Newark Desalination Facility. San Francisco Bay HILLS COYOTE ALAMEDA CREEK Newark DRY CREEK Union...
-
Upload
florence-bruce -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Newark Desalination Facility. San Francisco Bay HILLS COYOTE ALAMEDA CREEK Newark DRY CREEK Union...
Newark Desalination Facility
San Francisco Bay
HILLS
CO
YO
TE
ALAMEDA
CREEK
Newark
DR
YC
RE
EK
Union City
I-68
0
HA
YW
AR
D FA
ULT
I-880
HW
Y 84
HWY 92
0miles0.5 1
C
San Jose
SanFrancisco Oakland Walnut
Creek
San Francisco B
ay
Location Map
Fremont
ACWD Service Area
Hetch-Hetchy (SFPUC)
South Bay Aqueduct (DWR)
Fremont
Well Fields
Water Treatment Plants
ACWD Water Supply Planning
ACWD Integrated Resources Planning Study (1995) identified key issues for ACWD:Dry year water supply reliabilitySystem production capacityWater quality (hardness)
IRP Recommended Strategy and Implementation Status
Item Status
Water Conservation All cost-effective BMPs are being implemented
Off-site Water Storage
150,000 AF of groundwater banking secured at Semitropic (1996, 2001)
Enhanced Local
Conjunctive Use
Quarry Lakes recharge pits rehabilitation completed (1996)
Recycled Water Joint ACWD/Union Sanitary District feasibility studies completed
Brackish GW Desalination
Phase 1 (5 MGD) facility in operation
(2003)
Niles Cone Groundwater Basin and Aquifer Reclamation Program
Niles Cone Groundwater Basin
Brackish Groundwater Desalination Concept
Brackish Groundwater Desalination Benefits
Water Supply New source of supply Firm source of supply
Water Production Provides new source of production to
distribution system Water Quality
High quality water Helps meet district’s hardness goals
Reliability of Local Control Provides water source west of Hayward
Fault Does not rely on outside sources
1998 - Pilot Tests Performed
Findings
ARP water has low membrane fouling potential & requires minimal pretreatment
Low pressure membranesperformed well and will meet WQ Objectives
RO Concentrate met NPDES discharge requirements
San Francisco Bay
HILLS
CO
YO
TE
ALAMEDA
CREEK
Newark
DR
YC
RE
EK
Union City
Fremont
I-68
0
HA
YW
AR
D FA
ULT
I-880
HW
Y 84
HWY 92
0miles0.5 1
C
ACWD Service Area
DESALINATION FACILITY
CEDAR WELLFIELD
DARVON WELLFIELD
2001 – Designs Finalized
Desal Facility $12.2 MDesal Facility $12.2 M
Well Upgrades $ 1.3 MWell Upgrades $ 1.3 M
Supply and Supply and Discharge Pipelines $ 6.7 MDischarge Pipelines $ 6.7 M
Total : $20.2 MTotal : $20.2 M
Concentrate Discharge
Final Discharge Location Flood control channel
discharges to San Francisco Bay (approximately 2500 ft from Desal, 20,000 ft from San Francisco Bay)
Discharge Monitoring is conducted regularly to ensure that the concentrate stream is not negatively impacting the environment
Projected Annual Operating Cost: $ 241/Ac-Ft
Chemicals 11% Power
65%
Membrane Replacement
6%Labor 18%
Power Cost - $1,026,564Chemical Cost - $166,375Labor Cost - $278,775Amortized Membrane Replacement Cost - $88,647
Summary – What Have We Learned?
Desalination provides ACWD cost-effective local supply Improved water quality Public acceptance – favorably received Cost comparable with other supplies
Most challenging aspects included: Discharge permit Construction in an urbanized area
Future challenges include: Regulatory changes regarding discharge Future energy costs uncertain
End of Presentation
NPDES Permit Requirements for Desal
Conduct Self-Monitoring Program:On a monthly basis:
• Perform Acute Toxicity Testing on Concentrate– static renewal bioassay using 2 test species: three-spine stickleback and either rainbow trout or fathead minnow.
• Sample Concentrate for - Total Dissolved Solids, Dissolved Oxygen, Chlorides, Conductivity, pH, Temperature, Salinity and Total Metals (i.e., Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Magnesium, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver and Zinc).
Flood Control Channel Discharge Issues
Concentrate Water Quality• Salinity• Trace Metal Concentrations
Habitat Impacts• Sensitive Species• Vegetation
Permit Acquisition• Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES
Permit to Discharge• Calif Dept of Fish & Game Streambed Alteration
Permit to Construct Outfall
Permit Acquisition Approach
Identify Major Stakeholders and their concerns California Regional Water Control Board (RWQCB) United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) California Department of Fish and Game (CDF)
Conduct feasibility & technical studies (i.e., pilot work & water quality analysis)
Conduct vegetative biotic surveys to confirm habitat species
Projected Concentrate Discharge Water Quality
Specific Constituents of Concern
RWQCB
Fresh Water Quality Objectives (ug/L)2
Projected Concentrate Discharge (ug/L)
Selenium 5 2.8 – 4.6
Copper 38.7 19.9 – 32.8
Chromium VI 11 ND1
Nickel 509 3.3 – 5.5
Zinc 343 24.2 – 40.11 Non Detect (Chromium VI is not naturally occurring and typically present when total chromium values are elevated. Projected total chromium = 14.9 -24.6 ug/l)2 Calculated values assuming a hardness = 400 mg/l
Water Quality Objectives RO Permeate (Potable) Water Quality
TDS <100 mg/l Hardness < 10 mg/l
Finished Water Quality Hardness <150 mg/l Non-corrosive Good Tasting Water
Concentrate Water Quality pH 6-9 Non-toxic Meet NPDES Permit Requirements
Future Related Projects Wellfield Treatment Facility
Purpose: Demineralize well water and reblend w/ well and SFPUC Water
Impact: Lower hardness, improve protection and operating flexibility
Date: 2006
Newark Desal Facility Expansion Purpose: Additional production; blended with well
water Impact: Lower, more uniform hardness, increase
reliability Date: 2009