city oak harbor wastewater facility plan

City Oak Harbor City Oak Harbor Wastewater Facility PlanWastewater Facility Plan

City Council WorkshopCity Council Workshop

July 15, 2010July 15, 2010

Wastewater Facility Plan Wastewater Facility Plan

• History and BackgroundHistory and Background

• Project NeedProject Need

• Project GoalsProject Goals

• Project ProcessProject Process

• Project ScopeProject Scope

• Project Cost Project Cost

• Next StepsNext Steps

History

• Out houses, cesspools and rudimentary Septic Systems 1850-1935

• Connections of individual systems and sewage conveyance to Pioneer Way outfall 1935-1954

• City builds its first Primary Treatment plant with anaerobic digestion 1954-1956

History

• URS Facility plan 1976• Upgrade of the Primary Plant

to Secondary RBC system with anaerobic upgrades 1978

• Cooperative effort with the Navy through a lease agreement to operate the Seaplane Base facultative aerated Lagoon facility October 1987

• Incorporation of a Diversion pumping station 1989-90

• Upgrades of the Lagoon facility including an inverted siphon and process changes 1989

History

• RBC plant thickener 1997

• Liner in Cell “E” damaged 2003

• Anaerobic cell construction and NW cell “E” modified 2005

• Sewer comprehensive plan update 2007 identified need for new plant capacity by 2017

History

• Armoring of the Lagoon 2008

• New Lagoon head works and redundant siphon 2008

• Flooding of the Marsh August 2009

• Lagoon generator winter 2010

• RBC Generator and Third pump project Spring 2010

Project NeedProject Need

• Age and condition of plantsAge and condition of plants– Existing RBC plant is more than 30 years Existing RBC plant is more than 30 years

old and showing signs of failureold and showing signs of failure– Lagoon plant at risk of floodingLagoon plant at risk of flooding– Oak Harbor Bay outfall is failing (60 Oak Harbor Bay outfall is failing (60

years old)years old)– Crescent Harbor outfall is failing (60 Crescent Harbor outfall is failing (60

years old) years old)


• Future permitting requirements will Future permitting requirements will be more stringent – existing plants be more stringent – existing plants will not be able to meet anticipated will not be able to meet anticipated permit requirementspermit requirements– Cleanup of Puget SoundCleanup of Puget Sound– Nitrogen and phosphorous removalNitrogen and phosphorous removal– Endocrine disruptors Endocrine disruptors


• Long Term CapacityLong Term Capacity– Plant capacity is adequate for todayPlant capacity is adequate for today– Long term planning forecasts indicate a Long term planning forecasts indicate a

need to double the plant capacity within need to double the plant capacity within the 20 year planning horizon the 20 year planning horizon

• Capacity is a function of both flow Capacity is a function of both flow and loadingand loading


• Project time lineProject time line– New wastewater treatment plants New wastewater treatment plants

typically take 5 to 7 years to plan, typically take 5 to 7 years to plan, design, construct and financedesign, construct and finance

– Comprehensive plan from 2007 Comprehensive plan from 2007 identified a 2010 facility plan effort and identified a 2010 facility plan effort and a 2017 plant start up a 2017 plant start up

Project GoalsProject Goals

““To obtain the highest level of water quality To obtain the highest level of water quality practical while recognizing the limitations of practical while recognizing the limitations of the rate payers of the city to fund the rate payers of the city to fund improvements. A primary goal of the City is improvements. A primary goal of the City is the continued protection of the water quality the continued protection of the water quality of the waters in and around Oak Harbor to of the waters in and around Oak Harbor to meet the goals outlined in Puget Sound meet the goals outlined in Puget Sound Action Plan developed by Puget Sound Action Plan developed by Puget Sound Partnership for the cleanup and protection of Partnership for the cleanup and protection of Puget Sound. “ Puget Sound. “ Source: Facility plan RFPSource: Facility plan RFP


• High quality wastewater effluent – High quality wastewater effluent – protects valued community assetprotects valued community asset

• 40 year life cycle analysis – 40 year life cycle analysis – affordable to rate payersaffordable to rate payers

