Wastewater Reuse Alternative

7/30/2019 Wastewater Reuse Alternative

1/56

18D-1

Chapter 18D: Wastewater Reuse Alternative

18D.1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Chapter 18 of thisDraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) presents and analyzes alternatives to theProposed Project. The analysis of alternatives in this DEIS is presented in four parts that,together with an introduction, make up Chapter 18:

Chapter 18A, which analyzes process and operational alternatives to the Proposed Project

(other than the Ambrey Pond Reservoir Alternative and the Wastewater Reuse Alternative); Chapter 18B, which evaluates design alternatives for the Proposed Project;

Chapter 18C, which assesses the Ambrey Pond Reservoir Alternative; and

Chapter 18D (this chapter), which assesses the Wastewater Reuse Alternative.

To comply with SEQRA, environmental impact statements (EISs) must include an evaluation ofalternatives that seeks to identify reasonable alternatives available. As set forth in the SEQRAregulations, EISs must include a description and evaluation of the range of reasonablealternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of theproject sponsor.1 The SEQRA regulations call for analysis of a No Action Alternativeinwhich the Proposed Project is not implementedas well as a range of alternatives, that mayalso include, as appropriate, alternative: (a) sites; (b) technology; (c) scale or magnitude;

(d) design; (e) timing; (f) use; and (g) types of action.2

This chapter presents and analyzes an alternative to the Proposed Project involving the reuse ofwastewater to supplement the water sources supplying Lake DeForest reservoir. Chapter 18A,Process and Operational Alternatives, of this DEIS describes the potential for using reclaimedsewage plant effluent or stormwater runoff for non-potable water uses, such as irrigation, or torecharge aquifers. These concepts were found to be either cost-prohibitive and/or limited in theirability to meet the Projects purpose and need, which is to address the anticipated future demandfor an additional 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of water in Rockland County. Such measurescould be part of overall water conservation initiatives on a project- or site-specific basis butwould not be a viable alternative to the Proposed Project.

The most feasible alternative for using treated wastewater as reclaimed water that would meet

the Projects purpose and need is described and evaluated in this chapter. That alternative woulduse wastewater from one of the countys sewage treatment plants and treat it for discharge toLake DeForest, to supplement the water that is available from the reservoir for use by RocklandCounty. A variation of this alternative, in which the reclaimed water is instead discharged to the

1 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v).2 Ibid.


2/56

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

18D-2

Hackensack River at the base of the Lake DeForest dam, referred to in this chapter as the RiverDischarge Option, is described at the end of this chapter.

After this introduction, this chapter of the DEIS includes the following sections:

Section 18D.2: Description of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative.

Section 18D.3: Ability of this Alternative to Meet the Purpose and Need of the

Proposed Project.

Section 18D.4: Effects of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative.

Section 18D.5: Description and Evaluation of Wastewater Reuse Alternative River

Discharge Option

18D.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE

18D.2.1. OVERVIEW

This alternative considers the potential for using treated sewage effluent from the RocklandCounty Sewer District No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant (RCSD1 WWTP) in Orangeburg byproviding further treatment so that it can be released into the Lake DeForest reservoir. Thiswould increase the safe yield of the Lake DeForest reservoir for United Water New York Inc.s(United Water) Rockland County customers by as much as 7.8 mgd to produce 7.5 mgd ofpotable water, which would meet the purpose and need for the Project. This alternative isdescribed below.

As noted above, a variation of this alternative, in which the reclaimed water is insteaddischarged to the Hackensack River at the base of the Lake DeForest dam (referred to as theRiver Discharge Option), is described at the end of this chapter in section 18D.5.

As discussed in Chapter 18A (section 18A.5.2), alternative water supply sources that use treated

wastewater or stormwater are becoming more popular across the U.S. as supplements to existingwater supply systems as potable water sources become stressed due to increasing demands forwater. In some locations, this gray water is used for non-potable uses, such as for irrigation.The use of reclaimed water to supplement stream, ground water, or surface water supplies usedas water supply sources is also considered as a viable alternative more frequently. California andFlorida have a number of completed and ongoing reclaimed water projects.

This alternative includes the following elements:

Pumping of treated effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP in Orangeburg;

Additional, advanced treatment of the effluent at a new Advanced Wastewater TreatmentPlant (AWTP) so that it can be similar to the quality of the water in Lake DeForest and meetwater quality standards for discharge into a Class AA water body;

Discharge of the reclaimed water into Lake DeForest reservoir;

Detention of the reclaimed water in the reservoir for mixing and assimilation with reservoirwaters;

Withdrawal of blended reservoir water and reclaimed water for final treatment at theexisting Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant (which would be expanded to accommodatethe additional flow) to meet all federal and state drinking water standards; and

Distribution of the treated water to consumers.


3/56


18D-3

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative has been developed to produce the 7.5 mgd of potable waterthat would meet the purpose and need for the Project. The overall efficiency of the AWTPprocess is estimated as 75 to 80 percent (depending on the specific processes selected), meaning

that the amount of water produced by the plant would be 20 to 25 percent less than the amountof secondary effluent pumped from the RCSD1 WWTP to the plant. The Lake DeForest WaterTreatment Plant is approximately 95 percent efficient. Therefore, the overall process efficiencyof both the AWTP and Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would be 70 to 75 percent. Inaddition, some water is lost through evaporation in the reservoir. Overall, approximately 10 to10.7 mgd of influent water is required to produce 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water from the AWTPand 7.5 mgd of potable water from the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant.

More information on the components of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative is provided below.Figure 18D-1 provides a schematic flow diagram for this alternative.

18D.2.2. COMPONENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE

18D.2.2.1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

The wastewater treatment plants that serve Rockland County were reviewed for their suitabilityin providing treated sewage effluent for reuse under this alternative. To provide enough sewageeffluent to result in the full 7.5 mgd of finished water required to meet the purpose and need forthe Project, up to 10.7 mgd of plant effluent must be available at the selected wastewatertreatment plant.

The only wastewater treatment plant in Rockland County that processes enough sewage toproduce 10.7 mgd of effluent is the RCSD1 WWTP in Orangeburg. The RCSD1 WWTPcurrently has sewage effluent flows of over 20 mgd and a permitted capacity of 28.9 mgd. TheRCSD1 WWTP is located east of Route 303 in Orangeburg, near the intersection of Route 303with the Palisades Interstate Parkway, and serves locations in the Towns of Ramapo and

Clarkstown and several parcels in the Town of Orangetown. The RCSD1 WWTP is currentlytreating wastewater to a secondary level. In this alternative, wastewater would be treated to atertiary level at a new advanced water treatment plant, discussed below.

The RCSD1 WWTP currently discharges its effluent to the Hudson River via an outfall into theriver. The current outfall location is within the Piermont Marsh Significant Coastal Fish andWildlife Habitat (SCFWH) area. This discharge is governed by a State Pollutant DischargeElimination System (SPDES) permit. In this alternative, the amount of discharge to the HudsonRiver would be decreased by 10.7 mgd at the outfall location.

It should be noted that wastewater treatment plants experience violations of their dischargepermits, particularly during storm events. The RCSD1 WWTP has had violations of its SPDESpermit. Thus, an alternative that utilizes wastewater treatment plant effluent as a new water

supply source must account for this, including in the proposed design and treatment process.

18D.2.2.2. PUMPING AND TRANSMISSION TO LAKE DEFOREST

Treated wastewater effluent would be pumped from the RCSD1 WWTP to the Lake DeForestWater Treatment Plant Site, where it would be subjected to further treatment (discussed below).To accomplish this, a new connection to either the RCSD1 WWTPs existing chlorine contactchamber or existing effluent outfall pipe would be created and a new effluent pumping stationwould be constructed. At full build-out, the pumping station would have four parallel pumps


4/56

10 MGDWater fromReservoir

10.7 MGD 7.8 MGDTreated Treated 7.8 MGD

9.8 MGDtreated water for useby Rockland County

7.5 MGDadditionaltreated water for use

by Rockland County

Effluent Wastewater AdditionalWater from

Reservoir

Per Lake DeForest permit:At least 9.75 MGD

Water must be released forspills over Lake downstream users.DeForest Dam Additional releases possible.

when reservoir is full(i.e., rain events)

2 MGD

At least 7.75 MGD

Existing conditions

New conditions with alternative in place

Hackensack River

Advanced WaterTreatment Plant

Rockland CountySewer District No. 1

WastewaterTreatment Plant

Lake DeForestWater Treatment

Plant(increase capacity

for 7.8 MGDadditional raw water)

Hackensack River

Village of Nyack watersystem intake

Downstreamreservoirs in NJ

Lake DeForest

12.1.11

UNITED WATERHaverstraw Water Supply Project

Figure 18D

Flow Chart for Wastewater Reuse Alternativ


5/56


18D-4

sized to pump 10.7 mgd of effluent from the new connection to the RCSD1 WWTP. A newelectrical service from Orange and Rockland would be required for this new pumping station.

