will digest it, and take the same and boil it and mash it and then eat it and it is easy consume and it is easy to digest, that is basically what the process does, and it pretreats this sludge, so that when it gets to the digester and the bacteria have a very easy time digesting, and it breaks it down, but virtue of the temperature and the pressure at the mow molecule level and it takes fewer bugs and they eat it more completely and we get less bio solid and so it is a pretreatment for the typical digester that makes that job that much easier. it is a technology as a said, that exists in europe and has for ten years and successfully, and we did, do due diligence and go and visit three plants

one in ireland, where it first went in ten years ago when it went in it had the challenges and the company that owns this technology came back in and modified the plant and to the own satisfaction everything from on door control and maintainbility. and we also visited, london's crio plant and manchester's yet's room plant, and the other major thing and then finally we ended the tour, actually going to oslow where this technology exists to meet with the ceo and the chief of this particular technology to go over the company's due diligence, and one of the things that i will say and i was impressed with is that the company has clearly taken its profits and put them back into the research and development and they continue to make the product better and we continue to make it more affordable *fbility to the point that washington, d.c. if we did decide to go with it and it took two years to construct the thp part of their four

billion dollar expansion, at blue plains in washington, d.c., and the technology now that they have advanced to the newer operations are 60 percent smaller and 40 percent more efficient, and they were installed in manchester in three weeks and so they have gone from a two year installation to a three week because they continue to make the product better, smaller and more efficient and more reliable and every operator that we spoke to had nothing but good things to say and they were all completely satisfied that they had made the right decision and talked about taking other plants that they currently had and retrofitting them to this particular technology. and so we feel comfortable moving forward with this, this is an informational presentation, and to let you know that this is the direction that we are going. if we do move continue to move forward in this direction we will continue to have the alternative analysis report by

the end of this year and bring back to you, a report, asking for permission to move forward into the environmental phase and into the conceptual entering phase to move project forward and i would like to commend the staff on the puc side as well as the other side and they have been working on an aggressive and he would and they said that it would take six months longer than where we are today to get to where they are and i challenged them to cut that schedule by six months and they have worked at a very fast, but diligent pace to do so and so we are six months ahead of where we would likely be, if not for all aggressive work by both our staff and the consultant staff. >> and with that, i would like to conclude my presentation. >> commissioners? >> yes. >> commissioner torres. >> the technology that you cited and alternative number for, when you said that the

waste is consumed before it goes into the final drawing. >> yeah. >> is it consumed by what? >> what it is is it is broken down. so it is not consumed but it is by virtue of being introduced to the high pressure and the high steam, the sludge is broken down at a moleculer level and so when it enters into the digester, the bacteria that we typically use for the digestion process has an easier time to consume it. and so that it makes it easier for the digestion process, therefore, making the digestion process more efficient and more effective reducing the over all size of the digestion that we need and reducing the over all product that they have. >> and emissions. >> and emissions yes. >> and the bacteria that is used in this process and that is similar to the bacteria that is used in the oil spilled consumption. >> i do not know sir, i do not

know what is being spilled. >> but the bacteria that we do use, in the digestion process which is a mesofile is a very, standard, type of bacteria that we use in the industry and i have an example and in los angeles and chicago where they use the digestion, they use the same type of bacteria. >> commissioners? >> commissioner vietor? >> so, food waste? >> the... >> does it have the capacity? >> the technology, that we are building has full capacity to handle the food waste and in fact, in oslow in addition to meeting with the company, that owns this technology, we did tour a plant which is a food waste only plant. and it is a plant that was built to take all of the food waste for the entire city of oslow commercial and residential and generates energy, that is then turned into cng and fuels and the

public fleet. food waste, definitely produces a lot more energy, by virtue of the process. and, so there is a lot more positive to it. and our challenge as we look forward is actually to handling of the food waste. you know, again today, the city has a contract with them to actually pick up the food waste, and recology has indicated that they do not have the capacity to segregate the food in the city and so they transport it by truck and they are planning to build a digester in vacaville and to feed the fuel of the truck that are being used to transport. and so we have the capacity, for high strength waste, and if we were to get a full high strength waste, we can certainly process it, but challenges that we see, and that we have seen everywhere

including in oslow is for the high strength waste to be effective it needs to be 100 percent organic and there needs to be a diligent process prelined to be sure that none of the organic processes have been taken out, the most common are forks and knives and plates that have been thrown in on accident. >> and is that different than green waste? which might have even more potential? >> we did not look at green waste, as an option. and none of the plants that we went to, processed green waste. but i can tell you as an example, daily in manchester, one of the telling things from him in speaking to the head of operations there is that they said that they wanted and they used the different terminology, but basically it is class b and class a and they were producing a class a product and brought the process on board to get from class b to class a, but, in doing so, they so much

