Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E97-0027 - KING COUNTY - REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICES PLANREGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICES PLAN (RWSP) KING COUNTY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSAL E97-0027 King County Department of Natural Resources Yesler Building 400 Yesler Way, Room 700 Seattle, WA 98104-2637 (206) 296-6500 September 12, 1997 Mr. Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: Thank you very much for`taking the time to comment on the draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan. We appreciate the time you took to offer comprehensive and thoughtful comments. These comments will help guide King County as we develop a wastewater services plan, which will be transmitted to the King County Council in the spring of 1998. While we do not know yet what shape that plan will take, we want you all to know that we heard the clear and strong direction from the community and government agencies regarding the importance of preserving and improving water quality and considering wastewater as a potential part of total water resource management for the region. The official comment period for the draft environmental impact statement closed on August 5, 1997. Department of Natural Resources staff are now reviewing your comments and testimony and preparing a community response report for King County Executive Ron Sims. The community response report will also contain a summary of results from a regional telephone survey we will conduct in September. We will send you. an executive summary of the community response report when it is completed late this fall as well as periodic updates during the decision process. A final environmental impact statement will be released in the spring of 1998, and it will include all the comments we received and responses to them. As part of its deliberations on the Executive's plan, the County Council will hold hearings in mid-1998 to learn what people have to say about the Regional Wastewater Services Plan. We will keep you informed as those hearings are scheduled. RECEIVED CLEAN WATER — A SOUND INVESTMENT. SEP 18 1997 COMMUNITY rs=vFLoPMENT • Page Two September 12, 1997 If you have any further questions about the RWSP decision process or how and when we will respond to your comments, please call Christie True, Program Manager, at 684-1236. Again, thank you for taking time to participate in the Regional Wastewater Services Plan. We share your goals of working together to ensure we maintain and preserve that which is important to all of us — water quality. Sincerely, Pal/g. Pam Bissonnette Director PB:sm cc: Christie True, Program Manager, Wastewater Treatment Division S:rwsp\plan\821pb RECE \ ED SEP 18 1997 COMMUNITY C :"VEL CPMENT • • &g7.oa2_7 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 5, 1997 Shirley Marroquin Environmental Planning Supervisor King County Wastewater Treatment Division 821 - 2nd Ave, MS 81 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Re: Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan Dear Ms. Marroquin: Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan. The City of Tukwila appreciates the opportunity to comment on the plan, given its importance in improving wastewater treatment services as our region grows over the next 25 years. The following combined comments are from Tukwila's Department of Public Works and Department of Community Development concerning the project and preferred options for Wastewater Services. PREFERRED SERVICE STRATEGY We believe that Service Strategy 3 provides the most comprehensive and responsive approach to wastewater services at both the subregional and regional level. This approach correctly assumes the need for the development of a New, North treatment service plant to provide focused services for this high-growth region of King County. In addition, Strategy 3 provides additional services at the East Treatment Plant in Renton for management and processing of biosolids, which we believe to be important for improved water quality in the region. While Strategy 3 is markedly similar in its approach to Strategy 2, we believe that Strategy 3 is more realistic in its anticipation of future growth at the subregional and regional level. One indicator of this is the need for Biosolid Digesters. As you are aware, Biosolid Digesters may be utilized at treatment plants if the outcome of the 1991 Settlement Agreement between Metro and City of Seattle cannot be fully implemented. Assuming the non -implementation of the agreement, Strategy 3 requires only 1 digester while Strategy 2 will require 2. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 August 5, 1997 Shirley Marroquin Re: Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan If technologies appropriate to this agreement cannot be implemented, there is a potential for greater land and infrastructure costs to support these digesters. Accordingly, Strategy 3 better suits Tukwila because of the reduced land use and environmental impacts. We also believe that Service Strategies 1 and 4 are not appropriate as they ignore the need for focused services at the subregional level. North King County and South Snohomish County continue to experience accelerate commercial and residential growth. Strategies 1 and 4 fail to respond to subregional growth and the need for localized Essential Public Facilities. By merely transporting effluents, biosolids and other wastewater materials away from their production sources, the problem is merely shifted away and not dealt with at the local level. SERVICE STRATEGY OPTIONS The service strategy options detailed in the plan provide an important look on how services can be tailored to fit the region's needs By developing these options, it provides a basis to modify services based on new regulations, modified growth estimates, environmental issues or other concerns that may develop over time. The service strategy options, grouped under 6 approaches - treatment, conveyance, combined sewer overflow, biosolids, water reuse and other - provide tools to make revisions as needed. The following are brief statements indicating our position on specific strategies: • Redefine Secondary Treatment (4A)/ Re -rate Plant Capacities(4B) Both of these options, from an engineering and land use perspective appear to be fine, however the political considerations required to implement these options may render such efforts fruitless. Both options would require relaxation of Department of Ecology standards as well as reconsideration and renegotiation of the West Point Settlement Agreements between Metro and Seattle. • Build in smaller increments (4C) From both policy and implementation standpoints, delaying construction of required or needed facilities only spell additional long-term costs that would offset any short term construction costs. August 5, 1997 Shirley Marroquin Re: Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan • Decrease Conveyance Design Standards (4D/4E) and Discharge into the Duwamish River (4F) These two options are especially troubling, as both options assume reintroduction of discharge into the Green/Duwamish river system.. Considerable efforts have been placed on reducing the Biotechnical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) levels in this system, initiated with the development of the East Treatment Plant. Relaxation of design standards that would allow or accommodate either planned or unplanned events into this system would be detrimental and, thus, actively opposed. • No I/1 program (4G) Tukwila believes that continued support of the I/I program is an important aspect towards managing the region's wastewater system. Tukwila, like other jurisdictions in the county, has developed and maintained their own I/I program. Tukwila expects this commitment be maintained at the regional level. • Reduce CSO control goal (4H) Tukwila opposes this approach for a variety of reasons. We feel that it is critical for the CSO program to maintain its 1 event per year goal. Moving backwards to the federal standard of allowing 4-6 events per year would not be in the best interest of the region. While an estimated savings of $90 Million is attractive on paper, the loss of water quality from allowing a lower standards would be detrimental on many levels. This support for reaching the 1 CSO event per year is reiterated in our support for Strategy 3. • Alternative Biosolids Technologies (4I) We fully support the list of strategies detailed under this option. Where feasible, the development of alternative technologies that support a more environmentally friendly approach towards managing wastewater should be explored. However, exploration of this alternative should be developed under an assumption that land use or environmental impacts do not increase if implemented. • Discharge at Hiram Chittenden Locks (4J) and Discharge to Lake Washington/Sammamish (4K) We believe that reuse of water in this manner is, where appropriate, an excellent example of conservation. By diverting non -potable water for commercial or industrial purposes, efficiency of available water resources is improved. • • August 5, 1997 Shirley Marroquin Re: Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment on this plan. We look forward to staying involved in this process. