Regional Wastewater Facility
Council Study Session | January 31, 2025
Presenting
Mariana Chavez-Vazquez – General Manager, ESD
Kapil Verma – Deputy Director, ESD
Eric Dunlavey – Deputy Director, ESD
Kevin Ice – Assistant to the City Manager
Lori Mitchell – Acting Director, ESD
Jeff Provenzano – Assistant Director, ESD
2 Agenda
Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) – History and Purpose Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – Ten Years in Review Regulatory Changes - 2024 Permit Nutrient Limit
Regulations
Technical Update to the Plant Master Plan (PMP)
Next Steps for CIP
Land Use Component
Council Study Session Objectives
Provide Background
– Inception of CIP and original assumptions and how the RWF protects the public and environment.
Give a Status Update
– Where we are after 10 years of CIP work.
Acknowledge
– Accomplishments of the Program.
Inform
– Share challenges and changes in legislation that will impact the future implementation of the CIP.
4 RWF and CIP Program Showcase
5 Regional Wastewater Facility
–
History and Purpose
What is Wastewater
7 From the Oxford Dictionary:
“Water that has been used in the home, in a business, or as part of an industrial process”
Potable water Uses : Residential,
industrial, commercial,
services
Wastewater
What does the RWF do?
Nearly 69 years of uninterrupted operation, continuously meeting environmental requirements and safely returning over 110 million gallons of treated wastewater to the south San Francisco Bay daily 8 1956 & Now
SJSC RWF
9 RWF
Who We Serve
County Sanitation
District 2-3
City of San José
Burbank Sanitary District
West Valley
Sanitation District
Cupertino Sanitary District
City of Milpitas
City of Santa Clara
Major RWF Expansions/Rebuilds
2008-2013: Plant Master Plan Planning and Environmental Review 2013-2025: CIP Implementation
1956 1964 1979 1997 2008 2013
Primary
Treatment
Secondary
Treatment
Tertiary /
Advanced
Treatment
Biological
Nutrient
Removal /
South Bay
Water
Recycling
Plant Master
Plan Planning
and Env.
Review
Plant Master Plan
Adopted
10 11
Owners
San José
(approx. 80%*)
Santa Clara
(approx. 20%*)
Customers
West Valley
Sanitation District
Milpitas
Cupertino
Sanitary District
County Sanitation
District 2-3
Burbank Sanitary
District
Councils
San José City
Council approves
all RWF items
Santa Clara City
Council approves
items related to
land use and
CWFA financing
RWF Ownership and Governance
Treatment
Plant
Advisory
Committee
(4) San José
(2) Santa Clara
(3) Tributary
Agencies
*allows for yearly fluctuations
12 RWF Treatment Capacity (167 MGD)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
San José Santa Clara City of
Milpitas
West Valley
Sanitation
District
Cupertino
Sanitary
District
County
Sanitation
District 2-3
Burbank
Sanitary
District
Reserved Capacity by Agency
(MGD)
Used Capacity Unused Capacity
Sewer (RWF + collection system) rates
San José & Other Agencies 24
-
25 13
Single family residence monthly rate - $49.59
Daily cost to collect and treat sewage - $1.65
Agency Monthly Rate
Sunnyvale $67.95
Milpitas $66.79
Cupertino Sanitary District $64.27
West Valley Sanitation District $57.65
Palo Alto $55.93
Mountainview $54.60
Santa Clara $52.37
San José $49.59
RWF in Numbers
• Operated by the Environmental Services Department – 326 Full Time Equivalents (Operations, CIP, and Laboratory)
• Operational 24/7 and in compliance with all regulations • Process overs 25,000 lab samples per year (60,000+ Analysis) • Generates green energy, fulfilling 80% of current energy demands • Largest CIP in the history of San José – $2.2 Billion Program
1.5 Million
Residents
17,000
Businesses
110 MGD
Wastewater
Treated per
year
16 MGD
Recycled
water
All biogas
used for
power
production
