HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-2015 SS1 WRRF Triple Bottom Line EvaluationCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
Jeffery Szytel, Program Manager - WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT -
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a triple bottom line analysis on four project components and provide feedback needed to
finalize the draft Facilities Plan for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project.
DISCUSSION
Background
The recent adoption of a revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) has resulted in the
need to upgrade treatment processes. Replacing aged infrastructure and addressing future growth (as
detailed in the City’s 2035 General Plan) is also required.
On February 3, 2015, a WRRF Project update was presented to Council which included project
scope and phasing, work completed to date and future milestones. (Attachment 1). The next step in
the process is to finalize the Facilities Plan.
Creating the Project Foundation
1. Program Charter
The first step in building the project foundation was to establish a
Program Charter. The Program Charter (Attachment 2) memorializes
a unified project vision and mission, economic, social and
environmental objectives, and guiding principles for all aspects of
the WRRF Project. Careful attention was given to ensure the Charter
aligned with the City’s Organizational Values and the Utilities
Department’s Strategic Plan.
2. Facilities Plan
In addition to a Program Charter, a Facilities Plan is another
foundational document for projects such as the WRRF. During the
creation of a Facilities Plan numerous inputs are filtered through
multiple decision-making processes. The output is a comprehensive and balanced plan of action for
the project which influences each future step made on the project – the Facilities Plan.
The WRRF’s draft Facilities Plan was complete in December 2014 and contains improvements to
meet the requirements of the City’s new NPDES permit. It is responsive to feedback received from
the community and staff and creates a compliant facility that staff can operate and maintain at peak
3-3-15
SS1
SS1-1
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 2
Social
Environmental Economic
efficiency. Aging infrastructure is addressed as well as capacity for future growth as outlined in the
City’s 2035 General Plan.
In January 2015, a Value
Engineering (VE) workshop was
held during which time an
independent VE Team evaluated the
project and draft Facilities Plan using
the Program Charter as its guiding
document. The VE Team’s report is
available in the Council reading file.
The report contains numerous
recommendations that, in the VE
Team’s opinion, had potential to add
value and/or reduce project and/or
life cycle costs. These
recommendations have been
evaluated further by the Project
Team and several recommendations,
such as reuse of an existing aerated
grit basin, elimination of diurnal flow equalization, modification of Laguna Pump Station to reduce
peak flows, and building larger, fewer aeration basins were incorporated into the draft Facilities
Plan. The updated Executive Summary (Chapter 1) to the draft Facilities Plan describes the current
set of recommended improvements which incorporate the VE process revisions.
The City Council will be asked to consider approving the WRRF’s Facilities Plan on May 5, 2015.
3. Application of the Triple Bottom Line
An apt definition of the Triple Bottom Line was found
at mindtools.com: “The Triple Bottom Line is a way
of measuring an organization's impact on people and
the environment as well as its finances. Some
companies find that using it to monitor more than just
the financial line helps them improve the way that
they treat people both within and outside the
organization, and reduce their adverse impact on the
environment.”
The Program Charter establishes the objectives and
performance measures that will determine whether or
not the triple bottom line has been met by the WRRF
project.
Components included in the draft Facilities Plan, including those required by the WRRF NPDES
permit, were evaluated and screened through triple bottom line criteria. As an example, in addition
to complying with new permit limits, process alternatives were analyzed based on other criteria such
as being a proven technology, minimizing chemical use, meeting future discharge requirements,
odors, ease of operations, reduced greenhouse gases and other regional and holistic goals such as
salts reduction.
Updated Executive
Summary
SS1-2
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 3
Council Feedback and Assistance
The Project Team has received much input and made many decisions to reach this milestone. Over
the last year, stakeholders ranging from City staff and department heads, to business and property
owners, regulators, WRRF neighbors and others were interviewed. A community workshop was
also held. All of this input has been considered and added value to creating the draft Facilities Plan.
There are four components of the Facilities Plan that are uniquely scalable in scope. Decisions made
in these areas will have varied degrees (plus and minus) of impact on how the community interacts
with and views the facility. The project vision is to create a community asset that is recognized as
supporting health, well-being and quality of life. Its mission is to deliver a Water Resource
Recovery Facility that provides economic, social and environmental value to our community.
Council feedback through a triple bottom line analysis of these components is necessary for staff to
finalize the draft Facilities Plan with the appropriate weight and balance to these components.
1. RV Dump Station
1. RV Dump
Station 2. Odor Control
3. Interpretive
Center and
Public Elements
4. Recycled
Water
Community
partners have
expressed the
need for a
Recreational
Vehicle (RV)
dump station for
the homeless
who are living in
RV’s. Issues such
as the lack of RV
dump stations in
the City, cost
and illegal
dumping have
resulted in
discussions
about a dump
station being
part of the
WRRF project.
What
was
Heard There are limited
facilities for RV
owners to empty
their waste tanks
in San Luis Obispo.
Preliminary
discussions with
CAPSLO regarding
the construction
of the Homeless
Services Center
have revealed the
need for an RV
dump station may
not be as great as
earlier thought.
The near-by Elks
Club, which
operates an RV
dump station, has
expressed it might
be open to greater
access to its
facility.
Analysis An RV dump
station at the
WRRF would
require City
design and
construction and
some resources
to staff, monitor
and operate. A
dump station
could generate
some additional
revenue.
Prospects near-
by at the
proposed
Homeless
Services Center
and the Elks
Club remain
viable
opportunities or
alternatives.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
SS1-3
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 4
2. Odor Control
3. Interpretive Center and Public Elements
Almost all
stakeholders
indicated that
odor was a
concern and
needed to be
addressed and
considered in the
WRRF’s design.
What
was
Heard Odor is an
important factor
to consider in the
WRRF project.