improved their ability to generate the bio gas and generate the electricity as a by product and they considered that we used to operate like a bio solid plant that had or used to operate a processing plant that produced bio solids and we now operate a power plant that happens to use the solids to generate energy and to the point where they now, and outside of the daily processing, they truck in 30 percent of the bio solids from other facilities just to process for the generate energy. >> that does not include green. >> yeah. >> sorry. and so the waste currently, that we generate, in san francisco, that we would process at the treatment facility, you said that it would be closed loop and so it will be able to sustain itself. >> yeah. >> from the steam. >> and do you know how much currently there will be extra and if it could power the entire facility?

>> or... >> we don't know that yet, but we do not think that there will be enough energy to actually take the facility off of the grid 100 percent. but we are looking at numbers in the neighborhood of 50 percent reduction in the electricity requirement but we have not gotten to that level of analysis, but, on that vein, in that vein, the thp process we are recommending is the one that does generate the most use of energy. >> yeah i would love to learn more about that as you have learned more. >> yes. >> and to hear really what the capacity could be. and wonder if we did add, i don't know what you called it the highway street. >> and the waste to that traoem if there could be some real bump in energy production i think that would be quite interesting. >> yes. and part of the analysis we will do, is characterizing the traditional bio solid that we have and the likely energy output and we can do the analysis with regard to changing the composition and seeing what effect it might have, and we could then apply

the cross benefit analysis to what it will take to segregate out effectively, and bring it in. and we have been having conversations with recology because they are definitely moving forward on their course and the good news being, that under any scenario through our conversations the high strength waste will be converted into either electrical or cng reuse. >> okay. >> one last question. >> and then the end product, it sounds like they will have a high quality, class a product at the end of the day and what is the plan for that? >> we are looking at options, you know, we, it certainly has a land application, and reuse options. and we are looking at whether we simply provide it as a fertilizer for growers primarily in the central valley or if we try to actually have some reuse ourself, we did go

visit the los angeles city operations where they trucked their solids to a land that they purchased outside of bakersfield and they do land application and they do the crop growth for land human consumption and the crops like sf for miol and corn and then sell those crops to the local dary farmers as feed for the cows and so, we can either look at that type of reuse, or urban agriculture, or, traditional fertilizer as well as typical land, and landfill cover. >> when will you have more information on sort of what those options might be? >> we know that all of those options are open to us and right now what we are investigating is the land availability and the consistent user of the salt. >> so it will be in all likelihood, during the cer phase. >> okay. >> in 12 months. >> great.

>> vice president caen? first of all i want to share what a fascinating presentation, really quite something. >> thank you. >> i am sure that this is too soon to ask, but do you have any preliminary comparisons of cost of the four alternatives? >> actually, i any neglected to mention that we looked at at the four value and found a ten percent differential taking all things under consideration and so as an example of the alternative one we had a buy the mechanical dryers and the thermal hydrolysis and surprisingly all four alternatives were within ten percent of each other and so we did not find the construction costs to be a differenter that made it one alternative greater or fallout or we did see the differences in the operating costs and all alternatives were in the neighborhood of over all costs one billion dollars.

>> okay, what did you find that the operating costs. >> we found that in terms of one and two were the most expensive, and number one, with the mechanical drawing, because of the cost of electricity, of learning the mechanical dryers and then two, the staff associated it. and so, as an example, when we did visit williams end in ireland, that it is a very large plant and they actually went two operations at the same time on the plant and one they were on the thermal process that they put in ten years ago and in another area, they continue to run the older process, which was the mechanical drawing and they told us that comparing the two, the mechanical drawing costs 5 times more to operate than the thermal process on their plant. and we did i ran an independent analysis and found the numbers to be accurate from analytical perspective and so the

mechanical drawing very expensive. >> composting was expensive either because of the additional costs associated with buying land and hiring the staff that would simply be responsible for running the comforting operation, or a contracting with the outside agency, for the next 50 years. and being unsure about what those costs could escalate to. over time, with, you know, and our concern is that if we want the composting out, we were stuck with composting and if the composter in 15 years wanted to double the rate, we would have little options at that point to change our technology. >> and so that is the big two big differentiaters. and three slightly more than four because we are running double the digestion by the digesters and the thp process itself is a very automated process and by virtue of the high pressure that it runs on to, and it has got a multiple fail saves in it and it cannot

be operated manually and it must be operated by computer and if any of the fail safes trigger, the computer simply shuts the whole system down and so that someone can come in and manually shut it and it might be a problem and that is particularly important in two areas and if the pressure builds up too high, it can generate an unsafe condition, so it shuts down, but if the pressure drops low, it is likely indicated that there say leak somewhere, and if there is a leak that means to odors are getting out and it will shut down and we will impress that the fail safes that are in the system, and the almost, self-reliability of the system and the other thing was that we did talk to operators who were having this in place for years and they basically have a one week preventive maintenance shut down by line and that is the only, maintenance that they have really needed to do to the system. >> yes? >> i just have a few more minor questions. will we need fewer die guessers?