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development oss Earnst, Director Department of Public Works King County Department of Natural Resources Yesler Building 400 Yesler Way, Room 700 Seattle, WA 98104-2637 (206) 296-6500 May 7, 1997 TO: FM: Pam Bissonnette, Director Interested Parties RE: Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan Water resources virtually define our region. Thirty years ago, an activist public had the vision and commitment to plan the clean-up of Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish, and to protect Puget Sound from wastewater pollution. These visionaries created Metro, designed solutions to deal with the impact of past growth, and planned for future growth. To date, $3.5 billion of investment has been committed toward this vision. Today, we all benefit from these courageous decisions of the past. Now, it is our turn to build on the foundation provided by the visionaries of the past. It is up to our generation to plan for our future and our children's future, by looking forward the next 30 years. I am, therefore, on behalf of King County and the Department of Natural Resources, pleased to present for your review and comment the Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan. The purpose of this draft plan is to provide an opportunity for citizens and agencies to determine how the region will meet its water quality needs for the next 30 years, and beyond. It is critical that we understand the urgency of the needs facing our area. Rapid population growth, state and federal regulations, the need to protect water quality and human health all play a part in the growing demands on our region's water resources: The recent wastewater overflows from winter storms demonstrated that our current systems are already experiencing more demand than they can handle. Water quality remains a top priority to those who choose to live here, and our natural resources, such as fisheries, must be protected. To address these needs, this plan looks at central strategies dealing with plant expansion and siting. Included are the choices of either a two -plant system, maintaining the current facilities at Seattle's West Point and Renton, or an option of moving to a three plant system which requires siting a new facility and varying degrees of expansion at the existing sites. The plan also contains alternatives for conveying wastewater to the plants, managing demand on the system through flow controls, and both increases and decreases in design standards. Interested Parties May 7, 1997 Page 2 How we address our wastewater needs is part of the bigger picture of how we plan for and manage water resources as a whole. For example, 30 years ago improving water quality meant controlling wastewater pollution. Today we know that non -point sources of water pollution, such as urban runoff, are also significant. Likewise, 30 years ago water supply was not a limitation as it is becoming increasingly today. This plan presents alternatives for both kinds (non -point and point) of sources of water pollution, and presents opportunities for the reuse of treated wastewater to stretch our current water supplies. These strategies reflect the combined and dedicated cooperative efforts of the Regional Water Quality Committee, the Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee, the Citizens' Water Quality Advisory Committee, City of Seattle staff, Suburban Cities Association, King and Snohomish County local sewer and water district staffs, and the Executive Advisory Committee members. It demonstrates their involvement and commitment along with King County in determining the most viable options for our region's needs. There is no recommended strategy in this plan. Rather, we hope to have bracketed what the ultimate strategy will be through the numerous options included. The preferred strategy will be assembled and developed by you, the investors in the system, as you provide your ideas, expectations, and priorities to the King County Executive and Council between now and mid-1998. Please be a part of this exciting process. I invite you to send us your ideas and comments about the service strategies and options presented in the draft plan. Take the time to review it and fill out the postage -paid questionnaire included in the final chapter. Or attend one of the public hearings to be held in June and July (see attached) to learn more and offer your comments. Your input will be very valuable in helping decision makers make choices about future wastewater management in King County. We need to come together, in 1997 and 1998, as a region to sustain and protect the high quality water resources of our region, for ourselves and the next generation. Thank you for understanding the importance and the urgency of this need, and for joining us as together we plan our future. I look forward to hearing from you! PB:mb Attachment G:COVERI PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Downtown Seattle Plymouth Congregational Church Hildebrand Hall Sixth and University Open House: 4:00 p.m. Public Hearing: 5:30 p.m. Renton Renton Community Center Banquet Hall 1715 Maple Valley Highway Open House: 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing: 7:00 p.m. Shoreline Shoreline Conference Center Spartan Room 18560 First Ave. NE Open House: 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing: 7:00 p.m. Bellevue Bellevue Regional Library Meeting Room One 1111 110t Ave. NE, Bellevue Open House: 4:00 p.m. Public Hearing: 7:30 p.m. Woodinville Hollywood School House Grand Ballroom 14810 NE 145`s. St., Woodinville Open House 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing: 7:00 p.m. June 11, 1997 June 18, 19997 June 24, 1997 June 30, 1997 July 16, 1997 A draft financing plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement have also been issued to support the draft plan. Call the King County Environmental Planning Unit at 206-684-1714 to obtain a copy. • . 11- ooZ7 CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY PROPOSAL AND OBJECTIVES King County is proposing a sewer comprehensive plan for the regional wastewater service area for the next 30 years. This plan, the Regional Wastewater Services Plan (RWSP), evaluates several means of providing wastewater treatment and related services to this rapidly growing region during that time. These services consist mainly of im- provements related to wastewater treatment and conveyance (pipes), combined sewer overflow (CSO) control, and biosolids management. The RWSP also considers opportu- nities for water reuse. The adopted plan will amend the county's Water Pollution Abate- ment Plan, which is the sewer comprehensive plan for the King County system. The primary objective of the RWSP is to help the public and decision -makers guide King County toward a long-term wastewater management strategy to protect water quality and public health until 2030 and beyond. With the exception of some service strategy options, the RWSP is intended to meet all existing applicable regulatory requirements. The RWSP seeks to meet these objectives in as cost-effective a manner as possible. The RWSP identifies four representative alternatives to meet its objectives. These are termed Service Strategies. Each Service Strategy consists mainly of a system of waste- water treatment plants, conveyance facilities, and CSO control facilities that will meet the region's increasing need for wastewater services over the life of the RWSP. The location and size of those treatment plants vary, as do the associated facilities necessary to convey wastewater for treatment and to discharge treated effluent. Each service strategy also in- cludes a representative option for processing and recycling biosolids, a water reuse pro- gram, and a program for reducing the infiltration and inflow of groundwater and stormwater into the wastewater conveyance system. The service strategies fall into two basic groups according to the treatment plants they include. Service Strategies 1 (SS1) and 4 (SS4) include expanding only the County's two existing treatment plants. Service Strategies 2 (SS2) and 3 (SS3) add a new North Treat- ment Plant and expand one or both of the existing plants (East and West). SS 1 expands both the West and East Treatment Plants, while requiring the greatest increases in existing conveyance line capacities.' SS4 similarly expands both plants, but calls for construction of a series of large storage and conveyance tunnels north and west of Lake 1 Because this document makes repeated references to components of the existing and proposed wastewater treatment system such as the West Point Treatment Plant, and the East Section Reclamation Plant at Renton, a standardized naming convention was adopted as presented below. Actual Name The West Point Treatment Plant The West Division Service Area The East Section Reclamation Plant at Renton The East Division Service Area The North End Treatment Plant The North End Service Area Standardized Name The West Treatment Plant The West Service Area The East Treatment Plant The East Service Area The North Treatment Plant The North Service Area Washington. These tunnels connect to both plants. SS2 and SS3 both include con- struction of a North Treatment Plant in north King or south Snohomish County. Key differences between these two strategies are the size of the plant (65 million gallons per day (mgd) under SS2 and 89 mgd under SS3) and the expansion of the existing West Treatment Plant under SS2, but not under SS3. Under both SS2 and SS3, the North Plant would treat wastewater flows from the area north and east of Lake Washington (expected to be one of the region's fastest growing areas) and discharge them through a new outfall in north King or south Snohomish County. Construction of this plant would reduce the need to increase the combined capacity of the two existing plants and their associated conveyance facilities. In addition to the four basic service strategies, the RWSP examines a variety of options that could be pursued to modify one or more of the service strategies to achieve particular objectives. Three documents are currently available for review. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) provides an analysis of environmental impacts associated with propos- als included in the RWSP. It is a companion to the RWSP document (the Plan). The third document is the RWSP Financing Plan, which provides detailed information about cost assumptions and projections. Only limited financial information is included in this DEIS. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT King County has planned for necessary wastewater capacity improvements since 1958, when the regional wastewater treatment system was established. Since then, the 1958 Water Pollution Abatement Plan has been amended several times to provide facilities needed to avoid wastewater overflows. Amendments made in the 1980s resulted in up- grading the West Service Area system to provide secondary treatment (but not adding treatment capacity) and expanding capacity at the East Treatment Plant to .115 mgd. Through our current planning, we project that King County's wastewater system will run out of capacity in about 10 years, and some components are already at capacity as evidenced by recent overflows during storms. If population growth and economic development continue at projected rates, and new wastewater facilities are not in place as planned, there will be a number of adverse impacts on public health and water quality. These impacts could reduce the quality of life the region has thus far enjoyed. Given that it can take up to 10 years to site, permit, design, and construct major wastewater facilities, decisions about future wastewater management must be made very. soon. This long-range plan isnot intended to be an exact blueprint for construction. Instead, it is a guide or..a road map for decision -makers to evaluate the potential results of various service strategy options. Although the plan will ultimately include dates when it is anticipated that new facilities will be needed, King County will track both regional growth and wastewater flows to make sure that appropriate facilities are built at the right time. 1-2 Summary More specific discussions of needs in the major sectors of the wastewater system follow. Categories include wastewater treatment and conveyance, CSO control, biosolids man- agement, and water reuse. Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance When current construction activities at the East Treatment Plant are completed, the aver- age wet weather flow (AWWF) treatment capacity of the King County system (consisting of the combined capacity of the West and East Treatment Plants) will be 248 million gallons per day (mgd). Based on current projections, an additional 57 mgd system capacity will be needed by 2030 (bringing total capacity to 305 mgd), and 146 more mgd will be needed by the time the urban growth area is built out in about 2050 (bringing total capacity to 394 mgd). The RWSP identifies the facilities needed to provide this capacity. Combined Sewer Overflow Control CSOs occur during wet weather when combined sewers which collect both sanitary sew- age and stormwater runoff overflow into the closest surface water body. They occur when the flows in the system exceed the capacity of the wastewater collection system to convey the dilute wastewater to facilities for treatment. Remedies for this situation include providing temporary storage, or storage and treatment for excess flows. The RWSP includes CSO facilities needed to reach the state mandate of one overflow event per outfall per year. CSO levels in the King County system will have to be reduced 85 percent from 1981 to 1983 (baseline) levels to reach this goal. Biosolids Management Biosolids is a term for treated wastewater solids of high enough quality for reuse in the environment (e.g., as a fertilizer). More wastewater from a growing population and the recent addition of secondary treatment facilities at the West Treatment Plant will produce a substantial increase in biosolids volumes in the service area. Current projections are for biosolids volumes to nearly double between now and 2030. This increase in solids will require facilities to process the raw sludge coming from the primary and secondary treatment phases into biosolids. Additional end users will have to be identified to reuse the biosolids. Biosolids processing facilities and end uses for the additional material are identified in the RWSP. Water Reuse The rising demand for water and concerns related to recent summers of drought caused King County to conduct a study of the potential demand for reclaimed water. Because of the region's expected population growth in the next 30 years, regional water supply agen- cies have focused their long-term planning on a broad range of strategies to meet future water demands. Among the alternatives for additional non -potable (i.e., not drinkable) water supply is the wastewater from King County's sewage treatment plants. Treated ef- fluent is suitable for a range of nonpotable uses such as irrigation, heating and cooling, and industrial processes. The King County study estimates the potential market for, and economic feasibility of, supplying reclaimed water to potential customers. The study also Summary 1-3 • • supports the other three system elements of the RWSP (wastewater treatment and conveyance, combined sewer overflow, and biosolids) because it provides data that could be useful to those making decisions on the locations of future treatment plants and pump stations that might also serve as sources of reclaimed water. There is also the opportunity to investigate discharging highly treated reclaimed water to surface waters allowing water to be withdrawn elsewhere as a water supply source. Highly treated reclaimed water could also be used to recharge depleted groundwater. Both of these uses of reclaimed water would require changes in state laws. SCOPE OF THIS DEIS AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This DEIS has been prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington [RCW]), the SEPA rules (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11) and King County's SEPA procedures (King County Code [KCC] 20.44). This DEIS addresses the probable significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementing the RWSP service strategies under consideration and with other proposed service strategy options. This DEIS is a "programmatic" document, with the level of detail needed to support a Metropolitan King County Council decision on the comprehensive plan amendment. The programmatic EIS is the first step of a "phased review" as provided for in SEPA (WAC 197-11-060[5]). As projects included in the RWSP approach implementation, more detailed project -level environmental review will be conducted. PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW King County conducted the scoping process for the DEIS in the fall of 1994. A SEPA Determination of Significance and scoping document was issued on September 1, 1994, as required by SEPA. A legal notice of the scoping effort was published in the Seattle Times and other local newspapers on that date. Approximately 2,000 people received a copy of the scoping document. The public review and comment period started on Sep- tember 1 and ended on October 15, 1994. Six scoping open houses were held during September 1994 in King County. Two were held in downtown Seattle, and one each was held in the Georgetown area, Renton, Auburn, and Bothell. The scoping open houses were formatted to allow the public an op- portunity to ask questions of King County staff and examine exhibits and handouts. King County received 69 written comments: 17 from government agencies, 7 from private organizations, and 45 from citizens. This draft EIS is issued to provide environmental information to the public and agencies and to solicit comments on the proposals and issues discussed in the RWSP. Comments will be accepted during a 90 -day public review period. During that period, King County will hold public meetings and public hearings to receive comments on the RWSP and this draft EIS. The times and locations for the public meetings and hearings are provided in the Fact Sheet at the beginning of this document. 1-4 • Summary AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Inter -County Cooperation King County met with neighboring cities and wastewater districts to evaluate the poten- tial for flow transfers between the County and nearby utilities that might benefit both parties. Tacoma and Pierce County appear to provide options to receive and treat flows from the King County system. The costs of constructing and operating a transfer system to Pierce County would have to be compared to the benefits related to the reduction in both East Treatment Plant expansion and conveyance expansion in the southern service area. To know if such a flow transfer would be cost-effective for King County, the full cost of building and operating the conveyance system, plus paying another entity for treatment and discharge, would have to be evaluated. Additionally, the impacts of the transfer system and discharge to south Puget Sound would have to be evaluated. Shared treatment plants between counties may provide for cost-efficient wastewater treatment for all parties. As part of the RWSP, King County is working with south Sno- homish County wastewater service providers to assess interest and mutual benefits that could be realized from cooperatively siting and operating a treatment plant. Ability to Obtain Permits for West Point Treatment Plant Expansion When the West Treatment Plant was upgraded to provide secondary treatment, there was a lengthy, complex, and controversial planning and permitting process before the City of Seattle and other regulatory agencies granted approval. The treatment plant is located in a single-family residential zone, and partially in the shoreline zone. This requires Shoreline Substantial Development and Council Conditional Use permits. Such permits are based on a finding that there is no feasible alternative to locating the treatment plant in a residential zone or shoreline location. The City Council made such a determination with respect to the upgrade of the West Treatment