monitor, assess, and optimize the system. The annual investment would also cover additional monitoring or control equipment needed (flow meters, valves, etc).

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced electricity usage and net annual savings of approximately $440,000. From 2013 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $5.8 million.



• Hold initial workshop with representatives from WSSC’s water production team and Derceto® to brainstorm potential changes to the system that would increase efficiency

2012

• Develop an incentive contract with Derceto® to further optimize the system

2012

• Procure and install necessary monitor and controlling equipment

2012

Keys to Success • Endorsement and buy-in from WSSC’s water production team • Opportunities to optimize the system without sacrificing water quality and service


• Energy saved (kWh per MG pumped) • Cost savings ($ per year)


5-6 WBG121211172019ORL

Solar Water Heating at RGH Strategy Description Hot water is used at RGH in the bathrooms and in the cafeteria kitchen. The water is

heated using three gas-powered water heaters.

This strategy would replace the three existing water heaters at RGH with solar-powered water heaters. This strategy is listed as an energy conservation measure in the Phase F Energy Performance Contract (EPC) scope.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that replacing the electric water heaters with solar water heaters would reduce the Scope 1 emissions by 59 tonnes CO2e per year by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $24,000, assuming $8,000 per water heater with installation.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced electricity usage and net annual savings of approximately $14,000. From 2014 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $145,000.



• Validate feasibility of replacing water heaters with solar-powered units through the EPC

4th Quarter 2012

• Implement recommended improvements through the EPC. 4th Quarter 2013

Keys to Success • Endorsement and buy-in from WSSC’s building management • Feasibility to install the required equipment and achieve a reasonable pay-back as

defined by the EPC


• Energy saved (kWh per year) • Cost savings ($ per year)


WBG121211172019ORL 5-7

Track Water Distribution System Valves Strategy Description The water distribution system at WSSC currently operates to maintain system pressure

and supply with a network of pipes and pumps. The WSSC water distribution system consists of over 5,300 miles of water mains across a 1,000 square mile distribution area. Approximately 70 percent of the energy used in the WFPs and the pump stations is used for pumping. WSSC is currently using Derceto®’s Aquadapt™ software which automates the daily production and pump schedules. The Aquadapt™ software integrates with WSSC’s entire system to find the most cost effective method of pumping water.

This strategy would institute a system for tracking the position of major valves in the water distribution system to prevent pumping against closed valves or pumping in a loop. The strategy assumed that the overall efficiency of the water distribution pump stations (not including the pump stations at the WFPs) could be increased by five percent.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of the water distribution system would reduce the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 816 tonnes CO2e annually from 2015 to 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $500,000




• Hold initial workshop with representatives from WSSC’s water production team to brainstorm potential systems for tracking valves. Link to strategy to optimize water pumping efficiency as appropriate

2014

• Develop a design for the system (valve position monitors, scan codes, etc) including standard operating procedures (SOPs) for field crews

2014

• Procure and install necessary monitor and controlling equipment

2015

Keys to Success • Endorsement from WSSC’s water production team • Development of an implementable plan with best available technology to monitor

valve positions • Adherence to SOP


• Number of valve closure occurrences corrected annually • Energy saved (kWh per MG pumped) – in conjunction with other overall system

efficiency strategies • Cost savings ($ per year) – in conjunction with other overall system efficiency

strategies


5-8 WBG121211172019ORL

Rentricity Flow-to-Wire SM Strategy Description Pressure Reducing Valves (PRVs) are used in the water distribution system to reduce

the system pressure at locations where the pressure supplied is higher than the pressure required. PRVs dissipate the pressure and do not re-capture the energy. Rentricity's Flow-to-WireSM system works by using a turbine to replace major PRVs in the system and converting the pressure loss into electricity. The system requires at a minimum of 1 MGD of flow and a pressure drop of 30-35 psi in order to produce enough electricity. The electricity produced by the turbine can be used at the site of the installation (usually in underground metering vaults) to power lights or equipment.

For the purposes of this action plan it was assumed that WSSC could install two systems, each sized to produce 300 kW. The locations of the turbines would have to be determined.

GHG Reduction Benefit The Rentricity Flow-to-WireSM system recovers energy from water that would otherwise be lost can converts it to electricity. The renewable electricity produced from the system can then be used to offset purchased electricity use. This evaluation assumed that the two installations would reduce WSSC’s Scope 2 emissions by 4,888 tonnes CO2e annually from 2014 to 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $2,000,000

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy would result in reduced electricity use and purchase and net annual savings of $631,000. Assuming that the strategy is implemented in 2014, the system would result in net life-cycle savings of $5.9 million from 2014 to 2030.



• Conducting a feasibility study to determine: − Suitable locations − Efficient use of electricity produced − Type of energy recovery equipment and configuration − Financial model (cost estimates, payback and financing

alternatives)

March 2012 – Sept. 2012

• Design and Permitting Sept 2012 – March 2013

• Construction, Installation, Testing and Commissioning March 2013 – Dec. 2013

Keys to Success • Availability of suitable locations for installation of the system • Ability to use the electricity produced at the site • Reliable and trouble-free operation • Good vendor support for troubleshooting and maintenance


• MWh per year generated (estimated vs. actual) • Savings in electricity costs


WBG121211172019ORL 5-9

Replace Mixers at Piscataway WWTP Strategy Description Piscataway WWTP currently uses submersible mixers in their biological reactor basins

in order to provide mixing energy to the anoxic zones and maintain solids in suspension. The system currently has a total of 68 mixers which run continuously.

This strategy would replace the existing mixers with new, more energy-efficient mixers, such as the hyperboloid-type manufactured by INVENT®. These mixers would reduce the energy consumed by 62% by requiring less units and using less energy per unit to maintain the same level of mixing.

This strategy is listed as an energy conservation measure in the Phase F Energy Performance Contract (EPC) scope.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of the mixers would reduce the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 621 tonnes CO2e annually from 2012 to 2030.





• Validate feasibility of replacing mixers through the EPC 4th Quarter 2012

• Implement recommended improvements through the EPC 4th Quarter 2013

Keys to Success • Feasibility to install the required equipment and achieve a reasonable pay-back as defined by the EPC

• Ability to install new mixers without major disruptions to plant operations. • Reliable operation and adequate vendor support


• Energy saved (kWh) • Cost savings ($ per year)


5-10 WBG121211172019ORL

Business Trip Reductions Strategy Description WSSC’s GHG emissions inventory captures the personal vehicle miles travelled by

WSSC employees for business purposes. These vehicle miles result in Scope 3 emissions. In 2010, WSSC employees traveled a total of 94,900 miles in their personal vehicles for business purposes.

This strategy would reduce the total miles travelled by WSSC employees for business purposes by five percent annually for five years after implementation or until a new baseline pattern is reached. The reduction would be achieved by replacing employee travel with teleconferencing and net-meetings, by encouraging carpooling and use of hybrid or electric fleet vehicles when possible.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that reducing the number of miles travelled for business purposes would reduce the Scope 3 emissions by approximately 14 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $0

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced reimbursements to employees for personal vehicle use and net annual savings of approximately $3,000. From 2013 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $39,000.



• Identify employees with highest mileage and assess best methods for trip reductions for those employees

1st Quarter 2012

• Draft a business travel reduction policy and SOP 2nd Quarter 2012

• Obtain management approval 3rd Quarter 2012

• Rollout policy 4th Quarter 2012

Keys to Success • Ability to reduce trips by employees with the highest miles travelled while maintaining their ability to meet responsibilities

• Endorsement from management • Educating employees on how to best to utilize the policy and providing

incentives • Providing reliable and accessible services for teleconferencing and net-meeting • Providing hybrid and/or electric fleet vehicles


• Reduction in vehicle miles travelled per year for business purposes (from reimbursement requests)

• Annual savings in reimbursement amounts


WBG121211172019ORL 5-11

Anacostia Wastewater Pumping Station (WWPS) Strategy Description The Anacostia II WWPS is the largest pump station in the WSSC sewer system. This

pump station receives wastewater flows from Prince George’s County. Wastewater is screened and pumped to the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. The pump station is sized for a maximum peak flow of 200 MGD and it contains a total of 12 pumps.

This strategy would replace the existing eddy current drives on Pumps 1 and 12, which are powered by 1,000 HP motors. These drives are reaching the end of their useful life. This evaluation assumed that replacement of the drives would increase the pump efficiency by five percent.


GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of the variable frequency drives (VFDs) would reduce the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 196 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.





• Validate feasibility of replacing VFDs through the EPC 4th Quarter 2012



• Ability to replace drives on the pumps without service interruptions • Reliable operation of new drives and adequate vendor support • Installation of power monitors to track system performance




5-12 WBG121211172019ORL

Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs Strategy Description The biological nutrient removal systems used at all major WSSC WWTPs use aerated

tanks to remove the ammonia-nitrogen present in the raw wastewater. The aeration systems currently use mainly centrifugal blowers to generate low pressure air and fine bubble diffusers to distribute the air evenly throughout the bottom of the aeration basins.

This strategy would install three high efficiency turbo blowers in each of the four major WWTPs. The blowers would meet the baseline demand of the system with the existing blowers providing additional air during peak demand times. This evaluation assumed that the new blowers will improve the efficiency of the aeration system by ten percent.

This strategy is listed as an energy conservation measure for the Piscataway WWTP in the Phase F Energy Performance Contract (EPC) scope.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of the aeration system at the four major WWTPs would reduce the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 2,659 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.





• Validate feasibility of replacing blowers at Piscataway through the EPC

4th Quarter 2012

• Implement recommended improvements at Piscataway through the EPC

4th Quarter 2013

• Implement blower equipment replacement projects at other major WWTPs in conjunction with asset management/ facility planning efforts or additional EPCs

4th Quarter 2014


• Ability to install new blowers without disrupting current plant operations • Reliable operation of the integrated aeration system using new and existing

blowers • Reliable equipment, good vendor support, easy to maintain and operate • Installation of power monitoring equipment and instrumentation to track system

performance


• Energy saved (kWh per MGD treated) • Cost savings ($ per year)


WBG121211172019ORL 5-13

Solar PV at Seneca and Western Branch (4 MW) Strategy Description WSSC is currently in the process of procuring a power purchase agreement (PPA) to

implement solar photovoltaic (PV) panel installations at the Seneca and Western Branch WWTPs. The PPA provider will design, build, own and operate a solar PV system and sell the electric power to WSSC.

A request for proposal (RFP) for the PPA was issued and cancelled in 2011 due to change in site.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that the electricity generated by the solar PV installations will offset Scope 2 emissions by 5,013 tonnes of CO2e per year by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $0 – this evaluation assumed that the provider would incur the cost of procuring and installing the solar panels per the negotiated power purchase agreement. The provider would then sell the solar power produced to WSSC at a discounted rate.