• Safe, reliable facility for O&M staffSafe, reliable facility for O&M staff• Beneficial use of resourcesBeneficial use of resources

– Water reuseWater reuse– Biosolids managementBiosolids management


• Long-term investment for COHLong-term investment for COH• Aesthetic fit with surrounding areaAesthetic fit with surrounding area• Environmentally responsibleEnvironmentally responsible

– LEED certified facilityLEED certified facility

• Due diligence evaluation of multiple sites Due diligence evaluation of multiple sites and multiple processes and multiple processes

• Compliance with permits for foreseeable Compliance with permits for foreseeable futurefuture– Targets for discharge limits significantly lower Targets for discharge limits significantly lower

than current permitthan current permit

Project Goals Project Goals RBC plant NPDES permit

limitLagoon plant NPDES

permit limitNew Facility Target/Goal

Total suspended solids 30mg/l 75mg/l 10mg/l

85% removal 85% removal 95% removal

CBOD 5 25 mg/l 25 mg/l 10mg/l

85% removal 85% removal 95% removal

Turbidity Not applicable Not applicable 1 NTU

Chlorine residual 0.114 mg/l 0.5 mg/l No discharge

Fecal coli form 200/100ml (monthly) 200/100ml (monthly) <100/100ml (monthly)

Nitrogen Not applicable Not applicable 8mg/l

Total Phosphorous Not applicable Not applicable 0.5 mg/l

Pathogen barriers No No Yes

Project ProcessProject Process

• Major steps for construction of a new Major steps for construction of a new wastewater treatment plantwastewater treatment plant– General Sewer Plan – completed in 2007 General Sewer Plan – completed in 2007

(Tetra-Tech)(Tetra-Tech)– Engineering report/facilities plan – Engineering report/facilities plan –

pending (Carrollo)pending (Carrollo)– Financial and Rate analysis – ongoing Financial and Rate analysis – ongoing

(HDR) (HDR) – Environmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA) – Environmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA) –

pending (Carrollo) pending (Carrollo)

Project ProcessProject Process

• Major steps for construction of a new Major steps for construction of a new wastewater treatment plantwastewater treatment plant– Construction Plans and specifications – Construction Plans and specifications –

start in 2013start in 2013– Construction – 2015 through 2017Construction – 2015 through 2017– Testing, startup, and commissioning Testing, startup, and commissioning

services - 2017services - 2017– Staff training - 2017Staff training - 2017– Declaration of Completion by Engineer - Declaration of Completion by Engineer -

20172017

Consultant SelectionConsultant Selection

• Major project requires outside Major project requires outside assistanceassistance

• RCW 39.80 and OHMC 2.350 dictate RCW 39.80 and OHMC 2.350 dictate selection processselection process

• Selection engineering firms is based Selection engineering firms is based on qualifications not low bidon qualifications not low bid


• January – August 2009 –staff development of solicitation January – August 2009 –staff development of solicitation materialsmaterials

• September 2009 publication of Request for Qualifications September 2009 publication of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) (RFQ) – 8 firms submitted8 firms submitted– Statements of Qualifications were ranked by staffStatements of Qualifications were ranked by staff

• November 2009 Request for Proposals sent to 4 four firms JNovember 2009 Request for Proposals sent to 4 four firms J– HDR, Tetra- Tech, Carollo, Kennedy JenksHDR, Tetra- Tech, Carollo, Kennedy Jenks– Written proposals were ranked by staff in January 2010Written proposals were ranked by staff in January 2010

• February 2010 All four firms invited for formal interview February 2010 All four firms invited for formal interview 20102010– Top ranking or most qualified firm selected by interview panel is Top ranking or most qualified firm selected by interview panel is

CarrolloCarrollo

• March 2010 Council authorization to negotiate scope of work March 2010 Council authorization to negotiate scope of work with Carollo as the most qualified firmwith Carollo as the most qualified firm


• Development of scope based on RFP, Development of scope based on RFP, WAC, RCW, CFR etc WAC, RCW, CFR etc

Is scope commensurate Is scope commensurate with the project requirements as established by with the project requirements as established by Owner and WAC? If “yes”, proceed to 2:Owner and WAC? If “yes”, proceed to 2:

• Development of level of effort (hours)Development of level of effort (hours)Is LOE consistent with Scope of Services, and Is LOE consistent with Scope of Services, and reasonable for similar work tasks? If “yes”, proceed reasonable for similar work tasks? If “yes”, proceed to 3:to 3:

• Development of feeDevelopment of fee Comparison of fee structure to comparable firms Comparison of fee structure to comparable firms

Facility Planning Facility Planning RequirementsRequirements• RCW 90.48.110RCW 90.48.110: Ecology review/approval : Ecology review/approval

of plans prior to constructionof plans prior to construction

• WAC 173-240-060WAC 173-240-060: : Engineering Report Engineering Report completed with sufficient detail for designcompleted with sufficient detail for design

• When Federal funds are used 40 CFR 35 When Federal funds are used 40 CFR 35 requires a requires a Facilities PlanFacilities Plan– Most municipal treatment plant projects Most municipal treatment plant projects

involve Federal Fundinginvolve Federal Funding

Facility Plan ContentsFacility Plan Contents• Must include the following at a Must include the following at a

minimum per WAC 173-240-060:minimum per WAC 173-240-060:Present and future wastewater quality and quantitiesDegree of treatment requirementDescription of receiving waterInfiltration and inflow analysisIndustrial pretreatment analysisEvaluation of alternatives and proposed treatment processAdvantages and disadvantages of various sitesDesign data and sizing on treatment unitsFlood Plain analysisReclaimed water opportunities analysisDetailed Outfall analysisSludge Handling and Bio-solids disposalFuture needsStaffing and testing requirementsCost and expenses ---annual cost and present worthFinancial and Rate analysisEnvironmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA)

Facility Plan ContentsFacility Plan Contents• Must include the following at a Must include the following at a

minimum per WAC 173-240-060:minimum per WAC 173-240-060:Present and future wastewater quality and quantitiesDegree of treatment requirementDescription of receiving waterInfiltration and inflow analysisIndustrial pretreatment analysisEvaluation of alternatives and proposed treatment processAdvantages and disadvantages of various sitesDesign data and sizing on treatment unitsFlood Plain analysisReclaimed water opportunities analysisDetailed Outfall analysisSludge Handling and Bio-solids disposalFuture needsStaffing and testing requirementsCost and expenses ---annual cost and present worthFinancial and Rate analysisEnvironmental reviews (SEPA and NEPA)

BACKGROUND

EVALUATION

DETAIL

COMPLIANCE

• Task 100 – Project ManagementTask 100 – Project Management– Manage scope, schedule, budget to deliver a Manage scope, schedule, budget to deliver a

quality Facility Planquality Facility Plan

• Task 200 – Preliminary AlternativesTask 200 – Preliminary Alternatives– Develop and evaluate a range of alternatives Develop and evaluate a range of alternatives

based on Oak Harbors objectivesbased on Oak Harbors objectives

• Task 300 – Final AlternativesTask 300 – Final Alternatives– Refine preliminary alternatives and select Refine preliminary alternatives and select

alternative for environmental reviewalternative for environmental review

Facility Plan Project ScopeFacility Plan Project Scope

• Task 400 – Outfall EvaluationTask 400 – Outfall Evaluation– Identify improvements to existing outfalls Identify improvements to existing outfalls

and/or new alternatives to meet future needsand/or new alternatives to meet future needs

• Task 500 – Reuse OpportunitiesTask 500 – Reuse Opportunities– Assess cost/benefit of reusing treated Assess cost/benefit of reusing treated

effluenteffluent

• Task 600 – Facilities PlanTask 600 – Facilities Plan– Document evaluation and produce plan for Document evaluation and produce plan for

Ecology review and approvalEcology review and approval


• Task 700 – Environmental DocumentationTask 700 – Environmental Documentation– Document impacts of proposed alternative to Document impacts of proposed alternative to

comply with State and Federal requirementscomply with State and Federal requirements