From the pumping station, the effluent would be transmitted via a new buried effluent

transmission main (force main) to a new advanced wastewater treatment plant to the south of theLake DeForest dam. This force main would be approximately 5.6 miles long.

Two force main route options have been identified for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, toallow for flexibility in developing this alternative. Both routes would run north from the RCSD1WWTP under Route 303 to Leber Road (see Figure 18D-2 and Figure 18D-3). From there, oneroute would bend to the west and follow other roadways to reach Lake DeForest and the otherwould continue beneath Route 303, as follows:

Option 1 would divert from Route 303 onto County Routes 36 and 15. From Route 303, theforce main would follow Leber Road (County Road 36), Western Highway (County Road15), West Nyack Road, and Strawtown Road. Close to the reservoir, the main would turneast beneath Old Mill Road to the existing United Water Lake DeForest Water Treatment

Plant Site. The length of the force main under this option would be approximately 29,300linear feet, or about 5.6 miles.

Option 2 would continue northward beneath Route 303 until just north of the New YorkState Thruway, at which point it would turn westward onto Snake Hill Road and thencontinue onto Old Mill Road to the existing United Water Lake DeForest Water TreatmentPlant Site. The length of the force main under this option would be approximately 29,600linear feet, or about 5.6 miles.

The transmission lines would utilize either 24- or 30-inch iron ductile pipe that would be burieda minimum of four feet below the road surface. Under either route option, the force main wouldcross railroad rights-of-way and the Hackensack River. In the Hackensack River, the crossingwould be made using either an open cut method or a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking.

Under the open cut method, a temporary dam would be installed to isolate one side of the riverfor installation of the transmission main; the procedure would then be repeated for the other sideof the river. Pipe jacking is a technique that involves digging access pits and hydraulicallyjacking (i.e., pushing) a steel casing through the ground from the first (launching) pit to thesecond (receiving) pit. The pipe is then installed within the steel casing. With pipe jacking, thereis no need for excavation in the river during construction. Where the effluent force main crossesbeneath active railroad tracks, it would be installed using the pipe jacking technique. Both routeoptions would also pass below the New York State Thruway (I-87) at the location where theroad under which the force mains are buried passes beneath the Thruway.

18D.2.2.3. ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR TERTIARYTREATMENT

At Lake DeForest, a new AWTP would provide tertiary treatment to the treated wastewatereffluent, so that the resulting, processed water (reclaimed water) would be similar to the qualityof the water in Lake DeForest and meet regulatory standards for discharge to Lake DeForest.Lake DeForest is designated as a Class AA fresh water body by the New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In accordance with 6 NYCRR 701.5, the best usesof Class AA waters are a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processingpurposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. . . .This classification may begiven to those waters that, if subjected to approved disinfection treatment, with additional


6/56

HUDSON RIVER

Lake DeForest

Lake Tappan

NEWYORKNEWJERSEY

Village of NyackWater Supply Intake

Lake DeForestWTP and AWTP

OPTION 2

OPTION 1

Rockland County

Sewer District No 1 WWTP

12.

1.

11


Figure 18D-2

Location of

Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Legend

Village of Nyack Water Supply Intake

Rockland County Sewer District No. 1

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

Force Main Route Option 1



7/56

Lake DeForestWTP and AWTP

Route 303

Leber Rd.

Western Highway

Route 303

West Nyack Rd.

Strawtown Rd.

Old Mill Rd.

Snake Hill Rd.

OPTION 2

OPTION 1

OPTION 1

EL +68

Rockland County

Sewer District No 1 WWTP

150

200

100

250

300

350

400

450500

550

600

150

350

150

200

300

150

550

550

250

100

300

250

150

250

150

350

100

300

100

200

150

350

100

150

350

150

003

500

200

450

150

052

250

300

200

250

100

550

550

250

300

400

100

250

200

400

400

250

300

100

350

100

250

250

300

200

200

100

100

300

150

200

250

300

400

350

450

100

500

550

600

650

500

600

200

100

350

350

300

500

600

350

150

400

500

450

600

150

550

100

250

250

600

500

100

250

250

150

300

600

250

500

150

350

15

0

550

100

300

001

150

150

200

100

250

100

200

400

350

300

500

300

150

250

450

650

250

100

150

600

150

200

350

350

150

100

200

250

450

200

250

400

400

002

400

Clarkstown

Lake DeForest

Orangetown

12.

1.

11


Figure 18D-3


Legend

Rockland County Sewer District

No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Lake DeForest

Water Treatment Plant




Transmission Main to Discharge Point

(see Figure 18D-2)

50 ft Elevation Contours

Rockland County Towns/Villages

SCALE

0 2000 5000 FEET


8/56


18D-5

treatment if necessary to remove naturally present impurities, meet or will meet New York StateDepartment of Health drinking water standards and are or will be considered safe andsatisfactory for drinking water purposes.

United Water must also meet existing permit requirements, as well as protect the riparian rightsof the communities that utilize the water downstream of Lake DeForest, as more fully discussedbelow in section 18D.2.5, Permitting Requirements. The resulting water that is released fromLake DeForest into the Hackensack River would be of a quantity and quality such that thecurrent use of the water by downstream users is not diminished.

18D.2.2.3.1. Treatment Standards

New York State does not have standards for reclaimed water to ensure that the processed watermeets or is better than the water quality of the water body or groundwater to which it isdischarged. Because New York State does not have any standards for the use of reclaimed wateras a drinking water supply or supplement, the implementation of this alternative will present achallenge to the public and regulatory review processes necessary to carry out this alternative.

However, although no applicable wastewater reuse standards exist in New York State, manywastewater treatment plants in New York State currently discharge treated effluent into waterbodies that are used for drinking water.

In the absence of specific standards for reclaimed water use and treatment in New York State, aset of potential treatment standards was developed for use in the development and analysis ofthis alternative. The standards used herein are based on the existing Class AA fresh waterstandards in New York State. In addition, this analysis was informed by a review of relevantwastewater discharge, wastewater reuse, drinking water, and freshwater classifications standardsin California, a state that has made effective use of its wastewater effluent resources. Theapplicable California standards reviewed included standards for reuse of wastewater effluent fornon-potable uses. The only standards in California for potable use of recycled water are related

to recharge of groundwater with recycled water. Table 18D-1, below, summarizes the potentialtreatment standards reflected in this alternative. The conceptual design of this alternativesAWTP was then developed so that the reclaimed water it would produce would meet or be betterthan these standards.

18D.2.2.3.2. AWTP Conceptual Design

The potential water treatment process that may be used at the AWTP is presented below. Theplants processes are modeled after wastewater reuse treatment facilities in California andFlorida, both of which have stringent water reuse requirements. The treatment process isconceptually designed to achieve the standards set forth in Table 18D-1, and, as such, wouldproduce water that meetsor in some instances may be better thanthe existing water qualityin Lake DeForest and the NYSDEC Class AA fresh water quality standards.

With this alternative, the water treatment process would likely be tested and refined through apilot study prior to finalizing permit applications, the water treatment process, and the AWTPdesign. It is anticipated that the pilot testing would take place at the RCSD1 WWTP site andwould require water storage receptacles and temporary structures or trailers to be brought ontothe site during the pilot study period.

The first step in developing the conceptual design was to determine the existing effluent quality forthe RCSD1 WWTP for average total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, totalKjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, and total phosphorus for use in determining the size of treatment


9/56


18D-6

trains to be included in the AWTP. This was done by reviewing SPDES discharge monitoringreports from the RCSD1 WWTP. The average concentrations of these parameters reported in theeffluent are shown in Table 18D-2.