Plant to secondary treatment. In large part, this determination reflected the substantial cost difference between upgrading the West Treatment Plant and any alternative that avoided a shoreline location. Alternatives con- sidered included a new treatment plant in the Duwamish industrial area or in the Interbay area. Either alternative would have required construction of an entirely new treatment plant and substantial additional costs to construct new collection system pipelines to di- rect flows to the new plant and a new outfall to Puget Sound. The City of Seattle's permit process was conducted in two phases: plan -level and project - level reviews. The plan -level permit was issued after a finding that no feasible alternative to the West Point site existed, and it included a number of conditions relating to environ- mental impact reduction. The plan -level zoning and shoreline permits were appealed through the courts and the Shorelines Hearing Board by a coalition of groups and indi- viduals opposed to the West Treatment Plant upgrade. The courts and the Shoreline Hearings Board decided to support the 1991 Settlement Agreement that was reached with the coalition to avoid appeal of that permit and other key permits and approvals. The Settlement Agreement required that Metro contribute additional funds to a community impact fund that had been established in the plan -level permit decision. In addition, Metro agreed to several conditions, including pursuing an applied wastewater ummary 1-5 treatment program to explore technologies that could reduce the plant footprint and an agreement that any future expansions would not expand the plant footprint beyond the permitted 32 acres or increase pollutant loadings discharged to Puget Sound beyond the level permitted for a 133-mgd plant. Expansion of the West Treatment Plant under the RWSP would require the same two- phase permitting process and have to meet the same feasibility tests as the upgrade to secondary treatment. It would also have to adhere to the terms of the 1991 Settlement Agreement. The City of Seattle plan -level permit for the West Point secondary treatment upgrade is included as an appendix to this Draft EIS, bound separately as Appendix K. The 1991 Settlement Agreement and City of Seattle project -level permit are bound into this volume as Appendix I and Appendix J, respectively. Changes to Environmental Regulations Treatment plant regulations governing King County's facilities may change over time. In the early 1980s, for example, Metro was required to add secondary treatment to all of its Puget Sound treatment plant service areas, which, at that time, discharged primary - treated wastewater. Most of the facilities needed to implement the secondary treatment requirement began operating in 1995. New requirements, policies, or initiatives at the state or federal levels have the continued potential to affect allowable pollutant discharge levels from existing and future treatment facilities. Watershed planning, for example, is one federal and state initiative that could affect allowable pollutant discharges to the region's waters by designating "total maxi- mum daily loading" of pollutants to each body of water from all sources. The changing regulatory environment is addressed when a wastewater utility such as King County negotiates its federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit every 5 years. Existing facilities and plans for new facilities will be modified, as needed, to remain in compliance with regulatory requirements. Sites for New Treatment Plants Two service strategies discussed in this draft EIS include a new (third) secondary treat- ment plant in the North End. Service strategy options also address developing treatment plants on the Eastside to provide reclaimed water to augment water supplies. Sites have not been identified for any of these facilities. Unlike the 1985-86 secondary planning effort, which identified several representative sites for a third plant, the RWSP will take a broader look at siting a new plant or plants. This effort has advanced only far enough to develop planning -level cost estimates for comparison purposes. A concerted site selection process and accompanying environmental review will proceed only if County staff are directed to move forward on one of the strategies or options that calls for a new plant. Water Conservation The Seattle Water Department's Water Supply Program includes three levels of water conservation that would affect the amount of wastewater flows transported and treated, 1-6 Summary the size and timing of new' wastewater facilities, and the volume of CSOs to be con- trolled. Water conservation may reduce the amount of water the system must handle but would not affect the total quantity of solids to be conveyed, treated, and reused or dis- posed of. Also, predicted peak storm flows are used to size conveyance and treatment facilities. When new facilities have to be implemented, the impact of conservation pro- grams will be studied so that plans for new facilities can be modified accordingly. Practicability of Water Reuse Increasing difficulties in developing new traditional sources of water supply make using reclaimed water as a potential water supply an increasingly viable option. Developing new water sources is a complex and lengthy process. Diverting surface water from mountain lakes or streams may decrease flows in important fish streams. Water rights from the state for new surface and groundwater sources may be difficult to obtain. To determine if large-scale effluent reuse is feasible, however, the costs and adverse impacts of developing new water sources must be weighed against the costs and impacts of devel- oping infrastructure to treat and distribute reclaimed water to replace potable water for uses for which drinking water quality is not required. Service Strategy Options Some of the service strategy options listed later in this chapter involve unresolved environmental issues. These include conveyance and treatment of water other than sewage (inflow and infiltration), CSO control requirements and East Treatment Plant effluent discharge alternatives. These service strategy options, including their unresolved environmental issues, are discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of this DEIS and in Chapter 4 of the draft RWSP. SUMMARY OF SERVICE STRATEGIES This section summarizes the four service strategies. Elements common to all of the service strategies are identified first, followed by a listing of the defining features of each service strategy. More detailed descriptions of the service strategies are provided in Chapter 3 of this DEIS and in Chapter 3 of the RWSP. Elements Common to All Service Strategies Ongoing Projects King County is currently in the process of planning, designing, and constructing several projects that were called for in previous comprehensive plan updates. These include the current expansion at the East Treatment Plant, as well as conveyance capacity im- provements such as the North Creek diversion, the South Interceptor parallel, the Wil- burton siphon, the Mill Creek relief sewer, and the Swamp Creek interceptor extension. These conveyance improvements are needed to handle increasing wastewater volumes from the basins they serve, no matter what service strategy the Council adopts. Impacts of these projects have been or will be evaluated in project -specific environmental review documents and are not discussed in this DEIS. • • Common Facilities and Programs Under the current plan, several future projects will be required regardless of the system strategy adopted by the King County Council. For example, sections of the Eastside and Bothell -Woodinville interceptors will have to have parallel pipelines constructed, and a 20 -million -gallon storage tank will have to be added to the effluent transfer system from the East Treatment Plant. Expansion of the East Treatment Plant is proposed under any of the service strategies, although the capacity and timing differs among them. Major trunk improvements are also common to all the service strategies, as well as several CSO facilities. All service strategies include an inflow and infiltration (1/I) component that ranges be- tween very aggressive and maintenance level. The level of I/1 control, as well as the tim- ing required to achieve it, is included under each service strategy. The more definitive of the facilities and programs described in this chapter are described more fully in Chapter 3 of this DEIS and Chapter 3 of the RWSP. Their potential environmental impacts are discussed in Chapters 5 through 8 of this DEIS. Appendix E lists trunk sewer improvements common to all strategies according to the decade in which need is anticipated under current population and flow estimates. Biosolids Management Many options for managing biosolids were evaluated. One of the alternatives, the current system of land application of Class B biosolids, was chosen as the base case and was used in the cost model to demonstrate the biosolids component of the wastewater plan. The County's current biosolids recycling program and its potential environmental impacts are discussed in Chapter 10 of this DEIS. Alternative biosolids recycling methods and their potential environmental impacts are discussed in Chapter 12. Potential for Water Reuse The use of reclaimed water to supplement water supply is of interest to a number of community members and local elected officials. While present costs for the provision of reclaimed water generally exceed those for development of new potable supply, some re- use service proposals are economically viable and are in the process of being imple- mented, with several others potentially viable in the near term. Examples of potential applications of reclaimed water include wastewater treatment plant process water, landscape irrigation, and industrial heating and cooling. Chapter 9 of this DEIS discusses the potential environmental impacts of using reclaimed water for treatment plant process water and landscape irrigation. Several of the service strategy options discussed in Chapter 12 would involve large scale uses of reclaimed water. 