• Task 800 – Public ProcessTask 800 – Public Process– Effectively and proactively communicate with Effectively and proactively communicate with

stakeholders and public throughout the processstakeholders and public throughout the process

• Task 900 – Management ReserveTask 900 – Management Reserve– Used at the discretion of the City management Used at the discretion of the City management

to address minor scope changesto address minor scope changes



• Scope responds to City’s RFP, meets each Scope responds to City’s RFP, meets each requirement for an approvable planrequirement for an approvable plan

Scope Task Result % of Effort

600, 700 Final Facilities Plan, Environmental Documentation

22%

400 Outfall analysis and recommendations 10%

200, 300 Alternatives development, evaluation, screening

39%

500 Reuse opportunities analysis 5%

800 Public process support 15%

100 Project management and delivery 9%

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 600 – Facilities Plan (15%)Task 600 – Facilities Plan (15%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000

Facilities Plan Environmental Review and Documentation

Outfall Evaluation Final Altenrnatives Development and Screening

preliminary Alternatives Development and Screening Reuse Opportunities

Public Process Support Project Management

Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 700 – Environmental Documentation Task 700 – Environmental Documentation (7%)(7%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 400 – Outfall Analysis (10%)Task 400 – Outfall Analysis (10%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 300 – Final Alternatives (10%)Task 300 – Final Alternatives (10%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 200 – Preliminary Alternatives (29%)Task 200 – Preliminary Alternatives (29%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 500 – Reuse Opportunities (5%)Task 500 – Reuse Opportunities (5%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 800 – Public Process Support (15%)Task 800 – Public Process Support (15%)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 100 – Project Management (9%)Task 100 – Project Management (9%)

Facility Plan Level of Effort by TaskFacility Plan Level of Effort by TaskTask 900 – Management Reserve ($75k)Task 900 – Management Reserve ($75k)

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000





Management Reserve

Total Contract $1.09M

Tasks 200, 300, 800 $0.54M

Summary of Project Scope and Summary of Project Scope and Level of EffortLevel of Effort

• 50% of the scope/effort associated with 50% of the scope/effort associated with rigorous evaluation of alternatives, sitesrigorous evaluation of alternatives, sites

• Evaluation increases confidence in the Evaluation increases confidence in the City’s significant, long-term investmentCity’s significant, long-term investment

• A less rigorous evaluation would meet A less rigorous evaluation would meet regulatory requirements and reduce regulatory requirements and reduce effort/costeffort/cost

Potential Facility Plan Potential Facility Plan ScenariosScenarios• Current ScopeCurrent Scope

– Evaluate various WWTP alternatives at a number of Evaluate various WWTP alternatives at a number of potential sitespotential sites

• Scenario 1: Focus evaluation of alternatives on Scenario 1: Focus evaluation of alternatives on a single sitea single site– e.g. Evaluate WWTP alternatives at Seaplane Basee.g. Evaluate WWTP alternatives at Seaplane Base

• Scenario 2: Develop Facility Plan following Scenario 2: Develop Facility Plan following Comprehensive Sewer Plan recommendationComprehensive Sewer Plan recommendation– Documentation for activated sludge plant at lagoon Documentation for activated sludge plant at lagoon

sitesite

Facility Plan Based on Current Facility Plan Based on Current ScopeScopeRigorous Evaluation of Rigorous Evaluation of Alternatives/SitesAlternatives/Sites

Facility Plan Based on Scenario Facility Plan Based on Scenario 11Focused Evaluation on Single SiteFocused Evaluation on Single Site

Facility Plan Based on Scenario Facility Plan Based on Scenario 11Implement Comp. Sewer Plan Implement Comp. Sewer Plan AlternativeAlternative

SummarySummary

• Planning level of effort varies with Planning level of effort varies with number of alternatives and sites number of alternatives and sites evaluatedevaluated

Summary

• Planning phase accounts for approximately 1% to 2% of total project budget

PhaseBudgetary

Cost % of Total

Planning $1 M ~ 1 – 2%

Engineering Design and Construction Services

$8 M ~13%

Construction $50 - $60 M ~85%

Total $60 - $70 M 100%

Questions?

city oak harbor wastewater facility plan

Documents