The City Council may take the next step Tuesday toward supplying recycled water to Valero Benicia Refinery for use in its cooling towers.
Public Works Director Graham Wadsworth and Water Quality Supervisor Dan Jackson have co-authored a report to City Manager Brad Kilger in which they recommend the city contract with Brown and Caldwell, an engineering company that would conduct a feasibility study for the Water Reuse Project.
City employees sent a request for proposals to 20 companies last May and received four proposals. After interviews, city staff determined Brown and Caldwell of Walnut Creek to be the most qualified team to plan and design the project.
That study shouldn’t exceed $662,543, the pair wrote, though other related expenses to complete the evaluation bring the cost of that phase of the project to $901,543.
The study, they wrote, would give the city an estimated construction cost and documentation needed to apply for federal and state grants and loans to underwrite the project.
Should the Council agree with their recommendation, the money would come from the Wastewater Capacity Fund designated for professional services.
Wadsworth and Jackson are recommending the city apply for State Proposition 1 funds for the Benicia Water Reuse Project.
Prop. 1 is a large bond measure approved by voters in 2004. It has $625 million allocated to recycled water projects, half in the form of grants and half in loans.
“Since the Proposition 1 funding is first-come, first-served, time is of the essence,” Wadsworth and Jackson wrote, explaining that a project funding and financing plan would be incorporated into the feasibility study.
Meanwhile, other funding sources are being examined, and city employees are monitoring proposals to let Federal Title XVI program money be used for recycled water projects, too.
Since Benicia has participated in the Western Recycled Water Coalition, this project might be favored for authorization, Wadsworth and Jackson wrote, and “The City Council will be presented with options before the project moves to the design phase.”
Benicia’s overall demand for water was 9,954 acre-feet in 2014. Wadsworth and Jackson wrote that most of that was imported from the State Water Project and the Solano Project.
Of that total, 5,166 acre-feet, or 52 percent, was treated for delivery in the drinking water system, and another 4,788 acre-feet, or 48 percent, was delivered to Valero Benicia Refinery to comply with the 2009 Agreement for the Supply of Untreated Water. The nearly 50-50 split has been typical for many years, the pair wrote.
While the city and the refinery have been counting on imported water for their needs, the current severe drought has shown that the State Water Project (SWP) isn’t a reliable water source when the state has several dry years in a row, Wadsworth and Jackson wrote.
“In January 2014, the state reduced the city’s percent allocation of contract supply to zero percent, and later raised it to 5 percent for the rest of the year,” they wrote.
Even when the state imposes such strict allocations, the SWP contract requires Benicia to pay for its full water contract, no matter how much water it actually receives.
If for the next three years California continues to limit the city’s SWP allocation to 5 percent of its contract, Benicia wouldn’t have enough water by 2018, Wadsworth and Jackson wrote.
Looking ahead to the effects of climate change and increased demand for state water, the two suggested that the prospects of the SWP being a long-term, reliable water supply “are not encouraging.”
They wrote with admiration of how residents and business owners have reduced water consumption. The demand for treated water in 2014 was more than 20 percent below 2013 levels, and in June 2015, water use had dropped to 37 percent below 2013 levels, they wrote — one of the largest reductions in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Valero has been putting several water reduction projects into place, they added: In 2013, the refinery installed equipment to collect and reuse steam condensate that saves 23 million gallons annually; and last year, two boiler water conservation projects were built that save nearly 72 million gallons annually.
“These projects have helped reduce their water use by approximately 6 percent below 2013 levels,” Wadsworth and Jackson wrote. The refinery uses water for cooling, steam production and other critical processes and can’t scale back incrementally, they wrote, and only a few other large water-reduction options are available.
By using Benicia wastewater, the refinery could help the city recycle its treated wastewater, Wadsworth and Jackson wrote.
The wastewater treatment plant’s dry weather effluent flow is about 1.9 million gallons a day. If it’s treated to tertiary recycled water standards, some could be used for landscape irrigation, including through distribution to members of the public.
Refinery employees are working with city staff to identify the most cost-effective version of the project.
“Valero needs approximately 1.9 (million gallons per day) for its cooling towers, so there is a good match between supply and demand,” the pair wrote.
Should it be built, the project not only would help Benicia and Valero, it also would benefit Solano County and the state, the pair wrote.
The project also would help Benicia meet a state demand to reduce its water consumption by 20 percent by 2020. Failure to meet the goal would mean Benicia wouldn’t qualify for future State Revolving Fund loans, such as those the city has used to underwrite other projects in the past.
