City of Nampa Wastewater Program Nampa WWTP Phase II/III Preliminary Design: Design Review Committee #3

November 15, 2018 Agenda

1. Introductions 2. Industrial Capacity Review 3. Energy Recovery/Production Opportunities and Economics 4. Capital Costs Comparison 5. Secondary Treatment Technology Evaluation 6. Tertiary Treatment Technology Evaluation 7. Project Delivery and Package Options 8. Parallel Path Update 9. Next Steps

Design Review Committee #3 2 Design Review Committee #2 Meeting Summary

• Permitting and Regulatory Requirements • Current & Future Flow and Loadings • Cost of Service Review • Overview of Resource Recovery Options

Design Review Committee #3 3 Industrial Capacity Review Design Review Committee Briefing #6 Sources of Current Flow and Loadings

• Domestic Contributions - Domestic flows and loads are generated by the general public (residential and commercial), • Industrial Contributions – The Nampa WWTP receives wastewater from several industrial customers categorized as Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all industrial dischargers use their full flow and capacity allotment established by the City’s Industrial Waste Acceptance (IWA) permits as a conservative approach. • Infiltration and Inflow – Infiltration and inflow flows are a combination of those influenced by irrigation and those influenced by storm events (i.e. non-irrigation). • Future Domestic Contributions – The City has made future capacity commitments to developers through the platting and building permit processes. Until these structures are occupied, this capacity is not realized as influent to the Nampa WWTP but must be accounted for within the allocated flow and loadings. • Vacancy Allowance – The City’s policy has been to assume that an additional 5 percent of the current domestic flow and loadings are allocated to vacant properties.

Design Review Committee #2 5 Current Nampa WWTP Flow and Loadings 100%

16% 18% 90% 23% 29% 80% 39%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Flow BOD TSS TKN TP Domestic Industrial Infiltration and Inflow Future Domestic Contributions Design Review CommitteeVacancy #2 Allowance Unallocated Maximum Month 6 Allocated Capacity & Planning Process

WWTP Capacity = Domestic + Allocated Industrial

Population and water Based on IWA Permit terms usage dependent

• All industrial dischargers are assumed to use their full capacity allocations at all times during the year

• Actual used industrial capacity often is below the allocated portion (recently, 30 – 40% of allocated capacity is actually used)

Design Review Committee #3 7 Allocated vs. Used Capacity

Design Review Committee #3 8 Allocated vs. Used Capacity

Design Review Committee #3 9 Allocated vs. Used Capacity

Design Review Committee #3 10 Allocated vs. Used Capacity

Design Review Committee #3 11 Table 1. Comparison of Allocated and Utility Industrial Capacity Maximum 30-Day Rolling Permitted Maximum Month Percent Utilization of Permitted Year Average Capacity Maximum Month Capacity 2016 2.38 2.82 84% Flow 2017 0.82 2.82 29% (mgd) 2018 0.87 2.82 31% 2016 7,015 20,554 34% BOD 2017 7,531 20,554 37% (ppd) 2018 8,868 20,554 43% 2016 4,192 10,661 39% TSS 2017 3,258 10,661 31% (ppd) 2018 4,278 10,661 40% 2016 1,040 1,940 54% TKN 2017 593 1,940 31% (ppd) 2018 884 1,940 46% 2016 50 350 14% TP 2017 22 350 6% (ppd) 2018 67 350 19%

Design Review Committee #3 12 Factors Leading to Capacity Differential

• Allocated capacity assumes all industrial dischargers are sending full allocation, at the same time • Industrial discharges are often seasonal, below their full allocation, and are not in alignment between industries • Balance between providing certainty (and value) to purchased capacity versus unused capacity

• Simplot retains unused capacity within the system

• The Capacity Optimization Fee (COFee) helped optimize industrial capacity use and allocations • Some industries opted to retain capacity for future growth (and pay the COFee)

Design Review Committee #3 13 Factors Leading to Capacity Discrepancy What if Simplot’s capacity were given back to the City?

Impacts to Capacity Utilization Percent Utilization of Permitted Percent Utilization of Permitted Year Maximum Month Capacity Maximum Month Capacity (including Simplot) (Simplot removed) 2016 84% 109% Flow 2017 29% 37% (mgd) 2018 31% 40% 2016 34% 53% BOD 2017 37% 57% (ppd) 2018 43% 67% 2016 39% 86% TSS 2017 31% 67% (ppd) 2018 40% 88% 2016 54% 79% TKN 2017 31% 45% (ppd) 2018 46% 67% 2016 14% 45% TP 2017 6% 20% (ppd) 2018 19% 61% Design Review Committee #3 14 Design Review Committee Considerations

The Preliminary Design Technical Team will continue to progress with the preliminary design based on the flow and loading projections from the Facility Plan until otherwise directed. This DRC briefing is intended to be informational to the committee as the preliminary design process advances.