Economic Benefit The annual cost savings will depend on the negotiated cost per kWh of power purchased. This evaluation assumed that WSSC will be able to purchase the solar power at a rate about 30 percent lower than the current rate available and save approximately $224,000 annually. From 2013 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $2.95 million



• Procuring a power purchase agreement through issuance of a request for proposals, bidder evaluation and negotiation and contract award

2nd Quarter 2012

• Design and construction of the solar installations 2nd Quarter 2013

Keys to Success • Timely procurement in relation to tax incentives for renewable energy • Proper maintenance of the facilities by the 3rd party • Sunny days


• MWh per year generated • Cost savings ($ per year)


5-14 WBG121211172019ORL

Additional Solar PV Installation (2 MW) Strategy Description This strategy consists of one additional 2 MW solar PV installation in addition to the

installations currently planned at Seneca and Western Branch WWTPs.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that the electricity generated by the additional solar PV installation will offset Scope 2 emissions by 2,557 tonnes of CO2e per year by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $0 – this evaluation assumed that the provider would incur the cost of procuring and installing the solar panels per the negotiated power purchase agreement. The provider would then sell the solar power produced to WSSC at a discounted rate.

Economic Benefit The annual cost savings will depend on the negotiated cost per kWh of power purchased. This evaluation assumed that WSSC will be able to purchase the solar power at a rate about 30% lower than the current rate available and save approximately $112,000 annually. From 2015 to 2030 this would result in net life-cycle savings of $1.34 million



• Completing a feasibility study to site the additional solar capacity

2013

• Procuring a power purchase agreement through issuance of a request for proposals, bidder evaluation and negotiation and contract award

2014

• Design and construction of the solar installations 2015

Keys to Success • Finding adequate locations for the solar PVs

• Availability of tax rebates or other incentives


• MWh per year generated

• Cost savings ($ per year)


WBG121211172019ORL 5-15

Potomac High Zone Pumps Strategy Description The Potomac Water Filtration Plant is located in Montgomery County, MD and

provides approximately 125 MGD of finished water to customers in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. The finished water pumping system consists of Mid-Zone and High-Zone pumps that deliver water to different pressure zones in the distribution system.

This strategy would replace the existing VFDs on High-Zone pumps 7 and 8 which are powered by 2,250 HP motors. The existing VFDs are obsolete and reaching the end of their useful life. This evaluation assumed that replacement of the drives would increase the pump efficiency by five percent.


GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that increasing the energy efficiency of the VFDs would reduce the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 293 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.





• Validate feasibility of replacing VFDs through the EPC 4th Quarter 2012


Keys to Success • Ability to install new VFDs on the pumps without service interruptions • Reliable operation and adequate vendor support • Installation of power monitors to track system performance




5-16 WBG121211172019ORL

Uniform Recycling Policy Strategy Description Municipal solid waste is collected from WSSC facilities (treatment plants, office

buildings, Consolidated Lab and maintenance facilities) on a regular basis and transported to area landfills for disposal. Per the data collected to generate the GHG inventory, WSSC generated 343 tons of garbage in 2010.

This strategy would involve developing and implementing a uniform recycling policy for all WSSC facilities. The policy would cover recycling of glass, plastic, paper, aluminum cans, light-bulbs, etc. The strategy would provide recycling containers at all facilities with adequate signage and an education program for employees.

This evaluation assumed that successful implementation of this strategy would reduce the amount of garbage that is produced in WSSC facilities and disposed in landfills by ten percent.

GHG Reduction Benefit It is estimated that reducing the amount of garbage produced at WSSC facilities would reduce the Scope 3 emissions by approximately 32 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $0 – this evaluation assumed that the capital expenditure needed to implement this strategy would be minimal.

Economic Benefit This evaluation assumed that the contract amount WSSC would pay for haulers to dispose of garbage at the landfill vs. at a recycling center would be about the same. Therefore this strategy results in no net economic benefit or loss for WSSC.



• Draft a uniform recycling policy and SOP and obtain management approval

June 2012

• Negotiate new contract with garbage haulers to include recycling at all facilities. Include reporting requirements of tons of garbage disposed at landfills vs. recycling to measure progress

December 2012

• Rollout policy (purchase containers and signage, conduct education campaign)

2013

Keys to Success • Endorsement from management • Educating employees on how to best to utilize the policy and providing

incentives • Providing reliable recycling pickup service • Measuring progress and communicating to employees


• Reduction in amount of garbage disposed at landfill (tons hauled) • Percentage of personnel reached by recycling education campaign • Percentage of identified target locations that have a recycling bin or container


WBG121211172019ORL 5-17

Telecommuting Strategy Description WSSC has approximately 1,500 employees, most of who commute daily to their work

locations. In the 2011 GHG inventory employee commuting produced 9,500 tonnes CO2e, or six percent of WSSC’s gross emissions (before offsets). The 2011 inventory was developed using the zip code of the listed home address of each employee, assuming that each employee travels by car to WSSC headquarters in Laurel, MD.

Future inventories will better document the actual distances traveled and the type of vehicles used per trip so that the inventory will more accurately reflect the actual emissions produced. This could be accomplished by performing an employee survey.

This strategy would seek to reduce the GHG emissions associated with employee commuting by implementing a uniform standard operating procedure (SOP) for telecommuting at WSSC that would allow employees to reduce the number of trips taken to and from work. The SOP includes clear guidelines and policies to ensure that worker productivity and safety is not compromised.

This strategy could also be expanded in the future to include carpooling and incentives for use of public transportation.

GHG Reduction Benefit This evaluation assumed that implementing a uniform telecommuting policy would reduce the number of miles traveled by five percent. This would in turn reduce WSSC’s Scope 3 emissions by 431 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $0 – this evaluation assumed that the capital expenditure needed to implement this strategy would be minimal.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy would not result in a direct economic benefit to WSSC since employees pay for their own commuting costs. The strategy may incur some costs if WSSC pays for computer equipment or internet service at the employee’s alternate work location. For the purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that the net cost would be zero.



• Finalize telecommuting agreement and SOP 2012

• Obtain management approval 2012

• Rollout policy 2013

Keys to Success • Endorsement from management • Educating employees on how to best utilize the policy and providing incentives • Maintaining productivity of workers who utilize the benefit


• Vehicle miles travelled per year for employee commuting (estimated vs. actual) • Vehicle miles avoided per year for employee telecommuting (estimated) • Tonnes CO2e per year reduced due to employee travel


5-18 WBG121211172019ORL

HVAC/Lighting Upgrades Strategy Description In 2010 WSSC’s energy manager implemented a program to upgrade the lighting

systems at some facilities.

This strategy would build on this program and implement more in-depth lighting upgrades such as providing motion sensors and timers to reduce energy consumption. This strategy would also include a comprehensive audit of the HVAC systems at all major facilities (plants, pump stations and buildings).


GHG Reduction Benefit This evaluation assumed that increasing the energy efficiency of the lighting and HVAC systems would reduce the total amount of energy consumed by these systems by 10%. This would in turn reduce WSSC’s Scope 2 emissions by 1,200 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.


Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced electricity usage and net annual savings of approximately $300,000. From 2015 to 2030 this would result in a net life-cycle cost of $419,000.



• Implement validated energy conservation measures from EPC Phase F

2013

• Implement energy conservation measures at other major facilities in conjunction with asset management/ facility planning efforts or additional EPCs

2015



• Energy saved (kWh per year) • Cost savings ($ per year)


WBG121211172019ORL 5-19

Ostara Pearl® Process Strategy Description This strategy would only be applicable if the Digestion/CHP strategy is implemented.

Digestion of biosolids releases nitrogen and phosphorus through the process of decomposition of biomass. The digested biosolids are usually dewatered prior to transport and the liquid removed is returned to the wastewater treatment process. This liquid, the centrate, typically has high concentrations of ammonia nitrogen and dissolved phosphorus. The dissolved nutrients can form obstructive struvite scale in piping, pumps and valves, resulting in severe impacts to plant reliability, efficiency and operating and maintenance costs.

Ostara’s Pearl® process uses a fluidized bed reactor to recover struvite in the form of highly pure crystalline pellets or “prills.” The process removes up to 90 percent of the phosphorus and 40 percent of the ammonia load contained in the sludge dewatering liquid. The resulting product is marketed as a commercial fertilizer called Crystal Green®. The GHG reduction benefit comes from the offset in industrial fertilizer manufacture (Scope 3).

Ostara’s capital purchase business model would have WSSC own and operate the facility and equipment. A long term fixed price contract would be negotiated for Ostara to purchase 100 percent of the fertilizer product from WSSC and for Ostara to provide the chemicals needed for struvite recovery. The price paid to the owner for the fertilizer covers all O&M costs at the facility plus an additional amount for profit.

GHG Reduction Benefit This strategy would reduce approximately 12,000 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.


Economic Benefit Per information provided by Ostara, the purchase agreement would provide an annual profit of $50,000. From 2020 and 2030 this would result in a net life-cycle cost of $5.6 million.



• Once the digestion/CHP design is underway, conduct a feasibility study on the Ostara Pearl® process at the location.

2nd Quarter 2015

• Negotiate agreement with Ostara for equipment supply and fertilizer purchase

2nd Quarter 2016

• Build and Startup the recovery facility 4th Quarter 2019

Keys to Success • Feasibility to construct the necessary facilities and achieve a reasonable pay-back as defined in the 2010 CIP (15 years)

• Reliable operation of nutrient recovery facility


• Fertilizer produced per year (tons)


5-20 WBG121211172019ORL

Optimize Wastewater Pumping Efficiency Strategy Description The wastewater collection system at WSSC consists of nearly 5,400 miles of sewer

pipeline and 44 pump stations. The pump stations are used to convey the wastewater to the treatment facilities.

This strategy involves evaluating each of the pump stations to determine how they operate and implementing improvement projects to increase energy efficiency. Improvement projects could involve one or more of the following measures:

• Installing power and flow monitoring equipment to track pump station operation

• Evaluating and reconfiguring the control systems to optimize the wetwell level start-stop setpoints, the run time and flow range of the pump operations for maximum energy efficiency. For any pumping systems that are inter-connected, coordinate controls to minimize start-stops and run time.

• Rebuilding or replacing aging equipment (pump impellers, casings, shafts, valves, motors or control systems)

• Installing variable frequency drives (VFDs) if not present

• Re-sizing pump impellers to better match actual pump operation and increase efficiency.

GHG Reduction Benefit This evaluation estimated that the energy efficiency of the wastewater pumping system could be improved by approximately 5%. Based on current energy use data at the pump stations, this would translate into a reduction of the Scope 2 emissions by approximately 470 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $2,200,000 - The evaluation assumed that on average, about $50,000 would have to be spent per each of the 44 pump stations.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will result in reduced electricity usage and net annual savings of approximately $97,000. From 2020 and 2030 this would result in a net life-cycle cost of $1.04 million.



• Perform system audit of all wastewater pump stations, including installation of monitoring equipment.

