HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-17 <ZL4001 _
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O.BOX 0127,FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
'1'+n 10044 ELLIB,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92MB-7018
(714)962-2411
May 11, 1989
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
GARDEN GROVE COMMUNITY CENTER
11300 Stanford Avenue - Room A
Garden Grove, California
(See enclosed location map)
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of May 10, 1989, the
Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at
the above hour and date for a public hearing on the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report on Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan.
secretary
i u
ff
�—TJ 4GNE5 WARE
STANLEV [
ELEM.
_ w -
NS W
iM rorr.c. r
c. LAMPSON'
RES.
FAM
ON INTERM, nOLO + q +
sll
III LpMFp CH C
•
'lu, Immi:
_ i' GARDEN GROVE cL•.[o[ r'
LL -N .. . 1 � —jre^LG
- 1 1 I• HISH SCHOOL „
II Parking ILlotp
U =sue�w - �foxi �J S
THE '[GI_-
4:v
GRFEN
axu.4r st CT — I ._1'x L-�°COxYtN[[ o.o
;i R _
LIBRARY UNITY all
ENTER
UBLIG 64FFT .y L �
arldng Lot
1 \ \ 'nn n ..xxx..
Garden Grove Community
A ve
Center a rTeE ^
Room
0
11300 Stanford Anue
Garden Grove
I ■ I
,•,.,_ � ILINCO LN
rtl[N.1M.Y I— — — — —
�-� County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
PUBLIC HEARING ON ACTION PLAN
7:30 pm, Wednesday, May 17, 1989
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts P.O.Box 8127.10844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County,California Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127
Telephone: (714) 962-2441
JOINT BOARDS
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1989 - 7 :30 P.M.
GARDEN GROVE COMMUNITY CENTER
11300 Stanford Avenue - Room A
Garden Grove, California
(1 ) Roll call
(2) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards
on specific agenda items or matters of general interest
should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman,
speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken
for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes.
( 3) ALL DISTRICTS
(a) Public Hearing on Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report on Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Master Plan:
(1) Open hearing
(2) Summary of Draft Program EIR by environmental
consultant (Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. )
(3) Consideration of motion to receive and file
written comments received relative to said EIR,
if any
(4) Oral public comment
(5) Close hearing
(b) Consideration of motion directing the consultants to
address any written and oral comments received on said
EIR and to prepare Final Program Environmental Impact
Report on Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Master Plan after the close of the comment period on
May 30, 1989.
(4) DISTRICT 1
O r usiness and communications, if any
(5) DISTRICT 1
Consideration of motion to adjourn to 5:30 p.m. , Thursday, �,-
June 1st, to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program
(6) DISTRICT 2
O r usiness and communications, if any
(7) DISTRICT 2
Con�tion of motion to adjourn
(8) DISTRICT 3
Other business and communications, if any
(9) DISTRICT 3
Con��tion of motion to adjourn
(10) DISTRICT 5
Oder Eslness and communications, if any
(11) DISTRICT 5
Consul eretion of motion to adjourn to 5:30 p.m. , Wednesday,
May 315t, to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program
(12) DISTRICT 6
OEEer u—siness and communications, if any
(13) DISTRICT 6
Cons Teration of motion to adjourn to 4:00 p.m. , Wednesday,
May 31st, to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program
(14) DISTRICT 7
OtFe-r Easiness and communications, if any
(15) DISTRICT 7
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(16) DISTRICT 11
O er usiness and communications, if any
(17) DISTRICT 11
Cons Ter—Rion of motion to adjourn to 5:30 p.m. , Wednesday,
June 7th, to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program
(18) DISTRICT 13
Ot er usiness and communications, if any
(19) DISTRICT 13
Con�si ere£Son of motion to adjourn
(20) DISTRICT 14
O er us ness and communications, if. any
(21) DISTRICT 14
Consi era ion of motion to adjourn
-2-
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
County Sanitation Districts P.O.Box 8127.10844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, California Fountain Valley,CA92728-8127
Telephone; (714) 962-2411
JOINT BOARDS
ADJOURNED BOARD MEETING
May 17, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Garden Grove Community Center
11300 Stanford Avenue, Room A
Garden Grove
PUBLIC HEARING ON
DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON
COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
At the April Board meeting, the Directors received the Draft Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan and the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report on said master plan, prepared over the past two
years as part of the Districts' plan of action for guiding our program of
wastewater management for the next 30 years. At the April meeting, the Boards
also received the staff's preliminary report and Executive Summary entitled
"2020 VISION". "2020 VISION" evaluates and sumnarizes the 4,000-page,
nine-volume facilities master plan and environmental impact reports, and public
.� input received to date on our proposed program, and presents the staff's
recommended Action Plan for Wastewater Management. The plan is also the basis
for application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board for renewal of the Districts' ocean
discharge permit for the next five-year period.
The Boards have fixed 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 17, 1989 at the Garden Grove
Community Center as the time and place for a public hearing on the Draft EIR.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive public commentary on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Presumably, comments will also be received on the
proposed wastewater management program. The official comment period remains
open through May 30th.
It is not intended that there will be any response to the public comments at the
hearing, rather, following the hearing the Boards will direct the staff and
consultants to address the oral and written comments received into the Final
Environmental Impact Report which will be considered by the Boards at an
Adjourned Meeting on July 19, 1989. At that time the Directors will consider
certifying the Final EIR and make their decision on the appropriate wastewater
management program for the Districts, including the terms of application to EPA
and RWQCB for renewal of the Districts' ocean discharge permit for the next
five-year period.
If any Director desires additional copies of the staff's "2020 VISION"
Preliminary Report and Executive Summary, or the executive summaries of the
Facilities Master Plan or EIR, or copies of the full nine-volume master plan
report and EIR, please contact Jean Tappan at 962-2411, Questions concerning
the Facilities Master Plan should be directed to Tom Dawes, Director of
Engineering. Questions regarding the Environmental Impact Report or the ocean
discharge permit renewal application should be directed to Blake Anderson,
Director of Technical Services.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
W ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
10 Ew5lvE m
May 8, 1989 Po w."+zl
fOUNfNN vU1 V.GWiOP BIM4121
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: All Active and Alternate Directors
SUBJECT: "2020 VISION" An Action Plan for Wastewater Management
During our Action Plan deliberations the Board Members discussed at considerable
length the importance of public feedback in addressing the issues before us.
Of particular importance is the need to inform community leaders, obtain their
input and develop their support for the Districts' wastewater management
program.
Last year, at the outset of our public participation program, we transmitted
copies of our Action Plan study brochure to local elected officials. With the
recent submittal of the draft "2020 VISION" Action Plan reports, it is now
appropriate to follow-through. Accordingly, letters identical to the enclosed
have been personally addressed to your colleagues on the (Cit Counccil/Board of
Su ervisors/Water/Sanitar District) and other elected officials. staft's
"2 20 YISI N" Preliminary Report and Executive Summary was also transmitted with
the letter.
I urge you to discuss the Action Plan with your colleagues and solicit their
active input.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please call me at (714) 538-1195 or
feel free to contact Wayne Sylvester at (7y4)962-2411.
/Don
EE. Smith
Joint Chairman
DES:sc
Encl .
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
".O. BOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714)962-2411
May 8, 1989
Dear
For the past two years the County Sanitation Districts have been engaged in
developing a 30-year plan of action for guiding our wastewater management
program to the year 2020. The comprehensive study, which we call 112020 VISION",
has just recently been completed. It evaluates the environmental , public
health, engineering, social and economic factors of wastewater management to
assist our Board of Directors in making a policy decision regarding the
appropriate level of wastewater treatment to include in our application to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board for our next 5-year ocean discharge permit period.
The enclosed copy of 112020 VISION" summarizes the findings of our Action Plan
study. It outlines staff's preliminary selection of a preferred treatment level
alternative for the next five years, long-teen programs to effectively control
the entry of toxics into the environment, increase the usable water supply
through expanded water reclamation activities and maximize the reuse of
wastewater treatment by-products such as sludge and digester gas. 112020 VISION"
is, in effect, our blueprint for comprehensive wastewater and environmental
management designed to ensure that we protect the ocean, as well as the air and
the land, while continuing to provide quality services in the face of increasing
demands on our system. The Action Plan is currently being circulated for public
commentary. A public hearing on the EIR will be held on May 17th and the Board
of Directors will make a final decision on July 19th.
The success of our program will depend on the participation and support of
community leaders like you. We therefore respectfully urge you to study
"2020 VISION" and discuss it with your colleagues and our Board members or staff.
The engineers and scientists believe the findings are technically sound and that
it represents the appropriate wastewater management plan for optimizing public
health and environmental protection. We would sincerely appreciate your views.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please feel
free to call me at (714) 538-1195; or contact Wayne Sylvester, General Manager,
or Corinne Clawson, Public Information Officer at (714) 962-2411.
Don E. Smith
`.l Joint Chairman
DES:sc
Encl.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
.1 ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
May 11, 1989
tOStl EWS CVEMIE
on So[81E7
MWNN VRl1EY.GIIE A V7) 121
n1419M44N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board Members
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on
Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan
May 17, 1989, 7:30 p.m., Garden Grove Community Center
Enclosed for active Directors is a second copy of "2020 VISION", the Preliminary
Report and Executive Summary of the Districts' plan of action for guiding our
program of wastewater management for the next 30 years. It has been prepared by
staff to summarize the Draft Facilities Master Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), and to assist the Directors in determining the appropriate
wastewater management program for application to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CRWQCB) for renewal of the Districts' NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit which
expires next February. The Board has fixed the above time and location to hold
the public hearing on the EIR.
y, We believe that reading the staff's Preliminary Report and Executive Summary
will provide you with a good understanding of the overall program. However, if
you wish additional copies of the Facilities Master Plan or EIR executive
summaries forwarded to you last month, or the full reports (some 4000 pages) ,
please contact Jean Tappan at 962-2411. Questions concerning the Facilities
Master Plan should be directed to Tom Dawes, Director of Engineering. Questions
regarding the Environmental Impact Report or the ocean discharge permit renewal
application should be directed to Blake Anderson, Director of Technical
Services.
It is the staff's preliminary assessment that the current NPDES permit
concentration limits, which provides advanced primary treatment to 100% of the
flow plus secondary treatment to one-half of the flow, be selected as the
preferred treatment level alternative and the most appropriate wastewater
management program for the citizens of Orange County. This would require
application to the EPA and the CRWQCB for renewal of the Sanitation Districts'
ocean discharge permit for the next five years in accordance with the strict
terns of the Clean Water Act, Section 301(h) Waiver Provisions, under which our
current permit that expires in February 1990 was issued.
We have previously informed you that we expect some members of the community
will not agree with a determination to apply for renewal of our 301(h) waiver,
for any number of reasons, and that they will vigorously oppose it at the
hearing and during your review of the technical reports and consideration of the
public commentary. This has occurred in several communities up and down the
California coast resulting in withdrawal or denial of applications for waiver of
full secondary treatment. It should be pointed out that each situation is
somewhat unique in that the ocean outfall conditions and the performance of the
POTW's vary, often substantially. But the technical data does not support a
case for full secondary treatment in Orange County.
Board Members
May 11, 1989 -
Page Two
To assist the Directors in evaluating staff's recommendations and some of the
types of questions that we expect to be posed, we have prepared the enclosed
series of questions and answers which we believe will help the Board Members
focus on the major issues that will likely be raised. Key information is also
summarized in the attached Fact Sheet.
Staff's recommendation is based on the demonstrated fact that our current level
of treatment, which produces a high quality, but less than full secondary
effluent, protects the public health, marine ecosystem and the beneficial uses
of the ocean. We are consistently in compliance with all ocean discharge permit
conditions and all federal and state discharge standards and water quality
requirements. This same level of protection is afforded through the
implementation of the staff's recommended preferred alternative. It strikes an
acceptable balance among cross-media (air, land and water) impacts, resource
allocation considerations, and best manages the sludge disposition impacts on
the land, at a $1.4 billion lower total cost than more restrictive full
secondary treatment requirements would impose over the 30-year planning period.
As suggested by the Boards' Select Committee, staff will arrange for several
special workshops for small groups of Directors to review and ask questions on
the wastewater management Action Plan. The workshops will be conducted during
the latter part of June, after the close of the public comment period. By
scheduling the workshops in June, the Directors will have heard the public
commentary and will then have a better opportunity to ask questions and seek
clarification on issues prior to the July 19th meeting at which time a final
decision will be before the Boards.
The remaining review and permit application process milestones are:
1989
May 17 Boards conduct public hearing.
May 30 Public comment period closes.
June 15-30 Series of informal workshops for small groups of Directors.
July 19 Boards receive Final Action Plan reports and certify EIR.
After consideration of technical reports, public commentary
and staff recommendation, Boards make final decision on
terms of application to EPA and CRWQCB for ocean discharge
permit renewal .
August 23 Application filed with EPA/CRWQCB.
1990
February 23 After separate review and public hearings, EPA and CRWQCB
f make final decision on permit conditions, and new five-year
permit term commences.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
FACT SHEET
April 18 , 1 9 8 9 Volume 2 Revision 2
"2020 VISION"
A Wastewater Management Action Plan
BACKGROUND PLANNING PROCESS
The Orange County Salutation Districts me responsible We have been conducting a comprehensive planning
forwastewatermanagemcnt formostofOmnge County. study to assemble the information necessary to make a
We currently operate under the terms of a modified well-informed policy decision in mid-1989. The
ocean discharge permit issued by the federal "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Management-is the Districu'pmgram forcoordinating
California Regional Water Quality Control Board the necessary engineering, environmental and fiscal
(CRWQCB).The existing permit is based on a waiver studies and for consulting with the public. When
of the federal Clean Water Act's full secondary completed,the Anion Plan will result in:
treatment requirements. Section 301(h) of the Act
Permits deep ocean dischargers, litre the Districts to ♦ A 30-year facilities Master Plan with a
dispose high quality but less than full secondary treated focused construction and financing plan
wastewater to the oceau.Our 301(h)waiver was issued through the turn of the century;
in 1985 and requires an extensive ocean monitoring ♦ An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
program to determine whether the marine environment ensure that all elements of the environment
is being protected and whether we are maintaining are adequately protected;
compliance with the California Ocean Plan.Ourcurrent
permit expires in 1990. We are consistently in ♦ the opl n nation of treatment
an the most
t
compliance with all ocean discharge permit conditions the optimal Level of wastewater
and the most
and all federal and state disc standards and qualityappropriate wastewater management
limitations. In August 1989,we will be applyin for options;
new permit from the EPA and CRWQCB. ♦ An application to the EPA and the CRWQCB
for renewal of our discharge permit.
ISSUE To date, draft versions of the Facilities Plan, EIR and
We must decide whether our treatment level beyond Financial Plan have own completed and input from
1990 should be partial secondary or full secondary. interested members of the public regarding the
Providing full secondary treatment to all of our flow preliminary wastewater management options has been
would cause less solids to be discharged inm the ocran solicited and considered
and would result in the]cast change in the compxssition
of ocean bottom life forms in the immediate vicinity of 1.WASTEWATER TREATMENT
the oulfall. It would require a major expansion of our ALTERNATIVES
facilities, which would cast more money to construct, We have beenstudyingandevaluatingaltemative levels
opeaeandmaintain.The added facilitieswould require of watewater treatment prior to the treatment level
mom equipment and materials, which would increase policy decision by our boardofd]mctors andsubmission
total energy use.The additional removal ofsolids would of our ocean discharge permit renewal application.
also increase the amount of sludge requiring land
disposal.The issue involves numerous trade-offs. On the following two pages, you will find a summary
table presenting information from the Draft EIR and
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION Facilities Plan relevant to the treatment alternatives
being considered Please note that it is the finding of the
The critical question underlying this important public Daft EIR that each of the treatment alternatives would
polity decision is: "What is the optimum wastewater protect the environment from significam impairment
management program that will protect public health and from the ocean discharge and would comply fully with
provide balanced environmental protection?" current regulations and laws. Based on the
environmental, financial and engineering information
and public feedback in date,Treauncnt Alternative No.
2 has been designated as the"Pm@rred Alternative."
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS
1989 FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES'
.Vcas of Pnmary Current Califonua Occan (Prelinunary
In PCi=erlt Pemrd unf Full Secondan
lc=t Opemtions Plan
Limits
French.,Mo.
L aZ R®Troll mm tl'ry I2 13 12 Full
L _ Q
Solids Removal 75% 75% 75% HS%
Q
Q ^ and(130l Oxygen ]IY„ 30% EO% 85'na
Demand fBOD)Removal
Toxin&Heavy Met lmmeneu cl objefive.t,alizam,Covnoomseelammas all exuuvg avdramrerr.and sNofmure mce,ed.
Meu1s Coved Toone wood equmleet m full seondary under all alTwanea.Buvuovmevt and p4blic health pmtaml
Solids to Ccea.Utsd4 CceaaUvd Ooeamlavd O®mland C nvund
(dry mosrday) 49/115 93/150 78/I80 46214
Siudgemland(daily We Taos/Pruculmd Wei Tovs/Pmckload We TonoTruddmd Wei Tova/rmckload
we mnvwhaoads)) =53 9MW7 1120/56 152 76
J
Tosim&Menu To Clao/iaad a.-,Iavit t]wan/land Owodand
C = �U d(Re Ala l 60W6W 631/58n SSOM50 370MM
Dissolved Oxygen L2%v IS% 13% 1.0%
(%Depeuon)
(keav Bono. 16 Amu 2B Acrm IS Acres 5 Acres
ZLife Oa.posttion4 I.psctrd ImpaclN I.pamed Impamcd
Bacmru I da 13 1.8 13 .2
C M (WhoNlOnml)
Z = Vw Lends (Lengshavtldcpp of oudall resultsm no idwtinN holrb dxks for all veaMmuhemauvel
(Ihoem.Wlw MI) 14 3.5 24 .3
ti
,Vrlm(ucix Mina diQemorem airimpncm cmwwn ulrermtwes,Many volatile subsunrr3 our meaured
No 51gd0mm advcnc iannes on air aoality from fadlirim oamatiom
Z
Total Energy Nmlectm. hmfumm 6.900 Bquivnlvm 9.100 Fyoivalem 13Ao0 Egdvalei,
Rwulrcmeo.4 rlmremeouwhicoulcn Ilouxbe[& Households Households
the elfdcnt rcuu of
oo-site scwagc gax.
V y Wa¢r Rocl.amatiov Up m 15 Million ,\mourn reclaimed Is indepevdeat of trntmem level.
Y (� Gallant ,d i dduro ul M MGD d,itposed
7
'J Q Slutlgc Reux Porcoval• '\ppovmaul eused Equal.pcMing new lMenl regWauo�u. lesdue m sen,
C V Sludge u Remctl water conmvr.
5 5
cr
' 9amd onaveated wuTewamrllowd399 million gallovsaday(MGD)pm,mdlm the 202D.In Theory,the year 2VJD is usedmtllmTnm
the'worsT ram'wmo.e for each trormem opmn.to pamiw.The 1mlme it alternative which is ulumvely savmmned for our next permit
penod would guide Operations(mm 19n0 to 1995 only.The e n mated year by which full sewvdary facilities wdd he wnstiumed is 2m
The 2005 due is pcmued on Ingo wnawedao•urvup and timely pceemon by kev regulaory agencies such as the U.S.Eavironmenul
Prmecuon Agency and the South Cosst Air Omhty Management Distri
+Divot.av area reflecting diffe once among the ahemauva.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS
1989 FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES'
Areas of Primary ClIuTcm Califoftlia Ocean (Preliminary
Inteml Operntions Plan PRCu=ni Option)
Full Secondary
Limits
30-Year GAp�ha aloe armed Facilities Valued
Facili.,V2%Annual al Appxim a .moy M25 SL44 Billion S276 Billion S3.16 Billion
IWladov)+ Kill..
30-Ye"Cmlofo M
(@5%Atmttal Wlation)+ N/A S178 Billion S4.11 Billion S4.75 Billion
F
V Tout Cot of Debt N/A S.82 Billion S.98 Billion $I.N Billion
�. Tom]30-Year Cost of
l� FaNitaa4d5:Annual N/A V.N Bill.. V.85 Billion $9.15 Billion
,.� Amnal lto
Households— $965170 5105SI75 51305I95
Q holds"Ge9895) 5405
Annual coal In Iv¢e
Tenet Praasor(19895) Sou." S20D0.000 S2.100.000 S_5W.000
Annual Cost to Mum
SVN Fund!P.m 533.600 590,000 196,000 SI I4.000
(19895)
Annual Cost to
Merol Finisher $1.400 FL900 53,000 S3.200
(1989 S)
Calif.O.Plan Ye yes Yea Yes
compliavm?
O W 'With)W.wer Required? Yes Y. Yes No
Air Quality Cam iuvm? yes The impacts of form air regulations am unknown Air P and mold hinder eovatrumion of waatewamr
and sludge ueatmeni famlitim.
V ` Sludge Reeme/Duposli Four...ad diagonal Vanom maeag®eon opdom areavaimble for ochtreatment almreauve
methods in one.?5%of Ability to implement will depend upon future regulation.available SLIM.
Sludgcgomoutofcounty andpublicauxpunce,
' Based on a voted..to,flow,of399 million galloma day(MGD)projected fee the 2M.Iv lhecry,the year 2020 I.maito illusmte
the"wont mx"commen foreaW nonlinear option.In prectice,the treatment alternative which is ultimately wondered for our next mmoti
period would guide apention Goon 1990 to 1995 only.The cuimmed year by which fall sceovdcry facilities could Ix cenvumed n 2005.
The 2005 duals premised no 1990 controodum smrt-upend lonely pm.by key regulatory agencies such as the U.S.Environecoul
Prorectice Agency and We Ssuth Coasl Air Quality Mvngement Distrit-
^The range reflects differcvcn among the nine member districts and includm O&M and debt sere m.The Itgures prescmed regiment house
hold nee fen for the flfleeo-year period from I99o.2o05.
*Devmm an area re0eadvg differenm among the almrnadves.
IL WASTEWATERMANAGEMENT PLAN: - ♦ Site shape and size
OBJECI'IVFS
♦ Proamity to environmentally seasiuve areas
A. Tories Control
Current Conditions: Ourmxicssou¢emntrolprogram D. Sludge Management
regulates the discharge of toxic substances and heavy Nearly 50 percent of the sludge
metals from industrial dischargers to the sewer system. produced by our treatment process is recycled and rued
The program is approved by the EPA and the California for agricultural land application and for compoung.
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Current The remainder is trucked to sanitary landfills.
performance is better than all existing standards for
removing mxim and heavy meals. Plan ppi�cb; As sewage flows increase,the volume
of sludge will also increase. In addition, the more
Plan Approach: Taxies control is an important stringent the wastewater uratmem level,the greater the
objective regardless of treatment alternative. Our quantity of sludge prodursd. lbcmfore, we need a
program controls the impact of tonics on air,water and practical, long-term plan for managing mom sludge.
Ind (i.e., sludge). This program will result in more The Master Plan approach is to have independent,
stringent source control limitations fora greater number multiple sludge management alternatives giving us the
of mxirs and will commit to holding toxin and heavy flexibility to ensure that sludge disposal options are
metals in the wastewater stream at or below curmw always available no to continue to stress toxin source
levels. control m a way to ensure sludge quality and maximize
its reuse potential. The most promising sludge
B. Facilities Construction management alternatives which have been identified in
the Master Plan are:
Carom Conditions: Ourexisting facilities are adequate
to meet the hydraulic and treatment needs ofourservice In-County and out-of-County co-disposal with
area and the requirements ofsmte and federal regulatory municipal solid waste
agencies.
♦ Sludge-only landfill(monofill)
Pjyp6ppm3Gh: Based upon land use information from ♦ Additional muse via land application
local and regional planning agencies, sewage flaws
within our service area could increase by as much as ♦ Composting at approved sites
55% between 1990 and 2020. Our existing facilities ♦ A detailed long-term sludge study to
could not handle this increased demand. Consulting thoroughly evaluate specific options in light
engineers have updated our facilities Master Plan to of more restrictive sludge management
address the expected increase in flow and service regulations forthcoming from the U.S.
demand as well as the various alternative matment Environmental Protection Agency.
levels.
III. FURTHER INFORMATION
C. Water Reclamation For further information or copies of the draft Facilities
Current Conditions: We contract to reclaim up to 15 Master Plan or Environmental Impact Report, please
million of our 260 million gallons a day (MOD) of contact the Districts' Public Information Office at Box
wastewater in a joint reclamation project with the 8127, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 or call C)14)
Orange County Water District.Up to 15 MOD will be 962-2411.
recovered in 1989, upon completion of the Water
District's new landscape irrigation and industrial reuse
project. Orange County's semi-arid climate and three
consecutive sub-normal rainfall years have made it
prudent to explore additional mclamation opportunities
as Fart of the Master Plan process.
Plan roach: The Master Plan objective is to reclaim
as much as is feasible of the approximately 399 MOD
wastewater flow anticipated by 2020. Currently, thme
sites have been identified as the most viable locations
for addi tional reclamation facilities which could reclaim
as much as an additional 43 MOD.Some of the criteria
being used to determine the viability of these sites
include:
♦ Economic feasibility
♦ Proxfmitytoreclafmablewastewater
♦ Proximity to areas for potential water reuse
Questions & Answers Regarding
"2020 VISION":
An Action Plan For Wastewater Management
i
May 11, 1989
A GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE "PREFERRED' LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1. Question:
Why are the Sanitation Districts not proceeding with construction and
operation of full secondary treatment? Isn't this the best way to protect
public health and the environment from the effects of your wastewater
management program?
1. Answer:
The Sanitation Districts' staff, based on thorough evaluation of the technical
and scientific data, is convinced that the existing level of treatment is
adequate to protect the marine environment and public health. If staff
believed otherwise, it would recommend full secondary treatment. A major
reason full secondary treatment is not recommended is because of the
environmental consequences that would ensue as a result of the upgraded level
of treatment. Energy use would increase, traffic impacts would increase and
the amount of sludge that must be managed would increase.
Sanitation Districts' professional staff (sanitary engineers and environmental
scientists) have concluded that Scenario No. 2 (50 percent secondary
treatment) provides the best strategy for meeting overall environmental and
public health protection objectives. This is the same as our current level of
treatment, which has been demonstrated through an $8 million ocean monitoring
program required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), to protect the
marine ecosystem.
2. Question:
Scenario No. 2 is the staff's preliminary preferred alternative. This
includes advanced primary treatment to all of the flow plus secondary
treatment to one-half of the flow. Since this is equivalent to what you are
doing now, did staff ever seriously entertain Scenarios Nos. 1 (1/3 secondary
treatment 6 3 (full secondary treatment)?
2. Answer:
Yes. It is true that Scenario No. 2 is essentially the same as the existing
Sanitation Districts' permit conditions. It is also true that staff seriously
looked at Scenario Nos. 1 6 3. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the
Facilities Plan both developed full information on all three scenarios. All
three scenarios will protect public health and the environment. As a matter
of fact, some members of staff favored Scenario No. 1 considered purely on its
technical merits. Only after balancing the technical merits against perceived
public acceptability, did those staff members support Scenario No. 2.
1
As far as full secondary treatment (Scenario No. 3) is concerned, it was also
examined carefully. Staff recommends against Scenario No. 3 because although
it does provide some improvements in ocean conditions, it substantially
increases sludge production with its concurrent need for additional land
space, increase in energy and larger demand for other resources.
3. Question:
Is the real reason the Sanitation Districts' staff does not recommend full
secondary treatment because of the added cost of the facilities?
3. Answer:
No. While it is true that the overall 30-year difference in capital,
operations and maintenance, and financing costs between Scenario Nos. 2 6 3 is
$1.4 billion (in future dollars) , the annual household cost difference is
between $20 and $135 per year depending upon the area of the county served.
Comments from the domestic and industrial community indicate that this level
of cost difference is of little concern. Yet, the technical case for spending
the extra $1.4 billion difference between Scenario Nos. 2 6 3 simply can not
be made. Scenario No. 2 will protect public health, safety and the beneficial
uses of the ocean.
Although economics alone do not dictate the decision, the staff believes it
has a responsibility to spend the public's money prudently. The technical
information indicates that the higher costs of $1.4 billion for full secondary
treatment are not necessary to protect the marine ecosystem and public health.
4. Question:
Is a reason the Sanitation Districts' staff is not recommending full secondary
treatment because construction of the treatment facilities is not possible on
the existing plant sites, or construction of the secondary facilities would
constrain the continued growth within Orange County?
4. Answer:
No on both counts. The engineers have determined that full secondary treatment
could be constructed at the existing treatment sites to provide adequate
capacity well into the middle of the next century. Full secondary treatment
is not a constraint for the continued development of Orange County.
/ 2
B- OUESTIONS ON FUTURE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
5. Question:
Assuming that present conditions around the Sanitation Districts' outfall are
adequate, and adverse public health or environmental impacts are not
occurring, what assurances are there that in the future, increasing flows will
not cause environmental or public health problems?
5. Answer:
The strategy for holding-the-line on toxics (there would be no mass increase
over today's levels) is adequate to protect public health and the environment.
This assumption is verified on a regular basis with information from the
Sanitation Districts' ocean monitoring program.
The treatment level public policy decision must be reviewed every five years
when the Sanitation Districts' ocean discharge permit is renewed. In other
words, regular feedback and review will be available so that the public and
regulators will have adequate information to be assured that environmental and
public health objectives continue to be achieved.
The Sanitation Districts' Boards of Directors are on record that they will
provide the resources necessary to protect public health and the environment.
The land area, technology and financing is available to proceed with upgraded
levels of treatment or upgraded industrial source control if and when
information becomes available that would demonstrate that these measures are
necessary. The Sanitation Districts have a long track record of delivering on
their program objectives. As an example, the Sanitation Districts' source
control program has reduced toxicants in the incoming raw wastewater to such a
level that the raw wastewater itself beats the effluent limitations in the
receiving water guidelines of the EPA and the CRWQCB.
6. Question:
Won't cumulative effects of all of the various discharges off the Southern
California coast eventually reach a point where catastrophic effects will
impact public health or the environment?
6. Answer:
We are confident that the answer is no. Conditions in 1989 are uniformly
better than they were 5, 10. 15 or 20 years ago. Upgraded treatment
facilities and more particularly, improved industrial source control and
monitoring programs, have combined to significantly decrease the amount of
toxicants entering the marine environment. Today's conditions are better than
they have been for two decades. As far as we can determine, there is no
danger of a catastrophic environmental threshold being reached, which would
cause significant or irreparable environmental or public health impacts.
ao� 3
7. Question:
But, in the past, some of our nation's environmental protection measures have
been found to be inadequate - many times after considerable damage had already
been done. Apparently, regulations, techniques and the ability to operate
programs were frequently found to be inadequate. What assurance does the
general public have that the Sanitation Districts' wastewater management
practices will indeed protect public health? What are the safety checks that
will ensure that general public health and the environment is and will be
protected?
7. Answer:
The Sanitation Districts' wastewater management plan entitled '2020 VISION':
A Wastewater Management Action Plan, is the result of a two-year, $4.5 million
study, bringing together engineers and scientists from consulting firms and
Sanitation Districts' staff. Details of the Action Plan were subjected to
scientific peer review, both formal and informal. The Action Plan is based on
the best information available, including data from the Sanitation Districts'
five-year $8 million ocean monitoring program. There are ongoing daily,
weekly, monthly, quarterly and semi-annual testing and reporting tasks
designed to monitor the effects of the Sanitation Districts' discharge.
The Sanitation Districts' ongoing operations are reviewed by the EPA and
CRWQCB, as well as the staff of the Sanitation Districts. As representatives
of local, state and federal agencies, all charged with protecting public
health and the environment, they confer regularly with one another and provide
regular oversite. It is the responsibility of these agencies and individuals
to carefully watch and evaluate the effects of the Sanitation Districts'
wastewater treatment program and to make changes when appropriate. The
monitoring and research efforts are ongoing and help assure that the marine
ecosystem and public health are protected. If any of these reviewers
determined that adverse consequences were occurring, the Sanitation Districts'
staff would immediately take corrective actions and would convey this
information and appropriate recommendations to the Sanitation Districts'
Boards of Directors.
/ 4
C QUESTIONS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
8. Question:
Does the Sanitation Districts' treated wastewater discharge make the beaches
unsafe for swimming?
8. Answer:
No. Since 1971, when the Sanitation Districts existing outfall went into
service, the beaches have never had to be closed because of concerns of
bacteria contamination from the Sanitation Districts' outfall.
9. Question:
How can you be sure the beaches are safe?
9. Answer:
The Sanitation Districts take 85 shoreline bacteria level measurements per
week at 17 stations prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board and EPA. The stations are located along the coast from Seal
Beach to Corona del Mar. Bacterial concentrations, specified by the
California Department of Health Services have not been exceeded as a result of
the Sanitation Districts' outfall discharge.
J
10. Question:
Are the beach standards adequate?
10. Answer:
A qualified yes. Local, regional, state and federal public health and
environmental officials debate this question regularly. They are looking for
assurances that public health is being consistently protected. The Sanitation
Districts' scientific staff meet regularly with representatives from the State
of California, EPA and other public interest groups to discuss this issue. No
one has yet advanced any information that would conclude that there are (or
threatened to be) public health impacts from the Sanitation Districts'
discharge.
The Sanitation Districts use a bacterial indicator species as a surrogate for
determining the likelihood of bacterial or viral contamination. Recent work
by the State Water Resources Control Board indicates that the use of a new
bacterial indicator test (enterococcus) may be suitable to be conducted in
parallel with the long accepted bacterial indicator test (coliform) . If this
becomes a new requirement, then the Sanitation Districts will add this test to
our monitoring methods.
/ 5
11. Question:
What is the evidence that there is not a bacterial or virus problem at the
beaches?
11. Answer:
The Sanitation Districts have direct and indirect evidence that would lead us
to believe that it is highly improbable that a problem exists with bacterial
or viral contamination of the beaches of Orange County from our outfall.
The Sanitation Districts have conducted extensive tests of the currents around
our outfall. Metering devices are placed on buoys that are located near the
outfall and in other locations which provide oceanographers with information
to trace the currents that carry the Sanitation Districts' treated wastewater
discharge plume. The prevailing currents run parallel to shore. Currents
running toward shore are weak, intermittent, rare and insufficient to carry
the Sanitation Districts' plume to the shore, except on rare occasions. Even
so, because of the depth of discharge, it is highly improbable that the plume
itself would be driven to shore. Also, because of the rapid die-off of most
bacteria and viruses within a short time, which has been documented in many
studies, the possibility of an infectious dose of bacteria or viruses reaching
shore where they could be ingested by swimmers or surfers is highly unlikely.
In addition, as we mentioned, sampling for coliform bacteria is now conducted
at stations located along 17 miles of the coastline.
12. Question:
Would secondary treatment improve public health protection with respect to
bacteria and virus risks?
12. Answer:
No. The distance and depth of the Sanitation Districts' outfall is sufficient
to protect public health at the existing discharge quality. While it is true
that full secondary treatment removes more bacteria and viruses than does
advanced primary treatment, it doesn't appear that the increase removal rate
would impact already low concentrations at the shoreline.
13. Question:
Does the Sanitation Districts' existing discharge adequately protect public
health and the environment from the effects of toxic constituents?
13. Answer:
Yes. The Sanitation Districts consistently comply with all existing permit
limitations and receiving water quality guidelines published by the State of
California and EPA. Because of our stringent source control ordinance, Orange
County's industrial firms have had to change their manufacturing processes and
J 6
install industrial wastewater treatment systems. As a result, the amount of
toxic materials entering the Sanitation Districts' sewage system has dropped
by 75% since the mid-1970's. Today, because of this decrease, the Sanitation
Districts' incoming raw sewage actually achieves the EPA and State of
California toxics standards for final treated effluent.
14. Question:
Are the present toxic limitations and guidelines adequate to protect public
health and the environment?
14. Answer:
Yes. Both the State of California and the EPA base their limitations and
guidelines on chronic and acute toxicity data developed on a wide range of
animal and plant experiments conducted by researchers throughout the world.
Typically, the results of these experiments are reviewed and then the
applicable standard is very conservatively established to make sure there is a
margin of safety between what is considered adequate to protect receiving
water quality and the results of the experiments. Every limitation or
standard received considerable public and scientific review during the period
that the limitation or guideline was under development.
15. Question:
Are the fish caught off Orange County's coastline safe to eat?
15. Answer:
Yes. The Sanitation Districts, as part of our five-year, $8 million ocean
monitoring program, catch fish by trawling and by hook-and-line and analyze
them for heavy metals, chlorinated organics and pesticides. A total of 63
samples of fish muscle were analyzed from 1985 to 1988. Of those samples, all
but one has met the United States Food and Drug administrative limits for PCB
or DDT. These are the only two compounds presently regulated in fish. The
other compounds tested are found at low concentrations or are below present
limits of analytical detection.
The California Department of Health Services has also looked at the question
of fish consumption safety. Using their assumptions and estimates, there is a
theoretical added risk of contracting cancer from some of the fish caught off
Orange County equivalent to the risk of drinking milk (from naturally
occurring aflatoxin) or eating a charcoal broiled steak (from the benzopyrine
formed in cooking). Incidentally, there is reported to be an offsetting
health benefit from consuming fish caused by the oils in fish that are
reported to decrease the incidence of coronary heart disease.
7
16. Question:
You mentioned DDT and PCB in the fish. Are these compounds presently in your
discharge?