Odor control was
an important
criteria when
evaluating the
processes and
much will be done
to reduce the
existing odors
currently
generated at the
facility through
process changes
without additional
active controls.
The alternative
evaluation process
incorporates odor
control into its
recommendations.
Because odor
sensitivity is often
subjective it can
be hard to
quantify.
Analysis
Because of the
community's
concern about
odor, the facility
design focused on
significantly
reducing odors.
Active odor
control technology
can be installed to
further reduce
odors either as a
part of this project
or at a later time.
If phased after
construction,
additional studies
can be performed
to better quantify
the issue and
determine the
effectiveness of
the odor controls.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
Stakeholders
revealed they
found the WRRF to
be fascinating after
taking a tour and
identified it as a
learning center.
Feedback identified
a community room
or related feature
would be of value.
Many stakeholders
enjoyed the facility
when using the Bob
Jones Bike Trail,
either because it
added a level of
security to the trail
and/or offered
learning
opportunities as
they rode or walked
on the trail. Some
stakeholders
identified that
interpretive signage
or others elements
should be
considered.
What
was
Heard The WRRF hosted
over 1,500 visitors
in 2014 and
continues to attract
a wide variety of
interested parties
in ever-greater
numbers. An
interpretive center
could engage
visitors in learning
about the journey
of San Luis Obispo’s
water. The WRRF
site allows
opportunities for a
variety of activities
and meeting places.
Presently parking
and access are an
issue, but the
Facilities Plan will
address many of
these issues. A new
operations building
is planned.
Interpretive
elements and
options can and
should be
considered.
Analysis Of all the
stakeholder input
gathered, this
subject created the
most engagement
and provides the
most opportunities.
Because of the size
of the facility, many
indoor and outdoor
alternatives are
possible. The VE
study presented an
alternative of
reusing the current
administration
building for some of
the discussed uses.
Presently the
proposed
operations building
contains
opportunities for
interpretive
elements. Site
interaction with the
Bob Jones Trail may
also lend itself to a
variety of public
amenities or
improvements.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
SS1-4
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 5
4. Recycled Water
These four important elements of the WRRF Project came from our community stakeholders and
will help shape the final project. While the Project Team believes it understands stakeholders
concerns, ideas and what they value, Council input is critical to help shape the final draft Facilities
Plan.
Next Steps
Council input from this Study Session will be utilized to develop the final draft Facilities Plan. On
May 5, 2015 City Council will consider the approval of the final Facilities Plan. If approved,
Council authorization to release Requests for Proposals for preliminary design services and
environmental services for CEQA compliance will be requested.
In parallel to finalizing the Facilities Plan, bench scale testing is being conducted at the WRRF to
evaluate an emerging treatment technology that may provide significant life cycle cost savings.
A grant application is being prepared for submission to the State Water Resources Control Board
for a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study Grant (approved by Council on February 3, 2015).
The Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study will evaluate potential opportunities to expand
beneficial use and recycling of treated effluent from the WRRF that could provide multiple benefits
Stakeholders used
words such as
“critical” and
“maximize,” as
ways to describe
their ideas about
the importance of
recycled water.
Almost all
stakeholders
articulated they
believed recycled
water was a good
thing.
What
was
Heard The WRRF can
produce more
recycled water.
More recycled
water can be
produced if some
processes are
optimized and
production can be
streamlined.
Current
production is not
efficient. Staff is
anticipating
additional recycled
water customers
in the recently
annexed portions
of the City over
the next several
years.
Opportunities for
recycled water
may exist outside
of City limits in
bordering
agricultural
parcels. Recycled
water offers the
most
opportunities to
develop
partnerships,
protect resources
and meet other
City and regional
goals.
Analysis
Recycled water
production
remains one of the
key objectives in
the WRRF project.
While analyzing
disinfection
processes,
recycled water
was evaluated and
the facility plan
presents a
streamlined
process for
production which
should maximize
and simplify
production. The
VE report has
some options that
include recycled
water and some
very different
approaches
maximizing
production and
distribution.
Draft
Facilities
Plan
SS1-5
WRRF Project Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Page 6
to the City including enhanced management of regional water resources and reduced life cycle costs
for the WRRF project.
Pursuit of alternatives and partnerships that reflect the City’s goals of environmental, economic and
social stewardship with the goals of maximizing the WRRF’s resources and benefit to San Luis
Obispo will continue.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with giving feedback to staff on this matter. Estimated
project costs will be updated within the final Facilities Plan and presented to Council on May 5,
2015. $63.7 million was identified in the 2013-15 Financial Plan for this project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 3, 2015, Council Agenda Report
2. Program Charter
3. Updated Executive Summary
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-03-03\SS1-WRRF Triple Bottom Line
SS1-6
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director Utilities – Wastewater
Lianne Westberg, Assistant Program Manager - WSC
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive and file an update on the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project.
2. Authorize staff to submit a recycled water grant application to study maximizing recycled
water production and distribution.
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve matching funding in an amount not to exceed
$75,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) currently treats over
three million gallons of wastewater per day. A portion of the treated water is recycled for irrigation
use within the City and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis
Obispo Creek has been identified as having many beneficial uses that require protection by the
Central Coast Water Board (CCWB). The City’s WRRF effluent meets the criteria for all of these
uses except Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN).
The MUN designation is the main driver for treatment upgrades at the WRRF. These new
requirements have been placed in the WRRF’s recently revised National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit to meet nutrient and disinfection by-products limits.
Compliance with the new limits is detailed through a Time Schedule Order (TSO) which requires
the City to submit a time schedule outlining the planned actions for achieving compliance. A TSO
was adopted with the WRRF’s permit and requires compliance by November 30, 2019.
