Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Water Resources Advisory Committee - 08/14/2003 L . �0�021314T w , f� !� MINUTES '4° 0718:4:7:1 J CO LO Water Resources AdvisoryCommittee 11:30 a.m. —August 4, 2003 \ 1eu Water Department Conference Room � �,ti ,+ • Members present: Lena Coleman, Herman R. Johnson, Jon Kiggans, Carola Serrato, Dr. Karen G. Rue, and Kimberly Stockseth. Members absent: John Kent, Capt. Paula Hinger, and Dr. Jane Stanford. Staff Present: Danny Ybarra, Assistant Director of Water Yolanda R. Marruffo, Public Education and Marketing Coordinator Mucio Garza, Rosie Cortez, Recording Secretary Chairperson Carola Serrato called meeting to order at 11:40 a.m. A quorum was present. Approval of June 26, 2003 Minutes Kimberly Stockseth made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Lena Coleman and unanimously approved. REVIEW OF DESALINATION PROJECTS Presentation on Padre Island Desalination Plant Feasibility Analysis and Siting Plan Mr. Jonathan Howard with Carollo Engineers presented a PowerPoint presentation as was made to the City Council on Tuesday, April 22, 2003. Project Objectives • Improve reliability of water supplies to Padre and Mustang Islands • Provide additional capacity to the Islands • Provide cost-effective solutions • Meet City's schedule for improvements Agenda • Review of status on task-by-task basis • Discussion of project components • Identify potential issues • Work remaining • Review project schedule • Questions SCANNED 1 Tasks • Hydrogeology and Source Water Options • Reverse Osmosis (RO)Treatability • By-Product Disposal • Regulatory and Permitting Assessment • By-Product Disposal • Regulatory and Permitting Assessment • Storage as a System Optimizer • Facilities Siting • Transmission System Assessment • Public Involvement • Project Funding and Delivery Hvdrologv& Source Water Options • Evaluated source water qualities and quantities -Chicot Aquifer (40 - 1,200 ft) • Shallow brackish water aquifer -Evangeline Aquifer (1,200 - 3,400 ft) • Deeper, more saline aquifer with elevated temperature -Gulf of Mexico • Highest salinity • All 3 sources can sustain RO production rates up to 5 MGD Mr. Howard stated that the Chicot Aquifer has the best water quality. Ms. Serrato asked if there had been any analysis on heavy metals or any other constituents. Mr. Howard stated that no analysis had been done. He stated that based on analysis, the City would be capable of producing up to 5 million gallons of water per day (mgd). Groundwater Extraction Alternatives • Identified preliminary well field options to provide adequate supply and limit subsidence Conventional Vertical Wells Used for Evangeline Aquifer Horizontal Wells More economical than vertical wells for Chicot Aquifer Mr. Howard stated that conventional wells would have to be used for the Evangeline Aquifer and that horizontal wells would be more economical than vertical wells. Seawater Intake Alternatives • Beach Wells -Conventional shallow vertical wells -HDD or Collector-type wells • Direct Intake 2 Mr. Howard stated that beach wells are the preferred method. Regulatory agencies are concerned about marine life with use of surface water intake. It is best to avoid surface water intake. Contaminants can be filtered out. Reverse Osmosis (RO) Treatable and Process Alternatives • With the available data, reverse osmosis (RO)will treat all 3 sources • Chicot Aquifer: -Highest recovery with smallest facility footprint • Evangeline Aquifer: -Lower recovery and larger facility footprint -Requires cooling pretreatment • Gulf Seawater: -Largest facility but similar cost and recovery to Evangeline -Requires antimicrobial pretreatment The Chicot Aquifer has the highest recovery with the Evangeline having a lower recovery with a larger facility. He stated that the Gulf Seawater alternative has largest facility with the highest cost and recovery, and also requires anti-microbe treatment. By-Product Disposal Alternatives • A challenging aspect of the project • Preferred Methods: -Ocean Outfall (2-3 miles offshore) -Deep Well Injection (3,500 to more than 5,000 ft deep) • Other Considered Methods: -Thermal Distillation -Freeze Concentration -Evaporation Ponds • Issues -Working with local experts to avoid impacts on wildlife and wetlands -Permitting lead time (13-15 mo.) Mr. Howard stated that they must find a way to get rid of the by-product; otherwise it is a dead project. Generally along the coast, it is typically disposed through an ocean outfall. Other alternatives used in Texas include deep-well injection. Dr. Rue asked what is the by-product. Mr. Howard stated that it is basically salty water. He stated that other methods of by-product disposal are thermal distillation, which is used extensively in Middle East desalination facilities. He stated that based on preliminary screening, the preferred disposal alternatives