The Willamette River Water Treatment Plant 2015 Master Plan Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
The 2015 Willamette River Water Treatment Plant (WRWTP) Master Plan Update is
presented herein for the Tualatin Valley Water District (District) and the cities of Hillsboro,
Wilsonville, Sherwood, Tigard, and Beaverton (Participants). The Master Plan update
defines the strategy to meet future demands, increase supply resiliency/reliability, and
facilitate responsible growth within the Participants service area boundaries.
The WRWTP was commissioned in 2002 for a treatment capacity of 15 mgd. To
accommodate future drinking water needs of their own, the District invested in the original
construction of the WRWTP, oversizing many of the plant's facilities beyond the original
capacity need to more easily enable future expansion. Initially, both the District and the City
of Wilsonville owned the WRWTP, owning 5 mgd and 10 mgd of the capacity, respectively.
In 2012, the City of Sherwood purchased the District's 5 mgd capacity of the existing water
treatment plant.
The existing property, located in Wilsonville along the Willamette River, is irregularly
shaped, essentially creating two semi-contiguous parcels referred to as the Lower Site and
an Upper Site. During original design, the Lower Site, home to the existing treatment plant,
was planned to facilitate a future expansion of up to 70 mgd. The Upper Site plan was
originally identified for future development in the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant
Master Plan (MWH, 2006). That Master Plan demonstrated enough space for at least
100 mgd in additional capacity at the Upper Site. Combined, both sites have a 170 mgd
potential total capacity.
Since the 2006 Master Plan, several events have occurred that changed planning-level
construction and operational decisions for expanding the WRWTP. These include:
•
In 2012, the District sold 5 mgd of the plant's capacity to the City of Sherwood.
•
In 2013, the District and the City of Hillsboro identified the mid-Willamette supply
alternative as its preferred supplemental supply option, which laid the foundation for
the Willamette Water Supply Program (WWSP).
•
In 2016, the City of Wilsonville led a coalition of utilities that petitioned the Oregon
Health Authority for disinfection credit for intermediate ozonation.
The 2006 WRWTP Master Plan is updated herein to address these changes.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-1
ES.2 MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
GOALS
The 2015 Master Plan Update has the following key planning objectives:
1.
Outline steps needed to expand the existing WRWTP infrastructure to maximize the
return on previous investments.
2.
Optimize process selection and layout to meet capacity and water quality goals at the
expanded WRWTP.
3.
Maintain WWSP stakeholder support to allow completion of the WRWTP expansion
project by 2026.
In addition to these objectives, preliminary levels of service (LOS) goals were used to
establish the preliminary site plans and associated construction and operations cost
estimates.
Municipal utilities in the United States and elsewhere commonly use LOS standards to
evaluate whether the physical system and operations are functioning to an adequate level.
LOS can be defined in terms of the customer’s experience of utility service and/or technical
standards based on professional expertise of utility staff.
LOS standards can help guide investments in maintenance, repair, and replacement; and
for new assets can be used to establish design criteria and prioritize needs. Using a
structured decision process that incorporates LOS can help a utility achieve desired service
outcomes while minimizing life-cycle costs.
The LOS goals are intended to address only the facilities required to operate the expanded
WRWTP and do not apply to facilities outside of the WTP fence line. The goals were
developed with the Participants during a project workshop and are shown in Table ES.1.
Table ES.1
Recommended LOS Goals
Regional Event
(Seismic)
Local Event
(Non-Seismic)
“Following a W catastrophic event …
2,500 year
Per occurrence
…within X days/weeks of the event…
48 hours
14 days
50% of nameplate
capacity
100% of nameplate
capacity
Potable
(at minimum
regulatory
requirement)
Potable
(at plant's intended
treatment processes
and procedures)
LOS Goal
…deliver Y % of average day demand…
…with Z water quality.”
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-2
An example LOS goal from Table ES.1 is that 48 hours after a 2,500-year regional
(seismic) event, 50 percent of the nameplate production capacity will be available with
potable water quality to meet minimum regulatory requirements. Within 14 days after a local
(non-seismic) event, 100 percent of the nameplate production capacity will be available with
potable water quality (at plant's intended treatment processes and procedures).