16. Answer:
The answer is a qualified no. We can't say for certain that nothing is
present but they are at least below analytical detection limits. For PCB, the
detection limit is approximately 0.2 part-per-billion. That is equivalent to
less than half a pint of PCB per-day in our effluent flow of 260 million
gallons-per-day. PCB was banned from general industrial use in the early
1970's. In 1985 and 1986', the Sanitation Districts conducted a $400,000 study
to determine if there were any industrial sources of PCB in the Sanitation
Districts' service area. Not a single active source was found. For DDT, the
Sanitation Districts' effluent quality is also below detection limits of
approximately 0.1 part-per-billion. DDT has been banned from all use in the
United States. An agricultural and ornamental horticulture pesticide, it was
never manufactured in the Orange County service area. For these reasons, DDT
is simply not a factor in today's discharge picture.
i 8
D. QUESTIONS ON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
17. Question:
Is there really a problem with additional sludge volumes generated under full
secondary treatment, Scenario No. 37
17. Answer:
Yes. The environmental impacts of sludge reuse and disposal can be mitigated
through controlled application rates for the reuse alternatives, and the
control of leachate, if landfills are used. However, there are some
significant institutional constraints with any sludge management programs.
Right now, 75 percent of the Sanitation Districts' sludge is going out-of-
county. In the future, this number could remain at this level or even
increase unless in-county management alternatives are developed. Out-of-
county disposal of sludge, refuse and hazardous waste is becoming increasingly
difficult to accomplish because the California legislature has made it clear,
according to several enacted bills, that each county should be responsible for
its own waste.
Secondly, several southern California counties have placed themselves on
record opposing out-of-county sludges. Imperial County, in its appeal to the
California State Water Resources Control Board, is opposing the importation
and agricultural reuse of sludge from wastewater treatment plants in San
/ Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties. Santa Barbara County, in its comments
on the City of Los Angeles' EIR, has made it clear that they intend to oppose
those sludge management alternatives that involve Santa Barbara County.
The Sanitation Districts' experience in San Bernadino County with regard to
privatization of composting operations of our sludge is also negative.
Agricultural interests in the west end of San Bernadino County, successfully
opposed the composting project that was proposed by the Sanitation Districts'
contractor, EKO. Only recently have we been successful in promoting
composting of our sludge by private contractors at sites that had been
approved years ago for manure and sludge.
With regard to the future, San Bernadino and Riverside Counties are both
planning landfill-based sludge disposal alternatives for their POTWs. Private
and public discussions among their elected officials and certain planning
staff have made it clear that their first priority is in-county sludge. They
are sensitive to public acceptability regarding these projects and are willing
to severely restrict the operations of these sites (to the detriment of large
volumes of out-of-county sludges) , if it means a higher likelihood of a
successful project for in-county sludges.
In Orange County, the future of sludge in Bee Canyon Landfill is uncertain at
this time. Local community opposition to the possibility of digested,
dewatered sludge coming to the new Bee Canyon Landfill is strong. When the
County of Orange General Services Agency first submitted an application for
/ 9
operation of the landfill to the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, they indicated that sludge could possibly be placed in the landfill in
the future pending the outcome on an environmental review. (This review would
be done in accordance with the terms of a memorandum of understanding between
the County and the City of Irvine which requires appropriate environmental
review before sludge will be allowed at Bee Canyon.) The City of Irvine
objected to the mere mention of this possibility within the operating permit
and the County GSA elected to remove this innocuous reference to sludge from
the permit application.
18. Question:
Are there other constraints to sludge management that are on the horizon?
18. Answer:
Yes. As an example, there is another significant development that could
adversely affect the Sanitation Districts' ability to effectively manage
sludge. In February of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published its Draft Technical Regulations For The Use of Sludge. The draft
regulations proposed to regulate the use of sludge as a composted product, in
direct use for agricultural soil amendments and for other practices. The
proposed regulations establish concentration limitations for a list of
constituents that are commonly found in domestic sewage sludge. The
Sanitation Districts' staff has reviewed the proposed regulations and conclude
that all present and future sludge management alternatives except landfilling
will be virtually precluded if the regulations are enacted as presently
drafted.
As of early May, the status of the draft regulations are uncertain. EPA staff
has indicated that changes to the draft regulations are possible. EPA has
established a scientific advisory panel which will review the regulations and
will make recommendations to the EPA. The Sanitation Districts and other
public wastewater treatment agencies will provide commentary to EPA. EPA will
then take this input under consideration when it promulgates the proposed
final regulations.
19. Question:
Why are other sludge management alternatives, besides landfilling, important
to the Sanitation Districts?
19. Answer:
Presently one-half of our sludge is recycled for beneficial reuse. This is in
accordance with Boards' policy and also reflects EPA's stated policy of
encouraging sludge recycling for beneficial reuse. If sludge reuse isn't
encouraged, then the opportunity to turn sludge from a disposal problem to a
reuse opportunity would be lost. However, more importantly, the Sanitation
Districts' ability to reliably and safely manage the 17,000 Cons-per-month (35
truckloads-per-day) would be jeopardized.
/ 10
E. OUESTIONS ON ENERGY USE
20. Question:
Is there a difference in the amount of energy needed between partial secondary
treatment and full secondary treatment for wastewater treatment and sludge
disposal?
20. Answer:
Yes. Over the next 30-years the amount of energy required for Scenario No. 2
(50% secondary treatment) is 6.2 billion BTU's or 1,061,223 barrels of oil and
Scenario No. 3 (full secondary) is 9.1 billion BTU's or 1,565,615 barrels of
oil. Expressing it another way, Scenario No. 2 will demand the amount of
energy equivalent to 9,100 households and Scenario No. 3 will demand the
amount of energy equivalent to 13,400 households. On a yearly basis, that is
equivalent to approximately two percent of the total energy used by households
and industries in Orange County.
21. Question:
Two percent doesn't sound like much. Can't we just pay the price of the
additional energy and get on with full secondary treatment?
21. Answer:
Actually two percent is a fairly sizeable increment of energy use for an urban
area as large as Orange County. We are just now becoming aware of the dangers
of global warming caused, in part, from the burning of fuel. It may be, that
in the future, industrial nations such as the United States will be looking
for ways of decreasing energy use.
22. Question:
Won't you be producing energy in your treatment plants from the natural gas
that you produce in the sludge digesters? Won't that be enough to power your
facilities?
22. Answer:
The Sanitation Districts will be producing a considerable amount of energy by
generating electricity using engines powered by digester gas. But that energy
will not be sufficient to make the Sanitation Districts' fully energy self-
sufficient in the long term.
11
F. ONE FINAL OUESTTON
23. Question:
Despite all of your reassurances, I still have questions about the staff's
preliminary preferred alternative to maintain partial secondary treatment.
What additional information can you provide me that I can consider?
23. Answer:
The Sanitation Districts' staff is prepared to meet with any individual or
organization to review the data and discuss the issue in more detail. Plant
tours, copies of existing information including over 4,000 pages of
engineering, environmental and financial information contained in the recently
completed Facilities Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report drafts, and
one-on-one meetings are available. Contact the Sanitation Districts' Public
Information Office at 714-962.2411 for any questions or to obtain help or
information on this important public policy question.
Ref#910089.rp
J
12
AN ACTION PLAN FOR
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
DRAIT Aginn Plan
r,dl BalenreA
EnLimnmenlal
Management
FINANCIAL PIA.N
Wh:npe
w..•`
w,.P4•a a. ;s..
"s W �
DRAFT ORgFF
I'NULWNI ENVIRONMENTAL
rd
IMPACT REPOLLI ClVp f M"Irz lr�R,nl„Iryt
�T'LEleler Plan
EXECUTIVE 5UMMARY VOLUMES IIh° 947
h
$astc�atcoct Diafaictd � OAca�cge ( ( cCCL
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
�..r OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 0127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
e °4WaecW (714)962-2411
FAX(714)962-0356
w April5, 1989
'2020 VISION'
An Action Plan for Wastewater Management
d
1990-2020
'2020 VISION' is the County Sanitation Districts' 30-year plan of action for guiding our
program of wastewater and environmental management well into the 21st Century,from
1990 to the year 2020.
Background.The Action Plan is the product of the most comprehensive wastewater
"y management study ever undertaken by the Sanitation Districts. The two-year,$4.5 million
evaluation of the engineering,environmental, public health,social and economic aspects of
our wastewater collection, treatment and disposal activities has been conducted by a team of
consulting and staff experts. '2020 VISION' has been prepared to assist the Districts in
determining the optimum wastewater management program for assuring continued public
health and environmental protection, and to support our application to the US
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CRWQCB)for renewal of our NPDES ocean discharge permit which expires in
February 1990.
The focus of the Action Plan is directed toward fulfilling the Sanitation Districts' primary
role of protecting public health and water resources-specifically coastal ocean waters, but
we take a more holistic view of our responsibilities and consider land and air resources as
well. Accordingly, the Action Plan reflects the Boards' commitment to balanced, total
environmental management, as expressed in enclosed Policy Resolution No. 87-120.
m Public Participation: Our public participation program is an important part of the planning
process. During the course of preparing the Action Plan,we consulted with interested
community groups, individuals and other governmental agencies and sought their views.
Their feedback was incorporated into our evaluation and assessment of alternative
wastewater management programs.
The public will continue to be involved in the process as the Boards consider the technical
reports and public comment prior to making a final determination in July on the appropriate
wastewater management program for the Sanitation Districts.
d
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
10BM AV
P.0.aWI B+T
id1MAW VA4fY.ClLLIf69MA@IIIBdIT
d
nw aexal+l
'2020 VISION'
April 5, 1989
Page Two
TYeatmentAlternatives: In order to effectively determine the optimal wastewater
management program,three alternative treatment level scenarios were formulated and
assessed. All three would provide advanced primary treatment and varying proportions of
secondary treatment,and each would meet applicable federal and state discharge standards.
The alternative scenarios would provide treatment as follows:
,Y Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
California Current NPDES Permit Full
Ocean Plan Concentration Limits $ecrindary
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand(BOD)Removal 30% 60% 8.5%
Solids Removal 75% 75% 85%
Amount of Secondary
Treatment 1/3 12 Full
Important Elements of AU T reatmentAlternatives: The key to the Action Plan is the
continuation of our aggressive source control program to limit the introduction of toxic
materials into the sewerage system, thereby abating the risk of the Districts'operations
adversely impacting public health or the environment.Other important Action Plan
elements include expansion of our water reclamation activities;promoting water
conservation;and maximizing the recycling of wastewater treatment by-products including
the beneficial reuse of sludge and utilization of digester gas for energy.
Our existing industrial source control program has been so effective in controlling toxics
'd that the overall levels currently in the treated effluent discharged to the ocean are well
below the established limits. We propose to expand our water reclamation efforts through
our partnership with the Orange County Water District to include new upstream water
reclamation plants which will make a significant contribution toward optimizing water
resources and help avoid future water supply crises. We are presently recycling over
.� one-half of our sludge and the Action Plan goal is to muse as much as possible. Digester
gas will be used to generate electricity to operate the treatment plants,saving millions of
dollars annually in energy costs and reducing dependence on imported oil.
Facilities and Costs: Sewage flows are expected to increase from 260 million gallons per
day (mgd)in 1990 to 399 mgd by the year 2020. This will require major facilities
expansion including 57 miles of new trunk sewers, added treatment plant capacity and a
new 10-foot diameter ocean outfall.
The 30-year total program costs of the three alternative treatment scenarios,including
capital construction,operations and maintenance and cost of borrowing,are$3.0 billion,
$3.3 billion and$3.9 billion,respectively,in today's dollars. If inflationary impacts are
considered over the 30 years the amounts are:$7.0 billion,$7.9 billion and $9.3 billion,
respectively.
Y
d
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
10 Wflna/.VEN
PAB a,"
�� rgIMNNwWEY,fNlFM1MA�/Vlltrr
nt9 EErrn
'2020 VISION'
April5, 1989
Page Three
Under any scenario connection fees will immediately increase 43fi7'% and the Districts will
d have to borrow funds in the debt market to finance about one-half of the construction
program. In today's dollars, the rising expense of complying with increasingly stringent
environmental regulations will, in most cases,cause annual residential sewerage service
costs to more than double by the turn of the century,from today's$75/year average. The
cost increases to businesses will be similar, and in some cases higher.
PrejerredTreatment Alternative: From our review of all of the information, it is clear that
all three treatment level alternatives would protect public health and the marine ecosystem.
However,our assessment of the California Ocean Plan(Scenario 1)alternative concludes
that for various reasons, it is probably not implementable. It has, therefore, been eliminated
from further consideration by staff.
In evaluating the alternatives numerous criteria were considered. The differences between
alternative scenarios were relatively minor for such impacts as public health, receiving
water quality,ocean oxygen levels and water reclamation potential. Neither was them
much distinction between the toxils control and disaster preparedness program elements.
The impacts on air quality are difficult to determine because air emission standards have not
�.J yet been established by regulators.The other impacts of alternative treatment levels most
distinguishable can be grouped into four key categories and the relative differences
summarized as follows:
Covent NPDES Permit Fall
Category Ommnttation Limits $sty
Resource Allocation Fewer resources used
Marine Environment Less emissions
land Impacts Less lantl used
Cost Lower casts
Either alternative is considered implementable.
The team of consulting and staff engineers and scientists have thoroughly evaluated the
engineering,environmental,scientific(including data from the Districts' extensive$8.5
million five-year ocean monitoring program)and economic information compiled to date.
From the analysis of the technical information along with the public input received, it is the
staffs preliminary assessment that the Current NPDES Permit Concentration Limits
(Scenario 2)option be selected as the preferred alternative and the most appropriate
wastewater management program for the citizens of Orange County; and that application to
the EPA and CRWQCB for renewal of the Sanitation Districts' ocean discharge permit be
made in accordance with the strict terms of Clean Water Act Section 301(h).
y
COUNTY SANITATION DISIRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY,C&LIFORNIA
IO E"AVE
nasal61V
rwxrurl vAuar,nnlraEraA @lMlIT
� AI�Ea�u
'2020 VISION'
April 5, 1989
Page Four
We have demonstrated that our current level of treatment,which produces a high quality
but less than full secondary effluent,protects the public health, marine ecosystem and the
beneficial uses of the ocean. We are consistently in compliance with all ocean discharge
permit conditions and all federal and state discharge standards and quality requirements.
This same level of protection is afforded through the implementation of the preferred
alternative. The preferred alternative strikes an acceptable balance among cross-media(air,
land and water)impacts and resource allocation considerations, and best manages sludge
disposition impacts on the land,all at a lower cost than more restrictive requirements would
impose. Over the 30-year planning period, the total cost of the current permit concentration
limits alternative would be$1.4 billion less than the full secondary alternative,assuming
inflationary trends.
It is important to remember that the NPDES permit will only be issued for a five-year
period. Thus,the issues will be reviewed again in 1995, and every five years thereafter, and
appropriate adjustments made to the Action Plan.
Review Process: Upon completion of the Action Plan public review process,staff will
��..� submit a final preferred alternative recommendation. After consideration of the technical
reports, public commentary and the staffs recommendation,the Boards will make a final
decision in July on the terms of the application to the EPA and CRWQCB for renewal of
the ocean discharge permit.
Further Information:The following pages contain the staffs Preliminary Report and
Executive Summary of'2020 VISION' -An Action Plan for Wastewater Management for
the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County for the period 1990 through 2020. For
copies of the executive summaries of the Draft Facilities Master Plan(including the
financial plan)and the Draft Environmental Impact Report, or copies of the full reports
consisting of some 4,000 pages,please contact the Districts' Public Information Office at
'd (714)962-2411.
v
ay VesterrO eral
s
0
LOS q ELES COUMY
LA HABRA
l5 �
AREA
FULLE TON r_ YORBA O
PLACENTIA - LINDA
J R
IB UE
LA PARK
PALMA
CYPRESS ANAH IM LL VILLA O Lf
STANTON. PARK
LOS
:ALAMITOS , ORANGE
GARDEN
GROVE
ESTMINSTER
SE
O
SANTA
STIN
ANA 6
FOUNTAIN
VALLEY -.
a F.
HUNTINGTON -
BEACH �T
Pgclflc - COSTA a
MEAN MESA IRVINE
�. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MO VISION'
AN ACTION PLAN FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
1990.2020 1
BACKGROUND 1
ACTION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1
REVIEW PROCESS 2
FURTHER INFORMATION 2
d
SELECTION OF THE PRELIMINARY
PREFERRED TREATMENT LEVELALTERNATTVE 3
OCEAN PROTECTION REGULATIONS 3
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SCENARIOS 3
SCENARIO NO.1 California Ocean Plan 4
SCENARIO NO.2 Etdsting NPDES Permit Concentration Limits 4
SCENARIO NO.3 Full Secondary Treatment 4
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF ALL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 4
PRELIMINARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 5
WHAT '2020 VISION' WELL DO 8
,�. OVERVIEW OF FUTURE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS 8
TRUNK SEWERS 8
TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES 8
OCEAN OUTFALIS 10
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT 10
WATER RECLAMATION 10
WATER CONSERVATION 13
SOURCE CONTROL: THE TOXICS UMBRELLA 13
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN 16
FINANCIAL PLAN i7
BACKGROUND 17
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
FINANCIAL PLAN cont. W
REVENUE SOURCES 17
Propeny Taxes 17
Connection Fees 17
Residential User Fees 18
Industrial Waste User Fees 18 w
INTEREST 18
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING PLANS 19
DEBT FINANCING 20
CAPITAL COSTS 20
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS 20
TOTAL COST SUMMARY 21
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF '2020 VISION' 23
OVERVIEW 23
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 23
WATER RESOURCE BENEFITS IMPACTS 23 �W
OCEAN RELATED IMPACTS 23
AIR RELATED IMPACTS 25
LAND RELATED IMPACTS 25
RESOURCE ALLOCATION 27 V
GROWTH IMPACTS 27
NON-MITIGATED IMPACTS 30
IMPLEMENTABILITY OF THE
THREE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SCENARIOS 30 `,
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 31
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 31
COMPLETED ACTIVITIES 31 V
INCORPORATING PUBLIC CONCERNS INTO '2020 VISION' 32
FUTURE OUTREACH EFFORTS 32
kw
V
LIST OF FIGURES
�.J
Figure 1 EFFLUENT QUALITY 6
Hgme2 PROJECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TOXIC CONSTITUENTS
AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALLOWABLE STANDARD,YEAR 2020 7
Fgme3 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS 9
r Figme4 PLANT NO.I LAYOUT 11
Fig=5 PIANTNO.2LAYOUT 12
Fig=6 COMPARISION OF RESULTANT 'PASS-THROUGH"
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS CAUSED BY
WORST-CASE INDUSTRIAL SPILL FOR ALL THREE
SCENARIOS AS A PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE STANDARD 15
Fgme7 COMPARISON BETWEEN CASH AND DEBT FINANCING 19
Figme8 AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD COST
FOR DISTRICTS REQUIRING DEBT FINANCING 22
Figme9 WASTEWATER SOLIDS TO OCEAN AND LAND 24
Figure 10 IMPACTS TO LAND RESOURCES OF
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 26
Hgmell ENERGY RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS 2E
Figure 12 RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS 29
s
LIST OF TABLES
v
Table 1 TREATMENT LEVELS OF THE THREE SCENARIOS 4
v
Table 2 EVALUATION SUMMARY 6
Table 3 "ACT OF SOURCE CONTROL ON ALL THREE SCENARIOS 14
Table 4 EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL ANNUAL USER CHARGES, 2020 18 r
Table S DEBT FINANCING, 30 YEAR COSTS 20
Table 6 30-YEAR CAPITAL COSTS 20
Table 7 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS - 20
Table 8 TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS (1990-2020) 21
�✓"
Table 9 MARINE BOTTOM LIFE Rv1PACfS (7020) 74
Table 10 SUMMARY OF RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS (2020) 29
Table 11 RELATIVE IMPLEMENTABILITY OF SCENARIOS 30
V
r
v LIST OF APPENDICES
r
A RESOLUTION NO. 87-120 DECLARING A POLICY PERTAINING
TO WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FOR PRESERVING ORANGE
.r COUNTY'S COASTAL OCEAN WATERS
B RECOMMENDED TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULING AND COSTS
C PROJECT COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR
SCENARIO NO. 2 (EXISITNG CONCENTRATION LIMITS)
r
v
v
r
r
'2020 VISION'
.� AN ACTION PLAN FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
MO-2020
BACKGROUND
Orange County's mediterranean climate, strong California Regional Water Quality Control Board
economy, recreational opportunities, diverse (CRWQCB) for renewal of the Sanitation Districts'
employment and living conditions attract people ocean discharge permit.
worldwide, and haw created one of the most rapidly
growing areas in the country. This expanding Historically, the Sanitation Districts have
urbanization can cause significant environmental accommodated the wastewater service needs of
problems if they are Iml recognized and intelligently metropolitan Orange County using five to ten year
managed. planning horizons to target needed facilities. This
advanced planning and timely construction of needed
The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County improvements has successfully protected public health
California(Sanitation Districts)play a crucial role in the and ocean water quality. But because of newly
preservation of the counly's environmental quality by emerging concerns for environmental protection, the
providing the facilities and services that convey, treat rapid urbanizadon of all of Southern Califomia, new air
and safely dispose of the wastewater produced by the pollution control requirements, more complex
nearly two million people living and working in governmental permit requirements and increased
metropolitan Orange County. Within 30 years this emphasis on the need for balanced, cross-media (air,
population is expected to increase to 2.8 million. land and water)environmental protection,the Sanitation
Districts have embarked on this far more ambitious
'2020 VISION' is a multi-faceted, 30-year wastewater master planning process, extending our vision to the
management Anion Plan m accommodate this expected Yeer 2020'
growth while protecting public health and minimizing
wastewater related impacts on the environment. The ACTION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
product of this comprehensive two-year environmental
.r and engineering study recommends new facilities In 1987, the Sanitation Districts inaugurated its
construcdon, a financial plan, continued aggressive comprehensive, 30-year wastewater planning study
loxics source control, and a plan to maximize water called the "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental
reclamation and sludge recycling. '2020 VISION' IS in Management: Preserving Orange County's Coastal
accordance with the Sanitation Districts Boards' of Ocean Waters". The primary goals of the Action Plan
Directors policy for protecting public health and the study have been to:
s marine environment off Orange County's comtlirre,and
providing balanced total environmental management by 1. Determine the appropriate level of treatment for
carefully weighing the cross environmental media
impacts of the agency's wastewater management protection;
environmental and public heap
proton on;
Program. (See Appendix A, Policy Resolution No.
87-120).
,. 2 Produce a sewage facilities master plan providing a
30-year needs assessment;and a focused
This Action Plan Preliminary Report and Executive Construction and financing plan;
Summary provides a brief overview of the major
findings supporting these objectives and the selection of 3 Produce a cons hensive Environmental Impact
a preferred treatment level for application to t .o U.S. Report to assess the impacts of the proposed
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
"+ wastewater management program and recommend
appropriate measures to protect to environment;
sue./ and
a 1
REVIEW PROCESS -
4. Conduct a community outreach program designed The technical information and public input will undergo v
to solicit the public's input regarding these further review by the public and the Sanitation Districts'
environmental and public health issues. Hoards during the next several months. The Boards of
Directors, after consideration of the technical reports,
The primary objectives of the Action Plan are: public commentary and the staffs recommendations,
will adopt their findings and in August 1989 submit an
1. To provide an environmentally sound regional application to the EPA and the CRWQCB for a new
sewage w0ectiort teatment and disposal system ocean discharge permit which will guide the Districts'
that minimizes risk to public health and safety operations for the next five years beginning in 1990.
from the disposal and muse of wastewater and its
residuals including sludge; Because discharge permits are only issued for a
five-year term, the issue of appropriate treatment level
2. To achieve consistent compliance with all laws, will be reviewed every five years. v
regulations and guidelines designed to protect
water quality,air quality,land and agricultural FURTHER INFORMATION
productivity,public health and the environment;
The following draft documents will provide the detailed
3. To protect the beneficial uses of the water,lard and information for this '2020 VISION' Preliminary Report
air resources from significant impairment from and Executive Summary. Copies an be obtained by
wastewater management activities; contacting the Districts' Public Information Office at
(714)962-2411.
4. To reclaim wastewater where feasible and develop
markets for is beneficial reuse so as to red=the 1. "Programmatic Environmental Impact Repon on
reed for imported water, Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities; -
Executive Summary Report." (38 Pages)
5. To encourage and promote water conservation;
2. "Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on
6. To encourage the beneficial muse of sludge and to Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities
promote multiple,independent reuse alteratives Master Plan" (500 Pages)
while maintaining at least one reliable disposal
alternative; 3. "Collection,Treatment, and Disposal Facilities
Master Plan; Executive Summary Report."(I10
7. To minimize the disposal of toxic substances to the Pages)
environment through a pmgmm of public
education and industrial enforcement that 4. "Collection,Treatment,and Disposal Facilities
emphasizes source control and waste minimization; Master Plan."(Volumes 1-7;3,500 Pages)
8. To minimize the❑w of energy and to plan and 5. "Collection,Treatment and Disposal Facilities
implement energy conservation projects within the Master Plan:Financial Plan," (Volume 8;300
existing treatment facilities and in the Paps)
nausponation of chemicals,supplies and treatment tr
process residuals;and,
9. To maximize public and regulatory acceptance of
the overall pmgnm with respect to marine,sludge
and air quality considerations.
•
2
SELECTION OF THE PRELBUNARY PREFERRED
TREATMENT LEVEL ALTERNATIVE
OCEAN PROTECTION REGULATIONS
The Sanitation Districts' wastewater management Section 301(h) applicants are required to achieve toxic
activities are guided by federal and state requirements pollutants standards equivalent to full secondary
embodied within the five-year National Pollution treatment, meet all environmental protection regulations
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ocean imposed by federal and state agencies,and to prove that
discharge permit issued by the EPA and the CRWQCB. the marine environment will not be adversely impacted.
The EPA enforces the requiremems of the federal Clean
Water Act. The California State Water Resources Section 301(h) also requires that state ocean protection
Control Board SWRCB , through the CRWQCB,
( ) 8 regulations be met. For California, these are contained
enforces the requirements of the Porter Cologne Act and within the SWRCB's California Ocean Plan.The Ocean
the California Ocean Plan. Plan specifies detailed ocean quality standards and
wastewater treatment plant performance criteria
In 1972, the Clean Water Act was adopted with a goal including 75 percent removal of total suspended solids,
,d of fishable and swimmable waters throughout the limitations for 22 potentially toxic compounds, and
United States. Uniform effluent quality performance limitations for bacterial concentrations in bathing and
standards were imposed on all municipal wastewater shellfishing areas.
treatment plants to achieve this goal. The standards
included a nationwide requirement of secondary In 1985, the Sanitation Districts received a Section
treatment(defined as 85 percent removal of biochemical 301(h) modified NPDES ocean dischurge, permit issued
oxygen demand and suspended solids) for all jointly by EPA and the CRWQCB.The federal and state
dischargers to waters, including ocean and inland requirements provide a unique combination of stringent
"esters. environmental standards for protecting ocean waters.
The existing permit establishes limitations for toxicants
After the federal Clean Water Act was passed, the and requires 75 percent removal of wastewater
blanket requirement of full secondary treatment for at suspended solids and 60 percent removal of biochemical
wastewater treatment plants was questioned. It was oxygen dematd(BOD).
reasoned that while secondary treatment is appropriate
for inland lakes and rivers, it did not appear to be Them am also federal and state laws that govern other
environmentally necessary for the West Coast with its aspects of the Sanitation Districts' activities. The most
deep coastal waters and prevailing ocean conditions;nor notable am: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
did it seem the most prudent use of limited natural and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
economic resources. This belief was supported by Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund"); Madw
considerable scientific and technical data indicating that Resource and Sanctuary Protection Act; Safe Water
less than full secondary treatment could achieve the Act;and am Air Act.
goal of fishable and swimmable ocean waters.
Accordingly, in 1977 after considemble dialogue by the ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SCENARIOS
Congress, the Clean Water Act was amended by the
addition of Section 301(h). This section, sometimes 2020 VISION' is the culmination of a two-year etfon
referred to as the ocean waiver provision,gives the EPA to determine the appropriate level of wastewater
Administrator the authority to grant a permit under strict treatment for public health and balanced environmental
conditions for a high-quality but less than full protection. This section discusses the preliminary
secondary-treated wastewater effluent. The 301(h) preferred treatment level alternative determined by
amendment allows site-specific waivers from full Sanitation Districts' staff to be most appropriate for
secondary treatment to be given to qualifying Publicly
Owned Treatment Works(POTWs}
3
0�
guiding the Sanitation Districts' activities for the the mass of effluent BOD would be 1.7 time today's
Eve-year period beginning February 1990, when the rate and the mass of suspended solids would be 1.6
current permit expires. times today's ale.
W
Using the nine previously identified objectives of the SCENARIO NO. 3
Action Plan, three wastewater treatment level scenarios Full Secondary Treatment
were studied in the Facilities Master Plan and the
Environmental Impact Report. The distinctive features The discharge quality would meet all requirements of
of the three treatment level scenarios studied were: the California Ocean Plan and the full secondary r
provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. Additional
SCENARIO NO. 1 secondary treatment facilities would be deigned and
California Ocean Plan constructed until full secondary is achieved by 2005. A
301(h) waiver would be required only during this
The discharge quality would meet all requirements of interim period. BOD and suspended solids
the California Ocean Plan and the 301(h) provisions of concentrations would decrease from present levels to 30
the federal Clean Water Act.A 301(h)waiver would be pens-per-million by 2005.Mass emission late for BOD
required with performance standards set at 75 percent and suspended solids in 2020 would be about equal to
removal of suspended solids, 30 percent removal of today's mass emission rates.
BOD and compliance with toxic substance
concentration limitations throughout the planning The alternative treatment levels are summarized in r
period. No additional secondary treatment facilities Table 1.
would be needed for the next 30 years. The quality of
the resulting effluent would meet all state and federal
ocean protection criteria, but
effluent quality would decline
from present performance levels Table 1
with respect to BOD and TREATMENT LEVELS OF THE THREE SCENARIOS
suspended solids as flows s nano smnado2 Smrodo3
increase throughout the planning GIhfcmu 0,.t NPDFS Full
period. By 2020 the mass of ixsanPlan f .lelio¢11miu
effluent BOD would be 2.3 times IaocMmlol°x}'sC0
pcmaed(BOD)ticmwdl -V% an 95%
today's rate and the mass of
suspended solids would be 1.8 Sondv Remora 75%, 75% 95%
times today's rate. Amouet ot5eco ,
II Teatmem 1/3 12 Full
SCENARIO NO. 2
Existing NPDES Permit Concentration Limits
V
The discharge quality would meet all requirements of
the California Ocean Plan and the 301(h) provisions of
the federal Clean Water Act. The treatment facilities
would be designed and operated to meet the existing IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF
eccenilation limits of the discharge permit for both ALL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
BOD and suspended solids and achieve compliance
with all toxic substance concentration limitations Independent of the operation of the wastewater
throughout the planning period. Additional treatment treatment facilities and the treatment level scenario
facilities would be constructed to provide secondary selected, the Sanitation Districts will concentrate efforts
treatment to 50 percent of the flaw. A 301(b) waiver on the continuation and expansion of on-going
would be required. Due to the anticipated increases in programs, which have proven to be effective in `
flow, the mass emission of BOD and suspended solids achieving existing environmental protection standards.
would steadily increase from present levels. By 2020
4 a
These efforts will include: Districts' industrial source control program, treatment
Scenario No. 2 will meet the toxics secondary
• Controlling industrial waste entering the sewer equivalency requirements of the 1997 Clean Water Act
system at the source using pretreatment,waste and will adequately protect the ocean from adverse
minimization,and product substitution; impacts of toxic materials in the final effluent.
• Providing environmentally sound sludge
management with an emphasis on multiple, By refining the existing industrial waste source control
independent reuse alternatives; program even more, the Sanitation Districts can
w
continue to commil the amount of toxic contaminants
• Perforating ocean monitoring on an ongoing entering the system and will, as a minimum,
basis to demonstrate that all beneficial uses of the bold-the-lime on the existing discharge rate of toxic
marine environment are being protected; contaminants. The control of toxics at their source
minimizes impact on the treatment processes, prolects
• Controlling air pollutant emissions using source ocean water quality, reduces air pollution from
control and suitable control technology at the contamioams in the wastewater, and improves sludge
`• treatment plans; quality. Figure 1 illustrates the significant reductions in
• Expansion of rater reclammion activities;and toxic constituents in tlx: wastewater achieved by the
Sanitation Dstrics'source control program.
• Encouraging and promming water conservation.
Treatment Scenario No. 2 will achieve the principle
PRELIMINARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE public health and environmental protection objectives
that were expressed by the public at the September 1988
After thorough review and thoughtful consideration of workshops' Many of the panicipans expressed concern
tlx: technical, scientific and economic information, it is that we minimize the impact of toxics on the marine
se the Sanitation Districts' stairs preliminary asssimm environment by holding to today's levels. While some
that Scenario No. 2, the existing NPDES Permit members of the public believed that full secondary
Concentration limits, is the preferred alternative and treatment was necessary to achieve this, findings of the
represents the best overall wastewater management EIR show that all three treatment level scenarios,
program for the citizens of Orange County. Staff will combined with an effective source commit program,
make a final recommendation to the Sanitation achieve this objective. This is demonstrated by
Districts' Boards of Directors following completion of Predicted effluent quality concentrations of toxicant
the public review process. constituents compared to allowable standards for all
w three treatment level scenarics shown in Figure 2.
The determination is based on the findings of the Scerorio No. 2 will protect public health from impacts
five-year $8.5 million marine monitoring program,
analyses of the draft Environmental Impact Repon, of pathogenic micro-organisms discharged in the
conclusions of the Facilities Master Plan, results of the Sanitation Districts' effluent. The depth and distance
financial study, and input from the public participation from shore of the outfall combined with prevailing
•' ocean currents and the natuml die-off of bacteria and
program. While the draft Environmental Impact Repent
found that all three scenarios protect public health and viruses under ambient marine water conditions reduces,
the environment, meet all applicable federal and state to a very low probability, the chance of a swimmer
standards, and fall within an acceptable range for receiving an infectious those.
meeting the Action Plan's objectives, there are
differences in the degree of protection or impact of each Past ocean monitoring results and the use of predictive
treatment level scenario can land,air and water resources models indicates that increases in nutrient laden solids
and on their resource requirements and (without concurrent increases in toxins) will enhance
implementabilpty. marine life in the vicinity of the oulfsll, which may
favor some spectres over Others. Overall, the amount of
Scenario No. 2 will protect public health and all bottom dwelling organisms will increase and the types
beneficial was of the ocean and achieve all state of species will decrease or change slightly immediately
standards for bacterial concentrations. Further, due to adjacent to the oulfall diffuser. The oxygen content of
the aggressive and sinful efforts of the Sanitation the omin water rear the ourfah will show little change
because of the high rate of dilution the cutfall diffuser
V
W
Figure 1
EFFLUENT QUALITY
300
W
250 MILLIONS OF GALLONS/DAY
200
W
ISO SUSPENDED SOLIDS
THOUSANDS OF
TOTAL HEAVY METALS POUNDS/DAY
IUU TENS OF POUNDS/OAY
W
SO
O
TS 77 TS TO So 61 82 SO ae as SS ST SS W
YEAR
achieves and no environmental impact will ensue. financial impacts of wastewater management.This goal
Nutrients are expected to enhance production of transcends maintaining and protecting local
phyloplankton in the water column; but, without environmental conditions. Regional and global issues
adverse environmental effect. associated with energy use, air pollution, global
warming("greenhouse effect ),as well as water quality,
Choosing Scenario No. 2 over Scenario No. 1 reflects water supply,and solid waste minimization also warrant
the staff's view that Scenario No. 1 may not be careful examination and consideration in planning to
implementable because of the public feedback from the meet future wastewater needs.
community outreach program that substantially
increasing the quantities of BOD and suspended solids W
would not be an acceptable course of action.
Choosing Scenario No. 2 over Scenario Table 2
No. 3 bas many overall benefits. Primary
among these are a significant reduction in EVALUATION SUMMARY
the amount of energy, construction W
materials, labor, operating supplies, land, SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO
and sludge production. In addition, total NO.1 NO.2 NO.3
30-year cost at five percent inflation
(including capital, operations and RESOURCE GOOD GOOD FAIR
maintenance, and debt interest) is ALLOCATION
s1,4og000,0oo I=under Scenario No.2 V
than Scenario No. 3. A summary of the MARINE GOOD GOOD VERY GOOD
overall evaluation of the scenario is ENVIRONMENT
shown in Table 2.
LANDIMPACTS FAIR FAIR POOR
The Sanitation Districts'overall goal is to y
continue to provide the present high
standard of service and balance the IMPLEMENfABILRV POOR GOOD GOOD `
environmental, engineering, social, and �a►'
6
Figure 2
Projected Concentrations-- of Toxic Constituents as a
Percentage of Allowable Standard, Year 2020
110
too _ Allowable Standard'
90 -
in$Canarl0 �
tto METALS
■Scenario 2
To
so
® Scenario 0
_ w .
ao
20
20
10
o -
cadmium chromium copper Wd Mercury Nitlul assay Mnc
110
�•.� to0
Allowable standard,
do
CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS m Scenario 1
So and other non-metals
■Scenario 2
To
Go ®Scenario 3
so
ao
ao
20 (Percent)
as la (percent) <0.01 <0.01 <O.o1
0 1 ea 0.2 0 0 0
Noncmorl- Chlminated Sansone Toluene Tetm.hnn.mh- DDT
meted phenols phenols alone
*Most stringent of olthor California Ocean Plan (e'manth median)
or EPA criteria for water, IBM(44ay seerage).
