Aug 07 2008
Spray Irrigation? Ocean Outfall?
Rehoboth has until 2014 to stop disposing of its waste water in the Lewes-Rehoboth Canal.
Experts have testified at City Commissioners meetings stating that Ocean Outfall is the way to go. Others are convinced Spray Irrigation is the most environmentally friendly option and are pushing for a regional solution.
Rehoboth can decide on a city - funded ocean fall project, a spray irrigation project in conjunction with Sussex County or a spray irrigation facility through private companies like Artesian Water Co. or Tidewater Utilities.
Meanwhile Sussex County is engaged in its own search for additional wastewater treatment and disposal capabilities.
I am certain that I had not even heard the terms “Spray Irrigation” or “Ocean Outfall” a year ago. But I was at a gathering about a month ago and people were talking about the spray irrigation facility that was going to be developed on Route 24. So I decided to call Tidewater and see if I could get any information. Not only was Bruce Patrick of Tidewater Services willing to talk and answer my questions, he also sent me a Summary of the Tidewater’s Proposal for a Spray Irrigation System. I’d like to thank Mr. Patrick for his time and his willingness to answer all questions. Posted below is the summary he sent to me.
I hope that folks will take a look at Tidewater’s proposal and post comments. This is an important decision for Sussex County and here’s our opportunity to learn about it and act.
For those of you who are proponents of Ocean Outfall, please join the discussion.
Excerpts from Sussex County Conditional Use Application
Tidewater Environmental Services, Inc. offers the following Executive Summary Overview of its proposed land based regional wastewater treatment and disposal facility.
Executive Summary
August 2008
A. Location
The proposed Wandendale Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility is located on both sides of both Rt. 24 and Camp Arrowhead Road south of Love Creek with the bulk of the site on the east side of Rt. 24.
B. Purpose
The purpose of the proposed Facility is the treatment and land-based irrigation and aquifer recharge of treated wastewater from existing neighborhood homes as well as proposed neighborhoods outside of any existing or proposed Sussex County Sanitary Sewer District or Engineering Department Planning Area. The extension of central wastewater systems in this area to serve failing on-site systems and new development will protect the Inland Bays from excessive amounts of nutrients.
C. Sussex County Zoning
The proposed facility is currently zoned AR-1, Agricultural Residential District with no change of zone proposed. A Conditional Use permit is required pursuant to Section 115-22 of the Zoning Ordinance for “Public Utilities…treatment plants, pumping or regulator stations…etc”.
D. Sussex County Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area Considerations
The proposed Facility is located within the Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area as defined by the Sussex County Comprehensive Plan currently in effect and is consistent with the Plan.
E. Soils & Hydrogeology
A Preliminary Soils Reconnaissance (PSR) report or additional soils investigations were completed for all proposed parcels. A Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation (PHE) report and further hydrogeologic studies are ongoing or have been completed on all proposed parcels. Continuous wet season monitoring on the most critical three of the parcels for the 2007-2008 wet season, have been completed. A mounding analysis has been completed and the site is satisfactory for the proposed use.
F. Capacity & Phased Operation
The site has the capacity to dispose of 1.12 million gallons per day of wastewater by both spray irrigation and rapid infiltration basins. The site has sufficient capacity to serve the 1,942 dwelling units for which commitments have been made, the 1429 potential dwelling units for which petitions for service have been requested in the TESI planning area and has reserve capacity for another 400 dwelling units for a total of 3,771 dwelling units to be served.
TESI’s treatment facility will be phased to minimize the flow needed to start-up operation of the facility. The Facility will consist of treatment units constructed in parallel, such that one unit can be placed into operation prior to receiving enough flow to place the entire facility into operation. This approach also gives flexibility to run only one unit during seasonal low flow periods. At the outset, TESI anticipates using a small temporary membrane bio-reactor treatment unit that would only require 15-20 homes to be placed into operation if necessary.
G. Other Facts
The following is general information concerning the proposed Facility:
- Buffers – 50’ minimum buffer maintained around all spray irrigation areas…sometimes 250’ and larger on one side.
- Design Standards – Facilities and infrastructure will be designed in compliance with Sussex County specifications, DNREC Guidance and Regulations and other applicable standards for wastewater facilities.
- The proposed Facilities have been designed in accordance with the Performance Standards for Nitrogen & Phosphorous in DNREC’s proposed regulations in the Pollution Control Strategy for the Indian River, Indian River Bay, Rehoboth Bay and Little Assawoman Bay dated May 2008. The wastewater treatment process is designed to provide an effluent quality better than the highest Level 1 Performance Standards for Nitrogen & Phosphorous in those regulations.