In fact, the project would reduce the city’s imported water demand by 2,200 acre-feet a year, or about 22 percent of its total 2014 demand.
“The equivalent amount of water saved through water conservation alone would require an additional 44 percent reduction by residents and businesses,” Wadsworth and Jackson wrote.
Not only would it alleviate some of that pressure, it would let Benicia bank water in non-drought years in the more reliable Solano Project, which pumps water from Lake Berryessa.
Should the city go forward with the project, the feasibility study should be done in 2016, after which the project would undergo environmental review. Its design should be finished in 2017, and construction could be complete by 2018.
The feasibility study and environmental review are expected to identify the treatment process needed at the wastewater treatment plant to produce compatible water, as well as selection of a pipeline route to convey the recycled water to the refinery.
The Council will meet at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in a closed session to discuss litigation. The regular meeting will start at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 250 East L St.
Sharing is caring!
Much of the feasibility and other preliminary work was done several years ago. as the PURE project and cost about $1M as I recall. If my recollection is correct, the usage and requirement numbers have not changed that much.. In the interest of economy, I hope that the prior work is used as a baseline for any further studies. I am sure the technology has changed some but the basic requirements seem to be about the same. The earlier report should be languishing on some shelf in city offices and probably at Valero as well. The feasibility of reuse or available technology was never the question. The project was aborted because of projected costs. Again my memory may be faulty, but the total was estimated to be about $28-30M
Bob stated: The project was aborted because of projected costs…. but the total was estimated to be about $28-30M
Bob, I believe that figure was for the most expensive option which included a new pipeline from the water plant to the refinery. I recall the figure as being in the 26-28 million range. But adding for inflation your figure likely reflects today’s dollars.
There were three options in the final draft. The second would have used the existing abandoned pipeline and would have reduced the price somewhat, but the big question was could the pipe be reused. That would have required an analysis by a pipeline expert (Underground in Benicia for example).
I think the third option was in the 20-22 million range and was for a lower capacity. But even at that figure it was too expensive.
It is too bad that the project was not approved. With the drought now upon us, a lot of water would have been saved over the past several years.
Dennis
Why are we going to spend $700,000 to $900,000 and two years studying this concept?
Based on the information above there is an existing pipeline that could be reused if it is in acceptable shape. There are cheap, easy and fast ways to assess the pipe. An intelligent PIG could be used, B and G scanning employed, or a simple hydrotest performed. Assuming passing results, hook up a pump and connect to the cooling towers.
Regarding environmental permits, why? We would be pumping water that meets the requirements for discharging to the bay, if we take the outfall from the end of treatment plant. Or , if there is additional treatment systems required to make water that meets “tertiary recycled water standards” the water in the pipeline is fit for irrigation.
Test the line to assure it won’t leak, then pump non-hazardous material in the pipe. Zero risk to people and the environment. Slam dunk. Could be completed in a month for less than $1 million.
Fully agree if everything you are saying can be done. Why a feasibility study. I would assume our Director should know that already. I always am sort of concerned when the Grants and loans seem to match the cost. Let the City proceed and do it ourselves. We have the highly skilled employees to do this job. We must start acting as doers rather than the need for studies to protect ther decisions that they are hired to make.. Stop all this bureaurcratic nonsense. Get on with it.
The State and I think federal government have standards for how clean a wastewater effluent must be before it can be reused. The City’s wastewater treatment plant is not there and additional treatment steps are needed, the cost need to be determined.
It would be nice to have the purple pipe for water reuse like they have in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Residents could fill portable containers for home landscape use and maybe the city could get a water truck to water ball fields.
Like Tom said, run the smart pig, hydro, If all is well, then put in service
RKJ, Tom.
When I stated above “That would have required an analysis by a pipeline expert”, that was what I was referring to: pigging of the line.
If memory serves the cost for that was included in the analysis of reusing existing pipe. However, the Engineering Co. serving as an advisor, felt that due to age and internal corrosion it would make more sense to put in new pipe and run it parallel to the existing line.
The line referred to is visible near the old Military cemetery.
The nice thing with water is if you get a pipeline leak you can just slap a clamp on the line. I had a line in Wilmington with 50 clamps or more on it. That’s a cheap and easy fix.
Above ground of coarse.