The new permit limits are the primary reason for the WRRF Project. However, there are other
drivers for the project including:
1. Future increases in flow in alignment with the City’s General Plan.
2. Ability to provide treatment to peak wet weather flows.
3. Addressing aging and out-of-date equipment and processes.
4. Incorporating features that embrace the value of the WRRF as a community asset.
5. Process redundancy to allow operational efficiency.
6. Odor control.
7. Maximizing recycled water production.
Due to project complexity, City Council awarded program management services to Water Systems
Consulting, Inc. (WSC) for the WRRF project in early 2014.
2-3-15
Attachment 1
SS1-7
Why is a Program
Charter Important?
One of the key factors of
project success is effective
communication. A Charter
helps ensure that all project
stakeholders are on the
same page and minimizes
the emergence of
miscommunication and
conflicting stakeholder
interests
Program Charter
To guide the project through completion, the Project Team (made up
of Program Management team and City staff) developed a Program
Charter (Attachment 1). The Charter establishes a unified project
vision and mission, economic, social and environmental (triple bottom
line) objectives and guiding principles for the WRRF Project. Careful
attention was given to ensure the Charter aligns with the City’s
Organizational Values and the Utilities Department’s Strategic Plan.
The triple bottom line approach provides a holistic viewpoint and a
balanced emphasis on each of the three “bottom line” elements:
Economic, Social and Environmental. The Charter is designed to serve
as a guiding document for everyone and for all related work
throughout the project. As a representation of each individual’s vested
interest and commitment to the project the Program Charter was signed by numerous project
stakeholders including members of the City Council and the City Manager. A summary of the triple
bottom line objectives are outlined below. A copy of the Program Charter is attached for reference.
Summary of Triple Bottom Line Objectives
Project Scope and Phases
The WRRF Project is comprised of five phases; the figure below illustrates the progression of the
project and outlines the major scope items of each project phase.
Attachment 1
SS1-8
Work Performed To-Date
The WRRF Project Planning phase will be wrapping up with the completion and approval of the
Facilities Plan. To reach this milestone, the Project Team has performed several administrative,
management and engineering tasks.
Program Management Plan. Following project kickoff and program chartering, the Project Team
developed a Program Management Plan which includes standards, management protocol,
procedures for workflow and a set of defined standards to guide the structure of the program and
organization of deliverables through completion.
Facility Tours. The Project Team has visited several facilities that have undergone recent upgrades
and/or included interpretive centers or elements in its design or shared process commonalities with
the WRRF. The outcome of these visits has been a high level of experiential learning and
knowledge gathering by City staff and Program Managers from the other agencies, including
interviews with that agency’s management, engineering and operations staff.
Stakeholder and Community Outreach. One-on-one stakeholder interviews were conducted to better
understand the public perception of the WRRF, how stakeholders perceive the project and to
identify particular concerns or opportunities related to the project. An interactive community
workshop was held at the Ludwick Community Center to introduce the community to the project
and allow participation in evaluating conceptual ideas for the project.
Preliminary Engineering. A series of special studies and alternative evaluations have been
performed to determine the required capacity and treatment upgrades, preferred treatment
technologies, develop strategies for permitting and compliance, and to guide the Project Team in its
decision making process.
Facilities Plan. The Project Team worked together in numerous workshops and routine meetings to
discuss and identify the pertinent aspects of the project to create a basis for preliminary design.
Through this collaborative effort, the Project Team prepared an administrative draft of the Facilities
Plan (essentially the project) which contains a set of proposed upgrades, cost estimates and project
Project
Planning
•Program planning
and set-up
•Site planning
•Funding and
permitting
applications
•Engineering
investigations
•Develop Program
Management
Plan
•Value
engineering
evaluation
•Submit Facilities
Plan
Preliminary
Design
•Permitting
preparation
•CEQA
documentation
•Procure and
manage design
engineer
•Prepare
Preliminary
Design Report
•Confirm design at
30% completion
Final Design
•60% design
submittal
•Constructability
Review
•Value
Engineering
evaluation
•90% design
submittal
•100% design
submittal
•Pre-procurement
of contractors
•Bid
advertisement
Construction
•Hire contractor
•Procure
construction
manager
•Construct and
install facility
upgrades
•O&M training
•As-built
document review
•Commissioning
and start-up
Close-out
•Final punchlist
•Final walkthrough
•SRF & CCWB
compliance
certification
•Issuance of new
NPDES permit
•Final completion
and acceptance
of Program
Attachment 1
SS1-9
implementation recommendations. A public draft of the Facilities Plan will be presented to the City
Council for review in a Study Session scheduled for March 3, 2015.
Value Engineering. An independent Value Engineering (VE) team evaluated the project and the
Administrative Draft Facilities Plan, and provided recommendations which could increase the value
of the project from a triple bottom line perspective. Key recommendations from the VE review
ranged from elimination or modification of upgrades presented in the administrative draft Facilities
Plan, to alternative water resource management strategies. Each member of the VE team brought
extensive experience in the water and wastewater industry, and each offered critical, practical and
out-of-the-box ideas for consideration. The Project Team is currently evaluating these
recommendations and will incorporate the preferred recommendations into the public draft of the
Facilities Plan.
Recycled Water Grant
The Project Team has identified potential opportunities to expand
beneficial use and recycling of treated effluent from the WRRF
that could provide multiple benefits to the City including enhanced
management of regional water resources and reduced life cycle
costs for the WRRF project. Therefore, it is recommended the City
apply for grant funding to further evaluate the feasibility of these
opportunities.
The State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Recycling Funding Program provides grants to
assist public agencies with facilities planning studies to determine the feasibility of using recycled
water to offset the use of fresh/ potable water from the state and/or local supplies. The grant covers
50 percent of the eligible costs up to a maximum of $75,000.
