Loading...
Agenda - 04/19/1994 Workshop1) 2) 3) 4) Workshop meeting opened Update and Overall Prospective - Frank Tiwari (10-15 min) A. Process necessary for Treatment Plant construction B. 5) 6) Adjourn Time line for process: -- Approximate schedule for entire process -- Time line for Facilities Plan process only How Wastewater Advisory Committee is helping the final decision makers. Bid picture alternative, future policy decision on funding and affect of regional services study on alternative and funding. Big Picture Alternatives - Daria Wightman, CH2M Hill (1.25 hr) A. Introduction B. Study process and schedule C. Recommendations D. Alternatives analyzed Open House format prepared by Barbara Lucas for Public input on June 6, 1994 (10- 15 min) Council direction to Staff on improving information on Woodburn's process ~r~DVN, AGEN4.19 Planning for Woodburn's Wastewater Treatment Facilities Introduction The City of Woodburn is preparing the facilities plan for its wastewater treatmenf sys- tem. A facilities plan defines the steps that the City should take to meet its future needs for wastewater treatment. It is the result of a planning process that looks at many possibilities, considers the advantages and disadvantages of each, and identifies the system that can most benefit th~.community. Once the plan is adopted by the City, it will guide operations and improvements to the City's wastewater treatment system through the year 2020. Improvements to the City's system are needed to meet new water quality regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oregon Depart- ment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and to protect against citizen lawsuits. These regulations designate wastewater treatment and discharge standards that must be met to protect the Pudding River and other bodies of water that receive treated wastewater. The City's current system will .complete its 20-year design life in the year 2000 and it will not be able to meet these stringent new standards or the projected growth requirements of the City. In addition to upgrading the existing system to meet regulatory requirements, the facili- ties plan will provide for' increasing the system's capacity in order to accommodate planned growth in the City. Preparing now for both of these purposes is an efficient and cost-effective planning approach. The plan will enable the City to look ahead to long- term needs through the year 2020. The City of Woodburn is committed to providing its citizens with a system that is envi- ronmentally responsible and cost-effective. Public review and comment is an essential part of the planning process. A number of possible systems are being considered for meeting the City's treatment needs. Optional new technology and mitigation measures can also provide additional advantages, such as reduced odor and noise impacts in the plant vicinity. All of these alternatives have cost and benefits that must be carefully weighed. We welcome your participation in making these decisions. The Study Process and Schedule The City of Woodburn has hired CH2M HILL, an engineering and envirOnmental consulting firm, to help prepare the facilities plan. The planning process has the follow- ing basic steps: USRI4B73.WP5 1' 1. Define future wastewater treatment needs, based on population and wastewater projections and on regulatory requirements. 2. Identify alternative treatment systems that can meet these needs. 3. Evaluate the alternatives on the basis of cost, environmental impacts, ability to construct and operate, and other advantages/disadvantages. _ 4. Select the best treatment system for more detailed analysis, and develop .a facili- ties plan. 5. Conduct a financial analysis to determine who pays for the improvements and how. The planning process is currently in the third step: evaluation of the alternatives. All public comments will be considered in selecting the alternatives that will be carried forward for further analysis. The draft facilities plan is anticipated to be available for public review by November 1994. Recommendations The Wastewater Advisory Committee evaluated the treatment plant siting alternatives and the tertiary treatment and effluent disposal options (see Figures 1 through 3). The consensus of the committee was to recommend the following big-picture alternative with two di _sposal optiOns for further development and analysis: Issue Treatment Plant Site Alternative Alternative I-Upgrade and Expand Existing Plant Tertiary Treatment Mechanical Filtration Effluent Disposal during the Summer Effluent Disposal during the Winter Option A-Discharge to the Pudding River, with 88- acre storage lagoon for July and August Option B-Irrigation at Agronomic Application Rates for May through October, with 58-acre storage lagoon and 300 acres irrigable land Discharge to Pudding River USR 14B73 .WP5 2 Treatment Plant Site Upgrading and expanding the existing plant (Alternative I) was the preferred treatment plant siting alternative because of costs and practicality. The other siting alternatives were shown to have many disadvantages. For instance, adding a second, parallel treat- ment plant to the Same site (Alternative II) would require additional pumping for separate treatment of industrial flows. Retaining the existing plant