S ust a ina b le W a t e r R e cy cling

A n in t eg rat ed s o lu t io n t o t h e w at er is s u es c h allen g in g

H am p t o n Ro ad s an d t h e C o m m o n w ealt h o f V irg in ia

• Res t o rat io n o f t h e C h es ap eak e B ay – H arm f u l A lg al B lo o m s – Lo c alized b ac t er ia im p airm en t s – U rb an s t o rm w at er ret ro f it s (c o s t an d

c o m p lex it y ) • A d ap t at io n t o s ea lev el r is e

– Rec u rren t f lo o d in g • D ep let io n o f g ro u n d w at er res o u rc es

– In c lu d in g p ro t ec t io n f ro m s alt w at er c o n t am in at io n

• W et w eat h er s ew er o v er f lo w s – C o m p lian c e w it h Fed eral en f o rc em en t

ac t io n

W at er Is s u es C h allen g in g V irg in ia an d H am p t o n Ro ad s

2

B ay Res t o rat io n - P o llu t io n S o u rc es

3

B ay Res t o rat io n - C o s t t o Rem o v e N u t r ien t s

4

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

, (lb

s/yr

)

James River Basin Total Nitrogen 2011 WLA 2017 WLA Projected 2022 WLA EPA Backstop

B ay Res t o rat io n - N u t r ien t red u c t io n s

5

6,000,000 lbs TN 2011 WLA

4,400,000 lbs TN 2017 WLA

3,400,000 lbs TN 2022 WLA

1,600,000 lbs TN EPA Backstop

Army Base Completed VIP

Completed

Nansemond Completed

James River Completed

Chesapeake-Elizabeth Offline

WLA – Nutrient Waste Load Allocation in lbs/yr

James River Basin – TN

• A c c o rd in g t o U S G S – U p t o 5 0 % o f s ea-

lev el r is e m ay b e d u e t o lan d s u b s id en c e

– U p t o 5 0 % of la nd subside nce m a y be due t o a quif e r com pa ct ion

• P o t en t ia l s o lu t io n s – Red u c ed

w it h d raw al – A q u if er rec h arg e

A d ap t io n t o S ea Lev el Ris e

DEQ 2015

6

G ro u n d w at er d ep let io n h as b een rap id

• A r t es ian w ells in ear ly 1 9 0 0 s – g ro u n d w at er w ells req u ired v a lv es n o t p u m p s !

• In ab o u t 1 0 0 y ears h av e g o n e f ro m w at er lev e ls a t 3 1 f eet ab o v e s ea lev e l t o 2 0 0± f eet b e lo w .

7

H y d ro g eo lo g ic s et t in g in t h e C o as t a l P la in o f V irg in ia

• Fall L in e (aro u n d I-9 5 c o rr id o r) t o t h e O c ean

• T ru n c at ed b y C h es ap eak e B ay Im p ac t C rat er (B o lid e/ M et eo r)

• Es s en t ia lly n o n at u ra l rec h arg e – A q u if er w at er is 4 0 ,0 0 0

y ears o ld

Ea st e rn Va G roundw a t e r M a na ge m e nt A re a

Section A-A

Pot om ac

A quif e r

C ra t e r

U n s u s t a in ab le A q u if er W it h d raw als

• O v er-a llo c at ed p erm it t ed w it h d raw al – W at er lev els f a llin g

s ev era l f eet / y r – S o m e w at er lev els

b elo w t h e aq u if er t o p s in w es t ern C o as t a l P la in

• To t a l p erm it t ed w it h d raw als are unsust a ina b le – P erm it s b ein g c u t b y

D EQ – N ew p erm it s n o t

9

S ew er O v er f lo w s

10

100

140

180

2000 2005 2010

Treated Billed

• C o n s en t D ec ree • H RS D

res p o n s ib le f o r reg io n al w et w eat h er f lo w s

• Reg io n lo s es les s t h an 0 .0 1 5 % in a b ad y ear

S ew er O v er f lo w s

11

• N o c h ro n ic lo c at io n s • N o d at a t o s u p p o r t ep is o d ic S S O s

c o n t r ib u t e t o lo c a l w at er b ac t er ia im p airm en t

• Rec en t s u c c es s w it h m o re f o c u s ed ef f o r t s – W et w eat h er an d d ry w eat h er

m o n it o r in g – S o u rc e t rac k in g “ h o t s p o t s ” – C o o rd in at in g f ie ld w o rk w it h lo c a lit y

• O v er f lo w s n o t e lim in at ed w it h Reg io n al W et W eat h er P lan w h en w eat h er ev en t g en erat es f lo w s ab o v e d es ig n ed s erv ic e lev e l

• H RS D c o s t s are r is in g t o t reat w at er t o h ig h er s t an d ard s

• W at er d is c h arg ed ex c eed s s t an d ard s f o r lo c al r iv ers an d B ay b u t n o t s af e t o d r in k

• N o d o w n s t ream u s ers o r b en ef ic ia l u s e o f c u rren t t reat ed w at er