Next Steps
The public draft of the Facilities Plan is being finalized along with refinements to the
implementation and construction schedule. The draft Facilities Plan will be presented to Council on
March 3, 2015. At the March 3 meeting, the City Council will participate in a triple bottom line
evaluation of the draft plan and its recommendations and provide input and direction that will assist
in finalizing the Facilities Plan.
In parallel to finalizing the Facilities Plan, bench scale testing is being conducted at the WRRF to
evaluate an emerging treatment technology that may provide significant life cycle cost savings.
On May 5, 2015 City Council will consider the approval of the final Facilities Plan. If approved,
Council authorization to release Requests for Proposals (RFP) for preliminary design services and
environmental services for CEQA compliance will be requested.
Schedule
The current schedule shows project completion in early 2021. Preliminary and final design is
anticipated to begin in August 2015 and April 2016 respectively. Construction is scheduled to start
in October 2017. The Stage 1 improvements include disinfection system upgrades to comply with
the NPDES permit and TSO timeline and are planned to be completed in mid-2019.
Based on the current schedule, the City will likely need to request an extension from the CCWB for
compliance with the new nitrogen limits. The final Facilities Plan will include an updated schedule
and compliance recommendations along with a detailed description of the proposed improvements.
California’s Proposition 1,
approved by voters in
2014, proposes $725
million be spent on
recycled water projects
Attachment 1
SS1-10
Staff will continue to pursue alternatives and partnerships that reflect the City’s goals of
environmental, economic and social stewardship with the goals of maximizing the WRRF’s
resources and benefit to San Luis Obispo.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. $63.7 million was
identified in the 2013-15 Financial Plan for this project. Estimated project costs will be updated
within the draft and final Facilities Plan.
Matching grant funding would be paid for with capital reserves for this project. Opportunities for
partnerships in funding this grant would be pursued.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Program Charter
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN COUNCIL OFFICE
Water Recycling Funding Program summary information
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-02-03\WRRF Study Session
Attachment 1
SS1-11
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment 2
SS1-12
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 1-1
1. Executive Summary
This Facilities Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) was developed to identify improvements needed at the WRRF to enable the plant to treat
future flows and loading, meet new waste discharge requirements, replace aging equipment,
maximize the production of recycled water, and incorporate interpretive features and public
amenities to create a valued community asset.
1.1. Background
The City owns and operates the WRRF located on Prado Road in San Luis Obispo, California. The
WRRF treats municipal wastewater collected from the City, California Polytechnic State University
(Cal Poly), and the San Luis Obispo County Airport under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR)
R3-2014-0033 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA0049224.
The WRRF is currently rated for 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) for average dry weather flow
(ADWF) conditions and currently treats an average of approximately 3.1 mgd under ADWF
conditions. After being treated, the water is either recycled or discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.
The plant was originally constructed in 1923 and upgraded or expanded in 1942, 1962, 1980, and
1994, and in 2006 the water reuse facilities were added. In partnership with Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), the plant is currently undergoing an upgrade to incorporate energy efficiency projects,
referred to as the WRRF Energy Efficiency Project. This upgrade includes improvements to the
cogeneration system, headworks, primary sludge pumps, solids dewatering, filter towers, aeration,
outdoor lighting, and the supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA).
1.2. Project Overview
The City is beginning a program to upgrade the WRRF to update treatment processes to meet the
City’s new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, treat future flows and
loading, replace aging equipment, maximize the production of recycled water, and incorporate
interpretive features and public amenities. The program is expected to be completed in 2020.
A key driver of the WRRF Project is the new NPDES permit adopted in September 2014 (effective
December 1, 2014). The new permit includes discharge limitations that will require significant
process upgrades. Specifically, the new permit includes strict disinfection byproduct limits which will
require a new disinfection technology, as well as nitrate limits which will require a significant upgrade
of the secondary treatment processes. A new Time Schedule Order (TSO) was also adopted in
September 2014 which requires the City to achieve the disinfection byproduct limits and nitrate limits
by November 30, 2019. Refer to Table 1-1 for a summary of the new permit requirements.
In addition to the regulatory driven process upgrades, this Facilities Plan includes recommended
upgrades for primary clarifiers, flow equalization, filtration, cooling, and solids handling to address
condition, capacity, and operational concerns.
Attachment 3
SS1-13
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-2
Finally, this Facilities Plan includes recommendations for new operation and maintenance spaces,
as well as an interpretive center and associated public amenities to create a valued community
asset.
1.3. Project Vision and Objectives
The vision of this Facilities Plan is to present recommended improvements to create a community
asset that is recognized as supporting health, well-being and quality of life. The Program Charter
identified the following objectives aimed at delivering the WRRF Project such that it provides
economic, social, and environmental value for the community:
Economic
Optimize capital investment and life cycle cost
Maximize value for ratepayers’ investment
Incorporate flexibility and scalability to adapt to future conditions
Simplify process flow and make treatment more robust
Optimize application of appropriate technology
Social
Create and sustain diverse partnerships that add value to the community
Provide an interpretive center and dedicated features to engage and educate the community
Be a good neighbor
Engender the trust of project stakeholders
Support the development and empowerment of City employees
Environmental
Develop and implement a holistic strategy to maximize sustainable resource recovery and
manage salts, nutrients and environmental pollutants in the Basin
Incorporate sustainability practices in planning, design, construction, and operation
Maintain compliance and minimize impacts to operations and the community during
construction
Sustain reliable compliance post-construction
Attachment 3
SS1-14
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
-
3
Ta
b
l
e
1
-
1
.
