HomeMy WebLinkAbout04. Satellite Water Recycling FacilitiesSatellite
Water Recycling Facilities
DCC and Beyond...
February 9, 2016
Real Estate, Environmental, and Planning Committee
Jean -Marc Petit
Director of Engineering &
Technical Services
Danea Gemmell
Planning & Development
Division Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Terminology
• Scalping Plant
• Remote Reclamation Facility
• Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant
• Recycled Water Satellite Treatment Plant
• Satellite Water Reclamation Facility
• Satellite Recycling Facility
• Satellite Recycled Water Plant
• Satellite Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant
• Satellite Water Recycling Facility
k
1
Satellite Water Recycling Facility
Models
Satellite Water Recycling Facility
Concept
Screenings
Hauled Off -Site
Wastewater /%' r\ Process Solids
Withdrawal /L// 1•!1�\\Y Returned to
Lateral Collection System
CCCSD Collection System
2/5/2016
2
1 - SWRF
Customer
Finances/Owns/Operates
• Requires additional CCCSD O&M
Pros
staff and resources
Cons
• CCCSD potentially responsible for
• Does not impact CCCSD
• Lowest risk to CCCSD
borrowing capacity
• Raw wastewater availability may
• Reduces nearby agency concerns
not meet customer needs
• Does not require CCCSD capital
• Potential impacts on collection
Raw wastewater availability may
system and treatment plant O&M
funds
not meet customer needs
• Does not impact CCCSD borrowing
Nearby agency concerns
capacity
Potential impacts on collection
• Does not require CCCSD O&M staff
system and treatment plant O&M
and resources
Potential zoning concerns
• Reduced effluent discharge
V
2 - SWRF Customer Finances/Owns &
CCCSD Operates
Pros
Cons
• Requires additional CCCSD O&M
• Does not require CCCSD capital
staff and resources
funds
• CCCSD potentially responsible for
• Does not impact CCCSD
regulatory compliance
borrowing capacity
• Raw wastewater availability may
• Reduces nearby agency concerns
not meet customer needs
(e.g. odors, SSOs)
• Potential impacts on collection
• Reduced effluent discharge
system and treatment plant O&M
• Potential zoning concerns
2/5/2016
3
3 - CCCSD Finances/Owns/Operates
Pros
Cons
• Lower risks to CCCSD
• Requires long-term, secure form of
• Does not require CCCSD capital funds
debt repayment
• CCCSD has experience
• Potential impact on CCCSD future
owning/operating WWTPs
borrowing capacity
• Reduces nearby agency
• Requires additional CCCSD staff and
concerns (e.g. odors, SSOs)
resources
• Eligible for SRF loan
• CCCSD responsible for all regulatory
• Reduced effluent discharge
compliance
• Eliminates potential zoning
• Raw wastewater availability may not
concerns
meet customer needs
• Potential impacts on collection
system and treatment plant O&M
4 - Public Private Partnership (P3) -
Third Party Finances/Owns/Operates
Pros
Cons
• Lower risks to CCCSD
• Does not require CCCSD capital funds
• Raw wastewater availability
• Does not impact CCCSD borrowing
may not meet customer
capacity
needs
• Does not require CCCSD O&M staff and
• Potential impacts on
resources
collection system and
• P3 experienced in owning/operating
treatment plant O&M
WWTPs
• Potential zoning concerns
• Private partnership interest exists
• Contract operations
• Reduced effluent discharge
2/5/2016
2
5 — Regional Water Partnership
("Water Wheeling")
Pros
Cons
• Centralized recycled water production
• More complex
(1 centralized plant vs. -20+ SWRFs)
coordination/agreements
• Optimizes O&M efficiency
between water agencies
• Offset refinery project costs
• State concurrence on water
• Lower cost recycled water compared to
offset concept
SWRFs (economies of scale)
• Current recycled water quality
• Eligible for SRF loan & better positioning
provided by CCCSD may not
for grant funding
match water quality required
• Reduced effluent discharge
by customers
• Raw wastewater availability nearly
• Longer implementation
guaranteed
schedule
Regional Water Partnership
("Water Wheeling")
.o
Refinery
i
i
1 e�°°aaH
O `
Q � �
t
µ
2/5/2016
5
Regional Water Partnership
("Water Wheeling")
20 MGD
Refinery
Demand
DCC (0.5 MGD)
Satellite Water Recycling
Facilities
as a District Program
2/5/2016
0
SWRF Program Opportunities for CCCSD
:c -•c
Y �
m
SWRF as a Regional Water Partnership Tool
to Offset Water
SWRFs for Cities
(4 MGD)
20 MGD
Refinery
14 Other Golf Courses
Demand
(6 MGD)
11 MGD
(Cities &
Moraga CC (0.5 MGD
Golf
Courses)
DCC (0.5 MGD)
I
2/5/2016
7
Implementing SWRF Program -
Risks to District
Financial Risks
• How to ensure full cost recovery of services?
• How guarantee repayment of debt service?
• Will future borrowing be affected by debt?
• Will O&M costs be considered too high over
time?
• How to prioritize SWRF vs. District needs?
• How to ensure replacement costs of SWRF
infrastructure are funded in the future?
2/5/2016
0
0&M Risks
• Change nature of wastewater treated at
Martinez WWTP (Flows/Loads/Biology)
• Increased maintenance of collection system
• Unfamiliar technology
• Responsibility for complaints (e.g. odor, traffic)
SWRF Customer Impacts
• Raw wastewater availability may not meet
customer needs
• Interruption of Service: Operations or
technical issues
• Water Quality may not meet Customer
expectations for end use
2/5/2016
0
Legal and Regulatory Risks
• Purveying Rights: Water Agency must
approve SWRF operation within their
service area.
• Will recycle water offsets be challenged?
• Ongoing Title 22 Compliance.
• CEQA challenges for SWRF Program
• Who owns spills and non-compliance?
Public Perception Risks
• What is the benefit of the project for the
public at large?
• "Effluent for the Affluenf'-CC Times
• Treatment facilities in residential
neighborhoods (NIMBY)
2/5/2016
10
By Sarah Hollenbeck, PFM
DISTRICT FINANCING OPTIONS
FOR SWRF
2/5/2016
11