Loading...
Agenda - 5/6/1991 WWTP Fac Plan City of Woodburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan PUBLIC MEETING May 6, 1991 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. AGENDA TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Mayor Fred Kyser Nancy Jerrick Public Involvement Coordinator Frank Sinclair Treatment Plant Superintendent ~ WJfiftman Project Manager Daria Wightman OPENING COMMENTS PURPOSE OF PUBUC MEETING AND INTRODUCTIONS NEED FOR THE PROJECT FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS Preferred Options Other Options Considered Population Projections Industrial Flow Projections Planning Period/Phased Construction Treatment System Options Treatment Facility Impacts Pre~ Costs of Preferred Options Financial Analysis and Rate Study DISCUSSION/COMMENT CLOSING REMARKS Frank Tiwari City of Woodburn Public Works Director ISSUES OF PUBUC INTEREST Public Mayor Kyser ~ PLANNING FOR WOODBURN'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES May 1991 INTRODUCfION The City of Woodburn is Ereparing a facility plan for its wastewater treatment system. A facility plan defines what steps the City should take to meet its future needs for wastewater treatment. It is the result of a Elanning process that looks at many possibilities, considers the advantages and Oisadvantages of each, and identifies the system that can most benefit tfie community. Once the plan is adopted by the City, it will guide the operation and improvements to the City's treatment system through tlie year 2020. Improvements to the city's system are needed to meet new water quality reguJations established by tlie U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). These regulations designate wastewater treatment and discharge standards thathat must be met to protect the Pudding River and other bodies of water that receive treated wastewater. The city's current system is not able to meet these stringent new standards. In addition to upgz:ading the existing system to meet regulatory requirements, the facility plan Will provide for increasing the system's capacity in order to accommodate planned growth in the city. Preparing now lor bOth of these p~oses is an efficient and cost-effective planning apEroach. Additional efficiency is built into the plan by providiilg for pliasea. construction of the improvements. The plan Will enable the city to rook ahead to long-term needs thiou~ the year 2020, while implementing the improvements only as they are needea. The City of Woodburn is committed to providing its citizens with a system that is environmentally responsible and cost-effective. Public review and comment is an essential part Of the planning process. A number of possible srstems are being considered for meeting tfie City's treatment needs. 9PtionaI new teclriiology and mitigation measures can also provide additional advantages, such as reauced odor and noise impacts in the plant vicinity. All of these alternatives have costs and benefits that must De carefully weighed. We welcome your participation in making these decisions. THE STUDY PROCESS AND SCHEDULE The Cio/ of Woodburn has hired CH2M Hill, an engineering and environmental consulting firm, to help prepare the facility plan. The planning process has the following basic steps: · Define future wastewater treatment needs, based on population and wastewater projections and on regulatory requirements. . Identify alternative treatment systems that can meet these needs. · Evaluate the alternatives on the basis of cost, environmental impacts, ability to construct and operate, and other advantages/disadvantages. . Select the best treatment system for more detailed analysis, and develop a facility plan. , . 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 alternative that will be carned forward for further analysis. It is anticipated that the draft facility plan will be available for public review toward the end of 1991 or early 1992. Construction of the improvements may begin in 1994. The first phase may be in operation by 1996. PREFERRED OPTIONS A number of alternatives have been developed and examined. As a result of this evaluation, two alternatives appear to be most advantageous and are described below as "preferred options." (See the attached map.) The alternatives that do not appear to be as promising are briefly described under "Other Options ConsIdered." All of these alternatives are open to public review ana comment. Option 1: Co-location of New Facility with Existing Facility . The exiStin~eatment plant will continue to be used, up to its full capacity. The secon treatment process will remain the same as at present The filter system t is currently used to provide advanced (tertiary:) treatment will be upgraded by providing larger and more reliable filters; this will enable tlie plant to meet regulatory requirements for discharge to the Pudding River. A new treatment plant will be built next to the existing plant. All industrial wastewater will De treated at this plant, as well as domestic wastewater loads that exceed the capacity of the existing plant. The new faci1iW will have an upgraded secondalJ treatment process. Following secondary treatment, there are two options for advanced treatment: 1) Using a filter system, then discharging the effluent to the Pudding River. . 2) Piping the effluent to an area north of the plant to create a new wetlands area. The wetlands will provide advanced treatment to the effluent The wetlands will discharge either into the Pudding River or into Mill Creek north of the city's urban growth boundary. The creation of new wetlands can provide numerous benefits, including enhanced habitat for wildlife, bird sanctuaries, recreational opportunities such as birding and hiking, open spaces, educational opportunities, and increased- aesthetic appeal. However, current DEQ groundwater quality re~ations could require discharge limits and protective measures (suCh as lining the wetlands) that would make this option prohibitive. 2 The cost of this option is estimated at from $26 to $41 million, depending on the amount of industrial flow that is treated. The wetlands option woula. cost about $2 million more than the filter system, largely because of the cost of land acquisition. The unknown costs associated with groundwater quality regulations could make the cost of the wetlands considerably higher. As a point of comparison, the City of McMinnville is improving its facilities at a cost of $27 million, and sewer rates are expected to mcrease by about $20-25/month after construction is completec[ Option 2: Continued Use of Existing Facility, with New Facility Located Southeast of Existing Plant . This option is essentially the same as Option 1, with the following differences: The new facility will be constructed at a separate location, southeast of the existing plant. The new plant will therefore be closer to most industrial wastewater sources, but Will. require longer pumping distances for excess domestic wastewater from the existing plant. No effluent from the new facility will be discharged to the Pudding River. Following secondary treatment, all effluent will be discharged to create a new wetlands area south of the urban growth boundary. The wetlands will discharge either into the Pudding River or into Mill Creek south of the city, enhancing the portion of Mill Creek that flows through the city. Again, tlie ability to construct wetlands that would meet groundwater quality regulations is unknown at this time. . The cost of this option is estimated at from $30 to $44 million, depending on the amount of inaustrial flow that is treated. As in Option 1, costs for ilie wetlands could be considerably higher. Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2 . . Compared with each other, Options 1 and 2 have the following advantages: Option 1: Greater operational and maintenance flexibility Easier land a~uisition Ooser to solids handling facilities Less pumping distance for excess domestic loads Ooser to industrial wastewater sources If effluent is discharged to Mill Creek, enhances the portion of Mill Creek that flows through the city Option 2: OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED A number of other alternatives have also been examined, and are considered less advantageous than Preferred Options 1 and 2. These include various combinations of treatment, storage, and discharge systems, and can be grouped under five general categories. These categories and the reasons they compare unfavorably with the preferred options are summarized below. 3 Expansion of Existing Facility These alternatives involve expansion and upgrading of the existing treatment plant, without construction ol a new facility. This would require combining new technology with the existing process. The combined process would be harder to operate and control than operating separate systems. There are no cost aavantages over the preferred options. Total Separation of Domestic and Industrial Flows The alternatives in this category are generally the same as the preferred options, except for the total separation of domestic and industrial flows. They woUld have a higher cost, while offering no advantages. Advanced Treabnent through Land Application or Effluent Irrigation Following secondary treatment, effluent would be ap:plied to pasture land Qand aEplication) or selected crops (effluent irrigation). Th1s would provide for aa.vanced treatment, similar to the creation of wetlands under the preferred options. Because food processing industries do not accept crops tliat are irrigated with effluent, there woUld be limits to the types of croE that could be usea. Costs for land application or effluent irrigation would be higher than the preferred options. These treatment methods alSo do not have the aesthetic, environmental, and recreational advantages provided by wetlands creation. Discharge to the Willamette River This alternative was examined to see if it offered any advantages related to treatment and discharge requirements. However, it was determined that high land and outfall costs would make this option prohibitively expensive. In addition, it is possible that water quality regulations for the Willamette River will become more stringent in the future, requirmg additional treatment measures to meet the standards. . Storage of Summertime Flows This alternative would involve constructing a large, lined lagoon to store summertime wastewater flows. The stored effluent would then be discharged in the winter when effluent standards are less stringent because of higher river flows. This option has large land requirements and significantly higher costs than the preferred options. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT The City of Woodburn would like to hear public comments on the alternatives now under consideration to help decide wbich should be carried forward for further study. A public meeting is being held for this purpose on Monday, May 6. A second meeting will be herd towara the end of 1991 or early 1992 to hear public comment on the draft facility 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 facility plan, :please call Frank Sinclair, Woodburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Supenntendent, at 982-5281 4 ........ II I\) ::. o o o o -I -< o ." ~~ mo ;:A 0 :IJO :IJw me o:IJ Z 0." '"0)> -10 0- zr cn-l m cn "1l r )> z ~r-~""O QR~~ -i~~- o-~t:D ~~~hi ~ ~ ~ >. ~ >. " ~ z::t:: []]o 1\)-1 o ~. J J 1111 J I - ~5~""O -IO~~ d~~~ \" ~ ~~~hi ~ ):. r- ",