Design Review Committee #3 15 Energy Recovery/Production Opportunities and Economics Design Review Committee Briefing #7 Energy Recovery Opportunities Generating Value from Biogas

• Two primary means for generating value from biogas • Sale of renewable natural gas (to pipeline) • Sale of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)

• Value does not come without consequences • Capital and operating costs to make biogas “pipeline quality” • Purchase of natural gas to offset loss in biogas use for in-plant demands

• Early analysis has shown relatively short (~12 year) payback periods for these investments

Design Review Committee #3 18 Value of RINs

• RINs sales account for approximately 8X the value of RNG sales • Preferred approach is sensitive to value of RINS • Current value is approximately $2.50 per Gallon Ethanol Equivalent (GEE)

Design Review Committee #3 19 Recommendation

This briefing is intended to provide an overview of the general economics associated with biogas recovery. If this is a topic that the DRC is interested in pursuing further, the Preliminary Design Technical Team recommends developing an evaluation of potential biogas recovery opportunities and selecting the opportunity that is most favorable economically for the City. These opportunities could include cogeneration, biogas recovery for vehicle fueling, and biogas recovery for pipeline injection. Each of these opportunities would require additional capital costs. The DRC could then elect in the future to recommend pursuing the preferred approach to biogas recovery by increasing the overall Program budget or through cost savings realized on other parts of the project.

Design Review Committee #3 20 Capital Cost Comparison Design Review Committee Briefing #8

Design Review Committee #3 21 Capital Cost Approach

• Developed during the facility planning process • Equipment manufacturers • Local commodity (e.g. chemical) pricing • Local labor prices • Markups capture the fully-loaded cost of a project • Markups nearly double raw costs based on level of estimate

Design Review Committee #3 22 Cost Estimate Limitations

Cost Estimate Classification System Class 4 Class 3 Level of Project Definition 1% to 15% complete 10% to 40% End Usage Concept Study or Feasibility Budget, Authorization, or Control Accuracy Range Low: - 30% Low: - 10% High: + 50% High: + 30%

As applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for Process Industries; adapted from American Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International

Design Review Committee #3 23 Potential Consequences: Cost Estimating Contingency

• Used to account for undefined scope of work, unforeseen conditions, and changing More Contingency Less Contingency economic factors

• These unknown variables cannot be Planning Stage Construction captured in each of the markups (labor, Stage contractor overhead & profit, etc.)

• AACE International specifies 30% as the appropriate level of contingency – this was Contingency reduces with level used in the Facility Plan of Project Definition

Design Review Committee #3 24 Programmatic Contingency

• Contingency Goals: • Provide adequate funding to complete planned work • Account for programmatic risks

• Contingency funds are only used when needed and approved by City leadership

• Current Program Contingency = $19,285,511 (future $)

• Developed using a risk register – considers Process, Regulatory, Repair and Replacement, Construction and Policy risks

Design Review Committee #3 25 Programmatic Contingency

Known Costs (Capital Costs) + Known Unknowns (Cost Estimating Contingency)

Unknown Unknown Costs (Programmatic Contingency)

Total Program Costs Programmatic contingency represents funds that can be used to address potential risks for capital program during design and construction

Design Review Committee #3 26 Impacts of Inflation

• Inflation impacts the overall project cost over time

2017 Program-Level Future Program-Level Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: $150.1 M $213.1 M

Inflation Cost Impact = $59.4 M 44% Increase in Program-Level Cost

Design Review Committee #3 27 Secondary Treatment Process Evaluation Overview of Options for Secondary Treatment Secondary Treatment Alternatives

• BCE Alternatives: • Alternative 1: Base Case (Expand Existing) • Alternative 2: Secondary Nitrification and Denitrification • Alternative 3: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) • Alternative 4: BioMag • Alternative 5:

Design Review Committee #3 29 Alternative 1: Expand Existing Process Alternative 1: Expand Existing Process

4th Aeration Basin Alternative 2: Alternate process configuration SND Alternative 2: Alternate process configuration SND Update diffusers and mixing in all 4th Aeration Basin existing ABs. No Blower Bldg.