The costs associated with achieving these LOS goals were developed and confirmed to fall
within the Participant's affordability and risk tolerances. As such, it is recommended these
LOS goals be adopted by the agencies governing boards.
ES.3 CAPACITY EXPANSION AND PHASING STRATEGY
Projected demands were submitted by each agency based on each agency's individual
planning studies. To meet the ultimate combined maximum day demand of all the
Participants of 153 mgd as shown in Figure ES.1, the recommended plant capacity
expansion, and phasing strategy is as follows:
•
Preliminary design of this interim expansion will likely begin in 2018 to bring the plant
capacity of the Lower Site from 15 mgd to between 20 mgd and 24 mgd, contingent
on the treatment procedures adopted for the expansion. The initial capacity at the
Upper Site will be 60 mgd.
•
Total initial plant capacity (utilizing both sites) in 2026 will be between 80 mgd and
84 mgd, depending on the Lower Site's capacity following the proposed 2018 interim
expansion.
•
The plant is assumed to be expanded incrementally to meet the projected demands
at the Upper and Lower Site, while minimizing capital expenditures and the number of
required expansions.
•
Plant expansion at the Upper Site is assumed to occur in 30 mgd increments; the
increments for expansion at the Lower Site will depend on the treatment procedures
adopted for the proposed interim expansion. Likely, they will occur in 7.5 mgd to
10 mgd increments.
•
Capacity expansion projects are assumed to be completed two years before the
capacity is needed to allow flexibility.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-3
WRWTP CAPACITY PROJECTIONS AND
RECOMMENDED EXPANSION PHASING
FIGURE ES.1
WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP 2015 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary/Fig_ES_01
ES.4 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
When the 2006 WRWTP Master Plan was completed (approximately four years after plant
start-up), the City of Wilsonville was the only consumer of WRWTP water. In mid-2012, the
City of Sherwood also started using water from the WRWTP as its primary supply. With
demand from both cities, the plant moved from operating on a daily start/stop basis for 8 to
16 hours per day, depending on demand, to operating 24 hours per day, year-round.
Because hours of operation impact plant operations and the expanded plant will operate
continuously, the plant performance data evaluated for this Master Plan Update was limited
to 2012 through 2014.
Review of the plant performance data demonstrates exceptional operational plant
performance for turbidity removal, disinfection levels, TOC removal, and low disinfection
by-product (DBP) formation potential. The extremely narrow range between the 5 and
95 percentile value for key water quality parameters such as turbidity, pH, and chlorine
residual is a testament to the plant’s robust design and its operators’ attention to continuous
optimal performance.
ES.5 HISTORICAL RAW AND FINISHED WATER QUALITY
Raw water quality data from May 2006 through 2014 was collected, reviewed and
compared to the data collected and presented in the previous Master Plan (2006). The few
contaminants detected in the raw water at trace levels have not been measured in the
finished water.
A review of federal regulations (both currently enforced and under development) and
regional perspective on contaminants of emerging concern was conducted. As a result,
enhancements to the current raw water sampling plan are recommended to gain additional
information and insight as the planning and design of the expanded WRWTP advances
over the next decade. The Participants will need to continue to collaborate on a strategy to
implement this enhanced raw water sampling plan.
The historical finished water quality data confirms that the plant consistently surpasses
existing finished water regulatory requirements. The high-quality source water, coupled with
the robust treatment process result in excellent finished water quality delivered to the
customers. The current treatment steps are expected to continue to meet anticipated future
regulatory requirements with minor modifications to the treatment process procedures.
