W INERY W ASTE PUBLIC FORUM 1:00 PM TO 5:00 PM January 27, 2015 SUMMARY NOTES Overview The (NSD) hosted a public forum to discuss a range of options for managing winery waste. Approximately 40 people representing a variety of backgrounds wine industry, City and County planners, trade groups, engineering firms attended to learn about ideas currently under consideration and to offer input into a community-supported solution. Tim Healy, NSD General Manager, welcomed participants to the Forum and provided some background on the issues related to winery waste. He introduced Daniel Iacofano of MIG, Inc., who served as the meeting moderator. Next, Jeff Tucker, Director of Administrative Services for the District, offered an overview of the five options under study for managing winery waste from the Napa Valley area. Electronic polling was done to gauge the level of support for each of the options, with one vote taken before the discussion and one vote taken following. The polling results are shown directly below the title of the option. The following is a summary of the comments, questions and answers that were raised during the Forum. The are organized according to the following headings: I. Winery Waste Management Options II. Potential Decision Making Criteria For Choosing Among The Various Options III. Next Steps IV. Additional Comments From Forum Participants At Workshop V. Additional Comments From Forum Participants Submitted Under Separate Cover Winery Waste Public Forum Page 1
The rank order of options after discussion of each option was as follows (the result of adding Good Idea plus Worth Considering ): OPTION B: NSD BUILDS FACILITY Polling: Good idea 24% 13% Worth considering 64% 75% Not my favorite option 12% 13% OPTION C: PRE-TREATMENT AT WINERY Polling: Good idea 38% 37% Worth considering 41% 40% Not my favorite option 21% 23% OPTION D: PRIVATELY-OWNED/-OPERATED FACILITY AT NSD Polling: Good idea 26% 21% Worth considering 39% 55% Not my favorite option 35% 24% OPTION E: COLLECTIVE PRE-TREATMENT NEAR WINERIES CO-OP OR PRIVATE Polling: Good idea 50% 28% Worth considering 31% 25% Not my favorite option 19% 47% OPTION A: HAUL TO EBMUD Polling: Good idea 14% 9% Worth considering 33% 24% Not my favorite option 53% 68% Winery Waste Public Forum Page 2
I. WINERY WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS OPTION A: HAUL TO EBMUD Polling: Good idea 14% 9% Worth considering 33% 24% Not my favorite option 53% 68% Advantages It is the cheapest option at present since the externalities are not included in the cost (13 cents per gallon). The discharge permit is in place. No pre-treatment is required. Cost is low with no long-term commitment to infrastructure cost. The carbon footprint is positive since the waste is converted to energy by EBMUD. The hold and haul was an easy entry point for wineries; there was a regulatory incentive at the time. Disadvantages Napa wine industry does not control the waste it produces. Napa wine industry depends on an outside jurisdiction to satisfy its waste disposal. Hauling costs are high. Carbon footprint is high. Trucking costs will likely rise in the future. The hauling puts a lot of trucks on the road. Trucking produces air pollution. Low cost will not continue; the costs will go up when the EBMUD digesters need to be refurbished Regulations will likely become more stringent in the future, making this option less desirable. Questions and Comments: Is EBMUD a long-term solution? o At present, EBMUD has capacity and cost flexibility to respond to market conditions. Could rail be used? This is a relatively small cost to most typical winery operations. CEQA requirements from SB743 may lead to additional mitigation costs. Winery Waste Public Forum Page 3
OPTION B: NSD BUILDS FACILITY Polling: Good idea 24% 13% Worth considering 64% 75% Not my favorite option 12% 13% Advantages Trucking costs and their associated environmental costs would be less than Option A. Long term costs would become more stable and predictable. Disadvantages TOTAL costs for this option will likely be higher than Option A. NSD would risk being stuck with too much capacity. Winery waste is 20 times stronger than the typical waste stream. This option will require long term hauling commitment from wineries to ensure waste stream. A solution to methane emissions will need to be found. Questions and Comments: How much capacity does the current NSD facility have without winery waste? o NSD currently operates at 55-60% of capacity. Is the current facility sized for General Plan build-out? o NSD Master Plan identifies a trigger point for capital improvement in line with General Plan build-out. What is the status of the existing Digester at NSD in terms of its useful life? o It is at 10 years of a total useful life of 50 years. Does the treatment process require supplemental water? o No. Does the law allow NSD to require use of its facilities? o Yes. Isn t winery waste a seasonal issue (i.e., peak in the fall during harvest/crush)? o Wineries have other agricultural and operational functions besides grape harvest so there is fairly consistent waste flow throughout the year with few demand spikes. Winery Waste Public Forum Page 4