2013

• Procure necessary improvement projects and/or equipment 2014

• Implement equipment projects 2015

Keys to Success • Opportunities to optimize the system without causing backups or flooding




WBG121211172019ORL 5-21

Digestion/CHP Strategy Description Biosolids produced at WSSC wastewater treatment facilities are currently land-applied

or, in the case of Western Branch WWTP, incinerated. Land-application of biosolids is a net generator of Scope 3 GHG emissions because the GHGs emitted (in tonnes CO2e) due to methane and nitrous oxide released are greater than the GHGs offset by avoiding fertilizer use. In addition, the current practice of lime-stabilization incurs Scope 3 GHG emissions due to the manufacture of lime and the miles travelled by the hauling trucks from the WWTPs to the land-application site.

WSSC has completed a study to evaluate the possibility of implementing a regional anaerobic digestion facility at one of the WWTPs. This strategy assumes that the facility would be constructed at the Piscataway WWTP and it would treat biosolids from other WWTPs, except Western Branch. The digester would then produce gas which would be used in a combined heat and power (CHP) system. The heat and power produced would offset purchased electricity use at the facility. Implementation of a digestion and CHP system would result in net decrease in GHGs due to:

− Reduced biosolids volume due to digestion process and elimination of lime for stabilization. This results in a total reduction in Scope 3 emissions due to trucking, lime production and land-application.

− Offset of purchased electricity by the CHP system. This results in a net decrease in Scope 2 emissions

GHG Reduction Benefit The combined effects of this strategy will result in a net decrease of 12,800 tonnes CO2e annually by 2030.

Capital Cost (estimate) $53,000,0000 – includes offset for upgrades to lime stabilization systems that will no longer be needed.

Economic Benefit Implementation of this strategy will reduce costs associated with biosolids trucking and land-application, purchased lime and purchased electricity. It is estimated that a net annual savings of $2,900,000 can be realized if this strategy is implemented. From 2018 and 2030 this would result in a net life-cycle cost of $24.1 million.



• Complete digestion and CHP study with final recommendation of digester location

1st Quarter 2012

• Procure design firm 4th Quarter 2012

• Design digester and CHP system 4th Quarter 2014

• Construct digester and CHP system 2nd Quarter 2017

Keys to Success • Feasibility to construct the necessary facilities and achieve a reasonable pay-back as defined in the 2010 CIP (15 years)

• Reliable operation of digester facility and all associated systems (CHP, centrate pre-treatment, etc.). No negative impact on WWTP treatment, permit compliance or the public (due to odors or traffic)


• MWh per year generated in CHP Facility • Cost Savings ($ per year) in electricity costs • Reduction in lime use (tons per year) • Reduction in biosolids hauled and land-applied (wet tons per year)


5-22 WBG121211172019ORL

Impact of Selected Strategies The strategies selected, in conjunction with the renewed wind contract, will result in a reduction of 104,400 tonnes of CO2e in annual GHG emissions by the year 2030. This represents about 109 percent of the reduction needed to meet the stated goal of ten percent reduction every 5 years over the 2005 inventory. Implementing the proposed strategies will have an estimated total life-cycle cost of $9.6 million by 2030. Figure 5-1 shows the GHG projections with the proposed strategy reductions. Figure 5-1 identifies in different categories the impact of the renewed wind contract, the solar PV projects (strategies 12 and 13 listed above) and digestion/CHP (strategy 20 listed above). All the other strategies combined are shown under the “Other Selected Strategies” category.

FIGURE 5-1 Projected Future GHG Emissions and Impact of Selected Strategies on Goal Attainment

Future Considerations As WSSC embarks on the process of proactively addressing the challenge of reducing energy use and GHG emissions, new policies and standards will be needed to ensure that energy efficiency is a priority for the utility moving forward.

The analysis that is summarized in this report indicates the challenge in meeting the 2030 goal of reducing GHG emissions by ten percent every five years from the 2005 baseline. Energy use is projected to increase in the coming decade because of to two principal drivers: first, continued population growth in the County and the associated increased demand for water and wastewater services, and second, regulatory requirements for more-advanced wastewater treatment (such as ENR) in order to further reduce the nutrient load discharged to the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, WSSC must be aggressive in pursuing both energy-saving measures and also opportunities to use renewable energy sources in its energy supply.

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (

tonn

es C

O2e

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 - 2030)Impact of Selected Strategies

Growth Current Projects Wind Solar Digestion/CHP Other Selected Strategies Net Goal


WBG121211172019ORL 5-23

This section summarizes factors that were identified during the study that will affect the energy use in the county beyond the next 20 years, as well as further opportunities that WSSC should continue to monitor, assess, and pursue, if warranted, to achieve the emissions reduction goal.

Future Treatment Requirements Wastewater Treatment Wastewater treatment regulations have been recently modified to incorporate requirements for ENR-level of treatment in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-issued Total Maximum Daily Load in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. WSSC wastewater treatment facilities are currently being upgraded to meet these regulations. As technology advances and increased reductions in nutrients from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants become feasible, state and federal agencies may look to further reduce the effluent nutrient loading limits. This could be the case if the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay continues to deteriorate despite current efforts, and/or if the states are unsuccessful in curbing nutrient loading being released by non-point sources. In this case, nitrogen and phosphorus effluent concentrations as low as 1 mg/L total nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus could be envisioned. Meeting these levels of treatment would require additional treatment processes such as carbon adsorption (to reduce inorganic total Kjeldahl nitrogen) and additional flocculation and filtration (to meet very low total phosphorus limits). Although these processes themselves are not overly energy-intensive, they could considerably increase the energy requirement in the facility if additional pumping of the entire plant flow is needed to meet the hydraulic requirements of the new processes.

Another potential area for wastewater regulation is the increased concern about polychlorinated biphenyls and other micro-constituents, such as personal-care products and pharmaceuticals, entering the natural streams via wastewater facility effluent. Removal of some of these micro-constituents could require energy-intensive processes such as reverse osmosis, which could increase the energy use per MG treated by about 1,500 kWh, or about a 54 percent increase from WSSC’s current average use of 2,800 kWh per MG.

Water Treatment The current drinking water treatment processes in place at WSSC facilities are intended to meet the current USEPA drinking water regulations, including those for microbial removal and disinfection by-product formation. The future of EPA regulations is unclear at this time, but could include regulation of additional disinfection by-products, or compounds being currently detected in water supplies at nanogram per liter (ng/L) levels. These include pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupters, and personal care products. To meet advanced treatment goals, emerging or new technologies would need to be applied that require higher consumption of energy, or additional chemicals/consumables. These in turn would lead to higher GHG emissions.

Technologies such as Ozone, UV disinfection, advanced oxidation processes (AOP), and Mixed Ion Exchange (MIEX) could increase electricity usage at the Potomac and Patuxent WWTPs by 20 percent or more. Additional chemicals, such as hydrogen peroxide to achieve advanced oxidation, or ion exchange media for removal additional disinfection by-product precursor compounds, would also increase the GHG footprint of operating these advanced systems.

Renewable Sources of Energy WSSC has been a leader in incorporating renewable sources of energy in the electric supply to its facilities. Continued commitment to renewable resources will ensure that WSSC continues to meet the stated GHG reduction goal in the future through 2050.

Future Technological Developments As resources such as coal and oil become scarce in the future, the cost of producing energy will increase. This driver, together with current investment in greener technologies, will likely result in technological advances that will allow WSSC facilities to reduce the kWh used per MG treated and distributed. Some process-related technologies that are beyond the 2020 timeframe include:


5-24 WBG121211172019ORL

• More-efficient aeration systems, including high-efficiency blowers and high-efficiency diffusers (flat panel-type).

• Advances in biological wastewater treatment, such as the deammonification process (known as Anammox or DEMONTM). This process reduces the aeration and supplemental carbon requirements per pound of nitrogen removed compared to the conventional nitrification-denitrification system currently used. The process also significantly reduces the amount of waste sludge produced. The deammonification process is currently being implemented to treat side-streams such as digested-sludge centrate (which is being commercialized under the DEMONTM name), but current research is taking place to apply the process to nitrogen removal in the main flow stream.

• Advances in lamp and ballast technology to reduce energy use in ultraviolet disinfection systems. These include using light-emitting diodes to emit the ultraviolet light.

• Microbial fuel cells, which convert chemical energy to electrical energy by the catalytic reaction of microorganisms, could be used to generate electricity directly from the wastewater. Companies such as Cambrian Innovation are currently working on developing units that could be used in a full-scale application.

• Improved control technologies, neural network systems, and smart models could revolutionize how complex systems such as water distribution networks are controlled in the future. In ten years, it is expected that new technologies will emerge that will enable systems to be optimized for energy efficiency and water quality. In addition, these advanced control systems can also be deployed at WWTPs and WFPs to optimize the facilities’ operations for energy efficiency.

• Continued advances in the energy efficiency of HVAC systems, lighting, office equipment, and other building services.

• Continued advances in the energy efficiency of motors, motor control centers (MCCs), variable frequency drives, and the overall energy infrastructure.

Reduction in Volume of Water and Wastewater Treated To counteract the effects of population growth and increased demand, WSSC could develop strategies to effectively reduce the volume of water treated at the WFPs and WWTPs. These include:

• Reduction in non-revenue water: WSSC currently estimates that approximately 15 to 20 percent of the water produced in the WTPs is “lost” in the system. This percentage represents inefficiency in the system and is currently caused mainly by ruptures in water mains that WSSC is working to address. As mentioned above, new technological developments could help a system like WSSC’s stay ahead of the curve in reducing non-revenue water. Water loss reduction is an area in which there are many current technological developments, as many utilities around the world are grappling with water-supply and energy-shortage problems. These technologies include development of district metering areas, where water delivery in sections of the service area is measured and compared to water delivered to the customer. A system the size of WSSC’s should have a few hundred district metering areas that could be used to identify and repair leaks and other sources of non-revenue water. New improvements in customer-level metering would also provide more-accurate and real-time data to help identify anomalies that may indicate a water leak. Also, new “software as service” products are currently coming on the market, such as a new service offered by TaKaDu to use existing system data and scan it for deviations from patterns that indicate leaks, faulty meters, or other sources of water loss.

• Reduction in infiltration and inflow: Continue to invest in sewage collection infrastructure to reduce infiltration and inflow. In addition, green infrastructure should be encouraged and championed to help keep stormwater out of the sewage collection system.

• Water conservation: New technological advances in appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, fixtures, and faucets will reduce the water used per person in the future. In addition, WSSC could introduce water-conservation incentives and education to its customers, including funding to upgrade old


WBG121211172019ORL 5-25

appliances and fixtures. Finally, if energy costs increase dramatically in the future, WSSC will have to increase water and sewer rates, which will encourage reduction in water use.