ES.6 INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY
To help lay the groundwork for future expansion, a topographic survey of the Lower and
Upper Sites was completed. A hydrodynamic model to simulate river hydrology and
operation of the raw water intake was developed. Both the topographic survey and the
hydrodynamic model were based on NAVD88 elevation datum.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-5
The existing infrastructure and Upper site at the WRWTP can support capacity expansion
with varying degrees of constructability impacts. It is unlikely to achieve 153 mgd through
the existing infrastructure, however the WWSP will continue to evaluate and refine the
infrastructure improvements to achieve up to 150 mgd to meet the majority of partner
demands.
ES.6.1 HEC-RAS and CFD Model Results
At the plant's intake, HEC-RAS modeling (computational program based on steady flow,
solving the one-dimensional energy equation) results showed that the existing screens can
be replaced to accommodate 140 mgd without major modifications to the raw water intake
piping and screen protection piers. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling confirmed
that up to 140 mgd of raw water pumping capacity can be accommodated within the existing
RWPS and caisson/wet well through mechanical improvements to meet the Hydraulic
Institute (HI) standards. Additional mechanical or structural improvements may be needed
for flows above 140 mgd to meet HI standards. Physical modeling of the raw water pump
station is recommended to confirm these assessments.
ES.6.2 Electrical Supply and Distribution
To meet the 2026 site capacity of nominally 140 mgd, the plant's electrical supply and
distribution system will need significant upgrades. Preliminary engineering for the Interim
Plant Expansion at the Lower Site, and for the new WTP facilities at the Upper Site, will
require a detailed analysis of electrical supply alternatives, including backup power
requirements.
ES.6.3 Geotechnical and Preliminary Seismic Analyses
Geotechnical and preliminary seismic analyses indicate a strong risk of significant damage
during an earthquake of RM 6.0 or greater, however magnitude alone is not the only
measure of concern as damage is dependent on the location of the epicenter of the
earthquake to the buildings, the type and location (depth) of the fault, the duration of the
ground movement and level of groundwater at the time of the seismic event. This is
especially critical for the facilities closest to the river, due to the potential and extent of the
lateral spreading. Methods for mitigating both lateral spreading and liquefaction induced
settlement are available and discussed in Chapter 5.
ES.7 WTP EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES
Three treatment procedure alternatives were developed to optimize the selected treatment
processes. All three involve expanding the existing WRWTP at the Lower Site and
constructing a new water treatment plant at the Upper Site. These alternatives include:
•
Alternative A: Maintain existing treatment procedures.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-6
•
Alternative B: Up-rate existing treatment procedures, but maintain 1-log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium using ozone.
•
Alternative C: Up-rate existing treatment procedures to meet OHA requirements only.
Three operational strategy alternatives were developed, including:
•
Alternative 1: Two independent operations groups operate two independent water
treatment plants, sharing a single intake and RW pump station.
•
Alternative 2: One operations group operates two independent water treatment plants.
•
Alternative 3: One operations group operates an integrated water treatment plant.
Together, the alternatives provide nine treatment and operational scenarios for further
evaluation. Figure ES.1 shows these nine options and their associated risk levels.
The project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Willamette Governance Group
developed the following seven criteria to evaluate each of the alternatives:
•
Economic Criteria, including life-cycle costs (consisting of a present worth
evaluation of both capital and O&M costs), impacts of implementation schedule,
opportunities for economic competition, flexibility for future expansion and seismic
and geotechnical risks.
•
Operational flexibility, including treatment process basin and equipment
reliability/redundancy.
•
Flexibility to address future regulations, including all categories of contaminants of
emerging concern.
•
Space requirements, including footprint and visual aesthetics.
•
Permitting requirements, including impacts to Arrowhead Creek "impact zone,"
wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive features, stormwater handling, and
land use considerations.
•
Constructability, including construction schedule/duration, truck traffic, temporary
impacts to public, permanent impacts to the public, and staging and storage
opportunities.
•
Community impacts, including short- and long-term implications to the immediate
neighbors, the City of Wilsonville, and the region.
ES.7.1 WTP Expansion Alternative Evaluation
The WRWTP's existing treatment process includes:
•
Flash mixing with pumped diffusion.
•
Ballasted flocculation/clarification (Actiflo®).
