The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.a. CWMP Workshop - Treatment Plant Master Plan Update12.a. COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Board Workshop June 16, 2016 MPR Conference Room WORKSHOP OU A. Treatment Plant (TP) Master Plan Status Update • Master Plan Drivers & Goals • Treatment Plant of the Future • Key Findings and Preliminary Recommendations • Preliminary Updated CIP Costs — TP Only • Next Steps B. Brief Status Update on Collection System Master Plan • Collection System Model Update • Introduction to Sewer Replacement Program using InfoMaster • Next Steps C. New Board Policies Discussions and Considerations 1: Consider an Energy Policy 2: Consider a Private Sewer Laterals Policy 6/20/2016 1 REFERENCE INFORMATION Additional Support information is included in a separate file. Reference to this information has been flagged with an asterisk (*) Additional Information will not be presented at the workshop COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Board Workshop Part A Treatment Plant Master Plan Update June 16, 2016 6/20/2016 2 WORKSHOP O! IN! A. Treatment Plant (TP) Master Plan Status Update Master Plan Drivers & Goals Treatment Plant of the Future Key Findings and Preliminary Recommendations • Preliminary Updated CIP Costs — TP Only • Next Steps B. Brief Status Updat, _.,i Collection System Master Plan • Collection System Model Update • Introduction to Sewer Replacement Program using InfoMaster • Next Steps C. New Board Policies Discussions and Considerations • 1: Consider an Energy Policy • 2: Consider a Private Sewer Laterals Policy MASTER PLAN DRIVERS & GOALS .4GO 6/20/2016 3 THE CWMP ADDRESSES FOUR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DRIVERS t Drivers Description 1 2 3 4 Aging Infrastructure Capacity Regulatory Sustainability Maintain performance and reliability of existing assets to ensure reliable collection and treatment of wastewater Increase capacity of existing facilities to accommodate planned growth for the communities we serve Reliably comply with regulatory requirements that are designed to protect human health and the environment & Plan for anticipated future regulatory requirements Minimize life -cycle costs, maximize benefits, and achieve economic stability through optimization, resiliency, resource recovery, and energy projects THIS MASTER PLAN WILL CONFIRM CIP NEEDS FOR THE NEXT 20+ YEARS (Nov. 2014) $1,500 $1,250 $1,000 $750 .) U v $500 $250 so $295M FY14/15 FY15/16 Approx. 10 -Year CIP 10 Year CIP 20 Year CIP 1.5B+ CIP Drivers ■ Optimization ■ Capacity ■ Regulatory ■ R&R 6/20/2016 4 THIS MASTER PLAN WILL CONFIRM CIP NEEDS FOR THE NEXT 20+ YEARS (Nov. 2014) (TREATMENT PLANT & RECYCLED WATER ONLY) CI P Costs in $M $1,500 $1,250 $1,000 $750 $500 $250 $0 $191M FY15/16 10 -Year CIP $807M Approx. 20 Year CIP CIP Drivers ■ Optimization IN Capacity • Regulatory • R&R =1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR REALIZING CCCSD's PLANT OF THE FUTURE The Water Resources Utility of -the Future: A 8hpind for Artion wCwA 'WERE tom_ 6/20/2016 5 CWMP GOALS AND LOS CWMP Goals Levels of Service (LOS) Strive to meet regulatory requirements (Always work to complywith local, state and federal regulatory requirements. 1 (critical facilities will be on-line within prescribed targets after catastrophic events (e.g., udder failures, earthquakes, floods,fire, acts of terrorism, etc.). Work to improve sanitary sewer overflow (060) occurrence rate of no more than 3.5 5505 per 100 miles per year. Be a fiscally sound and effective water sector unlit Develop a cost effective program to maximize recycle water in coordination with water agencies. The program must have a benefit/costs ratio 0121 least one or greater within 15 ears. 2 (Develop a program that maximizes energy efficiency and self-sufficiencythat has a benefitfcosts ratio of at least one or greater within 5 years. Develop long-term resource recovery projects that have a benefitfcosts ratio of at least one or greater within 5 years. 1Provirleexcepgonal custamerse ry ice LimitOdorsto withinthefence lineof the treatmerdplartfacilty. 'Provide recycledwater(e.g., residentialfill stations andrn comercial hydrants)alignedwith ' service area customers' demands. 'Develop a process for assessing custornersatisfaction, expectations for Districtservices, and' desire for general information. Develop a public education outreach program that provides pollution prevention education and is aligned with the customers desire for general information. rIPrn rojectsshould reduce adverse impacts onthe public andthe environentthrough Ids ustainabla practices that minimize waste, maximize resource recovery, and embrace innovation. IRespondto emergency calls in less than20 minutes during Districtworking hours andless khan 40 minutes during non -working hours. 3 ,ACCD TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN 6/20/2016 6 6/20/2016 KEY MASTER PLAN FINDINGS 1. Aging Infrastructure 2. Site Constraints 3. Liquid Stream Capacity Limitations 4. Impact of Future Regulations Identified in Master Plan 5. Nexus Between Nutrient Removal Potential Regulations and Recycled Water Demand • Liquid Process Alternative Analysis 6. Need for Developing a Plan for Replacement of Multiple Hearth Furnaces (MHF) • Results of Solids Process Alternative Analysis 7. Energy Improvements Required on UV Disinfection and Steam Blower Systems 8. Net Zero Energy Goals Requires Import of Carbon and Alternative Renewable Energy Sources KEY FINDINGS 1 - AGING INFRASTRUCTURE Maintain performance and reliability of existing 1 Aging Infrastructure assets to ensure reliable collection and treatment of wastewater 3 4 Kegulatory Sustainability planned growth for the communities we serve Reliably comply with regulatory requirements that are designed to protect human health and the environment & Plan for anticipated future regulatory requirements Minimize life -cycle costs, maximize benefits, and achieve economic stability through optimization, resiliency, resource recovery, and energy projects AGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 6/20/2016 8 STARTING OUT WITH A GOOD FOUNDATION `Y1 ali s AGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Concrete Generally in Good Condition MHFs have some remaining life but do not meet seismic design standards Some Mechanical Equipment Exceeding Typical Useful Life but will now need to be replaced within planning timeframe Continued Repair & Replacement Projects Will be Required on Existing Process Equipment and Plant