board eeting agenda tuesday, january 3, 2017 3:00p.m. · 2019-02-22 · motion board eeting agenda...

(

Motion

BOARD EETING AGENDA

Tuesday, January 3, 2017 3:00p.m.

Oro Loma Sanitary District Boardroom 2655 Grant Avenue Sa·n Lorenzo, cA· 94580

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, i~ you need special assistance to participate in a District meeting, or you need a copy of th.e agenda, or the agenda .packet, in an appropriate alternative format, please contact the Board Clerk's office at 510-276-4700. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the District staffin assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call: Directors Becker, Dias, Duncan, Walters, Young

3. General Public (Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not on the agenda, but within the Board's jurisdiction, should notify the Board at this time. Those wishing to comment on any item on the agenda should do so at the time the· item is considered.. Comments may be limited to three (3) minutes. Time limitations shall be at the discretion of the President.)

CONSENT CALENDAR

4. Approval of Board Minutes of December 20, 2016 (The Board will be asked to approve the minutes.)

COMMITTEE l AUTHORITY REPORTS

Information 5. Report from the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Director Young on the December 21, 2016 meeting~)

Information

Information

Motion

6. Report from the Personnel/Safety/Public Information Committee (Director Duncan will report on the December 23,2016 meet1ng.)

7. Report from the Operations Committee (Director Walters will report on the December 28,2016 meeting.)

8. Approval of Committee Minutes for Entry to District Record (The Board will be asked to approve the Cotiunittee minutes for entry to the District record by reference.)

PRESENTATION

Information 9. Dry Weather Nutrient Removal Study

Motion

Motion

(G~neral Manager Warner will provide a review of the report, prepared by consulting firm HDR, as well as options for early implementation of nutrient controls.)

NEW BUSINESS

10. Approval of New Electrical & Mechanical Technician Job Classification and Salary (The Board will be asked to approve the job classification and salary.)

11. Accept Project as Complete and Authorize the General Manager to Direct the Filing of a Notice of Completion: Sewer Line Replacement Project 2015-2016 (The Board will be asked to accept the project as complete and direct filing of a Notice of Completion with Alameda County.)

12. Staff/Directors Comments (Board and/or staff members may comment on items of interest.)

CLOSED SESSION

13. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to the California Government Code, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 potential case.)

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION 14. Adjournment

Glossary of Acronyms

ACWA Association of California Water Agencies DHS Department of Health Services

AEPS Alvarado Efflue~Jt Pump Station DO Dissolved Oxygen

AMP Asset Management Plan DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District EBDA East Bay DischargerS _Authority

BACWA Bay Area. Clean Water Agencies EIS/EIR Environmental Impact Statement/Report

BCDC Bay Conservation and Development EPA Environmental Protection Agency Commission

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand· FOG Fats, Oils and Grease

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard GASB Government Accounting Standards Board

.CARB California Air Resources Board HEPS Hayward Effluent Pump Station

CASA California Association of Sanitation Agencies JPA Joint Powers Agreement

CBOD Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand LAVWMA Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency

CDFA CA Department of Food & Agriculture LOCC League of California Cities

CECs Constituents of Emerging Concern MAC Managers Advisory Committee

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology (air controls)·

CFR Code of Federal Regulations MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

CIWMB CA Integrated Waste Management Board MDF Marina Dechorination Facility

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management MGD Million Gallons per Day System

COH City of Hayward MMP Mandatory Minimum Penalty

CPUC . California Public Utilities Commission MOU Memorandum of Understanding

CSL City of San Leandro N Nitrogen

cso Combin~d Sewer Overflow NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies

CTR California Taxies Rule NaHS03 Sodium Bisulfite

CVCWA Central Valley ·Clean Water Association NAS National Academy of Sciences'

CVSAN Castro Valley Sanitary District NGO Non Governmental Organization

CWA Clean Water Act NOX Nitrogen Oxides

CWEA CA Water Environment Association NPDES Nat'l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Glossary of Acronyms

NPS Non-Point Source sso Sanitary Sewer Overflow

NTR National Toxics Rule svcw Silicon Valley Clean Water

O&M Operations & Maintenance SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

OLEPS Oro Lorna Effluent Pump Station TDS Total Dissolved Solids

OLSD Oro Lorna Sanitary District TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

OMB Office of Management and Budget TRC Total Residual Chlorine

p Phosphorous Tri-TAC Technical Advisory Committee of CASA, CWEA, and LOCC

PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons TSO Time Schedule Order

PCBs Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls TSS Total Suspended Solids

PLC Programmable Logic Controller USD Union Sanitary District

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works uv Ultraviolet Treatment

PPCPs Pharmaceutical and personal Care Products VFD Variable Frequency Drive

QA/QC Quality Assurance I Quality Control VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

Region IX Western Region of EPA (CA, AZ, NV & HI) WAS Waste Activated Sludge

RFP Request For Proposals WDR Waste Discharge Requirements

RFQ Request For Qualifications WEF Water Environment Federation

RMP Risk Management Program WERF Water Environment Research Foundation

RO Reverse Osmosis WET Whole Effluent Toxicity or Waste Extraction Test

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board WIN Water Infrastructure Network

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition WLA Waste Load Allocation (point sources)

SCAP Southern California Alliance of POTWs WPCF Water Pollution Control Facility

SEP Supplementary Environmental Projects WQBEL Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation

SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute WQS Water Quality Standards

SIP State Implementation Policy (CTR/NTR WRDA Water Resource Development Act criteria)

SLEPS San Leandro Effluent Pump Station WRFP Water Recycling Funding Program

SRF State Revolving Fund WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

SSMP Sewer System Management Plan WWWIFA Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Financing Agency

AGENDA ITEM NO: 4 AGENDA DATE: 1/03/17

Approval of Board Minutes

BACKGROUND: The Board will be asked to approve the minutes for the December 20,2016 Board meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENT: Board Meeting Minutes: December 20, 2016

( MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

· OF THE SANITARY BOARD OF ORO LOMA SANITARY DISTRICT

December20, 2016

The ·regular meeting of the Sanitary Board of Oro Lorna Sanitary District was called to order by President Shelia Young at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 20, 2016, at the District offices at 2655 Grant Avenue, San Lorenzo. President 'Young noted that pirec~ors Timothy Becker, Roland Dias, Rita Duncan, and Dan Walters present. Also in attendance were Jason ·warner, General Manager; William Halsted, District Engineer; . Andreea Simi on, Administrative Services Manager; Arlene Wong, Finance Manager; Sally Green, District Secretary; Jen Faught, District Legal Counsel; Natasha Browne, Solid Waste Consultant; Vanes.sa Barberis, .from Waste Management; and Brian Matthews and Rachel Bals.ley, from Stop Waste. No general public was present.

President Young introduced Brian Matthews, Senior Program Manager - Enforcement Officer, from StopWaste (Alameda ·County Waste Management Authority), who was to present·on the topic "Mandatory Recycling Ordinance (MRO) Enforcement Processes and Practices." He was accompanied by StopWaste Senior Program Manager Rachel Balsley, the project lead for the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. Mr. Matthews explained that StopWaste is a countywide public agency with 17 membe·r agencies, including Oro Lorna, and it provides commercial and residential education and assistance to achieve its miss} on to reduce waste. His detailed presentation included an overview of how the MRO applies to businesses and multi-family complexes, violation thresholds, and enforcement methods. The Board expressed its appreciation to Mr. Matthews and Ms. Balsley, and thanked them for coming to the meeting.

President Young announced. the following -Committee and Authority/ Association assignments:

Construction Committee: Chair, Timothy Becker; Member, Roland Dias Finance & Insurance Committee: Chair, Roland Dias; Member, Shelia Young Operations Committee: Chair, Dan Walters; Member, Timothy Becker Personnel/Safety/Public Information Committee: Chair~ Rita Duncan; Member, Dan Walters Solid Waste Committee: Chair, Shelia Young; Member, Rita Duncan . East Bay Dischargers Authority: Representative, Timothy Becker; Alternate, Dan Walters Alameda County Waste Ma11agement Authority: Representative, Shelia Young; Alternate, Rita Duncan Alameda County Special Districts Association: Representative, Rita Duncan; Alternate, Dan Walters California Sanitation Risk Management Authority: Rep~esentative, Jason Warner; Alternate, Arlene Wong

Director Becker moved approval of the above-listed assignments. The motion was seconded by Director Duncan ·and carried unanimou~ly, 5-0. President Young stated that the assignments would be effective January 1, 2017.

Director Dias moved approval of the following Consent ·calendar items, based on ·staff re~ommendations; 6) Approval of Minutes of Decemb~r 6 and December 13,.2016; 7). Approval of Financial Statements, November 20 16; and 8) Approval of Monthly Compliance and Activity Reports, November 2016.· The motion was seconded by Director Duncan and carried unanimously, 5-0.

Oro Lorna Sanitary District Minutes, Meeting of December 20,2016 Page 2 of4

President Yo.ung reported on the December 12, 2016 meeting of the Solid Waste Committee. The first topic was Public Outreach Update, which President Young said was an extensive review of the District's commercial outreach program and the materials provided to customers. Waste audits were explained, including how they are performed, proposed service levels, pictures taken on site, etc. Solid Waste Consultant Natasha Browne reported on the cart decal pilot study (to determine if placing decals on carts increases recycling and organics participation and decreases contamination); the food scraps collection program for schools (following program implementation in three more schools, all nine elementary schools in the San Lorenzo Unified School District will have food scraps recycling collection in their lunchrooms); and outreach to commercial customers (WM Recycling Coordinator Beverly Perez contacted 15 businesses about implementing recycling and organic services). Solid Waste Program Updates included that WM added an additional green waste route in Oro Lorna, use of advisory tags continues, and in 201 7 Waste Management will purchase 12 new CNG (compressed natural gas) trucks to replace diesel trucks. President Young mentioned that on December 15, the Committee went to WM at 5:20 a.m. to distribute Excellence in Service Awards to drivers. Director Walters added that of the 18 Oro Lorna drivers, 14 were recognized for their performance.

Director Becker reported on the December 12, 2016 meeting of the CASA Executive Board. Meeting highlights included discussion of the existing Business Plan, approval of Amicus participation for two legal issues and how they relate to Oro Lorna, and approval of honorary membership for past Executive Board President Gary Darling, who is being recognized at a retirement luncheon in his honor on January 5, 2017. Director Becker concluded his remarks with an update on the Science & Research Group, which has been reenergized and now has 50 members.

Director Becker then reported on the December 15, 2016 meeting of the Construction Committee. The first item discussed was the Mainstream Nutrient Removal Pilot program, which would determine the effectiveness of a nutrient removal process developed by . Micro vi, a company based in Hayward. General Manager Warner presented a funding request for the pilot, and Dr. Mike Falk, a consultant with HDR Engineering, provided an overview of the technology. A request for funding for this pilot comes before the full Board as Item 19 on this agenda. Additional topics discussed and coming before the Board on this agenda are Cogeneration Engine #2 Overhaul Vtem 15); Secondary Clarifier Coating (Item 17); and Point Repairs 2016-17 (Item 18). Also discussed was the Administration Building Roof Replacement and the possibility of installing solar panels at the same time, and an Update on the Dry Weather Nutrient Analysis, which will be discussed in more detail at the next Board meeting. Due to time constraints at the Committee meeting, several items were tabled until the January 11, 2017 meeting, including 1) Ten-Year R&R and CIP Treatment Plant Projected Costs, Five-Year CIP Collections Projected Costs, Five-Year Total Costs; 2) Equalization/Wetland Treatment Project; 3) Collection System Asset Repair & Maintenance; and 4) Point Repairs 2015116 No. 2.

Director Becker then reported on the December 15, 2016 meeting of the East Bay Dischargers Authority. Topics included the current statistics for the NPDES Permit Status Report and for the Enterococcus Monitoring Report; an informational report on Proposed Stricter Regulations for Air Toxics; and EBDA's Asset Management Plan 10-Year Renewal/Replacement Funding Forecast.

Director Dias reported on the December 16, 2016 meeting of the Finance & Insurance Committee. Standing topics included the Monthly Financial Reports for November 30, 2016 (the District's cash and investment position was $15.8 million, which included $145,472 for OPEB obligations, and was $864,324 lower than in November 2015); Economic Activity & Market Rates

Oro Lorna Sanitary District Minutes, Meeting of December 20,2016 Page3 of4

Update (the District's overall investment yield in November 2016 was 1.139%); and Attorney's Invoice ($1 ,617 .20). The Committee reviewed the East Bay Dischargers Authority Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2016; based on the statements, Oro Lorna recorded a decrease in the carrying value ofEBDA of$54,155 in the current year.

