Upload
katelin-coram
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
Incremental Recycled Water Program
Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System
Scoping Meeting
July 31, 2002
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
2
IntroductionIntroduction
Purpose of Meeting Meeting agenda
Introduction – Ed Brauner, Deputy City Manager
CEQA Overview – Pat Collins, EIR Manager
Description of Program – David Smith, Ph.D., Program Manager
Public comments Purpose of Incremental Recycled Water
Program
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
3
CEQA OverviewCEQA Overview
City has decided to prepare a Program EIR
Not as detailed as a Project EIR Allows for broad policy considerations,
program-wide mitigation measures Subsequent CEQA documents for specific
projects
No preferred alternative – all alternatives will be evaluated equally
Issued a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study to agencies on July 16th
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
4
Incremental Program ScheduleIncremental Program Schedule
Feasibility Eval.
Public Involve.
Tech Studies
CEQA
Design
Permitting
Construction/Ops
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Discharge Permit Re-Issuance
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
5
Near-Term IRWP Public Involvement OpportunitiesNear-Term IRWP Public Involvement Opportunities
EIR Scoping Comment period ends August 14
Screening of Alternatives to be Studied in the EIR
Screening criteria discussed Aug 1st at BPU; Aug 6th at Council
Screening on Sep 19th at BPU; Sep 24th at Council
Draft EIR public review Spring ‘03
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
6
Purpose of ScopingPurpose of Scoping
Inform agencies and the public about the project
Identify the range of alternatives Identify specific issues to be analyzed in
depth Understand various points of view about
the IRWP so the EIR can respond
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
7
Public CommentsPublic Comments
Written comments Mailed or faxed to Santa Rosa City
Manager’s Office Hand in Comment Form tonight Deadline is August 14, 2002
Oral comments
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
8
Program OverviewProgram Overview
Why is the Program needed? What are the possible solutions?
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
9
Why the Incremental Recycled Water Program?Why the Incremental Recycled Water Program?
Geysers Recharge Project General Plans as of 1994 (21.3 mgd) Meets capacity needs through 2010 11 mgd (9 – 12 mgd) for entire project
IRWP Meet capacity needs beyond 2010 General plans changed to allow 25.9 mgd California Toxics Rule imposed in 2000
New limits on effluent quality New solutions needed to comply
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
10
California Toxics Rule – Constituents of ConcernCalifornia Toxics Rule – Constituents of Concern
Copper – pipe corrosion, difficult to remove
Lead – pipe corrosion
Cyanide – treatment byproduct
Aldrin - pesticide
alpha-BHC - pesticide
gamma-BHC (lindane – head lice control)
beta-Endosulfan - pesticide
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
11
General Plans and Future FlowGeneral Plans and Future Flow
Pre-’94 18 mgd
Apr ’94 + 3.3 mgd
July ’02
General Plan Flow Disposal/Reuse
IrrigationDischarge
+ Geysers - Irrigation - Discharge
+ ?????+ 4.6 mgd
Total=25.9 million gallons per day
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
12
IRWP Purpose and NeedIRWP Purpose and Need
Three Primary Project Objectives Provide treatment, reuse and disposal
for planned population Protect public health and natural
resources, esp. River and tributaries Economically feasible
Supporting Objectives Maximize reuse Potable supply benefits Environmental protection Maximize use of existing infrastructure Manageable and reliable system
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
13
How Much Water Needs to Handled?How Much Water Needs to Handled?
Year Type
Recycled Water
Production(BG/yr)
Reuse and Disposal (BG/Yr)a
Geysers at 11 mgd
Existing Irrigation
Needs to be
Managed
Dry 9.8 4 2.1 3.7Normal 10.5 4 2.1 4.4
Wet 12.3 4 1.9 6.4
a BG/Yr = billion gallons per year
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
14
What are the Possible Solutions?What are the Possible Solutions?