1-8 Summary Service Strategy Defining Features Service Strategy 1 (SS1) • Maintain the existing two -treatment -plant system (West and East Treatment Plants). • Expand the East Treatment Plant capacity by 2010, with subsequent expansions required at the East and West Treatment Plants. • Parallel the Kenmore Interceptor by 2010. • Parallel two-thirds of the Eastside Interceptor by 2035 to carry flows to the East Treatment Plant. • Include a full-scale I&I reduction program • Store CSOs along the Lake Union Ship Canal in large, underground storage tanks, and convey them to the West Treatment Plant after peak flows subside. • Store CSOs south of the Lake Union Ship Canal on-site and/or provide treatment at CSO locations. • Produce Class B Biosolids using anaerobic digestion at both plants pending analysis of other technologies. • Produce Class A reclaimed water at both treatment plants. Service Strategy 2 (SS2) • Create a three -treatment -plant system (comprised of West Treatment Plant, the East Treatment Plant, and a new North Treatment Plant). • Expand the capacity at the West Treatment Plant to 159 mgd by 2010. • Construct a new North Treatment Plant in north King or south Snohomish County by 2018. • Expand the East and North Treatment Plants by 2023 and 2032, respectively. • Parallel the Kenmore Interceptor by 2003. • Construct a conveyance system to carry influent to the North Treatment Plant and an outfall from the North Treatment Plant to Puget Sound by 2018. • Include a small-scale I&I reduction program • Store CSOs along the Lake Union Ship Canal in large underground storage tanks for conveyance to the West Treatment Plant after peak flows subside. Summary 1-9 • Store CSOs south of the Lake Union Ship Canal on-site and/or provide treatment at CSO locations. • Produce Class B biosolids using anaerobic digestion at all three plants pending analysis of other technologies. • Produce Class A reclaimed water at all three plants. Service Strategy 3 (SS3) • Create a three -treatment -plant system (West Treatment Plant, East Treatment Plant, and new North Treatment Plant). • Construct a new North Treatment Plant to accommodate 35 mgd by 2010. • Expand both the East and the North Treatment Plants by 2020 and 2030, respec- tively; no expansion is required at the West Treatment Plant. • Construct a conveyance system to carry influent to the new North Treatment Plant and an outfall from this plant to Puget Sound by 2010. • Initiate a smaller scale I&I reduction program • Store CSOs along the Lake Union Ship Canal in underground storage tanks for conveyance to the West Treatment Plant after peak flows subside. • Store CSOs south of the Lake Union Ship Canal on-site and/or provide treatment at CSO locations. • Produce Class B biosolids by using anaerobic digestion at all three plants pending analysis of other technologies. • Produce Class A reclaimed water at all three plants. Service Strategy 4 (SS4) • Maintain the existing two -treatment -plant system (West and East Treatment Plants). • Expand the treatment capacity at the West Treatment Plant by 2010. • Expand the treatment capacity at East Treatment Plant in 2020, 2030, and 2040. , • Construct an 18 -mile -long deep tunnel in phases from the Kenmore Pump Station 1-10 Summary • Produce Class A reclaimed water at both treatment plants. SERVICE STRATEGY OPTIONS A number of alternative ideas for meeting stated planning objectives are discussed in the RWSP. These Service Strategy Options are fully described in the plan. They consist of measures designed to reduce costs, increase efficiencies, or optimize operations in six categories: treatment, conveyance, CSOs, biosolids, water reuse, and other issues. The options are listed by category in Table 1-1. The options are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 12 of this Draft EIS and Chapter 4' of the RWSP. The potential environmental impacts of the options are discussed in Chapter 12 of this DEIS. Table 1-1: SERVICE STRATEGY OPTIONS TREATMENT 4A Redefine Secondary Treatment: Negotiate to change the treatment requirements for wastewater effluent discharges 4B Re -rate Plant Capacities: Increase the amount of wastewater treated at the East and West Treatment Plants without expanding existing facilities 4C Build in Smaller Increments: Delay construction of facilities until they are actually needed, instead of planning and constructing facilities well ahead .CONVEYANCE 4D Decrease Conveyance Design Standard: Design the system to handle a 5 -year storm instead of a 20 -year storm 4E Decrease Conveyance Design Standard: Continue to size new pipes to handle a 20 -year storm, but wait until existing pipes reach capacity during 5 -year storm flows before constructing new pipes 4F Discharge to the Duwamish: Discharge a portion of peak winter flows from the East Treatment Plant directly to the Green/Duwamish River 4G No I/I Program: Build additional facilities instead of implementing an I/1 control program COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW 4H Reduce CSO Control Goal: Negotiate to increase the number of allowed CSO events from the state requirement of 1 event per CSO location per year to the federal requirement of 4-6 events per CSO location per year BIOSOLIDS 4I Alternative Biosolids Technologies: Alternatives to the existing biosolids processing technology (anaerobic digestion). WATER REUSE 4J Discharge at Hiram Chittenden Locks: Discharge reclaimed water from the West Treatment Plant at locks to allow withdrawal from Lake Washington for water supply. 4K Discharge to Lake Washington/Sammamish: Build two Eastside plants with advanced treatment to postpone/minimize expansion of the existing conveyance system, and allow withdrawal from lakes for water supply. 4L North Treatment Plant Discharge to Lake Washington: Build the North Treatment Plant initially as an advanced treatment facility to postpone construction of marine outfall and allow additional withdrawal from Lake Washington for water supply. Summary OTHER 4M Implement Pollutant Source Trading: Substitute wastewater treatment facility upgrades with non - wastewater projects that would better improve water quality. 4N Offer Siting Incentives: Offer incentives to communities willing to host wastewater facilities SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Service Strategies Long-term Operational Impacts Long-term impacts of the service strategies involve their operation and primarily affect water quality, biological resources, environmental health, and land use. The effluent discharge point is a critical siting decision, because effluent should be di- luted and transported out to the ocean fairly quickly to avoid concentration of pollutants in central Puget Sound. Discharges to the upper layer of Puget Sound are considered best by oceanographers, because currents there move northward to the open ocean. The West Treatment Plant outfall discharges to the upper layer. The Duwamish outfall for the East Treatment Plant is located in the lower layer of water, at 600 feet. Although dilution is adequate to meet discharge permit requirements, the currents move more slowly in a southward direction before mixing into the upper layer and moving out of the Sound. Oceanographers believe that constituents of the effluent from the Duwamish outfall re- main and accumulate in the Sound, along with effluent from other outfalls. A new outfall associated with a new North Treatment Plant would be sited north of the outfall for the West Treatment Plant. In final siting of the new North Treatment Plant outfall, one ob- jective would be to direct effluent to the upper water layer. All the service strategies increase the volume of effluent discharged from the East Treat- ment Plant outfall off Duwamish Head because the East Treatment Plant would be ex- panded under all strategies. Of the four strategies, SS 1 and SS4 would discharge the greatest volume of effluent from the East Treatment plant outfall into the southward - moving lower layer off Duwamish Head. SS2 and SS3 redirect a portion of the effluent that would otherwise be discharged from the Duwamish Head outfall to a new outfall associated with a North Treatment Plant. To the extent that final siting of this outfall directs effluent to the upper water layer and northward, these strategies would be preferable from a water -quality perspective. SS1, SS2, and SS4 also increase the discharge from West Point, where the flushing is good. Under all strategies, the CSO program will be designed to meet water quality and public health standards in area waters. Project priorities will address first those areas with high- est potential for public contact with combined sewage. SS4, however, will eliminate all CSOs from the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay, storing and transporting those flows to the East and West Treatment Plants for treatment and discharge from marine outfalls. Overall, this strategy would discharge the lowest total volume of pollutants to these waters. Since most of the wastewater system is buried, people are not usually aware of it, except in extreme conditions, or when it is under repair. Odors can be released from the under - 1 -12 Summary ground conveyance system' in certain conditions, as well as from the treatment plants. King County has an odor control program aimed at identifying and treating those odor sources that are most likely to reach residential neighborhoods and other areas sensitive to odors. Treatment plants have substantial above -ground structures and are typically industrial in appearance and type of operation. If surrounding land