Infrastructure 6/20/2016 9 KEY FINDINGS 2 - SITE CONSTRAINTS LIMITED SPACE FOR FUTURE FACILITIES Wet Weather Basins Contaminated Soils Treatment Facilities 6/20/2016 10 CONTAMINATED SOILS IN IDEAL LOCATION FOR TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION -. Buffer Property Shell Refinery to North-west Wet Weather Basins Contaminated Soils Treatment Facilities Ideal Location for Treatment Plant Expansion Tesoro Refinery • PLANT EXPANSION IN SURCHARGE PILE REQUIRES RELOCATION OF CONTAMINATED SOILS Contaminated 9011 (Relocated to N WHBA-.S.outh) Blower Building Solids Handling Expansion LEGEND 5 mgd Trile 22 RW Peak Wet Weather Flow Improvements Opt l m babonIR a liabil4 22 mgd RW for Refineries LevelNutrient Limps Level %Aden! L nits ALTERNATIVE L2 — SITE LAYOUT MLE+MBR Gpk � N.STE„w;ERAMS;E3FUN 6/20/2016 11 EXPANSION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL & SOLIDS A. On -Site Consolidation: Locate Plant Expansion in Surcharge Pile Location. Relocate and Consolidate Contaminated Soil to Basin A South. B. Off -Haul: Locate Plant Expansion in Surcharge Pile Location & Off -Haul Contaminated Soil to Special Landfill C. West Campus: Locate Plant Expansion at CCCSD West Campus Where Annex, 4737, and HHW are Located* D. Kiewit Property: Locate Plant Expansion at Kiewit Property* E. In -Situ Treatment: Locate Plant Expansion in Surcharge Pile Location & Treat Soil In -Situ (Under further Considerations) * Some Consolidation of Contaminated Soils will still be required. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (*) Alternative A. Consolidate Soil to Basin A South (Does Not Include Costs for Treatment Plant Facilities) B. Off -Haul Soil (Does Not Include Costs for Treatment Plant Facilities) C. Locate Facilities at CCCSD Kiewit Property (Includes Only Added Costs to Locate Facilities at Kiewit Property. Does Not Include All Costs for Treatment Plant Facilities.) D. Locate Facilities at CCCSD West Campus (Includes Only Added Costs to Locate Facilities at West Campus. Does Not Include All Costs for Treatment Plant Project Cost Pros • Lowest Cost • Offers Ideal Location for expansion & for Operation of new Treatment Processes • Conserve Specialized Landfill Space for Higher Risk Wastes Cons • Keeps Soil On -Site • Some Risk Remains for Having Soil On - Site • Maximizes use of Site for Treatment • High Cost Alternatives • Uses Landfill Space for Relatively Lower • Offers Ideal Location for expansion & for Risk Hazardous Waste Operation of new Treatment Processes District still responsible for off site waste • Less Cost than Off -Haul • Does Not Require Large Volumes of Excavation of Contaminated Soil • Conserve Landfill Space for Higher Risk Wastes • Does Not Require Large Volume of Excavation of Contaminated Soil • Conserve Landfill Space for Higher Risk Wastes Complex Separation & Operation of Treatment Processes Impacts Plans for Kiewit Property (Leases, Recycled Water, Soil Import for Levee) Requires Significant Work Across Creek & Site Improvements Need to Explore Further with County & Airport Land Use Commission • Highest Cost • Complex Separation & Operation of Treatment Processes • Located in Mt View Sanitary District • Requires HHW/4737/Annex/Staff/ Tenant Relocation Requires Significant Site Improvements 6/20/2016 12 A. MOVE CONTAMINATED SOILS TO BASIN A SOUTH Solids Handling Expansion LEGEND 5 mgtl Title 22 RW Peak Wet Weather Flow Improvement Opti m ization,(ReliabiiTy 20 nyd RW for Refineries Level Nutrient Umi b Level3 Nutrient Llmits ALTERNATIVE L2 - SITE LAYOUT MLE + MBR CENTRAL CONTRA COST0. SANITARY DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER AMSTER PLAN B. OFF HAUL CONTAMINATED SOILS TO SPECIALIZED LANDFILL LEGEND 5 mgd Title 22 RW Peak Wet Weather Flow Improvement Optl m izalion,iReliabiilTy 22 mgd RW for Refineries Level2 NNdeM Llmfls Level Nutrient Limits ALTERNATIVE L2 - SITE LAYOUT MLE + MBR CENTRAL CONTRA COSTAL SANITARY DISTRICT 6/20/2016 13 C. LOCATE FACILITIES AT CCCSD KIEWIT PROPERTY heturn ��,1'' - xed 5 mg zadoTale 22 RW Liquor Pipe Peak Wet Weather How Impron.n u is Return ' Optimix�nnjRefiablky MUM ACWaipe � New kilmver Sludge Pipe Ruikding 20m RW 3w Refineries Level 2 Nutrient Limns LEGEND • Frimary, Level 3 Nutient Limits Effluent Pipe ALTERNATIVE L2 — SITE LAYOUT MLE + MBR ALTERNATE LAYOUT 1 F/GURE 2 CENTRAL CONTRACOSTA SANITARY OIS1TCT LOFRRBnNSNE N'ASTfWA i6i WASTERnAN ,AZ D. LOCATE FACILITIES AT CCCSD WEST CAMPUS Mixed uquor Fipe • 1�Rerirn Activated .Sludge Fipe Dolor; Ell uenl F:pe ondary Blower Building UV Hydraulic Improvements Reserved for Bolds Handing New AN Tanks New ?lower Budding l -- 1000ft Primary EMuern Plpe NEW Hilt Removal t New PGT Raw WaoIna ter Dner_ian and Drainback Plpa i LEGEND - 5mgd Title 22 RW Peak Wet Weather How Improvements - OptinuzakoNReliablfy 20 mgd RW for Refineries Level 2 Nutrient Lints Level 3 Nutrient Units ALTERNATIVE L2— SITE LAYOUT MLE + MBR ALTERNATE LAYOUT 2 SEN.. CONTRA CIISTA SANITARY MS -MU 6/20/2016 14 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 2 1. Use Alternative A. Re -Consolidate Contaminated Soil to Basin A South & Construct Liquid and Solids Treatment Expansion in Location of Existing Surcharge Pile ($16M) 2. Regardless of Alternative, CCCSD WWTP is still Designated a DTSC Waste Management Unit 3. DTSC Preferred On -Site Consolidation (Alternative A) over Off -Haul (Alternative B) in a 2014 Meeting with District Staff KEY FINDINGS 3 - LIQUID STREAM CAPACITY LIMITATIONS 6/20/2016 15 t Driver Description 2 4 Capacity Sustainability iminimouninue Increase capacity of existing facilities to accommodate planned growth for the communities we serve designed to protect human health and the environment & Plan for anticipated future regulatory requirements Minimize life -cycle costs, maximize benefits, and achieve economic stability through optimization, resiliency, resource recovery, and energy projects KEY FINDINGS 3 SOME LIQUID STREAM CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED No Average Dry Weather Flow Capacity Limitations Some Peak Hourly Wet Weather Flow Limitations Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow Limitation 6/20/2016 16 FLOW & LOADS EVALUATION BASED ON ABAG PROJECTIONS & GENERAL PLANS 700,000 600,000 500,000 c 0 ,t, 400,000 0 0 a 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 —CCCSD Service Area - —Concord & Gayton =_—Total CCM) "0.7-1.1% Per Yea I 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20 r Projection ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments * Include s Concord naval Weapon Station Development ECD LONG-TERM HISTORICAL ADWF 50 45 40 35 30 E W - 25 ¢ 20 15 10 5 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Concord Pipeline Completed Housing Boom M ee- Y Recession & Low Flow Fixtures Historically, Flows Re -Bound To Near Pre -Drought Conditions Drought –1%/yr. Growth Assum 6/20/2016 17 60 50 40 FUTURE FLOW & LOADS • X = E X 30 No Average Dry Weather Flow Capacity Issues Identified 20 10 Anticipated 2016 ADV7F Based on Latest Flow Data Anticipated 2035 ADWF = 41 MGD ADWF—Projection—Permitted Capacity ADWF - Estimated Recycle Flow (2 mgd) 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 . Figure 5.4 ADWF Protection Based on Historical Flows CURRENT WET WEATHER OPERATIOI • Flows Up to 100 mgd: • 100 MGD Through Primary And Secondary Treatment • Flows 100 mgd to 170 mgd: 170 MGD Through Primary And 100 MGD Through Secondary Treatment 0-70 MGD Primary Effluent Bypass To Holding Basins • Flows Greater than 170 mgd: 100 MGD Through Primary And Secondary Treatment 70 MGD+ Raw Bypass To Holding Basins 6/20/2016 18 PEAK HOUR WET WEATHER FLOWS sm 310 300 290 280 270 260 ; 250 240 2 LL 230 1220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 >b R 7' " Peak Flow Events - 2035 Scenario w/no I/1 Increase 1 r 2035 Peak Hourly Wet Weather Flow - (20 -Year Return Period) = 270 MGD Return Period 17r5l ■ 20E15 smme .211E15 Somme liresere. — Figure 6.9 2035 Peak WetWeattier Flows Based on Rainfall Return Periods f PREVIOUS PEAK HOUR WET WEATHER FLOW CRITERIA BASED ON 20 -YEAR DESIGN EVENT (*) This Master Plan & Previous District Studies Estimated Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow Using PICS MOST Model 1980s Collection System Design Criteria Memos: 400 mgd 2000 Collection System Master Plan: 392 mgd 2010 Collection System Master Plan: 310 mgd Current Prediction for this Master Plan: 270 mgd This Master Plan Recommendation to Be Confirmed with Calibrated Wet Weather InfoWorks® Model 6/20/2016 19 HOLDING BASIN STORAGE VOLUME Volume MG (2 -ft Freeboard) Basin A North Basin B Basin C Total Useable Storage Volume 21 80 22 123 WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT(*) 6/20/2016 20 REQUIRED PEAK SECONDARY TREATMENT CAPACITY FOR 20 -YEAR EVENT = 127 MGD A E roo rs ': Return Period lycar0 958 mg Storage •113.2 mg 5mrage • m.7 me pooge 2035 MAXIMUM MONTH WET WEATHER FLOW PROJECTION 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2035 ADWF 53.8 MGD Permitted Discharge Capacity x MMWWF Peaking Factor 1.81 l Based on actual MMWWF/ ADWF Peaking Factors from 2011 to 2015 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 74 MGD 2035 MMWWF 6/20/2016 21 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS — 3 Recommended Wet Weather Improvements: Projected 2035 Avg. Dry Weather Flow = 41 mgd Projected 2035 Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow = 74 mgd High Primary Sedimentation Tank Overflow Rates Result in Reduced Performance -> therefore Add one Primary Sedimentation Tank with Grit Removal (5-10 years) Projected 2035 Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow = 270 mgd Targeted Secondary Capacity = 127 mgd Add one Secondary Clarifiers (5-10 years) Eliminate UV/Final Effluent Hydraulic Bottlenecks (5-10 years) Total Estimated Project Cost for Wet Weather Improvements: ^'$30 M in 5-10 years .40 KEY FINDINGS 4 - IMPACT OF FUTURE REGULATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE MASTER PLAN 6/20/2016 22 THE CWMP ADDRESSES FOUR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DRIVERS 1 Drivers Descriptions 1 2 3 4 Aging Infrastruc Capacity Regulatory Sustainability Maintain performance and reliability of existing assets to ensure reliable collection and treatment of wastewater Increase capacity of existing facilities to accommodate planned growth for the communities we serve Reliably comply with regulatory requirements that are designed to protect human health and the environment & Plan for anticipated future regulatory requirements Minimize life -cycle costs, maximize benefits, and achieve economic stability through optimization, resiliency, resource recovery, and energy projects SUMMARY OF REGULATORY DRIVERS egulatory Considerations Nutrients Effluent Toxicity Virus -Based Disinfection Criteria Microconstituents & Contaminants of Emerging Concern Micr Recycled Water (Title 22, IPR, DPR) Title V Air Permit Requirements & Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Rules (*) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (*) Summary of Effects on Master Plan Plan for future nutrient removal facilities sized to meet BACWA Level 1- 3 Regulatory Scenarios & Assumed Timing Will continue to track regulatory trend No anticipated treatment improvements required at this time EPA is evaluating feasibility UV Replacement planned for 10-20 year timeframe Track regulations and incorporate in future UV design No anticipated treatment improvements required within 20 years Include ozone treatment advanced oxidation process in site plan for future potential CEC removal No anticipated treatment improvements required Focus is currently on source control of microplastics in commercial products Increased macroplastics removal moll be achieved with screenings removal project Recycled water facilities will comply with current Title 22 requirements, and IPR guidelines (if IPR is pursued) DPR regulations are anticipated December 2016 If new General Water Reuse Order is implemented, there will be programmatic changes only — no additional capital improvements are anticipated Include Improvements (wet scrubbers, wet electrostatic precipitator, low NOX burners, ammonia injection, and throx unit) to Reliably Meet New SSI Rules, Potential BACT and TBACT Implementation if Permitted Capacity Increase is Required, Potential TBACT Implementation if Updated Health Risk Assessment is Required by BAAQMD All alternatives reduce GHG emissions compared to current values No current plans for reductions in State-wide cap and trade threshold, however, more stringent Bay Area limits on CO2 may be required This is a potential risk with long-term use of multiple hearth furnaces and natural gas cogeneration 6/20/2016 23 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY DRIVERS Regulatory Considerations Biosolids End UseMi. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) North SF Bay Selenium TMDI PCB and Mercury Watershed Permit Federal Dental Amalgam Rule (Proposed) Summary of Effects on Master Plan Plan for Class A Product for Flexibility in Land Disposal for Digestion -Only Alternative. For Combination Digestion/Incineration Alternative where Digesters Can Be Used As Backup Disposal Option, Plan Digesters for Class B Product No anticipated treatment improvements required. District will support Cities in compliance. No anticipated treatment improvements required. Include New Scrubbers Remove More Mercury From Air Stream Which Results In Increase In Liquid Stream. Plan For Side stream Treatment Of Scrubber Water When Wet Scrubber Is Replaced. No anticipated treatment improvements required. District will modify existing Dental Amalgam program as required. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 4 1. Rely On BACWA Study For Potential Future Nutrient Levels Of Treatment. 2. Use Virus Based Design Criteria For Future UV Disinfection Replacement. 3. Design Alternatives To Stay Below Cap And Trade GHG Threshold Value Of 25,000 MT CO2/Yr. 4. Use Class A Biosolids In Alternative Analysis When Evaluating Land Application For Disposal Method. 6/20/2016 24 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - (CONTINUED) 5. Plan for Future SSI and Title V air permits requirements: • Include new scrubbers to remove more mercury, other metals and toxics, and particulates from air stream Plan for side stream treatment of scrubber water when wet scrubber is replaced to address potential increase in metals in liquid stream (e.g. mercury) Investigate potential BACT and TBACT control technologies (e.g. wet electrostatic precipitator for fine particulate removal, low NOX burners and ammonia injection for NOX and CO control, Throx unit for CO control) KEY FINDINGS 5 - NUTRIENT REMOVAL POTENTIAL REGULATIONS RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS NEXUS 420 6/20/2016 25 NUTRIENT WATERSHED PERMIT Meet Regional Permit Expectations (Monitoring, Reporting, Evaluation) Collaborate - BACWA, SFEI, RWQCB Permit Expires June 2019; Renewed Dec 2018 First Annual Report - Nov 2015 BACWA BAY AREA A CLEGAE NN WC E -� I S NUTRIENT LIMITS ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON BACWA NUTRIENT WORK (*) 6/20/2016 26 Concentrations, mg/L Assumed Timing Ammonia TN P Initiate Design Compliance Deadline Level 1 Optimization 2019 2024 Level2 2 15 1 2027 2037 Level3 2 6 0.3 2037? 2047? 6/20/2016 26 RECYCLED WATER DRIVERS ARE SIGNIFICANT BUT TIMING IS NOT WELL DEFINED CCCSD Zone 1 SUBTOTAL Demand Approximate (MGD) Timing 1.4 Current 2.4 Current 3.8 Current Water Quality Title 22 Title 22 Title 22 Concord Naval Weapons 5.8 5-10+ Years Title 22 Station Refinery (Phase 1) 3 to 5 0-5 Years Similar to Canal Quality (*) SUBTOTAL —15 Current Varies Refineries (Phase 2) +15 ? Similar to Canal Quality (*) Indirect or Direct Potable Reuse IPR/DPR Regulations Export to Ag ? ? Title 22? Lower Walnut Creek Wetlands Title 22? SUBTOTAL ? ? Varies NUTRIENT REMOVAL & RECYCLED WATER NEXUS Driver 0-5 5-10 Years Years 10-15 15-20 >20 Years _nQ ars Years Level 1— Optimizations e° Level 2 — Nutrient Removal • O�kdt �� Level 3 Nutrient Removalill aa�. k\e Naval Weapons Station _��e'� -a�'�$� Refinery (5 MGD) / cO� Refineries (20 MGD) e SeS IPR/DPR \ kOGj Export to Ag \ / Lower Walnut Creek Wetlands L Likely Timing Possible Timing CZD 6/20/2016 27 aZKau-iii•�a LIQUID PROCESS ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS (*) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS Step 1 December 2015 Universe of Alternatives Initial Screening Solids Liquids Energy KEY INPUT: Step 2 April 2016 Final Screening Workshop Workshop Step 3 June - October 2016 Scenario Evaluation and Development Step 4 November 2016 CIP Development CIP Project 2016 CCCSD STAFF CCCSD STAFF CCCSD BOARD r:CCSD BOARD 6/20/2016 28 WE NEED A CREDIBLE, DEFENSIBLE BASIS TO SET OUR DIRECTION... .I NpREqFARAAY -N- Oi1NS0OIJ1Ny ErHyyEHRpE RE _ �HCERTgIN ?? DISTANT ASO TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE PLUS (TBL+) DEFINITIONS • Category: The division or class within which each TBL+ Objective is grouped , :ocial, Environmental, Technical • Objective: Actions and/or outcomes that are desired with project implementation Based on established policy Criteria: Indicators of how well an alternative meets each objective Specific and measureable to the extent possible 6/20/2016 29 S2 Public Relations E2 Global Impacts F2 O&M $ T2 Efficiency TBL+ OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA Technical • T1: Provide Reliability and Performance Financial • F1: Capital Costs *1 Reliability/redundancy *1 Initial capital cost *2 Proven technology Process stability *3 • T2: Efficiency & • F2: O&M Flexibility Costs * 1 Minimize expendables *1 Annual O&M Costs and process equipment * 2 Ease of operation * 3 Efficient us of space * 4 Flexibility to meet future regulations and innovation Social • S1: Protect Public Health & Safety *1 Comply with regulatory requirements *2 Resiliency for catastrophic events Safety *3 • S2: Maintain Good Public Relations *1 Limit odors to within fence line *2 Minimize noise/visual impacts Minimize impacts from sludge/biosolids hauling off-site *3 Environmental • E1: Impact on Local Environment *1 Recycled water production (<_ 15 yr payback) * 2 Resource recovery (<_ 5 yr payback) • E2: Impact on Global Environment * 1 Minimize GHG emissions * 2 Minimize energy use/maximize energy self-sufficiency * LOS Goal 1 * LOS Goal 2 * LOS Goal 3 IDEAL ALTERNATIVE SCORE 100 75 2 N v 50 O 0 w O 25 0 El Local Impacts S1 Health & Safety F1 Capital $ TI Reliability/ Performance Ideal Alternative 6/20/2016 30 SCREENING UNIVERSE OF LIQUID ALTERNATIVES NARROWED TO TWO ALTERNATIVES Alternative 11 L2 Process for Level 2 Nutrient Removal and Bay Discharge MLE 1 MLE Process for producing recycled water for refineries MLE + MF + RO MBR + RO MLE — Modified Ludzack-Ettinger Activated Sludge MF— Microfiltration (Tertiary Membranes) MBR — Membrane Bio Reactor RO — Reverse Osmosis ALTERNATIVE LI (MLE ONLY) — SITE LAYOUT UV GMF {for P Removal, — Actrtlo•ryo mad! 7a n oSpIrt Stream NILE� UV Hydraulic ori ReveBe.Demcaltra1 LEGEND 5 !Kid Me 22 RW Pmt WS Waller How !minutemen's • OpIrnuatogReiadlNy 120 mJd RW for Refines J Level NNbert Omts NNNNNI Level 3 NUNert Umfts rtolomored)_• New AR, `Rowel Budding 2 Nev PS, Raw Waal ter ONTI61011 am, New A/N Tanks Are Deeper Than Existing 6/20/2016 31 ALTERNATIVE L2 (MBR + MLE) - SITE LAYOUT ga e OAF / NSF Effluent Lin. 5 mg Tile 22 NW Peak t Weather Flew Improvements oplimvagon/NNlamity 25 mga NW to Refers Level NWent Limb Level 3IttneM mgs NIL sem., eve wlydraule Maw 'EfSlorin= Aaw Wembeuraler