Tom:
In my opinion, this has been such a tough issue primarily because the problem has not been understood correctly. Or, rather, not defined correctly by various regulators and “experts.”
The real question is not the final destination of the effluent but the adequacy of treatment. If the treatment is really adequate, the “sewage” can be reused or discharged without causing problems. Without adequate treatment there is no acceptable destination.
The Surface Water Discharges Section of the DNREC is the same bunch that brought us the issues with the cooling water systems and permits at the Indian River Power Plant and innumerable other debacles. They are incompetent, and have given Rehoboth almost no sound guidance…..
I don’t have confidence in Tidewater either.
I doubt that Rapid Infiltration Basins should be located near Love Creek. This would be effectively the same as dumping the effluent right into the creek.
As for ocean outfall, what could be more absurd than a beach resort town dumping its sewage off the beach…..?
I guess the good news here is that Rehoboth surely has the resources to do the right thing, and I get the impression that the town *wants* to do the right thing. It just needs better advice.
am
This proposal is in the 3rd council district and is a terrible idea. It encourages sprawl and threatens our drinking water supplies.
The State opposes it. Please print the State’s response. And I testified against it because it serves to encourage unsupported sprawl and threatens the drinking water in our area.
Tidewater proposes to bring waste from as yet undeveloped outlying areas back into the Inland Bays area and treat it there with a spray application system.
However when spray application is used on crops as proposed here, farmers must use twice the fertilizer which means more nitrates going into our already nitrate-laden drinking water.
Also the water that is sprayed on crops will still contain pharmaceuticals and other chemicals and the crops should not be consumed.
As the councilwoman from this district I will protect our people from foolish schemes like this.
Joan Deaver, Candidate for 3rd district seat on Sussex County Council.
Joan,
Per your request I’ve added a link to the State of Delaware response to the Wandendale Regional Water Recharge Facility prepared by the Director of State Planning Coordination.
From the above document:
“The State does not support this facility as it will be in conflict with the Strategies for State Policies and Spending and would increase the pressure to build in the Level 4 areas of the County.”
“The proposed facility is being sized to serve new development outside the Sewer District and the presently identified Level 1, 2 and 3 Areas. For this reason, it deserves further discussion.”
“The Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) proposed on the northern portion on the combined parcel area should not be sited adjacent to the headwater tributary connected to Love Creek, nor should forest cover be removed to accommodate it. Doing so will increase the volume of water discharged to
the creek while potentially decreasing water quality. DNREC strongly recommends that the RIB system be relocated to a more suitable location and the forest cover retained.”
Jerry Esposito, head of Tidewater, used to head the Division of Water Resources and is listed as a board member of the Positive Growth Alliance in the PGA’s 2007 “990″ filing.
The PGA’s 2007 990 is here: http://www.greendel.org/images/PGA2007990.pdf. (Some other years can be gotten at Guidestar.org but you have to register.)
Joan,
What is your opinion on an ocean outfall alternative to spray irrigation? If you oppose ocean outfall alternatives what alternatives do you see as viable?
Tom,
Thanks for asking.
“Spray irrigation” I put this in quotes — because it isn’t really irrigation; it’s treated sewage which is then converted to a liquid that is sprayed on land. It has its problems but as far as I know it’s the best method of dealing with sewage at this time.
Failures and other operational calamities do happen and it seems to me that it may be easier to control land application system than ocean outfall.
I would rather see the government provide this than private business. And I am sorry to see that Tidewater’s Jerry Esposito is now on the board of the infamous “Postitive Growth Alliance” (PGA). When such companies “serve” us they are not as responsive to public needs and must make a profit. Not all of us can afford to pay their price, so why would we want to bring them into the picture?
Just my opinion.
Joan Deaver
This is my first post. This is a great website. I’d like to point out that the South Coastal Wastewater facility has an ocean outfall near South Bethany, and reportedly has never had a problem in 19 years of operation. Apparently, Ocean City Maryland also uses ocean outfalls for wastewater disposal and like Delaware has very clean (bacteriologicaly speaking) ocean beaches.
I agree that adequate treatment prior to disposal is ultimately the solution to this particular pollution problem. Treatment costs will have to go up to net all the bizarre crap (pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, lots of phosphorus) that’s in our wastewater. I’m willing to pay for it especially if the wastewater is being recharged into the aquifer I’m drinking from.
Chris Bason raises a valid point.
Other things being equal, dumping the effluent into the ocean a mile or so offshore seems likely to result in increased dilution, and less direct return of contaminants to human drinking water, compared to discharging it into local aquifers via “spray irrigation” or “rapid infiltration.”
