San Francisco Bay Nutrients Update

Transcription

1 San Francisco Bay Nutrients Update Planning Committee September 8, 2015

2 Outline Background Emerging SF Bay Nutrient District Perspectives Next Steps 2

3 Background Overview Most WWTPs in SF Bay do not remove nutrients SF Bay has been historically resilient to nutrient enrichment Early science studies suggest this may be changing Advanced Tertiary Secondary Primary Treatment Nutrient Removal Wastewater Treatment Levels 3

4 Background Potential Impact of Excess Nutrients Excess Nutrients (N and P) Excess algal biomass (eutrophication) Low dissolved oxygen Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Aesthetics Recreation Habitat Fisheries Chesapeake Bay Gulf of Mexico Deadzone 4

5 SF Bay Nutrient-enriched, But Relatively Muted Response Chl-a (µg L -1 ) during average bloom MD Coastal Bays Barnegat Florida Bay Chesapeake Pensacola Delaware Narragansett Lower South Bay South Bay Central Bay San Pablo Bay Suisun Bay Nitrogen Load (g N/m 2 /yr) Likely due to High turbidity Strong tidal mixing High population of algal-filtering clams

6 Evidence of Changing Response in SF Bay Inhibit Algal Growth 10 Low Dissolved Oxygen in shallow margins (e.g., Alviso Slough) Increased Algal Biomass 0 South Bay phytoplankton biomass (Summer/Fall)

7 Recent Evidence of Harmful Algae in SF Bay Are toxins entering the food web? Mussel Watch: Toxins detected Concentration << regulatory limit Note: Domoic acid regulatory limit for shellfish: 20 ppm

8 San Francisco Bay Nutrient Concern Is the Bay currently impaired? What is the role of nutrients? What management actions are necessary? South Bay phytoplankton biomass (Summer/Fall) Chl-a (µg L -1 )

9 SF Bay Nutrient Management Activities Scientific Studies 10 + Years (Initiated 2012) Data Review, Monitoring, Special Studies, Modeling 2024 BACWA provides ~$880K annually to fund the $1.4 M scientific studies 2019 Multiple Permits to Come Regulatory Approach 5-yr Watershed Permit (effective 2014) Nutrient monitoring Plant optimization and upgrade studies Support for Scientific Studies No Net Load Increase? Load Reduction? Additional Funding to Scientific Studies 9

10 District Perspectives MWWTP Nutrient Inputs to SF Bay Online nutrient discharges tracked by the San Francisco Bay Keeper EBMUD MWWTP

11 District Perspectives Central Bay Discharge Location Lower nutrient impact Strong mixing and water replenishment from the Pacific Ocean Lower nutrient concentration Emerging concerns of coastal impact 11

12 District Perspectives Nutrient Treatment at MWWTP Cost: >$300 million?? New technologies Established Development Emerging Cost Sustainability Embryonic Time 12

13 District Perspectives Sidestream Contribution to Nutrient Influent (Nutrient) Wastewater Treatment Sludges Nutrient Anaerobic Digesters Dewatering Sidestream Biosolids <2% of Plant Flow >30% of Plant Nutrient Load 13

14 District Actions Sidestream Nutrient Treatment Leading a regional EPA grant study Pilot testing innovative technologies N 2 gas Ammonia Reduced Ammonia Level 14

15 District Actions Develop a Multi-faceted Workplan Evaluate low-cost optimization opportunities Identify upgrade options Monitor/pilot emerging technologies Support regional scientific studies Lead regulatory and permitting strategy development 15

16 District Actions Explore Multi-benefits Projects Costly Upgrades at Wastewater Treatment Plant Reduced Nutrient Output San Francisco Bay Water Recycling Wetland 16

17 Challenges Different Perspectives Scientists Regulators Environ. Org. POTWs

18 Next Steps Continue to develop District s nutrient work plan Continue to participate in regional nutrient efforts Scientists Regulators Environ. Org. POTWs 18

19 MWWTP Odor Mitigation Update Planning Committee September 8, 2015

20 Agenda Background Odor Complaint History Odor Mitigation Efforts Public Outreach Next Steps 2

21 Background Residential/Commercial Development Freeways, Bike/Pedestrian Path Target, Best Buy, Extended Stay America, Ikea Planned Food Waste Processing Facilities Future Waste Recyclers West End Commons, Happy Hound

22 MWWTP Odor Complaint History Number of Odor Complaints District KPI 10% reduction in odor complaints (relative to a baseline) FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY Baseline = 25 complaints complaints = 8% reduction

23 Improved Odor Complaint Investigation Process in FY15 In FY15, staff implemented a detailed procedure to investigate the likely source of odors following an odor complaints, including site visits Although 36 odor complaints were received in FY15, 13 were identified as non-plant related (23 remaining) Field investigations at 32 nd Street/Peralta Street in April revealed periodic application of manure to a community garden project as the source of these odor complaints This finding was shared with local residents, as well as the West Oakland Neighbors 5

24 Increasing Capital Investment in Odor Control Improvements The District s investment in major capital improvements to control odors is expected to nearly quadruple over the next five years $16M spent over the last 15 years $19M planned over next five years PROJECT SEGMENT FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 5 YR 10 YR TOTAL TOTAL IPS Odor Control Sys Impr 2,568 1, ,690 9,145 Fill-Drain Diversion Structure Odor Control Dewatering Bldg , ,135 3,135 Odor Monitoring System Primary Sed Odor Control 477 2,550 2,652 3, ,862 20,812 R2 Facility Odor Ctrl Upgrade ,595 2,445 2,445 Totals 3,807 3,826 2,897 6,948 1,595 19,073 36,478 6

25 MWWTP Capital Improvements Planned Odor Control Projects UPGRADE SOLIDS DEWATERING BUILDING ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM INSTALL PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM GRIT REMOVAL SYSTEM UPGRADE UPGRADE INFLUENT PUMP STATION ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM Odor Control Projects Completed Planned WASTE RECEIVING STATION ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM SEPTAGE RECEIVING STATION ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM AND UPGRA DE

26 Increasing Odor Monitoring and Response through Technology Innovations Staff is currently evaluating an innovative new technology that utilizes e-noses to measure odors and predict the potential for off-site impacts Each e-nose include 16 metal oxide sensors Allows detection of a broad range of odor compounds (not just hydrogen sulfide) with real-time output Evaluation is expected to be completed by December 2015 The next phase would include purchase of additional sensors and integration with weather data and off-site odor dispersion modeling 8

27 Key Odor Control Initiative e-noses Real-time Odor Monitoring Technology e-nose Locations Influent Pump Station Primary Sed. Tanks Secondary Clarifiers 9

28 Food Waste Program Expansion Staff is working to ensure that the planned expansion of the food waste program does not increase the potential for off-site odors Harvest Power facilities would include building enclosures and an odor control system with key operational controls Operational controls include limiting on-site material storage, housekeeping procedures, covering trucks, closing doors, etc. Staff intends to monitor odors around these facilities during operation and will work to address any odor issues via operational and/or capital improvements 10

29 Public Outreach Efforts Communicating Progress Staff has continued to update the local community on the District s continued progress and renewed commitment West Oakland Liaison Group meeting February 2015 West Oakland Neighbors meetings September 2014, October 2014, June 2015 Strong assurance from District that planned food waste activities will not increase odors 11

30 Next Steps Continue design and construction of key capital improvement projects IPS Odor Control System Improvements Primary Sedimentation Tank Odor Control e-nose Evaluation (and Expansion) Ensure incorporation of odor control measures and operational controls in food waste projects Provide updates on continued progress to local community groups 12