Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

Document Sample
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary Powered By Docstoc
					Long-Term Wastewater
     Management Plan
   Executive Summary
             January 2006
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                 Executive Summary

Executive Summary
The major findings, alternative analysis results, and recommendations of the Long-term Wastewater
Management Plan are described below. Figure ES-1 shows the WWTP locations and major existing
                                Figure ES-1: Major Existing Facilities

                 RM I

                                                                                               RM II

A water balance analysis indicated that disposal capacity will need to be increased in the future to meet
needs and decreasing percolation rates. Annual disposal capacity will need to increase by approximately
264 AF to accommodate future development and disposal needs at buildout.
Immediate disposal capacity upgrades were needed as disposal capacity for Ridgemark (RM) I had
diminished significantly. However, maintenance completed in August through October 2005 on disposal

January 2006                                                                                           i
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                  Executive Summary

Pond 4 and 3 at RM I increased disposal capacity in the interim. Therefore, an immediate-term (1-year
timeframe) disposal project is not required.
Regulatory requirements for the SSCWD WWTPs are defined in the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Order No. R3-2004-0065 (December 3, 2004).
SSCWD’s new WDR permit includes more stringent waste quality requirements for nitrogen, TDS,
chloride, sodium, and other constituents. A new treatment process will need to be implemented to
address ammonia, nitrate, total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), sodium,
chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS).
High salinity and high hardness potable water supply is the primary culprit for high salinity wastewater.
Wastewater salinity is exacerbated by residential water softeners. A potable water supply improvement
with water softener reduction would address the wastewater salinity regulations.
Alternative Development
Five treatment alternatives were developed to a concept level and subsequently analyzed for costs and
benefits. The five treatment alternatives are:
    •   Alternative T1 – Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Treatment Plant
    •   Alternative T2 – Modify Existing Treatment Ponds to Operate as an SBR
    •   Alternative T3 – Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Plant
    •   Alternative T4 – Membrane Bioreactor with Disinfection
    •   Alternative T5 – Membrane Bioreactor with Reverse Osmosis
All treatment alternatives will meet the TSS, BOD, ammonia, and nitrate requirements. A new treatment
facility would either be located at the RM I or RM II Facility. WDR salinity requirements for options T1,
T2, T3, and T4 would be met through potable water quality improvements and source control measures.
Alternative T5 includes demineralization of wastewater with reverse osmosis to meet the salinity goal.
Alternative T4 includes UV disinfection which meets the Title 22, recycled water regulations, allowing
for reuse.
Five disposal alternatives were developed to a concept level and subsequently analyzed for costs and
benefits. Each of the disposal options assumes use of the existing percolation capacity for either year
round (D1, D2, and D3) or season disposal (D4 and D5). The five disposal alternatives are:
    •   Alternative D1 – Disposal Pond Rehabilitation and Maintenance Program
    •   Alternative D2 – Use of Existing Storm Water Pond for Intermittent Disposal
    •   Alternative D3 – New Disposal Ponds
    •   Alternative D4 – Water Reclamation (Ridgemark Golf Course)
    •   Alternative D5 – Pasture Irrigation with Recycled Water
Alternative D1 is a recommended program to enhance the capacity of existing disposal ponds. The long-
term sustainable percolation capacity is unknown. Completed maintenance work on Ponds 3 and 4 at RM
I have resulted in a significant short-term increase in percolation capacity. Alternative D2 is an
envisioned option for temporary disposal to facilitate maintenance activities (this alternative would not
meet long-term disposal needs. Alternatives D3, D4, and D5 can all meet long-term disposal needs.
Alternative D4 assumes recycled water use at the RMK golf course, which is the most cost effective
reclamation project due to its proximity. Alternatives D3 and D5 would require purchase of additional
land for disposal. Alternative D3, new disposal ponds, may be institutional difficult to implement due to
water quality concerns due to the more direct linkage between disposal ponds and the groundwater basin.