• Water reuse: Reuse of treated WWTP effluent for non-potable uses (such as irrigation or cooling) is a concept that is gaining acceptance as more utilities search for ways to reduce treatment costs and increase the water supply sources. In the case of WSSC, reuse of WWTP effluent is an attractive strategy because it reduces the volume of water and therefore the nutrient load released to the Chesapeake Bay. For example, the Cox Creek WRF effluent currently is used for cooling at the Baltimore Gas & Electric’s Brandon Shores Plant. As the population grows and the health of the Bay continues to be a concern in the region, reuse measures are likely to gain public and regulatory acceptance. Opportunities for reuse need to be identified but could include: water for irrigation of golf-courses or other large landscaping users, cooling water for power plants or other industrial uses, and “purple pipe” applications such as toilet flushing in new commercial developments where a dual distribution system is installed.

Appendix A Strategy Development Workshop Materials

WSSC GHG ACTION PLAN WORKSHOP #2_032911_MINUTES_FINAL 1 COPYRIGHT 2012 BY • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y

WSSC Greenhouse Gas Action Plan and Emissions Workshop #2: Strategy Review Meeting - March 29, 2011

Rob Taylor/WSSC Roscoe Wade/WSSC Yvonne McKinney/WSSC Kevin Selock/WSSC Gary Grey/WSSC Jay Price/WSSC Jim Neustadt/WSSC

Dennis Geary/WSSC Karen Wright/WSSC Kanu Shah/Shah & Associates Paul Carbary/CH2M HILL Jamiyo Mack/CH2M HILL Paula Sanjines/CH2M HILL Scott Weikert/CH2M HILL

FROM: Paula Sanjines/CH2M HILL

DATE: April 5, 2011

On Tuesday, March 29, 2011, CH2M HILL held a meeting with WSSC personnel (the attendance roster is included as Attachment 1) to review the GHG emissions inventory summary, emission reduction strategies, and short- and long-term impacts of current and future projects on the entity-wide emissions profile. A summary of the meeting discussions and resulting action items are included below.

Strategy Overview CH2MHILL presented a PowerPoint presentation to WSSC personnel to give an overview of the impact current and future planned projects as well as developed emission reduction strategies would have on the entity-wide GHG inventory. The presentation is included as Attachment 2.

GHG Inventory Overview CH2M HILL collected annual data from several departments within WSSC – Fleet, Facilities, Human Resources, and Operations - to complete the 2009 and 2010 GHG inventories. A review of the inventories show GHG emissions at WSSC have declined 23% since the 2005 baseline largely due to the purchase of wind power. Reductions in stationary fuel usage and business travel also contributed to the overall emissions reductions.

Discussion and Action Items 1. WSSC personnel would like to add some intensity-based metrics to the inventory to

better reflect the economic and environmental impact of the emissions reductions. The metrics would also help customers put emission reductions in perspective of their water use. Additional metrics would include:

a. Cost savings to customer/commission due to implementation

ATTENDEES:

WSSC GREENHOUSE GAS ACTION PLAN AND EMISSIONS WORKSHOP #2: STRATEGY REVIEW MEETING - MARCH 29, 2011


b. Impact on the environment per ton of GHG reduced

c. GHGs emitted and/or reduced per gallon of water treated

d. GHGs emitted and/or reduced per person/household

2. WSSC personnel noted some additional strategies that may be included in the strategy developed. Those opportunities needing further evaluation include:

a. Bowie pump station removal – gravity flow through pipeline reduces electricity usage. This will be implemented by 2014.

3. CH2M HILL will also reevaluate the impact of several strategies included in the discussion, such as:

a. Elimination of natural gas usage at RGH for hot water heating. WSSC will verify that natural gas is currently only used in the cafeteria.

b. Reducing pressure in the distribution system may cause low flow in emergency situations and negatively affect water quality due to age. Degradation of water quality would have an impact on permit requirements.

c. The flow upgrade at Patuxent should also consider the increased usage of electricity to pump to Montgomery County instead of the existing gravity flow to Prince George’s County.

d. Discussed the telecommuting miles and how to better account for where workers are travelling to and from.

e. Digestion at Blue Plains – discussed the impact of the proposed digestion project at Blue Plains on GHG reduction and how WSSC might be able to account for some of those reductions. After the workshop, agreed to have CH2M HILL do a preliminary investigation of how the portion of the flow that is treated at Blue Plains should be accounted for in WSSC’s inventory. Also to analyze the impact on WSSC GHGs inventory of trucking WSSC’s wastewater treatment plant sludge to Blue Plains to be digested there.


Attachment 1 – Sign-In Sheet


Attachment 2 – Presentation Slides

4/6/2011

1

Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

March 29, 2011REVISED April 5, 2011

Workshop #2

Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM Welcome/ Agenda

1 05 PM S f t M t1:05 PM Safety Moment

1:10 PM Site Visits Summary and Strategy Development

1:40 PM GHG Emission Projections

2:10 PM Reduction Goal Targets

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

2:10 PM Reduction Goal Targets

2:30 PM Decision Model Overview

2:45 – 3:00 PM Summary and Next Steps

2

4/6/2011

2

SAFETY MOMENTLadder Safety – Hall of Horrors

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission3



4/6/2011

3





4/6/2011

4



SAFETY MOMENT

Ladder Selection

P t bl l dd d i d i tPortable ladders are designed as one-person equipment with the proper strength to support the worker, tools, and materials. Ladders are constructed under three general classes.

• Type I – Industrial: heavy-duty with a load capacity not more than 250 pounds.

• Type II Commercial: medium duty with a load capacity not


• Type II – Commercial: medium-duty with a load capacity not more than 225 pounds. (suited for painting and similar tasks).

• Type III – Household: light-duty with a load capacity of 200 pounds.

8

4/6/2011

5

Site Visits Summary and Strategy Development


Patuxent WFP

Action Status Estimated GHG Net Impact (tonne

CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

UV System Under Impl 1,424 2015

Phase 2: New Solids Facility (Electrical + Solids Trucking)

Under Impl 324 2015

Phase 2: Shifted Production from Potomac (20 MGD)

Under Impl ‐3,724 2015

Rocky Gorge Pump Station Upgrade Under Impl ‐251 2014


Turbines (3 x 700 HP turbines) Under Impl ‐1,859 2012

Increase efficiency of Reclaimed Water Pumps

New strategy

‐153 2012

10

4/6/2011

6

Potomac WFP

Action Status Estimated GHG Impact (tonne

CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

Raw Water Pump Upgrades Under Construction

‐3,344 2014

UV System Complete 1,907 2012

Intake Relocation (Reduced Solids Trucking)

Under Study ‐75 2018

High Zone Pump Station VFD Under Study TBD 2013


Replacement

11

Water Distribution System Facts

Derceto has reduced ≈4,500 tonnes CO2e and saved 11% of pumping costs during 2006-2009pumping costs during 2006 2009

Derceto currently controls portion of the system

Non-revenue “lost” water accounts for about 20% of production.

Producing water at Patuxent is cheaper and more energy efficient than Potomac. Patuxent should run at constant maximum safe capacity


capacity.

Projected future increase in water consumption is ~ 1% per year

12

4/6/2011

7

Water Distribution Strategies


CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

Optimize water pumping efficiency w/Derceto (additional 10%)

New Strategy ‐2,250 2013

Implement Rentricity's Flow‐to‐WireSM

system (assume 6 installations)New Strategy ‐7,890 2014

Develop program to track major valve positions to prevent pumping inefficiencies

New Strategy ‐815 2015


Reduce operating pressure in the system by 5 psi in pumped areas

New Strategy ‐1,434 2012

13

Rentricity SM


4/6/2011

8

Rentricity

Rentricity’s Flow-to-Wiresm systems mimic the functionality of PRVs while converting the excess pressure into clean electricPRVs while converting the excess pressure into clean electric power.

Integrated sensors (RenFlosm) provide real-time system performance data, monitoring flow, pressure, intrusion and contamination while maximizing operational efficiencies.

Two installations to date:


• Pilot Program in Stamford, Connecticut (turbine in PRV)

• Water intake turbine in Pittsburgh, PA

15

Parkway WWTP

Action Status Estimated GHGImpact (tonne

CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

ENR Upgrades (Electrical, Methanol) Under Impl. 631 2013

New Biosolids Facility (Electrical + Biosolids Trucking)

Under Impl ‐1,659 2015

Improve efficiency of Raw Water/MLR/RAS/Utility Water Pumps

New Strategy ‐122 2015


4/6/2011

9

Piscataway WWTP

Action Status Estimated GHG Net Impact (tonne

CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

ENR Upgrade: Methanol Use Under Impl. 660 2012

Digestion + CHP (electricity, reduced lime addition, hauling, land application)

Under Study

‐12,800 2018

Ostara TM Nutrient Recovery System New Strategy

‐12,000 2018


Change heating source to natural gas New Strategy

‐21 2018

Replace Mixers New Strategy

TBD 2013

17

Seneca WWTP


CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

ENR Upgrades (Electrical, Methanol) Under Impl. 2,196 2014

Solar PV Under Study ‐2,124 2013

Digestion (eliminate lime addition, land application, hauling to Piscataway)

Under Study ‐3,369 2018


4/6/2011

10

Western Branch WWTP


CO2e/yr)

Year

/y )

Incinerator Upgrade Completed ‐1,096 2011

Reduced methanol use due to ENR upgrades

Under Impl. ‐964 2015

Marlboro Meadows WWTP will be eliminated and replaced with pumping

Under Impl. ‐159 2013

U Pl t Effl t f H ti /C li N St t 264 2018


Use Plant Effluent for Heating/Cooling New Strategy ‐264 2018

Solar PV Under Study ‐1,356 2013

19

Overall Wastewater Strategies


CO2e/yr)

Year

Increase blower efficiency (assume all WWTPs) New 2 530 2020Increase blower efficiency (assume all WWTPs) New Strategy

‐2,530 2020

Denitrify with Green Carbon Sources (Glycerin or MicroCg) – all WWTPs

NewStrategy

‐2,895 2015

Improve efficiency of wastewater pumping stations

New Strategy

‐450 2020


4/6/2011

11

Overall Strategies


CO2e/yr)

Year

Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) New 2 800 2015Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) New Strategy

‐2,800 2015

Develop new wind power PPA contract beyond 2018

New Strategy

‐55,757 2019

HVAC and Lighting Upgrades of all major facilities

New Strategy

‐895 2013

Gen‐sets on heavy duty trucks Expanded strategy

‐916 (cum by 2030)

2013


gy )

21

Overall Strategies

Action Status Estimated GHG Reduction

(tonne CO2e/yr)

Year

Fleet replacement with hybrid and/or alternative New 1 488 (cum by 2013Fleet replacement with hybrid and/or alternative fuel in selected vehicles

New Strategy

‐1,488 (cum by 2030)

2013

Reduce Employee Business Travel using teleconferencing

New Strategy

‐44 (cum by 2030)

2013

Telecommuting/Alternative Work Schedules Expanded Strategy

‐360 2012

Office Equipment (computers copiers) reduce New 508 2013


Office Equipment (computers, copiers) – reduce energy use at RGH

New Strategy

‐508 2013

Uniform Recycling Strategy New Strategy

‐32 2013

Solar water heating at RGH New Strategy

‐53 2013

22

4/6/2011

12

Overall Strategies

Action Status Estimated GHG Reduction

(tonne CO2e/yr)

Year

Standardize design criteria specifications for energy‐intensive systems (sub‐metering, pump and blower system efficiency, instrumentation, etc)

New Strategy

Impact will be to flatten the rate of increase

2013

Standard decision model for evaluating facility alternatives that incorporates energy efficiency for selection criteria. Build‐off of asset management tools.