275 wet TPD
biosolids
beneficially
reused by
2025
No Permit
Violations
since 2011
RWF
–
Liquids Treatment Processes
Secondary Treatment
Primary Treatment
Pretreatment
To Outfall
Channel
Tertiary Treatment
RWF
–
Solids Treatment Processes
80% of the
RWF’s Power
Needs
Co-Generation
Engines
Digestion
To Dewatering Centrifuges
(Starting 2025)
(ending 2025)
Gas Production
Power Production
A Healthier Lower South Bay
17 1972 202250 Years Improving the Environment
18 Thriving Ecosystem
–
Fish Diversity
Cold Freshwater Habitat
Rare & Endangered Species
Warm Freshwater Habitat
Bat Ray
Longfin Smelt
Staghorn Sculpin
Plainfin Midshipman
California Halibut
American Shad
Northern Anchovy
Striped Bass
Starry Flounder
19 Thriving Ecosystem
–
Bird Species
CIP
–
From Plant Master Plan to Today
CIP’s Foundation
–
Plant Master Plan
21 5-year Process including public
consultation and environmental review
Adopted by San José and Santa Clara
City councils in 2013
Identified treatment improvements and
capital upgrades at the RWF through 2040
Two major components:
1. Technical: Plant Process Improvements
2. Land Use: Proposed mix of land uses on
the buffer lands
Plant Master Plan Goals and Drivers
Critical Condition
Regulatory Requirements
Economic Benefit
Improved Performance
Benefit
Policy Decision
Project Drivers
Plant Master Plan Goals
Purpose of the Plant Master Plan
As adopted in 2013 - the Plant Master Plan:
Incorporated a
Planning Horizon –
2010 thru 2040
01 2013-2024 Experience Shows:
23 Identified future
projects, estimated
costs and
construction
scoping strategies
02 Designated future
land uses on Plant
lands
03 Illustrated how to
connect the
community to the
Bay
04 Outlined a strategy
to protect the Plant
from sea-level rise
05 Extended completion
schedules
Remains consistent
with Plan
Delayed
Implementation
No
Change
Increased
cost
24 Capital Program Investment
-
2013
59%
17%
12%
8 4%
$2.2B
2013
Critical Repair & Rehabilitation (R&R)
Regulatory
Odor
Biosolids Transition
Biosolids R&R
Over a 100 CIP Projects Identified
$2.2 billion investment (2009 Dollars)
30-year implementation period (2010-
2 040)
Conventional design-bid- build project
delivery
Most of the capital program investment
is focused on Rehabilitation and Repair
(R&R) projects
CIP funds NOT used for:
Land Development
Indirect or Direct Potable Reuse
Habitat Management
Recreational Uses
Capital Investments across California Wastewater Agencies All northern CA wastewater facilities have large CIPs
25 EBMUD: $2.8B | 5yrs | Infrastructure
San José/Santa Clara: $1.4/$2.2B | 10/30yrs
San Mateo: $900M | 20yrs | Infrastructure
SFPUC: $5.4B | 10yrs | Infrastructure
Silicon Valley Clean Water: $792M | 15yrs | Infrastructure Sunnyvale: $450-$500M | 15yrs | Infrastructure
1 3
4 2
5 6
1 2
5 4
3 6
Drivers:
1) Aging infrastructure
2) Regulatory
Changes
2013
–
2024 CIP Implementation
27 CIP Expenditures by Fiscal Year
$11
$7
$26
$36
$59
$86
$115
$119
$142
$154
$92
$97
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
Construction
Non-Construction
FTEs
In Millions
Historical View of the RWF’s Five
-
Year CIP
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2010
2015
2020
2024
Construction
Non-Construction
Millions
28 (FY 22-26) includes construction
$ for major projects
Start of first phase of CIP
(FY 15-19)
(FY 18-22) includes
construction $ for major
projects
Program Management Office (PMO)
–
Establishment and Program Validation
MWH (Stantec) awarded the Program Management Office contract in 2013. An initial 8-month startup phase included:
29 Program
Validation
Reviewed and packaged the
100+ projects identified in the
PMP into 33 larger projects
Establishment
Program
Controls
Project Delivery
Model (PDM)
Set-up the
Program Portal