uses are not compatible, landscap- ing and architectural treatments are needed to blend the treatment plant with surrounding areas. The East Treatment Plant is located on land zoned for a treatment plant and is sur- rounded by an undeveloped buffer, followed by business park and industrial land uses. The West Treatment Plant is located in a single-family zone surrounded by Discovery Park. No site has been identified for the potential new North Treatment Plant; wherever it is located, however, it will probably require buffering or other means to make it com- patible with surrounding uses. Compatibility with nearby land uses would be a high priority in selecting a new treatment plant site and design. Truck traffic to and from treatment plants is also a long-term, operational activity. In the case of the East Treatment Plant, trucks quickly access the regional transportation system from the plant. West Treatment Plant traffic travels through the Armed Forces housing area and Discovery Park before entering Government Way, a commercial and residential street. Treatment plant -related truck traffic to a new North Treatment Plant would be a new impact to the area. King County is seeking ways to reduce truck traffic by evaluating alternative methods to process solids from the treatment process, thus reducing the volume. The end products of the wastewater treatment process, reclaimed water and biosolids, can be beneficially recycled without adverse impacts provided that regulations regarding product quality and application methods are followed. Short-term Construction Impacts Short-term impacts are those caused by construction of facilities and are typically experi- enced in a local area for the duration of construction. The service strategies may differ somewhat in their short-term impacts, because facility construction would take place in different areas. Appropriate mitigation measures for these impacts would be taken which- ever service strategy were implemented. Impacts of construction at the treatment plants would be experienced locally for up to 5 years for each expansion phase, during which many separate, but coordinated, activities would occur simultaneously. Construction would entail large-scale earth movement and hauling of concrete and equipment. Construction noise, dust, and traffic would occur around the treatment plant sites. While conveyance construction impacts are much shorter in duration in any one area, the facilities would be located close to homes and businesses, so impacts would be experi- enced by many more people. Installation of pipes and pumping stations requires noisy excavation, usually in or near streets. Projects located in streets, and trucks hauling soils and equipment, may disrupt traffic. Access to residential and business properties is sometimes interrupted for short periods. These impacts are mitigated by proper con - Summary 1-13 struction management, but cannot be avoided entirely. Pipelines that are not located in streets are often built along water bodies. In such cases, wildlife habitat, including wet- lands, may be affected. Stream crossings cause temporary impacts to water quality and aquatic life and have to be timed to avoid salmonid migration periods. New pumping stations and CSO storage/treatment facilities take up to 18 months to build. They involve typical construction impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic. Conveyance pipelines are built a length at a time, so impacts at any one location are usu- ally only experienced for a few weeks. Tunnels concentrate impacts at one end point, the working portal. This is where all soils are removed, and truck traffic and workers move to and from the working portal. Depending on the size and length of the tunnel, the portal can be active for a year or more, impacting the surrounding area with noise, dust, and truck traffic. Infiltration and inflow control involves such measures as installing a plastic liner in exist- ing sewer pipes, replacing broken pipes, and disconnecting roof drains on individual resi- dential and commercial buildings from the sanitary sewer system. This causes traffic disruption and noise and interferes with paving and landscaping on private property. Pipe lining, which is the least intrusive method, involves installing a sewer bypass pipe aboveground and elevated noise levels for about a week in one place. Noise reduction measures would be taken as needed. After construction, areas would be restored. Service Strategy Option Impacts The service strategy options listed earlier in this chapter have been developed to explore opportunities to minimize costs of the wastewater system and to provide new op- portunities for coordination with other utilities, such as water supply. Several service strategy options would constitute a change from current, more conserva- tive, policies under which the County wastewater system is managed. They could allow for more frequent and greater discharges of wastewater pollutants from the County wastewater system. Such policies would not be implemented without technical studies to demonstrate no significant environmental harm or risk to public health. Other policies call for reuse of treated wastewater to augment the water supply. Two would involve discharges of treated wastewater to the Lake Washington system. This would increase pollutant loadings to this freshwater system. To minimize these impacts, additional treatment steps would be added. to achieve greater pollutant removals before discharge. Advanced technical studies would be conducted to demonstrate no long-term significant adverse impacts from implementing these policies. POLICIES'AND REGULATIONS The quality of effluent discharged from King County's treatment facilities is governed by a number of federal and state laws in place to protect the quality of the region's water. 1-14 Summary • • The most important are the Federal Clean Water Act, the Washington Water Pollution Control Act, and the NPDES permit program. RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANNING UNDER GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT In order to carry out its mission of providing wastewater treatment facilities to protect public health and prevent water pollution, King County must meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA, passed in 1990 and subsequently amended, is a significant new factor affecting King County decisions. This legislation directs urban and fast-growing counties in the state to develop comprehensive growth management plans that define urban growth boundaries to ensure that facilities and services needed to sustain growth are in place when required. In complying with the GMA, King County's facility planning must be consistent with other regional planning efforts so that its regional wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure is in place when development occurs. King County's wastewater planning must comply with the GMA requirements that cities and counties coordinate and adopt mutually supporting plans for capital facilities and utilities. The GMA further requires that capital facilities planning include an inventory of existing facilities and a forecast of future needs for such facilities. The RWSP uses subarea demographic forecasts prepared and adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to determine the impact of regional growth on King County's existing wastewater conveyance and treatment facili- ties and to plan future facilities to accommodate that growth. Additionally, the RWSP implements the King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP), as it assumes all new devel- opment in the urban area will have sewers. • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY King County as a regional government has many responsibilities to its citizens. The County must provide an adequate level of service for a multi- tude of needs such as public health and safety, housing, transportation, education, economic growth, infrastructure, and environmental protection. The King County Council and Executive must weigh the level of service provided to the community for each of these needs based on public values and available (and finite) funding. The result is that County officials are faced with many complex issues requiring difficult and timely decisions. One of these complex issues is water resource management. In the region, water resource issues include six main components, including 1) drinking water supply, 2) rivers and flooding, 3) surface water, 4) ground water, 5) fisheries, and 6) wastewater. This document, the Draft Regional Wastewater Services Plan (RWSP), will guide decisions about meeting King County's future wastewater service needs. Further, the RWSP recognizes that waste- water decisions are closely linked with other water resource concerns, and offers alternatives that address these issues. For example, the plan describes alternatives for using reclaimed wastewater to supplement both potable (through indirect means) and non -potable water supply. In this way, the RWSP can help ensure that the region has an integrated, consistent, and efficient water resource management strategy for the future. PURPOSE The purpose of this Draft RWSP is to provide interested citizens with the opportunity to influence how the region will meet its wastewater service needs for the next 30 years. In order to help people make informed deci- sions, this Draft Plan includes pertinent information, including a discussion of the history and makeup of King County's existing wastewater system, the emerging issues that necessitate changes to this system, and the develop- ment of four proposed wastewater service strategies. In addition, this Plan presents a selection of fourteen options that can modify these strategies. Finally, this Draft Plan provides a means by which citizens can express their preferences, concerns, and