January 2006                                                                                        ii
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                  Executive Summary

The SSCWD also has the option to connect to a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant that is currently in
the process of being implemented by the City of Hollister. Two conceptual alternatives were developed
to connect to the City of Hollister’s existing collection system. Buy-in treatment and disposal costs to
connect are unknown at this time as the City is still in the process of identifying a recommended disposal
alternative. Estimated buy-in costs were developed based on cost estimates for the treatment and disposal
alternatives above.
Alternative Analysis
For the alternative analysis, treatment alternatives were paired with applicable disposal alternatives.
Table ES-1 summarizes the costs and benefits of each of the paired alternatives. For alternatives
requiring potable water quality improvements, an estimated costs of $37 per household is shown in the
“Estimate Water Rate for Potable WQ Improvement” row. This cost is based on groundwater
demineralization with RO and evaporation ponds for salinity management.
From a cost perspective, modification of the existing pond system to an SBR process and new disposal
ponds appears to be most cost effective alternative. However, this alternative does not meet the regional
objectives to minimize impacts to groundwater. Therefore, it is envisioned that regional stakeholders
would prefer a water reclamation alternative, which is thought to minimize groundwater impacts in
relation to nitrogen, personal care products, and other organics. The estimated cost of $82 per month per
household for the modification of the existing pond system to an SBR process and new disposal ponds
does provide a baseline for evaluation of other alternatives.
Serving recycled water to the RMK golf course is the most cost effective recycled water alternative due to
the close proximity. Treatment costs to produce recycled water were estimated assuming an MBR and
UV disinfection process. This is a slightly higher cost than an SBR process with filtration and
disinfection. However, an MBR process would likely facilitate more advance treatment processes that
may be required in the future.
The Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternative is a cost competitive alternative based on
preliminary estimates. However, additional collaboration with the City of Hollister is needed to confirm
buy-in costs.
In regard to meeting WDR salinity regulations, potable water quality improvements are recommended
versus’ effluent salinity managements. Although estimated costs of potable water quality improvements
are higher, the benefits of high quality supply are significantly greater. The cost of residential water
softening was estimated to be between $20 to $30 per month (family of four) (Bookman-Edmonston, June
1999). Water quality improvements would potentially eliminate this cost for a household.

January 2006                                                                                         iii
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                                                                                                           Executive Summary

                                                                       Table ES-1: Alternative Comparison Matrix
                                                    Hollister        MBR with          MBR with                             of Ex. Pond         SBR Package         MBR with            MBR with
          Treatment Alternative                     Regional           UV                UV             MBR                 Sys. to SBR            Plant            RO and UV           RO and UV
                                                     Hollister                                        Disposal              New Disposal        New Disposal
          Disposal Alternative                       Regional        RW at G.C.       RW Pasture        Ponds                  Ponds               Ponds            RW at G.C.         RW Pasture
Capital Cost Treatment                               $6,158,000       $7,200,000        $7,200,000     $6,780,000             $3,528,000          $5,260,000         $12,750,000        $12,750,000
Capital Cost Disposal                                $4,889,000       $2,615,000        $6,208,000     $2,306,000             $2,306,000          $2,306,000          $2,615,000         $6,208,000
Capital Cost Conveyance                              $1,059,000           -                 -              -                     -                   -                   -                   -
                       Total Capital Cost           $12,106,000       $9,815,000       $13,408,000     $9,086,000             $5,834,000          $7,566,000         $15,365,000        $18,958,000
Annualized Capital Cost                                $788,000        $638,000          $872,000        $591,000               $380,000            $492,000          $1,000,000         $1,233,000
Annual Treatment O&M                                   $360,750        $248,000          $248,000        $234,000               $117,000            $141,000           $319,000           $319,000
Annual Disposal O&M                                    $120,250          $36,000           $26,000         $15,000               $15,000             $15,000             $36,000            $26,000
                   Total Annualized Cost             $1,269,000        $922,000         $1,146,000       $840,000               $512,000            $648,000          $1,355,000         $1,578,000
WW Monthly Rate to Fund Projecta                             $88             $64               $80             $58                   $36                 $45                 $94               $110
Est. Water Rate for Potable WQ Imp.                          $37             $37               $37             $37                   $37                 $37                  $0                 $0
        Total Est. Monthly Rate Impacta                     $125            $101              $116             $95                   $72                 $82                 $94               $110
                                                                                      Alternative Benefits
Meets Drinking Water Regional Objective                  X                 X               X               X                       X                   X
Potential assisting in meeting future
wastewater disposal regulations                          X                 X                 X                 X                                                          X                   X
Reduced Impact to Groundwater (No
Benefit for Disposal Ponds)                              X                 X                 X                                                                            X                   X
Meets regional goal of maximizing
recycled water use                                       X                 X                 X                                                                            X                   X
                       Preliminary Ratingb               1                 1                 3                  4                  5                   6                  7                   8
    1.   Regional Alternative: Buy-in costs to connect to Hollister were estimated based on the City’s Long-Term Wastewater Management Program dated December 2005. The estimated
         conveyance cost upgrades are for the connection to the existing Hollister system. There is an additional cost risk for existing infrastructure upgrades that may be required.
    2. If potable water supply improvements are the strategy to address salinity, there will be an increase in water rates to support a project. Assuming groundwater demineralization, it is
         estimated the cost impact of about $37 per household (2025 level of development).
    3. Brine disposal is assumed to be achieved through evaporation ponds and land filling of salts.
    4. For new treatment plant alternatives, additional facilities such as headworks, pump stations, and solids management facilities will also be required.
    a. Capital and O&M cost for the project were developed for buildout conditions assuming 1,657 households. Monthly rates were developed assuming the existing 1,200 households paying a
         uniform rate. This is the monthly rate to fund the project and does not represent the actual utility rate.
    b. The alternatives were ranked from 1 to 8 with 1 representing the most favorable alternative and 8 representing the least favorable. This ranking will be revised in the next phase to identify a
         recommended alternative.