Table 18D-1Potential Applicable Treatment Standards

Parameter UnitsPotentialStandard

Parameter UnitsPotentialStandard

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Fecal/Total Coliform

CBOD5 (monthly average, Nov to May) mg/l 25 Fecal (30-day geometric mean) #/100ml 200

CBOD5 (7-day average, Nov to May) mg/l 40 Fecal (7-day geometric mean) #/100 ml 400

UOD (daily maximum, J un to Oct) mg/l 22Total Coliform (not to exceed morethan 20% of samples) #/100ml 240

UOD (daily maximum, Nov to May) mg/l 44Total Coliform (monthly median,maximum) #/100 ml 50

Suspended Solids Chlorine/Chlorination

Monthly average mg/l 15Total Residual Chlorine (dailymaximum) mg/l 0.1

7-day average mg/l 23 Chlorination modal contact (minimum) mg/l 90

Settleable Solids, daily maximum mg/l 0.1 Chlorination CT Value (minimum) Min-mg/l 450

Dissolved Solids (Individual sample,maximum mg/l 500

Tertiary Media Bed Filtration

pH SU 6.5-8.5 Media bed filtration rate (maximum) gpm/sf 5

Ammonia/AmmoniumMedia bed turbidity (24-hour average,maximum) NTU 2

Ammonia (NH3 monthly average, J un toOct) mg/l 1.9

Media bed turbidity (not to exceedmore than 5% of 24-hour samples) NTU 5

Ammonia (NH3 monthly average, Nov toMay) mg/l 3.8

Media bed turbidity (individual samplemaximum) NTU 10

Sum of NH3 and NH4 as N mg/l 2.0

Nitrate/Nitrogen Tertiary Membrane Filtration

Nitrate (as N) mg/l 10.0Turbidity (not to exceed more than 5%of 24-hour samples NTU 0.2

Nitrate (as N) mg/l 1.0 Turbidity (individual sample, maximum) NTU 0.5

TKN Nitrogen (monthly average) mg/l 7.6

Total Phosphorus (12-month rollingaverage) mg/l 0.2

Dissolved Oxygen (daily minimum) mg/l 7.0

Dissolved Oxygen (individual sample,minimum) mg/l 4.0

Source: Californias Title 22 Recycled Water standards; NYSDEC standards for Class AA fresh surface waters.


10/56


18D-7

Table 18D-2

Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 WWTP

Average Effluent Water Quality,

December 2009 July 2010Parameter mg/l

Total suspended solids 25.4

Biochemical oxygen demand 24.8

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 31.8

Ammonia 27

Total phosphorous (as P) 2.9

Source: RCSD1 WWTP SPDES discharge monitoring reports, 12/2009 7/2010.

As shown in Figure 18D-4, the AWTP would include four basic processes:

1. A biological process is required, such as Biologically Active Filters (BAF) or NitrifyingMembrane Bioreactor (MBR), to remove biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, andphosphorous. This is similar to the biological processes typically included in standardtertiary wastewater treatment plants. Biological processes use bacteria to digest and filter thepollutants.

2. Microfiltration (MF) as a pretreatment step for reverse osmosis (which is the third step).This step would remove bacteria, viruses, and suspended solids.

3. Reverse Osmosis (RO) to remove nitrates formed in the BAF or MBR, any residualorganics, personal care products, bacteria, and viruses.

4. Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) using high-intensity ultraviolet (UV) light andhydrogen peroxide for disinfection and to oxidize and destroy any trace levels of

contaminants that may remain.To allow operational flexibility and the ability to develop this alternative in phases (discussedlater in this chapter), each of these processes would be provided in a number of treatment trains.

The AWTP would be located at the existing United Water Lake DeForest property on Old MillRoad. This site currently houses the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. As shown in Figure18D-5, the AWTP would be housed within process buildings close to the Hackensack River, tothe east of the existing water treatment buildings. The AWTP would include the wastewatertreatment process areas, a dewatering building for the waste streams produced, electricalsubstations, emergency generators, an administration building, and a pump station for pumpingtreated water to the head of the reservoir, as discussed in the next section.

18D.2.2.4. TRANSMISSION TO HEAD OF RESERVOIR

From the AWTP, treated water would be pumped to the north end (head) of the reservoir. Apump station would be located at the AWTP for this purpose. At full build-out, 7.8 mgd oftreated water would be transmitted to the head of the reservoir.

The transmission main would be a 24-inch iron ductile pipe that would be routed from theAWTP to Old Mill Road, then following Strawtown Road northward, crossing Congers Roadand continuing on Ridge Road to a discharge point where Ridge Road crosses the lake, as shownin Figure 18D-6. The transmission main would be approximately 20,800 linear feet long (3.9


11/56

BIOLOGICALLY

ACTIVE

FILTERS

MICROFILTERS REVERSE

OSMOSIS

UV MODULES

BOD Removal

13 MGD

Force Main

RO PretreatBacteria

Suspended Solids

NitratesOrganics

Bacteria/Virus

DisinfectionOxidation

P P

12.1.11


Figure 18D

Reclaimed Water Treatment Proce

P Pump

7.8 MGDTreatedWastewate

10.7 MGDby Force Main

from WastewaterTreatment Plant


12/56

12.1.11


SCALE

0 100 200

Figure 18D

Wastewater Reuse Alternative Site Plan at Lake DeFore

Expansion to Lake DeForest




13/56

La

keD

eFo

res

t

Congers

Lake

12.

1.

11

Figure 18D-6



in Lake DeForestUNITED WATERHaverstraw Water Supply Project

SCALE

0 1000 2000 3000 FEET

Lake DeForest





14/56


18D-8

miles). The discharge line would be located within the roadway right-of-way, and buried aminimum of four feet below the road surface. About one mile north of the dam, whereStrawtown Road crosses an inlet to Lake DeForest the pipe would be placed at least four feet

below the streambed using jacking or the open cut method. At the reservoir, a new headwallwith erosion control measures to dissipate the flow velocity would be installed to release thereclaimed water into the waters of the lake.

18D.2.2.5. DETENTION AND ASSIMILATION OF RECLAIMED WATER IN THERESERVOIR

The reclaimed water would supplement the reservoirs natural water sources (primarily theHackensack River), and would mix with and become assimilated with the reservoir water. Thewater would travel southward in the reservoir to the dam, where it would then be withdrawn foruse by United Water or discharged downstream to the Hackensack River.1

The time that the reclaimed water spends in the reservoir would provide an additional step in the

treatment process, allowing it to assimilate with the other waters feeding the reservoir. Thereservoir has a storage capacity of 5.6 billion gallons of water, and typically ranges from 100percent full to a low of 40 to 60 percent full during a typical year. During drought years,however, the amount of water in the reservoir can drop to as low as 12 percent of the reservoirscapacity (which occurred during the drought of record, in the 1960s).

Based on normal operations and assuming that a total of approximately 20 mgd is withdrawnfrom the reservoir at the southern end for use by Rockland County or is discharged fordownstream users (discussed later in this section), it is estimated that water takes up to 140 daysto travel from the head of the reservoir to the southern end when the reservoir is full. This traveltime, referred to as detention time, decreases as the amount of water in the reservoir decreases.Table 18D-3 provides the estimated detention times in the reservoir for different water volumes.As shown in Table 18D-3, during some times of the year the detention time may be as low as 56

days.

No state regulations currently set mandatory detention times for treated wastewater in a surfacewater body prior to withdrawal as a source for potable water. In California, there are draftregulations pertaining to the minimum detention time for indirect potable reuse (i.e., reuse ofwastewater). These draft regulations currently only address recharge of aquifers, not surfacewater augmentation in reservoirs. However, the draft regulations developed for groundwaterrequire two to six months of detention time in an aquifer prior to withdrawal as a source forpotable water. By comparison, the reclaimed water discharged to Lake DeForest would likelyhave a detention time in the reservoir as low as 56 days during some times of the year.

1 According to the permit that governs the withdrawal of water from Lake DeForest, water supplyapplication (WSA) 2189, when the total storage in the three downstream water supply reservoirs (LakeTappan, Woodcliff Lake, and Oradell Reservoir) is more than 50 percent of their capacity, release fromLake DeForest shall be made to maintain a daily average flow of 9.75 mgd in the stream immediatelyabove the intake works of the Village of Nyack (see discussion in section 1.3.1.1.1 of Chapter 1).


15/56


18D-9

Table 18D-3

Estimated Detention Time in Reservoir

Reservoir Volume

(Percent of Full Capacity)

Detention Time

(Days)100 140

90 126

80 112

70 98

60 84

50 70

40 56

30 42

20 28

10 14

18D.2.2.6. IMPROVEMENTS TO LAKE DEFOREST WATER TREATMENT PLANT

United Water currently withdraws water from the southern end of the reservoir, near the dam,and treats it at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. The treatment plant uses standardwater treatment technologies, including flocculation, clarification (dissolved air flotation),filtration, and chlorination, to produce clean drinking water in compliance with drinking waterstandards.

