Laserfiche WebLink
David Wang, P.E. , Chief <br /> August 12, 1991 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 3 . EFFLUENT DISPOSAL - The Draft Final Ground Water FS did not <br /> identify a preferred option for the disposal of the treated <br /> effluent. I have the following specific comments and/or <br /> observations regarding the effluent disposal options: <br /> WATER REUSE - Reuse of treated effluent is <br /> desirable. However, it appears that limited <br /> possibilities to augment the existing <br /> effluent reuse plan exist. Therefore, it is <br /> recognized that Sharpe has made a diligent <br /> effort towards identifying and securing <br /> possible ground water reuse alternatives and <br /> that 100% reuse may be impossible. <br /> SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE - The Draft Final <br /> Ground Water FS indicated that the SSJIDC <br /> could not accept all of the effluent from <br /> Sharpe. Those statements should be <br /> clarified/quantified. Does that mean that <br /> SSJIDC could not accept: <br /> a. all of the effluent from all three <br /> treatment plants, <br /> b. a portion of the effluent from all three <br /> plants, or <br /> C. all of the effluent from the Central <br /> Area Plant? <br /> What percentage of the total flow can SSJIDC <br /> accept? What is the basis for the discharge <br /> limitation? Is the limitation a seasonal <br /> concern? <br /> A second surface water disposal option was <br /> also identified. Discharge of the effluent <br /> to the San Joaquin River was evaluated. The <br /> previous comment addresses briefly the <br /> possible environmental impacts of this <br /> option. It should also be recognized that <br /> the costs for the construction of the <br /> pipeline for this option may limit its <br /> economic feasibility. <br /> EVAPORATION PONDS WITH CONNECTOR WELLS - The <br /> Draft Final Ground Water FS discussed the <br /> evaporation pond/connection well <br /> (reinjection) option in sufficient detail for <br /> the purposes of a FS. However, prior to <br />