Director Becker moved approval of the Committee minutes· for entry to the District record by reference. The motion was seconded by Director Dias and carried unanimously,-·5-0.

Director Becker MOVED TO ACCEPT PROJECT AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO DIRECT · FILING OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION: HEADWORKS CONCRETE COATING PROJECT 2016. President Young accepted a second from Director Dias and stated that, hearing and se~ing no objections, the motion passed. All construction was completed in . compliance with the plans and specifications and to staff's satisfaction on September 23, 2016.

· Director Duncan MOVED TO APPROVE THE .PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND CALL FOR SEALED BIDS: SECONDARY CLARIFIERS REHABILITATION PROJECT 2016. President Young accepted a second from Director Becker, and stated that, hearing and seeing no objections, the motion passed. The project provides for surface preparation and coating of the Secondary Clarifiers . .

Director Becker MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND CALL FOR SEALED.BIDS: .POINT REPAIRS FY 2016-17 PROJECT. President Young accepted a second from Director Dias and stated. that, hearing and seeing no objections, the motion passed. The project provides for the completion of 100 pOint repairs, as well as repairs on manholes at various locations within the District's collection system.

· .· Director Becker MOVED APPROVAL OF FUNDING REQUEST IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 FOR MICROVI PILOT STUDY. President Young. accepted a se.cond from Director Dias and stated that, hearing and seeing no objections, the motion passed. Under the proposed terms with Microvi, the District would contribute $50,000 .toward the construction/equipment costs; and Microvi would implement the design, construction, arid ongoing maintenance of the system. An additional $1 Q,OOO is budgeted for staff time to gather samples and perform welding modifications on the existing tank. Director Dias suggested that it would be beneficial for General Manager Warner to make a presentation on the Pilot Study for.the full Board, and President Young agreed.

. President Young opened the floor for Staff/Director comments. Legal Counsel Faught said that the Brown Act requires reporting in the minutes of which Director votes for/against motions brought before the Board. Following discussion among the Board, President Young said .that going forward, she would ask for ."aye" or "nay" votes on all motions.

General Manager Warner mentioned that an acronym list has been added to the Board packet; the list will be tailored to include additional acronyms that Oro Lorna uses, as needed. He also said that at the next Board meeting, there will be further discussion of dry weather .nutrient removal. He concluded his remarks by saying that to date, Oro Lorna has had no lost time injuries in 2016, and wished everyone Happy Uolidays.

Administrative Services Manager Andreea Simion wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

Oro Lorna Sanitary District Minutes, Meeting of December 20,2016 Page 4 of4

Director Dias wished everyone Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and expressed appreciation for the good work in 2016.

Director Becker echoed the holiday sentiments, said that he is excited about the coming year for Oro Lorna, and expressed confidence in the Board.

Director Duncan said she is excited to ·be here, especially now that she is fully retired. She added Happy Holiday wishes to all, and said that she and her family had a wonderful time at the Employee Recognition Event.

Director Walters commented on the talk that Professor Senn gave at the East Bay Dischargers Association meeting, and said that he found it interesting that due to the tides, EBDA' s discharge has a direct impact on the South Bay, even though the outfall is to the north. He said that he also is excited about the coming year for Oro Lorna, and wished everyone a great holiday.

President Young said that she is was in agreement with the previous comments, and added that she enjoyed visiting with the employees and meeting their families at the Employee Recognition Event. She thanked Finance Manager Arlene Wong for taking photographs at the event, and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

There being no further business to come before the Board, President Young adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

(Recording Secretary: Sally Green)

Rita Duncan Secretary


Report from Alameda County Waste Management Authority

BACKGROUND: Director Young will report on the December 21, 2016 meeting of Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

RECOMMENDATION: Information only.

ATTACHMENT: None


Report from the Personnel/Safety/Public Information Committee

BACKGROUND: Director Duncan will report on the December 23, 2016 meeting of the PersonneVSafety/Public Information Committee. Items discussed are included in the attached minutes.


ATTACHMENT: Minutes

TO: Board of Directors

Oro Loma Sanitary District MEMORANDUM

FROM: Personnel/Safety/Public Information Committee Directors Duncan and Young

·DATE: December 23,2016

SUB.mCT: MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 23, 2016 MEETING

The· PersonneVSafety/Public Information Committee, consisting of Directors Duncan and · Young, met on Friday, December 23, 2016. Chair Duncan called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. Also in attendance were General Manager Jason Warner and Administrative Services Manager Andreea Simion. There were no members of the public present. Items discussed included the following:

• PUBLIC COMMENTS None.

• RECOMMENDATION FOR BOARD APPROVAL OF NEW ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN-JOB CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY Staff presented a draftjob description for a new classification, Electrical & Mechanical Technician, proposed at salary range _$7,000- $9,381/month (same as Electrical & · Instrumentation Technician). If approved, one of the existing Mechanic II positions would be converted to the new classification. The particular Mec~anic 11 position is currently filled by Jeff Schier, who would be reclassified to Electrical & Mechanical Technician. He is fully qualified for the job, and the action would allow greater flexibility within the Maintenance Department, while maintaining the current staff levels. The reclassification woUld carry a fiscal impactofapproxiinately.$6,000 per year. The Committee discussed the proposal, asked several questions·, and .unanimously recommended full Board approval.

The Committee recommended full-Board approval of the new .Electrical & Mechanical Technician job clas·sification, at salary range $7,000- $9,381/month.

• REVIEW DRAFT SCHEDULE· OF EVENTS 2017-2018 The Committee reviewed a draft schedule of events for 2017-2018, and focused _mainly on two items - 2018 solid waste collection event, and 2018 Poster Contest Awards Ceremony/ Open House. On ·the solid waste collection event, the Committee questioned its value for the money, given that single-family residential customers have access to two free bulky collection pick-ups .per year· (mattresses, furniture, tires, wood,· and large .and small appliances).· Also, the Committee noted that all Alameda County residents have access to free disposal of household hazardous materials and pharmaceuticals at HH;W drop-off centers within the courity. The second item discussed was the idea of combining the Poster Contest

Personnel/SafetY/Public Information Committee Minutes, Meeting of December 23,2016 Page 2 of2

Awards Ceremony with an Open House in 2018. The joint event would be held at the plant and would provide a captive audience, while providing cost savings over organizing· and executing two separate events. Based on feedback from the Committee, staff will begin planning for some of the activities proposed, but hold off on the solid waste collection event, pending discussion of potential alternatives. Director Young asked if the cost of an additional staff person would alleviate some of the consulting costs needed to execute the plan, and Jason responded that the cost would be about the same. He added, though, that for succession planning purposes, as well as to assist with the implementation of the communication plan, staff is evaluating this option and may present a recommendation at a future meeting. Chair Duncan asked what percentage of their total budget other agencies are using for communication and outreach activities; staff will gather the information and report back to the Committee.

The Committee asked staff to proceed with the planning for the proposed schedule of events, with the exception of the solid waste collection event.

• DIRECTOR COMMENTS The Committee wished staff happy holidays.

• ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee, Chair Duncan adjourned the meeting at 9:50AM.

Oro Loma Sani~ary District MEMORANDUM

TO: Personnel/Safety/Public Information Committee

FROM: Jason Warner, General Manager Andreea Simion, Administrative Services Manager

DATE: December 23-,2016

SUBJECT: DRAFf SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 2017-2018

Based on the Communications Plan activities approved by the Board on December 6, 2016, staff has prepared a draft schedule of events for _calendar years 201? and 2018. The estimated cost for 2017 is $225K (of which $140K new), and for 2018 is $285,000 (of which $200K new). Oro Lorna staff time is only included in the cost estimate for the· open hpuse events~

Name Timeline Staff Staff Budget Accounts Assistance Needed Hours Hours Reached/

(existing) (new) Participating Logo Refresh January 2017 40 one- $15~000 All Consultant(s) to & Style Guide time complete Earth Day January- May 400 $35,000 15K/2,800 Consultant( s) for 'oster Contest · (100 at design and printing

-existing ceremony) Newsletters Feb, May, 250 $50,000 All Consultant( s) for

Aug, Nov design, printing, mailing

Green Ribbon August 200 $20,000 12K Consultant( s) to Program for manage Schools East Bay Oct-Nov 120 $500 80-100 None Manuf. Day E-blasts July 120 $25,000 -1,000 Consultant( s) to

design, maintain, .publish

Plant Tours May, August, 40 $2,000 (plus All/60-100 None November, one-time · February $15,000 audio

system) Open·House September 500 hrs 250 hrs $50,000 ($15K All/300 Consultant( s) to

2017 prep day of OT, $10K food, design materials, event rentals, . advertise, media

giveaways, signage ), $6K printing, ads)

Video boosting Quarterly 10 $2,000 -100 Consultant to manage l 'Social media Continuous 100 $10,000 -1,000 Consultant to

_posts manage

Solid Waste August 2018 500 $100,000 ($50K All/-200 Consultant to Collection (ifok with for llliW, manage & partner Event llliW) $50K*) w/HHW Poster Contest May 2018 600 250 day of $50,000 All/-300 Consultants for Awards event design, print, Ceremony+ advertise, media Open House

*Equipment rental, traffic control vendor, food for workers and staff, ads, temporary labor, staff time, collection and processing of items, site rental fee, compost giveaway

Details on new funds needed:

2017 2018 Logo Refresh $15,000 Green Ribbon Program $20,000 Green Ribbon Program $20,000 E-blasts $25,000 E-blasts $25,000 Plant Tours $2,000 Plant Tours & Audio Syst. $17,000 Video Boosting $2,000 Open House $50,000 Social Media Posts $10,000 Video Boosting $2,000 Solid Waste Collection $100,000 Social Media Posts $10,000 Poster Contest Awards -- $40,000

Ceremony & Open House Combined

TOTAL $139,000 $199,000


Report from the Operations Committee

BACKGROUND: Director Walters will report on the December 28,2016 meeting of the Operations Committee. Items discussed are included in the attached minutes.


ATTACHMENT: Minutes

ORO LOMA SANITARY DISTRICT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

Date:

To:.

From:

December 28, 2016

Board of Directors

Operations Comm1ttee Directors Walters and Duncan

Subject: MINUTES, MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2016

The Operatio11:s Committee met on Wednesday, December 28, 2016, at 9:30AM. In attendance were Directors Dan Walters and Rita Duncan, General Manager Jason Warner,. Collection System Manager Lenny Rather, Maintenance Manager Scott von der·Lieth, and Operations Manager Manuel TalledoGarcia. There were no members o~ the public pre.sent.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No publicicomments.

BACWA KEY REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY Warner provided a review of four of the nine issues in the summary report, those with greatest impact to the District. The issues included a review of Nutrient Science (mo.re funds are needed); Watershed Permit (permit renewal in 2019 will likely reqUire more science funding); Laboratory Accreditation Changes (changes may make it unfeasible to continue regulatory testing-regulations will be known by. March 2017 and will go into effect March 2018); and a pianned phase-out ofbiosolids as ADC (the District has options today if needed, but is working to optimize them). Director Walters suggested.that the San Leandro dredge spoils site may be an· option for Oro Lorna's material. Warner agreed to follow up with Debbie Pollart, City of San Leandro Public Works Director, on the possibility.

The Committee accepted the report.

NATURAL GAS USAGE · · Staff presented a spreadsheet and graph for grease receiving and natural gas usage during November 2016. The data showed that the District set an all-time record for grease a~cepted. ·Gas production for November was 326,367 cu. ft/day. _Graph is attached.

• Therms purchased- 3,879 • -Cost for natural gas- $3,121 • Grease accepted- 387,850 gallons • Digester gas consumption-· 326,367 cu. ft./day


OVERVIEW OF POWER PRODU'CTION AND PLANT DEMAND Starr provided the Co-Gen, Solar, and Utility Power Balance spreadsheet, with updates for the month ofNovember 2016. Graph is attached.·

Total Plant Power Demand Solar Generation Co-Gen Purchased Returned to Grid


553,811 kWh 39,489 kWh

516,480 kWh 33,668 kWh 35,826 kWh

Operations Committee Minutes, Meeting of December 28,2016 Page2

MONTHLY POWER/CHEMICAL COSTS Staff provided a spreadsheet for power and chemical costs. The total costs for October 2016 were $36,837, a slight increase from the previous month. Graph is attached.


MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT Staff reviewed the November Monthly Collections, Maintenance, and Operations Activity Reports.

The Committee accepted the reports.

DISTRICT OPERATIONS OVERVIEW Rather reported on the Collections Department activities for November 2016. He noted a five-gallon spill, cleaning/inspection footage 19% above target, and paving activities continued, with special attention paid to the Carolyn/Manchester neighborhoods. Rather showed photos of a few pipes filled with rocks and debris, which needed to be cleaned. To date, the high level of vigilance in Engineering and Collections is paying off in no spills. Rather also provided a report of water consumption in the department. Water use is down from 2.5 MG in 2013 to 1.1 MG in 2016. The drop results from an emphasis on televising lines in advance of cleaning. Only lines in need of cleaning are hydro'd. This results in less water used and less wear and tear on the pipes and equipment. The Committee complimented Rather on the report and operational improvements it presented.

Talledo-Garcia reported that staff prepared the ponds for winter, that recent storms resulted in peak flows of up to 49 mgd, and that staff is working to optimize ferric dosing and sludge yield. Staff is currently running an experiment to apply ferric 16 hours each day. The thought is that during the balance of eight hours, the gelatinous floc that. develops will be pushed out of the piping system. The experiment has been ·running for six weeks without the typical build-up in pipe pressure. Staff will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the practice before making a long-term adjustment.

Talledo-Garcia noted that he met with a process expert, with the goal of optimiz.ing the process to limit sludge yield. The recommendations included lowering the Return Activated Sludge Rate, raising the mixed liquor concentration, and increasing aeration as much as possible within our energy balance. The changes carry the potential to reduce our sludge production by 20% or more, which would correspond to $80,000/year in reduced biosolids disposal costs. The Committee complimented Talledo-Garcia on the improvement efforts.

von der Lieth showed a photograph of several customized lock-out/tag-out devices fabricated by staff to prevent the movement of a valve. ·von der Lieth also provided an overview of the planned engine rebuild, scheduled for January 171

h. Director Walters asked about the cost of reduced energy production. Warner estimated that generation would be reduced by approximately 250,000 kW/hrs with an. approximate value of $40,000. Based upon historic production and use, the District will likely manage to reduce this to zero for the year. Warner also said that we cannot afford another large variance from normal solar production, energy use, or cogen production without incurring a significant electrical expense.


Operations Committee Miri.utes, Meeting ofDecember 28,2016 Page3

COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS No comments.

ADJOURNMENT There being ·:no further business to come before the C~mmittee, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. The next meeting ofthe Operations Committee Will be held on January 25,2017.

DGS Natural Gas Purchasing % Difference Digester Gas Digester Gas Grease

Month Therms Cost Cost/Therm from Previous Consumption Consumption Accepted Month cuft/Month cuft/Day gal/Month

Jan-14 5,433 $4,284 $0.788 -5.80% 9,842,004 317,484 187,750 Feb-14 5,847 $4,896 $0.837 -5.18% 8,828,988 315,321 183,800 Mar-14 4,930 $4,352 $0.883 0.00% 8,718,836 311,387 192,800 Apr-14 3,797 $2,937 $0.774 -0.78% 7,437,990 247,933 177,500 May-14 5 011 $3,940 $0.786 0.84% 9,254,988 298,548 172,400 Jun-14 4,594 $3;582 $0.780 3.70% 9,036,500 291,500 172,400 Jul-14 7,905 $5,891 $0.745 6.46% 8,680,992 280,032 171,820

Aug-14 10;640 $7,449 $0.700 -6.06% 8,541,740 275,540 176,700 Sep-14 12,423 $9,340 $0.752 7.40% 8,313,177 268,167 157,200 Oct-14 4665 $3,596 $0.771 2.52% 9,481,009 305 839 230 100 Nov-14 4,982 $3,986 $0.800 1.75% 9,880,723 318,733 212,050 Dec-14 8,557 $7,262 $0.849 -3.86% 9,740,014 314,194 157,700 Jan-15 9,628 $7,072 $0.735 -13.45% 9,598,995 309,645 203,400 Feb-15 9,514 $6,687 $0.703 -4.31% 9,550,201 308,071 260,140 Mar-15 5,562 $4,022 $0.723 2.90% 10,032,003 323,613 261,800 Apr-15 5,491 $3,437 $0.626 -13.46% 9,999,577 322,567 295,300 May-15 4,221 $2,671 $0.633 1.08% 10,461,012 337,452 336,500 Jun-15 4,699 $3,115 $0.663 4.79% 9,900,377 319,367 314,000 Jul-15 4,077 $2,757 $0.676 2.01% 9,722,995 313,645 349,460 Aug-15 4,717 $3,144 $0.667 -1.45% 9,827,000 317,000 354,050 Sep-15 3,927 $2,587 $0.659 -1.16% 9,614,123 310,133 330,250 Oct-15 2431 $1,665 $0.685 3.99% 6 757,008 217,968 304,000 Nov-15 6,259 $4,225 $0.675 -1.46% 10,143,000 338,100 245,500 Dec-15 5,097 $3,494 $0.686 1.55% 10,719,690 357,323 371,800 Jan-16 4,217 $3,068 $0.728 6.13% 10,777,740 359,258 336,060 Feb-16 4,813 $3,297 $0.685 -5.83% 10,080,000 336,000 257,500 Mar-16 6,142 $3,967 $0.646 -5.71% 9,944,520 331,484 287,250 Apr-16 8,296 $4,827 $0.582 -9.91% 8,787,000 292,900 200,800 May-16 12,336 $7,305 $0.592 1.77% 9,223,560 307,452 111,775 Jun-16 7,764 $4,726 $0.609 2.78% 9,087,000 302,900 94,500 Jul-16 8,267 $5,160 $0.624 2.55% ' 8,950,650 298,355 94,758

Aug-16 5,293 $3,773 $0.713 14.19% 9.277,740 309,258 160,678 Sep-16 4,634 $3,368 $0.727 1.98% 9,582,000 319,400 261,248 Oct-16 4,071 $2,995 $0.736 1.21% 9,379,350 312,645 322,950 Nov-16 3,879 $3,121 $0.804 9.36% 9791,010 326,367 387,850

lt. . ...... ~: ,·.; ,r.;. · ..... ~ .... '• .,, Average 6,118 $4,343 $0.715 9,398,957 309,017 238,108

Max 12,423 $9,340 $0.883 10,777,740 359,258 387,850 .Min 2,431 $1,665 $0.582 6,757,008 217,968 94,500

14,000

12,000 A

/\ 10,000

/ \ 8,000 ----'-

I ..--

'\ 6,000 ~ ~--.~/ ~~ 4,000

-------.,.__________

""""' .... ---2,000

0 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16

I --- - - I

F:ID&M 2012\ADMINISTRATION\Monthly Report Wortcs~eots\DGS 2016\DGS Gas Purchases 1116Jds

OVERVIEW OF POWER PRODUCTION AND PLANT DEMAND

I I• Total Plant NET Bank I• Power

Solar Co-Gen PG&E Returned to Purchased/ + PGE favor

Year Month Demand

' Generation Genera~ion Provided Grid (kWh) (Returned) - OLSD favor

(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

(kWh) (kWh)

2013 January 594,746 48,073 506,880 59,161 19,368 39,793 39,793 2013 February 536,386 59,759 477,120 33,151 33,644 -493 39,300 2013 March 588,470 73,570 526,080 32,742 43,922 -11,180 28,120 201.3 April 570,643 101,880 476,160 48,107 '55,504 -7,397 20,723 2013 May 590,574 108,282 499,740 51 ,076 68,524 -17,448 3,275 2013 June 562,146 108,811 465,120 52,010 63,795 -11,785 -8,510 2013 July 591,097 73,569 479,040 73,482 34,994 38,488 29,978 2013 August 595,467 53,198 485,280 77,722 20,733 56,989 86,967 2013 September 584,328 46,727 480,480 74,633 17,512 57,121 144,088 2013 October 584,033 32,662 463,200 97,954 9,783 88,171 232,259 2013 November 563,014 37,553 467,527 ·71,937 14,003 57,934 290,193 2013 December 595,594 44,614 389,280 169,810 8,110 161,700 0 2014 January 599,351 41,131 514,560 61,172 17,512 43,660 43,660 2014 February 543,705 38,900. 455,520 65,755 16,470 49,285 92,945. 2014 March 594,543 70,147 494,880 62,960 33,444 29,516 122,461 2014 April 566,407 93,212 358,080 139,922 24,807 115,115 237,576 2014 May 584,749 106,272 519,840 32,050 73,413 -41,363 196,213 2014 June 561,361 ·94,216 486,080 40;115 59,050 -18,935 177,278 2014 July 583,702 101,057 519,260 31,613 68,335 -36,722 140,556 2014 August 626,712 84,989 527,520 38,042 52,283 -14,241 129,315 2014 September 598,791 56,357 510,240 57,025 24,766 32,259 158,574 2014 October 632,412 48,355 519,800 77,056 12;799 '64,257 222,831 2014 November 626,822 35,295 511,620 86,073 6,166 79,907 302,738 2014 December 688,304 27,360 534,720 129,120 2,896 126,224 0 2015 January 643,433 42,482 519,840 93,023 11,849 81,174 81,174 2015 February ·545,847 50,154 470,964 51,442 26,791 24,651. 105,825 2015 March 598,577 78,209 521,280 47,405 48,272 -867 104,958 2015 April 566,993 95,860 505,920 30,662 65,507 -34,845 70,1.13 2015 May 549,125 78,577 527,524 17,662 74,576 -56,914 13,199 2015 June 557,·267 1011169 515,520 19,324 78,782 -59.458 -46,259 2015 July 580,876 93,461 528,000 28,614 69,225 -40,611 -86,870 2015 August 580,881 79,589 533,280 24,160 55,977 -31,817. -118,687 2015 September 576,958 69,505 510,240 38,420 41,188 -2,768 -121,455 2015 October 546,918 57,444 304,920 210,224 25,526 184,698 63,243 2015 November 526,725 47,011 511,680 18,539 50,505 -31 ,966 31,277 2015 December 603,178 32,406 526,480 57,700 13,279 44,421 0 2016 January 618,849 28,832 524,640 74,560 9,166 65,394 65,394 2016 February 556,249 54,589 474,640 53,477 26,335 27,142 92,536 2016 March 630,291 61,151 531,880 65,499 ·28,239 37,260 129,796 2016 April 585,326 71,607 488,160 59,032 33,334 25,698 155,494 2016 May 580,294 68,540 533,760 24,725 46,582 -21,857 133,637 2016 June 516,271 27,024 493,448 23,909 28,110 -4,201 129,436 2016 Ju~ 509,511 9,315 533,760 10,845 44,409 -33,564 95,872 2016 August 511,508 14,762 533,280 18,207 54,741 -36,534 59,338 2016 September 534,691 56,517 516,520 24;219 62,565 -38,346 20,992 2016 October. 564,726 46,397 529,920 36,717 48,308 -11 ,591 9,401 2016 November 553,811 39,489 516,480 33,668 35,826 -2,158 7,243

Total (12 months) 6,764,705 510,629 6,202,968. 482,558 430,894 Max 688,304 108,811 534,720 210,224 78,782 Min 509,511 9,315 304,920 10,845 2,896

Average · 578,759 61,491 496,174 57,973 37,466

Monthly Operating Costs (Chemicals, Electricity, Gas)

$70,000 ...---------------------------------------------.,

$60,000 ~------------------------------------~

$50,000 ~---------------+~r-----------1--+-----------~

$40 000 I L I v ' I \ 1\ 7 l 10 • \ I , , - 1\ L;; I i v \ I \ 7 ' "< L 0

$30,000 ~----t--r--------------\-f---\--------:;f--------_Jt------J~----__J

$20,000 -

$10,000 ~

$0 z 0 c_ , s: )> s: c_ c_ )> (J) 0 z 0 c_ , s: )> s: c... c_ )> _(J) 0 z 0 CD Q) CD Q) "'0 Q) c c c CD n 0 CD Q) CD Q) "'0 Q) c c c CD ~ 0 "i= 9 ::::::J 0" 'i' 'i' '< ::::::J I co "'0 < 9 ::::::J 0" 'i' 'i' '<

::::::J I co "'0 "i= I I I .- I I I I I I I .- I I ....Ito. ....Ito. I ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. .....Ito. I ....Ito. ....Ito.

