The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0521.093• ~ . • • ... ~ -;, ,.,- o September )0, 1993 THE HONORABLE CITY COWelL Palo Alto~ California ;. . Regional Water Quality Control Plant Wastewater Reclamation Prwrar!l. Members of the Council: RepQrt in Brief This report is background informatio~ fo~ the October 4 r 1993 study sesgion for Council and the Utilities Advisory Commission, concerning the overall reclamation program for the Regional Water Quality Cont~ol Plant (RWQCP). Due to the other ongoing concurrent policy issues facing the City, no final deci~ion on re:clam-ation is recorTh"Tl.ended at this time_ Alternatively, it is recommended that an ongoing incremental phased program development process be continued, proceeding next to the completion of a full Environtr.ental Impact Report (ErR). No Council action is req<.1ired at this time. Sta,ff wi 11 return to Council on ~~tober 25~ 1993, tor approval of the full EIR. BackgrQund 1. Global Perspeccive Wastewater has alweys been an important part of the world's total water r~sources. Th~oughout the world, indirect reuse occurs as communities along rivers vithdra"oII water fOl:' their municipal w3ter supply and discharge the treated wastewater back to the river. The wastewater becomes part of the flow that people downstream wir:bdraw for their uses. In the case of the Mississippi River, water is rel~Bp.d more than a dozer. times before its journey's end. If some treated wastewa'Cer is nOL returned to the river for reuse, the flow might become dangerously low. The co~~unities are p~rt of a closed system through which water has been recycled since the beginning of time. It is now clear that direct reuse of reclaimed ~astewater is equally important. The nation is also more conscious of the steady growth of population and industry versus our planet'S fixed supply of water. Wastewater reclamation reduces pollutant discharge and eupplement.s potable water supply. -1- ... o 2. Water Reuse Policies within che State of California Most of the wastewater in California discharges to the ocean. In the 19906, the State of California adopted a prog.t"essive reclamation Folley and became a pioneer for direct reuse of reclaimed wastewater. 1",,11"0 we.11-known pioneering efforts are the San Francisco's Golden Gate Park: and the city of Pomona. These two sites have used reclaimed wastewater since the 19306. The San Francisco recl~mation plan~ was retired due to age. The ::'.ity of Pomona is still continuing its reclamation ~peration today. In 1977, the state legislature passed a law prohibiting the use of potable wate!:' for landscape irrigation when suitable reclaimed 'Water is available. Since 1982 J the California Constitution has included language to prohibit waste or unreasonable use of water and to encourage reclamation projects whenever safe and practical. A 198? survey put reclaimed water usage for the ent ire state at about 3D (). DOD ac:::-e-feet per year. af this quantity, approximately 70 percent was used fo::--landscape irrigation. To date, there are numerous successful reclamation programs and projects in place in southern california. Among them are the reclar.lation programs operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the San Diego County Water Authority, the Coachella Valley Water District, the Santa Margarita Water District. the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District and the Padre Dam Municipal Water Distri~t. Northern California is lagging in the reclamation effort; but in recent years, many cities in northern California have either completed or committed to a reclamation program. Among them are: the cities of Santa Rosa r Napa, Sonoma, Santa Barbara, Fresno, Pleasanton, Sunnyvale, and San Jose/Santa Clara. Both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Francisco Water Department are strongly supportive of the wat~r reclamation programs and will consider financial incentives for the pro grams. ThroughQut the state, the policy is to reduce pollut ants discharge and wastage of potable water through reclarna- tion. 3. The Regional Water Quality ContLol Board Policy The Permit and the Cease and Desist Order from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (BoaL-d) included two types of standards to limit discharges from the RWQCP; they are the concentration limits and the mass limits. These discharge standards ·",ere discussed in the July lS, 199) staff report CMR~333:93, and at the July 19, 1993 study session for the Council. Reclamation is one of the Board's targeted solutions for the RWQCP in meeting its mass discharge limits. Reclama tion of the Plant effluent for reuse reduces discharge to the Bay a~'d creates a corresponding mass reduction in pollutants -2- • , """ -c; '" • J;",-' I ."