New Strategy

Impact will be to flatten the rate of increase

2012


Proposed New GHG Reduction StrategiesTotal Estimated GHG Reductions in 2030 ≈ 23,000 tonnes CO2e/yr

24

4/6/2011

13

120,000

140,000

WSSC Carbon Footprint AnalysisTotal Optional Emissions

Total Indirect Emissions

Total Direct Emissions

Comparison of CY2005 – 2010

-10% -20%

60,000

80,000

100,000

,

me

tric

to

ns

CO

2e



Optional Emissions- Employee Commuting

E l B i T l


0

20,000

40,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

- Employee Business Travel- Treatment Plant Chemical Production- Contracted Services- Mixed Solid Wastes Disposal (in an off-site landfill)

- White Paper Recycling- Treatment Plant Solids and Mixed

Solid Waste Hauling

25

150,000

200,000

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 ‐ 2030)Business‐as‐Usual and Current Projects Under Implementation

‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000

G Emmissions (tonnes CO2e

26

‐150,000

‐100,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Business as Usual Net Impact of Current Projects Reduction due to Wind Net With Growth, Projects and Wind

4/6/2011

14

150,000

200,000

/yr)


‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000

G Emmissions (tonnes CO2e

27

‐150,000

‐100,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Business as Usual Net Impact of Current Projects Reduction due to Wind Net With Growth, Projects and Wind Goal

1,000

2,000

3,000

r)

Estimated Net Impact of Current Major Projects to Year 2030 GHG Emissions

‐3 000

‐2,000

‐1,000

0

Western

Bran

ch Incin

e

Parkway EN

R

Piscataw

ay ENR

Seneca EN

R

Western

Bran

ch EN

R

Eliminatio

n of M

arlbor

Parkway B

iosolids

Patuxen

t Solids

Patuxen

t UV

Increased

Patuxen

t Pro

Rocky G

orge P

ump Stat

Rocky G

orge Tu

rbines

Potomac R

aw W

ater PS

Potomac U

V

Net

mmissions (tonnes CO2e/yr

‐6,000

‐5,000

‐4,000

3,000 rator U

pgrad

e

o M

eadow W

WTP

oductio

n (2

0 M

GD)

tion

S Upgrad

eGHG Em

28

4/6/2011

15

150,000

200,000

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 ‐ 2030)Solar and Digestion/CHP Added

‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000

G Emmissions (tonnes CO2e/

‐150,000

‐100,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Business as Usual Current Projects Wind Solar Digestion/CHP Net Goal29

150,000

200,000

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 ‐ 2030)Proposed Strategies Added

‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000


‐150,000

‐100,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG

Business as Usual Current Projects Wind Solar

Digestion/CHP Proposed Strategies Net Goal30

4/6/2011

16

150,000

200,000

/yr)

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 ‐ 2030)With New 10‐Yr Wind Contract Added

‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000


‐150,000

‐100,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

GHG


Digestion/CHP Proposed Strategies Net Goal31

WSSC Reduction Goals


4/6/2011

17

State of Maryland

GHG Reduction Goal and Targets

• 10% reduction every 5 years through 2050

Starting Point for WSSC Reduction Goals


• 80% below 2006 levels by 2050

Montgomery County and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)

Developed Climate Protection Plan to establish framework for meeting


reduction goals


• 80% below 2005 levels by 2050

33

Decision Model Overview


4/6/2011

18

Each participant will be asked to divide 100 value points among the criteria based on perceived importance in selecting strategies.


Results will be tallied……


4/6/2011

19

…and then summarized in a graph.


The strategies will then be scored on the criteria and compared

Prioritization Ranking of Climate Action Strategies

by Total Benefit Value

90.00

100.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Cu

mu

lati

ve C

rite

ria

Sco

res


0.00

10.00

14 1 6 10 4 9 8 13 5 7 2 11 3 12

GHG Reduction Strategies

Contribution to GHG reduction Time to ImplementO&M Efficiency Community/Public ImpactsOpportunities for Outside Funding Alignment with CIP/Initiatives

38

4/6/2011

20

Next Steps


Next Steps

CH2M HILL will incorporate the comments received today into the strategies and GHG emissions projections

Strategy selection criteria will be sent to attendees in advance of Workshop #3. Attendees will be asked to assign a point value to each criterion.

Workshop #3 will take place in ~ 6 weeks

At Workshop #3, each strategy will be scored on the selection criteria categories and cost


criteria categories and cost

40

Appendix B Strategy Evaluation Workshop Materials


M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y

WSSC Greenhouse Gas Action Plan and Emissions Workshop #3: Strategy Scoring Meeting – June 28, 2011

Rob Taylor/WSSC Kevin Selock/WSSC Tom Traber/WSSC Gary Grey/WSSC Jay Price/WSSC Gary Gumm/WSSC Jim Neustadt/WSSC Rich Jamieson/ENELYTICS John Kasprzak/WSSC

Bill Dove/WSSC Karen Wright/WSSC Carolyn White/WSSC Kanu Shah/Shah & Associates Paula Sanjines/CH2M HILL Scott Weikert/CH2M HILL

FROM: Paula Sanjines/CH2M HILL

DATE: July 28, 2011

On Wednesday, June 28, 2011, CH2M HILL held a meeting with WSSC personnel (the attendance roster is included as Attachment 1) to review the GHG emissions reduction strategies and to score the proposed strategies against the decision criteria. A summary of the meeting discussions and resulting action items are included below.

Recap of the GHG Emissions Projections CH2MHILL presented an overview of the impact current and future planned projects as well as developed emission reduction strategies would have on the entity-wide GHG inventory. The presentation is included as Attachment 2.

Summary of the Decision Model CH2MHILL presented the decision criteria and scoring scales for the decision model. The presentation is included in Attachment 2.

Strategy Review and Scoring The emission reduction strategies were grouped in categories in order to expedite the scoring. A list of strategies was distributed, with their respective groupings. A revised version of this list is included as Attachment 3. The list has been revised per the comments received at the meeting.

The attendees reviewed all the strategies in a group and then proceeded to score the strategies together. The scoring results are included as Attachment 4. A summary of the discussions held during the scoring session are included below.

ATTENDEES:

WSSC GREENHOUSE GAS ACTION PLAN AND EMISSIONS WORKSHOP #3: STRATEGY SCORING MEETING – JUNE 28, 2011


Group 5 – Lighting/HVAC Strategy 5.1: Discussed the proposed strategy to change the heating at Piscataway

from Fuel Oil to Natural Gas. The price of natural gas has had wide variability in the recent past. The Piscataway WWTP currently doesn’t have natural gas service, but if the digester/CHP gets implemented new natural gas lines will be provided which may make this strategy more financially viable.

Strategy 5.3: Discussed that solar water heaters could also be implemented on the depots.

Group 6 – Renewable Resources Strategy 6.1 and 6.2, Current and Future Solar Projects:

o Discussed the viability of solar and the fine points of rec ownership and whether WSSC can claim a GHG credit if they don’t own the solar power. Energy provided from solar panels would be counted as indirect emissions (Scope 2) by WSSC whereas the rec can be claimed by the energy provider as a Scope 1 offset. It is not double-counting any more than the current arrangement where the power company counts the emissions associated by each kWh produced as a Scope 1 emission AND WSSC counts the emissions associated by each kWh consumed as a Scope 2 emission.

o Discussed the cost per kWh likely to be offered by the Solar PPA. The project currently assumes a cost-neutral impact. Dr. Shah indicated that the solar power would probably be cheaper than conventional kWh. He estimates approximately 8.5 cents per kWh, compared to the current cost of 12 cents per kWh.

Group 1 – System Efficiency Strategy 1.1: The Bowie Pump Station is currently under design. It will be part of

the John Hansen Highway water main project that is currently in the CIP. Once the new water main is installed, the pump station will only be used in case of an emergency. Need to decide if we keep this project on the list as a strategy or if we just move it to the group of projects that are a “done deal”. The strategy has been modified for now to include the capital cost of the John Hansen Hwy project ($6 million per the CIP)

Strategy 1.2: Discussed that a 10% improvement in energy efficiency is optimistic for Derceto. The strategy has been revised to reflect a 5% improvement in energy efficiency.

Strategy 1.3: Discussed that reducing the pressure by 5 psi in the entire system is not feasible, only in parts of the system.

Strategy 1.5: Discussed possible applications of the Rentricity turbine system to replace PRVs. Concluded that 6 installations is overly optimistic. Putting power into the grid would be complicated. The public service commission only allows a

WSSC GREENHOUSE GAS ACTION PLAN AND EMISSIONS WORKSHOP #3: STRATEGY SCORING MEETING – JUNE 28, 2011


2:1 ratio in power put back into the grid. Reduced the strategy to include only 2 installations. Assume that Rocky Gorge would be one of those installations.

Group 2 – Equipment Efficiency Strategy 2.1, Patuxent Reclaim Pumps: The capital cost assumed is too high. It will

be changed to approximately $5,000.

Strategy 2.6, Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs: Discussed that assuming that all blowers would be replaced was not realistic. CH2M HILL changed the strategy to assume that only two blowers per plant would be replaced and would serve as duty blowers and the existing blowers will be kept for peak demand and backup. Also revised the implementation year to 2015.

Strategy 2.7, Optimizing WW Pumping Efficiency: Discussed that the capital cost of this strategy was also over-stated. The implementation year was changed to 2015.

Group 3 – Residuals/Process No major comments

Group 4 – Transportation No major comments

Conclusions and Analysis The model results were sorted in different ways. The resulting graphs are included in Attachment 4.

Attachments Attachment 1 – Workshop Sign-In Sheet

Attachment 2 – Workshop Presentation Slides

Attachment 3 – Strategy List (Revised per Comments received at the meeting)

Attachment 4 – Scoring Results


Attachment 1 – Sign-In Sheet


Attachment 2 – Presentation Slides

Greenhouse Gas Action PlanWorkshop #3

June 28, 2011

p

Safety MomentSafety Moment

Business or personal travel tips:Business or personal travel tips:• Assess your travel risks before travel.

• Give family members your itinerary prior to travelto travel.

• Program emergency contact numbers in your mobile device. ICE!

• R i t i th S t T l• Register in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), on-line at travel.state.gov with the US Dept of State prior to any overseas tripsState prior to any overseas trips

• Keep a low profile, blend in and avoid drawing attention to yourself. Limit discussions with strangers


discussions with strangers.