....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. 0'1 ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito. m ....Ito. ....Ito. ....Ito.

~ ~ 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 m m m m m m m m m m

-PG&E - solar -==; Gas - Ferric Thatcher - HypoUnivar -Polymer@ Belt Press - Polymer@ GBT 1265 - Monthly Total -- Unear (Monthly Total)

F:\O&M 2012\ADMINISTRATION\Monthly Report Worksheets\Power and Chemical Cost 2016\Power and Chemical Costs 1116.xls

AGENDA ITEM NO: 8 AGENDA PATE: 1/03/17

Approval of Committee Minutes for Entry to District Record

BACKGROUND: The Board will he asked to approve the Committee minutes for entry to the District record by reference.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENT: None

AGENDA ITEM NO: 9 AGENDA DATE: 1/03117

Presentation - Dry Weather Nutrient Removal Study Written by: J. Warner

BACKGROUND: General Manager Warn~r will provide a review of the report, prepared by consulting firm HDR, as well as options for early implementation of nutrient controls. ·

RECOMMENDATION: Information only

ATTACHMENT: HDRReport: Optimizing Oro Lorna fVWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers (only select pages included)

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lo~a Old Secondaries

Oro LomE! Sanitary District December 27, 2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers L ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries r J ~

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Purpose and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2

3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Current Secondary Treatment Plant ......................................................................................... 2

3.2 History of Secondary Clarifiers ........................................................................................ ; ......... 5

3.3 Description of Concepts ............................................................................................................ 7 3.3.1 Solids Storage during Peak Wet Weather Events (i.e., Contact Stabilization) ............ 7 3.3.2 Ammonia and Nitrogen Load Reduction ............................................... ~ ...................... 8 3.3.3 Foam Control. ............................................................................................................ ; .. 9

4 Alternatives Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 1 0

4.1 Alternative 1: Extend the 18" RAS Pipe to the Bypass Channel.. ........................................... 11

4.2 Alternative 2: Route RAS to PE Distribution Box .................................................................... 12

4.3 Alternative 3: Extend 32-inch RAS pipe to Bypass Channel.. ................................................. 13

4.4 Alternative 4: Construct New PE and RAS Mixing Box and Install Conveyance Pipe on South Side of Aeration Basins ........................................................................................... 14

4.5 Alternative 5: Construct New PE and RAS Mixing Box and Install Conveyance Pipe between the Aeration Basins .................................................................................................. 15

5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 17

5.1 Mass Balance ............................................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Flows and Loads ..................................................................................................................... 18

5.3 Hydraulics ................................................................................................................................ 18

5.4 Condition Assessment ............................................................................................................. 19

5.5 Cost estimates .......................................................................................................................... 19

6 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 19

6.1 Mass Balance ................ : ....................................................................... -..................... : ............ 19

6.2 Comparison of Alternatives and Recommendation ................................................................. 21

6.3 Condition Assessment. ............................................................................................................ 21

6.4 Cost Estimate ................................. · ................................................................. ~ ....................... 23

7 Summary and Conclusions ...................... ~ ......................................................................................... 24

8 References ........................................................................................................................................ 25

December 27, 2016 I i

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorna Old ·Secondaries

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Existing Activated Sludge Process Parameters ......................................................... 4

Table 2. Secondary Treatment Dimensions .................................................................................................... 5

Table 3. Primary Effluent Flows and Loads ..................................... ~ ......... ~ ................................................. 18

Table 4. RAS Pump Testing Results . : ........................................................................................................ 19

Table 5. Seasonal Denitrification Mass Balance Results (Based on Current ADWF) ................................ 20

Table 6. Alternative Summary .............................. :.; ........................................... _ ......................................... 22

Table 7. Summary of the Construction Costs ............................................................................................. 23

Figures

Figure 1.· Aerial View of WWTP ...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Existing Plant Process Flow Schematic ........................................................................................ 3

Figure 3. Activated Sludge Process Flow Schematic (with Old Secondary Basins) ..................................... 6

Figure 4. Activated Sludge 'Process Flow Schematic (with New Secondary Basins) ................................... 7

Figure 5. Picture of Foam in Zone 1 durhig Site Visit in Spring 2015 ......................................................... 10

Figure 6. Alternative 1: Flow Schematic, 18-inch RAS extension ............................................................... 11

Figure 7. Alternative 2: Flow Schematic for Routing RAS to PE Distribution Box ...................................... 12

Figure 8. Alternative 3: Flow Schematic for 32-inch RAS Extension .......................................................... 13

Figure 9. RAS Piping Located between Primary Clarifiers and Aeration Basins ........................................ 14

Figure 10. Alternative 4: Flow Schematic for Creating a PE and RAS Distribution Box and Extension ....................................................................•................................................................... 15

Figure 11. Alternative 5: Flow Schematic for Routing RASIPE Distributio·n Box into the Channels between the Aeration Basins ............ · ............................................................................................. 16

Figure 12. ENVision sample screen capture depicting treatment process .................................................. 17

Appendices

Appendix A. Mass Balance Calculations ................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. Estimate of Construction Costs ...... ~ .............. ~ ....................................................................... B-1

Appendix C. Condition Assessment. ................. ~ ....................................................................................... C-1

II I December 27, 2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries '.1'

1 Introduction The Oro Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is jointly owned by Oro Lorna Sanitary District (OLSD) and Castro Valley Sanitary District. The WWTP has a permitted average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). The current average annual influent flow is ~pproximatety 12 mgd. Figure 1 presents an aerial view of.the WWTP. The WWTP produces secondary treated effluent that is conveyed to the East Bay Discharge Authority deep water outfall into the San Francisco Bay.

On April 9, 2014, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the Nutrient Watershed Permit. The goal of the permit was, in part, to track nutrient loads and identify optimization and upgrade options for wastewater treatment plants that discharge into the San Francisco Bay. As part of the permit requirements, site visits were performed at each participating plant. During th~ site visit to OLSD, an optimization concept was identified that relies on using the three old and unused secondary clarifiers. It is noted, however, that recommended modifications for optimization may impact the plant's treatment capacity. Thus, any changes for optimization should be considered an interim solution (BACWA, 2015). This report will look at ways to use these 110id" secondary clarifiers to improve interi.m plant performance.

Figure 1. Aerial View of WWTP

December 27, 2016 1 1

Optimizing Oro Loma WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Loma Old Secondaries

2 Purpose and Objectives This report has been prepared to assess the feasibility of incorporating the old ~econdary clarifiers into treatment ·process to improve performance. The objectives of incorporating these clarifiers are as follows:

• Mitigate the biological solids washout that occurs at the plant during wet weather . events and th~ resulting treatment performance degradation. The plant is currently using an aeration basin to serve this purpose. By expanding this effort to use the old secondaries can provide additional storage and capacity.

• Perform seasonal nitrogen removal.

• Have the potential ability to control foam inducing ·Organisms if this causes secondary clarifier effluent issues.

To meet these objectives the following will be conducted:

• Update an existing previously built mass balance plant model to investigate the potential to use the old secondary .clarifiers to achieve improvements in the treatment process during dry and wet weather flow conditions.

• Develop and evaluate alternatives for incorporation of the old secondary clarifiers into the treatment process.

• Prepare cost estimates for feasible alternatives

• Recommend an alternative to implement

NOTE: The nitrogen removal·concepts are intended to serve as an .interim.solution that . will impact the plant's treatment capacity. The objective is to reduce nitrogen discharge l.oads and not meet a discharge limit. As a result, the criteria are aggressive and there are little or no safety factors considered.

The steps are not intended to serve as a pre-design. · ~ather, the results are intended to provide information to assist with making .an informed decision on concepts to address the listed objectives. A pre-design would be recommended for carrying forward any of the evaluated alternatives.

3 Ba.ckground This section provides background on the existing WWTP and a description of concepts developed for this report.

3.1 Current Secondary Treatment Plant The existing WWTP·was constructed in the late 1960's. The new secondary clarifiers along with a return activated sludge (RAS) pumping station were constructed in 2009. The· mechanical surface aerators in zone 3 (see Figure·2; represents 6 out of 2.4

2 I December 27, 2016

Influent

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ."\~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries ~ ~

mechanical aerators) were replaced with fine-bubble diffusers and installation of hybrid rotary lobe blowers in 2015.

The WWTP is a secondary treatment plant that includes the following major unit processes:

• Screenings and grit removal

• Primary sedimentation

• Activated sludge with an anaerobic selector

• Disinfection

• Discharge pipeline to the East Bay Discharger's Authority outfall

• Solids thickening of waste activated sludgevia gravity belt thickeners

• Anaerobic digestion

• Dewatering via belt filter presses and sludge drying beds

A process flow schematic is provided in Figure 2.

Effluent

GBT

WAS :--·· . ..... .... .. .

AD BFP Drying Bed

~ ToAOC

Figure 2. Existing Plant Process Flow Schematic

The activated sludge treatmenl process is comprised of three trains. Each train includes 4 equally sized zones ( 1 anaerobic zone and 3 aerobic zones).

A summary of the existing activated sludge treatment process is presented in Table 1. Secondary clarifier loading rates are provided at the bottom of Table 1. Despite having loading rates below typical peak values, the secondaries struggle during peak wet weather events to keep the biology in the activated sludge system. The struggle appears to be related to the relatively high sludge volume index (SVI) values that are typically 250

December 27, 2016 I 3

Optimizing Oro Loma WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorna Old Secondaries

mllg (less than 150 mllg desired). The higher than normal SVI values are attributed to a combination of the following variables:

1) Pr~dominant contributor: shear-floc where mechanical aerators break-up floes and result in poor settleability.

2) Large diurnal dissolved oxygen (DO) swings from a night time high of greater than 5 mg/L and a daytime low of less than 0.6 mg/L which can select for foam inducing organisms ..

3) Various foam entrapment locations on the treatment deck which exacerbates the proliferation of any foam inducing organisms.

Table 1. Summary of Existing Activated Sludge Process Parameters - -

Process Unit Value Comment - - - - - - --- - - -

Number of Basins No. 3 Use all 3 except for maintenance

Total Volume MG 5.2

Anaerobic Fraction % 25 Located in the first zone

Aeration methods none Combination of 2 zones with surface aerators; 1 zone surface and with fine-bubble di.ffusers fine-bubble

M.CRT days 3.5

MLSS mg/L 1,300

Yield lb TSS/Ib BOD 0.6 Lower than typical industry values of Removed approx. 0.9 for plants perfo,rming

secondary treatment

RAS Ratio % 100 Higher than typical values of approx. 50 ~rcent for day to day operations

Number of Sec. No. 3 All 3, 120 ft diameter clarifiers are Clarifiers used year-round ex~pt for when one

is out of service for maintenance

Typical Sludge mUg -250 Larger than most activated sludge Volume Index (SVI) plants with an anaerobic selector in

zone 1.

Current Sec. Clar. lb solids/sf/d 4 For current ADWF conditions (flow = Loading Rate 12 mgd, MLSS = 1 ,300 mg/L); below (without RAS flow) typical industry values.

Peak Sec. Clar. lb solids/sf/d ·29 For peak flow conditions (flow = 69.2 Loading Rate mgd, MLSS = 1, 700 mg/L); below (without RAS flow) typical industry values.

4 1 December 27, 2016

J

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries 'J ~

3.2 History of Secondary Clarifiers As previously stated, three new secondary clarifiers and a return activated sludge (RAS) pumping station were constructed and placed on line in June 2006. The new clarifiers were built as the old clarifiers were under-sized. Once the new facilities were brought online, the old secondary basins were abandoned and left in place (see Figure 1). The ancillary facilities associated with the old secondary basins were also abandoned. These facilities include:

• Primary effluent bypass channel

• Old RAS pumps and piping located in Pipe Gallery C

All the abandoned facilities (except the RAS pumps) would be functional with minor rehabilitation. The RAS pumps (1+1 per old secondary basin) would require replacement.

