NPDES Permit Compliance Action Plan

1
NPDES Permit Compliance Action Plan

• Final Summary for the
• Galt City Council
• May 16, 2006

2
Presentation Outline

• Background Review of Implementation Options
• Summary of Previous Council Decisions
• Latest Information and Recommendation on Option C
• Chapter 8 of the Action Plan
• Implementation Recommended Actions and Schedule
• Recommended Council Actions

3
Implementation Options Evaluated

• Option A Laguna Creek Seasonal Discharge with
  Continued Reclamation
• Option B Laguna Creek Year-Round Discharge
• Option C Sacramento River Discharge
• Option D Zero Discharge with Full Reclamation

4
Option A Laguna Creek Seasonal Discharge
5
Option B Laguna Creek Year-Round Discharge
6
Option C Sacramento River Discharge
Requires construction of a 12-mile pipeline and
river outfall facilities.
7
Option D Zero Discharge
8
Previous Council Decisions

• Eliminate Option D from Further Consideration
• Meet with Regional Board to Discuss Long-Term
  Implications of Sacramento River Discharge
  (Option C)

9
Summary of Meeting with Regional Board Regarding
Option C

• Participants Mayor Clare, Council Member Malson,
  City Staff, RWCQB Principal Engineer Ken Landau,
  RWQCB Staff
• RWQCB Input
• Tertiary filtration is coming closer to the
  standard for all discharges (via best
  practicable control technology).
• Assimilative capacity for metals in the
  Sacramento River is expected to decrease.
• Dilution credits for discharge to the Sacramento
  River (if granted) are likely to decrease over
  time.

10
Cost Comparison Option C with Filters

• Option B for 3 mgd with Wetlands 49M
• Option C for 3 mgd with Filters 71M
• Option B for 6 mgd with Wetlands 92M
• Option C for 6 mgd with Filters 107M

11
Option C Considerations Based onRegional Board
Input and Cost Analyses

• High likelihood that tertiary filtration will be
  required.
• Dilution that may be available for metals and
  trace constituents may be reduced over time.
• Adding filters now makes Option C the most costly
  compliance alternative.

12
Conclusions and Recommendation forOption C

• Emerging treatment and water quality requirements
  jeopardize the benefits of a Sacramento River
  discharge.
• With these added risks, there is little reason to
  continue pursuit of this option.

Recommendation Drop Option C from further
consideration.
13
Chapter 8 of NPDES Permit Compliance Action Plan

• Three Main Sections
• Summary of Key Conclusions and Observations
• Evaluation and Comparison of Implementation
  Options
• Action Plan for NPDES Compliance
• Sections 1 and 2 Summarize Information Presented
  Previously
• Section 3 is New and Constitutes the Action Plan
• Specific Projects and Tasks are Identified
• An Implementation Schedule is Presented

14
Recommended Action PlanImmediate Action Items
(20062008)

• Conduct Flow and Water Quality Analyses for
  Laguna Creek to Support NPDES Permit Negotiations
• Conduct Effluent Water Quality Studies
• Begin Pilot Tests of Filtration Systems
• Design Selected Treatment Improvements
  (Filtration, UV Disinfection)
• Design Solids Processing Improvements

15
Recommended Action PlanImmediate Action Items
(20062008)(Continued)

• Design and construct grit removal improvements.
• Prepare a rate study based on updated cost
  estimates.
• Prepare a Financial Plan.
• Continue source control activities.
• Postpone construction of pilot-scale treatment
  wetlands until filter and water quality tests are
  complete.

16
Recommended Action Plan Long-Term Action Items
(20082012)

• Pursue additional land for effluent reclamation
  and expand program to provide capacity through
  construction of improvements.
• Construct filter and UV facilities.
• Construct solids processing improvements.
• Perform translator and water effects ratio
  studies (if needed).
• Design and construct secondary treatment
  improvements.
• Design and construct full-scale treatment
  wetlands (if needed).

17
Recommended Action Plan Schedule
18
Task Orders Requiring Council Authorization to
Proceed with Highest Priority Tasks

• Effluent and Laguna Creek Special Studies
  (173,500)
• Biosolids Processing Improvements (71,700)
• Filtration and UV Disinfection Preliminary Design
  (255,300)
• Grit Removal Facilities (Under Negotiation)

19
(No Transcript)
20
Galt WWTP Schedule Analysis
21
(No Transcript)
22
TREATMENT WETLANDS
FILTERS
WWTP PROCESS SCHEMATIC FOR OPTION A (WINTER
OPERATION)
23
TREATMENT WETLANDS
FILTERS
NEED FOR/ADEQUACY OF WETLANDS IS DEPENDENT UPON
OUTCOME OF WATER QUALITY STUDIES, DILUTION
CREDIT, PILOT TESTING
WWTP PROCESS SCHEMATIC FOR OPTION B
24
Estimated Capital Costs and OM Costs for Each
Option at 3 mgd
These costs are based on existing information and
assumptions, and are subject to change.
25
(No Transcript)