The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2021-08-09 Item 4 - Presentation - Puget Sound Nutrient Permit Process- oil >IP ,r1k D raft Puget Sound Nutrient G eneral Permit • Background • Initial analysis • Comments and next steps August 9, 2021 10 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division The Impact of Low Dissolved Oxygen Low dissolved oxygen occurs naturally but can worsen when other factors affect algae growth. CONDITIONS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED ALGAE GROWTH N (19 Warmer N temperatures N (.0") Circulating water N N N N D DYING ALGAE REDUCES DISSOLVED OXYGEN D LOWER DISSOLVED OXYGEN IS HARMFUL FOR FISH POPULATIONS )041, 4110 witlik mleb ,CD u 0 0 Acceptable Nab *gib Puget Sound naturally has dissolved oxygen levels below the numeric standard of 7 mg/L (for most of Puget Sound) set by Washington State Department tea Kin. Count Clean `Water fd �l tiorm water NATURAL SOURCES OF NITROGEN 91% TOTAL Pacific Ocean (88%) Natural Watershed hed Inputs Scrub Red Alder Trees HUMAN SOURCES OF NITROGEN 9% TOTAL Wastewater Treatment Plants (7%) Human Watershed Inputs (2%) Fertilizer Wastewater, River Discharge, To put this in context: West Point is the largest discharger of wastewater effluent to the Sound. 08 OF ALL THE NITROGEN. IN PUGET souND COMES FROM E T POINT TREATMENT PLANT 98.204 OF ALL NITROGEN CONIES FROM OTHER SOURCES All 79 dischargers removed Ail anthropoigenic 2006 Mid- to Large facilities removed WP and SP only removed B MOD eaes000 2006 2i • Ecology determined 'reasonable potential' that nitrogen from WWTPs is responsible for the decline in dissolved oxygen in Puget Sound. • When reasonable potential is found, Ecology is required to take measures to reduce or control the pollutant determined to be causing harm King County shares the goal to protect and restore Puget Sound, and supports solutions that are effective, timely, and affordable. What we see: • Puget Sound has naturally occurring low oxygen zones. • Complex system of varying depths and mixing zones. • Wastewater contribution is small and reducing it may not be helpful Is there an alternative to improving water quality in Puget Sound? Annual reporting that includes optimization analysis and process engineering Influent nitrogen reduction measures/source control Develop a Nutrient Reduction Plan and implement if thresholds are exceeded Draft Permit Requirements Applies to 58 utilities in the Sound What this means for King County and partners • Projections show King County will exceed new lower Action Limits by 2022. • If we exceed, then must develop a plan to reduce Total Inorganic Nitrogen by 10%. • Requires implementation of the plan if we exceed the limit two years in a row • Significant operating and capital costs in the first permit cycle Economic impacts on residents and businesses • Rates projected to double by 2030 to maintain system and protect public health. • Permit would require another significant increase on top of that. • Ecology should conduct its own Economic and Affordability Analysis. Capital Cost Scenarios 1. Nitrogen Removal to 8 mg/L at All Plants 2. Nitrogen Removal to 3 mg/L at South Plant & Brightwater, to 8 mg/L West Point & 4th Plant 3. Nitrogen Removal to 3 mg/L at All Plants All three scenarios include: 1. Sidestream treatment for each treatment plant to reduce nitrogen by approx. 10% by 2028 2. South Plant & Brightwater N upgrades by end of 3rd permit cycle (2036) 3. Completion of 4th regional treatment plant by 2041 4. West Point N upgrades (with reduced capacity) by 2045 5. Projects to address treatment capacity needs through 2060 Capital Cost Estimates Summary Total 2020 Tota 1 Esca lated 1. Nltragen P:ernoval8 mg/L All Plant .0 billi n Nitrogen Removal .SP & BW 3 nig/Lr WP & 4th Plant 8 mg/L $10.6. billion 3. Nitrogen Removal 3 rng/LAll Plants $13.6. billion Capitol costs only, c p erat/ rg costs included in sewer rate forecasts • Conceptual, long-range program planning estimates $14.3 billion $16.7 billion $21.4 billion • Point estimates developed without specific engineering information and project development details • High level of uncertainty exists for scope and details of the program and how those could be impacted over time • Planning level estimates of -50%/+300% Reference: Adopted Financial Plan [Green] included a placeholder 2040 CSO completion pending Consent Decree negotiation. Baseline: Financial Plan Adjusted for 2030 CSO completion [Yellow] is based on current Consent Decree. Layering Nitrogen Removal Investments to the Baseline: • N. Removal to 8 mg/L All Plants [Grey] peaks in 2035, 280% total increase to current rate, with 170% for N. removal. • N. Removal to 3 mg/L for SP & BW, 8 mg/L for WP & 4th Plant [Orange] peaks in 2035, 340% total increase to current rate, with 230% for N. removal. • N. Removal to 3 mg/L All Plants [Blue] peaks in 2035, 420% total increase to current rate, with 310% for N. removal. Sewer Rate Forecast with Nitrogen (N.) Removal Costs 2020 $ Escalated to Year of Expenditure $300 $250 $200 —N. Removal 3mg/L AU Plants $13.6bn (C5O 2030) —N. Removal 8mg/L All Plants $9.Obn (CSO 2030) 2022-2031 Adopted Financial Plan (CSO 2040) $245 N. Removal SP&BW 3mg/L, WPBmg/L $10.6bn (C50 2030) Financial Plan Adjusted for 2030 CSO Completion $150 S170 165 1r6S 160 $165 .� r $115 $120 $120 $125 $125 $150 $155 $155 $150 $155 $100 5 115 , ;�1�5 75 S5 $100 $1 $105 �1 I ' 5105 $105__ _ $1D5_ $10_5 $106 $1D0 $100 $105 $100 $85 $105 $105�$�^"��— —ss -- :: - —$95 $ --s--______$1513_ '_' $70 s9a $100 $loo $105�,-_ . 95 $100 $100 $1oa —_�— ��e�._— $60-- r— $85 $45 $95 ;9_5_7_ 95 $90 $90 $90—$95 $47 $49 - — ------ — $79 51 — $53 $55 $5$ $62 $65 $69— $74 $185 $190 $180 $185 $185 $185 $170 $170 $165 $165 $160 $165 ' $170 $0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035, 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 •� 1 Tom,/ilk Affordability is already a big r, problem in King County • Expanding or constructing new facilities for nutrient removal in a dense urban area will be very expensive. • Nutrient requirements come on top of the cost for asset management, CSO control, and new capacity for growth. • Ratepayer dollars should go toward the most cost- effective solutions. Let's get the science right and fully explore alternatives FILTER AND REDUCE RUNOFF FROM FARMLAND A A A AND URBAN LANDSCAPES UPGRADE SEPTIC SYSTEMS PROTECT NATURAL LANDS • Complete Nutrient Management Plan • Focusing on more expensive wastewater treatment infrastructure will not solve the problem. • Start where the problem exists: • Reducing runoff from farmland and urban landscapes • Restoring wetlands • Protecting natural lands • Promoting healthy forest soils • Fixing failing septic systems Effective 30 days from final publication (January 1, 2022) 30 -day appeal period Questions? Submitting comments: Deadline = August 16, 2021 Submit online: Nutrient Permit - Washington State Department of Ecology Eleanor Ott, P.E. Washington State Department of Ecology PO Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 Contact WTD for further information: Rebecca Singer Rebecca.singer@kingcounty.gov Kamuron Gurol Kgurol@kingcounty.gov Our website: Reducing nitrogen in Puget Sound where it matters - King County