Process flow schematics of the secondary treatment process with the old secondary clarifiers and new secondary clarifiers are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. A list of relevant facilities for the secondary clarifier and RAS pump station are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Secondary Treatment Dimensions

Name location Dimensions Maximum Comment Flow, mgd a

RAS Pipe Upstream of 32in 18.1 See Alternative 3 Diameter Aeration #3

RAS Pipe Between Aeration 24in 10.2 Diameter #2 and #3

RAS Pipe Downstream of 18in 5.7 See Alternative 1 Diameter Aeration #2

Old RAS Pipe One pipe per train 16in 4.5 per pipe Limits hydraulics through Diameter (3 in total) the old secondaries

Bypass Bypass channel 10ft Channel Width --Old Secondary Old Secondary 90ft each Square clarifier Basin Width Basin

Old Secondary Old Secondary 9ft 11 ft side water depth with Basin SWD Basin 2 ft of freeboard

a Based on 7 fps maximum month flow velocity.

Prior to construction of the new secondaries, mixed liquor from the aeration basins was conveyed by gravity to three square secondary clarifiers. The RAS was pumped back to the aeration basins by three 16-inch pipes (see Figure 3).

December 27, 2016 1 5


A. 10-ft wide bypass channel, operated by a slide gate, conveyed flows that exceeded the capacity of the secondary. treatment process from the primary distribution box directly to the chlorine contact basins. The ability to route flow from the bypass channel to the old secondary clarifiers was also provided.

.---------------------------------! Prima:ry Effluent ! ! Distribution Box l L ... ~----------------------------- -•

+ + + ----, -------- ______ t ______ _ _____ l _____ _

• • ·- -• ·-• .--- Ae111tlon #1 Aeration #2 Aeradon #3 B pass ---- -------- ------:------ ------;.------C~annel .----- f - ------i------ - ----

---- ----- --- l .,robif Basin .

"'r-....... _ .. _--_--_, f ----f----T ... -_--_-..... -..A

Dry Weather Flow

Wet Weather Flow

RAS

------------ ,------------To Chfori~e

Contact ------------r ---------

Figure 3. Activated Sludge Process Flow Schematic (with Old Secondary Basins)

In the current treatment mode, primary effluent ·is conveyed to a.distribution box which feeds into three aeration trains (Aeration #1-3) through a slide gate. Each train has an anaerobic selector in the first zone to improve settleability in the secondary clarifiers, followed by aerated basins for the remaining zones. Aeration basin effluent i$ .conveyed to the new se<X?ndary clarifiers, and seoondary clarifier effluent is conveyed to th~ chlorine contact basins for disinfection. The RAS is returned to the aeration basins via a 32-inch pipeline. The 32-inch RAS pipe constricts to 24 inches·following Aeration #3 (see Figure 4), then to 18 inches following Aeration #2 (see Figure 4), depositing RAS directly to each: anaerobic selector via 18-inch pipelines.

6 I December 27,2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers .~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries J

Flow

.------------------------· I Primary Effluent :

I

. Distribution Box : RAS

L-----------------------J

.--- ---- ---. I k I

I Bypass I I , t I

: c annel : I . ,. I ._ ___ --- ~---·

, ___ ~.. --~ ---------- ); - ;.I ---

: ~erobic BasJn~ , ___ - ---------- - ---

·--~--. I { I

I " Secondary ,. : ~------~--------~--------~ n 1 : Clarifiers :· :

:~-~~~: I • I

: To Chlorine :

l ______ l ____________ l __ _ ., I

: ota Secondary I ~ ,;

: Clarifiers ~ : L----- 1------------ ~ ---~

1 Corltact 1 L----~--- --------J

Figure 4. Activated Sludge Process Flow Schematic (with New Secondary Basins)

3.3 Description of Concepts

3.3.1

This sub-section develops concepts to reduce mitigate solids washout during peak events, reduce ammonia and nitrogen loads, and strategies to control foam inducing organisms. Common to all concepts is full nitrification (greater than 80 percent ammonia load reduction)_. The extent of nitrogen load reduction varies by concept.

Solids Storage during Peak Wet Weather Events (i.e., Contact Stabilization)

As previously stated, the WWTP struggles to keep all the biosolids within the activated sludge process during peak flow events. This concept aims to store biosolids from the RAS line within the old secondary basins during such events. This concept is commonly referred to· as contact stabilization and the idea is to send as much RAS as possible to the old secondary basins during a peak flow event and gradually breed the biosolids back to the aeration basins after the peak flow subsides.

December 27, 2016 1 7

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorna Old Secondaries

3.3.2

Contact stabil.ization is intended to mitigate the bi.ological solids washout that has I

oecurred during wet weather events.

Ammonia and Nitrogen Load Reduction

The first step in conventional nitrogen removal is nitrification (i.e., ammonia oxidized to nitrate). With the existing aeration basin$, it was determined under the Nutrient Watershed Permit analysis performed -by HDR that there is insufficient aeration capacity to fully nitrify. under current flows and loads and those projected forward to year 2025 (i.e., 15 percent increase in loads; current flows maintained) (HDR, 2016). The related recommendations from the Draft BACWA Report to increase capacity .include:

1) Replacement of the· mechanical surface aeration devices located in zones. 2 and 4 {see Figure 2) with a fine-bubble diffu·ser aeration system. This improvement provides sufficient aeration capacity to facilitate year-round nitrification for loads projected to year 2025. Furthermore, removing the mechanieaf aerators eoupled with increasing the solids residence time (SRT) should improve the solids settieability {measured as SVI) in the new secondary clarifiers~

2) Increase aeration basin volume to dilute the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and the corresponding solids loading on the new secondary clarifiers during peak flow events. There is anE;!cdotal evidence that diluting the MLSS might also decrease the sludge volume index (SVI) and improve settleability within the ·secondary clarifiers.

This evaluation assumes replacement of the. existing mechanical surface aerators in _Zones 2 and 4 (see Figure 2) with fine-bubble.aeration system. ln·addition, the SRT needs to increase to a·pproximately 8 day aerob_ic SRT for nitrification and any plant process changes to facilitat$ denitrification and reduce nitrogen discharge loads .. The SRT is increased by reducing the solids wasting rate from the activated sludge process. This analysis is based on adding no additional aeration basin~ .as it is viewed as an interim solution.

Following nitrification, denitrificatic;:m occurs under anoxic conditions, whereby nitrate is present along with sufficient biology and carbon to faciHtate denitrification. Most activated sludge processes that perform nitrogen. removal {e.g., Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process) use carbon provided in the primary effluent and nitrate provided in mixed liquor return (MLR) and RAS .streams.

The overall concept for n_itrogeh load reduction at 9LSD is to modify the aeration basin·s to perform nitrification (Zones 2 through 4; see FigLire_2) and rely on a combination of the· old secondary clarifiers and the existing anaerobic selector (Zone 1 ; see Figure 2) to. provide.denitrificatic;m. Denitrification will occur in these two location·s as follows:

1) Existing Anaerobic Selector {Zone 1; see Figure 2): The anaerobic selector will automatically shift operation from an anaerobic selector to an anoxic ~elector once nitrate laden RAS is fed into Zone 1. Primary effluent wiH be blended with nitrate laden RAS within Zone 1 to facilitate denitrification.

2) Old Secondaries: Similar to the ex!sting anaerobic selector location, nitrate laden RAS will be mixed with primary effluent in the old secondaries to facilitate


3.3.3


denitrification. The concept will not rely on any additional mixed liquor recycle streams. The primary effluent and RAS flows will form the basis of analysis for the mass balance analysis with respect to denitrification.

As previously stated, the concept is viewed as an interim solution that maximizes existing assets. There are strategies that could be implemented to further reduce nitrogen loads, such as additional mixed liquor recycle streams or adding. baffling within the denitrification zones. Adding such facilities is considered beyond an optimization concept.

Common to all concepts is full nitrification whereby the plant will reliably remove greater than 80 percent of the ammonia load. During average annual conditions it is anticipated that the ammonia discharge will be less than 2 mg N/L with occasional bleed through during wet weather events. During such wet weather events, the ammonia discharge concentration would still reliably be less than 8 mg N/L.

The extent of denitrification is typically governed by RAS pumping and available carbon. It is anticipated that carbon would not be the limiting factor for this concept. As a result, RAS pumping should govern the extent of nitrogen load reduction.

While the plant could achieve comparable nitrification/denitrification using the existing anaerobic selector, using the old secondaries will provide additional capacity and reduce solids loading on the secondaries as a longer-term solution.

Foam Control

The existing mode of operation generates foam that is prolific throughout the aeration basins. A picture of zone 1 (i.e., anaerobic zone) of the aeration trains is provided in Figure 5. While the foam does not currently result in any detrimental day to day process performance issues, it most likely impacts the plants poor SVI values and in turn maintain biosolids inventory during peak wet weather events. Furthermore, the foaming propensity might be exacerbated if the WWTP converts to nitrogen removal.

There are several means to control foam inducing organisms in the activated sludge process, such as:

• Defoaming agent(s)

• Use a classifying selector to waste foam inducing organisms within the process. The selector includes an overflow box at an entrapment location, such as a corner in the aeration basins. The foam overflows into the box, after which it is either chemically inactivated or conveyed to the digesters for destruction.

• Improve the hydraulics within the basin to remove any foam entrapment locations (e.g., corners, walls, etc.). SpecificaUy, the outlet structure at the mixed liquor channel appears to foster foam entrapment.

In the case of OLSD, improving the hydraulics at the mixed liquor channel outlet structure is the preferred option if foaming results in effluent issues. This represents a modest cost at approximately $80,000 to $100,000.

December 27, 2016 1 9


Figure 5. Picture of Foam in Zone 1 during Site Visit in Spring 2015

4 Alternatives Evaluation Based on the previously described objectives of this report, five alternatives were devel~ped to address solids storage during wet weather, and provide.effluentnitrogen reduction and discuss foam control strategies (if deemed beneficial). The five alternatives are as follows

• Alternative 1: Extend Existing 18-inch RAS Pipe to the Bypass Channel

• Alternative 2: Route RAS to Primary Effluent Distribution Box then Convey to the Bypass Channel

• Alternative 3: Extend 32-inch RAS pipe to Bypass Channel

• Alternative 4: Construct New Primary Effluent and RAS Mixing Box and Install Conveyance Pipe on West Side of Aeration Basins

• Alternative 5: Construct New Primary Effluent and RAS Mixing Box and Install Conveyance Pipe b~tween the Aeration Basins

The idea behind solids ·storage during wet weather events is to send ~s much RAS, to the old secondary basins during a peak flow event and gradually bleed the biosolids back to the aeration basins after the peak flow subsides.


Optimizing .Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers J.. ~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries ''

To address nitrogen removal and foam control the idea is to convert the old secondary clarifiers into anoxic basins and route a combination of primary effluent and RAS to the clarifiers.

4.1 Alternative 1: Extend the 18" RAS Pipe to the Bypass Channel RAS is conveyed to the old secondary clarifiers by extending the existing 18;..inch diameter RAS pipe from Aeration Basin #1 to the bypass channel. RAS that cannot be sent to the bypass due to hydraulic or process restrictions will be routed through the existing RAS pipes to the aeration basins.

The flow schematic for this alternative is shown in Figure 6.

~--- ,---- ---, l B~pass l l C~ann~l i L--•' --- ---1

·----------~-------------~ I ffl I : Primary E uent : I I

: Distribution Box : L-------------------~---J

·---, __ J ______ ---l ~~ roblc BasJn5 , ___ -· -- ------ - --

Main Flow

·--------- RAS Flow

·--------- RAS Modifications

·--~--. : Secondary :, l

~---------~-----------~---------~ p. I : :. Clarifiers ~ : , _____ :::y --· , .. ---- I----------- ,, -· -, l Old Secondary l I t " I

: Clarifiers u :

L----- ~----------- ---• -~r----~r------......,r--- 1 To Chlorine l

I I

: Contad : ~-------------- ---~

Figure 6. Alternative 1: Flow Schematic, 18-inch RAS extension

To address solids storage during wet weather events, only RAS from the new secondary clarifiers are conveyed to the old secondary clarifiers via the bypass channel. The solids in the old secondaries would be sent back to the aeration basins once the tanks are full or the wet weather event subsides.


Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Loma Old Secondaries ·

To provide nitrogen removal, both RAS and PE would be routed to the old secondary clarifiers that would be op~rating as anoxic basins. Primary effluent would enter the bypass charmel via the existing slid$ gate and be mixed with the RAS before entering the old secondary clarifiers. Additional nitrogen load reduction would occur in the existing selectors. .