(SharePoint)
Prepared the
Program
Execution Plan
(PEP)
Reporting and
Metrics
Developed the
5-year resource
plan – CIP staff
in 2014
Core Team: Roles & Responsibilities
30 Procurement
Construction Management
Public Works
Program Management
PMP Validation
Program Startup
Program Tools
Staff Augmentation
Technical Experts
Programmatic
Consultants
Overall Program Lead
Package Management
Project Management
Resource Management
Reporting and Controls
O&M Coordination
Budget and Financing
Communications
ESD
Transparency: Reporting, Metrics, Website
31 2013
-
2024 CIP Accomplishments
-
People
32 Transition from
PMO
Year 8
Year 9
Year 11
Program Implementation Years
2013
2022
2016
2019
22%
41%
62%
280%
78%
59%
38%
20%
Today
2013
-
2024 CIP Programmatic Approach
33 Staff Training and Promotion
Deliberate Program Processes
Project Delivery Methodologies
Approved Strategies
Budgeting and Financing
CIP
–
Deliberate Program Processes
34 Staff Training and Promotion
Stage Gates
Decision Logs
Risk Management Matrix
Performance Meetings
Reporting Transparency
Project Delivery Model
CIP
–
Project Delivery Models
35 CIP
–
Alternative Project Delivery
Historically, RWF primarily used design-bid-build
State law changes have facilitated use of
design-build
Desire to use the “right tool for the job:”
Delivery method selection occurs during project
scoping
Consider time/cost savings, size, complexity, and risk 36 Budget
CIP
–
Guiding Principles for Annual Budget Development
37 Rate
Stability
Generational
Equity
Prioritize critical
improvements
Phase and
sequence
work
Refine
project
estimates
and
schedules
38 CIP
–
Cost Control Strategies
Staff Training and Promotion
Project Stage Gates
Third-Party Cost Estimate Reviews
Value Engineering
Monthly Budget Meetings
CIP
–
Funding Strategy: First Ten Years
39 04
Cash
Funding
03 Green
Bonds
(SJ only)
02 Revenue
Notes
(SJ only)
01 State
Revolving
Funds
CIP Snapshot
Capital Improvement Program To Date
41 36 completed
projects
17 ongoing projects
(current, active)
$1.13B expended
since 2014-15
45%
39%
16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
% of gap projects
% of PMP projects to deliver
% of PMP projects delivered
Current % of CIP
Headworks (HW) Purpose:
To protect every downstream process
Wins:
Construction: $140M, 2 years
Replaced an aging and failing HW1
A safer and more efficient work
environment
Delivered on time and on budget –
even through the pandemic!
Applauded by RWF staff as the most
successful CIP Project to date
42 CIP Project Successes
–
New Headworks
More wins!
Industry-wide recognition
Award Winners:
Design Build Institute of America (DBIA)
2 National Awards
Construction Management Association
of America (CMAA)
Local and National Awards
California Water Environment
Association (CWEA)
Local Award, nominated for State
43 CIP Project Successes
–
New Headworks
CIP
–
Learning Opportunities
44 Challenges while Implementing CIP
Difficulties not envisioned in the Plant Master Plan
– Minimizing impact to RWF continuous operation
– Rehabilitating aging infrastructure and continued deterioration of assets – Covid-19 pandemic and consequential supply chain issues – Regional, state, and national level competition for qualified contractors and skilled labor shortages
– Evolvingly stringent and complex environmental regulations – Unprecedented Cost Escalation
Mitigation of Contaminated Material Discoveries
Remediation Crew
PCB’s Remediation
Soils Remediation
Testing
Lead Paint Remediation
46 Finding Solutions to Complex Rehabilitation Work
Top: A rerouting of the Primary Effluent was installed in conjunction with the phasing required to accomplish tank repair for the Digester and Thickener Facilities Upgrades Project and maintain Plant functionality.