R
e
n
e
w
e
d
N
P
D
E
S
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
L
i
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
P
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
(
R
3
-
2
0
1
4
-
0
0
4
3
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
U
n
i
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Dr
y
We
a
t
h
e
r
F
l
o
w
Av
e
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Av
e
r
a
g
e
We
e
k
l
y
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Da
i
l
y
Instantaneous Minimum Instantaneous Maximum
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
F
l
o
w
m
gd
5
.
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
O
x
y
g
e
n
D
e
m
a
n
d
,
5
-
d
a
y
(B
O
D
)
mg
/
L
-
-
-
-
1
0
3
0
5
0
-
-
-
-
lb
/
d
-
-
-
-
4
2
5
1
,
2
7
5
2
,
1
2
5
-
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
S
o
l
i
d
s
(
T
S
S
)
m
g
/
L
--
--
10
30
75
-- --
lb
/
d
-
-
-
-
4
2
5
1
,
2
7
5
3
,
1
9
0
-
-
-
-
Un
-
i
o
n
i
z
e
d
A
m
m
o
n
i
a
mg
N
/
L
-
-
--
--
--
0
.
0
2
5
(a
)
-- --
In
t
e
r
i
m
N
i
t
r
a
t
e
(c
)
m
g
N/
L
--
-
-
4
2
.
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ni
t
r
a
t
e
m
g
N/
L
--
--
10
--
--
-- --
Co
l
i
f
o
r
m
(b
)
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
mL
--
-
-
23
2.
2
--
-
-
240
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
Ox
y
g
e
n
m
g
/
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
.
0
-
-
pH
s.
u
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
.
5
8
.
3
In
t
e
r
i
m
C
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
(c
)
µg
/
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
2
In
t
e
r
i
m
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
(c
)
µg
/
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
6
Fi
n
a
l
C
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
(d
)
µ
g
/
L
-
-
-
-
0
.
4
0
-
-
1
.
0
-
-
-
-
Fi
n
a
l
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
(d
)
µ
g
/
L
-
-
-
-
0
.
5
6
-
-
1
.
0
-
-
-
-
N-
N
i
t
r
o
s
o
d
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
a
m
i
n
e
(
N
D
M
A
)
µ
g
/L
-
-
-
-
0
.
0
0
0
6
9
-
-
0
.
0
0
1
4
-
-
-
-
(a
)
I
n
-
s
t
r
e
a
m
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
i
.
e
.
,
n
o
n
-
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
l
i
m
i
t
)
.
(b
)
T
h
e
f
e
c
a
l
c
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
m
e
d
i
a
n
o
f
2
.
2
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
L
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
7
d
a
y
s
o
f
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g results for which analyses have
be
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
;
n
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
2
3
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
L
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
i
n
a
n
y
3
0
-
d
a
y
p
e
r
i
o
d
;
n
o
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
240 MPN/100 mL total
co
l
i
f
o
r
m
.
(c
)
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
l
i
m
i
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
r
e
n
e
w
e
d
T
S
O
R
3
-
2
0
1
4-
0
0
3
6
a
r
e
v
a
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
1
9
.
(d
)
F
i
n
a
l
l
i
m
i
t
s
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
b
y
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
1
9
.
Attachment 3 SS1-15
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-4
1.4. Water Resource Recovery
The WRRF currently produces Title 22 Unrestricted Use Recycled Water which is used to irrigate
parks, medians, and landscape features in the City. Although all the treated effluent the WRRF
produces is compliant with Title 22 recycled water requirements (except during peak wet weather
events), only a portion of the recycled water produced is currently used for irrigation purposes, while
the remainder is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. That is because the demand for recycled
water is typically limited to the dry, late spring, summer, and early fall months. In addition, the
recycled water distribution system is not yet built out (i.e., additional customers could be added).
As described in the preceding subsection, a key environmental objective of the WRRF Project is to
maximize sustainable resource recovery. An opportunity exists as part of the WRRF Project to
increase the volume of recycled water distributed for beneficial use. Specifically, vineyard owners in
the Edna Valley have indicated an interest and willingness to use recycled water to irrigate their
vineyards thereby off-setting groundwater use. The expansion of the recycled water system could
provide multiple benefits to the City, and region, including enhanced management of regional water
resources as well as reduced life cycle costs for the WRRF project.
Additional work is required to determine the feasibility of delivering recycled water to the Edna Valley
and other potential users, including evaluation of regulatory compliance strategies, identification of
customers, quantification and timing of demands, and evaluation of the infrastructure and costs
needed to convey water from the WRRF to the end users, including pumping facilities, pipelines, and
storage. Therefore, a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study will be conducted.
As described in later subsections, the TSO deadline is a major schedule driver for the project. As a
result, the recommendations for the WRRF upgrade presented in this report are based on the
assumption that discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek will continue such that the project can proceed
on schedule; however, these recommendations will be reevaluated following the conclusion of the
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study.
1.5. Flow and Load Projections
The projected flows and loads through buildout of the WRRF’s service area are presented in Table
1-2. These values are based on an analysis of historical WRRF data for the five year period from
January 2009 through January 2014, and consider both population growth and land use in the
service area as described in the 2035 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) adopted in 2014.
Table 1-2 presents the design flows and loads that the facility plan was based on.
Attachment 3
SS1-16
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-5
Table 1-2. Summary of Projected Flows and Loads
Parameter Units ADWFCP AA MM MW MD PH
Flow mgd 5.4 6.1 8.4 11.4 17.3 33.5
TSS lb/d 16,200 17,000 24,200 32,600 44,100 -
BOD (a) lb/d 17,700 18,600 26,300 35,600 48,100 -
Ammonia lb N/d 2,000 2,100 2,900 3,400 4,200 -
TKN lb N/d 3,000 3,200 4,300 5,100 6,300 -
TSS mg/L 360 340 350 340 300 -
BOD (high)(a) mg/L 390 370 375 370 330 -
Ammonia mg N/L 45 42 41 36 29 -
TKN mg N/L 67 63 62 53 44 -
(a) BOD:TSS ratio assumed at 1.09.