for the alternative? >> well, with the alternative four, we will need fewer digestion volumes and whether that translates into the fewer digesters of the same size or the same number that are small and her that is a part of the analysis and we now can embark in if we continue down this path and we will need the fewer digestion as a result of having the thermal process and we are estimating one that will be a 30 percent reduction in the digester volume. >> so does our footprint now, allow for these other units? >> yes, if i could get the screen back on the powerpoint? this is the plant, and so, to kind of walk through the whole thing there. there are the small tanks in the center, those tanks are about, 6 foot in diameter and 40 feet high. and those other reacter tanks and the initial tank is the pulper and the final is the

flash tank and so you could easily fit, estimating generally speaking, the entire process in this room. and so, it is significantly smaller than any of the other processes that we have. and either the clarifiers or the digesters or even the head works for that matter,. and so that is how they have gotten the plant to be able to be installed in just the three-week period and they build each of those tanks independently, on skids, and then a skid and then they six skids are on site and once the contractor has built the concrete pad they can bring them on the site and conduct them down and connect them to each other if there is a level block operation and they were able to complete the work, in a three week period. >> well, i look forward to your next presentation. >> thank you. >>

>> so, i am just going to add, you shouted out to the staff and you talked briefly about the fact that we are ahead of schedule, six months, based on what the early, predictions were and i think that a lot of that has to do with your leadership, which is pretty much valuable at this stage of the game but throughout the whole course this is going to change lives and it is going to put a lot of people to work and it is a monday you mental undertaking and i think that i speak for all of us when we say that we are lucky to have you on the case. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> what is next? >> so, next is what we want to bring this to you as an informational item in case you had any grave concerns with this technology. especially since it does not exist in the united states. the next steps is the staff are working to complete what we are calling the aar report. which will then bring to you in december, to get your approval,

to choose this as the preferred alternative to move into the environmental phase, which will allow us to kick off in the environmental phase in january of 2015. and we will do the environmental work with the conceptal engineering work with the goal of completing the environmental, i am sorry i am doing this by memory n 24 months by having the ceo done in 12 months and once we have the conceptual engineering report done at the end of 2006. and at the beginning of 2016 we will move into how we are going to actually deliver the product. and we are at this point, definitely looking at non-traditional delivery, to the city and county of san francisco, as the design bid and build process, where you design it 100 percent and you put it out to build and we will look at an integrated project delivery and we can put out the packages while we are still in the 50 percent design, because we know that we have to build

the foundation and tear down the facility and so it will allow us to move into the construction faster, and allow us then, currently to finish the construction faster, and i will say that we are also, moving forward on the head works because we need to rebuild the head works, which is the facility that brings the sue sewer into the plant itself and does the initial bar screener to take out of the large organics and we will have a challenge ahead of us and we will need to rebuild the plant in the same place while we are in 100 percent operations we cannot go at bay without having full operations and we cannot go abay without making progress in con sfruks and so we are looking at new methodologies to be able to accomplish that because we don't believe that a traditional design will give us that flexibility, we are looking at new things in order to deliver this thing faster.

>> so, could you maybe, give a quick shout out to the team? >> sure, if i could have the team stand up, you know, karin she has bringing you the quarterly reports, tracy is with brown and caldwell and the program manager who is leading the side which is an effort at brown and caldwell and the beach and 20 subconsultants. and chiu is our project manager for the piece, and tracy, to work daily together to move this thing forward and they both have the staff that work for them and as i said we have all been burning the midnight oil. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and, there are women. >> and there are all women. >> thank you. that was a great report. >> commissioners, i will go ahead and call for a public comment? >> unless there is an objection? >> seeing none, is there any public comment on this item again, it is item number 8, we

called it out of order and i have no comment cards, seeing nobody coming forward to speak on the item, public comment is now closed. madam next, item nine. >> item nine is the concept calendar, nine a through e, are listed here to constitute the consent calendar and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission and no separate discussion unless the members suggest or the public suggests and they will be moved as a separate item e >> commissioners would anybody like to remove an item or anyone from the public? please let us know. >> seeing none, i will entertain a motion on the whole >> so moved >> this has been moved. >> and it has been seconded. >> i am going to call on public