^Warat case concentrations of constituents at the zme at Initial dilution (LID)
boundary with background asawa•o levels Included.Background seawater
concentrations are:copper,es%of allowable ateMard;mercury, ta%i
silver,O5%t and zinc,40%;while all other corratltumas are assumed to be zero
for regulatory purposes.Assumes conservative dilution factor of 100:1 and assumes
no ambient currants.
v
�../ WHAT `2020 VISION' WILL DO
d
OVERVIEW OF FUTURE
FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Regardless of the treatment level selected, the • Developing a financial Flan to pay for the capital
d Sanitation Districts must plan for increases in and operating costs of the wastewater
wastewater flow at both plains mused by population management program.
increases. Today's wastewater flow is expected to
Increase from an average flow of 260 million gallons The following pages briefly describe the facilities and
per day (mgd) to 399 mgd by 2020. Population programs of'2020 VISION'.
projections arc based on information from Southern
.s California Association of Governments (SCAG) and TRUNK SEWERS
local city and county general plans within the Sanitation
Districts'senvlce area(See figure 3).
The Districts' mrrtic sewer system is now mom than 800
This Increase in flaw will require additional facilities miles long with sewer pipes that range in size from
which include: 12-to-96 inches in diameter. The collection system
r, includes 33 pumping stations throughout the service
area to help transport the flow to the two treatment
• adding 57 miles of new on*sewers; plans.
• adding treatment and reclamation plant capacity;
and, Continuing land development and urban redevelopment
will insult in an increase in wastewater flows that will
,ems • adding a second major oxan oulfall by 2005 to exceed the capacity of some of the existing trunk sewer
provide additional hydraulic capacity. and pumping facilities. In addition,some older facilities
will treed to be rehabilitated or replaced. The Fa ilities
In addition to constructing new facilities to handle Master Plan identifies these trunk sewer facilities,sizes
forum wastewater flow, the Sanitation Districts will the appropriate new, parallel or replacement facilities,
expand ongoing programs and undertake new recommends implementation schedules and provides
innovative programs.They include: cost estimates.
• Expanding the existing sludge management The projected deficiencies would be remedied by
program to maximize the beneficial reuse of constructing 57 miles of new or replacement trunk
sludge; sewers costing $208 million by the year 2020. A
• Adding up to Ihme upstream wastewater detailed Hsi of the needed sewer improvements on be
® reclmnation plans to maximize bercficial reuse found in the Appendix B.
of high quality reclaimed wastewater;
• Expanding the existing industrial waste source TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES
control program to minimize the quantity of toxic RCClematiou Plant No. 1 currently provides 60 mgd of
ccotaminans entering the sewer system. (For full secondary treatment and is located in Fountain
all three treatment level statistics,the forum Valley about four miles from the mast adjacent to the
amours of potentially toxic contaminants are Santa Ana River.Secondary treatment capacity consists
predicted to be at or below current levels); of a 20 mgd trickling filter plant and a 46 mgd activated
• Improving the existing disaster preparedness plan sledge plant. Up to 15 mgd of secondary effluent is
to minimize potential damage mused by mainly made available to the Orange County Water
d earthquakes or floods and to train Sanitation District's Water Factory 21 which provides tertiary
Districts'personnel to respond to emergency treatment Prior to groundwater injection for a seawater
conditions; and, intrusion barrier project.
V 8
Figure 3
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
Master Plan Report
aoo
e3 aso Io111 &SPW P121 CSODD `nth IRWDlt1
�0
LL 'S000' t IRty01t1
au 300 CSDDD wltltOY
OQ
W
a
3 2so
200 V
tePO loss 2000 2005 =10 aOts 90s0
YEAR
(1) IMO-rMM RaMh Water 01st0 a(District No. 14)
(a) SAWPA-Santa Ana Watershed Proleat Authority _
Treatment Plant No. 2 is located at the mouth of the Additional primary treatment will be provided in
Santa Ana River in Huntington Beach. It provides 200 irc creases during the planning period to accommodate
mgd of primary treatment and 75 mgd of secondary future flow requirements and to provide sufficient v
treatment using pure oxygen activated sludge. system reliability for breakdowns and planned
maintenance.
The treated effluent from both plants is pumped at Plant
No.2 into a 120-inch diameter 5-mile ocean outfall pipe Master-planned secondary treatment processes at Plant
that discharges at a depth of 200 feet. The last mile of No. 1 and Plant No. 2 consist of activated sludge.
the pipe is a diffuser section that dilutes and disperses Secondary treatment will be expanded as necessary
the effluent with seawater at a ratio of 150 pans throughout the planning period to meet future federal
seawater to one pan of a®uent and state discharge requirements.
Additional treatment facilities will need to be Not all facilities necessary to treat the master-planned
constructed at both treatment plants. At a minimum, capacity or the projected flow rates need to be "
facility expansion at both treatment plants will require constructed at the same time. Facility expansion is
expansion of primary treatment, beadworks capacities planned in increments, generally between 30 and 60
and effluent pumping and conveyance facilities to mgd each, over the planning period. These increments
accommodate the increasing wastewater flows. Except are large enough to provide a reasonable economy of
for Scenario No. 1, additional secondary treatment scale,yet small enough to provide for only 8 0 12 years
facilities will also be required of growth. Therefore, if the growth rate is slower than
projected, the construction of the next increment of --
treatment capacity can be delayed until it is needed
Conversely, if flows increase more rapidly than
9 tw
projected, construction of treatment increments can be planning objective is to continue development of
accelerated to meet the demand on the sewerage system multiple, independent reuse alternatives while
maintaining at least one in-county, land-based disposal
In the year 2020, Plant No. 1 will need to have facilities alternative that has a high degree of long-term
to beat a projected 219 mgd of wastewater flow, while reliability.
Plant No.2 will need to treat a projected 180 mgd After
year 2020, additional capacity would be built at Plant Changes are occurring that will affect the sludge
No. 2, and the capacity of both plants increased until a management program. Competition for decreasing
.0 capacity of 240 mgd is reached at each plant. The landfill rapacity will reduce the available options and
amount of secondary treatment facilities needed will make disposal more difficult. Proposed federal
depend on future discharge requirements. regulations and local ordinances may impose more
restrictive conditions for sludge rouse and disposal.
Lay-outs of both plants are shown in Figures 4 and 5,
and the treatment disposal costs are summarized in the A wide range of technologies and practices were studied
'd Financial Plan section. A detailed list of the ucmmem and narrowed to several of the most promising
plant improvements under Scenario No.2 can be found approaches for future sludge management. For the
in Appendix C. immediate future, recommendations include
coordinating with other governmental officials for
OCEAN OUTFALLS continued in-county landfill w-disposal with municipal
solid waste and use of private contracts for the reuse and
"' disposal of sludge. Other fti m my management options
Based on the population growth projected for the include using sludge as part of the firm cover material
30-year planning period and historical peak wet weather for landfill closures, studying comprising at landfills,
flows of two times the average flow, wet weather flows
will exceed the 480 mild capacity of the existing five and developing co-disposal options at other landfills.
mile, 120-inch ocean outfall wrimissioned in the early
e ve 1970's.As a result,between now and the year 2000,the The Facilities Master Plan recommends a detailed study
old 78-inch outfall will ban to be used to accommodate in develop a specific five-yea plan of action for sludge
peak wet weather flows. The one-and-a-half mile, reuse and disposal.The study would include:
78-inch outfall is now a standby facility approved for
emergencies only. In the future, it will be increased in - A nationwide survey of existing monofill and
size and extended to five miles in length to dedimied land application operations;
W accommodate peak flows to a depth and distance similar . A land acquisition study for monofnll or
to the existing 120-inch ocean outfall. dedicated land application operations;
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT - A mechanics] composting demonstration project;
A value engineering study of Sanitation
Solid residuals, called sludge, are removed from the Districts-owned vs.private contractor
wastewater during primary and secondary treatment, owned-andoperated sludge hauling alternatives;
anaerobically digested and then dewatered to form a
cake that is approximately 22 percent solids and 78 - A study of chemical additive processes;and,
percent water. Presently, the Sanitation Districts . A sludge marketing study.
produce 17,000 loos of sludge per month(35 truckloads
,r per day). Future sludge production will increase
depending upon wastewater flow mtes and the level of WATER RECLAMATION
wastewater treatment provided. (Higher levels of
treatment remove mom solids and therefore produce The Sanitation Districts will expand water reclamation
more sludge.) activities as a major element of '2020 VISION'. The
Sanitation Districts have an ongoing water reclamation
®' Over one-half of the sludge is recycled for beneficial partnership with the Orange County Water District that
reuse by direct agricultural land application or as a provides for reclamation of up to 15 mild for the Water
`r/ enpostng material, and the remainder is disposed in Factory 21 seawater intrusion barrier project.
landfills with municipal solid waste. The long-term Reclamation will be increased by another 6.2 mild with
s
10
*¢ GENERATOR ROOM
.. OWED STAT N
EAOWWNS
LABORATORY BELDING
LICUID OXYGEN STORAGE
MANTENANCE
iL \{ OXYGEN ACTNATED SLUDGE
{4 vw ,OFERATO N.CENTE9
`_--OUTFALL BOOSTER PUMP STATON
` PERSONNEL BUILDING
An POWER EFFLUENT
POWEUILDING
R
EFFERENT DUMP STATION
\\\^\'PoLVMEA BVM NG
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION SA51N
PLANT WATER
RENRN SLUDGE PUMP STATION
SURGE TOWERS
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
`R SOLIDS STORAGE FACLLRTV
TURBINE GENERATOR BUILDING
TRUCK WASHING FACILITY
VEHCLE STORAGE
WMENOVSE
WASTE HPLLED STATOR
pE510 N AND CONSTRUCTION
FACILITIES BUILT OMER SCENARIO NO.I BY YEAR 07DE
tR PLANNED FACILIPES BUILT UNDER SCENARIO NO BY YEAR 2020
- L _R PLANNED FACW➢ NARIO ES BUILT UNDER SCE NO.3 BY YEAR TAGS
J RR PUJINEO FACIUTIES MET AFTER YEAR 5I20
. L
I
` .0
1, r� r M L
t <i
7
PLANT NO. 2
A, MASTER PLAN
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
MASTER PLAN REPORT
FIGURE 4
GENERARMI ROM
..RN 6TATW
NEADNCRKS
LABGRATDRY BUILDING
LID".D%YDEN STORAGE
MAwTENANCE
OXYGEN ACTNATED SLUDGE
OPERATIONS CENTER
OUTFAU BOOSTER PUMP STATON
PEPSONNEL BUILDING
POWER BUILDING
PRIMARY EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
I.YMER BOILOMIG
PRIMARY SEDNENTATON BASIN
PLANT WATER
RET➢RN SLUDGE POMP STATION
TP .. SUP SE IDWER6
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
SOLIDS STORAGE FACILITY
TURBINE WNR 01 BUILDI
NG
TAWK
ING FACILITY
—ICLE STORAGE
WAA STE HAULER
E
iE WLER STATION
I
t l l DESIGNANDCONSTRUCTION
FACILITIES BUILT UNDER SCENARIO NO.I BY YFM M20
g ER PLANNED FACILITIES BUILT UNDER SCENARIO NO..2 BY YEAR 2020
+ ER PUNNED FACILITIES BUILT UNDER BCERARIO NO.S BY YEAR 20dt
' ER PLANNED FACILITIES BUILT AFTER YEAR N20
III
I
PLANT NO. 2
MASTER PLAN
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
MASTER PLAN REPORT
FIGURE 5
the completion of the Green Acres project which will about$335 per acre-fool.This rate could be competitive
J provide high quality reclaimed water for golf courses, with projected MWD water pricing rates by 1991.
green bell irrigation, parkland irrigation, and industrial
needs. Potential for expansion of the two program Each of the three potential water reclamation sins
beyond 21 mgd is now being studied In addition to appears to be economically viable in the relatively mar
these projects, '2020 VISION' has identified term, The Sanitation Districts, in cooperation with the
opportunities to reclaim up to another 43 mgd using Orange County Water District, will continue feasibility
three new upstream water reclamation plants. studies of these sites. Successful implementation of
Neu projects will require development of the reuse
The Facilities Master Plan studied upstream reclamation market, institutional arrangements with other public
opportunities throughout the Sanitation Districts' agencies, conformance with, yet to be determined,
service area.These small, satellite plants would provide regulatory standards,and public acceptance.
disinfected, tertiary treated water for groundwater
recharge, landscape irrigation, and industrial water WATER CONSERVATION
W supply. Sludge from the treatment process would be
returned to the sewer system for processing at Plant No.
1 or No,2.Ali facilities would have extensive noise and An aggressive water conservation program could reduce
odor control, and be aesthetically pleasing and flow
ra rates from new and existing uses and potentially
reduce the size ro future treatment facilities.
architecturally compatible with surrounding land uses.
Development of a program such as this an occur most
effectively through cooperative efforts with local water
,r Eighteen sites for satellite water reclamation plants were agencies and cities who are responsible for supplying
evaluated. Using a number of evaluadon criteria, the 18 water to end users.
were narrowed to three sites with the greatest potential.
The Sanitation Districts' previous efforts at water
The number ono ranked reclamation site is the Crescent conservation have been directed at the industrial
Retarding Basin, currently part of the Carbon Creek community througb the industrial use ortlintwe which
e`er flood control system. It has a high potential for encourages water conservation and prohibits single-pass
groundwater injection, industrial water reuse,and about cooling water systems. Communhy education by the
1,000 acres of irrigated landscape nearby.The site could Sanitation Districts in water conservation efforts have
accommodate a 25 mgd reclamation plant and be included discussions with members of the public during
constructed for approaimately $130 million producing presentations at meetings and during pant tours.
reclaimed water at a unit cost of about $480 per
+� acre-fool.This cost could be competitive with projected
Metropolitan Water District(MWD)water pricing rates In the future, the Sanitation Districts will work with
by the year 2000 representatives of other county and city agencies to
develop water conservation programs. Plumbing
retrofitting kits (installed by either the agency or the
The second reclamation site is located in Seal Beach harm owner) and low-flow plumbing requirements for
adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station. The site could
accommodate a plant with a capacity of 13 mgd which new users will be possible elements of the programs.
could produce reclaimed water for seawater intrusion
cannot,oil field injection,and landscape irrigation.The SOURCE CONTROL: THE TOXICS
plant could be constructed for approximately $57 UMBRELLA
million and produce water for$515 per acmalbtx. This
cast could be competitive with projected MWD water The Sanitation Districts' approach to protecting the
pricing rates by the year 2005. environment from the effects of toxins is through
controlling their introduction into the sewage system at
The third reclamation site, located in the Anaheim the source. Restricting the industrial.discharge of
Forebay near the intersection of the 55 and 91 pollutants to the sewer results in a higher quality
Freeways, is adjacent to the Santa Ana River. B could wastewater, reduced air emissions and creases better
,d accommodate a five mgd rapacity plant to produce sludge quality. The most obvious advantage is the
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Construction protection of the ocean from the effects of toxic
costs would be about$31 million and produce water for colnprxrnds. Table 3 summarizes the major advantages
of source control on all three scenarios.
13
To protect all environmental media (land, air and the source, rather than discharged to the sewer, then the
water), it is far more effective and makes better use of control technologies may be unnecessary and the
engineering and economic sense in restrict the discharge acts to the Sanitation Districts to control them at the
of toxic substances into the sewage system in the first sewage treatment plant will be significantly reduced.
place. Once discharged, toxic become diluted in the
millions of gallons of wastewater in the system and are An important objective of the Sanitation Districts is to
much mom difficult to remove. Tours captured at the encourage the beneficial rouse of sludge thereby turning
original source are much easier and cheaper to manage. a disposal problem into a resource opportunity.To reuse
sludge and maximize its potential for agricultural reuse,
The Sanitation Districts' source control progmm the toxics contained within it must meet state and
motivates industry to find substitute processes and federal regulations. This, if they are limited from
materials that limit the production of the waste in the entering the wastewater then they do not end up in the
first place. Waste minimization is the most ideal sludge produced by the Sanitation Districts' sewage
solution for limiting environmental impacts. It is treatment plants.
accomplished through conserving raw products and v
substituting less harmful materials for toxic materials. Public comments concerning the Action Plan revealed
This concept is now an integral pan of the source that some believe that full secondary treatment should
control program. The Sanitation Districts will continue be used as a"safety net"for Protecting the ocean against
the effects of large industrial dumps or spills.
Although cor experience has demonstrated that
Table 3 source control, not treatment, is the most W
IMPACT OF SOURCE CONTROL effective way of limiting the amount of toxic
ON ALL THREE SCENARIOS. compounds in our ocean discharge, some
• Incoming raw sewage meets or exceeds members of the public reasoned that no source
all regulatory standards control program can prevent high-volume
industrial toxic spills and, therefore, secondary
• All treatment level scenarios meet secondary treatment should be provided to maximize .
equivalency for toxlcs removal efficiency and limit the treatment plant
"pass-through" of partially treated toxic which
• No environmentally significant differences might then be detrimental to the ocean
regarding discharge of toxins enviromnent.
To test this reasoning and to verify whether full
secondary treatment is an effective safety net
to successfully control toxic materials through public that should be included in '2020 VISION', the safety
education, working in cooperation with industry and net capabilities of the three treatment level scenarios
following-through with enforcement actions when were computer-modeled based on the removal
necessary, efficiencies of primary treatment and secondary
treatment. Worst-case spill scenario were developed
Air quality can be affected by toxic constituents in and the removal capabilities of treatment level
wastewater.Volatile substances discharged by industrial Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were compared Figure 6 displays
and domestic users are released to the atmosphere when the results of this analyses. While it is true that
the wastewater is processed at the sewage treatment Treatment Scenario No. 3 (full secondary treatment)
plant. Containment and treatment of these substances at does provide higher removal efficiencies than do W
the treatment plant may be necessary depending upon Treatment Scenarios No. 1 and 2, it does not provide a
future regulations. However, air pollution control significantly greater safety net than the other two.
technologies are only now being studied and their However, all three treatment level scenarios provide
ability to control these substances is not yet safety factors against large spill pass-through which am
demonatrated. If these substances can be comrohed at more than sufficient to safeguard the covimmnent from
accidental or intentional industrial spills.
14
Figure 6
Comparison of Resultant "Pass-Through- Effluent Concentrations`
Caused by Worst-Case Industrial Spill for
All Three Scenarios as a Perearlt of the
Maximum Allowable Standard.
to
loo McAmum Allowable Standards'
90
so METALS m Seettarlo 1
70 - Stsnarb 2
v
8° ®Seertarlo S
so
ao IIINEEF
ao IIIIIIEH
EEHH
zo IIIIIIERF
n
0
Cadmium Chromium Copper Wtl Mercury Nickel silver Vne
1la
loo Maximum Allowable Standard"
m
m Scenario 1
CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS other
non- �Seenarlo2
>Q and other nonmetal compounds
BO ®Scenario 3
so
Ao
00
30
l0 (percent)
0 o.oa o.00 o.00
chlonneted phenol. Nonchlorinated PCB'. Came BHC
phenol.
'For treatment plant condition.In year 2=0
—According to the most stringent weans among the sanitation Clsuica existing
NPOES discharge permit,the California Ocean Plan or the EPA's
'Quality Criteria for Water, 19W.
Note:Compound.that.1.ram."wllh primary treatment or has.no
ecological or pabllc health at9nmeance wen not Included In the study.
15
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN '
in recognition of the potential damage that could occur
in the wake of a major earthquake, flood or other v
disaster, the Facilities Plan includes an updated disaster
preparedness plan.-
The disaster preparedness plan identifies areas of
potential vulnerability to damage, recommends
measures to reduce that vulnerability and updates
emergency response procedures for personnel in the
event of a disaster. The disaster preparedness plan also
recommends some improvements within the treatment
plants to reduce the potential damage from an
earthquake.
In addition, an emergency response committee has been
identified and emergency response handbooks have
been provided to key personnel for use as guidance
should an emergency occur.
Y�
rV
16
FINANCIAL PLAN,
V
BACKGROUND
Connection Fees
The Financial Plan was developed to determine the
fiscal impact of the projected facilities construction and Connection fees are one-time fees paid by new
operation on each of the Districts, and to develop development at the time that they connect to the sewer
estimated fees necessary to pay for the program. system to pay for the costs of providing sewerage
system capacity. Connection fees are used for capital
While the Master Plan examines the needs for the purposes.
30-year period through 2020, the Financial Plan
concentrates on the years 1990 through 2005. The Connection fees can be established on a number of
Financial Plan is based on assumptions about changes in bases. The current connection fee is based on the
revenue from various sources over time and the growth replacement cost of existing facilities. The historical
rates in each District,as well as on the effect of inflation cost of the Districts' facilities has been updated to
on Master Plan costs. Therefore, the cumulative effect current replacement cost, based on the change in the
of these assumptions may make long-range revenue and ENR Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles from the
expense projections unreliable. date of construction to the present date.The currem fee
of$1,500 per residendal unit is based on an average of
It is the intent of the financial information to give a the replacement toss of facilities now in service. The
broad overview of the general impact of the three non-residential property building connection fee is
e
scenarios under consideration on each District's based and is currently $300 per 1,000 square
f
financial situation Once NPDES permit conditions have feeell o off bWltling space.
been determined, a more detailed evaluation of each
District's long-range funding requirements will be Many of the existing facilities are at or nearing capacity,
completed and periodically updated to support ongoing and the Master Plan calls for major investment in
fiscal decisions and long-range financial planning. replacement, upgrading, and expansion of facilities.
Accordingly, the Financial Plan recommends that the
connection fee be restructured to reflect this major
REVENUE SOURCES investment.
The Sanitation Districts have a variety of revenue The new connection fee calculation is based on the
sources for operating and capital expenses. The major estimated capacity of the facilities in terms of
ones are property taws,connection fees, residential and equivalent dwelling units(EDUs a units).An EDU is a
commercial user fees, industrial waste user fees, and measurement of demand on the Sanitation Districts'
interest.They also have the ability to borrow. system, in terms of flow and strength,equivalent to that
of a typical single-family home.The discharge from any
Property Taxes sewered customer can be evaluated in terns of EDUs.
Property taxes have historically been the major revenue The master-planned capacity of the Sanitation Districts'
source. Each District (except Districts Nos. 13 and 14) facilities in year 2020 is estimated at one million EDUs.
receives a share of the general property tax levied by
Orange County,which ranges from 2.04 percent to 3.55 The recommended connection fee would reflect not
percent of the basic one percent levy allowed by only the Sanitation Districts' investment in existing
Proposition 13. Property tax revenue Is used to pay facilities, but also their upcoming investment in the
operations, maintenance, and capital facilities called for in the Master Phan.These connection
mplacemenUrohabilitation expenses. fees would be SZ140 for Scenario No. 1, $2,260 for
Scenario No. 2, and SZ500 for Scenario No. 3. The
connection fee per 1,00D square feet of non-residential
building space would be $430, $450 and $500,
respectively.
r 17
The connection fee should be examined and adjusted the volume and characteristics of their waste and
regularly, preferably annually, to reflect the changes in discharge. `✓
the value of the system to which a new customer is
connecting. The Financial Plan recommends that the User fees for mpresemative industrial customers cannot sr
connection fee be adjusted web year based upon the be accurately presented at this time because of the wide
change In the Ids Angeles ENR index from the prior differences in discharge characteristics in the industrial
year. community. Typically, industrial and commercial user
Residential User Fees fee rates will increase in the same proportion as
residential fees. However, as a gerwal rule, Scenario "
User fees are the ongoing fees for service which are Nos. 2 and 3 reflect higher amounts of secondary
paid by customers served by the sewer system. The treatment and higher costs for treating BOD. Those
Sanitation Districts refer to these fan as "supplememal customers which discharge wastewater with
user fees" because they supplement the traditional higher-than-average BOD concentrations will face
revenue source of property taxes. Each District higher user fees for Scenario Nos. 2 and 3. Customers
implements supplemental user fees when the casts to whose discharges am characterized by high volume or r,
convey and treat wastewater exceed the revenue high suspended solids will experience less impact from
provided by properly axes. the higher treatment level scenarice.
As of 1989, five Districts (Nos. 1,5,6,11, and 13) levy Table 4 shows three examples of the estimated annual
supplemental user fees ranging from $26.40 per year to charges for some industrial dischargers in 1999 dollars.
$38.02 per year. District 13's fa is$78.40 per year but
it does not receive any properly tax allocation.
Commercial properties pay
more based on the square
footage of the building. Table 4
Districts Nos. 2, 3, and 7 EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL ANNUAL USER CHARGES,2020 `-
anticipate implementing \a.✓-
user fees in 1989,1990 and �ma
1991, respectively. District Industdax niseiwen 1Q$Q Smnarlo Nnl Smrusle N. Smnarie N.3
14 is financed by the Irvine tern.Foos P. M aoo 82,000,000 $Z100,000 52,500,000
Ranch Water District. p od r Pvve $3Ifi00 ssa,oeo $96.000 5114,000
Mdal Finisher $1,400 SZ900 $3,aoa $3,200
User fees are a critical pan r
of each District's overall
financing program. They INTEREST
are the only predictable and controllable source of
mvenw available. The Financial Plan examines the use
operated For the most pa
of user fees to help finance each of the scenarios in n, the Sanitation Districts have
may- yo Bo) on a pay-as-you-go financing approach. Under this
financial
ail on both cash as- u- and debt bases.The practice, construction reserves have necessarily been y
financial y, between
of the several ntioDistricts vary.
Accordingly, between project implementation and the large to ensure that needed funds were available for
year 2005, user fees could vary considembly between facilities expansion to keep pace with the rapid growth
the Districts, but under any scenario they will increase in the service area during the 1960% 70's and 801s.
significantly. Under Scenario No. 2 the annual Tbemfom, interest on reserves has traditionally been a
residential user fa is expected to increase from today', significant source of revenue. However, ongoing and �
$31 average to an average of$103 in today's dollars by near-term expenditures for construction will deplete the
2005. In escalated dollars the average user fee would be remaining cash balances, correspondingly reducing the
$211. interest income to each District. Each District will
continue to earn interest from the investment of
Industrial Waste User Fees temporarily idle funds, but it will be a much smaller
Industrial waste user fees are imposed on thane revenue source in the future. _
customers who discharge high volume or high strength
wastes into the sewer system. They am billed based on
18
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING PLANS
Cash flow analyses were prepared to demonstrate the debt was District No. 7,which issued general obligation
effect of each scenario on each District. Three cases bonds in 1970.
were prepared for each treatmem scenario: (A) Tow
base case analyses which demonstrates the effect of the The Master Plan calls for significant annual expenses
proposed project and O&M expenses on each District for the construction of both Joint Works and trunk
with its c mently budgeted Does and revenues;(B)(ash sewer pmjects. Operation and maintenance costs will
financing analyses which calculates the increased user also be ongoing.It will be very difficult for most of the
fees necessary, along with the increased connection fa Districts to meet all of these expenses on a
developed for each scenario, to finance each scenario on payas-you-go basis. Debt financing would enable each
a cash (pay-as-you-go) basis; and (C) Debt financing District to meet the projected construction schedules
which would utilize borrowing to finance a portion of with a more stable user fee for the long-range financial
construction cost and demonstrate the effect of this dam as illustrated in Figure 7. Figure 7 is based on
approach on user fees. Scenario No. 2, but is equally applicable to the other
scenarios.
In recent year;, the Sanitation Districts have been able
to meet capital as well as O&M expenses from a As depicted on Figure 7, pay-ss-you-go cash financing
combination of their share of properly tax revenues, of the projects would require sharp increases in user
user fees,connection fees, interest earnings on reserves, fees in 1990 through 1992, with subsequent reductions
r, and federal and state grams under row-discomfnued as construction slows down. With all-cash financing,
programs. Distom Nos 1, 2,and 3 issued certificates of user fees are likely to fluctuate substantially in response
participation (COP's) in 1986 to partially finance their to changes in project expenditures from year to year
shares of the Joint Works construction through unless each District is willing for keep them quite high
mid-1989. Prior to that issue, the last District to issue for long periods of time.
'\.01
Figure 7
COMPARISON BETWEEN CASH AND DEBT FINANCING
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,Calfomla
Master Plan Report
d 250
a
CASH FINANCING
W 300
WQ
WO
.J
O a Z 160
.W
7N
W0
Om
E 7- tea
K¢
WW
Y6
eN
9 so
u DEBT FINANCING
D
0
19" 1995 anon 200e
Yi
it) nrol.etw....w•uses r..1.eu.r.nt ram..ter
Sc.nae He.z tor District Mo.. 1,3,],5,S.7. a 11
19
v
DEBT FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS
Debt can be used to stabilize user fees, to prevent sharp The Master Plan estimates future facilities mess for both iw
increases in the fast those years and erratic movement in Joint Wales Treatment and Disposal Facilities and trunk
the fees as shown in Figure 7. Most Districts should sewer conveyance systems for each District. The
consider bornming in 1990 through 1992 because of facilities developed for each of the scenarios provide for
the high construction expenses during that interval. increases in treatment capacity, replacement of existing
Several of the Districts can use borrowing again in the facilities, and, in some cases, improved treatment.
mid-1990's when construction expense climbs again. Estimated capital facilities toss am shown in Table 6. W
Table 5
DEBT FINANCING, 30 YEAR COSTS OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS
$tuna o No.I Soon,,No ¢mnaan No 3
r
Amouv1ofro0owtvg $1,023,000,000 $1,219,000,00D S1,453.000,00) O&M costs for each scenario were
Intetet@ Innated S 818,000,000 983.000.000 1,342,000.000 developed in the Master Plan. The
higher the level of treatment the
higher the O&M costs.The Financial
The Sanitation Districts can use a variety of debt Plan allocates Joint Works O&M
financing methods to raise capital funds, including toss to each of the Districts based v
general obligation and revenue
bonds, and forms of lease
financing such as COP's which Table 6
an the most likely form of 30-YEAR CAPITAL COSTS
borrowing in the form.
Scenario No.1 Scenario No,2 5,..,.dn No.
Overall, the Financial Plan Wutaw'tar
Tteatmmt Faciides $1,12],360,000 $1.V4,903,000 $1,51AS57,000
approach is to optimize to use Trunk Saver 292.650" 20'/.650000 2a�
of debt. Debt would be used to Tart-1M Datlsts(1) $1135010O`o n es�, , U;QM UML2=
finance approximately one-half
of the capital toss. Table 5 Tow-lnrwaacn,u(z) sA33;4aaono s2,754k778,000 s3,161,e15,000 y
the projected capital (1)Asselon antialave nua19s9 wmo-aadon coat laada.
toss and debt financing for each MBased as mnmumion cosa at tbe time of coussuctloo,..iveanMet.area
scenario. fi apsmaat r`t r'e
This level of bonowing hells to upon their respective shares of annual Dow to the
stabilize user fees, without creating large liabilities for mate nt plants.Annual O&M toss for both the ewer aw
future debt service. It also lets future customers, Who system and the treatment processes am expected to
benefit from the facilities,pay their appropriate share of increase as shown in Table 7.
the toss of those facilities. It should be noted that the
listed amounts reflect inflated estimates baud on timing
and cash flows that assume an
annual cost escalation of five
percent. Actual debt issues would Table 7
probably differ in amount and ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS
time due to delay in construction,
construction bid amounts, actual YM Soaaiatiu 1 w-naNu 2 _ n— aN- 1
revenues available from other 1990 sukarsJxn $Nu04011 $a %191...
sources, varying growth rates and rnrn@ 1989 Donlan 55.uauxn 6z11ruan -.t1nJ.0 _ ♦d
other factors as previously noted.
?1lN@I0arN Dolbn 2szlul,(rn 'JRVnJm St2-waVut
20 W
a
TOTAL COST SUMMARY
A summary of the total program mats (capital, O&M,
a and debt costs) for the 30-year period for each scenario
for current dollars and inflated dollars is shown in
Table 8.
To pay forestaladng O&M costs and debt financing,user
fees will need to be increased. The average armed
household cost (user fee plus property tax contribution)
for Districts requiring debt financing is shown in Figure 8
for each treatment scenario. As can be seen, in today's
dollars,sewerage system user costs will need to be more
than doubled under my scenario by 2005.
The Financial Plan demonalrates the supplemental user
fees necessary in finance the master-planned costs m a
cash basis,and with the use of debt.The Financial Plan
approach uses debt to avoid dramatic flumurlions in the
user fees. The amount of debt actually used may vary
from the estimates shown. Increases in supplemental
user fees beyond the levels shown in the Financial Plan
would reduce the requirement for debt.Further changes
in the connection fee would have relatively little effect
m the user fees.
Table 8
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS (1990-2020)
Fenfdn N¢I srmrin N 2 Gre•do No 3
Capital('am(1) $1,335,000,W0 $1,480,000,W0 $1,72MMAM
vJ 30-YearO&MCose, 1,510,000,OW 1,620,W0,000 1,850,000,000
Cast a Utlm(2) 1ti ".901 125,00C) Q1 ]fB.IX9.007
road-1989 DdlanM nOr0,000.OW $3.295.e0,00a $3.879,000,000
Total-Inflated Coam(4) $7,038,000,000 $7,a53,000,009 $9,252,000,0110
(1)Ioduda Witt Joint Worlo and frank sewers.
d (2)Includes intact and east a issuance.
(3)C alattvecoat-turretdollar.
(4)InOsedal five iaC.,per yar.
W
a
N
21
Figure 8
AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD COST
FOR DISTRICTS REQUIRING DEBT FINANCING* y
County Sanite6on Districts at Orange county,cammla
Master Plan Report
400
W
* � y
g 300 4
dL
c E
N 200
OSOETlf'RIO N0.3
SCENAPI0 N0.2 �.
upI�I' SCENAPIONO.1
♦ k
100
O y
O LEGEND
CURRENT DOLLARS
INFLATED DOLLARS AT 5%
y
0
1990 1995 2000 2005
YEAR
•Average of Wstricb 1, 2,3, e, 6, 7, & 11 Includes '►'
property tten eonMbudon plus average user fee.
22 y
d
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF '2020 VISION'
OVERVIEW
The primary objective of the Action Plan study is to event an earthquake were to cause a line break.All but
determine the appropriate level of wastewater treatment the seismic risk impact can be mitigated to
necessary, to protect public health and provide danced less-than-significant levels.
d environmental protection. The construction and
operation of the trunk sewers, treatment faclides, and Construction of the new ocean outfall would: affect the
reclamation plants will produce a number of impacts least hem nesting colony on Huntington Beach adjacent
and benefits that are evaluated in the Environments] to the Santa Ana River, would temporarily affect beach
Impact Report. The environmental benefits that accrue recreation use and aesthetics; would create temporary
to the ocean from increased treatment are weighed turbidity in the ocean near the construction; and would
against the resultant environmental impacts associated temporarily affect ocean bottom organisms in the
with increased air emissions, energy use, sludge canstructfon arcs
quantities,and capital and operating costs.