But there are other aspects. What about the lack of control when the outfall is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, possible bio-accumulation in marine populations, the psychological aspects of ocean dumping, the long-term consequences of pollution our oceans…?
Also, take a look at this:
“EPA to develop stricter standards for ocean water”
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/northwest/story/544836.html
Agreed. And as your councilwoman I will work for it.
Now in the case of Tidewater’s move to bring waste from rural, undeveloped areas–back into the inland bays area to treat it– I’m not for that. The State opposes that too.
Such an opportunistic move would encourage development in Level 4 where the State will not support it with roads & schools, etc. and is contrary to good planning.
By MIKE SALINERO
The Tampa Tribune
September 23, 2008
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/23/me-injecting-effluent-into-aquiferbeingweighed/
TAMPA - Regional water managers are spending a half million dollars researching whether Hillsborough County should inject millions of gallons of treated wastewater into the vast underground lake known as the Floridan Aquifer.
If Hillsborough adopts the practice, called aquifer recharge, it would become the first county in Florida to use the technique.
Aquifer recharge is a way to reuse wastewater now dumped into rivers and bays. The injections would stop saltwater from flowing into the aquifer at the coast and bolster groundwater supplies to meet future population growth.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District is studying the concept, which originated in California more than 30 years ago. The study should be done by the end of March.
“We’re not asking to build it or get it permitted” right now, said Dave Moore, the water district executive director. “We’re asking: What are people doing around the country or around the globe and do something similar here that’s safe for the environment and creates additional water supply.”
Rainwater that seeps underground in Florida is carried like a conveyor belt toward the coast, where it escapes the aquifer through springs and seeps. Moore said if highly treated wastewater could be injected near the coast, it would allow more groundwater to be pumped farther inland.
“If you can put a gallon of reclaimed water in, you can take out a gallon of water for processing on somebody’s water-use permit,” said Steve Daignault, Tampa’s director of Public Works and Utilities.
Is It Cost-Effective?
A key question the district must answer is whether recharge is the most cost-effective way to increase water supplies. The wastewater would have to be treated to drinking water standards before state authorities would allow it in the groundwater, an expensive proposition. Moore estimates a
40-million-gallon-a-day reclamation plant with the best treatment methods would cost $200 million or more.
Other unknowns: Where are the best places to inject the wastewater, and what areas would be given credits to pump more groundwater that would be offset by the aquifer injections. Some areas in Polk County and southern
Hillsborough are limited in how much they can pump because of depleted groundwater levels there.
California pioneered aquifer recharge in 1976 with the opening of Water Factory 21 in Orange County. The plant treats sewer water to drinking water standards, then mixes it with deep-well water. The combination is injected into aquifers prone to saltwater intrusion.
This year, Orange County began operating the world’s largest water reclamation plant, a facility that can turn 70 million gallons of treated sewage into drinking water every day. The end product is injected into the groundwater basin.
The continuous infusion of treated wastewater allows Orange County to produce more drinking water for its 2.3 million residents, replacing sources from outside the county that are becoming unavailable. No environmental or public health problems have been linked to recharge.
Development, Drought Force Issue
Florida is struggling with some of the same challenges that forced California to seek alternatives to groundwater pumping in the 1970s. Rapid population growth and frequent droughts have depleted Florida’s once-abundant groundwater supply, drying up lakes and springs.
One answer, everyone agrees, is better use of reclaimed water.
In Tampa, 60 million gallons of treated wastewater is dumped into Tampa Bay daily. The water’s high nitrogen level is causing state environmental authorities to threaten the city with fines if it doesn’t limit discharges.
Tampa was working with Hillsborough County, Tampa Electric Co. and Mosaic Fertilizer on a proposal to pipe the city’s effluent east for the expansion of TECO’s Polk Power Station. The pipeline was to pass an abandoned Mosaic mine where an aquifer storage project was contemplated.
TECO officials decided the pipeline from Tampa to Polk County was too expensive. The company is now talking to Plant City, Lakeland and Polk County about buying their reclaimed water. The recharge project at the Mosaic mine is still on the table.
Phil Compton, who works on local water issues for the Sierra Club, said aquifer recharge might work as long as the water is cleaned up sufficiently before it is injected underground. “I think it’s definitely something worth studying. If they put it in the aquifer there should be some additional filtration. It may be a more cost effective way and would do a better job of removing the remaining contaminants.”
Reporter Mike Salinero can be reached at (813) 259-8303 or
msalinero@tampatrib.com