(b) Peak hour flow is based on the results of collection system monitoring (V&A 2012), and the Influent Hydrograph Simulation Technical
Memorandum (WSC, 2014).
(c) ADWFCP is the average dry weather flow calculated for the three driest months of the year plus projected Cal Poly contributions.
1.6. Capacity Assessment Recommendations
The plant-wide treatment capacity analysis for the WRRF considered flow equalization and recycled
water production, as well as equipment replacement and the upgrades being implemented as part of
the WRRF Energy Efficiency Project.
After the upgrades are complete, all influent flows will receive secondary treatment, filtration, UV
disinfection, cooling (as needed) prior to being discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. Flow
equalization was considered for both dry weather diurnal and peak wet weather flows.
Equalization of peak wet weather flows (greater than 17 mgd) can be achieved with the existing 4
MG equalization pond. Further, a 0.5 MG expansion of the filter feed equalization basin would allow
downstream facilities (i.e., filtration, cooling and disinfection) to be sized for 16 mgd. Although diurnal
equalization of the dry weather flows was considered, it is not essential to the overall performance of
the plant.
The schematic in Figure 1-1 provides an illustration of peak hour flows that will be routed to each
area of the plant.
Attachment 3
SS1-17
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-6
Figure 1-1. Proposed Peak Hour Flow Schematic
1.7. Treatment Plant Upgrades
In addition to meeting the new discharge permit requirements, treatment plant upgrades are needed
to address capacity, redundancy, condition, O&M, energy efficiency, and odor concerns, as well as
provide new building spaces and public amenities.
The recommended improvements are summarized below and a process flow diagram of the
improvements is provided in Figure 1-2.
Flow equalization, including relining of the existing wet weather equalization pond.
Improvements at the headworks, including new influent flow monitoring and odor control.
Rehabilitation of the primary clarifiers, including new weirs, new sweeps and arms, new
sludge and scum pumps, new primary sludge pump pit.
Primary clarifier odor control.
Primary effluent diversion box retrofits.
Two new aeration basins, as well as new blowers and blower building, diffusers, mixed liquor
pumps and mixers, and chemical feed.
Two new final clarifiers and new RAS and WAS pumps.
A new filter feed equalization basin and new filter feed pumps.
Expansion of the tertiary filter complex, including four new monomedia filters, new backwash
pumps and air scour blowers.
New effluent chillers, cooling towers and pumps.
UV disinfection.
Solids treatment upgrades, including new thickening and conversion of the DAFT to a blend
tank, a new screw press, odor control, and a new anaerobic digester.
Headworks
Influent
PH = 33.5mgd
PCs
Wet Weather EQ Pond
Aeration
Basins
FCs Filters Cooling UV
Filter Feed EQ Basin
Secondary Treatment
PH = 17 mgd
Tertiary + Cooling + Disinfection
PH = 16 MGD
Flows > 22
mgd
Flows >17
mgd
Flows >
16 mgd
PCs
PH = 22 mgd
Attachment 3
SS1-18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
SS
1
-
1
9
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
-
8
Pa
g
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
b
l
a
n
k
.
Attachment 3 SS1-20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
SS
1
-
2
1
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
-
1
0
Pa
g
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
b
l
a
n
k
.
Attachment 3 SS1-22
LE
G
E
N
D
:
ST
A
G
E
1 CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
ST
A
G
E
2 CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
ST
A
G
E
3 CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING PLANRESERVE FOR CAL POLY OR FUTURE UPGRADESAttachment 3 SS1-23
WR
R
F
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pa
g
e
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
b
l
a
n
k
.
Attachment 3 SS1-24
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-13
New operations and water quality laboratory facility.
Interpretive facility and public amenities.
New maintenance facility.
1.8. Site Plan
Figure 1-3 presents the proposed site plan for the WRRF upgrades. Siting of the process units was
developed to minimize relocation of existing pipelines and utilities and to locate facilities in close
proximity to upstream and downstream processes, where feasible. Traffic circulation through the
plant was also considered to provide adequate and safe access for truck deliveries, as well as the
buses which must access the City’s Bus Yard. The operations center as well as the public
demonstration gardens, Cal Poly Research Center and the maintenance building were sited after
treatment structures were sited, and with input from the community and Utilities Department staff
(including WRRF and laboratory staff). The public amenities site plan is still being developed and
refined and will be included as part of the final Facilities Plan.
As the City moves forward with design of the upgrades, consideration will be given to reserve land
within the plant site for future upgrades that may be needed to address future regulations.
1.9. Construction Sequencing
A conceptual level construction sequencing plan was developed for the recommended upgrades
that addresses priorities with respect to meeting the schedule requirements in the TSO and to
address facilities that need to be brought online prior to demolition of other facilities.
The sequencing plan is made up of three discrete construction stages as shown in Figure 1-4. The
construction staging places an early emphasis on completing the facilities essential to compliance
with the TSO deadline of November 30, 2019. The stage 3 facilities are critical to maintaining a
sustainable efficient operation and should be constructed as soon as the direct permit driven
facilities are operational.
1.10. Implementation Schedule
A preliminary implementation schedule is presented in Figure 1-5. The schedule assumes that the
construction contract is awarded in October 2017.
The construction duration is estimated to be just over three years and assumes that equipment is not
pre-purchased by the City. As the City proceeds with the SRF loan application and design
procurement, and selects project delivery options, the implementation schedule will be revisited and
refined accordingly.