January 2006                                                                                                                                                                                  iv
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                Executive Summary

Recommended Approach
There are a number of outstanding information and data needs that are dependent on completion of
ongoing work (by others) prior to selecting a recommended long-term wastewater management plan. Key
ongoing work that factors into the SSCWD decision process includes the City of Hollister Phase 1
Interim Effluent Management Project and the Hollister Urban Area Water and Wastewater Master Plan.
The major outstanding decision is whether the SSCWD should connect to the Hollister Regional WWTP
or implement a New SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative?
Therefore, a recommended approach was developed to come to a final decision on a recommended
alternative while initiating parallel steps toward implementation of a Hollister Regional WWTP or a New
SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative. Implementation of one of these alternatives will address
regulatory requirements of ammonia, nitrate, TSS, and BOD.
It is envisioned that the SSCWD Board will collaborate and provide guidance on the final ranking of
alternatives and selection of a recommendation. Table ES-2 summarizes the key decisions to be made in
the selection of a recommended alternative or approach for proceeding. The table also summarizes
considerations for each decision points.

January 2006                                                                                       v
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                                                                      Executive Summary

                            Table ES-2: Key Decisions and Considerations for Selection of Recommended Alternative
              Key Decisions                            Considerations                                         Decision Discussion
                                                                                    Based on estimated buy-in costs it appears that the Regional Alternative
1. Stay on own or Connection to Hollister?
                                                                                    may be a more costly alternative. It is recommended that SSCWD enter
If connect to Hollister, then done (skip 3   Relative costs, regional objectives.
                                                                                    negotiations with the City to further define costs before making a final
through 5).
                                                                                    recommendation. SSCWD should pursue a local alternative in parallel.
                                                                                    The benefits associated with potable water quality improvements are
                                                                                    significant. Effluent demineralization would be a backup option. To be
                                                                                    consistent with ongoing regional water planning efforts, the SSCWD
2. Select salinity management strategy.      Relative costs, water benefits,
                                                                                    should request an extension on salinity regulations from the RWQCB. In
Effluent management or potable water         regional objectives, groundwater
                                                                                    parallel, SSCWD should work with the SBCWD and the regional
improvement?                                 basin stewardship.
                                                                                    Governance Committee on a strategy to improve potable water quality.
                                                                                    The Hollister Water and Wastewater Master Plan is planned to be
                                                                                    completed by the end of 2006.
                                                                                    Additional analysis of biological nutrient removal alternatives are planned
                                             Regulatory requirements, salinity      for the Preliminary Design Phase to determine the process configuration
3. If staying on own, select treatment       management alternative, regional       that provides the best combination of reliability and cost effectiveness for
option.                                      objectives, disposal options, future   the Ridgemark application. Based on the current envisioned horizon (15+
                                             regulations.                           years) for future regulations, an MBR process (MBR is a higher cost
                                                                                    alternative) does not appear to be justifiable at this time.
                                                                                    Regional objectives such as reducing the impacts to the groundwater basin
                                                                                    make recycled water use the preferred disposal option alternative. SSCWD
                                                                                    plans to pursue recycled water use with the Ridgemark golf course for
                                             Relative costs, water quality,
4. Select disposal alternative. RW at Golf                                          season use. SSCWD plans to maintain existing disposal ponds to dispose
                                             regional objectives, groundwater
Course, RW for Pasture Irrigation, or                                               of wet weather flows when recycled water demand is low. Alternatively,
                                             protection, institutional pressure,
Percolation Ponds?                                                                  seasonal storage would be required to maximize reuse. Pasture irrigation
                                             public perception.
                                                                                    would be a backup to recycled water use at the Golf Course. Customer
                                                                                    opposition, public perception, and other factors outside SSCWD control
                                                                                    may be road blocks for recycled water use.