Right: Temporary rerouting for Yard Piping Phase II Project to facilitate pipe rehabilitation.
Yard Piping Temporary Reroute
Primary Effluent Rerouting
47 Installation of 96” Raw Sewage Pipe
–
Over 250 utility crossings
48 49
Unprecedented Cost Escalation
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Historical Escalation
Actual Escalation 2013 PMP Assumed Escalation
Challenges while Implementing CIP
Although we've encountered difficulties, we have set ourselves up for success We've built a strong team of qualified professionals
We've built systems for deliberate decision making, to ensure a rational planning process and stakeholder buy-in
We've evolved innovation in procurement and delivery
Regulatory Requirements
-
2024 NPDES Nutrient Limit
RWF Clean Water Act Permits
RWF is subject to multiple
federal (NPDES) Clean Water
Act permits
Regional issue-specific Permits
(nutrients, mercury, PCBs)
Individual NPDES Permit
governs water quality
requirements for the RWF
Each Permit is reissued and
updated on separate 5 year
cycles
52 Regional Nutrient Permit
–
Since 2014
53 SF Bay has much higher nitrogen levels
than other large urban Bays
2/3 of Bay’s nutrients from wastewater
treatment plant discharges
Group Nutrient Permit since 2014
Similar cases in the past - Chesapeake
Bay and Long Island Sound
Nitrogen Permit reissued in 2019 and
2024
Why Nutrients Matter
–
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
54 Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms
Human Health
Exposure can cause
irritation & illness
Animal Impacts
Exposed pets, livestock
& wildlife can die
Environment
Habitat, water quality &
recreation are impacted
Photo by: Darwin
BondGraham
The August 2022 Red Tide
–
Game changing episode
Algae Bloom - Heterosigma akashiwo
– Toxic effects – widespread fish mortality
– Brown or red water
– Fueled by high nitrogen levels in the Bay
55 8/16/2022
Photo Credit: James Ervin
56 Regulatory Consequences of Bloom
$$
Support
Assessment framework and
monitoring
3rd Permit2024
Monitor and Analyze
Nutrient load trends
Pre-bloom
Regional Nutrient Science Program
Load Cap
Shared total to Bay with trading
option
Implement
Actions of offset load increase
+ plan for potential reductions
$$$
Support
Assessment framework and
monitoring
3rd Permit2024
Monitor and Analyze
Nutrient load trends
Post-bloom
Regional Nutrient Science Program
Load Reduction
How much, by when?
Implement
Actions to reduce loads
Reduce
loads by
40%
within 10
years
57 Negotiations with the Water Board
Two dry-season nitrogen limits imposed by regulators:
1. Interim Limit from 2024 – 2034 (current performance).
2. Final Limit from 2035 onward (40% reduction regionally). Active Permit negotiations Jan 2024 – May 2024. Permit adopted July 2024.
RWF limits in first draft
Interim Limit 5,400 kg/day
Final Limit 3,700 kg/day
RWF negotiated limits
Interim Limit 6,400 kg/day
Final Limit 5,000 kg/day
58 How to Comply with New Permit?
Treatment Process Upgrades
Increased Water
Recycling
Nature-based
Solutions
Immediate Steps For Implementation
Evaluate process upgrades required
and identify associated cost and
required schedule – Technical Update to
PMP
Continue engagement in development
of nutrient regulations with Water Board
– No moving target
How to afford this new requirement?
– RWF is in a better position than other agencies
to achieve goals
Explore additional strategies – Nature-
based Solutions, etc.