., o discharge. The mass lO3:ding limit compliance deadlir.e is July 1996. Regional Water Quality ~0ntrQi Plant Issues 1. Compliance with Permit Req .. lirernents The RWQCP has always been sincere and diligent in its attempts to meet the Board's requiremenr:.s. While the Citi' is appealing the Board's requirements, the permit and the Cease and Desist Order is in effect. The RWQCP needs to exert all efforts to comply with any requirements that may be achievable. The Board has l:P..dicated that they believe the mass limit is achievable through a cOmbined effort of source control and a reclamation program. The RWQCP has ini tiated a study to assess the probable mass reduction achievable through an aggressive source control program and possible Plant opera tional Challges. The study is scheduled to be completed by the end of t.his year. Th~ amount of reclamation needed as a supplementary means of mass reduction is dependent on the source control program. A1 though the exact amount of :reclamation required is not known until completion of the study, it is highly likely that same reclamation will be required to achieve the total in mass reduction requirement. The attached figures have been prepared to show the conceptual preliminarily estimated amounts of mass reduction which may be achieved from the combined activities of source control, plant optimizatioL and reclamation as well as preliminary order of lil3gnitude costs per unit c..f reduction. Figure 1 represents the range of probable mass reduct ion through the source control program. and the amount of reclamation that will be required to meet the mass reduction requirements. Figure 2 represents the capital cost of the various reclamation pl.'ojects and the amount of metals reduction. 2. RWQCP Reclamation policy The partners of the RWQCP have unanimously voted to encourage reuse and have agreed on a reclamation policy. The policy was included in the July 3D, 199~ staff report to Council {CMR:358:92). The policy included the fonnc..::.~on of a Reclama tion Task Force conai st ing of representatives from the various departments of the partner cities. It also designated the RWQCP to manage the pI-oduction of the Pre-Design/ErR report for the reclamation program. The partners agreed that the policy shall be modified based on the findings of the Pre Design/ErR. 3. The RWQCP Reclamation Program -3· • t I Staff planned and cautiously proceeded to develop the reclama. tion program, along ..... ith the source control program, on a. parallel track ~ith the Board's de'telopme!lt of the Plam:'s discharge linlit.s. A. brief discussion ot the reclamation program was submitted to Council in a staff repc~t dated July 30, 1992 ICMR:3S8:92). The reclamation program is planrled as a three step program. Step 1 of the program ia the production of the Master Plan. The executive summary of the Master plan was submitted to Council in a staff report dated July 30, 1992 (CMR:3S8:92). The Master Plan recommended several feasible projects to be completed over ~ period of five years. Step ? of the program is the production of the Pre-Design/ErR and the Finance Study. Report of the first pa~t of the Pr~ Design/Pre-EIR was submitted to Council or. Septe~ber 2. 1993 (CMR:468:93). The Pre-DE:sign/Pre-EIR study reported no fatal flaw with the reclamation progra'rTi. The final report of the Finance Study was also submitted to Council o~ September 2, 1993 (CMR:464:93). It presented various options for funding the reclaimed water projects, and the rate impacts for the water and wastewater utilities. completion of the full Environmental Impact Report is Step Three in the prograrl1.. Figure 3 shows the timel ine of the source-control program and the reclamation program in relation to the permit activities. The activities under the reclama tion program are very t:ime-consuming. The EIR process is anticipated to t~ke a year to complete; the design and permit phase will require a minimum of ten months. and the construc tion will require seven to eight months. This timeline reflects an aggressive, but achievable~ schedule for the activities under the reclamation program. In o~deL' to maintain a diligent effort in pursuing all options to meet the 1996 discharge compli~nce date, the p~eparatory work for the r~clamation program must continue. The secund part of th~ Pre-Design/EIR is the next step in the reclamat-ion program and. should proceed immediately. along with the permit appeal process and the source control stud)'. The max.imum load reduction determined by the source control study will eSLablish the size of the reclamation program which is needed. If the penrLit appeal does not provide relief for the RWQCP; the completion of the EIR in a timely manner will allow the RWQCP to attempt to meet the compliance date. Conclusion The RWQCP needs to continue its effort to meet the permit require ments. Reclamation reduces di.acha.r-ge and. hence. supplements the RWQCP's effort in meeting the Board's mass reduction requirement. -4 - CMR.: 521: 93 It also reduces potable water wastage and provides a sourr:.e of .. ater supply during a drQught. The: sec~nd half of the Pre-Design/EIR is the next step of the reclamation program. The Pre-Design/SIR was approved by the partners as a responsible step towards meeting the permit reqJlre ments. St.aff will be recommending that. the Council app"':""ove the completion of the Pre-Design/E1R study. R.espectfully subrr.itted,. WI tJ.,IAf.l Ml KS Manager, Water Quality Control Plant GLSNN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works At~achment: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure J Related CMRa: CMR:393:93 CMR:358:92 OIR:468:9J CMR:464:93 CMR.:S:21:93 -5- 4<,,' ,00 FIGURE 1A MAX. RECLAMATION REQUIRED o f'E'Atr,IIIT AEOUUII!W"I'n _ I'UoMT Qflll"'II.~\O" roT~ COP!' ER LtI_IVA '1194 .... Cl AM'\. .cVl'~ CONT"'O\. _ "',C\.. .. ".,.:;rotlMo.tcc .. PU' .. ,. FIGURE 18 MIN. RECLAMATION REQUIRED o n..,.t 1'I1!000q:_~T _ PLAlIIT C/'TlIoPZAl1DN CJ AaO'L ao~ Ctll<lTRQl.. _ IIII!CL_I\1'NIM~CC"L'f ~L.~>..__ '~~ •• c------.~.~.o------,~::::------~, .. ~,-------J ... ElG.URE 1 , .' FIGURE 2 RECLAMATION COST Vs REDUCTION 160 ~~ER Lb/Y~ ... ' , " 140 l ~ -~~. ~ 120 1---.-----~----~ '"' I --~-~--==~ s, . ------~~ ~ I 601 40~ 20 L ol-a '---~ ~--~~~ 22.6 $ millions '1 ~O r.) --Cumulative capital ," ': .. -<;: ;.. '" ." ~ . " '." .: ".' .. ". .'~' ~ --- ~,-'~-, '.- . - , , • ~ . H ~ 11 ' II :. i:J : -- ,