An alternative for the secondary treatment process is being contemplated (High Rate Adsorption /
Bio-Oxidation). If initial bench scale testing indicates the process is feasible and could result in
significant energy savings, pilot testing would be needed and the schedule for completion of the
secondary treatment facilities (as shown in Figure 1-5), could be extended.
Attachment 3
SS1-25
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-14
Figure 1-5. Implementation Schedule
1.11. Opinion of Probable Cost
Table 1-3 presents a summary of the opinion of probable costs for the WRRF upgrades. The
construction costs are presented in 2014 dollars and were then escalated to the midpoint of
construction (2019) using a three percent annual escalation rate. Detailed construction cost
estimates by process are included in Appendix U – Cost Estimates.
Major assumptions associated with the development of the opinion of probable costs include:
A 30 percent construction contingency was applied on Divisions 2 through 16. Division 1
costs were applied at 15 percent of Divisions 2 through 16.
Specialty foundations (e.g., pile foundations) are not included in the estimate.
Costs associated with improvements to address flood control are not included.
Tertiary filtration costs assume GMF and use of the existing backwash facilities with the new
filters.
An allowance for stormwater management at the site for the design storm (10-year, 24-hour
event) was applied. The allowance will be refined upon completion of the stormwater
management assessment.
Costs do not include relocation of the Cal Poly Research Area or the Prado Day Center.
Demolition of these facilities is included.
Costs do not include additional public amenities other than those included with the
interpretive center and the new operations facility.
Attachment 3
SS1-26
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-15
Table 1-3. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Process Area Opinion of Probable Costs
Flow Equalization $2,885,000
Headworks $911,000
Primary Clarifiers $1,242,000
Aeration Basins $14,708,000
Final Clarifiers $4,272,000
Tertiary Filtration and Cooling $9,840,000
Solids (Digestion, Thickening, Dewatering) $6,071,000
UV Disinfection $7,486,000
General Site $11,160,000
Operations and Water Quality Lab Facility $4,800,000
Interpretive Center and Public Amenities $1,365,000
Maintenance Building $1,800,000
Total Construction Costs in 2014 Dollars(a) $66,540,000
Allowance for Design, Environmental, Permitting, and Construction Management(b) $16,635,000
Total Project Cost in 2014 Dollars $83,175,000
Total Project Cost in 2019 Dollars $96,423,000
(a) Total construction costs include 30 percent construction contingency.
(b) Estimated at 25 percent of construction.
1.12. Next Steps
The next steps in the implementation of the WRRF upgrade include the following:
Conduct UVT testing to support development of design criteria for the UV disinfection
system.
Conduct bench test to evaluate the High Rate A/B process for secondary treatment as an
alternative to MLE. If the outcome is positive, conduct additional research (e.g., visit a full
scale plant, conduct pilot testing, etc.) and consider adjusting recommended facilities to
include in predesign and design.
Conduct structural analysis of concrete tanks constructed before 1985, including the existing
primaries.
Conduct filter pilot testing to evaluate alternative filtration media, if an alternate media is
desired.
Conduct temperature monitoring to support development of design criteria for the cooling
towers and chiller.
Continue flow monitoring analysis to support hydrograph simulation and refinement of flow
projections.
Attachment 3
SS1-27
WRRF Project
Executive Summary
Page 1-16
Continue select monitoring to confirm loading to the plant.
Conduct site visits of operational facilities and talk with Staff to assist with technology
selection (e.g., filtration, UV disinfection, etc.).
Complete the Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study and confirm recommended WRRF
upgrades and associated recycled water infrastructure needs.
Prioritize and confirm recommended projects for near term implementation.
Confirm procurement strategy and refine implementation schedule.
Procure an environmental consultant and initiate environmental review.
Procure a design consultant and initiate predesign.
Attachment 3
SS1-28
Question Report
Session:Triple Bottom Line
Class:Council Meeting
Class Points Avg:3.00 out of 100.00 (3.00%)
(Includes only students who took assessment)
How would you characterize the Utility Director's energy level?1
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C*
A --Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
00Response Percentages 100
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 1
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How would you characterize the Utility Director's energy level?2
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C*
--CAshbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
--CChristianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
600Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 2
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does an RV Dump Station at the WRRF meet the economic objectives?3
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
--CMarx, Jan
-B -Rivoire, Dan
2040Response Percentages 20
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 3
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does an RV Dump Station at the WRRF meet the environmental objectives?4
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
A --Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
-B -Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
020Response Percentages 80
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 4
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does an RV Dump Station at the WRRF meet the social objectives?5
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
A --Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
-B -Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
040Response Percentages 60
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 5
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Should we include an RV Dump Station at the WRRF?6
Answers
A Yes
B No
BStudentsA
A -Ashbaugh, John
A -Carpenter, Dan
-BChristianson, Caryln
-BMarx, Jan
A -Rivoire, Dan
40Response Percentages 60
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 6
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well do odor control improvements meet the economic objectives?7
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
-B -Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
-B -Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
2040Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 7
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well do odor control improvements meet the environmental objectives?8
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
A --Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
-B -Rivoire, Dan
2040Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 8
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well do odor control improvements meet the social objectives?9
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
A --Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
-B -Rivoire, Dan
2040Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 9
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Should we proceed with odor control as in the Draft Facilities Plan, or do more?10
Answers
A Proceed with Current Plan
B Do more
BStudentsA
A -Ashbaugh, John
A -Carpenter, Dan
A -Christianson, Caryln
-BMarx, Jan
A -Rivoire, Dan
20Response Percentages 80
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 10
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Should we include an RV Dump Station at the WRRF?11
Answers
A Yes
B No
BStudentsA
-BAshbaugh, John
A -Carpenter, Dan
-BChristianson, Caryln
-BMarx, Jan
A -Rivoire, Dan
60Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 11
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does an interpretive center and public elements meet the economic objectives?12
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
-B -Marx, Jan
-B -Rivoire, Dan
2040Response Percentages 20
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 12
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does an interpretive center and public elements meet the environmental objectives?13
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
--CRivoire, Dan
4020Response Percentages 20
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 13
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does an interpretive center and public elements meet the social objectives?14
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
2020Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 14
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Should we proceed with interpretive center and public elements as in the Draft Facilities Plan,
or do more or less?
