|
would be minor on a percent basis when compared to the total labor income and output of the and dissolved manganese(under critical low flows))in the receiving water,and a slight
<br /> City,yet the estimated job losses and reduction in local output(see Table 56)would produce concentrating effect on other constituents(ammonia as N(Oct.—May),dissolved arsenic,
<br /> economic hardship at the household level,with lower income households bearing a larger impact dissolved copper,total cyanide,MBAS,nitrate as N,nitrite as N,total mercury,and EC(Sept.—
<br /> on an annual basis,in relative terms,than wealthier households in the community. Furthermore, Mar.)). A minor increase in downstream San Joaquin River concentration is projected for BOD
<br /> the final economic impact of the effluent-to-land disposal alternative would increase and EC(Apr.—Aug.). Additionally,a moderate increase in downstream receiving water
<br /> significantly if WQCF effluent was required to go through tertiary filtration prior to land concentration,relative to its chronic EPA criterion(0.62 mg/L),is projected for ammonia as N
<br /> application. Likewise,the cost of MF/RO treatment could increase significantly if(1)the brine during the months of June through September. However,it should be noted that this near-field,
<br /> produced by the process requires additional treatment to remove heavy metals and other seasonally-based,moderate increase in ammonia levels will attenuate through natural processes
<br /> contaminants,and/or(2)brine waste requires specialized disposal in some type of hazardous downstream in the receiving water as ammonia is utilized by phytoplankton and other primary
<br /> materials containment site. Contingencies of this sort were not considered from an economic producers,thus reducing the pollutant's downstream impact from that projected in the near-field.
<br /> perspective by the IMPLANO model,but certainly could generate additional direct and indirect
<br /> economic and environmental impacts to be borne by existing and future WQCF ratepayers. Table 58: Comparison of the Socio-Economic Impacts and Environmental Benefits and Impacts of
<br /> the Proposed Project and Two Alternative Control Measures
<br /> BALANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC Monthly
<br /> CONSIDERATIONS Residential Estimated
<br /> Treatment Fee Loss in
<br /> State Water Board guidance requires that a complete antidegradation analysis include a Level Increase Jobs Treatment and Disposal Process Environmental Impacts
<br /> balancing of the proposed action against the public interest. The City's approach for compliance Favorable Impact
<br /> with this requirement is to compare the environmental impacts of the proposed project(increase .Slight decrease,albeit de minimis,in downstream San
<br /> in NPDES-permitted discharge of 17.1310 MGD(ADWF)tertiary treated effluent)with the Joaquin River concentration for the following parameters:
<br /> environmental and socio-economic impacts of two alternative control measures. These TSS,total aluminum,dissolved iron,and dissolved
<br /> alternatives include(1)effluent-to-land disposal and(2)MR/RO treatment integrated with the manganese.
<br /> proposed project as a means of essentially eliminating the incremental water quality impacts of Unfavorable Impact
<br /> the proposed tertiary discharge above the already permitted 9.87 MGD(ADWF)level. The •Slight increase in downstream San Joaquin River
<br /> Tertiary concentration and mass for the following parameters:TSS
<br /> socio-economic impacts of the proposed project need not be estimated in the analysis because io (mass only),total aluminum(mass only),ammonia as N(Oct.
<br /> the form a baseline' common to the proposed project and both alternative control measures. Filtration Not Not —Ma dissolved arsenic,dissolved copper,total cyanide,
<br /> Y P P P J Y). PP Y
<br /> (proposed estimated estimated
<br /> The current comparison focuses on the socio-economic impacts and environmental benefits andprojeci<'I) dissolved iron(mass only),dissolved manganese(mass
<br /> impacts of the two alternatives relative to the water quality impacts of the proposed project. only),MBAS,nitrate as N,nitrite as N,total mercury;slight
<br /> Additionally,the no project alternative is also considered. Based on these comparisons,a project increase in downstream EC(Sept.—Mar.).
<br /> deemed to be consistent with best practicable treatment or control consistent with maximum •Minor increase in downstream San Joaquin River mass
<br /> loading for BOD;minor increase in downstream EC(Apr.—
<br /> benefit to the people of the State is identified. Aug.).
<br /> The socio-economic and water quality impacts of the proposed project,the effluent-to-land •Moderate increase in downstream San Joaquin River
<br /> disposal alternative,and the MF/RO treatment alternative considered in this analysis are concentration and mass loading for ammonia as N(June—
<br /> Sept.).
<br /> compared in Table 58. The proposed 17.13 MGD(ADWF)tertiary treated discharge is --- -
<br /> projected to have both favorable and unfavorable effects on San Joaquin River water quality Favorable Impact
<br /> downstream of the WQCF outfall depending on the parameter,time of discharge(i.e.,season), above
<br /> • change in downstream San Joaquin River water quality
<br /> e that realized once the WQCF reaches its currently
<br /> and ambient flow conditions. The proposed tertiary discharge is projected to have a slight Effluent-to- permitted capacity of 9.87 MGD(ADWF).
<br /> diluting effect,albeit de minimus,on some constituents(TSS,total aluminum,dissolved iron, Land •Additional water supply source to the region.
<br /> Disposal
<br /> (in addition $6.56 55.3 Unfavorable Impact
<br /> 10 WQCF requested maximum discharge capacity of 27 MGD(ADWF)less existing NPDES-permitted discharge of to proposed •Addition of salts to groundwater.
<br /> 9.87 MGD(ADWF)results in a net requested increase in discharge capacity of 17.13 MGD(ADWF). project"') •Groundwater mounding in the area(s)of land application.
<br /> •Increase in energy consumption and air emissions due to
<br /> While the proposed project will result in an increase to monthly residential sewer fees and socio-economic substantial power requirements of pumping effluent to
<br /> impacts as a result of constructing and operating/maintaining the proposed project,these costs represent a baseline storage ponds and then to site(s)of land application.
<br /> effect common to the proposed project and the effluent-to-land disposal and MF/RO treatment alternatives,and
<br /> therefore do not require quantification as a means of assessing the incremental socio-economic effect of the effluent-
<br /> to-land disposal and MF/RO alternatives.
<br /> City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 113 June 2007 City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 114 June 2007
<br />
|