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-7
•
Intermediate Ozonation.
•
Filtration with a deep bed of granular activated carbon (GAC) over sand.
•
Disinfection with free chlorine (12-percent sodium hypochlorite).
•
Waste washwater recovery.
•
Mechanical solids dewatering facilities.
In winter, 2016, a Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) of treatment experts convened to evaluate and
confirm the recommended treatment steps in this Master Plan Update. The BRP confirmed
that the WRWTP's current treatment technologies are the most-appropriate for the
expanded WRWTP, with flexibility to add minor modifications, which include:
•
Advanced oxidation using peroxide with ozone (peroxone).
•
UV with peroxide.
•
Enhanced biological filtration.
As seen in Figure ES.2, dedicating space for these steps improves the ability of the future
expanded WRWTP to be able to treat constituents of emerging concern.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-8
PHOSPHATE/NUTRIENTS
FUTURE UV
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
(BALLASTED
FLOCCULATION)
INTERMEDIATE
TREATMENT
(INTERMEDIATE
OZONE)
H2O2
FILTRATION
DISINFECTION
H2O2
LEGEND
Potential Future Enhancements
PLANNING FOR AOP/ENHANCED
BIOFILTRATION IN EXISTING PROCESSES
PROVIDES A MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH
FIGURE ES.2
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP 2015 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
tvwd1216rf2-9865.ai
ES.7.2 Expansion Cost Estimates
The existing WRWTP will require an interim expansion at the Lower Site to meet demands
from Wilsonville and Sherwood before the 2026 WWSP expansion. This will bring the
plant's capacity at the Lower Site to between 20 mgd and 23.8 mgd.
For the alternatives evaluation, it was assumed that the Upper Site would have an initial
capacity of 60 mgd and undergo a series of 30 mgd expansions in 10-year increments to
meet the projected demands while minimizing capital expenditures and the number of
required expansions.
Table ES.2 breaks down the capital costs for 2026, and Table ES.3 summarizes the
estimated operating costs for the first year in 2026. In addition to the costs detailed in the
tables, an estimated $14 million of seismic improvements are required for the existing
facilities to meet the level-of-service goals. The construction cost estimate presented herein
is an American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) Class 4 estimate, which is
considered a concept/feasibility level estimate with approximately 5 percent of the design
defined with an expected accuracy range of +50 percent to -30 percent.
Table ES.2
Estimated 2026 Expansion Capital Costs (2015 dollars)
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt A: Baseline
$194,778,000
$192,350,000
$192,350,000
Alt B: Modified
$186,356,000
$183,928,000
$183,928,000
Alt C: OHA Compliance
$173,366,000
$170,938,000
$115,587,000
Table ES.3
Estimated 2026 (First Year) Operational Costs (2015 dollars)
Alt 1
Lower
Site
(ADD
7.8 mgd)
Upper
Site
(ADD
22.5 mgd)
Alt 2
Lower
Site
(ADD
7.8 mgd)
Upper
Site
(ADD
22.5 mgd)
Alt 3
Lower
Site
(ADD
3.7 mgd)
Upper
Site
(ADD
26.6 mgd)
Alt A:
Baseline
$ 3,065,000
$ 6,390,000 $ 2,091,000 $ 6,311,000
$ 1,100,000 $ 6,999,000
Alt B:
Modified
$ 3,049,000
$ 6,335,000 $ 2,075,000 $ 6,256,000
$ 1,087,000 $ 6,940,000
Alt C:
$ 2,945,000
OHA
Compliance
$ 6,019,000 $ 1,971,000 $ 5,940,000
$ 1,038,000 $ 6,566,000
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-10
Table ES.4 summarizes the 5-year NPV costs, not including the interim expansion costs.
Table ES.4
Summary of 5-year NPV Costs
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt A: Baseline
$820,000,000
$780,000,000
$750,000,000
Alt B: Modified
$810,000,000
$760,000,000
$740,000,000
Alt C: OHA Compliance
$760,000,000
$720,000,000
$760,000,000
ES.7.3 Recommended Alternative
This Master Plan recommends Alternative B as the preferred alternative and recommends
deferring the operational alternative decision for a later date.
