Mary s Creek Water Recycling Center

Transcription

1 Mary s Creek Water Recycling Center S. Frank Crumb, P.E. Water Director April 13, 2010

2 Wastewater Treatment/Water Recycling Center Evaluation of options Proposed technology Site evaluation/community Advisory Committee Ongoing process Open House Environmental assessment 2

3 Why are we looking at wastewater treatment options? Existing FW system has 1 wastewater treatment plant (Village Creek WWTP) Growth occurring in the north, west, and southwest Northern growth addressed by TRA s Denton Creek Need to identify opportunities for beneficial reuse Region C Plan calls for of 28% of future supply derived from conservation & reuse by

4 Background and History first wastewater plant at Gateway park (old Riverside WWTP) 1958 Village Creek WWTP Original capacity - 5 mgd Current capacity mgd 4

5 Service Area Boundaries 1998 Service Area Boundary - 260,680 Ac Service Area Boundary 316,850 Ac. 5

6 Mary s Creek Basin 6

7 Growth Projections The Mary s Creek basin has the most potential for development The basin is centrally located and near potential water reuse opportunities Preliminary Wastewater Master Plan identifies a need by 2025 regional development could impact schedule 7

8 Reuse Potential Numerous studies have identified potential to implement reuse in west Fort Worth Planned installation of dual systems for the distribution of reuse water Reuse is a sustainable practice Reuse delays the need for developing raw water supplies 8

9 What are the wastewater treatment options? 1. Allow growth on the west side until existing system capacity is met 2. Convey flow to Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCWWTP) 3. Build wastewater facility on west side of Fort Worth Conventional Process High Tech Facility 9

10 Option 1 Use existing capacity Pros No immediate impact to neighboring areas Cons Short term solution Development would be curtailed once capacity is reached No opportunity for water reuse 10

11 Option 2 - Convey flow to Village Creek WWTP 11

12 12

13 Option 2 Convey flow to VCWWTP Pros Addresses treatment needs of increased flows from west side development Limited initial impact to development in Mary s Creek Cons High capital & operational costs Negative impact of increased transportation time Increased environmental risk from potential overflows Increased odor and pipe corrosion as H2S levels increase Disruption of Central City through rerouting of pipelines Short-term solution due to limited capacity at VC Regulatory limits on discharge No potential for water reuse 13

14 Option 3: Water Recycling Center Existing Potential Existing 14

15 15

16 Option 3 Water Recycling Center Pros Manage impact of growth in city limits and ETJ Limits need for new pipeline corridors through central city Opportunity for reuse Furthers progress toward State and Regional goals Positive impact on Water Supply and Water Quality Meet long-term regional growth demands Provides potential for regional service Cons Impact to neighboring areas 16

17 Proposed Technology Membrane BioReactor (MBR) Uses conventional methods of preliminary solids removal and biological aeration Eliminates the need for secondary clarifiers and a separate filtration system Membranes perform the separation of the final effluent through filtration Benefits Smaller facility footprint Better process, air, noise and lighting control Higher quality of effluent Construction can conform to community livability Limitations Potential increase in operational costs 17

18 Similar MBR Facilities Site Rendering Broad Run Water Reclamation Facility Loudoun County Sanitation Authority, Virginia Integrated Facility Effluent 29 The facility s effluent discharges through a constructed, natural-looking stream to two effluent display ponds, which together with landscape architectural features and trails, create a campus-like setting that provides a community amenity

19 Similar MBR Facilities Butler Water Reclamation Facility Peoria, Arizona Architectural Features Covered Facilities Large Buffers Landscaping 19

20 Similar MBR Facilities Desert Dunes WRF Yuma, Arizona 20

21 Site Evaluation Led by Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Built upon previous studies Three step analysis Low-level selection of multiple possible sites Mid-level determination of 6 best sites High-level determination of 3 best sites Community Advisory Committee (CAC) process joins with technical process Diverse 17-member committee of residential, business, governmental and environmental representatives 21