The analyses of marine impacts in the draft Most of the impacts from expansion of the two
Y P treatment plants would be proportional in the amount of
,r Environments] Impact Report indicate that under all Secondary treatment.Although all three scenarios would
three u nuent level scenarios an significant adverse provide the same hydraulic capacity, Scenario No. 3,
impacts on the marine enviromumt would likely occur, with 100 percent secondary treatment, would involve
that the beneficial uses of the ocean waters off Orange the greenest amount of construction activity, with both
County would be preserved, and full compliance with sites being under construction for virtually the entire
all existing regulations and laws would be achieved. 30.year-period. Scenario No. 2 would involve less
ems/ However, even though these effects are within an construction,and Scenario No. 1 the least.
acceptable range, them are relative differences among
the sceneries in the level of environmental impacts on
land,air and water resources. WATER RESOURCE BENEFITS AND IMPACTS
The following paragraphs discuss the environnimial Expanded water reclamation would result in major
factors impacted by the future wastewater management benefs to water resources by replacing imported water
activities of'2020 VISION'. with locally produced reclaimed water.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Constructing and operating one to three satellite
reclamation plans may adversely affect flood protection
along Carbon Creek by eliminating flax)storage at the
During the construction of new facilities, typical Cm=nl Basin site,but INS can be mitigated Operation
construction impacts including noise, traffic disruption, of the facilities would also result in slight risk to public
dust, visual changes, safety hazards, vehicle emissions, health from possible accidental ingestion of reclaimed
energy consumption, and use of construction materials wastewater, aesthetic impacts of the plans, noise, and
will occur. Most of these impacts can be mitigated to track traffic from operations vehicles, and minor land
less-than-significant levels. use impacts.
w
The eonslruclion of the trunk Sewers and interplant OCEAN RELATED IMPACTS
interceptor pipeline will temporarily affect local
property access, impact recreation activities at Big
Canyon Country Club, affect the Sana Ana River bike The ocean presently receives the majority of the treated
trail, cause minor temporary water quality impacts, and wastewater, which includes about 25 percent of the
m present a water quality and public health risk in the original influent suspended solids, through a 120-inch,
five-mile outfall that discharges at a depth of about 200
23
feel. Figure 9 illustrates how the three wastewater scan and water quality. Table 9 lists the areas of
treatment level scenarios would distribute solids impact for all three scenarios with respect to changed V
between the ocean and the land. bottom life community. The magnitude of these impacts
would be reduced by distributing the Bow between two An evaluation using existing conditions around the outfalls and separating the new oudall from the existing
oulfall and predictive models for future conditions show outfall.
very convincingly that all three treatment level
Figure 9
WASTEWATER SOLIDS TO OCEAN AND LAND
300 El OCEAN
e ®LAND
N -
2
200
D
100 _
7 i
7
a i
W e
1 2 3
SCENARIO
scenarios arc sufficient to prevent violation of any
marine water quality standards or any impairment of
beneficial uses of the marine environment from Because of stringent toxics source control, the potential
discharge of treated effluent. Figure 2, discussed for contamination of fish and shellfish by toxic and
previously on page 7, illustrata the level of protection organics is not found to be a significant health or
that each scenario provides. environmental hazard under any scenario, although the
bioxccumulation of toxic materials in marine animals
The differences between the scerarios relate primarily from the discharge is slightly greater for Scerario Nos.
to diffcrem levels of change in the marine environment 1 and 2, Than for 3.
in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. Changes do
occur to bottom life communities in the area
The risk of infection from pathogens (bacteria and
surrounding the outfall diffuser section due to the vim) from the discharged effluent is also very small.
accumulation of solids,and the introduction of nutrients The depth and distance of the outfall diffuser(about 200
and toxic constituents,which impact life forms adjaccm feet deep and beginning four miles offshore) combined
To the diffuser. Some of the impacts,
such as the addition of energy and Table 9
nutrients To the environment, may MARINE BOTTOM LIFE IMPACTS (2020)
increase productivity and be
considered beneficial, while others,
such as changes to the diversity of SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO
life forms are generally considered NO. 1 NO.2 NO.3
adverse. Scenario No. 3 would have Ocean Bottom Life
-
the least impact on these bottom life Impacted Area 28 18 5
fortes, however, Scenario Nos. 1 and (In acres)
2 protect the-beneficial uses of the
24
d
with prevailing ocean currents, winch run parallel to difficult,but predictive models have been developed for
shore, pmmme high dilution, natural pathogen the-off many of the emissions.Based on quantifiable emissions,
`../ and limits the likelihood of the treaub wastewater ever the relative differences in total air emissions between
,d reaching above. The design of the outfall effectively scenadns are small but their impacts may be significant
prevents ingestion of an infectious dose by swimmers in with higher levels of treatment The significantly higher
the maritime areas and also prevents contamination of sludge volumes generated by full secondary treatment
the shellfish population. would result in air quality impacts due to vehicle
emissions from the trucking of sludge and various
The Sanitation Districts' ongoing beach and ocean naerals associated with its prooessing and from the
v monitoring program provides data in confirm that an differences in emissions from the treatment plants
significant adverse public health or mad= impacts themselves under the three treatment scenarios.
occur front the existing discharge. Monitoring will be
continued in the form to verify this finding and ensnem LAND RELATED IMPACTS
disinfection would be provided if public health impacts
ever arise. Wastewater management results in the irrevocable
commitment of designated lam resoumes. Land is used
Operation of the new outfall would eliminate the risk for sewers,existing and proposed sewage treatment and
that the old nearshore 78-mch outfall may haw to be reclamation plants,production of construction materials,
used during peak flow perieds and would reduce the and sludge disposal.
degree of impact of the existing outfall diffuser by
spreading the total discharge over a larger area of ocean Based on current regulations them is sufficient land at
d floor.
the two treatment plant sites (approdmamly 100 anus
each)to meet treatment capacity needs beyond 2020 for
In summary,Scenario No. 1 would law slightly greater any of the three treatment level scenarins. However, up
marine impacts than the miter scensrins. however, an to 56 apes of additional land would haw to be acquired
sign flcam adverse impacts would occur to the ocean for the three proposed satellite reclamation plants.
environment or to its beneficial uses and no water
quality standards would be violated. Scenario No, 2 Sludge disposal will require the most significant
would haw marine impacts slightly less than those of allocation of land resources for operation of the
Scenario No. 1 by providing a greater proportion (50 wastewater system. Quantities of sludge iareaset with
percent versus 35 percent under Scenario No. 1) of the degree of treatment. There are limited options
secondary treatment and would continue the existing available for sludge disposal which include:co-disposal
discharge quality in terms of cmtcentmfion of solids and at a landfill, mmofilling,or muse as a soil amendment.
oxygen-demmating substances in the a®umt. Scenario Figure 10 illustrates the relationship of sludge quantities
No.3 would have the least marine impacts,slightly less to level of treatment and summaries the land impacts
than Scenario No. 2, is this alternative would provide of the various sludge management options. The higher
secondary treatment for 100 percent of the effluent. the level of treatment, the greater the volume of sludge
that most be managed
'w AIR RELATED IMPACTS
The environmental risks of long-term land disposal of
Air emissions are released to the atmosphere as a result sewage sludge are believed to be relatively mina and
of a variety of activities associated with wastewater can be mitigated. Source control has reduced
collection, treatment, and disposal. A few of the major concentrations of toxic materials in the Sanitation
sources am: gases from wastewater, vehicle exhaust Districts' sludge to acceptable levels. Sludge
from delivery trucks, sludge hauling trucks, and management practices have been successfully
passenger vehicles; sludge; pains, solvents and other conducted Ilvooghwr the country for decades in protect
chemicals;and power pants providing electricity for the public health and crop productivity. Them include
treatment facilities application rates, crop selection, restricted public
access,and monitoring.
The total amount of organic and inorganic substation;
emitted during the treatment process is estimated. However, changing sludge regulations recently
�x Accurate sampling of these substances is extremely proposed by the EPA could restrain some of the sludge
25
v
Figure 10
IMPACTS TO LAND RESOURCES OF
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATNES
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
I �
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
BORROW SITES
I
Z;;;NO. SOLIDS I PROPOSED I
RECLAMATION I V
E i PLANTS___U
56 ACRES
60
90 ,
20 REUSE NO DEDICATED
LAND REQUIRED
0
1 2 3
SCENARIO
TRUCKS PER DAY OF SLUDGE
HAULED, 2020
S00
SOD VA 600
VA P-71
400 900
VA V
200 200 200
0 1 2 3 150 0 1 2 3
SCENARIO 100 SCENARIO
ACRES OF LAND REQUIRED ACRES OF LAND REQUIRED FOR
FOR DEDICATED LAND SLUDGE MONOFILL 2020
DISPOSAL 2020
so-
0. 1 2 3
SC EtU 110
CUMULATIVE LANDFILL CAPACITY USED FOR
LANDFILL CODISPOSAL 2020 (MILLIONS OF
CUBIC YARDS)
V
26 V
d
management options, particularly the reuse alternatives. for wastewater facilities, construction and operations.
\J In addition, public acceptance for sludge management Scenario No.3 would require 2.7 times the act power of
facilities in urbanized areas has been generally proven Scenario No.1 and 1.8 times that of Scenario No.2.
m be difficult to attaid,at best.Currently the mejorily of
the Sanitation Districts' sludge is taken out of the The production and transport of materials used in the
county for disposal or reuse but there is a growing trend treatment process requires significant expenditures of
by jurisdictions to prevent out-of-area sludge energy and consumes natural resources.
importation. This makes the existing management
Frogman vulnerable to changes in local ordinances or Construction materials require energy and other
d' regulations. extinctive resources. As an example, in Figure 12, one
of the illustration stows the amount of concrete required
Landfill capacity is a scarce resource in Orange County. to implement each of the three scenarios over the next
Existing landfills will be fug within a relatively few 30 years Scenario No. 3 would require more than three
years and new landfill capacity will be required. limes the concrete as Scenario No. 1 and twice that
Co-disposal of the sludge produced by the three wed for Scenario No.2.
scenarios would require a major portion of remaining
landfill capacity to be committed to this disposal
Personnel
method. However, In-county disposal may have long is an essential resource for the construction
term reliability. and operation of the wastewater system. Total
personnel, Including the average number of direct
(on-site),and indirect(off site),Construction employees,
In summary, Scenario No. 1 would have the least as well as the operations employees required in 2020 are
impact on the land of any of the treatment alternatives, 1,600 for Scenario No. 1, 1,1M for Scenario No. 2,and
although all scenarios have some impacts to land from 2,200 for Scenario No. 3 (See figure 12). Financial
sludge disposal, such as transportation impacts and use resources are the key to implementing the Facilities
of hundreds of acres of land, which are potentially Master Plan. Funding of the Sanitation Districts'
significant. Scenario No. 2 would have slightly greater activities must come from the people and businesses
obi impacts to the land than for Scenario No. 1 due to that use the sewerage system. Federal and state
greater quantities of sludge. The greatest land area assistance through loans and grans have been cut back
would be affected by Scenario No. 3, which would significantly. The rising costs of environmental
produce the highest sludge volumes. Other impacts, protection under any scenario will increase fees, and
such as risk of surface water or groundwater pollution require borrowing for major Capital expenditures. The
from landfill leachate, and noise from Cocks hauling financial implications of the Facilities Master Plan are
sludge,Can be mitigated to less-thansignificant levels. discussed at length in the Financial Plan section of this
report.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION
In summary,Scenario No.2 would use more energy and
Resources, in addition to land, must be allocated to other resources than Scenario No. 1. Scenario No. 3
wastewater Collection, treatment, and disposal. These would use the most energy of all and have the greakun
include: energ
y; treatment chemicals; construction resource demand because of such factors as increased
materials; financial; and personnel for construction, process complexity, increased chemical use, and
operation, maintenance,and administration. increased sludge transportation. A summary of these
factors Is shown in the Table 10.
Energy may be considered one of the most important of
these resources because of the secondary environmental GROWTH IMPACTS
impacts associated with energy production, the limited
energy resources available, and the dependence of the The historic role of the Sanitation Districts has been to
United States on imported energy.Recently,the issue of provide wastewater facilities to support the land use
global wanting (the "Greenhouse Effect") has received master plans adopted by the cities and the County within
Considerable scientific and public policy attention the service area. The Sanitation Districts have no
giving rise to the possibility of far-reaching resrricrions authority or responsibility to control land use or to
on fuel usage. Figure 11 illustrates the energy demands manage growth, nor to mitigate or control impacts
m 27
v
Figure 11
ENERGY RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS v
DAILY OPERATIONS NET POWER
REQUIREMENT AT 2020
b n 20,000
CONSTRUCTION ENERGY REQUIREMENTSo� 200
KWh, 2020 w w
b om 300.000.
000,000,0o a = 16,000
% O
w0 LL
2q O
a c a zaoAoo
i m 10,000 w too
>: 40DA00,00o y i a x
0 a s,000 m 10U,000
w ;
� o'0
o LLw OJ 0
I 2 3 I 2 3
SCENARIO SCENARIO
�W
OPERATIONS NET POWER REQUIREMENT, 30-YEAR
CUMULATIVE TOTAL, 1990-2020 tar
a
1,500,000 15,aao sAoo
0 00
wq
o �q
w 1,000,000 y i Io wo 02,000
a w 0 x O✓
m p� -
w 600,000 2 0 5,000 y 1,000
a
� NZ
2F
p 2
� 0.o ;; o 0 1 2 3
n SCENARIO
W
28
Figure 12
RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
TOTAL TRUCKLOADS OF CHEMICAIS TOTAL CONCRETE REQUIRED FOR
PER YEAH, 302D CONSTRUCTION AT PLANTS 1 AND 2,
990-2020
400 m B0,000
c
w Y i 60,000
300
w
9 zoo m 40,000
100 20,000
° I 2 a _E2:a
1 2 3
,r SCENARIO SCENARIO
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DIRECT AND NUMBER OF OPERATIONS EMPLOYEES, 2020'
INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES.
.r 1990-2020
,250 PERM IAOD
at 1,000
q 7 q
ffi S 5°°
500
�\J 250 .'.', . .. .
° 1 2 3 ° 1 2 3
SCENARIO SCENARIO
INDIRECT
d DIRECT
related to urban growth. Thus, the Table 10
Sanitation Districts can perhaps best SUMMARY OF RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS (2020)
be characterized as growth
accommodating.
SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO
The Sanitation Districts' flow NO. 1 NO.2 NO.3
projections, which dicMte facilities Total Capital Cost 2.44 Billion 2.76 Billion 3.16 Billion
requirements, are based on land use (6 5%Annual Inflation)
decisions approved in the general Total coat lnaumag O&M 7,04BIIIIOn 7.85BIIllon 8.90BIIIlon
plan and zoning regulations of each (05%Annual Inflation)
city and the county. They are also Total Energy Consumption 6,900 9,100 13,500
consistent with SCAO's Growth (Equivalent Households)
Management Plan and the Conauucaon Materials 18,000 31,000 64,000
population projections of other (concrete,Cu.Yal
authorities. Sludge Reuse GOOD GOOD FAIR
Potential
1.0 Sludge Hauling 156 178 240
If the Sanitation Districts do not (Mlllioneofntnec)
�.../ provide additional wastewater
capacity, the system would soon be
d
29
V
inadequate to handle future wastewater flows from the IMPLEMENTABILITY OF THE THREE
growth that will occur, thereby threatening public health ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SCENARIOS
and environmental protection.
The implementabflity of all three =retire is impacted V
Connection bans or sewer moratoriums do not stop by such factors as conflicting regWations; achievement
increases in flow. Commercial and residential of new, stricter regulatory standards; and public
occupancy density simply increases. Therefore, the acceptance. Public input clearly indicates that the
popoulation served continues to increase and so does predominant public concern is to adequately protect
wastewater Dow. public health and the environment.Also, the majority of V
the people attending the workshops conducted as pan of
NON-MITIGATED IMPACTS the public participation effort, indicated that the
Sanitation Districts should, as a minimum, continue to
provide the cunent level of treatment. Thus, Scenario
There are some environmental impacts that cannot be No. 1 has been evaluated as having poor
completely mitigated to less-than-significant levels. implementability with regard to public acceptance. As,
Some of these are: potential adverse effects on the least Scenarios Nos. 2 and 3 are ranked between fair and
rem colony during outfall construction; use of limited good for the four criteria evaluated. Table 11 illustrates
landfill capacity for sludge disposal thereby shortening the ranking for WI three scenarios.
useful landfill life; significant use of construction
materials, energy, and financial resources for facilities
construction; and significant use of resources for `,
facilities operation.
In addition, secondary impacts of growth
accommodated by facilities expansion are: increases in
traffic congestion, air emissions and demand for all
public services and utilities,and increased user casts tov
pay for contraction and operation.
Table 11
RELATIVE IMPLEMENTABILITY OF SCENARIOS
V
SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO
NO. 1 NO.2 NO.3
REGULATORY GOOD GOOD GOOD
COMPLIANCE
REGULATORY
CONFLICT AVERAGE AVERAGE FAIR
AVOIDANCE
POTENTIAL FOR
REGULATORY GOOD GOOD GOOD V
ACCEPTANCE
ACCEPTANCE PUBLIC POOR GOOD GOOD
V
30 V
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Action Plan effort has included an extensive them about the Action Plan program. Written comments
,d Community Outreach Program. The program's specific were considered during Facilities Master Plan and EDi
c4octives were: (1)inform the interested public about development.
the environmental, engineering, economic and social
consequences of the wastewater management In June 1988,an informal press briefing was conducted
altemadves antler study,(2)identify public attitudes and Resultant news stories in the Jar Angeles 7tmes and the
priorities with respect to these options; and (3) Anaheim Bulletin helped bring information about the
effectively incorporate public concerns and values into Action Plan to the general public.
the wastewater planning and decision-malting process.
The program's guiding premise was to consult with the In July 1988, the Sanitation Districts' staff began
public well before binding decisions are made, so that delivering presentations to service and community
the concerns and ideas identified ran be given serious groups and to interested public agencies and their
consideration during the planning process. governing bodies. These presentations provided basic
background information about the purpose of the Action
COMPLETED ACTIVITIES Plan. At these presentations, the Sanitation Districts
identified public concerns and responded to questions
A notification and information dissemination system from a wide range of interests.
was established to count that the Sanitation Districts
could readily communicate with interested members of In July 1988, a focus group was convened which
"`..� the public.An extensive outreach effort was undertaken consisted of a roundtable discussion among a
using a telephone networking process to identify mimes cross-section of interests. Individuals representing
for the master mailing list which ultimately contained environmental, industrial, recreational and growth
2,100 entries encompassing private organizations, management interests panicipaled Some of the focus
community groups, individuals, public agencies and group's findings were that: (1) the Action Plan should
elected officials.This system has enabled the Sanitation include greater attention to water reclamation, (2) the
Districts to communicate with potentially affected Action Plan concept of balancing cross-media trade-offs
interests, must convey a dear intention to minimize the impact
upon each medium rather than a transfer of
In the fall of 1997, the Sanitation Districts distributed environmental impacts among media, (3) the three
the "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental wastewater treatment alternatives ought to be
Management: Preserving Orange County's Coastal differentiated by their levels of rode control, resource
Ocean Waters,"a brochure describing the goals,process recovery and contribution to the quality of life in
and timetable for the planning process. Since then,over Southern California rather than by their respective level
5,000 copies have been distributed to public agencies of suspended solids removal alone, and (4) Orange
and individuals to acquaint them with the Sanitation County residents are willing to pay for higher levels of
Districts'wastewater management planning program. environmental protection
In January 1989, the Sanitation Districts distributed the In September 1989, the Sanitation Districts released a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) alerting affected agencies video, "Wastewater Management: Weighing the
and groups about the preparation of the draft Choices." The video outlines the basic trade-off issues
Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the the Sanitation Districts must face in designing a
requirements of the California Environmental Quality long-term wastewater management plan. A brochure
Act. Approximately 220 agencies, groups and was produced to accompany the video. More than two
individuals received the NOP. Inter, the Sanitation thousand brochures have been distributed
Districts contacted public agencies by letter to inform
"r
31
The feedback received from the focus group proved INCORPORATING PUBLIC
useful in structuring the three public workshops which CONCERNS INTO '2020 VISION'
followed in September. Each workshop was held in a
different area of Orange County to nindmize public The primary objective of the Community Outreach
convemence and accessibility. Publicity consisted of Program is to ensure that public priorities and cartoonist
direct mail notification to wet 2,100 organizations and are thoroughly considered in the formulation of the
individuals representing approximately 10,000 people; Sanitation Districts' long range wastewater management
secondary articles and notion in the newsletters of local program. To dale, the issues have generated a moderate
environmental and business groups; Iwo half-page to intense level of Interest among a very small W
advertisements in the Las Angeles Times and the percentage of the public.
Orange County Register prior to the First workshop,and
telephone outreach. Since October 1988, the Action Plan team has been
considering the feedback received from the public
The workshops consisted of an informational segment during the first phase of the Community Outreach v
supported by audio-visual presentations and small group Pmgmm in the development of the Facilities Masser
discussion sessions in which participants presented(heir Plan and EIR."Bolding the line"on taxies,for example,
views and findings regarding these topics. The is now,an integral program element for each of the three
combined attendance for the three workshops was 53 wastewater treatment scenarios. Also, the Sanitation
people. Districts have created a new staff position to coordinate
the development of Innovative reuse programs for
Virtually all the workshop participants agreed that: (1) sludge and water resources.Water conservation,another
public health and marine environmental impacts am the area of concern mentioned by members of the
most important factors in be considered in the treatment community is also a key element of the Sanitation
level policy decision, (2) the level of solids, toxin and Districts' future wastewater management program.
heavy metals discharged to the mean are important Than actions illustrate how public priorities have been
concerns in the evaluation of the various treatment integrated into(he wastewater planning process to date.
alternatives, and (3) cost (Lased on the dollar estimates
presented) is not a significant factor in the treatment FUTURE OUTREACH EFFORTS
level policy decision.
The information presented to the public thus far has
Opinion about the most appropriate future wastewater outlined the options that are under study and provided a
treatment strategy was almost evenly split between very general comparison of the environmental,
those participants who wish to maintain or approximate engineering and financial effects of those options.
the Sanitation Districts' current performance level and Concurrent with the release of the draft Facilities Plan
those who believe that full secondary treatment is and draft Environmental Impact Report, the Sanitation
necessary. Feedback Reports summarizing these results Districts plan to disseminate mom specific information
and documenting low they were used in the wastewater In the public concerning the impacts of the three
planning process were mailed to each workshop treatment levels and also identify a preferred alternative.
participant and provided to the Sanitation Districts'
Boards of Directors. Furthermore, public participation efforts will include:
perception interviews with selected parties to obtain
In late September 19K a special conference entitled their views about the updated wastewater management
"Orange County's Sewage Dilemma" sponsored by option; a second Emus group; a press briefing; and the
U.C. Irvine, the Irvine Company and the Industrial formal hearing on the dmft EIR. r
League of Orange County was held in Irvine,
California.Approximately 90 people attended including
elected officials, members of the business community,
representatives of public agencies, environmental
groups and members of the academic community from
U.0 Irvine. The conference used a panel discussion
Format to explore how each of the wastewater treatment
options might affect business, industry, and the
environment.
r
32
d
APPENDICES
J
Ll
bJ
V
\l
APPENDIX A
V
tl
W
V
d
`..J RESOLUTION NO. 87-120
DEMARING A POLICY PERTAINING TO WASTEWATER MANAGENJENT FOR PRESERVING
ORANGE COUNTY'S COASTAL OCEAN WATERS
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING A POLICY
PERTAINING TO WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FOR PRESERVING
ORANGE COUNTY'S COASTAL OCEAN WATERS
WHEREAS, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County provide for sewage collection, treatment
and disposal for over two million citizens in the 23 cities and unincorporated areas which comprise the
metropolitan portion of Orange County; and,
.s WHEREAS, in order to provide such wastewater sewerage services for the residential, commercial and
industrial communities in metropolitan Orange County, and to achieve the goal of protecting public health and
the marine environment off Orange Comfy's coastline, the County Sanitation Districts have constructed and
operate wastewater treatment facilities, administered by a professional management team and staff of licensed
and certified personnel; currently collecting, treating and safely disposing of more than 250 million gallons of
wastewater per day, five miles offshore at a depth of 200' through an ocean outfall with a muld-port 6,000'
diffuser, and,
e
WHEREAS, the Districts' wastewater collection, treatment and disposal operatlow are conducted in
accordance with conditions established by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
issued jointly by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, pursuant to the
California Ocean Plan as adopted by the Stale Water Resources Control Board; and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and,
"�+►� WHEREAS, the Districts' construction and operational activities are also conducted in accordance with
air pollution control requirements and land disposal requirements administered and enforced by federal and
state regulatory agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Districts' NPDES permit issued in 1985 and renewable in 1990, is in accordance with the
provisions of Section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which provides that a high quality, but
v less than full secondary treated effluent, may be discharged because the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County have consistently demonstrated their ability to meet the stringent standards and strict requirements
established by federal and state regulatory agencies based upon considerable scientific and technical data; and,
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has strengthened and reconfirmed in its 1987 Amendment
to the Federal Clean Water Act, the Section 301(h) provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act; end,
WHEREAS, to assure that the public health and marine environment off Orange Comfy's mast is being
Properly protected, a firm of independent oceanographers and scientists is conducting an expensive marine
monitoring program, at a cost of more than $8 million during the five-year lerm of the current NPDES permit,
the results and scientific analysis of which are submitted to the state and federal regulatory agencies annually in
a comprehensive and detailed report; and,
,y WHEREAS, the Comfy Sanitation Districts, in addition to the heretofore mentioned marine monitoring
program sponsored in total by the County Sanitation Districts continue to conduct other in-plant and special
ocean monitoring and research studies for improved and cosh-effective treatment, operation and disposal
methods; and,
WHEREAS, to further assure protection of the public health and the marine environment off Orange
County's coastline, the County Sanitation Districts have adopted a uniform industrial source control ordinance
implementing strict regulations and an enforcement program for committing and reducing industrial waste
discharges which has resulted in limiting and significantly reducing the toxic material discharged into the
sewerage system to protect the treatment processes and the public health and the marine environment off
Orange County's crosfline; and,
s
V
WHEREAS, in order to ensure erivironnrental excellence inn the future, the Districts are proceeding with
a mull-million dollar master planned mnswction, joint treatment and disposal works program to satisfy
anticipated regulatory requirements, increased population needs, additional treatment requirements,
conservation, energy and other resource savings considerations, odor control improvements, and air and water 'r
quality protection needs, in all estimated to cost over $400 million during the next decade; and,
WHEREAS, the Districts have historically been committed n sound, cost-effective, total environmental
management lased on supportable scientific data and site-specific conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Boards of Directos of County Sanitation Districts y
Nos. 1,2,3,5,6,7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange Cowry,Califomla,DO HEREBY DECLARE the following policy
pertaining to wastewater matagemem:
1. That the commitment to protect the public health and the marine environment off Orange County's
coastline purswnt to a policy of cest-effective total environmental matager ent and standards based
upon supportable scientific dam and site-specific conditions, is hereby reaffirmed; and,
V
2. That the commitment to sound, total environmental management must and shall include a careful
weighing of the relative merits of all alternatives and trade-offs including, but not limited to, technical
and scientific findings of envimmmenml effects, economic considerations, energy and other resource
allocations, sludge management and disposal, land use requirements, and relative benefim and
coslcffectivermas of incremental advancements to treatment levels and standards; and,
v
3. That an ongoing commitment is hereby made to scientific research and development including analysis
of public health and safety and environmental questions, and the submittal of technical dam from the
Districts' research and monitoring programs to regulatory agencies, in the belief that it is wise to
invest funds for research to provide valid information upon which to develop responsible, long-term
waste management programs for the future; and, -�
�v
4. That an ongoing commitment is hereby made to the policy of preparing and periodically updating
long-range master plans for construction of facilities and operations improvements for the optimum
treatment level to protect the public health, water, land and air quality, and other necessary resources
to casure the Districts' ability to operate and maintain existing and future facilities to comply with all
the requirements of the Districts' NPDPS permit; and,
5. That planning for the future will include appropriate legislative, regulatory and public activities to Iv
adequately address the issues and the community's best interests and assure that the Districts
confine their responsible program of balanced and scientifically-based total environmental
management; and,
6. That the Districts' programs and NPDPS permit renewal procedures taro aclmowledged as dynamic
and ongoing, and the Districts will continue to evaluate and assess all alternatives when deciding on
such programs and prooedures and that appropriate public notification and input will be obtained
prim to the final decision by the Boards of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meefing of said Boards on the 9th day of September, 1997.
Rita J. Brown, Secretary
Hoards of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos. 1,2,3,5,6,7, 11, 13 and 14
of Orange Cowry, California
V
APPENDIX B
J
V
V�
U
V
u
APPENDIX C
.i
:i
TABLE A 2
SCENARIO NO.2-EXISTING CONCENTRATION LIMITS
PROJECT COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
JEellmalaA Onsts In I09Pun6S of/olsm) SCENAR102 PAGE
DATE PROJECT
REDD COST FISCAL YEAR ENDING FIVEYEARWCREMENTS
IN OENRLA
ITEM OF WORK SERV NX) ISO 1991 ING INN 1999 INS INS 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001. 2008- 2011. 2016
2005 "IS 201S 2020
PLANT NO.1
HYDRAULIC NEEDS
HEADWKS N020 PLT NO.I,PI.20PI.31 1991 10,1110 12,100 AASO
PRRAARYCLAR.NOS.&IS,P153 ION 90,000 I7,700 17.700 4.6D0
OWN CONTROL FACILITIES
COVERS FOR PRIMARIES,PI-25 INS IN ISO
FOUL AIR SCRUBBER SYSTEM,Pt-26 IING 100 IN
RAW SEWAGE EMERGENCY BYPASS INS I'M 596 I;M
PRRAARYTREATMENT3SMGD INS 16250 IA25 5.690 5.996 3250
PRIMARYTREATMENT30MG13 19W 102M 1p25 5.666 6.SW 3250
HEADWORKS N0.I REBUILD 2DD3 KING 11,950
PROMRYTREATMENT30MGD 2006 16250 162W
PRNNRYTREATAENTUNIGD M12 16250 7,313 am
HDWKS NO.E NEW IMPELLERSNUMP SPEED M16 2,000 ZOO
SECONDARYTREATMENT
PI-10EXPANSIONT000MOD INS 17,637 175A 6,136 6,139 3.07
DAFS.30 a0'DIA INS 0,160 41a 1,450 1.40 832
90 MOD O2 ACTIVATED SLUDGE 2003 60,000 SAO 6.4W M.=
OAFS-24PWDM 2003 6.40 55 492 4.916
TRICKLING FILTER NO.163 REMOVAL I 1300 IAW
TRICKLING FILTER NO.26 a REMOVAL 2007 1,300 1200
AOM O02 ACTIVATED SLUDGE 2017 01250 taper 17.10D
DAFS-1060'DIA. "1T 2760 1230 1,513
DIGESTERS
RENASOF0162,0,9610,P1.35 ING am 1,610 I.vo
DIGS 11.1E ANDGAS NNOLG SYS.PI-3A ING 60.750 22,000 22,000 16750
2011V INS; 9,100 910 3,145 SIBS 1.620
2011W 2003 9.100 910 LLIw
2011W W12 9.100 4.0% Spas
BELT PRESSES
a UNITS 139E 14,300 tA90 S.M SA35
a UNITS 2004 10,920 ISp2o
SOLOS STORAGE
4 BINS 2000 10,10 1.014 4$60 41;81
TABLE A4(CanOnuW)
SCENARIO NO.2-EXISTING CONCENTRATION LIM"
PROTECT COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCNEDULE
(EwI.,W COW In tlo..ds of dollnn) SCENARI02 PAGE2
DATE PROJECT
REDO COST FISCALYEARENDING FWEYEARMCREMENTS
IN ®ENRLA
TIEMOFWORN SERV e000 Im 1881 Im 1883 I991 1898 1996 I997 I= 1MI 2000 ml- 2006- 2011- 201fi-
MS 2010 2015 2020
PLANT NO.I 1COMnued)
OPERATIONS BUILDING 1W1 4,325 1,813 3,083
EWRANCEStSECURITYMAUSAANDSP6.
PI-27 1881 900 800
CENTNAL MR COMPRESSOR STATION Im 200 200
MISC.PROJECTS 31,000 1A00 1AN 1,000 1." 1.000 I= 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.080 LUDO S.000 5,000 5.000 5.OW
ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 121(V
1991TOW()0 IB95 2p77 7E3 1.]
2001 T02010 201)5 1,Oa0 1,093
STANDBY POWER GENERATION
1W1T0200a 199E ],]35 2.321 5,115
2001Towla 2W5 4,52E 4,52E
2a1/T0202a M15 390 390
MONITORINGWNTROL SYSTEM
19S1 TO 2m 1992 6,070 1.521 3,5E9
SUBTOTAL EE8,781 59,TJ7 69,600 E3,165 17,IXYS 11967 10dT9 3.0a2 E,250 2.01E 6210 12.355 110.9C9 1]]08 UW3 28,300
E IF
TABLEA-2(C ..d)
SCENARIO NO.2-E LISTING CONCENTRATION UNITS
PROJECT COSTS AND IYPLENEMAl1ON Sp1E0O1E
(EaNmalad COW In IMeunh of AWMn) SCENAR1O2 PAGE)
DATE PROJECT
REM COST FISCALYEARENDING FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS
IN WENRLA
ITEM OF WORK SERV WOOD 1990 IBB1 I 1WD I ISIS Im I IUS) 1SBS 2000 2001- 2008- m11- m1e-
2005 2010 m15 Mt)
PLANT NO.2
HYDRANIC NEEDS
ODOR CONTROL FACILITIES
PRIMARY BASINS A-000VERS.P23 IS00 200 mo
FOOLAIRSCRUBBERSYSTEµ P2 Im 200 200
PROAARYTREATAENT24AIGID Im 14.3W 1.0 6. 3 0.135
HDWKSB-PERACE PUMP86EtNTplES 19R5 5.20Y S.2W
NDWNSC-REPLENG.ORVSW/AITRSASSS 1805 850 850
NDWNSC-REPL ENO.DRYS WMiTR3 A66) IM S50 w
REPLACE PRIANRIES A.B.S C 2" 11.7W SASS 5.m5
SEC RYTREATMENT
P2-23CLARIFIERCXrENSION 2000 ).SW )TO 3,51D 3.510
DAPS-1®SSDN. 2" 2.470 247 1.112 1.112
DIGESTERS
REHAB OF DIGS I,I.K.L,MN A 0.K2 Im S.w 2.000 2.000 1.000
1®105 Z000 3.w 3B0 1.T! 1.1N
BELT PRESSES
NONE
SOLIDS STORAGE
2BINS Im 5� 5m 2,3C0 2.3W
i
a
•
•
•
1r/
P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714)962-2411
TABU A-2(Conwue�
SCENARIO NO.2-EXISTING CONCENTRATION LIMITS
PROJECT COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDUIE
(EMImNW CPW IntMuunEo of tloWnl SCENARI02 PAGE3
DATE PROJECT
REDO COST FISCALYFARENOING ENE YEAR INCREMENTS
IN OENRU
TIEMOFmw SERV GGDO 1080 IBM 1BO2 I993 TOM TRIPS 1996 1BMl 1069 1RIPB MCI =I. 2005 2011- 2016-
2005 2010 2MS 2M0
PLAM NO.2
HYDRAULIC NEEDS
ODOR CONTR0.FACRAlES
PRIM MBASINS A-000VERS.KM Im 200 200
FOUL AIR SCRUBBER SYSTEM,P2-33 1OOG 200 200
PRUIARY TREATMENT 24 MGO 1O92 I4ADO 1. 9 6,0.T5 6,435
HOVMS B-REPLACE PUMPS A ENGINES lRBS 52W 6.2W
HDINKSC-REPL ENG.DRIVE WMTRS WU I S50 IS0
HDWKSC-REM END.DRVS W/ RS IM7 I 650 050
REPLACEPRIMMIESA,B,6C 2GG6 117W 0.43S 52
SECONDARYTREATMENT
P2 M CLARIFIER EMNSION 2000 7,G00 730 3.510 3.510
DAPS-1055'DM. MCI 2,410 20 1.112 1.112
DIGESTERS
REHAB OF DIGS WJ(,L,M,N A 0.P230 1R02 5.11110 2AW 2,000 1,000
101W 2" 3AW 3R0 I'm I'M
BELT PRESSES
NONE
SOLIDS STORAGE
2BINS I S,m 520 2.UD 2.W
TABLE"ICOMInuocl)
SCENARIO NO 2-EXI0TIN0 CONCENTRATION LMB18
PROJECT COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
JENImeMO CAYe In 1heuun0o of 0WNm) SCEMAR902 PAGE
DATE PROJECT
REOD COST FISCALYEARENDING FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS
IN ®ENNLA
ITEM OF WORK SERV 0001) 10W 1BB1 1092 1BB3 1BIN 180E IBBS 1991 1008 lm 2000 n01. 2000- 2011- 2010-
2000 2010 W15 MIS
PLANT NO.2 4CmvImI00I
PIANTWAWRPUMPSTATION 1880 1.170 351 919
POTABLE CRY WATER PUMP STATION 1000 429 In 300
POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 10M 3,990 328 1,521 1A21
LANDSCAPE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
PHASE If IMPRMNTSIANDSCP,P2352 1081 20D 50 1W
PHASE III IMPAMNTSUNDSCP.P2353 1992 2,100 100 tAW 1AW
MISCMODFINAIMPRVMNTSTOFAC,P2-S7 101 oAW 2A00 2,000
OVERFLOW PUMP STATION IBBO 250 no
CHLORINE HANDLING STATION Im 2W 260
PROCESS COMR COMP MONITOR IMPR,PZ401M 250 250
MISC PROJECTS 31,000 1.000 im Im 1AW LAW 1AW SAW 1AW 1AW fAW N000 SA00 S.0D0 SLOW SAW
ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 12 KV
WI TO 2020 2015 2.707 2,M
STANDBY POWER GENERATION
18B1 TO 2000 10BA 0204 2,751 5.443
2001 TO 2010 2005 TAW T.OW
2011 TO W20 2015 BAN 8,1W
MONITORIN=OMROL SYSTEM
1BB1 TO 2000 I085 5,390 1,699 3.731
2001 TO 2010 2006 520 INS
SUPPORT FACILITIES
OPERATIONS BUILDING EXPANSION 1W2 3,125 313 1.403 1.406
WAREHOUSE tm 4.99) ABS 22M 2Jf29
MAINTENANCE SHOP ins SABB US 2.40 2.40
SUBTOTAL I47,742 9.05B 19.1011 17.875 8.231 B.3110 12,5B2 SAGO JAW 2.417 7,372 7.372 IB,BBS 10JN5 15,897 SAW
i
IF IF r IF IF F r If If r If
uBLE A-2 LcoDw.wl
SCENARIO NO.2-EALSTING CONCENTRATION OYRS
PROJECT COSTS AND IMPLESIENTATION SCHEDULE
(Ea011weCopv TnlrouuM.otaalAn) MEMR102 PAGES
DATE PROECT
REGO COST FISCALYEARENDING FM YEAR DICREMEMS
N 0ENRLA
REM OF WORK SEW 0003 Im 1NN1 1802 I= IDNI Im Im 1WT 1m 1BNN 2M0 2W1- 2M& A11- MIS.