A Google search of “Bob Craft Benicia PURE Project” shows that this project was actively pursued in the 2005 timeframe. It also shows that Mr. Craft was recognized by Benicia City Council for a number of contributions including his participation on the PURE project (People Using Resources Efficiently). From the City Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2005, ” PURE’s target is for a reuse system with a 2 MGD capacity.” In all honesty, thank you Mr. Craft for your service.
But now here we sit, 10 years later stating that additional study is needed to see if we can re-use 1.9 MGD from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant. Either this is a bad idea or the government is inept.
Here’s an idea. Mayor Patterson can call Governor Brown and ask him to use executive powers under the drought induced state of emergency to allow a proof of concept study for re-using water for the refinery. 1.9 MGD is about 1400 GPM. Hertz Equipment Rental has pumps available up to 5500 GPM according to their website. Hertz has an office in Benicia. We could have a diesel driven pump sited at the treatment plant in about a day. Large diameter hoses could be used to connect the pump to the treatment system, the existing pipeline could be hydrotested, and if it passed hoses could be used to connect the pipeline to the cooling tower in the refinery (making some significant assumptions on the later point). We could be saving 1.9 million gallons of water per day within a week. Do you think that Governor Brown would be interested in a Benica Photo Op declaring his environmental success?
Council could even instruct the CSC to pick up the bill for the cost of the pump rental and for the diesel to power the engine driving the pump. We could offset that cost by not hiring Alexa Portershawver as the CAP coordinator. This effort would clearly save more water than Alexa P and the CSC have saved over their entire history!
This could all be in place next week.
Makes too much sense. Never will happen.
Tom,
I worked on the PURE committee with Mr. Craft and he definitely is well deserving of the gratitude you have conveyed. He brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the table. He also presented himself in a manner which garnered the respect of those of us working with him.
I think I can speak for all of those who served on that committee in that we were all disappointed that the project envisioned did not come to fruition.
Mayor Patterson (Council member at the time) took the lead in trying to get the needed funding. But the list of projects, county and state wide, was long and this project fell out of the running, due in part to higher than anticipated (wished for?) costs. The Mayor did a very good job from all that I could see and she also earned my respect for her knowledge and efforts on this project.
Your suggestions are good, but I would add that the time frame spoken of does not appear to take into consideration what Valero was going to do with the water. The plan was to use the water for boiler feed water (BFW) at their boilers (currently they use the same water we drink). Both the city supplied fresh water and the proposed recycled water require further treatment before being used for BFW purposes. The treatment differs for each water source. Both sources would be required as the recycled water was not sufficient to meet the full needs of the refinery. Thus Valero was going to build (at their cost) another treatment plant and install it at the refinery.
I do agree that a new study is not required, but rather a relatively simple updating of the original options explored would make more sense.
Dennis Lund
DDL I do not doubt your knowledge on this project and also your dissapointment that it was not done in the past.. I do respect the Mayors knowledge on water. But at the same time I see members of the council making an enemy out of Valero. This plan has huge benefits to the city for water sustainibility. It just happens we have a willing client in Valero that will take the recyled water. Now just what is wrong with that. The few council members bring up cost sharing after the fact as a way to slow this process. It is not the duty of city staff that made this great presentation to negociate a cost sharing deal with Valero. That is the councils directiion to the city manger to move forward on that. Where was the council on that issue. Simply put after the fact. Who says that Valero would not welcome that opportunity. they are not the enemy. But when you have elected officials trying to delay this project when city staff did say that Valero welcomed this project it gets confusing. Top that with the usual suspects anti Valero comments and it for sure muttles a very good project. This project ,is of more benefit to the city than Valero. It insures a sustsainible water supply. The city just happens to have a willing business that will use the water. City staff did ADDRESS the previous feasbility study and said that if any of it can be used it would cut the costs. It just could be out dated and very little if any could be used. Staff is not out of touch. They did an outstanding job and should be saluted for it,. Yes it is their job but some jobs are just outstanding this was one of ,them.. All issues will be resolved as this project moves forward. The thing that must be remembed is that the project is a huge benefit to ,the city. So stop the nit picking and understand ,that Valero is not the enemy..
A quick glance at the staff report (online) answers most if not all the issues raised above. Apparently they will not do boiler feed water which requires reverse osmosis and thereby save a lot of the costs identified in the previous report. As noted above they will rely on the previous study and will in essence update and refresh it. The consultant will be providing to the city the information needed to apply for a grant. For details, read through the staff documents which are pretty clear about what is to be done and why.