Meeting Objectivesg j

To review the proposed Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction p p ( )strategies

To score the proposed strategies against the decision criteria

To discuss the scoring results and identify the top 10 strategies


Meeting Agendag g

Time Topic

1:00 pm Welcome/Safety Moment

1:05 pm Agenda/Overview

1:10 pm Recap of the GHG Emissions Projections

1:20 pm Summary of the Decision Model

1:30 pm Review Group 5 Strategies and Score


2:15 pm Review Group 1 Strategies and Score2:15 pm Review Group 1 Strategies and Score




3:15 pm Review and Discuss Final Scores – Sensitivity Analysis

3:45 pm Summary and Next Steps


4:00 pm Adjourn

Recap of the GHG EmissionsRecap of the GHG Emissions Projections



150,000

200,000

100,000

es CO2e/yr)

0

50,000

ssions (tonne

‐50,000

GHG Emmis

‐150,000

‐100,000

6

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Business as Usual Net Impact of Current Projects Reduction due to Wind Net With Growth, Projects and Wind Goal

WSSC GHG Projections (2005 ‐ 2030)With All Strategies Implemented

150,000

200,000

100,000

es CO2e/yr)

0

50,000

ssions (tonne

‐50,000

GHG Emmis

‐150,000

‐100,000

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

7

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030


Digestion/CHP Proposed Strategies Net Goal

Summary of the Decision Model


WSSC GHG Action Plan – Strategy E l i C i i W i h

Criteria Weight

Evaluation Criteria Weights



O&M Efficiency 20

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10


Time To Implement 5


TOTAL 100


GHG Reduction PotentialGHG Reduction Potential

A. Strategy is not expected to noticeably reduce GHGsnoticeably reduce GHGs.

B. Strategy results in only minor GHG reduction (less than 1% reduction from 2005 baseline) 8

910

reduction from 2005 baseline)

C. Strategy results in moderate GHG reduction (between 1 and 5% d ti f 2005

105678

5% reduction from 2005 baseline)

D. Strategy results in substantial 2

6

1234

gyGHG reduction (more than 5% reduction from 2005 baseline)

02

01

A B C D


Community/CustomersCommunity/Customers

A. Adversely impacts neighbors/ customers:customers:

Traffic

Odor 89

10

Construction Impacts (traffic, noise, dust, etc)

Water quality/pressure/reliability 104567

B. Neutral impact to neighbors/ customers

C Enhances public perception of

5

1234

C. Enhances public perception of WSSC as environmental steward 00

A B C


O&M EfficiencyO&M Efficiency

A. Considerable increase in O&M requirements and small improvement inrequirements and small improvement in efficiency/performance

B. Small O&M impact and small improvement in efficiency/performance

89

10

improvement in efficiency/performance

C. Considerable increase in O&M requirements and substantial improvement in efficiency/performance

104567

improvement in efficiency/performance

D. Small O&M impact and substantial improvement in efficiency/performance

2

6

1234

00

A B C D


Consistency with CIP, Master Plan, Other y , ,Initiatives

A. Strategy is not in alignment withA. Strategy is not in alignment with the CIP or Master Plan

B. Strategy is consistent with WSSC's core business drivers 8

910

WSSC s core business drivers and operational objectives

C. Strategy aligns with ongoing or similar efforts in the adopted

104567

similar efforts in the adopted CIP and/or Master Plan, including timeframe

5

01234

00

A B C


Financial/Outside funding Opportunities

A. Strategy unlikely to be eligible for outside funding or t tto generate revenues

B. Strategy has medium probability of outside funding

ti89

10

or revenue generation

C. Strategy has high probability of funding from outside of WSSC t /f ( t

104567

WSSC rates/fees (e.g., grant funding, ESCOs , developer assessments) or opportunities to generate

5

1234

opportunities to generate revenues 00

1

A B C


Time to Implement

10

7

8

9

10

A. Strategy not likely to be implemented for at least

104

5

6

710 years.

B. Strategy could be realized in the next 5-10 years.

5

1

2

3

4C. Strategy could be realized

within the next five years

00

1

A B C


Effort to Implement

10A St t lik l t f

7

8

9

10A. Strategy likely to face technical challenges, lack of senior management endorsement or other barriers

104

5

6

7endorsement or other barriers

B. Strategy requires extensive study, design and/or procurement process

2

6

1

2

3

4procurement process

C. Strategy builds on projects or contracts already in place

D St t d t i0

20

1

A B C D

D. Strategy does not require significant additional effort to implement


Strategy Review and Scoring


Group 5 – Lighting/HVACg g

No. Name Description2030 GHG

(tonnesCO2e)

2030 Present Worth

5.1 Piscataway Heating Replace heating units at Piscataway that use Fuel Oil with units -21 $4,800,000FO to NG that use Natural Gas.



-264 $9,173,000


Replace electric water heaters with solar water heaters -59 -$145,000


Conduct audit of HVAC systems at all major facilities (plants, pump stations and buildings). Lighting: replace all bulbs and

-587 $2,145,000pg p p g ) g g p

ballasts with more efficient equipment and implement more in-depth lighting upgrades (motion sensors, timers)

5.5 Office Equipment Reduce power usage of office equipment: computers, copiers, etc. Institute policy to turn off equipment at night. Upgrade CRT

-508 -$1,600,000

monitors with LCDs. Upgrade servers to more efficient units. Assume 30% of RGHB energy use is due to computers and servers. Assume that this energy use can be cut by a third.

5.6 Green Roof Install extensive green roofs over the lower part of RGH and the maintenance depots (Gaithersburg Temple Hill Anacostia

-131 $1,600,000


maintenance depots (Gaithersburg, Temple Hill, Anacostia, Lyttonsville, Laurel Service Center). Assume 5% savings in AC at RGH and 20% at the depots.

Group 5 Scoring


Group 6 – Renewable Resources


(tonnesCO2e)

2030 Present Worth

6.1 Solar PV at Seneca Install solar panels at Seneca and Western Branch per the -5,013 -$3,000,000 *and WB (4 MW) current RFP. Assume 4 MW of power generated.


Install additional solar panels. Assume 2 MW of power generated. Location TBD.

-2,557 -$1,350,000 *

6.3 Wind Energy Award new wind power PPA contract beyond 2018 and develop new electricity supply contract beyond 2019.

-55,700 -$0

* Present-worth of solar power was revised assuming a cost of 8.5 cents per kWh for solar vs. 12 cents per kWh for conventional energy. Solar kWh costs provided by Dr. Shah.


Group 6 Scoring


Group 1 – System Efficiencyy y


(tonnesCO2e)

2030 Present Worth

1.1 Bowie Pump Station Remove this pump station and flow by gravity instead -633 $4,400,000


Use DercetoTM to further optimize the efficiency of the drinking water pumping system. Assume it can be improved by an additional 5%.

-2,250 -$5,800,000

1.3 Reduce Water Pressure

Reduce the operating pressure of the drinking water distribution system by 5 psi

-1,699 -$4,690,000


Institute a system for tracking the position of major valves in the water distribution system to prevent pumping against closed valves

i i l A ffi i ill i b 5%

-816 -$1,837,000

or pumping in a loop. Assume efficiency will improve by 5%.

1.5 Rentricity Flow-to-Wire

Implement Rentricity's Flow-to-WireSM system. This system installs a turbine to replace major PRVs in the system and converts the pressure loss into electricity. Assume 2 installations. kWh d d t d bl

-4,888 -$5,900,000

kWh produced are accounted as renewable.


Group 1 Scoring


Group 2 – Equipment Efficiencyy


(tonnesCO2e)

2030 Present Worth

2.1 Patuxent Reclaim P

Increase the efficiency of the pumps located in the reclaimed t d b i t lli VFD

-153 -$414,000Pumps water ponds by installing VFDs


Optimize the pumping conditions of the MLR, RAS and raw sewage pumps at Parkway. Assume 10% reduction in electricity usage.

-122 $698,000


Replace existing KSB submersible mixers with new Invent mixers -621 -$651,000

2.4 Anacostia WW Pumps

Replace VFDs on (2) 1,000 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%)

-196 -$140,000( )

2.5 Potomac HZ Pumps Replace VFDs on (2) 2,500 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%)

-293 -$109,000

2.6 Aeration Efficiency at WWTP

Evaluate the aeration systems at all WWTPs and install high ffi i t b bl d d t i it d

-2,659 -$1,763,000WWTPs efficiency turbo blowers as needed to improve capacity range and

efficiency. Assume 10% improvement in efficiency for all WWTPs.


Evaluate all wastewater pump stations and optimize the performance by adjusting operational wetwell levels, pump efficiency and VFDs Assume a 5% gain in efficiency can be

-470 $10,040,000


efficiency and VFDs. Assume a 5% gain in efficiency can be achieved.

Group 2 Scoring


Group 3 – Residuals/Process


(tonnesCO2e)

2030 Present Worth

3.1 Potomac Intake Relocate the intake location at the Potomac WTP 500 ft further out -75 $13,500,000into the Potomac. This will reduce the amount of solids drawn into the plant and the GHGs associated with trucking the solids.

, ,


Implement thermal hydrolysis followed by anaerobic digestion at Piscataway to also treat Seneca sludge. Use the methane

d d i bi d h t d (CHP) it Thi t t

-12,800 $28,800,000

produced in a combined heat and power (CHP) unit. This strategy will also reduce GHGs due to reduced biosolids trucking and reduced lime use.

3.3 Ostara Pearl ProcessTM at

Implement the Ostara Pearl Process to recover phosphate in the digested sludge dewatering centrate flow stream The process

-12,000 $5,573,000Process at Piscataway

digested sludge dewatering centrate flow stream. The process converts the phosphate to a commercial-grade fertilizer which then provides WSSC with GHG credits because it offsets GHGs produced in industrial fertilizer manufacture.

3.4 Green Carbon Replace methanol at all WWTPs with “green” sources of carbon -2,895 $14,032,000Sources for Denite

p gsuch as glycerin or MicroCg for the denitrification process. This saves GHGs in the production of methanol (Scope 3) and in the consumption of methanol in the process (Scope 1)

3.5 Recycling Uniform recycling strategy (paper, cans, bottles, light bulbs). A 10% d ti i GHG i t d ith b

-32 $0


Assume a 10% reduction in GHGs associated with garbage landfilling

Group 3 Scoring


Group 4 – Transportation


(tonnesCO2e)

2030 Present Worth

4.1 Hybrid/Alt Fuel Replacement of a portion of the fleet with hybrid and/or alternative -1,488 $7,000,000fuel (e.g. ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.) vehicles. Assumes that the replacement will result in 10% reduction in gasoline and diesel usage over a 5 year period (2% per year)

4.2 Telecommuting Implementation of a telecommuting strategy that reduces employee commuting miles Assumes 5% reduction annually in miles traveled

-431 $0commuting miles. Assumes 5% reduction annually in miles traveled by employees to/from work.



