1 / 31

Incremental Recycled Water Program

Incremental Recycled Water Program. Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System Scoping Meeting July 31, 2002. Introduction. Purpose of Meeting Meeting agenda Introduction – Ed Brauner, Deputy City Manager CEQA Overview – Pat Collins, EIR Manager

alika-dyer
Download Presentation

Incremental Recycled Water Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Incremental Recycled Water Program Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System Scoping Meeting July 31, 2002

  2. Introduction • 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

  3. CEQA 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

  4. Incremental Program Schedule 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Feasibility Eval. Public Involve. Tech Studies CEQA Design Permitting Construction/Ops Discharge Permit Re-Issuance

  5. Near-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

  6. Purpose 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

  7. Public 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

  8. Program Overview • Why is the Program needed? • What are the possible solutions?

  9. 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

  10. California 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

  11. General Plans and Future Flow General Plan Flow Disposal/Reuse July ’02 + 4.6 mgd + ????? + 3.3 mgd + Geysers - Irrigation - Discharge Apr ’94 IrrigationDischarge Pre-’94 18 mgd Total=25.9 million gallons per day

  12. IRWP 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

  13. How Much Water Needs to Handled? a BG/Yr = billion gallons per year

  14. Laguna Plant Expansion Indoor Water Conservation Inflow & Infiltration Reduction Urban Reuse Agricultural Reuse Industrial Reuse Geysers Expansion Additional Treatment & Reuse Discharge What are the Possible Solutions?

  15. Possible Location for IRWP Alternatives

  16. Alternatives - 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

  17. Alternatives – Indoor Water Conservation • Implementation beyond current programs • Santa Rosa – sustain existing program • Others cities – additional effort • Different program for each Subregional partner

  18. Alternatives – 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

  19. Alternatives – 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

  20. Alternatives - 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

  21. Urban Reuse – Possible Surface Storage Area

  22. Urban 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

  23. Alternatives – 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

  24. Alternatives – Industrial Reuse • Gravel processing • Typical facility “uses” 0.2 BG/yr • Cost $3k/MG or more depending on distance from Geysers Pipeline

  25. Alternatives – 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

  26. Alternatives – 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

  27. Alternatives – 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

  28. Alternatives – 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.

  29. Selected Example Combinations of Alternatives

  30. Scoping Comments • The most useful comments are: • Suggest alternatives to be included in the EIR • Identify specific issues to be analyzed in the EIR

  31. Public 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

More Related