2M5 MID "IS 2020
W IERPLANT FACLLOE6-JOPFF NORICS
120-NTERPLANT LNE 19112 27,800 2,700 12,00 12,420
INTERPLANTUTBTTYCHASE Im $.w BN 3,813 3A1N
INDUSTRULWATERLNE I MO W 2T0 270
DIGEWERGASLNE 1NN2 NM W 405 MS
COMMUNICATIONS CABLE Im 1W 12 60 S0
SUBTOTAL VOBD S.m 16,TW 1N,TAT
OUTFALL A BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS
OUTFALL BOOSTER PUMP STATION,SIS,i1 101 A,WD 3EM 600
TEMPORAWCL2STATMFOROUTFALLNO.11999 2AW T30 I.m
REPLACE OUTFALL NO.I LAND SECTION Im 2. S 246 1.102 1.102
NEW SURGE TOWER NO.1 1NN3 1.300 130 685 S85
SECONDNSCHARGEHEADEROOBSC 1NN0 3.961) 3NS 1,792 1.702
EMI41) S'TODEEPWATERWIIW 2M0 9N,300 w W 2" 12.M 12,T20 7,2T2
NEPLACEM10042W 20W W230 2M 20.077
ENPANDOOBSCTONORTH 2O19 27,12S 27,125
SUBTOTAL NAM 3,5W 5W ni 4AI2 5A52 2.NW 12,T23 12.M 7p12 2M N.017 2l.125
TABLEA-21C..InV d)
SCENARIO NO.2-FASTING CONCENTRATION NUTS
PROJECT COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION SMEDULE
JEWI...d COO.In 1A .0d.of doll..) SCENARI02 PAGES
DATE PROJECT
REDD COST FISCAL YEAR ENDING FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS
W VENRLA
ITEM OF WORK SERV WIN) 1P00 1001 1N2 1N3 IN4 10N IPN INT INN IMP 20W 2W1- 200D NII will
20W 2010 WIS 20N
JOINT
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
COMPOST DEMONSTRATION PLANT 1003 p.m 2,7W S.3W
COMPOSTFACILITY SONS MAW S.W 17,P40 27,M
LANDAOUISITNJN INS 22.00 M.W)
LANDFILL DEVELOPEMENT PHASE I 2W1 26,W0 2N 2,674 10,010 10,010 6,T20
LANDFILL DEVELOPEMENT RUSE II 2011 ISAW VAN 3,1N
EOUIPM:NT PURCHASE PHASE I 2W1 SAW SAN
EOUIPAffNT PURCHASE PHASE II 2011 3,150 3.10
CENTRAL GENERATION FACILITY
EOUIPMENT PREPURCHASE,J-19A IIN IAW 1AW
FACILITY,J-19 IN2 202W 12,0W 13." 22W
CENTRAL LASORATMY,.LO IS00 740 740
AOMIN ODG EIPAN A REHAB,J-Ti,J-T-S IP00 1.1W I,1W
PERSONNEL BUILDING I P33 N 444 444
SCAOMO COMPLIANCE NW,SOX S FLARES I 4W 2W 1N I
MISC PROJECTS 155M 5W 5W SW SW Sao No WI 5W SN 5W SW 2Sw 23W 2,5W 23W
SUBTOTAL 1NA2S 15,840 13.09 5.044 7244 SM W3 22AW 030 3.074 15,550 2S,1W "" 14.W0 S,Tro 24W
RECLAMATION PUNT SITE AOSSITION INl 15,0W 4,5W 10,6W
RECLAMATION PLANT NO] 1N7 82,0N M 5.580 21,7W 21,7W 12AW
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM 7JIW 4W 4W 3W MD 3W 3W 306 = WS WS 1N 0W PW PN ON
SPECIAL PROJECTS D2N 1,380 I SW SN SM 825 US 825 US 825 US 4,125 4,125 4,IM 4,1M
EQUIPMENT ITEMS W,WO 1,500 12W 12N 12W 1250 1250 125D 12W 1.250 1250 12W SSW 0250 62 6250
ALLOCATION FOR REHAENLATION OR
REPLACEMENT MIND 2.0W 2.00 2,W0 SAN 4,W0 6,WD 6.WT T,ON ILM 9.W0 10,W0 W,W0 M.W) 40AW 45,N0
GRANDTOTAL SCENARIOS 1274,N3 102221 IM,743 N,I15 30,380 34AN 67.013 80p50 3IA75 WA11 020 W,4N 225A02 IN= 110.524 117XD
Q 6 PERCENT INFLATION 2,423,3W 1VJW 149,057 IN,Nt ".IN 44,163 772116 NAM 43A56 47,4011 W."ll 115,325 4MAR M247 359¢30 474.0N
`u
1p
P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9 2 70 8-7018
(714)962-2411
+r,
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING:
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
031VN00808VI
0
Ct
0
691 oN +ad LOL66 V0 'UUV M-es
'VJ'wtl�'+�9
aitld Z-W MnS
02
eansad sn ,1 ]aeq J1 N 00Z
/\mod Mrre �enwr5 ao) a�ueilM lJ J
O Elvd'�N /�
Mutually Assumed wevelopment II:
�t Building Support for a Diverse Economy
aturday, June 3
1989
Doubletme Hotel
The City
Orange
� GoveRN ool
00510ESS
0X
�'R9ih • W 00.NE0. LE G15LF
Rro` MaRRF r* INVOLJE to —
RFSGRRCN _ _ lO
From page 2
D]Technology for Education: Preparing Students for Honorary Steering Committee
New Caresre
Dr.Jeame Cross,GrartaM Signed Programs Coordination, Larry Ag,Maycn Irvine;Dr. Conine Bayley—Vice President
Sam Ana Unified School Distrbt Do Atdley Yamagpf Nojt SF Joseph Health Systems,Director,Center for Bo-Ethics;Mary
Assistant Dean of Student Services,Rancho Santiago Colege Dc gles—Executive Drool South Orange County YWCA:Such
Gkkenhaus—Investment Barker; Dr T.C. Hell—Chief Scientist,
E] Getting Inuolved locally Hughes Aircraft; Lida Lenney—City Council Member, _dpina
Willi Loeb, all Samuel, members, Citunt Commission far Beach:Reverend Dennis Short—Chaplain Chapman College.Ps.
Economic Security Barbara 6 Ken Tye—Ce-Direcmrs, Center for Human
trffeladependens, Chapman College
Workshops II
A]Alternative Technology Applied Co-Sponsors
Dave Wets, Lodesmne Industries, Mike Upper. Delmer Center for Economic Conversion
Farms Concerned occurs for Peace, kma re World
B] Globescope Pacific: Building U.S. leadership for
Sustainable Development
Diane Lowrie. Deputy Director, Global Tomorrow CoalRion Endorsers
C] Supporting Workers in a Time of Transition
Meredith Barns, graduanq Bates Career Services California Teachers Association;olcial R California Unions For;Christie
forInstitute;Sducamrs for Social Responsibility,LA;Educators for
D]Alternative Actor,Job an of Adolescent Energy Social y and doper Orange County Chapter; Institute for
John Gam,Director,Jab and Employment Training Servies. Security and Cooperation in Outer Space;Interfaith Center to
Cry of Petaluma Reverse the Arms Race; Interfaith peace Ministry of Orange
Getting Involved total) County; re Peace Directory; ; Chan in a New Civiimmitt;a ng
on
El 9 Y Beach Area peace Peace
an Orange County Committee on
Becky Bsionfor Ray Zimmerman. members, Ctlsns' Central Amens; Peace end Justice Center of Southern
Commasion for Economic Security California; Die for Social Responsibility, orange County
Chapter; Banan Diego Economic Conversion Concil; Southern
Co-Chairs California Nuclear Reece truncated; United Farrn Workers of
America; United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local
Rater Creelmen—Alarms Security System Consultant Masters 324; United Nation Association. Coastline Chapter; United
Degree, Cry planning. Nations Association, Orange County Chapter; United Nations
Association, San Fam ndo Valley Chapter; Westside SANE/
Re Cabe—Audi Manager,Comfi Condnation;Mascara Freeze; Women's Pr. for Nuclear Disarmament, Orange
DeBIEE, Blsisss Administration; 1988 Candidate for 37th County;Women For:MWnge Cmri `"rand Federalist Assoc.
State Sanatoria' net, So. Cal. Region
�L ❑ Yes, I will be attending the MAD II cc- `erenc�n Saturday,June 3, at the
Doubletree Hotel, located at Chaplin Ave. and The City Dr.in Orange.
O My workshop choices are: 1 II
Enclosed is my registration [includes buffet lunch] in the amount of:
❑ $35 before May 24 ❑ $40 after May 24 ❑ $25 student/senior
Please charge my N Visa ❑ MasterCard
Accc.Na Exp.Date
Signature
Name
Address
City Zip
Phone[day] [eve]
Make checks payable be the Alliance for Swvival and return with this form to 200 N.Main SveeF suite mHa.
Saint Ana, Celifomie S2701. Because the Aponte for Survival Is actively ewoWed in charging torrent
government polity regardhg the development.deployment and use of nuclear weepona school to the
Alliance are not tax deWCGble Per donations W be tax deductible,checks should be made psychic to the
AGAPE Four dec'�.
/l For more information-714/547-8282
❑ I support a diverse economy, but cannot attend the conference. Enclosed is my
contribution of$ to assist with the conference.
❑ 1 would like my, donation applied to the scholarship fund.
Schedule of Events Redefining Military Security
Morning and National Priorities
8:00 Registration
8:30 Welcome
Oat McCabe As we lack at we world from the perspective of our
Cc chair immediate living space,our family,our hare,our jobs, ROAD PLAN TO
and our friends'we understand!the nand to e to do all A STRONG AMERICA
8:45 Legislative Action What is important tonde Iftime isn't evadabletoivall
for Economic the things we would like to do,we choose.It not enough
Stability money is available for all the things we chink we need, is
Congrammember we choose. Sometimes these are tough choices, but
Jim Bates they must be made. I F rest Al.. ..I.
10:00 Workshop I As a nation,we need to make important choices now
regard! to with regard! our priorities in defineg national
11:00 Workshop II security. To judge from federal budget spending,
national security results from purchasing every new
Afternoon weapon available, regardless of cast, effectiveness or .murtr u.s. rt,...cotruc
reliability. But does military strength really trenslare 4rxty. To Conr[n .t....r Utcy
12:00 Lunch into genuine security?
12:30 1990-2000: To A s[rTU usr or ... .o4a.rra
A Turnaround _
Decade HOWYOURTAX
Diane Irnvrm M W
DOLLARSARESPENT +
1:30 Panel and Audience ro xs.t . snooa. r..x A.rr4x row nttlr..x
Discussion: ovuor((tex��rlIlIxpo�etw nxo coxxvn r¢s
learnin Whet il o 171M111�
8 aMua,x,amxmnor". se•• �,,,.,.
Economic "'•"
`°"Vera`°" .VIC CONVERSIO„David Flmshman, 52(w1roo[ormilimry spending. ECONn v. �
Murcia B Jux�cn sad
.Aml told.
Dnnm —
Faohtaretl W Mrheel These jobs and the persons who are involved t
class. It wi forheuaing. be directed according to new priorities.The termVt
g
2:45 Break ���� often employed to describe this process o astronaut
conversion: standby plans for the alternative produc-
3:00 Eco n on: can of marketable civilian goods to replace military
Technology far a 2t will go for education. goods. Economic conversion rebuts the old argument
Sustainable World 40 that cutting back on new weapons systems inevitably
Jon Ben p brings a loss of lobs and income to the community. At
Irl as the some time, it amounts that military procurement
4:00 Closing remarks ALftA 2(wild go for food and nuhition. decisions are made on the basis of defense needs,and
Co chair 01011not because milisery spending has created employ-
_ meet that would not otherwise exist.
---=- - Here in Orange County, The Citizens Commission
Workshops I for EconomicSecurity(CCES),a project of the Alliance
P As individuals,we don't feel secure unless the rent's for Survival, is joining with other groups around the
A) Personal Choices: paid. there s food in the substance and the kids are country that are focused an this issue, The economic
Leaving the Military safe at home.Outside cur fare lei Immediate security impact of military spending is a subject Americans can
Industry we have little control over the impassable traffic an the no longer afford an ignore. CCES is promoting eco-
Mclissa Everett, Author freeways, tacit wastes, pesticides and city streets namic rechristens as a rational and respmsible way to
Breaking Ranks that have become war zones.Instead of tackling these priorities met national security needs and support
pressing problems our tax dollars are slated to workers. professionals and industries in a time of
B) Transforming Military purchase the Stealth Bomber, Trident II missile end transition. Our best scentihc and skill workers are
Besse Star Were acne of which will added. these issues. needed for new and excicng opportunities as we
Michael Clusson, Executive There are hard and definite choices to be made,and to approach the 21 at century
Dvecmr. Center for make these choices,we read to examine our priorities
Economic Conversion and ask If more weapons will really bring us security epAlem a xubssxse W tie Gana'tonutneai on faocmc
Do we want the military budget to continue to security.drain se ty.a less of de atria an S..ive. mere tie 0 e
C] Putting Earth Fine human initiative, technical skills and funds into this ..•xeo.avdAYo kr BvwwF ra.[IstraaTb A.'vr b
through Socially narrow description of national security? Defense sr`TrtYpwNUBo%p'W''yroro'reraP'�P°sru^'d
Responsible appropriations rots exceed $300 billion annually a° `Fesnn-krpasvanmrm vpermia
Investments padCtmdpnned"°Yt°'a'°r°'u'arArnrmMy r°t
Joe Easton, Ratimmtmt Today, when East/West sessions are rapidly diminish- rxae ri kmmen loos FW[Fujitsu,as 714 47-]e.r4.
Planner Barahan Securities ng• military elpenditures at this level are politically Exuali Pham Mom Para
Inc. unsupportable, e.,t raamla n umr alma".Bess,ex.lam,wa
Calvert
rt Soser»arns, Even without a cut in miftery spending, defame Finn as Sarin
Calvere Socal Investment production plants are intrinsically and inherently un-
Fund stable sources of employment,Sooner or later,a highly
Continued on page 3 specialized workforce faces unemployment—by the
hundreds of thousands at one time—when a mdaary
production contract comes to a conclusion
MAD 11 Conference Explores
the Process of Creating a
Diverse Economy
In Nis pas[Year,them has been an increase m public events will be the panel tliscussrn. On the panel lis ehe
d
awareness t the rapid has
adeterioration. on all levels, of leaders of other panel setions working he panel
our environment and the need for sustainable global conversion projects . their communries, including:
development. To address these issues in relationship David Fleishman, Executive Director of Washington
C: to the economy the Citimns'Committee for Economic Stare SANE/Ffeem. Mamie Bonita. Director of San
Security (CCES) presents a conference, "Mutually Diego Economic Conversion Council, and Harry and
Assured Development. Building Support for a Diverse Jaquelne Diamond. Chains of the Santa Barbara
Economy" A project of the Alliance for Survival, the Economic Conversion-Committee. Michael Obese ,
0 conference sponsor. CCES grew out of the first Executive Director of the Center for Economic Conver-
Mutually Assured Development Conference, a confer Sion in Mountain View California.will facilitate,the panel
ante held last spring that began the dialogue on discussion.
diversifying mtlustres currently dependent an military Mr. Closson will also
reinvests into new cmLen applcateras This year's present a workshop on
conference is planned as an extension of Nat effort. military base conver-
smoothry the way for an economy now in transition. Sion dung the morning
Providing the world session.Here in Califon
-
view will be our lunch- ns several areas will be
eon keynote speaker, affected by the pro
. Diane Lowrie. Deputy posed closure of mJn
Director of the Global terry bases. The Center
Tomorrow Coalition in for Economic Conver-
Washington, D.C. She Sion has already added
nical
develop the
relat new [so arse tom
of redefining national sul[ants to their `
mglobsecurity n !elan staff Cq a55ist the MicM1eel Cjasean
to global nt.popmla/ impacmo tom nities
Ilsham.
and roci population.he, Mr ton p sham information about this exciting
and resources her she' y to put conversion vim practice as he talks
Diane Lowrie talk, "1990-8000 abor� JJnsbrke rig Military bases!
AD A Turnarok_ economy.
markets are critical in creating a diverse
Decadprime ." Ms. Lof Nor wiy else PresentHarr a woksMI� , economy, and the experiences of chase who have
Prime Minister of Norway Or Gm Harlem BrvndanLS possibilities
ies the lob changes demonstrate Me the
report to the UN: tour Common a the.c The Everett.author
During the A.M. workshops, Melissa
titres presented . this report will be tfre comer Everett,author of the ss one
released book, career
Break-
store of a (cur day conference "Tomorrow Coale pe Pacifies fora Denbo, will address d personal sine of career
sponsored in Ne Global 89.) Coalition, in Los charges.The bock is rg based on extensive ed poews of
Angeles during the fall of '89.J people who have emerged etl from respected pdustris
Throughout the oay,for
new projects will es as often lucrative carvers in the military industrial
discussed d Applications for cream
the technd rant complex.
are needed R we are m create a healthy, vibrant For a description of the full variety of workshops
economy nawlob markets and life styles which mearrte being offered at this conference, please check the
our impact on the environment Workshop leaders enclosed agenda. Presented twice will be "Getting
include Michael Upton of Del Mar Farms and Dave Involved Locally."Facmtatetl by members of CCES,the
Wets)of Lodestone Industries. workshop will define the goals, purpose and plan of
Legislative support is action developed so far by Nis group of people who
of key importance In have continued meeting as a result of our firs[
assisting a changing conference. If you wan[to participate in working for a
economy. Jim Bates, healthy diverse local economy,this workshop is a must.
Congressmember from The day MI ConrJude
San Diego will discuss with a look into the
new developments in future. What would be
Washington to present possible it we supplant
a comprehensive new the energy involved in
hill to the 101st Can- building better bombs
grass. The new ill .0 and bombers with sin-
be the product of Sere efforts to apply the
rewriting dome presas economic resources.
bills. Hopefully, it will Jim Beta m technical skill and huan
.win the best of the commitment to life
-
otbersandwillbeamllyingWrit far both congress and enhancing endeavors?
the public. Jim Bell,Director of Eco-
In other parts of the country, People have been logical Life Systems
working for a diverse economy ro .mimics military Jim Sell Institute Inc., will pre
dependence for many years.Hem in Orange County oar Srm,err fowl keynote address. "Eod no.r . Altpropn,
work W draw attention to the need for advanced ate bachou"for a Seembable Vuldri We hope you
six planning to create a broad based economy is in a share our eMJvsesmand"IcnwithrsedJum 3m.
fledgling stage. To help us move ahead and organise in we continue to move hces a policy of W tual Assailed
the most effective manner, a key part of the day's Destrction' m "Mutually Assumed Development.
/ • EIR HEARING
JOINT CHAIRMAN 'S OPENING REMARKS
MAY 17 , 1989
3(a) (1) OPEN HEARING
FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS A TEAM OF CONSULTING AND STAFF
EXPERTS HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE
ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC HEALTH, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
ASPECTS OF THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
ONE OF THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE STUDY HAS BEEN THE
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WILL BE USED
AS THE BASIS FOR APPLICATION TO THE EPA AND THE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FOR RENEWAL OF THE DISTRICTS ' OCEAN
DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5-YEAR PERIOD.
�./ THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTARY
ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE OFFICIAL COMMENT
PERIOD REMAINS OPEN THROUGH MAY 30TH.
IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT THERE WILL BE ANY RESPONSE TO THE
PUBLIC COMMENTS AT TONIGHT 'S HEARING.
NO DECISIONS WILL BE MADE TONIGHT.
RATHER, FOLLOWING THE HEARING THE BOARDS WILL DIRECT THE
CONSULTANTS TO ADDRESS THE ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BY
THE BOARDS AT A LATER DATE.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO DECLARE THE HEARING OPEN.
-1-
3(A) (2) SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
FIRST WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY MR. CURTIS SPENCER OF
JONES AND STOKES ASSOCIATES, THE INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL
../ CONSULTANT THAT PREPARED THE DRAFT EIR.
3(A) (3) RECEIVE AND FILE WRITTEN COMMENTS
THE DIRECTORS HAVE COPIES OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED
TO DATE ON THE EIR AND A MOTION IS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AND FILE
THE COMMENTS.
3(A) (4) ORAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO OPEN UP THE HEARING FOR ORAL PUBLIC
COMMENT.
ANYONE THAT WISHES TO COMMENT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED A PINK
"REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS" FORM AND TURNED IT IN TO
STAFF.
WHEN WE CALL YOUR NAME PLEASE STEP TO THE PODIUM. FOR THE
SAKE OF THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY.
WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR REMARKS TO 5 MINUTES.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU NOT
REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENTARY. RATHER, IF YOU WISH TO SUPPORT
PREVIOUS COMMENTARY IT WILL SUFFICE OR MERELY STATE THAT YOU
AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE.
THIS WILL HELP ASSURE THAT EVERYONE THAT WISHES TO BE HEARD
WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.
ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS
HEARING IS TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR.
-2-
3(A)(5) CLOSE HEARING
THERE BEING NO FURTHER ORAL COMMENTS I WILL DECLARE THE
HEARING CLOSED.
ONCE AGAIN, THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS
TONIGHT.
AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE OFFICIAL COMMENT PERIOD ON MAY 30TH,
THE CONSULTANTS WILL ADDRESS ALL THE COMMENTS IN A FINAL EIR TO
BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARDS AT A LATER DATE.
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING.
-3-
MEETING DATE 5/17/89 TIME 7:30 D.m.Disuicrs 1,2,3,5,6,7, 11, 13 a 14
DISTRICT I �p�Iyr JOINT BOARDS
(CRANK)........HANSON...... ✓ ^r (VERELLEN).........ALLEN.......
(YOUNG)........GRISEt...... A-- (ERSKINE)..........BANNISTER..._ _(KENNEDY)......MOESTEREY...� NEDRA)... SIGONGER....STANTON.....
(HART).............CO%......... _
DISTRICT 2 (PERRY).... CULVER...... _
(KENNEOY)..................EDGRR......._
(NORBY)........"" •" ..... ✓ (CHESSEN)..........GRIFFIN..... _
(GRAHAM).......MAHONEY.....�_ (YOUNG)............GRISET...... _
(NEDRAI........BIBBNCGB.... ✓_ (CRANK)............HANSOM......_
(YOUNG)........GRISET...... (KEKNEOY)..........HOESTEREY..._
(NELSON).......4�iKG......._✓_ (NELSON)...........ISLES....... _
(SCOTT)........NEAL........y/_ ( )............KAREL.......
(DOWNEY).......NEWTON.......CLd (EDGAR)............KENNEDY.....
(CULVER).......PERRY....... ✓_ (GRAHAM)...........MAHONEY..... _
(HUNTER).......PICKIER.....�G (SILVA)............MAYS........
_
(FASBENDER)....SILZEL......�� (SCOTT)............NEAL........
(BARRERA I......SMITN....... (WEDIM)............NELSON......
(ROTH).........STANTON..... _ _ (DOWNEY)...........NEWTON......
(CULVER)...........PERRY.......
DISTRICT 3 (HUNTER)...........PLUK R..KME ...
(DUKE).........POLIS ...... ✓_ (DUKE).............POLIS.......
(WEDIN)........NELSON......_SC_ _ (STANTON)..........ROTH........
(VERELLEN).....ALLEM....... (ACRAN)............SHERIDAN....
_
(ERSKINE)......BANNISTER... _ _ (WILES)............SIEFEN......
(MORBY)........91HtMP...... (FASBENDER)........SILZEL...... _
(PERRY)........CULVER...... (BARRERA)..........SMITH.......
(CHESSER)......GRIFFIN.....a (ROTH).............STANTON.....
(YOUNG)........GRISET......� _ _ (HART/COX).........STRAUSS.....
( )........KAREL....... ✓_ (MILLER)...........SWAN........
(GRAHAM).......MAHONEY.....�C _ (WAHLSTROM)........SYLVIA......
(SCOTT)........NEAL........}�_ (GREEN)............WARNER......
(HUNTER).......PICKLER.....J�_ (SIGONGER).........WEDAA.......
(WILES)........SIEFEN...... (ISLES)............WEDIN.......
(ROTH).........STANTON..... (HUNT).............WILSO.......
(WAMLSTROM)....SYLVIA...... (BANNISrw........WINCHELL...._ _
(HUNT).........WILSON......J�
DISTRICT 3 STAFF:
(HART).........COX.........�_ BSYLVESTER... ✓
ROWN........G
(HART).........o/RR07T..... ANDERSON....
(STANTONI......ROTH........3lc_ _ CLARKE......✓
CLAY SON..... 4i
DISTRICT 6 DAWES.......
FILECCIA....
(GREEN)........MANNER...... ✓ _ HODGES......
(HART).........PLUMMER......
v KYLE........
(STANTON)......ROTH........ _ _ LINDER......
DOTER........�l
DISTRICT 7 STREED.......
DARR
VON LARGER JC
(KENNERA).....•EDGARSMITH ......JC_ HINSON......_
(YOUNEOY)......EDGAR.......
(STANG)........GR IiET......
(STRRTORI......ROTH........
(Cox)..........SHER[DRN.... _
(GREEN)........WARNER...... TO HERS: WOODRUFF.... If
DISTRICT 11 Zoe.........
ANWAR.......
(SILVA)........MAYS........ TI DEMIR.......�
(BANNI iTER). ..WINCREL L.... FLEMING.....
(ROTH)..:...:..ST ANTON....._ HOHEMER.....
HOUGH.......
DISTRICT 13 HOWARD......
HUNT........
(BIGONGER).....WEDAA....... ✓ KNOPF.......
(HUNTER).......PICNLER.....� LI NDSiROM...�!
(STANTON)......ROrH........� LYNCH.......
(BARRERA)......SMITM....... STONE.......
(ISLES)........WEDIN....... WASON....... .
DISTRICT 14 YOUNG.......
(MILLER).......SWAN........_✓_ ro
(EDGAR)........KENNEOY..... L.
(STANTONI......ROiN........
(AGRAN)........SHERIDAN....
(BARRERA).....SMI IN........
05/11/89 }I Q,Qp.T✓+.�LTL• 4yDA,SR.a /I
SIGN-IN SHEET
�..✓ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
n-?-6 O.
Lehoc,' zGl
CoS ry'{l(v-5 c
GSeA N crow 302 L S 9a6a6 - l 5o Ri° kj ES�11 : o ro a.
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
o °`x Q°°.1 Sk_ %Wmb* cAqaW ( t3) N 0611ES AW&W 6b
yASH MAucHUD
y w, wB 9 7�z2 1 t. dr..,Vdrrc`fw
lAUD E' HYRb PokcEn3T/A c 9Z6 ?O 996 s 9 SELF �;s°��H c t
iSni r alarm, ,a zn zr3 vo ry0 1
C. Id AAA ; sa 3a
d dvo{ Sc/ s«rfiwb ww4t4
o, s.
3s3 bi8ta/a► J
Il ul�R,MK JF CZ k l.P10
i C
1. /N4=/ Ar73uR R �1. q/p31f1 t .,�: � � •l�it.e
-ZLh /CvwiNyc � _( . SLC.I"
516 5r
,7 fit
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
MW-S ,t4Ey.E 10% " DA2 AJEMVE } % 61 •
DoW aEy cA 501.40 3142 .S£L'F
aoe118 Plux �aa3 w. «.*eon AOL b�U 772-
Anane-, [A gdfo q SPa�
IC w F' 0 • bl; x 6
W fS Tc A Mjon,6
�U,etrBMP[R ap'. IiY "y2stf I �JP'0.ltc�fNSa 0..S 4�
21 y i�7 Seer
-2/3 Ci9 �t�•4 �?
(keLu4 I100N. ;,% S+A 04AATt7el rCB9/tro
,EPF64t; h 6 (q?, 0LA- w 7>C Hfi -s�41 f4(bfUV6R .f3i�
J - f s /S lNUfiT664. LD lf3/ SL`Lf
CH/fCk d�v66 /i37511 crie 1 sT »-
wcsrM/.GCJE[ 924$S bq 7.7423 SURF
db t 6i
sew Y X 290 �96 �'B 926 7 960 8310 SQRMI 00 Fai"mw-fb
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
FAVV V 11 �S� '�S01Kvw t.� n a
E. os uaa e� EN io3 aJ�l`r G4i•2o2
1 ZI 93.40 S 7iy
w 1 u r c Z e..
M:�rue 30xUAw. I Of,- q t scl�
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
W 08 C s
� y BE'A �909 .ZH�a�r � 'fie 9a A0
C11��S Lv.[I.IOw 3ogZ `a``''��tU� P aai
Cost' Koi0. q,,T, 1,4� 9411 PJbI�C Ci',, --
7T ✓SS u 1737D k X[ ,L)P.)
C CoaKS� L �2� N k��TO 9�bs u yc 3 1 i S,�aa� CI-0
927i Se �S`}82 u �P off f/<vl
SIGN-IN SHEET
`, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) .Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
P CI&/�0Wz Of, A10 49o-77(v3
! g0
?Cd 77, W47 b -�
�IGJ 3
Avc
�au141�
qz>oi o-a..y� C.o- y
o e� K 6oZ IV /,/A/ oo A✓ u 9s? 60 C,^ (i
o S2/ C SS a®
vA T ai�)3-WO
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
�hunn,.n t< <e., I: If f`' I I 0� i'+_ - Ar 1� =� c :(
"Mos ..�ew, N
1316 89S-S
0'_ ,_ t i,;y 3�3,
LefYew lJ1 ee�A.�! q13 N�Nn�Tay�ST d'g• 9618fd1 �.Jo�t,/a�
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please
yyPrint) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
i; . a wS
tint -
J . A. Dw
SIGN-IN SHEET
�../ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY
MAY 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING
on
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT and DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Name Address (include Zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
Wiit f�1ANKi (`cyxMwzcv�aAvE• 1tb3 F
N(0lx#; fMKcl
Noltp4 3J4117 I°t 7 44 Z Sko ;e14 l Y4 96 y$ A . e . S .
ERO LIPHa $ 47 d/rp S� ,eaa
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS `•/
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
NAME: NANkcDARET cl6H �Js0A1
HOME ADDRESS: g74I2 SAoPeC [ i49 LOt VI14
NUMBER/STR "T /
f i daa L�1
TELEPHONE: 11 't ' G
REPRESENTING: 1� Ma P , e& n C p-4 aG Cc. M J BG i N
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
x x x x x x x x x • • x x
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS: /( G�' IVY, 430U 1
NUMBE EET.
?
TELEPHONE: CITY
REPRESENTING: !/✓�
SELF OR NAME R ANIZATI N
f
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME: MCIRF} /v'ctjrj Iet 194—
HOME ADDRESS: Nwooa Avg
NUMBER STREET
Sian.- i 4�A rA 4i z-io I
CITY
TELEPHONE: ( 7I /) S53 -fry60
REPRESENTING: -r,A&C CreeK GRrs
SELF OR NAME OF 0 GANIYATIN)
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17. 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
i i 4 4 4 '•1 f f t f f i f
NAME: �.� . 5eAu1.�1�tr�r\bcRq
HOME ADDRESS: '��`'��
NUMBE ET
ITY
TELEPHONE: ,111N- 5s
REPRESENTING: N4.W PC�.'� 3iku � VY(��R-SII 4,O Cr2.EEI�S
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION
k
F .
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS !i
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME: �+�yGL /J
HOME ADDRESS: / 7 3 e " C-a Ave- ,
NUMBER STREET
CIly TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: 5041�'/�.LiN c�-!ii/J�iYiQ �r/"pP.y r/SSIM'�l�
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATI )
F. ��
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING %
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS: cf
N B
(24
TELEPHONE: ( GITYJA
REPRESENTING: J GG � I
EL 11,4
AME GA ION
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS ; 'I
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
x e . : :I • . • -eI . a
NAME: BE2 NN R® LIPM A /V
HOME ADDRESS: 7.Z0.9 III R C d. L IKIJ7FE✓?roU CA
NUMBER E
� I `f —F�a�c94Y
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: ORAAj c ouutY fen 0 u P S I Cn 2 A cc,✓1
LF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
S '.^C
d
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS .--
EIR PUBLIC HEARING y
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
■ tt \ t t 1 Y ! Y ♦ t f t
L l n/
NAME: =1(e�' F�.d �n
HOME ADDRESS: ;)-OE E. 11SAo� A°
NUMBE TR
CQS+. M
T
TELEPHONE: M In-!4Q') ^
REPRESENTING:
G.... ; SEl OR NAM OF RGANI ATI )
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/S'TREET
A via k.e, m, CA Bo S
ITS
TELEPHONE: 7 /1-776. 7 S 6 9
REPRESENTING:
$ ',/;� F OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
...�
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
8ER STREET
TELEPHONE: 3 -s7 CITY
REPRESENTING: iRE 9�liWw�
„�/ T (SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING '
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
k k k k k k k k k k k k k
NAME: jERZe-LL- Lor- raP4 Mo�ric J4-
HOME ADDRESS: 14WAV T7N97aM rJ
'NUMBE TREET
/016n-1 n.W#v lti
TELEPHONE: ?61-9` 07 CITY
REPRESENTING: ✓ E&�o
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION
�..r
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS �y
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER/STREET
CITY
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: /NE .S'U/1L7 R AA FOl/N�7TON)
i �S LF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION
REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL COMMENTS
EIR PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 17, 1989
PURPOSE OF HEARING: RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ON COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN.
THE EIR WILL BE USED BY THE DISTRICTS AS A MAJOR ELEMENT
IN ITS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR OCEAN DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEAR PERIOD.
NAME: JO/1 AI
HOME ADDRESS: ell '3cJ z.
NUMBER REST
ITY
TELEPHONE:
REPRESENTING: lz J"r
SELF OR NAME UF ORGANIZATION)
JUN-06-189 15:26 ID:JONES AND STOKES INC TEL NO:4428180 4588 P0: —
® Jones 8 Stokes AM0018fe8, Inc.
23rto Sheet Suite 100
Sacra
Sacramento,CA 95b16
9161444.SM
91e/444-0308 Fex
VIA: Mall FI'TFax Overnight Courier
TO,. ,wg X/-e-rJ� DATE:
CLIENT: Me!� ?c
PROJECT: ��
SUBJECT: ..._._._.�
0 Per your request For your review For your information/use
LCS Enclosure(e)
� Other. _
Quantity Description
--------------
Message From:
cc: _-
JUN-06-'S9 15:26 ID:JONES k4D STOKES NC TEL NO:4428180 o5ee PP82/''�,
TS.� Pra�e,•e/a� �/� a . ��G/
Zo -/Luisf' cc 10 v�yL�/i�'�/ �7•
p - 72/ ,�uf
S -ou�ir u .� vy to
sc�{ �c i///lvf `7iv�ao of �. d !•.
o o.r,)e n•,i 2 e fib 04 u4,
JUN-06-'8 15,27 ID• ONES PND STOKES INL TEL N0:4428160 #5E8 P03 -
r'151
VIDEO OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CSDOC OPERATIONS `-
IMM 19&
Aerial views of County The Sanitation Districts serve 450 square
miles of Metropolitan Orange County
from the Newport Beach-Irvine area
north and west to county tines. The
Districts today serve a population of 1.8
million. Service is provided to 9
sanitation districts serving 23 cities
within this highly urbanized area.
Wastewater flow The Sanitation Districts treat an average
of 26D mgd.
Wastewater reaches plants through 800
miles of Sanitation Districts sewers, fed
by local sewers in upstream
communities.
Inspector cheeping industry The Sanitation Districts control
hazardous materials entering sewers
through an industrial toxics control
program. This is an important means of
reducing toxics in wastewater and sludge.
Aerial of one of the plants All flows receive primary or advanced
primary treatment; about half receive
secondary treatment.
75 percent of suspended solids reaching
the plant are separated from the waste
stream before discharge.
Treatment process views A combination of primary and advanced
primary treatment removes 65 percent of
suspended solids, which come off as a
wet sludge.
Polymer Chemicals are added to facilitate
treatment and control odors.
1
n �-,'B9 15:2B ID:JONES AND STOKES INC TEL NO:442B186 4588 PO4
LJ
11113" Trat
Trickling filters Secondary treatment processes, such as
the trickling filters shown here, further
removes solids and increase overall
removal effectiveness to 75 percent.
Mother type of secondary treatment
used by the Sanitation Districts is the
activated sludge process.
Secondary treatment uses biological
processes to remove organic matter,
which is separated from the wastewater
in the form of sludge.
Digester Solids removed from the wastewater are
thickened, digested by bacteria, and
dewatered using belt filter presses to
allow safe disposal or reuse.
r' Tank and gage The digestion produces methane that is
used to power some of the equipment in
the plant.
Sludge truck loading and leaving plant Sludge is trucked to disposal and reuse
locations.
landfill sludge disposal About half of the sludge is disposed of
at landfills where it is mixed with
municipal refuse. Here is a typical
sludge disposal operation at a landfill.
Sludge is typically blended with trash in
a ratio of 10 parts trash to 1 part sludge.
Agricultural reuse (Pima-Gro footage) The balance of sludge is reused in
agricultural applications to enhance soil
fertility.
Composting and use as a soil
amendment is also practiced.
Manifold Treated effluent is discharged from the
plants to the ocean through an outfall
..� pumping pipeline diffuser complex.
2
JUN-06-'e9 15:28 ID:JONES MND STOKES INC TEL NO:4428180 458E P05
IMAM 1YA1
Underwater footage The diffuser begins discharging 4 miles
offshore and extends another 6,000 feet,
releasing effluent at depths from 170 to
195 feet.
Here are underwater views of the
Sanitation Districts existing discharge.
Here you are looking at the pipe
structure and the animals that live on
and around it.