Operation of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant is governed by permits from NYSDECand the NYSDOH. As discussed below in section 18D.2.5 (and described in greater detail inChapter 1, Purpose and Need, section 1.3.1.1.1), the NYSDEC water supply permit, WSA2189, allows at least 10 mgd of water to be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland

County. To preserve the safe yield in the reservoir (which is 10 mgd for Rockland County) incase of drought conditions, United Water operates Lake DeForest to withdraw an annual averageof 10 mgd for use by Rockland County customers. The NYSDOH permit (Log No. 16321, CWSNY4303673) limits daily intake of raw water to the treatment plant to 20.8 mgd, with amaximum daily production of up to 20 mgd, and the running annual average intake of raw waterto 10 mgd. With withdrawal of 10 mgd, the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant can produceapproximately 9.5 mgd of finished water.

With this alternative, the additional water supplied to Lake DeForestthe 7.8 mgd of reclaimedwaterwould allow an additional 7.8 mgd of water to be withdrawn from Lake DeForest for useby Rockland County. This would require an increase to the capacity of the Lake DeForest WaterTreatment Plant, from its current capacity for daily intake of raw water of 20.8 mgd to anexpanded capacity of 28.6 mgd.

This increase in treatment capacity would require a number of upgrades to the Lake DeForestWater Treatment Plant:

Upgrade to the power supply to accommodate the expanded water treatment plant and theAWTP. The existing power supply is a 4.16 kV service located approximately 1.5 milesaway. Voltage drop is currently an operational issue as noted by power loss when highservice pumps are started. Installation of a 13.2 kV supply would be necessary to supplynew loads associated with this alternative.


16/56


18D-10

Expansion of the exiting Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) system, which removes suspendedfloatables, solids, oil and grease.

Expansion of the multimedia filter capacity.

Upgrade and expansion to the chemical storage and feed facilities.

Addition of a second clearwell and finished water pumping facility.

Expanded sludge processing capacity to process the additional sludge created by theexpansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant and to process sludge created at theadjacent AWTP. The existing lagoon system would be replaced by a mechanical sludgedewatering system.

As shown in Figure 18D-5 above, these new process elements would be located in severaldifferent buildings at the existing water treatment plant site. As shown in the figure, these newbuildings and the new buildings at the AWTP would fill most of the available land to the southof the dam.

18D.2.2.7. CONNECTIONS TO UNITED WATERS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Finished water from the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant is currently pumped into theexisting United Water distribution system. The additional 7.5 mgd of finished water in thisalternative would most likely require improvements to the distribution system, such as largerdistribution mains near the reservoir.

18D.2.3. PHASING

Like the Proposed Project, this alternative would be implemented in three phases, based ongrowth in water demand as Rockland Countys population increases. The phases would be sizedlike the phases of the Proposed Project, so that Phase 1 provides 2.5 mgd of finished water,Phase 2 provides 5 mgd of finished water, and Phase 3 provides 7.5 mgd of finished water.

Similar to the phasing approach of the Proposed Project, the new buildings, pump stations, andtransmission mains would be constructed during Phase 1. The buildings would be sized to housePhase 2 equipment, while the transmission mains would be sized for full build-out (Phase 3)capacity. Additional treatment trains and plant expansion at the AWTP and the Lake DeForestWater Treatment Plant, and additional pumping capacity at the pump stations would be addedfor Phases 2 and 3 in response to increasing water demands as Rockland Countys populationgrows.

18D.2.4. OPERATION

18D.2.4.1. OPERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would add reclaimed water to Lake DeForest, allowing anincrease in the amount of water that can be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by RocklandCounty. The amount of water that must and may be released from the reservoir to theHackensack River for downstream users would remain unchanged. In addition, water wouldcontinue to spill over the Lake DeForest dam when the reservoir reaches capacity. At thosetimes, United Water closes the release valve at the dam since the water that spills over the dam,or a combination of the spilling water and a reduced amount of water released, is enough to


17/56


18D-11

satisfy the minimum flow requirements in the Hackensack River. Refer to Figure 18D-1, above,for an illustration of how this alternative would change operations at Lake DeForest.

In this alternative, the operating plan for the AWTP could be adjusted seasonally in response to

changes in demand for water, but shorter term adjustments would be difficult because of thebiological treatment processes included in the plant.

As described above, the AWTP would include a biological processsuch as BAF or MBRtoremove nitrogen. The biological process uses bacteria to remove nitrogen, phosphorous, andbiochemical oxygen demand. Because these bacteria must be continuously fed to survive, thebiological process train cannot be completely shut down. Instead, a reduced flow of wastewatereffluent would have to be maintained through the AWTP to keep the biological processes active.Flow through the AWTP may be reduced, potentially by 30 to 50 percent of capacity, over aperiod of one to two days. The amount and rate of reduction possible would have to bedetermined during a pilot study for this alternative. Once the flow to the AWTP is reduced, itcould only be increased slowly, over a period of a week or two, to maintain the bacteria within

the process tankage and to address startup of downstream processes.Given the difficulty in making shorter term adjustments in the amount of wastewater treated atthe AWTP, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative could be ramped up seasonally so that more wateris produced in the summer months than in the winter, for example. However, it could not beadjusted quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest. Therefore, at times of abundantrainfall, or after storm events, the reclaimed water produced by the AWTP could be somewhatreduced over a period of a few days, but would continue to process a similar amount ofwastewater and pump the reclaimed water to the head of Lake DeForest. The relativeinflexibility of this alternative during storm events would likely result in additional waterspilling over the dam, which could result in an increased potential for flooding downstream ofthe reservoir.

18D.2.4.2. OPERATION OF THE UNITED WATER SYSTEM WITH THE WASTEWATERREUSE ALTERNATIVE

As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need (see section 1.3.1.3), United Water currentlymeets the demand for water in Rockland County with a network of water supplies from LakeDeForest, the Ramapo Valley Well Field, system wells, and the Letchworth Reservoirs. Theamount of water provided from each source depends on the availability of water from that sourceand its permit conditions, which protect the water source, quality of the water produced, and theriparian rights of downstream water users. As discussed, United Waters current operationalpractice is to meet the demand for water by maximizing the use of Lake DeForest to the extentallowed by its permit and its safe yield, with the remaining water supplied from the othersources. During summer months, when demand is highest, United Water draws larger volumesfrom Lake DeForest to compensate for the lower volumes that can typically be withdrawn fromthe Ramapo Valley Well Field during that time. The system wells and Letchworth Reservoirs areused to provide the remaining water needed to meet demand.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description (section 2.5.5), with the introduction of theProposed Project, United Water would continue to operate Lake DeForest in the same manner asit does today to meet water demand, maximizing use of the reservoir to the extent allowed by itspermit and the limitations of its safe yield. The Ramapo Valley Well Field and LetchworthReservoirs would also continue to be operated as they are today. The addition of the steadysupply of Hudson River water would allow United Water to reliably meet summer demand.


18/56


18D-12

When demand lessens, the additional water source would allow the company to rest its supplywells, which can become overdrawn through constant use.

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would also introduce a new water supply sourcereused

wastewater from the RCSD1 WWTPwith the same increase in safe yield as the ProposedProject. This water supply source would be used to supplement the existing supply at LakeDeForest, which would require changes to the operation of Lake DeForest. United Water wouldcontinue to maximize withdrawal at Lake DeForest to the extent allowed by its permit and safeyield, but this permitted amount would be increased from existing conditions. As with theProposed Project, United Water would continue to operate the Ramapo Valley Well Field andLetchworth Reservoirs in the same manner as it does today. When additional capacity isavailable because of the additional water source, this would allow United Water to rest its supplywells.

In contrast to existing conditions or conditions with the Proposed Project, the Wastewater ReuseAlternative could potentially result in more water being discharged from Lake DeForest into the

Hackensack River. As noted above, the AWTP would not be able to adjust quickly to respond towater levels in Lake DeForest. Thus, during periods of increased rainfall, the AWTP wouldcontinue to discharge reclaimed water to the reservoir, and excess water from the reservoir thatspills over the dam could result in higher flows in the Hackensack River downstream of LakeDeForest. This could result in greater and/or more frequent flooding events below the LakeDeForest dam.