-44 -$39,000

g g p ,


Group 4 Scoring


Overall Scoring Results


Next Steps



Attachment 3 – Strategy List (Revised)

WSSC GHG ACTION PLAN_SUMMARY OF NEW STRATEGIES_062811_REVISED AFTER THE MEETING PAGE 1 OF 4 29-JUL-1128-JUN-11

WSSC Greenhouse Gas Action Plan Proposed New GHG Reduction Strategies – REVISED AFTER JUNE 28, 2011 WORKSHOP


(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.

Capital Cost

Annual Cost (+) or

Savings (-)

Present Worth

(through 2030)


1.1 Bowie Pump Station Remove this pump station and flow by gravity instead -633 2014 $16,000,000 -$129,600 -$628,000 $4,372,000


Use DercetoTM to further optimize the efficiency of the drinking water pumping system. Assume it can be improved by an additional 10% 5%.

-4,500 -2,250

2013 $0 -$980,000 -440,000

-$12,900,000 -5,793,000

1.3 Reduce Water Pressure

Reduce the operating pressure of the drinking water distribution system by 5 psi

-1,699 2012 $0 -$341,000 -$4,690,000



-816 2015 $500,000 -$196,000 -$1,837,000

1.5 Rentricity Flow-to-Wire

Implement Rentricity's Flow-to-WireSM system. This system installs a turbine to replace major PRVs in the system and converts the pressure loss into electricity. Assume 6 2 installations. kWh produced are accounted as renewable.

-14,664 -4,888

2014 $3,000,000$2,000,000

-$1,890,000-$631,000

-$20,784,000 -5,928,000


2.1 Patuxent Reclaim Pumps

Increase the efficiency of the pumps located in the reclaimed water ponds by installing VFDs or trimming the impellers (to 11-inches)

-153 2012 $40,000 $10,000

-$31,000 -$383,000 -414,000


Optimize the pumping conditions of the MLR, RAS and raw sewage pumps at Parkway. Assume 10% reduction in electricity usage.

-122 2015 $1,000,000 -$25,000 $698,000


Replace existing KSB submersible mixers with new Invent mixers

-621 2012 $1,400,000 -$149,000 -$651,000

2.4 Anacostia WW Pumps

Replace VFDs on (2) 1,000 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%)

-196 2012 $400,000 -$39,000 -$140,000

2.5 Potomac HZ Pumps Replace VFDs on (2) 2,500 HP pumps for improved efficiency (assume 5%)

-293 2012 $700,000 -$59,000 -$109,000

PAGE 2


(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.

Capital Cost

Annual Cost (+) or

Savings (-)

Present Worth

(through 2030)



-2,530 -2,659

2020 2015

$10,000,000$4,800,000

-$550,000 $5,310,000 -$1,763,000



-447 -470

2020 2015

$11,000,000$2,200,000

-$97,000 $10,171,000 $1,040,000


3.1 Potomac Intake Relocate the intake location at the Potomac WTP 500 ft further out into the Potomac. This will reduce the amount of solids drawn into the plant and the GHGs associated with trucking the solids.

-75 2018 $22,400,000 -$745,000 $13,500,000


Implement thermal hydrolysis followed by anaerobic digestion at Piscataway to also treat Seneca sludge. Use the methane produced in a combined heat and power (CHP) unit. This strategy will also reduce GHGs due to reduced biosolids trucking and reduced lime use.

-12,800 2018 $60,000,000 -$3,000,000 $28,800,000

3.3 Ostara Pearl ProcessTM at Piscataway

Implement the Ostara Pearl Process to recover phosphate in the digested sludge dewatering centrate flow stream. The process converts the phosphate to a commercial-grade fertilizer which then provides WSSC with GHG credits because it offsets GHGs produced in industrial fertilizer manufacture.

-12,000 2020 $6,000,000 -$50,000 $5,573,000


Replace methanol at all WWTPs with “green” sources of carbon such as glycerin or MicroCg for the denitrification process. This saves GHGs in the production of methanol (Scope 3) and in the consumption of methanol in the process (Scope 1)

-2,895 2015 $0 $1,175,000 $14,032,000

3.5 Recycling Uniform recycling strategy (paper, cans, bottles, light bulbs). Assume a 10% reduction in GHGs associated with garbage landfilling

-32 2013 $0 $0 $0

PAGE 3


(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.

Capital Cost

Annual Cost (+) or

Savings (-)

Present Worth

(through 2030)



-1,488 2013 $6,700,000 $27,000 $7,000,000


-431 2012 $0 $0 $0



-44 2012 $0 -$3,000 -$39,000



Replace heating units at Piscataway that use Fuel Oil with units that use Natural Gas.

-21 2018 $5,000,000 -$16,500 $4,800,000



-264 2018 $10,000,000 -$83,000 $9,173,000


Replace electric water heaters with solar water heaters -59 2015 $24,000 -$14,000 -$145,000


Conduct audit of HVAC systems at all major facilities (plants, pump stations and buildings). Lighting: replace all bulbs and ballasts with more efficient equipment and implement more in-depth lighting upgrades (motion sensors, timers)

-587 2015 $4,000,000 -$141,000 $2,145,000

5.5 Office Equipment Reduce power usage of office equipment: computers, copiers, etc. Institute policy to turn off equipment at night. Upgrade CRT monitors with LCDs. Upgrade servers to more efficient units. Assume 30% of RGHB energy use is due to computers and servers. Assume that this energy use can be cut by a third.

-508 2013 $0 -$122,000 -$1,600,000

5.6 Green Roof Install extensive green roofs over the lower part of RGH and the maintenance depots (Gaithersburg, Temple Hill, Anacostia, Lyttonsville, Laurel Service Center). Assume 5% savings in AC at RGH and 20% at the depots.

-131 2014 $2,000,000 -$32,000 $1,600,000

PAGE 4


(tonnes CO2e/yr)

Year Impl.

Capital Cost

Annual Cost (+) or

Savings (-)

Present Worth

(through 2030)


6.1 Solar PV at Seneca and WB (4 MW)

Install solar panels at Seneca and Western Branch per the current RFP. Assume 4 MW of power generated.

-5,013 2013 $0 -$0 -$224,000

-$0 $2,950,000


Install additional solar panels. Assume 2 MW of power generated. Location TBD.

-2,557 2015 $0 -$0 -$112,000

-$0 $1,337,000

6.3 Wind Energy Award new wind power PPA contract beyond 2018 and develop new electricity supply contract beyond 2019.

-55,700 2018 $0 -$0 -$0


Attachment 4 – Scoring Results

WSSC Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory and Action Plan Workshop #3: Strategy Evaluation and Scoring – June 28, 2011

Meeting Notes Attachment 4:Meeting Notes Attachment 4:Strategy Scoring Results


WSSC GHG Action Plan – Strategy E l i C i i W i h

Criteria Weight

Evaluation Criteria Weights



O&M Efficiency 20

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10


Time To Implement 5


TOTAL 100


Evaluation Group 1 – System Efficiencyy y

WSSC Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

Strategy Prioritization Model User Input

CH2M HILL Calculated Cell

28‐Jun‐11

Strategy 1.1 Bowie Pump

Station

Strategy 1.2 Optimize

Water

Pumping

Strategy 1.3 Reduce Water

Pressure

Strategy 1.4 Track Water

Dist. System

Valves

Strategy 1.5 Rentricity

Flow‐to‐Wire

Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score

GHG Reduction Potential 35 2 70 6 210 6 210 2 70 6 210

2030 GHG Reduction (tonnes CO2e) 633 2,250 1,699 816 4,888

2005 Baseline (tonnes CO2e) 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100

% Reduction 0.5% 2% 1.3% 0.6% 3.7%

Community/Customers 10 5 50 5 50 0 0 5 50 0 0

O&M Efficiency 20 10 200 6 120 2 40 6 120 6 120

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10 10 100 5 50 5 50 10 100 5 50

Outside Funding Opportunities 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 50Outside Funding Opportunities 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 50

Time To Implement 5 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50

Effort to Implement 10 10 100 6 60 2 20 6 60 2 20

TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE 100 570 540 370 450 500

Capital Cost (in 2011 dollars) $6,000,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $2,000,000

Annual Cost (in 2011 dollars) ‐$129,600 ‐$440,000 ‐$340,900 ‐$195,741 ‐$631,152( ) $ , $ , $ , $ , $ ,

Present Worth (thru 2030) $4,372,000 ‐$5,793,000 ‐$4,689,000 ‐$1,837,000 ‐$5,928,000


Evaluation Group 1 – System Efficiencyy y

900

1000

Group 1 Strategies: Benefit Score Comparison

600

700

800

d Score

300

400

500

600

tal W

eighted

100

200

300

To

0

Bowie Pump Station Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency

Reduce Water Pressure

Track Water Dist. System Valves

Rentricity Flow‐to‐Wire

GHG Reduction Potential Community/Customers O&M Efficiency

Ali i h CI /I i i i O id di O i i i I l


Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement

Effort to Implement

4

Evaluation Group 2 – Equipment Efficiencyy




28‐Jun‐11

Strategy 2.1 Patuxent Reclaim

Pumps

Strategy 2.2 Optimize Parkway

Pumps

Strategy 2.3 Replace Mixers at

Piscataway

Strategy 2.4 Anacostia WW Pumps Strategy 2.5 Potomac HZ Pumps Strategy 2.6 Aeration Efficiency at

WWTPs

Strategy 2.7 Optimize WW

Pumping Efficiency

Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score

GHG Reduction Potential 35 2 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 6 210 2 70

2030 GHG Reduction (tonnes CO2e) 153 122 621 196 293 2,659 470

2005 Baseline (tonnes CO2e) 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100

% Reduction 0.1% 0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 2.0% 0.4%

Community/Customers 10 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50

O&M Efficiency 20 10 200 10 200 10 200 10 200 10 200 10 200 10 200

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100

Outside Funding Opportunities 10 0 0 0 0 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 0 0

Time To Implement 5 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50

Effort to Implement 10 10 100 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 6 60 2 20

TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE 100 570 530 630 630 630 770 490

Capital Cost (in 2011 dollars) $10,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000 $400,000 $700,000 $4,800,000 $2,200,000

Annual Cost (in 2011 dollars) ‐$30,840 ‐$25,298 ‐$149,099 ‐$39,237 ‐$58,855 ‐$549,777 ‐$97,140

Present Worth (thru 2030) ‐$414,000 $698,000 ‐$651,000 ‐$140,000 ‐$109,000 ‐$1,763,000 $1,040,000


Evaluation Group 2 – Equipment Efficiencyy

900

1000


600

700

800

900

d Score

300

400

500

600

tal W

eighted

0

100

200

300

To

0

Patuxent Reclaim Pumps

Optimize Parkway Pumps

Replace Mixers at Piscataway

Anacostia WW Pumps

Potomac HZ Pumps

Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs

Optimize WW Pumping Efficiency

GHG Reduction Potential Community/Customers


y/O&M Efficiency Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement Effort to Implement