include surface water discharge to the Gulf of Mexico and deep well injection. Thermal distillation and freeze concentration are technically feasible but relatively expensive. Significant land requirements prevent the use of evaporative ponds, and no potential industry has been identified within the area for consideration of direct sale of the by-product. Since Corpus Christi has a humid climate, bigger evaporation ponds would be needed. The permitting time is usually 13=15 months and generally speaking, there have been no serious issues regarding environmental impacts. This project is seen as providing less 3 • of an impact than developing new surface water. Also, a reverse osmosis plant has less of an impact to a reduction of flows to the Nueces River Basin. Mr. Howard stated that they have met with Corp of Engineers (COE) and others as far as nationwide permitting process, including Padre Island National Seashore. He stated that a properly designed facility could be permitted. He stated that the permitting process depends on the site selection process. Carola Serrato asked about the method of deep well injection vs. outfall and asked if one of the methods was more maintenance intensive and asked which one came out ahead. Mr. Howard stated that right now there really isn't a difference. He stated that they would be able to refine the costs. The biggest difference is that ocean outfall is probably twice as expensive as compared to deep well injection. Regulatory & Permitting Assessment • Identify and met with key regulatory agencies and environmental experts • A properly designed, constructed, and operated facility can be permitted. • Assembled regulatory packet with all necessary permit applications • Permitting schedule: 13-15 months probable • Permitting process is dependent on site location and final design of system components Storage as a System Optimizer • Store treated water during times of low demand, generating a "bubble" within existing aquifer • Appears locally feasible based on hydrogeologic evaluation and has been 'used successfully elsewhere • Could reduce initial design capacity of RO facilities by half, and still meet peak demands • Next Steps: -Develop test holes to define local hydrogeology -Construction and testing of one or more ASR wells -Development of buffer zone within first well If you have a large volume of storage, you can down size treatment capacity and then have your maximum day demand drawn off of your storage. The size of the RO facility has been reduced roughly in half by applying ASR and still meeting the water demands _ of the Island. Ms. Serrato stated that one of the questions the Committee has asked is whether just having an ASR would actually meet the demands without an RO. Mr. Howard stated that it might. He stated that the next step would be to develop test holes. He stated that they would take a look and then report back to the City Council. He stated that there were decision points that would need to take place along the way. He stated that drilling holes on the Island is very expensive and that they would gather information and present data to the City. 4 Facilities Siting • Evaluated potential facility sites on Padre and Mustang Islands • Final site selection determined by: -Environmental issues -Existing distribution system -Land availability and cost -Public acceptance Mr. Howard stated they have narrowed down to two sites, but that the best site has not been selected yet. He stated that the Padre Island Pumping Station is the toprated site. He stated that they looked at the Whitecap Wastewater Treatment Plant site, but that site was eliminated. He stated that residents are already very sensitive to the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Howard stated that TCEQ does not allow RO or ASR facilities near wastewater treatment facilities. He stated that they looked at Padre Island Beach and Bob Hall Pier. There are fewer restrictions at those locations. He stated that the City's land leased from General Land Office (GLO) is the No. 2 plant site, and that No. 1 site is the Padre Island Pump Station. He stated that the NCWCID No. 4 is the alternative third site. The primary site for ASR wells is along S. Padre Island Drive. Facility and Well Site Alternatives • Padre Island Pumping Station/County Park • Nueces County Packery Channel Park • Padre Island Pumping Station • Whitecap WWTP • In the vicinity of NCWCID #4 Pumping Station and Mustang Island State Park • City-leased General Land Office Parcel • Padre Island Beach/Bob Hall Pier Finished Water Transmission Alternatives • Develop preliminary model of the existing distribution system • Develop additional modeling to refine transmission system considering well and facility site locations • Final transmission system will depend on feed water source and facility siting Public Involvement • Completed