15
Answers
A Proceed with Current Plan
B Do More
C Do Less
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
--CCarpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
200Response Percentages 60
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 15
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does maximizing recycled water meet the economic objectives?16
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
00Response Percentages 80
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 16
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does maximizing recycled water meet the environmental objectives?17
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
00Response Percentages 80
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 17
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
How well does maximizing recycled water meet the social objectives?18
Answers
A High
B Medium
C Low
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
A --Carpenter, Dan
A --Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
00Response Percentages 80
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 18
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Should we continue to follow the recycled water strategy in the Draft Facilities Plan, or do
more or less?
19
Answers
A Proceed with Current Plan
B Do More
C Do Less
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
-B -Carpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
A --Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
040Response Percentages 40
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 19
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Should we continue to follow the recycled water strategy in the Draft Facilities Plan, or do
more or less?
20
Answers
A Proceed with Current Plan
B Do More
C Do Less
BStudentsA C
---Ashbaugh, John
-B -Carpenter, Dan
-B -Christianson, Caryln
-B -Marx, Jan
A --Rivoire, Dan
060Response Percentages 20
Results
3/3/2015 5:31:04 PM Page 20
WRRF Project
Results from Triple Bottom Line Evaluation with City Council
March 3, 2015
Water Resource Recovery Facility
Project
Triple Bottom Line Evaluation – March 3, 2015
WRRF Project Background
Updated
Executive
Summary
2
What is the Triple Bottom Line?
SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
3
Today’s Objective
Conduct triple bottom line analysis of:
(1)RV Dump Station
(2)Odor Control
(3)Interpretive Center and Public
Elements
(4)Recycled Water
4
Triple Bottom Line Analysis
Economic
Criteria
Environmental
Criteria
Social
Criteria
5
Example:
Secondary Process
alternatives evaluation
Economic
•Capital cost
•O&M present
value
Environmental
•Meet permit
limits
•GHG emissions
Social
•Good neighbor
•Minimize
chemicals
Criteria listed above are representative.
6
Example:
Secondary Process
alternatives evaluation
Criteria Alt 1: MLE Alt 2: VertiCel® Alt 3: High Rate
A/B
Alt 4:
BioMag®
Non-Economic Criteria
Weighted Score 94 95 80 71
Non-Economic Rank 1 1 3 4
Economic Comparison
Construction Cost $26.4M $32.4M $26.3M $26.5M
Present Value O&M Cost $14.5M $11.9M $10.8M $19.9M
Net Present Value $40.9M $44.3M $37.1M $46.4M
Economic Rank 2 3 1 4
Final Rank 1 3 1 4
7
Today’s Triple Bottom Line Evaluation
RV Dump
Station Odor Control
Interpretive
Center & Public
Amenities
Recycled Water
8
Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Process
Review
Project
Component
Council to
score against
objectives
Review
results
Council to
provide
overall
guidance
9
So let’s try a test question:
How would you characterize the Utilities
Director’s energy level?
High (A)
Medium (B)
Low (C)
10
Possible RV Dump Station at the WRRF
Pr
a
d
o
R
d
Possible
RV
Dump
Station
POSSIBLE
Elks RV Dump Station
11
RV Dump Station – Council Guidance
High (A) Medium (B) Low (C)
Economic 1 2 1
Environmental 4 1 0
Social 3 2 0
Yes (A) No (B)
2 3
Should we include an RV Dump Station at the WRRF?
12
Odor Control by Design
ODOR
CONTROL
Current Odor Sources
Prevailing
Winds
Potential Future Odor Sources
Odor Mitigation Measures
POSSIBLE
13
Odor Control – Council Guidance
High (A) Medium (B) Low (C)
Economic 2 2 1
Environmental 2 2 1
Social 2 2 1
Proceed with
Current Plan (A)
Do More (B)
4 1
Should we proceed with odor control as in the Draft
Facilities Plan, or do more?
14
Interpretive Center and Public Elements
Re-purpose
existing
building for
Interpretive
Center
Proposed Cal
Poly Research
Area
Future Garden/ Public
Green Space
Water
Resources
Center
Bob Jones Bike Trail
Wetland/
Demonstration
Garden
15
Interpretive Center and Public Elements
16
Interpretive Center and Public Elements
17
Interpretive Center & Public Elements –
Council Guidance
High (A) Medium (B) Low (C)
Economic 1 2 1
Environmental 1 1 2
Social 2 1 1
Proceed with
Current Plan (A)
Do More (B) Do Less (C)
3 0 1
Should we proceed with interpretive center and public
elements as in the Draft Facilities Plan, or do more or less?
18
Recycled Water
•Maximize recycled water production
•Develop partnerships to increase delivery of
recycled water
–Basin sustainability
–Conservation and Open Space Element
19
Recycled Water
UV
Disinfection
More
Filters
20
Recycled Water – Council Guidance
High (A) Medium (B) Low (C)
Economic 4 0 0
Environmental 4 0 0
Social 4 0 0
Proceed with
Current Plan (A)
Do More (B) Do Less (C)
1 3 0
Should we continue to follow the recycled water strategy in
the Draft Facilities Plan, or do more or less?
21
Questions
22
What’s Next
March 19th Open House at Farmer’s Market
Finalize Facilities Plan
May 5 th Council Meeting to approve Facilities Plan
23
Thank you!
24