comment, on item 9 athrough e. seeing none, public comment is now closed and i will call for a vote. all of those in favor, aye. >> aye. >> and the motion carries and we called number ten, will you call item eleven? >>approve project no. cuw30103 regional groundwater storage and recovery project; adopt the required california environmental quality act findings, including a statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and authorize the general manager to implement the project, and subject to board of supervisors approval where required, including the following. this is the item where there were two resolutions in the packet, the first was correct and just to clarify, on page 5, the third, or it was, or has after section 9.118, the wording, along with the approval of the settlement of

any appeals by this... and based on the terms of the mitigation agreements, and be it. that was the correct resolution, which was the first. >> >> commissioners are you clear on the resolutions? >> no i am not, where are they? >> in the staff report. >> okay. >> there are two resolutions i have replaced the resolution and omitted taking out the second resolution, when the new version went in. and the first one in the packet was the correct. >> okay. >> and the only difference between the two is the wording in the page 5, with the second for the resolved part. >> in the packet. >> in your. >> in the director's desk. >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> so, can we hear from our council? thank you. >> president, and members of the commission, josh, deputy city attorney and i would like to draw your attention and there are a couple in today's

findings in attachment eight of the resolution, and it is a complicated project and it simply reflects what is in the final environmental report, and findings, that were adopted by the city planning commission, last thursday, and the changes are on page 33, and there is the inclusion of the impact chy-2, which is the... >> are you referring to the eir document? >> yes, i am and your findings, and attached as attachment a to the project, incorporate the findings adopted by the city planning and so we are trying to insure the consistency with the final environmental impact report and that is not new information. >> and so the first irata is on page 33, impact, cyh2 and the conclusion there is that mitigation measure, hy 6, reduces the impact to a level

of any significance. and the second, irata is, on the same page, and it is including a note with mitigation measure, hy6 which has to do with the fact that the county has permit authority over replacement wells that might be drilled by irrigater and so this urges the county to cooperate with the city. and the third and final, irata is on page 43, and it is simply, adding a couple of well sites to the impact the cumulative land use,-1 on page 43, so it is adding sites, 11 and 17 to the impact and conclusion that is less than significant with mitigation. >> and the irata has been put on the table over there and made available for your review as well. >> okay. >> yes, commissioner torres? >> yes, so, council, in respect

to the proposal that you have and that we have before us, can you give me some idea of how, are you familiar with the sb11678 by the senator? >> i am not the one that you brought it in on. >> sure, it comes up before the state senator and appropriation's committee tomorrow. and it, it is and it deals with the ground water management on a state wide basis, and how i think that you may have the answer to this, how we as an agency are going to be providing that ground water management, proposal; is that correct?? >> correct. >> all right. >> so, council is not familiar with the bill but you are. >> yes, in fact i have the project manager greg barto here and he knows more specifics in terms of answering a question but in summary this project is compliant as the poe posed bill. >> as amended. >> august sixth. and so would i like to invite greg who is the project manager to come forward. >> absolutely.

okay. >> with respect to 1168 we have been tracking that bill and it is the regional ground out project is designed to be consistent with the intent of that bill, as well as our project that was approved by the commission. and both the south water has the ground water management plan that was adopted. we are working to develop a plan and we kicked that earlier off this year. >> that has been approved by the state water board? >> no, the, the ground water management plans are approved by the local entity. but we would follow the state...

>> the standards. >> yes. right. >> so part of the problem has been and i know that this may not impact us directly yet but perhaps it does incorrectly, but all of the pumping that has been going on in the central valley, and for obvious reasons and, for irrigation purposes. now we have a controversy dealing with some water agencies, santa clara for example, that has an underground aqua fer and may not have access to it and i want to be sure that whatever we approve today, can going to be consistent with what 1168 which was amended on august 6th by the senator will be a consistent pattern for us along with whatever state legislation, the governor seeks to sign it is still a month away, so, a lot of changes can occur. >> right, we have been tracking a bill and we believe that the project is consistent with it, and you are correct commissioner, that the bill is really targeted and the ground

water basin is declining and this project is designed to be sustain able, and actually provide more water under the basin, and both of our projects are intended to be a sustain able project. >> i want to be sure of that. >> thank you. >> commissioner, wade do you have a report for us? >> yes, i do, thank you, president courtney, and commissioners dan, wade, the director and i am very pleased to be here to request your approval of the regional ground water storage and recovery project and we super heard the item and i just wanted to acknowledge mr. barto and the project team many of whom are sitting in audience today who have been working difficult intelligently on the planning and design of this project as well as working up the agreements with the partner agencies for over a decade and so this is a very significant, milestone, for puc and the partner agencies. and so, e