C u rren t s t at e o f w as t ew at er in H am p t o n Ro ad s

12

• A d v an c ed t reat m en t u s ed t h ro u g h o u t w o r ld , m an y lo c at io n s in U S A an d ev en in V irg in ia t o p ro d u c e w at er t h at ex c eed s d r in k in g w at er s t an d ard s – U p p er O c c o q u an

S erv ic e A u t h o r it y / Fair f ax W at er

– Lo u d o u n W at er • A q u if er

rep len is h m en t a ls o d o n e in m an y p lac es in c lu d in g V irg in ia – C it y o f C h es ap eak e

A d v an c ed w at er t reat m en t t o p ro d u c e D R IN KIN G W A TER

13

WWTP AWTP

WWTP AWTP WTP

WTP

WWTP AWTP Reservoir

WTP

Project Location Type of Potable Reuse Year Capacity

Current Advanced Treatment Process

Montebello Forebay, CA Coastal GW recharge via spreading basins

1962 44 mgd GMF + Cl2 + SAT (spreading basins)

Windhoek, Namibia Inland Direct potable reuse 1968 5.5 mgd

O3 + Coag + DAF + GMF + O3/H2O2 + BAC + GAC + UF + Cl2 (process as of 2002)

UOSA, VA Inland Surface water augmentation 1978 54 mgd Lime + GMF + GAC + Cl2

Hueco Bolson, El Paso, TX Inland GW recharge via direct injection and spreading basins

1985 10 mgd Lime + GMF + Ozone + GAC + Cl2

Clayton County, GA Inland Surface water augmentation 1985 18 mgd Cl2 + UV disinfection + SAT (wetlands)

West Basin, El Segundo, CA Coastal GW recharge via direct injection 1993 12.5 mgd MF + RO + UVAOP

Scottsdale, AZ Inland GW recharge via direct injection 1999 20 mgd MF + RO + Cl2

Gwinnett County, GA Inland Surface water augmentation 2000 60 mgd Coag/floc/sed + UF + Ozone + GAC + Ozone

NEWater, Singapore Coastal Surface water augmentation 2000 146 mgd (5 plants) MF + RO + UV disinfection

Los Alamitos, CA Coastal GW recharge via direct injection 2006 3.0 mgd MF + RO + UV disinfection

Chino GW Recharge, CA Inland GW recharge via spreading basins

2007 18 mgd GMF + Cl2 + SAT (spreading basins)

GWRS, Orange County, CA Coastal GW recharge via direct injection and spreading basins

2008 70 mgd MF + RO + UVAOP + SAT (spreading basins for a portion of the flow)

Queensland, Australia Coastal Surface water augmentation 2009 66 mgd via three plants

MF + RO + UVAOP

Arapahoe County, CO Inland GW recharge via spreading 2009 9 mgd SAT (via RBF) + RO + UVAOP

Loudoun County, VA Inland Surface water augmentation 2009 11 mgd MBR + GAC + UV Big Spring (Wichita Falls), TX

Inland Direct potable reuse through raw water blending

2013 1.8 mgd MF + RO + UVAOP

O p erat io n al w at er rec y c lin g p ro jec t s

• H RS D ’ s c o n c ep t - rep len is h t h e aq u if er w it h c lean w at er t o : – Red u c e n u t r ien t

d is c h arg es t o t h e B ay

– Red u c e t h e rat e o f lan d s u b s id en c e

– P ro t ec t t h e g ro u n d w at er f ro m s alt w at er c o n t am in at io n

– P ro v id e a s u s t a in ab le s u p p ly o f

P ro p o s ed c y c le o f s u s t a in ab le w at er rec y c lin g

15

Advanced Water

Treatment

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

, (lb

s/yr

)

James River Basin Total Nitrogen 2011 WLA 2017 WLA

Projected 2022 WLA EPA Backstop SWR Projected

Im p ac t o n n u t r ien t red u c t io n s

16

6,000,000 lbs TN 2011 WLA

4,400,000 lbs TN 2017 WLA

3,400,000 lbs TN 2022 WLA

1,600,000 lbs TN EPA Backstop

Army Base Completed VIP

Completed

Nansemond Completed

James River Completed

Chesapeake-Elizabeth Offline

WLA – Nutrient Waste Load Allocation in lbs/yr

SWR Projected TN

James River Basin – TN Similar results with TP and TSS and in other river basins.

HRSD Bay TMDL Allocations

HRSD Post SWRI Loads (2030)

Available for other needs

Stormwater Reduction Needs*

Nitrogen

James 3,400,000 500,000 2,900,000 63,039

York 275,927 25,000 250,927 19,114

Phosphorus

James 300,009 50,000 250,009 13,088

York 18,395 2,000 16,395 3,887

Sediment

James 14,000,000 700,000 13,300,000 5,269,142

York 1,400,000 98,000 1,302,000 1,413,762

P o t en t ia l t o o f f s et s t o rm w at er red u c t io n s

17 * DEQ Regulated Stormwater w/o federal lands

2002 2002

2015

Ev id en c e o f g ro u n d w at er im p ac t s o n s u b s id en c e

USGS found ground level rose 32 mm between 2002 and 2015 coinciding with reduced groundwater withdrawal by Franklin paper mill.

