The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11. Updated presentation ��- (Updated) WATER EXCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE 1,rimm AND REQUEST TO APPROVE A NEW PROJECT AND AMEND BROWN & CALDWELL'S CONTRACT _ Melody LaBella , P. E . I Resource Recovery Program Manager � Jean-Marc Petit, P. E . Director of Engineering & Technical Services Board Meeting May 2 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING On April 30, 2018 , athree-way Memorandum of Understanding (MOU ) was executed between Central San , Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) to conduct a Preliminary Feasibility Evaluation of the Refinery Recycled Water Exchange Project. A/ CENTRALSAN IZ WATER EXCHANGE PROJECT CONCEPT Martinez • - Refineries � U r 4�'ay Los Vaqueros 22 TAFY J Reservoir lit" 22 TAFY ' WFFr22 TAFY Contra Costa Transfer-Bethany ` Pipeline galley Water Water District p South Bay (proposed) *TAFY = thousand acre-feet per year Aqueduct [1 TAF = 0.89 million gallons per day (MGD)] 3 CENTRALSAN BROWN 8c CALDWELL ( B &C) SELECTED FOR AS — NEEDED SUPPORT IN JUNE 2018 Responding Teams Black A Veatch �-Ad��-�;µ- • B4'C As-Needed Technical Support • Hazen and Sawyer for the Refinery Recycled • Kennedy Jenks W�eYExchange Pro'eM • 5,2018 Woodard & Curran CENTRALSAN � a WORK PLAN DEVELOPED JUNE 2018 Central San , CCWD , and Valley Water staff collaborated to develop the Preliminary Feasibility Work Plan called for in the MOU . Tasks included : A. Review and update costs previously developed to provide recycled water for refinery use B . Evaluate project yield G . Develop estimated costs C Allocate costs and benefits CENTRALSAN IS STATUS OF WORK PLAN TASKS 1 CENTRAL SAN A. REVIEW AND UPDATE PREVIOUS ESTIMATED COSTS TO SERVE REFINERIES • Previous HDR reports from 2009 were provided to Valley Water, in addition to updated cost estimates . • Valley Water staff evaluated the updated costs and determined they would like to proceed forward in the analysis . B . EVALUATE PROJECT YIELD 1 . How much recycled water is Central San capable of reliably producing? • Initial analysis indicates 95% reliability for 19 MGD. 2 . How much freed-up raw water supply is CCWD's system capable of yielding with the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion (LVE2) Project facilities (which include the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline)? • Historical average yield = 50% . Higher in dry years. 3 . How much of CCWD)s freed-up raw water supply is Valley Water capable of receiving? • This is currently being evaluated by Valley Water. C . COSTS 1 . Central San will develop the costs to produce the recycled water. • B&C evaluated four treatment trains, then narrowed down to two for present-worth valuations for arefinery-only treatment train . • $424 — $530M in capital costs. 2 . Central San and CCWD will collaborate to develop the costs for conveying the recycled water to the refineries . • B&C developed these preliminary costs . 1 9 C . COSTS 3 . CCWD will develop the costs for conveying the freed-up raw water through its system . • CCWD developed these preliminary costs as part of their LVE2 Project. 4 . Valley Water and CCWD will collaborate to develop costs for conveying the freed-up raw water supply beyond the CCWD system to Valley Water. • This is currently being evaluated by Valley Water. Awfa_� 10 D . COST AND BENEFIT ALLOCATION • Following the beneficiary pays principle , Central San , CCWD , and Valley Water will collaborate to develop this cost allocation . • No cost allocation for Central San determined yet as part of the initial analysis . RELATED CENTRAL SAN PROJECTS * Title 22 Supply (Present and Future) • Retrofit existing Filters and Clearwell --$53M • Phased Implementation : Ph . 1A and 1B * Concord Community Reuse Project --$34M (Ph . 2) * Nutrient Mitigation • Level 1 Optimization — $ 12M in capital • Capital expense is included in current 10-year CIP * Would also require $3.2M per year in added O&M • Future Nutrient Removal — Concentration based limits estimated at $200 to $350M lot • Not currently in CIP, but identified in Master Plan and 10-year CIP as future unfunded project � �z CENTRALSAN IMPACT OF FUTURE TOTAL INORGANIC NITROGEN (TIN ) DISCHARGE LOAD LIMITS 6,000 Load Increase due to Population Growth (with . existing Zone 1 deliveries)T _ - 5,000 - ----------------------------- --------------------------------------- 0 4,000 - �_� z - (3,700 kg/day) - ................................................................................................................................... F Max Dry Season Load w Over Initial Watershed w 3,000 Permit Monitoring Period 2,000 Top of Green and: Pr(jected TIN load using the highest per capita TIN load factor applied to the % popu ation projections Bottom of Green Band: Projected TIN load assuming loads increase at similar rate as population (1° ) 1,000 -1 m Ln n 471 .