18D.2.5. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

The safe yield of Lake DeForesti.e., the amount of water that can be continuously withdrawnfrom the reservoir during a period of drought equivalent to the worst drought of recordhasbeen determined to be 19.75 mgd. The NYSDEC water supply permit for Lake DeForest (WSA2189) allows at least 10 mgd of water to be withdrawn from the reservoir for use by Rockland

County, and requires the release of at least 9.75 mgd for downstream users. Of that 9.75 mgd, 2mgd is reserved for the Village of Nyack, which withdraws its water supply from theHackensack River downstream of the Lake DeForest dam, and 7.75 mgd is for downstreamusers in New Jersey. WSA 2189 also sets forth conditions under which additional water may bereleased from Lake DeForest, depending on the amount of water present in the three downstreamreservoirs.

As noted above, at full build-out, the reservoirs existing water sources would be supplementedby the discharge of 7.8 mgd of reclaimed water that would be transmitted to the head of thereservoir from the AWTP. At full build-out, that same quantity of water7.8 mgdwould bewithdrawn from the reservoir for treatment at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. Underthese conditions, the average annual reservoir levels would be expected to remain unchangedfrom existing conditions, and permit conditions regarding downstream discharges would remainunaffected. During periods of lower water demand, it may not be necessary to operate the LakeDeForest Water Treatment Plant at maximum levels. The AWTP would, however, continue tooperateeven if at a reduced level to maintain the effectiveness of the AWTPs biologicalprocesses that use bacteria to digest and filter the pollutants. As noted in the previous section,under these operational conditions, this alternative would continue to treat effluent from theRCSD1 WWTP and discharge the reclaimed water into the reservoir. If the demand for water islower than the discharge to the reservoir, water levels would rise and additional water wouldeventually be released to the river or would spill over the dam.


19/56


18D-13

Both the NYSDEC and NYSDOH permits would have to be modified for the Wastewater ReuseAlternative. The NYSDEC permit would have to be modified so that at least 17.8 mgd of waterin the reservoir is reserved for the use of Rockland County, with the release of at least 9.75 mgd

for downstream users (the same minimum release as required today). It is assumed that the RuleCurve conditions, which govern when additional releases to the Hackensack River are permitted,could remain unchanged (the Rule Curve is discussed in detail in Chapter 1 of this DEIS, section1.3.1.1.1). In addition, as noted above, the NYSDOH permit for the Lake DeForest WaterTreatment Plant sets the maximum capacity for that plant. The NYSDOH permit would have tobe modified to allow a daily intake of 28.6 mgd of reservoir water to the treatment plant, with amaximum daily production of up to 27.5 mgd, and the running annual average intake of rawwater to 17.8 mgd.

The permits and approvals required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would include thefollowing:

SPDES permit from NYSDEC for discharge of reclaimed water at the head of the reservoir.

Modification of SPDES permit from NYSDEC for discharges to the Hackensack River fromthe existing lagoon system at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant (which would needto be upgraded with a mechanical sludge dewatering system in this alternative).

Approval from NYSDEC and NYSDOH for the use of reclaimed water for potable water.

Modification to WSA 2189 (water supply permit for Lake DeForest) to state that at least17.8 mgd of the water in Lake DeForest is forever reserved for the needs of the inhabitantsof Rockland County, rather than 10 mgd as is stated in the existing permit. The other permitconditions, which govern the amount of water that must be released for downstreamcommunities and conditions when additional water may be released, would remainunchanged.

Approval from NYSDOH for expansion of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant and

the treatment processes to be used at the AWTP. Local site plan approval from the Town of Clarkstown for the AWTP and expansion to the

Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant.

Local zoning approval from the Town of Clarkstown for the AWTP and expansion to theLake DeForest Water Treatment Plant.

Building permit from the Town of Clarkstown for the AWTP and expansion to the LakeDeForest Water Treatment Plant.

Local site plan approval from the Town of Orangetown for the pump station at the RCSD1WWTP.

Approval from the Board of Commissioners of the RCSD1 WWTP.

As noted earlier, New York State currently does not have any regulations that govern the use oftreated wastewater as a source for potable water. To implement this alternative, NYSDEC andNYSDOH would have to determine the appropriate level of treatment for the reclaimed waterand may determine that new regulations must be promulgated in order for this alternative to beimplemented.

In addition, this alternative has the potential to encounter strong public opposition, because of ageneral resistance to the concept of reuse of treated sewage for drinking water. This has been thecase at locations throughout the U.S. where wastewater reuse has been proposed.


20/56


18D-14

18D.2.6. DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would involve four major construction components:construction of a new pumping station and effluent connection at the RCSD1 WWTP;

construction of a new AWTP and the expansion of the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant atUnited Waters existing property at the Lake DeForest dam; installation of the force main tocarry the treated effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP to the AWTP; and installation of thetransmission main to carry the reclaimed water from the AWTP to the head of Lake DeForestreservoir and the headwall into the reservoir.

Like the Proposed Project, it is anticipated that the build-out of this alternative would bedeveloped in three phases, to respond to increasing water demands as Rockland Countyspopulation grows. Similar to the approach for the Proposed Project, the new buildings, pumpstations, and transmission lines would be constructed during Phase 1. The buildings would besized to house Phase 2 equipment, while the transmission mains would be sized for full build-out(Phase 3) capacity. Additional treatment trains and plant expansion at the AWTP and the Lake

DeForest Water Treatment Plant, and additional pumping capacity at the pump stations would beadded for Phases 2 and 3.

Like the Proposed Project, the overall construction period for the initial phase of this alternativewould be approximately two to three years. The construction schedules, duration, and activitiesanticipated for this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Project, as described inChapter 15, Construction Impacts.

Construction of the pumping station and effluent connection at RCSD1 WWTP would not beoverly complex with the exception of the tie-in to the existing chlorine contact tank orwastewater effluent outfall. Construction would take up to a year to complete, depending on thesoil conditions and the need for piles to support the pumping stations foundation. Connectionsto the effluent discharge system at the RCSD1 WWTP may require temporary disruptions to the

plant operations, and therefore, would be made during nighttime hours when flows through theplant are lowest.

The construction of the AWTP and the expansion of the existing Lake DeForest WaterTreatment Plant would be similar in magnitude to the construction required for the ProposedProject, and would occur over a two- to three-year period. However, this construction would bemade more complex by the small size of the site at Lake DeForest and by the need to work onthe site without adversely affecting operations at the existing Lake DeForest Water TreatmentPlant. Work at the Lake DeForest site would include significant excavation and relocation ofexisting utilities and water mains, while maintaining continuous utility and water treatmentcapacity at the site. To minimize disruptions to the existing facility, this relocation activitywould have to be performed during low-demand periods such as winter months, as well as off-hoursevening and nighttime periodswhen water production demands on the Lake DeForest

facilities would be lowest.

The force main and water transmission main construction required for the Wastewater ReuseAlternative would be significantly longer than the amount of time required for the water mainconstruction under the Proposed Project. A total of 50,400 linear feet (9.5 miles) of transmissionmains would be installed in this alternative, in comparison to the approximately 8,000 linear feet(1.5 miles) required for the Proposed Project (under the reasonable worst-case scenario of RawWater Transmission Main Route Option 1). These transmission mains would be installed inroadways in the Towns of Orangetown and Clarkstown using standard open cut excavation pipe


21/56


18D-15

installation techniques (described in Chapter 15, Construction Impacts). Construction wouldprogress at an average of 80 to 100 feet per day (taking into account final restorationrequirements), and would occur from April 15 to November 15 each year.

As discussed above, where the effluent force main crosses beneath active railroad tracks, itwould be installed using a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking. Where the effluent forcemain crosses beneath the Hackensack River, it would be installed using either an open cutmethod or a trenchless technology, such as pipe jacking.

With the Proposed Project, water main installation using open cut construction would affect alocal road (Beach Road) for a period of approximately seven months. In contrast, the water maininstallation required for the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would occur over a period of two tothree years. During that time, at least one lane of the roadway in the work zone would be closed.Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plan would be in place to minimize trafficdisruptions on the affected roadway. On major roadways like Route 303, with multiple lanes ineach direction, both directions of traffic could be maintained. On smaller roads like Strawtown

Road, flagmen would likely be required so that traffic flow in opposing directions couldalternate past the work zone. Although access would be maintained to adjacent residences andbusinesses, traffic disruptions and inconveniences would occur.

18D.2.7. COST ESTIMATE

Based on preliminary design, this alternative is expected to cost $302.6 to $325.9 million toconstruct. By comparison, the Proposed Project is expected to cost between $139.2 and $189.3million to construct. These costs are in 2010 dollars, and do not reflect the costs of escalationbecause the alternative (or the Project) would be constructed in the future.