Orange County Water District
Factor 21 Sign Not all of the wastewater goes to the
ocean. About 3 mgd receives tertiary
treatment and is reused for groundwater
recharge. Additional reclamation for
landscape irrigation is pending.
Ovendew of county (aerial) The Sanitation Districts undertook
preparation of an action plan to evaluate
how to accommodate future service
demands.
The actions proposed to meet those
future needs are evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Report, which is
the subject of tonight's hearing.
The End -
1
3
JUN-06-1S9 15:29 ID:JONES RND STOKES INC TEL NO:44291SO #568 F06
CSDOC FACILITIES PLAN PRESENTATION OUTLIME
O�
�...� This next series of a des shows the
primary elements the Action
Plan that are covered by the
Environmental Impact Report.
Service Area Man This map shows the Sanitation
Districts' service area and existing
outfall.
The longer outfall, No. 2, is
currently used.
Action Plan Planning Prearam The Action Plan Program incorporated
complete review of Sanitation
Districts operations, including:
• Scientific review of the
ocean
monitoring program;
• 30-year Facilities Master Plan, by
Carollo-Boyle Engineers;
• Environmental Impact Report by
Jones 4 Stokes and Willdan;• Financlal Plan by Battle-Walls; A./, . /
• Public Participation Program by
(�•g7 °1" Y' Urban Alternatives;
6 M,
• This will culminate&an application
for a new NPDES permit in August
7 1999.
Major Protect Facilities Identified Major facilities identified in the
30-year facilities master plan that
could have environmental impacts
are:
• 57 miles of trunk sewers;
• 4 miles of interplant pipeline;
• Expansion of treatment plant
capacity to 399 agd;
• Second ocean outfall by 2005;
• Expanded sludge management
' program;
• One to three satellite eater
reclamation plants.
1
SUN-06-'89 15:29 I(D�..JON1NE$$ /AND STOKES INC TEL RO:4428189 4588 P07
Trunk Sewers Mao r�' Trunk sewers are spread throughout D
service area.
.
Interplant pipeline connects Plants
16 2.
Major emphasis of presentation is on
creatment plant, ocean discharge,
sludge management, and water
reclamation because these are areas
of public interest and have most
potential for environmental impact.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOD is:
"A laboratory test which measures
the wastewater's potential effect
upon the oxygen levels of a
receiving water."
The term is used in the Facilities
Plan, EIR, and existing discharge
permit as a measure of treatment
effectiveness and effluent quality.
Flow The line shows total flows expected
to reach she plants from al sources.
Flow increases are based on City an
County general plane. and are
consistent with the Southern
California Association of
Cove rnmants (SCAG's) regional growth
projections.
e 1 /�
p.rt ¢�
Treatment plants wlrM be expanded to
399 mgd capacity by 2020 to keep
pace with these expected flow
increases.
The Sanitation Districts would add
treatment modules to treatment
plants to provide treatment degree
and capacity as flows increase,
Treatment would be provided as
necessary to protect beneficial uses
of Pacific Ocean and meet
environmental regulations and permit
requirements.
2
JLWO6-'S9 15:30 ID:JOWS Ar4D STOKES INC TEL NO:4428180 4588 FOB
Scenario No. 1 Three alternative treatment levels O
are under consideration to achieve
these objectives:
Scenario No. 1 - California Ocean
Plan
30% Biochemical Oxygen Demand
removal.
75% solids removal.
In order to achieve, one-third of
flow would receive secondary
treatment.
Scenario No. 2 Scenario No. 2 involves meeting
concentration required by existing
permit.
We Biochemical Oxygen Demand
removal,
75% solids removal
In order to achieve, one-half of
flow to secondary treatment, same
proporation as today.
..� Scenario No. 3 Scenario No. 3 - Full Secondary (by
2005).
This would achieve 85% BOD/solids
removal.
Discharge Scenario S`mmary This slide compares the three
treatment scenarios.
Remember, all flows receive primary
or advance primary treatment.
This shows, on bottom line,
proportion of secondary treatment
needed to provide required removal
• effectiveness.
r e Scenario 1 2 3
ROD removal 30e 601 85%
Solids removal 75% 75% 85%
Amount of
Secondary 1/2 1/3 pull
(Need to add advanced primary)
T�
3 �-�
JUN-96-189 15:30 La:.J01ES AM STOKES INC TEL 140:4428180 p588 Peg
Second Outfall This second outfall,required bya2005
to accommodate future flows.
No detailed study on location; SIR
analyses asaumed it would be next to
existing to provide a worst-case
evaluation. If it were Dome distance
from existing, would reduce impact
intensity significantly.
Sludge Manazement A substantial volume of solids is
currently removedfrom wastewater.
• Present quantities (33
truckloads/day)
• Projected quantities (47-76
truckloads/day-by 2020).
CSludge quality l I
Sanitation Districts continue to
emphasize pretreatment to meet/or
exceed *kt4 a sludge quality
requirements,
Sludge Mana¢ement Sludge management will continue to
J ,ease- emphasize reuse for agriculture as
C '� / / much as possible, with landfilling
(U6 as fallback.
Facilities Plan evaluated 36 J4ee X5'r*
alternative concepts
• Implementation program of:
- site acquisition
- compogng pilot teat
- using sludge for final landfill
cover, and
- continued privatization for
sus . I
5S0-W AV-S7"(f obja�,!Isa ;r�
Sanitation Districta• O IartLygit Promote multiple, independent reuse
alternatives and maintain at least
one reliable disposal alternative."
Reclamation sites Water reclamation would be expanded
by building one to three satellite
reclamation plants as shown by
yellow dots.
Reclaimed water would be used for
groundwater recharge, landscape
irrigation, and industrial supplies.
Three plants would supplement /
existing Water Factory 21 ymd9Te«-
planned Green Acres Project.
This would bring total reclamation
capacity to over 50 mgd.
4
JLN-06-169 15:31 ID:JGNES AND STOKES INC TEL NO:4428180 p5B8 P17
0
Reclamation Considerations In formulating reclamation plan,the
Sanitation Districts considered:
Market demand
• Market proximity to reclamation
source
• Cost to produce
• Public health concerns
• User's quality concerns
Effluent Oualityi
important part of Action Plan is
continuation of industrial toxics
ntrol program.
is slide shows that heavy metals
reen line) have decreased from
er 2,000 pounds per day to 500
unds per day, 75 percent
ductionsCSDOC Effluent Qualityis elide ahoae Che resulting
tals in the effluent, depictedrcentag¢ of ocean plan limit.
Major Protect Facilitiehese facilities comprise the major
aations to be undertaken by the
Iya. Sanitation Districts.
c
Total Facilities Cost (Current)
D ro �•'" What will it cost?
r About $3.3.8 billion in 1989
dollars.eq eosea— T roximately 4 a/A
CO6t6 /sc-04'
( c
0 6 M. Sw✓ 3�Y
N,yl aoc
Total Facilities Costa (Inflated) If the effects of inflation are � //
taken into account, total costs rea"/
$7 to over $9 billion at 5%
inflation.
Household costs ��/La�'/� What will this cost users?
1.5 - 3 times current rates by 10-15
years from now.
Will vary by service area 6
scenario.
5
JUN-06-189 15:32 ID:JONES AND STOKES INC TEL P10:4428180 #588 Pit -
Intro slide The Environmental Impact Repprt /O
prepared for the Action Plan
`, evaluated Master Plan facilities,
\.r" compared to existing conditions.
- Growth impacts
- Construction impacts
- Resource impacts
- operations impacts
- Public Health
- Marine environmental issues
Alternatives Covers alternative to meet
requirement of CEQA
Three treatment scenarios
No-Project Alternative (CEQA) (No
new construction)
1E reclamation sites
36 sludge management alternatives
Trunk sewer alternatives
Program, EIR Program EIR covers entire master
plan
• Provides broad coverage
• Projects completely covered:
- Trunk sewers
- Treatment elements
• Supplemental EIR required:
- Outfall construction
- Reclamation plants
�./ - Intorplant pipeline
000,-Nothing Option or No Project Alternative
Evaluated per CEOA Significant Adverse Impacts:
• Sewer overflows
• Inadequate sewage treatment
• Environmental and public health
impacts
• Construction moratoriums
• Pines
Growth Definition Dgfinition CEQA: , projects which would
remove obstacles to population
growth (a major expansion of a
wastewater treatment plant, for
example . . .) are considered growth
inducing"
J
6
JUN-06-'89 15:32 ID:JONES AND STOKES INC TEL ND:4428180 n588 P12
CEQA
We conclude plant expansion is
v� growth inducing as defined by CEQA.
We recognize in EIR that Sanitation
Districts do not have land use
responsibilities or mitigation
responsibilities.
Agencies that do have that authority
are Orange County cities.
Flow projections are based on their
plans. 1s�b(/�( pp�
I{ f�Ea'u� m-.
S � Growth projections fare consistent
with SCAG GNP. //.
Population��o consistent with A MP
of S!ENN .
Growth Impacts Impact of growth are significant.
- Transportation - more congestion
- Air quality - worse unless AQNP
- Public services and facilities
will be affected
- Utilities will experience added
demands
No differences between treatment
scenarios. d v 7 • .r
Construction Tmnacts `
\J> - Transportation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Aesthetics
Biology
j Kerins resource,
EIR also looks at construction
impacts. C _
A,�,--
_Ingludos new sewer�,�w"l_+W. are / t>
essentially the soma off lisc
pa P a
1�
w Amount of construction.ee-VIAnts
varies by alternative.
Impact, on plant sites greater for
greater treatment.
Scenario No, 3 nearly constant
construction.
7
JUN-06-'B9 15:33 ID:JCNES fUJD STOKES INC TEL NO:4428186 #5B8 P13 ---
SIR discusses these impacts.
Mitigations presented.
Construction impacts also evaluated
for new outfall and its effect on
biologyLmer?o resources.
Air/Land/Water Operations Tradeoffs: Whenever waste is
generated, it hagg to go somewhere.
only three media'lasimilate wastes:
air, land, water.
WX RIR evaluates these impacts.
No significant impacts from
operations of expanded plants. •4 r q ,
All standards would be met.
No meaningful differences between
alKxttHt v�ea,f'Ca '0Vf 0 C.
Land Significant land impacts from
sludge.
L Higher treatment, greater land area
(hundreds for landfill, thousands
for reuse.)
-7 1 2 3
Million cubic yards landfill
(Codieposal) 72 82 102
Monofill acres 360 410 560
Agricultural acres 5,440 6,550 8,890
BaAayt .
Higher treatment, more solids to
land, less to water (hold) .
water G Impacts on water especially
S important.
t/
I //0�� / Rousefrom reclamation is benefit to
are
areas water supply.
8
IlIN-06-'89 15:33 ID:SQNES AND STOKES INC TEL NO:4428180 #5e8 P14
13
mglor public Health of Primary Interest Are: These are key environmental Sssue'r
• Toxics
• Bacteria/viruses 1y 00+o d
• Water quality /Lz
• Marine life
• Beneficial uses of marine o65?C/—
environment
• Cumulative impacts of Sanitation
Districts discharge considered in
context akother Open
dischargers.
With respect to viruses and
bacteria, the EIR concludes for all
three scenarios that location and
depth of outfall and favorable
current conditions effectively
preclude adverse impacts on public
health.
Impact of Source Control Industrial toxice source control
will remain an important part of
Sanitation Districts' program.
Beneficial impacts of that taxies
source control program are indiated
on this slide:
• Incoming raw sewage meets or pp
exceeds all regulatory standards
before it even reaches the
plants.
• All three scenarios provide taxies
removal equivalent to that
achieved by secondary treatment
processes.
• There are no environmentally
significant differences between
scenarios with respect to
discharge of toxice.
Solids Deposition Some of the remaining suspended
solids may settle near diffuser
including:
• Organic matter (degradable), and
• Heavy metals and trace toxicants.
• The organic matter may increase
biomass (More animals of a
particular type)
1
9
SLIN-06-189 1�:34_ ID:IOhES PHD STOKES IK TEL NO:4428180 4588 P15
6d
Marine Bottom Life Impacts Arsa,,lmpact by deposition as
estimated by d4roerairy o ife forms
near dLffuaera:
28 18 5(A
(Acres) �
If outfalls separated, degrge of
change Mae;-Iress. CuvcaCd de.
10
:...___. . JUN-86-'69 15:34 ID:JONES AND STOKES INC TEL Nn:4428180 #5588 P16
ligh we dive 'ty f m or hint is igni ance)
t owe umbe of speci
1 is d s ws slight an nditions and
o egra
umals/or un t due rganLsource
Jv�ajnr Public Health m�r/ �
environmental issues o Toxics (I ��t � ir
o Bacteria/viruses
o Water quality (rf lier� e%G ao'wcr�l��
o Marine life
o Beneficial uses
Cumulative impacts
�Gv 8 Tilxe®/ T r
Evaluated in detail in EIR
,PPredic no stan ar s violations for any of three.se4Oronhs.
4el v T No significant adverse marine impacts for any of three.sea,s.rbi,
Water quality standards met by all three.
Marine life protected.
e- 4 �1�6<
Tlw No significant adverse impacts on beneficial uses.
Also looked at cumulative impacts,
// looked at long-term trends.
in impacts for last decade.
Cumulative impacts not significant.
EIR indicates no significant adverse impacts on marine
environment.
o ee ating'4 ations
o P ea ben al uses
o rotect ironment om significant ' pairment
Resources o Energy • significant �.
PLoduce energy from digester gas
Ne energy least #1, most #3
o Construction materials ,.� �
/I o Chemicals t a �,yf�
o Personnel
o Cost
11
JUN-86-'89 15:35 1D:JONES AND STOKES INC TEL NO:4428168 458E P17
Environmental Factors Wr conclude that:
Resource allocations04!Increase with tmt level
ws�
Marine environment Impact decreases with tmt level ScJ+ oe?*o /4 ze*"- 49>awef
Land impact Increases with trot level Scoecw+b ? ucer <<k�+�
31 Idar
Al PrAle adequate environmental protection.
Weighing Weigh tradeoffs of alternatives.
Balancing small changes in o
occean against larger changes on land.
Cau ��r 1.5s t41�'k Ta Tom- � fe
'J'u.✓w a�" {b �-rav ��G�r
Drs�t� F/2 Ftk�iycr 1 -
O /�p�.e1�s�Ct,3'Jrsgp ��'U��J
$'tPae'�tJcera T(3ri��Y
12
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY
ON
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
' x PUBLIC HEARING s x
DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1989
TIME : 7 : 30 P.M.
PLACE: GARDEN GROVE COMMUNITY CENTER
11300 STANFORD AVENUE
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92640
REPORTED BY: CHRISTINE A. CHAMBERLAIN, CSR #6172
ORIGINAL
J0HNS0N C0U
10111 tiLATF.R AVlNOE,SUITE 206E
�.r
� 1
2 APPEARANCES
3
4 HEARING OFFICER: DON E. SMITH
5 COMMITTEE: THOMAS L. WOODRUFF
WAYNE SYLVESTER
6 RONALD B. HOESTEREY
BLARE ANDERSON
7 TOM DAWES
8 SECRETARY: RITA BROWN
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
a
1
2 I N D E X
3
9
5 SPEAKERS PAGE
6 MARGARET JOHNSON . 5
a
7 SHANNON JAROSRY 7
8 MOIRA NONNWEILER . . 11
9 R.J. SCHWICHTENBERG . . 12
a
10 ED EVANS. 14
11 BETH LEEDS . . 16
12 BERNARD LIPMAN. . 19
a.�
13 SCOTT FLODIN 22
14 JOHN HINGTGEN . . 23
15 JIM BEVINGTON . . 26
a
16 LAUGHTON MOORE, JR. 28
17 THOMAS PRATTE . . 30
18
a
19
20
21
a 22
23
24
25
r 3
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1
2 HEARING OFFICER: I WOULD NOW LIRE TO OPEN THE
3 HEARING FOR ORAL PUBLIC COMMENTS. ANYONE THAT WISHES TO
4 COMMENT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED A PINK "REQUEST TO PRESENT ORAL
5 COMMENTS" FORM AND TURN IT IN TO THE STAFF.
6 WHEN WE CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STEP TO THE PODIUM.
7 FOR THE SAKE OF THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND
8 ORGANIZATION, IF ANY. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR REMARKS
9 TO FIVE MINUTES. THE STAFF WILL HAVE A FLASHING ONE MINUTE
10 WARNING FOR THE SPEAKER. AT THAT POINT, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE
11 LEFT TO FINISH YOUR COMMENTS .
12 IN THE INTERESTS OF TIME, WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU
►.►
13 WOULD NOT REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENTARY; RATHER, IF YOU WISH TO
14 SUPPORT PREVIOUS COMMENTARY, IT WILL SUFFICE IF YOU MERELY
15 STATE THAT YOU AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE. THIS
16 WILL HELP ASSURE THAT EVERYONE THAT WISHES TO BE HEARD WILL
17 HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.
18 ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD REMIND YOU THE PURPOSE OF THIS
19 HEARING IS TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT E.I.R. SO, AT THIS
20 TIME, WE'LL TARE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS .
21 THE FIRST SPEAKER THAT WE HAVE HERE IS MARGARET
.r
22 JOHNSON. SHE LIVES AT 19742 SHORECLIFF LANE, HUNTINGTON
23 BEACH. MARGARET? SHE REPRESENTS THE AMERICAN CANTEEN SOCIETY.
24 I MEAN CETACEAN, I 'M SORRY.
25 MARGARET JOHNSON: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
r q
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 HEARING OFFICER: PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
2 MARGARET JOHNSON: MY NAME IS MARGARET FRANCIS
3 JOHNSON. I LIVE AT 19742 SHORECLIFF LANE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH.
4 I REPRESENT THE HUNTINGTON BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF 446
5 HOMES AND ALSO THE AMERICAN CETACEAN SOCIETY.
6 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU.
7 MARGARET JOHNSON: I HAVE LIVED IN ORANGE COUNTY
8 NEAR THE BEACH MY WHOLE ADULT LIFE, WHICH IS CONSIDERABLE,
9 WHICH HAS GIVEN ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE BEACH ON
10 ALMOST A DAILY BASIS. I AM DEEPLY COMMITTED TO OCEAN QUALITY,
11 AND I AM HERE TO ASK YOU TO GO FOR FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT
12 FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT.
13 BECAUSE AS NOTED IN THE E.I.R. , THE PEOPLE WHO
14 FAVORED FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT DID NOT CITE FACTUAL
15 SUBSTANTIATION FOR THEIR PREFERENCE -- THAT'S IN CHAPTER 11 ON
16 PAGE 6 -- IN MY WRITTEN STATEMENT, I HAVE CITED MANY CHANGES
17 IN THE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIATED IN THE
18 E. I.R. THIS IS ONLY PART OF MY WRITTEN STATEMENT.
19 THIS IS WHAT I SAW FROM A LIGHT PLAYA]. CHAPTER 7
20 PAGE 52, THE PLUME OF SEWAGE WHICH RISES TO THE SURFACE FOUR
21 PERCENT OF THE TIME. THAT'S 12 DAYS A YEAR. SOME OF THE FECAL
v
22 COLIFORMS IN THAT SEWAGE HAVE A LIFE OF 19 DAYS IN SEA WATER.
23 SECONDARY TREATMENT WOULD REMOVE 90 PERCENT OF THOSE FECAL
24 COLIFORMS, THAT' S GERMS AND BACTERIA. THAT' S A POTENTIAL OF
w 25 168 DAYS OF CONTAMINATION OF THE SEA WATER WHEREVER IT IS.
5
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
r
r
1 WE HAVE SEEN FROM OUR BOAT FISHING FISH WITH OPEN
2 SORES ON THEIR FINS . YOU WILL FIND THAT ON PAGE 62. ALL MY
3 REFERENCES ARE FROM CHAPTER 7.
r
4 SIGNS ALONG THE BEACH TELLING US WHITE CROAKER ARE
5 CONTAMINATED. JUST NOT THE LITTER BUT THE EDIBLE FISH AS WELL.
6 AND PEOPLE STILL FISH WHITE CROAKER ON PARTY BOATS. THAT' S ON
r
7 PAGE 34.
8 POLLUTED CLAM BEDS, NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE E.I.R.
9 BECAUSE THEY WERE DESTROYED BY STORMS IN 1963, WE FOUND UP TO
r
10 TWO OF THE 10 CLAMS THAT WE TRIED TO TAKE TO BE FOUL SMELLING
11 WITH DARK ULCERATED MUSCLES.
12 AND FINALLY, WHEN WE RODE OUR BICYCLES TO THE BEACH
rJ
13 AFTER A HEAVY RAIN TO THE MOUTH OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, THAT
14 IS NO RIVER, THAT IS AN OPEN SEWER -- THAT' S ON PAGE 83. YOU
15 CAN CONSULT THAT YOURSELF -- NOT UNLIKE THE OPEN TRENCH IN
r
16 TIJUANA.
17 THE SLUDGE IS ALSO OF CONCERN. AND, YOU KNOW --
18 THIS IS IN CHAPTER 8 -- WHAT IS IN THE SLUDGE, YOU CAN TAKE TO
V
19 A HAZARDOUS WASTE DUMP. IF IT IS RELATIVELY PURE, YOU ARE
20 GOING TO USE IT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. BUT, IF YOU JUST
21 DUMP IT INTO THE OCEAN, ARE YOU DIFFERENTIATING THE SLUDGE OR
r
22 ARE YOU JUST DUMPING IT ALL OUT THERE?
23 OVER AND OVER IN THE E. I.R. , EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE
24 PROCESSED BRINE, WHATEVER THAT CONTAINS, FROM THE STRINGFELLOW
r
25 ACID PITS, YOU ARE STAYING WITHIN THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR
v 6
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
V
V
1 EFFLUENT QUALITY. AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS TRUE. BUT, HERE IT
2 IS. HERE IS WHAT I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES OUT THERE IN
3 THE OCEAN. AND I HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTATION IN YOUR OWN
9 E.I.R. WHICH YOU WROTE YOURSELVES.
5 THE ORGANISMS ARE SHOWING SHORT AND LONG-TERM
6 CHANGES THAT SAY SOMETHING IS IMPACTING THEM. WE DO NOT
V
7 CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES THAT THE ORGANISMS ARE MAKING.
B WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SOME OF THESE IMPACTS WILL BE
9 PERMANENT. THE ORGANISMS OUT THERE ARE HURTING.
W
10 LOS ANGELES HAS NOW GONE FOR FULL SECONDARY
11 TREATMENT. WE CAN HAVE FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT FOR LESS THAN
12 OUR BEACH PASS COSTS US. I PAY $30 FOR MY BEACH PASS TO PARK
13 MY CAR. FOR $25 I COULD HAVE FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT OF THE
14 SEWAGE. IT IS NOW TIME FOR ORANGE COUNTY TO ALSO HAVE FULL
15 SECONDARY TREATMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
V
16 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARGARET.
17 THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE SHANNON JAKOSKY. SHANNON,
1B WILL YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WHO YOU
19 REPRESENT?
20 SHANNON JAKOSKY: HI. I'M SHANNON JAKOSKY. MY
21 ADDRESS IS 1042 WEST BAY AVENUE, BALBOA, 92661 , AND I REPRESENT
v
22 THE BALBOA COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS THE AMERICAN CETACEAN
23 SOCIETY. I 'M ALSO HERE AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO LIVES ON
24 THE OCEAN AND SPENDS WELL OVER 50 PERCENT OF THEIR TIME IN IT
. _
25 AND ON IT. MY HUSBAND IS A COMPETITIVE SAILER, AND I AM AN
7
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I EDUCATOR WHICH GOES INTO SCHOOLS AND GIVES INFORMATION FOR
2 WHALE WATCH FOR THE AMERICAN CETACEAN SOCIETY, AND I 'M ALSO AN
3 EDUCATOR FOR THE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER LOCATED IN LAGUNA BEACH.
d
4 Z THINK IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE APPARENT THAT
5 ORANGE COUNTY IS A VERY WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE IN REGARDS TO
6 THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE AND THE POPULATION THAT ARE COMING INTO
V
7 THE AREA NOW AND WILL BE COMING INTO IT IN THE FUTURE. AND AS
8 YOU READ CURRENT ARTICLES, ESPECIALLY IN THE FINANCIAL REALM,
9 YOU WILL BEGIN TO NOTE THAT THEY ARE PREDICTING THAT THE
r
10 FINANCIAL HUB IS SHIFTING FROM THE EAST COAST TO THE WEST
11 COAST.
12 AND IN REGARD TO THAT, I'D LIKE TO COIN A PHRASE
13 THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME FROM AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
14 SANITATION DISTRICT WHICH SAID THAT SCENARIO 2 WOULD BE
15 ACCEPTABLE. ACCEPTABLE BY FEDERAL STANDARDS, PERHAPS, BUT I
w
16 FEEL THAT WE SHOULD ALWAYS STRIVE TO OUTDO EVERYTHING IN OUR
17 LIFE AND BECOME BETTER. ACCEPTABLE IS NOT TOLERABLE TO ME.
18 EXCELLENT OR THE BEST, AND THAT MEANS THE BEST THAT TECHNOLOGY
b
19 AND THE HEST THAT MONEY CAN BUY SHOULD BE WHAT ORANGE COUNTY
20 CREATES. WE SHOULD BE A LANDMARK FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY,
21 IF NOT THE WORLD, AND HAVE THE BEST TREATMENT AVAILABLE. IT' S
d
22 IMPORTANT TO NOTE, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE REASON THESE PEOPLE
23 COME TO ORANGE COUNTY IS BECAUSE OF THE OCEAN, AND THAT OCEAN
24 SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BY THE WAY, MY HUSBAND IS A DEVELOPER.
25 I 'M NOT SATISFIED WITH SOME CERTAIN THINGS IN THE
r 8
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
V
d
I E.I.R. , BUT I'LL RESTRICT MYSELF TO ONE DUE TO TIME. THERE ARE
2 NOT, IN MY OPINION, ENOUGH INFORMATION ON CURRENT TISSUE
3 SAMPLES FROM MARINE MAMMALS. IF YOU'LL NOTE IN THE E.I.R. ,
d 4 MOST OF THEM COME FROM DATES SUCH AS 1981, 1983, 1984, AND
5 MANY OF THESE MARINE MAMMALS ARE NOT EVEN MAMMALS THAT ARE
6 TAKEN OFF THE CALIFORNIA COAST.
d
7 ALSO, INFORMATION ON THE PINNIPED COMMUNITY, WHICH
8 ARE SEA LIONS AND SEALS FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW, IS
9 QUITE INACCURATE. THEY CLAIM THAT THESE ANIMALS LIVE AND FORGE
s
10 MOST OF THfiIR FOOD IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS. THEY LIVfi IN THE
11 CHANNEL ISLANDS APPROXIMATELY TWO MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR -- IN
12 JUNE AND JULY WHEN THEY GIVE BIRTH AND BREED -- AND AT THAT
�.
13 TIME, THE MALE BULL DOES NOT EVEN EAT. HE PROTECTS HIS
14 HAREM. SO, THIS INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
15 IT' S VERY CRUCIAL. THE REASON I THINK IT' S CRUCIAL
s
16 TO HAVE THESE SAMPLES IS IN THE EARLY 1970'S, APPROXIMATELY 50
17 PERCENT OF THE PINNIPED POPULATION WAS BEING BORN EITHER
18 DEFORMED OR PREMATURELY. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL OF THESE ANIMALS
d
19 WERE COMING OUT WITH SOMETHING WRONG. THIS CAUSED SCIENTISTS
20 TO ASK WHY, AND THEY FOUND THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF D.D.T.
21 BECAUSE OF THIS, THIS RESEARCH, CHANGES WERE MADE IN WATER
v
22 LEVELS AND IN D.D.T. SAMPLES WHICH STILL AFFECT US TODAY.
23 SO, TO KEY ON JUST THAT ONE POINT, I THINK THAT
24 CURRENT SAMPLES, WHICH COULD BE TAKEN LOCALLY OR COULD BE FOUND
r 25 AT NATIONAL SAMPLE BANKS, SHOULD BE IN THE E.I.R. AND SHOULD BE
9
V
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 SCRUTINIZED VERY CAREFULLY. THE MARINE MAMMALS ARE THE NEXT
2 STEP ON THE FOOD CHAIN. WE EAT THEM. WHAT THEY EAT, WE EAT,
3 IF YOU'RE NOT A VEGETARIAN, AND WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
v
9 I THINK YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARS ORANGE
5 COUNTY SANITATION DISCHARGE THE BEST AND TO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR
6 THE FUTURE. IT'S UNREALISTIC TO ASSUME THAT CURRENT
v
7 ACCEPTABLE LAWS ARE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE NEXT 30
8 YEARS, LET ALONE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
9 I CITE THE TANNER BILL WHICH IS NOW IN THE HOUSE IN
r
10 OUR OWN STATE CONGRESS WHICH WOULD PREVENT THINGS LIRE THE
11 STRINGFELLOW ACID PITS FROM HAPPENING. IT WOULD PREVENT
12 INDUSTRIAL WASTE FROM CROSSING COUNTY LINES. STRINGFELLOW COMES
r�
13 FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; AND THOUGH I KNOW THE BRINE IS
19 DRINKING -- YOU COULD DRINK THE WATER THAT' S IN THE TRUCKS, I
15 STILL QUESTION WHY.
r
16 Z ALSO CITE SENATOR GARY R. HART'S CLEAN OCEANS ACT
17 BILL WHICH WILL SOON BE ON THE HOUSE; AND EVEN IF IT FAILS, IT
18 WILL BE FOLLOWED UP WITH OTHER INIATIVES.
19 SO, RATHER THAN BEING FORCED TO CHANGE HURRIEDLY AND
20 COSTING MUCH MORE MONEY IN THE FUTURE TO ASSUME -- AND I DO
21 ASSUME THAT MANY OF THESE LAWS AND ACTS WILL GO THROUGH -- I
W
22 THINK THAT ORANGE COUNTY SHOULD CHOOSE TO, ON ITS OWN MERIT,
23 WITH ITS OWN LOGIC AND ITS OWN RESEARCH, TO MAKE THE CHANGES
29 WHICH WE ARE NOW FACED WITH.
r 25 I WANT TO MENTION ONE MORE THING THAT WAS BROUGHT
v
10
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
W
�J
I UP TO ME BY AN ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT EMPLOYEE THAT
2 HAD ASKED WHICH OF THESE THREE CATEGORIES WAS I MOST CONCERNED
3 WITH: WAS IT (A) TOXIDITY; (B) THE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE; OR
v
4 (C) THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. I FIND IT LUDICRUOUS TO THINK THAT
5 THESE THREE THINGS CAN EVEN BE SEPARATED. THEY ARE ALL THREE
6 INTERDEPENDENT, WE ARE ALL INTERDEPENDENT, AND THESE THREE
7 THINGS NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AND WHAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
8 STANDARD CHANGES OR CHANGES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE. I DON'T
9 CONSIDER ANY DAMAGING CHANGES TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU
s
10 VERY MUCH.
11 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, SHANNON.
12 MOIRA NONNWEILER? DID I PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT?
►.�
13 PROBABLY NOT.
14 MOIRA NONNWEILER: MY NAME IS MOIRA NONNWEILER. YOU
15 WERE CLOSE. EXCUSE ME. MY ADDRESS IS 602 NORTH LINWOOD
16 AVENUE, SANTA ANA, 92701.
17 THE TWO SPEAKERS THAT CAME UP BEFORE ME, I FIND
18 THEIR TESTIMONY ADMIRABLE, AND I AGREE WITH IT FULLY. IN
V
19 ADDITION TO THAT, I WOULD LIRE TO SAY THAT THE GREATER AMOUNT
20 OF SLUDGE PRODUCED UNDER SCENARIO 3 IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT
21 DISADVANTAGE; AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE PRESENTLY A
d
22 YEAR AGO, THERE WAS -- ALL OF IT WENT TO LANDFILLS. NOW, THEY
23 ALREADY ARE PUTTING 50 PERCENT INTO AGRICULTURE AND OTHER
24 MEANS. AND THAT MEANS IN ONE YEAR, IF THEY CAN ATTACK 50
25 PERCENT, WHAT CAN THEY DO IN TWO YEARS?
11
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 SO, I BELIEVE THAT SCENARIO 3 IS WHAT WE HAVE TO GO
2 BY, AND I 'D LIRE TO GO ON RECORD FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
3 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, MOIRA.
v
4 R.J. SCHWICHTENBfiRG?
5 R.J. SCHWICHTENBERG: YES. MY NAME IS
6 R.J. SCHWICHTENBERG. I AM FROM 4141 FIRESIDE CIRCLE IN IRVINE,
7 AND I 'M A CONCERNED CITIZEN HERE, A CIVILIAN, LIRE ALL OF US
8 HERE.
9 I FEEL IT' S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO ADDRESS THIS AS
10 A REGION, AS NEIGHBORS. IT' S A SERIOUS IMPLICATION WHEN WE
11 KEEP FOULING OUR OWN ENVIRONMENT, OUR OWN BODIES, BECAUSE WE
12 ARE RECYCLING MECHANISMS. THE WATER THAT WE GET TRICKLES DOWN,
V� 13 AND WE USE IT APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES BEFORE IT HITS THE
14 OCEAN. IT GOES IN DIFFERENT CHANNELS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT
15 YOU, BUT I 'M BUYING A LOT OF BOTTLED WATER NOW. I FIND MYSELF
v
16 RELIGIOUSLY GOING OVER THERE AND TRYING TO FIND AS CLEAN A
17 WATER AS I CAN FIND.
18 I THINK IT' S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US ALL TO REALIZE
v
19 THAT WE AREN'T THE LAST GENERATION HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON
20 THIS PLANET. AND AS LONG AS WE CAN CONTINUE THIS ACTIVITY --
21 I'M NOT AGAINST GROWTH, AND I KNOW YOU PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WORKING
22 HARD. I 'M IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY, AND I SEE THAT YOU'RE
23 DOING YOUR WORK ON THE POINT SOURCES, OKAY, AND WE NEED TO
24 BRING IT CLOSER TO OUR RESPONSIBLE SELVES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE
v 25 IT LIES. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE ONLY IN CHARGE OF THE
v
12
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
v
v
1 PLUMBING, OKAY, AND WE'D LIRE TO HELP YOU OUT ON THAT.
2 THERE ARE OTHER PLANS, I FEEL, AND I FEEL IF WE PUT
3 OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND ADDRESS THIS AS A TRUE COST ACTION --
4 BECAUSE THAT' S WHAT IT LIES ON, IT LIES ON THE POCKETBOOK. WE
5 VOTE WITH OUR POCKETBOOKS, AND WE ARE ONE OF THE RICHEST
6 REGIONS AROUND. AND IF WE CAN'T CLEAN UP OUR ACTS HERE, YOU
7 CAN'T EXPECT ANYBODY ELSE OR ANYTHING ELSE TO CLEAN UP ITS ACT
8 OR THEIR ACT OR WHOEVER THEY APPEAR TO BE TO YOU, OKAY.
9 AND WE ALL HAVE OPINIONS HERE, AND I THINK WE WANT
10 TO PASS THIS ON RIGHT TO THE CHILDREN NOW, TO OUR CHILDREN
11 AND WHATEVER ORGANISMS THAT WE ABOUND WITH. AND I INTEND TO
12 ABOUND JUST LIRE ANY OF YOU PEOPLE, OKAY. SO, LET'S DO IT
13 RIGHT.
14 AND I WANT TO GO ON RECORD FOR DOING BETTER THAN
15 SCENARIO 3. I THINK WE CAN MARE A VALUABLE PRODUCT WITH THIS
V
16 MATERIAL. THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT WE EXTRACT FROM THE
17 EARTH IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT, AND IT'S NOT A GARBAGE. IT' S NOT
18 AM AWAY PRINCIPAL. WE NEED TO CHANGE. WE NEED TO BECOME A
d
19 MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY OR WE ARE GOING TO END UP SOMEPLACE
20 ELSE. MAYBE NOT AS FRIENDLY AS WE ARE NOW. AND THAT' S A FUNNY
21 ISSUE BECAUSE WE ALL ENJOY LIFE AND THAT' S IMPORTANT. THE
y 22 QUALITY OF LIFE, OKAY, LET' S NOT FORGET THAT. THANK YOU FOR
23 THIS TIME.
24 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
25 ED EVANS?
4.✓
13
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 ED EVANS: YEAH. HI, I 'M ED EVANS. I 'M HAPPY TO BE
2 HERE TONIGHT, AND I DO LIVE IN ORANGE COUNTY AT 4793 GRACE
3 AVENUE IN CYPRESS. I USED TO BELONG TO WHAT WAS KNOWN AS THE
9 CYPRESS GREENS. WE'RE NOW KNOWN AS THE COYOTE GREER GREENS .
5 IT' S MORE BIOREGIONAL, AND I HOPE TO SPEAR BIOREGIONALLY HERE
6 THIS EVENING ON THIS VERY ISSUE.
7 MR. SCHWICHTENBERG, I BELIEVE HIS NAME IS, WAS
8 HITTING A PHILOSOPHICAL NOTE ABOUT PASSING ON THE PLANET TO
9 OTHER FOLKS. AND AS AGREEING, I'D HAVE TO ECHO THE VALUE OF
v
10 THAT SENTIMENT. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT WE'RE
11 CONSIDERING HERE TONIGHT IS ONE SINGLE HUMAN-CENTERED MODEL,
12 ONE MODEL OF REALITY, AND IT' S A TECHNOLOGICAL MODEL.
13 AS A MODEL, WE PASS IT OFF AS AN E.I.R. ,
14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. IT COMES OUT OF THE EYEBALLS,
15 EARS, NOSE, THROAT, TASTE, FEELINGS, SENSES, PHILOSOPHY OF
v
16 HUMAN BEINGS, A HUMAN-CENTERED ACROCENTRIC, WE GREENS SAY. IT
17 REALLY DOESN'T TARE IN THE FULL IMPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTALLY,
18 THE FULL ETHOLOGICAL IMPACT FOR THE FUTURE.
19 OKAY. IT'S BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, WE GREENS
20 SAY. IT' S BASED ON, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WE CALL CONTRACT LAW,
21 POLITICS BASED ON CITY STATES, NATION STATES. IT' S NOT BASED
22 ON BIOREGIONALISM. FOR INSTANCE, WHAT DOES YOUR E.I.R. SAY
23 ABOUT MONO LAKE AND THE WATER THAT' S COMING OUT OF THE NORTH
24 AND THE WATER THAT' S GOING TO BE PART OF THE WATER WAR HERE
25 SHORTLY? DOES YOUR E.I.R. TALK ABOUT THIS WASTE AND ITS
14
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH WATER? I DON'T THINK IT DOES.