specific interests to King County decision -makers. The Introduction to this document contains details about how to get addi- tional information, how to comment, and the decision-making schedule. MAJOR ISSUES Water quality and human health considerations have traditionally been highly valued by citizens in King Count, By the late 1950s, Lake Washing- ton had become seriously degraded by sewage discharges, which caused odors, aesthetic problems, and health concerns. This situation spurred citizen involvement, which led to the formation of a municipal corporation (Metro) to clean up the lake and establish a regional sewer system. By 1959, the Metro Council adopted the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, which guided wastewater management for the next 35 years. Maintaining the high level of King County's water resource issues in- clude 1) drinking water supply, 2) rivers and flooding, 3) surface water, 4) ground water, 5) fisheries, and 6) wastewater. Current projections show that an addi- tional 146 million gallons per day of wastewater treat- ment capacity will be needed by the year 2030. wermormrstemisaseapvzse..g.,,ttawsrec.evvrst,^, s. The GMA requires King County to forecast the amount of wastewater infra- structure necessary to serve growth within the urban growth boundary, and to have this infrastructure avail- able when growth occurs. water ity in King County in the face of grol., population remains as a key issu , and serves as an important driver for Irre development of this plan. There are four other important issues driving the development of this plan. They are 1) meeting the demands of population growth; 2) meeting state and federal regulations; 3) meeting the terms of contractual obligations and agreements; and 4) maximizing the region's water supply. Each of these issues is briefly summarized below. Population Growth Population growth is a primary driving force for this Draft RWSP. Popula- tion growth forecasts for the years 1990 to 2030 predict that over 1.6 million more people will be living or working in King County's current wastewater service area. In terms of wastewater flows generated by this increase, cur- rent projections show that an additional 146 million gallons per day of wastewater treatment capacity will be needed by the year 2030. State and Federal Regulations Regulations are another important driver of this Draft Plan. Both King County and Washington State Code require sewer comprehensive plans for all entities that provide sewage collection and treatment. These plans must include specific information such as a capital facilities inventory, and must also undergo a formal public review process. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) further requires King County to forecast the amount of wastewater infrastructure necessary to serve growth within the urban growth boundary, and to have this infrastructure available when growth occurs. The King County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1994, is the vehicle for ensuring GMA requirements are met. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System (NPDES) permits establish standards for treated wastewater and thus dictate a minimum level of treatment capability. The federal Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) policy and state regulations also require compliance with strict standards for controlling CSO discharges. Contractual Obligations and Agreements Another issue that plays an important role in the development of King County's wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities indudes meeting specific agreements that the County already has in place. Some of these agreements include contractual sewage disposal agreements with local agencies, the West Point Settlement Agreement, and the Seattle City Council Conditional Use approval to expand the West Treatment Plant. All of these agreements contribute to establish a particular level of required wastewater conveyance and treatment. Regional Water Supply The potential role of reclaimed water in meeting the region's demand for water supply is another important issue addressed in this plan. The County discharges about 130 mgd of treated wastewater into the Sound during the peak water usage months in summer and fall, and doubles during the winter • • season. Seattle and other purveyors within the county provide approxi- mately 180 mgd on an average annual basis and significantly more than this during peak summer months. As our region grows, so does the need for water supply and wastewater services. If wastewater can become a water supply resource, it may delay or reduce the need for developing new sources for drinking water. It is therefore important to consider locating wastewater treatment facilities in proximity to potential reclaimed water users. WASTEWATER SERVICE STRATEGIES The service strategies summarized in this section are proposed as solutions to address the issues described previously. The four strategies resulted from prioritizing a wide range of wastewater management alternatives. These alternatives were ranked according to a process that evaluated citizen and stakeholder input, consistency with existing County policies, and relevance to a group of core objectives developed by the King County Council's Re- gional Water Quality Committee. The existing wastewater system in King County serves as the foundation for the wastewater strategies and options. The present wastewater system is based on a regional approach to wastewater treatment. Two secondary treatment plants, the West Treatment Plant and the East Treatment Plant,' currently provide treatment for the entire service area. Together with other wastewater infrastructure, the public investment in this system represents about $3.3 billion to date (1996 dollars). West Treatment Plant 133 mgd in 1997 30, East Treatment Plant 115 mgd in1997 The wastewater service strategies include other components in addition to the treatment plants and conveyance infrastructure. These components include a CSO control program, a program to control inflow and infiltration to the system, a biosolids recycling program, and water reuse pilot programs. Each of these components is described in each of the four wastewater service strategies. 1 Because this document makes repeated references to components of the existing and proposed wastewater treatment system such as the West Point Treatment Plant, and the East Section Reclamation Plant at Renton, a standardized naming convention was adopted as presented below. Actual Name The West Point Treatment Plant The West Section Service Area The East Section Reclamation Plant at Renton . The East Section Service Area The North End Treatment Plant The North End Service Area Standardized Name The West Treatment Plant The West Service Area The East Treatment Plant The East Service Area The North Treatment Plant The North Service Area The existing waste- water system in King County includes of two large treatment plants, the West Treatment Plant and the East Treatment Plant. The total public investment in the County's wastewater system represents about $3.3 billion to date. Service Strategy 1 proposes a maximum expansion of the conveyance and treatment capacity for both the West and East Treatment Plants. Service Strategy 2 proposes maximum expansion at the West Plant, partial expansion at the East Plant, and a new North Treatment Plant. Thc.xr wastewater strategies are variation. two general themes. The first theme is a "two plant" system based on expanding the existing treat- ment and conveyance facilities associated with the West and East Treatment Plants. Service strategies 1 and 4 are "two plant" strategies. The second theme is a "three plant system based on building a third treatment facility. to reduce or eliminate the need for expanding the existing plants. Service strategies 2 and 3 are "three plant" scenarios. Each service strategy is sum- marized briefly as follows, along with estimated costs for implementation. For specific information on costs, see the companion document RWSP Fi- nance Plan. Service Strategy 1 (Expand East & West Plants) This strategy proposes a phased expansion of the conveyance and treat- ment capacity at both the West Treatment Plant and the East Treatment Plant. Under this strategy, the West Treatment Plant would be expanded to its maximum treatment capacity design of 159 million gallons per day (mgd) by the year 2020; the East Treatment Plant would be expanded to a capacity of 235 mgd by 2040. The total cost of Service. Strategy 1 is about $876 million. West Treatment Plant 159 mgd by 2020 East Treatment Plant 235 mgd by 2040 Service Strategy 2 (Add North Plant - Expand East & West Plants) Service Strategy 2 proposes a phased expansion of the conveyance and treatment capacity at West Treatment Plant and the East Treatment Plant, but only the West Treatment Plant would expand to its maximum capacity (by 2010). The East Plant would expand to 172 mgd by 2042. A third 35 mgd treatment plant would be constructed by 2018 and later expanded to 65 mgd by 2032 to accommodate additional wastewater flows from the northern service area. The total cost of Service Strategy 2 is about $1.1 billion. West Treatment Plant 159 mgd by 2010 East Treatment Plant 172 mgd by 2042 North Treatment Plant 65 mgd by 2032 Service Strategy 3 (Add North Plant - Expand East Plant) Strategy 3 also proposes a three -plant system. Under this alternative, the West Treatment Plant would not be expanded, and the East Treatment Plant would be expanded to 172 mgd by 2040. The North Treatment Plant would undergo a phased expansion•from 35 mgd by2010 to 89 mgd bytheyear g g 2030. The total cost of Service Strategy 3 is about $1.2 billion. West Treatment Plant (No Expansion) East Treatment Plant 172 mgd by 2040 North Treatment Plant 89 mgd by 2030 Service Strategy 4 (Expand East & West Plants - Add a