--t M u7 n a) .i M Ln n a) 1 M cn n (n1 m � n m rl r-I -4 rl ri N N N N N M M M M M 9 � 9 Cf7 In u' �M 4n O O O O O n O � O d CJ O n n O 6 d O O O n O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ` 13 CIENTr IMPACT OF FUTURE TIN DISCHARGE LOAD LIMITS 6,000 Load Increase due to Population Growth (with Existing Zone 1 deliveries) S,OC Planning-Level Target* --_ (4,300 kg TIN/day) - - �, _____________________________________' 0 4,000 - J - ....... ......... ....... .r.�........................................................................... w Max Dry Season Load Over Initial Watershed Uj 3,000 Permit Monitoring Period (3,700 kg/day) 2nd Nutrient Watershed Permit 2'000 2019-2024 1,000 rl rn V) r- 471 r-1 rn U) r- 61 rl r+) Ln r, Q] ri rn Ln r• M r1 Crl Ln r• M ti -4 _� -4 nr N ry N ry m m rn rn m er rt er Ln Ln Ln Ln u7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N " N N N rll N N rV r14 N N " N N N ry N N N " N rV " * Planning-Level Target is defined in the Draft 2019-2024 Nutrient Watershed Permit fact sheet. ATC1 4 IMPACT OF FUTURE TIN DISCHARGE 6,000 Load Increase due to Population Growth (with Existing Zone 1 deliveries-- 5,000 Planning-Level Target (4,300 kg TIN/day) 0 4,000 - z - === F c N w w 3,000 2,000 10 year compliance Schedule? 1,000 r1 m 4r, n rn .--1 M Ln n rn .-i M 4n n rn M N n rn m 4n n rn rl r-I -4 rl ri N N N N N M M M M M 4f1 u7 O O O O O n O C� O d CJ C] C] 0 6 O O O O d b N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ` 15 CENT■ . MITIGATION - UPGRADES REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH POTENTIAL TIN LOAD CAP 6,000 Potential Regulatory Window 5,000 ca - -- 0 4,000 ..... .... r............ ................. ........ ..... ......................................................................... LU Optimization Nutrient 3,oao Upgrades $12M Capital Investment in CIP 2,000 Nutrient Upgrades (BA WA Level 2) $15()-$250M C pital 1,000 Investment not in CIP* M Ln n M 1-4 m u) n o1 ti m uZ n M -� M un n rn N m n n ai .-� 'A " 1-4 r-4 N N N N N M rn M M M 1:41 �r IT :T IZI, u} L1 Ln Ln U1 O O C, O O C7 0 O Q C] O C7 O O C] C7 0 C7 0 0 C] O O C7 0 N N N N N N N N M N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N * BACWALeve 1 3 would increase the cost to over $350M (concentration based limits) ` 16 CENTRALSAN IMPACT OF EXPANDING TITLE 22 DELIVERIES ON TIN DISCHARGE 6,000 Extends Cap Compliance Assumes increased Zone 1 and 5.000 CCRP deliveries begin in 2022 Y ------------------------------ -==--- - ---------------------- 4,000 z ..... .... .............................................................. ...................................................................... C 61 LU LU 3,000 TIN Load Discharge with Expansion of Zone 1 and Concord Community Reuse Project (CCRP) 2,000 1,000 r+ m Ln n rn rr m Ln n rn .-+ m n rn -1 m LO rl- (T) Ln n (31ry ry ry ry ry m m m m m Ln Ln Un U u� or"I o 0 0 o a o a N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` 17 CENT■ . IMPACT OF WATER EXCHANGE PROJECT ON TIN LOAD CAP 6,000 5,000 - ----- ------- - ------ --------------------------- - -------- - --- -------- -- -- ---- ------------------------------------- 0 4,000 Z ....... ......... ....... . . . . ...................................................................................................................................... 3,000 Water �arly Action 2,000 Exchange Project ............ ................ 1,000 M Ln r- m � fy) Ull pl- 0) � M Lm t- m m an t- a) r-1 M Ln r- m —1 elli rq rq r14 rq rn M en m to � � � � Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O 0 (D d 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 CD rN N r"i r14 rIq r"i rN C14 (N 04 r14 r14 rlJ r"i r14 cli r'll rN " r"i rq " r14 rq flq ` 18 CENTRALSAN ADDITIONAL TASKS FnR B & C Completing a detailed flow balance (wastewater supply vs . recycled water demands); � 19 NEED FOR A DETAILED FLOW BALANCE ( DURING DRY WEATHER SEASON ) rBay discharge (considering proper LRO concentrate dilutions / V/ ADWF has CENTRAL SAN'S ranged from TREATMENT PLANT --29 to 33 MGD over the last 5 years '` Includes CCRP 20 ADDITIONAL TASKS FnR B &C Completing a detailed flow balance (wastewater supply vs. recycled water demands); � . Developing a framework for evaluating a Central San cost allocation , as related to future nutrient regulations; 3. Participating in an expert consultant workshop to develop additional treatment train (s) to most cost-effectively produce both Title 22 recycled water and refinery-quality recycled water, and developing cost estimates for the resulting treatment train(s); and � 21 ADDITIONAL TASKS FOR B &C Developing a framework for cost sharing for the new, optimized treatment train (s) among Central San , the Concord Community Reuse Project (CGRP), and Valley Water. � 22 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve a new project in the amount of $250 , 000 for the Water Exchange Project, District Project 7368 ; and Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Brown & Caldwell to increase their cost ceiling from $95, 000 to $345, 000 for as-needed technical support to complete the Preliminary Feasibility Evaluation for the Water Exchange Project, DP 7368 . AIM�2 QUESTIONS '00e 1 24