ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

Table 58: Comparison of the Socio-Economic Impacts and Environmental Benefits and Impacts of The implementation of MF/RO as an additional treatment process for tertiary filtered effluent is the Proposed Project and Two Alternative Control Measures(Continued) also projected to have both favorable and unfavorable environmental impacts. The favorable Monthly impact is the maintaining of TDS mass loading to the San Joaquin River downstream of the Residential Estimated WQCF outfall with an increase of 17.13 MGD(ADWF)tertiary treated effluent discharged to Treatment Fee Loss in the river. While the MF/RO process would be operated to maintain TDS mass loading to the Level Increase Jobs Treatment and Disposal Process Environmental Impacts receiving water at pre-project levels,it would have a favorable indirect impact on downstream Favorable Impact water quality through the further reduction of metals and nutrients from the tertiary treated •No net annual change in downstream San Joaquin River effluent that undergoes MF/RO. This ancillary reduction in tertiary effluent pollutant loading TDS mass loading above the currently permitted 9.87 MGD would likewise act to maintain downstream San Joaquin River water quality and mass loading to (ADWF)level. pre-project levels. It should be noted that the extent of MR/RO treatment considered in this •An indirect effect of MF/RO treatment is a reduction in alternatives analysis will not produce demonstrable downstream water quality improvements in mass loadings of metals and nutrients discharged to the San the receiving water;the modeled level of MF/RO treatment is designed to maintain downstream Joaquin River. Micro- TDS mass loading to the San Joaquin River at pre-project levels. Unfavorable impacts of Unfavorable Impact Filtration/ MF/RO treatment stem from the concentration of brine,its potential toxic contaminants and their Reverse •Increases energy consumption and air emissions due to subsequent removal,ultimate disposal of brine or crystallized residuals,and the substantial Osmosis $21.13 176.6 Power requirements of MF/RO treatment. •Disposal of toxic substances and contaminated media energy requirements inherent in this advanced treatment process. Apart from these direct and (in addition resulting from the separation of unwanted pollutants from more obvious effects,MF/RO treatment brings with it the potential to transfer environmental to proposed wastewater. impacts outside of the project area when off-site transport and disposal of residuals create new project ) •Potential need for additional treatment of brine waste to environmental impacts in other areas of the State. remove heavy metals and other contaminants from the aqueous phase prior to crystallization and disposal of As directed by the State Water Board's guidelines,the costs of offsetting a proposed project's residuals. potential impacts must be estimated and compared to the expected environmental benefits to be •On-or off-site disposal of brine or crystallized residuals. gained by maintaining water quality. Within the context of this comparison,it is also appropriate •Increases in air emissions from truck and rail traffic to to consider the environmental and socio-economic implications of not going forward with the dispose of brine or crystallized residuals. proposed project;a scenario commonly referred to as the no project alternative. Four scenarios (1)Treatment process upgrades incorporated into the proposed project include nitrification-denitrification,tertiary filtration,and UV emerge from the current analysis that warrant evaluation:the no project alternative,the effluent- disinfection. (2)The effluent-to-land disposal alternative considered in this analysis includes discharging 9.87 MGD(ADWF)tertiary treated to-land disposal alternative,the MF/RO treatment alternative,and the City's proposed project. effluent to the San Joaquin River and land applying 18 MGD of undisinfected,denitrified,secondary effluent within approximately 10 As part of this amidegradation analysis,the balance of economic consideration and miles of the WQCF. environmental benefits under each scenario are evaluated herein. The implementation of an effluent-to-land disposal operation as a means of limiting the No Project Alternative discharge of WQCF effluent to the San Joaquin River at the currently permitted 9.87 MGD if the City chooses not to increase the discharge capacity of the WQCF,the decision would (ADWF)level is anticipated to possess both favorable and unfavorable environmental impacts. produce unfavorable socio-economic impacts both locally and regionally. From a socio- The favorable impacts include the maintaining of San Joaquin River water quality downstream economic perspective,an increase in WQCF discharge capacity is needed to accommodate of the WQCF outfall at the level realized once the WQCF completes its Phase III expansion and continued growth in the City and surrounding communities. Among cities in San Joaquin discharges tertiary treated effluent at its permitted capacity of 9.87 MGD(ADWF). To this end, County with populations greater than 50,000,Manteca is the second fastest growing city and is effluent-to-land disposal addresses all incremental changes in downstream San Joaquin River quickly becoming an urban and economic focal point for the county. Similar to the pace of water quality that this report's assessment of projected water quality impacts has identified. A growth experienced by the City,San Joaquin County is currently ranked as the third fastest second favorable impact is the additional water supply source to the region that would be growing in California. A restriction in the City's growth due to insufficient wastewater provided by the reclaimed water. Unfavorable impacts as a result of land application of treatment capacity will negatively affect residential development,retail markets,an already high undisinfected,denitrified,secondary effluent include addition of salts(as measured by TDS)to local unemployment rate,and the economic prosperity of San Joaquin County in general. In groundwater at a concentration greater than the Title 22 Secondary MCL recommended level of tetras of housing affordability as measured by the First Quarter 2007 HAI-FTB Index12,San 500 mg/L,or greater than ambient background quality;groundwater mounding in the area(s)of Joaquin County possesses more affordable housing than Alameda and Contra Costa counties,but land application;and increased energy consumption and air emissions due to the substantial power requirements of pumping effluent to storage ponds and then to site(s)of land application. 12 The First-Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index(HAI-FTB)describes the percentage of California households that can afford to purchase a median-priced home. Source:California Association of Realtors. City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 115 June 2007 City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 116 June 2007