59 2025 Technical Update
To The Plant Master Plan (PMP)
61 PMP Technical Update
–
Need
Updates were envisioned in the
original PMP
Significant changes since 2013
– asset conditions
– project drivers
– regulations
Large programs require
recalibration
PMP Technical Update
–
Goal
62 Document
Improvements completed in
the past 10 years
Evaluate
Make recommendations
for remaining
improvements at the
RWF for the next 25
years
Recommend
Complete technical
update by spring 2025
October 2024 January 2025 April 2025
1. Revise Guidance for Future Capital Projects
2. Support Development of CIP Funding Strategies
PMP Technical Update – Expected
Outcomes
63 Next Steps for CIP
CIP
–
Building A Roadmap For Success
Complete Master Plan Technical Update
Implement New Regulatory Requirements:
• Manage increased Cost
• Manage extended Program Implementation Schedule
Develop and Adopt New Financing Strategies
Plan both 5 &10 Year CIP
Advocacy
–
How can Council Engage?
Importance of Preserving the Bay while keeping Utility Affordability
Cannot Be Just on Ratepayers – Participation of State and Federal Government
Engage – Help to engage stakeholders to advocate for us – Professional Associations
– Environmental Groups
– Local Community
– Local Governments
66 Land Use Component
2013 Land Use Plan
68 Critical project infrastructure resiliency
project
High-voltage transmission line between
PG&E’s Newark substation and Silicon
Valley Power’s Northern Receiving Station
(NRS) substation (230 kV)
Overhead lines through RWF land and
transitions to underground at Zanker
Potential new Baylands terminal adjacent
to RWF Operational Area
LS Power will construct, own and operate
(on behalf of CAISO)
Tentative construction schedule: June
2026 - October 2028
Next Steps:
– Opportunity to comment on EIR in
Spring 2025
New Tenancies: Power the South Bay Transmission Project 69 Next Steps:
– City staff to approve easement
package
– Appraise easements
Location: Zanker and CA-237
Scope: Construct two data center
buildings (397,205 square feet) and
associated electrical substation
Public Improvements:
– Zanker Road widening to Purification Center
entrance
– McCarthy Access Road Extension
– Signalize intersection at McCarthy/Zanker
– New utility infrastructure w/easements
Focus for RWF:
– Offsite utilities and Valley Water
Purification Project coordination are the
focus for the RWF
– Real estate negotiating fair market value
Target construction start date - June 2025
(estimated to take one year)
Adjacent Uses:
Microsoft Data Center
70 Shoreline Levee Project
Reaches 1 to 3 under construction
and to be finalized in 2025
Insufficient funding for the project
put design of Reaches 4 and 5 on
hold
San José, Santa Clara, and Valley
Water have signed an LOI
LOI will be used to negotiate
binding MOU Real Estate
Services leading negotiations
To be presented to TPAC in 2025
71 USACE, Valley Water and California State
Coastal Conservancy
Agreement Status
Staff Funding Agreement Complete
Amend Existing Agreements:
• Land Lease • In Progress
• O&M
• Integration
• Complete within 6
months
Status of Institutional Arrangements
Current focus is on Phase 1
demonstration facility, which can be
accommodated under existing
agreements for SVAWPC
Full-scale Facility (Phase 2) will require
new agreements and will not impose
additional cost, risk, or liability to the
RWF
New Tenancies: Advanced Water Purification Expansion
72 73
The CIP is an efficient, cost-effective, industry-
recognized program that is delivering critical
projects.
The RWF has sufficient treatment capacity to
support San José’s development.
The RWF continues to consistently deliver high
quality effluent to promote the health of the
Lower South Bay.
Presenting:
• Mariana Chavez-Vazquez – General Manager
• Kapil Verma – Deputy Director, ESD
• Eric Dunlavey – Deputy Director, ESD
• Kevin Ice – Assistant to the City Manager
• Lori Mitchell – Acting Director, ESD
• Jeff Provenzano – Assistant Director, ESD
RWF
–
Closing Thoughts