5th Aeration Basin Alternative 3: MBR intensification Alternative 2: MBR intensification

Retain and upsize blower building

No 4th AB

3rd tank for redundancy Upgrade all internals (diffusers, walls, etc.) New membrane tanks and equipment building

No tertiary treatment system Alternative 4: BioMag™ intensification Alternative 4: BioMag™ intensification

Retain and upsize blower building

No 4th AB

3rd tank for redundancy Upgrade all internals New magnetite (diffusers, makeup and mixers, etc.) recovery facility Recommendation

Table 1. Secondary Treatment Approach BCE Total Net Present Value Summary1,2 Alternative Capital Benefits O&M Risks R&R NPV Alternative 1: Expand Existing $81,986,000 $22,082,000 $1,067,000 $43,020,000 ($159,423,000) Alternative 2: SND $88,042,000 $593,000 $20,150,000 $2,267,000 $43,370,000 ($165,013,000) Alternative 3: MBR $98,680,000 $26,874,000 $2,140,000 $60,345,000 ($202,727,000) Alternative 4: BioMag $91,964,000 $30,584,000 $1,475,000 $58,080,000 ($196,048,000) The Preliminary Design Technical Team recommends moving forward with Alternative 1—Expand Existing. This alternative has the lowest capital cost and net present value under the range of inputs considered. This recommendation is consistent with the assumptions from the Facility Plan, so the overall capital allocations for the Phase II/III Upgrades is unchanged because of this decision.

Design Review Committee #3 38 Tertiary Treatment Technology Evaluation Overview of Options for Tertiary Technologies Tertiary Filtration Overview

Drivers: • Achieve effluent TP limit of 0.1 mg/L • Produce Class A reclaimed water for irrigation and industrial reuse (per Idaho Recycled Water Rules [IDAPA 58.01.17]) Idaho Recycled Water Rules: • Filtration technology must be approved and listed in State of California Treatment Technology Report for Recycled Water (Title 22 accepted)

Design Review Committee #3 40 Possible Filtration Alternatives

• Membrane Filters (Base Case assumption in Facility Plan) • Downflow Sand Filters • Upflow Sand Filters Ultrafiltration membranes (Image courtesy • Cloth Disk Filters of GE) • Ballasted Clarification (fatally flawed) • Compressible Media Filters (fatally flawed)

Downflow Filters (Courtesy of WesTech

Design Review Committee #3 41 Membrane Filtration

Technology Overview Membrane filters use a porous material (membrane) to remove particles from water. The pore size of the membrane can vary depending on the application, but typically range from 0.1 – 10 µm for microfiltration applications. Membrane filters are susceptible to losing performance over time due to fouling and, therefore, require periodic cleaning and replacement. Membrane Filtration Downflow Sand Filters

Technology Overview Sand filters are a simple, low maintenance technology that has been used in water and wastewater treatment for a number of years. Water is passed through a granular media bed, with pore sizes typically less than 1 µm, to remove solids. The media in the sand filters can be arranged in multiple configurations with mono, dual, and triple media configurations being the most common. Sand filters do require backwashing to maintain head loss and effluent water quality, but the backwashing is less frequent than for membrane filters. Sand Filters

Filtration Mechanisms Different Media Configurations Upflow Sand Filters

Technology Overview Consistent with their name, upflow continuous backwash filters use a mono- media bed, typically sand, to filter solids in an upflow configuration. Due to their configuration, the backwash and filtration cycles can occur simultaneously, which allows for a high level of backwash. Upflow continuous backwash filters use compressed air to lift dirty media (i.e. sand) from the bottom of the filter to the sand washer at the top of the filter

Courtesy of Parkson Cloth Filters

Technology Overview Cloth filters utilize random weave cloth fabric as a filter media. Typical pore sizes for this type of filter are 10 – 30 µm. Cloth filters are designed in two primary configurations, partial submergence and full submergence. The partial submergence variety have disks that slowly rotate and the unsubmerged portion is backwashed. The full submergence type have stationary disks, but require intermittent backwash. Courtesy of Aqua-Aerobics Cloth Filters

Courtesy of Aqua-Aerobics Courtesy of Aqua-Aerobics Benefits from Accelerating Recycled Water Program

2020 2026 2031 Winter Discharge Indian Creek TP = 0.35 mg/L Summer Discharge Summer Discharge Indian Creek Indian Creek Summer Discharge TP = 0.5 mg/L TP = 0.1 mg/L Phyllis Canal TP = 0.35 mg/L Winter Discharge Winter Discharge Indian Creek Indian Creek TP = 1.5 mg/L TP = 0.35 mg/L Summer design condition between 2026 and 2031 will control filter selection