Table ES.5 shows some pros and cons of each alternative. As the table shows, Alternative
B balances the importance of high water quality with an affordable plant expansion plan. It
also has a smaller footprint than Alternative A. Furthermore, the treatment procedures for
Alternative B are very similar to the current, highly effective procedures, which may be more
acceptable to the local community.
Table ES.5 Comparing WRWTP Expansion Alternatives
Alternative
Pros
Cons
Alternative A
• Presents the lowest risk
associated with process change.
• Already OHA approved.
• Same treated water goals.
• Facilitates public acceptance
and regulatory approval.
• Largest footprint.
• Largest capital and operational
expenses.
Alternative B
• Increased efficiency.
• Requires pilot testing.
• Increased potential for
challenging raw water quality
event to impact peak capacity.
• Same treated water goals.
Alternative C
• Capital cost and space savings.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
• Requires changes to the
existing treated water goals.
• Increased potential for
challenging raw water quality
event to impact peak capacity.
• Requires pilot testing.
ES-11
Table ES.5 Comparing WRWTP Expansion Alternatives
Alternative
Pros
Cons
Alternative 1
• Autonomy/control of the
Participants supply.
• Simple cost allocation between
Participants.
• Increased capital cost for the
admin building, lab,
maintenance building, etc.
• Increased O&M cost.
• Separate operations staff.
• Additional space requirement.
Alternative 2
• Single operations and
maintenance staff.
• Both plants are operated 24/7 no mothballing.
• Lower O&M costs.
• Less space is required due to
shared facilities.
• Less autonomy.
Alternative 3
• One operations and
maintenance staff.
• Only upper plant operating
eight months of the year.
• Lowest O&M cost.
• Less space is required.
• Annual start-up and shut-down
of the Lower Site.
• New intertie pipeline may be
required.
ES.8 SCHEDULE
Given the project requirements and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) governance of
various contracting delivery methods, a traditional design-bid-build process can meet the
project's needs. Table ES.6 includes the schedule milestones for the first WRWTP
expansion utilizing a design-bid-build delivery method.
Table ES.6
WRWTP Expansion Key Schedule Milestones
Activity
Duration
Start Date
End Date
Update WRWTP Master Plan
22 months
February 2015
December 2016
Permitting
16 months
December 2020
March 2022
Design Procurement
5 months
September 2019
January 2020
Preliminary Design
11 months
February 2020
December 2020
Final Design
14 months
January 2021
February 2022
Bidding and Notice to Proceed
4 months
March 2022
June 2022
Construction - Substantial
Completion
37 months
July 2022
July 2025
Final Completion
3 months
August 2025
October 2025
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-12
To meet the growing water demands from Wilsonville and Sherwood, the existing WRWTP
will first be expanded to a capacity between 20 mgd and 24 mgd. A preliminary and final
design and construction schedule, in order to achieve the additional capacity by 2022, is
summarized in Table ES.7.
Table ES.7
WRWTP Interim Expansion Key Schedule Milestones
Activity
Duration
Start Date
End Date
Preliminary Design
6 months
July 2018
December 2018
Detailed Design
9 months
January 2019
September 2019
Permitting
6 months
July 2019
December 2019
Bidding
3 months
January 2020
March 2020
Construction (Alt A)
24 months
January 2020
December 2021
ES.9 WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECTS
Based on the numerous constraints identified in this Master Plan Update, alternative sites
for the Willamette Water Supply System (WWSS) water treatment plant may be evaluated
via a separate report as part of the on-going WWSP. This additional analysis may lead to
selection of an alternative site north of Wilsonville if compelling advantages are realized.
The next step in the planning process is to complete an alternatives analysis for the WWSS
Treatment Plant site.
In anticipation of this recommendation, and concurrent to this Master Plan Update, the
WWSP has commenced a feasibility study of the Raw Water Facilities (RWF_1.0) project.
