Water Recycling Facility Project

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Water Recycling Facility Project"

Erik Robbins
6 years ago
Views:

Discharge Violations. Existing plant constructed in 1939.

1 Water Recycling Facility May 15, 2006 How did we get here? December 2002 City facing $8,000,000 fines from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for Wastewater Discharge Violations. Existing plant constructed in Existing plant treatment issues were upgraded over the years but the process technology cannot meet current Discharge Requirements. January 2003 Staff began negotiations with the RWQCB for relief of the $8,000,000 in fines. 1

2 June 2003 Contracted with Parsons Engineering to develop a Project Report. December 2003 Negotiated a Time Schedule Order (TSO) with the RWQCB that limits additional fines from accruing. TSO established interim discharge permit limits that the existing plant could meet. Committed the City to constructing a new plant that will meet the current discharge requirement for the Santa Paula Basin by September Project Team Evaluated Three Treatment Processes in the EIR and Project Report: Oxidation Ditch Membrane Bioreactor Four Stage Activated Sludge June 2004 Council went on plant tour to San Bernardino County to view different technologies in operation. 2

3 Project Report & Treatment Alternatives Preliminary WRF Cost Estimates (Spring 2005) Basis of Alternative Four-Stage Activated Sludge Capital Cost [1] Annual O&M Cost Total Net Present Worth Cost [2] $39,970,000 $1,803,000 $62,435,000 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) $40,700,000 $2,249,000 $68,723,000 Oxidation Ditch $38,280,000 $1,728,000 $59,811,000 [1] The percolation pond acreage used in these budgetary costs has been estimated without the benefit of a detailed geotechnical study. The acreage may need to be adjusted once a detailed geotechnical study is completed. [2] An interest rate of 5% over 20 years was assumed for total net present worth cost analysis (present worth factor of 12.46) [3] Assumes $.10/KWH power cost Project Report & Treatment Alternatives Conclusions: Four Stage Activated Sludge and Oxidation Ditch are equivalent in cost within 5% at conceptual level. MBR 10-15% higher cost but may be considered for better effluent quality (more than required by NPDES Permit) and future regulatory requirements. Difference in costs between alternatives much closer because of material construction costs. 3

4 Environmental Impact Report November 8, 2004 Draft EIR was sent out for Public Review (over 100 copies were sent to public agencies, interested parties, and adjacent property owners. Summary of EIR Conclusions: The preferred project site was the one directly adjacent to and southwest of the existing site because this alternative had the least environmental impacts. Upgrade or expansion of the existing facility was not feasible due to age of the equipment and treatment technology (1939). Use of the existing site was not feasible because the existing plant needed to remain in full operation while the new plant was built. Site located by the Todd Road resulted in pumping the wastewater an additional mile to the west and resulted in additional environmental impacts. 4

5 April 2005 Draft Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Submittal. April 2005 EIR Certification Complete. November 2005 City Selected Kennedy/Jenks Consultants to complete the design of the WRF. April Design is 30% complete. - Draft Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) are under review with the RWQCB. Recycling Facility Project In Design: May 2006: MBR Process selected to minimize plant size and meet existing and future discharge requirements. Comprehensive odor control. Water Recycling Facility screened to be buffered from surrounding neighborhood. Plan for capacity based on build out population as indicated in the approved General Plan. 5

6 May 2006: 4.2 million gallon per day Water Recycling Facility phased over time based on development. Located above the 100 year Flood Line Boundary. Located where soil percolation is good to minimize plant footprint. Located adjacent to the existing plant and City boundary. May 2006: Located where headworks can still be gravity fed. - No additional pumping stations required to get flow to plant. Agricultural buffer to separate existing residences on the West from view of percolation ponds. Project Cost now exceed $65 Million. Exact costs still being refined. 6

7 Proposed Sewer Rates: Sewer Service Description Current Proposed Residential Sewer Service Fees: Monthly Charge per Dwelling $32.09 $42.78 Restaurant Sewer Service Fees: Charge per 100 cu. Ft. of water used $5.64 $7.50 Minimum Monthly Charge $34.42 $45.78 Industrial Sewer Service Fees: Charge per 100 cu. Ft. of water used $3.56 $4.74 Minimum Monthly Charge $34.42 $45.78 Why are Santa Paula s Sewer Rates Going Up? Historically Santa Paula sewer rates have only been enough to cover the operation and repair expenses. Santa Paula s sewer rates from ranged from $5.70 to $10.95 Santa Paula s sewer rate from No revenue was being set aside for future plant replacement/upgrades. 7

8 Sewer Rates For Other Communities Operating Their Own Treatment Plants: City & (Population) Santa Paula (29,133) $16.36 $19.30 $24.13 $32.09 $42.68 Fillmore (15,180) $13.92 $15.31 $22.97 (Rising) Ventura (106,710) $39.76 $40.56 $42.18 $44.50 Thousand Oaks (127,644) $10.50 $12.30 $12.40 $20.65 $20.65 $21.85 $21.85 $24.15 $24.80 $24.45 $25.45 City & (Population) Santa Paula (29,133) Ventura (106,710) Difference Monthly Rates 1996 $13.92 City of Ventura Rate Comparison 1997 $ $ $ $19.30 $ $24.13 $ $32.09 $42.18 If our rates had equaled the City of Ventura for the last 10 years and the annual rate of return was 3.5%, we would have approximately $18 million dollars for our new plant. If our rates had matched Ventura s estimated rates since 1985, we could have over $30,000,000 set aside for our new plant $42.68 $

9 Revenue and Expenditure Comparisons 2005/2006 FY City Santa Paula Fillmore Ventura Thousand Oaks Population 29,133 15, , ,644 Budgeted Revenues $3,980,000 $1,793,450 $13,132,380 $21,471,300 Budgeted Operations expenses $2,082,386 $1,073,763 $12,483,392 $11,907,090 Budgeted Capital Expenditures $1,897,614 $1,400,000 $1,693,100 $3,470,000 Sinking Fund $-0- <$680,313> <$1,044,112> $6,094,210 What are other Cities doing? City of Fillmore Construction of new 1.8 MGD Water Recycling Plant estimated cost: $40 Million dollars. City of Ventura Recently completed $41 Million dollars of upgrades to their treatment plant over the last 5 years. City of Thousand Oaks Recently completed $60 Million dollars of upgrades to their treatment plant. 9

10 Why is the cost of our plant so high? The cost of construction materials (concrete, steel, etc.) are up approximately 22% each of the last two years. Our plant is not big enough to gain significant economies of scale (i.e. required treatment results are the same as a larger plants) What are we doing to help defray the cost? Continued value engineering to look for ways to decrease the overall project cost. Continuing to pursue Federal and State Grants. - Anticipate receipt of $380,000 EPA Grant in FY 06/07 - Mayor and the City Manager are going to Washington to request additional funds. Continuing to pursue SRF Low Interest Loans from the State of California. Collecting Development Impact Fees for new construction. 10

11 Conclusions: We must construct a new plant with a technology that will satisfy current and future wastewater discharge requirements. We must build a plant that will accommodate the existing flow rate with capacity to meet the peak wet weather flow conditions. 11

City of Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant. Redlands, CA LOCATION: Carollo Engineers; CH2M HILL MBR MANUFACTURER: COMMENTS:

FACILITY: City of Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant LOCATION: Redlands, CA GEO. AREA: Southern California STATUS 07/14: Operational CONSTRUCTION: ENGINEERING: Carollo Engineers; CH2M HILL MBR MANUFACTURER: