Resource Recovery Panel

  • 541 views
Uploaded on

Dwindling availability of water, combined with increases and competition in demand, climate change impacts, trends toward true cost water pricing, among other “drivers,” necessitates that urban water …

Dwindling availability of water, combined with increases and competition in demand, climate change impacts, trends toward true cost water pricing, among other “drivers,” necessitates that urban water planning incorporate consideration of strategies for use, conservation, and reuse of treated wastewater and stormwater. Three innovative initiatives will be discussed as illustrations of “win-win” approaches that achieve effective water management (urban water security/sustainability) while facilitating economic development.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
541
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • I want to give a perspective about RR from the perspective of a ww utility, charged with improving water quality throughout our service area. However, there are numerous water quality challenges to recovery of the resource that necessitate a new approach because the way we have historically solved “problems” needs a broader, more integrated approach. Settle near rivers and commerce More people, more wasteDecisions have caused liabiilty in urban waters800 communities face CSOsFlooding impacts of traditional solutionsValue of Water Natural resources that provide ecological servicesAquatic LifeEnvironmental HealthCommunity Health and Vitality
  • The LR watershed is one of our largest CSOs; it is also a very steep sloping watershed and drainage area with large volumes of flow entering through entry points into the Combined. Through the analysis, MSD has partnered with other public planning agencies and organizations to evaluate the existing conditinso within the community Urban Audits - building conditions Existing land use – natural and built environment Historical and cultural reviews Community transportation planning Existing Assets condition assessmentBrownfields assessments Enabled Impact assessmentsConsideration for using the existing conditions as opportunities to reduce CSOs through an integrated watershed evaluation – a process we have developed and refined for other watersheds
  • http://www.aquanovallc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Closing-the-Water-Cycle-for-pdf.pdf
  • Resource Recovery is not a new topic for the environmental field. However, it has historically be linked to solid waste management or energy systems. Traditional wastewater treatment faciltiies have historically been designed to treat flow to certain quality and then discharge or dispose of the end produce as treated effluent or biosolids. The approach of centralized WWTP have left many urban streams FLOW DEPPRIVED. Without flow, urban waters suffer from lack of base flow as well as other urban effects of hatitat loss, degradation, and loss of streams to sewers.
  • Resource Recovery is not a new topic for the environmental field. However, it has historically be linked to solid waste management or energy systems. Traditional wastewater treatment faciltiies have historically been designed to treat flow to certain quality and then discharge or dispose of the end produce as treated effluent or biosolids. The approach of centralized WWTP have left many urban streams FLOW DEPPRIVED. Without flow, urban waters suffer from lack of base flow as well as other urban effects of hatitat loss, degradation, and loss of streams to sewers.
  • Resource Recovery is not a new topic for the environmental field. However, it has historically be linked to solid waste management or energy systems. Traditional wastewater treatment faciltiies have historically been designed to treat flow to certain quality and then discharge or dispose of the end produce as treated effluent or biosolids. The approach of centralized WWTP have left many urban streams FLOW DEPPRIVED. Without flow, urban waters suffer from lack of base flow as well as other urban effects of hatitat loss, degradation, and loss of streams to sewers.
  • The Lower Mill Creek watershed previously had a network of natural streams and waterbodies that included over 300 miles of streams.The urbanization of Cincinnati resulted in many great developments. Modification of the drainage network and sending much of our streams to the sewer was not one of the better foundations previous generations laid for us. MSD faces significant challenges as it implements mandated solutions to reduce the overflows at the end-of-the-pipe. As we begin designing solutions to reduce CSO discharges in the Lower Mill Creek, we are looking for ways to remove stormwater from the sewer network. Much of the problem stems from the channelization of rivers and stream that dates back to the late 1800s.
  • The LR watershed is one of our largest CSOs; it is also a very steep sloping watershed and drainage area with large volumes of flow entering through entry points into the Combined. Through the analysis, MSD has partnered with other public planning agencies and organizations to evaluate the existing conditinso within the community Urban Audits - building conditions Existing land use – natural and built environment Historical and cultural reviews Community transportation planning Existing Assets condition assessmentBrownfields assessments Enabled Impact assessmentsConsideration for using the existing conditions as opportunities to reduce CSOs through an integrated watershed evaluation – a process we have developed and refined for other watersheds
  • Removal of natural drainage and stormwater from entering the combined systemNumber of Projects – 36Anticipated annual stormwater runoff capture volume – 70 million gallons1Program-wide statistics:318,000 square feet of bioinfiltration practices169,000 square feet of green roofs161,000 square feet of pervious/porous paving125,000 gallons of rainwater harvesting storage space
  • Early Lick Run watershed evaluations focused on a site BMPS (e.g., rain barrels, driveways, etc.). These were not effective strategies for achieving mandated CSO volume reductions.But through anintegrated watershed approach , MSD has since developed a detailed SWEP process to develop and consider watershed based CSO reduction solutions using numerous large, regional and small scale CSO reduction strategies – including the use of a Tiered system of direct and indirect projects.
  • The LR watershed is one of our largest CSOs; it is also a very steep sloping watershed and drainage area with large volumes of flow entering through entry points into the Combined. Through the analysis, MSD has partnered with other public planning agencies and organizations to evaluate the existing conditinso within the community Urban Audits - building conditions Existing land use – natural and built environment Historical and cultural reviews Community transportation planning Existing Assets condition assessmentBrownfields assessments Enabled Impact assessmentsConsideration for using the existing conditions as opportunities to reduce CSOs through an integrated watershed evaluation – a process we have developed and refined for other watersheds
  • 2BG vs. 1.2 BG1. This is a legal issue for the Co-Defendants to consider. 2.Regulators stated “they want something significant in Lower Mill Creek”. The 2 BG removal represents a significant reduction and satisfies the expectation of USEPA and Ohio EPA. EPA has never waivered off the 2 BG removal. The affordability issue drove the Phase 1 program and was based upon a 2BG reduction.If the Regulators had the updated model information during development of the WWIP, then they would have likely required a full basin remedy early in lieu of our phased approach. More projects would have been included into early action requirements – under our Phase 1.If we had presented the sustainable approach to USEPA during WWIP negotiations, the Phase 1 WWIP would have been very different and would not have included a tunnel.During WWIP negotiations, we tried to reduce the overall total program spending requirement. Even if we approach them with a lower cost Phase 1 remedy, the long-term cost of this Program will not be reduced.Our strategy is to lead with sustainable so the grey components can be right-sized. Sustainable provides the Co-Defendants the flexibility to

Transcript

  • 1. Lessons From the Field:Aurora’s Approach to Sustainable Water SupplyPlanningUrban Water Sustainability LeadershipConferenceOctober 16, 2012Lisa G. Darling, South Platte Program Manager
  • 2. Today’s Presentation Objectives• To Understand the City of Aurora, Colorado’s History and Water Development• To Discuss Aurora Water’s Post-2002 Plan - Project Alternatives & Integrated Resource Planning Process• Selected Alternative – Prairie Waters Project Overview• To Look Ahead to Partnerships and our Future
  • 3. Aurora, Colorado Aurora
  • 4. City of Aurora, Colorado• 3rd largest city in the state – for now• Population 325,000 (2010 census)• Home to Buckley Air Force Base and the Gateway to the Rockies!
  • 5. Aurora’s History• Founded in 1891, the city of Aurora wasoriginally named Fletcher by its founder,former Chicago resident Donald Fletcher.• 1929 - Colorados Secretary of State recognized Aurora—with 2,000residents—as a city, and tax revenues were appropriated for sewers,roads and fire stations. Today, Aurora generates over $140 million inrevenues.•1954 - Denver Water Board imposes a ―Blue Line‖ in the suburbsbeyond which it will no longer grant permits for new water taps. Parts ofAurora fall out of the Denver Water Board service area.•1958 - Aurora enters into an agreement with the City of ColoradoSprings to construct the ―Homestake Project,‖ designed to use waterrights purchased on the Western Slope and bring that water to the twocities.
  • 6. Homestake Dam Construction• Photo of the homestake construction something historic…?
  • 7. 2002’s Water Supply Crisis 26% of System Storage
  • 8. Drought Effects onWater Reservoirs • Every drop counts Homestake Reservoir
  • 9. A New Reality?
  • 10. Aurora Conducted Comprehensive Integrated Resource Planning• 50 potential projects• Range of individual project yields: - 2,000 to 48,000 acre-feet/year• Basins of Origin: - Colorado River - Arkansas River - South Platte River• Demand Management Included with Water Supply Forecasts
  • 11. Integrated Resource Plan Considered Key Criteria in Evaluation of Water Supply Options Sustainability Capital/Operating Costs Institutional/Government/Public Issues Environmental/Permitting Expandability Yield Schedule Risk
  • 12. Prairie Waters Project – The Selected Alternative 34 miles of 60-inch pipeline 3 pumping stations North Campus (bank filtration and aquifer recharge and recovery) 50-mgd water purification facility
  • 13. Why Was This the Right Sustainable Project for Aurora?• Responsible Use of Resources – Reduces the need for trans-basin diversions from Western Slope – Maximizing use of an in-basin renewable resource – Uses water rights already owned by the City of Aurora• River Water Quality Benefits – Minimizes need for waste discharges such as brine from RO – Uses natural treatment systems• Environmental Benefits – Avoids the impacts to wilderness landscapes – Maintains rural open space and river corridor habitat• Protects Public Health – Improves reliability of Aurora’s purification processes – Exceeds current regulations and meets Aurora’s high standards – Can respond to changes in water quality• Cost Effective and Practical – Reduces cost of purification – Maximizes use of $300 million in water rights already owned by the city
  • 14. Prairie Waters Project Provides Drought Hardening and Meets Long-Term Capacity Needs Todays System Prairie Waters Project - Core Project Prairie Waters Project (with Future Additions) 130 120System Yield and System Demand 110 105,500 AF/YR (1000s acre-feet/year) 100 90 ` 80 70 65,500 AF/YR 60 50 55,500 AF/YR 40 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
  • 15. PWP Sources of Supply• Previously Decreed Reusable Return Flows – 10,000 ac-ft in 2011• New Supplies – Agricultural Transfers/ Leases – Storage Development – Other Supply Development Projects
  • 16. Plan for Augmentation• Decreed water sources under Colorado’s prior appropriation doctrine• Filed on the augmentation of return flows from pumping tributary groundwater• Replaced in time, quantity and location• Modeled depletive effects to the river• Ability to add new water sources as ―substitute supplies‖ under notice provisions• Storage firms yield and increases operational efficiencies
  • 17. Construction Pipeline RouteBid Packages E-470 Easement Bid Package G Segment 1 (13 miles) Bid Package J North Campus Bid Package H Segment 2 (9 miles) Bid Package E Pump Stations Bid Package I Segment 3 (11 miles) Bid Package F Binney Water Purification Facility Bid Package N Robertsdale Tank and Pump Station
  • 18. North Campus17 riverbankfiltration wellsalong the river. Pilot testing of aquifer recharge and recovery basins.
  • 19. Prairie Waters Project Natural Purification SystemsRiverbank Filtration (RBF)(10 days travel time) Aquifer Recharge & Recovery (ARR) (30 days travel time)
  • 20. The Cost of a Reliable Water Supply• Cost of residential water usage – 2002 - $2.02 per thousand gallons – 2008 - $4.54 per thousand gallons (3 tier)• Cost of a tap for a house (10% of cost) – 2002 - $6,711 per residence – 2008 - $20,875 per residence• Capitalization Cost – $600 million in revenue debt issued
  • 21. Combining the Best of Natural and Engineered Purification StepsChallengesTaste and OdorColorTDSNitratePathogensOrganicsMicro-Pollutants
  • 22. Pumping StationsPumps and motors Pump stations nearly complete.undergoing testing. Forebay tank 1.5 million gallons.
  • 23. Pump Station 2May 2010 Aerial View
  • 24. Peter D. Binney Water Purification Facility Control building completed April 12.Water being delivered to forebay. Building façades complete. Site overview.
  • 25. Binney Water Purification FacilityMay 2010 Aerial View Robertsdale Tank and Pump Station Softening/ Control Pretreatment Building Flocculation/ Sedimentation Basins Clearwell Pump Station Ultraviolet Disinfection Filtration/Adsorption Chemical Storage
  • 26. Budget Status Estimate at Project Element Current Budget CompletionA Storm Drain Bypass Extension $2,245,119 $2,245,119E Pumping Stations 1, 2, and 3 $65,461,920 $59,923,758F PDB Water Purification Facility $232,076,786 $215,012,592G Conveyance Pipeline Segment 1 $65,580,576 $59,294,303H Conveyance Pipeline Segment 2 $19,973,028 $19,935,261I Conveyance Pipeline Segment 3 $38,943,516 $34,863,000J1 North Campus $68,236,542 $62,780,194L Access Road for Binney Purification Facility $4,849,174 $4,759,433N Zone 4 Tanks / Zone 5 Pump Station $17,916,251 $17,027,309 OCIP, System Security, Utility Installs $18,631,652 $17,144,298 Engineering, Legal, Program Mgmt. $110,536,819 $106,145,525 Land Acquisition and ROW $49,000,000 $46,970,584 Reserve Funds $61,348,617 $7,898,624 Total Core Project $754,800,000 $653,000,000 Estimated Cost Below Budget ($101,800,000)
  • 27. Success Factors• Quality plans and specifications• Close coordination with interested third parties (regulatory and non-regulatory)• Pre-qualified, experienced contractors• Partnering among the owner, designer, construction manager, and contractors to resolve problems equitably and promptly• Careful budget management by Aurora Water Project Engineers and the Program Team• Continuous value engineering reviews
  • 28. Now what?
  • 29. WISE Partnership• Three-way partnership – Aurora Denver, South Metro Water Supply Authority (SMWSA)• Regional project creating efficiencies, maximizing existing water supplies, and cooperating on agricultural water acquisitions• Cooperative sharing of infrastructure and water that promotes conservation through reuse
  • 30. WISE Partnership Chronology • ADW2/ADW2—Denver Water and Aurora begin to evaluate joint opportunities (Cooperative IGA)2007 • Denver Water and South Metro Pilot Study • ADW2+ MOU to include SMWSA2008 • ADW2+ MOU Amendment - Agreement to fund additional studies2009 • WISE Partnership Joint Acquisition IGA • Completion of Pricing Model • Negotiation of Interim Agreement2010
  • 31. WISE Partnership Metro WWTP Denver Aurora Binney Water Purification Facility Aurora Reservoir Conduit 27 Potential WTP Rueter-Hess Reservoir " Foothills WTP South Metro
  • 32. Hypothetical Wet, Normal and Dry Year Operations Wet Year Normal Year Dry Year / DW use of System
  • 33. Preliminary Water Supply Results 2012 Plan:  AW: firm yield met in all years  DWB: 0 ac-ft/yr  SMWSA: 8,500 ac-ft/yr (on average)* * Annual yields range from 5,000 – 11,000 ac-ft in any one year Long-Term Plan:  AW: firm yield met in all years  DWB: 15,000 ac-ft/yr (when needed)  SMWSA: Up to 60,000 ac-ft/yr (on average) ** **Annual yields range from 0 – 96,000 ac-ft in any one year
  • 34. WISE Joint Acquisition IGA• In July 2009, Aurora Water, Denver Water and the South Metro Water Supply Authority entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement to facilitate the joint acquisition of water rights and development of water infrastructure, as part of the WISE Partnership process.
  • 35. Goals?• Provide a framework for sharing water acquisition and infrastructure opportunities within certain regions of the South Platte River basin.• Encourage cost savings and other efficiencies with respect to the joint investigation and acquisition of water rights as well as the change of use for those water rights.• Permit the joint development and use of water infrastructure facilities for a more efficient use (and reuse) of water within the participants respective service areas.
  • 36. Benefits to Aurora Efficient utilization of the Prairie Waters Project (PWP) system - Offset PWP costs - Share in the cost of future expansion and water rights purchases - Protects current and future firm yield of water supply system
  • 37. Benefits to Denver 3-way new supply for Denver - Access to unused supplies - May be used to replace ―Strategic Water Reserve‖ - New ―system feed‖ from lower South Platte
  • 38. Benefits to South Metro  Greater regional cohesion  Efficient utilization of regional infrastructure  Opportunity to meet midterm goals most efficiently  Reduces reliance on groundwater  Minimizes the need to purchase water rights
  • 39. Benefits to Partnership Connected systems and a cooperative atmosphere will provide added options and redundancy during emergencies A regional solution to best utilize existing water and infrastructure resources to meet future water supply needs in a regionally sustainable manner Reducing legal fees and water rights disputes between parties
  • 40. Strategic Planning Program • Long and short-range water resources planning • Planning support for the Basin Programs • Development and maintenance of planning models and tools • Regional planning • Integrated resources planning • CIP development – supplies, storage, conveyance/treatment • Demand forecasting / water conservation
  • 41. Water Resources Planning Process Existing System Finalize Demand CIP Projections Projects vs. Identify Revenue Shortages Identify Draft CIP Projects Evaluate Projects
  • 42. Strategic Issues to be Addressed Climate Change Training/Compensation/Succession Planning Customer Service Financial Sustainability Regional Partnerships and Other Cooperative Operating Agreements
  • 43. Questions?Please contact me atldarling@auroragov.org(303) 739-7384
  • 44. Peter J. Frost Executive DirectorDouglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority
  • 45. TIMETABLE OF EVENTSo January 2004: Google acquires 101 Aquilla Way o August 2006: Google submits data center plans o September 2006: Data center plans approved o October 2006: Data center construction begins o December 2006: Re-use contract negotiations commence o August 2007: Data center operations commence o December 2007: Google submits re-use plant plans o January 2008: Re-use contract executed o February 2008: Google re-use plans approved o March 2008: Re-use plant construction begins o November 2008: WSA begins operations o October 2009: Project formally accepted
  • 46. Contract Terms Confidentiality Initial construction Ownership Operation and maintenance Expansion Charges and fees Guarantees
  • 47. MaryLynn Lodor,Environmental Program Manager, MSDGC 69
  • 48. A new paradigm of urban drainage and usedwater reuse with resource recovery needs to bedeveloped and implemented. 70
  • 49. resource recovery: urban drainage• View and Use Water as a Resource• Integrated approaches (previously siloed) to technology, planning, policy, construction, economics, etc.• Water in the urban environment must be approached as a single resource that can be continuously reused and recycled. 71
  • 50. • 4 Rs – Reduce, Reclaim, Reuse, Restore – Reduce – water & energy conservation – Reclaim - Treat for safe discharge into environment & Reclaim energy (heat), nutrients – Reuse after additional treatment – Restore water bodies as a resource• 3 Ss – Separate, Sequester and Store – Separate Blue, White, Gray, Yellow & Black Water – Sequester GHGs & remove/detoxify toxics – Store reclaimed water on the surface or underground• 2 Ts – Toilet to Tap – Reclamation with or without 3Ss for potable reuse
  • 51. MSD’s Operational System resource recovery
  • 52. Operational & Environmental Performance resource recovery
  • 53. resource recovery• Fats, Oils & Grease Program  Estimated 10 MG grease trap “waste” discharged into MSDGC annually.• Working with University of Cincinnati tocharacterize the content of trap greasecollected from WWTP• Based on the oil content and the trapgrease production each year, theestimated production of biodiesel could be20,000 gallons/year. A new paradigm of urban drainage and used water reuse with resource recovery needs to be developed and implemented. 75
  • 54. water reuseMetroWest CommercePark – CommunityDevelopmentindustrial redevelopmentsite, minutes fromdowntown & adjacent toMill Creek WRF Mill Creek Water ~18-acre clean Reclamationsite/Ohio DOD approvedland for redevelopment Facility Could be supplied withindustrial grade waterprocessed fromreclaimed wastewater. ⁄ 76
  • 55. resource recovery: urban drainage• Centralized Wastewater Disposal – flow deprived streams• Urbanized effects • Habitat loss and degradation • Increases to peak flow • Decreased base flow • Loss of Streams - conversion to sewers 77
  • 56. resource recovery: urban drainageThe goal is to manage the water so that an areas’ natural water balance is the same after development as it was before.Next generation developments maximize the value of water: – Use water features to form or preserve the landscape, and as recreational and ecological preservation areas. – Incorporate water resource features that are aesthetically pleasing and serve a function in the water cycle. – Engineer features or restore or incorporate ponds, creeks and waterways otherwise into the urban design. 79
  • 57. GOAL resource recovery: urban drainageReduce stormwater inflow into the combined sewer system and out of the treatment plant • Locate streams, ditches, and swales that flow directly into the combined sewer system • Divert the flow to a “green” feature to help restore nature drainage and keep the water within the natural hydrologic cycle
  • 58. • Waste reduction/ resource Direct recoveryImpact • Owned and operated by MSDProjects to support its core mission • Remove liability of stormwater • Incorporate GI with public & Enabled private partners Impact • Bioinfiltration practices, Projects green roofs, pervious/porous paving • Programmatic Elements to support sustainable infrastructure solutionsInform & • Integrated PlanningInfluence • Advisory Committee • Community Engagement
  • 59. CSO Contributions within Watershed Who contributes = who pays / ¼ acre =Residential is 0.1MG/contributing annualless than 1%of the flowtributary toa CSONeed for true 18 acre big boxcosting to 23 acre big box 16 MG/annualincentivize 21MG/annualonsitemanagement Large Box Sites (2)of reduced 18 – 23 acre sitesinflow 83
  • 60. CSO Contributions within Watershed Who contributes = who pays / ¼ acre =Residential is 0.1MG/contributing annualless than 1%of the flowtributary toa CSONeed for true 15 acre big boxcosting to Water Billing based on 18 acre big box 16 MG/annualincentivize Consumption (cubic feet/month) 21MG/annualonsitemanagement ¼ acre w/ 1 bath $22.33 Large Box Sites (2)of reduced 15 – 18 acre sites 23 acres ofinflow impervious & 6 toilets $48.37 18 acres of impervious & 6 toilets $22.00 84
  • 61. – Water conservation, reuse, and recycle reduces GHG emissions– WWTPs –as renewable resource recovery facilities that produce clean water, recover e nergy and generate nutrients. 85
  • 62. 86