4.2 Alternative 2: Route RAS to · PE Distribution Box This alternative involves conveying all .the RAS to the PE distribution box where it would fully mix with primary effluent. RAS would enter the box via tees placed on the main RAS line. A baffle in the primary effluent distribution box might be required to provide sufficient mixing of PE and RAS.

The flow schematic for this alternative is shQwn in Figure 7.

·------------------------· ! Primary Effluent ! I I

: Distribution Box : L-----------------------J

Main Flow

RASFioW


Baffle (if necessary)

~----~-- ~--~----- -~-----~------------~ ~----~ t

·--- ___ ]l ______ -__ t _ ·: · erobic Ba n ! '--- r - •- _ I -- • •- • - •- ·'

t • I : I I t

• I I

.--~--· : ! Secondary .\. ! ~--------------------~------~ I ~ I

L~cvj

.------------·-Jl ... , .....__...,..._ ........ _--r" _ __. __ ,......_~ ! To Chlorine !

I I

: Contact : L - • • - • • - -- • - -- - .J: ---'

Figure 7. Alternative 2: Flow Schematic for. Routing RAS to PE .. Distribution Box

This alternative is fataUy flawed for the following reasons:

• It does not lend itself to contact stabilization mode during peak wet weather events because the RAS is blended with PE.


Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries 'J ~

• Operators would have no control over the RAS/PE ratio. This ratio becomes critical for optimizing nitrogen removal.

4.3 Alternative 3: Extend 32-inch RAS pipe to Bypass Channel This alternative involves adding a new 32-inch RAS pipeline along the PE Distribution Box to the bypass channel. A valve would be added at the 32-inch portion of the RAS pipeline upstream of Aeration #3 that tees to the new pipeline. Primary effluent would enter the bypass channel via the existing slide gate. RAS that cannot be pumped to the bypass due to hydraulic or process restrictions will be split as normal between the aeration trains.

The flow schematic fo.r this alternative is shown in Figure 8.

:--- f --- ~ ---: : Bypass : I ~ I I

: c.,annJ!I : '---- ~- --- If.;. __ ,

.--------------------~---, 1 ffl I : Primary E uent : l Distribution Box l L-----------------------J

·--- _ __f _______ -J v

l ~·ro~lc Basin> " I ___ - -- ------ - --

Main Flow

·--------- RAS Flow


·--~--. : l Secondary \ l

----------------~--------~ ! U I

l-~y:_j ·------ . ----------- ~ ---1 l otb Secondary ·l l tlarifiers ~ l L----- ------------ ·---• ~-------------- ---· I

To Chlorin• : I

I Contact : L------------------J

Figure 8. Alternative 3: Flow Schematic for 32-inch RAS Extension

This alternative is fatally flawed as there is not enough room in pipe gallery to run new pipe for the following reasons. For reference, a picture of the existing RAS pipeline located above the PE Distribution Box is provided in Figure 9.

December27, 2016 I 13

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorna Old Secondaries

Figure 9 .. RAS Piping Located between Primary Clarifiers and Aeration Basins

4.4 Alternative 4: Construct New P·E and RAS Mixing Box and_lnstall Conveyance Pipe on South Side of Aeration Basins This alternative was devised as a solution to the fatal flaw identified in Alternative 3, which was the lack of space to run the RAS pipe to the bypass channel. Instead of running RAS and PE through the bypass channel, the flows would be mixed in a newly constructed distribution box on the west side of the PE Distribution Box. The mixed flow is then ·sent to the old secondaries through a new pipe to the west of the. aeration basins that connects with the old secondary effluent channel.


14 I December 27, 20'16

< N

-----' -----,---sypa'

--~-~~~~~~--

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries J"

·---------------------------------l Primary Effluent l l Distribution Box l I I -------------------------------- .:.•

y ---- - _ __! __ ~----- - _l y I • I I ,, •

l r.~robic Ba ~ i ~--- -- ---- --------- '- -- --·

A

Main Flow

--------- RAS Flow

--------- RAS Modifications

· · - · · - PE/RAS Blend

+-· I I

----1-----.

;--~--1 i{ d : ,, Secon ary ~ . .......

. _:---~~~---. l To Ch orine l J I

L.·-··-··-··-··-··...J I t I

l Con act l I j I

L ------------+-----------•

Figure 10. Alternative 4: Flow Schematic for Creating a PE and RAS Distribution Box and Extension

Note: The bypass channel will remain unused 'in this scenario.

During wet weather events, the PE gate to the distribution box would be shut-off and only RAS would be conveyed to the old secondaries using. the new pipeline. The solids in the old secondaries would be sent back to the aeration basins once the tanks are full or the wet weather event subsides.

To provide nitrogen removal, a portion or all of RAS/PE would be routed to the old secondary clarifiers that would be operating as anoxic basins. Any remaining RAS/PE would be routed to the existing selector for additional nitrogen load reduction.

4.5 Alternative 5: Construct New PE and RAS Mixing Box and Install Conveyance Pipe between the Aeration Basins · This alternative was devised as a solution to the fatal flaw identified in Alternative 3, which was the lack of space to run the RAS pipe to the bypass channel. Instead of

December 27, 2016 1 15

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorna Old Secondaries.

running RAS and PE through the bypass channel, the flows would be mixed in a newly constructed distribution box on the south side of the PE Distributio.n Box. The mixed flow is then sent to the old secondaries through a pipe between the aeration basins. A!-lhe end of the aeration basins, there is pipe to convey the flow into each old secondary clarifier.


,.. N

1---------------------------------! Primary Effluent ! 1 Distribution Box l I I -------------------------------· -·

Main Flow

--------- RAS Flow --------- RAS Modifications

· · -- · · - PE/RAS Blend

+-, --~--------~----~~--------- I -·---~r-- ·i------------1----~

----- ----- ----· B pass ·j

Cijann I ! ---- l _____ ¥. ---~

• __ :_ - _ __! __ : _____ i j_. ! fA~ro ic Bas•Rs ! ~--- -- ---- --------- .. -- -·

---~--1 • '

l f Secondary \ --------~--~~~--------~~ • t

_l_:~--: !-----oi .--s;~~~d~~ ----~ ! : larifiers ! --------- --------------- ----·

I I

l · To Ch .orine l I I

l Con act ! L_-- ---------. ---------- _J

Figure 11. Alternative 5: Flow Schematic for Routing RAS/PE Distribution Box into the Channels between the Aeration Basins

Note: The bypass channel will· remain unused In this scenario.

This alternative is fatally flawed due to hydraulics. Specifically, there is insufficient space to place a new. channel or pipe·over the existing aeration basin effluent channel.


Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers )~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries '~

5 Methods This section includes a description of the methods used for the alternative and cost analysis. These include mass balance, flows and loads, hydraulics, and cost estimate assumptions.

5.1 Mass Balance A steady state mass balance was created using a combination of a steady state workbook model complemented with HDR's internal mass balance software, ENVision. The mass balance is used to evaluate the capacity of unit processes and evaluate the potential for using the old secondary clarifiers to provide additional treatment. A screen capture of the ENVision model illustrating the WWTP is provided in Figure 12.

~. . . ~...... ... . ...... ,. _.... .. -- .. I •

RJ ~e.ra ;; , •• I ~iii'.-• .... ,.

j f i ..................................... ...... g ... .

! : 't

! ' i I ; !

Figure 12. ENVision sample screen capture depicting treatment process

An existing steady state model of the WWTP (HDR, 2012) was updated and calibrated using three years of historical plant operating data (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014 ). Mass balance calculations were performed under average, maximum month and maximum day flows and loads for current and permitted flow conditions, as well as for the alternatives that are presented in Section 4.

The steady state mass balance workbook used the same data as the ENVision mass balance collected with emphasis on the PE and RAS flows and loads. The steady state mass balance workbook explored nutrient removal using the old secondary basins as anoxic basins and analyzing the system hydraulics. Furthermore, the steady state mass balance workbook forms the basis for calculating the minimum ratio of PE/RAS necessary for full denitrification.



5.2 Flows and Loads The flows and loads used for analysis were limited to current average dry weather flows (ADWF) as takert from the mass balance model. This _i's because· the PE and RAS flows through the old secondaries are fixed by the existing hydraulics, and will not be affected by an increase in influent flows. The current ADWF for the WWTP is approximately 12 mgd.

A summary of the flows and loads for the nitrogen removal and contact stabilization evaluation are shown .in Table 3.

Table 3. Primary Effluent Flows and Loads II

Parameter Unit Values for Value for Nitrogen Contact I

I

II

Removal* Stabilization

Flow mgd 13 ** 69.2

Ammonia (NH4) mgN/L 33 -Nitrate (NOa) mg N/L 0 --Total Nitrogen ·(TN) mg N/L 35 --BOD mg/L 169 --

* The analysis was limited to current ADWF flows because the PE and RAS flows . .

through the old secondaries are fixed by the existing hydraulics, and will not be affected by an· incre.ase in influent flows.

** 13 ~gd was selected as a conservative estimate of current average dry weather flow.

5.3 Hydraulics The hydraulics for each viable alternative was based on using existing pipe and channels. · The capacities were limited by the existing piping and basin dimensions, pumping station capacities, and any modifications as specified in Section 4. A 7 fps maximum month flow in-pipe veiocity was used for all pipes. The total flow through the old secondaries, based on these values, was determined to be 19 mgd. The hydraulic residence time (HRT) at these conditions is 2.1 hours. These hydrauiic limitations were also included ·in the mass balance models described in Section 5~ 1. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A.

To determine the amount .of RAS that could be conveyed through the 18-inch pipe plant staff performed a RAS pump test. The results indicated that with two RAS pumps running 1 0-mgd. could· be conveyed through an 18-inch p.ipe extension to the bypass channel. Detailed results of the pump test are. provided in Table 4.

18. I December 27, 2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries ',, '

Table 4. RAS Pump Testing Results --;---...------..... .- ..--_----,----,---------r=t------y---- ----------- ---~- -- -- - .• --:: .. 7 ·=- .--.--- --

!'u·~EL~ .;'Ffow, rmga . . ~Percentage, flo ·Amps~~- __ ~volta.ge, y

Pump#2

2.5 51 29.5 245

5.2 76 39.5 360 ~------------------------- --------

7.8 96 53.8 460

Pump#4

2.2 52 31 245

5.4 Condition Assessment A condition assessment of the old secondary clarifiers and bypass channel was conducted during a site visit on June 23, 2016. The inspection focused on potential structural damages to the old secondaries that might affect future operation.

5.5 Cost estimates The cost estimates are opinions of probable construction costs. They are based on professional experience and not an official bid document. The estimates are considered planning level values with a level of accuracy of +/- 25 percent. Details on the adders and soft costs are included as part of the detailed cost estimates provided in Appendix B.

6 Results and Discussion This section includes the results and discussion for the two alternatives carried forward from Section 4 (Alternatives 1 and 4 ).

6.1 Mass Balance The results from the ENVision and Excel mass balance for seasonal nitrification and denitrification are shown in Table 5. More detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A.

Current average dry weather flows (ADWF) are used for analysis as PE and RAS flow to the basins will be controlled by the flow path hydraulics rather than influent flow levels (See Section 5.2.). Under all concepts, the plant has the ability to fully nitrify with greater than 80 percent ammonia load reduction. In addition, seasonal denitrification will only occur during dry weather conditions.