2 OKAY. SO, YOU'VE GOT THREE SCENARIOS HERE. ONE
3 SOUNDS BETTER THAN THE OTHERS AS FAR AS THE HUMAN-CENTERED
4 APPROACH GOES, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. IT'S TRYING TO DEAL WITH
5 HUMAN WASTE IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER FROM A HUMAN-CENTERED VIEW.
6 AND AS WE KNOW FROM THE PAST, IT' S TOO NARROW. IT'S NOT TARING
7 IN THE FULL ETHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES.
8 HOW DO WE GREENS KNOW ABOUT THIS NOT WORKING? WELL,
9 IN THE OZARKS, THEY KNOW THAT HUMAN WASTE DESTROYS THE OZARKS
v
10 NO MATTER HOW WELL IT'S TREATED. SO, WHAT PEOPLE IN THE OZARKS
11 ARE LEARNING IS TO TREAT IT AT HOME. THEY CALL THAT SOURCE
12 REDUCTION. SOURCE REDUCTION IS THE KEY TO HUMAN WASTE.
�.
13 WHATEVER THE CHEMICAL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, SOURCE
19 REDUCTION IS THE KEY.
15 YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GROWTH IMPACTS. WELL, YOU'RE
v
16 PREDICATING YOUR GROWTH ON THE AUTOMOBILE. YOU'RE CREATING
17 YOUR SOCIETY AROUND THE AUTOMOBILE, DRIVE-UP WINDOWS. HOW
18 MUCH OF THIS COUNTY' S SUBSTANTIAL AREA IS DEDICATED TO THE
19 AUTOMOBILE? QUITE A BIT. YOU'RE PREDICATING YOUR GROWTH ON
20 CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT, CENTRALIZED TECHNOLOGY, CENTRALIZED
21 TRANSPORTATION. YOU'RE PREDICATING YOUR GROWTH ON RELIANCE ON
v
22 OTHER NATIONS INTERNATIONALLY.
23 THERE' S NOTHING HERE ABOUT DECENTRALIZATION.
29 THERE'S NOTHING HERE ABOUT SELF-RELIANCE. THERE' S NOTHING HERE
25 ABOUT PERSONAL OR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT TO MENTION
15
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 ETHOLOGICAL IMPACTS. GRAY. SO, IF YOU WANT TO GROW, LET'S
2 GROW SENSIBLY. LET' S KEEP OUR WASTE HOME.
3 NOW, THERE' S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT THE PEOPLE
4 INVOLVED HERE ARE DOING THEIR BEST, THE BEST THEY CAN DO USING
5 THIS ONE MODEL. BUT, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MODEL. WE HAVE TO
6 CONSIDER OTHER MODELS.
7 I WANT TO DROP A NAME HERE. JIM BELL. AND I
8 STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY SPEAR WITH JIM BELL TO FIND
9 OUT WHAT THE OTHER APPROACHES ARE. JIM BELL TODAY IS INVOLVED
10 IN SAN DIEGO AND TIJUANA, WHICH IS ONE BIOREGION. TIJUANA
11 TODAY IS GOING TO USE ITS SOLID WASTE TO BUILD A PARR WITHOUT
12 ANY CARS. IT'S GOING TO BE AN AUTO FREE ZONE, AND THAT'S A
�..�
13 PERFECT PLACE FOR M.A.A.D. FOR CHILDREN. THAT'S MOTHER' S
14 AGAINST ANY DRIVING FOR CHILDREN. THAT' S A PERFECT PLACE FOR
15 HUMAN WASTE TO BE RECYCLED. I THINK HUMAN WASTE CAN BECOME A
v
16 COMMODITY IN SOME INSTANCES, AS MR. SCHWICHTENBERG POINTED OUT,
17 BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO USE IT FOR OURSELVES, FOR ITS OWN
18 VALUE, TO GROW OUR OWN FOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
19 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU.
20 BETH LEEDS?
21 BETH LEEDS: HELLO. MY NAME IS BETH LEEDS. I AM
W
22 PRESIDENT OF ORANGE COUNTY SAVE OUR SHORES, AND I 'M ALSO AN
23 INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IN ACTION.
24 AND WE ARE DEDICATED TO PROTECTION AND MEASURES TO
25 INSURE PROTECTION OF THE COAST OFF ORANGE COUNTY AND OFF THE
16
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
r
I ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE WHOLE WORLD. WE WILL BE
2 SUBMITTING TO YOU BY TUESDAY, MAY 30TH, TOGETHER WITH OTHER
3 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR OCEAN
r
4 PROTECTION.
5 IT' S OUR FEELING THAT THE PROJECTED GROWTH OF
6 ORANGE COUNTY FROM 1.9 MILLION TO 2. 8 MILLION WITHIN THE NEXT
r
7 30 YEARS WILL ADD TO THE DEGRADATION OF NOT ONLY OUR PRECIOUS
8 OXYGEN PRODUCING OCEAN, BUT IT WILL ALSO DEGRADE THE QUALITY
9 OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT AS IT EXISTS IN ALREADY BOOMING AND
10 CONJESTED ORANGE COUNTY.
11 THE CAPACITY ISSUE AND ITS RELATED HEALTH CONCERNS
12 ARE OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN TO THOSE OF US WHO SEE OUR OCEAN
.wl
13 CONTINUALLY DEGRADING ON A DAILY BASIS. IN SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY
14 AND, IN PARTICULAR, IN LAGUNA BEACH, WE'VE EXPERIENCED BEACH
15 CLOSURES WHERE WE ONCE PRIDED OURSELVES THAT WE WERE ABLE TO
16 SWIM IN AN OCEAN THAT WAS FREE FROM POLLUTION. WE'VE
17 EXPERIENCED OVER SIX BEACH CLOSURES THIS YEAR.
18 ACCORDING TO TIME MAGAZINE, AUGUST OF 1988 COVER
r
19 STORY "OUR FILTHY SEAS, " JACQUE E. COUSTEAU STATES, "THE VERY
20 SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN SPECIES DEPENDS ON THE MAINTENANCE OF AN
21 OCEAN CLEAN AND ALIVE SPREADING ALL AROUND THE WORLD. THE
r
22 OCEAN IS OUR PLANET'S LIFE BELT. "
23 WHO ARE WE KIDDING? WILL THESE HEARINGS REALLY
24 MAKE A DIFFERENCE? DON'T WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE CUMULATIVE
v 25 IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT, 1, 2 OR SCENARIO 3, ALONG WITH OTHER
w 17
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
v
I GROWTH INDUCING PROJECTS WILL STRANGLE OUR COUNTY? DON'T WE
2 ALREADY KNOW THAT OUR PLANET'S OZONE LAYERS WILL CAUSE
3 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO US?
4 WHAT ABOUT ENERGY CONSERVATION? WHAT ABOUT
5 DESALINIZATION? WHAT ABOUT FUELING OUR CARS WITH THE
6 BY-PRODUCTS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM? WHAT ABOUT EDUCATING OUR
7 CHILDREN? WHAT WILL WE TELL THEM? WE HAVE TO CLEAN UP OUR
8 MESS, AND WE HAVE TO BEGIN NOW.
9 WHAT ABOUT THE HYACINTH SYSTEM USED IN SAN DIEGO
10 COUNTY? WHAT ABOUT SELLING SLUDGE FOR FERTILIZER? WHAT ABOUT
11 BRICKS IN OUR COMMODES?
12 IF WE CONTINUE TO OPT FOR GROWTH INDUCING, GARBAGE
�.
13 PRODUCING AND POLLUTING PROJECTS, THEN THAT IS WHAT THE FUTURE
14 WILL HOLD FOR US . BUT, IF WE DO LOOK FOR WAYS TO MAKE OUR
15 LIFE REALLY BETTER AND CLEAN UP OUR EXISTING AIR AND OUR
16 EXISTING OCEAN INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET AWAY WITH
17 POLLUTING IT MORE, THEN MAYBE OUR COUNTY WILL HAVE A CHANCE.
18 BUT, WE MUST ACT NOW, AND MANY ARE ACTING NOW. AND THE
19 MOVEMENT WILL GROW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT. AND THE REASON
20 THAT IT WILL GROW IS BECAUSE IT'S BECOMING MORE OBVIOUS EVERY
21 SINGLE DAY THAT WE'RE NOT CLEANING UP THE MESS THAT WE'VE
d
22 ALREADY CREATED, AND WE MUST STOP OUR FUTURE POLLUTION.
23 I URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND OPPOSE
24 THE 301 (H) WAIVER THAT WILL EXEMPT US FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
y 25 THE CLEAN WATER ACT. AND IF WE REALLY LOOKED AT THE NO PROJECT
v
18
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I SCENARIO AND UPGRADED OUR CURRENT SYSTEM SO THAT WE COULD
2 HANDLE THE CURRENT SEWAGE FLOW, THEN IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT
3 OUR CURRENT SYSTEM COULD HANDLE THE PRIOR GROWTH THAT HAS
4 ALREADY OCCURRED OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS, AND THAT WOULD SEEM TO
5 BE A MORE REASONABLE SOLUTION THAN TO ADD TO THAT BY, JUST
6 BECAUSE OUR CURRENT SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING, ENLARGING IT SO MUCH
7 THAT WE'RE ABLE TO HANDLE A GROWTH -- MORE GROWTH INDUCING
8 PROJECTS, SUCH AS THE MANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
9 APPROVED BY OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
10 I THINK WE'RE ALREADY IN TROUBLE, AND I THINK THAT
11 THIS GROWTH INDUCING PROJECT WILL ADD TO OUR TROUBLE DOWN THE
12 LINE. AND I THINK THAT OUR SEWAGE SYSTEM SHOULD BE THE BEST;
s�
13 AND SO, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD UPGRADE OUR CURRENT SYSTEM TO
14 HANDLE THE CURRENT, AND MAYBE BUILDING MORATORIUMS ARE THE
15 ANSWER NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
W
16 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, BETH.
17 BERNARD LIPMAN?
18 BERNARD LIPMAN: MY NAME IS BERNARD LIPMAN. I LIVE
19 AT 2208 VIA CALIENTE IN FULLERTON, 92633. AND I'M A CONCERNED
20 CITIZEN AND ALSO REPRESENTING THE ORANGE COUNTY GROUP OF THE
21 SIERRA CLUB. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE
W
22 OPPORTUNITY TO MARE COMMENTS HERE TONIGHT. PUBLIC INPUT, OF
23 COURSE, IS SOMETHING WE EXPECT AND IS VERY IMPORTANT.
24 THE SIERRA CLUB HAS GONE ON RECORD AS BEING OPPOSED
y 25 TO A RENEWAL OF THE 301 (H) WAIVER FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
19
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 PROTECTION AGENCY FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT.
2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US, FIRST
3 OF ALL, DOES NOT ADDRESS CUMULATED DEMANDS ON THE OCEAN FROM
d
4 STORM DRAINS. IT DOESN'T AD➢RESS THE EFFECTS OF TOXIC DUMPING
5 OF DREDGE MATERIALS, AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY EFFECTS OF ANY
6 PRESENT AND FUTURE OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT. THESE ARE NOT
v
7 ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT E.I.R.
8 IF WE HAVE ANY AMOUNT OF GROWTH IN THE COUNTY UP TO
9 THE YEAR 2020, WE'RE GOING TO, FIRST OF ALL, INCREASE THE TOTAL
d
10 AMOUNT OF MATfiRIAL THAT THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT HAS TO
11 HANDLE, AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO HANDLE A GREATER
12 CONCENTRATION OF SOLIDS SO THAT BY THE YEAR 2020, THE AMOUNT
a�.r
13 OF MATERIALS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE HANDLED ARE GOING TO
14 BE INCREASED BY 50 PERCENT.
15 AND THE EFFECT OF THIS LOAD OF SLUDGE, IF IT'S
16 ALLOWED TO HE DUMPED INTO THE OCEAN, REALLY IS UNKNOWN. BY
17 2020 WE COULD HAVE A LOAD OF MATERIAL DUMPED IN THE OCEAN THAT
18 HAS DELETERIOUS EFFECTS REALLY NOT KNOWN, AND WE DON'T FEEL
d
19 THAT IT' S RIGHT FOR THE COUNTY TO TARE THE CHANCE ON DUMPING
20 MATERIALS INTO THE OCEAN WHICH ARE LESS THAN FULLY SECONDARILY
21 TREATED. THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS POTENTIALLY INCLUDE A CHANGE
v
22 IN THE BIOTA IN OUR COASTAL WATERS AND, OF COURSE, HEALTH
23 HAZARDS, POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS TO RECREATIONAL USERS OF
24 THOSE COASTAL WATERS.
w 25 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GOES INTO
20
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 COMPARISONS OF THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS, INCLUDING PHENOLS
2 BETWEEN SCENARIOS 2 AND 3 WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
3 IMPACT REPORT, ARE FOUR TIMES GREATER. THE AMOUNT OF CHROMIUM
V
9 BETWEEN SCENARIOS 2 AND 3 IS TWICE AS GREAT. THE AMOUNT OF
5 CADMIUM IS ONE AND A HALF TIMES AS GREAT. THE AMOUNT OF LEAD
6 IS TWICE AS GREAT. AND WE FEEL THAT THESE MATERIALS CAN EXERT
7 A TREMENDOUS DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT, AND WE
8 SHOULDN'T ALLOW THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT AND, OF
9 COURSE, OURSELVES TO DUMP THOSE MATERIALS INTO THE OCEAN.
W 10 ALSO, THE COST DIFFERENTIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN
11 DEVELOPED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THEY'RE RIND OF
12 DIFFICULT TO GET OUT. THEY WERE FOR ME. BUT, THE DIFFERENCE
13 IN COSTS BETWEEN SCENARIOS 2 AND 3 DfiALING WITH THE HANDLING
14 OF SLUDGE, WHICH IS REALLY GOING TO BE OUR MAJOR COST
15 DIFFERENTIAL, IS MINIMAL WHEN IT'S COMPARED WITH THE TOTAL COST
v
16 OF THE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF FRONT LINES AND PLANTS AND THOSE
17 SORTS OF THINGS. SLUDGE HANDLING IS GOING TO BE A MINIMAL
18 COST, AND WE FEEL IT SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE COUNTY.
V
19 IN CONCLUSION, I'D LIRE TO STAY THAT THE SIERRA CLUB
20 FEELS THAT THE INHERENT DANGERS OF SCENARIO 2 ARE TOO GREAT TO
21 RISK, AND THAT FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT OF OUR SEWAGE IS
22 NECESSARY. THE COST OF FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT IS CHEAP WHEN
23 WEIGHED AGAINST THE DANGERS OF INADEQUATELY TREATING OUR
24 SEWAGE EFFLUENT AND PUTTING IT INTO THE OCEAN. THANK YOU VERY
` 25 MUCH.
21
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, BERNARD.
2 SCOTT FLODIN?
3 SCOTT FLODIN: HELLO, MY NAME IS SCOTT FLODIN, AND
4 I REPRESENT THE STUDENTS OF ORANGE COAST COLLEGE. WE HAVE THE
5 MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH GROUP ON CAMPUS, AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHO
6 I'M REPRESENTING. I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF COSTA MESA. MY
v
7 ADDRESS IS 200 16TH STREET.
8 TWO MAIN THINGS I WANTED TO SAY. NUMBER ONE, I
9 BASICALLY ATTEST TO EVERYTHING SAID SO FAR; BUT ALSO, I WANTED
v
10 TO MENTION THAT THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE SCENARIO SET UP IS
11 WHY IS THERE NO SCENARIO NUMBER 4?
12 THE CITY OF IRVINE DOES NOT DUMP INTO THE OCEAN. IT
�../
13 CAN BE DONE; AND FOR SOME REASON, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE
14 SOMETHING THAT IS EVEN CONSIDERED AT ALL. I DON'T HAVE THE
15 ANSWER TO THAT. MAYBE WE CAN FIND OUT.
16 THE OTHER THING I HAVE, THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THE
17 MARINE MAMMALS OFF THIS COAST ARE NOT BEING MONITORED
18 ADEQUATELY AT ALL. IN YOUR CHAPTER 7 IN THE E.I.R. REPORT,
19 PAGE 66, YOU LIST A 1989 SURVEY OF THE MARINE MAMMALS LIVING
20 OFF THE COAST, POLLUENTS IN THEIR BODIES, IN THEIR FAT,
21 BLUBBER, AND OTHER TISSUES. AND THEN ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE, YOU
22 LIST ANIMALS WORLD-WIDE SUCH AS IN SWfiDEN, THE WATERS OFF
23 SWEDEN, HOW THEIR POLLUTION IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ONES OFF
24 THE COAST. I DON'T THINK A COMPARISON IS NECESSARY. I THINK
25 ANY IS BAD AND IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED.
22
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
r
r
I ANOTHER THING WITH THE ANIMALS, HENRY SCHAFFER, WHO
2 WORKS FOR SWERVE, HAS NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THESE ANIMALS
3 SINCE 1984 AS THE REPORT SHOWS. I THINK THAT'S A LONG TIME
r
4 AGO, AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE LATELY. IT MUST NOT BE HAVING
5 THE MONEY OR THE FUNDS TO DO THE RESEARCH. I THINK THAT COULD
6 BE SOMETHING DONE.
r
7 SO, BASICALLY I AM HERE TO SAY PROTEST THE 301 (H)
8 WAIVER, AND IF THERE IS NO SCENARIO NUMBER 4 YOU'RE OFFERING,
9 WELL THEN, I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO NUMBER 3 BECAUSE THE
r 10 FIRST TWO ARE DEFINITELY NOT GOOD CHOICES. SO, THANK YOU VERY
11 MUCH.
12 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, SCOTT.
r� 13 JOHN HINGTGEN? I DIDN'T HIT THAT RIGHT, I KNOW.
14 JOHN HINGTGEN: IT'S JOHN HINGTGEN. I LIVE AT
15 916 WEST NORTH IN ANAHEIM, 92805, AND I REPRESENT ONLY MYSELF.
r 16 I HAVE SOME COMMENTS CONCERNING THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE DRAFT
17 E.I.R.
18 I BELIEVE THIS DOCUMENT OVERSTATES THE BENEFITS OF
r 19 EXTENDING THE 301 (H) WAIVER. IT UNDERSTATES THE CASE FOR
20 DROPPING THE WAIVER AND ACHIEVING FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT.
21 I 'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT
W
22 ALTERNATIVES. SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE SOME GRAPHS OF THE
23 PROJECTED B.O.D. S POLLUTION AND THE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
24 POLLUTION THAT WOULD BE PUT INTO THE OCEAN UNDER THE DIFFERENT
25 SCENARIOS . THESE GRAPHS ARE DECEPTIVE. THEY DISTORT FACTS.
r
23
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
V
1 ON PAGE 3-15 THE B.O.D.5 POLLUTION PUT IN THE
2 OCEAN, THIS GRAPH MINIMIZES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THREE
3 SCENARIOS BY SHOWING -- ALL IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF
4 THE GRAPH -- BY SHOWING THE INFLUENT POLLUTION IN THE CENTER
5 WHEN INFLUENT IS NOT THE ISSUE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF
6 WHETHER TO TREAT THE INFLUENT. WE'VE ALL AGREED ON THAT. THE
V
7 QUESTION IS HOW MUCH POLLUTION TO PUT IN THE OCEAN.
8 BY SHOWING THE EXTRANEOUS DATA OF INFLUENT, THE
9 PRESENTATION DRAWS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE THREE SCENARIOS, AND
10 THUS, THE ISSUfi, WHICH IS WHICH SCENARIO TO CHOSE. AGAIN, ON
11 PAGE 3-16 THERE IS THE SAME DISTORTION. ON PAGE 3-20 IT
12 CONSULTS THE ROFUS DRAFT DOCUMENT AND CHANGING SCALE OF SLUDGE
�J
13 PRODUCTION GRAPHS. THE YEARS THERE ARE ONLY SHOWN FROM 1990
14 ON RATHER THAN 1975 ON AS IN THE OTHER GRAPHS.
15 THE VERTICAL SCALE IS MAGNIFIED SO THE DIFFERENCE
V
16 IN SCENARIOS APPEARS GREATER IN TERMS OF THE NEGATIVE AFFECTS
17 OF THE PROJECT THAN IT REALLY IS. THE SAME DISTORTION OCCURS
18 ON PAGE 3-21 AND 3-22. ON THESE SLUDGE PRODUCTION GRAPHS, THE
19 DIFFERENCE IN SCENARIOS APPEARS GREATER THAN IT IS. IN
20 REALITY, LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS. LET' S LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
21 THE B.O.D.5 POLLUTION PREDICTING THE FIGURE 2020
22 UNDER SCENARIO NUMBER 3 IS ABOUT 90, 000 POUNDS PER DAY. THESE
23 ARE MY ESTIMATES LOOKING AT THE GRAPHS AND TRYING TO PICK OFF
24 A NUMBER WHICH IS CLOSEST BASED UPON THE SCALE GIVEN THERE.
25 90,000 POUNDS PER DAY. UNDER SCENARIO NUMBER 1, IT'S 420,000
24
O JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
v
I POUNDS PER DAY. THIS IS A DIFFERENCE OF ALMOST 370 PERCENT.
2 ON PAGE 3-16 THE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS OF SCENARIO
3 NUMBER 3 ARE 90,000 POUNDS PER DAY. UNDER SCENARIO NUMBER 1,
9 THERE ARE 180 , 000 POUNDS PER DAY. THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF 100
5 PERCENT. YET THE GRAPH ON PAGE 3-16 APPEARS TO SHOW THAT THE
6 DIFFERENCE IS INSIGNIFICANT.
V
7 NOW, TURN TO PAGE 3-22, OR IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE
8 DOCUMENT, I 'LL JUST TELL YOU WHAT' S ON PAGE 3-22. THE SLUDGE
9 PRODUCTION FOR SCENARIO NUMBER 1 IS ABOUT 930 TONS PER DAY IN
10 THE YEAR 2020. SCENARIO NUMBER 3 IS ABOUT 1540 TONS PER DAY.
11 HERE THE DIFFERENCE IS 66 PERCENT, MUCH LOWER. THE GRAPH,
12 HOWEVER, MARES THE DIFFERENCE APPEAR FAR LARGER.
13 WHAT THIS REPORT DOES IS TO UNDERSTATE THE BENEFITS
14 OF GOING TO FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT WHILE EXAGGERATING THE
15 NEGATIVE EFFECTS. SUCH A DISTORTION IS INEXCUSABLE FOR
16 TECHNICAL TRADE PEOPLE. PEOPLE WHO SHOULD PRESENT THEIR WORK
17 OBJECTIVELY AND FAIRLY. IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE ADEQUACY OF
18 THE WHOLE DOCTRINE. IF THE CITIZENS OF ORANGE COUNTY CANNOT
19 EVEN TRUST THE SANITATION DISTRICT OR THE PEOPLE WHO PREPARE
20 THE DOCUMENT TO FAIRLY EXPLAIN THE FACTS, HOW CAN WE TRUST
21 THEM TO CORRECTLY PERFORM MORE COMPLEX TASKS? HOW DO WE KNOW
22 THE CALCULATIONS ARE CORRECT? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE
23 RECOMMENDATIONS ARE UNBIASED?
24 IN SHORT, I SUGGEST THAT THE DRAFT DOCUMENT CANNOT
25 BE RELIED UPON. SO, WHAT WOULD I PROPOSE TO FIX THIS PROBLEM?
25
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 I PROPOSE THROWING OUT THE WHOLE DOCUMENT. I PROPOSE DOING IT
2 OVER. BUT, NEXT TIME, LET' S GET SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE
3 OBJECTIVE. LET' S GIVE THE CITIZENS OF ORANGE COUNTY AN
4 UNBIASED DOCUMENT, ONE WE CAN TRUST, ONE WHOSE RECOMMENDATIONS
5 WE CAN BELIEVE.
6 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, JOHN.
7 JOHN LOCK? JOHN LOCK, HUNTINGTON BEACH? HE'S NOT
8 HERE?
9 JIM BEVINGTON?
V
10 JIM BEVINGTON: MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD,
11 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE AUDIENCE, MY NAME IS JIM BEVINGTON.
12 I 'M A RESIDENT OF WESTMINSTER AT 13761 MARQUETTE STREET, ZIP
v.r
13 92683. I DON'T HAVE ANY PREPARED TEXT, I JUST HAVE A FEW
14 REMARKS TO MARE AND A FEW ITEMS TO CALL ATTENTION TO ON THIS
15 FACT SHEET.
v
16 I 'M A MEMBER OF THE SURF RIDER ORGANIZATION OF
17 ORANGE COUNTY. IT' S A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WHICH IS
18 PREDICATED UPON THE PRESERVATION OF THE COAST AND THE BEACH
19 SIDE LANDS, PUBLIC ACCESS , WATER QUALITY, AND SO FORTH. I'M IN
20 THE WATER, I GUESS, PROBABLY TWO OR THREE DAYS A WEER EVERY DAY
21 OF THE YEAR -- EVERY WEER OF THE YEAR RATHER.
22 YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO REALLY GO ON RECORD AS BfiING
23 AGAINST THIS 301 (H) WAIVER WITH A 30-YEAR EXTENSION, AND I
24 HAVE TO AGREE WITH ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WERE BEFORE ME
25 INASMUCH AS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHEN WE'RE BEING
v
26
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I INUNDATED WITH ALL THIS INFORMATION THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE WEEK
2 WE CAN EAT APPLES AND THE NEXT WEEK WE MIGHT GET CANCER, WHO
3 KNOWS WHAT' S DOWN THE ROAD FOR US. AND WE CAN'T GO ON THE
4 SHORT SIDE AND NOT GIVE OURSELVES THE BENEFIT OF UTILIZING ALL
5 THE BEST TECHNOLOGY THAT' S AT HAND SO WE CAN GET THE BEST
6 AVAILABLE TREATMENT OF THE WATER THAT' S GOING OUT TO OUR LAST
7 FRONTIER. MY GOD, THAT' S ALL WE HAVE LEFT.
8 ON THE FACT SHEET, IT SAYS THAT THE EXPANSION, OF
9 COURSE, IS GOING TO COST MORE MONEY TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN.
10 WE ALL KNOW THAT; BUT, IT ALSO REQUIRED MORE EQUIPMENT AND
11 MATERIALS, WHICH WOULD INCREASE TOTAL DAMAGES. WELL, OF
12 COURSE. YOU KNOW, THAT' S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN AIR QUALITY WAS A
y� 13 BIG HOOPLA 20 SOME YEARS AGO, AND WE CAME OUT WITH ALL THE
14 STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS ON AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTION. YOU KNOW, ALL
15 OF THE CONSTRAINTS WE HAVE ON THE ENGINES NOW INCREASE THE --
16 RATHER DECREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF AN ENGINE PROBABLY BY ABOUT
17 20 PERCENT. SO, IT' S KIND OF REDUNDANT, YET WE'RE NOT
18 COMPLAINING ABOUT THE ADDED COST BECAUSE LOOK WHAT IT'S DONE
19 FOR AIR. IT' S REALLY ENHANCED THE QUALITY.
20 SO, YOU KNOW, THAT' S KIND OF A REDUNDANT THING THAT
21 EXPANSION CAN INCREASE ENERGY COSTS. CERTAINLY IT IS.
d
22 ANYTHING IS THAT YOU HAVE DONE THAT IS GOING TO TRY TO CLEAN
23 UP THE ENVIRONMENT.
24 ALSO ON THE BACK SIDE, IT SAYS THAT OUR EXISTING
25 FACILITIES CANNOT HANDLE THIS INCREASED DEMAND, AND THEY'RE
27
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
w
1 GOING TO UPDATE THE INCREASE IN FLOW. WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY' LL
2 HAVE TO INCREASE THE FACILITIES DOWN THERE ANYWAY TO MEET
3 INCREASED DEMAND COME THE YEAR 2000 OR 2020 WHICH IT SAYS.
d
4 WHY NOT GO AHEAD AND UPGRADE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY SO WE GET
5 THIS FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT? GOSH, I'D CERTAINLY VOTE FOR
6 THAT. AND I 'M SURE THAT PEOPLE IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT AREN'T
w 7 EVEN ACTIVE BEACH USERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BALK AT A LITTLE
8 ADDED EXPENSE. LIKE THE ONE LADY BEFORE SAID, THE PRICE OF A
9 BEACH PASS IS $30 A YEAR, $25 RIGHT NOW TO CLEAN UP AND GET A
w 10 BETTER OCEAN ENVIRONMENT. I CERTAINLY GO ON RECORD AS
11 SUPPORTING THAT. THANK YOU.
12 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU.
13 LAUGHTON MOORE, JR. ?
14 LAUGHTON MOORE, JR. : HI. MY NAME IS LAUGHTON
15 MOORE. I 'M FROM MOBILE, ALABAMA ORIGINALLY. I GUESS YOU CAN
w
16 TELL FROM MY ACCENT. I CAME OUT HERE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO. I
17 REALLY LIKE YOU CALIFORNIANS. I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF ONE YET,
18 BUT I DO ADMIRE ALL OF YOU THAT CAME OUT TONIGHT. I WISH
w
19 THERE WAS MORE OF US. I DON'T BELONG TO ANY SPECIAL INTEREST
20 GROUP. I'M JUST A TAXPAYER HERE.
21 I UNDERSTAND FROM LISTENING TO THE SLIDE SHOW THAT
w
22 WE'RE GOING TO MAYBE SPEND ANOTHER TWO, MAYBE 300 BUCKS A YEAR
23 BY THE YEAR 2020. IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR
24 A CLEANER OCEAN. I AGREE WITH WHAT SCOTT SAID. I DON'T THINK
25 IT' S A GOOD SOLUTION, BUT IT' S BETTER THAN NONE RIGHT NOW.
` 28
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I I 'M IN CONSTRUCTION. I BUILD SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS
2 AND THE SORT. I DON'T BUILD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS. BUT, ON
3 A DAILY BASIS, I PROBLEM-SOLVE, AND THAT' S BASICALLY WHAT I GET
4 PAID TO DO. I TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AND THEN
5 SOLVE IT. IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE TIMES WHEN I GO IN AND
6 TRY TO HELP SOME OTHER PEOPLE WITH THEIR PROBLEMS, THAT THEY'RE
7 TRYING TO SOLVE AN EFFECT RATHER THAN SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
8 THAT' S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT, SORT OF A
9 CRISIS MANAGEMENT, I GUESS YOU'D SAY. WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE
10 THE EFFECT OF ALL THE SEWAGE WE'RE PRODUCING, AND WHAT WE NEED
11 TO BE DOING IS SOLVING THE PROBLEM. BUT, SOLVING THE EFFECT
12 RIGHT NOW IS BETTER THAN NOT DOING ANYTHING. TO DO NOTHING
J 13 WOULD BE WORSE THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT.
14 ALL THIS SAID, I USE THE OCEAN, GOSH, NOT AS MUCH AS
15 I'D LIRE TO. I SCUBA DIVE MAYBE TWO, THREE TIMES A YEAR. THE
16 WATER' S SO COLD, I'VE GOT TO BE IN A WET SUIT OUT HERE, GUYS.
17 THE GULF OF MEXICO IS MUCH BETTER. BUT, WE JUST CAN'T SPOIL
18 THIS BEAUTIFUL COMMODITY THAT GOD -- WHOEVER YOU BELIEVE IN --
19 GAVE TO US.
20 YOU CAN SAY WE PUT FIVE PERCENT OUT THERE IN THE
21 OCEAN AND IT' S NOT TOO MUCH. WELL, MAYBE 10 PERCENT' S OKAY. I
V
22 THINK IF I'M GOING TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE, I 'D RATHER PUT IT OUT
23 MY BACK DOOR SO THAT I CAN WATCH IT AND I KNOW WHAT' S HAPPENING
24 TO IT. FLUSHING IT OUT THERE IN THE OCEAN, IT'S SORT OF OUT OF
25 SIGHT, OUT OF MIND. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S DOING. I DON'T
29
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 THINK WE'VE GOT THE TECHNOLOGY YET TO KNOW WHAT IT' S DOING.
2 $O, LET' S DON'T STICK OUR HEADS IN THE SAND AND TRY TO MARE IT
3 GO AWAY BY NOT SEEING IT. LET' S FACE UP TO IT.
4 SO, AS FAR AS PAYING THE MONEY FOR THE SOLUTION 3 ,
5 I 'M WILLING TO PAY THE MONEY AS MR. TAXPAYER, BUT LET' S DON'T
6 STOP HERE. LET' S FIND A BETTER SOLUTION. LET' S CUT OUR WATER
7 DEMAND. THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS WE CAN DO OUT THERE TO CUT
8 WATER.
9 IT JUST GRIPES ME IN THE MORNING WHEN I HAVE TO TURN
10 ON MY FAUCET AND WAIT TWO MINUTES TO GET HOT WATER SHAVING. I
11 MEAN, JUST THINGS LIKE THAT. YOU SAY, "WHY DO I HAVE TO DO
12 THIS? THERE' S GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY. " I BUILD BUILDINGS. I
13 DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE THAT ONE. BUT, THERE AGAIN, I 'M
19 WILLING TO HELP PAY FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT KNOW HOW TO DO
15 THAT.
16 I MADE SOME NOTES HERE. I JUST HEARD ABOUT THIS
17 LAST NIGHT. THE SECONDARY TREATMENT -- THERE IS NO OTHER WAY,
18 GUYS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE COSTS ARE. YOU'VE GOT TO DO
19 IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SORRY FOR RAMBLING.
20 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU, LAUGHTON.
21 THOMAS PRATTE?
22 ARE THERE ANY OTHER PINK CARDS FROM THE AUDIENCE --
23 SLIPS?
29 THOMAS PRATTE: I HAD A SLIDE. COULD WE LOOK AT A
w 25 SLIDE?
r 30
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 HEARING OFFICER: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED?
2 THOMAS PRATTE: TO TALK, A COUPLE MINUTES .
3 HEARING OFFICER: OH, YEAH, THAT' S FINE.
4 THOMAS PRATTE: I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS IN YOUR
5 PRODUCTION.
6 HEARING OFFICER: THE SLIDE CONCERNS THE TOPIC?
7 THOMAS PRATTE: YES, IT DOES.
8 GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TOM PRATTE, AND I 'M
9 REPRESENTING THE SURF RIDER FOUNDATION. AND OUR PRIMARY
W 10 CONCERN IS THE RECREATIONAL QUALITY OF OUR OCEAN WATERS.