OPTION C: PRE-TREATMENT AT WINERY Polling: Good idea 38% 37% Worth considering 41% 40% Not my favorite option 21% 23% Advantages Wineries will control their own discharge. A County permit should be achievable. Winery business plans can be adjusted to build in these costs and achieve a return on investment. Provides local control and opportunity for on-site recycling. Disadvantages This option is difficult to scale up or down if capacity needs change. Energy capture will be difficult to achieve through this decentralized approach. Up-front capital investment is required. This option may not be the most cost efficient. Wineries in the industrial park are space-constrained and may not have enough room for pretreatment facilities. Winery Waste Public Forum Page 5
OPTION D: PRIVATELY-OWNED/-OPERATED FACILITY AT NSD Polling: Good idea 26% 21% Worth considering 39% 55% Not my favorite option 35% 24% Advantages Cost for this option will be relatively stable. Capital cost will be absorbed by the private entity. Labor costs may be lower than in the case of publicly-owned facilities. Trucking costs will be less. This option provides a good long term solution. Energy recovery is possible. Disadvantages Control over pricing will be limited. Wineries will have less control over the operation than in the case of publicly-owned facilities. Questions and Comments: How much capacity would be used? o Depends on pre-treatment. What about borrowing costs? o Could look into Pollution Prevention bonds o Consider public-private partnership o Consider JPA What could the private sector do less expensively? o Labor is the big cost savings o Public sector has prevailing wage requirements for construction contracts. Winery Waste Public Forum Page 6
OPTION E: COLLECTIVE PRE-TREATMENT NEAR WINERIES CO-OP OR PRIVATE Polling: Good idea 50% 28% Worth considering 31% 25% Not my favorite option 19% 47% Advantages This option may be cheaper and more convenient. No NPDES permit would be required. Disadvantages It s a full-time job to operate a facility of this type. Experience has shown that a high degree of expertise is required. Reliability can be an issue depending on the operator. This option may result in a plethora of relatively smaller, decentralized facilities resulting in lower efficiency. Questions and Comments: There is an example of this option in Sonoma County. Consider a collaboration with American Canyon for this option. Look into UC Davis research on membranes. Consider more sophisticated treatment processes. Winery Waste Public Forum Page 7
OTHER OPTIONS: Cross-flow membranes; this approach is scalable Recycling/Re-Use Other treatment processes Open pond systems o These are land-intensive o Neighbors are not always supportive o Some restrictions on these; especially around the Airport Sustainable system: Bio-filter (worms and wood chips), no sludge Other treatment processes Winery Waste Public Forum Page 8
II. POTENTIAL DECISION MAKING CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING AMONG THE VARIOUS OPTIONS To evaluate the relative strengths of the various options, Forum participants suggested the following criteria: Price stability and predictability Economic impact on winery operations Environmental impact (i.e., carbon footprint, from a system perspective) Taking responsibility for one s own waste Reliability Energy co-generation and/or re-generation potential Water re-use potential III. NEXT STEPS Forum participants had these suggestions for next steps in the winery waste management process: Establish the baseline for comparison of the treatment options as the current local scenario, not the EBMUD scenario. Market conditions should be a major determinant in choosing a future treatment method. All these options deserve further study. Consider a partnership between NSD, the City of Napa, the City of American Canyon, Napa County and the wine industry for commissioning and funding a technical study of the major options. (Many Forum participants indicated a willingness to participate financially in such a study.) Winery Waste Public Forum Page 9
IV. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM FORUM PARTICIPANTS AT WORKSHOP Consider bio-filter (worms/wood chips) approach: it is cheaper, effective and scalable. Consider anaerobic digestion to fuel trucks for the CNG fueling station at on Kelly Road. Wine industry participation with the is important. This partnership approach will help achieve a level of buy-in and commitment to what is planned and eventually implemented. Thanks for putting this workshop together! V. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM FORUM PARTICIPANTS SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER Comments on Individual Options My specific option comments were incorporated during the discussion. General/Additional Comments. The following are my additional comments with regards to the Abstract and NSD Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. Economic Analysis for Option B. The economic analysis results for Option B are driven greatly by the assumption that the pretreatment system is designed to a 3,500 mgl, 300 mgl (BOD, TSS, respectively) standard. Many of the winery waste treatment systems used in unincorporated Napa County treat winery process waste to a 30 mgl (BOD), 30 mgl (TSS) standard. Reevaluating Option B with a more effective pre-treatment system would likely substantially improve the economic conclusions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this workshop. I found the workshop extremely informative and hope the above comments are helpful in some way. If there are other opportunities to further participate in this discussion, please contact me. Hugh Linn RSA+ Civil Engineering Winery Waste Public Forum Page 10