Laguna Plant Expansion
Indoor Water Conservation
Inflow & Infiltration Reduction
Urban Reuse Agricultural Reuse
Industrial Reuse Geysers Expansion Additional Treatment
& Reuse Discharge
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
15
Possible Location for IRWP AlternativesPossible Location for IRWP Alternatives
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
16
Alternatives - Laguna Plant ExpansionAlternatives - Laguna Plant Expansion
Increase treatment capacity from 21.3 to 25.9 mgd
Common to all reuse and disposal alternatives
All needed facilities expected to fit within existing site
Cost $40 - $158 million Filtration requirements may change
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
17
Alternatives – Indoor Water ConservationAlternatives – Indoor Water Conservation
Implementation beyond current programs
Santa Rosa – sustain existing program Others cities – additional effort
Different program for each Subregional partner
Flow Reduction
(mgd)
Flow Reduction
(BG/yr)
Cost ($million,
Cap/O&M)
Program thru 2000
1.54 0.56 -
IRWP 0.73 0.26 3.1/1
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
18
Alternatives – Inflow & Infiltration ReductionAlternatives – Inflow & Infiltration Reduction Rehabilitation of sewers to reduce I&I volume
Annual I&I volume
0 - >3 BG/Yr
Priority areas
Crosstown area, such as Montgomery Village
Oldtown area, such as hospital, cemetery, Town and Country areas
Wide range of implementation level possible – up to $600 million for 70% reduction
Appropriate level defined by avoided costs
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
19
Alternatives – Urban ReuseAlternatives – Urban Reuse
Construct up to 75-mile distribution network 1 main pump station, up to 6 booster pumps stas.
Parcels greater than about 1 acre Maximum project
Irrigation System Cost - $112 million, $57k/MG
Existing City water users 0.7 BG/Yr
Existing other users 0.6
Future users 0.7
Total 2.0 BG/Yr
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
20
Alternatives - StorageAlternatives - Storage
Needed for several alternatives Surface
Santa Rosa Plain East of Rohnert Park North County
Subsurface Santa Rosa Plain Potential water quality benefits
Storage cost – up to $70 million
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
21
Urban Reuse – Possible Surface Storage AreaUrban Reuse – Possible Surface Storage Area
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
22
Urban Reuse – Possible Subsurface Storage AreaUrban Reuse – Possible Subsurface Storage Area
Favorable Area for Groundwater Injection and Extraction
2 BG storage needed
1 well field with 14 injection/ extraction wells stores 1 BG
Well field is approximately 3,000 feet wide and 9,000 feet long
Treatment benefit
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
23
Alternatives – Agricultural IrrigationAlternatives – Agricultural Irrigation
East of Rohnert Park 1.2 BG potential demand Storage - 0.5 BG Conveyance
North County 5 subareas 10.3 BG potential demand; 4.3 BG reliable
supply Storage - 1.8 BG Conveyance
$19.2k/MG
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
24
Alternatives – Industrial ReuseAlternatives – Industrial Reuse
Gravel processing Typical facility “uses” 0.2 BG/yr Cost $3k/MG or more depending on
distance from Geysers Pipeline
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
25
Alternatives – Geysers Pipeline Capacity IncreaseAlternatives – Geysers Pipeline Capacity Increase
Installed system To AV: 48-inch, 40 mgd AV to Geysers: 30-inch, 16 mgd
Expansion potential 48-inch: from 40 to 81 mgd
Convey peak flows to indirect discharge, additional storage or reuse – CTR compliance
Add 2 PS between Plant and AV - $30 million
30-inch: from 16 to 27 mgd Increase steamfield injection
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
26
Alternatives – Geysers ExpansionAlternatives – Geysers Expansion
Current project = 11 mgd, 4 BG/yr Expansion
From 11 to 21 mgd, 2.9 BG/yr Pipeline: $0.3 capital, $2.3 million O&M Steamfield: $32 milliona cap, $1.3 milliona O&M
From 11 to 27 mgd, 4.6 BG/Yr Pipeline: $42 million capital, $7.7 million O&M Steamfield: $62 milliona cap, $2.6 milliona O&M
Maximizes use of existing facilities
a Calpine’s estimate
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
27
Alternatives – Additional Treatment & ReuseAlternatives – Additional Treatment & Reuse
Up to 126 pollutants could be regulated CTR compliance strategies:
Avoid direct discharge or Improve effluent quality to comply
Effluent quality improvement strategies Source control – not sufficient Treatment – Reverse osmosis - up to $212 million
RO water suitable for Discharge to the Russian River - $1 million Groundwater injection – cost not yet estimated Augmentation of Lake Sonoma - up to $60 million
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
28
Alternatives – Indirect DischargeAlternatives – Indirect Discharge
Discharge to River via soil and groundwater
Percolation ponds Infiltration basins (gravel pits) Groundwater injection
Locations adjacent to River Cost
Greater than $10 million for conveyance and site improvements
Land cost not yet estimated.
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
29
Selected Example Combinations of AlternativesSelected Example Combinations of Alternatives
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
30
Scoping CommentsScoping Comments
The most useful comments are:Suggest alternatives to be included in
the EIR Identify specific issues to be analyzed
in the EIR
IncrementalRecycled
WaterProgram
31
Public CommentsPublic Comments
Written comments Hand in Comment Form tonight Mailed or faxed to Santa Rosa City
Manager’s Office Deadline is August 14, 2002
Public comments