and• 1 Hem PST H ., ell gemo New A/N Tanks Are Same Depth as Existing COMPARING ALTERNATIVES TO MEET LEVEL 2 NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS & RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS Alternative • Similar Cost to MBR • Co -Located with Other MLE Process Alternative L1 • Similar Treatment (MLE/MLE + MF + Technology Compared to RO+UV) Existing • Less Energy Required • Similar Cost to MLE • Modular Expansion More Alternative L2 Flexible to Future Recycled (MLE/MBR + RO + Water Needs UV) Easier to Segregate Recycled Water Facilities from Nutrient Removal Facilities • Level 3 Nutrient Removal Requires Extending to Basin A South • Requires Earlier Removal of Soil from surcharge pile to Basin A South (for 5 MGD Refinery Project) • Requires Extra Microfiltration Step • Higher Initial Cost for 5 MGD Refinery Project MBR Facilities Separate Location from MLE $382 $396 6/20/2016 32 PRELIMINARY LIQUID STREAM TBL+ RESULTS ❑ T1 Provide Reliability and Performance ❑ T2 Process Efficiency ■ Fl Minimize Capital Costs • F2 Minimize Life -Cycle Costs 10 S1 Protect Public Health and Safety ❑ S2 Maintain Good Public Relations ❑ E1 Mionimize Impact on Local Environment ❑ E2 Minimize Impact on Global Environment E2 El 52 51 Fl T2 Ti E2 El 52 51 F1 T2 T1 E2 E1 52 51 Nur F1 T2 T1 Ideal Alternative Alternative 11 - MLE + MF Alternative L2 - MLE + +RO MBR+RO ROADMAP TO ZERO DISCHARGE Flow Diverted from Bay (MGD) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Zero Discharge Potential To Get To Zero Discharge Projected Title 22 Demands Including Naval Weapons Station 6/20/2016 33 ROADMAP TO ZERO DISCHARGE Flow Diverted from Bay (MGD) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 Zero Discharge Lower Walnut Creek? IPR/DPR? Others? +15 MGD Phase 2 Refinery Project 3-5 MGD Phase 1 Refinery Project Projected Title 22 Demands Including Naval Weapons Station RECYCLED WATER CLOSELY TIED TO NUTRIENT REMOVAL Nutrient and TDS removal are required to achieve water quality similar to CCWD "canal" Current Estimates for Recycled Water Costs MBR+ROfo Recycled Water Only BNR + MBR + RO for Recycled Water & Nutrient Removal Requirements 5 MGD Recycled Water For Refineries $1,780/AF 20 MGD Recycled Water For Refineries $1,090/AF $1,380/AF $890/AF 6/20/2016 34 BNRII RW -J1 $450 $400 $350 $300 0 $250 3 $200 M $150 $100 $50 So RECYCLED WATER CLOSELY TIED TO NUTRIENT REMOVAL Baseline (no RW for refineries) BNR Max month Wet Weather flow CoPad►y hue) RW Capacity (mgd) I$1380/AF ■ $890/AFI"_' BNR' H$1.90/- I 5 mgd RW for refineries 20 mgd RW for refineries 74 69 54 0 5 20 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 5 • Select Alternative L2 (MBR+MLE) for Addressing Future Recycled Water & Nutrient Removal • Use MBR + RO + UV to Meet Canal Water Quality Requirements • Meet 5 MGD Refinery Demand with Split -Stream MBR Alternative • Expand MBR Alternative to Meet 20 MGD Refinery Demand • Continue to Work with CCWD On Evaluation of Industrial Water Pipeline to Supply Refineries 6/20/2016 35 KEY FINDINGS 6 - NEED FOR DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF MULTIPLE HEARTH FURNACES (MHF) MHF CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS • Condition: MHFs are in good condition • Seismic: MHFs and Solids Conditioning Building do not meet current seismic standards • Regulatory Cost Trigger: SSI MACT 129 regulations limit capital expenditures to 50% of original investment to be classified as an "existing" multiple hearth incinerator • Initial Capital Cost Investment $69M (2012 Dollars) • 50% of Initial Capital Cost Investment $35M (this is the allowable expenditures in 2012 Dollars) • Capital Costs Spent to Date $6M (2012 Dollars) • Remaining Capital Costs Allowed Based on Previous Expenditures $29M (2012 Dollars) (--$31M 2016 Dollars) • Anticipated 20 -Year CIP Expenditures (in 2016 Dollars) $19M - $29M (Remaining expenditures = $12M - $2M) • Regulatory Capacity Trigger: Future MHFs Solids Loading Exceed Capacity Limitations: • 12 -Month Rolling Average Limit: equivalent to 55 DTPD ( • Peak Calendar Day Limit: 60 DTPD (r - • r• Change in permitted limits will likely trigger additional air pollution control requirements (e.g. Updated Health Risk Assessment, BACT, TBACT) • Design Capacity Limitation: Future MHFs Solids Loading Exceed Design Capacity Limitations: 50 DTPD Annual Average design capacity ( ) 60 DTPD Peak Day design capacity ( ) 6/20/2016 36 MHF CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS • Regulatory Health Risk Assessment Trigger: Pending CAPCOA Draft Facility Prioritization Guidelines will likely trigger updated health risk assessment • Energy Efficiency Consideration: MHFs are less overall energy efficient and have higher GHG emissions compared to new Fluidized Bed Incinerators and/or Anaerobic Digesters • Future Greenhouse Gas Reduction Requirements: Future regional CO2 regulations may begin to include CO2 limits under BACT • Air Permitting Regulatory Risks: No grace period to meet emission limits. Control technologies and emissions must be in compliance at time of triggering any exceedance of furnace feed capacity, cost trigger, etc. efft_ FURNACE AVERAGE & PEAK CAPACITY LIMITATIONS Solids Loading (DTPD) 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ■ 2015 Current Load Capacity Limitation ■ 2035 Projected Load ❑ Rated Capacity ■ Permitted Capacity ,/ 12 -Month Rolling Avg Peak Day Excess Peak Day Load Managed w/Storage 6/20/2016 37 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED To ADDRESS AVERAGE FURNACE FEED CAPACITY 1. Reduce Load to Furnace to Delay Capacity Limitation 1. Lime Reduction Study 2. Investigate Impacts of Increasing Permitted Feed Capacity 1. Regulatory Impact Study Required 2. New Source Review (Health Risk Assessment, BACT, TBACT) 3. Re -Rate the Design Capacity of the MHF 1. Capacity Testing Required 2. Centrifuge & Cake Pump Replacement Required to Increase % Dryness 4. Evaluate Options to Split Solids Load to Other Process & Avoid MHF Capacity Issue Pilot then consider implementing long-term demonstration of innovative process; or Early implementation of anaerobic digesters upstream of existing MHF, or Early replacement of existing MHF with Fluidized Bed Incinerators IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED To ADDRESS PEAK DAY FURNACE FEED CAPACITY • Add One New Smaller Volume Blend Tank Sludge Storage Tank • Mixing Improvements To Existing Sludge Blend Tank And To Emergency Sludge Storage Tank • Emergency Option: Off -haul Solids Using Our