It is anticipated that the total operating costs, including pumping of secondary effluent from theRCSD1 WWTP, tertiary treatment at the AWTP, pumping to the head of the reservoir, and theexpanded capacity and treatment at Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, would beapproximately $7.48 million per year, approximately $1.9 million more per year than theProposed Project. In addition to the anticipated capital and annual operating costs, there may beadditional costs associated with making arrangements with the RCSD1 to secure the WWTPeffluent, such as obtaining leases or easements to locate the pumping station and other facilitieson the RCSD1 WWTP site, or other potential costs related to accessing the countys propertyand facilities.

18D.3. WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVES ABILITY TOMEET PURPOSE AND NEED

As stated in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the public need for, and benefit of, the long-termwater supply project is derived from United Waters legal obligation to provide a safe,dependable, and adequate public water supply to most of Rockland Countys residential,commercial, and institutional customers, as well as providing water for fire suppression. Thedemand for water in Rockland County has been increasing as these populations have grown, andwater demands are projected to continue to increase into the future. Further, under UnitedWaters Rate Orders from the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) issued onDecember 14, 2006 and July 20, 2010 (2006 and 2010 Rate Orders), United Water has a specificobligation to construct and implement a long-term water supply project to meet the needs of theCounty beyond the year 2015. For more information on the 2006 and 2010 Rate Orders, see


22/56


18D-16

Chapter 1, sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.5. The purpose of the long-term water supply project is toprovide additional water supply source to increase the safe yield of the United Water RocklandCounty water supply system by 7.5 mgd, to accommodate future growth with an adequate

margin of safety and comply with the 2006 and 2010 PSC Rate Orders.Like the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative is evaluated for its ability toaddress these obligations by delivering up to 7.5 mgd to the existing United Water distributionsystem serving the County, for the exclusive use of United Waters Rockland County customers.In addition to its ability to provide sufficient safe yield, a suitable long-term water supply projectmust also meet public need and benefits standards in several other critical areas, as discussedbelow.

18D.3.1. RELIABLE SUPPLY

The new long-term water supply project that United Water is required to undertake mustimprove the reliability of the water supply system while meeting future demands by introducing

a supply that is less dependent on localized precipitation conditions. The Northeast experiencesshort-term droughts, defined as a drought having a duration of one to three months, every one tothree years. Longer droughts (i.e., droughts lasting for more than three months) are experiencedonce every 20 to 30 years. The Hudson Valley, in which United Waters Rockland Countyservice area is situated, has experienced 15 such droughts since 1895, with one occurringapproximately every 7.5 years, with an average duration of 4.6 months. 1

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would introduce a new source of water to the United Watersystemtreated wastewater effluent from the RCSD1 WWTP. This alternative would divertapproximately 10 to 10.7 mgd of treated effluent, which would be further treated so as toproduce a total of 7.5 mgd of finished water. The RCSD1 WWTP currently has an average

annual effluent discharge of more than 20 mgd, and therefore would be able to reliably supplythe required volume of treated effluent. Even during drought events when water restrictions arein place, the amount of flow from the RCSD1 WWTP would be adequate to provide the neededvolume for this alternative.

There is increasingconcern that global climate change may bring greater fluctuations in weather conditions,including more frequent or severe drought conditions or more frequent storm events.

In terms of system redundancy, however, this alternative would be less successful than theProposed Project. Whereas the Proposed Project would add an entirely new water supply sourcethat would operate independently of the other sources in United Waters Rockland Countysystem, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would increase the systems dependence on oneexisting water supply element, the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. With this alternative,approximately 45 percent of the water produced by United Water for Rockland County would beproduced at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. In the event that the plant must be shutdown for maintenance or because of an unforeseen emergency, the entire system would be morevulnerable to unreliability.2

1 http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/page_drought.html, accessed August 6, 2010.2 In the year 2030, assuming an average annual production of 37.9 mgd, and assuming average annualproduction of 16.8 mgd at Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant.
http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/page_drought.htmlhttp://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/page_drought.html


23/56


18D-17

18D.3.2. COST EFFECTIVENESS

As a public utility, United Water has a responsibility to its customersthe rate-payerstodevelop a cost-effective project to address the need for new long-term water supply.

18D.3.2.1. CAPITAL COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THEPROPOSED PROJECT

As shown on Table 18D-4, below, the completed Wastewater Reuse Alternative would cost anestimated $302.6 to $325.9 million (2010 dollars). In comparison, as discussed in section 2.8.4of Chapter 2, Project Description, the Proposed Project would cost between approximately$139.2 million and $189.3 million to complete. Based upon these preliminary cost estimates, theWastewater Reuse Alternative is expected to cost from $137 to $163 million more than theProposed Project.

Table 18D-4

Comparative Summary of Capital Expenses and Rate Effects

Proposed Project Wastewater Reuse Alternative

Increased in Water Supply Safe Yield 7.5 mgd 7.5 mgdEstimated Incremental Capital Cost (millions) $139.2 to $189.3 million $302.6 to $325.9 millionEstimated Annual Operating Cost* $5.6 million $7.5 millionAverage Daily Cost Increase per RatepayerAccount

Phase 1: $0.72 to $0.99Phase 2: $0.91 to $1.17Phase 3: $1.16 to $1.43


Average Daily Cost Increase per SingleFamily Household



Notes: All amounts are shown as 2010 dollars. Estimated annual rates are based on anticipated capital andoperating expenses, exclusive of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC). (Asproperty tax expenses associated with the Wastewater Reuse Alternative are not known at this time,

the cost estimate assumes the same property tax expenses as anticipated for the Proposed Project.)The PSC has the discretion to use tools to lessen the impact of rate adjustments to customers, orprotract them over time.

* Includes operational costs for the incremental increase in new capacity of the Lake DeForest WaterTreatment Plant.

18D.3.2.2. ANNUALIZED LIFE-CYCLE COSTS OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISONTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

As shown in Table 18D-4, the cost to operate the Wastewater Reuse Alternative, excludingdepreciation, personnel and property tax expenses, would be the same as the cost to operate theProposed Project.

18D.3.2.3. EFFECT OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ON COST OF WATER AND CONSUMERWATER RATES

This alternatives greater capital and operating costs would in turn result in greater increases tothe billed costs for water for each rate-paying account (which include residential, commercial,industrial, and municipal customers), compared to the Proposed Project. Estimated increases towater rates for United Water customers were calculated assuming the future populationanticipated when the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be operational. It is expected thatunder this alternative, the increased daily costs per single-family household would be


24/56


18D-18

approximately $1.54 to $1.63. The actual cost for individual ratepayers would vary based ontype of account and water use. Commercial users generally use more water and pay higher ratesthan residential customers. As shown on Table 18D-4, above, these costs are greater than the

corresponding consumer costs of the Proposed Project. Therefore, on balance, due to the greaterexpense of completing this alternative and its greater impact on individual ratepayers, thisalternative would be less able than the Proposed Project to meet the public need and benefit ofbeing cost-effective.

18D.3.3. ABILITY TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN STAGES

Both the Wastewater Reuse Alternative and the Proposed Project would be developed in phasesto meet the demand for water as Rockland Countys population increases.

18D.3.4. ABILITY TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As an alternative new long-term water supply project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative must

avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable giventhe other goals and objectives for the Proposed Project and the capabilities of the Projectsponsor. These include environmental impacts that would potentially occur as a consequence ofboth the construction and operation of this alternative.

In comparison to the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative does not includeconstruction or raw water intake operations within the significant habitat areas of the HudsonRiver and therefore avoids the Proposed Projects potential impacts on fisheries, benthicorganisms, and significant habitat areas adjacent to the intake structure. (However, as describedin Chapter 9A, Aquatic Natural Resources, the Proposed Project would minimize thoseimpacts, and overall the Project was not found to result in significant adverse impacts on aquaticresources.)

However, compared to the Proposed Project, this alternative has the potential to be substantiallymore disruptive during construction. While the Proposed Project would require a maximum ofapproximately 1.5 miles of water transmission main construction for its raw water mains, as wellas some additional construction for finished water main improvements, the Wastewater ReuseAlternative would require installation of approximately 9.5 miles of water transmission mains,as well as some additional construction for finished water main improvements. With a two- tothree-year construction period associated with the transmission main installation, this alternativewould be expected to result in longer-term traffic effects than the Proposed Project andassociated disruptions to nearby businesses and residences. In addition, to avoid disruptions toproduction of water at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant, some of the constructionactivities at the Lake DeForest site would have to occur during off-hours, including weekend,evening and nighttime hours. As a result, in comparison to the Proposed Project, the constructionof these facilities would be expected to result in greater noise impacts and disruption to nearbyresidences.