This on-going study includes confirming availability of space at the WRWTP site for
additional raw water pumping facilities capable of conveying raw water to an alternative
site, taking into account future plant expansions by the City of Wilsonville, and ability to
maintain operation of the plant during construction to continue to supply water to the Cities
of Wilsonville and Sherwood.
The RWF_1.0 project would expand the existing raw water facilities at the WRWTP with
project elements including addition of pumps, seismic enhancements, surge tanks, standby
power and electrical facilities, and a raw water pipeline to the WWSS treatment plant. To
confirm space availability on the WRWTP site for this new infrastructure, a preliminary site
layout of the RWF_1.0 project was prepared, including an expansion to 60 mgd at the lower
site of the WRWTP. The preliminary layout is presented in Figures ES.3 and ES.4. Due to
the large footprint of the electrical facilities for the RWF_1.0 project, the new raw water
infrastructure was split between the Upper and Lower Site, keeping the variable frequency
drives and associated controls and motor vibration system panels close to the raw water
pumps. New power supply alternatives for the RWF_1.0 project is currently being
developed and coordinated in collaboration with Portland General Electric (PGE).
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-13
Preliminary results of these efforts indicate the RWF_1.0 project is feasible in conjunction
with future plant expansions by the City of Wilsonville.
The alternatives analysis for the WWSS treatment plant site will be finalized in early 2017
and will be included in a separate report. Capital projects and associated feasibility studies,
permitting, preliminary, and final design for the RWF_1.0 project and the "Interim
Expansion" at the Lower Site will continue as planned.
December 2016
pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/OR/TVWD/9865A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Executive Summary\ES
ES-14
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
PROPERTY
LINE
OZONE CONTACTOR
GRAVITY
THICKENERS
LIQUID OXYGEN STORAGE
AND VAPORIZERS
POLYMER AND
CHEMICAL BUILDING
ROADWAY
ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS
ELECTRICAL FACILITIES
DRILLED SHAFT
(TYP)
N
HYDROPNEUMATIC
SURGE TANKS
BALLASTED
FLOCCULATION
REPLACE EXISTING
FISH SCREENS
EXISTING
RAW WATER
INTAKE PIPE
AIR RECEIVER
TANK
FILTERS
EXISTING LOWER SITE
INFRASTRUCTURE
(TYP)
TANGENT PILE WALL
UV AND ELECTRICAL
GEAR
66" RAW WATER
PIPELINE
JET GROUT BLOCK
HYDROPNEUMATIC
SURGE TANKS
EXISTING RAW WATER
PUMP STATION
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS AND POWER
EXISTING INFRASRUCTURE
NEW RWF INFRASTRUCTURE
NEW PAVING
WRWTP EXPANSION TO 60 MGD
scale:
60'
BIOINFILTRATION
FACILITY
60 MGD WRWTP
EXPANSION AND
RWF_1.0 PROJECT
LOWER SITE PLAN
FIGURE ES.3
60 MGD WRWTP EXPANSION
AND RWF
WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP 2015
MASTER
PLAN UPDATE
1.0 PROJECT LOWER SITE PLAN
FIGURE ES.3
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP 2015 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
tvwd1216rf3-9865.ai
N
STANDBY POWER
GENERATORS
AND FUEL TANKS
BIOINFILTRATION
FACILITY
66" RAW WATER
PIPELINE
ELECTRICAL FACILITIES
ACCESS ROAD
AND PARKING
EXISTING INFRASRUCTURE
NEW RWF INFRASTRUCTURE
NEW PAVING
WRWTP EXPANSION TO 60 MGD
scale:
80'
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS AND
POWER
60 MGD WRWTP
EXPANSION AND
RWF_1.0 PROJECT
UPPER SITE PLAN
FIGURE ES.4
60 MGD WRWTP EXPANSION AND RWF
WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP 2015
1.0 PROJECT UPPER SITE
MASTERPLAN
PLAN UPDATE
FIGURE ES.4
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP 2015 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
tvwd1216rf4-9865.ai