January 2006                                                                                                                                             vi
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                Executive Summary

To address salinity requirements, it is recommended that SSCWD initiate discussions with the SBCWD
on either a CVP surface water treatment plant or groundwater demineralization project. This is a
recommended project for both long-term alternatives. The higher quality potable water supply in
conjunction with water softener reduction will facilitate reuse.
A CEQA evaluation should also be initiated during the first quarter of 2006 to assess environmental
impacts. It is recommended that the CEQA process commence prior to selecting a recommended
alternative due to the length of time typically required to complete an evaluation. Therefore, the CEQA
document will assess the impacts of connecting to a Regional Hollister WWTP and the SSCWD
Treatment and Disposal Alternative.
Cost Estimates and Benefits
Table ES-3 summarizes the estimated cost of connection to the Hollister Regional WWTP which includes
estimated buy-in costs to the Hollister WWTP. Costs are a major unknown for this alternative.
Therefore, additional collaboration with the City of Hollister is necessary prior to selection of an
                 Table ES-3: Hollister Regional WWTP Connection Estimated Costs

                                Element                           Estimated Cost
               Conveyance                                            $303,000
               Pumping                                               $195,000
                                                 Subtotal            $498,000
               Construction Contingency                              $100,000
               Contractor Overhead and Profit                        $100,000
               Pipeline Right of Way                                  $11,000
               Engineering, Legal, Admin & Const. Mgmt               $200,000
               Environmental                                         $150,000
                           Total Conveyance Capital Cost            $1,059,000
               Hollister Treatment “Buy-In”                         $6,158,100
               Hollister Disposal “Buy-In”                          $4,888,650
                                        Total Capital Cost          $12,105,750
               Annualized Capital Cost                               $787,000
               Annual O&M Costs                                      $481,000
                                       Total Annual Cost             $1,268,000

January 2006                                                                                      vii
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                    Executive Summary

Table ES-4 summarizes the estimated cost of the SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative which
includes MBR and UV disinfection with recycled water use at the RMK golf course. It is envisioned that
recycled water could be sold to the golf course which would help offset the cost of the project. The price
of the recycled water would need to be negotiated with the golf course. This alternative provides the
benefit of using recycled water to irrigate the golf course reducing the quantity of water supplies that
could be used for other M&I purposes.
               Table ES-4: SSCWD MBR and Recycled Water Alternative Estimated Cost

                                 Element                              Estimated Cost
               Influent Pump Station                                     $164,000
               Headworks                                                 $350,000
               Equalization                                              $146,000
               MBR Facility                                             $2,460,000
               Sludge Pond                                               $161,000
               UV Disinfection                                           $227,000
               Effluent Pump Station                                      $64,000
               General Site Development                                  $280,000
               Conveyance                                                $446,000
               Pumping                                                   $759,000
               On-Site Retrofit of Irrigation System                     $200,000
                                                    Subtotal            $5,257,000
               Construction Contingency                                 $1,620,000
               Contractor Overhead and Profit                            $680,000
               Right of Way                                               $10,000
               Engineering, Legal, Admin & Const. Mgmt                  $2,050,000
               Environmental                                             $200,000
                                          Total Capital Cost            $9,820,000
               Annualized Capital Cost                                   $639,000
               Annual O&M Costs                                          $284,000
                                          Total Annual Cost              $923,000

Both of the alternatives will require potable water quality improvements and water softener reduction
programs to reduce salinity to meet regulatory requirements. Implementation of potable water supply
improvements will facilitate the reduction of water softeners further reducing salt into the region. Current
residences with water softeners will benefit by reducing the need for residential softening. Cost savings
for residence using water softeners is estimated to be $20 to $30 per month (Bookman-Edmonston, June
1999) for reduced costs of maintaining softeners and purchase of salt for softener regeneration. Higher
quality water supply will also increase the longevity of appliances like dishwashers, washing machines,
water heaters, etc.

January 2006                                                                                           viii
Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan                                                   Executive Summary

Next Steps and Schedule
The proposed next steps focus on collection of information to finalize the recommended alternative. The
collection of information such as buy-in costs to a regional alternative, determination of potable water
supply improvement options, and determination of viable disposal options will require collaboration with
the City of Hollister and SBCWD. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and public outreach will be key next steps to assess environmental impacts, garner support for the project,
and secure funding. Figure ES-2 summarizes the tasks and schedule to proceed with implementation of a
treatment and disposal project.
                                Figure ES-2: Implementation Schedule

January 2006                                                                                          ix
2290 N First St. • Suite 212 • San Jose CA 95131 • Phone: 408-240-8160 • Fax: 408-240-8161