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative also has the potential to result in increased flooding in theHackensack River downstream of Lake DeForest. Unlike the Proposed Project, the WastewaterReuse Alternative would not be as flexible in responding to changes in demand and supply.Since this alternative could not be adjusted quickly to respond to water levels in Lake DeForest,it could contribute to spillage over the dam or flooding downstream during periods when waterlevels in the reservoir are high.


25/56


18D-19

While the Proposed Project would be buffered from the surrounding neighborhoods by itsisolated site and grade changes, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would introduce newbuildings at a site that is directly across the street from a residential area, potentially resulting in

changes in the character of the immediate area.This alternative also has the potential to result in adverse impacts to historic and archaeologicalresources. Implementation of this alternative would require consultation with the New YorkState Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to assess the potentialarchaeological sensitivity of the areas that would be disturbed for construction at the LakeDeForest site and installation of the water transmission mains. Consultation with OPRHP wouldalso be required regarding the eligibility of certain structures that could be affected byconstruction activities for the State and National Registers of Historic Places.

18D.4. EFFECTS OF THE WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVE

18D.4.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND OTHER PROGRAMS

18D.4.1.1. MODIFICATIONS TO RCSD1 WWTP

The changes at the RCSD1 WWTP would be located within an existing sewage treatment plantproperty that is well buffered from surrounding uses, and therefore would not result in conflictsrelated to land use or public policy programs. The RCSD1 WWTP site is zoned for LightIndustrial use by the Town of Orangetown, and it is anticipated that addition of a pumpingstation to the existing plant would not require zoning approvals. Site plan review would likely berequired by the Town of Orangetown.

18D.4.1.2. MODIFICATIONS AT LAKE DEFOREST WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE

At Lake DeForest, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would affect a site that is currentlyoccupied by the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant. The existing treatment plant buildingsare set back from the road (Old Mill Road) on a landscaped and grassy property. The site isrelatively well buffered from surrounding uses on the north and east by the reservoir, theHackensack River, and a quarry. However, on the south and west, residential neighborhoods areclose to the water treatment plant site on Old Mill Road, Jeffrey Court, and Strawtown Road.

Construction of the new AWTP and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plantwould be disruptive to the nearby residential uses. As noted above, construction activities at thissite would occur over a two- to three-year period, involving extensive excavation for relocationof piping and utilities, as well as construction of new buildings. In addition, the off-hourconstruction required during the evening and nighttime hours to avoid disruptions to waterproduction would cause disruptions related to construction site lighting, noise, and truck traffic.

Once operational, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would change the character of the watertreatment plant site at Lake DeForest from the existing landscaped site to a site almostcompletely occupied by water treatment buildings. While this would not result in a conflict withnearby residential uses, it would change the character of the immediate area.

The water treatment plant site is located within an R-160 zoning district designated by the Townof Clarkstown. This zoning districtthe Conservation Density Residence Districtwasestablished to provide protection to the towns scenic resources, including streams, woodedareas, steep slopes, large open spaces and scenic vistas, by controlling and limiting development


26/56


18D-20

that would otherwise encroach upon these scenic resources. The district aims to allow for thecontinuation of a frame of green wooded hills along the towns northern boundary; provide forvolume and routing of vehicular and pedestrian traffic with the least practicable impact to and

within conservation areas; to minimize development near streams and marshes, rock outcrops,upon high places and steep slopes or near parks; minimize erosion and the likelihood of damagedue to flooding or runoff, and to preserve or enhance natural stormwater storage; to protect thewatershed of the Hackensack River; and promote the enjoyment of scenic vistas and naturalareas by residents and visitors; among other goals.

Uses permitted by right in the R-160 zone include residential, certain agricultural, places ofworship, golf courses, parks, public day care, and police, fire, and similar public safetybuildings. Public utility substations and pumping stations require special permits from the Townof Clarkstowns Board of Standards and Appeals, with advisory review by the Town ofClarkstown Planning Board. Reservoirs on lots of 6 acres or more, water towers, and water tanksowned and operated by a public utility require a special permit from the Town Planning Board.In addition, the site plan would be subject to site plan review and approval by the Planning

Board. The review and approval process would cover numerous elements, including thearrangement, layout, and design of the facilities, to ensure the structure harmonizes with thecharacter of the neighborhood; the provision of adequate buffer areas (a minimum 75 is required,although the Board of Appeals or Town Planning Board may reduce this buffer to 50 feet),screening, and landscaping; and adequate fences and other safety devices. Due to the small sizeof the water treatment plant site, it may not be feasible to accommodate the required buffer areasand other site plan requirements within the site.

18D.4.1.3. TRANSMISSION MAINS

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would require the installation of 9.5 miles of transmissionmains in local roadways. As described earlier and shown in Figure 18D-3, two options were

developed for the effluent force main from the RCSD1 WWTP to the Lake DeForest site. Asshown in the figure, both options would run for 2 miles beneath Route 303, which is a busy four-lane arterial that is heavily trafficked and lined with commercial uses. Option 1, the WesternHighway/Strawtown Road option, would then run beneath Leber Road, Western Highway, WestNyack Road, and Strawtown Road, which are smaller roads that run through residentialneighborhoods and through the commercial center of West Nyack (passing a number ofbusinesses and the West Nyack post office, firehouse, and library). Option 2, the Route 303option, would continue along Route 303 through the major interchange with the New York StateThruway at the Palisades Center mall, and then continue along Snake Hill Road past theCongersHaverstraw Quarry. The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would also require installationof 3.9 miles of water mains along the west side of the Lake DeForest reservoir, in StrawtownRoad and Ridge Road, which are local roads lined with residences.

During the two to three years of water main installation, lanes would be closed on affectedroadways. Even with implementation of MTP Plans, traffic delays and inconveniences are likelyon busy roads. Construction work would progress at 80 to 100 feet per day (approximately 1/3mile per month), so while disruption on a particular roadway could last for more than a year, themost intrusive disruptions to nearby residences and businesses would last several months. AlongRoute 303, the extensive water main construction required could result in notableinconveniences to adjacent businesses, while along residential streets, it would be disruptive toresidential neighborhoods. In addition, Option 2 (the Route 303 option) would affect access on


27/56


18D-21

Snake Hill Road, which is an access road used by trucks entering and leaving the CongersHaverstraw Quarry.

Once completed, the transmission mains would be below the street and would not affect nearby

land uses.

18D.4.1.4. PLANS AND POLICIES

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would be consistent with established land use plans andpolicies, including the 2009 Town of Clarkstown Comprehensive Plan. Like the ProposedProject, this alternative would also be consistent with the 2011 Rockland County ComprehensivePlan, since that plan states that water system capacity expansions and system upgrades will beneeded to accommodate new development and projected growth.

18D.4.2. VISUAL RESOURCES

18D.4.2.1. INVENTORY OF RESOURCESThe new pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP would be similar in appearance and visibility tothe rest of the RCSD1 WWTP, and therefore would not affect the views from or context ofvisual resources or the surrounding area.

The AWTP buildings and expansion to the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant would bevisible from the immediate area (i.e., the area immediately across Old Mill Road from the site)but because of curves in the road and changes in topography, would not be visible from greaterdistances. From areas to the north, views of the water treatment buildings from across thereservoir are blocked by the dam.

Within the limited area from which the new buildings would be visible, no visual resources asidentified by the NYSDEC methodology for performing visual analyses were identified. (The

methodology is described in detail in Chapter 4, Visual Resources.)

18D.4.2.2. EFFECT ON RESOURCES AND IMMEDIATE AREA

The pumping station at the RCSD1 WWTP site would blend in with and be compatible with themany buildings already located throughout the grounds of the RCSD1 WWTP. The facility is setback from area roadways and buffered from nearby residential and institutional uses.

At the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site, construction activities would be visiblefromand potentially visually intrusive toOld Mill Road and the nearby residences. Housesalong Strawtown Road just west of the United Water property may also have some visualdisruption related to construction activities, but the distance, vegetation, and presence ofintervening buildings would limit and minimize the potential for construction-generated impacts.