6

Evaluation Group 3 – Residuals/Process


St t P i iti ti M d lStrategy Prioritization Model User Input


28‐Jun‐11

Strategy 3.1 Potomac Intake Strategy 3.2 Digestion/CHP

at Piscataway

Strategy 3.3 Ostara Pearl

ProcessTM at

Piscataway

Strategy 3.4 Green Carbon

Sources for

Denite

Strategy 3.5 Recycling

Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score

GHG Reduction Potential 35 2 70 10 350 10 350 6 210 2 70

2030 GHG Reduction (tonnes CO2e) 75 12,787 12,000 2,895 32

2005 Baseline (tonnes CO2e) 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100

% Reduction 0.1% 9.8% 9.2% 2.2% 0.0%

Community/Customers 10 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50

O&M Efficiency 20 10 200 6 120 6 120 2 40 2 40O&M Efficiency 20 10 200 6 120 6 120 2 40 2 40

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10 10 100 10 100 5 50 5 50 10 100

Outside Funding Opportunities 10 0 0 5 50 5 50 0 0 0 0

Time To Implement 5 5 25 5 25 5 25 10 50 10 50

Effort to Implement 10 2 20 2 20 0 0 10 100 10 100

TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE 100 465 715 645 500 410

Capital Cost (in 2011 dollars) $22,400,000 $60,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $0

Annual Cost (in 2011 dollars) ‐$745,000 ‐$3,135,952 ‐$50,000 $1,175,406 $0

Present Worth (thru 2030) $14,984,000 $28,785,000 $5,573,000 $14,032,000 $0


Evaluation Group 3 – Residuals/Process

900

1000


600

700

800

d Score

300

400

500

otal W

eighte

0

100

200

To

Potomac Intake Digestion/CHP at Piscataway

Ostara Pearl ProcessTM at Piscataway

Green Carbon Sources for Denite

Recycling



O&M Efficiency Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement Effort to Implement

8

Evaluation Group 4 – TransportationWSSC Greenhouse Gas Action Plan



28‐Jun‐11

Strategy 4.1 Hybrid/Alt Fuel Strategy 4.2 Telecommuting Strategy 4.3 Business Trip

Reductions

Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score

GHG Reduction Potential 35 6 210 2 70 2 70

1 488 431 442030 GHG Reduction (tonnes CO2e) 1,488 431 44

2005 Baseline (tonnes CO2e) 131,100 131,100 131,100

% Reduction 1.1% 0.3% 0.03%

Community/Customers 10 10 100 10 100 5 50

O&M Efficiency 20 2 40 2 40 2 40

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10 5 50 5 50 5 50

Outside Funding Opportunities 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time To Implement 5 10 50 10 50 10 50

Effort to Implement 10 2 20 6 60 6 60

TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE 100 470 370 320

Capital Cost (in 2011 dollars) $6,700,000 $0 $0

Annual Cost (in 2011 dollars) $27,147 $0 ‐$2,869


Present Worth (thru 2030) $7,057,000 $0 ‐$39,000

9

Evaluation Group 4 – Transportation

900

1000


600

700

800

d Score

300

400

500

otal W

eighte

0

100

200

To

0

Hybrid/Alt Fuel Telecommuting Business Trip Reductions




10

Evaluation Group 5 – Lighting/HVACg g




28‐Jun‐11

Strategy 5.1 Piscataway

Heating FO to NG

Strategy 5.2 Heating/Cooling

using Plant

Effluent

Strategy 5.3 Solar Water Heating

at RGH

Strategy 5.4 HVAC/Lighting

Upgrades

Strategy 5.5 Office Equipment Strategy 5.6 Green Roof

Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score

GHG Reduction Potential 35 2 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2 70 2 70

2030 GHG Reduction (tonnes CO2e) 21 264 59 587 508 131

2005 Baseline (tonnes CO2e) 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100 131,100

% Reduction 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1%

Community/Customers 10 5 50 5 50 10 100 5 50 5 50 10 100

O&M Efficiency 20 2 40 0 0 10 200 10 200 10 200 0 0

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10 5 50 5 50 5 50 10 100 10 100 0 0

Outside Funding Opportunities 10 0 0 0 0 10 100 10 100 0 0 0 0

Time To Implement 5 5 25 5 25 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50

Effort to Implement 10 6 60 2 20 6 60 6 60 10 100 2 20

TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE 100 295 215 630 630 570 240

Capital Cost (in 2011 dollars) $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $24,000 $4,000,000 $0 $2,000,000p ( ) $ , , $ , , $ , $ , , $ $ , ,

Annual Cost (in 2011 dollars) ‐$16,535 ‐$83,119 ‐$14,191 ‐$140,929 ‐$121,805 ‐$31,546

Present Worth (thru 2030) $4,835,000 $9,173,000 ‐$145,000 $2,318,000 ‐$1,604,000 $1,604,000


Evaluation Group 5 – Lighting/HVACg g

900

1000


600

700

800

d Score

300

400

500

600

tal W

eighted

100

200

300

To

0

Piscataway

Heating FO to NG

Heating/Cooling

using Plant Effluent

Solar Water

Heating at RGH

HVAC/Lighting

Upgrades

Office Equipment Green Roof



y/O&M Efficiency Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement Effort to Implement

12

Evaluation Group 6 – Renewable ResourcesWSSC Greenhouse Gas Action Plan



28‐Jun‐11

Strategy 6.1 Solar PV at

Seneca and

WB (4 MW)

Strategy 6.2 Additional Solar

Installation (2

MW)

Strategy 6.3 Wind Energy

Criteria Weight Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score

GHG Reduction Potential 35 6 210 6 210 10 350GHG Reduction Potential 35 6 210 6 210 10 350

2030 GHG Reduction (tonnes CO2e) 5,013 2,557 55,757

2005 Baseline (tonnes CO2e) 131,100 131,100 131,100

% Reduction 4% 2% 42.5%

Community/Customers 10 10 100 10 100 10 100Community/Customers 10 10 100 10 100 10 100

O&M Efficiency 20 2 40 2 40 2 40

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives 10 10 100 5 50 10 100

Outside Funding Opportunities 10 10 100 10 100 10 100

Time To Implement 5 10 50 10 50 5 25Time To Implement 5 10 50 10 50 5 25

Effort to Implement 10 10 100 6 60 2 20

TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE 100 700 610 735

Capital Cost (in 2011 dollars) $0 $0 $0

A l C (i 2011 d ll ) $224 000 $112 000 $0


Annual Cost (in 2011 dollars) ‐$224,000 ‐$112,000 $0

Present Worth (thru 2030) ‐$2,949,000 ‐$1,337,000 $0

13

Evaluation Group 6 – Renewable Resources

900

1000

Group 6 Strategies: Benefit Score and PW Cost Comparison

600

700

800

d Score

300

400

500

otal W

eighted

0

100

200

To

Solar PV at Seneca and WB (4 MW) Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) Wind Energy

GHG Reduction Potential Community/Customers & ffi i li i h / i i i



14


800

900

1000

ore

oposedSt ateg es So ted by ota e e t Sco e

500

600

700

eighted Sco

100

200

300

400

Total W

e

0

100

GHGReduction Potential Community/Customers O&MEfficiency


GHG Reduction Potential Community/Customers O&M Efficiency

Alignment with CIP/Initiatives Outside Funding Opportunities Time To Implement

Effort to Implement

15

WSSC GHG Action PlanProposedStrategies Sorted by Total Benefit Score

50,000

60,000

n by 2030

Proposed Strategies Sorted by Total Benefit Score


40,000

mission Reduction

CO2e)

20,000

30,000

e Annual G

HG Em

(tonnes

0

10,000

Cumulative



70,000,000

80,000,000

s by 2030

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

th of A

lternative

$)

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

tive

Present Wor ( $

0

10,000,000

Cumulat


WSSC GHG Action PlanProposed Strategies Sorted by PW per tonne CO2e Reduced

50,000

60,000

on by 2030


30 000

40,000

mission Red

uctio

s CO2e)

20,000

30,000

ve Annual G

HG Em

(tonnes

Positive PW

Negative PW

0

10,000

Cumulativ


WSSC GHG Action Plan

Proposed Strategies Sorted by Alignment w/ CIP (1ary Sort) and Total

50,000

60,000

on by 2030

Benefit Score (2ary Sort)


30 000

40,000

mission Reductio

s CO2e)

20,000

30,000

ve Annual G

HG Em

(tonnes

Score of 0

Score of 50

Score of 100

0

10,000

Cumulativ


St t N

Strategy Rank in Category

Strategy Rank in Different Categories

Total

Score

GHG

Reduction

O&M

Efficiency

Alignment

with CIP

Effort to

Implement

Present

Worth (PW)

PW per Tonne

Removed

Aeration Efficiency at WWTPs 1 6 1 1 7 6 11

Digestion/CHP at Piscataway 2 1 13 1 20 28 18

Solar PV at Seneca and WB (4 MW) 3 3 18 1 1 4 12

O P l P TM Pi 4 2 13 16 28 23 17

Strategy Name

Ostara Pearl ProcessTM at Piscataway 4 2 13 16 28 23 17

Replace Mixers at Piscataway 5 13 1 1 7 9 8

Anacostia WW Pumps 6 20 1 1 7 12 10

Potomac HZ Pumps 7 18 1 1 7 13 14

Solar Water Heating at RGH 8 25 1 16 7 11 5

HVAC/Lighting Upgrades 9 14 1 1 7 20 20HVAC/Lighting Upgrades 9 14 1 1 7 20 20

Additional Solar Installation (2 MW) 10 7 18 16 7 8 13

Bowie Pump Station 11 12 1 1 1 21 24

Patuxent Reclaim Pumps 12 21 1 1 1 10 3

Office Equipment 13 15 1 1 1 7 1

Optimize Water Pumping Efficiency 14 8 13 16 7 2 4

Red – Top ScoringBlue – Middle ScoringGreen – Bottom Scoring

Optimize Parkway Pumps 15 23 1 1 7 17 23

Rentricity Flow‐to‐Wire 16 4 13 16 20 1 7

Green Carbon Sources for Denite 17 5 18 16 1 26 22

Hybrid/Alt Fuel 18 10 18 16 20 24 21

Optimize WW Pumping Efficiency 19 16 1 1 20 18 19

20 24 1 1 20 27 27

Green Bottom Scoring

Potomac Intake 20 24 1 1 20 27 27

Track Water Dist. System Valves 21 11 13 1 7 5 6

Recycling 22 27 18 1 1 15 15

Reduce Water Pressure 23 9 18 16 20 3 2

Telecommuting 24 17 18 16 7 15 15

Business Trip Reductions 25 26 18 16 7 14 9


Business Trip Reductions 25 26 18 16 7 14 9

Piscataway Heating FO to NG 26 28 18 16 7 22 28

Green Roof 27 22 27 28 20 19 25

Heating/Cooling using Plant Effluent 28 19 27 16 20 25 2620

Documents

Greenhouse Gas Action Plan - WSSC Water€¦ · O nitrous oxide . GREENHOUSE GAS ACTIO N PLAN VI WBG121211172019ORL O&M operations and maintenance . PFCs perflourocarbons . PPA power