18

P o t o m ac A q u if er w at er lev els b ef o re an d af t er in jec t io n

19

• To t a l p ro jec t in t h e $ 1 b ill io n ran g e (1 2 0 m g d ) – Fo r 7 p lan t s (n o t C h es -L iz o r A t lan t ic )

• A n n u al o p erat in g c o s t s $ 2 1 - $ 4 3 M • C an o n ly b e ac h iev ed if EP A a llo w s

en o u g h f lex ib ilit y t o in t eg rat e w it h w et w eat h er w o rk – C an n o t a f f o rd t o ad d S W RI in t o ex is t in g

p lan w it h o u t s ig n if ic an t ra t e in c reas es (b ey o n d c u rren t p lan ) an d p o t en t ia l c red it ra t in g d o w n g rad e

– A p p ro x im at e ly 5 0 % o f H RS D $ 4 .4 B C IP w ill b e d ed ic at ed t o w et w eat h er N o t m o s t im p o r t an t w at er q u alit y is s u e P lan w o u ld b e t o ac c o m p lis h c r it ic a l w et

w eat h er is s u es an d S W RI in ear ly y ears an d d elay rem ain in g w et w eat h er w o rk

C o s t S u m m ary

20

• C o n s en t D ec ree req u ires p lan s u b m it t a l w it h s c h ed u le t o EP A O c t o b er 2 0 1 7 – Lo s e f in an c ia l ab ilit y t o p u rs u e w at er rec y c lin g

p ro jec t u n t il 2 0 3 7 at ear lies t • B ay TM D L d ead lin e is 2 0 2 5

– W ill req u ire m o re s ig n if ic an t in v es t m en t s in n u t r ien t an d s ed im en t rem o v al w it h o u t w at er rec y c lin g p ro jec t

– H RS D is b ac k s t o p if A g r ic u lt u re an d S t o rm w at er c o m e u p s h o r t

• G ro u n d w at er s c arc it y w ill c o n t in u e t o g et w o rs e – W ill f o rc e d ev elo p m en t o f ad d it io n al w at er

s u p p lies b y lo c al g o v ern m en t s – C h ills d ev elo p m en t in eas t ern V irg in ia – P o t en t ia l lo s s o f w at er d ep en d en t in d u s t r ies

• N ex t reg u lat io n (v iru s es , em erg in g c o n t am in an t s , ???) w ill req u ire p lan t u p g rad es

W h y n o w ?

21

• C o m p let e n ex t p h as e o f s t u d y w it h c o n s u lt an t b y en d o f 2 0 1 6

• Ro o m s c ale p ilo t p ro jec t s – o p erat in g in J u n e 2 0 1 6

• 2 0 1 8 – D em o n s t rat io n p ilo t (2 y ear

s t u d y ) • 2 0 2 0

– EP A / D EQ / V D H f o rm ally ap p ro v es C er t if ic at e t o C o n s t ru c t f o r S W R

• 2 0 2 0 t o 2 0 3 0 – C o n s t ru c t io n t h ro u g h p h as ed

im p lem en t at io n • 2 0 3 0 Fu lly o p erat io n al

– 1 2 0 M G D o f c lean w at er p u t in t o t h e aq u if er

T im elin e

22

• 2 0 1 7 – P u b lic o u t reac h – Endorse m e nt f rom H a m pt on R oa ds

loca lit ie s – En d o rs em en t f ro m D EQ / V D H t o m o v e

f o rw ard – G ro u n d w at er C o m m it t ee rec o m m en d s

rec h arg e p ro jec t – EP A ag rees t o in t eg rat ed p lan t o m eet

C o n s en t D ec ree req u irem en t s – P h as e 3 W IP in c lu d es t h is p ro jec t t o

ac h iev e TM D L g o als

K ey ac t io n s in 2 0 1 7

23

• Reg u lat o ry s t ab ilit y f o r t reat m en t p ro c es s es

• S ig n if ic an t ly red u c ed d is c h arg e in t o t h e C h es ap eak e B ay (o n ly d u r in g w et w eat h er) – 9 0 % red u c t io n o f H RS D d is c h arg es in t o

J am es , Y o rk an d Elizab et h Riv ers – C reat es s o u rc e o f n u t r ien t a llo c at io n t o

s u p p o r t o t h er n eed s (S TO R M W A TER ) • P o t en t ia l red u c t io n in t h e ra t e o f lan d

s u b s id en c e • S u s t a in ab le s o u rc e f o r g ro u n d w at er

rep len is h m en t • P ro t ec t io n o f g ro u n d w at er f ro m

s alt w at er c o n t am in at io n

C o n c lu s io n – S u m m ary o f B en ef it s

24

In t h e n ew s

25

Fu t u re g en erat io n s w ill in h er it c lean

w at erw ay s an d be a b le t o k e e p

t he m cle a n .

t h en if in @h rs d .c o m

h t t p :/ / w w w .h rs d .c o m / S W R.s h t m l

Q u es t io n s ?

26