Once completed, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would alter the appearance of the LakeDeForest Water Treatment Plant site from a low-density, landscaped site to a more denselydeveloped industrial complex. The new AWTP buildings would occupy most of the remainingundeveloped area at the site and would be close to Old Mill Road. Overall, with the expansion ofthe Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant and addition of AWTP buildings, more of the sitewould be occupied by bulky utility-related buildings that would be different in character fromthe residential properties immediately across Old Mill Road. Although this would change thecharacter of the immediate area, it would not result in a significant adverse visual impact.


28/56


18D-22

The laying of new water transmission main in the rights-of-way of public streets would bevisible to residents, workers, and patrons of businesses along these roadways as well as tomotorists. As is typical for any street utility work, it would involve lane closures and

construction equipment directly in front of nearby buildings. Any visual disruptions to affectedneighborhoods and visual resources from water main construction activities would be temporaryand would not significantly affect the overall visual character of the community in the long-term.Once completed, the water transmission mains buried in the road right-of-way would not bevisible.

18D.4.3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Construction activities at the RCSD1 WWTP and Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant siteswould not be anticipated to increase demands for law enforcement or fire protection services.Construction activities associated with installation of the water transmission mains would resultin disruption to traffic patterns on affected roadways throughout the construction period.Depending on the route chosen, smaller affected streets may or may not remain open for traffic.

With implementation of MPT Plans, this disruption would be minimized.

The effluent force main route using Western Highway/Strawtown Road (Option 1) would pass infront of the West Nyack Fire Departments firehouse (Engine Company No. 1). If constructionoccurred on this route, access would be maintained at all times for firefighters and fire trucks,and emergency vehicles would be given priority over other vehicles through construction zones.Overall, construction-related traffic disruption would not result in significant adverse impacts toprovision of emergency services.

Once operational, this alternative, like the Proposed Project, would enable United Water tomaintain the reliability of fire hydrants by providing a reliable source of water and adequatewater pressures for fire fighting and fire suppression purposes, even during drought conditions.Therefore, like the Proposed Project, the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not adversely

affect fire protection, police protection, or emergency ambulance services.

The Wastewater Reuse Alternative would not have any effect on recreational resources andtherefore, like the Proposed Project, would not result in adverse impacts on parks or recreationalresources.

18D.4.4. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Like the Proposed Project, the construction of the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would providean increase in economic activity in Rockland County and New York State reflected in terms ofincreased demand for employment and fiscal benefits from the fees and taxes related to purchaseof goods and services and incomes from workers. The level of economic activity resulting fromconstruction activities is directly affected by construction cost. This alternative would represent

an approximately $302.6 to $325.9 million investment in construction costs versus the ProposedProjects lower cost of $139.2 to $189.3 million. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that theconstruction of this alternative would employ a greater number of workers, require largerpurchases of goods and services, and generate higher wages and salaries and taxes than theProposed Project.

During water main installation under either effluent force main route option, the disruption totraffic patterns could result in a temporary loss of sales for businesses, particularly along theheavily commercial Route 303. This would not occur to the same extent with the Proposed


29/56


18D-23

Project, since the length of roadway affected would be substantially greater under thisalternative. Mitigating these impacts would be incorporated into the MPT Plan, and any suchimpacts would be short-term in duration so that no significant impact would be expected.

Upon completion, this alternative, like the Proposed Project, would result in an increase in theproperty taxes paid to the local and Rockland County taxing jurisdictions. While the ProposedProject would place existing tax-exempt land onto the tax rolls, this alternative would not createnew taxable parcels, since the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site is already taxed. Boththe Proposed Project and the Wastewater Reuse Alternative would increase the assessed value ofthe affected site. This alternative would entail a greater construction investment at the LakeDeForest site than the Proposed Projects construction investment at its Project Site, andtherefore may generate a greater increase in property tax revenues. Therefore, this alternativemay generate more tax revenues for the affected taxing jurisdictions than the Proposed Projecton account of the greater increase in infrastructure investment and consequent increases intaxable assessed valuation. The affected jurisdictions would include the Town of Clarkstown,Clarkstown Central School District, Rockland County, and other local taxing entities.

Like the Proposed Project, the operational phase of this alternative would introduce some newworkers, but this workforce would not be expected to increase demand for or the cost ofcommunity services. Overall, therefore, like the Proposed Project, this alternative would have anoverall positive fiscal impact with few, if any new costs to offset the new tax revenues.

18D.4.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

With the construction of new buildings and installation of new water transmission mains, theWastewater Reuse Alternative has the potential to affect buried archaeological resources andhistoric (architectural) resources.

18D.4.5.1. CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA

For archaeological resources, the study area consists of the areas that would be affected byconstruction activitiesin other words, the project sites. It is unlikely that any buriedarchaeological resources are located on the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant Site given theextensive disruption that occurred there associated with construction of the reservoir and dam.However, there may be areas of this site that have not been disturbed and do have the potentialto contain buried resources. Along the routes of the effluent force main and water transmissionmain, it is also possible that archaeological resources may be present. If the Wastewater ReuseAlternative is carried forward, additional research will be conducted in coordination withOPRHP to determine whether archaeological resources may be present.

To consider the potential effects on historic (architectural) resources from construction andoperation of this alternative at the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site, a study area

consisting of the area within visual range of that site was evaluated. To consider the potentialeffects on historic resources from construction of water transmission mains, an area within 100feet of each potential water main route was evaluated, to account for potential physical effectsthat might occur as a result of construction activities. Since the water transmission mains wouldnot be visible once construction is complete, they would have no potential for adverse contextualor visual effects and no study area for such effects was evaluated.

Within the study areas, architectural resources analyzed include properties designated asNational Historic Landmarks, properties listed on the New York State or National Registers of


30/56


18D-24

Historic Places, and properties determined eligible for such listing. To identify these types ofresources, the OPRHP database was consulted. In addition, online sources provided by RocklandCounty were consulted to identify locally recognized historic resources.

In terms of historic resources, no National Historic Landmarks, properties listed on the NewYork State or National Registers of Historic Places, or properties determined eligible for suchlisting are located in the study areas. The Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant site includes apossible historic resource and the study areas have a number of sites that are considered by theTowns of Clarkstown and Orangetown as locally designated historic sites, districts, and roads inthe study areas, as discussed below. These sites are shown in Figure 18D-7 andFigure 18D-8.

House on Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant property: The Lake DeForest WaterTreatment Plant property contains water treatment plant structures built in association withLake DeForest, which was constructed in the 1950s and completed in 1957. There are noproperties on the site that are listed on or eligible for listing on the State and NationalRegisters of Historic Places, nor are there any locally recognized historic structures on the

site. However, the Lake DeForest property includes a small brick house that has the potentialfor recognition as a local historic site. The house is two stories with a gable roof and achimney on the south faade. It appears to date to the early part of the 20th century, prior toconstruction of the reservoir, and is designed in the style of an English cottage with itsfacade ornamented with protruding brick headers.

Old Mill Road (Resource 1 on Figure 18D-7): Old Mill Road would be affected by theeffluent force main from the RCSD1 WWTP to the Lake DeForest site under either routeoption, and by the transmission main for reclaimed water to the head of the reservoir. OldMill Road from Strawtown Road to Kings Highway is designated as a historical road by theTown of Clarkstown.

West Nyack Historic District (Resource 2 on Figure 18D-7): The West Nyack HistoricDistrict, a local historic district established by the Town of Clarkstown, encompasses

portions of Strawtown, Sickletown, and West Nyack Roads. Option 1 of the effluent forcemain (the Western Highway/Strawtown Road route) and a small portion of the transmissionmain for reclaimed water would both pass through this historic district.

West Nyack was founded in the mid 19th century as Clarksville. The historic districtincludes a number of notable historical sites:

- West Nyack Road, located in the area of the original Nyack Turnpike built in 1825 toconnect Nyack and Ramapo.

- The intersection of West Nyack Road with Strawtown and Sickletown Roads, whichwas originally called Oblenis Corners because of an Oblenis Farm in the area.

- The Clarksville Inn, located at the northwest corner of West Nyack Road and StrawtownRoad, built in 1840 as a stopping place for stagecoaches and travelers and restored in

1957.- The Clarkstown Reformed Church at 107 Strawtown Road (just north of the New York

State Thruway), which was built in 1871 to replace an earlier Dutch Reformed Churchbuilt circa 1750 on the same site.

- The Clarkstown Reformed Churchs original parsonage, across Strawtown Road (in arelocated location).

- A ca. 1770 hom

Documents

Wastewater Reuse Alternative