initial interviews with more than 20 community members and groups • Key Issues thus far include: -Distinguishing between Padre Island and State Projects -Property and environmental/siting/quality of life impacts -Water availability for growth and pressure -Project cost -Groundwater availability and impact on groundwater supply • Upcoming Work: -Meet with business owners association -One or two public forums 5 -Continue to develop a long-term public outreach plan Mr. Howard stated that they have spoken with approximately 20 community groups and have had 2 or 3 public forums. Key issues discussed include environmental issues siting quality of life, water availability to people interested in being accommodated, project cost, ground water availability and impact on users. Funding and Project Delivery Alternatives: • Funding Investigation: -Grants and "in-kind" opportunities -USBR opportunities for demonstration project -Potential research funding • Project Delivery: -Traditional Design-Bid-Build -Design-Build • Promotes fast-track schedule -Public-Private Partnerships • Implementation: -Phased, incremental execution to met demand Mr. Howard stated that the important thing is how the City will fund the project, and identify ways to offset the cost. The city can reduce funding cost by adding to the project on "as needed" basis. The project schedule is 6 to 24 months and delivery to the City Council on August 26, 2003. Proiect Schedule • June 24, 2003 — Finalize preliminary assessment and deliver recommendations to Council • July 2003 — Begin demonstration phase • Dec. 2005 — Demonstration phase complete and initial production • Dec. 2006 — Project completion and full production Recommended Project: Using Chicot Aquifer as source, 2 mgd of ASR, by product will be disposed by deep well injection. Well deep enough to handle 5mgd treatment plant. The estimated cost is $23 million (subject to verification). Mr. Howard stated that depending on the size of the bubble created through ASR, storage could approach 3 mgd over a period of several months. One of the big issues with this project is the demand for water on the Island. Mr. Kiggans asked if the costs included operating costs. Mr. Howard stated that most of the costs were capital and engineering. Ms. Serrato asked what kind of energy cost savings are being used. Mr. Howard stated they were using 6 cents a KW hour. 6 • City staff will examine comparable cost estimates. Once the lowest cost option is identified, the staff will provide the City Council with a presentation possibly between March and June of next year. Ms. Serrato stated that now that Carollo is recommending that Chicot as the source of water, had anyone brought up the concern that perhaps this has really taken a pretty drastic turn on what the original concept was, which was the desalination of sea water. She expressed concern that the study focused solely on underground brackish water. Mr. Howard stated that everyone on the project team recognized the original intent of the project, but it became apparent fairly quickly that we would spend much more on seawater. Ms. Serrato asked if the City Council has basically accepted that we are not looking at desalination of seawater any longer. Mr. Ybarra stated that he believed that the City Council was looking at a combination of seawater and brackish water. Whether the City goes with one or another, they have not yet indicated. They realize that it would be more economical. Ms. Serrato stated that $4.47 was the cost for Chicot and asked for the price of desalinated water. Mr. Howard stated that it was about $7.31 without ASR. Ms. Serrato stated that she knew it was going to be expensive. Ms. Coleman asked what the difference in seawater and brackish water quality from taste point. Mr. Howard stated that one is saltier. She stated that the last desalinated seawater she tasted was awful. She has known people to move from a City because of the taste of the water. Ms. Serrato stated that she has been trying to capture some of the comments/questions that we have been asking and hoping that this Committee may be interested or amenable to trying to capture in a paragraph or letter or written document that we can pass along to the City Council. She stated that ultimately it is the Committee's responsibility to make sure that the City Council realizes that there are certain concerns to avoid any future problems. Ms. Coleman stated that the Committee had already agreed to this. Ms. Serrato asked if there were any suggestions on how to get this accomplished. She asked if the Committee wanted several of them to put something together and then email everyone so they could make their comments before it was sent to the City Council. Ms. Marruffo stated that some of the committee's concerns remain to be addressed by the consultant as part of his continued work scope. Mr. Kiggans stated that it seemed that the City was comparing choices, that the cost of a desalination plant was studied, but not the options of the cost for installing a new transmission line and a line with ASR. We should have the costs for all three and then look at the options. He indicated that it seems like the City is moving forward with only one idea. He stated that he would want to know the costs for all three choices. 