Sludge Loading Building (CIP Will Include Improvements To Address Operational Challenges) 6/20/2016 38 SOLIDS DRIVERS FLOW CHART Testing & Studies • Lime Reduction • Capacity Testing • Regulatory Evaluation • Risk Modeling • Pilot Innovative Technologies Near -Term CIP Projects • Wet Scrubber • Scrubber Water Treatment • Ash System • Centrifuges • Cake Pumps • Storage/Mixing Potential Regulatory Drivers OEHHA AB2588 Updated Risk Factors Updated Health Risk Assessment & TBACT CO2 Emission Regulations under BACT Permitted Capacity Limit & BACT/TBACT/ MACT 129 1> AND/OR V AND/OR V Maximize Use of Existing MHF Seismic Improvements • Implement BACT & TBACT Projects • Regulatory Risk Early Implementation of Digesters • Reduced MHF Regulatory Risk • Improved Energy Profile Split Stream Solids Demonstration Project • Pending pilot test results • Improved Energy Profile PHASED APPROACH To ADDRESS FURNACE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS Recommendations Purpose Timing (Years) Capacity/Regulatory Testing Pilot New Wet Scrubber Assess Feasibility of Permit Increase Improved Regulatory Reliablility 0-5 0-5 Lime Reduction Testing Storage and Mixing Improvements Replace Centrifuges Reduce Load to MHF (delays trigger by >3 years) Improve Reliable Solids Storage Capacity/Addresses Peak Day Capacity Improve Reliable MHF Capacity 0-5 0-5 0-5 Pilot Innovative Technologies Increase Permitted Capacity Assess Feasibility of Split Solids Handling Depends on Testing (delays trigger by ^'5 years) 0-5 5-10 Long -Term Split Stream Demonstration Facility Implement Nutrient Removal Early Implementation of Digesters with Incineration Use Innovative Split Stream Technology to Reduce MHF Load Reduces Solids Load (delays trigger by —5 years) New System Sized for Projected Loads 10-20 10-20 10-20 may` 6/20/2016 39 SOLIDS PROCESS ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS (*) .44D SOLIDS HANDLING GOALS • Identify Ideal Alternative for Replacing Multiple Hearth Furnaces when Replacement is Required • Timing Based on Condition: >20 Years • Timing Based on Regulatory & Capacity Drivers: Likely > 10 Years • Identify Costs & Footprint Required • Improve Energy Efficiency • Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Triple Bottom Line Plus ZAL 6/20/2016 40 POTENTIAL SOLIDS HANDLING ALTERNATIVES 1. Keep Existing MHFs & Replace Ash System & Air Pollution Control Devices 2. Replace MHFs with Fluidized Bed Incinerators 3. Add Digesters Upstream of Incineration 4. Replace MHFs w/ Digestion & Biosolids Disposal Program 5. Consider Alternative Thermal Processes ➢ Gasification ➢ Pyrolysis ➢ Others SOLIDS STREAM NARROWED To BASELINE PLUS THREE ALTERNATIVES Alternative Baseline Solids Processing Keep MHFs Energy production ORC (After Conversion To Electric Blowers) + Gas Turbine 51 Transition from MHF to FBI ORC (After Conversion To Electric Blowers) + Gas Turbine S2 AD + Transition from MHF to FBI ORC (after conversion to electric blowers) + Gas Turbine + FOG Addition to AD's S3 Transition to all AD + Thermal Hydrolysis Gas Turbine + FOG Addition to AD's MHF — Multiple Hearth Furnaces ORC — Organic Rankine Cycle Cogeneration System FBI — Fluidized Bed Incinerator AD —Anaerobic Digesters FOG — Fats, Oils And Grease 6/20/2016 41 ALTERNATIVE S1 LAYOUT CONVERT TO FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION rJ Gas Conditioning System Emergency Sludge Load Out Facility Ash Thickeners FBIs, ORC, Gas Turbine, - and Vacuum Fitter in existing solids building ALTERNATIVE S2 LAYOUT DIGESTION WITH FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION 5110 FOG Receiving Station Sidestream Treatment Solids Demonstration Project kik Gas Conditioning System Blend Tank Ash Thickeners Gas Storage Gas Treatment Anaerobic Digestion Process t DAFT Tank (1) Dryer, FBIs, ORC, Gas Turbine, and Vacuum Filter in exsiting solids building 84 6/20/2016 42 ALTERNATIVE S3 LAYOUT - ALL DIGESTION • Sidestream Treatment Solids 1 Demonstration Proj-ceect 0.1 FOG Receiving Station Gas Storage Gas Treatment New Anaerobic Digestion Process Gas Conditioning System Emergency Sludge Load Out Facility New Dewatering Centrifuges and Gas Turbines Pre -Dewatering .� _' Sludge Screening, t : and THP System 27( CHALLENGES OF BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL ORF. nN e� rH.w /Mattel countyO din.nca. $ .w.. ,.w I OW O.A. uro.avk w. 1 I r+.nk+ELI e.n on DAN ,.,"'. MAYAN Irma Arpeda+w.N1 lik NEVADA MOPED Figura. 11.4 Status or Biosuids Land AppirdLion Di dnwnas by Courtly AD 6/20/2016 43 REGULATIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BAN SOLIDS DISPOSAL AND USE OF BIOSOLIDS FOR ALTERNATE DAILY COVER (ADC) AT LANDFILLS BY 2025 By 2020, AB 341 will require 75% reduction of organic solid waste: either reduced at the source, recycled, or composted By 2020, AB 1594 will disallow green waste to qualify for diversion credit when used as ADC at a landfill By 2025, Short Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy will likely lead to elimination of organic waste (biosolids) from landfills AViLl CONSIDERATIONS FOR BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL IN THE FUTURE Landfill disposal should not be considered a viable solution Beneficial use/land disposal will require treatment of biosolids to Class A standards There is be more competition from other agencies for disposing biosolids in available sites, leading to higher costs and risks ,f_cL, 6/20/2016 44 COMPARING SOLIDS HANDLING ALTERNATIVES Alternative Alternative 51 Fluidized Bed Incineration Alternative S2 Fluidized Bed Incineration/ Anaerobic Digestion Alternative S3 Anaerobic Digestion Reduces Energy Required & Cannot Use Co -Digestion Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Reduce Plant Energy Compared to Existing MHF Needs Furnaces Highest Energy & Does Not Require Biosolids Greenhouse Gas Disposal Emissions Compared To • Familiarity with Operation Other Alternatives • Smallest Footprint • Lowest Capital Cost • Requires More Footprint • Significantly Reduces Energy than Incineration Only Required & Greenhouse Gas • Multiple Processes Adds Emissions Some Complication as Does Not Require Biosolids compared to existing Disposal operation • Cogeneration Opportunity • Multiple Solids Disposal Options • Highest Capital Cost • More New Unit Processes • Least Energy Required • Requires Biosolids • Lowest Greenhouse Gas Disposal Program Emissions • Increased Odor Control • Cogeneration Opportunity • Significant Truck Traffic • Produces Class A Product • Most Chemicals Required $350 $340 $380 PRELIMINARY SOLIDS STREAM TBL+ RESULTS • T-1: Provide Reliability and Performance ❑ T-2: Process Efficiency • F1: Minimize Capital Costs • F2: Minimize Life -cycle Costs. • 5-1: Protect Public Health and Safety • 52: Maintain Good Public Relations • E-1 Minimize Impact on Local Environment • E-2: Minimize impact on Global Environment E2 El 52 51 F2 Fl T2 T1 E2 E1 52 51 1 T2 T1 E2 El 52 51 I F2 T2 Ti 51 Ideal Alternative Alt 1 - FBIs Alt 2 - Digestion + Alt 3 - Digestion Dryer + FBI Only 6/20/2016 45 1 MINIMIZING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Metric Tons of CO2e 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 California Cap and Trade Threshold is >_25,000 MT of CO2e Anthropogenic Stationary Combustion Emissions Current Projected (MHF) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ■ Natural Gas Combustion ■Digester Biogas Combustion (CH4 & N201 ❑ Landfill Biogas Combustion (C1-14 & N20) El Incineration (CH4 & N20) MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 6 • Implement All 0-5 year Studies and Projects: • Implement Recommended Mixing & Storage Tank Improvements to Handle Peak Day Loads • Replace Centrifuges and Cake Pumps • Initiate Lime Reduction & Capacity Testing As Soon As Possible to Confirm Capacity Trigger Timing & Feasibility • Pilot Innovative Solids Technologies • Seismic Improvements to Solids Handling Building • Wet scrubber pilot and replacement 6/20/2016 46 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 (CONTINUED) • Use Alternative S2: Digestion Followed By Fluidized Bed Incineration As The Long-term Replacement Of The Multiple Hearth Furnaces Continue With Ash Disposal Re -Evaluating These Recommendations in -5 Years After Further Piloting is Complete & Regulatory Timing is More Clear • Include Placeholder in CIP for Early Implementation of two Anaerobic Digesters (-10 years) & Related Support Equipment • Include Placeholder in CIP for Ultimate Implementation of Remaining 2 Digesters & One Fluidized Bed Incinerator (10-20 years) £SI KEY FINDINGS 7 - ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED ON UV DISINFECTION AND STEAM BLOWER SYSTEMS LA_ 6/20/2016 47 THE CWMP ADDRESSES FOUR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DRIVERS t Drivers Descriptions 1 2 3 4 Aging Infrastruc Capacity ReguI ■ Sustainability Maintain performance and reliability of existing assets to ensure reliable collection and treatment of wastewater Increase capacity of existing facilities to accommodate planned growth for the communities we serve esign s o pro uman ea an s e or,lir ro-In or,+ R. Dlnr, fl,r rh roe -r, 11-n+l,r,i Minimize life -cycle costs, maximize benefits, and achieve economic stability through optimization, resiliency, resource recovery, and energy projects ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS TO UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE ➢ UV System Is 20 Years Old ➢ UV System Has 10,000 100-W Lamps ➢ Existing System Requires Manual Lamp Cleaning ➢ Original UV System Manufacturer No Longer In Business. Currently Relying On Third Party Vendor For Parts. ➢ UV System Needs To Be Replaced zNit_ 6/20/2016 48 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDS NEW UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM New High Output, Low Pressure Lamps New Higher Power Lamps Few Lamps (10X smaller foot print) Vertical Orientation Dosage And Variable Power Controls Self Cleaning AERATION SYSTEM UPGRADE ■ Blowers/Diffusers ➢ Replace Steam System With High Efficiency VFD Electric Blowers ➢ Replace Plenum/Ceramic With Higher Oxygen Transfer Membrane Disks ➢ Replace Air Piping To Address Air Losses ➢ Upgrade Controls To Provide More Flexibility, Turndown, Peak Air Demands, And Redundancy For Peaks ■ Replace Steam System with ORC ➢ Replace Current Steam System with Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) unit to use Waste to Energy 6/20/2016 49 WHY WOULD STAFF CONSIDER A MAJOR CHANGE IN OPERATION • Existing Challenges with Steam System: • Steam system is 35 years old and needs to be replaced. Existing Systems Require Replacement in CIP Regardless (Steam Piping, Original Steam Turbines, Condensers) • Secondary Treatment Processes directly tied to Solids Handling and Steam Generation at CCCSD • Secondary Treatment System Directly Susceptible to Disruptions & Varying Performance of Solids Handling & Steam Systems • Delayed Startup of Aeration System After Cogen & Grid Outages • Lack of Steam Redundancy (Currently Requiring Both Auxiliary Boilers in Operation) — Additional Boiler Needed WHY WOULD STAFF CONSIDER A MAJOR CHANGE IN OPERATION • Significant Air Losses through Buried Air Header & Other Areas • Current Blowers Can Only Operate Independently not together • Electric Standby Blower Is Not Sized to Handle Typical Air Demand • Vulnerability of all in one building. Solids handling Building is currently not up to current seismic design standards. If the Solids Building were to be significantly damaged, the following systems would not be readily operational: • Centrifuges and cake pumps • Solids Disposal and Incineration • Heat recovery and steam generation • Aux. Boilers to produce steam • Aeration Blowers (electrical blower is available but not larger enough) 6/20/2016 50 OPERATION OF STEAM BLOWERS VERSUS REPLACEMENT WITH ELECTRIC BLOWERS (*) • Master Plan Recommends Replacing the Steam -Driven Aeration Blowers with Electric Blowers Alternative Steam -Driven Aeration Blowers with Waste Heat to Steam Generation in Solids Conditioning Building • Does Not Require Major Shift in Operations • Simpler Construction Sequencing • Highest Capital & Operating Costs • Secondary Treatment System Susceptible to Disruptions in Solids & Boiler Systems • Inadequate Turndown (Wasted Air) • Lack of Redundancy in Steam Supply • Blowers Cannot Currently Operate in Parallel Results in Significant Increase in Natural Gas & Greenhouse Gas Emissions when Nutrient Removal is Required Capital Cost: $19.7M Annual O&M: $4.6M Net Present Value: $82M Electric Blowers with Waste Heat to Power Generation in Solids Conditioning Building • Lowest Capital Costs • Lowest Operating Costs • Improved Energy Efficiency • Reduced Natural Gas & Greenhouse Gases • Most Resiliency (De -Couples Solids & Steam Systems from Secondary Treatment System) • Easier to Control Air Supply Requires New Building & Major Air Piping Modifications • Requires Major Shift from Current Operation • Challenging Construction Sequencing • Requires Conversion of Steam Users to Electricity Capital