11 BEING OUT THERE EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, BAR NONE NOWADAYS, WE
12 COME TO APPRECIATE THE OCEAN ENVIRONMENT; AND WE'RE ALSO
13 SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING A HEALTHY MARINE ENVIRONMENT, AS WELL AS
14 THE RECREATIONAL QUALITY OF THE WATER FOR OUR OWN HEALTH' S
15 SAKE.
16 PRESENTLY, WE FEEL THAT THE LEVEL OF SEWAGE
17 TREATMENT AT 50 PERCENT SECONDARY IS INADEQUATE. THE
18 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS LEVEL AND FULL SECONDARY IN YOUR
19 REPORT INDICATES THAT AS FAR AS PATHOGENS (BACTERIA AND
20 VIRUSES) ARE CONCERNED, THAT THERE IS A 10-FOLD DIFFERENCE
21 BETWEEN 50/50 AND FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT.
22 THE RECENT RESEARCH -- IT'S REALLY NOT ALL THAT NEW
23 THAT THESE PATHOGENS DON'T -- OR VIRUSES DON'T READILY DIE OFF
24 IN SEA WATER AS ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENT,
25 THOUGH, WHAT KINDS THOUGH -- THERE' S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS -- BUT
31
W
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 WE DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE VIRUSES ARE LONG LIVED, AND THEY
2 CAN COME TO LIFE AGAIN ONCE THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN THE
3 INTESTINE OF A WARM-BLOODED MAMMAL.
4 AND THAT' S ONE OF OUR CONCERNS, AS WELL AS JUST THE
5 VOLUME OF THESE CRITTERS IN THE DAYS OF THE UPWELLING WHEN THE
6 SURFACE WATERS ARE MIXED WITH THE DEEPER WATERS, AND 200 FEET
7 IS NOT DEEP.
8 AS WE LOOK AT THE FUTURE PROJECTIONS IN THE E.I.R. ,
9 IT' S SCARY TO US TO SEE THE LARGE INCREASE IN WHAT WE'RE
10 PUTTING INTO THE OCEAN. AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
11 GOING TO BE USED TO BASE DECISIONS ON. AND WE'RE AWARE THAT
12 THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT HAS ALREADY MADE A
�J 13 COMMITMENT TO GO AHEAD AND APPLY FOR A RENEWAL OF THE 301 (H)
14 WAIVER, WHICH WE'VE BEEN WAITING AROUND FOR THE LAST FOUR
15 YEARS FOR THESE HEARINGS TO STOP AND GET OURSELVES ON LINE
16 WITH SECONDARY TREATMENT.
17 I DON'T KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN A CONSCIOUS
18 QUID PRO QUO IN YOUR DECISION TO GO FOR RENEWAL OF THE WAIVER
19 AND YOUR DECISION TO RATE YOUR THREE SCENARIOS SO THAT YOUR
20 SCENARIO 2 IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE AND LOOKS LIKE A REAL
21 REASONABLE APPROACH; BUT, THE FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES IS A
22 FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THESE DOCUMENTS LOOKING FOR THE BEST
23 ALTERNATIVE.
24 IN LOOKING AT THESE THREE ALTERNATIVES, SCENARIO 3
25 STATES THAT SECONDARY WON'T BE REACHED UNTIL THE YEAR 2005.
32
V
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I AND I SPORE WITH AN ENGINEER WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH CONSTRUCTING
2 SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, AND I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT,
3 WELL, THAT' S RIDICULOUS. NO, IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO
4 BUILD THE FACILITIES. THERE MUST BE SOME RIND OF A FINANCIAL
5 ARRANGEMENT -- FINANCING AGREEMENT IN PHASING THE SECONDARY FOR
6 OVER A LONGER PERIOD.
7 SO, WE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT
8 WE CAN ACTUALLY OBTAIN SECONDARY TREATMENT BEFORE THE YEAR
9 2000. LOS ANGELES, WHICH IS IN MUCH WORSE SHAPE THAN ORANGE
10 COUNTY, IS GOING TO BE A FULL SECONDARY IN 1998. AND I WONDER
11 IF SCENARIO 3 WOULD INCLUDE ANOTHER FIVE-YEAR SEWAGE TREATMENT
12 WAIVER. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE SANITATION DISTRICT TO MOVE
13 FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
14 ALSO, THERE IS NO ALL ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS
15 SUGGESTED EARLIER AS A FREEZE ON MASS EMISSIONS, WHICH WOULD
16 SLOWLY TARE US TO SECONDARY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. AND IF WE
17 COULD AT LEAST FREEZE WITH MASS EMISSIONS NOW WHILE WE MOVE
18 TOWARDS SECONDARY TREATMENT, WE'D BE BETTER OFF, OR AT LEAST
19 OUR OCEAN WOULD BE BETTER OFF.
20 WE FEEL THAT PRESENTLY WE'RE OVERTAXING THE
21 ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY OF THE OCEAN AND THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, WE
22 AREN'T PAYING OUR FAIR SHARE FOR A CLEAN OCEAN. WE'RE
23 UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WORDS IN THE DOCUMENT LIKE "OPTIMIZE THE
24 DISCHARGE OF WASTES INTO THE OCEAN. " OUR OBJECTIVE IS WE WOULD
y 25 LIRE TO MINIMIZE THE DISCHARGE OF WASTES.
r 33
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1 IN ORANGE COUNTY WE'RE RECOGNIZED AS BEING VERY
2 CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE, BUT WE'RE TAKING A VERY LIBERAL APPROACH
3 IN DISCHARGING LARGE VOLUMES OF SEWAGE INTO THE OCEAN, AND WE
4 WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TOWARDS
5 HANDLING OUR WASTES. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SANITATION
6 DISTRICT IS NOT THE ONLY DISCHARGER INTO THE OCEAN. THERE IS
v 7 NONPOINT SOURCES, THE STORM DRAINS, WHICH WE'RE STARTING TO
8 CALL POINTLESS POLLUTION.
9 BUT, ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, THE ORANGE
10 COUNTY OUTFALL HAS THE BIGGEST PIPELINE FOR MILES AROUND, AND
11 THERE'S NO GETTING AWAY FROM THAT. AND THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
12 AND THE LARGE VOLUMES THAT ARE GOING OUT INTO THE OCEAN
13 THROUGH THIS PIPELINE ARE PHENOMENAL. AND THE SLIDE THAT
14 WE'RE ABOUT TO SHOW --
15 BLAKE ANDERSON: WHAT HAPPENED IS THE BULB BURNED
16 OUT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE NEW ONE IN, AND WE CAN'T DO
17 IT.
18 THOMAS PRATTE: WELL, MAYBE WE WON'T GET TO LOOK AT
19 THE SLIDE. I CAN ALWAYS -- IT' S A GOOD -- THIS SLIDE HAS IMPACT
20 I'VE BEEN WAITING TO SHOW IT. A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOW SLIDE
21 SHOWS. YOU GO, "OH, NO, ANOTHER SLIDE, " AND ON AND ON 20
22 SLIDES. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW ONE. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE
23 EASY. I DIDN'T WANT TO BURDEN YOU OR GO OVER TIME.
24 HEARING OFFICER: THAT' S OKAY.
25 THOMAS PRATTE: SO, WELL, WE FEEL THAT OUR OCEAN --
�a/
34
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I WE'RE TOLD THAT THIS LEVEL OF TREATMENT, THE 50/50 TREATMENT,
2 IS ADEQUATE AND THAT THERE IS A -- THAT IT'S OKAY FOR OUR
3 HEALTH. BUT, THE DOCUMENT STATES -- I'D LIKE TO UNDERLINE SOME
4 FACTS -- THAT FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT, THERE WILL BE THE LEAST
5 IMPACT ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT; THERE WILL BE LESS
6 BIOACCU14ULATION AND LESS RISK TO SWIMMERS AND SURFERS.
7 AND HERE'S A SLIDE. THIS IS IT. I KNOW YOU'VE
8 BEEN WAITING FOR IT. THIS IS THE LOS ANGELES COLLISEUM. HOW
9 MANY OF YOU SAW THE OLYMPICS IN 1984? IF FILLED WITH WATER,
10 THE LOS ANGELES COLLISEUM WILL HOLD 440 MILLION GALLONS, WHICH
11 IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DISCHARGE OUT TO THESE
12 TWO OUTFALL PIPES FOUR MILES INTO OUR OCEAN OFF OF NEWPORT AND
13 HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND THIS VOLUME EVERY DAY. AND WHEN WE'RE
14 TOLD NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THIS, YES, THERE IS GREATER -- THERE' S
15 LEAST IMPACT FOR SECONDARY ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, LESS
16 BIOACCUMULATION, AND LESS RISK TO SWIMMERS AND SURFERS. AND
17 FOR US TO BE TOLD THAT THIS VOLUME IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE, AND
18 IT' S NOT GOING TO COME BACK TO SHORE, AND IT' S NOT GOING TO
19 HURT US, US SURFERS, WE AREN'T ALL SCIENTISTS AND EVERYTHING,
20 BUT WE HAVE A GUT FEELING THAT IT JUST AIN'T SO. AND WE WANT
21 TO MINIMIZE OUR WASTES, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU
22 TOWARDS A CLEANER OCEAN IN EVERY WAY WE CAN MANAGE. THANK
23 YOU.
24 HEARING OFFICER: THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
25 DID JOHN LOCK -- DID HE COME BACK? HE' S NOT HERE.
V
35
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
I IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT I FAILED
2 TO RECOGNIZE? IF NOT, AT THIS TIME, THERE BEING NO FURTHER
3 ORAL COMMENTS, I WILL DECLARE THE HEARING CLOSED. AND ONCE
4 AGAIN, THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS TONIGHT.
5 AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE OFFICIAL COMMENT PERIOD ON MAY THE
6 30TH, THE CONSULTANTS WILL ADDRESS ALL THE COMMENTS IN A FINAL
7 E.I.R. TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AT A LATER DATE.
8 (WHEREUPON THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED)
9
W 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
- 1
2 C E R T I F I C A T E
3
- 4
5
6 I , CHRISTINE A. CHAMBERLAIN, CALIFORNIA C.S.R. NO. 6172,
- 7 DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PRIOR TO BEING EXAMINED, THE WITNESS
8 NAMED IN THE FOREGOING PROCEEDING WAS BY ME DULY SWORN TO
9 TESTIFY THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE
- 10 TRUTH.
11 THAT THE FOREGOING IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT ORIGINAL
12 TRANSCRIPT OF MY SAID NOTES AND A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT
13 STATEMENT OF SAID TESTIMONY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
14 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE EVENTS
15 OF THIS ACTION.
- 16 I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS
17 TRUE AND CORRECT.
18
- 19 EXECUTED AT FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, THIS 23RD DAY
20 OF MAY, 1989.
21
22 (I 23 �rA1
C ,p.ti,�e 4
24
25
37
JOHNSON COURT REPORTING
1
COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS NOS. 11 21, 31 52 62 7, 11, 13 AND 14
OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CAIHORNIA
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON
MAY 17, 1989
�PT1lTATIO&C
o alsT'pi .
Sfee� 195A
NGE co -
GARDEN GROVE COMMUNITY CENTER
ROOM A
11300 STANFORD AVENUE
GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL
An adjourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was held on May 17, 1989, at
7:30 p.m., at the Garden Grove Community Center, Room A, 11300 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove.
Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary
reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14 as follows:
ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS
DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chai moan Orma Crank
a Dan Griset, Chairman pro tem —Dan Young
x Ronald B. Hoesterey —Ursula Kennedy
a Roger Stanton —Don R. Roth
DISTRICT NO, 2: A.B. -Buck" Catlin, Chairman x Chris Norby
x William D. Mahoney, Chairman pro tam Beth Graham
Roland E. Bigonger x Henry W. Wedaa
7—Dan Griset Dan Young
Ron Isles x Carrey Nelson
x James Neal George Scott
a Arthur G. Newton —Carol Downey
x Bob Perry —_Norman Culver
x Iry Pickier Fred Hunter
Wayne Silzel —James T. Fasbender
x Don E. Smith —Fred Barrera
a Roger Stanton _Don R. Roth
DISTRICT NO. 3: x Richard Polls, Chairman Orbrey Duke
z Carrey Nelson _Wayne Wedin
z Edward L. Allen Paul Verelien
7--Wes Bannister —John Erskine
A.B. "Buck" Catlin x Chris Norby
x Norman Culver Bob Perry
cxDon R. Griffin —Donna L. Chessen
a Dan Griset _Dan Young
x John Kenai x William D. Mahoney —Beth Graham
�j x James Neal _George Scott
x Iry Pickier Fred Hunter
z J.R. "Bob" Siefen —_Dewey Wiles
a Roger Stanton Don R. Roth
a Charles Sylvia —Robert Wahlstrom
x Edna Wilson —Joe Hunt
DISTRICT NO. 5: x Jahn C. Cox, Jr., Chairman Evelyn Hart
Donald A. Strauss, Chairman pro tem x Evelyn Hart
a Dan R. Roth _Roger Stanton
DISTRICT N0. 6: x James Wahner, Chairman Eric Johnson
z Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tem —Evelyn Hart
a Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton
DISTRICT NO. 7: x Don E. Smith, Chairman _Fred Barrera
z Richard Edgar, Chairman pro tea Ursula Kennedy
W--Dan Griset —Dan Young
a Dan R. Rath —Roger Stanton
a Sally Anne Sheridan Larry Agran
Donald A. Strauss x John C. Cox, Jr.
x James Wanner _Harry Green
DISTRICT NO. 11: x Tan Mays, Chairman _Jim Silva
x Grace Winchell, Chai roan pro tea Wes Bannister
a Roger Stanton _Don R. Roth
DISTRICT NO. 13: x Henry W. Wades, Chairman Roland E. Bigonger
a Iry Pickier, Chairman pro ter —Fred Hunter
a Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton
x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera
a Wayne Wedin _Ron Isles
DISTRICT NO. 14: x Peer A. Swan, Chairman Darryl Miller
x Ursula Kennedy, Chairman pro tem —Richard B. Edgar
a Don R. Roth —Roger Stanton
a Sally Anne Sheridan _Larry Agran
x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera
-2-
05/17/89
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, —�
Rita J. Brown, Board Secretary, Blake P.
Anderson, William N. Clarke, Thomas M.
Dawes, Gary G. Streed, Corinne Clawson,
Bob Ooten and Rich von Langen
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel ,
Jame] Demir, Kris Lindstrom, Curtis
Spencer, Gary Robbins, Dewey Wiles,
Andrea Berens, Jim Bevington, Renee
Bevington, Rich ten Bosch, Chuck Bragg,
Steve Brown, C. Burns, Roseann
Cacciola, Allyn Cooksey, Larry
Coonradt, Jeff Cross, Ed Evans, Scott
0. Flodin, Glen Frank, Kelly Hamilton,
Mike Heineke, John S. Hingtgen, Gary
Hoffman, Trude Hurd, Shannon Jakosky,
Margaret Johnson, Sonja Klick, Bill
Knopf, Beth Leeds, James Lenoci ,
Bernard Lipman, John Locke, Chris
Ludlow, Mark S. Ludlow, Mike Luke,
Dr. Yash Manchanda, Marcia Manker, Will
Manker, Mitch Martinez, Monica Maur,
Richard G. Maus, Patrick MCNelly,
Barry McPhee, Mark Melgian, Douglas
Montague, Jerrell Lofton Moore, Jr. ,
Moira Nonnweiler, Matt Nussbaum, J.A. Q.✓
Oliger, Jeff Page, Michael Pearson, Sam
W. Peterson, Noelle Plack, Thomas
Pratte, Lee Risner, Mary E. Rossi , Amy
Rudell , Bill Samuel ,
R.J. Schwichtenberg, Bob Stokes, Jerry
Thibeault, Patrick Wall , Roger Warren,
Rick Wilson, Jean Winterfect
DISTRICT 1 This 17th day of May, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. ,
Adjournment of meeting due to lack being the time and place for the
of quorum adjourned regular meeting of the Board
of Directors of County Sanitation
District No. 1, and there not being a quorum present in District No. 1, the
meeting of said District was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary to 5:30 p.m. ,
Thursday, June 1, 1989 to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program.
DISTRICT 13 This 17th day of May, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. ,
Adjournment of meeting due to lack being the time and place for the
of quorum adjourned regular meeting of the Board
of Directors of County Sanitation
District No. 13, and there not being a quorum present in District No. 13, the
meeting of said District was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary.
-3-
5/17/89
ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman reported that for
Public Hearing on Draft Program EIR the past two years a team of
.,� on Collection, Treatment and consulting experts and staff have been
Disposal Facilities Master Plan engaged in a comprehensive evaluation
of the engineering, environmental ,
public health, social and economic aspects of the County Sanitation
Districts' plan of action for their wastewater management program for the
next 30 years.
He advised that one of the major elements of the "Action Plan" has been the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report that will be used as the basis
for application to the EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
renewal of the Districts' ocean discharge permit for the next five-year
period.
Mr. Smith stated that the purpose of the hearing was to receive public
commentary on the Draft Program Environmental but that the official comment
period remains open through May 30th. He added that it is not intended
that there will be any response to the public comments at the hearing that
evening. Rather, following the hearing, the Boards will direct the
consultants to address the oral and written comments received in the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report which will be considered by the Boards
at a later date.
Open Public Hearing
The Joint Chairman declared the hearing open at 7:42 p.m.
Summary of Draft Program EIR by
environmental consultant
The Chair recognized Mr. Curtis Spencer of Jones and Stokes Associates,
Inc. , the independent environmental consultant that prepared the Draft
EIR. Mr. Spencer briefly explained the Districts' function and
presented a five-minute video on its operations. He reported that the
Sanitation Districts serve 450 square miles of Metropolitan Orange
County from the Newport Beach-Irvine area north and west to county
lines. The Districts today serve a population of 1.8 million. Service
Is provided by nine Sanitation Districts serving 23 cities and
unincorporated County territory within this highly urbanized area. The
Sanitation Districts treat an average of 260 millon gallons per day of
wastewater. The wastewater reaches the two treatment plants through
more than 800 miles of Sanitation Districts' sewers, fed by local sewers
In upstream communities. -
Mr. Spencer further reported that the Districts control hazardous
materials entering sewers through an aggressive industrial toxics
source control program. Mr. Spencer stressed that this was an important
means of reducing toxics in wastewater and sludge.
All of the Districts' flows receive primary or advanced primary
treatment and about half receive secondary treatment. Seventy-five
percent of suspended solids reaching the plant are separated from the
waste stream before discharge and come off as a wet sludge. Chemicals
are also added to facilitate treatment and control odors.
-4-
5117/89
Mr. Curtis briefly described and showed the various treatment processes '
used by the Districts. The residual solids called sludge are trucked to
disposal and reuse locations. About half of the sludge is disposed of
at landfills where it is mixed with municipal refuse. The balance of
the sludge is reused in agricultural applications to enhance soil
fertility. Composting and use as a soil amendment is also practiced.
The video also showed the Districts' ocean outfall where treated
effluent is discharged from the plants to the ocean through a booster
pumping station pipeline and diffuser complex. The diffuser begins
discharging four miles offshore and extends another 6,000 feet,
releasing effluent at depths from 170 to 195 feet. The underwater views
of the pipe structure showed the marine life that live on and around it.
He also advised that not all of the Districts' wastewater goes to the
ocean, up to 15 million gallons per day currently receive tertiary
teatment and is reused for groundwater recharge and landscape
Irrigation.
The consultant stated that the Sanitation Districts undertook
preparation of an "Action Plan" study to evaluate how to best
accommodate future service demands and treatment requirements. The
actions proposed to meet those future needs are evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Report, which he noted was the subject of the
meeting that evening.
Mr. Spencer then began his overview of the Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilites Master
Plan. A slide presentation accompanied his report depicting the various
elements covered by the EIR. The Program EIR is just one element of the
Districts' 30-year "Action Plan" for wastewater management. This
"Action Plan" study began in 1987 with issuance of the Districts'
proposed "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental Management: Preserving
Orange County's Coastal Ocean Waters" and incoporates a complete review
of the Sanitation Districts' activities including the following:
" Scientific review of the Districts' comprehensive,
five-year, $8 million, ocean monitoring program
" A 30-Year Facilities Master Plan by Carollo-Boyle,
a Joint Venture
" An Environmental Impact Report by Jones 8 Stokes
Associates and Willdan Associates
" A Financial Plan by Bartle-Wells
° A Public Participation Program by Urban Alternatives
The consultant noted that all of these studies, programs and documents
will culminate in the Districts' application to the Environmental
Protection Agency and Regional Water Quality Control Board for a new
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit in
August 1989, for the next five-year period.
-5-
5/17/89
Mr. Spencer itemized the major facilities identified in the 30-year
Facilities Master Plan which could have environmental impacts including
.,/ trunk sewers, expansion of treatment plant capacity, a second ocean
outfall and additional satellite water reclamation plants.
He also defined some of the terminology used in the Facilities Plan and
EIR as a measure of treatment effectiveness and effluent quality. One
term commonly used is "Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)" which is a
laboratory test which measures the wastewater's potential effect upon
the oxygen levels of a receiving water.
The treatment plants are expected to expand to 399 mgd capacity by 2020
to keep pace with the anticipated flow increases. These flow estimates
are based on the City and County general plans and are consistent with
the Southern California Association of Governments regional growth
projections. The consultant emphasized that treatment would be
provided, as necessary, to protect beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean
and meet environmental regulations and permit requirements.
Mr. Spencer then reviewed the three alternative treatment levels under
consideration by the Boards of Directors to achieve the above-referenced
objectives, as follows:
SCENARIO NO. 1 - California Ocean Plan
" 30% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removal
° 75% Solids Removal
(One-third of flow would receive secondary treatment)
SCENARIO NO. 2 - Existing Permit Conditions
" 60% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removal
" 75% Solids Removal
(One-half of flow would receive secondary treatment,
same as existing concentration)
SCENARIO NO. 3 - Full Secondary Treatment (by 2005)
" 85% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Removal
° 85% Solids Removal
The consultant continued with his summary of the proposed future
treatment facilities and operations that may have an impact on the
environment. With regard to sludge management, the Districts' objective
is to promote multiple, independent reuse alternatives and maintain at
least one reliable disposal alternative. He pointed out three possible
satellite water reclamation plants. Reclaimed water would be used for
groundwater recharge, landscape irrigation and industrial supplies.
The Districts are considering from one to three plants which would
supplement the existing Water Factory 21 and the planned Green Acres
Project, for a total reclamation capacity of 50 mgd.
-6-
5/17189
Mr. Spencer reiterated that an important part of the "Action Plan" is
continuation of the toxics source control program. Under the Districts' — �
current program, heavy metals have decreased from over 2,000 pounds per
day to 500 pounds per day, a 75% reduction over the last 12 years. A
cornerstone of the Districts' "Action Plan" is continuation of the
aggressive source control program.
The cost of the proposed facilities included in the 30-year Facilities
Plan will be about $3 to 3.8 billion in 1989 dollars. Approximately
half of that cost is for operations and maintenance over the 30-year
period. If the effects of inflation are taken into account, total costs
reach from $7 to over $9 billion at 5% inflation. The cost to the users
will increase from 1.5 to 3 times the current charges within the next
10-15 years. This will vary by service area and depending which
Scenario of treatment level is selected by the Boards.
The consultant advised that the Program Environmental Impact Report
covers the entire Master Plan and evaluated the Master Plan facilities
in comparison to existing conditions relative to growth impacts,
construction impacts, resource impacts, operations impacts, public
health and marine environmental issues.
Said EIR also addresses alternatives to meet the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. The alternatives considered
include the three treatment scenarios, a no-project alternative,
18 reclamation sites, 36 sludge management alternatives and trunk sewer
alternatives.
Mr. Spencer added that a Supplemental EIR would be necessary prior to
construction of the second outfall , the reclamation plants and
Interplant pipeline.
The "Do-Nothing Option" or no-project alternative would result in
significant adverse impacts, such as sewer overflows, inadequate sewage
treatment, environmental and public health impacts, construction
moratoriums and fines against the Districts.
He also addressed the growth-inducing issue in connection with plant
expansion. He concluded that sewerage system expansion is growth
inducing as defined by CEQA. However, he observed that the Sanitation
Districts do not have land use authority, responsibilities nor
mitigation responsibilities. The County of Orange and the cities do
have that authority and responsibility. Flow projections are based on
their land use plans. Growth and population projections used are
consistent with *the projections of SCAG and SCAQMD. Mr. Spencer stated
that there is no difference between the treatment scenarios in terms of
growth impacts.
Impacts resulting from construction of the proposed facilities were also
reviewed by the consultant.
He pointed out that whenever waste is generated, it has to go somewhere.
There are only three media to assimilate wastes--air, land and water.
The EIR evaluated all of these. It found that all air quality
standards would be met under all three scenarios.
-7-
5117/89
There would be a significant impact on the land from the additional
sludge resulting from higher treatment levels.
J
He noted that impacts on the water were especially important. Public
health is of primary concern. Environmental issues evaluated relative
to discharge to the Pacific Ocean included toxics, bacteria/viruses,
water quality, marine life, beneficial uses of marine environment, and
cumulative impacts of the Sanitation Districts' discharge considered in
context with other ocean dischargers. With respect to viruses and
bacteria, he pointed out that the EIR concludes for all three scenarios
the location and depth of the outfall and favorable current conditions
effectively preclude adverse impacts on public health.
Mr. Spencer reiterated that industrial toxics control will remain an
important part of the Sanitation Districts' program. He reviewed a
graph showing the beneficial impacts of the ongoing industrial waste
source control program. He added that there are no environmentally
significant differences between the three scenarios with respect to
discharge of toxics because of the source control program..
He reported that some of the remaining suspended solids may settle near
the diffuser including degradable organic matter, heavy metals and trace
toxicants. It was pointed out that the area of impact by deposition, as
estimated by change in feeding patterns of life forms near the
diffusers, was approximated to be 28 acres for Scenario 1, 18 acres for
Scenario 2, and 5 acres for Scenario 3. If the two outfalls were
separated, the acreage impacted would only be about 1/3 of these
figures.
The consultant summarized the findings of the EIR indicating the
document addressed each of the following major public health and
environmental issues:
° Toxics
° Bacteria/viruses
° Water quality
° Marine life
• Beneficial uses
° Cumulative impacts
Based on their study of the above issues, they concluded that they
predict no standards violations will occur for any of the three
scenarios, and expect no significant adverse marine impacts for any of
the three scenarios.
Water quality standards would be met by all three scenarios. Marine
life would be protected and there would be no significant adverse
Impacts on beneficial uses. In looking at the cumulative impacts, they
looked at long-term trends and found a decreasing level of impacts for
the last decade. Mr. Spencer reiterated that the EIR indicates no
significant adverse impacts on the marine environment.
There would be significant increase in energy demands for the new
`.� treatment facilities. The Districts do, however, produce energy from
digester gas. Under Scenario No. 1 the least energy would be required
to be purchased and Scenario No. 3 would require the most.
-8-
5/17/89
Other resources affected by the various scenarios would be construction -
materials, chemicals used, personnel requirements and costs to
construct, operate and maintain additional facilities.
Mr. Spencer said that Jones 8 Stokes concluded that resource allocations
would increase, with Scenario No 3 requiring the greatest amount of
resources. The land impact increases with Scenario 3 also. The marine
environment impact decreases under Scenario 3.
He reiterated that the Draft EIR finds that all three scenarios meet
existing regulations; protect beneficial uses; and protect the
environment from significant impairment. Mr. Spencer stated that the
Districts must weigh the tradeoffs of alternatives, balancing small
changes in the ocean against larger changes on land.
Receive and file written comments
It was moved, seconded and duly carried:
That the written comments received from the persons listed on
Attachment 1 to these minutes relative to the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed.
Oral public comments
Chairman Smith reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive
comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. He requested �.✓
that their remarks be kept to approximately five minutes and that in the
interest of time that speakers not repeat previous commentary.
The Chair then recognized the following persons who addressed the Boards:
- Mar aret Johnson 19742 Shorecliff Lane, Huntin tan Beach
Mrs. Johnson stated tha she represente the Hunt ngton Beach
Homeowners Association as well as the American Cetacean Society and
that she was there to request the Boards to go to full secondary
treatment. She questioned the validity of the facts contained in the
EIR relative to biological community. She commented on her view of the
ocean conditions based on her personal observations. She also
commented on the condition of the mouth of the Santa Ana River after a
heavy rain.
She also expressed concern relative to the sludge issue. She
questioned whether different levels of purity were required for the
sludges used for agricultural purposes and those that were discharged
into the ocean. Mrs. Johnson added that in her view the organisms in
the ocean are showing short and long-term changes, and she felt that
something must be impacting them.
- Shannon Jakosky, 1042 W. Bay Avenue, Balboa
Ms. Jakosky stated that she represented the Balboa community as well as
the American Cetacean Society. Her comment was that she believed
Orange County should strive to be the best that money can buy which, in k..d
her opinion, included the best sewage treatment available. She urged
full secondary treatment.
-9-
5/17/89
Shannon Jakosky (Continued)
She also questioned whether data in the EIR was up to date quoting
surveys done in 1981, 1983 and 1984. Ms. Jakosky claimed that
information in the document relative to the Pinneped (sea lion)
community was inaccurate. She recommended that more current marine
samples be taken and analyzed. She commented that she believed that
toxicity, the public health issue and the marine environment were all
interdependent and she didn't think that standard changes or any
damaging changes were acceptable.
- Moira Nonnweiler, 602 N. Linwood Avenue Santa Ana
Ms. Nonweiler stated that s e fully agreed with previous speakers. In
addition, she commented that she did not think the greater amount of
sludge produced under Scenario 3 was a significant disadvantage because
one year ago all sludge went to landfills and now 50% is being used for
agricultural purposes. She believed if that change could come about in
one year, more uses could be found in the future. She requested that
her recommendation for full secondary treatment be made a matter of
record.
- R. J. Schwichtenberg, 4141 Fireside Circle, in Irve
Mr. Schwichtenberg expressed concern for future generations with regard
to a clean environment. He felt it is a matter of cost and that this
area could afford to implement the best treatment method. He stated
that his recommendation was to do better than Scenario 3.
- Ed Evans, 4793 Grace Avenue, Cypress
�.✓ Mr. Evans stated he represented Coyote Creek Greens. He stated that he
didn't feel the EIR addressed a broad enough environmental range. It
does not discuss the full ethological consequences. It should be based
on bioregionalism. He indicated that human wastes should be controlled
at home, source reduction, and should be recycled and used for
agricultural purposes.
- Beth Leeds, 1645 Amoya Drive, Laguna Beach
Ms. Leeds stated that she is President of the Orange county "Save Our
Shores". She added that they believed that the projected growth of
Orange County from 1.9 million to 2.8 million within the next 30 years
will add to the degradation of the ocean, as well as the quality of
life in Orange County. Of paramount concern to her is the
capacity/growth issues and potential related health concerns. She
urged the public to find ways to clean up the environment and stop
future pollution. She opposed the 301(h) waiver and questioned whether
the no-project scenario wasn't viable if the current system was
upgraded. Ms. Leeds reiterated that she was against any
growth-inducing projects.
- Bernard Li an, 2208 Via Caliente, Fullerton
Mr. ipman indicated that he was a concerned citizen and was also
representing the Orange County Group of the Sierra Club. The Sierra
Club has gone on record as opposing the 301(h) waiver from the
Environmental Protection Agency. He stated that the EIR does not
address the cumulative demands on the ocean from storm drains, nor the
�..d effects of toxic dumping of dredge materials. He did not feel that the
Districts should discharge any wastewater into the ocean unless it
received secondary treatment.
-10-
5/17/89
-Bernard Lipman (Continued)
He also commented on the differences in heavy metal concentrations -- �
between Scenarios 2 and 3, and expressed his view that these materials
could cause a tremendous deleterious effect on the environment. With
regard to differences in cost of the scenarios, Mr. Lipman stated that
he felt the additional sludge handling costs were minimal compared to
the total cost of the initial construction of facilities.
He concluded that the Sierra Club feels that full secondary treatment
of sewage is necessary.
- Scott Flodin, 200 E. 16th Street, Costa Mesa
Mr. Flodin stated that he represented the students of Orange Coast
College, more particularly the Marine Mammal Research Group on campus.
He agreed with previous comments. He also stated he believed that the
marine mammals off the coast are not being monitored adequately. He
referred to a 1984 survey listed in the EIR and stated that he felt
more recent data should be collected. He stated that if there is not a
fourth scenario, he would have to support Scenario 3.
- intgte 6 . North, AnaheiJ nggmMhnH n ented m
that he felt the graphs in the EIR were
misleading. In his opinion they appeared to minimize the differences
between the three scenarios. He pointed out several examples which he
felt distorted the information because of the scales used. He added
that he believed the EIR understates the benefits of going to full
secondary treatment while exaggerating the negative effects. Mr.
Hingtgen suggested a new EIR be prepared.
- Jim Bevington, 13761 Marquette Street, Westminster
Mr. Bevington indicated that he was a member of the Surf Rider
Organization of Orange County. He asked that it be recorded that he is
against the 301(h) waiver. We should utilize the best technology at
hand and use the best available treatment processes, he said. He
believed the added cost would be worthwhile. He added that facilities
would have to be increased to meet the added demand by the year 2000 or
2020, and felt that the Districts should upgrade the facilities at the
same time. He didn't think the people of Orange County would object to
the additional cost.
- Jerrell Lofton Moore Jr. , 913 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach
r. Moore agreed that the additional charge for full secondary
treatment seemed like a small price to pay. He didn't think it was the
best solution but was the better one for now. He believed that
additional study must be done and new solutions found. Mr. Moore
added that secondary treatment is necessary in his view no matter what
the costs are.
- Thomas Pratte (no address given)
r. Pratte stated that he was representing the Surf Rider Foundation.
He indicated that they felt the current 50% secondary treatment was
inadequate. He noted that the EIR states that there is a 10-fold
difference between Scenario 2 and full secondary treatment with regard
to bacteria and viruses. He disagreed with those figures and observed
that he believed there are a lot of unknowns with regard to the
viruses.
-11-
5/17/89
Thomas Pratte (Continued)
He also questioned why it would take until 2005 to complete the full
secondary treatment facilities and whether it would be possible to
obtain that treatment before the year 2000. Mr. Pratte encouraged the
Sanitation Districts to take a very conservative approach towards
handling their wastewater. He stated that there are less impacts on
the marine environment with full secondary treatment, as well as less
bioaccumulation and, in his opinion, less risk to swimmers and surfers.
Close Public Hearing
The Joint Chairman then announced that there being no further oral
comments, he would declare the hearing closed at 9:07 p.m.
Mr. Smith reminded the attendees that there would be no response to the
community at this meeting. Rather, after the close of the official
comment period on May 30th, the consultants would address all the oral
and written comments in a Final EIR to be considered by the Boards at a
later date.
,Igctin consultants to address Moved, seconded and duly carried:
writ en and oral comments received
on the Or aft EIR and re are Final That the consultants be, and are
ro ram IR after close of the hereby, directed to address oral
comment period on May 30, 1989 and written comments received on
the Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master
Plan and to prepare the Final Program EIR after the close of the comment
period on May 30, 1989.
DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m., May 17, 1989.
DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
AdJournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m., May 17, 1989.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m. ,
Wednesday, May 31, 1989, to consider modifications to the District' s
supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 9:10 p.m. , May 17, 1989.
DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned to 4:00 p.m. ,
Wednesday, May 31, 1989, to consider modifications to the District' s
supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 9:10 p.m. , May 17, 1989.
-12-
5/17/89
DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: -�
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m. , May 17, 1989.
DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m. ,
Wednesday, June 7, 1989, to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 9:10 p.m. , May 17, 1989.
DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
lournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 be adjourned. The Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:09 p.m. , May 17, 1989.
Secretary, BoaYds of Directors
County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14
-13-
"ATTACHMENT 1"
Written comments have been received from the following relative to the
Draft Pro ram Environmental Im act Report on the Collection, Treatment and
D sposal Facilit es aster Plan.
Mark Astor City of La Habra
25471 Shoshone 201 E. La Habra Boulevard
E1 Toro, CA 92630 La Habra, CA 90633-0337
William M. Behrens Robert Lindsey
1004 Carbon Canyon Road (Address not given)
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Mechelle Matson
Jim Bevington 21472 Redroso
13761 Marquette Street Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Westminster, CA 92683
William J. Mautz
Charles A. Brewer III and family 1860 Genneyre Street
20960 Charter Oak Terrace Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Yorba Linda, CA 92686
Marie Mulroy
California State Lands Commission 1739 Candlestick Lane
1807 - 13th Street Newport Beach, CA 92660
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mrs. E. R. Robison
Costa Mesa Sanitary District 4682 Warner
P. 0. Box 1200 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Gordon B. Ruser
R. L. Davis 1221 South Sycamore Street
7 Hawkridge Santa Ana, CA 92707
Irvine, CA 92714
Fred E. Switger
Theresa Ebeling 717 E. Virginia Road
5318 W. Lucky Way Fullerton, CA 92631
Santa Ana, CA 92704
U.S. Marine Corps
Terri Gautier Marine Corps Air Bases
P. 0. Box 15262 Western Area
Newport Beach, CA E1 Toro (Santa Ana) , CA 92709
Warner George Elsa L. Weber
862 N. Prospect Park 18091 Westlake Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Anita Griffin Martha Wida
2080 Santa Ora, NB 6441 Shawnee Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Westminster, CA 92683
Jean Hermanson Jean Winterfeit
17587 Mead Street 1945 Port Weybridge Place
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Newport Beach, CA
Eber 8 Lorraine Knapp Barbara Wood
7152 Santee Avenue 40 Navarre, N301
�..J Westminster, CA 92684-0001 Irvine, CA 92715
David Kobel
16736 Barefoot Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
An adjourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was
held at the hour of 7:30 p.m., May 17, 1989, at Garden Grove Community Center,
Roam A, 11300 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove.
The Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization called the meeting to order
at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts
Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14.
f f f Y f t t t f f k f f f
DISTRICT 1 This 17th day of May, 1989, at 7:30 p.m.,
dJournment of meeting due to Iack being the time and place for the
of quorum adjourned regular meeting of the Board
of Directors of County Sanitation 1
District No. 1, and there not being a quorum present in District No. 1, the
meeting of said District was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary to 5:30 p.m.,
Thursday, June 1, 1989 to consider modifications to the District's supplemental
user fee program.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournmen
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, May 31, 1989 to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 9:10 p.m., May 17, 1989.
�.J DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: .
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned to 4:00 p.m.,
Wednesday, May 31, 1989 to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 9:10 p.m., May 17, 1989.
DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
oarnment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, June 7, 1989 to consider modifications to the District's
supplemental user fee program. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 9:10 p.m., May 17, 1989.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, RITA J. BROWN, Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County
Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County,
California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be a full , true and
correct copy of minute entries on the meeting of said Boards of Directors on the
17th day of May, 1989.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of May, 1989.
\"00/ �
erretary of a oars of Directors
of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2,
I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board
Meeting of DistrictsNos. !'14 held on �� I I , 19la- was
duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the
District' s offices on
IN \WIITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
day of �, 1991 .
Rita J. Brow , Secretary of the
Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District, Nos. I1J01S,(o f/, 13 *Iq
of Orange County, California