and building a separate.plant at a new site (Alternative III) would require new pumping facilities for sludge and industrial flows, a new force main, and another effluent pipeline. Furthermore, operations and maintenance of two sites would be less efficient than for one. Abandonment of the existing plant and building a new plant at a new site (Alternative IV) would mean losing the value of the existing plant and would entail dismantling the eXisting facilities and restoring the site to farmland at a significant cost. Moreover, the siting of a new plant would likely face public opposition. Tertiary Treatment Mechanical filtration was found to be a better tertiary treatment option in this case than wetland treatment. A wetland treatment system would be approximately 50 percent more expensive because of land costs and the cost of a lining for the wetland (which is required by DEQ) without significant added benefit. Uncertainties regarding long-term permitting for control of the wetlands as a treatment facility and concerns about possible effects on the groundwater (City of Woodburn's main drinking water source) also make this a less attractive option. Mechanical filtration is a more reliable treatment process and the capacity of a filtration facility can be increased more easily. It is estimated to be the least expensive alterna- five. The operations staff preferred mechanical filtration. Effluent Disposal during the Summer Pudding River and Storage. With mechanical filtration provided, the effluent can be discharged to the Pudding River during May, June, September, and October of the summer period. During July and August of each year, when the effluent ammonia requirements pre. elude discharge to the Pudding River, the effluent would be stored in an 88-acre lagoon. Irrigation at Agronomic Application Rates. Agricultural irrigation was selected as another viable alternative for disposal of treatment plant effluent during the summer period. This alternative provides nutrient rich water for irrigation in the area at a time when water is becoming a scarce and valuable resource. A 58-acre storage lagoon would be required to store effluent, assuming roughly 300 acres of land are available for irrigation during July and August. Filtration would be required for disposal of excess wastewater to the Pudding River during the other summer months. USRI4B73.WP5 3 Other Alternatives. The other summer disposal alternatives considered-discharge to the Willamette River and a 5-month-capacity storage lagoon-were seen to be too costly. Effluent Disposal during the Winter Because the DEQ effluent requirements for the winter period are less stringent, it will be possible to discharge to the Pudding River with minor modifications to the current treatment processes, upgraded and expanded as necessary to replace aging components and meet new capacity needs. Costs Cost opinions were developed based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry guidelines. The costs were further adjusted to reflect recent local projects such as wastewater facilities for the City of McMinnville, Oregon. The' costs are comparative and not to be used for budgetary purposes. The present worth cost in 1997 dollars for Option A-Summer Effluent Disposal to Pudding River and Storage was estimated to be $53,300,000. For Option B-Summer Effluent Disposal to Irrigation it was estimated to be $55,850,000. These present worth costs are within 15 percent of each other, and, therefore, are not considered by EPA to be significantly different. The non-cost analyses need to be considered in the selection process. The range of costs for all the alternatives was from $55,300,000 to $92,335,000. Public Review and Comment The City of Woodburn would like to hear public comments on the alternatives now under consideration to help decide which should be carded forward for further study. An open house will be held for this purpose on June 6, 1994. A Public Hearing will be held on November 15, 1994, to hear public comment on the draft facilities plan. The public will be notified, and additional information about the project will be available before this meeting. If you would like more information or have any comments about the facilities plan, please call Frank Sinclair, Woodburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent, at 982-5281. USRI4B73.WP5 4 ~8~ 0 ~ . APPENDIX Cost Opinions- The costs were developed based on EPA's 'Innovative and Alternative Technol~Ass~.ment Manual,' dated Febnm~. 1980,.and CH2M HILL's preid0us pwjects. The HPA costs were ~djusted to 1994 doll~r~ to.xe/lect construclion and O&M costs (adjustcd with EI~ Indcx only) in thc industry. These costs may have an accuracy in the range of-30 to +50 pe~.aL The~ costs ax~ comparalive and aot ~o be used for budgelary puxposes. The Ehg/neer/ig News (ENR .- Seattle) index used was//630 (1st quarter 1994 dollars). These costs were.tim her adjusted ~o v~/lect recent local projects such as McM'ranville., Oregon. A ~t worth (PW) value for O&M costs (obtained from adjusted EPA cost curves) ,gas obtained by multiplyi~ annual O&M costs by a PW factor based on an interest rate of 8-?/8 pezce~t and a lime period of 20 years. The costs are updated to February 1997 dollars assuming 4.5 percent coml~ound escnlafion. d