My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MO 1998-066 to 1998-070
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Minute Orders
>
1998
>
MO 1998-066 to 1998-070
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2022 4:25:53 PM
Creation date
7/12/2022 4:20:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Minute Order
Document Date (6)
12/31/1998
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Strategic Plan <br />about 540 million gallons (1500 acre-feet) of storage and a peak disposal rate of about 6 <br />mgd. Because the present peak possible demand is only about 3.7 mgd, it would not be <br />practical to store and dispose at a higher rate. Based on this, reclamation is only possible <br />for a part of the effluent produced. EBMUD estimates that only an average annual amount <br />of 1.18 to 1.35 mgd can be reclaimed; however, this reduces the amount requiring advanced <br />treatment from 4.5 mgd to 3.1 mgd. Any reduction in the amount of flow discharged is <br />attractive because it will reduce the operating costs of meeting the more stringent effluent <br />limitations. <br />Currently no additional treatment is given to reclaimed water used at the Lew Galbraith and <br />Alameda golf courses. This is because these courses have restricted access by the public with <br />little contiguous residential development. Under Title 22, these facilities would require no <br />further wastewater treatment prior to discharge. Staff at EBMUD predict that reclamation <br />for the Tony Lema Golf Course and Oyster Bay Shoreline would require full Title 22 <br />requirements including filtration and 90-minute chlorine contact time. This additional <br />treatment would be required because these facilities have unrestricted access and/or <br />contiguous residential development. Projected costs for expanding reclamation to the <br />identified users is given in Table 6-7. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that <br />additional treatment would be provided at the WPCP and an additional reclaimed water <br />pump station and force main would be required for use at the Tony Lema and Oyster Bay <br />Regional Shoreline. Storage will not be required because facilities are proposed to meet <br />peak demand. <br />To fairly compare treatment strategies the costs of each strategy must be developed. Table <br />6-8 shows costs developed based on meeting the new effluent limits in the recently adopted <br />San Francisco Bay Basin. Under this scenario, both EBDA dischargers and EBMUD will <br />be required to add high lime treatment facilities. <br />00142.001 6--8 <br />MIKIRMI <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.