Design Review Committee #3 49 Benefits from Accelerating Recycled Water Program

2020 2026 2031 Winter Discharge Indian Creek TP = 0.35 mg/L Summer Discharge Indian Creek Summer Discharge TP = 0.5 mg/L Phyllis Canal TP = 0.35 mg/L Winter Discharge Indian Creek TP = 1.5 mg/L Early discharge to Phyllis Canal results less stringent TP requirements for tertiary filters

Design Review Committee #3 50 Project Delivery and Package Options Objective-Based Delivery Method Selection Approach

1 Eliminate and Elevate Options Program-Wide PRIORITIES ▪ Identify ▪ Rank 2 Recommend Preferred Option(s) Project-Specific ▪ Assess RISKS ▪ Define ▪ Quantify 3 Market-Focused Final Customized Option(s) ▪ Assign VALIDATION ▪ Communicate ▪ Listen Program/Project ▪ Refine NEXT STEPS ▪ Procurement Plan(s) ▪ Scope Definition ▪ Selection Criteria Procurement Process “To Do” List: Key Packaging and Delivery Task

• Narrow down the delivery method choices • Compare benefits of the best options: • Program/Project Priorities • Balance of risk and performance requirements • Price certainty and timing • Inform the market and test the approach • Finalize packaging and procurement plan

Attribution: Portions Copyright 2018 Water Design-Build Council Brown and Caldwell 53 Spectrum of Collaborative Project Delivery Options

Traditional – Collaborative – Design-Build – DBO – P3 • Design-Build-Operate and P3 generally not appropriate at an existing, operating facility with current O&M staff in place

• Other delivery methods have advantages and disadvantages

(not contractual, but required critical interaction)

54 Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC)

• Similar to traditional delivery, Separate contracts with a Designer but can be faster and a Construction Manager, but • Allows traditional selection of working together. Consulting Engineer • Design-build “lite” – The design is performed with an “arranged marriage” in parallel with the construction • Two contracts with Owner planning and estimating. • Design and construction pricing in parallel Construction can start after • Familiar “cast” of participants mutual agreement on price.

Price agreement Design engineer prior to construction selected traditionally

CMAR selected on quals and fee% 55 A single entity or purpose- Progressive Design-Build (PDB) built team to deliver both Design and Construction via a single contract. • Concurrent activities reduce schedule – construction can start before design is complete Design detail and • Selection based on quals and fee, construction estimate is not a fixed price developed progressively. • “Design to budget” via design and estimate iteration Construction starts after • GMP, Lump Sum, and Shared Savings options mutual agreement on price. • Hard-bid “off-ramp” if construction pricing not acceptable

Based on collaboratively developed scope and design

Defines quals criteria; short listsSelection qualified based firms on qualifications and fee %

56 Progressive Design-Build • Best when Owner wants design input • Provides price certainty at Offers flexibility and Owner and “design to budget” mid- to late stage of design Design-build model that supports owner control GMP determined at 60+% design; “off- input, with final cost of design, yet shifts performance guarantee to ramp” provided if GMP agreement not determined during design. others reached Open Book, Fully Transparent Estimate and Spend Design-Change Tracking = Scope Management Collaborative Budget Decisions Immediate Estimate Revision

Market-Based Pricing Guaranteed Maximum Price = (Bid the Work) Underrun to Owner/Overrun to Contractor No Change Orders (Except by Owner) 0% -30% Design 60% Design/GMP 100% Design Owner’s Budget GMP Contingency

Estimate Proposal Detailed Design Construction Award Fixed Price Design-Build (FPDB) A single entity or purpose- • Multiple variations - built team to deliver both two-phase selection is common Design and Construction • Lengthy procurement process, via a single contract. reduced delivery time • The Proposal is essentially a Design detail and “Design Competition” construction estimate • May use performance-based provided as part of a criteria or prescriptive criteria fixed-price proposal. – or usually a balance of both • Construction price fixed at selection Construction can start quickly after selection.

Performance-based and Prescriptive Criteria

Short list based on capability, Selection based on “best capacity, experience, value” (technical + price) references 58 Fixed Price Design-Build Fixed, lump sum price and performance • Best when Owner is looking for • Lump sum bid can limit owner guarantee, but limited post-award innovative, turn-key solution input and flexibility Design-competition model that flexibility and owner input. Owner-changes open the door for rewards performance-based solution re-pricing or diluting guarantees

Proprietary, Closed-Book Estimate and Spend

Develop Internal Design-Change Tracking = Scope Management Design and Owner Changes = Price Adjustment Lump Sum Bid Lump Sum Price = Underrun/Overrun goes to Design-Builder No Change Orders (Except by Owner)