Optimizing Oro Loma WWTP Proeess Using Oli:f Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lama Old Secondaries

Table 5. Seasonal Denitrification Mass Balance Results (Based on Current ADWF) - - - ---

Criteria Unit Alt 1 Alt4 Comments l - - _.._...____ ____..._ - . --~ ~-- ~·--- ----- ~

Minimum BOD:TKN ratio none 5:1 5:1

Primary Effluent

Flow* mgd 13 13 Based on historical data

N03· mg/L <1 <1 Based on historical data -

BOD mg/L 169 169 Based on· historical data

. Flow to old secondary basins mgd 3·.a· 6 Controlled by BOD:TKN ratio

RAS

RAS.flow rate o/o 100o/o 100% Basis of analysis

Flow to old secondary basins mgd 8.5 13

Flow to aeration basins mgd 4.5 0

RAS:PE ratio unitless 2.2:1 2.2:1

Operations·

Total flow through old mgd 12.3 19 secondaries

Ammonia removed across the %Load >80o/o >8QOA, Full nitrification is antic.ipated plant** Reduction with average annual values

of less than 2 mg N/L with occasional ammonia bleed through during peak flow events(<< 10 mg N/L)

Nitrogen removed in the old %Load 30-35% 40-45% secondary basins Reduction

Nitrogen removed in the %Load 15-20% 5-10% Can be increased linearly existing selectors Reduction with ~n increase in RAS flow

Nitrogen removed across the %Load -50% -50% Additional nitrogen removal is plant** Reduction possible with increased RAS

flows

Oxygen ·Demand lb/d 33,300 30,600

Daily Average OUR mg/L/hr 40 37 Reasonable for average annual demands

* 13 mgd was selected as a conservative estimate of current average dry weather flow. **The proposed plant upg.rades should be able to maintain the listed ammonia and total nitrogen load removal percentages over a 20-year planning horizon (based on 1 o/o growth per year). ihis analysis is based on maintaining the current primary effluent wastewater characterization ·(e.g., ammonia concentration) over the planning horizon.



The minimum PE/RAS ratio was determined by using a minimum 5:1 BOD/N03 ratio, standard for the denitrification process in wastewater, applied to the average BOD results from the historical data. This information is essential for the operation of the denitrification basins, as the ratio controls the PE and RAS flow. The minimum PE/RAS ratio was determined to be about 2:1. However, the ratio will change based on certain operation parameters such as RAS flow percentage, as well as variations in the influent BOD concentrations. N03 and BOD monitoring will be necessary to optimize the denitrification process.

As stated in Table 5 footnote, the proposed plant upgrades should be able to maintain the listed ammonia and total nitrogen load removal percentages over a 20-year planning horizon (based on 1 o/o growth per year). This analysis is based on maintaining the current primary effluent wastewater characterization (e.g., ammonia concentration) over the planning horizon. If the total nitrogen concentrations increase over time due to water conservation, OLSD can increase the RAS percentage to maintain total nitrogen discharge concentrations. This might require upsizing the RAS pipe extension in the future.

6.2 Comparison of Alternatives and -Recommendation A comparative summary of the alternatives are shown in Table 6. As previously stated, Alternatives 2 and 3 are considered fatally flawed. Alternative 1 is recommended over Alternative 4 due to its simplicity and relatively low cost of construction (see Section 6.4 for the cost analysis).

6.3 Condition Assessment Finding from the assessment are as follows:

• The seismic design on ·liquid-containing concrete structures has changed in the past 25 years. Structural and seismic analysis and modifications should be made so that loads, previous modifications, and future additions are considered and accommodated.

• Most of the observed cracks are larger than the reasonable crack width given in ACI Committee 224, Table 4.1. Thus, HDR's recommendation is that all concrete structures which have cracking and/or concrete delamination should be given priority for rehabilitation.

• Coat concrete surfaces with a flexible 100% solids polyurethane material at 120 mils. • Inspect the central part of the concrete floors in all the basins after removal of the dirt

to determine existing conditions.

• If the water at the bottom of basin 3 is ground water penetrated through the cracks, a new concrete cover on top of the existing floor is recommended.

• If the minimum temperature reinforcement of 0.5 percent of the concrete section area has not been provided for the channel floor and wall, a new concrete cover on top of the existing concrete is recommended.

The detailed condition assessment report is provided in Appendix C.


(

Optimizing Oro Lama WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lama Old Secondaries

Table 6. Alternative Summary

Alternative Description What happens to remaining RAS

Alternative· 1; User controls split Extend Existing 18-lnch RAS between old Pipe to the Bypass Channel secondaries and

aeration basins

Alternative 2: All sent to PE Route RAS to Primary Effluent distribution box Distribution Box then Convey to the Bypass Channel

Alternative 3: User controls split Extend 32-inch RAS pipe to between old Bypass Channel secondaries and

aeration basins

Alternative 4: User controls split Construct New PE and RAS between old Mixing Box and Install secondaries and Conveyance Pipe on South aeration basins Side of Aeration Basins

Alternative 5: User controls split ConstrUct New Primary between old Effluent and RAS Mixing Box secondaries. and and Install Conveyance Pipe aeration basins between the Aeration Basins

..__

-

What happens to Pros PE

User eontrols split Simple to implement between old

ld~al location for secondaries and foam selector in the aeration b~slns

bypass channel * .

RASIPE blend sent RAS flow not to old secondaries limited by pipe sl~e via bypass channel

User controls split Full flexibility for between old contact stab. and secondaries and nitrogen removal aeration basins


Ideal location for foam selector In the PE/RAS mixing box *


Ideal location for foam selector in the PEIRAS mixing box *

* If foam control is deemed necess.ary and the recommended hydraulic improvements are not sufficient.

22 I Dec:ember 27,2016

Cons Recommendation

l RAS flow limited by Recommended pipe size .

Less than optimai contact stab.

Forfeit contact stab. Fatally Flawed

No control over RAS/PE ratio

Not enough room in Fatally Flawed PE distribution box pipe gallery to run new pipe

High costs Not Reoommended assOciated· with construction

Potential for utility conflicts

Not enough room in Fatally Flaw8d aeration basin effluent pipe gallery to run new channel or pipe

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers )~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries ' ~

6.4 Cost Estimate The construction cost summary is provided in Table 7. The costs are broken out for stand-alone contact stabilization and both contact stabilization and nitrogen removal. A detailed estimate of the construction costs by Division is located in Appendix B.

For both alternatives, there is an approximately a three to four fold increase in cost between stand-alone contact stabilization and both contact stabilization and nitrogen removal. This discrepancy is attributed to nitrogen removal requiring mixing in the old secondaries plus replacement of the mechanical aerators with a fine-bubble aeration system in the aeration basins.

Table 7. Summary of the Construction Costs .... -- - - - - . --

·, Parameter Alternative 1 Alternative 4 -

Contact Contact Stab. Contact Contact Stab. Stabilization 1•

2 and N Removal Stabilization 1 •2 and N Removal

Subtotal $1,767,000 $5,335,000 $1,770,900 $5,635,900 (without Division 1) 1

-Division 1 costs $720,000 $2,165,000 $723,000 $2,287,000 (General Req.)

Contingency $531,000 $1,601,000 $532,000 $1,691,000 Estimate (30%)

Contractor or Owner $125,000 $375,000 $125,000 $397,000 Requested Changes During Construction --- --Total $3,143,000 $9,476,000 $3,150,900 $10,010,900

Total (with Mid- $3,470,000 $10,460,000 $3,480,000 $11,060,000 Point Construction Escalation Factor)

1 Analysis assumed that no mixers would be required in the old secondaries for contact stabilization 2 Analysis assumed that the existing mechanical aerators would be maintained

The decision to not inste~ll mixers for contact stabilization is dependent on the storm duration. The analysis was based on storing solids in the old secondaries for 2 days or less. OLSD should consider inclusion of mixers if the solids storage will last for greater than 2 days as the solids would start to ferment under such conditions.

December 27, 2016 1 23

Optimizing Oro Lorna wwrp· Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorna Old Secondari~s ·

7 Summary and Conclusions A summary of the findings are .as follows:

• Alternatives 1 and 4 were carried forward for more detailed analysis. The other alternatives were fatally flawed for various reasons.

o Alternative 1: ~xtend the RAS pipe (18-inch) to the bypass channel

o Alternative 4: New pipe extension on south side of aeration basins run to old secondary basins. New PE distribution box to mix PE and RAS

• Alternative 1 is the recommended alternative due to the relatively low · construction cost and ease of implementation. The RAS extension size in this alternative limits the amount of RAS available for nitrogen removal and contact stabilization. The cost is provided on the previous page (see Table 7).

• Alternative 4 is more expensive than Alternative 1 but offers maximal RAS flow·to the old secqndaries while maintaining complete control over RAS storage and nitrogen removal. The cost is provided on the previous page (see Table7).

• The costs were broken out for stand-alone contact stabilization and both contact stabilization and nitrogen removal. The stand-alone eontact stabilization is approximately three to four times lower in costs than contact stabilization and nitrogen removal as it does riot include mixers in the old secondaries or replacement of the mechanical aerators with a fine-bubble aeration system.

• The estimated ammonia removal is greater than 80 percent during dry weather.

• The combined estimated nitrogen removal between the old secondary.basins and existing selector is approximately 50 percent for Alternatives 1 and 4. The difference between the two alternatives is the removal distribution between the old secondaries and existing selector.

• The proposed plant upgrades should be able to maintain the listed ammonia and total nitrogen load removai percentages over a 20~year planning horizon (based on 1 o/o growth per year). This analysis is based on maintaining the current primary effluent wastewater characterization (e.g., ammonia concentration) over the planning horizon. If ttie total nitrogen concentrations increase over time due to water conservation, OLSD can increase the RAS percentage to maintain total nitrogen discharge concentrations. This might require upsizing the RAS pipe extension in the future.

• Foaming ih the activated sludge process is a concern for nitroge·n removal. If necessary, the preferred method for foam control is improving the hydraulics. ·specifically,· placing downward opening gates at the south end of the mixed liquor cha·nnel. These ·gates would be fully opened during wet weather events.

• The old secondaries condition assessment identified several cracks that are larger. than the reasonable crack width provided in ACI Committee 224, Table 4.1, and thus rehabilitation is recommended. Furthermore; the seismic design on liquid-containing concrete structures has changed in the past 25 ·years. Structural and seismic analysis and modifications should be. made so that loads, previous


Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~)~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries r~ . ~

modifications, and future additions are considered and accommodated.

The information generated under this effort should be used in assisting OLSD with making informed management decisions for managing the biological solids during peak wet weather events and interim nitrogen removal.

A pre-design would be recommended for carrying forward any of the evaluated alternatives.

8 References ACI Committee 224, "Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures (ACI 224R-90),"

· American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1990,43 pp. Also ACI Manual · of Concrete Practice.

BACWA (2015) Potential Nutrient Reduction by Treatment Optimization and Treatment Upgrades, Scoping and Evaluation Plan. Submitted to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.

HDR (2016) Draft BACWA Report for Oro Lorna Sanitary District. Eventual submittal to the·San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.

December 27, 2016 1 25

Optimizing Oro Loma WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers L '-\~ Oro Loma Old Secondaries r J ~

Appe·ndix B. Estimate· of Con-struction Costs

Oecer!Jber 27, 2016 I B-1

I

Oro Loma Sanitary District Feasibility Analysis for Process Modifications Conceptual Planning Cost Estimate

Job No. i Computation I Project: Feasibility Analysis for Process Mo::Jifications

Calc. No.

Prepared By:

•

. Subject: Task: Process Modifications Cost Estimate Reviewed by: Alternative Alternative 1: Ras Pipe Extension( Both Contact Stabilization and Nitroge Date:

DESCRIPTION UNIT COST

PO, MWF JS, RBW 12/14/2016

DIVISION 11- EQUIPMENT

HDR SUBTOTAL (WITHOUT DIVISION 1) HDR DIVISION 1

ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY (30%) CONTRACTOR OR OWNER REQUESTED CHANGES DURING CONSTRUCTION (5%)

TOTAL Escalatloo Factor to Mld·Polnt of Construction

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~~ Oro Lorna Old Secondari.es '.1 ~

Appendix C. Condition Assessment

December 27, 2016 1 C-1

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers Oro Lorria Old Secondaries

Old secondary clarifiers 1, 2, 3 and surrounding channels were inspected on June 23, 2016. The inspection focused on potential structural damages that may affect their future ' operation. All the basins and the channel were not in operation except the channel south of the basins.

OBSERVATIO S. Basins

All the· three basins ~ad a similar situation and the following issues apply to all of them except noted otherwise.

• The central part of the basins ~oors C9Uid not be inspect~d due to being covered by dirt;

• There were a lot of mostly hairline .cracks visible on the· wall and floor concrete surfa~s. Some of the wall cracks were large arid have.already been filled (see Figure C - 1 ), while other vertical cracks were still open (see Figure C - 2).

• Vertical cracks located next to metal channel supports seemed larger and more serious than the hairline cracks mentioned above (see Figure C - 2 and Figure C - 3).·

• In addition, some rust and concrete delamif1ation were observed mostly at the lowest elevation of the walls near the ·floor (see Figure C- 4). The rust should have come from the clarifier arm that was seriously rusted. However, the delaminated part of concrete and the rust should be removed for better observation prior to making any

· rehabilitation decision.