7 t• Mr. Kiggans stated that someone in the Water Department should know what the cost for a pipeline should cost. Mr. Ybarra stated that the City already has an estimate and the City Council will be asking those questions, but it is not as straightforward decision. There are a lot of things to talk about and one of the things is the pipeline. Part of the master plan developed in 1997, identified a rough estimate on the cost of a pipeline to the Island. After that, they came back with a revised estimate, and we probably need another estimate to be done. People are expecting improvements to the water situation to the Island a lot quicker. The staff is proceeding to provide the necessary improvements to provide water to Padre Island in a,quicker fashion. The permitting of the pipeline will take about 3 years, extensive EIS, etc. Mr. Kiggans stated that one function of the Committee is to give input to the City that water rates are very high and we should have choices. Mr. Ybarra stated that some of the answers are out there, that these are good questions and that one of the purposes of the Committee is to bring out these questions. Some of the questions he has heard are good questions and if we don't have answers, they should be brought to the City Council. Everyone is worried about the costs. The City Council is aware of it and the consultant is also very aware. Ms. Serrato stated that the question about the cost of the pipeline has been asked on several occasions. We have been told on several occasions that the City doesn't have the numbers. Mr. Ybarra stated cost estimates for a pipeline were included in the City's Master Plan. Ms. Coleman stated that she knows that we do not have some answers, but that we should tell the City Council the concerns of the Committee. Mr. Howard stated that he has concerns on the existing pipeline cost. Mr. Howard stated that he was not confident that the pipeline was sized to handle an RO kind of project. By placing an RO project on the Island, there are some offsetting costs in the City's distribution and treatment system all the way to the O. N. Stevens Plant that have not been properly accounted for. Mr. Howard stated that he would suggest that the City step back and take a system- wide look and make sure that from a system perspective you are really picking the project that gives you the lowest overall cost on a system-wide basis. Ms. Serrato stated that she realized that there are trade-offs, but that by the same token, we need to decide on what method the Committee should bring the matter up to the City Council's attention. Ms. Serrato agreed to write a one-page letter to the City Council and email it to the Committee members for their review. Lena Coleman made a motion that Ms. Serrato develop a letter, send it to the Committee for review and provide comments, and then present it to the Council. Mr. Kiggans seconded and asked if the comments would be mailed or presented to City Council. Ms. Coleman stated that it would be more effective if someone would present it to City Council. Ms. Serrato stated that if the Committee really wanted to make this timely, that someone should present the letter to City Council under Public Comments and she volunteered to do so if the Committee wished. 8 Ms. Coleman amended her motion to include: "and that the Committee request that Ms. Serrato take the letter to the City Council to the August 26 Council meeting". Mr. Kiggans seconded the motion and was approved unanimously. Water Line System Failure Mr. Kiggans stated that the refineries were getting very concerned with the recent water line breaks. Mr. Ybarra stated that the City commissioned a master plan in 1997 that included recommendations to improve the water distribution system. He provided history on the placement of water lines first installed in the downtown area. The water distribution system extended from the Nueces River to that part of the city. As industrial customers developed along the Port Ship Channel, the 20" water lines were undersized and are now 80 years old. The normal life expectancy is about 60 years. The City has construction contracts to redo some areas along Leopard Street. The section from Rand Morgan to Lantana was completed in two phases. The City has several areas where the lines need to be replaced and will continue to address them through the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Ybarra discussed the large water line breaks that