30% Design (typical) 60%-90% Design

Owner’s Budget Bid Contingency

Estimate Proposal Complete the Design Construction Award Performance-based and Prescriptive Criteria Performance Prescriptive

“This is how it must perform” “This is exactly what I want”

The Owner Defines: The Owner Requires: • Treatment process inputs/outputs • Specific treatment process • Site boundaries and constraints • Acceptable site layout • Facility functional standards • Detailed facility configuration • Equipment performance schedule • Specific types of equipment • Acceptable materials standards • Schedule of acceptable materials

Procurement Emphasizes: Procurement Emphasizes: • Clarification of Owner’s intent • Documentation of Owner’s • Confirmation that required requirements standards will be reliably met • Validation of conformance

Evaluation Promotes: Evaluation Promotes: • Innovation to increase value • Lowest conforming price • Balance between price and • Incremental improvements to robustness of design approach owner’s required design

Design-Builder Commits to: Design-Builder Commits to: • Applicability and feasibility of • Applicability and effectiveness of required standards the Owner’s requirements

60 Performance-based and Prescriptive Criteria Performance Hybrid Prescriptive

“This is how it must perform” “This how it must perform, “This is exactly what I want” with some specific preferences” The Owner Defines: The Owner Requires: The Owner Specifies: • Treatment process inputs/outputs • Specific treatment process • Site boundaries and constraints • Process parameters and specific • Acceptable site layout • Facility functional standards constraints or requirements • Detailed facility configuration • Equipment performance schedule • Site boundaries minimum • Specific types of equipment • Acceptable materials standards functional restrictions • Schedule of acceptable materials • Required equipment and materials Procurement Emphasizes: by exception only Procurement Emphasizes: • Clarification of Owner’s intent Procurement Emphasizes: • Documentation of Owner’s • Confirmation that required • Understanding of Owner’s intent requirements standards will be reliably met and basis of specific requirements • Validation of conformance • Evaluation Promotes: Confirmation of overall approach Evaluation Promotes: and validation of conformance • Innovation to increase value where applicable • Lowest conforming price • Balance between price and • Incremental improvements to robustness of design approach Evaluation Promotes: owner’s required design • Innovation to increase value Design-Builder Commits to: Design-Builder Commits to: • Balance between price and • Applicability and feasibility of robustness and conformance • Applicability and effectiveness of required standards of design approach the Owner’s requirements 61 Performance-based and Prescriptive Criteria Performance Hybrid Prescriptive

“This is how it must perform” “This how it must perform, “This is exactly what I want” with some specific preferences” The RFP Defines: • Process parameters and specific Best Practice: constraints or requirements Best Practice: Constrain potential solutions • Site boundaries minimum Define prescriptive only as necessary to maintain functional restrictions requirements by exception only required standardization or to • Required equipment and materials when clearly needed to by exception only eliminate risky, totally maintain compatibility, unproven technologies. Proposal Process Emphasizes: integrate with existing systems, • Understanding of Owner’s intent or avoid known, documented and basis of specific requirements risks. • Confirmation of overall approach and validation of conformance where applicable Evaluation Method Promotes: • Innovation to increase value Design-Builder Commits to: Design-Builder Commits to: • Balance between price and • Applicability and feasibility of robustness and conformance • Applicability and effectiveness of required standards of design approach the Owner’s requirements 62 Design-Build Fundamental Shift in Risk Allocation Traditional Risk Allocation Performance-Based Risk Allocation

Professional Services Construction Single Entity or Consortium “Design” “Bid” “Build” “Design-Build” Scope Planning, consulting, Scope Equipment, materials, Scope A turnkey project, inclusive of design, engineering, design, construction, startup, and all scope from design through services during construction. construction warranty. construction, and sometimes short- or long-term O&M. $$ Typically sold as $$ Typically bid as a billable hours. fixed price. $$ Proposed fee on actual cost (Progressive) delivered on a GMP or Risk Standard of care, Risk Conformance with as- lump sum basis; or a fixed price. competence is assumed, but bid documents, verified by a responsibility for total installed third-party, independently Risk Commitment to performance cost and performance ultimately tested where appropriate, and within a contractually defined set of transferred to the Owner. managed through a quality input and output parameters. compliance mechanism. Defined Deliverables Defined Project Performance Parallel Path Update Future Agenda Topics

Design Review Committee #3 65 Design Review Committee #4 Agenda Topics

1. Project Delivery Feedback Session 2. Project Packaging 3. Tertiary Treatment Decisions 4. Struvite Mitigation/Recovery Options 5. Blowers Approach

Design Review Committee #3 66 THANK YOU!

Design Review Committee #3 67