• Floor cracks were tinier and mostly spread out of the circular part. However in some areas, such as at the corner of basin 3, larger floor cracks were observed with some water on top of them. Since the basins were not in operation, the water might be the ground water penetrated into the basin through the cracks (see Figure C- 5 and Figure C - 6). If this is true, the cracks are very deep and leakage will occur while operating in future.

Channels

• The east channel was dry and not in. operation. The channel wall and floor exhibit large, but filled cracks (see Figure C- 7). Wall cracks are vertical and floor cracks are mostly along transverse direction.

• The other channel in operation (south channel) shows vertical filled cracks ori the outside face of its walls (see Figure C - 8). However, no leakage was observed through those cracks.

• Since the channel cracks are perpendiGular to longitudinal direction, they should have happened due to changes in temperature and not providing enough temperature reinforcement (the minimum temperature reinforcement area for a channel with this length should be at least 0.5 percent of the concrete section area).

C-2 I Decem~r 27, 2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers L "~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries r J ~

RECOMMENDATIONS: • The seismic design on liquid-containing·concrete structures has changed in the past

25 years. Structural and seismic analysis and modifications should be made so that loads, previous modifications, and future additions are considered and accommodated.

• Most of the observed cracks are larger than the reasonable crack width given in ACI Committee 224, Table 4.1. Thus, HDR's recommendation is that all concrete structures which have cracking and/or concrete delamination should be given priority for rehabilitation.

• Coat concrete surfaces (where necessary) with a flexible 1 00% solids polyurethane material at 120 rnils. Following the fill and repair of cracks, in particular the large ones on the floor, consider coating the floor where necessary if the repairs are not sufficient.

• Inspect the central part of the concrete floors in all the basins after removal of the dirt to determine existing conditions.

• If the water at the bottom of basin 3 is ground water penetrated through the cracks, a new concrete cover on top of the existing floor is recommended.

• If the minimum temperature reinforcement of 0.5 percent of the concrete section area has not been provided for the channel floor and wall, a new concrete cover on top of the existing concrete is recommended.

December 27, 2016 1 C-3


Figure C - 1. Vertical Filled Cracks in Basin Wall

Figure C ·• 2. Vertical Crack in Basin Wall (Not Filled)

C-4 .1 December 27,2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers "~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries 'J'

Figure C - 3. Crack and Concrete Delamination Near in Basin Wall Near Metal Channel Support

Figure C - 4. Rust and Concrete Delamination on Basin Wall on Top of the Floor

December 27, 2016 I C-5


Figure C- 5. Water in Basin 3 (Probably Groundwater Penetration through the Floor Cracks)

Figure C - 6. Wide Cracks in the Co·ncrete Floor of Basin 3

C-6 I December 27, 2016

Optimizing Oro Lorna WWTP Process Using Old Secondary Clarifiers ~ Oro Lorna Old Secondaries -'

Figure C- 7. Filled Cracks in the Channel (Inside Face)

Figure C - 8. Filled Vertical Crack Outside the Channel Wall

December 27, 2016 I C-7

AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 0 AGENDA DATE: 1/03/17

Approval of New Electrical & Mechanical Technician Job Classification and Salary Written by: J. Warner and A. Simion

BACKGROUND: Staff requests Board approval of a new Electrical & Mechanical Technician job classification, at salary range $7,000-$9,381/month (same as Electrical & Instrumentation Technician). If approved, one of the existing Mechanic II positions would be converted to the new classification. The Mechanic II position is currently filled by Jeff Schier, who would be reclassified to Electrical & Mechanical Technician, so the staff levels in the Maintenance Department would remain unchanged.

Jeff is fully qualified for the new position; he meets the Oro Lorna designation for "Qualified Electrical Worker", he already performs electrical maintenance, and he serves as back-up for the Electrical & Instrumentation Technicians when they are away from the District. Jeff also maintains a journeyman union electrical certification, first earned in 197 5.

The reclassification would allo\v greater flexibility of our existing workforce, and would carry modest fiscal impact (estimated at $6,000/year). Staff presented the request for approval to the Personnel/Safety/Public Information Committee at its December 23, ~0 16 meeting. The Committee asked questions for clarification, and unanimously recommended full Board approval.

RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommended full Board approval.ofa new Electrical & Mechanical Technician job classification, at salary range $7,000-$9,3 81 /month.

ATTACHMENT: Job description- Ele~trical & Mechanical Technician

Oro Lorna Sanitary District 2655 Grant Avenue

San Lorenzo, CA 94580 (51 0) 276-4 700

DRAFT

ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL TECHNICIAN

DEFINITION Under general direction of the Maintenance M~ager, to perform professional work involving all electrical and mechanical systems at the District's Water Pollution Control Plant and pumping stations, including troubleshooting, preventive and corrective maintenance, instaihition; and repair of elec!Qcal and mechanical equipment.

SUPERVISION EXERCISED Exercises t~chnical and functional direction over lower classifications in the department.

IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES

1. Repair and maintain various electronic, pneumatic and mechanical process control system components.

2. Prepare plans and make modifications to existing system(s) where such modifications would be desirable for the improvement of the system(s) .

. 3. Maintain automatic speed c~ntroi equipment at the wastewater treatment plant, and various lift· stations throughout the District.

4. Maintain and repair the electrical, pneumatic or hydraulic equipment throughout the treatment plan~, pump stations, and the administrative buildings.

5. Perform and update electrical Computerized Maintenance Management System preventative maintenance duties as required.

6. Service and adjust engines, motors, pumps, valves, control systems, boilers, heat exchangers and chemical feed systems.

7. Operate, clean, service, maintain an4 pai~t equipment, machinery, vehicles, structures, buildings, pipelines, storage tanks and any additional items found in a wastewater treatment facility and lift stations. ·

8. Coordinate, monitor, and perform electrical installation and repair with District staff and/or service vendors.

9. Perform work on and around 480-volt power systems and multi-phase motors.

10. Respond to emergency situations.

1

DRAFT 11. Operate and maintain radio equipment.

12. Perform other related duties as assigned, including all duties contained in the Mechanic II job description.

JOB RELATED AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS

Knowledge of:

• Principles, theory and practices of electricity, pneumatics, hydraulics, and mechanics used in the maintenance and repair of equipment in a wastewater treatment facility.

• Tools, materials, methods and practices of electrical and mechanical repair and maintenance.

• Applicable provisions of the National Electric code; related plans, specifications and standard industry practices.

• Operational characteristics of mechanical and hydraulic equipment found in wastewater treatment and pumping facilities.

• Repair and preventative maintenance techniques and procedures.

• Proper safety precautions related to and electrical maintenance and repair.

• Safety methods and procedures for tools, supplies and equipment.

Skill to:

• Operate a motor vehicle safely.

• Operate tools and materials involved in the installation, maintenance and repair of mechanical and electrical equipment.

• Operate a wide variety of tools and equipment including electronic testing equipment, meters, hand tools and·related tools and equipment.

Ability to:

• Install, operate and repair pumps, motors, generators, engines and related equipment.

• Troubleshoot a variety of complex electrical and mechanical problems.

• Read, draw and interpret electrical schematics.

• Design and install control systems.

2

DRAFT • Perform the full range of skilled maintenance and repair work related to wastewater

treatment and .pumping equipment and facilities.

• Diagnose and repair me·chanical and electrical defects.

• Interpret and apply a wide variety of technical information from manuals, drawings, specifications, layouts, blueprints, and schematics for electrical and mechanical syste.ms .and components. ·

• Estimate tiine, materials, and supplies required for assigned work.

• Work independently in the absence of supervision ..

• Understand and follow oral and Written instructions.

• Establish, maintain, and foster positive and harmonious working relationships with those. contacted in the course of work.

EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION. GUIDELINES Any combination of experience and training that would likely provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:

Experience: . · Three years recent journey-level experience in electrical circuitry, methods, materials, tools and equipment used in maintaining, repairing, testing, and . installing electro-me.chanical equipment used in a treatment plant, pump station or similar facility.

Training: Equivalent to the completion of the twelfth grade, supplemented by training in plant mechanics. Two years of college level course work covering technical material necessary for this type of work is desirable.

License or Certificate: Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California driver's license from the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and a .DMV record which meets the District's Driving Standards.

Possession. of, or ability to obtain within two years of appoin~ent, a California Water Envirqnment Association (CWEA) Mechanica~ · Technology Grade II certificate. Additionally, the incumbent must meet the reqUirements of the District's "qualified electrical worker" designation upon employment.

WORK ENVIRONMENT/PHYSICAL DEMANDS

The work enviroriJ11ent characteristics are representativ~ of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. The physical demands are representative of those that must be met· by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of the job. Reasonable accommodations may be made t~ enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

3

DRAFT While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to stand; sit; use hands to finger, handle, or feel; reach with hands and arms; walk, climb or balance; stoop, squat, twist, kneel, crouch, or crawl; and talk or hear·. The employee must frequently lift and/or move up. to 50 pounds and occasionally lift and/or move up to 75 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, and depth perception, adjust focus and distinguish colors.

Additionally, the employee is frequently exposed to outside weather conditions. The employee is occasionally exposed to confined spaces; fumes or airborne particles; fumes, dust, toxic or caustic chemicals; extreme cold; extreme heat; vibration and risk of electrical or mechanical hazards. Employees in this classification may perform duties that involve a potential risk of exposure to blood borne pathogens. In addition, employees use power and noise producing tools and equipment. The noise level in the work environment is usually loud.

Effective Date: January 2017

Written by A. Simion on 12/07/17

4


Accept Project as Complete and Authorize the General Manager to Direct the Filing of a Notice of Completion: Sewer Line Replacement Project 2015-2016 Written by: K. Decker

BACKGROUND: At its meeting of August 18, 2015, the Board approved the award of the Sewer Line Replacement Project 2015-2016 to California Trenchless, Inc., in the amount of $1,945,428. At its February 16, 2016 meeting, the Board authorized Change Order 2, in an amount of $599,000. The project work provided for the replacement of 17,996 linear feet of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE).

All construction was completed to staffs satisfaction on December 30, 2016. Engineering staff has found that all work was completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. Collections staff has performed a CCTV inspection of the lines, and found the installation to meet District standards.

The Construction Committee reviewed the project at its meeting of September 14, 2016, and recommended that the project be closed and a notice of completion be filed with the County.

Contract Cost Data

Construction Contract with California Trenchless, Inc. $ 2,583)690

Original Contract $ 1,945,428 13,960 feet of pipe replacement

Change Order 1 $ (52,327) Delete 371 feet of pipe replacement

Change Order 2 $ 599,000 4,407 feet of pipe replacement

Change Order 3 $ 32,826 Additional work Bockman Rd. & Lynn Ct.

Change Order 4 $ 10,438 Additional work Camino Dolores

Ch~ge Order 5 $ 48,325 Additional work for unforeseen quantities differences

Salaries & Overhead $ 106,617

Surveying $ 30,578

Professional Services $ 40,000

Total Cost $ 2,760,885

FY 2015/16 Budget $ 3,000,000

RECOMMENDATION: Accept the project as complete and authorize the General Manager to direct the filing of a Notice of Completion with Alameda County.

ATTACHMENT: Certificate of Completion

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION

ORO LOMA SANITARY DISTRICT

SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2015-2016

I, Kristopher M. Decker, Field Engineer, for Oro Lorna Sanitary District, Alameda County, California, do hereby certify that the work and improvements described in the contract which \vas entered into by and between· Oro Lorna S~itaiy District and California Trenchless, Inc., dated August 19, 2015, was completed to my satisfaction on December 30, 2016.

That said work and improvemen~s are more particularly described in the Plans and Specifications, approved by the Sanitary Board of said District on May 19, 2015.

I understand that neither the determination of ~ompleteness of the work, nor the acceptance of the work by the District, shall operate to bar claims against the Contractor under the terms of the guarantee provisions of the Contract Documents.

Dated: December 30, 2016

By: ________________________ __

Kristopher M. Decker Field Engineer

Staff/Director Comments


BACKGROUND: The Board and/or staff members may comment on items of interest.


ATTACHMENT: None


Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation

BACKGROUND: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to the California Government Code, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 potential case.

RECOMMENDATION: None

ATTACHMENT: None