occurred during the last several months. The large water transmission line break at Rand Morgan and Highway 44 was the result of redundant piece of pipe that should have been taken out of service. Mr. Ybarra stated that the break occurred in the worst place. Crews worked feverishly to repair the line for three days. Mr. Ybarra stated that construction of the Southside Transmission Main will transport water to the new Southside Pump Station located west of the Corpus Christi Botanical Gardens. Mr. Ybarra stated that once the Southside pump station is completed, we should have enough redundancy in the system that the problem that occurred in May will never happen again. Ms. Serrato asked if there was a problem with isolation valves that were not operating. Mr. Ybarra stated that it was the location of the break. It was tied into our existing main and the new 60". They were both in service and we had to isolate the line break. Mr. Ybarra stated that the City works very closely with the refineries and has a good working relationship with them because the City understands how critical it is for them to stay in operation. Mr. Kiggans stated that the citizens were happy with the City's response. Mr. Ybarra stated that every summer, the City always gets breaks. As a result of water line replacement, we shouldn't have that problem occurring frequently. Mr. Ybarra reported that some old pipes along Leopard Road remain to be replaced and will be included in future CIP. Ms. Karen Rue asked if we had an update cycle. Mr. Ybarra stated that the City uses the Master Plan as a direction. Our main focus was to get a new main transmission line to the Southside to have the load taken off the Leopard Street transmission main. Our next RFP is to update the Master Plan with hydraulic model so we can plan scenarios, change our zone and distribute our water where it will do the most good. Mr. Ybarra reported that the Southside Transmission 9 line would be completed before the end of the year. The next phase is to come from the pump station to the end of Flour Bluff with a tentative date of December 2005. Mr. Johnson stated that he was under the impression that the refineries used raw water. Mr. Ybarra stated that most of the refineries used treated water. Mr. Kiggans confirmed that most of the refineries did use treated water. Ms. Serrato asked if the City used some type of system of tracking the larger transmission lines and frequency of the breaks in certain areas to see if they needed to go on the CIP list. Mr. Ybarra stated that the City knows exactly where they are. The highest priority is to get water back in service. As part of the Master Plan, we have two old pump stations, one at Caldwell close to Ben Garza and Savage Lane off Navigation Road. These two pump stations are 60 to 70 years old. He stated that by spring of 2004, the Caldwell and the Savage Pump Stations would be taken out of commission. The City is building a new pump station with two 10 million gallon tanks on Navigation Boulevard and a new transmission line from there to Caldwell to take water to the downtown area. The tanks are finished, while the pump station has just gotten started. The transmission line is presently under construction. The new infrastructure will provide the downtown area and central area with a more reliable service. Ms. Carola asked if this was part of the City's bond program. Mr. Ybarra stated that it was part of the City's annual review of the capital improvement program. Mr. Ybarra stated that this year would be difficult based on the number of priorities and the limited amount of funds. Ms. Stockseth asked about the break on Alameda Street. Mr. Ybarra stated that from Everhart Road to Doddridge Street the lines are all new, from this side of Robert Drive to Airline Road the lines are also new, but the entire section between Robert Drive and Alameda Street are old water lines. There have been several breaks over the last two years and a break about two months ago. Mr. Ybarra stated that the whole line is quite old and needs to be replaced, but would require the entire street to be closed down. The bond project on Alameda Street will provide for the replacement of the water line from Parade Drive to Ennis Joslin Road. The City would have to do this project with the use of its work crews. Ms. Stockseth asked about the work on Staples Street. Mr. Ybarra stated that this was just street department work. Whenever a bond program involves street improvements, utilities are also given an opportunity to replace underground lines such as is occurring along Golllihar between Ayers Street and Kostoryz Road and from Ayers Street back to Port Street. The next meeting date was set for October 23, 2003. Ms. Serrato stated that she would be getting information out to members in the next day or two. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m. 10