Tunnel) This strategy proposes a two -plant expansion as in Strategy 1, with the West Treatment Plant reaching its maximum treatment capacity of 159 mgd by 2010, and the East Treatment Plant reaching its total capacity of 235 mgd by 2040. This strategy also includes the phased construction of an 18 -mile long deep tunnel and force main by 2020. This tunnel would be used for conveying and storing wastewater flows. The total cost of Service Strategy 4 is about $1.3 billion. West Treatment Plant 159 mgd by2010 East Treatment Plant 235 mgd by 2040 18 - mile long deep Tunnel No -Action Alternative A no -action alternative means that no new facilities would be constructed. Under this alternative, future improvements to the conveyance, treatment and outfall systems would be related to operation and maintenance of the facilities rather than improvements to the capacity or treatment capability of the facilities. One important consequence of no action, given projected population and employment growth rates, is the increase of sewage over- flows into streets, homes, businesses, lakes, and streams during heavy rainstorms. These overflows will threaten public health, degrade water quality, and result in regulatory non-compliance. Other consequences of no - action could include: • inability to fully treat all flows reaching treatment plants; • degradation of receiving water aesthetics and limitations on beneficial uses; • regulatory fines and enforcement orders for non-compliance with permit discharge limits; • regulatory sanctions such as building moratoriums and bans on sewer hook-ups in designated growth areas; and • liability for not fulfilling contractual obligations to receive wastewater flows from cities and sewer districts. Service Strategy 3 proposes a three plant system, with an expansion at the West Plant, partial expansion at the East Plant, and a new North Plant. Service Strategy 4 proposes a two -plant expansion as in Strategy 1, but also includes the phased construction of an 18 -mile long deep tunnel. The Draft Plan provides information on fourteen service strategy options arranged in five categories: 1) Treat- ment; 2) Conveyance; 3) CSOs; 4) Biosolids; and 5) Water Reuse. King •znty recognizes that the citizens of theixget Sound region place a high value on water quality, and that a no -action alternative would not receive broad citizen support. For this reason, a no- action alternative is not included in the Draft RWSP. However, the plan does provide the flexibility for citizens to make choices about the level of service provided by selecting one or more service strategy options. SERVICE STRATEGY OPTIONS The four wastewater service strategies were developed to provide an adequate level of service to meet known or anticipated demands and regula- tory requirements. They provide needed capacity to serve future growth, preserve public health and safety, protect water quality, and meet regulatory requirements. In other words, these strategies maintain the existing level of service enjoyed by the region. The service strategy options can be applied to increase or decrease this level of service. The Draft Plan provides information on fourteen service strategy options arranged in five categories that represent the major elements of a compre- hensive wastewater treatment strategy. The categories are 1) Treatment; 2) Conveyance; 3) Combined Sewer Overflows; 4) Biosolids; and 5) Water Reuse. A sixth category, "Other" contains two options that are independent of these categories. Most options apply to all four service strategies, al- though a few apply specifically to either the two -plant or three -plant strate- gies. Examples of the service strategy options include concepts such as: 1) developing "Class A" reclaimed water at existing and new treatment. facili- ties for non -potable and indirect potable uses in Lake Washington; 2) produc- ing a higher quality "Class A" biosolids product to augment marketing options; 3) discharging a portion of peak winter flows from the East Treat- ment Plant directly to the Green/Duwamish River; 4) offering siting incen- tives to communities willing to host wastewater facilities; and 5) designing any new wastewater conveyance facility to handle a 5 -year storm instead of a 20 -year storm. Many of the service strategy options represent a very different way of meeting the water resources needs of the region. For example, Metro was formed forty years ago in large part to remove sewage inputs from Lake Washington. One of the options in this plan proposes to discharge highly treated wastewater back into the lake. Lake Washington would serve as a reservoir under this option, where water would be drawn out, treated, and re -introduced into the water supply system. Advances in technology and regional values to recycle and sustain our water resources now make this a viable option for consideration. When reviewing these and other options in Chapter Four, it is important to note that there are considerable tradeoffs with respect to costs, regulations, and environmental considerations associated with each of the options. Many would require changing state laws or renegotiating permit requirements, but the benefits to be gained for the region may warrant these changes. Accord- • • ingly, these options should be viewed as alternative directions that King County could examine more thoroughly if sufficient interest by the public and elected officials warranted. The results would be reported back to citizens, stakeholders, and elected officials at a future date. DECISIONS FOR THE FUTURE The Draft RWSP facilitates making decisions about how the County will meet its wastewater service needs for the next 30 years. Many of these decisions are critical and urgent because the existing system is running out of capacity, as evidenced by the numerous overflows during recent storm events. The wastewater service strategies and options establish the context for making these decisions that will establish the foundation for the future wastewater system in the region. For example, one urgent decision is "where will King County treat wastewater flows from north King and south Snohomish Counties in the future?" This question has broad policy implica- tions with respect to the service strategies—should the County build new facilities where most of the growth is occurring (Service Strategies 2 and 3), or expanding existing ones to maximize their use (Service Strategies 1 and 4)? Other urgent decisions are needed for questions such as: • How should King County site new facilities? • Should King County allow reduced design standards and increase the risk of overflows in order to save money, or establish new priorities on how to accomplish the region's water quality and public health objec- tives? • Should King County look to reduce the demand for new facilities by investing in infiltration and inflow (I/I) reduction and prevention in cooperation with its component agencies? • What role should water reuse play in planning for future wastewater services to augment water supply in the region and enhance in -stream flows? • How should King County process biosolids? What are the priorities in selecting a solids handling technology: end product quality, noise, odor, size of facilities, reliability, cost, or truck traffic? • How should King County finance improvements to the sewerage system? Should growth pay for growth? In order to help decision makers address these critical issues, King County decision makers need to understand how citizens view the relative impor- tance of issues such as cost (rates), public health, environmental health, economic growth, construction disruptions, facility location, conservation and reuse, system reliability, solids handling, and system flexibility. Chapter Five facilitates comparisons, comments, and choices about these issues, the service strategies, and the service strategy options. Opportunities for public input and the decision timeline are presented in the Introduction, immedi- ately following this Executive Summary. COKOUSION 411, The Draft RWSP provides the elements necessary to assemble a long-range plan for regional wastewater services. The final plan will serve as a road map for the planning and construction of needed programs and facilities. And while the RWSP will establish a context for individual facility decisions, the actual implementation will depend on future conditions and circum- stances. For example, less population growth than expected will result in delays or reductions in facility and conveyance construction. The Plan will ensure that decisions made in the short-term make sense in the long-term. The strategy that results from the choices made by citizens and stakehold- ers will require additional work before implementing the final plan. This will include detailed technical analysis, negotiations with other agencies, potential changes in policies or laws, and project -level environmental re- views for system components such as pipelines and treatment plant expan- sions. The results of this work may lead to new directions with new deci- sion making options. This iterative process is an important part of develop- ing a responsible long-term strategy for wastewater and water resource management. King County has a responsibility to its citizens to ensure that the services and infrastructure necessary to support our growing region are in place when they are needed. The consequence of inadequately planning for future wastewater services is the potential degradation of water quality and the overall environment, risks to human health, as well as wasted investment. Decision -makers in the region will need to consider the multitude of issues addressed in this Draft RWSP, and the choices made by citizens and stake- holders in order to design a flexible final plan that will meet this region's wastewater service needs for the next 30 years and beyond.