Cost: $14.3M Annual O&M: $3.1M Net Present Value: $57M MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDS CONVERSION FROM STEAM TO ELECTRIC FOR BLOWERS New Blower Building & Air Piping New Switchgear & Transformer Conversion of Steam Users to Electric Users Demolition of Steam Piping & Steam Equipment New Auxiliary Boilers Not Required Waste Heat from Furnace & Cogen going to Thermal Oil Boilers/Heat Exchangers Thermal Oil going to Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Turbine to Generate Power (Based on Green Bay New Water Approach) 1 6/20/2016 51 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - 7 UV Disinfection System Replacement Perform Near -Term Electrical Improvements to Address Poor Electrical Connections Replace System Based on Age & Availability of Parts in 10-20 Year CIP Continue to Track Virus -Based Disinfection Criteria Diffusers & Air Piping Replacement Replace to Improve Aeration System Efficiencies Replace Existing Air Piping to address Significant Air Losses Aeration Blowers — Replace Steam with Electric Blowers AZD KEY FINDINGS 8 - NET ZERO ENERGY GOALS REQUIRES IMPORT OF CARBON AND ALTERNATIVE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES 6/20/2016 52 THE CWMP ADDRESSES FOUR MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DRIVERS t Drivers Descriptions 1 2 3 4 Aging Infrastruc Capacity Rpm ,Iatnry Sustainability Maintain performance and reliability of existing assets to ensure reliable collection and treatment of wastewater Increase capacity of existing facilities to accommodate planned growth for the communities we serve esign s o pro uman ea an s e environment & Plan for anticipated future regulatory requirements Minimize life -cycle costs, maximize benefits, and achieve economic stability through optimization, resiliency, resource recovery, and energy projects £SI NET ZERO ENERGY What Does Our Current Energy Profile Look Like? What is Net Zero Energy? Can We Get There? Options to Reach Net Zero Energy 6/20/2016 53 STRATEGIES To ACHIE" NET ZERO ENERGY Energy Efficiency Improvements (VFDs, LED Lighting, Electric High Efficiency Blowers, New Air Diffusers, SRT Control for Activated Sludge, More Efficient Processes, more instrumentations and controls) Anaerobic Digesters Play a Key Role By Allowing Imported Carbon Energy Source (FOG or Food Waste) Biogas from Co -Digestion is Typically the Most Economical Way of Offsetting Other Power Costs Alternative Energy (Solar, Wind) Can Help Offset Imported Natural Gas or Grid Power For CCCSD, Alternatives Are Compared Against the Cost of Producing Power On -Site with Natural Gas and/or the Cost of Imported Grid Power Investigate alternative solids to energy processes (e.g.; gasification, pyrolysis) MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - • Consider including anaerobic digestion as part of the District's future solids handling portfolio If anaerobic digestion is implemented, include a FOG program and co -digestion Continue to explore solar and/or wind as a potential renewable energy source for the District (re-evaluate as net metering rules & tariffs are modified) Pilot innovative solids technologies (e.g.; gasification, pyrolysis) to determine if more efficient and economical solids waste to energy alternatives are feasible 6/20/2016 54 6/20/2016 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CCCSD's TREATMENT PLANT OF THE FUTURE (*) PLANT OF THE FUTURE - SITE PLAN ru e.�r..er P OO wufm, emn re brer.iq 1:15,:m▪ ae vea fury FereGY a9v. Onobs �'•nFtid 9MIncomnzhooNIC Mpmwmen•i 1.1 WYpLiR lmp�on+ry Mfvl �„uava.n a end byAmri lYw7 C•c•-m+1 nl amvr•n ORA FT PLANT OF FUTURE MASTER ! 'NN RECOMMENDATIONS • MBR+MLE Alternative L2 for Addressing Future Recycled Water & Nutrient Removal Using MBR for Meeting 5 MGD Refinery Demand if Refinery Project Moves Forward Use Alternative S-2, Digestion Followed by Fluidized Bed Incineration As the Long -Term Replacement of the Multiple Hearth Furnaces Re -Evaluating These Recommendations in -5 Years After Further Piloting is Complete & Regulatory Timing is More Clear Implement 0-5 Yr. Recommendations Convert Steam System to Electric Blowers and ORC PRELIMINARY UPDATED CIP COSTS 6/20/2016 56 CIP Costs in $M CURRENT CIP BY DRIVERS (Nov. 2014) $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 FY2014/15 - FY2019/20 - FY2024/25 - FY2029/30 - 2018/19 2023/24 2028/29 2033/34 CIP Drivers • Optimization • Capacity • Regulatory ■ R&R CURRENT CIP BY DRIVERS (Nov 2014) (TREATMENT PLANT & RECYCLED WATER ONLY) 2 $400 0 0 U 0- $300 U $200 $700 $600 $500 $100 $0 FY2014/15 - FY2019/20 - FY2024/25 - FY2029/30 - 2018/19 2023/24 2028/29 2033/34 1 CIP Drivers • Optimization • Capacity • Regulatory ■ R&R CD 6/20/2016 57 PLANT OF THE FUTURE SITE PLAN 744, gun orA OMNI] DRAFT PLANT OF FUTURE PLANT OF THE FUTURE: 20 -YEAR CIP CIPCasts in $M $1,500 $1,400 $1,300 $1.200 $1.100 $1.000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 CIPpriver$ 4 Wholesale Recycled Water ■ Sustainability ■ Capacity ■ Regulatory ■ Agine Infrastructure Current 20 -Year CIP CWMP 20 -Year CI P Total + $83M 6/20/2016 58 BOARD POLICY DISCUSSION TOPICS BOARD POLICY DISCUSSION TOPICS 1 ENERGY 2 PRIVATE SEWER LATERALS 6/20/2016 59 DOES THE BOARD WANT A POLICY ON 9NERGY? Agree on Definition of Net Zero Energy for CCCSD Is the Board Interested in Pursuing a FOG Program if Anaerobic Digestion is Implemented? Is the Board Interested in Investing in Renewable Energy (Solar or Wind)? District owned solar versus PPA? Invest As Required To Achieve Net Zero Energy? Achieve Net Zero Energy Only With Projects That Have A Payback Of Less Than 15 Years? Or a Different Payback? DOES THE BOARD WANT TO DEVELOP A POLICY ON PRIVATE SEWER LATERALS? Establish formal policy matching current District approach to private sewer laterals? Develop new approach and policy on private sewer laterals? 6/20/2016 60 NEXT STEPS THE CWMP IS ON TRACK TO FINISH IN FY2016/2017 Board Board Board Present Meeting Workshop Workshop CIB/CIP June DecJune Nov Dec Jan Mar June 2015 2012016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 t - t 1 1 1 NTP Draft Final Prop Final Adopt 20 -Year CIP 20 -Year CIP 218 CWMP CIB/CIP Notice Report Develop Revenue Requirements Adopt Rates 6/20/2016 61 Confirm/Finalize Layouts & Cost Estimates Package Projects & Draft CIP Timeline Develop Rate Scenarios Present Draft CIP & Rates November 2016 Draft Master Plan Report December 2016 Final Draft Master Plan Report April 2017 LNL_ QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK? 6/20/2016 62