Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Biosolids Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC presents two options for new biosolids digester; Pier 94 would cost roughly double Southeast expansion
Summary
SFPUC staff told the Port Commission they have narrowed siting for a new biosolids digester to the Southeast Treatment Plant expansion or the Pier 94 Backlands; costs are estimated at about $900 million adjacent to Southeast and roughly twice that at Pier 94, and environmental review could take about four years.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff told the Port Commission the city is in early planning for a new biosolids digester facility and has narrowed candidate sites to two: an expansion/upgrade adjacent to the existing Southeast Treatment Plant or a new facility on the Pier 94 Backlands.
Karen Kubik, director of wastewater capital program for the SFPUC, said the digester project requires roughly 12 to 15 contiguous acres, modern pasteurization and drying facilities, and could produce a bioenergy byproduct. "We're in the early planning stages," Kubik said, noting the current digesters date to mid-20th-century technology and that odours and structural integrity are concerns.
SFPUC staff estimated the cost of building a new facility adjacent to the Southeast Plant at about $900 million; relocating the facility to Pier 94 would raise costs to about twice that figure because of soil conditions, infrastructure and distance from current operations. Kubik said Pier 94 offers room for additional bioenergy and drying facilities but presents state lands trust constraints and would require land-use concurrence with the Port Commission.
Brad Benson, Port special projects manager, said the two agencies will continue joint planning and meet to develop a shared analysis. "If the PUC were to recommend selecting the Pier 94 site, there would need to be concurrence by the Port Commission," Benson said, adding that any public presentation would include information on tenant impacts and leases.
Commissioners and members of the public pressed SFPUC on task-force composition, criteria for dropping other sites, the reuse potential for biosolids locally, and the timeline for environmental review. Kubik said the PUC had reviewed 17 sites and used criteria such as size, soil condition and adjacency, and that environmental review for a selected site would likely take about four years.
SFPUC said it anticipates developing a white paper and selecting consultants for design and environmental review; staff committed to additional briefings and a technical memo for the Port Commission before any land-use recommendation.
No decision was made at the meeting; SFPUC and port staff said they will continue analysis and public engagement before any formal land-use concurrence or environmental review begins.