22 Community Advisory Committee Thad Brundrette Dana Burghdoff Fran Burns Jyl DeHaven Kyle Ferguson Victor Garcia Terry Gratton David Jefferson Adelaide Leavens Don Little Cheryl Onken Wayne Owen & Darrel Andrews Becky Richards Mark Presswood Gail Tidwell Brinton Payne David Wasson Wastewater Master Plan Advisory Committee Fort Worth Planning and Development Department Water Conservation Advisory Committee Development Advisory Committee Lost Creek Golf Course Fort Worth Hispanic Chamber of Commerce UNT Health Science Center - Environmental Health Tarrant County Public Health Streams and Valleys Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Old Weatherford Road Association Tarrant Regional Water District TCU Environmental Science Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council Neighborhood Association of Lost Creek Estates Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce Benbrook Water Authority 22

23 WRC Site Basic Requirements 45 acres for 25MGD plant 25 acres for plant at build out (projected 2060) 20 acres of TCEQ required buffer Additional 55 acres for: Future joint uses which could include: Parks Athletic fields City facilities (Library, Community Center, etc) Additional space for buffer zones 23

24 Screening Criteria Available land Proximity to existing development/neighborhoods Maximize gravity service Proximity to a potential discharge location Proximity to community facilities Site conditions & topography Adjacent uses Community livability Infrastructure impacts Water quality and environmental impacts Cost impacts 24

25 Mary s s Creek Basin WRC Potential Sites 25

26 Site 2 - Conceptual Build Out Membrane Technology Longvue Hwy

27 Site 4 - Conceptual Build Out Membrane Technology Longvue 27

28 Site 10 Conceptual Build Out Membrane Technology Chapin 28

29 Projected Timeline April 7, 2010 Open House Conduct water quality modeling and environmental assessment 2010 Wastewater Master Plan 2010 Results Determination of wastewater service option 2011 Finalize Property Options 2011 Property acquisition approved by City Council 2011 Initiate TPDES permitting and preliminary design 2-3 year process Design, Bid, Construct wastewater treatment option 3-4 year process Additional informational presentations for neighborhood associations, businesses and interested parties in 2010/2011 Public participation throughout evaluation period and design phase 29

30 Open House Issues addressed through stations: Wastewater treatment fundamentals Environmental impacts Air quality/odor control Water quality Traffic Lighting Storm water/flooding Water reuse Project process Wastewater Master Plan Attendees learn about flood control in Mary s Creek 30

31 Open House Citizen Participation: 206 attended 105 comment cards received Site preference (65) Site 10 (58) Site 2 (2) Other/Walsh Ranch (5) General disagreement (15) Property value concern (11) Environmental impact (7) General support (4) Public process/cac (3) 31

32 Next Steps Update Mary s Creek Website Prepare and mail contact list of all interested parties Continue public outreach through informational meetings to neighborhoods & interested parties Begin property discussions and environmental site/market value assessments Meet with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Solicit proposal to perform water quality monitoring, modeling and environmental assessment 32

33 Mary s Creek Water Recycling Center Questions

34 Path Forward Finalize engineering report Water quality modeling Flooding and erosion study Environmental field work Pursue joint use opportunities Acquire property Conduct conceptual design and prepare TPDES permit application Obtain permit Conduct detailed design Construction 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 Technical Criteria Available land Proximity to existing development Maximize gravity service Proximity to a potential discharge location Proximity to community facilities Site conditions/ topography Odor, lighting, noise abatement Perimeter fencing Adjacent land use impacts Plant construction and collection system costs Floodplain considerations Beneficial use of effluent Regionalization Treatment plant discharge Transportation infrastructure Proximity to raw water lines Proximity to large collection mains for solids management Power Supply Land acquisition impact 39

40 CAC Criteria Public Acceptance Recreational opportunities Odor control Noise abatement Lighting control Traffic impact Fencing Development impact Regional potential Adjacent land use Floodplain/storm water management Water quality and environmental impacts Cost impacts Site elevation and architectural fit Discharge quality 40